Nobody, perhaps outside of trucking firms and truck drivers, likes to see trucks on roads, highways, or freeways.

But everyone sure loves to eat the food they transport and a wide repertoire of consumer goods they deliver to stores or directly to homes.

Trucks have long helped power San Joaquin County’s agricultural economy.

If the county were a free-standing state, its $3.2 billion 2023 agricultural production would have fallen between Maryland at 36th with $3.9 billion and Utah at 37th with $3 billion.

And then there is distribution and logistics.

The emergence of San Joaquin County as the distribution hub of the 18-million consumer strong Northern California mega-region has been the driving factor in reducing overall county unemployment to 5.5 percent today. That’s roughly half of what it was in 2010.

We need trucks, like it or not.

That said it is essential they have proper places to park.

Equally important is the need for truck terminals to handle freight transfers and to service big rigs.

A few years back, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors attempted to control where truck terminals could be built with conditions that went beyond proper zoning.

The four “musts” were simple.

They needed to be located within a mile of an interchange.

Truck terminals were not to go in developed rural or urban communities.

Nor could they be built in the path of development.

The last criteria restricted them to being located along minor arterials or roadways with a higher classification.

Assuming the county staff’s measured the distance from the Highway 99 interchange correctly, the proposed 109-space Global Carrier truck terminal that was before the San Joaquin County Planning Commission on Thursday barely meets that criteria.

There is no reasonable debate on it conflicting with existing or future development.

And it clearly meets the “minor arterial or roadway with a higher classification” criteria.

You can say it blows the doors off that specific criteria, which is a big problem.

Planning, by its very nature, is done within a relative vacuum.

There is no way to come up with a one size fits all.

Planning commission members are generally required to, for-all-practical purposes, rubber stamp projects that meet established zoning and accompanying requirements.

As such, one might correctly assume the San Joaquin Planning Commission approved the project Thursday.

But if there is a serious issue that justifies the matter being appealed and settled by five elected officials that serve collectively on the Board of Supervisors.

The issue is East Highway 120.

It is not just a higher classification than a minor arterial.

It pushes the upward limit.

Last Sunday, traffic returning to the Bay Area from the Sierra heading westbound came to a stop and crawl almost all the way to the four-lane section near Jack Tone Road.

That is not unusual. And it is worse on many weekends.

At the same time commute traffic keeps increasing and not decreasing.

And while it isn’t the fault of the terminal applicant, when traffic is more free moving the 45 mph posted speed limit segment of the highway the proposed 10-acre site is located along is routinely ignored on a wholesale basis.

The acceleration and deceleration lanes along eastbound Highway 120 is a clear must as is an extended lane for which existing trucks can turn into to merge with westbound traffic.

But is it enough?

Nowhere is there any consideration given to additional measures for having a significant truck terminal on a roadway that is often plagued by notoriously thick tule fog.

There is no street lighting or such of consequence on that stretch of highway.

That’s a minor issue compared to tossing in more truck movements to and from a heavily traveled state highway.

Two ironies need to be pointed out.

Caltrans, some three or so miles to the east on Highway 120, is preparing to spend millions to add a roundabout at the state route’s intersection with Murphy Road.

Accident patterns as well as an uptick in the number of trucks going to and from The Wine Group’s massive warehouse are the driving factors behind the warehouse.

The proposed truck terminal would ultimately have more daily truck trips than the winery.

AC Trucking within the City of Manteca accesses East Highway 120 at Vasconcellos Avenue that is controlled by traffic signals.

Will a concentrated number of truck movements at 11150 East Highway 120 have the same degree of safety for all concerned as they do at Vasconcellos Avenue or as Caltrans wants them to be at Murphy Road?

It is highly unlikely the intent of the Board of Supervisors when they adopted truck terminal criteria was to promote direct terminal truck movements on and off major highways that didn’t go through a controlled intersection such as one with traffic signals.

What scenarios they probably envisioned was along somewhat less congested routes or a truck terminal built on a minor arterial such as Austin Road that connected via traffic signals with the arterial accessing the interchange.

Caltrans’ primary concern is safety as well as the smooth movement of goods and people.

There will always be situations that are less than 100 percent ideal.

It would seem, however, that the proposed truck terminal may — when it is fully utilized and as traffic flow on East Highway 120 keeps growing — will push the limits on what should be acceptable without at least other restrictions that reflects Caltrans’ concerns that are putting the taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars at Murphy Road.

It is why the Board of Supervisors needs to take a second look to make sure a truck terminal at 11150 East Highway 120 is what they had in mind.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com