Why don't Americans use rail service?

LTC John Shaw — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:45:00 -0400

Why has Europe developed it's train network and America has not.
Many government dollars go into developing the Airport infrastructure, why not Air to Train for most American big cities?
Yes, the US has less population density, cars and fuel are cheaper.
Culturally are we just resistant to Trains?

http://www.amtrak.com/train-routes

Amtrak - Routes & Stations

Take any of the Amtrak train routes instead of flying to hot travel destinations. Use the Amtrak national route map and interactive route atlas to plan your trip by train.

Response by SPC Jesse Bruno made Apr 14 at 2015 4:50 PM

SPC Jesse Bruno — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:50:46 -0400

am track dosnt run in alaska. and dont really want to sit on a train 3 days to get to WI.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Apr 14 at 2015 4:53 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:53:36 -0400

I think the primary reasons we don't use trains like they do in Europe are:

1. When the major cities of Europe were maturing/growing into major cities (Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin etc). Trains were coming of age as THE mass transit system. They built their cities arouind the train, the train stations, the subway etc.

2. Geography. Europe is the size of Texas. It lends itself well to rail travel.

3. The U.S. as it was growing had a lot of open space, creating rail serice everywhere wasn't practical. The big cities in the northeast have it and some out west but the larger part of the country does not. The airplane was our salvation in regard to mass transit. Can you imagine a train from Atlanta to LA? No thanks.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 4:54 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:54:20 -0400

Not the rail, but I use the subway everyday.
If we had high speed rail I would use it for travel, I've used the rail system to travel around in Europe.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 14 at 2015 4:54 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:54:24 -0400

LTC John Shaw, a couple concerns, the train station is not close and there are not as many stations, it is costly compared to just getting in and driving, and finally I am confident that my car/truck will get me to where I want to go on time.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Apr 14 at 2015 4:56 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:56:36 -0400

1) America is bigger than Europe and towns that would use rail are spread much farther apart.

2) because America is bigger, rail takes longer to get where you need to go, especially if you are going cross country.

3) our road system is much better developed so it's actually easier to drive a car (and because of #1, we are not congested).

Honestly I wouldn't mind having rail as a regional option, but wouldn't want to rely on it for cross country travel.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 4:59 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:59:21 -0400

Well, let's see. This summer I will take train trip numbers 35 and 36.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 5:02 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:02:52 -0400

Sir You should look into Hawaiis rail project. For the state with the second worse traffic and congestion in the U.S. I think they are being proactive about the problem.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Apr 14 at 2015 5:10 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:10:22 -0400

I think that culture is a definite part of the answer. Americans are more independent. Obviously, a car on the interstate is a much more independent mode of travel than a train on a rail.

Response by SFC Charles S. made Apr 14 at 2015 5:22 PM

SFC Charles S. — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:22:11 -0400

If america would have invested more into it than we did it would be as good if not better than Europe now. We opted in for Interstate Highways and Air Travel over Rail. We suffer for that choice now. It would cost too much to upgrade to a viable option today. Land Cost, Infrastructure and cost of building over habitable ground is preventing it from ever taking off. I use EuroRail when I am in Europe and Love that experience, but it will only be in Europe.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 7:40 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:40:31 -0400

Capitalism and freedom at its best. I use it when I can, but people want the convenience, or had and alternative and cheaper bus option. I think if they had more car transportation services, coast to coast unlimited, it would work. But since it is a government run entity, it ends up being very inefficient.

Response by SMSgt Thomas Chatburn made Apr 14 at 2015 7:50 PM

SMSgt Thomas Chatburn — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:50:03 -0400

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.

Response by CW4 Aaron Rasmussen made Apr 15 at 2015 12:23 PM

CW4 Aaron Rasmussen — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:23:49 -0400

The U.S. is vast. Think about Germany. The entire country is the size of Montana and they have 60 million-ish people living there. I love their rail system and the way it interconnects with other countries. In the U.S. you have a lot of wide-open spaces with no population to support increased railways. Add to that, it's expensive to ride a train across the country - a lot more than it is to fly. And we American's do love to drive. :)

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Apr 15 at 2015 1:20 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:20:28 -0400

In Japan, there has never been a fatality on the shinkansen. They are immaculate, cost effective, and you can set your watch to the schedule. In America,...............it's not like that. (Don't want to bash my country).

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 1:30 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:30:19 -0400

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.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 2:20 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:20:34 -0400

I think it's other: not readily available/well maintained. When I was in Europe rail service was typically available with a 30 minute or less drive for the main lines and nearby stops for light rail in the cities. For the most part the trains were in decent to good shape and seemed safe. Some areas have specific issues (such as Poland with bands of pick-pockets) but overall it's a workable system.

Over here we have very limited infrastructure now for rail overall, and the big cities that have it are largely underground and/or limited access/poorly maintained. I'm glad to see some places like Denver that have put one in and it seems to be used but from what I've heard they have a lot of freeload riders that'll impact maintenance, etc so they need to enforce ticketing better.

I think if the infrastructure was put in place, made convenient enough vs busses/taxis, and connected easily to larger interstate networks with a reasonable price it'd catch on. Right now even AMTRAK does a lot of transfers via Greyhound or other bus services. No thank you.

Plus, we all seem to love our gas guzzlers and the 'freedom' they provide. ;)

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 3:48 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:48:37 -0400

You know what would be great? If you could drive your car onto a train to take you to another hub. Like some sort of land ferry.

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Apr 15 at 2015 4:25 PM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:25:15 -0400

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

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 15 at 2015 4:25 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:25:29 -0400

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.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Apr 15 at 2015 5:04 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:04:04 -0400

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.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Apr 15 at 2015 5:18 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:18:37 -0400

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.

Response by CPT Alan W. made Apr 15 at 2015 6:12 PM

CPT Alan W. — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:12:08 -0400

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.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 15 at 2015 6:15 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:15:24 -0400

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 6:44 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:44:37 -0400

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.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Apr 15 at 2015 7:57 PM

SrA Matthew Knight — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:57:11 -0400

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.

Response by Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP made Apr 15 at 2015 8:37 PM

Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:37:33 -0400

None of the above...

Why don't we ride trains? Because it SUCKS as compared to driving a car assuming that driving doesn't in some way suck even worse.

Of the various places/assignments I've had, this (Wash DC / Northern VA) is the first where rail was even available, much less viable.

As a somewhat OCD-challenged individual, I did the math based on a set of experience-derived factors for time and distance and calculated my break even point was gas priced at about $3.50 per gallon. For a long time, I rode the VRE/metro with a great number of fellow travelers - but it was generally predictable and reliable at roughly 1.5 hours one-way. As compared to driving which could range from about 50 minutes Saturday morning at 0430 to four hours Friday evening at 1630.

The train was fine - got me there (most of the time) when I expected, for a predictable cost, with a predictable schedule of pickup/dropoff. That said, I spent almost as much time waiting for trains as I did commuting - just to be safe. Whether it was making sure to take an early bus to get to the train on time or whatever - it was a never-ending hassle and a time sink of standing around waiting for disgruntled transportation operators to do their job. For what it's worth, most bus drivers I've met couldn't care less that they are running 10 minutes behind - which translates into me missing a train and having to wait 40 minutes for the next.

Now, with the HOT lanes (toll for those not from here), I get a predictable sub-1 hour trip via car every trip. They would pretty much have to let me ride for free to beat that...

All that said, I'm very much looking forward to checking off the train ride through Alaska that is on my bucket list.... To be clear, driving that would suck very much worse than riding the train (since there are no roads).

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 8:23 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:23:15 -0400

Let's compare popular modes of transportation using a route I have to travel frequently for TDY to my BDE HQ:
A) Air travel. I recently flew from Minneapolis/St Paul International to Midway via Southwest Airlines.
Cost: $79 plus $102/ day for car rental.
Time: Including driving to the airport and standing in lines, about 3 hours.
B) Amtrak. Empire Builder route to Chicago.
Cost: $87 plus $102/ day for rental car.
Time: I don't know about time in lines, but using just the time aboard the train, just under 8 hours.
C) POV. From my front door to my BDE's front door.
Cost: Using gasoline at $2.28/ gallon (the price at the end of the block as I type this), $63.40 with my car's EPA estimated 31 MPG.
Time: 6 Hours, 38 minutes, according to mapquest and driving the speed limit.

So, in the simplest terms, Amtrak is not the best choice for time or cost. It takes longer than any other mode of transportation AND it is more expensive. The only reason that is logical to choose this mode (aside from the fact the Army would be paying for it) is the novelty of riding the train. I suppose the scenery would be slightly different than driving a car. I suppose you could be productive and do work while riding in the train.

If Amtrak can ever figure out how to build high-speed rail and not have it not cost a mint, I would consider it. Until then, I'm driving if I have a choice.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 9:25 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:25:04 -0400

I was in Germany during the 80s and the one thing you noticed was that housing was pretty cloistered together thereby making RR and Mass Transit easier to accomodate. Personally I like reliable mass transit but I am not even sure if our politicians could effectively manage a rail or competent bus system.

Many neighborhoods are also dangerous and that is always a consideration. Have you ever seen the Port Authority in NY? Just too many demographical issues to overcome.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 11:54 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:54:39 -0400

It is cheaper to fly, i have purchesed a round trip ticket from Orlando to Boston cheaper than a one way ticket with Amtrak same destination.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Apr 16 at 2015 12:46 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:46:25 -0400

The US government does not know how to do trains. I live 3 miles away from a New Mexico Rail Runner train station. The Rail Runner goes from Belen NM (just south of Albuquerque) to Santa Fe NM. It was built by Federal and State taxpayer funds for approximately 400 million dollars and has a 10-20 million dollar annual operating budget. With a ridership of between 1,000 and 2,500 rides per day. Ticket costs do not cover operating costs, so state taxes make up the difference. The problem is that to go anywhere on the line it takes longer by train and costs the same as it does to drive. Then the stations were built away from the shopping and sightseeing areas. So, you need to walk, take a bus, or a take taxi once you arrive. Then the return trains are spaced at inconvenient times (the train does not run 24 hours a day) However, the stations are well within walking distances to State Office buildings in Santa Fe and the routes are conveniently timed for State Employees going to and from work. Not surprisingly the vast majority of ridership is State Employees who live in Albuquerque and commute to Santa Fe. In essence the rural taxpayers are paying to reduce State Employees daily travel costs.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 1:21 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:21:55 -0400

I suspect the main reason united states hasn't upgraded our own train service is because of the airlines. Airline's are big companies and therefore and transportation that can get you across a large portion of the planet is seen a competition. I would prefer trains before airlines but trains station aren't as frequent as airports and it take longer since we haven't upgraded or trains to more faster and efficient versions.

Response by 1SG Robert B. made Apr 21 at 2015 8:06 AM

1SG Robert B. — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:06:55 -0400

My family uses it. We travel between my sisters house in Maryland and Virginia Beach a few times a year. It is relatively cheap, and the schedule is convenient. We have not use it to travel anywhere else though. Having used the train system in Germany quite regularly I think the biggest problem here in America is how spread out our country is and the lack of good public transportation in this country. For instance. You can get a train to Newport News or Norfolk easily. You cannot get a local service like the U-Bahn or whatever it is called to get around once you get here. So you are basically stuck using a taxi or uber or something like it. Taking the bus here is confusing and has routes mostly in the lower income areas. Many of the smaller metropolitan area in America are like that. Only the big cities have reliable subways. Therefore most people prefer the convenience of the car as opposed to rail for shorter trips.

Response by LCpl Craig D. Pfautz made Apr 28 at 2015 4:05 AM

LCpl Craig D. Pfautz — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 04:05:54 -0400

Personally, I think rail travel is great , I live in what they call the northeast corridor. Boston, Ny, Dc. I think rail travel doesnt get used for the simple fact of cost compared to travel time. For me I can jump on an amtrak out of Ny & be in baltimore in 2 1/2 hrs city to city, no airports to wait in security lines, no hassel.
I really cant speak for other parts of country, I just dont have the knowledge or the exsperience...

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 4:09 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:09:52 -0400

First, we are a car culture. People like their independence of having their car with them. Second unless you live in NYC, DC or Chicago most cities do not have a very robust intra-city transit system. Especially out west in places like LA and Las Vegas. In some cities that have a rail system it is only good if you are in the epicenter of the town. You need a method to get there which usually involves driving. Where I live I take the train sometimes from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. However, I can only take it if I know I will return fairly early most of the week its last ride back south is at 8pm.

As for long haul, it takes too long we don't have a real robust train infrastructure like Europe. Europe has ICE and other high speed rail where it is more practical than air. If we did have a good interstate rail system, I would rather take that than the asspain of flying, this is coming from a pilot.

Culturally, there is a stigma on mass transit in the west that it is for poor people and that tax dollars are being wasted, despite the fact that the tax money for roads far exceeds rail ops.

I would say mainly the lack of reliable scheduling and travel time is a primary reason.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 10:04 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:04:07 -0400

none of the above... because the American car makers waded war on the rail service and tore up most of the trolleys and rails in the 60-70s for contracts that were more lucrative for them to instal bus routes. Buses make auto manufactures more money but area not as efficient. Bring back an authentic rail service and make it affordable.

Response by SFC Walt Littleton made Apr 29 at 2015 10:48 PM

SFC Walt Littleton — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:48:38 -0400

My last employment was with Amtrak as a contractor. I was a General Manager at the Union Station in Washington, DC.

The biggest problem with Amtrak is the government. It is funded by the U.S. department of Transportation receiving billions a year to operate the old outdated train system.

Guess what! Everyone who is anyone employed by them are really government employees and we all know how these agencies are working. Top that off with all Amtrak Employees are are Railroad Union Workers under the Teamsters Union. All management has been on board since they were old enough to work and now you have a workforce you can't fire, there are no new ideas or even if there were they can't afford to pay for it.

Every politician, or senior management in Washington are treated to first class accommodations up to and including their own personal train car and first class meal service outside what everyone else eats even better than what I would get as a first class paying customer.

Employees are paid at low end depending on years of service $80-100,000.00 a year and this is for the clerk selling you a cup of coffee in the cafe car.

When they purchased the high speed trains they knew they wouldn't even come close to speededubv up the service. The infrastructure, tracks, stations and roadways have not been upgraded to accommodate the speeds of high speed trains.

I'm not a disgruntled employed either. I retired to take care of my terminal I'll wife.

We have the technology to be the best system in the world however, with mismanagement at the top and government using it as their personal shuttle back and forth and the Union Salaries and benefits they operate at a constant deficit.

Amtrak is loosing contracts left and right to European train companies to build the new State high speed railroad systems in there state.

I'm talking billions go into the money pit and you should see how the elite in DC are wined and dined to keep the money pit running.

It's really sad!!!

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 12:55 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:55:38 -0400

There is an excellent article on how GM, Goodyear, Firestone Tire, and oil companies deliberately purchased and then botched railway systems. 10 corporations were tried for conspiracy and GM was fined $5,000, but of course they were all filthy rich by then.

Response by SSG Greg Rivera made Apr 30 at 2015 10:44 AM

SSG Greg Rivera — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:44:09 -0400

The size between Europe and the US is the biggest factor I believe it's not feasible. You have countries that are equivalent in size or smaller to some of our states. Take Texas alone, it's larger than France. Austria is about the same size as Maine. When you get into the larger populated areas....DC and the surrounding area, metro travel is used quite extensively but to travel from NY to California is just to time consuming.

Response by SGT James Elphick made May 1 at 2015 2:29 PM

SGT James Elphick — Fri, 01 May 2015 14:29:59 -0400

After traveling by air recently I continue to wish that America would develop high-speed rail like the rest of the world. But, alas, our freeway culture and multiple airline bailouts seem to mean that will never happen.

I have heard numerous arguments against it but considering how awful air travel is these days I'm unsure why nothing is moving forward.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2015 10:32 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 May 2015 10:32:19 -0400

The thing with most of the countries abroad is that using the rail service was what everyone did and still does. I think that the independent streak that was highlighted with the western expansion/Manifest Destiny is the American Culture. Yes, trains helped us get there, but most took wagons.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 4 at 2015 10:59 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 04 May 2015 10:59:45 -0400

1) Amtrack does not own the rails on which it runs
2) Amtrack takes the hole every time a freight contests the line (see #1)
3) The condition of the US rails is abysmal resulting in slow traffic
4) Amtrack on-time record stinks (see all above)

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2016 11:15 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 23:15:56 -0500

I think it has to do a lot with associated costs, nowadays at least. We could build a national rail network more or less shadowing the interstate highway system, but that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars and possibly take decades to complete. With the current political climate in the country where we don't want to spend a million to replace a bridge that could collapse and kill people, expanding rail networks just seems too extravagant and pie-in-the-sky for some.
I also think a bit of it might have to do with the prolonged travel time associated with rail travel: You could spend $350 on the cheapest train ticket from LA to NY, but that would take 46 hours, when you could probably spend less on a flight and be there in maybe 4 hours. With travel times like that, it kind of relegates rail to the vacation crowd. If there was an available high-speed rail service such as the Shinkansen which would reduce travel times to something comparable to air travel, I imagine we would probably see a substantial uptick in rail usage.