Political gridlock railroads high-speed trains

By Kit R. Roane, contributorNovember 23, 2010: 11:45 AM ET

On one side of the debate are Republican politicians like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Ohio Governor-elect John Kasich, Florida Governor-elect Rick Scott and Wisconsin Governor-elect Scott Walker.

On the other side are Democrats like Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in California, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo of New York, each begging the Feds for some of the billions of dollars in high-speed funds that Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and New Jersey may refuse to take.

The Obama administration has committed more than $8 billion so far to begin work on 13 planned corridor lines. A controversial study sponsored by Siemens for the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ has glowingly projected that by 2035 the plan could create almost 150,000 new jobs in the hub cities of Albany, Chicago, Orlando and Los Angeles alone.

“High speed rail is critical to building the foundation for future economic growth,” Cuomo wrote to U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood earlier this month, adding that “a Cuomo administration would move quickly to put the billions in rejected stimulus funding towards projects that would create thousands of good jobs for New Yorkers.”

There is plenty of debate over whether high-speed rail’s benefits (reduction in greenhouse gasses, oil dependency, and congestion, to name a few) would be as effective as proponents believe, or whether other alternatives would better suit the suburban sprawl that is America. Many of the proposed lines, says Samer Madanat, Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, “would not have sufficient ridership, thus losing huge amounts of money, needing excessive subsidies, and not contributing to reducing highway and airport congestion.”

READ MORE HERE >>