[snickell]

Highways are almost always publicly owned monopolies. We, the public, choose to build them because they enrich all of us.

If you want to raise the money to buy land and build a private highway, price segment away. If you want to price segment a publicly owned and operate commons, it needs to be in the public interest.

[estearum]

People are clearly arguing that price segmentation on roads is in the public interest. Which it clearly is.

[inpdx]

It's anything but clear although I think a self-appointed group assures us they know what's best despite tolls being wildly unpopular when real people are asked.

[estearum]

No pretty much all real-world evidence points to them being positive [0]. Feel free to share evidence otherwise, if you have any.

You can argue about popularity if you want, the topic is actually about whether they're "in the public interest" though. Those are distinct things, and "I don't like them because they're unpopular" is pretty hilariously circular logic -- not the type of thinking I'd want my name attached to, that's for sure!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/11/upshot/conges...

[anon84873628]

FTA:

>The problem is that the model no longer works. Over the decades, the cost of maintaining roads and highways has risen, even as cars have become more fuel-efficient. And raising gas taxes, even just in line with inflation, is generally considered to be political suicide. The last time Congress did it was in 1993. The result is a giant deficit. In fiscal 2024, the federal government spent $27bn more on maintaining roads than it collected in tax. At the state and local levels, fuel taxes covered barely a quarter of road spending.

So apparently that's how the owner intends to raise the money and build. Beyond that, "who should pay for government spending" is of course the perennial discussion, and exactly what we are debating right now.