Yes, yes - there will always be room for personal vehicles. But this conundrum is the epitome of excessive and terrible infrastructure design, to the N-th layer.
Look at how much fuss this causes when it's better replaced by competent public transit.
Mark it as another useless invention to paper over a huge crack just so we can continue to sell everyone a car.
in dense urban areas it's a serious contender (free health, free workout, free meditation, near zero cost for the non-e bike, faster in traffic jams)
A railway has a much higher and faster capacity, even if it does indeed cost that much ( it doesn't, it varies highly based on terrain, conditions, regulatory framework, etc.).
It all depends on your local context, but where I live there is great and cheap transport and if I have a need for a car I can get one from stations across the city for 2-5€/hour + 1-3c/km, significantly cheaper than even a fully paid off car would be for the same trip, if you count insurance, maintenance, and petrol.
The US ironically has a much more efficient and sustainable train network, it's just that the thing trains are really efficient at is cargo, not personal transportation.
Much like with healthcare, European countries (generally) tend to think that it's decent idea to spend government resources to provide value to their citizen. Having regularly commuted using trains in Europe for a decade and a half, I would argue they are a pretty great, comfortable mode of transportation – and I can feel slightly more at ease knowing I'm not contributing as much to our carbon emissions.
Profitability has absolutely nothing to do with it. High speed rail in France is hugely profitable, but the state subsides many lines because it's the right thing to do. Railways have a higher capacity, are much cleaner and faster, and are provided as a common service. You don't expect the fire department or forest service to be profitable, do you?
Rail (& other public transport) has many other benefits, e.g. you'll need less policing and maintenance of roads if they are less used; air pollution from fossil fuels and tire wear are reduced, stress and accidents are reduced thereby decreasing healthcare costs, etc.
It all is a matter of building up the proper network, rather than to give more subsidies to big oil and the car industries (see the eternally repeating bailouts).
> Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012.
[pdf] https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for...
(Musk has a bit of a train phobia)