Looks just like the invading forces in a military strategy lesson, doesn't it?
Posted on 11/22/2006 12:42:29 AM PST by Sarajevo
A MASSIVE road four football fields wide and running from Mexico to Canada through the heartland of the United States is being proposed amid controversy over security and the damage to the environment.
The "nation's most modern roadway", proposed between Laredo in Texas and Duluth, Minnesota, along Interstate 35, would allow the US to bypass the west coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to import goods from China and the Far East into the heart of middle America via Mexico, saving both cost and time.
However, critics argue that the ten-lane road would lay a swathe of concrete on top of an already over-developed transport infrastructure and further open the border with Mexico to illegal immigrants or terrorists.
According to a weekly Conservative magazine published in the US, the US administration is "quietly yet systematically" planning the massive highway, citing as a benefit that it would negate the power of two unions, the Longshoremen and Teamsters.
Another source claimed the highway was a "bi-partisan effort" with support from both Republicans and Democrats that would reduce freight transport times across the nation by days.
Under the plan - believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president - imported goods would pass a border "road bump" in the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, before being loaded on to lorries for a straight run to a major hub, or "SmartPort", in Kansas, Oklahoma.
Border guards and customs officers would check the electronic security tags of lorries and their holds at a £1.6 million facility being built in Kansas City, before sending them on to the road network that links the US cities of Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver across the Canadian border.
Rail tracks and pipelines for oil and natural gas would run alongside the road.
Following the release of a 4,000-page environmental study, construction of the first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor is reportedly due to begin next year, backed by US state and governmental agencies and a Spanish private sector company, Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte.
Tiffany Melvin, the executive director of Nasco, a non-profit organisation which has received £1.4 million from the US Department of Transport to study the proposal, said: "We're working on developing the existing system; these highways were developed in the 1950s and we have number of different programmes we're working on to provide alternative fuels and improve safety and security issues.
"We get comments that we are working to bring in terrorists and drug dealers, but this is simply not true.
"This is a bi-partisan effort that will ultimately improve our transportation infrastructure.
"Trade with China is increasing greatly, and the costs of our transportation system are ultimately born by the consumer.
"We do offer links to Canada and Mexico, but we are working on the trade competitiveness of America. We are planning for the future."
Eric Olson, the transportation spokesmen for the California-based Sierra Club, a national environmental awareness organisation, said the road would cause significant damage.
"Something on that scale would have a massive environmental impact," he said.
"Building a large-scale new highway does not seem like the best solution.
"There is a great need for fixing our existing roads and bridges. That needs to be a priority before we start building new massive road projects."
A MASSIVE road four football fields wide and running from Mexico to Canada through the heartland of the United States is being proposed amid controversy over security and the damage to the environment.
The "nation's most modern roadway", proposed between Laredo in Texas and Duluth, Minnesota, along Interstate 35, would allow the US to bypass the west coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to import goods from China and the Far East into the heart of middle America via Mexico, saving both cost and time.
However, critics argue that the ten-lane road would lay a swathe of concrete on top of an already over-developed transport infrastructure and further open the border with Mexico to illegal immigrants or terrorists.
According to a weekly Conservative magazine published in the US, the US administration is "quietly yet systematically" planning the massive highway, citing as a benefit that it would negate the power of two unions, the Longshoremen and Teamsters.
Another source claimed the highway was a "bi-partisan effort" with support from both Republicans and Democrats that would reduce freight transport times across the nation by days.
Under the plan - believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president - imported goods would pass a border "road bump" in the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, before being loaded on to lorries for a straight run to a major hub, or "SmartPort", in Kansas, Oklahoma.
Border guards and customs officers would check the electronic security tags of lorries and their holds at a £1.6 million facility being built in Kansas City, before sending them on to the road network that links the US cities of Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver across the Canadian border.
Rail tracks and pipelines for oil and natural gas would run alongside the road.
Following the release of a 4,000-page environmental study, construction of the first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor is reportedly due to begin next year, backed by US state and governmental agencies and a Spanish private sector company, Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte.
Tiffany Melvin, the executive director of Nasco, a non-profit organisation which has received £1.4 million from the US Department of Transport to study the proposal, said: "We're working on developing the existing system; these highways were developed in the 1950s and we have number of different programmes we're working on to provide alternative fuels and improve safety and security issues.
"We get comments that we are working to bring in terrorists and drug dealers, but this is simply not true.
"This is a bi-partisan effort that will ultimately improve our transportation infrastructure.
"Trade with China is increasing greatly, and the costs of our transportation system are ultimately born by the consumer.
"We do offer links to Canada and Mexico, but we are working on the trade competitiveness of America. We are planning for the future."
Eric Olson, the transportation spokesmen for the California-based Sierra Club, a national environmental awareness organisation, said the road would cause significant damage.
"Something on that scale would have a massive environmental impact," he said.
"Building a large-scale new highway does not seem like the best solution.
"There is a great need for fixing our existing roads and bridges. That needs to be a priority before we start building new massive road projects."
...
"We live on a continent whose three countries possess the assets to make it the strongest, most prosperous and self-sufficient area on Earth. Within the borders of this North American continent are the food, resources, technology and undeveloped territory which, properly managed, could dramatically improve the quality of life of all its inhabitants."
"It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government. A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States--a North American accord--would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them--strong as they are--could accomplish in the absence of such cooperation. In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today."
"No one can say at this point precisely what form future cooperation among our three countries will take. But if I am elected President, I would be willing to invite each of our neighbors to send a special representative to our government to sit in on high level planning sessions with us, as partners, mutually concerned about the future of our continent. First, I would immediately seek the views and ideas of Canadian and Mexican leaders on this issue, and work tirelessly with them to develop closer ties among our peoples. It is time we stopped thinking of our nearest neighbors as foreigners."
"By developing methods of working closely together, we will lay the foundations for future cooperation on a broader and more significant scale. We will put to rest any doubts of those cynical enough to believe that the United States would seek to dominate any relationship among our three countries, or foolish enough to think that the governments and peoples of Canada and Mexico would ever permit such domination to occur. I for one, am confident that we can show the world by example that the nations of North America are ready, within the context of an unswerving commitment to freedom, to see new forms of accommodation to meet a changing world. A developing closeness between the United States, Canada and Mexico would serve notice on friends and foe alike that we were prepared for a long haul, looking outward again and confident of our future; that together we are going to create jobs, to generate new fortunes of wealth for many and provide a legacy for the children of each of our countries. Two hundred years ago, we taught the world that a new form of government, created out of the genius of man to cope with his circumstances, could succeed in bringing a measure of quality to human life previously thought impossible."
"Now let us work toward the goal of using the assets of this continent, its resources, technology, and foodstuffs in the most efficient ways possible for the common good of all its people. It may take the next 100 years but we can dare to dream that at some future date a map of the world might show the North American continent as one in which the people's commerce of its three strong countries flow more freely across their present borders than they do today."
...
Reagan is evil and must be stopped. /sarcasm...
Also:
Federal Highway Administration
Credible enough for you?
And in reference to your post#91, re-read the article, especially paragraph 7.
You just negated all the arguments of the pro-border fence crowd.
You are trying to spread mis-info. You're not the first to try to do that.
The problem, of course, is always at intersections. Right turning vehicles on red are the worse culprits, running down little old ladies crossing in the crosswalks on pedx green.
You don't have to get snippy about it. Google it.
Like the Mississippi River divides the country? Somehow we overcame that. The paranoia over this project is incredible.
If we were trying to build the Interstate system today, it would never get built.
I have such mixed emotions about this. There are so many serious concerns, but on the positive side, it harkens back to the days of the goal to land a man on the moon, the creation of our highway system and, frankly, the first coast-to-coast railroad.
It is the type of thing that made this country great and a place of which people were proud to be a part.
It is the sort of thing we have not even entertained in decades!
Ah yes... Some KOOKS opposed the Eisenhower Interstate System in the 50's because it could be used by Soviets tanks to spread out easily across the US. Matter of fact, it was all a secret plot by them...
Thanks for pinging. I personally take all this NAU stuff with a can of salt.
Looks like KC would be a good place to start a few distribution companies in the future. Smack in the middle geographically of the new main artery of transportation.
Sounds good to me. Let's let Texas thrash out the multimodal corridor issues for the time being (that is if all the spooky music about this NAFTA superhighway is actually true).
This will increase trade and raise our standard of living. No reason for us to oppose
That may be, but I wish this crowd would stop speaking in some sort of bizarre code and come out and say what they have to say.
This boondoggle to end all boondoggles is already on the drawing boards, and plans are being made all over. The trans-Texas Corridor is just a trial balloon so they can get their sales pitch right for the locals.
If you think of the potential for kickbacks on the concrete concession alone, I think you'll find that most jurisdictions will have placed this suppository firmly in the taxpayers before they know what happened.
Let's do it!
I shouldn't have to do that; you should say what you have to say and cite your sources. But I did as you said (sigh), and the *most* reputable sources I found were the Huffington Post and Daily Kos. I think you may be lost...
Anyway, I forgot this sentence off my reply:
Do you have a real source for this accusation, or is it simply unfounded slander?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.