The heat of the rhetoric is on “broil” in the on-going Kellar Branch rails-to-trails fiasco. A couple weeks ago, Carver Lumber wrote to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) about Central Illinois Railroad Company’s (CIRY, the city’s hand-picked carrier) latest breach of contract.
Rail cars that were supposed to be delivered to Carver by CIRY within 24 hours took a week to be delivered. CIRY shot back a response to Carver and the STB stating that it wasn’t their fault — it was Union Pacific’s and Carver’s for not notifying them the cars were there. They further stated, “Carver’s unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary are being orchestrated by PIRY [Pioneer Railcorp], which is attempting to misuse the provisions for alternative rail service to negate lawful termination of its contractual and regulatory right to provide service over the rail line.”
Monday, Carver wrote back to the STB (2.8MB PDF) and had this to say about the situation:
Frankly, Carver Lumber is frustrated that we are being ignored, and outraged that CIRY is being allowed to continue to ignore its common carrier obligations and lie to the Board. At this point, it is quite clear that Carver is not being given adequate service, and that the abuse will continue unless the Board takes prompt action.
Subsequent to our Letter, I received a phone call from Union Pacific, that was followed up by a letter, dated October 3, 2006. In that letter (a copy of which is attached), Union Pacific confirmed that it is sending CIRY normal EDI interchanges of our cars, stating plainly that “Union Pacific Railroad does notify the CIRY via electronic data interchange when cars are delivered. This was verified with our own electronic records.”
Apparently unaware that UP would respond, CIRY filed a letter that same day, stating that the service failure was due to “the failure of Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) to notify CIRY, of placement of the railcars on the interchange track as required by the governing interchange agreement.”
In light of the UP letter, this appears to be an outright lie.
CIRY then has the unmitigated gall to suggest that Carver has an obligation to survey the interchange site and inform them of when cars are delivered, claiming that Carver, having been forced by CIRY to do this, has assumed an obligation as an “established custom and practice”. Carver takes issue with this assertion. Carver is a customer. We have no obligation to send employees out of our facility to observe what cars are interchanged to CIRY by another railroad, and then call CIRY.
You can almost feel the blood pressure going up as you read this, can’t you? It gets better. Later in the letter, Carver says this:
The situation is outrageous. Carver has had enough broken promises, distortions, and outright lies. In the fourteen months since PIRY’ s exemplary service was “replaced” by CIRY, the “service” has been abysmal. In fact, there was no service at all for half that time. Since March, CIRY has broken waybills and rerouted shipments off the Kellar Branch. This latest letter, in which they falsely blame the UP for their failure, and baldly assert that Carver, a customer, should act as their dispatcher, because we have been forced to do so by their patently inadequate “service,” is a direct challenge to this Board. CIRY is making a complete mockery of the regulatory system.
Currently, I am advised that there is a loaded car destined for Carver at the TZPR/CIRY (Kellar Branch) interchange (“TTZX” #561751), and two other cars (“BNSF” #563169 and “BNSF” #561751) being held at the TZPR yard. My shipper routed these cars via the Kellar Branch, because CIRY has seen fit to close the so-called “western connection” (“western fiasco”, would be a better term), for a crossing project. The materials on these three cars are critical to our operations, and has been “in transit” for some three weeks. We need our cars delivered. The Keller Branch is still a rail line in interstate commerce. We are, therefore, respectfully requesting that the Board enter an order, within the next 24 hours, either directing CIRY to comply with its common carrier obligations and deliver our cars via the Kellar Branch, or granting Pioneer Industrial Railway Co. (“PIRY”) an Alternative Service Order so PIRY can deliver our cars. PIRY has assured me they can have the cars to us within thirty-six hours of receiving an A.S.O.
In the absence of an A.S.O. Carver Lumber Company will have no alternative but to have the materials transloaded on an emergency basis. We are almost out of material now, and our business is risking the loss of a significant amount of revenue. We desperately need your immediate assistance to utilize the Kellar Branch. CIRY is never going to provide adequate-service, and we are tired of being a sacrificial lamb for the City of Peoria’s bike trail fantasies.
And the gloves come off. They’re fed up and they’re not going to take it anymore. The city suckered them into playing along, promising comparable service via the western connection, promising to take any legal action necessary to enforce CIRY’s compliance with their contract. And what has happened? The exact opposite. The city is paying CIRY’s legal bills instead and doing nothing — zero, nada — to help Carver Lumber receive adequate service.
I wonder where this falls in the Mayor’s Business Task Force report? Is “customer service” still the city’s “top priority”? Does the city honor its promises and enforce its contracts? Is there any integrity in the Public Works department?
Why does Carver Lumber, a local business since 1946, have to plead their case with a federal agency to get adequate transportation to their business? Why isn’t the City of Peoria admitting their western-connection strategy didn’t work and taking steps to honor their promises to Carver?
It’s time for the City Council to take action and direct city staff to stop jerking Carver Lumber around. The Council, if they really want to be pro-business, should immediately stop pursuing this rails-to-trails project and restore competitive rail service on the Kellar Branch. Actions speak louder than words, or task-force reports.
NEWS FLASH!!!!
Is was just announced that trail uber-advocate Kevin Reynen has volunteered to personally tow rail cars from the UP junction to and from Carver.
[snicker]
Dang, this is starting to make MY blood boil!
I think Dan and Greg at Peoria’s lame talk radio said it all, Carver can go out of business, they want a trail…It’s all for the better good.
Some City Council we have when they are sitting silent throughout this whole mess. Each and every one of them is accountable for the Carver mess…
Any chance this whole Amtrak thing will help the Kellar Branch cause? I know Amtrak wouldn’t use it or anything, but maybe there’s a way to jump on the public attention with Amtrak, re improved rail lines and growing need (considering global warming and gas prices, etc), to advocate for keeping this important rail spur?
The totally self-absorbed callousness of city officials toward a long-time employer (which apparently grew its business and employment during the past decade from 37 to 50) and the total obliviousness of those “kings of conventional wisdom” on morning radio tells me that Peoria is headed for a dark future. We need businessmen and women with vision, and the intelligence to implement those visions. We need a City Council that is pro-business, forgetting the shallow fantasies of a bike trail. We don’t NEED it, especially when it has led to the destruction of viable rail service to the city’s industrial park and potential for industrial development.
And “but we’ve been working so long to get this trail built, why turn back now,” doesn’t cut it.
The officals of Peoria should take a look at what we are doing in Pekin and expanding the business cell, with the use of rail. Peoia has recently lost a business to us and they use rail, Amerihart, was also dissatisfied with there rail service. So they came to Pekin, and got better. How much longer will the Peoria city officals keep the blinders ON and keep this fiasco going, open up the Keller Branch and work for a trail by the rails instead.
David, I would LOVE to have the bike trail, as would many. BUT I don’t want the tracks pulled up, nor do I want another business run out of town. I wish that the city would wake up and the park district would wise up to let the pro-rail and pro-trail advocates work together.
PEORIAILLINOISAN WROTE: “David, I would LOVE to have the bike trail, as would many. BUT I don’t want the tracks pulled up, nor do I want another business run out of town. I wish that the city would wake up and the park district would wise up to let the pro-rail and pro-trail advocates work together. ”
The trail will have to be built ALONGSIDE the tracks or no trail at all.
Although I would like to see a trail, it needs to be “business first, trail second”. Trails don’t provide tax revenue, business does.
In any event, IF there was a trail, I would need Illinois to have a right to carry law in place before I would ever ride a bike all the way down that trail.
What is amazing is that these grants are several years old — how is it possible to keep extending them year after year and no progress is made? Hum — wonder what explanation is being given about the delays? Wonder if there is any intervention by relatives at the Federal level on behalf of the in-law at PPD to extend the grants, anything is possible since there were special meetings to ‘straighten’ out the school in the park fiasco…..
the stench of this trail project is overwhelming.
Just a reminder, Pioneer Rail – in it’s last offer to the city – has agreed to help pay part of the costs of the trail, to help build it so it will run alongside the tracks! But this is apparently not good enough for the trail advocates.
There are arguments out there that in several places, it is not physically possible to run the trail alongside the track. Well, in those cases, spend a little extra money (maybe save the Pioneer offerings for this, $500,000 incidently) to do the special construction.
Or, as some have told me – the trail could revert or transfer to local streets for short stretches, as has been done in other cities.
Re: routing the trail onto public streets in some places. A while back when I talked to the Park District about this possibility, they claimed that the grants required the whole trail be off-road. Thus, they wouldn’t consider putting the trail partially on-street because they would lose grant funding. Frankly, that sounds a bit far-fetched to me, but I never followed up on it to see if it’s true.
I still say that if you find the real source of the trail “push” you’ll have found a rat. There’s a group or even one person behind this who wants that rail line gone for their own personal financial advantage.
Notice how much of this story is appearing in the Propaganda Star
They’re just waiting to announce that Carver has left Peoria.
Then its, Party Time!
CJ: As you are aware and probably have used on many occasions — that is what FOIA requests are for?
Has anyone, including Carver FOIA’d these grant documents?
Then checked the federal regs to see that all the eggs are still in the basket, ie: compliance — that is how the Historic Kerr Apartment Building was saved from the Peoria City Wrecking Ball because of tenacity and non-compliance to fed. regs and and and ………
If Pioneer picks up the cost of the trail, why does the Park district need grant money to build it?
Maybe I’m missing something but if Pioneer would build it, who maintains it? Who maintains the Rock Island Trail?
Kevin– Pioneer has not offered to pick up the cost of building the trail. As CGisselle said, they’ve agreed to help pay for part of the costs. You can see the offer and a summary of it in this previous post.
Briefly, Pioneer has offered to:
If the city would sell or lease the line to Pioneer, they could put the proceeds toward helping build the trail alongside the tracks, too. The grant the Park District has pending is something like $4 million, and supposedly stipulates there has to be x-number of feet between the track and the trail, and the trail has to be x-number of feet wide, etc., or else the funds won’t be released. I say “supposedly” only because I haven’t seen it myself and I’m taking the park district’s word for it. We’ve seen before that sometimes officials can confuse recommendations with requirements. Plus, I’ve seen exceptions for other parts of the trail that were built with grant money (for example, the part of the trail north of Pioneer Parkway that goes under Route 6 through a drainage tunnel). Surely something could be worked out if the park district were willing to try.
Pro-business Bloomington-Normal is booming while Peoria tries to shut down a rail line that serves an employer of 50 and could serve other businesses. Amazing.