Little work has been done in the five years since Congress authorized Interstate 69, the so-called NAFTA Superhighway, a new interstate that would span the United States, linking Canada to Mexico.
The $8.5-billion project is expected to ease truck congestion while improving international access for U.S. goods, according to an Associated Press story.
But many roadblocks have occurred at the state level, where disputes have raged from Indiana to Texas about where to locate sections of the new highway.
Debate is likely to linger over whether the highway is needed and if Congress will follow through with funding.
Proponents say the interstate will make travel easier, spur economic growth along it and aid in the transportation of international goods. Opponents say the project costs too much and would destroy farmland and forestry.
The transportation department will ask Congress next year for $6.6 billion for Interstate 69 as part of reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, said James Newland, executive director of the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition. The remaining funding would come from matched dollars by the individual states.
The interstate would go through Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. It already exists from Canada, through Michigan, to Indianapolis.
"In a worldmarket, we need faster, efficient ways of getting our goods to market," said Rep. John Hostettler, a Republican who represents southern Indiana. "I think it's really an issue of fairness, and an issue of future economic stability."
Already, two transportation corridors that make up I-69 have received about $245 million in federal funds, in addition to funding from other appropriations and other states, according to the Mid-Continent Highway Coalition.
The new interstate is expected to link 10 urban areas with 50,000 or more people, save four hours in travel time between Indianapolis and the Mexican border and help control an increase in truck flow because of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement.
Divided into 32 sections for construction, it is possible they would not fully be linked until 2020, said James McDowell, a political science professor at Indiana State University.
The interstate is projected to create 27,000 jobs by 2025, resulting in $11 billion in additional wages, according to a government study.
But opponents question the quality of the jobs, saying any form of economic growth would be in the form of truckstops and sprawl. In Indiana alone, building the interstate could mean the loss of up to 682 acres of core forest habitat or 5,730 acres of prime farmland depending on the chosen route.
They also contend federal studies show it would primarily be used for local and regional travel.
"I think there are already north-south highways connecting the three countries," said John Moore, attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago, who opposes it for budget and environmental reasons. "I think that budget concerns and environmental concerns are more important. There are already roads that can get you from A to B."
McDowell said an argument could be made that I-69 is "not absolutely necessary" but support remains strong -- especially among many politicians and business leaders.
An I-69 caucus of congressional heavy hitters like House Majority Whip Tom Delay of Texas and Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi support the project. The interstate would go through the Lower Mississippi Delta Region and the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas -- two regions backers say could only be helped by the interstate.
The $8.5-billion project is expected to ease truck congestion while improving international access for U.S. goods, according to an Associated Press story.
But many roadblocks have occurred at the state level, where disputes have raged from Indiana to Texas about where to locate sections of the new highway.
Debate is likely to linger over whether the highway is needed and if Congress will follow through with funding.
Proponents say the interstate will make travel easier, spur economic growth along it and aid in the transportation of international goods. Opponents say the project costs too much and would destroy farmland and forestry.
The transportation department will ask Congress next year for $6.6 billion for Interstate 69 as part of reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, said James Newland, executive director of the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition. The remaining funding would come from matched dollars by the individual states.
The interstate would go through Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. It already exists from Canada, through Michigan, to Indianapolis.
"In a worldmarket, we need faster, efficient ways of getting our goods to market," said Rep. John Hostettler, a Republican who represents southern Indiana. "I think it's really an issue of fairness, and an issue of future economic stability."
Already, two transportation corridors that make up I-69 have received about $245 million in federal funds, in addition to funding from other appropriations and other states, according to the Mid-Continent Highway Coalition.
The new interstate is expected to link 10 urban areas with 50,000 or more people, save four hours in travel time between Indianapolis and the Mexican border and help control an increase in truck flow because of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement.
Divided into 32 sections for construction, it is possible they would not fully be linked until 2020, said James McDowell, a political science professor at Indiana State University.
The interstate is projected to create 27,000 jobs by 2025, resulting in $11 billion in additional wages, according to a government study.
But opponents question the quality of the jobs, saying any form of economic growth would be in the form of truckstops and sprawl. In Indiana alone, building the interstate could mean the loss of up to 682 acres of core forest habitat or 5,730 acres of prime farmland depending on the chosen route.
They also contend federal studies show it would primarily be used for local and regional travel.
"I think there are already north-south highways connecting the three countries," said John Moore, attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago, who opposes it for budget and environmental reasons. "I think that budget concerns and environmental concerns are more important. There are already roads that can get you from A to B."
McDowell said an argument could be made that I-69 is "not absolutely necessary" but support remains strong -- especially among many politicians and business leaders.
An I-69 caucus of congressional heavy hitters like House Majority Whip Tom Delay of Texas and Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi support the project. The interstate would go through the Lower Mississippi Delta Region and the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas -- two regions backers say could only be helped by the interstate.
Read more about
Highways
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments