Good News For Transit (Indianapolis, Fishers: employment, neighborhood, buy)

[wh15395]

Here's a good news story that pretty much came out of nowhere. Glad to see local communities starting something by bypassing our horrible state lawmakers. I especially like that the article says shuttles will run from the park and ride lots to major employment centers.

Reverse-commuter lines to roll to Hendricks, Hamilton counties | 2012-03-02 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

[Toxic Toast]

Sounds good, unless they are charging $5 a ride like they are now. I would love to bus to work in Fishers, but I won't be paying $25 a week for the service! Actually, maybe I will. That would be cheaper than gas for my car if the price keeps rising.

[sweetana3]

And it will only last until the Federal funding is gone.

[A2DAC1985]

Originally Posted by sweetana3

And it will only last until the Federal funding is gone.

This is the question that a lot of people, maybe not quite as briefly, pose:

Which came first: density or transit?

And this is what I want to know:

Why would anyone living in current day Indianapolis want to live in a "dense" environment? Honestly.



Without density, you can't support the transit.
Without transit, you can't support the density.

Something has to give for anything to happen. Even if the "federal" money is temporary it could very well be a spark to get people wanting to live in a "dense" environment.

This causes me to wonder if Indianapolis was just as dense pre-Interstates, or if the density of the city increased after the Interstates were built? I have a very hard time believing that the interstates did have a long term negative effect on Indianapolis (even though Eisenhower's highway plan actually ended up being $100 billion instead of $30 billion), especially in terms of "density".

And I also think that the density of Indianapolis wasn't quite what it was pre-railroad versus post-railroad, either. A variety of transportation options gives people an additional reason to live somewhere, and as an added "benefit" promotes density around those transportation options.

Why would anyone live in an Indianapolis neighborhood with a density of 8,000-15,000 people per square mile? Is there any benefit to it? When people buy something with their money, in this case a housing location, they want the most out of their money. For someone to pay the same amount of money to live in a 10,000 ppsm area or a 2,000 ppsm area, and be afforded the same exact transportation options and essentially the same commute times to various locations, a majority of people choose the extra space (least dense). Why? Because it's more for their money. This is a Capitalism driven country after all.

Public transportation is more for your money. It's something that gets people to say, "Three hundred square feet isn't that much smaller than where we're at now. I think it's worth it." "Five, ten, fifteen minutes more to my commute is worth it so long as I don't have to drive there."

Maybe a taste of some reliable, efficient, and convenient transportation options will get local governments and citizens or private businesses interested in keeping it going after "federal" money is gone.

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by A2DAC1985

This is the question that a lot of people, maybe not quite as briefly, pose:

Which came first: density or transit?

And this is what I want to know:

Why would anyone living in current day Indianapolis want to live in a "dense" environment? Honestly.



Without density, you can't support the transit.
Without transit, you can't support the density.

Something has to give for anything to happen. Even if the "federal" money is temporary it could very well be a spark to get people wanting to live in a "dense" environment.

This causes me to wonder if Indianapolis was just as dense pre-Interstates, or if the density of the city increased after the Interstates were built? I have a very hard time believing that the interstates did have a long term negative effect on Indianapolis (even though Eisenhower's highway plan actually ended up being $100 billion instead of $30 billion), especially in terms of "density".

And I also think that the density of Indianapolis wasn't quite what it was pre-railroad versus post-railroad, either. A variety of transportation options gives people an additional reason to live somewhere, and as an added "benefit" promotes density around those transportation options.

Why would anyone live in an Indianapolis neighborhood with a density of 8,000-15,000 people per square mile? Is there any benefit to it? When people buy something with their money, in this case a housing location, they want the most out of their money. For someone to pay the same amount of money to live in a 10,000 ppsm area or a 2,000 ppsm area, and be afforded the same exact transportation options and essentially the same commute times to various locations, a majority of people choose the extra space (least dense). Why? Because it's more for their money. This is a Capitalism driven country after all.

Public transportation is more for your money. It's something that gets people to say, "Three hundred square feet isn't that much smaller than where we're at now. I think it's worth it." "Five, ten, fifteen minutes more to my commute is worth it so long as I don't have to drive there."

Maybe a taste of some reliable, efficient, and convenient transportation options will get local governments and citizens or private businesses interested in keeping it going after "federal" money is gone.

Public transportation is more dependent upon how far you are travelling. Someone travelling from the suburbs into the central city is definitely more for your money. Travelling a couple of miles would more than likely end in a loss. Private business doesn't get into public transportation because it's a money loser which is why for public transportation to function, it must come at the expense of taxpayers. As far as your housing analogy, people want more for their money esp. for the most expensive item they will ever purchase. It also depends on ones station in life. For people building for a family, that additional space tends to be more important than living in a high density area whereas for those younger, no children tends to be the opposite and are willing to pay for the uptick to live in said higher density area until they start a family and they themselves search for areas that fit that need.

Each area has its place and no area really can say its better than the other. When I was younger, I liked the larger more packed areas. Now, I have kids and those areas no longer appeal to me other than to visit. I love the additional space, the yard, the quietness that one needs with a family. I'm 20 minutes from downtown just like all other on the border people between suburb and city known as Indianapolis. Working on the north side and living on the south side makes perfect sense for someone using mass transit, it's 40 minutes one way and one would save a ton of money even with the uptick in property taxes to continue to fund it.

The city itself is almost a perfect square and very easy to get around by road and doesn't take nearly as long as some locales. How many people have said Indianapolis seems small and how quick people seem to be able to drive through it. Well geographically, it's one of the largest cities at 360 sq miles larger geographically than NYC, Chicago, LA, Detroit, ATL etc. But all cities are configured differently so coming from the Norwood Park area in Chicago into the Loop is different than coming from Decatur Township into the Mile Square in Indianapolis.