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.
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.
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?
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.
Is civil engineering part of a standard economics education in Finland?That's pretty much going to be the case
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 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.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.
---------- Post added 2012-04-09 at 03:44 PM ----------
Oh, he's Finnish?
Oh, that explains everything. I'm outta here.
Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2012-04-10 at 05:17 AM.
Obama litterally invests $5 million in Bullshit: http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-energy/470796
Comes out at a nice pricetag of $333,333 per shit shoveler.
Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2012-04-10 at 05:29 AM.
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!
So in other words when you say increased usage does not increase maintenance cost you're ignoring most traffic.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.
Come on dude. You said a silly thing. Usage rates absolutely drive up repair and maintenance.
That's not what you said but ok whatever. This is getting dumb.