Westside Subway Extension Feud

Exactly. If the presence of earthquake faults precluded subway tunneling, there'd be no subways in Tokyo, Mexico City, Rome, etc..

my co-worker's sister makes $79 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for 5 months but last month her paycheck was $7245 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site... LazyCash5.(com)

So strange but not surprising that the LA Weekly manages to find a new low in factual reporting. "Bustling Santa Monica Blvd..." bustling with cars and BH residents headed to the shops on Rodeo Drive. Really?

So glad I stopped picking up this joke of a paper at the newstand. I pity the poor advertisers that still think this is an actual alternative newspaper.

Did JMB exist in 1968? Was Villagrosa Mayor mayor then? I only ask because the Constellation route was studied (and preferred) way back in 1968!

http://libraryarchives.metro.n...

So the subway will be less prone to damage if it is located just a few blocks away? Hmm. But what about all the other lesser faults crisscrossing the LA Basin? The Red Line goes through several faults, and that's okay. Apparrently, Century City is exceptionally special and unique geologically.

home based jobs and high returns, check ===.> makecash4.[com]

The L.A. Weekly is the Westside Weekly. They know nothing about transit.

LA Weekly, you have sunk to a new low. Apparently you have never step foot in Century City. "sleepy" Constellation?? "bustling" Santa Monica? What are you guys smoking? By busting, do you mean the 6 lanes of traffic next to the golf course?? And by sleepy Constellation are you referring to the millions of square feet of office and reatil space surrounding it?

Is LA Weekly now a tabloid? This article is so incredibly one-sided and misleading, the Weekly should be ashamed of itself. Instead of presenting the facts, they chose to pander to Lisa Korobotov of the Beverly Hills School District. ATTENTION BEVERLY HILLS: Subways go under ALL kinds of buildings throughout Los Angeles, the U.S. and the world WITHOUT INCIDENT. Stop wasting your money fighting progress and a better future for the entire region.

This article has such a one-sided tone I am surprised it is classified as news. If the author/editors wanted to express their opinion about where the subway station should be, they should have put the "article" in the editorial section. As a piece of news, though, this is so biased that the author ought to be ashamed of himself.

The facts are simple: the ridership would be higher at the Constellation stop. The Constellation stop is MUCH closer to businesses, malls, movie theaters in Century City than the proposed stop on Santa Monica Blvd. That section of Santa Monica Blvd is NOT "bustling" with people (has the author ever even been there?!) it is just a long sidewalk up against a fence for a golf course, on the north side of a 6-lane major thoroughfare. Subway riders getting off at a Santa Monica Blvd stop would have to wait to cross the huge street before walking a significant distance to any of the Century City destinations (and why else would they be getting off at this stop if not to go to Century City?) And finally: the geological study revealed there are potentially active faults under the proposed Santa Monica stop, and not under the Constellation stop.

EVERY line of evidence, whether it is projected ridership, convenience of the stop to destinations, or scientific, points to the stop being better placed at Constellation. The only group that doesn't want it there is the Beverly Hills High School District, and they only care a lick about this because the Constellation stop requires Metro to tunnel deep underneath their high school. They are worried about noise from the trains being felt/audible at the surface, even though there have been no reports of such noise by any of the businesses/residences that currently lie above the red/purple lines. The Beverly Hills folks simply don't want it in their back yard. They've already opposed a subway stop near Rodeo drive because they don't want "that type of person" mucking up their fancy neighborhood.

Also, it's circular reasoning to suggest that the people in Century City wouldn't use the subway since they "never get out of their cars". It is just as well-supported to say they drive their cars BECAUSE they don't have another convenient transportation option. . . like, say, a subway stop near their work.

This is an uncharacteristically bad article for the Weekly.

“That fact has energized a two-year effort by Century City land barons to persuade Metro to move the Westside Subway route — known as the Purple Line — two blocks south of Santa Monica Boulevard.”

False. It was ALWAYS the right choice and virtually every business and community group supports the Constellation station. The station wasn't "moved." Question: Why do the SMB developers want the station at Constellation? If the author's theory is correct, wouldn't they want it near THEIR buildings? But they don't. They want it where it makes sense.

“Rather than serve bustling Santa Monica Boulevard, where groups of working-class citizens carry fast food to work, the station would serve sleepy, three-block-long Constellation Boulevard, where investment bankers valet their Porsches”

False. Foot traffic at AOS/Constellation is much higher than SMB/AOS. Go to Century City some day and watch. SMB/AOS is also central to CC density, closer to residential and closer to Fox.

"Century City's skyscraper owners have been locked in a bitter war with Beverly Hills Unified School District, which strongly opposes shifting the subway route to Constellation because that would require tunneling and then running subway cars directly beneath Beverly Hills High School. "

False. Pretty much every business *and community group* agrees on AOS/Constellation.

Buresh, the engineer who opposes the Constellation station, argues that the stockbrokers, lawyers and professional investors who make up a sizable portion of the Century City workforce "rarely get out of their cars." Metro's own Draft EIR — an initial environmental impact report — appeared to back up that view.

False. Read the DEIR and FEIR ridership studies. That's not what it says.

Bottom line: Anyone who knows Century City knows that AOS/Constellation is the right spot.

L.A. counts on the Weekly to research its articles and present an even-handed view. This fails on both accounts.

This is a really poorly researched and written article that does the entire region an injustice by giving succor to the handful of wild-eyed Beverly Hills NIMBYs who oppose a station where it belongs at Constellation and Avenue of the Stars.

This article has a heavily biased tone. It is almost as if the author/editor's intention was to express an opinion on where the stop should be instead of just reporting the facts. If that is the case, then this article ought to be in the Editorial section. But as a news piece this reeks of biased reporting.

I invite the author to actually visit this area of Century City and see for yourself. That's all it should take to convince you the Constellation stop would serve the community far better. As others have mentioned, the proposed Santa Monica stop, at the north side of a six lane thoroughfare where there is only a long fence and a golf course to the North, the road to the south, and beyond that road the edge of Century City, is far from where any conceivable commuters would need to go via the subway. Any riders would have to get off the subway, wait to cross the busy street, and walk a significant distant to any reasonable destination in Century City (and where else would they be going if this was their stop?). The proposed stop at Constellation is at the center of a major business district and much closer to malls, movie theaters, and places of business. The article repeatedly states that the workers in Century City all drive. Well of course they do. Their only other option is the bus, which is a far slower transit option than the subway would be. It's circular reasoning to suggest that people working in Century City wouldn't take the Subway because they currently drive. It is just as supported to say they currently drive because there isn't a subway.

There probably would not be a "feud" if the Constellation stop did not require Metro to tunnel directly under Beverly Hills High School. The BHHS, and the parents who send their kids there, have such a Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) attitude, and the money to back it up, that they have created a real obstacle to progress for this subway extension. They don't want subway stops in their neighborhood (they made sure there wouldn't be a stop at Rodeo: http://la.curbed.com/archives/... ), and they don't want the subway going underneath the school because they claim it will endanger the students. They claim such outlandish concerns as a terrorist attack via subway under the school, or that the subway would audible noise from underground audible at the surface. The terrorist attack idea is silly (there are locations along the subway with far greater population density than beverly hills that could serve as targets), and there is no support for the idea that the subway will be audible from the surface. The current subways are just as far below ground under many locations in L.A., and there have been no reports of noise in those locations.

As for the seismic fault study:

If you just read the facts in this story it's pretty clear: a geophysical study was done to see whether there were potentially active seismic faults in the area of the two proposed subway stops. The study found there were potentially active faults under the Santa Monica stop, but not the Century City stop. Yet more evidence pushing us toward the constellation stop. Here is Metro's FAQ on the seismic studies. I find it much more convincing than this piece of biased journalism. http://www.metro.net/projects/...

Dear Mr.. Deto,

Obviously you haven't been around this part of town much...you're from up north, studied in orange county and oregon and have been at LA Weekly less than a year. PLA-HEASE...your mischaracterization of CC ("bustling" v. "sleepy") is a reflection of your lack of knowledge of the area. I understand you are new in town so how about you work in century city for ten years and then we can talk.

ps - i looked you up only cause i just couldn't believe the garbage i was reading and wanted to know who was behind it. This is article is journalism at its worst.

sincerely,A 10 year Century City office worker.

This article reads like a teen-age beauty pageant contestant trying to explain why Americans are so bad in geography. If Porsche-driving tenants won't be bothered to use the subway, why would a fat-cat developer push to construct a station on its property? That sounds like the one-percent battling with the one-percent over unicorns.

Has L.A. Weekly ever walked in Century City? Has it ever visited at all? The proposed Santa Monica stop has a golf course on one side, and six lanes of traffic on the other. All the "bustle" comes from cars, not from pedestrians. The few who do find their way to the bus stops look like the golf-course-bred rats and skunks that scurry across the boulevard in their search for safety on the other side.

If you want to prioritize the Porsches, build that damned stop on Santa Monica, so the ninety-nine have to walk a mile to work, and the one-percenters can valet their cars steps away. But if you want to build a stop where the action is, put it smack in the middle of Century City, on Constellation and Ave of the Stars, and let the Porsches park somewhere else.

When did the Beverly Hills Unified School District buy the LA Weekly? This is some shameful reporting.

Yeah, there are THOUSANDS of people every day bustling their sandwiches along the golf course fence. They're all dashing from the Beverly Hilton over to the Mormon temple right?

Come to think of it, the station on SM Blvd does make sense. We have a gold line that doesn't go to Dodger Stadium and a green line that doesn't go to the airport, so we certainly should have a purple line that doesn't go to Century City.

Bustling golf-course-adjacent Santa Monica Blvd AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

I can't...I just can't.

So let me get this straight:

Stretch of Santa Monica Blvd that borders the golf course = "bustling"

Intersection of Constellation Blvd and AOS in the heart of Century City = "sleepy"

In a paper known for hack pieces, this article might be the worst yet. LA Weekly, get your sh*t together. This is low, even for your standards.

Dude, get over it. You're the only person I've seen, besides the Beverly Hills Unified School District who wants a stop at Santa Monica. To call Constellation "sleepy", is pathetic. What possessed LA Weekly writers to go against what the majority of the people want is beyond me.