Michigan should mothball the bridge plan

**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).

**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!

**kraig** · March-17-10, 02:42 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).

Sounds to me like you need more custom agents. It probably won't cost 5 billion dollars either. Which means more money could go into your surface streets.

Question. Will another bridge be built as a companion to the Bluewater bridge as well? If the Bluewater has 70% capacity of the ambassador and all of the same arguments of redundancy are true. Isn't there a need to have another bridge there?

**Gsgeorge** · March-17-10, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

Sounds to me like you need more custom agents. It probably won't cost 5 billion dollars either. Which means more money could go into your surface streets.

Question. Will another bridge be built as a companion to the Bluewater bridge as well? If the Bluewater has 70% capacity of the ambassador and all of the same arguments of redundancy are true. Isn't there a need to have another bridge there?

You're forgetting that the Bluewater already is two bridges. They rebuilt theirs in the nineties and the old one is still used. The key is that they're separated by a few hundred feet, essentially making them two separate bridges. Maroun's "twinning" plan is no different than widening the existing bridge. This is not a failsafe plan. The fact remains that we need a suitable replacement for the heavily-used, worn, aging, narrow Ambassador. More border agents will not help traffic love faster if there's only two lanes.

**kraig** · March-17-10, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

You're forgetting that the Bluewater already is two bridges. They rebuilt theirs in the nineties and the old one is still used. The key is that they're separated by a few hundred feet, essentially making them two separate bridges. Maroun's "twinning" plan is no different than widening the existing bridge. This is not a failsafe plan. The fact remains that we need a suitable replacement for the heavily-used, worn, aging, narrow Ambassador. More border agents will not help traffic love faster if there's only two lanes.

And the World Trade Center was two separate buildings. How did that work out? The theory that's always posed on this thread is that terrorists will go after the ambassador bridge in order to stop the border trade. If that's the case. What's to stop the terrorists from going after any other bridges as well as the tunnel at the same time?

Which brings me back to this; Something needs to be done to better secure what we already have. Installing additional unlocked doors to a house doesn't make it safer, it just gives the intruders more openings.

**Gsgeorge** · March-18-10, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

And the World Trade Center was two separate buildings. How did that work out?

Oh please, how tasteless. I see I've been wasting my time debating with you.

**kraig** · March-18-10, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

Oh please, how tasteless. I see I've been wasting my time debating with you.

It's not tasteless, it's correct. There were 4 attacks that took place on the same day. Everyone that post about the bridge being hit shouldn't assume that the bridge would be the only target.

Terrorists aren't going to discern what's owned by Moroun and what's owned by MDOT. If the plan is to disrupt trade as much as possible, they're going to hit as much as possible.