[michmoldman]

Love it!!

[michiganbob]

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

The problem with a new bridge is that all of our existing infrastructure hooks up with the Ambassador Bridge. To build at a new location will require hundreds of millions of dollars to build the additional infrastructure which will be needed to connect to a new bridge. This is just another tax and spend project, favored by Dems and Repubs alike. If we need a public bridge the state should man up and simply take the Ambassador Bridge by eminent domain, and build a second bridge at that location. The existing location would be much preferable for Michigan, although I do understand why Canada wants a different location. A new bridge next to historic Fort Wayne is simply not an appropriate location.

Tax and spend? How do you figure that? This bridge is the exact opposite of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" that was built several years ago. This bridge will have a major impact not just on the state but most of the Midwest. Most people forget that, because of our peninsular nature, Michigan is not a "drive through" state that people get to see and appreciate while going somewhere else. With traffic backing up at the bridge, most people would rather drive through Ohio to get to Northern PA and upstate New York and even Toronto (great for the Ohio toll road, but not Michigan.)

Even if the old bridge was "new" and in the same location it will still not serve both countries. Once you cross over to the Windsor side you have to sit through 17 traffic lights before you get to the highway. 17! The congestion at the crossing is less about the bridge itself and more about the location which was okay when it was built but not today. It has to be put up in a different location.

So, if you're going to create a new bridge to smooth out traffic to and from major highways, might as well do it on the Michigan side as well, right?

The real issue is that there is no telling how much traffic will cross this new bridge now because so much commercial and tourist traffic avoids the current bridge because of the congestion. This is the kind of project that could--I repeat, could--be a game changer for the entire area, including Northern Indiana and Ohio. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing for sure until it's built, but one thing we know for sure: the current bridge does not work. You may disagree on the solution, but the problem is pretty obvious to everyone. (And no, you can't simply claim "eminent domain" and take someone's bridge.)

[michigan83]

Originally Posted by michiganbob

Tax and spend? How do you figure that? This bridge is the exact opposite of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" that was built several years ago. This bridge will have a major impact not just on the state but most of the Midwest. Most people forget that, because of our peninsular nature, Michigan is not a "drive through" state that people get to see and appreciate while going somewhere else. With traffic backing up at the bridge, most people would rather drive through Ohio to get to Northern PA and upstate New York and even Toronto (great for the Ohio toll road, but not Michigan.)

Even if the old bridge was "new" and in the same location it will still not serve both countries. Once you cross over to the Windsor side you have to sit through 17 traffic lights before you get to the highway. 17! The congestion at the crossing is less about the bridge itself and more about the location which was okay when it was built but not today. It has to be put up in a different location.

So, if you're going to create a new bridge to smooth out traffic to and from major highways, might as well do it on the Michigan side as well, right?

The real issue is that there is no telling how much traffic will cross this new bridge now because so much commercial and tourist traffic avoids the current bridge because of the congestion. This is the kind of project that could--I repeat, could--be a game changer for the entire area, including Northern Indiana and Ohio. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing for sure until it's built, but one thing we know for sure: the current bridge does not work. You may disagree on the solution, but the problem is pretty obvious to everyone. (And no, you can't simply claim "eminent domain" and take someone's bridge.)

Great post!!


I think 98% of the people who are opposing the bridge are doing it for political reasons. The problem is, this bridge is not a conservative or liberal thing. So the minority of loud-mouthed people on both sides are kinda confused about whether they should support this or not, which I find hilarious.

So there is a loud minority of "conservatives" complaining because they don't think the government should be building bridges (which is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard).

And there is another loud minority of "liberals" who hate both Rick Snyder and Matty Moroun, but since Moroun isn't running for governor, they are "mad" at "Snyder the Dictator" for building the bridge. (also one of the stupidest things I've ever heard)

And THEN you have the rest of the normal people of Michigan, who realize that this is a great thing for the state, and Canada is footing the bill, and that anyone who has half a brain, Republican or Democrat, should support this and save all of the political BS for another day.

[BoomRShine]

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

The problem with a new bridge is that all of our existing infrastructure hooks up with the Ambassador Bridge. To build at a new location will require hundreds of millions of dollars to build the additional infrastructure which will be needed to connect to a new bridge.

Yes, to hook up to existing infrastructure will cost a lot of money, but this is covered in the $550 million loan from Canada to Michigan (which is being paid back through tolls). The $550 million is to cover Michigan's portion of bridge construction, land acquisition, etc., not just the bridge itself.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by BoomRShine

Moroun never had serious plans to build a new bridge. Could we even trust him to build a bridge up to specs, given that he could not even complete his portion of the Gateway Project (since handed over to MDOT to finish)? Even if Moroun had the go ahead to build a new bridge, where would he put it? It wouldn't be acceptable to put it next to the Ambassador Bridge as that already dumps traffic onto Windsor's streets (along with its 18 stop lights).

He already started building it (the ramp to the new bridge veers off to the right when aproaching the bridge from the Detroit side) and was trying to get permits from the Coast Guard. This was prior to the economy collapsing, at which point they put it on hold due to falling traffic.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by cosmicrowbar

Oh please, Retroit...it's been paid for? Is any of the money in Moroun's back pocket specifically designated as bridge building money? It's only purpose is enriching Matty Moroun, except for those millions given to Republian legislators in his pocket and for producing and airing demonstrably false advertising in an effort to keep his monopoly going.
The guy wouldn't even finish the changes/improvements needed on the Ambassador while he's sitting on BILLIONS??? He's proof positive of why this new bridge should be publicly owned and operated.

The changes were on the state's portion. Maroun does have the money to build a new bridge and was trying to do so.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by VM1138

Uh...why would no one use the bridge? The problem is that the current bridge is overloaded. A second bridge will do nothing but help. There is more than enough traffic to keep two bridges running.

I don't think "no one" will use it. At most, 50% will. Probably more truckers will use the state's bridge since many trucks come from other states. Most Detroiters will probably use the old (current) bridge.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by michiganbob

Even if the old bridge was "new" and in the same location it will still not serve both countries. Once you cross over to the Windsor side you have to sit through 17 traffic lights before you get to the highway. 17! The congestion at the crossing is less about the bridge itself and more about the location which was okay when it was built but not today. It has to be put up in a different location.

That's Windsor's fault for not updating their infrastructure for 90 years. Meanwhile we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars updating our side.

[YohnCarter]

It seems opposition to the bridge falls into two camps. 1.Those directly influenced by the millions maroun is spreading around. 2.The angry "anti's" who are antigovernment, antisnyder, antidevelopment, antieverything (except monopoly) They are being inflamed by marouns false and misleading advertising.

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by YohnCarter

It seems opposition to the bridge falls into two camps. 1.Those directly influenced by the millions maroun is spreading around. 2.The angry "anti's" who are antigovernment, antisnyder, antidevelopment, antieverything (except monopoly) They are being inflamed by marouns false and misleading advertising.

I oppose the new bridge because of the new devastation it will cause on both sides of the river. Putting it right next to Fort Wayne is not appropriate, and having it near the Objibway Prairie is even worse. I also oppose it because Michigan's Department of Transportation (sic) never saw a highway or new construction project that they didn't like. Highways have destroyed urban communities across the country, and the numerous highways in and around Detroit have been the biggest cause of Detroit's decline (and there are multiple causes, of course). I also simply don't buy the argument that we need a new bridge to alleviate traffic. The bridge is not the bottleneck--it is need for inspection areas now that we have an elevated level of inspections. Maroun's big ad campaign is working against him, if anything. His ads are some of the dumbest I've ever seen. Most people could give a rat's behind about helping Matty, but we do care about some of the other consequences, both economic and social...as well as environmental. Like I said before, if the state wants a public bridge, they should buy the Ambassador Bridge--through eminent domain if need be.