Indy mass transit.

[K_W]

Certain people are demanding light rail in Indy, while Indygov is planing to expand busing... I don't think the rail faction understands what would be required to have a full blown light rail system in an established city that was never designed for it. What rail systems we had are now long gone and were one way

Expanded bussing...
First rapid transit bus line for Central Indiana - 13 WTHR Indianapolis


The problem with light rail is you will have to build two tracks to be the most efficient. You can't have just one track in an existing median because you could only have one or two trains running at one time on the entire branch or you would have to make trains play leapfrog at stops. With two tracks you could make a loop and run like a bus, but you have to either take out car lanes to make room for rail lanes or build two raised lines side by side or worse build one or both on either shoulder which will require land that has not yet been acquired. You are left with the choice of destroying homes and businesses to make room for the extra lines requiring years of legal fights and bad blood over the ED court battles, an unsightly raised platform, or worse traffic problems.

Stick with buses... if mass transit fails, Indy can just sell the buses, forget it all, and return to normal... can't do that with rail after you've sliced neighborhoods in half.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, this is a tricky situation to try and solve.

Indy did have light rail - for a long time. At least to the north side and in what is now urban Indianapolis. But, when cars became the norm, planners didn't have the foresight (not judging, just stating the fact) to think that things might go back to rail. So, our car-infrastructure replaced our rail-infrastructure (mostly) and now it will be VERY expensive to go back.

I tend to agree that a robust bus system is the first step to get people re-accustomed to not using cars as much. I just don't know if it will really be accepted enough to pay for itself. I think it has to at least be tax-neutral; make enough to pay for itself without raising taxes.

 

[RockofStrength]

Yeah, this is a tricky situation to try and solve.

Indy did have light rail - for a long time. At least to the north side and in what is now urban Indianapolis. But, when cars became the norm, planners didn't have the foresight (not judging, just stating the fact) to think that things might go back to rail. So, our car-infrastructure replaced our rail-infrastructure (mostly) and now it will be VERY expensive to go back.

I tend to agree that a robust bus system is the first step to get people re-accustomed to not using cars as much. I just don't know if it will really be accepted enough to pay for itself. I think it has to at least be tax-neutral; make enough to pay for itself without raising taxes.

I'm honestly curious, why would this be a goal to strive for? Isn't it preferable to encourage people to use cars (maintained and paid for by the individual) rather than buses or rail (paid for by the public whether they use it or not)?

 

[K_W]

Yeah, this is a tricky situation to try and solve.

Indy did have light rail - for a long time. At least to the north side and in what is now urban Indianapolis. But, when cars became the norm, planners didn't have the foresight (not judging, just stating the fact) to think that things might go back to rail. So, our car-infrastructure replaced our rail-infrastructure (mostly) and now it will be VERY expensive to go back.

I tend to agree that a robust bus system is the first step to get people re-accustomed to not using cars as much. I just don't know if it will really be accepted enough to pay for itself. I think it has to at least be tax-neutral; make enough to pay for itself without raising taxes.

The Inter-Urban was not the light rail these guys want. the Inter-urban connected different cities, it was not a intracity star topography rail network like these yuppies want.

One line ran from Indy to Noblesville, and beyond. Some of the line is still there, the Fair Train uses it. The Monon is/was another part of it.

These guys want rail where you car, or house, is now.

EDIT: Plus rail cannot easily adapt to changing demographics and urban sprawl... buses can do that instantly.

 

[K_W]

I'm honestly curious, why would this be a goal to strive for? Isn't it preferable to encourage people to use cars (maintained and paid for by the individual) rather than buses or rail (paid for by the public whether they use it or not)?

Yuppies and politicians.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm honestly curious, why would this be a goal to strive for? Isn't it preferable to encourage people to use cars (maintained and paid for by the individual) rather than buses or rail (paid for by the public whether they use it or not)?

haha

I'm not a yuppie (too old) or a politician (too cynical).

Traffic is a pain in the donkey. The only thing I hate more than driving is riding in the car with my 16 year old daughter when she's driving. I would love to see fewer cars. I'd love to be someone that helps put fewer cars on the road. If there was a way to get to work and actually work while doing it (checking emails, etc.) I would be all over it. That's the selfish reason.

More generally, I think there are serious policy advantages to mass transit:
- better for the environment overall; if we use busses, this assumes a net reduction of traffic from adding busses and subtracting sufficient cars
- the economics of car ownership work against the poor and middle income, which then reduces their economic upward mobility
- without getting too much into New Urbanism, certain population densities are required for stable cities/suburbs; where there isn't that organic density, you basically have to import it and mass transit can help with that
- mass transit itself can be an economic benefit, although there is a bit of chicken/egg problem.

Just for the sake of emphasis, it should at least pay for itself. The market will decide if the public is ready for it or not.

 

[Denny347]

Public transportation is for losers and the poor.

 

[K_W]

Public transportation is for losers and the poor.

That perception/stigma and sometimes reality is why a lot of people here never consider it.

Ann Arbor does not have that stigma and their system is popular... but to be fair it is a college town.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think it will take a major shift in people's thinking for any kind of mass transit to take hold in Indianapolis/Indiana in general. Mass transit makes the most sense in areas with high urban density, and we don't have it. Every time I see a bus with 2 or 3 riders (which is most of the time) I have to think to myself, "Hmm... how is this 50 foot long monster of a vehicle more efficient than travel by car?" Under-utilization will kill any mass transit, making government subsidization a necessity to even keep it in business. My feeling is that if it were a money making proposition (it's not), then private companies would be scrambling to get into the business.

On a personal level, the inconvenience factor is a deal breaker to me. Until I can step out my door and have a bus waiting to take me wherever I want to go, when I want to go there, I'm not likely to use it. That's where the major shift in thinking has to occur. Admittedly I'm not likely to change my thinking in that regard, but perhaps some will be.

 

[4sarge]

I'm honestly curious, why would this be a goal to strive for? Isn't it preferable to encourage people to use cars (maintained and paid for by the individual) rather than buses or rail (paid for by the public whether they use it or not)?

THIS ^ Mayors Brainless and Mayor Ballstard MUST WASTE as much Tax Money as humanly possible to insure their legacy. These Mass Transit fallacies are unsustainable without massive TAX Subsidies. I propose a fleet of these

to liven up Caramel. Of course the fare would need to be FREE for the Entitled. Rail is a Losing Proposition but lines the pockets of Politicians and their Cronies.

 

[Indy317]

Under-utilization will kill any mass transit, making government subsidization a necessity to even keep it in business. My feeling is that if it were a money making proposition (it's not), then private companies would be scrambling to get into the business.

I don't know if any transit system is a money maker. This is why we have government doing all the road building. The concept of toll roads is something to consider, but even then historically toll roads were government built and operated. I don't know of any major roadway that was built with private funds and is being used to generate revenue for some private company.

On a personal level, the inconvenience factor is a deal breaker to me. Until I can step out my door and have a bus waiting to take me wherever I want to go, when I want to go there, I'm not likely to use it. That's where the major shift in thinking has to occur. Admittedly I'm not likely to change my thinking in that regard, but perhaps some will be.

Mass transit seems to be about two things: Reducing rush hour traffic congestion and reducing pollution. It will work if the system runs frequently. This is a big deal because most adults get married and have kids. With kids come added issues that can just pop-up and most parents like the fact they can leave work, get into their car, and have the freedom to get to where they need.

 

[Suprtek]

Every large mass transit system in any metropolitan area has ALWAYS proven itself to be nothing but a bottomless money pit! NONE of them have EVER been able to support themselves. No I don't have readily available links to prove it but I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, even the public transportation we already have should be done away with if all it does is suck up tax dollars with no perceivable benefit. If people want it bad enough, they will pay what it costs to run it. Then a private entity could operate it with no cost whatsoever to taxpayers. When it is dependent upon subsidies from tax dollars, it becomes little more than just another form of welfare that much of the public becomes dependent upon for their daily existence. Is this really what we want to promote in our already decaying society?

 

[Denny347]

Every large mass transit system in any metropolitan area has ALWAYS proven itself to be nothing but a bottomless money pit! NONE of them have EVER been able to support themselves. No I don't have readily available links to prove it but I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, even the public transportation we already have should be done away with if all it does is suck up tax dollars with no perceivable benefit. If people want it bad enough, they will pay what it costs to run it. Then a private entity could operate it with no cost whatsoever to taxpayers. When it is dependent upon subsidies from tax dollars, it becomes little more than just another form of welfare that much of the public becomes dependent upon for their daily existence. Is this really what we want to promote in our already decaying society?

Perhaps, but have you seen NYC become a ghost town when it fails? I have. Large cities MUST have those systems to function, money pit or not. They simply cannot support cars for everyone. It's a natural progression for very dense cities. What the problem is here is that we are trying to act like we need it, we do not. Someday in the future, maybe, but not now. We are just too spread out to make mass transit effective.

 

[Suprtek]

Perhaps, but have you seen NYC become a ghost town when it fails? I have. Large cities MUST have those systems to function, money pit or not. They simply cannot support cars for everyone. It's a natural progression for very dense cities. What the problem is here is that we are trying to act like we need it, we do not. Someday in the future, maybe, but not now. We are just too spread out to make mass transit effective.

All your points are valid. That's why I mentioned the "perceivable benefit". I too believe that for us there is very little if any. That being said, even in densely populated areas where tax supported mass transit systems may be a good idea, they are rarely if ever managed properly and the cost/benefit ratio never works.

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

The idea of mass transit is just that. It is someone's legacy, it is a money pit. I have zero interest in it, and would never use it. Like the electric car share thing, why the **** should I pay for it? It should be paid for entirely by those who use it. To those that say look at New York, Chicago, or whatever; what are the associated problems that come with such a system? I have yet to hear an answer, it gets sidestepped like Hillary on Benghazi.

Oh well, let's spread it around a little more. Like the electric car share, I'm sure I'll be helping to foot the bill too.

 

[churchmouse]

I'm honestly curious, why would this be a goal to strive for? Isn't it preferable to encourage people to use cars (maintained and paid for by the individual) rather than buses or rail (paid for by the public whether they use it or not)?

It is a political goal to keep the masses moving in a controlled manner. Mass transit is Utopian.

 

[churchmouse]

The idea of mass transit is just that. It is someone's legacy, it is a money pit. I have zero interest in it, and would never use it. Like the electric car share thing, why the **** should I pay for it? It should be paid for entirely by those who use it. To those that say look at New York, Chicago, or whatever; what are the associated problems that come with such a system? I have yet to hear an answer, it gets sidestepped like Hillary on Benghazi.

Oh well, let's spread it around a little more. Like the electric car share, I'm sure I'll be helping to foot the bill too.

It is a money pit....our money. To be spread among political lackeys and cronies.

There is no way in hell I am riding mass transit with the great masses. Talk about a sharing of all things viral.

 

[mrjarrell]

If the powers that be in both wings of the Boot On Your Neck Party were seriously concerned about transit then they'd completely deregulate the taxi industry and get out of the licensing business. Open up the bus and taxi business to anyone with a license and insurance. That would solve all the transit issues and make it a private sector affair.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If the powers that be in both wings of the Boot On Your Neck Party were seriously concerned about transit then they'd completely deregulate the taxi industry and get out of the licensing business. Open up the bus and taxi business to anyone with a license and insurance. That would solve all the transit issues and make it a private sector affair.

Look, think it through, if politicians solved the problem how could they collect kickbacks and find employment for shiftless cousins.

Politicians create the problem (artificial limit of taxi cabs), politicians then propose "solution" (more opportunities for corruption).

Freedom eliminates corruption and opportunity for graft.

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

It is a money pit....our money. To be spread among political lackeys and cronies.

There is no way in hell I am riding mass transit with the great masses. Talk about a sharing of all things viral.

Has anyone pushing for this ever ridden with the masses? Have they been through the Greyhound terminal, downtown? Take away their hand sanitizer and send 'em to clean the urinals and stalls without gloves or a brush. The public is the nastiest thing on the face of the planet.