The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project "Bait-and-Switch": Why Metro’s

LA TRANSPO - For four years, the residents of Los Angeles have waited for Metro to deliver an honest, technical evaluation of how to fix the Sepulveda Pass. We were promised a transparent process where public input would shape the future of our city’s most critical transit link.

Instead, on the eve of a major milestone, Metro staff has performed a procedural "bait-and-switch." By introducing "Modified Alternative 5"—a hybrid project that was never presented to the public for review—Metro is attempting to bypass the very environmental laws designed to protect the public's voice.

A Self-Imposed Crisis

Metro will likely argue that they must move quickly to secure funding or meet deadlines. However, the current rush is a self-imposed problem created by years of administrative delays. While the public is now being asked to accept a Modified plan without a formal review period, the history of this project shows a pattern of internal stalling and shifting goalposts.

The project was originally supposed to release its Draft EIR in late 2022, but Metro pushed that target to late 2023, citing the need for complex technical analysis of the various rail and monorail alternatives.

That deadline was missed as well; the release was pushed again to early 2025 as Metro integrated Pre-Development Agreement concepts from private partners and refined station locations. By the time the document actually reached the public in June 2025, the project was nearly three years behind its original schedule.

These internal delays continued into the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). What was originally intended to be a decision made in early 2025 was moved to June 2025, and finally to the Metro's Planning and Programming Committee January 14, 2026 meeting. This isn't a response to a sudden emergency; it is the result of a planning process that has lost its way due to internal mismanagement.

The Outreach Smokescreen: 15,000 Comments on the Wrong Project

Metro is currently touting its "historic" engagement levels—22 public meetings, 12,000 engaged stakeholders, and over 15,000 comments. They point to these numbers to suggest the project has been thoroughly vetted.

But there is a glaring flaw in this logic: What was the point of all that outreach if the final recommendation is an alternative the public never saw? The 8,000 comments submitted during the Summer 2025 DEIR period were based on five specific alternatives. None of those 8,000 comments were about "Modified Alternative 5." By using the public’s feedback to create a new "hybrid" and then moving immediately to a vote, Metro has effectively silenced the very people they claim to have engaged. Outreach is supposed to be a dialogue, not a "feeder" for a secret design phase that bypasses final public scrutiny.

The Illusion of Choice

Public remarks from committee members, such as Ara Najarian, suggest that the deliberation that happened at MTA's Planning and Programming Committee meeting was largely performative. When leaders signal their preference for specific high-cost heavy rail configurations before the "Modified" impacts are even studied, the entire CEQA process becomes an exercise in backfilling a pre-determined conclusion. If the decision was already made behind closed doors, why did we spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a Draft EIR for alternatives that were never going to be picked?

The Legal and Moral High Ground

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purpose of a DEIR is to allow the public to weigh in on environmental evaluations. You cannot weigh in on something you haven't seen. Modified Alternative 5 is a new project with a new alignment on Van Nuys Boulevard and a new phasing plan that could leave the Valley with a half-finished line for decades. These are fundamental changes to the project's scope.

Metro Can Do It Right

The solution is not to double down on a procedural error by silencing the public. It's not too late for Metro to make it right by:

Postponing the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
Properly studying the specific environmental and technical impacts of this new "Modified" hybrid.
Conducting genuine outreach in the communities specifically affected by the new Van Nuys alignment.
Recirculating the DEIR to comply with the law and ensure that "meaningful public participation" is more than just a buzzword.

Los Angeles deserves a world-class transit system, but we shouldn't have to sacrifice our right to a transparent government to get it. Metro must stop moving the goalposts and start following the rules.

(Bob Blue is a Los Angeles resident and an occasional CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at [email protected])

Link to related article references:

1) LA WEEKLY

https://www.laweekly.com/billboards-gone-wild-l-a-city-council-defiled/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2) KCET

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mmw2-ENKByCPgqOGRz25_zdtyoWdh7_26ZBap3KSS-k/edit?usp=sharing

These links are included in the GOOGLE Drive link that is posted above for KCET reference

https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/socal-connected/clip/billboard-confidential-part-1

https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/socal-connected/clip/billboard-confidential-part-2

https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/socal-connected/clip/billboard-confidential-part-3

https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/socal-connected/clip/billboard-confidential-part-4

https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/socal-connected/clip/billboard-confidential-update