Commentary: Constellation Station on Track With the Facts
Susan Bursk, president and CEO of the Century City Chamber of Commerce, supports a Constellation Boulevard route for the Westside Subway Extension.
Photos
Beverly Hills Patch accepts and publishes emails to the editor regarding any relevant local issue. The views expressed in the following commentary do not reflect the opinion of the publication, its editor and/or its writers. Emails may be edited for length and clarity. Have an opinion? Write to the site editor at mariec@patch.com.
This post about the Westside Subway Extension was first published on our sister site Century City Patch. It is being reposted here as it contains dialogue that is of interest to the Beverly Hills community.
Commentary submitted by Susan Bursk, president and CEO of the Century City Chamber of Commerce.
This letter is in response to a recent article that was published in the L.A. Weekly which we found to be factually incorrect. The subway stop in the Century City area is an important issue for the business community, as well as all Angelenos, and warrants reporting that is based on accurate data and facts as opposed to hearsay and innuendo.
We found the L.A. Weekly article, “Westside Subway Extension Feud: Did Metro rig a Century City fault study to move the Purple Line” by Ryan Deto misleading in many respects.
First, the proposed station location was not “moved” to Century City. There has been discussion back and forth as to the best alignment for the Westside subway for decades...Santa Monica Boulevard vs. Constellation. From the 1960s, the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) planned the future of Los Angeles’ subway system and many routes were discussed. The Jan. 1, 1968 minutes of the SCRTD Special Board Meeting state the following from Mr. Frank Lombardi, Executive Officer of the Planning Department of the City of Los Angeles, representing the Los Angeles City Council Ad Hoc Transit Committee to the SCRTD:
On the Wilshire Corridor, specifically, this Committee has recommended to the Council, which they are now considering, that the alignment is satisfactory as far as it goes, but we think it should go beyond. We feel that the Wilshire Corridor Line should be extended west under Wilshire with stops at Robertson Boulevard, Beverly Drive, and then under Constellation Boulevard in Century City, with a stop at Century City, and a return to Wilshire Boulevard. The line should continue west in subway with stops to serve Westwood and terminate at Barrington Avenue. We feel the extension of that Wilshire Corridor to serve these areas is imperative. (Official documentation available.)
Furthermore, in the SCRTD’s Final Report, May 1968, pg. JV-36: Wilshire Corridor—Route Description...
It states:
Entering Young Street at about Lasky Drive the line proceeds westerly in subway to Moreno Drive where it enters and proceeds under the property of the Beverly Hills High School to a position in Constellation Boulevard at Century Park East. The alignment follows Constellation Boulevard to the westerly limit of Century City at Century Park West where it turns northerly on a 2000 ft. radius curve through subsurface easement to Thayer Avenue near Kinnard Avenue. (Official documentation available.)
And...
1968 two line drawing civil maps showing alignment under Beverly Hills High school en route to Century City at Constellation. (Official documentation available.)
These are the facts.
Traffic has choked our streets to a point that the time has finally come to move forward with these plans (that have been on the books for over 40 years). The realization that funding could finally be attained from local Measure R funds and federal “New Starts” funds, Metro (which took over the SCRTD) can finally move forward with making this vision a reality.
As part of Metro’s studies a team of world-class scientists were retained to determine the safest route for the Westside Subway Extension. These experts are leaders in their fields including Dr. Lucy Jones of USGS, former Caltech Provost Dr. Paul Jennings, and USC’s Dr. James Dolan, a leading expert on the Santa Monica Fault. These individuals, and the other experts who participated in these studies, would not undermine their professional reputations “by manipulating facts to isolate the information for a specific purpose: to discredit a Santa Monica station” as stated by Tim Buresh, “an engineer who worked on the Metro Red Line and Blue Line and who opposes the route switch to Constellation Boulevard.”
Never mentioned in the article is the fact that Beverly Hills Unified School District has also retained Mr. Buresh and is paying him for advice. The article states “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.”
According to a report from the Brookings Institute, people take transit for any number of reasons, but one of the most common is to get to work.
From recent surveys that were taken, a station at Constellation and Avenue of the Stars currently encompasses over 11 million square ft. of existing commercial space and currently approximately 28,000 employees within one-quarter mile. This location is closer to the southern portion of Century City’s residential community as well as to FOX studios. A station at Santa Monica Boulevard and Century Park East encompasses a little over 4 million square ft. of commercial space and approximately 9,800 employees within a one-quarter mile radius. This location is anchored on one side by the L.A. Country Club which produces no ridership.
The Brookings Institute report further states:
Transportation leaders should make access to jobs an explicit priority in their spending and service decisions, especially give the budget pressures they face. Metro leaders should coordinate strategies regarding land use, economic development and housing with transit decisions in order to ensure that transit reached more people and more jobs efficiently.
Again, these are the facts.
Without question, safety is crucial no matter where you put a subway. There are schools throughout the country and several schools in Los Angeles that are over subways, as well as hundreds of homes and businesses, and it is safe. We have one opportunity to get this right, and when reporting—I suggest we stick to the facts of the issues at hand. Let’s stay on track and work together to find solutions and finally bring this long awaited subway to the Westside.
Susan Bursk
President & CEO, Century City Chamber of Commerce
Be sure to follow Beverly Hills Patch on Twitter and "Like" us on Facebook.
John Mirisch
5:24 pm on Thursday, December 22, 2011
The facts remain that according to Metro's own information a Santa Monica alignment would create increased ridership, reduced travel time, and significantly lower costs.
Furthermore, the contention that the current alignment is an extension of plans from the 60's borders on the ridiculous. Century City was very different in the 60's and the line in question would have ended up in El Monte. There were also plans from the 60's which would have entailed a Santa Monica alignment. What is indisputable and more recent history is the fact that a Constellation alignment was not discussed with the Beverly Hills Mass Transit Committee which Metro engaged with in an attempt to gain support for the subway. This sudden change on Metro's part was, is and remains a classic bait-and-switch maneuver.
Indeed, Buresh may have been hired by the BHUSD, but so were Dolan, et al paid by Metro. Should we conclude, as Ms. Bursk seems to be suggesting in the case of Buresh, that they also gave Metro the results desired by Metro?
As a rep of the CC Chamber Ms. Bursk should perhaps be more concerned with the actual results of Metro's seismic studies, which suggest that significant parts of Century City could be in a potential Alquist-Priolo earthquake zone. What about the safety of those working in buildings built before the extent of the fault was discovered? Ms. Bursk would do well to read my article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mirisch/faulty-towers-dont-mentio_b_1102430.html
AJ Willmer
8:00 pm on Thursday, December 22, 2011
Peer review by scientists and engineers (whether paid or not) who are putting their professional credentials on the line, is the gold standard. The Parsons Brinckerhhoff engineering report was paid for by the MTA but most importantly was peer reviewed by renowned experts in seismology and earthquake engineering. Yes they were compensated for their time and expertise but this does not denigrate their reputations nor their findings in support of the report. I asked the Beverly Hills Unified School District for their/Buresh's engineering reports and received a phone call from their attorney indicating that the BHUSD was not releasing any engineering data to the public. So to date we have no engineering data no less peer reviewed data from the BHUSD. Beverly Hills Council Member Mirisch and I are having a separate dialog on another forum about Alquist-Priolo. It is NOT an engineering or safety earthquake standard, it is a State law that controls notification and where you can build when active earthquake faults are mapped. It does not pertain to existing buildings NOR does it address whether existing buildings are safe. The Field Act. other laws, and the latest science and engineering address the safety of existing buildings.
John Mirisch
8:43 pm on Thursday, December 22, 2011
I would hope and expect that when they feel it is appropriate, the BHUSD will release their findings. Just as Metro did not want to release "raw data" but held onto the information for months until they released the report on Oct. 19, so does the BHUSD have the right to do their own homework. The potential Alquist-Priolo zone within Century City was addressed by at least two of Metro's experts, who suggested that the new seismic information could lead to such a classification along the Santa Monica fault, which includes numerous skyscrapers. While existing buildings are grandfathered, as AJ notes, classification of an area has a tremendous effect upon building standards. I would advocate the simple use of a little logic. Construction is regulated due to safety concerns. Existing skyscrapers would almost certainly not have been permitted had the new fault information been available and an Alquist-Priolo zone existed. It is therefore both logical and reasonable to question these buildings' safety for human habitation, and anyone concerned with safety should demand further detailed safety studies. It stands to reason that if skyscrapers on the fault are perfectly safe, one could perforce draw the logical conclusion that there would be nothing to preclude building a safe subway station (a subterranean building) using the latest advances in bunker technology along Santa Monica. The Field Act, it should be noted, only applies to public schools.
GM
7:42 am on Friday, December 23, 2011
It's great to see Century City supporting public transportation rather than taking the typical NIMBY position of the BHUSD.
John Mirisch
8:28 am on Friday, December 23, 2011
It's great to see that critics of the BHUSD are so eloquent and convincing both in their argumentation and reasoning. Let's just throw out the epithet "NIMBY" and be done with it, without looking at any of the specifics of the project or any of the facts.
Of course the Century City Chamber of Commerce is in support of the bait-and-switch tactics which Metro has engaged in, because it monetarily benefits some of their most powerful developer members. You might be a YIMBY, too, if you could get the taxpayers to fund massive public works projects which would allow you to charge higher rents and perhaps even to build higher and more densely than the current code allows.
Whether it's "great" to see the CC Chamber of Commerce take the side of developers, whose last concern is residential quality of life is a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact, however, that it is not surprising nor uncommon for them to put developers first and do the bidding of their developer patrons.
AJ Willmer
8:22 am on Friday, December 23, 2011
Council Member Mirisch is absolutely correct that standards change and the relative safety risk of all existing buildings should be re-evaluated if active faults are discovered to be under a building. However this does not logically translate into voiding the Alquist-Priolo State law to avoid new building (subway stations included) directly on top of, no less along active earthquake fault lines.
John Mirisch
6:34 pm on Friday, December 23, 2011
Former School Board Member Willmer is correct that discovery of active faults would not logically translate into voiding the Alquist-Priolo zone, which would restrict building on the fault lines. The point of the A-P zone is to restrict construction in unsafe areas. However, the official classification of Santa Monica Blvd. and environs as an A-P zone would lead to the logical conclusion that the pre-existing buildings along Santa Monica Boulevard might not be safe for human habitation. The syllogism is as follows: Building along a fault line is unsafe (which is why an A-P zone is declared). The skyscrapers on SM Blvd are on a fault line. Therefore: the skyscrapers on SM Blvd are unsafe. While Dr. Jones stated that the odds of a subway car actually being at the location of a fault during a seismic event were small, she suggested the odds were much greater they would be in a station on the fault, which is why we shouldn't build there. Therefore, neither should people be put at risk in other buildings along the fault line. The same safety concerns which led Dr. Jones to her statement should also lead the CC Chamber to ask for the buildings on SM Blvd to be vacated and the offices to be relocated. The CC Chamber, which seems to have such a tender concern for the welfare of the workers in CC should take decisive action and deal with this potential life-safety issue by making sure the workers in buildings on this devastating fault get out of harm's way.
joninla
7:29 am on Sunday, January 1, 2012
The "controversy" the City of Beverly Hills has created over the issue is based on improper to irrational actions by members of BH School Board, who have no business getting professionally involved with Public Transportation.
As it finally appeared to me after the 'excuses' kept changing as to why BH was Vehemently opposed to anything but the Santa Monica Blvd station, the reason became apparent.
By going under BHHS, the MTA is using the TBM (tunnel boring machine) method for that portion only (better, but much more expensive than the cut and cover which the rest of the project will involve.
Without the necessity to tear up BH Streets nor disturb any business or residences in BH due to the silent, underground tunnel boring method, BH will not receive any monetary compensation from the MTA's budget for anticipated costs from loss of business & noise/debris damage to the City during construction.
The Santa Monica Station is absurd. 3 blocks in Century City is not the same as 3 city blocks - and it would drastically reduce the number of riders.
The increased travel time IS A GOOD THING - better to be on a train an extra minute than have to walk all the way to/from the Santa Monica Station idea (10-15 minutes walking vs. 1 additional minute on the train..... EVERYONE WOULD CHOOSE THE 1 Minute).
Stop the BH obstructionists - with litigation against the participants in BH for personal liability.