> to fund extensive rail networks You don't really need to fund extensive rail networks, just rail networks that get to a large enough share of the population

> to fund extensive rail networks You don't really need to fund extensive rail networks, just rail networks that get to a large enough share of the population to make it worthwhile The vast majority of people don't need to go from anywhere to anywhere else in their countries every day, if you live in or around Philadelphia (first name that came to mind, no clue how good their transit system is) it doesn't really matter that there's people in Montana (again, I think they're fairly sparsely populated but not the point) who need to drive two hours to meet their neighbors Looking at a population density map of argentina I don't see why it'd make more sense for them to invest in highways to nowhere rather than railways between the population centers. (Within reason of course, I'm not advocating for not maintaining infrastructure to less dense areas at all) https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#5/-37.736/-70.972 https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#5/-37.736/-70.972 When you look at where people actually live the US is not that different from France or Poland and might even be in a better place for rail interconnections than Spain or Sweden