[dsfyu404ed]

The system that manages the money flow isn't perfect but we don't subsidize driving.

I think you're confusing subsidizing it with taxing it like cigarettes. We don't discourage driving because that would discourage utilization of land that isn't located near a population center. Land is a natural resource that we can't practically use up (short of massively contaminating it) and to discourage its use would be moronic.

[andys627]

I just gave a bunch of examples of how we're making driving cheaper than it would be if only supported by user fees... that's a subsidy.

I think we subsidize it because we thought it was a good idea back in the day - we chose cars and for example, Spain, chose trains. There are pros and cons to each. I suppose my point is that we CHOSE at every level of government.

This is the lens I see the world through and I think choosing cars (or how Spain chose trains) massively effects a society's quality of life. I want people driving to know that we as a society chose to support cars - to subsidize them to make them cheaper - and there are pros and cons (eg. more freedom but less walking). Anecdotally, no one I know thinks about it - they assume that's just the way it is and there are no alternatives. Maybe even that it's the result of free market.