Valley Rail Line Is Alive, but Funding’s Still Critical

Like a patient whose prognosis changes from day to day, the outlook for a proposed mass-transit rail line in the San Fernando Valley has in recent weeks gone from good to shaky, to good again.

But now that several elected officials, including Mayor Richard Riordan, have vowed to keep the beleaguered line alive, questions remain on how to fund the multibillion-dollar project in the face of shrinking revenues.

Transportation officials are investigating several options, including:

* Seeking federal grants to pay construction costs.

* Inviting private firms to build and operate the line.

* Selling development rights to the stations, allowing developers to build restaurants or retail outlets in or around the stations.

But, like most remedies, some options are not without their negative side-effects.

For example, to accept federal funding for the project, transportation officials must put the Valley line through an extensive federal environmental review process that could delay the project an additional two years.

“It’s more a matter of the hoops you have to go through,” said David L. Mieger, a Valley project manager for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The MTA has been considering two alternative routes for the Valley line: a mostly subway line parallel to Burbank and Chandler boulevards, or an elevated rail line over the Ventura Freeway.

The latest problems for the Valley line first arose in June, when MTA members discovered that shrinking tax revenues meant construction of the Valley line would have to be postponed for up to 10 years unless other funding sources were found. Previously, it was planned to begin construction in early 1995.

Because of the lingering recession, sales tax revenues that were expected to generate $800 million annually for mass-transit projects in Los Angeles County are only generating about $750 million a year. In addition, the county’s transportation budget was drained last year of $153 million to close a deficit in the county’s bus operations budget.

MTA spokesman Michael Bustamante said the budget shortfalls have forced the MTA to rethink construction schedules for all rail projects, not just the Valley line.

He added that the MTA is still committed to extending rail service to the Valley, even though other projects--such as the Green Line from El Segundo to Los Angeles International Airport and a Pasadena trolley line--will be built ahead of the Valley line.

“The fact of the matter is the east-west Valley line is the No. 1 priority after the Green Line and the Pasadena line,” Bustamante said.

But the Valley line’s prognosis for staying on schedule improved last week when Riordan asked the MTA to delay for 30 days the adoption of an annual budget that provided funding to launch the Pasadena line but no money for a Valley line.

The request, which was unanimously supported, indicated that Riordan wanted time to persuade the agency to rethink its funding priorities and keep the Valley line on schedule.

“I don’t want to see anything done today that gets in the way of a Valley line,” he said before the meeting.

Other elected officials, including Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) and Supervisors Ed Edelman and Michael Antonovich, all of whom represent parts of the Valley, have said they will push to keep the Valley line on track.

Responding to such support for a Valley line, MTA Director Franklin White has asked his staff to investigate or reconsider other funding ideas for the project.

Federal funding, for example, had not been considered previously for the Valley line because the federal government has already agreed to fund 50% of the $5.4-billion Metro Red Line subway and MTA officials did not want to press for too much.

Nancy Whelan, MTA’s assistant director for capital planning, said another reason the MTA was reluctant to seek federal funding was because there has been no widespread agreement in the Valley on which route to build.

“It’s hard to go asking for money without a consensus,” she said.

But transportation officials say they are now optimistic about their chances because the Clinton Administration seems more willing to invest in transportation projects than the two previous Republican administrations.

But to accept federal funding is to accept the strict federal environmental restrictions that come with it. For example, Mieger said, federal law prohibits building transit projects on parkland unless no other feasible alternative is available.

The proposed elevated freeway line would displace about 19 acres of parkland in the Sepulveda Basin to make way for two stations and a rail yard. “It could be a potential problem,” he said. Conversely, the Burbank-Chandler line would require no parkland.

A second option under consideration is to approve a “turnkey” agreement with a private firm that would build and operate the line. Katz drafted legislation, that took effect last year, allowing the MTA to participate in such a partnership.

In November, 1992, two private partnerships offered non-binding bids to build an elevated freeway line as part of a longer high-speed line connecting LAX and Palmdale.

A third partnership, called TransitLA, offered to build the freeway line separately for as little as $1.17 billion, compared to the $2.24-billion cost estimate by the MTA.

“We are definitely interested in building the line,” said Jack Andreatta, an administrator for Fischbach and Moore Inc., an electrical and mechanical contractor and partner in TransitLA.

None of the private firms offered to build the Burbank-Chandler line, which is estimated to cost $2.79 billion.

But because the private bids were non-binding, Mieger said the MTA would have to negotiate a binding cost agreement before cutting a deal.

Another potential snag is that TransitLA “took some liberties” with the building specifications, making the stations smaller than MTA officials had wanted and suggesting that freeway lanes be closed during construction, Mieger said.

A third option for funding would be to sell development rights at the stations to raise funding for station construction, which is a “big component” of the entire project, Mieger said.

But he said such an agreement would be complex to negotiate, considering some firms may not want to bid on stations in odd locations, such as underground or 20 feet above a busy freeway.

Still, Whelan said the idea has few drawbacks. “But the question is, is there a market for that?” she said.

To help fund a Valley line, MTA alternate member Nick Patsaouras has offered another idea: Eliminating a $362-million Red Line extension from Universal City to North Hollywood. But that idea has been assailed by Edelman and others who say it could jeopardize the 50% funding offered by the federal government for the Red Line.

Patsaouras’ idea has also been criticized by North Hollywood property owners who said a North Hollywood rail station was expected to be the cornerstone of an extensive redevelopment plan for the depressed area.

Assemblyman Katz has suggested placing a measure on the November state ballot that would ask voters to approve additional rail bonds to make up for the $1 billion in potential rail bonds that voters rejected last November by defeating Proposition 156.

Valley Rail: A History of Debate and Dissent (And Lots of Studies)

Cross-Valley Rail Options

Ventura Fwy. Elevated Rail

Metro Rail

Subway Route

November, 1980: Los Angeles County voters approve a half-cent sales tax to fund construction of rail transit. The accompanying route map on the ballot shows a rail line stretching from Canoga Park to downtown.

September, 1987: The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission studies 12 rail projects along five routes, including one along the Ventura Freeway and one parallel to Burbank and Chandler boulevards.

August, 1988: Due to opposition from Valley residents to all proposed routes, the Los Angeles City Council appoints a 32-member Valley Citizens Advisory Panel, which meets for several months and recommends further study on the Burbank-Chandler and the freeway routes.

March, 1990: The LACTC adopts the Burbank-Chandler route as the preferred alternative. Undeterred, Supervisor Michael Antonovich calls for studies of a route along the center of the Ventura Freeway.

June, 1990: A referendum vote shows Valley residents overwhelmingly support building a monorail above the freeway.

April, 1991: An engineering study shows a line above the freeway would be cheaper and have far fewer environmental effects than one alongside the freeway. LACTC orders further studies on a line above the center of the freeway.

August, 1992: Environmental studies on both lines are completed, showing the Burbank-Chandler line would do less environmental harm but would cost more to build and operate than a freeway line.

November, 1992: In non-binding bids, private firms offer to build the freeway line for far less than LACTC had expected. The firms decline to make bids on the Burbank-Chandler line.

December, 1992: The LACTC votes 6-3 to adopt the Ventura Freeway line as the preferred Valley route--subject to further studies.

January, 1993: LACTC unites with the Southern California Rapid Transit District to become the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

July, 1993: MTA votes to complete the final studies on both routes. Some transit officials question, however, whether funds would be available within the next decade for any kind of Valley rail line.

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority