Navigating the Century Freeway: Origins, Opposition, and Route Controversies

Beginnings: Freeway Craze of the '50s

The genesis of the Los Angeles freeway system can be traced back to the early 1940s. The first freeways in Los Angeles, the Arroyo Seco Parkway (Pasadena Freeway or I-110) and the Cahuenga Pass Freeway (Hollywood Freeway or I-101), were both opened in 1940.[1]

Before the introduction of the 110 and the 101, Los Angeles transportation relied heavily on its “Red Car” system. This public transit network, established by the Pacific Electric Railroad system in 1901, served as the primary mode of transportation for countless Angelenos until its formal disbandment in 1950.  The postwar era saw unprecedented momentum in transportation developments. The Collier-Burns Highway Act of 1947 incentivized freeway construction through a 1.5 cent statewide fuel tax.[2]

While the construction of the Century Freeway was not completed until 1993, its origins can be traced back to the Federal Highway Act of 1956. Enacted by by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, this legislation paved the way for a 40,000 mile national system of interstate and defense highways, to be constructed over a span of 13 years.[3] State politicians and urban planners harbored lofty and idealistic visions for Route 42 (later becoming an interstate, as the I-105 Century Freeway), when plans were first set in motion in 1958, envisioning a 10-lane thoroughfare stretching 51 miles eastward to San Bernardino. In 1963, the Collier-Unruh Act authorized the first rapid transit funding.[4]

To grasp the fervor of the freeway craze of the 1950s, one need only examine the Los Angeles master plan of Freeways and Expressways, which proposed over 1500 miles of freeways throughout the Greater Los Angeles area.

Anti-Freeway Fervor in California

While plans for a Beverley Hills freeway, connecting the I-10 with the I-101, were initially on the table, vehement opposition effectively put an end to that proposal. An article by the Institute for Transportation at Iowa State University highlights the inequalities and disparities when it came to freeway construction locations. While plans for a freeway that ran through wealthier areas like Beverley Hills fell through due to opposition, successful freeway constructions slicing through Latino neighborhoods, particularly in Boyle Heights, East Los Angeles, and Lincoln Heigjts, resulted in the displacement of over a quarter-million people.[5]

Despire the grand aspirations of early freeway project stakeholders in California, by the early 1960s, opposition to freeway construction, undergirded by concurrent environmental movements, was steadily gaining momentum.

By the mid-1960s, a principal route for Century Freeway had been laid out by the Division of Highways, starting around Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and running parallel to Century Boulevard, hence earning its name, the “Century” Freeway. However, by this time, freeway revolts had begun surfacing in San Francisco. Dissatisfaction among San Franciscans stemmed from the California Division of Highways’ proposals to extend freeways across the region. A pivotal moment occurred in 1964 when a rally in Golden Gate Park protested the proposed Panhandle-Golden Gate Freeway plan. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors rejected $250 million in federal financing for two interstates that were proposed to go through the city. This 6:5 decision from the board has been said to be the final nail in the coffin for San Francisco’s freeway program. However, south of San Francisco in the bustling city of Los Angeles, the government later approved the entire reallocation of the $250 million to the Century Freeway project, transforming the project from a state route into an interstate.[6]

Deciding on a Route: Residents Push Back

In the cities surrounding the proposed routes for Century (including Willowbrook, Hawthorne, Norwalk, Compton, South Gate, Lynwood, Bellflower, Santa Fe Springs), residents generally favored routes that bypassed their communities. Tension escalated as the state continued acquiring homes to clear the path for the freeway. By this point, the project had already garnered significant negative attention, particularly due to the conduct of the right-of-way agents from Caltrans. Residents who were interviewed in newspapers alleged that these agents overstepped boundaries, resorting to intimidation tactics and fabricating false information about whom residents claimed were acting out of line, threatening residents, and coercing compliance with right-of-way regulations along the corridor.

Related Documents