Stamp-er-ing Out Misinformation

The Michigan Legislators' hearings continued yesterday. I already posted the important letter that was disclosed that came from the Department of State respecting DRIC not receiving the Department's concurrence about their proposed border crossing solution. The Ambassador Bridge does not require a Presidential Permit so their project would be far ahead of anyone else's. By a process of elimination, only their project is left standing.

I wanted however to talk about the hearings. The tone of the meeting was much different than before. It seemed more "professional" than the other two sessions. Everyone seemed to be more business like and more formal. There was less of the frivolity than before. Obviously that was due to the appearance of the Bridge Co. and its President, Dan Stamper, as a witness. They are after all the party that most seem to like to bash and I am sure that some were expecting some nastiness by the end of the day.

Stamper's answers were short and to the point. Several questions were wrong on the facts set out and he clarified them but in a non-offensive manner. That helped avoid any unpleasantness.

His message was simple:

• Why is this DRIC process being carried on when the twinned bridge was part of the Gateway project in Detroit right from the start, 10 years ago,
• Why would Michigan want to spend $1.5 billion of its dollars on a new crossing a mile away from the one in which they and the US feds have already invested $200 million when the Bridge Co. is prepared to invest its money to build a bridge
• Would it not make better sense for the State to allow private money to be spent so it could receive around $2 billion of Federal matching funds that Michigan could use for other projects
• The problem is the Canadian connection from Highway 401 to the border.

You can read his full speech below since I was able to get a copy of it.

I am afraid that Windsor and Canada came in for criticism, criticism that became known very publicly at the Joints Councils session in Detroit when the Mayor was forced to admit that we were sitting on $300 million of BIF money and still could not figure out how to get a road to the bridge built. Contrast was made between the US action to fix up their roads and the Canadian inaction with Michigan being asked to suffer again if a new crossing was built elsewhere.

It seemed frankly that the light went on and the Legislators got it! The money side of the equation seemed to resonate well especially because Michigan roads needed fixing!

Next week MDOT comes back to answer questions, Legislators make their statements and then we'll see if DRIC survives.

House & Senate Transportation Committee Hearings
Ambassador Bridge Testimony offered May 11, 2006
Dan Stamper, President

Thank you for this opportunity to speak today on the planning for the future at the hardest working border in the nation. I would like to share the perspective of our private sector enterprise with an awesome responsibility and successful record of accomplishment of supporting trade and tourism for our region and the world. We have a story to tell, with responsibilities to our economic engines and with oversight from numerous agencies on both sides of the border. At the Ambassador Bridge, we know the world is watching – and we are discharging our duty daily.

As a border operator, we certainly have a perspective on the Detroit River International Crossing Study (DRIC), and in our handouts, we have highlighted various sections of DRIC reports – items that do not make sense for Michigan policy makers. While we may disagree with some of the details of traffic projections and urgency embodied in the DRIC study, the matter is moot because the Ambassador Bridge has already begun the process of building a new bridge and in the meantime, expanded Customs inspection capacity, as we have the traveling public to serve.

Now some have characterized DRIC as a multi-million dollar bureaucratic solution in search of a problem, with a plan to spend tax dollars we do not have. Our only commentary on what is wrong with the DRIC is that it is too expensive and it has lost its focus. The story of how this came about is interesting, but the facts are all that really matter here.

The first fact is that the Ambassador Bridge twin span was the highest performing alternative and least expensive span to construct according to the DRIC Study (see DRIC report excerpts attached). The Ambassador Bridge already owns the necessary property for our second span, preventing costly condemnation in another neighborhood. The Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project under both Governor Engler & Governor Granholm anticipated a twin span at this location for more than a decade. The Ambassador Bridge as an existing crossing already has clearance from the US Dept. of State, whereas any other DRIC crossing would require a new Presidential Permit. Despite these FACTS, DRIC has acquiesced to Canadian preferences and is presently pursuing other alternatives – and they are free do so. Likewise, the Ambassador Bridge, while offering many advantages to the DRIC process, has never been constrained by the DRIC decision. As you are aware, we have continued to enhance our present infrastructure and construction of our second span.

Moreover, around the Ambassador Bridge, the fact is that public and private dollars have been—and continue to be—efficiently invested to prevent real problems. As the world changed in September 2001, the border as we all knew it transformed, and the Ambassador Bridge responded, delivering FACILITIES to address the new realities. Border traffic actually began to decline in 1999 – and in fact, total bridge & tunnel traffic remains dramatically down by 30% today. We recognized that the border process is like supermarket checkout lanes - it is not the capacity of the crossings that is paramount, it is the inspection capacity. If you were waiting at the grocery store to “check out” you would open more cashier lanes rather than build a new store. Here is how we responded: Security, Coordination and Customs Booths. Since 2001, ten (10) Customs primary inspection booths were added. Nine (9) more inspection booths are currently under construction and will open in the next 9 months. That means that by the summer of 2007, 19 new Customs inspection booths will be in service. That represents a 160% increase in Detroit and a 90% increase in Windsor in commercial inspection capacity. As trade, tourism and the economic health of our region demand efficiency, more Customs “checkout lanes” ensure security and redundancy. In addition, the Ambassador Bridge has added 24-hour security at our facility. We continue to advocate “Reverse Inspections” to improve security and for International Center – our plan to host 200 booths at our bridge. Perhaps you recall our plans last summer from a series of newspaper ads demonstrating the vision for International Center as the true border solution. In addition to these immediate responses, we will be breaking ground for the Ambassador Bridge twin span to ensure comprehensive border solutions.

The fact is, there are problems at the border, but it is not the urgent need for a remote crossing. The main impediment at the border is the lack of a dedicated thoroughfare from the Ambassador Bridge to Highway 401 on the Canadian side of the border. However, the fact is that Michigan has invested $184 million federal and state tax dollars for the Ambassador Bridge Gateway infrastructure that since 1994 has embraced three goals:
1. Accommodate a new span based next to the Ambassador Bridge
2. Direct highway connections to the Ambassador Bridge
3. Host ‘Welcome Center’ at the foot of the Ambassador Bridge

Michigan has streamlined and maximized border investment with the Gateway, but Windsor roads from the border to the 401 remain deficient and will impede trade in this corridor. DRIC would have you believe that we need another crossing…now, when their own timeframe for crisis is impossible to project. The DRIC is scheduled to spend millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing, reviewing and studying every conceivable site regardless of housing density or traffic logistics.

You have to understand that the Ambassador Bridge has already—without tax dollars—acquired and prepared property for International Center inspection facilities and a new twin span.

And yet, despite all of the public and private dollars invested on the U.S. side of the Bridge…despite the $300 million Canada’s federal government announced in 2001 allocated to improve access to current border facilities…Canada has failed to solve their well known problem: a road from 401 to the border.

Now MDOT, through the DRIC partnership, has acquiesced to Canada’s “preference” and has failed to seize the advantage at North America’s No. 1 crossing the Ambassador Bridge. As a DRIC consultant explained in the December 5, 2005 Local Advisory Council meeting, it is “because the Border Partnership’s position from the outset of the study is that no one country would bear the brunt of impacts for a border crossing system.” With that in mind, where has Windsor, Ontario & Canada been for the last 50 years while Michigan and the Ambassador Bridge have invested in solutions? The problem with acquiescing to Canada’s preference it is not equitable to Michigan taxpayers who have sacrificed for border improvements. It’s not equitable because the Gateway Project anticipated a second span at the Ambassador Bridge. Its not equitable because Michigan would sacrifice twice. Its not necessary because the Ambassador Bridge, the only entity that has fulfilled the requirements of a Presidential Permit, owns the property required, has committed our private after-tax dollars to meet the needs of the border region.

In discharging our responsibility at the border, the Ambassador Bridge is acutely aware of pain inflicted on the community surrounding our border. The question is: Why would MDOT want to inflict this pain unnecessarily on another neighborhood, especially when it will require Detroit and Michigan to duplicate its sacrifice? The bottom line is that the fruit of the DRIC effort carries a price tag of up to $1.5 billion of taxpayer dollars when the Ambassador Bridge already has the industrial property, infrastructure and private funding in place to build a span…and bring $2 billion federal matching dollars home to Michigan. Private investment in toll facilities such as the Ambassador Bridge would allow MDOT to utilize Ambassador Bridge investment as Michigan’s match for federal funds. Instead of obligating and SPENDING $1.5 billion for the government’s DRIC crossing, Ambassador Bridge private investment could free up to $2 billion for investment in other road projects.

I do not have to tell you that these figures represent‘swing’ of over $3 billion dollars in favor of Michigan’s taxpayers, resulting from not encumbering yet-to-be-identified funds for MDOT’s yet-to-be justified crossing. Instead, as you know, our new span is already underway. As a hand out, I have included a letter from the corporate banking firm, Citigroup, summarizing the extensive financial study for our private funding arrangements underway for a twin span. Citigroup analysts discovered another major financial flaw with DRIC study crossing vs. our Ambassador Bridge twin span. They concluded the DRIC plan would necessitate significant governmental subsidies beyond tolls in order to be financially feasible. Also included is a letter from American Consulting Engineers providing a cost estimate of just under $400 million for the twinning of our bridge.

We appreciate MDOT’s proactive work on the Gateway Project to maximize Michigan’s historical infrastructure investments of over $184 million in Detroit. We respect MDOT’s efforts to correct plaza design deficiencies at the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron to the tune of $340 million or more. However, we question MDOT’s spending any more on a study. At the end of the DRIC process, policy makers will end up with a STUDY. The Ambassador Bridge is moving forward with a NEW BRIDGE, and our private investment will benefit all Michigan taxpayers.

However, we have one final suggestion. What if money spent on DRIC had instead been dedicated to Southwest Detroit for community enhancements for the sacrifices made to accommodate international traffic? Where were MDOT’s creative efforts to mitigate these sacrifices as the Gateway Project began? While we cannot do anything about past DRIC expenditures, perhaps the remaining DRIC study funding could be focused as a down payment for the Southwest Detroit.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.