The uncertainty over pursuing the high-speed rail (HSR) project in Florida seems, at one level, to be another example of a conflict between austerity versus transportation infrastructure investment, but, at another level, it has become a battle of symbols. Although the President and Secretary LaHood have focused on the development of a broad system of HSR throughout the country, as offering the promise of economic renewal and jobs, the reality seems more complicated.

Clearly, the provision of frequent, regular, and reliable intercity passenger rail service (although not necessarily the bullet trains of western Europe, Japan, or China) can bring significant economic, energy, and other benefits in some regions and in some corridors, but it does not offer that promise everywhere. The keys, in carrying out such a progam, are in making strategic investment decisions after careful analyses of benefits and costs, and in insuring that such investments are fully integrated into broader multi-modal transportation networks in the metropolitan regions served.

Does this Florida project meet these tests? Would such a public investment bring greater returns and economic benefits than comparative (and competing) projects? The austerity that is imposed on national and state governments by burgeoning deficits and scarce resources must not rule out "good" and wise investments in a range of transportation projects and programs, including HSR, but it does require that we consider these factors.

As we consider transportation infrastructure policy, we should not allow ouselves to be caught in a "fool's choice" between austerity, on the one hand, and investment, on the other. Beneficial transportation infrastructure investments will necessarily establish the foundation of national and regional economic renewal and growth, but resources are constrained, and we can only afford to make "wise" investments, as best we can judge them.

Does this Florida HSR project meet that test? That is the issue that Gov. Scott and US DOT should be considering.

When we talk about transportation being a traditional area of bipartisan compromise and cooperation, this is what we’re talking about: the possibility of rational, non-ideological conversations about the most basic investments in how we access jobs, education, health care, and opportunity. Kudos to Secretary LaHood, Rep. Mica, and Gov. Scott for digging into a serious, adult conversation about how to move forward.

There are real questions about high-speed rail funding and accessibility, as with any major national investment, but it’s important to remember that the intercontinental railroad wasn’t built in a day. Nor was the interstate highway system. Nor were our city and regional transit systems. It’ll take time to figure out exactly how and where HSR makes the most sense, and to see its full benefits.

In the meantime, the operating cost question that dogs much of the debate around HSR is one we have yet to solve for our entire national transportation system. The changes proposed in the Obama administration’s recent transportation authorization proposal—including a fix-it-first approach, a shift in the highway-transit funding formula, and more local control over how to use federal transit funds—is a good first step. It builds on what we already know to work, and stays open to good ideas we’re only starting to work out.

And for any major transportation investment we make, one guiding principle has to be accessibility. Too often, when maintenance of transportation systems becomes an issue, the first thing to go is paratransit. We need to make sure that we adequately fund a system that makes is possible for all people, regardless of their level of physical ability, to use it. On this count, HSR has an advantage over highways, which are a very exclusionary form of transportation.

America’s promise is opportunity for all, and it should guide us in the hard debates going forward.

The United States has a long track record of transformational infrastructure initiatives that have been vital to our nation’s economic growth and prosperity. From the transcontinental railroad to the interstate highway system, turning bold and visionary ideas into reality has been a hallmark of American innovation. President Barack Obama’s high-speed rail initiative should be viewed in this context -- as a future cornerstone of our nation’s transportation network.

It is more important than ever for the U.S. to invest in its infrastructure to maintain its economic competitiveness in the global economy. The efficient movement of people and goods is essential for sustained economic growth and recovery, yet in comparison to other nations, it is no secret that U.S. infrastructure investment lags significantly behind. The results are increased congestion, outdated technology, lost productivity, and higher costs due to deferred repair and maintenance.

Investing in high speed rail projects will produce new passenger rail networks that will create construction and manufacturing jobs and will generate domestic business growth. New rail service spurs economic development around new stations. Further, transportation economists estimate that high-speed trains are about 9 times more energy-efficient than automobile or air travel. At a time when the price of oil continues to rise as the political situation in many oil producing nations becomes more volatile, we should be focused on creating infrastructure that will ultimately reduce our dependence on foreign sources oil.

Project sponsors will benefit from taxes collected from infrastructure construction and related projects that generate desperately needed state, local and federal tax revenues – giving new opportunity to presently struggling economies. These new tax revenues will help pay down the deficit while paving the way for a new era of American industry and innovation.

Putting the brakes on visionary transportation projects of this type may result in marginal up front savings, however, the jobs and economic activity generated by high-speed rail investments yield far more positive impacts on the economy in the long run. New rail service will provide with clean, safe and efficient transportation options between cities, supporting regional economies and reducing congestion on chronically crowded airways and roadways. Failing to provide alternative modes of transportation is simply not an option if our nation is to grow and prosper in a smart and sustainable way.

The United States has pioneered space travel and built a world class transcontinental railroad and interstate system, we must continue our strong tradition as a country that is committed to innovative transportation options. High-speed rail represents the next logical step in the progression to achieve a 21st century transportation network.

With AAA's headquarters being in the greater Orlando area, I've watched the development of this particular high speed rail proposal with some interest. I can personally attest to Orlando's myriad transportation challenges and due to the area’s transportation needs, a multi-modal transportation network is a necessity. From a tourism perspective alone, there is a strong case to be made for bringing high speed rail to the Orlando area, in addition to benefits to local business commuters and students.

Governor Scott may have been premature in making his determination on the future on the proposed Orlando-Tampa line without reviewing the bids, revised cost estimates and other critical data that was soon forthcoming. AAA will not make an ultimate determination on the value of this project until we have all of the facts in hand.

However, since the Governor’s initial announcement, I have been encouraged by the leadership shown by federal, state and local policymakers including the Governor, Secretary LaHood and, my representative in Congress, Chairman Mica. The rational discussion that they are having on the appropriate level of investment, centered around a cost/benefit analysis, shared risk and a long-term vision for the region's future mobility needs could be a model for achieving consensus on large-scale infrastructure investments such as high speed rail.

AAA believes that high speed rail can have a role to play in a future American transportation network, particularly in high density regions. Our airports and roadways will need a strong rail system to handle the mobility needs of an increasing population.

In a time of fiscal constraint, all levels of government must be creative in finding ways to maximize scarce taxpayer dollars while at the same time adequately investing in our transportation infrastructure, which helps our economy grow over the long term. There can be no excuse for failing to tackle our deferred maintenance and construction needs, especially when the construction industry is facing 20 percent unemployment. We have the ingenuity and the workers to build the transportation system of tomorrow - we just need leaders in the various levels of government to put politics aside and work together in a bipartisan fashion to do so.

Isn't it curious that an Administration devoted to the principle of multi-modalism is so obsessively determined to promote a single mode of its own preference -- that of high-speed rail? All three governors who rejected the federal HSR grants --- Govs. Walker, Kasich and Scott --- told Sec. LaHood that their states could badly use that money for more urgent needs of fixing roads, bridges and transit systems and, in the case of Gov. Scott, rebuilding Florida's ports in anticipation of the Panama Canal expansion. Yet Sec. LaHood turned a deaf ear to those requests, insisting that the stimulus money must be spent on high-speed rail --- even though money spent on other modes could have been just as effective in creating jobs. After justly condemning "stove pipe" mentality and modal biases in federal decisionmaking it is ironic to find the Administration ignoring its own principles of modal neutrality in such a blatant manner.

What is notable and somewhat disturbing about this latest High-Speed Rail (HSR) debacle is that there seems to be a discussion of everything except solving transportation problems. Governor Scott is concerned about protecting Florida taxpayers. Secretary LaHood is concerned about job creation and building HSR. So who exactly is trying to solve transportation problems in Florida through this discussion?

Until that is part of the conversation, it is unlikely that we will actually tackle any of these problems, so it doesn’t matter how rational the conversation might be. What are the issues in traveling between Orlando and Tampa? Is there substantial traffic congestion on I-4 during peak times? Why and what can be done about it? Is there substantial demand for improved common carrier transportation service between the two cities? Is the economy of Orlando or Tampa hurting in part because of a lack of intercity transportation options?

These are the questions that Scott and LaHood should be tackling, and then together perhaps they could develop a plan to fix whatever problems might exist. Such a plan would likely involve several modes of transportation, pricing and policy changes, and substantial private sector involvement. But instead they have staked out positions that ensure no one in a position of authority is thinking about transportation and economic benefits.

Governor Scott should worry less about whether taxpayers might be “on the hook” for transportation funds and more about how he can convince the feds to provide him with the funds he needs to accomplish specific transportation goals in his state. Secretary LaHood should worry less about job creation and pushing HSR and more about how he can ensure that federal funds are advancing specific federal objectives. Any substantial federal transportation investment will create jobs, so LaHood need not concern himself with the type of investment. But some federal investments could provide a better return than others, and it is his job to maximize their returns.

On Friday, DOT Secretary LaHood offered Florida Governor Rick Scott a week to re-think his rejection of $2.4 billion for high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando. Here’s an idea: if Governor Scott still does not want to build the Tampa-Orlando line (or the shorter 21 mile alternative suggested by U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Chairman Mica), let him request the funds be used instead to bring higher speed passenger trains to more Floridians. “Higher-Speed” means fast enough to compete with automobiles. That can sometimes be done at the FRA speed limit of 79 MPH; in other cases, trains will need to run at 90 or even 110 MPH (also FRA limits) over portions of the route.

$2.4 billion is enough to bring higher-speed rail to far more Floridians than would be served between Tampa and Orlando. With events in the Middle East already threatening our oil supply, many Florida voters would be grateful to have an attractive alternative to driving. And true high-speed rail is more likely to come incrementally, as successful passenger rail corridors are upgraded, than as stand-alone projects on routes that currently have no service.

Governor Scott seeks to protect Florida taxpayers from expenses resulting from federally supported rail projects. But who is protecting federal taxpayers? Not Scott, not LaHood, and not Mica. Nor even Democrats. To them all, federal money seems free and expendable.

“Members of the transportation community” should not be dogmatic. We could explain that we welcome projects paid for by users and providers, and that some of us object not to rail projects but to taxpayer-subsidized ones.

We could also “help the conversation” by explaining why US passenger rail was superseded by road-based modes for most short trips and by aviation for most long ones. We could point out that the federal government has yet to publish any benefit-cost analyses of the rail projects it campaigns for, despite reported instructions from the White House to do so.

Some of us might even try to guess who would benefit from rail passenger projects: Those who build and operate them might come to mind, as well as business and government travelers who would not be paying their own fares.

Might any of this help to get a "conversation" going?

In my opinion, Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio were fully justified in rejecting high sped rail funds that were intended to incrementally increase passenger rail operation on freight lines. These projects would not have increased speeds or ridership significantly nor reduced subsidy needs.
The same cannot be said about projects in California or Florida where true high speed on dedicated lines are planned. It's interesting that Governor Scott timed his rejection of the funds, claiming unacceptable construction overrun and operating subsidy risks, before he requested proposals from public private interests that likely would have given him guarantees against those risks.