Not to mention FLEXIBILITY with Buses. Some proposed plan for now may not be in demand in the future so it will be a lot easier to reroute a bus than a trolley line. Trolleys would be add unique character to Boise Down Town BUT that is about it – especially with all the ugly electric lines. Someone needs to take a bat to Bieter’s head to wake his a$$ up.

I’d trust the City to build and run something like this if they could efficiently run the existing (spare me the Valley Ride distinction)Public Transit System; but they refuse – or are incapable.

Or manage their own Downtown (again, spare me the CCDC-DBA distinction); but they refuse – or are incapable

Behold… The gestation of a White Elephant!

A downtown trolley line that can later spur to other nearby locations would be wonderful for Boise. Go Dave!

The trolley will not replace the bus system. The idea is for them to coexist and help support public transportation in Boise. Typically trolleys are for smaller roads, like downtown. And no one has apparently researched streetcars very well, its not the 19th century anymore. They have cars that get their power from a third rail, so wires being strung up everywhere might not happen. And most public transportation, anywhere in the country is supported by local and federal governments. If they could do it themselves, the price to ride would be more expensive than to drive your car. This could be a situation for future generations to keep Boise green. Some days now when you fly into Boise you can see the beginning of smog hanging over downtown. I want to grow into a successful city, but I don’t want to end up being the next hole in the ozone.

EDITOR NOTE–Your information is simply not correct. It would be genocide to expose pedestrians, animals, children, and bicyclists to “power from a third rail in the street!” If you read the text of the story you will see we advocate an ELECTRIC bus if there is indeed a need for downtown transit.

$2.5 billion in revenue to Portland is a bunch a money. I’d say that’s paying the way especially with stimulus money to pick up part of the tab. Good for Dave and the congressional delegation for getting on it.

And if we were governed by the Statesman comments section, we’d be arming ourselves for a march on Washington for denigrating the “White” House. The place is a cesspool.

Stupid is as stupid does. What is his infatuation with steel rails? He may possibly need therapy.

The parking lot of KBCI and NAPA Auto parts at 16th and Main/Idaho will become the favored parking lot for those wanting to go to Avenue A and B (hospital zone). Will the city buy their building to provide adequate parking with a multi-million dollar parking garage? Perhaps, they will buy the old Tillotson Realty block where the Metropolitan Condominiums have failed to be built.

Mayor Bieter would serve the downtown community better by building a trolley from/to Canyon County that could move thousands of people twice a day. Think of the potential for reduced traffic on I-84, excess downtown parking, and fewer accidents.

Of course, CCDC would lose parking garage revenue…………….

Catenary wires aren’t the only alternative to exposed third-rail power provision for electric street cars. An APS third rail (located between the two running rails and discontinuous — with isolated segments shorter than half the length of a street car) is an electronically switched power rail — that is, only the portion of the third rail under the moving street car is energized. When the street car isn’t present, the power to the rail segments is switched off. This system was invented for the expressed purpose of avoiding overhead wires. It isn’t a wide-spread technology yet (and has had its own fits), but it is up and working in Europe and a number of communities including Washington, D.C. have announced plans to begin using the technology.

Unfortunately, a rubber-tired street car system wouldn’t be ready to start “almost immediately”. Boarding/ticketing stations would still need to be built along the routes, as well as a storage/maintenance yard.

There are some very significant reasons why buses aren’t as popular a means of transit as street cars or trams — but it’s not for the usually stated reasons. The boarding and exiting of a bus, while simultaneously trying to pay one’s fare, takes precious time slowing down one’s commute. A rubber-tired vehicle can operate with the same efficiency of movement as a street car, but boarding stations (where you pay your fare and wait comfortably for your ride, and whose boarding level is the same height as the transit vehicle’s) have to be built — and the vehicle’s front and rear doors have to be widened (just like a street car’s). Buses have been built to these specifications and the transit systems that use them have the type of boarding stations mentioned — this technology isn’t new, and all the wrinkles have been long ironed out. Better yet, the economic reinvestment (which does occur with the construction of rail-based street cars) is nearly identical with the institution of this type of rubber-tired transit system.

Now, I’m not a gloom ‘n doom person — but a significant amount of our community has been built on the presumption that a certain kind of technology will be forever-present and affordable. The tax subsidies allowing the use of that technology have rarely been questioned — and to my knowledge few members of the general public ever ask whether the travel routes for that technology will pay for themselves. The personal cost to each American household to use that technology now verges on almost 20% of each family’s income. But there is rarely a hue & cry about the ever increasing demand on our personal income and freedom that the use of this technology demands. Yes, the automobile (as this piece of technology) has insinuated itself into every aspect of our modern lives — it dictates everything from where our school districts decide to place schools, to where we live and work.

Though I don’t believe Boise is quite ready for a street car system today, I do applaud the politicians who are looking for solutions to this burgeoning dilemma. A mass transit system that can compete with the operational characteristics offered by a private automobile today, could be a solution to tomorrow’s privations.

In the mean time, getting the backbone of such a system in-place — and operating it as a rubber-tire technology — is a nearly perfect solution. But it will take money, and a shifting of priorities and existing land resources away from the ever-pressing demands of a transportation technology that is wheedling away at our personal fortunes.

As the Guardian points out, even if a single city somehow succeeds in generating the revenue necessary to buy and operate a mass transit system — without public involvement — the owner of that right-of-way (ACHD) and the Regional Transit Authority (Valley Regional Transit) must still hold a number of public hearings on the matter BEFORE such a system would be permitted to operate. Further, if federal funds were ever used on a portion of that system, the system would have to first make its way onto the only federally-approved list of such expenditure requests — this would require the Metropolitan Planning Organization (COMPASS) to agree to its inclusion. This would also require public hearings.

In short, regardless of what anyone says, building and operating such a system is not (in any way) like a “usual, normal, regular, or established” municipal expense — its presence could never materialize out of thin air, and whatever debt-load it may generate could never be incurred without public approval.

ten grand for the bike cab Wiebe? really or is there an extra zero? how could it be that much. great concept but man i find it hard to believe it could cost that much to produce one.

EDITOR NOTE–Antiphobe, you are probably correct and he added a zero. Even those old Crown Vic copper cars don’t cost that much to purchase as a taxi. Ironically, the pedicabs of Vietnam are being slowly phased out for many reasons.