Are The "Public" Bridge Justifications Still Valid

I used the word "public" in the subject title to distinguish the new bridge crossing from the Bridge Co.'s enhanced bridge. Let's look at the reasons given by various people for a new bridge and see if they remain valid:

DRIC

(i) Capacity problems ie bridge will reach capacity in 10-15 years because of increased traffic volumes

(ii) System connectivity ie lack of a proper road from Highway 401 to the border

(iii) Border processing problems ie a Customs issue and not really a part of the DRIC mandate

(iv) Redundancy

Mark Butler, Transport Canada Globe and Mail story "A bridge too far?"

• "...a new gateway that distances itself from the Ambassador Bridge is essential to Canadian and U.S. economies.
  
  DRIC has "rejected the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge," Mr. Butler says, citing concerns that Mr. Moroun's twinned structure would hurt neighbourhoods and also be vulnerable to a terrorist attack that could wipe out both bridges at once.
  
  "What we do know is that any new crossing must be safe and secure and be managed and maintained for the long-term benefit of both countries," Mr. Butler argues."

Steve Tobocman, Michigan State House Representative, WDET program

• "they [DRIC] projected increases in the traffic over the border in the coming years, and that we face significant constraints in about a decade...I know that certainly on the Homeland Security front, twinning the Ambassador Bridge has raised huge issue, national security experts talk about redundancy and resiliency about how we would recover from a terrorist attack putting two bridges right next to each other, is not the optimal solution... that’s why I supported measures like public ownership of additional capacity at the bridge."

Brian Masse, NDP member for Windsor West, WDET program

• "The big issue is still getting to the border crossing... Because it doesn’t take away the main problem – that’s going to and from the border crossing in the Detroit-Windsor region and that’s important to note... The reality is, is that the current proposal that you’re putting on the table will have significant economic and risk factors that they don’t solve the real problem is to the actual crossing from the 401... that’s why I believe we deserve what every part of the country between Canada and the United States is virtually getting is that public ownership and accountability."

Remember when this all started....oh my goodness...the border crossings were going to be jammed up as the capacity sky-rocketed higher, doubling over the next years. Well that is not happening even though Rep Tobocman does not seem to know that. He is so out of date. You would think that the Democratic, Majority Floor Leader in Michigan would be better informed than that. It is shocking. I guess he had not heard, being so busy with saving Michigan's economy, that DRIC dropped their traffic projections several times. He obviously had not seen the graphs showing actual against projected traffic at the Blue Water bridge and here.

Oh well, even the head guy at the US DRIC consulting firm has admitted that "it is believed (by Joe Corradino) that the market won’t support three bridges."

SCRATCH TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS

Well what about Customs issues? Those really aren't DRIC issues. But don't you find it odd that one branch of Government is working with the Bridge Co. to make the existing border work better---Customs on both sides of the river--but another branch refuses to do so?

Anyway, with the new clearance programs in place and the new Bridge Co. processing centres, border capacity can be quadrupled, security enhanced, and the destruction of Sandwich and Delray eliminated.

SCRATCH CUSTOMS

Now we are faced with the security and redundancy bogeymen. While the Bridge is identified as a problem, why doesn't anyone talk about the Tunnel? There are worse issues there according to US Customs. But since the Tunnel is "public" being owned by both cities, the Tunnel's problems can be ignored. Who cares if it is a "unique security risk!"

I have already discussed why security is not an issue if reverse customs was put in but if you want to justify a new bridge, how can that happen? And we know the M.O. of the bad guys so let's ignore that too. I assume that the redundancy for the new bridge would be the "old" Ambassador Bridge so why can't it be the redundant bridge for the enhanced bridge too?

SCRATCH SECURITY AND REDUNDANCY

So we are left with the real issue, the big issue---the failure of Brian Masse and his colleagues at all levels to finish the road to the bridge. Gee, how do you pin that on the Bridge Co. since their job is not building roads?

Dan Stamper had some fun at Brian Masse's expense during the radio show

• "There is a road that Windsor and Canada have failed to improve, while the U.S. did their improvements for the last 80 years. And that piece of road, is part of the fix for the DRIC within 2 km of the Ambassador bridge."

The Americans are finishing their roads to the bridge with the Ambassador Gateway project in which they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars. But Canada and Ontario have not spent a penny to build the road to the Ambassador Bridge, an existing crossing under the BIF $300M program. Interestingly, money has been set aside for their competitor, the Tunnel, and the Feds seem willing to put more money into the Tunnel to help out the City with their agreement with Detroit.

SCRATCH BORDER ROAD

So we are left with one issue: public ownership.

We have heard a lot about public/private partnerships by the various governments involved. Well, technically it's true that there will be ownership by the government but when you let a private border operator build and run a new bridge for 50-100 years, and make all of the profits, that is a distinction without a difference. I guess they forgot about the existing P3 with the Bridge Co. that seems to have worked for about 80 years.

But the 2 representatives do not talk about a P3 bridge but a public bridge. Now who is going to pay for this: Ontario and Michigan with their financial problems, US and Canadian Feds who are moving towards the private sector for help?

I have already talked about who would finance either a P3 or a public bridge with the Ambassador Bridge as an active competitor.

SCRATCH PUBLIC OWNERSHIP

CONCLUSION

Any way you look at this and for every reason given, there is an answer why the DRIC bridge is a mistake. Their justifications do not hold water.

The MDOT Director said the following which really confirms what I have said above:

• "Stuedle said construction on the bridge needs to begin somewhere between 2015 and 2030 depending on traffic flow. If the governments in Canada and Michigan continue working toward reaching a DRIC agreement, bridge construction could begin as early as 2013."

There is no capacity, economic or security need for a new DRIC bridge now in other words. If one is to be built to be completed in 2013, when it may NOT be needed until 2030, it is for political reasons only. And a waste of billions of dollars with the potential bankruptcy of crossings in SW Ontario and SE Michigan unless they are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

MDOT has also said that they had "no opposition" to the Bridge Co.'s enhancement project. Its Director

• "has called the Maroon [sic] bridge concept a "viable private option." MDOT Director Kirk STEUDLE said he has not taken a "specific position" on the idea but told MIRS, "We certainly are supportive of his proposal moving forward, but with the realization that he's still got a number of hurdles to get across, as well…that isn't there yet."

When the Bridge Co. gets its clearances on both sides of the river by year end, then they are ready to start work. In that case, according to the state's leader of the public project, MDOT's Mohammed Alghurabi, said

• "only one span will be successful. The private plan is further along in the process."We've been clear that the intent is not to have two bridges," Alghurabi said. "If the Detroit International Bridge Co. were to succeed (in getting cleared for construction), then the (public project) will not continue."

If this is the case, then why is there this continued opposition? Why is there a race? The Legislative hearings, the Globe story, the Face-to-Face interview, press conferences and so on point out clearly that the Bridge Co. is moving forward.

I have tried to offer a face-saving way out for Governments. I am sure that they can come up with their own thoughts.

In the end, they should declare a victory, (I am sure Mr. Moroun will not mind) work with the Bridge Co. and then let's truly develop a Let's Get Windsor-Essex AND Detroit-South East Michigan Moving strategy.

It's time to stop this stupidity and incredible waste of taxpayer money!