Pros, Cons of Rail Options

In Valley News, May 28, 1990, you provided a table comparing the pros and cons of rail options. Allow me to respond to some items.

Under cons of the monorail system, you say that “Residential areas along freeway will incur visual blight, some noise, loss of privacy and increased congestion.”

How do you know these things? Visual blight is dependent on who sees what. How many will see the monorail and what will it look like? “Some noise” means that the monorail would overcome the noise of the freeway. Is this true? How much is some?

“Loss of privacy” means to me that riders in the trains could see into private yards and homes. Yet I can envision a system which makes glass electronically opaque when passing sensitive areas.

“Increased congestion.” Where? On the freeway?

Finally, you say that “Some critics say that elevated structures might collapse in a severe earthquake.” Who are these critics? Do they have any standing in the seismic safety community?

The L.A. County Transportation Commission published a draft environmental impact report on rail options in November, 1989, and, with the exception that the monorail option was given only lip-service, it was a credible job. What we in the Valley needed was an expansion of this report which addressed the pros and cons of all rail options, including monorail. We also needed this report fully exposed in our newspapers. What we didn’t need was a major newspaper doing a sloppy job of presenting options to the public based on unsubstantiated claims and its own value judgments.

GLENN SPENCER

Sherman Oaks