Meeting_Body
Planning and Programming Committee
January 14, 2026
Subject
SUBJECT: Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project
Action
ACTION: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION
Heading
RECOMMENDATION
Title
CONSIDER:
A. APPROVING the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) as Modified Alternative 5: Heavy rail transit underground between the Van Nuys Metrolink Station and the E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station modified to provide a connection to the Metro G Line and East San Fernando Valley (ESFV) Light Rail Line at Van Nuys Boulevard.
B. AUTHORIZING further design refinement and advancement of the LPA to address project cost, risk, and comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including but not limited to defining an Initial Operating Segment (IOS) and a phasing plan with priority given to connecting the San Fernando Valley-at the Metro G Line and ESFV Light Rail Line at Van Nuys Boulevard-and the Westside-at the Metro D Line-including refined maintenance and storage strategy.
C. AUTHORIZING advancement of the Final EIR and any additional environmental documentation required as a result of selecting the LPA and development of an IOS.
Issue
ISSUE
The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project (the Project) adds a critical regional connection to the transportation network, linking the San Fernando Valley with the Westside and providing a reliable, fast alternative to the congested Interstate 405 (I-405) freeway. Metro is the CEQA lead agency that is responsible for preparing the EIR for the Project. The Draft EIR was released on June 2, 2025. To focus efforts moving forward on the most feasible alternative that best meets the Project’s goals and objectives, the Metro Board of Directors may now select a single alignment (or Locally Preferred Alternative) for further analysis in the Final EIR and any additional environmental documentation required to environmentally clear the LPA.
Background
BACKGROUND
The Sepulveda Corridor is a vital link for the communities of greater Los Angeles, connecting residents in the San Fernando Valley to the Westside’s bustling employment hubs and cultural landmarks. The natural barrier created by the Santa Monica Mountains makes traveling between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside difficult and slow. The I-405 is one of the most congested corridors in the country-ranked #17 nationally and #4 in California-and transit service between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside is limited. The Project would add a critical regional connection to the transportation network, linking the San Fernando Valley with the Westside and providing a fast, safe and reliable alternative to the congested I-405 freeway.
In 2016, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure M, which included transit improvements between the San Fernando Valley, the Westside, and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Measure M identifies the implementation of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project in two phases: 1) Segment between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside; and 2) Extension to LAX.
Between 2017 and 2019, Metro conducted the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Feasibility Study, which identified three feasible heavy rail alternatives and one feasible monorail alternative between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside. The Board received the findings of the study in 2019.
In July 2019, the Board approved a finding that using a pre-development agreement (PDA) approach pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 130242 will achieve certain private sector efficiencies in the integration of the planning, design, and construction of the Project. A PDA is a form of early contractor involvement where a private project developer participates in early project definition and design in partnership with the project owner. This is the first time Metro has utilized a PDA. Subsequently, in March 2021, the Board approved the award of PDAs with two contractor teams for the further definition and design development of the contractors’ transit alternatives. In August 2021, a Notice to Proceed was issued to these teams, which resulted in five PDA alternatives being carried forward for environmental study. In addition, elements from the Feasibility Study that were not proposed by either PDA team were incorporated into a sixth alternative for environmental review by Metro’s environmental consultant. The six alternatives include both monorail and heavy rail trains and range between approximately 13 and 16 miles in length. From north to south, these routes all connect to the Van Nuys Metrolink Station, future ESFV Light Rail Line, Metro G Line (Orange), future Metro D Line (Purple), and Metro E Line (Expo).
The Project began the CEQA environmental clearance process on November 30, 2021, and the scoping period extended for 74 days through February 11, 2022. In July 2024, one of the alternatives (Alternative 2) was removed from further consideration at the request of one of the PDA teams. The Draft EIR, which evaluated the five remaining alternatives, was released on June 2, 2025 for a 90-day public review and comment period through August 30, 2025.
The Measure M Expenditure Plan identifies $5.7 billion (2015$) in funding for the Project, and additional funds will be needed to construct any of the build alternatives to connect the San Fernando Valley and the Westside. Metro is considering utilizing a public-private partnership, or P3, for delivery of the Project. The two PDA teams are actively pursuing the opportunity to design, construct, operate, maintain and finance the Project through a P3 delivery method.
Discussion
DISCUSSION
The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project would:
• Connect the San Fernando Valley-where more than 1.8 million people live-and the rest of the region to major destinations and job centers, including Century City, Westwood, and UCLA. Each day 86,000 students, faculty, staff, and visitors travel to the UCLA campus, and more than 50,000 people work in Century City;
• Leverage other existing and planned transit investments to improve accessibility and mobility by providing Angelenos a north-south link between major transit lines, including the Metrolink Ventura County Line, the Metro ESFV Light Rail Line, and the Metro D, E, and G Lines; and
• Increase economic output in the Los Angeles region by $25.5 billion to $42.9 billion, generating $7.3 billion to $12.1 billion in additional wages due to construction.
Traffic congestion in the Project Study Area is likely to continue to deteriorate, with the number of trips forecast to grow approximately 17 percent by 2042 and 24 percent by 2057. Improvements in mobility are needed in the corridor. The Project would:
• Expand mobility with a fast and dependable rail option that could attract approximately 63,000 to 124,000 daily riders;
• Result in time savings for riders traveling between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside-a trip that is currently about 40 to 80 minutes by car and unreliable due to unpredictable traffic conditions would take 18 to 33 minutes by transit;
• Attract 20,000 to 42,000 new daily transit riders by serving an area underserved by existing transit infrastructure;
• Provide mobility options that would result in reduction in vehicles miles traveled by an estimated 342,000 to 775,000 each day, reducing air pollution and providing health and economic productivity benefits; and
• Result in people who would otherwise drive using transit, leading to improved safety and reliability on roads and highways, improved emergency access in canyons, and opportunities for congestion reduction through the I-405 corridor, including saving on average over 10 million to over 25 million person hours a year for roadway users.
Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR evaluates five rail transit alternatives that connect the San Fernando Valley with the Westside. 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. As required by CEQA, a “No Project” alternative is also being considered. Descriptions of these project alternatives, including maps, are in the Draft EIR Executive Summary (Attachment A). The following is a high-level description of each alternative.
Alternative 1: Monorail with aerial alignment in the I-405 corridor (15.1 miles, eight aerial stations), electric bus connection to UCLA. Monorail maintenance and storage facility (MSF) options: 1) East of I-405 south of Metrolink Ventura County Line tracks; 2) East of Van Nuys Metrolink Station. Electric bus MSF at the northwest corner of Pico Boulevard and Cotner Avenue.
Alternative 3: Monorail with aerial alignment in the I-405 corridor and underground alignment between the Getty Center and Wilshire Boulevard (16.1 miles, seven aerial stations, two underground stations). MSF options: 1) East of I-405 south of Metrolink Ventura County Line tracks; 2) East of Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Alternative 4: Heavy rail with underground alignment south of Ventura Boulevard and aerial alignment generally along Sepulveda Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley (13.9 miles, four aerial stations, four underground stations). MSF west of Woodman Avenue, south of the Metrolink Ventura County Line railroad tracks.
Alternative 5: Heavy rail with underground alignment including below Sepulveda Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley (13.8 miles, one aerial station, seven underground stations). MSF west of Woodman Avenue, south of the Metrolink Ventura County Line railroad tracks.
Alternative 6: Heavy rail with underground alignment along Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley and a southern terminus station at Bundy Drive (12.9 miles, seven underground stations). MSF west of Woodman Avenue, south of the Metrolink Ventura County Line railroad tracks.
NOTE: Alternative 2 was removed from further consideration during the environmental process in July 2024.
Table 1 includes a summary of project components for each alternative.
Table 1: Summary of Build Alternative Project Components
Comparison of Alternatives Studied in Draft EIR
The Draft EIR evaluates five transit alternatives at equal levels of detail. Table 2 provides a comparison of some key metrics between these alternatives.
Table 2: Comparison of Draft EIR Alternatives
The following section describes the key opportunities and challenges for each alternative studied in the Draft EIR.
No Project considers existing conditions and what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project does not occur. Metro’s Line 761 would still traverse the Sepulveda Pass and continue to be caught in the same congestion that others face. Performance against the No Project Alternative is how all the other alternatives are evaluated. For example, all Project Alternatives reduce VMT over the No Project Alternative, ranging from 341,800 (Alternative 1) at the low end to 775,100 (Alternative 5) at the high end each day. All Project Alternatives add new daily transit trips to the transit network that would otherwise not be taken under the No Project Alternative, ranging from 20,501 (Alternative 1) to 42,043 (Alternative 5) daily. With the No Project Alternative, there would not be a fast, reliable alternative to existing routes through the Sepulveda Pass.
Alternative 1 has the lowest capital cost among the project alternatives ($15.4 billion) which is about 37% less than the highest cost alternative. It also has the lowest ridership at approximately 51% of the highest ridership alternative. In the Draft EIR, Alternative 1 was identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative as it has the fewest significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. It does not provide a direct rail connection to UCLA but does include an electric bus connection. This alternative has the lowest VMT reduction and FTA cost effectiveness and includes partial and temporary construction easements on VA property.
Alternative 3 is the only alternative that provides a rail connection to two major destinations in the Study Area, the Getty Center and UCLA. Alternative 3 has the longest end-to-end travel time at approximately 33 minutes. It has slightly higher capital cost than Alternative 4 (~4% more) and is forecasted to have approximately two-thirds of the ridership. Alternative 3 also has partial and temporary construction easements on VA property.
Alternative 4 is lower cost than Alternative 5 (approximately $4.2 billion or 17% less) with similar mobility benefits and has the best FTA cost effectiveness. Alternative 4 also has the highest number of residential acquisitions (212 units, 202 of which are multifamily) and there are community concerns about an aerial structure along Sepulveda Boulevard in Sherman Oaks and Van Nuys. Additionally, the single MSF location, situated east of the Metrolink Van Nuys Station, conflicts with LADWP’s Mid-Valley Water Facility Project
Alternative 5 is the highest ridership alternative with the fewest residential acquisitions among heavy rail alternatives. It is higher cost than Alternative 4 (approximately $4.2 billion or 17% more) with similar mobility benefits. Additionally, the single MSF location, situated east of the Metrolink Van Nuys Station, conflicts with LADWP’s Mid-Valley Water Facility Project.
Alternative 6 has the fastest end-to-end travel time (~18 minutes) and shortest alignment. It has the highest capital cost ($24.4 billion) and would have trains arriving less frequently than other alternatives. It includes a mid-tunnel ventilation shaft in the Santa Monica Mountains on the LADWP Stone Canyon Reservoir parcel. Alternative 6 has the second most residential acquisitions of any alternative (127 multifamily units). Because it follows Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, the route of the ESFV Light Rail Line, it does not have a station at Sherman Way and has the fewest number of stations of any alternative. Additionally, the single MSF location, situated east of the Metrolink Van Nuys Station, conflicts with LADWP’s Mid-Valley Water Facility Project
Community and Stakeholder Engagement and Comments
The Draft EIR was released for public review and comment for 90-days from June 2, 2025 through August 30, 2025. Public notification was done in accordance with CEQA requirements and included direct mail (approximately 50,000 postcards), Community-Based Organization (CBO)-led door-to-door drop-offs (approximately 750 residences and 250 businesses), CBO-led public counter drop-offs (approximately 800 flyers across 30 locations), CBO-led transit intercept outreach, distribution of legal notices, social media posts and ads, e-blasts, press release, notices on the project website, bus car cards, information booths at local events, earned media and other methods. The Notice of Availability was filed with the California State Clearinghouse and mailed to public and responsible agencies, organizations, elected officials, and other interested parties. The Notice of Availability was distributed at the start of the comment period to announce the availability of the Draft EIR and to promote the public hearings.
During the 90-day public review period, Metro hosted five Information Sessions and five Public Hearings. Additionally, a round of five Community Meetings was held in the weeks leading up to the Draft EIR release to provide information about project status, benefits, costs and construction schedules. Each round of meetings included one virtual and four in-person sessions. In total, 8,074 formal comment submissions were received during the public review period. Comments were received by various methods, including oral and written comments at the Public Hearings, written comments at the Information Sessions, online submissions, project email submissions, mail submissions, and phone submissions. A majority of the comments (approximately 85%) were submitted through the online SmartComment form. Of the comments received, approximately 98% were from individuals, with the remainder from public agencies, elected officials, businesses and community organizations.
Overall, 7,308 of the comment submissions (90.5%) expressed support for the Project, either for a specific alternative(s) or the overall Project. In total, 69 of the comment submissions (0.9%) expressed opposition to the overall Project. Table 3 summarizes the number of comments that expressed support for a specific alternative or mode.
Table 3: Comment Submissions Expressing Support by Alternative and Rail Mode
*Comment submissions that indicated support for transit to the Getty Center, but did not specify an alternative or mode
Note: The total number of comments expressing support (7,308) is less than the sum of comments expressing support for each alternative and mode because some comments expressed support for more than one alternative or mode.
The most frequently cited environmental topics in public comments included noise and vibration; transportation; geology, soils, seismic and paleontological resources; and public services. The most frequently cited non-environmental topics included project design; project cost; and real estate and acquisitions. Engineering and design comments included those related to connections to other transit lines, the UCLA campus station, tunneling, and freeway proximity to stations. The planning issues included comments related to travel times, ridership, funding availability, cost-effectiveness, and connectivity of stations.
Some additional specific comments were received that could further inform LPA selection, design refinement and/or additional study. These include:
• Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP): Expressed concern about alternatives and/or project features that could impact LADWP operations including but not limited to MSF sites east of the Van Nuys Metrolink station - which conflict with existing operations and the planned Mid-Valley Water Facility - and use of the Stone Canyon Reservoir property (all Alternatives except Alternatives 1 & 3 with Design Option 1 MSF).
• Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA): Expressed concern about the maintenance and storage facility location adjacent to Metrolink Ventura County Line track, east of the Van Nuys Metrolink Station potentially interfering with Metrolink operations and/or future track or capacity expansion (all Alternatives except Design Option 1 MSF for Alternatives 1 & 3).
• United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): Noted that no VA property at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, the Los Angeles National Cemetery or nearby GSA-owned Veterans Benefit Administration will be available for encroachment by any alternative and any alternative that did would need to be redesigned (Alternatives 1 & 3).
• UCLA: Noted support for the project and a station on or adjacent to the UCLA campus but expressed concern about construction impacts at the center of campus and suggested that Metro consider a less disruptive station location (Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6).
LPA Selection and Recommendation
Based on technical evaluation and community and stakeholder input, Metro staff recommend Modified Alternative 5 (Attachment B) as the LPA. Alternative 5 as defined in the Draft EIR would be modified to connect to the Van Nuys G Line Station and future ESFV Light Rail Line station at the G Line along Van Nuys Boulevard. Modified Alternative 5 leverages the strengths of Alternative 5-high ridership, high frequencies, shorter station construction sites and avoiding the construction of a ventilation shaft in the Santa Monica Mountains-with connectivity benefits along Van Nuys Boulevard from Alternative 6.
Additionally, connecting directly to Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley (similar to Alternative 6) instead of using Sepulveda Boulevard reduces overall Project length and therefore would likely reduce Project costs as well as travel times.
The Project’s goals were established as part of scoping for the Draft EIR and are an essential lens under which the development, analysis and evaluation of Alternatives are considered. Modified Alternative 5 aligns closely with these goals. The Draft EIR Goals and how the LPA staff recommendation meets each are outlined in Table 4.
Table 4: Draft EIR Goals and LPA Staff Recommendation Benefits
Below is a summary of how Modified Alternative 5 addresses community and stakeholder input received during the Draft EIR public comment period:
• Travel time. Alternative 5 has an approximately 20-minute end-to-end travel time (only Alternative 6 - at approximately 18 minutes - is faster). A more direct alignment on Van Nuys Boulevard with Modified Alternative 5 provides opportunity for further improvement from the existing Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 travel times.
• “Seamless” connections to other transit lines. Modified Alternative 5 would provide connections to other planned and existing lines. Design refinements will focus on continuing to optimize these connections.
• Station Locations. Station locations for Modified Alternative 5 included many key destinations, such as an on-campus UCLA station, and transit connections, such as the Metrolink Ventura County Line and Metro’s ESFV Light Rail Line, G Line, D Line and E Line.
• Cost Effectiveness. Alternative 5 has the second-best FTA cost-effectiveness of the five alternatives and Modified Alternative 5 has the potential to lower costs while retaining or even improving benefits, increasing relative cost-effectiveness.
• Property Acquisitions. Alternative 5 had the fewest residential acquisitions of the heavy rail alternatives. Opportunities to limit and reduce residential and commercial acquisitions will be a focus of design refinements as the Project progresses.
• Tunneling. Modified Alternative 5 includes tunneling but utilizes a single bore tunnel configuration which removes the need for a ventilation shaft in the Santa Monica Mountains.
• Potential to combine alternatives. Multiple commenters inquired about the potential to combine alternatives, such as including the alignment of Alternative 6 with the design and operations approach of Alternative 5. Modified Alternative 5 combines elements of the Alternative 5 and 6 alignments with the design and operations approach of Alternative 5.
• Aesthetics and equity of aerial alignment along Sepulveda Boulevard. Modified Alternative 5 does not include an aerial alignment along Sepulveda Boulevard.
• Stone Canyon Reservoir and Dam. Modified Alternative 5 would not require a mid-mountain tunnel ventilation shaft and therefore allows for a more direct alignment between a UCLA station and Van Nuys Boulevard.
• Getty Center Station. Modified Alternative 5 does not provide direct access to a Getty Center Station, which was the interest of many commenters. Providing better regional access to and through the Sepulveda Corridor will facilitate improved transit access to the Getty Center by bringing visitors closer on rail before transferring for the final few miles to connect to the Getty Center.
• On-campus UCLA Station. Modified Alternative 5 includes an on-campus UCLA station.
Implementation of modifications to Alternative 5 would require additional design, community engagement and environmental analysis. However, focusing this refinement on a single LPA aligns with the substantial work done to date and community input gathered.
Project Phasing
Project phasing allows for incremental investment so that benefits can be married with identified funds thereby allowing for a project’s mobility benefits to be realized sooner. Most rail lines in Los Angeles have been built in phases in response to limitations on available funding.
When considering phasing of this Project, there are three logical options for an IOS:
1. Within the Westside;
2. Within the San Fernando Valley; or
3. Between the Westside and San Fernando Valley
Metro staff recommends focusing on an IOS that provides an alternative to the I-405 through the Sepulveda Pass. An IOS limited to the Westside or San Fernando Valley would not deliver that. Measure M planning documents originally identified the Project as between the G Line and the D Line. Option 3 is consistent with Measure M and is where the most benefit would be realized.
Modified Alternative 5 facilitates connections to the transit network as part of an IOS between the San Fernando Valley and Westside (the G Line and the D Line). An IOS on Sepulveda Boulevard (included in the Draft EIR Alternative 5) would require transit users on the ESFV Line (on Van Nuys Boulevard) to transfer to an east-west connection (i.e. the G Line) for approximately a mile to reach the Project. The ESFV Line will serve as an important feeder service for the Project, including providing a link to the Metrolink Antelope Valley and Ventura County Lines. Requiring an additional transfer for passengers reduces the time competitiveness of transit and therefore anticipated ridership on the system. Connections to transit lines are critical as approximately 97% of riders are forecasted to access the Project by non-auto modes.
A Modified Alternative 5 IOS aligns closely with the goals identified in the DEIR. The Draft EIR Goals and how the IOS staff recommendation meets each are outlined in Table 5.
Table 5: Draft EIR Goals and IOS Staff Recommendation Benefits
Below is a summary of how a Modified Alternative 5 IOS addresses community and stakeholder input received during the Draft EIR public comment period:
• Travel time. Based on station-to-station travel times developed for the Draft EIR for Alternatives 5 and 6, a Modified Alternative 5 IOS is projected to have an approximately 10-minute travel time between the G Line in the San Fernando Valley and the D Line in Westwood, providing substantial travel time benefits.
• “Seamless” connections to other transit lines. A Modified Alternative 5 IOS provides direct connections to the Metro D, G and ESFV Lines.
• Station Locations. Station locations for Modified Alternative 5 include key destinations, such as an on-campus UCLA station, and transit connections, such as the Metro D, G and ESFV Lines.
• Impacts to LADWP Mid-Valley Water Facility. Implementing a phasing approach with a focus on connecting the San Fernando Valley and Westside will result in the need to identify a new maintenance and storage strategy within the initial phase thereby avoiding impacts to LADWP’s facility.
• On-campus UCLA Station. A Modified Alternative 5 IOS includes an on-campus UCLA station.
• Project Funding and Funding Gap. Modified Alternative 5 is well suited to facilitate project phasing with a central IOS considering funding constraints.
Project Funding Plan
The preliminary capital cost estimate for Alternative 5 is $24.2 billion (in 2023$). If approved, the cost estimate would be updated to reflect Modified Alternative 5. The estimate exceeds the $5.7B (2015$) identified for the Project in the Measure M Expenditure Plan. Of the funds identified in the Measure M Expenditure Plan, $2.54B (2015$) is Measure M Funding and the rest is an assumption of local, state, federal and other funding sources. Metro anticipates the need for additional funding and financing for the Project, including from federal, state and local sources as well as private investment through a potential P3.
Current secured funding represents 14% of the overall capital cost estimate. However, at this early phase of project development, this is not uncommon. Table 6 provides information about other recent Metro transit projects and the funding that had been secured at the selection of an LPA. Of note is that many of these projects are being or have been advanced incrementally or in phases in response to limitations on available funding. In fact, the three most recently approved Metro rail projects (project approval occurs at certification of a Final EIR, a future step in the project development process) were all for an initial phase. While the design or cost estimate for an IOS of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor has not yet been completed, an initial phase would have a higher percentage of funding secured than the overall Project.
Table 6: Percentage of Funding Secured for Metro Transit Corridor Projects at LPA Selection
The proposed funding strategy is consistent with practices advanced for previous projects as shown in Table 6. Metro has successfully competed for additional funding after LPA selection for many transit corridor projects. Should the Metro Board select an LPA for this Project, Metro would follow its past practice and leverage the existing funding and pursue additional funds to close the gap.
Following the selection of an LPA, opportunities for cost reduction will continue to be explored including developing a project phasing strategy so that incremental investment and benefits can be married with available funds, as well as completion of the assessment of the viability of public-private-partnership as a delivery strategy.
Metro Cost Benefit Analysis
In July 2025, the Board adopted a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) methodology framework for evaluating project alternatives, including assessing the regional economic impacts of investment and identifying benefits relative to the costs of investment. The CBA includes two components: Weighted Benefit Analysis and Benefit-Cost Ratio, discussed in Attachment C.
Determination_Of_Safety_Impact
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
Approval of this item and selection of an LPA will not impact the safety of Metro’s customers or employees.
Financial_Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget includes approximately $75.9 million in Project 460305 for professional services between Countywide Planning and Development and Program Management. Since this is a multi-year project, Cost Center Managers, Chief Program Management Officer and Chief Planning Officer will be responsible for budgeting in future years.
Impact to Budget
Funding for this action comes from Measure R 35% Transit Capital. These funds are not eligible for bus or rail operating expenses.
Equity_Platform
EQUITY PLATFORM
The Project will connect the San Fernando Valley and Westside with fast, reliable and safe transit providing increased access to jobs, housing, education, healthcare and major destinations. Equity Focus Communities (EFCs) within the Study Area are around UCLA and at the north end of the corridor around Van Nuys. Depending on the alternative, the number of people living in EFCs within a ½ mile distance of a rail station ranges from 22,700 to 33,000. By 2045, it is forecast that the Project would carry between 17,300 and 30,500 people each day who are coming from EFCs.
Starting with scoping for the Draft EIR in November 2021, the Project identified six goals, one of which was “Improve Accessibility and Promote Equity.” The objectives associated with this goal were “Improve Access for Equity Focus Communities” and “Target Infrastructure and Service Investments Toward Those with the Greatest Mobility Needs.” The Project goals and objectives inform the development and evaluation of alternatives throughout the environmental process. Additionally, an equity impact analysis was undertaken for the Project to provide a focused review of alternatives through an equity lens.
Since initiating the Project, Metro has conducted a broad range of activities, including booths at events with bilingual staff, outreach at transit stops and coordination with elected officials representing the communities throughout the Project area. Since the start of the environmental process, Metro has hosted 30 public meetings and participated in over 105 booths at community or other events. This resulted in a public meeting attendance of over 5,000 people and in-person engagement of an additional 10,500 people at other community events. Also, bilingual meeting notices, fact sheets, eblasts and newspapers ads have been utilized to reach Spanish-speaking stakeholders.
The Project team deployed a robust CBO partnering strategy designed to build critical awareness and engagement in the Project to increase community involvement within EFCs, empowering stakeholders to participate throughout the duration of the study. For these efforts, the CBO partners led several notification tactics, including door-to-door distribution, public counter drop-offs, and flyers at transit intercepts in predominantly Spanish-speaking, lower-income communities.
Public input throughout the process has driven the development of alternatives and the over 8,000 comment submissions received during the Draft EIR circulation informed the staff recommendation on the LPA.
Staff remains committed to continued extensive engagement and outreach efforts with corridor communities as the LPA is refined and the environmental process continues. Special outreach efforts will continue to be made to reach out to people of color, low income, limited English proficiency populations and persons with disabilities.
Vehicle_Miles_Traveled _Outcome
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED OUTCOME
VMT and VMT per capita in Los Angeles County are lower than national averages, the lowest in the SCAG region, and on the lower end of VMT per capita statewide, with these declining VMT trends due in part to Metro’s significant investment in rail and bus transit.* Metro’s Board-adopted VMT reduction targets align with California’s statewide climate goals, including achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. To ensure continued progress, all Board items are assessed for their potential impact on VMT.
This item supports Metro’s systemwide strategy to reduce VMT through planning activities that will benefit and further encourage transit ridership, ridesharing, and active transportation. Metro’s Board-adopted VMT reduction targets were designed to build on the success of existing investments, and this item aligns with those objectives.
VMT was analyzed through the VMT analysis completed for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Draft EIR. The analysis identified a reduction in VMT due to the implementation of the Project compared to conditions without the Project, which demonstrates an overall VMT benefit. Specifically, the VMT analysis in the Draft EIR identifies that all Alternatives demonstrate a reduction in daily regional VMT ranging from a reduction of 341,800 (Alternative 1) to a reduction of 775,100 (Alternative 5) compared to the Horizon Year (2045) No Project Alternative conditions.
*Based on population estimates from the United States Census and VMT estimates from Caltrans’ Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data between 2001-2019.
Implementation_of_Strategic_Plan_Goals
IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
The Project supports the following strategic plan goals identified in Vision 2028: Goal 1: Provide high-quality mobility options that enable people to spend less time traveling; Goal 2: Deliver outstanding trip experiences for all users of the transportation system; Goal 3: Enhance communities and lives through mobility and access to opportunity; Goal 4: Transform LA County through regional collaboration and national leadership; and Goal 5: Provide responsive, accountable and trustworthy governance within the Metro organization.
Alternatives_Considered
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Board may decide not to select an LPA for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. This is not recommended as it may delay project delivery moving it further from its Measure M schedule, fail to address the Vision 2028 goals, delay meeting the Project goals and objectives, and be unresponsive to community support for a rail connection between the San Fernando Valley and Westside.
Instead of adopting the staff recommendation, the Board may decide to select another alternative as the Project’s LPA. This is not recommended because Modified Alternative 5 aligns with project goals and objectives and facilitates phasing and other cost and risk reduction strategies. The alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR are identified as follows along with staff’s reasoning for why the alternative was not recommended.
• Alternative 1: This is not recommended due to more limited mobility benefits compared to other alternatives. While the alternative has a lower cost, the more limited benefits outweigh the reduction in cost.
• Alternative 3: This is not recommended due to higher costs without commensurate increases in mobility benefits.
• Alternative 4: This is not recommended due to more limited transit connectivity of an initial phase connecting the Valley and Westside.
• Alternative 5: This is not recommended due to more limited transit connectivity of an initial phase connecting the Valley and Westside.
• Alternative 6: This is not recommended due to physical limitations of the design approach which result in the need to construct a mid-mountain ventilation and shaft, longer station construction areas and ultimately more limited train frequencies.
• No Project Alternative: This is not recommended as it does not meet Project goals and objectives, fail to address the Vision 2028 goals and would be unresponsive to community support for a rail connection between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside.
Next_Steps
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval of the LPA, staff will initiate design refinement efforts consistent with the LPA, which includes evaluating phasing, identifying opportunities for value engineering, considering MSF locations that support the phasing strategy, evaluating the P3 delivery model, and making refinements to Alternative 5 to allow for connection to the G Line at Van Nuys Boulevard. Design refinements will also consider comments received on the Draft EIR, including incorporating input from LADWP consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between LADWP and LA Metro (Attachment D). Staff anticipate returning to the Board in Spring 2026 to amend contracts to support this effort.
Following design refinements, staff will then continue to advance the CEQA environmental clearance process and approach FTA to initiate the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process. This will include updates to the project description to reflect the selected LPA and subsequent refinements. Staff will also be advancing additional design and technical analyses including additional geotechnical and subsurface investigations. Throughout this process, staff will continue coordination with key agencies and stakeholders to obtain further clarifications on Draft EIR comments and funding advocacy.
As part of design refinement efforts, cost estimates, delivery schedules and other analyses would be updated. These will inform the P3 Business Case, which will evaluate the value trade-offs between utilizing a P3 delivery model and a traditional delivery method for the project.
Throughout this process, community outreach would be conducted, including but not limited to, gathering public input on Project refinements throughout the CEQA and NEPA environmental processes.
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Sepulveda Transit Corridor Draft EIR Executive Summary
Attachment B - Sepulveda Transit Corridor Modified Alternative 5 Map
Attachment C - Sepulveda Transit Corridor Cost-Benefit Analysis
Attachment D - Memorandum of Understanding between LA Metro and LADWP for Cooperation and Coordination on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project
Prepared_by
Prepared by: Cecily Way, Senior Executive Officer, Countywide Planning and Development, (213) 547-4201
Anthony Crump, Executive Officer, Community Relations, (213) 418-3292
Mat Antonelli, Deputy Chief Program Management, (213) 893-7114
Reviewed_By
Reviewed by: Ray Sosa, Chief Planning Officer, (213) 547-4274
Tim Lindholm, Chief Program Management Officer, (213) 922-7297
Sharon Gookin, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, (213) 418-3101
