The Bush Administration wants to build a new interstate highway, Interstate 69, from the Mexican border of southern Texas to the Canadian border of northeastern Michigan. (This would be an extension of the existing I-69 which runs from Purt Huron, Michigan, to Indianapolis, Indiana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69) You can view the proposed corridor here: http://www.nationali69.org/ The stated purpose is to bring the economic promises of NAFTA to fuller fruition by facilitating transshipment of goods from Canada to Mexico and vice-versa across the U.S. (It’s news to me such commerce is being held up for want of shipping routes.) What do you think? Do we need such a highway? Is there any reason not to build it? (Here’s a hostile viewpoint: http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/cars/SuperhighwaysThreatenNA.html)
This has been planned for years- if it originated with the Bush Administration, it was George H. W. Bush’s administration.
Quite a bit of OTR NAFTA traffic comes up through the midwest on I-35. I-69 would get it closer to the northeastern population centers, cutting hundreds of miles off the trip.
Certain segments seem to make a lot of sense, such as Houston - Shreveport and Evansville - Indianapolis.
Could the recent resucitation of this idea have any connection to the recent NAFTA-related legal changes which encourage more trucking between Mexico and the U.S.?
Now that I’ve read the entire OP :rolleyes: , I see that NAFTA-related traffic is indeed one justification. Anything that encourages positive interaction between the US and Mexico is okay in my book.
Well, it would sure make it easier for folks in Imlay City and Capac to make it home for Christmas.
I also predict it will become the new drug-running route of choice.
What makes it any better than I-95?
I don’t know about whether its a good idea or not but “I-69” makes the 15 year old boy in me crack up.
From looking at the maps, it feeds from both Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros.
I think what opposition there is can probably mostly be traced to people whose economic interests lie in trade along other interstates.
I should say, I imagine that’s the case. I don’t know.
We can save a lot of money on the project by just building the north bound lanes
as we probably have a surplus of south bound already.
Boy, THERE’S a street sign that’ll get stolen a lot.
Detroit/Windsor to Brownsville/Matamoros? Oh, yeah, it’s Route NAFTA all right.
And those of you bringing up the potential immature twists on “Route 69” are absolutely right, of course. I bet the administration is counting on that…
??? I don’t get it? And, I live near I-69 right now in Michigan.
69 is a position for oral sex. Imagine the two numbers as little people.
Ever since I-69 was first started, the signs were often stolen, for the sexual joke. Many years ago, I helped to steal one.
The opposition to the I-69 extension from Indianapolis to Evansville has been grouped around two points. One says that the road will slice through two National Forests. The other says that the new I-69 will accelerate the flow of jobs across the border. With the proposed Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA,) they say, the flow will increase dramatically. My hometown has heard the “giant sucking sound” clearly, and we don’t need to hear it any louder.
On the other hand, as a former U. of Evansville student, I’ll say that the roads to Evansville are scary.
We have a ‘Stoner Drive’ in this county but know one can find it.
This is obviously a thinly veiled attempt at establishing a corridor for quickly moving tanks and other military equipment to both Canada and Mexico when their respective invasions occur.
I’ve lived near I-69 all my life and can remember this project being touted well before Bush Sr.'s administration. We were told in school (no cite) that the original intent of the interstate was to go to Texas but that gub’mint was never able to finance it.