I'm more pointing out that the geography based argument is easier to dupe people with in the USA. The central point is that the capitalists don't want HSR, and are happy to use geography as a scapegoat, and frankly if the American public become so well educated as to reject that idea, they're likely to go straight to revolution. High speed rail would be an unalloyed good for the US working class, which is the #1 reason it's not happening without some serious social reorganisation.

I'm well aware that the geography based argument against HSR is disingenuous. It's also convincing to the general public because the way the American population is distributed is quite homogenous, so it's easier for the democrats and republicans to sell the idea that it won't work. HSR would be a great good to the American working class, but not having it better serves the interests of capital. As long as America remains a liberal democracy, this is likely to remain the case. Hopefully, the territory currently called the United States of America will get high speed rail eventually! I want them to and believe it will be an unalloyed good. But I will eat my hat if it happens without first achieving socialism, or at the very least removing the current neoliberal ruling class (which means both major parties would need to go at the very least), which even without a name change would effectively mean the USA no longer exists.