DRIC approved by House

**Corktown Mark** · May-26-10, 06:42 PM

already a thread here
http://detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5758

Retroit · May-26-10, 08:57 PM

You mean to tell me that MDOT has been wasting all their time and OUR money planning this new bridge and harassing Maroun, and they didn't even have approval? Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

**1KielsonDrive** · May-26-10, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

You mean to tell me that MDOT has been wasting all their time and OUR money planning this new bridge and harassing Maroun, and they didn't even have approval? Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

Ha,ha,ha. Hee,hee,hee. You are SO funny.

**Gannon** · May-27-10, 09:47 AM

Is there NOTHING a few hundred thousand [[in political bribes passed around discreetly) cannot buy today?!

Poor Matty. Better turn it up a notch, fella. It is not too late to get a conscience, and at least come visit those of us who live on Earth...or at least a bit closer to ground level.

**DetroitPlanner** · May-27-10, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Retroit

You mean to tell me that MDOT has been wasting all their time and OUR money planning this new bridge and harassing Maroun, and they didn't even have approval? Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

Uhhh.... this is exactly why planning is done. You don't secure funding until you have a viable project. Not much sense in tying up a billion dollars if you run into environmental issues when you go to build it.

**Detroitnerd** · May-27-10, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Uhhh.... this is exactly why planning is done. You don't secure funding until you have a viable project. Not much sense in tying up a billion dollars if you run into environmental issues when you go to build it.

Naw, you just get your money, go to Wal-Mart, buy a bridge and slap it down. Bought and paid-for. Just Superglue it to the cement and you're done.

Retroit · May-27-10, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Uhhh.... this is exactly why planning is done. You don't secure funding until you have a viable project. Not much sense in tying up a billion dollars if you run into environmental issues when you go to build it.

But doesn't the planning itself require an appropriation of money, and isn't the legislature responsible for appropriating funds?

**kraig** · May-27-10, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

But doesn't the planning itself require an appropriation of money, and isn't the legislature responsible for appropriating funds?

Yes and yes. About 35 million was appropriated for the "study" about five or six years ago.

Here's the part that's not being focused on. When the toll revenues aren't enough to meet the payments on the $550,000,000.00 loan, and let's be crystal clear on this, no matter how it's presented, it's a loan, the state will have to make up the difference.

Let's also get crystal clear on something else, looking at the price tag of the DRIC, it wouldn't be able to pay for itself if it was the only crossing around, instead of being one of four. If the DRIC somehow managed to siphon off all of the traffic from the ambassador bridge it would still have to charge about $20.00 a toll just to pay for the contsruction of the new crossing. That's not even including day to day staffing and maintenance cost that will be necessary to keep the bridge operational.

There's no way they'll be able to stay open charging that much. So the only way that the DRIC will stay open is to charge a rate that's competitive with the Ambassador and have the taxpayers subsidize the difference.

That difference may come from the gas tax hike, if passed, and money that could be used to provide matching funds for federal money for the state's highways and roads.

**DetroitPlanner** · May-27-10, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

But doesn't the planning itself require an appropriation of money, and isn't the legislature responsible for appropriating funds?

Planning funds come from the Feds to the governor. In nearly all cases it is the repsonsibility of the governor to take care of the State roads and for the legislature to approve the budget. Since the building of a bridge of this magnitude will require special funding through bonds, this is what they are approving. In order to figure out how much to bond you must be far enough along in planning and preliminary engineering to have an idea of how much a project will cost.

Typically road and transit projects are funded through gasoline taxes and registration fees. These are split by formula to cities, villages, counties, MDOT and transit agencies. Without a bond for this project MDOT could not maintain their infrastructure and the state may have to cut the funding back severely for the operating of transit or the fixing of local roads.

Retroit · May-27-10, 01:49 PM

It seems to me that since the ultimate go-ahead for the project would come from the legislature in the form of a bond approval, it would have behooved MDOT to ensure they had more bi-partisan support beforehand. If the state senate turns this down, then MDOT has just flushed $35 million of our money down the river.

**kraig** · May-27-10, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

It seems to me that since the ultimate go-ahead for the project would come from the legislature in the form of a bond approval, it would have behooved MDOT to ensure they had more bi-partisan support beforehand. If the state senate turns this down, then MDOT has just flushed $35 million of our money down the river.

You're right. Although, the money was flushed anyway. They knew were they wanted to put the new bridge the entire time. The entire study was a campaign to dismiss plans of putting a new bridge anywhere else.