You're right. But the cost is still lower than fixing potholes in asphalt due to wear & tear, freezing and thawing, and slippery ice is less of a problem too.

Not surprisingly, most Iowa folks are good drivers in bad weather. Generally it's avoided altogether. When it has to be done, most people are smart enough to slow down and be careful, or pull over and wait it out. There will still be accidents, but less cars slide off icy gravel roads since they seldom exist.

The cost to the government may be lower than fixing potholes in asphalt, but not necessarily to the people driving cars.

So you're saying the total cost is lower, and borne only by the people incurring it, not every taxpayer?

I... uh... were you disagreeing with the person above you?

No he didn't say the total cost is lower, he said one side is lower and one higher. He was completely ambiguous (and I have no additional knowledge to add) about which cost changed more.

The political cost of accidents and other car damage far exceeds the political cost of a diffuse tax burden for roads which everybody generally agrees are necessary.

Yeh gravel shifts significantly once you get pools of water forming. Gravel roads need annual levelling work even for low traffic routes.

But that cost is cheaper than repaving right?

In simple terms of time and money, yes. But in terms of not producing mountains of asphalt, especially.

It's merely hot and dusty work, it doesn't stink at all.

But wouldn't driving a road grader down the route, even once a year, be cheaper than repaving every couple of years? Just in material cost it should be cheaper, not to mention cheaper equipment (grader v. paver+dump trucks) and staffing. I fully confess, however, that I have no objective numbers.