I can't help but to add that the infrastructure won't be demolished upon the conclusion of the operating season, making the math of total cost (whatever it is) divided by number of trains this year equivalent to the cost per trip nonsense. Add to that, that it's not comparable to highway trip costs because 1 highway trip = 1-3* on average passengers where 1 rail trip = up to 1500* passengers. Rail is more efficient, which is why it's considered "green". It's more enjoyable than road traffic, especially with the on-board amenities, and in due time, I'm sure it will be a faster alternative to the roadway infrastructure which, in my opinion, should take the back seat to any rail improvement project because of such efficiency.
A roadway is bogged down and therefore less efficient with heavy utilization. A train becomes more efficient with more utilization, as the resources and performance are not impacted. If the demand exists, it makes sense to build it.
*I'll actually admit that my numbers are educated guesses and not based on actual data. I'm sure the data is readily available somewhere, but since the statements which I contest do not provide actual data from any given source, I won't waste my time looking for real data to contest them.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Brightline Trains
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).