For the most part, all are also fueled from petroleum. The exception would be those trains that are electricly powered, primarily commuter lines.
There is major opportunity in this area by constructing more electricly-powered, high-speed mass-transportation systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas. The electricity could be generated utilizing clean-coal and nuclear technology, thus reducing our dependence on imported petroleum.
I would love to have that where I live, because I live downtown and work in the north part of town, and traffic is just horrible. We had a vote on it and it barely failed, and there is an anti-rail contigent that would rather use the money to build more freeways/highways, which would not solve any of our problems, as we are growing too fast and because of our geographical layout are expanding primarily north and south, so you have this congestion. They would rather see neighborhoods and businesses torn down to make way for more highways (which would become congested just as quickly thanks to NAFTA among other things) than really address the problem. Not to mention because of the air guidlines, more highways in this area would force us to go through the hell that Houston is about to.
But the greenies in Austin would probably rebel against more nuclear or coal plants. So with morons on the same side, we can't win.
Thank you for the reply to my questions.
If that's the case, how about letting the market make that determination, not government fiat.