Metro is beginning the environmental review phase for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project, which will build a heavy rail line or monorail between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside. A second phase will eventually be built to LAX.
As part of the environmental review, a formal public comment period will begin today, November 30, and will run through February 11, 2022. Metro encourages the public to submit comments on the project during this time — including any thoughts on the six alternatives under study (see below) and issues that Metro should consider during the environmental review.
An online presentation on the project is here.
Here’s how to submit comments:
Online Comment Form: https://bit.ly/SepulvedaCommentForm
By mail: Peter Carter, Project Manager
LA Metro
One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-6
Los Angeles, CA 90012
By email: sepulvedatransit@metro.net
By phone: 213.922.7375
Metro will also be holding three virtual meetings in the coming weeks. Each meeting will feature the same information.
Tuesday, December 7, 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Registration: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k9DENFCNQq-CLFneINXb_g
Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Registration: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_QEfrVMtZRFKYZqPVgz26wg
Saturday, January 22, 2022, 10 a.m. to Noon
Registration: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_QwXtjBgbT8qR7-gO8nghzA
Planning on the project so far has resulted in six alternatives to be studied. Below are the details on each along with a legend that explains the lines on each map:
Alternative 1: Automated monorail that would be entirely aerial along the 405 corridor and the Metrolink Ventura County Line railroad tracks with an electric bus shuttle to UCLA.
Southern terminus: E Line’s Expo/Sepulveda Station.
Northern terminus: Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Frequency: every two minutes during peak periods.
Train length/capacity: two to eight cars with an expected six cars during peak periods. Each car could carry up to 76 to 79 passengers
Route notes: 15.3 miles along the 405 corridor and Metrolink’s Ventura County Line tracks.
Stations: Eight aerial stations — near the E Line’s Exposition/Sepulveda Station, Santa Monica Blvd, Wilshire Blvd (transfer to the D Line subway), Getty Center, US-101, G Line’s Sepulveda Station, Sherman Way and the Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Connection to UCLA: At Wilshire Blvd, an aerial station would be located on the west side of the 405, and an electric bus shuttle would provide service along a 1.4-mile route between the Metro D Line’s Westwood/VA Station and UCLA Gateway Plaza, with intermediate stops at Wilshire Blvd/Veteran Avenue and Westwood Blvd/Le Conte Ave. The electric bus shuttle would operate at the same frequency as the monorail.
Maintenance and storage facilities: A maintenance and storage facility (MSF) for monorail vehicles would be located above the existing parking lot at the Metro G Line Sepulveda Station. Electric buses would be maintained at the existing UCLA BruinBus facility on Veteran north of Kinross Avenue.
Alternative 2: Automated monorail with aerial alignment along the 405 corridor and Metrolink Ventura County Line railroad tracks with an aerial automated people mover connection to UCLA.
Southern terminus: E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station.
Northern terminus: Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Frequency: Every two minutes during peak periods.
Train length/capacity: Two to eight cars with six cars in peak periods. Each car could carry up to 76 to 79 passengers.
Route: about 15.8 miles along the 405 corridor— and the Metrolink Ventura County Line tracks.
Stations: Eight aerial stations at Exposition Blvd (Metro E Line), Santa Monica Blvd, Wilshire Blvd (transfer to the D Line subway), the Getty Center, US-101, Metro G Line’s Sepulveda Station, Sherman Way and the Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Connection to UCLA: A pedestrian bridge would run from the monorail station on the south side of Wilshire to an aerial Automated People Mover (APM) station on the north side of Wilshire. The APM would travel on a structure primarily along Gayley Avenue to an aerial station near the west end of Bruin Walk on the UCLA campus. The people mover would operate at the same frequency as the monorail.
Maintenance and storage facilities: The facility for monorail vehicles would be located above the existing parking lot at the G Line Sepulveda Station. The facility for people mover vehicles would be located above the existing UCLA BruinBus maintenance facility on Veteran Avenue north of Kinross Avenue.
Alternative 3: Automated monorail with aerial segment along the 405 corridor, an underground segment between Wilshire and Getty Center, then entirely aerial along the 405 and Van Nuys Metrolink Line railroad tracks.
Southern terminus: E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station.
Northern terminus: Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Frequency: Every two minutes during peak periods.
Train length/capacity: would consist of two to eight cars and are expected to consist of six cars during peak periods, with each car having a capacity of 76 to 79 passengers.
Route: About 16.2 miles that would run along the 405 south of Wilshire, including a 3.3-mile underground segment to serve UCLA, then back to an aerial structure along the 405 with an aerial segment along the Metrolink Ventura County Line tracks.
Stations: Eight aerial stations at Exposition Blvd (Metro E Line), Santa Monica Blvd, Wilshire Blvd (Metro D Line), the Getty Center, US-101, the G Line’s Sepulveda Station, Sherman Way and the Van Nuys Metrolink Station. An underground station would be at UCLA’s Gateway Plaza.
Connection to UCLA: underground monorail station on campus.
Maintenance and storage facility: located above the existing parking lot at the Metro G Line Sepulveda Station.
Alternative 4: Heavy rail with underground segment south of Ventura Blvd and aerial alignment generally along Sepulveda Blvd in the San Fernando Valley.
Southern terminus: E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station
Northern terminus: Van Nuys Metrolink Station
Train length/capacity: three cars with each car carrying up to 170 people. Trains could be expanded to four cars.
Frequency: 2.5 minutes in peak periods.
Route: About 14 miles. The line would be underground between the E Line and a portal south of Ventura Blvd in the San Fernando Valley. North of Ventura Blvd, the route would generally be located on an aerial structure above Sepulveda Blvd and the Metrolink Ventura County Line railroad tracks.
Stations: Four underground stations at Exposition Blvd (Metro E Line), Santa Monica Blvd, Wilshire Blvd (Metro D Line) and UCLA’s Gateway Plaza, and four aerial stations at Ventura Blvd, the G Line’s Sepulveda Station, Sherman Way and the Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Connection to UCLA: an underground rail station would be on campus at Gateway Plaza.
Maintenance and storage facility: located west of Woodman Avenue and south of the Metrolink Ventura County Line railroad tracks.
Alternative 5: Heavy rail with underground segment along Sepulveda Boulevard and an aerial stretch along the Metrolink Ventura County Line tracks in the San Fernando Valley.
Southern terminus: Metro E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station
Northern terminus: Van Nuys Metrolink Station
Train length/capacity: three cars with each car having a capacity of 170 people. Trains could be expanded to four cars.
Frequency: Planned peak hour frequencies of 2.5 minutes.
Route: About 14 miles and similar to Alternative 4 except the alignment along Sepulveda Blvd is also underground, and only aerial segment is along the Metrolink Ventura County Line railroad tracks.
Stations: Seven underground stations at Exposition Blvd (Metro E Line), Santa Monica Blvd, Wilshire Blvd (Metro D Line), UCLA’s Gateway Plaza, Ventura Blvd, the G Line’s Sepulveda Station and Sherman Way. One aerial station would be at the Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Connection to UCLA: underground rail station on campus at Gateway Plaza.
Maintenance and storage facility: located west of Woodman Avenue and south of the Metrolink Ventura County Line railroad tracks.
Alternative 6: Heavy rail that would be entirely underground including along Van Nuys Blvd in the San Fernando Valley and with a southern terminus station on Bundy Drive next to the E Line on the Westside.
Southern terminus: E Line Expo/Bundy Station.
Northern terminus: Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Frequency: Planned peak hour frequencies of four minutes.
Train length capacity/length: would consist of two, four or six cars and are expected to consist of six cars during peak periods, with each car having a capacity of 133 passengers.
Route: about 14.6 miles with the segment on the Westside running generally northeast between the E Line Expo/Bundy Station and the UCLA campus. The segment in the San Fernando Valley would follow Van Nuys Blvd.
Stations: Seven underground stations at Olympic Bl (Metro E Line), Santa Monica Blvd (West LA Civic Center), Wilshire Blvd (Metro D Line), UCLA’s Gateway Plaza, Ventura Blvd, the G Line’s Van Nuys Station and the Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
Connection to UCLA: an underground rail station on campus at Gateway Plaza.
Maintenance/storage facility: located east of Van Nuys Blvd and north of the Van Nuys Metrolink Station.
In March, the Metro Board awarded contracts to a two teams to do pre-development (PDA) work on two different potential types of transit the project. LA SkyRail Express is developing the proposed monorail alternatives 1 through 3 listed above while Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners (STCP) is developing alternatives 4 and 5.
Metro’s Office of Extraordinary Innovation and other agency departments developed the PDA approach that is engaging two firms to develop multiple transit solutions for a complex and congested corridor. The PDA allows Metro to explore the possibility of the private sector investing in the project and taking responsibility for its success – while possibly lowering its cost and helping deliver a better overall project.
We also know that many of your have questions about other aspects of the project, including costs, property acquisitions and when key decisions will be made by the Metro Board of Directors. Please see this extensive Frequently Asked Questions.
The project is funded in part by Measure M, the transportation sales tax approved by 71 percent of L.A. County voters in 2016. The Measure M funding plan includes $5.7 billion for the Valley-Westside segment and $3.8 billion for the Westside-LAX segment.
Metro’s funding plans include assumptions of federal, state, and local revenue — including discretionary grants that Metro must secure through a competitive process. The $1-trillion Infrastructure Jobs and Investment Act signed by President Biden earlier this month could potentially supply funds for this project, as could the $2.2-trillion Build Back Better bill that was approved by the House of Representatives in November and is now before the U.S. Senate.
Discover more from The Source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please, please, please not Monorail. And any alternative without a stop at UCLA should be immediately eliminated.
Please do not select the monorail, it would be an exceptionally poor decision and Metro should be embarrassed that the proposal has made it this far in the planning stage. Alternative 6 is clearly the best option.
Amen. It’s a no brainer. Monorail proposals are garbage
Monorail, faster, cheaper and scenic . Would be an example for the entire region.
It’s not going to be faster to anyone whose trip involves transferring to or from another line, walking to destinations along Sepulveda, or going to UCLA, which is frankly going to be most of the people takiing this train.
It would be an example of horribly misguided decision-making, but not much else. How many more examples are needed to demonstrate that monorail is not the answer for high capacity corridors outside of theme parks? And then to place it in the median of an 8-10 lane freeway, beyond walking distance from most potential destinations? No thanks. What’s the point with that approach?
HRT or bust, please.
Heavy rail and why does it stop before LAX? Stopping at Westwood seems silly.
The second phase extends it to LAX.
The second phase extends it to LAX. Funding constraints dictated not doing it in one fell swoop.
-Alternative 5 seems to be the best option.
-Strong no on Alternatives 6, no need to have two lines + buses on Van Nuys Blvd.
The north/south heavy rail Sepulveda Corridor line would be beneath Van Nuys Blvd., connecting with the north/south East Valley light rail line at its southern terminus and with the east/west Metrolink railroad lines on the surface at the Van Nuys station. It’s clearly the most correct solution out of the six proposed here.
Uhh, no it isn’t. Not even Japanese railways has been able to figure out how to make TRUE effective use of monorails outside of Airport trippers and local connections only. This is a commuter subway line that once it actually goes to LAX, can actually be profitable and self-sustaining if the agency doesn’t go fareless.
Monorail:
Cheaper as you are cutting out the stop with the highest predicted use of any non transfer in the LA metro.
Faster as you will be able to quickly get to your destinations in the middle of the 405 freeway, though walking anywhere else may be difficult.
Scenic as you will be able to see the freeway, full of cars, because of their terrible choice of train.
Would be an example for the entire region as it would show the region, and the world, LA is still as car-bound hell-scape that is horrible to live in.
So basically… a publicity stunt?
NO TO THE MONORAIL. We want options 4 or 5!
Please no monorail!!! Can only carry at best a quarter of capacity and would run much less frequently. Heavy Rail only, and MUST have a stop at UCLA. Alternative 6 seems to make the most sense as it has the potential to transport the most people at realistic time intervals
Something people should know that isn’t made very clear on these maps: in the detailed proposals the contractor submitted for alternatives 1-3, the transfer stations to the G and E lines are VERY poorly placed. Both involve walking more than 1,000 feet down a public street. It’s possible those transfers have been modified since then but I’m not optimisitc.
I feel like the question of what kind of train we get is a smokescreen. The line needs to have easy connections to other lines, run through walkable neigbhorhoods, no have stations adjacent to freeways, and have a stop on UCLA’s campus. If you can build a monorail that does that, great. But if these alternatives are what’s on offer, then only 4/5/6 are acceptable.
Hi jfruh;
The precise distance will depend on more detailed planning of the alignment and the stations — which are not yet available. That said, these are the kind of comments that are important to officially submit to Metro during the official public comment period that began Wednesday. If you or anyone else feels strongly about potential design issues, please submit a comment. Info is in the post how to submit!
Steve Hymon
Editor, The Source
Hi Steve! I did include this in my comment that I submitted via the form, thanks!
Any of the Heavy Rail options would be excellent.
NO monorail – choosing monorail would be the biggest mistake that Metro made in its existence.
NO MONORAIL. THE WORST POSSIBLE OPTION.
Agree with Dan 100% !
As it is, this will not get done in time for the Olympics.
Lets just skip options #1, 2 & 3 and save all that time and money on a mode that will not do the job and yet another equipment type
UCLA campus station is also a 100% must have.
I rule out #6 as connection at Bundy is the wrong place, need connection with Expo at Sepulveda as this line needs to go down either Sepulveda or the 405 to get to Culver City- Fox Hills area on the way to LAX. Also duplicates the ESFV light rail line too much.
The difference between #4 & #5 is really the elevated vs underground section along Sepulveda near Sherman Way.
Since budgets are always a problem, go with less expensive which should be elevated, thus I go with #4
Another fun thought. Since the subway will need a maintenance yard just east of the Van Nuys Station, wouldn’t it be fun if the line were extended along the Metrolink ROW heading east-south/east to Lankershim and then turn south to the existing Red Line No Ho Station?
Trains could be through routed and not all Red Line trains would have to head all the way back to LAUS yard each night.
I don’t care as long as there are armed guards to make public transit safe again
No Monorail. Using the same technology as the Red (B) and Purple (D) lines saves money and allows for future integration if the opportunity arises. Monorails are not widely used for a reason! The capacity is not there.. Option 5 is the best, the redundancy with the East San Fernando Valley LRT project is unnecessary. Having the HRT stops further away from the LRT opens up the .25 mile walkshed to more riders. Lets build this right
No monorail! Heavy rail only.
Alternative 6 would provide the best connections to the existing, and planned, Metro network while servicing many passengers.
Heavy rail should be the only option considered as it has the high capacity to reduce congestion along the Sepulveda Pass.
Heavy Electric Rail would be great.
5 or 6, underground is the way to go! and obviously going to the college is important since thats whos going to use it the mose
Options 4-6 look good. Heavy rail, doesn’t stop in the middle of the damn 405, has a Westwood stop. Let’s vote for those plz, Angelenos.
Is Alternative 1 really a monorail + trolley bus solution? Do I live in Seattle now?
Alternative 3 is horrid. If you put a monorail in a tunnel, the tunnel must be even larger than for normal trains.
~~~~
If we really wanted to do out of the box thinking, we should consider a rail vehicle that can run in tunnels AND on Metrolink tracks. Maybe something like Long Island Rail Road. At least there would be synergies between systems.
A monorail guarantees that nothing will ever be connected.
Hmmm. I would like to see what kind of a Junction the D Line would have with heavy rail options.
This project simply has to stop at UCLA, not “nearby” with a bus transfer, but actually at UCLA, so Alternatives 1 and 2 are out.
This project also needs to stop at Ventura Blvd. where the walkable destinations and bus transfers are, not the 101-Freeway, so Alternative 3 is out. Also, monorail simply doesn’t have the capacity this line will need.
I support any of the heavy rail options with 6 being my preference.
Seconded. Supporting Yet Another technology would be absurd.
We want HRT that has a connection at UCLA and connects to the Purple Line.
Please for the love of god not the monorail. Why would that even be floated as an idea? Just build trains. We need infrastructure now and pet projects LATER.
For the love of god no monorail. The fact that it’s inconsistent with existing heavy rail should be enough to kill it, but now that it doesn’t go to UCLA it should be laughed out of the room.
Heavy Rail alternative, especially Alt 5, but NO MONORAIL. The alternative sould use the SAME equipment as LA Metro subway lines to keep maint. costs DOWN and provide interoperability and NOT introduce an odd tech to what MTA now services and MTA can realize less cost to acquire rail cars as MTA can exercise options after initial NEW subway cars arrive or add Sepulveda cars to orders for Red and Purple line cars in the future for a larger order with greater value and get LOWER cost per rail car.
Also, these “private/public” projects mean that a PRIVATE comapnay will operate the line and set thier fare that can be HIGHER than the MTA base fare that mateches all other rail lines. That is how the private entitiy gets its “Return on Investment” by charging higher fares with often inferior service, maint, and station maint. because all those costs cut into making money to the private investors.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but we the MTA is NOT telling us all is that the MTA will NOT be the operator, but a PRIVATE company that can charge higher fares than any other rail line in the system (and how will this help all the poor that the MTA wants to subsidize) and be responsible for its, likely, poor upkeep. You all please research these “public/private” rail transit lines around the world for how badly and COSTLY to the taxpayer these have turned out.
What assurance do we have that a PRIVATE company is NOT going to operate the Sepulveda line? Can the MTA assure us that the Sepulveda line will have the very same fare structure as ALL other MTA rail lines, and that the Sepulveda line will have exactly the same status, control, and ownership as all the other MTA rail lines today. Likely NONE. I expect the sound of circkets from the MTA about its clairification on how this Sepulveda line will NOT a fully owned and operated rail line AS ALL OTHER MTA RAIL LINES TODAY and admit that the fare for the Sepulveda line “COULD” be higher than all other MTA rail lines. Heck, we may not even be assured of a FREE transfer to or from this line when the priviate investor will be setting the rules and fare “under the supervision” of hte MTA who will likely allow all of the above because the investor has to get their ROI: Return On Investment.
I await a public posting from the appropriate MTA representive about this legitimate conncerns and REAL histoty of such “public/private” rail transit projects not being what the tax payers expected at all.
Hi Harry;
Metro is exploring the possibility of using a public private partnership (PPP) to help finance and build the line. PPPs take different forms and one of those could be — emphasis on the word “could” — a deal in which a private firm operates and maintains a rail/monorail line. A lot of work is still to be done to get to the point where Metro and the Metro Board are even considering such a deal. Namely, everyone needs to figure out first what we want to build and where we want to build it. As someone who has been reading comments on this blog now for a very long time, I suspect that having a private firm in such a role would be welcomed by some riders and not by others. That said, we’re quite a ways from these kind of decisions being made.
Steve Hymon
Editor, The Source
The fare for this line is likely to be higher than all the other MTA rail lines and will be operated by a private company, right?
And why is that such a bad thing? Fares could still be subsidized and even be free for low income patrons. The infrastructure would already be there for that specific purpose (TAP and LIFE). Fares in LA county are the some of the lowest in the country and yet we have some of the dirtiest, slow and unreliable public transit in the country and I don’t think car traffic is 100% at fault here.
I’ve been on Private railways in the past and it has been the best experience riding those railways even if it meant that I had to pay a premium for service that was 99.5% reliable while still having a clean and safe experience.
If Americans experience of private operated transit is Airplanes then they really do have it twisted.
This line may be the most expensive line LA county will ever built, but yet it has the potential to be profitable enough to be self-sustainable so why have it be a burden to the taxpayer like the rest of the other lines post-construction?
Is $1.75 really too much when fares are $2.50-$3.25 in other parts of the country that actually have a higher cost of living than LA? Sounds to me like we should be focusing on making it easier to subsidize rents instead. That’s the true crime right there.
Monorails offer no tangible benefit over traditional trains while introducing lots of new problems like limited rolling stock and proprietary hardware. I urge Metro to drop monorails from consideration entirely. If you think heavy rail is overkill for this route then use traditional light rail (like you already do successfully on several lines) instead of a silly gadgetbahn that everyone will regret later.
Option 6 looks incredible! It actually stops at places where people live and want to go for shopping and work. Nobody is trying to go to the middle of the 405.
Option 6 is the best! It actually goes to places where people live, work, shop, and dine. Nobody’s trying to go to the middle of the 405.
Monorails offer no tangible benefit over traditional trains while introducing lots of new problems like limited rolling stock and proprietary hardware. I urge Metro to drop monorails from consideration entirely. If you think heavy rail is overkill for this route then use traditional light rail (like you already do successfully on several lines) instead of a silly gadgetbahn that everyone will regret later on.
Alternative six makes the most sense to me – it’s the fastest, it has great connections to all other rail, and has a stop at UCLA – slam dunk
Heavy rail would also have the advantage of having similar trains to the rest of the system, and in theory, lower maintenance costs long-term.
Doesn’t anyone watch The Simpsons? Monorails are dangerous. And they attract Star Trekkies.
OK, the plan to terminate a subway line at Bundy makes the most sense. It would align nicely with an extension to LAX via population/job centers near Marina Del Rey, Playa Vista and Westchester. Some day in the distant future, there will be housing built on the soon-to-be-closed Santa Monica Airport, and a subway stop there should be the centerpiece of that.
Heavy rail should be the solution. The metro system does not need an additional mode of transportation if it does not serve a strong benefit over the existing modes. Alternative 6 is the strongest.
Heavy rail only!! Also the firm that submitted proposal for monorail(LA Skyrail Express, aka BYD) lacks any experience with monorail in general. They haven’t build a single public monorail system. Not a single one!! They started a bunch of monorail projects in Chinese cities but all of those projects are either canceled or paused indefinitely. They don’t have any experience in either building OR operating a monorail system.
The firm that submitted proposals for monorail (LA Skyrail Express, a.k.a. BYD) do not have ANY experience AT ALL in building or operating public monorail projects. They started building a bunch of monorail projects in Chinese cities a decade ago but all of them are either completely cancelled halfway or put on hold indefinitely (probably because they underestimate the project cost and the project went massively over-budget). Their only working monorail line (which is the only example BYD put in their SkyRail advertising brochure) is in their Shenzhen headquarter, and it’s a office worker shuttle, not a public transport. Sure, BYD buses are fine but do not partner with them on monorail because they have not build a SINGLE working public monorail system.
Option 6 clearly looks like the best possible option, though 4 and 5 also seem fine. Anything that requires a transfer to get to UCLA should be a complete non-starter.
I’m excited to see this get built out, I’m so glad my corner of the valley is finally getting connected to the rest of the system. I remember as a kid how amazing the red line was, this is gonna be even more massive
The heavy rail actually uses smaller vehicles to save costs so it is incompatible with the existing Metro subway. Terrible! Terrible!
Whatever lobbyist sold the monorail deserving to be studied more than earned whatever they were paid. Monorail is a mind blowing bad idea.
No Monorail. Please please please! There are a lot of educated people who have expressed why this is a bad idea more eloquently than I can. Please no monorail, it will not be cheaper or more scenic. Thank you for doing this
Option 6 would be the best
Option 6 but why on earth is the one straight line route with a direction to both Van Nuys Metrolink with no unnecessary curves, and UCLA have a terminus on freaking Bundy and not Sepulveda? Expo/Sepulveda has now become the chosen terminal/transfer for BBB/CC/MTA? Other than some few high rises that are probably not going back to full capacity post-COVID and we’re already closed for most of November and December, this terminus will actually decrease ridership predictions.
Option 6 needs a Stop at Expo/Sepulveda and it will be 100% perfect, and yes I’ll make sure to submit this comment via the appropriate channel because I do genuinely believe in the potential to actually change transit in LA as we know it. Van Nuys to LAX in 30 to 40 min? Yeah, I think we finally have a transit project that can compete with the car ladies and gentlemen.
Option 4 & 5? Sure, but enough with the monorail already. Sherman oaks will comes with an army to yell “NO!” to any Aerial rail in their neighborhood, so best believe options 1 to 4 are immediately going to be out. Options 5 & 6 are the only one that stand a fighting against any potential lawsuits from NIMBYs.
Monorail is really dumb, but Option three is just colossally imbecilic. We don’t need another two sets of rolling stock with two separate maintenance facilities, two sets of maintenance personnel, and two sets of operators (even “automated” lines have people in controll centers looking at video feeds to make sure people aren’t doing dumb things). If the line is heavy rail, maintenance can be brought in from the B and D lines to fill in and vice versa – not so with monorail. Brockway, Ogdenburg, and North Haverbrook agree.
I’m in agreement with most others here, alternatives 1-3 should be immediately eliminated. There’s so much wrong with those alternatives its hard to list it all here. Beyond being a gimmicky monorail, it has extremely poor integration with the rest of the transit network, much lower maximum capacity, ignores Caltrans’ intent that the land be free for future 405 expansion (Same thing that killed the SR60 gold line extension route), and lets not even get into the extremely troubled history of BYD.
My official stance is that any of the alternatives, 4-6, would be fine. Assuming all three of those alternatives have approximately the same maximum capacity, and the ability to run trains at the same minimum headways (which last I heard was 90 seconds), I would probably pick 4. This is under the assumption that the aerial portion of the alignment in the valley would bring down cost (maybe construction time?), and not impact the capabilities of the line in any way as compared to alternative 5 and 6.
Overall, alternatives 1-3 should 10000% be out, and from the remaining alternatives metro should prioritize interconnectivity with the rest of the transit network, current and future.
No to the monorail!
Going with the monorail options with their horribly placed stations, in some cases a full 6-10 min walk or 1/4 mile for a transfer, and limited maximum capacity compared to heavy rail, would hobble transit in LA for decades. The transfer stations will add up to 6-10 minutes in transfer times based on how far they are from the stations. And many of the freeway adjacent stations will poorly serve the areas they are supposed to serve by being a 5-10 min walk from the intended intersection and bus connections they are meant to serve.
Any proposal from a Chinese company should be denied out of hand. China is a communist state with concentration camps, horrible human rights violations, known for shoddy workmanship and cutting corners, and is not accountable for anything. Any work done by a Chinese company will end up costing twice as much. Metro itself has outlined why they are vociferously opposed to having the Chinese do this work.
You know what, everyone is making a valid point here. Why on earth is this agency going the cheap approach via Chinese proposals and instead go with Japanese and European companies instead? Stop trying to save money and do it right!!! Literally any Japanese railway will do a much better job knowing their brand name is on the line compared to a monorail company with a resume filled with broken promises.
Oh my god, well Alternative 1 is dead on arrival. Easily the worst proposal of all as it doesn’t even include a direct connection to UCLA but the worst possible solution which is a shuttle bus presumably using mixed traffic. Really Metro? Besides the obvious deficiencies here inherent to such a required transfer using that mode, the capacity can’t possibly be as high as just having a direct stop on campus and given that UCLA will likely be the largest individual trip generator on the line, this “solution” is woefully inadequate.
Ok, with that out of the way, there’s still the two other monorail proposals (alt. 2 and 3). So, as most people here have reiterated, these proposals are just plain inferior to the heavy rail alternatives (4 through 6). The capacity is lower, the speed is lower, (both top and end to end run time), the requirement of an entirely new equipment type (from a company with dubious reliability history, as well as likely massive cost inflation later) adds unnecessary complications with regard to maintenance, storage, and operator training / experience, is completely incompatible with Metro’s existing network and equipment / rolling stock, as well as requiring people to board at pedestrian unfriendly locations due to the line being mostly along the 405, rather than directly under / over the urban street grid like the heavy rail line would be. It’s objectively worse in every single way except the views. Metro, do not choose alternatives 1 through 3. I think that’s obvious at this point.
The heavy rail alternatives are pretty decent overall. I would like to see a proposal that could include some kind of track connection to the purple line in order to facilitate easy movement of equipment across the system which should lead to cost savings over time and simpler logistics system wide. So, at the very least, if full passenger service track connections aren’t feasible, a non-revenue connector track (like the one between the green and blue lines) should be built between the Sepulveda line and purple line tracks. Naturally, it would follow for Metro to ensure that whatever equipment is used on the new line will also be compatible with the existing heavy rail infrastructure, and vice versa. Not doing so seems like an unnecessary complication where there are two isolated and incompatible heavy rail networks, which would be less efficient for the system long term, and would negate operational flexibility and easy logistics for future extensions.
The elevated valley alternative (alt. 4) is probably the better choice than alternative 5 since the cost is lower for elevated track and stations than underground, while obviously providing the same speed and overall level of service that the underground version would have. If we are doing fully underground, then alternative 6 is a bit more desirable than alternative 5 given that Van Nuys blvd. would receive some level of rail transit along its entire length and provide a sort of “express” alternative to the segment between the orange line and Metrolink / Amtrak line, as well as there being more density along Van Nuys than Sepulveda due to the 405 being just west of Sepulveda blvd. As far as expo / bundy vs expo / sepulveda, I don’t really see why that end point is dependent on whether the line runs along van nuys or sepulveda blvd in the valley and could easily be either-or for all three alternatives. One thing that’s confusing about alternative 6 though, is the proposed headways of 4 minutes rather than 2.5 for alts 4 and 5. Steve, do you know why that is?
(I’ll submit a comment on the form as well.)
I look forward to riding.
The geometry of the wheel flanges, the track pitch, the configuration of the trucks and wheel sets are all factors that restrict top speeds and turning speeds. An overspeed train in a bend will wear down the tracks prematurely, requiring additional maintenance. An excessively overspeed train, or one that is not in top condition, is at risk of excessive leaning, passengers falling on board, or complete derailment.
When you build the tracks as straight as possible, you minimize wear and tear on the whole system and enable the trains to go as fast as possible.
Alternates 1-5 have a crucial design limitation: the hard turn above Van Nuys / Saticoy. This hard 100º bend limits the configuration of the train and how fast it can run.
Alternates 1-2 have capacity of 2-8 cars x 76-79 people (152-632 people).
Alternates 3-5 have capacity of 3-4 cars x 170 people (510-680 people).
Alternate 6 has capacity of 2-4-6 cars x 133 people (266, 532, 798 people)
Alt 6 is pretty much a straight shot with minimal bends and curves, and no grade crossings because it’s all underground. This design allows the best combinations of trains and the highest possible speeds.
The current light rail lines — Expo, Blue, and Gold — run at an average speed of 30-40 MPH and a top speed of 55- 60 MPH on the freeways or on aerial segments. Meanwhile, our current subway trains (red, purple) are driven at a typical speed of 45-55 MPH between stations, and a maximum speed of 70 MPH on that long stretch between Universal City and Hollywood.
I would *love* to see a train that can take people up and down the 405 in less than 15 minutes.
Thank you so much for pointing out the obvious issues that Alternative 4 & 5 have. I’ll bet the same people complaining about “alternative 6 already duplicates service along Van Nuys” will be the same people complaining about why it took an extra 3 min to pull in and out of Van Nuys Metrolink resulting in constant missed transfers among other variables with that awful.
If anything, if Alternative 5 is fully underground then why not add to the cost of “easements” go under private property and start curving into Van Nuys Metrolink as soon as the train departs Sherman Way station and allow for a much more smoother curve rather than that awful angle that is currently proposed here.
The monorail should not have made it this far, it has terribly laughable “connections” to the other transit lines, the majority of stations that are basically in the in the middle of the 405 and some of the stations hardly service anything(anyone who’s taken the C line can tell you stations like that are unpleasant), the base cost of $6B is basically irrelevant since should this get built they’ll have to add a station to UCLA which adds on to the price and construction time.
Northern part of 6 and southern part of 5. There is no reason not to make this a straight line. And the southern end could be extended south down Sepulveda, which seems easier and reaches just as much population as going down Centinilia from option 6.
If the monorail somehow passes(it shouldn’t have gotten this far to begin with) then this line will be a complete disaster and nightmare to use. As the station locations and “connections” are terrible and no one wants to be in the middle of the 405(anyone who’s taken the C line knows it’s not pleasant). This shows that BYD has a complete lack of knowledge with the system they’re building and connecting with.
All of you are making excellent points anti-monorail, which has been discussed to death (including when I was a member of the Metro San Fernando Valley governance council). Those who keep promoting it have visited Disneyland too many times and have romanticized it.
Alternative 6 isn’t worth considering given that the Van Nuys Blvd. light rail will be built long before this project and there is no need to duplicate that, especially since there would be no heavy rail stations between Ventura Blvd. and Metrolink. So I believe it’s going to have to be either Alternative 4 or 5, depending on what the cost difference is between aerial and underground. (One problem I see with aerial is where Sepulveda Blvd. passes under the 101.)
One thing I would like to add: If Metro is serious about providing faster service between the Valley and the Westside, they must reinstate Line 788 in the interim … and make it all day, every day rather than just rush hour. And they should do that NOW.
No to Monorail! It is inferior in every way when actually measuring apples to apples. The LA people aren’t stupid enough to get caught up in marketing tactics.
Option 6 seems the best. Lets invest in infrastructure and stop cutting corners already.
A stop at UCLA is essential for students, faculty, staff, and people who would like to work at UCLA but cannot afford to get there (equity issue solved). Also, please be sure there is sufficient and free parking for those who would not ride a bike or wait for a bus to get to the train station to get to the destination to get to a bus to get to their actual destination. Thank you
Option 6 or bust. This is the most congested stretch of highway in the country we can’t afford to cut corners
Is there an exact location for the required “UCLA Gateway Station?”
There are many needed questions on why monorail? It makes no sense as clearly posted by others. Since this is Los Angeles, with a City Hall regularly visited by the FBI, the question is who is on the fix?
The ridiculous monorail issue could easily lose supporters if the heavy rail trains were constructed to look like a monorail train like the ones in Disneyland.