While short-sighted American politicians squabble over whether high speed rail should exist in the United States, European rail giants are battling for the future leadership of the continent, and untold billions in profit.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie today declared dead the $9 billion plan to build the ARC, a second rail tunnel underneath the Hudson River into Midtown Manhattan. The project has become symbolic of America’s sorry state of infrastructure funding, if not of high speed rail itself.

One week ago, Germany’s Deutsche Bahn ran their first high speed train from Frankfurt through the Chunnel, terminating at London’s St. Pancras Station. Deutsche Bahn honcho Dr. Ruediger Grube hailed the symbolic journey as the beginning of a “new era” of train travel, saying that Europe was becoming a smaller place.

Anticipating the incursion in an open rail market, Eurostar, who operates high speed trains between London, France and Belgium, through the Chunnel, announced that they would begin offering high speed service to Amsterdam and Geneva and also said they plan to invest $1.1 billion to buy 10 new 900-passenger Valero trains from Germany’s Siemens.

However, the French reacted to the news saying that the decision by Eurostar was null, because no material not made by Alstom would be allowed to cross the Channel Tunnel. The French move seems like text book protectionism.

To date, all trains traveling through the Chunnel between England and France have been manufactured by Alstom, whose base of operations is Levallois-Perret, near Paris.

Even to the amateur observer, the idea that German trains from Siemens would somehow be less safe than their French competitors is specious. Trade laws, lobbying efforts and back room deals will have the matter sorted sooner or later, but the pitched transnational battle underscores the importance of high speed rail for all the companies and countries involved. When money and jobs are on the line, savvy politicians holster their pistols and fight to get a piece. But not in America.

A Tough Sell

Paul Miles/Flickr

So why is passenger rail such a tough sell in the U.S.? It’s helpful to look at our history.

One of the reasons why our passenger rail system has atrophied is because of the tremendous ill will engendered by the “railroad barons” of yesteryear, who connected the East Coast to the Pacific frontier, but also made themselves unspeakably wealthy in the process.

“Railroads were like the tobacco companies, big oil and child pornographers rolled up into one,” writes author James McCommons, quoting John Hankney in his book, ‘Waiting on a Train; The Embattled Future of Passenger Rail Service–A Year Spent Riding Across America.’ “They were considered to be bastards that needed to be kept under the government’s thumb,” Hankney also told McCommons. “What went on during the 1800s poisoned the atmosphere for the next century.”

Although Stanford University is today one of the world’s most respected learning institutions, founder Leland Stanford was a railroad tycoon and a politician who was one of the most reviled men of his age.

With billions of dollars in public money needed to build and operate high speed passenger rail in the U.S., there’s little or no chance of returning to a railroad monopolies of old. Planners meanwhile extoll the virtues of rail that will be built using private money to benefit the public, and generate a surplus for the public; the trap of optimism bias. The truth is that large amounts of public money will be needed for the construction and operation of high speed passenger rail, but this has precedent.

The land grants and right of ways given by the federal governments to rail operators to build out America’s first rail system constituted similar public largesse. When these land grants were used to enrich individuals who held the public hostage, the problems began.

Cars Vs. The Train

It’s no surprise then that the arrival of the personal automobile after WWII was seen as liberation from shared transportation and the crushing grip of railroad monopolies. However, as America’s priorities shifted to personal liberties, Europeans doubled down on their investment in passenger rail.

Public money went to build roads, highways and bridges suited for cars, while private capital went in to building our freight rail infrastructure. When public generosity waned, so too did the performance of rail compared to air travel and road trips, now seen an inextricable part of the American character. In spite of this however, we’re not as bad on rail as we think.

World Leadership in Freight Rail

Mike Biton/Flickr

The key difference between rail in the U.S. and Europe is that our system of freight rail in the U.S. is far superior to Europe and is widely held to be the best in the world.

However, the benefits–both environmental and holistically–of America’s prolific freight rail system is lost on the general public. Furthermore, while Amtrak trains travel over vast stretches of privately-owned freight track, they often do so at a crawl, which is why we turn an envious eye to Europe, where passengers ride in luxury, while freight is carried in the backs of trucks.

Fighting Spending, Not Fighting to Create Jobs

And yet, amid the excitement of watching real train operators duke it out in the real world–for real, paying customers–American politicians are battling over whether or not train systems belong in this country or not. As we have reported before, several prominent election contests to be decided next Tuesday hinge on whether a candidate is for or against rail.

In Wisconsin, Scott Walker launched the website NoTrain.com, vowing that money committed to build a high speed rail network would be better spent by using it to fix Wisconsin’s broken roads instead. Meg Whitman has said that she thinks California’s high speed rail plan is fiscally irresponsible given the state’s budget crisis, and in state after state, groups are trying to pull the brakes on high speed rail plans.

On Monday, the city of Palo Alto unanimously rejected a plan that would locate a high speed rail station downtown, citing the $150 million it would cost to build the station and attendant parking facility, as well as the disruption of thousands of cars from the region dropping off passengers at the terminal.

Passenger Rail as Part of the Social Fabric

Operating high speed rail is lucrative and provides an essential transportation link between city downtowns across borders. When the Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted in Iceland, grounding flights and stranding hundreds of thousands of passengers, high speed rail was a critical fallback, which allowed thousands to continue their journey home.

The numerous environmental benefits of train travel over regional travel by air are yet another reason propelling continued high speed rail development. At the press event celebrating the first ICE train to London, Deutsche Bahn’s Grube said between Frankfurt and the Greater London area there are 50 flights daily–more than two per hour–but fast rail service between the two destinations would now be able to provide an environmentally sound, affordable alternative.

Stefan Tell/Flickr

Building a high speed rail network from scratch in a country with robust infrastructure for passenger vehicles and air travel for regional trips. There’s nothing so wrong with our existing system that it needs to be replaced, some argue.

The billions it will cost for high speed rail, versus the benefits, seems to defy logic. However, our $2.2 trillion infrastructure tab for upkeep to the existing system indicates otherwise. Dangerously under-maintained bridges, crumbling roads and crowded, humiliating airports are nothing to be cheered.

A Winner Will Emerge, Progress or Fear

Humans are not purely rational creatures. Instead, we are emotional beings with a high capacity to make rational choices–at times. If we were bound purely by logic, we would have built our lives around rail lines, instead of roads. However, automobile culture has come to define us. Perhaps high speed rail can free us from utter dependence on the automobile the way the car once freed us from the tyranny of rail.

While Europe could learn from our success in freight rail, it may be too late for them to replicate our expansive network, or reap similar gains. While it may defy a purely economic logic to start from scratch, and build a network of high speed passenger trains in the U.S., we can and should go with our gut and build a train that will become a new chapter in the American saga. In the fight to control the Europe’s high speed rail network, a winner will emerge, the one who can provide the best, most reliable service at the most competitive price. So too, will a winner emerge in America, as we continue to fight against our own shadow, endlessly debating over the need for high speed rail, job creation and improved mobility.

Instead of politicians battling over the future of high speed rail, it’s time to let businesses fight over who can move people creating jobs, reducing pollution and and spurring innovation as they go. It’s time to pick sides, progress or fear.