Voters Say Monorail

T wo major decisions about an east-west rail mass transit line in the San Fernando Valley lie before the Metropolitan Transportation Authority: how to pay for it and where to put it.

Complicated by the recession, the funding is in doubt.

Supporters of the two routes under consideration state their views on this page. One proposal is for an elevated line down the middle of the Ventura Freeway. The other is for a mostly underground line generally following Chandler and Burbank boulevards across the Valley. Either would start at an intersection with the Metro Red Line subway from downtown.

The routes are the subject of a formal study by private consultants, to be done by mid-1994.

*

In less than 10 months the Metropolitan Transit Authority will make the final determination for the type of technology to be used for the San Fernando Valley east-west rail transit project, if any.

While the MTA reviews the final environmental mitigations and costs, San Fernando Valley groups will be positioning themselves for yet another confrontation over the merits of the competing technologies.

The choice would be an easy one for the commissioners if only they would stop functioning under the misapprehension that Valley residents have been unable to reach a consensus.

I take strong exception to that myth. Valley residents spoke very clearly, and did reach a consensus in the June, 1990, advisory vote, when 102,810 voted for a monorail on the Ventura Freeway, as opposed to only 22,044 votes for the subway along the Burbank-Chandler line.

This advisory vote should have ended all future debates, including those from elected officials who support the Burbank-Chandler line. The voters spoke loudly and clearly, in a democratic election, and they should be listened to.

Aside from the fact that a monorail on the Ventura Freeway is the No. 1 choice of the voters, there are other important factors that the commissioners must consider: A monorail on the Ventura Freeway offers a $1 billion-plus savings, a higher projected ridership and a technology that provides the potential to expand beyond Warner Center and into Ventura County, none of which the Burbank-Chandler subway offers.

Furthermore, Los Angeles is an earthquake-prone city, and Angelenos will not feel safe in an underground transit system. Many people feel that in the event of an earthquake they would rather take their chances plummeting to the ground from above than being buried alive in a subway.

The county Transportation Commission (now part of the MTA) reported in its Life Cycle Cost Report of January, 1993, that the Burbank/Chandler subway would cost $4.8 billion through the year 2051, compared with $3.6 billion for the freeway line.

That $1-billion-plus savings would free funds for an entirely new transit system elsewhere in the county. A possible example is a rail line from Pasadena to downtown.

This savings should play an important role in the final decision for the Valley line. MTA commissioners who do not represent the San Fernando Valley will have to give serious thought to the people they represent who need and want a new transit system.

Another critical concern is crime, which is already rampant in Los Angeles. New York subways are a prime example of a dangerous and filthy mode of transportation. New Yorkers must deal with rampant crime and graffiti throughout their established subway system. And let me point out that New York City police and transit police officers far outnumber the available law enforcement that Los Angeles has to send into subways.

The 1993 report mentioned above projects a daily ridership in 2010 of 47,980 for Burbank/Chandler and 59,100 for the freeway line.

In the final analysis, it will be interesting to see if those elected officials who have been supporting the Burbank-Chandler subway, for which only 10% of the Valley voters showed a preference compared to 48% who voted for the Ventura Freeway monorail, will finally see the light and support the system that their constituents voted for.

It will be built faster, will be more visible, will attract more riders and through its ultimate cost savings, will allow another rapid transit system to be financed elsewhere in the county.

*

I’m pleased that Mayor Richard Riordan, unlike his predecessor, is not wedded to the Burbank-Chandler subway technology. Subway advocates can never wipe away the stigma of the cost overruns experienced in the early days of tunneling in downtown Los Angeles, or the disastrous fires in the tunnels or the construction delays, all within about four miles.

The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission spent more than $100 million for the Southern Pacific Transportation Co. railroad right of way for the extension of the downtown Metro Rail. The MTA should not compound that mistake but should instead implement a system for the ages with a futuristic monorail on the Ventura Freeway.

It’s about time someone listened to 102,810 registered voters.