|Site||Potential for Density||Transportation Connections|
|March Field||None- Greenfield set in suburban sprawl||1 local bus line, 1 (to-be-built) commuter rail line|
|Corona (Downtown)||Some- I-15 skirts downtown, with potential for infill||5 bus lines, one of them express, 2 commuter rail lines|
|Corona (Dos Lagos)||None- Greenfield set in suburban sprawl||1 bus line|
|Riverside (Downtown)||Explosive- urban downtown undergoing significant investment||10 local bus lines, 5 express bus lines, a planned BRT line, and 4 commuter rail lines|
As you can see, the most credible argument that we, as a city, can make to the Rail Authority about why they should choose a Riverside alignment over a Corona alignment is the thing that we have and that Corona lacks- a dense, urban downtown.
Also, many have argued that the Riverside station is a better bet for ridership from the populated areas of the Inland Empire- that Corona, situated on the edge of a mountainous wilderness and a nearly impassible canyon, would be too far away for San Bernardino residents to get to. They're right, of course, but March Field is only better if you believe that people will still be driving well into the 21st century- which I do not. For transit riders, especially from San Bernardino and Rubidoux, a downtown Riverside site is a significant improvement over Corona, with connections via both Metrolink and local bus services. However, getting to a March Field site will be yet another transfer to undoubtedly lousy service on either the Perris Valley Line or infrequent RTA bus service- these riders might find a Corona site much simpler.
In summary, the tension between a downtown Riverside station and a March Field station may be a moot point. It may be a choice between a downtown Riverside station, and one in Corona.