A recent poll conducted by a market research firm shows support for the C Line (Green) Extension to Torrance Project from residents in Lawndale, Redondo Beach and Torrance. The poll surveyed 670 residents through randomized phone calls across the three Project cities. The survey found that 60% of residents are familiar with the Project and 67% are supportive of the Project. On average, 8% of residents across the three cities oppose the Project and 24% had no opinion.
Project Benefits
The South Bay is a significant jobs center, and like many parts of LA County, suffers from congestion, a constrained housing supply, and limited convenient transportation options.
By providing a fast and reliable rail extension to the South Bay, the Project will provide a convenient alternative to driving, that:
- Attracts between 11,500 to 15,600 trips per day by 2042.
- Connects to two new bus transit centers in Redondo Beach and Torrance, which both recently opened this spring.
- Helps meet climate change goals by reducing vehicle trips, saving 49,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day and reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) with a net reduction of 2,369 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year in 2042.
- Provides significant travel time savings for people accessing jobs, schools, and major events along the C, K and E lines.
The Metro Board recently approved a new operating plan that will make the light rail extension to Torrance part of the Metro K Line. This change means that travelers will have a one-seat ride (no transfers) from the South Bay to LAX, Inglewood, and the Metro E (Expo) Line – with easy connections to the Westside and Downtown Los Angeles.
Data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) anticipates the existing jobs/housing imbalance to worsen in the coming decades with employment growing twice as fast as the population in the South Bay. Connecting the South Bay to the regional rail network is critical to meeting future travel demand, expanding mobility options, and increasing access to opportunities for transit dependent riders.
As shown in the map, Metro modelling illustrates the broad project benefits which extend along the K and C Lines between Central Los Angles, Gateway Cities, and as part south as the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Source: Metro
An Update from the Environmental Review Process
Metro released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on January 27, 2023, and collected public comments over a 61-day review period, including five public hearings. Nearly 2,200 comments were received during the Draft EIR review period, with the majority, over 1,800 comments, focused on alignment preferences.Over two-thirds of alignment comments were in support of the Metro ROW Elevated At-Grade Alignment. Only 6% of comments were in opposition to the Project.
| Support for Draft EIR Alignment/Alternative | # Comments | % of Total |
| Metro ROW Elevated/At-Grade | 1,228 | 66% |
| Hawthorne Option | 355 | 19% |
| Trench Option | 135 | 7% |
| High-Frequency Bus Alternative | 39 | <1% |
| 170th/182nd Street Grade Separated Light Rail Alternative (along Metro ROW) | 3 | <1% |
| No Project Alternative | 119 | 6% |
Source: Metro, The Robert Group
Metro is reviewing public comments and will provide a presentation on the Project to a Metro Board committee in September and will return to the Metro Board with a staff recommendation for a Locally Preferred Alternative in October. More information on the Project can be found on the project website, www.metro.net/clineext.
Categories: Transportation News
NGL. Metro needs to divide their transit system into separate groups: South Bay, Gateway Cities, Westside/Central, San Fernando Valley, and San Gabriel Valley. In that way, it is easier to identify routes and which direction to go.
This is funny!! Wow!! Hard to believe that only way 5% have strongly opposed this!! When the city first opened up the bridge from Maple Ave to Crenshaw Blvd -Not only the Residents on Del Amo Blvd (between Crenshaw n Van Ness) opposed it but they knew things would get bad – ever since then n now that the (empty) Bus station has opened – traffic has become worse -speeding cars daily, car accidents, Big Rigs n now the empty RTD Buses are driving through on a daily – Del Amo Blvd has become basically a Freeway!!!! When the police are called regarding speeding cars – the citizens are told they are short staffed of motor officers!! Ok so they installed speed sensors -that don’t work!! Come on City of Torrance- This is where families live – children used to play in their front yards, go to the neighborhood park, or ride their bikes to their friends house, people used be able walk n enjoy there neighborhood, the elders used to sit on their porch-all this has been taken away from them!!! I know for a fact if the citizens of Torrance contact any news channels n voice their opinion about the change that has occurred in their city – it would prove the city’s poll wrong!! Oh n the train station hasn’t even opened up yet!!
I am heartily impressed by your blog and learn more from your article. Thank you so much for sharing with us. I find another website as like it. If you want to look, visit here Green Shipping Program It’s also more informative.
Fot my money, I’d think it’s more important to finish the C Line in Norwalk. That connection is super low hanging fruit
Other than the high cost, it’s a no-brainer. Being able to switch services (Metro-Metrolink) in Norwalk increases ridership on the C line while relieving stress from Union Station.
Why is this taking so long? Torrance city council will vote against the extension soon. Hurry up and finish the extension using the existing ROW. Otherwise the new Torrance station will be a mistake.
If Torrance wanted to build a new transit center, they could have done it at the vacant lot at Del Amo Mall. Particularly, the one across from the Lifestyle Wing with the vacant auto shop and the abandoned parking lot facing Madrona Av. That could’ve been an ideal place to reopen the Torrance Transit Center if not for the Crenshaw Blvd property. The Crenshaw Bl property is seemingly intentional to connect the potential Green Line extension.
I fully support the ROW alternative, but the proposed station at the South Bay Transit Center needs significant attention paid to creating an effective walkshed/rideshed on the west side in addition to the east side of the station. Drop off connectivity to Inglewood Ave. and the communities west of the rail ROW can not be ignored. Functional walkshed/ridesheds must be an integral part of each and every metro station or what is the point?
Nobody is going there without the Torrance extension. Los Angeles is hardly walkable. The transit station more designed to connect to other bus lines or ride share services.
With e-bikes, a change to the Metro strategy should be put in place. Bikes and cars only cause biker deaths. In the 70s I used to ride by 10-speed from UCLA to Marina Del Rey – I was “run over” three time – cars would go by and then turn into a driveway right on top of me. I survived by holding onto the top of the cars.
We need raised e-bike lanes that have no stops, make all the cross street higher or lower.
Use ramps to get from one level to another – elevators become restrooms for the homeless. France has self-cleaning single public restrooms every half mile or so.
The bike lanes will need to be policed 24/7 as there are always people trying to isolate and attack others.
LA County needs to embrace e-bikes – they allow for the independence and individual plans the people of LA love.
To get more people to use the Metro, the buses would need to run every 7 minutes from 6AM to 10AM and from 2:30 PM to 7:30 PM – until using the bus for a mile is faster than walking a mile they just will not be used. I live two miles from work – takes me 40 minutes to walk it. The buses travel the same roads – if I miss the bus I can get to work faster walking than waiting for the next bus.
The Santa Monica and Culver city bus systems work well. LA is too big and now that bigness has led to huge amounts of corruption. LA refuses to be broken up as the areas that pay the most taxes are a minority. Too many big city problems in LA – the county should force a break up.
Just a few random thoughts after living here for sixty years.
I think Los Angeles should be broken into at least 5 groups: South Bay/LA Harbor, Gateway Cities, Westside/Central, San Fernando Valley, and San Gabriel Valley.
Raised e-bike lanes with no stops is an interesting proposal. Do you know about the California Cycleway that used to exist in Pasadena ca. 1900? Your idea reminds me of that, it would be so cool and great to have something like that built again. You bring up some other good points/observations too.
Don’t know who participated in the vote. Do they live around the affected area? Questioning the number. Also , somewhat support is the same as somewhat not support.
I think some of them voted through Torrance Transit in order to support the ROW option as opposed to Hawthorne Bl.
this will destroy the beach cities, overwhelming them with homelessness.
Glad to hear 2 important pieces of news on this.
That it will be the “K” line from Expo all the way to Torrance and hopefully in the future north to Wilshire and on to Hollywood. Would also like it extended from Torrance to Long Beach also.
Also good to hear that the taxpayer/Metro owned right of way is preferred. In a day of costs and budget, we HAVE to use that valuable right of way for transit. We already wasted the Slauson right of way, let’s not waste this one.
Oh, and let’s get this build sooner- its been talked about for way too long.
With any luck, Slauson will be able to be wrested away from the bicycle nuts in the future for an actually useful transit project.
Is the data set publicly available? I would like to know the number of residents from each city, and particularly what areas/zip codes they pertain to.
Exactly. This is absolutely hilarious. 60% of respondents are familiar with the project? A target population where less than 3% of people take public transportation yet 60% are familiar with one of Metro’s most obscure projects that’s not even out of the scoping stage? 60% of LA transit junkies aren’t even familiar with the project.
The planned end point is laughable – extend the extension one mile to Old Torrance using the old Pacific Electric ROW along Dominguez/Sartori, or at least make a provision for it (your current plan will block it with a substation).
Waiting for a train by the refinery at the Torrance Transit Center will be almost as miserable as one of the 105 Fwy Median stations.
There should be a rail line to the west San Fernando Valley. The busway is too slow and crowded.
The Red Line should continue further north, at least the the city of San Fernando. A dream would be for it to continue to Santa Clarita. The Metrolink is too slow and too infrequent.
The G Line is faster than the Expo Line and they are working on speeding it up with new gates and grade separation. Everyone assumes rail is faster, but it isn’t unless grade separated and with limited stops like the B, C or D lines.
“The G Line is faster than the Expo Line”
. . . But LA has a “world class” transit system, how could this be true?
The Valley rejected rail in the 90s – resulting in the busway. Conversion to light rail is on Metro’s long-term plans, but will wait for more critical projects (Sepulveda Pass rail, West Santa Ana branch and K line north from Expo to Hollywood).
Increasing Metrolink service is the goal/answer for Santa Clarita. If we’re lucky, Red Line might make it to the eventual Burbank Airport High Speed Rail station (but not much further).
The 90s, try the late 50s. Once 1st Gen “minorities” began to move into the valley, residents saw anything that wasn’t part of the “California Dream” as a threat, Subway included.
Anyone under 40 complaining the Valley’s lack of rail. . . Blame your parents and Grandparents about that, not a transit agency that was actually shovel ready to extend the red line into Warner center back in 1990 if it weren’t for the robbins law.