&gt; Actual cash subsidies for roads are minimal relative to the economic benefit.<p>Sure, but that&#x27;s true of every mode of transportation, that&#x27;s why we use taxes to also build sidewalks, light rail, bike lanes, etc. On an absolute level, subsidies for roads are still very large. And while some level of available roads is obviously necessary, we really overbuild to support our sprawly development style.<p>&gt; This is another way to say that you could eliminate all subsidies on road construction&#x2F;maintenance, make everyone pay a sufficient per-mile tax, and the system would continue successfully more-or-less as it exists today<p>Well, except that poor and working class people would probably not be able to use it much anymore. Paying for infrastructure via most taxes is inherently redestributive (exception for gas tax, obviously).<p>I&#x27;m actually generally for some more market-oriented policies around cars though. Congestion charges and parking fees are a great idea.<p>&gt; The same is not true of most public transit systems.<p>I mean, the poor make up a larger % of transit riders, particularly in the US, so looking at it that way yes the impact would be larger.<p>&gt; Now you can start arguing about implicit and explicit subsidies for suburbanization over the decades, but in the here-and-now, public transit is directly subsidized in a way that roads are not.<p>No, you&#x27;re simply wrong. Road construction and maintenance is heavily subsidized by taxes other than the gas tax (which of course works more like a user fee).