http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passeng... Ro

http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passeng... Roads definitely have subsidies, but according to the document above, much less than urban transit or rail - if people pay the full costs of cars, they should pay the full costs of transit (not your typical $1.50 bus fare). In urban areas like the Bay Area or LA County, car trips are about 80% of commute trips, with transit at 10-15% but local/state transit funding is WAY above 10-15%, with a lot of gas taxes being funneled to transit projects. I believe that first off, we are 'paying' the true costs of cars, as people have voted for a government that pays for highways through income income taxes as well as gas taxes. You could argue the same way about incentives for public vs. private transportation - people get advantages for buying hybrid cars the same way the public transport is heavily pushed onto cities. I don't think the solution to suburbs is to make them all into cities, or that the solution to cars as they are today is to replace them with public transport - cars have succeeded in capturing a huge % of marketshare so we should learn from their success and improve private transportation rather than trying to change human nature.