PDA

View Full Version : North American Super Highway



Snoop
December 15th, 2007, 08:49 PM
Does anyone think this will happen in the near future? Should it happen? Right now I'm undecided.

Construction Of North American Superhighway May Begin Next Year

Posted by: Michael Dudley (http://www.planetizen.com/user/29)

20 June 2006 - 6:00am
"The 'nation's most modern roadway', proposed between Laredo in Texas and Duluth, Minnesota, along Interstate 35, would allow the US to bypass the west coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to import goods from China and the Far East into the heart of middle America via Mexico, saving both cost and time.
However, critics argue that the ten-lane road would lay a swathe of concrete on top of an already over-developed transport infrastructure and further open the border with Mexico to illegal immigrants or terrorists.
According to a weekly Conservative magazine published in the US, the US administration is 'quietly yet systematically' planning the massive highway, citing as a benefit that it would negate the power of two unions, the Longshoremen and Teamsters.
Another source claimed the highway was a 'bi-partisan effort' with support from both Republicans and Democrats that would reduce freight transport times across the nation by days.
Eric Olson, the transportation spokesmen for the California-based Sierra Club, a national environmental awareness organisation, said the road would cause significant damage. 'Something on that scale would have a massive environmental impact,' he said. 'Building a large-scale new highway does not seem like the best solution. There is a great need for fixing our existing roads and bridges. That needs to be a priority before we start building new massive road projects.'"
Despite serious environmental, immigration, and security concerns, plans for a limited-access superhighway four football fields wide, from Mexico to Canada, which would incorporate pipelines but bypass U.S. ports altogether, are nearing completion.
Full Story: US divided by superhighway plan (http://www.planetizen.com/news/redirect.php?lid=25328&nid=20173)

Construction Of North American Superhighway May Begin Next Year | Planetizen (http://www.planetizen.com/node/20173)
<CENTER>_________________________________ <SUB>Post Merged </SUB>_________________________________

</CENTER>
Here's what Ron Paul and the conservatives have to say about it. I can't believe that this is not a major political issue in the '08 elections:

Congressman: Superhighway
about North American Union
Paul says goal is common currency,
borderless travel, bigger bureaucracy

<HR SIZE=1>Posted: October 30, 2006
12:41 p.m. Eastern
<HR SIZE=1><!--

&copy; 2000 WorldNetDaily.com--><!-- copyright -->&#169; 2006 WorldNetDaily.com <!-- end copyright -->

<TABLE align=right><TBODY><TR><TD width=200>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/ronpaul2.jpg
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>WASHINGTON – Rep. Ron Paul, a maverick Republican from Texas, today denounced plans for the proposed "NAFTA superhighway" in his state as part of a larger plot for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.
"By now many Texans have heard about the proposed 'NAFTA Superhighway,' which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor," he said in a statement. "What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention."
Paul explained that most members of Congress are unaware of the plans because only relatively small amounts of money have been spent studying the plans and those allocations were included in "enormous transportation appropriations bills."
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript><!--google_ad_client = "pub-9952085791529017";google_ad_width = 300;google_ad_height = 250;google_ad_format = "300x250_as";google_ad_type = "text_image";google_ad_channel ="";google_color_border = "FFFFFF";google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";google_color_link = "660000";google_color_text = "000000";google_color_url = "B3B3B3";//--></SCRIPT>
"The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,' or SPP," he explains. "The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco."
No treaties were involved, and Congress was not included in discussions or plans, he says.
"Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments," according to Paul. "One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don't be fooled: The superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically connected interests."
Paul says, however, the real issue raised by the superhighway plan and the SPP is national sovereignty.
"Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress," says Paul. "Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade."
The ultimate goal, he says, is not simply a superhighway "but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within the union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a resolution (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.CON.RES.487:) expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. "I wholeheartedly support this legislation and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election," says Paul. "Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight – and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty."
WorldNetDaily: Congressman: Superhighway about North American Union (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52684)

MindTrap028
December 16th, 2007, 02:05 PM
There is one thing this nation needs for prosperity, and that is infrastructure.
Transportation is going to continue to help or hurt our economy's.

I am not for the "foreign gov" thing.
However, I do like the probable good side effects on the economy.

dbogjohnson
December 17th, 2007, 05:49 AM
I think it would be good for everyone with long road trips, or truckers.
EXCEPT That its provided by the north american free trade agreement, which I am 100&#37; against.
If it were provided by someone else, then I would be for it.
BOO NAFTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dragon
January 14th, 2008, 09:35 PM
I am for transportation like imporving networks and such, but a road that will defy borders and make protecting our borders harder I am against.

FruitandNut
January 15th, 2008, 08:24 AM
I think it would be good for everyone with long road trips, or truckers.
EXCEPT That its provided by the north american free trade agreement, which I am 100% against.
If it were provided by someone else, then I would be for it.
BOO NAFTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If a NAFTA worked a bit like the old EFTA, then it wouldn't be a bad thing. It is when it gets over-politicised, with an aim to usurping the sovereignty of individual nations - like the EU seems hell bent on doing - that it gets really controversial.

European Free Trade Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association)

Snoop
January 16th, 2008, 10:24 AM
This project will never fly. I can't believe the former governer of Texas proposed this six years ago.

Jan. 15, 2008, 9:08PM
Public meetings starting on giant Texas highway project

By MICHAEL GRACZYK Associated Press Writer
2008 The Associated Press

TEXARKANA, Texas State transportation officials tried Tuesday night to ease fears of people in the projected path of a likely toll road through East Texas that could be part of a gigantic superhighway project criss-crossing much of the state.
"It's a tough process," Phil Russell, an assistant executive director for the Texas Department of Transportation, told more than 150 people in Texarkana at the first of a series of town hall meetings regarding the Trans Texas Corridor. "I know it's difficult."
On Wednesday, the forum was moving to Carthage, then Thursday to Lufkin. All are communities that would be affected by a major leg of the so-called TTC along the Interstate 69 route long sought by East Texas officials.
Officials said they hoped the unprecedented town hall sessions over the next month would answer questions and improve communication between their agency and citizens.
Gov. Rick Perry first proposed the TTC six years ago. While embraced by many, it's being fought by some who describe it as unneeded and improper.
If completed as much as 50 years from now, the TTC would roughly parallel interstate highways with up to a quarter-mile-wide stretch of toll roads, rail lines, pipelines and utility lines. Cost of the project has been estimated at approaching $200 billion.
TTC also could require the state to acquire nearly 600,000 acres of private land, much from farmers and ranchers.
A procession of more than two dozen people who approached a microphone set up at a Texarkana high school cafeteria worried about land acquisition, toll roads versus free roads, constructon timetables and environmental impact. They also suggested that improvements in existing highways be made to alleviate the need for toll roads.
Russell said existing highway lanes never would be tolled.
"If we have to build additional lanes, they will be tolled," Russell said.
Agency officials said toll roads were the alternative because existing gasoline tax revenues and federal highway money soon only will take care of maintenance and not new construction in a state where the population is expected to double and traffic is growing exponentially.
"The traffic, the freight, is coming," said Steve Simmons, the department's deputy executive director. "We've got to start moving this thing forward. We've got to be ready for it. Regardless, it's coming."
New Boston resident John Talbot told a panel of department officials he worried about displacement of 1 million people from the TTC.
"That's a lot of carnage," he said.
Simmons disputed the number, saying it was difficult to come up with one but characterized Talbot's figure as "pretty high."
"We don't even know where the road is going to go yet," he said. "I'm not going to say it's not going to affect anybody."
Linden resident Richard Arnold said he lived near existing U.S. Highway 59, which could roughly parallel the proposed Interstate 69.
"What are you going to put out there?" he asked. "Does anybody know?"
Simmons said no alignment has been made for that highway or for the TTC, which could incorporate or parallel the new road.
"We don't know," he said. "We have no idea what the transportation system is going to look like."
Arnold also raised questions about foreign investment because a Spain-based firm was part of a consortium to win a planning contract for the first phase of the TTC, which is to parallel I-35.
That phase was planned by the Cintra Zachry consortium, composed of Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte SA of Spain, one of the world's largest developers of toll roads, and Zachry Construction Co. of San Antonio.
Amid accusations the state was giving land to a foreign entity, officials insist the property would continue to be owned by Texas like any other state road, with any foreign interests recouping their investments from toll revenues.
Ed Serna, an assistant executive director for support operations in the department, said the bidding process was open to all but there were few American companies willing to bid.
"It was not just a Spanish company with Texas companies cut out," he said.
Simmons said it was "flabbergasting" to state transportation agency officials but it appeared foreign companies in the process were more patient than American firms to wait on returns on their investments.
"That's the difference," he said. "That's what we're seeing."
Besides I-69 and 35, the Trans-Texas Corridor as proposed also could include new superhighways that parallel existing Interstates 37 and 10.
At least one opposition group has taken the transportation department to court with a lawsuit accusing agency officials of improperly using their authority for political purposes.
The sessions move next week to outside Houston, then to South Texas, before winding up Feb. 6 in Robstown, outside Corpus Christi.

Public meetings starting on giant Texas highway project | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5458108.html)

dbogjohnson
January 16th, 2008, 02:04 PM
it takes alot of thinking maybe
for example: my grandpa started to build his on truck, but they were losing money.
6 years later when he got a new job he started to work on his truck again

Ibelsd
January 25th, 2008, 02:18 PM
Any American who supports this, is basically supporting the end of U.S. sovereignty. Check out SPP Home (http://spp.gov/)

This has been going on for some time now. Bush has been working behind the scenes to make this happen. The leaders of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada are working to create the North American version of the EU. Just like that bloated bureaucracy, they shall begin with economic pacts. Slowly, those will develop into more grandiose plans. The Superhighway is super bad. I am not one for conspiracies, but this whole thing stinks. Consider the following:

George Bush is a globalist. He has supported open borders and has refused to do anything significant to curb illegal immigration. He supports expansion of NAFTA. He has reportedly made agreements with Vicente Fox and PM Brown to work towards the elimination of recognized borders between the three countries for economic and security purposes. So, what would citizenship mean once this supposed security and economic plan is put into place? The website I linked to claims no governmental authority will be outsourced. It also claims there is no plan to create a Superhighway. Hmmm. Let's just say I smell a rat.

Snoop
January 25th, 2008, 02:28 PM
Ibe - you read my mind. I was just reading some literature from Selous aka The Conservative Caucus (conservative (http://www.conservativeUSA.com)). One of my customers (who is an old man) has signed an online petition against this - but online petitions are not legal in some states.

What better way to introduce the North American Union than to create a recession? Watch where the money goes if this happens.

Ibelsd
January 25th, 2008, 03:13 PM
Absolutely. I don't know if the recession was intentionally created. I don't give anyone that much credit. I would agree that the recession will certainly be used to work towards the goal laid out in spp.gov.

CliveStaples
January 26th, 2008, 06:31 PM
What better way to introduce the North American Union than to create a recession? Watch where the money goes if this happens.

There's a reason that recessions are part of the natural business cycle. It's called "creative destruction", and in the long run it benefits the economy.

I seriously doubt that this is some sort of planned recession that's meant to drive us toward a North American Union. First, how would they have engineered it? Other than to mess with the mortgage business by forcing them to give out risky loans, which by itself wouldn't create a recession. Second, why would politicians want a North American Union? How would that benefit them?

KevinBrowning
January 26th, 2008, 11:35 PM
Second, why would politicians want a North American Union? How would that benefit them?

Democrat politicians would want it because it would be seen as a diplomatic, multilateral gesture by liberals. The EU is the model of supposed progressive socialism.

Snoop
March 9th, 2008, 04:34 PM
On the subject of the North American Union - watch this: http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

Lou Dobbs did an expose a few years ago and the issue was largely ignored. I wonder why?

Vandaler
March 9th, 2008, 05:01 PM
On the subject of the North American Union - watch this: http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

Lou Dobbs did an expose a few years ago and the issue was largely ignored. I wonder why?

Can anyone demonstrate that the link between this highway and a full blown North American Union is nothing but a bad case of slippery slope ?

Squatch347
March 9th, 2008, 05:07 PM
On the subject of the North American Union - watch this: http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

Lou Dobbs did an expose a few years ago and the issue was largely ignored. I wonder why?

Perhaps because he is Lou Dobbs? His style leave much to the imagination and he often goes over the deep end on other issues, not surprising he is ignored now.

Ibelsd
March 10th, 2008, 09:59 AM
Democrat politicians would want it because it would be seen as a diplomatic, multilateral gesture by liberals. The EU is the model of supposed progressive socialism.

Kevin, you have gotta stop with the constant Democrat v. Republican thing. The current deal is being fostered and brokered by George Bush. He is the one making deals with (Fox then now Calderon) and Brown (or whoever is running the Moosehead Beer Factory up there). Dems and Reps both want to expand their power by creating a North American Union. You don't think your beloved Republican party has supported a policy of progressive socialism?
NCLB? Expanded Federal Healthcare? FEMA? Isn't the govt giving out checks to everyone? Even people who didn't pay the same in taxes get the same amount back? This isn't wealth redistribution? lol.

starcreator
March 10th, 2008, 11:08 AM
I think it would be good for everyone with long road trips, or truckers.
EXCEPT That its provided by the north american free trade agreement, which I am 100% against.
If it were provided by someone else, then I would be for it.
BOO NAFTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why "BOO NAFTA"?


Any American who supports this, is basically supporting the end of U.S. sovereignty. Check out SPP Home (http://spp.gov/)

This has been going on for some time now. Bush has been working behind the scenes to make this happen. The leaders of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada are working to create the North American version of the EU. Just like that bloated bureaucracy, they shall begin with economic pacts. Slowly, those will develop into more grandiose plans. The Superhighway is super bad. I am not one for conspiracies, but this whole thing stinks. Consider the following:

George Bush is a globalist. He has supported open borders and has refused to do anything significant to curb illegal immigration. He supports expansion of NAFTA. He has reportedly made agreements with Vicente Fox and PM Brown to work towards the elimination of recognized borders between the three countries for economic and security purposes. So, what would citizenship mean once this supposed security and economic plan is put into place? The website I linked to claims no governmental authority will be outsourced. It also claims there is no plan to create a Superhighway. Hmmm. Let's just say I smell a rat.

Oh, please. North America is not a conglomerate of states with equal influence; the US has an economy that is ten times that of Canada and Mexico. It isn't going to lose its sovereignty because it enters into mutually beneficial trade agreement with two minor North American powers. The US will always retain its veto power as it will likely be making the greatest contributions to the project.

And by the way, Canada has no "PM Brown";).


Democrat politicians would want it because it would be seen as a diplomatic, multilateral gesture by liberals. The EU is the model of supposed progressive socialism.

What a partisan smear. Unions aren't created by liberals for their own sake; there must be purpose and utility to them. I know Canada has no interest in tying itself further to the falling American economy, and I doubt the others have any political interest in such a union either. Can you actually address Clive's question? What utility would that policy serve to any of the parties involved?

Furthermore, being a fiscal liberal, I'm surprised to hear you make such a complaint in the first place.

Ibelsd
March 10th, 2008, 02:13 PM
Oh, please. North America is not a conglomerate of states with equal influence; the US has an economy that is ten times that of Canada and Mexico. It isn't going to lose its sovereignty because it enters into mutually beneficial trade agreement with two minor North American powers. The US will always retain its veto power as it will likely be making the greatest contributions to the project.

And by the way, Canada has no "PM Brown";).



My belief, based on paranoia and reading the government's website, is that they would like a single North American government. In terms of what is or is not mutually beneficial.... Kind of subjective. I don't consider opening the highways to Mexican truck drivers who do not get paid the same wages as those in America and who are not subject to the same regulations to be mutually beneficial.

Ah, I was thinking of Paul Martin. I dunno. I am really poor with names.

Snoop
March 10th, 2008, 03:26 PM
Can anyone demonstrate that the link between this highway and a full blown North American Union is nothing but a bad case of slippery slope ?I can. Lou Dobbs was wrong - here's snopes.com explanation: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/nau.asp

Slipnish
March 10th, 2008, 03:29 PM
I'm worried about the amount of land the government will need to claim in order to lay out this behemoth. Could be a very bad thing for some folks...

Vandaler
March 10th, 2008, 05:17 PM
I'm worried about the amount of land the government will need to claim in order to lay out this behemoth. Could be a very bad thing for some folks...

Usually such expropriation makes generous settlement. Where I Texan I would be praying for the route to cross my land.

Snoop
March 10th, 2008, 05:27 PM
Usually such expropriation makes generous settlement. Were I Texan I would be praying for the route to cross my land.Were I a head of cattle I would be looking for a new range to roam. Where did you learn how to talk like that? (j/k)

The highway is a bad idea because it expedites delivery of goods from Canada to Mexico (and vice versa) through our sovereign land. It would be almost impossible for toll revenues to distributed fairly UNLESS there is a North American Union. That's why it probably won't happen. Does anyone really expect construction costs to be shared equally?