ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS

The Commission’s environmental process for this Project is consistent with the state and federal rules and regulations to ensure fair and open consideration of anticipated impacts to the environment. RCTC has already identified a number of environmental issues that will be analyzed in depth, including: Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Hydrology/Water Quality, Recreation, Mandatory Findings of Significance, Agricultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Land Use/Planning, Transportation/Traffic, Biological Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, Utilities/Service Systems.

The proposed Perris Valley Line project is currently being evaluated through a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

How was the Perris Valley Line developed?

After the successful launch of Metrolink in 1992, RCTC took steps to leverage the potential for commuter rail as a solution to growing traffic congestion by purchasing the San Jacinto Branch Line from Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) in 1993.

In 2002, RCTC created the Perris Valley Line project, holding a series of six public meetings. In early 2004, RCTC, with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), conducted an Alternatives Analysis to evaluate transit options for alleviating current and forecasted transportation deficiencies. This included a no-project option that studied projected roadway planning efforts, an express bus service, and new commuter rail service. Commuter rail was found to offer the best alternative to congested roadways, improving mobility for residents and commuters and also contributing to reduced congestion.

In order to qualify the Perris Valley Line project for federal funding, a federal Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in 2004. Four public outreach meetings were held and the EA was circulated for review and comment. Approval of the Draft EA was delayed a number of times as a result of the need to refine ridership modeling data. RCTC’s engineering team helped to resolve the concerns and approval was expected at the beginning of 2009.

In 2007, FTA qualified the project for funding with a medium-high rating under the “Small Starts” portion of the “New Starts” grant program. RCTC has selected the Perris Valley Line project on the BNSF as its locally preferred alternative for providing public transit service to the area.

In 2008 engineering was conducted in order to complete studies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and discover what, if any, environmental impacts might result from the project. During the process, engineering was modified to minimize environmental impacts and two public outreach meetings were held to update the community.

Initially, RCTC prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on the project’s environmental impacts and circulated it to the public in 2008.

In the meantime, FTA, however, decided to require a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to refresh the 2004 information and to obtain new public comment.

In addition, during the public review of the Draft IS/MND, a number of concerns were raised regarding noise, traffic and visual impacts, station locations, and other factors. These concerns prompted RCTC to take action to prepare a Draft EIR under CEQA in order to clarify concerns and address new station site options.

Much of the scientific analysis required for a full Draft EIR was completed as a part of earlier studies for an IS/MND. Both the Draft EIR and the new work for the SEA have added approximately one year to the overall process.

How are community concerns being addressed?

The Draft EIR was released for public review from April 5, 2010 to May 24, 2010. Three public hearings were held on April 14th, April 22nd and May 17th, to receive comments on the studies.

RCTC has held a total of 17 community meetings since beginning the project. Public input at these meetings has led to changes in the design of the project. The public’s primary concerns throughout the process have been safety, noise, and rail traffic.

Safety:
Safety is a priority for RCTC and Metrolink. The Perris Valley Line would employ a comprehensive strategy of appropriate safety measures to systematically reduce the opportunity for accidents at grade crossings.

Fifteen existing grade crossings would be improved with measures that could include flashing warning devices, gates, raised center medians, striping, signing and pavement markings, crossing safety lighting, and pedestrian safety improvements.

Federal law mandates that railroads have positive train control (PTC) in place by 2015. Although the specific technology has not been prescribed, Metrolink and the railroads are developing plans to meet that mandate.

Noise:
Upgrades to the tracks with such modifications as improvements to the rail bed and welded rail would mean less noise and vibration from rail traffic. Not only would the Metrolink trains be quieter, but existing freight traffic will be quieter as well. In addition, noise will be mitigated through the use of sound barriers in certain areas.

There is also a federal standard for cities and counties to apply for and create “Quiet Zones” where train horns and whistles are not used. Quiet Zones require extra safety measures to compensate for the non-use of the warning whistles and horns. These safety measures may include four quadrant gates, one-way streets with signs, and medians. It is the responsibility of the local agency that owns the roadway at the crossing to apply for and fund a Quiet Zone.

Rail Traffic:
The Perris Valley Line corridor has been used for freight since the 1880s.

When RCTC purchased the San Jacinto Branch Line track from BNSF, BNSF retained freight operating rights on the track. Metrolink trains, however, would receive priority. The new Perris Valley Line service would add six round trips per day to the existing rail traffic.

RCTC conducted a rail study on future freight demand and found that economic factors would play a larger role in determining freight use than track improvements. In fact, freight traffic could increase on the line to meet possible future increased demand even if no upgrades were made.