This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course. High-speed passenger trains do very well all over the world. Coast-to-coast distances are too long for them, but cities in the US tend to be clustered at distances that are absolutely viable if we cared to invest. And if we continue to treat passenger rail as an afterthought, of course it will remain one.

This is why hyperloop is so puzzling to me. There’s established processes and supply chains to deliver and sustain high speed rail, and quite a few routes in sparsely populated areas would benefit with little disruption to existing infrastructure, like Vegas-LA (or somewhere ).

Vegas to LA has already broken ground

Train and freight companies seemingly operate with impunity, have a crazy amount of influence over politics and regulation, and despite hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at various mass transit passenger plans over the decades, there's hardly any progress with regards to passenger solutions. These companies don't even have to lobby, apparently, because their influence and regulatory capture make them incredibly powerful.

They pull down around $260 billion a year in the US. $20ish million goes toward political donations and lobbying, by all 6-700 corporations - the stuff that's trackable, that is. Makes you wonder what you'd find if you could follow the money.

Passenger trains in the USA are slow and unreliable, so of course they struggle to find a market.

If they didn't have to queue up behind freight trains trundling along at a bicycle's pace, things may be difference.

> passenger trains lose money and are heavily subsidized to stay afloat.

Roads and highways also lose money and are heavily subsidized to stay afloat.