Welcome to the
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.”
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?
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.
How the hell should I know?
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.
Or maybe we just need more rail and smaller trains that run frequently?
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!!!
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”
Notice in Mexico it goes to 3 Port cities and not 1 American port city... very telling
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?
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?
Careful, he’ll start singing again.
I wait for a NAUster to draw me a colorful map.
With yellow arrows.
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.
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.