[awda]

I'd only change it to "... blaming drivers on your toll bridge when you're the one ..."

The drivers (customers) are paying for the bridge!

[roc]

Sure, but they're only using the bridge to drive to McDonalds. It's McDonalds generating all that traffic -- they should pay the bridge operator too! /sarcasm.

[smsm42]

If we had usage-paid highways (which we couldn't have earlier due to missing technology but now such things start to pop up), I can imagine some remotely-located mega-store could advertise as "come to us and we'll pay your road toll - both directions!".

[hyperliner]

It's like asking Walmart to pay for the cost of the welfare that its employees take.

Wait!

[rodedwards]

They do. Property taxes.

[SeoxyS]

I'd say it's like blaming Toyota for the traffic jams when you close lanes on the bay bridge.

Or alternatively like planing the SF Giants or AT&T Park for the traffic jams when you close lanes on the bay bridge.

[will_work4tears]

Isn't that true with all bridges though? You don't have to pay for each use, but you sure paid for the construction and potentially the upkeep (or are likely to have paid).

[awda]

This is going very tangential, but no, not all bridges are directly paid for only by people driving on them.

To make public bridges into an ISP analogy, imagine: municipal and state taxes as well as tax revenue from other states (via Federal highway dollars) pay for a municipal broadband network. You may or may not actually use the service, and you pay for it either way. You likely don't have any other choice of ISP. And it's not-for-profit, and the general public and lawmakers constantly clamor and legislate for better service at lower prices.

[aroch]

Some bridges, such as the Seattle Lake Washington bridge, require a toll to cross even though they're on a toll-free highway.