Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Plans for trade corridor concern Texas towns
eTrucker ^ | March 21, 2007 | Todd Dills

Posted on 03/21/2007 10:27:52 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

As the proposed implementation of a pilot cross-border trucking program draws near, another international trade corridor project is drawing heat from local residents in Texas.

The March 18 New York Times reported on the reactions of residents of the West Texas towns of Marfa and Alpine to a hearing held by the Texas Department of Transportation on the development of an official trade corridor, La Entrada al Pacifico, or “Gateway to the Pacific.” It would link the port of Topolobampo in Mexico’s Sinaloa state through Chihuahua to the U.S. market, via the border crossing at Presidio, Texas, and the oil cities of Midland and Odessa.

Concerns about increased traffic and pollution dominated criticism from residents, the Times reported, and Marfa Mayor Dave Lanman was quoted as saying, “They have the ability to chip away at it — a little piece here, a little piece there — and they think as the traffic increases the public will get used to it. ... They won’t remember when you’d pass just two or three cars for the 24 miles between Marfa and Alpine.”

Lanman said he thought current lane additions to the highway between Marfa and Alpine signaled the beginning of construction of La Entrada, which was signed into law in 1997 by then-Gov. George W. Bush. The bill designated a 260-mile route for the corridor between Lamesa and Presidio in Texas.

State officials deny any concrete overall plans at this point, though the first leg of the corridor -- a connector routing traffic around Midland, north of Marfa and Alpine -- received federal environmental-impact approval in 2005.

The project is promoted by the Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance, a regional lobby similar in function to the North American Supercorridor Coalition -- the lobby on behalf of the I-35 corridor, often referred as the “NAFTA Superhighway.”

Plans for the Trans-Texas Corridor, two multimodal corridors to parallel I-35 and the future I-69, have been controversial for many reasons, ranging from environmental and trade concerns to not-in-my-backyard protests. The need for greatly expanded highways such as the Trans-Texas Corridor is driven at least partly by increased trade traffic through Mexico from Asia, as well as NAFTA trade.

The Presidio border crossing on the La Entrada corridor sees very little trade traffic in comparison with its busier neighbor, the El Paso crossing. A new highway expansion through to Topolobompo, already under construction in spots on the Mexican side of the border, is likely to increase truck traffic through Presidio. Rail elements of the corridor, a federally designated “high-priority corridor," are also being considered.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: alpine; crossbordertrucking; cuespookymusic; freetrade; georgewbush; i35; i69; keepontrucking; laentrada; laentradaalpacifico; lamesa; marfa; mexico; mexitrucks; midland; mota; nafta; nasco; odessa; presidio; sinaloa; texas; topolobampo; tradecorridor; traffic; transtexascorridor; truckers; trucking; trucks; trucktraffic; ttc; ttc35; ttc69; tx; unitedstates; usa

1 posted on 03/21/2007 10:27:54 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TxDOT; 1066AD; 185JHP; Abcdefg; Adrastus; Alamo-Girl; antivenom; AprilfromTexas; B4Ranch; B-Chan; ..

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!


2 posted on 03/21/2007 10:28:59 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

BTTT


3 posted on 03/21/2007 10:40:06 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

At taxpayers' expense, this "corridor" will provide the Chinese with a direct route from the port they operate at Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. It would allow the Chinese to bring their shipping containers (atomic weapons, anyone?)straight through rural Texas and up to Kansas City before having to go through customs -- Mexican customs. That's right. In addition to invading our country with 20 million Fifth Columnists, the Mexicans would get their own Port of Entry in Kansas City. Who does this benefit?


4 posted on 03/21/2007 10:43:11 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks


5 posted on 03/21/2007 10:43:27 AM PDT by deport ( Cue Spooky Music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Plans for the Trans-Texas Corridor, two multimodal corridors to parallel I-35 and the future I-69, have been controversial for many reasons, ranging from environmental and trade concerns to not-in-my-backyard protests. The need for greatly expanded highways such as the Trans-Texas Corridor is driven at least partly by increased trade traffic through Mexico from Asia, as well as NAFTA trade.

If the liebrals through the MSM have convinced your average Texan the TTC is as "evil" as Rush Limbaugh is to them--

Then Texans are going to demand an $0.08 tax added upon every gallon of gas and diesel for the doubling of the size of the highways in Texas was needed five years ago.

An eight cent tax added upon fuel is the only way to get the roads Texas needs outside of the "eeeeeeeeevil" TTC!

6 posted on 03/21/2007 10:46:43 AM PDT by 100-Fold_Return (The Lord Talks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; LucyT; Paleo Conservative

"The need for greatly expanded highways such as the Trans-Texas Corridor is driven at least partly by increased trade traffic through Mexico from Asia, as well as NAFTA trade."

Translation: Columbia, Mexico and Asia are partners in drugs and need a superhighway to get their drugs, gangs, and illegals to be sold into slavery here.


7 posted on 03/21/2007 10:48:02 AM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

gracias!


8 posted on 03/21/2007 10:48:16 AM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

That, too. This is like sending the Japanese some nice, detailed maps of Pearl Harbor in November, 1941.


9 posted on 03/21/2007 10:51:32 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

You got it, lady! And what are we doing about it? Believe it or not, I just sent my cell number to W and told him to call me about it!


10 posted on 03/21/2007 11:01:37 AM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: deport
The obstacles to a direct and efficient connection from the Pacific Coast of Mexico into West Texas are considerable. A link between Texas and the Pacific Coast has been discussed since the late 1800s. An important barrier is the mountain chain in southwest Chihuahua, including Copper Canyon, the Grand Canyon of Mexico. Building a highway to Interstate standards will require a huge investment, which would only be worthwhile if the other highways in West Texas and the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Sinaloa are upgraded to similar standards. Such projects are beyond the financial capacity of Mexico or Texas. If private investors, even with government assistance, were to build a tollway connecting Topolabampo to Midland or Abilene, Texas, the tolls would be extremely high, perhaps hundreds of dollars per trip for truckers. It would remain far cheaper for truckers to haul goods on free highways from U.S. ports like Los Angeles, San Diego, Corpus Christi, or Houston/Galveston.

The "Entrada al Pacifico" makes no sense economically.

11 posted on 03/21/2007 11:06:39 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E.G.C.

bump.


12 posted on 03/21/2007 11:49:14 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 100-Fold_Return

Don't forget eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil tolls, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil redirecting of 9 cents per gallon being spent on schools and other things, and eeeeeeeeeeeeevil inflationary increases in the gas tax after the eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil eight cent increase.


13 posted on 03/21/2007 11:51:55 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ken21

De nada.


14 posted on 03/21/2007 11:52:34 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Then it's settled: Raise the taxes per gallon $.08 to pay for the roads Texas needs.

Start posting those Ads--whoops, I mean articles to raise the taxes to prevent foreigners from taking over Texas roads.

15 posted on 03/21/2007 12:19:22 PM PDT by 100-Fold_Return (The Lord Talks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 100-Fold_Return
If the liebrals through the MSM have convinced your average Texan the TTC is as "evil" as Rush Limbaugh is to them--

I would hope there are more than a few Patriots that see how nutty this idea is. I don't expect any Libertarian opposition, so lay off.

16 posted on 03/21/2007 1:36:11 PM PDT by itsahoot (The GOP did nothing about immigration, immigration did something about the GOP (As Predicted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 100-Fold_Return
Then it's settled: Raise the taxes per gallon $.08 to pay for the roads Texas needs.

It will be cheaper in the long run than the cost of the tolls, not to mention the security sellout.

Look up Trojan Horse, might be a revealing discovery for you, since you seem to have no concept of sovereignty.

17 posted on 03/21/2007 1:41:02 PM PDT by itsahoot (The GOP did nothing about immigration, immigration did something about the GOP (As Predicted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

"The obstacles to a direct and efficient connection from the Pacific Coast of Mexico into West Texas are considerable."


Check out the map on post #5. It looks like there going to use the already existing railroad over the mountains and through Copper canyon.


18 posted on 03/21/2007 3:02:18 PM PDT by wolfcreek (Semi-Conservatism Won't Cut It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 100-Fold_Return
"Raise the taxes per gallon $.08 to pay for the roads Texas needs."


8 cents is a small price to pay for not having this state chopped up by a bunch of little or no access mega-roads. Personally, I just soon tell them all to go to hell and build their damn thoroughfares in some other state. F-um!
19 posted on 03/21/2007 3:09:08 PM PDT by wolfcreek (Semi-Conservatism Won't Cut It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
I don't know if any of this road covers the area you mention or if it is even complete even though the caption mentions a completion in 03.......

Nuevo Tramo Carretero
A key component to the success of La Entrada al Pacifico has been the construction of the new roadway between Ojinaga and Chihuahua City. The new road bypasses the dangerous mountain terrain, allowing vehicles a much safer route while cutting travel time in half. Construction, as seen in the photos is in the final stages and is scheduled for completion by the end of 2003.


20 posted on 03/21/2007 3:58:30 PM PDT by deport ( Cue Spooky Music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Thanks for the ping!


21 posted on 03/21/2007 8:33:02 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
IIRC, the railroad through the mountains, called the Chihuahua al Pacifico Railroad, climbs 8,000 feet from near sea level to its highest point in the Sierra Madre mountains. The Web site, http://www.mexicoscoppercanyon.com, gives a good description of the railroad. It was quite an engineering feat that was not completed until 1961, after several attempts, both private and public, dating back as far as 1880. While the surrounding areas in Sinaloa and Sonora are major producers of fruit, vegetables, grain, and cotton, most of it is shipped into California, Arizona, or the major Mexican cities. At present, the railroad largely serves as a tourist attraction because of the spectacular scenery. The most rugged stretch of the Chihuahua al Pacifico takes 12 hours to traverse. The Pacific terminal of the railroad, Los Mochis, and the nearby port of Topolobampo, do not presently have the infrastructure for major port activities as do other Mexican or U.S. ports.

Upgrading the port facilities, building an Interstate standard highway, and improving the railroad connection are all huge investments that would run into the tens of billions. With competition from existing infrastructure, it is hard to imagine this being accomplished by the private sector, and the public sector lacks the resources.

22 posted on 03/22/2007 6:10:20 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: deport
It looks like the Mexicans built a "Super 2" roadway through flatter country to replace an older road that probably had been an Indian trail. If the pictures are characteristic of the new highway, it is of the same quality as U.S. 67, the 2 lane highway that connects Presidio, Texas, the border town adjacent to Ojinaga, with I-10 at Fort Stockton, and, via U.S. 385, with I-20 at Odessa and I-27 at Lubbock. (The highway from Odessa to Lubbock is a 4 lane divided highway, but not controlled access.)

The Ojinaga-Chihuahua City highway runs through relatively flat country, and upgrading the "Super 2" to an Interstate standard highway would not be too difficult. However, building the needed highway tunnels through the Sierra Madre mountains would be extremely costly. The Eisenhower tunnels on I-70 west of Denver, 1.6 miles long, cost over $300 million in 1960s - early 1970s dollars, and would probably require about $2 billion today. Proposed improvements to I-70 in the vicinity of Vail, Colorado, to relieve chronic congestion, run anywhere from $2.5 to over $8 billion, depending on whether passenger rail service is included.

It is hard to see how either the public or private sectors, or a combination of the two, would construct the necessary highway and rail service to create a major freight connection between the Pacific coast of Mexico and Texas.

23 posted on 03/22/2007 6:41:41 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

Thanks for the info. Like you say it maybe too expensive to ever construct. But I know that some are trying to find ways to bring the Pacific imports via other ports besides CA. Walmart has now set up operations via the Port of Houston to bring in about 28% of their container imports via the Panama Canal. I think the Chinese are looking for other venues as well..... It appears the far east is going to be a major supplier of goods to this hemisphere so no telling the scope it will take in the long run.

Take care


24 posted on 03/22/2007 10:28:44 AM PDT by deport ( Cue Spooky Music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

"At present, the railroad largely serves as a tourist attraction because of the spectacular scenery."


Yes, one of the 100 places I want to see before I die.


25 posted on 03/22/2007 1:05:11 PM PDT by wolfcreek (Semi-Conservatism Won't Cut It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson