[[Part of this) should please people here [Gordie Howe Bridge]

[Meddle]

Just to take an example, my family stops in Mexicantown pretty much every time they cross the Ambassador Bridge. If we take, say, the Blue Water Bridge, we obviously aren't stopping in Mexicantown. Obviously if commerce is routed southwards, Mexicantown will get fewer visitors.

Unless your family travels by Semi tractor-trailer, it would not be affected by my proposal to reroute heavy truck traffic to the new bridge and limit the historical bridge to passenger cars.

[Bham1982]

Unless your family travels by Semi tractor-trailer, it would not be affected by my proposal to reroute heavy truck traffic to the new bridge and limit the historical bridge to passenger cars.

OK, but that isn't reality. The new bridge isn't going to outlaw non-tractor trailers, and the Ambassador isn't going to outlaw non passenger cars. That doesn't even make any sense.

[ABetterDetroit]

OK, but that isn't reality. The new bridge isn't going to outlaw non-tractor trailers, and the Ambassador isn't going to outlaw non passenger cars. That doesn't even make any sense.

Why? Because you prefer your own reality and refuse to accept any possible other maybe?

Canada/Ontario/Windsor is free to do as they choose with Huron Church Rd at any time they want to including after the Gordie Howe International is finished.

There called ‘Truck Routes’ or in other words, a damn good reason for a large trucking company to NOT just piss on neighboring communities.

http://www.omkn.ca/OMKN-Docs/Best-Pr...uideFINAL.aspx

[RO_Resident]

It is not like they are going to throw the thing up and it magically meets costs,
and if it does not meet costs who makes up the loss.

So there is a private bridge if it shows a loss it is not on the public to make up the difference,has the existing bridge ever gone to the taxpayer and asked for help in operating costs?

The public would say no,it's your bridge,you pay it or sell it to us.

Based on the agreement drawn up between the US and Canada, the Canadian government is willing to take on the risk of this project going sideways.

The Michigan/Ontario border is one of the largest trade corridors in the with one of the US's largest trading partner. Our friends in Ottawa are willing to make a long-term bet on the continuity of the trading partnership.

[Richard]

Based on the agreement drawn up between the US and Canada, the Canadian government is willing to take on the risk of this project going sideways.

The Michigan/Ontario border is one of the largest trade corridors in the with one of the US's largest trading partner. Our friends in Ottawa are willing to make a long-term bet on the continuity of the trading partnership.

To me anyways,that whole agreement is Canada telling Canadian and United States taxpayers,hold my beer we got this.

You have a Government that has a history of P3 agreements that result in fraud and corruption and by past experience end up costing the taxpayer in the end.World bank has placed that behind what many of us refer to 3rd world countries.

That has shown that they cannot control it.

That has now hired Fluor and AECOM as apart of the design and build team,both companies are barred from the world bank for a history of,corruption,fraud,bribery of government officials.

In 2008 FLUOR was paid 20 million by FEMA to oversee the establishment of a base camp for those displaced by hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

They never once visited the site,nothing was established, their punishment was to throw some tents up for the displaced.

It was supposed to be suitable living quarters as in rvs or campers because of the extend time that they would be there.

Both companies are heavily politically connected so they seem to be on an international level unaccountable to anybody outside of the recourse of fines.

They are building the largest span in North America of its type so nobody can really say it will cost this much.

Do not believe me,search Fluor Fraud [[Texas based,and who do we all love in Texas and it is not the beer) and AECOM

That is not the issue with me,the issue is with the whole claim of it will not be a cost to the taxpayer and those who claim others are stupid and liars.

One looks at worst case because you have now created a Pole town part 2,if it goes sideways and all of the players are in place for it to happen,the state has to reimburse Canada for expenditures accrued on the Michigan side up to that point,okay no big deal,at that point the taxpayers paid Canada to evacuate and demolish Del Rey,granted the general consensuses on the Canadian side seems to be that it was not all that nice to begin with so no big deal,but they are people.

I wonder what the thoughts would be if the same was said about Windsor and the other bridge.

100:1 it goes sideways and the taxpayer on both sides pay.

Going back to the original topic,with the announcement of the design team etc. it throws the other bridge out of the game on the political spectrum,the question remains if the current president is willing to go up against the Texas ingrained political machine that has a huge impact on the republican party,if not control of it.

[Canadian Visitor]

To me anyways,that whole agreement is Canada telling Canadian and United States taxpayers,hold my beer we got this.

You have a Government that has a history of P3 agreements that result in fraud and corruption and by past experience end up costing the taxpayer in the end.World bank has placed that behind what many of us refer to 3rd world countries.

That has shown that they cannot control it.

That has now hired Fluor and AECOM as apart of the design and build team,both companies are barred from the world bank for a history of,corruption,fraud,bribery of government officials.

In 2008 FLUOR was paid 20 million by FEMA to oversee the establishment of a base camp for those displaced by hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

They never once visited the site,nothing was established, their punishment was to throw some tents up for the displaced.

It was supposed to be suitable living quarters as in rvs or campers because of the extend time that they would be there.

Both companies are heavily politically connected so they seem to be on an international level unaccountable to anybody outside of the recourse of fines.

They are building the largest span in North America of its type so nobody can really say it will cost this much.

Do not believe me,search Fluor Fraud [[Texas based,and who do we all love in Texas and it is not the beer) and AECOM

That is not the issue with me,the issue is with the whole claim of it will not be a cost to the taxpayer and those who claim others are stupid and liars.

One looks at worst case because you have now created a Pole town part 2,if it goes sideways and all of the players are in place for it to happen,the state has to reimburse Canada for expenditures accrued on the Michigan side up to that point,okay no big deal,at that point the taxpayers paid Canada to evacuate and demolish Del Rey,granted the general consensuses on the Canadian side seems to be that it was not all that nice to begin with so no big deal,but they are people.

I wonder what the thoughts would be if the same was said about Windsor and the other bridge.

100:1 it goes sideways and the taxpayer on both sides pay.

Going back to the original topic,with the announcement of the design team etc. it throws the other bridge out of the game on the political spectrum,the question remains if the current president is willing to go up against the Texas ingrained political machine that has a huge impact on the republican party,if not control of it.

This is what I find so upsetting.

There is so little truth in the above, and what little there is, is so mangled, misrepresented or exaggerated as to leave completely false impressions with the reader.

I am flabbergast that these posts are allowed. They are almost certainly litigable.

Maybe I should copy/paste them in an email to the relevant parties.

Regardless. Don't accept anything this post states at face value.

[Richard]

This is what I find so upsetting.

There is so little truth in the above, and what little there is, is so mangled, misrepresented or exaggerated as to leave completely false impressions with the reader.

I am flabbergast that these posts are allowed. They are almost certainly litigable.

Maybe I should copy/paste them in an email to the relevant parties.

Regardless. Don't accept anything this post states at face value.

Go for it,all the information I posted is easily searched,verified and public knowledge and accessible,what are you so afraid of and what is your agenda?

The brilliant one now calling the World bank a lair.

How about you play lawyer and offer to take on the case.

The reason I asked you if you drove a BMW is because it is known as a preferred vehicle for narcissistic assholes.

Do you honestly believe that anybody cares if you find the post personally upsetting? Do you need a little safe space to get over the trauma of it all?

The problem is you keep interjecting your personal feelings into the whole thing and trying to counteract the discussion with sad attempts of discredit because you cannot produce any facts outside of an agreement that I showed the executer of has a history of not honoring.

But hey this could be that one world wide project in history that defeats the odds,but I also have a bridge for sale that is cheaper and my uncle in Africa can finance it for you,just send him a money order,but of course feel free to deduct the fees first.

You are baseing your whole personal stance of facts on an Execution copy from 6 years ago that has not been executed and is subject to change until it is.

[Canadian Visitor]

Go for it,all the information I posted is easily searched,verified and public knowledge and accessible,what are you so afraid of and what is your agenda?

The brilliant one now calling the World bank a lair.

How about you play lawyer and offer to take on the case.

The reason I asked you if you drove a BMW is because it is known as a preferred vehicle for narcissistic assholes.

Do you honestly believe that anybody cares if you find the post personally upsetting? Do you need a little safe space to get over the trauma of it all?

The problem is you keep interjecting your personal feelings into the whole thing and trying to counteract the discussion with sad attempts of discredit because you cannot produce any facts outside of an agreement that I showed the executer of has a history of not honoring.

But hey this could be that one world wide project in history that defeats the odds,but I also have a bridge for sale that is cheaper and my uncle in Africa can finance it for you,just send him a money order,but of course feel free to deduct the fees first.

Not the World Bank.

In the case of AECOM:

1) The case you allude to with no relevant detail is one of a subsidiary company acquired in Asia some years ago.

The company's alleged misconduct actually predated AECOM taking it over [[Metcalf & Eddy Limited), but AECOM owned the successor business. The problem in question was failure to disclose a conflict of interest.

2) In respect of their New Zealand Unit there was an issue w/credentials of a staff person.

3) Neither of those units are involved in the Geordie Howe.

Of the global company, headquartered in the US, this is said:

• Ranked #1 in Transportation and General Building in Engineering New-Record’s 2018 “Top 500 Design Firms”
• Named one of Fortune magazine’s “World’s Most Admired Companies” for the fourth consecutive year

The company's Canadian subsidiary is the one involved in the bid.

******

On Fluor:

Yes, the company's actions were less than pristine in Katrina.

However, its good not to exaggerate. Principally at issue [[other than they and some other Republican-connected contractors winning no-bid contracts.....

They failed to do one thing, which was "conduct a site feasibility analysis. "

That's not small.

But they delivered the site FEMA requested, and the tents FEMA requested. I am not overlooking the serious issue of acquiring land FEMA later deemed not feasible for their purposes, nor the attendant cost to FEMA of 8.7M [[lease cancellation).

I just don't like the hyperbolic tone you take with such things.

***

P3s are not evil or generally fraud-laden, there have been hundreds of them in Canada.

There are some bad ones, as happens with anything [[look up McGill University Hospital for one that went off the rails)

But these are the exceptions, not the rule.

The irony in this sub-thread is me defending a model that isn't in fact my preferred choice should be lost on no one.

I don't prefer the P3 model, largely because it results in higher financing costs, as commercial lending rates are 2-3% higher than gov't bonds/treasuries.

There is also a profit-factor, though I find that largely balances against the benefits of risk-management.

I just dislike the spewing of ill-informed nonsense or partial facts without proper context.

****

My agenda, Richard is only to make clear how your posts are misleading, nonfactual, and irredeemably worthless.

[Richard]

Not the World Bank.

In the case of AECOM:

1) The case you allude to with no relevant detail is one of a subsidiary company acquired in Asia some years ago.

The company's alleged misconduct actually predated AECOM taking it over [[Metcalf & Eddy Limited), but AECOM owned the successor business. The problem in question was failure to disclose a conflict of interest.

2) In respect of their New Zealand Unit there was an issue w/credentials of a staff person.

3) Neither of those units are involved in the Geordie Howe.

Of the global company, headquartered in the US, this is said:

• Ranked #1 in Transportation and General Building in Engineering New-Record’s 2018 “Top 500 Design Firms”
• Named one of Fortune magazine’s “World’s Most Admired Companies” for the fourth consecutive year

The company's Canadian subsidiary is the one involved in the bid.

******

On Fluor:

Yes, the company's actions were less than pristine in Katrina.

However, its good not to exaggerate. Principally at issue [[other than they and some other Republican-connected contractors winning no-bid contracts.....

They failed to do one thing, which was "conduct a site feasibility analysis. "

That's not small.

But they delivered the site FEMA requested, and the tents FEMA requested. I am not overlooking the serious issue of acquiring land FEMA later deemed not feasible for their purposes, nor the attendant cost to FEMA of 8.7M [[lease cancellation).

I just don't like the hyperbolic tone you take with such things.

***

P3s are not evil or generally fraud-laden, there have been hundreds of them in Canada.

There are some bad ones, as happens with anything [[look up McGill University Hospital for one that went off the rails)

But these are the exceptions, not the rule.

The irony in this sub-thread is me defending a model that isn't in fact my preferred choice should be lost on no one.

I don't prefer the P3 model, largely because it results in higher financing costs, as commercial lending rates are 2-3% higher than gov't bonds/treasuries.

There is also a profit-factor, though I find that largely balances against the benefits of risk-management.

I just dislike the spewing of ill-informed nonsense or partial facts without proper context.

****

My agenda, Richard is only to make clear how your posts are misleading, nonfactual, and irredeemably worthless.

Some years ago? It was in 2017 you are aware that it is 2018 now?

Fluor failed to do the exact thing that they were paid 20 million dollars to do and you even posted it ... Conduct a site feasibility analysis.

How exactly does one do that while never visiting the site.

No big deal to you but it was to the people that lost everything while some Fluor executive was sitting in his office collecting $20 million.

I posted multiple cases of P3 fraud in Canada that ended up costing the taxpayer,I posted the link where Canada was barred from the world bank and placed below Brazil in terms of lending.

Everybody is lying but you,once again what you personally dislike means nothing,your only job right now is the one I ordered you to do.

Place your little fingers on the key board and perform the following searches.

Canada P3 fraud
Flour fraud
AECOM fraud

I beginning to see the common denominator with you and the search terms.

Let me guess,all of those reports are lies written by stupid people and you and your little personal feelings are the only things that matters,maybe grow up?

On top of the six P3 boondoggles here are another 3 case studies,my guess you view them as lies also.

https://cupe.ca/p3-case-studies

Sense the history shows fraud and sense,no matter how you spin it,at the end of the day United States taxpayers will be paying,so it would stand to reason that in the interest of the United States taxpayer an admendment to the agreement should include,in the event of fraud,the ability of the US government to proceed with prosecution rights and anybody involved in the process waives their extradition rights.

You claim that there will be no fraud,so you should have no problem with agreeing with that.

Not that it matters weather you agree with it or not but given past history it is the least your countries government can do.

You do realize that the City of Detroit x mayor is in prison for doing the exact same thing these companies have been doing worldwide and just paying fines which Adverage $50 million a year.

We hold abuse of taxpayer funds a little different then you and do not try and justify it in order to suit an agenda.

[Canadian Visitor]

Some years ago? It was in 2017 you are aware that it is 2018 now?

Fluor failed to do the exact thing that they were paid 20 million dollars to do and you even posted it ... Conduct a site feasibility analysis.

How exactly does one do that while never visiting the site.

No big deal to you but it was to the people that lost everything while some Fluor executive was sitting in his office collecting $20 million.

I posted multiple cases of P3 fraud in Canada that ended up costing the taxpayer,I posted the link where Canada was barred from the world bank and placed below Brazil in terms of lending.

Everybody is lying but you,once again what you personally dislike means nothing,your only job right now is the one I ordered you to do.

Place your little fingers on the key board and perform the following searches.

Canada P3 fraud
Flour fraud
AECOM fraud

I beginning to see the common denominator with you and the search terms.

Let me guess,all of those reports are lies written by stupid people and you and your little personal feelings are the only things that matters,maybe grow up?

On top of the six P3 boondoggles here are another 3 case studies,my guess you view them as lies also.

https://cupe.ca/p3-case-studies

Unlike you, I read.

The case disposition was 2017, not the year of the offense.

You are @#$#@@ exhausting.

Canada has not been barred from the World Bank either.

Sigh.

You just make stuff up out of thin air because you don't understand what you read, which is to say you lack the comprehension portion of reading skill.

This is what's on the World Bank's own page about Canada.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/canada/overview

Yes, we made it up the corruption list, almost entirely because of SNC-Lavalin a large engineering firm that got in trouble for bribing folks to win contracts in certain countries.

It was de-barred [[not allowed to bid on projects) for 10 years.

Facts Matter

[Canadian Visitor]

I have chosen to do myself and everyone else a favour by placing Richard on my ignore list.

I have better things to do that fact-check him all day long. I'm sure many of you will be happy to get your hijacked threads back.

My apologies for letting this run on so long.

[Richard]

It’s quite the jump from 2012, when no Canadian companies were barred.
The long list of debarments mainly stems from just one large Canadian firm, but it still prompted some headlines around the world to point to Canada as being home to the most corrupt companies in the world.
“It is a little surprising,” said Tim Coleman, a global investigations partner at law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York. “Because you do expect that the companies that are going to be highest up on the list, are going to be companies that have a reputation of corruption. And Canada is not one of those countries.”
Overall, Canada had 119 total companies on the list [[including two permanently debarred since 1999). United States had the second largest number, with 44 companies on the debarment list [[among which are several SNC-Lavalin companies), and Indonesia came in third with 43.
SNC-Lavalin did not respond to a request for comment.
The World Bank has been stepping up its fraud investigations in recent years, with four times more debarments than in 2012, and compared to the past seven years combined, said Mr. Coleman.
Canadian firms may be at higher risk of being sanctioned by the World Bank, he added, because Canadian authorities have not been as aggressively enforcing its anti-corruption laws as its U.S. counterparts.
“The result of that is that Canadian companies may have been lulled into a false sense of security, because their own national authorities were not closely scrutinizing their global operations, that nobody else would either,” he said.



https://business.financialpost.com/e...to-snc-lavalin

[3WC]

It would be interesting if the bridge parties could get a take-out commitment [[to buy the bridge) from Australia's Macquarie Bank and/or Macquarie Infrastructure.

They own huge infrastructure projects around the world including airports, the Indiana Toll Road, the Chicago Skyway Bridge, all of Chicago's parking meters etc. It knows what it's doing.

It might like a new bridge.

[Bham1982]

Why? Because you prefer your own reality and refuse to accept any possible other maybe?

Canada/Ontario/Windsor is free to do as they choose with Huron Church Rd at any time they want to including after the Gordie Howe International is finished.

There called ‘Truck Routes’ or in other words, a damn good reason for a large trucking company to NOT just piss on neighboring communities.

http://www.omkn.ca/OMKN-Docs/Best-Pr...uideFINAL.aspx

Can you translate this into legible English, please?

I have no idea what any of this means, or the relevance to the previous discussion.

[Wesley Mouch]

I'll pick up for CV here and strike a response to dear Richard. But will come from a different angle.

Building and financing a bridge are both giant undertakings. There's nothing intrinsically better or worse about different methods.

As to building, for example, you can bid out work. Or you might hire some on a time and materials basis. Price for would can be fixed, or adjusted on conditions. You might make certain safety demands, or requirements for proof of compliance. You could demand prevailing wage rules, or you can require 50% female labour [[like Canada has chosen with their government ministers). Lots of choices.

Same with financing. Lots of options on who provides, and who provides the capital for construction. You have to finance, because don't have enough cash flow to pay all the supplies and labor as you go. Financing can be private, public, part of both -- or the gov't could even decide to print cash [[which of course also has economic costs).

All methods are complex. No method is free from being gamed by each and sometimes every participant to maximize their profit. Financiers try to maximize financing costs. Unions try to maximize wage rates. Cement suppliers try to maximize cost, and reduce quality.

None of this is bad. It all has to be managed well.

So is full public, or P3 better? Depends. And often on the position of the pendulum.

After a period of full public control, its likely that P3 will reign in the abuses that vendors have learned to take advantage of with public control. And likewise after P3 for a while, people find ways to game that system, and some direct public financing might be appropriate -- until Ed in the Financing Department at City Hall gives cousin Guido at SNC-Lavalin a juicy contract to provide gummy bears to a bridge contract.

We in the west are pretty good at controlling abuse, compared to the world at large. But Montreal does seem to have a problem. As does NYC NYC probably could use a reset of the MTA's approach to getting subway lines built -- because it apparently costs them TWICE what Paris, France pays for the same mile of subway.

A pure public project with perfect government management would be amazing. And so would a P3 where everyone works with honour.

So Richard and CV -- you're debating the wrong things. Neither is better. Neither is worse. They are just different tools that have to be used to get big projects done. What needs to be debated is what's better today for this project. Has P3 been delivering better results in similar situations? Or in a two-country project would we do better with full public management? Are are MDOT and ODOT excelling at cost control right now? Are the rules for private financing more favourable right now because gov't has limited public financing in some way? The devil will be in the details, not whether the game is played by rules A or B.

[Richard]

Actually CV was caught into it thinking I was attacking the bridge and taking it personal when it is and should be viewed like any other project based on its merits and not emotions.

I do not care how it is funded or whether it is funded or not all of my posts have been based on the same thing every other person that is or has been in business looks at things.

What is 'Risk Assessment'

Risk assessment is a general term used across many industries to determine the likelihood of loss on a particular asset, investment or loan. The process of assessing risk helps to determine if an investment is worthwhile, what steps may be taken to mitigate risk and, through specific ratios, the upside reward compared to the risk profile. It determines what rate of return is necessary to make a particular investment succeed.

I guess one might call the following Cliff Notes.

Canada says we want a bridge.

The US taxpayer say we do not have to funding to replace what we already have.

Canada says okay,we will put up the monies in a partnership of sorts in order to construct the bridge and deduct your half from collected tolls,when your half is paid in the estimated 50 years then we split the profits.

Canada produces an agreement from 6 years ago when the estimate was 3.8 billion and estimated 50 years for Canada to recoup their costs of the construction,it says it in the agreement.

The agreement between the two does not commence until the bridge is built and at that time it becomes in force.

We now know that the original estimate is approaching the 5 billion mark.

Depending on the costs of finance it will be more then 50 years before the US pays its part.

Because the bridge is completed the partnership is now in effect.

Canada is 2.5 billion the US 2.5 billion.

What is the worst case scenario if it goes sideways or does not produce the intended revenue to support it.

The P3 bails or it is discovered that misdoings have occurred,the private investors call the note that the Canadian Government has said that they will guaranteed,50 years is a long time,politics change and the Canadian taxpayers say,wait a minute,you entered this deal with the US as your partner they were promised eventual profits so they must also be on the line for potential losses.

So it is looked at as the US has a bridge that is already paid for privately and now taking on a potential future debt of 2.5 billion that could may have been put to better use fixing existing roads and infrastructure.

Any way you look at it we as US taxpayers are on the hook,the way it is agreed on Canada is just loaning us the money to complete the bridge,with the extra security of having a fallback partner in the event it does go sideways.

It is giving something without actually giving something.

So on the risk assessment side of it the US has to look at it as if they were accruing a 2.5 billion dollar debt.

So you look at the odds and due diligence of it becoming a successful endeavor.

The payback is based on projected toll revenues and increased trade.

That is an unknown and subject to fluctuation,it is not based on build it and they will come.

What is left in order to calculate risk,you check out the players involved and use their track record as a guide.

Then you know basically what you have to prepare for in the future.

If there is a history of P3 failures what is the risk involved moving forward.

The only question to the US taxpayer is,are you prepared to support a 2.5 billion expenditure if in the worse case scenario,if it defaults while either in the construction stage or in the future when you already have a bridge that outside of the support expenditures is already built and not subject to taxpayer liability.

What is your plan B if that should occur.

At the bare minimum this is 2.5 billion where you have to put aside the emotions and not be distracted by rhetoric because not only are you giving up Del Rey but if it should occur that will be 2.5 billion plus that will be subtracted from existing and future funds for infrastructure.

I am only one taxpayer,we are all in the same big picture and everybody has to decide,all I have done in my posts is provide direction to pieces of information that I did not create or have an agenda with,it is all out there in public domain for you to decide for yourself and do your own risk assessment and decide for yourself the value of the merits.

I already posted the following.

Sense the history shows fraud and sense,no matter how you spin it,at the end of the day United States taxpayers will be paying,so it would stand to reason that in the interest of the United States taxpayer an amendment to the agreement should include,in the event of fraud,the ability of the US government to proceed with prosecution rights and anybody involved in the process waives their extradition rights.

The reason I posted that was because anyway you look at it it was the the job of the Canadian government to keep an eye out on fraud and prosecute no different then in the United States.

You cannot place the blame on the corporations for your failure to enforce,okay so it is a black mark but it is something to take into risk assessment and for the US to have the option and apply repercussions because any monies that are misappropriated will be added to the finial cost so the US should also have that option to mitigate that risk going forward.

Why should the US occur additional risk over something that they would have zero control over and zero recourse if it should occur.

If I am reading the agreement right it does say it can be canceled in the case of fraud but at that point Del Rey is wiped out and the US taxpayer is still on the hook for expenditures up to that point,which becomes a situation of borrowing the funds from Canada in order to vacate and demolish Del Rey for the city.

Just another risk factor in play in case of if it were to go sideways.

I am not saying it will go sideways but you really need to look at the what ifs.

CV can go pout in the corner all he wants,it is not personally about him or me,fluff does not pay the bills,well maybe for some.

sorry,could not resist that one.

[archfan]

...
3) Neither of those units are involved in the Geordie Howe.
...

Is that the bridge to Newcastle?

[ABetterDetroit]

OK, but that isn't reality. The new bridge isn't going to outlaw non-tractor trailers, and the Ambassador isn't going to outlaw non passenger cars. That doesn't even make any sense.

The REALITY is if Canada/Ontario/Windsor want Huron Church Road to NOT have through traffic from 18 wheelers they can with a truck route. Your “reality” is incorrect. That clear enough this time?

What’s the point in being obtuse? It makes you no different than a long winded poster who keeps spewing his irrelevant “reality”.

http://www.omkn.ca/OMKN-Docs/Best-Pr...uideFINAL.aspx

[Bham1982]

The REALITY is if Canada/Ontario/Windsor want Huron Church Road to NOT have through traffic from 18 wheelers they can with a truck route. Your “reality” is incorrect. That clear enough this time?

What’s the point in being obtuse? It makes you no different than a long winded poster who keeps spewing his irrelevant “reality”.

http://www.omkn.ca/OMKN-Docs/Best-Pr...uideFINAL.aspx

Why do you keep babbling on about truck routes? What does that have to do with anything?

Do you even know what a truck route is? If you did, you would understand has zero to do with conversation. Truck routes don't ban passenger cars. Non-truck routes aren't passenger car only.

[ABetterDetroit]

OK, but that isn't reality. The new bridge isn't going to outlaw non-tractor trailers, and the Ambassador isn't going to outlaw non passenger cars. That doesn't even make any sense.

Ok Birmingham Richard. Understood. You are not accountable for a damn thing you spew either.

[Richard]

Ok Birmingham Richard. Understood. You are not accountable for a damn thing you spew either.

And yet you continue to spew without rhyme or reason,you complain about trucks running through a neighborhood,one that has had 80 years to figure out a solution and the only solution that you can come up with is to wipe out an entire neighborhood and business district while completely removing a tax base from a city that is over burdened with taxes.

So the solution is to do exactly the same thing one side of the border is complaining about but do it on the other side.

Then try and justify it by saying that the place was a dump anyways and those people are less important then us.

Then to top it off you not only want to remove the tax base you also want to put them at even more of a risk for higher taxes based on its free,because I said it was free,and the guy is an ass anyways,and lay down because a foreign government said Trust us we are your friend.

When it comes to billions of dollars,do you really think that they care whether or not you are concerned about people spewing?

I can see 30 years down the road when the future residents are scratching their heads saying,what were they thinking,they already had a free bridge and then they built another one that we now have to pay for.

Could they have not at least fixed a few potholes?

One does not have to be accountable for what they spew,they just need to think about others and how it may impact them now and in the future and maybe care a little bit.

I could take the stance of,I got mine,I do not care if the price of steel goes to $1000 a pound,I just pass it on to the end user,it does not come out of my pocket.

Anything that comes and goes across that bridge does not effect me in anyway shape or form,screw it up and I have to potentially pay for it then yes I am going to spew,you are not playing games with Matty,you are playing games with the pockets of 325 million of your fellow Americans for generations to come,to bad you think it is some kind of joke.Some actually make Matty look like a stand up guy in comparison.

Build the bridge,but do it without a thought and recklessly,where do you think the eyes and fingers will be pointed if it goes south.

[Bham1982]

Ok Birmingham Richard. Understood. You are not accountable for a damn thing you spew either.

No one has any idea what you're talking about. You're blabbing on about truck routes, and have yet to provide a point.

[Richard]

I think they already referred or discussed the bridge that is further upriver as a truck route persay but it was a time and fuel issue,they are looking at the shortest distance of connecting the highways.

Maybe different up there but in the south truck routes loop far around the population center to completely avoid them,then ban other then local delivery from the streets.

I think the whole river aspect kinda limits options.

[Wesley Mouch]

There will if they have to provide crews for both bridges. The personnel will double at least.

UNLESS, they do as I suggested and move the crews from Matty's Folly to the new bridge, effectively shutting Matty down.

I've never seen evidence that staffing levels at the bridge/tunnel are driven by demand. Like the DMV, Customs seems to staff based on other factors, with wait time being low on the list.

A new bridge only creates the possibility of faster border crossing times. It only can become a reality if border staffing increases significantly.

The best argument against the new bridge was always that more customs officers on the existing bridge [[and off-site pre-clearance of trucks) would deliver the same economic benefit as a new span.

[[I expect you'll see a lot more staffing for the first six months. That'll impress all the politicians. Then staffing will return to close to what it is now. Or is there a deal to use tolls to pay customs? Without dedicated funds tied to traffic, customs will staff according to their own national needs and the GHB will just be another backed-up crossing.)

[Richard]

The way technology is going it is going to be obsolete as soon as it is built,retinal scan,self driving trucks going through image scan,drone service,a cargo drone can pick up parts and go rooftop to rooftop.

The U.K. Is working on phaseing out/banning diesel altogether,have this discussion 20 years from now and the bridge would probably be a footpath 50 years from now it probably will not even be needed.

It will be like the old covered bridges that technology made obsolete.

But it is free and we live in today and worry about tomorrow at that time.