The NAFTA Corridors: Offshoring U.S. Transportation Jobs to Mexico

Monthly Review ^ | February 2006 | Richard D. Vogel

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Monthly Review appears to be socialist, if not downright Marxist, so its pronouncements should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!

"Enron, Abramoff, and the Trans-Texas Corridor. Big money, big manipulations, and big mistakes."

[CWOJackson]

If it's anti-Bush it will be taken with tremendous praise.

[Reaganez]

Hip Hip Hurray and Viva! for Nafta,Cafta and the FTAA!

[Shermy]

So that's what that Texas Governor's big road plan is all about. Making more money for China AND Mexico.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

PING!

If nothing else, you'll gather what the "Workers of the World" think about NAFTA.

[A. Pole]

Based on the estimated construction cost of $31.4 million per mile, the 4,000-mile Texas sections of the NAFTA corridors will cost $125.5 billion, not including right-of-way and miscellaneous costs. Adding in right-of-way costs of $11.7–$38 billion and miscellaneous costs of $8–$20 billion, the estimated total outlay for the NAFTA corridors in Texas ranges from $145.2 billion to $183.5 billion. Cost estimates for the entire NAFTA corridor system have not been disclosed but could double those figures.
[...]
The list of transportation jobs that will be offshored to Mexico is long: port employees from supervisors and inspectors to crane operators and longshoremen; railroad construction and maintenance workers and supervisors; railroad operators; warehouse workers and supervisors; highway construction and maintenance workers; local and long haul truck drivers; and an army of logistical support workers for the entire network.

Bump

[gas0linealley]

"Monthly Review appears to be socialist, if not downright Marxist, so its pronouncements should be taken with a grain of salt."

The open borders policy of this administration is making it impossible for a business owner to stay in business unless he is willing to be a criminal, employing criminals.

Soon the honest among us won't be able to afford that grain of salt.

[A. Pole]

Monthly Review appears to be socialist, if not downright Marxist

Marx was in favor of free trade as it aggravated class divisions and promoted globalization.

[hedgetrimmer]

Lets add things up.

The UAE is now authorized by the federal government to operate 6 US ports including Baltimore, Miami, New York, New Jersey, New Orleans and Philadelphia, New Orleans being a major oil terminus.

The trans texas corridor, and corridor entry sites into the US from Mexico and Canada operated by Australian/Spanish Cintra corp.

Governor Schwarzenegger makes a deal to give China the right to operate "goods movement corridors" from the LA basin out into the rest of the nation.

What am I forgetting?

[JABBERBONK]

The UAE is not authorized by the Feds to operate any US ports, the UAE is trying to purchase the UK firm Peninsular and Orient a Shipping and Ferry operations corporation. All US ports are run by Maritime agencies, which are part overseen by Homeland Security.....don't believe everything you read from the AP.

[Alberta's Child]

Sparked by organized resistance and wildcat actions by workers against falling wages and deteriorating working conditions at America’s ports and on the nation’s highways, the flow of container traffic is being shifted to a south-north orientation. By leveraging both the U.S. and Mexican governments and taking advantage of the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), big capital is developing container terminals in Mexico and using that country as a land bridge and labor pool to deliver shipping containers to destinations in the United States at discount prices.

This trend in container shipping is being driven by a huge issue here that has nothing to do with cheap Mexican labor and NAFTA trade policy. Most major U.S. container ports are operating at or near capacity, and securing the necessary approvals for major expansion projects in these areas is damn near impossible due to three factors: 1) the high cost of waterfront real estate in places like New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Baltimore, etc.; 2) a burdensome regulatory process for any project requiring dredging (Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, EPA, etc.) or landside infrastructure (U.S. Department of Transportation, EPA, etc.); and 3) a general "Not In My Back Yard" political climate around the port facilities in every one of these major cities.

The Journal of Commerce had a short article on this a few months ago, and one of the things they pointed out was that due to these issues, Mexico is one of the only places in North America where a substantial capacity-enhancing port project is currently being advanced.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Your points 2 and 3 appear to show a nation willing to shoot itself in the foot, economically speaking. We should get rid of these dangerous attitudes and regulations.

[Thunder90]

They also want to let Russia operate some ports and shipping firms in the US.

[hedgetrimmer]

Where? I hadn't heard that one.

[Havoc]

Anyone see the trend? Automotive, followed by service (supporting automotive), followed by trucking/transportation..

If the UAW and teamsters grew a pair, this admin would be in heap big doo doo.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[grey_whiskers]

I'm worried about the ease with which illegal aliens, narcotics, terrorists and their, umm..."tools" will be transported across the US borders.

No cheers, unfortunately.

[John Lenin]

Get rid of the unions and save your job.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

You're welcome. :-)