Victoria and Albert are quarreling over a proposed plan by the government to put a demand-based toll on all the interstate highways in the state. Such a toll fluctuates according to the demand for the right to drive in dedicated, high-speed lanes. For instance, on a 4-lane interstate, those driving in the right lane face no toll but those wishing to drive in the left lane pay a toll which depends on the time of day and general demand to drive in that lane. Victoria is against the proposal, citing the tolls as unfair—favoring those with money at the expense of the less well-off drivers. Albert believes the tolls are entirely fair—if someone is willing to pay more to drive faster, why shouldn’t they? As they are your two best friends in the world, you are interested in ending their argument and propose a compromise: suppose the toll is put into effect but it also is capped at some reasonable amount. Wouldn’t that solve everything? Based solely on the information given, who has the strongest economic argument for the efficient use of an interstate, Victoria, Albert, or you? 

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Victoria Argument Tolls are unfair and disadvantage lowincome individuals who cannot afford them This creates an unequal system where wealthier driver... View the full answer