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 complex and challenging – and will require innovation and multiple solutions. Metro is studying several projects in this area, including a new rail line with 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 that is leading to the release of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). This is the second of five major phases in the project development process, followed by final design, construction, and operations. The environmental process is expected to generate an inclusive vision that balances the unique needs of diverse corridor stakeholders, including future riders, through ongoing dialogue with project stakeholders and communities. As the regional transportation planning agency for Los Angeles County, Metro is leading the environmental analysis consistent with the requirements of both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).    

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:    

I. 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-automobile First-Last Mile connections 

II. Improve Accessibility and Promote Equity   

• Improve access for Equity Focus Communities    

• Target infrastructure and service investments towards those with the greatest mobility needs  

III. Support Community and Economic Development   

• Increase opportunity for economic growth around stations    

• Minimize physical barriers to communities created by the project   

• Prioritize station placement and design that is consistent with community context    

IV. 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 

 V. 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  

VI. Enhance Resiliency   

• Provide resilience to natural disasters and climate change   

3. What alternatives are under consideration?   

Metro is conducting the evaluation of five build alternatives for a high-capacity rail transit option between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, including alternatives with different modes – monorail and heavy rail. Metro contracted with two private sector teams in a Pre-Development Agreement (PDA) to design some of the alternatives. LA SkyRail Express (LASRE) designed Alternatives 1 and 3, and Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners (STCP) designed Alternatives 4 and 5. See questions 7-11 for more information about the PDA process. In addition, Metro is developing Alternative 6. 
 
For all alternatives, the northern end of the project would be at the Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak station, and the southern end point at the Metro E Line (Expo). As required by CEQA and NEPA, a “No Project” alternative is also being considered to compare benefits and impacts of the proposed project with those that would occur if the project were not approved and implemented.   

Alternative 1: Monorail with aerial alignment in the Interstate 405 (I-405) corridor and electric bus connection to UCLA (LASRE)  

Alternative 3: Monorail with aerial alignment in the I-405 corridor and underground alignment between Getty Center and Wilshire Bl (LASRE)  

Alternative 4: Heavy rail with underground alignment south of Ventura Bl and aerial alignment generally along Sepulveda Bl in the San Fernando Valley (STCP)  

Alternative 5: Heavy rail with underground alignment including along Sepulveda Bl in the San Fernando Valley (STCP)  

Alternative 6: Heavy rail with underground alignment including along Van Nuys Bl in the San Fernando Valley and southern terminus station at Bundy Dr (Metro) 

No Project: The “No Project” alternative includes all existing highway and transit services and facilities, as well as other transit and highway projects scheduled to be operational by 2045.   

Learn more and see maps on the interactive StoryMap.   

Alternative 6, also a heavy rail alternative, is being developed by Metro’s environmental consultant, HTA Partners. 

4. Why was Alternative 2 eliminated? 

LASRE requested the removal of Alternative 2 from further consideration in the environmental process. Withdrawal of an alternative from further consideration can be made per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) and documented in the Alternatives Considered but Rejected section of an EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. Metro held community meetings in Spring 2024 specifically dedicated to gathering additional feedback on the monorail alternatives. This feedback informed the decision to eliminate Alternative 2, which was announced in July 2024. More information can be found in the July 3, 2024 Board Update.  

5. Where would the stations be located?   

Nine station locations are being studied throughout the project area, with variations across the five alternatives. These are:  

• Van Nuys Metrolink Station  

• Sherman Way Station  

• Metro G Line (Orange) Station  

• Ventura Boulevard Station  

• Getty Center Station  

• UCLA Gateway Plaza Station  

• Wilshire Boulevard/Metro D Line (Purple) Station  

• Santa Monica Boulevard Station  

• Metro E Line (Expo) Station  

Note: Alternative 1 would connect onto the UCLA campus via a bus with a stop near the Wilshire Boulevard monorail station, an intermediate stop in Westwood Village, and at UCLA Gateway Plaza.  

More information about the potential station locations can be found here.  

6. Why is the Getty Center (a tourist destination and performance venue) not a station stop in the subway plan? Where would the stations be located?   

The Getty Center is located west of the 405 freeway, while the proposed subway tunnels are located east of the 405 connecting a Ventura Boulevard station directly with a UCLA station. Also, given the Getty Center’s location in the Santa Monica Mountains, it’s challenging to provide convenient passenger access from a street-level entrance to a subway station and tunnel hundreds of feet underground.  

7. Can new alignments or stations be considered? Will any of the remaining alternatives be modified or eliminated as a result of the studies that are underway?  

Based on the results of the earlier Feasibility Study and proposals received from the PDA teams, Metro identified the alternatives for environmental review. As the EIR study progresses and new data emerges, remaining alternatives and stations could be eliminated or modified as a result of technical information or public input. Metro will continue to keep the public informed about the ongoing study and project design work, including any changes that may arise.  

8. Is Metro open to innovation and new technologies for this project?   

Metro is exploring innovation and multiple solutions to address the mobility challenges facing the Sepulveda Pass in part by working with two private sector teams – LA SkyRail Express and Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners – to design four of the five alternatives being considered. The Metro Board approved the use of a Pre-Development Agreement (PDA) process for the project to solicit the most innovative ideas from the private sector. All PDA proposers, whether selected or not, proposed a proven rail technology, either light rail, heavy rail, or monorail.    

9. What is a Pre-Development Agreement (PDA)  

A PDA is an agreement with a contractor to initiate the development of a project through a public-private partnership (P3) model designed to incentivize innovations in design, engineering, construction approach, financing and operations. The use of a PDA for the project was approved by the Metro Board of Directors in 2019 and was a critical component of several unsolicited proposals submitted to Metro’s Office of Extraordinary Innovation in 2016. The PDA contractors – LA SkyRail Express and Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners – are bringing their expertise and creativity to the table early— when critical planning, design and engineering decisions can have the greatest impact on the project’s ultimate success.   

10. What is Metro’s role relative to the PDA teams?   

Metro is managing each of the PDA teams. Additionally, consistent with the agency’s role in state statute, Metro is leading the environmental evaluation of all alternatives, including alternatives proposed by the PDA teams. As the regional transportation planning agency for Los Angeles County, Metro is authorized to environmentally study and approve fixed guideway (i.e., rail) projects in Los Angeles County.   

11. Why did Metro take the unprecedented step of funding two proposer teams?  

In 2019, the Metro Board approved use of a Pre-Development Agreement (PDA) approach to allow for private sector innovation in the early stages of Metro’s project development process with the hope of identifying strategies to improve performance, reduce cost and accelerate the overall project delivery schedule. The Board also approved awarding up to two PDA contracts with the expectation that PDA proposals would be uniquely different from each other and offer Metro an opportunity to maximize innovative input across different transit technologies, operating assumptions, proposed alignments/routing, station locations and implementation approaches.  

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 scoping for the project. The project is now in the environmental review process and Metro is working with the two PDA teams to design four of the five alternatives being considered. HTA Partners, Metro’s environmental contractor, is developing the fifth alternative.   

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

Metro is continuing to advance the technical studies in support of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that is being developed to evaluate the project alternatives.    

The environmental study will continue progressing under CEQA until the DEIR is released for public review and comment. The release of the DEIR is currently anticipated to occur in early 2025. At that time, there will be an opportunity for the public to provide input during the formal DEIR comment period, including public hearings.  

Following the public comment period, the Metro Board of Directors will be asked to identify a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Once an LPA is identified, environmental clearance for the project will continue through the development of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) under CEQA and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) under NEPA.    

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 analysis process.   

As a precursor to the NEPA process for this project, Metro is also currently conducting a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study in collaboration with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).  The PEL study engages federal agencies early in the planning process and prior to the initiation of NEPA to gather input on the alternatives under consideration and to identify potential issues of concern that would be studied further in the future NEPA process. The PEL study uses information, analysis, and products developed earlier in the planning process (including CEQA) to provide the necessary data for the eventual NEPA process, including the development of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).    

14. What will the DEIR include?   

The DEIR will contain a summary evaluation of the alternatives, including:   

a. Costs: construction cost, right-of-way cost, annual operating costs   

b. Benefits: overall ridership, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, access to key destinations (employment centers, cultural and educational institutions, attractions, etc.), increased mobility for Equity Focus Communities (EFC)   

c. Impacts and mitigations: effects on natural and human environments, including property acquisitions, and proposed mitigations to address any negative impacts   

It will also have conceptual engineering plans for each alternative, including track alignment, typical cross-sections, station layouts and right-of-way impacts. Environmental technical reports analyzing each alternative will also be included in the DEIR. Please see our Environmental Review Fact Sheet and this video for more information on the study process.   

15. What technical analyses will be conducted during the environmental review process?  

Topics for environmental study under CEQA include:

The purpose of the technical analyses is to provide a comprehensive assessment of all potential environmental impacts associated with the project alternatives, while also addressing the environmental resource topics listed in the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, while also covering federal requirements for the subsequent NEPA document.   

16. How long will the public comment period be for the Draft EIR when it’s released?    

The environmental process is governed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which mandates a minimum comment period of no less than 30 days, and no longer than 60 days except in unusual circumstances. Metro is committed to ensuring the public has sufficient time to review the DEIR.  

As such, given the size and regional significance of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project, Metro will extend the minimum review period to 60 days.  

17. What is the overall timetable for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project?  

Metro expects to release a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in early 2025 and to identify an LPA as part of the environmental clearance process by the end of 2025. Completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) federal environmental clearance would follow after that. 

18. When will Metro decide which team (LA SkyRail Express or Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners) will be chosen for the actual project construction? 

The first step in the decision-making process comes next year with the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Should an alternative developed by one of the PDA teams be selected, then that PDA team may be allowed to advance into Phase 4 of the PDA process. Following completion of that phase, Metro may choose to negotiate an implementation agreement with the PDA team. If not successful during Phase 4 or implementation discussions, Metro has the option to part ways with the PDA team and advance the project through an alternative project delivery approach.  

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH    

19. What are the opportunities for public engagement and feedback on the project?    

Public input is encouraged throughout the environmental analysis of the project. Metro welcomes comments at our public events, as well as through our website, phone line, email and U.S. Mail. Please contact us through any of those means to be added to our distribution list to receive information and updates about the project, including formal comment opportunities.  
Phone: 213.922.7375 
E-mail: sepulvedatransit@metro.net 

U.S. Mail: Peter Carter, Project Manager 

Metro 

One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-6 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

20. How was past community input incorporated into the solicitation and procurement of the PDA contractors?    

The 2019 Feasibility Study included two years of ongoing community and stakeholder outreach, including three rounds of public meetings throughout the study area. Reports from the Feasibility Study, including the public engagement and input are public information and were made available to the bidders as part of the PDA solicitation and procurement.  

21. What kind of feedback did Metro seek during scoping? How many comments did Metro receive and how are they being used?   

The scoping period was the first opportunity during the environmental phase to share the project alternatives with the public and discuss the process of environmental review.  

During the 74-day scoping period, from November 30, 2021 to February 11, 2022, Metro sought feedback from the public about:   

• Alternatives being considered   

• How the alternatives might be enhanced or modified   

• Other alternatives that should be evaluated   

• Issues and concerns with the project plans   

• Questions that should be answered as part of the study    

Metro received input from nearly 3,100 individuals, organizations and institutions during the scoping period, with many of the submissions containing multiple comments. Metro has reviewed and organized the comments and shared them with the technical and PDA teams working to refine the alternatives and develop the Draft EIR.  

The feedback received during this period is informing the environmental analysis underway and is available in the Scoping Summary Report. A summary was presented at the June 2022 Community Update Meetings (video recording and Power Point Presentation).    

22. Has Metro shared any other information with the public?  

In January 2023, Metro held a series of open houses – one in Van Nuys, one in Westwood and one via Zoom – to share information and gather feedback about the proposed station locations and their entrances. The goal of these events was to allow the public to view how future riders would access the system. More information about the station locations and alternatives can be found in the interactive Station Location StoryMap. More than 500 stakeholders attended these open houses and 1,800 feedback forms were collected. A summary of what we heard can be found in this report. 

In Fall 2023, Metro again hosted community meetings – one in Westwood, one in Van Nuys and one via Zoom – to share information and gather feedback about the projected travel times and ridership for all alternatives. The presentation and recording of the meeting are available on the project website. Attendees were able to ask questions and submit feedback. Additionally, stakeholders provided feedback via email and online. In total, 720 comments and questions were received between Oct. 24 and Dec. 11, 2023. A summary of what we heard can be found in this report. 

In May 2024, Metro hosted a series of community meetings focused on the monorail alternatives to gather feedback about the proposed elimination of Alternative 2. Two in-person community meetings took place, one each in Van Nuys and Westwood. One community meeting took place virtually via Zoom. The presentation and recording of the meeting are available on the project website. More than 340 stakeholders attended the meetings, which also generated 483 submissions via feedback and Q&A cards, the online form, and the project email. A summary of the meetings can be found in the July 2024 board update. 

Metro will continue to share information from the study with the public as it becomes available.  

23. How else has Metro engaged with the public on this project? 

Since the passage of Measure M and the Feasibility Study for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project, Metro has steadfastly focused on executing an outreach program that provides a wide range of opportunities for engagement. Given the regional importance of this project, the outreach has been focused not only within the study area, but also in the surrounding communities from which trips through the corridor originate.  

To that end, the team has held multiple, bilingual (English and Spanish) forums for community engagement. Metro has hosted 25 public meetings through December 2024.   

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 on their own time. The team also recognized 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 of this public engagement has been and will continue to be shared on the project website.   An outreach summary will also be included as part of the Draft EIR.   

24. Why doesn’t Metro have all the answers to the public’s questions? Why can’t the agency be more forthcoming? Why is the process taking so long? 

The purpose of the environmental study is to thoroughly evaluate the alternatives, their benefits and their environmental impacts. That necessarily includes the answers to the questions that the community is asking. We understand that there is also a great deal of interest in the alternatives, including those from the PDA developers. We also understand that, at times, the process can be frustratingly slow, including at this early stage of the study when those answers aren’t yet available.  

Following the guidelines of both CEQA and NEPA, it is Metro’s responsibility to consider a range of alternatives while ensuring that the process treats all alternatives impartially as they advance through the same rigorous, technical analysis. Those guidelines also require that the analysis is impartial and protects the process of receiving public input and disclosing environmental impacts. This includes Metro’s commitment to a comprehensive outreach program that provides stakeholders the necessary information, tools and resources to remain informed and engaged, and provide valuable input at key milestones. See questions 14 and 15 for more information about what will be included in the DEIR.  

Information regarding projected ridership and travel times was shared with the public in October/November 2023. Further information including about project costs, environmental impacts and mitigations will be shared as it becomes available through the study.  

25. Is Metro the only source of information for the project? Are the PDA teams able to provide information directly to the public?  

Official information regarding the project can be found on Metro’s project website. The administrative record for the project will include comments made through official channels from the scoping period and during the official comment period when the DEIR is released.    

Please note that the awarded PDA contracts are for the design of the concepts proposed by the two PDA teams (Alternatives 1&3, 4-5). These concepts are expected to evolve with feedback from the PDA teams and environmental processes.  

The PDA teams may share information with the public, with the following disclaimer on all materials:    

Because Metro has not completed a CEQA review, the information contained herein does not constitute or evidence an approval by Metro of, or commitment of Metro to, any action for which prior environmental review is required under CEQA. Metro retains the absolute sole discretion to make decisions under CEQA, which discretion includes, without limitation (i) deciding not to proceed with the Project (known as the “no build” alternative) and (ii) deciding to approve the Project. There will be no approval or commitment by Metro regarding the development of the Project, unless and until Metro, as the Lead Agency, and based upon information resulting from the CEQA environmental review process, considers the impacts of the Project.  

26. How will Metro promote equity in its outreach process for this project?  

Metro’s Equity Platform commits Metro to address inequities and create more equitable access to opportunity for 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 equity. 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 develop 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.  

TRAVEL TIMES/BOARDINGS 

27. How are the boarding and travel time projections being developed? How or why might they change as a study progresses?  

Metro maintains a travel demand model that is used to develop ridership forecasts for all its planned rail lines. The model includes projections of the distribution of population, employment, and college enrollment throughout Southern California, based on the most recent demographic data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The current version of Metro’s model is calibrated to 2019 ridership and produces forecasts for year 2045 conditions, based on demographic projections from SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) adopted in 2020.  

Ridership forecasts for individual alternatives depend on a number of factors, including proximity of stations to population, jobs, and college students; station parking; service frequency; station-to-station travel times; distance of any required transfers from other bus or rail lines; and the number of transfers required to complete a trip. As the study of a transit project progresses, ridership forecasts are updated as the features of the alternatives themselves are refined and as more detailed designs become available, allowing the model to represent travel and transfer times more precisely.   

In addition, the updated demographic projections that SCAG produces every four years for the RTP may result in changes to forecast travel patterns, which could result in changes in the ridership forecasts for both existing and planned transit lines. For example, if SCAG forecasts increased employment growth in one area, the travel demand model may forecast an increase in transit trips to that area.  

28. What are the projected end-to-end travel times for the project? 
    
    The travel times from the Van Nuys Metrolink station to the E Line (Expo) range from 18-32 minutes as follows: 
    
    Alternative 1: 28 minutes 
    Alternative 3: 32 minutes 
    Alternative 4: 20 minutes 
    Alternative 5: 19 minutes 
    Alternative 6: 18 minutes 

29. What about projected travel times to key destinations? 

30. How does this compare to driving? 

All of the alternatives offer significant time savings. Driving southbound in the morning peak can take 40-85 minutes or more, as compared to a projected 18-32 minutes for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, depending on the alternative, which would be a more consistent, predictable commute than driving.  

31. What are the forecasted boardings for the project? 

The total forecasted boardings at all of the stations on the project on an average weekday in 2045 are as follows: 

Alt 1: 64,798       

Alt 3: 86,013       

Alt 4: 120,546    

Alt 5: 121,624    

Alt 6: 107,096 

32. What are the projected weekday boardings for each station in 2045?  

33. Why are these boarding projections different from the 2019 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Feasibility Study? 

The EIR is building on the Feasibility Study that served as a starting point for the project. It is not unusual for forecasts to evolve as project evaluation progresses, alternatives are refined and more detailed designs become available. Continued design of the alternatives, including information about station entrances, platform locations, etc. has allowed for more detailed analysis. The “No Project” alternative has also changed since the Feasibility Study to account for changes in bus service due to the implementation of the NextGen Bus Plan, as well as bus changes that are planned when the D/Purple Line opens. In addition, regional growth forecasts have been updated. See question 23 for more information about how boarding information is developed.  

PARKING  

All of the alternatives include the parking that is available at current Metro stations on the Metro G (Orange) and Metro E (Expo) Lines that will connect to this project. These Metro-owned parking facilities would be available to all Metro riders on a first-come, first serve basis. In addition, some of the alternatives may have new parking facilities proposed. 

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

Existing and proposed parking at the stations is one of the factors utilized in forecasting the ridership for each alternative. Ridership forecasts will be included in the Draft EIR along with estimates of how many passengers are expected to arrive at the stations by bus, rail, walking, park-and-ride, or kiss-and-ride.  

The effects of the project on parking and traffic will be evaluated in a technical report that will be shared with the public at the same time that the DEIR is released. The analysis in this report will include an inventory of on-street and off-street parking within one-quarter mile of each proposed station, identify any 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. 

Metro does not have jurisdiction over property it does not own. However, 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.  

35. 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 the availability of existing parking, if new property would need to be acquired and the cost of that property, associated construction costs, potential effects on adjacent land uses, and access to the station by other modes of travel. 

OTHER PROJECT QUESTIONS  

36. 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 proposed line to LAX.  All of the alternatives under study allow for a future extension to LAX. 
     

37. Do all proposed alternatives have sufficient capacity to accommodate the long-term demand in the corridor?  

All five alternatives being studied have sufficient capacity to meet the projected long-term demand for the corridor. Informed by the 2019 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Feasibility Study, Metro established that all the alternatives to be studied in the environmental process must provide infrastructure capable of carrying at least 12,000 passengers per direction, per hour.  The number of passengers that can be carried is a function of the capacity of the trains, their speed and frequency of service. Metro will continue to evaluate all the alternatives under consideration to ensure they meet this requirement. 

38. Will any of the proposed alternatives allow trains to travel on other existing or planned Metro rail lines? If so, could maintenance facilities be shared with other lines? 

None of the proposed alternatives would allow trains to travel directly on other Metro lines nor could they use existing maintenance facilities. The Sepulveda Transit Corridor is being studied and planned as a north-south alignment. All proposed alternatives will strive to provide fast, easy and convenient transfers to the Metro G Line (Orange), D Line (Purple), E Line (Expo) Lines, and the future East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. This allows for more frequent and better passenger service on each individual line as opposed to when trains alternate their service on different lines. Therefore, the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project will require its own maintenance and storage facility (MSF). For more information, see our Rail Maintenance and Operations Facilities Fact Sheet.   

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

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

POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS    

40. Do the proposed monorail alternatives have stations in the median of I-405?   

The monorail alternatives (Alternatives 1&3) do not have any proposed stations in the median of the freeway. The proposed monorail stations are almost all located on the side of the I-405. Information about station locations for all alternatives, including the monorail, can be found in the interactive Station Location StoryMap.   

41. Will Metro study the health impacts on riders of the stations adjacent to the I-405 Freeway? 
    
    CEQA requires an assessment of health risks associated with toxic air pollutants. Those are typically assessed in detail when a project would result in a new source of air toxics (e.g., a factory) or “sensitive receptors” in long-term proximity to an existing source of air toxics (e.g., housing next to a freeway). Once a source of air toxics and associated receptors have been identified, an evaluation of health risks would assess the amount, duration and pattern of toxic dispersion in the air from its source, as well as the length of exposure. 
     
    The EIR for the STC project will not quantitatively assess health risks for transit riders waiting on station platforms. Exposure time for transit riders is anticipated to be too brief to result in any meaningful change in health risks, especially given anticipated improvements in auto emissions due to new technologies and regulatory requirements. Further, as all the alternatives propose electric powered vehicles, the rail cars would not generate toxic exhaust emissions. 
     
    However, the EIR will evaluate the health risks of construction activities with a focus on sensitive locations where heavy equipment could be used. 

42. Will elevated trains and stations cause noise or vibration for those nearby?  

Noise and vibration experienced from above ground rail operations are a function of the type of technology as well as proximity to the trains, tracks and stations.  

The impact of noise on communities is one of the many possible impacts Metro studies when considering transit projects. Metro is completing technical analyses related to noise for all alternatives as part of the environmental process.  

The findings of these studies, along with mitigation measures and effectiveness of those measures, will be shared with the community prior to the release of the Draft EIR, which will also include that information. Metro will invite the public’s comment as it considers a locally preferred alternative recommendation. 

43. During construction, will there be noise, vibration or other impacts that residents will be aware of? How will construction of the monorail affect/impact traffic on the 405? 
    
    The nature of construction impacts will depend on the selected alternative. The environmental process will identify and evaluate construction impacts such as noise and vibration. Those impacts, along with mitigation measures and the effectiveness of these measures will be described in the DEIR.     

44. 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 sites, often part of station construction sites, are generally the largest and most active of these, as they include storage of materials like tunnel lining and staging for hauling away soil and rock removed from the ground during tunneling. These locations are identified during environmental studies and will be described in the DEIR along with impacts and associated mitigations. For more information, see our Tunneling Fact Sheet and our Station Construction Fact Sheet.    

45. 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 and described in the DEIR. 

46. 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. The environmental process will identify and evaluate impacts due to operations, including noise and vibration. Those impacts, along with mitigation measures and the effectiveness of these measures will be described in the DEIR.    

47. Would a tunnel need to be vented? Would it be on private property? If so, what are the impacts such as noise and other consequences?    

Underground trains push the air as they move through the tunnels. This air can be vented to the surface in a variety of locations. Venting occurs at stations, and where the tunnels come up to the surface. Sometimes ventilation shafts at other locations are also needed. The requirements for number, size and location of ventilation shafts will vary with the length of the underground sections, the tunnel size and design, and the number and frequency of trains. The environmental study for the project will evaluate the vent facilities required, how many, potential locations, any environmental impacts along with any associated mitigation measures.   

Vents can generate noise, but the amount of noise associated with a vent is dependent on its size and several design variables. Emissions from vents do not impact air quality as the ventilation system filters out pollutants before being released to the environment. The means of ventilation, any potential impacts, including property impacts, will be analyzed in the environmental document. Vent facilities may require property acquisition. Please see our Property Acquisition Fact Sheet for more information.     

48. Will property easements be needed? And what are the practical implications of those required easements?    

Yes, most new rail projects need to acquire easements for their construction and operation. Some projects need property for tunnels, stations, aerial structures, or other facilities. Typical examples might include easements for emergency ingress and egress, underground easements for tunnels and stations, easements for maintenance, or air rights for aerial structures. Projects might also need to acquire property or easements on a temporary basis for use during project construction.   

To ensure public safety and protect property for all parties, some easements allow Metro to review plans for construction above or adjacent to the 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 operations/services. 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.   

The DEIR will identify potential easements and acquisitions for each of the alternatives. More information is available in our Property Acquisition Fact Sheet.   

49. 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. 

COST/FUNDING 

50. How much and what types of funding are available for the project?    

Metro’s project funding plans for major capital projects include assumptions of other federal, state, and local revenue including discretionary grants that Metro must secure through competitive processes and with local political support.  

The project is funded in part by Measure M, the transportation sales tax approved by 71 percent of Los Angeles County voters in 2016. Measure M has allocated $9.5 billion (in 2015 dollars) in funding ($5.7 billion for the Valley-Westside segment currently being studied and $3.8 billion for the future Westside-LAX segment).  

51. Will this be sufficient to fully fund the project and how will you get additional funds if needed?    

Once the environmental analysis has determined project components such as the length of the alignment, the mode, the number of stations, the property that will need to be acquired in order to build, etc., the project budget can be finalized. Utilizing the project budget, we can then develop the funding plan, that can include other local, state and federal funding sources, including discretionary grants that Metro must secure through competitive processes.  

52. Why is Metro considering alternatives that may exceed the funding currently available for a project? How much will the project cost?   

As required by CEQA and NEPA, the environmental review must look at a range of alternatives to address the project goals. The alternatives will be analyzed for environmental benefits and impacts across their proposed modes, alignments, station locations, and aboveground or below-ground configurations. In conjunction with the environmental review process, Metro will evaluate the cost estimates and construction timeframes of all proposed alternatives. The findings of the environmental analysis, including projected cost estimates, will be released in the DEIR for public review with a comment period and public hearings to solicit public input before final determination and identification of an LPA. The proposed alternatives are being evaluated equally and no decisions have been reached. The initial cost estimates in the 2019 Final Feasibility Report and in the PDA proposals are based on preliminary designs. As the designs for the alternatives advance, the cost estimates will be refined.   

NEARBY PROJECTS    

53. What else is Metro doing in the Sepulveda Corridor? 
    Besides the STC Project, Metro is also studying: 

a. The I-405 Sepulveda Pass ExpressLanes (EL) is evaluating the possibility of converting the existing High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane into High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes – also known as ExpressLanes and adding a second HOT lane in each direction. In coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), a combined Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) is currently under development. 

b. The Santa Monica Mountains, including the Sepulveda Pass, are one of three areas being evaluated for roadway tolling and reinvestment in transportation services as a part of Metro’s Traffic Reduction Study (TRS). At the conclusion of the current feasibility Study, the Metro Board of Directors will consider staff’s recommendation about whether to move a project forward. If the Board chooses to advance a project, it would be evaluated in more detail through an environmental review process.  
 

More details about those efforts can be found on their websites. 

54. Why are you looking at so many 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 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. The Traffic Reduction Study is intended to recommend areas where a combination of roadway tolling, reinvestment in transportation alternatives and low-income assistance programs would reduce congestion and provide new ways to move throughout the County. 

The three 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, in the case of TRS, improve street safety. 

55. 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 in question 49.  

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 could be usable on their own if built and operated separately. 

56. 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. Roadway pricing projects such as EL and those being studied through the TRS can also consider bonding/borrowing against future revenue streams to finance construction. Additional funding sources for each project will be identified as these projects advance through the development process.

57. If the monorail option is selected for STC, is there enough room to also accommodate ExpressLanes and a recommended project from the Traffic Reduction Study in this corridor? And, conversely, if these projects are implemented in this corridor, is there enough room to accommodate monorail for STC? 
    
    Both STC and ExpressLanes are going through their own environmental reviews which will evaluate what is possible in this corridor and the impacts given the physical constraints in the area. The two projects are continuing to coordinate with each other as a part of their respective environmental studies. If the Board authorizes a project from the TRS study, that project would also go through an environmental review process. This coordination will continue as each project advances.    

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS    

58. What is the decision-making process?  

The decisions about a locally preferred alternative and a project delivery method will be made by the Metro Board of Directors. These decisions will be based on a variety of factors, including the environmental effects of each alternative, public and stakeholder feedback, cost effectiveness, anticipated transit benefit and constructability and operational considerations. The environmental documentation and review process will generate a substantive technical assessment of each of the alternatives under consideration. The process affords several opportunities for public feedback and input. The Metro Board will base its decision on a substantial array of technical information and public feedback. There will be ample time for Board deliberation to weigh and debate all aspects of the project alternatives.    

59. Who has oversight of Metro’s decisions?    

Metro is a public agency created by the State of California. Per state statute, decisions are made by the Metro Board of Directors that is comprised of 13 voting members – the five members of the County Board of Supervisors, the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles plus three individuals appointed by the Mayor, and four local elected officials – mayors or council members – from and chosen by the other cities within Los Angeles County.    

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

Upcoming Events 
https://www.metro.net/calendar/