Comments on: Time To Stop The Trolley Folly

By: duder123

duder123 — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:59:44 +0000

I agree with JIMV. I spent 2years riding the bus to get to work and not because I was trying to look “green” around my yuppy neighbors. I couldn’t afford a car. It was me and countless homeless people, the bus was usually empty and always stinky. Since the day I bought my car I haven’t been back on it. Currently we tax payers subsidize the bus system that nobody wants to ride. And you want to expand it? Both sides of this argument are right… Rail is too expensive and Boise isn’t designed well for rail, nor do we have the population for rail to be efficient. On the flipside our bus system loses money and people simply don’t like riding a bus on a consistent basis. If we are looking to burn more “free” federal money that we don’t want to go to waste then so be it. But if you are talking about spending our local tax dollars I think it is better to wait until a better solution comes along. Stop throwing money down the well!

By: AlphaDogReporter

AlphaDogReporter — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:23:56 +0000

One need look no farther than the failed TRAX system in Salt Lake City to understand what a taxpayer boondoggle light rail is. In their own 2008 report, the Utah Transit Authority finally admitted that the TRAX system will forever be taxpayer subsidized (heavily) because it would NEVER get enough rider fees to pay for itself. What makes us think that we can do better here with our significantly lower population?

Unfortunately, not only politicians but many citizens are enamored with light rail so I have no doubt within two years the downtown streets will be ripped up to put in Bieters electric train set. That man wants a taxpayer funded monument to himself – the folly of an egomaniac.

If we are hell-bent on more mass transit, there are many other better alternatives to light rail (hybrid buses being one) that should be explored prior to going down an irreversible track.

Trolleys and light rail are just another shining example of the disconnect people have with reality.

By: Trans Ed

Trans Ed — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:16:07 +0000

JIMV – I would agree there is a certain demographic of transit riders that prefer rail. I would be part of that demographic. But I also realize that rail is not an appropriate way to spend tax dollars in many cities, especially cities the size of Boise. On a national basis, buses are the dominant form of public transportation. From peasants to the suburban commuter headed into the city to work, buses serve a wide range of passenger types.

I know someone who was involved with the management of the Boise bus system a number of years ago. That person tells me that back around 1980 or so the Boise bus system was carrying standing loads of people, about 65 people per bus I’m told, during the morning and evening rush hours on New York City size buses. What’s a New York City size bus? A REALLY BIG bus. The type that could hold more than 50 people seated and another 25 or so standing. That’s a lot of people on one bus and it happened right here in Boise, Idaho. And Boise was a much smaller city back then.

My point is bus systems can work. People will ride buses if the system is responsive to their needs. The person that was involved with the management of the Boise system tells me the system had great support from both the public and the local politicians back then.

It had that support because a basic formula for providing good transit service was followed. That basic formula was (and still is) clean, well maintained buses, operating on routes and schedules that served the needs of a lot of the riding public, with friendly bus drivers and a management team that both cared and really listened to suggestions from the public to improve service. In short, the system was run in a business like manner and was responsive to its customers. Maybe Valley Regional can take a clue from past. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.

By: JIMV

JIMV — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:22:13 +0000

Still, when all is said and done, people simply do not ride buses. As long as the plan is to make the current giant empty bus system bigger, it will fail as a transit system that does more for the vast majority of tax payers than cost them money at tax time.

By: Trans Ed

Trans Ed — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:38:21 +0000

The plan to spend $ 50 million for a downtown trolley is ludicrous. With 15 minutes between trolleys most people can walk where they need to go downtown faster than waiting for and riding the trolley. The $ 50 million could better be spent developing the current bus system into something that actually works.

Rail, light or otherwise, is a pipedream. Sorry JIMV but it is. The Valley does not have now, nor will it have in the future, the population density to support a rail system according to COMPASS planners.

Valley Regional Transit is a joke. More and more people are seeing its management as incompetent. Its recent handling of the Downtown Multi Modal Center controversy was a fiasco. Its refusal to hold a public hearing on the Center can only be described as arrogant. Open houses sure. A public hearing? No way.

Giving away public property to an employee has to border on criminal if it isn’t criminal already. And then there are the arbitration issues lost to the Union which have cost local taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars – literally. Add to that non – union staff turn over and it’s a wonder Valley Regional is able to function at all.

Valley Regional Board members are seen by some local business people as not having a clue as to what is going on. Nor does the Board seem to know what questions to ask of staff. Of course, if you don’t have a clue about what is going on, then you don’t know what questions to ask.

And now it appears that in the last few months Valley Regional has quietly instituted a public comment policy that all but stifles public comment at meetings. Like ACHD, the Valley Regional Board seems more interested in making sure the allotted time for a meeting is adhered to rather than hearing from the public.

It’s time for new, competent, management at Valley Regional. And for Board members who are elected directly by the public. Maybe then the valley will have a functional transit system.

By: Tom Anderson

Tom Anderson — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:00:39 +0000

JIM V: The problem is that riders don’t really want “routes”, they want to go from where they are, to where they want to be. “Routes” don’t really exist once sprawl occurs and you try to fix it after the fact.

There is a solution called a “Smart Jitney System” which costs almost nothing to impliment and run, gets people from where they are to where they want to go, and costs the users much less than a taxi system.

It is a great system for almost no cost to the taxpayers, …it’s worth looking into.

By: Cyclops

Cyclops — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:25:04 +0000

You are absolutely correct Paul. It is very expensive to park in downtown Portland. Now, I would invite you to attend the next meeting of the Boise downtown business association and tell them that CCDC will start charging $10.00 plus $1.50/hour to park. I would strongly urge you make your announcement standing by the exit with the door open. The members will go ballistic at your statement!!

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:02:19 +0000

Downtowm Portland is the model for people riding busses. Parking is scarce and expensive dowtown while the busses are cheap. They fill express busses to Vancouver both ways every day M-F. The downtown loops and light rail to LLoyd Center is Free to anyone who wants to hop on and ride.

I was pleasantly impressed with the Portland bus service and rode it the entire time I was there a year of so back.

By: Cyclops

Cyclops — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:04:38 +0000

So, Rob, what you are saying is that COMPASS, CCDC, VT, G-Bad are all similar to the Italian rocket program. Can’t fire it and can’t get it to work! Sorry, but that is not acceptable!
Recall Bieter!

By: JIMV

JIMV — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:42:49 +0000

Because those folk are trying to steer mass transit into an expanded bus system, something that seldom if ever works and does zip for tourism or the average non bus riding tax payer. That appears to be the issue under debate. Do we do a money losing light rail system designed to cater to tourists, or expand the existing bus program which consists of half empty buses. The idea of a sea change to the bus system, one that chucks the giant empty buses and replaces them with smaller more fuel efficient ones running on routes citizens want, is not considered. The equally radical idea of a light rail system designed to move actual citizens from where they live to where they shop and work is also not on the agenda. As a result, we discuss two loser ideas and the city will do exactly what it desires regardless of citizen input unless those politicians are threatened.

Do bus based systems make money or even pay for themselves anywhere they exist? I do not think so.