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

Skip to comments.

Authorities shift focus to Ĺsuper corridorĺ
In-Forum News ^ | May 30, 2007 | Jonathan Knutson and Melinda Rogers

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.”


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; US: Minnesota; US: North Dakota; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: borders; canada; collinpeterson; congestion; cuespookymusic; economicgrowth; economy; exports; fees; franciscoconde; freetrade; greatplains; harriscounty; highways; houston; i29; i35; i69; i69alliance; i94; ih35; ih69; imports; interstate29; interstate35; interstate69; interstate94; interstates; jerrynagel; keepontrucking; laredo; membershipfees; mexicantrucks; mexico; mexitrucks; minnesota; mn; nafta; naftasuperhighway; nasco; nationalsovereignty; nd; northdakota; northerngreatplains; population; populationgrowth; rail; roads; supercorridor; trade; traffic; trains; transportation; transtexascorridor; trucking; trucks; ttc; ttc35; ttc69; unitedstates; usa; victoriaadvocate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-232 next last


Corrections and Clarifications (Victoria Advocate)

The Advocate wants to correct promptly any error in fact or clarify any misleading information we publish. To report any error or need for clarification, please call 361-574-1222. Harris County Commissioners Court voted in early May to pull out of the I-69 Alliance because the portion of the highway that was to be I-69 has become part of the Trans-Texas Corridor and no longer would go through Harris County, said Kathy Luhn, policy director for the Harris County judge's office. Also, the toll road bill would take away Harris County's right to build its own toll road, which the court didn't agree with while the I-69 Alliance supported the bill, Luhn said. A story on Page A1 on Monday, May 28, said the court withdrew from the project because too much was spent on membership fees. Luhn said that was a secondary reason for withdrawing.

Copyright, (c) 2007, The Victoria Advocate

1 posted on 05/30/2007 6:22:16 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 05/30/2007 6:22:58 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 05/30/2007 6:23:55 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Another huge waste of taxpayer money. Instead of building highways where we do not need them, why not invest in improving highways where people in this country actually live and work.
4 posted on 05/30/2007 6:24:19 AM PDT by pnh102
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

and the push for SPP continues:

http://www.spp.gov/


5 posted on 05/30/2007 6:26:56 AM PDT by PissAndVinegar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Here it comes!

This is the next step in the loss of our sovereignty!

It's almost like they've planned it.

6 posted on 05/30/2007 6:29:38 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

They’ll face heavy opposition in this area.


7 posted on 05/30/2007 6:29:54 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Greed is NOT a conservative ideal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
The project has drawn heavy criticism, including claims that it threatens U.S. control of its own borders.

ROFLOL! What control?

8 posted on 05/30/2007 6:30:59 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder

No one wants to believe that this is a part of the Conspiracy.


9 posted on 05/30/2007 6:41:11 AM PDT by Halgr (Once a Marine, always a Marine - Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Halgr
No one wants to believe that this is a part of the Conspiracy.

shhhhh!

10 posted on 05/30/2007 6:42:47 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

My big question here is, Why do they not build some new railroad lines? The railroads can haul more at any given time, and it would create thousands of American jobs. It would also keep the Mexican trucks off our highways. Solves many problems and answers many questions.


11 posted on 05/30/2007 6:46:45 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

Here is comes...


12 posted on 05/30/2007 7:11:11 AM PDT by Apple Blossom (...around here, city hall is something of a between meals snack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E.G.C.

bump.


13 posted on 05/30/2007 7:14:21 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Apple Blossom

The NWO is coming soon. Get ready for your implants.


14 posted on 05/30/2007 7:15:18 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Satan is working both sides of the street in World Socialism and World Courts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
This is the next step in the loss of our sovereignty!

There are roads in my town and I never got to vote on them! LOL!

15 posted on 05/30/2007 7:18:56 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
My big question here is, Why do they not build some new railroad lines?

Railroads would integrate commerce, but nothing else. The goal, however, is to integrate countries, which is why roads like the TTC are being proposed. Road access grants much easier passage to the average traveler, who is not bound by the fares and schedules of rail travel. More roads mean more travel between countries, which makes the integration of societies easier.

Your question shoots the "It's-only-for-trade" argument full of holes.
16 posted on 05/30/2007 7:32:12 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Because rail lines would require wasting time staging a bunch of trucks, loading the containers on the train cars, transporting them to a different location, unloading them back on to trucks, delivering the products to their destination.

It isn't efficient or cost effective.

While it wastes a lot of time, it doesn't necessarily waste a lot of man hours, since train transport isn't manpower intensive. Therefore the Teamster's Union hate that idea as well, not to mention that a trains might also be used for domestic transport, where the threat of Mexican trucks delivering foreign goods doesn't pose a large threat to that part of their business.

Trains are most effective when you want to move huge quantities of something from one spot to another all at once. That means storing all that stuff. That means increased inventories. That means tying up huge amounts of assets in the supply chain. That just doesn't work well for most businesses.

17 posted on 05/30/2007 7:33:52 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Invade Mexico now. We’ve already got half their people, we might as well have the territory.


18 posted on 05/30/2007 7:37:30 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The Reds went Green, but the goal remains the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
U.S. Interstate Highway System, completed in 1970

If they'd print junk that, what else in the story is false? (Hint for writers - the orginal plan called for completion in 1975; as with many governmental programs, that deadline wasn't met. )

According to this source, the system was only 70 per cent complete by 1970. "By 1970, Wisconsin had completed its initial rural Interstate system at a time when only 70% of the country's system was complete."
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/history/50/facts.htm

And we aren't just talking about minor interstates:

Meanwhile, down in Georgia, the state's segment of Interstate 95 was completed in January 1980.

http://acppubs.com/article/CA6379220.html

19 posted on 05/30/2007 7:47:03 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
There are roads in my town and I never got to vote on them!

What's your point?

20 posted on 05/30/2007 7:55:35 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-232 next last

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