And while we're at it, let's throw in the potential property tax revenue that is lost through the amount of land highways take up (most privately owned railroads pay property taxes on their right of way).
If you follow that argument too far, you might start thinking that abandoned railroad rights of way should be converted into residential real estate, which a few decades later you might not be so thrilled about when you find yourself wishing there was a cost effective place to build track.
Also, the taxpayer ends up paying for a certain amount of highway maintenance or reconstruction because certain freight appears to be cheaper to ship by highway than by rail because of the property tax and railroad maintenance burdens being paid for entirely by the shippers using the rails. We'd be better off leveling the playing field, and I think the only politically feasible way to do that is going to be with property tax exemptions for private freight railroads (though perhaps there is a reasonable way to attach some passenger rail strings to those exemptions).
Also, to clarify, the point I was trying to make is that the real subsidy to automobile travel may be less than the 51% spent on just the roads/highways, because the cost of the vehicles also needs to be factored in. On the other hand, percentage subsidy may be the wrong metric; a better question may be how many taxpayer dollars are used per passenger/traveler for each mode.
Have any of the Madison train opponents provided a credible explanation for why they believe Milwaukee to Madison service will be less successful than Milwaukee to Chicago service? Can anyone explain why the Madison train will obviously be less successful than the Northeast Regional service to Lynchburg?
Also, is any of this track in Wisconsin likely to see commuter rail service in the future?