I got it the first time Huw. Your numbers aren't realistic, and are based on buttumptions, not actual data. They are from a website with political bias, meaning that not only are the figures inaccurate, but may be engineered to be something they are not.
What you fail to understand is that is my point. If we utilized the most efficient means of transit to its fullest, we would in fact save fuel. But we continue to utilize inefficent means such as automobiles, which will never match trains.
Built like a Mercedes 3648False. They do here in the states. Not that cars ever receive government funding in the form of roads, signalling, road maintenance...
What you fail to grasp is that even at their best numbers, your motorcoaches still don't match rail efficiency.
And you show a fundemental lack of ability to address the numbers I've provided in ANY way, preferring instead to insult my intellect. Until you address the numbers I've provided at least five times, your claims are rubbish.
They are not verifiable, otherwise I would have agreed with them. Find any car that gets 70-90 MPG as you claimed, and I'll be interested. Make it reality, and you'll be a millionaire. Do that with four pbuttengers as you've claimed, and you should top Bill Gates in no time.
Built like a Mercedes 3647Max Dodge So trains are a mbuttively utilised transport form in America today? Yeah right! Even with our fuel costs in the UK today...
Meanwhile, the "fantasist" is you, if you think such a car exists.
-- Max
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
