Updates on Sepulveda Transit Corridor — new video and FAQs and upcoming webinar on Oct. 26

Many people and community groups are very interested in the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project that will build a heavy rail or monorail between the Van Nuys Metrolink station, Ventura Boulevard, UCLA, the D Line (Purple) station in Westwood and the Expo Line. A second phase of the project would eventually run to the LAX area.

To help answer some of the many questions including our agency’s approval process, funding, and potential easements (to name a few topics)  — we have posted new Frequently Asked Questions about the project. The English version is here, and the Spanish version is here.

We also invite you to a Metro lunchtime webinar on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project on Tuesday, October 26, 2021. We will be posting the details soon but we wanted to get the webinar on everyone’s radars.

The project web page is here and has a wealth of info about the project, including last year’s Feasibility Report and an explainer on the two firms working with Metro to develop a monorail and heavy rail alternatives. Measure M, the half-cent sales tax approved by 71 percent of Los Angeles voters in 2016, will heavily fund the project.

Today, Metro also held a virtual meet-and-greet with some project stakeholders. A video recording of the meeting is below.

7 replies

  1. Just stop wasting money on the monorail scheme. Hidden costs, poorly placed stations and questionable reliability.

  2. Not sure why my comment wasn’t posted… is it because we aren’t allowed to link to videos?

    • Hi Con —

      Just catching up to approvals but, yes, please no links in the comments.

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

  3. As I have posted before and agree with “LA Steve”, stop wasting the time and money on the monorail.
    In times of tight budgets, this is a tragedy to spend money that way.
    As it is, I don’t see how even if we turned dirt on the subway tomorrow, how its going to be done before the Olympics based on how long the 3 segments of the Wilshire project has taken.

  4. I didn’t see anyone representing the rail proposal, only the monorail proposal is represented. The monorail is a waste of time and completely contrary to efficiency and extending to further locations. Pay more now for rail to ensure longevity of the mass transit in the region. If monorails are so much cheaper, wouldn’t they rather have high speed monorails instead of high speed rail.

    • Agreed, though to be fair, in the video, there was a representative for STCP, Yusef Robb, which is working with Bechtel to head up the heavy rail proposal. But yes, the monorail proposal is inferior in every respect except upfront cost, which itself may be vastly low-balling the actual reality, given BYD’s history of doing so to try and win initial bids. I would recommend people watch the “2021 Update on LA Metro Projects (part 2 of 3)” by Nandert which is pretty informative on what may be going on regarding BYD, specifically starting around the last 5th of the video.

  5. The monorail proposal has inferior pedestrian connections to the street and to other lines due to poorly placed stations further away from the centers of activity (naturally, being that most of them are in the middle of the 405, or right next to it, as opposed to right under / over the street). A particularly egregious example of this is the “101” station, which requires pedestrians to traverse a series of long pedestrian walkways/bridges and through a park and ride lot, all of which is located north of the Sherman Oaks Galleria, away from the denser center of activity at the Ventura / Sepulveda intersection and its connecting bus lines. The orange line station also has a very long pedestrian connection in basically the same manner.

    The heavy rail line does a much better job of providing direct station-to-street connectivity, rather than the more suburban sprawling park-and-ride type setup that the monorail stations seem to emphasize, particularly in the valley. Nothing wrong with having some parking available, but If it comes at the cost of pedestrian access or other efficient transit connections, then that’s not the design that we should be emphasizing. On top of all this, the monorail line’s speed is inferior to the heavy rail line due to its route and technology, as well as precluding the ability to move existing rolling stock between it and other metro lines, as this would be the only monorail metro line as of yet and would introduce a third train technology to the metro rail network and would be isolated by design. At least with the heavy rail line, there exists the possibility to connect its tracks (whether for revenue service or not) to the D line (or any future heavy rail line for that matter).

    The choice is obvious here, Metro. BYD may have very strong marketing, but the monorail proposal lacks in substance and long term practicality and may not even end up being cheaper ultimately anyway. The inherent flaws here cannot be overlooked. Practically everybody who is multi-modal oriented wants to see the heavy rail line built. Please get this one right, Metro. There’s only one chance.