The Pankian Metaphor 3090

I'm saying that if that the design and overall wear&tear of some infrastructure is primarily based on certain subset of activity ... then the fully loaded costs of that wear&tear and other considerations should be accurately accounted to that activity.

If you did accurate economic accounting for resource consumption (amount being used up by different activities) ... then you could make better economic decisions.

For instance the current road use fuel tax spreads the highway infrastructure costs relatively evenly spread across all kinds of vehicle traffic (there is some differentiation ... but it is not significant). If a specific kind of vehicle activity accounts for the majority of the infrastructure costs (the highway design documents that roads are predicated on the number of heavy truck axle loads, then one might buttume that the road lifetime is based on the number of heavy truck axle loads ... which can be translated into each heavy truck axle load "consuming" a portion of the highway lifetime ... and other times of vehicle activity has very little effect on highway lifetime).

So simple economic-math question

1) if heavy truck axle load is the primary factor in "consuming" highways

2) if heavy truck taxes only account for a small percentage of total funds gathered for repleneshment of "consumed" highway (by heavy truck axle loads), five percent?, one percent?, .1 precent?

3) what happens if the number of heavy truck axle loads increase by a factor of ten times?

4) if the number of heavy truck axle loads increase by a factor of ten times (possibly because of various economic decision related to trade-offs related to cheap transportion ... aka it is cheaper to buy it somewhere else and move it across country than to buy it locally) ... what happens if that increase in the number of heavy truck axle loads actually increase the "consumption" (wear&tear) of the highway by ten times?

5) if the number of heavy truck axle loads increase by a factor of ten times and the wear&tear on the highway increases by a factor of ten times, is the highway wearing out ten times faster?

6) if the highway is wearing out ten times faster ... is the increase in heavy trucking activity by a factor by ten times (causing the highway to wear out ten times faster) also increasing the total highway revenue for building and operating highways increasing by ten times?

7) if heavy trucking is only contributing one percent (five percent?, .1 precent?) of total revenue for building and operating highways, then increasing heavy trucking activity increases the total revenue by 10*1 (10*5, 10*.1) or 10 percent (50 percent?, 1 percent?)

8) if increasing by ten times the number of heavy trucking axle loads increases the wear and tear on highway by ten times and if increasing the wear and tear on highways by ten times causes the highway to wear out ten times faster, does the cost for building and operating highways increase by ten times?

9) if increasing heavy trucking activity by ten times only increases the total revenue for building and operating highways by 10 percent (50 percent?, 1 percent?) and if increasing heavy trucking activity by ten times causes the highways to wear out ten times faster, resulting in needing ten times as much money for building and operating the highways ... where does the additional funds come from?

10) lets say that increasing heavy trucking activity by ten times only causes the highways to wear out five times faster (rather than ten times), then is there only a requirement for five times the current total highway revenue for building and operating highways. If the increase of revenue from the increase in heavy trucking activity by ten times only accounts for 50percent (or 10percent or 1percent) of total existing highway revenue cover the requirement for having 500percent more total highway revenue for building and operating highways. Is 50percent (or 10percent of 1percent) of total existing highway revenue more than 500precent of total existing highway revenue?

--