NAFTA Super Highway

[The New Left]

What do you think of the supposed Nafta superhighway stretching from Mexico through the USA to Canada?

[freakazoid]

Here's an interesting article, old but interesting, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16966


I-69: Yet Another NAFTA Super-Highway

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Sep 12, 2006

Another NAFTA Super-Highway is moving state-by-state from the planning stage to the funding and construction process. As listed on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration’s website, the “I-69 Corridor” is planned to connect Mexico and Canada through Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan.

Still, skeptics -- even congressmen and senators in the nine states where the I-69 corridor will be built -- continue to charge that any idea that NAFTA Super-Highways are being built are nothing more than “internet conspiracy theories.”

Even NASCO (North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc.) continues to be in denial, refusing to acknowledge that any NAFTA Super-Highways are being built. A second NASCO homepage makeover reflecting a new public relations attempt by NASCO to defuse criticism now lists a “NASCO FAQs” section, which opens to a .pdf file letter on NASCO stationary. In response to the question, “Will the NAFTA Superhighway be four football fields wide?” NASCO answers: “There is no new, proposed 'NAFTA Superhighway.'” Next, NASCO attempts to redefine the “SuperCorridor” in its name as a reference not to a “super-highway,” but intermodal integration along the “existing ‘NASCO Corridor.’”

We have previously argued that as a trade association NASCO itself will never build any highway of any type, but we continue to argue that NASCO’s members, such as the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), are very actively involved in creating substantial NAFTA corridor infrastructure, including super-highways. Moreover, NASCO not yet responded to our challenge that NASCO repudiate the plans of TxDOT to build the planned Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC-35), the first leg of the NAFTA Super-Highway planned to stretch into Canada parallel to I-35. Otherwise, NASCO is just dealing in semantics, trying to distinguish “Super-Corridors” from “Super-Highways,” or defeating their own straw argument on the basis that we somehow presumed that a trade organization like NASCO would be required to build a NAFTA Super-Highway in order to support a NAFTA Super-Highway one of their members was building.

We need turn no further than the TxDOT’s TTC-35 website to find evidence linking the I-69 NAFTA Super-Highway project to the I-35 NAFTA Super-Highway project. There the TxDOT openly admits the reality:

Interstate 69 is a planned 1,600-mile national highway connecting Mexico, the United States and Canada. Eight states are involved in the project. In Texas, I-69 will be developed under the Trans-Texas Corridor master plan.

The TTC-35 website further acknowledges that:

Congress passed several pieces of legislation defining the I-69 corridor. Legislation included ISTEA (1991), 1993 DOT Appropriations Act, 1995 National Highway System Designation Act and TEA-21 (1998).

Further, the TTC-35 website indicates that TxDOT anticipates completing the I-69/TTC environmental impact statement in fall 2007 and receiving federal approval in winter 2007. The TTC-35 website includes a proposed I-69/TTC map and a schedule of the locations where 37 public hearings were held during July and August 2006 in Texas to review I-69/TTC “recommended corridor alternatives.”

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOT) acknowledges conducting a I-69 environmental and location study in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to study a proposed route through Bossier, Cado and DeSoto Parishes. As described on the LaDOT website: “The proposed highway is part of the I-69 Corridor, which will link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.” The description of the I-69 Corridor on the LaDOT website echoes the description on the TxDOT website:

Interstate 69 is a 1,600 mile-long national highway that will ultimately connect Canada to Mexico. I-69 traverses nine states from the Gulf of Mexico and Texas’s Golden Triangle, through the Mississippi Delta, the Midewst, to the industrial north and, finally, to Canada.

Again, LaDOT has obtained federal highway funds to begin construction and a series of final public hearings were announced for July 2006.

We find similar I-69 Corridor discussions on the state department of transportation websites in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan. The only state department of transportation website that does not have a specific discussion of the I-69 Corridor is Illinois. The FHWA specifies that the involvement of Illinois in the I-69 corridor is limited and that the current plan is that the I-69 Corridor in Illinois will utilize the existing roads, particularly I-94 from Chicago to Detroit. The I-69 Corridor will cross the U.S. border with Canada in Port Huron, Mich., continuing in Canada as Highway 402 in Ontario.

The FHWA has defined the I-69 corridor as a “Megaproject,” defined as “a major transportation project that costs at least $1 billion and attracts a high level of public attention or political interest because of their impact on the community, environment, and State budgets.” We realize how the FHWA considers Texas and the TTC to be an essential component of the coming system of planed NAFTA Super-Highways, including I-69, when we consult a FHWA map that portrays Texas as the critical NAFTA/CAFTA gateway into the United States.



The FHWA caption under this map reads:

This map of the United States shows the heavy volume of freight shipped through Texas, a major trade gateway from Mexico and South America, as red lines branching out from the heart of the Lone Star State.

This same FHWA report ties together how the FHWA view the strategic purpose of the I-69 Corridor and the TTC as combined:

The second section under study, I-69/TTC, extends from northeast Texas to the Mexican border, incorporating about 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) of the planned I-69 corridor. Although part of a national project, I-69/TTC is being developed in Texas under the Trans-Texas Corridor master plan. I-69 is a 2,570-kilometer (1,600 mile) national highway that, once completed, will connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Other States involved in the I-60 project include Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Tenessee. The planned location for I-69, designated by the U.S. Congress in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) was chose because of the economic opportunities that could be created along the north-south corridor, especially those related to increased trade resulting from NAFTA.

We are struck by the close similarity between this FHWA language and the language used by states such as Texas and Louisiana in describing the I-69 corridor. Reading this language should leave no doubt that the I-69 Corridor is envisioned by the FHWA to be truly a NAFTA Super-Highway. Any congressman or senator, especially one who represents a state affected by the I-69 Corridor, who argues differently or who appears unaware of the I-69 NAFTA Super-Highway is admitting their own negligence in oversight responsibilities, if not also in just plain public awareness as a citizen of their respective states.

Anyone doubting the importance of NAFTA Super-Highways to the Bush Administration should reflect on President Bush’s nomination last Tuesday of Mary Peters to be the next secretary of Transportation replacing Norm Mineta. Ms. Peters served as the head of the FHWA in the Bush administration as the TTC and I-69 Corridor projects were being developed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

I think that this isn't good. It will only lead to further suppression of the people.

[MarcX]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 03, 2007 03:39 am
What do you think of the supposed Nafta superhighway stretching from Mexico through the USA to Canada?
i dont see a real problem there are atleast 4 full size high ways from Canada and countless routes

[PigmerikanMao]

The more I hear of highways being built; the more I fear our future will come to resemble the movie Mad Max.

...Mel Gibson is a terrible actor. :huh:

[The New Left]

Well, I mean, theres the whole idea that this could lead to the NA union. Thats fucked.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 12, 2007 03:31 am
Well, I mean, theres the whole idea that this could lead to the NA union. Thats fucked.
The whole idea of a North American Union is just a way for corporations to make slaves out of the Mexicans easier. I don't think building a highway will make that any easier or more difficult to do, so I'm not worried about it. The only thing I'm worried about now is Bush's blundering stupidity...

...and Mel Gibson.

[RedCeltic]

When completed, this highway will slice through North America, running from Toronto to Mexico City. Goods from Chinese sweat shops will be offloaded at a non unionized Mexican port, placed in trucks driven by non unionized truckers, for some mid western Wall-Mart superstore.

But hey, you should get more of a discount on T-shirts from Wall-Mart than right? :blink:

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 12, 2007 03:31 am
Well, I mean, theres the whole idea that this could lead to the NA union. Thats fucked.
Why would it be bad? I thought the destruction of nationalism was supposed to be a progressive thing. Wouldn't this be a step forward in world governance?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How about a super railway?

[Demogorgon]

Obviously NAFTA is something to be opposed, but I do not see any problem in principle with increased transport lins between different countries. Indeed it is quite a good thing. I don't know anything about this particular project of course and it may have all sorts of practical problems. Major road building often does, so I am not going to say I support it until I know more.

Those who are agaisnt it can take solace int he fact though that major infrastructure projects like this never seem to get off the ground anyway.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Much like everything built by and for capitalists they only benefit to this would be to capitalists; very rich ones I suppose.

Common people will always be shortchanged from surplus value no matter what "super highway" is constructed, NAFTA's or otherwise.

[colonelguppy]

god forbid we build more economic infrastructure, right?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:24 am
god forbid we build more economic infrastructure, right?
Build away homes. I can care less.

For every jerk-off move jerk-offs like yourself make, the easier it becomes to piss off the people who pay for that crapola.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 14, 2007 05:06 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 14, 2007 05:06 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 01:24 am
god forbid we build more economic infrastructure, right?
Build away homes. I can care less.

For every jerk-off move jerk-offs like yourself make, the easier it becomes to piss off the people who pay for that crapola. [/b]
Of course. Because if there's one thing that pisses people off, that just makes your average Joe furious at his overlords, it's roads.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by capitalist sham
Of course. Because if there's one thing that pisses people off, that just makes your average Joe furious at his overlords, it's roads.

You must be from the little Freddy Hayek school of economics: ignorant and possibly a touch dim.

What pisses people off, sonny boy, is when these "grand schemes" are paid for by the people but they gain nothing from them. They only people gaining from them are the ones that never spent a dime or work hour on them.

In addition the word "overlord" is a touch antiquated don't you think? Come out of your mom's basement for a spell, the Dungeons & Dragons will still be there when you get back.

I promise.

[freakazoid]

Of course. Because if there's one thing that pisses people off, that just makes your average Joe furious at his overlords, it's roads.

Even the libertarians are against this, and for good reason.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 14, 2007 06:34 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 14, 2007 06:34 pm)
capitalist sham
Of course. Because if there's one thing that pisses people off, that just makes your average Joe furious at his overlords, it's roads.

You must be from the little Freddy Hayek school of economics: ignorant and possibly a touch dim.

What pisses people off, sonny boy, is when these "grand schemes" are paid for by the people but they gain nothing from them. They only people gaining from them are the ones that never spent a dime or work hour on them.

In addition the word "overlord" is a touch antiquated don't you think? Come out of your mom's basement for a spell, the Dungeons & Dragons will still be there when you get back.

I promise. [/b]
You attributed that to the wrong person I think.

Also I don't agree with anything pusher robot says BUT I think you misunderstood that his post was sarcastic. And the use of the word 'overlord' was simply mocking the way we talk about capitalists, a parody of the emphasis we place on 'masters' and such-like.

I don't see how this road is a symbol of capitalist oppression - it's being built for everybody - it will be paid for by the US government surely? Even if not I think we have more important things to think about than roads - particularly one that could be useful.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:39 pm

You attributed that to the wrong person I think.

Also I don't agree with anything pusher robot says BUT I think you misunderstood that his post was sarcastic. And the use of the word 'overlord' was simply mocking the way we talk about capitalists, a parody of the emphasis we place on 'masters' and such-like.


Nope.

Got the right fuck-wad right on the head. Don't worry, I completely understood the intent of his post.

In case you are confused, I added the "capitalist sham" myself in reference to this dolt's politics..

I commented on his use of the word "overlord" because it made for a nice entry into my famous D & D reference.

Man, tough fuckin' crowd over here.


I don't see how this road is a symbol of capitalist oppression - .

Who said anything about it being a "symbol of capitalist oppression"?



it's being built for everybody

"Everybody" doesn't need another route from Mexico to Canada; there's plenty already.

The road is being built for industry; not for Jimmy's family vacation from shit-hole, Mexico through crackerville, USA right on to cold-as-fuck-and-probably-near-as-shitty-due-to-those-goofy-accents, Canada.



it will be paid for by the US government surely?

You are familiar with how the Government is funded right?

Where do you think the cash taken out of your paycheck goes? Planet Xenon?



Even if not I think we have more important things to think about than roads - particularly one that could be useful


Useful to whom?

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 14, 2007 01:17 pm--> (pusher robot @ August 14, 2007 01:17 pm)
Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 14, 2007 05:06 pm

[email protected] 14, 2007 01:24 am
god forbid we build more economic infrastructure, right?
Build away homes. I can care less.

For every jerk-off move jerk-offs like yourself make, the easier it becomes to piss off the people who pay for that crapola.
Of course. Because if there's one thing that pisses people off, that just makes your average Joe furious at his overlords, it's roads. [/b]
Just wondering how often you actually read the news. People are against this on the right, left and center. You have crazed racist right wing militia types worried about Mexicans coming across the boarder to cut their lawn… you have Libertarians becoming more popular than ever, howling over more governmental powers and wasted tax money. You have unions struggling for their very survival, and leftists suspect of more failed NAFTA policies… but you think the issue is merely over asphalt?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by RedCeltic+August 16, 2007 01:57 am--> (RedCeltic @ August 16, 2007 01:57 am)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 14, 2007 01:17 pm

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 14, 2007 05:06 pm

[email protected] 14, 2007 01:24 am
god forbid we build more economic infrastructure, right?
Build away homes. I can care less.

For every jerk-off move jerk-offs like yourself make, the easier it becomes to piss off the people who pay for that crapola.
Of course. Because if there's one thing that pisses people off, that just makes your average Joe furious at his overlords, it's roads.
Just wondering how often you actually read the news. People are against this on the right, left and center. You have crazed racist right wing militia types worried about Mexicans coming across the boarder to cut their lawn… you have Libertarians becoming more popular than ever, howling over more governmental powers and wasted tax money. You have unions struggling for their very survival, and leftists suspect of more failed NAFTA policies… but you think the issue is merely over asphalt? [/b]
Please read carefully. I was mocking his knee-jerk opposition to "economic infrastructure" in general, which would include all roads, bridges, rails, etc. everywhere. I take no firm position on whether this particular road is or is not a good idea - not every infrastructure development is a good investment.

But to take the position that economic infrastructure in general is unpopular or undesired is simply laughable.

[RedCeltic]

Obviously I misread that. I have nothing against infrastructure in general.