Loading...
Agenda Item # 3.2 - Joseph P. Thompson | Received 11/21/2022JOSEPH 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. O. BOX 942874, MS-74 Sacramento, CA 95814 ©LMOV/IMD NOV 2 1 2022 GILROY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 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 (judicially - required) EIR for the San Francisco -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. Background. 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 RE 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: Funding 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 9/11/01 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 if we 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 airliners, 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 '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 Rights. 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 following our predecessors' example, and having learned from their mistakes, we can have sound, sustainable HSR in California. Caveat Viator!" Respectfully yours, JOSEPH P. THOMPSON, ESQ. f'oes.;* $Mg.iT: EDITOR: Fax (831) 637-4107 Editor editor@freelancenews.com The Hollister Free Lance Hollister, CA 95023 /JerMi, q,r 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 OF TAXPAYERS 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 PIS SING -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 VTA-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 -41117:1-11- 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 October 4, 2008 Re: Prop. lA 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 38 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 VTA'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. 1 A 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 with 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") fives 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 ror 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. RE C�CE��ICCD NOV 2 1 2022 GILROY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE