Los Angeles area officials and representatives from labor and business groups announced their support Wednesday for a proposed heavy rail project designed to connect the San Fernando Valley to the Westside. The Metro Board of Directors is scheduled to vote Thursday on the design plans for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project’s Locally Preferred Alternatives.
A Potential Shift in Commuting
The board is expected to focus on Modified Alternative 5, a heavy rail option recommended by its Planning and Programming Committee. This plan would run underground from the Van Nuys Metrolink Station to the E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station. The proposal includes a connection to the Metro G Line and the future East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Line at Van Nuys Boulevard.
Los Angeles City Council members Nithya Raman, Imelda Padilla, Monica Rodriguez, and Adrin Nazarian, along with L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, State Senator Henry Stern, and a representative for Congressman Brad Sherman, voiced their support for the project Wednesday. These officials all represent neighborhoods within the San Fernando Valley.
Horvath highlighted the potential for a significant shift in commuting habits, stating that currently only 2% of commuters utilize public transportation through the Sepulveda Pass. She believes the project could move more than a quarter of the 400,000 daily commuters off the 405 freeway and onto public transit.
Addressing Long-Standing Concerns
Councilmember Raman echoed this sentiment, noting the frustration of traffic congestion on the 405 freeway. She emphasized the need for alternatives to driving, stating, “You can’t really build your way out of traffic.”
Councilmember Rodriguez emphasized the historical underinvestment in the San Fernando Valley, stating the Sepulveda corridor project would provide a crucial connection between light rail and the proposed underground heavy rail system. She urged the Metro Board of Directors to ensure the project’s full execution, benefiting residents traveling to the Westside, including students at UCLA and those seeking services at the West Los Angeles Veteran Affairs Medical Center.
Modified Alternative 5 would encompass nearly 13 miles of rail with seven stations, including stops at the Van Nuys Metrolink Station, Sherman Way, the Metro G Line on Oxnard Street, Ventura Boulevard, UCLA (UCLA Gateway Plaza), Wilshire Boulevard/Metro D Line, Santa Monica Boulevard, and the Metro E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station.
Financial Considerations and Potential Opposition
Metro estimates the project’s cost to be between $20 billion and $25 billion, with funding potentially coming from Measure M, a 2016 voter-approved half-cent sales tax for transit projects. Metro previously evaluated other options, including monorail and various combinations of underground and aerial systems.
The proposed plans have faced opposition from some homeowner associations, including those in Bel Air, who have voiced concerns about the construction of an underground rail system. Tunneling is expected to occur between Bel Air and Beverly Crest.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Modified Alternative 5?
Modified Alternative 5 is a heavy rail transit option that would run underground between the Van Nuys Metrolink Station and the E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station, with a connection to the Metro G Line and the future East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Line.
Who is supporting the project?
A coalition of elected officials, including Los Angeles City Council members Nithya Raman, Imelda Padilla, Monica Rodriguez and Adrin Nazarian, L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, State Senator Henry Stern, and a representative for Congressman Brad Sherman, have publicly announced their support.
What could happen next?
The Metro Board of Directors is scheduled to vote on the design plans Thursday. If approved, the project could move forward with funding secured through Measure M and begin the process of environmental review and construction. However, continued community engagement and addressing concerns from homeowner associations will likely be necessary.
As Los Angeles continues to grapple with traffic congestion, will this project represent a viable path toward a more sustainable and efficient transportation future?
