We’re asking for public input on potential station and station entrance locations for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project

One of the many key projects that Metro is planning is the future Sepulveda Transit Corridor. The first section will be a high-capacity, fast and frequent rail line or monorail between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside. 

The idea is to give riders an excellent transit alternative to driving across the Santa Monica Mountains on the 405 freeway and other traffic-clogged roads.  

Planning for the line is underway with six different alternatives under study as part of the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).  

We want public input on potential station locations and where you think their entrances should be. This is a game-changer of a project and we want to ensure that stations are built in locations that will maximize public use.   

We have an online feedback form where you can share your views. Before that, you might want to review information about how planners consider potential station locations. We also have an online StoryMap that provides a lot of information about the proposed station locations for the six routes being studied. 

Thank you for your help, future riders of the Sepulveda project! And please leave a comment with your thoughts about station and entrance locations.  And please note that a future extension of the project will run between the Westside and LAX.

14 replies

  1. If Metro Board actually chooses monorail, it would make for a nice corruption story. Imagine. BYD (a Chinese company) buying votes of Metro Board members with campaign donations, so that they can vote for an inferior monorail project. BYD already got former corrupt Mayor Garcetti to purchase their electric buses against Metro staff’s recommendations. Let’s see how corrupt and greedy these politicians can be.

    • The fact that we have to worry about this still actually happening even at this stage in the project planning is absolutely egregious in it of itself… good this issue is getting more attention though.

    • I’m all for the lawsuit but the people keep voting these people in, so ultimately it’s the fault of the people for continuing to vote for what eventually becomes against their own interest.

      When other government agencies are dead set against a monorail, you know that the corruption has become evident.

      Ball is in your court Metro, EVERYONE is watching this project, and I’ll be happy to watch even after I move out of LA.

      You guys can easily come out and say “Monorail is out, here are the remaining subway options we are studying” and honestly the people can rest easy knowing their tax dollars, regardless of which heavy rail routing is decided, will ultimately be put where they actually want it to be.

  2. Heavy rail, not monorail is the needed transit mode here. Why is this still even up for debate? Per your own polls, 93 percent of LA Country residents prefer the heavy rail subway option, and for good reason. It provides faster run times, has more direct station-to-street connections in busy areas rather than along the freeway, has higher capacity, and avoids complications from introducing an additional rail technology that requires its own set of maintenance protocols, operator training, and more difficult to procure parts. There needs to be 2 station entrances at all or at least most stations, and the line absolutely needs a station at Ventura Blvd. (if that was ever even in doubt) and the UCLA campus. As for other stations, I think the existing HRT proposals already pretty much address that. I like the idea of a sherman way station, though I only saw that one on the elevated option, probably due to cost. Also, a Santa Monica blvd. station would be wise as well if that isn’t already definitive. Assuming this is just for for phase 1 (Van Nuys Amtrak / Metrolink to expo) the stations should be as follows, whether the Van Nuys Blvd. or Sepulveda blvd. route is built, from north to south: Van Nuys Metrolink > Sherman Way > G line station > Ventura Blvd. > UCLA Campus > Westwood / UCLA D line > SM blvd. > E line (expo).

  3. This must go to LAX
    Wth does LA mass transit always miss the places masses of people want to go?
    Insane. This would take 1/2 the time elsewhere.

    • It will, but that will be phase 2. Due to cost, it’s better to build the first section of the line and have it up and running first then have to wait even longer for a critical link between the valley and the Westside. People definitely “want to go” between these areas, even before the full connection to LAX is completed.

    • Even if project was built as an all in one project all the\ way to LAX, you would be adding yet at least 5-7 years delay.

      Yes LA projects are half baked for reasons that are now obvious, but in this case, splitting the project into 2 phases actually makes the best sense in terms of both the flow of time and money.

      Until then, the Green Line and Crenshaw Line will have to suffice.
      But best believe, an extension to LAX is an absolute must!!

  4. No monorail options! Just build a normal subway line utilizing technology we already have. It would be better and more useful in literally every respect.

  5. Sounds like we are all are beating the same drum, NO monorail and there must be an ON campus UCLA station.
    Now the public has to hope that METRO does the right thing.
    And I will add, if we just finished the tunneling under Beverly Hills and Beverly Hills High School with no problems that I am aware of, then there better not be any issues tunneling under Sepulveda Pass
    Lets cut the clutter and get building this thing.

  6. For station entrances, I’m guessing that placing them on both sides of a busy street (like Ventura Blvd) will be cheaper during the initial buildout than going back and adding one later.

  7. This is cool to give feedback on and whatever, but myself as well as the public really want you guys to know that we’re AGAINST ALL monorail options!! We get it, you guys have to be fair. But PLEASE no monorail!! It would poorly serve the university plus it really wouldn’t be able to handle the capacity the way HRT could.

  8. Metro must focus on capitalizing on their existing technologies. You should absolutely NOT develop a monorail or any other new rail technology for the Sepulveda pass. You already have a light rail trains and Red Line trains which need to be maintained. It would be absurd to introduce a third type of train, technology and support system. Additionally, for all the lines already built, ANY contractor which did not complete work with their estimated time and budget should NOT be considered to bid on the Sepulveda line. Any company that delivered late and had cost overruns should be excluded from submitting bids.

  9. If you’re truly looking for an “excellent transit alternative” to the 405 remove all monorail options from consideration. Hidden costs, poor station alignments and lower capacity should have ruled these out long ago.