MTA Backs Subway, Light Rail for Valley

In a major new effort to define mass-transit alternatives for the San Fernando Valley in the next century, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Friday released a report recommending construction of a subway in the east and enhanced bus service or light rail in the west.

The report, nine months in preparation by a team of MTA consultants, also recommends against a traditional “deep-bore” subway from North Hollywood to Warner Center at a cost of $2.7 billion. It also urges against building a light-rail system that only serves the East Valley.

In all, the report considered 10 alternatives, recommended five for further study, and put its weight behind three.

On May 22, the MTA Board of Directors will debate the recommendations--and choose five to be presented to the public for consideration in the fall. The board must make its final decision on a route, technology and location of the stations in December. That plan will then be presented to the Federal Transit Administration and Congress for funding.

The study for the first time puts price tags on a wide variety of transit alternatives that have been discussed for years without a clear understanding of their costs.

The research shows that a 4-mile, deep-bore subway from North Hollywood to the San Diego Freeway along the Southern Pacific rail right-of-way between Chandler and Burbank boulevards would cost $826.4 million to build; a subway built in a shallow trench and covered with concrete would cost $734.4 million to build, and a subway built in a shallow trench with no cover would cost $673.1 million.

In contrast, a monorail-like “aerial guideway” along the same East Valley route would cost $513.4 million to build, and a light rail system on the route would cost $371.3 million.

The report says the MTA would save $18 million if it built a deep-bore subway beneath heavily commercial Oxnard Street rather than through the mostly residential Burbank-Chandler corridor. The Oxnard route--favored by the leaders of a large Jewish community centered along Chandler Boulevard--is among the five recommended for further study by MTA staff members.

The report, called a Major Investment Study, is the first part of the federal environmental review process. New Federal Transit Administration rules require that all alternatives for U.S.-funded transportation projects be evaluated for cost-effectiveness.

David Mieger, MTA project manager for the east-west Valley transit corridor, said the team of consultants headed by Gruen Associates to assess the alternatives evaluated more than costs in helping the MTA staff make suggestions to the board. Aesthetics, community sensitivity and visual and noise impacts, he said, were also tossed into the mix before 10 alternatives were whittled to five recommendations.

Aerial guideways, in which transit cars hang from a suspended rail, are among the least expensive to build, Mieger said, but are sometimes perceived by the community to be the least attractive. “They’ve met with significant community opposition in many places they’ve been proposed,” he said.

Mieger also noted that staff members recommended that a light-rail system not be built only in the East Valley because there is no room for a rail yard east of the San Diego Freeway. He said a light-rail system that traverses the Valley should be considered, however, because a yard could be built in Canoga Park.

County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, an MTA board member, blasted the report, saying it “ignores the overwhelming support” among Valley residents for an above-ground train in the median of the Ventura Freeway from Universal City to Woodland Hills.

Antonovich also contended the MTA study “seriously underestimates the costs” of construction. He said it indicates a subway could be built in the Valley for $163 million to $179 million per mile, even though the cost in the rest of the system from downtown Los Angeles to North Hollywood has hit $300 million per mile, not including cost overruns and litigation. The projected cost of a 17-mile, freeway-level train: $1.2 billion, or $70.5 million per mile.

Mieger said the MTA board had decided not to study Antonovich’s solution because of the costs of widening the Ventura Freeway by 17 feet on each side.

He also said the cost of a Valley subway would be less expensive per mile than routes in the rest of the city because the six-mile East Valley route includes two miles of an aerial guideway in an industrial area between Hazeltine Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. The 17-mile route across the whole Valley would include three more miles in the air from Sepulveda Boulevard to White Oak Avenue, Mieger said.

John Walsh, a bus riders’ activist and MTA gadfly, said he doubted that the money would ever be available for the Valley, since it must wait in line for subway or rail dollars behind East Los Angeles, the Wilshire or Crenshaw districts, and the rest of the Hollywood and North Hollywood projects already under construction.

“They might as well do a study on a yellow-brick road to the moon,” he said. “It’s a fantasy. The only people who benefit, once again, are the consultants--not commuters.”

Nathan Brogan, an official with the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., was not much more sanguine. “We think some action needs to be taken instead of reviewing and analyzing things in perpetuity,” he said. “The window is closing for federal matching funds.”

Some of the five alternatives that MTA staff members recommended to the board have a few variations.

* Red Line extension to the San Diego Freeway along the Southern Pacific rail right-of-way. Why recommended: Second-highest ridership among all alternatives. Variations: Deep-bore subway, cut-and-cover subway or open-air subway from North Hollywood to Hazeltine Avenue, then aerial guideway to Sepulveda Boulevard. Or an aerial guideway from North Hollywood to Sepulveda Boulevard. Problems: Anything but a deep-bore subway along the Burbank-Chandler route would require modification of a state law.

* Red Line extension to the San Diego Freeway beneath Oxnard Street. Why recommended: Highest ridership of all alternatives.

* Light rail from North Hollywood to Valley Circle Boulevard. Variations: Surface line along the whole route or cut-and-cover subway from North Hollywood to Fulton Avenue at Burbank Boulevard, then surface from there to Woodland Hills. Why recommended: Third-most-cost-effective because of relatively low construction expense.

* Enhanced bus service, with no subway or light rail. Why recommended: The most cost-effective.

* No project at all. Why recommended: Required by federal law to be considered.

The rejected alternatives:

* Light rail from North Hollywood to the San Diego Freeway. Why not recommended: Least cost-effective.

* Red Line extension to Valley Circle Boulevard along the Southern Pacific right-of-way. Why not recommended: Not cost-effective because of lower expected ridership in the less-dense West Valley.

* Red Line extension to Valley Circle along Sherman Way. Why not recommended: Not cost-effective because no expectation for increase in ridership in the most densely populated section of the West Valley.

* Alternative rail technology from North Hollywood to Chatsworth. Why not recommended: Not cost-effective because it attracts people from other buses, not from cars.

* Dedicated busway from North Hollywood to Warner Center along Southern Pacific right-of-way. Why not recommended: Lower ridership due to slower speeds.