How A Kangaroo Can Save Canada's Economy

I can hardly believe it! It's only been a few days! Already Eddie's Iron control over Council is turning to rust. And from the most unusual of sources.

Granted that Councillor Alan Halberstadt wrote a BLOG justifying his vote at Council, but guess who was the first to breach Council's Motion to give the Mayor supreme control over the border file:

Councillor Ron Jones.

There was his "serious look" photograph in today's Detroit Free Press online and his words of wisdom:

• "It's going to look real funny with that bridge halfway across the river because it isn't going to happen here in Canada," said Windsor Councillor Ron Jones, one of several Canadian officials opposing the expansion. "The politics here are a bit different than the politics on that side of the border."

The Mayor and Council will be required to censure him for his breach and probably in public too. Otherwise his remarks will be used against the City to show prejudice and bad faith since apparently he and the rest of Council, according to the Mayor have not "expressed a desire to meet with [the Bridge Co.]" Why know anything is their motto I assume. How can they perform their function as a City Government by burying their heads in the sand!

If Eddie does nothing, and he must do something, then watch the Councillors abandon him. I wonder who will be the first to take up the Bridge Co. invitation to see what their project really is and how it does not impact Sandwich. Will the Three Blind Mice have the guts to take a chance or have they been neutered too?

The Free Press story is fascinating not for the histrionics but to understand that the game is just about over. Did Canada just get Granholm-ed again as the Governor did when she killed the Downriver crossing? You better believe it! It made complete sense for her to act as she did given Michigan's financial state. No, this time MDOT cannot explain it away as they tried when MDOT itself issued a letter saying they had "no opposition" to the enhancement project.

Here is the clincher:

• "Gov. Jennifer Granholm also prefers a twin span of the bridge because taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill, her spokeswoman, Liz Boyd said, though the governor is committed to working with Canada on a binational solution to a new border crossing.
  
  "She would support the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge first," Boyd said. "But we're not in this alone."

We already know where Detroit's Mayor stands and it was confirmed in the story:

• "they certainly have strong allies in Michigan, including Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who wrote the governor in January to say he opposed efforts to build any river crossing in the city except for a twin span of the Ambassador Bridge."

But for the Governor's veto in the overall Budget bill, the Michigan Legislature would have cut off all funding for the DRIC. In fact, DRIC itself ranked the Twinned bridge project highly on its side of the river!

As for the US Federal Government, it confirmed that the Bridge Co's project did not require a Presidential permmit. When DRIC sought "State Department concurrence in the conclusion that the centrally-located alternatives are the only practical alternatives for a new Detroit River International crossing," they refused to give their concurrence.

The Americans are smart....They want the Twinned Bridge but frankly do not care if a new bridge is built or not. Canada is being suckered. The Americans will not allow a DRIC bridge to be built. And the reason for it is very clear. Most of us have forgottten about it if we knew about it in the first place. It is:

Senator Kenny's "Dirty Little Secret!"

He said in his first report:

• "American leaders are very good at saying the right things in public...
  
  But when Committee members pressed a number of Michigan congressmen in Washington, D.C., they were candid in saying that, while they were being pressured by Canadians to reduce border uncertainty, they were not receiving any pressure from Americans.
  
  And Americans, of course, vote for them. Canadians don’t.
  
  Border uncertainty could well prove to be a cancer for the Canadian economy. The U.S. economy would also suffer from the shutdown of any major crossing But there is a dirty little secret behind some U.S. politicians’ lack of interest in rushing to make Canada-U.S. land border crossings more secure, and it is this:
  
  Border uncertainty serves the interest of certain businesses and some local politicians in Michigan by making Canada a less attractive place to invest capital.
  
  If industry perceives the border crossings at Windsor-Detroit to be unreliable, then in time Canada will see negative impacts such as less investment, and even disinvestment. As Gerald Fedchun, President of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, said, “We don't think that perception is there just yet, but others can use the uncertainty against us.”

And do not think this is not going on now as Michigan encourages Canadians to open up shop there as our politicians tell them that they have no programs to assist. Remember the note I posted recently about that subject.

So how do we get out of this mess since our politicians want to "respect the DRIC process" so much. It is very easy. And I will let our friends from down under explain how to do it:

• "FROM THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT
  
  DATE: Friday, January 18, 2002
  
  
  MELBOURNE AIRPORT RAIL LINK NOT VIABLE NOW
  
  A comprehensive patronage study has found that a rail link to Melbourne Airport would not be commercially viable for at least ten years, Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said today.
  
  Mr Batchelor said the Government had therefore decided to reserve land for a rail link through the Albion Corridor, but would not proceed with construction of the rail link at this stage.
  
  “A financial analysis undertaken by the Rail Projects Group showed that building an airport rail link now would require government subsidies over a 10 year period of between $350 to $450 million (in today's dollars).” Mr Batchelor said.
  
  “This is a significant cost to Victorian taxpayers that could not be justified.”
  
  The patronage study prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton showed that currently seven percent of passengers travelling to and from Melbourne Airport use public transport (buses and coaches), or approximately 2 million people per year.
  
  Current annual airport patronage is approximately 27 million. This is expected to increase to some 37 million by 2009.
  
  The study predicted that by 2009 a new rail link would increase public transport usage to around nine percent of all passengers travelling to and from the airport at that time, with a rail link attracting only an extra 750,000 passengers public transport users a year.
  
  “This small diversion to public transport is insufficient to justify the high cost of a new rail link,” Mr Batchelor said.
  
  “Given the likely low patronage, a rail link is not commercially viable and it would be financially irresponsible for the Government to proceed with the project at this stage.
  
  “An airport rail link will one day be a valuable addition to Melbourne’s transport system - reserving the route now preserves that option and allows a link to be built when it is commercially viable.”
  
  The study took into account the downturn in air travel following the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the Ansett collapse.
  
  It studied options for trains terminating at Spencer Street or Flinders Street stations, travelling around the loop or continuing to the eastern suburbs.
  
  The study showed the rail link’s patronage would be comparable to that of the Sydney and Brisbane links, which are reported to be operating at well below forecast passenger numbers,.
  
  The RPG also examined alternative technologies and solutions, including a Maglev, which it found would require a higher Government subsidy than a heavy rail option.
  
  “Subject to a formal indication of support from the Commonwealth, the Government will now reserve the Albion East route in the relevant planning schemes for a future rail link, to be developed when passenger demand makes the project a more viable proposition,” Mr Batchelor said."
  

Once the next DRIC Report comes out shortly, put it on the shelf until it is needed. Protect the corridor for the long-term and let the Bridge Co. do their intermediate enhancement project. Build the City's WALTS road and just build in a fork in the road so it serves both the enhanced Ambassador Bridge and can serve a new DRIC bridge when needed. That solves the Windsor roads issue too (OK, I'll let Eddie have his Lauzon/E C Row link too for his airport pretend transportation hub!)

And if some genius thinks that private investors will pull this out for Transport Canada by financing the project, remember that the tolls at the new bridge would be about 4 times higher than that at the Ambassador Bridge if they captured business. No private investor, not even OMERS, would put in money in a project with no hope of being successful against the best border operator between Canada and the US.

Frankly, recent statements from US DRIC and MDOT give Transport Canada the perfect excuse. The Americans admitted that the traffic volumes are not there now. It would be fiscally irresponsible for any Government to spend money on a race. We should only build the new crossing when the traffic volumes actually require it!

Time for Transport Canada and Minister Cannon in particular to talk to the Bridge Co. now before he becomes irrelevant too.