Bridge company provides facts not propaganda

And what a change from the meeting I attended on Saturday. There were no declarations of war; no political mud slinging - just good old fashioned constructive discussion at the 2nd community forum hosted by the Ambassador Bridge company I attended tonight. Quite frankly, I’m perplexed as to why some councillors and our Mayor are engaging in destructive rhetoric, fear-mongering and blatant misinformation.

Tonight’s presentation by the company was eye-opening. The sky did not fall and the earth did not open up to swallow the City of Windsor. What was presented, was literally a birds-eye view of the bridge company’s project. We were taken on a detailed 3-D journey which silently demonstrated just how off-base the actions and words of our city council are. The major points I took from the meeting:

• There are no plans for a ring-road.
• Only the homes that the company owns along the east-side of Indian Road will be removed.
• A green-space buffer zone between Indian Road and the replacement bridge is planned.
• The community will be consulted regarding future uses of the old bridge which could include a pedestrian walkway and/or bike path to the U.S.
• Ambassador Bridge traffic volumes are down 24.46%; the tunnel volumes are down 43.02% since 1999.
• The public has been aware of the Ambassador Bridge’s plans since 1992
• The added customs booths, and dedicated lanes on the replacement bridge will expedite truck traffic.
• A truck driver expressed grave concerns over having to use a tunnel and the potential ill effects it would have on him.

Additionally, I found this excerpt which details, I believe the U.S. position:

“The Committee appropriated substantial funds for critically important direct access improvements between the Ambassador Bridge/Gateway Project, as authorized in Section 1217(b) of Public Law 105-178…Committee expects that the Federal Highway Administration shall ensure that such funds are used only for the Ambassador Bridge/Gateway Project… intent of the Gateway Project was and continues to permit direct access and relief from traffic congestion between the Ambassador Bridge and the trunkline system, including on- and off-ramps to and from Interstates I-75 and I-96; for local road access improvements to Porter, 21st and other streets in the neighboring community; to accommodate access to meet future border crossing capacity needs and protect plans identified by the Ambassador Bridge, including a second span of the Ambassador Bridge.”

Then we have the letter from the US State Department, dated November 5, 2005 which states that the Ambassador Bridge does not require a Presidential Permit for the simple fact that it is in an existing transportation corridor. However, the letter suggests DRIC will require a Presidential Permit, and further states that there may be issues with DRIC’s plans to construct a third crossing.

In addition vast amounts of public dollars have been spent on the US side to increase efficiency and plan for a potential replacement bridge - I’m hardpressed to state the immediate need for a new border crossing proposed by DRIC. What is Canada going to do - build half a bridge and equip trucks with jet packs to fly them over to I-75?

So I’m confused as to assertations made that the replacement bridge will destroy Sandwich Towne. I could see no compelling evidence to justify such claims, other than political. I see no compelling evidence for a publically owned bridge with Bill C-3 now law. From what I could tell, there will be minimal impact on Sandwich Towne and no danger to any existing heritage buildings. Not to mention private dollars will be used to construct the bridge, freeing up public dollars to improve infrastructure on our side of the border.

What I saw tonight was a company that does care about the community; has exciting plans for our community and shares our vision for getting trucks off our city streets.

Now, I do have some concerns regarding the future such as plaza capacity and the like, but I do not believe these are insurmountable. I believe there could be consensus between DRIC and the bridge company - and reaching a working agreement with each other is possible, in my opinion.

But rather than partaking in enflamatory rhetoric on the part of our elected officials, I’m now convinced, more than ever that constructive dialogue with the company would prove beneficial to our community.