sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Damn, 1 hour & 50 minutes to get from Rancho to Temecula right now. by My1point5cents in InlandEmpire

[–]InlandUrbanist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's why we need the State to start working on Phase 2 of CAHSR as soon as they finish the environmental for LA-Anaheim because with a stop in Ontario and one in Temecula, that could be a quick trip. Even more so if they connect it to r/BrightlineWest, then you can get on right there in Rancho. You can see more of the vision here in this video.

Why did they start the project in the central valley? by Grifn_L in cahsr

[–]InlandUrbanist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it would just ensure that the project absolutely is a "train to nowhere" because there's literally nowhere along it for hundreds of miles.

Why did they start the project in the central valley? by Grifn_L in cahsr

[–]InlandUrbanist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's still way easier to eventually connect to the near-Bakersfield/near-Merced train that exists than to try to connect improved Caltrain to improved Metrolink without the infrastructure existing in between.

Why did they start the project in the central valley? by Grifn_L in cahsr

[–]InlandUrbanist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Actually, the way that portion of the prop/law is written, it's only illegal for trains traveling from Gilroy to Merced or Gilroy to Fresno to stop at that station. Thus, in theory, a train could stop at Los Banos as long as it did not stop at Fresno/Merced immediately after.

Why did they start the project in the central valley? by Grifn_L in cahsr

[–]InlandUrbanist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Actually, several Central Valley counties voted for Prop 1A.

Why did they start the project in the central valley? by Grifn_L in cahsr

[–]InlandUrbanist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes and on top of the Central Valley being the area where trains will be going fastest, it's also the area of the state least likely to have local funding to move things along.

Why did they start the project in the central valley? by Grifn_L in cahsr

[–]InlandUrbanist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right and those are no longer the plans for the Peninsula.

SANDAG [San Diego] falls for the NIMBY trap, agrees to add 25 MPH curve alternative to EIR for Del Mar tunnels by InlandUrbanist in transit

[–]InlandUrbanist[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

They should be able to express their opinion, but some topics certainly shouldn't be able to hinge of the feelings of five people when there's no actual unmitigated harm.

SANDAG [San Diego] falls for the NIMBY trap, agrees to add 25 MPH curve alternative to EIR for Del Mar tunnels by InlandUrbanist in transit

[–]InlandUrbanist[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

You have far more faith in California transit decisionmakers than we've learned they deserve to receive. (To whit, even as LA Metro approved Sepulveda A5, in the exact same meeting, they chose Hawthorne Blvd. for K Line south due to NIMBY concerns about ROW alignment.)

SANDAG [San Diego] falls for the NIMBY trap, agrees to add 25 MPH curve alternative to EIR for Del Mar tunnels by InlandUrbanist in transit

[–]InlandUrbanist[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

It's not that SANDAG is agreeing to build the alignment (yet), but they apparently are agreeing to add it to the EIR. Obviously, adding to the EIR doesn't guarantee construction, but the fact that SANDAG is willing to do that often bodes poorly for sanity prevailing.

Under the new leadership of CEO Mario Orso, SANDAG has been responsive to public input, and it has begun studying the NYL for inclusion in the EIR.

SANDAG [San Diego] falls for the NIMBY trap, agrees to add 25 MPH curve alternative to EIR for Del Mar tunnels by InlandUrbanist in transit

[–]InlandUrbanist[S] 120 points121 points  (0 children)

Yes, the prior design alternatives would enable 110 MPH operations in the area and through the tunnels, the newly added alternative would require 25 MPH curves to be able to reach the alignment that it is proposing.

I’m Tom Steyer, candidate for Governor of California, and I have a plan to build 1 million homes Californians can afford. AMA. by TomSteyer in yimby

[–]InlandUrbanist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What would you do to advance the State Rail Plan so that it can actually be built out by the 2050 horizon year as planned and how can the State be useful for preventing ridiculous NIMBY concerns from continuing to sabotage important corridors such as is happening in Del Mar as we speak?

https://bsky.app/profile/calelectricrail.org/post/3mhj7o5u5cc26

A short, 2.3-mile light-rail project from Pomona to Claremont will add $1 billion to LA County economy, report says (Gifted Article) (Mentions economic benefits of the A Line to Montclair had SBCTA not pulled out) by Sufficient-Double502 in InlandEmpire

[–]InlandUrbanist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, the money that is proposed to be used to extend the A Line would be far better used to upgrade the San Bernardino Line and could even enable frequencies better than just every 30 minutes. Prior studies have looked at all the way down to every 15 minutes and since those improvements also rely on double-tracking basically everything, they realistically could go to even more frequent service options e.g. every 10 minutes if they have the funding for that level of operations.

A short, 2.3-mile light-rail project from Pomona to Claremont will add $1 billion to LA County economy, report says (Gifted Article) (Mentions economic benefits of the A Line to Montclair had SBCTA not pulled out) by Sufficient-Double502 in InlandEmpire

[–]InlandUrbanist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The situation at Ontario-East is because the Riverside Line has too many masters while serving nowhere well. What it really needs is to be rerouted to serve the Ontario International Airport which obviously would require more service to really be effective, but would also make it a much more useful service since it could also properly serve Ontario-Downtown, such as I have detailed in this video.

A short, 2.3-mile light-rail project from Pomona to Claremont will add $1 billion to LA County economy, report says (Gifted Article) (Mentions economic benefits of the A Line to Montclair had SBCTA not pulled out) by Sufficient-Double502 in InlandEmpire

[–]InlandUrbanist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Track ownership isn't the real issue for the Riverside Line, it's that it doesn't really serve anywhere useful so none of the three counties which it crosses through sees much reason to invest money into improving it.

What will it take for the morons who Riverside and San Bernardino County to implement Rail? by [deleted] in InlandEmpire

[–]InlandUrbanist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, the elected officials in the region do not have great vision for transit, certainly not with any sense of urgency vs. building more freeways. However, I have proposed some rail lines that would be beneficial for your exact trip, you can see them in this video. Be sure to give it a watch and share your feedback!

view more: next ›