우리나라의 현행 도로법 및 유료도로법은 고속도로의 일반사용에 있어서 통행료 또는사용료를 받을 수 있도록 규정하고 있다. 즉 고속도로를 이용하려면 통행료를 내야 하는것이다.
물론 도로는 국가기간시설이며 사회간접자본시설이기 때문에 공공사업으로서의 도로의건설 및 관리는 행정주체인 국가 또는 지방자치단체가 책임을 지게 되며, 일반적으로 조세등의 일반재원으로 충당하는 것이 원칙이며, 또한 건설된 도로는 일반교통의 이용에 무료로 제공되는 것이 원칙이다.
그러나 조세 등에 의한 일반회계 세입으로는 필요한 도로 사업을 위한 비용을 도저히조달할 수 없다는 사정에 비추어 국가와 지방자치단체가 도로를 정비함에 있어 부족한 재원을 보충하는 방법으로 차입금을 사용하여 완성한 도로에 대해서는 통행료를 수납하여투자비를 회수하는 방식이 인정되었다. 이것이 바로 유료도로제도이다. 또한 유료도로제도는 통행량의 억제 등을 목적으로 도입되어 운영하고 있다. 즉 시간과 연료의 절약 등에 따른 수익자부담의 원칙에 입각하여 해당 유료도로를 이용하는 자에 대하여 해당 도로의 설치.관리비용을 부담시키고 있는 것이다.
그런데 통행료를 받는 고속도로에 중앙분리대가 없다든지, 포트 홀 등 부서지고 파인 도로에서 사고가 나도 운전자의 책임으로 전가시키는 등 고속도로의 구조상의 문제 혹은 유지․관리의 미흡 등으로 고속도로를 이용하는 운전자의 안전이 위협받고 있음에도 불구하고 통행료를 징수하고 있는 것이 사실이다. 또한 고속도로의 기능을 상실하고 통행료 수입총액이 건설유지비 총액을 훨씬 상회하고 게다가 통행료 수납기간도 30년 이상을 경과 하였음에도 불구하고 통행료를 계속해서 내고 있는 고속도로의 경우도 있다. 즉 사회기반시설인도로를 아주 위험한 상황으로 방치해 놓고 불합리하게 통행료를 징수하고 있는 것이다.
이러한 점에 비추어 현재 유료로 제공되고 있는 유료도로의 운영이 합리적이고 현실성있게 발전하여 그 타당성을 확보할 수 있도록 하기 위한 운영방향을 살펴보면, 먼저 현행 통합채산제조항의 정당성여부에 대한 논쟁에 있어, 통합채산제 도입 당시 국회의사록에도 나오듯이 그 취지는 지역 간 형평성, 수익노선과 비수익노선간의 균형을 통한 교통권의 보장에 있다는 점은 명확하다. 또한 대법원이나 헌법재판소에서의 통합채산제에 대한 입장 또한 고속도로의 투자재원 조달가능성, 교통효율성, 지역 간․세대 간 형평성, 종합교통망 계획 측면에서 우리나라 실정에 더 부합하는 것이라고 하고 있다. 따라서전술한 내용을 종합해 보면, 현행 통합채산제의 정당성은 인정된다고 볼 수 있을 것이다.
두 번째로 재정 고속도로와 민자 고속도로간의 통행료수준의 격차에 대한 논쟁에 있어, 통행료의 수준은 재정 고속도로와 민자 고속도로간 또는 민자 고속도로간 통행료의 수준에 있어서 격차가 존재할 수밖에 없다. 하지만 민간투자 고속도로사업이 공공부문에 의한고속도로사업보다 비효율적이고 수익보장에 따른 재정 부담을 초래해서는 안 될 것이다.
따라서 민간투자법에 의한 고속도로사업에 대해서는 도로법상 도로무료공개의 원칙과이에 대한 예외적 조치로써 도입된 유료도로법에서 정하고 있는 통행료에 관한 기본원칙과의 조화를 이룰 수 있는 합리적인 제도가 요구된다.
세 번째로 민자 고속고도로의 본선영업소(요금소)의 증가로 인한 주행시간증가와 정체에대한 논쟁에 있어, 민자 고속도로의 요금소의 증가는 도로이용자에게 통행 불편을 가중시키고 도로운영자에게는 운영비용을 증가시켜 도로를 계획․관리하는 중앙정부의 시스템 운영의 비효율성을 증가시키는 부작용을 낳게 된다. 따라서 전국의 모든 고속도로를 하나의 요금정산체계로 묶을 수 있는 통합영상시스템의 조속한 시행이 요구된다고 할 수 있다.
마지막으로 유료도로의 안전성 확보를 위한 유지․관리의 지속성에 대한 논쟁에 있어, 최근 10년 간 신규건설 15개 고속도로 구간 이용현황에서 예측대비 신규 고속도로 이용률이 한 곳을 제외하고는 모두 예측통행량을 밑돌고 있음에도 불구하고 매년 예산의 40%이상이 고속도로의 신규건설에 의한 부채상환에 지출됨으로 인해 상대적으로 고속도로의 운영, 유지․관리비의 지출축소로 고속도로를 이용하는 운전자의 안전이 위협받고 있다. 따라서 유료도로의 안전성 확보를 위한 유지․관리의 지속이 요구된다.
Current Road Law and Toll Road Act in Korea has regulated to receive toll or fee for use of expressways in general. That will have to pay a toll to use the expressways. However, to receive tolls in the expressway for no median strip, accident on the potholes, such as broken and puncture road etc., despite it structural problems or maintenance․ management lack of expressways of driver's safety is threatened use of expressways, it is the fault of the driver in the road and it is true collected tolls. also There is a loss of function in the expressway, total income of toll is much higher than the total amount of expressway construction and maintenance and besides term of payment of toll of more than 30 years despite continue to receive the tolls in the expressways. Namely, that is unreasonably collect tolls put to infrastructure of the road in a very dangerous situation. Of course, the road will be the construction and management of public utilities as a road is an administrative entity of the state or local government responsibility because national infrastructure and social infrastructure facilities, in general, a principle that funded by general revenue tax, also it offered principle as a free to the use of constructed roads for regular traffic. However, General account tax revenues can not hardly raise money for needed roadprojects. Therefore, state and local governments are using debt as a way to compensate for the lack of financial resources in Maintenance and Improvement of Road. And the finished road will recover the investment in collection of toll. This is the toll road system. Also It operates a toll road system is introduced for the purpose of suppression of the traffic. That is the basis of the principle beneficiary of the burden about save time and fuel, which will bear the installation and maintenance costs of the road against the party using the toll road. In this sense, first operational direction for the operation of the toll road of reasonable and realistic development and ensuring Validity is debate about whether the validity of the current unified fee collection provisions. The intent of the Toll Road Act Article 18, which prescribes an unified fee collection is to ensure a traffic right into regional equity and balance between profit line and non profit line. For such a reason, cases of the supreme court or the constitutional court has recognized the legitimacy of the unified fee collection. Therefore, a comprehensive look to the foregoing, the legitimacy of the unified fee collection, which prescribes in Article 18 of Toll Road Act will be able to see that recognized. Secondly, in the debate about the gap of the level of tolls between Government Funded Expressway and Private Financed Expressway, the level of tolls will inevitably be a gap in the toll levels of Government Funded Expressway and Private Financed Expressway or Private Financed Expressway between Expressway. Of course, if private capital and technology make use of expanding highway such as infrastructure. And if it should consider convenience of the people, affirm necessariness of private investment business. But private investment highway projects will not result in a financial burden according to the revenue guarantee and less efficient than highway projects by the public sector. Therefore, highway projects by the private investment law are required harmonious and reasonable system of publication principle free road of road act and basic principles on the toll of the Toll Road Act was introduced as an exceptional actions. Third, in the debate about congestion and transit time increases with the increase of Private Financed Expressway Tollgate, increase of Private Financed Expressway Tollgate aggravates the traffic inconvenience to road users and road operators have increased operating costs. Also the occurrence of side effects increases the inefficiency of the central government system operating of planning；management on the road. Therefore,Implementation of the integrated imaging system of the single fee settlement system that can be managed as all highway across the country is required. Finally, in the debate about the sustainability of maintaining․management for the safety of the toll road, the last 10 years, new highway utilization except for one place in the new constructed 15 highway Section of current status of use was lower than the predicted traffic. Despite being spent on debt repayment under this new highway construction more than 40% of the annual budget. As a result of highway operations, maintenance, and administrative costs spending are reduced and safety of drivers using the highways threatened. Therefore, sustenance of maintenance․management for safety assurance of the toll road is required.
Current Road Law and Toll Road Act in Korea has regulated to receive toll or fee for use of expressways in general. That will have to pay a toll to use the expressways. However, to receive tolls in the expressway for no median strip, accident on the potholes, such as broken and puncture road etc., despite it structural problems or maintenance․ management lack of expressways of driver's safety is threatened use of expressways, it is the fault of the driver in the road and it is true collected tolls. also There is a loss of function in the expressway, total income of toll is much higher than the total amount of expressway construction and maintenance and besides term of payment of toll of more than 30 years despite continue to receive the tolls in the expressways. Namely, that is unreasonably collect tolls put to infrastructure of the road in a very dangerous situation. Of course, the road will be the construction and management of public utilities as a road is an administrative entity of the state or local government responsibility because national infrastructure and social infrastructure facilities, in general, a principle that funded by general revenue tax, also it offered principle as a free to the use of constructed roads for regular traffic. However, General account tax revenues can not hardly raise money for needed roadprojects. Therefore, state and local governments are using debt as a way to compensate for the lack of financial resources in Maintenance and Improvement of Road. And the finished road will recover the investment in collection of toll. This is the toll road system. Also It operates a toll road system is introduced for the purpose of suppression of the traffic. That is the basis of the principle beneficiary of the burden about save time and fuel, which will bear the installation and maintenance costs of the road against the party using the toll road. In this sense, first operational direction for the operation of the toll road of reasonable and realistic development and ensuring Validity is debate about whether the validity of the current unified fee collection provisions. The intent of the Toll Road Act Article 18, which prescribes an unified fee collection is to ensure a traffic right into regional equity and balance between profit line and non profit line. For such a reason, cases of the supreme court or the constitutional court has recognized the legitimacy of the unified fee collection. Therefore, a comprehensive look to the foregoing, the legitimacy of the unified fee collection, which prescribes in Article 18 of Toll Road Act will be able to see that recognized. Secondly, in the debate about the gap of the level of tolls between Government Funded Expressway and Private Financed Expressway, the level of tolls will inevitably be a gap in the toll levels of Government Funded Expressway and Private Financed Expressway or Private Financed Expressway between Expressway. Of course, if private capital and technology make use of expanding highway such as infrastructure. And if it should consider convenience of the people, affirm necessariness of private investment business. But private investment highway projects will not result in a financial burden according to the revenue guarantee and less efficient than highway projects by the public sector. Therefore, highway projects by the private investment law are required harmonious and reasonable system of publication principle free road of road act and basic principles on the toll of the Toll Road Act was introduced as an exceptional actions. Third, in the debate about congestion and transit time increases with the increase of Private Financed Expressway Tollgate, increase of Private Financed Expressway Tollgate aggravates the traffic inconvenience to road users and road operators have increased operating costs. Also the occurrence of side effects increases the inefficiency of the central government system operating of planning；management on the road. Therefore,Implementation of the integrated imaging system of the single fee settlement system that can be managed as all highway across the country is required. Finally, in the debate about the sustainability of maintaining․management for the safety of the toll road, the last 10 years, new highway utilization except for one place in the new constructed 15 highway Section of current status of use was lower than the predicted traffic. Despite being spent on debt repayment under this new highway construction more than 40% of the annual budget. As a result of highway operations, maintenance, and administrative costs spending are reduced and safety of drivers using the highways threatened. Therefore, sustenance of maintenance․management for safety assurance of the toll road is required.
