Hi, author here. I understand your point, but here is why it doesn't convince me. First of all, the really poor in many cases cannot even afford cars. They al

Hi, author here. I understand your point, but here is why it doesn't convince me. First of all, the really poor in many cases cannot even afford cars. They already take transit, walk or bike to work, or sometimes just don't have work because there aren't enough jobs around where they live. But since streets and roads are often partly funded through general funds, it means that these people who cannot afford to drive end up paying taxes to subsidize those who can. I don't think it makes sense. Also, people who would opt out of driving to save on money with tolls and congestion charges would also probably save a lot of money. As you said, the rich may not care, but then the rich will pay. That money they pay will allow roads to be funded without using general funds or will serve to subsidize transit. Some may call it a "wealth transfer", but I would call it ending an unfair wealth transfer that is currently in effect in most places in North America. Second, it's not as if roads would be shut off, in general only drivers would have to pay, as they use roads much more than other road users. Third, I consider the effects this would have on land use patterns. By subsidizing road transport, what we do is create an incentive for people and companies to settle farther and farther away from the center of metropolitan areas. When it's an individual choice and they're willing to assume the consequences of that choice, OK, I'm perfectly fine with that. But why should everyone else subsidize their choice? Isn't that rewarding waste and punishing virtue? Those who make a responsible choice to live in places where they will not need to use much expensive public infrastructure end up paying taxes to subsidize people who make the choice to live in areas where essentially every trip they make will require extensive use of expensive public infrastructure? But what is worse is when companies decide to settle far away to benefit from the congestion-free, toll-free roads in the periphery of metro areas. By moving away from the center, which is often better served by transit and more walkable and bikable, these companies end up creating a situation where people who want to work there, or who want to purchase their goods and services, HAVE to buy a car to access them. When that process is repeated by most companies, you end up with a metropolitan area where people without cars lose access to 80-90% of jobs and services, this condemns many poor urban neighborhoods to despair and poverty from which they cannot escape, because they need cars to access economic opportunities to lift them out of poverty, but they don't have the money to own a car (which costs on average about 6 000$ a year), they would need a job to have the money to buy a car that they need to find a job. See the problem? So even if these policies I spoke about may have some negative impacts on some poor people who are barely able to afford cars as it is, I think in the long-run, they would shape cities to favor developments that increase access to jobs and services for the poor and reduce car-dependency. I don't know if I convince you but I hope at least you understand my reasoning.