Monorail Cost Advantage Slips, Study Reveals : Transit: Measures to reduce environmental impact could add $200 million to the project’s price tag, making it nearly as expensive as a subway.

Because of costly measures needed to lessen environmental impact, a proposed monorail over the Ventura Freeway would be almost as expensive as a combination subway-surface rail line through the San Fernando Valley, according to a study released Wednesday.

Proponents of the monorail have argued that it would be the best choice because it would cost less and take less time to build.

But the study released by a panel of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission concludes that the cost advantage would be diminished because of recommended changes to the original monorail plan that would boost the project’s price tag by almost $200 million.

The changes, which include building a portion of the 16-mile line underground to avoid running through parkland in Universal City, would increase the cost by about 7% to $2.6 billion. The subway-surface line is estimated to cost $3 billion.

The Planning and Mobility Improvement Committee directed county transportation staff to begin a 30-day public review period for the study. In August, the full commission is scheduled to give final approval to the environmental study. The commission is expected to choose one of two mass transit alternatives for the Valley some time before the end of the year.

An environmental study has already been approved for the monorail’s rival project--a 14-mile extension of the Metro Rail Red Line that would follow Southern Pacific’s little-used right of way from North Hollywood to Warner Center.

The Red Line extension, called the Burbank-Chandler line because it would run parallel to Burbank and Chandler boulevards, would be built as a subway in most residential areas and above ground in commercial areas.

The monorail, which would run 20 feet above the freeway along the median, would connect Universal City and Warner Center. Opponents of the monorail, including a coalition of homeowner groups along the freeway route, say it would create noise, blight and traffic congestion around rail stations.

David Mieger, project manager for the monorail line, said county transportation commissioners will be torn between the strong community opposition to the monorail and the slight cost advantage of the project.

“It’s going to be a tough decision,” he said.

Mikie Maloney, transportation chairwoman of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., said she has not seen the new environmental study but believes the monorail alternative should be rejected based upon the concerns raised by nearby residents.

“Basically, we have felt all along that cost should not be a factor,” she said.

She said, however, that the new figures in the study should help persuade the transportation commissioners to choose the Burbank-Chandler line.

A spokesman for Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, the most ardent supporter of the monorail alternative, said the supervisor had not read the new environmental study and could not comment on its recommendations.

The most expensive improvement suggested in the study would be to build a 1/3-mile segment of the line underground to avoid taking up half an acre of undeveloped parkland at South Weddington Park in Universal City. The Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks plans to use the land for a new Little League field.

This change, which would increase the cost by $106 million, would also eliminate any noise or visual impact on a condominium project on Bluffside Drive and to Campo de Cahuenga, a historical park near the monorail route in Universal City.

An additional $51 million would be spent to relocate two proposed park-and-ride lots along the routes that some residents say would generate traffic congestion. Another $21 million would be spent to relocate a fire station to make way for a rail storage and maintenance yard in Van Nuys on Sepulveda Boulevard near Magnolia Boulevard.