A report from the Anderson Economic Group has offered some clarity to the debate over a new international bridge crossing between Detroit and Windsor.
A little background in case you have sat this story out thus far:
Governor Rick Snyder has been pushing the idea of a new bridge two miles south of the Ambassador Bridge, known as the New International Trade Crossing (NITC).
It would connect up I-75 and Highway 401 in Canada.
The Ambassador Bridge owners, the Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC), don't want competition from another bridge. Owner Manuel "Matty" Moroun has been fighting against the proposed bridge with a $4.7 million television ad blitz.
The ads say Michigan taxpayers could be on the hook for the costs of the New International Trade Crossing if plans don't pan out.
Moroun is proposing to build a second span next to the Ambassador Bridge to ease congestion.
The report from the Anderson Economic Group analyzes both proposals (NITC vs. DIBC).
The bottom line of the report from several media reports out today is that the new bridge (NITC) would ease congestion currently felt at the Detroit-Windsor crossing, and a second span of the Ambassador Bridge would not (DIBC).
It's finding no. 2 in the report.
From the Detroit Free Press:
The Detroit International Bridge Co.'s proposed second bridge between Detroit and Canada would not eliminate the current congestion on both sides of the border but the New International Trade Crossing bridge would do so, according to an independent study released today by the Anderson Economic Group.
From Crain's Detroit Business:
A proposed government-owned bridge over the Detroit River, with additional U.S. Customs booths, would do a better job reducing border traffic congestion and handling future traffic than a second Ambassador Bridge span, says a new independent report released today.
From the Detroit News:
A proposed bridge two miles south of the Ambassador Bridge would alleviate border congestion, but a new span beside the Ambassador would not, according to a study released Tuesday.
Finding no. 3 in the report states that the obligation to repay borrowed funds for the construction costs of either bridge does not rest with Michigan taxpayers. That finding assumes that protections for Michigan taxpayers are in place for "statute and bond covenants."
Jeff Watrick over at MLive has a nice summary of the 7 findings of the report.
Or you can read the report yourself.
Let us know what stands out to you.
