Do you think larger urban sprawls would support an "executive autobahns"?

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,908
228
106
Roads are hell on the extremes of the country right now. Its a real PITA to drive anywhere in alot of eastern cities, let alone trying to get from strategic roadways between Virginia and Maryland. I was lucky enough to catch the "Autobahn" documentary on the History channel today and was tickled silly by the whole concept. The idea of the autobahn was more for the "executive" side of society when it was first developed, than for transportation or for the general public. The roadway was generally constructed for 100mph traffic, which at that time was unlikely in any civilian vehicle. The autobahn is not exactly free to the public, as it requires a $2000 drivers license and both a physical and performance-level examination in order to legally enter those roadways. The vehicle also must pass an annual physical inspection, the same time the vehicle (fees paid) is registered for road use. The general idea is "drive in the right lane, pass in the left lane" with fines based on the monetary income of the driver. Road speeds are not "umlimited speed" but now actually regulated in urban areas with dynamically assigned speed restrictions based on the amount and types of traffic, overall roadway conditions, time of day, and weather.

So here is what separated the American highway from an "executive autobahn":

1. State vehicle fees vs. Federal autobahn fees.
2. Annual personal license requirement and fee of $2000. (Executives can easily afford it, especially if it knocks off upwards of an hour on the commute!)
3. Four to five year vs. annual physical, written, and performance based test. (Most states wave the performance test if you have no violations, too.)
4. Roadways designed for 75mph versus 100+ mph traffic, and 20 year vs. 40 year lifespans of the roadway.
5. Roadways weight limitations set by state roadway managers and fees for each trip based on volume and weight, vs. no hitched truck-trailer traffic and a similar fee system for heavier vehicles.

Does anyone slse think that upper crust Americans would support the idea of an "executive autobahn" supported by federal dollars?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,908
228
106
A fee rate of $2000/yr isn't exactly outrageous if the clients that would use it would greatly benefit. American institutions have never been "socialist" until this past five decades, with fee based services a normality not an exception. The idea that America would enjoy the opportunity for a federal high speed transit system totally removed from state control is the only outlandish facet of the whole idea.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
My objection was not a moral one so much as a practical consideration.

Let's say that this route to surburbia was oh, 30 miles long. It would therefore have to cross countless properties. All it takes is one person to refuse it, and it is sunk. The government has the power to take property (with minimal compensation BTW) for its own purposes. A private company would not have the ability to do so. If the state were to seize property to hand it over to a private company so they could build a road the general public could not use, expect murder.

Now, do I think an improved road system has merit? Yes I do. Going about it as you suggest would be difficult for the reasons I have stated.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.

This has been done before for toll roads....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.

This has been done before for toll roads....

But not for a very long time. Back then, companies obtained rights of way through unpopulated areas. People got paid to let roads through. Now, the population density is such that a road of the kind being discussed would go right through peoples front yards, and in fact cause many houses to have to be demolished. Roads that were pretty much free for the taking would now cost billions. Of course politicians could claim eminent domain, but that is not something automatically granted. Displacing thousands or more families for a private road would soon end the careers of every politician even looking mildly interested, and besides, the litigation would take forever to complete.

Not practical
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.

This has been done before for toll roads....

But not for a very long time. Back then, companies obtained rights of way through unpopulated areas. People got paid to let roads through. Now, the population density is such that a road of the kind being discussed would go right through peoples front yards, and in fact cause many of them to have to be demolished. Roads that were pretty much free for the taking would now cost billions. Of course politicians could claim eminent domain, but that is not something automatically granted. Displacing thousands or more families for a private road would soon end the careers of every politician even looking mildly interested, and besides, the litigation would take forever to complete.

Not practical

This happens all the time. It is a thing called eminent domain. It is usually not a problem as long as the property is purchased for the project at fair market value.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.

This has been done before for toll roads....

But not for a very long time. Back then, companies obtained rights of way through unpopulated areas. People got paid to let roads through. Now, the population density is such that a road of the kind being discussed would go right through peoples front yards, and in fact cause many of them to have to be demolished. Roads that were pretty much free for the taking would now cost billions. Of course politicians could claim eminent domain, but that is not something automatically granted. Displacing thousands or more families for a private road would soon end the careers of every politician even looking mildly interested, and besides, the litigation would take forever to complete.

Not practical

This happens all the time. It is a thing called eminent domain. It is usually not a problem as long as the property is purchased for the project at fair market value.

I addressed this in my prior post. Eminent domain is not a given. It is something the goverment can do when there is need for the public welfare. The larger the land grab, the greater the demonstrated need would have to be. This does not benefit the public at large. If a legislature were to move to seize billions of dollars in private property, the judiciary can still block it. This happened in the Philly area. The Betsy Ross Bridge was built to connect I-95 in Philly to I-295 in New Jersey. Well, they built the bridge, but it became the bridge to nowhere. Why? Because while the property required for the bridge itself was acquired, but the few miles between the Jersey side and 295 could not be had. They assumed as you have that they could just take over. They were wrong.

Can the state theoretically do it? Of course. Then again, it could claim all private property for its own using such logic. I don't think that would go down well with voters either. Consider too, that "fair market" value for a great many areas amounts to several million dollars for each city block. Assuming miles of road, we would be looking at billions.


So, out of curiousity, how would you pull this off? You must assume great resistence to the project

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.

This has been done before for toll roads....

But not for a very long time. Back then, companies obtained rights of way through unpopulated areas. People got paid to let roads through. Now, the population density is such that a road of the kind being discussed would go right through peoples front yards, and in fact cause many of them to have to be demolished. Roads that were pretty much free for the taking would now cost billions. Of course politicians could claim eminent domain, but that is not something automatically granted. Displacing thousands or more families for a private road would soon end the careers of every politician even looking mildly interested, and besides, the litigation would take forever to complete.

Not practical

This happens all the time. It is a thing called eminent domain. It is usually not a problem as long as the property is purchased for the project at fair market value.

I addressed this in my prior post. Eminent domain is not a given. It is something the goverment can do when there is need for the public welfare. The larger the land grab, the greater the demonstrated need would have to be. This does not benefit the public at large. If a legislature were to move to seize billions of dollars in private property, the judiciary can still block it. This happened in the Philly area. The Betsy Ross Bridge was built to connect I-95 in Philly to I-295 in New Jersey. Well, they built the bridge, but it became the bridge to nowhere. Why? Because while the property required for the bridge itself was acquired, but the few miles between the Jersey side and 295 could not be had. They assumed as you have that they could just take over. They were wrong.

Can the state theoretically do it? Of course. Then again, it could claim all private property for its own using such logic. I don't think that would go down well with voters either. Consider too, that "fair market" value for a great many areas amounts to several million dollars for each city block. Assuming miles of road, we would be looking at billions.


So, out of curiousity, how would you pull this off? You must assume great resistence to the project

Maybe it is easier in texas because there is still lots of land....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.

This has been done before for toll roads....

But not for a very long time. Back then, companies obtained rights of way through unpopulated areas. People got paid to let roads through. Now, the population density is such that a road of the kind being discussed would go right through peoples front yards, and in fact cause many of them to have to be demolished. Roads that were pretty much free for the taking would now cost billions. Of course politicians could claim eminent domain, but that is not something automatically granted. Displacing thousands or more families for a private road would soon end the careers of every politician even looking mildly interested, and besides, the litigation would take forever to complete.

Not practical

This happens all the time. It is a thing called eminent domain. It is usually not a problem as long as the property is purchased for the project at fair market value.

I addressed this in my prior post. Eminent domain is not a given. It is something the goverment can do when there is need for the public welfare. The larger the land grab, the greater the demonstrated need would have to be. This does not benefit the public at large. If a legislature were to move to seize billions of dollars in private property, the judiciary can still block it. This happened in the Philly area. The Betsy Ross Bridge was built to connect I-95 in Philly to I-295 in New Jersey. Well, they built the bridge, but it became the bridge to nowhere. Why? Because while the property required for the bridge itself was acquired, but the few miles between the Jersey side and 295 could not be had. They assumed as you have that they could just take over. They were wrong.

Can the state theoretically do it? Of course. Then again, it could claim all private property for its own using such logic. I don't think that would go down well with voters either. Consider too, that "fair market" value for a great many areas amounts to several million dollars for each city block. Assuming miles of road, we would be looking at billions.


So, out of curiousity, how would you pull this off? You must assume great resistence to the project

Maybe it is easier in texas because there is still lots of land....


I could certainly see this being easier in Texas. I would imagine the property values and perhaps the political climate being more amiable to such an idea.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.

This has been done before for toll roads....

But not for a very long time. Back then, companies obtained rights of way through unpopulated areas. People got paid to let roads through. Now, the population density is such that a road of the kind being discussed would go right through peoples front yards, and in fact cause many of them to have to be demolished. Roads that were pretty much free for the taking would now cost billions. Of course politicians could claim eminent domain, but that is not something automatically granted. Displacing thousands or more families for a private road would soon end the careers of every politician even looking mildly interested, and besides, the litigation would take forever to complete.

Not practical

This happens all the time. It is a thing called eminent domain. It is usually not a problem as long as the property is purchased for the project at fair market value.

I addressed this in my prior post. Eminent domain is not a given. It is something the goverment can do when there is need for the public welfare. The larger the land grab, the greater the demonstrated need would have to be. This does not benefit the public at large. If a legislature were to move to seize billions of dollars in private property, the judiciary can still block it. This happened in the Philly area. The Betsy Ross Bridge was built to connect I-95 in Philly to I-295 in New Jersey. Well, they built the bridge, but it became the bridge to nowhere. Why? Because while the property required for the bridge itself was acquired, but the few miles between the Jersey side and 295 could not be had. They assumed as you have that they could just take over. They were wrong.

Can the state theoretically do it? Of course. Then again, it could claim all private property for its own using such logic. I don't think that would go down well with voters either. Consider too, that "fair market" value for a great many areas amounts to several million dollars for each city block. Assuming miles of road, we would be looking at billions.


So, out of curiousity, how would you pull this off? You must assume great resistence to the project

Maybe it is easier in texas because there is still lots of land....


I could certainly see this being easier in Texas. I would imagine the property values and perhaps the political climate being more amiable to such an idea.

The state is about to start a new road to alleviate i-35 congestion, it will go from about San Antonio to past Austin. Much property had to be aquired for this, granted most of it was rural.

I have not heard anyone complain about this happening, so i assume they are getting fair market value for their property.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.

This has been done before for toll roads....

But not for a very long time. Back then, companies obtained rights of way through unpopulated areas. People got paid to let roads through. Now, the population density is such that a road of the kind being discussed would go right through peoples front yards, and in fact cause many of them to have to be demolished. Roads that were pretty much free for the taking would now cost billions. Of course politicians could claim eminent domain, but that is not something automatically granted. Displacing thousands or more families for a private road would soon end the careers of every politician even looking mildly interested, and besides, the litigation would take forever to complete.

Not practical

This happens all the time. It is a thing called eminent domain. It is usually not a problem as long as the property is purchased for the project at fair market value.

I addressed this in my prior post. Eminent domain is not a given. It is something the goverment can do when there is need for the public welfare. The larger the land grab, the greater the demonstrated need would have to be. This does not benefit the public at large. If a legislature were to move to seize billions of dollars in private property, the judiciary can still block it. This happened in the Philly area. The Betsy Ross Bridge was built to connect I-95 in Philly to I-295 in New Jersey. Well, they built the bridge, but it became the bridge to nowhere. Why? Because while the property required for the bridge itself was acquired, but the few miles between the Jersey side and 295 could not be had. They assumed as you have that they could just take over. They were wrong.

Can the state theoretically do it? Of course. Then again, it could claim all private property for its own using such logic. I don't think that would go down well with voters either. Consider too, that "fair market" value for a great many areas amounts to several million dollars for each city block. Assuming miles of road, we would be looking at billions.


So, out of curiousity, how would you pull this off? You must assume great resistence to the project

Maybe it is easier in texas because there is still lots of land....


I could certainly see this being easier in Texas. I would imagine the property values and perhaps the political climate being more amiable to such an idea.

The state is about to start a new road to alleviate i-35 congestion, it will go from about San Antonio to past Austin. Much property had to be aquired for this, granted most of it was rural.

I have not heard anyone complain about this happening, so i assume they are getting fair market value for their property.

States build roads all the time. Remember though, the initial post was about constructing something off limits to most of the public. Remember "executive" and "upper crust". As I said before, I am in favor of building a better highway. Building them just for the fortunate few is another thing.

Do you think public sentiment would be different if this new road excluded them?

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I think you would find it a difficult sell to appropriate private property from land and homeowners to build a roadway they cannot use. Kicking out someone from their home so some rich guy doesnt have to contend with them on the road is never going to fly.

This has been done before for toll roads....

But not for a very long time. Back then, companies obtained rights of way through unpopulated areas. People got paid to let roads through. Now, the population density is such that a road of the kind being discussed would go right through peoples front yards, and in fact cause many of them to have to be demolished. Roads that were pretty much free for the taking would now cost billions. Of course politicians could claim eminent domain, but that is not something automatically granted. Displacing thousands or more families for a private road would soon end the careers of every politician even looking mildly interested, and besides, the litigation would take forever to complete.

Not practical

This happens all the time. It is a thing called eminent domain. It is usually not a problem as long as the property is purchased for the project at fair market value.

I addressed this in my prior post. Eminent domain is not a given. It is something the goverment can do when there is need for the public welfare. The larger the land grab, the greater the demonstrated need would have to be. This does not benefit the public at large. If a legislature were to move to seize billions of dollars in private property, the judiciary can still block it. This happened in the Philly area. The Betsy Ross Bridge was built to connect I-95 in Philly to I-295 in New Jersey. Well, they built the bridge, but it became the bridge to nowhere. Why? Because while the property required for the bridge itself was acquired, but the few miles between the Jersey side and 295 could not be had. They assumed as you have that they could just take over. They were wrong.

Can the state theoretically do it? Of course. Then again, it could claim all private property for its own using such logic. I don't think that would go down well with voters either. Consider too, that "fair market" value for a great many areas amounts to several million dollars for each city block. Assuming miles of road, we would be looking at billions.


So, out of curiousity, how would you pull this off? You must assume great resistence to the project

Maybe it is easier in texas because there is still lots of land....


I could certainly see this being easier in Texas. I would imagine the property values and perhaps the political climate being more amiable to such an idea.

The state is about to start a new road to alleviate i-35 congestion, it will go from about San Antonio to past Austin. Much property had to be aquired for this, granted most of it was rural.

I have not heard anyone complain about this happening, so i assume they are getting fair market value for their property.

States build roads all the time. Remember though, the initial post was about constructing something off limits to most of the public. Remember "executive" and "upper crust". As I said before, I am in favor of building a better highway. Building them just for the fortunate few is another thing.

Do you think public sentiment would be different if this new road excluded them?

There is not enough money from the fortunate few to make this happen. So we are left talking about toll roads, roads for those that are in a hurry and can afford it.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
I don't think the problem is a lack of money for roads but a lack of space. And if you were trying to raise money for roads, maybe the technique the londeners are using might be better.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
I hope by using the german word "Autobahn" you are not implying you are talking about the german Interstates aka Autobahn. Because they are nothing like you described.

Everyone can use the Autobahn. We do not have income depending fines (in Finland they do). Yes making a drivers licens is expensive but not $2000 more $1000-1500. The reason for this is: you are required to take a certain number of instructed driving hours in a driving school. And the driving hour will cost you about $50-100 i guess. You cannot do the driving in your own vehicle, you have to go in the driving school car which has all the pedals on the right side too so the driving teacher can interfere if u screw up. So the end price for your license is: Theoretical schooling+theoretical exam+driving hours you need to be able to take the practical exam + practical exam.
Yes vehicles have to pass an inspection every two years (contains physical/safety fitness of your car + emission testing). You pay a yearly motor vehicle tax (registration fee) which is used for road building/maintanance - we do not have toll roads.
Right side driving is mandatory but most Germans are too stupid to drive and only use the left lane - making passing other a bitch sometimes. Also trucks basically clog the right lane like the pearls on a necklace.
Yes dynamically assigneds speed restriction/warning signs become more common nowadays (depending on what you said). But where the road conditions are suitable there is often no speedlimit.

I repeat everyone can use the Autobahn.

The original idea of the Autobahn was: So the Nazis can move the troops fast across the country... off course they prolly didnt state that openly
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,908
228
106
Interstates in America only slightly resemble the one and only Autobahn. I won't argue with you over your other points, about the autobahn being free and accessible to every driver, since the source of my information was only from a documentary so its totally possible to be either wrong or outdated information. I have heard about the fines being based on income, so its a surprise to hear you say otherwise. One thing for certain is that the driver license is much more costly in Germany than in America, and the costs of the license would weed out the typical American casual driver. The cost of ownership for a vehicle makes it prohibitive to squander its use in typical American fashions of cruising and running to Walmart... true?

Originally posted by: B00ne

The original idea of the Autobahn was: So the Nazis can move the troops fast across the country... off course they prolly didnt state that openly

The autobahn would never have been considered a good avenue for troop movement. Any transportation engineer would have quickly deduced the railway was more efficient and survivable than a competing roadway.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MadRat
Interstates in America only slightly resemble the one and only Autobahn. I won't argue with you over your other points, about the autobahn being free and accessible to every driver, since the source of my information was only from a documentary so its totally possible to be either wrong or outdated information. I have heard about the fines being based on income, so its a surprise to hear you say otherwise. One thing for certain is that the driver license is much more costly in Germany than in America, and the costs of the license would weed out the typical American casual driver. The cost of ownership for a vehicle makes it prohibitive to squander its use in typical American fashions of cruising and running to Walmart... true?

Originally posted by: B00ne

The original idea of the Autobahn was: So the Nazis can move the troops fast across the country... off course they prolly didnt state that openly

The autobahn would never have been considered a good avenue for troop movement. Any transportation engineer would have quickly deduced the railway was more efficient and survivable than a competing roadway.

You right rail is faster, but the DOD did have a large say in where the major highways went.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: MadRat
Interstates in America only slightly resemble the one and only Autobahn. I won't argue with you over your other points, about the autobahn being free and accessible to every driver, since the source of my information was only from a documentary so its totally possible to be either wrong or outdated information. I have heard about the fines being based on income, so its a surprise to hear you say otherwise. One thing for certain is that the driver license is much more costly in Germany than in America, and the costs of the license would weed out the typical American casual driver. The cost of ownership for a vehicle makes it prohibitive to squander its use in typical American fashions of cruising and running to Walmart... true?


Well I told you the reasons why a license costs so much. The reason they are cheap in the US is because U take the theo test - no schooling necessary -> get a permit. After a month u take the practical test -> get a license - again no schooling required. Now if a driving school was involved (it is a private enterprise) which also has to maintain the safety standards like those special driving school cars - I bet it would be just as expensive as in the US.

Now the cost of ownership: hmm dunno if that makes it prohibitive to sqaunder around in American fashion - i'd vote it is common sense, gas prices and lack of space that makes it prohibitive - apart from the fact that there are better uses for spare time than wasting it while wasting gas.

btw, some driving patterns of a few US soldiers here, show me that a driving school is not a terribly bad idea

edit: fines based on income do not exsist here in Germany. Last year I was photographed when I was going 158 in a 100km/h zone on the Autobahn: lost my license for 1 month + ?125 fine + 3 points. fines changed this year... fines for speeding