Were you also saddened to learn that a row of skyscrapers along Santa Monica Boulevard in Century City was built on an active fault line? How about all of the skyscrapers in Downtown LA which are in danger because of the Puente Hills fault?

I examine these potential dangers in my Huffington Post article: "Fault-y Towers: Don't Mention the Core!" which can be found at the following URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mirisch/faulty-towers-dont-mentio_b_1102430.html

While the high school itself is now taking action to best be able to deal with the results of Metro's study, what about the rest of the city? The Santa Monica fault goes through Westwood all the way to the ocean. And there are likely hundreds of dangerous, unmapped fault strands throughout the city. It's time for us to become concerned about the safety of future generations: so write your local, state and federal representatives that you demand we devote more resources to mapping the multitudinous faults in the region so that we can better plan to avoid future disaster.

When it comes to BHHS, assuming that all Metro's seismic information is correct, one would need to wonder how adding two major tunnels to the mix could increase stability or add to the safety of the area in question, "unstable ground," as you put it.

"Common sense"? Maybe it's meant in the same way that Aussies refer to redheads as "Bluey." The schools are trying to protect future generations of schoolchildren because any and all future construction plans must take into account the seismic information which Metro has now released. This is the kind of due diligence which people expect from an elected body which is directly accountable to the voters -- as opposed to Metro which operates under a byzantine governance structure with no direct accountability to the people and which the FTA recently slammed for repeated civil rights violations.

BHHS may be no more "special" than other schools (except to the residents, of course), but the fact is there are no public schools in the state of California with heavy rail under instructional buildings. Going under the high school for the sake of CC developers makes no sense when the route will increase travel time, decrease ridership and will cost $100 million more. And by Metro's own admission, the subway itself will do little to reduce traffic.

Common sense suggests that the Santa Monica route would be best, as it would also respect the LPA and the principles of local control. The only problem is, it doesn't serve the developers as well, as has been well documented by the LA Weekly: http://www.laweekly.com/2011-12-15/news/westside-subway-extension-feud/

@ John Mirisch - 1.) Using the excuse of no heavy rail lines going under schools in CA is ridiculous. The one other example of heavy rail in CA is BART, so basically you are saying, "BART doesn't go under schools, neither can Metro". Very misleading information. How about providing information about Tokyo or Mexico City (both very earthquake susceptible) have no tunneling under schools?

2.) How does placing a subway adjacent to a country club make "common sense"? I've never heard of anyone taking the subway to play a round. Putting in the dead center of a CBD makes sense.

3.) Using a fellow NIMBY's laughably biased article from the Weekly does not help your argument one iota.

As a relative outsider to this whole debate the BHUSD seems to just continually make fools of themselves. At this point I cannot figure out what their motivations are other than to be completely obstructionist.

Matt, the Santa Monica alignment was projected to have higher ridership, reduced travel time and a significantly lower cost -- according to Metro's own DEIR. Not to mention the fact that it was the route discussed with the Beverly Hills community before the bait-and-switch. Yes, common sense.

Your second point seems to represent the "Yaroslavsky method" of determining subway stations. While this method actually might make sense in Westwood, which would indicate a subway station closer to the UCLA campus, in Century City, the above points (ridership, travel time, cost) all point to Santa Monica. If it weren't for that darned fault...

Writing off the LA Weekly as a "NIMBY" publication is a rather facile way to ignore some of their points without actually having to say why they're purportedly not valid, namely the connections between developers, big money and land use decisions in the LA area. Why allowing politically connected developers to make major land use decisions should cause people to shout "YIMBY!" is beyond me.

There's something called local control and something called process. To those who care about neither, it's probably really easy to write off the BHUSD as "obstructionists."

The Curbed headline is typical BH-hater drivel. Metro has suggested there is major faulting under BHHS. If they are to prepare for any kind of construction or redevelopment, they need to get as much information as possible, particularly if the campus (along with much of Santa Monica Blvd and other adjacent areas) become part of an Alquist-Priolo zone, as suggested by Metro's experts.

Metro's seismic information could have tremendous implications not only for BHHS, but for the entire region, as discussed here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mirisch/faulty-towers-dont-mentio_b_1102430.html

While Beverly Hills has unique challenges when it comes to bikability, the City is working on figuring out solutions (though not fast enough for my liking). If you really want to find those responsible for those causing future generations to suck it, you're barking up the wrong tree in BH. Beverly Hills has (for the most part) remained low-rise, human-scale and accessible, while surrounding areas much like Ado Annie in Oklahoma! just cain't say no to the siren song of developer bucks.

The proposed stop on Santa Monica would have had increased ridership, decreased travel time and lower costs. That's the answer to your question. On the other hand, why would we put a subway stop at the VA, with it's leafy fields, open spaces and lack of urban activity, when we could have built a station at Wilshire and Barrington? How does that make any sense?

The only unique challenge to bikability in Beverly Hills is tone deaf political leadership and apathetic citizens that could care less about anyone that isn't causing traffic, filling parking garages or rolling up to valets. Creating just a few connecting bike routes and putting up some bike racks in the shopping district that would help existing bike riders and boost new ridership is not expensive, nor rocket science. It just requires the will to give a damn, and in Beverly Hills that has not seemed to be the case. Take a look at the County bike route map, and Beverly Hills is a gaping black hole, one of the few places with not so much as even a token gesture toward bikability.

I'm not sure how the deficiencies of the VA stop proposal lends any credibility to the case for the Santa Monica stop adjacent a golf course. At least some veterans may actually take transit, somehow I don't picture country club types boarding the Metro with their clubs.