In the world of high-speed rail, imitation can be an appealing form of flattery. While the Obama administration is literally tying the railway supply industry in knots by insisting on trainsets built solely of U.S. content, China opened its arms to foreign train manufacturers during the early stages of its high-speed rail program.

Now within the space of six years, China has become the fastest-growing exporter of rail equipment in the world. On Wednesday, Argentina signed a $12 billion deal to purchase locomotives, cars and infrastructure from state-owned Chinese railways. This triumph follows the country’s success in exporting its technology to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Venezuela.

China’s ability to create a booming rail sector is a case study of how to leapfrog over established builders and stimulate domestic employment at the same time.

It’s a curious truth, though not yet widely understood, that we pay for high-speed rail whether we have it or not. We pay not only in congested highways, delayed air flights and disastrous oil spills, but also in a cumulative national slowdown that might be called arrested development.

This point is conveyed by a sharply reported article in the Financial Times that describes the business, cultural and even culinary changes in London 15 years after the start of high-speed Eurostar service to Paris.

A report released yesterday concludes that high-speed trains would significantly boost economic activity and job creation over sped-up conventional Amtrak service. Released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the report examines how the introduction of different types of train service would impact business activity and jobs in two midsized cities – Albany, N.Y., and Orlando, Fla. – and a regional hub, Chicago.

Its findings clarify that the current debate over train speeds is not a dispute over “complementary means to the same end,” but a basic question of national aspirations that goes straight to the heart of 21st-century transportation and economic development.

Simply put, does the country want to pay less for an infrastructure that will make marginal improvements or does it want to spend more in order to multiply its gains?

The Obama administration’s determination to enforce 100 percent American content for high-speed train systems is roiling the rail supply industry, with some executives saying the rule would be “impossible” to achieve and others wondering how much it will slow down high-speed rail (HSR) development and add to the sticker price.

“We’re living in a global rail industry,” said an official at a large U.S. transportation manufacturer that depends on foreign parts. “Insisting on all-American content could mean losing 10 years in building our HSR supply chain.”

The first high-speed rail service on the African continent kicked off this morning, just in time to zip World Cup fans between Johannesburg’s airport and the suburb hosting the tournament.

Construction of the first phase of Gautrain, named after the Gauteng Province it runs through, was accelerated last year so that the link would be operational for the start of the World Cup on Friday.

Unless the White House acts forcefully and decisively to advance its transportation agenda in Congress, the president’s vision for high-speed rail may get sidetracked by the looming federal deficit.

That’s the growing perception on Capitol Hill as Congress grapples with an infrastructure program that could cost between $22 million and $132 million a mile if developed along the lines of 200-mph bullet trains now running in Europe and Asia.

While the Obama administration has been busy deflating expectations for rail passenger service above 110 miles per hour, Florida is improving the design of its corridor between Tampa and Orlando so trains can run above 180 mph.

This nugget of good news came within the confines of testimony given Monday by Florida Transportation Secretary Stephanie Kopelousos at a hearing in Miami before a congressional panel reviewing the $8 billion in rail grants awarded in January.

A year ago, when laying out his vision of fast trains zipping between major cities like they do in Europe and Asia, President Obama invoked the words of Chicago architect Daniel Burnham: “Make no little plans.”

Last month, Obama’s top rail administrator, Joseph Szabo, was in Chicago touting little plans — and slow trains — at a congressional field hearing about how the administration spent $8 billion in high-speed rail grants.

The media’s blanket coverage of the travel chaos gripping Europe has overlooked just one thing — fast and frequent trains have gotten hundreds of thousands of travelers to their destinations safely and on time while airplanes sat on the tarmac.

In fact, if there’s any winner in the crisis that began when a cloud of ash from an Icelandic volcano drifted over the continent, it’s Europe’s railways.

If you want to submit your thoughts about Washington’s strategy to develop high-speed passenger trains, you better act fast.

That’s because the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has decided it’s in too much of a hurry to listen to a traditional period of public comment about its National Rail Plan, a document aimed at formulating a strategy to modernize America’s rail passenger and freight service.

If we are going to create a new mode of intercity transportation that gets Americans out of their cars — that reduces our dependence on oil from unstable or hostile countries and cuts greenhouse gas emissions -– we have to start thinking creatively.

Like the Chinese. Ten years ago, China still operated steam locomotives on a second-rate rail network. After years of highway building, the government realized that its fast-growing economy and isolated interior provinces could be better served by improved train service.

How did America get to where it is today, a country with the slowest and most threadbare intercity passenger rail service of any advanced nation?

Not so very long ago, we were not in this humiliating position. In fact, we operated trains that amazed and impressed the rest of the world. These trains were called streamliners, and their very names – Silver Meteor, Flying Yankee, Rocky Mountain Rocket, Denver Zephyr – connoted speed and luxury. In the period between 1935 and 1950, the 10 fastest scheduled passenger trains in the world were all U.S. streamliners.

President Obama made a splash in Florida last month when he announced the award of federal stimulus money to start building a high-speed rail (HSR) line between Tampa and Orlando. “I’m excited. I’m going to come back down here and ride it,” he told a cheering audience at a town hall meeting.

But for all the hype surrounding the president’s announcement, this exciting new mode of transportation won’t be arriving in America anytime soon unless the Obama administration and Congress make some “course corrections.”

What happened to high-speed rail in President Obama’s new budget?

You will recall the president sweeping down to Florida after his State of the Union address to announce $8 billion in federal stimulus awards for rail projects that, he promised, will spark jobs and prosperity. Vice President Biden described the awards as “seed money” for developing a high-speed passenger rail system throughout the country.

That was last week. This week the administration unveiled its 2011 budget, which includes a miniscule $1 billion for high-speed rail (HSR).

President Obama flew down to Tampa, Florida, yesterday to wield his stimulus bat for “transformative” passenger train development and struck a mighty bunt for high-speed rail.

All the hoopla by the administration (e.g., DOT Secretary Ray LaHood describing the $8 billion in grants as “an absolute game-changer in American transportation”) doesn’t change the fact that of the 29 projects awarded, only two – in Florida and California – qualify as high-speed rail by world standards.

The following is an excerpt from Mark Reutter’s op-ed in today’s Tampa Tribune:

The Obama administration will soon be announcing which states will be awarded funds from the $8 billion stimulus pot dedicated for high-speed rail (HSR) development.

Right now, 259 applications valued at $57 billion are chasing the recovery plan money. The administration’s decision to devote considerable resources to developing HSR underscores its commitment to bring bullet trains to the United States. But unless it makes the right decisions about where to put the money and what policies to follow, the new enthusiasm for HSR could be frittered away.

For decades, high-speed rail has been a fantasy, mired in bureaucratic, regulatory and market inertia. But with the renewed push for it by the administration, the high-speed rail future is beginning to take shape. The benefits of high-speed rail are enormous. For one, HSR is a big step toward energy independence and a post-carbon future. HSR corridors operated with nonpolluting electric locomotives could reduce carbon emissions by as much as six million pounds annually.

HSR also has a strong track record of jumpstarting economic development along its path. Fast, efficient transportation could revitalize depressed cities and transform regional economies. And while the creation of an HSR network lies in the future, it will put people to work immediately. Eighty percent of the cost of HSR is in infrastructure-building and land acquisition, while 20 percent goes for the trainsets and stations that passengers use. New rights of way need to be built now for HSR corridors that are projected to be operational in a few years – meaning tens of thousands of jobs that can’t be exported.

The question that we now face is: How do we get there from here?