introduction:
Peak Traffic:
Planning NAFTA Superhighways
at the End of the Age of Oil

Road Scholar Dictionary

Freeway fights:
state by state list
West Eugene Parkway (OR)
Inter County Connector (MD)

NAFTA Superhighways
Trans Texas Corridors
I-5 (Wash, Oregon, Calif.)
I-69

FHWA
Corridors of the Future
other new superhighways

Troubled Bridges Over Water: fix existing roads

toll roads
Lexus Lanes (High Occupancy Toll)

Federal Highway Laws
Bush, Clinton, Bush highway bills
environmental groups

Presidents Johnson & Nixon
FHWA Environmental Guidebook
Understanding NEPA
Purpose and Need
Environmental Impact Statements
Avoidance and Mitigation
Segmentation
Logical Termini
FHWA regulations: Title 23
20 year requirement
Section 4(f) protects parks
Land & Water Conservation Fund
Clean Water
Clean Air
Endangered Species
Environmental Justice

National Forest Roads
see www.wildlandscpr.org

Alternatives:
LUTRAQ (Portland, OR)
WETLANDS (Eugene, OR)
the limits of smart growth
transit, urban density and Peak Oil
relocalization everywhere
car sharing
mass transit
inter-city trains
bicycles

WETLANDS op-eds

Peak Oil &
Climate Change
Oil Depletion Protocol

Habitat fragmentation
compromise is unnecessary

Spyroads
electronic tollroads
Radio Frequency ID (RFID)
geoslavery: GPS tracking

The J. Edgar Hoover highway:
civil liberties and
transportation surveillance

NAFTA Superhighways

The NAFTA Superhighways are very real - but it is not ONE highway plan, it is a large network of new highways and expanded (existing) highways.

The 1991 ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) specified the first iteration of the "NAFTA Superhighway." This was to extend I-69 from Indianapolis (it's current southern terminus) all the way to Mexico. Highwaymen from several states who each wanted their local and regional boondoggles got together and petitioned Congress to create this full route as a national priority "corridor." The new I-69 is planned to go through southern Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. The southern Indiana section is probably closest to being built.

The 1998 "TEA-21" and 2005 "SAFETEA-LU" laws expanded from the few dozen new "corridors" in the 1991 ISTEA law and the 2005 law has a total of 80 corridors. Some of these corridors involve upgrading existing highways, some involve construction on "new alignment," a couple of the corridor designations specify numerous road projects in a region.

The FHWA "Corridors of the Future" program is a corollary to the NAFTA Superhighway proposals. Some of the "corridors of the future" would include major expansions of east-west highways (especially near Chicago) that would interconnect the north south new / expanded superhighways.

http://www.fightgridlocknow.gov/

http://www.corridors.dot.gov/

The new I-69 NAFTA Superhighway is one of the selected "corridors" for national prioritization.

Upgrading I-5 between Canada and Mexico is also a "corridor of the future," although they don't like to use the term NAFTA Superhighway. In Washington State, a parallel effort has studied creating a "Washington Commerce Corridor" between Vancouver WA and Vancouver BC with car lanes, truck lanes, freight and passenger rail, and utilities (electric lines, water, oil, gas, etc). This is the same model as the Trans Texas Corridor proposals (a large network of new highways around Texas with separate facilities for cars, trucks, freight trains, passenger rail and utilities).

www.peakoilblues.com/blog/?p=77
Get Your Kicks on Route 6-6-6

I think of a world where fuel is so expensive, and products are so costly to move, that one needs a permit to enter that NAFTA Transnational Superhighway. I imagine that without paying someone off, it will be impossible to get that permit. Wal-Mart gets one. Dole will be cruising it too. Of course Proctor and Gamble, and you can name a few dozen others. And they’ll be fast freight trains and bullet trains that will carry ‘approved’ citizens from one place to another. There’ll be fiber optic cable lines running along side to keep our communications open. Once on the highway, the limousines and huge container carriers and trains can fill-up the tank without limits, because, after all, you have a permit to be on there anyway. Along side this Superhighway, are the gas and oil pipelines, and of course, THAT’s why you need the permit to enter, or at least that’s the excuse. Gas flows down from Canada, for as long as it lasts, and oil flows up, until the last trickle. It is paid for by Ameros, a proposed currency I never even heard of until a few days ago. Euros, Ameros, Get it?

www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/15/1211/82655
Secret NAFTA Superhighway: Is the Right Swiftboating W?
by John Campanelli
Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:21:01 PM PST

two comments from readers of that web page:

This has nothing to do with Bush (2+ / 0-)
it is all about the congressional election in the fall. The Repub congress critters will all say "look at what the Dems voted for--they're letting brown people into the country."
This is all about stoking fears on the ignorant far right, and using this fear to get people to turn against Dems.
On the immigration issue, the Dems are voting with the president right? This isn't an accident. Bush is history, we shouldn't be focusing on him. The immigration issue was chosen for this election year for a very good reason.
You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.
by Opakapaka on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:50:50 PM PST

It's actually quite Rovian (1+ / 0-)
You would have to be a political Linda Blair, your head spinning around in all directions, in order to catch the number of head fakes going on here.
It throws Bush to the dogs by way of other conservatives so it somehow has

110th U.S. Congress (2007-2008)
H. Con. Res. 40: Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of...

HCON 40 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. CON. RES. 40
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2007

Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. PAUL, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. DUNCAN, and Ms. FOXX) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Whereas the United States Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security participated in the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, representing a tri-lateral agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico designed, among other things, to facilitate common regulatory schemes between these countries;
Whereas reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent United States trade, transportation, homeland security, and border security functions and that the SPP will continue to do so in the future;
Whereas the actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border security by eliminating obstacles to migration between Mexico and the United States actually makes the United States-Mexico border less secure because Mexico is the primary source country of illegal immigrants into the United States;
Whereas according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly increased since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);
Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA and the SPP;
Whereas the regulatory and border security changes implemented and proposed by the SPP violate and threaten United States sovereignty;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries;
Whereas the State of Texas has already begun planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transportation project beginning at the United States-Mexico border, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA Superhighway System;
Whereas it could be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would likely increase the insurance rates for American drivers;
Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would likely include funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;
(2) the United States should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
(3) the President of the United States should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

www.culturechange.org/I-69May2004.html
NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY TOUR 1997
NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY UPDATE 1997
and other Auto-Free Times articles
See Alliance for a Paving Moratorium webpage

Sustainable Energy Institute attended two NAFTA watchdog conferences in Texas, 1999 and 2000, regarding environmental implementation of NAFTA. Our anti-road concerns were ignored despite the sincerity and passion of our representatives

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/10/10921/0135

The NAFTA super highway: Not the nationwide high-speed rail system one might have liked
Posted by David Roberts at 10:09 AM on 10 Jul 2006

Jerome Corsi is a loathsome toad, responsible for the Swift Boat smears and a number of other far-right hack jobs, but I nonetheless share his concern about this:

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.

Among other charming features, the highway is deliberately intended to bypass any involvement from unions, either the Longshoreman's Union or the Teamsters Union. The U.S. DOT has earmarked $2.5 million to an NGO called the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc. to create "a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas."

Pro-NAFTA Superhighway resources

www.ambassadorbridge.com/nafta_case.html
Ambassador Bridge - the NAFTA Superhighway Coalition (Canadian group)

www.nascocorridor.com

North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc.

www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/corridors.asp?langue=eng&menu=integ

The north americain trade corridors