Metro has a plan to make it easier to get around. The natural barrier created by the Santa Monica Mountains  makes traveling between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside extremely difficult and slow. In fact, it’s one of the most congested corridors in the country and transit is limited. Solving this challenge will require innovation and multiple solutions. Metro is studying several projects in this area, including a new rail line, the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. Learn more at metro.net/projects/sepulvedacorridor. 

PROJECT STATUS AND DESCRIPTION   

1. What is the status of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor (STC) Project?    

This project is currently in environmental review. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was released in Summer 2025 and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) was selected by the Metro Board in January 2026. Now that the LPA has been selected, environmental clearance for the project will continue under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This includes development of a Recirculated Draft EIR. Through the environmental process, Metro will better define the project, balancing the unique needs of diverse corridor stakeholders, including future riders, through ongoing dialogue with project stakeholders and surrounding communities.   

See the next section for more information on the environmental review process.   

2. What are the goals of the project?   

For this project, Metro has established six goals:    

1. Improve Mobility   

• Increase transit frequency and decrease travel time   
• Increase transit ridership   
• Prioritize connections to high traffic points of interest   
• Promote efficiency of transfer experience   
• Support non-automotive First-Last Mile connections 

2. Improve Accessibility and Promote Equity   

• Improve access for Equity Focus Communities    
• Target infrastructure and service investments towards those with the greatest mobility needs  

3. Support Community and Economic Development   

• Increase opportunity for economic growth and transit-oriented development around stations    
• Minimize physical barriers to communities created by the project   
• Prioritize station placement and design that is consistent with community context    

4. Protect Environmental Resources and Support a Sustainable Transportation System  

• Reduce vehicles miles travelled, greenhouse gas emissions, and other air pollutants 
• Minimize impacts to environmental resources 

5.   Provide a Cost-Effective Solution and Minimize Risk    

• Maximize benefits to the public relative to cost    
• Maximize potential eligibility for state and federal funding opportunities   
• Provide an affordable transit solution that achieves cost and schedule certainty  

6. Enhance Resiliency   

• Provide resilience to natural disasters and climate change   

3. What alternative is being considered for the project?   

In January 2026, the Metro Board selected the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the project – heavy rail transit underground between the Van Nuys Metrolink Station and E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station – that connects to the Van Nuys G Line Station and future East San Fernando Valley Light Rail station at the G Line at Van Nuys Boulevard. 

The LPA will utilize automated vehicles in a single-bore tunnel, a terminus at the E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station and 2.5-minute frequencies during peak travel times. It features high ridership, high frequencies, platform screen doors, and shorter station construction sites, while avoiding construction of a ventilation shaft in the Santa Monica Mountains. It also offers the connectivity benefits of Van Nuys Boulevard instead of Sepulveda Boulevard, which reduces the project’s overall length and is anticipated to reduce project costs. 

The Board also approved moving ahead with planning for project phasing to allow for mobility benefits to be realized as funds become available. Nearly all Metro rail projects have been phased. Specifically, the recommendation includes focusing on an initial operating segment (IOS) between the San Fernando Valley (G Line) and the Westside (D Line).  

4. What is a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)? 

A Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is the project alternative that Metro determines best meets the project’s goals, objectives, and community needs, based on technical analysis and public input. Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processes, multiple alternatives are evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). After the public comment period on the draft document ended, Metro staff analyzed all the feedback and other project information and recommended an LPA for the Metro Board to consider. The LPA selected by the Metro Board will be the basis for subsequent environmental analysis and design advancement.  

5. What criteria were considered in selecting the LPA? 

A range of technical and policy criteria informed the selection of the LPA, including: 

• Consistency with identified project goals and objectives 
• Findings from the Draft EIR, including environmental impacts and mitigation strategies 
• Public comments received during the Draft EIR comment period 
• Project costs, funding and financial considerations  
• Ridership forecasts and mobility benefits 
• Stakeholder input 
• Constructability and operational considerations 
• Consistency with Metro policy and broader regional planning goals 
• Construction schedule  
• Cost Benefit Analysis 

6. Why was the LPA selected? 

The LPA best meets the Draft EIR goals, including: 

• Improve Mobility: Provides an alternative to the congested I-405 Freeway through the Sepulveda Pass, high ridership and fast travel time both as an initial operating segment and as the full project 
• Improve Accessibility and Promote Equity: Direct connection to Metrolink and Metro’s E, D, G and ESFV Lines as part of the full build. Direct connections to Metro’s D, G and ESFV Lines as part of an IOS. 
• Support Community and Economic Development: Includes stations near major destinations and employment hubs, including UCLA. 
• Protect Environmental Resources/Support Sustainable Transportation: Alt. 5 has greatest vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction; no construction or ventilation shaft in the Santa Monica Mountains 
• Provide a Cost-Effective Solution and Minimize Risk: Shorter alignment and fewer stations could reduce costs; addresses key stakeholder comments 
• Enhance Resiliency: Provides a new travel corridor through the Sepulveda Pass 

Metro also received multiple comments on the Draft EIR suggesting combining elements of alternatives including parts of Alternative 5 and Alternative 6. This approach to take the “best of each” aligned with project goals and objectives and considerations for project implementation. The LPA does this by utilizing the construction, operational approach and a combination of the alignments in Alternatives 5 and 6.. 

7. Is the LPA decision final? 

No. Identifying an LPA does not constitute project approval. It is a key milestone that focuses the environmental review on a single alternative. After an LPA is selected, Metro completes additional environmental analysis including federal environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, once Metro prepares a Final EIR, the Board must certify the final environmental documents before official project approval is achieved. 

8. What comes next? 

Now that the Board has selected an LPA, the following is underway: 

• Design Refinement – Advancement of project design for LPA including updates to reflect LPA and comments received on the Draft EIR.  For the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, this is planned to also include evaluation of phasing and identifying opportunities for value engineering. 
• Evaluation of Public-Private Partnership (P3) Delivery Model – Evaluation of the value trade-offs between using a P3 delivery model and a traditional delivery method for the project to determine the best way to deliver this project for Los Angeles 
• Advance CEQA and NEPA Environmental Process – Continue to advance the CEQA environmental clearance process and approach Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to initiate the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process. This will include development of a Recirculated Draft EIR, with updates to the project description to reflect the selected LPA and subsequent refinements. 
• Community Outreach – Ongoing opportunities for community input and engagement including but not limited to gathering public input on Project refinements throughout the CEQA and NEPA environmental processes. 
• Develop Funding Plan and Secure Funding – Advance funding strategy specific to the LPA with a focus on constructing the IOS first. 

9. Where would the stations be located? 

The LPA is planned to include stations at or near the following locations:  

• Van Nuys Metrolink 
• G Line/Van Nuys  
• Ventura/Van Nuys 
• UCLA 
• Wilshire/Westwood 
• Santa Monica Bl/Sepulveda 
• Expo/Sepulveda 

10. There was strong support for a Getty Center Station. Why didn’t the staff-recommended LPA include a Getty Center Station? 

The Getty Center is located west of the 405 freeway, while the LPA tunnel would be located more than 1.5 miles east of the 405 connecting a Ventura Boulevard station directly with a UCLA station. Given the Getty Center’s location, serving the Getty Center would require an indirect route thereby increasing project costs and travel times and likely reducing forecasted ridership for those traveling between the Valley and the Westside (due to less competitive travel times). In addition, the Getty Center Station had the lowest ridership of any station studied in the Draft EIR. While it doesn’t include a station stop at the Getty, the LPA provides better regional access to the Sepulveda Corridor, which will in turn facilitate better transit access to the Getty from across the region. 

11. What does this mean for the Pre-Development Agreement (PDA) process?  

The LPA includes the elements proposed by Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners (STCP), one of the PDA teams that Metro has been working with on this project. With this LPA milestone, STCP is continuing to work with Metro on the development of this alternative. 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS   

12. How did planning for the project begin?  

Metro initiated the planning process in 2017 with the development of a Feasibility Study that considered 48 potential concepts for fulfilling the goals of the project. That study narrowed these down after conducting multiple rounds of analysis, receiving public feedback, and applying evaluation criteria. The range of project alternatives was further informed by the PDA proposals, which included both heavy rail and monorail concepts.    

The formal environmental study started on November 30, 2021, when Metro issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and began the scoping process for the project. The project is now in the environmental review stage and Metro worked with both PDA teams to design four of the five alternatives that were considered in the Draft EIR. HTA Partners, Metro’s environmental consultant, developed the fifth alternative.   

13. What are the timing and next steps in the environmental review process?    

This project is currently in environmental review. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was released in Summer 2025 and the public and other stakeholders provided more than 8,000 comments during the 90-day comment period through August 30, 2025, including at public information sessions and public hearings.  

Following the public comment period, the Metro Board of Directors selected a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in January 2026. Now that the LPA has been selected, environmental clearance for the project will continue under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This includes development of a Recirculated Draft EIR. 

Throughout this process, there will be multiple opportunities for the public to review and comment on the project alternatives and the environmental analysis. Watch this informative video to learn more about the environmental clearance process.   

14. Why is a Recirculated DEIR required?    

The LPA is a modification of an alternative evaluated in the Draft EIR and was not specifically evaluated in the Draft EIR. While the LPA alignment will generally follow DEIR Alternative 6 in the Valley and DEIR Alternative 5 on the Westside, multiple design refinements are underway that will update the design and may result in different impacts than what were evaluated in the Draft EIR.   

The RDEIR will evaluate the LPA as selected by the Board and will be circulated for public comment. CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance will proceed concurrently.  

15. What will the Recirculated DEIR include?   

The RDEIR environmental analysis will include: 

• Refined alignment and station designs resulting from differences in tunnel and station configurations in areas where the LPA generally follows the alignment of Alternative 6 
• Initial Operating Segment (IOS) between Metro D and G Lines 
• New location for Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) 
• Other potential refinements in response to agency and public input received, including through comments on the Draft EIR. 

16. Will the Recirculated DEIR include analysis of the original five alternatives or any other alternatives?   

The Recirculated DEIR will be focused on the LPA. Given the level of design refinements required as part of the LPA, advancing an RDEIR for the LPA will provide an opportunity for stakeholders and the community to understand and comment on the design refinements and corresponding potential impacts associated with the LPA as well as meet regulatory requirements. 

17. When will the RDEIR be available for public comment?  

It is expected to be released in 2027.  

18. Will the requirement for an RDEIR delay the overall STC project schedule? 

The development of the RDEIR is not anticipated to delay the overall STCP project schedule.  The RDEIR will proceed in parallel with the already planned and scheduled NEPA environmental approvals process. 

19. When will Metro decide whether the PDA team, STCP, will be chosen for the actual project construction? 

Metro is currently advancing a preliminary qualitative assessment of P3 for the project.  As part of the design refinements effort that is currently ongoing, project cost estimates, construction schedules and the delivery approach will be updated to reflect the Locally Preferred Alternative with a focus on delivering the Initial Operating Segment. 

Based on this and subsequent quantitative analysis, Metro staff will develop a Preliminary Business Case comparing the PDA-proposed approach against a Public Sector Comparator (PSC) delivery scenario through quantitative Value for Money analysis. This analysis will determine which delivery model is likely to generate greater value per dollar of public investment. Additional analysis will include a project funding and affordability evaluation and qualitative assessment, analyzing further aspects that drive project viability and success.  

Metro may choose to negotiate an implementation agreement with STCP, the PDA team advancing the LPA, for that team to deliver the project following refinement of the LPA. Metro also has the option to part ways with the PDA team and advance the project through another project delivery method. 

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH    

20. When has Metro shared information with the public?  

Metro has hosted several rounds of meetings since the beginning of the environmental review: 

• January 2023: In-person (Van Nuys and Westwood) and virtual open houses about proposed station locations. More than 500 stakeholders attended and 1,800 feedback forms were collected. A summary report can be found here. 
• October 2023: In-person (Van Nuys and Westwood) and virtual community meetings focused on projected travel times and ridership. In total, 720 comments and questions were received. The summary report can be found here.  
• May 2024: In-person (Van Nuys and Westwood) and virtual community meetings focused on the monorail alternatives to gather feedback about the proposed elimination of Alternative 2. More than 340 stakeholders attended the meetings, which also generated 483 feedback submissions. A summary of the meetings is available the July 2024 board update. 
• May 2025: Four in-person (Canoga Park, Culver City, Westwood and Sherman Oaks) and one virtual meeting were held to provide an update on the project prior to the release of the Draft EIR, with information about preliminary project benefits, costs and schedule.  
• Summer 2025: Five information sessions (four in-person; one virtual) and five public hearings (four in-person; one virtual) were held for the Draft EIR. The in-person meetings were held in Canoga Park, Culver City, Westwood and Sherman Oaks.  
• Spring 2026: Five community update meetings (four in-person; one virtual) focused on the LPA were held in Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys, Westwood and Culver City. 

Copies of the meeting presentations, materials, and recordings of the virtual community meetings are posted on Metro’s website. This has extended the reach of these live events so that the public can view them at any time. The team also recognizes that many people are not able to participate in public meetings or feel comfortable doing so. Therefore, we have also engaged stakeholders at events/festivals, stakeholder briefings/meetings, transit stations, churches, and youth events. 

All public engagement has been and will continue to be shared on the project website.      

21. How does Metro promote equity in its outreach process for this project?  

Metro is committed to removing barriers and promoting fair access to opportunities for all communities, including Equity Focus Communities (EFCs), which are communities in which:   

• 40% of households are low-income and 80% are non-white OR   
• 40% of households are low-income and 10% have no access to a vehicle   

EFCs are concentrated in the north end of the study area in the San Fernando Valley. Metro is committed to an outreach process that promotes equal access to opportunities to succeed, without discrimination based on protected characteristics. The outreach consultant team that is engaged on this project reflects the diversity of Los Angeles and the project area and is working closely with Metro to implement a program that reaches the broadest range of stakeholders to engage them effectively and meaningfully. The team has conducted a broad range of activities, including booths at events, outreach at transit stations, collaboration with community-based and faith-based organizations, and coordination with elected officials representing the communities throughout the project area. These efforts will continue throughout the environmental study phase and beyond.  

22. How is the project evaluating parking needs and impacts?  

The effects of the project on parking and traffic for Alternatives 1 through 6 have been evaluated in the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Transportation Assessment Report (Non-CEQA Topics). The analysis in this report includes an inventory of on-street and off-street parking within one-quarter mile of each proposed station, identifies on-street or off-street parking that would be removed to construct each of the alternatives, and whether new/added parking would generate new car trips in the area. With the selection of the LPA, a new analysis of parking needs will be conducted.

While Metro does not have jurisdiction over property it does not own, in conjunction with the opening of a new rail line, Metro coordinates with the local city where stations are located to identify parking restrictions, such as residential parking permit programs, that may be necessary to discourage transit customers from parking on streets adjacent to transit stations.   

23. How does Metro determine whether to provide new parking facilities?  

Metro considers a variety of factors to determine where and whether to provide new parking facilities. These include rider demand, the availability of existing parking, if new property needs to be acquired and the cost of that property, associated construction costs, potential effects on adjacent land uses, and access to the station by using non-automotive modes of travel.  

OTHER PROJECT QUESTIONS  

24. Can this project be extended to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)? 

The current project is being designed so that future projects can provide an extension of the project to LAX.   

25. Does the LPA have sufficient capacity to accommodate the long-term demand in the corridor?  

Based on analysis of the Draft EIR Alternatives, it is anticipated that the LPA has sufficient capacity to meet the projected long-term demand for the corridor. All Draft EIR alternatives would be able to carry about 12,000 passengers or more per hour at their “peak load point,” which is the busiest segment of the alignment between any two stations. The peak passenger load is expected to occur south of Ventura Boulevard and for the Draft EIR alternatives was forecast to be between 3,400 and 5,500 passengers per hour in 2045.   

26. Will the LPA allow trains to travel on other existing or planned Metro rail lines? If so, could maintenance facilities be shared with other lines? 

The LPA utilizes automated train technology that would  not allow trains to travel directly on other Metro lines nor could it use existing maintenance facilities.  As a result, the LPA requires a new maintenance and storage facility (MSF) to support the required fleet of vehicles. For more information on MSFs, see our Rail Maintenance and Operations Facilities Fact Sheet.   

27. Once this line is in operation, will Metro change or improve service on other rail or bus lines that connect to it? 

Metro typically evaluates service across its network and particularly for connecting lines when a new rail line opens. 

PROJECT DESIGN  

28. How does Metro make sure an underground transit alignment is safe in a seismically active area? 

Safety, including seismic safety, is our highest priority for all Metro projects, and is thoroughly evaluated for each alternative. Metro has a great deal of expertise in building structures both above and below ground for transportation and other construction projects. Metro adheres to stringent seismic design and fire/life safety standards in the design of aerial structures, tunnels, and stations. This type of evaluation, planning and engineering has been integral to our rail planning, including, most recently, for the Metro D Line Extension Project and the Metro K Line. 

29. Will there be an ability to transfer between the G Line and the ESFV Line behind fare gates at the Van Nuys/G Line Station? 

Metro is working to maximize connectivity with the G Line and ESFV Line at the Van Nuys Station. Easy, intuitive connections to the rest of the Metro network are critical for the success of every station and the project overall by improving customer experience and reducing overall travel times which leads to increases in ridership.     

30. How will Metro coordinate construction and operations of this project with the D Line Wilshire/Westwood station to minimize impacts on riders and maximize ridership? 

As design advances, Metro is committed to developing seamless connections between different Metro services, including between the D Line and STC. Design will also consider how to minimize impacts to riders during construction.  However, there may be areas where there are trade-offs between shorter-term construction impacts to obtain a stronger long term connection, thereby maximizing ridership.   

31. Where will the maintenance and storage facility (MSF) be located? 

Metro is currently evaluating potential locations for the MSF, and more information will be provided during scoping for the Recirculated Draft EIR. 

32. When will you share information about where exactly the LPA route will go (what properties it will go under? 

This information will be included in the Recirculated Draft EIR. 

PROJECT IMPACTS 

33. How will impacts be clearly identified and minimized for surrounding communities? 

Impacts of each of the alternatives studied in the Draft EIR have been clearly identified along with proposed mitigation measures. Following design refinements to update project design to reflect the LPA, environmental analysis will be advanced to provide full assessment of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures will be identified. This analysis will be available for the public, including but not limited to the CEQA Recirculated DEIR and the NEPA environmental documents. 

34. Will property acquisitions be needed? And what are the practical implications of those required acquisitions?     

Most new rail projects need to acquire temporary and permanent property rights for their construction and operation. Some projects need property for tunnels, stations, aerial structures, or other facilities. Typical examples might include acquisitions for stations, easements for emergency ingress and egress, underground easements for tunnels and stations, and easements for maintenance.    

To ensure public safety and protect property for all parties, some easements allow Metro to review private development plans for construction above or adjacent to the Metro easement area. However, not all projects require significant review from or coordination with Metro and, in many cases, can be quite routine and conducted as a part of the city review for the future project. The level of review depends on the proximity to Metro’s facilities, site conditions, and the potential impact to Metro’s facilities. There are many examples around Los Angeles where property owners have been able to build successfully above and adjacent to our tracks, tunnels, stations or other facilities.   

More information is available in our Property Acquisition Fact Sheet.

35. Will eminent domain be used?    

Metro always works to achieve a negotiated agreement with any property owner before pursuing eminent domain as a last resort. The property acquisition process is governed by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act. More information on that process is available in the Property Acquisition Fact Sheet.     

36. During construction, will there be noise, vibration, traffic or other impacts, especially around the station locations? 

The environmental process identifies and evaluates temporary construction impacts, including around the planned station locations. Construction impacts related to the LPA will be identified and discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR. 

TUNNELING 

37. What effects does tunneling have at the surface?    

Modern tunneling methods such as Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM) and Sequential Excavation Method (SEM) generally produce no noticeable noise, vibration, or settlement at the ground surface. This is because bored tunnels are generally deeper compared to tunnels constructed using cut and cover methods, and the ground around and above the tunnel remains fully supported at all times. Recent Metro experience with the D Line (Purple) Extension, K Line (Crenshaw/LAX) and the Regional Connector projects have shown these underground activities can proceed with no disturbance even to sensitive neighbors, such as schools or theaters.   

Noticeable construction typically occurs where facilities are needed on the surface. This includes at stations, at the launch and extraction sites of boring machines, and at places where tracks transition from tunnels to the surface. Tunnel launch and retrieval sites, often part of a station construction site, are generally the largest and most active of these, as they include storage of materials like concrete tunnel liner segments and staging for hauling away soil and rock removed from the ground during tunneling. For more information, see our Tunneling Fact Sheet and our Station Construction Fact Sheet.    

38. What monitoring takes place during tunneling?    

Extensive and continuous monitoring is part of tunneling operations to ensure no noticeable vibration or settlement occurs at the ground surface, as well as monitoring for air quality in the tunnels. Several types of sensors are used within the tunnel and as part of this work. Other types of sensors are placed along the alignment at ground level, below ground, and on nearby structures. Plans for monitoring are developed during environmental studies.    

39. Will trains running in tunnels cause noise or vibration at the surface?    

In bored tunnels, trains generally produce no noticeable noise or vibration at the surface. Noise and vibration from transit operations can occur near surface facilities such as station entrances, ventilation facilities, or transitions from tunnels to the surface.     

40. Would a tunnel need to be vented?  

During routine operations, subway tunnels are ventilated by trains pushing the air as they move through the tunnels. Subway tunnels would require mechanical ventilation in case of emergencies and to dissipate heat from any traction power substations that are located within or adjacent to the tunnel. Underground stations would also require mechanical ventilation. The number, size and location of ventilation facilities will vary with the length of the underground sections, the tunnel size and design, and the number and frequency of trains. The Draft EIR for the project evaluates the ventilation facilities required, their potential locations, environmental impacts, along with any associated mitigation measures.  This will need to be updated for the LPA.  The LPA does not include a mid-mountain ventilation shaft, like what was proposed as part of Alternative 6 in the Draft EIR. 

COST/FUNDING    

41. How much will the LPA cost? How does it compare to the costs of Alternative 5 and 6? 

The preliminary capital cost for Alternative 5 was $24.2 billion (in 2023$). This would be updated to reflect the LPA, which is shorter than Alternative 5 and has one less station. Beyond the $2.54B (in 2015$) initial funding included in Measure M and approximately $1B included in Measure R, Metro anticipates the need for additional funding and financing for the project, including from federal, state and local sources, as well as potential private financing through a potential P3. 

Opportunities for cost reduction are being explored, including developing a project phasing strategy so incremental investment and benefits can be matched with available funds. This approach is consistent with other rail lines in Los Angeles, including the three most recently approved Metro rail projects, which were all for an initial phase. 

42. Why has Metro approved an LPA that exceeds the funding identified in Measure M? 

This project was identified in Measure M and R and project development efforts are being funded by Measure M and Measure R and these funds cannot be used for other efforts. Advancing this project is following through on a commitment that was passed by over two-thirds of voters.  

It is a normal part of the process that full project funding is not identified at the environmental stage of a transit corridor project. Funding is secured once the project is better defined and environmentally cleared. Beyond the funds identified in Measures M and R, Metro anticipates the need for additional funding and financing for the project, including from federal, state and local sources, as well as potential private financing through a potential P3. 

As with many Metro projects, local sales tax revenues provide initial funding. That local funding combined with the high projected ridership and significant time savings for this project, are all factors that should put Metro in a favorable position to compete for state and federal grant funds. 

Many of these grant programs require that projects are “shovel ready” or at least have environmental clearance. By continuing to advance this project utilizing funds that cannot be used for other needs, we set Los Angeles County up to be competitive for future funding opportunities.   

43. How will the potential P3 factor into the funding for the project? 

A P3 is a contractual arrangement between a public agency and a private entity to deliver and/or operate a public asset that leverages the private sector’s skills and financing, provides a mechanism to share in the risks and rewards of the project and incentivizes innovation and long-term performance. It is not free money, but rather a new funding source that requires repayment in the future (financing). It also doesn’t change ownership of the assets (Metro retains ownership).   

SCHEDULE    

44. When would the Sepulveda Transit Corridor open?  

The project schedule and projected opening year are being updated to reflect the LPA. More information will be shared in the Recirculated Draft EIR.  

NEARBY PROJECTS    

45. What else is Metro doing in the Sepulveda Corridor?    

Besides the STC Project, Metro is working in coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to evaluate alternatives to convert the existing high-occupancy toll (HOV) lanes to dynamically-priced, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, called ExpressLanes, in both directions of I-405 between I-10 and US-101. More information is available at metro.net/405ExpressLanes. 

46. Why are you looking at different projects in this area?    

Constrained by the Santa Monica Mountains, the Sepulveda Pass is especially challenging and complex and will likely need more than one project to improve travel in this area. The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project is intended to provide a safe, fast, reliable, high-capacity rail alternative to driving between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside. ExpressLanes are intended to improve travel flow and maximize person-throughput of the I-405 in this area by providing toll-free travel for carpools and offering single occupant drivers the choice to use the ExpressLanes by paying a toll. Toll revenue would be used for transit improvements.  

These potential projects have different strategies to reduce congestion, expand alternatives to driving alone, encourage transit ridership and carpooling, improve trip reliability, reduce air pollution, optimize person throughput, apply technology to help manage traffic, and improve street safety. 

47. Why are Sepulveda Transit Corridor and I-405 Sepulveda Pass ExpressLanes being studied separately rather than together?    

While the Sepulveda Transit Corridor (STC) and ExpressLanes (EL) projects are both intended to improve mobility between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, they have different purposes, as discussed above.  

There are two important considerations when determining whether these two projects should be studied together for environmental analysis purposes – whether they have the same endpoints and if either can be usable without the other. The STC endpoints are at other transit lines (the Van Nuys Metrolink Station in the San Fernando Valley and the E/Expo Line on the Westside). The ExpressLanes endpoints are at the interchanges with the US-101 and I-10 Freeways. The two projects are also not dependent upon one another and have independent utility. 

48. What about funding? Can Metro really afford all of these projects?    

Measure M, approved by LA County voters in 2016, commits funding for both STC and EL projects. Roadway pricing projects such as ExpressLanes can also consider bonding/borrowing against future revenue streams to finance their construction. Additional funding sources for each project will be identified as these projects advance through the development process.  

Contact Us 

Project email: sepulvedatransit@metro.net  
Project phone number: 213.922.7375  

Upcoming Events 

https://www.metro.net/calendar/  

LIST OF ACRONYMS