Thanks for these informative updates. Seems like the fix is in among some elected officials, the MTA board and the real estate developers in Century City. These are the type of decisions where we look for leaders to make decisions that protect kids and families over the almighty dollar. Lobbying or not, if they don't work in the best interests of their constituents, then they may face the wrath of the voters. To the developers pulling the strings: imagine a long pedestrian tunnel or walk-way leading from a Santa Monica station to Century City, lined with shops and advertising and other money-making ventures. Now you're talking about a solution we can all live with!

Politics aside, although one really can't do that, the heading is clever: Zev vs Bev....Great coverage, too.
And FP has an intriguing solution. You know, people will just have have to walk a little bit.

"The suggestion to build a subway in any reasonable proximity to the surface buildings of a high school of almost 3,000 people is bad planning" - so what about the Red and Purple Lines that already go underneat 3,000 + people a day in Los Angeles, Koreatown, Downtown LA, and Hollywood? Was that a bad idea? Heard of any problems in operations? Look at how more convenient the stations of Hollywood/Highland, 7th street/Metro Center, and Union Station are due to this.

Also, think about the thousands of underground subway tunnels in London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.. that have thousands and thousands of people living, working, and going to school above.

Beverly Hills should not be given a precedent to what is common in every world culture. This is a losing case for you (especially because the MTA used your own studies about development with oil well presence for the parking garage at BHHS to deem the safety of drilling...haha). I hope the MTA stays firm and puts the station in the "Center of the Center", which is Constellation/Avenue of the Stars. Convenience should trump politics.

@jm..1) Metro can go deeper than 70 - 80 feet. They haven't written out that option in the FEIR. 2) If subways are allowed to go under schools around the world, why not BHHS? You really have to prove a precedent why BHHS would be exempt from a subway tunnel than any school in the city, state, or country. That's a very hard case to win. 3) Drilling was deemed safe in the Waxman study conducted in 2005. There were no issues on the Eastside Gold Line construction through Boyle Heights, which will be the same boring machines used for the extension. 4) Bus connections on SM boulevard are irrelevant. At the Westwood terminus, people can connect to the 20/720 for Wilshire boulevard and BBB # 1 for Santa Monica boulevard. The 16/28/316/728 will connect at the Constellation boulevard station for Olympic and 3rd street access. By stopping at Santa Monica boulevard/Avenue of the Stars, you are not gaining any more passengers that could not transfer elsewhere. The center of Century City is Avenue of the Stars and Constellation boulevard. That's a fact. Beverly Hills has started to say that Metro is pandering to businesses. The majority of residents outside of Beverly Hills is pushing for Constellation, as that's the station that makes the most sense ("center of the center"). If Metro goes with SM boulevard, the current gold course north of SM boulevard will be eligible for more development possibly creating "Century City North". So who's pandering for more development now?

What do you say to the fact that the DC Metro goes underground George Washington University Hospital? http://www.greensocal.net/2010/10/beverly-hills-residents-rally-to-keep.html

Again, I appreciate the perspective and the comments. The fact is that there is no other high school in the county that has been tunneled under or where there have ever been plans to tunnel under. Yes, you can tunnel under things at a 300ft depth, especially where there is not liquifaction and a high water table. That is not the case here and I just understand very clearly what can put this entire project at risk over the next 10-20 years and frankly I don't want to see a subway in 30 years, but sooner. The risk of delay is high when existing right of ways are not utilized and an alternative exists. In DC, it actually does not go under the hospital, it is adjacent to it from the map I saw. That being said, I get what you are saying and you are more trusting of officials than I am since I am one and have been misled by them in the past and now. As a trustee I have only one concern, the safety of this endeavor. If Metro had done such a good job, why did this issue only become public in the last 4 months while they have been studying it for years? Why call BHHS "government land" in the EIR. They shook the trust of the BHcommunity and that is terribly hard to come back from. All that being said, I appreciate your analysis of the bus lines and you may be correct. Please note that the golf course will not become CC North as that would depreciate the current CC tower owners and they apparently control many of our electeds. Single family, maybe. That war waged before.

The issue about tunneling under a high school didn't occur recently until the public comment period in 2008 when Los Angeles residents spoke out in favor of a station in the "center of the center", which is Avenue of the Stars/Constellation during the Alternative Analysis (http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2010/nov/08/tunnel-vision/). This is akin to how the Little Tokyo community worked together with Metro and came up with a superior "fully underground route" for the regional connector under Little Tokyo. It came up in the Public Scoping comments. The LA residents have a share in how the subway should be built and not held hostage by Beverly Hills. The residents of Santa Monica, Century City, and Los Angeles know that the far superior station is Constellation boulevard.

If we do go with SM boulevard, then I think zoning will be adjusted as needed for CC North, just like Koreatown, Hollywood, Universal City (NBC Universal plans), and North Hollywood have since the Red Line emerged.

The critics of Constellation are being disingenuous, or ill-informed, or both. The school district wants to build on the high school property and the school board and their allies are concerned that Metro's tunneling will deprive BH of the ability to build an underground parking lot as part of the construction. God knows why BHHS needs a new underground parking lot for students and staff but then this is Beverly Hills/LA where valets are often the rule.

If anyone can explain to me why some underground construction (a parking lot) is OK and doesn't endanger the students and staff while other underground construction (a subway tunnel) is not I will buy them a Metro day pass.

If because of gas and oil in the area it's truly dangerous to tunnel or otherwise build under the high school property then the engineering report will show it. If not, the critics of Constellation should pack their bags and walk or take Metro home.

In general both sides in this controversy should take a deep breath and think about what is at stake.

Great response Joel! Yes, why is it okay to build an underground parking garage at a high school but not a tunnel? LACMA had to do the analysis in regards to their underground garage, with the methane gas in the area and deemed it to be safe. Just like how the Waxman study in 2005 found tunneling in Methane zones deemed to be safe. (Source: http://zev.lacounty.gov/index.php?s=beverly+hills+subway&x=4&y=12)

This is a very hard case for Beverly Hills to prove that they are more privileged to the rest of LA that we cannot go under a school but it's okay to 1) build an underground parking garage and 2) next to active oil fields. Sounds like a catch-22.

Readers, please be on the lookout for unsubstantiated risk evaluation in this discussion. The phrase, "He prefers a route that would pose potential dangers," is precisely that. This is an attempt to magnify the ridiculously low risk of a catastrophic event to elicit the fear necessary to drive a political cause. Equip yourselves with the facts and spread the word. Subways have already tunneled under schools, even elementary schools, where the smallest, most tunnel-vulnerable of our precious little ones get educated. New York city has dozens of public and private K-12 schools that are immediately adjacent to subway tunnels under street right-of-ways. More to the point, some tunnels pass directly beneath some of these institutions. Public School 173/Harbor Heights Middle School lies directly above the A line. Public School 256/Benjamin Banneker sits atop the G line. Immaculate Heart of Mary school is on top of the F/G lines. Lastly, the massive public housing/Public School 46 joint campus on Frederick Douglas lies directly above the C line and has its own station!

Also, when JM said that no tunnel exists beneath another high school in Los Angeles county, that is accurate, albeit misleading. The parameters are arbitrary. Shrink the area, and it's true statement for each municipality. Expand the area, and the statement is not true nationally. If specific tunneling precedents were required before Metro started building the subway, we never would have had a subway.

A school was recently built on top of the subway at Wilshire and Vermont. Why don't you BH folks who are fighting the tunneling under your only high school drive over there and see for yourselves. Now the BHUSD is asking their City Council to set aside a few more hundred thousand dollars as needed for lawyers/lobbying in addition to what they've already spent. As part of the Westwood community, we have spent nothing other than our time speaking out for Constellation.

Once again for the facts instead of spin from blovers for MTA visit CenturyCitysubway.org and learn for yourself why Constellation costs more money, increasing travel time and has less ridership than Santa Monica Blvd. The decision is being driven by Century City Developers just follow the campaign contributions. For the facts visit www.centurycitysubway.org

Building a school on top of a subway isn't the same as tunneling under an existing school. Presumably the School Board made a conscious decision to build on top of the subway (I believe it's only a small part of the playground), so they had the chance to assess risks and decide for themselves. What is being proposed in BH is an entirely different situation.

As to Mr. Kelly's comment, I'm not sure that referring to someone as a "blover for MTA" is an ad hominem attack, as much as a description. There is nothing inherently negative about loving MTA (I'm assuming tha "blover" is a typo for "lover"). Goldberg's referencing the centurycitysubway.org website is certainly mainly an attempt to give people access to the facts.

And just to clarify: the schools aren't asking the City for more funds. There are two City Council members who are proposing the establishment of a contingency fund to protect our City's assets and our school. Of course, Westwood homeowners in support of Constellation (because it's farther away from their homes) haven't had to spend money, as the lobbying in favor of the position they're supporting has the support of well-heeled Century City developers and the politicians.

Neither is tunneling under cemeteries unprecedented in the US or anywhere alse in the world, yet this is the main reason why Metro won't build the UCLA/Westwood station closer to UCLA. As to the "argument" we've heard from some trying to justify the location of the station that "all the students live on campus and don't have cars," read the LA Times article today: "UCLA Students Criticize Parking Enforcement Changes in Westwood." It's clear that UCLA/Westwood should be the much bigger issue.

Tunneling under LA City College or any of the other examples may not have bothered those institutions or limited their future growth. In the case of BHHS it would limit the potential growth of the City's only high school, and there is a viable alternative one block away.

Transit advocates, including those in BH, may have every right to be frustrated with Metro on occasion -- though I still don't think "Metro lover" is an insult. Would it be better with "transit advocates" or "lovers"? BH has two stations in the middle of town with all the construction impacts that implies. Just as transit advocates suggest Metro caves to local opposition groups, BH feels that they changed their tune when the Century City developers came to the dance. Lack of park-and-rides, single portal stations and, now, cutting bus service are just a few reasons people might be sceptical about Metro. And, yes, healthy scrutiny and uncovering interested motives is probably never a bad thing in public debate.

As the Swedes say, "If you say A, you have to say B." Consistency in decision-making is neither a red herring nor irrelevant. It's all about the Westside subway and the least we can expect of governmental agencies and multi-billion dollar public works projects. People who complain about a block's distance in CC simply lose credibility if they feel that the next station down the line should not be built using the same criteria.

Developers are not "out to get BHHS." Just because we're not prepared to accept an unnecessary tunnel under the high school doesn't mean we're paranoid. It's simply collateral damage. They're thinking about trip counts and property values. The issue for the school is not simply current construction plans but limiting the ability of the facility to serve future generations of children. The District's experts, led by Tim Buresh, now Southern California director of the high speed rail authority, have pointed out how the tunnels (Metro effectively controls what can and can't be built above) will place severe restrictions on the ability of the school to remodel, renovate or rebuild in the future. Again, this is our only high school site and the size of the property is relatively small to begin with.

Just because most of the residents of BH are united about this issue doesn't make this "populist." The City went through a detailed process with Metro and the SM route was the only one discussed for CC. It was and remains our LPA and should be respected.

Here's the rail press release on Buresh: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/060111_buresh.aspx

To suggest that someone as respected as Buresh, a former COO of the LAUSD, is motivated by "sour grapes" seems to be the kind personal attack you had accused Dr. Goldberg of. Sounds like you're calling Buresh a "Metro hater." It might be good to get some more information about his role in the MTA/Tutor conflict before espousing such theories. Furthermore, the geology and geography of Century City hasn't changed. The existence of the fault was previously known in our earthquake-prone zone.

Metro most certainly does have a series of general metrics it uses. It is simply bad policy not to choose a Westwood alignment that is closer to UCLA and your defense of Metro here seems unjustified. There are some offices along Wilshire in Westwood, but there are also offices north of it. Westwood Blvd. south of Wilshire is low-rise and not dense. From a ridership perspective and from a public policy perspective - public transport is not just about ridership, it's also about access - not locating the station closer to UCLA is a blunder. Look at the map: Sepulveda isn't a better option and they'll have the issue of tunneling under the cemetery there, as well, if they want to get closer to UCLA. There's no reason not to get it right now. The middle of Westwood Village would serve UCLA, the Village and the offices to the South. Wilshire and Westwood and the VA stations are problematic ones.