False.
They do here in the states.
Not that cars ever receive government funding in the form of roads, signalling, road maintenance, rest areas, and emergency services, right?
Your document isn't much help at all. While it discusses theory and physics, it never comes up with an actual fuel usage versus the automobile. However, it is telling that the conclusion is summed up as follows:
"Thus one may say that pbuttenger trains are potentially energy efficient, but in actual practice such trains turn out to be little more energy-efficient than the automobile. What insbreastution changes are needed to realize the potential of rail's inherent energy-efficiency are not clear."
Thus, even the author realizes that trains have the ability to be energy efficient compared to autos. However, since no solid numbers are put forth, only application of theory with no actual testing, it is impossible to say either way based on this document.
This document suggests that freight rail can move at up to 400 ton-miles per gallon. Trucks and autos will never touch that level. Ships will do much better.
Built like a Mercedes 3650You are right to question my "claim". Apparently it's only 61 cars per employee per year. This may be true, but not entirely relevant...
About halfway down this page, you'll find a table noting emmissions from various freight hauling methods. Notable is the fact that trucks are a distant third to trains and waterway transit.
This Railway Age article suggests that ton miles per gallon are much higher, at over 700.
In the end, it appears you did little studying on this issue, and with figures suggested such as 400 ton-miles per gallon, I'd say your ship is sunk. A car would have to travel 200 miles on a gallon of fuel to match that.
-- 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)
