3 ms·
(1) CA is much better positioned to straighten out the land use issues. It needs to use the existing I-5 right of way, it needs to tunnel through some mountains
by geoffschmidt 13y ago
(1) CA is much better positioned to straighten out the land use issues. It needs to use the existing I-5 right of way, it needs to tunnel through some mountains, and it probably needs to eminent domain some additional bits of land for pylon bases where I-5 curves too sharply. No matter what, this is a project that has to pass the legislature in order to get built.
(2) A CA-sponsored bond issue must be by far the lowest cost way to finance a $7B infrastructure project that's amortized over 30 years.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y agoCan't (1) and (2) be solved by additional $1b to cover "cost" the Government might have? Just make it easier for them to move it through legislature, mountains, and such ;-)
- mpyne 13y agoYou can already get the same effect by having a private investor agree to "pay back" the Government if there are really private investors who want to do that. It's called a "public-private partnership" and it's not completely impossible but it does require some person or persons to cough up the cash.
- CodeCube 13y agoHere's an example of a public-private partnership between Rhode Island and Curt Schilling's 38 Studios - http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/07/38-studios-collapse-and-risk-of-public-private-partnerships/ http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/07/38-studios-collapse-and-r...