I include this story by Bill Ruthhart over an airport issue between Fishers and Noblesville in part because I’m interested in urban development and transportation issues and in larger part because I’m playing with Google Earth.
The Noblesville City Council declined a proposal by Fishers to move the Metropolitan Airport. Apparently Fishers envisioned the current site as a future commercial hub that could include a park-and-ride facility for a possible rapid transit line to Indianapolis.
Noblesville doesn’t want the new airport in its backyard. Fishers officials and Hamilton County officials had envisioned relocating the airport to a 1,000 acre site on the county’s eastern edge. The Indianapolis Airport Authority has said that it would need Noblesville’s approval to make such a move. Because that approval will not be forthcoming, Fishers has indicated it will look into potentially moving it to Madison County which is directly to the east of Hamilton County.
Will Madison County want to undercut Anderson’s existing airport, which is quite capable of handling all general aviation traffic?
I’m glad Noblesville stood it’s ground. The existing airport is a perfectly good one, but as Ruthhart reported, the Fishers Town Council’s #1 priority in all things is increasing assessed value, for the purpose of having more tax dollars to spend, both directly and as a result of increased bonding capacity. The Town Councilors could care less where that airport goes, just so long as it goes and frees up that land for redevelopment. The rail item is quite secondary.
What hasn’t been reported is the fact that one of the Hamilton County Commissioners has options on the land being touted for the new location. Why no reporter asked why one Commissioner abstained from the vote at their meeting is beyond me. It’s Tammany Hall stuff from the annals of George Washington Plunkitt
Thanks for the background Mike. I had been unaware of this issue (not surprising since I don’t live anywhere near Hamilton County.)
I don’t know if it makes any economic sense, but I’d be happy to see some sort of high speed passenger rail connection between Lafayette and Indianapolis — ultimately between Chicago and Cincinnati.
That’d be on the “it would be nice for me personally” list. I don’t know that the existing or potential traffic between the cities would make it desirable rather than wasteful for such a thing to exist.
Needless to say the airlines hate the idea of high speed rail. Particularly the very useful idea of having high speed rail with stations in airport terminals (such as done at BWI in Baltimore). Airlines that have cultivated hubs (e.g. United at Chicago O’Hare) don’t want their captive feeder traffic from places like Milwaukee or South Bend having easy choices.
Actually, people from South Bend do have an easy choice for rail- the South Shore line. Ridership has increased significantly on that line since the rampant construction and the higher pump prices made it a great choice.
This is one place where it works because conditions are there to make it work- a long commute and many people making that commute, along with the carrier also owning the rail. These conditions are also true in the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak actually makes a profit.
Unfortunately, these conditions are not present in most parts of the county, and certainly not in most of Indiana. The interurbans died and Class 1 railroads gave up on passenger traffic decades ago because the demand was so light and the cost so high to provide the service.
Undaunted, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization, which has studied light rail at length, has concluded that the old Nickel Plate line is perfectly suitable for light rail… Except that none of the track is suitable, and catenary would have to be erected, etc. Mainly, the only asset that is useable is the corridor itself. That’s a big deal of course, but not the best use of that asset in my opinion. I’ll get to that.
The Nickel Plate runs from Noblesville through Fishers to Indianapolis… but not to Union Station or any terminal. The old connections are long severed. The line is currently used by a historical preservation society. Fishers’ Town Council envisioned an commercial/industrial redevelopment on the current airport grounds and installing the rail station on the premise that workers would want to get to the redeveloped property from Indy.
MPO’s assessment of the line is that it would optimistically take up to 4% of cars off of I-69 on the best days, and more like 2% on average days.
Cost? $1 billion.
That’s a hell of a lot of money for 4% on a good day. Impress me with numbers like 50%, and I’ll begin to think it sane. Again, the problem is a lack of destinational network. How many people would really get off at Union Station as a useful endpoint? Or even the Fishers development? 100? 200?
Actually, I believe that the best use of the Nickel Plate corridor is conversion to a trail and greenway like the Monon. No pollution, significantly less cost to taxpayers, and an increase to property values in the surrounding area. It contributes to healthy lifestyles, etc.
The hardest part for someone ambitious enough to put together a real rail network is the acquisition of continuous right-of-way corridors. Good luck. It was one thing to build them in the 1800s through open land, and quite another in today’s world. Thus, it always pains me when a rail corridor is given up on, with land going to the adjacent property owners. There’s no getting it back.
“The interurbans died and Class 1 railroads gave up on passenger traffic decades ago because the demand was so light and the cost so high to provide the service.” I can’t really agree with this, though I doubt my disagreement really leads to any difference in policy with Mr. Kole (though I wouldn’t object to all of our interstates being toll roads, with higher tolls in urban areas during peak use periods).The interurbans, suitable for short distance travel, started failing in the 1920’s. The major rail passenger lines started failing in the 1950’s. The apparent drop off in demand correlates nicely with the growing practicality of using the family car for progressively longer trips. By the late 1920’s it was no burden to take the Model A from Marion to Anderson (the route of the State’s first interurban). By the late 1950’s it was no big deal to drive from Pittsburgh to Chicago. Demand didn’t go away, it simply moved to a demand for automotive transportation over rail.
I would guess that the cost of providing intercity rail transportation is very competitive, if not less than, the cost of automobile transportation when everything is taken into account. Certainly rail is far more energy efficient. People aren’t thinking about how their car is depreciating when they drive it. People though simply like the convenience of cars, in some cases find them to be great time savers and are willing to put up with or are unaware of the cost.
The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was a huge government intervention in the economy (though not necessarily a bad one) that greatly diminished the value of the (semi) private enterprise system of rail transportation.
Of course, the same day I made comments about how rail in the NE Corridor works so well, a major power failure snarled rail traffic throughout the Corridor.
I agree with Paul that rail is the most energy efficient means of transportation out there. However, the lighter the load, the less that’s true- and there’s no load lighter than passengers.
I’d love to see more freight onto the rails for the efficiency gains, fuel savings, and pollution reduction inherent in rail. Fortunately, the Class 1’s are doing extensive study on larger cars to maximize efficiency.
As for the depreciation, it isn’t like locomotives and coaches don’t deteriorate. Go to the Beech Grove shops some time to see a yard full of depreciation.