When Canada offers a good deal, we can't afford to look a gift bridge in the truss
If there is no such thing as a free lunch, there certainly is no such thing as a free bridge. But if Michigan needs a second bridge between Detroit and Canada -- and virtually everyone agrees that it does -- then it’s not likely to get a better deal than the one before it right now.
Gov. Rick Snyder, backed by an unlikely alliance of unions, Democrats and corporate CEOs, wants lawmakers to approve legislation that would allow construction of what’s being called the New International Trade Crossing bridge between Detroit and Windsor.
The owner of the Ambassador Bridge, shown above, is waging a shrill campaign against a proposal to build a second bridge between Detroit and Windsor.
Photo courtesy of VideoVik via Flickr
And what would Michigan’s share of that cost be? Nothing.
At least not under the bill introduced earlier this month by Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe. The legislation calls for a joint U.S.-Canadian authority that would oversee construction and operation of the new bridge. It includes provisions that prohibit Michigan from spending any state funds on the bridge, and that protect the state against any obligation for repayment of the bonds that will finance the bridge.
Michigan can write those safeguards into the legislation because Canada already has committed to pay Michigan’s portion of the costs for the bridge, and is willing to take full responsibility for backing the bonds. That’s how eager Canada is to see this bridge built, and how confident it is that the financing plan for it is sound.
Bridge facts
Here's more information on the proposed New International Trade Crossing bridge:
- Click here for a PDF summary of the proposed legislation.
- Click here for a PDF of frequently asked questions about the proposed bridge.
- To read an interview with Matthew Moroun, who opposes the bridge, click here.
As far as we can see, the only thing still standing in the way of that is an obstructionist alliance between Manuel “Matty” Moroun, who owns the 82-year-old Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, and a conservative action group called Americans for Prosperity. Even Moroun acknowledges that another bridge will need to be built, but he wants to build a replacement bridge -- owned by him, of course -- next to his existing bridge.
Moroun has waged a shrill campaign against the joint U.S.-Canada effort, which would locate a bridge about two miles south of the existing span. More significantly, Moroun and his family have donated some $1.5 million to state lawmakers, which gives him substantial political clout in Lansing.
But the arguments in favor of a second bridge have become compelling enough, and the deal offered by Canada is attractive enough, that Moroun is beginning to sound like a voice in the wilderness. The past four governors of Michigan -- two Democrats and two Republicans -- all support the second bridge. So do a host of major Michigan corporations, as well as agricultural interests and labor unions, including the AFL-CIO. This month, the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber joined the chorus or organizations supporting this plan.
Michigan and Canada are major trading partners, to the tune of $62 billion last year, which was up some 40 percent from the previous year. It’s been estimated that trade with Canada supports 237,000 jobs in Michigan. So both our state and Canada have a huge stake in the continued free flow of commerce between Detroit and Windsor.
Now is the time to begin planning for another bridge, and there are a number of reasons why the proposal now before the Legislature is the better choice. The Ambassador Bridge empties bridge traffic into downtown Windsor, and creates snarls and delays as trucks drive through busy city traffic. The proposed new bridge would connect directly with highway 401 on the Canadian side, which would better facilitate the transport of goods. The location allows for modern custom inspection plazas that also would improve the flow of vehicles across the border.
Supporters of the new bridge say there is enough traffic crossing the border now to justify two bridges, and that the Ambassador Bridge would remain profitable even if it had this competition. They also project that trade between Michigan and Canada will continue to grow, and that a second bridge will better position our state to take advantage of that economic opportunity.
We aren’t convinced that the projections of future trade will bear out, but the billions of dollars in existing trade between Michigan and Canada is adequate reason to pursue an alternative to the aging Ambassador Bridge. The proposed New International Trade Crossing bridge won’t be built for free. But from Michigan’s standpoint, it’s being presented risk-free and it requires no state funding. Canada has made us an offer too good to refuse. Let’s get this bridge built.
(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and represents the opinion of the Editorial Board at AnnArbor.com.)
Comments
Tru2Blu76
Tue, Nov 27, 2012 : 4:30 a.m.
Wow: "The total price tag of the new bridge would be some $3.8 billion (USD)"!!! Insane!! Just sayin': even adjusted for inflation, the cost of building the Mackinac Bridges (5 mi. long - 3rd largest suspension bridge in the world) would be under $800 million - or just over 21% of this proposed (much smaller) bridge. It also took from the 1880s to 1957 to get the Mackinac Bridge built - let this issue sit for another 70 years - unless the Republicans in Lansing don't want to wait for whatever cut of the $3.8 billion they've arranged to get for themselves. No, let it rest anyway - this state is run by millionaires and we know they already have several lifetimes worth of money to tide them over. And lets call for a re-bid on the cost - a cut of 75% isn't out of line. I'm sure our Canadian friends would appreciate the $3 billion dollar savings. (How much is that in Canadian money?)
Cassandra
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:24 p.m.
Sorry; that should be "By THEIR fruits, ye shall know them." Res ipsa loquitur.
Cassandra
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.
" for all these years I never paid any attention to the Ambassador Bridge so they must have been doing something right!". Any parent can tell you that when you don't hear the kids because they're so quiet, you know they're up to no good. The Ambassador Bridge has been silently deteriorating "for all these years"; its owner did nothing to repair it until Cong. Dingell threatened to go to court so we could see the report on the bridge deck's "poor" condition. Anyone who has driven over the bridge recently has to wonder whether they're taking their life in their hands. We can read their postings in the comments section of our daily papers, saying that they'll never use the bridge again because it's in such bad shape. People who "never paid any attention" aren't aware that the incidence of asthma in the neighborhood of the bridge is 3 times the national average. Or that the lethal toxins from stop-and-go and idling diesel exhaust can trigger, cause or worsen such illnesses as lung and prostate cancer, heart and lung disease, and contribute to such syndromes as autism and retardation. The NITC bridge has been planned to provide an unimpeded flow of traffic from Canada's 401 to Mich. expressways, unlike the present bridge which requires trucks to stop-and-go at some 17 stoplights from 401 to the bridge entry. "By your fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)
Steve Pepple
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:11 p.m.
Please debate the issues without personally attacking other commenters.
Wally
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 4:35 a.m.
DonBee - The backup on the bridge is due to the fact that most of the Customs booths are unmanned not because there is a lot of volume of traffic. With Canada having attitude against the private bridge (along with cut backs taking place everywhere) it really is out of anyone's hands. Granted the Ambassador Bridge owners might not have done everything as they should, they have run the bridge smoothly for years because nobody gave it a second thought. Bottom line, I'm just looking after my own wallet and there is no way I believe it'll be cost-free, the govt. can't run anything efficiently and for all these years I never paid any attention to the Ambassador Bridge so they must have been doing something right!
Wally
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 3:07 a.m.
Both Canada and Michigan claim no taxpayer money will be spent on building an alternative bridge. Get real. A private owner who has done a great job is willing to replace his aging bridge with a new one with guaranteed no tax payer money. The zealous politicians find a "perfect" place to build their bridge - with the foundation placed on miles of salt tunnels. Not only unstable but a perfect place for terrorists to hide. On top of it all, the new bridge will pay no state or Federal taxes for 50 yrs. with a renewable 50 more years yet the Ambassador Bridge does like every other business and pays their taxes. It's really a no-brainer folks. Anybody who is in favor of the govt. bridge needs their head examined.
DonBee
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 3:32 a.m.
Wally - I don't care who builds it, or who owns it. I am willing to be convinced with real numbers. What I do care about is getting enough space for the truck holding and inspection areas. Driving the bridge routinely, it is not unusual for the trucks to back up past the middle of the bridge in one lane and a 1/4 of the way for priority trucks in the second lane. Truck back ups on Huron Church have been all the way to the 401 at times when I was working in London. Getting home was difficult, that difficulty has limited traffic on the bridge. Getting a new bridge with enough holding space and enough width for a dedicated truck lane would be very useful.
John B.
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:29 a.m.
Tony, this is one time that your shilling is on the correct side of the topic, (only because the slider is on the correct side of the issue, but we'll take it, in this particular case).
JoeBlog
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:15 a.m.
Oh my lord. The misinformation is astounding. Here is what you did not say: --Border traffic is DOWN 43% since 2000 --How can the Ambassador Brdige stay in business when the DRIC bridge is supposed to take away 70% of its business --Canada's $550M loan is not legally enforceable --Canada never committed legally "to assume all the costs and all the risks" --There is no "unique agreement" with FHWA re Canada's money --The Governor has never demonstrated that the project is financially viable without taxpayer paid "availability payments" as most P3 operators demanded --Michigan will have to pay out billions ie. check how easy it is to get around the availability payments section of the Act ie at least 4 ways to put Michigan taxpayers on the hook --Moroun money, $50M of it, is already being used by the State to fill potholes by generating federal matching grants --the Bridge Company has the exclusive statutory right to operate a bridge in the area --the Administration is now using 30 industry lobbyists to try and beat Moroun---how much is that costing and what's in it for them and their clients --the bridge does NOT dump traffic into downtown Windsor. Look at a map
DonBee
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:16 a.m.
DownTown no, but in an area that is not really designed to handle the traffic. West Windsor was never designed to handle the truck traffic that the bridge generates. Try crossing Huron Church in the evening. Moving the marshalling yards that 911 created is a priority for Windsor and Ontario. There are good security reasons to want to move the bridge down river for Ontario. Yes in absolutes volume the truck traffic is down, but the wait times are up (part of the reason for the decline in traffic). On the Canadian side there is just no more room to deal with trucks. If there is a goal of improving trade between the US and Canada through Detroit, then another bridge in a different location is required. As to the rest of your comments, they come right from the "American for Prosperity" website. A source I have to question.
Stephen Landes
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 10:27 p.m.
Nearly everyone agrees we need another bridge -- including Mr. Maroun. It's just that our local monopolist wants to continue his monopoly. I'm a conservative and I prefer private over public investment, but I draw the line at helping monopolists - especially when they demonstrate a lack of a sense of civic interest. Mr. Maroun is not my idea of a risk-taking capitalist who thrives on competition. I am profoundly disappointed that "Americans for Prosperity" would take up his cause. Let's build this bridge -- NOW.
Wally
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 4:59 a.m.
While you attack someone, let's at least know how to spell his name. The Moroun family and their business have contributed to local charities and Arts for years without needing publicity. I am sure they have demonstrated more civic interest then most. What have you contributed?
Matt Whale
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:16 p.m.
We could call the new bridge the Nitcee bridge.
Basic Bob
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
Southwest Ontario is desperate for a new bridge. Canadians want to decrease the truck traffic on Huron Church Road. Highway 401 is the busiest truck route in the world, and has no direct connection to its western destination - the US border. The aging infrastructure at this important border crossing needs the redundancy that an additional bridge facility will provide. Just a clarification, Windsor natives would never refer to Huron Church Road as downtown. It is in West Windsor. The tunnel and casino are downtown.
Basic Bob
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:36 a.m.
@John B., Trucks are used more frequently for freight in North America than other parts of the world. The busiest in North America is the busiest in the world. There is some debate on what is the busiest truck route. Ontario MTO claims 401, others claim I-75. Certainly they share much of the same traffic, and both would benefit from a direct connection.
John B.
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:31 a.m.
"Highway 401 is the busiest truck route in the world" I'm sorry, but I don't and can't believe that statement (but it may be the busiest in North America - perhaps - I'd need to see data).
Tony Dearing
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 1:17 p.m.
Bob, thanks for making the distinction about downtown and West Windsor. We'll be more careful about how we phrase that in the future.
Cassandra
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 11:58 a.m.
Tell the legislators to get off the Moroun pot and Build the People's Bridge Downriver!