Originally Posted by pesto
First, I will agree that if there is a bona fide higher risk from earthquakes at one site, then you have to go with the other. But here we are just talking about ridership estimates and getting the project done.
Hill? That may be a hill in Ohio, but not in LA. I would call it flat, but I suppose some rise could be discerned with the right tools.
Residential south of Olympic is not dense and is a non-factor. The station location makes zero difference on weekends since the stations are equally convenient for people going shopping; it is 1 block additional for the highrises south of Constellation. On the other side, you are one block closer to the shopping and hotels along Little SM (Peninsula, Beverly Hilton, and others proposed). Plus, you are on SM, which means more convenient to the SM buses, which are the only connection to north BH, WeHo, Hollywood, etc.
And, again, about a year ago MTA was accused of moving the station to make it closer to a building owned by a major contributor to the mayor and other local politicians. It promptely issued a statement indicating there was no economic difference to landholders between the two sites. Care to reconcile this with the huge ridership differences?
Remember that this is going to be by far the most heavily used transit in LA. The CC station location is really quite trivial as compared to the benefits of having it completed from downtown to the sea. Do you risk years of litigation over this?
Pesto, you seem to be misguided by CenturyCitySubway.org (a paid PR firm on behalf of BHUSD). First of all, Metro NEVER committed to Santa Monica boulevard as a station. There was an Alternatives Analysis started in 2007 and the initial alignment looked at SM boulevard but left the option for Constellation. If you attended the Metro meetings and listened to advocates, PEOPLE (not business owners, as CenturyCitySubway.org mentions) WE wanted Constellation because it truly is the "center of the center" of Century City. Why would you want a station on the edge of Century City? Stand at both corners, where are the people walking?
So, when Beverly Hills say Metro "bamboozled" them into Constellation, that's utterly false. Constellation was looked at even 50 years ago, but the EIR docs were not completed until after Measure R.
This whole misconception that Metro is caving to "property owners at Constellation" is a far fetched lie by BH. If you ever worked in Century City, Constellation is "duh", that's where a station needs to be.
Also, again, the issue of SM blvd v. Constellation is now a moot point. All studies (Metro and BH) have noted that its safer to build a station at Constellation and not recommended for under SM blvd. Only options (from BH perspective) is an at-grade or elevated station at Century Park East and SM blvd or bypass Century City. Imagine if Metro bypasses Century City....who gets blamed? Metro or Beverly Hills 50 years into the future?
I'd rather see a lawsuit. Beverly Hills has 1) no merit b/c subway tunnels are under exisiting schools 2) all studies indicate Constellation is safer than SM blvd and 3) BH would try to change a precedent that could devastate BART, NYMTA, CTA, MBTA, etc.. any transit agency in North America. Lawsuit will be over in 3 years anyways (full lower court, appelate, and state supreme court). We won't even have the funds to build to Century City until 2020 anyways. BH will have to repay Metro for legal costs anyways; just like NSFR has now been ordered to by the lower courts and appelate court.