California Must Stop Expanding Highways

Key Takeaways

• CTC funding three Bay Area highway expansions.
• Projects add lanes despite climate and equity concerns.
• $500M SR‑37 plan threatens marshland, future flooding.
• Active Transportation Program funding cut limits bike projects.
• Advocacy toolkit urges public opposition and alternative funding.

Summary

The California Transportation Commission is set to approve $16.8 million for a managed‑lane expansion on US 101 in San Mateo, a second express‑lane addition in Santa Clara, and a $500 million widening of State Route 37 in Sonoma County. All three projects run counter to California’s climate goals, where tailpipe emissions account for roughly half of the state’s greenhouse‑gas output. Funding for the Active Transportation Program, which supports bike and pedestrian projects, has been slashed, leaving sustainable alternatives unfunded. Advocacy groups have released a toolkit urging the public to oppose the highway boondoggles and push for greener investments.

Pulse Analysis

California’s transportation budget is at a crossroads. While tailpipe emissions still represent about half of the state’s greenhouse‑gas footprint, the California Transportation Commission is earmarking billions for highway widening projects that lock in car dependency. The upcoming approvals for US 101 managed lanes in San Mateo, an expanded express‑lane system in Santa Clara, and a massive widening of State Route 37 illustrate a policy tilt toward auto‑centric infrastructure, even as climate scientists warn that such expansions can increase vehicle‑kilometers traveled and lock in higher emissions.

Each project carries distinct environmental and equity risks. The San Mateo managed‑lane plan would funnel additional traffic through communities already burdened by poor air quality, while the Santa Clara express‑lane addition threatens to negate any emissions gains from lane conversions. The SR 37 widening not only encroaches on protected marshland and endangered habitats but also faces imminent sea‑level rise, making the $500 million investment a potential stranded asset. Meanwhile, the Active Transportation Program—once a conduit for bike lanes and pedestrian improvements—has been gutted, leaving localities without the funds to pursue sustainable alternatives.

The broader implication is clear: without a strategic shift toward active‑transport funding, California risks missing its climate targets and perpetuating transportation inequities. Advocacy groups are mobilizing citizens with toolkits that outline how to contact commissioners and propose viable projects like the Kelly Avenue Complete Streets initiative and Safe Routes to School improvements. Redirecting funds from highway expansions to bike‑friendly and pedestrian‑centric infrastructure could deliver measurable emissions cuts, improve public health, and future‑proof the state’s mobility network against climate impacts.