Authorities shift focus to ‘super corridor’

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

[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.”

[Toddsterpatriot]

I suppose it will be truckers in this scenario.

Mexican truckers imported to drive American trucks?

We need the rickity trucks from south of the border, though.

I think they should be inspected for safety.

American truckers make too high of a wage. Might get in the way of cheap stuff.

Stop the NAU, for the Teamsters!

[AmishDude]

Do you think the border is porous?

[philman_36]

I’m not sure what the Yellow arrows are supposed to represent, but this is awesome.
They represent direction.
And I’m really not sure what purpose it serve to have Churchill, Canada on the map, but it’s a nice touch.

The Central North American Trade Corridor extends from Alaska and the Port of Churchill in Canada through the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, then through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma panhandle, and Texas in the USA and south to Mexico City.
Oh look! They've got a map too! Upper right corner...To Port of Churchill.

[philman_36]

Do you think the border is porous?
Which border?

[philman_36]

It must be "Whack a Buffoon" day!
You may call me Emperor AmishDude.
You may call me Buffoon Basher Phil.

[AmishDude]

Even your second, less colorful, map, doesn’t show exactly how one gets to Churchill from Alaska.

I don’t know if you’ve looked at any maps with any scales yet, but that’s kind of a long way.

The yellow arrows are stupid, but I guess they’re supposed to look scary.

[AmishDude]

Do you think the border is porous?
Which border?

You tell me, whichever one you like.

[AmishDude]

You may call me Buffoon Basher Phil.

Oh, let's be on a first name basis, Buffoon.

[Surrounded_too]

CANAMEX

CANABEANS

[mysterio]

Mexican truckers imported to drive American trucks?

Would you support that?

Stop the NAU, for the Teamsters!

Non union truckers make decent wages and they work hard for them.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would you support that?

No. Is that happening?

Non union truckers make decent wages and they work hard for them.

Yes they do.

[timer]

Maglev trains on raised pylons would be a better, futuristic concept than just paving over more of the world with freeways and their roadside litter/noise. But that in turn requires advanced thinking, not something bureaucrats are known for.

[philman_36]

Even your second, less colorful, map, doesn’t show exactly how one gets to Churchill from Alaska.
Just a guess, but I'd say DRIVE!
I don’t know if you’ve looked at any maps with any scales yet, but that’s kind of a long way.
It's an even longer way from Alaska to Mexico, but that doesn't seem to present much of an impediment to those wishing this plan to advance.

The yellow arrows are stupid...
The arrows are capable of neither stupidity nor intelligence.
...but I guess they’re supposed to look scary.
Rule #1...stop digging!

[philman_36]

Oh, let's be on a first name basis, Buffoon.
No, no, my first name is Phil.
I didn't think that would be so hard to understand, but I guess I was wrong in your case, Dude.

[mysterio]

No. Is that happening?

Not yet.

Yes they do.

So your position is that you do not support importing mexican truckers to drive American trucks, you do not support Mexican truckers driving Mexican trucks that have not met a rigorous safety inspection, but you do support cut rate Mexican trucking companies on our highways if the trucks do meet the safety inspection?

[AmishDude]

Just a guess, but I'd say DRIVE!

But how? The big scary map gives the way that we conspirators are allowed to get around our empire. So which highway do you take to Churchill? I want to be able to visit my subjects.

It's an even longer way from Alaska to Mexico,

Yep. You're starting to get it...

The arrows are capable of neither stupidity nor intelligence.

You're right. The people who make these maps, however...

[philman_36]

Do you think the border is porous?
Which border?
You tell me, whichever one you like.
No, you asked an open ended question. Ask a direct, or more concise, question. You're the one asking the question.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I think this is the passage that is driving the argument:

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.

I don't know out of what orifice the Canada part was pulled. The first component, TTC-35, will stretch from Laredo, TX to the Texas-Oklahoma border.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I wonder how many nuclear power plants you would need to support such a system.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not yet.

Excellent.

So your position is that you do not support importing mexican truckers to drive American trucks, you do not support Mexican truckers driving Mexican trucks that have not met a rigorous safety inspection

Yes and yes.

but you do support cut rate Mexican trucking companies on our highways if the trucks do meet the safety inspection?

Cut rate? Is that something like less expensive?

Would you support Mexican trucking companies on our highways but only if they were exactly as expensive as American trucking companies?