I studied civil engineering, with a focus on structural, but a heavy geotechnical element and some pavement design and rail desing.
Highways are cheaper and easier because they're usually less investment and planning at once. They have their own downsides, don't get me wrong, but no. Rail is long term, lots of property seizure, usually a single track across a vast distance, etc.
Rail makes sense for a lot of places, but for a country as large as America, it's hard to see the benefits as fast as highways and we need logistics to switch to electric quickly.
That said, to make highways more efficient more places should take a page off of the 407 in Ontario, Canada. The fluctuating pricing keeps the roads in high usage most of the time and it stops tragedy of the commons issues with sinks (the cities that highways dump their vehicles to) and keeps highway economic pricing honest against things like rail and sea.
> usually a single track across a vast distance, etc.
This is fairly short-sighted, isn't it? Make no mistake, highways are also long-term and involve lots of property seizure. We could build out railways with more than a single track, but rail is private and roads are public.
I'm 100% for subsidizing trains, or at least saying that train systems not turning a profit are for the greater good (as I do for public transportation).
In what world can 2 metal tracks plus some small foundations be cheaper than 20m width of concrete, asphalt and much bigger foundations?
The economics of rail versus roads don't make any sense to me.
The only way they do, I imagine, is if roads are crazily subsidized.