Red Line work put on hold for study of toxic gas on route.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board agreed last week to delay construction of the Red Line subway in mid-city Los Angeles to allow staff to study problems with concentrations of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas along the route.

The MTA staff had requested $1.5 million and nine months to study the situation, including looking at alternate routes and alternate digging methods for the $490-million, 2.3-mile segment currently slated to run southwest from Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue to Olympic and Crenshaw boulevards, and then to Pico and San Vicente boulevards.

The board approved the request, but with a caveat that MTA staff report back in 90 days with interim findings and a proposed schedule for construction of the segment.

Some members of the public asked the board to reconsider running the Red Line west along Wilshire Boulevard, and to conduct a new environmental impact report on the Wilshire route concurrent with he hydrogen sulfide study, so that if the subway route must be changed, the new EIR will already be in place. The suggestion was largely ignored.

One man testified that previous EIRs had recognized the threat of higher levels of toxic gas along the Pico/San Vicente route, "but they were dismissed for political concerns."

Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden, alternate on the MTA board for Chairman Richard Alatorre, said there is just as much gas along Wilshire Boulevard as on the current route and that further studies would waste time and cost money. "I hate to think we're beginning to play politics and play with people's lives in the process," Holden said.

In other business at the board's Jan. 26 meeting:

* In connection with an item regarding MTA employees' retirement benefits, MTA employees who formerly worked for the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission announced that they have formed an employee association and hired an attorney and are prepared to take the MTA to court if the authority cuts their benefits.

Prior to the merger of the LACTC with the Southern California Rapid Transit District last year to form the MTA, LACTC employees did not have a deduction from their paychecks for Social Security taxes because they participated in an alternative retirement plan.

Now that federal authorities have decided all MTA employees must participate in Social Security, one proposal calls for former LACTC employees to make retroactive contributions for the period since April 1, 1993 -- something the employees strongly oppose. They also are worried about losing pension benefits from the old LACTC retirement program.

Hundreds of MTA employees packed last week's meeting in a show of solidarity.

* The board authorized staff to continue negotiations until Feb. 10 with MCA Inc. over the site of the future Universal City Metro Rail station.

At issue is the increased costs associated with moving the station up the hill, from Lankershim Boulevard near the Ventura (101) Freeway to MCA-owned property adjacent to Universal CityWalk.

MCA is willing to donate land and pay some costs associated with moving the station, but MTA staff have determined that MCA's contribution would not cover all the additional costs, most of which are connected with delaying construction.

Other nearby property owners have favored MCA's plan because it would mean less demolition of existing structures and less construction turmoil for condominium residents left behind. However, the MTA staff also has come up with a modified version of the original site plan that reportedly satisfies most property owners.

If the funding gap can not be filled by Feb. 10 using money from non-MTA project source, the MTA staff is now authorized to resume work on the currently adopted site.

Mayor Richard Riordan commented that the MTA should not allow "who is paying" to determine which route is best.

But Antonio Villaraigosa, alternate board member for L.A. County Supervisor Gloria Molina, insisted that the station should not be moved if the taxpayers have to foot the bill.

"The idea that the public should pay for this change boggles my mind," said Villaraigosa. "If MCA was willing to pay the difference, then we could talk. ... Let's deal with who's going to pay first."