The Journal Star Editorial Board is clearly still stinging over the Surface Transportation Board’s ruling in favor of continuing rail service on the Kellar Branch, so they published these sour grapes Monday. They don’t think the city is being aggressive enough in demanding fees from the railroad companies for their use of the Kellar Branch.
Indeed, the city and village have been subsidizing service over Kellar since they purchased it. But if it’s the gold mine that rail carriers and their backers claim it is – why, it’s practically a sure thing – then there’s no need for those freebies. Just think how much Peoria and Peoria Heights residents would benefit by collecting a per-car fee or a yearly percentage of Kellar’s fair market value, up to $200,000. Those dollars could fund core city services, such as fixing potholes, plowing roads, building sidewalks. Isn’t that what the back-to-basic-services crowd has demanded?
This would be a sound argument, except for the fact that the Journal Star’s position is that this corridor should be leased to the Park District for $1 per year for 99 years so they can convert the corridor to a linear park. They have claimed that a linear park will be a catalyst for development. Perhaps they would support a special assessment on the businesses and developers along the proposed linear park — perhaps a yearly percentage of Kellar’s fair market value — since those private businesses would be profiting from the Kellar corridor, too.
To that end, the municipalities should enter into formal negotiations with the carriers over a usage fee. If a deal can’t be reached, the cities should file a pleading with the STB. While it’s rare, the STB has helped resolve disputes over contracts and conditions. Surely the feds could find some reasonable compromise between $1 and $200,000.
Yes, by all means, spend more money fighting the railroads. It’s proved so fruitful over the past decade and a half. If they’re really serious about wanting to get money out of the Kellar Branch, there are a couple of ways it could be done:
- Sell the line. Pioneer has had a standing offer of $750,000 to purchase the Kellar Branch from the city. This would get the city completely out of the railroad business, and give them three-quarters of a million dollars to boot, which they could use to help finance the CSO project or other needed things.
- Negotiate a long-term lease. There’s a legal dispute over Pioneer’s contract with the City. The City says it’s expired, and Pioneer says it’s still in force. Since neither side wants a legal battle over that, and since the STB has already ruled the line has to stay, the City could negotiate a lease that would be better than the disputed one. I believe Pioneer would welcome such a lease, even if it had higher lease rates for the line, provided the rates are reasonable and proportionate to the amount of traffic the line gets. It would take out all the uncertainty and finally put this issue to rest.
Or, the City could try to have the STB set the rates, which would be costly, time-consuming, and only exacerbate an already adversarial relationship, like the bitter Journal Star Editorial Board wishes. Here’s hoping the City ignores their advice and looks for a more constructive solution instead.
And if the Kellar does go to a trail, will the COP and VOPH make their portion of the trail a toll-trail? If you are going to charge railroads to use the line, are they going to charge hikers, bikers and baby strollers, too?
Chef Kevin we think alike,that is exactly what I said in my comments to the PJS.Charge per-person per-bike per-day and use that revenue to satisfy us back-to-basics service crowds demands.And the park dist. wanting a linear park? Well I quess that would mean I would loose my home.NOT! Use the trail already complete,or are the trail persons afraid of the cemetary trail?Try it once you might just like it.
They claim they are charging the railroads to use the line because they will be making a profit off of it. But they are not charging the bike shops, or hiking gear shops for making a profit if it is a trail. They are not charging anyone who uses the city streets with their business trucks/vehicles, such as taxis, etc., for making a profit using taxpayer streets. So why are they charging the railroads?
Journal Star: “City officials say neither has offered to pay more than $1 a year to use the tracks, which are owned by taxpayers.”
They’re supposed to OFFER money out of the goodness of their hearts?
I wonder if people know what all goes into maintaining a railroad line too. Correct me if I am wrong, but included in that $1 is just the land. Nothing to do with the maintaining of the line.
So if the city wants a larger rent/lease for the line then I, personally, believe that that money should go into the maintenance of the line, not towards other streets and infrastructure. (I know that is unrealistic) If they don’t want to maintain the line then they should get $1 because the railroads are going to have to pay to keep the line running.
Just my two cents, from an engineering and maintenance point of view.
SD says: “But they are not charging the bike shops, or hiking gear shops for making a profit if it is a trail. They are not charging anyone who uses the city streets with their business trucks/vehicles, such as taxis, etc., for making a profit using taxpayer streets.”
A point of clarity: Taxi cabs are licensed by the city and must pay annually. Businesses that might benefit from the trail (bike shops, et al) pay sales tax. Delivery trucks and other vehicles that use our streets to make a profit pay gas taxes. All of these entities pass those costs on to us consumers, but let’s not pretend that they don’t pay something.
I’m a staunch supporter of the trail-beside-the-rail, but I’m also realistic. This talk about charging the Park District for use of the land is ridiculous, and is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Maybe David J. could inform us about how short-line operators purchase their fuel and if there is a local tax on that. I don’t think a reasonable lease cost is out of the question. I just fear that you rail proponents would scoff at anything more than $1 and you trail proponents would be up-in-arms about anything shy of $1M.
What a dysfunctional group.
Sud said: “This talk about charging the Park District for use of the land is ridiculous….”
Precisely. No one is seriously suggesting that it be done. Just pointing out the Journal Star’s double-standard. They don’t have any problem “subsidizing” as long as those subsidies are for things they approve.
Sud also said: “I don’t think a reasonable lease cost is out of the question.”
Me neither. But the trail proponents aren’t suggesting “reasonable lease costs,” but rather confiscatory lease rates. Their goal is to price the line out of reach of the railroad so they’ll give up and abandon the line. Such an attack would prompt a plea to the STB for a reasonable rate, and then we’re still in an adversarial relationship, as I pointed out in my post.
Like I said, if the cities are serious about wanting to get lease rates out of the line, they need to sit down with the rail companies and negotiate a long-term lease that will provide assurance to the rail companies that the city is going to stop trying to sabotage success of the line. Then the rail companies will be happy to pay a higher lease rate — one that is reasonable, as you say, and is proportionate to the amount of traffic on the line.
CJ, your preaching reason to fanatics.
I agree with Mouse. How do you try to reason with loonies? They are beyond compromise or a win-win attitude. There is little hope for a trail beside the rail with the shrinking yellow rag – PJS – fanning the flames and inciting the fanatics.
I too agree with the railroads paying a reasonable lease fee. Never said I didn’t. I was just trying to show how out of focus the JS is in its thinking. If all parties would just shut up and listen to reality we could have a reasonable lease fee, a reasonable trail and whatever else would benefit the entire community instead of just a few. The amount of money and time that has been wasted on this is obscene and nothing is resolved for the benefit of all. The “all or nothing at all” attitude has cost us taxpayers and we have received nothing in exchange. I’m sick and tired of paying taxes so that some soverign entity such as the PPD can spend it on legal fees to fight for a trail that they could have had years ago if they would just have tried to compromise and learn to live with their neighbors, the railroad companies.
To Sud,I own 400 linear feet adjacent to the tracks.My home is there.Any suggestions on how I get to my property if the trail runs down my driveway? You know there are alot of home owners along the tracks.I would like to hear your opinion on what we should do.Give 50′ of our backyards and have a trail close enough to my back door I could spit on it.Or lets go to your house and start a trail there.Your the one that wants it.Build your own trail, in your own backyard.You could charge user fees ,like an amusement ride.One ride one fee.#%$%^^&*(( Once and for all, you already have a trail that starts at the Journal star to Abington ST. no-one uses it, you could have it all to yourself.Ride to your hearts content.It even connects to the river trail so you can ride by the homes.Ride,ride away,or walk.
CW, don’t be a jerk. I’m not advocating taking anyone’s property. My whole point was about folks like SD insisting that if the park district isn’t going to be charged, the railroad shouldn’t be charged. As if the two were the same. I support the concept of a trail-beside-the-rail if it is reasonable priced. Included in that price would be the impact on property owners. I find it ironic, however, that you are worried about your property rights when the City and Village are being denied, to some extent, theirs.
CW is a prime example of why a rationale discussion hasn’t been held. There are no doubt trail-freak versions of CW (Elaine Hopkins comes to mind) that make the other side no better.
A jerk and a trail freak in one comment.Well you can not have a side by without messing with someones property.The city property is taxpayer property, us.No-one is denying the city anything.If they want the property they just take it.What trail freak version did I talk about?Have you ever been on the trail that starts by the PJS?Now how ironic is that, you have a trail on the peoria side that starts and finishes at the same location as the desperately needed side by rail trail.What is more rational? Use the trail already built,or spend several million to put a trail thru backyards in one of the highest crime rated areas of the city.So sud please describe for me what you mean by trail freak version? I am a staunch rail only supporter.And do not ever address me with jerk or freak again.The railroad is running on it now,which gives the city very little control over the property now.
Keep in mind the Pimiteoui Trail doesn’t connect with the Rock Island Trail and the plan is to connect the two using the Kellar Branch right-of-way. Is the Kellar the best way to do that? Yes. But it was and is an operational railroad, which serves a need. Trails are recreational. They are wants, non-necessities, if you will. They don’t have to be built. But trail proponents’ have too much arrogant pride to turn back now. They’ll be fighting for it on their death beds.