2009 Idaho Legislature
Rep. Mike Moyle Still Doesn’t Get Public Transit
If you've ever been stuck in traffic on I-84 and wondered why Boise doesn't have public transit like other Mountain West cities...By Sharon Fisher, 12-29-08
I love state representative Mike Moyle (R-Star) as a person from the top of his shiny head to the tippytoes of his snakeskin boots, but he doesn’t get public transit, and his quotes in the Idaho Statesman this week show that he hasn’t picked up anything new over the interim.
If you’ve ever been stuck in traffic on I-84 and wondered why Boise doesn’t have public transit like other Mountain West cities such as Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, and now Phoenix—Moyle’s the reason.
Idaho is one of four states (according to the Statesman’s Rocky Barker) without a dedicated fund for mass transit, and Moyle—as House majority leader and a member of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee—is one of three Treasure Valley Republican legislators who have consistently voted against giving Treasure Valley residents the right to decide for themselves whether to implement a tax to fund public transit.
Got that? They’re not voting against the tax itself. They’re voting against allowing residents of an area to vote on whether to have a tax. Remember, this is the party that espouses local control.
Last year, Moyle sponsored a Constitutional amendment, HJR004, ostensibly to implement a local options tax, but which in reality would make implementing such a tax more difficult. First, because it was a constitutional amendment, it would require a statewide vote. Second, it would require any local sales tax increase to get two-thirds support—and, moreover, two-thirds support in each county, not overall in a region. Third, it would allow tax-increase votes only in November. In addition, because it would be enshrined in the Constitution, changing it in the future would require a two-thirds vote of each of the House and Senate, plus a majority of voters throughout the state. Seeing this as the “poison pill” that it was, the Legislature rejected it.
To judge by Moyle’s comments in the Statesman, things aren’t going to be any different this year.
Let’s take it one sentence at a time.
“Star Republican Mike Moyle, the House majority leader, said local officials killed his efforts to pass a constitutional amendment that would have allowed Ada and Canyon voters to establish a local sales tax for transportation with a 66 percent vote at the polls.”
That description of the bill is disingenuous. Local officials killed his efforts because they felt the amendment would set too high a bar for passage of a tax, and would make it more difficult to change rules in the future.
“And he says that beyond the current bus system, a wide variety of alternatives to driving are available - including the Ada County Highway District’s Commuteride program.”
The current bus system is actually overcrowded and limited in its scope. What “wide variety” he had in mind is unclear, but Commuteride is useful only for a fixed group of people riding between two points.
“Still, Moyle is skeptical about expanding public transit that doesn’t pay its way.”
What is it about public transit that it is supposed to pay its way when many other public services—including roads—do not? “Public transit doesn’t pay for itself – but neither do highways,” said Lane Beattie, head of the Salt Lake City chamber of commerce, speaking at the City Club of Boise last year about the successful implementation of public transit in that region. No, public transit is never going to pay its own way. What it will do is reduce the amount of spending on roads, reduce the amount of time citizens wait in congestion, and improve the Treasure Valley’s air quality—which missed, by the skin of its teeth, being declared in non-attainment of Environmental Protection Agency standards this year, which would have forced the implementation of a number of costly measures for the next ten years in the area.
“"When you get enough rooftops, when mass transit makes sense, we’ll probably go there,” Moyle said.”
There’s only one problem with that theory. If you wait until there’s enough rooftops, then it becomes difficult to find places to put mass transit, because all the rooftops are in the way. Look at Eagle Road—it can’t be widened, because it has so much development up to the edges of the road that relocating all those businesses would be prohibitively costly. Similarly, if one decides after the fact that one wants to put in a light-rail line, it’s difficult to do so unless space for that line has been laid out in the first place. It’s important to have financing first to obtain the right-of-way to place public transit later. Better still, say professional planners, put the transit where you want the growth to occur, and have developers build around it.
Please. Could someone go out and buy Mike Moyle a copy of Sim City, so he can get this? He can even play it online. Every year that goes on makes getting public transit more expensive and more difficult.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
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?
That Brookings Institute report is great. Another piece that goes on at length about that sort of thing is Richard Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class.
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.
Chris, are you talking about the 'home rule' thing? I need to learn more about that.
One correction: I'm pretty sure, and I went back to my notes to confirm, that when legislators met with DEQ Director Toni Hardesty a few weeks ago, she explained that non-attainment would lock us into a 20-year maintenance plan (not 10). Any controls that are implemented to satisfy the EPA are committed for two decades. Senator Werk used the, "Let me make sure I fully understand this...." line of questioning to effectively drive home the point to fellow legislators who don't relish the idea of explaining to local businesses why they didn't act to prevent what will certainly feel like punitive sanctions.
Hardesty also underscored the perils of non-attainment by contrasting them with the autonomy that the state currently has. For example, DEQ could decide to terminate auto emissions at any time. Why would they do that? Perhaps we'd find that in the next 10 years, as many of the old cars (the ozone creating culprits) are no longer on the road (or are taken off the road by purchasing them), emissions testing is no longer needed. But in non-attainment, we simply won't have such flexibility.
We also learned at the same meeting that there may be a move by some N. Idaho legislators to repeal HB 586, passed last year, which gave authority to the DEQ to establish an emission testing program in airsheds that are approaching non-attainment. The bill stipulated that an airshed would be subject to testing (or an alternative plan that the county would submit to the DEQ) if it has "ambient concentration design values equal to or above 85% of a national ambient air quality standard," as defined by the EPA.
Well, guess what? Apparently Kootenai County is approaching 85% and they're looking to assert their local control claims. This could get ugly and exacerbate regional fissures.
Another interesting note: Idaho Transportation Dept. gets roughly $8 million a year in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) money. This money has been used (misused?) for road construction. DEQ would like to use this money to share the cost with gas stations of implementing vapor recovery technology, which would go a long way toward staving off non-attainment. Sounds like a good idea to me. But then again, so does public transit and reduced vehicle miles traveled.
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?
Everybody hates Idaho.
Even people who live here. Okay you might love Boise but you hate Nampa or Moscow or Donnelly. Thats what people do here we hate everybody else.
You a bleeding heart left of center as they come and guess what?
You hate right wingers . Guess what? Right wingers hate you.
I'm a centrist so all I do is laugh.
Keep on hating it show how smawt you are.
I wish we were like Seattle or Boulder but all these stupid right wingers kepp all the enlightened people away.
Why cant we be just like Boulder???
Everybody hates Idaho including you broke ass bankrupt Boise north enders.
I could imagine there being some conservative resistance to home rule; aren't the cities and counties supposed to be "creatures of the state"?
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.
Are there other similarly-sized (population-wise) cities in the West that are just now significantly expanding their public transit? If so, how is it being paid for? Eugene, OR (a similar sized city) has a larger public transit system than Boise but it has been operating for many years.
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.
Is the first step then for Boise, to increase the number of buses to decrease wait time? Is there a demand for it?
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?
Melinda, I rode the bus at least twice a week in 2007 between Kuna and BSU. I drove to BSU west and took the bus in. Coming in, normal commute hours, there were often people standing the whole way. Coming home at normal commute hours, the bus often had to pass by people at a stop because it was full -- and there were only buses every half hour or so. And that was before the big increases in gas prices in 2008.
A civil and lively discussion, with agreement and disagreement, is the idea of comments, including the use of colorful language and phrases, but insults will not continue. Any more will be deleted.
Please read our terms of service. http://www.newwest.net/plain/entry/terms_of_service/
--editor
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.
At the risk of digressing... I'll disagree with you on the "sensibility" of emissions testing. As currently administered, by their own counts well over 90% of vehicles pass the first time. So those owner/operators are subsidizing the cost for the few pollution-spewing vehicles that are "caught." But even more ironic - if your car doesn't pass, and it will cost more than $200 to make it pass - you can apply for an exemption, and drive on. THAT, my friend, is a noodle-scratcher for sure!
http://www.communitiesinmotion.org/Documents/datareports/execsum.pdf
Mark Twain quotes using the word "idiot". "God made the idiot for practice and then he made the School Board". "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself".
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.
More about bicycle efficiency here:
http://bikenazi.blogspot.com/2008/08/transportation-efficiency.html
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.
The thing to remember, though, is that the local option tax vote isn't a vote on public transit. This is a vote to *allow* people in the Treasure Valley to vote on public transit, at which point we can hash out all these details.
http://www.divisionstreetmovie.com
A) More buses, both running inside Boise and from Boise to Kuna, etc.
B) Dedicated rush hour bus lane on I-84
C) If no private company wants to expand on spec to increase the buses, then can we at worst discuss a tax break or subsidy to the company that agrees to lease/purchase and operate the additional buses? Why not Greyhound? Isn't there an existing Greyhound station in downtown Boise?
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.
A) Money, pure and simple. It's a "chicken and egg" argument... which happens first, ridership or buses? Currently the skeptics see the numerous buses that run practically empty, and it's hard to convince them that the problem is "not enough buses." (Frankly, I think the current fleet could be deployed much more effectively, in many cases.)
B) I have asked people at ITD and ACHD Commuteride about the feasibility of using the being-expanded I-84 corridor with an eastbound HOV lane for buses and carpoolers in the morning, and westbound in the afternoon. Many are fully in favor, but apparently the idea would need to be sold to some governor-appointed ad-hoc committee that's overseeing the GARVEE funding. (They would have to be convinced that it's the most cost-effective use of the new pavement. Personally, I'm FULLY in favor of rewarding those who are socially responsible enough to choose carpooling or bus riding. HOV lanes between Boise and Caldwell, during rush hour, would be AWESOME!)
C) Compass has convinced themselves that a huge downtown multi-modal transportation depot needs to be built. (I am far from convinced that it would be a good use of scarce taxpayer dollars.) The fed rules on subsidizing local transportation are constantly changing; in 1995 the feds bought Boise a fleet of shiny new mid-size buses and they had a grand event to celebrate down at the Grove. (Sadly, those buses have been prone to fires - several have burned up at curbside. Not good!) I like tax breaks; also, I expect that the Obama administration will probably be more public-transportation-friendly than the Bush administration has been. But time will tell.
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.
(-;
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!
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009 HOPE FOR THE BEST AND PLAN FOR THE WORST!!!!
However, we all get to take advantage of the cleaner air.