Now if all those Chamber folks who thought it was such a great idea for us to tax ourselves, but not pay much of the tax themselves, would step up to the plate with some big bucks to support local transit, that would be really great.

Or maybe they could set up their own bus system (like the INL buses in eastern Idaho) to get their employees to and from work. Why can’t private employers set up their own privately owned bus system to get their folks to and from work instead of relying on the taxpayers to do it for them?

Wonk – Great Idea! Would we be thinking articulated buses (sorry Gordon those are the big honking buses), suburban type buses, or regular buses (or a mix) on that busway?

Planner – Seems the local transit planners (and some local politicians) think that having people transfer from rail to another mode is a great idea.

The 2003 Rail Corridor Evaluation Study calls for spending about $ 130 million to upgrade the current tracks for commuter rail service. After arriving in Boise people would then transfer to buses to get to their final destination. (See http://www.valleyregionaltransit.org/Portals/0/Studies/Rail%20Corridor/RailCorridorStudyFinalReport.pdf)

Julie – You’re correct that the population density of the CITY of Salt Lake City is about 1,600. However, the light rail system serves the Salt Lake VALLEY not just the CITY of Salt Lake City.

Because of that I’d suggest it’s more appropriate to look at the urbanized area density. Salt Lake is about 3,800. Boise is about 2,500. If you add the Nampa urbanized area to the Boise one, the local numbers get even smaller (and the gap larger when compared to SLC). That’s a big difference when it comes to transit. And Treasure Valley transit planners don’t see much change in density even 20 years down the track.

As to SLC light rail, take a look at some widely available numbers. First leg between SLC and Sandy (1999), 15 miles. Cost $ 22 million per mile. The University (Olympic) extension opened in 2001 at a cost of $ 53 million per mile for 2.3 miles. The Medical Center extension (an extension of the University line) opened in 2003 at a cost of nearly $ 60 million per mile for a 1.5 mile line. If it hadn’t been for the Olympics (and the resulting grants) the University extension (and the Medical Center) extension probably won’t have been built. The proposed Mid-Jordan extension is just starting its environmental impact study.

Yes, SLC light rail does haul about 30,000 people a day in a fairly narrow corridor. That’s good ridership for an area the size of SLC. However, UTA’s own comparison numbers against 10 other LRT operations show their LRT service ridership ranked fourth from the bottom – just ahead of Cleveland, Denver and San Jose – in the passengers per hour catagory. Tri-Met LRT in Portland has the highest ridership per hour according to the UTA comparison.

Comparing Boise to SLC is like comparing apples to oranges. We don’t have (and won’t have) the population density to support a light rail system. We don’t have the abundance of excess railroad tracks (and railroad maintenance facilities) that SLC has. And we don’t have a narrow transportation corridor like SLC. Or a professional sports team.

JJ – Good thoughts, nice comments.

Actually the Canyon County operation was being operated by Treasure Valley Transit (a non-profit group) before VRT put the contract out to bid. TVT lost the bid but continued to operate the system (according to their website) for six months after the new firm was selected. Makes one wonder if there was some bid award irregularities. Why didn’t the contract go to the second low bidder if the low bidder couldn’t take over for six months?

The Boise operation was a publicly owned, privately operated, system for a long time. Boise City decided to take over management, with an immediate 10% plus increase in costs, sometime in the 1990s if I recall correctly. I agree with you that the Boise operation should be privatized. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration requires maximum use of privatized services whenever possible. Might be interesting to see VRT prove that they are meeting that requirement.

And yes, from various VRT documents (including a consultant’s report) it appears VRT has both major management and human resource issues. Union and non – union. Seems there’s a revolving door at lower management levels and relations with the union are “strained” to say the least (I’m being very polite). Ridership continues to decrease, costs continue to rise (due in part to all those consultants), and labor relations are dismal. Sounds like it’s time for a management shake up at the top of the food chain.

I like the idea of buses being able to “make traffic signals go green (like the fire trucks do)”.

Don’t forget the entire length of Warms Springs Avenue, all the way out to SH-21, which could take SH-21 to Federal Way back into downtown.

Maybe start with vans or small buses on some routes.

Essentially you call for a back to basics, put the buses on the most heavily traveled roads in a concerntrated form for more frequent service. Here are some suggestions to take it to the next level:
1) When VRT privatized the Canyon county service, signifcant savings were realized and multiple companies competed for the contract. The Boise service also needs to be privatized and the current Union operators can organize a bid for the service, like many other public service unions have done. Public officials have a duty to be good stewards of public funds, and too many public servants feel performing services in-house is the most effecient and ignore any data that points otherwise. (Some services should be in-house, but driving a bus is not that strategic)

2) Realize people seek ultra-convienence. Most studies indicate people who have the option to use or not use public transit will walk a maximum of half of mile to or from a bus stop. To get mass acceptance and use of a transit system there needs to many routes that serve the major destinations, not just the major streets. Routes to Boise need to connect to BSU, St. Lukes, WGI, Albertsons, Micron and Downtown, regardless of what streets are major.

3) Too many dollars are wasted in our transit system with pie in sky feasability studies, preservation corridors, operational reviews, etc. All these studies by professional transit consultants always surmise the same result, invest about a billion dollars into a cadillac transit system that the demographics of the treasure valley will never support in 1-15 years. Talk to us when we are a million.

4) Re-consider the effeciventess of contracted management of the operations. When VRT accepted a bid to manage the operations of the service, the manageemnt staff at VRT did not reduce, management redirected the magement capacity to more pie in the sky studies, lobbying, and other fruitless efforts. The whole point of the thrid-party manegement was to levergae national experts in dealing with a failry unreasonable and ineffecient union. Reduce the scope of the contract with the consultant for negotiation of Union contracts, and put the responsibility on the Union operators to determine schedules and cover missed shifts. Use some of the savings for the Union to send their mechanics to training on how to maintain the busses so they don’t catch fire.

what a concept!

t

I don’t know how common my work schedule was but it involved some late evenings, some weekends, some part-day (week-day) shifts and the buses just didn’t accommodate such a schedule at all well.

Something as frequent as every 20 to 30 minutes would certainly make bus riding much more attractive. And, long trips on the bus make a lot of energy conserving sense to me, too. Now how about personal shoppers, gift wrappers, and car-washes located at the park-and-ride lots?