> "America is too spread out" is a bullshit argument. It may well be a bullshit argument, but it's also an argument that I did not make. My point was entirely

> "America is too spread out" is a bullshit argument. It may well be a bullshit argument, but it's also an argument that I did not make. My point was entirely that the markets do not seem to value high speed rail highly enough to justify its costs, and that the U.S. (for its faults) largely represents this low market valuation of high speed rail by not financing it. You seem to make an argument with the assumption that you know the utility of high speed rail is higher than the cost, I avoid this assumption. High speed rail is apparently worth less than it costs, state pricing distortions included. You might like it, it might be attractive, it might make things more dense, you might think that's a good thing... and none of that matters because apparently it's just not worth it to the market which will be tasked with funding it, all things considered.