Circulator Analysis

 DCAABannerImage

 

Steering Committee

The Steering Committee is comprised of representatives from non-profit organizations, government, development, and healthcare, among others.The primary purpose of the Steering Committee is to confirm key project decision elements, decision criteria, and analysis findings. The committee will also make recommendations to Mayor and City Council regarding the Local Preferred Alternative (LPA).

On September 30, 2014, the third steering committee meeting was held. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the steering committee feedback from the recently help public open houses on September 10 and 11 and review and recommend which alignments to advance into the next phase of the study.

Public Involvement Workshops

Boise City hosted two community workshops on September 10 and 11 from 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. at the Rose Room, 718 W. Idaho St. to continue its public involvement process of the Alternatives Analysis for the downtown Boise circulator. The September 10 workshop focused on the range of routes being evaluated in east and west downtown zones. The September 11 workshop focused on routes in the downtown core and Boise State University zones. The purpose of the workshops was to generate public input that will be used to develop route alternatives and invite property owners and tenants adjacent to potential routes to learn about the project and identify any issues and concerns.

We have developed a series of route maps and evaluation tables that summarize the strengths and weakness of each route alternative for the public to review and comment at the workshops. Discussion will focus on route alternatives within the following zones:

You may comment about the routes being evaluated by sending an e-mail. We encourage the public to view the maps and evaluation tables for each zone as you submit your comments. We are requesting feedback on the following questions:

  1. What are your thoughts about the purpose and need for the downtown circulator?

  2. Did we miss anything in the alignment evaluation process?

  3. What do you like or dislike about the recommended routes for further analysis?

  4. Do you see a route that should have been included with the recommended routes for further analysis? If so, please describe the route.