Subsidizing personal vehicles sounds completely insane and irresponsible to me.

The problem is that everyone ends up with their own vehicle and this gridlocks any road in/out of a city. Which ~big city in the world does not have trafic problems? And what is the average passenger count in those cars. One bus can replace MANY cars. But for some reason i cannot comprehend taking the bus or train seems oppressive to some people. I get this is not an option everywhere but where i live it most definatly is and people still complain about the tolls drivers have to pay to commute into the city and refuse to take the bus/train.

Taking the light rail from Renton to Seattle costs twice as much (or more) than gasoline to drive there. And takes 3 times as long. Not including parking.

And the train doesn't run on Saturday nights, so if you want a fun night in the city, you're driving anyway.

> Is a tax a subsidy if you personally find it too low?

That could be an interesting discussion. In effect it could be.

On transportation, I'm more for having a level playing field, and discouraging polluters. More so since I've learnt of climate change. To give a UK example the government pays for roads, but not rails - that's a subsidy, yet most would agree the railways need more investment to increase capacity.

I'm happy discouraging individually polluting cars and promoting transport choices - buses, trams and trains, even if I have to pay a little more tax. I'd like to see investment to get more services, more routes, better timetables, adding cycle routes etc. Not just in London. More like the Netherlands for instance. As a car owner I have often taken a bus or train as the better choice thanks to not needing to find or pay parking or be able to have a night out and a few drinks. The UK can't just keep throwing more one occupant vehicles at our increasingly gridlocked roads.

I realise that can't work as easily in the US given how far you built everything around the car. It would take a lot of work to get back to balance or create viable and appealing transport that isn't seen as something you're forced into.

As to what car, at this point I have no memory other than it being a US only make (Chevy maybe), my first US trip was late 80s early 90s. It was referred to as "standard" size before we flew out. I brought UK expectations to that, where a hire would be compact (smaller than Ford Escort, probably a Ford Fiesta), standard would maybe be a BMW 3 series (of the 90s - everything keeps getting bigger!) or Toyota Corola, then large and luxury choices. What I got was something similar in style and size to a NYC cab as seen on so many movies but with a nicer interior. Turns out they're bloody enormous! Thankfully so are US parking spaces. :)

> 98 Ford Escort ZX2 to a Jeep Grand Cherokee and the handling is just as good if not better

Unless the Escort was broken this seems too rose tinted a view. Large SUVs like that may be comfortable but they definitely don't handle well.

What are some specific things that should feel different? Turning, merging, accelerating (especially with overdrive off) all feel great. Turning radius isn't bad at all. Only thing is you can't take tight corners super fast unless you want to flip over.

> Only thing is you can't take tight corners super fast unless you want to flip over.

This is what is usually called "handling". The other things you describe are driving comfort or something like that. "Handling" usually means the dynamic characteristics of the car that would make it fast around the turns in a track for example. The large mass at a high center of gravity makes all SUVs pretty bad at this.

FWIW, a Ford Escort is not a tiny car to anyone not from the US.

There are smaller around here, like those smart cars and a few other two door sedans, but it's definitely on the smaller end here. Probably average size for the UK from what I've heard?