Get to know our recommendation for the C Line Extension to Torrance: the Hybrid Alternative!

Over the past few years, the Metro C Line (Green) Extension project to Torrance has been one of our most exciting and talked-about projects. Given all the connections that it’s expected to create, it’s not hard to see why.

By extending light rail from our existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to the new Torrance Transit Center, the project will create new, direct connections between the regional transit network and local transit hubs, such as Redondo Beach Transit Center and Mary K. Giordana Regional Transit Center in Torrance.  It will travel through Lawndale, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, attracting 1.5 million new riders each year taking up to 3.6 million trips, reducing pollution and shortening commutes throughout the Greater South Bay. With the new operating pattern of the K Line, the project will allow for a one-seat ride between Torrance, LAX, Inglewood and further connections to the Westside and Downtown Los Angeles via the Metro E Line. And it’s going to provide a much-needed alternative to the (very congested) I-405, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH).

Since early 2021, we have been studying two major routes for the project. The first, the Right of Way (ROW) alignment, follows an existing freight rail corridor that Metro owns and would connect to the Redondo Beach Transit Center, a major multimodal transit hub (think Lawndale Beat, GTrans, Torrance Transit, Beach Cities Transit, and more). The second, the Hawthorne Boulevard Option, follows the I-405 before turning onto Hawthorne Boulevard and would connect to shopping and entertainment at the South Bay Galleria. Both of these proposed alignments would terminate at the future Torrance Transit Center. We have listened to passionate arguments for these two main routes, and we know that many of you have been following those conversations with great interest –– we’ve had nearly 20,000 visits to the project StoryMap and website since 2021!

We’ve had thousands of conversations with many of you about these routes, as well as your expectations, questions, and concerns. Between 2021 and early this year, we held over 60 community engagement events (think scoping meetings, neighborhood walks, open houses, public hearings, pop-up events, and recent events with LA County Supervisor and Metro Director Holly Mitchell) that more than 2,090 people attended. We’ve received over 4,700 public comments from you that we’ve carefully reviewed and used to identify key areas of concern.

After careful study of your questions, comments, and various concerns, as well as consulting technical studies and findings from the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), we are recommending an alignment that we think will serve the most people while addressing your concerns about noise, safety, and emergency responders. This alternative –– the “Hybrid Alternative” –– is an adaptation of the ROW elevated/at-grade alignment. It will still follow the Metro-owned freight corridor and include a station at the Redondo Beach Transit Center, but importantly, it will have under-crossings at 170th and 182nd streets. These under-crossings will locate the light rail under the existing streets and will address concerns about noise, safety near schools and school routes, and potential delays to firetrucks, ambulances, and other emergency responders. This alternative also includes the construction of three new walking paths along the Metro ROW, and updating the existing freight tracks to current standards that improve the safety of eight freight-crossings. These updates would also reduce noise and vibration by creating a “quiet zone ready” corridor. Moreover, because most of the construction would be staged on Metro-owned property, potential property acquisitions and impacts to traffic and parking will be very minimal.

Now, we’re approaching a major milestone as the Metro Board of Directors will consider this recommendation as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). This is a major step in a project’s development, as it allows staff to respond to all comments on the Draft EIR, focus engineering efforts on the chosen route, and complete the Final EIR for potential project approval under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We’re grateful to all the community members who shared their thoughts with us at the Planning and Programming Committee meeting and Executive Management Committee meeting last week. Got a question or comment? Email us at

Updated FAQs & Outreach Summaries
To help keep you informed, we’ve updated a list of frequently asked questions and answers based on the recent feedback received from community meetings and events. To access it, please go to the Project Filing Cabinet (Project Dropbox site) and click on the FAQs folder.

We have also prepared summaries of recent community engagement events in Winter 2023/2024. Summaries of all outreach events for this project  can be accessed on the project website by visiting the Project Filing Cabinet (Project Dropbox site) and the Draft EIR Community Engagement folder.

What’s Next?
The project will go to the full Board meeting on May 23 to consider the staff recommendation and approve a Proposed Project and LPA (you can confirm at this link). You will be able to leave a public comment either in-person, by phone at 202-735-3323 enter Access Code: 5647249# (English) or 7292892# (Español), or via email at at If the Metro Board approves an LPA, the Project team will move forward with a Final EIR based on the selected LPA, perform additional analysis and design refinements, respond to public comments and questions received during the Draft EIR review period, and prepare a Mitigation, Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. More information on can be found on the project website.

121 replies

  1. I support the elevated Hawthorne option. The metro is already elevated above ground in Manhattan beach / Hawthorne off of Rosecrans and aviation. They found the money to elevate it there they can find the money to keep it elevated. We should not cut corners and put it near a school or here kids walk by daily.

    If the dangerous row option is chosen Redondo beach said they were going to take legal action so this thing will never be built. We need to all come together and push for it to go down a street that use to have public transit on it.

    Support the elevated Hawthorne Blvd option please.

  2. Save tons of money and choose ROW. Metro trains are much quieter than freight trains so that argument is overhyped.

  3. Put it wherever, but get me to the airport or to downtown conveniently by public transit!

  4. Yes!! Let’s get this built so that the South Bay can have better transit options! I fully support the staff rec and the Hybrid option. Wouldn’t you rather ride the train from a quiet station at a new bus center than a busy, loud stroad? Parking will be so much easier at RBTC. All the parking lots by the Galleria are privately owned and going to be built up.

    So many of the fears from neighbors are overblown and Metro did a good job addressing those in the longer video.

    If you support the staff recommendation, sign onto this petition:

    • What exactly is overblown?

      The noise of Hawthorne can be mitigated, and is not a problem once inside the train. 😅 It sounds like you haven’t done your research on how it would impact the hundreds of families in North Redondo and Lawndale.

    • Good story, bro…
      Except Cheviot hills doesn’t have a freight train carrying pressurized fuel running along side the two electric Metro trains, all within 10-20 feet from a narrow ally of hundreds of family homes.

      Do you even ride Metro?!?

      The closest track in Cheviot Hills is 50 feet from someone’s BACKYARD. In Lawndale, many homes will open their doors to THREE tracks, and METRO PLANS TO MOVE THE FREIGHT TRAIN CLOSER TO HOMES TO SQUEEZE IN THE 2 NEW TRAIN TRACKS. METRO would be 10-20 feet from HUNDREDS OF HOMES!


    • Spoken like a completely biased person who only cares about money, and not the rest of the South Bay community. 🙄

      This is how close the 20+ blocks of homes will be to metro, combined with a freight train that has moved even closer to their homes.

      In what universe is that ok?
      Since it’s not gonna be built by the time, the Olympics is coming, please gather more money and build it correctly down Hawthorne Boulevard.

      SHEESH! 🙄

  5. Hawthorne Blvd makes the most sense if you’re looking at both options from a bird’s eye view and with NO BIAS!

    I say no to the ROW option.

  6. Excellent choice. Those who live next to the rail have known for decades this was coming. It is understandable they aren’t happy, but it isn’t a surprise. They will learn to live with it, or they can move. Just like we did.

    • I’m not sure they’ve known for decades considering the first rail line opened in 1990

      • And Metro purchased the ROW in 1990, please stop with the excuses. It’s been 35 years since the ROW was purchased for future use. Ignorance is no excuse.

      • Metro acquired the row in the 80s. Either way it’s been decades since the 90s?

        • So they had plans they submitted to the public when the land was purchased?

          Since the land was purchased so long ago, they probably purchased the land for cheap – they could most likely sell the land now for a nice profit and either pay back the taxpayers, use the money to pay those that would disrupted by the option down Hawthorne or both.

          • “So they had plans they submitted to the public when the land was purchased?”

            Yeah, they did. Did you not see LA’s Prop A proposal map in 1980? I saw it and I wasn’t even born then. People of LA county voted for that you know. Also, it’s a transportation agency purchasing a percel of land, do you really need them to emphasize what they will do with that land? TrAiN CoMpAnY bUyS lANd to bUiLd tRaIn! Who couldn’t seen that coming?

            “Since the land was purchased so long ago, they probably purchased the land for cheap – they could most likely sell the land now for a nice profit and either pay back the taxpayers, use the money to pay those that would disrupted by the option down Hawthorne or both.”

            So basically, this isn’t even about business benefits like you all keep saying then? It’s basically screw everyone as long as it isn’t me right?

            Rugged Individualism works both ways, How about you deal with what’s coming instead? You were given a ≈40 year heads up. Whether you got that memo or not is not the taxpayers problem.

    • That’s just not true. The Metro down the ROW was not supposed to be a forgone conclusion.

      And even it is true, it is further proof that Metro is playing an expensive game pretending to “engage with the community” to find the locally preferred alternative. The only folks who want this down the ROW are Torrance (and some selfish folks outside of the immediately affected communities) who think they are getting something cheaper and faster. (They won’t.)

    • Why is it more fair to have 200 to 300 trains whizzing past residents in east lawndale and Torrance? Especially when it will cost more money to do so? These people didn’t buy homes next to train tracks.

      • The train won’t be near as close to homes if it goes down Hawthorne – it actually would be closer to far more businesses. Second, Hawthorne is a major road – most metro rails run on major roads, not through neighborhoods.

      • Because there are not blocks and blocks of residential homes within 29 feet of the proposed track in those areas! 😅 Lawndale city Council members who live there support Hawthorne!

    • ROW, yes. Hawthorne, no. Using the former is actually more cost-effective. Plus, it connects riders to the Redondo Beach Transit Center.

      • Other stations have been put on major roads, take the Santa Monica extension as an example – I haven’t heard of more injuries in this area

        • It also runs through neighborhoods, but how nice of you to leave that part out.

          Also, the street running sections also slow that train down. You somehow forgot to leave that part out.

          Let me guess, you also forgot to leave out the part where more real estate is needed to build the Hawthorne section?

          • I looked at an aerial of this like – there’s enough space between property lines and the tracks to grow large trees – it doesn’t seem like that’s going to be the case here, but go on

  7. So many of these same concerns brought up on other rail lines and they never turn out to be problems. The Gold (now A Line) goes through some very nice areas of South Pasadena, Arcadia and is coming out to Glendora, La Verne, San Dimas and Claremont soon.
    Instead of always fighting a project, for the most part all the San Gabriel Valley towns worked with Metro and they are getting the entire project done well after South Bay Line was discussed. West LA got some changes made and the Expo line (E) has been running in the area now for years.
    To have a full South Bay line (going south to Long Beach or San Pedro) that has pretty much direct access to LAX would be very beneficial to so many people – employees of the airport and travelers. I would love to hop on Metro say in Torrance for $2, short ride up to the transfer station to the People Mover and end up say at the Bradley Terminal for my fight.
    No traffic concerns, no cost or hassle of parking at the airport.

    • I’m a metro rider and would like for the sea line to go down Hawthorne Boulevard, and not the ROW.

      Why destroy the peace, quiet, safety and green space of a tiny neighborhood when the line can be built three blocks over? The concerns brought up for other locations of metro “near” homes didn’t involve a freight train lugging compressed fuel, combined with gas lines underneath.

      Nor do these other METRO lines go through a narrow area past 400+ family homes with those lines within 15 – 20 feet of front doors!

      • These homes already have a train line that goes through the neighborhood. I don’t see a reason to use more taxpayer money so we can take longer to build a line that doesn’t even connect to existing transit stations.

        The Blue line already has track that goes along heavy freight carrying fuel. The A line already is built on top of fuel lines in east Los Angeles. Metro has done this project before many times, and relocating utilities was never a problem.

        • Going down Hawthorne isn’t a huge change and it doesn’t impact neighborhoods

  8. Excited to see metro build this extension! The hybrid choice makes sense after reading the article

      • There are a few things wrong with the link you shared

        For one, there are no at grade crossings in the hybrid route. You don’t have to worry about people getting hit at 170th.

        Second, the Hawthorne option is not pro business, because it requires metro to acquire more real estate from businesses to make room for the train line. Additionally, caltrans may also ask to widen Hawthorne blvd, which would cause more property acquisition. It’s not pro business to evict business owners. All of this information is readily available in metros report on this route.

        Finally, construction on Hawthorne blvd would cause significant traffic for years while metro builds a train line in the busiest highway in the area. Several lanes will be closed for years at a time.

        • It is absolutely pro business! In fact, business is a long Hawthorne have already written to Metro in support of the Hawthorne option. They want the visibility, and they want the business that the new ownership of the Southbay Galleria project will offer.

          And it’s at-grade for most of the stretch, and therefore STILL dangerous, because kids cross Condon between 162 and 170th all the time! Not just at the street crossings! (Kids are kids.)

  9. Assess Impact on Traffic and Local Businesses: Metro asserts minimal impacts on traffic and parking due to most construction being staged on Metro-owned property. However, verifying these claims through independent traffic studies and evaluations of business impacts during construction would strengthen the challenge, ensuring that these projections are not overly optimistic.

  10. Evaluate Environmental and Safety Concerns: The article notes that the Hybrid Alternative aims to address safety and emergency response issues through specific under-crossings and updated freight tracks. However, scrutinizing the effectiveness of these measures and their adequacy in ensuring safety in densely populated residential areas is vital. Questions about long-term safety measures, especially in a state prone to natural disasters like earthquakes, should be raised.

  11. Challenge the Route Selection Process: While Metro emphasizes extensive community engagement and a large volume of public comments, there seems to be a significant community preference for the Hawthorne Boulevard Option that is not being adequately reflected in the final decision. A challenge could demand more transparency on how public feedback was integrated and question whether all community voices were truly considered equally.

  12. Question the Real Impact of the Quiet Zone: Metro’s description of the “quiet zone ready” condition needs scrutiny. Despite technological improvements, the actual impact of having a metro line operate from 5 AM to midnight through residential neighborhoods is likely more disruptive than suggested. It is crucial to demand transparent data on noise levels and the real-life implications for residents.

  13. Concerns Over the C Line Extension and the Necessity for Rethinking the Route Through Residential Areas

    We are writing to express our deep concerns and opposition to the current plans for the C Line extension through residential neighborhoods, which is presented under the misleading banner of a “quiet zone”. As residents and community members, we believe that the realities of living next to a metro rail line are far removed from the serene picture painted by the recent Metro promotional material.

    Firstly, the concept of a “quiet zone” in the context of a train operating from 5 AM to midnight at 5-minute intervals seems fundamentally flawed. No matter the advancements in technology, the intrusion of noise, vibration, and general disruption caused by such frequent train passages cannot be mitigated to a level that justifies threading the rail through densely populated residential areas.

    Moreover, the current recommendation ignores viable alternatives that could spare residents from undue disturbance. We strongly advocate for the Hawthorne Boulevard Option, which presents a less invasive route for extending the C Line. This alternative not only respects the tranquility of residential areas but also likely offers more sustainable and community-friendly outcomes.

    We urge Metro to reconsider the planned residential route in favor of options that align more closely with community interests and well-being. It is imperative that infrastructure developments like these serve the public without sacrificing the quality of life for the very communities they aim to benefit.

    We hope Metro will engage openly with the community to discuss these concerns and explore all potential alternatives to ensure that the expansion of the C Line is beneficial for all stakeholders involved.

    Tham Pash

    • 3 things:

      A) where’s your proof? Expo Line neighbors said the exact same thing, and look now, everything is fine.

      B) 5-min intervals? Please stop the fake news, Even the Expo Line and Blue Line. Which justify 5 min intervals, still get 10-12 min rush hour, and not a single rail line in LA has ever had 5 min intervals past 7pm. Everyone knows after 8pm, it’s 20 min intervals so at most you’ll hear one train past by every 10 min in one direction after 8pm, if that. Most buses today don’t even have 5 min intervals outside rush hour. 5-min intervals is just a dream for Metro now.

      C) Only the freight trains are at grade. You don’t see freight trains coming through the neighborhood every 5 min right now aren’t they? So in this case, only the freight trains are the reason for quiet zones as there will, otherwise only a Soundwall would be necessary as the entire line now is grade separated.

      “Moreover, the current recommendation ignores viable alternatives that could spare residents from undue disturbance.”

      Uhh, YOU decided to live next to a ROW paid for by taxpayer’s. The taxpayers here doesn’t owe the neighborhood anything. This has been in the works since the 1970s. That’s enough time for people to know this was coming at some point as well.

      • So are you OK with your taxpayer money going to move the BNSF train track over 10+ feet so that Metro can squeeze two more light lines alongside it? And FYI: the freight train goes by maybe only twice a day. The rest of the row between 160th and 170th is so beautiful that the BNSF mechanics call it “Green Acres.”

        Since you clearly don’t care about the 400+ family homes in Lawndale and Redondo Beach, you might want to know that it is YOUR tax money will pay for the upgraded freight rail lines that BNSF should be paying for!

        • Yes, I’m okay with it, you wanna know why? BECAUSE WE ALL BENEFIT FROM FREIGHT!! How else you think you get your goods delivered to retail and your doorstep. You think the situation would be better if it was all trucks. The Alameda corridor is also taxpayer funded yet no one complains about that, ehh?

          That was your rebuttal? To try and pity to people that knew the train was coming since 1990 when Metro purchased the right of way.

          “Oh but there’s only 2-3 trains a day” spare me the BS!! Keep making your invalid excuses. Remember cheviot hills and Beverly Hills and the money and resources lost, expect the same to happen to these residents if they even think they have a chance. Even Bel-Air is hesitant.

        • “ Since you clearly don’t care about the 400+ family homes in Lawndale and Redondo Beach” LOL, I’ll say it again, South Pasadena and Cheviot Hills made the same excuse as well, and look how things turned out/

          Unless 400 homes are getting torn down, ain’t no reason to get all teary about!! NEXT!!

  14. Please redo this study without an agenda. The Hawthorne option best supports the community to grow and encourages the most ridership.

    • LOL!! I think this is the cutiest comment of them. Rules for thee not for me I see. Tell me YOU have an agenda without telling me. It’s nice to k ow your agenda is to shut down business, make it more and expensive amd time consuming for the agency to build this, cause more traffic mayhem, waste the taxpayers money some useless bike path that not even the neighborhood will use. I can go on about the agenda you don’t want exposed here

  15. We support the Hawthorne Blvd option. Please don’t mess up the community with the row option. Hawthorne helps the local business community more and disrupts less of us locals.

    • There are literally no stops along the Hawthorne option with the exception of the Galleria, so how exactly does it help those businesses out.

      • The Southbay Galleria’s new management is redeveloping the area into a destination! And the businesses on Hawthorne Boulevard are generally receptive to Metro coming down the middle of Hawthorne Boulevard, because they will have more visibility. And yes, their are actually businesses all around the Galleria so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.👀

        The ROW option takes riders down a narrow neighborhood— mere feet from family backyards and front doors, and then past a cemetery to the Redondo Beach transit center, which is behind the target and across from a parking lot. 🫣

        • “The Southbay Galleria’s new management is redeveloping the area into a destination! And the businesses on Hawthorne Boulevard are generally receptive to Metro coming down the middle of Hawthorne Boulevard, because they will have more visibility. And yes, their are actually businesses all around the Galleria so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.👀”

          . . . And? Cheviot Hills and Beverly Hills tried to used that lame excuse and even tried to use the whole “the tracks will literally be by the elementary school!! Think about the children.”You think they’ll be saying the same when they realize only the galleria will benefit because no one will want walk that awful intersection just north of the mall?

          “ The ROW option takes riders down a narrow neighborhood— mere feet from family backyards and front doors, and then past a cemetery to the Redondo Beach transit center, which is behind the target and across from a parking lot. 🫣”

          Great, that’s perfect, opportunities for transit oriented development around the station that can be A) designed to be more walkable, B) create more living amenities, and C) already have the transit nearby to support the transit.

          “ Wow… who hurt you?” – LOL, the person crying about a train going through a neighborhood is the one crying yet deflecting that fact upon others.” Nice whataboutism there, completely unoriginal! NEXT!! You sounds like those same whiners in South Pasadena, Cheviot Hills and Beverly Hills, none of which ended up having their way.

          One last thing, how cute of you to come off as pro-business yet not disclose that more businesses will need to be closed because of the extra real estate needed for the Hawthorne option. Did you choose to forget that part?

  16. Honest question: why wouldn’t Hawthorne be the best option for this (cost increase aside)? There’s massive redevelopment potential with the South Bay Galleria, and if/when that shopping center would be converted into thousands of residential units, shouldn’t that be a major selling point for the Hawthorne route?

    The existing and hybrid ROW options just seem short-sighted. If the South Bay Galleria is ever redeveloped, would it not be best to have it qualify for increase density and/or fewer parking spots if it’s built with TOD in mind?

    Imagine living in such a community and being able to commute without transferring directly to the airport or into Hollywood…I feel that opportunity shouldn’t be wasted nor overlooked.

    • Both of the options stop at the Galleria. The row stops right behind it and the Hawthorne stops right in front of it. There’s no practical difference to anyone who wants access to the galleria and wants to take the train there

    • Both options are equally close to South Bay Galleria and would benefit from the redevelopment and TOD. It’s disingenuous to say that one is better than the other in terms of proximity to that development. They’re both ~6 minute walk.

      One thing to be clear, however, is that the parking lots at the South Bay Galleria are privately owned and subject to redevelopment, so there will be very little park and ride possibility to a Hawthorne station. The Redondo Beach transit center, has 320 parking spots, bike lockers, bike racks, and buses, and is much quieter than the middle of Hawthorne Blvd. So overall it’s a much better transit connection experience.

      It would be a complete waste of transit dollars and common sense not to connect it to a transit center.

  17. I was going to complain but the Hybrid Alternative solves all my complaints. My main complaint was going to be about the at grade crossing but the hybrid puts it underground. Please build this already.

    • The ROW option does not stop at the galleria. It stops at the Redondo Beach transit station about a block away. Overlooking the Pacific Crest Cemetery.

      • Yeah, it’s more convenient having trains connect to transit centers. That way even if you didn’t want to go to the galleria, you could take a connecting bus somewhere else without having to sit at a highway. But if you did want to go to the galleria, like you said it’s right next to it.

  18. I’m personally very excited to finally see progress being made on this train. Please for the love of god build this line and give the South Bay an alternative to the 405. The ROW Hybrid route looks like a solid plan that uses the existing metro owned real estate to minimize blockers towards actually getting this drive

  19. Thank you for cominig up with the hybrid ROW alrenative. Mitigating transit conflicts at 170th and 182nd street make the best alternative even better.
    Now if only BNSF would step up and partner with Metro to grade separate their freight line at these two intersections as well.

  20. What SO HARD?… About Extending the C line in to NORWALK ? just to link up with the Amtrak or Metro Link trains would be Awesome!!!!

  21. Is anyone not concerned with putting a freight train exclusively carrying highly pressurized liquid petroleum next to passenger light rail trains?? And even if they go underground, then they run next to the petroleum pipelines running along the ROW and the petroleum train on top….we live in an earthquake state and what happens if we have a situation like the 2023 Ohio train derailment? How will the area cope with that kind of disaster especially since the material is highly flammable, toxic and explosive? What kind of safety measures will be put in place? That’s what I want to hear from Metro.

    • You think this isn’t already happening safely in other parts of the world that are prone to earthquakes.

      Actually. I’ll up you one even extra, we are already running light rail next to freight trains in LA county. The Gold Line has a freight track running along the Light Rail tracks and those tracks are Brand New. The Blue Line also has freight running alongside as well.

      More than likely, the reason for the high price tag is to build completely new freight tracks which will mean even less probability of less derailment.

      Also, earthquakes is your excuse? Freight trains were running higher speeds on those tracks for the 71 Sylmar and 94 Northridge Earthquakes yet there was no derailments and all trains were operational within 36 hours.

      Lastly, if you are that afraid chemical spills as a result of a derailment, WHY ARE YOU STILL LIVING ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY??? WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING TO METRO about something that should be a complaint to the freight train companies?

      Funny how NIMBYs haven’t brought these concerns to Union Pacific and BNSF but suddenly when a light rail line is being built that will improve the infrastructure, oh boo boo me!!!

      “I’m not against this but. . .” Stop!!! Grow a pair and admit that you made a mistake buying property along a rail right of way and want others to pay the price now. Good luck winning against taxpayers.

      • Dave, no one wins with the ROW. Freight is pressurized LPG only. Highly explosive. No other Metro line shares that footprint. + High pressure petroleum lines below. High voltage electric trains should be nowhere near these tank cars.
        ROW Station is behind a cemetery. Hybrid option will take longer than Hawthorne.
        Hawthorne brings economic growth to SB and uses a blvd. designed for public trains.
        Why is this so hard to see?

        • Why is it so hard to see that trains have ran on the ROW for DECADES with no incident for years and now you’re making complaints?

          Why do you still living along the ROW knowing the consequences behind those dangers? You don’t think a freight derailment can occur in any given second even before Metro lays a shovel on the ground.

          Keep making excuses in typical NIMBY matter though. Point the arrows at everything/everyone but yourselves. You don’t like it? Move, simple enough. But you won’t do that because everything you just said was not reason enough for you to move.

          • Dave there a huge difference in the safety factor with one train on a track twice a day compared to 3 trains squeezed into a narrow space 300 times a day.
            Do your math!

          • Incident free for decades? How about the derailment in 2017? Or the head on collision in 2022?

          • There were no derailments for la metro trains in 2017, and there was no la metro head on collision in 2022.

            Are you talking about the 2017 train derailment in Washington and the 2022 head on collision in Germany? You do realize the LA Metro has no jurisdiction over other states and countries right?

          • Dave, you talked about probability – surely you can come to the conclusion that adding a light rail will add to the probability of an incident. Maybe no incident will occur, but it still adds risk. Even the construction adds a layer of risk. Furthermore, a metro plan for LA has been in discussion for a long time, yes, but there was never a guarantee on where a train will go. Hawthorne is a very feasible and reasonable option – I’m sure more so for individuals living on the ROW.

      • I believe that folks in Redondo Beach and Lawndale have tried to contact BNSF. It’s almost impossible! They don’t own the row anymore.

        The areas you’re talking about that run light rail lines next to freight trains are NOT caring pressurize fuel, nor are there active gas, lines, buried alongside the track, as well as fuel lines going to the airport!

        I’ve been on those other lines; their freight cars are carrying lumber, building material and consumer goods. And they aren’t nearly as close to block and blocks of homes as this project would.

      • This narrative of “knowing you were buying next to the row” is the most asinine comment ever. It’s as extreme as saying “car accidents happen, why do you still drive your car”, “shootings happens, guns have always existed don’t send your kids to school”. Also, I live next to the row and when I bought my house I looked out to beautiful greenery and trees… but now I’ll look out to a large cement sound wall? Dang, my real estate agent forgot to mention that.

        • The judges have sided with Metro when Cheviot Hills tried to block the Expo Line and also sided with Metro when Beverly Hills tried to pull the same “asinine” excuse you’re trying to justify as well, and ultimately the court’s decision matters.

          “ but now I’ll look out to a large cement sound wall? Dang, my real estate agent forgot to mention that.” I mean, Metro purchased the ROW in 1990, so yeah, they’ve known for decades now.

    • The A (blue) line has been sharing its right of way with freight tracks since…checks notes…1990, when the thing opened.

  22. Am I understanding right there’s no at-grade crossings now? That’s how it should always have been. The line was always envisioned to be automated, which at-grade makes impossible. I was amazed when they looked at the alternatives for the K line northern extension they said it would be the busiest light rail in the world, so doing this right with grade separations is a very good choice. With so much subway on the northern part of the K line, I bet Metro is wishing it had been heavy rail from day 1 (which was the plan back in the 80’s when the harbor subdivision ROW would be the southern part of what is now becoming the Sepulveda line).

    • True, there’s now no reason that this couldn’t be tied in as automated with the existing automated section from Redondo station to Norwalk, and I imagine with the new service pattern (the K running down this track), that trains will simply switch from automated to fully manual and vice versa when departing from and arriving at LAX transit center station northbound since the at – grade crossings start just north of there (at Arbor Vitae). Drivers will still be “supervising” train operations though like the do on the existing C line, which is how BART operates.

      Also I imagine this new section will be fast due not only to there only being two new stations, but also particularly due to the long straight section between the curve just south of South Bay Galleria station and the Torrance station which should easily be able to allow up to 65 – 70 mph operation, which seems to be rare on LA metro light rail outside the C line dispite other long stretches. Metro often seems reluctant to fully utilize higher speeds on light rail for some reason, the best example being the now A line between Lake station and many other segments till Azusa, where it only ever goes 55 mph which is a bit slower than it needs to be given the route and station spacing. But I digress.

      • If I’m not mistaken, light rail trains will not be able to hit past 55MPH. You can blame either the state or feds for this, because they restrict light rail trains to 55MPH, Subway at 70MPH and most other trains to 79MPH at grade crossings, though I have experienced Metrolink maxing out at 90MPH at around the Oceanside area.

        This is exactly why Metro will continue to fail outside of rush hours, the light rail is too slow by design. I see cars putting the Gold and Green Line’s train sets to shame at 9pm when traffic almost becomes non-existent.

        • There is no such restriction so long as the ROW allows for it and the trains are designed for said speeds. Trains already go up to 65 mph on the C line as well as in the tunnel between expo / crenshaw and MLK on the K line. Metro has simply been inconsistent with the design of the lines and when setting track speeds. Also in Dallas and St. Louis the the LRT goes up to 65 in many segments including through some at – grade crossings. There may be a state law in CA specifically that limits light rail speeds through at – grade crossings specifically, but that still would leave alot of stretches where it should be able to go faster. Yes it won’t compete with speeding drivers going 80 + mph on the freeway late at night, but then it wouldn’t in any city really. That’s what regional rail is for, but we are talking about city trains here (heavy rail subway and light rail and / or light metro systems). Metro should still optimize speeds.

  23. I love the ROW hybrid option! I hope it gets selected next month without further delay.

    • Let me guess…
      You don’t care about the hundreds of families whose lives would be disrupted, even though there is a perfectly good option in the SAME CITY just 3 blocks away down Hawthorne Blvd. The new hybrid row option means that the difference and cost is nominal – especially after all the litigation that will occur with the impacted homes along the ROW.

  24. With the change taking place after the LAX station opens, shouldn’t this eventually be called the K Line extension?

  25. Our tax dollars paid for the right-of-way. We better be using it ! !
    Trench is a good option rather than some ugly elevated structure out in a middle of a busy street.

  26. This is not the preferred local option. The metro is forcing their decision on the community. The preferred local option is on Hawthorne Blvd.

    • No, the Hawthorne Blvd option is NOT the preferred option. Why would anyone want that option?

      It’s not a forced decision if we actually agree with the ROW section isn’t it?

      • Yes, the Hawthorne Blvd. option is the preferred option of 3 cities Lawndale, Hawthorne Blvd., and Redondo Beach. Obviously, you have never attended any of the Metro Community meetings where real residents appeared in person and overwhelmingly voiced opposition to the ROW.

        • Metro polling itself suggests that 70% of residents support the right of way. I’m one of them; and I don’t personally have the time to constantly go to every city council meeting.

          The only people who don’t want this are people who bought a house next to the tracks and are thinking that somehow someway the ROW will one day become a park, which has zero chance of happening.

          • Nope. As it turns out, the survey was extremely misleading (probably by design.) It asked if residents “support the C-line extension” IN GENERAL. It also was NOT seen by the communities most affected- North Redondo and Lawndale. And NOT sent out in Spanish or other languages.

            Therefore, the “70%” is not of the entire South Bay community. I’ve heard that the number is somewhere beyweenn 300 and 1000?! The responses mostly came from a mailer sent out in TORRANCE, which urged people to vote and used very bussed language.

          • Yea… no.
            It’s already a “de-facto” park. And the City Councils of Hawthorne, Redondo and Lawndale have all officially declared support for HAWTHORNE.

        • Your math ain’t mathing. You think those freight derailments around the country are happening next to major rail operation corridors? No, they are happening in single track, isolated areas. The risk is just as high with only 2 to 3 trains per day as there is 300. The fact that’s even the excuse you’re using is clearly a desperate attempt there. Not to mention, fresh, and new freight tracks along the entire ROW section, even further prevent such freak accidents from happening.

          Also, how convenient to ignore the fact we are already running light rail/freight trains next to each other on 2 other rail lines in LA for the past 30 years now.

          LOL, what makes you think I need to be there physically? You don’t think in this era it’s easy to visit Metro’s YouTube channel and listen to the ENTIRE meetings on demand. We’ve seen it before, a few loud people no longer determine the faith of a community.

          My point still stands, if you don’t like a train coming through a neighborhood coming on a ROW paid for by TAXPAYERS, then your solution is simple, either move or pay back the taxpayers for land they aren’t able to use. Stop making excuses. It’s 2024 and the NIMBY tactics will continue to lose. It happened in Cheviot Hills, it happened in Beverly Hills and so far Bel Air will likely lose as well, why lawndale thinks it’s special is beyond me.

        • In person community meetings generally do not represent what the broader population wants in a given area / city, plain and simple. These meetings overwhelmingly attract older NIMBY home owners, who generally arent interested in using public transit themselves, who have time to show up to complain about almost every proposal that comes up. Time and time again this is the case. Untill something else changes, most other residents and especially renters who often have busy work schedules or other obligations do not have the time to show up to these meetings. Besides, it shouldn’t matter anyway. Government agencies and planning departments need better methods to gauge public opinion than in-person meetings which by design are going to be constrained to a very limited amount of people and specific schedules.

          • Ummmm, maybe because younger residents are working? It is very difficult for many employees to take a day off to go downtown and sit in a meeting where you might not even get a chance to speak at all!!

          • The politicians /city councils in Hawthorne, Lawndale, and Redondo Beach support the Hawthorne Blvd option because they know the mindset of their residents and it is the locally preferred option.
            Obviously, you have never attended any of the Metro community meetings were hundreds of residents voiced their opposition to the ROW. Since 2011 -2024 after working.
            The only NIMBY is Torrance and the other are carpetbaggers attempting to force an anti equity option on Lawndale the most diverse and economically deprived community in the Southbay.
            3 derailments everyday in the USA but self-serving elitists prefer to roll the dice on our lives.
            Hawthorne Blvd option benefits the most people in the community.

      • The ROW option is not the “locally preferred alternative!” Torrance is the only City advocating for it to protect their Volvo dealership on Hawthorne Blvd & 190th, which would nip a corner of their lot with a raised pillar! I work in Torrance, and see the misleading propaganda that y’all get.

        Metro chose to not do early *adequate* outreach to the most affected communities- especially in Lawndale and North Redondo.

        The City Councils of Redondo Beach, Lawndale, and Hawthorne have all agreed that they want Hawthorne Boulevard and NOT the ROW!!

    • Absolutely not the preferred way, in my opinion. The turmoil of having years of construction along an already busy thoroughfare would be horrible.

    • No one is forcing anything on anyone, Lawndale resident. There has always been a railroad right-of-way there with freight trains. Adding light rail trains on completely separate tracks within that same railroad right-of-way, which taxpayers already paid for, is the clear and best solution. Forcing it out of the right-of-way that Metro already owns, at additional cost, and onto Hawthorne would be a huge misuse of taxpayer dollars.

      • The row option doesn’t actually save any money if you read the full reports

        • It saves people from Migraines, Unnecessary traffic from unnecessary construction and an unnecessary inconvenience to businesses that aren’t even gonna be served by the train on Hawthorne Blvd outside the Galleria.

          But yeah, everything has to be about money right? Plus his (and also mine) original point still stands, are you gonna pay back the taxpayers for losing out on a ROW for some crappy 2-mile bike path that local residents will barely use 10 years later? No thanks!!!

          Let me guess, you thought no one would catch that last 2 parts? What is your next invalid excuse?

          • I’d think you’d have a large number of people who live on the ROW who won’t use the metro so why should they deal with the inconvenience?

            Migraines, too much traffic? If the community is being served, bearing these inconveniences seems to be normal.

        • The ROW is at minimum 800 million in costs savings vs Hawthorne Blvd. and that’s also not counting the loss of revenue to businesses that will have to be evicted with the Hawthorne route to make way for the train.

          The Hawthorne route is more expensive for extremely minimal gain. The costs per rider are much higher and the time tables for completion are further out for a train line that will just end up creating a transit center on the busiest highway in the South Bay.

          • By Metro’s own admission, the Hybrid ROW is only 15 percent designed thus far and they haven’t even worked with the utilities yet to figure out what to do with the 5 jet fuel pipelines that will be displaced for the trenches under 170th and 182nd. Those are critical jet fuel pipelines for LAX. Then factor in Hybrid ROW is far from being fully funded, Metro will most likely need to seek federal funding. That means a NEPA review and more added cost and time delays. Then, more cost because NEPA often requires compensating affected homeowners or paying for costly mitigations for homes. On top of that the cities of Lawndale and Redondo Beach already have lawsuits ready to fire if the ROW is picked. So even more cost and time delays. There’s not a chance in hell a ROW option opens anywhere near the 2033 projected date.

          • Nope. Keep up.

            Especially after the hybrid option, which is being recommended because Metro realized AFTER the DEIR that at grade is dangerous to the kids who regularly cross Condon to go the elementary school. 🙄

            Gee, what else did they forget to consider?

          • You’re completely ignoring the cost of utilities that have to be relocated with the Hawthorne option. The power lines above Hawthorne and Sewer lines under it need relocation.

            The Hawthorne option will definitely require federal funding and NEPA review, per metros own docs. The hybrid route also doesn’t need it, per metros documents.

            Finally Metro is sued all the time. They were sued several times when building the Expo line and won every time, and the great thing is now there’s a train that serves everyone in Los Angeles.