There was a discussion on a different post pointing out that maintenance of a highway is still very costly. Charging only the users, rather than all taxpayers, appears very fair.
It's hard to come up with a perfectly fair system. Tolling every road is expensive and tax on fuel has its own trade offs.
I feel the no toll approach is better.
Most importantly because no toll means (the feeling of) more privacy, toll means you're being tracked. Regardless of law we all know that everything eveywhere gets stored indefinitely independent of country (if not legally then illegally if not by the toll org then by the secret service).
Secondly the country I was in with the toll approach had worse infrastructure.
Thirdly, when looking at government spending as a whole, road infrastructure (in a non tollroad country) is really not that big of an expenditure as far as I know?
Forthly, a country may (and some do) still tax road-users only by just taxing car ownership periodically. No need to invade privacy for that through toll booths or even worse: mandatory tracking devices (countries in Europe are pushing for the latter). Added bonus: you can trivially put a tax on relatively polluting vehicles if you like and use that to subsidize less polluting vehicles.
Ideally, vehicles should be charged in relation to approximately the fourth power of their weight as that is proportional to the road damage. However, that will drastically change the economics of logistics companies.
Do you also think the same about parks? Or schools? Or police? Or healthcare? Or water? Or rail? Or defence?
Toll roads are a holdover from times of reduced state capacity when the best and only way to tax something was to force it to go through a physical chokepoint.
They don’t call HOV/toll lanes “Lexus Lanes” for nothing.
I'm fine with that. FedEx's lorry will pay 960DKK (€130) to cross the bridge, and they will add that price to the price of delivery.