And to poke us a bit, our most far reaching plans or ideas are to get the long distance trains up to twice per day and maybe some 500 ish mile quasi corridor trains running. To get rail to be useful, we frankly need more than that and I don't think any advocacy group is up for that.
Somebody's advocating for more: Congressman Seth Moulton has formally proposed, with a bill in Congress, $205 billion over five years for high speed rail and other rail improvements.
Moulton's own website on his plan. Wired article. Moulton's plan (pdf file).
Of course asking for billions will rally opposition, as you note, but IMHO a comprehensive plan with elements that appeal to various constituencies (private and public investment, transit-oriented-development, etc.) is also a flag for supporters to rally around. "Make no small plans..." and all that.
While I don't agree with everything Moulton says, I'm heartened by a quote from Moulton in the Wired article:
Wired said:
As for Moulton, he’s not looking forward to any specific train ride, if or when this national network is built. He’s looking forward to the first one. That will be a tipping point, he thinks. “The first line will inspire a lot more interest in high-speed rail in other parts of the country,” he says.
For all that hasn't happened, all the plans that have been frustrated by know-nothing opposition, transit and intercity passenger rail have had
some success in this country, including in some red and purple states. It's my firm belief that those successes have been where there's already an operating service, practically to have a service base to expand upon and politically to (1) have a constituency (riders, businesses in towns with service) for keeping and expanding service and (2) concretely refute the "nobody will ride
here" opposition meme.
For example, North Carolina is purple (Dem governor, GOP assembly) but has consistently added trains and made improvements to the
Carolinian/Piedmont service because they had a base service to build from. Houston ("oil city" if there ever was one) expanded its single light-rail line to multiple lines, while San Antonio with no rail transit bans public spending on starting any.
The important thing, which Moulton gets, is to get something built and operating. While neighborhoods and suburbs may fight the first light-rail line in their metro area out of NIMBYism and a fear of lower property values, they often fight to
get service in later expansions once the first line shows that property values rise near a transit station in their city like most everywhere else.
This isn't to mention that people's memories are short. The public at large will likely forget about the Coronavirus long before we could convince Congress to put rail in the same position as the highways or even the first mile of track is built.
I think rail advocacy (beyond seeking relief money to keep present rail systems intact) will be more successful when people have somewhat forgotten about coronavirus in the visceral or emotional sense. The meme that "coronavirus spread in New York and New Jersey because of dirty dangerous public transit" (rather than because NYC is a world city where people from everywhere meet and mingle) is still strong. Even the even-handed
Wired article refers to "public transit [as] tight corridors, surfaces teeming with who knows what." And all passenger rail gets lumped in with that to some degree. While I understand why Moulton is promoting his plan now, I think it would have even more traction with the public when fear of the virus has faded but economic fallout still lingers.