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.
I grew up in DC area, I spent most of my teenage years riding the metro and buses in DC area before moving away... It's an awesome setup.. The metro and the bus system perfectly complement each other. I'd love a watered down setup of DC's metro to fit Indy's smaller population.
The perfect DC style setup I'd envision would be Union Station downtown as the main central metro station with lines running to the Airport on the west side, Lawrence on the East side, Greenwood on the south side, Carmel and Noblesville on the north side and Fishers on the Northeast side with bus lines servicing the other areas... And of course each line would have stops at major locations on every individual line.
It's been years since I rode the DC Metro. A smaller version of the system would be perfect for Indy. I would get rid of the aluminum train shed used for Amtrak for starters. Architecturally, it just doesn't compliment the Union Station very well. It looks cheap. (probably is)
The ride is very similar to the one at Disney World, yes. It's usually clean, it's all electric, no drivers. The biggest problem with the Vegas monorail is it doesn't go to the airport. They keep talking about extending it to the airport but it's an expensive prospect. Plus I think the cab unions lobby hard to keep it from happening. The second biggest problem is that as a way to get up and down the strip, it's in a bad location, behind the casinos that can take literally 15 minutes to walk through to get to the monorail then 15 minutes at the end of the trip back to the road. And forget it if you're at a hotel on the other side of the street. Plus, Vegas has a city bus called The Deuce that runs the length of the strip for about a quarter of the cost of riding the monorail.
I wonder if we will also have a problem with the cab companies here. Are they also union?
I'm curious as to how many of the locals here have experience using rail transit in other cities (especially the naysayers). If so which cities and what ideas from those systems do you think could benefit Indy. The cities off the top of my head that I have used are places like Seoul, NYC (MTA/NJTransit), Atlanta (MARTA), DC (Metro) Chicago (CTA), Miami (TriRail, Metrorail), Boston("T"/commuter), Amsterdam etc. etc. Am I the only one here?
I'm a native (and fan of Indy), but not longer in the city (nor am I in Chicago, despite the user name). I've ridden on at least 50 rail and BRT systems around the world. The problem with applying what other cities have done to Indy is the extreme difference in both residential and employment density, both of which are responsible for driving ridership and system intensivity. If you assume 8,000 residents per square mile is the absolute minimum for LRT feasibility, currently only 55,200 Indy area residents live at those densities on a census block group level. For reference, we can look at other large urban areas in the Midwest to compare as a point of reference. St. Louis has 3.7x the people living at those densities. Cleveland (5.9x), Milwaukee (7.6x, even though it is smaller than Indy), Columbus (2.9x), Cincinnati (2.2x), Chicago (61x), Minneapolis (6.8x), Detroit (7.6x). KC is the only metro of similar density.
It's telling that Cleveland elected to go the BRT route with the Healthline (despite their densities) and KC keeps running into LRT approval issues. Charlotte is really the only comparable in the country, and they lack density even more than Indy. 15,000 riders on a weekday is not impressive. Neither is the cost, which should be fairly similar on a per mile basis to Indy. $48 million per mile, so figure at best, a downtown to Hamilton Co. line route would run $500 million.
The IndyConnect plan is bold and aspirational, but it is not in the least realistic, given the budget they have set their sights on. The claim that these things can run as often as every 5 minutes is misleading at best too. There are probably no more than 8 systems that have the critical mass required to provide every 5 minute LRT service during commute times and Indy isn't one of them. I get the feeling based upon the budget and ambitious footprint and timeframe that IndyConnect is dangling the possibility of LRT when it just isn't feasible. Getting three or four of these BRT routes in over the time period would be impressive in and of itself.
The best BRT example I can think of currently in use is Cleveland's Healthline. It stops a bit to frequently and it was pricey, but that a more budget conscious version of this should be the aspirational goal. Pre-board ticketing, level platforming and boarding, ETA displays, dedicated lanes, and light prioritization. Chicago's Ashland BRT plan ticks all of those boxes and is probably closest to what I think Indy should look like...and it can be achieved for probably $10 million per mile.
I'm a native (and fan of Indy), but not longer in the city (nor am I in Chicago, despite the user name). I've ridden on at least 50 rail and BRT systems around the world. The problem with applying what other cities have done to Indy is the extreme difference in both residential and employment density, both of which are responsible for driving ridership and system intensivity. If you assume 8,000 residents per square mile is the absolute minimum for LRT feasibility, currently only 55,200 Indy area residents live at those densities on a census block group level. For reference, we can look at other large urban areas in the Midwest to compare as a point of reference. St. Louis has 3.7x the people living at those densities. Cleveland (5.9x), Milwaukee (7.6x, even though it is smaller than Indy), Columbus (2.9x), Cincinnati (2.2x), Chicago (61x), Minneapolis (6.8x), Detroit (7.6x). KC is the only metro of similar density.
It's telling that Cleveland elected to go the BRT route with the Healthline (despite their densities) and KC keeps running into LRT approval issues. Charlotte is really the only comparable in the country, and they lack density even more than Indy. 15,000 riders on a weekday is not impressive. Neither is the cost, which should be fairly similar on a per mile basis to Indy. $48 million per mile, so figure at best, a downtown to Hamilton Co. line route would run $500 million.
The IndyConnect plan is bold and aspirational, but it is not in the least realistic, given the budget they have set their sights on. The claim that these things can run as often as every 5 minutes is misleading at best too. There are probably no more than 8 systems that have the critical mass required to provide every 5 minute LRT service during commute times and Indy isn't one of them. I get the feeling based upon the budget and ambitious footprint and timeframe that IndyConnect is dangling the possibility of LRT when it just isn't feasible. Getting three or four of these BRT routes in over the time period would be impressive in and of itself.
The best BRT example I can think of currently in use is Cleveland's Healthline. It stops a bit to frequently and it was pricey, but that a more budget conscious version of this should be the aspirational goal. Pre-board ticketing, level platforming and boarding, ETA displays, dedicated lanes, and light prioritization. Chicago's Ashland BRT plan ticks all of those boxes and is probably closest to what I think Indy should look like...and it can be achieved for probably $10 million per mile.
You may also want to keep in mind that more dense residential development was built along Charlotte's LINX lightrail corridor line as a result. Salt Lake City experienced it as well. The same thing could happen here. I remember when Atlanta didn't have as much density before MARTA expanded. However, you have to start somewhere. BRT would be better than anything we have right now even if there is no light rail.
As for Cleveland, it would have been nice if the RTA included more heavy rail inner city cars on the other lines. Cleveland is the only city outside Chicago using heavy rail car sets not counting the commuter rail Southshore cars going to South Bend, Indiana.
You may also want to keep in mind that more dense residential development was built along Charlotte's LINX lightrail corridor line as a result. Salt Lake City experienced it as well. The same thing could happen here. I remember when Atlanta didn't have as much density before MARTA expanded. However, you have to start somewhere. BRT would be better than anything we have right now even if there is no light rail.
As for Cleveland, it would have been nice if the RTA included more heavy rail inner city cars on the other lines. Cleveland is the only city outside Chicago using heavy rail car sets not counting the commuter rail Southshore cars going to South Bend, Indiana.
Doesn't St. Louis have an El train? Does that not constitute as heavy rail? I also think Milwaukee has one.
Doesn't St. Louis have an El train? Does that not constitute as heavy rail? I also think Milwaukee has one.
The MetroLink in St Louis is a system using only light rail cars which consist of only two lines with a total system length of 46 miles. The are certain parts of the line that are elevated like the one at the airport for example next to I-70. Milwaukee has Amtrak service from Chicago so it's not the same class. Chicago's CTA and Cleveland's RTA (Red Line) are the only cities in the Midwest using heavy 3rd rail cars not to be confused with the heavy commuter rail cars like Metra (Chicago) or Northstar (Minneapolis-St Paul). I haven't looked at Indy's proposed map lately but am curious as to how many miles of track length it would be in total if all lines were actually converted to LRT. If that were to happen I wonder where we would rank in the region. That's a lot of lines. (hypothetical of course).
You may also want to keep in mind that more dense residential development was built along Charlotte's LINX lightrail corridor line as a result. Salt Lake City experienced it as well. The same thing could happen here. I remember when Atlanta didn't have as much density before MARTA expanded. However, you have to start somewhere. BRT would be better than anything we have right now even if there is no light rail.
As for Cleveland, it would have been nice if the RTA included more heavy rail inner city cars on the other lines. Cleveland is the only city outside Chicago using heavy rail car sets not counting the commuter rail Southshore cars going to South Bend, Indiana.
There are a number of differences between Indy and SLC/Charlotte/Atlanta. Atlanta sprawls a ton, but it does contain a number of very dense areas even before MARTA. MARTA still hasn't done a lot for increasing density on the outlying transit stops. Implementation of anything walkable has been pretty poor. SLC was always more dense as well. The big difference though is growth. Indy's growth rate is extremely impressive given its region. If you compare 1990 to 2010 MSA population (using the same county definition to keep things apples-apples), the metro grew by one third. Of all metros in 1990 of over one million (again using 2010 county definitions), Indy grew faster than any other metro from VA Beach to the Great Plains and north. It doesn't stack up well w/ the SE and West though. Charlotte grew twice as fast. SLC even faster. ATL not as fast as those two (still faster than Indy), but in absolute numbers (given their size) they grew at a huge clip. Indy is growing at about 20,000 residents per year now. Charlotte and SLC at 40,000 and Atlanta at 50K. Those cities are always behind on housing, so it's much easier to steer development to transit corridors. I'm not saying Indy can't do the same, but those metros should be able to do at least twice as much transit-oriented development in the same amount of time as Indy.
Personally, I'm glad CLE didn't go with more heavy rail. HRT needs even more density than LRT to get decent farebox recovery, and there are only a few metros in the country with the density to pull it off reasonably well: Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, LA, and the Bay Area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
Doesn't St. Louis have an El train? Does that not constitute as heavy rail? I also think Milwaukee has one.
Urbanologist is correct. You might be confused because the original line runs on legacy freight rail tracks from downtown until it gets about 2 miles from the airport, at which point it elevates to get over I-170. The newer branch splits from the original line near the Central West End. The line runs on a new corridor and elevates to navigate through the tangle around downtown Clayton and Richmond Heights of Forest Park Parkway, 170, and Highway 40.
There are a number of differences between Indy and SLC/Charlotte/Atlanta. Atlanta sprawls a ton, but it does contain a number of very dense areas even before MARTA. MARTA still hasn't done a lot for increasing density on the outlying transit stops. Implementation of anything walkable has been pretty poor. SLC was always more dense as well. The big difference though is growth. Indy's growth rate is extremely impressive given its region. If you compare 1990 to 2010 MSA population (using the same county definition to keep things apples-apples), the metro grew by one third. Of all metros in 1990 of over one million (again using 2010 county definitions), Indy grew faster than any other metro from VA Beach to the Great Plains and north. It doesn't stack up well w/ the SE and West though. Charlotte grew twice as fast. SLC even faster. ATL not as fast as those two (still faster than Indy), but in absolute numbers (given their size) they grew at a huge clip. Indy is growing at about 20,000 residents per year now. Charlotte and SLC at 40,000 and Atlanta at 50K. Those cities are always behind on housing, so it's much easier to steer development to transit corridors. I'm not saying Indy can't do the same, but those metros should be able to do at least twice as much transit-oriented development in the same amount of time as Indy.
Personally, I'm glad CLE didn't go with more heavy rail. HRT needs even more density than LRT to get decent farebox recovery, and there are only a few metros in the country with the density to pull it off reasonably well: Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, LA, and the Bay Area.
Hey, I can buy a fleet of these for about 21,000 each and go private. I don't think IndyGo would be happy having competition from a private competitor. I do have a CDL to actually drive one of these. Would the state allow me to do this as an owner operator? Start my own bus company. DART buses from Dallas.
Last edited by urbanologist; 03-17-2014 at 07:41 AM..
Of course, I was only kidding. (like they would let me do this)
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.
