State-Level Tyranny Against Transit in Indianapolis, Nashville

High-capacity transit projects – whether they're any mode of rail or bus – are substantial and lasting investments in public infrastructure that deserve thorough scrutiny by elected officials, technical experts and the community at-large. There needs to be an open and transparent planning process as well as an honest determination of the project's costs. And then the voters should have a chance to have their say on the matter, either by voting for referenda, ballot measures or elected officials that determine wither the project moves forward to implementation. These are all signs of responsible and effective direct or representative democracy in action.

However, a pair of recent developments in two states – Indiana and Tennessee – mark a dangerous trend in state-level usurpation of that process. In both cases, local or regional initiatives to improve transit options have been subverted by state-level legislative interference on issues that are best determined by local residents and their duly-elected office holders.

In Indianapolis, a multi-year effort – Indy Connect – is underway to improve transit service on a number of key travel corridors and has been exploring all modes to transform the region's mobility network. The plan is multi-modal, encompassing new rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines, enhancements to the existing IndyGo bus system, new and improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along with upgrades to the region's roads and bridges. The process has enjoyed strong support from area business leaders, elected officials and community groups, how have contributed their input and needs to the development of the plan.

So, what's the holdup? Well, in Indiana, the State Legislature must approve a funding source that's already been developed through the process, then allow counties in the region to hold referenda to join the network. After delaying the initiative by shuffling the matter through a handful of committees over the past several years, a number of state legislators expressed concerns that the process could ultimately select light rail as the preferred mode for a given corridor. Apparently, these lawmakers are philosophically opposed to light rail, regardless of whether local voters or elected officials determine its the right choice for their community and choose how they wish to distribute local tax revenues.

The final legislation permitting the local funding source and allowing countywide referenda on the plan did ultimately pass the both houses of the Legislature this week – and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Mike Pence – it included an outright ban on selecting light rail as the locally preferred alternative for any Indy Connect corridor. Whether the ban includes commuter or regional rail – an option for the proposed Green Line – is yet to be determined. While the legislation is a step in the right direction, its ban on light rail represents state-level subversion of the will of local and regional citizens, as legislators elected from districts not impacted by the plan impose their beliefs on people they do not represent. Isn't there a word for that? Oh yeah, tyranny.

A similar series of events is unfolding in Tennessee. State leaders there are even less supportive of transit than their counterparts in Indiana. Again, a group of Middle Tennessee elected officials – led by Nashville Mayor Karl Dean – along with business leaders and community groups cultivated plans for a 7.1-mile BRT line, dubbed the Amp, to serve as the first route of a larger regional transit network that would compliment the existing Music City Star commuter rail line. The project has progressed through the required planning process, including environmental and financial impact studies and was recently awarded $27 million in federal investment through President Obama's proposed FY 2015 budget under the Small Starts program. Seems like everything is in order to move forward, right?

Well, both houses of the Tennessee Legislature have advanced bills that would impose likely fatal restrictions on the project, or reduce its effectiveness to the point where it could hardly be considered BRT. Mayors of the state's four largest cities wrote letters of opposition to the bills, while state legislators representing communities far away from Nashville imposed their leverage over the locally-developed project. Note the conflicting statements opposing legislators told WSMV TV:

"This is a good example of why government's not working. For example, on this issue, I've had no one discuss this project with me," said state Sen. Jim Tracy – who represents Shelbyville, an hour's drive south of Nashville. "This is a state highway that this project is being discussed on."

"It looks like the legislature is meddling with Nashville," said state Sen. Thelma Harper of Nashville. "We wouldn't do the same thing with Murfreesboro. We wouldn't do it with any of the rest of them."

Tracy comes across as a whiny child complaining he doesn't have a say on a matter that doesn't impact him or his constituents, while Harper projects the concerns of residents who have the most at stake in the project.

This type of thing has happened elsewhere. In 2009, a committee of the Wisconsin State Legislature eliminated the ability of regions in the state to form Regional Transportation Authorities, even after several had already been created. In New Hampshire, state leaders in various offices have stymied attempts over several decades by local Nashua officials to extend commuter rail service to Boston across the Massachusetts state line.

The examples of state-level middling in both Indiana and Tennessee are case studies in hypocrisy, as those state legislatures most likely to impose their will on local transit projects are usually those who claim to be the strongest supporters of local control of government. If they truly believe that those closest to a decision will make the best one, than put the matter to a vote by those who will pay for and use the service, either via referendum or ballot measure or the elected officials they select to represent them. At the same time, these same leaders hardly make a peep when a state department of transportation moves on a substantial highway or road project, initiatives that are hardly ever subjected to the same level of legislative maneuvering and interference.

Both Indianapolis and Nashville are taking important steps to enhance their transit networks by locally-developed and funded infrastructure projects that create jobs, fuel economic development and radically improve mobility options so local residents can get to employment, health care, retail establishments, community services and much more that achieve a high quality of life. Although both communities are primarily considering improved bus networks as the cornerstones of their plans, these developments set the state for future rail transit routes. Local citizens and their elected officials should be the ones that determine what's best for their communities, not a presumptive and dictatorial process commanded by rabidical philosophies in state capitol chambers.