Why are you stuck on this idea that fees are not appropriate if someone else benefits from the good? If we charge semis a use fee, then tomatoes in my grocery

Why are you stuck on this idea that fees are not appropriate if someone else benefits from the good? If we charge semis a use fee, then tomatoes in my grocery store go up in price, but it's still cheaper than me driving to California and buying them myself. And it gives local produce an advantage, reducing incentive for road use, exactly as it should. So, assuming no increase in net tax revenue, my income taxes would go down proportionally and I could actually save money by buying local produce, or keep the status quo by continuing to buy from Peru. The basic thinking here is that you should always have a use fee if you can. The only true "public goods" that should be paid for by everyone equally are things that literally everyone benefits from equally, or that are just impossible to impose a use fee on. The classic examples are lighthouses (impossible to impose a use fee, even though not many people use them) and the military/police/fire (everyone benefits equally).