Jonathan Ahl has the exclusive interview on his blog. He asks the CEO of Globe Energy, which is located in Pioneer Park in a building served by the Kellar Branch, if he is interested in using rail service. Answer: yes.
Too bad there’s no economical rail service available right now out there, thanks to the city’s actions.
Interested, but does he need rail service to stay competitive? His reasons sounded to be in support of a cleaner environment,emissions of trains vs. trucks, which is a good reason. Was he asked if he has looked into rail service and compared costs? With two businesses wanting rail service and a third on the way in Pioneer Park, is the western connection still not economical? I understand options are limited, but is the price offered fair or has anyone ever looked into the cost?
Sounds like a very intelligent man and I hope he is a success here in our great country as he is in Europe.
The problem with the Western Connection is that is only connects to one railroad where as the Kellar connects to eight. Plus depending on when the shipment got into Peoria the Western Connection could add a day or two to the shipping time easy, depending on the tri-weekly freight that goes to Clinton. Over the Kellar the same shipment could be delivered within hours.
With Globe Energy looking to add 600 jobs over five years, and quite possibly needing Kellar Branch service, will this help sway the mover and shaker, wine and brie crowd into dropping their shortsighted efforts to destroy the train tracks?
Also, how long are those green “Build the Trail Now” signs going to be up? A hint to the trail nuts: The longer they remain up, the more people you annoy.
Sticks and stones.
Bill,
You seem educated on the matter and I am trying to learn as much as I can about railroads. Does Union Pacific run short lines? If they did then would the access to the other seven be the same as the Kellar or would more cost still be accrued? Is the UP the only thing in the way of the western connection working?
Thank you in advance for your answer.
Keith,
No, the UP isn’t the only thing, but it is a big thing. They are not a short line and they don’t want to be a short line. When Dick Carver was in town, he laid out other things that needed to be done to make the western connection viable. One thing was that a wye connection needs to be built so cars could be placed on the western connection from either direction, and a new switching yard would need to be built. But the biggest problem is the UP. From the council minutes:
As for your first question, “but does he need rail service,” I think the better question is “does the city need the trail to replace the Kellar Branch.” The answer to that is definitively “no.”
Anyone up for printing up bumper stickers: Build the Trail AND Keep the Rail!
I’d say add a Duh! to the end of it but that would be too rude, no?
I haven’t yet listened to the interview but what I can say is that as long as Kellar Branch rail users are receiving and shipping product on railroads other than Union Pacific, the western connection will always be least desirable.
Even if the western connection could be made economical by a high volume rail user, the Kellar Branch, repaired and restored to service by a shortline committed to its future, will always be the best and most economical rail access for businesses located at Pioneer Industrial Park (and Growth Cell Two).
As far as Globe Energy using rail transportation, it will be first and foremost for economic, not environmental reasons. Their use of rail may be indirect (intermodal), direct (intermodal capability at place of business), and/or for receipt/shipment of raw materials (inbound steel products/outbound scrap metal) at their place of business.
I find it ironic that Dick Carver, who founded Carver Lumber, is working to undermine is old business.
CJ,
I agree that your rewording of my question is still a good question, but just like studies, it does not generate the response that I desire in order to reach my goal…i.e. a hiking/biking trail.
Thank you David for your expertise. I would like to meet someday and discuss the shipping industry.
I agree that the trail next to the rail sounds great but studies have been done and they show how unaffordable it would be. Nobody including me trusts a study because the goal is to prove what you want is the best solution. So I walked the rail and found there are areas that it is not possible to have both. I then posed the question, “Why not put the trail where you can and go to roads where you cannot?” Apparently between the IDNR and IDOT, they will not help with funding a bike route unless it is totally seperate from streets. They wanted to know when the rest of the trail would be built when the park district was trying to obtain funding for the trail from Pioneer Parkway to Candletree. No funding means no trail. This is why I support a trail only plan.
I invited a few of your favorite bloggers to come out and help clean the rail and walk the tracks and had zero response. Whenever anybody is ready to take a walk, let me know, I can always use the exercise and there are some beer depots along the way. I do not think anybody has ever pointed that out. We could stagger from the Last Chance all the way to The Tavern on the River passing numerous bars along the way. Hey,a new way to findsome supporters!
Joking aside, arguing the point is moot since it is up to the STB to say what happens, but I do enjoy the conversation. Our next RTA meeting is July 9th, 7:00pm at Paparazi’s. All are welcome to attend.
“Apparently between the IDNR and IDOT, they will not help with funding a bike route unless it is totally seperate from streets.”
Then you need to keep asking questions. Here are a few for starters:
(1) The trail runs along Pioneer Parkway at Sommer street — who paid for that part of the trail?
(2) The plan calls for the trail to run along Prospect from the Kellar Branch up to the nearest traffic signal, cross the street, then run along the other side of Prospect back to the Kellar Branch. Where will the funds come from for that part of the trail?
(3) Whatever the answer is to questions 1 and 2, why can’t the same funding mechanism be done in those few areas where the trail cannot run next to the rail line?
(4) How much does it cost to paint a bike lane on an existing street?
I could keep going. The point is, the trail can be completed without tearing out the rail line. Compromises can be made. Agreements and grants can be amended. It’s been done before on this very project and it could be done again. The only thing holding it up is the stubbornness of the Peoria Park District. They want it their way or no way. I can guarantee you that if/when the STB puts the kibosh on their plan, they’ll miraculously find a way to complete the trail without touching the rail line. They’ve probably got Plan B sitting in a drawer somewhere already, if the board secretary hasn’t accidentally erased it.
I just listened to Globe Energy CEO David Jones’ comments on his company’s intent to use rail transportation and I still haven’t any confirmation that they will actually use the Kellar Branch. They may just use rail for shipment of containers (shipments of their product) and that would mean trucking these containers to the nearest intermodal terminal that could handle them depending on the destination – TP&W’s East Peoria facility (marketed by Canadian National) or the BNSF and UP facilities near Joliet and Rochelle, respectively.
Having said that, Globe Energy is to manufacture its product here, and per their UK website, it would appear that they will be fabricating their products here in Peoria, which may require raw materials, or at least some kind of pre-casted and/or cut and processed metals. I know they plan to have a machine shop on site.
Keith, if you’re reading this, you can include your email when you post a comment on my blog. Only I can see it. That way we can exchange private emails if you wish.
“They’ve probably got Plan B sitting in a drawer somewhere already, if the board secretary hasn’t accidentally erased it.” I love it when you get snarky. It reminds me you are human and not just a fact finding machine 🙂
Keith,
This may come over as offensive, but I mean nothing in that direction, they are just thoughts that I have.
I have seen some “studies” of the trail being built along the rail line and the Civil Engineer in me says that a 3 year old could do a better study. In my professional opinion I don’t believe the difference between the costs of building the trail next to the rail line would be that much greater than just a trail, there is just not that much difference.
On the contrary I have seen studies put out by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (www.railtrails.org) on the effectiveness of dual use ROW (right of way), mainly putting a trail next to an active rail line. There are numerous accounts of trails being built within 10 feet of the rails to 50 or more feet from the rails. There are also accounts of different separation tactics from a chain link fence, to hedges, to walls, and even nothing just grass and air. Over the Kellar, trains at any time soon, would probably not be able, legally, to travel at more than 10 MPH. This will not be the Acela Express bering down on you at 150 MPH.
The STB is not deciding whether a trail can be built or not. They are just there to make sure that the customer is taken care of, either it be the service or the cost, they are there to protect them. In this case the customer, Carver, is getting hung out to dry.
There is a compromise available, unfortunately there are only a few people waiting at that compromise. Build the trail next to the rail line and don’t throw out the valuable economic asset that the Kellar is and can be. Market it right or sell it to the highest bidder, but keep the Kellar Branch in service.
CJ – I am looking up the answers to post later.
David – I posted at your site.
Bill – No offense taken. I agree with most of what you said. I formed my opinion from walking the existing track. Let’s take a walk, put down our opinions on how it could be done and present it the the cities and the park district. I know the PPD has already done a study including both rail and trail but maybe if we were to join forces instead of just voice opinions this would be over and we could find better use of our time or something else to debate.
(4) How much does it cost to paint a bike lane on an existing street?
Why won’t the city and PPD consider this a viable option? I think they’ve dug their heels in so deeply that they believe any concessions would be signs of weakness.
The Kellar Branch runs through urban areas, thus the trail cannot reasonably be expected to look like the one running from Alta northward. Parts of the trail can parallel streets, parts on bike lanes in the streets, and parts next to the train tracks. A little creative thinking and some flexibility on the part of the PPD would result in a win-win for everyone and we could “build the trail now”.
I’m an avid jogger and I live near the Kellar Branch. I would love to use a trail for running and biking, which is difficult on Peoria streets. However I don’t want a trail at the expense of train tracks which could generate and facilitate well-paying warehousing and light manufacturing jobs in Peoria. The western spur has proven inadequate.
Bonds&Rtp: why don’t the bikers and joggers use Glen Oak Park, Bradley Park,Detweiler Park,the existing RI trail,the Riverfront trail,Meinen field, and the other schol tracks for their workouts? Why should all taxpayers pay for these gallant exercisers to have luxury lanes when they can use the above?
CJ,
Here are your answers;
1) DNR funding paid for the Pioneer Park/Sommer Extension.
2) The proposed sidewalk widening and additional sidewalk on the east side of Prospect was originally coming from IDOT funds. This has passed do to the lengthy time frame and it would now, probably be local or DNR funds. A grant for this would need to be reapplied for.
3) Federal funds follow the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities which you can find online. They dictate how the trail must be run. Variances must be applied for, for any type of changes and everybody who has ever built a building knows how tuff it is to get one.
4) I do not have the figures on striping a bike lane but it does not sound cheap and I am sure there is just as much red tape. Municipalities all have different lane width, curb, and easement requirements. This has been looked into by the PPD. On state roads, it will never happen. I do not know all of the local rules but it sounds like a big undertaking. With that said, yes it does sound possible and I will do some research into this avenue.
RTP,
Don’t forget this is an opinion. Heals are not dug in, they are just pursuing the original idea decided upon after all of their studies. The funds are already in place for 60 percent of the project. If the trail building starts, more grants would be obtained at that time.
I believe that there has been some creative thinking done, and this route seemed the most obvious in the beginning. Right or wrong it is what they thought and still hope will work. I hope it does, too.
It is also my belief that the Kellar Branch has proven over the last thirty years to not be profitable. This is not to say that things may change in the future. I will discuss this more with David Jordan so I have all the facts.
Yes, a decade of it is probably the pursuit of the trail but it was not doing well before that. This is why this option seems logical to me, though I am not an expert and do not claim to be. (I did stay in a Holiday inn last night)
RomanII,
I use all of those locations. I live next to the RIT and having a trail that will join or pass near these locations makes it more desireable. The RIT is only one busy street from Detweiler. The Kellar would pass through Glen Oak and connect to the Riverfront Trail. Maybe next would be to pursue a trail or bike lane up to Bradley Park and Meinen. The RIT also goes past school tracks at Princeville, Wyoming, and Dunlap. The Kellar Branch would be near Richwoods and possibly when Northmoor is widened a bike lane could be added. The Kellar also runs past Kellar East, Peoria Heights GS & HS, and Woodruff. To be able to stay off or avoid the streets as much as possible and access these places is part of the draw. Yes it would be a luxury. One that I personally am willing to pay for.
Thank you for your ear.
Keith,
I would love to walk the line, the only problem with that is I do not reside in Peoria at the time and will not spend much time in there until at least the end of August.
As for the bike lane striping, it is not that much different than the striping of a 2-4 lane road. You can take a 2 lane road with a parking lane on each side and turn it into one easily. That is what we have been doing up here in Rock Island and it seems to be going over real well with the citizens. I can get the lane widths Monday when I get back to work for you.
Keith, your an idiot. We are tired of this Trail Nut garbage. Move to San Francisco.
I understand your frustration, but insulting other commenters doesn’t really advance your argument. Let’s try to keep things civil.
Also, for future reference, it should be “you’re an idiot,” not “your an idiot.” Insults lose some of their impact when they’re misspelled. 🙂
Keith Bonds write: “Heals are not dug in, they are just pursuing the original idea decided upon after all of their studies.”
The original idea was based on decisions devoid of a full understanding of issue as well as false assumptions, thus the reason for the now 10-year-old battle that has been waged.
Keith Bonds wrote: “It is also my belief that the Kellar Branch has proven over the last thirty years to not be profitable.”
Thirty years is an arbitrary figure, but keep in mind that Pioneer has said that their Kellar Branch operation was profitable.
Not only does Pioneer think they can make money with the line they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and that is a lot of money. Also the issue at hand with the STB is not whether the Kellar will remain a railroad or be turned into a trail, the issue is who will run it? So all the talk of either a rail or trail is moot since that is not the deciding issue at this point in time with the STB. For those of you that read the Wall Street Journal take a look at “The Little Engine that Could” dated 6-2-07. It might open your eyes to some different views on commuter rails, and how they can benefit our community.
Peoria desperately needs striped bike lanes. Seriously, have you ever tried to ride a bike in town? If you try, one of two things will happen- you’ll be given the bird or you’ll be run off the road. This town is horribly pedestrian unfriendly and the city/county hasn’t learned anything by looking at the new development out north. Why doesn’t the new Allen road have a slightly wider shoulder to accept a bike lane?
Ever think about riding down University or Sheridan? It’s a death sentence. It is my hope that the “new” Main Street will include space for cyclists. I don’t know enough about the new zoning recently passed, but does it make provisions for this sort of thing? It is my belief that bike lanes should be one of the basic components of a urban pedestrian friendly zoning.
RomanII is typical of Peoria’s backwards thinking. Apparently he feels I should pack up my bike, go to a park and ride around in circles. It should be the other way around. I should be able to leave my house and go to work, the park, the zoo, or the riverfront on my bike.
As far as the trail goes: “Build the Trail AND Keep the Rail!” Yes, you can have it both ways.
PeoriaIllinoisan wrote:
“I should be able to leave my house and go to work, the park, the zoo, or the riverfront on my bike.”
That’s an entitlement mentality that needs to go.
Whoa, David. Why is thinking one should be able to ride their bike places an “entitlement mentality.” How is riding your bike any different than riding your car. Shouldn’t you be able to ride a car to “leave my house and go to work, the park, the zoo, or the riverfront.” In fact, how is bike-riding any more evidence of entitlement mentality on the part of PeoriaIllinoisan than Carver’s insistence on rail service. Are they entitled to rail service? And I think PI is on your side.
Lonely Ole Me wrote; “Whoa, David. Why is thinking one should be able to ride their bike places an ‘entitlement mentality’. How is riding your bike any different than riding your car. Shouldn’t you be able to ride a car to ‘leave my house and go to work, the park, the zoo, or the riverfront’.â€
That’s a moot point because the roads we use are already in place. In this day and age, roads for our cars are vital to our economy; it’s the primary way to travel to work, worship, shopping and entertainment destinations. You can actually transport your groceries, home accessories, artwork and small children in your car. You can travel long distances in your car without stopping for rest. Bicycles are not going to replace cars. If you want to ride your bicycle then do so. We have existing trails, sidewalks and country roads for that purpose. Building extensive and duplicative infrastructure for everyone who wishes to ride their bike to worship, work, shopping and entertainment destinations instead of their cars is a waste and also an entitlement mentality. We are not China, Cuba, India, North Korea or Viet Nam. Thank God.
Lonely Ole Me wrote: “In fact, how is bike-riding any more evidence of entitlement mentality on the part of PeoriaIllinoisan than Carver’s insistence on rail service. Are they entitled to rail service? And I think PI is on your side.”
We are entitled to nothing but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But promises to Carver Lumber were not kept. Warnings that “alternative rail service†could not work went unheeded and thus, the roots of the current fiasco. Carver Lumber is entitled to nothing. They only want to have what existed for years, and that was economical and reliable rail service. The status quo of 1998 – 2005 (the years Pioneer operated the line) was fine with them. The City of Peoria broke this with their flawed “win-win†mentality. It’s the City of Peoria that wanted to remove the Kellar Branch so a recreational trail could be built, not Carver.
The economic value of viable transportation options and jobs is a NEED. A recreational trail is a WANT, and is thus a non-necessity, a luxury if you will, in an affluent society. No one is going to die for lack of a trail. No one is going to leave the area for lack of a trail. No one is going to lose a job for lack of a trail. Quality of life entails many things, most important of which is a job, shelter, clothing and many other things that rank far and above recreational trails. Demanding such is, in fact, an entitlement mentality.
So, David, I’m “entitled” if I want to ride my bike to work? I’ll just jump in my economy minded road hog Hummer to pick up a loaf of bread. And I’m as anti “rail to trail” as it gets.
Chef Kevin wrote: “So, David, I’m “entitled†if I want to ride my bike to work? I’ll just jump in my economy minded road hog Hummer to pick up a loaf of bread. And I’m as anti “rail to trail†as it gets.”
Not if you don’t demand special infrastructure to accommodate your choice. It has nothing to do with whether you actually ride your bicycle or not. How do you do this at present? It’s not like there isn’t a reason or place to build trails and sidewalks wide enough to allow for bicyclists, but these must not take precedence over viable transportation infrastructure that is already in place.
David, with all due respect, I think you’re missing the point and in doing so showing as much venom as the “trail only” people.
You need to lose the “rail only” thinking, and I hope you don’t flip me off if you see me riding my bike down the road, as difficult as that can be in this town.
David, the public right of way is not the sole domain of automobiles. It should be balanced to meet a variety of transportation needs, including cars, bikes, pedestrians, and public transit. According to the Illinois Rules of the Road, “On most roadways, bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as other roadway users.” There’s no reason why bike lanes can’t be integrated into already-existing roadways to make them safer for bicyclists.
Bicyclists and pedestrians are just as “entitled” as motor vehicles to share the roadways. Trouble is, road hogs in their Hummers and Escalades have made it damn dangerous for us to venture out. I’d be all for converting some thoroughfares to non-motorized-only use – Sheridan for example.
EN
David – in the two weeks I’ve been back on a bike, I’ve learned the major roadways through Peoria are not bicycle friendly and I avoid them. However, I’ve encountered sections of sidestreets with no sidewalks or sidewalks in such bad repair, I’m using the streets receiving a lot of “attitude” in the process even though I’m doing my best not to distrupt traffic. Trails don’t get me to the park, the trails, to the grocery store, to friends’ houses. After starting riding again, I feel kinda silly firing up the car to drive a mile. I’m not looking for special entitlement, roadways, etc., I’m looking just not to get maimed or killed.
I know bicyclists are entitled to use existing streets; I’m talking about the demand for special infrastructure (dedicated, recreational trails) for that purpose, especially when it displaces and harms existing businesses.
New and widened roads should incorporate bicycle lanes, or wider sidewalks that would allow pedestrians and bicyclists, when possible. Had that been done from the beginning, we may have avoided the current fiasco.
Nothing personal against anybody.
Bikes are fine if the rider obeys the traffic laws – most do not. In the rural parts of the county, psycho bikers speed through small towns, run stop signs, ride 2,3,4 abreast on 1.5 lane country roads, pepper spray dogs, use obscene gestures at drivers of automobiles and are generally a-holes.
They don’t use the trails we already have so why give them more trails?
These bikers will also be the first ones to file a lawsuit against you if you hit them while they are riding improperly and breaking the law.
I have to agree with mdd. I have had both bikers and striders come through red lights and stop signs and nearly plow through the middle of my car and then give me a dirty look because I am in their way. I have had them pull out in front of me or swerve in front of me and nearly cause me to hit them or another car because they do not look or signal their intentions. I watch striders going along the city streets right next to a sidewalk but instead of using it they take up the road space and then have a fit if we honk at them to get off the road. The responsibility goes both ways, for vehicles and bikers and striders. As for David Jordan’s remarks he is just trying to make others understand that Carver is not asking for entitlement, they are asking for business as usual and for the city to keep their promises, which they have not done not only to Carver but to the rest of the citizenry. They promised a comparable solution and did not produce one. They are the ones responsible for this debacle.
MMD & SD –
I’m sure you can tell as many idiot biker\runner stories as I can anti-biking stories. There are a–holes on both sides of the issue who make bad names for each identity. I had some moron actually take a little swerve at me I guess to “keep me in line” or something. It is like motorcyclists screaming to watch out for and be aware of them this time of year, yet their “brethern”, clad only in shorts, are doing wheelies on a Ninja style bikes down War Drive during rush hour traffic.
I don’t cycle for sport like riding across Wisconsin in three days. It is more for fun, leisure and a bit of exercise. But as I stated, there isn’t a trail leading to the grocery store.