I think we both agree that cars have some significant utility to them, although having utility doesn't mean that any amount of cost is acceptable. This is my problem with "cars pay for themselves, therefore other forms of transit should pay for themselves", which I have seen evidence against (see linked pdf) and nothing conclusively for. The meaningful discussion to have is what we want to support as a society, like your argument.

Trucks on last mile delivery are invaluable for some deliveries, as you mention, but then... why else does any other vehicle need to use most streets? Is it reasonable for someone who orders a truck to pay 33% of the cost of that truck on the road? What about 0%, or 100%? Which is best?

In cases where alternatives to trucks or cars are less costly overall in some situation, or additional efficiency can be achieved with batching, how much of that is ignored because of these accidentally created incentives? Not even mentioning the indirect cost to communities (walkability, clean air, autonomy of disabled people).

I don't have the answers, but I think these are good questions to be asking. For the specifics of policies, we need to base that on data ofc.

Well one thing for sure, internet warriors are always willing to give up cars or have others give them up but the simple reality is that cars and access to them is a requirement for many even in the city environment.

simply put, living in town is not financially or socially viable for many and the freedom afforded by auto ownership is not giving the value is vastly underestimated by those who would restrict their use by others.

as with most lifestyle conversations it is far easier to score internet points with altruistic comments let alone being part of the clique. about as useful as hashtag diplomacy

That's a politically constructed reality, created over decades by deliberate lobbying and political leverage. It's not a simple reality at all.

It’s not a “politically constructed reality.” It’s a reality constructed reality. Roads offer a relatively cheap and easy way of taking advantage of cheap, plentiful land in the US. There’s definitely subsidies we could get rid of (force property taxes to cover the costs of roads in the suburbs), but even if you did that I suspect most people would still opt to live in cheaper and bigger houses outside the city. (Especially if you got rid of corresponding subsidies in cities.)

> Force property taxes to cover the costs of roads in the suburbs

That's what excise taxes are for. For example, in my town, we spend $1.2m on highway maintenance, and $450k in snow removal, while collecting $2.4m in vehicle excise taxes.

There is also about $60k in fines income, but it doesn't break down exactly how much of that is vehicular.

If roads were used ONLY for delivery trucks most would be dirt tracks: trucks would be 4 wheel drive with a winch on front. this would be cheaper than paving roads.

This is wrong in every way possible. The entire concept of road surface preservation revolves around a sufficiently resilient but elastic (non-brittle) impermeable coating. Equally important is a well drained base.

The whole point is to keep the water away from the dirt, and when it's not possible, minimize (distribute) loads from the tires across as large as area as possible.

They tested alternatives extensively in the 50's, driving trucks in circles on different test tracks for literally weeks and months at a time. As poorly planned as some people believe the interstate system to be, the government didn't throw billions of dollars at it blindly.

True, but irrelevant: there are very few delivery trucks in the scheme of things, if that is your only use for roads a dirt track is good enough. 4 wheel drive and a winch are a must of course to get around on them. Some of the particularly bad one would be paved - though more as a bridge over streams.

Remember I carefully excluded everything except delivery from roads - this is horribly unrealistic. You can call it a strawman.

It's entirely false even as a strawman. 18-wheeler delivery trucks carrying 80,000 lbs of cargo (or even 1000 pounds of sensitive equipment) are not going cross country on dirt roads. Trying to maintain unpaved surfaces for that kind of usage pattern would cost exponentially more than paving the roads and providing for proper drainage.

Trucking is responsible for transporting roughly 12 billion tons of cargo annually, with an estimated value of $9 trillion dollars. As a total share of goods transported by value, trucking makes up about 70%, and 60% by weight. The trucking industry employs 10 million people (3.5 million of which are drivers), and directly contributes to about 5% of GDP, to say nothing of the share of GDP which indirectly depends on trucking, which would be roughly... all of it.

The United States' $20 trillion GDP is entirely dependent on a functioning and well maintained highway system, and it is absolutely irreplaceable as a means of economically and rapidly transporting goods throughout the country.

In that context, the roads that regular everyday taxpayers get to drive are basically free and paid for, because most of them would have needed to be built anyway for the basic provisioning of goods and services, health & safety, building materials and as a right-of-way for water, sewer, electrical, data, and communications infrastructure.

Paving roads is super cheap. Repaving part of the six lane freeway near my house (US-50 in Maryland) recently cost less than one million per mile.

Overlaying an already properly designed road can be super cheap, but it requires the original road to have been properly designed. Whatever that cost might have been.

Not really. Rail is paved to high standards, roads to the same standards are more expensive yet. If I were to replace my driveway with a rail I wouldn't use the same high standards that the main line gets and so my costs would be much less (of course since there is no rail down my little street that would be pointless). Mainline rail is expensive, but so is highway paving.

No, rail is always more expensive, even at the lowest spec'ed design loads. It becomes more cost effective the heavier the loading, not lighter. But AREMA ensures it's pretty much always more expensive.