AIRLINE SUBSIDIES vs RAILROADS

[Rick186]

When will there be a voice loud enough to alert the public to the fact that railroads carry more than their share of this country's transportation load without the unbelievable subsidies given to airlines (and trucking)?
The infrastructure of airports, air traffic controllers, et al is NOT fully funded by the airlines and - for that matter - I believe a Trains columnist a few years ago noted that airlines were subsidized SINCE 1925!
If railroads were given even a slight break in the taxes on their property (trackage, etc) we might have high-speed passenger travel better than in Europe, as well as freight moving with speed and efficiency that would pull more vehicles off our crumbling Interstate system.
Is there a transportation school with the resources and will to make such a definitive analysis?

[oltmannd]

I think you're trying to say that if the RRs had an even playing field during the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's that they would be much better off today.

Perhaps.

The RRs probably would have been the owners of the trucking companies and airlines. They started down that path in the 20s and 30s only to be "regulated" out of those businesses.

Would the RRs have constructed high speed passenger service without direct subsidy? Probably not. There were some attempts at raising speeds but the auto pretty much wiped out everything.

[oltmannd]

I would be interesting to "rewind" history and then play it back with a different set of rules. Perhaps integrated transportation companies would have fared better overall than the mode-centric ones we have now.

But, the best "what if" scenario I've ever seen is the one from a really old SNL where they posed the question "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly" and then showed her leading bomber group over Europe.....