In the never-ending Kellar Branch saga, there’s a legal battle going on before the Surface Transportation Board (STB).
When the STB reopened the adverse discontinuance proceeding (this is the one on whether Pioneer should be kicked off the Kellar Branch in favor of CIRY), it asked for further evidence from the City of Peoria, the Village of Peoria Heights, and Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY) by February 12, and a reply from Pioneer Industrial Railway (PIRY) and Carver Lumber by March 5. The City asked for an extension of time which the STB granted, moving the deadlines back to February 22 for the Cities/CIRY and March 15 for PIRY/Carver.
Well, everyone played by the rules and got their legal arguments in by the required dates. But since March 15, there have been all kinds of extra filings. Friends of the Rock Island Trail sent a pro-trail filing that was so erroneous and riddled with mistakes that it was comical, and Peoria Heights sent a letter stating the results of their consensus to continue supporting the trail (which I know they did conscientiously, but technically is against the rules).
Then, on April 4, the Cities/CIRY filed a reply to Pioneer’s reply. This is rarely allowed in STB proceedings, and requires that permission be granted by the STB for such a reply to be included in the record. The Cities/CIRY didn’t wait for permission. They filed their request for permission and their reply to PIRY/Carver’s reply on the same day.
The Cities/CIRY claim that “[b]ecause the responses filed by PIRY and Carver, respectively, contain numerous half truths and factual distortions, the Joint Parties are compelled to seek the Board’s leave to submit this Joint Reply.” PIRY/Carver countered that this filing:
…is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt by the Joint Parties [Cities/CIRY] to submit argument and evidence that was previously available to them but was not submitted in their February 22nd comments and is only now being introduced in order to further delay this proceeding and compensate for the paltry and one-dimensional filings that they have previously offered in this proceeding.
Pioneer goes on to accuse the Cities of deliberately delaying the proceeding in hopes that Carver Lumber will lose enough money that they have to close their Peoria facility, which would remove the “obstacle” to the Cities’ plans to turn the Kellar Branch into a walking path. They ask the Board to simply deny the request to add to the record now that all the deadlines are past.
If the Board decides to allow the “reply to a reply,” Pioneer asks for 20 days to offer their response to the accusations made by the Cities/CIRY. That seems reasonable, since it was clearly the STB’s intent to provide equal time for both sides.
I just find it ironic that Pioneer is always painted as the villain that doesn’t follow the rules and obstructs things, and yet through this proceeding, they’ve managed to meet all their deadlines and it’s the Cities and other trail proponents that continue to flaunt the STB’s procedures. I suppose that’s to be expected, since they have no respect for the STB or the importance of interstate rail service in general.
C. J., this is your 100th Kellar Branch post!
Pioneer has adhered to the law throughout and the City of Peoria knows it.
C.J. – I give you lots of credit for your indepth commenting and your passion. However, I have to part with you on this issue. Without regard to whether the trail or rail should be on the track right of way, I do think that Pioneer is not as shining and clean as you portray them.
First, I took the time to read the entire filing that you provided a link to (thanks for posting it). I believe that the response (despite the innappropriate snide remarks) is very compelling. It sure looks like Pioneer took many liberties with the facts that they used in filing their response. To expect the City to allow those to stand and not respond is ludicrous.
Regarding your perception that the City, through its attorneys, flaunted/abused the system by filing their response at the same time as they filed the request for leave to file a response; it is obvious that by doing so they have limited the likelihood that it will cause a delay. Had they waited for the granting of leave to file – it would have delayed the proceedings further. In this case, if the requested leave to file is granted, no delay since their response is already filed. If the leave to file is denied, the STB can throw away the filing.
Tell me again why Pioneer is even a party to this issue? Their operating agreement with the City ended. Period. End of Story. They don’t have a dog in this hunt. Carver does. The City should have the absolute right to utilize whatever carrier they choose to and should the STB not allow the rail banking, I certainly hope that it is not Pioneer. Their actions throughout this case leaves a bad taste in my mouth about them as a company.
Peo Proud,
Pioneer is a party to this issue because the Surface Transportation Board reopened on January 12 of this year their Adverse Discontuance Decision that discontinued Pioneer’s operating authority on the Kellar Branch.
Thanks to the JSEB, most everyone falsely believes that Pioneer broke some law/contract by not discontinuing its operation when the City believed that it should have – July 10, 2004. STB authority must be secured before any such action occurs, regardless of some contract. The City waited until June 29, 2004 to file for adverse discontinuance authority because they had been informed that Pioneer would not “voluntarily” relinquish operating their rights. Since the STB is not rushed, that allowed Pioneer to operate past the July 10, 2004 date.
Pioneer disagreed with the Cities’ interpretation of the life of their contract,pointing to the “mininum period of twenty (20) years unless and until terminated for cause as set forth or by mutual consent” wording in the original 1984 contract with P&PU, and made it clear the city would have to obtain STB authority to discontinue their operating authority. There was nothing illegal about Pioneer’s behavior in this regard. They wanted the true authority in this matter, the STB, not the Cities, to make the decision to discontinue their operating authority. In the end, the STB did not make a decision on the contract’s interpretation, instead saying that a state court was the place to make that case.
Previous issues such as suing Recreational Trail Advocates for libel, Pioneer has admitted was a mistake (current CEO and president, Mike Carr, apologized to some RTA members at the Feb. 20 City Council meeting). Blocking trail proponents’ path with railcars was perfectly within their rights, as they were concerned about their’s and the Cities’ liability if the walkers got hurt. Of Course, the trail proponent’s walked anyway.
Pioneer blocked construction of the western connection switch due to liability issues with the City’s contractor, Metroplex.
When the liability issues were resolved, PIONEER MOVED RAILCARS BLOCKING CONSTRUCTION. Following the STB’s August 10, 2005 Decision on the Cities’ Adverse Discontinuance Petition, Pioneer left, obeying the City of Peoria’s eviction order eleven days later.
When you say “Pioneer” you really mean “Guy Brenkman.” He has been retired from the company for over a year.
The Central Illinois Railroad, on the other hand, has violated its contract with the City of Peoria (causing problems the JSEB blamed on Pioneer!) and made illegal use of a trackmobile, causing a runaway and collision that could have easily led to loss of life.
The City’s obsession with building the trail has caused this fiasco. The easiest way to solve the problem would be to withdraw any opposition to Pioneer returning as operator (better yet, sell it the line to them), say bye-bye to CIRY and let the Peoria Park District figure out how to build a trail alongside the Kellar Branch, or not at all.
“…relinquish operating their rights.”
Should be “relinquish their operating rights.”
Peo Proud, I don’t think Pioneer is perfect, but I do think they’ve been painted a lot worse than they really are. Was the SLAPP suit a bad thing to do? You bet. It was very poor judgment on their part. But was it worse than a runaway train that could have killed somebody? No. Granted, it might have been just as bad in its respective way, but why does CIRY get forgiven for endangering the public in August 2005, but Pioneer continues to be castigated for an inappropriate SLAPP suit from the 1990s?
I’m glad you read the filing — it does of course sound compelling. But, like Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.”
I’ll give you one example. The Cities/CIRY continue to claim Carver can get adequate service over the western connection. Yet the City’s own February 22 filing includes testimony from former mayor Dick Carver saying that service from the west was inadequate and would continue to be that way until the city put in a wye connection, a switching contractor with their own yard to assemble the rail cars, and a marketing plan for growth cell 2 to get more rail users there. So their testimony contradicts itself. And that’s just one example.
All Pioneer is asking is for the STB to either strike the filing or let them reply to it. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
The reason Pioneer is a party is because the STB gets the final say on all things rail-related. It’s more complicated than that, but that’s the simple answer. The City is petitioning the STB to switch carriers; they have to get STB approval for that. The city doesn’t think that’s fair; I can appreciate that, but that’s the way it is. The STB’s job is to make sure that shippers are getting adequate rail service; if the replacement carrier can provide that service, the STB will grant the adverse discontinuance and kick the former operator off the line. If the replacement carrier cannot provide adequate service (and in my opinion, CIRY has proven it is unable/unwilling to do so), then the STB will deny the request an allow the former operator to continue providing service. The STB exists to protect interstate and intrastate rail service.
Who wants to take bets on when the Cities/CIRY will reply to the reply of the reply?
I’ll take April 16th!
This is looking more and more to me that Cities feel this is an issue of who has the last word. But thankfully for the STB this is not.
Thank you C.J. for accuracy in your reporting on the Kellar Branch!
In regards to who is blaming who for what, I find it interesting that John Darling, the current president of CIRY, can say that he is not to blame for any actions of the previous persons in control of CIRY. But on the other hand everyone is ready to blame Pioneer for any thing Guy Brenkman has said or done in the past and keep holding over Pioneer’s head. How does CIRY rate calling itself blameless for previous incidents, but Pioneer is not allowed the same latitude?
I just hope, when this is all over, we can successfully indict certain local officials for their official misconduct on this issue. There’s a conspiracy going on here and jail time is needed.