Open House Summary May 22, 2008

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Summary of Open House Participant Comments

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Summary of Open House Participant Comments May 2008

Valley Regional Transit (VRT) and Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) hosted a second open house for the Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study on May 22, 2008.

The study involves three interrelated projects:

• Multimodal Center: A facility that brings together many transportation modes and services at a single location. • Downtown Circulator: Transit service that provides efficient connections between primary destinations in the downtown area. • I-84 Priority Corridor: A plan for high-capacity transit services along the I-84 corridor within Ada and Canyon counties.

The first open house for the study was held in January 2008. The second open house provided a final opportunity for the public to comment on the location of a multimodal transportation center in downtown Boise. VRT will recommend a location in July.

The multimodal center will connect various transportation modes and services. It will be the first of a network of facilities around the Valley. Construction is expected to begin in late 2009 or early 2010.

At the open house, the public also reviewed and commented on two alternative alignments for a downtown circulator. Also shown were preliminary considerations for the I-84 Priority Corridor plan.

VRT and COMPASS are conducting the study in partnership with Ada County, Ada County Highway District (ACHD), the City of Boise, Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC), the Downtown Business Association (DBA) and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD).

RBCI May 2008 Page 2 of 11

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Summary of Open House Participant Comments

Open House Process

Approximately 250 people attended the May 22, 2008 open house. Representatives from VRT, COMPASS, URS, HDR, RBCI, the City of Boise, CCDC and ITD conducted the all-day event. It took place in the Mode Building at 802 W. Idaho Street in downtown Boise.

To notify citizens of the open house, VRT and COMPASS mailed a postcard to 22,172 businesses and residents in downtown Boise and the surrounding area and key stakeholders.

COMPASS also distributed an electronic postcard invitation to its database (1,300). The DBA distributed the electronic invitation to its members (1,200). VRT, COMPASS, the City of Boise and Ada County also posted a notice of the open house on their respective Web sites.

VRT placed two posters on each of its buses in the Treasure Valley.

Project staff passed out postcard invitations downtown at the Idaho Green Expo and the Capital City Public Market on Saturday, May 17, 2008.

Signs were hung in the windows of the Mode Building one week in advance of the open house. With the help of ACHD, signs were strategically placed in six downtown locations one day before the open house.

The Idaho Statesman, NPR News and KBOI announced the open house within two days prior to the event. KBOI followed up with a story.

At the open house, participants viewed a series of informational displays regarding the recommended and alternate sites for a downtown multimodal center and alternative alignments for the downtown circulator. They also saw a plan for future regional high-capacity transit services.

Other stations included VRT’s Treasure Valley in Transit and COMPASS’ Communities in Motion.

RBCI May 2008 Page 3 of 11

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Summary of Open House Participant Comments

Comment Summary

Experts staffed the following display stations to answer questions and encourage written comments.

• About this Study: Participants learned about the projects and who is involved. • Multimodal Center: Attendees reviewed and commented on the recommended and alternate sites and site plan alternatives. • Downtown Circulator: Attendees reviewed and commented on alignment alternatives. • I-84 Priority Corridor: Participants saw a plan for regional high-capacity transit.

Attendees provided their written comments using comment sheets and Post-it notes. Eighty-six (86) comment sheets were received; another 107 comments were written on Post-it notes.

A summary of public comments gathered at the open house follows. Transcribed comments are included in the appendix.

RBCI May 2008 Page 4 of 11

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Summary of Open House Participant Comments

MULTIMODAL CENTER SITE

Participants were asked to comment on what they like and dislike about the recommended site for the multimodal center, Site H, as well as the alternate site, A. Of the 118 comments received, the following were the most often repeated or notable comments.

SITE H LIKES Site H is a half city block on the east side of 11th Street between Bannock and Idaho streets. • Smaller lot size promotes density. • Central location makes Site H favorable for pedestrians. • Site H would be safer for pedestrians than Site A. • Site H has opportunity for development. SITE H DISLIKES • Site H is too small to accommodate multimodal center needs. • A transit system should intercept people closer to their origin than their destination. Site H is too close to downtown destinations. • A good connection to high-capacity transit service will be crucial for Site H. • Site H is more expensive per square foot than Site A. SITE A LIKES Site A is a city block bounded by 12th and 13th streets and Front and Grove streets. • Locating the center at Site A will promote needed redevelopment in this area. • Site A has enough space to accommodate all multimodal center functions and services. • Large lot size will enable future growth and expansion of the center. • Site A will be a better site in the long run. SITE A DISLIKES • Surrounding busy streets are too dangerous for pedestrians. A pedestrian bridge would be necessary. • Transit vehicles moving in and out of the facility will interrupt traffic.

RBCI May 2008 Page 5 of 11

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Summary of Open House Participant Comments

MULTIMODAL CENTER DESIGN

Participants were asked what they would like considered with regard to design and site plans for the multimodal center. Of the 19 comments received, the following were the most often repeated or notable. • Consider pedestrian and bicycle traffic in site plan. • Build to pedestrian-scale. • Design an attractive facility that complements the surrounding architecture. • Offer small-scale retail such as coffee shop, restaurant and newsstand.

RBCI May 2008 Page 6 of 11

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Summary of Open House Participant Comments

DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES

Participants were asked to write what they like and dislike about two alignment alternatives for a downtown circulator. Of the 67 comments about the circulator, the following were the most often repeated or notable.

MAIN, IDAHO COUPLET The Main, Idaho Couplet would circulate Main and Idaho streets between 1st and 16th streets. Likes: • Easy-to-remember loop will be user-friendly. • Connects east and west ends of downtown. • Future extensions will be necessary to make the circulator a success. Dislikes: A total of 9 comments expressed “dislikes” about the Main, Idaho Couplet. • Consider a Main, Bannock Couplet. • Extend the loop further west to promote needed redevelopment.

MAIN, IDAHO/ IDAHO, BANNOCK COUPLET The Main, Idaho/Idaho, Bannock Couplet would circulate Main and Idaho streets between 1st and 10th streets. It would also circulate Idaho and Bannock between 10th and 17th streets. Likes: • Gives greater north-south coverage. • Connects more destinations. • Would encourage redevelopment along Main Street west of 10th Street. Dislikes: • Longer route may be more complicated for users. • This alternative will cost more to implement.

RBCI May 2008 Page 7 of 11

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Summary of Open House Participant Comments

GENERAL COMMENTS

Overall, participants were very excited about the efforts to improve and expand transit services in the Treasure Valley. Following are the most often repeated or notable comments:

MASS TRANSIT IS NEEDED Many participants were supportive of implementing high-capacity transit throughout the V a lley. They said: • Public transportation improvements are needed now. • Transit provides a long-term solution for addressing population growth and air quality in the Valley. • The priority corridor will provide a greater benefit than the circulator. Spend the money on a rail corridor to get people downtown, and then implement a circulator.

INVOLVE PRIVATE SECTOR IN FUNDING AND DEVELOPMENT Many participants were supportive of public-private partnerships for the development and ongoing funding of transit. They said: • Businesses should provide some of the funding needed for transit improvements. • Plan public-private partnership wisely and to the benefit of both. • A rail system is favorable for downtown development because it is permanent and more appealing to potential riders. • Tie circulator stops to development plans to encourage developers to provide funding for transit. • Ask the Boise Convention and Visitors Bureau and downtown hoteliers for input on the multimodal center and circulator projects.

ENHANCE CURRENT BUS SYSTEM Many participants said they would like to see improvements to the bus system. They said: • More buses and more frequent stops are desired. • Longer hours of operation and Sunday bus service would be useful to many. • Provide better north-south coverage. • Valley Regional Transit is doing a great job. Keep up the good work.

RBCI May 2008 Page 8 of 11

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Summary of Open House Participant Comments MAKE TRANSIT CONVENIENT TO USE Many participants said transit should be easy and convenient for all to use. They said: • Transit stops must be frequent and relevant to encourage busy riders. • Reach out to young people. They represent your future ridership. • Make transit inexpensive for riders.

PROVIDE MORE PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE FEATURES Many participants said improvements are needed to accommodate the increasing numbers of pedestrian and cyclists downtown. They said: • Build pedestrian bridges over Front and Myrtle streets to keep people safe. • Provide a bike boulevard and secure parking for bicycles downtown.

RBCI May 2008 Page 9 of 11

APPENDICES

• Transcribed Comments • Comment Sheets • Notification/Fact Sheet • Posters • News Release

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Multimodal Center Recommended Site: H Comment Transcriptions

*Comments are transcribed verbatim. A blank line (______) indicates that the comment was not legible. Site H “Likes” A total of 19 participants indicated they like Site H on comment sheets provided. 1. This is my preference for the multimodal center. Although Boise is growing within downtown core—this is closer (walking distance) to core of downtown along Idaho/8th. Also closer to government offices and other businesses. 2. I like the fact that something is happening and that local interests are involved. Some innovation and public comment has been requested. What is being done with that comment is a concern. 3. Ideally located from a pedestrian standpoint, which may be the primary factor in choosing a location. Bringing commuters/visitors/etc. directly into the middle of downtown would be a beautiful thing. 4. I like the fact that it is located in the center of downtown area and would have the potential of attracting people there. I also like the fact that rail lines would be connected in the future. 5. 6. Convenient to employment sites in downtown other site is too far from actual downtown area especially in the winter. 7. Site H is central. Site H is smaller (promotes density). Site H has better views and seems more pedestrian friendly. 8. More pedestrian friendly 9. Great center location for downtown core. 10. Make driving downtown too expensive. Make the multimodal site work really well with surface transport beyond the 2-3 block walking radius of the site. The multimodal sites each seem to serve a very large parking lot as a neighbor. Site H actual serves 2 parking lots. Would a better site have users (office, retail, housing) on all of the sides? Both sites __ in getting people the U.S. Bank tower. This transfer station plus buses will be required to get to the 3 largest floor ___ office buildings downtown. How on earth will either site serve passenger rail? Check out LA’s new transit centers—transit as one component in a large development. Thanks for all your work. 11. I do not like much about the site. I do like the idea of a multimodal center. I think there are more efficient areas. 12. Stick to site plan 2. Do not remove existing parking on west side of 11th Street. 13. Closer to my home, cheaper to build, could use geothermal for heat. 14. I like A better. 15. Connects with downtown circulator. 16. Close to downtown core. 17. It is closer to city center, employment, shopping etc. Less costly (existing development).

RBCI Page 1 of 5 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

18. (Like Site A) Close to convention center On main East-West artery (Front St.) Larger than H Better long term option for development at adjacent properties than H It is still well within walking distance of downtown amenities—it depends on which ones you want to go to. 19. 20. Great location, lots of opportunities. 21. Like location H. However, it will limit you as needs increase – too small of a space to really serve and function as it should. Your vision needs to accommodate a ‘wider’ view – bigger future – not so provincial in your approach – we have so many of those mistakes here now and do so much over – what should have accommodated a bigger vision and more use – and then $ and land are gone. Do this right the first time!

A total of 27 participants indicated they like Site H by writing on sticky notes provided. • Good location seems like it would be safe at night. Could it be built for expansion? • Support site H Plan 2 the buses will be parked off the street. • Good site: Scheme 1 seems strongest. Pays attention to the relationship between Buildings/Roads (building to the street fosters a sense of urban density). • Like site being closer to downtown but am uncertain how it could connect with any light rail without excess cost. • Good site. Go for it ASAP. • Like this for “downtown” but what is plan for growth/expansion if/when needed? • Good location, easier for pedestrians. Like Plan 2 with buses off the street. Good for downtown workers if bus routes are frequent and timely. • Best choice. Site H. People will walk from here and not as likely from the other sites. Keep it simple and people will use it. • What is the water table-opportunity for 4-5 floors underground? Yes to this idea. • Close to commercial bus station (Greyhound, etc.), which is helpful to those travelers. • Ideal location. Location should not negate/hinder connection to high-capacity transit access. Small site— higher density. I’m in favor of higher density. • Support site H. • H my choice. It’s closer to BODO than I thought. Need bridge over Front—that’s a must. • How about 10 stories—must provide all the services necessary for people to leave their cars behind. • We support H. This is centrally located. • For Site H • Please pay close attention to encouraging users/activities-small retail, permanent farmer’s market. Make this a public space people want to go to and through. • Support Site H. Any plans for the parking lot across 11th street? Green space? • As a single female I would feel more secure in site H in the evenings or night than A. • Like the centralization. • Make the site most convenient for pedestrians. I prefer site H. • H makes the most sense. • H is a great location.

RBCI Page 2 of 5 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

• Site H seems to plug-in better with future plans for light rail—be forward looking in your planning. Have a larger plan and build the pieces, as you are able. • Definitely for the H site more centrally located. • Good pick for center at Site H. • Site H is a better location for the center. It encourages to walk, ride, etc. Land up more in a central area. Also: Pedestrian bridges!!!

Site H “Dislikes” A total of 15 participants indicated they dislike Site H on comment sheets provided.

1. Will ½ block accommodate intended services—if building is several stories believe it will. 2. Federal partners are being limited to “who” is offering. Finding for studies, rail controllers have both been invited for comment or convention. The thoughts that Dept. of Defense have both been invited into discussion. Mt. Home AFB has a considerable interest in a rail project in both keeping their personnel safe and active and emergency processing the population of veterans, people with disabilities and department of corrections detainees/releases has not been considered effectively. This subject has been approached in the past and now it seems the same approach is being taken (is it going to work “THIS TIME”?) Contact Dept. of Corrections—for input as well as Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Dept. of Vocational Rehabilitation and involve corridor cities and counties and AFB/Mtn. Home. Get railroad input, enlist strong passionate speakers for gaining public support. Open up to new approaches. 3. Smaller site appears to have fewer possibilities for future development of retail/office, residential/parking necessary or ideal to support center. Site appears to be less able to accommodate connection to high capacity light rail transit system. Not ideally located to where I would imagine a rail line would enter downtown. I would hate to compromise the feasibility of a rail line. 4. I am concerned that the partnership between private and public entities needs to be planned wisely so that both partners thrive under the agreement. One concern would be the private partner charging undue high rent for the system. 5. If the point of encouraging greater transit use is to ease congestion, reduce fuel consumption and improve air quality, then I think these goals are very important, then it seems that site A offers better access for transit vehicles arriving from the west via the connector. This assumes that BRT is part of the solution, but will impact traffic operations in the downtown core. 6. Starting with the multimodal site first appears to be putting the cart before the horse. The transit system needs to build up its regular services first. A lot of people in this area strongly car focused! They want transit for the other guy to use. 7. Site A is too close to Front St. Site A is too large (why waste downtown land?) Site A is not as conveniently located in proximity to downtown. 8. Site A is closer to the convention center down the road this will make a huge difference. 9. Perhaps not the easiest access to the west end of the valley—good connection to light rail (or whatever is chosen) would be imperative. 10.

RBCI Page 3 of 5 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

11. 1) Not close to major traffic corridors. 2) The site is too small for future growth and alternate transportation 3) Not compatible to businesses in area. 4) The lingering/people waiting for transportation is better at site A. Site H could negatively impact the area/business Site A would have less impact. 12. 13. Smaller than A 14. I worry that this site is too small to accommodate future growth and expansion of both the downtown core and growing mass transit needs. This seems particularly true if the rail line also circles this site. Of course Front and grove (A) don’t look pedestrian friendly now but how will they integrate into the downtown core in 10-20 years? Seems they will become the heart of the city, near the traditional core and tying into the Linen District, Library District and 8th St. warehouse district. Also, couldn’t site A accommodate parking structure above the street level area? 15. Smaller site less opportunity for street level activity __accessible for regional transit—light rail. 16. Smaller than Site A—less able to expand, provide services as public transit takes root and becomes common place in the valley. Also no easy access to the greenbelt. (Site A is only 4 or so blocks from Shoreline). Site plan 1—I like the idea of the buses loading within one block. 17. Smaller site. 18. 19. Too small—we’ll outgrow it before it’s built Why here when it could be on Front Street? I just don’t see how this integrates with high capacity transit as well as Site A Only has 3 sided access Why is this the #1 choice, yet it wasn’t part of the January consideration for the public??? 20. 21. Do not like any of your site scenarios. They seem like bus parking lots – and this cannot seem like a bus parking lot if you want it to maximize and enhance use. Especially needs to feel pedestrian – both in access and perception – all the bus parking lining the road and view to ‘center’ will deter this frontage has to be a cosmopolitan urban type – invite in – then distribution to various transport modes. Not sifting through buses to get in.

A total of 11 participants indicated they dislike Site H by writing on sticky notes provided. • Too expensive in cost/sq. ft. compared to site A. • Too small-adds traffic to inner downtown. • What is the plan for this parking lot? As is, it seems like a barrier to development to the west. • I thought there would be a parking structure. • I don’t think this location reduced trips or vehicle miles. Would like to see an MMC that intercepts people closer to their origin not their destination. • Whose brother-in-law owns a business across the street from this site? • Site H is too limited, not truly multi-modal. Site A would serve the primary corridor along Front/Myrtle, Conv. Center, Courthouse, BoDo District, Linen District, easier access across river in existing bridge. • Too small, too far from greenbelt. • This site will seriously hurt development on the west side. • Pedestrian area too small. Total area for transit should include N. to YMCA and E. to St. Luke’s.

RBCI Page 4 of 5 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

• Site H is too small where is the ability to expand is needed.

RBCI Page 5 of 5 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Multimodal Center Alternate Site: A Comment Transcriptions

*Comments are transcribed verbatim. A blank line (______) indicates that the comment was not legible. Site A “Likes” A total of 25 participants indicated they like Site A by writing on sticky notes provided. • Closer to greenbelt-long term very important to think bike n ride. • Larger offer green space. • Like the proposed light rail, more space for future expansion. Looks like better location with more room. • Site A is the superior location, it is bigger, closer to the convention center, and may help revitalize that area of town. Don’t believe the naysayer, 4 blocks from downtown is not too far, even in a wheelchair it’s a short distance. However, pedestrian bridges over the big streets would be essential. • This is a superior site from the aspect of tying to high capacity transit-4 sided access is the way to go—It would put the convention center in a better place. • Large potential green space for large groups of people. Better option for bike n ride option. Please put the bike 10 blocks and ride bus rest of way option into thought/plan. • Easy circulation for buses, taxi’s, etc. Room for police substation, full service centers for bikes. Room for expansion. Close access to Greenbelt (Shoreline and 13th) Less disruptive to high flow of traffic in downtown core. Northbound lane is least used, as traffic is directed past connector, and impact would be much less than on streets around site H. • Site A…is closer to BoDo and new developments but… • Much better choice. Bigger and better for light rail. • This has more space and more opportunity for expansion. Great location as long as the pedestrian safety issue would be addressed. This is a part of town that could benefit from some attention. • Best site. • Better one. • Think in terms of 20 years from now. This site works the best to facilitate regional transit, i.e. light rail. Access to existing regional facilities. Nampa and Caldwell taxpayers asking “what’s in it for me?” • Less disruptive to traffic flow. (the way the buses are off the street). • Seems a better long-term choice—ideally off major corridor like the idea of a pedestrian bridge. • Potential for city to grow and expand may make this more favorable. Tying in light rail/mass transit valley wise may be easier and less $ @ A. • Better site long term 20/30 years • I like the flexibility of this site for light rail and other transportation modes than buses. • Site A offers long term more options—bigger space, better access to regional light rail better opportunities at Street level—farmer’s market, small interesting retail, sidewalk cafes.

RBCI Page 1 of 2 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

• Please think long term! Front Street can become an asset! All that space for bus lanes, street cars, light rail, with creativity Front Street could become pedestrian friendly-a beautiful boulevard! • Close to transportation routes i.e. easy on/off for mass transit. Close to future development i.e. convention center/hotels/grove. • Use pedestrian bridge across Front Street. I second the need for pedestrian bridges over Front Street. • Consider pedestrian bridges to address safety issues on Front Street. • Site A best for true multimodal (light rail, busses, auto, etc). On main travel corridor with access across river in __ rr bridge closest to major growth area. (Convention center, BoDo district, Linen District, Courthouse Complex, Civic Plaza, new hotels, URS, etc.) • Good idea.

Site A “Dislikes”

A total of 17 participants indicated they dislike Site A by writing on sticky notes provided. • There is too much pedestrian traffic across Front Street as it is. This site would encourage more and be a very dangerous situation. Also seems (is) further from city center. • Between two wide busy streets not pedestrian friendly—as woman I wouldn’t want to go there in the dark! • H is a more central location. Work on Site H. • Great for bus drivers but poor for pedestrians. Would encourage growth in this part of downtown and could be a central location in 20 years. • Bad location – don’t even think about it. • Dangerous for pedestrians-an accident waiting to happen (Front St.) Potential traffic congestion on Front for buses in north lane. I second that! • Right along Front Street??? Not exactly pedestrian friendly. • Only if you have pedestrian walk bridges over Front Street. (3 people said ditto, Amen) • It’s too far away from the core. It has to be convenient to get people to use it. • This is an awful location. It’s near nowhere people want to be! At a half-mile walk to either the statehouse or Old Boise, people will just stay in their cars. • Very dangerous area for pedestrian and bike riders. • BAD IDEA Pedestrians first! • Not a good choice for professional building district. • Bad location for accidents/further from BoDo and desired places. • Huge pedestrian problem here! Too close to the connector entrance—5:00 traffic is bad. • Currently a “crusty” area of town. • How old is this picture?

RBCI Page 2 of 2 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Multimodal Center Design Comment Transcriptions

*Comments are transcribed verbatim. A blank line (______) indicates that the comment was not legible. What would you like considered in the multimodal center design and site plan? A total of 14 participants provided the following comments on comment sheets. 1. Fit into architectural style of surrounding area. Have public art/public history info pertaining to history of transit within Ada/Canyon county. Provide coffee/lunch areas. 2. 3. Due to location of this center I would personally place a high priority on the goal of light rail and let the other decision follow (such as the location of the center). If it can be shown that the light rail system can seamlessly connect at this hub…then disregard the above. 4. Having a main plan Braking it into doable or “bite size” phases. Educating the public and giving them access to be able to participate. 5. Integration with bike/ped movement—greenbelt, etc. 6. No 7. MODERNITY!!! Don’t make this a monstrosity, it should be centerpiece of civic pride and Boise’s architectural heritage. It should respect its context but also be “of its time”) Also, build to the street edge and respect the human scale! Thank you!! 8. Please include retail/restaurants on 1st floor. What could be better than enjoying a cup of coffee/beer while waiting for your bus? Also plenty of bike storage and showers. DON’T create another modernist monstrosity like city hall. Why not have a building with character? Make it become a signature building for Boise. Also, isn’t this duplicating the multimodal center on the BSU campus? Are you talking with them? 9. 10. 11. The cost per square foot is better at Site A. Site H is too expensive. 12. 13. Safety for pedestrians and bike riders. Protection from cars. 14. 15. Vibrant activities Farmer’s market Sidewalk café Small retail—Gallery, pizza, newsstand, knit/yarn shop, books. 16. Provide WiFi for students, business people to use while waiting. Bicycle transportation should be encouraged and provided for ___. Lots of bike racks, a full service repair shop, self-service repair tools? And secure storage and (or rental services…something like Bike trees-Google it!) I’d like to se a pedestrian bridge over Front at 13th. 17 Good security in late p.m. (assuming service will eventually be expanded to 12-1 a.m.)

RBCI Page 1 of 2 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

18. 19. 20. Alternate site A is awful. Too far from the statehouse and Old Boise; likely to cause people to stay in their cars. 21. Has to have community kiosks, maps – some commercial/retail and attractive interior and exterior plazas for waiting. Needs to have nearby parking for commuters who will eventually link to got to Caldwell, etc. That’s why H is too small. Think bigger – major network/hub BIG. Bike lockers, parking. Thanks, we know you’re working very well at this and we are grateful! A total of 5 participants wrote the following comments on sticky notes. • Site plan 3 (see drawing on post-it note) better pedestrian/rider safety • 2- I prefer site plan 2 because street crossing is eliminated. Closer in than other sites also important! • 2-this is way better because 11th street is less disrupted. • 2-maximize use for transportation and don’t sacrifice space to retail! • Plan 2-better arrangement of bus terminals along on peninsula—will prevent/reduce pedestrian traffic crossing in front of buses.

RBCI Page 2 of 2 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Downtown Circulator Alignment Alternative—Main, Idaho Couplet Comment Transcriptions

*Comments are transcribed verbatim. A blank line (______) indicates that the comment was not legible. Main, Idaho Couplet “Likes” A total of 10 participants indicated they like the Main, Idaho Couplet on comment sheets provided. 1. It will make access to downtown much more rider friendly. 2. Linear path maybe better in avoiding negative impacts on auto traffic. MAYBE. 3. Both circulators provide transportation in business/government center—this circulator appears to provide more identifiable path. People used to getting on transit in this area glad to have this option-available- addresses concern. 4. Really the difference here are sixes. I’m still surprised that so many people are so lazy that they need a bus loop this short. I wonder about the feasibility of a downtown circulator. Sure, they worked in other bigger cities, but those are much denser and yes have much rainier weather. I don’t see myself ever using this unless elderly relatives are in town. If it serves business people who work/eat downtown shouldn’t their companies pay for it? The only way this could help the majority of us who don’t work downtown but do have jobs is if it ran into the night and weekends. And of those, it would help primarily those who were forced to park far from their destination (which doesn’t happen that often). Think of First Thursday: 1,000’s of people walk over downtown and think nothing of it, even in cooler months. 5. Build it, they will come! Connects both ends of downtown. 6. Is more central that the other. Can be reached everywhere with ease. 7. Simple 8. Concept to bind East-West ends of downtown Connection of circulator to transit hub Like simplicity Access to proposed convention center 9. Be forward thinking! Definitely circulator to 30th St. west end of Boise—it is the next big development to come in the downtown Boise area. 10. I like the connection to BSU and the airport. 11. 12. I think either of these work well – just please make sure they link up with future long-term goals. The advantage of this one is that unfamiliar drivers could easily get a sense of these two streets as the “commuter” corridor and traffic would be re-patterned as a result. A total of 17 participants indicated they like the Main, Idaho Couplet by writing on sticky notes provided. • Very important to have strong connection to planned BSU transit center at west side of student union building. • Future—include extending to Park Blvd. offices or even MK nature center behind Fish and Game. • Very important to serve BSU especially the BSU transit center at Lincoln/University Drive. • Yes! Regular, direct, frequent bus service to airport! • Regular service to and from airport!! • Like the __ to BSU downtown events and parks. Seems friendly to visitors and locals alike. • Red and yellow future downtown circulator ideas.

RBCI Page 1 of 2 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

• Agree with __ to airport! • Any consideration of extending like to HP? Many people may use if easy quick and efficient. • Estimating arrival times on a simple loop is easier to calculate than a “double.” Loop making the route more user friendly to ride. • Prefer easy to remember loop. • Best site near Idaho Power. • The best site is the Idaho Power lot just north of YMCA. • I would like to see more conversation about bikes and bus and connecting the bike freeway “the greenbelt” • Yes • Align the downtown circulator after choosing multimodal transit center site—if A is chosen make circulate go right by it. • Be sure to include options for individuals with disabilities. • Put 2 blocks between E&W routes (i.e. Main and Bannock)

Main, Idaho Couplet “Dislikes” A total of 6 participants indicated they dislike the Main, Idaho Couplet on comment sheets provided.

1. Nothing goes near the VA or Boise Senior Center. Elderly and disabled are main ridership and to ignore that upper corridor is not acceptable. 2. If you’re going to build it, why not cover more north/south area for convenience? Unless this was chose for traffic impact reasons. 3. 4. 5. Need to go further west. I would expand the loop 1 block north. Loop Bannock to main instead, make it a 2 block walk N to State, and 2 blocks south to Convention center site, BoDo etc. 6. 7. 8. Services areas on west end with fewer prospects for business development. 9. 10. How will circulate connect at BSU? 11. Does little with 10th St. Main west of 10th is pretty dead. Also see notes below. 12. A total of 3 participants indicated they disliked the Main, Idaho Couplet by writing on sticky notes provided. • If it is going to 30th, why not go to Hyde Park/North end? • Area is not inclusive enough-truly inclusive around include YMCA, Capital-St. Luke’s and businesses to the south-perhaps as far S. at the library. • Seems we have the cart before the horse. Where is our open space/public sq. in ___with bus station circulator the Grove is way to small for our population.

RBCI Page 2 of 2 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Downtown Circulator Alignment Alternative—Main, Idaho/Idaho, Bannock Couplet Comment Transcriptions

*Comments are transcribed verbatim. A blank line (______) indicates that the comment was not legible. Main, Idaho/Idaho, Bannock Couplet “Likes” A total of 7 participants indicated they like the Main, Idaho Couplet on comment sheets provided. 1. 2. Covers larger north/south spread. Great locations/connectivity. 3. Serves area well—but don’t like the split between north and south sides. 4. 5. Goes west to 17th Street. 6. Gets all the main destination points. And closer to YMCA and north end. 7. 8. Potential development of Boise Plaza. Better coverage of transit-H 9. 10. I like a straight loop system. 11. Alleviates issue with area with out tenth. Easy access to MMC site H. 12. A total of 7 participants indicated they like the Main, Idaho/Idaho, Bannock Couplet by writing on sticky notes provided. • Prefer this—main west of 10th is partly under developed. • I prefer #2 but it needs to go to Broadway, Winco, Whole Food, MK, Otherwise it is way less useful. • 2 for the $$ of 1! Better use of MMCH. • Close to Y accessible from north and south • This is a great connection. • Closer to the YMCA. • I like that this one is wider.

Main, Idaho/Idaho, Bannock Couplet “Dislikes” A total of 9 participants indicated they dislike the Main, Idaho Couplet on comment sheets provided.

1. Nothing goes near the VA or Boise Senior Center. Elderly and disable are main ridership to ignore that upper corridor is not acceptable. 2. If this option causes 11th street to be closed to auto traffic—then this may qualify as a disuse. I would need to see a more defined plan to determine if this is a negative. 3. 4. 5. Figure 8 more costly to install, stop lights traffic plan etc. 6. Favors the north when it makes the figure 8 loop. Leaves SW further away. 7. It moves away from convention center. It crosses (____). 8. Might seem more complex?

RBCI Page 1 of 2 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

9. 10. I do not like the little jog. Should make closer to courthouse complex. 11. BOTH routes need to do __ leverage existing development near 17th/State. 12. Whereas this one could really confuse unsuspecting visitors and Valley residents who avoid downtown (and only go there when absolutely necessary – there are lots of these!) – by attempts on their part to avoid these and actually end up on yet an additional “commuter” corridor. The cleaner and more predictable the route – the better reception and use. A total of 6 participants indicated they disliked the Main, Idaho/Idaho, Bannock Couplet by writing on sticky notes provided. • Dislike the figure 8 make it a loop. • Don’t analyze. Do it! Start short hours 11:30 to 1:30. Train up volunteers even. Think outside the box! Try it during major downtown events—even on Saturday for Farmer’s market. • Needs to go to Broadway and MK. • Why not go to Broadway and Park Blvd. • Need to leverage existing dev. near 17th/State • The preferred maintenance facility site is not a good choice-it’s on a key site and has prominent visibility coming down Fairview into the city. S/B something dynamic on that site.

RBCI Page 2 of 2 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor

*Comments are transcribed verbatim. A blank line (______) indicates that the comment was not legible. General Comments: A total of 14 participants provided the following comments on sticky notes they posted on the wall: • What about more permanent solutions like rails? What about a gondola to Bogus and Airport? People will choose to live around rails so why not gondolas—silent, tied into a power grid that has to be updated anyway. • Include Bogus Basin service on a seasonal basis! • Great thought. • What about the northern side of the valley (e.g. NW Boise/Eagle—Caldwell)? The freeway’s current route is part of the problem. • Don’t forget linkage with emerging transit system in west treasure valley—Ontario, Payette and Fruitland (See Brian Cole, Orbis Co., Baker City) • Good idea! Run them ½ earlier in the morning and 1 hour later at night. • Tie Melba and Kuna together • Franklin transfer—Yes • Great idea to improve time and frequency between Boise/Meridian/Caldwell. • Need more hours of service • More frequency of service • Better coordination between routes to lower overall transit time and increase convenience factor. • Add a transfer center at the airport. • I would definitely use this system instead of fighting traffic. • How is this the best choice for Meridian? • I’ve lived in Boise since 1951-it is about time we do this! I vote for legislators who support the local option taxes!

RBCI Page 1 of 1 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study General Comments

*Comments are transcribed verbatim. A blank line (______) indicates that the comment was not legible. General Comments: A total of 53 participants provided the following comments: 1. More people would use buses if we ran more buses and extended service hours into p.m. and Sundays. We need bus routes to service secondary schools: Frank Church (new alternative) Les Bois Junior High (used to be on #2 line) Bd. Of Ed. Tech Center and main building on Victory Rd. Churches of many denominations on weekends. 2. I like to see better south and west transportation. A route north on Cole out to Ustick from Town Square. Routes connecting Boise with Meridian and Nampa in the middle of the day either from downtown or Boise mall. More frequent daytime routes. I do like the Site H Multimodal proposition. I appreciate most bus drivers’ mannerisms to handi-capped riders mainly: Richard, Renae, LT, Ceaser, Doug, Bruce, Jeni, _____. 3. Really think we need some type of light rail system. Freeways are getting more and more constricted and adding more lanes is not the solution. Need to have a convenient and easily assessable bus/light rail solution to get people out of cars! Do prefer the H site rather than the A site. Encourage businesses to subsidize and encourage workers to use alternate transportation methods. 4. I commend all who have worked so hard on these plans. I agree that all options-light rail- a central or multimodal centers are needed. I have spoken to people who lived in Boise in the 1940s—when public transportation—buses which ran to 9 or 9:30 p.m. and the trolley line ran between Boise—other little communities. Then cars weren’t so prevalent. A big part of the picture is that the public needs to be educated –and it has to become “their” system—and it has to become the “in” thing to the system. Now it’s assumed it’s not used. At each stage of planning the system needs to be more user friendly and available, or younger and busy folk will not use them—no matter how expensive gas gets! 5. I think Site H would be the more “user friendly” location for a multi-modal transit center. It would greatly enhance the opportunity for growth and multi-use development in the west of downtown area, which is ripe for such development. As for Site A—the future of the redevelopment corridor between Front and Myrtle is as __ so unresolved that it’s hard to imagine what might happen there. In either case: GET ON WITH IT! 6. Multimodal center—Site H looks much better to use. Downtown circulator—Both look good as first phase—green route slightly better. Second phase should definitely include Boise State University.

Thank you! 7. The difference between the two choices of each items (the center and circulator) aren’t really great. It seems these two ideas were decided upon and now you’re looking for a public rubber stamp on one of two choices that aren’t that different. Frankly, the mm center puts the cart before the horse. I’d rather see that $78m spent on improving the

RBCI Page 1 of 7 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

transit system first. Save with the circulator. We could make do with a much smaller transit hub for now while we build up a real transit system. I think SLC is a much better model that Portland or Seattle. Let’s build a transit backbone before adding the bells and whistles. 8. Prefer Site H, Plan B, makes the most sense. 9. Better public transportation is long overdue, especially a viable services between towns in the valley. Traffic and pollution are beyond expensive currently. It’s time to join the rest of the world. 10. The site picked (H or A) should be judged less on our current downtown and more on a future vision. For example Site A is closer to the grove area (Linen Dist.) and would probably be a better choice because of its larger size and development would follow it anyway.

I think we should be careful about completely closing vehicle traffic in a “pedestrian only area.” Traffic should be calmed but not done away with completely. I believe some cities have experienced a negative effect with the downtown “mall” concept. 11. If ridership come more to downtown, then Site H is better. To tie in with regional transit (rail?) then “A” would be better. Riders should not have to walk very far to transfer between bus and rail type systems. Convention Center is not an excuse to locate a major station—daily traffic to downtown would outweigh occasional (intermittent) use of convention center. If you ever put in a mass commuter (light rail) system do so without ugly overhead lines. 12. As the Boise metropolitan is growing across the treasure valley I am pleased to see a great transportation option in processing. As I observed the proposed site plans I thought about the advantages and disadvantages of each. Site H is closer to downtown businesses and destinations but with Boise rapidly growing I feel Alternate Site A would work best for Boise in the future. As to Site A, we have more room to expand; as to Site H, we would use all the land and have less room for expansions. These downtown circulator alternatives will help the people get to where they need to be in these rising gas price times. 13. I am enthusiastic about both the multimodal center and the downtown circulator. If Site H becomes the choice, I would suggest a site plan that moves the building(s) to the back (eastside) of the property. Having building between the rows of buses creates blind spots and conflicts for riders transferring from one route to another. 14. Be sure to have bike routes that are on calm or specific blvd. and connect easily with greenbelt and bus. Ability to carry more than 2 bikes. Safe bike storage. Circulator should be permanent so bus investment is more likely. Think __ public __, Think library, NOT just convention center with bus could be urban public square park. 15. Good range of alternatives. I like Site A better than Site H because of its location with Front, Convention Center. I liked to see the circulator and the I-84 corridor link to a grater degree to both the airport and BSU. When the term multimodal is used it should incorporate air travel. BSU generates a lot of traffic over a longer period of time than the traditional a.m./p.m. rush and given its proximity to downtown should be more fully incorporated into the planning. 16. There is a definite need for a multimodal center. I prefer Site H for the center however I’m a little concerned about the size and it accommodating future growth. I would stress a center that is pedestrian/bike friendly and multi-use (neutral space). 17. The funding for this whole concept has not even passed. Therefore this is all preliminary and spending tax dollars that are not approved. Please publicly explain such expenditures. 18. First, I applaud the efforts to bring public transportation into the 21st century in Boise! My thought regarding “A” vs. “H”. I understand the concern about Front and Myrtle, but I would still opt

RBCI Page 2 of 7 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

for Site “A.” “A” looks to be a serious asset in long-term planning and redefining of the way masses of people be moved around the city and beyond). I suspect that “H” would quickly outgrow its usefulness or efficiency—it’s already so congested! I think “H” is only a short-term solution… My only other thought was that I wish the light rail and streetcar would get here sooner!!! Thanks! 19. You need better pens. I like the idea of the transit mall. I hope it does not end up close to Front Street. I think Front should be reserved for cars and trucks. I like the idea of it being on Grove but like Idaho and Main better. This would service pedestrians and bicycles better and keep them away from high volume streets like Front and Myrtle. Why not look at old Boise Cascade building Parking lot and combine with parking structure. Have fun with this, but consider keeping interactive between buses and trains with other motorized vehicles and vehicle routes to a minimum. 20. I like Site A—design with pedestrian bridge over front St. to new convention center. 21. I prefer Site H. Site A would not be safe for walkers. Plus, the increase of traffic in the area would be a major issue. 22. Please move ahead rapidly. The system in Portland is excellent and has brought present and new outlying communities into the city. A great benefit to everyone. I prefer Site A. Include Airport in the Routing. 23. MM Site—like H due to its central location, only issue is whether we will have the space needed for all services. Especially things like bicycle parking. Circulator—No preference. One comment. I live downtown (and many other condos coming on line). Only reason I drive is to go to the store. By expanding the circulator to include more of the condos and major shopping (like Winco area), will eliminate lots of short car trips (where a bicycle isn’t enough). Corridor—don’t forget to add great space for bicycle commuters. Need to get the bikes off of the sidewalks. Priorities 1) Bus 2) Bikes 3) Cars. Great job overall! Can’t wait to see this come together. Thanks! 24. Many notes seem to make option A’s location off of Front St. a bad thing-I disagree. Having it right off the connector keeps transit from clogging downtown streets. Front is busy, Grove is quiet, pedestrian friendly. How are the connections for bikes? Proximity to bike lanes? A seems a better long-term choice—good size, great location. Add a pedestrian bridge over Front St. to a new convention District and you’re set. Start circulator sooner than later. Experience will be most helpful in fine-tuning the route. 25. Very important to link BSU transit center. 26. Site A is preferred because it is the best site for light rail and access to streets and freeway. It also has great access along Grove Street for pedestrians. This site is best for all of these. Site H would be the best site for commercial, business, and high-rise housing. The Idaho, Main Couplet. Would be the best circulator. Now and In the future. The I-84 priority corridor is important because more and more people are living in the outside areas commuting into the Boise area. 27. I like the downtown location the best. Better for users and visitors. Site A is too busy of a place now! 28. I hope and am pleased to see the potential for positive and pertinent development on 12th and 13th street. That part of downtown would benefit greatly and I think welcome the development. The downtown circulator should go with the preferred model…the other is far too limiting and is on 16 blocks (less than 1 mile?) and most would walk that.

RBCI Page 3 of 7 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

Overall excellent ideas. Looking forward to using mass transit! 29. Great display, however, it could use a little more background information on the different plans. The people answering questions were a big help. Downtown circulator system needs more expansion. It’s not worth the cost of the development for only going 16 blocks. I would like to see something that makes a larger loop around downtown and includes Hyde Park and Boise State. 30. Thought more about the sites and I think A is best since there are more spaces to work with. Extend the circulator to access it and the solution really works. And please…don’t forget bicycles in your plans! Thanks. 31 H looks good to me. I like that it’s closer to downtown center. A is not a terrible second option. Thanks for all your efforts. PS—bike paths and lanes are important to our future, I strongly favor increased biking accessibility. 32. Site A is a better choice for the transfer station downtown because of both location and need expansion space. Bicycle resources are needed to encourage commuting.

The circulator should be expanded into the courthouse corridor so the downtown residents can access grocery and other resources without driving. Expansion into the developing Linen district would be desirable as well. 33. I am happy to hear that very soon there will be some improvements to the bus system. It will be good to have bus stops. Also, I hope there will be 7-day a week bus services. Both sites that are being considered look like good locations. I look forward to this area being like other places that I have lived. Keep up the good work. 34. I am just very glad to know that there would be improvements to the Valley Transportation in Boise, ID and also would have bus service during Sunday, 7 days a week. Thank you. Keep up the good work! 35. I’d like to see more stops on the I-84 Priority Corridor, in particular, a stop near Cole and Overland intersection point. 36. I think Site H looks good for the multimodal center. I am in favor of the downtown circulator, especially if cheap or free.

I would like to see light rail allowing west Boise and other cities to the west of Boise affordable, fast, efficient and clean transit to downtown. Let’s be proactive instead of reactive—let’s not wait until we are in nonattainment before we act. Please, in your planning of all of the above, do not further restrict bike lanes (as happened recently in Bannock) and, if possible, build more bike lanes. Please make 8th Street from Bannock to main pedestrian/bike only, or at least install a northward bike lane from Main to Idaho. Thanks! 37. I still believe that “C” would have been a better site than either “A” or “H.” of our current choices “H” is better for pedestrians, but has worse access to the connector. On site “H” plan 2 is better because buses aren’t on both sides of 11th St. The earlier building plan for larger sites was more functional than either of these two plans. I would rather see downtown made more pedestrian friendly than build the circulator. Take the money from the circulator and apply it to starting the I-84 priority corridor, there would be more ridership for the money spent. Once there is a system to move people into downtown (without their cars) than a more comprehensive circulator would be appropriate. Note that what makes a city great is being able to easily get around on foot, all this transit will be for not, if once downtown people can’t easily walk. For instance pedestrian bridges across Front

RBCI Page 4 of 7 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

St. and Myrtle St. would make walking in Boise so much easier/better. 38. Site C was best, than A—access to convention center, but could complicate ____ D.T. on I-84. H plan 2 is less disruptive to traffic. The scores are not in meaningful units, can’t add Hazmat danger __ sq. Ft. (not same unites) Pedestrian zone can’t cut off flow on Front and Capitol they are major arterials, how would traffic get through D.T. Put in pedestrian overpass and make cross walks favor pedestrians. Frankly, in the long run, it would be more cost effective to spend the money on the priority corridor rather than freeway upgrades and the circulator. I live D.T. and walk everywhere, probably wouldn’t use the circulator. If the corridor is put in, the traffic load and maintenance on I-84 will be reduced and the routes for local circulators will be more obvious. The population will only increase, time is ticking… 39. Very interesting presentation. Hopefully high school students have heard these presentation—they are potential future users. I would increase area of coverage to include YMCA—St. Luke’s—S. to college, library and west beyond convention center and city hall and capitol. Above ground creates pedestrian problems and those not familiar with routes. But, at least it’s a start that will eventually be inclusive for the entire valley. 40. I prefer site A! Please provide for and encourage bikes as transportation services and mechanics, and lots of secure bike racks would be appreciated! 41. Downtown plan looks well thought out. However it seems money may be limiting factor. Encourage stops to be laced at future development sites in return for developer helping fund projects, work with city officials to help zone denser neighborhoods and developments that way public transit would be more viable. 42. Surprised and delighted by site h, this site is far more pedestrian friendly. Locating on Front Street feels like a freeway. My only concern with Site H is the size? In all it looks great, nice work! Now what will it take to make it happen. 43. No preference between modal sites A or H. Preference is to get started on one or the other. Either circulator routes I okay too—prefer to see track vehicles used to buses. 44. Both A and H are good locations. The ideas are sound for all of this. It’s time to do it! 45. Great forum for public input. Like seeing the thought put into creating a successful plan. I grew up in Eugene, OR which has a fantastic public transportation system, I would like to see our service become equally effective while simultaneously addressing air quality, traffic and providing alternatives to the single-person mode of transportation. Convenience is key in order to create successful adoption of mass-transit and overcome the inertia to change; factors include frequency of service, reasonable cost of use and location to major employment/housing/shopping. Thanks for the invite. 46. By expanding the city of Boise (several blocks apart) frees you up when determining the transit hub—a free-no change area within a given __ downtown would encourage usage—initially with a bus—later with light rail. I feel the proposed hub location on Front Street would be a big mistake (too much traffic-no room for bus turns) Wherever you put the hubs-business will follow. 47. Service between Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and Boise, which meets the needs of commuters are essential. The current system which leaves town (Boise) prior to the end of the workday to anybody who ___ eight to live. Service that runs until at least 8 p.m. would make the system more accessible to move

RBCI Page 5 of 7 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

professionals who commute. Many people need to work overtime at least twice per week at unpredictable intervals. The current system doesn’t meet our needs. Fix it, and more of us will ride. 48. The current Convention Center attracts 40-50,000 people per year—many make multiple trips on successive days—from hotels around town. The chief complaint from visitors to Boise who stay outside of 3-4 blocks of the centre is limited access to downtown from hotels near airport, from the airport itself, and hotels like the downtowner, DoubleTree Riverside, Courtyard by Marriott Broadway, Springhill Suites, Townplace suites on Capitol, etc. I don’t think anyone has asked the Boise Convention and Visitors Bureau for numbers or any other input. How about the hoteliers? Thanks! 49. Great progress from first open house. I like site H better than all the other sites. Closer to downtown core, Boise High School, further away from Front Street. There was less discussion of exactly what the trans-center would contain tonight. It needs to be public restroom, transportation information, attendant, little to no retail space. The different pieces (trans center, circulate and trans/bus system) seem like they are being more interconnected than at the first meeting—GREAT. What is the timeline for the TV transit improved service? Circulator—should be free. Seems like is should access the courthouse area. Seems like more than 1 block separation on the circulator routes would expand the coverage without increasing time/price etc. much (people can walk more than ½ block). 50. Transit plans need to focus more on routes OTHER than the current freeway…e.g. between NW Boise/Eagle and Caldwell (traffic on Chinden and State). Also, what of general busy N/S transit within Boise (such as the Glenwood/Cole Corridor) In addition, later evening service is A MUST!! 51. I really, really support COMPASS' effort to create a consolidated transit area near the Linen District (more or less) in downtown Boise. I think this is a beginning step that's necessary, and must be done while land prices are depressed and local governments can take advantage of more affordable prices.

I lived in Eugene from 1982-1986 while attending the University of Oregon, and I'm somewhat familiar with their bus system. It works well. However, there was a period of time that Eugene was very economically depressed and enormous opposition to the bus transit center existed. Eugene's downtown business owners wanted car access to their shops for economic reasons. This has probably been long forgotten, but it's important that regional transportation works hand-in-hand with small business owners. I think the proposed location will achieve that goal. 52. I commute on the bus from Nampa to Boise for work and know first-hand how much money and stress it saves me. I visited the open house booth at the Mode and am very excited about the Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study's three projects. Would you add my email address to your distribution list, which notifies the public about upcoming COMPASS meetings addressing our transit decisions? I work at the Department of Education in Boise and am very motivated to let the co-workers know about the upcoming transit improvements. 53. During the Downtown Boise Mobility Study there was a problem with a lack of communication and collaboration regarding the impacts on the adjacent North End neighborhood, despite the initial statements in the consultant's documents about integrating neighborhoods' issues for the best possible outcome.

CCDC, ACHD, and others refused to address public health and safety concerns about those mapped proposals to increase residential and school zone traffic impacts in the North End. Safer alternative routes were ignored, while Federal guidelines say that all options and impacts must be equally considered in transportation planning.

RBCI Page 6 of 7 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study May 22, 2008—Public Open House Comment Transcription

I see a similar lack of communication and consideration in this Downtown Circulator Plan, particularly in reference to the red arrows at the edge of several maps that seem to indicate that yet again North End schools, and the highest possible volumes of children on a daily basis, will be targeted for the worst transportation impacts from the Downtown area.

Could you please clarify what those red arrows on the edges of your maps mean in regard to the adjacent North End neighborhood and the schools and the original historic Ridge to Rivers Bikeway within the heart of this historic district?

Surely there is no real need for Downtown Boise to negatively impact the health and safety of our adjacent neighborhood's children, nor our walkable schools, while there are so many alternative non-school streets available in the immediate vicinity that would connect just as easily, with far fewer damages and costs to the existing sensitive land uses, and very valuable social and cultural assets?

We need clarification and better transparency for a truer public process, please. Those of us targeted for changes in the adjacent North End are primary stakeholders due to the mapping of impacts - including the thousands of parent stakeholders of school children, if the red arrows are an indicator of heavy traffic routing as they appear to be.

As far as the location of the grand central transit station, probably closest to downtown and the highest number of jobs would be best, like the hospital and government offices. I went to the previous meeting held in the vacant retail stores at 9th (and Idaho I think), and thought that that would be an ideal location for a transit center, as would be the location of the big hole in the ground at 8th and Main.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cherie Cole 1221 N. 15th Boise, Idaho 83702 345-3246

RBCI Page 7 of 7

WELCOME & THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING Today’s open house will be a final opportunity for public comments on the location of a multimodal transportation center in downtown Boise. Valley Regional Transit (VRT) and the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) will recommend a site in early June.

You will have an opportunity to review and comment on: The recommended site for a downtown multimodal center Alignment alternatives for a downtown circulator

You will also see: A proposed regional transit plan, Treasure Valley in Transit

WHAT TO EXPECT AT EACH STATION 1. About the Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Learn about the study and who is involved

2. Multimodal Center Learn about and comment on the recommended site and site plan alternatives Give input on design considerations

3. Downtown Circulator Learn about and comment on alignment alternatives

4. I-84 Priority Corridor Learn about the plan for regional high-capacity transit

YOUR COMMENTS ARE ENCOURAGED

Please take a moment to write your thoughts on post-it notes or comment sheets at the multimodal center and downtown circulator stations. Use yellow post-it notes for likes and blue for dislikes. Use the back of this form to provide other comments.

-GENERAL COMMENT FORM ON BACK- GENERAL COMMENT FORM

Name:

Neighborhood, business or other affiliation:

Address:

City/State/Zip:

Please return completed comment form by May 27, 2008 to: COMPASS 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Public Open House

May 22, 2008

MULTIMODAL CENTER COMMENT FORM

1. Please tell us what you like and dislike about the recommended multimodal center Site H. (Site H is located on the east side of 11th street between Bannock and Idaho streets.)

Likes:

Dislikes:

2. What would you like considered in the multimodal center design and site plan?

Please return completed comment form by May 27, 2008 to: COMPASS 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Public Open House

May 22, 2008

BOISE CIRCULATOR COMMENT FORM

1. Please tell us what you like and dislike about the Main/Idaho Couplet?

Likes:

Dislikes:

2. Please tell us what you like and dislike about the Main/Idaho, Idaho/Bannock Couplet?

Likes:

Dislikes:

Please return completed comment form by May 27, 2008 to: COMPASS 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 HCpc1_8.5x5a.qrk 5/6/08 2:51 PM Page 2

You are invited Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study

OPEN HOUSE Thursday, May 22, 2008 • 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. 802 W. Idaho Street, Boise (inside the Mode Building in downtown Boise) • Review and comment on the preferred location of the multimodal center in downtown Boise. The center will bring together various transportation modes and services at a single location. EUGENE, OREGON • Review an update on the downtown For additional information, visit circulator routes. The circulator is a service compassidaho.org/prodserv/specialprojects.htm that will connect primary destinations or contact Terri Schorzman, COMPASS, (208) 855-2558 ext. 231, within and adjacent to the downtown. [email protected]

Se les recomienda a las personas que necesiten un intérprete o arreglos especiales que llamen a COMPASS al (208) 855-2558 ext. 248. Persons needing an interpreter or special accommodations are urged to contact COMPASS at (208) 855-2558 ext. 231. HCpc1_8.5x5a.qrk 5/6/08 2:51 PM Page 1

Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study

SAVE THE DATE!

Community Planning Association OPEN HOUSE 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Thursday, May 22, 2008 Meridian, ID 83642 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. 802 W. Idaho Street, Boise (inside the Mode Building in downtown Boise)

The Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study will improve transit services throughout the Valley. The study involves three projects: a multimodal transportation center, a downtown circulator and a plan for high capacity transit along the I-84 corridor.

COMPASS news release – Public invited to give final comments on future transit center location

Boise – A second open house for three related public transit projects will be held May 22, 2008 from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. at 802 W. Idaho Street in downtown Boise.

The open house will be a final opportunity for public comments on the location of a multimodal transportation center in downtown Boise. Valley Regional Transit (VRT) and the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) will recommend a location in early June.

At the open house, the public will also review preliminary considerations for two other related projects:

Downtown circulator: A transit service that will connect primary destinations in the downtown Boise area.

I-84 priority corridor: A plan for high-capacity transit service for locations along Interstate 84 within Ada and Canyon counties.

The interrelated projects are bundled together as the Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study. The first open house for the study was held in January 2008. Approximately 500 people attended.

VRT and COMPASS are conducting the study in partnership with Ada County Highway District, Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce, Capital City Development Corp., City of Boise, Downtown Business Association and Idaho Transportation Department.

The Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study is preceded by previous transportation studies that identified the need to improve transit services in the region, such as Communities in Motion: Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan 2030 and the 2005 Downtown Boise Mobility Study.

For more information about the Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study, visit www.compassidaho.org/prodserv/specialprojects.htm

Terri Schorzman COMPASS 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 208‐855‐2558, ext 231