|
Post by matthewb on Aug 27, 2011 2:24:46 GMT -8
And the same group of NIMBYs are at it again, having filed a lawsuit: blogs.pe.com/news/digest/2011/08/riverside-lawsuit-filed-to-hal.htmlThe details of their argument should sound familiar to anyone who reads this forum and has seen these NIMBY tactics used against other projects. The irony is that the RCTC said that the prevention of lawsuits was the primary motivation of dropping the UC Riverside station, but now the same group of people is suing anyway. Capitulation doesn't prevent NIMBY lawsuits, it just reduces ridership.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 30, 2012 8:55:59 GMT -8
Update on the Perris Valley Line. From the project webpage: "A Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and was made available for public review and comment between December 1, 2010 and January 6, 2011. Comments received during the review period were evaluated and considered, resulting in revisions to the SEA. This revised SEA will be available to the public for thirty (30) days, beginning March 5, 2012 through April 4, 2012. Should FTA decide to proceed with the project, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be prepared to document the decision." perrisvalleyline.info/
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 5, 2012 15:48:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 28, 2012 23:58:53 GMT -8
This is turning into one of those "Didn't the Pharaohs of Egypt get their Pyramids built faster than this?" projects. Rather like BART, but without the complications of underground and underwater construction.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 29, 2012 3:26:27 GMT -8
This is turning into one of those "Didn't the Pharaohs of Egypt get their Pyramids built faster than this?" projects. Rather like BART, but without the complications of underground and underwater construction. Riverside County seems to have a tendency to delay and delay and then risk losing federal funding. I won't be surprised if they screw this up, too. They've already rolled over on putting in a station at UC Riverside and still didn't avoid a lawsuit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2012 17:54:55 GMT -8
What's going to be the routing of this train? Is it basically the 91 train extended to Parris? I'm a tad late to the party. I have searched the links on this page of the thread, some of which are dead, trying to find track plans. Basic question, seeing the concerns of the college in Riverside about more trains and more freight trains.....are we talking joint use track, both Light Rail on heavy iron and freight co-existing on the same line? I thought that was forbidden....I know up here, the trolleys they have put in service have had to be broken from any access to the mainline. I know where the Hemet/Perris line swings north of March Air Force Base, where it heads west and drops down grade.....would the line follow that, or a new light rail line towards Riverside along 395? You folks have been involved with this all along....the pages, links, commentary to sort through to find this is daunting Thanks. Dave
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 30, 2012 18:14:03 GMT -8
Dave I'm pretty sure the Perris line is just a Metrolink extension. Not light rail.
Welcome to the board!
RT
Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2012 18:41:33 GMT -8
Okay. Thanks! Makes sense then. Anymore I am getting so used to seeing light rail trains zipping up and over on seemingly 10% grades....I keep forgetting there are still heavy rail systems. These will be conventional diseasemal powered push-pulls?
Dave
Now that I know it's not new light rail, but using the old Santa Fe line, I can see what they are doing.
One of my problems is sorting out nomenclature. When I left SoCal, it was still 395 from Sandy Eiggo all the way....to Canada. Then they deleted the 395 through Riverside, and San Berdoo, calling it 15. Now I see references to 215, thought it was the road I'd heard the inlaws discuss from Corona south to Lake Elsinore. No idea they'd renamed that road....again. Are there plans at all to extend to Hemet on that line, if they ever get through the lawsuits?
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 30, 2012 23:10:10 GMT -8
Current plans call for a Park & Ride southeast of downtown Perris, near the 215/74 junction. There's already a transit center at the old Santa Fe depot in downtown Perris, but all it has (so far) is local bus service. There's also a slot for Orange Empire Ry. Museum to run a track to the depot area. From San Bernardino to Temecula, I-215 closely follows the old 395 route. One US 395 landmark that has been preserved is the Liberty Bell Diner, an old Santa Fe passenger car with a decorative end structure inspired by Union Pacific primordial streamliner M-10000. It's been backdated to its old name of O'Neill's and is on display at Orange Empire. The highway through Elsinore and Corona is I-15, which meets I-215 at the south end of Cajon Pass. To really go back into history, the predecessor of 395 between Hesperia and Bishop was the Southern Sierras Power Co. patrol road for the transmission line that brought power from the Bishop hydroelectric plants to San Bernardino nearly 100 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 1, 2012 10:18:14 GMT -8
^ A little off topic, but every time my dad and I go fishing up near Virginia lakes, the remains of the old wooden bridges a train once ran on are still visible as you head up through the valley to Lone Pine, Independence, and Bishop. You can even see some of what i believe is part of the train ROW that ran alongside some of the hills.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2012 10:23:24 GMT -8
Yeah, knew a bit about the old roads, didn't know the power company did them....even though I went to high school in Bishop... It's really odd how much you remember once you see photos and read a line or two. If I recall, there was a huge empty dirt lot where 74 hit 215, across from......Dennys? Trucks parked there for the night. Good spot for a P&R, but way too far from the downtown terminal....and the proposed southern terminal. Must be a lot further down, near where the original highway and rail passes under 215. It's also odd, how, before you had any physical limitations, one never thought about walking two blocks, half a mile, to ride transit.....or standing for 30 minutes waiting.
Once you pass that threshold, you realize one block can be too much, and 5 minutes without a seat is far too long.
I have read about the studies on line upgrades, signals.....even on this thread mentions of train frequency to match a subway...how many passing loops (sidings) are in existence on the line? There was a packing plant of some kind, tracks enough to have most of a siding, but you have to have a lot to get frequency up. For safety (and to eliminate the majority of the possibilities of a "cornfield meet") the line will need double tracking. I suppose once it's up and running, upgrades like double tracking can continue whilst the line is in service. I am going to have fun watching this one! Thanks! Dave
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 1, 2012 23:06:04 GMT -8
I would guess that the Perris Valley line, when it starts out will be like the San Bernardino Line when it opened: Morning inbound and evening outbound. Once service is established, mid-day trains can be added. Even the San Berdoo Line, with about 40 trains a day, hasn't been double tracked. Today's "San Jack" line has sidings at Box Springs, Alessandro, Val Verde, Granite, and Mayer Farms. Presumably, when Metrolink rebuilds the track, block signals will be part of the deal, unless the Positive Train Control system is in service by the time passenger service starts. Note that Mayer Farms commemorates the horse ranch owned by movie mogul Louis B. Mayer.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 8, 2012 19:45:21 GMT -8
I learned from "a usually reliable source" today that construction is expected to start on March 1 of next year.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 20, 2013 16:27:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 7, 2013 3:48:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 8, 2013 23:59:09 GMT -8
Lucky year 2013--Gold Line to Azusa and Expo Line to Santa Monica going "hammer & tongs", LA Downtown Connector and Crenshaw Line appear to be gaining momentum, and maybe (keep those fingers crossed and your mojo handy!) the Perris Valley Metrolink Line will get the "highball". Imagine being able to post photos from five different rail projects in the LA Metro area!
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 9, 2013 2:06:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 11, 2013 22:46:42 GMT -8
Someone was commenting on the Gold Line board about the Perris ML service. Since I go to Perris at least once a month, and usually more often, if there are any signs of major construction, I will report them, and, if possible photograph them. It's getting rather monotonous to go down Perris Blvd. and see the same old crossbucks and beat-up 90-lb. rail that's been going southeast out of downtown Perris ever since I joined Orange Empire. Looking forward to 119 lb. welded rail and crossing gates!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 28, 2013 22:48:04 GMT -8
I received word today the the judge in the Perris Valley Line case refused to order the "writ of mandate" requested by the NIMBY group, and the RCTC should be able to proceed with construction. It may take a month or two (or three) before serious construction starts, but I'll be on the lookout for big yellow machines on my way to OERM.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 29, 2013 7:03:21 GMT -8
Great that something finally might happen. This one has been delayed an unbelievably long time. The biggest loss was that they dropped the UCR station. It's a huge employment center, and the tracks go right by, but the trains won't stop because RCTC tried to avoid a lawsuit from a group that ended up suing anyway. A station could theoretically be added later, but will have to go through another CEQA process and probably get sued again resulting in another obscene delay. Anyway, here's hoping that the stations that will be built will better inform development patterns along the 215 corridor, and that people will enjoy their alternative to the 215, 91, and 60 freeways. It will also be fun to be able to take the train to OERM.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Mar 30, 2013 7:21:40 GMT -8
When the Sacramento light rail line was built the NIMBYs in east Sacramento didn't want any stops in their neighborhood so the line was built without stops. (They were afraid light rail would bring undesirable people to their very desirable neighborhood...) After the line was built they discovered they didn't have any service and stops were added at 39th and 48th Streets.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 30, 2013 8:57:35 GMT -8
I believe UCR and Ramona Expressway were the two potential station locations that were studied but got cut. Ramona Expressway doesn't have anything around it right now, and for most people driving to the station (e.g. from Hemet), it's not much more convenient than where the 74 meets the 215, which will be a station. Honestly, they made the right decision for now in not including a station there. I assume they will construct the line in such a way as to not preclude a station at that location later on. UCR, on the other hand, would not only be an origin station, but a destination. It has about 20k students and many thousands of faculty and staff. It's a major destination and deserves a stop ASAP. Nowhere else on this extension is a station anywhere close to promising the ridership that would be achieved here. UCR is the fourth largest employer in the county after the county itself, the air reserve base, and Stater Brothers (which has a lot of employees, but they're for the most part not making a lot of money or getting benefits). The vast majority of these employees are actually working directly on the campus, which is highly walkable directly from the proposed station location. I hope RCTC, the mayor of Riverside, the university administration, and other politicians can start pushing for a station immediately now that there are no more legal challenges to the current construction plans (as far as I understand, but correct me if there are still outstanding legal or political risks). The RCTC bought the tracks 20 years ago, and began holding public meetings 11 years ago, according to their own website. Once construction begins, it will take about a year and a half. Depending on how you look at it, you could say it took 22 years for them to build an extension of a mostly one track commuter rail on existing track. I'm hoping we can get a station at UCR before 2035, but with that kind of record, quick and efficient infill stations don't seem too likely. With a bit more political leadership, we could have already had a station there by now.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 27, 2013 22:20:04 GMT -8
Today I spoke with someone who has had dealings with the RCTC Perris Valley Line management. Let's just say he has not been impressed with their competence. I used a rather vulgar expression sometimes applied to such matters, and he thought it was appropriate. Latest report is that the contractor is pulling off the preliminary parts of the job until a real starting date can be set. I'd be happy to see these dire tidings disproved, but until I see the rickety old track with 90 lb. rail east of downtown Perris being dismantled I'll have to believe the reports.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 17, 2013 10:15:28 GMT -8
Well, this sucks: www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/perris/perris-headlines-index/20130516-perris-valley-line-judge-tosses-projects-environmental-impact-report.ecePERRIS VALLEY LINE: Judge tosses project’s environmental impact report BY PETER SUROWSKI AND RICHARD K. DE ATLEY May 16, 2013; 06:18 PM A judge has rejected the environmental impact report for a proposed Metrolink line from Riverside to Perris, telling the Riverside County Transportation Commission that it failed to address such issues as train wheel noise and pedestrian safety. The decision is a significal setback for the $232.7 million project that would add 24 miles of track and four new stations from Riverside to Perris to the Metrolink system. Projections for the line say it would see about 4,000 boardings daily. The commission can pursue design and planning activities, but cannot proceed with any construction, Superior Court Judge Sharon J. Waters said in a ruling made available Thursday, May 16. “I was pleased with the judgment,” said Ray Johnson, an attorney for Friends of Riverside’s Hills, a nonprofit environmental group that filed the suit in August 2011. “I think it was the appropriate decision.” The group’s lawsuit said the RCTC failed to follow the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires governmental agencies to disclose a project’s impact and work to reduce them. An environmental impact report describes the impact a project will have. They often cost tens of thousands of dollars and take months to complete. A release from the commission said the decision “indefinitely delays” the project. John Standiford, the deputy executive director of RCTC, said the lawsuit abused the intent of the quality act. “We are disappointed in the decision and frustrated about how CEQA is being misused to stop a project that is not only environmentally friendly but also provides a number of benefits, such as a quiet zone, sound walls and safety improvements at rail crossings,” Standiford said. The judge agreed with Friends of Riverside’s Hills on several points named in the suit, including the EIR’s failure to adequately address the effect of rail lubricant on the soil, pedestrian safety, train wheel squeal and construction noise. “The (judgment) was appropriate. The EIR was lacking in a number of respects,” said Len Nunney, the secretary for Friends of Riverside’s Hills. He said the environmental group is willing to help RCTC address the concerns raised in the suit. “We’ve always been open to negotiation of a settlement,” he said, adding that if the problems named in the suit could be resolved, RCTC would not have to build a new EIR from scratch. “The purpose of this exercise was not to delay the project,” Nunney said. The judge threw out numerous other claims in the suit, including ones stating the project would impact local air quality and the habitat of the western spadefoot toad, a sensitive species that lives in the area. RCTC has 90 days to show Waters what it had done to comply with her ruling. She will retain jurisdiction over the case, and the agency will have to work within her ruling for any re-consideration or re-approval of the project. The ruling can be appealed, according to the commission’s release. “These kinds of legal decisions have unintended and far-reaching consequences and hurt the general public in favor of a narrow special interest,” Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley, who serves as the commission’s vice chairman, said in the release. “This is a prime example of how CEQA is actually being used to harm an environmentally friendly project and the overall community.” The subject is set to be discussed during RCTC’s next board meeting in June, Standiford said.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 21, 2013 18:59:25 GMT -8
Today I read in the TTC newsletter about the woman Judge who ordered the redoing of the EIR, and the possibility of going to another court, what about the expert judge in Norwalk, CA. who shot down the Nimby's (the nfsr)?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 22, 2013 13:17:02 GMT -8
Some times things that are broken don't get fixed until a situation comes along that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that it is broken beyond repair. I'm referring, of course, to the abuse of the CEQA with respect to individuals being able to stop an environmentally friendly project from proceeding due to technicalities. While the NIMBY's may have won this battle, continuing to win battle after battle with lesser tangible arguments will only guarantee that they will eventually lose the war. Some major (not likely Perris) project is going to get delayed for some totally inane reason for a very long time. Eventually that will force the politicians to "get real" and reform CEQA to prevent the abuses. Having said all that, I can't believe the project was so dumb to have not assessed in the EIR the items that the judge found lacking. The MTA prepares EIR's for all their projects, and seem to be able to get it right more often than not. Must be a bunch of amateurs doing the paperwork over there on the Perris line. RT
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 22, 2013 14:45:51 GMT -8
This project has been dragging along for literally decades (line purchased 20 years ago, first public meetings 10 years ago). It seems like management of this project has been pretty amateur. Of course, it could be that they're completely competent and just don't care....
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jun 13, 2013 8:19:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 10, 2013 18:45:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 11, 2013 6:40:50 GMT -8
Thanks for posting, Elson. Hard to believe this finally might get built.
|
|