Loading...
0000974989055 I. AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF SAS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) J�AGENDA ITEM: NAME: �JC4 /?e�--- Y / XL�� "'��CJ ' ��71�r� PHONE NO.: ADDRESS: 3d l0 Pj21. '' -- tom"„ / L" � �rC�P STREET / CITY ZIP COD1?165E�/ REPRESENTING: A7(le�lllick ()� r Fn,1 . PHONE NO.: Y--- 7� (r�� NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / G OUP XiW� BUSINESS ADDRESS: s�=Y`-Z DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: V/A// 0 CHECK IF "SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: ri PUBLIC COMMENTS: V STREET CITY ZIP CODE B.02.02.11.01 3000 dIZ A110 13381S L :SS311001/ SS3NISna df10}io / NOIIVZINV0110 / AON3DV 30 3INVN ON 3N0Hd -041. / w d l �� 1 11--pewi ut 00 y i n 3003 dIZ A110 :9NI1N3S31ld311 133a1S --CtSc- ,2,13�/ ,5 :'ON 3N0Hd "mot ��+ 1 J I4S n � /// =1N311 VON391/ G 30 103rans 7/ d :SS3110011 =31NVN (VON3OV 3H1 NO O31SI1 SV) :'ON W311 VCIN39V :S1N3WW00 011and :S1N3ININO3 011and 30 103rans Al 1103H0 :311/O OHVO9 3H1 30 3111310 3H1 O111Wans 0NI/ H0t/130 3000 dIZ - A110 1331:11S 3NOHd :883E100V SS3NISn8 dnotiJ / NOIIVZINVOIJO / AON3OV d0 3INVN 3(300 dIZ A110 q Lszb VJ s,n)ad /r 2 S S - 9S6 �S�) :'ON 3N0Hd :ONI1N3S31id311 133tl1S " ti t VI » noVI 08 (7.i2 :SS31i00V °" 1-1 / %I 1p) A 9-YAI105 o pkvAn :31/11tlN :IN311 VON39b' d0 103P8nS siA^1 2171 Flo ns IVON391/ 3141 NO 031511 SV) :'ON u311 VCIN39V :S1N31N1A100 0118nd Al :S1N31N1A100 onand d0 103f8nS f dl H03H0 0/oZ/Vti+ :31V13 timing a41I an Anigin a411 n I I musing nN1d H`1t11 an 3003 dIZ A113 133111S 3003 dIZ =SS3HOCIV SS3NISOS d110110 / NOIIHZINVOHO / A3N3OV 30 3WtlN ='ON 3N0Hd :ON11N3S311d31:1 /rh G _9P .4_42=11N 3N0Hd A113 133H1S S4o'r/:y©0 pc), 5-W/p-C `� �7� •SS3HOOV �r--7 rAfb/,...-r a :3INVN =W311 VON3OV (tl0N30113H1 NO 031SI1 SVI JO 103rans ON IN311 VCIN3OV VOi1 7.74Od 4 A/6211 b///1 - ; > S / 7l �� :S1N3WW00 011E1Od :S1N3W W00 onand 30 103P8f1S Al NO3HO O ( - 6 :31VG 0111109 314140 111H313 3H1 O111W9f1S ONV 113V130 . PAUL W.CARLISLE 23045 DE BERRY ST. GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 (909) 783-0343 May 7, 2010 Ms. Edda Rosso Transportation Department P. O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: Metrolink Station Dear Ms. Rosso: There are more options available to a rider without transferring from Highgrove than from Pamyrita Ave. located on the Perris/Riverside line. I would not use the Palmyrita station if I had to transfer in Riverside. Sincerely, Paul W.Carlisle r� ?i "(9 Ms. Edda Rossso Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12009 Riverside, Ca. 92502-2208 Ms. Rossso, 'D I� �� ! �',!` kmm r s 7 ,7 [i, t1jti TP,ANCPO.:•? " May 2, 2010 Having learned of a decision about to be made on the issue of a Metrolink station in the Highgrove area, I would like to explain my views on this, for your consideration. First of all, I think it is wonderful your commission is pursuing a Metrolink station in the Highgrove- Riverside area. 1 am sure the good citizens in the Moreno Valley -Perris -Hemet -San Jacinto areas are thrilled. We do need cost effective public transportation that will connect to most points in our great State. And that is the very point for my letter to you. You see, by placing the Metrolink station in the Highgrove area between Center & Main, it will serve two purposes, not just one. It will be pertinent for the connection of the Hemet route to effectively connect with the current train routes being served. There just isn't any reason that I can think of putting a station at Palmyrita St. Riders being dropped off there would have no connections other than walking or having to take a bus or taxi to another connection. I feel that would have a negative effect on riders using the train and limiting ridership. In addition, if the commission decided to use Palmyrita, and it was determined later another Metrolink stop was needed for riders to use the other train routes, well, you would have to create a 2nd facility for that purpose. You would have two facilities doing the work of one facility if it was placed correctly. Another factor, property is not an issue here. Both options have space available. In fact, putting the connection at the Center -Main space would be good for the area as there is a decaying park just sitting there dying (owned by Riverside Canal). There is property space on both sides of track to utilize. It is just perfect for the connection where the Hemet -San Jacinto track begins off the main tracks. Finally, there is the New High School on Main St (Grand Terrace). It will add to ridership being placed there. Ms. Rossso, I am particularly interested in this issue, you see, my wife & I do use Metrolink in Riverside heading to Union Station and connecting to LAX by bus. I know for a fact, there are residents who live in Highgrove & Grand Terrace who use the Metrolink for, work every day. They drive to the Riverside station & park. I trust when you compare the sites, you will add up the benefits and see the Center -Main spot has more opportunities. Thank y for readirJg my letter. David Keeling (909) 875-1605) 3.oz...0 It_(0 ti-tayee �� f��tac� ea- . g2.313 17; 4%eedli e�l4 7i14i Ai•Ap211 RDt l`.(_-_? 1 Q523 1 ►^ `mtk METIROLINK. April 30, 2010 Ms. Cathy Bechtel Project Development Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3r1 Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 MAY 05 -2nie COUNTY j e Southem California Regional Rail Authority Subject: SCRRA concerns regarding Perris Valley Line Dear Cathy: On April 12, 2010, SCRRA transmitted its comments on STV's 65% design submittal for Perris Valley Line. At this time, we wish to reiterate SCRRA's concerns regarding six items that will directly affect the safe and efficient operation of revenue service on PVL. These six items are: (1) Necessity of a track upgrade at the Box Springs Canyon segment; (2) Risks associated with the installation of a mid -platform pedestrian crossing at Perris Station; (3) Mid -point controlled siding for a train meet; (4) Agreement between RCTC and the Orange Empire Railroad Museum; (5) Robust communications system; and (6) PTC compatibility. 1. Necessity of track upgrade in Box Springs Canyon In an October 31, 2008, letter to RCTC, SCRRA expressed the need for a significant upgrade to the track in Box Springs Canyon from approximately Mt. Vernon Ave. to Box Springs Blvd. This approximate 3.5 miles of track features steep grades, many sharp curves, and reversing curves. In this letter, SCRRA requested that the Box Springs Canyon track be rehabilitated to include 136 lb. continuously welded rail, concrete ties, and 9-inch depth of ballast. It is SCRRA's understanding that RCTC and the PVL project team agreed to this track upgrade at that time. In SCRRA's recent review of the 65% design for PVL we found that this section of track is not designed to be upgraded per our earlier request. The design shows a rehabilitation of the track with limited replacement of wood ties and reuse of existing rail. The proposed minor rehabilitation is not adequate to run safe and efficient passenger revenue service given the combination of passenger operations, long heavy freight trains, and tightly curved steep -grade track. SCRRA considers Box Springs Canyon the most vulnerable section of track on PVL. SCRRA is concerned that failing to upgrade the steep -grade track and tight curves in Box Springs Canyon would expose the PVL to risks of freight train or passenger train derailments similar to one that recently occurred at Miramar. Please refer to the information we sent you regarding Miramar, which has physical characteristics very similar to PVL. A freight derailment in Box Springs Canyon would take a key single- track segment of the PVL out of service and immediately impose major repair costs upon SCRRA and RCTC. For these reasons, SCRRA again requests upgrade of the track through Box Springs Canyon. 2. Risks associated with installation of a mid -platform pedestrian crossing at Perris Station On March 25, 2010, SCRRA and RCTC met with CPUC and City of Perris officials to discuss the City's request for a pedestrian crossing bisecting the Perris Station platform. This pedestrian crossing 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T (213) 452.0200 metrolinktrains.com . ! t�