No-one denies the NASCO corridor. Not me, not NASCO, not anyone else that I’m aware of. It’s NEVER been a secret – it’s on the web, it’s been talked about openly here in Manitoba both in the papers and in the legislature for at least 14 years.

No-one denies the TTC either, or that it’s for a 10-lane mega highway. (I understand that it’s been scaled down a tad, but someone still needs to hammer a stake through its heart.)

But your combination of the two – a TTC-style mega highway from Mexico to Canada – is a myth. NASCO uses existing highways.

And you are indirectly claiming that it runs from Mexico to Winnipeg, since that’s the path NASCO takes. It’s on the map (from the NASCO site itself) that many conspiracy theorists wave about in their blogs and videos. (Often with a mega highway image from the TTC site dishonestly overlaid on top.)

If it makes you happy though, the competing CANAMEX plan (further west) involves some road building – the traditional 4-lane type – mostly as bypasses and upgrades on existing highways. And the Alberta side of CANAMEX does seem to have an agenda: Introducing “Large Combination Vehicles” (LCVs), now popular in Alberta, on US highways.

From http://www.nascocorridor.com/commondetail.asp?id=2190:
“MYTH: The Trans Texas Corridor is the first section of the proposed, new NAFTA Superhighway.

FACT: The Trans Texas Corridor is an initiative launched by Texas Governor Rick Perry and developed by the Texas Department of Transportation to attempt to solve the critical, long-range transportation problems projected for the State of Texas over the next 20 to 30 years. NASCO supports the TTC-35 section (parallel to Interstate 35) of the proposed TTC System because it is directly related to, and will benefit, the existing I-35, NASCO Corridor.”

In that statement, from their own website, they not only acknowledge a “NASCO Corridor,” but also describes that NASCO supports this. So, to say that there is no plans for a “NASCO corridor” is silly.

In addition, the “four football fields wide” came from the proposal for the TTC that you speak of (link):
“The concept is simple. Texas will be connected by a 4,000-mile
network of corridors up to 1,200 feet wide with separate lanes for
passenger vehicles (three in each direction) and trucks (two in each
direction).”

The other two links that you provided only deny the existence based on information from the organizations in question. Organizations deny their own involvement in events all the time (ever heard of this company called Blackwater Worldwide?).

Therefore, it really comes down to a question of who you are willing to, or want to, believe. If you believe everything that comes from the horse’s mouth, then you’re probably gonna be smelling hay most of your life.

All of that aside: no where in my post do I say that the corridor will run “from Mexico to Winnepeg.” No where in my post do I say that the corridor will be “four football fields wide.”

However, assuming that you are completely correct and there is no plans for the NASCO corridor, there is still the TTC project which has plenty of information and plenty of data. From the project’s own timeline, you can see that they are awaiting environmental impact federal approval and plan to have it by this fall. So, again, I say, it is odd that this 4,000 mile long project is not mentioned in the press releases concerning the impact of the changes for the endangered species act.

But don’t worry, you aren’t the first to compare the information posted on this site to the rantings of those donning tin-foil hats.

Like your “10-lane, limited access highway, that runs directly from Mexico to Canada”.

There is a plan for a megahighway – the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) – but that’s in Texas only. The tinfoil-hat crowd has combined it with NASCO (harmonized truck load and length regulations on *existing* highways) to get the hyper-stupid “four football fields wide megahighway from Mexico to Winnipeg” tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.

Rep. Kaptur even admits that she found out about it on the internet. She got suckered.

There’s plenty of proof of what I’m saying here…

http://www.nascocorridor.com/commondetail.asp?id=2190
http://www.newsweek.com/id/73372
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes

…but the truth won’t make money for those who make money peddling books, lectures and advertising to conspiracy theorists, the way they used to with UFOs.