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."
Who proposed such a project? See #39
"this is a very bad idea. it will essentially divide the country.. New World Order slowly spreading its tentacles."
I agree. That's exactly what it is and now we see why President Bush wasn't interested in securing our border at Mexico. He had his eye on dissolving the United States in favor of a third-world amalgam of disparate nations.
Not even Jimmuh Koatuh or the Demon from Dogpatch ever did such a thing. They did other bad things, maybe laying the groundwork for this final dissolution of our country. Wickedness in high places.
This sentence stands out as especially paranoid in the middle of the most paranoid post I've read in awhile. So just where has it been "reported," and which "member of the Bush family" has purchased this property? Do you expect us to just nod our heads and swallow this, or can you back it up? And in the interests of full disclosure, do you believe that the US Government was behind 9/11?
>>Huh? How?<<
I suspect that was a reference to longshoreman's unions and the cost of labor in California.
Huh? How?
What's the distance in road miles from western US ports to Kansas City vs road miles from southern Mexico to Kansas City?
Even if its 30 or 40 lanes thats still frickin' huge.
Do you mean it wasn't built so the Soviets could easily take over the US? WOW! And I believed those anti-interstate people and have (due to principle) been driving on horrid little two lane highways, infested with an endless number of slow moving farm trucks and traffic lights, ever since... :)
I think I'll take a pass on all of the moonbat rantings this time.
More lies, the land and the highwat will belong to the state.
The Interstate system was not free and it not free today. It was and is paid for by taxes.
Even if its 30 or 40 lanes thats still frickin' huge.
And some part of the Interstate sysytem are cash cow state toll roads, such as the PA Turnpike, which was paid off long ago.
I took the NY State Thruway from Buffalo to Albany about 15 years ago, and the toll back then was 11 bucks and the toll collector said they don't call it highway robbery for nothing.
There is no such thing as a "NASCO Corridor"
Thank you.
Exactly. And as a privately held road/property, that consortium will in fact be able to decide who can and who cannot travel upon or across the road...and it totally bisects the country.
Live in Colorado and want to drive to visit family in Florida? Better have the right papers/attitude.
As and OTR trucker, I can tell you what the implications of this super highway would be.
1. It will close both West and East coast ports. I haul a lot of freight from the Richmond area and we rarely haul freight to Canada, Mexico, or anywhere past the Ohio/Ky border.
2. This is a ruse to get cheap Mexican labor for ports and trucking and bypass the US trucking industry. There are millions of O/Os (Owner Operators) here in the US and would put the trucking industry out of business.
3. Mexican trucks will be allowed to run anywhere in the USA. I have seen the quality of these trucks while traveling in the Southwest and saftey will be a big issue. DOT regulations requires that all commercial drivers pass a DOT physical and carry either a US issued Class A or B license. Commercial drivers must also be able to read, write, and speak English.
We are inviting the end of our economy with this venture by placing millions of Americans on the unemployment line in not only drivers, but manufactures, truck stops, et al who are in the trucking industry.
Mexican truckers are a real safety concern. Do not let this happen.
Ah yes the Longshoremen's Union, the "paragon" of virtue and non-corruption.(/sarcasm)
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.