Your analogy is the bad one here.

To be like that, almost everyone would need to own a dog, and everyone including the non-dog-owners would have things delivered by dog, the dog park would have to actively block access to most places, and the fees for the dog owners pay for the dog park would have to be insufficient for the dog park and the park instead subsidised by general taxation even from the people who only get stuff delivered by dog… which would be quite fair and reasonable because almost all the damage to the dog park that the maintenance fees would need to cover, would be due to specifically the delivery dogs.

The actual point of the dog park fees in this scenario would be to reduce the usage of the dog park, due to everyone riding their dogs everywhere. Which is a heck of a mental image.

Roads aren't for pleasure, they're economic infrastructure that some people happen to enjoy.

It’s more like the cities have chosen to turn _every public space_ into a dog park that you have no ability to escape. For the pleasure of living in this inefficient landscape, you are charged in the form of taxes to maintain it. Dog owners remain convinced that because they pay sales tax on kibbles, that they have a right to this space. After all, it’s just how places naturally are!

What percentage of the TCO of roads do you think is covered by gas tax?

You are using a state service whenever you use the road. It is a subsidy that people who are the largest offenders consistently choose to entrench.

None of what you're saying matters even a little bit if you're not able to provide any numbers on how much you're actually paying. Because we both know it's not 100%, or even 25%. So stop bullshitting.