State Rep. Warwick Sabin today put out a 2-minute video on his opposition to the proposed I-30 expansion through the downtown corridor.

Advertisement

Sabin is one of two candidates for Little Rock mayor who has expressed strong opposition to the plan, along with Vincent Tolliver. Former Highway Commissioner Frank Scott supports it. The fourth candidate, Baker Kurrus, the former superintendent of the Little Rock School District, has occupied a muddled middle position, stating that it’s likely going to proceed in any case. “To hold out for nothing is a big mistake,” he said at a debate earlier this month.

Advertisement

Sabin’s new video, called “I-30 Crossing: The Wrong Plan for Little Rock” includes interviews with longtime residents.

Sabin issued the following statement:

Advertisement

I’ve opposed the 30 Crossing project from the start because it harms the revitalization and growth of downtown Little Rock. The 30 Crossing project in its current form is a “boondoggle” that burdens taxpayers with debt and impedes the continued development of Little Rock. After so much progress has been made to revitalize our downtown, we cannot afford to repeat past mistakes. My vision for Little Rock includes creating a more livable city that brings people together, and I will provide the leadership to make that happen. 

More from the Sabin campaign’s press release:

This costly expansion project has been dubbed a “boondoggle” by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. While other cities are tearing down interstates and focusing more on public transportation, walkability and bike trails, Little Rock leadership supported a decision that negatively impacts our city at a cost to the current downtown revitalization.

Little Rock is set to exacerbate its past mistakes by widening I-30. This is a decision that ignores powerful transportation trends and threatens the tremendous progress that has been made in revitalizing our downtown core. It also happens to be a $630 million project that can be scaled back. The structural issues with the I-30 bridge can be addressed in ways that don’t involve widening I-30, and a recent cost-benefit analysis demonstrated that the project would shave only a few seconds off of commutes.