Joyce Blumenshine is the chairwoman of the Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club. She has long been a proponent of removing freight rail access on the Kellar Branch and converting the corridor to a hiking/biking trail. On February 6 of this year, she wrote a letter to the Journal Star again opposing train service on the branch, plus scoffing at the idea of a trolley being run on the line:
The rehash of the mystical trolley line is a bait and switch – another attempt to derail the trail for the benefit of Pioneer Railcorp at great cost to our community….
She signed her letter, “Joyce Blumenshine, Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club.” So, she’s speaking for the Sierra Club.
The funny thing is, if you look at the Sierra Club’s website, you’ll find that Blumenshine is all alone in her criticism of trains and trolleys. The Sierra Club actually likes them. A lot. In fact, they have quite a bit of information on rail transportation, the quality of life and economic development it brings, and its positive effect on the environment.
In their 2004 Report on Sprawl (ironically titled, “Missing the Train”), the Sierra Club said, “Public transportation, particularly rail, spurs ‘transit-oriented development’ that helps create a vibrant environment where people can live, work, shop, and use public transportation with ease” (emphasis mine). Isn’t that interesting? And what’s the effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses?
In the Washington, DC area, the public transportation system (Metro) has generated nearly $15 billion in surrounding private development. Between 1980 and 1990, 40 percent of the region’s retail and office space was built within walking distance of a Metro station.17 This has led to lively corridors with plentiful restaurants, shops, offices and residences in places like Alexandria, Clarendon and Arlington, Virginia; Bethesda and Silver Spring, Maryland; and the heart of Washington, DC.
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) notes that demand for these transit-oriented neighborhoods far outpaces the supply, and cites studies showing that 30 percent of housing demand is for such communities while less than 2 percent of new housing is put in these areas. APTA states, “Real estate experts and demographers have … concluded the supply of TOD-style living environments, focused on high-quality public transportation, lags far behind demand.”18 APTA also calculates that the retail market benefits, because for every $10 million invested in public transit, they gauge that local business sales increase by $30 million.
“But that’s a full-fledged public transit, light-rail system,” you say. Granted. But consider a situation in Santa Cruz, California, that has some similarities to our situation here. There, like here, there is a scenic rail line that snakes through their county, and local Sierra Club members want to turn it into a hiking/biking trail. And there, like here, there is controversy surrounding it. Not the same controversy, but controversy.
The disagreement begins when discussing the best way for the county to purchase the corridor from Union Pacific. There are two options for buying the corridor. The first involves accepting $11 million of State Prop. 116 money…and matching it with transportation funds already allocated by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC)….
In the first option, the State will provide the $11 million only if the county moves forward with some form of passenger rail service such as the proposed recreational Trolley [emphasis mine]. For many, this is a fair trade off. In fact, many people like trains and think the idea of moving around Santa Cruz by rail attractive.
There, the Sierra Club is in favor of the trolley with a trail alongside, within the corridor, but there are some residents who live along the train track that are against the trolley. The Ventana Chapter Sierra Club dryly muses, “It isn’t clear why people who don’t like trains purchased homes next to the railroad tracks.” Some are wondering the same thing here, especially about a certain Journal Star editor who lives near the train tracks but doesn’t want to see or hear trains on them.
The report concludes by saying, “The Sierra Club favors transportation that is energy and land conserving and is the least polluting. The Trolley project and the use of the rail corridor for bicycle travel has enormous potential to reduce automobile trips in Santa Cruz County.” Isn’t that exactly what the Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation is trying to do in Peoria?
So the question that needs to be asked is, why is the Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club against it? Why would the Heart of Illinois Sierra Club be anti-rail and, thus, pro-oil? Why would they rather take lumber off of environmentally-friendly and fuel-efficient train consists and instead put it on multiple oil-burning trucks that tear up our roadways and pollute our air? Why would they work against attempts to lessen automobile dependence? Why would they want to kill any hope of establishing a light rail system through the heart of the city?
The Sierra Club has published Conservation Policies that I would assume would apply to all chapters. Here’s what they say about trains/public transportation:
- “Rail systems are most effective in stimulating compact development patterns, increasing public transit patronage and reducing motor vehicle use.”
- “Station access should be provided by foot, bicycle and public transit, with minimal, but full-priced, public parking.”
- “Freight railroads, especially electrified, are preferred over highway or air freight to save energy and land, and cut noise and pollutant emissions.”
- “Land use patterns should be designed to improve pedestrian access, encourage shorter trips, increase public transit use, enhance the economic viability of public transit and decrease private motor vehicle use (auto mobility).”
Why is the Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club opposing club policy in regards to the Kellar Branch? Are their leaders letting their personal feelings get in the way of their mission?
I mentioned this a couple of months ago on Prego’s now defunct site. I tried to figure out if the Sierra Club National has a way to be notified if their name is being used in vain. Not to be a tattle-tale, but if Kellar isn’t “urban infrastructure” I don’t know what is. I couldn’t figure out a reporting or an approving projects function from their site. You are much more skilled at this sort of thing, maybe you will.
Joyce Blumenshine’s heart is set on having a trail in place of the railroad tracks, and no trolley or new rail user is going to change her mind.
Unfortunately, Joyce is a shrill for the Park District, not an environmentalist. She should resign from the Club before she further disgraces it.
We’re about 10 years behind the curve regarding rail in Peoria (not the Heights, at least they’re open-minded). If the Kellar tracks were torn up our leaders in 2017 would muse, “Wouldn’t it be nice to have more rail to move shipments through Peoria”?
I imagine it would take $5 gas for Peorians to consider using light rail for the daily commute. However a privately run trolley could find a solid niche for tourist trips, wedding parties, corporate outings, special dinners, etc., at no risk to the taxpayer. The upside would be increased sales tax revenue. This on top of increased business development, jobs, and sales taxes from businesses relocating and developing near the Kellar Branch.
Trail-only people advocate the fitness benefits of a trail. If people wanted to exercise they would already be utilizing our existing 9000 acres of parkland or one of our many health clubs. The health/economic benefits from a trail-only solution would be marginal, and I doubt worth the cost to the PPD for upgrades and maintenance.
As municipalities across the country rediscover rail I’m completely dumbfounded as to why Peoria wants to remove tracks.
I’ve been mentioning this idea, that promoting rail is a way to “go green” and reduce our automobile/oil dependence for months now – not that I want any kind of credit, I’m really glad CJ is writing so well on the idea. It is a really solid argument that makes a lot of sense to me.
The Kellar Branch runs directly into the NW growth sector of town – I live there, in addition to several executives at large companies with offices downtown (not that I’m an exec, I just made a smart buy, I think). Anyway, a commute on the Kellar Branch line makes total sense to me. And heck, I’d definitely use it to come to festivals downtown, and the Saturday farmers market, and games/concerts at the civic center, if not the commute (since I’m at BU and that might not be totally logical for me).
And if we get Amtrak service to Chicago, I could park out by my house, take the trolley to downtown, and train to chicago. I would freakin’ LOVE that!
So to all involved, from a resident of the NW growth sector – I’d use it, and I can guarantee I have a few neighbors who’d do the same.
RTP you’re not the only one dumbfounded. I attended last night’s meeting and it was proposed by one of the speakers that hikers were going to use the trail and then go shopping in the Heights for clothing and art and things like that and they would buy toys for their grandchildren and even balloons. I guess only senior citizens are going to use the trail? I have yet to see a hiker carrying packages from their local shopping trip along the trail.
One gentleman mentioned that as the meeting was going we were seeing hikers and joggers outside the windows of the Village Board room, well he was right we did see them and several of them were men with no shits on and sweating and wiping their faces with their t-shirts. I wasn’t exactly pleased to see a half naked man walking by the window sweating all over the place and trying to wipe it off. Maybe its just my taste but it didn’t look too cool to me and I’m an old lady.
I recently attended two railroad meetings here in Peoria in the past two days and gathered information of fact from IDOT Amtrak and others that show the huge increase in freight rail service and also passenger rail service in the state if Illinois. The Federal government and the state are banding together to form a CREATE group and it is going to infuse $1.5 billion dollars into the railroad industry to aid us here in the state of Illinois. The big thing we are working at in reference to the trolley is not only for Peorians to go to Chicago and St. Louis and Champaign but for those people to come here to our town and spend money here at our events and thus increase our economic development. This is a big picture that includes coming and going and bringing dollars to our town.
Are their any hard numbers behind the proposal for a trolley system on the Kellar branch? If so, it would be great to have them posted for review. I’m having trouble seeing how it can be viable without government subsidy. I don’t see a strong commuter base using it since it’ll take longer to get downtown than it takes to drive thus the convenience factor won’t be there.
I do see a market for some limited use for recreational type trolley uses (wedding parties, tours, etc.) but don’t believe these uses will be enough to support any sustained effort.
So you say it can be done in Peoria….
check out a viable operation in another midwestern town, smaller than Peoria.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_ken_2005-01.htm
If you are looking for $5/gallon gas, you might see it sooner than you think. Bet it hits $3 before summer.
You’re probably right, Mouse. We’re around $2.60 and haven’t even approached peak driving season. I’ve read opinions of several analysts saying we won’t hit $3.00 in ’07. I’ll take the over.
I live in Santa Cruz and used to live next to the tracks. I know nothing of your rail corridor, but I can tell you the reason I object to a rail+trail in Santa Cruz: It just does not fit.
In the populous areas the corridor is only 30 feet wide fence to fence. The tracks are in the center and in a bit of a valley, like this: XX\__/XX where the X’s are uneven earthy hills. The freight trains are huge, and no sane person would go in the corridor when one is moving, especially once you learn that they derail several times a year.
In fact it is so narrow in there that the even the advocates agree there would not even be room for a fence to separate the trail from the tracks. That’s just unsafe — and to get this they want to add more trains, and also increase the speed of all the trains. Can you say death trap?
We attend city meetings and the eco folks speak endlessly about ten thousand virtuous things, but no amount of verse will change the fact that the idea is patently unsafe. If it was 50 feet wide it would be a great idea. I honestly think most of these folks just simply haven’t gone down there when a freight train is rolling through.
Now actually, the corridor is 50+ feet wide in lots of places, just not in the places where people would use the trail. Way out in the farm land it is often 100 feet wide, and there is already a great ad-hoc bike trail out there that sees tons of good use. Not surprisingly this ad-hoc trail formed itself a solid thirty feet from the edge of the tracks.