I am confused…are you speaking of a new tax $.30 per sq ft, on commercial property or on residences??

EDITOR NOTE-A LID is created in a specific area for a specific purpose.
(Most common is for a few blocks to get curb and gutter or sidewalks) Owners adjacent to the improvement pay extra (new) tax.

A Street Car Named Dumbo will probably turn into the Happy Hour Express. The proposed route goes by every bar in downtown Boise. Wait till guide books figure that out.

This case illustrates the stupidity of our government on a federal level. The locals can get federal money but only if they ask for it by a certain time and use it toward some form of transportation. The feds send the check with no regard toward actual need.

It reminds me of when my wife worked for the Boise School district and she explained to me how there “technology budget” worked. She said that each school received x amount of dollars toward techno gadgets. If they didn’t spend all the money they were allocated, they would receive less money the next year. So it was spend spend regardless of need. That my friends is a failed bureacracy in a nutshell. No, Obama we really don’t need a choo choo train for our man-boy mayor. But we will gladly take your stinkin’ money because we don’t want to be the only ones not putting our hands out.

Tim,

It’s unfortunate that you didn’t get a hold of the correct personnel at City Hall. But it’s important to know that for such transportation-related projects (located anywhere within either Ada or Canyon counties), the studies’ source information can be found directly at COMPASS’ website. The research data for this particular proposal (it isn’t a project unless it gets funded) is found here:

http://www.compassidaho.org/prodserv/specialprojects-tvhcts.htm

This multi-faceted proposal (the Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study) is evaluating the combined effects of three different aspects of transportation in the Treasure Valley: the Downtown Circulator (what you call the Streetcar Named Dumbo), the Multimodal Transit Center (which is proposed as a transit-anchor for the approximately 40-thousand workers who commute into downtown Boise every workday), and the I-84 Priority Corridor (that portion of the Interstate that runs from downtown Boise westward and must support the transportation demands of roughly 70% of those downtown commuters).

At the above-referenced link, you will find over 110 separate documents that go into minute detail of every aspect of this long-range planning effort. Other than the agenda and minutes of every meeting that has been held, you will find over 100MB of illustrated documents that address this very subject from every perspective (including traffic models, cost analysis data, public input, and alternatives — including what happens if we don’t do anything, which is still on the table).

Further, since this involves a mass transit service proposal, the public agency responsible to coordinate the study is Valley Regional Transit — the only state and federally recognized Regional Transit Authority for the two counties (not any one city — because, you know, it is perceived as impacting the whole region). This agency’s link to the study which served as the precursor to the High Capacity Transit Study is here:

http://www.valleyregionaltransit.org/PROJECTSSTUDIES/DOWNTOWNMOBILITYSTUDY/tabid/77/Default.aspx

This effort (the Downtown Boise Mobility Study) dates back to early 2003 – and itself enjoys a lineage of deep research that dates back to the mid-1990’s (well before Dave Bieter entered local politics).

It’s okay to disagree with the data, or assert that it’s flawed, or based on erroneous assumptions. But to say that because you spoke to “someone” (???) at City Hall who couldn’t provide you with the information you were looking for — and then just assume that no research is being done, or that the effort doesn’t take into account the effects on the larger transportation/transit scenario in the valley — is contradicted by the facts.

It’s okay to express your frustration over what you think is politically motivated short-sightedness (or the drum-beating of a political opportunist) — but for the sake of the rest of us, don’t try and use your flights of fancy to dragoon us into believing your ill-informed opinion. Before you publish another “thought-provoking” guest post, do your homework.

Or maybe the Boise Guardian (who actually published your piece) ought to know better than to publish something so far out on the fringe.

Dave, do you hand out aluminum-foil hats to go with each of these guest posts — or does this just fall under the category of a “different slant” because your hands are full taking care of other business? Since I believe that transportation & transit are an important subject for every resident in the valley to know more about (all of whom deserve well-thought out objective opinions on this difficult subject), to say I’m disappointed with this piece, just doesn’t cover it.

EDITOR NOTE–I will take the hit. COMPASS and Valley Transit are hardly credible sources of information, however. Also I hope you caught Mayor Dave on Channel 7 last night “confessing” he had no idea of what type of tax would be used or who would pay it. Senior Crapo met with him in D.C. and bought his pitch. Boise voters wouldn’t do the same, hence the end run with a LID. You apparently have “educated yourself” on the issue. Does this mean you endorse the street car project in the wake of this mountain of research you cite? Your opinion is as valued as Tim’s.

Mr. Gunderson, I have done the research and read the “mountains” of studies performed. My conclusion? We can’t afford it! The concept of a LID on downtown corridor business owners will be catastophic at best. The voters certainly don’t want it. And the single largest problem? There is virtually no one downtown that will use it!!!

Mr. Gunderson is correct when he says groups like COMPASS and Smart Growth have produced some good planning related reports. I say “Planning Related” because a plan is no better than the degree to which it is implemented and enforced. And, in this valley, where every P&Z office and board of control hands out variances like candy on Warm Springs on Halloween, there is no planning.

We could argue about why the previous sentence is true, but I think most people on this blog can agree that it is.

Where I am going with this is that it is possible to accommodate the relative chaos that results from non-planning. The way to do it is by promoting solutions that can bend with the moment. The trouble is, rail systems are perhaps the worst of all possible options is situations such as this.

Buses are much better in that their routes can be changed as demand changes.

The Guardian once proposed a system of jitney cabs that would also be a good solution in that they could bend with the flow of the moment. They could take people down town as part of the regular commute, or to BSU on game day, or to the Idaho Center for the rodeo. Flexibility is key.

Think of the stimulus that could be provided if they took the same $65 million for the folly-trolley and put it to other more innovative uses. Another example: They could provide a $3,000 incentive for qualifying commuters to trade in a gas guzzler for a new Smart Car. The result would be more than 21,000 smart cars that, unlike the trolley, people would actually use. Total fuel consumption would decrease substantially, with a corresponding increase in air quality and parking space.

There are probably a hundred ideas better than the one in the previous paragraph. But there are probably a thousand ideas that are better than the trolley.

A LID is not an “end run” but rather an established and proven method for funding infrastructure projects within a specific geographic area. They have been used to improve sidewalks, sewers, and other items for years. This is no different…bigger, but no different.

Dave has asked whether I support a streetcar in Boise — and the simpliest answer is yes & no.

No such single intervention will repair the damage that was done to downtown Boise during the 60’s and 70’s — when tremendous amounts of solid, mixed-use urban development was plowed under to build surface parking lots (in a truly vain attempt to grab federal urban renewal dollars). If you have time, track down the November 1974 Harper’s Magazine — in it you will find a precient article titled, “Tearing Down Boise” (written by L.J. Davis). Davis speculated then, that Boise may be the first American town to literally tear itself down in an attempt to secure federal money to re-make itself.

There’s nothing new under the sun — especially in politics.

But, back to the main question. The current proposal includes two separate (though connected) routes. One that runs east/west and connects every large employment center in the central business district, and extends just far enough west to include the closest extant residential stock to the district (the west end). This westward expansion is contemplated to take immediate advantage of that housing stock — instead of having to wait for re-development to build all the housing downtown Boise needs. The second route runs north/south and connects BSU to the central business district. Combined, these two routes would cover an area that currently must absorb the traffic generated by approximately 60,000 commuters on an average weekday (40,000 for the downtown, and another 20,000 for BSU). All of whom must currently drive in (during the morning) and drive out (during the afternoon). It doesn’t have to be this way.

The reason the probable costs for the Downtown Circulator vary between $40M to (upwards of) $70M is due to the way the routes may be serviced — the higher figure would only be encountered if the north/south route connecting BSU were serviced by streetcars (the 9th street bridge, and possibly the Broadway bridge would have to be re-constructed to support the steel rail system).

The way the proposed routes are serviced isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition — the east/west route could be steel-wheel on steel-rail, and the north/south route could be rubber tire on pavement (or both steel — or both rubber tire, for a greatly reduced construction cost).

It seems a lot of people are fond of pointing to the VRT buses (which they never take) and opining that “there’s nobody on those damn things”, so spending any tax money on this “public taxi service” is obviously a waste of resources. But take a moment and ask yourself why there’s such poor ridership (and it really is poor for some routes, and on others — like the morning bus routes on State Street — the buses run at over-capacity every weekday). Any transit system (any system, rail-, bus-, or rocket-based, cannot operate efficiently — or attact ridership — when operating with 30-minute headtimes). One of the key aspects of the proposed routes is often overlooked — it being the reduction in headtimes to 8- to 10-minutes.

Downtown Boise is the only urbanised area in the Treasure Valley where there are more jobs then there are homes for people to live. This jobs-housing imbalance causes a lot of problems on the transportation network, combine it with the way we’ve haphazardly laid out our subdivisions (with no local roads or connectors actually connecting up), and we’ve cooked up the traffic jam mess we’re currently living in. There are only two areas in Boise where this poor street layout doesn’t exist — the Northend and the Westend (where the proposed streetcar would run) — which both have a regular grid of streets. Not surprisingly, these two areas were laid out at a time when there was a streetcar system running through them. Huh, go figure.

I am more intregued by the possibility of re-introducing the level of transit (and the amount of housing) that existed in downtown Boise during the original streetcar era, than I am with how a new transit system would be configured (steel wheel, or rubber tire). The advantages to everyone should be obvious (reduced traffic on the Interstate, improved air quality, and more affordable housing closer to where a lot of people work).

The two clear advantages a streetcar system has over any other mobility service is its fuel efficiency (nothing beats the operational economy of steel rolling on steel), and its zero point-source emmissions (it being electrified, and Idaho being one of the few states that still has access to relatively inexpensive and plentiful hydroeletricity). There have been arguments made by some that since a rail-based technology represents a large up-front investment, it’s less likily to be abandoned in the future by “less enlightened” politicians. Of course, Boise is where such ideas go to die — we have already proved that we’re willing to tear up such an investment. Let’s not use such logic in trying to justify one configuration option over another.

In my way of thinking, an electrified bus system (with cantenary wires) is the most solid investment we can make with today’s level of political committment, and today’s physical infrastructure. There’s a big gulf between where we are now (and the correct steps we can take today towards a more sustainable and resilient future), and a future where valley residents will once again be able to enjoy walking (or taking the streetcar, or riding a bike) to work while enjoying clean air and clean water.

And ultimately, if your job is to paint a beautiful picture — you have to use the paints you have on your palette, and not frustrate yourself (and others) over all the colors you wish you had. BSU and the downtown have to be better connected, downtown needs more workforce housing, our air quality has to be improved, and we have to reduce traffic on the Interstate. The Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study is the only effort that is trying to tackle all these issues at once.

Once again Dean turns Mies van der Rohe on his head and proves that more is less.

Regarding the statement, “The advantages to everyone should be obvious (reduced traffic on the Interstate, improved air quality, and more affordable housing closer to where a lot of people work).

The proposed trolley only runs from 1st to 16th on Idaho and Main, and passes no residences of any significance. The people that come to town will still have to get here via some other means, and that means cars on the interstate. The Folly-Trolley can, and will, have no significant beneficial impact on commuter traffic.

I worked downtown for about 30 years until about 5 years ago. I drove in, parked on public or private spaces and left when my day was done. Everything I would want to do downtown on my lunch hour was in walking distance. Do people actually circulate downtown and would they use the trolly? I love rail transportation but can’t see how this downtown loop at the cost entailed would benefit the city of Boise or its downtown workers.

The only trolley I really want is the one that takes you to the Land of Make Believe.

“Property OWNERS only sign what amounts to a petition asking to pay (via a lien on their tax bill) their portion of bonds sold by the city”

And if the property owners do not desire this toy or a new tax…if they do not sign, does the scheme die?

EDITOR NOTE–Probably. That is why Team Dave cultivates the business community so deeply.

Rats. I’ve got this Gunderson nut stuck in my mind like cow dung on the bottom of a boot.

According to Gunderson, “The two clear advantages a streetcar system has over any other mobility service is its fuel efficiency (nothing beats the operational economy of steel rolling on steel), and its zero point-source emmissions (it being electrified, and Idaho being one of the few states that still has access to relatively inexpensive and plentiful hydroeletricity).

Dean buddy, steel rolling on steel IS pretty efficient, provided you don’t have to start, and stop, and start, and stop, all day long.

The energy it takes to overcome the inertia of starting and stopping these dinosaurs from two centuries back more than offsets any benefit of the low coefficient of rolling resistance.

And, there is the issue of Idaho having access to, relatively inexpensive and plentiful hydroelectricity to power the folly-trolley. – NOT -.

Idaho Power, the utility that will power this mess has been more than 50 percent coal fired for the last 10 years. Their last two, power plants were gas fired. And, all of their future generation will come via sources other than hydro, for the simple reason that all the good spots for dams have already been built.

“Folley Trolley”! Very clever! Maybe we should call it as it is. The “Bieter Folley Trolley” or “BFT”! I like it! Short and to the point!!

Here’s a pdf of that Harper’s Article

http://www.preservationidaho.org/news/news-docs-06/Harpers-Boise-Self-Destructs-Nov1974.pdf –

or the same in html version

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:x7JStiB-XAEJ:www.preservationidaho.org/news/news-docs-06/Harpers-Boise-Self-Destructs-Nov1974.pdf+Tearing+Down+Boise+written+by+L.J.+Davis&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The html version is much easier to read.

Timm!

Thanks so much for the Harper’s article.

– Dean

Dear Dean, AKA “Curious George. I don’t work in the public sector anymore, I design public schools (only public schools) and urban communities (infill, refill, and smart growth)”

You are far too modest. You were the frequent spokesperson and poster boy for urban sprawl in the form of planned communities while working for Ada County, with Gerry Armstrong and Mark Pechennino. You actively promoted such wonders as Avimor, hammer flat, Arbor Hills, and Cartwrtight Ranch to name a few. And, to the extent that you helped grossly overstock the valley with developments you get some credit for the collapse of home values in the area.

Dear TTWO,

Not only did I work for the County during its debute of its revised Planned Community ordinance (a service that I am proud of), I was also one of the county’s liasons to the Blueprint for Good Growth & Communities in Motion processes — as well as one of the county’s Board members on Valley Regional Transit’s Board of Directors (and to the chagrin of many, I supported the transit union workers — being one of the few Board members invited to attend their regular union meetings). I also served 12 years on the Technical Advisory Committee for COMPASS (starting when the organization was still the Ada Planning Association) — and several years on its Traffic Model Advisory Committee. As a member of one of COMPASS’ evaluation committees I voted to disallow the city of Garden City access to state funds to build a pedestrain bridge across the Boise River — since I believed that the city’s stance on public access to a portion of the Greenbelt should have disqualified it from using taxpayer money to expand that same Greenbelt.

Before working for the county, I served as the planner for BSU — only resigning after it became clear that the President would not cancel his contract with Taco Bell and recant on the renaming of the Pavilion.

Before that I worked as a project manager for BSU helping a number of departments secure additional classroom, laboratory, gallery and office space (but in so doing, also denying a whole range of other departments access to space). And, before that I worked in the private sector designing homes, office buildings, and grocery stores (the last project I worked on in that field was the downtown Winco).

If one can say anything about my tenure as a public servant it’s that I held the course along what I believe to be the correct path — even if it earned me the enmity of others.

In the interest of fair disclosure, I’m also a current member of the Congress for the New Urbanism. Past member of the Urban Land Institute, American Planning Association, and American Institute of Architecture (having also served as the Idaho Chapter’s Associate Director for three terms). I also worked with the Idaho State Historical Society in developing it walking tours of historic Boise, and spent several years leading the tours of the historic downtown business district. You can even dig up an old episode of Outdoor Idaho where I led a tour of the Capitol building.

Starting in 1992 I began authoring & leading urban design charrettes for the University of Idaho’s Architecture School, using Boise as the test-bed to discus a number of issues related to where planning & good intentions failed to better the lives of Boise residents (the first charrette was the problem of the connector and how to get pedestrians across Front and Myrtle).

Oh, and I also sculpt. If you google (or lexus-nexus) my name, you’ll find a solo show of my work was protested several years ago for showing (what the protesters referred to as) pornography. I followed up that show with a performance in the Vagina Monologues (reading my part from off-stage to adhere to the wishes of the play’s author).

There, now I’ve given you about as much ammunition as possible to make of what you will.

– Dean

Dean, here is the rub.

It is usually only the mercenaries who support projects that will ultimately put taxpayers on the hook. In the case of PCs, it was, pretty much, only the big developers and development services staffers like you who supported them.

In the case of the Folly-Trolly, the gig remains the same. Its main supporters are those who will, or hope to, gain from its construction.

As Curious George, in this forum, you never mentioned that you worked for Ada County Development Services. As yourself, in this forum, even after that massive core dump above, you neglected to tell us you work for a San Francisco architecture and planning firm.

I am glad Dean is still posting here. Eventhough most of you do not agree with his views of growth and development, his insight into the whole process is phenomenal. I see why he used “curious george” when he was working in the public sector, but applaud him on coming out and using his real name.

Dean,

I will let you decide whether or not saying the company you work for is San Francisco-based sounds sexy or mercenary. I actually toned down your quote on Linked-In: “Dean Gunderson, Planner/Architect at Dreiling Terrones Architecture, San Francisco Bay Area.”

The link is:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dean-gunderson/b/621/37a

With that, I am done with this thread.

Yup, you’ve almost figured out how to use the internet. Too bad you flunk geography.

The San Francisco Bay Area (which is where I say I work in my linkedin profile) is a geographical region that covers 9 counties and 101 communities. Two of those communities are Burlingame (located in San Mateo county) and Healdsburg (located in Sonoma county). Neither town is San Francisco, so it would be a lie for me to say I work for a SF-based firm — “Not that there’s anything wrong with that…”

😉 EDITOR NOTE–Time out boys. move on to something else. (I admit we need more topics).