Might be because there's this chunk of Panama/north Columbia that's run by Guerillas and is one of the most dangerous places in existence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap)
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/north-ame...
I suspect it violates HN guidelines (too snarky?!?!). However, I for one applaud it's pith!
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-08-20-mn-36988-...
But this has been heavily protested by environmentalists and natives alike. It might be less controversial to go northeast to Acandí by tunneling under the mountains, which would leave almost all of the forest untouched. Then you could build a long bridge, a coastal highway, or just keep using the ferry.
Plus, there's not even any rail line reaching Panama. The southern terminus of the North American rail infrastructure is Mexico, I think. I doubt trucking everything through Central America would be very cost effective. So you're not only building a new line through 66 miles of some of the most difficult and remote terrain in the world, you're building or refurbishing another ~1500+ miles of rail.
And then you're only reaching Columbia and Venezuela, with the Andes and the Amazon between you and the two biggest markets in South America: Brazil and Argentina.
It would be cool if it happened, but I think it would have to be a regional public works project funded primarily by the U.S. government. Unless Musk is looking for his next challenge (and he can make it pencil out with his Fermi-math voodoo). Maybe the U.S. can sell it to taxpayers as a jobs and economic development program to stem the tide of Central American refugees.
The landscape is wet. You would effectively be building a bridge the whole way. Whilst fighting a guerrilla war, disease and ruining an ecological system in the process.
Does the Panamerican highway not qualify as land-borne transportation?