IBJOpinion

EDITORIAL: New transit study focuses on return as well as cost

 IBJ Staff
February 13, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

Central Indiana is much better at churning out transportation studies than implementing a real transit system, but there’s reason to take seriously the report released Feb. 10 by the Central Indiana Transit Task Force.

Unlike its predecessors, the new study wasn’t the brainchild of environmentalists or people whose jobs revolve around promoting non-car travel. The task force was led by Allan Hubbard, co-founder of locally based acquisition firm E&A Industries and an economic adviser to both Bush administrations. The group also included representatives of the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, Central Indiana Corporate Partnership and Central Indiana Community Foundation.

The business-savvy group’s charge was to view transit through an economic lens. Its conclusion: A $6.7 billion, multi-modal system that would cost more than $100 million a year to operate would be worth the money.

The payoff, says the new report, would be a region better able to attract jobs, talent and investment. More specifically, a rail line from Fishers to Greenwood and an east-west transit system on or near Washington Street could be a magnet for developments worth billions of dollars.

The study’s findings aren’t groundbreaking. Most cities our size already have a transit system. Yes, such systems are expensive, but when implemented thoughtfully they can become an economic engine.

As the new report’s findings are vetted at a series of public forums over the next 10 months, most of the discussion will focus on the cost of a transit system and how to pay for it. That’s as it should be—but the potential return on investment should not be forgotten.

Stop ‘guns at work’

Bills that would prevent businesses from prohibiting guns on company property flew through the Indiana House and Senate last month, and that’s as far as they should go.

Gov. Mitch Daniels ought to step in with a veto.

The bills, which would prevent employers from prohibiting guns kept in vehicles on company property, passed overwhelmingly—41-9 in the Senate and 76-21 in the House. Daniels would risk a probable override if he were to put his prestige on the line with a veto. Yet, we hope he does.

Businesses concerned about guns as a threat to employee safety should be able to prohibit them on company property. The state shouldn’t usurp that authority because of pressure from the National Rifle Association, which asserts, among other things, that employees might need a gun for protection when traveling home through rough neighborhoods.

Legislators reluctant to dictate to businesses on the issue of smoking in the workplace seem all too eager to impose the government’s will in this case.•

__________

To comment on either topic, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Gay marriage is coming, whether or not these bigots and zealots like it or not. We must work to ensure future generations remember the likes of Greg Zoeller like they do the racists of our past...in shame.

  2. Perhaps a diagram of all the network connections of all politicians to their supporters and those who are elite/wealthy and how they have voted on bills that may have benefited their supporters. The truth may hurt, but there are no non-disclosures in government.

  3. I'm sure these lawyers were having problems coming up with any non-religious reason to ban same-sex marriage. I've asked proponents of this ban the question many times and the only answers I have received were religious reasons. Quite often the reason had to do with marriage to a pet or marriage between a group even though those have nothing at all to do with this. I'm looking forward to less discrimination in our state soon!

  4. They never let go of the "make babies" argument. It fails instantaneously because a considerable percentage of heterosexual marriages don't produce any children either. Although if someone wants to pass a law that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be legally married (and therefore not utilize all legal, financial, and tax benefits that come with it) until they have produced a biological child, that would be fun to see as a spectator. "All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism." The civil contract called marriage does NOTHING to regulate babymaking, whether purposefully or accidental. These conservatives really need to understand that sex education and access to birth control do far more to regulate babymaking in this country. Moreover, last I checked, same-sex couples can make babies in a variety of ways, and none of them are by accident. Same-sex couples often foster and adopt the children produced by the many accidental pregnancies from mixed-sex couples who have failed at self-regulating their babymaking capabilities.

  5. Every parent I know with kids from 6 -12 has 98.3 on its car radio all the time!! Even when my daughter isn't in the car I sometimes forget to change stations. Not everybody wants to pay for satellite radio. This will be a huge disappointment to my 9 year old. And to me - there's so many songs on the radio that I don't want her listening to.

ADVERTISEMENT