This past winter the new governor of Wisconsin vetoed a 'high-speed' rail line between Madison, WI and Milwaukee, WI. It would of been paid for by the federal government but he still didnt want it. It was questionable as to whether the investment was worth it and the state would have to pay for maintenance costs. Theres not enough traffic between the two cities, not enough to warrant a $800 million dollar rail line where the 'high speed' train would only get up to its max speed for a brief moment(110mph). The overall time & cost for traveling by road vs the new train would be equal if not more expensive and a little more time(various stops along the way.) A better option would have been to start between Milwaukee, WI & Chicago, IL, which has a lot more traffic along that stretch of highway and people actually use the existing train line. If they had proposed that, I believe the project would have had more support.
Thats something that we learn in the classes im taking, for designing a new roadway you look at congestion your trying to eliminate and if people can get to a from work/where their going, they can be more productive/spend time at home after work. Its one of the points you try to make to explain why the money should be spent. And it also helps improve the longevity of the roadway if you have cars constantly moving over it instead of just sitting on it creeping along.
My family and I were in Italy the summer of 2006 and I cant remember what the price of gas was but it was enough to make me scratch my head for a bit, maybe $2 a liter or something? And that's probably why mass transit works better over in Europe due to high gas costs, its cheaper to get on a train.