At the last City Council meeting (not including executive sessions), the council deferred an agreement that will bring them closer to converting strategic infrastructure into a hiking/biking trail. Last week, the agreement was posted on the city’s website so we could all read it. But they haven’t posted the revisions. I guess they don’t want the little people to see the agreement before they vote on it next Tuesday.
What is posted includes this whopper of a statement (emphasis mine):
There have been numerous hearings concerning discontinuance of part of the Kellar Branch to a trail. No objections have been raised.
That last sentence is a bald-faced lie. I personally have objected to the discontinuance at those hearings, and so have several other rail supporters. It’s all on record, too. Look it up in the official minutes, Mr. Holling. You’re supposed to be presenting facts, not fantasy, to the council.
Also, if you haven’t seen it already, check out David Jordan’s excellent post comparing Davenport and Peoria.
UPDATE: The agreement is now on the City’s website here. It was added Friday afternoon. Also, according to a report on WMBD-TV, channel 31, the city says they were misunderstood when they said no objections had been made to abandoning a portion of the Kellar Branch. They say they meant only that no neighbors abutting the branch line had objected.
I guess they forgot about this one from the minutes of February 20, 2007:
Mr. Joe Marmon, President of Carver Lumber Company, said although the western connection was constructed to supplement the advent of the closure of Keller Branch, the western connection had caused Carver Lumber to compromise service and competitive pricing. He said Carver was forced to use alternative methods for distribution. He said he had not used the western branch for several months, due to the pricing problems. He spoke in support of services provided by Pioneer Rail, and he urged the Council to keep Keller Branch open for future economic development.
Not only was Mr. Marmon a neighbor directly abutting the tracks, but a user of rail service as well. It should be pointed out that the city promised Carver Lumber in writing that there would be “no interruption in rail service” while the western spur was being built, and that the city would intercede on their behalf if service lagged or costs rose. In fact, service was interrupted, and the city did nothing. Then when service was restored via the western connection, the city did nothing to help. The city continues to show its contempt for this business; it doesn’t even acknowledge their objections which are clearly on the record.
Oh, I know what they’ll say — Carver Lumber doesn’t directly abut the portion of the branch to be abandoned. That’s true. I guess if you define “neighborhood concerns” narrowly enough, you can make it exclude any objectors and make it easier to push through unwise agreements.
No objections? We have been objecting for 15 years. And if there were no objections why did the council go to the trouble of hiring consultants just a few years ago to see about putting the trail beside the rail? Why did the railroad offer to assist in that endeavor also if there were no objections? Evidently all our objections and common sense and attending meetings and working with STB and the council and others have been not heard or seen by anyone. I personally have met with the Park District, Senators, the city council and numerous others many times. Did they not hear my objections. Evidently STB did because they ruled in favor of keeping the rail line alive. So somebody must have heard the objections. Would you call us the silent majority? Somebody better clue Mr. Holling into what has been going on from our side all these years. Where has he been?
…because if you want to look like you are important, competent, and being diligent in Peoria, you hire consultants.
Here is his email…. send him your objections
Citymanager@ci.peoria.il.us
CJ, I have tremendous respect for David Jordan, yourself & other opponents of the trail conversion. David knows more about rail operations in this region than any 5 people, and much of what I as a newcomer know I learned from him.
I make my living in the freight transportation business. Let the record show I am also a runner, cyclist & user of rails-to-trails conversions. I helped make one happen in Louisiana before I moved to Peoria.
I respectfully believe that you guys are missing the point. The alternative freight access to Growth Cell II has already been built. It’s the spur from the Union Pacific on the west. Yes, it was constructed with public money. True, the public likely wasn’t informed that it was built without freight pricing guanantees from the UP. BUT IT WAS BUILT. It duplicates the Kellar branch and renders it unnecessary, and allows it to be redeveloped for a higher and better use as a trail conversion.
Where is the outrage from rail advocates over the UP’s pricing policies that have effectively kept freight off the spur? Why is there no agitation from you folks to complete the wye at the spur’s junction with UP and thereby allow trains to access from both north and south? The base infrastructure is there for rail to serve the growth cell. Why do we have to keep beating the dead horse of the Kellar Branch? Is there something you folks just don’t like about cyclists & runners & municipalities that want to have them come and spend $$ at an attractive trailhead? Help me out here please. I don’t think I lack objectivity. But I sure wonder whether you do.
Good points, Steve J.
Steve J- you will find they beat a lot of dead horses on this site.
This is a complicated issue and my position needs to be understood within the context of history, rail freight routing- and rate-making practices, and whether the City of Peoria was ever sincere about rail-spurred development in Growth Cell Two in the first place.
First, a little background: I was an employee of Pioneer Railcorp for a couple of years earlier this decade, and served as agent for several shortlines, and backup agent for another. I billed cars, entered crew wheel reports into the railcar management system, put crews to work and also handled some misc. duties including creation of repetitive waybill codes. Thus, I gained some familiarity with some railroad ratemaking and routing practices. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I gained some basic knowledge from my earlier employment. See my responses below:
I respectfully believe that you guys are missing the point. The alternative freight access to Growth Cell II has already been built. It’s the spur from the Union Pacific on the west. Yes, it was constructed with public money. True, the public likely wasn’t informed that it was built without freight pricing guarantees from the UP. BUT IT WAS BUILT. It duplicates the Kellar branch and renders it unnecessary, and allows it to be redeveloped for a higher and better use as a trail conversion.
Some correction is necessary here. The spur that serves Growth Cell II was actually built by the Chicago & North Western Railway in 1962. Originally, it ended at University Street. International Paper’s Muirson Label Co. moved to a new plant on N. University St. in 1961 and had requested the C&NW provide it with rail access. Muirson’s old plant, located on N. Galena Road, had been served by the Rock Island since it opened in the ‘30s (incidentally, the Rock tried but failed to prevent the C&NW from building into Pioneer Park). Subsequently, C&NW attracted two more customers to Pioneer Park – Klaus Radio (1967) and Montgomery Ward (c. 1974). Thus, Growth Cell II already had rail access when it was first conceived in the mid-1990s. International Paper closed its local plant at the end of 1995, and the line was left dormant for over a decade. The City of Peoria purchased it in July 2001.
The so-called “western connection” (an 1,800’ track) was designed to link the UP spur with Kellar Branch trackage at Pioneer Park that was to be preserved following trail conversion. Unfortunately, city officials, consultants and trail proponents never cared to grasp the consequences of reconfiguring rail service to Pioneer Park. Regardless which railroad operated the Peoria Peoria Heights & Western Railroad, the line’s rail-dependent customers benefitted from “neutral” connections with eight other railroads via the Peoria & Pekin Union (now Tazewell & Peoria). This advantage allowed competition, and thus reasonable freight rates that wouldn’t be possible with a sole connection to Union Pacific west of Pioneer Park. Pioneer Railcorp, the Peoria Railroad Commission, and rail supporters advised the City of this time and time again, but they went ahead with construction anyway.
Service to Carver Lumber shifted to the “western spur” in mid-March 2006, and proved its critics to be correct. Per STB filings, lumber bound for Pioneer Park originates in Mackenzie, British Columbia or Englehart, Ontario. The former originated on the Canadian National Railway (CN), while the latter originated on the Ontario Northland Railway, then are handed off to the CN – probably at Hearst. Since CN serves Peoria, the routing is simple when the Kellar Branch is used: CN-Peoria-PIRY or ONR-Hearst-CN-Peoria-PIRY. Carriers involved in the routing receive a rate division based on their revenue requirements, and CN absorbs the Tazewell & Peoria’s intermediate switching charges.
Now what happened when rail service to Pioneer Park shifted to the “western spur” in 2006? Union Pacific was added into the routing: ONR-Hearst-CN-Peoria-UP-Pioneer Jct.-CIRY and CN-Peoria-UP-Pioneer Jct.-CIRY. The addition of Union Pacific only added cost and transit time to each carload. Yes, they charged upwards of $1,500 per carload. Is that excessive? Not for me to decide. UP is a common carrier, and can’t refuse shipments tendered to it, but it can set its own prices.
UP is the nation’s largest Class 1 at 32,426 miles (26,949 are owned) and makes money hauling freight over mostly medium- to long-distances, and in volume. The Peoria – Pioneer Jct. move was neither. UP didn’t need the Pioneer Park business, and it was largely inconvenient for them to handle it. There are too few customers located on their Nelson – Barr “Peoria Subdivision” to justify regular local trains so the mainline freight trains must do the work. In 2006, however, UP’s Peoria-based “wayfreight” made trips up to Pioneer Jct. on Monday and Wednesday evenings. Handling carloads of lumber to Pioneer Jct and empties in reverse had to generate sufficient revenue to cover expenses.
Following several months of increased transportation costs and unreliable transit times, Carver Lumber made a deal with the Tazewell & Peoria Railroad for facilities to transload lumber from railcars to trucks at Creve Coeur. Sadly, this was a cheaper option than an all-rail routing that included UP. By this time, Carver managed to convince the Surface Transportation Board to stay its decision to allow the Kellar Branch to be scrapped, which led to the decision to restore Pioneer Industrial Railway’s operating rights in November 2007.
Where is the outrage from rail advocates over the UP’s pricing policies that have effectively kept freight off the spur?
Use of the Kellar Branch makes this a moot point, and I explained UP’s obligations above.
Why is there no agitation from you folks to complete the wye at the spur’s junction with UP and thereby allow trains to access from both north and south? The base infrastructure is there for rail to serve the growth cell.
Use of the Kellar Branch makes this a moot point as well. Furthermore, such changes are unnecessary and wouldn’t reduce freight rates anyway. UP uses of two locomotives to service Pioneer Jct. when it interchanges storage cars with CIRY. Of course, construction of a wye is unnecessary. The addition of another switch on UP’s moderately trafficked (usually 8 to 10 trains daily) mainline would be an added maintenance expense. It would be better to construct a short siding on the spur itself west of Radnor Road.
Is there something you folks just don’t like about cyclists & runners & municipalities that want to have them come and spend $$ at an attractive trailhead? Help me out here please. I don’t think I lack objectivity. But I sure wonder whether you do.
We have nothing personal against cyclists or runners, but we also understand that the economic benefits of trails are highly exaggerated, and the supposed development attributed to them is a zero-sum gain to the community. New condos, office buildings and restaurants will get built if they’re truly needed, not because of a recreational trail. What Peoria needs is to lure manufacturing and logistics firms and their good-paying jobs and benefits.
Finally, Davenport’s reason for constructing a new 2.8-mile spur to provide rail service to their Eastern Iowa Industrial Center is stated on page 12 of Tuesday’s STB filing:
The primary purpose of this project is to improve the rail system serving the EIIC and the City of Davenport. A further purpose is to make the Davenport and Quad Cities area more attractive to heavy industries that use rail transportation and ultimately to promote economic development in the region.
If only Peoria would desire to do the same. But as I stated in my recent post on Davenport’s plans, Peoria no longer desires to promote Growth Cell Two for industrial development. From the May 27, 2009 edition of the Peoria Journal Star we read:
Within Growth Cell 2, encompassing Wal-Mart Supercenter and Menards on Allen Road, the city wants to focus on attracting technology companies and organizations specializing in sustainable “green” development.
Planning & Growth Management Director Pat Landes said her department will devise a new zoning classification for the area that is bounded by Illinois Route 6 to the north and west and Allen Road to the east.
So as you can see, Peoria isn’t even interested in developing Growth Cell II for industry. Union Pacific’s rates, use of the “western connection” and any improvements to infrastructure are irrelevant now that the City had no intention of luring rail-dependant industry there.
Thanks for the history lesson, David. I’ve always been one to give thanks for the pricing freedoms granted railways under Staggers, but here is a case where, prior to deregulation, rails would have been compelled to furnish price-competitive service under common carrier obligations (and lose $$).
One option the city could consider and dangle for Pioneer industrial prospects (if the city remains interested at all in that sector) would be a public subsidy of freight rates as an incentive. Same concept as a TIF.
But our fundamental disagreement is that I believe that the trail development still trumps all of this. Kellar is the critical missing link between the R.I. Trail to the north and a vast trail network east of the river.
A public subsidy would be a disincentive for the City of Peoria to market Growth Cell II to industry; the more carloads, the higher the payments. And we all know the City of Peoria and the developers who must be obeyed would rather have shopping centers and hotels subsized than rail carloads. 🙂
Per your earlier comments, the Kellar Branch and “western spur” are complimentary, not duplicative. The limitations of the Kellar Branch (limited greenfield acreage) are cured by the advantage of “western spur” (abundant greenfield acreage), while the limitations of the “western spur” (lack of rail competition by itself) are cured by the Kellar Branch (rail competition via connection with the Tazewell & Peoria Railroad). Both lines, if marketed as a single tool for industrial development, would compare and potentially exceed Rochelle or Effingham.
I’ve never heard a good argument as to why a recreational trail is needed to link Toulon with Morton, Kellar Branch or no Kellar Branch. Funny how nearly two decades have past since it was first proposed and the link isn’t complete but yet, “It’s Better Here.”
Rochelle has been a colossal flop for UP as an intermodal terminal, too far out from Chicago. Its failure is the reason why UP is building a new one in Elwood adjacent to Logistics Park. When open, it will add intermodal freight traffic to the busy Amtrak Chicago-St. Louis corridor & is the reason why UP is fighting the addition of any more passenger schedules.
One “good argument” for the trail on the Kellar is that the right of way is 200 steps from my front door. I can be jogging or cycling on it straightaway. Throw in an attractive trailhead in the Heights, all those svelte bodies heading into the coffee bars & restaurants on Prospect, that’s what quality of life is about and one reason it will be even “better here.”
This isn’t about Union Pacific’s Global III intermodal terminal – I’m talking about the City of Rochelle Railroad and the industrial park it serves. The railroad was built in the late 1980s and quickly gained two large frozen food warehouses operated by Americold and Total Logistics Control plus Edward Hines Lumber. More recently, Boise Cascade, Wausau Supply, Clark Framing Systems and Illinois River Energy have constructed rail-dependent facilities in the park – the last two are located on a track extension completed c. 2005. All of this is carload freight and has nothing to do with UP’s intermodal facility. Operator Burlington Junction Railway has connections with BNSF and Union Pacific.
Thanks for clarifying, David.
CJ ,you know my home abutts the rail line, I have objected this since the first rumor of it. I have personally talked with the mayor, our councilman, the people from the RR. Everyone in the city I have spoken to has assured me that NO trail will come past my home,, Ever. The person with the Peoria planning commission , when I called them with concerns, notified me that I was treaspassing on city property. The driveway to my home they say is part of the easement they purchased from the RR. This is property my family has maintained for generations and is the only access to the back of my property. This drive was paved with puritan pavers all the way (145ft) to the paved garage floor. This was built as a part of our home. My neighbor has a retaining wall he said will have to come down. We have peoples garages, fences, driveways and walls they say are getting torn out. I have over 400 linear ft of property that abutts the RR and 50 feet from the tracks is being taken for the trail. We have asked for proof that the RR actually owned the property they sold to the city. That got a laugh. In the reading I have done,, this is pretty common. It has been so long ago and changed hands a few times. David you might know what this is, my grandfather said we own the fee title and the use was easement only? Anyway all the neighbors on the tracks want to fight this because they also believe this is their property being taken from us by this bunch running the city (into the ground). The city is holding all these back door meetings and deals, all of which costs more than they have spent down here in decades. What a huge slap in our face. THEY ARE LIARS
To David P Jordan, If you could please checkout this site. http://home.earthlinl.net/~dick156/row.htm
cw, have you been taxed on this property all these years? Has the city taxed the person with the retaining wall? Everyone should check and see if they have been paying taxes on every single inch of this property that abutts the easement or on the easement itself. I think the city should be forced to prove its ownership of this property. And there should be no excuses about how far back they have to research it. This was brought up when they were requesting P&PU move the downtown tracks and when research was done the result was that the city owned the track and therefore P&PU didn’t have to foot the bill for moving the rail. The results can be found it just takes them getting off their duffs and doing it. Don’t let them push you around. You pay their salaries, make them work for it.
Link should be: http://home.earthlink.net/~dick156/row.htm.
I don’t know if you have a case against the city…the Peoria & Rock Island built the track that is today known as the Kellar Branch, and they probably purchased the right-of-way from landowners, rather than having acquiring it through land grants. The only franchise agreement with the City of Peoria was for use of Water Street.
Thank you for looking. Rock Island row agreements could be a start. good bye
I don’t know when that section of track was put in, but in 1963 when my family moved here the tracks were here but the residents weren’t. I can’t imagine who the rail co.s would have paid for the land… I surmise it was here LONG before Peoria expanded past Forest Hill or War Memorial.
kcdad,
The line was opened in the summer of 1871. My best reference, Wade Calvert’s ROCK ISLAND & PEORIA RAILWAY, is a good read (with a few mistakes regarding more recent history) if you can find a copy.