Subway-Bus Link Emerges as Favored Rail Proposal : Initial Funding Under Robbins-Braude Plan May Only Pay to Build Route to Sepulveda Basin

After three years of fighting over what kind of San Fernando Valley rail line to build and where to build it, one plan appears to have emerged from the smoke and debris--extending the Metro Rail subway partly underground from North Hollywood to Encino, then busing passengers to Warner Center.

The Metro Rail-express bus plan, which requires both homeowner and business leaders to give up some of their demands, for the moment appears to have squeezed out all other schemes touted in recent years, including several different configurations of ground-level or elevated light rail.

Even if, as is considered likely, Gov. George Deukmejian vetoes a bill aimed at forcing construction of the seven-mile Metro Rail extension, the proposal has been endorsed by so many elected officials, homeowner leaders and business groups that it seems likely to prevail, local officials say.

Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, a late convert to the plan, said last week that support was “virtually wall to wall.”

Consolidated Support

“It looks like the Valley has finally gotten behind a single plan, as we have been asking them to do,” said Richard Stanger, rail development director for the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, which is building a countywide network of rail lines.

And Commissioner Jacki Bacharach, who heads the commission’s Rail Construction Committee, added: “If the Valley is finally speaking with one voice, as appears to be the case, then we will probably do what the Valley asks or not build anything there for now.”

On the other hand, both Stanger and Bacharach said the Metro Rail extension may prove too costly to build, no matter how much support it enjoys.

Since proposed four months ago by state Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Tarzana) and Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude, the plan to extend the downtown-to-North Hollywood Metro Rail across the eastern Valley has steadily muscled aside all rival proposals, several of which had strong support.

These include a controversial plan to build a 15-mile rail system from North Hollywood to Warner Center along a Southern Pacific railroad right of way that follows Chandler and Victory boulevards, and Oxnard and Topham streets from Metro Rail’s northern terminus at Chandler and Lankershim boulevards to Warner Center.

That plan had strong backing from business leaders because it would bring rail all the way to fast-growing Warner Center and apparently can be built with the uncommitted funds that the commission expects to have during the 1990s.

Another rival proposal is construction of an elevated line on the Ventura Freeway’s south shoulder from Universal City to Warner Center.

The commission is studying both routes, either as Metro Rail extensions or for light-rail trolleys, which are slower and have less capacity.

The commission study, expected to be completed in November, will provide cost and ridership estimates for each combination of route and technology.

Homeowner leaders along both routes vigorously opposed any plan, whether light rail or Metro Rail extension, that was not a subway in residential areas.

Noise, traffic congestion and ground vibrations from trains running as often as every three minutes during rush hour would make single-family neighborhoods unlivable, they argued.

They saw little relief in two other schemes under study by the commission--placing trains in shallow trenches lined with earthen berms or placing trains fully underground but with trenches open to the air or covered with grates.

The Robbins-Braude plan differs from others in that it acknowledges that there will be only enough money initially to build as far as the Sepulveda Basin, and that homeowner opposition is so strong that a ground-level system is not politically feasible.

Endorsing a plan that does not provide rail service all the way to Warner Center was a difficult decision, said Roger Stanard, a Warner Center business leader and co-chairman of a light-rail support group.

“But it appears to be what we can get, and the Valley needs something desperately,” he said.

25-Foot Depth

On the other hand, the Robbins-Braude plan, which follows the route of the Southern Pacific right of way, gives homeowner groups the 25-foot-deep subway they demanded only in a brief segment, between Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Woodman Avenue.

Between the Hollywood Freeway and Laurel Canyon and between Woodman and Hazeltine Avenue--both solidly residential areas--the trains must be below ground but there is no depth requirement and the line could be open to the air. From Hazeltine to Balboa Boulevard, the presumed point of transfer to express buses, the line would not pass through any residential areas and could be ground-level.

The differing depth requirements initially led to grumbling by homeowner activists about “first- and second-class citizens.”

But in recent weeks, homeowner leaders from Studio City, Sherman Oaks and North Hollywood have endorsed the plan, partly through realization that to get to the 25-foot depth, the trains would have to start descending some distance away, leaving only a small area with an open trench.

Tom Paterson, president of Valley Village Homeowners Assn. in North Hollywood, at first denounced the Robbins-Braude plan as a “divide-and-conquer strategy.”

‘Settle for It’

But last week, Paterson, who represents a neighborhood bisected by the proposed line, said: “It’s all the mitigation we are going to get, and we might as well settle for it.”

Unwilling to endorse the plan are two large coalitions formed in recent years along the Southern Pacific route--the Eastern Sector Transit Coalition and the Western Sector Transit Coalition.

Tom Herman, president of the eastern group, said the plan “just doesn’t go far enough” in protecting residents from noise.

Julie Fine, chairwoman of the western group, based in Reseda and Woodland Hills, was more vehement: “For us, this is the worst possible situation. It brings the rail line right to our doorsteps but gives us no protection whatsoever.”

A political activist who asked not to be identified said Robbins and Braude, in putting together their consensus, theorized that single-issue groups such as the two transit coalitions were “less of a threat than long-established groups of homeowners, who you don’t want to get on the wrong side of if possible.”

Bipartisan Backing

A bill introduced by Robbins in the Legislature includes key elements of the Metro Rail extension plan. It quickly drew bipartisan support among Valley legislators in Sacramento, was passed by the Senate and Assembly and is awaiting action by the governor.

The county Transportation Commission has mounted a formidable lobbying effort, arguing that since the Valley rail line would be built solely with local sales tax funds, the legislation would be an improper intrusion by the state into a local issue.

Deukmejian, who has frequently vetoed bills that he determined were attempts to settle local issues in the Legislature, has until Oct. 2 to act.

The bill would not force the commission to build a Valley line but, through tunneling requirements, would leave it with only two options--build no Valley line or build according to the Robbins-Braude plan.

Even while fighting the Robbins bill, Bacharach predicted that the commission would be strongly influenced by the widespread support the plan has gathered.

Affordability Issue

“It’s our policy not to buck communities,” she said. “If a halfway system is truly what the Valley wants and we can afford it, we’ll probably build it.”

But the question of affordability looms large with the commission, which is building the Long Beach-Los Angeles and Century Freeway light-rail lines and contributing to Metro Rail construction.

Rough estimates of Valley rail plans are $900 million for a 15-mile light-rail system and $2.4 billion for a 15-mile all-subway system. No estimates for a part-subway system of only seven miles--the Robbins-Braude plan--are available.

Commission planners say they hope to have $800 million to start another rail line during the 1990s, but they admit that with cost overruns on projects under way, it could be only half that much.

On the other hand, the extra half-cent sales tax that county voters approved in 1980 produces about $110 million in rail construction money each year, and the three projects under way are expected to be completed and paid for by the turn of the century.

Stanger, the commission’s rail development director, said that by dragging out the Valley project, “it’s possible that it could be done, but we just won’t know until our study is done.”

Comparing Valley Rail Plans Metro Rail Extension Advantages No disruption of residential area where trains are underground, minimal where trains are in deep trench. No need to transfer to downtown-bound Metro Rail Top speed of 70 m.p.h. Extra capacity should ridership exceed estimates Disadvantages Higher construction cost (about $180 million a mile) means enough money to build only to Balboa Boulevard, about seven miles. Transfer to buses might prove unpopular with riders traveling to and from West Valley. Might be difficult to justify per-mile cost based on ridership estimates, which are not yet available. Capacity of 19,000 riders per hour likely to exceed need. LIGHT RAIL Advantages Less costly (about $45 million per mile). Although revenue estimates are not available, there is potentially enough to build 15 miles from North Hollywood Metro Rail terminus to Warner Center. Construction cost more likely to be justified by ridership projections, which are not yet available. Lack of tunneling results in less disruption during construction. Disadvantages Disrupts residents where trains operate at ground level or in shallow trenches. All suggested routes contain numerous residential areas. Usually combined with unsightly overhead power lines. Riders must switch to Metro Rail in North Hollywood to go downtown. Requires its own storage and repair yard. Limited to about 6,000 riders per hour. Top speed is only 55 m.p.h.