Guardian says “someone has to get the word to Team Dave that trains are NOT a good idea.”

Interesting how the Guardian can take a look at one idiotic idea for a useless train and conclude that *trains* are not a good idea.

I spose if Team Dave proposed a special airflight from, say, the Boise Airport to the Capitol, the Guardian could conclude that *airplanes* are not a good idea.

Lighten up, Dave. Your extreme prejudice against wheels on rails is getting the best of you.

GORDON–Perhaps I am too strident. “Trains as proposed by local mayors for the Boise area are NOT a good idea given their limitations and cost.”
Sorry for the broad brush.

I am very supportive of a public transportation system that is effective for our area and demographic….just not trains. The problem with benchmarking train use from other cities to see how Boise “would” be impacted is that it is NOT an apples-to-apples comparison. Factors, such as sprawl and demographics, are important ones to consider when analyzing how Boise could potentially benefit from the impact of another city’s train experience. Taking train data from an inner city of 2.5 million people vs. Boise just is not a fair comparison.

Besides, the cost of a lightrail system for Treasure Valley would exceed its value (Dave is right. The same cost could fund an extremely effective bus service…perhaps even one that does not spontaneously explode). Besides, lightrail use across the valley would require intercounty/intercity cooperation. When we can’t have a civil COMPASS meeting, how can we expect an interagency transportion cooperative to control the budget and operations of a valley lightrail service?

So what is going on with public transportation in Boise? We got another light rail transit line in Mpls-St Paul but it was very difficult with the governor who opposes public transit but most metro residents want it. People will ride trains but they hate buses. The mayor has the right idea. Probably the train hooks into buses that feed passengers from the Bench. dz

Rather than arguing semantics, lets express the good idea we are dancing around using all true statements: this one is for mr logic too, pay attention.

Premises:

1)The downtown is the most dense area in the state.
2)The downtown is has the highest mass of mixed uses in the state.
3)If Transit, then high density (see previous comment) and massed mixed uses AND If no high density and massed mixed uses, then NO TRANSIT.

:. THEREFORE: Transit in downtown is appropriate.

… there, a cogent statement, and we didn’t even need to garbage-up the equation with actualized economic drivers, fiscal significance or the fact that public investment ALWAYS preceeds private investment…

An intercity light rail isn’t really the answer, Boise just isn’t big enough for it. Ditto to a trolley. The congestion of cars is on the freeway not in town. Weekend mornings you can fire a cannon down Main and not hit anything. Better bus routs are the answer here. I can’t get the four miles from my house to work without switching buses and that’s rediculous. I live on The Bench and work in West Boise but I have to take a bus downtown to catch a bus that goes where I want to go. It’s a terrible system.

Anything a train can do, a bus can do with greater efficiency, flexibility and lower cost. Rail technology is a holdover from the 1830s to 1900, when the only machines that could convert matter to motion weighed dozens of tons and there were no road systems. There is an argument that if you want to promote compact, efficient development – the traditional American development style of the North End and downtown – then trains are the only way to entice the private sector into make that investment. So far, though, I don’t hear the mayor making that connection. He’s just caught up in the romance of obsolete transportation modes.

Why not run the current buses (that we are paying for now through our taxes of many kinds) in some semblance of order on the roads, streets and highways that have the most traffic at specific times and days? ACHD keeps track of the traffic numbers on all of their main roads, streets and highways so it isn’t rocket science to plan the bus routes on the busiest roads, streets and highways at specific times and days.

The flexibility that electric power offers is the flexibility in the power source. If we could have electric-powered buses, I would agree with you. But buses that rely on one kind of fuel would be a bad investment. There is no guarantee that that fuel would remain cost-effective. Instead of concentrating on the form of the vehicle (trains, buses, whatever), perhaps we should focus on ensuring that we can take advantage of the best source of power as time and economics change things. Then population tends to follow where the transportation is.

If the economics of it penciled out, I would support an electric-powered trolley that runs North End to Downtown. And I don’t live in the North End.

Before I address the train, may I please ask the mayor to find someone to keep the Depot clock running on time? When the power goes out, the clock stops and it takes weeks for anyone in the parks department to put the time right. Bad show! Now if it were in the North End someone would be on it as soon as the power was restored.
The inner kid in me loves trains. The adult sees the value of a train that has some use to it. I loved riding the train in Tokyo… let me call it mass transit. It had purpose other than a tourist attraction. It took people from one area of Tokyo to work or to a distant town or to a distant mountain. Portland also has that kind of train…. mass transit. It appears that you are wanting a train for the fun of it, not for the value of a working mass transit system. Is it federal dollars you are after or a working system for people to use (instead of their CARS) to help clean the air in this valley.
Mayor, let’s also look at logistics. Most people who will use the train will need to park their car, prior to getting onto the train… because there is no bus for them to ride from home to where ever there is a train.
IF were were in Japan we may need a parking lot to park our bikes or we may actually walk from our home to the train, but we are not in Japan, we are in Boise where most people feel that they would rather drive around the block 12 times looking for someone leaving a parking spot than to park (and walk) two blocks. Don’t get me wrong, we love our exercise just as long as it’s fun… treadmill =ok, walking two miles to get to a train = not ok.
So what land it the city going to buy to create a parking lot for this train idea? Then where is the train going and how would it fit into a larger picture – or is this just a small one track train idea.

Guardian, please indulge me for just a minute while I respond to Boisecynic.
Cynic, you just don’t understand! I don’t care if the whitewater fiasco costs 1/000% and it worked out to be $0.06 per citizen per year. It is a waste of vital taxpayer monies that could be better used keeping roots from eating up the greenbelt, some actual grass for the 100 acres of parks that the baboon brags about acquiring, new play ground equipment , ballfields, soccer fields, or any other of the numerous ways that the city could enhance the lives of the people that live here. Just as you and I disagree about the whitewater park, there is usually more than one opinion on an issue. For you to want to ban any opposition to your precious little “wading pool” is truly sad. I would hope you could make a more forceful arguement for your position.

Cyclops:

I will make a rational argument rather than forceful, regarding the reconstruction of the near 100 year old decrepit diversions at Thurman Mill and Farmer’s Union. Frankly, I think the 2 canal operators should have to pay for it but monkeys will fly before that happens.

Back to the rational argument, in a word, history. The greenbelt has proven to be wildly popular and has attracted higher and better uses to river front property. I don’t need to reinvent the wheel, just have a look at the video made by Bill Onweiler in 1970. This forum is not the place to post all the stuff written by Mr. Onweiler and others, but I suggest you spend some time at the Library, Idaho History Archives and Boise City Historian’s office.

Bill Onweiler’s 1970 Greenbelt promo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dskPRdi2k9I

Yeah, that video is pretty bad, but it’s his words that are important.

Just as today, with respect to the River Park, in the 60s there were people who railed against the geenbelt and used the same “why are we wasting money on this.” How about we try returning all that greenbelt land to the adjoining property owners? The outcry would make the foothills dog leash broohaha look like a sunday school class.

The greenbelt is nearly done in Boise, the River Park is a logical adjunct to the greenbelt.

One of the functions of government is to do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves. Since the Boise River is public property, how could a private developer of a River Park get repaid for use of it?

Last, let’s look at what other cities have done, Reno for example. News reports from Reno have noted that their River Park is not only popular, with thousands of people, not just a 100 as you put it, and their River Park has attracted new business to the area.

Cyclops, I will give you 12 cents a year for the rest of your life if you change your mind. This is double the price of your forced contribution to the River Rec Park.

“Besides, the cost of a lightrail system for Treasure Valley would exceed its value (Dave is right. The same cost could fund an extremely effective bus service…”

I have never seen a bus service worth a darn and busses are fuel and money gobblers of enormous size for the entire time they run. A trolly system runs on electricity and the cost is far less when the routes are established. Ask New Yorkers if they would trade the subway for busses.

How about a single route down park center, through the city center and then on out down Fairview with a spur to the Mall. Someone said it well. The rail has to go from where folk live to where they shop or work to make money

Boise Cynic, I guess the short story here is that you favor spending 4 million bucks, of someone elses money, so that the people using the “wildly popuar greenbelt” can watch the fewer than 100 kayakers playing in the “wading pool”. It sounds like a bunch of trained seals performing at Marine World. Will there be scheduled performances or just catch as catch can performances?
But more to the point. I fail to see how you could possibly argue that the water park equates to the greenbelt. Something that directly benefits the entire population does not compare with something that directly benefits so few.
It is just too expensive of a project in today’s economic situation. And just a word of caution for future discussion. Unless phase 2 of this project is to line the river with 25-30 casinos, I wouldn’t make a comparison with Reno. Not quite “apples for apples”!