Gordie Howe International Bridge

[Richard]

^ where did I post that Canada did not own the tunnels,? plural,there is more then one.

I have new tires.

• The Tunnel is jointly owned by the Cities of Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan.
• It is operated under two separate agreements by the Detroit and Canada Tunnel Corporation.

http://www.dwtunnel.com/AboutUs.aspx

Michigan Central Railway Tunnel

Borealis is the investment arm of the Ontario Municipal Employees' Retirement System.

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/articl...iness-case-and

Blue water bridge
An amalgamated Crown Corporation was formed on February 1, 2015, to operate and manage the bridges operated by the original Federal Bridge Corporation Limited, and the Blue Water Bridge in Point Edward, Ontario[[near Sarnia), that had previously been managed under the authority of the Blue Water Bridge Authority.^[3]

The company is headquartered in Ottawa, and it reports to the Parliament of Canada through the Minister of Transport.

So what did I post that was false information?

Canada currently controls 2 tunnels,and a bridge and is working on trying to build a second bridge that it will also control.

Which leaves the current ambassador bridge as the only crossing that Canada does not have a control over. Yes or No ?

[Canadian Visitor]

^ where did I post that Canada did not own the tunnels,? plural,there is more then one.

I have new tires.

• The Tunnel is jointly owned by the Cities of Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan.
• It is operated under two separate agreements by the Detroit and Canada Tunnel Corporation.

http://www.dwtunnel.com/AboutUs.aspx

Michigan Central Railway Tunnel

Borealis is the investment arm of the Ontario Municipal Employees' Retirement System.

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/articl...iness-case-and

Blue water bridge
An amalgamated Crown Corporation was formed on February 1, 2015, to operate and manage the bridges operated by the original Federal Bridge Corporation Limited, and the Blue Water Bridge in Point Edward, Ontario[[near Sarnia), that had previously been managed under the authority of the Blue Water Bridge Authority.^[3]

The company is headquartered in Ottawa, and it reports to the Parliament of Canada through the Minister of Transport.

So what did I post that was false information?

Canada currently controls 2 tunnels,and a bridge and is working on trying to build a second bridge that it will also control.

Which leaves the current ambassador bridge as the only crossing that Canada does not have a control over. Yes or No ?

Borealis is NOT the government of Canada, it is a completely independent pension fund, which happens to hold the pension monies of some Canadian workers/retirees and which is based in Canada.

Not the same thing.

'Canada' is the Government of Canada, Borealis, reports to OMERS, OMERS does reports to the workers whose pensions they manage.

The City of Windsor does not report to the government of Canada. It is a creature of the province, but doesn't routinely report to it either.

Your conflating terms.

If the City of Detroit owns 50% of a bridge, does that mean the United States owns it? [[hint: The answer is no); if McDonalds owns a piece of land in Michigan, does that mean the United States owns it? [[hint,The answer is no).

In case number one, the owner is the City of Detroit, a municipal government which is located in the United States.

In case number two McDonald's, a corporation founded and based in the United States, in Illinois to be specific is the owner.

The 3 entities you cited are not 'Canada', they are Canadian. Not the same thing.

[Richard]

Actually not conflating terms,just clarification.

To be clear

Michigan central railway tunnel is owned by a private Canadian entity.
The Detroit Windsor tunnel is owned by a private Canadian entity.
The Blue water bridge is 50% owned by a private Canadian company
The current proposed bridge will be 50% owned by a private Canadian entity.

The ambassador bridge is owned by a privately owned United States entity.

So for the argument that no international border crossing should be owned privately,guess what,they all are.

So,let’s go back to the blue water bridge,50% US 50% Privately owned Canadian entity.

Here is the seniario.

Michigan wants to sell its half of the bridge.
During the bankruptcy city real estate was sold to companies by use of offshore accounts so the owners and price sold would remain hidden.

A private Canadian entity purchases the remaining 50% from the state of Michigan of the blue water bridge via offshore accounts.

Which then puts private Canadian companies in control of all points of entry,with the exception of the Ambassador Bridge.

So what is the wisest thing for them to do?

Do what ever is necessary in order to shut the Ambassador bridge down because they are the only competition or rate stop gap left.

With the ambassador out of they way they can set border crossing rates as a group.

The smartest way to do that is double the rate.

Commercial traffic does not matter because the added rate cost just gets passed on to the end consumer.

Say for instance the rate is $5 and they double it to $10 even if they lose 50% of the customers they are still making the same amount of money.

Where they are saving millions is on the repair and maintenance side,less wear and tear adds to the lifespan and to the lifespan of the potential borrowing power.

To me the nice pretty things being offered,is the kiss before the screw,it’s not a charity,it is buisness and buisness is going to do what they do,maximize profits above anything else.

[archfan]

Canada still owns both the Tunnel and the Blue Water Bridge.

Detroit and Windsor own the Tunnel - Detroit owns the U.S. side of the tunnel and Windsor the Canadian side. Syncora won a long-term lease to operate the tunnel during Detroit's bankruptcy. - Free Press

Blue Water Bridge:

The state of Michigan owns the U.S. portions of the spans, while a Canadian authority owns the Canadian section, according to the Michigan Department of Transportation - Detroit News

The Blue Water Bridges are jointly owned and maintained by Canada and the United States: Federal Bridge Corporation, a Crown corporation of the Government of Canada, is in charge of the Canadian side, while the Michigan Department of Transportation [[MDOT) is in charge of the US side. - Wikipedia

The Federal Bridge Corporation is a Crown Corporation owned by Canada and controlled by the Minister of Transport.

[rb336]

Actually not conflating terms,just clarification.

To be clear

Michigan central railway tunnel is owned by a private Canadian entity.
The Detroit Windsor tunnel is owned by a private Canadian entity.
The Blue water bridge is 50% owned by a private Canadian company
The current proposed bridge will be 50% owned by a private Canadian entity.

To be clear, the Blue Water Bridge is owned by a Crown Corporation - a corporate entity entirely owned by the PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT.

And per the tunnel's website:
"The Tunnel is jointly owned by the Cities of Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan."

[Gistok]

The tunnel website is out of date. Here is who currently owns the US portion of the tunnel.....

https://www.freep.com/story/money/20...old/585926002/

[Richard]

Yes,now controlled by DIF,which is a global asset management fund,heavy with country pension management funds and useing them to back P3 infrastructure across the world.

You guys are worried about the ambassador having people in his pocket these guys have people in all 50 states and double in Washington,Canada and across the world.

All of the border crossing are controlled by profit motivated enterprises,if the state divests itself like it is suggested,who then is actually in control of the border crossings?

The only agreements between the government of Canada and the US government where it concerns the international border crossing is the taxpayers picking up the tab for the ground support while private enterprise seeks to profit from the actual bridges and tunnels,they would not be doing it if they could not find a way to profit from it.

In the much bigger picture this is about the privatization of infrastructure,which is basically no different then what you already have with the ambassador,the only difference is he is local.

[archfan]

The tunnel website is out of date. Here is who currently owns the US portion of the tunnel.....

https://www.freep.com/story/money/20...old/585926002/

The article agrees with the website. Detroit still owns its half of the tunnel, but the owner of American Roads [[was Syncora, now DIF, a holding company base in the Netherlands) operates the tunnel. It looks like Detroit gets about $1M/year out of the lease.

Detroit owns the U.S. side of the tunnel and Windsor the Canadian side. Syncora won a long-term lease to operate the tunnel during Detroit's bankruptcy.

[Richard]

Perhaps there is more. I ask again if the whole so-called Tunnel deal was part of an effort to get control over both sides of the Tunnel to control Tunnel tolls to make it easier for a DRIC P3 operator to run the new Bridge. Seriously, who else would have an interest in a declining asset.

https://windsorcityon.blogspot.com/2...ioned.html?m=1

That is from a blog in 2010 Interesting how it all plays out,does Detroit really own it ?

The only advantage of the new bridge verses existing privately operated crossings is Canada’s guaranteed use of taxpayer dollars if tolls do not cover expenses.

Must be nice to be a private company that has a taxpayer guarantee to cover losses,how do you lose.

Now there is also the Michigan Central Railway tunnel,which is owned and operated by who?

[Gistok]

Archfan... thanks for the specifics.

Richard... when you talk about Maroun being in anyone's pocket, you are preaching to the choir.... billionaires around the world have LOTS of politicians in their pocket... nothing unique about bridge owners.

As for calling the Detroit-Windsor tunnel a declining asset. You do realize it has been [[and still is) having the interior completely remodeled. And it still is one of the top border crossings in North America. The only 'declining asset' about that might be as a tax write-off... and it was likely one decades ago. It's still a cash cow.

[MrMichigan]

It looks like the Gordie Howe will be the second tallest bridge [[by structural height) in the United States, behind the Golden Gate at 746 feet. Can anyone confirm this?

[Atticus]

Interesting that the under clearance is only proposed to be 138’ in that drawing. I see that same drawing and height on the official website, so I have to believe that is accurate. But that all being said...

The 138’ clearance is less than the Ambassador [[152’), Blue Water [[154’), and Mackinac [[155’). Given the other three heights, I would have expected a requirement that the Gordie Howe at least have a 154’ clearance to match the others. As proposed, going forward the newest bridge [[Gordie Howe) will be the height limiting span for Great Lakes shipping. I just find it hard to believe the authorities didn’t require a height as tall as the other bridges listed above.

[Atticus]

It looks like the Gordie Howe will be the second tallest bridge [[by structural height) in the United States, behind the Golden Gate at 746 feet. Can anyone confirm this?

It seems they didn’t want to exceed the RenCen height of 727’. Earlier releases were showing a 750’ tower height, which would have exceeded the Golden Gate. The length will still make it the longest cable-stayed bridge in North America, at a length over double that of the current longest [[Stan Musial Bridge in St Louis).

[Richard]

Interesting that the under clearance is only proposed to be 138’ in that drawing. I see that same drawing and height on the official website, so I have to believe that is accurate. But that all being said...

The 138’ clearance is less than the Ambassador [[152’), Blue Water [[154’), and Mackinac [[155’). Given the other three heights, I would have expected a requirement that the Gordie Howe at least have a 154’ clearance to match the others. As proposed, going forward the newest bridge [[Gordie Howe) will be the height limiting span for Great Lakes shipping. I just find it hard to believe the authorities didn’t require a height as tall as the other bridges listed above.

Depends on what authorities are looking out for their best interests,less river traffic means more bridge traffic,it kinda limits the port of Detroit in the future,even more so when in shipping where the economy of scale is bigger is better.

Every other port in the country is gearing up to handle larger ships and this seems to be a case of scaling down.

All they really are doing is flipping one nightmare from one side of the river to another and with the additional plant closures in Canada the projected traffic revenues would be interesting.

20 years from now people will realize how expensive a free bridge really is.

[Meddle]

The 138’ clearance is less than the Ambassador [[152’), Blue Water [[154’), and Mackinac [[155’). Given the other three heights, I would have expected a requirement that the Gordie Howe at least have a 154’ clearance to match the others. As proposed, going forward the newest bridge [[Gordie Howe) will be the height limiting span for Great Lakes shipping. I just find it hard to believe the authorities didn’t require a height as tall as the other bridges listed above.

Quick search tells me the largest of the 1,000 foot lake freighters tops out at under 120', so 138' may not be an issue. Are there other ships taller?

[MrMichigan]

The largest boats that can come through the St. Lawrence Seaway will pass under.

Seawaymax vessels are 740 feet [[225.6 m) in length, 78 feet [[23.8 m) wide, and have a draft of 26.51 feet [[8.08 m) and a height above the waterline of 35.5 metres [[116 ft).

But the new, massive container ships wouldn't.

At 400 metres long, 59 metres wide and 73 metres tall, the Triple-E will be the largest vessel of any type known to be in operation. Its 18,000 twenty-foot container capacity is a massive 16 % larger [[2,500 TEU) than Emma Mærsk.

[Metro25]

Where did that come from? Are those official heights?

[bartocktoo]

Depends on what authorities are looking out for their best interests,less river traffic means more bridge traffic,it kinda limits the port of Detroit in the future,even more so when in shipping where the economy of scale is bigger is better.

Every other port in the country is gearing up to handle larger ships and this seems to be a case of scaling down.

All they really are doing is flipping one nightmare from one side of the river to another and with the additional plant closures in Canada the projected traffic revenues would be interesting.

20 years from now people will realize how expensive a free bridge really is.

What people? People in Canada? Is the work on the bridge still going to get done? Yes it is. Those tax-paying construction workers may also disagree with you. I have a feeling you might be wrong on this one. We are in more of an economically cyclical region than most, unfortunately, but overall I'll bet you an orange this is a plus for Detroit.

[bartocktoo]

The largest boats that can come through the St. Lawrence Seaway will pass under.

Seawaymax vessels are 740 feet [[225.6 m) in length, 78 feet [[23.8 m) wide, and have a draft of 26.51 feet [[8.08 m) and a height above the waterline of 35.5 metres [[116 ft).

But the new, massive container ships wouldn't.

At 400 metres long, 59 metres wide and 73 metres tall, the Triple-E will be the largest vessel of any type known to be in operation. Its 18,000 twenty-foot container capacity is a massive 16 % larger [[2,500 TEU) than Emma Mærsk.

These ships have been around a few years and I would hope that if these were Great Lakes shipworthy this would have been contemplated by both the government side and the commercial side. God help us all if it wasn't.

[Atticus]

Quick search tells me the largest of the 1,000 foot lake freighters tops out at under 120', so 138' may not be an issue. Are there other ships taller?

Not yet, but that is because...

The current limiting height factor for ships coming up from Toronto is the QEW Bridge over the Welland Canal near Niagara Falls, at just 120’. However, that bridge is in very poor shape structurally, and slated for replacement in the next 10 years. So who knows what height that bridge could/will/should be reconstructed at. And there are ships that just sail the Great Lakes and don’t venture down the St Lawrence.

Either way, it seems short sighted to not build the Gordie Howe to the ~150’height, especially given the fact that ships are currently limited by an old bridge slated for replacement. That 150’ height would be consistent with other bridges upstream from Niagara Falls, and also with the Thousand Island Bridge in the east side of Lake Ontario, with a height of also 150’ above the water.

[Gistok]

Because of the St. Lawrence Seaway lock sizes, and the lock size/width of the Welland Canal, the longest seaworty ship that can enter the Great Lakes is 740 ft. Great Lakes 1000 ft. ore carriers are permanently locked into using the 4 upper lakes, with no way to exit into the ocean.

[Richard]

What people? People in Canada? Is the work on the bridge still going to get done? Yes it is. Those tax-paying construction workers may also disagree with you. I have a feeling you might be wrong on this one. We are in more of an economically cyclical region than most, unfortunately, but overall I'll bet you an orange this is a plus for Detroit.

Who are the taxpaying American construction workers?

The contracts are held by Canadian companies.

The projected costs have gone up from 2.4 billion to 4.8 billion due to the low Canadian loony,when it is completed and the hand over clock starts ticking what determines Michigan’s tab and at who’s exchange rate.

One company had pulled out due to Canada’s misgivings because they were tied to the Chinese.But they are still listed as a contractor under Bridging North America,and they still have some unresolved fraud cases overseas.

Remember in the event of fraud,the contract becomes null and void.

City of Detroit permanently lost a tax base and federal road funding is guaranteed to the bridge company until Michigan pays off thier half 50 years down the road.

The traffic will be bypassed highway,so what residual trickle down benefits the city that gave up thier tax base?

Okay,a nice pretty new bridge,but it’s intent was never to benefit COD.

Over 30% of the projected revenue was based on truck traffic,so what are the projections now that the plants have closed and the manufacturing aspect no longer needs to be running parts to build cars to ship back over?

It still boils back down to if projections are not met,who covers the operating loss? It’s a 4.8 billion dollar speculative venture that if it goes south it’s going to tax an already stretched and taxed population.

[Meddle]

At 400 metres long, 59 metres wide and 73 metres tall, the Triple-E will be the largest vessel of any type known to be in operation. Its 18,000 twenty-foot container capacity is a massive 16 % larger [[2,500 TEU) than Emma Mærsk.

I don't think those can get through the seaways and canals to the lakes due to their width.

[Atticus]

Who are the taxpaying American construction workers?

The contracts are held by Canadian companies.

The projected costs have gone up from 2.4 billion to 4.8 billion due to the low Canadian loony,when it is completed and the hand over clock starts ticking what determines Michigan’s tab and at who’s exchange rate.

One company had pulled out due to Canada’s misgivings because they were tied to the Chinese.But they are still listed as a contractor under Bridging North America,and they still have some unresolved fraud cases overseas.

Remember in the event of fraud,the contract becomes null and void.

City of Detroit permanently lost a tax base and federal road funding is guaranteed to the bridge company until Michigan pays off thier half 50 years down the road.

The traffic will be bypassed highway,so what residual trickle down benefits the city that gave up thier tax base?

Okay,a nice pretty new bridge,but it’s intent was never to benefit COD.

Over 30% of the projected revenue was based on truck traffic,so what are the projections now that the plants have closed and the manufacturing aspect no longer needs to be running parts to build cars to ship back over?

It still boils back down to if projections are not met,who covers the operating loss? It’s a 4.8 billion dollar speculative venture that if it goes south it’s going to tax an already stretched and taxed population.

If toll revenue projections are not met, 1 of 3 things could happen:
1- The tolling period is extended, as in, tolls are collected for additional years until the necessary revenue is reached.
2- Toll amounts are increased to generate more revenue. Yes there is an economic breaking point where if you increase the toll too high, no one drives across. But realistically even a $15 toll is not going to cause significant diversion, and I fully expect the initial toll to be less than $10.
3- If all else fails, the bond holders who bet on the bridge are out the money, and not the Michigan Taxpayer. Toll bridges are generally very safe bets, especially at key crossings like this one. It is a big part of the reason Matty Moroun is so rich.

Either way, it is a pretty safe bet by Canada. And yes Detroit doesn’t get any of the toll revenue, but then again, Detroit isn’t paying to build or maintain it either.

[MrMichigan]

Where did that come from? Are those official heights?

Yes, https://www.gordiehoweinternationalb...by-the-numbers