To Train, Or Not to Train

Yesterday I read a story in the local paper about the California High Speed Rail and it's local affects in our area, especially two of the larger towns.  It was written by a San Jose Mercury reporter, and I guess was sent out over the press wires.  It was a longish piece for our paper, and it explains this issue how it is splitting families and towns around here.

I use Amtrak when I can and it is a money saving option.  I like the traveling ease of Amtrak, but there are a few things that bother me about rail travel in our section of the US currently.  Amtrak is subsidized. That is how they they make it work out financially.  I wish it weren't so.  Our most common personal trip is from Hanford to Napa.  At today's ticket prices and gas cost, it is cheaper to drive a car per person when there are two or more traveling.  So most of the time we drive.  When one person is traveling, or one person has to go up earlier than others, then we use the train.

The logistics also include travel to the train station in Hanford which is an hour and gas added on our end.  Maybe taking the bus would be easier, but would be more costly. At the north end, someone has to be available to pick us up, or we walk a mile to our destination.  That's not too hard really.  I guess for a train user this logistical effort is something that will have to be factored in and our paradigm will have to change if train travel is really to take off.  But that is just background and is just personal background to what I've been thinking when it comes to the High Speed Rail.

I believe in the basic premise of rail travel, and the High Speed train in general, but it has yet to really pay for itself.  Everything I've read about Amtrak mentions lack of ridership as a culprit for operating in the red.  Most of the times I travel the trains are mostly full. Some sections of the trip have more riders than others.  I have to admit the lack of riders in Hanford usually is made up the farther north we go. So if the government can't operate the current train service at a breakeven level, how can they operate a more expensive train, with less stops, and not lose more money?

It seems to me that there are two scenarios for this to happen.  If the government believes that this is a service that the people they govern should have and use, then they can justify the cost as a service provided.  In our Valley of Bad Air, if people would use the train, I would bet some of our air quality issues would be reduced. Not much, but some.  I can see the government trying to raise ridership to help that situation.  So the costs of providing this service are paid for with taxes.  But that is going to take a change in how we as Californians think about travel and convenience.  More money will have to be spent for other surface travel; buses, taxis, trams; to make train travel easier before the trip and after reaching the destination.  I would be willing to pay a few more dollars for such a service it it becomes more convenient.  Better yet, I'd bet there are current tax dollars that could be found for this instead of taxing more.

The other option for this is to raise the cost of riding the train.  The article talks about how there are impoverished people needing medical care in San Francisco or Los Angeles that can't afford to drive to those cities for their care. The High Speed Rail(HSR) is supposed to make that easier.  How?  If the current cost of gas is too much, and the current Amtrak fare is too much, how will a more expensive train be cheaper for these to make the needed medical journey?

Another argument is that the HSR will open up the job market for an area that has more than double the unemployment rate of the country.  I am expected now to commute to work out of the area for a job?  Where are these jobs?  Most people I know use their cars after they get to work, completing their job, so trains commuting isn't much of an option for them.  Again our paradigm needs to change, but how do I pay for this until it changes?

The last argument for the HSR in the article was offered by a Visalia office manager.  She said, "I just took a trip to Paris, and we visited Versailles on a high-speed train. It's an awful long drive to San Francisco, but if I could get there on the train more quickly, I'd go there more often."  So I am now supposed to help a woman that can make a trip to Europe have a quicker trip to vacation in San Francisco? If you can afford a trip to Paris, then you should be able to pay for your train trip here.  And why not spend your dollars here so the sales tax money stays here where it is needed?

Overall the HSR seems to be a political coup, a boost for above average income earners, or another way to spend taxpayer's money for something that will take decades for the people to change their habits and use.

And why did they start the project in the middle, in farm land instead of nearer the cities?