Windsor/Detroit bridge is a go!

[cybercoma]

I'm sure you have a valid point somewhere in those three replies, but I can't be bothered clicking to view all of them. I'll just go on the assumption that you're continuing to troll and call it a day. Cheers.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sure you have a valid point somewhere in those three replies, but I can't be bothered clicking to view all of them. I'll just go on the assumption that you're continuing to troll and call it a day. Cheers.

That's OK...it's not all about you anyway. But let's summarize:

1) Canada wants to build a bridge to America

2) Canada wants to front the money

3) Canada doesn't like private (American) ownership of the existing bridge or proposed replacement

4) Canada likes to build expensive bridges regardless of traffic projections or cost

5) Canada has the highest bridge toll in North America

6) If America wanted to build a bigger/better bridge, it would have done so years ago. See "Mighty Mac".

Edited June 24, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

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.

As has already been noted, it's good to see you acknowledging the situation for what it is. I'm not sure about a toll war, though, as the Ambassador Bridge has to make enough money to keep it's operation profitable; but if there were, I highly doubt that lower tolls would be a factor to companies with cross border trade. In fact, less traffic would likely make using the new bridge even more appealing to them.

At any rate, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge likely wouldn't be able to carry out a toll war for any length of time, at least not at a lower enough rate to make longer wait times worth it to those crossing the border. Not sure which bridge you think would be closed, but the new bridge certainly wouldn't be shut down - the money would have already been spent on building it, so there would be nothing to be accomplished by closing it - and Canada wouldn't have any say in shutting down the Ambassador Bridge as it's privately owned.

[Topaz]

Remember that hum coming from the US side and the feds sent someone down to see what it was? Still no answer. Since the hum is coming from the general area where the new bridge is going to be, do you think that perhaps the government are also digging a tunnel in that area? That would explain the humming and that on the Canadians side the old tunnel and bridge will be gone. Just a thought. http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Ontario+getting+runaround+from+over+Windsor/6829359/story.html

[GostHacked]

As has already been noted, it's good to see you acknowledging the situation for what it is. I'm not sure about a toll war, though, as the Ambassador Bridge has to make enough money to keep it's operation profitable; but if there were, I highly doubt that lower tolls would be a factor to companies with cross border trade. In fact, less traffic would likely make using the new bridge even more appealing to them.

At any rate, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge likely wouldn't be able to carry out a toll war for any length of time, at least not at a lower enough rate to make longer wait times worth it to those crossing the border. Not sure which bridge you think would be closed, but the new bridge certainly wouldn't be shut down - the money would have already been spent on building it, so there would be nothing to be accomplished by closing it - and Canada wouldn't have any say in shutting down the Ambassador Bridge as it's privately owned.

Can't shut down the bridge, but we can sure shut down access to and from the bridge which would have the same result as shutting down the bridge.

[Guest American Woman]

Can't shut down the bridge, but we can sure shut down access to and from the bridge which would have the same result as shutting down the bridge.

Suuuuuure, Canada can do that; and then Michigan "can sure shut down access to and from the [new] bridge," eh?

[GostHacked]

Suuuuuure, Canada can do that; and then Michigan "can sure shut down access to and from the [new] bridge," eh?

Another "smart" comment by our "American Woman". And you are correct, it can be done on the US side as well. The city/state/province on either side can obviously shut access to the bridge.

[Guest American Woman]

Another "smart" comment by our "American Woman". And you are correct, it can be done on the US side as well. The city/state/province on either side can obviously shut access to the bridge.

It was a helluva lot smarter than yours, "Gosthacked." But what what else is new, eh?

Edited June 24, 2012 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

It was a helluva lot smarter than yours, "Gosthacked." But what what else is new, eh?

Hopefully another bridge would be what is 'new'.

But are you only looking at commercial trade when considering this new bridge? Or are you also looking at people vacationing south of the 49th? I mean more capacity would also mean more vacationers to the USA, creating another benefit for the USA.

But once more less, capacity means less USA goods being sold into Canada (like the auto industry example) And here I thought buying USA would be welcomed by you and others on this board. I guess you don't want US businesses to benefit from another bridge. Hell if Canada is willing to foot the bill initially, what is the hold up from the USA side then?

One word seems to come to mind, protectionism.

[Guest American Woman]

....if Canada is willing to foot the bill initially, what is the hold up from the USA side then?

Loss of tax revenue from tolls collected at the Ambassador Bridge, the tunnel, and the Blue Water bridge. Canada would be getting all the benefits of the tolls on the new bridge, so in effect, the loss of that revenue does amount to Michigan paying for the bridge; Canada is just fronting the money. "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

[Smallc]

Wow, Michigan must really want that bridge if it's willing to give up all of that....

[bush_cheney2004]

Affordable alternative to expensive DRIC project:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajVPPZBLdFo

[cybercoma]

Canada is just fronting the money.

You're welcome.

[Guest American Woman]

You're welcome.

Are you as ignorant on this issue as you appear? - Or do you just not mind coming across that way?

[cybercoma]

Are you as ignorant on this issue as you appear? - Or do you just not mind coming across that way?

Why do you insist on talking down to people? Does it make you feel better about yourself or something?

[Guest American Woman]

Why do you insist on talking down to people? Does it make you feel better about yourself or something?

I don't talk down to "people;" I respond to individuals according to the post I'm responding to, so the question still stands. Are you truly that ignorant of the issue? If so, let me repeat what's already been said.

Harper has said that he will do whatever it takes to build this bridge, so why would Michigan thank Canada? Canada has been pushing for this bridge for ten years. Are you truly unaware of that fact? The problems with the approach to the Ambassador bridge exist on Canada's side - it's the traffic lights that hold up traffic, so of course Canada doesn't want to improve the existing bridge as it would have to also deal with the existing approach. Let Michiganders lose their homes to build the new bridge so Canada isn't inconvenienced, eh?

And as I pointed out, Michigan will lose tax revenue while gaining nothing - the money isn't a gift.

Furthermore, while jobs will be created while building the new bridge, jobs will be lost regarding the Ambassador Bridge and likely the tunnel, if traffic slows down too much. Fact of the matter is, another span on the Ambassador Bridge would suit many Michiganders just fine, which is why Harper has been having such a difficult time getting approval from Michigan for this project (and fyi, it looks as if this issue will be on the Michigan ballot in November).

Now if you want to make an intelligent response, I'll respond accordingly. If, however, you choose to make another ignorant response, I won't be wasting any more time on this with you - and will assume that the answer to my question is a mixture of both.

[cybercoma]

Canada is fronting the money.

Again, you're welcome, Michigan.

[The_Squid]

You're welcome Michigan.

This will benefit both countries.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're welcome Michigan.

This will benefit both countries.

That's what Canada said about NAFTA.

[Guest American Woman]

You're welcome Michigan.

More like "you're welcome, Canada" eh? Or are you lacking in knowledge regarding this issue, too?

Edited June 29, 2012 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

More like "you're welcome, Canada" eh? Or are you lacking in knowledge regarding this issue, too?

Thanks Michigan!

See? We Canadians are polite enough to say please and thanks when it is called for. You should show the same courtesy once in a while. Especially for projects that are an economic boon to both countries.

[bleeding heart]

Thanks Michigan!

See? We Canadians are polite enough to say please and thanks when it is called for. You should show the same courtesy once in a while. Especially for projects that are an economic boon to both countries.

She would...but she suspects that Canadians really, really suck, so would prefer not to ingratiate herself too much.

[guyser]

She would...but she suspects that Canadians really, really suck, so would prefer not to ingratiate herself too much.

I certainly do not have to defend her as she is more than competant to do so but some of you guys are going a little too far.

I dont recall a single denigrating post about Canada from AW. She is in fact a frequent visitor to this country and has been quite supportive of plenty of canuck things.

She gets prickly when people are sniping at her for things she either did not say or were misintepreted by some, and frankly that would rile any of us if it occurred as often as it does to her.

Battle the idea , not the person (of which I need to remember sometimes too) and some of you really need to learn this.

Back to our regularly scheduled debate about Moroun and his Bridge.

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks Michigan!

Actually, truth be told, it may be premature to thank "Michigan." You can thank our Governor, though. And me, if it comes to a referendum, which looks like a sure thing.

See? We Canadians are polite enough to say please and thanks when it is called for. You should show the same courtesy once in a while. Especially for projects that are an economic boon to both countries.

We Americans are too; when it's called for. This isn't one of times, however; Canada wants this bridge. Canada does not want to have to deal with the CANADIAN approach to the Ambassador bridge if it were to be improved/expanded upon. As I said, there's all of those traffic lights. Fourteen, I believe. Michigan does not have that problem. Canada has been pushing for a new bridge for ten years, not Michigan, and certainly not the U.S.

If Canada wants it, if it serves Canada's needs better, it's only right that Canada do - as Harper has said - "whatever it takes to make it happen." If you expect thanks under those circumstances, there's something wrong with "polite" you.

[Guest American Woman]

I certainly do not have to defend her as she is more than competant to do so but some of you guys are going a little too far.

I dont recall a single denigrating post about Canada from AW. She is in fact a frequent visitor to this country and has been quite supportive of plenty of canuck things.

She gets prickly when people are sniping at her for things she either did not say or were misintepreted by some, and frankly that would rile any of us if it occurred as often as it does to her.

Battle the idea , not the person (of which I need to remember sometimes too) and some of you really need to learn this.

Back to our regularly scheduled debate about Moroun and his Bridge.

Thank you, guyser. You are spot on - and I truly appreciate it. I have been a frequent visitor to your country, and there are many things about it which I admire - which I have been quite vocal about through the years. I love and admire your country and would choose to live there above all else if I couldn't live here, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take crap. I think both of our countries have a lot to offer - and we should all be thankful and appreciative of all that they have to offer and all of the benefits that we have enjoyed. It's amazing how many people will say whatever they please about the U.S., and I'm just supposed to suck it up - and if I don't, it's an insult to Canada. I'm insulting Canada. And of course I can never, never say anything negative about Canada - as I'm expected to point out the negative about my country. So good to see someone respond to that idiotic claim/mindset. I truly do appreciate it, and it's people like you who represent Canada best - and keep me here, and keep me appreciating Canada.