If it's cheaper too, that'd be great.
If it's cheaper too, that'd be great.
Also, a major reason costs of construction and maintenance on public transportation are so high is that they have to do it in a way that minimizes the disruption to car traffic. Yes roads are cheaper to build than subways, but if they could shut down a whole street and build light rail at surface grade it would be a lot cheaper (which is why streetcars and cablecars were ubiquitous a century ago). Or if they could shut down 4th street for a year, the Central Subway would be done already.
Roads that go through rural areas don't pay for themselves because they have little traffic. But those are also not the areas where anybody is talking about adding lanes to the roads. And in the areas with actual congestion, tax on the gas burned driving on those roads more than pays for them.
Also, for the record, adding lanes doesn't reduce traffic congestion[1]. Not sure if you were saying that. Even if we did "profit" from building more lanes/roads, it's only because we're externalizing other costs (environmental damage, the cost of space/real estate, etc.). I don't think this is a good strategy.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand
The majority of road maintenance costs are caused by the elements rather than cars.
> Also, for the record, adding lanes doesn't reduce traffic congestion
They found that if you add road capacity, people use it. But nobody (except China) spends the money to add road capacity unless they expect it to be used. They just hand wave that away.
It's obviously true that if you add roads people will drive more, but the idea that it's physically impossible to build enough road capacity is ridiculous. As if you could build a twelve lane superhighway at the South Pole and cars would appear out of nowhere to fill it with traffic congestion.