DRIC - Matty makes nice?

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I think the younger Maroun is just acknowledging that in his lifetime, if not his dad's, the Ambassador will need replacing. It makes sense, ultimately, for all stakeholders to allow it to go forward, in addition to the Gordie Howe. Dropping the "asshole"-perceived behavior is part of a campaign to replace it.

The Ambassador is repairable, of course, but that isn't ideal. Fully repairing it [[replacing cables, corroded metal parts, resurfacing, painting, etc) would lead to both partial and full closures for several years. Additionally, once restored, the bridge lacks adequate width, which cannot be added to the current structure. The older Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges have additional lanes, levels, pedestrian/bike lanes and [[in the MB's case) train tracks. Those larger bridges can remain reasonably and substantially useful while maintenance occurs on some of their many parts or lanes. Not so for the Ambassador. Also, the lack of adequate width and shoulders makes emergency response to crashes, medical and police situations much slower and less effective than is ideal [[or up to code, for any major bridge in the last half century).

The reasons for keeping a second [[new) bridge are many.
1) For the Marouns: a new bridge will continue to generate substantial revenue. Less lucrative than without the Gordie Howe? Sure. But a smaller cash cow can still be profitable.
2) For commuters, commercial shippers, and leisure travellers: it will allow for there to be an alternative when there is significant traffic or an accident at either bridge; it will also allow for better paths depending on the trip. Traffic with Detroit or Windsor as the destination would find the Ambassador the faster, more direct route. People and products travelling through Detroit/Windsor would find the Gordie Howe the faster way to go.
3) For the Michigan/Ontario economies: two large, modern bridges will eliminate congestion as a hidden tax on commerce and travel. They also will provide more than adequate capacity for strong economic activity and growth for the next several decades.
4) Lastly, the reason we don't like to talk about: having two bridges allows us to have redundant capacity. Redundancy is extremely important if there were an awful accident or act of terrorism. Hopefully never an issue. But if either bridge were incapacitated for any significant length of time, it would be economically catastrophic for the entire region. The tunnel cannot accommodate trucks at all, and only a fraction of the car traffic.

Hopefully young Maroun can work, over the next several years, to getting a second new bridge constructed. I hope that the years of acrimony that Matty has played a major role in [[although I think his detractors have allowed their anti-Matty hatred to be all consuming, clouding sound judgment and preventing rational actions) are over.

[ABetterDetroit]

I think the younger Maroun is just acknowledging that in his lifetime, if not his dad's, the Ambassador will need replacing. It makes sense, ultimately, for all stakeholders to allow it to go forward, in addition to the Gordie Howe. Dropping the "asshole"-perceived behavior is part of a campaign to replace it.

The Ambassador is repairable, of course, but that isn't ideal. Fully repairing it [[replacing cables, corroded metal parts, resurfacing, painting, etc) would lead to both partial and full closures for several years. Additionally, once restored, the bridge lacks adequate width, which cannot be added to the current structure. The older Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges have additional lanes, levels, pedestrian/bike lanes and [[in the MB's case) train tracks. Those larger bridges can remain reasonably and substantially useful while maintenance occurs on some of their many parts or lanes. Not so for the Ambassador. Also, the lack of adequate width and shoulders makes emergency response to crashes, medical and police situations much slower and less effective than is ideal [[or up to code, for any major bridge in the last half century).

The reasons for keeping a second [[new) bridge are many.
1) For the Marouns: a new bridge will continue to generate substantial revenue. Less lucrative than without the Gordie Howe? Sure. But a smaller cash cow can still be profitable.
2) For commuters, commercial shippers, and leisure travellers: it will allow for there to be an alternative when there is significant traffic or an accident at either bridge; it will also allow for better paths depending on the trip. Traffic with Detroit or Windsor as the destination would find the Ambassador the faster, more direct route. People and products travelling through Detroit/Windsor would find the Gordie Howe the faster way to go.
3) For the Michigan/Ontario economies: two large, modern bridges will eliminate congestion as a hidden tax on commerce and travel. They also will provide more than adequate capacity for strong economic activity and growth for the next several decades.
4) Lastly, the reason we don't like to talk about: having two bridges allows us to have redundant capacity. Redundancy is extremely important if there were an awful accident or act of terrorism. Hopefully never an issue. But if either bridge were incapacitated for any significant length of time, it would be economically catastrophic for the entire region. The tunnel cannot accommodate trucks at all, and only a fraction of the car traffic.

Hopefully young Maroun can work, over the next several years, to getting a second new bridge constructed. I hope that the years of acrimony that Matty has played a major role in [[although I think his detractors have allowed their anti-Matty hatred to be all consuming, clouding sound judgment and preventing rational actions) are over.

Hypothetically if everyone makes nice and has a long hard cry on everyone's shoulders then matty gets his new bridge....What are we going to do with the Ambassador? Is Matty going to pay for full demolition? As much as I kinda like the old girl I don't want her to sit there and rot unused with no maintenance.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I don't think much crying will be involved. I think a cold hard look at the advantages of having two bridges- and the second not being paid for or backed by taxpayers- will be clear for everyone to see. Matty's campaign to protect his government-sanctioned monopoly at this point is more or less over. The GH Bridge is going to be built. Now, the next phase comes: how the two sides live together. For the Bridge Company, that means a new, modern bridge.

The old one? It'll have to come down at some point. Since maintaining it, even if it were shut down, would be expensive, I assume it ultimately makes sense to raze it. Although I am for creative reuse and repurposing of old infrastructure, I really don't see a life for it once replaced. I would think the various governments involved in sanctioning a new Ambassador bridge would require it's removal as a condition for the Bridge Co to get permission to build the new one.

I think the easiest thing to do would be to tear it down when the GH opens, and build the new one more or less in the same spot.

[mikeg19]

Hypothetically if everyone makes nice and has a long hard cry on everyone's shoulders then matty gets his new bridge....What are we going to do with the Ambassador? Is Matty going to pay for full demolition? As much as I kinda like the old girl I don't want her to sit there and rot unused with no maintenance.

They had mentioned in a few articles that the plan was to build their new span, and close the Ambassador to rehab it. It would be used for emergencies or overflow traffic. I don't know exactly what they meant by "rehab" but I'd think it'd have to be extensive, and I don't believe they are gonna drop that kinda coin on a bridge to be used sporadically. Most likely, demolition and sell off the scrap.