Maroun [Ambassador Replacement] Bridge updates

As per Freep

A statement by Ambassador Bridge officials made clear that the request was linked with a Canadian condition placed on the proposed construction of a replacement span for the Moroun-owned Ambassador Bridge that that their existing bridge be torn down first.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/bu...ese/509961002/

So Canada says you can build your new span but first you have to tear down the existing one.

Which leaves no bridge,but Canadas built bridge,because once the Ambassador is down what are the odds of another bridge being built that provides competition to Canada's bridge.

The counter reaction is the interest of a Chinese owned state company providing the steel for the bridge.


Do a search on "California Chinese built bridge problems " it is not pretty.

Putting the hatred aside,is it in our best interest to have a foreign government dictating what American companies can and cannot do.

I understand that the ambassador ends on Canadian soil just as would the new one rest on American soil,so why the beef other then they know that there is not enough traffic to support two bridges and this is their way of eliminating the competition.

Once again the Marouns are twisting the truth. The Canadian government wants them to tear down the Ambassador bridge after the new Ambassador bridge is built. not before.

From a clickon Detroit article from September.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...oved-by-canada

Quote:

---

Here is more information from Transport Canada: "As a key component of the Windsor-Detroit gateway, the 87-year old Ambassador Bridge is important to the economic well-being of the region, particularly to the automotive industry and for daily commuter traffic between Windsor and Detroit, and needs to be replaced. The project will see the construction of a replacement six-lane bridge as well as an expansion of the Ambassador Bridge’s associated Canada Border Services Agency facility. "Under Canada’s International Bridges and Tunnels Act, the project is subject to conditions that will ensure the efficiency, safety and security of the crossing and mitigate the impacts of the project on the local community. The conditions include the dismantling of the existing bridge when the replacement bridge is open, improving local infrastructure, creating new public green spaces, and protecting the environment and considering Indigenous interests."

---

The only reason Canada is building the bridge is because the politicians in Marouns pockets blocked Michigan from financing the project. Canada said OK we'll fund it. Since they are funding it they get to say who builds it.

^^^correct

I was under the impression that it was a joint venture where Canada was funding it up front and keeping to revenues to pay for The US side.

Canada would finance and build the project through public-private partnership. The only piece remaining for the U.S. taxpayers under Baird’s plan would be $250 million for a U.S. Customs Plaza on the American side of the crossing—on Washington’s dime. Once Canada’s bills were paid off, Ottawa would share the tolls with Michigan for the remaining life of the bridge—a potential $3-billion to $4-billion long-term windfall for Michigan, according to Canadian officials.

sorry I tried to post the links but the page kept refreshing and wiping out the post,but it is out there.

Key word being Once Canadas bills were paid off they would share the tolls,if it does not pay off Michigan and Washington is still on the hook,they are one in the same,yes they are building it and should have a say but that does not eliminate the US sides say because they are also on the hook and in a round about way also have a stake in it.

It does not become Canada's territory because they paid to build a bridge,if it touches on our border and in our territory we have a say,no different then Canada has terms and conditions for its sovereignty.

Try fishing and catch a fish in Canadian waters as an American and see what happens.

It is a joint venture. Michigan and Canada came to a mutual agreement. The key statement in your post is

Quote:

---

Canada would finance and build the project through public-private partnership

---

It states Canada would build, Not the US and Canada will build.

Since Canada is taking the risk up front to Fund the project, they get to pick the builder. They also wanted to use Canadian steel, hence the requested Waiver. If Canada is funding the deal why would they want to use US steel when they can use their own.

And just like Maroun can own a bridge in Canada, a Canadian entity can own a bridge in the US. It doesn't stop the country the property exist in from enforcing it's rules.

A US resident can fish in Canada, If you buy a Canadian fishing license.

[[available anywhere a US license is available.)

They are just providing the job,Canada is requesting the private company secure its own finance.

https://www.wdbridge.com/u/pdf-versi...1)%20FINAL.pdf

WDBA’s private-sector partner will be responsible to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the Canadian and USPorts of Entry and the bridge and to design, build and finance the Michigan Interchange. Michigan will be responsible forthe operations and maintenance of the Michigan Interchange



They are not really providing a free bridge,Michigan will bear the costs and operations of the Michigan interchange.

Maybe not for a few years but what is the average lifespan of an interchange,factoring in heavy truck traffic that plays a toll on road surfaces.

You are not really doing anything different then what is already existing with the currant private bridge,Canada is just kinda being the political tool in order to get it done.

What is the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

What is the problem?

---

Nobody said there was a problem,I posted updates if one was interested they could copy and paste the link.

The jist of it is the bridge company is saying that the Chinese firm putting in a proposal should not be included and they are asking the currant president to intervene based on the buy American on the construction.

Any government project is required to buy American.

Canada is even saying that it is in the matter of national security to not use the Chinese company.

But why would they say that? If they were in control of the construction they could just implement it,but they cannot because they are not in control of the construction.

Of course our US steel would probably come from china via Canada anyways.

But the thing to do is maybe split it 50/50 because Canada has their own steel production as we do also.

The discussion we were having was Canada entitled to dictate policy on US soil.

The flip side of the coin was,because Canada was paying for the bridge they should have the say on who and what.

But I provided a link where Canada is doing a P3 partnership and the private builder and operator is required to get their own funding.

Other then the update aspect,I guess the discussion would be about a foreign government contracting a private company to do government work on US soil while circumventing the buy US policy.

If that is applicable then their is a lot of companies that would love to follow that.

Maybe we're building a wall on the wrong border?

Lol I am not comfortable with a Chinese government owned company building infrastructure on US soil,California learned that lesson the hard way.

Public meetings on both sides of the border about the new bridge.

Tender to be awarded in June this year, and construction of some type by late summer.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windso...ings-1.4623502