California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]