More Opinion

COMMUNITY OPINION: Measure G and local highways

Greg Swett shares his thoughts on the proposed transportation sales tax and a VTA traffic analysis.
Provided by Greg Swett.
Provided by Greg Swett.

This community opinion was contributed by Greg Swett. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent BenitoLink or other affiliated contributors.

San Benito County Council of Government (COG) and CalTrans District 5 wants to embark on two highway projects that will not solve trying to traverse Northern San Benito County or getting to Santa Clara County. Essentially we are building two large parking lots. Highway 156 will add two eastbound lanes that will end in one traffic light, funnel to one lane and in ¾ of mile another traffic light, which is essentially what we have now. Westbound 156 traffic at San Juan Road will still face back ups to Highway 25. On the plan COG has for Highway 25 which it is asking for funding will build a four-lane highway to the county line, Pajaro Bridge (Tri-Cal.) There is no agreement with Santa Clara’s Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) on what will be done to connect 25 to 101 through Santa Clara County which is estimated at $240 million. Essentially widening 25 in San Benito County turns it into a parking lot for the two-lane Pajaro Bridge to Santa Clara.

I travel all three roads for my walnut orchard operations and would like nothing more than highways that work as well as everyone that uses these roads. COG’s and CalTrans District 5 $300 million plan is not a solution. There is no desire on COG or CalTrans District 5 to work with the VTA on developing solutions that address the issues of 25, 152, and 156. CalTrans District 5 has explicitly stated that they are not interested in corridor analysis. Attached to this opinion is a graphic produced by VTA that offers a solution for our three main routes. VTA also produced traffic analysis with the Southern Gateway Study (See PDF at the bottom) on route options with Alternative C providing the best and safest solution. Alternative C also would open up significant commercial opportunities such as major roadside services as well as warehousing/distribution for San Benito County at San Felipe and current 156. Opportunities that could add significant tax revenues without requiring county tax supported services.

COG and CalTrans District 5 possibly can do a better job, but passing the sales tax increase will just enable their current poor planning and execution. If they get the funding, will they change their plans to work with the VTA? Their history says no. Will they change their 459-page plan for 25? Again no, as evidenced by their 25-year jihad on attempting to construct 156 through the San Juan Valley.

The VTA has provided San Benito County a solution, but San Benito County has not acknowledged nor included the options for Highway 25. VTA needs us for 152, we need them for 25. As our extremely rich and powerful neighbor, they have the political and demonstrated technical skills to provide a solution that benefits them as well as a majority of San Benito County residents that work in Santa Clara County.

CalTrans has a storied past—just think of Interstate 80 over the Donner Summit. However, in San Benito County, District 5 and COG have lost their way. A few examples--Highway 25 South of the Pinnacles where a $2.1 million straightening project failure is turning into a $6.5 million project on a second attempt to straighten 746 feet. The intersection of Fairview and 156 has handicap ramps—but no sidewalks. Probably $200,000 spent to meet a politically correct mandate that does not help the handicap. And finally 156 widening in the San Juan Valley that will add four lanes of which funnel to two and going Eastbound have another stop light in 4,050’ with a two lane bridge after that. On an aesthetic viewpoint, compare the 25 Hollister Bypass with Santa Theresa Ave. and Butterfield respectively in Gilroy and Morgan Hill. A complete acceptance of schlock and mediocrity by our community compared to our neighbor’s bypasses. Giving this group, COG and CalTrans District 5, access to ½ billion dollars and expecting a congestion free trip is unbridled optimism.

Demand a workable plan that addresses the needs of everyone traversing Northern San Benito County and then provide funding. VTA has provided the plan—we have failed to even to acknowledge its existence much less read it. By voting yes you will only ensure that you will be sitting in traffic for the next 20 years and being poorer in the bargain.


Greg Swett



BenitoLink Logo

Become a Member Today

Support your local independent news.

We work hard to give you the news and information you need. By becoming a member, you will be part of something bigger; BenitoLink, your community-supported news source.



Submitted by Ken Dunn (kenneth) on

Full agreement. Stop spending good money on crap that doesn't work.

Mr. Swett, I can only speak for myself.  If I am elected and a member of COG I assure you I will be looking for the most economical and effective solutions for our transportation problems which would include working with the VTA in detail.  Santa Clara County is the the economic engine of much of California and the nation and it's the magnet that employs about half our workforce.  I have never been a NIH (Not Invented Here) person, besides, if Santa Clara County catches cold we're going to get pneumonia.

My economic analysis is that San Benito County is th most dependent, per capita, on earnings directly and indirectly from Santa Clara in the region because we have a massive shortage of business income and good-paying private sector jobs.  Without a good transportation network our hopes for significant economic improvement are going to go unfulfilled.

There are some of us out here that are not wedded to previous bad decisions.  I believe if we had the tax funding AND progressive thinking we could get things done.

Marty Richman

Candidate for Hollister City Council, District 4

Submitted by Hamdy Abbass (Hamdyabbass) on

Response to Greg Swett from Hamdy Abbass:


San Benito County does need a transportation system that works. We need better roads and highways to get to work, support our quality of life, attract business, increase economic vitality, and increase safety. That’s why I’m voting Yes on G. It’s the first step in addressing our transportation needs, fixing our roads, and increasing safety. If we do not pass Measure G, we are not setting ourselves up for success. Doing nothing does not help us, it only makes it worse.


I’m voting Yes on G because it qualifies us for state and federal matching funds that we so desperately need as a county. Becoming a self-help county, like all the counties surrounding us, enables us to make the needed investments in our transportation that otherwise could not happen.


Measure G is a detailed community-built plan, with months of citizen input, written by transportation experts. As co-chairman of Stay Alive on 25, I attended the public input sessions, as safety on 25 is a top concern of mine, and found that 25 was largely a top concern of many attendees and groups throughout the county. I understand why making 25 a 4-lane expressway with safe intersections is the first tier of the plan – It’s what the community brought up time and time again and asked for. This is a critical need right now, and Measure G is a prudent responsible plan to address this need right now.


I’m a Republican, and I’m proudly voting Yes on Measure G – this is something that should have happened 20 years ago. I do not want to wait another 20 years for something we so critically need. Join me in voting Yes on G.

Submitted by (Mary nydegger) on

I didn't have this measure on my dang ballot. 


Sexist Hollister cry baby jerks. 

Add new comment

Add Facebook comment

Comment using your Facebook account. Facebook comments will be published on this page, and on Facebook. It will not be posted to the "Recent Comments" list on the BenitoLink front page.