Your Bloomberg source reports that as of 2011, users of highways paid for 40-50% of the money spent on highways. The T's fare recovery ratio (the ratio of operating revenue to operating expenses) was in the low 40% range in the years up to 2019, the last normal year for transit systems. So it would appear that the amount of "subsidization" is comparable between road and transit.
I certainly don't expect mass transit to make a profit, either, to be clear. I understand the concept of a public good that generates positive externalities. But I don't want anything, whether it be cars or transit, to be a categorical imperative that must be enabled at any cost, since we live in a world constrained by limited resources.
Your second source puts up some figures from another source that says driving is effectively subsidized 10x, but unfortunately that source's website no longer functions, so I cannot evaluate what their methodology is. Regardless, it's obvious that automobiles are less efficient at moving people than mass transit. Perhaps a little less obvious is that efficiency isn't the end-all be-all goal of public policy.
The more interesting point it raises is the question:
> "What kind of place do you really want to live in?" with all factors considered.
With all factors considered, the greatest internal migration of the past few decades has been the post-Covid outflow of people from the few cities with transit systems that exist in the US to much more sprawling, car-dependent, suburban places.