Metro Explores Alternative Rail-to-River Routes Through Southeast Cities

The Rail-to-River plan to put a bike path between the Crenshaw Line to the west and the L.A. River to the east just took another step forward. Source: Metro
The Rail-to-River plan to put a bike path between the Crenshaw Line to the west and the Blue Line to the east, along with the four options that could eventually connect the path with (or very close to) the L.A. River. Source: Metro

In thinking about the potential routes the eastern segment (B) of the Rail-to-River (R2R) active transportation corridor might take, stressed Mark Lopez of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, it was important that the needs of workers, youth, and community members of the Southeast Cities be put front and center. Connectivity to job centers and schools should therefore be the first priority.

Through that lens, Lopez said, the bike path project could offer momentum for the creation of other potential “job trails” EYCEJ had already been thinking about, including connections to Vernon, and Commerce, a path along Slauson that would facilitate connections across the L.A. River and the 710 Freeway to the Bell Cheli Industrial area, and routes enhancing greater access to the river and green spaces like Riverfront Park.

A snapshot of Randolph street from above (center, running left to right). The ROW runs down the middle of the street, and could be made into a protected bikeway and pedestrian path. Source: Google maps.
A rail right-of-way runs down the middle of Randolph Street and could be made into a protected bikeway and pedestrian path. Source: Google maps. Click to enlarge.

I had reached out to Lopez for feedback after attending Metro’s mid-afternoon session on the R2R project held last Wednesday in Huntington Park. The R2R project – a dedicated bike and pedestrian path that will stretch between the Crenshaw and Blue Lines, and to (or through) the Southeast cities to the east – is much-needed in the park-poor and truck-dominated corridors of the communities of South Central and Southeast Los Angeles.

Class i bike facilities. Source: Feasibility Study
Class I bike facilities separate and protect cyclists from cars. Source: Feasibility Study

But many of the participants, I realized as we gathered around the tables to decide how to serve Southeast residents’ needs best, were not from the area and/or not very familiar with where people worked or how they got there. All of which made speaking to Metro’s purpose for the meeting – discussing and ranking the four alternatives for Segment B of the active transportation corridor – somewhat difficult.

Metro’s own 2014 feasibility study had determined that the Randolph Street option should be prioritized. It would not necessarily be the easiest choice – the rail right-of-way (ROW) is owned by Union Pacific, meaning that the cost of acquisition could be quite high and the negotiations involved in acquiring the ROW could take some time. But factors in its favor included the length the route would cover (4.34 miles), user experience, connectivity, safety, transit connections, ease of implementation (see p. 76), and the fact that it would allow cyclists to continue on a dedicated Class I bike path (a separated and protected path, at right). And because the ROW is as wide as 60′ in some sections, it would allow for the inclusion of many or more of the amenities present on the western and central segments of the path.

Users would not have to move back and forth between busy streets and dedicated Class I facilities or lose the bike and pedestrian paths altogether, as they would with the Utility Corridor or Slauson routes. It would also offer users a safe, protected, and lengthy east-west connection through a densely populated and semi-industrial section of Los Angeles usually dominated by heavy traffic and large trucks.

Although, like Randolph Street, the Malabar route would be able to provide users with a dedicated and protected path, it narrows considerably (which would push pedestrians aside) as it makes its way north toward Washington Blvd. It would also move users through less secure industrial areas with fewer connections to transit, residential neighborhoods, commercial corridors, or educational centers. Also, as in the case of Randolph Street, the use of the Malabar Yards ROW would require negotiations with BNSF to get it to abandon its rights to the ROW east of Santa Fe Ave.

The Malabar route would move users north toward (but not reaching) the river through Vernon. Source: Feasibility Study
The Malabar route would move users north toward (but not reaching) the river through Vernon. Source: Feasibility Study

All that said, it was still not 100 per cent clear to me which route would better connect residents with their jobs.

A form of demand modeling that summarized the total population and jobs within three miles of the segment and divided that total by the segment length suggested that the Malabar route might serve approximately 100,000 more bicycle trips annually than Randolph Street (below).

The Malabar route potentially serves more bicyclists, according to demand modeling, but the Randolph Street route ranks higher overall. Source: Feasibility Study
The Malabar route potentially serves more bicyclists, according to demand modeling, but the Randolph Street route ranks higher overall. Source: Feasibility Study

A second level of demand modeling that combined population data with utilitarian (school, work, errands, health facilities, transit, etc.), social, and recreational trips forecast Randolph Street would be the most utilized route (below), with as many as 1.6 million bike trips annually.


The first model likely captured populations and jobs from Boyle Heights and downtown Los Angeles, boosting the Malabar numbers. The second model captured the many transit, residential, commercial, and other connections one could make along Randolph. But neither offers that much clarity on how well the Malabar option might connect residents to jobs in Vernon or downtown, or how much need there might be for such a connection.

Two representatives from Huntington Park I called over to our table to ask about which route might best serve local commuters weren’t really sure, either. It was safe to assume that people in the area traveled all around the region for work, they said.

In the best case scenario, of course, Metro would do both.

It was a suggestion that came up at our table more than once. And although it is probably unreasonable to expect such an outcome, it turns out that, just last month, Huntington Park embarked on its own feasibility study for the same kind of Class I bike facilities along Randolph Street that Metro has already studied.

Meeting attendees were told this when Metro gave its presentation on the project, with the Metro speaker stating somewhat cryptically that Metro fully intended to remain aware of what was happening in Huntington Park. The awkwardness continued when I brought the Huntington Park representatives over to our table. I genuinely wanted their perspective on the routes, but I was also curious about how much communication was actually happening. The answer to the latter seemed to be “not very much.” Metro representatives appeared genuinely surprised to learn that not only was the Orange Eco-Line in the works to link Downey, Cudahy, South Gate, Bell, and Huntington Park, but that the bus route would also have a stop intersecting with the proposed bike path at Randolph and Pacific.

At least half of the Randolph Street option falls within Huntington Park's jurisdiction. Source: Feasibility Study
At least half of the Randolph Street option falls within Huntington Park’s jurisdiction. Source: Feasibility Study

That Huntington Park is working on its own feasibility study is not that surprising – Metro’s own 2014 study noted that the community had just finished its Bicycle Master Plan which included a Class I facility along Randolph.

But the fact that, two years in to such a costly project with such far-reaching potential, each seems to be working in relative isolation doesn’t make a lot of sense. I am aware that the relationship between Metro and the Southeast cities is not always one that involves kittens and rainbows. But given that at least half of the Randolph route runs through Huntington Park and gaining access to the ROW (currently owned by Union Pacific) will entail lengthy negotiations and an awful lot of dough, now might be the time to go beyond just being aware of what the other is doing.

The Rail-to-Rail-to-eventually-the-River project will turn a right-of-way along Slauson Ave. into a bike and pedestrian path connecting folks to the Crenshaw, Silver, and Blue Lines. Source: Metro
The Rail-to-Rail-to-eventually-the-River project will turn a rail right-of-way along Slauson Ave. into a bike and pedestrian path connecting folks to the Crenshaw, Silver, and Blue Lines. Source: Metro

Awkwardness aside, the Rail-to-River project continues to move forward.

To that end, Metro will be holding meetings next month to engage community members on the design of Segment A of the project. That 6.4-mile section – running mostly along Slauson Avenue between the Crenshaw Line on the west and Santa Fe (just east of the Blue Line) to the east – is fully funded (above, in yellow) and expected to be completed some time in 2019. We will post those details as soon as they are available. If you have questions or feedback, please direct them to or visit Metro’s dedicated webpage:

We’ve been covering this project for a few years now. If you’d like to learn more about the development of the project over time, please see any of the following articles:


The decision to turn the Harbor Subdivision corridor into a (temporary) bike and pedestrian path that preserves the ROW in the event it should become feasible to construct rail there at some future date has been angrily debated in each of the comments sections of previous articles on this project. Should you feel the need to once again vent your anger over the decision to stop holding the community hostage to blight while waiting for rail to become more feasible, I suggest you channel said anger more productively by contacting Metro directly, Thank you.

  • Stvr

    Theory: no one will use this path. The flow in those areas is toward jobs that are to the north. Until you stop adding disclaimers to your reporting begging your readership not to comment on your articles, I will be skipping your byline on this blog.

  • sahra

    You have said this to me several times. But you just can’t quit me. It must be love.

  • LAdevelop


  • neroden

    I’d strongly suggest a survey if you want to actually know what people think of these options. “Community meetings” are generally grossly unrepresentive.

    Who knows, you might discover they want a light rail line. :P It’s not like anyone’s ever surveyed them about it, is it?

  • sahra

    Surveys were suggested by me, among other things. And yes, there was quite a bit of debate about the rail option when that option was studied, including some in the comments sections of previous stories I’ve done on this topic as noted. Rail enthusiasts are the biggest supporters, that I am aware of, not the communities this blighted corridor runs through. Which is fine, but Metro’s plans to build out the transit system, as seen in the project list for Measure M, would mean any rail option would not see resources directed at it til well after mid-century. And, given how and where folks move around South Central, better bus service through some of those corridors would actually be the better fix in the meanwhile, along with this new greenspace. But you know all this, because it has all been said before. Hence the disclaimer. All my best. -sahra

  • neroden

    I’m glad you suggested surveys. I guess Metro and LADOT just didn’t care enough about this area to bother to do surveys, which is sad.

    There’s a long history of ripping out perfectly good rail lines to build trails which end up being severely underused. It turns out to be very hard to get the rail lines back. I would not want to support such a tear-out destruction project unless I was very sure the community *actually* wanted it.

  • sahra

    The community really wants it. And needs it. They have to leave their own neighborhoods to access safe parks, teach their kids to bike, or just take a pleasant walk. And they need it for connectivity. People stick to main corridors like Slauson because they are the most accessible and the straightest shot across South Central. But unlike the N-S corridors, the E-W corridors tend to move a lot faster and feel a lot less safe at any and all times of the day. This would address that problem and give people a viable E-W route. It’s not suspicious, it’s about giving people a safe and separated path, with the possibility of amenities that would make the path more welcoming to all users.

    You’re talking about what the photo looks like because you haven’t visited that street nor spent time along it. Nor, I’m guessing, are you all that familiar with the communities in the area. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. The E-W corridors, Randolph included, are not as roomy as they look and they get insanely congested for several hours a day because there are not that many good E-W corridors. The Southeast Cities are very densely populated and not that well connected to the rest of LA yet. Nor has Metro prioritized making better connections as part of the new ballot Measure plans. So that’s where we are. There are more than enough things to be suspicious about in the world of planning. This is not one of them.

  • neroden

    I live on the East Coast, where a road with two through lanes in each direction plus parking is considered a gigantic luxurious thoroughfare.

    When I visit LA, my first thought is always “your roads are way too wide”. This seems like no exception.

  • Jesteban

    Metro should reconsider using resources that already exists and convert this space into a new light rail system, connecting the new Crenshaw station with Union station. This will also give residents living in the Art district, South Los Angeles areas access to transportation connecting to many terminals in the city. Easy way to get around. Just think about this: A new open, possibly greenery-filled space would attract people to use the bike lane over a short period of time until the homeless community begins to set up camps, cluttering the space over time, resulting in turning off the public from using the space, compared to that of a active, running light rail system that gets people where they need to be. I mean…Los Angeles is the 2nd largest city in the United States.

  • sahra

    It’s not filled with encampments now, despite having been open and available to the homeless for many, many years. People in that community need green space. They have to leave their community to exercise at parks in other neighborhoods. This corridor will connect schools and health clinics and residential neighborhoods. It will be very well used by the community, if properly geared toward the way they use space.

  • Metro Navy Line

    Our New Los Angeles Metro Navy Line will be phase tour from Union Station to LAX Airport is coming soon for next year’s project in 2021.


A map of the Rail-to-River bike and pedestrian path planned for the Slauson corridor in South and Southeast Los Angeles. Source: Metro

Rail-to-River Route Through Huntington Park, Bell Emerges as Best Candidate; Community Meeting December 8

Spoiler alert: of the four options Metro is considering, the Randolph Street option (B4) has ranked the highest. Not only would it help connect residents to more schools and other important community destinations, it would be able to provide residents with the safest way to reach those destinations. Best of all, it would add over four miles to the bike/pedestrian path and connect users to the river and the existing bike path there.