Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council cuts BRT funding after debate over fixed‑route vs on‑demand transit
Summary
Following a multi‑motion debate, the council voted to cut BRT funding and remove the full BRT budget line, after staff and VRT warned losing fixed routes could end grant eligibility for a pedestrian project and reduce ridership.
The Nampa City Council voted to remove the city’s funding allocation for planned BRT (bus rapid transit) service after a series of competing motions on which transit option to fund.
Staff outlined three options brought forward by Valley Regional Transit (VRT): (1) two fixed routes plus on‑demand service (highest cost), (2) a hybrid with one fixed route plus on‑demand, and (3) on‑demand service only (lowest cost, but staff warned it would forfeit certain federal grant dollars tied to fixed‑route stops).
Mark Steuer, senior director of development services, summarized the options and the tradeoffs: "If they just go with on demand with no fixed route, the number comes in at [about] $302,521. However, we will lose the federal grant funding for our pedestrian Avenue project... because there has to be a nexus for that federal grant money, which are simply put, bus stops." (Mark Steuer)
Elaine Clegg, CEO of Valley Regional Transit, told council that many riders use both fixed and on‑demand services and warned that switching to on‑demand only could sharply reduce ridership: "Very few people today rely only on the on demand... it would not fulfill the demand that we're seeing." (Elaine Clegg)
After discussion and several votes on different dollar options, a motion to cut BRT funding entirely passed 4–2. The action removes the previously budgeted transit funds and directs staff to reallocate the freed dollars into the council’s set‑aside for later decisions.
Council members who supported cutting the line said the city should not commit significant funds to the current BRT proposal; those opposing the cut cited grant dependencies and rider impact.
Staff noted the city has already spent roughly $34,170 on design and that a $701,747 grant includes a city match; if fixed‑route components are removed, some grant reimbursement eligibility may be lost.
