That's largely because automobiles, buses, and airplanes are better suited to the geography of the United States.
There are corridors and regions where trains make sense in the U.S, but many rail lines went from necessary to obsolete with the natural progression of technology.
AmTrak was created when the private passenger rail operators were failing, and they were failing for a good reason: demand for long-haul passenger rail service declined sharply when better alternatives entered the market.
The one thing that rail can do better than these other forms is comfort and service, but for the vast majority of people, they would rather be able to afford to make it to their destination.
> better suited to the geography of the United States.
China has a similar geography to the US, and similar sizes and run lengths of their high speed space. The US has decided to build roads and highways instead of investing in other transit options. It's not that it makes "more sense", it's that the US has intentionally built things this way, for a variety of corporate and historical reasons.
> many rail lines went from necessary to obsolete with the natural progression of technology.
What? You mean, except for literally every other developed country has well developed rail lines that transport billions of people with levels of unmatched efficiency?
> when better alternatives entered the market.
Only because the market was intentionally weighted against that form of transit.
> China has a similar geography to the US, and similar sizes and run lengths of their high speed space.
China has extreme restrictions on domestic flights, and a great deal more population; and on top of that, so much is different about the way things are done in China, the state will just bulldoze things for looking too "towny".
> What? You mean, except for literally every other developed country has well developed rail lines that transport billions of people
Britain is a developed country with well developed rail lines, but probably few there would tell you that it's great right now. Some of the failure there can be attributed to their poorly-designed pseudo-privatization of the trains and crews themselves (but not the rails or facilities, which remain national), but a big part of the reason that was politically viable was that the rail services weren't all that great when they were national either. France's TGV is really cool, when the operators aren't on strike.
Up here in Ontario, we have one relatively useful rail corridor, but the further you get from Toronto, the less the passenger load. On my morning train from Hamilton, there are (charitably) a couple dozen passengers on the whole train for several stations. As for national rail in Canada, it is rare to hear that anyone has used Via. I've used it once in my life, but I found out later that a bus on the same route would have been faster and dramatically cheaper.
Long-haul rail networks are attractive to politicians because of what they represent, but to transport consumers, the reality of long haul passenger rail is that it is rarely the best option. When passengers bear the cost, long-haul passenger rail is, by natural means, rarely the best option in the U.S.
> with levels of unmatched efficiency?
"unmatched" by what? High speed rail is extremely capital intensive, and expensive at the point of sale, and that's when you don't have any trouble clearing land for it. In the U.S, most of the viable places for passenger rail already have rail lines, but they are not appropriate for high speed rail. Conventional passenger rail is too slow to attract fares, and is still very expensive.
Dude it's alright to like trains, trains are cool; but none of what you said justifies the subsidies that would be required in order to make a comprehensive U.S. long-haul passenger rail network that's worth using, and no policy would make it worth the cost.
If you have some brilliant business practice, policy, or idea that will change this, I implore you to develop it! :- )
I mean, absolute statements like yours can be easily disproven. If carbon is taxed, gasoline or kerosene becomes expensive, a rail system is justified for cost.
So you’re just saying give up on the dream, its too Late. Commercial rail is expensive, too slow.
Several big cities can be interconnected in a profitable way if NIMBYism changes. Why argue about an extensive rail network if even big cities like Houston and Dallas don’t have rail?
> Several big cities can be interconnected in a profitable way if NIMBYism changes.
It's not even NIMBYism. Consider the utter hate that California's high speed rail gets on HN despite very much no one being negatively effected by it. Then consider what a freeway does when it's run through a city.
> Why argue about an extensive rail network if even big cities like Houston and Dallas don’t have rail?
Because the topic at hand is Amtrak, the U.S's national long-haul rail network, not the local mass transit operators of Houston and Dallas. This is why I contrasted the relatively useful short rail lines in Ontario, and in particularly their most useful legs, with long-haul rail networks like Amtrak and Via.
AmTrak was created when the private passenger rail operators were failing, and they were failing for a good reason: demand for long-haul passenger rail service declined sharply when better alternatives entered the market.
The one thing that rail can do better than these other forms is comfort and service, but for the vast majority of people, they would rather be able to afford to make it to their destination.