[mlyle]

> I've never seen a toll road decrease in price because no one was using it.

Have you ever seen a city with congestion charge have all traffic vanish? :P

> Car number go up, price go up. Bing bong

As already mentioned by me, to you, above: there are lots of roads with dynamic pricing with this exact characteristic. But there's a tradeoff to be made between having a simple charge and by having fancy dynamic pricing.

> It's okay if you genuinely think prohibiting something is effective at providing people with more effective usage of that thing.

Charging for something != prohibiting.

There's already a lot of costs driving into the city (including the opportunity cost of being stuck in traffic). Adding a charge can make driving cheaper for people who have a high value on driving (because they value their time).

[seoulmetro]

You seem to think the government charging for something is them understanding the market. It's not.

It's just another way to prohibit. That's the whole basis of fines in traffic violations. Not to discourage, but to prohibit most people.

Sorry if you can't understand that even after all this.

[mlyle]

Do you understand what an opportunity cost is?

Does the opportunity cost of driving fall if traffic decreases?

Is there an optimum amount of traffic on a given roadway for society?

Does society reach that optimum value on its own?

Does the current system (first come, first serve, best-effort) appropriately prioritize traffic with vastly different economic values and priorities appropriately?