First the pipeline now the bridge

[Topaz]

The Tories are going to do battle against the US family that owns the Detroit-Windsor bridge and this time they could be wasting more taxapyers money for something they want to own, instead of working together with the owners. The owner's have said they would pay out of their own pocket to redo the bridge for more traffic but that the research has shown that traffic is down at the crossing. Baird has said that Canada will pay for the bridge 550Million (plus, estimates are never right on) and that Canada would get it back through TOLLS. I can think of two reason they won't, traffic down and the Ambassador's owners reduce tolls at their bridge! Much of the traffic going over to the US from Canada are people who are working in Michigan like nurses and business people. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-girds-for-legal-battle-over-new-windsor-detroit-bridge/article2270334/

[sharkman]

Have you ever been stuck in a line up at the US border Topaz?

[cybercoma]

I lived in Windsor and I can tell you this is for the best.

Since the Ambassador Bridge Corp. is private. They refused to release the safety reports on the structure to the Canadian or US government. The bridge was built in the 30s. Traffic is down simply because the economy is in a slump and the manufacturing sector has left Windsor-Detroit.

The owner of the AB Co. decided he was going to build his own second span across the river BEFORE getting approval from either government to connect to the roads. The Americans simply dumped a mountain of dirt on the ramp that he built on their public property and refused to allow him to connect to the highways.

The AB Co is more interested in making money by suing both governments than they are doing legitimate business. Our government or even a joint Canada-US government purchase of the bridge is in everyone's beset interest to stop the lawsuits and ensure teh safety of the roadway.

[Bryan]

Maybe I'm just used to our entrenched socialism, but I can't help but find it bizarre that a private entity can own a public structure, especially a major bridge.

[olp1fan]

This would be a worthwhile investment.. hundreds of millions of dollars in trade goes through that border every day

someone has been stopping another bridge to be built for years

game over

Edited December 14, 2011 by olp1fan

[Topaz]

OK, but every time the Tories make a deal with the US, Canada is on the losing end! There is no guarantee that the tolls will pay back the money invested, at least , not in our life time. The only time the bridge is backed up is when its a holiday and people are going over to shop. Have I ever been stuck in traffic at the border, no, because I don't go over there to shop.

[olp1fan]

This will help trade go faster and smoother.. its a win win for everyone in the bigger picture

[Tilter]

Maybe I'm just used to our entrenched socialism, but I can't help but find it bizarre that a private entity can own a public structure, especially a major bridge.

Like Hiway 407???

[Topaz]

This will help trade go faster and smoother.. its a win win for everyone in the bigger picture

Unless they change it, outside of London On, trucks stop at a check point and get a pass so they don't hold up the traffic at the bridge. How is a new bridge going to search the trucks any faster then now?

[Moonbox]

OK, but every time the Tories make a deal with the US, Canada is on the losing end!

Umm...says who? Says you?

not in our life time. The only time the bridge is backed up is when its a holiday and people are going over to shop.

Are you basing that on your direct knowledge of the Detroit/Windsor border, or on your belief that everything the Tories do is worth a big long whine?

Have I ever been stuck in traffic at the border, no, because I don't go over there to shop.

Neither do I, but I still get stuck at the border. I get stuck going on vacation, coming back from vacation, going to see the Bills play, going to see the Leafs play in Buffalo, going to see the Red Wings play, driving to Pittsburgh to see family etc etc etc. In fact, I can't remember crossing the border quickly in the last 10-15 times I've crossed.

Unless they change it, outside of London On, trucks stop at a check point and get a pass so they don't hold up the traffic at the bridge. How is a new bridge going to search the trucks any faster then now?

Because there are too many vehicles at the crossing and regardless of who's getting searched there's not enough capacity to handle it smoothly. Once a bridge is built, the cost of operating it is irrelevant. It's not expensive. Facilitating the integration of our economies by means of more convenient trade more than makes up for it.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

This wikipedia entry actually has some pretty useful information about everything going on with the border crossing. It has links embedded in it to lots of other info too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_River_International_Crossing

[Guest American Woman]

OK, but every time the Tories make a deal with the US, Canada is on the losing end! There is no guarantee that the tolls will pay back the money invested, at least , not in our life time.

How many times do I have to point out that the U.S. paid for the bridge the first time around? Heaven forbid that Canada should be the one footing the bill this time, eh?

[Tilter]

How many times do I have to point out that the U.S. paid for the bridge the first time around? Heaven forbid that Canada should be the one footing the bill this time, eh?

Hey, Canada can pay for it (3 times as much as a private company or individual) complete it, pay for the road leading to it & then sell it to some company (for a pittance) from China or Somalia, who will promise not to raise the tolls (who will then raise the tolls) and let them make a billion or so off the project.

If the Country is anxious to get another link to the USA, let a private company do it.

[cybercoma]

the U.S. paid for the bridge

Construction of the bridge was a private venture. It was paid for by Americans, not the state. Shortly after it opened, the Depression hit and they were in trouble. They ended up issuing bonds in the company to stay afloat.

[Guest American Woman]

Construction of the bridge was a private venture. It was paid for by Americans, not the state. Shortly after it opened, the Depression hit and they were in trouble. They ended up issuing bonds in the company to stay afloat.

It was the Blue Water Bridge between Port Huron and Sarnia that the U.S. paid for - covering Canada's half of the cost. I say let Canada front the cost for this bridge if Canada wants it.

[Bryan]

Like Hiway 407???

Exactly like that. I haven't had the pleasure of having to use it, so it's still a bizarre anomaly to me too.

[Steve T]

Maybe I'm just used to our entrenched socialism, but I can't help but find it bizarre that a private entity can own a public structure, especially a major bridge.

Can you explain what you mean by a "public structure" by distinguishing it from structures that are not "public structures?" Here in the US, we do not have such a distinguishing concept, as far as I know, although I imagine most Yanks would comprehend a distinction between structures built and/ or operated by government or quasi-government entities vs those built and/ or operated by other entities, or between structures that allow anyone to use vs those intended to be used by only a certain, relatively small, group of people whose commonality is defined by some criterion different from citizens of/ visitors to a political entity. However, this latter distinction would understand "public structure" in a manner obverse from the way you seem to be using it. Edited December 30, 2011 by Steve T