It’s 6:30 a.m. and the sounds of humanity echo against the skyscrapers. The air shocks of a city bus gush as the driver creeps forward along a route already congested with morning commuters. Arms raised high, potential passengers shout at passing taxicabs. The wheels of an “L” train rattle in the distance. Feet hit the pavement along Michigan Avenue in a mix of Prada loafers, Louboutin heels and off-the-rack specials.
In the shadow of the Hancock Building, I peer through the drapes of my 29-story hotel room and watch as the Windy City comes to life in a mix of deadline-driven speed and precision.
Today’s commute would be drastically different than my usual 9-minute drive to the Springfield Business Journal office.
In Chicago for the annual Alliance of Area Business Publications’ fall conference, travel occupied my thoughts the previous two days as Publisher Jennifer Jackson, Circulation Director Diana Weber and I made our way toward the City by the Lake.
We could have flown. We could have made the drive. But instead, we chose to travel by train – and it was fantastic.
We picked up the Amtrak line at St. Louis’ Union Station. My first experience on a passenger train of this scale, I was immediately smitten with the idea of riding the rails – big cushy seats, a dining car, the ability to read, research for an upcoming article – what wasn’t to love?
Answer: The three-and-a-half hour car ride to and from St. Louis.
While making the drive home at well after midnight, my co-workers and I questioned why Amtrak didn’t extend service to Springfield. It seemed highly logical to us as we gulped caffeine in an effort to stay awake.
Upon returning to the office, I took my question to the SBJ archives and fell down a rabbit hole of disheartening headlines: “Study: Amtrak service to St. Louis not practical” and “Report: Springfield Amtrak service would be challenging.”
According to the archives, a study released May 23, 2007, found an Amtrak rail between Springfield and St. Louis faced “formidable obstacles” in hefty costs and low ridership. The direct cost to provide the service was expected to be $4.1 million annually, while it would only generate about $700,000 in projected ticket revenue, with an initial cost to the state of $3.4 million.
Ridership was projected to be a lower-than-needed 34,000 passengers a year, partly due to low train speeds. Travel time would be nearly six hours, citing challenging terrain.
Google Maps tells me it would have taken us four hours and 58 minutes from St. Louis to Chicago via car, compared to the five hours and 15 minutes it took us via train. We may have saved 17 minutes via car, but add in lunch, bathroom stops and the hassle of navigating – not to mention the work we accomplished during the ride – and it’s no contest in my mind.
Would you trade a little more than a three-hour car ride from Springfield for a six-hour train ride? No thanks, when I can drive all the way to Chicago in only eight hours.
There has to be an easier way. I’m by no means an engineer or city planner, but I do know one thing, if easy-to-use public transit was available, people will use it.
It’s all in the mindset of a city, and Springfield has to decide if it wants to become truly metropolitan or not. St. Louis has the Metro Link, and Kansas City has a vibrant city bus system and is working to install trollies.
In Springfield, we travel by car. That’s the plain and simple truth. Bike routes crop up here and there, the city bus system is less than stellar, and walking is only feasible downtown.
Comparing the Queen City to one of the nation’s largest metro area may seem unfair, but improvements to public transit are something I believe we should strive for. I’d love to see a day when I make it to and from work, to the grocery store or dinner without my foot ever touching a gas pedal.
Give us a second chance, Amtrak. I may only be one person, but install a line and I’ll ride it. Sometimes, one person is all it takes to spark a change.
Springfield Business Journal Features Editor Emily Letterman can be reached at eletterman@sbj.net.
