It starts with not repeating concern troll thought terminating cliches every time the subject comes up.
We're not on opposite sides of this. I love trains, and take them wherever I can. But something like a poorly built out rail network doesn't get changed overnight, so just saying "sounds like a great use case for a train" when there isn't one isn't helpful either—a bit like telling a starving person this would be a great time for some food. It's the right answer long term, but not much help short term.
But if there's something specific I said that sounded like I was trying to disparage trains, then maybe you could tell me what it was so that I can say it better.
The amount of public resources going into roads between now and when driver monitoring makes a difference is staggering, and we could just spend that money on transit and solve numerous other problems at the same time.
Responding to a (admittedly snarky) suggestion that we steer towards an egalitarian future rather than a panopticon when both are equidistant with a tautilogical assertion that we're not in the good future now is the same tired line that comes out anytime anyone suggests improving things rather than expending greater resources making them worse.
It's simple in that it's easy to say. Stopping giving billions of dollars would also be easy to do. I have no idea how easy (re-)building a rail transit system would be, but I expect pretty hard.
But the problem is that the actual doing of the task, no matter how difficult it is, is the easiest part by far; the hard part is convincing people to do it. Even as a huge fan of rail, if I had the ability to make people drop convictions as firmly held as Americans' that cars are and must always be central, then I would use that power to change other convictions first.