The subterfuge of political rhetoric

Ah yes, nothing much has changed in the 3 days I was buried in text books. Apparently, the Ambassador Bridge Company released it’s latest arsenal in this alleged war we are having with them. Heck, Ron Jones even has the war lingo down when he described the company’s extraneous efforts to mislead the public regarding their project as “subterfuge.” In case anyone was wondering, as was I, subterfuge is defined as a recognised skill in a situation of war to take advantage of an opponent.

I cannot believe the audacity of the bridge company in demonstrating to the public how little the replacement project will impact the city, over and above the demonstrated impact today. Oh, and while we’re on the topic of subterfuge, perhaps Councillor Jones could explain exactly what the City of Windsor’s position on an access road to the Ambassador Bridge is – I’ll give you a big hint – it’s in a report entitled, “WALTS”. Instead of “watching” the bridge company, I would suggest some light reading.

Regardless of whether or not the bridge company proceeds with the replacement project – as Councillor Dilkens pointed out, we still need to address the issues surrounding Huron Church Road, or would Ron Jones rather not discuss this issue?

And speaking of subterfuge, our dear MP Brian Masse, is at it again today when he warned that a public-private partnership will result in higher tolls at the proposed new crossing – well he’s right on that account. However, one silly little question I have for our MP – what toll rate would Masse recommend for a totally publically owned crossing?

I’ve been doing some basic math (geez, there I go thinking again). Let’s use some basic assumptions that being that 10,000 trucks a day cross the bridge both ways. Based upon the Ambassador Bridge’s number, 9.25 million vehicles crossed the bridge in 2006, which equates to approximately 24,000 vehicles a day. So, 14,000 automobiles and 10,000 trucks cross the bridge on average per day.

Now, a round trip automobile toll for the Ambassador Bridge would be about $8.00, or about $112,000 per day or $40.8 million a year. For trucks, I would be guessing a round trip cost would be approximately $40 in tolls or $400,000 a day or $146 million a year for a grand total of about $186 million in total toll revenue. Now I’ve heard several different numbers as to the profit of the Ambassador Bridge, so I’m going estimate $50 million which would equal approximately, $130 million in annual costs to operate the bridge.

So, let’s assume the 3rd crossing gets built with these numbers in mind. Let’s even further assume (though not at all likely) that the bridge company would agree to a 50/50 split in traffic. We’ve been told that the cost of the new plaza and bridge could amount to over $2 billion, I’m thinking higher, but let’s go with that number. So, using the above numbers, to maintain tolls at the above rates in today’s dollars would take about 80 years to break-even on a new publically funded bridge. And this does not include the cost of operating it! This also assumes that wage increases do not exceed the inflation rate and barring any major structural repairs during those 80 years and interest rates (you know the cost of borrowing $2-billion is not cheap) remain stable, and that traffic volumes do not continue to decline. We could be talking over 100 years to see profitability.

Well, this is not acceptable in my opinion, and for a public-private partnership to be successful, I’m thinking a private company would want to realise a real return quite quickly. In order for this to happen, let’s say 20 years, tolls would have to increase by 400%, to about $16 for automobiles and $80 for trucks, roundtrip. Even if traffic increased at a rate of 1% a year, tolls would have to be higher to see a return.

For a publically funded bridge, I’m guessing Brian Masse is suggesting that taxpayers subsidize further the cost ($10’s of millions of dollars) of keeping tolls competitive with the tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge, which takes vital tax dollars away from say, economic development, health care, home care, day care, or a national pharma program.

Now my numbers may be off (I didn’t calculate rising traffic volumes of say even 1% a year) but I think you get my point. Wise use of tax dollars would suggest that a public-private partnership would not work in this case, unless of course, we’re talking subsidies to a private company (eh hem…NAFTA challenge anyone?), and a publically funded third crossing would mean taxpayers forking over serious cash on an annual basis that could be better used to reduce income taxes, reduce our national debt or invest in research and development or higher education.

The fiscally and socially responsible alternative is so frustratingly simple: negotiate, and negotiate hard with the Ambassador Bridge Company.

Subterfuge – good word! Thanks Ron Jones.