Replies

The driver behind the Super Corridor, etc. projects is a simple fact ~ the United States has already USED UP all the West Coast locations where suitible modern container ports can be built.

Mexico, on the other hand, OWNS BAJA, which, by itself, can probably handle several ports with huge capacity, and it owns their own West Coast facing the Baja East Coast, and that area is underdeveloped and has a good number of sites where good ports can be built.

The rail and highway connections to that part of Mexico (Baja and the West Coast of the mainland) are intended to provide a new point of break of bulk for container shipments somewhere in the MidWest ~ Indianapolis is one proposed location, and I69 is NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION and will be built with funds provided by the leasing of the Tristate tollroad. The beltway around Indianapolis is also being improved with DOZENS of quite larger interchanges. They already had the largest confluence of interstate highways in America, and in a couple of years they should have one of the best highway infrastructures ever built in the history of the world. They'll be able to handle the container traffic when it arrives.

When it comes to the East Coast we have the same story ~ there's nowhere else to put ports ~ and given the size of our economy, the amount of stuff we normally ship out, and the amount we import, we will need more ports.

Mexico, next door, has the sites. Of note they also have whales, so as this develops anyway you'll hear more and more from the "DON'T NUKE THE WHALES" crowd.

All in all it's a pretty decent idea. You might thank the Lord that he put so much of our necessary suitible harbors in Mexico rather than in California or South Carolina and Florida!

I do understand the commercial aspect fully, and I know of the in land ports built in Kansas and near Dallas as well as what you mentioned.

Perry's mistakes with selling the TTC was how heavy-handed it would have been with Texans, how private property was going to be confiscated from private landowners and turned over to private companies, how a European company was going to be running everything, and how he tried to keep the terms of these agreements from the taxpayers. By trying to keep so much of it secret from Texas taxpayers, Perry fed into the conspiracy theorists, which both helped and hurt him. Nobody bought Perry's beliefs that the terms should be kept secret for competitive reasons since there was no competition! That, the fact that it was a European company handling it, and his attending a Bilderberger meeting during this time just fed into the anger and paranoia.

I think my biggest problem, besides Perry being so heavy handed and secretive and the fact that a European company would have been managing it, was that while it may have just been done for commercial reasons as far as Perry was concerned, it could have been used to sell much more open borders to future generations of Americans, and something along the lines of the European Union. The first thing you need for such a union is a well integrated transportation system.

Had Perry not been so secretive and had he not been so arrogant, he might have had a chance at getting the TTC through and not having the legislature challenge him. I still would have opposed it for a few reasons. The Houston dockworkers would have fought it, but how much power would they have had?

Speaking of Houston dockworkers, since it would be cheaper to unload container ships in Mexico, how many jobs would be lost on the three American coasts? I don't know if I'd care too much about all the union jobs at the various American ports, but it might still result in some jobs heading to Mexico.

If Perry and people like him didn't attend Bildeberger meetings and weren't so secretive about certain things, they could probably sell a lot more of these projects to Americans.