Metro Rail May Be Forced Above Ground, Waxman Says

Responding to questions raised by technical experts reviewing the proposed Los Angeles Metro Rail subway, Rep. Henry Waxman said on Monday that he expects the panel to consider alternatives, such as building the rail line above ground instead of tunneling beneath city streets, in order to ensure safety both during and after construction.

“Your review of Metro Rail’s project to date has confirmed many of my suspicions about its safety as compared to other alternative systems,” the Westside Democrat said in a letter to members of the technical panel that is reviewing the first 4.4-mile segment of the project.

“It doesn’t make sense to me to begin tunneling if there is a high risk that people may be injured and killed, when acceptable alternatives exist.”

The panel, which is still preparing its final report, was formed as part of a compromise worked out between Waxman, an influential past supporter of the project, and backers of the project after Waxman expressed concerns about the hazards of tunneling through underground pockets of methane gas. Waxman appointed two of the panel members, and City Council President Pat Russell appointed eight.

The panelists say they have several concerns about construction, including the danger of unexpectedly chopping into an abandoned oil well that could release explosive, high-pressure methane into the work area. They have also cited the possible dangers of cutting across active earthquake faults, lack of detailed information on the quantities of methane gas along the proposed route and, in the event of an emergency train evacuation after the project is completed, relying on patrons to remove the elderly and the handicapped.

The panelists indicated that they will recommend that the Southern California Rapid Transit District conduct further studies of the potential dangers that they raised.

But George Housner, chairman of the panel, told The Times last week that the report would conclude that the proposed project can be constructed safely along the route as now planned. That would take the line from Union Station to Wilshire Boulevard and along Wilshire to Alvarado Street in the project’s first phase.

Housner, a seismologist at Caltech, was not available for comment Monday afternoon, but another panelist, Eugene Waggoner, a San Jose engineering geologist, said the panel’s charge was to review the design submitted by RTD.

“We were not there to do design, but to review design,” he said. “It was not up to us to suggest alternatives.”

Waggoner, who said he was not satisfied with RTD’s plans for dealing with abandoned oil wells, added that in his view it is still unclear what the panel will say about the overall safety of the project, though he praised RTD’s construction plan as “one of the best jobs I’ve ever seen done.”

He said the panelists might be willing to consider whether other routes or an above-ground system would be safer, if requested to do so. But that would take it more time, he said.

If the committee expands its inquiry, it would not be likely to meet the Dec. 31 deadline set for completion of its work. That deadline was set because supporters of the project hope to secure federal funding for the first segment and to begin construction early next year.

Need to Review Letter

RTD officials said they could not comment on Waxman’s letter until they had a chance to review it. But after years of fighting for the current route, and with key congressional funding decisions drawing near that could permit construction to begin, the transit agency is certain to resist any attempts to reroute the line.

In his letter, Waxman, who chairs a House subcommittee that investigates environmental safety issues and was responsible for creation of the safety review board, urged the panel not to limit itself to reviewing the current design plans. “You have a responsibility to do more than recommend adjustments to the plan,” the letter said. “The people of Los Angeles need your best professional judgment about whether it makes good sense to proceed with tunneling in this area at all. . . .”

Waxman, who sent a Washington environmental specialist from his subcommittee to monitor the Los Angeles hearings, also expressed concern about a report that dissenting opinions of panel members might not be included in the final report.

Waggoner said he was aware of no such restriction and said he might want to attach a dissenting opinion if some of his concerns are not adequately addressed.