Why don't Americans use rail service?

Of the choices the car choice is best for me I guess.

Normally I drive because anywhere that I generally go is within driving distance and I go crazy not having my car for an extended period.

If I were to go somewhere that I couldn't drive or another option would be a better choice I would choose to fly simply because I enjoy aviation. Being on a train can be scenic but so far the only thing I can think of that would beat a sunrise at 30k feet would be seeing the sunrise or anything really from the perspective of the ISS. The sky could really be my second home if I had the money for it.

I wish I could choose more than one option.  In addition to not being available on the line that runs through the town I'm living in, Amtrak service in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area that provides service to west to North Dakota and onward to Seattle or east to Chicago has been subject to severe delays and stoppages due to the heavy volume of oil train traffic coming out of the Bakken Oil Fields of North Dakota.

In years past, I have traveled with several buddies to Devil's Lake, ND for an extended weekend of ice fishing.  Local resorts have long offered package deals to those who traveled to them via Amtrak, and for years it was a great deal.  Not anymore.  Thanks to the oil trains, Amtrak traffic can be forced to a siding for as many as 7 hours before getting the signal to proceed again.

Prior to the completion of the Interstate highway system, we had a viable network of commercial rail service.  With affordable gasoline and roads that went everywhere quickly, the railroads couldn't make passenger service work without massive Federal subsidies.  Rather than continue to play that game, Congress authorized the formation of Amtrak, and the government entered the passenger rail service business in 1970.  It has struggled to remain viable ever since.

1) Independence. If I want to go somewhere. I get in my car and go.

2) Expense. We've made cars 'relatively' affordable for most Americans. Almost to the point where it's cheaper than rail systems. I live outside DC, and riding the metro would add up REALLY quickly, in comparison to cars. We also keep our gas prices significantly cheaper than other countries.

3) Rite of passage. Getting a driver's license is sort a of a rite of passage, or at least it used to be.

4) Logistics. Eisenhower Interstate System. We built the roads. We're designed around them, not rails anymore. Sure we move A LOT of things on rail. We do, but not people.

I'll take a train when it make sense. Usually if the train trip is more than 3 hours, it's more convenient to fly. I use light rail/commuter rail all the time when I'm in a place that has it.

I commuted by rail on those occasions where it was feasible, but that was rare.

The government subsidized the trucking industry (including an Interstate Highway system) that makes rail transportation less economical than motor transport. Also, America is more spread out than Europe. Rail transit for passengers is not efficient for riders, especially when there is no mass transit system to carry passengers to and from terminals.

There are exceptions such as NY and SF which have excellent urban transit systems, but populations in these cities are compressed into small areas.

Voted too expensive because it is more expensive for cross country trips than air travel.

The post-WWII development of highways and suburbs along with interstates killed rail. OTR trucking became less expensive and provided better value and convenience.

If you ever watched the PBS series, "The Men Who Built America", you can see the initial pathways transportation was taking. The interesting thing is what happened after. Rail made more money with cargo. Oil and Detroit lobbied for highways which would create a demand for cars. That paradigm continued through the '60s. The Red Car service and other city streetcar services were killed off by car and tire manufacturers greasing politicians in addition to buying a controlling interest in some cities and then killing it more directly in the '40s and '50s.

So we don't have a rail infrastructure that would support general public transit. I have taken the Coast Starlight from LA to Seattle. Service was horrible. Some light rail has worked out fairly well. Portland comes to mind and there is some around LAX. There was a much more ambitious light rail project in LA but was converted to "busways" over old rail easements. The political types bought into a small community saying they'd be culturally severed by ground level rails (the type you see with concrete around them). The Busway is very heavily used but really begs for the capacity light rail can provide.

The size of the country would be detracter for travel. Americans in general do not like being held to a schedule set by others. It seemed to work well in Europe, considering the size of any of the countries involved. Imagine trying to go to California by rail. Unless you have a bullet train.you would be using a lot of time trying to get there

I would love to take it more if it were an option near me. I hate driving anywhere and flying civilian is just the worst. I have used the trains everywhere else I have been and I love it.

America is so large, rail travel is impractical, but ideal for the movement of freight. Europe is ideally suited for passenger rail. On this subject, The U.S. government needs to privatize Amtrak and let the market decide if passenger rail is sustainable. I think not. Until then Amtrak will continue to hemorrhage money by the box car.