Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
To the original poster: Good job on the map. I would love to see something like that implemented for Indianapolis.
Now for my two cents.
Do we remember the movie "Field of Dreams"? That's how I feel about Indy and the transportation situation. "If you build it, they will come."
The map the OP provides is a knockoff of the D.C. metrorail system that someone, somewhere created and it's been floating around the web. It bears no resemblance to the IndyConnect plan being floated, which largely relies on BRT.
The map the OP provides is a knockoff of the D.C. metrorail system that someone, somewhere created and it's been floating around the web. It bears no resemblance to the IndyConnect plan being floated, which largely relies on BRT.
Okay. That's fine. But if Indy wants to continue to grow and stay relevant, transit like thOP posted will be necessary in the near future
Exactly Garmasterb hence why i would perfer that we try a Public-Private Partnership for the Mass Transit system. However if that is not viable we have to raise taxes somewhere to pay for it. Raise Taxes on Cigarettes and Alcohol by 20-25 cents and use that money to *Build* the Mass Transit system and use the Fees and Fares collected by the people riding it to pay for most if not all the maintenance cost.
I agree that transit has to be improved for Indy to grow and stay relevant, but a system like that posted by the OP would be a financial boondoggle.
Just about any mass transit outside of perhaps BRT would be a financial boondoggle given current density levels. To support even a hybrid version of commuter light rail, you need sizeable nodes with at least 5000K per square mile. Currently, Indy doesn't have that.
A decent comparison would be St. Louis, which does have a hybrid light/commuter rail system. You can select density maps at the NYT site here and zoom in to both cities at the tract level:
Indy has small pockets of 5K+ density, but they're usually only a census tract or two containing maybe 5 or 6 thousand people at most. The biggest nodes are a relatively small corridor between 38th and 56th up college of 20K people (but no RR right of way to build on) and another area on the near east side that contains maybe 20-30K, but not exactly in the best area. That's it.
St. Louis built their initial line from downtown to their airport. The line travels though long stretches of neighborhoods and inner suburbs meeting the density threshholds: downtown to midtown to the Central West End, to DeBalliviere to U-City, and so on. These areas of density contain maybe 200K, which is enough to support a viable, but not great, line.
I like Indy (having grown up there and having tried last year to move back), but density is the problem. Compared to other MW cities of roughly similar size (Columbus, Cincy, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Milwaukee), Indianapolis (like KC) lacks the density of those others. You can zoom in on any of them in the NYT mapper and see that dark purple zone that Indy doesn't have.
Exactly Garmasterb hence why i would perfer that we try a Public-Private Partnership for the Mass Transit system. However if that is not viable we have to raise taxes somewhere to pay for it. Raise Taxes on Cigarettes and Alcohol by 20-25 cents and use that money to *Build* the Mass Transit system and use the Fees and Fares collected by the people riding it to pay for most if not all the maintenance cost.
Public/Private partnership? Like what? And would people be willing to pay MORE to use a Public/Private transit system?
I can't help but think of parking. How's that working out in downtown after being handled by a private company? More expensive? Parking in Chicago has turned into something you pay an arm and a leg for after parking responsibilities were handed over to a private company .
But back on topic.
"If you build it, they will come" I still believe that. If one line was built from say, 126th and Meridian to the Greenwood Park Mall with stops in between at 86th and Meridian and Washington and Meridian business and residency numbers would start to increase around those areas, without a doubt. And even if the business and residency numbers didn't rise as anticipated, maybe, just maybe, consider building a sizable and sufficient parking garage at those locations. People in Indianapolis would have to bee weened off their cars for transit to reach it's full potential.
And the first step would be to get people to DRIVE to the place where they can take a train to where they want to go.
And a final note, using cigarette taxes to help fund transit would be asking for mass transit to fail in Indianapolis. I'm trying to quit, but back in Indiana I smoked a pack a day. And by quick "guesstimation", the state/city has lost $700 in tax revenues from me. That's a lot of cash from one person in a year. Combine my situation with 1,000's of other people stopping smoking on a yearly basis and the "extra cash" for transit starts to dwindle.
Try asking the average Indiana tax payer to pony up an extra $700 in taxes to replace the revenue from a former smoker, and see how well that goes. I'll tell you, it won't.
Add on top of that the reason why taxes on cigarettes are so high is for people to get something out of quitting smoking (i.e. not paying more money via taxes) and raising taxes on smokes to pay for something in the future looks like intentionally shooting yourself in the foot.
"If you build it, they will come" I still believe that. If one line was built from say, 126th and Meridian to the Greenwood Park Mall with stops in between at 86th and Meridian and Washington and Meridian business and residency numbers would start to increase around those areas, without a doubt. And even if the business and residency numbers didn't rise as anticipated, maybe, just maybe, consider building a sizable and sufficient parking garage at those locations. People in Indianapolis would have to bee weened off their cars for transit to reach it's full potential.
I agree that transit can draw residents, but again, the problem with "if you build it they will come" is that you need certain minimum density thresholds in the first place and Indy doesn't (yet) have these corridors of minimum density. Building trains through areas with 2000 to 4000 people per square mile won't be enough to support bare minimum ridership--especially when traffic really isn't that bad in Indianapolis.
What needs to happen first is that development patterns need to change to some degree. More town center approaches to suburbs where employment is located in a concentrated area rather than the campus-like setting you see up and down 31 on the north side for example.
The commercial density doesn't need to be that high, but as long as surface parking is readily available and free (or cheap), people will want to use their automobiles. And why wouldn't they when you get down to it? Just looking at the concept of getting people to drive someplace to take the train in (Greenwood Park Mall to downtown). Even if the train is $5 RT (with cheap station parking of $3) and DT parking is $10, they're not going to spend time driving over to the mall, waiting for the train, then taking it downtown, then braving the elements on a bad day, then walking to work for a savings of maybe $7 when you factor in fuel costs as well.
Not when the trip will cost them a 10 minute drive to the station, a 10 minute wait, a 25 minute ride, a 3 minute walk, if things go according to plan w/out transit delays. In return, they lose maybe 30 minutes roundtrip a day on transit, the flexibility to duck out easily to make Drs appointments, your kids' school play or a ball game, etc. That's worth more than $7 a day to people, which is what they savings comes to when you factor in fuel costs. There are always the people who can't afford car ownership, but they're not living in greenwood/franklin/whiteland anyway.
The equation needs to be more like: savings taking transit ($10 to $15 a day) - time lost to transit (maybe 10% longer commute rather than 30% or so) - lost flexibility w/out car >= zero. And the only way to get enough of these people on the train is to insure that more people live in a given area.
To increase density, the area needs to think regionally and impose certain tax incentives designed to bring density up along corridors:
-tax incentives for buying a home on already developed land rather than one in a new development (which increases sprawl)
-property taxes levied not only on a home value basis, but in terms of how many resources a home consumes. Large lot/low density = more miles of road, sewer and gas lines per household = more expense to maintain infrastructure. Infrastructure tax should therefore be higher for a home on half an acre than it is for a townhome, even if they're worth the same on the market.
-tax incentives to businesses opening or moving to designated high density commercial zones w/ less surface parking and more walkability.
Moves like this would encourage more walkable areas around places like Keystone or Castleton, more downtown residents, further development of commecial corridors between the airport and downtown, etc.
I agree that transit can draw residents, but again, the problem with "if you build it they will come" is that you need certain minimum density thresholds in the first place and Indy doesn't (yet) have these corridors of minimum density. Building trains through areas with 2000 to 4000 people per square mile won't be enough to support bare minimum ridership--especially when traffic really isn't that bad in Indianapolis.
What needs to happen first is that development patterns need to change to some degree. More town center approaches to suburbs where employment is located in a concentrated area rather than the campus-like setting you see up and down 31 on the north side for example.
The commercial density doesn't need to be that high, but as long as surface parking is readily available and free (or cheap), people will want to use their automobiles. And why wouldn't they when you get down to it? Just looking at the concept of getting people to drive someplace to take the train in (Greenwood Park Mall to downtown). Even if the train is $5 RT (with cheap station parking of $3) and DT parking is $10, they're not going to spend time driving over to the mall, waiting for the train, then taking it downtown, then braving the elements on a bad day, then walking to work for a savings of maybe $7 when you factor in fuel costs as well.
Not when the trip will cost them a 10 minute drive to the station, a 10 minute wait, a 25 minute ride, a 3 minute walk, if things go according to plan w/out transit delays. In return, they lose maybe 30 minutes roundtrip a day on transit, the flexibility to duck out easily to make Drs appointments, your kids' school play or a ball game, etc. That's worth more than $7 a day to people, which is what they savings comes to when you factor in fuel costs. There are always the people who can't afford car ownership, but they're not living in greenwood/franklin/whiteland anyway.
The equation needs to be more like: savings taking transit ($10 to $15 a day) - time lost to transit (maybe 10% longer commute rather than 30% or so) - lost flexibility w/out car >= zero. And the only way to get enough of these people on the train is to insure that more people live in a given area.
To increase density, the area needs to think regionally and impose certain tax incentives designed to bring density up along corridors:
-tax incentives for buying a home on already developed land rather than one in a new development (which increases sprawl)
-property taxes levied not only on a home value basis, but in terms of how many resources a home consumes. Large lot/low density = more miles of road, sewer and gas lines per household = more expense to maintain infrastructure. Infrastructure tax should therefore be higher for a home on half an acre than it is for a townhome, even if they're worth the same on the market.
-tax incentives to businesses opening or moving to designated high density commercial zones w/ less surface parking and more walkability.
Moves like this would encourage more walkable areas around places like Keystone or Castleton, more downtown residents, further development of commecial corridors between the airport and downtown, etc.
Well one of my plans to help enlarge and boost the Downtown is to remove all the stupid parking *Lots* and replace them with developable land. Knowing how Indy's Downtown is a prime location for business. Heck just a few months ago the American College of Education is relocating its HQ from Chicago to an office building on Ohio Street. Such moves like that bring more people to downtown to work everyday. We need to be very presistant in attracting businesses from around the country to come and set up shop in downtown Indy. CME group already has said they are interested in leaving Illinois due to Quinns Tax Hike. Why Mitch Daniels and Greg Ballard aren't pursuing them to come here is beyond my understanding. Heck a 3 hour move isn't that bad lol.
Also to add. Adding a 10 story Parking Garage downtown allows us to open up 10 lots for development.
I know they are tearing up some lots for 16 Tech which there is some road construction going on now and the renovation to Victory Field should be starting soon. I don't think anyone in the city thought east downtown would be a big parking lot after MSA was torn down but it seems every development project for that area has fallen through for whatever reason. I would prefer underground parking to above ground any day of the week.
As far as rider density, I think the city could pull it off. IndyGo sucks but they have more riders than buses to accommodate the ridership. It would also connect other areas of the city to one another. Let's face it, people stick to their part of town unless they go downtown because the city is large land wise and people don't want to burn the gas. Efficient Public transportation can easily be business incubator because it can add foot traffic to areas that wouldn't normally have it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
