Springfield divided on rail issue

I knew my rail editorial in the Illinois Times would be unpopular with much of Springfield's business and political establishment who have developed a groupthink mentality about rail consolidation. So, I was a little surprised by how much positive feedback I got. Many people told me they agree and I got a few emails like this one:
"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.

My high speed rail guest editorial in Illinois Times

My guest editorial in Illinois Times will surely annoy some of my friends and many of Springfield's local leaders. But, I'm not convinced that the 30-year old ideas about where to locate mass transit are the most well thought out. The way Springfield residents have been propagandized on the rail issue is offensive.

The businesses which might be most inconvenienced by an expanded Third Street corridor facility are a luxury car dealership and the private Sangamo Club. I suppose their clientele have more clout than citizens who use social services near 10th. That those most in need in our community are also the most likely to have services dislocated by rail consolidation is a serious social and environmental justice problem. 

Springfield could have spent the past two years discussing the least painful way to accommodate freight traffic resulting from the new Joliet rail terminal. Instead, we have been presented a worst-case scenario with exaggerated postcard images and a steady drumbeat of hyperbole. We have been told a multimodal transit center would bring economic development to 10th Street, but mysteriously, the same facility would bring economic ruin on Third. It’s past time to have a calm discussion about passenger rail without the scare campaign.

Find the rest here.

Rail meeting reveals divided and impotent citizen advisory group

The Federal Rail Administration's public meeting in Springfield today lasted more than two hours. Members of the Springfield rail corridor study citizen advisory group appeared frustrated, confused and unable to agree on any major issue.

The current study of preferred rail corridors in Springfield will be folded into a new statewide study of the St. Louis to Chicago line. One major change is that the new study will include a fourth option of keeping passenger rail on the 3rd street corridor while moving freight traffic to the 10th street corridor.

Incredibly, one member of the Springfield rail study citizen advisory group asked representatives of the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) why that fourth option had not been considered earlier in the first study.

I would ask the same question of the advisory group. Why didn't they insist that the fourth reasonable alternative be included in the existing Hanson Engineering study? Were they lead to believe that they weren't allowed to consider anything other than the three alternatives presented to them? Did the city leaders who insisted on local control of the study discourage consideration of any additional options? Did it simply never occur to them to seriously consider anything other than 10th street corridor consolidation?

Much of the public language used by the study group suggests a reluctance to view passenger rail as a separate issue. The FRA official said that the fourth alternative "should have been part of the process all along." It appears that the new study is necessary partly because the current one failed to seriously consider all reasonable alternatives.

At another point in the meeting, FRA officials were asked why the advisory group hadn't been given copies of the existing Hanson Engineering study. Once again, that question could have been directed to Mayor Mike Houston and County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter who both have the study and have commented on it in the press. In fact, the FRA official said city leaders are free to make the Hanson study available at any time.

I suppose Houston and Van Meter are free to characterize the study in any way they choose as long as it isn't available to the public. They bypassed the citizen advisory group when they took the study's conclusions directly to a friendly newspaper instead of making it available to everyone. They both remained silent during the meeting while several members complained of not having seen the study.

Comments from the advisory group revealed a total lack of unity. One member claimed that most everyone would prefer that all trains be routed outside of the community. Later, another member said passenger rail inside the city along 10th street would be a good thing because the new public transit multimodal facility will drive east side economic development. And even though it would drive economic development on the east side, we're told it will harm development of downtown and the medical district if placed along 3rd.

I have yet to figure out how the same multimodal proposal could drive development on one corridor and destroy it on another. I give city council member Gail Simpson credit for recognizing that good mass transit can be an economic development tool. This fact seems lost on those representing the medical district. The most frightening part of the meeting was to see how many people in the room have an outdated, 1960's automobile-centric mindset about transportation planning.

Yet another member spoke about NAACP's opposition to 10th street consolidation because it would unfairly burden the east side with the negative impacts of freight traffic. He was one of several people in the room who suggested that the advisory group was unfairly stacked with people who had their minds made up from the start.

Mike Houston closed the meeting by saying that resolving the issue will take the community coming together in agreement. Good luck! Despite a stacked advisory group and a massive public relations effort in favor of 10th corridor consolidation, it's clear that city residents are still deeply divided.

It was an interesting meeting. I'll write more from my notes when I have time.

Springfield's high speed rail worst case scenario

Do you recognize this Springfield intersection?



It's a rail crossing along the 3rd Street corridor at N. 3rd and Union. It's on the edge of downtown, near Memorial Hospital, in a residential neighborhood.

Do you notice what's missing from the picture?

This rail crossing has no gates or arm guards of any kind. In the middle of town in a residential neighborhood.

It's no wonder that Amtrak and freight trains lay on their horns through Springfield. They're forced to with unsafe crossing like this one.

Union Pacific is going to significantly increase freight traffic on this line. They own the track and have shown no interest in paying for 10th Street corridor consolidation. Amtrak will increase passenger lines on this track as well. Springfield needs to prepare.

We could be having a conversation about how to make intersections like this one safer when rail traffic increases. If we improve the safety of crossings along the entire corridor we'll be able to pass ordinances requiring trains to not lay on their horn non-stop all the way through town. Springfield could be creating our own 3rd street corridor mitigation plan that results in the least disruption to our central neighborhoods and downtown.

But we aren't having those conversations. That kind of productive discussion isn't happening because city leaders continue to chase after the lost cause of 10th Street corridor rail consolidation and exaggerate the negative impacts of track upgrades along the 3rd Street corridor. We should consider the consequences if County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter and Mayor Mike Houston continue their stubborn refusal to discuss anything other than consolidation.

The worst case scenario for Springfield is that federal high speed rail funding will run out before track upgrades are made. We could be left with a significant increase in rail traffic along the 3rd Street corridor but with no improvements to any crossings. We'll have all the inconvenience of more freight trains and no mitigation measures to improve safety or the flow of street traffic.

If that happens, we'll owe partial thanks to the Tea Party and other Republicans in Congress for their opposition to federal high speed rail funding. Even Springfield area Republicans like John Shimkus, Aaron Schock, and Bobby Schilling are doing their best to cut job-creation projects like high speed rail from the federal budget. It's unfair and unrealistic for Houston and Van Meter to expect Dick Durbin to deliver rail funds when the Republican Congressmen who represent Springfield are working against it.

Realistically, there isn't money for 10th Street consolidation unless the city issues a major bond and raises taxes. We all know how popular tax increases are.

Springfield needs to produce its own mitigation plan to make the best of high speed rail on the 3rd Street corridor. Having better passenger rail service in the heart of downtown on 3rd Street can be an economic development tool just like it has been in many other communities. It's time to face facts and have that conversation.

SJR article on Sierra Club high speed rail meeting

The State Journal-Register has a nice blurb letting people know about the Sierra Club meeting coming up on Tuesday, May 24th, 6:30pm, Lincoln Library Carnegie Room.

The Sangamon Valley Group of the Sierra Club has scheduled a public forum for Tuesday on ways high-speed trains could benefit both local businesses and the environment, said Will Reynolds, who also is chairman of the Illinois Sierra Club.

“Other cities are using high-speed rail to develop their downtowns,” said Reynolds. “We want to focus on how that could be done in Springfield.”

I feel like the economic development potential of high speed rail hasn't been part of the discussion often enough. So I'm excited about the excellent speakers we have coming.

Illinois gets extra rail money. Durbin delivers high speed reality check.

Are you ready for national train day this Saturday? It's good timing for Illinois since we just received a share of Florida's federal high speed rail money!

In case you forgot, the Governors of Wisconsin and Florida made themselves poster-children for how foolish, ideologically-driven decision making can harm states that elected tea party candidates. Projects in both states would have created thousands of jobs and provided long term economic development benefits. Their loss is now Illinois' gain.

I searched for this story at the State Journal-Register. They ran a shortened AP story which barely mentioned any benefits of the project. Other articles around the state included more of the statement from Senators Durbin and Kirk.

“Illinois will be able to use this funding to upgrade an important segment of the Chicago to St. Louis corridor,” said Durbin, a Co-Chair and founding member of the Bi-Cameral High- Speed & Intercity Passenger Rail Caucus. “Improvements to this route will improve on-time performance, increase travel speeds and create jobs that our state badly needs.

“This project will create nearly 6,000 direct and indirect jobs, decrease delays and improve performance,” U.S. Senator Mark Kirk said. “High speed rail projects like this one will ensure that Illinois remains at the center of the nation’s infrastructure network, attracting more jobs and making us more economically competitive.”

It's good to see that our new Republican Senator, Mark Kirk, isn't taking the tea party position of rejecting high speed rail money.

But, will the city of Springfield? Anyone who missed it should read Dick Durbin's reality check for Springfield published in the State Journal-Register. My interpretation of the Op-Ed is that local leaders have been blowing a lot of smoke, our options are limited, and we need to make the best decision based on our realistic choices. Just because the county is attached to their idea for an 11th street multi-modal center doesn't mean we're likely to get funds for rail line consolidation.

Let me repeat one of several crucial lines in the editorial. "Because the 10th Street corridor will primarily serve freight trains it is not likely to qualify for high-speed rail funds."

And: "Union Pacific and Canadian National have already said they will not pay to move their trains to the 10th Street corridor and they cannot legally be required to do so."

And thanks to our new tea-party-controlled Congress, there's not likely to be major new funding for passenger rail infrastructure improvements.

As Durbin pointed out, the 3rd Street corridor has had two tracks before. It didn't destroy downtown and historic structures didn't fall apart.

It's time for local leaders to stop presenting worst case scenarios and start working on our own 3rd street mitigation plan that's the least objectionable option. We need a realistic conversation about how high speed rail can be used to improve our city center, no matter which corridor is used.

Gen Y and the future of public transporation

In Springfield, we're used to thinking of public transpiration as something that's only used by those with no other option. I suspect that's one reason why the location proposed years ago for a multi-modal transit facility is on the edge of downtown near a low-income neighborhood. The decision was probably based on outdated assumptions about who uses public transportation.

I started thinking about this after reading a story on the increasing number of young people who prefer to not have a car.

Brauer said this generation also is thinking more than any other about the repercussions of driving, both in terms of the environment and our dependence on oil.

“They don’t just wholeheartedly see a car as this cool thing to go get,” he said. “There’s actually some caveats.”

‘I didn’t need it’
McVeigh didn’t make a conscious plan not to drive. After living overseas as a teenager, she went to college in a small town and then moved to bigger cities for graduate school and work.

At first, a car seemed both prohibitively expensive and unnecessary, because she could walk or take public transportation. Then, she just decided she didn’t want one.

“I just kind of came to the realization that I didn’t need it,” she said. McVeigh uses public transportation to get to work and likes that she can spend her commute time reading or grading papers.

McVeigh also likes getting the extra exercise when she chooses to walk to work or to the grocery store, and is happy to be saving money and not adding any more pollution to the planet.

Good public transportation is an economic development tool. When businesses and young professionals are looking for a place to locate, one of the things they'll consider is how easy it is to get around without a car.

Is it easy to walk or ride a bike around town? Is public transportation fast and convenient? Are there connections to high-speed rail? Can I live near where I work? These are questions individuals and companies will ask about Springfield in comparison to other cities.

Right now, the answers don't make us look so good. We don't have the population to support a public transportation system similar to Chicago's. But, we can do much more to make Springfield less auto-dependent compared to cities of a similar size.

Is rail the past or the future?

President Obama spoke today about moving the country beyond fossil fuels. He rejected the premise that it's enough to merely free ourselves of "foreign" oil and spoke about the need to reduce use of oil from any source.

We have to acknowledge that an America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and grandchildren.

We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. So without a major change in our energy policy, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month – including countries in dangerous and unstable regions. In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.

...The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future. That means continuing our unprecedented effort to make everything from our homes and businesses to our cars and trucks more energy efficient.

Part of that future means investing in high-speed passenger rail. That's why it was included in the stimulus bill and more investments are planned. It's an important part of the strategy to make America a less auto-dependent and less oil-dependent society.

It bothers me to see the opposite perspective promoted by the Springfield Railroad Corridor Study. Their materials start with the premise that rails are the transportation mode of the past and imply that we should continue the status quo of a city designed solely for auto-traffic.

Springfield is a city that grew up around its rail lines and was, at one time, an important railroad junction. Almost all of the people and goods coming into and out of the City were carried by rail. The situation at the beginning of the Twenty-first Century is vastly different. The City has significantly fewer rail lines; people arrive mostly by car or plane; and almost all of the products sold or used in Springfield move by truck.

A vestige of Springfield’s rail-centric past is that there are currently three north-south railroad corridors that run through the City.

The site goes on to focus on the inconveniences of rail traffic without mentioning the benefits of well-planned passenger rail, including reduction of oil use and economic development in city centers. I hope the above statements don't reflect the direction the study is taking. They sound grossly out of step with national priorities.

It's disturbing to see the study group frame the public discussion in this way, especially considering the lack of environmental or passenger rail advocates on their citizen advisory boards. It would be foolish to focus this study on how rail lines inconvenience cars. The most obvious vestige of the past is the study group's outdated attitude about promoting a car-dependent society.

Obama went on to say,

But if we refuse to take into account the full cost of our fossil fuel addiction – if we don’t factor in the environmental costs and national security costs and true economic costs – we will have missed our best chance to seize a clean energy future.

Will the Springfield railroad study consider those costs?

Local leaders celebrate expansion of passenger rail

It's interesting to see how differently passenger rail issues are covered in other towns in comparison to Springfield. Other cities in Illinois are celebrating high speed rail and the new riders it will bring to revitalize their downtown.

The latest example is the announcement of restored passenger rail service to Rockford and Belvidere in Northern Illinois.

"It's made a psychological boost to people it's nice to see some smiles on people's faces again," said Belvidere mayor Fred Brereton.

He went on to say:

their station would be downtown, near it's former location. Making it easier for locals to get onboard. "There might be some grant money to help construct the station we'll pursue every avenue we can, ironically it's almost in the same position where the train station used to be," Brereton said.

Governor Pat Quinn and IDOT rail chief George Weber emphasized job creation.

"We believe there's a good chance for job creation , its not only the direct jobs that will be created through Amtrak having to hire more people , but also the indirect jobs that will result in terms of economic development that we've seen in other locations where rail service has been established," Weber said.

During his Quad Cities stop, Quinn pledged to also bring back the Rock Island line to Chicago.

The Quad Cities Passenger Rail Coalition estimates the economic impact of restoring passenger rail.

• 550 - 825 jobs
• $11 - $16 million increase in household income
• $52 - $75 million increase in area property values

The Quad City region looks forward to passenger rail benefiting business, leisure, and commuter travel as well as the associated positive impact on the region’s economy, environment, quality of life, workforce attraction/retention, and job growth.

All across the state, cities are excited about the benefits of improving passenger rail service. Everywhere except Springfield, where some people would rather not have high-speed rail at all if it's on the 3rd street corridor (where it would drop off customers in the middle of the downtown business district). Why is that?

Take the green train

The SJR has a story about Amtrak being promoted as an eco-friendly travel option. I like taking it to Chicago whenever I go. I don't have to pay for parking or deal with city traffic. And as much as I like Amtrak, I'm in love with the L. I even wrote a song about the Red Line. Yes, I'm a dork.

The story is a good example of how passenger rail drives economic development. Land values and businesses grow around good public transportation. That means there are some up-sides to the possibility of having a high-speed passenger rail corridor and multi-modal center in the middle of downtown Springfield along the 3rd Street corridor.

Yes, there are problems with installing double tracks along the 3rd St corridor, just as there are problems with consolidation on 10th. Neither option is going to cause the destruction of downtown. It's a little irritating to see the downsides of one option over-hyped while drawbacks to the other are ignored. In some ways, the 3rd Street corridor will help downtown grow.

We'll only see the full economic and environmental benefits if we abandon the idea that public transportation is only for people with no other travel options. The trouble with the proposed multi-modal on 11th is that it's based on twenty year old backward ideas about mass transit.

The proposed 11th Street site is surrounded by important social service agencies. No one has been able to answer whether they plan to: 1) Force service agencies out to make room for the promised economic development, or 2) Ask tourists to walk by two shelters, rehab centers and the county jail near a high crime neighborhood at nighttime if they want to visit Springfield. Those are the only two options and neither one sounds appealing.

The local press finally started covering the full picture so we should be able to have a rational discussion about high-speed rail soon, without all the apocalyptic talk of Springfield's impending doom.

This song has been stuck in my head for the last two days...