You're not making a coherent argument here. If you want to get a holistic picture of what these systems actually cost, it comes down to up-front investment vs ongoing costs. Rail needs to pay high costs initially in purchasing cars, acquiring land, and laying down track, but from there it just becomes about maintenance costs. When it comes to roads, it's usually a smaller one-time cost to acquire land and lay down road, then ongoing maintenance on the road itself (which is worse than track wear-and-tear since there's more surface to fix, hiring crews to come into the area is more complicated, and because conditions of usage on a road aren't as tightly controlled.)

To make matters complicated in practice, gas in the US (since that's where this argument makes sense) has long been considered the holy grail of the economy, and gas taxes have not been raised to account for inflation since 1990. Since the 1980s, the US has politically favored cars and airplanes over trains and buses. Roads are never expected to make a profit, though most transit in the US is. Aviation has had things like the Essential Air Service that offer subsidies for rural air routes and carriers that serve rural airports, whereas the closest thing that transit has to this is Amtrak mandates to service cities; these are hamfisted mandates that Congressmen stuff into spending bills to make their constituents happy but don't actually create the kind of healthy market you would need to offer quality service. Moreover Amtrak track is often leased from freight carriers _because_ America apportions less money to rail than it does to roads and transit, so Amtrak trains often must yield and wait for freight trains to go first. That and the fact that externalities from emissions aren't accounted for mean any alternatives to the plane and the car in the US are at a heavy disadvantage.