Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2007 Ambassador Bridge Expansion Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 564
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 3:08 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thought that some of you all might be interested in attending this: http://www.ambassadorbridge.co m/workshop.pdf

"[Detroit International Bridge Company]...is proposing to construct a 6-lane cable stayed bridge over the Detroit River, just west of the existing Ambassador Bridge. The new bridge will connect directly into the existing plazas in both Detroit and Windsor."

This looks to be good news for the neighborhoods on the Detroit side; Windsor would probably rather have a new location.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 520
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 3:13 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So much for Delray if this happens...
Top of pageBottom of page

Aiw
Member
Username: Aiw

Post Number: 6178
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 3:18 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting that the "Warren Office" location is the Central Transport offices...

It's not going to happen anytime soon. Windsor's passed a by-law stopping all demolition on this side of the river for at least 6 months, and adding a second span, requires authority from the Army Corps of Engineers in Cleveland.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 565
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 3:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Scs100, it looked to me that this plan would have the least amount of impact on the Detroit neighborhoods. After all, they said that they would use the existing plazas on each side. My biggest question however would be wouldn't they need to enlargen the existing plazas? A new bigger bridge wouldn't speed things up if there were the same number of border agents/booths at the plazas.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 522
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 3:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The DRIC was doing test drilling for a new bridge around Ft. Wayne. So I meant that there goes the plans for a Delray bridge. Sorry for not making that clear.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2183
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 3:54 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

It's not going to happen anytime soon. Windsor's passed a by-law stopping all demolition on this side of the river for at least 6 months, and adding a second span, requires authority from the Army Corps of Engineers in Cleveland.



Actually, the Detroit District of the USACE has jurisdiction over the Detroit River. USACE Cleveland is an area office for the Buffalo District, whose jurisdiction doesn't begin until Toledo (and points eastward). Even then, if navigation is not impacted, and structures are not being erected within the waterway, I'm not sure how much leverage USACE has on this project.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 4836
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 4:03 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/5/93839.html?1171904339
Top of pageBottom of page

Dds
Member
Username: Dds

Post Number: 141
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 4:25 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:


Actually, the Detroit District of the USACE has jurisdiction over the Detroit River. USACE Cleveland is an area office for the Buffalo District, whose jurisdiction doesn't begin until Toledo (and points eastward). Even then, if navigation is not impacted, and structures are not being erected within the waterway, I'm not sure how much leverage USACE has on this project.



USACE also has regulatory control over the entire shoreline as far as environmental impact. I'm pretty sure there would be leverage from that angle.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 754
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 5:10 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The following statute was recently passed by the Canadian Parliament:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePu blications/Publication.aspx?Do cId=2669598&Language=e&Mode=1& File=32

Read section 6. I have posted it for ease of reference:
6. No person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council.

In fancy speak that means that no one can construct or make changes to an international bridge (such as the Ambassador Bridge) while first receiving the approval of the Government of Canada.

See section 9 for the recourse the government has should someone construct or alter a bridge without the government's approval and see section 10 for the potential punishment that person could receive.
Top of pageBottom of page

Planner_727
Member
Username: Planner_727

Post Number: 90
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 10:49 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This whole process is the biggest pile of BS I have ever seen! There is an existing rail tunnel connecting from around the Post Office through to Canada that can support two lanes of truck traffic and is too low for the double-stacked rail cars so it is functionally obselete. A coworker of mine used to work in the little town right inside Sarnia where the two bridges and casino are... he says talking to his former coworkers that the second span there has not improved traffic at all during peak hours becuase the plazas were not expanded significiantly and they also lost some of thier TSA staffers. Building another span next to the Ambassador is the worst idea... ever. It would functionally be a parking lot for trucks waiting to get across. The bottleneck is not the bridge--it is the plazas. How this is such a tough pill to digest for Matty Moran is difficult for me to understand.

I believe the project I think makes sense used to be called the "Jobs Tunnel"... and for the life of me I still don't understand why it isn't the front runner. The preferred plans down by Zug Island make hellufa lot more sense than a twin ambassador... at least they are planning area for a large plaza and there are convenient connections to freeways on both sides.
Top of pageBottom of page

Homer
Member
Username: Homer

Post Number: 88
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 11:31 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No one can stop Manny,
"KING of the WORLD"
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 755
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 9:44 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In defense of Manny (not that I want to, but factual accuracy is useful), he believes that the current bridge will not reach capacity until 2030 (and I believe that was a pre 9/11 estimate). He has been destroying homes, etc. on both sides of the River in order to build more primary inspection lanes for commercial traffic (see AiW's post above).

Manny realizes that the plazas are the problem -- not the bridge itself. That being said, if the US and Canadian gov'ts build another bridge (Zug Island, etc.) the bridge is going to cut into Manny's business. The gov'ts are arguing that a new bridge is necessary (for capacity, redundancy, removing trucks from Windsor's streets). If Manny builds another a second span, he gets to keep the profits and also the chances a Zug Island bridge would be built becomes very small.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.