Choice Near in Debate Over Subway vs. Monorail : Transit: Backers of the Ventura Freeway and Burbank-Chandler routes await the county Transportation Commission's decision.

By HUGO MARTIN

Dec. 7, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

For nearly three years, a debate has been raging in the San Fernando Valley that has split residents and elected officials into warring factions: whether to build a mostly underground east-west rail line across the Valley or an elevated line over the Ventura Freeway.

Homeowners formed four lobbying groups, each of which spent thousands of dollars to oppose the rail project that would most affect their neighborhood while supporting the rival line.

The underground route appeared to have gained important political backing. But supporters of the freeway line have been buoyed by a public opinion victory at the polls and a recent action by construction consortiums indicating that they regard the freeway route as more practical.

Now, as members of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission prepare to meet Dec. 16 to make a final decision and end the debate, the two factions are gearing up for one final campaign to sway the commission’s vote.

A coalition of groups representing homeowners who live along the freeway route mailed flyers last week to about 12,000 Valley residents, urging them to oppose the freeway line--often referred to as a monorail for short, but which also could involve some other form of elevated rail line. The group supports the mostly underground line, which is known as the Burbank-Chandler route because it would parallel Burbank and Chandler boulevards.

The flyers, sent by the Coalition of Freeway Residents, which represents seven anti-monorail homeowner groups, urge residents to “call and write to the undecided votes on the commission. Tell them that you support the subway on the Burbank-Chandler line and don’t want the noise, vibration and visual pollution along the Ventura Freeway.”

Meanwhile, the Citizens Committee for Monorail, a self-described citizens group that is mostly financed by developers and other businesses, is also planning to send mailers to residents along the proposed monorail route.

Bill Korek, head of Van Nuys-based Korek Land Co. and co-chair of the pro-monorail committee, said the group has not decided how many mailers to send “but certainly not 12,000.”

He said the mailer will also urge residents to call commission members and ask them to support the monorail project.

The two sides will have their work cut out for them. In a September survey of the commission, seven of the 11 members said they were undecided, while the remaining four were evenly split between the two projects.

Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alatorre, one of the undecided commissioners, has “been getting a steady stream” of calls and mail from both sides but particularly from the anti-monorail forces, said Gerard Orozco, the councilman’s legislative deputy.

At issue is the nature of the line that will connect the West Valley to a linkup point in the southeastern Valley with the Metro Red Line going downtown.

As proposed, the freeway line would cost $2.59 billion and would run 16.2 miles along the freeway median from Universal City to Woodland Hills. The Burbank-Chandler line would cost $3.03 billion and run 14 miles, mostly underground, from North Hollywood to Warner Center.

The commission has already adopted environmental studies on both projects--indicating that the members feel that the environmental effects of the projects can be adequately dealt with.

Monorail supporters claimed a small victory last month when it was announced that two private partnerships, which had been asked to submit bids to build either project, offered only to build the elevated freeway line, not the Burbank-Chandler subway.

In requesting the non-binding bids, the commission did not specify the type of technology preferred for either line, so that the companies could determine which technology they thought would be the most practical to build and operate. Although supporters of the freeway line have lobbied for a monorail, the companies were allowed to submit bids based on other types of elevated rail lines.

One partnership, headed by Bombardier Inc. of Canada, offered to build either a monorail or an advanced light-rail project over the freeway. The partnership proposed building the Valley line separately or as part of a high-speed rail project that would also connect Los Angeles International Airport and Palmdale.

The second partnership, headed by Matra Transit, a Chicago-based subsidiary of a French urban transit company, offered to build an automated guideway line, similar to the technology used on the Metro Blue Line. The Matra design, however, would receive power from a third ground rail rather than an overhead wire.

County transportation officials are withholding the construction estimates offered by the private companies until a panel of the commission meets Wednesday to discuss the proposals.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who has championed the monorail project for years, said the bids show that the private companies feel that the elevated freeway line is a superior alternative because it is less expensive and can be built more quickly.

“It means that they realize that there is a shortage of funds and they want to do more with less,” he said.

Korek of the pro-monorail group agreed. “I think these companies feel monorail is the most effective option,” he said. “When there was no bid for the tunnel system, I thought ‘We are going to win.’ ”

Don Schultz, president of the Van Nuys Homeowners Assn. and an opponent of the Burbank-Chandler line, said he hopes that the bids will sway some commissioners to choose monorail, but he fears that the commission is committed to the Burbank-Chandler line because it has already spent $150 million to buy the right of way for that line from Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

“They have painted themselves into a corner,” he said.

Larry Irvin, a consultant to Bombardier, said the partnership chose the elevated freeway line because of the price advantage of at least $403 million over the Burbank-Chandler route. He said the group realized that the commission has limited funds and so wanted to offer the least expensive alternative.

“We felt quite strongly that aerial configuration was more competitive and had a price advantage,” he said.

John Marino, senior vice president of the American subsidiary of Matra Transit, said cost was also the key factor for his group in choosing the freeway route.

But he also said his group stayed clear of the Burbank-Chandler route because his company would face more risks in digging a subway than building an elevated or ground-level rail line. He pointed out that no geological surveys have been done to study the possibility of soil problems along the Burbank-Chandler route, such as chemical contamination or gas pockets.

The elevated freeway line could also run more frequently than the Burbank-Chandler project, which would be an extension of the Metro Red Line subway and would have to operate with the same frequency, Marino said.

Marino’s analysis conflicts with a report prepared in September by the staff of the Transportation Commission that said the Burbank-Chandler route could carry a daily maximum of 135,000 passengers compared with 63,000 for the monorail.

Gerald A. Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino and head of the Coalition of Freeway Residents, minimized the significance of the bids, saying the private companies simply offered to build the project that best suits those companies, not Valley residents.

“The whole thing is a ploy to get Antonovich’s fat boys in on the bidding process,” he said.

The debate over the two projects began in 1990 when the commission adopted the Burbank-Chandler route and paid Southern Pacific $150 million for the right of way. But at the behest of Antonovich, the commission ordered its staff to study a freeway monorail alternative.

Antonovich was also instrumental in putting on the 1990 ballot an advisory referendum in which 48% of the voters supported monorail, 21% supported a light-rail line in a shallow ditch, 20% supported no rail and only 10% backed a subway.

Since study of the two projects began, homeowner groups, business organizations and local politicians have taken sides. Despite the results of the referendum, most Valley elected officials have lined up behind the Burbank-Chandler route.

Supporters of the Burbank-Chandler route include Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles); state Sens. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles) and David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys), Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Encino), Los Angeles City Councilmen Marvin Braude and Michael Woo, and Supervisor Ed Edelman.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Panorama City), chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee, on Sunday formally endorsed the Burbank-Chandler alternative, saying he still had concerns about safety and traffic congestion involving the monorail proposal.

Also supporting the Burbank-Chandler route is the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., Universal City/North Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, Studio City Chamber of Commerce and Tarzana Chamber of Commerce.

The Coalition of Freeway Residents represents the Encino Property Owners Assn., Homeowners of Encino, Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., Studio City Residents Assn., Tarzana Property Owners Assn., Valley Village Homeowners Assn. and the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization.

Monorail supporters, on the other hand, include Antonovich, the Citizens Committee for Monorail, the Van Nuys Homeowners Assn., and the Eastern Sector and Western Sector transit coalitions, two groups of homeowners who live along the Burbank-Chandler route.

East-West Rail Project Alternatives

Transit comparison based on studies by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission:

COST

Burbank-Chandler route: $3.03 billion

Elevated or monorail route: $2.59 billion

TRAVEL TIME (Downtown to Warner Center)

Burbank-Chandler route: 51 minutes

Elevated or monorail route: 60 minutes

MAXIMUM CAPACITY (passengers per day)

Burbank-Chandler route: 135,000

Elevated or monorail route: 63,000

ADVERSE IMPACTS