Which is it?

Are we being fed MIS-information or DIS-information?  When are we going to get a straight story on mass transit?

There have been numerous public statements that the Red Line is going to be built regardless of the vote on the new tax referendum.  As recently as last week, one of our readers guaranteed us that the referendum had absolutely no connection to the Red Line.

In this morning’s paper, under the headline "Red Line’s sneak preview," the first paragraph of a story of about 25 column inches tells us this.  ("Sneak," by the way, appears to be an appropriate adjective.)

"Indianapolis residents later this month can sample where their tax dollars would go if voters in November approve a referendum to pay for mass transit improvements."

The only reference to actual mass transit in the article occurs later with this sentence.  "The tax dollars would pay for more service and help run the planned Red, Blue and Purple bus rapid transit lines."  (Our emphasis.)

The rest of the story gives us information about the magnificent, million dollar buses which will be used on these proposed routes. Among other things, the fact that these buses will be boarded from elevated "stations" raises the question as to whether they would ever be usable on routes for the masses who apparently would have to jump up from curb level.

We were also somewhat surprised to find the other two lines so prominently mentioned.  Does this mean that, assuming the approval of the referendum, the other two lines will have the same priority as the Red Line?

And by the way, when were the proposed routes rearranged?  The last map we have, unfortunately with no date on it, shows a Green Line from Noblesville and the Purple Line straight across 38^th Street.  Now the Green Line has disappeared and the Purple Line is from Lafayette Square to downtown.

We wonder whether the absence of the Green Line is a nudge to our northern neighbors who appear to be losing some enthusiasm about the whole idea.  Are we suggesting to them that they may be shut out if they don’t go whole hog on the deal?

And we must point out that many of the suggested details of the operations of these electric behemoths might indicate traffic snarls and doubtful increase in speed.  With stop lights controlled for the benefit of the bus, how much warning will the drivers of cross-street traffic have when their light turns from green to red?  (Can a driver stay beside a bus and have green lights all the way downtown?)

When a south bound bus, for instance, stops to load riders from a mid-street, raised station, will southbound traffic continue to move?  And, by the way, how does Grandma get to the raised platform?  Will handling bikes on board significantly speed up unloading riders?

Come on, folks.  Is this really the logical solution to the problem of getting an employee across town to the place of employment?

Comments

[Karen Neiswinger]

Senate Bill 176, passed in 2014, states that the bill: "prohibits a political subdivision from using public funds to promote a position on a local public question regarding transit."

Wouldn't giving free rides, as a "preview" of purple line, violate this, assuming that IndyGo is paying the cost to run the free rides, including employee time and all other costs associated with "free" rides?

[Fred McCarthy]

Karen - Seems perfectly clear to me. I'll guess that the response would be to question whether IndyGo qualifies as a "political subdivision." I assume the CIB gives a perfect example of a body spending public funds without being a "political subdivision."

[David]

The article makes some very good points, including the cost of these buses, never-ending changes to routes, and, what so many people seem to ignore, the effect these buses will have on traffic flow (already a problem whenever a bus is around--and even when one isn't). The taxpayers of Indianapolis are being taken for a ride, alright. But it's not a smooth bus ride they'll be paying for.

[Karen Neiswinger]

IndyGo is the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, funded mostly by taxpayers. Only about 17% of its revenue comes from fares, so whatever activities it engages in that are calculated to influence the vote on the referendum comes 84% from "public funds".