Ambassador Bridge knows best?

That's essentially the argument by Matty's Detroit International Bridge Co. in a federal court complaint filed Fri. against a federal agency that sees no harm in releasing a 2007 bridge structural inspection report requested under the Freedom of Info Act . . . by John Dingell!

Bill Shea breaks the news here and got this response today from bridge company exec Mickey Blashfield:

Quote:

---

“It doesn’t matter if it’s a congressmen, citizen or reporter, the information is confidential.”

---

Seems that Team Moroun is saying it knows better than the feds what's safe for the public to see and what isn't.

There are words or phrases to describe that stance. For a playful diversion on a soggy Monday, I'll leave it to y'all to nominate ones to slap onto Matty's latest move

update from Mackinac: http://detnews.com/article/20110603/...CS02/106030367

this legislator from White Lake sounds like he's gotten donations from Moroun...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

update from Mackinac: http://detnews.com/article/20110603/...CS02/106030367

this legislator from White Lake sounds like he's gotten donations from Moroun...

---

It appears as though Snyder is basically repeating the same action that Granholm took last year with the July 1st timeframe. Most of the state's representatives and senators were in office before Snyder and already have their own opinions on the legislation.

So the question is: What parts of the deal are so new and relevant that it will sway enough of the no votes into yes votes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

It appears as though Snyder is basically repeating the same action that Granholm took last year with the July 1st timeframe. Most of the state's representatives and senators were in office before Snyder and already have their own opinions on the legislation.

So the question is: What parts of the deal are so new and relevant that it will sway enough of the no votes into yes votes?

---

I would think, with Canada offering to front money, and the apparent opportunity to leverage it into $2 billion in federal funding for roads [[jobs), the political heat is a bit hotter this summer than it was last summer to support the public bridge. Guess we'll see.

Diddly see the counter-offensive to Moroun's media campaign includes a GREAT puppet of the man himself bobbing around in front of the train station? Low budget but wonderful push-back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bartock

I would think, with Canada offering to front money, and the apparent opportunity to leverage it into $2 billion in federal funding for roads [[jobs), the political heat is a bit hotter this summer than it was last summer to support the public bridge. Guess we'll see.

---

The problem with that is the lack of details with that proposal. The same with the argument that tolls are going to pay for the new bridge. We all know that the new bridge will not make enough money to sustain itself and will require subsidies. Most people don't care. The pro DRIC, or whatever the new bridge is calling itself this week, would be better off saying so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

The problem with that is the lack of details with that proposal. The same with the argument that tolls are going to pay for the new bridge. We all know that the new bridge will not make enough money to sustain itself and will require subsidies. Most people don't care. The pro DRIC, or whatever the new bridge is calling itself this week, would be better off saying so.

---

It would seem that Mr. Maroun disagrees. He should know.

He wants to build it privately. Doesn't that tell you something about the profitability of the bridge?

Both are going to be privately owned I guess one just needs to figure out if they prefer one that costs them nothing or one that could end up costing a billion plus interest,its a gamble roll the dice what does anybody have to lose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

It would seem that Mr. Maroun disagrees. He should know.

He wants to build it privately. Doesn't that tell you something about the profitability of the bridge?

---

Have you compared the price tags. The DRIC is going to cost 5 times what the DIBC is proposing, which means the AB won't have to make as much to turn a profit. Besides, with the Ambassador Bridge being privately owned, the onus will be on Maroun to cover any shortfalls, not the taxpayers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Both are going to be privately owned I guess one just needs to figure out if they prefer one that costs them nothing or one that could end up costing a billion plus interest,its a gamble roll the dice what does anybody have to lose?

---

Great point. The DRIC is going to be privately owned and operated, but publicly financed. I don't recall the Corrigan Group being a public entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

Great point. The DRIC is going to be privately owned and operated, but publicly financed. I don't recall the Corrigan Group being a public entity.

---

Actually, the bridge itself -- the metal and concrete span over the water -- will be owned by the joint public authorities and financed by the private-sector concessionaire, and that financing will be backed by Canadian taxpayers.

The Canadian taxpayers are paying for the Windsor-side inspection plaza and ramps. The Canadian and U.S. taxpayers are paying for the U.S. inspection plaza and highway interchange. Not the private sector. At least that's the DRIC/NITC plan.

Of the $2.1 billion project, about $949 million will be financed by the private-sector with public backing of the debt.

All aspects of the project will be owned by the public authority. The private-sector concessionaire will operate the bridge itself and pay off its capital debt from the tolls. If tolls don't generate enough revenue to cover the debt service, it's said the Canadian taxpayers will cover any deficit -- although nothing exists on paper to confirm that.

The thing to keep in mind:
We'll know more about the viability of the project once the bidders do their own investment-grade analysis of traffic and revenue. The private sector's initial study of the project in early 2010 revealed broad skepticism that traffic justified it, so almost all interest bidders said they wanted public subsidies rather than purely tolls. Right now, the studies done by the DRIC/NITC organizers and by the anti-DRIC/NITC Moroun contractors were done to justify their positions. The private sector studies will be more honest because the companies want to make money. The potential concessionaires have no other interest, unlike NITC's backers and Moroun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BShea

Actually, the bridge itself -- the metal and concrete span over the water -- will be owned by the joint public authorities and financed by the private-sector concessionaire, and that financing will be backed by Canadian taxpayers.

The Canadian taxpayers are paying for the Windsor-side inspection plaza and ramps. The Canadian and U.S. taxpayers are paying for the U.S. inspection plaza and highway interchange. Not the private sector. At least that's the DRIC/NITC plan.

Of the $2.1 billion project, about $949 million will be financed by the private-sector with public backing of the debt.

All aspects of the project will be owned by the public authority. The private-sector concessionaire will operate the bridge itself and pay off its capital debt from the tolls. If tolls don't generate enough revenue to cover the debt service, it's said the Canadian taxpayers will cover any deficit -- although nothing exists on paper to confirm that.

The thing to keep in mind:
We'll know more about the viability of the project once the bidders do their own investment-grade analysis of traffic and revenue. The private sector's initial study of the project in early 2010 revealed broad skepticism that traffic justified it, so almost all interest bidders said they wanted public subsidies rather than purely tolls. Right now, the studies done by the DRIC/NITC organizers and by the anti-DRIC/NITC Moroun contractors were done to justify their positions. The private sector studies will be more honest because the companies want to make money. The potential concessionaires have no other interest, unlike NITC's backers and Moroun.

---

Thanks for the clarification. It appears there are no good guys or bad guys [[even though I'm sure villains will continue to be cast in this little drama), just opposing sides looking to make money.

The other interesting thing about Mr. Moroun's proposed second span is that it can't ever be built. Putting a price tag on "it" only serves to blow smoke. It would be like me telling you what I paid for my unicorn. It can't be built because the Province of Ontario won't allow it to be built. Ontario desperately wants a bridge that doesn't drop thousands of trucks a day into the city streets of Windsor.

So there are actually two alternatives:
1. Nothing ever gets built; we remain with one span.
2. The MDOT bridge, whatever you want to call it, gets built.

I think alternative 1, in the long run, would be more of a disaster to us as a region than if we hadn't figure out how to fix Cobo. And remember: Mr. Moroun's "second span" is a piece of fiction. It can't happen, ever. Apparently the Ontario legislators don't bribe as easily as some of our Michigan folks.

In my opinion, all the talk of the "cost" of the new bridge, public or otherwise, is simply a distraction. The real issue is whether we want to continue with the privatization our borders. Personally, I don't and I support public funds being used as a long-term investment for the SE MI region to remain competitive in the increasingly-important international trade area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

Have you compared the price tags. The DRIC is going to cost 5 times what the DIBC is proposing, which means the AB won't have to make as much to turn a profit. Besides, with the Ambassador Bridge being privately owned, the onus will be on Maroun to cover any shortfalls, not the taxpayers.

---

You drank the Manny Kool Aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

Have you compared the price tags. The DRIC is going to cost 5 times what the DIBC is proposing, which means the AB won't have to make as much to turn a profit. Besides, with the Ambassador Bridge being privately owned, the onus will be on Maroun to cover any shortfalls, not the taxpayers.

---

You believe that? Five times!?!?

Someone's just using numbers to win the argument.

Again --- listen --- Manny knows that its worth building. And he's very smart.

And he says its too expensive for you to build. And he's very smart.

Don't building, it. I lose money on every sale. And he's very smart.

Do as I say, not as I do say's Manny. And he's very smart.

If I had a boat that held 20 people that I was using to shuttle people across the river and saw that if I invested in a bigger boat to carry even more people it would make financial sense for me to buy a bigger boat as I would see a return.

One of the biggest reasons stated for building another bridge is the supposed thinking that trade is going to increase in the future,what exactly will this trade increase consist of?I would think that during the early 2000s we saw an ecomeny that will not be matched for some time and as far as the automotive sector they have already clearly stated that the US market is stagnant when it comes to future growth so they are building overseas to meet that demand.

Our baby boomer population is constantly shrinking as will travel in the future,with the costs of fuel rising and will continue to do so is there not a better way to move goods more cost effective as currently fuel costs play an important role in our daily prices ,maybe rail where one train can replace countless trucks moving product.

So what really is the future need?

What I find kinda interesting as the biggest issue seems to be because of the trucking aspect is Wal-Mart is and is becoming the nations trucking mover already the provider for the GOV and with over 9500 trucks on the road and adding more it would seem as though something like this would impact them immensely in the future costs. so they have had no input Why?

Why not just build a rail system across anyway it still takes the same amount of time to inspect and sit waiting as it would to transfer to rail.Less trucks moving through the neighborhoods less transportation costs to the end provider less fuel demand etc. at no risk to the public dollars.

Moroun has much less influence in Canada, and the govt there has made it clear that no twinning of the bridge will be permitted, period. It is DRIC or no second bridge. Plus, Canada has already started work on the access road to divert traffic from Huron Line to the new bridge, including tearing down part of a mall and many other homes and businesses, like the Best Western near EC Row.

The bridge report is scary, a long read. It is a miracle that the 80 year ol.d deck has survived so long, without some truck falling through. It is not as well maintained as Mackinaw, which is public.

It boils down to Moroun losing his monopoly and creating competition between the bridges. That is good for the consumer. Heck, sell the naming rights for millions, call it the Taco Bell Run for the Border Bridge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

You believe that? Five times!?!?

Someone's just using numbers to win the argument.

Again --- listen --- Manny knows that its worth building. And he's very smart.

And he says its too expensive for you to build. And he's very smart.

Don't building, it. I lose money on every sale. And he's very smart.

Do as I say, not as I do say's Manny. And he's very smart.

---

The number that's been thrown out for the DRIC has been 5.5 billion. The number for the AB span has been 1 billion. Do the math. By the way those are numbers that have been provided by the DRIC.

That 5 billion includes the new freeway connecting to the 401 in Canada[[ a cost we won't bear) the cost of the bridges themselves is about same.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through Matty Moroun's lies.

He has spent millions bribing and paying off, err... donating to, politicians for their support of his second bridge proposal.

If his plan for a second bridge was actually a better option than the plan for a public bridge, he would argue the merits of his plan. However, he has not given any valid reason or argument against the public bridge, and has only tried to confuse people with lies.

His commercials against the public bridge do not argue the merits of his proposed private bridge vs the merits of the proposed public bridge. His commercials claim that there is no need for new bridge, and therefore, if a new public bridge is built, it will be a major loss for the taxpayers.

Forgive me if I sound like an anti-American, communist-liberal socialist type, but when a billionaire bridge owner spends millions to bribe, err... donate to, politicians, and also spends tens of thousands on media propaganda, err... informational messages, just to get approval to build a new bridge, and then he claims that building a new bridge would be a terrible money-losing investment, I am slightly reluctant to believe him.

Keep this in mind: Allowing dislike of Moroun to drive public policy doesn't seem like good stewardship of public trust and public money.

This has become a NITC or AB second span debate.

If you believe the MDOT traffic predictions, we'll need both bridges, and that includes the AB having its replacement span of 6 lanes.

Why would you want to have a new span, and allow the other one to remain small and old? Why wouldn't you want both? Because you dislike Moroun? That's almost criminally stupid. We spent $280 million on the Gateway project -- which, according to MDOT's own materials, was designed to feed into a new AB span.

Seriously, I am baffled by some of the rhetoric I see from outside of the Moroun and NITC camps. If someone is concerned about protecting and bolstering trade, why wouldn't they want two modern spans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikd

Forgive me if I sound like an anti-American, communist-liberal socialist type, but when a billionaire bridge owner spends millions to bribe, err... donate to, politicians, and also spends tens of thousands on media propaganda, err... informational messages, just to get approval to build a new bridge, and then he claims that building a new bridge would be a terrible money-losing investment, I am slightly reluctant to believe him.

---

I get what you're saying, but some food for thought: The pro-DRIC unions have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians, too. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, it should be noted that pro-NITC forces donate and spend money, too. My point is -- and I'm not defending the content of Moroun's campaigns -- is that both sides have spend large sums, not just one side.

"This has become a NITC or AB second span debate"

No debate needed, the Canadien Gov. will not allow Manny's mythical new bridge to land on their soil. End of debate. He can upgrade/repair his present bridge which he should have been doing all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

"This has become a NITC or AB second span debate"

No debate needed, the Canadien Gov. will not allow Manny's mythical new bridge to land on their soil. End of debate. He can upgrade/repair his present bridge which he should have been doing all along.

---

Some facts:
1. Once the Windsor-Essex Parkway is built, most of the traffic concerns will be eliminated. The AB doesn't go through downtown Windsor, and all but three of the current stoplights will be eliminated with the new parkway.
2. Canada offered something like $1 billion to Moroun to buy the AB not too long ago, and from what I'm told they would have finished the second span and closed the original.
3. The Canadian government lost in the courts to Moroun in the past, so unless there are specific regulatory reasons the DIBC cannot build a new span, Ottawa faces an uphill fight in stopping it. That said, the Morouns have to meet those regulatory requirements with Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard [[which doesn't have a problem with the bridge project itself).
4. Why do people not want an elderly bridge replaced to handle this massive border traffic growth we're supposed to see? Just because they don't like "Manny" [[it's Matty, FYI)? Do you want to damage that trade just to spite Moroun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BShea

<snip>...Do you want to damage that trade just to spite Moroun?

---

No. I simply believe that trade between the US and Canada is a public good that warrants public investment. It should not be a private monopoly. We subsidize I94, I75, M-59. We should similarly subsidize a public bridge in the public interest.

[[The fact that Matty is a difficult person who won't work well with others [[MDOT, Lafayette Bait, City of Detroit parks, etc.) makes it clearer that he should not be in sole control of a crossing that affects our economy.)

The fact that he doesn't allow pedestrians or bicycles, however, is the unforgivable sin. Especially when mandated by the bridge's charter.

Hey Bob/Bill, your facts are about as factual as Manny/Matty's TV commercials!

If you like Maroun or not, here are my feelings...

#1 We got an 80 year old bridge that needs to be replaced.

#2 The approach and exit ramps are already built, and I believe most of the land has been accuired on both sides

#3 The Bridge company is going to pay for 100% of the costs and not use public dollars

So really what difference does it make that we build a twin span of the Ambassador Bridge? The same amounf of traffic is going to go by the bridge when the new bridge is finished. Only difference is that we are going to have a new bridge that is going to be able to last another 80 years.

The traffic issue is always going to be there, you still go to go through customs clearance after you get over the bridge and thats the #1 reason for traffic backups.

So let Matty Maroun build his second span of the Ambassador Bridge.

If the State of Michigan and the Canadian goverment want to waste our tax money to build a 3rd bridge, let them waste our money also. Heck lets have 3 Bridges to Canada!

Hey with 3 Bridges we have 3 times more customs agents to greet us at the other side of the bridge, which will actually help stimulate the economy in both Windsor and Detroit as it will cut down on travel times.waiting to talk to a customs agent to tell our whole life story.

Let the man build his bridge, and if the goverment really hates him, they can build their own to compete with him.

In Windsor there is substantial opposition to having truck traffic continue to exit the Bridge and take Hron Church through the area to pick up Hwy. 401
So Ontario is right now building a parkway to be used by trucks to 401. But it will not connect to the Ambassador Bridge. It will pick up traffic from An entry point farther south and west: where the new Bridge will land. Vast amounts of land and buildings, homes etc., were appropriated and evacuated.
Construction began this spring.
As an observer, I can certainly see that Ontario has no intention of letting Moroun continue the truck traffic in any volume on any land he now owns near his Bridge. The approaches will not be built.
Ontario has made it's decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BShea

I get what you're saying, but some food for thought: The pro-DRIC unions have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians, too. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, it should be noted that pro-NITC forces donate and spend money, too. My point is -- and I'm not defending the content of Moroun's campaigns -- is that both sides have spend large sums, not just one side.

---

How large? I am curious as how much as been spent by whom in this contest. Am I alone on this board in not being able to recall one pro-DRIC ad on TV or in other media while I have seen countless ads by the bridge company [Moroun] along with their favorable 'studies' by 'experts'. Likewise in the arena of political contributions, I am acquainted with the bridge company's largesse but not with the alleged donations supporting DRIC. What are those numbers? I think that would be grist for some good investigative reporting by, let's say, Crains or the Free Press.

The DRIC makes so much sense on so many counts and it is why politicians from both sides support it without bribes.
1-Security of cross border traffic. We all know the economic disaster that would befall the region's economy should its only surface crossing be disrupted.
2-Price competition. The bridge company shouts out all the worn-out mantras of 'free' market, private enterprise, anti-government blah, blah, blah, except for the word MONOPOLY. This is really about an effort to preserve that monopoly and all but stubborn know it.
3-Traffic flow. Diversion of traffic from congested urban areas makes complete sense. The argument about traffic being less that it was is a diversion becasue it is only being measured in the past decade. Since the bridge was built, and particularly with NAFTA, traffic has grown immeasurably and will continue to grow again. Both crossings will prosper. Ease of crossing combined with the price restraint caused by competition will encourage business and create new opportunities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLAUDE G

If you like Maroun or not, here are my feelings...
...
Let the man build his bridge, and if the goverment really hates him, they can build their own to compete with him.

---

This is a great point. There is no resistance to Matty's new bridge. The resistance is to a new public bridge. The resistance is from the current monopoly rent-extractor, Maroun.

Somehow, the Blue Water bridge with its new span survives on 3,841,164 cars, 1,353,946 trucks, totalling 5,195,110 [[MDOT stat, w/ cars at $3.00)

The Ambassador Bridge clearly must have cost more to build, since the traffic there is "8.9 million cars and 3.4 million trucks" [[Crains, w/ cars at $4.00 US, $C4.75)

Let's all just be thankful that we have Matty to collect **more than double the revenue that the public authority needed to build and operate a new bridge**. Oh, and don't forget the around 65 cents per gallon on gas Matty sells that doesn't go into fed and state tax coffers to support us.

[[I acknowlege greater wear w/ greater traffic, a somewhat longer span [[I think), and construction cost increases, and that there may be some subsidy, as there should be, for the Blue Water Bridge -- just as there is for the roads approaching it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

How large? I am curious as how much as been spent by whom in this contest. Am I alone on this board in not being able to recall one pro-DRIC ad on TV or in other media while I have seen countless ads by the bridge company [Moroun] along with their favorable 'studies' by 'experts'. Likewise in the arena of political contributions, I am acquainted with the bridge company's largesse but not with the alleged donations supporting DRIC. What are those numbers? I think that would be grist for some good investigative reporting by, let's say, Crains or the Free Press.

The DRIC makes so much sense on so many counts and it is why politicians from both sides support it without bribes.
1-Security of cross border traffic. We all know the economic disaster that would befall the region's economy should its only surface crossing be disrupted.
2-Price competition. The bridge company shouts out all the worn-out mantras of 'free' market, private enterprise, anti-government blah, blah, blah, except for the word MONOPOLY. This is really about an effort to preserve that monopoly and all but stubborn know it.
3-Traffic flow. Diversion of traffic from congested urban areas makes complete sense. The argument about traffic being less that it was is a diversion becasue it is only being measured in the past decade. Since the bridge was built, and particularly with NAFTA, traffic has grown immeasurably and will continue to grow again. Both crossings will prosper. Ease of crossing combined with the price restraint caused by competition will encourage business and create new opportunities.

---

I haven't plunged fully into it, but I did a quick scan of what the pro-DRIC labor unions lobbying for the project gave to Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick in the last round she was running: The Greater Detroit Building and Construction Trades Council is made up of several unions, and it gave a bunch. Federal campaign records show donations to her in recent cycles from the Laborers Union [[$51,500), Teamsters Union [[$46,500) and Operating Engineers Union [[$38,000) -- all part of the council. And that's just to one politician.

Link

So anyone suggesting Moroun is the only one trying to grease the skids with campaign cash had better do some research. And it IS possible to have ideological and economic questions about NITC without being on the take. Those who suggest otherwise are engaging in the same sort of witless propaganda that they accuse Moroun of waging. There ARE genuine concerns about NITC.

You don't build a bridge to create temporary construction jobs, nor to provide price competition with the private sector, unless you're basically a card-carry communist who's really into make-work projects. Yet those are the arguments we are hearing today.

You build a bridge to move traffic. All other benefits are ancillary, yet it's being sold to us on every ancillary reason.

And as for price competition, I suggest you look deeply at MDOT's revenue study used to justify DRIC/NITC. It explicitly says everything is built on having THE EXACT SAME TOLLS AS THE AMBASSADOR BRIDGE. It doesn't work financially otherwise. The private sector will not build this on a pure toll concession otherwise. That is stone cold fact, and the private sector told MDOT that last spring, which triggered Canada's $550m offer.

My larger point is thus: I am questioning, over and over, the need to build NITC right now based on the justifications shown the public. People who are not aligned with Moroun in anyway have serious questions about the project, mainly in light of border traffic plunging. Questioning the pro-NITC rhetoric doesn't make you pro-Moroun. There mere presence of the Ambassador Bridge [[privately owned after a public vote at the time) creates an X-factor in the economic equation for NITC that must be addressed.

Are there compelling reasons to build it, such as redundancy? Yes. Not because of terrorism -- one would think a terrorist would be smart enough to take down all the border crossings, not just one -- but because of natural disaster, etc. We've seen that happen in the past year, such as when smoke from a fire briefly closed the AB. But is that alone worth it?

As a reporter, what I want to see is the financing plan, a full agreement with Canada that spells out the specifics of its financial assistance, a genuine investment-grade traffic and revenue study by the private sector, and other needed justifications -- not propaganda from MDOT, the gov's office and Moroun. So far, we have none of that. What we do have is a shifting series of justifications -- and today it's toll competition, which is absurd on its face because it ignores DRIC's own financial justifications.

Why everyone is so willing to blindly trust Lansing when we believe nothing else from there baffles me. Look as the disaster that was the Zilwaukee Bridge! I want the governor and politicians to prove it. I don't blindly trust them -- especially when they're promising the ultimate free lunch without having any agreement in place, financing or anything else. We have a FIVE SENTENCE letter from Canada.

Again, you don't build a bridge to create jobs. You build it to more traffic. NITC backers will grudgingly admit that there are not massive traffic backups at the AB, and what delays we have are not because of bridge capacity. Delays are because of the post-9/11 security requirements. You'll have those same requirements at the NITC bridge, with the advantage hopefully being that traffic is diluted by spreading it over three crossings [[the Port Huron bridge is considered part of the Detroit border corridor for nationwide shippers).

Also, the jobs number is inflated, according to some of the construction unions involved in the project: Link.

NITC is presented as some major economic shot in the arm for Michigan. I don't think it will be anything of the sort. Perhaps it will for Canada, which is why that nation is far more interested in the span than the U.S. government. Much of the commercial trade will be going out of state, too.

The second Blue Water Bridge span that opened in 1997, and the modern train tunnel that opened there in 1994, did just about nothing for Port Huron. I lived for years near both, and the city is a slum. The trains and trucks pass through, and most don't even stop for gas or food. My suspicion is that NITC will simply divert traffic that's mostly going elsewhere, not create much new traffic. From the infrastructure experts I've talked to, this project's "imputed demand" [[aka the "build it and they will come") is largely fantasy.

Just my 2 cents after covering this topic for four years now.

...there was a protest/demonstration this past weekend/friday, in front of the Train Station...
Rashida Tlaib has an editorial in this sunday's Free Press..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BShea

I haven't plunged fully into it, but I did a quick scan of what the pro-DRIC labor unions lobbying for the project gave to Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick in the last round she was running: The Greater Detroit Building and Construction Trades Council is made up of several unions, and it gave a bunch. Federal campaign records show donations to her in recent cycles from the Laborers Union [[$51,500), Teamsters Union [[$46,500) and Operating Engineers Union [[$38,000) -- all part of the council. And that's just to one politician.

---

So what are the Moroun contributions? What is the total of his media spends?

I think you would be hard-pressed argue that those donations from 'pro-DRIC' unions to the deposed federal congressperson were solely or even largely to get her support for DRIC. They donated to her because she was a pro-union Democrat sympathetic to a broad range of their causes and would have [and historically have] donated bridge or no bridge.

And what good were those even if that was the case? You describe her in your linked article as, "...the longtime Detroit Democrat who has taken Moroun donations and questioned the need for DRIC." We are also aware of his generous donations to the her disgraced son's campaign fund and questionable dalliance with unloading the MCD from Moroun for a police HQ.

The ends of Moroun's donations are far more clearly focused for personal gain. The more essential reportorial research should produce number on donations and spends at the local and state levels along with the media campaign dollars. Who is spending the most for the direct purpose of influencing the bridge issue? Money at this level could do far more to stop the DRIC then vague donations at the federal level.

As for competition and starting with the same tolls as the Ambassador, so what? Do you mean to argue that a second bridge, even at the same toll rates, will not put downward pressure on prices? Do you think neither bridge authority would consider lowering rates to gain traffic? History shows that competition = lower prices and monopolies don't.

I never made the jobs argument and generally agree with you that it should not be the sole or even a major reason. But it will create jobs so it still is frosting on the larger cake. Other projects funded by MEGA and other corporate welfare sources routinely dole out huge sums on the mere promise of jobs with less clarity than this project. What this 'might' cost Michigan would be more than compensated by the whole package of benefits, commercial security, cost savings in improved flow of commerce, resulting tax revenues, price competition and, yes, jobs.

In recent Ambassador Bridge news, on May 31, the company was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan from ever again insisting that it is a "federal instrumentality or any type of arm, appendage, or agent of the federal government entitled to any immunity form state or local regulation."

This news came from www.tollroadsnews which also features a picture of neighborhood activists taking bolt cutters to the fence blocking access to the city park and boat launch that was expropriated by the Bridge.

Expect the next version of the bill authorizing the new bridge to be introduced in the Michigan Senate on Tuesday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

He wants to build it privately. Doesn't that tell you something about the profitability of the bridge?

---

I noticed that. He opposes a new DRIC bridge saying that there's not enough demand, but at the same time he's buying land and trying to design the toll plaza to accommodate new Ambassador span.

So what is Matty? Do we need a bridge or don't we?


Moroun is an evil, greedy, cigar chomping, politician greasing slimeball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BShea

...
You build a bridge to move traffic. All other benefits are ancillary, yet it's being sold to us on every ancillary reason.
...
The second Blue Water Bridge span that opened in 1997, and the modern train tunnel that opened there in 1994, did just about nothing for Port Huron. I lived for years near both, and the city is a slum. The trains and trucks pass through, and most don't even stop for gas or food. My suspicion is that NITC will simply divert traffic that's mostly going elsewhere, not create much new traffic. From the infrastructure experts I've talked to, this project's "imputed demand" [[aka the "build it and they will come") is largely fantasy.

Just my 2 cents after covering this topic for four years now.

---

The basic question is should rather expensive international crossings be public or private. I believe that they should be public assets. That both Matty and MDOT are proven idiots doesn't really change much.

We need to decide whether this is important enough to fund nationally. Canada, who is trading with their much larger partner see it as critical. The US doesn't see much about Canada as important, and certainly investing in Michigan doesn't make you very popular.

When you step back and look at public investment in highways at a federal level, the creation of a public crossing isn't a big deal -- even at $1-5 billion. We'll chew through federal money on other road projects of dubious need. But we won't build a bridge at federal expense. We expect it to pay for itself when the connecting roads do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

So what are the Moroun contributions? What is the total of his media spends?

I think you would be hard-pressed argue that those donations from 'pro-DRIC' unions to the deposed federal congressperson were solely or even largely to get her support for DRIC. They donated to her because she was a pro-union Democrat sympathetic to a broad range of their causes and would have [and historically have] donated bridge or no bridge.

And what good were those even if that was the case? You describe her in your linked article as, "...the longtime Detroit Democrat who has taken Moroun donations and questioned the need for DRIC." We are also aware of his generous donations to the her disgraced son's campaign fund and questionable dalliance with unloading the MCD from Moroun for a police HQ.

The ends of Moroun's donations are far more clearly focused for personal gain. The more essential reportorial research should produce number on donations and spends at the local and state levels along with the media campaign dollars. Who is spending the most for the direct purpose of influencing the bridge issue? Money at this level could do far more to stop the DRIC then vague donations at the federal level.

As for competition and starting with the same tolls as the Ambassador, so what? Do you mean to argue that a second bridge, even at the same toll rates, will not put downward pressure on prices? Do you think neither bridge authority would consider lowering rates to gain traffic? History shows that competition = lower prices and monopolies don't.

I never made the jobs argument and generally agree with you that it should not be the sole or even a major reason. But it will create jobs so it still is frosting on the larger cake. Other projects funded by MEGA and other corporate welfare sources routinely dole out huge sums on the mere promise of jobs with less clarity than this project. What this 'might' cost Michigan would be more than compensated by the whole package of benefits, commercial security, cost savings in improved flow of commerce, resulting tax revenues, price competition and, yes, jobs.

---

The problem with the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching over political donations is that it's legal. It might be a flawed system, but it's legal. And Moroun is making a rational economic decision in spending money on campaign donations and his media effort. You may not like it, but it's what a person does in his position [[that can afford it).

The implied suggestion that politicians wouldn't have serious economic and ideological questions about DRIC/NITC without Moroun's largess is absurd. It suggests all members of the statehouse are for sale to the highest bidder. While I'm jaded, I'm not that jaded. Moroun propaganda aside, there are significant justification questions unanswered about NITC. I'm sure some undecided politicians might have been swayed by the money, but that doesn't mean there are not questions about the project.

FYI: I didn't research what state politicians have taken pro-DRIC union donations. They're out there, and I didn't suggest they match Moroun's. I'm sure they don't, but they're not insignificant and they're just as legal. My larger point is that people bitch about Moroun's donations, but choose to ignore that the unions also donate. It's the same system, and the unions are donating for their own gain, just like Moroun.

The toll question is important because the Snyder administration is going around the state telling people that NITC is good for competition, and trying to spin NITC as a private-sector project instead of a government project -- an absolutely absurd notion that rivals some of the howlers from Moroun's camp. Anyway, the economic fundamentals of NITC don't work in a toll war. The private-sector bidders have already warned MDOT of that last year. We've been promised the bridge would pay for itself via tolls, but when the people who know what they're talking about -- the people who build and operate bridges -- said tolls won't cover the capital and operations costs, and they wanted publicly subsidies instead. That's when Canada's $550m offer emerged, because the project wasn't able to be financed as initially thought. Why? Because the traffic no longer even remotely justified the project. That's why we've seen the floating justifications since -- terrorism, construction jobs, competition. It used to be about moving vehicles over the right -- the reason you build a bridge.

The entire project is predicated on tolls and traffic projection that no one takes seriously except DRIC backers. The growth in trade with Canada hasn't corresponded with an increase in traffic. And the nonsense about Buffalo isn't worth talking about because it's the silliest of red herrings -- their FOUR current bridges didn't attract commercial traffic from Detroit, and it won't in the future. Also, keep in mind that the long-haul trucking industry sees Port Huron as part of the Detroit corridor.

And I totally agree on MEGA. The jobs numbers are bogus. Same with DRIC, according to the people who actually will be creating the construction jobs. It'll be about 600 jobs in Michigan, according to the construction unions. The 10K number was one of those "If Company X hires some iron workers, someone will open a coffee shop near the construction site, and that's 10 more jobs, and those people will need to buy stuff, so Target will hire more people ..."

In other words, the jobs numbers are simply propaganda. Everyone excited about the prospect of Delray being transformed into a bustling little trade burg just has to travel to Port Huron to see what MDOT's promises wrought there: Zilch. Commercial traffic passes through and rarely stops. The trains don't stop there. Port Huron was promised all sorts of things, and none of it came to pass -- and in the meantime, the city lost 2 percent of its tax base over the almost criminal boondoggle that is the plaza expansion up there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BShea

...The entire project is predicated on tolls and traffic projection that no one takes seriously except DRIC backers...

---

Mr. Shea -- I agree with almost everything you said.

Could you address why this needs to be self-supporting. Why is toll-revenue so important here?

We haven't switched to toll-roads yet for other construction.

Ohio, for example, built a new I-280 bridge over the Maumee, and its not a toll-bridge.

Can you speak to why we are revenue obsessed on this -- vs. public infrastructure.

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

So what are the Moroun contributions? What is the total of his media spends?

I think you would be hard-pressed argue that those donations from 'pro-DRIC' unions to the deposed federal congressperson were solely or even largely to get her support for DRIC. They donated to her because she was a pro-union Democrat sympathetic to a broad range of their causes and would have [and historically have] donated bridge or no bridge.

And what good were those even if that was the case? You describe her in your linked article as, "...the longtime Detroit Democrat who has taken Moroun donations and questioned the need for DRIC." We are also aware of his generous donations to the her disgraced son's campaign fund and questionable dalliance with unloading the MCD from Moroun for a police HQ.

The ends of Moroun's donations are far more clearly focused for personal gain. The more essential reportorial research should produce number on donations and spends at the local and state levels along with the media campaign dollars. Who is spending the most for the direct purpose of influencing the bridge issue? Money at this level could do far more to stop the DRIC then vague donations at the federal level.

As for competition and starting with the same tolls as the Ambassador, so what? Do you mean to argue that a second bridge, even at the same toll rates, will not put downward pressure on prices? Do you think neither bridge authority would consider lowering rates to gain traffic? History shows that competition = lower prices and monopolies don't.

I never made the jobs argument and generally agree with you that it should not be the sole or even a major reason. But it will create jobs so it still is frosting on the larger cake. Other projects funded by MEGA and other corporate welfare sources routinely dole out huge sums on the mere promise of jobs with less clarity than this project. What this 'might' cost Michigan would be more than compensated by the whole package of benefits, commercial security, cost savings in improved flow of commerce, resulting tax revenues, price competition and, yes, jobs.

---

It's not just Matty and the unions contributing, don't forget about the Corrigan Group. They're a large reason why the DRIC got started in the first place. The DIBC first announced another span back in 1998 and everyone was on board. Canada, MDOT and the City of Detroit. MDOT's original plans and literature for the I-75 Gateway project even suggested that. A big reason for the Gateway was to provide for the proposed second span.

When the fence was put up not only had then mayor Dennis Archer agreed to it. But, the City Council actually passed an ordinance in 2003 granting the DIBC permission to put the fence up. Then sometime after that, the Corrigan Group started spending money and wrangled themselves a no bid 36 million dollar contract to conduct a study on a second bridge. At which time the DIBC proposal that had been informally agreed to by all was suddenly deemed not acceptable. The entire time everyone knew that the DRIC was pushing for the Delray area and the entire study was just a foregone conclusion.

Among Moroun's problems, and he has many, is the fact that he agreed to the Gateway because of the fact that his second span was supposed to be included. After which, he has been blocked from doing his project by the City of Detroit, MDOT and Canada who had all previously agreed to support his second span. A big reason why is because of the money that the Corrigan Group had spent.

When everything is said and done, the Corrigan Group will be a big part of whatever P3 is established to operate the DRIC, if it's ever approved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Mr. Shea -- I agree with almost everything you said.

Could you address why this needs to be self-supporting. Why is toll-revenue so important here?

We haven't switched to toll-roads yet for other construction.

Ohio, for example, built a new I-280 bridge over the Maumee, and its not a toll-bridge.

Can you speak to why we are revenue obsessed on this -- vs. public infrastructure.

Thank you.

---

Agreed. Some politicians can't wrap their heads around the idea of investment in infrastructure, unless it involves new roads to future McMansions. Other countries passed us by long ago by investing and upgrading their infrastructure. I'd bet that most other places with our economic woes would be rushing to get this built, especially with the unique situation of THE ONLY PRIVATELY OWNED BORDER CROSSING IN THE WORLD holding a monopoly on the busiest trucking route in North America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLAUDE G

#2 The approach and exit ramps are already built, and I believe most of the land has been accuired on both sides

---

Too bad the ramp on the Detroit side [[aka Pier 19) wasn't built legally and there's an outstanding order to tear it down.