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.”
No.
And folks who warned about a coming "North American Union" regarded the same?
Yes. They are.
Bad netiquette, baaaaaaad netiquette.
Ah, so the highways are being done in public, but they are evidence of the conspiracy to create the NAU, which is in secret except for that loudmouth Pastor, who is now covering his tracks.
Do I have it right now?
If you go with smaller trains you lose the benefit of moving large amounts of cargo with few people. Smaller trains and more rail still lacks the flexibility of trucks on roads. What are the benefits? Trains only make sense when you have very large amounts of cargo or people being transported on a specific route, and the volume of cargo or people one that route remains consistently high.
In the vast majority of cases if you have to load and unload cargo containers onto trucks you're better off sticking with trucks.
Now if you can use high speed trains that travel much faster than trucks to replace air transport, it might be possible to make a decent business case for rail transport if the fuel savings are big enough. After all you can buy a lot of jet fuel for the cost of building a high speed rail system.
Ever been to the Texas border? If not, this is way out of your level of expertize.
From the 110th Congress alone.
If you want the words to be "near each other in any order", you get 6 more.
Unfortunately, you have to search Congress-by-Congress, but you get the idea.
Or do you?
The VAST majority of cargo in the US is transported by Truck, not by rail. Here in Ohio we've ripped out much of our old railroad system and replaced it with bike paths.
I'm sure there are situations where transporting things by rail makes sense. There are probably considerably more now that fuel costs have gone up so high.
There still are active railroads, and it does make sense in some situations. However, only a very small portion of cargo is transported by rail.
However, if there is a real business case for rebuilding our railroad infrastructure, that the railroad companies rebuild it. There's no reason that the railroads need to be a government owned enterprise, but if private companies want to build railroads I don't think the government should stand in their way, nor should they subsidize them.
No, it isn’t a boogie man. We are talking about the NAU and security and sovereignty.
Or are you against roads, period?
What’s to know? Either you can just walk across at most places or you can’t. If you can, having a single point which is a major point of entry makes it very easy to monitor.
Here in Texas, the railroads have been advertizing like crazy. Saying they can haul so many tons for so many miles with so little fuel. I’d get behind a rail project sooner than see 4000 miles of additional roadways in Texas.
Guess you haven’t heard.....Mexican trucks won’t be stoping at the border for inspection. They’ll have an Easy-tag.
Thank you for your critique.
But if you want to start stopping them, voila, no problem, the infrastructure is right there.
And, knowing customs as I do, I’m thinking that the easy-tag won’t be quite like the easy-tags here in the US.
Or are you against roads, period?
I'm not against roads and I rather enjoy traveling on them. Do you enjoy roads?
An aside...Whatever gave you the impression that I am against roads?
A North American Community is, again, noise for agreements (gasp!) and treaties (double gasp!) enabling smoother commerce across borders.
Do you know what Hegelian dialectic is?
Oh, Lord, you're going to tell me.
You desire an outcome and you take advantage of events, in the case of the SPP it was 9-11, to gain that desire.
Wow! That sounds like...a conspiracy.
Not sure where 9-11 fits in except to say that security should be of more concern, making commerce across borders more difficult, not less.
It seems to me that the next terrorist attack will be taken advantage of to usher in the "North American Community".
You're like the Global Warming guys. All weather is evidence of global warming. All events are evidence of the NAU (or NAC, does it really matter?)
BTW, I checked your link. Sorry, WND and Corsi are evidence of nothing. Nothing. He's a liar and a fraud.
But unlike you, he knows how to use paragraphs.
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.