The latest buzz among commuters like Stephen Whiteside who shuttle between Rochester and the Twin Cities isn't roadwork or heavy traffic.

It's high-speed trains.

"We've got buses full of people traveling back and forth every day," Whiteside said. A train that decreased travel time "would make the commute much more manageable."

Whiteside, a Mayo Clinic child psychologist who lives in Minneapolis and commutes four hours a day, has joined a chorus of public officials, residents and commuters who want a Rochester stop included on a proposed high-speed train route from Chicago to St. Paul. That's contrary to a multistate Midwest Regional Rail Initiative that calls for the $1.2 billion route to follow existing tracks along the Mississippi River from Winona to St. Paul.

The high-speed line is a long-discussed project that has gotten a shot in the arm because the economic stimulus bill included $8 billion for high-speed rail. Now, suddenly, the clock is ticking: The U.S. secretary of transportation is expected to submit a national rail plan to House and Senate committees this spring.

To some observers, a clash of political wills between Rochester and eastern counties invites the loss of high-speed rail altogether because money will disappear. They say it makes no sense to build a new route to Chicago when one already exists. The opposing argument holds that a debate over which route is best for Minnesota will inspire new ideas about transportation. Proponents say Rochester's status as Minnesota's new third-largest city, coupled with the Mayo Clinic's pulling power, deserve consideration in a state hungry for public transit.

"That is a destination medical center," said Sen. Ann Lynch, DFL-Rochester. "The ability to get patients to that destination is critical and growing."

But Sen. Kathy Saltzman, DFL-Woodbury, said Minnesota can't afford to argue about a route through Rochester when Ramsey, Washington, Dakota and Goodhue counties already have a track in place. "In today's climate, time and money are both extremely important factors," she said. "We need to focus like a laser."

Rochester's population surpassed 100,000 in 2007, and the 11 percent growth rate of its metropolitan area is the fastest in the state since 2000.

The Mayo Clinic is the state's largest employer; it counts 37,000 employees and each year draws about 500,000 patients and visitors, many from far-flung destinations.

"Mayo's a pretty important asset to the entire Midwest," said Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. "We really need to connect it better with our major cities, including Minneapolis."

Like many Rochester boosters, Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, favors a comprehensive state transportation plan that revisits Minnesota's changing demographics. True high-speed rail, she said, needs flat terrain -- through Rochester. "If part of what we're trying to do is create jobs, we shouldn't be adverse to laying new infrastructure," she said.

A bill in the state Senate to spend $500,000 on a study for a Rochester route was voted down recently. But a similar House bill remains alive.

Mayor Ardell Brede and others pushing for a train through Rochester acknowledge that the project wouldn't be "shovel-ready," a sought-after designation that bumps projects to the top of the competitive queue for stimulus money. But that's a risk Rochester's supporters are willing to take.

"If we are too shortsighted in this, in the long run, somebody's going to say, 'I wish we had done something different,'" Brede said.

Winona Mayor Jerry Miller wonders why Rochester won't embrace a compromise -- a spur line off the main high-speed track from his city. "There's going to be a lot of competition for that money," he said. "If you have a corridor that's ready to go, why not take advantage of it?"

Already a rail corridor

The east-metro route is already a federally designated rail corridor, said Will Branning, a Dakota County commissioner. Aside from buying costly right-of-way for a new route, an arduous public relations battle would ensue, he said. People living along the river corridor are accustomed to trains, whereas neighbors of a new route might object to anything from the train speed to crossing whistles, he said.

Putting a high-speed train on existing tracks also would better serve Amtrak's Empire Builder train and the heavy freight train traffic along that route, said Myra Peterson, a Washington County commissioner. That route, known in government planning circles as the Red Rock Corridor, would connect with other transit lines at St. Paul's Union Depot.

Rochester isn't alone in its lobbying to steer the high-speed rail line its way. Minneapolis wants a connection as well, arguing that it's unwise to leave Minnesota's largest city out of the picture.

About $8 billion in federal stimulus money is available for high-speed rail nationwide. The Minnesota portion of the route, if it follows the Amtrak route, would require $314 million for infrastructure improvements, including double track in some areas and safety upgrades at road crossings. Minnesota also might have to pay $60 million for equipment such as locomotives and passenger coaches.

The Rochester-based Southeast Minnesota Rail Alliance wants trains that run at least 150 miles per hour, a speed they say is necessary to compete with air travel and draw more riders.

"True high-speed rail may have difficulty, if not be impossible, going up along the river," Brede said.

Though no specific route has been identified, he said the flatter land north of Rochester is better for a high-speed train than a winding riverside track.

But Saltzman sees no reason to abandon the Amtrak route. "We've been moving down this route for a number of years," she said. "Now we have a bunch of highly paid lobbyists and public relations firms showing up. We can certainly take the time to have this long discussion but the federal money will go someplace else."

Staff writer David Peterson contributed to this report. kgiles@startribune.com • 612-673-4432 khumphrey@startribune.com • 952-882-9056