Is the way you travel a cultural issue? A growing number of politicians would like for you to think it is.

This week the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee presented a plan to privatize the national rail system. The plan is light on substance, but does offer the chairman a platform from which to kill Amtrak-which he says is a "soviet-style train system."

High-speed rail is another example. Just two years ago, high-speed rail was widely supported by both parties. Now, high-speed rail has become a conservative punching bag.

Diane Harkey, a Republican state assemblywoman from Dana Point, recently called California's high-speed rail project "cultural genocide." She is not alone in the tone of her rhetoric. George Will, the national conservative columnist, claims high-speed rail supporters have a goal of "diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism."

Conservatism itself does not presage opposition to high-speed rail. Both Republican and Democratic governors applied for high-speed rail funding, and one of the winners was a tea party favorite.

In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party is pressing forward with its own high-speed rail project, even as it pursues efforts to address their nation's budget deficit. The Conservative government assumes operating and capital costs of $70 billion over a 60-year period -- far more costly than California's project -- but calculates the project more than paying for itself. It's a calculation that has been made over and over again, around the world, in both conservative and liberal governments.

But in America our consensus on infrastructure is breaking down. During the earliest years of our nation, the battle over infrastructure helped jump-start partisan divisions. The Federalist Party -- created by Alexander Hamilton -- supported federal funding and support for "internal improvements," which today we know as infra-structure. The Democratic Republicans -- created by Thomas Jefferson -- vehemently disagreed. But a bipartisan consensus eventually developed. Republican President Lincoln made construction of the Transcontinental Railroad a national priority -- in the middle of fighting the Civil War. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower approved what may be the largest infrastructure project in human history -- the Interstate Highway System.

Unfortunately partisanship has returned and the rhetoric has become sensational.

...

The Cato Institute presents a false claim that efforts to shift passengers from airlines to high-speed rail in Europe "have failed over the past dozen years, despite massive government subsidies." Contrary to Cato's assertions, the Public Interest Research Group reports that after the introduction of high-speed rail services, the number of airplane passengers went down 50 percent between Paris and London. There are other examples throughout Europe and Asia. If a comparable drop were to occur in California, more than 1 million fewer passengers would fly between San Francisco and Los Angeles and 400,000 fewer would fly between Los Angeles and Sacramento. And instead of arriving at Sacramento's airport, these former airline passengers would arrive at Sacramento's new downtown rail station, invigorating downtown businesses, restaurants, and retail areas.

...