Should MDOT's Steudle Be Desperate

I would not like to be the Director of MDOT who has to appear in front of Senator Cropsey shortly at his hearings. He is to be followed immediately at the hearings by the representatives from the Bridge Company who, I am certain, will not be too complimentary of the Department.

I’m sure by now that you’ve had the opportunity to read my BLOG on the Cropsey hearings in Lansing, Michigan. [August 18, 2008 “The Michigan Senate Hearings].

If you have not had a chance to do so, you ought to read it this weekend if you have any interest whatsoever in the border file. It is most enlightening. And disturbing.

In trying to describe what the representatives from FHWA and MDOT were saying, the one word that came to my mind was “desperation.” How else to describe some of the bizarre and absurd statements made by them in answer to Senator’s Cropsey’s questions.

They must know that they are in trouble with respect to the building of a new DRIC bridge and never expected that I and others would actually listen to what they had to say and would Blog on it.

I wonder if the MDOT Director will accept the “invitation” of the Senator to attend at his next hearing or will the Senator have to make that invitation a little bit more formal. I must admit that if I was the Director then I would know that I have been put in an impossible position by my subordinates and the Federal representative. Now I have to support their ridiculous positions or disown them, thereby making myself and my Department look foolish.

He is going to be hammered by the Senator with respect to a major change in the Department's position with respect to the border as well. He will be embarrassed no matter what he says.

If that was not bad enough for MDOT, then take a look at this exchange between Brian Calley a member of the Michigan House of Representatives and Bill Shreck, director of communications for the Michigan Department of Transportation.

Tell me the last time when you have seen a civil servant take a shot publicly at a Member of a Legislature, one of the people who controls the budget purse strings for the bureaucracy. That is stupidity to the nth degree. If this does not show desperation then I do not know what does.

It all started when Calley did an opinion piece for the Lansing State Journal newspaper. Unfortunately for Representative Calley, he seemed to support the Ambassador Bridge project and not MDOT’s DRIC project. Here are excerpts:

• "Calley: State's proposed bridge project does not make sense
  
  The question of whether or not to build a new bridge would normally bring all kinds of consternation, because this type of bridge could really bust the budget. In fact, if Michigan were to build a new bridge between Michigan and Canada, it would probably be the most expensive infrastructure project in our history.
  
  However, today in Michigan, we have a very unique opportunity. The owners of the Ambassador Bridge want to build a new bridge themselves. It would be located right next to the existing bridge. And here is the best part: they are not asking for any money from the state to do so.
  
  So what has been the reaction from the state? Basically, it has been "thanks, but no thanks. We'd rather build our own…"
  
  And here is the kicker: much of the amount spent by the private company on a new bridge would qualify for the federal match. That could fetch our Transportation budget a couple billion dollars from the feds.
  
  It seems the state bureaucracy has a philosophical opposition to privately owned infrastructure. That opposition goes so far, that they're willing to break the state budget, and leave billions in federal dollars on the table to build their own bridge.”

Foolishly MDOT could not leave well enough alone. They had to hit back at the Representative and tell him publicly that he did not have a clue about what he was talking about. Of course, we don’t know who within MDOT was the one who asked for this letter to be written in the first place. I hope that Senator Cropsey asks the Director if he was responsible for it and if so why he did not sign his name to the opinion piece but let a communications guru take the heat for it.

Here are excerpts from the reply. Note also the big difference between what the MDOT representative said here and what the MDOT representative said in front of Senator Cropsey:

• “Shreck: Bridge project won't bring in new federal $$
  
  State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland, is just plain wrong when he says the proposed new border crossing between Detroit and Windsor would take away state transportation dollars from Michigan counties. I'm writing to set the facts straight about the Detroit International River Crossing (DRIC) study of the busiest trade crossing in North America…
  
  Calley also is wrong about the Detroit International Bridge Company's ability to generate matching funds. This falsehood continues to be heard even though MDOT and the Federal Highway Administration have repeatedly told the Legislature that the bridge company's project cannot and will not bring new federal dollars to Michigan.
  
  MDOT supports a replacement of the existing bridge, but also believes a new border crossing, as proposed by the DRIC study is needed to keep trade flowing and protect our economy…
  
  We agree with Calley that $1 billion is a lot of money. That is why MDOT is determined to use facts and hard evidence in the management of Michigan's border crossing network…”

In passing, did you note what the Communications Director said:

• “MDOT supports a replacement of the existing bridge”

There must have been a huge change in policy at MDOT between the date of publication of that comment, August 3 and the date of the Cropsey hearings, August 15.

Gee, I thought that the MDOT REPRESENTATIVE, in front of Senator Cropsey, would not "SUPPORT" the Enhancement Project because it was a private project and the State had no role in it. FHWA said the same thing. The rep at least said that the Department did not "oppose" the Project.

That is not what was said a few weeks before. I do not understand why MDOT could not have told the Senator that they were assisting the Bridge Company to expedite the process for building the Enhancement Project bridge even though they thought another bridge was necessary. Isn’t that what the Senator asked? I believe that the Senator must ask the Director what caused this major shift in direction to the detriment of commerce in Michigan.

In addition, previously, the Department had said that only one bridge was supportable. 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."

In addition:

• "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."

Back to the exchange. The Michigan Representative was not going allow some flunkie to take a shot at him and with incorrect information. Here is the latest reply article from Representative Calley:

• “Another State Rep Weighs In On Detroit River International Crossing
  
  Unfortunately, his [Bill Shreck} commentary was extremely misleading - although I suppose I should be used to that by now.
  
  He stated the construction of a new crossing by the Detroit International Bridge Company would not bring any matching federal funds. He seemed to speak for both MDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. I have a FHWA document dated Aug. 4, 2008, entitled "Innovative Management of Federal Funds." It indicates otherwise.
  
  "Toll credits are earned when a state, toll authority, or a private entity funds a capital highway investment with toll revenues from existing facilities." The document goes on to say, "By using toll credits to substitute for the required non-Federal share on a Federal aid project, Federal funding can effectively be increased to 100 percent."
  
  Additionally, Shreck said there would be no impact on funding for local roadways.
  
  This is interesting in light of information found in the same FHWA document. It reads, "Toll credits provide states with more flexibility in financing projects. For example, by using toll credits, 1) Federal-aid projects can be advanced when matching funds are not available, 2) state and local funds normally required for matching may then be directed to other transportation projects ..."
  
  It seems that there could be an impact on funding available for local roads after all…
  
  But, of course, these guys really hate oversight. It comes with a pesky thing called accountability.”

As I have said time and time before, to me the DRIC project is nothing more than an attempt to force the Owner of the Bridge Company to sell out at a cheap price so that the Governments can build and own another bridge exactly where the Ambassador Bridge wants to build theirs, right beside the existing crossing.

If you can explain the contradictions, the new stories, the changes in position, the facts that seem to bear no relationship to reality then I know a desperate Director that you might want to contact.