In StreetSmart 15, Damien Newton spoke with Yesenia Perez of the Greenlining Institute about the connection between freeway expansion and California’s housing crisis. Perez discussed research behind her recent story at Streetsblog, which found that more than 800 homes have been demolished in the past six years to make way for highway projects, highlighting how transportation investments can reduce housing supply and destabilize communities.
The conversation explored how new state data, made available through SB 695, is helping quantify these impacts for the first time. Perez said the Greenlining Institute’s “Homes Before Highways” project aims to make that data more accessible, allowing residents and policymakers to better understand where displacement is occurring.
Newton and Perez also discussed how these impacts are often overlooked in housing debates, which tend to focus on new construction rather than homes lost to infrastructure projects. Perez argued that clearer data is helping shift the conversation toward real community impacts.
Looking ahead, Perez emphasized the need for policies that prioritize avoiding displacement, including alternatives to highway widening and requirements to replace lost housing. Both agreed that aligning transportation spending with California’s housing and climate goals will be critical moving forward.
A lovingly edited transcript of our discussion can be found below.
And last, catch up on old episodes or subscribe: Streetsblog CAL, Apple, Spotify, Libsyn.
Damien Newton:
As I said in the intro, I’m here with Yesenia Perez from the Greenlining Institute, and we’re going to be talking about displacement issues and the Institute’s “Homes Before Highways” program. If her name sounds familiar, that’s a good thing—it might be because back in December she wrote a piece for Streetsblog California, which we’ll link to in the text accompanying this podcast, called “Displacement in Dollars Down the Drain: The Data Behind California’s Highway Expansion Crisis.”
I should note she didn’t originally write it for Streetsblog California—she wrote it for the Greenlining Institute, and they were kind enough to let us cross-post it. So, thank you for being here today, Yesenia. Let’s start by talking a little bit about that article—what it covered, since it was based on a lot of research—and then we can get into the Homes Before Highways program you’ve been working on.
Yesenia Perez:
Yeah, happy to start with an overview of the article. The core argument I made back in December is that freeway expansion isn’t just a transportation issue—it’s also a housing issue. It’s one of the most overlooked drivers of California’s housing crisis.
Based on data released in the past year or so, we know that over 800 homes were destroyed to make way for highway expansion projects in just the last six years. Across the state, highway projects have divided communities for decades. A good example is the proposed 101/92 connector in San Mateo, where around 33 homes—and dozens of families—could be displaced in a region already struggling with some of the highest housing costs in the country.
The core point is that if California is serious about solving its housing crisis, it has to consider how transportation investments affect housing supply and community stability—even when projects don’t ultimately get built, like the 710. The state needs to account for the long-term impacts of investing in freeway expansion.
Damien Newton:
Yeah, and for anyone not familiar with the L.A. area, there was a decades-long plan to connect the 710 and the 210 freeways. People called it the “unfinished freeway.” Metro and Caltrans finally abandoned it around 2018 after years of opposition.
But as part of that project, they had purchased a bunch of homes back in the ’70s. Many of those homes are still vacant or in poor condition. Some were occupied during the pandemic, and now there are ongoing issues around how to treat those residents fairly. It’s been a real mess for the northwest San Gabriel Valley—and it’s still being dealt with today.
Yesenia Perez:
Yeah, and one more thing to highlight is the cost. Even after the project was canceled, Caltrans has spent something like $17 million just maintaining and guarding those empty properties—homes that could be housing people.
Damien Newton:
Right, and that’s something we’ve covered a lot. We’ve interviewed residents in those homes multiple times—usually once a year on our SGV Connect podcast.
Joe Linton, our Streetsblog L.A. editor, has also done extensive reporting on freeway widenings and their housing impacts. It’s something we talk about often, but it still gets lost in broader conversations—even among journalists.
There’s a section in your article called “Displacement by Design,” and it really stood out to me. Legislation like SB 695 has helped quantify that impact, and the numbers are still shocking. Between 2018 and 2023 alone, we’re talking about hundreds of homes and businesses—most in L.A. County.
So how has your work evolved since that article?
Yesenia Perez:
SB 695 was really foundational for our work. It required Caltrans to report on highway expansion impacts—lane miles, emissions, and displacement. For decades, we didn’t have a statewide picture of how many homes and businesses were being demolished.
The data shows that in the last three decades alone, there have been around 10,000 displacements in California tied to highway projects.
But it also shows the limits of transparency—it only captures a narrow window and doesn’t reflect the full history or future impacts.
That’s why we created the Homes Before Highways site—to make this data visible and accessible. Between 2018 and 2024, more than 850 homes and businesses were demolished, alongside about 760 miles of highway lanes added.
To put that in perspective, that’s longer than the distance from Oregon to Mexico. Our map helps people visualize where these impacts are happening in their own communities.
Damien Newton:
And I think there’s real value in that, especially since so much of the housing conversation is focused on building new housing—particularly near transit. The discussion about housing lost to freeway expansion often gets overlooked.
When you talk to policymakers or advocates, do you feel like this data is changing the conversation?
Yesenia Perez:
I do think it is. When people can actually see where displacement is happening, the conversation shifts from abstract policy to real community impacts. You start to see how families are pushed farther from job centers when housing is demolished, and the connection between transportation and housing becomes clear.
You can’t solve a housing crisis while demolishing homes for freeway expansion.
The next step is for policymakers to ask: now that we have this data, what are we going to do with it?
Damien Newton:
And I think a lot of people assume this kind of displacement only happened decades ago—not that it’s still happening today. Once people realize it is, there’s usually a strong reaction.
So what do you see as the solution? Should we stop highway expansions altogether, or rethink how we approach them?
Yesenia Perez:
There’s no single solution—it will take a range of actions. California has already made commitments through its climate action plans, including acknowledging these harms and calling for policies to reduce displacement.
But we haven’t seen those policies fully implemented yet.
One key recommendation is to change how projects are evaluated. For example, requiring alternatives that avoid displacement—like converting existing lanes into bus or express lanes instead of widening highways.
And if displacement can’t be avoided, there should be requirements to replace lost housing, ideally with affordable housing in the same community, so there’s no net loss.
Damien Newton:
That makes sense.
We’re getting close to the end, so I’ll ask for any closing thoughts. And just a reminder to listeners: links to everything we discussed will be available with the podcast at cal.streetsblog.org.
Yesenia Perez:
One thing I want to highlight is that while these conversations can feel discouraging, there’s also a lot of positive work happening.
In the latest State Transportation Improvement Program cycle, over 300 safety and active transportation projects applied for funding—but most didn’t receive it, even though they scored highly. Meanwhile, regions continue proposing highway widening projects that cost more and can worsen congestion.
So it’s important to recognize that communities want these safer, more sustainable projects—they’re ready to go. The question is whether the state will prioritize them.
At the end of the day, this is about aligning transportation investments with California’s stated goals—on housing affordability, climate action, and equity. The state has made strong commitments. Now it’s about following through and making sure investments support those goals instead of undermining them.
Damien Newton:
Great. Thanks so much for your time today. This is clearly an issue we’ll keep covering—freeway expansion has been a major Streetsblog theme for years. But as you pointed out, there are also positive developments worth highlighting.
Yesenia Perez:
Thank you so much.
