High Speed Rail-- A Much Greener Way To Travel Than Airplane Or Auto... And Some Special Interests Opposing It

Yesterday CNBC carried a very interesting piece on high peed rail-- and why the U.S. has fallen so woefully behind other nations. Jeniece Pettitt and Adam Isaak compared the U.S. to other countries: "China has the world's fastest and largest high-speed rail network-- more than 19,000 miles, the vast majority of which was built in the past decade. Japan's bullet trains can reach nearly 200 miles per hour and date to the 1960s. They have moved more than 9 billion people without a single passenger casualty. France began service of the high-speed TGV train in 1981 and the rest of Europe quickly followed... When the high speed rail between Madrid and Barcelona in Spain came into operation, air traffic just plummeted between those cities and everyone switched over to high speed rail which is very convenient. People were happy to do it; they weren't forced to switch. They did it because it was a nicer option to take high speed rail. There's sort of a rule of thumb for trips that are under three or four hours in trip length from city to city-- those usually end up with about 80 to 90 percent of the travel market... [Brian Annis, California Secretary of Transportation:] 'Where rail exists and it's convenient and high speed, it's very popular. America is waking up to this idea that rail is a good investment for transportation infrastructure.'"

But the U.S. has no true high-speed trains, aside from sections of Amtrak's Acela line in the Northeast Corridor. The Acela can reach 150 mph for only 34 miles of its 457-mile span. Its average speed between New York and Boston is about 65 mph.

California's high-speed rail system is under construction, but whether it will ever get completed as intended is uncertain.

You'll get a better picture of which special interests are keeping high speed rail from moving forward in the U.S. by watching the film. But you can get the general idea here: "There are a lot of forces in America that really don't want to see rail become a major mode of transportation, especially because it will effect passengers numbers on airplanes; it'll effect the use of autos." Currently backward Republicans see high speed rail that socialist European countries but not something for car-loving America.

Are Republicans Attempting To Create An American Train Wreck To Advance Their Partisan Agenda?

When I was growing up in Brooklyn and on Long Island, I always had the idea that Florida was like a second home for everyone I knew. My first big trip alone was when I was 13 and I hitchhiked to visit my grandparents in Miami Beach over Easter. By electing a deranged ideologue as governor, Florida voters just decided, in effect, to give all the Northeast snowbirds a big wet kiss and a thank you for all the money they've spent in the Sunshine State over the years. Rick Scott vetoed the high speed rail system and the 2 billion dollars allocated for it and Monday the Obama Administration announced where all that money-- and all the jobs that money will create-- is going instead.

Rail riders along the California coast and the Boston-Washington "Northeast Corridor" are set to reap much of the benefits from $2 billion that Florida policymakers had earlier rejected for high-speed rail development.

The Obama administration on Monday announced the reallocated funding, part of its push to spur environmentally friendly transportation and modernize the nation's infrastructure that's supported partly by the 2009 economic stimulus package.

Fifteen states and Amtrak will receive the money to back 22 high-speed intercity passenger rail projects. Among other things, the funds will be used to improve speed and service in the Northeast, add faster rail lines in the Midwest and help spur more efficient train service between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Nearly $300 million will be spent to reduce major delays for trains coming in and out of Manhattan-- the nation's busiest passenger rail junction. Within the next four years, high-speed rail advocate Petra Todorovich estimated trains between New York and Philadelphia will routinely move at 160 mph because of a host of upgrades aimed at improving "train speeds, capacity and reliability."

...Supporters insist the emphasis on faster rail transportation is a necessary investment in the country's economic competitiveness. Critics contend it's little more than a massive boondoggle that is contributing to skyrocketing federal deficits while providing few proven benefits over the long term.

Scott's decision this winter to reject what eventually worked out to $2 billion in federal funding for the Orlando-to-Tampa plan surprised a number of observers. This came after the Obama administration pulled another $1.2 billion in funding from Ohio and Wisconsin after their newly elected GOP governors vowed to kill high-speed rail projects that were under way.

LaHood portrayed those cases Monday as relatively rare exceptions, noting that the Transportation Department received $10 billion worth of requests for the $2 billion available.
"Who says America does not have a pent-up demand?" he asked.

Amtrak officials note that they set a new annual ridership record of more than 28 million passengers for the last fiscal year.

The plutocrats who fund the Republican Party-- and the Blue Dogs-- simply do not want to pay for American infrastructure. They have their own private planes anyway and they don't see America as a worthwhile investment. Whether it's Medicare, transportation, education, or infrastructure, the rich refuse to pay their share and they have the political muscle to get their way but financing conservative politicians to do their bidding. It was heartening to hear Harry Reid tell Boehner-- who's demanding more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires by cutting spending-- to start his jihad by cutting $2 trillion in taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil. Obviously that's off the table for the Koched-up GOP.

An amendment on March 1st to repeal taxpayer-funded subsidies to Big Oil. The amendment would have prohibited large oil companies from receiving certain tax breaks, like the domestic manufacturing deduction in the 2004 international tax law. Repealing these tax breaks would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next decade. 100% of House Republicans voted no.

Slimy Blue Dogs who feed at the same corruption-filled troughs as the Republicans crossed the aisle and voted with them against cutting off taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil. Among the most corrupt of the Blue Dog bribe takers who voted with every House Republican on March 1 were:

Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA)
Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)

Republicans Willing To Rip Apart America To Deny President Obama Legitimacy As the Nation's Leader-- Take High Speed Rail

GOP Rep. Tom Reed thinks you should cut back so he can eat more

Everyone in Congress loves a good transportation bill, regardless of political party. It has always allowed Members to go home to their districts and brag, "Look what I've done for you," pointing to new highways or even just exit ramps, train stations, runways... When George W. Bush signed the bipartisan Passenger Rail Investment Act, the national consensus behind high speed rail had begun. Every Democrat and 158 Republicans voted for it. Only 38 die-hard reactionaries (all Republicans) voted no, the real bottom-feeders of right-wing psychosis like Virginia Foxx (NC), Paul Broun (GA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Scott Garrett (NJ), Mike Pence (IN), Doug Lamborn (CO), Jeb Hensarling (TX), Joe Barton (TX), Steve King (IA), Wally Herger (CA) and Patrick McHenry (NC). Republican congressional leaders like Boehner, Cantor, Blunt, Ryan, McCarthy, Dreier were all aboard. Even far right kooks like Bachmann, Walberg, Gohmert, and Mean Jean Schmidt were socialists for a day on that one. Every single Republican from Florida-- salivating at the prospect of what high speed rail could do for their state's economy and economic future-- voted YES.

So what changed? The election of America's first African American president. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Suddenly all those Republicans-- or almost all-- who voted for high speed rail are hysterical in their opposition. Now it's not a bipartisan opportunity to move the country forward. Now it's a socialist conspiracy to make every Christian man in America marry a gay and turn over his gun to the UN. Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Florida Republican Party, is just the kind of lobbyist who revels in this kind of pork-laden legislation. Even as chairman of the American Conservative Union, he's still pushing for approval. But that's no longer a consensus position for a Republican-- or even an acceptable one. In Cardenas' case, his lobbying for high speed rail puts him at odds with Florida's ideologically over the cliff governor, Rick Scott who turned down $2.4 billion for a Tampa-Orlando high speed rail showcase both parties-- minus deranged teabaggers who have been brainwashed by Koch-funded propaganda on behalf of their oil and gas interests-- favored.

Partisan ideologues like the governors of Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio have turned down the funds for high speed rail, sacrificing the economic futures of their state's in order to follow the lead of Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell who say the #1 priority of the GOP should be to defeat Obama in 2012. But what about high speed rail itself? Can it survive despite the partisan backlash and Republican Party nihilism? Yesterday the Duluth News Tribune looked at the same question. Serving a community desperate for the jobs high speed rail will help to create, the paper offered a non-teabagger mainstream consensus view.

For a variety of reasons, including the recent financial crisis, the U.S. economy remains in a serious slump. High-speed rail spending could stimulate job growth and help jump start the economy.

These projects would, of course, add to the deficit, and concerns about its long-term growth, particularly that attributable to health care, are merited.

Looking back over the last three decades, however, Republicans’ interests in deficit reduction seems to have waxed and waned depending upon who occupied the White House.

The run-up in the debt under Bush was regrettable, but the time to cut government spending is when the economy is strong, not when it is weak.

If the country is going to incur new debt, it is better to do so to acquire well-chosen infrastructure and equipment than to fund consumption.

Would high-speed rail represent well-chosen infrastructure? In other words, would it help the U.S. “win the future”? This is a more complex question. It requires us to consider not simply whether such projects would help close the output gap, but whether and how effectively they would expand the potential output of the economy.

Here there are legitimate concerns about whether the U.S. has enough high density corridors-- such as that between Boston and Washington-- to yield large benefits.

...[S]tate and federal governments have a long and largely successful record of supporting infrastructure development, from the Erie Canal to regional and transcontinental railroads to the Interstate Highway System and, more recently, to the Internet.

The build-out of the surface road network during the Great Depression generated large private-sector benefits, contributing to very fast productivity growth in transportation.

High-speed rail projects could certainly create jobs and stimulate the economy in the short run. Whether they would generate benefits similar to those of other government funded infrastructure projects is uncertain. History suggests, however, that there’s a good chance they would.

But Republicans afraid of local teabaggers' deranged anti-Obama mania are determined to sacrifice high speed rail on the same pyre as healthcare. Upstate New York is another economically devastated area that could benefit greatly by high speed rail spending. But the two freshmen teabaggers, Tom Reed of Corning and Ann Marie Buerkle of Onondaga Hill, are adamantly opposed, no matter how much their opposition harms their own constituents. They sent a letter urging Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to abandon plans for a high speed rail line in upstate New York.

"Constructing a high speed rail line across western and upstate New York is not practical," said Reed. "A true high speed rail line across this region would require its own dedicated track. Fulfilling this requirement would cost tens of billions of dollars. At a time when our roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure are deteriorating, our tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere. We simply must make the tough choices necessary to prioritize our limited resources on projects that are essential and have the potential for long-term self-sufficiency.”

Shawn Hogan, mayor of Hornell and the Steuben County Democratic chair, was critical of Reed’s stance.

“To just blindly say no to any high speed rail system in this country is ludicrous and hypocritical,” said Hogan. “He does not represent his constituents. He has not cast one vote in Washington since he has been there, in my mind, to create any jobs. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the state in Steuben County.

“For him to write a letter expressing this opinion with Anne Marie Buerkle, who's another person not very popular in her own district, in central New York, is a slap in the face to every person in the district. I don’t care if you are Democrat, Republican, Independent, whoever you are, you can not stop investing in the future of this country. Period.”

Most of New York's congressional delegation agrees with Mayor Hogan, not the 2 teabagger congressmen. Louise Slaughter, who represents most of Rochester, has been asking Obama to dedicate federal money for upstate high speed rail. "High-speed rail in Upstate New York is a vital component for economic revitalization in our region," Slaughter said. "The United States Conference of Mayors estimates at least 21,000 new jobs and $1.1 billion in new wages in New York alone from the realization of a high-speed rail network. Those who want to abandon high-speed rail in New York are also abandoning thousands of new jobs and economic opportunities for Upstate New Yorkers."

It's an argument going on all over the country. Forward-looking states like Massachusetts, California and Vermont are vying for the $2.4 billion Florida turned down. Backward reactionary bastions like Alabama, want nothing to do with anything that will bring prosperity to ordinary working families, worried it will help lift minorities and worried it will make Obama look good. It's a destructive mindset. Americans for Public Transportation President William Millar points out that “It’s fashionable today to take every issue and rip it apart in a partisan way. It’s a very difficult time to be a leader trying to lay out a great future for the country. I’m not trying to sound like a defender of the president, but just as an observer of politics, opponents of the president are going to use whatever they can... The era we live in, nothing is off limits. Republicans have a long history of supporting infrastructure projects. I hope that doesn’t change.” It has. Voters will make the decision in 2012 if this is what they want from their elected officials and if this is the kind of behavior they accept from their government.

Will The Career Criminal Angry Florida Voters Just Elected Governor Get Run Over By A High Speed Rail Decision He Made Yesterday?

On the first day of the month we looked into the political strategy Republicans were using to undermine President Obama (and America) for the sake of their political ambitions. A highly regarded, forward-looking initiative to bring high speed rail to the country is being derailed by ideologically extremist Republican governors in Wisconsin, Ohio and, most recently, Florida. And all for partisan effect-- regardless of the fact of the disadvantage it puts their states in the short term (jobs) and the long term (infrastructure and competitiveness).

Ray LaHood was a mainstream conservative congressman from Illinois before President Obama appointed him Transportation Secretary. He's been working closely trying to persuade his fellow Republicans that high speed rail is too important for them to cast aside because they want to see Obama fail as president. His comments when Rick Scott announced his decision to reject the federal funds were devastating:

“We are extremely disappointed by Governor Rick Scott’s decision to walk away from the job creating and economic development benefits of high speed rail in Florida. We worked with the governor to make sure we eliminated all financial risk for the state, instead requiring private businesses competing for the project to assume cost overruns and operating expenses. It is projects like these that will help America out-build our global competitors and lay the foundation needed to win the future. This project could have supported thousands of good-paying jobs for Floridians and helped grow Florida businesses, all while alleviating congestion on Florida’s highways. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming demand for high speed rail in other states that are enthusiastic to receive Florida’s funding and the economic benefits it can deliver, such as manufacturing and construction jobs, as well as private development along its corridors.”

The chairman of the House Transportation & Transportation Committee, John Mica, is very conservative. His lifetime Progressive Punch score on crucial votes is a dismal 2.12, even to the right of fanatically right-wing Florida colleagues like Jeff Miller, Bill Young, Cliff Stearns, Connie Mack, Gus Bilirakis, Bill Posey, Mario Diaz-Balart and Vern Buchanan. According to the Orlando Sentinel he urged Scott to change his mind.

“I am deeply disappointed in the decision to not move forward with the Orlando to Tampa passenger rail project,” Mica said in a statement. “This is a huge setback for the state of Florida, our transportation, economic development, and important tourism industry.

“I have urged the Governor to reconsider going forward and allow the private sector to assume the risk and any future costs for the project.  I made this appeal to the Governor this morning.  With the federal government assuming 90% of the cost of the project, I am disappointed the private sector will not have an opportunity to even offer innovative proposals to help finance the balance of the costs and to construct and operate this system.
 
“I will continue to work with the Governor and all those interested in developing cost-effective 21st century transportation alternatives for Florida and the nation, with systems that can improve quality of life and help meet our future transportation needs.”

The Sentinel speculated that "the normally pro-rail Republican majority in the Florida Legislature may be biting their hands to avoid bashing Gov. Rick Scott today, following his decision to return $2.4 billion in high-speed rail money to Washington." Pam Iorio, Mayor of Tampa, called it "a terrible decision, truly the worst decision I've ever seen by a governor in my 26 years in public life." Hard for anyone paying attention during the 2010 election campaign not to have been able to see this coming down the tracks 10 miles away.

My favorite comments came from Eric Jotkoff, a spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party. Like Democrats in Wisconsin-- and in DC, of course-- they know the best chance the Democrats have to regain power is for the Republicans to let it all hang out and overplay their hands and not be shy about what sociopaths and extremists they are. As tragic as it is for Florida, Scott's decision is probably good for the Florida Democratic Party. Jotkoff:

“Over the past month Governor Rick Scott has become a one man wrecking crew for Florida’s economy, putting at risk over 100,000 jobs as he tries to impose his extreme philosophy on the Sunshine State.

"Gov. Scott’s rejection today of high-speed rail not only ends the hope of less congestion on our roads for Central Floridians stuck in I-4 traffic every day, but also stops a critical investment in Florida’s infrastructure that will cost our state 71,000 job-years.

"Between the Governor’s actions today and his budget, which promised pink slips to tens of thousands of police, firefighters, and teachers, Rick Scott is putting Florida’s future at risk."

UPDATE: Florida Editorial Boards Finally Unmask Rick Scott

Virtually every big newspaper in Florida has been pounding Scott nonstop for his boneheaded rejection of Florida's future. Here are a few:

St. Petersburg Times: Train wreck of a governor: "Gov. Rick Scott rashly acted in his own political interests and sacrificed the best interests of Florida Wednesday by rejecting federal money for a high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando. It is a reckless, devastating decision that has nothing to do with the merits of rail and everything to do with Scott's obsession with courting the tea party movement and fighting the Obama administration."


Tampa Tribune: Scott is very wrong on rail: "Gov. Rick Scott has said for weeks that his acceptance of federal money for high-speed rail from Tampa to Orlando required a close review of new data. Now we know he didn't mean it. Wednesday, saying he didn't trust the projected ridership numbers and cost estimates-- a new study is not yet finished-- Scott rejected $2.4 billion in federal grants. He is throwing away countless hours of bipartisan work applying for and winning the money. Florida overcame competition from just about every other metropolitan region in the country... Scott is wrong that the nation as a whole cannot afford a modern rail system similar to those in other industrialized nations. The $2.4 billion is less than the U.S. military is spending each week in Afghanistan."

Orlando Sentinel: Gov. Rick Scott's runaway train: "The Orlando-Tampa line would have created an estimated 23,000 jobs to build it and another 1,000 permanent jobs to operate and maintain it. Mr. Scott couldn't be bothered about that in rejecting $2.4 billion-- that's billion with a B-- specifically earmarked by the federal government for the project. And, in an Orwellian, head-shaking, did-I-really-hear-him-say-that? moment, the governor reminded listeners during his job-killing announcement that he 'was elected to get Floridians back to work.'

"This was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to start transforming the way Floridians get around.
The train would have served stops at Orlando's airport, International Drive, Disney, Lakeland and Tampa. The airport, the Convention Center, hotels and restaurants along I-Drive, Disney and businesses in Lakeland and Tampa all wanted the train, rightly viewing it as another way to move customers to and from their doors.

"The Florida Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Florida-- the state's premier business groups-- also wanted the train, knowing it could lead to the building of another economically simulative high-speed line planned for Orlando to Miami.

"Yet Mr. Scott said that he was ditching the project to create an environment 'where the economy can flourish.' Huh?"

Bradenton Herald: Scott's reasons for rejecting rail project faulty: "Gov. Rick Scott abandoned his job-creation mantra in favor of a conservative ideology that will not spare the U.S. budget one iota, though he lambasted federal spending in rejecting $2.4 billion in stimulus money to construct a high-speed rail link between Tampa and Orlando. Instead of Florida benefiting from the jobs and infrastructure those federal dollars would have yielded, California or other states will receive that investment."

WOW! I wonder what the Democratic-leaning newspapers are going to say! Is there a recall provision in Florida for crazy teabagger governors running amuck? By the end of the day the Republican controlled state Senate rebuked Scott-- with a letter sent by a veto-proof majority-- asking President Obama to ignore him and send the money anyway!

The letter was partly authored by one of Scott’s first senate backers, Republican Paula Dockery of Lakeland, who argued that the newly created Florida Rail Enterprise could act independently of Scott because the state’s share of the rail money-- $300 million-– was already approved last year by a previous governor, Charlie Crist.

...The number of senators, 26, is a significant number in that it sends Scott a subtle message: The Florida Senate could over-ride a future veto of rail money. Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos didn’t sign the letter, which is the first sign that the new governor has met the limits of his authority.

“I was never a big supporter of high-speed rail,” said Haridopolos, who nevertheless voted for the rail-legislation package in December 2009.

Haridopolos did give the green light for some of his top lawmakers to sign Dockery’s letter, including Senate Republican leader Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, who pushed the rail legislation more than a year ago.

...“The bottom line is that he can’t reject this money: It was already approved by another Legislature and another governor,” said Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs. “It’s like trying to veto a bill after it becomes law. It’s too late.”

Simmons said it also made no sense to allow other states to get what he says is the state’s fair share of federal money.

“This is like holding a gun to our heads and telling the federal government: Don’t give us this money or we’ll blow our brains out,” Simmons said.

Republican Civil War Spills Over Into The Battle For High Speed Rail And An American Future

I learned a lot about the relative economic development of India and China in Robyn Meredith's 2007 best-seller, The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means for All of Us, and last year I applied one of those lessons to a post about India's newest airport. Meredith had used the pace of airport development in the two countries as a metaphor for the advances made in China and the plodding, endemic backwardness of India.

I bet anything that President Obama has read The Elephant And The Dragon, and that its lessons about infrastructure development were on his mind when he gave the State of the Union Address-- with its largely unheeded call for a Sputnik Moment-- last week.

Largely due to Chinese authoritarianism-- and Indian democracy-- China has surged light years ahead in infrastructure. In India, writes Meredith, "companies must navigate antiquated customs processing, variations in taxes and byzantine rules for transporting goods between Indians states in addition to the crumbling highways, decrepit airports, and what-me-worry ports... Progress on India's development projects is on again, off again, as if ambivalent India still can't decide whether it wants to be part of the modern world. The city of Bangalore's airport is a prime example. Originally built in 1942, the airport has changed little in the past sixty-plus years. It's white tile floors, poorly lit corridors, and shabby stained chairs-- needed for the long wait at the lounge conveyor belt-- make the airport look as if it belonged in the developing world. One might find a thin airport worker leaning against the wall, asleep, or another staffer eating his dinner at a table set up near passport control, not far from a neatly stacked pile of fifteen-foot-long tree branches. A rumpled red carpet, held in place with duct tape, shows the way outside, where a crowd of perhaps 250 people-- waiting relatives, taxi drivers, hotel touts-- mill about at nearly any time of night or day... The Chinese government's drive to build superior physical infrastructure-- tens of thousands of miles of highways and modern airports-- allowed China to dominate manufacturing exports. Without high-capacity, dependable modern infrastructure, the world's sophisticated supply chains simply don't work." Writing in 2007 Meredith pointed out that although "China's big cities already have new airports, the nation intends to spend more than $17 billion in order to build over forty additional airports by 2010."

U.S. infrastructure, part of a post-WW II economic boom, hasn't kept up-- and, in fact, has been starting to crumble for lack of upkeep. Obama is talking about a 21st-century explosion in high-speed rail, and the deranged and partisanship-above-nation-driven Republican Party is talking about ending spending. I dug up a two-year-old post about why China has managed to surge ahead while the U.S. stagnates. I'm tempted to republish it, but I'll leave it to you to hit the link and read as much of it as you'd like. I'll just point out an overtly political passage as a lead-in to what I want to write today about high-speed rail.

China is a partner in capitalism but not in democracy, not by any stretch of the imagination. A rare upside to their authoritarian government is that there is no formal obstructionism permitted to hamper the government in a crisis. They have no Grand Obstructionist Party in China. They have plenty of corruption on all levels, including at the highest U.S.-like levels, but without a political party actively working to see the government fail-- regardless of how that hurts the nation-- China has been able to act with far greater speed, agility and purpose to take defensive action against the global depression. While partisan hacks of dubious patriotism-- like Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Richard Burr (R-NC), David Vitter (R-LA), John Boehner (R-OH), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)-- act with single-minded intensity to sabotage President Obama and prevent his program to rescue the country's economy from being enacted, China's government has acted with requisite haste to head the worst of the effects of the downturn off at the pass. This augurs poorly for the United States, although not for China's unofficial chief American lobbyist, Mitch McConnell.

Rabid right-wing ideological hacks like newly elected governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have turned down federal funds for their own states to build high-speed rail-- much the same way the ambitious right-wing governor of New Jersey sabotaged a much-needed new tunnel to New York for the same narrow-minded, reactionary reasons.

In a hearing this week, Republican Representative John Mica of Florida, the new chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Republican Representative Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, chairman of the subcommittee on railroads, pipelines, and hazardous materials, called for massive public-private partnerships way beyond federally subsidized Amtrak to bring true high-speed rail to the Boston-to-Washington Northeast Corridor. Shuster even used the “I-word’’ currently being flayed by many Republicans: “Failing to invest in the critical Northeast Corridor will ensure continued congestion.’’

But too many other Republicans want to derail everything. The new governors of Ohio and Wisconsin gave back $1.2 billion in stimulus funds for high-speed rail projects, campaigning against them as taxpayer waste. The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of 175 House Republican conservatives, wants to completely de-fund Amtrak and high-speed rail. Caucus chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, “Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?’’

Undeterred by such sentiments and the new Republican majority in the House, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry plans to file legislation in the next few weeks that would boost high-speed rail even more. His general plan calls for the development of a national high-speed railway system with spokes radiating up and down both coasts and across to the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest. The legislation would provide for up to $20 billion in competitive grant funding for projects that deliver train speeds of at least 110 miles per hour and incentives and preferences for projects that can deliver speeds above that.

Unfortunately, there are more Republican officeholders in power like Florida's crooked governor Rick Scott than like somewhat more sensible congressional realists John Mica (R-FL) and Bill Shuster (R-PA). Mica desperately wants high-speed rail in Florida, while Scott opposes it:



Mica, whose Florida district would benefit from the rail project, is chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and he said he's "pleased that President Obama has helped to launch a system for improved passenger rail service for our nation." Shuster of Pennsylvania is another booster of the plan regardless of the partisan divide. "I believe it's good for America to develop a high-speed rail corridor in the Northeast corridor. It's a place we have to start. We have to accomplish it, because then I believe all of America, in the various corridors around the country, will want high-speed rail if they see success here."

Many of their fellow Republicans are eager to support it as well, but campaign strategists under Boehner and McConnell are urging Republicans to stick with their obstructionist policies and to deny Obama any victories, regardless of how it impacts the country. Obama, along with both the business community and labor unions, may be talking about investing in the country's future; the GOP doesn't see beyond the 2012 elections and their own careers.

Dan Smith, a transportation associate with U.S. PIRG, said the president showed a willingness to make big compromises in the lame-duck session, and that could be a model for transportation policy.

"I think infrastructure could come in, in the form of a compromise where members of Congress from both parties see that it's in their interest" and will help the people in their districts, he said. "There's no such thing as a Democrat or Republican road project or rail project."

In the Republican response to Obama, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said all the president's initiatives, including the stimulus bill, have brought the nation to the brink of fiscal breakdown. Ryan said Obama has increased spending on domestic government agencies by 84 percent, including the "failed stimulus" that included spending on rail, highways and transit.

"All of this new government spending was sold as 'investment,'" Ryan said. "Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt."

Nonetheless, David Goldberg, communications director for smart-growth group Transportation for America, said fissures will eventually form between Republicans.

"Frankly, there are a lot of Republicans that represent unions and districts that really want that congestion relief from a new rail line," he said. "I'm just saying that they're out there."