All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
City Council, Illinois American Water

Dream On

The cities of Urbana and Champaign are planning to join forces with Peoria and Pekin to explore acquiring Illinois American Water Company assets in their respective communities. … Urbana Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Walden disclosed the effort at Monday night’s meeting of the Urbana City Council, saying the city managers and attorneys in the four communities have been talking on a regular basis.That’s the news from the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette (hat tip to Bill).  All I can say is, “dream on.”  I’m sure whenever they approach RWE, parent company of Illinois American Water Company, they’ll get an almost identical answer as the city of Lexington, Kentucky, received:

The city has misinterpreted RWE AG’s intentions to sell American Water Works as a sign that Kentucky American Water is for sale, an executive with American Water wrote in a letter to Mayor Teresa Isaac.  RWE — the German utility conglomerate that owns American Water, the New Jersey-based parent company of Kentucky American — is not interested in selling Kentucky American, wrote Daniel L. Kelleher, senior vice president external affairs for American Water Works.  “The record is clear, that neither RWE nor American Water have expressed any interest in selling Kentucky American Water,” Kelleher wrote in his Dec. 29 letter.

The city continues to waste time and resources on this quixotic quest to own the water company.  And now, they’re going to waste more of our money.  Check this out (additional quote from News-Gazette):

Walden said the four cities have tentatively agreed to the following joint steps:

  • To budget $1 per capita ($37,000 in Urbana’s case) for hiring a consultant to advise the cities.
  • To enter into an intergovernmental agreement to organize the joint efforts.
  • To pursue state legislation to permit the sale of water company assets . . .
  • To contact other Illinois communities served by Illinois American Water to determine their interest in joint efforts.

Did you catch that first one?  They’re going to budget $1 per capita to hire a consultant to advise the cities.  That’s $1 for every person in the city of Peoria, or $112,936.  That’s almost enough money to hire two firefighters for a year.  Where is that money going to come from?  Out of their hat?

You gotta love our city council.  They’re so creative, persistent, collaborative, and willing to spend money on something that has been rejected by their constituents, defeated by the council for decades, and highly likely to fail.  Yet they’re seemingly unable or unwilling to apply that same creativity, persistence, collaboration, and willingness to spend money to things that their constituents have been screaming for:  fully staffing the fire and police departments, repairing roads and sidewalks (esp. in older neighborhoods), alleviating the storm water problems in Rolling Acres, and other basic city services.

Still waiting patiently for the new council to live up to their “basic services” campaign promises . . . .

Kellar Branch

Pioneer to STB: Stop Kellar Branch closure

I mentioned in my last post that Pioneer Industrial Railway (PIRY) also sent a petition to the Surface Transportation Board (STB). Here’s a copy of their filing (large PDF file). It’s a “petition for stay pending reconsideration or appeal.” It’s been filed not by the company attorney, but Washington, D.C., attorneys Baker & Miller, PLLC, who specialize in transportation matters, including proceedings before the Surface Transportation Board.

They present a compelling case. From reading their petition on behalf of PIRY, you can tell they’ve really done their homework. They’ve gone back and looked at every one of the cases the STB cited as precedent for their decision and, of course, drawn different conclusions than the STB.

Their strongest argument is the letter from Carver Lumber that “refutes the main factual premise which led the board to authorize discontinuance”; namely, that “[t]he shippers served by CIRY . . . do not object, and will continue to be served from the north or from the south . . . .” We now know that’s not true.

In fact, Carver isn’t being served at all. Carver Lumber’s letter makes clear that since the City’s carrier, CIRY, took over last year, not one shipment has been made to Carver Lumber. The one time it was attempted, it was with inadequate equipment, resulting in a runaway train (through several grade crossings at 30 mph, threatening public safety) and a derailment.

The filing also claims that a proper environmental impact study was not completed, and that Pioneer was unjustly refused the opportunity to purchase the Kellar Branch from the city. I think there’s a good chance the STB will grant the stay and hear the appeal for the sole reason of Carver Lumber’s concerns.

All this leaves me with several questions. Why is the city making it so difficult for Carver Lumber to do business? Do they not care about small, locally-owned Peoria businesses? What does this action say to potential businesses who might consider locating in Peoria? What does it say to potential businesses who might consider locating in or near Pioneer Park? What does sacrificing Carver Lumber’s business for the sake of the Park District’s trail extension say about the city’s priorities? And where are the Peoria Journal Star reporters on this story? Isn’t it news that the City of Peoria is directly responsible for over $25,000 in additional transportation costs for one of its local businesses? Isn’t that outrageous enough to warrant an editorial, or at least a front-page story in the local section? I sure think so.

This whole project has been outrageous from the beginning, and the City Council should put a stop to it. The filing by Pioneer concludes:

There is a way by which CIRY can be relieved of its operating obligation, the City compensated for the use of its tracks, the environmental impacts adequately studied, and service to shippers maintained. That way is by granting the stay, reconsidering the Board’s decision, and then allowing PIRY to file an OFA [“offer of financial assistance,” i.e., allowing Pioneer to purchase the Kellar Branch from the city]. Granting the stay provides an opportunity for the Board to reconsider its decisions in light of the new evidence submitted by Carver, and correct its decision. The public as [a] whole will benefit.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Kellar Branch

Broken promises resurrect Kellar Branch saga

Carver Lumber was promised some things by the city. The city promised that Carver would continue to receive rail service via the Kellar Branch until the new western spur could be completed. The city promised it wouldn’t stop service on the Kellar Branch until service via that western spur was in place and operating smoothly. And the city promised Carver that it would receive comparable shipping rates via the west.

The city broke its promises.

Now Carver Lumber has petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to overturn their ruling and force the city to reinstate service on the Kellar Branch. Pioneer Railcorp is also filing a motion to stay the STB’s ruling pending appeal in light of this new development.

You can read Carver Lumber’s grievances here. The STB ruling makes it possible for the city to start dismantling the Kellar Branch any time after January 22, 2006. However, the promised western spur is not yet complete, and the corners being cut in its construction will add to Carver’s shipping costs.

To make matters worse, they have received no shipments via the Kellar Branch since September, resulting in over $25,000 in additional shipping costs to truck the lumber from the rail yard to Pioneer Park. Why? Because the company the city hired to work the line, Central Illinois Railway (a subsidiary of DOT Rail in Granville, Ill.), is unable to haul the rail cars up the Kellar line. You may remember the last time they tried — and the whole load slid backwards down the hill and derailed.

Furthermore, even once the western spur is completed, the city has been unable to pursuade Union Pacific (the only line the western spur will access) to allow CIRY to use their tracks to make deliveries to Carver Lumber. Without trackage rights, they may be left without service entirely. That’s the trouble when you don’t have neutral access — the kind of neutral access they have via the Kellar Branch.

And why is all this nonsense going on? Because the Park District wants to remove a working rail line to put in a hiking trail. They’ve already driven potential business away from Pioneer Park because of this ceaseless quest to remove competitive rail service. Now it’s almost as if they’re trying to run Carver Lumber out of there as well.

The city could make things a whole lot easier on everyone if they would just kill this ill-conceived trail project and sell the rail line to Pioneer Railcorp. Then the Park District could use their grants to build a trail along a different route to connect the Rock Island with the Pimiteoui — a route that wouldn’t hurt Peoria businesses.

City of Peoria

Time to redistrict again?

I was thinking about all the annexation that’s been happening on the north and north-western fringes of Peoria and it got me thinking, might it be time to redraw the council district boundaries again? Here’s the most recent map I can find:

If you click on the map, it will display a larger version from the City of Peoria website. Is the fifth district starting to look disproportionately large to anyone else? And this map doesn’t include the extra square-mile-plus that was just added. To the naked eye, it looks as if the fifth district is larger than the second and fourth districts combined.

As far as I can determine, the last time redistricting occured was in October of 2001. What’s the trigger for doing it again?

Kellar Branch

One more thing before I go….

Since I’ve been covering the Kellar Branch saga for several months, I can’t go on sabbatical without first reporting its predictable conclusion.

On November 21, 2005, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) made their final ruling on the Kellar Branch. Pioneer Industrial Railway (PIRY) will not be able to force a sale of the branch. It is abandoned, and now the city (or, technically, Central Illinois Railway, the city’s carrier) has been granted the right to discontinue service on it. Case closed, as far as they’re concerned.

Now there is only one thing that can stop the line from being converted to a hiking/biking trail: if Pioneer wins their suit against the city. Pioneer believes their contract with the city is still in force — that the contract never specified a termination date. But the chances of them winning that court case are pretty slim, in my opinion. It’s only a matter of time before they lose that case, and then the tracks will be removed.

And then . . .

People from all over the country will flock to Peoria to visit its beautiful trail! It will make our city the garden spot of the midwest and the envy of all other cities in Illinois! I can hear mothers and fathers in their family rooms, looking over travel literature now:

Father: “Where do you want to go this year, kids? There’s Disneyland, Busch Gardens, Silver Dollar City, Six Flags, or the Rock Island Trail in Peoria.”

Daughter: “The Rock Island Trail?! Hey, didn’t I hear on the CBS Evening News last night that they just completed a new addition that goes right through the heart of Peoria?”

Mother: “That’s right, dear. Everyone’s been talking about it. Aunt Frieda said there’s hardly a bicycle to be seen in Chicago since Peoria opened up their new trail.”

Son: “Wow! Dad, I don’t want to just go there for vacation. I want to live there!”

Father: [chuckle] “Well, son, I’ve been meaning to tell you. My boss offered me a job in Peoria. I was a little concerned about transferring there because I heard they have a lead poisoning problem, and small amounts of lead have been shown to lower children’s IQ levels. But seeing how excited you kids are about a goofy trail, it looks like your IQ is already in question, so I guess it won’t hurt to transfer there after all!”

Attention all hotels, restaurants, and retail stores: Start preparing now for the giant influx of people who will be frequenting your establishments once this trail is completed. If the Peoria Park District’s and Journal Star’s numbers are correct, it will be a regular boom town around here. Don’t be caught off-guard. Start lining up extra help now!

City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, State of Illinois

Misleading statistics abound in Journal Star special series

The Peoria Journal Star recently concluded a three-part series titled, “Lead Poisoning: Our Silent Epidemic.” You can read reporter Clare Howard’s entire series online here. The report has already received accolades from the Peoria Pundit, who has gone so far as to suggest the City Council should act immediately on the recommendations from Dr. Brian Bostwick, the doctor quoted in the series.

Lead poisoning claims should never be taken lightly. It is a serious problem that should be looked at critically and objectively. What I’m about to talk about in no way diminishes the importance of lead poisoning prevention.

That said, let’s talk about statistics.

Someone once said, “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” That’s because you can get statistics to say just about anything you want them to say. The Journal Star has them saying that “Illinois leads the nation in elevated blood lead levels, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” To prove it, they reproduce this chart from the CDC on page A21 of the 11/13/05 edition of the paper:

This chart is from a report titled, “Surveillance for Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Children — United States, 1997–2001.” It’s available online here, at the CDC website. As you can see, the number of confirmed elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) is astronomically high in Illinois compared to the other states: 15,323 children were confirmed to have EBLLs — higher than Michigan and Pennsylvania combined. When this happens, they should have been checked by associates like Nephrology & Hypertension and gotten treatment. It’s unbelievable! So unbelievable, I didn’t believe it. So I did some investigating.

The raw data on which that chart is based is also included in the very same CDC report, Table 6. Reviewing this data, it became clear to me why Illinois was so high: a far greater number of children were tested in Illinois than in most of the other states. In fact, only Massachusetts and New York tested more children than Illinois. Illinois tested 187,385 children in 2001. In contrast, California only tested 15,040 children. Obviously, Illinois is going to have a higher number of children confirmed to have EBLLs when they test twelve-and-a-half times as many kids!

When the sample rates are that varied, you can’t make a meaningful comparison between states. In fact, the report explicitly says, “State-to-state comparisons of the numbers of children tested and confirmed with elevated BLLs should be made cautiously.” What you can do instead is compare the confirmed cases of EBLLs as a percentage of children tested.

And I’ll be darned, that data is already in Table 6 of the CDC report — they’ve even done the math for us. When you look at percentages, you get a different picture:

  • Oregon: 9.68% of children tested had EBLLs
  • California: 9.32% of children tested had EBLLs
  • Pennsylvania: 9.31% of children tested had EBLLs
  • Illinois: 8.18% of children tested had EBLLs

That’s right. When a proper comparison is made, Illinois does not lead the nation in EBLLs — it was fourth in 2001 according to the CDC’s own data from the very same report the Journal Star referenced in their series. (In case you’re wondering if perhaps Illinois reached No. 1 at a later date, the answer is no. In 2002 and 2003, Pennsylvania was No. 1, according to another CDC report, “Tested and Confirmed Elevated Blood Lead Levels by State, Year and Blood Lead Level Group for Children <72 mos.”)

You would also get the impression from reading the Journal Star articles that the problem must be getting worse, thus the need to take immediate and drastic action. Yet, according to those same statistics we’ve been looking at in Table 6, you may be surprised to learn that the number of Illinois children with EBLLs has dropped by more than half since 1997. In 1997, 32,061 children (17.87%) had EBLLs, but the number dropped steadily each year to 15,323 (8.18%) in 2001.

Things have continued to improve. That other report I mentioned from the CDC website shows that Illinois dropped to 9,379 children (4.78%) having EBLLs by 2003. If you exclude Chicago, it drops even further: 2,688 children (2.90%).

Like I said before, this doesn’t diminish the important work of eradicating elevated blood lead levels in Illinois. And when you see the statistics in proper context, it shows that we’re making significant progress toward that goal. But exaggerating the problem by the misuse of statistics (unintentional though they may be) hurts the credibility of lead-abatement advocates.

City Council, Peoria Disposal Company

Council Roundup: Peoria Disposal Company

4 Comments

Peoria Disposal Company (PDC) wants to expand their landfill in Pottstown, and some Peoria residents aren’t happy about it.  But don’t complain to the city council — it’s a Peoria County decision.

Mayor Ardis explained that PDC was giving tonight’s presentation at his request as a courtesy, but that no discussion or vote would be taken since it’s not in the city’s jurisdiction. 

Brian McGinnis, attorney for PDC, explained that they would be filing the application tomorrow morning to expand the landfill.  Once it’s filed, PDC will not be able to comment publicly on it until a public hearing is held.  That hearing will happen within 90-100 days of filing, probably in February.  So, anyone who wants to speak for or against the expansion should keep an eye out for the public hearing date.

Peoria Disposal Company was founded in 1928 by the Coulter family and has been family owned ever since.  Chris Coulter, Director of Sales and Business Development, touted the company’s 100% compliance with Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) inspections, earning them the Environmental Compliance Award for 12 consecutive years.  He also said that the company wants to expand because they will run out of capacity in early 2009 and they want to continue servicing their current customers.  They don’t expect any increase in annual waste receipts.

Ron Edwards, Vice President of Landfill Operations, tried to allay fears that hazardous waste at the site would infiltrate ground water, surface water, or air quality.  He explained all the treatments and precautions the landfill applies to hazardous waste.  One of the more surprising slides was the one comparing (contrasting, actually) PDC and Love Canal. 

Van Auken, once again, asked the questions on everyone’s mind:  Why are we one of only 16 communities who have this kind of disposal?  Why do other communities not want this kind of disposal in their cities?  Why should Peoria take this risk?

Later, during citizens’ requests to address the council, three people spoke out against the landfill expansion.  Dr. John McClain said his concern is not that PDC is bad company; in fact, he believes they are a good company.  However, there are things that they can’t control: accidents, natural disasters, terrorism.  He concluded, “We are accepting hazardous material that other communities do not want and our safety cannot be guaranteed.”  Of course, the usual objection from the Sierra Club was voiced.  But perhaps the most eloquent opponent of the expansion was Bill Cook who observed, “This expansion is privatizing the benefits and socializing the risks.”  That is, PDC gets all the profits while hundreds of thousands of residents shoulder the risk of potential contamination of our water supply.

Expect a battle on this one.

Received and filed.

Kellar Branch, Port District

Rail Service important for Peoria to be “hub of shipping”

 

I took Bill Dennis’s advice and took a look at WCBU’s new website.  Right on the front page is this story (reprinted here in its entirety because it’s short and I couldn’t find a permalink):
PORT DISTRICT STUDIED
Peoria – 11/3/05
The effort to make the Peoria region a hub of shipping has identified thirteen possible locations for development. A study from the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission looks at everything from the strength of air, water, rail, and highway transportation in the area to the kinds of goods that would likely come through a port. The study suggests 13 places in the six county region that could be developed into a port. It also looks at the constraints that could hamper such development efforts. They include having a limited number of interstate highways, and secondary roads that may not be adequate for major shipping corridors. It also includes restrictions on developing wetlands, flood plains, and other federally protected land. The study also points out limited rail capacity in the region. The Heart of Illinois Port District, now called TRANSport, will use the study to analyze the market, and eventually create a business plan for port developments. Leaders of the effort project if successful, the port district could create thousands of jobs in the area in the next ten to twenty years.
I would like to see this study, but I can’t find it anywhere on the web.  Specifically, I’m intrigued by the “limited rail capacity in the region.”  I wonder how they arrived at that conclusion.  And I wonder what impact closing down the Kellar Branch to make it a walking trail has on that conclusion.  As regular readers of this blog know, severing the Kellar Branch’s connection to the riverfront means Pioneer Park loses access to seven major rail lines — it will only have access to Union Pacific once the tracks are removed. Granted, it’s only one area, but what does it say about Peoria’s commitment to bringing in higher-paying jobs when it won’t even maintain existing competitive rail service in one of its prime growth areas?
What this study does, among other things, is show that rail service is not some antiquated, 19th-century mode of transportation.  It’s not only viable, but essential to cities that want to attract business and be a “hub for shipping.”  And if our capacity is limited, it’s only because the city has not made it a priority.  There’s not a whole lot Peoria can do about lack of highways or restrictions on developing federally-protected land.  But rail capacity we have, and should be exploiting. 

Â