NAFTA superhighway from Mexico to Canada?

[jread]

Seems that only foreign news agencies are reporting on this, while I have heard NOTHING about this in the U.S. The only part I've heard about was the Texas section of the highway, referred to as the "Trans Texas Corridor". It looks as if the big picture is a much larger and extremely major project:

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=884112006

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/art...t=yes&id=15497

http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/about/

(pretty sad when we have to find out information about our own country from other sources)

[AubieTurtle]

There was an link on Fark.com a few days ago about this. I have no doubt that this thing will get started... I have no doubt that the thing will never get finish and will be considered by future generations as a testiment to the cheap oil-corporatization/globalization era of the turn of the century.

[abrowne]

Strange... most freight traffic in Western Canada runs east-west, not north-south.

Vancouver is, by far, Canada's busiest port, though.

edit: What? The articles aren't even consistent. One places the new highway closer to the west coast, and another places it in the heartland, leading to Ontario.

[Bubba]

There's already a Mexico-to-Canada interstate (the I-69 corridor - at least I believe the overall intent of the highway is to provide a Mexico-to-Canada route) in the works. Various "segments of independent utility" of I-69 are rapidly progressing through the planning, environmental and design phases of pre-construction. Is this ten-lane thing just a version of the overall I-69 project on steroids, maybe?

[jmello]

They are confusing the Trans-Texas Corridor with I-69. The articles are poorly researched and written.

[Gedunker]

I'm familiar with the NAFTA highway, dating to the Gore/Perot "debates".

Indiana has been considering alternate routes for I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis (Indy to Michigan is complete IIRC). The route has now been finalized. With the state leasing the toll road (I-80/90) for $3.8bn, construction of I-69 and many other projects will be underway in the near term.

[SkeLeton]

Uh... Actually there is a highway that connects (at least theoretically) from Anchorage to Puerto Montt... and thus Mexico to Canada... in the US it's the I-5...

And that Pan-American Highway has been for quite a while now... at least here...

[mgk920]

Strange... most freight traffic in Western Canada runs east-west, not north-south.

Vancouver is, by far, Canada's busiest port, though.

edit: What? The articles aren't even consistent. One places the new highway closer to the west coast, and another places it in the heartland, leading to Ontario.

And it seems that most of that freight traffic turns south at Winnipeg and continues into the USA via central and eastern Wisconsin. I don't know how many of those CN trains that I have seen here have been solid or nearly solid grain, potash, molten sulphur and/or softwood lumber.

Also, CN and several Canadian governments have been working on a major port expansion at Prince Rupert, BC, which, if it works as planned, will at least double traffic on that CN route (their ex WC mainline) within 10-15 years.

Anyways, the USA does have lots of I-routes running in lots of directions, but none that go directly between southern Ontario and Mexico, thus the I-69 extension and upgrades.

Private railroads have also been making feverish upgrades in recent years and are, due to their rampant post WWII abandonments (continuing into the 1980s), still critically short of track capacity, to the point where I would not be surprized to see previously abandoned routes being re-acquired and reopened, including eminent domain takings to reassemble the RsOW (railroad companies still have the power of eminent domain in many or most USA states, one of the very few types of private entities to enjoy this).

Mike

[nerudite]

There has been an I-5 Corridor project in the works for 10 years at least. I know of someone who has been working on it from the Caltrans perspective for at least 7 years. I think we even had a thread in the FAC at sometime about the superhighway in the midwest (although I think it was a more tongue in cheek discussion).

[jringel]

Why is a superhighway being constructed to Duluth, MN anyway. That city worked hard enough to bury Interstate 35 so that they could preserve their historic downtown and waterfront. Now they will have to contend with an 11 lane porkbarrrel project. I attended college in this remote reason so I would like to ask who is going to be using this monster of a highway. No one lives up there.

[jmello]

Why is a superhighway being constructed to Duluth, MN anyway. That city worked hard enough to bury Interstate 35 so that they could preserve their historic downtown and waterfront. Now they will have to contend with an 11 lane porkbarrrel project. I attended college in this remote reason so I would like to ask who is going to be using this monster of a highway. No one lives up there.

Read my post below. This is becoming an urban legend very quickly.

[mgk920]

Why is a superhighway being constructed to Duluth, MN anyway. That city worked hard enough to bury Interstate 35 so that they could preserve their historic downtown and waterfront. Now they will have to contend with an 11 lane porkbarrrel project. I attended college in this remote reason so I would like to ask who is going to be using this monster of a highway. No one lives up there.

This massive overbuilding is only proposed for I-35 in TEXAS, not Minnesota. If anything, the *ONLY* highway upgrades that I can even remotely forsee for the Duluth, MN area would be to connect I-35 to the four-lane part of US 61 on the city's northeast edge. Even that is extremely iffy because of the political situation in the state regarding the MnDOT budget and within Duluth itself.

Mike

[portlandrican]

Yes!!!! I have heard about this. interesting!!! I use to work for a tolling consulting/engineering firm where this was on the front burner. I never never worked on the project though. this project is also getting some discussion on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory.

[DetroitPlanner]

Strange... most freight traffic in Western Canada runs east-west, not north-south.

Vancouver is, by far, Canada's busiest port, though.

edit: What? The articles aren't even consistent. One places the new highway closer to the west coast, and another places it in the heartland, leading to Ontario.

You're not looking at it in its real context. You are looking for functionality. You are thinking far too logically.

Vancouver may be Canada's busiest water port, but its trade through and with Detroit is huge, thousands of trucks a day cross the border delievering Canada made parts for US assembly plants or US made parts for Canadian assembly plants. The highway is not needed to link Mexican or US goods with Vancouver, there are places much closer to the point of assembly where they can be traded without having to cross a border.

This has nothing to do with moving traffic from Mexico to Canada. It actually has more to do with a money grab for a series of projects to expand the Interstate Highway System.

Our State Highway Department has determined several years ago that we can't justify building a new freeway (I-73?); just for the sake NAFTA/Trade. We already have a good network.However, there is a push from other states to get us linked in as we are the gateway to canada along the industrial corridor.

[AubieTurtle]

One of the proposals for the NAFTA transportation corridors:

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

[portlandrican]

This has nothing to do with moving traffic from Mexico to Canada. It actually has more to do with a money grab for a series of projects to expand the Interstate Highway System.

horray!!! its out in the open. I agree! I have heard the same thing from others. even some close to this project. the company I was with is a huge player in the tolling scheme...ooops industry, lol. and they are pushing this project big time. along with many others who will benefit greatly.

[unless]

Can someone explain to me why two articles say that the highway will be "four football fields wide"? That is not consistent with other parts that say it will be 10-11 lanes (even if that is in each direction??) Four football fields = 1200 feet, even at the rural maximum for interstates at 15' that is 800 lanes! WTF!

[jmello]

Can someone explain to me why two articles say that the highway will be "four football fields wide"? That is not consistent with other parts that say it will be 10-11 lanes (even if that is in each direction??) Four football fields = 1200 feet, even at the rural maximum for interstates at 15' that is 800 lanes! WTF!

They are referring to the "Trans-Texas Corridor," which includes rail lines, pipelines, powerlines, truck lanes, etc. As I said before, these articles are confusing the "Trans-Texas Corridor," a state project, with I-69, an interstate project. The entire length will NOT have the dimensions of the "Trans-Texas Corridor." This is poor reporting, plain and simple.