4 ms·
>>We couldn't leave a project like the highway system in the hands of a private corporation. I have to completely disagree with you, I believe you take too muc
by dantheman 17y ago
>>We couldn't leave a project like the highway system in the hands of a private corporation.
I have to completely disagree with you, I believe you take too much on faith. We don't know what would've happened, but it's very possible that a better alternative could exist.
1. How much richer would everyone be if they were able to keep there tax dollars.
2. Without subsidizing cars, perhaps trains would still be a viable option.
3. Traffic may not be as much of a problem; maximum speeds would not be so ridiculously low.
4. We might see less urban sprawl.
- sgrove 17y agoThat's an interesting alternative that may very well be true. I don't think it carries over to this discussion quite that well, as I'm not sure what the equivalent of urban sprawl, trains/group transit are in the context of internet infrastructure. But still, an interesting take.
- chrischen 17y agoImagine if we had multiple companies building separate highways alongside each other, competing for traffic.
- locopati 17y agoWe don't have to imagine too hard - see NYC and the building the of the subway system. Three companies (IRT, BRT, IND) building lines somewhat independently, leaving some areas covered by multiple lines and some areas underserved.
- chrischen 17y agoNew York has multiple subway lines? What a waste. Sorry, I've never been to New York City.
- fnid 17y agoWe know what would have happened: It wouldn't have happened. The claim lots of people make about "we'd be richer if we kept our taxes" is erroneous. How much richer would we be if we didn't have to pay for the operation of the network and the profits to thousands of shareholders who add no value? There are scales of projects where the profit motive hampers development.