The NAFTA Super-Mega-Uber Highway

If you are one of those people wondering what substantive policy changes are coming in George W. Bush’s second term, this one is for you. Apparently, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has a rather revolutionary idea for a new interstate. It’s called “Interstate 69”, and perhaps that’s an all too apt name. The concept is really different, and yet it’s simple to explain. The US Government wants one highway to lead directly from the largest border crossing (in terms of cargo) from both Mexico and Canada. They want a NAFTA Superhighway. At first blush this looks innocent, since the Mexican crossing is near Laredo, Texas on I-35. For Canada: it’s north of Detroit at Port Huron, Michigan on the existing part of I-69. But if you drove south, you would find currently I-69 ends at Indianapolis. The plan is to build a brand new highway south of Indianapolis (or upgrade what exists already) in a southwesterly diagonal from Indiana through Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and finally Texas. Of course in the old days, there could only be intersections between odd and even number interstates. The idea was that the highways should be straight enough (normally) to allow planes to land on them during a national emergency. Nothing prevents diagonal construction, but this would be the first time that an interstate cuts across lower numbered sister highways. [It should cause mass confusion and chaos, but most Americans don’t even realize the meticulous numbering system that often goes into road numbering both at the state and federal level.]

The mystery about I-69 is if would be a toll road. It’s a mystery because originally Texas Governor Rick Perry wanted to include the I-69 construction as part of his “Trans-Texas Corridor” project. Perry sells the project as a massive viaduct system which would have dedicated truck and passenger car lanes sandwich commuter and high speed rail lines along with monster utility feeds for things like broadband Internet service. Because federal gas tax revenue is so small (most federal highway funding is culled from your federal gas taxes, states are free to use vehicle registration, a state gas tax, or tolls) Perry believes the only way to build the “Corridor” is to use federal and gas taxes but still charge a toll. Perry publicly envisions TTC’s for the I-35 (running from Oklahoma south through Dallas, Austin, San Antonio to Laredo) and for the mythical I-69.

But the Spanish company that Perry has signed to work as the contractor is selling something else. They are expecting to build a toll road from Dallas to San Antonio, buffeting or flanking the existing I-35. There’s no mention of I-69, rail or utility lines. Part of this can be explained by the fact that company rep that apparently negotiated the deal now works as an aide for Perry. Thing is, the governor naturally would want to charge tolls for the trucks laden with cheap goods from Mexico. Many truckers still have to use the San Antonio-Dallas segment to connect to the I-20, but it’s a lower number than the number between Laredo and San Antonio. (Once in San Antonio, a driver can head east or west on the I-10.) And it’s undoubtedly lower than the number of trucks that would use I-69. So no matter what the TTC ends up becoming, it’s not going to be as great of a commercial success unless it expands from only the Dallas-San Antonio route.

Still, I-69 could easily end up as a toll road. This is because states have the power to levy tolls on federal highways. It seems contradictory, but try driving through New Jersey and be amazed. Not all federal interstates there charge tolls, just mysteriously the only one that runs from New York to Philadelphia (I-95). But in the South, charging tolls on federally-subsidized highways is usually unpopular. But given the fact that most of the traffic might be NAFTA-related…can the states involved resist? Can the bankrupt US Government actually find a way to build the NAFTA Superhighway at all? And if they do, will it meet opposition causing the beginning of the end for the free trade zone? Few people are likely on the edge of their seats about this right now, but that ought to change in the future.