[GOPcapitalist]

Do you believe the land taken up by interstates was always exempt from property taxes?

That's a fallacious argument. When roads are built, the land along side them gets developed. That land would likely not have developed as quickly without a road to get to it. Developed land pays out more in property taxes than undeveloped fields do.

[Diddle E. Squat]

When roads are built, the land along side them gets developed. That land would likely not have developed as quickly without a road to get to it. Developed land pays out more in property taxes than undeveloped fields do.

Yeah, and the same thing often happens along rail lines, at least around stations.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

When a freeway is plowed through an already developed area, like a city or downtown, enormously valuable properties are lost to the tax roles forever. In the suburbs, properties abutting the freeway, if already developed, also lose value because of noise and pollution.

But this is besides the point. The freeway itself gobles up land upon which taxes were once paid and now are not. The extent of development caused by freeways vs. overall development that would have occurred anyway is probably negligable. Most freeway miles are through rural areas (thus, less taxable farm and forest land in relatively poorer rural districts).