Taxis often have extra taxes/fees/tolls that theoretically go into maintenance (though I'm sure they may not in practice).

The fact that they contribute so little to the public purse: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/29/londons-b...

At least in San Francisco, there's far more of them. The extra wear and tear on the roads ends up as a road repair bill that taxpayers pick up.

If the TNCs were a 1:1 replacement for traditional taxis, this wouldn't be a legitimate argument, but the evidence out there suggests that TNCs have grown the size of the car hail market at the expense of off-peak transit, so the TNCs really are putting more cars on the streets.

Road wear is exponentially proportional to vehicle weight. Almost all of the wear is caused by large commercial trucks and other heavy vehicles such as buses. Passenger cars cause very little road wear. TNC drivers are mostly using lighter vehicles.

https://www.vabike.org/vehicle-weight-and-road-damage/

Your link supports the claim that "trucks cause exponentially more road damage than passenger vehicles"; it does not support your claim that "almost all of the wear is caused by large commercial trucks" or "passenger cars cause very little road wear".

In San Francisco, the Treasurer estimated 45,000 TNC vehicles in operation compared to just 1,800 taxis. That's an enormous increase in car hail traffic, and one that I claim has a substantial maintenance impact absent evidence to the contrary.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/45000-uber-lyft-drivers-may-now-op...