Quote Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda View Post
This is not remotely true. Cars are the least subsidized form of transportation that exists.

https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019...idies-by-mode/
The link is obviously from a highly biased source, so at a minimum is going to be extremely misleading.

But yeah, when you include the cost of car ownership and don't include indirect subsidies, and ignore forced subsidies via zoning, etc. It can really skew the results.

Anyone with any knowledge of the subject knows that you are introducing massive bias when you divide by miles traveled, too, since miles through corn fields are insanely cheap compared to urban mileage. Mass transit operates over short, extremely expensive distances, while the majority of the highway system is in the middle of no where.

Edit: based on your other posts, you are massively misunderstanding what I said. I never said cars don't pay for anything. Their massive capital and opex requirements are a huge negative for cars, especially for lower income people. But their own capital and opex is completely different than the costs on society for their use. Gas taxes do not fully pay for car infrastructure at the federal or state level. Currently nothing is paying for the damage their pollution causes. Beyond free pollution and subsidized infrastructure, there are a ton of indirect subsidies too, like mandated parking, etc.

Obviously overall cars and freight have been a economic positive to the US, but that doesn't mean they are the best solution in every case. And my initial point, many posts back, is that it is ridiculous that public transit is always expected to pay for itself in direct fees, while there is no similar expectation for cars (and especially not freight).