Measure M: Green Line extension to Torrance


One in a series of posts that will look at projects and programs that would receive funding from the Measure M sales tax ballot measure going to voters on Nov. 8. 

What is the project? An extension of the Green Line to Crenshaw Boulevard in Torrance, where the city plans to build a new transit center. The Green Line currently ends at Redondo Beach Station on Marine Avenue.

The extension will also help riders access a new rail station serving both the Green Line and Crenshaw/LAX Line, where Metro Rail riders can transfer to the future LAX people mover serving the airport terminals. (Here’s more info about Metro’s Airport Connector project).

When can people ride the projects? The extension to Torrance would break ground in 2026 with a forecast completion date of 2030; the project would receive $619 million under Metro’s revised spending plan for the ballot measure. The new revised spending plan would complete funding needed for the project and would allow the project to be built five years sooner than envisioned in Metro’s current long-range plan.

What else is worth knowing? The Green Line has no street crossings and offers transfers to the Blue Line, Silver Line and many heavily ridden north-south bus lines. In the future, the Green Line will also allow transfers to the proposed Redondo Beach and Torrance Regional Transit Centers and the Crenshaw/LAX Line (which is under construction), as well as another project that would receive funding from the ballot measure: a potential light rail line between Artesia and Union Station in downtown Los Angeles.

What about a Green Line extension to Norwalk? A separate Measure M project would extend the Green Line east to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs station that serves Metrolink commuter trains. The long-sought connection would allow Metrolink riders from both the Orange County Line and 91 Line to easily access a number of destinations via the Green Line. The extension to Norwalk would break ground in 2046 and be completed in 2051. It would receive $200 million from the new ballot measure and $570 million from other sources.

Measure M calls for a half-cent sales tax increase and an extension of the existing Measure R sales tax. Please visit for more info and use the hashtag #metroplan when discussing on social media. The Metro Board approved sending the ballot measure to county voters at their June 23 meeting. 

Other posts on ballot measure projects: 

Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor

Purple Line Extension acceleration

Airport Metro Connector

Rail or bus rapid transit on Van Nuys Boulevard

High Desert Corridor

Gold Line extension to Claremont

105 freeway ExpressLanes

Light rail between Union Station and Artesia

Green Line extension to Torrance

Bus rapid transit on Vermont Avenue in L.A.

22 replies

  1. How many ballot measures is Metro considering? Another ballot measure for the extension to the Norwalk Metrolink Station? It will get to the point where taxpayers will say enough is enough.

    • Same ballot measure, but different funding stream.

      The huge pot of money is divided up first by region and then by use. This way different projects dont consume all the money from the entire county. If it were one project then people in the west of the South Bay would want all they money making the south west extension really fancy; while people in the gateway cities and SE LA would want most of the money to make the Norwalk connection better.

      From what I hear the city of Norwalk is being really demanding about how fancy and nice the extension to Metrolink has to be before they get on board with the project, thus it is best to try and limit that so the fight is avoided by separating the money and expectations early.

  2. This is not about keeping out “the bad element” from accessing Hawthorne Blvd. Nice attempt to play “the card”, but its bogus. Save it for when it is valid.

    This is about leveraging the *existing* rail right of way for significantly lower cost. Getting right of way down Hawthorne would take years and a bazillion dollars. Let’s get that train down here now, and Uber/Lyft the last few miles. They already have dedicated Uber/Lyft parking at the last Green Line Station, i.e., the one on Marine.

    I would *love* to be able to park at the new Torrance transit center, take the Green Line to LAX, or Green to Orange to Expo downtown. There are also lots of Breweries in Torrance that currently draw LA patrons. The Strand Brewery is literally a short two minute walk from the expected new Green Line station.

    Further, anyone that has done the Green to Blue to Red/Purple route to get to Theaters and entertainment venues knows that is a hassle due to the Blue Line. Right now I drive to Culver City Park and Ride to take the Expo line downtown, with Red/Blue connection at Metro Center. I’m looking forward to parking *much* closer, or just take a Uber/Lyft, to the new Torrance station.

    I don’t care about the Crenshaw Line or Green Line “brand” on the train, I just want the actual train to connect me with the Expo line via the Crenshaw lIne.

    • I have done the Gold to Red/Purple to -Silver- to Green before (and return) to get to a training event over by the ice rink in El Segundo. Much better than going all the way over to the Blue.

  3. I am wondering why Metro don’t route the green line to the south of Hawthorne Blvd to Downtown Torrance. I don’t even know why Metro always make things complicate to achieved and convenient riders!!! Going all the way to the oil refinery plants is just a big STUPID decision.

    • Probably a lot cheaper to go over the rail ROW than Hawthorne. To preserve 100% grade separation it would probably need to be elevated over all of Hawthorne. Property owners would complain about the eye sore while the business owners would complain about the disruption during construction.

      I suppose it could go down and then turn at Madrona Marsh heading along Sepulveda to eventually get back to the rail ROW, but at what financial and political cost I dont know.

  4. Has there been any more information on a possible extension to the new NFL stadium / shopping center / hotel in Inglewood? Would be great to get it in the plan now and funded now.

  5. This should go all the way down and link up to the Blue Line near Long Beach.

  6. Not routing it down Hawthorne Blvd south of 190th Street is Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!!

    Unfortunately the local NIMBYs don’t want a logical public transit routing to bring in ‘the bad element’ to the large shopping district south of there. Of course, they ignore where the service workers for the Promenade and Del Amo malls, etc commute from (not Torrance!).

    The routing shown above attempts to build an expensive and circuitous LR route to a (future lightly used) commuter-only station.

    If this measure appears on the ballot, VOTE NO!

  7. Why do these projects take so long? China can build these much faster and for fraction of the cost. It’s not like we do any better by spending more and taking forever to build it either. Look at how much problems the Blue Line and Gold Lines are having and how slow the Expo Line goes because of all the grade crossings. We spend billions of dollars, take years to build, and we get a crappy infrastructure product. This is why support for Trump is high, because people are getting tired of wasteful spending that gets mediocre products. You don’t want Trump, Metro needs to get their act together to prove that these projects can be done faster, cheaper and under budget, and the result being a well planned product.

    • Once projects get going the timeline isn’t all that different. The Crenshaw line is taking 6 years, the Regional Connector 7 years, one of the Purple line extensions is taking 9 years. Subway projects of that scope take around 6-8 years in China. The issue is they build all 3 Purple line segments at once rather than one by one because they have the money.

      China fiances it’s projects with debt, rather than waiting years for sales tax revenue to trickle in to pay for things. China will be paying for all it’s fancy new subway lines till the next century at this rate. Considering interest rates it might be a good idea for us to finance it all with debt and pay it back later though.

      China dispenses with the planning and environmental review. It can save 5-10 years from when a project is though up until construction begins. A lot of projects come out half formed, having major issues, or not coming close to meeting ridership projections but in China there is enough growth that eventually they will get used or there will be money around later to fix them. Planning and environmental reviews do need to be simplified in this country, but they dont need to be dispensed with all together.

      China also seizes property in the path of construction. So if the Chinese version of the purple line needed to plow through Beverly Hills, land would be seized, the owners would be compensated based on the square footage and the project would go along without lawsuit or trouble. Now that might be great for the city in general, but it really sucks for the guy with the 3 million dollar house who only gets 500k compensation in return. The formulas dont take into account market value, location, or the quality of the property; only the gross square footage.

  8. Why we do not build first a parking structure at Norwalk station. I took the Metro for 5 years every day was an adventure to get a parking space, the 2.500 or so spaces are full by 7.15 or 7.30 am thousands of cars are back into the freeway from this station alone and this situation is not new. I start using the Metro 14 years ago, after 5 years I gave up, some days took me 30 45 minutes waiting for someone to leave a space, most of the times I went back to the 105 even that I had a monthly pass.Same situation at the next station the Lakewood station.

    • Sounds like they just need to start charging for parking to limit demand. Eventually the fund raised could be used to build a parking garage.

    • Hi Joe;

      You are correct! Good catch. I’m dedicating a few minutes tomorrow to refresh my knowledge of the Metrolink map 🙂

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

  9. I am not sure why Metro is calling this a “Green Line” extension to Torrance rather than a “Crenshaw/LAX Line” extension to Torrance. It would seem to me that Torrance riders would be more likely to be interested in a transfer-free extension to the areas served by the Crenshaw/LAX line, rather than to the areas served by the Green Line. The Crenshaw Line will serve El Segundo, LAX, Inglewood, the Crenshaw District and allow easy transfers to Downtown LA, USC, and Santa Monica via the Expo Line.

    The Green Line, by contrast, offers no such benefits. Its connection to Downtown LA, for example, requires use of either the Silver Line bus rapid transit, which travels by surface streets beyond Adams, or the Blue Line, which is much further east. I believe there is likely to be a much higher demand for north-south travel to/from Torrance than for travel to/from Torrance and Norwalk.

    Can’t we rebrand this as a “Crenshaw / LAX Line” extension to Torrance? By sheer serendipity, the new Torrance Transit Center will be located on Crenshaw Blvd. in Torrance. At a minimum, the extension should be co-branded for both the “Crenshaw / LAX Line” and the “Green Line.

    I understand that this all may be rendered moot when, with the completion of the Downtown connector, the light rail lines will be renamed from colors to letters. But I think it’s critical, both structurally and operationally, to think of the Torrance light rail extension as basically a north-south line that ultimately will allow for transfer-free light rail travel from Torrance all the way to West Hollywood.

  10. I still maintain that, in the interest of an efficient Metro grid, this extension should be evaluated as part of the north-south Crenshaw/LAX line, rather than the east-west Green Line.