Nearly 20 years ago, residents opposed the idea of light rail in the San Fernando Valley so vehemently that the proposal was replaced by one for a dedicated bus route. And even that generated its own controversy before what became known as the Orange Line opened in 2005. But today, with ridership on the Orange Line outperforming expectations, a proposal to convert the busway into a light rail system is being revisited. And that, in turn, raises the question of whether the dormant opposition will awaken. Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry & Commerce Association, the Sherman Oaks business advocacy group pushing the light rail proposal, believes times have changed and opposition may be non-existent. Some residents who took part in the first go around, however, are not certain of that. Regardless, plenty of time remains to mobilize both sides as the light rail proposal remains just that – a proposal. “Negativity is never going to stop a project whose time has come,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, the outgoing Los Angeles County supervisor whose district includes much of the Valley. The Orange Line runs for 14 miles along a former railroad right-of-way connecting North Hollywood with the Warner Center in Woodland Hills. A 4-mile extension linking the Canoga Park station to the Chatsworth Metrolink station opened in 2012. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or Metro, does not include converting the Orange Line to light rail among its long-term projects. Still, VICA has taken a lead in pushing the project. The business community benefits from the Orange Line because it’s a popular way for workers to get to their jobs, as evidenced by crowded buses during the morning and evening commutes, Waldman said. And light rail is likely to jumpstart transit-oriented development of housing and retail along the route that a busway is not creating, Waldman said. As a result, the business group backs legislation that will repeal the 1991 Robbins bill that banned any above ground public transit rail from crossing the Valley. That legislation, AB 577, sponsored by Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian, D- Van Nuys, passed the Assembly and Senate and was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on July 8. Disruptive effect Opposition to the Orange Line focused on noise from the busway, disruption to quality of life and increased urbanization in an area of the city known for its suburban environment. The Orthodox Jewish community on the eastern portion of the line was particularly vocal that buses would disrupt religious services and classes and endanger worshipers walking to a nearby synagogue because they cannot ride in cars on the Sabbath. Metro responded to the criticisms by putting in sound walls and adding crosswalks on timers so that a button would not be pushed to activate them. “There is no stop at Coldwater Canyon which was a big source of contention,” Waldman said. Diana Lipari, a real estate agent in Sherman Oaks, spent four years fighting the Orange Line as the chairwoman of Citizens Organized for Smart Transit. While aware of the effort to repeal the Robbins bill, Lipari admitted she hasn’t paid a great deal of attention to the effort to retrofit the Orange Line into a light rail system. She is convinced, however, that if the light rail conversion proposal gains momentum residents will organize. “I don’t believe that people impacted by light rail will not rise up again,” Lipari said. If residents end up taking action against the Orange Line conversion, they will do it without Lipari’s involvement. She and her husband are moving out of state later this year. To garner support for the Orange Line conversion and two other light rail recommendations, VICA has formed the Valley on Track coalition. The group is reaching out to elected officials, residents and neighborhood and business groups to line up support to show the Valley is speaking in a single voice about long-term transit needs, Waldman said. In addition to the Orange Line conversion, VICA recommends a light rail system on Van Nuys Boulevard to connect the Sylmar Metrolink station with Ventura Boulevard; and connecting the Valley with the Westside by burrowing a train tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains and down Sepulveda Pass. Funding for these projects would come from a ballot measure proposed for 2016 to either hike the county sales tax by an undetermined amount to raise more than $100 billion or extend Measure R’s half-cent increase – approved by voters in 2008 – beyond 2039, when it will end unless further action is taken. “We know this is going to be an uphill battle because we are asking for something for the Valley and most people ignore the Valley,” Waldman said. Railing against rail Public rail transportation in the Valley has been talked about since the mid-1970s when connecting North Hollywood to downtown via subway first met approval of county transit planners. The Red Line opened at Lankershim Boulevard in North Hollywood in 2000. However, proposals to extend a rail connection out to the west Valley never received widespread support and generated much opposition from residents. One public hearing in the late 1980s drew a crowd of 2,000, many of whom lived in the Burbank-Chandler corridor area, the heart of the line. In 1991, then-state Sen. Alan E. Robbins sponsored legislation prohibiting above-ground rail service through the Valley and restricting it to subway only. However, an underground line was considered too costly. With rail off the table, the dedicated busway was presented as an alternative. But even that was not without opposition. Lipari’s group, for instance, took Metro to court and was successful in stopping construction for three weeks in 2004 before an appellate court ruled in Metro’s favor. “The Orange Line was controversial at the time,” Yaroslavsky said. “Once the decision was made, not building was not an option.” Once built, the busway proved popular. Metro projected it would take until 2020 to reach 22,000 average weekday boardings. But ridership was at 21,800 by May 2006 – only seven months after the line opened. Also, the disruptions that opponents said the busway would cause never quite materialized, Waldman added. “There was a fear of the great unknown and I don’t believe that is there anymore for anybody who lives in that community,” Waldman said. As a result, he said, “light rail is the next logical step.” Not so fast, say Lipari and others involved in the Orange Line squabble. The question that needs an answer is whether the light rail cars will run at street level, or if at major intersections the tracks will go over or under the streets. Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino Inc., said his group opposes light rail if the tracks are at street level with Sepulveda Boulevard. Stopping traffic for the trains would create horrendous backups on an already busy street, he said. “Things are never as easy as they look on the surface,” Silver said. Waldman admitted that not much thought has been given on where to place the light rail tracks. When the busway was constructed, however, it was done with the potential of putting in rail at some future time and retrofitting some crossings. “That requires a study of which areas are best for that,” Waldman said. Lipari does not live near the Orange Line so opposing the busway did not fall under the “not in my backyard” category. She would have preferred to see additional rapid bus routes established in the Valley over what Metro did. Yaroslavsky, who is termed out this year from his county position, agreed there are other options for the Orange Line other than a light rail conversion. Metro could start with bi-articulated buses, ones with three coaches to replace the current two coach buses, he said. “We have to be honest with ourselves and look at the cost and benefits and how much more value do we get out of light rail and what is the cost to the Orange Line while that is being done,” Yaroslavsky added.