On Saturday April 9th, one of our petition signatories sent the following email to City Councilor Colleen Fanning… Councilor Fanning, A few questions since it is hard to get answers at meetings: 1. SB 176 requires that a referendum for tax increase can only occur if 25% of operating revenue for a transit project comes from fares but in IndyGo's FTA application they project only 17% for their project. It would appear that the referendum would being going against that law. How can the CCC approve such an illegal referendum? 2. IndyGo claims that the referendum is not for the Red Line, but in their FTA grant application there is a $6.1million shortfall. Where will that money come from if there is no referendum? 3. The dedicated bus lanes with median go from 66th to downtown. Why are there not dedicated lanes on the South leg of Phase 1? If the dedicated lanes are not necessary down there, why are they necessary here? This question needs to be asked because that calls into question whether that part of the line is truly BRT. 4. Only about 20% of the initial budget is being spent on busses. Wouldn't it be wiser for us as a city to add more busses and spend less of the capital on little bus stations along the way? 5. In other cities, like San Jose, there has been significant disruption of small businesses along the route during construction with many going out of business. Has there been engagement of small businesses along this route? 6. IndyGo is drawing money from the public works fund that could very well be used for other projects such as repair of roads, etc. How will those needs be met when the money is being drawn off to support BRT? 7. As I pointed out at this week's meeting, the ridership projections of IndyGo, in my opinion and those of many others, is grossly overstated. If and when the money is not coming in from ridership, where will the shortfall come from? 8. Why is the first leg of BRT going through an area that has less dependency on rapid transit? Why is it that the East and West sides' needs are not addressed as the primary need? If we truly are interested in helping people dependent on mass transit, why are those people not helped first? 9. If IndyGo were truly run like a private business with accountability to efficiency it would be more focused on nimbly adjusting the size of busses running and the frequency of busses running to the true needs. For instance, during a time of low use maybe there should be small busses running less frequently and during high use times larger busses more frequently. Why does it have to be a static approach? 10. It is self-evident that the traffic snarls on College and Meridian, where lanes are taken away, are going to create a huge outcry here in Indianapolis that could echo the outcry following the property tax increase. That led to a mayor not being re-elected. 11. There are common sense approaches that are alternatives to BRT. Adding more busses to existing routes and spending money more wisely would be much more accepted by people if they see that the resources are being distributed equitably across the system rather than being concentrated on certain areas. The optics of this will be very bad when people see this as a bar bus for people to ride back and forth to BroadRipple. Do you want that? As the CCC representative along north College you will be seen as the person who: 1. helped to raise taxes 2. caused the traffic snarls on College and the surrounding streets to get much worse. 3. put well loved businesses along College out of business.