Comments on: Team Dave At Odds With ITD, ACHD Pros

By: No Go Zone

No Go Zone — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:57:40 +0000

Do you think the wikileaks folks would have local emails available so we the taxpayer could figure out who to vote for?

EDITOR NOTE–Go see the SNOWDEN movie and you will have no doubt they have the e-mails. Actually a very good show.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 00:53:22 +0000

You’re right, there’s not a great chance that Front and Myrtle will change – but without anyone considering alternatives to cars, the chance would be even less. It was a car-oriented design decades ago, and it still is today.

I believe government and elected officials are perfectly capable of addressing more than one problem at once. They’re certainly capable of screwing up more than one thing at a time, after all!

By: New improved bike routes

New improved bike routes — Mon, 10 Oct 2016 23:09:04 +0000

Jason
These decisions were made decades ago. The Front/Myrtle came about the same time as the urban renewal for the Grove. It was a two laner before that. It was controversial then, as it is now, and it was then meant to bring cars to the parking garages and to bsu and through the core to points west and south.

Ever seen Seattle? You don’t bike on I5.

The connectors have a 95% chance of not changing so to the bike crowd and the City who has created this argument please turn your attention elsewhere for other innovative and cultural things.

Why is there so much focus on this and not on schools and the tax dollars that should go to schools instead of parking garage? It is a real issue.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:42:48 +0000

Boisecynic, I don’t think cars should be removed downtown. I just think a 5 lane highway with high-speed traffic is inappropriate in the one part of town that is pedestrian focused. My suggestion for Front and Myrtle doesn’t even reduce vehicle capacity. You can have a lot of cars without them going very fast – and many can still easily arrive by car. I know that cars are going to be a part of this city, for the forseeable future, and I don’t think they can be realistically ‘banned’ from any part of Boise. However, I would like to see an end (at least downtown) of the idea that the speed & capacity of roads for cars is the number one priority of their design.

NoGoZone, I’m not an ACHD employee. I do agree that fast moving cars and bikes don’t mix – which is why I’d like to see car traffic slow down. Since ‘education and enforcement’ are really terrible at slowing cars down, engineering needs to step in, with smaller lanes and re-adjusted light timing.

By: Yossarian_22

Yossarian_22 — Sat, 08 Oct 2016 17:39:25 +0000

Well, once they get all of the construction finished down there, it will open up and we will have visibility again. I bike, so I’ll use the new facilities. I also drive my pickup, so I’ll drive down or through town. If biking does become more attractive, then more lane space will open up for motorists. If not, then they might have a problem. We’ll see.

By: boisecynic

boisecynic — Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:08:07 +0000

Jason, why do you and others ignore this inescapable fact? There would be hardly any pedestrians downtown if not for the cars bringing them there. You must not live downtown or you would know this.

In other words, 90% of the pedestrians you see came there by car.

Do you not get your own cognitive dissonance?

If you remove the cars you kill downtown.

By: No Go Zone

No Go Zone — Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:56:54 +0000

Jason, are you the ACHD guy by that name?

Keep people and bikes away from fast moving cars. FACT is they do not mix well and nothing the septic tank full of local thinkers and planners will ever come up with will change that fact.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:44:21 +0000

Hen, I will concede that ITD’s mission statement is not to just ‘move cars,’ it’s much more nuanced, and appropriate. ITD seems to have made a commitment to alternatives, based at least on their more recent projects (Gowen/highway 21, for example). However, as they were built years ago, Front & Myrtle are overwhelmingly vehicle focused.

You mention 30 seconds delay – I think one of the best changes that could be made to Front & Myrtle (also relatively inexpensive!) is to simply re-stripe the now 12-13ft wide lanes into 10.5/11ft lanes, and slow traffic to 25mph. It would likely mesh better with the downtown grid, and allow for bigger sidewalks/better ped. environment ‘for free’, with the space saved. All without sacrificing any vehicle capacity.

By: Speckled Hen

Speckled Hen — Fri, 07 Oct 2016 18:46:34 +0000

I disagree that ITD is charged with moving traffic. They are a “transportation” department, not a moving cars department. Their mission is pretty clear: Your Safety. Your Mobility. Your Economic Opportunity.

Granted, we all believe that (in cars) is probably what they would add to it, but their published mission is intended for the safety, mobility and economic opportunity of all transportation system users. ITD also states that “The state transportation system is inextricably woven into the fabric of Idaho life. The state’s citizens use Idaho’s transportation system to get to work, school, friends and recreation… The transportation department’s mandate is to provide the people of Idaho with a transportation system that includes various means of travel.”

Now, you can argue that politicians at the state level co-opt that mission statement and force them into a “moving cars” mentality. Their staff is probably just as vested in that purpose and don’t view their role in such light. But their stated goals are very different.

Moving cars 30 seconds or a minute slower through downtown will not impact the state highway system negatively or thwart economic activity. There’s not a single downtown in America where that has been the case.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:31:39 +0000

The excerpts noted in the BoiseDEV column show ITD and ACHD trying to downplay valid criticisms of Front and Myrtle. Front and Myrtle are correctly referred to as “high speed and auto-focused,” with “pedestrian and bicycle treatments” “secondary,” as well as “time-consuming and inconvenient” as related to pedestrians. These are all true about Front and Myrtle, when they were constructed, and today (keeping in mind the context under which they were built – bicycles and pedestrians were completely off the radar). In a way, this back-and-forth between agencies highlights the misaligned goals of the agencies. ACHD/ITD are charged with moving traffic, regardless of the consequences – and that will frequently be at odds with Boise. You mention that traffic is backed up on Front and Myrtle, which is also true. If so, would you support widening them, to accommodate extra traffic? We may have to demolish some buildings to get it done, but why not? And if you widen the road here, that leads to widening the entirety of I-184, since that the ultimate destination of the connector. This is the logical thought process when you only consider auto-traffic, and it has been highly destructive.