I feel like I’m caught in a Monty Python movie every time I read a story like this.

David Pittman, the Vice President of Recreation Trail Advocates, says the recent use of the [Kellar Branch] rail line should not sway people against the trail.

In other words, the STB’s decision to allow both Pioneer Industrial Railway and Central Illinois Railroad Company to run trains on the Kellar Branch isn’t a mortal blow to the trail advocates’ all-or-nothing plan to tear out the rail and make this corridor a dedicated hiking trail. “‘Tis but a scratch.” “Just a flesh wound.”

The Journal Star reported this bravado:

State Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Peoria, would lobby for the transformation of the rail into a trail and work to enact a federal earmark to supersede regulations so the Kellar Branch can be converted.

Psst, hey Aaron, “earmarks” specify spending priorities (i.e., they give money to a project); they don’t make regulations. You can’t just “earmark” the overthrow of a federal regulatory agency’s decision. Besides, don’t you think Ray LaHood — Champion of Earmarks, scoffer of trains, and in-law to Bonnie Noble — would have already done that if it were possible? But hey, it sounds tough, doesn’t it? “The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!”

All I can say is, “All right, we’ll call it a draw.”

Photo credit: Ed Sanders

From a news release I received today:

Today, Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis announced the City’s appointments to the Rail/Trail committee.

Mayor Ardis and Peoria Heights Mayor Allen agreed to a 7 member committee with a voting Chairperson. The Mayors agreed that the committee Chair will be Peoria Councilman Bill Spears. Peoria appointments are J.P. O’Brien (O’Brien Steel), Richard Neumiller (retired) and Steve Jaeger (Port Authority). They will join Peoria Heights appointees Sherryl Carter, Vern Kimberlin and Alexis Khazzam.

The goal is to consider the financial and engineering feasibility of side by side rail/trail. April 1, 2008 is the target date for the committees findings. Meetings will be open to the public.

Pioneer Industrial Railroad ran an engine up the Kellar Branch line without incident today. Pioneer has been fixing up the tracks, and they proved to be in sufficiently good shape for the 10 mph test run. David Jordan has a photo essay of the run on his transportation blog.

I had to laugh as David described the train giving “a friendly toot” as it passed the Journal Star.

Meanwhile, there’s an event planned for 10 a.m. Wednesday, Jan. 23, at Vonachen’s for trail supporters. Apparently, there are going to be several city, park district, and village officials taking part, along with the usual small, but organized, contingent of trail advocates, led by Morton resident George Burrier. The 18th Congressional District candidates (or their representatives) will be on hand to read statements presumably in support of the trail. Now if we can just get these folks to pour all this energy into something really important (like addressing crime and poverty issues), this would indeed be a better city.

City Manager Randy Oliver updated city council members this week on plans to form a committee to look at the feasibility of building a trail alongside the Kellar Branch rail line:

Representatives of the City, Park District, Peoria Heights, and TriCounty Regional Planning met with Central Illinois Rail and Pioneer Rail in separate meetings as requested by the Mayor and Council. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possibility of side-by-side rail and trail for the Kellar Branch. The result of these meetings is a recommendation that a task force be formed by the Village of Peoria Heights and the City of Peoria, with each community nominating three members, to determine by April 1, 2008, whether side-by-side rail and trail is feasible or not. The feasibility is intended to consider both engineering feasibility and financial feasibility. The Committee has suggested that three members each be appointed by the Mayor of Peoria and Peoria Heights. The meetings will be noticed and opened to the public. It is proposed that the Committee draw up the railroads, the Park District, City staff and outside technical resources if necessary to make a recommendation to the two cities.

Journal Star city beat reporter John Sharp has been following up on this story and found out some interesting info:

• The City hasn’t chosen their representatives yet. “Oliver said the Peoria City Council could decide by its Jan. 8 meeting if this is the direction the city wants to go and, if so, who should serve on the committee.”
• Peoria Heights has. “Peoria Heights Mayor Mark Allen said he plans to have his Village Board vote on his three recommendations by Jan. 2. Allen said he will recommend Peoria Heights residents Vern Kimberlin and Sherryl Carter serve on the committee along with Junction City owner Alexis Khazzam.”
• It’s estimated to take “about $10,000” for the committee “to be able to go out and get their technical questions answered by someone this committee feels is unbiased.”
• Hopefully, if everyone agrees, the cost will be distributed among the entities on the committee. “The city of Peoria plans to contribute $2,500, and various other parties – including Peoria Heights [and Pioneer Railcorp] – will also be asked to contribute.”

One of the proposed Peoria Heights participants, Alexis Khazzam, was interviewed recently on WEEK-TV. He feels the city should take a “tougher stance” and should charge the rail carriers rent to use the line. His strategy is, “By charging the rail companies rent, it’ll make them say, ‘if we only make $50,000 operating or serving the customer that exists on it, it might not be worth it for us to pay $180,000 for rent a year,’ or it might spur them to say, ‘okay, we know what we need to pay; we need to increase revenue.’ At least it’ll be out of the city’s hands and in the trail advocates’ hands and the rail advocates’ hands and let that be a fair fight.”

First of all, the underlying assumption here is that keeping the line open for one customer is not justified. Unfortunately for trail advocates, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) ruled just the opposite — keeping the line open for even one customer is justified in this case. Thus, any effort by the Cities, as rail owners, to force closure by charging excessive rent will similarly be struck down by the STB.

Secondly, as was stated in the WEEK report, Pioneer maintains that its contract with the City is still in force, and the City claims that it expired under its own terms in 2004. That contract called for the city to charge the rail carrier $1 per year in rent to operate the line. The city also has a signed land use agreement with the Park District that charges them the same amount — $1 per year — to rent the land if it’s able to be used for a recreational trail.

I would consider this rail/trail committee to be the first real progress we’ve seen in over a decade on the Kellar Branch controversy. Hopefully the committee will come up with a solution that works for all parties involved.

In their filing submitted Friday, but just posted to the Surface Transportation Board’s website today, Pioneer Industrial Railway has responded to Central Illinois Railroad’s recent petition to “hold in abeyance” the STB’s November 19 ruling.

Pioneer argues that Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY) has no legal basis to request that a decision be “held in abeyance,” and that CIRY is only filing under that terminology because they missed the deadline to appeal the STB’s decision and request a “stay” of the decision. Pioneer also defends itself against the allegations made in CIRY’s filing. Here’s the summary conclusion:

As the Board’s recent General Railway decision put it, a party may not avoid the obligation of meeting the Board’s procedural standards merely by assigning a different label to its request for relief. But that is precisely what CIRY has done here. Knowing that it has missed the deadlines to request a stay (and knowing further that it could not satisfy the stay standards anyway), it merely gives its stay request a different name – a request to hold the matter in abeyance. Of course, CIRY’s is not really a request to hold matters in abeyance, as PIRY has clearly established above. Moreover, although CIRY seeks “modification” of the November 19 Decision, it has neither requested reopening of the Board’s decision nor did it file a timely petition for reconsideration. In short, and as has been thoroughly demonstrated above, CIRY lacks any legal basis for the relief it seeks and is merely attempting here to bypass proper agency procedure. The Board must not let CIRY make a mockery of correct Board processes, and it should therefore deny CIRY’s Petition for these reasons.

But even if the Board were to address the merits of CIRY’s Petition, it has not made a case for any of the relief it seeks. Rather, CIRY engages in the typical attempts to smear PIRY, makes false and irrelevant allegations, and otherwise does its utmost to dig in its heels in an effort to deprive PIRY of access to the line and to block PIRY from fulfilling its common carrier obligations to Carver and to any other shippers that way wish to use the line. For all of these reasons, as discussed more fully above, CIRY’s Petition should be denied, and the Board should make clear that CIRY must not block or attempt to impose delay on PIRY’s ongoing efforts to restore rail service on this line.

A couple of things from earlier in the filing I found interesting:

• Pioneer points out that CIRY claims it would be too costly to fix up the Kellar Branch track to provide service to Carver Lumber, but then states that it has spent $100,000 to fix up the Kellar Branch for the purposes of running a hi-rail vehicle of it:
  

  One wonders why CIRY would be willing to spend $100,000 to permit it to operate a hi-rail vehicle over the line when CIRY claims that such an expenditure “vastly exceeds the gross amount of revenues that CIRY would likely earn.” Perhaps CIRY answers this question when it admits that it is using the line for the storage of carload quantities of hazardous materials. Could it be that CIRY is not really in the business of providing common carrier service but rather in the business of storing hazardous rail cars? Could it be that CIRY is using its status as a rail carrier to take advantage of STB preemption so as to prevent the City of Peoria and the State of Illinois from interfering with what is apparently a lucrative business, i.e. storing hazardous materials in rail cars? One doubts that CIRY is truly concerned about safety over the line when it is using the line for the storage of dangerous and hazardous materials. PIRY has no such plans and intends to do what it always did – operate a line of railroad for local customers.

  This is an important distinction — CIRY is an out-of-town company that is using the city’s tracks to store hazmat cars from out of town. Pioneer, on the other hand, is a local company, headquartered in Peoria, that simply wants to serve local shippers on the Kellar Branch.

• Pioneer also points out that CIRY filed this petition on its own, and that neither the City of Peoria nor the Village of Peoria Heights joined in this petition:
  

  As an initial matter, it is telling that the Cities, who are the actual owners of the Kellar Branch and who filed the adverse discontinuance in the first place, have not filed a request for stay, a petition to reopen, or joined in CIRY’s Petition. One would presume that, if the Cities continued to object to having PIRY on the line, they would be the ones taking legal action, but they have not done so. Indeed, the city council for the City on November 27 voted 6-4 to reject a motion for continued legal adversity against PIRY. The majority of the city council indicated a willingness to negotiate with PIRY, CIRY, and others to resolve the outstanding issues. Granting the Petition would simply undermine the city council’s desire to negotiate a settlement rather than to litigate.

  While all that is true, it is worth mentioning that the Village of Peoria Heights did, in fact, pass the resolution that the City of Peoria defeated. It’s also worth mentioning that Peoria Heights has not footed any of the legal bills associated with the efforts to turn the Kellar Branch into a hiking trail over the past decade-plus. Hopefully, someday, all the parties will be able to work out a mutually beneficial agreement and all this acrimony can come to an end.

The Surface Transportation Board has a message for the feuding Kellar Branch rail carriers: work out your differences or we’ll work them out for you. In a ruling released late Friday, the STB said:

[W]e direct that the parties [Pioneer Industrial Railway and Central Illinois Railroad] meet, in the presence of Board staff, to negotiate joint operating protocols for the Kellar Branch. Board staff will contact representatives of CIRY and PIRY to arrange for such a meeting, which shall take place no later than Friday, December 14, 2007, unless the parties have worked out a mutually acceptable arrangement before that time and so advise the Board.

Pioneer says it has tried to contact Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY) to work out an operating arrangement since the STB’s November decision was handed down, but none of their calls were returned. CIRY has reportedly said that they will not negotiate joint protocols until Pioneer has a contract with the city, despite the fact that CIRY itself does not have such an agreement with the City of Peoria or the Village of Peoria Heights.

The STB’s decision basically tells the two rail carriers to work things out between themselves, or else the STB will act as a mediator to ensure that both carriers have safe and equitable access to the Kellar Branch rail line by Dec. 14.

I just received a copy of this e-mail from City Manager Randy Oliver this morning:

Dear Mayor and Council:

We just received a call that both Pioneer and Central Illinois Rail were attempting to access the Kellar Branch line this morning. One of the Rail Carriers wants the other [arrested] for trespass. We advised the Officer responding that neither Carrier had authority to operate from the City of Peoria, however, both derived any authority from the Surface Transportation Board (STB). Consequently, neither should be charged with trespass and the STB would need to resolve the issue.

We just wanted you to be aware of the situation.

Randy

Meanwhile, Central Illinois Railroad has filed a petition with the Surface Transportation Board to hold their previous decision in abeyance “so that the parties can resolve issues relating to the rehabilitation of a deteriorated and out of service rail line and Peoria can determine which carrier should operate over its railroad line.” The city’s railroad attorney thinks this petition has no chance of being granted. Pioneer is expected to respond on Friday.

In other Kellar Branch news, the Village of Peoria Heights passed the resolution that the City of Peoria recently tabled. They are also asking for $79,200 a year in rent according to the Journal Star.

UPDATE: Pioneer Railcorp president Mike Carr has written to the City Manager to explain the confrontation that happened today on the Kellar Branch:

Dear Randy:

My apologies for getting you involved in a situation outside of your normal work responsibility. I would like to explain to you what happened as follows:

As you know, it is our position that the STB has told us we can operate the line, and also directed both parties to work out an operating agreement. It is our position, that each company has equal rights to operate the line. I have tried, without success, since the STB ruling, to talk with Jack Stolarczyk about allowing us to inspect the line via hi rail. Stoalrczyk has ignored all of my calls. On the advice of our STB attorney in Washington DC that we have an equal right to occupy the railroad while we are working out an operating agreement, we took the necessary and required Federal Railroad Administration safety procedures, to afford protection to both our employees and CRY employees, and started our inspection this morning, via hi rail truck, starting on Adams street.

Apparently, Stolarczyk was planning to hi rail the line at the same time (?) with someone from the Park District (? according to the police) starting at Pioneer Park. Upon his arrival at Pioneer Park, he encountered our employee who was providing flag man protection to our employee hi railing the line. Stolarczyk went ballistic and called the police, even though I was able to get a cell phone handed to him and I tried to explain to him it is not a police issue (at this point I was in my car headed to the office). After Stolarczyk unceremoniously hung up on me, he committed a serious and flagrant FRA safety violation by ignoring our flag man, who told Stolarczyk that our employees were headed that way hi railing the railroad, and Stolarczyk proceeded to “charge” down the rail line with the intention of “meeting” our employee. This is a complete disregard for personal safety, and in my opinion speaks volume of Mr. Stolarczyk’s character. I hope I am mistaken with the fact that he had a Park District employee in the hi rail truck with him, because if there was a park district employee with him, Stolarczyk placed him in potential serious harm and had no regard for the Park Districts employees safety or well being. I instructed our employees to stop hi railing at the nearest crossing and to be prepared to leave the line upon visually seeing Stolarczyk headed towards them. When Stolarczyk approached, in violation of FRA regulations, we ceded the line out of respect for safety.

We intend to bring this issue up with the FRA.

Finally, I want to assure you that I had no idea that Stolarczyk had planned to inspect the line with the Park District this morning or we would have performed our inspection at a later time. Taken the wrong way, I can see where someone can turn this into Pioneer was obstructing CRY’s attempt to reach a deal for shared usage. It was purely coincidence, and you can strap me to a lie detector test if you like.

If you have any further concerns or questions please feel free to contact me via phone […].

Thanks.
Mike Carr

Trail advocates — especially the Journal Star — love to throw out this figure: $29 million. That’s how much moolah it will take, they say, to build a trail next to the Kellar Branch rail line. Thus, it’s too expensive. Thus, we must pull up the rail line.

I wanted to find out how that figure was derived, so I called the Park District. Originally, I was told that all they had were engineering drawings; I asked how they came up with the estimated cost and was told there was “a spreadsheet floating around somewhere” but they didn’t know where it was. Later, when I relayed this story at an RTA meeting at which Bonnie Noble was in attendance, they changed their tune and told me they would get the information right out to me. Here it is:

C. J.:

I have attached the two estimates for your information. The side by side estimate is a square foot estimate based on topographical and sectional survey data and the on-track estimate is a takeoff from prepared construction plans; using cost data from previous jobs, local data and published data; taking into account labor, material, equipment, general conditions, etc. and using prerequisite standards and requirements of ADA, AASHTO (www.transportation.org), regulatory, insurance (liability) and numerous others.

Under the requirements of the ISTEA grant the PPD received, we must build a Class 1 Trail which is a bike path separated from highways by a greenway. If we deviate from a Class 1 Trail, we do not get a dime from the grant. Another consideration is the proposed trail is a combined or mixed-mode trail with both pedestrians and bicycles. The standards for a combined trail require a 10’ wide path with double 2’ shoulders for safety considerations (14’ total width). The completed portions of the trail meet these standards.

David Wheeler
Peoria Park District

And here are the two documents that were attached:

Bike Trail Side-by-Side with Rail
Pimiteoui Trail on Trackline Cost

I received these in March. I want you to take a look at them and tell me what you think. Especially if you’re a city council member, ask yourself if you would accept these estimates from your own city staff members or a hired consultant. Would you believe these numbers based on the information Mr. Wheeler provided?

Look at them and tell me who did these estimates. What materials are being used? How did they come up with the material cost and labor estimates? What is the corridor they chose for this estimate — that is, what is the exact path? Were any attempts made to mitigate the cost by choosing an alternate path, or different materials, or different methods? What is the exact location of all these trestles that are listed? Can they all be justified?

Now that the council is looking to bring all parties together to look for a win-win solution, I would suggest the first step is to do a real feasibility study. Hire an independent engineering firm, provide them with the necessary AASHTO standards and all that, and ask him to come up with the most cost-effective method of achieving a shared rail/trail corridor. Then let’s see what the real cost is. I bet it will be considerably less than $29 million.

After the council voted to table the Kellar Branch resolution at tonight’s meeting, I talked to Mike Carr, President of Pioneer Railcorp. I found out that Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY) has been unresponsive to Pioneer’s numerous attempts to contact them and work out an operating arrangement.

In its recent decision to let Pioneer back on the Kellar Branch, the Surface Transportation Board directed the two rail carriers “to negotiate joint operating protocols.” In other words, work together in operating the line.

Carr told me that CIRY’s lawyer said they won’t let Pioneer on the line until Pioneer has an operating contract with the city. The funny thing is, CIRY doesn’t have an agreement with the city either. So that’s a rather hypocritical stance to take. And Pioneer has long argued that their operating agreement with Peoria is still in force, although the city maintains that it expired on its own terms in 2004.

However, there’s nothing that says Pioneer has to get CIRY’s permission to service the line; the STB’s decision gives Pioneer immediate access. Since CIRY isn’t servicing anyone to the north anyway, perhaps “negotiat[ing] joint protocols” is unnecessary.