Momentum for Muncie-to-Indy commuter rail

Support is developing for a commuter rail system connecting Muncie to Indianapolis.

[old fogy]

Tell me this is a joke. The politicians are at it again. They should all be looking for a real job this Labor Day. I don't know what they are smoking, but something bad is working on them if they think they will be able to get the average central Indiana commuter out of their trusty automobiles. We like our independence and to be able to have our own schedule too much.

[Citizen One]

*sigh* When are these people going to stop playing the same tired, old tune? The subject has already been studied to death and the results are always the same. Billions of dollars in costs (initial and ongoing) all to remove 4% of the traffic from the I-69 route. The taxpayers will be forced to pay billions for removing 4 out of 100 cars on that road. That's insanity, no matter how you look at it.
If the issue was worth pursuing then the local governments should just put it out there and see how many private companies would be willing to pursue it. Grant them the rights of way necessary (without using eminent domain to benefit private business), and let it be a privately funded venture, without a single tax dollar going towards it. If it is worth doing then private companies will line up to do it. Otherwise we're just looking at another state sponsored boondoggle and welfare program.

[Dirk]

old fogy wrote:

Tell me this is a joke. The politicians are at it again. They should all be looking for a real job this Labor Day. I don't know what they are smoking, but something bad is working on them if they think they will be able to get the average central Indiana commuter out of their trusty automobiles. We like our independence and to be able to have our own schedule too much.

Well maybe if you lived there, your opinion would matter. And it's not about politicians trying to buy a vote. Urban planning which is based on academic studies usually presents solutions which are unpopular in the short run. In 15 years, the average Fishers commuter will happily drive to a train station for a stress-free ride to work over the mayhem and delay on I69.

[janmoll]

I would love to see this happen. It would make it easier for me to getup there to see relatives. I certainly hope it happens.

[mediagiant]

I say it's time to stop studying and start building. We need rapid transit desperately in Central Indiana. We cannot afford to build our way out of congestion any longer through wider highways and larger thoroughfares. We need a viable alternative to the car in this area, and we need it NOW...not later.

[mediagiant]

Citizen One wrote:

*sigh* When are these people going to stop playing the same tired, old tune? The subject has already been studied to death and the results are always the same. Billions of dollars in costs (initial and ongoing) all to remove 4% of the traffic from the I-69 route. The taxpayers will be forced to pay billions for removing 4 out of 100 cars on that road. That's insanity, no matter how you look at it.
If the issue was worth pursuing then the local governments should just put it out there and see how many private companies would be willing to pursue it. Grant them the rights of way necessary (without using eminent domain to benefit private business), and let it be a privately funded venture, without a single tax dollar going towards it. If it is worth doing then private companies will line up to do it. Otherwise we're just looking at another state sponsored boondoggle and welfare program.

You can't have unsubsidized mass transit. It has never worked anywhere. But please remember...the government subsidizes automobile transit by building more and more highways. I don't get why people don't realize that building roads costs money too!

[Redneck]

And spending billions upon billions on adding lane after lane, cubic tons of smog after cubic tons of smog, and death after highway death isn't a government boondoggle? Visit a city with a rail system. It isn't just the lowest of incomes who use it. Its the corporate execs too.

Citizen One wrote:

*sigh* When are these people going to stop playing the same tired, old tune? The subject has already been studied to death and the results are always the same. Billions of dollars in costs (initial and ongoing) all to remove 4% of the traffic from the I-69 route. The taxpayers will be forced to pay billions for removing 4 out of 100 cars on that road. That's insanity, no matter how you look at it.
If the issue was worth pursuing then the local governments should just put it out there and see how many private companies would be willing to pursue it. Grant them the rights of way necessary (without using eminent domain to benefit private business), and let it be a privately funded venture, without a single tax dollar going towards it. If it is worth doing then private companies will line up to do it. Otherwise we're just looking at another state sponsored boondoggle and welfare program.

[varangianguard]

While this may not pan out, it is at least worthwhile having a look at. I'm still not sold on fixed rail as a solution, but those corridors could use something besides 10 more lanes of highway.

[Nicolas Martin]

Boondoggle. Even intra-city light rail systems lose vast sums in the US, much less inter-city rail between a moderately large city and a small one.

Useful info on light rail:
http://www.reason.org/lightrail/index.shtml

The politicians are spending money on unpopular sinkholes like light rail instead of maintaining roads and bridges. Is the next bridge your drive over safe?

----------
The New York Times:

Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, sent out a news release last month boasting about Minnesota’s share of a recent transportation and housing appropriations bill.

Of the $12 million secured for the state,$10 million is slated for a new 40-mile commuter rail line to Minneapolis, called the Northstar. The remaining $2 million is divided among a new bike and walking path and a few other projects, including highway work and interchange reconstruction.

The $286 billion federal transportation legislation passed by Congress in 2005 included more than 6,000 earmarks, which amounted to blatant gifts to chosen districts, including the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in rural Alaska (that earmark was later removed after a political uproar)...

Typically financing for capital transportation projects comes from the federal government matched with funds from states, which are then charged with maintaining the roads and bridges. But the federal government and states operate trust funds, filled with revenues from various excise taxes, which have been unable to maintain existing roadways adequately or finance capital expenditures.

But it may often be less the amount allocated for transportation than how it is doled out that leads to eroding highways, some critics say.

“Highway funding is supposed to be on the basis of need,” said Raymond Helmer, a transportation consultant in Houston who has worked on transportation projects for over 50 years.“There is supposed to be cost-benefit analysis, and every state does a study as required by federal government and comes up with needs, but then politicians say,‘I don’t want that road here, I want it here.’”

Some transportation experts also said that though light rail and other public transportation projects made sense in cities, investing in them in sprawling suburban regions might not, even if the systems were supported, in theory, by the public.

“Too many American cities are spending far too much money on expensive rail transit projects, which are used for only 1 to 2 percent of local travel, and far too little on highway projects which are used for 95 to 99 percent of local travel,” Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, said in an e-mail interview...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/us/07highwa...
----------

See: Great Rail Disasters
http://www.reason.org/ps317.pdf

[John Galt]

This is a feasible and necessary goal for the modernization of Central Indiana. Indy needs this. The sprawl and growing traffic demands need rail to balance out local transportation. People ride rail, that simple. The average person does not take the average bus, I don't and likely wont. I will use and take light rail on a regular basis. I do recommend a trolley style short-range downtown system. Quick access and short routes around downtown and shuttles to near locations around downtown just out of walking distance (Speedway, Fountain Square, Near-North Blocks of Meridian, Fall Creek Place, etc...).

AIRPORT > Downtown (Terminal) > Meridian Kessler > Broad Ripple Area > Binford Corridor > Castleton > Fishers > Noblesville > Anderson > Muncie

That is basically the current path of the unused train line. The next phases should include Greenwood, Zionsville, Brownsburg, Eagle Creek, Greenfield, etc... It would also be wise to include a circling line all the way around the city similar to the path of the proposed "commerce connector" interstate that basically is a wider radius 465.

A circle rail line all the way around the city with fingers from downtown to the major outlying areas would make Central Indiana very accessible and easy to navigate.

Regional rail travel makes too much sense not to do. The proposed Cincy > Indy > Chicago line is a good start, but eventually the entire Midwest should replace the seldom used trainlines with an efficient rail service. The rest of the industrialized world is doing it, no reason the United States shouldn't be. The auto is convenient, but not ideal. A combination and emphasis of balanced transportation is essential to the local future and nationally as well.

[Nicolas Martin]

mediagiant wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't have unsubsidized mass transit. It has never worked anywhere. But please remember...the government subsidizes automobile transit by building more and more highways. I don't get why people don't realize that building roads costs money too!

Apparently you are unfamiliar with taxes that drivers pay to maintain roads (but which are largely squandered on other projects). Car owners pay their way, and they also pay for the failed fantasies of mass transit devotees.

Read this and weep:

How Traffic Jams Are Made In City Hall
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119192.html

[Nicolas Martin]

Redneck wrote:

And spending billions upon billions on adding lane after lane, cubic tons of smog after cubic tons of smog, and death after highway death isn't a government boondoggle? Visit a city with a rail system. It isn't just the lowest of incomes who use it. Its the corporate execs too.
<quoted text>

Yes, the wealthiest tend to benefit from rail systems, at the expense of everyone else.

Where is the light rail success story? Which city is it?

[Blondie]

The continued combining of local Government offices and the ever widening use of online Goverment video conferencing will one day eliminate the business reason to travel to downtown Indianapolis.

[4tech]

What a shame! There would be more people in favor of this sort of transportation than you'd think! After living in a larger metropolitan area and coming here, I miss the convenience of a mass transit system. There are a lot more people commuting from Anderson/Muncie because there are just no jobs in that area to which many live because of housing costs. Innovative! Why do you think that this has been such a success for such cities as NYC, Boston, San Fran even Atlanta!

[Nicolas Martin]

John Galt wrote:

This is a feasible and necessary goal for the modernization of Central Indiana..

Feasible in what sense? That the taxpayers can be bilked to pay for it? Modernization in what sense? That like other light rail systems it will lose big money and have low ridership?

The dreams of social planners are always "feasible" and "modern," and almost always a bad idea. By three measures -- cost of construction, ability to keep from losing money, and attracting more than a tiny proportion of commuters -- every light rail system in American has been a dismal failure.

The reason road transit has become more problematic is that money that should be spent on maintenance and roadbuilding is diverted to the pet projects of people who hate cars.

[Nicolas Martin]

4tech wrote:

What a shame! There would be more people in favor of this sort of transportation than you'd think! After living in a larger metropolitan area and coming here, I miss the convenience of a mass transit system. There are a lot more people commuting from Anderson/Muncie because there are just no jobs in that area to which many live because of housing costs. Innovative! Why do you think that this has been such a success for such cities as NYC, Boston, San Fran even Atlanta!

What is the measure of success of light rail? What is your evidence?

[Duh]

OK. Suppose there is a railway. You
get on it in Muncie or Anderson. You
get off in Fishers or wherever. Then
what? Unless your destination happens to be right there within walking distance, what do you do?

I can get from Muncie to Fishers in about 45 minutes easy. How long would it take by train, with stops? Two hours, three hours??

Sorry. It just ain't practical.

I don't like the traffic on I-69 around 116th street either. That's why I take 37 up to 38 and go across to hit I-69 at the Pendleton exit to get from Fishers back to Muncie or Anderson. Doesn't take that much longer.

[happytrain]

old fogy wrote:

Tell me this is a joke. The politicians are at it again. They should all be looking for a real job this Labor Day. I don't know what they are smoking, but something bad is working on them if they think they will be able to get the average central Indiana commuter out of their trusty automobiles. We like our independence and to be able to have our own schedule too much.

You don't know everything. I live in Anderson and work in Muncie. I would love to have another hour to sit and get work done every day if I could commute. I would welcome giving up my "trusty automobile." No one has ever asked my opinion on any study.

[MIKE RAFFONE]

Support is NOT developing for a commuter rail system connecting Muncie to Indianapolis.

No need for it and it is a travesty to say so!

[Big Dawg]

Wow this debate always amazes me. Everyone spouts opinions that seem like the come from either light rail manufacturers or road builders. Well then again citizen one sure sounds like a particular Hamilton County Councilman.

Folks these ideas will take shape in the near future.

In regards to Nicolas there are plenty examples of rail that work. Not sure if you have ever ventured out of Central Indiana but Chicago have a couple of great expamples, Washington DC, or most of Europe have amazing rail systems. So the argument that they don't work just is hog wash. Paying for them is a different story and they are expensive but they are needed...

Peace.