Posted on 11/22/2006 12:42:29 AM PST by Sarajevo
A MASSIVE road four football fields wide and running from Mexico to Canada through the heartland of the United States is being proposed amid controversy over security and the damage to the environment.
The "nation's most modern roadway", proposed between Laredo in Texas and Duluth, Minnesota, along Interstate 35, would allow the US to bypass the west coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to import goods from China and the Far East into the heart of middle America via Mexico, saving both cost and time.
However, critics argue that the ten-lane road would lay a swathe of concrete on top of an already over-developed transport infrastructure and further open the border with Mexico to illegal immigrants or terrorists.
According to a weekly Conservative magazine published in the US, the US administration is "quietly yet systematically" planning the massive highway, citing as a benefit that it would negate the power of two unions, the Longshoremen and Teamsters.
Another source claimed the highway was a "bi-partisan effort" with support from both Republicans and Democrats that would reduce freight transport times across the nation by days.
Under the plan - believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president - imported goods would pass a border "road bump" in the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, before being loaded on to lorries for a straight run to a major hub, or "SmartPort", in Kansas, Oklahoma.
Border guards and customs officers would check the electronic security tags of lorries and their holds at a £1.6 million facility being built in Kansas City, before sending them on to the road network that links the US cities of Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver across the Canadian border.
Rail tracks and pipelines for oil and natural gas would run alongside the road.
Following the release of a 4,000-page environmental study, construction of the first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor is reportedly due to begin next year, backed by US state and governmental agencies and a Spanish private sector company, Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte.
Tiffany Melvin, the executive director of Nasco, a non-profit organisation which has received £1.4 million from the US Department of Transport to study the proposal, said: "We're working on developing the existing system; these highways were developed in the 1950s and we have number of different programmes we're working on to provide alternative fuels and improve safety and security issues.
"We get comments that we are working to bring in terrorists and drug dealers, but this is simply not true.
"This is a bi-partisan effort that will ultimately improve our transportation infrastructure.
"Trade with China is increasing greatly, and the costs of our transportation system are ultimately born by the consumer.
"We do offer links to Canada and Mexico, but we are working on the trade competitiveness of America. We are planning for the future."
Eric Olson, the transportation spokesmen for the California-based Sierra Club, a national environmental awareness organisation, said the road would cause significant damage.
"Something on that scale would have a massive environmental impact," he said.
"Building a large-scale new highway does not seem like the best solution.
"There is a great need for fixing our existing roads and bridges. That needs to be a priority before we start building new massive road projects."
A MASSIVE road four football fields wide and running from Mexico to Canada through the heartland of the United States is being proposed amid controversy over security and the damage to the environment.
The "nation's most modern roadway", proposed between Laredo in Texas and Duluth, Minnesota, along Interstate 35, would allow the US to bypass the west coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to import goods from China and the Far East into the heart of middle America via Mexico, saving both cost and time.
However, critics argue that the ten-lane road would lay a swathe of concrete on top of an already over-developed transport infrastructure and further open the border with Mexico to illegal immigrants or terrorists.
According to a weekly Conservative magazine published in the US, the US administration is "quietly yet systematically" planning the massive highway, citing as a benefit that it would negate the power of two unions, the Longshoremen and Teamsters.
Another source claimed the highway was a "bi-partisan effort" with support from both Republicans and Democrats that would reduce freight transport times across the nation by days.
Under the plan - believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president - imported goods would pass a border "road bump" in the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, before being loaded on to lorries for a straight run to a major hub, or "SmartPort", in Kansas, Oklahoma.
Border guards and customs officers would check the electronic security tags of lorries and their holds at a £1.6 million facility being built in Kansas City, before sending them on to the road network that links the US cities of Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver across the Canadian border.
Rail tracks and pipelines for oil and natural gas would run alongside the road.
Following the release of a 4,000-page environmental study, construction of the first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor is reportedly due to begin next year, backed by US state and governmental agencies and a Spanish private sector company, Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte.
Tiffany Melvin, the executive director of Nasco, a non-profit organisation which has received £1.4 million from the US Department of Transport to study the proposal, said: "We're working on developing the existing system; these highways were developed in the 1950s and we have number of different programmes we're working on to provide alternative fuels and improve safety and security issues.
"We get comments that we are working to bring in terrorists and drug dealers, but this is simply not true.
"This is a bi-partisan effort that will ultimately improve our transportation infrastructure.
"Trade with China is increasing greatly, and the costs of our transportation system are ultimately born by the consumer.
"We do offer links to Canada and Mexico, but we are working on the trade competitiveness of America. We are planning for the future."
Eric Olson, the transportation spokesmen for the California-based Sierra Club, a national environmental awareness organisation, said the road would cause significant damage.
"Something on that scale would have a massive environmental impact," he said.
"Building a large-scale new highway does not seem like the best solution.
"There is a great need for fixing our existing roads and bridges. That needs to be a priority before we start building new massive road projects."
Of particular interest to all those who support the construction of a wall between the US and Mexico is the fact that this highway will almost negate the reason for such a boundary.
ping
For those who would do damage to our transportation infrastructure, this is one-stop shopping. One effective 'dirty bomb' into the hub 'port' and it is a monument to stupidity. It would permit the efficient distribution of just about any nasty pathogen, natural or manmade, on a North/South Axis which would effectively split the nation in two.
For the National Defense, the GF factor is right off the scale.
Better to invest the money in border security.
This will increase trade and raise our standard of living. No reason for us to oppose this.
I would think that expanding the rail system would move more freight more efficiently and more safely than a massive new highway.
Rail Roads would also be more easily policed for trafficking humans and contraband.
so far NAFTA and other free trade agreements have done such a wonderful job of that
stop being so paranoid. This is a good infrastructure upgrade
The interior of the country already gets products from Asia from either American coast, primarily the Western one.
trupolitik and hedgetrimmer, ping, though you probably won't even read this, as you haven't any other of the related pings.
this is a very bad idea. it will essentially divide the country.. New World Order slowly spreading its tentacles.
Oh, wait! This is going to start at the Mexican border, right? Hey, no problo, senor.
I suspect strains of that ancient refrain, 'I've been wukkin' on the railroad' in spanish will be wafting across the heartlands before too long.
North American Union
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/dallas59/mexiuscanfs_flag.jpg
Most REAL Americans would have NO problem burning THAT flag......
Likely they will also be stringing up the dolts actively seeking it as a goal.
It should in reality be a superrailroad, on ground, above ground or below ground, a superfast super rail system, something that would be electric or the engines non dino fueled.
All this is about is the countless kickbacks and bribes taking place. And I frankly have not much love for those cute cuddly mexicans. Besides security would be an extreme problem at the border.
Whistling past the graveyard. Blackbird.
Besides, whatever WalMart, GE and the rest of the multi-nationals want, they get.
BUMP
Then what do we do run down to Mexico City and kiss their Mecican rearends to be nice to us!!
I say "NOT NO BUT HELL NO!!!"
If the agreement is carried out, US sovereignty will be lost and the proposed new currency and government for North America will be established. "The Scotsman's" article also makes no mention of these facts.
It has recently been reported, that a member of the Bush family has purchased a 98,000 acre "plantation" in Paraguay. Heavy security is being established for the facility.
Its future purpose is unclear.
I agree completely.
Oh why yes that evil globalist and athiest's Eisenhower's Interstate system.
The system no American ever uses.
Do you actually read what you post, mk.
"Trade with China is increasing greatly, and the costs of our transportation system are ultimately born by the consumer."
>>A MASSIVE road four football fields wide <<
Good lord. I wonder how many lanes can fit in 400 yards.
If we built a road like this from San Diego to the Gulf Coast, we would have our wall.
Then let's see MEXICO build their's first since their SOL needs raising the most urgent.
We can build a "superhighway" 400 yards wide with billions in infrastructure but we can't build a blamedasted $1.2 billion border fence.
Yeah those flat panel TV's will never be under $1,000.
BTW, those truck tankers coming through the border probably would go under explosive and radiation detectors, which would be much more efficent than we have now, where a hodgepodge of huge sea tankers cannot go under a centrally located huge radiotion or explosive detector.
That's the same BS logic applied to PC pricing in the early 90's, Dane.
Later...
"believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president -"
Does someone have visions (delusions) of giant jet powered cars taxiing their way across country?????,?p>
No jet powered cars, it's all about revenue.
If a Clinton did this, Republicans would be screaming bloody murder.
The NAFTA SuperHighway will be operated by a multinational consortium. Portions of the NAFTA SuperHighway will take existing highways which we have already paid for, and transfer them to the multinational consortium for profit.
The only businesses on the highway's right-of-way will be those approved by the consortium, i.e. no Mom-&-Pop restaurants.
Private property in Texas has already been taken by "emminent domain" for transfer to the private parties who will build that portion of the highway to produce their profit. It's a land grab.
Eisenhower's Interstate System is paid for and, with the exception of maintenance funding, is free to use.
What are the proposals for screening the increased traffic entries into the US besides an expansion of a 1950's method?
From the article- Border guards and customs officers would check the electronic security tags of lorries and their holds at a £1.6 million facility being built in Kansas City, before sending them on to the road network that links the US cities of Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver across the Canadian border.
Good lord. I wonder how many lanes can fit in 400 yards.
If the constant (road lane width) is 11.5ft, that would be a little over 104.....
Supposedly, this plan also includes rail, electric, and gas lines.
"allow the US to bypass the west coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to import goods from China and the Far East into the heart of middle America via Mexico, saving both cost and time."
Huh? How?
"the plan - believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president"
conspiracy |k?n?spir?s?| noun ( pl. -cies) a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful : a conspiracy to destroy the government. See note at plot . • the action of plotting or conspiring
Why isn't the "weekly Conservative magazine" named? Is it because it's some Buchananite rag like "The American Conservative" or something Jerome Corsi started up specifically to fight this highway?
Also, why is the entire article repeated in your post?
Their final report in 1996 recommended the multi-modal corridor.
You're right. We should dam up the Mississippi River too, it's dividing our country. Not to mention those damned Rocky Mountains.
Who proposed such a project? See #39
"this is a very bad idea. it will essentially divide the country.. New World Order slowly spreading its tentacles."
I agree. That's exactly what it is and now we see why President Bush wasn't interested in securing our border at Mexico. He had his eye on dissolving the United States in favor of a third-world amalgam of disparate nations.
Not even Jimmuh Koatuh or the Demon from Dogpatch ever did such a thing. They did other bad things, maybe laying the groundwork for this final dissolution of our country. Wickedness in high places.
This sentence stands out as especially paranoid in the middle of the most paranoid post I've read in awhile. So just where has it been "reported," and which "member of the Bush family" has purchased this property? Do you expect us to just nod our heads and swallow this, or can you back it up? And in the interests of full disclosure, do you believe that the US Government was behind 9/11?
>>Huh? How?<<
I suspect that was a reference to longshoreman's unions and the cost of labor in California.
Huh? How?
What's the distance in road miles from western US ports to Kansas City vs road miles from southern Mexico to Kansas City?
Even if its 30 or 40 lanes thats still frickin' huge.
Do you mean it wasn't built so the Soviets could easily take over the US? WOW! And I believed those anti-interstate people and have (due to principle) been driving on horrid little two lane highways, infested with an endless number of slow moving farm trucks and traffic lights, ever since... :)
I think I'll take a pass on all of the moonbat rantings this time.
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.