[il-talk] a report on the Springfield High-speed Rail study

[Bill Reif]

The below is from the June 26th Springfield State Journal-Register. The 
study and its conclusions appear to be well considered, though I would 
be interested in knowing how the Third Street option would increase 
traffic delays. I give our new old mayor credit for breaking the silence 
on this issue, hopefully enhancing the likelyhood that a responsible 
decision is made. I post this here because the matter was the subject of 
an NFBI resolution a couple years ago.

Cordially,
Bill

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Jun 26, 2011 @ 12:03 AM
Abraham Lincoln once advised this community, “If we could first know 
where we are
and wither we are tending we could then better judge what to do and how 
to do it.”
Over the past several months, we have found ourselves trying to follow 
our most famous
fellow citizen’s advice as we have struggled to bridge the gap between a 
professional
study of the railroad issues faced by our community and a seemingly 
intractable bureaucracy
that has prevented us from reporting the results of that study to our 
keenly interested
fellow citizens.
The study has largely been complete since the first of the year, and in 
the ordinary
course, the next step would be for the steering committee guiding the 
study to authorize
the consultants to present their results to the community. The steering 
committee
members from the city and the county have been anxious to proceed with 
the public
report, but we have not been able to secure the authorization of other 
committee
members.
Recent public statements by the Illinois Department of Transportation 
that do not
reflect the report’s conclusions lead us to the belief that we should 
provide some
explanation to a community that has been patiently awaiting the promised 
report.
Here are the essential facts:
The study first considered perhaps the most universally popular concept 
of rerouting
all train transportation outside Springfield proper. It concluded that 
this option
would cost more than a billion dollars, which is simply a fiscal and 
practical impossibility.
Next, it thoroughly examined the four possible alternatives most 
requested by the
citizens in the public forums:
1. Consolidating all train transportation onto the 10th Street corridor. 
This option
would cost approximately $526 million, also a fiscal and practical 
impossibility.
2. Consolidating the Union Pacific and Norfolk and Southern train 
traffic on the
10th Street corridor while making significant improvements to the 
Canadian National’s
rail corridor on 19th Street. This option would cost $318 million and 
would most
significantly improve travel times, community cohesion and safety and 
displace the
fewest homeowners.
3. Improving the Third Street corridor for the Union Pacific but doing 
nothing on
the 10th and 19th Street tracks. This option would cost $259 million, 
create a series
of overpasses running from First to Fifth streets throughout the 
community and do
nothing to improve travel times or safety. Significantly, it would 
provide no benefits
for those portions of our community affected by the 10th and 19th Street 
tracks.
4. Adding a second set of tracks to Third Street and modernizing all 
crossing gates.
This option would cost $96 million and actually increase travel delays 
while displacing
the largest number of homeowners. It would also choke off our downtown 
core and drive
a stake through the heart of our vibrant medical district.
The consultant’s draft recommendation is to proceed with Option 2. We 
strongly support
this conclusion as providing the maximum benefit to all sectors of our 
community
at a cost that is achievable under current realities.
It may be helpful to explain that the relatively small difference in 
cost between
Option 2 and Option 3 is basically the money needed to improve the 19th 
Street corridor.
We feel that improving the 19th Street corridor is essential to a 
successful plan
that will allow our entire community to benefit.
The consultants also prepared a plan indicating how to secure the 
necessary funds
to implement Option 2. This plan relies on a number of sources, 
including the high-speed
rail project, federal railroad relocation funds, the railroads 
themselves, the Illinois
Commerce Commission and a contribution from the city of Springfield (a 
contribution
to be paid for with bonds). The funding plan is realistic but 
challenging. Its success
will depend on the coordinated and focused efforts of all our state and 
federal representatives
over the next few years.
While much work remains to be done, we should not lose sight of how much 
has been
accomplished. We were told that 10th Street was not a suitable 
alternative. The study
conclusively demonstrates that it is. We were told that the railroads 
would never
cooperate. In fact, they have been supportive of any plan that meets 
their operational
requirements and they have not balked at a modest financial 
contribution. We were
told that the study could not be done in time. In fact, it was completed 
within the
specified time. Only the bureaucrats at IDOT and the Federal Railroad 
Administration
are stalling its conclusion. We were told that the implementation of the 
10th Street
corridor would impede the implementation of the high-speed rail project. 
In fact,
Springfield’s plan is now over a year ahead of the statewide high-speed 
rail study
and can be implemented without slowing the arrival of higher-speed trains.
Some will argue that the Chicago to St. Louis transportation project is 
not sufficiently
high speed or that we should oppose high-speed rail altogether. These 
are false options
for this community. As Sen. Dick Durbin has pointed out, our community 
faces a tremendous
increase in freight rail traffic. The Chicago to St. Louis corridor 
project is our
best opportunity to mitigate the significant harm this increased traffic 
will cause.
Those who would oppose high-speed rail on principle fail to see this 
project for
what it is: A relatively low-cost and achievable pilot project to help 
determine
if higher-speed rail is a viable transportation option for segments of 
our country.
Pilot projects are a pragmatic and time-tested approach to tackling our 
nation’s
challenges. We strongly support the Chicago–St. Louis corridor project, 
including
the 10th Street solution for Springfield.
At the outset, Sen. Durbin made clear that, although he had an abiding 
affection
for his hometown, the 10th Street corridor proposal would have to stand 
or fall on
its merits. He would cut no backroom deals. The study has demonstrated 
our community
needs no special treatment to do this job right. We only need fair 
treatment from
a state and federal bureaucracy that has proven to be tone deaf to the 
legitimate
interests of this community. We want to be clear: We would never have 
gotten this
far without Sen. Durbin’s essential assistance.
In summary terms, this is where we are and a successful consolidation on 
the 10th
Street corridor is, based on the impartial and professional report 
“wither we are
tending.” What is “best to do” is to enlist the assistance of our 
elected representatives
in, once again, refocusing the government bureaucracy on a positive 
outcome for our
community. And “how to do it”? Politely, thoughtfully, earnestly. Follow 
the advice
our greatest fellow citizen offered when he announced his candidacy for 
the very
Senate seat our current fellow citizen and respected national leader now 
holds.
Mike Houston is mayor of Springfield. Andy Van Meter is chairman of the 
Sangamon
County Board.
Copyright 2011 The State Journal-Register. Some rights reserved