Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Sepulveda Connects study outlines three alternatives; staff flags parking trade‑offs and neighborhood diverters
Loading...
Summary
City staff and consultants presented three design alternatives for Sepulveda Connects that prioritize bus transit in different segments; the options trade off parking loss and local vehicle travel time, with staff also proposing diverters and pedestrian enhancements in Sunkist Park to address predicted cut‑through traffic.
Ryan, project manager for Sepulveda Connects, presented a corridor‑scale analysis and three concept alternatives that aim to improve transit reliability on Sepulveda Boulevard while balancing parking, loading and vehicle circulation. Ryan said the corridor carries the city’s highest transit ridership (the 6 and 6R routes) and that project funding comes from federal, county, Metro and state grants; he noted no city general funds are being used for design or construction.
The three alternatives differ by the extent and location of bus lanes and bike facilities. Alternative 1 concentrates southbound transit priority where delays are worst and retains parking on at least one side of the street; Alternative 2 provides transit priority in both directions while maintaining parking on one side of most blocks; Alternative 3 is the most aggressive transit‑priority option and would in places remove parking on both sides to install bus lanes on both sides of the street. Staff presented block‑level parking analysis showing Alternative 1 generally meets demand, Alternative 2 creates one block of potential unmet parking, and Alternative 3 contains large corridor segments where parking demand could not be mitigated by nearby empties.
Staff also presented model results on travel‑time impacts: most corridor segments showed minimal vehicle travel‑time increases under the alternatives, with localized increases (roughly five minutes in constrained segments) under the most comprehensive alternative. Transit travel‑time improvements were larger — particularly in the southbound afternoon peak — and staff estimated annual operating savings from faster buses on the order of $800,000 to $1,000,000 depending on implementation details.
For the Sunkist Park neighborhood, staff recommended two mitigation measures for predicted cut‑through traffic on neighborhood streets: installing traffic diverters to restrict through‑traffic movements from arterial inflows, and enhancing crossings (curb extensions, reduced turning radii and no‑right‑turn signals during pedestrian phases) at Sawtelle and Sepulveda. Staff emphasized these diverters are proposed in response to neighbor concerns and would be pursued only with community buy‑in because they impose trade‑offs on local access and may remove one to two parking spaces per diverter.
Public commenters were split. Some residents and transit advocates urged more permanent bus priority and protected bike lanes to improve safety and increase ridership; other residents and business owners warned that removing parking could harm small businesses and seniors who rely on curb access. Staff said they had conducted multiple rounds of business outreach and door‑to‑door contact and will hold additional design workshops in mid‑April and later in May.
Council members asked staff to refine alternatives and noted hybrid approaches — for example, selecting Alternative 2 as a baseline and incorporating targeted elements of Alternative 3 where benefits outweigh costs — would help focus analysis for upcoming workshops. Staff said the project website hosts full materials and will continue public engagement before returning with refined proposals.
