4 ms·
If you’re designing a pavement structure based on the AASHTO Guide For the Design of Pavement Structures (1993), then you wouldn’t include anything other than t
by halffaday 4y ago
If you’re designing a pavement structure based on the AASHTO Guide For the Design of Pavement Structures (1993), then you wouldn’t include anything other than trucks (semi-trailers, single-units, and buses) because passenger vehicles produce negligible wear. Even the devil’s own ride, the Ford F-250, produces 1/1350th the wear of one loaded semi-trailer.
Given this is D.C., I would assume this is just a manifestation of petty malice toward symbols their council associates with people on the “wrong” side of righteous causes.
- Someone 4y agoI see that differently. Ballpark, that car causes 16 times the road wear of a car half its weight. Assuming comparable road usage, why wouldn’t its owner pay more to the government? And that ignores other externalities such as pollution, risk to pedestrians, etc. I think city councils should even seriously consider banning such cars from busy city centers, like quite a few cities (mainly in Europe) do with older Diesel engines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone)
- halffaday 4y agoAn empty bus weighs 20,000lb or more. That’s around 80X the wear the trucks this bill targets causes, and you probably can’t put 80x more people on the bus. Why not axe the public transportation nobody with a choice actually uses?
- Someone 4y agoBecause we are civilized. Why not axe the unemployment benefits/wheelchair ramps/etc nobody with a choice actually uses? Those also incur large costs.