If this is how you feel, then it's time for truckers to pay the FULL cost of their use of the roads. According to the Washington DOT (something your buddy forgot to tell you) an 18-wheel truck loaded at 80,000 GVW has the same wear on the road surface as just under 9,300 full size (i.e. Ford Crown Victoria, F-150 pick-up) cars. (This information can be found in a report on the impact of NAFTA traffic on roads submitted to the federal government.) That is just upkeep cost there, add also construction to large truck standards, truck related law enforcement, traffic control, pollution mitigation and more. As of 2005, state and federal trucking taxes covered an average of 20% of upkeep costs only. (2005 is the most recent report I have, this is an average only, best percentage is 29.3%---ususally in toll road states.) Heavier trucks with more wheels greatly increase wear (and shorten life of bridges to a terrific degree). Cars pay a much greater share of the burdon, but increasingly states are using general fund dollars to make up the difference, particularly for new construction and expansion. Don't get me started on all the taxpayers provide the airlines and barge industries (suffice it to say, there is no way barges would be going to Lewiston Idaho if they had to pay the full cost of operation of the Snake and Columbia River lock sytem.) If truckers had to pay their way in full, traffic on most of these railroad lines would not be an issue.
Land grants represent less than 10% of the total U.S. rail miles constructed. Land grants were provided because the federal government had neither the money or desire to build the railroads themselves, yet needed a transportation system built. The grants were to provide costruction and operating funds to get the railroads built. Railroads were supposed to lease or sell the properties to fund the construction and operation of the railroad, the government was not going to put anything more into the project, and railroads had to meet certain deadlines or they would lose the lands. (A secondary purpose of the grants was to help populate a wider area of the country.) Any lands not sold are subject to property taxes that in turn have been used to build roads, airports, schools, river ports and etc.... The remaining rail milage built in the U.S. were built using lands purchased outright, long term leased, easments, rights of way, no matter what, money changed hands to someone so the railroad could go through. (I'm not debating whether or not they always paid fair prices and what not.) In any event, these lines too are subject to taxes of several sorts---money that is not put back into the railroad, and often fund the competition. Aside from the small percentage of trackage bought by governmental bodies, railroads must build and maintain tracks and equipment at their own expense, provide their own traffic control (some soon to be government mandated), pay for their communication systems and dispatching and more. (In the 1980's, Burlington Northern was the largest private owner of microwave telecommunications systems in the world.) Governments have funded track improvements in certain areas for passenger commuters and some ports, but once constructed, the railroad is generally stuck for maintaining these "improvements" for as long as they remain in service.
<>
Mind you, I'm not a big fan of governments buying rail lines, they generally screw things up,but the money spent so far is very tiny when compared to what is spent on roads, rivers and air terminals.
Oh, by the way, have you paid your road/trail use taxes on your bikes lately?
End of vent.