> they obviously do have some billing check that prevents me from making additional requests after that "final query"
No they don't actually! They try to get close, but it's not guaranteed (for example, make that "final query" to two different regions concurrently).
Now, they could stand up a separate system with a guaranteed fixed cost, but few people want that and the cost would be higher, so it wouldn't make the money back.
You can do it on your end though: run every request sequentially through a service and track your own usage, stopping when reaching your limit.
> Roads still need maintenance even if nobody uses them, so a significant portion is split evenly across all traffic.
Your former doesn't imply the latter. Here in Seattle we even still have cobblestone roads without heavy traffic and they spend very little money on them.
We have extensive rutting damage on the lanes use by busses and requires more expensive, deeper road base when they get replaced. This cost is due to the heavy traffic.
Even if squared, the buses are still 22 tons instead of 2-3 tons. 49 times more damage isn't good.
22 tons are huge busses and overkill unless you actually need that much space, and tend to have 4 axles. ((22 / 4)/(3/2)) ~= 13.5x a heavy SUV but could be replacing 30+ vehicles.
Also that visible ware is noticeable because it hasn’t been replaced. Looking worse when you resurface on the same schedule isn’t an actual cost.
But those are what we have and they have 3 axles, not 4.
We also have many concrete roads and closely-spaced axles, if they had them, would not help.
> Looking worse when you resurface on the same schedule isn’t an actual cost.
I addressed this: they have to dig much deeper and replace with much thicker road. Much more expensive. It's not "looking worse", it's actively dangerous to cyclists and other road users, so the surface must be replaced more often too.
Closely space axels work fine for road surfaces they don’t help on bridges but that’s a separate concern. You can see a plethora of heavy military vehicles etc which use extra axles to avoid getting stuck in the mud due to plastic deformation IE rutting. EX: The 22 ton KTO drives has to deal with rutting on vastly worse road surfaces like mud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTO_Rosomak
But this is where you need to do a deeper analysis than just a simple rule of thumb. Even adding extra wheels to the same axle makes a big difference to road surfaces.
> so the surface must be replaced more often too.
Level of ruts you see are considered acceptable or they would be replaced.
However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance. If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.
> Level of ruts you see are considered acceptable or they would be replaced.
I guess you don't know how the USA works, and Seattle in particular. We are spending a fraction of what is necessary to keep infrastructure from failing. We had a major bridge nearly collapse and was out of commission for years. https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-dep...
Many of our roads are not what we call acceptable.
> However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance.
Hahaha nope. We have so many different organizations with their own funding sources. Roads come from State and local funds. Metro is primarily funded with dedicated sales tax.
> If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.
Sorry, but this is possibly the most naive thing I've ever heard.
Here in Seattle, the busy roads with older lanes used for buses are obvious, because they have two deep canyons while the lane next to them is fine. In fact King County Metro has to pay millions in fines to the state because the buses are excessively heavy.
No roads without bus traffic have the same type of damage.
Bus only lanes exist, but not everywhere (some streets are not wide enough). Additionally, at the moment (and really always) there's a ton of construction on the bridges going in and out of the city, causing buses to miss out on the bus-only lanes for years or more at a time. Bus systems are a complicated beast.
You don't have to allow cars on every single paved surface. Cars aren't supposed to be on wide sidewalks, you don't have to allow them on every single road either.
Yeah if they aren't enforcing the bus-only aspect then it's not really a bus-only lane. If a bus only lane exists but people violate it in cars with impunity then obviously it's not going to work.
Not likely since the state of California provided a grant with the purpose of manufacturing battery cells in the state. Search for GFO-24-304. You are just kidding yourself if you think California is anti manufacturing. If you can show why this is untrue, show the info. Still had a link to the grant info. https://www.grants.ca.gov/grants/gfo-24-304-california-batte...
It is a battery cell manufacturing line and with the intent to facilitate providing research resources to California battery business. Considering the claim was that you couldn't make lithium batteries in CA, having a new manufacturing line shows that's incorrect. It also shows the state sees it as a need. I haven't seen anyone provide any info showing it isn't possible.
reply