On Oct. 28, the Metro Board will meet to decide what to include in the Final EIR. I'm guessing they will ask for both the so-called Constellation alternative, as well as the Santa Monica alternative to be considered for the Century City station.
So the final decision won't be made until after the Final EIR has been presented sometime next year, but the money (read: Century City developer money) is on Metro's choosing the Constellation alternative.
That would not be a good move.
The Community of Beverly Hills is united in opposition to the Constellation alignment, which would involve tunneling under the City's only -- and historical -- high school. Opposition is based on the fact that there is a viable alternative to tunneling under the high school, as well as the perception that Metro has not been entirely straight with the Community. In short, our residents have become tired of being the victims of bait-and-switch tactics, whether they come from slick developers or from Metro.
As tempting as it is for the Metro Board, in league with special interest groups such as wealthy Century City developers, to bash such an easy target as Beverly Hills, riding roughshod over the wishes of an entire Community would not be the right decision, either from a political or practical perspective. What's more, it would also be extremely unfair -- not that fairness towards residents has ever been a real concern for big government agencies.
The preferred strategy for the "My Metro, right or wrong" crowd seems to be writing off Beverly Hills as a bunch of NIMBY's, which evidently is the en vogue insult intended to minimize the concerns of any group of people who don't agree with the Master Planners. So perhaps it's not surprising that a number of these critics have dissed BH, sometimes in fairly harsh terms.
No matter if the concerns of the Beverly Hills residents are legitimate; some of the attacks simply bring to mind the Tom Lehrer's observation that "to hate all but the right folks is an old established rule." Fact is, Beverly Hills has been supportive of current Westside Extension from the get-go. However, the support of the community has always been based on a route that went down Wilshire Blvd. to Santa Monica and Century City. The recent development of the Constellation alignment looks, smells and feels like a classic bait-and-switch maneuver. Attempts to paint the Constellation alignment as simply "a good idea that just materialized over the course of developing the project" are -- to put it mildly -- disingenuous. As if when the initial Century City alignment along Santa Monica was developed, nobody at Metro was aware of the existence of Constellation Blvd. or the rest of Century City. Yeah, right.
To suggest that the one block (yes, folks that's right: one block) is going to cause potential riders not to use the subway does not really make any sense.
Joel Epstein on the Huffington Post even goes so far as to suggest that putting the Century City station on Santa Monica would be comparable with "the Metro Green Line stopping short of LAX." Is he kidding? Is he truly suggesting that not having a subway station at the region's international airport is the same as a one block distance between proposed subway stations?
Let's deconstruct Epstein a little more. In his blog posting, he writes: "The two options are a commuter friendly stop at Constellation Blvd and Avenue of the Stars and a less convenient alternative on Santa Monica Blvd. While some may quibble with my characterization of the Santa Monica location as 'less convenient,' the fact is, it is. Just get out of your car and count the number of steps it takes to get there from Century City's various office towers and the Westfield Century City mall vs. a location at Constellation."
What is interesting is Epstein's apparent definition of "commuter friendly" and his take on Century City geography. If it's "convenience" he's after, it would seem that a Santa Monica Blvd. station would be much more convenient to all the office towers actually on Santa Monica Blvd. itself, including those that have been entitled but not built yet. And the Westfield mall stretches from Santa Monica to Constellation, so despite Epstein's assertion, a Santa Monica alignment would be no less "convenient" to the mall than Constellation. Furthermore, the Santa Monica alignment would be more convenient to walking into the west side of Beverly Hills, including the developments which have been entitled to the west of the Wilshire/Santa Monica intersection. Conversely, the "inconvenience" that a commuter who wanted to go to the other end of Century City would have to suffer is no greater than walking from one end of the mall to the other -- or even less since an escalator from the subway would presumably bring the commuter to the street level towards the middle of the block between Santa Monica and Constellation.
But if it's really a question of "the number of steps" a commuter has to walk, we need to do no more than look at the curious case of Westwood to see just how Metro's assumptions about ridership lack credibility and consistency.
The kvetching of those "expert" advocates who so quickly dismiss the concerns of Beverly Hills by suggesting Constellation is the "right" location for the Century City station makes even less sense when one considers the station planned for Westwood. The Westwood station, at the corner of Wilshire and Westwood, is at the very southern end of Westwood Village, almost a mile away from UCLA's School of Public Affairs.
Why is there no concern among these self-styled "urbanists" about ridership in Westwood? Why haven't these all-knowing would-be rationalists taken out their brooms and pitchforks to demand that Metro move the Westwood station to the heart of Westwood Village, rather than settle for the inconvenient southern extremity as planned?
Writes Epstein: "Let's build the subway already, and let's build it in the location that insures its greatest success and efficacy for the greatest number of commuters smart enough to ride." And yet, he says he believes the Westwood station should be at Wilshire and Westwood "rather than further west" -- as if a station further west made any sense at all. Again: why not in the heart of Westwood Village? Wouldn't that be the location that "insures its greatest success and efficacy for the greatest number of commuters smart enough to ride"?
It seems that one of Metro's "rationales" against a Westwood station in the heart of Westwood is the route the subway would take when leaving the area on its merry way towards Santa Monica by the sea. Evidently, in order to continue the subway's Wilshire alignment after moving back out of Westwood Village, Metro would be forced to tunnel under portions of the VA Cemetery. So tunneling under a high school with thousands of living children is hunky-dory, while tunneling under a cemetery with thousands of dead people is verboten. How does that make sense? 'Tis the bewitching time of year and perhaps Metro and Epstein have a sixth sense and are more receptive to the arguments of the departed, who don't want to be disturbed, than to the parents of real, live children.
While it's more than a bit ironic that "I believe in Metro" spokespeople like Joel Epstein -- both of the paid variety as well as those who are merely "true believers" -- aren't expending their energies fighting for a more central station in Westwood, it's hardly surprising. But for those who don't happen to be fans of double standards - the one here being so massive that you could drive a heavy-rail locomotive through it -- it is understandable that the residents of Beverly Hills wouldn't take this lying down.
Nonetheless, Epstein suggests that Metro, as a matter of principle, needs to vigorously fight every lawsuit, including potential lawsuits from the Beverly Hills Board of Education and others. Not unpredictably, he uses "slippery slope" argument. "If Metro 'caves' to Beverly Hills, it will set a bad precedent and open the floodgates to a myriad of lawsuits from NIMBY's of all stripes," or something like that.
Guess what? In this instance, setting precedents and establishing principles might not be such a bad idea. How about, for starters, the principle of respecting the concept of local control? How about establishing the general principle of taking the least intrusive option where there is a viable alternative? No, the conclusion is not that we should stop powering our homes with natural gas because of San Bruno - though I'm open to that if a better option comes along. The conclusion is we shouldn't build gas mains under houses or schools where another option exists, even if it's a little less "convenient" to some. Another principle we could establish would be active cooperation with residents rather than blowing them off. And while we're at it: how about establishing the principles of talking straight and not dissembling for the sake of political expediency?
On the other hand, there is a principle we may actually want to avoid. While Metro's ability to use eminent domain to obtain easements under residential and business properties seems pretty well established, the use of eminent domain by one state agency over another state agency is unprecedented in California. Not only is this a bad principle on any number of both practical and philosophical levels, but it could also be a matter for long, drawn-out litigation which, combined with organized opposition, could slow the entire subway project and the ability to get 30-10 funding. Some of the "My Metro right or wrong" crowd has been quick to blow off the concerns of the Beverly Hills Unified School District. The courts might not be so quick and they might not be of the same opinion.
While Epstein and other professed "transit advocates" may be sincere in their convictions, they are nothing if not smug. And inconsistent. In response to a commenter who points out that walking a block won't harm those commuters who might need to get from Santa Monica to Constellation Epstein writes: "Yes walking is good for you but access is what matters when encouraging ridership. And in this political environment I think the last thing Metro wants to do is take a parental tone with the public."
Yet this is exactly what Epstein himself is doing with the residents of Beverly Hills. And while Epstein may attempt to take a kindler, gentler tone, the results of his comments on the Century City subway alignment nonetheless can be reduced to a paternalistic: "We 'respect' you, but we know better... so shut up." On the one hand, it seems pretty clear that double-standards and bait-and-switch tactics are not necessarily the best way to win people's hearts and minds. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that all Metro's "respect" for local input and outreach activities may have effectively been done for show, in order to give the ultimate blow off the air of legitimacy. With this approach, Metro should not expect the opposition from Beverly Hills to end anytime soon.
Epstein elects to take a "glass half full" approach about the qualified support of the Beverly Hills City Council for the Westside Extension and I would encourage him to maintain this attitude. Specifically, I'd urge Epstein and Metro to take the "glass half full approach" when considering that surely a subway station at Santa Monica and Avenue of the Stars is better than no Century City subway station -- or no subway -- at all. Surely the $50 million that would be saved by the less expensive, less intrusive Santa Monica alignment could be put to good use with other pedestrian or bike-friendly transit projects that could benefit Beverly Hills and the entire region.
That's the problem, John. They aren't legitimate concerns. They are phoney, baseless concerns.
And, no, John, BH has most emphatically NOT "been supportive of current Westside Extension from the get-go." Bev Hills opposition to the Wilshire subway was instrumental in the 1980s to getting the infamous Waxman/Yaroslavsky subway bans implemented as federal and state law.
The same lame NIMBYs then, the same lame NIMBYs now.
You're right, people who work on Constellation would walk no matter no what, it's not a bad walk from either station location to the main high rises in and mall CC. But putting the station on Constellation might actually convince people in South CC to take transit. It's a 1/2 a mile to Fox Studios, a major employer from Constellation, and 3/4 a mile from SMB. Some Fox employees would not use the station based on the idea that a 3/4 is 'too far' which it is for many Angelinos.
Think of it this way, the difference between stations is like the difference between Rodeo/SMB and Wilshire/rodeo. Both hit the 'golden triangle' and are withing a reasonable walking distance to the skyscrapers. Both are about the same distance from each other as Constellation/SMB. It's just that there are more jobs and people inclined to use transit south of Wilshire than north of SMB. Just like south of Constellation is better than North of Santa Monica.
The farther north the station, the fewer riders, the lower the revenue, the higher the tax subsidy.
On the other hand, I am no geologist and there may be a problem with the tunneling.
Mirisch fails to acknowledge, however, that the intersection of Westwood/Wilshire is smack-dab in the heart of the *high-rises* in WW. And while the Village is technically north of Wilshire, what about all those businesses down WW Blvd south of Wilshire, all the way to Pico? That's not Westwood?
So, no, there's no double-standard here. Just someone whining about construction in Beverly Hills, as if Beverly Hills is and has always been a graceful conduit between the westside and mid-city. Laughable. Ever seen a bike lane in Beverly Hills?
If the goal of a subway were to put stations "smack-dab in the heart of the 'high-rises' in WW," Metro should forget the Santa Monica alignment altogether and simply continue along the Wishire Corridor, where they could add a station or two to serve the high-rises between BH and Westwood Village. Of course, the function of the subway isn't merely to serve the high-rises -- which a station in the heart of Westwood Village would still do. Furthermore, the businesses down Westwood Blvd south of Wilshire are a narrow-strip, surrounded by low-rise residential, and are anything but "smack-dab in the heart of high-rises." Nor are they a pedestrian-friendly shopping area, as is the case with Westwood Village.
One of the important functions of a public transportation system is also to serve major public institutions. While I fully understand on the basis of the football team this year, it is entirely possible to forget the existence of UCLA, nonetheless, UCLA is an important institution that deserves to be served by the subway. The current Westwood alignment does not adequately serve UCLA, and one of the reasons is so that Metro does not have to tunnel under a cemetery. The suggestion that the Wilshire/Westwood station is the "best possible" station for the area seems, at best, to be an after-the-fact rationalization in a geographically challenged attempt to justify the Gospel according to Metro.
Some 70% of the traffic in Beverly Hills is pass-through traffic, much of it created by the over-densification-without-infrastructure of surrounding jurisdictions. Because of it, it is simply unsafe for us or our children to ride our bikes. We have no desire to be a "graceful conduit" for traffic, whatever that's supposed to mean, but we do want to be a livable city for our residents. While it is unfortunate that accomodating the pass-through traffic leaves little room for bike lanes, we are in the process of planning a public works project for Santa Monica Blvd. and I have advocated for the incorporation of bike-lanes, as well as implementation of other bike-friendly measures around the City.
The City of Beverly Hills supports the Westside Extension, which includes two stations in Beverly Hills and construction in and through Beverly Hills. We continue to support the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment, which is the least intrusive and least expensive route to Century City.
Like many others in my Community, I will continue to try to think critically and independently and on this basis advocate for our City's best interests. And sometimes that means not just swallowing received knowledge from government agencies unquestioningly. I apologize if you're offended by my unwillingness to accept the "if Metro says it's so, it must be so" line, but if you really want to find whiners, I'd suggest looking at those who are kvetching about having to walk a block if Metro actually does make the correct decision and places the Century City station on Santa Monica Blvd, which should be used as a hub for connector buses to complete the area network and work in tandem with the subway.
You know full well that the high-rises to which this quote refers are residential buildings, not commercial buildings. The fact that you would present such a blatantly false analogy underscores the fact that your entire line of reasoning is a sham.
2. Why are we building a subway at all? The old Red Car Line ran above ground on Santa Monica Blvd, and Exposition Way. Why can't this transit line be above ground?
3. Taking a route to Westwood is NOT a good idea when looking at using the right-of-ways of the old Red Car Line as much as possible. The costs because exponentially prohibitive.
If you go on-line, you should be able to find the site that contains the old L.A. traffic studies from 1915, 1924, 1925, 1948, etc. They explain certain facts.
(1) The Red Cars were a menace. Fixed rail-transit above ground was hated by Angelenos and that is why we got rid of it. It is a myth that the oil companies or GM destroyed the Red Cars -- Angelenos did not like them.
(2) Los Angeles constructed a subway in 1925 and closed it in 1955. The finances of subways always lead to excessive population density within 1/2 mi of the subway station. Without extreme density, the fares become too high or the tax subsidy is unbearable.
After the Governor vetoed AB 2531, the City cannot Kelo private property near the stations to construct the equivalent of 225 linear miles of new housing. Already, in Hollywood, they are planning 20 and 30 story mixed-use high rises in order to max out the population density. I was at a meeting just last night about a 20 story building Hollywood on the S/W corner of Hollywood and Gower and just a block south, they propose 30 stories.
Look up the old traffic studies and see some very honest discussion of all the factors, social, economic, and political involving subways in Los Angeles. The passage of 95 years has shown their discussions to be sound and why subways in Los Angeles are not wise.
But if we got rid of cars, then we'd need to figure out another way to get around. I wonder what that might be....
The City of Beverly Hills would love to reduce traffic. One of the benefits would be that our kids could ride their bikes to school, like I did when I was a kid.
Dealing with traffic is high on the list of our City's goals and priorities and a key to maintaining our quality of life; it's also one of the reasons why, despite some mistakes our City has made in the past, our new General Plan did not not add any height or density. However, even if we ourselves as a City are trying to be responsible in not contributing to the region's traffic misery, unfortunately, some 70% of our traffic is of the pass-through variety, generated by people in LA (or WeHo, Culver City, Santa Monica, etc.) going to LA (or WeHo, Culver City, Santa Monica, etc.).
Clearly, the pass-through traffic is one of the reasons we as a City support the Westside Extension, and it is our hope that the subway will help to alleviate our pass-through traffic problems, in addition to providing our own residents with additional transportation options.
And please do yourself a favor and stop trying to portray Beverly Hills as anything close to a socioeconomically diverse community (much less an oppressed one, as your original post implied). Your protests are offensive, and they sap you of what little credibility you have. Please don't make me cite the statistics, which I'm sure you know even better than I do.
The stretch of Santa Monica Blvd. between Century Park East and West is a classic urban "dead zone," 8 lanes wide (3 in each direction, plus turn lanes and dedicated bus lane), surrounded on one side by the golf course and on the other by high-rise buildings, set several feet back back from the street.
It is curious that Mr. Mirisch attacks the perceive motives and attitudes of Metro planners, but does not defend the substance of Beverly Hill's objection to the Constellation Ave alternative. Any consultant who is paid enough money can concoct all sorts of frivolous objections to environmental impact reports. The issue of "vibrations" is a red herring. There is no evidence that vibrations from the subway would even be felt, let alone powerful enough to disrupt, say, a student studying in the library. From this perspective, the campaign being waged against the Westside subway is intellectually dishonest and shameful.
I believe the wording in the EIR is something to the tune of "imperceptible to humans." Now, I know kids may more sensitive to some things than adults, but last time I checked, they still qualified as humans, and the infinitesimal seismic waves generated by the trains passing won't bother them any more than all the radio waves that are passing through my body right now. You know, those ones that are imperceptible to humans.
I can only surmise what Metro's motivations may be, but I can -- and do -- try to point out inconsistencies in their reasoning.
Furthermore, please note: there is no campaign being waged against the Westside subway. The City of Beverly Hills continues to support the Westside Extension along the Santa Monica alignment and the 30-10 plan.
As for your assessment of Santa Monica Blvd, as pointed out by tmp00 below, this offers by far the best option to expand the reach of the subway as the hub of a network of buses connecting to areas unserved by the Metro, including parts of Beverly Hills itself, West Hollywood,
Furthermore, I simply don't accept your argument that ridership will suffer significantly if potential riders will have to walk an additional block (which, of course, won't apply to those riders whose destination is the high-rises on Santa Monica itself or the mall). I lived and worked for many years in a variety of European cities and I took the subway to work myself, in many instances having walked much further distances than the Constellation to Santa Monica block. And for many people it will simply be a financial choice. Also, a Santa Monica station with a network of buses could connect to the Culver City Expo Line, and those Fox employees who think the additional block is an impossible shlep could walk even less by taking a connector bus, as could those who want to visit Rancho Park.
By keeping the station at Constellation, the pressure to build more mega office blocks remains further to the South, and south of SM Blvd.
Now, who's in the pockets of the developers again?
The LA Country Club probably already is the most expensive piece of privately-owned undeveloped real estate in the region, if not the state. The money is there now for the taking. Clearly, the LA Country Club is not representative of the economic interests who are pushing the Constellation alignment.
Nonetheless, the Santa Monica route remains the least intrusive and least expensive alternative.
Oh, right! It must be excessively dangerous...oh no, that can't be right, there are subway tunnels all over the world, and new ones being built all the time...
Oh right! It would be noisy with trains running underneath the school, and disrupt studying...oh no, that can't be right, the other subway tunnels in LA don't generate noise or vibration...
Oh right! The high school desperately needs to build 3 levels of underground parking instead of 2...oh no, that can't be right, many high schools in LA have zero parking and they do just fine...
Oh right! The constellation station is safer from earthquakes...oh no, that can't be right, it's the Santa Monica alternative that would actually endanger the subway tunnels and riders more....
Oh right! Beverly Hills residents have an irrational fear based on no evidence other than a Simpsons-esque "won't somebody please think of the children!"
Hmmm, that one sounds right, actually...
Why should we tunnel under the high school when there's a less intrusive, less expensive route? Because it's safe? Is that the would-be urbanist's version of the mountainclimber's creed?
As for whether the School Board trustees decide to build three or four stories of underground parking -- or underground classrooms or whatever they decide to do with the local taxpayers' money --, this is their ultimate decision and it is their sole responsibility to determine what is best for their students. It's actually a rather revolutionary concept: it's called "local control." Whether other schools have more or less parking is completely irrelevant. The school board should have every bit as much right to utilize their property as they see fit as Century City developers do who build more levels of underground parking and dig deeper to anchor their buildings -- thereby preventing Metro from tunneling under them.
What you refer to as "an irrational fear" is actually a healthy scepticsm of blindly believing anything the Master Planners say, especially when what they say is inconsistent and full of double standards.
This is a fabricated, baseless complaint by some Beverly Hills residents. What single authoritative fact have they presented to prove that running a subway under a school poses the slightest threat or inconvenience? I venture to say that not a single member of the BHHS community will even know the subway is there. (How the post can claim that BH is "united" is unclear.)
To quote: "he Metro Board, in league with special interest groups such as wealthy Century City developers, to bash such an easy target as Beverly Hills, riding roughshod over the wishes of an entire Community would not be the right decision."
Among all the oppressed, marginalized, "targeted" communities of the world, Beverly F'ing Hills does not qualify. This statement is not just naive but indeed offensive. A subway is a fantastic amenity that will be added to what is already one of the world's most pampered cities.
I would hope that Beverly Hills residents would accept their good fortune with more dignity, and intelligence, than this.
Your comments simply prove my point: that instead of using logic, addressing arguments and trying to be somewhat consistent, it's a heck of a lot easier to write off the concerns of an entire Community based on stereotypes. And yes it is a united Community as countless meetings, discussions and communications have indicated.
The comments on this page prove that reasonable people can disagree on all the rest. To say that we who favor Constellation are not using "logic" is condescending. In fact, it's not logical to decree that one route is necessarily more efficient than another when there are pros and cons to each. Some people say that SM/AoS is better b/c it's more direct. Others say that Constellation is better because, despite the higher cost, it will indeed be more convenient and therefore generate more riders. Reasonable people can disagree on this and, yes, sometimes experts or a public authority is needed to mediate and render an opinion.
The issue here is that the community of Beverly Hills really shouldn't care where the station is -- because the station is going to be in CC and it's going to use ALL of our tax dollars. WE ALL want the best possible route. Therefore, the only issue over which you have dominion is that of tunneling under BHHS. Which brings me back to my original point: you have offered no proof of why tunneling under the school would be detrimental. I understand that the community has "concerns," but the community should also be prepared to have those concerns alleviated. One way to alleviate them is to assure the community that there is, empirically, no danger or inconvenience to tunneling under the school.
Build the Century City station on Constellation.
This time the Beverly Hills NIMBYs with their inflated sense of entitlement will not thwart the greater good over everyone in the region.
From your comment, one might conclude that you are one of the USC loyal, who tend to forget or deny the existence of UCLA. While it may indeed be easy to forget their football or basketball teams this year, UCLA actually is a major and pretty good university. And despite the fact that U.S. News ranks UCLA below USC in its academic rankings, let's not forget that there are people, students and maybe even a few basketball fans who would love to use public transportation to go to UCLA.
That being said: Fight On!
Stand up to the NIMBYs.
Tunnelling can be done safe and the Constellation Blvd. station will serve all of Century City.
The age of entitlement for Beverly Hills NIMBYs is coming to an end.
It should be noted that the City of Beverly Hills supports the Westside Extension, including two subway stations in the City of Beverly Hills, with an alignment down Wilshire Blvd and then onto Santa Monica Blvd., as has been discussed and planned for years.
You say that Constellation is "only one block," but that is disingenuous when it's one MEGA-block, not a standard city block. The walking environment is a lot nicer at Constellation: it closer to the heart of Century City and the Fox lot (i.e big employers) as well as night life and Century City Westfield mall. SMB is practically a freeway and that intersection is not conducive to walking at all.
The designation of Constellation as a station possibility came from community input from people who would use the Century station, in no way was it a bait and switch. They assumed SMB would be the best choice because its the easiest for Metro to accomplish, but all the community input suggested Constellation and the following studies saw a big spike in ridership, so they decided to add that option.
Metro has shown in its community meetings that tunneling is safe and, once completed, vibration free. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of people who live under the red line.
However, it seems clearly that money is no object for Metro to choose the "right" station. The right station in Westwood would be the heart of Westwood Village. Just as you suggest the "population around Wilshire/Westwood is significant enough to make it a good choice in its own right," the same could be said about the Santa Monica station in Century City. However, all this ruckus about Constellation is supposedy about wanting to make a "good" thing "better."
A subway should serve a major institution like UCLA and the proposed Westwood station does a very poor job of this. A station in the heart of Westwood Village would clearly serve the entire area much better.
Furthermore, the "thorny" political/legal issues you refer to in alluding to tunneling under the VA cemetery also applies to tunneling under a public high school, which is state property. The prospect of one state agency exercising eminent domain over another state agency is nothing if not thorny. Perhaps there is a reason why Metro -- up to now -- hasn't tunneled under any schools. As for the issue of not tunneling under the cemetery because it is supposedly "disrespectful," well, you lose me there. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to be sensitive to the feelings of dead people, but not to extend that same sensitivity to parents, children and an entire living, breathing Community.
And this is exactly the problem with the argumentation of the "Metro knows best" crowd. There is simply no consistency.
As for the suggestion that Santa Monica to Constellation is "only one block," well, this is just true, and you are right, it's a longer block. But as I point out, the distance is the same as walking from one end of the Century City mall to the other. The length is approximately the same as any number of crosstown blocks in New York City, and the actual walking distance would likely be less as an escalator exit would be located somewhere between Santa Monica and Constellation. And for those who don't think that Santa Monica (newly rehabbed and landscaped) isn't attractive enough for them, they can head on down Avenue of the Stars. As I pointed out, the Santa Monica station is no further from the mall than the Constellation station and it is closer to Beverly Hills. Santa Monica is also a much better location for a connecting bus hub as most riders will not live within walking distance of a subway station (and certainly not if one feels that subway riders aren't prepared to walk a long block).
The members of the Beverly Hills Community feel that Metro's outreach is a prime example of the bait-and-switch tactics we have seen so often with various development projects. The Community was brought on board with an alignment that was less intrusive, and once Community support was won, Metro switched to advocating a more intrusive alignment. As I pointed out, the fact that Century City exists will not have come as a surprise to anybody, most certainly not Metro (or if it did, then we have another problem altogether). The idea of a "big spike in ridership" by moving the subway one block is simply neither logical nor credible.
Tunneling may be safe, in general. I'm sure you can find EIR's that swear on a stack of bibles that nuclear power plants are safe, and that you're more likely to get killed crossing the road. However, I wouldn't necessarily advocate for building a nuclear power plant next to a school, particularly when there are other viable options.
This is not just about safety. This is about the principle of choosing the least intrusive, least expensive route and this is about rejecting double standards, respecting the reasonable wishes of an entire Community and refusing to be sold a bill of goods.
This is about Beverly Hills saying it is better than the rest of LA.
Thousands of school children in Koreatown, Westlake, etc. go to school every day perfectly safely, without any knowledge that a subway runs beneath them. Tens if thousands of people live, sleep and work above the existing subway.
No, this is Beverly Hills flexing some muscle. We are exceptional. We deserve better. We have the city's interests at heart. Yeah, right...