Questions about Trans Texas Cooridor / NAFTA Superhighway

[zaphod2016]

(Note: I am not allowed to link yet, so I will quote instead)

In Ron Paul's latest column, he writes:

"I am pleased to report that last week we received notice that the Texas Department of Transportation will recommend the I-69 Project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway. According to the Texas Transportation Commissioner, consideration is no longer being given to new corridors and other proposals for a new highway footprint for this project. A major looming threat to property rights and national sovereignty is removed with this encouraging announcement."

I have seen many people say that the "NAFTA Superhighway" is a conspiracy theory, and yet, this one seems to check out.

Considering that Canada and Mexico do incredible amounts of trade with the US, especially post-NAFTA, I see nothing strange about a highway designed to better facilitate this trade.

However, as I understand it, Dr. Paul takes a pro-free trade stance. Therefore, I don't understand he would oppose this highway. He specifically mentions "the I-69 project", so I wonder if there is some specific aspect of this plan he objects to.

To be clear: I'm not interested in debating the merits of NAFTA, nor am I interested in Ad Hominem. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this mess.

Thanks in advance.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Well, they may say they aren't taking land, but they are. I know that here in TX we already paid for the roads to be improved and now we are going to have to pay over and over again to use them. That seems like a good reason to oppose them. They are also pushing to charge us the highest possible toll rate. I'm not sure exactly what Paul particular beef is, but I can go on and on about why I'm getting "boned" on this deal.

 

[gtc]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116108
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116114

Here are the latest threads to discuss the NAFTA superhighway but some of it is in the context of the NAU.

This is a pretty good article from the Nation (though it is a while since I read it).

As far as I can tell, the Paulist opposition has something to do with the idea that private investment may be used even though the government might need to resume private property (why this is different to the existing railways I don't know), something to do with the idea that foreigners could use the highway to do something (take American jobs, invade, who knows) and something to do with the idea that it is a stalking horse for the NAU (the USA, Russia, Australia, the UK, were each created with poor to non-existent internal transport facilities while Switzerland has both excellent transport links with its neighbours and is fiercely independent).

I would also have thought that libertarians would have been pro-trade, pro-transport and pro-private investment. I would also have thought that they would be interested in debating the necessity of the link, the cost-benefit ratio and so forth.

 

[WildCat]

However, as I understand it, Dr. Paul takes a pro-free trade stance.

Except when it comes to those stinking job-stealing Mexicans and beady-eyed flapping-headed Canadians.

 

[ronpaulisright]

Maybe these "paultards" are making a difference after all?

Keep up the good work Ron

 

[zaphod2016]

Let me make sure I have my facts right:

1. The NAFTA super-highway (aka Trans Texas Corridor) is 100% real. There is no debate on this.

2. Some plans have included the privatization of existing roads. In other words, existing public roads, owned by the citizens of Texas, are to be converted into toll roads. The tolls collected will be used to further fund this trade route. Texas citizens wishing to use these roads will be forced to pay a toll, even though they have already purchased these roads via taxes.

3. Eminent domain is being used to seize the private property of Texas citizens. This land is then sold to a private company for use by the corridor.

Do I have my facts right?

If so, I can certainly see why people would be upset about this.

If not, please correct me.

Thanks to all for the informative links.

And for the record- I have much love for Ron Paul. I think he is the only one making any sense in regards to current foreign policy. However, that debate belongs over in "politics", for now I'm just trying to make sure my understanding of the NAFTA highway is 100% woo-free.

 

[Travis]

Let me make sure I have my facts right:

1. The NAFTA super-highway (aka Trans Texas Corridor) is 100% real. There is no debate on this.

Correct.

2. Some plans have included the privatization of existing roads. In other words, existing public roads, owned by the citizens of Texas, are to be converted into toll roads. The tolls collected will be used to further fund this trade route. Texas citizens wishing to use these roads will be forced to pay a toll, even though they have already purchased these roads via taxes.

I don't know of any plans to take existing free highways and convert them into tolled freeways. Some plans do propose co-opting planned highways and making them part of the I-69 corridor. For example in Houston there is a proposal to use the Grand Parkway, a long planned third beltway, and make that a tolled section of I-69. However the Grand Parkway was likely going to be tolled regardless of the I-69 project.

3. Eminent domain is being used to seize the private property of Texas citizens. This land is then sold to a private company for use by the corridor.

This happens already and as an issue is much larger than the I-69 project. The I-69 project can proceed without such a procedure but would have to be publicly funded and the advantage of the toll roads is that they get funded by bonds by the Toll Authorities and not by the Texas Department of Transportation. So you have to pick your poison, fund it with taxes and have it free or let a Toll Authority fund it with bonds. If the Toll Authority is going to do it the need of eminent domain will still exist although the Toll Authority would be paying for the purchase.

Do I have my facts right?

If so, I can certainly see why people would be upset about this.

Opposition to this is really about opposition to NAFTA and opposition to NAFTA is all about xenophobia and racism. NAFTA opponents just can't stand the idea of free trade with those racially inferior Mexicans.

 

[gtc]

Hi,

Let me make sure I have my facts right:

1. The NAFTA super-highway (aka Trans Texas Corridor) is 100% real. There is no debate on this.

I think using the term NAFTA super-highway can confuse the issue. I understand there are several proposals and even existing roads that have been referred to as the NAFTA super-highway; also the name suggests it is designed to link all three nations.

The TTC is a real proposal for a corridor through Texas; obviously the state handles a lot of international trade and a lot of domestic North-South traffic goes via Texas.

I work in transport in Australia; so I have some experience with proposals like this but I don't have on the spot expertise. However, it seems to me to be a proposal that is more than 'pie-in-the-sky' but less than 'will actually happen'.

2. Some plans have included the privatization of existing roads.

Privatization is a bit of tricky concept when it comes to infrastructure. It is not like selling a factory or a block of land as many, if not most, private infrastructure projects will eventually end up back in government hands. I believe some of the proposals are for BOT (Build, Operate, Transfer) schemes. This means that the new routes will be built by a company that will then operate the scheme for a fixed period of time before transfering the operation back to the government. You sometimes here the term 'concession' or 'franchise' being used.

In other words, existing public roads, owned by the citizens of Texas, are to be converted into toll roads.

This may well be part of some of the proposals. It is not unusual for existing links in a transport network to be incorporated into a bigger scheme that includes new construction.

This happened recently in Sydney, where a few miles of existing untolled parkway was incorporated into a new tollroad that is something like twenty miles long. This meant that some trips were more expensive but overall many more trips are now quicker and cheaper thanks to the new road. This meant that few, if any, people complained.

On the other hand, a different toll road was built in a different part of Sydney and the government used the opportunity to remove lanes from some of the existing streets (to create bike lanes and extended footpaths etc). Not coincidentally, this forced quite a few people to change to the new toll road. The overall benefit was very low and many people complained.

Obviously people will complain if they are worse off but not if they are better off.

The tolls collected will be used to further fund this trade route.

And create a return on investment for the toll road company. Governments are able to set limits for tolls and/or limit the return on investment for the company. This should be seriously considered before the project is built. Concessions or free travel for locals and/or alternative local access routes are also issues that can be addressed up front.

Texas citizens wishing to use these roads will be forced to pay a toll, even though they have already purchased these roads via taxes.

Possibly, again whether this is a bad thing or not will depend on whether those Texas citizens who wouldn't have paid a toll before also benefit at other times. This comes down to equity. Is it equitable that some people pay tolls now when they wouldn't have before? Would it be more equitable for people who use the new roads to pay all the costs or should those costs be spread around society?

3. Eminent domain is being used to seize the private property of Texas citizens. This land is then sold to a private company for use by the corridor.

I can't answer that question, but I don't think this is particularly uncommon. Aren't most of the railroad corridors privately owned?

If so, I can certainly see why people would be upset about this.

Really it comes down to costs and benefits. How many people are better off and how much are they better off; versus how many people are worse off and how much are they worse off.

And for the record- I have much love for Ron Paul. I think he is the only one making any sense in regards to current foreign policy. However, that debate belongs over in "politics", for now I'm just trying to make sure my understanding of the NAFTA highway is 100% woo-free.

It makes sense to have all the facts and I always like to see someone with an interest in transport!

By the way, I think some of the opposition is just irrational hating on NAFTA. However, there is scope for a legitimate debate about the costs (economic, social, environmental) vs the benefits of this particular project and that can be placed in the context of a wider debate about the merits of private investment in infrastructure (although most economists have moved onto discussion about the right way to structure private investment in infrastructure).

 

[zaphod2016]

Opposition to this is really about opposition to NAFTA and opposition to NAFTA is all about xenophobia and racism. NAFTA opponents just can't stand the idea of free trade with those racially inferior Mexicans.

Primero, viva la razo!

Which is to say: rest assured, any opposition I may have towards NAFTA has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism. I live in Central Florida, and have nothing but love for my (many) Latino and Cubano neighbors.

I also agree that a cost/benefit analysis is the only way to judge something like the TTC. Sadly, I am very ignorant regarding transport, and I appreciate the solid information. JREF is living up to its reputation as a no-BS haven for freethinkers.

This comes down to equity. Is it equitable that some people pay tolls now when they wouldn't have before? Would it be more equitable for people who use the new roads to pay all the costs or should those costs be spread around society?

Valid point. If I use this toll road to commute to my job, and this saves me time and helps me earn more money, it is perfectly reasonable for me to pay a toll for this privilege. Likewise, if I live in the area, but never use the road myself, why should I be expected to pay for it via taxes? I can certainly understand why privatization makes sense in certain circumstances.

However, I would assume that whoever is purchasing the original road (Company X) is offering some form of compensation to whichever county or municipality owns it. Is that a correct assumption?

Assuming yes- is this compensation then added to a general fund? Is a dividend issued to taxpayers? Are the Joe and Jane Blow homeowners/taxpayers getting a fair piece of the pie?

(re: eminent domain) This happens already and as an issue is much larger than the I-69 project.

Agreed 100%. I am very uncomfortable with the concept of eminent domain.

As I understand it, the land/homeowner is offered "market value" for any property seized via ED. What I don't understand is how this "market value" is determined.

For argument's sake, let's say I own a typical home near the planned TTC route, and that in 2007, homes in the area sold for $250k. I would assume once the TTC project has been approved, it would become impossible to sell my house- why would anyone purchase a home already scheduled for an ED seizure?

I am now in the strange circumstance of owning a home without any "free market" to sell to. Who or what determines the value of my home? And, should a corrupt authority offer me $50 cash for my house, what possible recourse do I have? I cannot sell it to a higher bidder, and I cannot expect the courts to enforce my property rights if the same courts have already transferred deed to the new buyer.

In the immortal words of Patrick Henry: I smell a rat. Or, at the very least, some potential rats.

Regarding NAFTA, I suppose that debate belongs over in "politics". However, my objection can be summed up thusly:

1. NAFTA is now 14 years old. It has had plenty of time to prove itself one way or another.

2. The purpose of NAFTA is to lower the barriers to trade between the US, Canada and Mexico. In theory, this should increase the economies of all involved (more customers, more producers, more competition = good).

3. However, despite 14 years of "free trade", the percentage of Mexicans living in poverty has not decreased. Quite the contrary, illegal immigration to the USA has skyrocketed. Being that this immigration is fueled by economics (people seeking a living wage- just like me and my family) I see the two issues (NAFTA/immigration) as very much intertwined.

4. Assuming you support open immigration, and amnesty for illegal immigrants, what about the 90 million people left in Mexico, ~30% of whom are still living in poverty? Don't they deserve a living wage too? For that matter, what about the ~10% of Americans living in poverty? Where should they immigrate to?

I would like to live in a world where anyone who is willing to work 40 hours per week can afford a home, food, savings, and education for their children. If free trade is the best way to achieve this, fine. If open immigration is the best way to achieve this, fine again. However, after 14 years of NAFTA policies and illegal immigration, I see the situation getting worse, not better. I think perhaps we should reconsider our approach.

I also agree that NAFTA gets a lot of blame it doesn't deserve. For example, America has lost millions of service jobs to India, and China has taken a good chunk of our retail manufacturing- and neither of these countries belong in NAFTA. However, I think the strategy behind NAFTA also fuels similar agreements. To be clear: I favor free trade. However, if it turns out to be a case of either-or, I favor a strong and growing middle class more.

And lest I be pigeonholed as one of the "anti-NWO" types, I roundly reject the anti-globalism argument, simply because that argument is about 100 years too late. Case in point, I am watching the sun come up here in Florida USA, taking with a gentleman in Australia- literally on the other side of the planet. Globalism is here, has been here, and will remain here. That said, our current strategy is certainly not perfect, and deserves scrutiny.

 

[Praktik]

And lest I be pigeonholed as one of the "anti-NWO" types, I roundly reject the anti-globalism argument, simply because that argument is about 100 years too late. Case in point, I am watching the sun come up here in Florida USA, taking with a gentleman in Australia- literally on the other side of the planet. Globalism is here, has been here, and will remain here. That said, our current strategy is certainly not perfect, and deserves scrutiny.

You make some excellent points and I commend you on some well written posts here. What you touch on with this last point is important. Having majored in International Relations however, I have developed a sensitivity to the nonmenclature typically used in the globalization debates. Strictly speaking, I have come to understand "globalism" as a reference to the increasingly interconnected world we live in - the fact that you're talking with an Australian, the greater networking between not just corporations but also trade unions, cities (like city twinning) and sub-state governments (provincial/state trade missions) and non-state actors (NGOs etc). Globalism, then, is not usually something the "anti-globalization" protesters are really protesting, since they themselves are intimately tied to these processes (collaborating with the like minded on the internet to organize action and share information. It speaks to the transportation and communication revolutions and growing "globalist" mindset that sees disparate people coming to understand their shared concerns.

Globalization on the other hand is kind of the big umbrella term that incorporates not just "globalism", but trade liberalization and macro-regional trading blocs, the changes in policy enacted by governments and bodies that represent "pooled sovereignty" of nations - and this is where my pet peeve comes in. What the protesters are protesting is not "globalization", they're protesting trade liberalization and first world/third world inequities. They are protesting against one component of globalization, not the whole thing. The way this term is used though leads the casual, uninformed reader to believe that they are protesting all of globalization. And this mis-use of the term pervades the movement itself where they have come to self-identify as "anti-globalization" protesters. I've debated with these people and tried to highlight the fact that what they're really protesting is trade liberalization and the agents of that process: NAFTA, the IMF, the World Bank etc but you'll often here them use the word "globalization" in disparaging terms. How many of them protest the UN or the ICC? You'll find strong support for those organizations among the movement.

The wider effect of this I think serves to marginalize the movement somewhat and prevent inroads into the wider public. The 90s were when we were told unceasingly about the wonders of the internet, how the world was now "smaller", we saw pictures of tribesmen with cellphones and really, who would ever be against that? The fact that "anti globalization" has stuck as a label kind of leaves one with the impression that the protesters are "anti modernization" (and some of them are I concede, especially the "back to the land" neo-hippie agrarianists).

I guess at the end of the day that I wish we'd be more careful with our language and that we start to use terms like "pro/anti trade liberalization" instead of "pro/anti globalization" since trade practises are really at the root of these debates, NOT globalism which I think people of many different political viewpoints agree is a good thing. There's not too many people out there arguing against the internet, there's trade unions linking up with foreign counterparts (such as the American unions involved with unions in central and south America) just as there are religious groups linking up, and corporations and governments finding shared interest.

 

[ronpaulisright]

I think he is the only one making any sense in regards to current foreign policy.

Being that 72% of Americans are against the war, that is usually the first thing that pull people Ron Paul's way.

That's what got me interested in RP in the first place.

 

[ronpaulisright]

Ron Paul '08!

 

[gnome]

My concern about "free trade" and "globalism" is not so much the idea itself, but the concern that the people who are setting up its institutions tend to want to operate in secret and I worry they're trying to get in on the game early to make sure it's permanently favorable to THEIR interests, rather than actually "free trade".

I want more transparency, and checks and balances.

 

[gtc]

However, I would assume that whoever is purchasing the original road (Company X) is offering some form of compensation to whichever county or municipality owns it. Is that a correct assumption?

It is up to the government to ensure that this is taken into account but it may not be a straight forward transaction. It really depends on how the contract is specified and how well the various layers of government handle the contract.

I'll give you a brief overview of the costs of such a project and the way it might run.

Initially there is the cost of planning the route, specifying the contract, assessing the bids and so on. There will also be a long term cost from managing the contract.

Then there is the cost of aquiring the land and any existing roads that need to be taken over. Next will be the cost of construction, this includes items like landscaping and sound proofing as well as less obvious costs like increased maintenance on existing roads due to construction traffic (maintenance of existing roads might be less than otherwise the new road is actually operating). There may be costs to divert traffic onto the new road and away from existing roads.

During operation there will be the costs of maintenance as well as costs of running the tolling system and policing the road, enforcing fines etc. There will also be revenue from those fines and from the toll.

If it is a fixed term contract, it will usually include a clause that the road is handed over to the government at a certain date and in a certain condition (to stop the company from avoiding maintenance costs in the last years). There may be additional maintenance costs involved in getting the road up to scratch and in assessing the condition of the road.

This is the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the company goes bust during construction or during operation. If no other buyer can be found then the government will have to step into run the show. The risks of this should be costed by the governments involved.

As you can see there is a lot of different costs and a pot of revenue. The first issue is who pays for what. The second issue is what happens to the toll revenue: does it go to the road company (pretty common I think) or does it go to the government (quite common in public transport contracts) or is it shared. In public transport there is sometimes a top up subsidy paied if revenue is less than costs. There will usually be a discussion about who sets the toll; can the toll road charge what they like (obviously this can be very unpopular) or is the toll capped in some way. Finally there may be a payment to or from the toll company at the beggining of the project, during the project or at the end of the project. The road company may also demand that no other project (road, public transport etc) be allowed to be developed in the vicinity of its project.

 

[Loss Leader]

"I am pleased to report that last week we received notice that the Texas Department of Transportation will recommend the I-69 Project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway.

OMG! Ron Paul thinks the phrase "NAFTA superhighway" means a real road! LOLZ!

Seriously, the phrase "NAFTA superhighway" evolved long, long before any road project got that nickname.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Here are some good links to show you whats going on in Texas: http://satollparty.com/index.php

or...

http://texasturf.org/index.php

soak it up! It will tick you off I think.

I just get mad because, here in San Antonio, we already paid for the expansion/improvements to HWY 281N. It has actually been paid for since 04, if memory serves, and now nobody seems to know where the money went. Gov. Rick Perry, is pushing this TTC because all of the companies involved contributed to his campaign. Actually, they have contributed millions of dollars, to several local campaigns, all of which are now pushing this highway robbery (no pun intended, okay it was intended).

Our public servants have betrayed their posts, and are no longer speaking/fighting for the people of my city. It's not about racism, I'm already surrounded by Mexicans and loving it. My girl's parents were both illegal immigrants from Mexico (touchy subject, I'm not for amnesty). I just hate paying a crap load of money to go visit my family on tolls, and on top of that, I'm getting boned on gas too...... where does it end?

To clear things up:

1) Yes, TTC is absolutely real.
2) Yes, it is taking over already existing roads.
3) There has NEVER been a single vote on any of this.
4) We ARE looking at paying the highest tolls possible, "Market Based Tolls."
5) Business' and homes, ARE being displaced to expand on the roads we have in place now.
6) Yes, Mexicans are awesome!
7) This IS criminal! Or should be.....

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Also, the company building the road is entitled to tolls for the next 50 years. There is nothing in the contract that says they can't raise these tolls as high as they want.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Except when it comes to those stinking job-stealing Mexicans and beady-eyed flapping-headed Canadians.

"flapping-headed"? What a great phrase! ROFL!

 

[Travis]

Incidentally here is a good website about the TTC/I-69 project.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Is there any way the contract is subject to revision?