Authorities shift focus to ‘super corridor’

In-Forum News ^ | May 30, 2007 | Jonathan Knutson and Melinda Rogers

[mysterio]

So we need to pay higher prices, because Mexicans earn less?

No, we need to have a bit of loyalty to our own workers. You can't expect any American trucking company to compete with $50 to $65 per day Mexican trucking wages. Even your precious NAFTA agreement prohibited using Mexican truckers to move goods from US point to US point. Do you disagree with that provision of NAFTA? Explain why or why not.

[Colorado Buckeye]

This will be the greatest smuggling corridor in the history of man.

[philman_36]

A picture from his show business days.
It actually represents the spewing forth of male bovine fecal matter at which someone seems quite prolific.

[RJL]

Invade Mexico now. We’ve already got half their people, we might as well have the territory.

The map in post 1 shows differentiates Canada from the US, but it makes no distinction between the US and Mexico.

The only question is: Did the US take over Mexico, or did Mexico invade and take over the US?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even your precious NAFTA agreement prohibited using Mexican truckers to move goods from US point to US point.

And that isn't happening, is it?

Do you disagree with that provision of NAFTA? Explain why or why not.

I don't have a problem with Mexican drivers taking Mexican trucks all the way to their destination. Stopping in Texas and transferring their load to an American truck is silly and inefficient.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

How the hell should I know?

[Kieri]

My big question here is, Why do they not build some new railroad lines? The railroads can haul more at any given time, and it would create thousands of American jobs. It would also keep the Mexican trucks off our highways. Solves many problems and answers many questions.

Here in southern Michigan, the Amtrak line runs parallel to I-94. 94 is just two lanes in each direction and semis account for over 25%. It's a dangerous traffic situation, and that doesn't account for smuggled drugs, tainted poultry and produce that the motor carrier patrols find on a regular basis.

I'd love to see fewer trucks and more railway cars, but it boils down to NIMBY. There was a plan to create a large depot in the Detroit area where trucks could pick up shipments from railway freight for local delivery, but that was trashed when residents thought it would be too noisy.

[gura]

"Trains are most effective when you want to move huge quantities of something from one spot to another all at once. That means storing all that stuff. That means increased inventories. That means tying up huge amounts of assets in the supply chain. That just doesn't work well for most businesses."

Or maybe we just need more rail and smaller trains that run frequently?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

NIMBY (definition): see enemy of progress

[varon]

So, what exactly is Mexico, the manufacturing giant, (/sarcasm) producing in such large quantities to require this huge 'super corridor' for distribution of such goods? Perhaps not too much yet but with the 'super corridor' it would be easy to envision another surge of US manufacturers heading south to take advantage of cheap labor from the remaining Mexicans.

But hold on, even that increased volume wouldn't require this Super Highway. Aaaah, I've got it. The volume of goods will not be of Mexican manufacture but Chinese goods flooding the US & Canada and bypassing US ports and trucking industry resulting in the loss of tens of thousands jobs for our citizens!!!

[ears_to_hear]

The REAL purpose for this is to bypass US Ports and well paid personal and by pass American truckers ,

They are building a huge port in Mexico, not the US .

Our imports will have even fewer inspections and some of those trucks will be holding drugs in their belly with the imports.

Then there is the cost.

Recent Congress voted to allow tolls on federal Highways (formerly forbidden by law). That opens the door for a foreign country to “buy” the rights to that highway ( like China and the panama canal).

Lets give away some more American jobs, lets allow a country that boos Miss USA to inspect our imports for us, lets farm out a major highway to a foreign power.

This is a large part of the “North American Union”
...read Daddy Bushes “ New World order”

[mysterio]

And that isn't happening, is it?

You truly believe that it won't happen?

I don't have a problem with Mexican drivers taking Mexican trucks all the way to their destination. Stopping in Texas and transferring their load to an American truck is silly and inefficient.

That wasn't the question. The question was do you or do you not support using Mexican trucks to transport goods point to point in the US, as is currently prohibited by NAFTA.

[ears_to_hear]

Notice in Mexico it goes to 3 Port cities and not 1 American port city... very telling

[Toddsterpatriot]

You truly believe that it won't happen?

So it's not happening yet? Excellent.

The question was do you or do you not support using Mexican trucks to transport goods point to point in the US, as is currently prohibited by NAFTA.

At this point, no. Do you support using Mexican trucks to transport goods to their destination in the US, as currently allowed by NAFTA?

[AmishDude]

Interesting that you can’t answer a simple question. Let me be more specific:

Do you believe the US-Mexico border is porous?

Or is that too difficult for you to answer?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Careful, he’ll start singing again.

[AmishDude]

So which highway do you take to Churchill?
Does your Mommy still have to wipe your backside after you're done on the potty?

I wait for a NAUster to draw me a colorful map.

With yellow arrows.

[mysterio]

I don’t have a problem with that, as long as their trucks undergo the same inspections and their licensing standards are the same as ours.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent, we’re in agreement.

[philman_36]

That wasn't the question.
Welcome to the