Promise to Valley Could Derail Metro Rail

Metro Rail proponents and Reagan Administration transit officials will gather amid fanfare Wednesday for a contract-signing ceremony that will clear the path for September’s ground-breaking on the huge, long-stalled commuter line.

But as they celebrate victory in a downtown Chamber of Commerce office, Los Angeles-area transit officials will know that a politically and financially troublesome problem is looming over the hill in the San Fernando Valley. If unresolved, it could jeopardize the fragile agreement concerning state funding for the entire Metro Rail project.

Under a 1984 state law once hailed as the “heart and soul” of Valley support for the controversial project, the Southern California Rapid Transit District is required to begin building from the North Hollywood end of the transit line within one year of its downtown ground-breaking.

At this point, there is no agreement on how to pay for the Valley construction, which would add between $68 million and $100 million to state and local Metro Rail costs in the first several years of construction. The issue is sensitive, because the recently final funding agreements for the first 4.4-mile, $1.25-billion downtown segment of the line have already been criticized as committing too much local money to the project.

Both Ends

In addition, as critics of the build-at-both-ends requirement point out, the flow of future federal dollars needed to extend the downtown starter line is uncertain and no one knows when the line will reach the Valley.

But some key Valley lawmakers and Metro Rail supporters are upset, claiming that there appears to be a movement afoot to back away from the Valley construction commitment.

They cite a recently approved county Transportation Commission study that could, in lieu of building Metro Rail south from North Hollywood, call for a less costly extension of a proposed east-west Valley trolley line.

In addition, a Los Angeles city analysis of Metro Rail funding issues recently suggested that a “deferral or modification” of the Valley construction requirement might be pursued.

“I’m concerned that their intent is to evade the law, to avoid it,” said Michael Malek, a director of a citywide, business-oriented Metro Rail lobbying group and a leading Valley advocate of the project.

‘Obey the Law’

“It is contemporaneous or simultaneous construction (at both ends) that has been the reassurance to the Valley that it is not supporting a downtown benevolent society,” Malek said. “They should obey the law.”

State Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys), who authored the Valley construction requirement, said he intends to see the requirements of the law met.

“If they don’t have enough money to build Metro Rail to North Hollywood in the San Fernando Valley, then they shouldn’t build it (at all),” he said.

Saying “all the politicians committed to this” when they needed Valley residents’ and lawmakers’ support, Robbins vowed not to “step aside and let (Valley residents) be cheated.”

Assemblyman Tom Bane, a Tarzana Democrat whose district includes North Hollywood, said he has heard “rumbles” that Metro Rail supporters are “looking for a legislative change to get rid of the commitment to start building in the . . . Valley area. . . . What they want to do is back out of the program.”

Study Criticized

Robbins and Bane both criticized a study examining an alternative possibility of extending the light-rail line from North Hollywood to Universal City as a means of satisfying the Valley construction requirement.

“I told them I thought they were wasting their money when they did the study,” Robbins said.

Though Robbins’ bill does not specify what the penalty would be for non-compliance, there is more than $200 million in state funding needed for the downtown segment. Alluding to state funding, Robbins said he and Bane “will find an enforcement mechanism.”

RTD and county Transportation Commission officials acknowledge that they are studying alternative ways to comply with the general intent of Robbins’ bill. But they stress they have no other proposal at this time.

“There is a loose end,” said the commission’s executive director, Rick Richmond. “We are not in a position yet to propose a way to deal with it.”

Local Transit

Richmond noted that the commission, which administers local transit tax funds, is under pressure to control its Metro Rail contributions so that funds will be available for rail projects in other county areas.

The conservative majority of the county Board of Supervisors has been sharply critical of the commission’s agreement to pay the bulk of cost overruns on the first segment of the Metro Rail line.

Supervisor Deane Dana, a Metro Rail supporter and also chairman of the commission, fought the final financing plan and warned that the subway project could become “a parasite,” draining the commission’s money. He has summoned Richmond to Tuesday’s supervisors’ meeting to explain why he recommended support for the financing agreement.

Richmond said preliminary estimates are that substituting light-rail for subway between North Hollywood and Universal City could save up to 74% of the $250-million cost of the segment. He also said it would make the light-rail line “more viable . . . operating alone” until Metro Rail ultimately links up.

Richmond has also warned that if transit officials are required to begin Valley construction on a subway, there may not be enough money to build the Valley light-rail line.

Not Related

But Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda), chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee, said the required Metro Rail expenditures are not related to the light-rail project.

“They’ve got a commitment to the Valley. . . . That was the only way we agreed to all the other elements of the state (funding) package.”

Some Valley officials, including Councilman Joel Wachs, appear willing to listen to alternative offers.

“I’m sure the precise requirement (for Valley construction) could be changed. But there is leverage there to make sure the Valley is not shortchanged,” he said.