Our politicians probably figure jobs and money aren't leaving fast enough, despite NAFTA, so we need a bridge.
No, it's more a case of the Republican senate doing everything to maintain a monopoly held on traffic by a private business owner who has consistently reneged on infrastructure projects for the past 20 years.
The Ambassador bridge is a toll road that puts over $60 million a year in the hands of a private owner, yet they are not making the necessary improvements required to serve the community. Many years ago they agreed to build an on ramp that would efficiently take vehicles (trucks from Canada) onto the freeway. Instead they built a fuel bay and a duty free plaza on the proposed site for the on ramp... and cordoned off a residential street for truck usage. How would you like to be a homeowner on that street and share the road with 18 wheelers, bringing down your property values and spewing heavy diesel exhaust into your children's lungs? And the authorities turned a blind eye.
This was supposed to be a joint project with mutual costs on each side of the border, including an access route on the Canadian side from Hwy 401 to the bridge. While we Canadians have done our part, the project has been boondoggled and hit by numerous delays and setbacks stateside. the final straw was the building of the fuel bay and the duty free plaza.
In a recent court decision in Michigan, that went against the owner of the bridge, proponents stateside suggested tearing the fuel bays and plaza down.
In a response to all the ongoing BS of the past 20 years, others proposed simply building a new bridge (the DRIC) that would better facilitate traffic between our countries and would provide much needed revenues to the cash strapped region.
After all the delays which have gone on for 20 years, our Federal Transportation minister just said.. "If the only thing preventing this from moving forward is the lack of funds... heck, we'll fund the damned thing... let's just get it started." So Canada is offering to fund the US portion ($550 million) required for the project.
The closer this thing comes to being a go, ...the more opponents are panicking. The owner of the Ambassador bridge recently acquired some land, a portion of which (a tiny sliver) overlaps the proposed site for the on ramp. It appears to be another stalling tactic, a supposed show of good faith, but after all the delays, proponents of the new bridge are not holding their collective breath that this is anything more than a show.
Senate Republicans are up in arms, flipping out over this proposed funding, claiming an additional bridge would divert traffic away from the Ambassador which could result in lost revenues for the owner. So much for free market competition. They are so desperate to maintain the monopoly on cross-border traffic for this one man, they have even gone so far as to play the race card, claiming this is a grand conspiracy resulting from anti-muslim sentiment. The owner of the Ambassador bridge is Lebanese.
We'll find out after the vote on June 1st.
Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to have only one bridge. Anyone who has ever tried to cross the border by car knows what a nightmare it is. The bottleneck & congestion is horrendous. There should be an additional bridge to improve the daily flow. If a terrorist were to negatively impact that bridge, both our countries would be screwed in a major way. The flow of goods & services at our mutual border points is simply staggering. There really does need to be a more efficient, streamlined, route, ...and an additional bridge would do that. If the people are paying the tolls, then the revenues generated should go to the state coffers rather than to a monopoly with revenues remaining in the hands of one man.
