Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2007 Michigan Gives Thumbs Up to Moroun's "Enhancement" Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Southwestmap
Member
Username: Southwestmap

Post Number: 745
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 3:41 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Another story that the local papers "missed." Its big, it affects Detroit. Why is the little Windsor Star scooping the Detroit papers on this story:

http://www.todaystrucking.com/ news.cfm?intDocID=17626

Ambassador Bridge officials say they've scaled another hurdle in their plans to twin the current bridge with another six-lane span across the Detroit River.
The Windsor Star reports that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has issued a permit to the private bridge company which allows it to build a crossing until the end of 2008.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5232
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:45 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow, this is huge. It's obvious that passing this state hurdle is the toughest hurdle, as people that are affected by this really know Moroun's style.

Southwest, do you have a map showing how much more the bridge and the needed extended plaza will take out?

BTW, has anyone released any kind of description about the bridge? I suspect it look like a whole lot of these modern suspension bridges with a massive concrete pier midway on the bridge with the cables suspended to the approaches of each side.

Lastly, I heard that Matty has said, and maybe just to concede something to the neighborhood, that if he's allowed to span a second span at the Ambassador Bridge, he would close the old bridge for massive inspections to see whether it can be upgraded, or something like that, essentially tossing the neighborhood peanuts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 414
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:50 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm bothered by two things in this, one being the common concern of Maroun's monopoly.

the other is, why 'twin' a suspension bridge with a cable-stayed? normally i love cable-stayed bridges, but frankly, it would look stupid right next to the ambassador. i suppose economics and avoidance of as many government agencies as he can wins over aesthetics though.

i am curious to see what the final design would look like.
Top of pageBottom of page

Southwestmap
Member
Username: Southwestmap

Post Number: 746
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Manny's planned bridge looks nice. It is not a clone of the Ambassador - it will be a modern "cable-stayed" bridge. You can google that term for ideas.

The DIBC may also have the early plans posted.
Yes, he says that he will de-commission the Ambassador for evaluation but may open it for "overflow." In moroun-speak this means that he will have 10 lanes of trucks running through his bridges - all on his own terms.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 415
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:54 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lmich - yeah, your description sounds more or less like a cable-stayed, which is what this is proposed to be. some look very much like suspension bridges, however. others look like no other bridge you've ever seen. i have no idea which route this one will take, so i don't want to jump to too many conclusions on the design until i've seen a rendering.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5234
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:54 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree with Scott, besides the obvious concerns for the neighborhood, a modern bridge directly adjacent to the Ambassador will look very strange to say the least.

Southwest, do you know how much the proposed bridge and its support amenities (i.e. plaza) will take out in Mexicantown?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5235
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:57 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Scott, I'm only guessing what it will look like, but regardless of the exact design, it will look very strange directly nextdoor to the historic Ambassador Bridge. And, really, the design is the least of our worries. The fact that they are twinning the Ambassador will be horrible for the neighborhood.
Top of pageBottom of page

Southwestmap
Member
Username: Southwestmap

Post Number: 747
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:58 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I saw the DIBC's presentation two weeks ago. They say and the plans demonstrate that no additional land will be needed. They are counting on the planned M-Dot improvements to the interchange. i'm not sure if M-DOT will be taking anything.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5236
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 5:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Really? This won't require more tollways and such? Sorry, I'm really kind of behind on this issue, but I can't imagine them not needing more support space for an additional bridge.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rooms222
Member
Username: Rooms222

Post Number: 10
Registered: 04-2005
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 5:01 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

With the huge economic impact of a terrorist incident at this vital boarder crossing, wouldn`t it make more sense to put a second span apart from the Ambassador?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5237
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 5:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm sure the Feds will bring up that concern. As the article posted states, this plan has only passed at the state level. It must go through the city and federal levels before anything can happen.

(Message edited by lmichigan on March 16, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 416
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 5:17 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Southwest, by any chance did they have any sort of rendering at the presentation? i didn't see anything on their website, or anywhere else. even an idea of what direction the design is going would be appreciated. cable-stayed covers quite a wide range of designs.

and of course, something totally different, perhaps even complementary to the ambassador, could be done. (i'm trying to grasp for a little bit of hope here...)

the security issue rooms brings up is a good point. on the other hand, maroun will most likely say this is a replacement, since he intends on closing and 'inspecting' the bridge, and only reopening if feasible. this may not prevent another span further away from being built, but if both are built, wave the existing ambassador goodbye.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 901
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 5:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yay! So if an adjacent bridge opens, the Ambassador can rust and rot to hell just like the MC Depot.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5238
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 5:30 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yep, pretty much, or be taken down for other reasons. Has there ever been a historic bridge the size and scope of the Ambassador in this country taken down?

That said, again, I think Matty's only offering to close down the bridge to temporarily allay the fears of two spans at the location. I can't imagine him wanting to go through more wrangling to build another bridge, Downriver, when he has a perfectly good bridge in the Ambassador Bridge sitting right next door. I feel that his plans to close the Ambassador for inspection are just a ploy, and it will be reopened before you know it if ever closed, at all.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 417
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 5:38 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

i'm not sure one quite like the ambassador has been taken down. good question, that could bring up some other issues. funny, San Francisco will do nearly anything to save the Golden Gate, but i doubt that will happen to the Ambassador. Granted, the Ambassador is no comparison, but still...

I'm under the impression that the proposed downriver bridge isn't Maroun's project, am i wrong?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5240
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 6:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Ambassador is comparison on a number of scales.

It may not be the longest, but it easily ranks up there in length and size to our historic bridges. There are really only a few other's of its age and size like it, including the Golden Gate and the one in Philly.

Historically, upon its completion, it was the longest suspension bridge in the world.

It really is a unique historical bridge that doesn't get the attention and credit that it deserves. Again, there are very few like it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 418
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 6:23 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

okay, in various numbers it does, i'll concede that. but something about the aesthetics of the golden gate surpasses the ambassador., it's got a cleaner look to it, rather than the X crossbeams of the AB, GG's are horizontal... anyways, it's purely a matter of opinion, though, and i still admire the ambassador regardless.

But more importantly, as you said, the ambassador doesn't get the credit it deserves, so the golden gate is far more recognizable among the american public. if someone mentioned tearing it down, people across the country would be up in arms. unfortunately in the ambassador's case, the general response would be 'where's that? - if you're lucky.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5243
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 6:27 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I like the Golden Gate, better, too. My only point was that the Ambassador still ranks high in the top echelons of historic bridges in terms of its statistics, history, and aesthetics, even if it's not the top bridge in all or any of the categories.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 3828
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 7:28 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The new bridge will not have any piers in the water... that was one of Manny's ways of getting around the Army Corps of Engineers.

As for the longest bridges (in no particular order)... there is the Verrazzano Narrows Bridge in NYC (between Brooklyn & Staten Island), the Golden Gate Bridge, the Oakland Bay Bridge, the Mackinac Bridge, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, the George Washington Bridge, the Tappan Zee Bridge.

Smaller bridges are those such as the Ambassador Bridge, and many bridges crossing other rivers (Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Delaware, Columbia, Colorado, East River, Tacoma Narrows, etc).

The distance between the main spans is what is used to gauge a bridge's size, not the total length. IIRC, the Ambassador has an 1,800 ft. main span, the George Washington Bridge has a 3,500 ft. main span, the Mackinac Bridge has a 3,800 ft. main span, the Golden Gate Bridge has a 4,200 ft. main span, and the Verrazzano Narrows Bridge has a 4,600 ft. main span.

(Message edited by Gistok on March 16, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 902
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 9:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Ambassador looked better when it was painted black instead of that light blue. I thought the black nicely evoked the no-nonsense industrial setting of much of the areas adjacent to the bridge.
From
http://www.mackinacbridge.org/ about-the-bridge-8/
------------------------------ ---------------------
The Mackinac Bridge is currently the third longest suspension bridge in the world. In 1998, the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge in Japan became the longest with a total suspension of 12,826 feet. The Great Belt Bridge in Halsskov-Sprogoe, Denmark, which also opened in 1998, is the second longest suspension bridge in the world with a total suspension of 8,921 feet. The Mackinac Bridge is the longest suspension bridge in the western hemisphere. The total length of the Mackinac Bridge is 26,372 feet. The length of the suspension bridge (including anchorages) is 8,614 feet. The length from cable bent pier to cable bent pier is 7,400 feet. Length of main span (between towers) is 3,800 feet.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1085
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 9:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Remember folks, Canada does not want the bridge there. Huron Church would not be able to handle the additional traffic generated by this bridge.

The EPA and US DOT would also have a say on anything of this magnitude. I doubt that it would be favorable as both the City of Windsor and the MTO would not want the additional span located there.

Homeland Security would not like to see the bridges next to each other. DHS would rather have the bridge somewhere else as if someone drops a bomb, they can take out both bridges at once.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5248
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 10:16 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitplanner, many never thought the proposal would make it this far. Matty has quite a bit of weight to throw around, and it still remains to be seen how far he will get with this. Do not underestimate the power of money. One no more need to count this plan out, as one would count this plan as a definite given.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andyguard73
Member
Username: Andyguard73

Post Number: 211
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 3:01 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Burnsie do you know how long ago it was painted its current blue? I never it remember it being any other color, but after you mentioning it I googled it and found some old photo's, and I have to agree. It looked much more attractive in my opinion when it was black.

Here's a picture I found showing it with its black coat, and with the Detroit skyline from, I'm guessing, the 50's or 60's:

http://www.sbe.hw.ac.uk/staff/ arthur/frbpc/april2005/images/ Ambassador%20Bridge%20-%20Conn ects%20Winsor%20and%20Detroit_ jpg.jpg
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5250
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 3:46 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I never knew that it wasn't always blue. Yes, black would have been a much better color to keep it; much more representative of the city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Viziondetroit
Member
Username: Viziondetroit

Post Number: 1033
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 3:50 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^ lol
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1086
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 8:00 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't believe everything you read in Today's trucking, especially when it is about the owner of one of the largest trucking firms in the country!

Consider the source and chill. If this is such big news, why is it not in the freep or the snwezs? Not even a check of the Star, which has kept up on the bridge refers to this.

Where was the public involvement that went on with the approval?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5251
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 6:07 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Viziondetroit,

I just got the racial connotation my words could have for some. Can someone say double entendre? lol I was actually talking about the how it would relate to heavy industry and grit, but I'll take the other one, too, for effect.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5253
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 9:16 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Southwestmap, or anyone else, can someone find the Friday (March 17) article on this issue in the online addition of the Windsor Star? I've tried doing random searches on the Windsor Star's website, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason to how they sort the results, and I've been unable to find the actual article.
Top of pageBottom of page

Yupislyr
Member
Username: Yupislyr

Post Number: 193
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 9:26 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It was on A3 of Friday's Windsor Star.

http://www.canada.com/windsors tar/news/story.html?id=40226af c-5a2c-4b4a-a001-4bdf413322a4

From what I gather in the article, this was the easiest hurdle for him to get over. Definitely a number of road blocks to go.

"The bridge's permit application process was limited to impact on the waterways or shoreline habitat, she said.

"We were satisfied they met the permit requirements under the statute," Fish said. "We understand there are a lot of concerns about traffic or air issues, but those are not issues under the statute."
Top of pageBottom of page

Yupislyr
Member
Username: Yupislyr

Post Number: 194
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 9:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also worth noting, it looks like some lawmakers in Michigan are again going to try and give the government more oversight concerning border crossings, similar to the Canadian legislation that passed recently.

http://www.canada.com/windsors tar/news/story.html?id=3d89d0c b-e17b-48a4-9bf4-2348141356d4

Rep. Steve Tobocman (D - Detroit) will reintroduce HB 4867 within the next month -- calling for the formation of a Michigan Border Development and Protection Authority, he said Wednesday.

Under Tobocman's plan, the proposed border authority would issue annual operating permits to border crossings, regulate tolls and oversee planning and security issues.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5254
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 9:35 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's really odd that traffic and air issues weren't under this statute. On the Michigan side of things, we look like we're very unorganized when it comes to these types of international developments. Everything just appears so disjointed.

Yupislyr,

Do I have to pay to read these day old stories?

(Message edited by lmichigan on March 17, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Yupislyr
Member
Username: Yupislyr

Post Number: 195
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 9:44 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh, whoops. Forgot about the Windsor Star site and it's whole subscribers only thing. Assuming it's kosher to post the full articles, here ya go:

Mich. OKs building twin span
News of environmental approval shakes residents on both sides of border

Dave Battagello
Windsor Star

Friday, March 16, 2007

The state of Michigan has granted approval for the Ambassador Bridge to proceed with construction of a twin span.

Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has issued a permit to bridge owner Matty Moroun which allows him to build a crossing until the end of 2008. Moroun can apply for extensions over the next five years and requires no other state approvals.

"We are moving forward on a schedule and process. This is one more hurdle for us we have to get over," said Dan Stamper, president of the bridge company. "There are only a few approvals needed to do a bridge. We are doing exactly what we said we would do."

How much weight the MDEQ approval carries is questionable given Moroun still requires federal permits and some municipal approvals on both sides of the border before construction can proceed.

"The bottom line is we are conducting our own environmental assessment," said Mark Butler, spokesman for Transport Canada. "We monitor what's happening on the U.S. side, but the Canadian process is entirely independent."

But news of the state environmental agency's approval has shaken residents on both sides of the border fearful over the environmental impact on neighbourhoods should a six-lane bridge be constructed within metres of the existing 77-year-old span.

A coalition of resident and business groups which have worked hard to revitalize neighbourhoods around the bridge entrance in Detroit will launch an appeal of the MDEQ permit, said Alison Benjamin, program manager for Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision.

"This is of great concern to us," Benjamin said. "It's a continuing battle for us over the land use future of southwest Detroit."

Moroun's expansion efforts have been launched on so many fronts, the biggest difficulty has become funding legal costs associated with the numerous challenges posed by the bridge company -- such as the MDEQ appeal, she said.

MDEQ has actually granted two permits to the bridge company -- one for the crossing and another for a storm sewer upgrade.

The agency's mandate in granting permits to projects such as the twin bridge proposal does not include resident concerns or even air quality testing, according to Kim Fish, acting assistant division chief for the Land and Water Management Division at MDEQ.

The bridge's permit application process was limited to impact on the waterways or shoreline habitat, she said.

"We were satisfied they met the permit requirements under the statute," Fish said. "We understand there are a lot of concerns about traffic or air issues, but those are not issues under the statute."

MDEQ held a public hearing regarding the twin bridge permit in November, but residents concerns were not considered unless they pertained to habitat, recreational or natural resources issues.

"We didn't receive a lot of comments or objections," Fish said.

The state's approval of the twin span is proof of how little residents are protected in Michigan from infrastructure construction, said Mary Ann Cuderman, leader of a west-end truck watchdog group and bridge company opponent.

"It really saddens me how things are so easy over there," Cuderman said. "(Moroun) works under the law and gets away with it because the law backs up what he is doing. People have no chance to speak for themselves over there, that's just horrible.

"They just looked at the crossing -- they did not not give any consideration to the plazas or access roads. Air quality has to be addressed. Thankfully we are protected more than that over here."
The Windsor Star 2007

Law proposed to oversee bridge

Dave Battagello
Windsor Star

Thursday, March 15, 2007

A Michigan state representative will introduce legislation that carries the same sweeping authority over border crossings -- including Windsor's bridge and tunnel -- as adopted by Canada's federal government.

Rep. Steve Tobocman (D - Detroit) will reintroduce HB 4867 within the next month -- calling for the formation of a Michigan Border Development and Protection Authority, he said Wednesday.

Under Tobocman's plan, the proposed border authority would issue annual operating permits to border crossings, regulate tolls and oversee planning and security issues.

Tobocman's goal for the commission is to take better economic advantage of the huge volume of transportation and trade that rolls through the Windsor-Detroit corridor, he said. "This is part of a larger package of what we are doing statewide," he said. "You will see (the border legislation) as part of our overall economic development strategy."

Southwestern Michigan has done a poor job capitalizing economically on the huge volume of trade which passes through the Windsor-Detroit corridor, North America's busiest border crossing and primary source of the estimated $160 billion in trade between Michigan and Ontario.

The new commission would not only oversee the crossings, but also co-ordinate a strategy to attract additional jobs and development related to transportation and movement of goods -- ideally transforming the Detroit region into a global logistics hub, he said.

"We want to be proactive in the region to take advantage of the trade corridor," Tobocman said. "The volume of trade is twice what is done between the U.S. and Japan. We as a state must have a specific economic strategy to take advantage of that."

The commission would be appointed by the governor and include legislators, representatives of private industry, as well as local residents.

Tobocman introduced similar legislation two years ago in the Michigan House, but it was stalled by his Republican counterparts in Lansing, the state's capital. But the Democrats today hold the state majority with Tobocman recently promoted to the influential position of Majority Floor Leader.

The Canadian federal government recently approved Bill C-3 which gives Ottawa and Transport Canada authority over tolls, security, maintenance of the nation's border crossings, including the Ambassador Bridge.
The Windsor Star 2007
Top of pageBottom of page

Yupislyr
Member
Username: Yupislyr

Post Number: 196
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 10:59 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And here's the Ambassador Bridge's computer rendering of their proposed bridge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =qrVM_ReGCSE
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 626
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 11:25 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the link. Just what we need. More money for road construction.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 426
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 11:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

thanks for the clip, yupislyr. i'm was surprised at how it dwarfed the ambassador, although i really shouldn't have been, knowing the towers were further apart.

i'm kinda dissapointed by the design, although i know i shouldn't have expected anything unique. i suppose i can hold out some hope, since i'm sure that's not a final design, or a detailed representation, but i still doubt it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw

Post Number: 1614
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 12:26 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree with Yupislyr's assessment that this was probably their easiest hurdle to cross. If the State DEQ is only concerned with environmental impact on waterways and shoreline habitat, it was reasonable for them to approve it, as I doubt there would be much impact.

The bridge is objectionable for many other non-environmental reasons. I don't think it stands much chance of being approved at the Windsor municipal level and the federal level, but we should be sure to raise hell if it looks like it has a chance.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5255
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 1:22 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks, Yupislyr.

I'm also surprised by how it dwarfs the Ambassador. I'd hardly not call it unique, though. The new trend is in cable-stayed bridges, but I'm not sure if there are many more of this size and length in the country, currently.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 428
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 2:13 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

lmich - so far as cable-stayed goes, this is standard fare, and pretty bland at that. There's nothing there that will allow someone to differentiate it from any other. I don't expect anything as unique as the Amamillo bridge, but just something better than plain towers like those. It mostly bugs me because that design follows the form of a suspension bridge, for which that form is necessary. a cable stayed bridge does not require the towers to be that configuration, so why imitate something else?

i'm actually quite a fan of cable-stayed bridges, and for new bridges i actually prefer that type over suspension. my problem is not with the type of bridge, i just don't want to see it half-assed, cause we'll be looking at it for the rest of our lives.

so far as size alone, if my source is correct, and if it ends up with a span of around 2000 feet (ambassador: 1850, and the canadian side of the twin appears to be further inland), it will have the 4th, maybe 3rd, longest span of any bridge of its type in the world - not including works-in-progress. that certainly explains the size, but i don't want to settle for an ugly bridge just cause it's big.

again, i'm sure that's not a final plan, so it could easily change. even the way it is, it may look far better in real life, particularly if it gets some paint and lighting. but i fully expect economics will win out, as always, and we'll get the absolute cheapest thing he can build.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5256
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 2:20 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I, too, would have actually preferred that they put the towers at different intervals, instead of trying to mimic suspension bridges, but you must understand that they did this so as to try and make it not stand out so much. If they'd have gone for something that didn't try to mimic the Ambassador, at all, I can assure you'd have heard a bigger outcry for not paying homage to the Ambassador. Not saying I agree with this, at all, but there's a reason.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 430
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 10:00 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, I can see that - although instead of paying homage, it looks more like a cheap ripoff, and an insult instead. If there was some design detail to the towers or something, it would be better. we'll see, though. it may be cynical, but i fully expect he'll make it through the rest of the hurdles easily enough.
Top of pageBottom of page

Peter
Member
Username: Peter

Post Number: 12
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 3:55 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What ever happened to the bridge planned to be built in Delray? It was supposed to be state owned?
Top of pageBottom of page

Yupislyr
Member
Username: Yupislyr

Post Number: 197
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 7:41 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The study for that potential new bridge is still ongoing...

http://www.partnershipborderst udy.com

Moroun's plans have already been rejected by the study group but he's obviously still trying to get it done his way regardless.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5257
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 9:43 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm pretty sure that one of the studies by that group includes the one to also twin the Ambassador.
Top of pageBottom of page

Yupislyr
Member
Username: Yupislyr

Post Number: 198
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 10:36 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, twinning was studied but was eliminated from the process in late 2005

The news releases stating such: http://www.partnershipborderst udy.com/pdf/051114_JointNewsRe lease.pdf

"Twinning the existing Ambassador Bridge was determined to not be practical based on the community impacts of the proposed plaza and access road in Canada. The Partnership will continue to explore the U.S. customs plaza area of the Ambassador Bridge to connect to a potential customs plaza on the Canadian in the remaining area of continued analysis."

And here's the present study area they refer to:

http://www.partnershipborderst udy.com/pdf/051114_ContinuedAn alysesMap.pdf
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5258
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 1:31 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It appears that they are ONLY concentrating on the area from the Ambassador Bridge to the city limits. Whatever happened to the Downriver suggestion, or is this what the study group considers 'Downriver' as well?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 3850
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 3:03 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The downriver communities want nothing to do with a bridge to Canada.

Driving along Fort St. going underneath the enormous landward side of the Ambassador Bridge will tell you why.

It would just dominate (as well as cut in half) any community that would have it.

And then there's the noise and fumes...
Top of pageBottom of page

Yupislyr
Member
Username: Yupislyr

Post Number: 199
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 3:29 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They looked at the downriver area and also a possible route through east Windsor/Detroit over Belle Isle, but those have all been eliminated as well due to huge impacts to residents.

This illustrates the actual bridge routes they are considering now: http://www.partnershipborderst udy.com/pdf/Crossing_Locations .pdf

There's extensive maps and drawings of a number of these previous alternatives down on the bottom of this page: http://www.partnershipborderst udy.com/maps.asp under the heading "U.S. Illustrative Alternatives - June 2005"

The DRIC is supposed to announce their decision on the preferred location of the bridge, plaza, and connecting roads by this summer, last I read.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5259
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 4:54 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

BTW, over the weekend I sent out a few emails to get some renderings on Matty's plan to twin the Ambassador, and here is what I was given. It's their brochure for what seems to be a DOA project:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3 6299945@N00/427147752/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3 6299945@N00/427147742/
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 434
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 5:04 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the links Lmich. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 3853
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 5:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It almost seems to me that Matty's twin design would impact much less on Southwest Detroit than any of these alternatives. They all appear to take up vast amounts of land.

But then again, I'm not familiar with the neighborhoods down that way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5260
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 5:58 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gistok, I noticed the same thing. In terms of land, this would definitely have a smaller footprint because it would utilize a lot of the same infastructure as the Ambassador. And, wouldn't take out any residential areas.

That said, the effect on local traffic, which is already bad enough, is what really makes this proposal hit a snag.
Top of pageBottom of page

Corktowner
Member
Username: Corktowner

Post Number: 11
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:17 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"They looked at the downriver area and also a possible route through east Windsor/Detroit over Belle Isle, but those have all been eliminated as well due to huge impacts to residents."

The statement above apparently does not apply to the residents in Mexicantown or St. Anne's and Corktown.
Top of pageBottom of page

Leland_palmer
Member
Username: Leland_palmer

Post Number: 254
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 1:31 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Glad to see the Snews is finally on the Job

http://detroitnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070322/M ETRO/703220415/1003

The article states that the project has passed the State hurdles, and only needs approval of the US Coast Guard, and the Canadian Provincial and Federal Governments.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 719
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 1:42 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How can this be the only state approval? Where is MDOT's say in this matter, they've already rejected Mouroun's plan?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin

Post Number: 3910
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 2:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Speaking of bridges I see that it is nice that we made a good list for once...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ist_of_largest_suspension_brid ges

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