Replies

The LA Times had an article today. The port traffic statistics were interesting.

Mexican Port Gets American Connection
A U.S. railway is linking with a Pacific coast harbor to move freight faster to the Midwest.
Los Angeles Times, June 20, 2006
(snip)
Moving cargo
The harbor of Lazaro Cardenas on Mexico's Pacific coast ranks 34th among North American cargo container ports (2005 ranking*):
1. Los Angeles, 7.5 million
2. Long Beach, 6.7 million
3. New York/New Jersey, 4.8 million
4. Oakland, 2.3 million
5. Seattle, 2.1 million
6. Tacoma, Wash., 2.1 million
7. Charleston, S.C., 2.0 million
8. Hampton Roads, Va., 2.0 million
9. Savannah, Ga., 1.9 million
10. Vancouver, Canada, 1.8 million

34. Lazaro Cardenas, 0.1 million

*in 20-foot-equivalent containers
Source: American Assn.of Port Authorities

It has also been reported that the new port at Punta Colonet (150 miles south of Tijuana) "would initially attract one million containers a year, with capacity to handle as many as five million after just five years of operation".

Here's some more information for you. Its interesting in the fact that says executive agreements are being used to set up the SPP and working groups with NGOs to make it happen.

The U.S. Constitution imposes various formal requirements on treaties47 that ensure Senate participation in the formation of international obligations. Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly recognizes treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land."48

Executive agreements lack this explicit constitutional formality and authority. Executive agreements are compacts that obligate the United States to foreign states but that, unlike treaties, are not presented to the Senate as directed in Article II of the Constitution.49 These agreements may be congressional-executive agreements,50 treaty-executive agreements,51 or presidential-executive agreements.52 Whereas treaty-making was debated vigorously in the Constitutional Congress53 and is authorized explicitly in the Constitution,54 the origins,55 authority,56 and legal status57 of executive agreements are less clear. Nonetheless, the number of executive agreements continues to increase, especially as compared to the number of treaties.58 Some warn that this trend evidences a growing concentration of power in the executive branch;59 others flatly declare certain aspects of executive agreements unconstitutional;60 still others applaud the practicality and ingenuity of these instruments.61 For purposes of this Comment, these debates are less important than the fact that courts have granted executive agreements authority equal to treaties under federal law.62

http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/46/faire.html