Because of capitalism and the US oil and car industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

One part of the problem is that Congress has a rural bias, so there are a lot of rural Congresspersons who don't see the benefit of better rail service so they won't vote for it.

Car companies successfully got out ahead of Adam Something and NJB viewers to conspiricize 15 minute cities

Because of Republicans.

Why is decent rail service treated as something only the north east can have? Like, I’m glad they’re getting more, but it can be frustrating how there’s a fair amount in one area and basically none west of the Appalachian mountains.

If he did that then warren buffet might only earn an extra billion instead of the 1.2 billion he was hoping for. The horror!

More trains, faster trains, fewer interruptions of service. This is the closest we have to good train service, the most in demand, the most useful. We’ll use everything we can get, rather than bitch and moan

Indeed, yay trains, and I unironically also like that look. In the thumbnail I thought it was a sweater at first. It says I'm the President, but I'm here to work. Rail--any rail--would be a significant improvement in American infrastructure in so many places. I don't live anywhere near the NE, but I know it has to succeed for there to be hope for the rest of us in my lifetime.

Not normally a big Biden fan, but honestly the patagonia under a jacket is a good look. We should be writing this down.

Passenger rail, in the places it's successful, is often seen as a service rather than a profitable private business. Similar to the mail, or the billions of dollars that go towards car infrastructure.

The question shouldn't be "why aren't the private entities paying for it" but rather "why do private industries own this?". Look at the UK: they famously privatized their rail network and it's gone to shit ever since.