Talk:San Bernardino Line

would the redlands extension be part of the san bernardino line

since they are expanding to redlands, would it be part of the san bernardino or its own line —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.19.120 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

most likely no. the reason is that if you read SANBAG documents,SanBag is thinking of making it light rail because it is cheaper(think of it as the same type of light rail as the sprinter in san diego county). having said that though, the documents also suggest it still will be part of the metrolink system. the stations for the redlands extension are already built. since this expansion is based on the former san bernardino traction rail line/pacific electric local loop line. the reason that this extension is taking a long time to complete is because SanBAg wants to install new rails because somehow the old ones they do not meet todays current transit code(yet they run freight rail through their). the other reason is that SANBAG is also taking a long time, it that they want this line to be a complement to the SBX bus service running the same length. this means that the line will have to be modified to accommodate the elongated buses. if it does become a normal commuter rail, SANBAG is thinking of naming it the redlands line( though future expansion will eventually reach yucaipa with the possibility of reaching twentynine palms) . just like the perris valley lineJaviern (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

since the Onmitrans removal, this appears to indeed be some sort of extension of the SBL Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on San Bernardino Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101006215922/http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/pdfs/RedlandsFactSheet.pdf to http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/pdfs/RedlandsFactSheet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090826145331/http://www.estreet-sbx.com:80/ to http://www.estreet-sbx.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Downtown San Bernardino

A user keeps changing the name of the extension from Downtown San Bernardino Extension to San Bernardino extension claiming that using downtown is "promotional". The project, headed by the SBCTA calls it the Downtown San Bernardino extension, which is how it should be referred. Here is the source: Best,

House1090 (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

First, cease edit-warring. You falsely claim that you are "returning to the original" in your edit summary, but the original wording of the page was "Redlands extension". In fact, I changed the section title to San Bernardino extension. Second, given your extensive history of boosterism for the allegedly-existing area of "downtown San Bernardino", a healthy skepticism is warranted. The official title you link to above is "Downtown San Bernardino Passenger Rail Project", not "Downtown San Bernardino extension". However, that title is not used in third-party sources. "San Bernardino extension" is adequately informative without being overly specific (i.e., boosterism), and avoids CRYSTALBALL issues of over-specificity, given that the scope of the project may change, as it did when the extension to Redlands was modified to be a separate system with DMU and Metrolink locomotive interlining. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

An additional point is that "Downtown San Bernardino" would be an inaccurate descriptor as Metrolink service will continue to downtown Redlands, per this source: [1] James (^talk/_contribs) 23:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that both "San Bernardino" and "Downtown San Bernardino" do not fully and accurately reflect the projects' extent, I propose a return to the "Redlands extension" section title. Would that be acceptable to you User:House1090? James (^talk/_contribs) 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

References