City to present Rail to State Tomorrow (Indianapolis, Evansville: established neighborhood, schools)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. You don't live here. Stop with the "we" nonesense. You seem like a good kid, but you don't know what "we" need. That is the problem, the rest of the state thinks it knows what "we" need. You don't. You have no idea.
EDIT: The last two "you" references are to the state, not to the poster.
Last edited by Toxic Toast; 01-23-2012 at 01:44 PM..
Indiana sucks! I'm so sick of this stupid backwards state holding our city back. It honestly just makes me want to move. Isn't there a way for cities to pass this on an individual basis? If Indianapolis can decide to fund the Pacers, and Carmel can decide to build an entire downtown, can't individual cities at least expand their public transportation? Is there not some kind of loophole?
Indy can do exactly that, but the entire concept behind the current plan is to develop a regional entity to make a regional tax grab easier. Indy could raise taxes to fund IndyGo more, but only those who live, work, eat (depending on the tax raised) within the confines of Indy proper would be affected.
The problem with Indy/Marion Co. is that funds are limited. There is a lot of lower income/no income in the city. There is a lot of property that gets property tax breaks, and a lot of politically given tax incentives. So there is a lack of revenue. The simple fact is that the powers that be in Indy have decided to focus dumping billions into downtown at the expense of transit. I personally think there is a limit to how much taxation people will put up with. If Indy passed another 1-2% food and beverage tax, that could end up harming those businesses within the city, especially those near the county line, where drivers could just drive a couple miles into a surrounding county for essentially the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wh15395
In my opinion, Chicago offers more than LA, at least as far as the "urban feel" goes. Downtown Chicago has the 2nd biggest skyline in the country with far more activity than downtown Los Angeles even though LA is twice as big. Even though Indianapolis is the same size as Columbus, OH, it has a much more active downtown, yet, significantly less active urban neighborhoods. It all depends on where cities choose to invest their money.
Or how you define "activity." I guess if one gets all happy with cement and tall buildings, then such a person will always view compacted downtown cities has "better" than a more spread out city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wh15395
The only reason people live there is because of the scenery and beautiful weather. Contrast this with Chicago where they had to invest heavily in their downtown and public transit to truly create a world class city.
So "world class," that people will money have fled the city, yes, the actual city, to the burbs. If municipal areas were so great, there would be no suburban living. Obviously urban living, even in Chicago, isn't all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wh15395
Not expanding roads that don't need expanding and subsidizing sports teams. The truth is public transportation is one of those amenities that people expect in a big city and we currently offer virtually none. It helps build density all around the city with strong, urban neighborhoods. Indiana constantly holding Indianapolis back is something that will never change unless we have a strong mayor that puts the state in its place. Mayor Ballard will never be that and it's a shame.
Mayor Ballard and others in Indy could easily have their transit. Sounds like what you are saying is that the political powers in Indy should be able to dictate where the money from the state goes. Transit is costly. If a majority of the people who pay the bills in Indy really wanted expanded transit, they would be down at the CCB demanding massive tax increases to support such a system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter
I do agree that Indianapolis needs to make better strides in public transportation and thought I was pretty strong in that support. It does build density. I've gone through a few times explaining the birth of the "L" and how it helped create Chicago's density as the density wasn't there before the L, the L created it. People think uber density is a requirement at the onset but in truth, it isn't. You will not find a train stop on every corner of any city. People have to travel to said stations and some further than others and some take a bus to a train station. You should have at least moderate density meaning, I wouldn't put a rail stop in the furthest reaches of Decatur township. Unlike a bus stop that sits on every corner, a BRT or rail stop creates a hub where people congregate, business always follow because there's money to be made because there's people waiting. Those same stops generally allow people to move closer to those stops as it save money to hop on a train and walk home after work and your hub expands to accommodate. So I'm all for at least a halfway decent public transportation system. For a person like me who would save thousands a year just by having public transportation means there's money for me to spend elsewhere but since I'm out 10k a year in gas alone, makes it more difficult.
First you say it would build density, then you basically say you can't put a rail stop in a low density area? You just said if you put a rail stop, density would come? That is the problem. If you want to claim "If we build it, they will come," then you can't sell short certain areas of the city. Folks won't support a plan where they have to pay, but certain others get the most benefits. A rail stop in Decatur township makes perfect sense if transit "does build density."
And why are you shelling out $10K/year in gas? What kind of car are you driving? What choices have you made, which you could change, to limit your gas costs?
Indiana sucks! I'm so sick of this stupid backwards state holding our city back. It honestly just makes me want to move. Isn't there a way for cities to pass this on an individual basis? If Indianapolis can decide to fund the Pacers, and Carmel can decide to build an entire downtown, can't individual cities at least expand their public transportation? Is there not some kind of loophole?
Indy can do exactly that, but the entire concept behind the current plan is to develop a regional entity to make a regional tax grab easier. Indy could raise taxes to fund IndyGo more, but only those who live, work, eat (depending on the tax raised) within the confines of Indy proper would be affected.
The problem with Indy/Marion Co. is that funds are limited. There is a lot of lower income/no income in the city. There is a lot of property that gets property tax breaks, and a lot of politically given tax incentives. So there is a lack of revenue. The simple fact is that the powers that be in Indy have decided to focus dumping billions into downtown at the expense of transit. I personally think there is a limit to how much taxation people will put up with. If Indy passed another 1-2% food and beverage tax, that could end up harming those businesses within the city, especially those near the county line, where drivers could just drive a couple miles into a surrounding county for essentially the same thing.
Indy can do exactly that, but the entire concept behind the current plan is to develop a regional entity to make a regional tax grab easier. Indy could raise taxes to fund IndyGo more, but only those who live, work, eat (depending on the tax raised) within the confines of Indy proper would be affected.
The problem with Indy/Marion Co. is that funds are limited. There is a lot of lower income/no income in the city. There is a lot of property that gets property tax breaks, and a lot of politically given tax incentives. So there is a lack of revenue. The simple fact is that the powers that be in Indy have decided to focus dumping billions into downtown at the expense of transit. I personally think there is a limit to how much taxation people will put up with. If Indy passed another 1-2% food and beverage tax, that could end up harming those businesses within the city, especially those near the county line, where drivers could just drive a couple miles into a surrounding county for essentially the same thing.
Or how you define "activity." I guess if one gets all happy with cement and tall buildings, then such a person will always view compacted downtown cities has "better" than a more spread out city.
So "world class," that people will money have fled the city, yes, the actual city, to the burbs. If municipal areas were so great, there would be no suburban living. Obviously urban living, even in Chicago, isn't all that.
Mayor Ballard and others in Indy could easily have their transit. Sounds like what you are saying is that the political powers in Indy should be able to dictate where the money from the state goes. Transit is costly. If a majority of the people who pay the bills in Indy really wanted expanded transit, they would be down at the CCB demanding massive tax increases to support such a system.
First you say it would build density, then you basically say you can't put a rail stop in a low density area? You just said if you put a rail stop, density would come? That is the problem. If you want to claim "If we build it, they will come," then you can't sell short certain areas of the city. Folks won't support a plan where they have to pay, but certain others get the most benefits. A rail stop in Decatur township makes perfect sense if transit "does build density."
And why are you shelling out $10K/year in gas? What kind of car are you driving? What choices have you made, which you could change, to limit your gas costs?
Why am I shelling out 10k a year in gas, because of where I live and where I work like a lot of other people. I don't live in an apartment and just pick up and leave when my lease is up. It's a little bit different with property owners. As far as density, no you do not put in a low density middle of nowhere place.
I usually stay away from transit discussions because they all go on forever and ever with just about the same results. I'm not sure this discussion is any better in that regard, but it's juicy since we're getting word that our rural representatives aren't even acknowledging the bill.
Indy_317, you have long offered a devil's advocate position that is usually particularly well thought out and therefore welcome here--a counterpoint argument is what helps make some of these threads so long. But don't you think you'd win more people to your side if you simply offered a counter example rather than deconstructing every sentence in another person's post and criticizing others simply for holding beliefs that differ from yours?
I mean, we get it: you hate cities and everything urban. You've said it about 250 times in the past, and you say it again here. I, and many others on C-D, feel differently, so you brand us "urban cheerleaders" while mentioning how godawful crime and corruption is in Marion County. Yes, I like cities and urban life, but I respect that not everybody does, and if a person comes here seeking to move to a part of Indy that has a huge yard, close to the country, and a top-rated school system, I'm probably going to recommend something far outside Marion County. You seem to discourage EVERYBODY from moving into Indy regardless of the sort of housing they're seeking. And then you criticize anyone who tries to defend the city, even if it's a purely neutral answer to an out-of-towner's question. Does that make you a rural cheerleader? I have no idea why your old "ravekid" profile no longer appears around here, but it certainly was no less antagonistic.
Love or hate density, one thing it would be hard to argue is that low-density places will have a higher per person tax burden: fewer people in an incorporated area to share the cost of municipal services. Some places do have lower density than Indy, but that usually means even less money to shovel snow, repair roads, fight crime, or whatever that tiny handful of things are that you find to be acceptable municipal services. Higher density by no means equates to lower tax burden, since high-density places often seem to demand fancier public services. But that's reflected in the people's wills themselves. With low density, it will always hit the taxpayers hard when a town needs to bolster the number of officers on patrol, or repair a bridge.
And even if urban living clearly isn't "all that", the evidence from the past 20 years would suggest suburban living ain't all it's cut out to be either. I know you consider Nora urban, but most people wouldn't, and it is still a pretty stable area. Anyone else would argue that everything about a neighborhood like Eagledale or the 38th/Post area are suburban, built in the 1950s for people escaping that jungle of Center Township. Yet these two areas now have particularly high crime. Sure, they're both still in Indy. But housing in Fishers, Brownsburg, Avon, Greenwood, etc is of more or less the same caliber (if a younger age)--what's to say that won't happen there in 30 more years if we all keep abandoning places once they're not brand spanking new? Anyone who has been to the south side of Chicago knows that some purely suburban areas--often with their own school systems--are now completely impoverished: Harvey and Dixmoor are worse than some areas of Chicago itself.
Mass transit will always be a hot button issue and the "yays" and the "nays" aren't going anywhere. Every one of us has something to offer in the discussion, as well as something to learn from the others--hopefully keeping it respectful of other people's differences will at least soften the edges of those contrasting opinions.
Indy_317, you have long offered a devil's advocate position that is usually particularly well thought out and therefore welcome here--a counterpoint argument is what helps make some of these threads so long. ....and criticizing others simply for holding beliefs that differ from yours?
I've already provided my argument in numerous threads about transit: I wouldn't mind paying a little more in taxes for an expanded bus service, including express, no stop buses from some of the suburban cities and towns. Also, so long as someone wants in my wallet, I'll be criticizing, just like the "hate the suburbs" folks here criticize their money going to road construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalcedony
I mean, we get it: you hate cities and everything urban. You've said it about 250 times in the past, and you say it again here. I, and many others on C-D, feel differently, so you brand us "urban cheerleaders" while mentioning how godawful crime and corruption is in Marion County. Yes, I like cities and urban life, but I respect that not everybody does, and if a person comes here seeking to move to a part of Indy that has a huge yard, close to the country, and a top-rated school system, I'm probably going to recommend something far outside Marion County. You seem to discourage EVERYBODY from moving into Indy regardless of the sort of housing they're seeking. And then you criticize anyone who tries to defend the city, even if it's a purely neutral answer to an out-of-towner's question. Does that make you a rural cheerleader? I have no idea why your old "ravekid" profile no longer appears around here, but it certainly was no less antagonistic.
So since you're an urban type, you're upset I point out strong negatives about Marion County? The crime issue is a big one, and like it or not, crime is spreading in Marion County. I'm not sure how long you lived here, but I lived in this area my entire life. When I see places like Nora/86th-Ditch having serious crime problems, which were unheard of back in the 90s when I hung out there occasionally, it is upsetting. I think this problem is bigger than most folks want to give credit. We already have people saying that if one wants to live urban, they have to live a certain way. That is a pretty sad state of affairs if this country has now come to that. One has to button down the hatches in certain areas of urban cities due to rampant violent crime. You can't leave your briefcase in your car..you just have to drag it in and out constantly because if you don't, it will eventually be stolen. This is why I dislike cities/urban areas. Unchecked crimes, political corruption, taxpayer funded corporate bailouts, the list goes on and on. It isn't just confined to big cities, but even those suburban areas that ring urban areas. I see one thing seems to rule over all others in urban areas: Greed. Everyone wants, but no one wants to give. Pro-sports, privatization, mass transit, bike lanes, low-income housing, clean air, government subsidized construction, throw more money to K-12, throw more money to higher ed, subsidized healthcare, subsidized retirement, parks and recreation, and bloated bureaucracy. Urban areas by their shear size come with big tax revenue budgets, but that also means more corruption and greed because everyone wants a cut of that pie for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalcedony
And even if urban living clearly isn't "all that", the evidence from the past 20 years would suggest suburban living ain't all it's cut out to be either. I know you consider Nora urban, but most people wouldn't, and it is still a pretty stable area. Anyone else would argue that everything about a neighborhood like Eagledale or the 38th/Post area are suburban, built in the 1950s for people escaping that jungle of Center Township. Yet these two areas now have particularly high crime. Sure, they're both still in Indy. But housing in Fishers, Brownsburg, Avon, Greenwood, etc is of more or less the same caliber (if a younger age)--what's to say that won't happen there in 30 more years if we all keep abandoning places once they're not brand spanking new? Anyone who has been to the south side of Chicago knows that some purely suburban areas--often with their own school systems--are now completely impoverished: Harvey and Dixmoor are worse than some areas of Chicago itself.
Crime spikes in the outlying counties is already taking place. Section 8 rental of cheaply built homes is taking place. I know to some, urban can only mean miles upon square miles of concrete, stone, brick, fixed rail trains, narrow streets, etc. with high rise office buildings and apartments/condos, maybe a few homes with actual yards that have actual grass in some areas. That definition is just an opinion. Nora, Eagledale, 38th/Post are all urban areas to me. I guess I would call it spread out urban instead of high rise urban. The poverty of the Indy metro area will spread to the surrounding areas. This issue has been discussed on some political blogs I read. What happens then? Will money flight (formerly white flight) happen again? Will business decision makers opt to leave urban highrises and build corporate HQ parks in central Hamilton, Hancock county, and people will money will flee further away from the urban core, to escape the spread of the impoverished population? This is something I have wondered and debated with others about, what does the future hold?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalcedony
Mass transit will always be a hot button issue and the "yays" and the "nays" aren't going anywhere. Every one of us has something to offer in the discussion, as well as something to learn from the others--hopefully keeping it respectful of other people's differences will at least soften the edges of those contrasting opinions.
The problem is that too many die-hard mass transit types can't be content with a nice expanded IndyGo system. When you start talking about taking the rail line away, some of them just can't believe that. I can only surmise these are urban folks who think that in order to be "urban" a very costly fixed line train must be built, regardless of ridership or how much money is wasted to operate the thing.
I have always thought that urban areas can work without so much bureaucracy, but it seems the more urban a place becomes, the more socialist programs and laws people demand. They start demanding things they agree with, but balk at the idea of having to take more of their money to fund things the other citizens want. The problem then comes they know that they have to play the game. If they want mass transit, they have to pay for sport stadiums, parks, snow plows for the car commuters, etc.. What I sometimes see here is an attack on those of us who tell folks to move suburban and avoid Indy. I think a lot of that comes from urban cheerleaders who get upset that actual producers, thus taxpayers, are being told to avoid the city. Sorry, but if someone comes here wanting low crime, low taxes, I'll tell them to avoid the city for sure. If they come here wanting to ride the bus to work, I'll tell them to live in the city, near a bus route.
And to keep this conversation on mass transit, I will say this weekend I had the time to do a through study on if taking the bus to work would work for me and how much I would save. Since I work some weekends, my savings would only be around $300 for the year(*). Looking at the IndyGo website and routes is pretty sad. I would need to catch a bus on the east side (either the Meijer bus or Washington St/Wall Mart) and transfer to another one downtown. They system actually doesn't seem all that bad.
The first problem is that the times are just too long. A one hour trip (if that, as I read Indy Go is notorious for being late) on a bus for a trip that takes me 20 mins. via car? That is one problem. For me, that isn't really an issue, as I have no kids and thus I don't have a lot of deadlines.
The second problem is the cost. Even for a person like me, who could only use the system 15 or 16 days a month, the 30 day pass still ends up being the cheapest option. That $60 is just too much though. I also question why people on Medicare should automatically get a pass. Funny all my relatives on Medicare who are retired have very, very good retirements. While they maybe technically "fixed income," I think having savings of anywhere from $250-$500K, maybe more?, should negate the savings. Maybe a better idea would be for a person to show their driver's license and a Medicaid card? I have to wonder how many UAW pension folks ride the bus, making $30K/year (maybe more?), paying half price, while the 28 year old house keeper who makes $25K/year has to pay full price.
The last problem is that there are no express buses that I can tell, at least from the east side. This relates to the first problem. Having one or two express buses during the rush hour may negate the need for more buses overall. If I could board at Meijer and take an express bus to downtown, it would definitely make my trip more stable. As it stands now, my trip to work has two options. Option one puts me at work 50 mins. early, and includes an hour bus ride. Option two puts me at work just 10 mins. early, and still includes an hour bus ride. However, given the rumors of IndyGo being late, option two worries me. Doesn't anyone know how "on time" Indy Go is in the early morning hours? Like the buses that run before 7AM?
*My savings is solely in gas. Yea, add another $200 or so for oil changes, wear an tear. I didn't factor in a car payment because even riding the bus, I'm a firm believer in having a car. My car is currently paid off, but is aging, and I'm sure repairs will be needed given age and miles driven. However, if I were to ride the bus to work, I wouldn't necessarily need a newer, more reliable car, so there would be some savings there as well. Obviously if one didn't have a car, and only rented a vehicle, the savings would be into the thousands.
You do know that this line is down until early April for a total system overhaul? Also, unless they developed a work around, when the temps got low enough to a certain temperature, the tram couldn't operate. This is kinda thought to still be an issue, hence why they shutdown started this month for the overhaul.
To me, the system is limited in scope. I do think they need to extend it to the new Wishard, and it wouldn't be that hard to do as it stands now. However, I'm not sure where one would extend it to from there. The system is on a fixed track, and it isn't all that fast. Trips have to go the entire length before the trains go back.
I looked at the design speed for the train it listed only 30 mph max. That's not fast enough compared to other systems that run 40 or more. I thought it could run faster but I guess not considering that this system falls under the "people mover" category. It would be nice to at least turn it into a downtown circular line like the one in Detroit, JAX or Miami.
I looked at the design speed for the train it listed only 30 mph max. That's not fast enough compared to other systems that run 40 or more. I thought it could run faster but I guess not considering that this system falls under the "people mover" category. It would be nice to at least turn it into a downtown circular line like the one in Detroit, JAX or Miami.
Downtown doesn't really need a rail type circulator. The IndyGo Red Line is the downtown circulator. Add the people mover and the IUPUI shuttles and it's very efficient given you really do not need mass transit to move about downtown. Granted going from Lilly to the VA would be a nice haul but that's why you have the Red Line and jump on a IUPUI shuttle and your're there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
