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.”
Then why are you here antagonizing those of us that don’t want the companies given unlimited access to our highways?
“They’ll face heavy opposition in this area”
They face great opposition in Texas. Surprisingly, our Legislature heard the people’s voices and put a 2 yr. moritorium on the TTC.
Don't forget, their salary and fuel costs have to be identical too!
I am not surprised, there have always been short sighted naive people , that is how the government has gotten away with so much this far.
But hopefully the sleeping giants is now awake
What stupid assed question do you have now?
Like the people who don't know that we still produce goods in America.
“Tell me again why a wider road is worse than a narrower road.”
Because it will eat up about a million acres of prime farm and ranch land then, we’ll have to buy more poison products from China to make up the difference. Nuff reason for ya?
No, they are just delivering from Mexican destinations. While I’d prefer all transport be done by American truckers once the goods enter the country, I can support Mexican companies bringing in goods to warehouses. If you are going to use them to transport point to point in the US or from US to Canada, I don’t support that. Our truckers can’t compete with their slave wages.
You assume only fission nuclear plants as your energy source, there are many other sources you don’t know about yet.
Yeah, roads take land. We have more roads than ever but we still produce more farm goods than ever. It's like magic!
“You may call me Emperor AmishDude.”
Curious you should use the word *emperor* Can’t impeach an emperor. Guess we’ll have to have a good ‘ol fashion revolution and shot you.
And porous is too light of a word, the border is virtually nonexistent.
Ah, there we go. Now, please tell me why it would be such a bad thing to funnel truck traffic from Mexico through a single point in Laredo, Texas?
You see, it would make border control easier.
Or maybe you don't see. I don't think I should make assumptions in your case.
Interesting post. I wonder how long it will last.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1995 Public Law 104-59, 109 STAT. 588
SECTION 332. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS
Amends several parts of Section 1105 of the ISTEA. In Section 1105(c), three of the existing high priority corridors are extended or described in more detail as to location as follows: The East-West Transamerica Corridor (number 3) is described from Virginia through southern Kansas. Segments of the “I-73/I-74" North-South Corridor (number 5) are detailed from South Carolina to Ohio. The Indianapolis/Houston Corridor (number 18) is extended to the Mexico border. Further, an additional eight corridors are added to the listing as follows: Alameda Transportation corridor, California; I-35 from Texas to Minnesota; Dalton Highway, Alaska; Virginia Route 168 south of Norfolk; CANAMEX corridor from Arizona to Montana; Camino Real corridor from Texas to Colorado; Birmingham northern Beltline in Alabama; and the Coalfields Expressway in West Virginia and Virginia.
An additional provision is added to Section 1105(e) designating certain portions of selected high priority corridors as future additions to the Interstate System. These are Corridor 9 in Pennsylvania and New York, the portions of Corridor 5 described above, Corridor 18 from Texas to Indiana, and Corridor 20 in Texas. When the Secretary determines that any segment of these corridors has been brought up to Interstate standards and connects to the Interstate System, it shall become part of the Interstate System. Corridor 9 is designated I-99.
And yes, these are only US highways, but the question is...where do they connect? Do they connect to Mexico and Canada?
A pretty thorough description...High Priority Corridors
Corridors 18 and 20 combine to form the Interstate 69 Corridor from Texas to Michigan. Corridor 18 refers to the entire Interstate 69 corridor from Laredo to Port Huron, including branches to Brownsville via U.S. 77 and 281, Interstate 530 extenstion from Pine Bluff to Monticello, Interstate 94 from Chicago to Port Huron, and the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit. Corridor 20 is almost entirely absorbed by Corridor 18, as it is the Interstate 69 corridor from Laredo to Texarkana. The only part of Corridor 20 that may be separate from Corridor 18 would be in and around Texarkana, which might be overtaken by Corridor 1/Interstate 49.
This has all been a long road coming. Why do you refuse to see?
“Yeah, roads take land”
Good, let them have your land. We’re (Texas) planning on being our own country again and we’ll need ours.
Why? What? Where? When? How?.....Are you smarter than a fifth grader?.......annoying
Okay. Just send me the check. Of course my land is in Chicago. Won't help with a road down there.
We’re (Texas) planning on being our own country again and we’ll need ours.
Good luck with that.
Or maybe you don't see. I don't think I should make assumptions in your case.
You know what they say about assumptions...
Corridors 18 and 20 combine to form the Interstate 69 Corridor from Texas to Michigan. Corridor 18 refers to the entire Interstate 69 corridor from Laredo to Port Huron, including branches to Brownsville via U.S. 77 and 281, Interstate 530 extenstion from Pine Bluff to Monticello, Interstate 94 from Chicago to Port Huron, and the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit. Corridor 20 is almost entirely absorbed by Corridor 18, as it is the Interstate 69 corridor from Laredo to Texarkana. The only part of Corridor 20 that may be separate from Corridor 18 would be in and around Texarkana, which might be overtaken by Corridor 1/Interstate 49.
What's your asking price?
This is true for the TTC-35 but, there is also a new road in W. Texas coming from Presidio. I-69 coming from the Valley and all other existing ports of entry. The completed TTC system will be more than 4000 miles of roadway. Want that in your state? BTW: if you think *border control* is part of this deal........forget it. Illegals swim across the river right under the International bridges.
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.