[0] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ca1f035c2e6...
Now that said, I'm not convinced they are actually 100% of the damage. I've seen many residential streets in need of repair that essentially never see heavy vehicle traffic. And I'm also not certain that taxes should be based on cost added vs value provided - but it's a reasonable discussion to have.
But again this seems short sighted. Electric vehicles (vs ICE) remove a ton of negative externalities from society. And while they do bring others (in how many of their materials are sourced) they are a big net positive. Don't disincentivise them because of a change in fuel tax revenue.
Maybe just the freeze-thaw cycle?
Mostly putting it out there so that people don't start thinking that EVs need to be taxed more highly than ICE cars because they're a bit heavier.
Also, weirdly, a 40,000 kg truck with 2 axles seems to be taxed less than the same truck with 4 or more axles.
Ideally you'd want a sort of usage tax also based on this, but implementation has been difficult to achieve. [0]
[0] https://www.lafabriquedelacite.com/en/solutions/weight-tax-a...
300 pounds is more, but not very significantly more, than car registration in many US states.
For example, it's also a function of road design, which is why a high-speed limited access road is able to handle significantly higher loads than a suburban cul-de-sac.
Consider that a bus weighs a lot more than a car, so a simple 4th power analysis suggests it will cause several orders of more damage than if everyone drove their own car.
However, busses tend to run on bigger roads which are better designed to handle the weight (with the expectation that people will walk a few blocks to get to the stop), rather than residential streets which are mostly designed for private vehicles and the occasional delivery truck/van.
On those roads, heavy passenger cars are relevant to road damage.