Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowWe’re not sure whether to be chagrined or impressed.
IBJ reported this week that Mayor Joe Hogsett’s administration removed no-turn-on-red signs at three Ohio Street intersections near the parking lot Indiana lawmakers use when at the Statehouse.
The signs—at West Street, Senate Avenue and Capitol Avenue—came down earlier this year as a result of a compromise between the city and Statehouse Republicans.
The deal required Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, to withdraw legislation that would force Indianapolis traffic officials to remove all of the no-turn-on-red signs the city installed downtown under a 2023 ordinance. In exchange, the city voluntarily imposed a one-year moratorium on the installation of additional signs and, as IBJ’s Taylor Wooten reported this week, agreed to reevaluate the signs at some intersections based on the recommendation of state lawmakers. (See the story about the deal on page 5A.)
As we’ve previously editorialized in this space, it’s ridiculous that lawmakers are spending any time trying to regulate mundane traffic decisions in individual communities. Whether and where to impose no-turn-on-red restrictions should be a local call. And if voters don’t like those decisions—and we know there are plenty of people in Indianapolis who hate the no-turn restrictions—they can vote out the decisionmakers.
But Freeman, who served on the Indianapolis City-County Council before he was elected to the Indiana Senate, has shown time and again that no Indianapolis decision is too local to be usurped by the Legislature. (He’s also behind efforts to block IndyGo from creating dedicated lanes for rapid-transit buses.)
We’re somewhat surprised legislative leaders would suggest removing the signs that are most annoying to them. It’s just not politically savvy. How does it look to constituents when elected officials insist they shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as others do?
As one IBJ reader wrote in the comment section of the story: “This is the problem with a ‘super-majority,’ too much meddling when there are bigger issues which need to be addressed: lack of funds for foster child care, lack of funds for care of special needs children and adults, lack of public health funding, etc.”
Still, we can’t really blame the city for playing along.
Members of the Democratic-controlled City-County Council have said the signs are meant to calm traffic and prevent vehicle/pedestrian accidents. A we’ve said, we’re a bit skeptical that the restrictions will have an impact. And we hope the city is tracking the numbers to see whether the signs make a difference.
But we understand that if safety is the goal, removing three of the nearly 100 signs downtown is a small price to pay to keep the others in place.
That’s just good strategy on the part of the city, even if it makes downtown drivers angry.
We hope when lawmakers return to the Statehouse in 2025 they spend a little less time worrying about local street signs or focused on their own conveniences and a little more time on some of the big issues that impact Indiana’s economy.•
__________
To comment, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
When is Indianapolis going to get a backbone and sue the State for violation of Indiana’s Home Rule statute. Things like meddling is local traffic decisions far exceeds the Legislature’s authority.
Come on Indy. Stand up for yourself, and put an end to petty, political interference.
“ We hope when lawmakers return to the Statehouse in 2025 they spend a little less time worrying about local street signs or focused on their own conveniences and a little more time on some of the big issues that impact Indiana’s economy.”
Dear editorial board:
Whoever wrote this has a future in Hollywood writing comedies. Marion County Republican have nothing to offer Hoosiers but overcompensation for their inability to win local elections.