Prof. Wagstaff wrote: So what if you only use roads "infrequently"? As long as you use them, they have to be maintained, correct?
Yes, they need to be maintained, but the amount of use plays a huge role in how much it costs to maintain those roads.
Stop right there.
If they need to be maintained then they need to be maintained. Do you make similar arguments about where the rest of your tax dollars go? Should carnivores not have to pay as much as everyone else towards the agriculture budget? Should Fundamentalists be able to opt out of paying for science and technology? Should city dwellers have to pay less for preserving our national parks?
As for arguing about relative amounts of wear and tear, you sound ludicrous complaining that SUVs do more damage than your bike when you turn around and say this:
Trucks are what the highway system is designed to accomodate. Trucks are what I fully support. They lower the cost of living for everyone by making transportaion of goods cheap. I am all for subsidizing this.
Trucks do far, far, far, far more damage to roads than any SUV ever will.
But let me respond to a few of your other points quickly.
1. Since when are we only discussing "the highway system"?
2. You are wrong that highways were developed for trucks. Highways were most definitely originally designed to accomodate motorists. The first were auto trails
and they were certainly the product of the enthusiasm of motorists and not of any concerted effort to accomodate trucks. When the U.S. Highway System eliminated the auto trails, they too were designed for moving people
, not goods. The muhc more modern Interstates, on the other hand, were designed to accomodate heavy truck traffic, true, but they were more specifically intended to accomodate the quick transportation of military
vehicles and personnel and also to move people in the case of disasters.
3. Trucks don't really lower the cost of living if they're destroying our roads and shifting that cost to taxpayers, now are they?