Candy Is Not So Dandy

You learn to live with it, although it is not very pleasant. If one dares to support anything that the Ambassador Bridge says or does, then in this region one is vilified.

To be honest, it gets funny after awhile to see the knee-jerk reactions of certain people after I write a BLOG criticizing DRIC or supporting what the Bridge Company wants to do. And predictable.

Surprisingly, and this is shown by various polls run on the Internet which are as “scientific” as those of the City for Greenlink, by listening to the radio when Dan Stamper is questioned by listeners after being interviewed or by reading comments on the Windsor Star Forums, most of the responders support what the Bridge Company wants to do.

Is it that people agree with what the Bridge Company is saying or is it that people are so tired of this whole mess that they just want to have the job done already and know that the Bridge Company can do it properly. After all, there are only 15,000 high-paying jobs at stake about which our politicians, especially at the local level, do not seem to be too concerned.

A recent example is an opinion piece by Representative Steve Tobocman of Detroit who is the Democratic floor leader and an opponent of the Bridge Company. Or rather to put a positive spin on it, a supporter of DRIC.

The timing I am certain was purely coincidental. It was written a few days before the Bridge Company was to appear in front of Senator Cropsey’s hearings and after the MDOT and FHWA reps made a mess when they spoke at the hearings.

Did we read a reasoned argument by the Representative? If you call smearing two members of Congress “reasoned,” this is what the main focus of the opinion piece was all about.

And if you are Senator Randy Richardville whose constituents might happen to read an out-of-state newspaper, that newspaper ran an Editorial designed to intimidate him about the border. The Editorial was so full of errors that it was a disgrace. And why would he be targeted? He was one of the Senators who asked questions during the Cropsey hearings. I’m sure that he understands now what he is required to do. Or else.

Unfortunately, Congresswoman Candice Miller has not learned her lesson and undoubtedly she will be the next target. It is not that she is supporting the Ambassador Bridge. Her district includes the Blue Water Bridge so that is her crossing of choice. Rather, it is because she attacks the DRIC. It means the same thing doesn’t to some people.

She sent a letter recently to MDOT Director Steudle. In it, she makes comments like these that will undoubtedly provoke the DRIC-ites:

• “However, your assumption of my support for the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) is erroneous. In fact, I had provided MDOT with a copy of a letter I recently sent to US Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters which expressed my deep reservations about the DRIC project.”
• “At this time, I remain unconvinced of the need for this [DRIC] project or the decision to spend taxpayer dollars studying and/or constructing it.”
• "I believe the DRIC would be a distraction from the important work ahead of us in upgrading and improving Michigan's critical transportation infrastructure."

Why is she so opposed to DRIC:

• the Ambassador Bridge is a "mere 60 miles to the south of Port Huron" which distance seemed like the end of the earth to MDOT during the discussion about redundancy



• the existing operators including MDOT "have taken significant steps to ensure the continued smooth flow of traffic along the border"



• traffic growth has leveled off and that at the Blue Water Bridge it is "nowhere near the growth that had been projected"



• the changes in the manufacturing sector "could diminish the amount of cargo moving across the border"



• she is "troubled by MDOT's reliance on future traffic projections as justification for the DRIC project"



• other crossings "are capable of handling current and higher levels of traffic"



• updating deficient and obsolete bridges and fixing the interstate system is a better use of pressures transportation dollars than "a controversial, unnecessary project like the DRIC"



• she believes that this project would waste scarce federal resources



• it is her belief that "this new Crossing would simply hurt our established an existing crossings."

These points have been raised before and are obvious. I just do not understand why others can see this except for the DRIC apologists.

I wonder if MDOT and FHWA will take her remarks seriously or if the US Secretary of Transportation will do so. Perhaps they might. After all, she is only on the US Congressional Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Homeland Security.

In case you're interested in reading the letter for yourself, I've posted it here. WARNING: Be careful and wear asbestos gloves. It could burn your fingers if you hold it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5420632/Millerletter