Work begins on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for C Line (Green) Extension to Torrance

The C Line (Green) Extension to Torrance project is studying light rail transit options between the existing Redondo Beach Station and the under-construction Torrance Transit Center. Trains from both the Metro C Line (Green) and the future Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project may run on this new extension.

A previous study — called a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (SAA) — honed in on two possible routes, shown on the map above. 

As part of the project, Metro is beginning to work on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the C Line (Green) Extension to Torrance Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The scoping period — when the public can tell Metro what issues it would like studied — begins Jan. 29 and runs through March 29, 2021.

Metro will be hosting virtual public scoping meetings to accept both written and oral comments on the scope of the Draft EIR:

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

4 pm – 6 pm

Online link:

Telephone: 646.558.8656

Webinar ID: 860 4119 8859

Saturday, February 27, 2021

11 am – 1 pm

Online link:

Telephone: 646.558.8656

Webinar ID: 828 3990 2680

Comment on the project at an upcoming virtual public scoping meeting or visit our online presentation to learn more about the project at

This project is an extension of light rail along a four-mile segment of the Harbor Subdivision Corridor — an old freight rail corridor owned by Metro. This extension will provide a transit alternative to crowded 405 freeway and better connect southwestern L.A. County to the regional rail network through rail connections to the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, the A (Blue) Line, E (Expo) Line and J (Silver) Line. 

The C Line (Green) Extension to Torrance project aims to:

  • Improve mobility in the South Bay by introducing frequent, reliable transit service to meet growing transportation needs.
  • Provide more direct connections from the South Bay to regional destinations.
  • Provide an alternative mode of transportation for commuters currently using congested arterials and I-405 in the project study area.
  • Improve transit accessibility for South bay community residents. 
  • Reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by making transit a more viable transportation choice.

Written and oral comments will be accepted at the virtual public scoping meetings or they may be sent to Dolores Roybal Saltarelli, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop: 99-22-4, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or via e-mail at

13 replies

    • Hi David;

      SB 288 could be helpful but the primary driver of when the project gets built is available funding and the Measure M spending plan, which has scheduled opening date as early as 2030. There are efforts to accelerate some projects but those are dependent on securing funding.

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

  1. A potential Phase 2 extension to San Pedro or near Long Beach should be considered in the works for opportunities. I know it probably won’t happen for several decades, but Metro should look into it. ??‍♂️

  2. Please don’t waste over a BILLION dollars to add 2 pathetic rail stations, one next to a dying mall in a city that refuses mixed use development and anything over 2 stories. The other surrounded by vacant lots (soon to be a sea of asphalt as parking lots!) And oil refineries! Why are we wasting billions on rail to low lying sprawling areas where a few residents may, at best, use the train once a week to go to downtown, versus areas where TENS of THOUSANDS riders are crammed on busy bus lines throughout the day EVERY day in busy congested urbanized areas where transit is much more viable and successful? You will NEVER convince suburbanites living in single family homes with yards to rely on transit for their daily needs. Not on a large scale. And you only waste precious infrastructure money by chasing those non existent riders.. But you CAN get people living in the urban core to fully rely on transit in the future, if we focus on the MOST SUCCESSFUL projects, like Sepulveda, Crenshaw North, West Santa Ana, etc. This project will be ridiculed for decades after opening, as everyone complains of low ridership from a wasteful line to an oil refinery

  3. That’s such a short extension and only two stations. Why not go further down Metro ROW? No one will use it anyways. It’s unsafe and people don’t want homeless at the stations.

  4. Speaking of the Green line, when do you plan to extend the length of all station’s platforms to accommodate three car train? It restricts the Crenshaw LAX line to run two car train only due to the length on some existing green line station platform.

    • Hi Metro Riders;

      We don’t have a date for that project — it will likely depend on securing a state or federal grant.

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

      • Hi Steve is Metro pursuing that project? Because I don’t see or hear anything about that project.

        • Hi Metro Riders —

          It is something that Metro would like to do and we’re working to find the funding to extend the platforms and make some other upgrades to the C Line, which will be 26 years old later in 2021.

          Steve Hymon
          Editor, The Source

  5. Don’t really see the point of breaking off this right of way until around Western, where it can continue on Sepulveda/Willow to Long Beach.

    • Or San Pedro, since the coast city lacks a light rail line. Long Beach already have the A line running into their city.

  6. Please don’t waste money on an elevated route down Hawthorne Blvd when the existing Metro owned ROW is there.
    Why would Metro have bought it only not to use it? This whole project has been on the books longer it seems that the 3, going on 4 segments of the Gold Line have built out. This is crazy,.

    • agreed. and rebuilding a portion of the 405 will cause hell for the 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 years this will take to build