‘Flyover Bridge’ Opposed : Foes Press for Redesign of Interchange

Opponents of a controversial Woodland Hills freeway interchange plan said Friday that they may file suit to force state and city traffic engineers to redesign the project.

Leaders of the newly formed Concerned Citizens for Valley Circle/Mulholland Interchange said there is unified community opposition to the unusual design proposed for the $40-million Valley Circle Boulevard interchange.

Transportation officials want the long-planned interchange to include a widened north-south bridge at Valley Circle Boulevard plus a secondary east-west bridge over the Ventura Freeway that would link Ventura Boulevard in Woodland Hills with Calabasas Road in Calabasas.

They say such a design is the only one of several alternatives they have studied that will adequately handle future traffic at the southwestern edge of the San Fernando Valley.

But some nearby property owners have objected to the secondary freeway “flyover bridge.” They maintain that it would funnel heavy Woodland Hills traffic into the area of Old Calabasas and accelerate development in the area.

Overly Expensive

About 175 residents attending a Thursday night meeting called by the Concerned Citizens group were told that an independent traffic expert believes that a flyover bridge would be overly expensive and will not remedy future traffic problems.

In a straw poll after the presentation, those attending voted by a 2-to-1 margin to support construction of a conventional interchange without the flyover bridge, said Bill Bridgers, an organizer of the group.

“We’re debating our next step now,” Bridgers said Friday. “We will turn over the results of the poll to our elected representatives.”

Bridgers said city and state officials have been promoting construction of a Valley Circle interchange for 20 years and are unlikely to allow transportation engineers to shelve the project now.

If the politicians do not intercede, “we’re considering a class-action lawsuit,” Bridgers said.

“We don’t want to do it if there’s a way to avoid it. We don’t want to stand in the way of the project. We all want a new interchange. But we want to protect Old Calabasas.”

Foes of the flyover bridge have argued that it would cram four lanes of Ventura Boulevard traffic onto two-lane Calabasas Road unless the road was widened. To widen it, land in front of the 145-year-old Leonis Adobe museum and in front of quaint Old Calabasas storefronts would be paved over.

The dispute prompted state Department of Transportation planners and engineers from the Los Angeles City Department of Transportation to slightly modify the design last month.

The revised plan would direct some of the potential flyover bridge traffic away from the Old Calabasas area and eliminate the need to widen Calabasas Road, according to the engineers.

Warning Issued

Earlier this week, city officials and state legislators warned that the interchange project probably will not be built unless the flyover bridge is included.

At a news conference Wednesday at the bridge site, City Councilwoman Joy Picus said there is “strong, broad-based community support” for the flyover bridge. She warned that funding for the project will be withdrawn unless the Ventura Boulevard-Calabasas Road connection is built.

“Caltrans has stated that the preferred alternative is the only one it will fund because it is the only plan that will handle the traffic,” Picus said. “The state won’t build an interchange that won’t work.”

State traffic engineers in charge of the project were unavailable for comment Friday. Officials have said they hope to build the new interchange--which would be partially paid for by the city--in 1991.

Meanwhile, supporters of the flyover bridge concept were launching a campaign to counter Bridgers’ Concerned Citizens group.

People entering Thursday night’s forum at El Camino Real High School were handed “fact sheets” designed to refute the position of the anti-flyover bridge organization.

“Why is a group representing itself as ‘Concerned Citizens’ advocating that millions be spent on a freeway interchange design which the state and city professional engineers know to be inadequate to handle the traffic?” the handout asked.