Comments on: Should Boise Take Street Duties From ACHD?

By: Dee

Dee — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 00:57:39 +0000

The City should have control of the streets…get rid of ACHD!!!

By: Clancy Anderson

Clancy Anderson — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:24:56 +0000

I do see a benefit for having a county wide agency in place for road planning. Though cities should have more say in how monies are spent. Maybe give each city a slush fund to spend on their priorities whether it be cycling infrastructure, more vehicle lanes, or some silly trolley.

EDITOR NOTE–We can only hope your idea of a “slush fund” is for melting snow removal.:-)

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:53:33 +0000

A few thoughts:

ACHD doesn’t need to be disbanded, just the commission. Return the decision making back the mayors of the respective cities and the Ada county commissioners (for unincorporated areas). This should better satisfy the needs of each respective city as well as remove the needless animosity between Boise and a few of the commissioners. From what I’ve heard, the staff & engineering working relationship is quite good between ACHD & Boise – it’s just the commission and Mayor who fight.

Meridian does receive a higher share of dollars in vs. dollars collected, and that will not change anytime soon. It’s not really a question of fairness – simply a consequence of the urban form. Meridian has a higher pavement area to taxable property value ratio than Boise, because more of it was built in the last 30 years than in the last 100 years. We can debate the merits of this all day, but it’s not going to change anytime soon. I admit i don’t have on hand data to support this claim, but i’d bet the ‘less dollars for Boise’ holds true even accounting for the TIF/Urban renewal tax diversion in downtown Boise – and will worsen once the TIF zones expire (downtown core starting in 2018).

Dave Bieter’s timing on the ‘disband ACHD’ call is classic politics – but he’s a politician, what did you expect? Never waste a tragedy.

As far as I’m concerned, the ACHD Commission needs to go. It’s just another unnecessary layer of government for everyone to use and abuse. More hoops to jump through and boxes to check – to the annoyance of everyone – residents, businesses, and cities.

By: Steve Rinehart

Steve Rinehart — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 03:39:26 +0000

Ludwig’s notion looks and smells like political posturing, which is in line with his general performance on the Boise city council. As hidebound and pathetic as ACHD’s response has been, and continues to be, to this winter’s snowy roads, it makes more sense to have a unified county transportation agency than a bunch of cities with their own road crews, thier own work schedules, their own engineering and traffic standards and their own bureaucracies

By: Here's to you S. Fenrich

Here's to you S. Fenrich — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:02:18 +0000

It doesn’t seem right to give the responsibility for streets in Boise back to Boise now. A majority of the money in the ACHD accounts seems to have gone to Meridian. Boise now needs a pro quo.

By: erico49

erico49 — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:43:42 +0000

I think ACHD is a good model. And I think that police and fire should be county-wide too.

By: Easterner

Easterner — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:44:22 +0000

Dearest Commissioner, Thanks for your vote of confidence!
Frankly, (may I call you Frankly?), I don’t want VRT to control that program. I don’t want ANY govt agency to have such a program. If it has merit, a private company can operate it- maybe Uber. See http://www.uberpool.com. But I certainly dont’ think ACHD has any sense dealing with it. Another good example here though.

Again, Commuteride is spelled with one “r”. ACHD spent over $275,000 (+$50,000+/year salary for a marketing manager + helpers$) with an advertising agency just to advertise Commuteride WITH the correct spelling- you don’t want to create confusion do you? ;-/
https://www.achdidaho.org/PDF/staff_reports/2012/061312/K.pdf

And in other news, some are concerned with Otter spending only $100K on advertising for jets as an economic BOOST to the airport…

Commissioner(s), let me try this in story form:

I mow my neighbors lawn for free.
It’s a negative to my family budget.
If someone asked me why I do that, I c o u l d say, “because they don’t want to” to do it.

Well, duh! Nobody wants to mow their lawn.
Do you see how that is not really the reason I do it?

But it might be “I like my neighbor and he is not able to mow his lawn so I do it for him out of respect for old people”.
Or ” I mow her lawn and she bakes me cookies so it is a good trade for me”.
Or, “I like to control which day, how high, and how often their lawn gets mowed, so I voluntarily mow it so I get to control 100% of the turf around my house.”

See? These explanations could actually be why I do it.

“Because they don’t want to” is not the reason I do it.
I suppose ‘that’ is not a valid reason for anything— in the universe.

But, I don’t want to “snark and hound” further. I’ll just conclude you don’t know the reason, either.

And the Mayor wants to control the streets? Wow!
Good chat!

By: Sara Baker

Sara Baker — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:24:03 +0000

Easterner. ACHD does Commuterride because VRT doesn’t want to?

As I said, if you want VRT to do it, get on them to take it over. If anyone could snark/badger/hound them into it, you could. And FYI, Trump has nothing to do with it.

By: Easterner

Easterner — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 23:40:08 +0000

“VRT is supposed to run Commuterride”
Thanks Commissioner Baker!
Maybe Trump will issue an Order tomorrow to fix that ___.

Commissioner, by the way, it’s only 1 “r”.

And, why does ACHD still control Commuteride?

Thanks for being a reader.

By: Sara Baker

Sara Baker — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:22:28 +0000

So Easterner, while you always think you have all the answers, regarding commuterride you are wrong.

While it is true that VRT is supposed to run Commuterride, they never have, preferring to have ACHD run it under a Memorandum of Understanding. As far as I’ve always been concerned, if VRT wants it back, I’d be happy to let them have it. That way ACHD taxpayers wouldn’t have to subsidize it to the tune of at least $250,000 per year.

And BTW, the reason Commuterride goes to Mountain Home, Emmett and Canyon County is because either Ada County residents work in those counties, or those residents work in Ada County.

In any event, Commuterride doesn’t make ACHD taxpayers any money and it doesn’t break even. So as I said, if you can convince VRT to take it back, sans subsidy of course, be my guest and encourage them to do so.