by Alex Fineman, Redondo Beach; Brianna Egan, Redondo Beach; Devon Hollowood, Redondo Beach; Andrew Blackney, Lawndale; Christopher Truman, Torrance; Jan-Michael Sanchez,; Torrance; MC Guerry, Hermosa BeachThe C/K Line Extension to Redondo Beach and Torrance is a critical piece of transit infrastructure that will transform mobility in the South Bay, bolster our local economy, improve air quality, and bring safety to the rail corridor. It has been explored since the 1980s, identified as a pri
USA women’s hockey coach Wroblewski throws out first pitch on Hermosa Little League opening day
Kevin Cody
March 4, 2026
IN ORDER TO BE FAIR, THIS ARTICLE AND THE REBUTTAL SHOULD BE REVERSED ON A DAILY BASIS. OTHERWISE, THE PROPONENTS OF THE TRAIN LINE WILL HAVE A CLEAR ADVANTAGE IN MESSAGING.
Per usual, CEQA failed us. CEQA pays no attention to the health and welfare impacts of vibration, noise, and sleep interruptions caused by either construction operation of a 24/7/365 operation through residential, R-1 neighborhoods. The research is clear from a number of sources. BCHD’s $2M Blue Zones LLC contractor shows that noise is chronic stress, and calls chronic stress the “silent killer”. Further, Blue Zones even declares noise and stress to cause changes to children’s DNA, creating lifelong damage. But yet, neither Metro nor BCHD was forced to consider health damages due to flaws in CEQA.
Run it down the middle of Hawthorne. The incremental noise, vibration and health damages will be de minimis. On the other hand, going from a couple trains a day to 10 per hour, 24/7/365 will have a deathly impact on those who live near the route through residential housing.
CEQA also doesn’t consider property value damage. Obviously, these properties will take a serious hit during the decade of construction and then for the next 100 years of operation. And all that time, taxpayers will subsidize the underused, revenue deficient local rail option.
typical NIMBY comment
Consider getting a subscription instead of being a freeloader on Easy Reader. Local media is failing from “guests”
No substance, just namecalling. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
So, an Ad Hominem attack is all you have? Resorting to calling someone a NIMBY, especially when they are advocating for the project to be moved to a spot that is STILL IN THEIR BACKYARD (Hawthorne Blvd is a major thoroughfare and STILL IN LAWNDALE) to avoid unmitigatable environmental damage is oddly gaslighting. Do better.
Historically, property values surge along mass transit corridors. Homes near the Metro E Line have risen by 54%, with the most dramatic gains around Culver City’s highly sought-after stations. Beyond housing, the E Line has breathed new life into Washington Boulevard’s downtown commercial district and La Cienega Boulevard, sparking shopping centers and mixed-use developments. The Galleria could easily draw inspiration from Culver City’s transformation—its revitalization, job creation, and booming business tax revenues are the envy of every beach city.
Electric trains are quiet, clean, and efficient—typically just two to three cars long, producing only a fraction of the noise compared to mile-long diesel locomotives. Yet, curiously, some self-proclaimed “environmentalists” embrace BNSF’s polluting diesel trains without objection, while opposing electrified rail. That stance feels less about protecting the environment and more about protecting entrenched interests, much like gasoline car makers resisting change. Also…Metro does not run 24/7/365. I actually ride the metro myself and I know when somebody pretends they know how the trains run. (first train out is 4 am and last train end of line is 1 am on weekdays, it can be as paltry low as once every 20 minutes on non-rush hour)
As someone who values genuine environmental progress, I’ll say it plainly: electrified mass transit is good. Internal combustion traffic and smog are bad. And frankly, I’d rather avoid massive elevated structures looming over Hawthorne when Metro already has a perfectly functional right-of-way ready to serve its intended purpose.
Hmmm, it’s not so hard to understand. They have a single freight train pass today. The ROW route would move the rails closer to homes and add 200+ light rail trips per day. Light rail is not quiet. I’d hate to have it run behind my house 200 times a day, all day and night. The lack of empathy for fellow community members is disturbing.
This expensive project is meant to reduce cars on the road and increase ridership. It is also meant to last 50 -100 years. Metro’s own analysis shows the Hawthorne route would increase ridership by 1 million riders per year over the ROW route. It also mitigates all of the negative impacts on long established neighborhoods.
More ridership, less impacts…. seems the Hawthorne route is the superior alternative. We should not suboptimize 100 year infrastructure for the short term saving.
The Metro right of way already has trains running on it today. Modern light rail and the upgrades to the freight track will actually reduce overall noise and vibration compared to what residents hear now. Electric trains do not have diesel rumble or horns, and the project includes noise walls and other mitigation that improve current conditions.
Hawthorne is not a real alternative. It would require approvals from Caltrans, Southern California Edison, and multiple utility relocations. It would also require acquiring several private properties. Construction on Hawthorne would mean long lane closures, major traffic impacts, and serious harm to small businesses. Residents would deal with years of disruption without any benefit, because there would not be any train stops on Hawthorne. Lawndale made it clear they did not want stations.
The environmental claims that opponents are making are not supported by the actual analysis. Metro does not run trains 24 hours a day, and the idea of trains running every few minutes all night is false. Metro light rail produces much lower vibration than freight trains. CEQA focuses on measurable noise levels, and the modeling shows that noise will be the same or lower than current freight operations. Claims about extreme health impacts or stress-related DNA changes are not part of any scientific review in CEQA and do not reflect how the project actually operates.
The right of way avoids displacement, avoids business impacts, and has the lowest construction footprint. It will also be quieter than today and can be built faster and at a lower cost.
The concerns people have for a Hawthorne Boulevard alignment also exist on the ROW. The ROW also requires the acquisition of private properties and entire businesses (look at Metro’s “Real Estate Acquisition Report” in the FEIR). The ROW also requires major utility relocations including moving 5 jet fuel pipelines in 4 different locations (again, this is straight out of the FEIR). At least one of these pipelines serves as a major jet fuel source for LAX and the pipeline’s owner has warned Metro that even a little downtime to relocate the pipeline will cause major disruptions to air travel at LAX (see Torrance Logistics letter in the FEIR).
Residents will also deal with “years of disruption without any benefit” on the ROW just as you are worried about on Hawthorne. In fact, it will be even worse “disruption without benefit” on the ROW as everything is being built feet from homes. Traffic impacts will also be shifted to other major thoroughfares on Inglewood Ave and Manhattan Beach Boulevard instead of Hawthorne. Even just ONE lane closure on Inglewood Ave this week caused major backups from the 405 almost to Artesia Blvd. Imagine what it will be like when major construction begins. But you really shouldn’t be concerned with traffic because you already ride public transit to avoid traffic right? And maybe a little traffic is impetus for people to switch to public transit.
Finally, the Right of Way absolutely does not “avoid displacement” and “avoid major business impacts”… and that’s straight out of the FEIR. You are free to support whichever route you want but at the very least, stop pretending like the ROW doesn’t face many of the same major obstacles you cite for Hawthorne Boulevard.
Right of Way does not require any property acquisitions.
1 freight train per day versus 200+ light rail passes per day PLUS the one freight train per day. Hmmm, I think it is a no brainer which one I would pick. The lack of empathy for fellow community members is so, so sad.
You said “ The environmental claims that opponents are making are not supported by the actual analysis. Metro does not run trains 24 hours a day, and the idea of trains running every few minutes all night is false. Metro light rail produces much lower vibration than freight trains.”
First of all, there has been NO actual analysis by Metro; they even disallowed the city of Lawndale from doing their own soil tests, so a non-profit environmental agency did them.
Second, Metro will likely run train from 6 AM to 2 AM— because after all this does go to the airport! It is very likely that the BNSF freight trains will only run when Metro is not, so they will be lugging oil tankers between 2 AM and 6 AM. Therefore, NON-STOP VIBRATION.
And just like the LAX people-mover contractor fiasco, the issue of a contractor moving SEVEN sensitive oil pipes is still up in the air and would be another in a long line of famously bad Metro debacles.
Electric buses down Hawthorne Boulevard, in its own lane (with traffic light prioritization) would SAVE MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS, be ready by the Olympics, and serve the entire community much better. Have the bus go straight from the Torrance Transit Center to LAX, if that’s what Torrance wants!
Remember: This letter to the editor is Paid for by Metro. “South Bay Forward” gets paid as an organization to do positive PR for this project and gets paid for all the materials, time and effort to spread Metro’s messaging. I imagine they probably invoiced metro for the time to write this too. Personally, I trust real community voices and our city councils… not paid PR groups from mostly Torrance (who obviously want this because they won’t face any downsides from this project like two of their South Bay neighboring cities). Remember— Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale and Hawthorne city councils have all officially voted to oppose the Right of Way alignment for this project. Inglewood Mayor James Butts who is the South Bay rep on the Metro Board has also essentially said this project is facing massive funding issues and they will have to make some “tough decisions” because of that.
No one got paid for to write this article, it represents the voice of many SouthBay residents.
Metro’s CBOs are supported by Metro. You yourself may be a volunteer, but your events, your leadership, your propaganda, etc are reimbursed by Metro LA. Why won’t you just admit to something that a FOI request will confirm?
Shame on that Andrew guy from Lawndale… SHEESH!
What a traitor to his community. Lemme guess… he is a relatively new homeowner in Lawndale, moved in from a beach city, and has no friends in the Lawndale…
How’d I do?
I lived in Lawndale for years. I support the right of way because not only does it make the most sense, but the Hawthorne option is not a realistic alternative. Everyone knows that if Metro doesn’t build this on the right of way, the project dies.
I guess that makes you a traitor to your community of the South Bay — trying to kill the only legitimate option to bring commuter rail to the South Bay,
This OpEd is misleading at best. Saying 200 light rail trains passing through a neighborhood everyday is less of a noise impact than a single freight train pass per day is just not credible. This project moves the freight train closer to homes to make room for two light rail tracks. Also, all three lines will run on top of buried pipelines that transfer hazardous fuels. 200 trains per day passing over the pipelines increases the risk for pipeline failure and hazardous conditions. Running the light rail down the Hawthorne route mitigates all these impacts. It is a shame this group refuses to standup for their own community members.
And of course, the OpEd ignores that metro’s own analysis shows that using the Hawthorne route would increase ridership by over 1 million riders per year. The whole objective for the huge expense of extending the C Line (now the K Line) is to reduce cars on the road and to increase ridership. This infrastructure will be there for 50 to 100 years. With such a difference in ridership, the line should be built for the long term – not a short term money savings.
Increased ridership, reduced neighborhood impacts, reduced exposure to hazardous gas leaks makes the Hawthorne Route the appropriate choice. Why the SouthBayForward group fails to acknowledge this is a mystery to me. But perhaps worse is their willingness to throw their community members under the bus (or train in this case).
Go back to being a terrible mayor.