VALLEY LEADERS LASH OUT AT MTA; PLAN TO DELAY RAIL LINE PROMPTS FUNDING THREAT.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

City Council members representing the San Fernando Valley, outraged by an MTA proposal to delay construction of the Valley rail line by up to 12 years to 2015, threatened Thursday to seek to cut off city funding to the agency.

And another official, Los Angeles County Supervisor and MTA board member Michael D. Antonovich, renewed calls for the Valley in favor of a privately built light-rail system.

A flood of anger, threats and counterproposals came in response to a proposal circulated by Linda Bohlinger, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's interim CE0, that would delay the start of construction on the East-West Valley Rail Line from 2003 to at least 2007, and possibly until 2015. The Daily News reported the proposal Thursday.

``The Valley has been shortchanged for many years, but this is the last straw,'' said Marvin Selter, chairman of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association.

``I think it's outrageous,'' said Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Feuer, whose district includes part of Sherman Oaks.

Feuer and Valley-based council members Laura Chick, Hal Bernson and Joel Wachs said Thursday that they would move to block the transfer of $140 million in city transit tax revenues to the MTA Metro Rail project if the Valley line delay stands.

The money is part of $200 million in tax funds that the council voted in August to transfer to the MTA over the next eight years to finance the city's promised share of the subway project.

Feuer and Chick said they made the transfer contingent on certain milestones being met on the Valley rail project. The council motion said the city would pay its share of the tab in future years if the MTA acts ``expeditiously'' on the Valley project. Expected milestones include approving the Valley line in concept this year, completing environmental studies in 1998, getting federal approval in 1999 and commencing final design work by 2001.

The proposed delay in the East-West Line is ``inconsistent with achieving those milestones,'' Feuer said.

``Were the MTA to adopt the recommendation and delay the Valley line to the extent proposed, the balance of the $200 million would be thrown into great jeopardy,'' Feuer said. ``I would move aggressively to stop future payments.''

Councilman Richard Alarcon of Sylmar said he would consider blocking city funds. But Alarcon said he does not believe significant delays will be approved by the MTA board, on which he serves as an alternate.

``I just don't think there will be support for any extension to 2015,'' Alarcon said, adding that the Valley might have to accept some lesser delay if similar delays are required of other MTA rail projects.

Fair share

Wachs said Valley leaders must put together a united front to fight delays in the Valley getting a share of the $1 billion it has paid in transit taxes.

``We've been paying into that system all along on the promise that we would get our fair share,'' Wachs said. ``It's time for the Valley leaders and council members to say, `not one penny of city participation into the system unless we get our fair share.' ''

With the MTA board scheduled to consider the proposals next week, council President John Ferraro, whose district includes parts of North Hollywood and Studio City, called on the MTA staff to revise its plan and to put the Valley project back on schedule. ``The MTA has an obligation to deliver. They should reconsider.''

MTA officials said the city is legally obligated to pay a share of the Metro Rail project and the withholding of $140 million would create havoc in a project already scrimping for funds.

``If they withhold money for Segment 3 (to North Hollywood), it will further delay Segment 4 (East-West Line),'' Bohlinger said.

She said the milestones set by the City Council all involve environmental studies and administrative action short of breaking ground. So, she said, the MTA can comply with the milestone requirements while still delaying actual construction to 2007 or beyond.

``There's no mandate for start of construction,'' Bohlinger said.

As a result, she said, the city should provide the money as promised.

``We would expect them to, per our agreed-upon schedule,'' she said.

However, Chick said the intent of the motion was to keep the Valley rail project on schedule for construction, not just administrative actions.

Chick said she would introduce a motion to plug any loopholes if necessary.

``Their not meeting the time line disallows them spending the (city) money,'' Chick said.

Bohlinger said the new schedule is dictated by an order by federal officials for the MTA to produce a realistic plan showing how it will complete the $6 billion rail system.

Bohlinger said the plan delaying the Valley line was developed to counter the potential loss of $2.1 billion in federal funds.

The MTA staff is revising the proposals and Bohlinger said the final version more likely will recommend that the start of Valley line construction be delayed until between 2007 and 2011.

Construction is expected to take nine years.

The potential delays are upsetting some Valley leaders because the East-West heavy-rail line was promised when voters approved transit tax measures in 1980 and 1990.

Light rail by 2000?

Antonovich introduced a motion Thursday at an MTA executive committee meeting that would have the agency seek private financing for rail projects.

Antonovich said the motion would reopen the door for a proposal to have a private firm build a light-rail system along the center median of the Ventura Freeway instead of pursuing the heavy-rail project along the Burbank-Chandler route.

Antonovich said the Valley has a choice of pursuing a subway project that would not start construction until around 2011 or ``be riding a public-private light-rail system by the end of this century.''

Antonovich said his proposal, which still must be considered by the full MTA board, would seek bids from private firms, which he believes can build the light-rail system for $70 million a mile, compared with $350 million a mile for a subway.

The motion provoked a heated exchange between Antonovich and Mayor Richard Riordan, who amended the motion to limit the seeking of private financing to projects now on the long-range plan, which does not include the Ventura Freeway monorail.

Antonovich said he believes the amendment allows room to consider the light-rail idea and he will argue for it at the full board meeting.

Tarzana engineer Nick Patsaouras, a former head of the county Rapid Transit District, said successfully fighting the proposed delay will require a united Valley leadership and the help of Riordan.

``It's what they've been doing all along, ignoring the Valley,'' Patsaouras said. ``It's important for the leadership to oppose it.''

CAPTION(S):

Photo

PHOTO (color) Joel Wachs

City councilman