bleeding heart Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 Even if that were true, it's more than one can say about you. Your wit is exceeded only by your intelligence. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Wild Bill Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 Nor should it be....the people of Michigan kicked Ontario's trash back across the border too! They did not kick Ontario's trash, BC. They kicked TORONTO'S trash! Toronto is in a universe of its own. Please do not include the rest of us Ontarioans with those very, very odd people! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Guest American Woman Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 Your wit is exceeded only by your intelligence. I wasn't trying to be witty, and your comment didn't require an intelligent response. Quote
Smallc Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Nor does most of your contribution to this thread. You act as if this bridge isn't even in America's interest. It's like you're trying your hardest to be a troll....and you're succeeding. BC keeps making some kind of argument that traffic is only congested going south, completely ignoring the fact that 99.9% of that traffic has to return to Canada, making his argument hilarious. You two are nothing but trolls, and you deserve troll responses. Edited June 22, 2012 by Smallc Quote
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 The tunnel you speak of is the second busiest crossing between the U.S. and Canada - the bridge connecting Detroit and Windsor is the busiest. If the other two options of crossing the border are always congested, then it makes sense to build a new bridge to alleviate that congestion. It also allows more cross border shopping. Something that seems to benefit both countries. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 and your comment didn't require an intelligent response. Mission accomplished, then. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest American Woman Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 If the other two options of crossing the border are always congested, then it makes sense to build a new bridge to alleviate that congestion. It also allows more cross border shopping. Something that seems to benefit both countries. The congestion is more of a hindrance to Canada, which is why Canada is pushing harder for this bridge than the U.S. is. In fact, it's not even "the U.S," it's between Michigan and Canada; the deal sealed by the Prime Minister and the Governor of Michigan, not the PM and the President. This is a project that Canada/Harper is pushing. From what I've read, it's crucial for the auto industry in Canada to get parts from the U.S., as Canada's auto plants stockpile fewer parts. Congestion at the Ambassador Bridge has resulted in temporary plant closings in Canada. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 The congestion is more of a hindrance to Canada, which is why Canada is pushing harder for this bridge than the U.S. is. In fact, it's not even "the U.S," it's between Michigan and Canada; the deal sealed by the Prime Minister and the Governor of Michigan, not the PM and the President. This is a project that Canada/Harper is pushing. From what I've read, it's crucial for the auto industry in Canada to get parts from the U.S., as Canada's auto plants stockpile fewer parts. Congestion at the Ambassador Bridge has resulted in temporary plant closings in Canada. There are long term benefits that are not being considered. The bridge is over 80 years old, and depending on the maintenance, what kind of condition is it in? Populations don't seem to be getting smaller on either side of the border, so why not increase traffic capacity between the two countries by building another bridge? It would benefit the US as well, more parts going to Canada means those parts companies in the USA would see increased sales. Makes sense right? If product is flowing out of the USA, that means there are buyers on the other side of the border. If plants close in Canada, even temporarily, the US parts companies lose a customer and sales during that time. Also more states than just Michigan would benefit from that bridge. Unless all the parts manufacturers are in Michigan. With two bridges, twice as much trade can happen between Canada and the US. There are huge benefits on both sides. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 Mission accomplished, then. My mission is always accomplished. You can bank on it. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 .... You two are nothing but trolls, and you deserve troll responses. Yet it is Canada/Ontariario that wishes most to build a bridge and collect tolls. Now what other mythical creature does that? Trolls are giant, humanoid creatures. They often live under bridges (which they often build themselves) and demand toll from travelers. ROTFLMFAO Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 There are long term benefits that are not being considered. The bridge is over 80 years old, and depending on the maintenance, what kind of condition is it in? Regarding condition, maintenance can be done. From what I understand, it's not so much a question of maintenance as it is the nuisance of the lack of infrastructure on the Canadian side of the bridge. Populations don't seem to be getting smaller on either side of the border, so why not increase traffic capacity between the two countries by building another bridge? Again, while this is true, it's more of an issue for Canada than it is the U.S. Don't you wonder why the U.S. isn't involved the way Canada is? As I pointed out, this is an issue within Michigan, and the question is whether Michigan tax payers want to put their tax dollars into this bridge. If it benefits Canada much more, if it's correcting problems on Canada's side, why should we? It would benefit the US as well, more parts going to Canada means those parts companies in the USA would see increased sales. Makes sense right? If product is flowing out of the USA, that means there are buyers on the other side of the border. If plants close in Canada, even temporarily, the US parts companies lose a customer and sales during that time. Also more states than just Michigan would benefit from that bridge. Unless all the parts manufacturers are in Michigan. Again, this isn't a "U.S. issue." As I pointed out, it was Snyder and Harper sealing the deal. This isn't the issue on this side of the border that it is on the Canadian side. It's not even the issue in Michigan that it is in Canada. With two bridges, twice as much trade can happen between Canada and the US. There are huge benefits on both sides. Sure there are, but there are more benefits on one side than the other. That has been my point. I'm not saying that I'm against the bridge if Canada pays for it or that I'll vote against it if it is on the November ballot; I've been responding to the ridiculous, ignorant comments that have been made re: Canada paying for the bridge upfront and Michigan supposing to be thankful and what a sh*thole Detroit/Michigan is - as Canada is the one desperate to get this bridge built. We don't care the way Canada does; it's not as important to us as it is to Canada and Canada will benefit more, so if it goes through and Canada fronts the money and then recoups it in tolls, so be it.* *Cue the "troll" accusation responses Quote
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 If the other two options of crossing the border are always congested, then it makes sense to build a new bridge to alleviate that congestion. It also allows more cross border shopping. Something that seems to benefit both countries. Like I said in the other thread. Commercial traffic MUST cross the Ambassador Bridge, which was built in the 1920s. It's a private bridge and the owner refuses to release maintenance records to the US or Canadians governments. If some catastrophic event rendered the Ambassador Bridge unusable, it would be damaging to both the American and US economies and cause other significant problems for trade on both sides of the border. IMO, the entire reason for the new span is to create a crossing for commercial traffic that is within control of the Canadian and American governments, so they don't have to rely on the "benevolence" of the uncooperative bridge owner now. This kind of infrastructure should be public property anyway. Why the Ambassador Bridge wasn't bought jointly way sooner than now is beyond me. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Regarding condition, maintenance can be done. From what I understand, it's not so much a question of maintenance as it is the nuisance of the lack of infrastructure on the Canadian side of the bridge. Agreed....the bridge owners started a replacement span but Ontario wouldn't support infrastructure improvements on the other side in Windsor. I guess it's OK to trash what's left of Delray instead. Again, while this is true, it's more of an issue for Canada than it is the U.S. Don't you wonder why the U.S. isn't involved the way Canada is? As I pointed out, this is an issue within Michigan, and the question is whether Michigan tax payers want to put their tax dollars into this bridge. If it benefits Canada much more, if it's correcting problems on Canada's side, why should we? ...and where is the usual Ontario yammering for a vote on such things? Again, this isn't a "U.S. issue." As I pointed out, it was Snyder and Harper sealing the deal. This isn't the issue on this side of the border that it is on the Canadian side. It's not even the issue in Michigan that it is in Canada. Well, I don't need to tell you that the only bridge in Michigan that impresses the hell out of all who gaze upon it is the "Mighty Mac". In comparison, the Ambassador Bridge is an economic link that has been merely tolerated as necessary, even though it carries far more traffic. In my best Crocodile Dundee imitation for the Mackinac...now that's a bridge!! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
The_Squid Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Is part of the private bridge on Canadian soil? If so, the Feds should annex it for the good of the country..... Then tear it down. Is the USA Feds putting up any cash? If not, why not? They should step up. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Hmmmm...let just check current traffic...south and north: Border Wait Time Entering the U.S. Personal Vehicles: At 11:00 pm EDT 5 min 4 lane(s) open NEXUS: Lanes Closed Commercial Vehicles: Lanes Closed FAST LANE: Lanes Closed Source: US Customs and Border Patrol Border Wait Time Entering Canada Passenger Vehicles: No delay Commercial Vehicles: No delay Source: Canadian Border Services Agency Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Again, ignoring that all those vehicles are going back north at some point. Edited June 23, 2012 by Smallc Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Is part of the private bridge on Canadian soil? If so, the Feds should annex it for the good of the country..... Then tear it down. Without even getting into whether or not they could do that, how do you propose the traffic that Canada so concerned about would get back and forth between the countries? Canada is saying that traffic is so congested that they need another bridge - and your solution is to tear down the one existing bridge?? How would that be "for the good of the country?" Is the USA Feds putting up any cash? If not, why not? They should step up. Have you read the thread? - Because they don't care. Canada is the one pushing this bridge, not the U.S. As I pointed out a few times now, the deal isn't even between Canada and the U.S. - it's between Canada and Michigan; between Harper and Michigan's Governor, not Obama. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Agreed....the bridge owners started a replacement span but Ontario wouldn't support infrastructure improvements on the other side in Windsor. I guess it's OK to trash what's left of Delray instead. Right. It is Canada's choice to go forward with this new bridge. Some seem to think that Americans have to support whatever Canadians want to the same degree. Well, I don't need to tell you that the only bridge in Michigan that impresses the hell out of all who gaze upon it is the "Mighty Mac". In comparison, the Ambassador Bridge is an economic link that has been merely tolerated as necessary, even though it carries far more traffic. In my best Crocodile Dundee imitation for the Mackinac...now that's a bridge!! The Mackinac Bridge never fails to impress me, no matter how many times I cross it. It's been overshadowed by the Golden Gate Bridge, but I think it's every bit as impressive. Edited June 23, 2012 by American Woman Quote
Topaz Posted June 23, 2012 Author Report Posted June 23, 2012 Yes, Canada is the one pushing this and it started under Baird when he was min.of Transport and very very few of us here will see what happens in 30 years but if the Ambassador owners,cut the tolls when the new bridge opens than we could have a bridge toll war, good for people crossing but I have a feeling that if Harper is still in the PMO when the bridge is completed, that other bridge will be closed if government loses too much money on the tolls. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Yes, Canada is the one pushing this and it started under Baird when he was min.of Transport and very very few of us here will see what happens in 30 years.... Well, thank you for being fair enough to admit the obvious. If Canada can successfully negotiate an upgrade with Michigan's public and private interests, then go for it. But if the U.S. federal government decided to push back, then there wouldn't be any new bridge. It has bigger problems to worry about than Canadians being able to buy cheaper gas and Xmas turkeys! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 In my best Crocodile Dundee imitation for the Mackinac...now that's a bridge!! You and amwo can retire in the yoop together. You'll make a sweet couple, if you aren't already the same person posting from two different accounts. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Again, ignoring that all those vehicles are going back north at some point. Also ignoring the fact that the wait times entering the US are a direct result of the new measures that were put into place by the Department of Homeland Security following 9/11. The wait times were considerably less prior to that. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Also ignoring the fact that the wait times entering the US are a direct result of the new measures that were put into place by the Department of Homeland Security following 9/11. The wait times were considerably less prior to that. So take the hint....stay home. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Average wait times for the Ambassador Bridge...passenger and commercial traffic....so what's the big hurry? http://traffic.calit2.net/border/border-wait-times.php?type=passenger⊂=standard&port=380001 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 What's this...another "public private partnership" (PPP) bridge project in Canada that has not turned out as expected/projected. The Confederation Bridge has the highest bridge tolls in North America, with traffic of about 4,000 vehicles per day. 3)Canada’s Auditor General found that the Confederation Bridge linking Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick cost $45 million more than it would have had it been built publicly. The private consortium that has a lease to operate the bridge for 35 years gets paid through tolls and public lease payments. In the first year, tolls increased by $8 per car. The Auditor General found that the financial risks of the project were not transferred to the private company, but were left the responsibility of the public. Also, the government was found to have inflated the costs to have the bridge publicly built, making the PPP seem more cost effective than it is. http://www.smellsfishy.ca/SF/JF/Failures.html Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.