U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Deleted]

I asked you about this and you doubled down.

Yes, it has very little impact on the costs. That's what I have been saying the whole time.

You're just derailing this thread into total crap now.

[Wells]

No what I've been wondering is how you can claim that the number of people who use a road has little impact on the cost of maintaining it.

I've even provided you a pretty comprehensive link showing maintenance costs, usage rates, and road conditions.

[Deleted]

No what I've been wondering is how you can claim that the number of people who use a road has little impact on the cost of maintaining it.

I was always referring to the total fixed costs. There are fixed maintainance costs with bridges as well as the massive cost of building it.

If we want to get really pedantic, the number of vehicles doesn't matter. It's the type of vehicles. Cars are insignificant while trucks cause pretty much all the damage.

[Wells]

So you're still saying that the usage rates don't effect maintenance costs then.

So you expect the operating costs of a bridge that sees 100 cars in a day to be equal to one that sees 1,000?

[Deleted]

So you expect the operating costs of a bridge that sees 100 cars in a day to be equal to one that sees 1,000?

That's pretty much going to be the case, but if you have a bridge with 100 trucks vs. 1000 trucks, then there will be a noticiable difference. But this is beside the point.

What I've been saying from the beginning is that the marginal cost for each additional traveller is so small, that to maximize economic surplus it could be beneficial to keep it as a public good (unless bridge is at full capacity). And because of this characteristic, bridges and roads are more fit as public goods than some other goods.

[Wells]

That's pretty much going to be the case

Is civil engineering part of a standard economics education in Finland?

[Stanton Biston]

I'm not sure if you actually looked at the item you linked, but that's for wells drawing 75,000+ gallons a week.

I included the link because I wanted to cite my top source. If you check out the LURC regs, there's lots of specifics on drilling.

But still, it's moot. Even if permits are required, I was referring to the fact government doesn't subsidize private well drilling, which has nothing to do with any regulations on where they're allowed.

But the government does subsidize private well drilling. Maybe not in Maine, but here in the 9th circuit, shared wells are eligible for government grants and often require the extra grant money to succeed.

---------- Post added 2012-04-09 at 03:44 PM ----------

Is civil engineering part of a standard economics education in Finland?

Oh, he's Finnish?

Oh, that explains everything. I'm outta here.

[Deleted]

Is civil engineering part of a standard economics education in Finland?

The absolute majority of usage related road wear comes from trucks and other heavy traffic. One of the most damaging types of vehicles are trucks on only 2-4 axles. Go ask any engineer.

Oh, he's Finnish?
Oh, that explains everything. I'm outta here.

What?

[Dacien]

What?

Yeah, I'm not really sure, either, Diurdi.

[Deleted]

Obama litterally invests $5 million in Bullshit: http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-energy/470796

Comes out at a nice pricetag of $333,333 per shit shoveler.

[Ellixen]

His parents were not citizens when he was born, thus making him ineligible for office. If he was truly eligible to be in that office, he wouldn't have made such a fuss about releasing his certificate. He even sealed his records with an executive order almost immediately after being elected. But I know you Obama <supporters> won't listen to logic. I mean, you do support Obama after all.

No need for inflammatory language towards users with differing views. - Dacien

Go back to school please, your parents DON'T have to be citizens for you to be an american citizen, as long as your are BORN IN AMERICA you ARE an american.

[Jaxi]

Obama litterally invests $5 million in Bullshit: http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-energy/470796

Diurdi I'm in the power industry, we stopped taking Obama seriously long ago. He is very much so a politician above all else when it comes to energy.

[Wells]

Obama litterally invests $5 million in Bullshit: http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-energy/470796

Comes out at a nice pricetag of $333,333 per shit shoveler.

Leaving out any gains in efficiency and such.

Replacing 90% of their fossil fuel use with a local waste product seems pretty cool to me.

[Callace]

Oh, he's Finnish?

Oh, that explains everything. I'm outta here.

That seems kind of unfair.

[obdigore]

Obama litterally invests $5 million in Bullshit: http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-energy/470796

Comes out at a nice pricetag of $333,333 per shit shoveler.

You neglected the 100 temporary construction jobs as well as the fact that you do actually have to pay for materials. Even just the 100 temporary jobs and 15 perm ones come up at just over 43.5k a year, if there is no materials used at all.

But instead you just try to do whatever you can to make things seem terrible. Hooray!

[Wells]

The absolute majority of usage related road wear comes from trucks and other heavy traffic. One of the most damaging types of vehicles are trucks on only 2-4 axles. Go ask any engineer.

So in other words when you say increased usage does not increase maintenance cost you're ignoring most traffic.

Come on dude. You said a silly thing. Usage rates absolutely drive up repair and maintenance.

[Deleted]

So in other words when you say increased usage does not increase maintenance cost you're ignoring most traffic.
Come on dude. You said a silly thing. Usage rates absolutely drive up repair and maintenance.

Yes, you can ignore most small traffic because the damage they cause is very small compared to the heavy traffic.

[Wells]

Yes, you can ignore most small traffic because the damage they cause is very small compared to the heavy traffic.

Right and when you have more traffic on a road you have more damage. Which means more maintenance.

[Deleted]

Right and when you have more traffic on a road you have more damage. Which means more maintenance.

Yes, but the maintainance caused by light traffic is neglible. That's what I have been saying. A truck can cause thousands of times more damage to the road than a light vehicles.

[Wells]

That's not what you said but ok whatever. This is getting dumb.