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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[Lowell]

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.

How large? I am curious as how much as been spent by whom in this contest. Am I alone on this board in not being able to recall one pro-DRIC ad on TV or in other media while I have seen countless ads by the bridge company [Moroun] along with their favorable 'studies' by 'experts'. Likewise in the arena of political contributions, I am acquainted with the bridge company's largesse but not with the alleged donations supporting DRIC. What are those numbers? I think that would be grist for some good investigative reporting by, let's say, Crains or the Free Press.

The DRIC makes so much sense on so many counts and it is why politicians from both sides support it without bribes.
1-Security of cross border traffic. We all know the economic disaster that would befall the region's economy should its only surface crossing be disrupted.
2-Price competition. The bridge company shouts out all the worn-out mantras of 'free' market, private enterprise, anti-government blah, blah, blah, except for the word MONOPOLY. This is really about an effort to preserve that monopoly and all but stubborn know it.
3-Traffic flow. Diversion of traffic from congested urban areas makes complete sense. The argument about traffic being less that it was is a diversion becasue it is only being measured in the past decade. Since the bridge was built, and particularly with NAFTA, traffic has grown immeasurably and will continue to grow again. Both crossings will prosper. Ease of crossing combined with the price restraint caused by competition will encourage business and create new opportunities.

[BShea]

How large? I am curious as how much as been spent by whom in this contest. Am I alone on this board in not being able to recall one pro-DRIC ad on TV or in other media while I have seen countless ads by the bridge company [Moroun] along with their favorable 'studies' by 'experts'. Likewise in the arena of political contributions, I am acquainted with the bridge company's largesse but not with the alleged donations supporting DRIC. What are those numbers? I think that would be grist for some good investigative reporting by, let's say, Crains or the Free Press.

The DRIC makes so much sense on so many counts and it is why politicians from both sides support it without bribes.
1-Security of cross border traffic. We all know the economic disaster that would befall the region's economy should its only surface crossing be disrupted.
2-Price competition. The bridge company shouts out all the worn-out mantras of 'free' market, private enterprise, anti-government blah, blah, blah, except for the word MONOPOLY. This is really about an effort to preserve that monopoly and all but stubborn know it.
3-Traffic flow. Diversion of traffic from congested urban areas makes complete sense. The argument about traffic being less that it was is a diversion becasue it is only being measured in the past decade. Since the bridge was built, and particularly with NAFTA, traffic has grown immeasurably and will continue to grow again. Both crossings will prosper. Ease of crossing combined with the price restraint caused by competition will encourage business and create new opportunities.

I haven't plunged fully into it, but I did a quick scan of what the pro-DRIC labor unions lobbying for the project gave to Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick in the last round she was running: The Greater Detroit Building and Construction Trades Council is made up of several unions, and it gave a bunch. Federal campaign records show donations to her in recent cycles from the Laborers Union [[$51,500), Teamsters Union [[$46,500) and Operating Engineers Union [[$38,000) -- all part of the council. And that's just to one politician.

Link

So anyone suggesting Moroun is the only one trying to grease the skids with campaign cash had better do some research. And it IS possible to have ideological and economic questions about NITC without being on the take. Those who suggest otherwise are engaging in the same sort of witless propaganda that they accuse Moroun of waging. There ARE genuine concerns about NITC.

You don't build a bridge to create temporary construction jobs, nor to provide price competition with the private sector, unless you're basically a card-carry communist who's really into make-work projects. Yet those are the arguments we are hearing today.

You build a bridge to move traffic. All other benefits are ancillary, yet it's being sold to us on every ancillary reason.

And as for price competition, I suggest you look deeply at MDOT's revenue study used to justify DRIC/NITC. It explicitly says everything is built on having THE EXACT SAME TOLLS AS THE AMBASSADOR BRIDGE. It doesn't work financially otherwise. The private sector will not build this on a pure toll concession otherwise. That is stone cold fact, and the private sector told MDOT that last spring, which triggered Canada's $550m offer.

My larger point is thus: I am questioning, over and over, the need to build NITC right now based on the justifications shown the public. People who are not aligned with Moroun in anyway have serious questions about the project, mainly in light of border traffic plunging. Questioning the pro-NITC rhetoric doesn't make you pro-Moroun. There mere presence of the Ambassador Bridge [[privately owned after a public vote at the time) creates an X-factor in the economic equation for NITC that must be addressed.

Are there compelling reasons to build it, such as redundancy? Yes. Not because of terrorism -- one would think a terrorist would be smart enough to take down all the border crossings, not just one -- but because of natural disaster, etc. We've seen that happen in the past year, such as when smoke from a fire briefly closed the AB. But is that alone worth it?

As a reporter, what I want to see is the financing plan, a full agreement with Canada that spells out the specifics of its financial assistance, a genuine investment-grade traffic and revenue study by the private sector, and other needed justifications -- not propaganda from MDOT, the gov's office and Moroun. So far, we have none of that. What we do have is a shifting series of justifications -- and today it's toll competition, which is absurd on its face because it ignores DRIC's own financial justifications.

Why everyone is so willing to blindly trust Lansing when we believe nothing else from there baffles me. Look as the disaster that was the Zilwaukee Bridge! I want the governor and politicians to prove it. I don't blindly trust them -- especially when they're promising the ultimate free lunch without having any agreement in place, financing or anything else. We have a FIVE SENTENCE letter from Canada.

Again, you don't build a bridge to create jobs. You build it to more traffic. NITC backers will grudgingly admit that there are not massive traffic backups at the AB, and what delays we have are not because of bridge capacity. Delays are because of the post-9/11 security requirements. You'll have those same requirements at the NITC bridge, with the advantage hopefully being that traffic is diluted by spreading it over three crossings [[the Port Huron bridge is considered part of the Detroit border corridor for nationwide shippers).

Also, the jobs number is inflated, according to some of the construction unions involved in the project: Link.

NITC is presented as some major economic shot in the arm for Michigan. I don't think it will be anything of the sort. Perhaps it will for Canada, which is why that nation is far more interested in the span than the U.S. government. Much of the commercial trade will be going out of state, too.

The second Blue Water Bridge span that opened in 1997, and the modern train tunnel that opened there in 1994, did just about nothing for Port Huron. I lived for years near both, and the city is a slum. The trains and trucks pass through, and most don't even stop for gas or food. My suspicion is that NITC will simply divert traffic that's mostly going elsewhere, not create much new traffic. From the infrastructure experts I've talked to, this project's "imputed demand" [[aka the "build it and they will come") is largely fantasy.

Just my 2 cents after covering this topic for four years now.

[Lowell]

I haven't plunged fully into it, but I did a quick scan of what the pro-DRIC labor unions lobbying for the project gave to Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick in the last round she was running: The Greater Detroit Building and Construction Trades Council is made up of several unions, and it gave a bunch. Federal campaign records show donations to her in recent cycles from the Laborers Union [[$51,500), Teamsters Union [[$46,500) and Operating Engineers Union [[$38,000) -- all part of the council. And that's just to one politician.

So what are the Moroun contributions? What is the total of his media spends?

I think you would be hard-pressed argue that those donations from 'pro-DRIC' unions to the deposed federal congressperson were solely or even largely to get her support for DRIC. They donated to her because she was a pro-union Democrat sympathetic to a broad range of their causes and would have [and historically have] donated bridge or no bridge.

And what good were those even if that was the case? You describe her in your linked article as, "...the longtime Detroit Democrat who has taken Moroun donations and questioned the need for DRIC." We are also aware of his generous donations to the her disgraced son's campaign fund and questionable dalliance with unloading the MCD from Moroun for a police HQ.

The ends of Moroun's donations are far more clearly focused for personal gain. The more essential reportorial research should produce number on donations and spends at the local and state levels along with the media campaign dollars. Who is spending the most for the direct purpose of influencing the bridge issue? Money at this level could do far more to stop the DRIC then vague donations at the federal level.

As for competition and starting with the same tolls as the Ambassador, so what? Do you mean to argue that a second bridge, even at the same toll rates, will not put downward pressure on prices? Do you think neither bridge authority would consider lowering rates to gain traffic? History shows that competition = lower prices and monopolies don't.

I never made the jobs argument and generally agree with you that it should not be the sole or even a major reason. But it will create jobs so it still is frosting on the larger cake. Other projects funded by MEGA and other corporate welfare sources routinely dole out huge sums on the mere promise of jobs with less clarity than this project. What this 'might' cost Michigan would be more than compensated by the whole package of benefits, commercial security, cost savings in improved flow of commerce, resulting tax revenues, price competition and, yes, jobs.

[Wesley Mouch]

...
You build a bridge to move traffic. All other benefits are ancillary, yet it's being sold to us on every ancillary reason.
...
The second Blue Water Bridge span that opened in 1997, and the modern train tunnel that opened there in 1994, did just about nothing for Port Huron. I lived for years near both, and the city is a slum. The trains and trucks pass through, and most don't even stop for gas or food. My suspicion is that NITC will simply divert traffic that's mostly going elsewhere, not create much new traffic. From the infrastructure experts I've talked to, this project's "imputed demand" [[aka the "build it and they will come") is largely fantasy.

Just my 2 cents after covering this topic for four years now.

The basic question is should rather expensive international crossings be public or private. I believe that they should be public assets. That both Matty and MDOT are proven idiots doesn't really change much.

We need to decide whether this is important enough to fund nationally. Canada, who is trading with their much larger partner see it as critical. The US doesn't see much about Canada as important, and certainly investing in Michigan doesn't make you very popular.

When you step back and look at public investment in highways at a federal level, the creation of a public crossing isn't a big deal -- even at $1-5 billion. We'll chew through federal money on other road projects of dubious need. But we won't build a bridge at federal expense. We expect it to pay for itself when the connecting roads do not.

[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?

[Wesley Mouch]

<snip>...Do you want to damage that trade just to spite Moroun?

No. I simply believe that trade between the US and Canada is a public good that warrants public investment. It should not be a private monopoly. We subsidize I94, I75, M-59. We should similarly subsidize a public bridge in the public interest.

[[The fact that Matty is a difficult person who won't work well with others [[MDOT, Lafayette Bait, City of Detroit parks, etc.) makes it clearer that he should not be in sole control of a crossing that affects our economy.)

The fact that he doesn't allow pedestrians or bicycles, however, is the unforgivable sin. Especially when mandated by the bridge's charter.