response 1 of 25:

May 3 01:14 UTC 2002

"As most of you know, I live in Maryland near the DC line.  And, as most of
 you know, Virginia is full of assholes. "

Umm... nah.  Too easy.  ;)

response 3 of 25:

May 3 03:45 UTC 2002

Ohio: We'll give you the Upper Peninsula if you give us Toledo
Michigan: ok, sure

(I think that the UP brings in more tourism dollars than Toledo does.  
However, Toledo has the UPS hub, which presumably provides a lot of 
jobs)

response 5 of 25:

May 3 03:59 UTC 2002

Depending on the issue at hand individual US States 'sue' each other
in courts at a federal level to settle issues.  Such recent I recall
are NJ -v- NY over who get money from tourist attraction - I believe
that NJ's case was something like because there was a bridge linking
the island with NJ, the island which NY claimed was actually instead
land and part of NJ.  Georgia -v- South Carolina over an issue 
involving the Savannah river and some valuable land - the irony of
South Carolina attempting to assert federal authority over one of
its fellow 'confederate' states was particularly wonderful.  I
believe Ohio and Kentucky went at each other over land that was
previously river- one state asserting it owned land on the other
state's side of the river, although I don't recall which. 

response 9 of 25:

May 3 05:12 UTC 2002

State administrators, probably mostly at department head level at first,
telephone or e-mail their counterparts in other states. After all, they
almost all speak the same language.

response 11 of 25:

May 3 12:50 UTC 2002

Re #8: True, but I'm not sure how much they cared.  At the time, the land
was largely unexplored and thought to be pretty much worthless.

Re #10: There's some interesting passages in Mark Twain's _Life on the
Mississippi_ about chunks of land moving from one state's jurisdiction to
another when the Mississippi would cut off a bend.  Nowadays the Mississippi
is so thoroughly engineered and controlled I doubt that sort of thing
happens much anymore.

response 19 of 25:

May 4 23:54 UTC 2002

resp:14 and beyond:  The Capital Beltway, originally I-495 until the 
plan to punch I-95 through the city was abandoned, may have been a 
bypass when it was built, but now it's the Main Street for the 
Washington DC area, completely congested with local traffic.  
So there's a thought that it would be good to build an "outer bypass"
so that the long-haul traffic on I-95 could skip the DC area 
entirely.  I vaguely recall one plan to build a freeway down the 
Eastern Shore, and have the bypass route take the Chesapeake Bay 
Bridge-Tunnel to rejoin I-95 in the Newport News area, and another 
plan to build something taking a western sweep around the city.
 
Jamie's resp:15 about "the District won't let a bypass be built"
is somewhat mystifying, since Washington's city government can't 
even sneeze without getting permission from Congress.

response 21 of 25:

May 5 05:04 UTC 2002

He mentioned that Congress had killed all four bypasses.

The "second bypass" is currently in progress in Toronto, where the exact
phenomenon Ken is describing has occurred with the 401.  The "ETR" 407 has
yet to be completed all the way East, but it gets people as far as the 400
and it's starting to gain acceptance despite the tolls involved.  The
difference, of course, is the willingness of Canadians to wink at the
government's use of money.

The other difference is that there is even less available freeway for Toronto
commuters for a substantial population base.  

response 23 of 25:

May 6 18:33 UTC 2002

I'm referring to bypassing the whole DC metro area, not just DC itself.

I live on Edsall just inside the city limits.