Snyder in Talks with Canadians in Windsor About New Bridge

[Lowell]

It appears that the Governor is pressing forward with the new bridge efforts and while I may not agree with him on other issues, he gets my kudos on this one.

I am not optimistic of agreement happening this year with Mr. Moroun being able to throw his millions in opposition at the current legislature in an election year.

What really needs to done is the development of an advocacy group for the new bridge. One would think that with many potential winners in the construction industry and labor unions one would develop. The sentiment is there, there is just nothing to coalesce it.

Gov. Rick Snyder met privately in Windsor this morning with top Canadian and U.S. officials to discuss the proposed publicly owned Detroit River bridge.

What was discussed hasn't been disclosed. The stalled $3.1 billion plan would connect I-75 and Highway 401 between Detroit and Windsor with a joint U.S.-Canadian bridge called New International Trade Crossing.

Also at the 2½-hour meeting in an office at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce building were U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson, Canadian federal transportation minister Denis Lebel, Deputy U.S. Transportation Secretary John Porcari and a deputy administrator of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the Windsor Star reported.

Canadian officials told the newspaper that the bridge project was the topic of the meeting but offered no details.
From Crains

[Wingnatic]

Its nice to see him doing something constructive . I was beginning to wonder that he was too busy passing no helmet laws and now we can use tasers lol

[corktownyuppie]

It appears that the Governor is pressing forward with the new bridge efforts and while I may not agree with him on other issues, he gets my kudos on this one.

I am not optimistic of agreement happening this year with Mr. Moroun being able to throw his millions in opposition at the current legislature in an election year.

What really needs to done is the development of an advocacy group for the new bridge. One would think that with many potential winners in the construction industry and labor unions one would develop. The sentiment is there, there is just nothing to coalesce it.

You're right about the need for an advocacy group. I think in the end, Moroun will lose. This isn't just a Detroit or a Michigan issue. It goes all the way up through the state department in both here and Canada. Both American and Canadian ambassadors state that the bridge is of national interest. If advocacy resources are pooled at federal level here and the equivalent in Canada, plus here in Michigan as well, Moroun will eventually lose.

The key word, of course, is "eventually".

[Barbara_10]

Let Snyder buy the Amabassador bridge, with his millions, then put his name on on it. Problem solved.

[kraig]

It appears that the Governor is pressing forward with the new bridge efforts and while I may not agree with him on other issues, he gets my kudos on this one.

I am not optimistic of agreement happening this year with Mr. Moroun being able to throw his millions in opposition at the current legislature in an election year.

What really needs to done is the development of an advocacy group for the new bridge. One would think that with many potential winners in the construction industry and labor unions one would develop. The sentiment is there, there is just nothing to coalesce it.

There is an advocacy group. It's called the Corrigan Group. They've been spending money just like Matty has been during the entire process. In many ways, they're the ones who manufactured all of this controversy. In the beginning, everyone, the City of Detroit, Windsor, M-DOT, and both federal governments were all on board with Matty's plans for a second span. The Corrigan Group spent a ton of money securing a no bid contract to do the DRIC study and have been engineering things behind the scenes ever since.

While we may like to see this as a Matty is the bad guy issue. It's really just a fight between parties with large sums of money trying to make even larger sums of money. The biggest difference here is that the Corrigan Group is trying to get the public to pay for their bridge, lock stock and barrel.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I second the motion.

I agree. I have strong opinions about various people in public life, including businessmen and politicians. But I would never want anyone physically hurt or killed. Sure, where someone commits a crime, they should do the time. Kinda sick to wish that kind of harm on someone.

About Matty, while I don't like him, and would make many different decisions than he does if I owned his businesses, I don't think he's pure evil, as is the most posted opinion of him. I wish community leaders here would get half as worked up about drug dealers as they do about Matty Moroun. He might be hampering the new bridge, might not have renovated and reopened MCS [[not that anyone else has produced an idea with money attached to do anything with it), but he is not the source of our budget, ecomonic, crime, education or other problems. And while I do favor the NITC, he has both a right and legit self-interest to criticize it. The NITC is not a perfect plan financially or otherwise. NITC supporters should ignore Matty and just keep pushing for it. It's supporters certainly have enough money to counter Matty's ads and lobbyists. They just might not be as motivated.

[Scottathew]

Let Snyder buy the Amabassador bridge, with his millions, then put his name on on it. Problem solved.

You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading.

"Snyder wants his monument" is all made up by Moroun. This bridge has been planned way, way before Snyder.

Your post suggests that we don't need a second bridge, when keep in mind that even Moroun himself is trying to build a second bridge.

The only difference is that Moroun wants the new bridge next to the existing one, using the same plaza, the same freeways, and dumping traffic into downtown Windsor where there's no room for highway expansion.

MDOT, Snyder, Ontario, and the Canadian government ALSO want a second bridge. But they want a second bridge that's in a different spot, with its own toll\inspection plaza, it's own freeway access, and one that connects to a new freeway on the south side of Windsor.

What makes sense? Dumping more traffic into an already congested, small footprint? Or having a separate crossing that has its own plaza, access to the freeway at a different point on the US side, and a totally different freeway on the Canadian side?

One plan is what's best for Moroun's wallet, the other plan is what's best for the people of the United States and Canada.

[canuck]

MikeyinBrooklyn

I agree. I have strong opinions about various people in public life, including businessmen and politicians. But I would never want anyone physically hurt or killed. Sure, where someone commits a crime, they should do the time. Kinda sick to wish that kind of harm on someone.

About Matty, while I don't like him, and would make many different decisions than he does if I owned his businesses, I don't think he's pure evil, as is the most posted opinion of him. I wish community leaders here would get half as worked up about drug dealers as they do about Matty Moroun. He might be hampering the new bridge, might not have renovated and reopened MCS [[not that anyone else has produced an idea with money attached to do anything with it), but he is not the source of our budget, ecomonic, crime, education or other problems. And while I do favor the NITC, he has both a right and legit self-interest to criticize it. The NITC is not a perfect plan financially or otherwise. NITC supporters should ignore Matty and just keep pushing for it. It's supporters certainly have enough money to counter Matty's ads and lobbyists. They just might not be as motivated.

Well said Mikey, I find that it is easy for us to look for identifiable culprits in the blame game. There are many variables in the levels of abandonment, either political, financial or emotional in Detroit. The fact that violence and blight are occuring in a city with fewer means to counter these problems makes for a dizzying picture.

I sometimes wish Michigan had a leader that could clearly focus on Detroit's metropolitan area by comparing notes with cities that merged, and provide an alternative to the status quo. Your experience of New York City with all its problems probably comes first as a probable model for a successful amalgamation, maybe? I know there are huge hurdles to making the metro be more cohesive, but I cannot imagine another way to go for a stronger region.
When you have people calling for the National Guard to come in; it starts making sense, doesnt it?

[Barbara_10]

You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading.

"Snyder wants his monument" is all made up by Moroun. This bridge has been planned way, way before Snyder.

Your post suggests that we don't need a second bridge, when keep in mind that even Moroun himself is trying to build a second bridge.

The only difference is that Moroun wants the new bridge next to the existing one, using the same plaza, the same freeways, and dumping traffic into downtown Windsor where there's no room for highway expansion.

MDOT, Snyder, Ontario, and the Canadian government ALSO want a second bridge. But they want a second bridge that's in a different spot, with its own toll\inspection plaza, it's own freeway access, and one that connects to a new freeway on the south side of Windsor.

What makes sense? Dumping more traffic into an already congested, small footprint? Or having a separate crossing that has its own plaza, access to the freeway at a different point on the US side, and a totally different freeway on the Canadian side?

One plan is what's best for Moroun's wallet, the other plan is what's best for the people of the United States and Canada.

"You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading."

No need to get nasty. How would you know what I have been doing?
I am entitled to my opinion just as you are.
That money could be better spent elsewhere. Ask the residents of Detroit.
And, please don't tell me that that bridge will pay for itself.

[Scottathew]

"You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading."

No need to get nasty. How would you know what I have been doing?
I am entitled to my opinion just as you are.
That money could be better spent elsewhere. Ask the residents of Detroit.
And, please don't tell me that that bridge will pay for itself.

Just a few actual facts will clear up your concerns.

The bridge will be paid for by a Canadian loan. The loan will be repaid via future tolls. That means it will cost us zero tax dollars.

Furthermore, the Federal government is allowing us to count the Canadian loan as matching funds and will grant us federal funding for OTHER projects.

So the NITC bridge actually gives us MORE money for road repairs.

Source: http://www.ongo.com/preview_article.php?a=568104


Why does Canada want this bridge so badly? Because it's the best plan and distributes traffic around the heart of Windsor, not through it.


And yes, I do know you've been watching too much TV. You're parroting Moroun's commercials, instead of referencing actual FACTS about the proposal that are in many newspapers, MDOT's website, and other independent sources that don't stand to lose money by a government owned bridge.

[Barbara_10]

Just a few actual facts will clear up your concerns.

The bridge will be paid for by a Canadian loan. The loan will be repaid via future tolls. That means it will cost us zero tax dollars.

Furthermore, the Federal government is allowing us to count the Canadian loan as matching funds and will grant us federal funding for OTHER projects.

So the NITC bridge actually gives us MORE money for road repairs.

Source: http://www.ongo.com/preview_article.php?a=568104


Why does Canada want this bridge so badly? Because it's the best plan and distributes traffic around the heart of Windsor, not through it.


And yes, I do know you've been watching too much TV. You're parroting Moroun's commercials, instead of referencing actual FACTS about the proposal that are in many newspapers, MDOT's website, and other independent sources that don't stand to lose money by a government owned bridge.

"The bridge will be paid for by a Canadian loan. The loan will be repaid via future tolls. That means it will cost us zero tax dollars."

That's all I need to know.

[Richard]

Let Snyder buy the Amabassador bridge, with his millions, then put his name on on it. Problem solved.

No he and his buddies at GE have already spent
millions in Areo the bridge is the finial link
and needed as part of the package .

Once Areo is in play anything transit related
planes,trains,trucking etc will be diverted from
the new bridge over to the other side of the city
so it is a bit more involved then a bridge.

Is it really wise to put everything transit
related over there ? So all that's really happening
is that it is a shift or takeover of a private
company and not only just the one you love
to hate. Is it wise to use the position of Gov to
push this for personal gain?

If it was such a good deal for the taxpayers
why worry about paying for it ? Your going
to pay for it in so many ways but as it stands
you will get no return CDA will and of course
GE so it is hard to judge Matty without asking
full disclosure from Snyder And GE .

[professorscott]

Two facts.

First of all, Mr. Moroun's second bridge cannot be built because the Government of Ontario will never approve it. This has been stated, publicly and often, by Ontario officials. So all the money he spent on the approaches on the Detroit side were an expensive fantasy and a waste of time.

Second of all, nearly every toll bridge and toll road in North America is successful, by which I mean the tolls are sufficient to be able to pay off the construction bonds over time, and then sufficient to pay for maintenance and upkeep. There are, I believe, four border crossings [[and for sure at least three) in the Buffalo, NY area; all are bridges, all are tolled, and none cost the State of New York or the Province of Ontario any money. Buffalo and Fort Erie are much smaller towns than Detroit and Windsor. Detroit, at the present time, has two border crossings.

Not only do toll bridges and toll roads pay their own costs, they are the ONLY form of transportation infrastructure which do so.

The only reason Mr. Moroun's specious arguments hold any weight with the public is that he has sufficient resources to produce television advertisements and buy air time for these advertisements, and we are all conditioned to believe the bullshit that comes out of our television speakers.

[corktownyuppie]

"You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading."

No need to get nasty. How would you know what I have been doing?
I am entitled to my opinion just as you are.
That money could be better spent elsewhere. Ask the residents of Detroit.
And, please don't tell me that that bridge will pay for itself.

I'll try to use a less hostile tone... it's true that you are [[as we all are) entitled to one's own opinion. We should, however, be arriving at that opinion using the same set of facts.

Here's what I believe to be true, though someone can jump in if I'm inaccurate:

[[1) as said above, Canada will be funding the construction with a loan from their own funds

[[2) Canada has also made it publicly clear that they will not accept any bridge - regardless of who owns it - in the location Moroun prefers to do so

[[3) There may be better uses for that money, but since it's Canadian money, they will not be using it here

[[4) Generally when people on both sides of the aisle begrudgingly agree to something, it's got some validity. When the business community and the working class and the poor are all on the same side, it's got some validity. The bridge is an example of this. The only politicians who are against the bridge are those who are ideologically against government spending at all, unless it's either medicare, social security, or military.

The one thing bridge proponents have working against them is that tea party politicians are more interested in maintaining ideological purity than solving problems. There's a large segment of the Republican party whose long-term strategy is just to let the Tea Party take over so that the reactionary public can really see how in effective a purist ideology would be.

Honestly, sometimes, I totally dream about letting Palin and Bachmann run the country. They represent a constituency that is mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. Well, making financial decisions when your judgment is clouded by emotions -- especially anger, fear, or greed -- generally doesn't turn out well.

[wardwood]

There is an advocacy group. It's called the Corrigan Group. They've been spending money just like Matty has been during the entire process. In many ways, they're the ones who manufactured all of this controversy. In the beginning, everyone, the City of Detroit, Windsor, M-DOT, and both federal governments were all on board with Matty's plans for a second span. The Corrigan Group spent a ton of money securing a no bid contract to do the DRIC study and have been engineering things behind the scenes ever since.

While we may like to see this as a Matty is the bad guy issue. It's really just a fight between parties with large sums of money trying to make even larger sums of money. The biggest difference here is that the Corrigan Group is trying to get the public to pay for their bridge, lock stock and barrel.

sorry but this is complete non-sense

[wardwood]

I agree. I have strong opinions about various people in public life, including businessmen and politicians. But I would never want anyone physically hurt or killed. Sure, where someone commits a crime, they should do the time. Kinda sick to wish that kind of harm on someone.

About Matty, while I don't like him, and would make many different decisions than he does if I owned his businesses, I don't think he's pure evil, as is the most posted opinion of him. I wish community leaders here would get half as worked up about drug dealers as they do about Matty Moroun. He might be hampering the new bridge, might not have renovated and reopened MCS [[not that anyone else has produced an idea with money attached to do anything with it), but he is not the source of our budget, ecomonic, crime, education or other problems. And while I do favor the NITC, he has both a right and legit self-interest to criticize it. The NITC is not a perfect plan financially or otherwise. NITC supporters should ignore Matty and just keep pushing for it. It's supporters certainly have enough money to counter Matty's ads and lobbyists. They just might not be as motivated.

You can't have it both ways. Either you support the DRIC/NITC or you support Matty Maroun, not both.

[corktownyuppie]

You can't have it both ways. Either you support the DRIC/NITC or you support Matty Maroun, not both.

You can hate the game instead of the player.
You can hate the actions instead of the actor.
You can hate message instead of the messenger.
You can find fault in the rules of the game instead of blaming the one who exploits the rules for his own favor.

I don't support Matty Maroun's policy on the bridge at all. I think his policy puts his own interests first at the expense of the greater good or any societal interests.

But that does not, in my mind, make Maroun bad or evil or the enemy. He is simply exercising his rights, within the rules of the game, to serve his own interests.

Recognition of that fact does not translate to an endorsement of his behavior.

[Barbara_10]

I'll try to use a less hostile tone... it's true that you are [[as we all are) entitled to one's own opinion. We should, however, be arriving at that opinion using the same set of facts.

Here's what I believe to be true, though someone can jump in if I'm inaccurate:

[[1) as said above, Canada will be funding the construction with a loan from their own funds

[[2) Canada has also made it publicly clear that they will not accept any bridge - regardless of who owns it - in the location Moroun prefers to do so

[[3) There may be better uses for that money, but since it's Canadian money, they will not be using it here

[[4) Generally when people on both sides of the aisle begrudgingly agree to something, it's got some validity. When the business community and the working class and the poor are all on the same side, it's got some validity. The bridge is an example of this. The only politicians who are against the bridge are those who are ideologically against government spending at all, unless it's either medicare, social security, or military.

The one thing bridge proponents have working against them is that tea party politicians are more interested in maintaining ideological purity than solving problems. There's a large segment of the Republican party whose long-term strategy is just to let the Tea Party take over so that the reactionary public can really see how in effective a purist ideology would be.

Honestly, sometimes, I totally dream about letting Palin and Bachmann run the country. They represent a constituency that is mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. Well, making financial decisions when your judgment is clouded by emotions -- especially anger, fear, or greed -- generally doesn't turn out well.

"The only politicians who are against the bridge are those who are ideologically against government spending at all, unless it's either medicare, social security, or military."

This is off topic, but the government should be spending less than they take in, as we all must do, to reduce the debt and stay on budget. I disagree with parts of your statement that refer to Social Security and Medicare as government spending. Those were trusts to be kept separate from the government's general funds. The people that are recieving those benefits [[not entitlements) paid into them for many years, and are still having about $100. a month taken out of their Social Security checks to help fund Medicare. Plus Supplemental insurance premiums to pay for the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. There is an $1,100. deductable to be admitted to a hospital. Then there is the premium for Medicare Part D. The trust was working until the government decided to 'borrow' from it and fill the box with IOU's.
Granted the government does "spend" for the military.
Sorry for the rant.
Now back on topic. Any one that believes that the "borrowed" money from Canada will be paid back with tolls is dreaming. The taxpayer WILL be stuck with the bill.

[Wesley Mouch]

...This is off topic, but the government should be spending less than they take in, as we all must do, to reduce the debt and stay on budget. I disagree with parts of your statement that refer to Social Security and Medicare as government spending. Those were trusts to be kept separate from the government's general funds. The people that are recieving those benefits [[not entitlements) paid into them for many years, and are still having about $100. a month taken out of their Social Security checks to help fund Medicare. Plus Supplemental insurance premiums to pay for the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. There is an $1,100. deductable to be admitted to a hospital. Then there is the premium for Medicare Part D. The trust was working until the government decided to 'borrow' from it and fill the box with IOU's.
Granted the government does "spend" for the military.
Sorry for the rant.
Now back on topic. Any one that believes that the "borrowed" money from Canada will be paid back with tolls is dreaming. The taxpayer WILL be stuck with the bill.

Great honest post from the heart.

I don't think its necessary for the bill to be paid back. Infrastructure investment that improves the economy should be government funded -- that is paid for by all for the benefit of all.

So I don't know what 'stuck with the bill' means.

By the way, who was stuck with the bill for the 'Gateway' project at the Ambassador Bridge? Or the cost of the 696/275 interchange?

[Scottathew]

Now back on topic. Any one that believes that the "borrowed" money from Canada will be paid back with tolls is dreaming. The taxpayer WILL be stuck with the bill.

Once again, the deal is that it will be paid back with future tolls.

"Stuck with the bill", once again, is a line straight from Moroun's advertisements which you keep parroting.

Moroun is a liar with only the interests of a single person, himself, in mind.

Moroun entered an agreement with the people of Michigan that if we spent tens of millions of dollars improving access to his bridge, which greatly benefited him, that he would construct certain things on his property to be a part of the project.

The Gateway project has been a huge benefit to Moroun, but yet he couldn't construct his part to specifications because he's too busy trying to make more money than trying to comply with the contract and MULTIPLE court orders telling him to complete the project.

The project has since been ripped out of his hands and is being completed by MDOT after a 2-year court battle.

So, my point is, that Moroun is a crooked billionaire only looking to get more money by any means necessary. He lies. He disobeys court orders. He couldn't give a crap about the public. Moroun only cares about lining his pockets and if he has to spend a couple million dollars on push lies through the airwaves in hopes that a few people will believe him, he'll do it.

[Searay215]

First of all there is not ONE single person on this site that is quoting this and that, that KNOWS ALL the facts....it is ALL speculation!!!!
Secondly if there are two bridges, then based on common sense & math would tell me that tolls will be less for both bridges.....Having said that, the question I have is what if the tolls are not enough to pay the loan off? Who is going to pay that bill? I have the answer.....You and I.
One final thing.....if its such a good idea then Why doesn't his [[Snyder's) own party want it? NO ONE on here can really answer any of these questions with any certainty!!!!!!

[corktownyuppie]

First of all there is not ONE single person on this site that is quoting this and that, that KNOWS ALL the facts....it is ALL speculation!!!!

This is a fair sentiment, though I think it would be more accurate to say that no one knows all the facts, some of it is speculation. There is a degree of unknown to this issue, as with most issues. But I believe it to be a bit of a reach to say that this is all blind guesswork.

Secondly if there are two bridges, then based on common sense & math would tell me that tolls will be less for both bridges

That would be true at the most primitive level of common sense. Common sense would dictate that if there's a lot of traffic on I-275, then adding 2 lanes in each direction will lighten traffic flow. That has now been proven to be false....adding two lanes simply results in more cars choosing to drive on I-275, with no improvement in congestion.

Common sense would dictate that if you owned a coffee shop and Starbucks opened up next door to you, your business levels would go down because you now face new competition. I'm sure at some point that becomes true, but both anecdotal and scientific evidence indicates that the "common sense" actually contradicts the reality.

"Why Starbucks actually helps mom and pop coffeehouses," Slate.com [[December, 2007)

One final thing.....if its such a good idea then Why doesn't his [[Snyder's) own party want it?

Snyder's party is heavily influenced by a constituency whose anger about the current economic state overshadows in-depth policy analysis and sometimes even rational discussion.

NO ONE on here can really answer any of these questions with any certainty!!!!!!

In considering both sides of this debate, the credibility of arguments drops significantly as emotions rise. As the emotional intensity of advocates on either side reaches a feverish pitch, the less concerned about facts they seem to be...which is a recipe for short-term thinking and abysmal decision-making.

You're right that there is uncertainty with this question. It is inaccurate to state there are no certainties at all. And after eliminating the bluster and fury on either side of the argument...and then adjusting for conflicts of interest...it becomes fairly clear that those opposed to the bridge are doing so either out of self-interest or out of ideological fury.

As one distances themself from the actual people and political arguments involved, and as you speak with thinkers outside of the State of Michigan, the prevailing opinion is that we need a new bridge. The questions is simply, "Where?"

And since Canada has already outright excluded Moroun's proposed span repeatedly, the answer is almost self-evident.

[corktownyuppie]

Or, in short, the more your arguments rely on the use of exclamation points, the less believable the arguments are.

[Searay215]

This is a fair sentiment, though I think it would be more accurate to say that no one knows all the facts, some of it is speculation. There is a degree of unknown to this issue, as with most issues. But I believe it to be a bit of a reach to say that this is all blind guesswork.



That would be true at the most primitive level of common sense. Common sense would dictate that if there's a lot of traffic on I-275, then adding 2 lanes in each direction will lighten traffic flow. That has now been proven to be false....adding two lanes simply results in more cars choosing to drive on I-275, with no improvement in congestion.

Common sense would dictate that if you owned a coffee shop and Starbucks opened up next door to you, your business levels would go down because you now face new competition. I'm sure at some point that becomes true, but both anecdotal and scientific evidence indicates that the "common sense" actually contradicts the reality.

"Why Starbucks actually helps mom and pop coffeehouses," Slate.com [[December, 2007)



Snyder's party is heavily influenced by a constituency whose anger about the current economic state overshadows in-depth policy analysis and sometimes even rational discussion.



In considering both sides of this debate, the credibility of arguments drops significantly as emotions rise. As the emotional intensity of advocates on either side reaches a feverish pitch, the less concerned about facts they seem to be...which is a recipe for short-term thinking and abysmal decision-making.

You're right that there is uncertainty with this question. It is inaccurate to state there are no certainties at all. And after eliminating the bluster and fury on either side of the argument...and then adjusting for conflicts of interest...it becomes fairly clear that those opposed to the bridge are doing so either out of self-interest or out of ideological fury.

As one distances themself from the actual people and political arguments involved, and as you speak with thinkers outside of the State of Michigan, the prevailing opinion is that we need a new bridge. The questions is simply, "Where?"

And since Canada has already outright excluded Moroun's proposed span repeatedly, the answer is almost self-evident.

Nice try Snyder/Bridge supporter.....and yet you ignore the biggest most important question that everyone wants answered.........if tolls don't cover the loan/maintainence/workers salaries....who is on the hook for the balance?

If you can PROVE to me that Michigan will NOT be on the hook for ANY FUNDS then yes build it. Otherwise.....its just a gamble....leave that to the casinos.

[corktownyuppie]

If you can PROVE to me that Michigan will NOT be on the hook for ANY FUNDS then yes build it. Otherwise.....its just a gamble....leave that to the casinos.

Ok.

In addition, the Canadian government has committed an additional equity investment of up to $550 million to cover costs incurred by the State of Michigan for the U.S portion of the project. Canada has also pledged to fund any revenue shortfalls.

From Senate Bill 410, "New International Trade Crossing Act"

"...the authority may receive funds form a Canadian contribution. An agreement involving the authority and a public agency of Canada relating to a Canadian contribution shall not impose any obligation on the department, the authority, this state, or a political subdivision of this state to repay the Canadian contribution from revenues other than project revenue and project contributions."

By the way, I am not a "Bridge or Snyder" supporter. I'm supporting logic and reason. If someone can present a reasonable or logical argument about why we shouldn't go forward with this, I'm all ears.