system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
The US needs to upgrade its passenger rail system. CMV.

While most Americans don't rely on passenger rail for transportation, a large sector of the population in the Northeast does. The Northeast Corridor gets as many passengers as a European line of the same size would.

Meanwhile, the US has seen a large number of entirely preventable rail disasters. For example, most first-world countries with large rail systems use an "automatic warning system", a kind of dead hand mechanism where an alert sounds and the train driver has to press a button to clear it; if the alert isn't cleared, the train is automatically stopped, thus preventing disasters induced by sleeping drivers. It appears that such systems are not used in the US. Such a system could have prevented the unfortunate incident on the Metro North line recently. 

In addition, many metro systems use platform screen doors to prevent people from falling onto rail tracks. The only metro system in the US that uses them is the Las Vegas Monorail, a short 2 mile line. Platform screen doors could have prevented those all of those NYC Subway falling incidents.

The fact that the US's passenger rail system do not accommodate technologies like these is appalling. 

The US rail system is simply not up to 21st century standards. This not just a safety concern, but also a matter of inefficiency. There are still major lines where engineers have to reach out of their cabs just to switch tracks. There are no true high-speed rail tracks in the US system, and Acela had to be heavily engineered to get it to reach high-speed service velocities.

I think it is high time for governments to begin upgrading our rail system. It is a matter of both public safety and general efficiency.

So, is there a justification for inaction? Is there a reason why we *should not* invest in improving our rail system beyond basic maintenance?
gpt
Largely because trains are made obsolete for city to city travel by airplanes.   
An airplane can put you anywhere in the country much faster than most trains (even if we had euro style 'high speed' trains).   They cost less and do not require expensive right-of-ways through developed areas. 
Within a given metro area, you can make a case for rail.. but then its not really a national program.. its local... maybe regional for something like New York - Boston.

Sure there are areas where things could be improved, but if the demand isnt there, why sink the money into it?  We're 17 trillion in debt, and climbing...  to spend hundreds of billions (what it would take for real high speed rail of any decent scale) on something that offers no real advantage over hte airplane, is the highly irresponsible in general... and a nasty little fuck you to the large part of the population who doesnt live in the NE corridor.