I am not a fan of Gov. Snyder or most of what he has done so far as Michigan's Governor. The man leading our state is not a politician, he is a businessman. However, with regard to this issue, I think Gov. Snyder is right on the money. Literally. And with the opportunity for matching Federal funds, I think that there will never be a better time for the NITC.
As Lester Graham reported, the Governor has been trying to make this point, "every chance he gets."
The problem here is, Gov. Snyder is NOT a politician. The Morouns have more political tact than the Governor, which is causing the positive points that all Michigan voters and taxpayers should be hearing to get lost in the crossfire of this debate.
It is very simple when it comes to motives: The Morouns see their money walking away as the Ambassador Bridge crumbles, while the governments in two different countries see a boost in Infrastructure, Employment, Revenue for numerous businesses, etc.
There is one point I'd like to hear answered. Unless I've missed it being addressed, I'd like to know what happens if the Canadian Government doesn't recoup it's money in tolls? Canada is, "fronting," the cost of the new bridge and Michigan's freeway expansions. How many years are they planning to give Michigan and the US before they ask for a share in the costs?
It is clear that a bridge will never be free. There is still some expense to Michigan, but it is nothing compared to the possible losses if a bridge is built in Buffalo, NY or elsewhere. In the end, we'd be the stupid ones to not take the deal.

Great question, The agreement states they'll continue to carry any burden until they recoup the 550.

No it doesn't. Canada can walk any time it wants.
Tell me where it talks about the $550M too. It does not

Our precious bridge owner wont be driven out of business as you think.. We'll continue to subsidize his operation so that'll be just about impossible. He'll continue to get a free pass over the bridge for his massive trucking empire... He'll continue to buy fuel without having to pay the 60 cents a gallon tax EVERYONE else that sells fuel pays.. Think about that for a minute everyone. He's got himself a pretty nice little gig going, Even if his trucks are the ONLY vehicles that ever cross the Ambassador again... Fill up a semi once and see what 60 cents a gallon difference saves you. 500 gallons? 300 hundred bucks.Thats 300 stolen directly from out road dollars. To fix the same roads Morouns trucks destroy! How's the competition doing in the trucking arena ? Toss in a free pass over my taxpayer funded bridge.. dont worry about Moroun missing a mortgage payment..

MONOPOLY! In every sense of the word!

Canada has
made it abundantly clear that they will not permit Mr. Moroun to build a new
bridge adjacent to the Ambassador Bridge. Therefore Mr. Moroun’s campaign to
build a bridge is a red herring. What his campaign is really about is avoiding
the competition that a public bridge would bring to his current monopoly. There
is no public service in his motivations, it is pure greed on his part. Yet a
wide range of Republican politicians have come to Mr. Moroun’s aid. So I have
to ask, why are the Republicans so eager to protect the monopoly of a
billionaire, and why are they fighting the obvious public good that a public bridge,
as proposed by our governor and the Canadians, would bring?

The Ambassador will NEVER be twinned. Period. The Plaza area is surrounded by a University and residential neighborhood. Adding capacity isn't an option. You might not care about air quality for your kids but these people do. Morouns probably grandfathered in for a replacement span, but added capacity? He has do do an Environmental impact study.. He knows that. He also knows the ppms are already excessive. So he's decided to just build the thing anyway.. Not gonna happen..

He has already had an environmental impact study and both Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency listed his twin as (to quote) 'NO BUILD'. No one talks of the cost of that study ...of course.

Heres a little lesson for those who know NOTHING about international border crossings.. You keep saying Moroun's willing to build a bridge that wont cost you ANYTHING?? Stupidest thing I've ever heard.. He's trying to build one up in the Niagra region too. Already owns all the land on both sides for it .. Pay attention here.. Moroun builds the bridge...900 million.. Then what? CALL IN THE TAXPAYER...!! Time to hook it into the freeway systems ON BOTH SIDES! Canadas offer for our interchanges.550 million.. Another 550 million on the Canadian side.. WALA! Moroun just got Dumb and Dumber to spend 200 MILLION more than he did on the span!! You think thats stupid?? WE AREN'T DONE YET! THOSE WERE JUST THE STATES COSTS!! Now call in the REALLY STUPID FEDS and have em build your inspection plazas.(after Moroun rapes us over the cost of the land). Those are said to be in the area of another 500 million.. EACH SIDE!! Where we at now?? 1.2 BILLION MORE THAN MOROUN SPENT BUILDING THE BRIDGE!!! He builds his little toll collection booths.. Hires some twits to take your money and WE PAY EVERY OTHER EMPLOYEE YOU SEE AT THAT CROSSING!!! 100 MILLION A YEAR TO SECURE THIS THING FOR HIM!! HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW???.

I can name just about every blogger in here who's opposed to this thing just by the things they write... Or we may be unfortunate enough to have 1 or 2 who actually read the blogs Morouns been paying for over in windsor.

I like to consider motives. The only reason the Marouns want to do this is because it is a money maker. Look at how much money they are pumping into their negative ad campaign! My thought is that Michigan should take the deal with Ontario. Let them put up the money upfront to build the bridge and recoup their investment in tolls, then if the bridge isn't making money for the state, sell it to the Marouns. I'm betting that the money the bridge will bring in will be well worth it. Additionally, our current crossing is the most heavily used international crossing in the country. Increasing that volume will help not only Michigan but the U.S. trade balance.

No kidding it's a money maker? But evidently you think governments and their ridiculous security apparatus are better at making money and providing service and doing business than a private entrepreneur. I have worked for both government and private industry and I can assure you, government cannot get things done. NITC is the equivalent of turning road transportation over to the TSA. Scary. And expensive, too.

You think Moroun runs his crossing dont you? He pays the toll collectors.. You think he secures an International Border? We do! Every face you see on that site is on our dime.

An am Tea Party and think Matty Moroun needs to go back to jail !! We need this bridge and Matty's cronies need to stop buying their monopoly.

In the on air story, Lester missed one very critical point in his analysis of the Maroun position, which is that Canada will not allow another span to built on the site the Marouns control at the present Ambassador Bridge. The whole objective for Canada is get the traffic off of Windsor surface streets by building a bridge where it can connect directly to the 401. The Marouns have no way to be involved in that and the Canadians will certainly not deal with them to give them rights at this point.

I noted that the Canadians do not want the second span in yesterday's story.

Lester ... the whole red herring about a second span evapourated yesterday when the Ambassador decided to void their appeal of a court decision upholding Windsor’s right to ban the demolition of boarded-up houses on the city’s west side.

Yes but to tie it directly to exploding the Maroun claim that they have a viable proposal to build a new bridge in the economic analysis is a point worth stressing - at least in the after discussion even if time was too limited to cover the ground twice in the over all report.

But overall great reporting.

"The Canadians"? Which Canadians? That shill Norton? That is your source for what Canadians want? I am a Canadian who lived and worked in Michigan and Minnesota for 22 years and is now back paying taxes in Ontario. Our governments are in deficit and debt stituations and I can assure you most Canadians who are paying attention to this story do not want to foot the bill for you especially since the bridge is not needed. And if the bridge is needed, let Maron pay for it out of the profits he has reaped over the years. This is, sadly, very one sided journalism.

I do not know of the Canadians you talk to ....but I haven't heard the moans you seem to have been hearing, and I am not ..."just getting back".

A private company will build the span.. This company will be afforded no more than we've afforded Moroun over the last 30 years.

Oh Lester, you did not read the Agreement signed between the
Governor and Canada
did you.

If you had, you would see that there is no legal commitment
on Canada
to put up one single penny. Moreover, Canada can walk
away from the Agreement any time it chooses.
Just ask the Michigan Solicitor General if he agrees to that.

Please point out to me where in the Agreement there is a
commitment from Canada
to front $550 million. There never was
such a legal commitment, ever. At most,
it was in a Letter of Intent that was non-binding and unenforceable legally.

It is a shame to me that Michigan media refuse to read documents or
if they do, are unable to understand them.
It is no wonder that the public is confused because they are not getting
the help to try to understand this mess.

As an example, why
haven't the media talked about
this. The media neglected to point out
that the Governor's Overview and the Agreement mean that what we have been told
previously about the bridge being financially viable was all misinformation. Availability payments will have to be paid
for at least 50 years. So much for the financial
calculations that allegedly showed that toll revenue is sufficient.

Why haven't you pointed out this flaw when the Governor says: "They are advancing the expenses on the Michigan side which will
be repaid from tolls." Why do you
let him get away with that!

Why didn't you tell us that the equivalent of a Bill 410
could be introduced at any time that would require Michigan to pay out money for the DRIC
project? Why haven't you told us that a
subsequent Legislature could pass a Bill that would require the State to pay
out money for the DRIC project? What about
the Constitutional Amendment proposed by the Senate Majority Leader to prevent
this? What happened to it? Obviously, the State is at risk.

The Governor signed the Agreement after working in secret
with Canada for a
year. The Governor can always amend it with no controls by the
Legislature over his actions. The change
would remain secret too. As you will recall,
the Governor vetoed the legislation passed with no negative votes that required
public disclosure of all MoUs signed
with foreign governments.

And as far as matching grants go, the State has used already
$50 million of the Bridge Company toll credits to plug a hole in the Governor's
Transportation Budget. MDOT for years
had said that these credits could not be used but they were wrong. By the way, has the "unique
agreement" between the State and FHWA ever been signed? That
agreement never mentioned Canada's money at all and is just as applicable to the Bridge Company
also.

This statement of yours, Lester, is wrong by the way: "This would be a chance to get some of
the federal taxes we pay back to fixing roads in Michigan." The State already does!

Now there's a classic delusionary consiracy theory rant .... most of the "facts" cited by AnonEMous1 are not actually facts, but rather interpretations of language, and suppositions of what might happen if this or if that, assuming of course that both parties in this venture are unscrupulous and deliberately trying to screw the other party, or the poor taxpayers. I suppose any motivated lawyer can find language in any agreement that they believe could be exploited by a potential client on either side of the agreement. In the final analysis in all comes down to the "good will" of the parties that sign the agreement. The use of availability payments as a financing mechanism is in no wa a concession that the expected toll revenue will be insuffiicient. Rather it is a way to ensure that the governments reap the rewards earlier if traffic increases faster than expected. In addition, since avaiability payments reduce the rist to the private sector partner, the use of this payment mechanism is likely to attract additional bidders to this project, improoving the liklihood that construction costs are minimized to the the competitive bidding environment. To enderstand the uniqueness of the FHWA agreement, you have to be familiar with the way federal dollars are allocated to highway projects. The agreement brokered by the Governor allows MDOT greater flexibility in how those funds are allocated to project that is unique in the US (or was when the agreement was originally made) MODT never said that toll credits from the Ambasador Bridge couldn't be used, what it said was that the Ambassador Bridge had always refused to provide the necessary financial information to generate those credits in the first place. And there is a long and documented history of that refusal prior to their recent change of heart for one budget cycle. AnonEMous1 is correct in saying that there is an error in Lester's last line...its is true that the $2.2 billion will not be increasing Michigan's share of federal dollars, Lester's error is that the failure to match those funds will allow other states to capture more of Michigan's share of the dollars, making us an even bigger donor state than we already are.

You are quite correct ...the same person trys to say moron can twin his bridge without a presidential permit and therefore is above the law. It is a fact thatA Presidential Permit process is to bring order and discipline to building anything across the international borders linking the U.S.-Canada or the U.S.-Mexico. The basic idea is to make sure that what we are doing on our side of the border matches and is complimented on the other side of the border in Canada or Mexico. After all, it would be rather foolish to build a bridge across the Rio Grande into Mexico, or the Detroit River into Canada, if our neighbors to the north and south did not take similar actions to improve infrastructure on the other side of the border to make operations smooth and efficient. Since negotiations and coordination with the governments of Mexico and Canada is required, the Department of State became the lead agency to manage the Presidential permit process. The Bridge company does not even own the land it sits on as it sits on a easement only.

Canada will not built to suit the Ambassador bridge and have said so.

For the last time, you are incorrect about the Presidential Permit. sorry.

Delusionary rant? My facts are "facts" not interpretation. It's in the Agreement.
Governments change and economic situations change. There is nothing in the Agreement that prevents Canada walking away from it.
In the RFPOI, availaility payments were required by most proponents because of the fear of toll deficiency. Now we know it will last for at least 50 years as the Agreement states. So much for financial viability.
There was nothing "unique" about what Snyder did with FHWA. It was discussed before under Granholm. And yes, MDOT did deny that Bridge Co. toll credits could be used.

Most of the RFPOI respondants din not require availability payments, they said using availability payment would attract more bidders due to the decreased risk factor, some of the respondants actually indicated a preferance for real tolls.
MDOT only denied that toll credits could be used in the same manner as the the FHWA proposal for allowing the Canadian plaza investment. That remains true, even the toll credits MDOT generatees from the Blue Water, International, and Mackinac Bridges do not get the same treatment as FHWA is now offering for the Canadian investment in the US Plaza.

Thank you for a sensible post..

You raise an interesting point, however, the thesis of the article is of how the Moron family is paying for erroneous advertizing. Your diatribe about how "the media" failed to point out certain facts is helpful. That being said, how do you feel about the totally false statements contained as the main point of the Moron families ads. What smoke do you have to blow about their outright lying to the people of Michigan purely to maintain their financial standing?

Wow. How weak does your argument have to be to feel the need to resort to calling the Maron family "moron."
You people are a discredit to your already discreditable cause - the cause of turning Michigan into a foreign aid bailout recipient at Canadian taxpayer expense today, only to be left holding the bag for billions tomorrow.
What is astounding is the number of NITC boosters here - many no doubt paid for their "opinions" by the Governor's office and by Canada - who really do believe you can get a "free" bridge and that if trade does not support building the bridge today, well, then, build the bridge and trade will magically increase to justify it. This is magical thinking and it will cost all of us dearly once the temporary jobs dry up and a new Canadian government bails on their bridge.

It's probably just an ignorant misspelling or the Maroun name.....much like your own! Neither the Governor's office, nor the Canadian government can appropriate money to buy people's opinions. It's against the law in Canada and the Constitution in MI. If you're going to make idiotic claims, please stop identifying yourself as a Canadian as you did in another post.....I'm a Canadian and with the possible exception of Ed, you're embarrassing the rest of us.

Touche" CJ

The biggest lies----the new bridge is financially viable and traffic will triple.

WOW! It would appear my reinforcements have finally arrived.. Ed.. These guys have brought a whole new element to the debate and you were losing just fighting a roofer....

Thanks Ed. Shorten em up a bit buddy.. I didnt even read that one..

Dan Stamper get off the comment section.

Actually AnonEMous1 is Ed Arditti, a Windsor lawyer and paid blogger on the Matty Maroun payroll. He also posts as JoeBlog1. He is a prime example that a persons integrity can be sold if enough dollars are thrown his way.

Thanks, he seemed too articulate to be Stamper..lol

Speaking of "articulate", have any of you ever heard of spelling checkers? You want readers to take your comments seriously but a significant number of the letter groups in your posts aren't even words!

Last time I had to cross the border I spent 2 hours in traffic actually on the blue water bridge. granted thats not actually in detroit but if anything that should mean less traffic right?

Considering the external costs of automobiles and trucks (air and noise pollution, sedentary lifestyle, collisions, congestion, stress, opportunity cost of doing something more productive than driving and vehicle storage) and considering that the automobile is the most costly mode of passenger transportation and trucks do disproportionate damage to roads not designed for trucks, roads, highways and bridges have a negative rate of return on the investment. If governments were interested in improving trade across borders, there should be a free market of people and goods (eliminate the "security" at borders), as the probability of transportation of "terrorists" or significantly harmful goods is significantly less than the probability of people being harmed due to "natural causes". Rail is more efficient at the transportation of goods, but is undermined by governments continuing to intervene in transportation (spending more on roads, highways, bridges, airports, seaports than gasoline taxes and user fees), and benefits big business (it becomes more profitable for goods to be grown and manufactured in places with low labour costs and environmental standards and transported over long distances than to be done near consumption).

This story would have been more complete if a financial analysis was presented. You cannot tell the net financial cost to the taxpayer of each proposal. Hopefully its somewhere else in the series.

We've heard that Canada is building a high speed rail system, and that with this bridge, we will be able to increase trade both ways and also use the Canadian rail system to ship Michigan products. If this is true, I think this is a critical bit of information, and the bridge is important to our economic future.

But it won't come to the Windsor area, sorry

So Michiganders don't pay federal taxes? Apparently the governor thinks so. Federal matching grants are taxpayer money!!! So we are to borrow more money in order to pay for the new bridge? That makes no sense whatever! Let the Mouner family build it. They can do it cheaper than the federal government can!

in re the NITC: The ambassador Bridge currently charges $4.75 (US) per passenger vehicle; the basic financing costs of the putative $1B (US) cost (Ha, ha!) would be $7.22 (US). Operational costs, maintenance, etc., would be above that. Figure about $25 to drive to Windsor for dinner and back using NITC. To be fair to NITC, were DIBC able to build its second span it would have to charge a similar amount.

The "Windsor surface street congestion" shibboleth is either (a) a red herring, or (b) a tacit admission that the Ontario highway department (whatever it's called) is even more incompetent than MDOT. (If MDOT can time miles of surface road (see Aug 13 newspapers) why can't its Canadian counterpart?)

If one reads the U. S. Constitution one finds a section prohibiting a State from making a compact with a foreign government without approval from Congress. (Note that this is holding up protection of the Great Lakes from invasive species.) Where is the bill permitting a Michigan-Canada contract for NITC?

Buffalo wants the traffic? Let them have it. Let Ohio and Indiana have it on their turnpikes. Many of the trucks that are supposedly chafing at the bit to use a new bridge would, were either one built, make a beeline down I-94 to I-69 and then to Mexico, tearing up both I-94 and I-69 in the process.

Won't cost Michigan taxpayers a cent? Where's MDOT getting the funds to do all of the studies it's publishing about the bridges? Is Canada fronting that?

Not sure how you arrived at your financing conclusions, but the traffic and revenue report published in 2010 indicated that the new bridge could be financed with tolls comparable to those currently being charged by the Ambassador Bridge.
The authorization for Michigan to negotiate an agreement with Canada comes from Executive Order # 11423 (1968)
It's not a question of Buffalo wanting extra traffic, they have problems of their own with their existing bridges. Whomever solves the problem first, is more likely to attract businesses doing business acros the border than the other.
Of the $98.3 billion in US/Canada trade moved by truck through Detroit, $ 28.5 billion was Michigan/Canada trade, $11 billion was Ohio/Canada trade, $9.0 billion was Canada/Mexico trade, $7.9 billion was Texas/Canada trade, $7.8 billion was Indiana/Canada trade, $6.7 billion is Illinois/Canada trade, $6.7 billion is Tenessee/Canada trade, $5.7 billion is California/Canada trade. Some portion of trade between Canada and every state in the union passes through Detroit on a truck.
Its easy to say that traffic should go someplace else, but its not very practical.