Supervisor Margie Barrios had good intentions when she broached
the topic of realigning Highway 152, the state’s ambitious plan to
spend $1.5 billion on a new regional thoroughfare between the
Central Valley and Highway 101.
Supervisor Margie Barrios had good intentions when she broached the topic of realigning Highway 152, the state’s ambitious plan to spend $1.5 billion on a new regional thoroughfare between the Central Valley and Highway 101. Her proposal to endorse the southernmost of four alternatives in Caltrans’ proposal, however, would have went a couple of big steps too far, and supervisors should consider another version of the board chairwoman’s tabled idea: Ask the state to conduct studies on which alternative would offer the biggest economic boost and, most important, whether the costly project is even necessary at this point.
Barrios had placed an item on last week’s board agenda for the proposal to endorse the southernmost of four alternatives running through portions of San Benito County. Her apparent preference would place the highway closer to Hollister than the others, while the northernmost option barely touches the county along the border. The thought is that the highway’s geographic placement would influence which areas might grow commercially, or get the biggest economic boost from the roadway.
It is a noble pursuit, especially considering San Benito County’s struggles in recent years. At times, the county has had among the highest unemployment and foreclosure rates in the entire state. Any prospective advantage over other, surrounding areas on such a massive corridor is worth examination by county leaders who have continually pushed their advocacy for economic growth. Supervisors, though, would be better off taking a more academic approach. They would be better armed for a debate over the placement of Highway 152 with fact-based information garnered from a study – which they should request from the state – than by taking the more emotional route and staking claim to such an economic boon based simply on past plights.
That is why the county board should request the study to examine the economic impacts of the highway’s geography and also whether the recently constructed flyover on the historically congested bottleneck – at the intersection of Highway 156 – has satisfactorily eased the problem and staved off the need for the realignment for many years to come.
The reality is that the State of California has been broke for years while facing annual, multi-billion-dollar deficits. If a study shows that the realignment no longer has a future, taxpayers could save on the $1.5 billion construction price tag – as well as the thousands of costly man hours put in by Caltrans planners whose job security is all too often buoyed by unnecessary, long-stalled proposals and dusty drafts with no shelf life.
And if the project’s need still remains after examining the current conditions and traffic forecasts ahead, then an economic impact analysis could guide the geography of the highway and offer the best possible economic spark to the region as a whole.
