Killing DRIC Too Slowly But Surely

Seriously, you have to have some sympathy for them, but not much. They should have done the deed years ago, not waited until $60M or so of taxpayer dollars were wasted. For what?

However, no politican would want to be the one whom others could point at and blame for the waste of so much money in these times of restraint.

The solution: let a consultant do it.

Michigan signalled they have had enough of DRIC finally. But no one was prepared to pay the political price for saying so. They were merely following what President Obama already had demonstrated after his snubs of Stephen Harper along with his and President Bush's ignoring of Stephen's entreaties to build the DRIC bridge.

No wonder Stephen hoped that the Congressional leaders would be the ones to help. As if they were going to fight the President over Canada!

Of course the MDOT people had to find the silver lining which just will antagonize the Legislators even more. They had to find something when

• "The budget proposal also bans activities that would commit the state to building a publicly owned bridge between Canada and the United States, which would be a second span besides the Ambassador Bridge. The owner of the Ambassador has his own plan to build a second span next to the Ambassador."

When the Michigan House and Senate cut the DRIC money request by 75% from $10M to $2.5M from the State, MDOT's Shreck could say to rub their faces in it:

• "the provisions of the proposal "weren't that bad."
  
  "The $2.5 million will allow us to leverage $10 million from the federal government," he said."

He just does not seem to get it does he?

However, the coup de grace was not mentioned in the traditional media but in an article in TollRoad News:

• "The language of the budget as passed yesterday:
  
  "Section 384 (1) The department may continue with preliminary legal, financial, traffic and revenue study, permitting, engineering, and other ancillary work for the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) so that it can solicit from the private sector, requests for proposals for public-private partnership to construct the bridge, plaza, and related infrastructure. The department shall submit proposals to the legislature by May 1, 2010. Those activities associated with the DRIC project shall not bind the state in any way to construction.
  
  "(2) The department shall submit an investment grade traffic study to the legislature by May 1, 2010 from a reputable traffic company with appropriate experience intended to provide a detailed traffic projection for the ensuing 10 years, taking into account projected infrastructure modifications, expansions and improvements announced.
  
  "(3) The department shall not expend more than $2.5 million from state transportation revenue sources for activities enumerated in this section.
  
  " (4) It is the intent of the legislature to fully adopt or reject authorizing legislation by the full legislative bodies by June 1, 2010 to:
  
  * Construct a new international crossing jointly and in agreement with Canada
  * Create an authorized tolling authority; and
  * Create a public private partnership"

What is important:

1) the use of the money is strictly limited: only for the purpose of soliciting from the private sector, requests for proposals for public-private partnership. NOTHING ELSE.

2) Everything must be done by May 1, 2010.

3) An investment trade traffic study must be done

• covering the next 1o years
• taking into account infrastructure modifications, expansions and improvements announced

4) Michigan will make a decision by June 1, 2010.

I really have no idea why Michigan has to do a study and neither it seems does Senator Cropsey who said in February 2009:

• "One of the key things that has to be done is to find out if we really need another international crossing there that the taxpayers or the government of Canada or whomever needs to put up. In order to determine that, one of the key things is to have an investment grade traffic study done. I’m surprised one hasn’t been done already. Then I found out not too long ago that a couple of years ago, Canada, evidently, commissioned an investment grade traffic study to be done. That was supposed to have been done a year ago. I’ve asked the department or one of the representatives from the department that if Canada is such a good neighbor and a good partner, where is the investment grade traffic study? I think the department told me that, well, they aren’t done with it yet or some other type of thing, after a year, supposedly, from what I understand, when the study should have been done.
  
  However, this is something the department is very well aware of. I have in my hand a letter in which it talks about the DRIC EPE/EIS Project. It was a letter dated July 9. It goes back to the invoice that was submitted by one of the contractors, I believe, on the study on the progress report for The Corradino Group from June 1 through June 30 of 2008. On June 2, The Corradino Group prepared for and participated in the following meetings: June 2 with Transport Canada on the investment grade traffic analysis, and on June 25, they also had a meeting with Transport Canada on the investment grade traffic analysis. It would seem like we should have an investment grade traffic analysis that the government of Canada has done, and I call upon the government of Canada, if they’re going to be a good partner, to give us a copy of the investment grade traffic analysis.
  
  Why haven’t they released it at this point? Is it because the investment grade traffic analysis will show the American taxpayers, the Michigan taxpayers, that perhaps it does not justify the building of a new DRIC bridge? I don’t know, but I have that question. I call upon the Michigan Department of Transportation to get us the investment grade traffic analysis as soon as possible. It would seem like a year after it was due that we would know where it is, what it is, and what it says."

Now Transport Canada's Sean O'Dell really has to be embarrassed as new numbers come out every month mocking his traffic comments. His Minister and Canada's Finance Minister have to be red in the face as well. The economy is even worse now for our border crossing and for Michigan:

• "NAFTA surface trade drops for seventh straight month
  
  WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Surface trade between Canada, the US and Mexico was down a whopping 28% in July, compared to the same month last year, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the US Department of Transportation. NAFTA surface trade dropped for the seventh consecutive month to $51.5 billion, with a year-to-year decline of greater than 27%...
  
  US-Canada surface transportation trade totalled $31.0 billion in July, down 33.8% compared to July 2008. The value of imports carried by truck was 29.0% lower in July 2009 compared to July 2008, while the value of exports carried by truck was 24.3% lower during this period.
  
  Interestingly, Illinois knocked Michigan out of its usual top spot among US states to lead trade with Canada in July with $3.1 billion. Michigan came in second with $2.7 billion in surface trade value."

Frankly, there is no need to spend money on a study. With numbers like this, I can just see investors pounding the doors down to throw money here into a DRIC bridge. NOT!

I can tell you the results now of the Michigan Investment Grade Traffic study, or rather, I can tell you what others have already said that will be confirmed at a cost of more hundreds of thousands of dollars:

• Senator Cropsey told us about in his Detroit Free Press article that "If DRIC cannot accurately predict traffic levels from 2004-08, then its 30-year projections are completely baseless. Even with these inflated traffic projections, MDOT testified before my committee that a new span would not be needed until between 2025-35. This gives us plenty of time to address border bridge capacity in the future if the situation warrants it.
• Nonetheless, it is believed (by Joe Corradino, the US DRIC consultant)) that the market won’t support three bridges.
• Stuedle said construction on the bridge needs to begin somewhere between 2015 and 2030 depending on traffic flow.
• The DRIC consultant stated that the Ambassador Gateway project at the existing bridge, on its own, can handle twice the volume at the Bridge now without another bridge
• MTO's Bruce McCuaig in 2004 before traffic crashed said "the throughput capacity of the Ambassador Bridge does not reach capacity according to the work that has been done to date for 10 years to 15 years...the physically capacity is there, if we can move the traffic through the plazas and through the roads for the next 10 years physically on that bridge."
• He also said "there are a variety of things that need to be done in this interim period. More specifically, there are border process and plaza improvements that we can do in the shorter term and medium term to help bridge us, if I could use that word, to the time at which new capacity comes on stream in terms of a new border crossing."
• My understanding of the Canadian Government hidden investment grade traffic surveys is that there are no problems in the short and medium term justifying the need for a new bridge. No wonder the 2 studies have been hidden
• Canada's Transport Minister Baird has conceded Canada's postion when he changed his tune from the need for capacity issues now to those in the future, up to 40 years from now:
  
  
• The Corradino Group Inc., URS Canada Inc., the US and Canadian DRIC consultants and a Michigan Department of Transportation employee stated prior to March 2003 "The initial feasibility study concluded that at least four additional lanes for roadway traffic will be needed by 2030 and that six lanes should be constructed to accommodate traffic through at least 2050. " The 6 lanes would be achieved by the Ambassador Bridge Enhancement project.
• If we take the existing traffic and even assume that it would increase to the 1999 levels within the next 10 years, there is no way a DRIC bridge is needed when one looks at the "announced" infrastructure projects including the improved truck ferry service , improved Tunnel operations with the new plaza, a proposed passenger ferry for commuters and others, the DRTP rail Tunnel, the improved Blue Water Bridge operation with their new plaza, a new bridge in Buffalo/Fort Erie, increased marine traffic via Highway H2O never mind the Enhancement Project Bridge. All the crossings could go broke since there was not enough business.
• DRIC consultants stated that the DRIC Bridge had to take huge amounts of business away from the Ambassador Bridge, the Tunnel and the Blue Water Bridge to survive and that will not happen in a competitive environment where the other crossings' tolls are lower. The DRIC tolls for trucks may be 3 times higher than that of the Ambassador Bridge.
• Someone needs to explain where new traffic will be coming from given the automobile industry woes, both domestic and foreign since they are the biggest users of the Bridge and tourist traffic is declining
• DRIC did not take into account in a serious way the move to have customs away from the border to reduce border thickening nor the increased use of and the technological innovations to make border traffic flow more smoothly.

I read an interesting comment prepared by one traffic consultant on one of these investment grade traffic studies which ought to give everyone pause considering that DRIC has not been right yet on their projections:

• "Whilst we can make 'best estimates' of future traffic levels, even with the most sophisticated forecasting techniques, the future cannot be predicted with certainty. The uncertainty is compounded by the fact that different demand modelling methodologies can also lead to different forecasts even with the same input assumptions."

Who could have conceived of 9/11 and its impact on the border, the bankruptcy of General Motors and the economic meltdown of the world's financial system.

Remember also the Danish Professor and MegaProjects running amok. "Truth and Lies About Megaprojects"

http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/Publications2007/InauguralTUD21PRINT72dpi.pdf

• "Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of forecasting for megaprojects, that is, very large infrastructure investment projects costing typically more than several hundred million dollars. One truth about megaprojects - which I will document below - is that forecasters misinform and sometimes even lie about projected costs, benefits, and risks. This results in cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and the mismanagement of risk to a degree that often jeopardizes project viability."

I go back to my BLOG August 29, 2008 "Cropsey 2 The Sequel: The Cow Bridge" when I wrote about how the "cow bridge" became the #1 border crossing between Canada and the US! And without spending billions of taxpayer dollars. I BLOGGED:

• "Just think about that and fast-forward 80 years until today. That same Bridge that could be used by cows is now the major border crossing between Canada and the United States carrying by far more traffic than any other bridge and yet is only at about 50% capacity. I have Blogged before about how many studies have said that the Bridge would be jam packed by this date and yet it still can handle millions of vehicles more without any problem."

Who would have thunk it! It is time to put DRIC out of its misery. And ours!