Citation please.Chicago has a lot of problems. It has long been known for having one of the highest if not the highest crime rates in the nation (US).It is unfortunate that you can't get anywhere without going through Chicago. A hub in St. Louis or further south would surely take the pressure off.
In 2012, Chicago was 13th in homicides (on a per-capita basis), below St. Louis (one of your suggested hubs). Chicago was 16th on a per capita basis in robberies (below St. Louis and Milwaukee, two cities on your list).
Nonetheless, I fail to see what this has to do with Amtrak.
It can be windy. It's not the windiest city out there. Its nickname as the "Windy City" has nothing to do with any weather phenomenon.It is also extremely windy, and this leads to poor road conditions and freezing.
I'm trying to think of a response to this that isn't snarky, but I really can't. I mean...WTF?People have also died there.
Please explain to me how a hub in Milwaukee is supposed to work. Build a railroad bridge across Lake Michigan?In terms of trains and tracks, I agree that a hub in St. Louis is part of the solution. Currently as you know all traffic east of Chicago has to go there first, and all traffic west of Chicago also goes there. While this might seem balanced on paper, it is not. There are other cities that deserve attention, including St. Louis (aka the 'golden' arches), Milwaukee, and Indianapolis.
Who is the "they" that is supposed to "let" things happen?An additional option would be Nashville.
If the network were more evenly distributed we could avoid a lot of these problems and 'spread the wealth' so to speak.
But will they let that happen? No. No, they won't.
I also don't really understand what "spread the wealth" is supposed to mean. Amtrak has four western long-distance trains out of Chicago. How do you spread that amongst different hubs without, basically, destroying the utility of the system?
I've long accepted that there will not be any new long-distance trains. It's a political will problem as much as it is an Amtrak problem. Therefore, to maximize potential, it's best that they flow through common hubs (it doesn't help if the Empire Builder ends in Milwaukee but the Cardinal somehow originates in Nashville). I'm sure that the staff that are currently employed could be a ton more effective than they are, but nonetheless, you're not going to suddenly turn Indianapolis (with poor track leading to it in pretty much all directions) or Nashville (which hasn't seen a passenger train in decades) into new hubs just to spite some bad workers.
Chicago is the rail hub because that's how the growth happened historically, and, as the US's third-largest city (and one that has always seen rail as a relevant transportation mode), that's where your best hope for O&D traffic is for any place west of Washington, DC, until west of the Rockies (with the possible exception of Houston, which is really too far south to serve as an LD train hub anyway). You can't throw that away just because you have some bad employees working there.