New Gordie Howe Bridge Hate Advertisement - Courtesy of Matty Moroun

[Wesley Mouch]

...
Or you can hold up Moroun as the shining example of private infrastructure. The Ambassador Bridge is private from construction to today and it's not even 100 years old and it's crumbling.

The important part of the bridge is steel. Concrete [[which crumbles) wears out -- and gets replaced. Its like your clothes. You expect limited life. And you change them when they wear out.

I not aware of any information on deterioration of the structural components of the Ambassador Bridge.

I think its likely that the Ambassador bridge will be standing long after the new bridge crumbles [[but with new concrete road surfaces every dozen years or so).

[[I'm not a structural engineer nor expert in bridges, and would be interested in hearing an expert opinion.)

The contractors and engineers don't change their work based on where the check is coming from. They do what they get paid to do.

No, but they are asked to do different work to different standards depending on the project. A government project is likely to spend more money on non-essential items, for example. Governments usually have wage and work requirements that are more limiting, with restrictions on who can do what work, and at what wages. Private contracts today might prefer efficiency over, say, workforce diversity. An entirely private bridge would not have any [[US) prevailing wage rules, and might pay the worksite cleanup crew less than a publicly funded bridge. Not arguing that one is better than the other, but they are quite different. Of course at this scale there's a near zero chance for private projects. [[Maroun is exceedingly rare. He has the motivation of monopoly protection as well as proven cash flow.)

[Scottathew]

Moroun's are forever dead to me for what they did to Indian Street. They bought up all the properties on one side of the street where they wanted their bridge, then they boarded them up. They ruined a neighborhood there, and it's not the only place where they buy properties and neglect them.

The crazy thing is that they could actually make money buying up the properties and renting them out, but they choose to give up the rental income so they could do more damage to the neighborhood so they can get what they want.

Screw the Moroun's, they are an example of the harmful aspects of capitalism and why we need governments to regulate business to protect people.

[kathy2trips]

I wonder why Yo'bama never coughed up the scratch for the plaza on the American side? What's up with that?

Yeah, what about that? I thought he was all about big gov't meddling in local affairs? So out of character!

[Jason]

The important part of the bridge is steel. Concrete [[which crumbles) wears out -- and gets replaced. Its like your clothes. You expect limited life. And you change them when they wear out.

I not aware of any information on deterioration of the structural components of the Ambassador Bridge.

I think its likely that the Ambassador bridge will be standing long after the new bridge crumbles [[but with new concrete road surfaces every dozen years or so).

[[I'm not a structural engineer nor expert in bridges, and would be interested in hearing an expert opinion.)

As far as I know with proper maintenance it could last a very long time, but it's not being properly maintained because the intention is to demolish it after the new span is built.

No, but they are asked to do different work to different standards depending on the project. A government project is likely to spend more money on non-essential items, for example. Governments usually have wage and work requirements that are more limiting, with restrictions on who can do what work, and at what wages. Private contracts today might prefer efficiency over, say, workforce diversity. An entirely private bridge would not have any [[US) prevailing wage rules, and might pay the worksite cleanup crew less than a publicly funded bridge. Not arguing that one is better than the other, but they are quite different. Of course at this scale there's a near zero chance for private projects. [[Maroun is exceedingly rare. He has the motivation of monopoly protection as well as proven cash flow.)

I agree with all of this, and I'd agree with 3WC if this is what he had said.

[kathy2trips]

I got the sarcasm,not many others did though it would seem.

Richard, you may very well be the sharpest tool in the shed!

[Wesley Mouch]

As far as I know with proper maintenance it could last a very long time, but it's not being properly maintained because the intention is to demolish it after the new span is built.

I keep forgetting that. I don't know why there's the need to replace, unless they did let the main steel or heaven forbid the main cables deteriorate beyond repair.

If GH bridge gets built, wouldn't he want to keep the existing span? Why take on the significant debt by building a new bridge, when the existing span with presumably no debt is a cash cow.

[Richard]

I keep forgetting that. I don't know why there's the need to replace, unless they did let the main steel or heaven forbid the main cables deteriorate beyond repair.

If GH bridge gets built, wouldn't he want to keep the existing span? Why take on the significant debt by building a new bridge, when the existing span with presumably no debt is a cash cow.

I thought that was [[without double checking) twist,that Canada was going to allow the second span on the grounds that the original was to be demolished?

[ABetterDetroit]

ABetterDetroit: MI can't build roads, so what makes you think it can build a bridge? Now, Canada may be better at it if you look at it's roads: Toronto has the same weather - freeze/thaw cycles - as we do and its roads are way better than ours and built with materials that don't include corn meal mush.

I'm a Libertarian and don't trust government or people that do.

Uhh... I see nothing but major contradictions in every statement you make on this subject.

Canada’s roads “are way better than ours”? Yep, they absolutely are. They “don’t include corn meal mush”? Yes, that appears to be part of their success and is correct.

Where the disconnect in your logic is and this issue shows it well is that less government is always better.

Guess what? Fire all the inspectors and engineers then defund the road maintenance and pick the lowest bidder with no oversight with what’s left of the funds and....Voila! You have our Michigan Shit Roads complete with the built in excuse of ‘it can’t be done because of the freeze and thaw’ because the people in power are certainly NOT going to take responsibility for their own failure to do their job.

It’s not about any single ideology fitting all. That has proven to be a real disaster. It’s about making intelligent decisions and politicians in power being held accountable for those decisions.

[Jason]

I keep forgetting that. I don't know why there's the need to replace, unless they did let the main steel or heaven forbid the main cables deteriorate beyond repair.

If GH bridge gets built, wouldn't he want to keep the existing span? Why take on the significant debt by building a new bridge, when the existing span with presumably no debt is a cash cow.

You'd think so but I don't really know. I know the new span is 6 lanes and the old one is 4 lanes. 6 is more than 4, but 10 is more than 6. So I don't really know. Unless it's some kind of bait and switch and he plans on using his usual tactics to let him keep both spans.

Luckily the Howe Bridge should be starting construction this year and most of the bridge drama will be behind us.

[Canadian Visitor]

Jason: The GH bridge will be a disaster for several reasons.

There are a huge series of problems w/the post below, I will examine them point by point.

First, one govt building anything like a bridge would end up worse than the roads MI builds. Two govts involved would double the problems.

What two governments? The United State abdicated any responsibility on this file and left the matter to Canada. We will build, finance, own and operate the bridge. There are no 'two' governments involved. Canada is even building the U.S. customs plaza.

Second, Trudeau supposedly won't be prime minister after the next election when the Conservatives will probably take over and no leader that can spell "cat" would ever make such a dumb deal is Canada has. It will be talked y a new govt before they've spent much money.

Where do you get your info?

The Windsor Detroit Bridge Authority [[A Canadian Crown Corporation [[gov't owned) is already set to let a contract to Design, Construct, Operate and Maintain [[DCOM) this year.

Moreover, the bridge authority and approval was put in place under the previous Conservative Government of Stephen Harper.

There is no party, anywhere on the political spectrum in Canada that opposes this project.

Second, if one assumes it would ever get built, they will advertise for bids to operate it. No non-goat entity has more experience operating bridges than Maroun.

Third, assuming it ever gets built they will advertise for bids to operate the thing. A Canadian company or U.S. one? Let the litigation begin. However, no non-govt entity has more experience operating international bridges than Maroun and one can imagine the litigation, in both countries , if he's not selected. [[As part of his bid he'll take the necessary steps to eliminate conflicts of interest by fixing prices so a fatal - to the GH bridge - price wars won't break out.)

Ummm, Canada has entire expressways managed by the private sector.

For years.

With electronic tolling.

Not new, they're quite good at it.

[Canadian Visitor]

Meddle: It's clear you used the term "eminent domain" without understanding it's meaning. If a government entity can legally exercise it ability to condemn private property it must pay the owner the value of the property [[and in MI an amount in excess of the value.)

Also, there's no such government ability to confiscate one's property under "National Security Grounds" and if there were the govt would still have to pay for it.

To condemn private property a governmental entity may only do so for legitimate public purposes. No such public purpose exists in the case of the bridge, and if there were, the govt would still have to pay for it.

Ahem, can I point out that Mr. Maroun's bridge touch's Canada?

Canada can simply close its end of the crossing at will and that settles the matter.

Don't be bothered with private property arguments.

There is no right to private property in the Canadian Constitution.

Yes, we have private property and it works much as it does in the United States.

But there is no absolute hindrance on government.

What you call 'eminent domain' we call 'expropriation'.

That is when governments buy out private land.

However, government doesn't need to buy out private interests to terminate or restrict their rights. [[in Canada).

Government's here don't frivolously move in on private property.

But if we expand 'medicare' coverage we don't compensate private insurers for lost earnings either.

Likewise Mr. Maroun has a crossing at the discretion of Canada.

***

To go back for a moment. The reason Canada wanted to terminate this crossing was to move Truck Traffic out of downtown Windsor.

Not only to convenience local residents, but because the traffic was entering local roads, not a highway.

It made no sense of the efficient movement of goods.

The new bridge connects highway to highway, with the 401 in Canada.

[Canadian Visitor]

In support of the discussion above, an article from the Windsor Star

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-ne...dge-stay-or-go

I thought I would highlight this bit: Note that 'Garneau refers to Mark Garneau, the Transporation Minister [[federal).

Garneau was unequivocal: if the Ambassador Bridge is not demolished, “the new bridge will not be operating.”

[[above refers to replacement Ambassador Bridge/new span)

The order-in-council was passed under Canada’s International Bridges and Tunnels Act, which requires Moroun to comply with the conditions. If he doesn’t, his company and its officers can be fined up to $500,000, imprisoned up to two years or both. They can be convicted every day that they don’t comply. A court can even order the new span be forfeited to the government.

[Meddle]

Ahem, can I point out that Mr. Maroun's bridge touch's Canada?

Canada can simply close its end of the crossing at will and that settles the matter.

Don't be bothered with private property arguments.

Neither government really has to take possession of it. They can simply stop providing government employees [[Customs and Immigration agents) and it ceases operations.

In the interests of 'less government' they simply move existing staff to the new bridge instead of hiring more.

[3WC]

Meddle: Appears to be a typical government approach to things. Despite any Treaty or other argument to the contrary? Is that the common Canadian approach to things?


This thread has done a great job of showing who the liberal, tax and spend, big government posters are and those of us with some common sense.

[Richard]

Deeper then that,

It is okay for Canada to displace residents but not the US,even after Canada was aware of the issiues for 80 years.

It is our bridge and our US customs plaza on US sovereign soil because we are paying for it so we own it and you will do as we say.

Your bridge touched Canadian soil so we own you and if you piss us off we will shut you down and take your property.

Reverse situations need not apply.

Typcial of,our money,our rules so we own you.

I wonder what would happen if the United States govenment tried the same mindset on Canadian soil.

Detroit and Windsor shares a special relationship with a joining bridge, is what is said,what happens when you remove that bridge?

It is a two way bridge and what is good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.

[Meddle]

Detroit and Windsor shares a special relationship with a joining bridge, is what is said,what happens when you remove that bridge?

Nothing because there'll be a better bridge not owned by a jackass and of course the Tunnel.

[Richard]

Neither government really has to take possession of it. They can simply stop providing government employees [[Customs and Immigration agents) and it ceases operations.

In the interests of 'less government' they simply move existing staff to the new bridge instead of hiring more.

Or it can work in reverse.

Put it in front of the American taxpayer who will be footing the taxpayer bill,who do you think they are going to support a Canadian owned bridge or a Fellow American owned bridge.

Is that really a bridge you want to cross?

At this point not much of the rest of the country is even aware of the bridge
stirring the pot may not produce favorable results.

So Canadians have made it internationally clear they are boycotting American goods so now they want the US taxpayers to foot the bill for customs employees so they can ship their goods here but not in reverse.

Let me know how that goes.

[Richard]

Nothing because there'll be a better bridge not owned by a jackass and of course the Tunnel.

So if your neighbor thinks your a jackass they would be justified in burning your house down?

[Canadian Visitor]

Deeper then that,
It is our bridge and our US customs plaza on US sovereign soil because we are paying for it so we own it and you will do as we say.

Huh?

Your usual non-sequitur of a post.

Canada owns Canada and has a right [[as does the United States) to determine when and where a legal crossing or point of entry exists.

That right is not now, never has been, never will be held by a private company.

A private company chose to build a bridge a very long time ago, Canada chose to allow it to operate.

Canada may choose to stop allowing it to operate.

Yes, the U.S. can do the same.

But let's be clear the common interest on both sides of the border, except for a few weirdos is to shut Maroun down.

This isn't a Canada vs US thing. Never was.

This is a Canada and the US vs Maroun thing.

We know what side your on, and its not the side of your country or its greatest ally.

As usual if there's an immoral, and unjustifiable position out there your happy to support it.

PS. there are no other private border crossings between our two countries so there is not other comparable bridge.

[Richard]

Huh?

Your usual non-sequitur of a post.

Canada owns Canada and has a right [[as does the United States) to determine when and where a legal crossing or point of entry exists.

That right is not now, never has been, never will be held by a private company.

A private company chose to build a bridge a very long time ago, Canada chose to allow it to operate.

Canada may choose to stop allowing it to operate.

Yes, the U.S. can do the same.

But let's be clear the common interest on both sides of the border, except for a few weirdos is to shut Maroun down.

This isn't a Canada vs US thing. Never was.

This is a Canada and the US vs Maroun thing.

We know what side your on, and its not the side of your country or its greatest ally.

As usual if there's an immoral, and unjustifiable position out there your happy to support it.

PS. there are no other private border crossings between our two countries so there is not other comparable bridge.

Is it ever possible for you to have a reply that does not include the need to be petty?If you do not get your way your first reaction is to try and discredit.

It is not about sides and sorry to disappoint you but ass or not the current bridge owner is an American and at the very least has kept this at the local leval.

You say I am not on the side of my country,like I said outside of Michigan and Canada the rest of the country does not even know the bridge exists and judging by your reactions you already know full well of what will happen if it becomes front and center given the current climate.

It is a American standing in the way of what Canada wants to do,and you make that clear when you decided that the residents of Delray are expendable or meen less then your fellow Canadians in Windsor.

Do not get mad at me because it took you 80 years to figure out a solution,you already made it clear,your money,your bridge,everybody needs to shut up and let us build our bridge.

That may work like that in Canada but not here.

What are the differences.

You already have private owned toll roads in Canada,so nothing new here.

You displaced residents and businesses and completely removed the tax base from a large section of a city useing taxpayer funds but had and issiue with a private business doing the exact same thing on the other side useing private funds.

You play the nice guy and throw the state of Michigan a bone by saying,we will pay for it so you do not have to worry about it and just deduct your share from the collected tolls,knowing full well the state will never see revenue from collected tolls.

That was just thrown in there to leave the door open in case of the tolls not supporting the operation cost you can appeal to the Michigan taxpayers to help pay.

You posted that the currant bridge owner is responsible and accountable to Canadian laws on that side.He has to follow the laws on this side of the bridge.

So you are not doing anything different then he is but adding another bridge to the other 3 with the ability to say it is ours because we paid for it.

Now come back at me with a well educated response of how my opinions are less because they may support the current bridge.

You make it clear that it is a Canada verses Maroun thing,when it should only be based on the merits and feasibility of the two bridges.So it is personal.

You are just useing the hated for the current bridge owner as a tool to gain support and trying to manipulate people.That is not very nice.

[ABetterDetroit]

Matty threw everything and anything to the wall to see if it would stick to save his monopoly and his dictation of tolls and terms to both the US and Canada.

This is nothing but his last gasps here.

It to will pass.

You reap what you sow eventually.

[Richard]

^ show me the cap that any crossing has or something that regulates the costs at any border crossing,if there is not one then any crossing can charge at will no matter who owns it.

[Meddle]

^^ I'd really love to see MDOT post 'Bridge To Canada' signs directing all truck traffic from the west [[I-94 and I-96) and south areas up US 23 to I-69, bypassing Matty altogether. Get ODOT to do it in Toledo too. Probably better for downriver traffic anyways to relieve traffic along I-75 through there.

[Richard]

^^ So if your left foot hurts the solution is to drop a brick on your right foot to take your mind away from pain on the left?

I doubt people in Toledo care enough about the bridge to pay for sign changes,maybe Canada will pay for it and just view it as propaganda costs.

[Jason]

Canadian Visitor/Richard: The public bridge is not a Canadian bridge. It's jointly planned and owned. Canada isn't deciding anything more than the US is.

This thread has done a great job of showing who the liberal, tax and spend, big government posters are and those of us with some common sense.

Thank you for informing us how intelligent and superior you are.

Why is the private bridge a smart profitable investment and the public bridge a wasteful money sink? Capital costs on the public bridge will be paid for by tolls. After the bridge is paid for, tell me, where does the toll money go?