Loading...
3.1 - Public Comment - Thompson, Joseph P. - Received 04/11/20224/5/22, 1 :01 PM LETTER TO THE EDITOR Letter: Speak up on High Speed Rail impacts By : LESLEY MILES ~ Ap ri l 4, 2022 I have been a community member of the High Speed Rail working group (CWG) for the past alm ost 5 years . During that time, the project has gone from a potential overhead and separate rail line to a complete at- grade rail line on the existing Union Pacific line . This is the railroad track that goes through the middle of town. I know that we have all been hoping and assuming that this is not going to come to pass ; however, one should never assume. As we all know, th e past two years are an examp le of what I never could have imagined would have happened -pandemic, cold war,etc. The accepted plan by the HSR Environmental Impact Report (EIR), indicates in Morgan Hill, there will be only at-grade crossings other than at Cochrane Road. An at-grade crossing means that it will be like it is now but with the addition of the high speed train traveling at 110 mph through Morgan Hill. There will only be Quad Gates similar to the current arms but larger, for the limited crossings that wi ll be ava ilable: Live Oak, Tilton , Main, Dunne , San Pedro and Tennant. The idea of a train going through Morgan Hill at 110 mph and getting stuck in your car within the barricades due to traffic is not far-fetched . Additionally, more horns and more wheel vibration noise are noted as significant "unmitigated" issues . "-J-} f ~ I Unmitigated means that they are issues that have been identified but no effort has been made to resolve~ (:::;:>(I iv / those issues . ~A->' ~ ,, As we know, the overall project cost is significant and many of us think that it will not come to pass due to that. However, we are in an area that could best be characterized as the "low hanging fruit." The San Jose to Gilroy stretch is pretty straight and reasonably inexpensive to build , particularly because there are no main overpassess and all the tracks are at grade and follow the existing right of way. There are no expensive https ://morganhilltimes .com/letter-speak-up-on-high-speed-rail-impacts/ 1/2 4/5/22, 1 :01 PM Letter : Speak up on High Speed Rail impacts -Morgan Hill Times I Morgan Hill, San Martin , CA acquisitions. As we have seen in the Central Valley, if there is any amount of funding, it will be built regardless of final connections. • Many of us have chosen to just say "No." That is not helpful. Instead, we need to come out in force as a community and require that additional grade separations be required to ensure community safety. Alternative 4 (at grade) is the accepted alternative because it is the cheapest alternative. Please realize that those parameters for Alternative 4 are the only ones that we may have some minor ability to change or mitigate. There is no point in suggesting it go along 101-that ship has sai led. I encourage you to review the final EIR on the HSR website . It is accepted, so that is what will be constructed: https://hsr.ca.gov . On the front page of the site is the link to the San Jose to Merced Final EIR/EIS. As you peruse the document, section 3 will lead you to the appendices and then review only Alternative 4. The City of Morgan Hill wrote a letter to the HSR agency in October of 2021 clearly identifying the areas of concern and requesting that three more grade separations must be constructed at Tilton , East Dunne and Tennant. A comment period for the overall Bus iness Plan that includes the final EIR will end at 5pm Apr 11. Cost drives everything and the community needs to speak up and clea rly identify the need for unhindered access across the tracks either above or below for emergency vehicles and movement of traffic. See potential comment below. "I am a member of the Morgan Hill community and have grave concerns reg arding the safety of our community. Th e HSR will travel through our town at a rate of speed of 110 mph, essen tially bisecting the community with no access from one side to another. Fire, public safety and medical emergencies will be impacted. I respectively request the addition of three additiona l grade separations at Tilton, East Dunne and Tennant to mitigate this clear danger." Comments on the Draft 2022 Business Pl an can be submitted at this lin k: https://tinyurl.com/m9ayrkcc. There is a form on the page where you can submit comments on the Draft 2022 Business Plan by scrolling down. You can also send your comments the following ways : -To this email address : DraftBP2022@hsr.ca.g ov -By attending the virtual meeting on March 17: https://hsr.ca.g ov/abo ut/board-of-director s/sched ul e/ -By US Mail : California High-Speed Rail Authority Attn : Draft 2022 Business Plan 770 L Street, Suite 1180 Sacramento, CA 95814 Lesley Miles Morgan Hill https ://m organhilltimes .com/letter-speak-up-on-high-speed-rail-impacts/ 2/2 • JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Gilroy , CA 95020 105 East Alisal St., Salinas, CA 93901 981 Fremont Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Post Office Box 154, Gilroy, CA 95021-0154 Ttle ph one (408) 848-5506 ; (408) 98 4-8555 Teleco pie r (408) 292-1061 February 16, 1996 The Honorable Quentin Kopp CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE 2057 Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: California Trans portation Policy Dear Senator Kopp, While the need for high speed passenger trains in California, and the entire Nation, is obvious to any student of transportation, it appears to me that the HSR Commission is completely ignoring the only viable alternative to providing them. Instead of using the existing railroads, staying with private enterprise, which past generations bequeathed to us, the Commission seems to be hypnotized by socialism. At a time when privatization around the world is correcting the mistakes of publicly-owned transportation, e.g., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, England, Western Europe, etc., the Commission seems to be falling under the fatal attraction of a ruinous fiscal belief that cost does not matter. Do we have the ability to learn from our history? Will we ignore it and be condemned to follow the course of the Soviet Union? IISTPS Executive Director Ron Diridon, addressing the students at SJS, said that transportation decisions hinge on three things, "Finance, finance, finance ." Rather, I believe it hinges on policy, because the latter predetermines the former. The legislative findings in SCR 6 are undoubtedly true, but the solution currently being proposed by the Commission is a nightmare, which, if brought into existence, will certainly plunge us down the path followed by the Soviet Union. Why not consider changing policy to attain the same goal? Why seek to ruin California's economy in a search for "finance," when by adherence to the nation's transportation policy, and its rail transportation policy, we could have bullet trains without spending tax dollars? If this country had adhered to these national policies since the end of WWII, would we have seen thousands of miles of .. Hon. Quentin Kopp February 16, 1996 page2 track abandoned? Would we have invested untold billions in the creation of the interstate highway system? Would we be addicted to automobiles today? Are we in denial about our addiction, which blinds us to our violation of our own national transportation policies? If the law said: (1) freeze truck lengths, (2) prohibit triples, (3) return weight limits to something that would not break concrete freeways, ( 4) reverse the intercity freight trend since WWII, then how much less money would we need for such things as: (1) highway maintenance, (2) fuel, (3) injury, death, property damage expenses? If policy were made by wiser men than we seem to have had in charge since the end of WWII, would we have (1) cleaner air, (2) less highway congestion, (3) lower health care costs? If the government is in control, why not set transportation policy and tell each mode what it was going to do based on decisions favorable to the people? If we can move freight profitably, but not passengers, then why not mix the two in one revenue stream to attain satisfactory corporate profit levels? Divorcing rail passenger from rail freight in 1970 was a big policy mistake, and some in Congress seem to have recognized that now by enacting legislation requiring Amtrak to break-even in seven years. Of course, without the freight revenues it can never do so in the face of highway and airline competition, and the vast federal subsidies given to those modes. The solution lies in equal treatment by government of the different modes, and in freight revenue subsidizing the unprofitable passenger fares, just as earlier generations, who faced these same decisions, learned. While it might come as a shock to the Commission's staff and members, we have railroads. The trouble is that we ignore them and have favored their competitors with billions of dollars of subsidies. Our policy makers apparently prefer our citizens to use four times as much fuel to move our freight, and to sit on congested freeways, rather than establish transportation policy which capitalizes on the inherent advantages of the railroads. Amazingly, the stated policy is already in the statutes, but in practice we do not follow it! Why? The Commission's current study suffers from myopic concentration on a fantasy, rather than realistic appreciation for the wisdom of earlier generations. Why are the Commissioners not investigating the obvious solution of using our railroads to accomplish this goal? French and Japanese transit systems, like Hon. Quentin Kopp February 16, 1996 page3 those in this Country, operate at a huge loss, requiring taxpayer subsidies of ever more scarce tax dollars. Instead of trying to imagine millions and billions of dollars, this needs to be put in terms that are understandable, and revealed to the voters for what it is. For example, when Amtrak was formed in 1970 it was cheaper to send a passenger from LA to NY by taxi, and pay the cabby a $100 tip, than to send him by Amtrak. When METRO was built in Washington, D.C., it was cheaper for each rider to be furnished with a Mercedez than to ride public transit. For BART, the riders could have two BMW's and the taxpayers were better off. Of course, these solutions are just as stupid as the ones our decision makers and planners gave us. The arrogance of today is to forget the wisdom of the past. Who gained by selling those cars, building those interstate highways? Harvey Levine's seminal work, National Transportation Policy: A Study of Studies, ought to be required reading for both the Commissioners and the staff, not to mention our decision makers. When we needed a transcontinental railroad, did we opt for government-owned railroads? Whenever WWl's demands caused nationalization of the railroads, did we keep them that way? Does government owned business work in the long run? Do we want to go the same way as the Soviet Union? No! When I testified 2/2/96 before the Commission in Fresno, I showed them the Harvard doctoral dissertation by John D. Donahue, The Privatization Decision (1989), and reminded them of the Wall Street Journal special edition on privatization that was published in October. I said that if they were a board of directors of a corporation then they would have been terminated. They did not effectively cross-examine the experts brought before them by their own staff. They did not realize that the "profits" displayed by the French Officials were for a trunk line route, and that the truth is that system-wide the French experience is no better than that of the best American public transit system. They are considering borrowing billions to create a line that will require $800 million annually just to service the debt (bonds) it creates! There can be no doubt that Big Brother's slogan pales in comparison with this proposal: "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." Hon. Quentin Kopp February 16, 1996 page 4 As I said to Mr. Mineta, we are, I believe, about half nationalized and half free- enterprise in transportation. Can this situation last? It is not unlike an earlier period in our history: "If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. U oder the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion , it will not cea se until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A hou se di v id ed aga in st it se lf ca nnot st and ." At this point, too, we are at a crucial stage of evolution in the nation's history: We are a house divided. The Lincoln administration decided that our railroads would be privately owned, with construction financed by government-backed securities. Today we appear to have rejected the policy of free-enterprise ownership because we continually create "authorities" and "agencies" to own and operate our rail passenger mode. The same is true with bus transportation. Now I hear that Amtrak will be moving freight. We have abandoned not only thousands of miles of rail, but as a nation we have also abandoned the policy of private ownership of transportation. Our elected officials boast about what they have done, but not one of them will tell you how much it costs per passenger (or per passenger-mile) to transport people by bus or rail. Deregulation during the past 15 years has rendered the private transportation sector a virtual graveyard. So where are we, and where are we going? How can we have nationalized industry and reduce the budget deficit? To paraphrase Mr. Lincoln, if we could first know where we are, and "whither we are tending," we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. Our national transportation policy was initiated with the "avowed object" and confident promise of creating a sound national transportation system. Under the operation of that policy, Hon. Quentin Kopp February 16, 1996 pages one national goal is to make the county competitive on the global arena. In my opinion, it will not happen until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. Today we are at a point where we are half slave to public ownership of transportation, and half free-enterprise. The trend, however, runs counter to private ownership. Reversing the trend becomes increasingly difficult as we commit vast resources of our society to nationalized modes. Again to paraphrase, I believe that the nation's transporta-tion system "cannot endure permanently half slave and half free." I do not expect the nation will be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of nationalization will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike in all modes of transportation. We will then have arrived at the stage of development, and an experience similar to that of the demise of the Soviet Union must ultimately follow because government-owned industry does not work in the long-run. Great Britain and other western European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all privatizing previously nationalized industries because they have realized the truth in this. Nevertheless, our elected representatives push for more government-owned transportation modes each passing year. Today we could send six passengers by limousine from Gilroy to San Jose cheaper than it costs us to send them on Caltrain. Yet if private industry moved those passengers and a fair share of the available freight tonnage, the burden on the taxpayers would lessen, road congestion, health care costs, and air pollution would decline. Local government would enjoy another source of tax revenue. Since WWII, creation of the interstate highway system has diverted a greater percentage ofintercity freight traffic away from the rails each passing year. Separating freight from passengers on the railroads was a decision rejecting earlier generations' investments, and plunging us along a course toward Soviet-style industry, and we know how well that system worked. I Hon. Quentin Kopp February 16, 1996 page 6 keep asking our elected officials: If government ownership of industry failed in the Soviet Union, then why are we trying it? promoting it? How can America compete in "global markets" if it is saddled with deadweight nationalized transportation modes? The Emperor has no clothes! We cannot afford to borrow billions to build a rail passenger line that loses millions each year. This is especially true when we have an existing alternative that will not cost the taxpayers any money at all. All it takes is someone strong enough to enforce the nation's transportation policies that are already on the books. We need not reinvent government to accomplish this goal, but rather, merely keep this a government of, hy, and for the people. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to make this comment. My formal response to the Commission will follow as soon as I complete it. Encl. cc: Hon. Henry Mello cc: Hon. Dean R. Dunphy cc: Hon. Peter Frusetta cc: Commissioners cc: Executive Director Daniel S. Leavitt cc: Rod Diridon, IISTPS c:\trans\kopp.ltl JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 158 Central Avenue, Salinas, CA 93901 981 Fremont Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Post Office Box 154, Gilroy, CA 95021-0154 Telephone (408) 848-5506; (408) 984-8555 Telecopier (408) 292-1061 E-mail : translaw@pacbell.net WWW: http://home .pacbell.net/translaw January 20, 1998 TELECOPIER: 916-323-5440 Mr. Daniel S. Leavitt , Executive Director High Speed Rail Authority P. 0. BOX 942874 , MS-74 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Re: Transportation Policy & California HSR Dear Mr. Leavitt, Thank you for the letter dated Jan. 8, 1998 addressed "Stakeholder," regarding the HSRA's meetings tomorrow 1/21 and 1/22/98. Unfortunately , due to previous litigation burdens I am not able to attend, but I would like to continue to recei ve notice of future meetings . As a "stakeholder," and an interested transportation student , who attended three of the HSRC's public meetings and spoke during the "public outreach" sessions , please convey my message to all the members of the HSRA, especially the Chairman, and assure them that I believe that their work to be of unparalleled importance for the future of this State . I pray that the HSRA members will adhere to Governor Wilson's private sector philosophy espoused in his new book, California Competes. Even though I cannot be at your meeting, I would like to have my recent articles from Transportation Lawyer and the University of Denver's Transportation Law Journal included in the public outreach response. I have previously furnished a copy of the shorter one to you and to Senator Kopp, and another copy is being mailed to you today. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in your vital endeavor for California's future. Caveat Viator! Encl. TO: LESLIE MILES, MORGAN HILL, HSR WORKING GROUP:-per your request: see attached: Editor: this was published in Orange County Register Wednesday, June 14 , 2006. Please publish again for Gilroy & Morgan Hill raped taxpayers, about to be re-screwed by utopian insanity by Bullet Train. The author is one of the Nation's top transport policy men. Joe Thompson Gilroy ( 408) 848-5506 1. Taking taxpayers for a ride California focus Proposed state high-speed rail system would cost too much to do too little There has been considerable discussion about the proposed California High Speed Rail project. California taxpayers are being subjected to grandiose claims about reduced traffic congestion and cost-effective alternatives to flying and driving. The HSR system , which would connect Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego , Sacramento and areas in between, would require as a down payment a $10 billion bond issue that voters may consider as soon as November. The California High Speed Rail Authority says the system could cost much more -$37 billion. Reality is more like $75 billion . Luckily, the Assembly last month passed a bill that would delay the bond election until 2008 . That bill is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee , where there is no clear indication whether it will come to a vote anytime soon. However , there is evidence the Assembly's caution is justified, and the Senate sho uld follow its lead . First, the HSR system is likely to cost much more than advertised. Cost projections for large transportation projects are notoriously inaccurate . Boston's two-decade "Big Dig" racked up three times its projected cost , even after accounting for inflation. Across the country, transit megaprojects have escalated in cost after approval; these are not isolated cases . What's more , it appears these overruns are not accidental. Research by Bengt Flyvbjerg of the University of Aarlborg (Denmark) published in the Journal of the American Planning Association demonstrates these projects routinely surpass estimated costs due to "strategic misrepresentation." Planners and proponents underestimate costs in hopes of obtaining project approvals that would otherwise be impossible. As a Los Angeles County transportation commissioner, I witnessed costs escalate for the Blue Line light rail from Los Angeles to Long Beach eventually exceeding three times original projections (inflation-adjusted). At no point did anyone seriously question the increases , because the taxpayers had already committed to the project. There was simply no incentive to keep costs down. Why should we expect the HSR project to be any different? Flyvbjerg and others also have found that ridership estimates tend to be overstated. The Los Angeles Red Line subway even today carries less than one-half the ridership that was projected when we approved it. Ridership is important because the California high-speed rail system is advertised as not needing its operations subsidized by taxpayers. But this claim is likely based on an overestimation of the ridership and an underestimation of the operating costs. Amtrak's high-speed Acela service between Washington, D.C., and New York City carries little more than one-tenth the passengers that proponents promise for the California system, despite serving a larger market. So it is likely taxpayers will need to keep their checkbooks open indefinitely to subsidize HSR operation. All this would be irrelevant if we needed such a system. The California HSR has been touted as a strategy for reducing highway congestion. In fact, projections indicate that traffic congestion along the rail corridors will still increase 26 percent by 2020, even with the high-speed trains. Without them the increase by 2020 would be 31 percent. Claims of reduced air traffic congestion are similarly flawed. Most air travel between the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California already avoids the busy San Francisco International and Los Angeles International airports , and their share of travel is declining. Planners delude themselves into believing HSR will take away half of air traffic volume. But last year Amtrak said its New York-to-Washington high-speed service lost ridership to stronger airline competition. Planners assume airlines will stand idly by as their customers jump on the train . In fact , airlines will compete, and compete hard. Much has been made of HSR's purported cost-effectiveness, with claims that highway improvements would cost more than twice as much as the rail project. But the highway alternative would produce four times the congestion relief, making it twice as cost-effective , even without the inevitable cost escalations for high-speed rail. Thus, for California, the question is not whether high-speed rail would be nice -it would be. The fundamental question is whether it is worth the tens of billions it could cost. At this point, there is every reason to believe this project would be, quite simply, a waste of money. ************ EDITOR: Please publish this letter that I sent to you on 3/2/03: Fax ( 408) 842-2206 Editor The Dispatch 6400 Monterey Road Gilroy, CA 95020 JOSEPH P . THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Suite 112, Gilroy, CA 95020 Post Office Box 154, Gilroy, CA 95021-0154 Telephone (408) 848-5506; Fax (408) 848-4246 E-Mail : Translaw@PacPell.Net March 2, 2003 Re: Downtown Gilroy and Soviet-Style Transportation Policy Dear Editor, Could it be that our government intends to oust UP from its right-of-way through downtown Gilroy, supplanting it with Soviet-style Bullet Train and Son-of-Amtrak Caltrain? With VTA 's Ministry of Truth touting Gilroy as its newest land-use planning (i.e., Sovietized) poster child, will we see an end to the history of private-sector railroads here? How many jobs will that kill-off? How much commerce will we lose if the VTA-led socialist-communist scheme is crammed down on us? The malignant tumor of socialism-communism is being stimulated by Politico-Transit Alliance advocates in our local government, our County government, and our State government, so will small business owners be able to stop this socialistic train wreck? We've seen the canneries go bankrupt and close their gates. The Black Hole Frankenstein "transit hub ," where empty buses stop so public-sector union drivers can rest from the tedium of transporting empty seats around town , is growing-who knows where the socialist policy will stop ? If we don 't stop runaway go vernment now, how will our children or grandchildren ever stop it ? Where is an elected leader with the guts to fight back for us ? I believe that it is time for us to retake our government away from the socialist small busine ss killers. Caveat viator! Very truly yours , JOSEPH P . THOMPSON Member, Executive Committee , Debtor-Creditor-Bankruptcy Section Santa Clara County Bar Assn. Member, Legislation Committee, Transportation Lawyers Assn. Member, Association for Transportation Law, Logistics & Policy Member, SBC Citizens Rail Advisory Committee Candidate , American Society of Transportation & Logistics Winner , AST&L's Best Research Paper Award 1997 Past-President, Gilroy-Morgan Hill Bar Assn . ********************* JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Suite 11 2, Gilroy, CA 95020 Post Office Box 154, Gilroy, CA 95021-0154 Telephone (408) 848-55 06 ; Fax (40 8) 848-4246 E-mail: TransLaw@PacBell.Net Website: http:\ \home. pacbell.net\ Trans Law January 15 , 2003 FAX (916) 653-2134 Honorable R. Kirk Lindsey, Chairman California Transportation Commission 1120 N Street , P.O . Box 942873 (MS-52) Sacramento , CA 94273-0001 Re: Transportation Funding Crisis Workshop Jan. 17 , 2003 Dear Mr. Lind sey , Thank you for sending notice of the CTC's funding issues workshop and for inviting public comment regarding the State 's fiscal "crisis ." It was a pleasure meeting you at the CTC 's meeting in San Jose at the Fairmont Hote l last month . Congratulations on becoming Chairm an of the CTC . One cannot help but sense the irony in a trucking company CEO being CTC's chairman when our chickens are coming home to roost. At Mr. Lawrence 's invitation I addressed the CTC in December 2001 at the PUC in San Francisco on the subject of intermodal transportation infrastructure improvements for the State , and although I cannot attend the workshop on the 17 th of this month, I would like to offer my recommendations . 1. Author . I have 39 years experience in transportation industry (trucking and railroad). I am a post-doctoral student of transportation law and policy. I am a memb er of the Transportation Lawyers Association , and serve on TLA's legislation, intermodal , ar bitrati on and freight claims committees. I am also a member of the Association for Transportation Law, Logistics & Policy, and a candidate for the American Society of Transportation & Logistics. 2. Backeround. For additional background, please refer to my paper that I presented to the CTC and handed to Mr. Remen at the CTC's meeting at the PUC in San Francisco , December, 2001. 3. Official Record. Will you please direct your staff to include the se remarks as part of CTC 's official records. 4. Summary. In response to your call for public comment on the current "funding crisis", I once again give my conclusions reached six years ago during debate on IS TEA reauthorization. See, "IS TEA Reauthorization and the National Transportation Policy ," 25 Transportation Law Journal , Recommendations to CTC Re: Transportation Funding "Crisis" 1 pp . 87-et seq. (1997), and "ISTEA Reauthorization and the National Transportation Policy: Overlooked Externalities and Forgotten Felt Necessities," Transportation Lawyer (Dec. 1997). A copy of the former is enclosed for your ready review , although I previously submitted it to you in December 2001. 5. Recommendations. The CTC should first frame the fundamental issue facing it, which was identified by Transportation Secretary Mineta while he was serving as Chairman of the Surface Transportation Committee in the House ofRepresentatives: "The crucial question in transportation today is: What should government do and what should it leave to others?" Governor Davis ' call for "structural reform" should focus CTC on Secretary Mineta's "crucial question." The answer that CTC gives to Governor Davis and Secretary Mineta will shape the solution for our transportation "funding crisis ," and the future of transportation in California. These issues are also pending in the 108th Congress as it takes up the subject of reauthorization legislation for Transportation Eq uity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21 ). Please refer to my recommendations to USDOT dated 8-23-02 on this issue (see copy enclosed). Rather than a band-aid approach to the "funding crisis ," I recommend that CTC strive to achieve "structural reform " in the basic approach that we take to the for-hire carriage of passengers. I believe that CTC should have no "sac red cows" immune from this search and rescue mission. Like waking-up with a hangover, California must swear-off its former excesses. The Emperor Transit First is stark naked . Unremunerative fares yield insolvent carriers , of both passengers and freight. Deficits piled on top of deficits bring predictable results. Farebox reco very rates that fail to cover fully allocated costs produce a result which does not surprise transportation students or history students. Such public-sector transit systems are not "going broke" in California (or elsewhere), they were conceived insolvent , born bankrupt, and kept operating only with massive blood transfusions from the taxpayers. No member of CTC should be surprised at the present "funding crisis" because we have intentionally navigated the State to this destination, one in which California's deficit exceeds that of all other States ' combined deficits. We asked for it; we demanded it , even if it meant damning future generations into decades of debt. Bankrupt operations , bankrupt carriers , bankrupt policies , are the result of our myopia. Increasing insolvent transit systems' operations undermine our financial capability to build and repair transportation infrastructure. Their growing demands have reached a predictable breaking point. We must look into the mirror and recognize the problem staring back at us . There has been occurring a world-wide "privatization revolution " as described by the Wall Street Journal, special edition 10-2-95 , yet we have steered a contrary course of nationalization, statism, and public-ownership. Only a hypocrite would feign surprise at arriving at our present destination of fiscal "crisis." Recommendations to CTC Re: Transportation Funding "Crisis" 2 CTC and California must ask itself this question if it wants to be cured: "Why did Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand , and many other nations denationalize their publicly- owned transportation industries during the past 25 years?" We must ask ourselves, if we truly want to bring permanent relief to this and future generations of Californians: "If all of the USSR' s Five Year Plans were such raving successes, then why did the USSR collapse in revolution?" Why should we adopt the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin theory of government when our Founders placed its foundations on Adam Smith's theory? Did the USSR win the Cold War, or did we win it? If we defeated the USSR, then why should we adopt their failed economic philosophy? Answering Governor Davis ' "structural reform " challenge, answering Secretary Mineta's "crucial question,"learning the lessons of the history of the past century, CTC and California must recognize the error of our policies, unless we have no intention of solving the "funding crisis." Phony efforts of "reform " will just be wheel-spinning in mud-wasted motion. Genuine "reform " means going back to American free-enterprise in tran sportation , personal responsibility, not transit welfare . Our galley slaves , i.e., taxpayers, are beyond the breaking point. Our policies have burdened the taxpayers under unsustainable loads . Like overloaded trucks , our axles are breaking. Bankruptcies are at historic highs , both business and individual. Small business failure rates are at 80% on average during the first five years . Traffic World's report that more than 10 ,000 trucking companies (with 20 or more trucks) either filed for bankruptcy protection or closed during the last two years illustrates what plight business owners are bearing from our ill-conceived government policies. Did you ever think you'd live to see PG&E , United Airlines, and Consolidated Freightways in bankruptcy? We are killing the goose to steal her eggs, but what will our children eat? The fallacy in our current transport policy can be shown by comparing fares paid to move a 200 pound box with fares paid to move a 200 pound man . The shipper of the former pays 100% of his carrier's fare; but a passenger on public-sector transit (bus or rail) pays only for the first two pounds , and the taxpayers are expected to pay for 198 pounds (applying generally accepted accounting principles, not the Enron-style accounting method our Legislature authorized for transit agencies' financial reporting). "Structural reform" of this unsound policy must be approached in the same manner as Great Britain accepted under the administration of Margaret Thatcher-privatization of nationalized industry. Keeping the status quo will only mire us further in misery. Flatboats, bullet trains , rickshaws, lunar escalators, i.e., any mode of transport, must charge user fees (fares) that are remunerative, unless we want to see it fail in the long run. Refer to my letter to HSRA's former Chairman enclosed. Recommendations to CTC Re: Transportation Funding "Crisis" 3 William Jennings Bryan and the Populists were wrong , just as Marx & Engels were, as government nationalization of the railroads proved during World War I. Neither CTC nor California should be surprised by the "crisis" resulting from this fallacy ( or lunacy) in our transport policy. Do we have the will power to reform our policy, or will we take the same route as did the USSR? I pray that God will give you and your fellow Commissioners the wisdom and courage to make a course correction for California now, before it is too late . Caveat Viator! Encl. [ Article ; Letters] Recommendations to CTC Re: Transportation Funding "Crisis" 4 EDITOR: Please publish this letter that I sent to you on 8/24/07: Fax (408) 842-2206 Editor JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Suite 112, Gilroy, CA 95020 Post Office Box 154, Gilroy, CA 95021-0154 Telephone (408) 848-5506; Fax (408) 848-4246 E-Mail: TransLaw@PacPell.Net August 24 , 2007 Email: editor@ garlic.com, editor@ gilroydispatch.com The Dispatch 6400 Monterey Road Gilroy , CA 95020 Re: Bullet Train: Tourists' Panacea, Taxpayers' Hell Dear E ditor, The proposal to build the Bullet Train in California is proof that socialists have taken- over our government. Based on past cost overruns , the price tag on this extreme boondoggle is about $75-$80 billion in today 's dollars. Paid back interest on these bonds will also burden our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will billions more. Annual operating losses will exceed those of all Lite Rails combined. Fares won 't cover 1 % of operating expenses , estimated at $1 billion/year. Bond debt will bury us. Technology exists to build it, but how do we pay the construction costs , and operating costs? It 's technologically incompatible with existing railroads , so it will need BART-like right-of-way. Eminent domain power, included in the legislation creating it, ensures that it will plow through Gilroy and Morgan Hill and any other place, regardless of opposition. But it cannot cross the UPRR's tracks because the Class I railroads' eminent domain trumps Bullet Train 's eminent domain power, according to UP's top commerce counsel on the West Coast. Tourists will ride it, but enjoy a 99% taxpayer subsidy for rides that will cost more than those on the Concorde Supersonic Jets . Local small business owners will pick-up the tab, maybe getting 10% back from tourist dollars if we're lucky . In 1970 Congressmen stood up in Congress and proclaimed that Amtrak would be "self- sufficient in three years ." Yeh. By 9/11/01 taxpayers had thrown about $30 billion in subsidies down that black hole, but did we have adequate airport security? In 1863 General Granville Dodge, who was later UPRR's top civil engineer, and who discovered the Sherman Pass over the Continental Divide, was summoned to the White House. When will we ever learn? He later said that he told the President that the government should own and operate the transcontinental railroad. Lincoln, who as a young member of the Illinois Legislature had seen government owned railroads in Eastern and Midwestern States go bust and shutdown operations in the l 830's and l 840's, said no. He said that private enterprise must do it, although the government would assist with development incentives (my words, not his). They did it. And what did taxpayers receive in the deal? They got about $460 million (measured in 1940 dollars) more than the value of the land granted to the railroad corporations because of Section 22 in the original Interstate Commerce Act (lower freight rates for government shipments). A hundred years ago the Progressive Movement, led by William Jennings Bryan, sought nationalization of the railroads and other industries, but their passion was rejected by voters. When the railroads were nationalized in 191 7 during the Administration of Woodrow Wilson, government genius so botched-up shipping that rail traffic came to a standstill. That experiment failed , just as Lincoln predicted it would. In the Transportation Act of 1920 the railroad s were d e-nationalized , and came to be the envy of the world 's nations today ; the backbone of our nation 's commerce . In stead of making taxpayer s pay for Bullet Train , like we pay for County Transit, Caltrain, Amtrak, Lite Rail , etc ., etc ., while motorists are paying 100% of their own transport costs , seeing our politicians rewardin g transit wastefulness , why not use the unlimited power of capitalism? Have you been on I-5 lately to see the uninterrupted 24-7 tonnage flowing North- South in California? I appeared before the Bullet Train commission five times over the last decade and told them that if they put enough UPS , Fedex and Postal Service tonnage on their trains , then they would not need to ask the taxpayers for a dime . Did they listen ? Like Amtrak 's promoters , their pie-in-the-sky predictions show that they did not listen, nor did they learn from history, either United States or world history in the last century and one- half. So , hold on for the ride , and warn your children and grandchildren , our leaders will strap taxpayers to the rocket to Hell. We 'll be paying unimaginable sums to attempt what Lenin, Trotsky , Stalin and the USSR failed to achieve , despite all their promises to their citizens that socialism could bring utopia. If they fund it with gas taxes , be prepared to see $10/gallon for gas at the pumps. They'll tax motorists out of their cars , leaving them to ride our Trojan Horses , and bike or walk the rest of the way. Caveat Viator! Respectfully yours , JOSEPH P. THOMPSON, ESQ . Member, Executive Committee , Debtor-Creditor-Bankruptcy Section, SCCBA Member, Legislation Committee, Transportation Lawyers Assn. Member, Association for Transportation Law, Logistics & Policy Candidate, American Society of Transportation & Logistics Winner, AST&L's Best Research Paper Award 1997 Past-President, Gilroy-Morgan Hill Bar Assn . When will we ever learn? Fax ( 408) 842-2206 Editor JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Suite 112, Gilroy, CA 95020 Post Office Box 154, Gilroy, CA 95021-0154 Telephone ( 408) 848-5506; Fax ( 408) 848-4246 E-Mail: TransLaw@PacPell.Net August 24, 2007 Email: editor@garlic.com, editor@gilroydispatch.com The Dispatch 6400 Monterey Road Gilroy , CA 95020 Re: Bullet Train: Tourists' Panacea, Taxpayers' Hell Dear Editor, The proposal to build the Bullet Train in California is proof that socialists have taken-over our government. Based on past cost overruns, the price tag on this extreme boondoggle is about $75- $80 billion in today's dollars. Paid back interest on these bonds will also burden our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will billions more . Annual operating losses will exceed those of all Lite Rails combined. Fares won't cover 1 % of operating expenses, estimated at $1 billion/year. Bond debt will bury us. Technology exists to build it , but how do we pay the construction costs, and operating costs? It's technologically incompatible with existing railroads, so it will need BART-like right-of-way. Eminent domain power, included in the legislation creating it , ensures that it will plow through Gilroy and Morgan Hill and any other place , regardless of opposition. But it cannot cross the UPRR's tracks because the Class I railroads' eminent domain trumps Bullet Train 's eminent domain power, according to UP's top commerce counsel on the West Coast. Tourists will ride it , but enjoy a 99% taxpayer subsidy for rides that will cost more than those on the Concorde Supersonic Jets. Local small business owners will pick-up the tab , maybe getting 10% back from tourist dollars if we're lucky. In 1970 Congressmen stood up in Congress and proclaimed that Amtrak would be "self- sufficient in three years." Yeh. By 9/11/01 taxpayers had thrown about $30 billion in subsidies down that black hole , but did we have adequate airport security? In 1863 General Granville Dodge , who was later UPRR's top civil engineer, and who discovered the Sherman Pass over the Continental Divide , was summoned to the White House. He later said that he told the President that the government should own and operate the transcontinental railroad. Lincoln, who as a young member of the Illinois Legislature had seen government owned railroads in Eastern and Midwestern States go bust and shutdown operations in the 1830's and When will we ever learn? 1840's, said no. He said that private enterprise must do it, although the government would assist with development incentives (my words, not his). They did it. And what did taxpayers receive in the deal? They got about $460 million (measured in 1940 dollars) more than the value of the land granted to the railroad corporations because of Section 22 in the original Interstate Commerce Act (lower freight rates for government shipments). A hundred years ago the Progressive Movement, led by William Jennings Bryan, sought nationalization of the railroads and other industries , but their passion was rejected by voters. When the railroads were nationalized in 1917 during the Administration of Woodrow Wilson, government genius so botched-up shipping that rail traffic came to a standstill. That experiment failed ,just as Lincoln predicted it would. In the Transportation Act of 1920 the railroads were de-nationalized , and came to be the envy of the world's nations today ; the backbone of our nation's commerce. In stead of making t axpayers p ay for Bullet Train , like we pay for County Transit, Caltrain, Amtrak, Lite Rail , etc ., etc ., w hile motorists are paying 100% of their own transport costs , seeing our politicians rewarding tran sit waste fuln e ss , why not use th e unlimited power of capitali sm ? Have you been on I-5 lately to see the uninterrupted 24-7 tonnage flowing North-South in California? I appeared before the Bullet Train commission five times over the last decade and told them that if they put enough UPS , Fedex and Postal Service tonnage on their trains , then they would not need to ask the taxpayers for a dime. Did they listen? Like Amtrak 's promoters, their pie-in-the-sky predictions show that they did not listen , nor did they learn from history, either United States or world history in the last century and one-half. So , hold on for the ride , and warn your children and grandchildren, our leaders will strap taxpayers to the rocket to Hell. We 'll be paying unimaginable sums to attempt what Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the USSR failed to achieve , despite all their promises to their citizens that socialism could bring utopia. If they fund it with gas taxes, be prepared to see $10/gallon for gas at the pumps. They 'll tax motorists out of their cars , leaving them to ride our Trojan Horses, and bike or walk the rest of the way. Caveat Viator! Respectfully yours , JOSEPH P. THOMPSON, ESQ. Member, Executive Committee, Debtor-Creditor-Bankruptcy Section, SCCBA Member, Legislation Committee, Transportation Lawyers Assn. Member, Association for Transportation Law, Logistics & Policy Candidate, American Society of Transportation & Logistics Winner, AST&L's Best Research Paper Award 1997 Past-President, Gilroy-Morgan Hill Bar Assn. Post-Doctoral Student, Transportation Law & Policy When will we ever Learn? EDITOR: THE CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSE AT THE LAST GOVERNMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE GILROY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO MY QUESTION ABOUT SPENDING ANOTHER $400,000 OFT AXPA YERS MONEY TO STUDY THE "DOWNTOWN ROUTE" FOR THE BULLET TRAIN BEING A WASTE OF THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY WAS MADE IN ERROR. HE SAID THAT UPRR HAD NEVER PROTESTED AGAINST BULLET TRAIN USING ITS PROPERTY. JUST THE CONTRARY, UPRR HAS FROM THE OUTSET OF THE BOONDOGGLE PLANNING BY THE RADICAL SOCIALISTS ADAMANTLY ASSERTED ITS PROPERTY RIGHTS TO PROHIBIT TRESPASSERS. AND SINCE UPRR'S EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY TRUMPS THE BULLET TRAIN'S EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY, PLANNING TO TRESPASS ON UPRR'S PROPERTY IS A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME. IT'S ALSO LUNATIC EVIDENCE THAT THE WASTRELS WHO ARE PISSING-AWAY OUR MONEY ON MARXIST-LENINIST-STALINIST SCHEMES ARE RUINING OUR STATE. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE FROM GRC AND CHAMBER LEADERSHIP ABOUT THIS GANG-RAPE OF THE TAXPAYERS? FOR US TO SPEND $400 ,000 TO PAY BULLET TRAIN FOR THE FURTHER STUDY OF THE "DOWNTOWN ALIGNMENT" MEANS THAT WE MUST PAY 9.9 TIMES $400,000 = $3 ,960 ,000 TO SACRAMENTO TO GET THE $400 ,000 BACK TO PAY BULLET TRAIN. THE SMOKE- SCREEN RAISED BY COMMUNISTS AT VT A-COG TO CONCEAL THIS GANG-RAPE OF TAXPAYERS IS TOLERATED AND ACCEPTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEADERS, WHO OUGHT TO BE RECALLED FROM OFFICE FOR ALLOWING THIS ABUSE TO CONTINUE. PLEASE LET YOUR READERS KNOW THE TRUTH IN TRANSPORT. JPT JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Suite 112, Gilroy, CA 95020 Post Office Box 154, Gilroy, CA 95021-0154 Telephone (408) 848-5506; Fax (408) 848-4246 E-Mail: TransLaw@PacPell.Net Fax (831) 637-4107 October 4 , 2008 Editor editor@freelancenews.com The Hollister Free Lance Hollister, CA 95023 Re: Prop. IA November Ballot: Bullet Train or Trojan Horse? Dear Editor, A new, independent study of the Bullet Train proposal concludes that the annual operating deficit will be $4.17 billion, which will be another tax burden on the backs of taxpayers whose backs are already broken. Bond debt service will be extra on top of that. Passenger rail service does not reduce highway congestion. Freight rail service does. Generating electricity for Bullet Train will cause more pollution than traffic reduction is produces. We don't have Japan's density. We don't want and can't afford French socialism. It is folly to attempt their countries' "solutions" which won't work here in USA. Why can't we learn from history? Do we really want to believe the liars' false predictions, again? Amtrak is a failed experiment, except to subsidy recipients who don't pay for their rides (99% of total costs), while motorists pay 100% of their own costs, and subsidize the Amtrak riders. When Amtrak was formed in 1970, Congressmen promised that it would be profitable in three years. Well , after 3 8 years, taxpayers have paid $40++ billion in subsidies, with no end in sight. As Traffic World reported, that is a stack of $100 bills higher than the World Trade Center stood. Supporters of the Bullet-in-the-Brain train will make profit building and operating it, just as VTA does operating Black Hole Lite Rail. However, taxpayers will be the losers. The galley slaves will need to quicken their strokes so that the recipients of their labors will enjoy their rides. Will Rod be successful in converting us to a socialist society, living in concrete high-rise Dirodonominiums like the USSR's "affordable housing"? Until Rod was appointed to HSRA, they had projected a $900 million annual operating loss (truth probably doubles their estimate), but now they project a profitable operation. "Profitable " in the same definition of VT A's "profit." I do not swallow this big lie. Do you? It would be cheaper for taxpayers if we bought an airline. We could buy all outstanding stock of both American Airlines and Continental Airlines for less than the Prop. lA bond principal. We could buy Southwest Airlines stock for less. If we did then we'd have lower budget deficits ; transport less harmful to the environment and less burdensome for crushed to smithereens California taxpayers. As their financial reports show w ith Caltrain, Lite Rail , and Amtrak, taxicabs and limousines would be cheaper for the taxpayers than paying rail passenger service. But have we learned anything from the history of the last Century? If we defeated the USSR, then why are we adopting their philosophy? I appeared before the High Speed Rail Commission (before it became an "authority") five times and told the commissioners that if they put enough Fedex, UPS, and Postal Service tonnage on their train, then they would not need to ask the taxpayers for a dime . Instead of following a capitalist model, they insist (with Bechtel Corporation's-the builder-support) that California must have a Soviet-style horizontal elevator. Well, if voters believe that B.S., then they deserve to wear this albatross around their necks. But ask yourselves, do our children and grandchildren deserve the consequences of our compulsive spending disorder? Are we building the future for them, or welcoming a monster Trojan Horse? Vote "NO" on Soviet-style Bullet Train-we cannot afford it.Caveat viator. Very truly yours, JOSEPH P . THOMPSON Member: SBCCOG Citizens Rail Advisory Committee Candidate: American Society of Transportation & Logistics Member: Legislation Committee, Transportation Lawyers Assn. JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Gilroy , CA 95020 Telephone (408) 848-5506; Fax (408) 848-4246 E-mail : TransLaw@PacBell.Net March 23 , 2009 Fax : 916-322-0827 Mr. Mehdi Morshed, Exec. Dir. High Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street, Suite 1425 P. 0. BOX 942874 , MS-74 Sacramento , CA 95814 Re : Public Comment HSRA 's Environmental Imp act Report SF-San Jose-Gilroy-Merced D ear Mr. Morshed , Thank you for allowing members of the public to comment on HSRA's EIR for the San Francisco-San Jo se-Gilroy-Merced Segment. Identity of Author. I am a graduate of San Jose State University , and have done post- doctoral study of transportation law and policy at the Mineta Institute at SJSU . I write only for myself, and not on behalf of a client or organization, but merely to express my personal reply to the EIR for the segment that includes Gilroy, where I have practiced law for more than 30 years. Backeround. I here refer to and incorporate by reference: (1) my letter to you dated 3/10/04; (2) letter dated 2/23/09 , amended 3/13 /09 , from Mr. J .S . Jerry Wilmoth , UPRR; (3) Map CA-13 , CA-17a&b , and CA-18 , Railroad Atlas of North America, California and Nevada , pp. 18, 22-23; and Wendell Cox & Adrian T. Moore , The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report, Reason Foundation, Sept. 2008 ; Legislative Analyst 's Office , The High-Speed Rail Authority, March 17, 2009 (see copies enclosed). Summary. The crucial question facing us with HSR's proposal was concisely stated by the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta: "The crucial question in transportation today is: What should government do , and what should it leave to others ."1 The sound, sustainable answer to Secretary Mineta's "crucial question" lies in the private sector; not in the public sector. With free enterprise as a foundation , high speed rail's owners and investors can combine profitable freight revenue with losing passenger fares, rather than asking the maxed-out taxpayers of California for more tax subsidies for yet another public-sector passenger mode of travel. 1 Joseph P. Thompson, "ISTEA Reauthorization and the National Transportation Policy," 25 Transportation Law Journal, pp. 87-etseq. (1997). Comment: Fundin2 Source for Operations. The current proposal does not satisfy the requirements of sound railroading, while it adheres to the tax-dependent method of finance akin to Amtrak, Caltrain and urban mass transit, with only a very small fraction of the overall expenses paid for by the patrons. The underlying assumption that taxpayers can continue to pony-up the subsidies for more government-owned transport is wrong. History shows the proposal to be fatally flawed. All of the State-owned railroads in the Nation failed in 1837-1840. Lincoln knew personally about those failures, so when General Granville Dodge recommended to the President in 1864 that the government own the transcontinental railroad , Lincoln said "no." His theory, which ultimately worked, was that private enterprise own the railroads , but that the government would aid in their construction. When the Nation's railroads were nationalized during World War I, it only took 18 months before the government 's mismanagement had brought all our railroads to a screeching halt. So , Congress reversed its previous decision and de-nationalized our railroads. In 1970 during debates in Congress on formation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), some members promised that Amtrak "would be profitable in three years." Amtrak has failed to break even, and requires ever-increasing tax subsidies to continue its operations. Our Nation paid dearly for Amtrak's subsidies because on 9/11 /0 1 we did have Amtrak, but we did not have adequate airport security. The north-south tonnage flows in California, on Hwy. I-5 , US 101 , and Hwy. 99 , represent a source of funding that could , in a private-sector model , duplicate and exceed taxpayers' subsidies in the public-sector model as proposed in the EIR. The French government has announced that it will have Fedex freight transported by that nation's HSR starting next year, so those with experience in operating HSR in Europe have apparently resorted to freight revenue as a source of funding. We could reduce air pollution, traffic congestion, and road and bridge support deterioration and maintenance expenses ifwe diverted some of that tonnage onto HSR. I have said this to the HSRA since before its creation when it was a Commission. I believe that reliance on tax subsidies ought to be deemed unfeasible, given the tax/fee burdens already imposed on Californians by all levels of government, not to mention the even larger burdens which our generation is imposing on future generations. Rather, the manner in which railroads were originally created, and funded , freight revenue combined with losing passenger fares , ought to be the funding formula upon which the HSR is created and maintained. As the LAO's Report states (page 5), the HSR service should "not require an operating subsidy." A feasible "funding source ... for future years ... " (page 6, LA O's Report) exists now and will exist into the future: freight revenue. As with freight moving in the bellies of airliners , HSR can transport freight, thereby decreasing air pollution because the fuel savings per ton/mile is about 7 5% compared with rubber tires hauling freight on concrete or asphalt. The profit made moving freight can offset the losses sustained transporting passengers . Overnight shipments between Northern and Southern California can be transported without interfering with daytime , commute hours. Comment: UP's Property Ri2hts. In addition to those aspects identified by Cox and Moore ("Reason Report"), the UP's Coast Main Line, which is part of its incomparable interstate railroad, and considered by many to be the best railroad in the whole world, if not in America, is entirely its to own, for its shareholders' benefit. The Nation 's national security and interstate commerce justify the position paramount to lesser entities, the States, and local government, which the courts have repeatedly upheld on federal preemption grounds. A look at the Maps of UP' s tracks in the SF Peninsula, San Jose, and South Bay Area show that the current HSRA proposal is impossible without UP 's consent. Since UP has not given its consent (Mr. Wilmoth's Letter enclosed), the proposed route is not a legally possible route , even if the HSRA could find the tax subsidy money to operate it as currently proposed. Conclusion. I believe that Secretary Mineta was right. However, HSRA 's answer is wrong for California, and impossibly burdensome for its taxpayers in this and future generations. By follow ing our predecessors ' example , and having learned from their mistakes , we can have sound , sustainable HSR in California. Caveat Viator I JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Gilroy , CA 95020 Telephone ( 408) 848-5506; Fax ( 408) 848-4246 E-mail: TransLaw@PacBell.Net January 5, 2010 Fax: 916-322-0827 Mr. Mehdi Morshed, Exec. Dir. High Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street, Suite 1425 P. 0. BOX 942874 , MS-74 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Public Comment HSRA 's Environmental Impact Report SF-San Jose-Gilroy-Merced Dear Mr. Morshed , Thank you for allowing members of the public to comment on HSRA's second Gudicially- required) EIR for the San Franc isco-San Jose-Gilroy-Merced Segment. Identity of Author. I am a graduate of San Jose State University, and have done post- doctoral study of transportation law and policy at the Mineta Institute at SJSU. I write only for myself, and not on behalf of a client or organization, but merely to express my personal reply to the EIR for the segment that includes Gilroy, where I have practiced law for more than 30 years. Backeround . I here refer to and incorporate by reference: ( 1) my letters to you dated 3/23/09 and 3/10/04; (2) letter dated 2/23/09, amended 3/13/09 , from Mr. J.S. Jerry Wilmoth, UPRR; (3) Map CA-13, CA-17a&b, and CA-18, Railroad Atlas of North America, California and Nevada , pp. 18 , 22-23; and Wendell Cox & Adrian T. Moore, The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report, Reason Foundation, Sept. 2008; Legislative Analyst's Office , The High- Speed Rail Authority, March 17 , 2009 (see attached to my letter to you 3/23/09). Summary. Lenin convinced his fellow countrymen that Marx & Engels were right, with Trotsky's help , and Stalin's "persuasion" tactics. Did that make his philosophy right? No. Just like Lenin, CAHSRA' s proponents are wrong. You remind me of heroin addicts who refuse to admit their addiction. Revelations since the election show what a disastrous idea you have proposed for this sad State , dominated by radical socialists in our Legislature , the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties, and the public transit agencies and their public-sector unions. I think that history will be just as kind to the CAHSRA's proponents as it's been to Lenin. The people of California will rue the day that the Trojan Horse was approved in the guise of the Bullet Train. As I said before , "The crucial question facing us with HSR's proposal was concisely stated by the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta : "The crucial question in transportation today is : What should • government do, and what should it leave to others."' The sound, sustainable answer to Secretary Mineta's "crucial question" lies in the private sector; not in the public sector. With free enterprise as a foundation, high speed rail's owners and investors can combine profitable freight revenue with losing passenger fares, rather than asking the maxed-out taxpayers of California for more tax subsidies for yet another public-sector passenger mode of travel. Comment: Fundin~ Source for Operations. The current proposal does not satisfy the requirements of sound railroading, while it adheres to the tax-dependent method of finance akin to Amtrak, Caltrain and urban mass transit, with only a very small fraction of the overall expenses paid for by the patrons. The underlying assumption that taxpayers can continue to pony-up the subsidies for more government-owned transport is wrong. History shows the proposal to be fatally flawed. All of the State-owned railroads in the Nation failed in 183 7-1840 . Lincoln knew personally about those failures , so when General Granville Dodge recommended to the President in 1864 that the government own the transcontinental railroad , Lincoln said "no." His theory , which ultimately worked, was that private enterprise own the railroads , but that the government would aid in their construction. When the Nation 's railroads were nationalized during World War I, it only took 18 months before the government's mismanagement had brought all our railroads to a screeching halt. So , Congress reversed its prev ious decision and de-nationalized our railroads. In 1970 during debates in Congress on formation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), some members promised that Amtrak "would be profitable in three years." Amtrak has failed to break even, and requires ever-increasing tax subsidies to continue its operations. Our Nation paid dearly for Amtrak's subsidies because on 9/11/01 we did have Amtrak, but we did not have adequate airport security. The north-south tonnage flows in California, on Hwy. 1-5 , US 101 , and Hwy. 99 , represent a source of funding that could , in a private-sector model, duplicate and exceed taxpayers ' subsidies in the public-sector model as proposed in the EIR. The French government has announced that it will have Fedex freight transported by that nation 's HSR starting next year, so those with experience in operating HSR in Europe have apparently resorted to freight revenue as a source of funding. We could reduce air pollution, traffic congestion, and road and bridge support deterioration and maintenance expenses ifwe diverted some of that tonnage onto HSR. I have said this to the HSRA since before its creation when it was a Commission. I believe that reliance on tax subsidies ought to be deemed unfeasible, given the tax/fee burdens already imposed on Californians by all levels of government, not to mention the even larger burdens which our generation is imposing on future generations. Rather, the manner in which railroads were originally created , and funded, freight revenue combined with losing passenger fares , ought to be the funding formula upon which the HSR is created and maintained. As the LAO's Report states (page 5), the HSR service should "not require an operating subsidy." A feasible "funding source ... for future years ... " (page 6, LAO's Report) exists now and will exist into the future: freight revenue. As with freight moving in the bellies of ai~liners , HSR can transport freight , thereby decreasing air pollution because the fuel savings per ton/mile is about 75% compared with rubber tires hauling freight on concrete or asphalt. The profit made moving freight 1 Joseph P. Thompson, "ISTEA Reauthorization and the National Transportation Policy," 25 Transportation Law Journal , pp. 87-etseq . (1997). can offset the losses sustained transporting passengers. Overnight shipments between Northern and Southern California can be transported without interfering with daytime , commute hours . Comment: UP's Property Ri2hts. In addition to those aspects identified by Cox and Moore ("Reason Report"), the UP's Coast Main Line, which is part of its incomparable interstate railroad, and considered by many to be the best railroad in the whole world, if not in America, is entirely its to own, for its shareholders' benefit. The Nation's national security and interstate commerce justify the position paramount to lesser entities, the States, and local government, which the courts have repeatedly upheld on federal preemption grounds. A look at the Maps of UP' s tracks in the SF Peninsula, San Jose, and South Bay Area show that the current HSRA proposal is impossible without UP's consent. Since UP has not given its consent (Mr. Wilmoth' s Letter enclosed), the proposed route is not a legally possible route, even if the HSRA could find the tax subsi dy money to operate it as currently proposed. Conclusion. I believe that Secretary Mineta was right. However, HSRA's answer is wrong for California, and impossibly burdensome for its taxpayers in this and future generations. By following our predecessors ' example , and having learned from their mistakes , we can have sound , sustainable HSR in California. Caveat Viator!" JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Suite 114, Gilroy, CA 95020 Post Office Box 154, Gilroy, CA 95021-0154 Telephone (408) 848-5506; Fax (408) 848-4246 E-Mail: TransLaw@PacPell.Net Fax (408) 842-2206 February 18, 2010 Editor and Editorial Board The Dispatch 6400 Monterey Road Gilroy , CA 95020 Re: MyBulletTrain: Profitable for who? Dear Editor, Bullet Train blietzkrieg, multi-million dollar campaign, using taxpayers ' money to sell them on the boondoggle claims that it will be profitable. Yeh, but for whom? The planners, consultants, ad men , bond salesmen, foreign equipment manufacturers. The bankruptcy of all State-owned railroads in the USA in l 830's ought to tell us something about the right way to build a railroad. The American experience with nationalization of the railroads in 1918 , the collapse of the USSR, and the world-wide privatization revolution of the 1990's should teach us a valuable lesson in railroad building. The insolvency of Amtrak, Caltrain. The bankruptcy last month of the Las Vegas Monorail, etc.-lessons abound from our history , but will we learn from them? Sustainable rail transport hinges on the bottom line on the balance sheet; do revenues exceed costs? If we use VT A government-style accounting methods , like Enron did , like Bernie Madoff did , we won't see an unsustainable Bullet Train-we'll be given a snow job like County Transit snow jobs, concealing the truth about their insolvency .. We must use the same accounting used by the world 's most successful railroads , UP , BNSF, CSX, etc., America's Class One Railroads. If you lose money moving passengers, then you have to make-up your losses by moving freight. Intermodal tonnage on Bullet Trains , moved on separate trains during non-peak commute hours, is how I've told the California High Speed Rail Commission, now High Speed Rail Authority, to do it. If the taxpayers purchase the infrastructure for the Bullet Train 's owners , it will be like financing the Interstate Highway System , and the State Highways , for the trucking industry. Transport me as a tourist , and I'll need a 99% fare subsidy. But transport me as a deceased traveller, and my estate, or relatives, have to pay 100% of the cost of moving the dead freight. So, to create a sustainable Bullet Train, you have to think like railroaders, not horizontal elevators in communist nations . Caveat Viator! Why do our leaders want to grow bigger government, when common sense people, e.g., Editorial Board of Gilroy Dispatch, say we should be doing just the opposite? Do we have leaders who give a damn about the harm their decisions inflict? Why do we tolerate such hypocrites? .. Re spectfully yours , JOSEPH P. THOMPSON , ESQ. Member, Executiv e Committee, Debtor-Creditor-Bankruptcy Section, SCCBA Member, Legislation Committee, Transportation Lawyers Assn. Member, Association for Transportation Law, Logistics & Policy Candidate , American Society of Transportation & Logistics Winner, AST &L 's Best Re search Paper Award 1997 President, Gilroy-Morgan Hill Bar A ss n . Post-Doctoral Student, Transportation Law & Policy Why do our leaders want to grow bigger government, when common sense people, e.g., Editorial Board of Gilroy Dispatch, say we should be doing just the opposite? Do we have leaders who give a damn about the harm their decisions inflict? Why do we tolerate such hypocrites? ' JOSEPH P. THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Gilroy , CA 95020 Telephone (408) 848-5506; Fax (408) 848-4246 E-mail: TransLaw@PacBell.Net January 6, 2012 Fax: 916-322-0827 Mr. Mehdi Morshed, Exec. Dir. High Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street, Suite 1425 P. 0. BOX 942874, MS-74 Sacramento , CA 95814 Re: Public Comment HSRA ' s Re-Revised Environmental Impact Report SF-San Jose-Gilroy- Merced Dear Mr. Morshed , Referring to my letters to you ( copies enclosed), why are you ignoring truth in transportation? Why are you ignoring sound railroading? Why are you ignoring history? Why are you ignoring the will of the voters of California? Why are you ignoring the legislation from our State Legislature signed into law by our State Governor? Please include these remarks as part of your official record of proceedings and these enclosed supplemental remarks about the re-revised EIR for the SF-San Jose-Gilroy-Merced Segment. You remind me of the public sector transit advocates and supporters who cram taxpayer- funded transit down our throats so that public sector transit welfare recipients and public sector union employees and joint power authorities staff can enjoy our blood regardless of the damage that it does to our State. Like addicts who refuse to admit their addiction, you seem Hell-bent on your Leninism even thought history, both world-wide and American and North American railroad history proves that your concept is fatally flawed and is not sound nor sustainable. I repeat what I said to the High Speed Rail Commission and then State Senator Quinten Kopp: High Speed Rail can only work in the private-sector. Otherwise, you'll just stick another blood-sucking leech on us like Amtrak, Caltrain, Lite Rail, and other public-sector boondoggles that fail every place, and every time that they've been tried around the world. Encl. JOSEPH P . THOMPSON Attorney at Law 8339 Church Street, Gilroy , CA 95020 Telephone ( 408) 848-5506; Fax ( 408) 848-4246 E-mail: TransLaw@PacBell.Net November 10, 2010 Fax: 916-322-0827 Mr. Mehdi Morshed, Exec. Dir. High Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street, Suite 1425 P. 0. BOX 942874 , MS-74 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Public Comment HSRA's Environmental Impact Report SF-San Jose-Gilroy-Merced Dear Mr. Morshed , Referring to my letter to you ( copy enclosed), I am enclosing my supplemental remarks about the EIR for the SF-San Jose-Gilroy-Merced Segment. Will you please add this supplement to the official record of these proceeds. Future generations must know that you were warned . Respectfully yo urs , JOSEPH P. THOMPSON , ESQ. JOS EPH P . THOMPSON Attorney at Law 952 Schoo l Street , #3 76 , N apa, CA 94 559 T ele phone (408) 848-5506 E -mai l : TransLaw@PacBe ll .Net SHORT VERSION: Joe Thompson is a graduate of the Santa Clara University School of Law. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, all U .S. District Courts in California , and before the California Supreme Court. He is past-president (twice) of the Gilroy--Morgan Hill Bar Assn. LONG VERSION : Joe Thompson is a member of the Transportation Lawyers Assn., and serves on TLA's legislation (past Chair), intermodal , arbitration , and freight claims committees . He is a member of Transportation & Logistics Council , Inc. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Santa Clara County Bar Assn.'s Debtor- Creditor-Commercial Law Section . He was a member of the Association for Transportation Law , Logistics & Policy , and a candidate for the American Society for Transportation and Logistics. He served on the Government Review Councils of the San Benito County and Gilroy Chambers of Commerce , and was a member of the Gavilan Employers Advisory Council. He was appointed to the San Benito County Citizens Rail Advisory Committee , San Benito County Citizens Transit Task Force, and served on the Steering Committee of the Safe Kids Coalition . He was a member of Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, and the Conference of Freight Counsel. He received the National Directors Award for the best transportation research paper in the U .S . in 1997 from the AST&L. During Governor Pete Wilson 's administration, he participated three years in the Regulatory Reform Roundtable. He is a 1966 graduate of the Motor Carrier Fleet Safety Supervisor School at U .C .-Berkeley, and was employed as dispatcher and supervisor by Pacific Motor Trucking (1964-1970), and as clerk by Union Pacific Railroad (1970-1980). His articles have been published by Transportation Law Journal, Western Growers Association Magazine , and Transportation Lawyer Magazine and Salinas Californian. 4/5/22, 12:20 PM Letter: Need more leade rs like Mark Turner -Gilroy Dispatch LETTER TO THE EDITOR Letter: Need more leaders like Mark Turner By: JOSEPH P. THOMPSON ~ March 31, 2022 "J O 0 42 Ever since we moved to Gilroy in 1978, I have observed many people who have selflessly given of their time and resources to improve life in the South County, starting with the first Garlic Festival that year. As with many of his predecessors, both of elected office and otherwise, I think that South County is blessed with Mr. Mark Turner's devotion to Gilroy, as were, to name but a few, Mike Gilroy, Susan Valenta , Mark Derry, Bob Dillon, Don Gage, Perry Woodward , Jane Howard, Dion Bracco, Debb ie Sanchez , Sig Sanchez and Ed Sanchez. The list is a long one for whom we ought to be grateful. Mark Turner was probably one of those present in the Gilroy Chamber's Conference Room at the joint Gilroy & Morgan Hill Chambers' pre-election debate in October 2008 when I debated the Honorable Rod Diridon on Prop. 1A, $10 billion bond initiative for the Bullet Train 's construction. He was probably among those who recogn ized Supervisor Diridon 's lie that, since UPRR wouldn't permit Bullet Train on its right-of-way, they "would use BNSF tracks" to make Gi lroy the South Bay Bu ll et Train Hub. He was one of the few who realized that the closest BNSF tracks to Gilroy are in Stockton . Gilroy, Morgan Hill and all South County have suffered by the big government transport poli cy from "Worst in the Nation" VTA , where Emperor Transit First is their number one priority, and they know no gas tax is too high for motorists to pay so that th ey can keep their public sector transit fiascoes running . I pray that Gilroy and South County continue to be blessed with such pro-business stalwarts as Mr. Turner, who, hopefully, can counter the pro-big government forces to the North. We need free enterprise leaders in government to stem the tide that is crucifying motorists and taxpayers with untenable, unsustainable high levels of confiscatory taxes and fees . How high wi ll gas taxes have to go to keep VTA's boondogg les running as w e are crushed by the fiscal burdens of the Bullet Train, too? htt ps://gilroydispatch .com/letter-need-more -leaders-like-mark-turner/ 1/2 4/5/22, 12 :20 PM Letter: Need more leaders like Mark Turner -Gilroy Dispatch The Dispatch published my prediction in 2008. But I'd like to double it today with the inflation that is destr oying all my small and very small business clients. Caveat viator. • Joseph P. Thompson, Esq. Past-President, 1999-2001, 2006, Gilroy-Morgan Hill Bar Assn. https ://gilroydispatch .com/letter-need-more-leaders-like-mark-turner/ 2/2 4/5/22 , 12 :52 PM Letter: Inac tion on transportation problems is deadly -SanBenito.com I Hollister, San Juan Bautista , CA LETTER TO THE EDITOR Letter: Inaction on transportation problems is deadly By: JOSEPH THOMPSON lffll December 27, 2021 "'J O @ 290 Whenever I read about another fatal crossover collision I remember giving th e eulogy for Morgan Hill 's Janet Graham at her chu rch. The San Benito County Health Nurse was killed in one of these on Hwy. 25 before COG "leaders" decided to install center dividers . I remember Gi lroy Mayor, VTA -Chair Don Gage tell ing me t hat after a carload of teenagers was ki ll ed in one of these type of crashes in Gilroy on US 101 before center dividers that while VTA did not have enough money to install center dividers, they did put more than $40 mill ion into their pens ions from that year's appropriations. Like its big insolvent "mobility partner" to the north, COG also lacked sufficient funds to install ce nte r dividers on heavily traveled highways like Highway 25 . Some local editors actually published some of my letters about this phenomenon . While I was axed by SBCBOS & COG's t hen -Chai r for "harassing " my fellow Task Force members, it didn't give me much pleasure to be offed. After a ll , I was called a "safety Nazi" at a Transportation Law Institute of the T LA in Was hing ton, D.C., by the then-general counsel of the ATA. I recited John Donne's poem that includes, "never send to know for whom the bell tolls -it tolls for thee" at Janet's funeral. https://sanbenito .com/letter-inaction-on-transportation-problem s-is-deadly/ 1/2 4/5/22 , 12 :52 PM Letter: Inaction on transportation problems is deadly -SanBenito .com I Hollister, San Juan Bautista , CA Before Hon. Brad Pike got up his famous Safe on 25 Committee, Janet had sent me to COG to ask them to make ~wy 25 a "safety corridor." I was on the SBC Safe Kids Coalition with her at the time . I did. I asked . I ,begged , but the then COG Directors only stared -"like deer in the headlights." They took no action. And , ironically, later Janet was killed . Kick myself for not being a better advocate. Maybe she'd still be alive if I had been at deaf-blind -& dumb COG . But in making priorities, government often (not just around these parts) waits for the body count to reach the tipping point. After all, we've got to keep those empty bus seats moving . Got to have those empty buses rolling on our streets. Shafting taxpayers with bankrupt boondoggles like County Transit is a worthy goal as long as those empty bus seats get around town. Screw the taxpayers. San Benito County is not alone in this. But, I always hoped that SBC could be smarter than their sister counties. Guess I've been wrong about that. All these years. But ask yourselves : What if we made traffic safety our #1 top priority? What if we said that bus riders can call Uber? I he ar that people illegally crossing the border do it. So, how much money could we spend on a more worthy priority (e .g ., highway safety) if we tanked public sector bankrupt-from -conception transit? Well, I guess the tipping point has not been reached yet. Right? Until then , our #1 top priority is Emperor Trans it First. Caveat Viator. (L . "Let the traveler beware.") PS : You know what I want to see as your New Year's resolution? Joseph Thompson Charter Member, SBCCOG Citizens Transit Task Force https ://sanbenito.com/letter-inaction-on-transportation-problems-is-deadly/ 2/2