Ambassador Bridge knows best?

[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.

[Sandhouse]

In recent Ambassador Bridge news, on May 31, the company was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan from ever again insisting that it is a "federal instrumentality or any type of arm, appendage, or agent of the federal government entitled to any immunity form state or local regulation."

This news came from www.tollroadsnews which also features a picture of neighborhood activists taking bolt cutters to the fence blocking access to the city park and boat launch that was expropriated by the Bridge.

Expect the next version of the bill authorizing the new bridge to be introduced in the Michigan Senate on Tuesday.

[BShea]

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.

The problem with the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching over political donations is that it's legal. It might be a flawed system, but it's legal. And Moroun is making a rational economic decision in spending money on campaign donations and his media effort. You may not like it, but it's what a person does in his position [[that can afford it).

The implied suggestion that politicians wouldn't have serious economic and ideological questions about DRIC/NITC without Moroun's largess is absurd. It suggests all members of the statehouse are for sale to the highest bidder. While I'm jaded, I'm not that jaded. Moroun propaganda aside, there are significant justification questions unanswered about NITC. I'm sure some undecided politicians might have been swayed by the money, but that doesn't mean there are not questions about the project.

FYI: I didn't research what state politicians have taken pro-DRIC union donations. They're out there, and I didn't suggest they match Moroun's. I'm sure they don't, but they're not insignificant and they're just as legal. My larger point is that people bitch about Moroun's donations, but choose to ignore that the unions also donate. It's the same system, and the unions are donating for their own gain, just like Moroun.

The toll question is important because the Snyder administration is going around the state telling people that NITC is good for competition, and trying to spin NITC as a private-sector project instead of a government project -- an absolutely absurd notion that rivals some of the howlers from Moroun's camp. Anyway, the economic fundamentals of NITC don't work in a toll war. The private-sector bidders have already warned MDOT of that last year. We've been promised the bridge would pay for itself via tolls, but when the people who know what they're talking about -- the people who build and operate bridges -- said tolls won't cover the capital and operations costs, and they wanted publicly subsidies instead. That's when Canada's $550m offer emerged, because the project wasn't able to be financed as initially thought. Why? Because the traffic no longer even remotely justified the project. That's why we've seen the floating justifications since -- terrorism, construction jobs, competition. It used to be about moving vehicles over the right -- the reason you build a bridge.

The entire project is predicated on tolls and traffic projection that no one takes seriously except DRIC backers. The growth in trade with Canada hasn't corresponded with an increase in traffic. And the nonsense about Buffalo isn't worth talking about because it's the silliest of red herrings -- their FOUR current bridges didn't attract commercial traffic from Detroit, and it won't in the future. Also, keep in mind that the long-haul trucking industry sees Port Huron as part of the Detroit corridor.

And I totally agree on MEGA. The jobs numbers are bogus. Same with DRIC, according to the people who actually will be creating the construction jobs. It'll be about 600 jobs in Michigan, according to the construction unions. The 10K number was one of those "If Company X hires some iron workers, someone will open a coffee shop near the construction site, and that's 10 more jobs, and those people will need to buy stuff, so Target will hire more people ..."

In other words, the jobs numbers are simply propaganda. Everyone excited about the prospect of Delray being transformed into a bustling little trade burg just has to travel to Port Huron to see what MDOT's promises wrought there: Zilch. Commercial traffic passes through and rarely stops. The trains don't stop there. Port Huron was promised all sorts of things, and none of it came to pass -- and in the meantime, the city lost 2 percent of its tax base over the almost criminal boondoggle that is the plaza expansion up there.

[Wesley Mouch]

...The entire project is predicated on tolls and traffic projection that no one takes seriously except DRIC backers...

Mr. Shea -- I agree with almost everything you said.

Could you address why this needs to be self-supporting. Why is toll-revenue so important here?

We haven't switched to toll-roads yet for other construction.

Ohio, for example, built a new I-280 bridge over the Maumee, and its not a toll-bridge.

Can you speak to why we are revenue obsessed on this -- vs. public infrastructure.

Thank you.

[kraig]

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.

It's not just Matty and the unions contributing, don't forget about the Corrigan Group. They're a large reason why the DRIC got started in the first place. The DIBC first announced another span back in 1998 and everyone was on board. Canada, MDOT and the City of Detroit. MDOT's original plans and literature for the I-75 Gateway project even suggested that. A big reason for the Gateway was to provide for the proposed second span.

When the fence was put up not only had then mayor Dennis Archer agreed to it. But, the City Council actually passed an ordinance in 2003 granting the DIBC permission to put the fence up. Then sometime after that, the Corrigan Group started spending money and wrangled themselves a no bid 36 million dollar contract to conduct a study on a second bridge. At which time the DIBC proposal that had been informally agreed to by all was suddenly deemed not acceptable. The entire time everyone knew that the DRIC was pushing for the Delray area and the entire study was just a foregone conclusion.

Among Moroun's problems, and he has many, is the fact that he agreed to the Gateway because of the fact that his second span was supposed to be included. After which, he has been blocked from doing his project by the City of Detroit, MDOT and Canada who had all previously agreed to support his second span. A big reason why is because of the money that the Corrigan Group had spent.

When everything is said and done, the Corrigan Group will be a big part of whatever P3 is established to operate the DRIC, if it's ever approved.

[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.