Exclusive: U.S., Mexico reach NAFTA deal; talks with Canada to start immediately

[corbe]

Bloomberg   
Here's how the US-Mexico trade deal would differ from NAFTA
Andrew Mayeda
 
1 hr ago

 President Donald Trump wants to sign a new trade agreement with Mexico and toss the name “NAFTA” into the dustbin of history.
 
There’s still lots of work to be done -- the administration is calling the deal with Mexico a “preliminary agreement in principle,” and the U.S. is still hopeful Canada will sign on.

Below we outline a few main ways the U.S.-Mexico agreement would differ from the more than two-decade-old North American Free Trade Agreement.

Cars

Rules for auto content were one of the most important and contentious issues during the talks. Vehicles account for the lion’s share of the U.S. $69-billion trade deficit with Mexico that the Trump administration has made the top priority in shrinking.

The new deal would require that 75 percent of car content be made in the U.S. or Mexico, according to a U.S. fact sheet. Under the current NAFTA, the so-called rules of origin set a minimum of 62.5 percent. The new accord also adds a requirement that 40 percent to 45 percent of auto content must be made by workers making at least $16 per hour.

<..snip..>

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/heres-how-the-us-mexico-trade-deal-would-differ-from-nafta/ar-BBMwAUE?ocid=ientp

[GrouchoTex]

So cars, booze, and cheese?
Sounds like a party at the local drive in.

[corbe]

   McConnell protected his Bourbon but threw his flailing hemp production under the bus against the Mexicans.

[GrouchoTex]

   McConnell protected his Bourbon but threw his flailing hemp production under the bus against the Mexicans.

I'll brink some Mexican beers, and a patron margarita every blue moon.
I can do without the Mezcal.
Mezcal  makes me see things.

[thackney]

...As an aside, take a look at the FAST Act that passed '14/15, establishing the coastal corridor and inter-mountain corridor as high-priority interstate projects - Oddly following the same routes as phases of the NAU superhighway system.

Thank you.   

FIXING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/html/PLAW-114publ94.htm

IIRC, it also established the trans-Texas corridor, which you would know more about than I would. It is the inter-mountain that effects me directly....

No.  That did not happen.

In 2009, TxDOT decided to phase out the all-in-one corridor concept in favor of developing separate rights-of-way for road, rail, and other infrastructure using more traditional corridor widths for those modes.

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/37149004.html

[thackney]

...The Midwest corridor runs, as I said, from Texas right up through KC, and on to the Bakken region in NoDak,

The routes are not through the Bakken area, which is the west side of North Dakota.  They are on the far East side (upgrading I-29) and do not run with pipelines from that area.

running north into Canada right about where the shale oil pipe is going. It crosses an E/W highway in Canada that runs all the way from above Minnesota to the AK interior - That'd be the northernmost loop that ties the western corridors together.

Shale oil pipelines don't go into Canada.  The shale oil is primarily all in the US.  If you are thinking about the Keystone XL, that is for the oil sands.  It is primarily for heavy crude and diluted bitumen, not the light crude coming out of the Bakken region.

Part of that deal, around the time of the trouble at Standing Rock... One of the things that was kinda crazy that came out then was the right-of-way. The pipe is on a permanent 50ft easement, but there's another 150-200 ft of right of way- And forgive me, but I don't recall if it is that much total, or that much on both sides of the pipe- But the right of way seemed to be excessive to me at the time. Certainly enough for 3 lanes, and during construction of a theoretical road, more right of way will be established (as always happens)... That gets us to southern SoDak/Iowa...

That is the temporary construction right-of-way.  It is not in all locations along the route.  It is no longer a right-of-way once constructions is completed.

At the time, there was a pipe either going in, or being replaced in eastern OK heading down to TX... but that's where I dropped it... I don't know what happened from there. But again with the wide right of way...

That was already built.  It was broken out of the original Keystone XL plan and built under the Gulf Coast Pipeline project.  It does not follow a highway and goes primarily to Beaumont with a small branch towards Houston.

[thackney]

   I thought the NAFTA Highway was gonna be IH35.

A NAFTA highway that does not go to Canada?

Portions of I-35 but as it gets farther North, it would need to go East and/or West.

[Elderberry]

There must be several routes all called NAFTA Superhighway.


Interstate 69 (I-69) is an Interstate Highway in the United States currently consisting of seven disjointed parts with an original continuous segment from Indianapolis, Indiana, northeast to the Canada–US border in Port Huron, Michigan, at 355.8 miles (572.6 km). The remaining separated parts are variously completed and posted or unposted parts of an extension southwest to the Mexican border in Texas. Of this extension—nicknamed the NAFTA Superhighway because it would help trade with Canada and Mexico spurred by the North American Free Trade Agreement—five pieces near Corpus Christi, Houston, northwestern Mississippi, Memphis, and Evansville have been newly built or upgraded and signposted as I-69. A sixth segment of I-69 through Kentucky utilizing that state's existing parkway system and a section of I-24 was established by federal legislation in 2008, but only a portion is signposted. A section of the previously existing Western Kentucky Parkway from Eddyville to Nortonville was approved and signposted in late 2011, with the Pennyrile Parkway between Nortonville and Henderson being signed as I-69 in 2015.[2] This brings the total length to about 680 miles (1,090 km).

The proposed extension evolved from the combination of Corridors 18 and 20 of the National Highway System as designated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, but the federally recognized corridor also includes connecting and existing infrastructure, including I-94 between Chicago and Port Huron and several spurs from I-69. Among these proposed spurs are an extension of I-530 from Pine Bluff, Arkansas, an upgrade of U.S. Route 59 (US 59) from Texarkana, Texas, and a split in southern Texas to serve three border crossings at Laredo, Pharr, and Brownsville.

[roamer_1]

The routes are not through the Bakken area, which is the west side of North Dakota.  They are on the far East side (upgrading I-29) and do not run with pipelines from that area.

No, every example of that midwestern corridor that I have ever seen has it bending toward western NoDak, and ending up around Edmonton, Alberta.

Shale oil pipelines don't go into Canada.  The shale oil is primarily all in the US.  If you are thinking about the Keystone XL, that is for the oil sands.  It is primarily for heavy crude and diluted bitumen, not the light crude coming out of the Bakken region.

Right then. My mistake. I was referring to the oil sands field and the pipeline heading toward the Bakken from there (yes, Keystone)...

That is the temporary construction right-of-way.  It is not in all locations along the route.  It is no longer a right-of-way once constructions is completed.

I will disagree. The paperwork I saw at the time said nothing about a temporary right of way... It was typical road-mapping language, with the easement being the pipe, and a right-of-way alongside. I can understand the need for an access road for maintenance, but 120ft seemed rather excessive to me. Perhaps you are right - This stuff is in your wheelhouse more than mine, but that is not what I saw.