Ride Through Universal Pushed by Architect

UNIVERSAL CITY —  It may be another year before the first spadeful of dirt is turned for Universal Studios’ proposed $2-billion, 25-year expansion plan.

Yet neighbors who already complain of chronic traffic jams are beginning to worry about choked roadways once the massive Universal project takes root.

Architect Paul Ramsey, who fights his way through traffic each day on Barham Boulevard to reach his home just east of Universal Studios, believes he has designed a way to help unclog the mess: build a covered public road that would extend from Forest Lawn Drive through Universal’s property to the Hollywood Freeway.

With Disney, NBC, Warner Bros., DreamWorks, Universal and smaller entertainment businesses all planning to expand, Ramsey said, about 30 million square feet of new commercial space will be going up. “Unless very strong solutions can be found, our community is going to be overrun,” he said.

Building the first public roadway through Universal’s property, he says, would force the entertainment giant to make a big contribution to help solve the local traffic headache. “Universal is trying to get this expansion plan through and worry about things later,” Ramsey said.

His road idea has already made a short list of five traffic alternatives now under serious review by city, county and state agencies as part of their upcoming Barham-Cahuenga corridor traffic improvement study. The group will make a preliminary report on these traffic alternatives July 2 before the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission--the next public hearing on Universal’s expansion project.

Allyn Rifkin, chief of the transportation bureau for the city’s Department of Transportation, said while many geological, environmental and funding uncertainties remain about Ramsey’s roadway idea, it “is taken very seriously. We feel there is potential to divert traffic from Barham Boulevard. The question is feasibility and cost.”

Ramsey’s idea does not involve a conventional tunnel such as the problem-plagued MTA subway project under Hollywood Boulevard, but a roadway constructed inside a 20-foot-deep trench, then covered in a concrete structure.

*

There are geological studies now underway, and it’s possible that some of the proposed tract along filled-in land on Universal’s property may be too loose to support any tunnel. If so, Ramsey says, part of the road can be an above-ground tunnel covered with a berm, green scape or even Astro Turf to camouflage the view and muffle the sound. “It doesn’t have to be exactly like this concept,” he says. The goal “is to get something built.”

Money is another big uncertainty. Rifkin says construction costs for the Ramsey tunnel could run $200 million to $250 million, and that doesn’t cover any right-of-way costs for the land. Also, it could take 10 years to line up all the government finding and build the roadway.

The other traffic alternatives being considered, Rifkin says, include widening the Barham Boulevard bridge, trying to boost ride-sharing and public transit and adding an $80-million interchange at the 101 and 134 freeways. Ramsey’s tunnel, Rifkin says, is by far “the most expensive” idea under review.

Fred Pearson, lead outside consultant on a Barham-Cahuenga Pass traffic study, said Ramsey’s idea “is a very sincere attempt to solve a difficult traffic congestion problem. We’ll be analyzing it as objectively as we can to give it a fair shake.”

One thing is clear: Universal doesn’t want any public throughway on its land.

Helen McCann, the Universal vice president overseeing its expansion project, declined comment. But Rifkin said, “McCann has made it absolutely clear they will not allow something to be built on their property.”

Donald Toy, a member of the County Regional Planning Commission, is eager to hear about the traffic alternatives under study, including the Ramsey tunnel.

Would Toy exclude a public roadway if Universal opposes it? “Just because Universal doesn’t want something doesn’t negate it for me,” Toy said. “If it’s a mitigation measure that comes out best for the project and is beneficial to everybody, I’m going to look at it.”

Could the city and county seize some of Universal’s land for a public roadway? “I think legally we probably could,” says Robert Sutton, deputy director with the Department of City Planning.

Universal’s expansion proposal would roughly double its current building space over the next quarter of a century by adding 5.9 million square feet of studios, offices, theme park attractions, destination resort hotels, plus another 6.3 million square feet of parking space.

Universal City covers 415 acres, situated both on county and city land, with city and county planning departments reviewing the project. Whatever form Universal’s final expansion project takes will be subject to approval by both the City Council and county Board of Supervisors.

Homeowner groups, however, have been warning of increased noise, crime, pollution, traffic and sinking property values since CityWalk opened. They fear Universal’s new project is too vague and would give the company carte blanche to turn its site into an out-of-control destination resort and theme park complex.

The vast size of Universal’s property--larger than any entertainment tract in the Valley--contributes to the local traffic congestion, homeowners say. The north side of Universal’s land abuts the Los Angeles River channel, to the east is mountainous terrain, and there are few north-south access roads nearby.

*

All that and a lack of complete interchanges where the 101 and 134 freeways meet and a booming entertainment industry have created a traffic bottleneck.

“The regional traffic problem is already there. It is not entirely Universal’s fault,” said Joan Luchs, a homeowner who opposes Universal’s expansion project. But the lack of a public roadway through Universal’s property “exacerbates the traffic problem,” Luchs said. Consequently, she supports Ramsey’s road idea.

Krista Michaels, president of the Cahuenga Pass Property Owners Assn., says Ramsey’s tunnel idea “would not impact whatever Universal Studios wants to do on their property, because they can build right over it.” Universal “talks about paying their fair share” for traffic improvements, Michaels said. “Well, here’s a chance to participate by taking some of the burden.”

Universal contends when a planned Metro Rail stop--across the street from its property on Lankershim Boulevard--opens in about a decade, ridership will soar and feed much of Universal’s visitor traffic. A more immediate traffic alternative endorsed by Universal is the opening of a third public entrance at the entertainment complex’s northeast corner.

But Dan Garcia, Warner Bros. senior vice president of real estate planning and former president of the city Planning Commission, said opening a third entrance to Universal “will do nothing to mediate the traffic.” He also said Universal’s “assumption that everybody will ride Metro Rail and walk up the hill [to Universal] is amusing.”

Said Garcia: “The principal question is whether [Universal] will engage in a true planning exercise to make it work. . . . In my view, they could kill their own area with improper transportation planning.”