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."
Of particular interest to all those who support the construction of a wall between the US and Mexico is the fact that this highway will almost negate the reason for such a boundary.
ping
For those who would do damage to our transportation infrastructure, this is one-stop shopping. One effective 'dirty bomb' into the hub 'port' and it is a monument to stupidity. It would permit the efficient distribution of just about any nasty pathogen, natural or manmade, on a North/South Axis which would effectively split the nation in two.
For the National Defense, the GF factor is right off the scale.
Better to invest the money in border security.
This will increase trade and raise our standard of living. No reason for us to oppose this.
I would think that expanding the rail system would move more freight more efficiently and more safely than a massive new highway.
Rail Roads would also be more easily policed for trafficking humans and contraband.
so far NAFTA and other free trade agreements have done such a wonderful job of that
stop being so paranoid. This is a good infrastructure upgrade
The interior of the country already gets products from Asia from either American coast, primarily the Western one.
trupolitik and hedgetrimmer, ping, though you probably won't even read this, as you haven't any other of the related pings.
this is a very bad idea. it will essentially divide the country.. New World Order slowly spreading its tentacles.
Oh, wait! This is going to start at the Mexican border, right? Hey, no problo, senor.
I suspect strains of that ancient refrain, 'I've been wukkin' on the railroad' in spanish will be wafting across the heartlands before too long.
North American Union
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/dallas59/mexiuscanfs_flag.jpg
Most REAL Americans would have NO problem burning THAT flag......
Likely they will also be stringing up the dolts actively seeking it as a goal.
It should in reality be a superrailroad, on ground, above ground or below ground, a superfast super rail system, something that would be electric or the engines non dino fueled.
All this is about is the countless kickbacks and bribes taking place. And I frankly have not much love for those cute cuddly mexicans. Besides security would be an extreme problem at the border.
Whistling past the graveyard. Blackbird.
Besides, whatever WalMart, GE and the rest of the multi-nationals want, they get.
BUMP
Then what do we do run down to Mexico City and kiss their Mecican rearends to be nice to us!!
I say "NOT NO BUT HELL NO!!!"
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.