Not for highways. Those are paid for by gas taxes, and before you bring it up, the only reason the highway trust fund is insolvent is due to diversions to fund transit. Local roads are also funded with property tax money as well as gas tax/car registration money, but good luck having a functional city even if every person uses transit without roads, so its hard to argue that drivers are subsidized because of that. Buses, taxis, bikes, and delivery vehicles need roads too and heavy vehicles damage roads significantly more than cars do.
The fact is that parking taxes, gas taxes, tolls, registration fees, etc. are often diverted to fund transit, but transit fees are not diverted to fund auto infrastructure. Transit is subsidized at a much higher percentage basis than roads are; I'm more than happy to pay the true cost of roads (excluding arbitrary """externalities"""), but I doubt you would be willing to pay unsubsidized transit fares. As an example, only 24.44% of the MTA's operating expenses are paid for by fares [1], and NYC has a higher farebox recovery ratio than most cities. If you lived in New York, would you really be willing to pay $11.25 each way (so $22.50 round trip), instead of $2.75 ($5.50 round trip), for a subway ride? That's the equivalent of driving 19.2 miles one-way (38.5 mile round trip), including the cost of the car, gas, insurance, and taxes paid to fund the roads (using the IRS rate of 58.5 cents a mile, which in my experience is an over estimate on actual costs incurred). In the city I live in, which dense but not Manhattan level dense, the unsubsidized cost of a rail ticket is around $30 a trip, or $60 round-trip, which almost no one would be willing to pay (those numbers came directly from the agency's budget). None of the transit numbers include capital costs, so the real unsubsidized cost is even higher. Roads are not subsidized to the tune of 75+% of total cost.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#North_A...