| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| US divided by superhighway plan | |
| 2006-06-17 | |
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.
| |
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #23 Only if we can put M-1s at the beginning and end, with ROE to fire on anything they think might be "unfriendly", or unsafe on US highways. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-06-17 17:19 |
| #22 Personally, I'm all for promoting a sealevel canal between San Diego and Brownsville, though if things don't take a turn soon maybe from the Colorado River in AZ to Brownsville. |
| Posted by: Hupitle Phereger1161 2006-06-17 14:50 |
| #21 I think the plan is to put it through Idaho. All the pieces are in place and that's probably why Dirk Kempthorne was nominated to head the Department of the interior. He's been pushing for it. Keep in mind that 2 lane roads are more than adequate for the very small amount of interstate traffic in Idaho. There is barely 1 million people in the state. Bush and his friends see economic opportunity in raping the little state. I don't have time to research it - but here are two pieces of information that I found without too much trouble. From the Idaho Statesman: GARVEE Bonding (SB 1183): As part of the GARVEE Support Coalition, our Chamber actively supported GARVEE Bonding (Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle) that proposed to connect Idaho, north and south, with major transportation infrastructure. This bill allowed Idaho to maximize its existing resources by bonding for transportation projects, obligating a portion of the stateÂ’s future federal highway funds and completing projects 10 to 15 years earlier. Truly one of the "going home" bills, this legislation easily passed out of the Senate but got hung up in the House at the end of the session. After some gubernatorial "prompting" that included eight carefully selected vetoes, a compromise of several amendments to the legislation allowed House members to quickly pass SB 1183 and the Senate approved. The Governor signed the GARVEE Bonding bill into law, yesterday, in Athol, at mile post 450.9. http://www.cdachamber.com/AboutChamber/PublicPolicy2005Accomplishments.htm AND: link The Idaho Legislature's approval this year allowed the state to accelerate construction that would otherwise take years to become a reality. Gov. Kempthorne's push to improve the state's highway system was the impetus for the GARVEE legislation. The Legislature approved Idaho borrowing $1.6 billion against future federal transportation projects to fund 13 projects to improve the state highway system. The projects are planned around the entire state, including a four-lane freeway from Sandpoint to Coeur d'Alene in North Idaho; a new Snake River bridge in South-central Idaho; and a new 56-mile, four-lane divided highway through Indian Valley in Central Idaho. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-06-17 11:57 |
| #20 duder - Dude, read #9. I didn't do that, Fred's code did. Duh, dude So you liker Texas highskool football? |
| Posted by: 6 2006-06-17 11:47 |
| #19 Agree a huge Intermodal hub is being planned here in Kansas, big rail companies buying up land....they know stuff. Globalization wont be stopped, this is good. Huge public works projects like this keep lots of people employed and especially in Central America where jobs are badly needed. Count me as a supporter of this project. |
| Posted by: Omising Crineter5696 2006-06-17 11:44 |
| #18 I'm wondering if this Superhighway plan has anything to do with this headline at WorldNetDaily News. Tancredo confronts 'super-state' effort Seems kind of far-fetched, but with the way things have been going... Also, I'm not that familiar with WND, so I do not know if they are credible or not. I'm sure some of the old-timers here can shed some light/opinions. -M |
| Posted by: Manolo 2006-06-17 11:10 |
| #17 I think a train would be far better. Design it with few stops and you defeat the standard negatives of a train. Say a stop where it starts in Mexico and one at the East/West hub and another in Canada. You'd have far less issues with smuggling (people and bombs) with limited stops and trucks. Future plans could extend the train line through the Americas to Panama. They should have done something like this in the 70s when fuel/jetfuel costs went through the roof. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-06-17 10:49 |
| #16 I suspect that all three nations have in mind something like this: the super-highway bisects the US North to Canada, then splits into an east-west 'T' just north of the border. The sides of the 'T' transship to northeast and northwest of both countries, and are easier to build in Canada than an east-west route in the northern US. The southern and central east-west freeway routes are adequate for now, for the increased traffic, so don't need major modification. The tricky part begins in Mexico, as the Plan Puebla Panama (PPP) includes superhighways on both coasts. The western SH goes to California, and the eastern will probably connect through Texas. Both roads head South to the 'bottom' States, where a gigantic air, sea, rail and highway hub is planned. From Guatemala South, it will probably be much like a newer version of the Pan-American highway, for the first time opening a major land trade route to South America, to handle the massive load of the FTAA. From a purely logistical point of view, *some* kind of superhighway is needed, as right now the US-Mexico rail traffic is "bumper to bumper", and port traffic is maxed out. What amounts to a multi-trillion dollar trade route overwhelms most other security issues, which is not to say that they will be neglected. Rather, security will have to be proportional to everything else. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-06-17 09:30 |
| #15 What tu3031 said. I mean, it rained so much up here last month, water was coming out of the tunnel walls! |
| Posted by: Raj 2006-06-17 09:22 |
| #14 To anybody in favor of this I have two words: Big Dig. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-06-17 08:30 |
| #13 I dunno. Truck driving and the railroad are the livelihoods of many working-class in the heartland and I bet they would consider the investment in our own infrastructure wise. There really aren't many good N to S roads through the Plains. The Avenue of the Saints. linking St. Paul to St. Louis was just completed, but the old road took you across a one lane privately owned toll bridge. Shipping containers go by rail or on barges up the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, but most are on tractor-trailers. I-35 already runs through mostly sparsely populated farmland in Kansas and Iowa. This adds jobs and facilitates commerce in stagnant areas of the US, as well as Mexico. This area is also in the middle of our own domestic fossil fuel fields and would connect the oil sands of Canada to the oil of Mexico. Good transportation is needed if we are going to get the North American continent energy independent. Drive through scanners and electronic tagging for trucks and cargo containers could provide security without hindering commerce. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2006-06-17 08:23 |
| #12 duder - Dude, read #9. I didn't do that, Fred's code did. Duh, dude. |
| Posted by: Glinelet Sninetch8355 2006-06-17 07:33 |
| #11 Matt: Rail lines may be very efficient cost-wise, but time-wise, probably not. A load on a truck can go coast-to-coast in three days. Rail stops at every podunk little town along the way . . . . Now if you want to get rid of any illegal cross-border activity, just route this thing around the perimiter of the US and let anybody just try to get across without a car. Anyone who makes it gets to stay. :-) |
| Posted by: grb 2006-06-17 05:16 |
| #10 Dude, return the end of your link, don't end it in an ellipsis. Talk about flaming Boris code... |
| Posted by: duder 2006-06-17 04:57 |
| #9 Interesting. Fred you've got something odd in your syntax checking code (aka The Boris Code, lol). The first link was wrapped around the text "Binational Trade Corridors" - which just disappeared and the link was converted to text. Fascinating. I know how to post links. |
| Posted by: Glinelet Sninetch8355 2006-06-17 03:34 |
| #8 Here's an interesting map - http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/mexico_usa_trade_corridors.jpg... from this page of Mexico maps. Looking at that trade map, I can see why they want a superhighway, the existing ones are all crooked. Very untidy. :) |
| Posted by: Glinelet Sninetch8355 2006-06-17 03:30 |
| #7 From the evidence available thus far, Kelo / eminent domain only applies to those without connections and influence, y'know, regular flyover sheeple. Thanks, DMFD, and agreed - this really does reeeeeeek to high heaven. |
| Posted by: Glinelet Sninetch8355 2006-06-17 03:17 |
| #6 just happens to own a big piece of land along the proposed route So? use eminent domain on them. |
| Posted by: Slaique Flonter5162 2006-06-17 02:22 |
| #5 Folks, you can be reasonably certain that any and every politician pushing this has a wife, husband, brother, sister, mother, father, cousin, and/or 'good friend' who just happens to own a big piece of land along the proposed route. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2006-06-17 02:06 |
| #4 If this follows the Texas proposal, it will also have rail, pipelines and telecom. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-06-17 01:56 |
| #3 Will expedite illegal immigration aka "transnational citizenry" migration. _______________________ Security, what security? Aren't we all "citizens of the world"? //Sarcasm off |
| Posted by: borgboy 2006-06-17 01:23 |
| #2 Ok, this is a purely tec. question, but would it not be much more efficient to build a rail line instead of a giant supper highway. I have always thought trains were the most effected way of moving goods on land. Matt |
| Posted by: matt 2006-06-17 01:05 |
| #1 Probably an extension of the Texas 'superhighway' proposal - here. My friends in Texas have been following this and told me: 1) The 'private funds' part is a smoke screen - with state loans and loan guarantees it looks like it will use a lot of public money. 2) It will terminate at a large port city in Mexico (don't recall which one). 3) It's strongly backed by Wal-mart which is trying to cut shipping and handling costs from their suppliers in China. Personally - I think the whole thing smells. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-06-17 00:45 |