>>1970897Oh, and on your idiotic "politics vs demand" point:
Demand is a major factor in political will. Higher demand means more popular support and more revenue from passengers to fund the service. Higher demand means more support from local businesses near the stations who will have a wider pool of customers or potential employees. This also leads to increased economic activity and more tax revenue.
Of course with politics there are always complications, especially in the United States. But it's pretty stupid to ignore the glaringly obvious role of economics when it comes to rail projects.
Demand for passenger rail travel declined for most of the 20th century due to competition from cars and air travel. (Which was my original answer to OP's question:
>>1969075). The geography and resulting population density patterns strongly influenced this preference which resulted in all the political decisions that make /n/ seethe so hard. Places like England and most of western Europe have very different geography and population distribution leading to a very different outlook on passenger rail. Cars are still used in most of Europe.
Furthermore, Texas (like much of the midwest) experienced the overwhelming majority of its growth during the last 150 years. In 1886 during the rail peak, San Antonio, despite being a relatively old and notable city at that point (by New World standards), probably only had a population of 30,000 or so. Most of their growth happened during the car era.
