Here are five route alternatives that will be studied for Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Metro staff are publishing five alternatives this month for consideration as part of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor environmental review process. The five are:
• An alternative to the monorail along the 405.
• An alternative to the monorail that would use an underground segment to connect to UCLA, which is approximately one to two miles east of 405 depending on the location of the campus.
• A heavy rail (ie with trains similar to the B / D (red / purple) line alternative of the metro that would travel underground with an overhead section along Sepulveda Boulevard in the valley of San Fernando.
• A heavy rail alternative that is underground, including along Sepulveda Boulevard in the valley.
• A heavy underground rail alternative, including along Van Nuys Boulevard in the valley.
Let’s go back for those new to the project.
As many of you already know, the project will be a high-speed, high-capacity railroad or monorail that will connect the Van Nuys Metrolink station and the E (Expo) line on the west side of Los Angeles. . The line will be the long-awaited alternative to the perpetually congested 405 freeway between the San Fernando Valley and the western area of LA and will also provide access to the G (orange) line, Ventura Boulevard, the UCLA campus. and to the purple line (line D) Extension.
In March, the Metro Board awarded contracts to two companies to do pre-development work on two different potential transit solutions. (see previous press release here for more details)
LA SkyRail Express is developing its monorail concept project that would follow Highway 405 and take 24 minutes to travel between Van Nuys Metrolink station and Line E. Details are below:
Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners – Bechtel is in the process of developing a heavy rail line project that would be 60 percent underground, the rest being mostly overhead. This line would take 20 minutes. Details below:
The idea behind the selection of these five alternatives is to study the two proposed PDA transit solutions as well as other options that emerged from the feasibility study. We believe these five options give the Metro Board the best options when it comes their turn to eventually choose a final alternative, otherwise known as the Local Preferred Alternative.
Regarding the money: the idea behind the pre-development work is to bring private companies into the planning phase much earlier than usual. We believe this greatly increases the likelihood that the project can be built through a public-private partnership (PPP) that enables innovations in design, engineering, construction approach, financing and operation. Without delving into the weeds, the mere development of PDAs has been a long and deliberative process which, in our opinion, has resulted in a smart approach that could lead to a public-private partnership.
Why is this important? Because it is a very large, very complex and very expensive project. Metro has $ 5.7 billion in funding from various sources – primarily the Measure M sales tax approved by LA County voters in 2016. But the project will almost certainly cost more than $ 5.7 billion, which is exactly why Metro is exploring a P3. We think this may be our best chance to fund / fund and accelerate the project.
We are, of course, also working to make the project eligible for federal funding. Since Metro has local dollars from the M measure and three previous sales taxes, we have a good track record of using local dollars to attract federal dollars. Our Line D extension project received more than $ 3 billion from the federal government and from the regional connector an additional $ 670 million. With President Biden proposing to dramatically increase spending on infrastructure, we want the Sepulveda project – arguably the most desperately needed of our future lines – to have a chance of making future dollars.
And the best way to do that is to study a variety of route options. What do you think of these routes, Source readers?