Final Rail Vote Backs 2 Lines : Noise Curbs Vowed in Official Report

Weary and hopelessly split into three factions, a San Fernando Valley rail-route selection panel completed its work early Friday by approving a report that promises to preserve the privacy and quiet of residents along proposed light-rail routes.

Despite widespread skepticism that it has the power to make such promises, the Los Angeles City Council-created committee added several noise-reduction measures before reaffirming its endorsement of two proposed east-west routes.

By a vote of 21 to 10, the Citizens Advisory Panel on Transportation Solutions sent to the council a report that urges continued study of both a proposal to build a rail line on the Ventura Freeway from Universal City to Warner Center and another plan to build a line from North Hollywood to Warner Center using an existing rail freight right-of-way along Chandler and Victory boulevards.

Failed to Back Single Route

The committee settled for recommending two east-west routes after members realized there was not a majority vote for any of three routes under consideration. A third proposal, for a north-south route along San Fernando Road between Sylmar and downtown Los Angeles, was the favorite of most of those who voted against the committee report.

The 15 City Council members, eight of whom represent portions of the Valley and who together created the advisory panel, now must decide what to do with the report.

The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, which is building a countywide light-rail system, has given the council until Sept. 1 to designate a Valley route.

If the council fails to agree on a route, commissioners have said they will shift available construction funds to other projects nearly ready to go, including a line from El Segundo to Marina Del Rey and another from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena.

However, county transit planners have speculated that if the council forwards the two-route recommendation, commissioners probably would be willing to make the final selection themselves after completing environmental and engineering studies on both routes.

Protests From Residents

The advisory panel, in the final month of its four-month study, was bombarded with protests from residents living along both east-west routes.

In response, committee members repeatedly promised that their final report would include steps to keep noise, ground vibrations and congestion from residential neighborhoods.

To that end, the report urges--but does not demand--that county transportation commissioners study whether it is feasible to use subways to bypass residential neighborhoods.

If subways are too expensive, the committee said, then county engineers should study whether to lay tracks in a trench with above-ground landscape berms in residential neighborhoods.

Parking at Stations

Enough parking should be available at stations to prevent motorists from parking on residential streets, the committee said.

The panel also recommended that a committee to oversee construction be created and that an ombudsman be appointed to ensure that noise-reduction measures are actually delivered.

Panel members also sought to disassociate themselves from a politically sensitive state Department of Transportation proposal to build an upper deck on the Ventura Freeway for a rail line and car pools and buses.

In the hope that it would possibly reduce noise, committee members specified that any tracks along the freeway be placed at pavement level or below, despite the fact that transit experts have repeatedly said that a freeway rail line must be predominantly elevated.

How much weight such recommendations will have has been a subject of strong debate.

“Measures such as these are becoming commonplace, and they are making rail lines acceptable neighbors in residential areas,” said consultant Tom Parkinson, who has provided most of the technical information the committee has received.

“I have very little faith in such promises,” said Steve Witkin, a leader of the Tarzana-based Western Sector Transit Coalition, which was organized to fight the Chandler-Victory line.

He said such promises rested “solely on the good faith” of county transportation commissioners.

“If there are cost overruns, as there almost always are, these promises are the first things to go,” Witkin said.

Among the city and county staff officials who have attended each committee meeting, there is strong skepticism whether an advisory panel can control details of a light- rail line that is not likely to be designed for years.

Even the Los Angeles City Council may not have such power if, as expected, council members are divided on which route is best, staff members say.

County Commission Imperiled

In addition, the County Transportation Commission itself faces an uncertain future. It would have gone out of existence because of a bill passed by the Legislature last year but was saved when the move was vetoed by Gov. George Deukmejian.

If efforts to work out the commission’s jurisdictional disputes with the Southern California Rapid Transit District fail, efforts in the Legislature to abolish both agencies and create a new bus and rail authority are expected to begin anew later this year.

Another looming problem is a shortage of rail construction funds. The commission staff says that unless federal funds unexpectedly become available or Los Angeles County voters raise the extra half-cent sales tax to pay for faster rail construction, there will be a maximum of $785 million available for light-rail projects in the next 12 years.