Boise Transportation Thread

[Sawtooth]

Originally Posted by BNF

So the 80 mph is official now? Does anyone know what stretches have been actually changed?

Yes and the ITD website should have the stretches listed. It should be 85.

[isangpogi]

Originally Posted by boi2socal

Even with a local option sales tax I'm not sure any sales tax increase for transit would pass. I mean many communities around here won't even pass school levies. I think public transit will be a hard sale here. In part because of the people that continue to move to Idaho. Most Suburban Californians move to places like Idaho so they can buy bigger houses, leave their sprinklers on all day, and drive their SUVs in less traffic. Additionally, more people are retiring here and older folks tend to be more conservative. I have a successful real estate friend who sells new homes throughout the Valley and Meridian is seeing an influx buyer of families from Utah apparently.

I agree freeways can be very negative, but in 20-30 years (maybe far less) if there is only one east-west freeway traffic will be an absolute nightmare with or without better public transit. Even making Chinden from 184 to Eagle Road a freeway or expressway would have little neighborhood impact. Most of Garden City is run down and I noticed that other parts of the Valley seem to be doing fine while Chinden still has a large amount of empty/abandoned store fronts.

Development follows transportation. Other cities have seen much higher growth in the past 20 years without adding freeways. Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, etc. There comes a point when people realize they can't be 25 miles from their jobs and have a quick commute, so they stay in the city and density increases.

Other cities continue to add freeways (not just lanes, but brand new freeways). These cities, like SLC and Phoenix just keep growing outward.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by isangpogi

Development follows transportation. Other cities have seen much higher growth in the past 20 years without adding freeways. Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, etc. There comes a point when people realize they can't be 25 miles from their jobs and have a quick commute, so they stay in the city and density increases.

Other cities continue to add freeways (not just lanes, but brand new freeways). These cities, like SLC and Phoenix just keep growing outward.

We haven't added a freeway since I-215 in the 60's/80's. That Utah can barely create new freeways with a lack of real funding and legal opposition (see Legacy Parkway), should demonstrate that a real chapter has been turned in the subsidization of sprawl.

[Sawtooth]

We don't need a freeway running along the river. Garden City is turning around with all of the breweries and wineries opening up along Chinden, the Woman Of Steel Gallery complex, and new upscale housing along the river in areas by the whitewater park which includes some live-work units, with more in the plans, and the fancy redo of 36th Street, not to mention the expensive subdivisions near the river west of Glenwood. Sooner or later those empty store fronts along Chinden will be occupied and it is already beginning to happen.


State Street/Highway 44 is the best option for an east/west expressway without becoming a freeway. Plans are already in the works for expanding State Street west from downtown and a section of State west of Eagle has been expanded. I think eventually there will probably be a freeway or expressway south of I-84 cutting through precious farmland. The bright spot currently in the valley is downtown which is becoming the hotspot for new residential development and I see this trend continuing indefinitely so there is hope, keep your fingers crossed.

[boisecynic]

Originally Posted by isangpogi

... There comes a point when people realize they can't be 25 miles from their jobs and have a quick commute, so they stay in the city and density increases.

Transportation follows development could be equally valid.

I'd like to address that, again. Development following transportation assumes people have a choice but do they really. Like I said, much of inner Boise is zoned R1 and R2 and is already mostly built out. There's not much for sale at any price relative to the total valley wide demand.

Due to the limited supply of land/housing in inner Boise, or any inner city, only one thing can happen and that's price goes up. A lot. So now we're faced with choosing increased density where it's allowed, which isn't a whole lot of places. I'd like to point out that nearly all our denser cities have higher housing costs. With the densest, like NYC and SF being the most expensive. So is density really a solution to housing problems? And SF City has severe construction limits.

One problem with increased density is that construction costs rise considerably. A few of the cost burdens are things like mandated fire walls, fire sprinklers, elevators, handicap provisions and a lot more, which are not mandated for R1 or R2 housing. Some infill housing depending on density incurs other costs mandated by the city such as paving the alley or completing sidewalks which aren't even adjacent to the property.

This isn't meant to be a $100,000 study on the issue, it's a quick look at what I see to be all the root causes of sprawl. Zoning laws and building codes and plain population growth really don't get enough credit, er, discredit. About 5000 a year graduate from TV area high schools and what-- 1300 or so from BSU and then there's the net migration to the area.

Remember also, as the radius of a circle grows the area of land contained within grows by a factor of πr^2. A one mile radius from the capitol contains only 3.14 sq miles of land. 2 mile radius contains 12.56 sq miles of land. 20 miles away from downtown contains 1256 sq miles. That's 20 times farther away but it contains 400 times the land area.

[Cottonwood]

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/one...nt?oid=3192290

One Way or the Other: Eighth Street Swaps Directions
Starting in early September, traffic will no longer flow north to south on the two blocks, but reverse directions to run one-way from south to north.

This fall will bring some big changes to Boise's downtown core, with construction on the Grove to build City Center Plaza--which will include a subterranean transit center--and the resurfacing of Capitol Boulevard.

[isangpogi]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

We haven't added a freeway since I-215 in the 60's/80's. That Utah can barely create new freeways with a lack of real funding and legal opposition (see Legacy Parkway), should demonstrate that a real chapter has been turned in the subsidization of sprawl.

Legacy Parkway is a freeway, correct? Completed 2008? Then there's the Mtn View Corridor in planning phase.

Originally Posted by boisecynic

This isn't meant to be a $100,000 study on the issue, it's a quick look at what I see to be all the root causes of sprawl. Zoning laws and building codes and plain population growth really don't get enough credit, er, discredit. About 5000 a year graduate from TV area high schools and what-- 1300 or so from BSU and then there's the net migration to the area.

What's the better solution then, change the zoning laws to encourage density or build freeways that enable sprawl? One demographic fact of Boise working against density is that Boise is a family city, and families understandably want room to play. They won't be happy in a 2 bedroom apartment in the city, no matter how trendy.

Wonder if it would make much of a difference if State Street went to three lanes. Much of it already is at three lanes anyway, or at least 2 lanes with generous shoulders and building setbacks. Make the new lane a Bus/HOV lane to encourage carpooling.

BTW, under current Idaho law only counties with populations of 25k or less can have HOV lanes. WTF??? http://idahoreporter.com/boise-legis...carpool-lanes/

[Evo5Boise]

Lots of valid points being made in here. I just feel that freeways/expressways are a necessary evil when it comes to cities growing. I'm not saying that Boise needs to look like a mini-LA but I do think they should have/continue to think about a plan to move people around. A city that stands out in my mind I have visited is Hunstville, Al. I woudn't say it is bigger than Boise, closely comparable, but they had a fantastic freeway/expressway system setup throughout their metro area.

Boise is going to be pushing 1 million in the metro in say, 15-20 years, and we still have one freeway running through this entire valley. I don't really count 1-184 for much.

[boi2socal]

Originally Posted by isangpogi

Development follows transportation. Other cities have seen much higher growth in the past 20 years without adding freeways. Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, etc. There comes a point when people realize they can't be 25 miles from their jobs and have a quick commute, so they stay in the city and density increases.

Other cities continue to add freeways (not just lanes, but brand new freeways). These cities, like SLC and Phoenix just keep growing outward.

Well, Boise is more like SLC and PHX than those very progressive cities you mentioned. Yes, Boise has a progressive core but that still represents a small portion of the metro and will continue to be a small part. You have to consider who's moving to the Boise Area as well. And just look at the per capita transit thread. Pretty telling. It simply isn't of importance in Boise.

[JustakidfromBoise]

Originally Posted by boi2socal

Well, Boise is more like SLC and PHX than those very progressive cities you mentioned. Yes, Boise has a progressive core but that still represents a small portion of the metro and will continue to be a small part. You have to consider who's moving to the Boise Area as well. And just look at the per capita transit thread. Pretty telling. It simply isn't of importance in Boise.

What would make it more of importance?

[Sawtooth]

Originally Posted by boi2socal

And just look at the per capita transit thread. Pretty telling. It simply isn't of importance in Boise.

Not exactly. Valley Ride offers limited routes and times and the transfers are inconvenient and I can drive or bike to work much quicker then taking a bus. If we had a drastically better bus system I feel more people would take advantage of it, even those "non progressives" outside of the city core lol.

What is telling about Boise over in the transit ridership thread is the cycling graph Cottonwood posted and the comment from kidboise about how he bikes to work more a year then he drives. I bike to work a lot and am always impressed at how many others do too. If I do drive the cyclists outnumber cars on several streets I use. During rushhour the bike traffic jams on 8t Street and the greenbelt are lovely.

[JustakidfromBoise]

The bus system is pretty bad and needs improving but would they even be willing to spend the money to improve it if ridership doesn't increase. It just seems like no more riders without better system and no better system without more riders. How do we get unstuck?

[BoiseAirport]

Originally Posted by boi2socal

Well, Boise is more like SLC and PHX than those very progressive cities you mentioned. Yes, Boise has a progressive core but that still represents a small portion of the metro and will continue to be a small part. You have to consider who's moving to the Boise Area as well. And just look at the per capita transit thread. Pretty telling. It simply isn't of importance in Boise.

Have you been to SLC recently? They have one of the most progressive public transportation systems for a metro area their size in the US.

Boise's low transit ridership lies squarely with antiquated Idaho state laws that shackle our ability to invest in any non-road/highway public transportation option. It's a complete joke, and it's disingenuous to say it's the result of no demand. Of course there's going to be no demand when all we can afford is a pathetic schedule and network that doesn't even run on Sundays.

[kidboise]

Originally Posted by BoiseAirport

Have you been to SLC recently? They have one of the most progressive public transportation systems for a metro area their size in the US.

Boise's low transit ridership lies squarely with antiquated Idaho state laws that shackle our ability to invest in any non-road/highway public transportation option. It's a complete joke, and it's disingenuous to say it's the result of no demand. Of course there's going to be no demand when all we can afford is a pathetic schedule and network that doesn't even run on Sundays.

This. My thoughts exactly. Quoting for the sake of reiteration--nothing else to add.

[boi2socal]

Originally Posted by BoiseAirport

Have you been to SLC recently? They have one of the most progressive public transportation systems for a metro area their size in the US.

Boise's low transit ridership lies squarely with antiquated Idaho state laws that shackle our ability to invest in any non-road/highway public transportation option. It's a complete joke, and it's disingenuous to say it's the result of no demand. Of course there's going to be no demand when all we can afford is a pathetic schedule and network that doesn't even run on Sundays.

I think it is disingenuous that blame is put on State Law. Last time I checked people vote for the people that love those antiquated laws. Except for a couple districts in Boise.

[Sawtooth]

Originally Posted by boi2socal

I think it is disingenuous that blame is put on State Law. Last time I checked people vote for the people that love those antiquated laws. Except for a couple districts in Boise.

Going back as far as 1998 both Ada and Canyon County voters approved the formation of the regional transit system. In 2008 Ada County voters approved an increase in auto registration fees and to finance bike lanes and better traffic routes to ease congestion. This is off topic to the discussion, but back in 2001 Boise residents voted to raise taxes to protect the Foothills from development, so I would say based on all of this that people in the valley would be in favor of tax options for better transportation. The fact is the Boise Metro has to battle the rest of the state in the Statehouse to get any of the old laws changed or updated. It really has nothing to do with people here not wanting better public transit. I don't even remember the last time the local tax option was brought up during the Session in the statehouse. Boise is often viewed as the big bad bitch by state legislatures from other areas of the state and they don't understand us in the valley because we are urban and they are not.

I agree with BoiseAirport's comment.

I guess those of us who live in Boise, work here, see the sun come up everyday and see the sun set everyday, and know that our mayor and city council are generally in favor of better transport and witness how our do nothing state legislature acts during the session, we have a pulse on what is going on and view things differently from someone who lives in a distant state.

[BoiseAirport]

Originally Posted by boi2socal

I think it is disingenuous that blame is put on State Law. Last time I checked people vote for the people that love those antiquated laws. Except for a couple districts in Boise.

The people preventing these outdated state laws from changing are largely representatives from rural Idaho whom Treasure Valley voters cannot vote for.

Let's take HOV lanes for example. Did you know Idaho bans HOV lanes, except in counties that have 25,000 people or less? When you're done spinning from the brilliance of that logic, think about this: If Boise citizens want HOV lanes, we're powerless because House committees comprised by a rural Idaho legislator majority have blocked every recent attempt to get rid of this restriction. So sorry, but yes it's completely disingenuous to say that people in the Treasure Valley are to blame for this. If every Boise metro area representative voted to give the bill a hearing, it still wouldn't have passed committee.

How about a Local Option Sales Tax. This is a common method of raising funds to invest in public transportation. Imagine a scenario where the citizens of Ada County would be allowed to vote to increase sales tax by (just for example) six-tenths of a cent over 30 years ONLY in Ada County. That would more than enough to dramatically improve the schedules and network of ValleyRide. Except Idaho bans Ada and most other counties from using this measure to raise funds. Even if Ada County voters supported a local sales tax in a landslide, we're out of luck because every recent bill to remove this restriction has been blocked from even being given a hearing. Who's blocking these bills? Well the last time it was the Speaker of the House Lawerence Denney who represents District 9A, from Council, ID, population 839. The new Speaker of the House is Bedke, a farmer who represents 27A, from Oakley, ID, population 736, and I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to block any similar measure like this predecessor.

Idaho is one of the most restrictive states when it comes to letting local communities raise money. And the problem is that when it comes to political power in this State to change these laws, Treasure Valley voters are largely powerless.

[BoiseAirport]

Ooooooooooooff, I was in such a good mood and then I had to think about Idaho politics. Time to chill and have a beer.

[boi2socal]

Originally Posted by Sawtooth

I guess those of us who live in Boise, work here, see the sun come up everyday and see the sun set everyday, and know that our mayor and city council are generally in favor of better transport and witness how our do nothing state legislature acts during the session, we have a pulse on what is going on and view things differently from someone who lives in a distant state.

I've been back here a month, grew up here, know more about city happenings than my own clueless family and friends that live here. So whatever man. Pretty typical Boisean response or knocking other cities to validate Boise.

[Boiseguy]

I'm going to have to chime in here and agree with sawtooth and everyone else..
the problem is our state legislature.. and the fact that every area of the state hates boise and in turn hate taxes.. allowing locals to tax is like opening pandora's box for them.. when they start seeing something cool in boise, they're going to want to do it there.. and then as business owners in those areas(because most representatives in their districts are well to do influential business people in their respective districts) they're going to have to open their wallets to help pay for it and that's not going to fly…
it's about keeping the option away from the people to keep the status quo…
boi2socal.. I think you're very up to speed on many topics on this board regarding boise and this area, but on this one.. you're just wrong… sorry