EDITORIAL: Wise decision on federal rail funds

IBJ Staff
November 14, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

Local advocates of high-speed rail are understandably disappointed that the Indiana Department of Transportation has dropped the Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati corridor from its application for federal rail funds (see story, page 1), but the logic behind doing so seems sound.

Competition for the $8 billion in federal funds is stiff—applications totaling $57 billion have been filed—and the guidelines suggest routes that are further along in planning and cover multiple states will be viewed more favorably. If the Obama administration is serious about high-speed rail, there will be other opportunities to fund work on the route, which falls almost entirely within Indiana.

Although the route isn’t in the mix this go-around, it’s encouraging that the state intends to apply for funds for the Chicago-to-Cleveland line.

For decades, the department has been more a department of roads than a true department of transportation. Almost 100 percent of its budget is typically devoted to road projects, with only a pittance going toward alternative forms of transportation.

And roads clearly still dominate the discussion in Indiana. The Indiana Commerce Connector that Gov. Mitch Daniels proposed in 2007 was a non-starter, but a network of roads that would accomplish essentially the same thing—an outer loop beyond Interstate 465—is happening in piecemeal fashion as the counties surrounding Indianapolis lay plans to connect to one another.

Among the many high-ticket road projects on the state’s to-do list is a $567 million plan to revamp I-465 and Interstate 69 on the northeast side beginning in 2012. And of course work already has started near Evansville on the controversial $1.8 billion extension of I-69 through southern Indiana.

The state can’t turn back the tide on all these road projects, nor should it, but it needs a healthy mix of transportation types to keep up with other states. Taking advantage of federal money is a start, but the state needs to make available to communities throughout Indiana a stream of dedicated funds for alternative transportation projects.

Even projects funded largely by the federal government typically require 20-percent local participation, and right now that money isn’t anywhere to be found.

Legislation in the last two sessions of the General Assembly that would’ve allowed local governments to capture a percentage of state sales taxes for alternative transportation gained support among lawmakers but ultimately failed to pass.

Given the state of the economy and continued state revenue shortfalls, the 2010 legislative session might not be the best time to push for such legislation again, but eventually the issue will have to be dealt with.

The state’s application for high-speed rail funds is clearly motivated by the availability of federal money. But we hope it also signals a genuine change in philosophy on the state level—one that places more importance on alternative forms of transportation.•


To comment on this editorial, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?