You have made a few simple basic errors of data that lead to some very incorrect conclusions.
The bulk of the US population live in areas that have population densities at or even sometimes (NYC) above European levels. The entire state of california (not exactly high density at all, given the bulk of the state is just open space) has an average population density slightly higher than Spain, a country that managed to build a national High speed rail network.
The entire eastern sea-board is at roughly european density levels as well. No one is suggesting we build a bullet train that goes to North Dakota.
As for "not being profitable for another 20-30 years", you are arguing from a very short-term mindset about national infrastructure, but also you are pre-assuming that infrastructure should be directly profitable. This is not a commonly agreed idea, rather there is fierce disagreement between fiscal conservatives who think the government shouldn't do ANYTHING, and those (like most of europe) who believe the government should undertake large "public-good" projects precisely because they are not directly profitable, but they are PUBLIC GOODS.
Universal health care is also "not profitable" directly, but the benefit to society of having everyone live decades longer is massive increased economic output, to say nothing of increased quality of life.
The network effect of having efficient rail transportation balloons the entire economy. This is why governments pay for big infrastructure: everyone benefits and the direct revenue and direct costs are high enough to be uninteresting for investors.
The bulk of the US population live in areas that have population densities at or even sometimes (NYC) above European levels. The entire state of california (not exactly high density at all, given the bulk of the state is just open space) has an average population density slightly higher than Spain, a country that managed to build a national High speed rail network.
The entire eastern sea-board is at roughly european density levels as well. No one is suggesting we build a bullet train that goes to North Dakota.
As for "not being profitable for another 20-30 years", you are arguing from a very short-term mindset about national infrastructure, but also you are pre-assuming that infrastructure should be directly profitable. This is not a commonly agreed idea, rather there is fierce disagreement between fiscal conservatives who think the government shouldn't do ANYTHING, and those (like most of europe) who believe the government should undertake large "public-good" projects precisely because they are not directly profitable, but they are PUBLIC GOODS.
Universal health care is also "not profitable" directly, but the benefit to society of having everyone live decades longer is massive increased economic output, to say nothing of increased quality of life.
The network effect of having efficient rail transportation balloons the entire economy. This is why governments pay for big infrastructure: everyone benefits and the direct revenue and direct costs are high enough to be uninteresting for investors.