Trains vs Cars & Jets
You are correct the US passenger rail is pathetic compared with Europe and Asia rail. And this is one reason the US economy is more favorable (witness the lower CPI, and greater GDP). The US has waisted less than $40B on train subsidy, while EU and Asia spend far more per passenger to subsidize train passengers.
Passenger trains in the US carried over 90% of intercity travel in 1910, now they carry less than 2%. In spite of much greater government subsidy for passenger trains in Europe and Asia, rails market share continues to shrink. Cars now are over 70% of passenger miles in EU, and 60% in Japan in spite of the governments spending over 50 times more per passenger mile for train travel than for road and air travel.
Private industry requires positive ROI (return on investment) to survive. Negative ROI is why passenger rail systems are not privately funded, built, and owned .(as they where 150 years ago when they offered better value than the alternative -- muscle power).
Government pays 100% of the construction cost, 100% of the vehicle cost, and typically from 1/3 to 2/3rds of the operating expense. The ONLY HSR (high speed rail) in the world recovering more than 100% of it's operating expense is in Japan (and this is only because the government wrote off 100s of billions in debt, AND punishes car owners with 100% vehicle tax, and 300% fuel tax and road tolls that recover more than the road cost (and still cars gain market share in Japan too).
The fact is that passenger trains only survive due to gross government subsidy, AND oppressive fees on cars, roads, and air travel.
ET3 offers much greater value than ships, trains, cars and jets for about 90% of passenger and cargo transportation. For this reason ET3 will displace cars and aircraft just as cars and jets have displaced passenger trains.
