You are correct to point out that governments subsidize roads, making this an unfair compare. Trucking is built on the highway system, a massive capital expenditure which is completely paid for by taxpayers as a gift to the trucking industry. Massive capital expenditures are often part and parcel of transportation infrastructure; what's different here is the political will to fund it.
Calling it a gift to the trucking industry implies there wasn't originally a strategic motivation to getting it done and that individuals don't also greatly benefit. Trucking is a business with razor thin margins so that "gift" very much gets spread around. Sure cars are bad for the environment but pretending that the interstate system doesn't greatly benefit basically everyone in the country is foolhardy.
Nobody said the interstate system doesn’t benefit people. I merely pointed out it invalidates the argument that investing in green transportation infrastructure is too costly because “the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years.”
Trucking pays for fuel costs in addition to a road use tax I believe, I know they tear up roads, especially overloaded dump trucks etc, but without an alternative there’s really no better option. If and when they go electric, then you’ll start to see some legislation around miles driven etc which I believe California has looked into since they aren’t getting the federal or state tax rev share off of the fuel itself coming out of pumps.
Trucks should pay for the damage they cause to the roads but that would put prices up which would be unpopular even though it should result in lower general taxation.
