While the City Council, Park District, Journal Star, and Recreational Trail Advocates scoffed at the idea of putting a trolley on the Kellar Branch line, there’s one key player who thinks the idea has some merit: the mayor of Peoria Heights.
A subscriber to the Peoria Rails Yahoo Group posted this message earlier today:
Look for a big splash in the paper tomorrow. Peoria Heights mayor Mark B. Allen at the Peoria/Pekin Urbanized Area Transportation Study (PPUATS) meeting today, said he wanted money for a look at a trolley line to link the new development at the old Cohen Warehouse to downtown Peoria. They want a replica street car to link the two areas to provide economic growth. With Peoria Heights on board so to speak, I would say that the rail line is safe for a while. I’d rather see a business with rail service in the old warehouse but any businesses that contributes to economic growth rather than drain taxes for a trail is a good thing.
Just think, if they built the trail next to the track, they could walk or bike the trail one way and ride the trolley the other. They would also support jobs. That’s a win win win for everyone.
This is significant because the bulk of the section the Park District wants to convert to a trail runs through Peoria Heights, not Peoria. In fact, Peoria Heights owns the portion of the Kellar Branch that passes through their village and could decide to sell it or lease it without having to get any approval from the Peoria City Council. That’s only fair, since Peoria has been unilaterally making decisions about the line up to this point in time.
The Kellar Branch saga continues.
UPDATE: Here’s the Journal Star’s first article on this story.
Amen. So far all of the groups, PPD, RTA, green people, etc., have ignored the fact that the Heights owns the major piece of this track where they want their trail. They have not consulted Mayor Allen and his council and citizens or kept them uptodate with information. I’m glad to see them standing up and speaking their piece. After all they are a very inportant entity in this project and should be given the courtesy to have a say in it, and asked for their input.
Who paid Allen to say that?
Didn’t Tim Cassidy say last night it would cost $26 million instead of $6 million to build side by side because of federal requirements linked to the grants the park district has? He then added that side by side meant no trail.
Justanobserver, yes, Cassidy did say that. He also said that he didn’t know how his staff came up with that number ($26 million). It’s actually a little over $29 million, and nobody knows how they came up with it. Click on the link and see if you can tell what engineering firm came up with these numbers, how they determined how many trestles would be needed, where those trestles would be located, how they determined the cost per square foot, what building materials would be used, etc. I could just as easily construct a similar spreadsheet with made-up numbers that favor my point-of-view.
Cassidy also said he wasn’t planning to speak about the “slap suit,” as he called it, that Pioneer filed seven years ago, yet coincidentally had a copy of the final judgment with him to read. Lucky he happened to grab that on his way out of the office. What are the odds?
Don’t know where you find all this stuff, CJ, but that is indeed enlightening. One would think there would be a schematic to go along with it showing exact locations, etc. I also thought it strange that Cassidy had the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) document with him. This thing is a mess and got even messier last night.
Back in about 1997 Scruggs and Hammond did a study for the Park District for what it would cost to run the trail. According to Bonnie Noble at that time the study cost them $10,000. I asked her at that time for a copy of that study and she said I would get one. Well it never happened. Scruggs and Hammond have gone out of business since then. I don’t know if they just closed or were bought out. Recently I talked to Becky Swaggert of the Park District’s planning department and she said no study had been done previously but that one had been done in about 2005 and that if I would come by their office I could get a copy of it. I do know that Randolph and Associates was involved in a study for the Park District for the trail. I don’t know if this is the same study that Becky was talking about but I intend to get a copy of it. Since I’ve been an Information Resource Manager for a large architectural/planning company I find the quotes that they made for the trail/rail side by side definitely out of whack. Also they charged to the rail a lot of things that have to be done regardless of whether its rail and trail or just trail. Like I said the figures are way out of whack. They recently put out a new list of costs and its just as out of whack as the rest. Supposedly according to Alexis Khazzam there is going to be a stop light at Knoxville so they won’t need a bridge there. Can’t you just see all the busy traffic on Knoxville waiting for another light that only serves the “trail”? It seems to me several people from the RTA, etc., have been complaining about trains holding up traffic on Knoxville. But its okay for the hikers/bikers to do it. What’s wrong with this picture?
I think that I read somewhere that Tim Cassidy represented the RTA in some legal proceedings, is that correct?
If yes, would that be a conflict of interest?
If the park district is bound by the constraints of their grants, why don’t they go back to the granting body and ask for an amendment to the grant to allow the side by side? It can be done and has been done by other projects. Either that or simply look for other grants that do allow side by side. What is so hard about this? They have been so ridgid and confining in their thinking that they are stuck in a rut. Think outside the box and make it work. Also, read today’s paper about the girl assaulted by a gunman. It was done on the tracks where they want to run a trail. So much for safety. Is this what we have to look forward to when the trail is there?
This is a snarly mess, with few people willing to agree on what should be done with the rail. I like the trolley and the trail together, but I am biased towards the more pedestrian-friendly modes of transport. I am afraid that what will come of this is another compromise that no one is happy with. It would be terrible if this project just becomes another monument to mediocrity.
Samantha, I think that this “trail” would be mediocre, at best, if it’s put in. It “meanders” through industrial and business areas; has great sight-seeing opportunities of looking into people’s backyards. There is NOTHING to draw one to this “trail,” other than to be able to ride your bike fast, until you get to one of the many busy streets that the “trail” will cross.
A “trail” to me consists of having something natural and attractive to look at. Whether that be along a river, or through the woods, anything BUT someone’s backyard. If that’s what people want to look at on their “hike,” then all they have to do is “hike” down a side street in Peoria or Peoria Heights, where rarely is traffic plentiful.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. We already have plenty of “trails” like the one proposed for the Kellar Branch. And, they’re called “streets.”
Karrie,
“I think that I read somewhere that Tim Cassidy represented the RTA in some legal proceedings, is that correct? If yes, would that be a conflict of interest?”
Legally, not necessarily; you can get conflict waivers from involved parties. (And I can think of plenty of situations where a lawyer could reasonably find himself on both sides of an issue or involved with different parties on the same side of an issue without compromising his ethics or ability to be an effective advocate. Not concurrent cases, of course, but subsequent cases.)
Morally or practically, it might be a different story; something that is legally not a conflict of interest might be morally icky or practically complicated. And in terms of appearance, something that is entirely innocent and has no conflict whatsoever could still LOOK bad to the public.
(I don’t understand the specifics of the rail/trail situation so I can’t give a more specific answer than that because I can’t even keep track of which groups are on which sides.)
Sharon Deckard sez: “Also, read today’s paper about the girl assaulted by a gunman. It was done on the tracks where they want to run a trail. So much for safety. Is this what we have to look forward to when the trail is there?”
I was waiting for one of the rabid discourses to use this tragedy as support for their side. I just thought a trail proponent would use it first. Bravo, Sharon.
I don’t know if this section of rail is slated for the trail or not, but one might reasonably presume that the activity on a trail (random, frequent, variable) might make it safer than a rarely-used rail. A rabid trail-proponent might even argue that the noise of the trains can drown out the scream of a victim. (A similarly ludicrous statement.) I’m not making this as a pro-trail argument (I’m more pro-rail, actually), just poking a hole in your argument. You guys are fun to listen to, though.
well lets see, if you have a freight train and a trolley with passengers looking out the window, most of which have a cell phone and and engineer in the freight train with a cell phone, that pretty much negates the theory that the screams of the victims will be drowned out, when all of these people will be witnesses as to what is going on and calling 911 at the same time. Plus they will get to see where the bad guy is headed for and report that also. And either the train or the trolley can stop and assist since none of them will be going that fast. Its far safer for the trolley and train to be running along side the track than no one at all. And another thing I have never in my 65 years heard of a train falling over on its side on top of hikers or bikers. It would take one heck of a crash for a train to fall over sideways. Their center of gravity is too low and it just doesn’t happen. Far more likely that a car is going to run a red light and hit a hiker/biker than a train or trolley fall on them.
And while I’m on a roll one of the trail proponents objections to trains is that they will create traffic jams at crossings. Well won’t that new stop light that is going in a Junction City create a traffic jam when it starts stopping traffic so one or two hikers/bikers can cross Knoxvville? Lets say five cars in each lane that’s 20 cars stopped so one or two hikers/bikers can cross Knoxville. With the trolley there would be 45 passengers crossing there or a 5 or 6 car freight train.
Thanks for ignoring my point. I was pointing out that you were the first to stupidly use this particular tragedy as weak evidence for your side in the rail vs. trail debate. Of all the rail proponents, you are by far one of the more dense. I don’t think either the rail or trail is inherrently safer than the other. Your using this very terrible thing to prop up your side is sensationalist. Stick to your better arguments.
After having lived along the Kellar Branch for 2 years while more than just Carver was getting shipments, I can’t ever recall more than 2 box cars at once going by and I worked out of my house with a window that looked out over the track.