Re:California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic
by pjc50 on Monday November 23, 2015 @10:46AM
(#10615198)
Compulsory purchase ("eminent domain") has been the solution to this since the development of the railways, when it required an Act of Parliament.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic
by jerf on Monday November 23, 2015 @10:58AM
(#10615272)
This is my reply to everybody suggesting that the "solution" is eminent domain: The topic under discussion is why you can't build private mass transport system. Once you've invoked eminent domain, you've got a government project, because as the entity with the power to say "yes", the government is in charge. Even if they are nominally using a private company to do the actual work. (Which is also appropriate anyhow since governments should not be bothering themselves with internally developing such capabilities.)
I'm sorry I didn't spell out what I thought was a common-knowledge topic.
None of this is criticism; for exactly the reasons I discussed I don't see any practical alternatives to collective action at the governmental level.
Re:California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic
by pjc50 on Monday November 23, 2015 @12:17PM
(#10615711)
The topic under discussion is why you can't build private mass transport system.
Not quite - I think that's why you've got so many replies. The comment you were replying to said "subsidised" not "private", which are different things, so it looked like you were answering a question nobody had asked.
You can have unsubsidised state mass transport and subsidised private mass transport. Although not having a subsidy is rare, there are a few state services which are required to run at operational breakeven.