For underplayment of labor, you determine what a living wage would be in the area where the underpayment takes place, subtract the actual amount paid, and the difference is the "cost" of underpayment (which shows up only as a net positive in any actual balance sheets, but imposes net cost on society as a result of having more people who struggle to survive).
You could go further and quantify the effective costs of that struggle, but I don't think you need to. If something you buy contains 2 hours of labor that should have been paid $8/hr but was paid $4/hr, then there's a component to the "true cost" of at least $8.
So what would happen to the water in the tomato, if the tomato was never grown? This whole concept seems prone to "imaginary dollars" being considered as real.
Tomatoes grow really nicely in New Jersey with much less artificial irrigation. But New Jersey real estate is much more expensive than the California desert.
A better question is to wonder how we can at least visualize externalities. On the one hand it is impossibly hard, on the other it is easy to improve over the current lets not talk about them approach.
I had pondered itemized bills so that we may at least make that data available but it wouldn't be very useful compared to what it costs to gather the data. It just wouldn't fit in our attention span. The shooting from the hip approach taken by De Aanzet is good enough to expand the attention all the way up to HN and beyond.
In a similar vein, drivers don't realize just how much their car usage is subsidized. They feel they pay more than enough for their use, given petrol taxes and other fees, but it's not even remotely close to cover the cost impacted on society.
It's also hard to untangle from other things. For example, car drivers are subsidised heavily by road infrastructure being paid for by general taxation.
However, those same roads also allow rapid and fine-grained transport of almost everything physical that anyone in society uses: food, clothes, furniture, building materials, most industrial materials, machinery and components all probably were moved on a truck at some point. Probably the only thing that likely didn't is water, and even then the treatment chemicals did. Even if goods moved from ports to regional hubs by train (which they probably should), you still need to move them by road from the hubs (and again if they are used to produce other goods). Much as I love trains, they're no good for delivering 1000kg to a specific urban building, and much as I love bicycles, neither are they.
So, much of that road that counts for the cost of the car drivers would still exist even if the cars didn't. Even in the suburbs you will still need houses to be visited by vehicles sometimes, even if only for construction or emergency purposes.
Moreover, because the vehicles that would be left are physically large and heavy (heavy goods vehicles, emergency vehicles, public transport and construction equipment), the cost of roads would not substantially decrease even if you deleted every car, since it's those vehicles that dictate minimum road strength and that wear roads most in the first place.
Well, suburbs for one wouldn't exist. You'd still need some infrastructure, being able to move things around by truck is useful, but it would look different. Roads wouldn't need to be so big if you just needed occasional access by truck.
They'd probably look a lot like much of London (including many of the suburbs) or other old city where the road layout dates from before cars, or at least from before cars were so ubiquitous: loads of houses were built in the 30s when cars existed but were rare.
Inclined to agree, but those giant noisy consumer trucks with multiple tires or the mini-monster truck tires seem likely to be heavy enough to matter.
It would also be a generally good idea to break this "go to the office" mentality unless there is work that can only be done there. That's some low-hanging fruit to reduce our energy use.
Well yes, but that's not quite the point: some externalities that might be priced into cars (or anything) might actually exist anyway.
The truck thing is easy: treat them as commercial vehicles and see if people still think they're cool with a speed limiter, tachograph, mandatory maximum driving times and a more rigorous driving test[1]!
And, yes, I do know about that thing with the seats in Ford vans, but there might be a billion in fines for that.
[1] Which begs the question: would doing that for all vehicles reduce externalities with less usage, lower speeds and safer driving?
> drivers don't realize just how much their car usage is subsidized.[...]it's not even remotely close to cover the cost impacted on society.
Aren't car drivers, and their passengers, a very large portion of "society"? And even for those who never use a vehicle, don't they depend heavily on many other members of society who do, such as doctors, teachers, fire and police, food providers, and almost every other class of worker?
Are you saying that somehow the vast legions of car drivers/passengers out there are not part of society and therefore are not paying the true cost?
They're saying that fossils fuels don't price in the cost that everyone will have to pay in response to climate change, and that's the only reason they're still considered affordable and a viable source of energy. If we carbon taxed them proportional to the damage they do, it wouldn't even be close to renewables.
The impact of burning gas isn't the only hidden cost. There are big health effects from air pollution caused by brake dust, tires, and other car components. There are all the people who are disabled and killed in crashes. There's all the space that could be used for parks, flood mitigation, etc if it wasn't dedicated to driving and storing cars. There's noise pollution that has a tangible impact on sleep and stress.
Most of that can also be said for bars, restaurants, living rooms, gyms etc. If you have a kitchen at home, you don't need a bar and a restaurant. Soft drinks? Useless unhealthy pollution. Alcohol, even worse. Why have two rooms (bedroom+living room) if you can't be in both at once? And you're wasting space with then, and energy to heat and cool them.
Looking at the causes of death in the developed world, I think food (fast, restaurant, processed and junk food + sugary drinks) kills way more people than cars, even when accounting for pollution, brake dust, etc.
Bit of a false comparison. I have no problem with you drinking soft drinks, and I can do it myself in the moderation that I choose. However, if I want to live near a train station, odds in Germany are basically 100% that there is also a well-traveled car street there with all the accompanying problems. It's more like smoking in someone else's apartment and less like drinking sugar in someone else's apartment.
> Why have two rooms (bedroom+living room) if you can't be in both at once?
I mean you clearly don't even believe this yourself. Not sure if there's a point trying to explain how this comparison doesn't make any sense, either. It has nothing to do with the aforementioned hidden cost of >1 ton metal box transportation with an occupancy rate of one point something.
> Looking at the causes of death in the developed world, I think food (fast, restaurant, processed and junk food + sugary drinks) kills way more people than cars, even when accounting for pollution, brake dust, etc.
A big difference is that I can chose to eat healthy food as an individual, but it's basically impossible to escape the negative impact of cars without a major shift in how government allocates space and money.
> Are you saying that somehow the vast legions of car drivers/passengers out there are not part of society and therefore are not paying the true cost?
I think the point here is that driving is subsidised and therefore more people that perhaps otherwise wouldn’t drive.
It’s perhaps very easy to assume the consequence of decisions are obvious and inevitable, but it can be good to question that too.
I guess this would be an immensely tangled argument, but I think the broader point that people don’t understand the total cost of driving because it is so subsidised is a good one.
I had a recent vacation to Japan where the average person commutes by train instead of car.
By your criteria the vast majority of that country wouldn't be classified as a "society".
At least in the US, the government is paying vast and unsustainable sums of money to prop up a failing and inefficient form of transportation.
That inefficiency was created at a time when the US was the only significant industrial power.
We no longer have extra factory capacity from the second world war or armies of returning GIs to work in those factories or buy those products. We now have to compete on the world stage against other economies we're poorly matched to beat.
It is time to move on to the 21st century and design our solutions to fit our current capabilities instead of what existed 70 years ago.
> At least in the US, the government is paying vast and unsustainable sums of money to prop up a failing and inefficient form of transportation.
Even though that is clearly an opinion-based statement, it's objectively wrong. The vast majority (3/4) of highway/road spending is done by state and local governments, not Federal. For the states/local governments, the amount is usually about 6% of all spending. About double that of police, and 2/3rds of hospitals and higher ed.
It's not like roads don't also serve commerce. Even with robust rail infrastructure, that last-mile would require roads. 6% of the budget for something that benefits every single member of society in immeasurable ways seems like a pretty good deal to me.
I didn't assume that, but I was pointing out that even for the smaller governments (who do pick up most of the tab), it's not a vast nor an unsustainable amount. If anything, the fact that the Federal gov isn't a big part of the picture shows just how (relatively) minor the cost is. State, and particularly local, governments can't print the funds they need out of thin air.
So a much smaller land area island nation has citizen living in much closer spaces and using public transport and suddenly a huge continent sized nation with hugely diverse population can live like that.
> It is time to move on to the 21st century and design our solutions to fit our current capabilities
I am not sure single opinion would have clear idea of what is 21st century capabilities.
My comment had nothing to do with requirements. If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" cost? I say "where I live" because every car trip I take starts and ends at my front door.
I simply can't understand how car users impose "true costs" on everyone else, but not themselves, which is what the GP was claiming.
What they mean is that the vehicle-specific costs they incur aren't sufficient to cover the true costs to society, from pollution cleanup to road maintenance. Instead, those funds must be drawn from general sources like income taxes. Once you account for social ills like pollution, the costs end up falling disproportionately on the people who can least afford them and contribute the least to the problem.
Road maintenance is paid for by property taxes. You have to be a home owner to pay property taxes. The costs don't disproportionately fall on those who are least able to afford them, but on those who have the most invested in a local, tangible asset (i.e. homeowners, business owners, landowners, etc.)
It is partially but not exclusively paid for by property taxes. It's actually a fairly small share of funding in some cases. The BATIC institute gives the numbers 5% and 1% for highways and transit funding respectively [1]. Moreover, funding is not evenly distributed here. Suburbs tend to have massive road networks and long commutes, but comparatively low property taxes. This creates a shortfall that generally gets made by with sales taxes and general funds.
> If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" cost?
No, because part of the cost is the fact that pollution in that area affects everyone -- including non-drivers. You're paying part of the cost, yes, but not the whole thing.
Imagine if there was some mechanism such that non-drivers inhaled as much pollution as there'd be if there were no cars*, and drivers inhaled as much pollution as is proportional to however much pollution they themselves create (this would vary not just based on a binary do/do not drive, but on how much you drive and how polluting your vehicle is). Then each person would be paying the true cost.
A true cost has to be proportional to the damage done, such that changing behavior results in changing cost paid.
* leaving aside the impracticality of zero non-electric cars for the moment
The conclusion is total bunk, and you can only reach it by selecting which externalities you want to measure, and which externalities you want to ignore. For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You also have to ignore the externalities that the non-car-owners benefit from. If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners (unless they’re living in the woods or something).
> For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality.
You shouldn't have to travel long distances to do those things. This is only considered normal in the US because so much was built specifically for the convenience of drivers.
It takes 10 minutes to drive 5 miles at 30mph, walking that same distance would take a typical person about 90 minutes. 5 miles is a large distance and wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world.
> wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world
In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home, and if your job is farther you can ride a train.
Edit - For people familiar with the NYC region, here's a 5 miles radius from midtown. https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo This is an enormous area, and my rough guess is that 4 million people live in that circle.
> If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners
I can, and frequently do, walk to my nearest supermarket. But I know for a fact that if cars disappeared for a day then it would be unable to open its doors. These small areas of hyper-convenience don’t exist without cars.
I live 9 miles away from my office though, so that would be a lot more difficult.
> In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home
I’m sure if you wanted to undo 80+ years of economic development, we’d be able to recreate that society… that economic development is of course one of the positive externalities you’re choosing to ignore. So if this is your agenda, I’d suggest you try to figure out how catastrophically devastating that would be for the economy first.
> Here are two different takes on how cities subsidize suburbs and rural areas
Rural, perhaps, but not suburbs. Most of those studies play fast-and-loose with the term 'metropolitan area'. Most metros include inner-ring suburbs, outer-ring, and generally the exurbs as well. It's only once you start talking about 1.5-2 hours out from a major city does it become 'rural'.
At least with the metro I'm familiar with (Philly), the surrounding counties (suburbs) vastly subsidize the city itself. The wealthy taxpayers live in those 'burbs and commute in to work. The explosion of remote working, and the commiserate loss of city-wage-tax from those that used to commute, is already straining the system. If remote work continues at this level, many downtown areas could implode.
That’s really a completely different topic. I’m talking about the positive economic externalities of private vehicle ownership. Those massively beneficial externalities exist for cities whether rural areas exist or not. Any analysis of the externalities of vehicle ownership is simply agenda-driven nonsense if it doesn’t account for that.
This seems obviously falsifiable to me. There are many cities worldwide where private vehicle ownership (and use) is a fraction of what it is in common US cities (though of course, NYC would be an example that is actually within the US). Are you suggesting that London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul or NYC are in some way suffering because less people there own and/or use private vehicles for transportation?
As so many have pointed out in this sub-thread, and so many other places, the pattern of US urban and suburban development for the last 80 years has essentially assumed the predominance of private vehicle ownership and use. It's not a surprise, therefore, that within these patterns of developments, car ownership and use brings significant benefits (even if it also causes significant negative externalities). However, what is also true is that these patterns of development severely penalize lack of car ownership in a way that not even old world cities do. My sister who lives in London leaves her car parked for roughly 95% of the time and moves around by mass transit. If she had no vehicle (like her daughter, also in London), her life would change very little. By contrast, the resident of most US cities and essentially all suburbs who attempts to live without a car will be hamstrung in most areas of their life.
The entire topic of this sub-thread is that the supposed “true cost” of driving a car is imposed upon society via negative externalities. It is true that those negative externalities exist, however if you want to quantify the “true cost” of vehicle ownership, then you need to account for all externalities, not only the ones that support your point of view. The OP in this sub-thread makes no mention of those confounding externalities at all, and therefore their entire premise is without merit. Making reference to any of the small number of cities around the world where the economy is somewhat less reliant on private vehicle ownership doesn’t falsify that at all.
It falsifies to the extent that it demonstrates that you can build successful communities at scale, where people want to live, businesses want to operate, and things fundamentally work, without designing them around the positive externalities of widely owned and used private vehicles. More pertinently, in cities that meet the above concept (i.e. most cities in the world outside of N. America), there are few or no positive externalities associated with widely owned and used private vehicles, so "balancing" all the externalities essentially falls back to the negatives.
> small number of cities
Hilarious. The cities for which this is most obviously true contain a huge proportion of worldwide human population. And most cities in most of the world outside of N. America have this as a fundamental truth because of their history (in many of them, residents are coming to recognize the enormous downsides of superimposing private vehicles on a city infrastructure designed around other means of moving around).
So yes, it's true that if you design a contemporary N. American city around widespread ownership and use of private vehicles, there are some positive externalities associated with said vehicles, and they should be taken into account when quantifying the "true cost" of those vehicles in that context.
But if you for any reason do not want that to be a guiding force in the design, and maybe even worse, if you accidentally screw up the design, not only do the positive externalities vanish, but the negative externalities grow in scale and scope.
The agenda is not manufacturing more vehicles than we need. Those privately-owned vehicles are idle most of the time. In rural areas, if you need a ride, book it in advance and it will arrive 5 minutes before you need it. In the city, walk 2 minutes to the nearest vehicle, and drive it to your home if you need to pick something up.
It's the same thing. Private car ownership requires suburbs and suburbs require car ownership. In properly dense city areas (not single family zones that technically are within the limits of a city) car ownership is impractical and there's very little of it.
> You're most definitely American. It's not like that where I live.
I currently live in Auckland, New Zealand. Other cities that I have lived in for at least 1 year include Jakarta, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Seattle, Ft Lauderdale, Wellington, Berlin, London and Nairobi.
Your comment is an ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy, and you should be ashamed of using it. But in addition to that, it’s an ad hominem based on and assumption you made, and that assumption is incorrect. I would honestly recommend that you set your standards for yourself much higher than this.
To your later point: automobile availability could certainly have benefits. Park 8 pick-up cars and 2 pick-up minivans in a neighbourhood of 100 households and nobody needs to own a car.
Need to travel further? Public transit or your country is embarassing.
> I simply can't understand how car users impose "true costs" on everyone else, but not themselves, which is what the GP was claiming.
The point is that everybody pays the costs whether they drive or not. If the costs were more directly tied to how much each person drives, there would be a lot less driving overall.
In addition to the point already made about people who do not drive paying those costs too, you're also missing the externalities that affect others for health related reasons, and not yourself (and others with your good fortune).
Many things are not a requirement for survival, but we still like to do them.
Yes, driving a car to get from A to B in (usually) the fastest and most comfortable way wastes some energy and generates some pollution... but so does reading a book (wood for paper, ink, energy for lighting), eating any non-local food, eating meat, sex not for procreation, etc.
Yeah those were terrible examples. But more proper ones would be: truck and van drivers for mail, food and other delivery to stores, bus drivers, taxi drivers, farmers, police, EMT, etc.
That's not how bike paramedics work. From your link:
> They are able to reach patients quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an ambulance is on the way.
You still need an ambulance, because that person is going to need to go to hospital in nearly all cases except the most trivial "fell over while drunk" cases, and backies are impractical for the average person in need of a paramedic.
Users of public transportation likely don't realize just how much their usage of public transportation is subsidized, either. Most public transportation networks in American cities get funding from a mix of city, county, state and federal taxes. A $2.50 subway ride costs a lot more than $2.50.
Some cities do have subway systems that are running a profit. For example, Tokyo's private companies running the various subway systems are profitable, with high farebox recovery ratios and additional revenue from station leases for commercial vendors (vending machines and convenience stores).
Another way to express what you're saying is: only the rich should drive.
IMHO, we should things the way they are, and spread the true costs of driving across all of society. The rich should pay higher taxes so that they pay more than the true cost of their car usage, to subsidize the driving of the less well off.
Yes, my ideal terminal state would be for driving to be predominantly done by professionals (like delivery drivers) or for leisure. Nobody in major metro would need to drive
> what you're saying is: only the rich should drive.
Similarly, only the rich should fly private? Or should we go and subsidize that for the masses, too? Some things are simply expensive and don't scale if you want to allow everyone to do it -- "if everyone would live like us we would need X earths" comes to mind.
So I'm not sure what you're proposing. Should there be a maximum personal vehicle kilometers allocation rather than just charging what it costs to clean up the pollution again? Not saying I'm for or against that, just wondering what you think the alternative could even be.
where the people saying "Big Cities are past their prime" were extremely down on public transportation. It's possible they are correct that we could really never have good public transportation in the USA because our cities aren't designed around it. But, I did want to reach through the podcast and shake them, "Go visit the largest city on the plant, Tokyo!" and see if you can't imagine public transit working for a city of 34 million people.
Of course it's possible the reality is it just can't happen in the USA. See the fiasco of SF's Central Line. I'd argue the best place to try is Los Angeles. It used to have the best in the public transit in the world in say 1920-1950 but it was all torn down. In any case, it looks like it has maybe enough people that a truly good public transit with nice stations as destinations and express lines etc would work but you'd have to magically make about 80 lines appear. A few lines at a time will never get to the MVP of actually making the system useful for the average person that wants to get from A to B because it would require 80 lines to get from every A to every B.
Also, people seem to forget that Japan's system is privatized and the incentives seem to align. The train companies create/fund/own buildings at and around their stations so they have every incentive to make people want to ride the trains as use their stations and all the buildings and businesses around them. Some of them even build housing.
And, if they don't like the big city version then they can go to Amsterdam (pop 800k), Antwerp (500k), Barcelona (1600k), Copenhagen (600k), Helsinki (630k), Koln (1000k), etc... that all have pretty great public transportation.
We don’t even need public transit to be that good. Just make busses more comfortable, run more of them, and start running catenary so we can phase out diesel fleets - that would solve 50% of the problem in my experience.
You could make the economic argument that the “subsidization” of car usage has economic benefits that outweighs the cost of subsidization.
If more people can afford to get to work because of the subsidies then the net output of work done could be greater than the cost of the subsidy itself.
sure but this frames it as if cars are the only way to get people to work. There are more efficient means that would require less subsidy and cause less waste (heavy rail transit, building places to live that don't require a car, bike roads, etc)
You're assuming that people live to work when most people work to live.
The difference is that the latter would happily NOT work, or at least not work at what they do, if they could support their life. The former will happily change their life to make work easier.
Note that you don't mention anything about living, just transportation. And, you couldn't resist throwing in pejoratives.
It's okay that you like bikes, that you design your life around bikes. You're offended that other people don't or that bikes don't work for what they want to do.
FWIW, my wife and I worked >50 miles apart for over a decade.
Eh, if anything you're the one sounding offended because someone dared to provide options and speak out against the holy car cow. One is not "living to work" just because one wants a bike lane. If anything, I bike past thousands of cars stuck in traffic each morning. Who's out here enjoying life, while they waste theirs getting to and from work?
> it's the "you should organize your life so bikes work for you".
I never said that. I'm Dutch, but my work is further than biking distance also, so I take a bus to work. Previously I worked even further away and took a shorter bus ride, then switched to a train, and walked five minutes on each end. That was a bit further than is comfortable to do >1 year, but in the train I could relax for an hour and in a car you can't relax and read a book, code something, nap, etc. for even thirty seconds without running into some barrier. Audio books kinda work but that's about the limit.
I'm not saying "organise your life so you live next to your job". At this point I'm saying "wtf is wrong with a bike lane", though, reading back, my original point I guess was more about "what is wrong with more efficient transport than >1 ton metal box transportation with an occupancy rate of one point something"
Of course, you do have to be okay with spending time around other people. That seems to be a tough sell for the rich that can afford other options
Bikes only work for short distances and then only in reasonably good weather AND when you don't need to carry much.
Buses and trains are only efficient than cars if they have a reasonable number of riders who want to go between roughly the same two places at roughly the same time. (Note that the number of people passing by two points is NOT a good proxy for going to the same places.) That's easy with a lot of population density, especially in a small area. But, without those conditions, cars are more efficient.
The Netherlands is a great case for buses, trains, and bikes. The US is different. (As the saying goes, Europeans think that 100km is a long way while Americans think that 100 years is a long time. The typical US car travels 20-25km per year and 50km/year is not rare.)
The Netherlands has less than 18 million people in roughly the area of New Jersey, which the fourth smallest US state. (New Jersey plus New York City have roughly 17M people.) The US is 240-270x as large, depending on whether you count water. (To put that in context, the land part of the Netherlands is less than 280x larger than Disneyworld.)
As to "spending time around other people", the "fraction of population in urban regions" numbers look similar, 90% for the Netherlands and 80% for the US, but half of the US "urban population" lives in small towns that are dozens of kilometers from the next town. That's simply not possible in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands has roughly 15x the population density of the US and even the "rural" regions are close to the cities because they can't be far away.
The longest distance across the Netherlands is roughly 300km. The short way across the US (Mexico to Canada) is over 2,500km and the long way (Atlantic to Pacific) is around 4,500km.
I work from home, so my "to work" is down the hall. That said, when I did work on site, I never worked where mass-transit between near to my house and near to my work made sense and I never worked close enough to bike. (Note that I live in Silicon Valley, which is pretty high density for the US.)
But, there's more than work.
Most weekends, I travel over 250km. About once a month, I travel about 630km. None of those trips have enough people going the same places at the same time to justify small vans, let alone buses, and trains are completely out of the question.
You could argue that, but it would conflict with the fact that the auto industry dismantled public transportation networks to sell more gas, tires and cars.
Given the article talks about a company in The Netherlands, and that The Netherlands is the most expensive country to own a car within Europe [0], I truly wonder how far off we are. Not saying that we are (or should be) close, but genuinely interested how far off we are.
Just to state one potential counter argument: as far as I know most road damage is caused by trucks (I don't remember exactly but IIRC there is a quadratic or even cubic relation between weight per wheel and applied force to the asphalt), so most road maintenance cost is not related to personal car usage.
The depth of a road (thickness of asphalt and granular layers) is determined largely by the loading (i.e. how many big trucks will be travelling on it).
The width of a road (# of lanes) is determined mostly by how many vehicles per hour are travelling on it, which means mostly cars.
The width of a lane is determined by how many large vehicles per hour are travelling on it, which means buses and trucks.
The grade of a road (how steep it is) is generally determined by the lowest weight-to-power ratio, i.e. fully loaded transports
The grade of asphalt used is determined by annual average maximum and minimum temperatures, how many heavy vehicles will be using it, and how many vehicles total will be using it (lower grades of asphalt can be used on smaller streets, lower quality binder can used in areas with less temperature variation, and asphalt with higher quantity of coarse aggregate and larger compactive effort has to be used if it's a truck/bus route)
The frequency a road is resurfaced is governed by a few things, frequency of heavy road users is a big one (but at least in my local area, the number of freeze-thaw cycles is more important)
All that is to say: road damage is largely caused by trucks and freeze-thaw cycles, but cost of the road is largely governed by how many lanes of traffic there are, which is caused by cars. Remove all the cars from your street and a two lane non-divided highway with a passing lane every couple KM would suffice in most places.
It's not quadratic or cubic: it's the fourth power.
Somewhat mitigated by large vehicles having more axles, but each of those axles counts.
So if a 40 tonne lorry has 5 axles, the vehicle does (5/2 * (40/5)^4/(2/2)^4) = 10240 times the damage of a big car weighing 2 tonnes, and 163840 times the damage of a car weighing 1 tonne.
Which, does mean that the vast majority of road wear is down to heavy vehicles. But it does also means an SUV or a Tesla (2 tonnes) causes 16 times the damage of a Micra (1 tonne).
Basically, a car in Norway is subsidized with on average 10000nok / 1200usd per year, so not even close to paying for its own use. This also doesn't include the fact that electric cars don't pay any taxes when bought, so society is losing out a lot there as well given that 90% of all new cars now are electric.
In the U.S., there is the Monroney sticker that provides some information about petrol/fuel economy and society impact (e.g., the environment): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroney_sticker
What numbers? It just asserts that society pays $9.20 for every $1 you spent driving. I don't see how that alone is plausible. A quick google says the annual TCO for a car (ie. how much "driving costs you") is $9,561[1]. If that figure is correct, then each car is costing society a whopping $87,961/year. Keep in mind, the US GDP per capita is only around $60-70k/year. Yes I know each person doesn't necessarily own a car, but it seems implausible that cars are actually costing a significant fraction of the GDP.
The "true cost" of food is made even more complex in countries like the U.S. where 66% of people are obese or overweight. The cost of obesity is tremendous, affecting everything from health care costs, to clothing costs (for every extra inch you are around the waist, you need several square feet of fabric), to transportation fuel costs (it costs more to move obese people around). So perhaps charging much more for food over 2,000 kCal/day per person makes a lot of sense. There are externalities that we all end up paying for.
> So perhaps charging much more for food over 2,000 kCal/day per person makes a lot of sense.
Why financially penalize exercise? Even physical activity aside, why do you think everybody needs exactly 2,000 kCal/day to maintain their weight?
What about tall people or people with abnormal metabolisms? I require more than 2,000 kCal/day to maintain a normal weight, even when completely sedentary. Why should I suddenly have to start paying more per calorie past 2,000 kCal?
It kind of sounded like it was a good idea your opinion, or some kind of proposal. Incentivizing physical activity is what we want for a healthy society, no? There are better ways to discourage getting fat than engraving a 2,000 kCal/day threshold into stone.
https://archive.ph/5qZDc