Because they aren't. They enable almost all economic activity that involves moving things or people around.

Objectively they are not profitable. If you count gas taxes that are collected, we're only covering about a quarter of the cost to maintain them.

Roads are not generating direct revenue, which is how you determine profit. There's no model where roads are profitable.

Additionally, we've been moving goods and services by rail for approximately two centuries in the United States - long before a car was on a road. Roads are not a requirement to move goods around.

▲

cycomanic 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That same argument should apply to public transport then. You can't on one hand argue that roads don't need to be profitable in the traditional sense because of their benefits and the turn around and ignore the same for public transport.

	▲	bombcar 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Even if you don't demand profitability, there still needs to be cost/benefit analysis done. Do you build one rail line or two? Do you build one bus route or two? Do you expand a road or build a new one? Making it a train vs car or rail vs road obscures the problem AND the solution.