Print

• yes
• no

[marilyn.monroe]

Well it wouldn't be much of a money maker if it stopped just short now would it?

They can leave it hanging over water if they want to deny me my rights. I'm in no hurry to build a bridge that traffics in waste, feeds an unfavorable trade imbalance, increases spending on security and customs, and has no guarantees for American jobs or materials.

[lordfly]

They can leave it hanging over water if they want to deny me my rights. I'm in no hurry to build a bridge that traffics in waste, feeds an unfavorable trade imbalance, increases spending on security and customs, and has no guarantees for American jobs or materials.

This kind of willful ignorance makes my head hurt.

[Frenchfry]

What’s the business case for second Detroit bridge?

Editor’s note: Gov. Rick Snyder joined Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper last Friday to announce a formal deal to start construction on a second bridge linking Detroit to Windsor, Ontario.

Snyder announced his support for the span in his first weeks as governor in 2011. Michigan’s share of the construction costs — $550 million — will be initially covered by the Canadian government and recouped via tolls levied on vehicles crossing the bridge.

The “interlocal agreement” sidesteps the Michigan Legislature, which had chosen not to act on the bridge proposal, which has been strongly opposed by the Moroun family, owners of the Ambassador Bridge, the only span now linking Detroit with Windsor.

The Canadian government estimates truck traffic will triple over the next 30 years.

The Detroit-Windsor corridor carries about 25 percent of the trade between the U.S. and Canada each day.

In December 2011, at the height of the political debate over the proposal, Bridge Magazine asked business and trade experts about the case for a second Detroit-Windsor span:

The governor wanted a bridge. The business community said it would help the economy. Studies were ordered and a bridge authority formed.

The bridge opened for traffic – 23 years later.

The Mackinac Bridge, joining Michigan’s two peninsulas and associated so closely with the state that its image is emblazoned on license plates and a U.S. quarter, may seem like a no-brainer today, but not for much of the last century.

Such stories make Trien Ngyuen philosophical about the squabbling over construction of another bridge, a second span to link Detroit with Windsor,Ontario. “Like any big public works projects,” said Nguyen, economics professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, “there’s always resistance because different groups have different interests.”

The proposed bridge — now known as the New International Trade Crossing — is the most visible piece of a complex economic puzzle that many business and political leaders hope will reshape Michigan’s economy. This week, Bridge Magazine (no relation to the proposed bridge) examines a variety of proposals that have the same goal: increasing Michigan’s role in global trade “by land, by sea, by air.”

What’s unusual about the bridge is that those fighting each other have the same interest — building a new span across the Detroit River.

Gov. Rick Snyder and business groups support a public bridge, paid for primarily by the U.S. and Canadian governments, and located to the southwest of downtown Detroit. Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel “Matty” Moroun and his family want to build and own the second span, constructed next to the Ambassador. The Canadians have said they do not want a second span at the Ambassador site, preferring the NITC location on the grounds of relieving traffic congestion in Windsor.

Moroun has fought a years-long battle with Govs. Jennifer Granholm and Rick Snyder and much of the state’s business community over a second span, spending heavily on TV ads and lobbying in Lansing. Earlier this fall, a Senate committee killed bridge legislation, ending, at least for now, efforts to build the span with public dollars. After that vote, Snyder said both sides needed a “cooling down” period to find “common ground.”

Bridge Magazine did not contact Moroun or Snyder for this story. Instead of rehashing the political debate, Bridge decided to focus on a more basic question: What role would a second bridge play in the growth of international trade?

Michigan has more trade with Canada than any other state. In September alone, the value of trade between Michigan and Canada, shipped by truck and rail, totaled $5.9 billion. Imports were up 13 percent from September 2010, and exports up 9 percent.



Much of that trade comes and goes from Michigan on 18 wheels. Detroit is the top truck border crossing in the nation; Buffalo-Niagara Falls is second; and Port Huron’s Blue Water Bridge is third. About 25 percent of all freight traffic between Canada and the United States drives across the Ambassador Bridge, 7,300 trucks a day in 2010.

Delays at the Ambassador can create a bottleneck for Michigan’s auto plants, which rely on just-in-time delivery. Border crossings are vital to Michigan’s auto companies, which ship parts back and forth across the Canadian border multiple times during the manufacturing. In 2010,Canada shipped $29 billion in automotive parts (and assembled vehicles) toMichigan; and Michigan sent $13 billion to Canada.

“Plants don’t keep more than 3-4 hours of inventory,” said Sean McAlinden*, of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. “If new inventory doesn’t arrive on time, they shut down.” (The official NITC advocacy site lists Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda and Toyota among supporters of its plans.)

GM used to have a seat manufacturing plant in Canada that supplied an assembly plant in Hamtramck. The company used to station a worker on the roof of the factory with binoculars to watch for backups on the Ambassador, recalled McAlinden. GM also rented barges along the Detroit Riverto move parts from Canadato the United States, in case the bridge shut down, McAlinden said.

The fear of those kinds of delays has been a major argument used by those supporting a new bridge. But delays on the Ambassador costing GM, Ford and Chrysler money? McAlinden doesn’t know.

“We’ve asked the auto companies and we can’t get the information,” he said. “Short of standing on the bridge with a stopwatch, there’s no good way to find out.”

McAlinden suggests that bigger delays occur from the “14 traffic lights and two Tim Hortons” on the Canadian approach to the bridge, as well as from security checks.



Transits decrease

A second span isn’t needed at the moment to handle extra traffic – the number of cars and trucks crossing the Ambassador Bridge has dropped by almost 40 percent since 1999.

Day travel plummeted after 9/11 when more identification was needed to cross the border. The Detroit-Windsor tunnel, which primarily carries passenger vehicles, has seen its traffic count cut by more than 50 percent.

Truck traffic, though, was barely affected by 9/11. Trucks crossing Michigan’s four links to Canada (the Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor Tunnel in Detroit, the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron and the Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge) continued to inch upward through 2005, despite new security, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Since then, though, truck traffic has dropped 20 percent, with traffic now at 1997 levels.

If freight traffic crossing the Ambassador is lower, and there’s no reliable data on the cost of delays, why is a new bridge (with a price tag of $2.2 billion for the proposed public bridge and $500 million for the Moroun bridge) needed?

One good argument is a look at the Ambassador itself. The Ambassador is 82 years old. That’s long in the tooth for a bridge. By comparison, the two spans of the Blue Water Bridge were opened in 1938 and 1997.

“I’m not worried about it falling into the river. But it’s been there for 82 years, and it’s not the easiest way to transport goods any longer,” said Andy Johnston, vice president for governmental affairs for the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, which has been an outspoken supporter of the public bridge option. Adding a second span, he said,  “is critical to our national security and economic security.”

Doug Smith, senior vice president of strategic programs at the Michigan Economic Development Corp., argues that Michigan needs to take the long view of the value of a bridge that would take years to build and could be in use for the rest of the century. “The bridge is really long-term infrastructure,” Smith said. “It’s an opportunity to build off one of our assets – international crossings.”

Those crossings are likely to become busier in the future as Canada expands its port in Halifax, Nova Scotia, so that it can service the next generation of mega-container ships that carry cargo around the globe. Much of that freight will be headed for the United States, and Michigan wants to maintain its status as the primary U.S. entry point from Canada.

“The more free-flowing the traffic, the more traffic we’ll get,” Smith said.

“People think they don’t cross the bridge, so they don’t need it,” said Gregg Ward, vice president of the Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry, which moves hazardous materials across the border that aren’t allowed on the bridge. “They should care, because it affects them economically. The more efficient our transportation, the more efficient our economy.”

Ward’s argument for second bridge in Detroit is redundancy: If one bridge is shut down, by an accident or for repairs, traffic can be rerouted to the other span.

“You need redundancy in your transportation to attract companies,” Ward explained. Without it, “you’re asking a company to make an investment in our area and be dependent on one privately owned company.”

Ken Boyer, a professor of economics at Michigan State University, noted the second bridge can’t be justified by traffic levels.

“The automobile industry is by far the biggest industrial user of the bridge, and its shrinkage is primarily responsible for the reduction in truck traffic,” Boyer said. “My sense is that the major reason that the Michigan manufacturing community wants a publicly owned bridge is that they do not want future investments in the area to be at the mercy of a private individual making profit-maximizing calculations for the use of a critical piece of infrastructure. A rational investor would be wary about committing capital under those circumstances.”
Pushing bridge as state asset

As they assess the claims and counter-claims, Michigan residents need to remember they live in a “cul-de-sac state” — traffic is not going to flow through Michigan without a good reason. The exception is Michigan’s international crossings.

“Anything that can be done to facilitate border crossing — through lower tolls, faster customs clearance, less congestion — would help to diminish some of drag on the economy that we get by not being as well-connected to the rest of the world as Chicago or Louisville or Kansas City or Memphis,” Boyer explained.

Even the legislature in Ohio, a state that sends and receives goods across the Ambassador Bridge, passed a resolution urging Michigan to build a second bridge in Detroit.

Delray neighborhood has hopes, worries for a new bridge

“This isn’t rocket science – it’s not a big deal to build a bridge,” Ward said. “But we’ve made it a big deal.”

The Michigan public, which was targeted by millions of dollars in ads opposing the NITC bridge,  isn’t as sold on the idea as business leaders. A recent poll found that 59 percent of Michigan residents were opposed to the NITC plan, with only 30 percent in favor.

“People (in Michigan) don’t see how (trade with Canada) affects their lives,” said Smith. “Canadians are much more knowledgeable about how much of their economy is driven by international trade. Americans are less aware. We’re in a global world. We haven’t educated people about what that means.”

In a state that took 23 years to build a bridge to join its two peninsulas, that may take some time.
http://bridgemi.com/2012/06/whats-the-business-case-for-second-detroit-bridge/#.T_B5tvWE6Sp

[SidecarFlip]

They can leave it hanging over water if they want to deny me my rights. I'm in no hurry to build a bridge that traffics in waste, feeds an unfavorable trade imbalance, increases spending on security and customs, and has no guarantees for American jobs or materials.

According to the way the current regime acts and legislates.....  You don't have any rights anyway.

I suspect no one gives a hoot about your feelings or rights....

[marilyn.monroe]

According to the way the current regime acts and legislates.....  You don't have any rights anyway.

I suspect no one gives a hoot about your feelings or rights....

I suspect I am not the only one who will defend my God given rights put forth in the Constitution. I have had it with government taking money from corporations and foreigners. It is no less than bribery. That goes triple for Monroe's local government.

[marilyn.monroe]

This kind of willful ignorance makes my head hurt.

Then educate yourself.

[Professor H]

hehehe. Last I checked part of it was going down on Michigan soil.

The US State Department has already approved the Bridge being connected to US lands...   
Doesn't need State approval, although the Governor has given it his support.   No vote needed, nor provided for in the US Constitution, unless you are requesting a vote of the Congress?

[Collegekid]

Since when does Canadian law supercede the Constitution?

Where in the Constitution does it give you the power to vote on bridges? Lay out that article for me.

[marilyn.monroe]

I'm questioning the authority of the Michigan government and Canadian government to prevent Michiganders from petitioning the government, as written in the Constitution, First Amendment.

[Collegekid]

I'm questioning the authority of the Michigan government and Canadian government to prevent Michiganders from petitioning the government, as written in the Constitution, First Amendment.

No one is stopping you from petitioning them. Go ahead. But you will not get them to not do something that is perfectly legal by changing the law after the fact.

[jbs49238]

You were asked a quite simple question.  Where in the Constitution does it guarantee your right to vote on a bridge?

Can you site an example of any US International Crossing that was voted on?

A second International crossing does nothing but help Michigan's economy, which improves my State...  so what about MY God given Rights mm?  Why do yours trump mine?  Your opposition is blind and fueled by false facts fed to you by a man who has a monopoly on commercial traffic across the busiest US/Canada crossing.  Matty Maroun has had ample opportunity to improve his aging, inefficient, bridge.  He even had the opportunity to build another.  But NO!!! Instead of doing what was right for Michigan and its citizens he used his monopoly status to hold our economy hostage all for the sake of personal greed.  Maroun is in it all for himself, but he has tricked you into thinking HE is the one getting screwed.  I am fearful of how many folks are as gullible as yourself.

Maroun is a wealthy, greedy person who has convinced years of elected officials to let him get away his game.  He could not buy OUR governor though could he?  Snyder not only couldn't be bought by Maroun (unlike most other R's in Lansing, which is why they voted against the project when given the opportunity) but then showed that he also is just flat out a smarter business man that Maroun.  We have a LEADER in Lansing... is he right everytime?  NO!  But he is here.

[Baby Hitler]

I am fearful of how many folks are as gullible as yourself.

AGREE!!!!!!

[marilyn.monroe]

You were asked a quite simple question.  Where in the Constitution does it guarantee your right to vote on a bridge?

Can you site an example of any US International Crossing that was voted on?

A second International crossing does nothing but help Michigan's economy, which improves my State...  so what about MY God given Rights mm?  Why do yours trump mine?  Your opposition is blind and fueled by false facts fed to you by a man who has a monopoly on commercial traffic across the busiest US/Canada crossing.  Matty Maroun has had ample opportunity to improve his aging, inefficient, bridge.  He even had the opportunity to build another.  But NO!!! Instead of doing what was right for Michigan and its citizens he used his monopoly status to hold our economy hostage all for the sake of personal greed.  Maroun is in it all for himself, but he has tricked you into thinking HE is the one getting screwed.  I am fearful of how many folks are as gullible as yourself.

Maroun is a wealthy, greedy person who has convinced years of elected officials to let him get away his game.  He could not buy OUR governor though could he?  Snyder not only couldn't be bought by Maroun (unlike most other R's in Lansing, which is why they voted against the project when given the opportunity) but then showed that he also is just flat out a smarter business man that Maroun.  We have a LEADER in Lansing... is he right everytime?  NO!  But he is here.

First amendment gives people the right to petition government. Toss Morry and Dick for all I care, neither one is fit to build the bridge. The bridge isn't going to do diddley squat for Michigan except cost us money and jobs.

[Professor H]

US constitution and subsequent legislation and Executive orders gives the authority for border crossing access to the State Department - Secretary of State or authorized delegee (who already has approved it initially)

You want to challenge the President and Secretary of State's Authority 

Education is a wonderful thing...  Try using it in your defense other than hiding behind ideology of "I have rights"...    That same constitution gave powers to the President and Congress, and they've been doing border crossings for many years without a national referendum or vote.   

Your premise on why YOU think a bridge is unnecessary is moot to the issue of authority to build a border crossing

It's a Canadian Bridge since Michigan Legislators didn't want to fund it.

Presidents and Congress have long addressed border crossings by giving the authority as noted to the State Department:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying for Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Facilities (Canada)

Fact Sheet
BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS
January 21, 2009

This document describes the application process for Presidential permits for the construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities on the U.S.-Canada border. It is intended to help permit applicants understand the permit process, and does not constitute an exhaustive review of all steps that must be taken from concept development through construction. Permitting, construction, and completion of any project on the U.S.-Canada border requires close coordination and planning with the Government of Canada as well as with sponsors and federal, state, and local authorities in both countries.

What is a Presidential Permit?

Executive Order 11423, August 16, 1968 (33 Fed. Reg. 11741) states that "...the proper conduct of the foreign relations of the United States requires that executive permission be obtained for the construction and maintenance at the borders of the United States of facilities connecting the United States with a foreign country." Such permission is conveyed through a Presidential permit. Permits are required for the full range of facilities on the border, including land border crossings, bridges, pipelines, tunnels, conveyor belts and tramways. The Department of State processes permit applications for most facilities at the border, although other agencies permit certain cross-border facilities under separate legal authority, as detailed below. To issue a permit, the Department must find that the border facility would serve the national interest. The Department consults extensively with relevant federal, state, and local agencies, and invites public comment in arriving at this determination.

Legal Authorities

The Department's legal authority to issue Presidential permits for land border crossings, international bridges, oil pipelines and certain other trans-boundary facilities is found in Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1968, as amended by Executive Order 12847 of May 17, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 29511), Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 25299) and, to the extent applicable, the International Bridge Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 535 et seq.). In processing permit applications, the Department reviews compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 470f), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 7629), concerning environmental justice.

Early Consultations Are Desirable

Applicants should consult as early as possible with relevant federal and state agencies. Such consultations help the applicant understand the process and address possible concerns at an early date. At the federal level, applicants should consult with the General Services Administration, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coast Guard (if the project is an international bridge), , as well as the Department of State. At the state level, the applicant should consult with appropriate agencies, including those responsible for the environment, parks, wildlife, highways, and historic and cultural preservation.

Project Categories and Notification

As described in Interpretative Guidance that it published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 8245), the Department has identified three categories of non-pipeline projects for purpose of determining whether a new or amended Presidential permit is required. These categories are based on the magnitude and complexity of the proposed changes at the border.

Red (both notification to the Department of the change and new or amended Presidential permit are required): (1) all new border crossings; and (2) proposed changes that would substantially modify an existing border crossing.
Yellow (notification to the Department of the change is required and a Presidential permit may be required): modification of a border crossing that may have a material effect on Canadian or Mexican government operations in their respective country. The sponsor must notify the Department of its plans. The Department will promptly decide if a Presidential permit is required.
Green (neither Department notification nor Presidential permit is required): changes that are not expected to have a material effect on Canadian or Mexican government operations in their respective country and are not substantial modifications to the border crossing.
For a more detailed explanation of the categories identified above, the Department would refer to the detailed Interpretative Guidance published in the Federal Register (72 Fed. Reg. 8245).

How to Apply and What to Include in the Application

Applications for Presidential permits for land border crossings, international bridges, and certain other trans-boundary facilities at the U.S.- Canada border are made to the Secretary of State, Attention: Border Affairs Officer, WHA/CAN, Room 3917, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20520 or to WHACANmail@state.gov. Applicants should provide the Department five copies of the application and should be prepared to provide approximately 50 more copies in cd-rom or equivalent electronic format directly to the Department or to other federal and state agencies at the Department's request. See below for information about submitting applications for facilities at the U.S.-Mexico border or for oil or liquids pipelines.

Applications should include the following:

Identifying Information. Information precisely identifying the person or entity applying for the permit that will ultimately be responsible for the crossing. If a corporate entity, please identify the ultimate parent corporation and its individual owners. If the applicant is a county, municipality, or other public body, the applicant should state its legal authority to make the application and to own and/or occupy the crossing. The application should specify any intention on the part of the applicant to transfer, sell, or assign to any other entity the facility for which approval is sought. For land border crossings, the General Services Administration will generally be the permittee.
Description of Facility. A detailed description of the proposed facility, including its location, design, the safety standards to be applied, access routes, and details of the proposed construction methods. The application should also include photographs of the construction site; maps that identify the parcel of land that the sponsor intends to provide as a site for the border crossing, if applicable; engineering drawings including the anticipated cross-section, technical specifications and such other explanatory materials as are available, including, if applicable, whether and how the facility may affect the level, flow, or content of any nearby waters.
National Interest. An explanation of how the proposed facility would serve the national interest. This explanation may be supported by any reports, correspondence, and other material indicating the desirability and feasibility of the proposed facility.
Similar Facilities. A list of similar facilities in the area including the names and addresses of their owners. Such facilities should be identified on a map.
Traffic Information. If applicable, information about existing and projected levels of international road traffic and a description of the road system that would serve the facility on each side of the border. In the case of bridges, the application should project the volume of traffic to be carried by the proposed bridge, as well as the effect that traffic would have on, and its compatibility with, the existing road system and nearby bridges and border crossings. Maps showing U.S. and Canadian roads with traffic counts, weight or other use-restricted routes, and any roads that would be built along with the facility, would be helpful. These maps and other application materials should show the source or sources of the projected traffic and the likely impact of any traffic diversion caused by the facility on other border crossings. This information will help establish the required size of any inspection facility at the proposed border facility.
Construction Plan. A plan for construction of the facility, including an expected schedule for securing other necessary permits and approvals, financing, and construction. The applicant should identify any specific problems anticipated in the development and construction of the facility along with an indication of how they might be resolved, as well as whether construction may affect the level, flow, or content of any nearby waters.
Financing. An explanation of how the applicant will finance the facility, including estimated costs, and, if applicable, the proposed toll structure. If the facilities, including any access roads, will involve approval or funding from state or federal sources, the application should so specify and should indicate the steps that have been or will be taken to timely secure such approval and/or funding.
Canadian Approvals. A description of all steps that have been or will be taken to secure the approval of local, provincial, and federal officials in Canada. The Government of Canada has expressed its desire that applications for permits to construct cross-border facilities be made at the same time in the two countries. The permit applicant should indicate any known views of Canadian officials regarding the facility and describe general arrangements for financing, construction, and ownership of the Canadian portion of the facility. The applicant should attach copies of any agreements or understandings about these matters. Under the terms of the 1972 International Bridge Act, all required authorizations of the proper authorities in Canada must be obtained before an international facility may be constructed. It is not necessary to satisfy all Canadian requirements before applying for a Presidential permit. However, to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of resources by both the U.S. Government and the applicant, the applicant should present evidence that Canadian authorities do not object to the construction of the proposed facility. Information concerning Canadian procedures may be found at the following links:

Guidelines for the construction of an international bridge or tunnel

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/surface/bridges/IBTAguidelines1.htm

Guidelines for the alteration of an international bridge or tunnel

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/surface/bridges/IBTAguidelines2.htm

Guidelines for the change in ownership, operator or control of an international bridge or tunnel

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/surface/bridges/IBTAguidelines3.htm

 

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Requirements and the International Bridges and Tunnels Act

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/013/ibta_e.htm

Other U.S. Approvals. A list of all permits or approvals from all applicable agencies, including U.S. federal, state, and local agencies, that the applicant believes are required in connection with the proposed facility, and a description of what steps have been or will be taken to secure them.
Historic Preservation. A list of all properties in the project area that are included in, or potentially eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Properties. Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, the Department must consider the effects of the proposed facility on such properties and seek comment from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency established under the NHPA. The Department also seeks comment from the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office.
Environmental Justice. Information on minority and low-income populations likely to be affected by construction of the proposed facility. This information will assist the Department in fulfilling its obligations pursuant to Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice.
Environmental Review

In addition to the above, the applicant should include information about foreseeable environmental impacts of the proposed facility. Pursuant to NEPA, in considering an application for a Presidential permit, the Department must take into account environmental impacts of the proposed facility and directly related construction. Environmental impacts may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. Prior to deciding whether to issue the Presidential permit, the Department may be required to prepare, circulate for comment, and file environmental documentation. Applications should include any environmental documentation applicants believe is required under NEPA and the regulations found in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. If an Environmental Assessment (EA) is produced by the applicant, it may be necessary, depending upon the Department’s analysis, for the Department to prepare an EIS. For additional guidance on NEPA requirements, you may wish to consult the following web sites:

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/applcgrf.pdf

http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/tools/guidance/volume2/2-3-eachecklist.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/checklists/EAEISOutline.PDF

Agency Review and Public Comment

Once the application is complete, the Department will instruct the applicant to provide copies -- including all environmental and other documentation -- to relevant federal and state agencies for their comment. The Department will also publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment. If the proposed facility is located within or near an area declared to be a non-attainment area under the Clean Air Act, the Department must engage in additional consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and appropriate state agencies concerning the level of environmental documentation required. Should questions from the agencies arise during the review, they will be referred to the applicant. The Department, participating agencies, and the applicant will work together to resolve such questions.

The applicant may be required to prepare an amended application reflecting any agreements made in the course of mitigation and/or addressing agency concerns. The Department would then circulate the amended application for final agency review. If the Department determines that the project would have no significant environmental impact, the Department will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Department will publish the FONSI in the Federal Register. If a significant impact is found, the Department must prepare a full environmental impact statement (EIS) before the permit application may be considered further.

National Interest Determination and Permit Issuance

Executive Order 11423 specifies certain federal officials with whom the Department must consult when reviewing a permit application. The Department may also consult with other appropriate federal, state, and local government officials, and it considers all views expressed, including public comment, before making a decision on a permit. When these consultations are complete, the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee will decide whether or not issuance of a permit to the applicant would be in the national interest. If a positive determination is made, the Department informs federal agencies of its intention to issue a Presidential permit. Barring objection(s) from any of the officials specified in the Executive Orders, the Department will issue the Presidential permit 15 days thereafter. In the case of an objection, the Secretary of State will refer the matter directly to the President for a final decision.

Other Necessary Approvals Prior to Authorizing Construction

1. Under the provisions of the International Bridge Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 535, 535c-535h), the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the construction, modification, operation, and maintenance of any bridge connecting the United States with a foreign country. Applicants should consult with the Coast Guard directly regarding its permit process.

2. Receipt of a Presidential permit does not guarantee the availability of sufficient U.S. personnel to provide essential inspection services at the border crossing. Applicants should consult with Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security regarding staffing decisions that could affect the opening and operation of the proposed facility.

Bilateral Coordination with the Government of Canada

The Department coordinates closely with the Government of Canada through a wide variety of channels. Issues involving bridges are generally coordinated through Transport Canada, which is responsible under Canada’s International Bridges and Tunnels Act for permitting international bridges at the federal level. Construction generally cannot begin until the U.S. and Canadian Governments exchange diplomatic notes specifically authorizing construction. The Department must approve any contractual arrangement between state or local authorities and Canadian federal, provincial, or municipal authorities concerning construction of the facility prior to the exchange of notes authorizing construction. Permittees must keep the Department informed of all significant developments related to construction so that the Department may conduct the necessary bilateral coordination with the Government of Canada and, if needed, with other entities.

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2009/114990.htm

And since this originates on the Canadian side... their similar views and process

Guidelines Respecting the Construction of an International Bridge or Tunnel Under the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, S.C. 2007, c.1

Coordination with the Government of the United States

19. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Embassy of Canada coordinate closely with the Government of the United States on issues affecting the U.S.-Canada border. As appropriate, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade communicates with the State Department via diplomatic note at various stages in the approval process.  The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will inform the State Department when applications are received and approved.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/surface-bridges-ibtaguidelines1-909.htm

[Frenchfry]

I can't stand the lies coming from the bridge owner but the chosen course to git r done is wrong in my opinion.

This is a golden opportunity for the US Federal government to implement a FDR type public works program to put some of our citizens back to work.

Possible beneficiaries could be the engineers...the foundries....those constructing it...and even those operating it (US government employees should be in charge of the borders)

Talk about creating jobs.....and the trickle down effect would be enormous....US citizens contributing to the economy...but again that's contrary to the off-shoring mantra of Rick Snyder and his anal maze loving supporters.