Re "3 Sites Identified for Possible NFL Stadium," Jan. 17: If we must build a stadium -- and I don't see that that's a given, since a handful of jobs selling peanuts or beer is not a good trade-off for the amount of land a stadium requires -- build it at the Union Station site.
Very simple reason: With the two (possibly soon three) branches of the Metro Rail -- the Red Line, the Blue Line and the Gold Line -- as well as Amtrak and Metrolink feeding patrons to the site, you would need less parking, hence waste less valuable land, and you would induce far, far less traffic than at the other sites. This is a hidden benefit of the Union Station proposal that would bless our city for the life of the stadium.
Also, build what parking there must be underground, so the stadium can front directly on the street rather than sit isolated in an asphalt desert. Then you could site seven-day-a-week small businesses around its ground-floor perimeter, making it a vital part of the community even when there is no game on -- which would be most of the time.
An NFL stadium at the decaying Union Station rail yard by the L.A. River is a very bad idea. What the growing population of L.A.'s low-income children need is access to quality educational facilities. UCLA is too far and USC too expensive. A university campus at this site would allow students low-cost access by biking along the L.A. River or using the nearby subway and light-rail lines and would allow them to forgo purchasing a car.
In these cash-strapped times it is unlikely anything will get built. But it is time to plan ahead and market low-income L.A. as the next recipient of another state college or a university campus.
Let's not use the biggest site in Greater East L.A. for a football stadium to be used just a dozen times a year. We need good education for our children. The NFL can look out for itself.