Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KennethColeSRG

Trans-Texas Corridor Part of Larger Plan

Recommended Posts

Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway

by Jerome R. Corsi

Posted Jun 12, 2006

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn....

Link to full article....

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15497

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway

by Jerome R. Corsi

Posted Jun 12, 2006

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn....

Link to full article....

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15497

:wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:

If they are building the freeway how many lanes

are they rebuilding I-35 how long will this take!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will have an effect on the Port of Houston. How much remains to be seen.nasco_home_page_09.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway

by Jerome R. Corsi

Posted Jun 12, 2006

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn....

Link to full article....

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15497

Honestly, I'd question the credibility of the article. Just because there appears to be interest by some special interest groups (noticed H. Ross Perot's AllianceTexas has its own city designation in addition to Dallas, Fort Worth, and Denton :huh: ) doesn't mean that anything like this is actually in the works.

Frankly, the economics of logistical operations would require that for such a project to be feasible, everything must be moved by rail carrier on bidirectional dedicated trackage with major intermodal terminals at about 750-mile increments (on account of that shipments made within about 400 miles rarely make sense except by truck). Roadway requirements are relatively few except that they branch outward around major intermodal terminals. They don't necessarily need to always follow the railroad right of way, either.

The midwest route certainly carries the greatest benefit, but if it were implemented, they'd need to lay two sets of bidirectional tracks up until about Dallas and then have one set go toward Atlanta and then up the eastern seaboard. That's the best way to get Asian goods to the most populous and heretofore inconvenient U.S. markets under this plan.

All this being said, there's no point in doing any of this if we can just get the Panama Canal widened, as is presently planned (for real). Freight shipments are far less expensive per mile if they can be transported by a water route, and the Post-Panamax vessels (which have the lowest-cost-per-container-mile travelled) can only access the gulf or eastern seaboards by sailing through the Suez Canal or rounding the tip of South America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

toll road rates unpredictable in the future

Cintra gets the contract, no big surprise there

Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security, said the Cintra deal includes provisions that bar the state from building its own roads in the area during the 50-year contract.

Brilliant work they do in Austin! Is this the best they can do, honestly?

Edited by pineda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security, said the Cintra deal includes provisions that bar the state from building its own roads in the area during the 50-year contract.

I believe that is a mischaracterization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and the point.

From what I read, it will just be another way to steal jobs from the US.

It is designed to bring in goods from the East, (China) and use non union labor worker to by employeed at docks and trucking (Mexico)

This is stupid and a huge land grab.

And to top it off, it will be tolled, jeez! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toll road rates unpredictable in the future

Cintra gets the contract, no big surprise there

Brilliant work they do in Austin! Is this the best they can do, honestly?

California did this in the past (SR-91) and ended up regretting it. They paid some huge amount of money to buy a parallel toll road from a private company b/c of those same stipulations of no area road improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ann Coulter is plastered all over the site. By deduction, the site is probably incapable of voicing intelligent opinions in the first place. Don't worry, folks.

I-69 should wait. US59 through downtown can't handle it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
please explain.

Now, I could be wrong because this CDA could be different from the CDA for the new tollway near Austin. But my understanding of the non-compete agreement between the state and the builder is that road projects in the zone of influence work like a bank balance. The state gets credit for projects that would serve to bring traffic to the toll road (such as a connecting roadway) and it gets debited for projects that would take traffic away from it (such as a parallel highway).

So to say that the state can't build any roads in the area is a mischaracterization of the CDA.

Edited by CDeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CDeb-

Do you know if Cintra is involved in the CDA in Austin?

This is where my memory is fuzzy. I THOUGHT they were being brought in to build the southern portion of SH 130 (US183 to IH10), but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treasonous.

We should jail each and every one of our elected officials who are attempting to circumvent the system to create this "North American Union" which will undoubtedly threaten our sovereignty. There's another hand at play here and its not a nice one.

Edited by mrfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Treasonous.

We should jail each and every one of our elected officials who are attempting to circumvent the system to create this "North American Union" which will undoubtedly threaten our sovereignty. There's another hand at play here and its not a nice one.

they only reason i would think that a north american union is being created is because of the threat of china's economy. the rate at which it is growing, it is going to overtake japan in 5-10 years and the US in about 15-20. and i don't believe, seeing that there have been meetings between Canada, US, and Mexico's leaders, that this is very real. and, as a side note, i don't believe any EU countries (just focusing on the original ones) have lost any of their identity or real sovereignty. then again i don't know the politics of the EU that well. the whole reason the EU was created was to compete globally with the US. now that china and even india pose a real threat, N.America might be feeling the pressure to do the same. just my two cents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they only reason i would think that a north american union is being created is because of the threat of china's economy. the rate at which it is growing, it is going to overtake japan in 5-10 years and the US in about 15-20. and i don't believe, seeing that there have been meetings between Canada, US, and Mexico's leaders, that this is very real. and, as a side note, i don't believe any EU countries (just focusing on the original ones) have lost any of their identity or real sovereignty. then again i don't know the politics of the EU that well. the whole reason the EU was created was to compete globally with the US. now that china and even india pose a real threat, N.America might be feeling the pressure to do the same. just my two cents...

So the Chinese work ethics are evil, they just work for too cheap, they need to get some dignity back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they only reason i would think that a north american union is being created is because of the threat of china's economy. the rate at which it is growing, it is going to overtake japan in 5-10 years and the US in about 15-20. and i don't believe, seeing that there have been meetings between Canada, US, and Mexico's leaders, that this is very real. and, as a side note, i don't believe any EU countries (just focusing on the original ones) have lost any of their identity or real sovereignty. then again i don't know the politics of the EU that well. the whole reason the EU was created was to compete globally with the US. now that china and even india pose a real threat, N.America might be feeling the pressure to do the same. just my two cents...

So, why would anyone want a unified N. America? Honestly, why should anyone feel threatened by China?

They're growing and slowly becoming more prosperous. Good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, why would anyone want a unified N. America? Honestly, why should anyone feel threatened by China?

They're growing and slowly becoming more prosperous. Good for them.

Precisely. It's easy to forget the double standard that we enforce upon the rest of the world. We have troops in Japan, Korea, and Central Asia. What if China has troops in Mexico, Cuba, and Canada? What if a Chinese spy plane landed in California, instead of ours having landed over there? The old argument was that we embody freedom, and espouse human rights; the past few years have evaporated our moral high ground. Pity, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely. It's easy to forget the double standard that we enforce upon the rest of the world. We have troops in Japan, Korea, and Central Asia. What if China has troops in Mexico, Cuba, and Canada? What if a Chinese spy plane landed in California, instead of ours having landed over there? The old argument was that we embody freedom, and espouse human rights; the past few years have evaporated our moral high ground. Pity, no?

Well if China deployed troops to Mexico, Cuba, and Canada, that'd be a whole other matter. This thread is about economic growth, not militarism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, who pushed the 2003 bill that helped set up the toll road initiative, said he was "asleep or not smart enough" to recognize potential problems.

Very surprised that Ogden openly admits this, especially considering he was the Chair at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if China deployed troops to Mexico, Cuba, and Canada, that'd be a whole other matter. This thread is about economic growth, not militarism.

And that they work for so cheap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
China's very militaristic. They can blow up our satellites now.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how they'd do that. Unless they just launched a few nuclear missiles into space and let the EMP take out both theirs and ours indiscriminately, there would seem to be pretty severe constraints on the physics of such attacks. It wouldn't surprise me if they could take out a few satellites before we crippled their command and control infrastructure, but it doesn't seem plausible that they could really hit us all at once.

Can you provide a source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a source, but there was something in the news about them using a missile to shoot down an old weather satellite of theirs as a test a few weeks back.

Edited by Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
China's very militaristic. They can blow up our satellites now.

We can blow up theirs too, ya know. We can blow up them, for that matter. Sounds like we're the "militaristic" ones. That's exactly the double standard I spoke of. When a country is half as dangerous as we are, they're considered a threat. :chuckle:

Edited by desirous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can blow up theirs too, ya know. We can blow up them, for that matter. Sounds like we're the "militaristic" ones. That's exactly the double standard I spoke of. When a country is half as dangerous as we are, they're considered a threat. :chuckle:

It is kind of interesting, though, because it seems that in the 21st century, the more that a country has the capacity to be dangerous, the less dangerous it actually is. Notice that the developing 3rd world is pretty tame, even among large economies like China and India, and that they aren't likely to risk a military engagement (even against a lesser country) because it'd throw their economy out of whack. That doesn't mean that they stop all military spending, and they shouldn't be expected to, but they aren't taking an overtly offense posture.

It is the poorest and most undeveloped third world countries that pose the greatest military risks because 1) they don't have much to lose, and 2) the governments are weak or inherently unstable with few checks on power. Take N. Korea as an example. Their economy is pathetic, and over a third of its GDP is devoted purely to military spending...meanwhile, its people often starve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is kind of interesting, though, because it seems that in the 21st century, the more that a country has the capacity to be dangerous, the less dangerous it actually is. Notice that the developing 3rd world is pretty tame, even among large economies like China and India, and that they aren't likely to risk a military engagement (even against a lesser country) because it'd throw their economy out of whack. That doesn't mean that they stop all military spending, and they shouldn't be expected to, but they aren't taking an overtly offense posture.

It is the poorest and most undeveloped third world countries that pose the greatest military risks because 1) they don't have much to lose, and 2) the governments are weak or inherently unstable with few checks on power. Take N. Korea as an example. Their economy is pathetic, and over a third of its GDP is devoted purely to military spending...meanwhile, its people often starve.

Check out this link, it sheds some interesting light on the change in societal attitudes toward violence. Traditional theories regarding the definition of threats is outdated in today's global economy.

About the topic - there's nothing fundamentally wrong with building highways. The problem lies in ignoring the urgent needs of cities for infrastructure upgrades, by simply bypassing them altogether. I remember that Interstate 35 is wider in Georgetown and New Braunfels than in Austin, for example.

Edited by desirous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About the topic - there's nothing fundamentally wrong with building highways. The problem lies in ignoring the urgent needs of cities for infrastructure upgrades, by simply bypassing them altogether. I remember that Interstate 35 is wider in Georgetown and New Braunfels than in Austin, for example.

Austin itself is a case study in poor mobility planning. There, the NIMBYs and BANANAs rule all. Probably not the best place from which to draw an example of a statewide or nationwide transportation problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem lies in ignoring the urgent needs of cities for infrastructure upgrades, by simply bypassing them altogether. I remember that Interstate 35 is wider in Georgetown and New Braunfels than in Austin, for example.

Removing demand from an urban freeway essentially has the same impact as adding supply.

Regardless, Austin has no one to blame but themselves for their mobility issues.

Edited by CDeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Removing demand from an urban freeway essentially has the same impact as adding supply.

Regardless, Austin has no one to blame but themselves for their mobility issues.

How are they removing demand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How are they removing demand?

Removing is a bad word. How about relocating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How are they relocating demand?

Through vehicles can have the option of bypassing an urban area, thus relocating the demand from the urban freeway to a (relatively) rural one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Through vehicles can have the option of bypassing an urban area, thus relocating the demand from the urban freeway to a (relatively) rural one.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Thanks for spelling it out for me.

Frankly, though, I'm not sure how effective the toll bypass is going to be at eliminating urban congestion. Are they going to force tractor trailers to take it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, why would anyone want a unified N. America? Honestly, why should anyone feel threatened by China?

They're growing and slowly becoming more prosperous. Good for them.

that actually was suppost to be "france, etc haven't lost their identity". didn't proofread. anyways, i don't have a problem with china growing economically or even militarily. they are going to be a very dominant power in the region. however, they way they handle business, like where and who they buy their oil from, lack of environmental actions/enforcement, and the horrible conditions of their own workforce concerns me. now as a broader perspective, i believe some in the political arena here in the US feel threatened. the reason i said that a unified N. America is being created would be why the EU was created. again, just an thought or theory, nothing more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, though, I'm not sure how effective the toll bypass is going to be at eliminating urban congestion. Are they going to force tractor trailers to take it?

I don't think it'll be a pancea, but in the case of I-35 in Austin, I believe they have few otions. The right-of-way constraints there are pretty brutal.

From what I've heard, they aren't going to force trucks to take it, but try to come up with ways to offset some of the toll cost in order to entice them to use it (gasoline discounts at stations along the toll road is one that was being discussed, but I don't know how seriously). Removing a significant portion of the trucks from I-35 isn't a cure-all, but it'll have some impact. A truck can take the physical space of three passenger vehicles and has much worse performance characteristics. They count as anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 passenger cars in traffic analyses.

Edited by CDeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it'll be a pancea, but in the case of I-35 in Austin, I believe they have few otions. The right-of-way constraints there are pretty brutal.

From what I've heard, they aren't going to force trucks to take it, but try to come up with ways to offset some of the toll cost in order to entice them to use it (gasoline discounts at stations along the toll road is one that was being discussed, but I don't know how seriously). Removing a significant portion of the trucks from I-35 isn't a cure-all, but it'll have some impact. A truck can take the physical space of three passenger vehicles and has much worse performance characteristics. They count as anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 passenger cars in traffic analyses.

One thing they could do is to build the freeway as a three-level structure, with the lower freeway deck in a trench, frontage roads cantilevered over it (e.g., Central Expy in Dallas), and an upper deck above both of them. I could picture 6 lower deck lanes, 6 frontage road lanes, and 10 upper deck lanes. That's the theoretical limit, in my opinion, as far as engineering goes.

Removing trucks, even all of them, is not enough. I-35 is taking on over 250,000 vehicles per day, and it would be even more crowded if it had the ability to handle more cars. Imagine if the Southwest Freeway is still 6 lanes, and there you have it.

Edited by desirous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Removing trucks, even all of them, is not enough.

I agree, but it'll have an impact, and removing trucks isn't the only goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that actually was suppost to be "france, etc haven't lost their identity". didn't proofread. anyways, i don't have a problem with china growing economically or even militarily. they are going to be a very dominant power in the region. however, they way they handle business, like where and who they buy their oil from, lack of environmental actions/enforcement, and the horrible conditions of their own workforce concerns me. now as a broader perspective, i believe some in the political arena here in the US feel threatened. the reason i said that a unified N. America is being created would be why the EU was created. again, just an thought or theory, nothing more...

It doesn't matter who they buy oil from. It is a global market. All that matters is how much they and everyone else demands and at what price. They also aren't really at a point where it makes sense for them to try and clean up their environment. First, they should tend to the basic needs of their people, which as you acknowledge, is still a challenge. That's why they were exempted from Kyoto.

There really isn't much advantage to a unified N. America the way that there was for a unified Europe. Big nations don't have so much of a problem with currency exchange and disimilar regulation and accounting, the way that all those small European countries did. International treaties and the WTO can accomplish as much as needs to be.

The big problem with unification is that less stable countries exert negative and volatile influences on more stable countries. Where currencies are shared, there is a strong incentive for more stable nations to pull out when things get dicey, whereas trade agreements like the U.S. has with various countries tend to be more flexible and provide better terms for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter who they buy oil from. It is a global market. All that matters is how much they and everyone else demands and at what price.

Though it may be a global market in theory, the reality is that most of the world's oil is controlled by national oil companies, so the oil markets are very political. China, for instance, has been busy locking up oil agreements with countries that are either enemies of the US or in strained relationships, such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Russia, in an effort to flex it's muscle last year, temporarily cut off the natural gas supply to parts of Europe. These are clearly political manuevers, not free market ones. And political moves can have a far more disastrous effect than market ones.

This article just appeared in the Chron yesterday.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/4591682.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
China, for instance, has been busy locking up oil agreements with countries that are either enemies of the US or in strained relationships, such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Russia, in an effort to flex it's muscle last year, temporarily cut off the natural gas supply to parts of Europe.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/4591682.html

I knew the Chinese government was evil, them and their Chery vehicles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though it may be a global market in theory, the reality is that most of the world's oil is controlled by national oil companies, so the oil markets are very political. China, for instance, has been busy locking up oil agreements with countries that are either enemies of the US or in strained relationships, such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Russia, in an effort to flex it's muscle last year, temporarily cut off the natural gas supply to parts of Europe. These are clearly political manuevers, not free market ones. And political moves can have a far more disastrous effect than market ones.

This article just appeared in the Chron yesterday.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/4591682.html

Yeah, well see, I've got a little secret that I'll share with you: reporters aren't economists.

Say China decides to buy Russian oil exclusively (which is something of a misnomer anyway because even though the Chinese government is a huge consumer of oil, there are now independent Chinese firms that can buy oil from whatever is the lowest-cost supplier, but fortunatley, that little clarification has basically no impact on the point I'm about to make). Rather than buy from multiple suppliers, they're now buying from a single consolidated supplier. They aren't buying any more than they otherwise would have, just that they're buying more Russian and less of everyone else's. The supply/demand balance is maintained, effectively without change, from one moment to the next. And if China hadn't bought Russian oil, that doesn't mean that Russia wouldn't sell it to other countries because unilateral embargoes against the world only hurt the exporting country. Now assume that the price has been fixed, and that Russia is trying to develop some kind of a relationship with China by providing them with low-cost oil. China, buying at a price lower than the global market, is going to buy as much as they can in excess of their need and resell it on the global market, engaging in arbitrage. Net effect on price of oil to the U.S. is zero.

But oil is different from natural gas. Oil has a global market, whereas natural gas is harder to transport across oceans. As a result, almost all of the U.S. supply of natural gas is produced in North America. Russia can screw with (parts of) Europe all it likes. I could care less.

Now, as far as that Chronicle article is concerned, I agree with the comments that were voiced...but they are in no way relevant to the point that I brought up and that you have attempted to dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, well see, I've got a little secret that I'll share with you: reporters aren't economists.

Say China decides to buy Russian oil exclusively (which is something of a misnomer anyway because even though the Chinese government is a huge consumer of oil, there are now independent Chinese firms that can buy oil from whatever is the lowest-cost supplier, but fortunatley, that little clarification has basically no impact on the point I'm about to make). Rather than buy from multiple suppliers, they're now buying from a single consolidated supplier. They aren't buying any more than they otherwise would have, just that they're buying more Russian and less of everyone else's. The supply/demand balance is maintained, effectively without change, from one moment to the next. And if China hadn't bought Russian oil, that doesn't mean that Russia wouldn't sell it to other countries because unilateral embargoes against the world only hurt the exporting country. Now assume that the price has been fixed, and that Russia is trying to develop some kind of a relationship with China by providing them with low-cost oil. China, buying at a price lower than the global market, is going to buy as much as they can in excess of their need and resell it on the global market, engaging in arbitrage. Net effect on price of oil to the U.S. is zero.

Now, as far as that Chronicle article is concerned, I agree with the comments that were voiced...but they are in no way relevant to the point that I brought up and that you have attempted to dispute.

So you make up a fantasy scenario to prop up your argument...priceless.

The Pedant has spoken!!!!

...wordy, irrelevant reply in 3-2-1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you make up a fantasy scenario to prop up your argument...priceless.

The Pedant has spoken!!!!

...wordy, irrelevant reply in 3-2-1...

I provided two brief examples to support my theory. Is that a problem? I noticed that you didn't attempt a rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, well see, I've got a little secret that I'll share with you: reporters aren't economists.

Yes, only the mighty Niche can explain economics.

National oil companies control 80 percent of the world's oil. They have many motives, not the least of which is ensuring that they have enough oil for their own needs, as well as buying friends. In a free market, only price dictates the flow of oil. Just like the OPEC cartel that you despise, nationalized oil distorts the free market. Assuming that naltional oil companies put profits above political considerations is a recipe for disaster. Nationalized oil and political instability in oil producing nations is a far bigger threat to the oil supply than peak oil. Ironically, Iraq is a great example. With the 4th largest reserve, it is procing a third less oil than before the US "liberated" them. No amount of money can get the oil out of the ground, since the insurgents sabotage the pipes as quickly as they repair them.

I would have thought even you would understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...