Keep harping Guardian! Someone has to! It is my understanding that city employees already get to ride the bus for free. I believe all they have to do is show their ID tag.
It is becoming quite clear that Bieter wants a choo-choo and that is the only thing he is willing to work on.
It befuddles me how someone that can negotiate the path from his home to city hall, fails to see that a working bus system is absolutely mandatory BEFORE any type of light rail system can be considered. I have listened for months to the mayor and certain city council types speak ad nauseum about a rail system. The only question they won’t address is ” what do we do with the riders once we get them here? Make them walk or take a cab? They just don’t want to hear it!
And let us not forget the main hurdle they face.
A local option tax for roads and transit will face ENORMOUS hurdles at the polls even if the legislature approves it. Given the way this mayor has operated so far, I can’t help but believe that when the citizens say no to a super majority, and their side can only get 50-55%, they will declare it a victory and fund the bloody thing from some obscure financial “rat hole” Bottom line, this mayor and most of the council shouldn’t be trusted as far as we could pitch them!

Guardian — You have made some very good suggestions about tranportation options over the years. Some of these have been considered and adopted by transit agencies, some have been considered and adopted by other governmental entities and some have been considered and not adopted. I would suggest that you and all of your contributors continue to make suggestions and observations about options for moving people and goods through the Treasure Valley.

I would like to offer that no one including Mayor Bieter has seriously suggested a quick conversion of the Valley’s transit from wheeled based buses and vans to any type of fixed rail system. Your continuing to offer that as a straw man is neither productive nor informed. Many, including me, do believe that LONG TERM solutions include some type of rail system moving people through the Treasure Valley. Note that in order to adequately plan for that long term we probably should begin today. Average length of time to fund a fixed rail system in the US from first dedicating money to operations is 13 years. Thirteen years from obtaining a source to actual completion of a first phase. Most knowledgeable people involved in transit options feel with various degrees of certainty that a fixed rail transit system would be of benefit to the Valley in 2020-2025 — a time when we will have a few more people here. If we don’t start planning for that future, including identifying an adequate funding source, you would be the first to criticize our lack of foresight.

Long term planning is just that…planning for options. It does not necessarily foretell the future, merely suggests options for consideration. Transit options should all be considered in this effort…believing that yours are the only ones that have merit is shortsighted and nonproductive. Be part of the solution, don’t just continue to criticize what others are considering.

Wheeled buses and vans are definitely in that mix, including new routes, new equipment, new technology and new thinking. I could make fun of your analogy to military types of solutions, but I will refrain and just let the voters decide whether they think we should adapt such a solution.

Thanks again for all you offer to our community.

All the efforts around mass transit is more of a snake oil sales approach to simply get local option taxes. The city has wanted to get sales tax revenue from the state for years…now they want the local option tax ability.

IF the local option tax bill passes you will see COUNTLESS efforts for COUNTLESS projects and “needs” – not just transit.

Local option taxation open the doors for local governments to use public relations and marketing to create a PERCEPTION FOR ANYTHING THEY WANT and then go out and try to get tax money for it.

I am litterally in a large US city of about 5 million – they have a train system – IT DOES NOT PAY FOR ITSELF and the tax payers will be taxed for it now forever. I predict this will happen in Boise.

Our government leaders are doing more marketing than actual fact finding. It is VERY clear that we could start with a simple bus system from Caldwell or Nampa and prove that even that will not be cost effective.

The Boise government we have now is all about more taxes and spend more – nothing more. If they get their way those that live in the city will have the highest tax rate in the state – by far.

Allow people to ride in police cars whenever they want to? The liability that would fall on the shoulders of the city for that would be huge! The crime is already rising enough, why turn the cops into taxi cabs???

EDITOR NOTE–Most people who ride in cop cars don’t have a choice. How is the liability any different for a suspect than a citizen? If on a call no rider.
How about the liability for riding a bus? The point is to get people to thinking. How many cops ride the bus to work for the day shift duty?

The idea of police giving rides to anyone who needs one has not been thought out.

First: The liability to the city certainly would increase. There’s a reason that ride-a-longs have to sign waivers in case they get hurt. There is liability for transporting an arrested person. But there’s a difference between transporting an arestee directly to jail and trasnporting a random person across town.

Second: The people being transported to and fro would be seated in the backseat since no officer I can imagine is going to have a total stranger in the front seat right next to their sidearm and shotgun. That creates a few logistical problems. Are we going to have wheelchair and handicap accessible police cars in order to provide equal service to all citizens?

Third: If an officer is checked out on a “courtesy transport” he is unavailable for calls for service. This means that legitimate calls for help have to hold until he’s done being a taxi cab. The only alternative to having calls for service hold while you have police being taxi drivers (instead of taxi drivers being taxi drivers) is to authorize the police to pick up a “fair” and then kick them out halfway through the transport if a call for service comes out. That would incur other obvious liability problems if the person was kicked out of a police car and then hurt where the police left them.

Fourth: What if the officer who’s assigned to Columbia Village is requested to drive someone to the mall? Are you going to require him to drive that far out of his patrol area? If he’s required to do that then that leaves the better part of the east side of the city without a policeman assigned because the assigned policeman is now playing taxi driver. Or vice versa: would the officer assigned to the mall be required to transport to Bown Crossing because someone requested it? That leaves one of the busiest areas of the city without proper coverage.

Some of the same arguments apply to Parks workers. Yes, they frequently have only one occupant. But they are working. Are you going to make the Parks/Rec worker neglect his duties because he’s being a taxi cab?

Heck, how about if anyone can walk into a fire station and get a ride on the fire truck?

If you’re truly worried about polution and saving fuel I think the more logical question would be: Why do you hardly ever see police cars with two policemen inside since at least two officers are sent to almost every call nowdays?

You may have noticed I’ve used the words “taxi cab” a few times. That’s because we already have cars being driven by a single occupant that are available to transport people around town. We call them taxi cabs! We don’t expect the taxi cab drivers to be policemen…..

Not afraid of the liability (in fact my post was at least as much about the logistics of such an undertaking as the liability therein). Just trying to correct the misconception that there isn’t any extra liability. I’m all for thinking of logical solutions for problems. I just don’t think that police and parks/rec becoming taxi cabs when there are taxi cabs out and available is one of those logical solutions.

I don’t know that the “G-man” was just trying to get people thinking. This is not the first time he’s made the argument that it’s a good idea for city employees in city vehicles to become taxi cab drivers. I didn’t post the first time becuase the idea was so laughable I figured he must be joking. When he posted it again I took it to be a serious suggestion.

It could actually be that my feeling is that we don’t need a mass transit system. Therefore, I don’t feel the need to put forth any talking points on which mass trasnit system would be best.

There are empty (or nearly empty) busses running on all routes and I see empty taxi cabs driving around all the time. I just didn’t see any reason to create more taxi cabs (ie- city vehicles with a specific purpose) when the taxi cabs and busses we do have are not getting used.

Based on the current ridership level of the current bus system, which is visible through the bus windows, where you can see clear through the busses and out the other side because the busses are empty, it is hard to believe that additional mass transit measures are even being considered. It just defies all logic and common sense.

I was going to comment on the idea of Police Officers essentially being another taxi service, but after reading Padowan’s comments I don’t feel the need to duplicate his argument. By the way, I am a Police Officer and occasionally we do give courtesy transports to people in need or when it expedites a call we’re on. As for the Guardians mass transit ideas, I agree.

But Guardian, being a Meridianite, I won’t be able to share in your pink van proposal. Nor should I, as it is being funded with $3 million in Boise taxes. Your writing, however, well voices the frustration we all feel by not having transportation choices and by seeing the inability of government to develop seemingly logical solutions.

Because the polluted air, as well as the workforce commutes in this valley cross political boundaries, I think we need a solution that does the same. I haven’t yet developed the necessary website skills, though, to share my thoughts to the degree needed, nor may I ever, as I’ve been refining the plan for many years now. Basically, though, I think a solution that doesn’t rely on taxes and appeals to even just 15% of commuters that flow through our 6000 vehicle per hour intersections, while not politically feasible, would have sufficient ridership to succeed and make a difference. Conflicting political realities make mass transportation a poor candidate for a government solution. There is no magic to the funding that government brings to transportation, it ultimately comes from the same source that we would need if we organize without government… us.

EDITOR NOTE–Boise gave away its bus system to the regional VALLEY RIDE–if tht is the name today. It has proven useless. YOU have a city council in Meridian. Perhaps yellow and red stripes would work on your vans?

The vans are a very dangerous and ill-thought plan. According to your plan, I (a petite female), can drive any of the vans to work, BUT I have to pick up anyone needing a ride. So for me to use them, I have would have to pick up every drunk or transient or creepy or meth-head that flags me down. Wow, can you say gang rape. Sounds like a great idea. Well, then I guess I could sue the city for millions and get therapy.

And by the way the city already tried this with bicycles a couple of years ago. They painted a bunch of them bright yellow and had them available downtown for people to use. Guess what? They all were stolen.

EDITOR NOTE–You should not sign up as a van driver. PLEASE offer a solution or come out against buses, trains, light rail, etc. (you may have to sit next to a creep) If you want more roads and NO transit, just say so! New York has an entire police force of “TRANSIT POLICE” because there are so many muggings on the subway. EVERY proposal has some sort of problem.

Dear Editor–

The New York City Subway System has the MTA Police because the system itself has a DAILY population/ridership of 7.2 MILLION (Thats about 35 times the population of Boise), and annual population/ridership of 1.5 BILLION (7,212 times the population of Boise).

And that’s just the Subways!

Fact: Per Capita, the New York City Mass Transit System is often safer than Boise-Angeles.

I am really disappointed that the Guardian would spout such a tired old cliché as “…because there are so many muggings”.

Oy Vey!

EDITOR NOTE–You don’t think we can get that many riders? Boise is on more “best places to live” lists than NYC will ever see. Our football team also won the Fiesta Bowl last year. Gotta a problem with that?

Meridian Mike, regardless of whatever transit scheme is put forth, we will still need the third lane on the interstate and realistically they should just do 4 now and save money in the long run. Why? Because even if we exceed all realistic expectations of the ridership of transit and get say 25% ridership, it still leaves us with clogged streets.

The reality is most people will expect everyone else to take transit. That’s why ridership is so dismal and will always be dismal.