Because it was the smallest unit of currency and the comment said the fees “should be” not “should be scaled by” or something to that effect. I first assumed it was dollars, but used pennies when it was obviously going to be too large. Idk, I guess that is where I went wrong, but it seemed like a reasonable assumption to make at the time that the formula was expressed in some denomination of currency
This makes one of the “solutions” from the article: “A law was introduced at the end of 2023 that will eliminate the need for permits and environmental impact assessments for bridges that are being widened to add lanes as part of renovations.” look particularly shortsighted. Infrastructure is a maintenance debt that we are reckoning with, so we will make it easier to build specifically bigger infrastructure so that in 25 years we will have an even bigger problem to solve? Not to mention the concept of induced demand meaning that those lanes are going to increase the amount of vehicles using the bridge, which would be exactly the kind of thing that should get an environmental assessment, versus repurposing some lanes for sustainable transit or building a separate bridge for those modes