[balrog666]

Using property taxes to fund local roads does not seem like a big deal to me, for a substantial portion of a property's value is directly tied to its access to public infrastructure. A suburban residential lot that sells for $100,000 would be worth only a fraction of that value if it only abutted on a river or railroad right-of-way. In fact, there's no way in hell this land would ever support a residential land use under the latter circumstances.

A well stated reply and I like this part the most.

But I would also mention that governments have always subsidized the construction of roads and bridges to facilitate both trade and military mobility. The resulting expanded trade has generally paid the freight every time although additional revenue was usually supplemented, in both ancient and modern times, with toll booths.

[Alberta's Child]

But I would also mention that governments have always subsidized the construction of roads and bridges to facilitate both trade and military mobility.

You're absolutely correct about that. However, governments have also subsidized the construction of railroads for the same reason. The difference is that in the U.S. the government support for railroads is limited to capital improvements and does not extend to operating costs.