Rick_S
You seem to be angry, yet you continue to espouse on which you know little. Ignorant and opinionated - that's a not a good combination.
So just to enlighten you on the socialistic nature of yet one of the well known railroad projects I post the following on the First Transcontinental Railroad ...
Two railroad companies were involved, the Central Pacific from the west and the Union Pacific from the east. Each was required to build only 50 miles (80 km) in the first year; after that, only 50 miles (80 km) more were required each year. Besides land grants along the right-of-way, each railroad was subsidized $16,000 per mile ($9,940/km) built over an easy grade, $32,000 per mile ($19,880/km) in the high plains, and $48,000 per mile ($29,830/km) in the mountains. The race was on to see which railroad company could build the longest section of track.
Those land grants, over the longer term by the way, were more valuable than the direct subsidy. As I recall they were given 10 square miles of prime farmland for each mile of line built.
Your example of roads and railroads was a very poor choice to contrast public and private investment and to contrast capitalism versus socialism.