From the perspective of all San Benito County taxpayers, the
best alternative to Hwy. 156 improvements is the Valley
Transportation Authority’s Southern Gateway Study Option No. 1,
which would place the burden of the East-West Connector all on
Santa Clara County’s taxpayers.
From the perspective of all San Benito County taxpayers, the best alternative to Hwy. 156 improvements is the Valley Transportation Authority’s Southern Gateway Study Option No. 1, which would place the burden of the East-West Connector all on Santa Clara County’s taxpayers.
Due to federal preemption and state mandates in transportation law, we have no jurisdiction over truck routes, only the feds do. Our neighboring counties won’t help SBC fund highways located in our county because they’re broke/
bankrupt – chasing their insane mass transit boondoggles. Each county’s taxpayers pay for their own roads under our current transport law. So, put the burden where the money is: Santa Clara County and VTA spend about $4 billion annually. San Benito County and Council of Governments about $80 million. They have money to burn; we’re impoverished rural cousins. I say let them pay for it. We cannot afford it in our grandchildren’s lifetime, let alone ours.
Traffic, like water, follows the course of least resistance. When the Don Pacheco “Y” Interchange improvements are completed, you’ll see what I mean when all those additional trucks steer into SBC off Hwy. 152. But with deregulation of interstate truckers, Congress is calling the shots, not the states or local government.
What’s feasible, realistically, given these national parameters? For SBC’s taxpayers to get back $1 billion from Sacramento, we would need to send $9.09 billion tax dollars because we get back only 11 cents for each dollar. Saving $1 million/year, we could have $1 billion in only 1,000 years. So, the Farm Bureau’s “3-in-1” is a Pollyana pipe-dream. VTA’s leaders would love if we fell for it. Are we that gullible?
Alternatively, we could tell VTA that they have no jurisdiction to cram their transport and land-use plans on our county. SBC should endorse the VTA’s subcommittee on revenue and project priorities, which met at Gilroy City Hall in April and, at Supervisor Don Gage’s urging, voted unanimously to spend more than $80 million on Hwy. 152 improvements between the Don Pacheco “Y” and U.S. 101.
In combination with restoration of intermodal facilities for Central California Coast Region shippers & receivers, SBC could have the best of both possible worlds: zero tax drain for the East-West Connector, and reduced highway congestion, lower air pollution and road maintenance expenses, and fewer accidents and deaths. VTA’s loss on the Measure A sales tax increase proposal in the June election means, however, that their county’s leaders will be trying to shift expenses onto their neighbors, e.g., SBC. Therefore, we must present a unified front in opposition to new freeway construction in SBC. If VTA has money to blow on such socialist boondoggles as BART to San Jose, then why should SBC’s taxpayers bail them out of their idiotic transport strategy? The only sensible solution for us is Option No. 1 (Hwy. 152 as the East-West Connector) plus intermodal options to decrease demand on SBC’s highways.
Joseph Thompson is a local attorney.
