It was a disappointment that two important area highway
improvement projects failed to make the short list for the first
phase of Proposition 1B funding. But there’s no need for
despair.
It was a disappointment that two important area highway improvement projects failed to make the short list for the first phase of Proposition 1B funding. But there’s no need for despair.
It’s true that neither the widening of U.S. Highway 101 south of Monterey Street in Gilroy – a project that would include construction of a new clover-style interchange at state Highway 25 – nor the widening of Highway 156 are being recommended for funding by California Transportation Commission staff. It’s also true that the commission, which will vote today on which projects to fund, is likely to follow the staff recommendation.
What we need to remember is that there will be a second funding phase in 2008 and that both of these road projects have a respectable chance of rising to the top of the list next time around.
Most of the $2.8 billion in funding that will be earmarked today through the state’s Corridor Mobility Improvement Account is going to pay for projects in California’s most-congested urban areas. Los Angeles and Orange counties, for example, account for nearly one-quarter of the money to be distributed, if the commission follows its staff’s advice as expected.
As we contemplate how to boost the prospects of our local projects next year when the second phase of funding will be allocated, it might be instructive to look at how some of our neighbors fared this year with their funding requests. The biggest success story we know of involves a group of nine less-populated counties in the San Joaquin Valley that banded together to win approval for more than $135 million in funding. These San Joaquin Valley road-improvement projects will help ease not only local traffic problems but also will address larger, regional transportation issues.
What happened there – and what likely needs to happen here in order to ensure our success with the Transportation Commission – is that several smaller counties formed an alliance, together identified the projects that would have significant regional impact and then spoke with one voice in supporting funding for those projects.
Alone, San Benito County doesn’t have the political muscle to wrestle state transportation money away from Fresno or Stockton, let alone Los Angeles. But if we band together with neighboring counties such as Santa Clara, Monterey and Santa Cruz, and stand behind projects that solve regional transportation problems – such as the widening of highways 101 and 156 – we do have a very good chance of being heard in Sacramento.
Work on forming such alliances has begun. Local government officials and private stakeholders need to make sure we keep pressing forward. Over the next year, we must speak with a loud, united voice to earn our share of those much-needed state transportation dollars.
