So, your argument is that the Romans built roads not because they were useful to society and under-provided by private enterprise but because the road-building bureaucracy was expanding its power.
My argument is that the fact that any particular stretch of road was built doesn't prove its usefulness or superiority over alternative means of transportation. Though considering much more limited resources and greater personal interest of people in office (and options to enrich themselves), I would guess that Roman bureaucracy couldn't be as wasteful as current first world governments.
Your snide tone is neither necessary nor justified.
I'm sure the Roman empire had its share of expanding bureaucracy--after all the eastern chunk of the empire which later broke off did coin the term "byzantine"--but your point is valid.
Do tell us more.