Restore Peoria & Eastern

To:	PeoriaandEastern@yahoogroups.com
From:	"wholelephant" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:19:48 -0000
Subject:	[PeoriaandEastern] restore p&e

RESTORE THE PEORIA AND EASTERN
Does all rail freight have to go through Chicago? Once upon a
time it was "quicker via Peoria," 210 direct, unobstructed miles
on the Peoria and Eastern between Peoria and Indianapolis
instead of 350 miles via Chicago and congestion.
Much has changed in the quarter century since the P&E was an
unbroken route. For over a century the railroads had an
overcapacity problem, one solved by the mid-1990s by
increasing traffic and decreasing route-miles. The Chicago
railroads are now seeking $1.5 billion in public and private funds
for the CREATE (Chicago Regional and Transportation
Efficiency) program to upgrade trackage and ease congestion,
which so far has not gotten the expected appropriation from
Congress.
37,000 freight cars move through the Chicago area every day
(CREATE brochure). Some 25% does not originate or terminate
there ("Freight Rail Futures," Chicago Department of
Transportation website). That is over 9,000 cars a day, easily 90
or 100 trains, merely moving through the area.
Do they all have to go through Chicago? Is Chicago always on
the shortest, most direct route? Obviously not. Rail officials are
looking into alternatives now that political funding has come up
short. (Crain's Chicago Business, Jan. 16, 2006; TRAINS, March
2006) On rerouting traffic, now under consideration, TRAINS
said, "… railroads may wind up sacrificing revenue if reroutes
result in shorter hauls."
Exactly. There is a deeply encrusted practice of "long-routing" to
increase the originating road's cut of revenues. Obviously it
requires a longer route, with the obvious disadvantages of
greater travel time, more expense, less reliable service, and
poorer use of now scarce rail resources.
Running everything through Chicago is defended in rail circles
on grounds of more frequent connections and keeping crews in
position. Those are usually compelling advantages, to be sure,
but not always. Bigger is not necessarily better.
Long-routing is under attack in more enlightened rail circles. By
some strange co-incidence, the principal apostle of direct
routing is Hunter Harrison, president of the Canadian National,
also the system returning considerably more on investment than
other rail lines. CN also routes traffic through Chicago (TRAINS,
March 2005).
There once were rail by-passes of Chicago, notably the Peoria
and Eastern. It has not functioned as a through route since a
bridge washout in 1981 and getting caught in merger backwash.
In its heyday it handled about 40,000 cars a year or 110 a day,
less than 2% of the traffic now going through Chicago.
What it would take to restore I do not know. It can be more
difficult to restore an abandoned line than to build a new one. It
would need connections to the BNSF and UP lines to the north to
be fully effective, perhaps over its also bygone Peoria
connection, the Minneapolis and St. Louis, or the old Burlington
route to Galesburg.
There is also the still functioning Toledo, Peoria and Western,
which has little if any bridge traffic and perhaps inadequate
eastern connections. Under the best of circumstances it would
be a considerably longer route between Peoria and Indianapolis.
There are also abandoned Pennsy, B&O, and Nickel Plate lines
in the area that might be considered, especially if obstacles
preclude any P&E segment.
These questions need a full study, the obvious next step.
If we need political action for rail investment, how about tax-free
bonds, which neither burden nor subsidize?
William F. Wendt, Jr.