Peoria Station

I blogged about this eight days ago. Sure enough, the long-awaited study conducted by engineering firm T. Y. Lin International is now complete and will be discussed by the Peoria City Council at their next meeting, Tuesday, October 28. The study’s conclusion:

This more detailed, but still cursory, review of the 2007 ‘estimate of probable cost’ yielded a revised probable cost of approximately $18 million, which is approximately 38% less than the previous estimate.

The ‘estimate of probable cost’ is the Peoria Park District’s Alternatives to Trail Development engineering and feasiblity study, which concluded that joint rail-trail use would cost $29 million. Rail supporters were skeptical of the numbers, and suggested an independent firm be hired to do the study.

The study has its errors. On page 1 in the very first paragraph, the Kellar Branch is called a “currently inactive railroad.” The third pragraph refers to the line as being “proposed for occasional freight service.” On page 6, it is referred to as “(semi) active.” Perhaps they’re only aware of Central Illinois Railroad’s operation?

On page 5, acccording to T. Y. Lin, the Peoria Park District’s Alternatives for Trail Development reported that:

This alignment assumed that the proposed trail would travel on the same side of the rail bed for the entire length of the improvement and no trail/rail crossings would occur.

The Park District’s report actually stated twice (page 6 and 17) that it assumed the ICC would allow rail-trail crossings where needed. While the Park District’s report does in fact show the trail generally built on the north side of the railroad, a map on page 15 clearly shows the proposed Knoxville Ave. trail bridge on the south side. Obviously, the Park District assumed rail-trail crossings would be needed on either end of the bridge approaches.

Despite the possible contradiction mentioned above, T. Y. Lin found ways to reduce costs and in the process caught the Park District fudging the numbers higher with excessive and unnecessary determinations:

It was determined that ‘trestle’ (platform) improvements identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report were excessive in some cases. Many segments of the proposed alignment could be adequately stabilized using less-intensive fill and retaining wall improvements than those identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report.

And:

The Alternatives report called for a continuous fence placed between the railroad and the trail was proposed in the “trail-next-to-rail” alignment. However, this item is not required by the IDOT BDE manual, and is not necessary as identified in design recommendations prepared for the Federal Transit Administration with respect to rail-with-trail traffic operations.

T. Y. Lin recommended an alternative to the Park District’s favored Knoxville Ave. trail bridge in the form of a median island. Problem is, American Disabilities Act (ADA) restrictions will prevent this, since Knoxville isn’t a city street but rather a state highway.

Finally, the study makes a strange suggestion about the narrow corridor alongside the former Cohen’s Furniture property. Supposedly, there isn’t enough room for joint use in this spot. The report states that a short section of track would need to be relocated to the southwest through the area so as to allow enough room for a trail between the track and the “Cohen’s retaining wall” (they may mean Williams Brothers Construction, as relocating the track southwest would place it closer to the former Cohen’s building). Estimates for this were not prepared by T. Y. Lin, and you wonder why they suggested the rail line be moved when a trail could simply criss-cross the track where necessary.

Will a majority of the City Council favor a side-by-side option now that it has been deemed less costly than claimed by the pro-trail only Peoria Park District? I’m sure the trail-supporting council members will scoff at the new figure, questioning T. Y. Lin’s findings and continuing to hold onto the Park District’s inflated figures. Even for those trail proponents that accept T. Y. Lin’s conclusions, the obvious argument will be that joint-use would still cost three times that of the trail-only option. But with the Surface Transportation Board’s November 19 Decision restoring Pioneer Industrial Railway’s operating rights, the issue is no longer rail vs. trail but joint-use vs. no trail at all.

- David P. Jordan