Point /Counterpoint : The Issue: A Light-Rail Line for the San Fernando Valley : AGAINST

In November, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission halted its study of five proposed light-rail routes for the San Fernando Valley. Commissioners said they would take no action unless local elected officials proposed a consensus route. The Times asked a member and former member of the Transportation Commission to write guest columns on a light-rail line. In favor of such a line is Marcia Mednick, a member appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley and an employee of Vitalize Van Nuys Inc., a private economic development corporation. Writing against it is Roy W. Donley, a retired architect and until recently a member, who was appointed by Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.

Los Angeles once had a functioning rail-transit system. It was dismantled 40 years ago, allegedly by sinister parties who were selling automobiles, highways and gasoline. The passing of the Red Cars is lamented with nostalgia even though, by 1945, they were already obsolete. Growing numbers of automobiles were clogging the very streets that served as guideways for rail cars.

Since World War II, Los Angeles has committed itself to the automobile, almost irrevocably, for personal transportation. By building superhighways, parking structures, drive-in shopping centers, theaters and restaurants, it can truly be said that Los Angeles has been designed and built for the automobile. No doubt about it; the automobile provides the greatest convenience, comfort and pleasure of any mode of private transportation ever devised--as long as it works.

But, as Manchester Boddy said in the old Daily News, “Every institution has within itself the seeds of its own destruction.” The long-range threat of fuel shortages and high fuel costs cannot be ignored. Traffic congestion and air pollution continue to worsen as population increases.

The most visible proven solution for urban mass transport lies in energy-efficient, high-speed, grade-separated, quiet, vibration-free, user-friendly, aesthetically pleasing rail transit; a heavy-rail system that will lure drivers from their cars, and cars from the streets.

This does not mean revival of old-style trolley cars. The Long Beach-Los Angeles line presently being constructed is nothing more than a modernized version of Red Car technology. The same has been proposed for the San Fernando Valley; a system that still travels on grade, competes with automobiles for road space, has preemptive gates at most arterials and travels at automotive speeds. Ridership will come largely from people already using buses, thus taking few cars off the streets. It is estimated that only 2% of commuters along the Long Beach-Los Angeles corridor will use the new trains. With population growth, automobiles will be proliferating faster than light-rail can take them off the streets--even assuming train ridership is at 100%.

The Valley light-rail presently proposed would commence in Warner Center, head eastward via Victory Boulevard, through downtown Van Nuys, then join Metro Rail in North Hollywood by way of Chandler Boulevard. Political indecision has plagued the project from the start, with nervous constituencies and faint-hearted politicians unable to choose between the staff-supported route and several alternates, one being the Ventura Freeway.

No route is without objectors, but a heavy rail line similar to Metro Rail on the shoulder of the Ventura Freeway would offer these advantages:

Total grade separation, thus no interference with surface traffic.

A proven transportation corridor (One of the world’s heaviest traveled roadways.)

Great potential for ridership, serving Valley communities to Thousand Oaks and Conejo Valley.

An elevated train traveling at high speed on the freeway would be a highly visible and attractive alternative to cars stalled in gridlock on the freeway.

The train would offer great views of the city and surrounding mountains.

The freeway would find fewer objectors.

With the exception of station sites, rights-of-way are already publicly owned and available.

The Ventura Freeway option does not, of course, directly serve the Van Nuys or North Hollywood business communities. But as a transit corridor, the freeway warrants higher priority, with greater ridership and economic feasibility. Van Nuys and North Hollywood would be served by bus now and possibly automated, grade separated light-rail in the future.

Most important, whatever is built at any given time must build upon a master plan that is patently understandable and serves the greatest number of people. The nearest thing we now have to a master plan is a sketchy map approved in 1980 as an adjunct to Proposition A. It leaves Glendale and Burbank completely “out of the loop,” plus many other population centers. The Transportation Element of the County General Plan was drawn and adopted at about the same time. There are some significant differences. No apparent effort during ensuing years was made to coordinate the two plans, meaning transportation and land-use planning are on separate tracks.

A simple, understandable, coordinated plan would be one where all primary trains are located on freeways, grade-separated, high-speed and high capacity, with stations (also serving as transfer points) located at interchanges, about 5 miles apart. This would allow speeds up to 100 m.p.h. Stations would become privately built, multi-use transportation hubs, constructed largely on air rights over the freeway. They would interface with other transportation modes serving surrounding areas.

In exchange for air rights, the private developer would construct the station, a heliport and parking, but would also develop private, commercial and light-industrial uses.

Areas between freeways would be served by feeder carriers; buses, van pools, taxis, private automobiles, handicapped vehicles, and, in high-density commercial areas, grade separated and automated people movers (monorail or light-rail).

Financial Problems

The plan is ambitious, expensive and long term, possibly involving more freeways, and many years to complete. A bonus advantage of the plan is that each transportation hub, with its commercial and light industrial mixed uses, would become another employment center, thus decentralizing and shortening commuting distances. The Proposition A plan converges all transportation corridors toward downtown Los Angeles, which breeds long daily commutes.

The financial problems are, of course, enormous. Much of this will depend upon successful national economic and monetary reforms, which are a must, anyway, if our society is to rebuild its infrastructure and solve its many social problems.

But, for the present, let us spend available monies as a down payment for a transportation system that is planned for sure success.

Light-rail, as a primary system, simply won’t do it. As the old adage goes, “Better to spend $2 for something that works than $1 for something that doesn’t.”