Coast Guard considers suit over second Detroit-Canada bridge
By TODD SPANGLER • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • April 17, 2009
Updated at 4:01 p.m.WASHINGTON – The president of the company that owns the Ambassador Bridge says the Coast Guard is being fed disinformation and that concerns a second international span is being built without government approval are unfounded.
Dan Stamper, president of the Detroit International Bridge Co., told the Free Press today he already has responded to a letter from the Coast Guard sent last month in which its top bridge administrator said she was considering legal action against the company for beginning work on a second span without getting a permit. The evidence of that, the letter indicated, was construction of a pier and an approach ramp which would serve the new bridge, which the Ambassador Bridge’s private owner – Manuel (Matty) Moroun – wants to construct adjacent to the existing 80-year-old bridge. But Stamper said today – and in his letter responding to Coast Guard administrator Hala Elgaaly’s concerns – that the pier and the ramp are part of the $230-million Gateway Project already well underway, which was originally designed to improve access to the Ambassador Bridge and accommodate a second span to the existing bridge. “We’re saying they’re mistaken, this is not part of the bridge proper,” said Stamper, who added that it’s “disheartening” that misinformation is being given to the Coast Guard. • PDF: Download the Coast Guard's letter The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest trade crossing in North America, linking Detroit with Windsor, Ontario, its span the most important freight link between the world’s two largest trading partners, the United States and Canada. At present, its operators are fighting to maintain their competitive advantage, however. Federal, state and provincial officials on both sides of the border are supporting what’s known as the Detroit River International Crossing or DRIC – a proposal for a publicly owned second span a little more than a mile downriver from the Ambassador Bridge. (2 of 2)
Its supporters say it would create needed redundancy for a link vital to Michigan and Ontario and provided added capacity. Its detractors – including the operators of the Ambassador Bridge – argue it’s a waste of taxpayer money and that capacity needs, if there are any, will be addressed by the Bridge Company’s plans for a six-lane second span to the exisitng four-lane Ambassador Bridge. The big problem with that, however, is that Canadian officials – particularly those immediately across Detroit River in Windsor – are balking at any plans to improve key access roads to the bridge, saying their community won’t stand for it or the traffic it would create. They’re pushing enthusiastically for the downriver span. There was no word today on the Coast Guard’s reaction to Stamper’s repsonse to the letter. Elgaaly didn’t return calls for comment to the Free Press. A photo in the Free Press on March 29, showed some of the work which already has been done in anticipation of the a new Ambassador Bridge on the American side, including approaches to what would be the new span. At the time, Stamper acknowledged the plazas and approaches had been built, saying, “The only thing left is to connect a dead end in Detroit and a dead end in Canada.” Today, however, he said that’s a far cry from actually beginning work on the bridge proper. In her letter, Elgaaly noted that while the Ambassador Bridge does not require a presidential permit for a new international bridge – Congress gave the Bridge Company the authority to build the existing bridge in 1921 – it doesn’t exempt it from other requirements, like a Coast Guard permit. It’s a point Stamper wouldn’t concede in his response but argued is irrelevant because the pier in question represents the final approach from the already authorized Gateway Project and is 4,000 feet away from the actual second span over the river. That newly constructed ramp may dead end where a new span would begin, said Stamper, but that, too, was considered part of the Gateway Project: “There is some overlap,” he said in the letter, adding, “they were always intended to function together.” Earlier this year, the Coast Guard issued a preliminary finding that the new Ambassador Bridge span would have no significant impact but has yet to finalize that ruling. It was still accepting public comments up until the end of last month. If the Coast Guard were to take legal action, it would be under a section of federal law that states no bridge over the navigable waters of the U.S. can be built or commenced without the transportation secretary signing off on it. Criminal penalties for violation of that section could inlcuded fines of up to $5,000 a month and forcing the “removal of such bridge and accessory works at the expense of the persons owning or controlling such bridge.”