"Yaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!! Somebody finally said out loud what I've been thinking....thank you."
Throughout the entire debate one viewpoint has been hammered into the public. We've been told repeatedly that Springfield is united, as if saying so enough times would make it true. In fact, there has always been a sizable number of people skeptical about the contradictory and unsupported claims coming from local leaders.
A response printed this week doesn't seriously address the issues I raised but they did introduce a new scare tactic. Their principle argument can be summed up as, "This is a really old idea we've studied lots of times and we already bought some land, so just trust the experts."
The writers mentioned that two social service agencies would be relocated. They didn't acknowledge the other half dozen agencies immediately surrounding the proposed site.
They didn't address how the city would make room for residential or commercial development without relocating the remaining agencies.
They didn't address how the city can make a multimodal center appealing to foot traffic if it's still surrounded by shelters and rehab centers.
I get the impression that maybe those questions haven't been thought through.
They developed a new scare tactic by claiming that there can be no multimodal transit center unless it's on 10th. That contradicts previous claims that the city simply hasn't bothered to study whether a multimodal on 3rd could work. It also defies common sense. The Amtrak station is surrounded by a parking lot to the east and a parking garage to the south. To the north is an eyesore building begging to be torn down and another parking lot. There's plenty of room, although it may have to look different than what's proposed for 10th.The refusal of local governments to consider something different that would work in the available space doesn't mean it can't be done. This tactic is typical of the exaggerated claims citizens have been subjected to, much like the horrifying postcards consolidation advocates distributed while the planning commission refused to develop a more appealing remediation plan for the 3rd street corridor. Residents weren't told that we have other options for 3rd corridor remediation.
They reference the Tier 2 study several times, but as I pointed out, previous studies focused on the problems associated with freight rail without seriously considering which location is best for a passenger rail station. It's a perfect example of how the results of study can be manipulated by limiting the scope of discussion. The corridor study conducted locally had to be reworked after criticism from federal officials that it didn't consider all reasonable options. I suggested during the public comment period that they consider how a multimodal center on 3rd could benefit downtown development, and they didn't bother. They only concluded that it would limit expansion of the medical district, but Memorial has begun two expansions since those claims were made.
Worse still, the editorial echos the language of the corridor study group that rail is a relic of the past. This implies that they're ignoring the national push to expand passenger rail and reaffirms my impression that consolidation advocates are overly focused on road traffic.
Some of their arguments may explain the groupthink of city leaders. They point out that it's close to the convention center. Also, the idea was first proposed decades ago, and they already spent money buying land.
Sangamon county Republicans control the convention center board, the Springfield Mass Transit board, the regional planning commission and the patronage jobs in each of those bodies. It inspires no confidence that studies conducted by bodies at the behest of the same small circle of local Republican leaders, who all knew what results they were looking for in advance, all came to the same conclusion. They're all working on the same team, and agencies knew their studies were expected to support an idea developed at least 30 years ago. Of course that team likes a multimodal center whose only obvious economic development benefit is that it might help out their friends who run the convention center.
Just because they made up their mind about something decades ago, and have refused to consider alternatives, doesn't make passenger rail on 10th the best option. There are advantages and disadvantages no matter what Springfield chooses to do. What really irritates me is the way citizens have been propagandized and manipulated throughout this process. Many of us remain un-united.