DIBC Sues to keep Federal Bridge Safety Report Under Wraps

Bill Shea reports in Crain's Detroit Business:
"The owner of the Ambassador Bridge has filed a federal lawsuit in Detroit against the Federal Highway Administration seeking to prevent public disclosure of a 2007 safety and condition inspection report of the span, saying the report’s public release jeopardizes national security and violates a confidentiality agreement.

The Detroit International Bridge Co. said releasing the inspection report, which follows the federal National Bridge Inspection Standards set forth by the highway administration, also violates the federal Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001.

The lawsuit, which seeks to prevent the report’s release, was filed Friday on behalf of the bridge company by Farmington Hills-based Nedelman Gloetzner PLLC.

“DIBC was advised by counsel for the Federal Highway Administration on September 25, 2009, that the Federal Highway Administration intends to publicly disclose the 2007 Inspection Report, despite the threat to national security by the threatened disclosure,� the suit says.

James Steele, FHA’s Michigan division administrator who is also named in the lawsuit, said his office was going to release the report because of a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request. He declined to say who the FOIA request was from, and deferred all comment to the agency’s Washington D.C. headquarters. FHA policy is not to comment on litigation.

The FOIA requested was made by Congressman John Dingell, said Mickey Blashfield, the bridge company’s director of governmental relations. The bridge company has offered to let Dingell see the report himself, but doesn’t want it released beyond officials."

I hope to read that report. I have been very concerned about what appears to be another "demolition by neglect" campaign by the DIBC. I have not observed any rust abatement in several years. The guardrails are rusted through in many places. You can see the river through some of the pavement cracks. But the DIBC doesn't want the public to know. I wonder if the bridge collapsed or was put out of service for awhile, if the DIBC would care. they might just, lickety-split, throw up the new Bridge.

Ha!

Why, if there is nothing to hide?!


National Security, my ass.


Thanks for this, Bill. Cheers

In addition to fine work by Bill, gratitude also is earned by John Dingell . . . whose public-interest priorities shine clearly in this follow-up by our man at Crain's:

Quote:

---

A statement issued today by Dingell’s office, attributed to the Congressman: "You can look up the safety rating of a car before you buy it, you can look up the structural deficiency of a public bridge before you drive across it, yet the Ambassador Bridge does not have to play by the same rules. The safety of the driving public should be the top priority for the Federal Highway Administration and the Michigan Depart of Transportation, regardless of whether or not a bridge or its bridge operators are public or private. Thousands of individuals and truckers use the Ambassador Bridge every day and I believe they are entitled to know the state of Ambassador Bridge before doing so."

---

Turns out Big John originally asked a federal highway official in Washington for the bridge inspection report in a Feb. 13, 2009 letter that Bill excerpts:

Quote:

---

If DIBC moves forward with plans to twin the Ambassador Bridge, it is imperative that the public and all relevant government agencies involved have access to both to maintenance reports and inspection reports of the current structure.

---

Sounds sensible.

I doubt that demolition by neglect is going on, despite the appearance of some of the minor elements of the Ambassador Bridge. Folks who have seen the inspection report tell me that it says the major elements of the Bridge are in fine shape, such as the crucial wire cables.

I can't imagine that the Bridge Company would risk interrupting the flow of tolls by allowing the Bridge to deteriorate to the point where it had to be closed. Probably they are just maintaining the less-important parts of the structure on the cheap, while preserving the key parts of this major money generator for the Moroun empire.

It's interesting how the Bridge is a "federal instrumentality" for the purpose of ignoring state law and city ordinances, but it's a private firm when Moroun wants to keep something a secret. I expect Rep. Dingell's suit will prevail, and the public will soon know exactly how well the DIBC is maintaining the Bridge.

Mr. Moroun's patriotic concern for our national security is laughable, unless he considers the elements to be a terrorist. He and Dingell would do better talking about the real elephant in the room. At any moment, a real terrorist can drive on to that bridge in a bomb-laden vehicle with no impediment.

There is no serious security on the bridge.

Now god forbid that terrorist continue to the opposite border and not have his passport. That's a different story -- another pathetic irony with our pathetic border situation.