Freeman
A Republican state lawmaker is trying to prevent Indianapolis from adopting and enforcing no-turn-on-red regulations, just as the Democrat-controlled City-County Council is considering a measure that would prohibit such turns throughout downtown.
Indiana Sen. Aaron Freeman, a former City-County Council member, introduced an amendment Thursday that would prevent Indianapolis from adopting the proposal as an ordinance and installing no-turn-on-red signs.
Freeman’s amendment was tacked onto House Bill 1050, an omnibus motor vehicle bill, with a voice vote. The bill and the new amendment still need to be heard by the Senate another time before moving on to the House.
The local proposal was introduced April 3 by City-County Council President Vop Osili, Vice President Zach Adamson and council member Kristin Jones. Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett appeared alongside the council members at a press conference in support of the proposal, which aims to quell an increasing number of pedestrian deaths in the city.
The council proposal was passed out of committee Thursday and awaits a full council vote.
In response to the state action, the three authors of the council proposal released a statement calling the amendment “unfortunate” and “disappointing.”
“Pedestrian safety is a concern we share with our constituents, and it remains a priority for us. We have worked closely with constituents, neighborhood associations, and advocacy groups, and these proposals are long overdue. Our city has lost too many pedestrians and cyclists, and it is crucial to take action to improve their safety. …
“We remain committed to keeping pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers safe, and we urge the General Assembly to not move forward with this amendment.”
Freeman, who served on the City-County Council from 2010-2016, told IBJ that the amendment was definitely in response to the council proposal.
“[The council proposal is] astronomically dumb,” Freeman said. “It’s almost like there’s a war on cars, you know, like if you take so many lanes of travel away and put up ‘no-turn-on-red’ signs, it’s almost like you’re forcing people to ride a bus service that nobody wants to ride.”
That bus service, IndyGo, has been the target of multiple bills by Freeman over the past several years. He previously argued that dedicated bus lanes for the transit agency’s bus rapid transit lines would lengthen commute times by an unbearable amount.
In 2021, Freeman introduced an amendment that would require the Indianapolis transit authority to pay for utilities to be moved during construction of the agency’s dedicated bus lanes.
The year before, Freeman authored legislation that would have penalized IndyGo for not raising enough private money by withholding income tax dollars and prohibiting further expansion of rapid transit lines.
Neither measure passed into law.
Asked by reporters Thursday why he is against local control on these issues, Freeman said, “I’m in favor of local control when they’re not stupid.”
190 intersections
The Statehouse amendment was introduced just hours before the council’s Public Works Committee was scheduled to hear and vote on the city measure. Democratic councilors expressed concern about the implications of the state action.
Brandon Herget, director of the Indianapolis Department of Public Works, told the councilors to move forward regardless.
“It is not law, and so for the purposes of this committee, for the purpose of this department, the Department of Public Works continues to support this … because the data supports these proposals. And we’ll wait to see what plays out at the Statehouse,” Herget said.
Adamson, one of the authors of the proposal, clarified with Herget that the amendment applies only to Indianapolis. The language in the amendment includes “consolidated” cities where county and city government are combined, and Indianapolis-Marion County system is the only one of its kind in the state.
“I think it would also bear mentioning, too, that the legislators themselves … also believe this is an issue that should be left up to the locals as well, which is why they exclude every other local organization except ours,” Adamson said. “So they wanted to leave it up to the locals and other cities to make these decisions, just not us.”
The measure would lead to the installation of signs at 190 intersections. Intersections that have turn lanes would be more likely to have slowed traffic from the shift, so 60 of those would be “most impacted,” according to city staffer Nathan Sheets.
Sheets said that most lights operate on a 90-second cycle, which should mean that drivers arriving at a light as it changes to red should only have to wait about 45 seconds until they are able to proceed.
Republican members of the committee voted against the proposal. Council Minority Leader Brian Mowery said that the proposal does not address what he believes is the root cause of crashes, distracted driving. He also called it a “blanket statement.”
Republican councilor Michael-Paul Hart said he would support “no-turn-on-red” restrictions at certain intersections, but that people might be confused about the larger change.
The measure passed 8-4 along party lines. It will be considered at the May 8 full council meeting.
This story is by IBJ reporters Taylor Wooten and Peter Blanchard.
