[TKDietz]

You cite a bad example. There are plenty of good ones, examples of beneficial and even necessary roads that have been built or widened and in the process required land that had to be taken by eminent domain. Think about some of the interstate highways and so on that would not exist without eminent domain.

[ubu]

Actually, I'm thinking it would have multiple advantages, though the changes would not be without discomfort.

Fewer freeways = less urban sprawl. Over time, people will want to live closer to their jobs, since they can't move 30 miles away and expect someone to build or widen a convenient freeway. Thus the cities'population & tax base, etc. are enhanced. (Other possiblity, jobs move to smaller towns; it's a tossup.)

Fewer freeways = more congested traffic, hence more pollution (bad effect), but therefore more pressure to make cars less polluting and more efficient.

Fewer freeways & higher pop density = more pressure to build mass transit (in existing ROW's)

Since the completion of 95% of the Interstate Highway system in the 1970's, most of the freeway construction in this nation has been _urban_ to _sub-urban_, not cross-country (I-49 being the biggest exception, as would be the proposed "I-69 NAFTA" highway.)

Stop making it so easy for developers to do "greenfield" development and then grease palms to get roads built to their new "master planned communities" and the tax base of the cities will eventually begin to recover.