City Manager Randy Oliver updated city council members this week on plans to form a committee to look at the feasibility of building a trail alongside the Kellar Branch rail line:
Representatives of the City, Park District, Peoria Heights, and TriCounty Regional Planning met with Central Illinois Rail and Pioneer Rail in separate meetings as requested by the Mayor and Council. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possibility of side-by-side rail and trail for the Kellar Branch. The result of these meetings is a recommendation that a task force be formed by the Village of Peoria Heights and the City of Peoria, with each community nominating three members, to determine by April 1, 2008, whether side-by-side rail and trail is feasible or not. The feasibility is intended to consider both engineering feasibility and financial feasibility. The Committee has suggested that three members each be appointed by the Mayor of Peoria and Peoria Heights. The meetings will be noticed and opened to the public. It is proposed that the Committee draw up the railroads, the Park District, City staff and outside technical resources if necessary to make a recommendation to the two cities.
Journal Star city beat reporter John Sharp has been following up on this story and found out some interesting info:
- The City hasn’t chosen their representatives yet. “Oliver said the Peoria City Council could decide by its Jan. 8 meeting if this is the direction the city wants to go and, if so, who should serve on the committee.”
- Peoria Heights has. “Peoria Heights Mayor Mark Allen said he plans to have his Village Board vote on his three recommendations by Jan. 2. Allen said he will recommend Peoria Heights residents Vern Kimberlin and Sherryl Carter serve on the committee along with Junction City owner Alexis Khazzam.”
- It’s estimated to take “about $10,000” for the committee “to be able to go out and get their technical questions answered by someone this committee feels is unbiased.”
- Hopefully, if everyone agrees, the cost will be distributed among the entities on the committee. “The city of Peoria plans to contribute $2,500, and various other parties – including Peoria Heights [and Pioneer Railcorp] – will also be asked to contribute.”
One of the proposed Peoria Heights participants, Alexis Khazzam, was interviewed recently on WEEK-TV. He feels the city should take a “tougher stance” and should charge the rail carriers rent to use the line. His strategy is, “By charging the rail companies rent, it’ll make them say, ‘if we only make $50,000 operating or serving the customer that exists on it, it might not be worth it for us to pay $180,000 for rent a year,’ or it might spur them to say, ‘okay, we know what we need to pay; we need to increase revenue.’ At least it’ll be out of the city’s hands and in the trail advocates’ hands and the rail advocates’ hands and let that be a fair fight.”
First of all, the underlying assumption here is that keeping the line open for one customer is not justified. Unfortunately for trail advocates, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) ruled just the opposite — keeping the line open for even one customer is justified in this case. Thus, any effort by the Cities, as rail owners, to force closure by charging excessive rent will similarly be struck down by the STB.
Secondly, as was stated in the WEEK report, Pioneer maintains that its contract with the City is still in force, and the City claims that it expired under its own terms in 2004. That contract called for the city to charge the rail carrier $1 per year in rent to operate the line. The city also has a signed land use agreement with the Park District that charges them the same amount — $1 per year — to rent the land if it’s able to be used for a recreational trail.
I would consider this rail/trail committee to be the first real progress we’ve seen in over a decade on the Kellar Branch controversy. Hopefully the committee will come up with a solution that works for all parties involved.
I was at one of these meetings. The cost of the consultant the city offered was $12,000 not $10,000. Pioneer Industrial Rail brought forth a consulting firm that has a 100% success rate in this type of engineering and feasibility studies. They also help to find the grants and funding for the trail beside the rail. But the group has not decided whether to go with them or not. This consultant would cost between $15K and $25K, but they would also find the funding. It is going to be interesting to see who the city appoints to the committee. At this point in time the railroads do not have to work with the trail people at all, but they are being gracious and offering to assist in rails with trails. This needs to be taken into consideration and taken with the generosity with which it is being offered. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. IMHO they should go with the consulting firm that has the 100% success rate and take advantage of all their knowledge if they really want rails with trails. Because it is NEVER going to be trails without rails. That decision is done and over with.
At the meeting I was at Mayor Allen asked if Pioneer could run its trains at night so that the hikers and bikers could have the area for day time travel? Now if memory serves me right that was one of the big complaints about the railroad was that they would be running all hours of the night and blowing their horns and waking everybody up. Now the Mayor wants them to run at night. You can’t have it both ways.
SD, I’m not one to call someone “mixed up,” but I never asked such a thing at any meeting. I recall it being asked by someone, but it’s nothing that I would have considered, knowing that if the trains actually find business, you cannot call their schedules based on what hour it is. This is nothing I would have thought about, let alone asked. I appreciate your being at the meeting, however, whichever meeting it was.
Oen of the [many] false assertions made by trail proponents on flyers handed out at Northwoods Mall in 1999 was that closure of the railroad would mean no more night trains. Of course, by then, Pioneer Industrial Railway was operating the line and ran only during the day.
I too have been at a number of meetings in the past year concerning the Kellar Branch including at the Peoria Heights Village Hall where it seemed to be quite a concern that the trains should not be running at night blowing their noisy horns at all hours. Now Mayor Allen I am going to “task” you to make a public notice that you want the trains to run at night, that it is your idea for them to run at night and you volunteer to take all the heat from your citizens over the noisy smelly icky tipsy trains running at night. Mayor Allen don’t be a political hack either put up or shut up!
I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say this book isn’t on your Amazon wish list. 😛
Mayor Allen if I misspoke I apologize. But I was sitting where I could see you clearly and I believe you asked that question in last Tuesday’s meeting at the PPD. However, I’ve been known to make mistakes before and will let it lie with my apology if I misquoted you.
Ed, I’m not a big fan of being “called out,” particularly when it’s over an issue that I was not even involved with. I believe I know who asked about the trains not running at night, but I’m not certain, so I won’t throw that name out. I did not even nod my head at that notion, one way or the other. I don’t know what meetings you’ve been at, Ed, but I’ve been at quite a few as of late. The recent meeting that I believe was with Pioneer Railway, that was where it was brought up for the first time in all of the meetings I’ve been to.
And, SD, I have absolutely no idea how you could have thought that it was me asking that question. Like I said, the question would not have even occurred to me. If I had asked it, I would not run away from that fact, so I’m really confused how you could have “seen” me ask it. I can state on a large pile of Bibles that it was not me who asked that question.
If the STB stays with its rulings, it would appear to me that we have no control over what times the trains will roll. I’m clear-headed enough to understand that, so asking a question about their not running at night would never have popped into my cranium. The person who I believe asked that question was sitting a good distance away from me, so I don’t know how this mistake happened, SD.
And, Ed, just because I did not ask the question, why should I come out and say I’m all in favor of the trains running at night? I don’t quite follow that logic. I’m not in favor of the trains running through the Heights at night or daytime at this point, but I’m a realist enough to know that so long as the STB stands where it’s at; and that we have to follow the STB decision(s) for now; that whether they run at night or not does not appear to be within our realm of influence.
That may not be what you want to “hear,” but it’s why I would never have asked if they could be kept from running at night.
Oh, and Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone.
Alexis Khazzam has no business on this committee, his mind is made up. I’d like to know what the other two appointees know about rails or rails-with-trials? I venture nothing. This committee is being stacked to guarantee failure so the City and Village can go forward with wasting more tax dollars on this lunatic project.
Mouse, you’re way off base on your comments. The committee is an advisory committee. We want people on the committee who want the trail, as they will be open to any possibility of the rail and trail being together. That’s all this is. There is nothing to be stacked here, as the committee will not be in charge of anything other than being advisory in nature.
In the end, we are trying to work off of the STB decisions. That’s all. I believe it will be difficult, if not impossible, to run the two in an acceptable matter, but I’m not an engineer. We want fresh eyes involved in looking at the potential of both in conjunction and in reviewing the results. The committee then can come to the Board of Trustees with what they feel about the potential configuration, based on being citizens, and also caring about what the end result might be in terms of safety, ambience, and cost.
Alexis Khazzam is a bright and articulate guy. If the findings are positive for a rail/trail combination, he will recognize it and advise the same. The fact that he is in favor of the trail is a positive, as far as I’m concerned. That means he will want the trail and the rail to run together IF they possibly can be done in a positive manner.
Don’t jump to conclusions on this. I’m doing my best to keep an open mind on the process, and I hope everyone else will, as well.
Vern Kimberlin has appeared at Peoria Heights Village Board meetings and is a trail proponent. Sherryl Carter is treasurer of the Peoria Heights Boosters Club, and I’m pretty sure, pro-trail. Alexis Khazzam is also a well known trail proponent.
If Peoria also appoints trail proponents to the committee it appears that the only conclusion come April 1 is that joint use is too expensive.
But that will only mean “no trail.”
David, read my previous posting. If joint use is too expensive, don’t you think anyone, pro-rail or pro-trail, will come to the same conclusion? If it cannot be funded, then everyone will recognize that fact. All of this time, so many of the pro-rail people have said that Mike Friberg and the PPD were way off base on the possible costs to do a joint usership. Now, when we’re ready to go ahead and have an outside source look at the same situation, it’s like paranoid city.
I’ve read so many times from the pro-rail people that there is nothing that can be done to make the pro-trail people happy, other than ripping up the rails. I’m starting to think that the only thing that will make the pro-rail people happy is to make certain that no trail of any type appears. Prove me wrong, will you?
We’re stepping up to have an outside source look at the situation. It’s Christmas, you know. This is no time to start being Negative Ned on us.
This will be my last posting on the subject. However, if anyone has any questions, please call me at 686-2385. I always return my phone calls, so please leave a message if I’m not in.
Again, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone out there. I enjoy reading the blogs, positive or negative.
Well I for one am not anti-trail. And when Pioneer came up with a company that has a 100% success rate in putting trails and rails beside one another and is even willing to help get the grants to cover the costs. I think that is a pretty positive rails with trails attitude. Yes its going to be expensive, but this consulting company is in the business of helping to find the funding for their results and the implementation of the whole process. How much more pro-trail can we rail people get than to bring you a total solution to the whole problem and the money to make it work?
Mayor Allen, if a trail is built alongside the track then I have no problem with a trail, but some trail proponents are still adamant about removing the track. Alexis Khazzam is one of them, however, If he and the others can accept joint-use, then they may make progress toward an acceptable solution to all parties.
No, Mr. Mayor, I am not off base. If you were serious you would have appointed someone who knows something about rail. As for that line, “If it cannot be funded, then everyone will recognize that fact.” Tell me another whopper! Whether it “can work” to the pro-trail crowd (which, no disrespect intended, includes you) depends on what this committee and its consultant says, and consultants generally say what they are told to say by those who pay them (call me cynical, but it’s true). IF you have a totally pro-trail committee, that knows nothing about rail, with someone like Khazzam (pushy, closed-minded, etc), well, I’m not stupid, I can see where that train is headed. Pardon the pun and Merry Christmas.
Why are they not looking into the consultants that PIRY came up with that have a 100% success rate and even help with the grant funding to complete the project? This seems like a no brainer. They even offered to come and meet with the committee to see if they could do this to everyone’s satisfaction.
SD — You said earlier that “the group has not decided whether to go with [the consultants] or not.” Now you ask, “Why are they not looking into the consultants…?” So, I’m confused. Have they rejected these consultants, or have they not made a decision yet? If a new committee is being formed, perhaps the delay is because they want the new committee to make the decision regarding which consultants to hire. The City hasn’t chosen its representatives yet, and neither government (city, village) has approved any appointments yet.
I think there’s merit in lobbying for the inclusion of pro-rail folks on the committee, but I think it may be a bit premature to be judging the committee’s presumed conclusions before the committee is even formed.
Mayor Allen: Kudos to you, sir, for participating in the debate here. Every politician I talk to says they read the blogs, but almost none of them join in.
Doesn’t Mr. Khazzam have a financial interest in seeing the rails go away? It’s just my opinion but I believe he does.
I have always found Mark Allen to be accessible and willing to discuss issues and problems openly.
As for the task force it was brought up to deal with the consultants in finding a reasonable route to run the trail along side the rail. Two consulting firms were suggested. One from PIRY and one from the city of Peoria. It is my understanding that they picked the one the city suggested thus the $12,000 cost that they asked those interested parties to contribute too. As for the deck being stacked we will have to see. It will be in their best interest to cooperate or there will be no trail. STB is not going to reverse their decision I have it from the horses’ mouth. So if the committee doesn’t work well in this endeavor there will be no trail and it will be a lost opportunity to the community.
Guys,
I wanted to say a few words to clarify my position. First of all, I appreciate greatly the opportunity to serve on the committee for Peoria Heights. It makes sense to include people whom are directly affected by the outcome of a particular issue in the process that helps discover information partaining to that issue. I have said it before, and will say it again, We have to do what is in the best interest of the Village of Peoria Heights and the City of Peoria. The job of each municipality is to utilize public resources to their highest and best use, and to maximize the quality of life of its residents.
Utilizing the land owned by each of these municipalities for a trail is, in my opinion, the highest and best use of that resource. Though this is my opinion, I want to discover the truth about the feasibility of a dual use. The committee members will administer the process, but the outcome will be based on varifiable numbers. These numbers will be generated by unit costs to engineer and construct the dual use option. I nor any other committee member will produce these unit costs. Once and for all, this part of the debate should be put to rest and I am prepared to embrace the results whatever they are.
While the STB holds a great amount of power over this land, the municipalities are not powerless. The STB has maintained in other cities that 10-12% of the value of the land per year is an appropriate rent. That is what should occur in this case. Our attorneys are reviewing the previous contracts with PIRY to make outside determination with regard to the status of those contracts.
The point is to clarify all the issues at hand, so that informed decisions can finally be made. We are prepared to assist in every way possible to minimize the impact on resources of Peoria and Peoria Heights. This is complex though not impossible to resolve.
Like everything I do here, my goal with the Junction City project is to enhance the character of the area while providing recognizable economic benefit. I will continue my work toward that end of which the trail issue is an integral part.
Maybe the Park District should pay an equivalent amount of rent if the tracks are ripped out? Why should they get free use of the land?
Besides, the Peoria Park District has a tough time maintaining what they already have.
Alexis: I do not know you and do not mean any offense, just seeking to understand your statement.
Your statement — “It makes sense to include people whom are directly affected by the outcome of a particular issue in the process that helps discover information partaining to that issue.”
As taxpayers and citizens we are all directly affected by the outcome of a particular issue — granted in this case, you are a larger land stakeholder, but my $.29 is just as important as your money.
Your statement seems to reflect the overall challenge/problem with Peoria (speaking of only what I am familiar with at present) and its poltics and long term plans. Those in positions of power, control, money — ie those at the top of the socio-economic foodchain have taken a ‘we know best’ attitude for decades before my arrival. Since I have been here, over the past fourteen years, there has been little if any abatement in this scarcity/we control/we know best mentality. This distinct refusal to bring a collaborative group of stakeholders from the various strata levels of our community has resulted in significant decay and deterioration of our fair city, teetering on the edge of a black hole.
I know that I have written about (ad nauseum for some community members) Stephen Covey and his free mentoring offer in 1994 to mentor Peoria and its citizens if they would only develop a mission statment which came from the bowels of our community. Ah yes, a perhaps messy and frightening prospect for those persons at the top of the foodchain — but the way to turn around and get the momentum of our most valuable community resource — citizens of all ages to take a committed interest in their community.
So, from the outside — it looks like the same old — same old.
And Mayor Allen — I do not know you. If I were a citizen of Peoria Heights and I were in favor of the rail option, I would feel that you have not accurately represented my interest on the advisory committee because it is all trail proponent appointees. I realize that the decision has been made to support the trail option — yet with this new analysis, the committee is weighted to be protrail — and our community at large does not have a great track record of being inclusive. I have seem to be projects and pro formas with ‘juiced’ numbers and no one of backbone to question the analysis. Just my opinion.
Karrie, I do not know you, but your stance that a “rail” person should be included on the committee would make perfect sense if the committee was set up to “choose” between rail or trail. The committee is not doing such a thing. We do not have the power to make that choice and have it “stick.” Regardless, I want people on the committee whose judgments we can trust. The whole point of this committee is to review and address the feasibility of there being a trail AND a rail at the same time. Nothing more, nothing less.
It’s extremely important that professed “trail people” be the majority of the mix. If the combination can be done, the trail still has to be safe and configured in a way that will likely attract people to it. Who better to address these concerns than professed “trail people”? Like I said earlier, we are just trying to work within the decisions already handed down by the STB. I’ve walked the rail line several times. I know that many who truly believe that a trail and a rail can coexist comfortably have NOT walked the rail. We’re to this point because many people who believe the trail and the rail can comfortably coexist, and who have not walked the rail, will not accept the findings of any employee of the Park District, or anyone who has come out publicly in favor the trail. And yet, when we take that next step to get a third party engineering firm to look at the situation, now there are severe questions from “rail people” that “trail people” cannot assess the situation with an open mind.
Who is more likely to WANT a trail with a rail, if it somehow can be done? A pro-rail person? Or a trail person? Don’t you think, even for a moment, that if this is possible, the trail folks won’t jump at the chance? What has pushed us this far is that, I believe, the liklihood of such a trail/rail combination of any positive worth, is virtually nil. Again, that is because I have walked the rail. I’ve seen what the huge problems are, particularly in the Heights, between Prospect and War Memorial.
Yet, Karrie, here I am, saying “yeah, if we can agree to a third party to look at the situation, then why not?” What have we got to lose? Maybe, just MAYBE, there is a configuration that no one has thought of, that could possibly WORK. Believe me, if the cost comes out at $50 million (don’t laugh, I believe that the PPD estimate MIGHT be low); or that the trail would zig-zag all over the map, with about 10% of it actually on a trail, and the rest on city and village streets; then, I don’t think it will make a difference if we have George Burrier or Mike Carr on the committee- the answer will seem rather obvious.
If the cost estimate comes out a good deal less than that, and if the proposed configuration presents a decent trail concept, then I really believe that most of the trail folks will be positive about it. I know I would be. I just want to make certain that the citizens on OUR committe are capable of seeing the situation from ALL sides- not just trail, and not just rail. I want to be able to trust their opinions. I feel very secure with the three names I’ve publicly put out there, and I believe that the Board of Trustees will concur.
I apologize for breaking my statement that my last posting would be my final one. I also apologize for being so long-winded in this response. Typical politician, right? Just be glad you’re not on the phone with me! (Just ask C.J. to verify that)- Hey- Happy New Year, everyone!
Karrie makes some good points. As I undestand it, the task force will be charged with overseeing a fesiblity study on a side-by-side rail and trail. From all the articles and comments over quite a long time period on this subject, it seems that many trail advocates want to see the rail go away. On the other hand, it seems most rail advocates are not anti-trail. So there is a lack of balance in that respect, making it even more important that rail advocates be represented on the task force. Ideally, however, the task force should consist of people with a keen interest in the subject and in the overall welfare of our community, who are open-minded and balanced in their views about trails and rail service, who do not have a significant personal financial stake in the outcome, and who otherwise represent a cross-section of the community. In that way, the community will have more faith and confidence in the study and the task force conclusions and recommendations. While the consultant’s findings will be what they will be, the task force will undoubtedly have a great deal of interpretation and characterization they will apply to the consultant report. Few things are black and white.
Can anyone of you recognize an “appearance of impropriety” or “apparent conflict of interest” in this matter? This committee is off to a flying start of being ignored because they have a financial interest in the outcome-start it over and get some independent people involved; no offense intended to the good people already named. good luck!!
In Missouri there is going to be built a 46 mile extension to the KATY Trail, the longest hiking and biking trail in the country already over 200 miles long. This extension will be built next to existing railroad tracks which are owned by AMEREN. It will be built for $18 million. An article appeared yesterday in the Kansas City Star written by the Missouri Governor Matt Blunt as follows: <Expansion of Katy Trail helps compensate for loss
By MATT BLUNT
Something positive can sometimes come from tragedy. Such is the case of the opportunity to connect the Katy Trail into the Kansas City area.
As a part of the settlement over the collapse of the Ameren Taum Sauk reservoir that caused significant environmental damages, including damage to Johnson’s Shut-Ins State Park, my office and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources have negotiated a settlement with Ameren that provides the department with the license needed to expand the Katy Trail alongside the old Rock Island Railroad corridor from Windsor to Pleasant Hill.
The new trail will cross the current Katy Trail State Park at Windsor, connecting it from St. Louis to Kansas City.
Connecting the Katy Trail to the Kansas City area has been one of my longtime priorities for Missouri.
On the east side of the state, the Katy Trail extends to St. Charles, and we are planning further extensions with the goal of connecting the Katy Trail to trails that will eventually reach our border with Illinois. Now, with this new opportunity to connect Katy Trail to Pleasant Hill, it opens many doors to connect the trail to our border with Kansas.
Having a trail crossing the entire state and connecting the two major metropolitan centers will boost recreation opportunities, tourism and Missouri’s economy.
An estimated 350,000 people use the Katy Trail each year. Additionally, parks and sites greatly benefit the economy of our local communities. For example, the Katy Trail has made a huge difference to communities like Rocheport, Hartsburg and Marthasville, giving these towns new economic life with businesses being developed specifically for trail users.
As part of the Ameren Taum Sauk settlement, the Department of Natural Resources will build the trail alongside the Rock Island Railroad.
In addition to the right-of-way alongside the railroad, the agreement includes $18 million from Ameren to construct the trail. We are confident that the trail can be built for this amount, providing a high-quality trail corridor to take hikers and bicyclists from many points across the state into the Kansas City area.
Some have questioned why money from the settlement is being spent on a trail in the western side of the state instead of the area around Johnson’s Shut-Ins State Park. The majority of the funds in the agreement are being spent in the local area. This includes $52 million to restore and rebuild the park plus $68 million that will be spent in the local community. This is in addition to the $5 million required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The agreement also includes the reconstruction of the reservoir, which will provide immediate and long-term economic benefits to the area.
It is appropriate that new recreational opportunities to compensate the citizens of Missouri be developed throughout the state.
Even when Johnson’s Shut-Ins State Park is rebuilt, it is impossible to fully restore the character and value of this outstanding park.
Connecting the Katy Trail to the Kansas City area and developing a new state park on the Current River are excellent ways the citizens of Missouri can be compensated for the tremendous loss of natural resources caused by the Ameren Taum Sauk reservoir collapse.
Matt Blunt is governor of Missouri.< I would suggest to the Kellar Branch committee to contact the folks in Missouri (KATY Trail and the State)as to how they are proceeding to build this trail; they certainly have more experience than we do in Peoria constructing hiking/biking trails. Please use all the resources that you can to make this work.
Mayor Allen: Thank you for your remarks — I guess I am confused because I understood the PH’s three appointees are all pro-trail. It just gives the impression that the deck is stacked. I agree with RomanII that there appears to be a conflict of interest, that the deck is stacked.
And your comment, although probably harmless, “Regardless, I want people on the committee whose judgments we can trust.” — just fans the fire that rail proponents are not trustworthy, reasonable ….
I have also heard that Warren Buffet is investing in railroad stocks — not sure if that is factual or rumor. If it is factual that would indeed be food for thought about the importance of rail lines in any community.
Karrie, I don’t question the need for rail service. However, there are plenty of tracks out there, outside of the Kellar Branch, for deliveries and rail companies to make lots of money on. I question the need for a rail along the Kellar Branch, that’s all. And, certainly my intent was not to disparge the good rail people; my inference was that I have full trust in the three people I’m recommending for the committee. There is no conflict of interest here. I can’t stress this enough. This is NOT a committee to decide between rail OR trail. It’s a committee to see if it is at all plausible to have both of them along the same line.
It will boil down to cost; attractiveness and acceptability of the proposed trail with the rail (assuming it can truly be done even borderline properly). I don’t doubt that Warren Buffet could be investing in rail services of one kind or another. I just sort of doubt that he would be investing in either Pioneer or CIRY due to the STB decisions regarding the Kellar Branch. If anyone obtains information that he is, let me know.
AK is on record as opposing the rail along Junction City, and he didn’t qualify that opposition by accepatance of a combined rail/trail. That’s an inappropriate conflict of interest, plain and simple. (Unless he has changed his stance).
Mayor Allen: I will just have to agree to disagree with you — RomanII and SA have clearly stated the conflict of interest with Alexis’s position of rip out the trail for my project. From my experience I just find it very challenging to see objectivity in light of large financial investment by a committee participant. I hope to met you in person one day! 🙂
Karrie and SA: Heck, I’m on record for saying that I don’t believe the trail and the rail can be run together to where the trail will be acceptable. Alexis Khazzam, as far as I know, has stated the same. That does NOT mean that either one of us will put up a barrier if we’re proven wrong. Alexis is not anti-rail just to be anti-rail. He is pro trail, as he believes that will be best for his business. I’m pro-trail because I believe it will be best for Peoria Heights. Alexis has never led me or anyone else that I’m aware of to think that he just wants the rails out, period. I don’t want to speak for him, but I have never read such a position for him. He wants the trail. He is willing to look at any engineering finding that will adress joint use. If the finding shows that it can be done in a positive vein (somehow!), NO ONE on the committee, or on the Village Board, will say “no” just because.
I know that we have to agree to disagree, but I truly believe you’re all reading way too much into Alexis Khazzam’s feelings regarding the trail vs. the rail. Once more, we simply want that third set of eyes to look at the situation. Am I skeptical? Of course I am. But, you know, if it can be done, at a decent price, and to where the trail still is a good one, there is nothing I would love more than to be proven wrong. If approved by the Board of Trustees, I have complete faith in the interpretations and explanations that Alexis Khazzam, Vern Kimberlin, and Sherryl Carter will have.
Karrie, you are dead on. This is more of the same. This has been a closed community for a long time. Our “betters” don’t want others’ opinions, plain and simple. When this town falls down around them they will still think only they have the answers. And it’s such a shame. This community has so many good and talented people. CJ knows a lot more about this issue, and is way more objective than the trail nuts. He could have been appointed to this committee. Oh, no, we can’t do that, he thinks for himself. Sorry. Can’t allow any of that. Mayor Allen could have said he trusts these people because their minds are made up.
Mayor Allen , you say you want a “third set of eyes to look at the situation”. Alexis Khazzam’s eyes have been looking at this situation for at least a year. His eyes are part of the first set or the second set of eyes that have looked at this situation. Everyone already knows his opinion; he is on television at the drop of a hat. So Mayor Allen, you you obviously have not a clue as to what you are saying in relation to what Mr. Khazzam is doing and saying or you think we are as stupid as you souund; therefore Mayor Allen I say to you WHO ARE YOU CRAPPING!!!!!
Mouse, with all due respect, you don’t know me. Your accusations are really based on nothing but your prejudices against anyone who apparently disagrees with you. I’ve explained till my fingertips are blue about what this committee is supposed to do, but your mind is made up that “someone is out to screw you,” and, shoot, I guess it might as well be me, right?
There are those people that truly cannot be reasoned with. Mouse, it appears that you’re one of them. You say that the people I will nominate for the committee have their minds “made up.” You’re wrong. Why are you wrong? Because there has been no report YET from a third party regarding joint use. My mind is not “made up.” If it was “made up,” why would we be putting out money towards the study? No, no, don’t answer that. I’m sure you’ll have something sinister and questionable on my part as to why I’m taking this to the Board of Trustees.
By the way, C.J. does not live in the Heights, or I quite possibly would have nominated him. Sharon Deckard, as well. Mouse, I’d love to meet you at some lunch place some day, so that you could see for yourself that I hardly am the type who thinks he’s “better” than ANYONE else, in any endeavor. But, when it comes to a “closed mind,” I’m seeing that quite a bit in the comments you’re making. Give me a call, though, sometime. Seriously. I’ll treat you at Jim’s Bistro or some place like that. My phone number is 686-2385, and you can bring any other pro-rail person you want to along. I may not change your mind, and you may not change mine right now, but I hope you will at least understand that I’m not trying to “slide” anything by anybody. If I was, it would be very simple to just say, “Hey. I’ve walked the line. It can’t be done. Next.”
Ed, I’m beginning to understand NOW why most folks in elected office don’t respond on the internet! Once more, I’ve typed till I’m blue in my fingertips to try to explain what this committee is to be set up for, but there does not appear to be anything I can do short of buying my own locomotive to make you and Mouse understand.
Better yet, why don’t you call me for lunch, too? You and Mouse can join me at Jim’s, my treat, and maybe I can at least get you to understand that I’m not trying to “crap” anyone. I got really tired of the whole “crap” scene after two kids many years ago!
Also, the “third set of eyes” are not meant to be Alexis Khazzam’s, or anyone else’s on the committee. I meant that the “third set of eyes” will be the engineering firm that is hired. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.
I’ve read nothing here that changes my concerns about Peoria Heights picking three known tear-up-the-track-build-the-trail-now types to serve on this committee. It is now left to Peoria mayor Jim Ardis to make appointments which will bring balance to the committee.
The purpose of having members from both sides is to keep the committee honest. Trail supporters are inclined to conclude that side-by-side is too costly, which will revive efforts to change the law (which is a vain waste of taxpayer $$$$$) and/or enforce excessive annual lease payments from the railroads.
We rail supporters understand that side-by-side may not be possible along the entire stretch, but believe the trail can be rerouted along sidewalks (as has been done at Pioneer Park) or low-traffic roads. At least we are in favor of having both.
What is driving the anti-rail slant is local developer’s narrow-minded and uninformed view that their developments’ success is contingent upon the removal of the track.
Commercial development can proceed at Peoria Heights or Junction city with a track in place. Recall that in the Heights alone, three new developments have occurred adjacent to the track since 2000 – CVS Pharmacy, Williams Brothers Construction’s offices and the new library.
A mix of railroad, industrial, commercial, residential and retail development is common in major cities and there’s no reason Peoria and Peoria Heights developers should think any deifferently. We have Peoria’s riverfront as a local example where the RiverPlex, PMP Fermentation, 401 Water St., several restaurants and Caterpillar HQ comingle with no concern about the several trains which pass by.
whew!! you guys know how to beat a dead dog!!
My final statement will be once again……..I am pro trail as my 1st choice for Peoria and of course our development, as it should be the City’s interest as well due to the tax dollars we will generate for them and district 150. The city stands to gain the most economic benefit (by far) with a trail in place and the pending economic development that will occur from various corps if a trail is approved.
If there is no trail, then im pro rail, as long as the City can BENEFIT from ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT from its use. Everyone has to understand that the way things stand now, is detremental to the city, as it is not generating any revenue from its land, nor out of any future potential users (rail or trail).
My eyes on the commitee will be only in assessment of what is best for the Heights, as that is the committee I have been appointed to, as well as study the feasability of a trail-rail and talking to engineering-consulting firms that can give a proper and final feasability study and cost assessment. That is teh purpose of teh committee, and the only 1.
I also want to congratulate Mayor Allen on a great firm stance on this topic, and being the catalyst to provoke a final decision on this ever lasting topic. You guys have done a great job of roping him into this discussion, but leave the Mayor alone, he is just trying to make the Heights some money to improve the neighbourhood and its own developments!!
In reality, there are very few people that have much knowledge about this issue, as is illustrated by various comments that are completely inaccurate or without relevance to the topic at hand. We have been fortunate enough to see the contracts held with the railroads, talk to consultants, city council members, and various issue historians, and 1 thing is for certain, now is the time that this issue can come to an end, TRAIL OR RAIL.
I am also in on lunch at Jim’s with Mayor Allen and anyone who wants to join and discuss this issue live. I think it would be fun.
AK
Jim’s Bistro is co-owned by a runner and no doubt trail advocate. It would be more appropo to do it at the River Station- 🙂
Make that “apropos”
I wonder how new retail, commercial and residential development will actually increase revenue for city and village coffers? Without a growing population, there will be a shift, at best, as to where one lives, shops or dines (if not at home), and a minimal increase, if at all, in sales tax revenue. There’s a reason why K’s Merchandise and all three area ShopKo stores closed.
Most residential development on the city’s north and northwest side is due to a number of factors, namely, a good public school system (Dunlap), close proximity to work (Caterpillar’s increase of white collar positions at its Mossville plant, etc.) and the need for more space (growing family, etc.), and has little or nothing to do with the proximity to the Rock Island Trail.
“1 thing is for certain, now is the time that this issue can come to an end, TRAIL OR RAIL.”
Unfortunately this is the quote from AK’s recent post. This is inaccurate. It is not a Trail or Rail issue. The rail staying issue has been decided by STB and that will not change. What is now in question is the fact that the rail is offering to assist in allowing the trail to be built alongside the rail. This is a hand held out by the railroads and should be accepted as such. The committee is formed to decide if that can be done and at what cost. Trail or rail is NOT the issue any longer.
SD: Yes, Ak’s recent post is disturbing — Trail or rail.
AK’s quote:
In reality, there are very few people that have much knowledge about this issue, as is illustrated by various comments that are completely inaccurate or without relevance to the topic at hand. We have been fortunate enough to see the contracts held with the railroads, talk to consultants, city council members, and various issue historians, and 1 thing is for certain, now is the time that this issue can come to an end, TRAIL OR RAIL.
It would appear that AK is much smarter than anyone else and continues the “I/we know best” mentality that I have previously referenced. He has all the intelligence, inside information and well money to make the decision for the rest of the taxpayer peons.
He will be completely impartial – not in the least influenced by his own business interests.
Sounds all too hauntingly familiar. Unfortunately for our community, more of the same old same old.
CJ thank you for allowing civil discourse on your blog.
What’s best for the community? Two scenarios.
1) Condo’s / apartments and an updated Junction City shopping center. Yes, this will generate a few bucks for D150 and some high school level jobs. These are SERVICE jobs, not head of household jobs. A new Super Target would bring more tax dollars (include property and sales) than Junction City.
2) A rail that will bring real “new jobs” to the community that can ONLY exist with a city owned line such as the branch can offer. This has not happened to date, because there has been too many issues surrounding the rail. Just like Mr. AK, no company is going to invest unless they know what the end result will be. We need new jobs, and the past 36 months have proven that rail will bring jobs. By this, I mean the extreme inflationary costs of fuel and resources. Rail is hot, and if Peoria has this dedicated rail, that companies can invest in, the jobs will follow.
Sharon is right in 1 thing, but its one that everyone knows about. Obviously this is a STB decision, and no-one elses. But the issue will never reach the STB for a final verdict unless the city of Peoria rids itself of involvement in this topic.
Its important to understand that the City and the Heights are losing valuable income by not charging these railroad companies rent. Would anyone allow their property to be used for free, when they could be collecting over 300k rent per year? And we all know the City and teh Heights need this money. Once a proper rent is established, it will allow the rail companies an opportunity to analyse/assess their business, and recruit new companies to service so they can cash flow OR, abandon their position if they cant.
I have stated that I am pro trail, and I am. Obviously I hope to have a trail built (as many advocates do). Regardless, my primary concern is for Peoria to prosper. Lending land for free is not a good method, and keeping the issue from being resolved is not a healthy one either. If we can achieve great growth, job creation, City revenue from a fantastic rail line, so be it. BUT AT LEAST LETS GET TO THAT POINT. Right now, we are not even close, and the sooner everyone realizes this the better. The appointed committees are only a vehicle to speed up the process for rail and or trail usage.
Currently, everyone is losing; The Developers and the Rail Companies. For now, I consider all of us on the same side , as both parties wish to be able get out of the quicksand. Once a final rent decision by the City is made, it will be a green light for the rail co’s to make a decision on what to do. If they cant make a business out of it, then the trail has a chance. If they can, then great!
I hope everyone can agree on 1 single critical point, which is that the City should be charging rent to the rail companies for use of its land. Once this is achieved, and this is in the interest of all advocates (rail,trail and Peoria prosperity), then we can put closure on his tissue and move on.
Hopefully, there can be some unity on all sides for now, then the different advocate groups can make a firm stance and support their beliefs at a later date, once we get past this hurdle. If everyone pushes together, through neighbourhood groups, writing council member letters, etc, we could have a City decision by as early as February. Then CJ can post another blog and both sides can really have it out.
Now is not that time. Everyone needs to be on the same side in order to then make arguments that CAN and WILL lead to results, not more arguments.
For all the people that have taken the time the time to write lengthy comments on this blog, write to the your council member and ask them when a rent decision is to be made, so this issue can be tabled and rail co’s can make a good healthy decision on their ability to develop a sustainable business.
AK
“Once a final rent decision by the City is made, it will be a green light for the rail co’s to make a decision on what to do. If they cant make a business out of it, then the trail has a chance. If they can, then great!”
As the blog entry notes the rate Peoria decides to charge will not necessarily be the final rate. If the railroads believe the Peoria’s rate is onerous then it’s back to the STB.
Also I’m concerned with this part: “If they cant make a business out of it, then the trail has a chance.” Perhaps it came out wrong but this indicates you do not believe a trail can coexist with rail. If you meant it as written this calls into question why you were appointed to a committee to study a joint rail/trail solution.
AK
“Currently, everyone is losing; The Developers and the Rail Companies.
I didn’t realize that the “developers and rail companies” is everyone. What about the citizens of Peoria Heights or Peoria?
As for rent on the rail lines: How much rent should the Park District pay for the trail?
AK,
If the railroads are to pay some $180,000/year “rent” (lease payments is more accurate) then the City of Peoria and Village of Peoria Heights will be financially responsible for road crossing work, which can be costly. In return for an economical lease payment (a SMALL percentage of revenue generated, not a fixed payment), the railroads will pay for and perform this function.
This is what Pioneer Railcorp did in 1998-2005 plus a $1/year lease. Perhaps if the City of Peoria cooperates with economic development initiatives, the railroads would be willing to pay more. Until then, they’ll wait it out until the STB is asked to mediate.
A small, annual lease payment is only fair as the effort to remove the track (some 16 of 23 years of municipal ownership) has stunted industrial development along the line. It’s ironic how the Cities go from trying to destroy the line to trying to make money from it. The railroads must restore the value of the line before they or the municipalities can benefit.
The Park District should be charged the same rate as is the PIRY and the CIRY for use of the land along the Kellar Branch. In other words if the rent to the PIRY and CIRY is lets say $2000 per year each then the Park District should pay $2000 per year rent for the trail build along the rails in the Kellar Branch right of way. Of course any rent that the railroads would pay will in final determination be made by the Surface Transportation Board and not by the collective geniuses in Peoria City Hall, the Peoria Heights Village Hall or in the tight little mind of Alexis Khazzam. I firmly believe that Mr. AK has no business being on this committee as we all know that his “third set of eyes” are tunnel-vision eyes and not at all visionary as is needed to build a trail beside the rail. His viewpoint, sadly for true trail proponents, will push the development of any trail on the Kellar Branch right of way far, far into the future. Maybe a trail will get built someday long after Mr. AK cashes out of Junction City and takes his millions back to Europe.