There are two articles in the Journal Star this morning regarding Peoria Heights’ desire to look at the feasibility of putting a trolley on the Kellar Branch rail line (Trolley enters Kellar line talks and Towns seeing boost from trolley systems). Both are well written and factual — a benefit of having replaced retired editorialist reporter Elaine Hopkins with Dave Haney on that beat.
There are just a couple of things I’d like to add to Haney’s stories that I think are pertinent. First, he made a lot of references to these trolley lines being taxpayer-supported in other communities. What’s being proposed in Peoria Heights, however, would not be tax-supported. The Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation, in cooperation with Pioneer Railcorp, believes it can offer trolley service without receiving any taxpayer assistance, instead relying on economic development grants and ad revenue.
Also, while most trolleys are powered by overhead electric lines connected by a catenary on top of the trolley, the trolley being envisioned for Peoria Heights would run on battery technology — maybe even batteries created by Firefly Energy as a way of cross-marketing. That would lower the start-up costs of a Heights trolley.
The costs of putting in a trolley would actually be a lot less than the other communities that have them because we have something they didn’t: the rail line. The Kellar Branch rail line is already there, and the rail line is the most expensive part of putting in a trolley system. I’m glad to see the Heights taking this proposal seriously.
Now if we can just get Peoria, the Park District, and the RTA aboard….
I actually thought Haney’s article had more of an editorial slant to it. “At this point riding perhaps more on nostalgia” sounds more like a personal opinion than a fact-based statement.
I guess I’m just so used to the unrelenting, unvarnished bias of Hopkins that Haney’s throwaway line escaped my notice. 😉
there was also mention of “service from the west” as if it were happening, which, as we all know, it isn’t, and can’t be used, because it isn’t viable. The long intro about streetcars in the 1920’s was both slanted against and irrelevant to the current proposal, but that being said, it was a MUCH more objective article than Hopkins ever wrote. Given the constraints management puts on Haney, he did a decent job.
Cut him some slack. Haney’s been doing police reports and crime scenes for such a long time…getting a story that doesn’t involve a soundbite from Ann Ruggles is new to him.
Hany’s article had several mistakes or bad assumptions in it, namely that that Pioneer Park had rail service available from the west. While that’s sort of true, that it’s available, it’s nonexistent because of excessive freight rates and poor service.
“economic development grants”
Isn’t that ultimately, TAX money?
I’m starting to come around on this trolley thing; I think it actually could work. I’ll bet there were alot of back-room arguments at the Journal Star about running those articles 😉
mdd yes it is TAX money, but its state/federal tax money so the total burden is not directly on the local tax payers. But local taxpayers will benefit from that state/federal monies in many ways. Also, there are private grants available that come from private individuals and private companies that are not tax dollars that we intend to go after.
I do want to add that overall I think Dave Haney did an excellent job on the two articles. Other than a couple of facts that were not quite right, I thought his article was a refreshing change of pace for the JS. I think we should all give him a chance to show himself and what he can do, so far as I am concerned he’s doing great. Give him some slack.
Dave Haney did a better job than his predecessors. Hopefully, he’ll improve over time as he digs up the facts.
So, have any rail proponents ever sent correspondence to the PPD which has made the PPD agenda communications section?
Just asking, because it seems that the PPD administration selects out only the correspondence to forward to trustees which supports the PPD agenda.
Case in point:
19) B) Sandra Burrier, email re: Brief History of the Kellar Line Recreational Trail Project;
E) Dede J. Rice, letter re: recreational trail
http://www.peoriaparks.org/geninfo/2007_Park_Board_Agendas/AGENDA_3-28-07_REGULAR_PARK_BOARD_MEETING.pdf
David — Have you sent them a brief history re:Maintaining the Kellar Rail Project?
No Karrie,
I’ve never sent anything to the PPD. I figure it will be filed in the
“appropriate” place shortly after its arrival.
David: Probably so. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to note that the PPD would not be able to say that no one contacted them in support in the rail option and to see the level of ‘fairness’ in communicating from the administration to the PPD Trustees that alternative views against the trail only option still remain after ten plus years.
I contacted Rep. LaHood via email to express my support for keeping the Kellar Branch as a viable, operational rail freight corridor, but his response was a hastily-prepared and poorly-written letter with the usual, “good news, we’re still working to convert the Kellar Branch to a trail…yada, yada, yada.”
It’s as if he didn’t even bother to read my email.
More than ten years ago we met with the PPD at one of their presentations and we asked them in public to sit down with us and discuss the Kellar and working side by side. We also asked them at that time for a copy of the engineering study that they claimed they had had done showing it would cost too much to run side by side. We were told at that time that they would set up a meeting with us and also that we would get a copy of the engineering study, neither of which has happened. No meeting was scheduled and now they tell us that there was no study done that far back, but records show that there was and we have not received a copy. There was a study done by Scruggs and Hammond who are no longer in business. The PPD said the study cost them $10,000 at that time. Still waiting.
Sharon: Did you try via FOIA request? That should prove interesting if public monies were involved — that you are not able to get a copy of it?
Karrie, I am on another track right now to get other information.