  Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 779 Registered: 06-2006 |
Sites for new bridge to Canada narrowed March 26, 2007 By MARISOL BELLO FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER The Michigan Department of Transportation has narrowed its choices for a second bridge from Detroit to Canada and is conducting studies to see which is the best option. MDOT is looking at sites near Zug Island and Fort Wayne and is drilling in those areas to make sure the foundation is solid bedrock, a senior MDOT manager on the project told the Detroit City Council today. Advertisement The manager, Mohammed Alghurabi, updated the council on the work being conducted by the Detroit River International Crossing Study, telling members that it hopes to complete a draft impact study by January that would release the data on each site and the pros and cons of each. Public hearings would follow to determine the best site. The project is still a long way from building a second bridge. “We’re not in the process yet of seeking approvals,” Alghurabi said. “We’ve got a lot more homework.” Separately, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge is working to build a second span next to the existing one. The bridge won the first of several required approvals when the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality approved two permits for the new bridge, one for storm sewer upgrades, the other for the bridge crossing. . http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20070326/NEWS05/ 70326032 | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 547 Registered: 04-2006 |
So are they gonna build two separate new bridges? | ||
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce Post Number: 712 Registered: 10-2003 |
Doesn't the Canadien Government have to approve whatever span gets built? If so, their plan will be THE plan. How could Matty get around this fact, if it's true? | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 163 Registered: 11-2005 |
Matt is right--both the Canadian federal government and the City of Windsor are stone-walling Matty at every possible turn. The City has placed an injunction on him preventing him from demolishing anymore of the homes he owns on Indian Road in Windsor (If you haven't been to this area lately, it's obvious they are clearing land for a second bridge approach west of the exisiting Ambassador.) Maroun is trying to take the City to court over this...however, there is nothing he can do about the feds, who are passing legislation requiring the next crossing to be in public or para-public control (e.g. a bridge authority)...that being what applies to a publically funded project. Maroun may still be free to go ahead with his private plan--however, the Canadian feds together with the Ontario government are going forward with a plan that will basically extend 401 all the way to the new Zug/Fort Wayne Bridge--likely siphoning off most of the commercial traffic that Matty depends on at the Ambassador. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 454 Registered: 07-2006 |
This bridge wouldn't necessarily stop an Ambassador twin by itself, since the twin would actually replace the current span, which would itself be closed for inspections and any needed improvements, and then would only reopen if it is financially viable to do so. If anything, this span is more likely to doom the current Ambassador than the proposed twin. Of course, if Matty is denied the permits to build the twin, that won't happen. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 766 Registered: 09-2005 |
I believe the new Canadian legislation will apply to privately funded bridge expansions as well. | ||
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce Post Number: 714 Registered: 10-2003 |
So you guys are saying that Matty already has rights of way next to the current bridge, and doesn't necessarily need Canadien approval? As long as he owns that land? Interesting to see how it pans out. What's his game plan here? Try to beat the competition and build the span, thus taking the wind out of the sails of the Canadien authorities plan, and ultimately kill the proposal? Or, does he think the market exists for two new spans and he just wants to increase his piece of the pie? | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 768 Registered: 09-2005 |
I am saying that Matty will need Canadian approval. Matty believes there is only room for one game in town: his. He wants to build the second span in order to make the whole process to build another bridge (in Delray, etc.) look redundant and unnecessary. Really, he is just protecting his investment (cash cow). In general, Windsorites want the 401 to connect directly to a new bridge that does not require trucks to use city streets. The second span at the Ambassador would not accomplish this. In fact, it would make matters worse. | ||
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce Post Number: 716 Registered: 10-2003 |
Gotcha UPT- The timing of my last post was delayed - I didn't read yours until after I posted. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 769 Registered: 09-2005 |
BTW, the International Bridges and Tunnels Act has been given Royal Assent. It will become law on a date to be determined in the near future. No problem, Matt. | ||
Leland_palmer Member Username: Leland_palmer Post Number: 265 Registered: 08-2004 |
"The race to build another bridge from Detroit to Winsor has taken an odd twist. "Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel "Matty" Moroun has applied for $1 billion in U.S. government-backed bonds to pay for a twin span -- and the agency that will help decide his fate is his chief competitor." Andy Henion / The Detroit News http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070327/U PDATE/703270455/1003 | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5305 Registered: 10-2003 |
This is awkward to say the least. Matty is moving full steam ahead, studies be damned. I'm wondering where this will all end up? | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 563 Registered: 11-2005 |
I hope they don't plan on taking out Ft. Wayne!!! | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 3941 Registered: 08-2004 |
Ya know I can't really blame Maroun though. If there is a Zug Island span that connects I-75 directly into 401, then most trucks coming points south will use that bridge as a shorter route and really cut into Maroun's bridge(s). I don't know what percent of traffic comes northbound (say from Ohio and other points south), but it could have significant impact on the Ambassador bridge traffic (if no other bridge is built). Now don't get me wrong, he's such a jerk, that I don't want him to succeed... but one can understand his position. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 777 Registered: 09-2005 |
It is easy to understand Matty's position: a new bridge will reduce his cash cow to a commuter bridge that will serve Detroit-Windsor travellers and shipments with all other traffic heading to the new bridge. Watch the City of Windsor double the number of traffic lights on Huron Church (the road that leads to the Ambassador Bridge) just to make certain long-haul drivers do not use the Ambassador alternative. Matty will not build his new span without the Canadian government's approval. What use would a second span be if it does not connect to Canada? | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 778 Registered: 09-2005 |
From today's Windsor Star (with my edits), note that the Senator's comments are his own and not the comments of the Government of Canada: Keep bridges apart, report urges Dave Battagello, Windsor Star Published: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 The economy of two nations and thousands of jobs reliant on $120 billion in annual trade crossing the Windsor-Detroit border can only be safely guaranteed with construction of a separate crossing away from the Ambassador Bridge, said border watchdog Senator Colin Kenny. Bridge owner Matty Moroun has applied for government permits to twin his span, racing against a government-backed process to build a separate crossing downriver near Brighton Beach. "If this guy wants to pay out of his pocket to improve his facility, that's his own business," said Kenny, who has cited the Ambassador Bridge as a prime target for terrorism. "It doesn't alter the fact you must have a separate crossing for redundancy." Otherwise, the threat to the U.S. and Canadian economies remains huge given how Moroun's privately owned link carries 25 per cent of our nation's trade with the U.S, said the chairman of the Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. The committee Tuesday released its latest findings and recommendations to improve border security. Much of the 67-page report was focused on the vulnerability of Windsor's bridge and tunnel -- North America's busiest trade corridor. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3728 Registered: 10-2003 |
There are many good reasons why a second span is necessary. We all know that. Hell, even the most probusiness, right leaning business magazine has called for a federal eminent domain action on the Ambassador. This is about national economic security folks. Its bigger than Matty or Windsor or Southwest Detroit. http://www.forbes.com/business /free_forbes/2004/1115/134.htm l | ||
Alexei289 Member Username: Alexei289 Post Number: 1264 Registered: 11-2004 |
I have no problem with 2 new spans... the more the Metro area can serve as a port of call for canadian goods and services the better. Detroit already has alot of business through its current port status from pretty much every part of this country from the Appalachan Mts, to the mississippi, being the easiest and cheapest place to get their goods to canada, and vice versa. If we double our capacity for commercial traffic, within 10 years, the capicity will fill itself and bring the extra business with it... which we all make out on. Let Maroun do his thing.. but build a public span as well to keep his prices low. I dont give a rats ass how much money he makes... thats his business... but as long as its comparable to the public span we all make out on it. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5307 Registered: 10-2003 |
That seems like an acceptable compromise. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 781 Registered: 09-2005 |
The compromise is reasonable, however the problem with Ambassador continues to be the fact that the route from the 401 to the bridge requires driving on city streets. The distance between the highway and the Ambassador Bridge coupled with the location of the bridge on the Windsor side make the Ambassador a poor international shipping connection. | ||
Yupislyr Member Username: Yupislyr Post Number: 202 Registered: 07-2004 |
Exactly. Maroun and his bridge(s) will probably be only used by commuters and perhaps some local shipping. Unless there's some kind of problem at the new public crossing, I doubt truckers are going to navigate through the mess of West Windsor to get to the Ambassador when the other bridge has a large highway of some sort leading right to it. One of the things that Maroun is apparently trying to do to counter this is to build his own dedicated connector road to the Ambassador and any potential bridge by buying property in West Windsor. (Message edited by yupislyr on March 29, 2007) | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5313 Registered: 10-2003 |
Weren't the Canadians against a direct connect to E.C. Row, too, though? Or, was the concern for this coming from the other side of the river? I'm having the hardest time seperating the wishes of the NIMBY's, and the wishes of the local, state/provincial, and national government. (Message edited by lmichigan on March 29, 2007) | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 9319 Registered: 10-2003 |
Lmichigan, the reason Canadians are/were against using E.C. Row as an access route is because it is mainly used for east/west local traffic. Adding the amount of trucks that would use the corridor would generate gridlock not to mention the amount of pollution from said trucks that the residents would then breathe (nothing like having trucks 24/7 belching exhaust right through the middle of neighbourhoods). This is not a NIMBY issue but a city and resident issue. They should build a second span and tunnel the access road. If Montreal can get a $1 billion ring road to bypass the islands then the gov'ts should be spending over $1 billion to get this right the first time considering over $250 billion worth of goods travel this route yearly. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 782 Registered: 09-2005 |
What Goat said.  | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5318 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thanks, Goat, though, it seems that your side of the river has been against every plan, and I don't think their going to like what the study group comes up with, either. I like the tunnel access idea, but I have a bad feeling that's not going to be present in any of the plans. | ||
Traveler357 Member Username: Traveler357 Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2007 |
As a former truck driver, I can assure you that at least 90% of the truck traffic now crossing the Ambassador Bridge would prefer to cross via a new bridge and limited access approach roadways connecting the 401 to I-75, downriver of the present bridge. It's perfectly understandable why Matty Maroun would like to keep his Detroit-Windsor monopoly. It's equally understandable why everyone else would like to see an additional bridge downriver. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 3973 Registered: 08-2004 |
Um I don't think a tunnel anywhere along the new bridge connector is a good idea. For several reasons: 1) no flammable materials can cross there. 2) 9/11 type safety issues. 3) where's a tunnel going to "vent"? There's the canyon section of the Lodge Fwy (north of Wyoming) that doesn't allow trucks carrying flammable materials, ditto for the Fisher Fwy between the Chrysler & Lodge. I can just imagine the rules for a tunnel. Note: when I say "flammable", I mean chemicals, etc. | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 926 Registered: 11-2003 |
"where's a tunnel going to "vent"?" There are lots of lengthy tunnels in the world, with truck traffic, that have good ventilation systems. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 888 Registered: 06-2006 |
Bridge plan opposed in Canada Project faces hurdles beyond Windsor April 11, 2007 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20070411/NEW S01/704110308&imw=Y | ||
Plymouthres Member Username: Plymouthres Post Number: 85 Registered: 02-2007 |
Rhymes- They will not take out Fort Wayne, directly, but the vibrations from the constant truck traffic will certainly be a problem for the old Fort! It will be a chore to keep the remaining walls intact, as they are my main concern at the moment as we begin an ACCURATE reconstruction effort of them. Some believe that a bridge in that area will bring more good to Fort Wayne than bad, as the Mackinaw Bridge kind of does to Michilamacinac(sp?). I have been un-impressed with the plans that I've seen from the beginning, but the poor Canadians need some relief. I hope they find an equitable solution, as the Fort is worth saving and any further damage would be unacceptable | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 780 Registered: 01-2005 |
I read in today's Freep that the Governor is supporting Moroun's "enhancement", because, supposedly, its private money. But he has applied through a Michigan program for $1 billion in tax- exempt bonds to be backed by the U.S. Government to help pay for the project. Even if the bonds are sold to private investors, the tax exempt status would make it a government subsidized deal to further enrich one man – this in an era when so much of Michigan's public infrastructure, highways and bridges, is old and failing, yet money for rebuilding is said to be tight. Why doesn't Michigan sell those bonds for Michigan, not Moroun? Makes me think that the Governor is beholden to Kwame and his Mommy. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5344 Registered: 10-2003 |
After her re-election, she has no reason to be beholden to Mayor Kilpatrick and Congresswoman Kilpatrick, and their political relationship is strained, at best. I'm not exactly sure why she is supporting this, but I'd feel comfortable ruling out political favors for the Kilpatrick's. She's more than scratched their backs. Perhaps, though, it's a payback to Moroun directly. BTW, Canada isn't going to be in support of any bridge crossing. lol | ||
Detroitoronto Member Username: Detroitoronto Post Number: 7 Registered: 12-2005 |
Not much new info but thought you'd like to see article and rare interview with Maroun this past weekend in the Globe & Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com /servlet/story/LAC.20070428.RC OVER28/TPStory/Business | ||
Homer Member Username: Homer Post Number: 161 Registered: 08-2004 |
The Devil is alive and well........... | ||
Flybydon Member Username: Flybydon Post Number: 120 Registered: 01-2005 |
Would anyone have information regarding the names of any construction firms bidding on the new Ambassador Bridge? Thanks in advance for any information you can forward. Don (at) aerialpics (dot) com  http://www.aerialpics.com/F/bwbridge.html | ||
Blackmike Member Username: Blackmike Post Number: 4 Registered: 01-2009 |
i'm trying to get my head around the competing bridge proposals. I just saw a YouTube video of Moroun's proposal and a pretty compelling argument from this Windsor blogger: http://windsorcityon.blogspot. com/2007/03/is-matty-moroun-co ol-now.html Any updated, informed opinions on this? All the posts I've found are over a year old. |
