> which is externalized onto regular folks

You appear to be very mistaken about the meaning of "externalized" (this is, of course, the charitable interpretation). Paying for a good or service you yourself consume does not constitute an externality. In fact, the exact opposite is true: if you forces others to pay for your open transportation, that would be an externality.

In NYC and other major cities, the mid-century city planners were convinced / bribed by oil and car companies to tear down their elevated tracks and install freeways; remove their cable cars and replace them with slower, less efficient bus routes.

The common good of affordable and reliable public transportation was transformed into an everybody-must-own-a-car system.

Thus you and I and other people are paying tens of thousands of dollars to own and maintain cars because business interests felt it would be better for us to do so.

This reply confirms my suspicion that you are mistaken about the meaning of "externalize". What you describe does not constitute an externality, although I do appreciate the explanation. This holds even though I tend to agree that what happened was a bad thing, though for different reasons.

However, it is important to remember that words mean something, and anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something (usually something involving the deaths of millions, but I digress...).