Panel Backs Elevated Rail Over the Ventura Freeway : Transportation: Commissioners were swayed by the price tag of $2.59 billion, lower than subway alternative.

Ending more than three years of not-in-my-back-yard debate over the route of an east-west passenger rail line for the San Fernando Valley, a county transportation panel voted Wednesday to run elevated trains above the Ventura Freeway, rejecting a rival subway proposal.

The vote was an unexpected victory for Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who pushed for a monorail over the freeway in a series of skirmishes against a formidable array of political and neighborhood interests who backed the mostly underground alternative.

The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission voted 6 to 3, with two abstentions, for the freeway route. The commissioners added, however, that the decision could be reconsidered in 30 days if a staff study concludes that its operating costs would make the freeway route more expensive in the end than the subway alternative.

The elevated freeway line will cost $2.59 billion, according to county estimates. The rival proposal, which would parallel Burbank and Chandler boulevards, would have cost $3.03 billion. Commissioners who favored the freeway route said the $440 million cost difference was the deciding factor.

Both alternatives were planned to connect with the Metro Red Line to downtown Los Angeles. The freeway line, connecting at Universal City and going into service as far west as the Sepulveda Basin in 2001, would be extended to Warner Center in Woodland Hills by 2018.

Debate over the route created two warring factions that spent thousands of dollars on flyers, billboards, newsletters and radio commercials to sway residents and commissioners.

The vote came after a tumultuous three-hour session attended by nearly 200 Valley residents, most of whom spoke out against the rail project that would most affect their neighborhood and supported the rival line.

“The San Fernando Valley is not Disneyland,” said Bill Jasper, president of the Encino Property Owners Assn., which opposed the freeway alternative. “The monorail is a Mickey Mouse proposal.”

Don Schultz, an avid monorail supporter and president of the Van Nuys Homeowners Assn., shot back: “The monorail technology is not a boondoggle. Subway in L.A. is a joke.”

Before construction can begin, the design for the elevated freeway line must meet state and federal safety standards, a process that could take four to six years, county transportation officials said. They hope to start construction in 1997.

As designed, the elevated line will be capable of carrying between 126,000 and 142,000 passengers per day, depending on the type of rail car used. It will run on support columns in the median, with stations located 20 to 30 feet above the road connected by stairs to parking lots alongside the freeway.

Backers of the idea refer to it as the monorail option because they support installing a high-speed, low-noise monorail on the line, although no decision has been made yet on what form of elevated rail system to build.

The project will be paid for by a combination of state and local funds, including money from Propositions A and C, two sales tax increases of half a cent each approved by voters to fund transportation projects. Additional money will come from a state bond measure adopted in 1990.

The decision came as a surprise because the Transportation Commission had endorsed the Burbank-Chandler alternative in 1990 and paid $150 million for the Southern Pacific railroad’s right of way along the corridor. But Antonovich, now chairman of the commission, persuaded his fellow panel members to hold off building the line until after they had studied the elevated rail alternative.

Antonovich was instrumental in putting on the 1990 ballot an advisory referendum on the issue that turned into a victory for his side. About 48% of the voters supported a monorail over the freeway, 21% supported a light-rail line in a shallow ditch, 20% supported no rail and only 10% backed a subway.

His plan also gained the endorsement of two construction consortiums last month when they submitted proposals to build the freeway line for as little as $1.86 billion as part of a longer high-speed line connecting Los Angeles International Airport with Palmdale.

Representatives of both partnerships said they decided against offering to build the Burbank-Chandler line because there are many risks in digging a subway in the Valley, including the possibility of striking water and mineral deposits.

The decision to back the freeway line was made on a motion by Antonovich, who said: “The proposals demonstrate that an elevated system along the freeway is considerably less expensive than the subway alternative.”

He said the savings from building the freeway line would “free up desperately needed transit dollars for other areas of the county.”

Representatives of both sides made impassioned speeches Wednesday to sway the commission’s vote. Schultz said building a subway in a region prone to earthquakes “would be like building a skyscraper on an ocean.”

City Councilman Joel Wachs, a supporter of the Burbank-Chandler line, told the commission that residents along the freeway would be “devastated by the impact of the aerial line.”

He said residents and business leaders in the Valley are united behind the Burbank-Chandler route--a statement that drew both boos and cheers from the audience. “The issue of consensus is critical,” he said.

The Burbank-Chandler line did have the support of a coalition of eight Valley homeowner groups along the freeway route, the United Chambers of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley, the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn. and about 10 local elected officials.

Supporters of the elevated freeway line include three residential groups along the Burbank-Chandler alignment and a self-described citizens committee that is funded primarily by developers and large businesses.

After the meeting, supporters of the elevated freeway line were pleased with the commission’s decision but said it is questionable whether the debate in the Valley will end.

But County Supervisor Edmund D. Edelman, who voted against the elevated freeway line, called the decision disappointing. “From a transportation point, this doesn’t make sense,” he said.

In addition to Antonovich, those voting for the freeway line were City Councilman Richard Alatorre, La Habra Heights City Councilwoman Judith Hathaway-Francis, Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Harold Croyts, a representative of Rancho Palos Verdes Councilwoman Jacki Bacharach, Commissioner Gerry Hertzberg, who represents Supervisor Gloria Molina, and Commissioner Sara Hirsch, who represents Supervisor Deane Dana.

In addition to Edelman, those voting against the freeway alternative were Long Beach City Councilman Ray Grabinski and Commissioner Ray Remy, a representative of Mayor Tom Bradley.

Commissioner James L. Tolbert and newly elected Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke abstained.

County transportation officials said the land intended for the Burbank-Chandler line can be converted to a greenbelt for joggers, walkers and bike riders.

* MAP OF ROUTE: B6