> The problem is that seeing the macroeconomic effect of cheaper transit can take years or decades as areas served by cheaper fares are included to build denser and accommodate the demand for the cheaper transit.

I'll have to nitpick to say that 1. metro didn't open in last decade, 2. passenger trends are going down, not up, so the model is going in the opposite direction you argue it would, even when there were multiple programs to lower fares in the past decade 3. demand for housing has always been there. Developers don't wait for that demand to start. I'm sure you understand the real hurdle but it should be spelt out that these are due to poor land policy. Until that is fixed, Metrorail's economic model will not be viable.

How much is parking for you?

Honestly it just shows the complete breakdown of economic model if metro isn't even strictly cheaper than cars on direct trips (not to mention the huge subsidies).

I might be the only person not having a car in the city, but that must have not taken into account the cost of a car. Also is parking free for you?

I think you might have misread the point. I mean that your perception of fair price is affected by lower price of longer rides, even though it really doesn't change whether your current trip is worth the price or not

This is getting into behavioral economics, so if longer trips are less subsidized and priced higher, you'd take one stop ride because it seems more worth it?

Driving is never cheaper than public transit, but the convenience and time saving is worth it for some people. The problem is how do you make public transit actually more convenient than cars.