Elaine Hopkins is all excited about the latest Surface Transportation Board ruling. The ruling was against Pioneer Railcorp and in favor of Central Illinois Railroad Company. Any defeat of Pioneer must be a ruling in favor of the trail in the minds of trail enthusiasts. As usual, the facts tell a different story.
Hopkins said: “The U.S. Surface Transportation has slapped down the most recent effort by Pioneer Railcorp to get back its operations on the Kellar Branch rail line.” Actually, this proceeding has nothing to do with the Kellar Branch line, but rather the western connection. Perhaps one could make the case that it’s related tangentially, but if Pioneer had won this proceeding, it would have done nothing to help them reestablish service on the Kellar.
Hopkins further said: “Central [Illinois Railroad Company] does not have a contract with the city to operate on the Western Connection line, but began operations as a successor company to a previous operator.” This is totally inaccurate, but it’s easy to get confused. The so-called “western connection” is actually a spur that used to be owned by the Union Pacific railroad that services growth cell two. It used to just dead end short of Pioneer Park, but the city built an 1800-foot extension (“connecting track”) so it could hook up with the Kellar Branch. So there are three pieces of track in play here: (1) the western spur, (2) the Kellar Branch, and (3) the 1800-foot connecting track. CIRY does indeed have a contract with the city to operate on the spur and the connecting track, but it only has STB authorization to operate on the spur. A contract with the city is not enough; any and all transactions must be approved by the STB. CIRY never requested authorization to operate over the connecting track; hence, they need to get authorization or cease operating. Although Carver Lumber is not currently getting any rail shipments from the west because it’s too expensive, CIRY has occasionally used the trackage to tow rail cars into storage in the Pioneer Park area.
The argument before the STB was rather complicated, but I’ll try to simplify it. CIRY was owned by DOT Rail Services, but now they’re owned by Central Illinois Railroad Holdings, LLC. The city’s contract for operating the western connection was made with DOT Rail Services, not CIRY directly. Thus, now that CIRY is owned by someone else, Pioneer challenged their authority to provide service on the western connection. The STB rejected that argument based on the legal language of the documents in question. The only argument of Pioneer’s with which they agreed was that CIRY had no authority to operate the 1800-foot connecting track.
Bottom line, this is a defeat for Pioneer, but it really has nothing to do with turning the Kellar into a walking trail. There is currently no proceeding before the STB requesting discontinuation of service on the Kellar Branch. That can only be requested by CIRY, the RTA’s preferred operator, and they haven’t done so. So the decision is not “a boost for turning the Kellar line into a trail.” In fact, Pioneer can lose all the proceedings currently before the STB and it won’t make any difference; the trail is going nowhere.
Of course, the trail could be built immediately if the Park District would simply map out an alternative route that doesn’t require removing the rail line. But it appears the goal isn’t really to build a trail any more, but to remove the rail line at any cost.
C.J.,
Nice job on the clarifying. I wish there was a way to convince people that just because someone opens their mouth in support of the trail does not mean everyone at the RTA agrees. Alot of what has been said in the past has hurt our cause, which is first and foremost to get a trail built. Somewhere along the way the removal of rail was decided upon as the preferred route. People became narrow minded and focused on a plan that has done nothing but generate material for bloggers to ridicule.
CJ, I have two questions for you.
First, have you ever been paid by Pioneer Rail or is this just something someone made up? I found this in a blog written by Elaine Hopkins, a person whom I have never met or seen at a RTA/FRITI meeting.
Second, would you be willing to walk the rail with me, and whoever else would care to join, and discuss a way to get a trail built without removing rails? I am pro-trail but I am not against rail.
Thanks
Keith:
(1) I was paid once by Pioneer to develop a PowerPoint slide show for their trolley-proposal/presentation to Peoria Heights. I have not been paid by them prior to that event or subsequent to that event. I’d like to add that I was paid for the hours of work I put into the presentation, not for my opinion about the issue. I have never been a shill for Pioneer or anyone else; my opinions are my own, and my blog is paid for out of my own funds and represents my views and only my views. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
(2) I would be happy to walk the rail with you as a gesture of good will, but frankly, it doesn’t sound like we’d cover any new ground (no pun intended). I think we’ve already agreed that there are places where having a side-by-side rail/trail would be costly to accommodate; where we disagree is on the solution — I would say if that’s too expensive, then divert the bike path to a nearby street, either on-street or adjacent to the street, and you would say that’s unacceptable because you want it to be free and clear of the roadway, and the Park District would say that they would lose their federal grant if they did it that way, and I would argue that (a) they could renegotiate the grant or (b) get an IDNR grant just like they did at Sommer street, and on and on it goes. I’ve been through these arguments a hundred times. Nevertheless, I’m always happy to get the exercise and make new friends, so if you want to walk the rail sometime, I’m game. 🙂
Thank you for your honesty. It is hard to get the whole truth when you read a one sided column. I would still like to walk the rail with you. I agree with what you say but would like a chance to hash it out on the line. Toss around some ideas, put them on paper and send them to the people involved to show them that there is a solution or at least another idea that just might work. It would not be an all day event. Some areas such as between Glen and Prospect would be easy except for the narrowing at the old Cohen’s warehouse. I will try to get some relief drawings from the PPD. I now have a contact with the IDNR and will be discussing grants with her to see if a broken trail would be possible. I already have invited David Jordan and anyone else is welcome to come along. E-mail me and let me know when you have time.