DRIC approved by House

**BShea** · May-26-10, 06:08 PM

Michigan House OKs entry in Canada bridge project

By Bill Shea/Associated Press

The Democratic-led Michigan House narrowly passed legislation this afternoon that would let the state get involved in a project to build a new $5.3 billion bridge connecting Detroit and Windsor, Ontario.

The 56-51 vote Wednesday mostly along party lines is a partial victory for supporters of the proposed Detroit River International Crossing to connect Michigan and Canada. But it's unclear if the legislation will pass the Republican-led state Senate, which is the next step needed for the project to advance.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/100529885

**Corktown Mark** · May-26-10, 06:42 PM

already a thread here
http://detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5758

Retroit · May-26-10, 08:57 PM

You mean to tell me that MDOT has been wasting all their time and OUR money planning this new bridge and harassing Maroun, and they didn't even have approval? Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

**1KielsonDrive** · May-26-10, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

You mean to tell me that MDOT has been wasting all their time and OUR money planning this new bridge and harassing Maroun, and they didn't even have approval? Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

Ha,ha,ha. Hee,hee,hee. You are SO funny.

**Gannon** · May-27-10, 09:47 AM

Is there NOTHING a few hundred thousand [[in political bribes passed around discreetly) cannot buy today?!

Poor Matty. Better turn it up a notch, fella. It is not too late to get a conscience, and at least come visit those of us who live on Earth...or at least a bit closer to ground level.

**Meddle** · May-27-10, 10:01 AM

Has El Matte-Duh started deconstructing the Duty-Free store as ordered?

**Danny** · May-27-10, 10:04 AM

Don't you all just love America. Bureaucracy keeps other special proposed projects on hold.

**Gannon** · May-27-10, 10:42 AM

Danny,

You're not much a student of history, are ya?

Bureaucracy pre-dates our country, by many centuries.

We merely refined it to fit the current age.

Cheers!

**DetroitPlanner** · May-27-10, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Retroit

You mean to tell me that MDOT has been wasting all their time and OUR money planning this new bridge and harassing Maroun, and they didn't even have approval? Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

Uhhh.... this is exactly why planning is done. You don't secure funding until you have a viable project. Not much sense in tying up a billion dollars if you run into environmental issues when you go to build it.

**Detroitnerd** · May-27-10, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Uhhh.... this is exactly why planning is done. You don't secure funding until you have a viable project. Not much sense in tying up a billion dollars if you run into environmental issues when you go to build it.

Naw, you just get your money, go to Wal-Mart, buy a bridge and slap it down. Bought and paid-for. Just Superglue it to the cement and you're done.

Retroit · May-27-10, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Uhhh.... this is exactly why planning is done. You don't secure funding until you have a viable project. Not much sense in tying up a billion dollars if you run into environmental issues when you go to build it.

But doesn't the planning itself require an appropriation of money, and isn't the legislature responsible for appropriating funds?

**kraig** · May-27-10, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

But doesn't the planning itself require an appropriation of money, and isn't the legislature responsible for appropriating funds?

Yes and yes. About 35 million was appropriated for the "study" about five or six years ago.

Here's the part that's not being focused on. When the toll revenues aren't enough to meet the payments on the $550,000,000.00 loan, and let's be crystal clear on this, no matter how it's presented, it's a loan, the state will have to make up the difference.

Let's also get crystal clear on something else, looking at the price tag of the DRIC, it wouldn't be able to pay for itself if it was the only crossing around, instead of being one of four. If the DRIC somehow managed to siphon off all of the traffic from the ambassador bridge it would still have to charge about $20.00 a toll just to pay for the contsruction of the new crossing. That's not even including day to day staffing and maintenance cost that will be necessary to keep the bridge operational.

There's no way they'll be able to stay open charging that much. So the only way that the DRIC will stay open is to charge a rate that's competitive with the Ambassador and have the taxpayers subsidize the difference.

That difference may come from the gas tax hike, if passed, and money that could be used to provide matching funds for federal money for the state's highways and roads.

**GOAT** · May-27-10, 12:56 PM

interesting that all privately owned border crossings are cheaper than gov't crossings. SO no, the state won't make up the payment differences.

**DetroitPlanner** · May-27-10, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

But doesn't the planning itself require an appropriation of money, and isn't the legislature responsible for appropriating funds?

Planning funds come from the Feds to the governor. In nearly all cases it is the repsonsibility of the governor to take care of the State roads and for the legislature to approve the budget. Since the building of a bridge of this magnitude will require special funding through bonds, this is what they are approving. In order to figure out how much to bond you must be far enough along in planning and preliminary engineering to have an idea of how much a project will cost.

Typically road and transit projects are funded through gasoline taxes and registration fees. These are split by formula to cities, villages, counties, MDOT and transit agencies. Without a bond for this project MDOT could not maintain their infrastructure and the state may have to cut the funding back severely for the operating of transit or the fixing of local roads.

**kraig** · May-27-10, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by GOAT

interesting that all privately owned border crossings are cheaper than gov't crossings. SO no, the state won't make up the payment differences.

Huh? Even if your first statement were true. It has no bearing on your second statement. What are you attempting to say?

Retroit · May-27-10, 01:49 PM

It seems to me that since the ultimate go-ahead for the project would come from the legislature in the form of a bond approval, it would have behooved MDOT to ensure they had more bi-partisan support beforehand. If the state senate turns this down, then MDOT has just flushed $35 million of our money down the river.

**kraig** · May-27-10, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

It seems to me that since the ultimate go-ahead for the project would come from the legislature in the form of a bond approval, it would have behooved MDOT to ensure they had more bi-partisan support beforehand. If the state senate turns this down, then MDOT has just flushed $35 million of our money down the river.

You're right. Although, the money was flushed anyway. They knew were they wanted to put the new bridge the entire time. The entire study was a campaign to dismiss plans of putting a new bridge anywhere else.

**DetroitPlanner** · May-27-10, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

You're right. Although, the money was flushed anyway. They knew were they wanted to put the new bridge the entire time. The entire study was a campaign to dismiss plans of putting a new bridge anywhere else.

Actually this site is riddled with lots of things that will need mitigation. Environmental factors such as salt mines and historic structures abound in this area. The larger question was how to link this into what is required by the City of Windsor to make Huron Church less congested, safer, and more walkable/bikeable. Several alternatives were studied by both the Canadian and US EIS equivelaents and these must agree. It is a complex project but will result in faster crossing times for manufacturers who have plants on both sides of the river; making the international region more competitive. When you consider that Buffalo/Niagra has five such crossings and Detroit/Windsor only has two, but a much larger population as well as a better link to the rest of North America, you begin to realize that we are a huge bottleneck to trade but can also have a substantial benefit locally by making these improvements. Would you expect support from Brooks for improvements in Detroit if it was not good for the overall business climate?

**BShea** · May-27-10, 05:42 PM

I've been told that MDOT has reached its bonding limitations, and it needs the P3 legislation because there is no way for Michigan to pay for any of DRIC -- it has to rely on the private sector to finance it. Or Canada.

Michigan simply doesn't have the ability to pay for DRIC, is what I'm told.

**kraig** · May-28-10, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by BShea

I've been told that MDOT has reached its bonding limitations, and it needs the P3 legislation because there is no way for Michigan to pay for any of DRIC -- it has to rely on the private sector to finance it. Or Canada.

Michigan simply doesn't have the ability to pay for DRIC, is what I'm told.

You've been told right.

**kraig** · May-28-10, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Actually this site is riddled with lots of things that will need mitigation. Environmental factors such as salt mines and historic structures abound in this area. The larger question was how to link this into what is required by the City of Windsor to make Huron Church less congested, safer, and more walkable/bikeable. Several alternatives were studied by both the Canadian and US EIS equivelaents and these must agree. It is a complex project but will result in faster crossing times for manufacturers who have plants on both sides of the river; making the international region more competitive. When you consider that Buffalo/Niagra has five such crossings and Detroit/Windsor only has two, but a much larger population as well as a better link to the rest of North America, you begin to realize that we are a huge bottleneck to trade but can also have a substantial benefit locally by making these improvements. Would you expect support from Brooks for improvements in Detroit if it was not good for the overall business climate?

See, it's that "several alternatives" part that's the catch. The good people at the DRIC knew where their bridge was going the entire time. Everything else was just a waste of time and money on the part of the partnership, as well as, the various entities that submitted proposals. There was actually someone foolish enough to propose that the bridge be placed between Belle Isle and Canada.

**Gistok** · May-28-10, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Actually this site is riddled with lots of things that will need mitigation. Environmental factors such as salt mines and historic structures abound in this area. The larger question was how to link this into what is required by the City of Windsor to make Huron Church less congested, safer, and more walkable/bikeable. Several alternatives were studied by both the Canadian and US EIS equivelaents and these must agree. It is a complex project but will result in faster crossing times for manufacturers who have plants on both sides of the river; making the international region more competitive. When you consider that Buffalo/Niagra has five such crossings and Detroit/Windsor only has two, but a much larger population as well as a better link to the rest of North America, you begin to realize that we are a huge bottleneck to trade but can also have a substantial benefit locally by making these improvements. Would you expect support from Brooks for improvements in Detroit if it was not good for the overall business climate?

DetroitPlanner, Kraig, Retroit... you make a lot of good points... but isn't the bottleneck really Customs/Homeland Security, and NOT the not fully utilized bridges?

As I've mentioned before... Maroun's final trump card is that since his bridge is fully paid for... he could lower the tolls on his bridge to significantly undercut the bond repayment of the DRIC bridge? Wouldn't Wall Street walk away from any such bonding?