Subway or Monorail? Debating the Merits of Valley Transit Proposals : Underground plan is safest and is clearly the choice of people it would serve. Its capacity would be 17% greater than alternative route’s.

As we approach a decision over the east-west Valley rail alignment, it is important to remind ourselves of the history of this issue.

The state established the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to build an L.A. mass-transit rail network to provide for growth and reduce congestion, dependence on foreign fossil fuels and emissions. It was to be financed by a half-cent sales tax (Proposition A, 1980), with other sources such as federal subsidies.

In 1990, the MTA concluded its evaluation for the best location for a Valley transit line and selected the Southern Pacific’s Burbank and Chandler boulevards alignment from North Hollywood to Warner Center. MTA purchased the right of way and land for $159 million.

A local newspaper conducted a biased readers’ survey to determine whether the people of the Valley were interested in a “Disneyland-style monorail,” if the taxpayers could save half a billion . The results were interpreted as a mandate for monorail, and the freeway alignment for an elevated train was adopted by MTA.

The same misapprehensions surrounded the 1990 Valley advisory election which gave a 48% plurality to a “monorail” system. In fact it would in all likelihood not be a monorail but rather a multitracked elevated train bed--an “el.”

The official findings since 1992 have concluded that an elevated train will not save $500,000. Nor is the proposed rail a monorail like Disneyland’s. What has been verified by the MTA and its contractors is that the freeway alignment will actually cost the taxpayers over $200 million more than the Burbank-Chandler alignment. MTA will be required by law to reimburse the state approximately $80 million for the state’s unused contribution. That should be added to the $159 million spent on the Burbank-Chandler right of way. This money is already spent, regardless of which alignment is chosen, but MTA added the cost only to the subway’s.

Let’s compare the verified facts of the two proposals. The freeway alignment is through affluent areas where ridership will be low. It would be obtrusive, with 20-foot sound walls, 75-foot towers and no more trees. It would not interface with any other transit system and might be unsafe. We know the earthquake Jan. 17 was real. A future earthquake could mean the loss of both the freeway and the rail system.

The proposal for the Burbank-Chandler alignment addresses the same issues with differing results. This alignment is more central to the needs of the Valley. A rider could go to or from Warner Center and downtown L.A. and all points in between without changing trains, which will increase ridership and reduce operating costs. Additionally, the passenger capacity of a Burbank-Chandler train is 17% greater than a freeway train.

From a safety perspective, we have the histories of the Bay Area and Mexico City. We still see images of the Nimitz Freeway and the Bay Bridge in ruins, yet both cities’ subways remained fully operational immediately after the quakes. They were the only form of transportation not disrupted. If there is a quake when you’re a commuter, a subway is where you want to be.

The people and businesses of the San Fernando Valley have studied this issue at length. Virtually every homeowners’ group, business group and elected official at every level through the proposed areas are united in support for the Burbank-Chandler alignment. The Valley knows what it wants and needs for a viable future! Is the MTA board listening?