A look into the numbers shows, that the US owns a small amount of locomotives, which is 26546. In comparison around 250 million cars are on the road in the United states. Suppose, the future for the railroad looks bad, to which amount can the number of locomotives shrink? Right, there is not much room to the bottom. The minimum amount of locomotives can't become negative, but 0 is the lowest amount of rail guided vehicles.
How could it be, that the railroad has a low priority, while all the money is spend for buying new cars? Has the car a higher productivity, can it be operated without human drivers, is the car using electric energy? It's exactly the opposite. The car is preferred in the US because it produces to much problems. The car industry is some kind of pyramid building game. The idea is to produce extra work which is not needed. Instead of using a single freight train hundred of trucks are used. Each of them needs an operator, the trucks have to be built first and they need a lot of repair. Additionally, all the trucks need more energy than a single locomotive. It's a very luxury game in which all the money and all the manpower is thrown away for nothing.
Inefficiency is a common feature in state controlled economy. If a society prefers the car over the railway it's a sign for missing incentives. That means, the stakeholders in the game have no motivation to reduce the fuel consumption or doing the same task with less man power. This prevents technology advancement. The car has become a symbol for missing progress. Producing more cars means basically that nothing will change and that efficiency has a low priority.
According to the latest statistics, the US car industries has around 8 million employees. In contrast, the railway industry employees only 1/30 of that number. That means, 97% of the money and the manpower goes into the car industry. The funny thing is, that no matter which kind of technology gets invented in the next 30 years, it's not possible to increase this value over 100%.
It's interesting who the car industry has become so powerful, that the value was constant over decades. Nobdoy has asked, if all the invested money into cars make sense, it has become common sense, that new cars are needed.
Let us listen to the car advocates, how they would like to solve future demands in transportation. The idea is, that the car industry is not big enough. The number of 8 millions employees is too low. So there is need to put more money into the sector. The ratio from 1:30 (railway vs. car) can be adjusted into 1:100, which means, that 99% of the overall ressources are use to buy new cars and building new roads. This won't solve the logistics demand, but it will make the car industry stronger.
Suppose, the hidden agenda is to waste all the manpower and all the money into an outdated transportation system. Then the car industry is a here to stay. It is not possible to make a car more efficient in term of fuel consumption or reduced human power. Every single truck needs a human driver and lots of fuel. It's the most luxuary transportation device ever. Only rich countries have enough ressources to use cars for everything.
Increasing the capacity
Suppose, a freight has to be transported from place A to place B. The dominant vehicle today is a truck. This kind of technology is so common, that nobody asks if it make sense. Before a truck can start, a truck driver is needed.
Transporting the freight with a railroad works a bit different. Because on a single locomotive many trailers can be added. No driver is needed, except the single one who is already available. The extra amount of freight won't need axtra human manpower. The funny fact is, that under the condition of autonomous driving nothing with change on this calculation. From a technical perspective it's not possible to build self-driving trucks. Automated cars will need always a human driver in the loop.
That means, especially with a perspective of the next 20 years, the train has a big advantage over trucks. It needs less manpower.