So far, two high-speed rail projects (Miami-Orlando & LA-Las Vegas) are private ventures.
Part of the confusion we have - is that when "high speed rail" is used to refer to trains in the United States -
they don't mean the speeds achieved abroad, and have so many stops that they never approach even
the top speeds they advertise. For example, the high speed rail in Florida CAN achieve speeds as high as 168 mph -
less than half the speeds of the much vaunted ones elsewhere - but it won't. Kind of like having a big sports car
and living downtown.
There are a LOT of reasons why high speed rail as done elsewhere isn't gaining traction here, but a lot of it is
a combination of WHERE people live in the U.S. and who will pay to use it. There are maybe four or five high
population areas in the U.S. - central Texas, the Northeast, the Midwest around Chicago and southern California -
and maybe southeastern Florida. Outside of that, population density isn't dense enough to make laying down
the track profitable.
Another is that building passenger rails in the U.S. now is like planning an abortion after your kid's children
graduate from college - it's way too late. Most of the trains abroad were being done decades ago, and the public
and public transit has been built around the alternatives of cars and planes. AS A RESULT OF *that*, most
train lines are designed for *freight*, which do NOT move at high speeds but must be accommodated when
running passenger lines.