Michigan should mothball the bridge plan

**kraig** · March-17-10, 11:50 AM

The expected cost of the DRIC is getting higher, while the expected usage is getting lower. At some point, MDOT is going to have to prioritize.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...er-bridge-plan

**Detroitnerd** · March-17-10, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

The expected cost of the DRIC is getting higher, while the expected usage is getting lower. At some point, MDOT is going to have to prioritize.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...er-bridge-plan

"I'm Manuel Moroun and I approve this message."

**Gsgeorge** · March-17-10, 12:08 PM

who is writing this, some idiot lackey from the Bridge Co? Everyone knows that two bridges are safer than one ... And no, two bridges that sit right next to each other are not the same thing. Buffalo, a city with a third of the population of Detroit, has something like 5-7 bridge crossings with Canada. What's the problem here?

Retroit · March-17-10, 12:08 PM

Since when has our government been concerned about spending our money wisely?

**kraig** · March-17-10, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

who is writing this, some idiot lackey from the Bridge Co? Everyone knows that two bridges are safer than one ... And no, two bridges that sit right next to each other are not the same thing. Buffalo, a city with a third of the population of Detroit, has something like 5-7 bridge crossings with Canada. What's the problem here?

Let's establish something, the Buffalo crossings are an apples to oranges comparison to what's being proposed. The Buffalo Crossings are pretty much the same size as freeway overpasses. The efforts that went into them aren't anywhere near what has gone into the Bluewater Bridge, Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel.

Instead of pouring resources into a new crossing. Why not put the resources into protecting what is already there?

**1KielsonDrive** · March-17-10, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Since when has our government been concerned about spending our money wisely?

Since when has a tyrannical billionaire been concerned about spending our money wisely? Since when has a tyrannical billionaire been concerned about competeing fairly? Since when has a tyrannical bilionaire been concerned about our welfare and safety? Since when has a tyrannical billionaire had any concerns other than increasing his fortunes? I normally wouldn't have too much problem believing our government isn't interested acting in our best interests if it wasn't for a tyrannical billionaire running roughshod over every person, entity and object he perceives to be in his way. Anyway, he has more money and power than our state government has because he has most of them in his back pocket, so I'm rooting for the little guys. Go downriver bridge!

**1KielsonDrive** · March-17-10, 12:28 PM

As far as I'm concerned, no matter how much an alternative bridge would cost at this time, it's an economic stimulus project, even if it's rife with corruption. The present bridge company is rife with corruption as well, so pick your weapon. I'd sure like to go to Windsor and The Sun Parlour more often and not feel like I'm contributing to a tyrannical billionaire and worry about the condition of the bridge I'm crossing.

**Gsgeorge** · March-17-10, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

As far as I'm concerned, no matter how much an alternative bridge would cost at this time, it's an economic stimulus project, even if it's rife with corruption. The present bridge company is rife with corruption as well, so pick your weapon. I'd sure like to go to Windsor and The Sun Parlour more often and not feel like I'm contributing to a tyrannical billionaire and worry about the condition of the bridge I'm crossing.

No kidding. What's wrong with putting our people to work? A big new bridge is a surfire way to pay some wages, hire some hundreds, possibly thousands of people [[more than if we just fill a bunch of potholes). We'd be inviting more dollars into our state.

Not to mention I'm a little worried every time I cross the Ambassador and look down through the potholes on the road deck to see the Detroit River a couple hundred feet below me...

**1KielsonDrive** · March-17-10, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

Let's establish something, the Buffalo crossings are an apples to oranges comparison to what's being proposed. The Buffalo Crossings are pretty much the same size as freeway overpasses. The efforts that went into them aren't anywhere near what has gone into the Bluewater Bridge, Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel.

Instead of pouring resources into a new crossing. Why not put the resources into protecting what is already there?

Sure sounds like that nasty 'Socialism', to me. Errrr, ummmm. 'Socialism' for the rich. I think I'd rather give the money to the workers and companies building a new bridge and the citizens who would have a 'choice' in which bridge to use. Might even be some competition. It would be very interesting to see how a tyrannical billionaire would react to competition.

**casscorridor** · March-17-10, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

[/u][/b]
Sure sounds like that nasty 'Socialism', to me. Errrr, ummmm. 'Socialism' for the rich. I think I'd rather give the money to the workers and companies building a new bridge and the citizens who would have a 'choice' in which bridge to use. Might even be some competition. It would be very interesting to see how a tyrannical billionaire would react to competition.

He would try and smash it any way he can. Capitalists particularly government competition, why the health care industry is attempting to destroy any shred of government competition. Government industries are are designed to take losses, so that they benift the people. Transportation, as well as health care, simply cannot be handled properly by the dictates of the market. This is precisely why a tyrannical billionaire would want to destroy government competition.

**Hermod** · March-17-10, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

Government industries are are designed to take losses, so that they benift the people that work there.

FIFY

A lot of government activities are "self-licking" ice cream cones [[33 year govt employee talking).

**kraig** · March-17-10, 01:12 PM

1kielsondrive and casscorridor. Stop making it about Moroun. 5 billion dollars is a lot of money to spend on a project that's going to serve only a small fraction of the people that are being served by the expressways just to spite an 83 year old man.

It's astounding that when I mentioned protecting the resources that are already here. The talk immediately shifted to the Ambassador Bridge. What about the Bluewater Bridge? What about the tunnel? 1kielsondrive and gsgeorge, if you don't like Moroun and the bridge that much, here's a suggestion. TAKE THE TUNNEL.

**rb336** · March-17-10, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

Buffalo, a city with a third of the population of Detroit, has something like 5-7 bridge crossings with Canada. What's the problem here?

it does? I was only aware of the Peace Bridge and a rail crossing, and darn if those aren't the only ones I see on the map

**Mikeg** · March-17-10, 01:28 PM

Buffalo, a city with a third of the population of Detroit, has something like 5-7 bridge crossings with Canada.

Buffalo only has one vehicular bridge to Canada within its city limits, the Peace Bridge. The next-closest international bridge across the Niagara River is the Rainbow Bridge, which is 18 miles downstream in Niagara Falls, NY/ON. There are only two other such bridges across the Niagara River and they are about 1 and 4 miles farther downstream from the Rainbow Bridge.

**rb336** · March-17-10, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

It's astounding that when I mentioned protecting the resources that are already here. The talk immediately shifted to the Ambassador Bridge. What about the Bluewater Bridge?

most people don't want to drive up to port huron to go to Windsor

As far as the cost goes, guess what? it's the USERS that are going to pay off the bonds [[manny wants to use bonds too, folks, publicly guaranteed bonds for a provate bridge) for both bridges. and yes, use is down, but it will increase, and you can't say "we'll build the bridge only when we need it" because by then it would be too late

**Gsgeorge** · March-17-10, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

TAKE THE TUNNEL.

thanks genius, I already do.

but I'm not talking about me or even passenger cars so much as trucks. I don't want another bridge so I have an easier way to picnic in Windsor -- the tunnel gets the job done just fine. I want another bridge so freight & commerce can flow more freely and quickly between the US and Canada. I want another bridge so the semitrucks can get off of the streets in my neighborhood and go directly from the freeway to bridge. That was supposed to happen with the Ambassador, but greedy Maroun had to have his duty free shop & gas stations so he could siphon even more money off the bridge users. 25% of all trade between the two countries goes over that bridge. Wait times for trucks of an hour are not unusual. What is wrong with that picture? Wouldn't it make more sense if 10%-15% of trade went over each bridge, and wait times were cut down significantly, and semitrucks didn't have to travel surface streets to get to Canada? And, if one bridge fails or needs to close, there is a backup -- instead of diverting trucks to the ferry [[slower than molasses) or the Bluewater [[increased trip times & gas consumption).

Retroit · March-17-10, 01:39 PM

Either new bridge [[Maroun's or MDOT's) will equally create jobs and stimulate the economy. Maroun is absolutely concerned about spending money wisely since by doing so he can increase his own net worth. Let's remember that the current Ambassador Bridge was built by a private company with private funds, not by the government with tax dollars. [[source: http://www.ambassadorbridge.com/!Downloads/History.pdf)

**kraig** · March-17-10, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

most people don't want to drive up to port huron to go to Windsor

As far as the cost goes, guess what? it's the USERS that are going to pay off the bonds [[manny wants to use bonds too, folks, publicly guaranteed bonds for a provate bridge) for both bridges. and yes, use is down, but it will increase, and you can't say "we'll build the bridge only when we need it" because by then it would be too late

This is where prioritizing comes into play. There's already less projected need for the DRIC. But, we don't need any projections to tell us that the roads in michigan need fixing right now. Do we put money, that's needed right now as matching funds in order to get hundreds of millions of dollars, into projects that can benefit us right now? Or do we put the funds into a project that won't benefit nowhere near as many people and won't be in place for about 5 years while Michigans freeways fall into further disrepair?

Newsflash, more jobs would probably be created by the freeway construction jobs than would be created by the DRIC.

**GPCharles** · March-17-10, 01:52 PM

A new public bridge will be paid for with the proceeds of the sale of bonds.

The bonds will be sold by a bridge authority created for the purpose of buidling and financing the construction and operation of the bridge, such as the Mackinac Bridge Authority.

The bonds are paid by the tolls that are collected through the use of the bridge.

The lower the level of use, the less money to pay the bonds.

The less money that is available to pay the bonds, [[i) the less likely the bonds are sold and [[ii) if sold, the higher the interest rate.

Second bridge built and insufficient tolls to pay the bonds, the obligation to pay will probably revert to the government, meaning all of us, meaning taxes.

Face it, at the current and projected levels of traffic [[READ tolls) we don't need a second bridge.

**kraig** · March-17-10, 01:56 PM

"Not to mention I'm a little worried every time I cross the Ambassador and look down through the potholes on the road deck to see the Detroit River a couple hundred feet below me... "

My mistake Gsgeorge. I guess it was your evil twin that posted this.

**1KielsonDrive** · March-17-10, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

FIFY

A lot of government activities are "self-licking" ice cream cones [[33 year govt employee talking).

Without a doubt, Hermod. But, I'll take my chances with the 'self-licking' ice cream cones of the government, in this case, as opposed to the 'self-licking' ice cream cone of a tyrannical billionaire.

**1KielsonDrive** · March-17-10, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

1kielsondrive and casscorridor. Stop making it about Moroun. 5 billion dollars is a lot of money to spend on a project that's going to serve only a small fraction of the people that are being served by the expressways just to spite an 83 year old man.

It's astounding that when I mentioned protecting the resources that are already here. The talk immediately shifted to the Ambassador Bridge. What about the Bluewater Bridge? What about the tunnel? 1kielsondrive and gsgeorge, if you don't like Moroun and the bridge that much, here's a suggestion. TAKE THE TUNNEL.

If you think this isn't about Manny. you must be, well, ummmm........

**1KielsonDrive** · March-17-10, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

thanks genius, I already do.

but I'm not talking about me or even passenger cars so much as trucks. I don't want another bridge so I have an easier way to picnic in Windsor -- the tunnel gets the job done just fine. I want another bridge so freight & commerce can flow more freely and quickly between the US and Canada. I want another bridge so the semitrucks can get off of the streets in my neighborhood and go directly from the freeway to bridge. That was supposed to happen with the Ambassador, but greedy Maroun had to have his duty free shop & gas stations so he could siphon even more money off the bridge users. 25% of all trade between the two countries goes over that bridge. Wait times for trucks of an hour are not unusual. What is wrong with that picture? Wouldn't it make more sense if 10%-15% of trade went over each bridge, and wait times were cut down significantly, and semitrucks didn't have to travel surface streets to get to Canada? And, if one bridge fails or needs to close, there is a backup -- instead of diverting trucks to the ferry [[slower than molasses) or the Bluewater [[increased trip times & gas consumption).

Thank you!

**1KielsonDrive** · March-17-10, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Either new bridge [[Maroun's or MDOT's) will equally create jobs and stimulate the economy. Maroun is absolutely concerned about spending money wisely since by doing so he can increase his own net worth. Let's remember that the current Ambassador Bridge was built by a private company with private funds, not by the government with tax dollars. [[source: http://www.ambassadorbridge.com/!Downloads/History.pdf)

That has absolutely nothing to do with modern day. No connection whatsoever.

**1KielsonDrive** · March-17-10, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

This is where prioritizing comes into play. There's already less projected need for the DRIC. But, we don't need any projections to tell us that the roads in michigan need fixing right now. Do we put money, that's needed right now as matching funds in order to get hundreds of millions of dollars, into projects that can benefit us right now? Or do we put the funds into a project that won't benefit nowhere near as many people and won't be in place for about 5 years while Michigans freeways fall into further disrepair?

Newsflash, more jobs would probably be created by the freeway construction jobs than would be created by the DRIC.

Do you expect me to take your word for it?