Metro receives strong response from proposers for Sepulveda Transit Corridor Pre-Development Agreement RFP

For many of you closely tracking the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project and our efforts to build this rail line as quickly as possible, Metro is happy to report that it has received a very strong response from firms bidding to help Metro accelerate the project.

The proposals are part of Metro’s Pre-Development Agreement process for the project. The deadline for responding to the PDA Requests for Proposals, or RFPs, ended on August 26.  While we cannot disclose any details about the number of proposers or their names due to rigorous procurement rules and guidelines, we can say that Metro is greatly encouraged by the level of interest we’ve received.

The proposals are further evidence that there remains robust market interest to help develop the project, which will build a high-speed, high-capacity transit line directly connecting the San Fernando Valley and the Westside in an initial project phase, with a connection ultimately to LAX.

Metro will now spend several months evaluating the proposals. After selecting one or two highest ranked proposal(s), project staff will return with a recommendation to the Metro Board of Directors in early 2021.

A PDA with one or two of these firms would enable early contractor involvement in the project, allowing for innovations in design, engineering, construction approach, financing and operations. A private project developer would participate in defining and designing the project concept together with Metro and community stakeholders.

Once project development is complete, the remaining private project developer will then have an opportunity to offer to build, operate and maintain the line, potentially accelerating construction, improving project performance and mitigating key project challenges.

See our earlier post for more information about the overall process and opportunities for public input. But for a quick snapshot, this graphic explains the project development process:

6 replies

  1. It’s so typical to finally read about a possible transit solution in the Sepulveda Pass to be available sometime in the future after zillions of dollars will be spent just talking about it, let alone building it. In hindsight, Greater Los Angeles had a rail system that was supposed to be built within freeway medians, and these rail lines could have been modified and glamorized today with much less money than is immediately proposed. It’s difficult to revert back to what could have and should have been, but future transit rail building now can only help those generations to come. It’s time to spend the money on building, and to do it now.

    • As is perfectly illustrated by the Green Line, mass transit systems in freeway medians are not ideal. The Sepulveda Pass line will likely be a tunnel (or possibly a monorail that will partially be adjacent to the 405). This proposal is far different from what might have been proposed years ago.

    • “ Greater Los Angeles had a rail system that was supposed to be built within freeway medians“ –

      Yeah, that was actually the problem though. It’s one thing for a rail line to run on a street median which if those PE lines were around today could’ve been easily elevated or moved underground. The Venice Line could’ve easily been pretty Elevated for much of the route considering how huge Venice becomes West of Rimpau, and Underground east of it.

      But as disgusting as the Red Line has become in terms of quality (it’s a tent on wheels), I much rather ride a subway under the 101 rather than a Red Car in the Middle of the 101. The Gold Line proved that to me when I had to catch a train in Sierra Madre Villa everyday.

  2. freeway medians are a bad place for rail. who wants to get on or off a train at a station in the middle of a freeway? it’s awful. Does anyone want to park their car at a parking structure in the middle of a freeway? I can’t think of any parking structure like that in the world. Unless people with cars are parking in parking structures in the middle of a freeway, there should not be any train stations in the middle of a freeway. for the same reasons people in cars would not want to park in the middle of a freeway.

    Additionally, rail and freeways have different physics requirements in terms of the radius of curves, embankment of curves etc that make rail and freeways typically incompatible unless the freeway was designed from the ground up with the more restrictive curve physics of rail. Otherwise you condemn rail in freeway medians to slow speeds that make rail far less attractive a transit choice.

    • Q: “Does anyone want to park their car at a parking structure in the middle of a freeway?”

      A: That is a strange question. I want to park my care somewhere where it won’t get broken into or damaged. It is a parking lot in the middle of a freeway, I wouldn’t care.

      Now if I were walking to a station, I just want interesting stuff to do that is nearby.

  3. Even with “outside” help, this project and all the others simply just take too long to build.
    For an “progressive” and “environmentally”, why do transit project take so long and yet Caltrans can seemingly continue to widen freeways non stop?