Guardian, are you agreeable to a commuter train from 2C to Boise Depot using the current track? With expanded and better bus service/Commuterride spiking off that track?

EDITOR NOTE–Gotta have buses first. Also, the cost to run multiple trains, construct stations, dual track, etc. are HUGE. There are 35,000 daily commuters. Absolute best public transit could do is capture 3,500 of them. Do the math for the number of 50 seat cars running to the Depot and then the 50 seat buses needed to distribute the masses once they get to Boise. That’s 70 buses–more than the current fleet–and as many train cars leaving every few minutes with perhaps 100 grade crossings (same level as trains) for cars.

How many times do we have to go through this crap? Over and over again we have elected officials that feel they can create their own rules and disregard others.

First you take over the CCDC, then you push for local option taxes so you can spend without stopping, then you ignore ACHD.

How many more times?

Living in the corridor zone of the current Nampa-Boise line, I must say that the current train traffic(twice daily)is about all that the tracks can handle. Multiple daily commutes from Nampa to Boise would require a significant overhaul of the current tracks, track beds and even some replacements. We have enough infrastructure problems now as is without anymore burden on the system.

Portland, Oregon, Seattle Washington and Salt Lake City have a successful bus system with some routes running until midnight. Boise does not have this. Salt Lake also has the rail that runs until midnight. The rail in Salt Lake also has several park and ride type parking lots for commuters. Boise, Meridian, Nampa, Caldwell would all have to join in to do something with a large cost to taxpayers.

Perhaps it is time to say no to developers.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of public transit, with a heavy emphasis upon the word MASS in the expression of it. It HAS to be a wide spread system of low-cost to the user to be effective. Whether elevated, sub-way, surface street, mono-rail or flying carpet it has to be tailored to the infrastructure which is affordable. To my mind that means are present surface streets and a fleet of busses which would run frequently within and between the cities of the six populated counties of the Valley. That would most probably require the creation of a transit compact which would exclude portions of some or all of those counties and would be a very hard sell. If the Boise City “Leaders” want to take on a challenge, let them meet with the city and county officials and begin the work for the creation of such a meaning and lasting legacy. The knowledge exists, it just requires some direction, some motivation, some leadership and the expression of some vision. Let’s get ‘er done.

EDITOR NOTE–We assume you meant 6 CITIES. Such an agreement you describe already exists between Ada and Canyon Counties. That’s what VALLEY RIDE–the bus system–is all about.

was it skytran or skynet that killed all humanity in terminator?

Skytran sounds good, but every video or article about it on their website is a concept animation or an article about some city which hopes to have it…..I don’t think Boise will be first. Happy to be cutting edge, but not bleeding edge…

Before we jump 50 years into the future with skytran, let’s try to catch up to 1970 and have buses that people ride and don’t stop running at 6 pm.

Stop the consultant studies, stop the rail dreams, stop thinking we are portland or seattle and let’s try to make what we have work.

I am confused….”Now he is asking the City Council for $437,500 to fund… About $375,000—would come from a Federal Transit Authority grant… The additional $125,500 would be picked up by the city of Boise…” We all know that in seminary we don’t spend alot of time on the math but, something in this quote dont add up. Boise does not need (at this time).. and evidently does not want a train… Boise does not even want a bus system, if Boise actually wanted busses there would be more useage. Big Dave is trying to leave his mark on the city unfortunatly the mark being left is not the mark he is aspiring to leave. There are much better uses for money than a train with no riders.

My guess is the city of Boise can do this study without approval of ACHD. Likely, ACHD would need such a study before granting permission to place steel in the streets. This section of the Constitution looks to be an interesting leftover from the days when the Railroad controlled and developed much of the West.

I would much rather the city be improving the BUS service and bike infrastructure.

EDITOR NOTE–No argument about the STUDY. However, it is pretty clear they need permission of ACHD to use their (our) streets. The Downtown Mobility survey was done years ago and it concluded rubber tires were the answer, not rails.

Addenda: Actually I did mean six counties. Elmore, Ada, Canyon, Gem, Payette, Washington, with, perhaps a wandering across the river into Ontario, if it could be arranged. Hey, if you’re gonna plan, plan big.

Once again, Mayor Bieter has proven to all of us there is too much money flowing to Boise from our collective pockets and he is on a mission to spend it as quickly as he can.

The inherent inflexibility of a rail system for a city the size of Boise and the lack of population to support the concept screams NO to this project. Buy electric busses if you are concerned about the environment. Natural Gas busses also make sense and much less cost to taxpayers.

Thank you BG for this enlightening post.

The issue with using public transportation is speed of getting from point A to B. There appear to be a good number of people using commuter ride vans and bus service from outlying cities to Boise as a means to get to and from work. These are direct express busses and vans to Boise.

In cities like Portland, Busses and the light rail are used due to costs of parking in downtown and gridlock traffic. Portland has reached “critical mass” for the use of public transportation.

Critical mass need for rail in Boise is decades into the future. And building it now to save future costs is a poor argument. A decent bus transit bus system is a better goal and would serve more people.

New, welcome to Boise.

If there is a “sprawling mess” here I’d suggest it’s the fault of the Cities in the Valley for not following their own comprehensive plans and their knee jerk reactions to every developer that comes along promising “economic development.”

ACHD can only react to what the Cities propose or approve. ACHD didn’t create the “sprawling mess”, the Cities did. Blame them, not ACHD.

Tom, LOL. You are new here?? Are you upset with the slow speed limits and 20 minute traffic delays too. LOL.

I’ve been all over the nation and world. BPD is very good as is the ACS. Both very responsive and effective. Room for improvement… always. BTW what PD are you comparing to? Find me a better department? IdeHOE Statesman is for under my leaking Asian car… no other use for it since the birds moved out.

Furthermore, you tried ineffectively avoided the crime question… which is backed by the facts. Public transit is thug transit.

(I will be out of range again for several more weeks my long lost guardian friends. I’d love to post but the local chieftians screens the internet… ttfn)

Heres a stat… 2009 Boise PD .44 complaints per sworn employee. Seattle 2009 .23 per sworn employee. Guess that puts the BPD is better than everyone else fallacy to rest. Now maybe we can get back to the real question… Why is there so much negativity againt a mass transit system of some kind in the valley?

Well, I cannot argue over the merits of “thug transport,” but I have lived in Portland, and can tell you that I have ridden public transportation all over town with groceries, gifts, my iphone, etc, and felt nothing but happy for the fact that I wasn’t driving, the ride was cheap, and I never had to worry about parking or gas. I have never been a victim of crime because I used public transportation. I also know that every city that I’ve lived in that has had good public transit also gets a good amount of revenue (jobs, etc) from out-of-towners in the city for conventions, events, etc. As it is now, Boise cannot be one of those destinations simply because it is too hard to get around without a car. I do not know why there are so many Boise residents who do nothing but “point out facts that do not support the proposal.” I just wish that there were more residents who would rather just want to make it work to make the city a nicer, more livable, and prosperous area.

And there in lies the rub…. “If you don’t agree with me…leave”. Most of these old hats don’t want any change… hell I’m one of’em… the difference is some understand it is going to happen and have decided to deal with the change… others think if they kick and cry long enough they can stave off the inevitable. I long for the days when Eagle road was 1 lane gravel each way and didn’t cross the highway.. Eagle it’s self was a nice little town in the country back then.