Lack of Funds May Put Brakes on Subway Plan

It will be difficult to find the financial support for a plan to substitute a subway across the San Fernando Valley for a controversial light-rail line before the state Legislature adjourns for the year on Aug. 31, the chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee said Thursday.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda) said Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys) and other supporters of the plan “have not convinced me that they have the funding or the commitment to run it east-west across the entire Valley . . . from North Hollywood to Woodland Hills.”

Katz called the proposal “a great idea” but said it appears that Robbins has found only enough money to build the subway as far west as the San Diego Freeway.

Robbins’ proposal envisions extending the subway westward to Warner Center in Woodland Hills, the western terminus of the proposed light-rail routes.

Robbins inserted his proposal into a bill before Katz’s committee Thursday night, saying that if he could not round up “substantial community support, I’ll drop the bill.”

Consideration Postponed

Consideration of the measure was postponed two weeks to give Robbins and Los Angeles City Councilman Michael Woo time to attract support.

But even before Robbins introduced his amendments, the bill drew opposition from Los Angeles County lobbyists and the city of Torrance. Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin (D-Union City), a member of the Transportation Committee, suggested that Robbins allow local voters to decide whether they are willing to finance the additional cost of building the line underground.

Underground construction is about three times more expensive. Construction of the Metro Rail subway has been costing an average of $280 million a mile for the 4.4-mile downtown Los Angeles segment, and estimates for the total route average $160 million per mile. County transportation officials estimate that a 15-mile ground-level light-rail system in the Valley would cost about $50 million per mile.

Among the subway’s supporters are Assemblyman Tom Bane (D-Tarzana), state Sen. President Pro tem David Roberti (D-Los Angeles) and Woo, who represents Hollywood and part of Studio City.

The proposal received mixed reviews from Valley residents.

Homeowner group leaders, who are fighting both proposed east-west Valley light-rail lines, guardedly endorsed the Robbins plan.

Support Questioned

Several light-rail supporters said the bill undermines their route-selection efforts and were skeptical that it would garner legislative support.

One provision of Robbins’ far-reaching plan prohibits construction of a ground-level or above-ground rail line in residential areas of the Valley.

Another section of the bill would repeal a state law prohibiting the sale of more than $100 million in bonds to build Metro Rail. This would allow the Southern California Rapid Transit District and the County Transportation Commission to borrow money to pay an estimated $400 million to $700 million needed to complete the second phase of Metro Rail from MacArthur Park to Universal City.

The debt would be paid from the county’s half-cent sales tax for mass transit.

If it becomes law, the proposal could end the fierce controversy over the two proposed above-ground rail projects.

“This would eliminate the battle we are gearing up for, and it’s going to be a major war effort,” said Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino and co-founder of the All Valley Transportation Coalition.

Two Choices

Two weeks ago, the Citizens Advisory Panel on Transportation Solutions, created by the Los Angeles City Council, sent a report to the council recommending a choice between two east-west light-rail routes. One line would run along the Ventura Freeway; the other would traverse the Valley on an existing railroad right-of-way along Chandler and Victory boulevards.

The council has until Sept. 1 to designate a Valley route. The citizens committee report is expected to be the subject of a public hearing next week before the council’s Transportation and Traffic Committee.

Leaders from three of the largest coalitions fighting the proposed light-rail lines said they would withdraw their protests and support a subway line if ridership studies show the route would be used by Valley residents.

“The system must be able to move existing Valley residents around in the Valley,” Silver said. “But if it is a vehicle that will ratchet up development and create another Wilshire Boulevard in the Valley, it will meet resistance.”

Julie Fine, chairwoman of the Western Sector Transit Coalition, a homeowners group that opposes the Chandler-Victory route, said the subway proposal “sounds good” as long as stations are not built in residential neighborhoods.