You'e in danger here of putting out the same red herrings
the anti-motor car brigade is so fond of.

Very rarely does anyone quantify the full road costs, but
on the few occasions anyone was so rash, their figures
were quickly disproved. The revenue raised from motorists
goes to the Treasury but local roads are the responsibility
of local councils who have their own revenue streams.
So when the total cost of all roads is calculated, the input
from local authorities should not be ignored. It should also
be remembered that much of the expenditure today on roads
has nothing to do with motor vehicles, e.g the cycle super
highways or the disgraceful "mini-Holland" schemes now
blighting The London Borough Of Waltham Forest, and
therefore that expenditure should not be set against the
revenue from motorists.

Similarly, the policing and health decoy should be taken with
a very large pinch of salt. First, motorists do not only pay
motor related taxes. They also pay the same taxes other
people pay, and that combined tax revenue pays for police
and health services. Second, if money were not spent on roads,
police and health costs would go up, not down. Third, the health
consequences of motoring are far higher than necessary because
of decisions by anti-motor car politicians. (I note with great
optimism that the new Mayor seems to have noticed this)

Most important of all, spending money on roads is far cheaper
than financing a hopelessly inadequate public transport alternative.