This is not some gray area we’re talking about here. It’s black and white. My best foot should be put forward, always!
Though, in reality, this isn’t always how things work out. Which, I suspect, is acceptable, as long as the effort is made to strive for perfection. It becomes a problem if obvious errors in text continue to be repeated.
Before going to press, I make sure I have all pertinent facts. That’s done by my doing a thorough amount of research beforehand. Even when I write opinion pieces, it’s essential that these also be based on fact and not just on hearsay. Otherwise, how could I possibly defend my position? The simple truth is, I couldn’t.
I do a lot of writing. And that includes contacting sources when I find something stated to be incorrect. I will take the time to bring this matter to the source’s attention as long as the source contact information is provided.
Take this one example. On the official California High-Speed Rail Web site on the “About” page, the California High-Speed Rail Authority states: “When completed, Phase 1 of the high-speed rail system will run from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under three hours at speeds up to 200 miles per hour.”
Up until this point in time, I wasn’t aware a “system” could run in under three hours and, let alone, at speeds up to 200 miles per hour. I firmly believed that it is trains (and not systems) that could do this. Maybe I’m just out of touch where word usage is concerned is all.
By that definition, next time I find myself at a train station, I will look for the kiosk that displays system-schedule information as opposed to train-schedule info. Word choice is obviously really important.
So, if it was me who wrote it this way, that is to say I used the “system” instead of the “train” reference, I would most certainly update text, changing the word “system” to “train” to make the text correct. That’s just how I see it.
Furthermore, and again as I see it, in using the word system and not trains, this has the appearance, in the case of the California high-speed-rail declarative, of all trains traveling between San Francisco and Los Angeles of making the run in under three hours. Maybe that is indeed the case, but that would require that all trains maintain at minimum, an average speed of approximately 155 miles per hour on 463 miles of line. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that on the so-called “bookends” portions, this will be shared-track territory. And on those portions, what will the maximum allowable speeds be? Throw in a number of stops along the way, and speed and the type of service provided (express, non-stop or all-stops) will no doubt factor in in determining just what end-to-end train run times will be.
There is this from the 2024 Business Plan “Travel Time Comparison” chart on page XIII:
The travel times for automobile, air, and conventional rail travel are actual travel times. The time shown for high-speed rail is the designed time. Actual operating time for High-Speed Rail will vary from designed times depending on the number of station stops and other factors. For example, revenue service travel times between San Francisco and Los Angeles will be approximately three hours.
I will say this, however. If all trains, regardless of type, are able to make the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco and San Francisco-to-Los Angeles runs in under three hours, then more power (kudos) to the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
Anyway, back to this diary’s main point.
And that is, I always want to do the best job that I can possibly do when it comes to setting my writing to print. Careful review of my work before launching such into the public sphere is de rigueur. The reading-public reading such deserves nothing less.
Should there be mistakes, when I spot these, I will always update my diaries accordingly and put an “Update” clause in to that effect, one that includes the time and date that clause was added. I don’t know how many on this site will make the effort to do this, but I, for one, will.
It’s how I roll.
