Getting around the "Braided" Blockade at the Riverside Downtown Metrolink station outside of the car

Back in 2006, the City of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments and Compass Blueprint teamed up to plan urban development and multi-modal transportation options around the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station. The project will help facilitate the development of a Transit Village around the station and connect trains to other regional transportation. As many are aware, the area could certainly use this type of infrastructure and the additional marketplace jobs that go with it.

The Transit Coalition's original future vision of this area can be seen here. Our ideas were not mere concepts. Government officials had the area professionally studied, and we used information from the study into the future vision. Here were a few of the 2006 findings which still apply today. The following issues and opportunities were developed during the one-day design charrette a little more than seven years ago:

Issue #1 - The 91 freeway acts as a barrier preventing pedestrian and vehicular access from the Metrolink station to Downtown. The suggested opportunity was to construct a pedestrian and bus access bridge over the freeway linking the Metrolink station to Downtown. We envisioned a non motor vehicular multi-use pathway connecting the station to Riverside's 11th Street pedestrian corridor which seamlessly links to the Main Street pedestrian plaza and numerous government buildings and courthouses. The second opportunity suggested was to provide a bus shuttle with frequent service connecting the Metrolink station to Downtown. It turned out that existing through bus routes would fare better in terms of productivity under the current demographics with combined frequent service, but a dedicated shuttle may be feasible later down the road.

Issue #2 - The linkage between bus transit and Metrolink service is limited. RTA and the City of Riverside at one point were planning a bus transit center adjacent to the Metrolink station offering bus riders easier access to Metrolink. That wise proposal is still mired in fiscal chaos. Additional through bus routes will serve the new bus transfer center offering better bus transit choices
for riders, productively addressing the bus feeder opportunity in Issue #1. Secondly, officials suggested any new development should provide a pedestrian plaza linking the bus transit center and the Metrolink station. 

Issue #3 - New development near the Metrolink station should complement the existing neighborhood. The opportunity here is to designate the station block as a specific plan where higher density housing and jobs adjacent to Metrolink should transition to lower densities of three and four story structures along Howard Avenue. New buildings adjacent to existing single family homes should exhibit architectural styles that reflect the historical styles of the area. Note how the background graphic of our "We want to see High Speed Rail done right" banner incorporates high density robust private sector job growth offering both entry level and top paying jobs right here in the heart of Downtown Riverside.

The SR-91 Carpool Lane project and the braided freeway interchanges

The Compass Blueprint plan ran into another problem. According to a recent field study covering the construction of the SR-91 Freeway carpool lane extension into Downtown Riverside and as shown in this satellite picture, we're back to the drawing board in regards to getting a pedestrian bridge over the freeway and finding spots for private sector intercity bus outlets. As you may tell, part of the carpool lane extension project included plans to braid the University Avenue and 14th Street interchange ramps, pretty much exacerbating Issue #1 and making the cost to build this bridge more expensive. Also, the idea of linking the transit center to the extended carpool lanes via a direct access ramp would almost certainly need to be done a few blocks away since the freeway right-of-way width is already maxed out in this area. We believe such a grade-separated connection would allow express buses, intercity coaches, and private carpools productive seamless connections between the Downtown Riverside transit station and the high occupancy lanes without the need to weave across the freeway's general purpose lanes.

Concept: Grade-separated direct access ramps would seamlessly link 91 Freeway carpool lanes with RTA and Omnitrans transit hubs, allowing express buses and other high occupancy vehicle traffic access to the carpool lane without the need to weave across the freeway.

As we have been advocating and suggesting, a prime way to get these amenities built is to incorporate these projects into future private sector development. Because of the new braided interchanges, the bridge will most likely need to mimic the one recently built at the San Ysidro border Port of Entry complete with stairs, ramps, and seamless connections to the existing bridge over the tracks on the station side and the County Administration building pathway on the downtown side. City officials should zone the area as a specific plan and offer developer incentives to establish a marketplace job hub that is compatible to urban planning and smart growth principles. Those incentives would not be in the form of direct government handouts, but in the form of tax rebates. Cooperation between the local entities and the state would be vital. That would get the jobs, smart growth and transportation infrastructure built in Downtown Riverside at minimal cost to the taxpayer.

Local community engagement on transportation and the federal government

Rep. Mark Takano who represents Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris in Congress continues to engage the community by collecting public input and common facts. Takano plans to use this information toward crafting future federal legislation. We'll point out some suggestions in a moment, but first we'll look at his transportation survey results.

The Press Enterprise reported that the congressman surveyed his District 41 residents. The results of almost 550 entries show that addressing traffic congestion by expanding freeway capacity and rail options are top transportation priorities, not surprisingly. It's no question that Inland Empire traffic congestion is at unacceptable levels during peak commute hours and weekends. Worse yet, getting around the region on a Friday afternoon is a complete disgrace. The fact of the matter is that full time jobs are scarce in the Inland Empire and housing prices including rentals in Orange County, north San Diego County and West Los Angeles are inflated through the roof. Try to compare the prices of apartments in Irvine and Temecula. While it's true property values naturally go up in areas with a robust economy, under no circumstances should prices be inflated by short supply or marketplace speculation.

Takano also toured the Perris Station Transit Center, one of the major southern stations for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension. The long proposed line combined with the existing routes run through the heart of District 41. Based on the Takano's survey project, his residents support the expansion of passenger rail. This demonstrates that while many Inland Empire residents may specifically oppose the bullet train project sponsored by the California High Speed Rail Authority, they support having a fast rail alternative in general. The grade separation projects taking place in Riverside should contribute toward faster Metrolink service.

Inland Empire mass transit and federal legislation

With Congressman Takano deeply engaged in the community, what can be done at Washington to cut down on long distance commuting and chronic traffic congestion in the Inland Empire? The Transit Coalition's Future Vision of Inland Empire Mass Transit generally shows what needs to be done. At the federal level here are some suggestions:

• Streamline and/or repeal trivial government rules and regulations that obstructs marketplace economic growth with full time jobs. Our transportation system will be worthless without a robust labor workforce. What is obstructing full time job growth in Riverside? What is preventing infill housing projects from taking place in Southern Orange County to address demand and control inflated costs?
• Debate real solutions to curb artificial price speculation which unfairly drives up housing prices through short supply at the population centers.
• Control the out-of-control federal deficit as the national debt is fast approaching $17 trillion. We don't want our country to go bankrupt. Stop the waste. Allow the non-profit sector and volunteers to take a more active role in worthwhile social justice programs to cut unnecessary taxpayer costs. Why are local homeless outreach organizations like Project Touch shut out from setting up shelters all due to excessive government bureaucracy?
• Stop pandering to the will of special interests through unaffordable salaries and benefits which artificially drives up public infrastructure costs and contributes deeply toward government waste. This is a prime reason why expanded transit and public works infrastructure appears unaffordable. As we've mentioned, the way to drive up the value of the wage dollar and benefits is getting the private sector to freely invest in the marketplace economy, not by inflating the dollar amount. We don't want a repeat of the Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic.
• Revisit trivial federal policies that obstruct private sector hiring which contribute toward income inequality. Stockholders and those at the top simply will not sacrifice their profits, period. As businesses are forced to cut salaries, reduce take-home pay, and replace full time positions with part time jobs all due to trivial rules and regulations, income inequality will actually worsen. In a robust market economy where jobs are plentiful, American workers are paid more simply because such businesses actually need them and can afford to hire them without negating their profits. Ever wonder why the stock market doesn't reflect the true economic picture?

To be fair, the feds do need to continue to regulate and combat common issues like corporate greed, artificial price speculation, environmental pollution, and urban sprawl. Any fair-minded individual knows that. However, if the feds want to fill our transit fleets with a productive marketplace workforce, they need to allow the private sector to expand the economy.

Examining the Metrolink Perris Valley Line lawsuit settlement

Case closed. Friends of Riverside Hills, a local Riverside group responsible for stalling the Metrolink Perris Valley line extension project has agreed to withdraw its case in a $3 million settlement, RCTC officials reported July 10th. With that, the project can move forward with groundbreaking to take place by this fall or winter. The extension is set to open by 2015.

The Perris Valley Line is long past due. The rail line promises to ferry commuters living in or around the Perris and Moreno Valley areas to jobs in downtown Los Angeles and points in between via the Metrolink 91 Line, eliminating the need to drive or take a connecting express bus to downtown Riverside. Now that this trivial CEQA lawsuit is out of the way, public officials can finally move on with this environmentally friendly transit alternative.

That's the good news.

Now let's take a look at the $3 million settlement and where that taxpayer money is headed. According to the Press Enterprise, RCTC agreed to pour more than half of the cash toward protecting the environment, by establishing a $900,000 land conservation fund which would be used to develop trails and/or acquiring open space. An additional $650,000 will be used to provide for multi-modal pathways and trails in the area. If RCTC can work together with other public entities in the region and designate these new open spaces and trailways as a countywide regional park, this portion of the settlement would benefit the community as whole and would be certainly considered a fair deal for the public. Otherwise this will be a $1.5 million handout to the opposing party.

$132,000 of the pot will be spent to minimize train noise and vibration. Of course, something like this should be addressed and regulated through reformed CEQA law in lieu of the courts, but keeping noise levels down by placing noise reduction materials under the tracks through the UC-Riverside area is somewhat of a fair trade. Overall, this portion isn't bad.

The rest of the settlement handouts is not so pretty. Over one third of the pot--$1,005,000 to be exact--will be set up for homeowners to tap into for various home improvements in the name of countering noise pollution. Residents can apply for up to a whopping $15,000 per dwelling--for window treatments and another $500 for trees. Google "Noise Minimizing Window Treatments" and you may find that products offered in the marketplace do not add up to $15,000 for an entire house. RCTC must examine each applicant clearly to minimize the waste. Any unspent funds will be allocated to the land conservation fund.

The last portion is perhaps the icing on the cake. It is the $250,000 in public money that went to the attorney who represented Friends of Riverside Hills during this lawsuit...

It's now safe to say that exploiting CEQA loopholes is all about the money and demonstrates how current environmental law can be abused. Public entities must therefore do what ever they can do in their power to close up these loopholes at the state level and stop the wasteful madness in the courtroom.

Moving forward with the Perris Valley Line lawsuit ruling

It is quite evident that the Riverside County Transportation Commission is doing whatever it can within its power to get the Perris Valley Line moving, and the agency has every right to do so given that the rail line is environmentally friendly, the right-of-way is publicly owned, and the majority of the public supports it. Earlier in May, Superior Court Judge Sharon Waters ordered that RCTC decertify the project's EIR within 90 days because of puritanical environmental issues which could be easily resolved. RCTC had a number of options to move foward:

• RCTC can appeal the judgment at a higher court.
• According to Len Nunney, the secretary for Friends of Riverside Hills, RCTC can engage in a settlement without having to recompile its EIR.
• RCTC can lobby the state legislature for CEQA reform

RCTC has basically selected "All of the above." The Commission board voted in closed session at its 6/12/13 meeting to appeal Judge Waters' ruling. RCTC filed the appeals paperwork with the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Even with the appeals papers filed, the two parties remain open to settling the case without RCTC having to redo the Perris Valley Line EIR.

Just days before the meeting, RCTC Chairwoman Karen Spiegel, Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley, and City of Perris Mayor Daryl Busch met with members of the state legislature to lobby for an exemption of the rail line's trivial and construction-related environmental issues from the current legal loopholes in CEQA law. It is without question that the landmark law needs to be amended and made retroactive to counter abusive lawsuits; however, to be fair, fast-tracking projects by granting outright CEQA exemptions is very questionable. During settlement negotiations, RCTC must also ensure that the NIMBY party is not receiving any unnecessary "home improvements" paid for by county taxpayers.

Judicial appeals processes normally take several months from start to finish, but RCTC still predicts breaking ground later this July. It is still early to predict what will happen. This trivial lawsuit in general has one big message for the state: Close up the CEQA loopholes.

Metrolink Perris Valley Line Lawsuit: Protecting the $75 million in federal funds

$75 million in awarded federal funds for the Metrolink Perris Valley Line are now at risk according to John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The FTA granted RCTC the money through the Small Starts program, but since the entire project is stalled over trivial environmental litigation, the federal funds could be deobligated.

As mentioned, the state legislature is working on amending CEQA law to prevent environmentally-friendly projects from being stopped in the courts in the name of the environment. The California State Senate unanimously backed changes to the landmark legislation on May 29. Now, the feds are getting in on the debate. Congressman Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside) sent this letter to FTA administrator Peter Rogoff, asking him to keep the Perris Valley Line federal funds in tact:

Dear Administrator Rogoff:

The Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension represents a significant step towards sustainable living in California’s 41st Congressional District and I welcome the $75 million federal investment that has been appropriated by Congress for this project.

As you may know, a California Superior Court Judge recently ordered decertification of the Perris Valley Line’s environmental impact report (EIR) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project’s sponsor, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), has assured me that they are pursuing all options available to ensure that the Perris Valley Line ultimately moves forward to construction.

I urge the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to take all actions necessary to preserve the $75 million that has been appropriated under the Small Starts program for Perris Valley Line during ongoing litigation. The Small Starts grant is an imperative piece of the total funding for the Perris Valley Line project and I encourage the FTA to ensure that the Perris Valley Line project remain eligible to receive the grant once CEQA litigation has concluded.

Perris Valley Line provides critical regional connectivity to my constituents, particularly in the underserved cities of Perris and Moreno Valley, while connecting major job centers in Riverside and March Air Reserve Base.

Thank you for FTA’s continued support of Perris Valley Line and for working with RCTC to advance livability and mobility in California’s 41st Congressional District.

Sincerely, Mark Takano

RCTC Commissioners will be discussing what will happen next at their Commissioners board meeting later today. In the mean time, the FTA should grant Rep. Takano's request to prevent anything else from delaying the Perris Valley Line extension which is long past due.

Addressing the Perris Valley Lawsuit ruling

The California State Legislature has some work to do to reform state environmental law. An April 1, 2013 court ruling on RCTC's long-proposed Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension shows that Judge Sharon J. Waters ruled in favor of the opposing party on 5 of the 15 environmental concerns brought up in court: Negations to the soil, track lubricant usage, pedestrian safety, train wheel noise pollution, and construction related noise.

The organization responsible for this lawsuit is a group called Friends of Riverside Hills. The organization argues:

The Perris Valley line will be comfortable. But cost and convenience are simply not there. That makes it poor public policy.  The environmental impacts are being challenged in the Friend’s lawsuit.

It is quite clear that Friends of Riverside Hills opposes the Perris Valley Line, but using the courts to overturn a project they claim is "poor public policy" in the name of the environment encroaches the separation of powers. This has allowed a judge to decide the fate of the rail line from the bench. The ruling leaves the Perris Valley Line case in a complicated position under the current law, but the legislature has the power to avert further delays caused by broad court rulings through its power to change the law.

As reported, the state legislature has been working on and should follow through on its promise to close up California Environmental Quality Act loopholes so judges cannot veto large projects from the bench which actually benefit the environment and reduce traffic congestion like the Perris Valley Line. Such rulings delay important projects which get paid for by the taxpayer. It is a common fact that a rail transit alternative for the I-215 corridor would reduce congestion and pollution by providing a multi-modal transportation option to single-occupancy automobile travel, thus fulfilling the goals and intents of state environmental law which is to protect the environment. In addition, RCTC owns the already-developed rail right-of-way.

To be fair, issues such as construction-related pollution should be dealt with by fining construction firms that excessively pollute. Same holds true for pedestrians who illegally trespass into an active rail right-of-way. However, these issues combined with CEQA loopholes should not be excuses for a judge to veto or delay the rail project from the bench.

Reforming environmental law to get the Perris Valley Line moving

(4/2/13) – IE Transit Talking Points Short

The California State Legislature has some work to do to reform state environmental law. An April 1, 2013 court ruling on RCTC’s long-proposed Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension shows that Judge Sharon J. Waters ruled in favor of the opposing party on 5 of the 15 environmental concerns brought up in court: negations to the soil, track lubricant usage, pedestrian safety, train wheel noise pollution, and construction related noise. This leaves the Perris Valley Line case in a complicated position under the current law, but the legislature has the power to avert further delays caused by broad court rulings by changing the law:

• Are all environmentally sensitive soil areas and wildlife habitats throughout the state documented as protected nature reserves?
• Which types of rail lubricants harm the environment to the point that they should be outlawed?
• How much noise caused by train wheels is too much?
• How much construction noise is too much near residential areas? If a construction contractor generates too much noise, does local code enforcement have the power to fine the violating firm?

 As mentioned, the state legislature should follow through on its promise to close up California Environmental Quality Act loopholes so courts cannot delay, veto or overturn large projects which actually benefit the environment and reduce traffic congestion like the Perris Valley Line. Such lawsuits delay important projects which gets paid for by the taxpayer. It is a common fact that a rail transit alternative for the I-215 corridor would reduce congestion and pollution by providing a multi-modal transportation option to single-occupancy automobile travel, thus fulfilling the goals and intents of state environmental law which is to protect the environment.

Future Vision of Inland Empire Mass Transit and Government Studies

(3/11/13) – IE Transit Talking Points Short

   

The Transit Coalition’s Future Vision of Inland Empire Mass Transit not only illustrates concepts advocated by The Transit Coalition, but also official public transit proposals that were found to be feasible according to studies. The Future Vision utilizes data from both Coalition field studies and government transportation reports and combines the information into a single map illustrating what productive mass transit could be like in the Inland Empire. Let’s get Southern California moving!

Will the Perris Valley Line lawsuit ruling embarrass the state government?

The decision to build an environmentally friendly rail transit line appears to be coming from the bench due to loopholes in state environmental law. A 'no' ruling would encroach the Separation of Powers in the name of puritanism.

The primary function of the judicial branch of government is to interpret both the state and U.S. Constitution and apply law to the facts of cases at hand. Courts have no right to veto or overturn the laws or policies which do not violate constitutional law, even if a judge is against the law. Whenever courts unilaterally impose their own opinions and beliefs onto the law, many Americans dislike that; such activity is legislating from the bench and overreaches their authority of the Separation of Powers written in the U.S. Constitution. This Press Enterprise blog post suggests that the Metrolink Perris Valley Line's fate is in the hands of the courts; a project that should clearly be decided on by a local elected body, that is, the Riverside County Transportation Commission. RCTC has long supported and planned the project.

The Commission rightly followed the rules and prepared the project's mandated environmental impact report, but loopholes in the California Environmental Quality Act have allowed an opposing NIMBY party to exploit "missing" information in the EIR in a lawsuit to stop the entire project. The case was merited to go to trial and is now in the hands of a Superior Court judge. From an impartial judicial standpoint, there's nothing wrong, and to be fair, the EIR for any major project must accurately address potential traffic congestion and pollution impacts. However it is a common fact that a rail transit alternative for the I-215 corridor would reduce congestion and pollution by providing a multi-modal transportation option to single-occupancy automobile travel, thus fulfilling the goals and intents of CEQA which is to protect the environment.

The claims presented by Friends of Riverside's Hills are very puritanical and point primarily to the project's construction, not the finished product. The opposing group claims the EIR underestimates the number of truck trips needed to haul away dirt during construction and the time required to excavate the dirt. RCTC's proposal to remove an illegal trail crossing over the right-of-way is said to be bad for the environment according to the opposing party. Other frivolous claims such as the squealing noise train wheels make when taking sharp turns, engine noises, and construction-related matter were also brought up in court.

It is discouraging that this case was allowed to go to trial. This is an embarrassment to the state government. The legislative branch does have power to avert any negative court judgments against RCTC and the Perris Valley Line. The state should amend CEQA so that bidding construction firms are held accountable for all construction-related environmental and traffic impacts. We the people should not be held responsible if a construction contractor decides to generate too much dust pollution, noise or excessive truck traffic. The law should penalize contractors and their employees if they excessively pollute. The legislature should also close up CEQA loopholes so courts cannot veto or overturn large projects which actually benefit the environment and reduce traffic congestion. The reformed law should also be made retroactive to any transportation project stalled in court over such frivolous EIR claims. Let's get the Perris Valley Line moving.

Judges must not be allowed to veto the Perris Valley Line from the bench

(2/4/13) – IE Transit Talking Points Short

The Metrolink Perris Valley Line extension, now mired in an environmental lawsuit, is about to have its fate decided by Superior Court Judge Sharon Waters according to the Press Enterprise which is very embarrassing for the state government.

It is a scientific fact that mass transit options for the I-215 corridor will benefit the environment and highways, not negate them. The opposing party has a number of arguments against the Metrolink extension which appear frivolous and very puritanical on the surface, but has enough merit to warrant a trial due to loopholes in the California Environmental Quality Act.

Among the claims, the group Friends of Riverside’s Hills said the environmental impact report inadequately explains the number of truck trips needed to remove soil. Other issues brought up were the schedule for excavating the dirt, the removal of an illegal trail crossing over the right-of-way, the squealing noise train wheels make when taking sharp turns, engine noises, and other construction-related noise. Because of those claims, Judge Waters can unilaterally decide that the Perris Valley Line failed to follow the California Environmental Quality Act, even though the I-215 rail transit alternative will actually benefit the environment.

Truth be told: Mass transit is good for the environment and the Perris Valley Line’s fate must not be vetoed by a judge; that’s legislating from the bench. The state legislature needs to amend the California Environmental Quality Act, close up its loopholes, and make it retroactive to any environmentally- friendly transportation project stalled in court. Riverside County taxpayers should not be on the hook if a construction contractor carelessly generates too much dust pollution, noise or truck traffic. Penalize the contractor with a heavy fine if its employees break CEQA laws, but don’t hold overdue transportation projects hostage. Doing nothing is a recipe for increased traffic congestion and worsened smog pollution.

Metrolink Perris Valley Line Lawsuit: Frivolous or not?

Both the state and the feds need to close the legislative loopholes for transportation environmental impact reports.

Several Riverside County transit riders and commuters have been long wondering: When exactly will the Metrolink Perris Valley Line extension project finally break ground on construction? Transit officials estimate spring or summer of 2013 as the Riverside County Transportation Commission was awarded state funds for the project. It is currently awaiting federal funding, and a lawsuit filed against the project will be finally over by then. $53 million has been obligated to RCTC from the California Transportation Commission. $75 million from the federal government is awaited, after which the $247 million Perris Valley Line project will be fully funded. RCTC must be prepared and be ready to confront any possible delays from the federal level to prevent anything else from delaying groundbreaking. We've been patiently waiting...

As many of you are aware, the proposed Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension is being challenged in court with its trial scheduled to start in January. An opposing organization called Friends of Riverside Hills filed a lawsuit in August 2011 challenging the Environmental Impact Report for the rail project, claiming RCTC failed to adequately detail the noise and pollution impacts of excavating dirt around the tracks and other aspects of construction. The case was merited to go to trial last April. The group represents residents living in the residential areas near UC Riverside.

To be fair to all parties involved, we live in the United States of America and we citizens have a right to peacefully organize, freely participate in robust debates, and challenge each other on issues. That's a welcomed reality of living in a free democracy; otherwise The Transit Coalition wouldn't exist. Friends of Riverside Hills is challenging RCTC fair and square as its lawsuit has legal merit; that's why the case has been allowed to go to trial. However, the issue at stake is a classic example of how a small issue can become a big judicial problem; a loophole which should be addressed by lawmakers.

It's a clear fact that moving dirt around and grading sites are basic steps for just about any major construction or development project, even those that don't require an EIR. Both the state and the federal government must consider revisiting transportation legislation to prevent minor claims like those addressed by Friends of Riverside Hills from having legal merit in the future. This will prevent future transit and highway projects from being mired in unnecessary expensive litigation which ends up being paid for by local and county taxpayers. Obviously, there should be written rules, mandates, and limits to keep dust pollution and noise caused by grading and construction to a minimum. The law should state: If the construction contractor violates these terms, pollutes the air or becomes too noisy, the firm, not the taxpayer, gets fined.

Under the current system, RCTC is mandated to conduct a detailed analysis on dust and noise pollution caused by transportation construction. Friends of Riverside Hills found there wasn't enough data reported in the project's EIR and now the case is headed to trial. This current system allows for a pure waste of local transportation resources. Protection against construction-related dust pollution and noise is absolutely vital and it can be regulated under better written state and/or federal law, not litigation. If such provisions were in place, the Perris Valley Line construction contractor would have been held more accountable for any construction-related pollution and noise, RCTC would know which areas of the corridor would need to be quiet-zone designated, Friends of Riverside Hills would have ended up with a frivolous case and the lawsuit against the long-overdue Perris Valley Line would have been thrown out by any impartial judge. This legal loophole must be closed by the state and feds, and it needs to be done soon.

Political Chaos with the Hemet Transit Center

Unnecessary Bureaucratic Red Tape is sapping proposed Riverside County Transit Centers at epidemic levels

Political money games and the lack of cooperation between public entities are sapping worthy Inland Empire transit projects once more. Again, The Transit Coalition has to remind the state and feds: You have to know what's it like to be in the real world.

This Google Maps satellite aerial imagery shows the general location of a city-identified site and a prime location for a proposed transit center in the City of Hemet. The multi-modal station was proposed to be developed adjacent to a proposed courthouse in the heart of the historic downtown core complete with a transit village.

In reality, developing the transit center, a courthouse with a public square and a future Metrolink station in this area would be very desirable for this Inland suburb starved for free market economic growth. However, according to this RTA Budget & Finance Committee Report, delays at the state level combined with potential de-obligation actions from the federal government has led to nothing except for bureaucratic red tape for the Hemet Transit Center. RTA thus decided to conduct a site feasibility study to determine another optimal transit center location.

This is an outrage because plans for the Hemet station have already been in the works for nearly a decade by local officials. This is why the lack of cooperation with the state combined with overregulation and spending deadlines with the federal funds is bad for transportation projects - too many hurdles which negate Inland Empire transit development. This has happened before. RTA was forced to empty nearly all of the funds for a very desirable transit center project at the Riverside Downtown Metrolink station. According to the latest public documents from RTA, the alternative site for the Riverside Transit Center which is currently under study is now the site of the proposed Moreno Valley Transit Center, located on the western edge of the City of Moreno Valley at a proposed station for the Metrolink Perris Valley Line; the transit hub is now labeled the Northwest Transit Center. Basically, the Downtown Riverside Transit Center is back on the drawing board sitting with a near empty fund. Both the state and the White House should be outraged as The Transit Coalition is.

Moving ahead, the City of Hemet does have some local control over their transit center. Because the city envisions the development of a transit village adjacent to the transit center, why not entice private developers to come in by designating the transit center and courthouse block as a specific plan and offer tax incentives to the entrepreneurial class to build both of the public buildings and the courthouse square as part of the village complete with private sector jobs? The truth is Hemet is starved for a private job marketplace. Its residents could use some logistics, manufacturing, distribution and other blue-collar jobs. That is a smart way in getting Hemet back to a healthy state.

If local officials are serious about getting both the Riverside and the Hemet Transit Centers built next to the Metrolink rail system without going through a decade of planning, they must take the unnecessary regulations off the backs of the private sector and incentivize them to come in and build the facilities. Local officials need to have the desire and the will to have Riverside and Hemet not only survive, but to thrive. Meanwhile, both the state and the feds need to get out from their desks, visit the affected transit center sites themselves, and see what upper-level regulatory reform needs to be done to move these projects forward. The bottom line of this story: Government roadblocks continue unchecked, our transportation projects are being delayed at epidemic levels, and the riding public is paying for it.

What the Heck Happened with the Riverside Transit Center?

Political football games with transportation money is destructive to Inland Empire mobility.

As communities around California seek to reinvent their streets to be more multimodal this will be an additional challenge that must be addressed. Millions in dedicated funds for a proposed transit center in Downtown Riverside was locally de-obligated and assigned elsewhere, upsetting local bus riders. At their November 13, 2012 meeting, the Riverside City Council voted in a 6-1 majority to reaffirm its commitment toward building a multi-modal transit center on Vine Street near the downtown Metrolink station. The City agreed to work with the Riverside Transit Agency to work out differences over the project; however, some of those "differences" combined with federal deadlines and regulations came with a disastrous price tag for the Riverside riding public.

RTA had secured approximately $7 million toward this project from various public sources; the federal funding portion however was strapped with spending deadlines. Because officials failed to see how moving the existing transit hub several blocks east to Vine Street would affect the connecting bus routes, RTA decided in September to shelve the Vine Street location and instead spend $4.5 million of the transit center's funds to redevelop the existing Downtown Terminal station. The city and the local business community then expressed concerns about that plan, thus more fuel was dumped on the political fire.

Even though the City of Riverside can commit the Riverside Transit Center project to any public site it pleases, RTA has fiduciary responsibility over the project's funds, not the city. What the city can and should do instead is designate the Metrolink station block as a specific plan and offer local property tax incentives and rebates so that private developers and entrepreneurs can invest and build the transit center combined with a much-needed free market job site. This win-win funding concept has yet to be adopted.

With the Riverside Transit Center mired in public financial regulations and deadlines, RTA changed course and emptied the project's fund. At their October 2012 Board of Directors meeting, RTA redirected nearly all of the Riverside Transit Center's project funds toward the Twin Cities Transit Center in the Temecula/Murrieta area.

From the perspective of the riding public, this is a complete disgrace to Inland Empire mobility. Multi-modal connectivity between the downtown core, local buses and trains at the Riverside Downtown Metrolink station is very limited. That is very clear. To be fair, the Twin Cities Transit Center down south promises to address a growing region in the Inland Empire and coordinating the project with future high-speed rail is finally in the talks. But what is disappointing to the Riverside public is the lack of cooperation between local and federal officials to get the worthy Vine Street Transit Center built with the $7 million in funds already collected, among other issues (Page 5).

$7 million is more than enough to start up a first phase of the project by adding additional bus stops along the existing streets and moving the hub and bus routes over. The truth is the project was so strapped with rules and regulations that such a logical and cost-effective move wouldn't likely work on a sheet of legal paper, but work fine out in the real world. These political roadblocks must be reformed. Unnecessary federal regulations and political football games with transportation money only delays worthwhile projects, adds layers of cost, and is destructive to Inland Empire mobility. It will be continually confronted by The Transit Coalition

The Riverside City Council also indicated that RTA was potentially moving to a grid-based bus system based on a post on the Riding in Riverside Transit Blog. It's far too early to determine what proposals are in store, but Riverside County's street layout and demographics make a countywide grid-based bus system absolutely illogical. We all remember in 2000 OCTA's ill-advised Point-to-Point grid system that negated ridership systemwide. That colossal blunder led OCTA to alter several of its routes back to a hybrid grid and hub-and-spoke model. RTA's current system operates smartly on this hybrid system: The majority of routes connect at a major hub, fan out over the region, and emulate the grid system with direct service via major streets before rejoining again at the next hub. Aside from some changes outlined in The Transit Coalition's Future Vision, RTA should maintain its current route model.

Public Officials Must Stop the Nonsense with the Riverside Transit Center

Get the private sector onboard with a public-private partnership.

Even though there has already been much discussion about it for the past several years, let alone the last few weeks, the location of a proposed transit center in Downtown Riverside is once again back on the public agenda in Riverside. This time, the Riverside Transit Agency's Board of Directors will vote to rescind last month's approval to redevelop the existing Downtown Terminal station and instead direct agency staff to study alternative locations.

Recap of Riverside Transit Center Progress:
The Riverside Downtown Terminal is currently located northwest of the downtown core and the current facility is too small to sustain the growth in transit demand. Greyhound Bus Lines also operates a terminal next door; its facility is long overdue for a remodel. Local officials proposed closing the Downtown Terminal and developing a multi modal transit center at the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station to address long term growth; a smart thing to do. In 2006, Compass Blueprint studied the area and concluded that private developer investments be included to fund recommendations such as a pedestrian bridge over the 91 Freeway into the downtown core. Public officials have not been able to secure the funding as of now.

Early in September, with transit rerouting yet to be analyzed and federal funds in jeopardy, the City of Riverside had considered shelving the multi-modal project altogether and instead decide to renovate the existing downtown bus terminal. After the September 27, 2012 RTA Board meeting where the agency approved plans to demolish and rebuild the existing Riverside Downtown Terminal, the Riverside City Manager and the downtown business community contacted RTA and expressed concerns regarding the plans. The specifics were not disclosed; however the issue will be brought up again at the November 13, 2012 Riverside City Council Meeting. In response, RTA convened a special Executive Committee meeting and staff was directed to conduct another site feasibility study of the Riverside Transit Center.

Stop the Nonsense:
The Transit Coalition believes public officials at both the local and federal level must stop this stuff right now. We already have an existing report explaining the benefits of building the Riverside Transit Center adjacent to the Metrolink Station. Spending extra public money to re-scout and re-study the transit center's location is not the best approach, even if its bundled with RTA's upcoming Comprehensive Operational Analysis report. If Downtown Riverside's market economy was robust and RTA's bus system was first-rate, we could invest additional transportation dollars for another site feasibility study for the Riverside Transit Center. But the Compass Blueprint report has sufficient data. The private industry also continues to have limited confidence in Downtown Riverside. That means private expansion remains slow and very few new jobs being created. Unnecessary spending of precious public transit dollars must stop. There is no question about that.

Funding the Riverside Transit Center at the Metrolink Station:
As The Transit Coalition has been addressing for the past several years, seamless connections between the growing Metrolink train network and connecting local RTA buses at Downtown Riverside is limited. The 91 Freeway also continues to divide the train station with the heart of the downtown core. Compass Blueprint studied these issues and opportunities and offered several suggestions. Other than adding a carpool lane to the 91 freeway, not much has changed since 2006 in regards to demographics. These are the primary reasons why the Coalition continues to advocate for the transit center to be built next to the train station combined with a pedestrian bridge over the freeway.

Public officials may not seem to know what to do to build this transit center and bridge. So let The Transit Coalition offer a possible solution. Get the private sector onboard with a public-private partnership. Incline developers into the area by designating the Metrolink station block as a specific plan as suggested by Compass Blueprint. Offer a developer incentive for including the bus bays, parking structures, and the freeway pedestrian overpass as part of the transit-oriented development. Establish business-friendly policies so that owners and entrepreneurs can better invest in property and build up a private sector job marketplace. The result would be a powerful free market job site like Irvine Towers in Downtown Riverside complete with a multi-modal transit center, seamless rail connections and a pedestrian bridge to the downtown core.

Now that's good oversight on building a robust transit center for Downtown Riverside that would "meet [RTA's] needs well into the future".

Riverside Transit Center Mired in Political Money Games

Stop the Madness: Incline the Private Sector to Invest in the Vine Street Riverside Transit Center and a bridge across the freeway.



Lack of public funding has long been a reason why many Riverside Transit buses don't operate during late night hours and why several capital improvement projects seem to be moving along at a snail's pace. This includes a long-awaited transit center just footsteps from the train platforms at the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station. However, there may be some contributing factors behind this "lack of funding" appearance. As The Transit Coalition and local press have been reporting, political games with Inland Empire transportation money have reached epidemic proportions. The September 2012 RTA Board of Directors Agenda illustrates the latest money madness with not only Downtown Riverside's Metrolink bus transit center project, but also a planned inter-modal facility in Temecula.

Lack of Public Funding Efficiency and Fairness in Temecula:
The federal government awarded RTA over $1.3 million toward the development of an intermodal transit center in Southwest Riverside County at the border of Temecula and Murrieta. Despite the fact that the Twin Cities Transit Center has been in RTA's plans for several years, the Federal Transit Administration de-obligated and rescinded those funds because the money appeared to sit idle for too long. The problem is RTA was caught in a catch-22 situation; additional funding had to be secured before the federal money could be spent. How can the feds expect RTA to spend money on a worthwhile project that the agency doesn't have?

The Politics of the Vine Street Riverside Transit Center:
Likewise, $7 million has been secured to date for a transit center in Downtown Riverside that was planned to be built next to the nearby Metrolink station. However, the same federal time clock is ticking on $3 million of its funds. Earlier in September, the Riverside City Council responded by allocating the federal money toward improvements of the existing Downtown Terminal station with the local money toward the Metrolink transit station. However, the City Council does not have fiduciary responsibility over the project's funds; RTA does...and the transit agency had other plans.

Back to the Downtown Terminal Drawing Board:
The RTA Board of Directors instead voted to direct the transit center's local money toward a full scrap-and-build renovation of the existing Downtown Terminal and the next door Greyhound bus station at $4.5 million. The remaining federal money would be spent on constructing bus bays, not at the downtown Metrolink station, but at the RCTC-proposed Hunter Park train station.

Incline the Private Sector to Invest in the Station:
The truth is the Downtown Riverside area is in desperate need of a private sector job marketplace and The Transit Coalition has offered concepts to address this. A strong private marketplace is imperative for a healthy public transportation system. And we are not buying "lack of funding" until the political football games stop.

Public transportation officials need to understand that giant money games like these which are going on at all levels of the public sector negates mobility and quality of life.

Once again The Transit Coalition believes public agencies should respect transportation dollars, coordinate efforts, and work together for a first-rate transit system. Bickering and strict rules only game the system and we all pay for it. The City of Riverside is starved for private sector jobs and is long overdue for a multi-modal transit center with across-the-platform rail-to-bus connections. Incline the private sector to invest in the downtown Metrolink station. "Lack of funding" is no excuse.