Two States Cancel Highway Expansions After Years of Planning

It’s not common for transportation agencies to walk away from highway expansions after years of planning, but it has happened in two major metropolitan areas last month. Advocates hope that increased public pressure and scrutiny from the Biden administration could halt other build-outs as well.

Officials have canceled or paused plans to expand freeways in Los Angeles and Denver, as political leaders have re-examined long-held assumptions about the financial price and societal costs of bigger roads through urban areas.

Los Angeles County officials scrapped plans to widen an 18-mile stretch of highway that connects the busiest port complex in the country to east Los Angeles and several other freeways in the area. It’s a major victory for local activists, who argued that the increased traffic would add air pollution and other problems to nearby residents, who are predominantly Black and Hispanic. Federal environmental regulators were already scrutinizing the expansion plans for potential violations of the Clean Air Act.

“We are no longer going to widen the freeway,” said Janice Hahn, the county supervisor who sponsored the motion, said at a meeting. “We are no longer going to wipe out homes and neighborhoods for a freeway project.”

The vote was unanimous, effectively halting a project that had been in the works for nearly two decades. The supervisors now plan to use the $750 million allocated for the highway project for other purposes.

“We should use the funding … on smarter ways to improve air quality, reduce congestion, improve mobility and address safety concerns for everyone living and traveling along this corridor,” Hahn said.

Another Canceled Project

The Los Angeles project cancellation came after Colorado officials put on hold their plan to widen Interstate 25 through central Denver, saying they could no longer afford the project. State and regional authorities wanted to expand the highway to address the chronic traffic jams that clog existing lanes, and to improve safety from traffic crashes and low-clearance bridges.

Matt Inzeo, a spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Transportation, said the agency was shifting priorities. It recently purchased a freight rail yard near the highway.

“We are exploring a significant relocation of the rail lines through the is area just south of the central business district,” he wrote in an email message. “Because the rail work will be such a big job in and of itself, and because we don’t have funds in hand to tack on a major interstate project as well, we are focusing on the rail work for the next several years.”

On top of budget concerns that officials cited for pushing the project off their priority list, Colorado transportation agencies now must consider how new projects would affect greenhouse gas pollution. The requirement is part of a new state law passed last year.

Inzeo said the new greenhouse gas rules did not play a part in the department's decision, but it could come into play later on. “It will be relevant if and when we consider capacity changes on I-25. That isn’t a ripe consideration right now,” he explained.

Area activists pointed to the new law earlier this spring when outlining their opposition to the expansion of I-25.

“It’s long past time that Colorado invests in projects that align with its commitments to address climate change, air quality and equity,” wrote members of the Denver Streets Partnership.

“Colorado leaders can no longer pretend it’s possible to have it both ways—you cannot continue to fund highway widenings that induce demand for driving while spending a marginal amount on multimodal projects. Colorado must stop highway expansion projects and instead must significantly increase investment in projects and programs that increase transportation options,” they argued.

Strong Towns, a group that opposes highway expansions, said in a blog post that the Colorado decision was “a great step towards prosperity in building a strong town when a city just says ‘no’ to damaging road expansions and turns their funds instead toward creating more walkable cities with various transportation options.”

“Highway expansion has been the primary solution for many DOTs when faced with solving congestion issues. Strong Towns has been advocating that this never works, and only creates more traffic congestion while leading the community into debt,” the group explained.

Colorado, though, is still moving ahead with other highway widening projects, including the widening of Interstate 70 through north Denver.

Changes Bring Scrutiny

Activists claimed a victory in Oregon, if only temporarily, when the Federal Highway Administration revoked its initial environmental approval for a plan to widen Interstate 5 through Portland. The project would widen the roadway through Albina, a historically Black neighborhood, but cover stretches of the below-grade highway with caps that could help reconnect the community. The proposed caps would allow buildings to be constructed over the highway.

Gov. Kate Brown helped negotiate the inclusion of caps in the project, after significant community opposition. But the changes were substantial enough that federal officials determined that the Oregon Department of Transportation must update its environmental assessment. The state agency also has to revise findings that its project is in line with local plans.

Still, Rose Gerber, an ODOT spokesperson, said those updates were “anticipated” and said the project is still on track for construction to start next year.

A local group of opponents, called No More Freeways, which has sued ODOT over the project, claimed that the state agency “retreated” from its initial plans to avoid legal scrutiny.

“Community 2, ODOT 0,” Chris Smith, a co-founder of No More Freeways, said in a statement. “Elected officials should take note that No More Freeways and our partners will continue to use the tools at our disposal to demonstrate how ODOT’s proposed freeway expansions are legally incompatible with any coherent, desirable vision of a region with cleaner air, reduced traffic congestion and fewer carbon emissions.”

This story has been updated to include comments from the Colorado Department of Transportation.