It looks like the study just analyzed the direct employment effects of the construction projects -- how many ditch diggers, bus drivers, etc. would get paychecks either from the project or from the system the project creates.<p>The headline numbers, 16,000 job-months for transit, 8,000 job-months for highways (per billion dollars spent), show how small the direct employment is -- 16,000 job-months is about $60 million, or 6% of the investment.<p>The real question, which is apparently unaddressed, is which transportation infrastructure produces a greater benefit for the regional economy.  The economic differences there will likely dwarf the direct effects.<p>But the Wired article doesn't even go there.  There's a statement that transit "allows people to get to work", implying that highways don't, but that's all.<p>But that's okay.  We know cars are evil and transit is good, so there must be numbers out there somewhere to show it.