Comment by mothballed

Comment by mothballed 3 hours ago

No tax I've seen is anywhere remotely close to following "fourth power law" on axle weight[]. And especially so for gas taxes, as the gas/diesel cost tends to be closer to linear with weight.

Usually what happens is smaller cars subsidize everyone else due to paying a disproportionate tax vs axle weight^~(2-4 depending on fatigue pathway). Depending on tax structure possibly pedestrians/cyclists too but they are usually parasitic on tax basis.

[] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

mjlee 2 hours ago

I don't disagree that large cars create externalities, but what proportion of costs scale with axle weight?

In the UK the most recent budget allocates £1.6 billion for maintenance. According to statista £13 billion was spent on roads last year.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/298675/united-kingdom-uk...

Reply View 1 reply

michaelt an hour ago

Basically, it’s well known that fully laden 44 tonne articulated lorries making sharp turns do a lot of damage to roads.
That’s who in industrial estates you’ll often find concrete roads, instead of tarmac, for lorries making 90 degree turns.
American style trucks might be big, but presumably they’re nowhere near 44 tonnes.
Of course, articulated lorries only drive on major roads; your average residential road gets no lorries, so all the wear is from smaller vehicles.

Reply View | 0 replies

mavhc 2 hours ago

Agreed, tax based on damage to road, and then tax fuel the amount it costs to clean up the pollution the fuel causes, and then use the money to clean up the pollution it causes. Then who cares if you fly your private jet, or giant car, you just pay for it.

Side effects include: reduced pollution, and cheaper ways to clean up pollution

Reply View 0 replies