A peace plan for the war at the Detroit River crossings US-Canada

The protracted political war over US-Canada bridge crossings at the Detroit River is great fun to watch.  But it's probably only good for lawyers and reporters. If some kind of settlement were possible it would be of benefit to US-Canada trade, to taxpayers and investors, and to the people of Detroit and Windsor. We need discussion of a possible settlement plan, so here's a first draft of a peace plan for the Detroit River.

Who's got what right and who's got what wrong?

1. TRAFFIC: The Ambassador Bridge company DIBC is right on traffic short/medium term, and the government promoters of the new DRIC bridge downstream are wrong. In the next ten years there's no way the traffic will justify the new government-planned DRIC bridge as well as the Ambassador Bridge. There's spare capacity on the Ambassador alone at 4-lanes now. The forecast used to justify the new bridge shows modest traffic for the DRIC based on a rapid rebound in truck traffic and continued solid growth thereafter. The revenue part of the study - the most important part - remains to be published.

Beyond ten years the governments and their forecasters might well be correct. Extra capacity might be needed.

So in dismissing the long-term need for an extra crossing DIBC may well be wrong. The four governments are right to be planning for an extra crossing in the future. But it's not needed yet.

2. TRUST: DIBC and Michigan DOT signed a contract and plans for the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project - rebuilding the connections to I-75/I-94 and the US toll and border inspection plazas. DIBC cavalierly disregarded their commitments under their contract and built what suited their twin-span plan, rather than what they'd contracted with Michigan DOT to build. Michigan DOT is right there. DIBC is wrong.

Canadian authorities have behaved badly too. They announced a counterpart to the US Ambassador Bridge Gateway project back in 2003 called the Windsor Gateway Action Plan and a new truck-only expressway between the Bridge and H401. They welched on the promise of the Windsor Gateway plan leaving the bridge with good connections to long-distance expressways only on the US side.

3. BRIDGE PERMIT: DIBC has a right to a US Coast Guard permit for their twin span. The US Coast Guard is tasked by law with rendering judgments as to whether a proposed bridge will interfere with shipping. Their job is to examine the plans of a proposed bridge and see if the proposed piers are an obstruction and if the deck above provides enough clearance for shipping to pass safely under.  They initially took this approach and issued a preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact, but recently did a policy U-turn to deny a permit.

The Coast Guard are grossly abusing their authority by getting into matters of whether the bridge builder has the landside right of way and permits for landside connections. Those matters are for other authorities.

4. NEW BRIDGE RIGHTS: DIBC is stretching its interpretation of its rights in claiming that the right to "maintain" the bridge in perpetuity means it has an inherent right to build a new bridge alongside the old. The original 'special agreement' under which the bridge was built was defective in not spelling out how the end-of-life of the bridge would be handled. At the same time to flatly deny the company the right to rebuild would be a clear negation of its rights. This one needs to be handled by negotiation.

5. TRUCKS IN WINDSOR: the DIBC has no right in perpetuity to run its customers' 18-wheelers through the streets of Windsor. The City and the province of Ontario have the right and duty to look after the interests of their residents and to deliver heavy trucks to international crossings in such a way as to minimize harm to their constituents. The 'special agreement' defining DIBC rights is quite silent on access to the bridge. DIBC are on weak legal ground here.

6. COMPETING SPAN: the various governments have a clear legal right to promote a competing crossing to DIBC's Ambassador Bridge. Nothing in DIBC's "special agreement" from the 1920s specifies limits on competition as DIBC sometimes suggests. The Detroit Windsor Tunnel and Blue Water Bridge have been built upriver and compete with the Ambassador Bridge for traffic. Similarly governments have the right to promote their proposed DRIC bridge two miles downriver of the Ambassador.

At the same time the governments' DRIC bridge should compete on an equal basis with the other toll bridges in the area and should rely solely on tolls earned from users of their bridge. Competition subsidized by taxpayers is unfair competition to bridges getting no tax-support. And unfair to taxpayers.

What's fair and efficient?

A peace plan needs to look at what is most fair to all parties concerned and to what avoids waste and uses scarce resources best.

Both the DRIC bridge and the Ambassador Twin proposal provide 3+3 modern lanes with shoulders and a central median barrier suited for heavy trucks on a modern cable-stayed bridge that is more economical to maintain and more robust than the 2+2 lanes (no shoulders, no median) 1920s suspension span.

Also needed are connections on the US side to I-75 and on the Canadian side to H401 and the EC Row Expressway.

The Ambassador Twin will be less expensive to build than the DRIC bridge because at least on the American side most of the connections to I-75 and the toll and inspection plaza facilities have already been built as part of the Ambassador Bridge Gateway project.

Second, the Ambassador Twin bridge itself is less expensive because the river is narrower upstream and the length of the bridge span needed is shorter.  The main span of the DRIC bridge has to be 840m v 670m (2756ft v 2200ft) for the Ambassador Twin, 25% longer. Tower heights needed are 250m for the DRIC v 166m for the Twin (820ft v 545ft). (see table nearby)

Costs on the Canadian side for the Ambassador Twin are greater because the Windsor Essex Parkway to the H401 would need to be extended another 3km (2 miles) north from the planned location of the DRIC toll/inspection plaza to link in to the Ambassador Bridge Canadian plaza on Huron Church Rd (see dashed line on map nearby labeled 'possible WE Pkwy Connector'.)

On the other hand while the DRIC was on hold no new Canadian toll/inspection plaza would be needed - providing some offset to the extra cost of building the Connector.

$3800m DRIC v $3000m Ambassador Twin

Costs of the DRIC and needed connections are roughly $3800m comprising:

Interchange I-75, connector roads, toll/ inspection plazas $600m

DRIC Bridge $1200m

Canadian Plaza $400m

Windsor Essex Parkway connection to bridge $1600m

Costs to complete the Ambassador Twin & Parkway connection is around $3,000m comprising:

Completion of I-75 connection modernized toll/inspection plaza $100m

Ambassador Twin Bridge $800m (DIBC claims half this - see note at end)

Windsor Essex Parkway to DRIC $1600m

Windsor Essex Parkway Connector DRIC-Amb Br $500m

Canadian connector

The Canadian authorities seem fully committed to construction of the $1.6b 11km (7mi) Windsor Essex Parkway (WE Parkway) a 3+3 lane expressway standard facility with 2+2 lanes of service roads between H401 and the DRIC plazas. This project is fully designed and permitted - and they say funded - as a tax-supported facility. Some construction has already started.

With a 3km (1.9mi) extension (see dashed line in map) it can link to the Ambassador Bridge plaza as well. There's a wide reservation on either side of a infrequently used freight rail branch line that provides right of way for the WS Parkway Connector extension. It could be built to the same standards as the Parkway proper, mostly depressed but with considerable roofed-over sections at about the same $145m/km for around $440m. But we've put the cost of it at $500m to be on the safe side.

Our Detroit River peace plan:

1. The four governments continue their planning, permitting and design of the new DRIC bridge and its associated toll/border plazas, plus property acquisition or land reservation.

2. Canadians proceed as planned with the WE Parkway.

3. DIBC be given permits to build their planned Ambassador Twin Span on  condition that they fund - with tolls if necessary the 3km (1.9mi) Connector extension of the WE Parkway to get most heavy trucks off local Huron Church Road and on the new free flow truck connection to the H401.

4. Construction of the DRIC be put on hold pending solid signs of a revival of truck traffic to 1999 levels and continued growth thereafter in line with WSA forecasts.

5. The Ambassador Bridge DIBC company gets no guarantee against future competition except for a guarantee that a new DRIC toll bridge will be fully financed with toll revenue based bonds and equity, with no taxpayer subsidy.

Need for skepticism about WSA forecasts

The Wilbur Smith traffic projections supporting the DRIC need to be regarded with great skepticism.

Total truck traffic at the crossings is forecast to grow over 10%/year each year between now and 2015 and then by over 3% a year from 2015 to 2025 to support the DRIC traffic numbers. This is a growth of 79% in truck numbers 2009 to 2015.

2025 truck traffic would be 2.4 times present truck traffic. This is spectacular growth.  (All from Table 6.7 p6-11 - see nearby)

Even so projected DRIC truck volumes are quite modest. And it is unclear whether they support the financing of the bridge because we don't yet have their revenue numbers.

WSA passenger car forecasts by contrast are much lower - a mere 1.1%/year growth to 2015. And much more believable. But they are relatively unimportant. The real toll money is in trucks with 18-wheelers paying now $27 per crossing v $4 for a car. Other trucks are $10 and up.

For 2016 WSA forecast DRIC to run 9,000 cars and 9,500 trucks on weekdays or 2.8m cars and 3m trucks/year. At $4 for cars and an average of $15 for trucks that's $56m. After operating costs of say $20m/yr that's say $36m/yr hardly a great return on $1200m+, when capital has to be serviced.

The bigger question is whether the 9.5k trucks/weekday underlying something like $56m/yr is itself realistic.

WSA admit that "uncertainties remain in the short-term forecast, due to current economic turmoil and industry restructuring…" (p6.11)

That's putting it mildly.

It seems most unlikely there are investors out there willing to pony up the billion-plus required for the more expensive DRIC bridge based on the WSA assumption of a 79% increase in border truck traffic between now and the time a  DRIC bridge would open.

WSA don't really explain in their traffic study the basis for their belief in such a spectacular recovery - an average 10%/year growth for six years.

And for that matter they don't really explain the basis for the 3%+ annual average growth in the next decade 2015 to 2025.

DRIC could be revived if that big recovery does come

Nevertheless in case the optimistic WSA forecasts do begin to look more realistic then the four governments could pick up on the DRIC project. With all the planning and permitting accomplished, and right of way reserved, it should be possible to get it built and in service in about four years.  Meanwhile the Ambassador Twin will provide for the trucks to move more efficiently. And the Windsor Essex Parkway (plus the 3km Connector) will improve the environment of Windsor with free flow in a dedicated connector.

Financing of the DRIC will be possible on much better terms if the project is put on hold until traffic shows signs of sustained growth along the lines assumed by WSA.

More prudent to try and proceed for now with the more economical Ambassador Twin project, especially since the DIBC company wants to commit most of the money, whereas there is no indication of an appetite by investors for funding the DRIC.

Most of all this is a peace plan for Canadian and U.S. taxpayers - editor.

for materials on the DRIC:

http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/

Wilbur Smith Associates traffic study:

http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/2-2010/DRIC%20Comprehensive%20TR%20Study%20Draft%20Final%20Report%20February%202010%20two-sided.pdf

on the Windsor-Essex Parkway:

http://www.weparkway.ca/

on the Ambassador Bridge twin span proposal:

http://www.ambassadorbridge.com/SecondSpan/SecondSpan.aspx

a few previous TOLLROADSnews reports:

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3955

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4099

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4611

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4614

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4665

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4668

ADDITION: Phil Frame spokesman for DIBC says they have spent around $500m already on the twin span project on upgrading plazas and buildin g approaches. He says the second span - the bridge itself - can be built for $400m.

TOLLROADSnews 2010-03-28 ADDITION 2010-03-29 11:00