There have been lots of Kellar Branch articles in the paper the last couple of days. I hardly know where to begin.

The Editorial

Sunday was the big editorial. Mostly it was a rehash of the same tired arguments the trail proponents have had from the beginning. I have to give them credit for actually explaining the ruling, something the news report didn’t do.

But then they take a potshot at Pioneer Railcorp. “Pioneer, for example, is the company that filed a frivolous lawsuit against trail supporters….” First of all, the lawsuit was a bad idea, and Pioneer has admitted that now and apologized. But secondly, this issue has nothing to do with whether they’re a competent rail carrier. In contrast, Central Illinois Railroad tried to use a Trackmobile to haul lumber up the Kellar Branch, only to have it lose traction and careen backwards at 30 mph across several grade crossings — a threat to public safety. If you have to choose between the two of them, I think it’s in the public interest to pick the competent rail carrier.

And then they take another potshot at Pioneer in the same sentence: “…and employed multiple stalling tactics, among them physically blocking construction of an alternate spur meant to serve Carver.” They blocked construction of the spur because the city’s contractor, Metroplex, did not sign a liability waiver like they were supposed to have done. The city’s attorney attested to that fact at a council meeting earlier this year. So the editors have their facts wrong on that one.

But then it gets really goofy:

This is [rail proponents’] chance to follow through on the promise that the Kellar is a surefire economic boon. We’re dubious, but the time for excuse-making is over. We’re anxious to see real customers, not just imaginary ones, lining up for service along the Kellar despite a few decades of evidence to the contrary. And no, we don’t buy the uncertainty-will-spook-business argument some rail proponents have already begun peddling. If train delivery is that slam-dunk cheaper and more efficient and more reliable than truck, any reasonable business would get it while it’s available.

This has to be among the dumbest statements ever written by the editorial board. Any reasonable business that needs rail service is indeed going to get it — they’re just going to get it in Pekin or Rochelle — someplace where the future of reliable rail service isn’t obviously and perpetually in jeopardy. Does the editorial board seriously think that efforts by the City of Peoria, County of Peoria, Village of Peoria Heights, PPUATS, real estate developers, Rep. Ray LaHood, and the Peoria Park District to convert the line to a trail, all fully supported and reported on constantly by the Journal Star, have NO EFFECT on rail-served businesses’ decisions on whether to locate on the line? I don’t know what they’re drinking, but order me a bottle.

They go on to say that “Peoria and Peoria Heights should test Kellar’s viability without subsidizing it.” Fine, charge a fee for using the line. Just remember — that rate is subject to STB oversight as well. Charge too much and the city’s going to be paying more in lawyer fees to fight it before the STB than they’re going to make on rent. And, while we’re at it, let’s cut the subsidies to trucks for using city streets, shall we? Those streets are also owned by the city, and trucks drive on them for free. If I may borrow a line from the editorial writers, “Getting something for nothing is the very definition of welfare, and these for-profit [truck companies] do not qualify.”

Finally, the editorial writers make a passing comment on how trail advocates shouldn’t break the law as Nichting suggested — although they don’t mention Nichting’s name — and more or less conclude with this jab:

While it’s easy to say a side-by-side rail/trail is the obvious compromise, if the Peoria Park District’s estimated price tag for that option – approaching $30 million – is realistic, that simply won’t happen. Rail advocates like to poke holes in that number, but what expertise can they brag to give credibility to their cost estimates?

Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s just say that the Park District is absolutely right and their estimate is completely accurate. So what? Why won’t they build it at that price? I thought this line was supposed to bring economic development, more housing, better quality of life, etc. Isn’t it worth the price? The zoo expansion is $32.1 million, and it doesn’t provide even half the benefits advocates say this trail connection will provide in improved quality of life. It sounds like a $29 million price tag is a steal for those benefits. Why doesn’t the Journal Star think it’s worth the money?

Paul Gordon’s Column

In the same paper, Paul Gordon interviewed Alexis Khazzam and Heights Mayor Mark Allen about their development plans alongside the Kellar Branch. Said Khazzam: “It’s a proven fact people don’t want to live next to railroad tracks.”

Really? That’s funny, because the resolution the city council will be voting on Tuesday night says that 93% of the land along the Kellar Branch is residential. All those people live next to railroad tracks. All the people in 401 Water live next to railroad tracks. All the people who live next to the Union Pacific mainline on the west side of town, which includes Weaver Ridge residents, live next to railroad tracks.

And, most tellingly, Khazzam himself is still planning to put up a residential development even if the tracks stay. He says later in the same column, without a hint of irony, “this ruling will influence the type of housing we’ll offer” (emphasis mine). So, what he’s saying is that people don’t want to live next to railroad tracks, but he’s going to develop some type of housing next to the railroad tracks — housing in which, presumably, someone is going to live. Isn’t that fascinating?

Mayor Allen told Gordon just what he told me: He would prefer the trail as being more conducive to development in the works for the old Pabst/Cohen’s site, but that it won’t stymie development.

Word on the Street

Speaking of Mayor Allen, he and I were mentioned in Monday’s “Word on the Street” column. I thought it was well-written. Mayor Allen wrote to tell me that he said those comments in a lighthearted vein, which I’m sure he did. I got to talk with him last week about the decision and felt I had a pretty good read on his feelings on the issue, so I wasn’t offended by his quote in the paper. He’s doing a good job of looking out for the best interests of the Heights, and I respect his opinion, even though we’re obviously on different sides of the issue. I appreciate that his opinion is thought-out, well-reasoned, and not based on distortions of fact.

Mayor Allen will get his wish, sort of. There will be a number of rail proponents at Tuesday’s Peoria City Council meeting, and they will speak in opposition to the proposed Kellar Branch resolution that was written by trail proponents. It’s not in the Heights, but it is a public meeting.

Normally, editorials are on the Opinion page of the Journal Star, usually page A4. But they must have made an exception this morning because they put their Kellar Branch editorial on the front page. The article is framed from the perspective of a trail advocate, which is the editorial position of the newspaper.

The headline says, “Ruling hurts plans for trail.” Not “STB rules on Kellar Branch,” or something evenhanded like that. The first sentence sets the tone for the article: “Advocates for converting the Kellar Branch rail line into a hiking and biking trail were dealt a serious blow by a federal government ruling Monday.” After summarizing the ruling, it says again that it’s “a step backward for trail proponents.”

Most of the article was devoted to the thoughts and plans of trail proponents and an analysis of the dissenting opinion of the STB ruling, including a lengthy quote from the lone dissenter. And in the printed version of the Journal Star, there’s a map accompanying the article that shows the “location of proposed trail extension.”

Where is the analysis of the majority opinion of the STB — you know, the effective part of the ruling? The biggest evidence of bias is the complete omission of any reporting on the reasons the STB made its decision. The public has a right to know why the STB ruled against the city.

In case you’re wondering, the reasons are (a) the city failed to prove that alternative service to Carver Lumber from the west was an adequate replacement for service over the Kellar Branch, (b) Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY) withdrew their petition to discontinue service along that portion of the Kellar Branch that trail proponents want to convert to a trail, and (c) Pioneer is “willing to provide the rail service on the Kellar Branch that Carver Lumber wants and that CIRY does not necessarily regard as economically justified.”

But you won’t read that in the Journal Star. They don’t provide balanced coverage of this issue. That’s fine for the editorial page, but it’s a shame they’re passing it off as “news.”