The Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) is now available for the Southeast Gateway Line — here’s how to leave a comment

Recently, we, jointly with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), released the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Southeast Gateway Line (formerly known as the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project). Spanning 14.5 miles from Slauson/A Line Station in the unincorporated community of Florence-Firestone in Los Angeles to the future Pioneer Station in the City of Artesia, this light rail transit (LRT) line aims to provide high-quality, reliable service for everyone traversing the corridor.  

Clocking in at over 1,300 pages, the EIS/EIR evaluates the project from multiple perspectives, covering its historical background, potential environmental effects, and its importance for communities throughout Los Angeles County. It also evaluates the Metro-board selected route (i.e.. The Locally Preferred Alternative, or LPA) as well as other alternatives. It also contains extensive analysis on transportation connections and strategies to reduce traffic congestion and advance fairness and environmental responsibility.  

We know many of you provided feedback throughout the environmental process from 2017 to 2024. We hosted 30 public meetings during this period, which were attended by over 2,450 people. We’ve provided our formal response to the 452 comments received during the process, which can be found right here

You can view the EIS/EIR on our project website at Printed copies are also available for public viewing at the following locations along the corridor:  

  • Artesia Library, 18801 Elaine Ave, Artesia 
  • Clifton M. Brakensiek Library, 9945 Flower St, Bellflower 
  • Gateway Cities Council of Governments, 16401 Paramount Blvd, Paramount 
  • Paramount Park Community Center, 14400 Paramount Blvd, Paramount  
  • Hollydale Library, 12000 Garfield Ave, South Gate 
  • Huntington Park Library, 6518 Miles Ave, Huntington Park 
  • South Park Business Improvement District, 1150-B S Hope St, Los Angeles   
  • Arts District Business Improvement District, 1801 E 7th St, Los Angeles 
  • Los Angeles Central Library, 630 W 5th St, Los Angeles 
  • Little Tokyo Branch Library, 203 S Los Angeles St, Los Angeles 
  • Metro Headquarters – Dorothy Peyton Library, 15th Floor, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles 

 What’s next? In the coming months, the Metro Board of Directors will convene to consider certifying the Final EIR. Concurrently, the FTA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) in the summer of 2024 –– an official certification that allows us to move forward with design, acquisitions, and construction –– following a mandatory 30-day waiting period post-publication of the Final EIS. Visit our project website to stay up to date!  

If you would like to have your comment considered in the FTA’s Record of Decision, please email them to by Monday, April 29, 2024. 

Categories: Transportation News

4 replies

  1. This project has problems as it stands. Not enough stations south of the C Line transfer in order to generate ridership to transfer at the C line- that is an expensive complex station to build. Should be another station between Bellflower and Artesia and the other end should have gone to Cerritos. Save money and don’t build parking at the C line transfer station- it is a “transfer” station. The Gardendale station should have moved north to Imperial Highway a busier street with buses. Whatever they build on the old hospital grounds near Gardendale can be served by shuttles. I worry this segment ends at Slauson where all the SEG line riders are going to have to move to a crowed A line train.
    Going further north, not having a station at Washington is wrong- it would have allowed SEG riders to stay on their trains at least as far as Washington before transferring. This station as would complete the “circle” around downtown LA.
    In fact, I would have built the LA Union Station to Slauson portion first, then the Slauson to Artesia portion next.

    I also wish the money spent on the East SFV line had moved to this line to speed up SWG.
    The East SFV line will be an isolated and slow line dumping more passengers onto G line buses.

    Although probably not in my life time, after ESFV, SE Gateway, need the Sepulveda Pass line and then a line down Vermont. The last 3 are major game changers for the area.

    • Wait, so there’s not enough stops on one line to generate ridership but also take money from another rail line in a different region that has too many stops because it’s isolated even though long term the orange line WILL be converted to rail.

      I’m just trying to figure this out because it genuinely doesn’t make any sense.

      Also, if you want a Downtown Loop Line, please don’t interline it with the Blue and Expo Lines, have it operate isolated of those 2 lines. The regional connector is already suffering from both delays and congestion, interlining a 3rd rail line into 2 tunnels is a mess waiting to happen.

      Hence why the Santa Ana Corridor is operating independently of the Blue Line. This way it avoids delays on either line.

      Adding a Washington station while useful also doesn’t make sense here, as all you are doing is moving the same exact traffic to a different station, so now you have overcrowding at Washington Station instead.

  2. This project is exempt from an EIR; why did you do one, other than to delay it further, enrich consultants and give people further opportunity to say “no”?

    Meanwhile, you skirt EIRs for freeway widening projects despite these having horrible effects on the air quality of disadvantaged communities.

    • Because Metro still doesn’t want to admit that it believes highway widening (auxiliary lanes, whatever) is a viable path forward despite there being a climate crisis and that highway widening simply doesn’t work. It doesn’t deliver the result that is desired and it doesn’t improve quality of life in the city. Yet they will do it anyway because they will defer to the notion that America and LA in particular is and always will be fundamentally a car city, so might as well just keep on going with the same philosophy as the mid 20th century forever. Induced demand be dammed. Increased pollution and noise from more cars? who cares? Defenders will say that it’s “just in LA’s DNA” or some nonsense like that as an excuse to keep the madness going.