Supervisors still not satisfied with Santa Clara County’s
solution for Don Pacheco Y
Hollister – A presentation from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, along with a vote of support from Caltrans, did nothing to change supervisors’ opposition to the proposed design for the Don Pacheco Y flyover that they feel will funnel more traffic onto San Benito County roads.
In fact, following the meeting, Supervisor Pat Loe said she would like to see the VTA start over on its environmental plan and delineate exactly what traffic impact the flyover will have on county roads and how it will be taken care of.
During the Tuesday presentation, supervisors agreed that a flyover is necessary at the intersection of highways 152 and 156 to improve safety and ease traffic, but they feel that Santa Clara County traffic planners are not taking seriously their concerns that the VTA design will increase traffic on county roads.
“When increased traffic comes into San Benito County, how will the VTA pay for our roads?” Loe asked John Ristow, the VTA’s deputy director who spoke before the board Tuesday.
Ristow emphasized that the flyover is a short-term fix to improve safety at the intersection. He also said that the VTA choose the design it did because it is less expensive – by about $2 million – and fit the existing landscape better than the San Benito County’s favored design. The VTA’s plan allows for the future widening of both highways, he said, and both designs would result in the same increase of traffic onto San Benito County Roads.
Both Loe and Supervisor Anthony Botelho, thought that was debatable.
Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage, who represents the southern part of that county, said he is concerned that San Benito’s continued opposition could jeopardize the funding for the $33 million project. After years of frustration, officials were able to assemble a patchwork of federal, state and local dollars to complete the project.
“You run the risk of losing the money,” he said. “If that happens, there will never be a flyover there.”
The dispute between the two counties first erupted when the VTA did not include the flyover design favored by the Council of Governments, San Benito’s transportation agency, in its recently-released environmental report for the project. According to Loe, the VTA agreed in 2003 to include both designs in the environmental report.
Supervisors believe the VTA’s plan will funnel more traffic onto county roads because it will be easier to head onto Highway 156 than to take the flyover to 152, which heads toward Gilroy. They prefer an alternative that sends traffic into San Benito County via a flyover. COG and the Board of Supervisors sent letters to the VTA last month demanding to know why the COG-favored alternative was not included in the report.
“I’m frustrated,” Loe said. “If they wanted to work with us, where have they been for the last year-and-a-half? Now they say we’re holding up the project.”
But Ristow said that his agency never agreed to include the COG-favored plan, and standard procedure dictates including only one design in an environmental impact report.
“I firmly believe that this is the best alternative that meets the project purpose and need,” he said to the board, adding that the flyover is only a short-term fix for the intersection, which has twice as many accidents than other highway in the state.
The intersection has long been an inconvenience for motorists traveling to and from the Central Valley. Westbound motorists who want to get onto Highway 156 from 152 now have to make a left hand turn and cut across moving traffic, creating a safety issue and delays. Good Samaritan motorists often stop to let traffic turn left on to 156, which can cause get-away weekend traffic to back up 13 miles to Gilroy.
“We’re trying to solve that one problem,” Ristow said.
During Tuesday’s meeting Caltrans District 5 representative David Murray told the board that Caltrans supported the VTA’s plan for the flyover.
“We are committed to working with you and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to come up with long-term solutions,” he said.
Loe didn’t seem comforted.
“Will Caltrans financially support widening our roads?” she asked Murray.
Murray again said Caltrans would work with San Benito County without making a specific commitment.
Botelho said the debate over the flyover highlights the need for a freeway that connects Interstate 5 to Highway 101. The “3-in-1 proposal”, as it is called, would build a four to six lane freeway from Highway 101 to the intersection of highways 152 and 156.
“I really, truly believe that if we want to move traffic safely through this region, we need one freeway that takes the 5 to the 101,” he said. “It’s something I’ve been promoting for a number of years.”
Botelho said he will try to get a discussion about the 3-in-1 started at Thursday’s COG board meeting. Also at that COG meeting, board members will discuss how the VTA’s preferred alternative will affect San Benito and what steps might be taken to mitigate the effect.
“I would like for them (VTA) to redraft the environmental document and spell out what it means for San Benito County, and then start talking about mitigation,” Loe said.
Luke Roney covers politics and the environment for the Free Lance. Reach him at 831-637-5566 ext. 335 or at
lr****@fr***********.com
