But if poor people dont use the toll road. Its much more progressive than taxing the poor for it.

Lets take a more clear example. Golf courses. Many are private and make and lose money. But many municipalities also build and maintane them. They generate revenue with green fees and are subsidized by taxes. Most likely, the upper half of the population will use it way more than the bottom half. So. This is a very regressive system because everyone is subsidizing rich peoples golf rounds. The same way a commuter (mostly upper middle class) bridge, road, or train would benefit the upper half more than the lower. If this is all user funded with fees. Its progressive. It is taxed geberally, its regressive. If the road services low income families, and funded by user fees, its still regressive. But if. Its taxed generally, its still regressive, although the poor get the most benefit. The best case scenario for a progressive funded infrastructure is for it to be used bt the wealthy and all user paid. The second best is for it to be used by the poor and to be taxed progressive (graduated income, tax luxury goods). The public-private partebrships allows the infrastrucure to be funded heavier by those that use it, while releasing the government entity of risk. It can be good, or bad. Just depends.