Detroit Bridge Wars

[Flint1979]

To be fair, he is simply exercising his legal rights.  Quintessential example of how privatization can go very, very wrong.

The Ambassador Bridge shouldn't be privately owned in the first place.

[wanderer2575]

To be fair, he is simply exercising his legal rights.  Quintessential example of how privatization can go very, very wrong.

I won't argue against exercise of his legal rights, but I don't understand what Maroun and Company think they'll get from all the wrangling.  Canada has said NO to expanding the Ambassador Bridge.  That should be End of Story right there.  Maroun could ultimately get the approval and support of Gov. Snyder, the Michigan legislature, the Coast Guard, the courts, Congress, and everybody else on this side of the river.  But Canada has said NO and so his bridge expansion is not going to happen.  What am I missing here; why does he keep up the legal fight?

[J N Winkler]

I agree that major bridges should be publicly owned.  Nevertheless, the Ambassador Bridge was privately owned from the start.  We deal with Moroun today because none of the public-sector players on either side of the Detroit River was willing to do more than issue loan guarantees.

[Papa Emeritus]

When the Ambassador Bridge was for sale in 1979, Matty Moroun outbid none other than Warren Buffett. Detroit's alternative newspaper, the Metro Times, published a letter to Buffett, about how locals near the Ambassador Bridge were fed up with Moroun, and wished Buffett had outbid Moroun for the bridge:

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2017/10/19/an-open-letter-to-warren-buffett-from-the-shadow-of-the-ambassador-bridge

[triplemultiplex]

Eminent Domain that bitch.
Problem solved.

[SEWIGuy]

Eminent Domain that bitch.
Problem solved.

Why pay that money when you have gone through the effort of building a new one?

[J N Winkler]

I won't argue against exercise of his legal rights, but I don't understand what Maroun and Company think they'll get from all the wrangling.  Canada has said NO to expanding the Ambassador Bridge.  That should be End of Story right there.  Maroun could ultimately get the approval and support of Gov. Snyder, the Michigan legislature, the Coast Guard, the courts, Congress, and everybody else on this side of the river.  But Canada has said NO and so his bridge expansion is not going to happen.  What am I missing here; why does he keep up the legal fight?

Canada is not a monolithic entity.  The calculation is presumably that if Moroun is successful in getting the Gordie Howe crossing stopped, local players will fold and provincial and federal authorities will eventually follow suit and grant permits for an expanded crossing.

It should also be remembered that while this fight has been largely at Moroun's option, it is not inconceivable that it would occur even if the bridge were publicly owned.  It is all a question of how aggressive those responsible for the bridge choose to be in asserting their fiduciary duties.  The CEO of a joint stock company has a duty to his or her shareholders and in principle can be sued for failing to defend profits.  We see this fight as motivated by Moroun's personal greed largely because he is the principal shareholder in the bridge company.  However, the CEO of a public-sector bridge authority would also have a responsibility to bondholders, who could similarly take action in court to protect bond repayments if these were threatened.

[Flint1979]

What happened is that the bridge was put on the NYSE to trade shares and Moroun bought enough shares to purchase the bridge. At least he's finally done something to Michigan Central Station after letting that building rot for 20+ years of his ownership.

[Rothman]

I won't argue against exercise of his legal rights, but I don't understand what Maroun and Company think they'll get from all the wrangling.  Canada has said NO to expanding the Ambassador Bridge.  That should be End of Story right there.  Maroun could ultimately get the approval and support of Gov. Snyder, the Michigan legislature, the Coast Guard, the courts, Congress, and everybody else on this side of the river.  But Canada has said NO and so his bridge expansion is not going to happen.  What am I missing here; why does he keep up the legal fight?

Canada is not a monolithic entity.  The calculation is presumably that if Moroun is successful in getting the Gordie Howe crossing stopped, local players will fold and provincial and federal authorities will eventually follow suit and grant permits for an expanded crossing.

It should also be remembered that while this fight has been largely at Moroun's option, it is not inconceivable that it would occur even if the bridge were publicly owned.  It is all a question of how aggressive those responsible for the bridge choose to be in asserting their fiduciary duties.  The CEO of a joint stock company has a duty to his or her shareholders and in principle can be sued for failing to defend profits.  We see this fight as motivated by Moroun's personal greed largely because he is the principal shareholder in the bridge company.  However, the CEO of a public-sector bridge authority would also have a responsibility to bondholders, who could similarly take action in court to protect bond repayments if these were threatened.

In the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.

[J N Winkler]

In the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.

I did have New York in mind as a precedent, but more in terms of the fact that Rockefeller had to obtain the acquiescence of TBTA bondholders before he could fire Robert Moses and thereby put an end to Moses' obstruction of transit investment.

[GenExpwy]

In the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.

I did have New York in mind as a precedent, but more in terms of the fact that Rockefeller had to obtain the acquiescence of TBTA bondholders before he could fire Robert Moses and thereby put an end to Moses' obstruction of transit investment.

Didn't the Thruway build the Tappan Zee Bridge where it is because the Port Authority wouldn't allow it in their territory, to protect its revenues?

[Brandon]

In the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.

I did have New York in mind as a precedent, but more in terms of the fact that Rockefeller had to obtain the acquiescence of TBTA bondholders before he could fire Robert Moses and thereby put an end to Moses' obstruction of transit investment.

Didn't the Thruway build the Tappan Zee Bridge where it is because the Port Authority wouldn't allow it in their territory, to protect its revenues?

I would sincerely doubt that.  Look at a map, compare where New Jersey is, then think about whether the NYSTA could exit New York.

[Rothman]

In the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.

I did have New York in mind as a precedent, but more in terms of the fact that Rockefeller had to obtain the acquiescence of TBTA bondholders before he could fire Robert Moses and thereby put an end to Moses' obstruction of transit investment.

Didn't the Thruway build the Tappan Zee Bridge where it is because the Port Authority wouldn't allow it in their territory, to protect its revenues?

I have heard all sorts of crazy reasons why the Tappan Zee Bridge got put where it was, but there was the issue of taking the Thruway out of state, opposition in general to building a bridge across the Palisades or near NY state parks, and various other opposition groups in Westchester and Rockland counties that caused the only viable location to be the widest spot in the river.

[J N Winkler]

Regarding the Tappan Zee, the version of the story I have heard is that the Port Authority had either the right of first refusal or the right to block all major river bridges and estuarial crossings within 25 miles of a certain point in Midtown Manhattan.  The Wikipedia article on the old Tappan Zee (the new one has a separate article) cites a New York Times article from 1950 in stating that the Port Authority did want to build a trans-Hudson crossing, but was blocked by Governor Dewey from doing so, and the Thruway was given the right to build a bridge of its own just outside the Port Authority's jurisdiction.

[vdeane]

From what I've heard, the Tappan Zee is where it is because the Thruway wanted to control the bridge carrying their road, and not have it be owned/maintained by the Port Authority or Bridge Authority.

[JREwing78]

Not news: The Morouns are still evil.

Moroun TV ad asks Trump to pick America, reject Gordie Howe bridge
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/06/20/moroun-trump-gordie-howe-bridge/717408002/

[Brandon]

Not news: The Morouns are still evil.

Moroun TV ad asks Trump to pick America, reject Gordie Howe bridge
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/06/20/moroun-trump-gordie-howe-bridge/717408002/

Fuck Moroun.  At least the Michigan Central Terminal is in better hands now.

[vdeane]

Well, the idea of fixing the breezewood between ON 401 and the US was nice while it lasted.  Too bad it's not going to happen now.  I predict with absolute certainty that Trump will revoke the presidential permit and the bridge won't be built for a very long time, if ever.

[Joe The Dragon]

Well, the idea of fixing the breezewood between ON 401 and the US was nice while it lasted.  Too bad it's not going to happen now.  I predict with absolute certainty that Trump will revoke the presidential permit and the bridge won't be built for a very long time, if ever.

unless canada makes an deal now what is Moroun plan to fix that breezewood?

[vdeane]

Mouron doesn't care about fixing the breezewood.  He just wants to replace his bridge, leave the current one to rot rather than demolishing it, and have a monopoly.  The fact that everyone will have to use a few blocks of surface roads to connect between freeways doesn't matter to him because it means more toll money in his pockets, and there's a better chance of hell freezing over (heck, there's a better chance of the namesake Breezewood getting fixed!) than ON 401 connecting to the Ambassador Bridge because of the impacts on Windsor.

[Flint1979]

Not news: The Morouns are still evil.

Moroun TV ad asks Trump to pick America, reject Gordie Howe bridge
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/06/20/moroun-trump-gordie-howe-bridge/717408002/

Fuck Moroun.  At least the Michigan Central Terminal is in better hands now.

I agree what a pathetic piece of shit that guy is. I was happy when he had to go to jail several years ago.

[cbeach40]

Contractor has been selected for the Gordie Howe International Bridge:

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/bridging-north-america-will-build-gordie-howe-international-bridge

[GaryV]

Contractor has been selected for the Gordie Howe International Bridge:

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/bridging-north-america-will-build-gordie-howe-international-bridge

And the "artist rendering" shows a freakin Dutch ship going under it.  https://www.wagenborg.com/industries-we-work-with/breakbulk-project-cargo

Yes, the Wagenborg boats come into the Great Lakes.  But couldn't they have used a Canadian or US flagged boat?  Maybe they just wanted one with a good paint design.

[silverback1065]

any maps of the routing?

[cbeach40]

any maps of the routing?

In the Project Renderings column on the right, the link marked Project Components:
https://www.wdbridge.com/en/project-overview-gordie-howe-international-bridge-project


And I think GaryV was right in that it was probably based on aesthetics, no thought on the ship's flag. Not being versed on shipping I wouldn't have even thought to look it up myself had I been putting the graphic together.