Interest in Airport Tunnel Is Revived : Van Nuys: A panel says a road extension under runways would help commuters. But some officials worry about disruption.

New interest in a long-dormant proposal to build a six-lane tunnel extending Saticoy Street under Van Nuys Airport has raised hopes for easing commuter woes, as well as old objections from airport authorities.

The Mobility Action Committee for the East San Fernando Valley has revived the tunnel proposal to reduce traffic on streets that run the length of the Valley. The committee, made up of people appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley and the Los Angeles City Council, has started talks with members of the city departments of transportation and airports, said Richard Alarcon, an aide to the mayor.

Supporters of the tunnel say it would improve conditions near the airport and give Valley motorists “another street to get from east to west in the Valley . . . from Van Nuys to West Hills,” said Don Schultz, chairman of the Saticoy extension subcommittee, which reports to the Mobility Action Committee.

Construction of the tunnel would involve a lengthy approval process, with the ultimate decision resting with the City Council.

But airport authorities are apparently worried about disruption to airport traffic during construction, even though some airport users say they are willing to suffer the inconvenience in exchange for possible runway improvements.

City engineers estimate that the project could require shutting down one of the airport’s two runways for as long as 60 days.

“The airport people have generally been opposed,” said Charles Jack, an assistant district engineer for the city’s Bureau of Engineers, who was involved with the project when the idea first surfaced in 1977.

Cooperation of the Department of Airports is considered key to the project because the airport would have to give the city rights to tunnel underneath its land, Jack said.

Saticoy Street dead-ends at Valjean Avenue on the east side of the airport runway and at Hayvenhurst Avenue on the west. As a result, traffic is routed to Sherman Way or Roscoe Boulevard, making the area “a real quagmire” for commuters, Schultz said.

Under the proposal, the Saticoy tunnel would run from Valjean to Hayvenhurst, Schultz said.

When the idea was first proposed in the late 1970s, it died because of a lack of funds, Jack said. But as traffic conditions in the Valley worsen, members of the subcommittee hope that they can revive the plan.

“The stumbling block has been the Department of Airports,” Schultz said. “They’ve been against it from the first. It didn’t bother them to take 4,000 to 6,000 homes out to extend the runaway a couple of years ago. . . . I think it’s time that the Department of Airports started giving something back to the community.”

A spokesman for the department declined to comment on the proposal. But the department will play a crucial role in determining whether the project can be built, members of the Valley committee said.

“About half the cost is dependent on the airport,” Jack said. “If the airport wants to cooperate, they could reduce your cost. If they don’t and fight you all the way, your costs go up.”

The Federal Aviation Administration, responding to a Department of Airports request for comment, raised some initial objections to the proposal and asked for more information.

“We . . . object to any proposal that will reduce the use of the runways at the airport,” Howard S. Yoshioka of the FAA’s planning department said in a Jan. 31 letter to the department’s chief airports engineer.

Phil Berg, president of the Van Nuys Airport Assn., which represents airport tenants and pilots, said that because the plan was still in its early stages, the organization had not formulated an official position.

“I think we’d probably be supportive of it,” he said. “It would be a benefit to the airport in the long run, though there would be some inconvenience during the construction phase.”

He said conditions at the airport would actually be improved by the project because one of the runways would have to be lengthened and widened to accommodate larger aircraft during tunnel construction.

But commuters will receive the biggest benefit.

“Everybody seems to agree that if Saticoy could be extended, traffic mobility would improve,” Alarcon said. The main question about the project is how much it will cost, he said.

Members of the subcommittee and the Department of Airports disagree on the cost of the extension and how it would be funded, Schultz said.

In meetings, airport engineers have estimated that the project would cost $50 million, Schultz said. City engineers who did the original proposal 15 years ago put the figure at about $18 million.

“At the time, we inflated the cost pretty far,” Jack said. “In spite of what the airport thinks, I really don’t think it would be that much more than” the original $18-million estimate.

“This is a very, very long-term question here,” Alarcon said. “It’s very clear that if any extension of Saticoy were to become possible, it would be quite costly. And given our particular situation, in terms of revenue, it definitely isn’t going to happen in the near future.”

In the past, the Mobility Action Committee has made suggestions to the city’s Department of Transportation resulting in the restriping of roads, changes in the timing of traffic signals, additional lanes, and turn and parking restrictions.

Schultz said the airport should pay for part of the tunnel project because it would also benefit.

Recently, the Department of Airports awarded an $11.6-million contract for construction of a bridge over Sepulveda Boulevard at 96th Street near Los Angeles International Airport. The purpose of the four-lane bridge is to provide better access to off-site parking lots and rental car agencies, an airport spokeswoman said.