Planes, Trains and Automobiles

Paul Krugman highlights a George Will column bashing trains:

Oh, boy — this George Will column (via Grist) is truly bizarre:

So why is America’s “win the future” administration so fixated on railroads, a technology that was the future two centuries ago? Because progressivism’s aim is the modification of (other people’s) behavior.
Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.

As Sarah Goodyear at Grist says, trains are a lot more empowering and individualistic than planes — and planes, not cars, are the main alternative to high-speed rail.

I personally have never understood the conservative antipathy to trains and subways.  There is no more relaxing way to travel the east coast than by Amtrak.  It is great to be able to jump on the el in the Loop, and ride to Wrigley or Comiskey for a game.  To be able to kick back and read a book or newspaper is really nice.  I love the crack that railroads are a technology that was the future two centuries ago.  Well George, the wheel was a technology that was the future 100 centuries ago, what's your point?  My supposition is that these people don't want to actually be around other people, and thus despise anything that attacks their precious cars.  I figure that in 10 or 15 years, when gas costs much more, we'll be sorely disappointed that we didn't invest in high-speed rail now.  But conservatives don't give a damn for the future.