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.”

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

---

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

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[pnh102]

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.

[PissAndVinegar]

and the push for SPP continues:

http://www.spp.gov/

[SittinYonder]

Here it comes!

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

It's almost like they've planned it.

[cripplecreek]

They’ll face heavy opposition in this area.

[SittinYonder]

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

ROFLOL! What control?

[Halgr]

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

[SittinYonder]

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

shhhhh!

[rawhide]

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.

[Apple Blossom]

Here is comes...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

bump.

[bmwcyle]

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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

[snowrip]

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.

[untrained skeptic]

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.

[EternalVigilance]

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

[PAR35]

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

[SittinYonder]

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

What's your point?