Supervisor Margie Barrios hopes to reverse directions with the
county’s preference on the $1.5 billion realignment of Highway 152
and convince state officials that the route closest to Hollister
would spark a big economic boost for the struggling area.
Supervisor Margie Barrios hopes to reverse directions with the county’s preference on the $1.5 billion realignment of Highway 152 and convince state officials that the route closest to Hollister would spark a big economic boost for the struggling area.
Barrios requested that the board approve a resolution and letter, under consideration at the 9:30 a.m. Tuesday board meeting, to show official support for the southernmost route among four alternatives before Caltrans. If approved, it would represent a reversal in preferences from just three years ago in September 2008, when the board approved the second of two resolutions signifying support for the northernmost alternative that would barely touch San Benito County.
With the project’s goal of streamlining the connection between the San Joaquin Valley and Highway 101, government and business officials believe the location of the highway could have a major impact on regional economics, such as influencing areas that are likely to expand commercially. The highway, which might be funded through tolls, would connect Highway 101 to Highway 99 in Merced County.
Some residents in the more rural San Benito, particularly in the bucolic San Juan Bautista area due to concerns about added traffic on the connecting Highway 156, would rather keep the thoroughfare at the northern tip of the county. Others, such as Barrios, see a more southern route as an opportunity to advance economically.
The proposed letter for supervisors’ consideration, signed by Barrios, the board chairwoman, cites the unemployment rate here of more than 20 percent in early 2011. With farm season now in full swing, that rate has dipped below 13 percent in the latest figures.
“The other alternatives that primarily transverse undeveloped agricultural land would not stimulate local economic activity in San Benito County to the same degree and would not allow the opportunity for additional development along the proposed route,” the letter reads, “such as truck stops, gasoline stations, or restaurants, without additional visual and agricultural impacts in a more rural area of the County.”
Aside from referencing the economy, the letter also argues that the most southerly option, “Alternative C,” would be more beneficial for the environment than the more northern options by eating up less federally designated floodplain land while largely using existing roadways.
Still, Barrios acknowledged the proposed letter is mostly about economics. She recalled that when she joined the board in 2009, she supported the southernmost option.
She believes there is more concern on the board about the “economic condition of San Benito County” than there was two years ago.
“I see a huge impact,” she said of the route’s geography. “There are approximately 30,000 cars that go through our county right now, from east to west. That traffic, those vehicles and trucks, if we are actually going with the northernmost route, we will lose all that opportunity for commercial businesses.”
Santa Clara County District 1 Supervisor Mike Wasserman could not be reached immediately to comment, but a staff member noted that the neighboring county had not taken an official stance on a preferred location.
San Benito Supervisor Anthony Botelho, who represents the San Juan area, said he “can’t say much” because he has a conflict on the matter – he owns property in the highway study zone.
