As I’ve said to the Council of Governments numerous times, there
are pros and cons for the Farm Bureau’s
”
3-in-1
”
freeway proposal, chief of which are: On the plus side, it would
create jobs for road builders like Pavex and Granite Rock.
Editor,
As I’ve said to the Council of Governments numerous times, there are pros and cons for the Farm Bureau’s “3-in-1” freeway proposal, chief of which are: On the plus side, it would create jobs for road builders like Pavex and Granite Rock.
On the negative side, cost is prohibitive because if it takes 30 to 40 years from creation to construction, like the Highway 25 Bypass, the $290 million will not cover a tenth of the final cost. Also, construction estimates average cost deviation is 50 percent too low, so you must add $145 million in today’s dollars to get closer to reality. And since San Benito County gets back only 11 cents per dollar that we send to Sacramento, you have to multiply by 8.9 to get the amount of taxes that SBC’s taxpayers have to send to Sacramento: $290 million + $145 million = $435 million x 1.5 = $652.5 million x 8.9 = $5.8 billion. This is today’s dollars – adjust for inflation to get the price 30-40 years from now. Maintaining SBC’s highways also falls on our taxpayers, so you have to add maintenance to annual budgets for more highway lanes to keep up.
Alternatively, ag products from the Central California Coast Region could move via intermodal service, and it would not involve a penny of taxpayers’ money. Ag would have coast-to-coast transport, rather than across the northern rim of SBC (i.e., transcontinental services instead of a short run from nowhere to nowhere). Railroads maintain their own trackbed without taxpayer subsidies.
Air pollution reduction and highway congestion reduction, plus lower highway maintenance expenses, are also indirect pluses for the intermodal option, but just the opposite for “3-in-1.” Condemning land for freeway lanes, whenever a viable option exists, is unsound land-use planning.
Finally, highway accidents, injuries and deaths happen on even the best highways because human error is the largest factor in causing them. The Government Code requires local governments to preserve previous generations’ investments in infrastructure, so we cannot abandon Highways 25, 152 and 156. The major north-south vector flows of commuter traffic are not served by Farm Bureau’s east-west freeway. Transcontinental freight flows, either direction, are helped but only from 101 to the Don Pacheco Y.
This Farm Bureau concept just does not pencil out. Local leaders should say “no” to 3-in-1, and say “yes” to increased rail-oriented economic development on the Hollister Branch Line, including restoration of intermodal facilities. Less expensive options exist, and taxpayers deserve the best, not worst, of our leaders’ planning. Caveat Viator!
Joe Thompson, Tres Pinos
