Can you explain how a flat fee is fair to someone making minimum wage versus someone making 90k+ per year? A flat fee would be a larger portion of their income which would be decidedly unfair.
There's also that not all vehicles are going to tear up roads in the same way. Why would it be fair for trucks and what not to pay the same flat fee despite causing far more wear and tear on the roads?
Your argument would result in the poor and disabled being priced out of driving on the road.
"Ugh, man, my trip length has ballooned three times because of all these drivers that want to use the same road. Wait -- ohhhh, they're all minimum wage workers! I guess my trip isn't actually delayed like it would be if they made $90k!"
Congestion dynamics don't care about your income. Same imposition on society, same scarce good consumed, same price to get the incentives right.
To be clear, I don't think there should be a congestion tax in the first place. But flat prices are how everything else works in a free market, so it seems fairer than carve-outs or god-forbid, a progressive congestion tax.
Which sounds fairer to you: a movie theater that charges $5 for a ticket, or one that charges a percentage of your income?
Roads are not a free market and attempting to apply free market logic to roads is a flawed argument.
People can choose whether or not to purchase a ticket. Many people cannot choose whether or not to drive. Which is why again, a flat tax would not be fair.
How would it be fair to expect someone on minimum wage or disability to pay the same amount to access a required service as someone far better off?
There's also that not all vehicles are going to tear up roads in the same way. Why would it be fair for trucks and what not to pay the same flat fee despite causing far more wear and tear on the roads?
Your argument would result in the poor and disabled being priced out of driving on the road.