Light Rail Route Proposals Spark Debate, Protests

Nobody likes traffic jams or polluted air. So mass transit is widely regarded as the way to go--as long as it goes somewhere else.

Response to a proposed light rail line in the San Fernando Valley has fit this pattern. Tepid support has come from the public and heated opposition from many closest to proposed routes for the line.

It’s the “not-in-my-backyard syndrome,” said Jacki Bacharach, a member of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. The commission wants to build a 14.3-mile trolley system between Canoga Park and the planned Metro Rail station in North Hollywood.

The commission’s Rail Transit Committee, which Bacharach chairs, will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Birmingham High School, 17000 Haynes St. in Van Nuys. The committee is seeking comments on route alternatives at the eastern and western ends of the line, which for the most part would operate on a Southern Pacific right of way. In April, the committee is scheduled to decide which alternatives should undergo detailed cost and engineering studies, and which should be dropped from consideration.

Expressions of Dread

The commission has already heard expressions of dread from many along the railroad right of way. Three meetings in February mainly attracted people who fear a loss of peace and privacy and a drop in the value of their homes.

“I can see where it might help people out who don’t live by it,” said Irene Hagemeier, who lives near the right of way in Tarzana, as she studied route maps on display at one of the evening gatherings.

Commuters are “are going to drive over here and park in front of my house,” another resident said indignantly as he gauged the distance on the map between a station site and his home.

Commission officials told many anxious residents that noise will not be a problem. Light rail is “less noisy than a bus accelerating,” said Ben Darche, a rail development engineer with the commission. “You’re not going to hear it . . . if you live more than 100 feet away.”

But many residents are unconvinced. One man who filled out a comment card wrote: “Your program has already devalued the majority of the property values along this route.”

Half-Cent Sales Tax Funding

The project would be built with revenue from a 0.5% sales tax approved by Los Angeles County voters in 1980 to pay for transportation improvements, including a 150-mile network of rail transit lines.

The Valley line would not be completed until 1993 at the earliest. And in the view of some officials, the project is unlikely to be built without the troubled Metro Rail subway or another rail link to downtown.

Even so, battle lines are being drawn over the route that should be followed.

Commission planners are assuming that they will be able to acquire the Southern Pacific right of way that is still used for freight deliveries.

An official with the Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corp. said the firm is negotiating with the commission, but stressed that there has been no decision to abandon freight service--an action that would require sanction from the Interstate Commerce Commission. Even if freight service continues, however, the right of way might be wide enough for trolley service as well, the official said.

Proposal Spurs Protest

The use of the right of way along Chandler Boulevard is fiercely opposed by residents of that neighborhood, particularly by the Orthodox Jewish community there. Its protest has prompted consideration of an east-end route down Burbank or Victory boulevards.

The Orthodox community, which has grown up around the Shaarey Zedek Congregation and a group of Jewish schools, turned out in force at one of the workshops last month to oppose light rail service on Chandler. The group contends that the trolley would disrupt classes and religious services and would endanger worshipers, who are barred from riding in cars on the Sabbath and must walk to services.

Their protest has been joined by state Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys), who last month told commission officials in a letter that a Chandler route “would knife through this community.”

The alternatives to Chandler--Burbank and Victory--have the advantage of being more commercial streets. But both have problems.

Putting tracks on Burbank would require eliminating parking along the street to accommodate the flow of traffic, commission officials said.

Building rail lines without choking Victory, a major east-west traffic artery, could prove extremely expensive and difficult, commission officials said. Victory carries 60% more traffic than Burbank. Using Victory would mean reducing its capacity or spending a lot of money to widen it or install elevated tracks.

In light of such obstacles, a group in North Hollywood is organizing to keep Chandler from being cast out of the detailed route study.

The group, which calls itself Fair Alignment Is Right, will argue at the hearing Wednesday that Chandler “shouldn’t be thrown out just because one group says it’s a bad idea,” said Guy McCreary, a spokesman for the committee.

He said the commission should build the line that does “the greatest good for the greatest number” of people--including commuters and taxpayers as well as residents.

At least one homeowners’ group is likely to oppose the portion of the line that crosses the northern edge of Encino.

“We’re not against rapid transit per se,” said Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino Inc., a nonprofit group with nearly 1,000 members. But Silver said many in his group have expressed “resistance to light rail through Encino.”

Silver said the project could encourage more intensive development, but that this “growth-inducing impact . . . is not being considered.” He said he is also concerned about a crush of extra visitors to the Sepulveda Dam and Balboa recreation areas, which the line would pass.

From the western end of the rail right of way, several ways to serve Warner Center are being considered. One option is a loop of tracks from Victory down Topanga Canyon Boulevard to Oxnard Street, and from there to Owensmouth Avenue to turn north to Victory.

Prospects for the line may hinge more on Metro Rail’s fate than on neighborhood concerns. Financing for the $3.3-billion, 18.6-mile subway is uncertain because the Reagan Administration opposes a large federal contribution to the project.

Bacharach said Metro Rail’s demise would not necessarily kill the Valley trolley. “It’s very possible this could be a stand-alone line,” she said. “The jury’s out on that.”

Others, including Larry Foutz, a transportation planner with the Southern California Assn. of Governments, believe that the Valley line would not be viable without Metro Rail or another rail link to downtown.

If Metro Rail goes forward, the Valley project still would have to compete for an early start with other proposed light rail lines.

The commission, which administers transportation sales-tax revenue, has made funding commitments to Metro Rail, to the Long Beach-to-Los Angeles light rail line, and to the Century Freeway light rail line.

Officials said there will probably be enough money to start only one other project in the next few years.

The Valley project is one of three that are next in line for commitments. The other two, which are also under study, are a proposed South Bay line through Marina del Ray and a line from Lincoln Heights to Pasadena.