The efficiency of rail is dependent on the huge mass of the train to give it great momentum that requires only the energy to overcome rail friction to keep going. That is what gives you 700 mpg. That number is reduced with each stop. It is the reason that they did not stop trains to collect mail in the old days, but grabbed it as the train passed by. Rail is great only for cargo travel over long distances with few stops. A bus is more efficient for short hops and stops.
Gov Doyle in Wisconsin has been trying so hard to get rail from Chicago, through Milwaukee and Madison, and dreaming of going to Minneapolis/St. Paul. It has been a big debacle here, and even if the Feds were to completely fund the construction, the ticket prices would be outrageous just on the maintenance costs. It is all just a waste.
Seraphicaviary
My car get’s far less milage in city driving then highway driving too. It is just a number and probably little far fetched but you cannot deny that rail is more fuel efficient.
My point is that highways cost just as much to build and operate. But it is what the people want.....for now.
Yep, and in order to get the OK to build the rail through the intervening states and counties the builders would have to agree to stop in every town.
This is what happened with the multibillion dollar tax sucking white elephant light rail system in my old home town (Miami) - it's a 22 mile system with 22 stations, and there are no expresses - every trip stops everywhere.