Aye, that is the historical progression: We built roads and highways for automobiles, and the logistics companies took advantage of the subsidized "free" ways. We should absolutely make them pay for what they use. It may seem like this system is "good for the economy," but this kind of subsidy distorts the supply/demand equilibrium and creates deadweight loss. Furthermore, the effect it's had on logistics favors just-in-time inventory systems, distant manufacturers, and large, centralized distribution centers. Wal-Mart and Amazon are one visible result.

Perhaps if we priced the cost of transport into the price of goods, it would be better for most people, as manufacturing and distribution (with the associated jobs) moved back closer to the consumers?

I remember driving out West in Arizona and New Mexico, the Interstate paralleling the train tracks. There were at best a handful of trucks on the road, while I'd see these mile-long trains out of the ports of LA or Long Beach every half hour, or less.

I also walked on a section of the original Route 66 that they've preserved in Flagstaff. The U.S. numbered highway system was conceived and built for private cars. As was the Interstate Highway System.

IME, "roads are for freight" is one of those things people just say because it sounds good, and they want it to be true at some level, even though it's so obviously false if you just look around. (I was out there to buy a boat, and buying a tow vehicle and driving it myself was much cheaper than any LTL freight service.)

I’d settle for first mile. Boston’s “Big Dig” from a couple decades ago missed one fundamental piece to straightening out traffic downtown: they built a “haul road”. This allows trucks to avoid some traffic while bringing out cargo from the port.

I don’t understand how this wasn’t a train