If by subsidy, you're implying that the transit system is receiving freebies they don't deserve, then I'd have to disagree with you.

Transportation hubs create far more value via their impact on nearby real estate values than from the fares they collect. Asia cities correctly capture the value created by public transit by having major retail hubs above or surrounding subway stations, all of which is paying rent to the transit authority.

Even this is a generous compromise, because the benefit to real estate value really radiates outward to the entire walkable radius, it's just the immediate retail hub that could attribute most of it's value to the station.

So if anything, the problem with the US is that public transit is just a massive economy handout to private landowners, leaving just the scraps (the fares) to the transit authority.

I am not sure how land ownership typically works - it seems that governments anywhere pretty much have to own a large chunk of the land to bore tunnels, build the station proper, accommodate parking, onramps, roads, pickup zones, etc. E.g., how did BART pick the location for San Jose Beryessa extension?