“”Subsidy” is a word used quite often in transportation policy-making circles, whether by road acolytes who claim (falsely) that highways are not federally subsidized”

Your link there doesn’t prove what it says. I agree that the gas tax is not a pure user fee, and that VMT fee would be better. I agree that a VMT fee would decrease congestion. I agree that using the gas tax may mean that some drivers unfairly subsidize other drivers. But that has nothing to do with whether it’s “subsidized” by the federal government or by non-drivers overall. Look at USDOT’s Highway Statistics series. From table HF-10 you can see how transportation receipts and spending work in a normal year, 2007. The Federal Government collected at least $33.2 billion in gas taxes, and used $33.2 billion for highway purposes.

Any federal “subsidy” of highways is from some drivers to other drivers. You can argue that driving has negative externalities, which is a different issue. It’s also true that state and especially local governments subsidize drivers through taxes on non-drivers.

But the fact is, the federal government collects considerably more in gas taxes than it spends on roads. That is indisputable. Any claim otherwise is false. And mass transit is not funded at the federal level from user fees.

Their researchers’ conclusions found that highways received $30 billion in federal support last year — more than three times as much as transit, which got $9 billion. How much of that $30 billion was a subsidy?

Only a little bit. I checked out SubsidyScope. It’s including the direct spending and earmark-directed transfers to state DOTs from the normal transportation bill, SAFTEA-LU. Take a look at the Highway Statistics table I linked. Note that total federal highway expenditures (and gas tax receipts) are in the nature of $30 billion, the same as that $30 billion.

ALL of that $30 billion is the normal transportation bill funding. Some of it is wasteful earmarks, but that’s not the same thing as a subsidy from non-drivers to drivers.

Sure, the parking thing is absolutely valid. But comparing the total money spent is a little silly; why not per-user of the system?