Eh, high speed mag lev trains are cooler.
High speed rail typically cannot cover its own operating expenses and pay off its initial investment. I used to be a fan, and did some research for my capstone project, which was developing a suitability model for a high speed rail line route. Long story short, a network doesn't really attract long-distance passengers outside of the 2-5 hour car ride range: going further, air travel is more cost efficient and quicker, and going closer, people prefer to drive, although note that this is about long distance travel and not in-city.
So a national network for something the size of the US isn't really economically viable. Regional networks look to be the best opportunity for high speed rail lines, and several such projects have been proposed in the US and mothballed from various political pressures and undercuts. Texas still has a project ongoing for a line between Houston and Dallas; it was held up for a while in court (there were legal arguments about whether the project had the right of eminent domain to secure land for the line through private property), but it looks like an appellate court ruled in the line's favor back in May, and the environmental review went through, so it should be clear for construction.
The Texas project can be a proof-of-concept to inspire other projects in the US, perhaps for the Northeast, California, and Florida (all of which have had such projects in the recent past, which went... off the rails).
But your point was whether it was free or not. It's not. Someone's paying for it.
And your point was that they provide government like services, and are therefore just as deserving as government bucks as government entities are.
Quid pro quo, habeus corpus, ergo proctor sum, etcetera.
USA
