My standard departure hour from work is about 6 p.m. or so, which happens to coincide with the time that the Megabus coaches roll through downtown Columbus. The Megabus stop is at the corner of Fourth and Spring downtown, which is right along my route home.
Megabus is an interesting business concept. Owned by a British company called Stagecoach, it’s scheme is to provide low-cost, high-quality intercity bus service that competes with Greyhound. Unlike Greyhound, however, Megabus doesn’t have bus terminals — it just stops on the street at the appointed time, drops people off, picks people up, and rolls on.
Russell has used the Megabus and thinks it is a pretty good deal. The coaches are clean and equipped with the modern amenities, like plug-ins and wireless, and since there’s there’s nothing particularly glamorous about bus terminals he doesn’t feel like he’s missing out on anything by waiting on the street to catch a ride. Judging by the number of Columbusites I’ve seen using the Megabus, he’s not alone in that sentiment. There’s always a crowd waiting to board and always a crowd debarking, too.
The Bus-Riding Conservative is a big fan of bus companies like Megabus, and thinks we are foolish to try to rebuild rail infrastructure when Megabus can offer reasonably priced long-haul passenger transportation. I see the merit to the BRC’s analysis. Companies like Megabus use existing infrastructure and don’t require the expenditure of cash needed to permit high-speed rail travel in rail-free states like Ohio. Megabus also won’t need the ongoing governmental subsidies that rail travel seems to demand. If businesses like Megabus fail, taxpayers won’t be on the hook and stuck with a white elephant terminal — the intersection of Spring and Fourth will just be a little less crowded come 6 p.m.
The House Majority Leader, Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia, lost in a primary election yesterday. He was soundly defeated by David Brat, a conservative economics professor who was supported by elements of the “tea party.”
The result astonished the inside-the-beltway world of Washington, D.C., where Cantor was a fixture on the Sunday morning talk shows and was seen as a rising figure, a strategist and power broker, and potentially a future Speaker of the House. Analysts are scrambling to explain how Cantor, who was expected to win handily, could be defeated by a political unknown. The issue of illegal Immigration apparently played a large role in the campaign, and some have suggested that Cantor had lost touch with his district and, with his growing national profile, may have been perceived as too big for his britches.
I’ll leave the analysis to the punditry, and will make only two observations. First, Brat was grossly outspent by Cantor’s campaign. The first New York Times article linked above says Brat spent a little more than $200,000, whereas Cantor raised $5.4 million. In short, all of the horror stories we’ve been hearing about the overwhelming power of national money in politics were disproved in this instance, where Brat’s low-money campaign, based on local and state supporters, nevertheless energized the voters. The next time you get a money appeal from a candidate of the right or left who says he needs to keep up in the fundraising race with his opponent, you might remind them of the Cantor-Brat campaign — and then ask them where they stand on issues of interest to you.
Second, I think it is a good thing when established politicians are challenged and made to defend their positions. We would all be better off if our elected representatives were thinking more about staying connected with the people in their district or state and less about hobnobbing with the D.C. political and media elite. I’d love to see more Senators and Representatives who have served for years without serious contest have to return home, face a spunky challenger who isn’t intimidated by a lopsided fundraising advantage, and explain their records. That’s exactly how our political system is supposed to work.