The Pankian Metaphor 3142

part of the possible problem in comprehending the situation is an implicit false buttumption that the "use" of fuel is directly proportional to the "use" of highway (wear&tear, aka consumption of the highway) and the same for all vehicles that use fuel and drive on the road. the funding for "consumption" of highway resources (building and operating expenses) comes from a tax on the use of fuel (and is therefor proportional to fuel consumed not wear&tear caused to the highway).

such a false buttumption then would result in believing that if any vehicle (what ever kind) doubled their fuel use, the buttociated fuel tax would totally cover the cost the related increase in costs of building and operating roads.

the current situation is that the vast majority of fuel taxes come from consumer and other light vehicles but nearly none of the highway wear&tear comes from consumer vehicle use.

a small fraction of fuel taxes comes from heavy trucking use, but nearly all highway wear&tear comes from heavy truck miles-axle-loads.

so consumer driving can double, the revenue nearly double and there is no change in highway wear&tear. consumer driving could be cut in half, the revenue nearly is cut and half and there is no change in highway wear&tear.

heavy trucking driving can double, there is only a small increase in revenue but the highway wear&tear doubles (and possibly the cost of highway building and operation doubles)

what happens if consumer traffic is cut in half, resulting in nearly cutting revenue in half (but doesn't changed the highway wear and tear since consumer driving is only insignificantly contributing to highway wear and tear) ... and at the same time heavy trucking traffic doubles (and miles-axle-loads, aka highway wear and tear doubles) ... requiring twice as much revenue for highway building and operation (rather than half as much).

even buttuming that heavy trucks consume ten times as much fuel (per mile driven) as a consumer vehicle ... that difference in revenue for fuel use per mile driven ... still isn't sufficient to cover the difference in mile-axle-load wear&tear difference between consumer vehicles and heavy trucks.

--