by Chelsea Schreiber
There’s been a lot of talk lately about Metro’s plan to extend the C Line/K-Line/Green Line down the old BNSF right-of-way (ROW) through Lawndale, Torrance and parts of North Redondo Beach. Some people still think this is just a debate about where to put a train. It’s not. This is a conversation about public health, environmental justice, and whether we — as a region — are willing to stand up for our neighbors when they are facing a threat they cannot fight alone.
To understand the stakes, you have to understand what lies under the ground Metro wants to dig up. The soil along the ROW contains arsenic, creosote, lead, and other toxins from 100-year-old railroad ties. These chemicals have been sitting in the soil for generations. And according to Metro’s own environmental report, disturbing that soil will create particulate matter that is “unmitigatable.”
That word should stop everyone in their tracks.
Unmitigatable means the dust cannot be filtered away. It cannot be controlled. It cannot be contained. No fence, no tarp, no promise in a document will keep it out of our air. Once that soil is disturbed, those particles — including lead and arsenic — will move through the wind, into backyards, onto playgrounds, across streets, and directly into the lungs of anyone who breathes the air in the South Bay.
This isn’t just a Lawndale problem.
This isn’t just a Redondo problem.
This becomes everyone’s problem the moment a shovel hits the ground.
Particulate matter travels far beyond the project footprint. Anyone who has lived through the wildfire season knows how quickly smoke moves. Toxic dust behaves the same way. These particles are microscopic — small enough to lodge deep in the lungs, small enough to cross into the bloodstream, small enough to impact brain development in children. And unlike wildfire smoke, this isn’t temporary. Construction would last for years.
We should not be releasing lead and arsenic into the air in 2025.
Not near homes. Not near schools. Not anywhere.
And yet that is exactly what the Hybrid ROW option guarantees.
This project would also push freight tracks closer to homes and introduce a new curve — increasing derailment risk in an already vulnerable corridor. It would disturb active fuel pipelines that run beneath the ROW. It would destroy Lawndale’s only meaningful green space in one of the most park-poor cities in the county. These are not minor inconveniences. They are serious, region-wide safety and health issues that will have consequences for decades.
What makes this even harder to grasp is that there are better options available.
Hawthorne Boulevard is a viable, conventional transit corridor that does not require digging up toxic soil, shifting freight tracks, or placing families at risk. And Metro’s own documents show that modern bus rapid transit could meet mobility needs without endangering an entire neighborhood. When safer, cleaner, more equitable alternatives exist, why would anyone choose the one option guaranteed to do the most harm?
So why should someone living in Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, or Rancho Palos Verdes care about what happens in Lawndale?
Because environmental injustice anywhere harms all of us.
Because we do not get to call ourselves a community if we look away while our neighbors are exposed to toxins we would never allow near our own homes.
Because this project does not reflect the values we say we hold — not as parents, not as educators, not as workers, not as people who care about the health of our region.
And because on January 22, the Metro Board will vote on whether to certify or reject the FEIR — a deeply flawed document that greenlights this harm. We need the entire South Bay to show up, speak up, and stand together. The cities of Lawndale, Redondo Beach, and Torrance will all provide free buses so residents can attend.
This is our moment to say:
We do not poison communities for convenience.
We do not dig up toxic soil next to homes.
We do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Not here. Not now.
The South Bay deserves better.
And we are strongest when we defend one another. ER
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.
Please read the FEIR, the noise studies show that when the light rail is running it is the sound of a whisper and after the freight modernization the overall noise levels are reduced. In fact, it shows the noise levels for Hawthorne increase because it is higher and the sound travels farther so the decision is – whisper for Lawndale residents or more ambient noise for Torrance residents.
From Gemini AI – High Cost – Low Ridership – Trains are a Taxpayer Money SUMP
No, most, if not all, public light rail systems in California, and across the U.S., do not break even; they rely heavily on taxpayer subsidies, with even the best performers like Caltrain only covering about 70% of operational costs through fares, while major systems like LA Metro and BART need billions in support, indicating a significant gap between fare revenue and expenses for California transit overall.
Key Findings on California Light Rail & Transit
No Fare-Only Break-Even: There isn’t a single public transit system in the U.S. that fully covers its operating expenses with fares, and California is no exception.
LA Metro & Muni: These large systems face huge budget shortfalls, needing billions in public funds to cover deficits, according to a 2025 study.
Sacramento, Orange County, San Jose: These systems also have low farebox recovery, with San Jose bringing in only about 7% of its operating budget from fares.
Systemic Funding Issue: California transit agencies are often underfunded compared to other states and struggle due to “car culture,” requiring substantial taxpayer support to function.
Why They Don’t Break Even
High Capital Costs: Building and maintaining rail infrastructure is extremely expensive.
Low Ridership: Many systems, especially in large, spread-out areas like LA, struggle with low ridership relative to investment, leading to inefficient use of funds.
Do freeways and toll roads break even? Last I checked they are 100% subsidized. Much better than 30% subsidies you mention for public transit. Public transit serves the most marginalized populations who don’t own a car.
From this read, it seems to imply a desire to NOT clean up toxic soil. This is counterintuitive to environmental justice that generally requests for toxins to be removed from their neighborhood. Especially since kids and dogs are playing on the freight rails now. Further, reading through the EIR under Hazardous Materials, the section 3.9 about the right of way says that historical rail lines can have heavy metals. The mitigation solution recommended is to remove contaminated soil and this was determined that the impact was less than significant. This is often done very safely. So PLEASE don’t discourage cleaning up contaminated soils.
I understand and am very sympathetic to the need for open space and that you Chelsea do not want the light rail next to the existing freight rail but this latest opposition is a complete grasp at straws.
I am not sure how Chelsea can argue both that the soil along the right of way contains arsenic, creosote, lead, and other toxins and also claim that the C Line extension would destroy Lawndale’s only meaningful green space. If the soil is truly as hazardous as she describes, it is not safe for children or pets to play in today. You cannot argue that the soil is too toxic to disturb, while insisting it is perfectly safe as a public park until Metro arrives.
Let’s be honest about what is happening. The opposition to this project was organized long before any environmental claims were made. They even named themselves “Right of Say.” Only later did they try to market their opposition through environmental concerns. The truth is that they do not want a light rail line near their homes and are now searching for arguments that sound more respectable or more alarming. I can sympathize with people who would simply prefer not to live near rail, but that does not justify misrepresenting the facts or mischaracterizing the FEIR.
The fear-based messaging is a last ditch effort to stop a project that has been planned for decades and that will benefit thousands of people across the South Bay and beyond. The C Line extension down the Metro right of way will be safer and quieter than the freight trains that already run there today, especially after the sound walls and modern track upgrades are complete. Metro has gone out of its way to accommodate residents, including plans to add new walking and biking paths and to replace trees and landscaping.
There is no mitigation Metro can offer that will satisfy the opponents, because their objections are not grounded in the actual environmental analysis. They simply do not want the project. That is their right to feel, but it should not derail an important regional investment that will reduce traffic, expand mobility, and improve the corridor for everyone.