Once again, JS ignores facts to defend its indefensible position on the Kellar Branch

November 5, 2006
By Billy Dennis

The Journal Star’s award winning (snicker) editorial board has written another editorial that whines about the delays in getting the Kellar Branch rail line ripped out so a spiffy new hiking and biking bath — they call it a linear park to make it sound more stupendous than it is — can be put up in it’s place. The JS trots out the tired old arguments, namely that the decision has already been made, that there aren’t any customers for the rail line anymore (except for one so screw them), and that once built, the trail will attract no many new residents that the new housing boom will generate so much business for that one remaining customer that they are advised to shut the hell up and take it.

David P. Jordan thoroughly demolishes every single one of their arguments. And C.J. Summers prints his own demolition, and also begins a history lesson on the Kellar Branch, but unlike the Journal Star’s editorial board, he doesn’t leave out facts that he finds inconvenient to his position.

The Journal Star also trots out Barbara Manz Drake — the former editorial page editor — to add to the whine with a recitation about other communities who didn’t have to wait for the nirvana their walking/bike paths generated. I wonder how many businesses were shuttered in this places? She doesn’t say.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

3 Responses to “ Once again, JS ignores facts to defend its indefensible position on the Kellar Branch ”

  1. Vonster on November 6, 2006 at 10:20 am

    Sometimes brevity is demanded.

    Assholes. (PJS)

  2. cgiselle12 on November 6, 2006 at 11:03 am

    Vonster, on this we agree.

    When one can have BOTH choices, it is indeed stupid to destroy a valuable asset to the community as a whole, people and businesses.

    I’ll say it one more time – ripping out rail lines is dumb. Ask Seattle. They’re trying to build light rail in their town and finding people who will move to accomodate the line, or accept a new line by their property – is as difficult, if not more, to emptying the Pacific with a teaspoon.

    And what always gets me (and with this I mean no disrespect to a few friends who I think are rather heavy Trail supporters) I am confused about their stance. No, we won’t have light rail here in Peoria any time soon. But with the current global warming threat, which I know my trail supporting friends fully acknowledge to be fact (which it is, but that’s not my argument here so please refrain from arguing this particular point), supporting light rail is a pro-environmental stance. Getting folks out of their cars and SUVs and commuting to work or Chicago or Bloomington or St. Louis is, in all other instances, an issue they would seemingly promote.

    Sure, it’s also environmentally friendly to bike and walk – but getting folks to commute in this manner is going to take one hell of a lot longer than getting them to ride a train – this I doubt a single one of us could argue!

  3. Sharon Deckard on November 7, 2006 at 6:24 am

    If the STB should rule in favor of the Trail and the track gets “railbanked”, this does not mean the track is ripped out. It is covered over and can at a future time be used for rail should a railroad come along and prove to STB that it is a viable entity. This would mean that the trail would go down the tubes. And this has happened in other areas. So there is no guarantee that the trail even if it is put in will be there forever. If, however, the trail were to run along side the rail then both would be there forever and everybody wins. This sounds a lot more reasonable than only one being the winner. And if STB rules in favor of the rail then the railroad is under no obligation to assist the trail. Right now they are willing to assist in building the trail alongside and willing to put their money where their mouth is. So what is the problem? If they run side by side everybody wins for now and in the future. Certain trail advocates say that the cost is prohibitive, that has yet to be proven. We, as rail advocates, are willing to sit down and talk it over and at least listen to the other side, are they willing to do the same?