The City Council has decided to explore their options regarding the Kellar Branch.
You may remember that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) recently ruled, in effect, that the Kellar Branch is to remain an operational rail line and reopened the question of whether Pioneer Industrial Railway or Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY) should be the carrier. Councilman Sandberg recognizes that if the STB, a federal agency, decides who the carrier should be on the Kellar Branch, then the city’s hands will be tied. Thus, he would like to see the city be proactive and come up with a strategy on how to proceed. After making a motion to that effect, the council passed it unanimously.
The city does not have many options, as I see it. Here’s what they can do:
- Keep trying to discontinue service on the line. This is what the Sierra Club and the Recreational Trails Advocates would like, if Joyce Blumenshine’s remarks to the council are any guage of their thinking. It would require the city to hire another carrier (besides Pioneer or CIRY), get STB approval of that carrier, then have that carrier file for discontinuance on the line and go through the same fight with Carver Lumber again. Estimated time: 1-2 years at least. Probability of success: Nil.
- Make a deal with Pioneer. Pioneer has offered to buy the line or accept a long-term lease to provide service. In return, they have also offered to do a number of other positive things, including an offer to help build a trail concurrent with the rail right-of-way with up to $100,000 of in-kind service. Estimated time: immediate. Probability of success: Excellent.
- Wait for STB to act. This would mean just leaving everything status quo until the STB rules on who should be allowed to service the line, at which point the council will lose all bargaining power and will get neither the carrier of their choice nor a recreational trail. Estimated time: 3-6 months. Probability of success: Non-existent.
I can’t see any other possibilities, but there may be some other permutations of the ones I’ve listed.
It’s interesting to note the rhetoric put forth in discussion on this item. Fifth district councilman Patrick Nichting mentioned that council members recently took a ride on the Kellar Branch line (within the past few weeks) and derailed along the way. From the conversation, it sounded like CIRY was providing the ride. Nichting also noted the thick vegetation overgrowth and asked CIRY how long it had been this way; they answered, “long before we got here.” The clear implication was that Pioneer had not adequately cared for the line when they were operating it.
Yet Pioneer was able to successfully run trains up the Kellar Branch without incident the entire time they were servicing Carver Lumber and other shippers along the line. It was CIRY who had a runaway train that endangered the lives of Peorians and never provided service. It was CIRY who stopped maintaining the tracks. And it’s CIRY who withdrew their petition to discontinue service because they wanted to start operating the line themselves. If the track were really in such irreparable condition, why would they take such an action? If the western spur were sufficient, why did they withdraw their petition?
Nichting also brought up the tired old excuse that there are portions of the right-of-way that aren’t wide enough for the rail and trail to run concurrently “without adding bridges.” This is the Park District’s logic that Nichting is parroting. There are ways to hurdle these types of obstacles if anyone would be willing to compromise. One obvious idea is to simply work around those areas by running the trail out to the side of the street. It wouldn’t have to be an on-street bike route; the trail could run along the city’s easement parallel to the street, thus still allowing the park district to meet the requirements for their grant money. It would be no different than what East Peoria did with their trail to avoid the trailer park along route 150.
Councilman Morris brought up the council’s history of supporting a recreational trail through town. Yes, historically that has been true. But times have changed. The STB has ruled. They’re not going to allow the line to be turned into a recreational trail. It’s time to compromise.
City Manager Randy Oliver offered to bring back options to the council at the February 13 council meeting. It will be interesting to see what transpires between now and then.
Update: The Journal Star has filed its report. Elaine Hopkins was a little confused when she wrote this statement:
Pioneer’s successor, Central Illinois Railroad Company, has withdrawn its petition to discontinue service over the line, with the board granting the withdrawal. That withdrawal is another necessary step in trail development.
No, the petition was a necessary step in trail development. The withdrawal of that petition was a death knell for trail development.
There’s a lot of hopeful talk and disinformation coming from trail enthusiasts. On WMBD-AM 1470 this morning, they just wrote off Pioneer’s quote to repair the rail line, claiming that it would cost $10-20 million to fix it up and saying the city can’t afford it. The truth is, far from having to spend millions of dollars, the city could gain over a half-million dollars by selling the line to Pioneer; their offer to purchase the line and grant a 999-year lease to the Park District to share the right-of-way for a trail still stands. The city can have both and make money in the process if they stop listening to the uninformed, tunnel-vision trail enthusiasts.
I believe one of the bad areas for a biking hiking trail to be next to the Kellar Branch is from Abington Street to War Memorial Drive. The trail could be brought up along Abington Street to Perry Ave and then along Glen Oak Park to Springdale Cemetary. Since the Park District, along with the City of Peoria and Peoria County now own the cemetary, continue the trail through the cemetary and use the existing War Memorial cemetary underpass. The trail could follow Harvard Ave to Lake Street and on to Prospect. This would eliminate the need for “bridges” anywhere in this part of the trail. There are inexpensive ways to work around all the stumbling blocks that the Park District might throw in the path. Ed Sanders
C. J. and Ed,
It sounds like CIRY may have driven a couple or three council members in a hi-rail truck (one equipped with flanged wheels that can be lowered when driving on rails and raised when driving on pavement). That they derailed is pretty irrelevant. The track can be fixed.
I should have mentioned the most infuriating thing was the contempt that Nichting and later Blumenshine exhibited toward Carver Lumber. They were both visibly angry. Nichting stated that there are other lumber companies that are profitable without rail service, and therefore if Carver were to go out of business, it would be because of poor business practices and not lack of rail service. Blumenshine accused Carver Lumber of being uncooperative — I just about tossed a brick through my TV at that point. Anyone who had been paying the least bit of attention to the issue would know that Carver was the epitome of cooperativeness (some would argue they were frankly naive) up until the point the city and CIRY started breaking their contracts and promises and it started costing Carver thousands of dollars. And Carver is in Nichting’s district! I feel sorry for the other businesses and residents in the 5th district if this is the way Nichting treats his constituents.
CJ,
Another conceivable scenario would be to test if other operators would be interested along with PIRL to sumbit qualifications and;or proposal for either operation or purchase and operation. I am not suggesting their is another short line that would be intereste, but that might be an alternative. I just don’t want the “recommendation or strategy coming thru and administered by Steve Van Winkle” and Public Works because of prior biasses regarding the Kellar Branch. THeir arrogance and bias in conjunction with BOnnie Noble of the Park District are the reasons no shared usage was agreed to and therefore no recreational trail already completed. I think Economic Development must take the lead in the development of a strategy. If not, I am sure the STB will decide for us.
C. J. and Gary, why do people keep spouting this nonsense?
“Nichting stated that there are other lumber companies that are profitable without rail service, and therefore if Carver were to go out of business, it would be because of poor business practices and not lack of rail service.”
This is exactly why we have a federal agency (the STB) that has authority over even city-owned property to prevent those who are clueless from doing something what they ought not do.
At the very best, Nichting’s assertion is an overly simplistic generalization. Someone with influence over trail proponents first made this mindless assertion and now everyone from a PJS editorial page editor, a trail proponent in last November’s meeting and now Councilman Nichting have repeated it since as if it were a fact.
Perhaps Nichting and the others should do some better research and find that area lumber companies that do not use rail service are those that (1) are retail stores that do not generate enough sales to justify it (rail is most economical for large, bulk quantities), (2) are not located next to a rail line, thus it is not an option, and (3) purchase their lumber through a wholesaler, or all three.
No two companies are the same, and to imply that if one is profitable without rail service then all of them should be is utter nonsense.
PLEASE don’t tell me that Councilman Nichting is wrong…please please don’t do that. He’s the smartest member of the Council….just ask him. (end of sarcasm).
While I’m definately a trail supporter – that doesn’t necessarily make me a rail opponent. Are there no viable options for providing service over the new spur – from any source (whether CIRY or Pioneer)?
And I’ll kick myself from saying this, but what really is the additional cost to Carver for the service from this new spur? Maybe it’d be cheaper to provide some type of “subsidy” to them for a defined period of time in order to offset that incremental cost.
Peo Proud, and just because I’m a rail supporter doesn’t make me a trail opponent, either. I just believe they can both happen.
No, there are no viable options over the new spur. The new spur connects to the Union Pacific (UP) line. Railroads aren’t like interstate highways; the rail companies actually own their own right-of-ways. So, in order to use the western spur, you have to use the UP line, and UP can tell you when you when you can or can’t use it, and they can charge you pretty much whatever they want to use it. In contrast, the Kellar Branch has neutral access to eight major railroads. Using the western spur adds an indispensable and expensive step to the delivery chain. Instead of BNSF->Kellar Branch->Carver, the route goes BNSF->UP->Western Spur->Carver. See the extra step? That costs money, and there’s no alternative, so UP has monopoly power over that step. The city knew this before this all started; their own railroad commission (now defunct) told the council this would happen, but they didn’t listen.
As far as your subsidy idea, I really think you’re missing the point. The Kellar Branch rail line is an irreplaceable and incredible asset. Other communities would love to have branch line like we do with its neutral access to so many rail lines. We should be using it to improve the city economically, not getting rid of it and paying subsidies.
PEO PROUD WROTE: “Are there no viable options for providing service over the new spur – from any source (whether CIRY or Pioneer)?”
From the western spur, no, unless Union Pacific allowed the shortline to use its track from a connection with the Tazewell & Peoria RR to Pioneer Jct. where the spur begins. That won’t happen and even if it did, the volume of traffic generated by Carver Lumber 50-60 carloads annually) would justify the expense. Theoretically, it would lower costd because of reduced handling (cutting a railroad out of the rate settlement) but the STB is not about to force UP to let this happen.
PEO PROUD WROTE: “And I’ll kick myself from saying this, but what really is the additional cost to Carver for the service from this new spur? Maybe it’d be cheaper to provide some type of “subsidy†to them for a defined period of time in order to offset that incremental cost.”
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/dfb91c6e770f611085256f2b007479f0/a6d88d4ad44cce7385257261006fc9cc?OpenDocument
Because the freight rate for the entire rail move from origin to destination is confidential, only the change in price is noted for the portion of the routing that changed, specifically, from the Tazewell & Peoria RR’s East Peoria to Pioneer Park via the Kellar Branch versus the alternate routing via UP. A lumber broker is paying the freight rate but Carver most certainly is paying the difference in the price of the lumber. According to the STB decision, Carver is paying $1,059 more per carload than what it paid for service over the Kellar Branch ($872 vs. $1,931). That it costs $1,059 more per carload to be handled via the alternative western spur than the Kellar Branch is nothing short of ridiculous. But that’s why rail supporters warned about this a decade ago. The subsidy idea will never fly.
What is being prevented is not the construction of a trail but the destruction of a viable rail line.
DPJ WROTE: “…the volume of traffic generated by Carver Lumber 50-60 carloads annually) would justify the expense.”
That should be “Wouldn’t justify the expense.”
So if 50 – 60 carloads annually is what we’re talking about for Carver Lumber – there financial break even point would be an annual subsidy in the range of $50K to $60K. While this doesn’t address the issue of other potential users of the Kellar line, it would seem to make the financial aspect a moot point to Carver Lumber.
I’m just trying to explore various alternatives and strategies other than “all or none” for either side – albeit with an inherent bias in my mind that I think a trail is a good thing for a community (not that I’m saying a railroad isn’t).
*shakes head*
I guess I fail to see how joint rail/trail use isn’t a win-win for everyone. So far, the only people wanting “all or none” are the trail enthusiasts.
PEO PROUD wrote: “So if 50 – 60 carloads annually is what we’re talking about for Carver Lumber – there financial break even point would be an annual subsidy in the range of $50K to $60K. While this doesn’t address the issue of other potential users of the Kellar line, it would seem to make the financial aspect a moot point to Carver Lumber.”
Then there’s that reliability issue – the reason Carver Lumber is currently tranloading lumber from railcar to trucks at the Tazewell & Peoria RR facilities in Creve Coeur.
PEO PROUD wrote: “I’m just trying to explore various alternatives and strategies other than “all or none†for either side – albeit with an inherent bias in my mind that I think a trail is a good thing for a community (not that I’m saying a railroad isn’t).”
Joint-use right-of-way. It’s Easy but the City Council just needs to let go of their pride (“but we’ve been working on this for 15 years!” Bwaaaaaa Bwaaaaaa) and do the right thing (tell the Park District it’s going to be a joint-use right-of-way or no trail at all).
DPJ — you’re starting to convince me a little toward joint use, but I still see some major concerns with that and think other options for the transport side should be reviewed before making this final decision. Once the decision is made, we’re stuck with it for years. Let’s hope they make the right one.
PEO PROUD wrote: “DPJ — you’re starting to convince me a little toward joint use, but I still see some major concerns with that and think other options for the transport side should be reviewed before making this final decision. Once the decision is made, we’re stuck with it for years. Let’s hope they make the right one.”
There is some question as to the real cost of the trail. Even if they use the railroad right-of-way, the exact path of the track may not be used as they cross the streets.
(1) At Pioneer Parkway, the trail will cross at Sommer St. – the nearest intersection with a traffic light. The track crossing will remain in place here because it gives access to the first spur to diverge north of Pioneer Parkway on which is Globe Energy Eco-Systems, said to be one of CIRY’s “new business opportunities.”
(2) Sheridan can be crossed at the intersection with Knoxville.
(3) A massive ADA-compliant trail bridge will be needed to span Knoxville Ave and the cost of such a thing could be in the millions. I remember reading somwhere that the bridge is in local storage and was priced at $1 million.
(4) Where will the trail cross Glen Avenue in Peoria Heights? There is no traffic light-protected intersection for at least several blocks (Prospect the the east is closest).
(5) Where will the trail cross Prospect Avenue? Again, they probably don’t have the option of using a trail bridge because of the descending eastbound grade and curvature of the right-of-way. The trail path will have to be diverted via a traffic light-protected intersection (one on either side of the track are each one block away)
There is talk of linking the Rock Island Trail extension with the Pimiteoui Trail using a tunnel under War Memorial Drive. (One already exists in Springdale Cemetery). The problem here is that the track is bridged over War Memorial so how far to the north are they going to have to excavate the R-O-W and lower it so they can tunnel under the road and/or divert the trail path to the existing cemetery tunnel? Much of the railroad right-of-way won’t even be used.
I’d like to have some answers to these questions. Furthermore, it appears that had RTA and the PPD had their way and the track was removed a year ago, engineering challenges and cost overruns would have delayed or even killed the project.
There are considerable challenges in building a hiking and biking trail through an urbanized area and it’s not as simple as just using a railroad grade.
In addition, I don’t believe C. J. has ever received a copy of the PPD study of a joint-use right-of-way, probably because it doesn’t exist or the numbers are fuzzy. Back in 1993, one trail proponent estimated that it would cost an additional $500,000 to $1 million for a joint-use right-of-way. In 1999, they claimed it was $15 million and at the most recent public meeting (November 6?), Bonnie Noble gave a $29 million figure. Now the last two figures likely include construction costs of the trail altogether and not the extra funds it would take for joint-use. I also suspect that these numbers are artificially inflated.
DPJ said, “In addition, I don’t believe C. J. has ever received a copy of the PPD study of a joint-use right-of-way, probably because it doesn’t exist or the numbers are fuzzy.”
Oh, I got a copy of their “study.” Here it is. What I never received was the cost estimate for the project if they had it their way (tear up the rails and put in the trail) so we could compare numbers. It would appear to me the biggest cost difference is constructing a trestle bridge behind Versailles Gardens. The bridge at Knoxville would be needed regardless. As for the other “trestles” listed — no locations are listed; I guess we’re just supposed to take their word for it that they’re needed.
Also missing from this “study” is the name of the engineering firm used, the types of materials used, how they arrived at their “cost per square foot” figures, and an explanation of a host of other vague references. I’m positive that if Pioneer put together a “study” like this the PPD would be howling at how unclear and incomplete it was.
C.J. and DPJ, if that is considered a “study” then I might aswell be a millonare. As a Civil Engineering student at Bradley and working for the City of Rock Island I have seen some studys along the lines of what this one should be like. As C.J. has stated, that is a horrible “study”, everything that was stated – no locations, no Engineering firm given, no materials, and etc. I would think there would be a write up on the locations, materials, possible labor and etc. But the fact that they sent you this one could be strategic or just trying to confuse you more.
DPJ mentioned the compliencey of the trail to the ADA. Well for the most part this is true. I would think that most of the trail, atleast the uphill portions, will not meet ADA but if the terrain does not allow for ADA to be met it does not have to.
I find it interesting that if the city and rta would have went along with a dual use ROW the project could have cost tens of thousands of dollars less and they would already have their trail.
Just my thoughts.