> Roads still need maintenance even if nobody uses them, so a significant portion is split evenly across all traffic.
Your former doesn't imply the latter. Here in Seattle we even still have cobblestone roads without heavy traffic and they spend very little money on them.
We have extensive rutting damage on the lanes use by busses and requires more expensive, deeper road base when they get replaced. This cost is due to the heavy traffic.
Even if squared, the buses are still 22 tons instead of 2-3 tons. 49 times more damage isn't good.
22 tons are huge busses and overkill unless you actually need that much space, and tend to have 4 axles. ((22 / 4)/(3/2)) ~= 13.5x a heavy SUV but could be replacing 30+ vehicles.
Also that visible ware is noticeable because it hasn’t been replaced. Looking worse when you resurface on the same schedule isn’t an actual cost.
But those are what we have and they have 3 axles, not 4.
We also have many concrete roads and closely-spaced axles, if they had them, would not help.
> Looking worse when you resurface on the same schedule isn’t an actual cost.
I addressed this: they have to dig much deeper and replace with much thicker road. Much more expensive. It's not "looking worse", it's actively dangerous to cyclists and other road users, so the surface must be replaced more often too.
Closely space axels work fine for road surfaces they don’t help on bridges but that’s a separate concern. You can see a plethora of heavy military vehicles etc which use extra axles to avoid getting stuck in the mud due to plastic deformation IE rutting. EX: The 22 ton KTO drives has to deal with rutting on vastly worse road surfaces like mud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTO_Rosomak
But this is where you need to do a deeper analysis than just a simple rule of thumb. Even adding extra wheels to the same axle makes a big difference to road surfaces.
> so the surface must be replaced more often too.
Level of ruts you see are considered acceptable or they would be replaced.
However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance. If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.
> Level of ruts you see are considered acceptable or they would be replaced.
I guess you don't know how the USA works, and Seattle in particular. We are spending a fraction of what is necessary to keep infrastructure from failing. We had a major bridge nearly collapse and was out of commission for years. https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-dep...
Many of our roads are not what we call acceptable.
> However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance.
Hahaha nope. We have so many different organizations with their own funding sources. Roads come from State and local funds. Metro is primarily funded with dedicated sales tax.
> If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.
Sorry, but this is possibly the most naive thing I've ever heard.
> We are spending a fraction of what is necessary to keep infrastructure from failing.
I can’t help but chuckle at the idea you actually believe that. Stop reading headlines and do some actual research into what’s actually going on.
If the US was utterly failing in maintenance you’d see ~6,000 random bridge failures per year based on the number of bridges in existence instead they are incredibly rare showing that we are actually doing a great job overall.
Your former doesn't imply the latter. Here in Seattle we even still have cobblestone roads without heavy traffic and they spend very little money on them.
We have extensive rutting damage on the lanes use by busses and requires more expensive, deeper road base when they get replaced. This cost is due to the heavy traffic.
Even if squared, the buses are still 22 tons instead of 2-3 tons. 49 times more damage isn't good.