As per Freep

A statement by Ambassador Bridge officials made clear that the request was linked with a Canadian condition placed on the proposed construction of a replacement span for the Moroun-owned Ambassador Bridge that that their existing bridge be torn down first.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/bu...ese/509961002/

So Canada says you can build your new span but first you have to tear down the existing one.

Which leaves no bridge,but Canadas built bridge,because once the Ambassador is down what are the odds of another bridge being built that provides competition to Canada's bridge.

The counter reaction is the interest of a Chinese owned state company providing the steel for the bridge.


Do a search on "California Chinese built bridge problems " it is not pretty.

Putting the hatred aside,is it in our best interest to have a foreign government dictating what American companies can and cannot do.

I understand that the ambassador ends on Canadian soil just as would the new one rest on American soil,so why the beef other then they know that there is not enough traffic to support two bridges and this is their way of eliminating the competition.