Opponents of Freeway Monorail Outnumber Supporters at Hearing : Transportation: Most of those praising it live along a competing route and don’t want the project near them.

A few tried humor to knock down the idea of a monorail above the Ventura Freeway: “The Disneyland system,” mocked one opponent. “It’s sort of like a toy.”

Others made subtle references to the social class of many residents of the upscale neighborhood: “I don’t see why people from Encino need a subway,” said a gray-haired Encino woman. “Most everyone has one or two cars.”

And some, like longtime homeowner activist Gerald A. Silver, submitted detailed position papers attacking the draft environmental report, which will help determine whether the elevated train should be built. Could the adjoining communities really absorb “thousands of motor vehicles on the roads near the freeway parking lots?” he wondered.

For the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, which heard those and similar comments at two public hearings on the controversial rail proposal this week, the message was familiar--few people welcome such a project in their neighborhoods.

The second hearing drew 250 people Thursday night to Walter Reed Junior High School in North Hollywood, just a block from the freeway.

Representatives of a Toluca Lake youth baseball league complained that construction of the freeway monorail would cause destruction of a baseball field at South Weddington Park. Two women said increased traffic from train patrons would increase the soot that now blackens lemon trees in their back yards.

Others questioned the safety of the unproven technology needed to build the futuristic elevated system.

“I can visualize a gasoline truck wrapped around one of those beams . . . and it will happen,” said Carl Howard, a retired Los Angeles police officer, referring to the monorail supports that would be placed in the freeway median. Even more than the first hearing, which drew 150 people Tuesday night to Canoga Park High School, Thursday’s was dominated by homeowners who live along the proposed 16.2-mile route. The few speakers who praised the monorail were mostly residents along a competing route, who hope the freeway train will win out and thus eliminate the project near their homes.

But the gravest warnings about the effect of a rail system came not from either Valley group, but from a contingent of Long Beach residents who used the occasion to complain of how the Blue Line light rail system has ruined their lives.

“You need to fight this thing,” one woman told the North Hollywood audience. “Your lives will change unbelievably.”

The elevated rail line, which would be expected to carry 50,000 commuters a day, is one of two mass-transit alternatives being considered by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission to carry commuters between the west San Fernando Valley and Metro Rail stations planned for North Hollywood and Universal City.

An environmental impact report already has been approved for the alternative project--a 14-mile rail line that would follow Southern Pacific railroad’s little-used right of way from North Hollywood to Warner Center. Called the Burbank branch line, it would be built as a subway in most residential neighborhoods and above ground in commercial areas.

This week’s hearings fall within a 90-day comment period--which concludes Jan. 10--on the Ventura Freeway route. The commission is expected to pick one of the cross-Valley routes next spring.

Proponents of the elevated train, which would rise 20 feet above the freeway, note that it would be cheaper than the Burbank branch line--an estimated $2.3 billion compared to $2.7 billion--and could be completed earlier.

Among those testifying at this week’s hearings were representatives of several public officials who oppose the freeway route. A statement by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles) cited “seismic safety” and “visual blight” issues.

City Councilman Marvin Braude cautioned that “the Ventura Freeway corridor simply cannot accommodate more people and more congestion.”

While most speakers disdained any notion of a train near their houses, a few volunteered their communities for such a rail project.

A spokesman for the Northridge Chamber of Commerce noted that his area has “very poor mass transit,” and invited the commission to consider a train that takes “a diagonal through the Valley.”

Despite complaints about both routes, Judy Schwartze, public affairs manager for the commission, said Thursday that she was struck by a distinct difference from public hearings on rail projects five years ago.

“There’s no ‘no-rail’ movement now,” she said, attributing that to recognition that “there’s just so much traffic.”