It did, and it's archived here for anyone who'd like to read it:
https://web.archive.org/web/2013072...documents/ConnectingCommunitiesReport_S10.pdf
It's clearly rubbish to suggest that new road building and the upgrading of existing highways has not outstripped the development of the rail network in the last fifty years, and that it does not continue to do so.
A huge amount of the road building that we see is actually relatively small-scale, although its effect on traffic and development of the built environment can be very significant. These might be projects which are only a couple of hundred metres in length, but even at several miles they may not cross a parish boundary.
Rail projects, generally, are linearly longer and involve more 'stakeholders', many of whom are as parochial as some of the Victorian landowners were. Probably the only reason that (for example) Chinese investors could be encouraged to back HS2 by George Osborne was because the government effectively assured them that the planning would be passed and that the long term investment returns would be assured.
There's plenty of money in the global investment markets for long-term infrastructure investments (especially when sovereign wealth funds also see a political angle in it), but as long as you have even just multiple local authorities bickering between themselves about the minutiae and trying to prevent each other benefiting more than themselves, there's no way of going to the capital markets. Similarly, it's not even possible to lobby The Treasury if there's no cohesive plan.
Funding is
not an insurmountable problem - it is only a problem in the context of the way that railways are viewed.
Since, apparently, we don't currently know who's in charge of the railway, it's perhaps unsurprising that no-one knows how to build much more of it.