False.

The London Underground, the earliest subway system, was initially built as a patchwork of private railway systems that were later brought under government control.

Most of the subsequent systems (e.g. Paris, Moscow, St. Petersburg) used the London system as a reference.

So, mass transit did in fact arise as a result of private entrepreneurship. The reason subways don't exist in places where it would be 'desirable' is because of government interference, or simply poor economics.

And I'm not even a libertarian.

Not true. The Corporation of the City of London put up most of the money with the goal of alleviating congestion. The chief visionary, charles Pierson, was the solicitor (a sort of lawyer) for the City.

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/first-day-lond...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Railway#Establishm...

Same deal with new York's subway - therre were private companies involved but they were set up within the frameworks of a public works project and were basically financial vehicles designed to limit financial liability and attract some matching capital from the private sector for an initial large public sector investment or monopoly grant.

I'm sympathetic to libertarianism but this notion that all this stuff would happen by itself if it weren't for evil government interference is just bollocks, it's just as stupid as communists claiming that all private capital is wicked.

Are you aware of the history of the City of London Corporation? And its voting structure? If so, to try to equate it with any other government anywhere, seems rather disingenuous. If not, I suggest you have a look on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation

Yes, I worked in the City for years and considered living there as a resident too, when I was living in London. Just because it has an unusual structure doesn't alter the fact that it's a governmental body, and to claim otherwise because of its commercial roots is absurd.