I’m honestly not trying to be mean here, but it simply amazes me the way newspaper editorial writers all think alike.
Yesterday the Winston-Salem Journal said we should all be riding the bus. Today the N&R tells us we should all ride the train—– once we have “high-speed” rail, that is.
Substitute “train” for “bus” and you pretty much have the same editorial. The Journal says “(c)ommuters find that they can get work done on the bus. Other passengers read, strike up conversations with their fellow passengers or sleep,” while the N&R says “where high-speed rail is available, travelers like its comfort and convenience. They can read, sleep, work on the computer, send text messages or walk to the dining car. And they can save time.”
And, of course, both editorials believe we can’t afford not to fund these valuable resources. Amazing.
Problem is commuters probably won’t save that much time, even with other planned corridors hitting higher speeds, as Wendell Cox points out here.
As for editorial writers using public transportation, I have to be fair and note that the N&R’s Doug Clark attempted to take PART during last year’s March snowstorm. It didn’t go so well.
Wendell Cox writes in the Wall Street Journal:
The administration is planning on giving Florida $1.25 billion to build a Tampa to Orlando high-speed rail line. The train on that route is expected to hit speeds of 160 mph and to make a trip between the two cities in about 45 minutes.
This will be helpful if you happen to live in the Orlando Station and have business in the Tampa Station. But most travelers will be better off driving.
It’s about 90 minutes by car, though it can be less depending on your home and destination. Once you factor in the time it would take to travel to the station, park, walk to the platform, and wait for the train to depart and also pick up a rental car on the other end, driving would probably be faster.
