Posted on 05/30/2007 6:22:13 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A proposed North American “super corridor” would relieve overburdened highways and promote economic growth in three countries, supporters say.
But others wonder whether the proposal might bring in cheap exports and put unsafe Mexican trucks on U.S. roads.
The issue takes center stage at a three-day conference that begins today in Fort Worth, Texas. More than 350 transportation, logistics and economic development specialists from the United States, Canada and Mexico are meeting.
The conference is sponsored by Dallas-based North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition.
The nonprofit coalition, whose members include public- and private-sector organizations, wants to develop an integrated transportation system linking the three countries.
The corridor includes interstates 29, 94 and 35, giving North Dakota and Minnesota a stake in the outcome. The project has drawn heavy criticism, including claims that it threatens U.S. control of its own borders.
Such claims are “extremely inaccurate, false and unhelpful to the country’s actual needs,” said Francisco Conde, the coalition’s director of special projects and communications.
The real issue is that the U.S. Interstate Highway System, completed in 1970, is increasingly overwhelmed by the country’s growing population and economy, he said.
The transportation system needs to be expanded for growth to continue, he said.
North Dakota and western Minnesota have less immediate need for the super corridor than the southern Great Plains does, said Jerry Nagel, president of Fargo-based Northern Great Plains, which seeks to maximize the area’s potential through regional collaboration.
The existing highway system in this area is still adequate – which isn’t the case in the southern Great Plains, where some highways are stressed by heavy traffic, he said.
Texas lawmakers for months have wrangled over construction of what is known as the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Plans call for a transportation network across Texas, including a 10-lane highway with six lanes for automobiles and four lanes for trucks. Freight and commuter railways and a utilities corridor are also part of the proposal, which would stretch the system from Laredo, Texas, to Canada.
The idea has sparked controversy in Texas, where rural interest groups are opposed to paving thousands of acres of farmland for transportation.
There aren’t any plans for super corridor-related construction in North Dakota, said Bob Fode, director of transportation projects for the state Department of Transportation.
David Martin, president of the Chamber of Commerce of Fargo Moorhead, said his group supports the super corridor project. The region’s continued growth requires expanded transportation opportunities, he said.
North Dakota Commerce Commissioner Shane Goettle said a transportation corridor would help the state. Both North Dakota and Minnesota are exporting more to Mexico and Canada, according to U.S. government figures.
From 2001 to 2006, North Dakota increased its exports to Mexico from $38 million to $55 million and its exports to Canada from $394 million to $727 million. In the same period, Minnesota exports to Mexico rose from $435 million to $595 million, with exports to Canada rising from $2.6 billion to $4.1 billion.
The proposed super corridor worries the American trucking industry.
“We are concerned about the safety standards of Mexican trucks,” said Thomas Balzer, managing director of the North Dakota Motor Carriers Association.
There’s also concern that Mexican truckers will improperly carry goods between U.S. cities while they’re in this country with international shipments, he said.
Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said it likely will be 20 years before the project has any impact on Minnesota.
He said it’s too early to know how such a corridor would affect the Red River Valley, but there are some concerns over how an influx of Canadian and Mexican imports could affect North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota’s economies.
“There’s a lot of concern out there with some people about Canadian cattle, and hogs and wheat. You’ve got a different situation on the Mexico border,” Peterson said.
“It depends on where it goes and how it’s developed.”
Overseas goods on cargo ships would be diverted to Mexican ports then loaded onto Mexican trucks and carried across the border into the U.S. via these “new superhighways”.
Circumventing higher cost of American merchant mariners, dock worker, truckers. This is the globalist plan.
I truly believe this. When you back away from the picture, your able to see all the puzzle pieces coming together.
Keep the border open for cheaper labor, Nafta, Cafta, Trans-Texas corridor, Mexican trucks carrying goods deep into America to name a few.
Wake up Americans!
The argument about why a wide road is scarier than a narrow road?
He’ll try diversion and childish retorts at every instance.
But if they paid lower wages and bought cheaper fuel they'd be a problem. That doesn't make any sense.
See #98
Pretty much, and possibly the other stuff as well. The author claims that the TTC will stretch all the way to Canada, and it starts to sound like a Jerome Corsi piece.
Makes plenty of sense. American truckers can’t compete with slave waged, poorly licensed truckers who have access to $1.94 per gallon fuel.
See #73/74. I keep hearing something, but it’s just a squeak.
A picture from his show business days.
And check out the .jpg name.
So we need to pay higher prices, because Mexicans earn less?
truckers who have access to $1.94 per gallon fuel.
Charge a big fat toll. Would that make you feel better?
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.