Riordan Seeks to Kill Valley Subway : Transit: Mayor says plan is too costly and urges cheaper alternatives.

Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan said Tuesday that a proposed $2.2-billion subway line across the San Fernando Valley is too expensive and should be replaced by a cheaper alternative, such as a surface light-rail line.

Riordan, who had previously supported the subway, said he will ask transit officials to consider alternatives in an effort to keep a mass transit option alive for the Valley.

“I don’t think we will ever build a subway beyond North Hollywood,” he said.

The mayor’s about-face on the subway, sought for years as one of the Valley’s largest capital improvement projects, came in a interview with The Times.

Riordan unveiled his proposal one day before the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is expected to recommend dropping the Valley subway from a list of priority projects for state funding, in part because of the high cost of the project.

The mayor’s proposal quickly reignited strong concerns among Valley residents along the route, who fear that a ground-level rail line will create noise and traffic congestion at intersections where it halts street traffic.

In addition, the proposal also faces daunting legal obstacles.

A law, proposed in 1991 by then-state Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Tarzana), requires that any mass transit rail line through residential neighborhoods in North Hollywood and Van Nuys be built underground to reduce the impact of noise and traffic.

Since then, MTA officials have scuttled all plans for a ground-level line along the proposed route that parallels Burbank and Chandler boulevards from North Hollywood to Woodland Hills.

Riordan representatives said they have not considered the impact of the Robbins law on the proposal.

David Mieger, an MTA project manager for the Valley line, said Riordan’s plan is viable if the light-rail line is built just below grade through residential neighborhoods, using a grading technique called “cut and cover.”

The “cut and cover” option is much cheaper than traditional subway boring techniques because workers can build the rail line along a huge ditch that can be covered with a reinforced concrete ceiling and soil.

Such an alternative alone can cut $30 million to $40 million from the project, Mieger said.

But such options may not mollify Valley residents living near the route. “I think the community will not support it,” said Tom Herman, a Valley Village resident who lives half a block from the proposed Valley rail route.

Herman said that if the MTA is willing to spend billions on subways in downtown Los Angeles and Hollywood, why not the Valley.

A hot debate is expected at the MTA meeting today when supporters of the Valley line fight to keep the project on the state’s priority funding list. But supporters fear they may lose that battle to backers of other projects competing for the same money.

Supporters of the Valley project, including Councilman Hal Bernson and county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, worry that once it is off the state list, other projects will move ahead to knock the Valley line further behind schedule. They also worry that the state will have less money to spend on transportation in the future.

But Riordan--who controls four votes on the 13-member MTA board--said he will propose the light-rail alternative that he believes will keep the mass transit project on schedule and reduce its costs, thus improving the chances of winning state and federal funding.

The mayor said he will ask the MTA on Wednesday to set aside $51 million in 1996 to begin design studies on the rail line to allow construction to begin as scheduled in 2003.

During his mayoral campaign, Riordan supported a monorail option, contending that it would be the most cost-effective. But the day before the MTA board took its final vote in October 1994, he reversed himself, announcing support for the subway. He said he switched because of cost savings that MTA planners said they could make on the subway, because of City Council and city transportation department support for the subway, and because of extensive support for the subway from Valley homeowners.

Construction of the Valley line was to have begun in 2003, with the completion in 2010.

Recent subway tunneling mishaps, including a huge sinkhole in Hollywood, may bolster the argument that above-ground lines are better, Riordan said.

Some MTA members said Tuesday that they would consider reevaluating the subway plan if it means saving money and assuring that the project would be put back on schedule.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, an MTA member who backed a proposed a monorail along the Hollywood Freeway, believes it still has hope, a spokeswoman said.

The Birth and Death of a Subway

Some highlights in the history of Valley rail:

* November 1980: Los Angeles County voters approve a half-cent sales tax to fund construction of rail transit. The route map accompanying 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: Because of opposition from San Fernando 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 freeway routes.

* March 1990: The Transportation Commission adopts the Burbank-Chandler route as the preferred alternative. Undeterred, Supervisor Mike Antonovich calls for studies of a rail line along the center of the Ventura Freeway.

* June 1990: A nonbinding referendum vote shows 48% of Valley voters support building a monorail above the Ventura Freeway across the Valley. A light rail system in an open trench garners 21% of the vote. A subway system confined to the East Valley wins 10%.

* April 1991: An engineering study shows that a line above the freeway would be cheaper and have far fewer environmental effects than one alongside the freeway. The Transportation Commission orders further studies of an over-freeway line.

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

* November 1992: In nonbinding bids, private firms offer to build the freeway line for far less than the panel had expected. The firms decline to submit bids on the Burbank-Chandler line.

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

* January 1993: The panel unites with the Southern California Rapid Transit District to become the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

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

* September 1994: An independent cost comparison finds that a subway would not be as expensive as previously believed, but that an elevated rail line, at $2.25 billion, would still be $19 million cheaper.

* October 1994: Mayor Richard Riordan, reversing the pro-monorail stand he took during his mayoral campaign, decides to support a $2.27-billion subway option. With his backing, the subway route is approved by the MTA board on an 8-5 vote.

* February 1995: Tunneling machines begin boring in the Valley for the first time to build the Hollywood-to-North Hollywood extension of the Metro Red Line. One month later, sinkage beneath Lankershim Boulevard forces the MTA to stop tunneling.

* December 1995: Riordan changes positions again, throwing his support behind a light-rail line instead of a subway.

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority