(op) I don't know why the downvotes, you make valid points. I think what you say is true, but not in the context of this specific scenario. This scenario star

(op) I don't know why the downvotes, you make valid points. I think what you say is true, but not in the context of this specific scenario. This scenario starts with a public good that is freely available to all. In the free-for-all, everyone has equal access to the good. The total value of that is somewhat diminished in theory, because the lack of a price system causes overconsumption ... traffic jams. In the price system, there is a luxury option. In principle, options are good. If you really want to travel fast, you can for a price. In practice though (because income distribution), most of that negotiation does not happen within one person debating if he really wants that fast lane today. There will be some people (wealthy) for whom it is almost always worthwhile and others for whom it is never worthwhile. What I am arguing is that calling this highest value use is just false. Choice here does not extend to substitutes. You don't get anything for taking the slow lane. This is why I'd like to see some less theoretically pure economists tinker with this. It's possible to create a system where what you say is true. This one is impractical, but one example could be a system where fast lane drivers pay slow lane drivers. Ie, negative pricing. Maybe you earn fast lane credits for taking the slow lane, to be used in lieu of £40. That way all commuters get a taste.