Ambassador Bridge knows best?

[RealityCheck]

That's essentially the argument by Matty's Detroit International Bridge Co. in a federal court complaint filed Fri. against a federal agency that sees no harm in releasing a 2007 bridge structural inspection report requested under the Freedom of Info Act . . . by John Dingell!

Bill Shea breaks the news here and got this response today from bridge company exec Mickey Blashfield:

“It doesn’t matter if it’s a congressmen, citizen or reporter, the information is confidential.”

Seems that Team Moroun is saying it knows better than the feds what's safe for the public to see and what isn't.

There are words or phrases to describe that stance. For a playful diversion on a soggy Monday, I'll leave it to y'all to nominate ones to slap onto Matty's latest move

[Hypestyles]

update from Mackinac: http://detnews.com/article/20110603/...CS02/106030367

this legislator from White Lake sounds like he's gotten donations from Moroun...

[kraig]

update from Mackinac: http://detnews.com/article/20110603/...CS02/106030367

this legislator from White Lake sounds like he's gotten donations from Moroun...

It appears as though Snyder is basically repeating the same action that Granholm took last year with the July 1st timeframe. Most of the state's representatives and senators were in office before Snyder and already have their own opinions on the legislation.

So the question is: What parts of the deal are so new and relevant that it will sway enough of the no votes into yes votes?

[bartock]

It appears as though Snyder is basically repeating the same action that Granholm took last year with the July 1st timeframe. Most of the state's representatives and senators were in office before Snyder and already have their own opinions on the legislation.

So the question is: What parts of the deal are so new and relevant that it will sway enough of the no votes into yes votes?

I would think, with Canada offering to front money, and the apparent opportunity to leverage it into $2 billion in federal funding for roads [[jobs), the political heat is a bit hotter this summer than it was last summer to support the public bridge. Guess we'll see.

[SWMAP]

Diddly see the counter-offensive to Moroun's media campaign includes a GREAT puppet of the man himself bobbing around in front of the train station? Low budget but wonderful push-back.

[kraig]

I would think, with Canada offering to front money, and the apparent opportunity to leverage it into $2 billion in federal funding for roads [[jobs), the political heat is a bit hotter this summer than it was last summer to support the public bridge. Guess we'll see.

The problem with that is the lack of details with that proposal. The same with the argument that tolls are going to pay for the new bridge. We all know that the new bridge will not make enough money to sustain itself and will require subsidies. Most people don't care. The pro DRIC, or whatever the new bridge is calling itself this week, would be better off saying so.

[Wesley Mouch]

The problem with that is the lack of details with that proposal. The same with the argument that tolls are going to pay for the new bridge. We all know that the new bridge will not make enough money to sustain itself and will require subsidies. Most people don't care. The pro DRIC, or whatever the new bridge is calling itself this week, would be better off saying so.

It would seem that Mr. Maroun disagrees. He should know.

He wants to build it privately. Doesn't that tell you something about the profitability of the bridge?

[Richard]

Both are going to be privately owned I guess one just needs to figure out if they prefer one that costs them nothing or one that could end up costing a billion plus interest,its a gamble roll the dice what does anybody have to lose?

[kraig]

It would seem that Mr. Maroun disagrees. He should know.

He wants to build it privately. Doesn't that tell you something about the profitability of the bridge?

Have you compared the price tags. The DRIC is going to cost 5 times what the DIBC is proposing, which means the AB won't have to make as much to turn a profit. Besides, with the Ambassador Bridge being privately owned, the onus will be on Maroun to cover any shortfalls, not the taxpayers.

[kraig]

Both are going to be privately owned I guess one just needs to figure out if they prefer one that costs them nothing or one that could end up costing a billion plus interest,its a gamble roll the dice what does anybody have to lose?

Great point. The DRIC is going to be privately owned and operated, but publicly financed. I don't recall the Corrigan Group being a public entity.

[BShea]

Great point. The DRIC is going to be privately owned and operated, but publicly financed. I don't recall the Corrigan Group being a public entity.

Actually, the bridge itself -- the metal and concrete span over the water -- will be owned by the joint public authorities and financed by the private-sector concessionaire, and that financing will be backed by Canadian taxpayers.

The Canadian taxpayers are paying for the Windsor-side inspection plaza and ramps. The Canadian and U.S. taxpayers are paying for the U.S. inspection plaza and highway interchange. Not the private sector. At least that's the DRIC/NITC plan.

Of the $2.1 billion project, about $949 million will be financed by the private-sector with public backing of the debt.

All aspects of the project will be owned by the public authority. The private-sector concessionaire will operate the bridge itself and pay off its capital debt from the tolls. If tolls don't generate enough revenue to cover the debt service, it's said the Canadian taxpayers will cover any deficit -- although nothing exists on paper to confirm that.

The thing to keep in mind:
We'll know more about the viability of the project once the bidders do their own investment-grade analysis of traffic and revenue. The private sector's initial study of the project in early 2010 revealed broad skepticism that traffic justified it, so almost all interest bidders said they wanted public subsidies rather than purely tolls. Right now, the studies done by the DRIC/NITC organizers and by the anti-DRIC/NITC Moroun contractors were done to justify their positions. The private sector studies will be more honest because the companies want to make money. The potential concessionaires have no other interest, unlike NITC's backers and Moroun.

[kraig]

Actually, the bridge itself -- the metal and concrete span over the water -- will be owned by the joint public authorities and financed by the private-sector concessionaire, and that financing will be backed by Canadian taxpayers.

The Canadian taxpayers are paying for the Windsor-side inspection plaza and ramps. The Canadian and U.S. taxpayers are paying for the U.S. inspection plaza and highway interchange. Not the private sector. At least that's the DRIC/NITC plan.

Of the $2.1 billion project, about $949 million will be financed by the private-sector with public backing of the debt.

All aspects of the project will be owned by the public authority. The private-sector concessionaire will operate the bridge itself and pay off its capital debt from the tolls. If tolls don't generate enough revenue to cover the debt service, it's said the Canadian taxpayers will cover any deficit -- although nothing exists on paper to confirm that.

The thing to keep in mind:
We'll know more about the viability of the project once the bidders do their own investment-grade analysis of traffic and revenue. The private sector's initial study of the project in early 2010 revealed broad skepticism that traffic justified it, so almost all interest bidders said they wanted public subsidies rather than purely tolls. Right now, the studies done by the DRIC/NITC organizers and by the anti-DRIC/NITC Moroun contractors were done to justify their positions. The private sector studies will be more honest because the companies want to make money. The potential concessionaires have no other interest, unlike NITC's backers and Moroun.

Thanks for the clarification. It appears there are no good guys or bad guys [[even though I'm sure villains will continue to be cast in this little drama), just opposing sides looking to make money.

[professorscott]

The other interesting thing about Mr. Moroun's proposed second span is that it can't ever be built. Putting a price tag on "it" only serves to blow smoke. It would be like me telling you what I paid for my unicorn. It can't be built because the Province of Ontario won't allow it to be built. Ontario desperately wants a bridge that doesn't drop thousands of trucks a day into the city streets of Windsor.

So there are actually two alternatives:
1. Nothing ever gets built; we remain with one span.
2. The MDOT bridge, whatever you want to call it, gets built.

I think alternative 1, in the long run, would be more of a disaster to us as a region than if we hadn't figure out how to fix Cobo. And remember: Mr. Moroun's "second span" is a piece of fiction. It can't happen, ever. Apparently the Ontario legislators don't bribe as easily as some of our Michigan folks.

[7miledog]

In my opinion, all the talk of the "cost" of the new bridge, public or otherwise, is simply a distraction. The real issue is whether we want to continue with the privatization our borders. Personally, I don't and I support public funds being used as a long-term investment for the SE MI region to remain competitive in the increasingly-important international trade area.

[1KielsonDrive]

Have you compared the price tags. The DRIC is going to cost 5 times what the DIBC is proposing, which means the AB won't have to make as much to turn a profit. Besides, with the Ambassador Bridge being privately owned, the onus will be on Maroun to cover any shortfalls, not the taxpayers.

You drank the Manny Kool Aid.

[Wesley Mouch]

Have you compared the price tags. The DRIC is going to cost 5 times what the DIBC is proposing, which means the AB won't have to make as much to turn a profit. Besides, with the Ambassador Bridge being privately owned, the onus will be on Maroun to cover any shortfalls, not the taxpayers.

You believe that? Five times!?!?

Someone's just using numbers to win the argument.

Again --- listen --- Manny knows that its worth building. And he's very smart.

And he says its too expensive for you to build. And he's very smart.

Don't building, it. I lose money on every sale. And he's very smart.

Do as I say, not as I do say's Manny. And he's very smart.

[Richard]

If I had a boat that held 20 people that I was using to shuttle people across the river and saw that if I invested in a bigger boat to carry even more people it would make financial sense for me to buy a bigger boat as I would see a return.

One of the biggest reasons stated for building another bridge is the supposed thinking that trade is going to increase in the future,what exactly will this trade increase consist of?I would think that during the early 2000s we saw an ecomeny that will not be matched for some time and as far as the automotive sector they have already clearly stated that the US market is stagnant when it comes to future growth so they are building overseas to meet that demand.

Our baby boomer population is constantly shrinking as will travel in the future,with the costs of fuel rising and will continue to do so is there not a better way to move goods more cost effective as currently fuel costs play an important role in our daily prices ,maybe rail where one train can replace countless trucks moving product.

So what really is the future need?

What I find kinda interesting as the biggest issue seems to be because of the trucking aspect is Wal-Mart is and is becoming the nations trucking mover already the provider for the GOV and with over 9500 trucks on the road and adding more it would seem as though something like this would impact them immensely in the future costs. so they have had no input Why?

Why not just build a rail system across anyway it still takes the same amount of time to inspect and sit waiting as it would to transfer to rail.Less trucks moving through the neighborhoods less transportation costs to the end provider less fuel demand etc. at no risk to the public dollars.

[detlump]

Moroun has much less influence in Canada, and the govt there has made it clear that no twinning of the bridge will be permitted, period. It is DRIC or no second bridge. Plus, Canada has already started work on the access road to divert traffic from Huron Line to the new bridge, including tearing down part of a mall and many other homes and businesses, like the Best Western near EC Row.

The bridge report is scary, a long read. It is a miracle that the 80 year ol.d deck has survived so long, without some truck falling through. It is not as well maintained as Mackinaw, which is public.

It boils down to Moroun losing his monopoly and creating competition between the bridges. That is good for the consumer. Heck, sell the naming rights for millions, call it the Taco Bell Run for the Border Bridge

[kraig]

You believe that? Five times!?!?

Someone's just using numbers to win the argument.

Again --- listen --- Manny knows that its worth building. And he's very smart.

And he says its too expensive for you to build. And he's very smart.

Don't building, it. I lose money on every sale. And he's very smart.

Do as I say, not as I do say's Manny. And he's very smart.

The number that's been thrown out for the DRIC has been 5.5 billion. The number for the AB span has been 1 billion. Do the math. By the way those are numbers that have been provided by the DRIC.

[MSUguy]

That 5 billion includes the new freeway connecting to the 401 in Canada[[ a cost we won't bear) the cost of the bridges themselves is about same.

[erikd]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through Matty Moroun's lies.

He has spent millions bribing and paying off, err... donating to, politicians for their support of his second bridge proposal.

If his plan for a second bridge was actually a better option than the plan for a public bridge, he would argue the merits of his plan. However, he has not given any valid reason or argument against the public bridge, and has only tried to confuse people with lies.

His commercials against the public bridge do not argue the merits of his proposed private bridge vs the merits of the proposed public bridge. His commercials claim that there is no need for new bridge, and therefore, if a new public bridge is built, it will be a major loss for the taxpayers.

Forgive me if I sound like an anti-American, communist-liberal socialist type, but when a billionaire bridge owner spends millions to bribe, err... donate to, politicians, and also spends tens of thousands on media propaganda, err... informational messages, just to get approval to build a new bridge, and then he claims that building a new bridge would be a terrible money-losing investment, I am slightly reluctant to believe him.

[BShea]

Keep this in mind: Allowing dislike of Moroun to drive public policy doesn't seem like good stewardship of public trust and public money.

This has become a NITC or AB second span debate.

If you believe the MDOT traffic predictions, we'll need both bridges, and that includes the AB having its replacement span of 6 lanes.

Why would you want to have a new span, and allow the other one to remain small and old? Why wouldn't you want both? Because you dislike Moroun? That's almost criminally stupid. We spent $280 million on the Gateway project -- which, according to MDOT's own materials, was designed to feed into a new AB span.

Seriously, I am baffled by some of the rhetoric I see from outside of the Moroun and NITC camps. If someone is concerned about protecting and bolstering trade, why wouldn't they want two modern spans?

[BShea]

Forgive me if I sound like an anti-American, communist-liberal socialist type, but when a billionaire bridge owner spends millions to bribe, err... donate to, politicians, and also spends tens of thousands on media propaganda, err... informational messages, just to get approval to build a new bridge, and then he claims that building a new bridge would be a terrible money-losing investment, I am slightly reluctant to believe him.

I get what you're saying, but some food for thought: The pro-DRIC unions have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians, too. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, it should be noted that pro-NITC forces donate and spend money, too. My point is -- and I'm not defending the content of Moroun's campaigns -- is that both sides have spend large sums, not just one side.

[Homer]

"This has become a NITC or AB second span debate"

No debate needed, the Canadien Gov. will not allow Manny's mythical new bridge to land on their soil. End of debate. He can upgrade/repair his present bridge which he should have been doing all along.

[BShea]

"This has become a NITC or AB second span debate"

No debate needed, the Canadien Gov. will not allow Manny's mythical new bridge to land on their soil. End of debate. He can upgrade/repair his present bridge which he should have been doing all along.

Some facts:
1. Once the Windsor-Essex Parkway is built, most of the traffic concerns will be eliminated. The AB doesn't go through downtown Windsor, and all but three of the current stoplights will be eliminated with the new parkway.
2. Canada offered something like $1 billion to Moroun to buy the AB not too long ago, and from what I'm told they would have finished the second span and closed the original.
3. The Canadian government lost in the courts to Moroun in the past, so unless there are specific regulatory reasons the DIBC cannot build a new span, Ottawa faces an uphill fight in stopping it. That said, the Morouns have to meet those regulatory requirements with Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard [[which doesn't have a problem with the bridge project itself).
4. Why do people not want an elderly bridge replaced to handle this massive border traffic growth we're supposed to see? Just because they don't like "Manny" [[it's Matty, FYI)? Do you want to damage that trade just to spite Moroun?