[DanSC]

The Daily Show did a segment on how 41% of Wayne County, Michigan, voted to block the new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... -to-canada

I think the video is available in Canada, but if not, I don't mind if the mods delete this thread.

[QBC]

Hmmmm..... now I wonder what the vote would have been if it were held in Canada.....

[Regina]

Link isn't working for me but may for some of the others. Not sure what the video is about but I remember seeing lots of the advertisements on TV before the election because Detroit is our US TV feed.
Basically there is a US Bazzilionair who owns the current bridge and much of the land and businesses on the US side of the bridge. He waged a campaign of fear by telling the voters they will be the ones on the hook for the new bridge........when in fact the Canadian government is footing the total bill.
It's just about competition and money.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

While I appreciate the need for a new bridge, I can't fathom where it would be built. The entire Detroit riverfront and most of Windsor's riverfront are developed.
And unlike Huron Church Rd which was built for handling traffic coming off the 401 and heading for the US or coming from the US and heading to the 401, there are no roads that I know of that are currently large enough to handle another bridge crossing without major demolition and reconstruction.

[bootlegga]

DanSC DanSC:

The Daily Show did a segment on how 41% of Wayne County, Michigan, voted to block the new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... -to-canada

I think the video is available in Canada, but if not, I don't mind if the mods delete this thread.

Kind of - content from DailyShow.com and ComedyCentral.com doesn't stream in Canada - but it is available on Comedy Network;

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/thedailyshow

[commanderkai]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

While I appreciate the need for a new bridge, I can't fathom where it would be built. The entire Detroit riverfront and most of Windsor's riverfront are developed.
And unlike Huron Church Rd which was built for handling traffic coming off the 401 and heading for the US or coming from the US and heading to the 401, there are no roads that I know of that are currently large enough to handle another bridge crossing without major demolition and reconstruction.

They're building a huge stretch of highway that basically is along the city's southern outskirts. Basically it hugs the EC Row Expressway, and continues westward towards Ojibwa Parkway and Broadway Blvd.

I got a link to the proposed highway/bridge site map if you want to check it out:

http://www.hgparkway.ca/pdfs/WEP%207th% ... %20WEB.pdf

Anyway, as you can see, the bridge is downriver from where the current Ambassador Bridge span is, thus, most likely, sucking away a majority of the truck traffic from both sides. US trucks entering Canada from anywhere north of Detroit will pour across the new bridge, and any Canadian trucks entering the US destined to anywhere south of Detroit will most likely use this new bridge span.

Basically, it's killing the Ambassador Bridge, and I'd be hugely pissed if I owned it too. Especially since Windsor built that little onramp for the Ambassador Bridge expansion plan, and Michigan just poured a fuckton of money to expand the highway connections on the US side to the Ambassador Bridge.

[Regina]

commanderkai commanderkai:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

While I appreciate the need for a new bridge, I can't fathom where it would be built. The entire Detroit riverfront and most of Windsor's riverfront are developed.
And unlike Huron Church Rd which was built for handling traffic coming off the 401 and heading for the US or coming from the US and heading to the 401, there are no roads that I know of that are currently large enough to handle another bridge crossing without major demolition and reconstruction.

They're building a huge stretch of highway that basically is along the city's southern outskirts. Basically it hugs the EC Row Expressway, and continues westward towards Ojibwa Parkway and Broadway Blvd.

I got a link to the proposed highway/bridge site map if you want to check it out:

http://www.hgparkway.ca/pdfs/WEP%207th% ... %20WEB.pdf

Anyway, as you can see, the bridge is downriver from where the current Ambassador Bridge span is, thus, most likely, sucking away a majority of the truck traffic from both sides. US trucks entering Canada from anywhere north of Detroit will pour across the new bridge, and any Canadian trucks entering the US destined to anywhere south of Detroit will most likely use this new bridge span.

Basically, it's killing the Ambassador Bridge, and I'd be hugely pissed if I owned it too. Especially since Windsor built that little onramp for the Ambassador Bridge expansion plan, and Michigan just poured a fuckton of money to expand the highway connections on the US side to the Ambassador Bridge.

It wouldn't stop being used at all. I believe that is the busiest US/Canada crossing there is and it would only ease the traffic.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Regina Regina:

commanderkai commanderkai:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

While I appreciate the need for a new bridge, I can't fathom where it would be built. The entire Detroit riverfront and most of Windsor's riverfront are developed.
And unlike Huron Church Rd which was built for handling traffic coming off the 401 and heading for the US or coming from the US and heading to the 401, there are no roads that I know of that are currently large enough to handle another bridge crossing without major demolition and reconstruction.

They're building a huge stretch of highway that basically is along the city's southern outskirts. Basically it hugs the EC Row Expressway, and continues westward towards Ojibwa Parkway and Broadway Blvd.

I got a link to the proposed highway/bridge site map if you want to check it out:

http://www.hgparkway.ca/pdfs/WEP%207th% ... %20WEB.pdf

Anyway, as you can see, the bridge is downriver from where the current Ambassador Bridge span is, thus, most likely, sucking away a majority of the truck traffic from both sides. US trucks entering Canada from anywhere north of Detroit will pour across the new bridge, and any Canadian trucks entering the US destined to anywhere south of Detroit will most likely use this new bridge span.

Basically, it's killing the Ambassador Bridge, and I'd be hugely pissed if I owned it too. Especially since Windsor built that little onramp for the Ambassador Bridge expansion plan, and Michigan just poured a fuckton of money to expand the highway connections on the US side to the Ambassador Bridge.

It wouldn't stop being used at all. I believe that is the busiest US/Canada crossing there is and it would only ease the traffic.

Actually I see what Kai means. The new bridge route would basically be at an "interception point" allowing it to take business from the Ambassador Bridge. Particularily since very little commercial traffic actually goes north compared to what heads east, west and south.

Kai, thanks for the link. I completely forgot about the east-west possibility in the Downriver area. The expressway is capable of dealing with the traffic and I forgot the Ojibway Pky was widened since I lived there.

[commanderkai]

Regina Regina:

It wouldn't stop being used at all. I believe that is the busiest US/Canada crossing there is and it would only ease the traffic.

I didn't say it would stop being used, but the truck traffic constitutes a majority of the trips on the Ambassador Bridge, most trucks traveling along I-75 that want to cross into Canada would encounter the new bridge before the Ambassador. Same goes for Canadian trucks wanting to move south along I-75. The new bridge would be highly effective as siphoning away trucks from the Ambassador.

Trucks traveling eastward on the I-96 and I-94 would most likely still use the Ambassador. However, to the Ambassador, northbound I-75 trucks basically means trucks from most of the US Midwest and Southeast, a pretty significant market.

[commanderkai]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Actually I see what Kai means. The new bridge route would basically be at an "interception point" allowing it to take business from the Ambassador Bridge. Particularily since very little commercial traffic actually goes north compared to what heads east, west and south.

Kai, thanks for the link. I completely forgot about the east-west possibility in the Downriver area. The expressway is capable of dealing with the traffic and I forgot the Ojibway Pky was widened since I lived there.

Exactly. I think westward traffic would still use the Ambassador Bridge, since the Ambassador directly links to I-94, but a majority of truck traffic is probably north-south along I-75.

No worries. One of the classes I had last semester (and my final semester) was Public Infrastructure, and the new bridge project was a significant topic. That being said, I was probably the most sympathetic to the Ambassador Bridge owner's plight. He probably has an office of statistics stating this will severely harm his business.

Now, I think one of the major keys for US traffic entering Canada is if the new bridge has a major duty free facility for diesel. He might lose Canadian trucks, but US trucks will most likely go the extra few miles to refuel at the duty free pumps.

[Regina]

We have duty free gas? I've never heard of that before in Canada. In fact it's always way cheaper in the US. I live 20 minutes from the US and there alway people driving over the border to load up on booze and gas, and never the other way around.
I think the Detroit guy will see less traffic but it won't be gone. People will cross where they can get through quickest which would include customs line ups.

[commanderkai]

Regina Regina:

We have duty free gas? I've never heard of that before in Canada. In fact it's always way cheaper in the US. I live 20 minutes from the US and there alway people driving over the border to load up on booze and gas, and never the other way around.
I think the Detroit guy will see less traffic but it won't be gone. People will cross where they can get through quickest which would include customs line ups.

Yeah, at the Ambassador, if you're crossing into Canada, the Ambassador Bridge has duty free pumps for gas and diesel. Not sure if it's unique to the Ambassador, or if other border crossings have duty free pumps.

Basically, it'd be about 7-9 cents cheaper than the standard Detroit area gas price, and it's even cheaper if you have an Ambassador card (little green prepaid credit card type thing) you get an extra 5 cent discount.

Edit: Got the current prices with the discount card now

Reg $3.239/gal - $.8559/ltr
Diesel $3.499/gal - $.922/ltr

[xerxes]

I read about this before the election and my question then is as it is now: "How is someone allowed to own a bridge?"

[Regina]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Regina Regina:

We have duty free gas? I've never heard of that before in Canada. In fact it's always way cheaper in the US. I live 20 minutes from the US and there alway people driving over the border to load up on booze and gas, and never the other way around.
I think the Detroit guy will see less traffic but it won't be gone. People will cross where they can get through quickest which would include customs line ups.

Yeah, at the Ambassador, if you're crossing into Canada, the Ambassador Bridge has duty free pumps for gas and diesel. Not sure if it's unique to the Ambassador, or if other border crossings have duty free pumps.

Basically, it'd be about 7-9 cents cheaper than the standard Detroit area gas price, and it's even cheaper if you have an Ambassador card (little green prepaid credit card type thing) you get an extra 5 cent discount.

Edit: Got the current prices with the discount card now

Reg $3.239/gal - $.8559/ltr
Diesel $3.499/gal - $.922/ltr

Wow!! Well that's an oddity. Certainly not that way in other parts of Ontario. Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Fort Frances border crossings have nothing like that. Always WAY cheaper on the US side.

[Regina]

xerxes xerxes:

I read about this before the election and my question then is as it is now: "How is someone allowed to own a bridge?"

I thought the same thing when this started to hit the news at election time. I'd be way more comfortable with government owned infrastructure at the most important crossing in North America. What if the dude decided to to mess with the bridge upkeep?