It’s time once again to hat tip Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for his no nonsense talk on transportation. Funding transportation projects, no matter how necessary, is a politically explosive topic, but LaHood takes no prisoners on his blog, Fast Lane.

Today LaHood is calling out high speed rail foes by name, especially those in the Midwestern states of Ohio and Wisconsin, whose high speed rail ambitions may be thwarted by Republican politicians eager to catalyze their base.

“We’re talking about nothing short of transforming transportation much the same way the interstate highway system did under President Eisenhower,” Lahood wrote. “Can you imagine if Ohio or Wisconsin or any other state had said, ‘No, thanks–we don’t think that highway thing is going anywhere?’”

The highway system is an indelible marker of the past 50 years of urban and suburban development in America, but it is impossible to argue with the prosperity and innovation that was created as American’s became first time homeowners, bought automobiles and filled their lives with appliances and an ever-expanding universe of trinkets. While the housing meltdown can be causally linked to the ceaseless expansion of car commuter suburbs, decades of middle class expansion are hard to argue against.

Perhaps that’s why LaHood and others are so adamant that growth can be boosted by supporting high speed rail. LaHood also said today, “The fact is that–as with much of the Recovery Act–I keep hearing objections being expressed in the media while at the same time my office phone is ringing off the hook with calls from elected officials of both parties competing feverishly for a rail corridor in their state! I’ve never heard from anyone saying, ‘Don’t put my constituents to work.’”

The problem is that, while money has already been allocated to high speed rail projects in Florida, Washington, California, Wisconsin, Illinois and elsewhere, the more than $8 billion out the door is just a tiny fraction of what is needed to get the systems built. While President Barack Obama called the money a “down payment,” some see it as a tease. States who want to build high speed rail with federal dollars have to put up 20 percent on their own. While this 20 percent is small portion compared to the overall investment by the feds, it still adds up to a hefty amount of cash.

In California, where Republican gubernatorial candidate and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman is opposed to high speed rail, 20 percent of the proposed $42.6 billion train network is $8.56 billion. However, voters in the state already approved $10 billion in construction funds when they approved Proposition 1A in 2008.

LaHood and backers of high speed rail plans across the U.S. are approaching a level of metaphysical certitude that once the train lines are built, and cities are connected, new growth, new jobs and new prosperity are the inevitable result, pointing to study after study.

The truth is that there are reasons to be for or against high speed rail. Just looking at costs is not sufficient, because we have invested trillions into our network of roads, bridges and freeways, and there is constant need for maintenance and upkeep. If we looked at the price tag alone for road buiding, we might not have built anything. However, politicians are prone to overselling the benefits of massive projects, a tendency that Bent Flvbjerg calls optimism bias.

We won’t really know who has the loudest voice in the high speed rail fight until November, when the electorate casts its vote for or against candidates who have taken firm stances on rail plans. Even then, the fights might not quiet down.

Image Stéfan/Flickr