Make no mistake, though: High speed rail is moving forward, though in fits and starts. The feds have allocated $8 billion in stimulus funding, and ten states are competing for the $2.3 billion slated for disbursement in fiscal 2010. All told, funding has been earmarked for 13 corridors through 31 states.

“The public wants these projects,” says Andy Kunz, president and CEO of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. “And there is broad support among members of Congress and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.”

Not so fast, say the watchdogs at Citizens Against Government Waste. It argues that taxpayers quickly lose interest once they know the costs associated with these projects.

“Everyone likes new gadgets,” says Tom Schatz, president of the watchdog group. “The buyers’ remorse comes later, and that’s what we’re seeing now.”

Schatz cites California as an example. In 2008, voters approved issuing $9.95 billion in state bonds to finance the first phase of a high-speed line that would link Sacramento and San Diego, but polls show more than 50 percent of Californians now oppose the project.

Cost is one of the biggest issues. The price tag in California has swelled from $45 billion to $65 billion. The feds want states chipping in for many of these projects, and that’s a big problem in an era of state budget deficits. There are also worries about who will pay for maintenance and operational costs not covered by ticket sales. With states struggling to pay teachers, police officers, and social workers, it’s hard to dismiss these concerns, even if the proposed projects eventually deliver the tens of thousands of jobs predicted by rail boosters.

There also are a lot of questions about the need for high-speed rail, especially in Florida, where the train would make the run from Tampa to Orlando in just 30 minutes less than a car. There’s also a lot of neighborhood opposition to high-speed rail in California, where residents worry about elevated tracks dividing their neighborhoods and harming their property values.

As mid-term elections approach, high-speed rail has become a political punching bag. At least one candidate in 10 states with gubernatorial races this year opposes high speed rail. In California, for example, Republican candidate Meg Whitman has argued the state can’t afford high-speed rail. In Wisconsin, Republican candidate Scott Walker has made cancelling a high-speed line between Milwaukee and Madison a key campaign issue. He notes that support for the project has fallen from 50 percent to 41 and says the $46 million already allocated for the project should go toward roads and bridges instead. His opponent in the primary went even further, suggesting that the rail funds be returned to the feds.

That’s not to say that public support for rail has collapsed. A survey in April found 49 percent of people favor high speed rail. The Department of Transportation, which is preparing to disburse another $2.3 billion in high-speed rail funding, received 77 applications from 25 states totaling $8.5 billion. That has many advocates saying high-speed rail will win in the end.

“I don’t think public opinion has changed all that much,” Kunz says. “The problem is that there isn’t anything for the public to see. These projects take years and years to complete, and it’s hard to maintain enthusiasm until there’s a train to ride.”

But with a sluggish economy, ballooning deficits, and polarized electorate, selling the virtues of high speed rail is likely to get harder before it gets easier.

Photo: jpmueller / Flickr. The Amtrak Acela Express rolls through Philadelphia.

See Also:

• Too Often, The ‘Trouble’ With High-Speed Rail Is Misinformation …
• High-Speed Rail As a Conduit of Sprawl
• At Long Last, Clear Messages for High-Speed Rail
• Point: NIMBY Won’t Stop California High-Speed Rail
• Counterpoint: The Other Side of California’s High-Speed Rail Debate
• Obama Outlines Plan for High-Speed Rail

Authors: Dave Demerjian

to know more click here