US is big is a silly way to reject trains. So are China and India. Both have extensive train networks that allow people to take a train instead of long road trips. The trains are packed. Mobility is super high and abundantly available. Quality may differ but it's improving because people want it. Either way, it keeps cars off the road leading to less pollution, less metal junk and less inflation.
US land is amazingly well suited for HSR and cities are well suited for subways. We also have the money. The only problem is political.
Why would I want me and my family on a packed train with our luggage and gear rather than in our comfortable, climate controlled, and spacious vehicle? Who would seriously vote for that?
I’m grateful to live in a country where having a vehicle is normal and not just for the wealthy class. I’m happy to not be packed onto public transit if I want to take the family to the beach or go hiking or something.
> Why would I want me and my family on a packed train with our luggage and gear rather than in our comfortable, climate controlled, and spacious vehicle? Who would seriously vote for that?
You don't need to. It's not like those countries with extensive train networks don't have cars and interstate highways. They do and people use them. The point is that in those countries, cheap options exist for all income brackets and all use cases.
Poor people in America have cars generally speaking. In the USA our idea of poor is very far from what those countries consider poor to be. Our poor are solidly middle class by their standards.
I'm afraid my experience with poor people has been very different. You should go visit some poor people in a suburb and hear their conversations - "I need to do an oil change but I can't spare the $100. I wish I had a ride to the grocery store"
Then again, at least the comparison with India doesn't work given the massive gulf in costs, safety standards and historical context (India's railway network being inherited from when it was a colony and there were less ethical 'restraints' on how to control costs).
The US has a massive setup cost problem, any significant infrastructure project takes years of regulatory hurdles and then legal challenges as competitors and NIMBYs try everything they can to slow things down.
Thus ending up being way more expensive than countries where they still have slums to ruthlessly tear down or land to seize from small-time farmers to make room for new infrastructure (not to imply that the way it works in the US is much better).
> The US has a massive setup cost problem, any significant infrastructure project takes years of regulatory hurdles and then legal challenges as competitors and NIMBYs try everything they can to slow things down.
This is exactly what I meant by political problems.
> Thus ending up being way more expensive than countries where they still have slums to ruthlessly tear down or land to seize from small-time farmers to make room for new infrastructure (not to imply that the way it works in the US is much better).
India razed slums and farms for trains, the US razed forests and farms for interstates. It's the same thing. Slums in India have a land value to them. The government doesn't get that land for free. Just pay out property owners market value+20% for infrastructure and build the thing that is so direly needed.
US land is amazingly well suited for HSR and cities are well suited for subways. We also have the money. The only problem is political.