> Road damage disproportionately comes from freight vehicles, not consumer vehicles. Yes, but we need substantially wider roads and more roads when cars are a

> Road damage disproportionately comes from freight vehicles, not consumer vehicles. Yes, but we need substantially wider roads and more roads when cars are a primary commuting method. It's often the case that trucking is simultaneously the largest source of wear and not the largest contributor to road budgets. > it’s people in cities who need to truck in all their food and stuff. How are rural areas any different? Those peaches from the Walmart in northern WI were probably grown in the exact same Georgian fields as the peaches from the corner store in Chicago. For manufactured goods made in $asian_country, trucking stuff out to Montana from the coast is going to cause a lot more road damage than hauling it from a barge to some store in the bay area. The amount of road wear&tear probably correlates more with your distance from the major ports than urban/rural. That can go either way. Unless you live in Iowa and your diet consists mainly of corn and ethanol and you furnish your home with Amish furniture^1, you're benefiting from trucking routes at least as much as anyone in "the city". There are very few "self-sufficient" communities in the USA. The closest you get . [^1]: This is a joke :)