Woo, Yaroslavsky Vow to Fight Proposals for Above-Ground Transit

On the eve of a Los Angeles City Council showdown over a San Fernando Valley light-rail line, Councilmen Michael Woo and Zev Yaroslavsky said Thursday they will urge their colleagues to reject construction of any above-ground transit system for the Valley.

“No matter which route is ultimately selected, it must be placed underground,” Woo said.

A sampling of Valley council members Thursday found that Woo’s and Yaroslavsky’s position is unlikely to prevent a long debate today as the council makes its recommendation on mass transit.

The council is scheduled to recommend which mass transit route or routes--as well as transit system--the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission should study for the Valley. The vote comes as controversy and public debate over whether to choose an above-ground light-rail system or a subway, as Woo and Yaroslavsky favor, grows more heated.

“If they think they’re going to have several billion dollars available for a subway, they’re out of their minds,” said Councilman Hal Bernson, who favors building a rail line down a double-decked Ventura Freeway. “What they’re really saying is that they want nothing for the San Fernando Valley.”

Councilwoman Joy Picus said she supports studying a subway as well as the two above-ground routes recommended by a council-appointed citizens panel--one route along the Ventura Freeway and the other along Chandler and Victory boulevards.

Councilmen Ernani Bernardi and Joel Wachs said they want the three options studied, plus a fourth--a line extending from Union Station to Sylmar along San Fernando Road. Bernardi added, however, that he favors a subway.

“It’s very possible that’s the only kind of alignment that will be built,” Picus said of a subway. But, she said, “What case can you make for building underground if you don’t look at the impact above ground?”

Council President John Ferraro was undecided Thursday, but said he would oppose studying only a subway. He said that a subway might be “so expensive we can’t do it.”

The county transportation commission last year had asked the council for help in determining what light-rail route, if any, would best serve the Valley. The council, in turn, charged a citizens advisory panel with the task of recommending a route. That panel recently returned to the council with recommendations that the council will consider today along with the subway proposal.

Yaroslavsky said a westward extension of the Metro Rail subway beyond its currently planned terminus in North Hollywood is the “best hope for a political consensus” on the Valley mass transit controversy pitting light-rail supporters against subway supporters.

Homeowner Backing

Woo and Yaroslavsky were joined at a news conference by a number of homeowner activists who supported a subway-only configuration across the Valley.

No cost estimates have been developed for a cross-Valley subway. Woo and Yaroslavsky said that the cost of a subway would not be much higher than the cost of building sound walls and curing the environmental ills of an above-ground rail line.

No specific route for a cross-Valley subway was recommended by the councilmen.

Woo and Yaroslavsky also announced their opposition to plans under consideration by the state Department of Transportation to add another layer to the Ventura Freeway.

“Double decking means double trouble--double smog, double traffic and double noise,” Yaroslavsky said.