...try to tie every need of the city to "economic development?" The question comes to mind after reading the extensive commentary in the Sunday paper headlined "Not just for travel."
We would suggest that public transit is in fact 99.5% "just for travel." People want to get from home to work, to school, to shop, to recreation, and back home.
There is extensive discussion of the area along College Avenue and its transportation/development situation. It is suggested that the presence of light rail (street-cars) historically has resulted in "development" every four blocks or so between 38th Street and Broad Ripple.
(Here, we can speak from some direct experience. When first living here, with our bride-to-be residing in Broad Ripple, we spent many hours on College Avenue street-cars!)
It is vital that using terms like "commuter rail" and "light rail" as being virtually synonymous cease. Residents of an area around 28th Street and College Avenue are said to hope that a commuter rail line will make a stop at that point. We believe a commuter train rider from Noblesville will not expect to stop every four blocks or so in the city. Nor will the street-car rider expect the car to skip every second or third block.
Presumably a commuter rail line will terminate at or near Union Station. What is the benefit to a rider who lives along College Avenue and works at Methodist Hospital - or IUPUI - or Irvington?
We continue to insist that a well-planned grid of lines radiating out from the central city, with strategically placed cross-town lines, will, in fact, produce what will be most helpful to a majority of our citizens. It will enable them to "travel" to points in the city which are important to them. Economic development of all points in between is to be hoped for, but, we believe, cannot be a primary focus of basic transportation planning.
Commuter needs are separate and different. Once more, we question the wisdom of initiating "commuter rail lines" while simultaneously constructing ever-widening freeways in direct, geographically close competition.
We also believe that a serious study of priorities would indicate that such a city-wide public transit system should definitely take precedence over commuter needs. And we wonder whether the city’s history of outrageous priorities in approval of projects receiving public subsidy causes hesitation in supporting the possibility of a $2.4 billion boondoggle.
It’s a lot of money. Haven’t we spent enough tax dollars trying to direct the location of economic activity? Let’s try for a transit system which will actually benefit the users, and let the commercial development take place where the market indicates it will prosper.
How old are you? IIRC the College line trolleys stopped even trolley bus service around 1950-52 or so. I remember seeing movies, pictures, and accurate models in multiple scales when I was a kid.
NOW, perhaps someone can confirm or deny the following? Some cities, such as Chicago, have GPS equipped vehicles that relay location to a central computer. Call that computer on a cheap throw away phone and report which bus stop you are at and it will tell you, in effect, if the bus is coming or if you have missed it.Supposedly INDYGO has the system - never installed - sitting in boxes for several years.This is a great, and cheap, assist. Especially since cell phones have gotten so cheap. 21 days a month, 2 times a day, 5 minutes each incident, 210? minutes a month is cheap! This is a very cheap and useful improvement, and GPS systems are easy to install and operate.Comments?
Posted by: J. England | October 03, 2011 at 08:31 PM
I won't say exactly how old I am, but I will tell you that the aforementioned bride-to-be and I celebrated our 63rd wedding anniversary last month!
Posted by: Fred McCarthy | October 03, 2011 at 08:42 PM
Let's just say he has many years of experience....
Posted by: Leslie Baker | October 03, 2011 at 09:21 PM