|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 1, 2010 10:51:07 GMT -8
As of December 2009, the Green Line South Bay Extension is now in the Draft EIS/R process. The project was incepted as the only surviving alternative of the Harbor Subdivision Alternatives Analysis (report here). As a result of that analysis, all other projects using the Harbor Subdivision were deprioritized until "additional funding is available and infrastructure improvements as part of other projects (such as the California High Speed Train and the Caltrans 'Run-Through Tracks') are put in place." The project is currently estimated at $495 million, and would generate appx. 5800 daily riders. It would proceed along the ROW, from the current Green Line terminus to the future Torrance Regional Transit Center (at Crenshaw just north of Torrance Blvd). Currently-anticipated stations are: - Manhattan Beach Blvd.
- Artesia Blvd. (South Bay Galleria, Redondo Beach RTC)
- Hawthorne/190th Street
- Crenshaw/Torrance (Torrance RTC)
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 1, 2010 11:15:27 GMT -8
I calculated distances between each of these stations: - Redondo Station - Manhattan Beach Station, .7 miles.
- Manhattan Beach Station - Artesia Station, 1.0 miles.
- Artesia Station - Hawthorne/190th Street Station, 1.2 miles.
- Hawthorne/190th Street Station - Crenshaw/Torrance Station, 1.7 miles.
Total length: 4.6 miles. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 1, 2010 14:04:16 GMT -8
Oddly enough, Metro removed this project from its list on the "Projects and Programs" page of their website. However, the actual page for the project still exists - beta.metro.net/projects/south-bay/I think the fact that Metro is already studying this line, despite its far-off construction projections, really indicates how dedicated they are to seeing at least some progress on all of their projects simultaneously. Now if they could only get started with an MIS on the I-405 Line... |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 1, 2010 15:52:55 GMT -8
I think the fact that Metro is already studying this line, despite its far-off construction projections, really indicates how dedicated they are to seeing at least some progress on all of their projects simultaneously. The study was initiated by the Metro Board. IIRC, this Alternatives Analysis was one of a flurry of such Alternatives Analyses that were requested by the board around 2008, around the time Measure R was being negotiated. In my cynical opinion, legislators from throughout the county wanted to make sure his/her hand was out when it counted, just in case some money came through. There is certainly no guarantee that this project will be built, now later or ever. 1/2 billion dollars for <6000 riders is not very cost-effective. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 1, 2010 16:21:17 GMT -8
Oddly enough, Metro removed this project from its list on the "Projects and Programs" page of their website. Maybe you're not looking in the right place. It's listed here and here. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 1, 2010 16:43:03 GMT -8
Because Measure R is county wide I think that at least the first phase of this project will get built sooner rather than later. Also they could have easily ruled out the lesser options, but they didn't. I don't interpret them getting a secondary priority as the end of the line for the other options. I think that we all knew that they'd be behind more pressing projects, but the study rated them higher than I would have thought. As with anything it will come down to money. If they can get a grassroots effort and lobby for money I could see a Harbor Subdivision from Little Tokyo to the blue line (or some portion of that) within 15-20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 8, 2010 17:58:44 GMT -8
Here is a map of the proposed extension.  |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 13, 2010 4:41:29 GMT -8
I think the project needs to be cut off at the South Bay Galleria.
Torrance's idea of a regional transit center is a disgrace. Torrance Transit operates under the impression that bus riders do nothing but transfer. What's worse, that site on Crenshaw is in the city's industrial crotch. It misses residences, it misses commercial activities, and it misses the natural transfer area around the city's civic center and commercial heart.
If Torrance wants a connection to the Green Line, it can route its buses to Redondo Beach, the city that has it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by 11ball on Mar 13, 2010 10:04:11 GMT -8
I agree that the Green Line should go to at least South Bay Galleria (along with a good transit center with lots of free parking on Kingsdale Ave.)
I was wondering if there is room to build a adequate maintenance depot in the industrial part of Torrance before it gets to Crenshaw Blvd (instead of building it further north in El Segundo or whatever town it was planned for.
Keeping the 190th/Hawthorne Blvc stop, I would continue the Green Line until you hit Prairie Ave. then head south (underground - ouch! more expensive.) The first stop would be close to where the Torrance transit center is/was? at the old Montgomery Ward end of Del Amo mall. It would be fairly close to Torrance Civic Center as well, if I remember correctly. (I haven't lived in South Bay since 1987.) Then go south on Hawthorne Blvd with stops at Sepulveda Bl/Lomita Bl/PCH. Beyond that, I don't know.
DS
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 13, 2010 10:15:28 GMT -8
Actually if you guys want to blame anyone for the current planned location of the Torrance Transit center you should blame the owner of the Del Amo Mall. They've refused to allow Torrance to rebuild their transit center, in fact they're extremely hostile towards the transit agency as they even made it impossible to have stops in the north side of the mall after destroying the transit center that was there.
All the land around the mall is taken or owned by the mall, so Torrance can't do anything except route its buses around the mall. I agree that it would be better to have the train go down to the mall via Madrona and then continue to the right of way via Plaza Del Amo to Wilson Park. A station at Wilson Park would be fantastic, there's lots of parking and lots of people around the area, it's a huge destination for local residents here.
The land where the transit center is going to be is big enough for a yard and it actually is being talked about as an alternative to El Segundo, however Torrance is going forward with planning the transit center.
I'd actually argue that Torrance Transit's current system does not encourage transferring since you're essentially only allowed to transfer at one location. I'm working very hard to change that actually and my hope is that in the next few years the system will become much more connected within itself and with other systems in the region, you have to understand that in the South Bay essentially every city has their own transit system and no one seems to coordinate with each other because they're all under staffed and very proud.
Torrance Transit is about to undergo some major changes, among them having schedules that actually have the correct amount of run time. It's a long road ahead, but I think in a few years you'll all see that Torrance is certainly trying their best to become a more useful system to its residents and to the region.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 13, 2010 15:27:23 GMT -8
I think that the further South the Green line goes the better. The goal is to someday connect the Green Line to the Blue line (somehow).
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 14, 2010 8:33:32 GMT -8
I probably would support the extension to South Bay Galleria (aka Artesia Blvd aka Redondo Beach RTC). The extension would be 1.7 miles long and add two new stations. There's a lot going on in the area of Artesia/Hawthorne, and I think it would make a better terminus than the current Redondo Station, which, no offense, is kind of in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 14, 2010 19:10:32 GMT -8
I would definitely support getting the Green Line to the Galleria.
Maybe in a few years, if Torrance gets its transit act together, we can extend that down to Crenshaw. It's not the perfect location, but neither is the current end of the line. Crenshaw is one of the biggest, longest and busiest streets in the South Bay and a park-n-ride or a bus transfer on that boulevard would do quite well there.
Extend it south of Crenshaw to Torrance Boulevard or beyond that if you want to get to Torrance's residential heart.
Although I like 11ball's idea, I do think that would be more difficult to build.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Mar 14, 2010 20:03:52 GMT -8
Responding to 11ball's idea; veering south on Hawthorne Blvd seems like it would hit a big mall, as well as what appears to be more more dense areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 15, 2010 0:13:13 GMT -8
The problem with Hawthorne blvd is that it would be very difficult or impossible to make that transition and also the city does not want it there. The only real alternative would've been to go street level after the Madrona Ave. bridge and travel to the east side of Del Amo Mall (basically what 11ball said). But again, the mall doesn't want transit around so it's just not going to happen unless one of you wants to buy Del Amo Mall  The big picture of the Torrance Transit Center will be that it will provide a huge park & ride lot, with retail, live ticket/information person from Torrance Transit, police and public restrooms. So it won't be the dead zone that the Artesia Transit Center is today. The transit center will likely be a big draw for people making thier way north on the Crenshaw Line to LAX and beyond, but I think one of the largest impacts it'll have is that it will now serve the employees of the aerospace industry who live in the region. Every weekday all of these workers get out at the same time and cause a super traffic jam that extends all the way to Long Beach, so moving the Green Line further south can't hurt at all here. I know some of you think that its not worth going further south, but I really think the value here is that it has serious potential to change the way residents in the South Bay think and feel about mass transit. Personally I would rather the terminus be at Wilson Park for this phase, but the reality is that it will be at Crenshaw Blvd. |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 15, 2010 3:54:10 GMT -8
The big picture of the Torrance Transit Center will be that it will provide a huge park & ride lot, with retail, live ticket/information person from Torrance Transit, police and public restrooms. So it won't be the dead zone that the Artesia Transit Center is today. It'll be the Artesia Transit Center with police and restrooms. It won't have a mall, office buildings, supermarkets, shopping centers, a hospital ... all of which are between Torrance Boulevard and Carson Street. I suppose Torrance is next going to say that it'll redevelop the area around the station to make it a transit village. ;D Please, Torrance Transit, just go out of business already. |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 15, 2010 4:10:20 GMT -8
Crenshaw is one of the biggest, longest and busiest streets in the South Bay and a park-n-ride or a bus transfer on that boulevard would do quite well there. Crenshaw, south of the 405 freeway, is the city's industrial armpit up until around Torrance Boulevard. South of that it's mostly single-story businesses. That stretch of Crenshaw has poor bus ridership. It's Torrance Transit 5 south of Artesia Boulevard, not Metro 210 or 710. Nothing will change this. Even if it was taken into Old Torrance, that has a lot of history but very little transit use except for the high school. Honda is a major employer there, but I doubt a car company with ample free parking for everyone will encourage transit usage. Torrance should be denied this extension. Torrance and its municipal bus system are the worst in L.A. County. Worse that Metro. (Look at Torrance Transit's entry in the National Transit Database. It's the one system in L.A. County that is more expensive to operate than a Metro bus (!) and it has about a third of the productivity of a Metro bus.) Why should this catastrophe on wheels be rewarded with a rail extension? Cut it off at the South Bay Galleria and let Torrance riders take Line 8 to get there. Or better yet, Metro Line 344. |
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Mar 15, 2010 8:45:07 GMT -8
In looking at the location of this proposed transit center, most of the TT routes would have a major dogleg to serve it. The 5 serves it directly, and the 1 and 3 are not far away, but the others...I guess the 2 would be extended east on Torrance Blvd to the center and end there, but I can't see the 8, turning off Hawthorne onto Torrance, going all the way to the center, then back to Hawthorne to get to PCH. Same with the 7 and 9 from Sepulveda and Lomita Blvds respectively. I guess the 6 would cut back from the mall area and end at the transit center. Too bad that Del Amo kicked them out, because that was the best location for a TT hub. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 15, 2010 11:55:41 GMT -8
Considering how there's little to no money for this project, methinks this will only get to the South Bay Galleria any time soon...although that might take up to 15 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 15, 2010 12:41:04 GMT -8
The system will need to be restructured to serve the transit center, that much is true but using the current system to envision that is a bad place to start. The current system has not been touched in a long time and that's also why it's so expensive to operate, when you have unrealistic run times you end up with a ton of overtime, etc. So they are currently working on a massive overhaul that will make the systen nore useful to the region. The system barely serves the densist part of the city, obviously things need to change. So don't assume line X will still be on Y street or anything like that because it may not be true in the near future.
When you're planning things you can't just look at the current state of things and assume that's how it will be in 10-20 years. No one can argue the South Bay doesn't need a lot of work, but it isn't helpful to just assume any outcome is awful. We have what we have and we may as well try to work to improve it because otherwise how will it ever change?
It's obvious that the retail at the transit center isn't going to be a big box retailer, it'll likely be more like a starbucks or something of that nature. Also understand that Torrance won't just be the only agency to serve this transit center, metro and Gardena among others have expressed interest in serving the transit center.
The money for the extension to Torrance would have to come from state and federal sources since the portion to Redondo Beach is funded fully by Measure R. But it'd look very silly to not fund this since it will be federal money that'll be paying for both Redondo Beach and Torrance's transit centers.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 15, 2010 14:13:33 GMT -8
I'm with ieko on this one. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I didn't become a rail transit advocate in order to preserve the status quo or to whine about how horrible service is. By it's very nature, transit advocacy should be and can be a force for positive change. There's no doubt in my mind that the only part of this Green Line extension that has a chance of getting built in the immediate future is the extension to the Galleria. There's also no doubt that Torrance Transit, such as it currently exists, needs help — and not the sort of help that Wad seems to be offering, i.e. smothering it with a pillow. Please, Torrance Transit, just go out of business already. However, the fact that Torrance is even thinking about building a new transit center and the fact that Torrance picked the train tracks next to Crenshaw should speak volumes about Torrance's intentions. Obviously, they expect great things from the Harbor Sub in the future. It will take time to get the line to the Galleria built. That will give Torrance plenty of time to restructure their service around their new transit center. Crenshaw south of Artesia isn't as useless as some people on this message board seem to think. It's a fairly wide street, which makes it an obvious choice for drivers headed for the 405. Instead of focusing solely on Torrance's admittedly dismal transit use, how about giving some thought to those who might switch from car to rail (the infamous "won't ride a bus but might try the train" commuters) if given the chance? |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 15, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -8
To some degree, this turn of events gives everyone a chance to evolve. We need the South Bay Galleria extension as a correction of what we have NOW, but it would be nice to see what Torrance and Gardena will do should it go to Redondo Beach.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 17, 2010 3:46:18 GMT -8
The system will need to be restructured to serve the transit center, that much is true but using the current system to envision that is a bad place to start. The current system has not been touched in a long time and that's also why it's so expensive to operate, when you have unrealistic run times you end up with a ton of overtime, etc. So they are currently working on a massive overhaul that will make the systen nore useful to the region. I hear this boilerplate hand-waving purpose statement from every earnest transit planner every time a system proposes a change. The reason why Torrance is going to mess up its system is that it has to use money to build this transit system in the middle of nowhere. It then has to restructure its service so people can be forced to transfer in the middle of nowhere. The route restructuring is all to justify the new Torrance transit center. The system barely serves the densist part of the city, obviously things need to change. So don't assume line X will still be on Y street or anything like that because it may not be true in the near future. Torrance Transit has only two productive routes out of the eight it runs, Line 3 and Line 8. Based upon frequency, Lines 1 and 7 might be the second most important. If Torrance needs to restructure its services, it would need the new services to look like Lines 3 and 8 to get the needed ridership. It's obvious that the retail at the transit center isn't going to be a big box retailer, it'll likely be more like a starbucks or something of that nature. Knowing Torrance, it will probably be a landfill or the city jail. This is a city that is putting parks in sewage sumps, after all. Oh, and Del Amo Mall has three Starbucks. And a Coffee Bean. And, stuff people actually go to. The money for the extension to Torrance would have to come from state and federal sources since the portion to Redondo Beach is funded fully by Measure R. But it'd look very silly to not fund this since it will be federal money that'll be paying for both Redondo Beach and Torrance's transit centers. If you dangle a fish of gant money in front of a hungry transit agency, it will bark and clap its fins like a seal. Torrance has reasons for building this transit center, and all of them are bad. Inaction is better than a bad action. There's no doubt in my mind that the only part of this Green Line extension that has a chance of getting built in the immediate future is the extension to the Galleria. There's also no doubt that Torrance Transit, such as it currently exists, needs help — and not the sort of help that Wad seems to be offering, i.e. smothering it with a pillow. Well, Torrance Transit's management, both the bureaucrats and the decision-makers on the city council, only seem to be offering the kind of help that involves taking the most frail members of the tribe and leaving them to be the meal of carnivores and carrion feeders. I wish there was a transit equivalent of a child services bureau that could take bus routes away from neglectful management. Torrance is one of the few cities where Metro taking over the service would be an improvement. Think about that. Metro would be slightly cheaper! The best would be if Gardena could grow and take over Torrance Transit. However, the fact that Torrance is even thinking about building a new transit center and the fact that Torrance picked the train tracks next to Crenshaw should speak volumes about Torrance's intentions. Torrance had a transit center at the Del Amo Mall. People went there. It was near places people wanted to go. The mall, which is about 80% parking that mostly goes unused even on the day after Thanksgiving, wants all buses to avoid serving it. The Torrance City Council quislings acquiesced to this demand. I have my assumptions about Torrance's intentions about rerouting its buses so a trip to the mall is impossible. I'm guessing it has to do with how much bus riders make and what skin color they are. Because more existing bus riders will be forever inconvenienced by moving their transit system to the middle of nowhere than will be gained from the "playing hard to get" choice commuter. Ieko and James, you seriously think Torrance bus riders are excited about a transit center in the middle of nowhere? If they wanted to go to a desolate part of Crenshaw, they'd be going there right now. |
|
|
|
Post by 11ball on Mar 17, 2010 15:12:49 GMT -8
Responding to 11ball's idea; veering south on Hawthorne Blvd seems like it would hit a big mall, as well as what appears to be more more dense areas.[/quote Don't make the mistake of building a line because of existing tracks. I haven't been in South Bay since 87 and have been in the south OC since then. I'm seen the Sprinter (Oceanside to Escondido) which should have never been built. It went over existing rail lines. The western 2/3 of the line is a joke because it misses every important stop instead of zigzagging along both sides of the 78 freeway. I never thought I would see a transit stop where you can't see a traffic signal nearby in any direction with just a one lane street nearby with maybe 10-20 parking spots. I keep humming the opening bars of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony when I pass by...... If the Green Line continues underground from Prairie/Madrona, I would place stops at the old Torrance Transit (would also be close to Torrance Civic Center. Then Sepulveda Blvd (major intersection) Lomita Blvd (huge concentration of medical buildings + Torrance Memorial) and finally PCH/Hawthorne Blvd. Wasn't there a long abandoned car wash on the SE corner next to the Jack in the Box? Use that location for the station. I'm not sure what to do about parking at this final stop. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 17, 2010 18:23:18 GMT -8
Torrance had a transit center at the Del Amo Mall. People went there. It was near places people wanted to go. The mall, which is about 80% parking that mostly goes unused even on the day after Thanksgiving, wants all buses to avoid serving it. The Torrance City Council quislings acquiesced to this demand. I have my assumptions about Torrance's intentions about rerouting its buses so a trip to the mall is impossible. I'm guessing it has to do with how much bus riders make and what skin color they are. I'm no fan of the owners of Del Amo, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with calling them racist. Show me the example of a Del Amo executive calling somebody a n**** or putting on their white robes and hoods, and I'll agree with you. I used to interview some of the Del Amo people when it was owned by Mills Co. and they may have been jerks, but they weren't racist. It's much more likely that Del Amo is interested in the color of people's cash, and considering that they operate a shopping center, I have no problem with that. They also hire security guards to keep troublemakers and gangbangers out, and I have no problem with that. Secondly, it's their property. They're completely within their rights to use that land for parking. Sure, Torrance can eminent domain a piece of their parking for a transit center, but we all know what a pain eminent domain has become. In recent years, the process has become much more tilted in the land owners' favor and the city would likely have to fight for the land. Del Amo has obviously decided that the majority of their customers drive to the mall, use their parking lots, and who can blame them for coming to that conclusion?I think it's a mistake to ignore drivers. Even with all of our new transit projects, Californians still drive a lot. And I think Del Amo knows this. Torrance knows this. The MTA knows it, because one of the major selling points of Metro Rail is that it will drag people out of their cars. Iif we can find the money to fund it, I would love to see the Green Line barrel down Hawthorne towards Del Amo, or even down Prairie like 11ball suggests. I think that would be awesome. Seriously. Or, we can use an existing right of way, like some other parts of Los Angeles I could mention.  Oh, and least we forget, we already have a Del Amo light rail station. It's pretty much in the middle of nowhere, but it does have a nice park and ride lot for drivers to switch to rail  |
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Mar 17, 2010 21:10:29 GMT -8
If paving over the transit center didn't hurt their bottom line, then those who want a transit center there will just have to live with that.
Perhaps it did hurt their bottom line, though, but they sure as hell aren't going to announce that.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 18, 2010 3:48:07 GMT -8
Perhaps it did hurt their bottom line, though, but they sure as hell aren't going to announce that. Del Amo is owned by Simon Property Group. Removing a transit center is but a blip in the overall cosmology of Simon, but it's bottom line is going to be in a bad way for years. It has a portfolio of malls hard-hit by the real estate bubble bursting and the general overall decline in consumer spending. Commercial real estate has its own set of problems separate from the residential housing bubble. REITs like Simon face two bad choices: Leave a lot of mall square footage vacant or let tenants take advantage of discount leases that they would like to lock in for the long term. The former leads to a spiral of decline that will be hard to reverse. The latter, staying occupied but locked in by low lease rates, will bleed its capital. |
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Mar 18, 2010 7:48:18 GMT -8
I agree that the Green Line should go to at least South Bay Galleria (along with a good transit center with lots of free parking on Kingsdale Ave.) I was wondering if there is room to build a adequate maintenance depot in the industrial part of Torrance before it gets to Crenshaw Blvd (instead of building it further north in El Segundo or whatever town it was planned for. Keeping the 190th/Hawthorne Blvc stop, I would continue the Green Line until you hit Prairie Ave. then head south (underground - ouch! more expensive.) The first stop would be close to where the Torrance transit center is/was? at the old Montgomery Ward end of Del Amo mall. It would be fairly close to Torrance Civic Center as well, if I remember correctly. (I haven't lived in South Bay since 1987.) Then go south on Hawthorne Blvd with stops at Sepulveda Bl/Lomita Bl/PCH. Beyond that, I don't know. From Hawthorne/PCH, I would send it east on PCH with stops at Crenshaw, Western, Kaiser Harbor City (station would be between Vermont and Normandie), Figueroa (to serve Harbor College), Avalon, Alameda, Santa Fe and Long Beach Blvd (where it would connect w/ the Blue Line). If you really wanted to be ambitious, you could extend it further east to Cal State Long Beach via PCH, with stops at Atlantic, MLK, Orange, Cherry, Temple, Redondo, Traffic Circle, Anaheim St, 7 St, then via 7 St to the campus. Not sure where exactly on campus the stop would be, maybe underground a la San Diego State. Of course, this is all a pipe dream |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 8, 2010 0:09:13 GMT -8
Oddly enough, Metro removed this project from its list on the "Projects and Programs" page of their website. However, the actual page for the project still exists - beta.metro.net/projects/south-bay/The South Bay Green Line Extension project page is on the projects page again. The page also has some spiffy new Paul Rogers Metro art. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 22, 2010 15:26:32 GMT -8
Just got this announcement. The project page is here. Come shape the future of the South Bay Metro Green Line Extension!We would like you to attend a Community Meeting on the South Bay Metro Green Line Extension. The Environmental Review process started earlier this year with four Public Scoping meetings in April and May. These meetings were designed to introduce the project and gather initial community input. These Community Meetings will provide an overview and update of the project, recap of the Scoping Meetings, as well as progress on the project alternatives and proposed station locations. Please join us. Metro encourages you to become involved with the project planning by coming to learn about the key features, ask questions and provide important feedback. All meetings are open to the public and we urge you to invite your friends and neighbors. Agenda 6:00 Open House 6:30 Presentation 7:15 Public Comments Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 6-8 PM Nakano Theater3330 Civic Center Dr. Torrance, CA 90503 Served by Torrance Transit Lines 1 and 8. Thursday October 21, 2010, 6-8 PM Lawndale Christian Church4234 W. 147th Street Lawndale, CA 90260 Served by Metro Line 40 and 125 and Gardena Transit Line 1. Monday, October 25, 2010, 6-8 PM North Redondo Senior Center, Perry Park2308 Rockefeller Lane Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Served by Metro Line 130 and Torrance Transit Line 8. Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6-8 PM Flight Path Learning Center6661 West Imperial Highway Los Angeles, CA 90045 Served by Beach City Transit Line 109. |
|
