4 ms·

I think road wear is axle weight to the fourth power. So lorries are massively more damaging than cars. And cars are massively more damaging than bikes. Anecd

by 7952 4y ago

I think road wear is axle weight to the fourth power. So lorries are massively more damaging than cars. And cars are massively more damaging than bikes. Anecdotally the issue with bike and pedestrian paths is intruding vegetation which slowly narrows the width.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago
It's not just a matter of "massively more" -- with those numbers the damage from anything other than large commercial vehicles is a rounding error which, if accounted for proportionally, would cost more money to collect than the amount collected.
- brippalcharrid 4y ago
  It's the fourth power of axle load according to the AAHSO report (https://camdencyclists.org.uk/2020/06/the-fourth-power-rule-cyclelicious/ https://camdencyclists.org.uk/2020/06/the-fourth-power-rule-...) A 30-ton 5-axle HGV would be 6 tons per axle, a BMW 7-Series would be 1 ton per axle, and a heavy cyclist on a heavy bicycle would work out to around 0.05 tons per axle, so while a car might cause ~1/1000th of the wear of a heavy truck, a bicycle would cause less than 1/100000th of the wear that is caused by a car, and that's before you consider the wear that's caused according to the speed that a vehicle is traveling (it is roughly linear). So while it might conceivably be possible to tax motorists according to the level of damage that they cause to roads (with trucks paying far more than they do now, and with revenues not exceeding the costs of collection), it certainly wouldn't be possible to tax cyclists.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    The point is that it's not worth doing even for cars. If the toll for the truck was $50, the proportional toll for the car would be one half of one cent.
    - brippalcharrid 4y ago
      On the other hand, trucks are often speed-restricted and the tax might need to be on the order of $50k for a 60-foot truck (which would still equate to around $50 for a car). The costs would be passed down to all of the things that trucks are used for, so I suppose the average person wouldn't really pay any less for combined transport+groceries+fuel+household goods, but it might incentivize the use of smaller trucks with lighter axle loads, but that would also mean more drivers/poorer fuel efficiency/more accidents per ton per mile. At the least we should be mindful of the way that motorists are providing a subsidy to the logistics industry (which we indirectly benefit from, as well).
      - diordiderot 4y ago
        I'd rather pay costs where they're owed personally
      - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        It most certainly would not cost $50k for any size truck to travel down one road once, which is what matters if you're paying the cost to build infrastructure to track usage. It might cost a semi truck $50k a year, but this also points in the direction of not tracking specific usage even for trucks: Just check the odometer during the annual inspection and then distribute the highway funds to states proportionate to estimated use. Toll collection is stupid inefficient and privacy invasive.
        brippalcharrid 4y ago
        Yes, obviously I was talking about an annual charge ("a tax") based on vehicle road wear; I don't think anyone had suggested that we charge a truck driver $50k for driving down one road, once. It's very common for the odomoters of heavy goods vehicles to be checked and for mileages to be logged regularly (this is probably a legal requirement in many cases, if not just a standard industry practice). I agree that toll collection would be unsuitable. My point was that charges for the use of large goods vehicles would need to be orders of magnitude higher than they are now, but that the charges for cars would still be sufficient to more than cover the cost of collection. And if people wanted, the President of the National Cycling Federation could present the Secretary of Transportation with a $5 bill in an annual ceremony.
- pengaru 4y ago
  Except not all roads are built to handle heavier vehicles, such roads experience significant wear from common weight automobiles. I don't think the cost of maintenance for such roads is a rounding error.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    Most roads are built to handle heavier vehicles and the few exceptions rarely if ever see enough traffic to result in maintenance costs not dominated by nature and weather.

by 7952 4y ago

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

It's not just a matter of "massively more" -- with those numbers the damage from anything other than large commercial vehicles is a rounding error which, if accounted for proportionally, would cost more money to collect than the amount collected.

brippalcharrid 4y ago
It's the fourth power of axle load according to the AAHSO report (https://camdencyclists.org.uk/2020/06/the-fourth-power-rule-cyclelicious/ https://camdencyclists.org.uk/2020/06/the-fourth-power-rule-...) A 30-ton 5-axle HGV would be 6 tons per axle, a BMW 7-Series would be 1 ton per axle, and a heavy cyclist on a heavy bicycle would work out to around 0.05 tons per axle, so while a car might cause ~1/1000th of the wear of a heavy truck, a bicycle would cause less than 1/100000th of the wear that is caused by a car, and that's before you consider the wear that's caused according to the speed that a vehicle is traveling (it is roughly linear). So while it might conceivably be possible to tax motorists according to the level of damage that they cause to roads (with trucks paying far more than they do now, and with revenues not exceeding the costs of collection), it certainly wouldn't be possible to tax cyclists.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  The point is that it's not worth doing even for cars. If the toll for the truck was $50, the proportional toll for the car would be one half of one cent.
  - brippalcharrid 4y ago
    On the other hand, trucks are often speed-restricted and the tax might need to be on the order of $50k for a 60-foot truck (which would still equate to around $50 for a car). The costs would be passed down to all of the things that trucks are used for, so I suppose the average person wouldn't really pay any less for combined transport+groceries+fuel+household goods, but it might incentivize the use of smaller trucks with lighter axle loads, but that would also mean more drivers/poorer fuel efficiency/more accidents per ton per mile. At the least we should be mindful of the way that motorists are providing a subsidy to the logistics industry (which we indirectly benefit from, as well).
    - diordiderot 4y ago
      I'd rather pay costs where they're owed personally
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      It most certainly would not cost $50k for any size truck to travel down one road once, which is what matters if you're paying the cost to build infrastructure to track usage. It might cost a semi truck $50k a year, but this also points in the direction of not tracking specific usage even for trucks: Just check the odometer during the annual inspection and then distribute the highway funds to states proportionate to estimated use. Toll collection is stupid inefficient and privacy invasive.
      - brippalcharrid 4y ago
        Yes, obviously I was talking about an annual charge ("a tax") based on vehicle road wear; I don't think anyone had suggested that we charge a truck driver $50k for driving down one road, once. It's very common for the odomoters of heavy goods vehicles to be checked and for mileages to be logged regularly (this is probably a legal requirement in many cases, if not just a standard industry practice). I agree that toll collection would be unsuitable. My point was that charges for the use of large goods vehicles would need to be orders of magnitude higher than they are now, but that the charges for cars would still be sufficient to more than cover the cost of collection. And if people wanted, the President of the National Cycling Federation could present the Secretary of Transportation with a $5 bill in an annual ceremony.
pengaru 4y ago
Except not all roads are built to handle heavier vehicles, such roads experience significant wear from common weight automobiles. I don't think the cost of maintenance for such roads is a rounding error.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  Most roads are built to handle heavier vehicles and the few exceptions rarely if ever see enough traffic to result in maintenance costs not dominated by nature and weather.