Rail Service, Interrupted

So ever since I moved to the Quad Cities, and actually rather a long time before, there have been reports that Amtrak was in negotiations and planning to bring passenger rail service back to the Quad Cities: a direct line to Chicago (well, as direct as local Amtrak service gets).

It has not yet happened. It looks unlikely now to ever happen. Some of the blame here goes to Iowa Interstate, the company that owns the rails (but discussing rail nationalization is a different discussion). Some probably goes to local leaders and Amtrak and national leaders as well. But beyond apportioning blame, I want to talk here about why I think this kind of rail service should be doable, and is valuable, even if it's proving difficult in the moment.

1. We don't need more cars in Chicago

We also don't need more in the QC, but that is a much bigger ask. Chicago has real mass transit, as I've discussed in other posts, from the CTA trains and buses to Pace to, yes, even Metra. Not only that, but downtown Chicago and several of its neighborhoods are very walkable. 

But cars are like the proverbial hammer: if you have one, everything looks like a nail (or in this case, a drive). Once you drive into Chicago, each of the sub-trips you might make in Chicago is more likely to be taken by car, because, well, you have the car already. And parking longterm in Chicago is expensive, so you're also disincentivized to just leave the car in a garage (although you certainly can, as my family has proven). Instead, you'll drive within Chicago as well as to it. 

A train fixes this, because a train is city center to city center, and delivers you without a car to a place you don't need a car. It's a win-win.

2. It can be price competitive 

Now, this required actual consideration and communication, because the up-front cost of a train ticket (especially on Amtrak, which doesn't do the world's best pricing, or even international standard) is likely to be high. Also, a lot of people disregard car costs, including gas (especially if you can get to and from Chicago without filling up, even though you still spend the gas), insurance, chance of accident, etc. 

But parking in Chicago really is expensive, as noted above, in a way that can make a train ticket look a lot better. And getting a parking ticket in Chicago is worse. And you don't have to pay that if you don't have a car. Getting people to realize this can be difficult because, again, people discount car costs. But it actually can be cheaper, or at least competitive, to take even an Amtrak train.

3. Trains go two ways

The QC is on I-80, so we're no strangers to people coming in because the transportation is convenient. But it's worth remembering that trains go both ways, so a train to Chicago is also a train to here: and it's not just going to produce one-way flow. At ideal levels of service frequency and speed someone like my friend who does a weekly commute from Chicago (weekends in one, weeks in the other) could use the train to see their family more often. But even at minimal levels the existence of the train would promise additional tourism, shopping, and just general visitors, not just from and to Chicago but from and to the stops on the way (like Rockford). 

And tying the region together more would be good for social cohesion and mutual understanding, something Chicago and the rest of Illinois have often struggled with. 

Overall, I have more thoughts that will probably make it to another post, but this is a basic primer for why we should be pushing for that Quad Cities rail link actively, and not just letting it become another disappointment.