No Easy Route : As specific plans for a trolley get rolling, communities appear increasingly ready to fight to keep the lines out.

For almost four years, county transit engineers have been studying light-rail routes for the San Fernando Valley in near isolation. At most hearings, the turnout numbered about 50. Several times, staff members outnumbered the public.

All that changed last Monday night, when more than 700 people swamped a hearing in Van Nuys. Most were there to protest several proposed routes that would carry trains through North Hollywood residential neighborhoods.

One after another, speakers said they had realized only recently that the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission was proposing to bring increased noise, vibration and congestion to their streets.

Official Speeches

The protesters were joined by representatives of nearly a dozen elected officials, who read statements that in most cases drew applause by opposing any route that would disturb people in their homes.

A few business people and residents braved boos when they urged prompt construction of a line through North Hollywood to alleviate traffic congestion.

The turnout was more than twice that of any previous trolley hearing anywhere in the county, said Commissioner Jacki Bacharach, who chaired the hearing as head of the commission’s Rapid Transit Committee.

Although the sudden surge of public and political interest comes well along in the route-selection process, there are many steps to be taken by the commission before final action.

And Bacharach, who participated in route selection on the Long Beach and Century Freeway trolley lines now under construction, predicts that the North Hollywood protest will be duplicated in other Valley communities.

“As each new group of residents becomes alert to what is being proposed,” she said, “I expect we will hear from them in large numbers on both sides of the issue.”

The next step will occur Wednesday, when the 11-member commission is scheduled to determine which of seven proposed east-west routes should be included in a yearlong environmental study.

The session is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. at the Department of Water and Power auditorium, 111 N. Hope St., Los Angeles.

Bacharach said she has alerted fellow commissioners to “expect a long meeting with very strong public interest.”

Robert H. Silver, a co-founder of Eastern Sector Transit Coalition, which claims its door-to-door distribution of leaflets produced much of the turnout at Monday’s session, said the group would attempt another show of force Wednesday.

“We’re telling our people that this is a very important meeting, the big one,” Silver said.

At the Van Nuys session, the four-member committee unanimously endorsed two routes, Victory Boulevard and the Southern Pacific railroad mainline.

Split Support

They split, 2 to 2, on three other routes: the Ventura Freeway, the Los Angeles River flood-control channel and the Southern Pacific railroad freight line that follows Chandler and Victory boulevards across the Valley.

The other two routes, Ventura Boulevard and Sherman Way, drew no favorable votes.

Bacharach said she will present the results of the vote by the Rapid Transit Committee on each of the seven routes to the full commission, which in the past has several times disregarded committee recommendations in reaching a decision.

In addition, at least one hybrid route is expected to be presented to the commission.

Woodland Hills attorney Roger Stanard, a member of the commission’s Rail Transit Committee, which oversees design of the trolley lines after routes are chosen, said he has support from several commissioners for a proposal to study running the trains along the Los Angeles River channel between Universal City and Van Nuys Boulevard. Under Stanard’s plan, trains would then follow Van Nuys Boulevard north to Victory and run west on Victory to Warner Center.

The 11-member Transportation Commission, created by the Legislature in 1976, consists of the five county supervisors, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Pat Russell, Long Beach Councilman Marc A. Wilder, Santa Monica Mayor Christine E. Reed, Bradley appointee Marcia Mednick, and Bacharach, a Rancho Palos Verdes councilwoman.

Commissioners have indicated that they will select three or four routes for inclusion in a detailed environmental study that will include noise measurements at homes and businesses along the routes and ridership estimates.

Staff engineers say the study, to be conducted by outside consultants, will provide a factual basis for selection of a final route.

It has not been decided whether the environmental report will be returned to the Rapid Transit Committee for more hearings and recommendations.

Paring Down the Routes

Since 1983, the committee has been working to pare down routes for the Valley.

In November, the commission’s staff concluded three years of study by endorsing the Chandler-Victory freight line on the ground that it was the least expensive route, with a projected cost of $330 million, and would draw substantial numbers of riders.

The staff report triggered angry protests from individuals and elected officials and resulted in formation by 17 homeowner and religious groups of the transit coalition.

Not only are there protests in North Hollywood, but also a handful of West Valley residents have joined to fight any route configuration that uses the tracks paralleling Victory Boulevard west of the San Diego Freeway.

In response to the mushrooming opposition, the commission in November directed the staff to suggest alternative routes for inclusion in the environmental study. The staff concluded six weeks of restudy in January by recommending that the committee endorse the mainline, the Chandler-Victory route and Victory Boulevard, and that the four other routes be dropped from consideration.

The staff report was the basis for last week’s hearing and vote in Van Nuys.

In addition to fighting for a halt to consideration of the Chandler-Victory route, many North Hollywood residents have been simultaneously promoting the mainline route.

They contend that route will cause minimum disturbance to residents because most of the right of way goes through industrial areas.

But Ben Darche, the commission’s rail development engineer, predicted that residents living near the mainline between Balboa Boulevard and White Oak Avenue “will make their concerns known to the commission in the not-too-distant future.”

Similar Lines

The proposed Valley light-rail line would be similar to the San Diego Red Cars and the trolley lines operated by the San Francisco Municipal Railway. Three-car trains would run every six minutes in each direction during rush hours and every 20 minutes the rest of the day.

The commission is building a countywide network of trolley lines with receipts from the half-cent sales tax increase approved by voters in 1980. Commissioners say that, between now and 1995, they have funds to build only one additional rail line, and that the Valley is in competition with a proposed line that would link Pasadena with downtown Los Angeles via Lincoln Heights.

Bacharach said that, if the commission selects routes for the environmental study on Wednesday, route selection for the Valley and Pasadena lines “will be about at the same stage.”

SOUTHERN PACIFIC MAIN LINE ROUTE Pros: Only 14% of track would pass through residential neighborhoods. Route passes near many activity centers, including Burbank Airport, the General Motors plant in Van Nuys, Panorama Shopping Center, Van Nuys Airport and California State University, Northridge. Cons: High cost to connect with North Hollywood Metro Rail subway station. Low ridership projected. Engineers project many technical problems running alongside heavily used railroad tracks. Trolley tracks would have to be built over several existing freight spur lines. Prospects: Fair. Route has drawn support from both residents and elected officials of North Hollywood, but staff engineers are lukewarm about it. Rapid Transit Committee gave it unanimous endorsement. SHERMAN WAY ROUTE Pros: Situated in geographical center of Valley. Easy walking access to heavily populated neighborhoods. Passes near several major shopping areas. Cons: Tunnel required under Van Nuys Airport runway. Low ridership because of lack of sites for park-and-ride lots. High cost because of need for many elevated segments. Major traffic impact if at street level, high noise and visual impact if elevated. Prospects: Unfavorable. Has drawn some support from public, but staff has urged it be dropped from consideration. Drew no support from Rapid Transit Committee. VICTORY BOULEVARD ROUTE Pros: Moderate ridership projected. Passes near Van Nuys Civic Center, two North Hollywood shopping centers and Pierce College in Woodland Hills. Existing railroad right of way is available west of San Diego Freeway. Cons: Moderate-to-high cost because of displacement of businesses on eastern portion. More than 45% of route runs through residential areas. Prospects: Fair. Some opposition from affected West Valley residents, but Rapid Transit Committee unanimously endorsed route. Staff recommends it be studied further. CHANDLER-VICTORY ROUTE Pros: Follows existing railroad right of way all or much of its length, depending upon route variation. Requires least amount of elevated track. Passes near Van Nuys Civic Center and Valley and Pierce colleges. Most direct route between North Hollywood and Warner Center. Ridership would be moderate because of availability of park-and-ride sites. Cons: Nearly half of route passes through residential neighborhoods. Well-organized opposition has formed along all variations of route east of San Diego Freeway. Cost would be moderate to high because of displacement of some businesses. Prospects: Uncertain. Staff favors route, but resident opposition is strong. Rapid Transit Committee split 2-2 on endorsing route. LOS ANGELES RIVER FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL ROUTE Pros: Existing right of way is available for much of the route. Channel bypasses already congested east-west streets. Cons: High cost for building many required elevated segments and for reconstructing many bridges that cross the channel. Slow speed because of channel’s serpentine route in East Valley. Few good sites available for park-and-ride lots. Low projected ridership. About 50% of the route would pass near houses or apartments. Prospects: Uncertain. Rapid Transit Committee split 2-2, but staff maintains there are major problems with the route and recommends it be dropped from consideration. VENTURA FREEWAY ROUTE Pros: Route would avoid aggravating congestion on major east-west streets. Train noise would be muffled by freeway noise. Moderate ridership projected. Cons: Use of the median for most of the distance between Universal City and Woodland Hills would force scrapping of Ventura Freeway widening scheduled to begin this year. High cost because entire route would be elevated. Prospects: Uncertain. Rapid Transit Committee split 2-to-2. Staff recommends route be dropped from consideration. VENTURA BOULEVARD ROUTE Pros: Highest projected ridership of any Valley route. Only 4% of route passes near residences. Cons: High cost because entire route would be elevated in median of boulevard. Parking lanes and some sidewalks would be lost. Many businesses would be disrupted during construction. Prospects: Unfavorable. Staff is opposed, and Rapid Transit Committee unanimously voted that no further study of route be undertaken. Source: Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.