At least in the US, the history of rail and high speed rail is clear: Even if you build it for free, during operations it fails (A) to show a profit or (B) to

At least in the US, the history of rail and high speed rail is clear: Even if you build it for free, during operations it fails (A) to show a profit or (B) to pass the laws on 'cost/benefit' analysis on the needed subsidies. So, in simple terms, in the US, passenger trains are non-starters. Or, at one time the US had one heck of a passenger train system: Could get a train from tiny town A and travel to tiny town B for nearly any two tiny towns A and B in the country. But as soon as the Model T came out, people rushed to buy them and use them in place of the trains, in spite of the fact that the roads were awful. Since then the cars and roads have gotten much better. For short trips, train technology is not much better than 100 years ago when it started losing out to the Model T and has no chance now. For long trips, we have airplanes. Look, we could have 'high speed' ships to cross the Atlantic, too. And the last of the great Atlantic ships were fantastic. Alas, people didn't like them, needed all the luxury just to put up with the uncomfortable aspects of travel by ship, and, really, were eager just to get where they were going. So, when Boeing sold their 707 jets for crossing the Atlantic, the 707 jets quickly 'sunk' essentially all the passenger ships. The Boeing 707 had some serious 'engineering-economic' advantages: (A) It was much lighter than a ship, no doubt much lighter per person carried so that are moving much less dead weight across the Atlantic. (B) It could make a round trip while a ship was at dock loading. (C) Net, per month, a Boeing 707 could carry enough passengers across the Atlantic to compete with a ship, for less money and much less time per passenger. That sank the ship. For another detail, look at the map in the OP: The trains go long distances, commonly across a whole state, without stopping. E.g., in Tennessee, the trains stop in Nashville and Memphis, but between Memphis and Kentucky is about 100 miles that the trains bypass. So, for all those people bypassed, how will the train serve them? Yes, I saw the plan of a 'tram' that catches up with the high speed, non-stop train, 'couples up' side by side, does a transfer of people and baggage, 'decouples', and slows down. Still I expect that mostly the plan would be that people in the 100 miles from Memphis to Kentucky would have to drive a car, ride a bus, or take a slow train to reach Memphis. Now we are back to the old problems of handling luggage and making connections: That's why the train terminals were so big -- to have space for people waiting for connecting trains. Besides, passenger trains are vulnerable to Big Sis at the DHS and her TSA gang. A lot of people would rather walk than face the TSA; to drive a car 1000 miles to avoid the TSA is a great pleasure. Net, for short to medium distances, say, 1000 miles or less, just drive a car and, then, have all the luggage in the car during the trip, all under own control for the whole trip, and have the car at the destination. For longer trips, take a plane as now. Heck, there's a chance that modern blimps -- lighter than air craft -- could beat passenger trains. Yes, I know: Maybe there are some lawyers who want to live in Manhattan, have their offices near Grand Central, take a fast moving train to DC, take a cab to Capitol Hill for the day, and reverse the process and be home for dinner early in the evening. Fine for people earning big bucks with an office near a train station and wanting to work at another office near another train station at most only a few hundred miles away. Sorry 'bout those people. For all the rest of us, we shouldn't pay subsidies for those few big bucks lawyers. Besides, have they heard of video conferencing? My main objection to passenger trains is that they want to use publicity efforts such as the OP to build political support to tax people to pay subsidies for the trains. That is, the effort is to get into my checkbook. No thanks. If they want to build the trains with capital raised privately, fine with me. If they wanted to proceed with private capital, then we wouldn't see publicity efforts such as the OP.