News

You make a great point Sharon. The good Representative and his colleagues need to understand that there are four things that go into creating prosperity in a region: infrastructure, innovation, human capital, and quality places (graciously borrowed from the Brookings Institute).

When you look at what we have in the Treasure Valley compared with our competitor regions like the Wasatch Front, The Front Range in Colorado, Las Vegas, Northern New Mexico, and Arizona's Sun Corridor, Idaho and the Treasure Valley lose in every contest.

We cannot possibly hope to be serious about business attraction, retention, and creation unless we can be competitive on some front with neighboring states. And dear legislators - notice that business climate, i.e., taxation is not in that mix of what is required to create a booming economy.

Public transportation is a critical component of "infrastructure" in any "quality place." Moyle says wait until the rooftops are here before we build public transportation infrastructure? The entire population of Idaho was less than today's population of the Treasure Valley when I-84 went in. Wonder if we should have waited until now to build that?

This is a brilliant analysis of Moyle's comments, and a necessary public service since his remarks unfortunately went unchallenged in the Statesman story. (OK, it was already a long story.) I hope every legislator reads your deconstruction before the session starts, and I will pass along a copy to Rocky Barker, too.

As you say, Rep. Moyle is being highly disingenuous with his comment that "local officials killed" his bill. Moyle's poison pill amendment would have required a two-thirds margin in EACH county of a regional vote and would have limited local option requests to the November ballot only. So under Moyle's plan, if a local option vote for better Valley Ride service passed by 70 percent in Ada and 65 percent in Canyon, it would still fail - and Valley Ride would have to wait a full year before trying again.

Your other points are spot on, too. Police and fire protection, roads, schools, libraries ... none of these public services pay for themselves, so why do we expect transit to do so? Yet if lawmakers don't buy that argument, certainly they must realize that effective public transit and good air quality are musts for regions that hope to attract and retain companies offering good jobs for Idaho families. Right now, the Treasure Valley has the greatest need. A decade or two from now, other Idaho regions may be in similar straits. Plus, true local option proponents advocated offering local option authority not just for transit but for roads, bridges and other local needs.

Finally, there's that small matter of which political party really favors local control. Local option will become a reality when Idahoans - especially in western Ada County and Canyon County - elect lawmakers who favor giving local people the right to make their own decisions. Hint: They aren't Republicans.

thanks for the additional points, Julie!

Chris, are you talking about the 'home rule' thing? I need to learn more about that.

When was the last time a Republican favored a populist action?
Which part of the oil patch would profit from public transportation?
Which corporation would contribute to the re-election fund of a politician who supported such a notion?

ps I think I first played Sim City in 1989. Of course, back then it ran on stone knives and bearskins.

Julie: Jim Weatherby has actually contributed a book chapter on "home rule" and what it means for Idaho in a book entitled "Home Rule in America: a Fifty State Handbook." In my experience working for the Boise City Council, I can attest to the difficulty of trying to operate in an environment where state code overrides everything, relationships between counties and cities are ill-defined, and cities have extremely limited power. It is even the state that defines how counties and cities engage in decisions about things like area of impact expansion. In my opinion, because of geographic constraints, Idaho faces a REAL uphill battle to ever develop as a true economic engine of any sort, and this will be especially hampered by the fact that governance here is so lopsided.

The fact that Mr. Moyle requires public transit to "pay its way" illustrates how woefully (and willfully) uninformed he is on the topic. Duh! If public transit were a profitable venture, funding it would be a non-issue. (Of course, the fare would have to be comparable to the fare for a taxi ride.)

As a lifelong Boise resident who lives 3 miles from my place of work and commutes by bicycle year-round, my selfish tendency is to say, "Screw 'em." If Mr. Moyle's consituents have no interest in any meaningful alternative to SOV (single-occupant vehicle), let 'em sit in the gridlock every day.

Unfortunately, transportation is a quality-of-life issue for everybody. During our frequent inversions, all us Boise people get to breathe pollution from 20 and more miles away. (Evidence... the distinctive smell of the sugar factory is very obvious on those days.) And people along the corridors get to surrender their yards, and deal with the pervasive noise and stench. (Evidence... Ustick Road.)

I resent the attitude of Mr. Moyle and the state Legislature in general, who patronizingly pat the citizens on the head and tell us they know best. (Let's not forget, on two occasions the citizens have voted for term limits, only to have it quashed by our enlightened "representatives.")

Okay... I've vented.

AUTO FACTS FOR TRANSIT GEEKS: O.K. my fine feathered liberal, smart growth friends with brains that aren't as fine as your feathers, let me remind you that the most cost effective and efficient form of public transportation is a lane/mile of road, highway or street and that the privately owned mass produced automobile has contributed more to the quality of life and standard of living in America than any other invention. Since 1900: #Personal mobility has grown from about 3 thousand miles per year (mostly on foot) to nearly 20 thousand miles per year (mostly by automobile) today. #Incomes per worker have increased by nearly seven times and incomes per capita by even more. #Homeownership rates have increased by nearly 50 percent. #The cost of shipping freight has dropped by 90 percent, leading to a huge decline in the costs of food, clothing and other consumer goods. #The variety of goods available to consumers has increased by as much as 100 times. #In 1900 many women and most blacks were trapped in oppressive social systems. The privately owned automobile offered escape, enabling the civil rights and womens liberation movements. #In 1900, only upper-class families could afford to take an annual vacation--most employees worked six days a week, fifty-two weeks a year. The automobile and the moving assembly line that made mass production possible reduced the work week and made annual vacations the norm. #Because of these benefits, it is reasonable to call the mass-produced automobile the greatest invention in the 230 years since the American republic was founded. There are policy idiots like yourselves, who seek to reduce the amount of driving people do by imposing disincentives to the auto or allowing traffic congestion to increase,and who risk killing the automotive goose that laid the golden egg of American prosperity.
Let me now mention, briefly the Transit Myths that have become liberal articles of faith: Myth: We can't Build Our Way out of Congestion. Reality: Cities that have built more roads in the past two decades have had less congestion growth. Myth: Building New roads simply Induces More Driving. Reality: Adding road capacity in congested areas provide important benefits for nearly everyone in the area. Myth: Transit can reduce congestion. Reality: Outside of a few inner-city areas, transit carries too few riders to make any difference to urban congestion. Myth: Balanced transportation means more money for transit. Reality: For more than thirty years, transit funding has been far grated, per passenger mile, than funding to autos & highways. Myth: One rail line can move as many people as a 12 lane freeway. Reality:Except for New York City subways, no transit line in the country carries as many people as even one freeway lane. Myth: Rail transit promotes local investment and redevelopment. Reality: Development on rail lines usually requires more subsidies.

Mickey you are injecting political theory into a policy debate.

Mickey... you'll do better in a discussion of "facts and myths" if your first sentence doesn't insult the people you want to have a discussion with. (I realize that point is moot in the vast anonymous Internet Wasteland, but I'm just sayin'...)

Would you care to enlighten us with myths and realities on the topic of air pollution, which affects all of us and is an important part of the current dialogue, at least here in the Treasure Valley?

Exchanging insults and name calling over policy disagreements is as old as the republic and a lot of fun, especially when you're right. Question? Air pollution: Answer: Electric cars with small battery charging engines for long distances. Like the Chevy Volt now under development.

There are a lot of intelligent people on this thread, but so far I have only seen one poster (Melinda) that points out the 500 pound ape in the room: Boise is a fraction of the size of every other city people talk about in relation to this mass transit issue. There is no sense trying to hide reason or fact in dumping us into the Pac-West region as the "reason" we need a big mass transit system.

Can NO ONE find a better sister-type city to compare Boise to in terms of economics and size density out of the region and THEN point to that city's mass transit solutions as a basis for our own discussion?

Why not, if not?

All of this city-envy is tiresome. And another thing, if I might add: every single article I read in the Statesman or otherwise when highlighting the "reason" for companies to relocate to Boise includes our comparative lack of traffic congestion! I mean, honestly! It can't be bad and good at the same time in the same universe, which is America for this conversation.

And as for building a dam before the flood, that would mean we had a big body of water getting bigger, wouldn't it? We are a state with 1.5m people with very low population density. Are we 25 years from having the same population as Portland? If not, please let me know what we are.

Brian Cronin is correct about EPA and non-attainment, but let's fight for emissions testing--it's cheaper, totally sensible and it will help solve that problem at a micro fraction of the cost of a mass transit system.

Bob, by 2030, the COMPASS Communities in Motion report predicts that the six-county Treasure Valley region will have more than a million people.

http://www.communitiesinmotion.org/Documents/datareports/execsum.pdf

Mickey Garcia (cuttin' and pastin' "information" that's all over the web): Myth: We can't Build Our Way out of Congestion. Reality: Cities that have built more roads in the past two decades have had less congestion growth.

Sharon Fisher: Mickey, I'd be interested in seeing some cites behind the myths and realities you post.

Mickey... I, too, would be fascinated to know where infrastructure expansion has resulted in "less congestion growth." (That's clever! "Less congestion growth" is certainly not the same as "congestion reduction," is it?!! So your source of enlightenment perhaps hasn't refuted the myth, after all!)

NOBODY is arguing that mass transit is the most purely-efficient form of transportation, or the most economical. (The most purely-efficient human transportation ever devised - by a wide margin - is the <a >bicycle</a>. A 4000-pound behemoth single-occupant vehicle is grossly inefficient.)

Like everything supported by "public dollars," the costs have to be weighed against the benefits. Many municipalities have determined that a quality public transportation system is an option that is well worth the expense. Hopefully THIS municipality will get to hear the pro and con arguments at some point in time, and voice its opinion on that topic.

Boise doesn't have the core population density to get the federal funding to create mass transit. The efficiency standards set by the Feds need more people per square mile, and more riders in total.

So if you want to know how the REAL liberals do it, jump on the net and read the Oregonian story now on their internet paper about the failure of the Colorado company that makes the only trolleys in the US that can run on railroad tracks. The Portland Metro area not only paid their bid price but had to invest another $3 million in the company (without public inputs or oversight) to keep its lights on, doors open, until all the pieces that would make the order were built. It appears TriMet in Oregon will use their public shops to finish the job so the trolleys can run on the WES lines as planned. That was the ONLY company in the US making trolleys, and the Federal laws say you have to buy American to get the Federal money. Perhaps Boise's engineering prowess, Dennis Washington's railroad shop experience (not his relatives!!! pullease!), his firm's genius, and the emerging techie community can find a way to build light rail, trolley type machinery in Boise as a stimulus and to create a new industry.

This same Portland area public transit authority has a $7.35 per gallon contract for biodiesel with a canola presser to run their no stink buses. My experience on busses is that it is too bad the passengers can't be no-stink, also. No road use or highway taxes on that $7.35, either. Just an extra five bucks a gallon for clean air. You do wonder how much air has to be fouled to make the profits, pay the rents, that generate the taxes to run the no-stink-golden-fueled busses. Business challenged elected officials can make that kind of poor decision, but since it is a "green" mistake, they get a pass. But how green is it, really?

The expansion of Light Rail from PDX along I-205 to Oregon City area is being built at the cost of $45 million per mile, on existing freeway right of way. NO land cost. And that $45 million does not buy cars, electricity, all the attendant costs to operate. That means no more lanes can be added to that freeway.

But the ONE thing we know about light rail, with unsupervised passengers and non-paying riders, is it spread crime over the whole of the area. Very democratic in that aspect. You will get great criminal diversity with public transit. Especially when you don't have enough money to police it. We have towns and cities the three counties served that now have their own cops on board just to keep the muggings and robberies to a minimum.

Of course, a little village built around a light rail station, with cutesy shops, and condos, and very cutting edge urban design and goals is a bust, for a couple of times now. You can live in the inner city, and have an hours less commute time on the stinky mass transit combo of light rail and busses you need to get to work...and maybe a hike in the rain, or as in the last two weeks, snow and ice with no snow and ice removal capability. All the money was spent on light rail(now pushing $3 Billion of your money). And pretty biodiesel. Stainless Homeless Hopeless Non-Porta Potties. And lots of planning financed by reduced and frozen property taxes on new buildings and industry (to attract the investment---the pork chop hung around the project's neck so the dogs will kiss it), and the Feds putting up the money in their uniquely Bernie Madoff manner.

Portland and the outlying areas still have grid lock on the freeways for hours at a time, even without wrecks. But always incoming in the AM, and outgoing in the PM. And when there is a fatality, then the whole of it is closed for hours on end so that gps records of where everything was for crash reconstruction might take place. With new light rail taking out freeway expansion lanes, you know that gridlock will only get worse.

When you build vertically, and do that with housing as well as business, then you create demand for public transit. Parking is a bitch! When you have to pay thousands a month to park, or even hundreds, buses and trolleys are great. When you sit in grid lock for hours on your commute, and lose work time and time with family, mass transit has a place. But for mass transit, for public transportation, to pay its way, to pay for the capital costs, it takes a huge taxing district far removed from the people actually using it (read more property taxes in the 'Burbs), and congressmen and women with seniority to garner earmarks and dedicated funds. Oregon right now has those Democrats sitting on the right committees, and will get the money for Moscow-on-the-Willamette. People in Boise will pay for Portland's excesses. And do they ever have them! But the Boise need will not pass muster with all those big city Congressmen and women who want any and all of the money for their cities. And Republicans get nothing for their districts. Nada. Zip. Zero. None.

The latest Portland city icon is their Wonder Toilette. A stainless steel affair for street bums and others. I mean, it has all the creature comforts and slats that allow cops to see who is in there doing what but maintains modesty. But when it snowed and got cold, it froze, the solar panels don't work covered with snow, and it was in the doorways again to take a frozen pee. You, too, can get them at a quarter million a pop. I guess it is a work in progress. But in house toilet construction, rail car and trolley finishing, the list is getting long, but has yet to create a s now removal program or street repair schedule. The socialist state is nearer than you think. On your western border, actually.

Sources for my assertions, if you're not too brainwashed to read them and notice that they are backed by solid research. Books: The Vanishing Automobile and other Urban Myths, How smart Growth will Harm American Cities by Randal O'Toole; The best Laid Plans: How government planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future by Randal O'Toole; War on the Dream, How Anti-sprawl policy threatens the quality of life by Wendell Cox; Sprawl, a compact history by Robert Bruegmann; Papers: The journalists guide to the American Dream and The greatest Invention, How Automobiles Made America Great at americandreamcoalition.org

I think the key here Mickey is "How Automobiles made (that is, in the past) America Great." Unfortunately, the systems that process them have not evolved, in fact, have degraded and this 'greatness' has come at terrible cost to our quality of living, environment, health, and community. The irony here is that the automobile was indeed a revolutionary technology at its inception (but it was not reliable enough or financially viable in comparison to the horse) but You are now fighting the next revolution in transit - a cleaner, more equitable, low-impact, and more holistic plan. But you say, it appears, on paper to be so inefficient . . . well, guess what, so did the automobile. We demand ceaseless innovation to get us out of this mess not more 'once upon a time stories' . . .

http://www.divisionstreetmovie.com

There are many other public transit options besides dedicated light-rail, and it's unfortunate that any public transit discussion quickly leaps to that as the only option. But before we can have *any* public transit solution -- even if it's just more buses -- we need a way to fund it, and that's what a local option tax would give us the *ability* to do.

Remember: Local option is not specifying the type of public transit (or even specifically public transit at all). It's not implementing a tax. It's just having the right to have a *vote* on a local option tax -- by the people who would be paying it -- that a few members of the Legislature are not allowing Idaho citizens to do.

Obama's designated appointee to Transportation Sec. is Rep. LaHood, and Illinois Republican Congressman. He is Obama's cross party cabinet member to this point, I believe.

He voted with Democrats on some Congressional transportation bills. Nobody knows how partisan Congress will be, but LaHood is recognized as a pretty good guy by both parties. He was the guy in CSPAN who wielded the gavel most of the time Congress was in session when the Rs held the Speaker's chair. The anointed chair when the Illinois speaker was absent. The fat guy. The wrasslin' coach. I can't remember his name...how sad...

Public transportation emphasis is going to be on trains, of the cross continental kind. Trains can move a lot of stuff, including people, with fuel efficiency. An era of electric trains running off small nuclear plants might be a deal of the future. Who knows? A good grade of bus with dedicated lanes is also a future deal.

Interesting how we all tend to see people we disagree with as "brainwashed idiots," isn't it? (As a year-round transportation cyclist, I tend to dismiss people driving around alone in their cars as pathetic loser weaklings... but I recognize that there may be other viewpoints.)
(-;

Mickey, you apparently see this as a "private vehicle versus public transportation" conflict. NOT SO! It is indeed all about "private choices"... the ability to choose something other than a private vehicle to get around the community. Furthermore, Mickey, have you considered those unfortunate folks who don't have a car to jump into, as they go to their three jobs and drop off their kids and need medicine in the night? How fantastic it would be for them, if at least some of their transportation were affordable public transit, huh? (They seem underrepresented in your myth/reality series.)

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYBODY!

That's true in general though. The law-abiding citizen subsidizes the criminal. The childless subsidizes the children. The non-driver subsidizes the driver. That's part of what being a society is about.

However, we all get to take advantage of the cleaner air.