From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 08:28:30 MST
EvMick wrote:
> In a message dated 02/17/2003 11:31:13 AM Central Standard Time,
> rafal@smigrodzki.org writes:
>
>
> ### I have been thinking about this issue for a long time. It sounds
> very attractive, to have private, competing highway systems. One
> thing bugs me however - the acquisition of the land for roads would
> be quite difficult. You couldn't use eminent domain (or could you?).
>
>
>
>
> <snip....a lot of stuff regarding land theft (hostile buy out...what
> a nice term)>
### Still better than eminent domain. BTW, a lot of libertarian theorists do
accept eminent domain, and they do not call it stealing.
------------------
>
> The idea of private highways has merit. They even exist. The last
> time I was in Maine I was informed that Maine's toll road was
> privately owned.
>
> However...lets examine an alternative. Two alternatives. ...to
> stealing land.
>
> One...elevate the highways. There are already EXTREMELY long bridges
> thru out the world....I know of one over a swamp (excuse me....and
> enviromentally sensitive wet land............a swamp) in Louisana
> ........about 20 miles long.
>
> In such a case there would be minimal impact on the existing land use
> ....similar to wind farms....each tower takes up about 50 x 50 foot
> of land......such might be the case of the supporting towers for the
> elevated roadway.
>
> Secondly...tunnels. The Eiesenhower tunnel on I-70 west of Denver is
> several miles long. It's several decades old....I would guess the
> tunneling techniques have improved. I dunno anything about tunnels
> but it would seem that they don't interfer with surface use of the
> land.
### You still need to buy permission for the elevated roads from land
owners, and the cost would be prohibitive in both cases.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 19 2003 - 08:21:08 MST