Sounds good, but it's hard to see into the details. In the US,cars & light trucks constitute about 18% of energy use. But what percentage of that use is for travel that could move over to rail? (I'd wager that driving around town is the biggest chunk.)
Further: should all US cars go renewable electric, that seems preferable to diesel-electric rail emissions. The railroads got hit hard back when autos came along a century ago, something similar might happen here.
The article pointed at this 'Transportation Energy Data Book' (PDF) available), which is largely petroleum-oriented.
https://cta.ornl.gov/data/download37.shtml. Throws a lot of data out, but no big picture in there. It DID note that US rail freight uses about 1.1% of petroleum, which might be impressive?
Development follows transportation, and since the main method of travel in the U.S. has been rubber tires and individual vehicles for the last 80 years, naturally a train can't service a whole suburb or exurb efficiently.
Trains have trouble in the U.S. because the technology allows--even requires-- central planning and authority on an active, everyday basis. If the transportation department goes on strike, we in cars keep driving. Not so for trains. Also it's not a fair fight to have a public decentralized asphalt road system compete with a highly regulated centralized private rail system. It's not a pure technology vs. technology battle-- the political aspects dominate.
Further: should all US cars go renewable electric, that seems preferable to diesel-electric rail emissions. The railroads got hit hard back when autos came along a century ago, something similar might happen here.
The article pointed at this 'Transportation Energy Data Book' (PDF) available), which is largely petroleum-oriented. https://cta.ornl.gov/data/download37.shtml. Throws a lot of data out, but no big picture in there. It DID note that US rail freight uses about 1.1% of petroleum, which might be impressive?