Re: Progressive-RTC-and FOER?
Author: Rustyspike
Date: 06-18-2018 - 23:14

This is an active rail line that may have a few locations that need to be repaired but the RTC as owner has the right to restart rail service without CEQA, they will be getting the proper permits for any repairs if needed. The Eel River section of the NWP has numberous washouts, bridges gone and culverts gone and left over environmental issues and the NCRA somehow agreed to do an EIR and follow the CEQA process and it does not look like RTC ever agreed to do this and did they agree to looking at a rail with a trail option? This legal opinion by the trail folks will not hold up. Of course this is California and you never know what a judge will rule.



Subject Written By Date/Time (PST)
  Progressive-RTC-and FOER? UCSC Child 06-17-2018 - 17:50
  Re: Progressive-RTC-and FOER? Coastline Bill 06-17-2018 - 18:32
  Re: Progressive-RTC-and FOER? reference Santa Cruz Carol L Voss 06-17-2018 - 19:47
  Re: Progressive-RTC-and FOER? American Flyer 06-18-2018 - 08:24
  Re: Progressive-RTC-and FOER? UCSC Child 06-18-2018 - 09:34
  Re: Progressive-RTC-and FOER? Trash Collector 06-18-2018 - 09:46
  Re: Progressive-RTC-and FOER? Rustyspike 06-18-2018 - 23:14


Go to: Message ListSearch
Subject: 
Your Name: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **        **  ********  **      **  **    ** 
  **  **         **     **     **  **  **   **  **  
   ****          **     **     **  **  **    ****   
    **           **     **     **  **  **     **    
    **     **    **     **     **  **  **     **    
    **     **    **     **     **  **  **     **    
    **      ******      **      ***  ***      **    
This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com