First, I find it appalling that the major media outlets hardly if ever cover this story. When is the last time the Today Show, Good Morning America, CBS Evening News, No Spin Zone, etc had a segment on the NAFTA Superhighway or anything else related to North American integration. Lou Dobbs gives some effort on it, but thats about it.
Secondly, the politicians in Congress and the White House and bureucrats seem to ignore it or downplay the whole thing.
These NAFTA Superhighway(s) in their current proposed formations/routes are somewhat excessive and extreme and unnecessary I think. Even if cross border trade and population growth expands, which it will, I don't agree that it necessitates building a brand spanking new 400 yard wide (4 football fields wide) NAFTA Superhighway/toll road (proposed TTC-Texas Transit Corridor-I-35) from Laredo, Texas to Kansas City to Duluth, Minnesota. This TTC-35 would parallel the already existing Interstate 35. In addition, TTC-69 (I-69) would begin in Southeast Texas to Indianapolis to Michigan to Toronto. The Texas Transit Corridor (TTC) is a statewide version of the NAFTA Superhighway projects in that it involves building 4,000 more miles of road in Texas alone! .......definitely wasteful overkill. I thought we had pretty much completed our highway system in United States.
I'm not against connecting North American cities and beyond with efficient transportation access, although I understand that there are many quandaries and issues that arise from this concept. My concern is that many of these routes are unecessary and overdone. For instance, the proposed I-69 route (S.E. Texas to Toronto), has sections of it that are truly over the top. For example, the proposed southwesternly link from Indianapolis to Memphis, TN entails bulldozing through agricultural and rural areas of Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennesse with a brand new interstate. Whereas a just as efficent route using I-70 from Indianapolis west towards St. Louis, and then south on I-57 which merges into I-55 south will just as easily get you to Memphis Tennesse. Thus, I-69 could overlap I-70, I-57, and I-55 on these routes. Similarly, from Memphis, TN, I-69 could follow I-40 west to Little Rock, AR, then follow I-30 west towards Texarkana,TX, then go south on a proposed I-49 to Shreveport, LA then I-69 could be constructed towads the southwest to Houston and Mexico. Thus, again I-69 could overlap I-40, I-30, and proposed I-49, on mostly already existing interstates. Expanding lanes would be more efficent, cost saving, and more environmentally sensible, than rampaging through the countryside.
I understand that links have to be built, but the more they correlate with existing highways, the better.
Thats just the beginning, other links are being proposed as wellnew (i.e unnecessary highways). Across the United States.
If we are going to facilitate new trade and population growth, why are we not just expanding existing highways/interstates and increasing high speed passenger and freight rail, instead of wasting money, destroying farmland, forests/wetlands for new asphalt. The only thing a many of these NAFTA Superhighway(s) (TTC-35) for instance would facilitate is more sprawl. All this talk about ethanol, which I''m leery of anyway, involves subjecting millions of acres of cropland to producing corn. Now we want to run a 400 yard (4 football field wide) interstate through the breadbasket of this country?
Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway(s) would say that it is necessary to build it because we can get around cities that are already choked with traffic. So instead of adding lanes (3 or 4 each side of say I-35 that goes through San Antonio and Austin, Texas), it is necessary to spend 10s of billions of dollars on a brand new interstate?? I would actually advocate for building intersate tunnels underneath existing interstates when they reach major metropolitan areas. It sounds far-fetch, but in California for instance they are discussing plans to build a Pasadena interstate tunnel underneath a historic part of the city. Thus, if that same ingenuity and desire and conscientiousness for concentrated development (smart growth, sustainable development) would emerge in Texas, there would be great benefits to behold. Texas would save 100,000s of acres of land, still promote economic growth, and still be able to charge a toll if necessary to help pay for such an enormous infrastructure project.
Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway(s) would say we need to build a Customs facility in Kansas City along the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway, and we want to introduce new security measures and technology. I find this reasoning a joke. Number one, the border crossings already exist to check trucks before they enter and leave the U.S. Again, what is the problem with expanding the lanes and employees at the border crossing. Plus, new security measures and technology can be alpha and beta tested at existing border entrys. Secondly, its obvious that an open border paradigm is going to happen before 2050, so the need for a Customs Facility with improved security technology in the middle of the country is a lame lame lame excuse and reason to build a NAFTA Superhighway(s) in th current proposed form.
Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway would say we are going to build passenger/freight rail lines, broadband cable, and oil and gas pipelines as well. Why would you build passenger lines that are not connected to cities? There could be an argument for taking freight rail around cities, but even then it shouldn't necessarily have to be 100s of miles away from the nearest metro. Broadband cable should connect cities. Oil and gas, not fond of either, could arguably bypass cities but in some instances could be connected to cities. I think we should be bringing as much capacity as possible to or near our cities, whether its road or rail.
Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway would say we need to help Mexico expand its highway infrastructure. I agree with that, Mexico probably does need to expand its road and rail infrastructure to major cities and American cities as well. However, why not just link Mexican highways with already existing American interstates and highways?
Human population is growing in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and that must be faciliated, but smart growth and sustainable techniques should take precedent in all 3 countries. Building a massive superhighway project in the all these countries will only facilitate more sprawl, which only means more cars on more crowded highways and more pollution in the air for global warming to feed on. We've already been down that "road", and are currently still reeling from the effects of highway induced sprawl. Its seems like this whole NAFTA Superhighway(s) situation in its current would only induce an expansive backward looking Highway Industrial Complex, with certain corporations........the usual suspects......... benefitting the most. If we are going to spend billions of dollars on transportation here, in Mexico and Canada then put that money to local urban rail and highspeed passenger and freight rail. If we absolutely have to expand highway capacity then do it on existing highways and facilitate interstate tunnel development near large cities> |
0 comments:
Post a Comment