I agree with Morgan Hill Mayor Mark Turner in regard to considering options for Caltrain rail service in the future. In the same vein, Gilroy City Councilmember Zach Hilton must be commended for his effort to work with South County representatives in attempting to find solutions.
One option that will attract more Caltrain riders is to obtain trackage rights on Union Pacific’s Hollister Branch rail line. While it is an active freight spur line from Gilroy (Carnadero Line) to Hollister, it would only need minimal upgrades and improvements to bring it up to FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) Class 1 standards to carry commuters and passengers.
Caltrain already has trackage rights on the Union Pacific-owned rail line between San Jose and Gilroy. I suggest that transportation planners and South County transportation representatives work with U.P. to grant trackage rights between Hollister and Gilroy.
For anybody who commutes on Highway 25, I think they would agree, the train is a viable option.
I do advise against any county transportation commission attempt to PURCHASE the Hollister Branch outright! The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission purchased the historical Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line some years back and it has been a huge ongoing contentious fiasco in a number of ways. Sad!
Gary V. Plomp, Rail Advocate
Gilroy
Joseph Patrick Thompson August 29, 2025 At 1:01 pm to Freelance
MY LETTER TO EDITOR FROM:—- April 17, 2003 to Freelance
FAX (831) 636-4160 FAX (831) 637-9015
Hon. George Rowe, Chairman Mr. Rob Mendiola, Interim Exec. Director
San Benito County Council of Government San Benito County Council of Government
P.O. BOX 1420 481 Fourth Street
San Juan Bautista, CA 95045 Hollister, CA 95023
Re: COG Meeting April 17, 2003–Agenda Item #11 Caltrain Extension to Hollister
Dear Mr. Rowe and Mr. Mendiola,
Please refer to my previous letters to COG regarding this subject, and to the resolutions that I drafted while serving on the citizens rail advisory committee, and to the final RAC report that I drafted (copies enclosed).
While everyone agrees that restoration of passenger service from Gilroy to Hollister would benefit SBC’s residents, I believe it is error to plan to fund it in the same manner as our sister counties do. It would be cheaper for local government and SBC’s taxpayers to buy Mercedes sedans for each SBC Caltrain rider. In fact, it would be cheaper to buy each one a median priced home in Gilroy than to pay the taxes to extend Caltrain to Hollister. Our County lacks the population and tax base to support public-sector passenger rail transportation, which would have a bigger annual deficit than County Transit bus service. Caltrain and VTA are so bankrupt that they are proposing to repeal Prop. 13’s super-majority vote requirement to add new taxes to run their Soviet-style transit systems. Why would local government in a small, rural county like ours want to duplicate their wasteful mistakes? Instead, why not have restoration of rail passenger service in the same manner that it was brought here originally in the 1870’s? Combining freight revenue with unremunerative passenger fares is how SBC should do it. Following the Caltrain funding model is a recipe for disaster, as I said to previous COG Boards, TAC and RAC. I urge you to plan private-sector solutions, and not damn future generations to suffer under public-sector, Soviet-style transit in any mode. Following the bankrupt ideas of VTA will earn COG’s Directors the condemnation of future generations of SBC’s residents. Thank you and caveat viator!
Respectfully yours,
cc: COG Directors JOSEPH P. THOMPSON
cc: SBC County Supervisors
cc: Hollister City Council members
TRUE COSTS OF CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO HOLLISTER, WHICH HAVE INCREASED BIGLY
Consultants’ estimates reported to the SBC citizens rail advisory committee and to COG’s directors that restoring the Hollister Branch Line track to passenger carrying capacity would be between $20 – $40 million. Applying Professor Harvey Levine’s average cost over-run deviation of 50% for the previous 100 years of transportation project estimates makes it $40 – $80 million. Since San Benito County gets back only 11 cents for each dollar that we send to Sacramento, you must multiply it by 9.1 to get the amount of tax money that we must send to Sacramento to get back the money to pay the Union Pacific. In effect the County’s taxpayers would be giving $364 – $728 million just for the capital improvements needed, and does not include annual operating subsidies. If the present Caltrain farebox recovery rate (11% as last reported in San Jose Mercury News) remains the same for us, then taxpayers will need to contribute 89% of the annual operating expenses in addition to the capital improvement costs.
Track Restoration 50% Average Cost Overrun $.11/dollar Return Factor
$20,000,000 – $40,000,000 $40,000,000 – $80,000,000 $364 – $728 million
Subsidy/Rider for Hollister Caltrain Riders Based on Usage
Usage Rider’s Taxpayers Subsidy
100 = $7,280,000
200 = $3,640,000
400 = $1,820,000
800 = $ 910,000
1600 = $ 455,000
3200 = $ 227,000
6400 = $ 113,750
So, until ridership reaches 1600 daily riders, it would be cheaper for SBC’s taxpayers to purchase the median priced home for the Caltrain riders than to pay for restoration of passenger rail service as funded by the Caltrain Counties. Until it reaches 6400, it would be cheaper to buy them mobile homes in Gilroy. This does not include operating expense subsidies.