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

The total price tag of the new bridge would be some $3.8 billion. That covers not just construction of the span itself, but also the inspection plazas and freeway connections that would be needed on both ends of the bridge.

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.

We would never describe any decision on a project this costly and complex as a no-brainer. But this one comes close. With Canada prepared to assume all the costs and all the risks, there’s no downside for Michigan, and a big potential upside if even some of the projected economic benefits of the new bridge come true. The Legislature should approve this proposal, and approve it now.

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.)