Scoping meetings begin this week for Eastside Gold Line Extension environmental study

Work on the environmental studies for extensions of the Eastside Gold Line is resuming. The project — with $6 billion in funding from Measures R, M and other sources — proposes to build extensions of the light rail line from East Los Angeles to South El Monte and Whittier, as well as a combined option that could offer service between those two cities. Here’s the project home page on

The next step is that Metro is preparing a Supplemental/Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). As part of these efforts, Metro will be conducting Public Scoping Meetings to receive formal public comments on the alternatives and their potential effects to the environment and quality of life.

Under the Measure M spending plan, Metro would build the project in two phases — one to be done in 2035 and the other 2057. Metro is also looking at ways that funding could be secured to accelerate the project as part of the Twenty-Eight by ’28 Initiative to complete 28 major projects in time for the 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympics.

The formal public scoping comment period ends on Monday, July 15, 2019. Submit your comments via the website comment form.

The meetings are being held:

Thursday, June 13, 2019, 6-8pm
Whittier Community Center
7630 Washington Av, Whittier, CA 90602

Monday, June 17, 2019, 6-8pm
Commerce Senior Citizens Center
2555 Commerce Way, Commerce, CA 90040

Wednesday, June 19, 2019, 6-8pm
th Street New Primary Center
469 Amalia Av, Los Angeles, CA 90022

Saturday, June 22, 2019, 10am-12pm
South El Monte Community Center
1530 Central Av, S. El Monte, CA 91733

Monday, June 24, 2019, 6-8pm
Quiet Cannon Banquet Center
901 Via San Clemente, Montebello, CA 90640

Wednesday, June 26, 2019, 6-8pm
Pio Pico Woman’s Club
9214 Mines Av, Pico Rivera, CA 90660

16 replies

  1. All of the METRO’s efforts parallel Metrolink…Rightfully so. Metrolink is overpriced and should be dismantled.

    • Why? If you think Metrolink is overpriced, then you really need to see the true cost of public transit outside of the USA. Plus Metrolink serves a completely different type of commuter? You really want all those 40K+ passengers from the neighboring counties, where Metro probably won’t go to, back on Freeways again?

      • A monthly pass on Metrolink between downtown San Bernardino and Union Station — 59 mile trip one way — is currently $280 (reduced from $371). A monthly pass on Long Island Railroad between Cold Spring Harbor and Penn Station — 36 mile one way — is $363. Commuter railroads aren’t cheap but when you factor in the total cost of driving, the price is competitive and usually less expensive out here than in a place such as New York.

        Steve Hymon
        Editor, The Source

  2. I’m rather perplexed about the Washington Alternative. It bypasses an obvious intermodal connection with the Montebello/Commerce Metrolink station (keeping in mind that not everybody wants to go to DTLA), and has a few stops that don’t seem to make sense. For example, there appears to be a stop at the Citadel which seems like an obvious giveaway to that mall which doesn’t make sense unless they want to build housing, make their parking lots available to commuters, and/or connect the station to adjacent neighborhoods (which would make their mall seem less like, well, a citadel). The rest of the route goes through a lot of light commercial which means poor transit use and a few stations close to basically no one (Greenwood/Washington) and/or a lot of surface parking (Rosemead/Washington).

    It would seem like bringing rail down Beverly would make much more sense as it is a much busier corridor and could both reach Whittier and divert traffic off the 60. There is also an obvious connection around the San Gabriel River to the Whittier Greenway Trail which could be used to bring light rail much closer to downtown Whittier and provide an eventual connection to Fullerton Station.

  3. The train has almost left the station on this. The Source has now mentioned these meetings twice in three days. Good.
    With all the 28 in 2018 projects starting to warm up, perhaps Metro can get a web page that has ALL the different project meetings listed in chronological order to make it easier for people to see what all meetings are happening when and if they are interested they would be able to plan to attend. The Link US meeting was only mentioned [that I saw at least] once I the Source two days before it happened.

    • Hi irregular-rider;

      All good points. I’ve generally preferred to list meetings closer to the actual date rather than posting too far in advance — although a few times lately probably too close (sometimes for a variety of reasons; for example, I need someone to fact check the post). I’ll ask the web folks about their interest in creating a central hub page that has all the meetings listed for the different projects. With Measures R and M and some other non-ballot measure projects, there is plenty going on.

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

      • Having a central “upcoming meetings” page is a good idea. As would be a sign up service for notification of meetings of my projects of choice.

  4. One flawed route is bad enough , but 2 is worse. Just because Montebello and Whittier didn’t want Whittier Blvd used.
    This should be a light rail subway down Whittier Blvd built in segments like we are doing on Wilshire Blvd.

  5. I like Tim W’s thoughts. Looking at the other end of the Washington Alternative, it would be great if it can swing south to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station and then be connected to the extension of the Green Line to said station. That way, one can go to the eastern part of the Gold Line without having to go through downtown. And if Tim W’s suggestion is picked up, one can go from the east end of the Green Line to Pasadena without having to go downtown.

    • There’s actually a separate project seeking to connect the Green Line with Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink so we won’t need to rely on this project to do that.

  6. Both routes are severely flawed. The SB60 Alternative is yet another rail-line in the middle of the freeway that no one has easy access. The Washington Alternative should be a separate line that goes further north to Pasadena especially after the 710 Freeway extension has crashed and burned.. Both routes have widely spaced stations so they aren’t picking up many passengers. They serve commuters to Downtown LA instead of being more like a regional service, which is another flaw of the routes.

    Split the difference. Gold line should have extra stops and go to Montebello in phase one. The Washington Alternative should be a separate line and go from Pico Rivera to Alhambra. Phase 2 should bring both lines further East to South El Monte and North to Pasadena and East to Whittier.

  7. The graphic should also include the fixed portion of the West Santa Ana Branch line (from Washington to Artesia). That is helpful to see how the Gold Line route would fit into the overall future picture. Also, why not start referring to future plans of the lines by their future names and letters?

    I will repeat what I have said multiple times before. If the southern route is taken it needs to turn and go to the Norwalk Green Line station. (Or if the Green line can get run to the Norwalk Metrolink station, to there) This will help improve flow on the whole system and should increase ridership on the entire system. And even run it down to The WSAB (Downtown-to-Artesia) line’s Artesia station.

  8. 2057….Many ‘The Source’ readers won’t live to see it! The 1,912 mile Transcontinental railway linking Omaha, Nebraska and Oakland, Caifornia was built in six years; the time it takes nowadays to get through the full scoping and environmental study stage of a project before construction can even start.

    I realise much of the construction had little or no regard from the human population of the land concerned or the safety of those doing the building, which would, rightly, be unjustifiable in our own day. But the difference in timescale is still remarkable, given nineteenth-century construction methods. It’s amazing that they did it at all, let alone in six years.