RSS
Numbers point to support of the new bridge
Last week I talked about the controversial new bridge project, which would be a second span connecting the metro area with Canada.
Opposition is coming primarily from one source, the owners of the Ambassador Bridge.
I suggested that The Oakland Press can “follow the money” as to who would oppose the project but until we’ve seen some more evidence that it is wrong for Michigan, we’re going to support it.
One person commented that he or she wanted “to see the money.”
Well, here is some information on how the bridge would be financed and why it is needed.
Probably the biggest selling point for the project is that the Canadian government has offered to pay the $550 million cost of the work. Once constructed, its operation is expected to be supported through tolls.
Discussions on the bridge date back to 2004, when an international partnership conducted a feasibility study and determined there is a need for a second bridge serving the border between Southeastern Michigan and Southwestern Ontario.
The Canada-U.S.-Ontario-Michigan Border Transportation Partnership consists of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transport Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Michigan Department of Transportation.
The economic numbers involved are staggering. The bridge would bring an estimated $1.8 billion in investment to the Detroit-Windsor area, create 10,000 construction jobs in Michigan and generate another 30,000 indirect jobs in Michigan and Windsor.
From just the auto industry, every day the combined U.S. and Canadian auto sector sends thousands of cross-border truck shipments and more than $100 million in goods across the border.
These are just some of the numbers that impressed the Editorial Board and prompted it to support the bridge project.
We still haven’t seen any convincing numbers, i.e. reasons to oppose the structure.
Opposition is coming primarily from one source, the owners of the Ambassador Bridge.
I suggested that The Oakland Press can “follow the money” as to who would oppose the project but until we’ve seen some more evidence that it is wrong for Michigan, we’re going to support it.
One person commented that he or she wanted “to see the money.”
Well, here is some information on how the bridge would be financed and why it is needed.
Probably the biggest selling point for the project is that the Canadian government has offered to pay the $550 million cost of the work. Once constructed, its operation is expected to be supported through tolls.
Discussions on the bridge date back to 2004, when an international partnership conducted a feasibility study and determined there is a need for a second bridge serving the border between Southeastern Michigan and Southwestern Ontario.
The Canada-U.S.-Ontario-Michigan Border Transportation Partnership consists of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transport Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Michigan Department of Transportation.
The economic numbers involved are staggering. The bridge would bring an estimated $1.8 billion in investment to the Detroit-Windsor area, create 10,000 construction jobs in Michigan and generate another 30,000 indirect jobs in Michigan and Windsor.
From just the auto industry, every day the combined U.S. and Canadian auto sector sends thousands of cross-border truck shipments and more than $100 million in goods across the border.
These are just some of the numbers that impressed the Editorial Board and prompted it to support the bridge project.
We still haven’t seen any convincing numbers, i.e. reasons to oppose the structure.
posted by Allan Adler at
3:32 PM
1 Comments:
There are many issues related to the bridge. In no particular order:
(1)Given there is a large deficit in trade with Canada will facilitating trade just lead to a greater deficit and more job loss?
(2)Given that traffic volumes are blow the levels one decade early will the capacity be needed in the next couple of decades? If the capacity is not needed the project is a waste of resources and is a social loss.
(3)Is it really fair to have a government owned and subsidized enterprise competing with a already existing privately owned firm?
(4)If the Ambassador bridge is making excessive profits, is a regulatory fix available?
(5) Is the larger footprint of two bridges and the displacement of another 250 households acceptable?
(6) If either the Ambassador or the new Bridge is not profitable, what mechanism exists for the necessary subsidy or removal?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home