3 ms·

I live in Windsor, so it's pretty cool to see this make HN. I don't know what will happen if they do strike this down, because we've already been working heavil

by alanpca 14y ago

I live in Windsor, so it's pretty cool to see this make HN. I don't know what will happen if they do strike this down, because we've already been working heavily on the infrastructure for this for a year. The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again. Edit: especially an international crossing that accounts for 25% of US-CAD trade.

jkubicek 14y ago
Does Mr. Moroun have any arguments against the bridge other than the (offensively effective), "Your grandchildren are going to pay for it?"
- miahi 14y ago
  "... and not to my grandchildren!"
chrischen 14y ago
There's also a tunnel though. Who owns that?
- aculver 14y ago
  "The tunnel is currently owned by Detroit–Windsor Tunnel LLC, which is a joint-venture between the City of Windsor and the City of Detroit, with each owning 50%." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit–Windsor_Tunnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit–Windsor_Tunnel Trucks can't go through the tunnel.
onetwothreefour 14y ago
Free markets at work! ;)
waterlesscloud 14y ago
I've heard that the owner of the current bridge wants to build another one right next to it himself, but that Canada has blocked him. Is that a factor in his opposition to the Canadian funded bridge?
alexsb92 14y ago
When this came up on Reddit earlier today, I read that if the vote passes through and they need a majority people to vote for it, but that doesn't happen, they will make the project a federal one instead of state, so no state money would be used for this, and nobody would be able to do anything against it.
walkon 14y ago
> The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again. Why laughable? If the owner of the bridge does not provide good enough value and operational efficiency, then competing bridges will be received with favor instead of skepticism. If the government owns the bridge/infrastructure and does not provide acceptable value or efficiencies, it would likely be even harder to create an alternative.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  I just love having fifteen fucking bridges to the same fucking place.
- kristopolous 14y ago
  If I owned the only bridge in town, I'd be giving lots of money to the people that had the power to authorize new bridges; they may even be personal friends or current employees of mine (who better to call the shots on the bridge than someone who has already built one). I'd also sign near perpetuity contracts with all the shipping firms offering them lower rates for exclusivity of my bridge. I'd push for tougher building and environmental standards so that any would-be competitor would have a larger barrier to entry and have to go through a longer approval and vetting process than I ever did. My bridge would be the one with the proximity of gas stations, factories and major roads simply because it was there first. Other bridges then wouldn't be built not because I'm offering a better service, not because the patrons are charged fair tolls, and not because the roads are clean and well maintained. No. Other bridges wouldn't be built because my friends wouldn't approve them; they would be further away from the major roads, they would have to go out and pitch to each shipping client, and face a substantially higher cost of constructions. Additionally, they would have to deal with the arguments "We already have a bridge" and all the NIMBY lawsuits that comes with it. Hell, I'd even pay for their lawyers. I'd focus on maximizing profit and making sure I remain the only game in town. When someone has the capital and motivation to effectively stop the competition from ever forming it's in their interest to do everything they can to pre-emptively do so from the start. Heck, it's probably even outlined in the initial business proposal given that addressing potential competition is such standard practice.

by alanpca 14y ago

jkubicek 14y ago

Does Mr. Moroun have any arguments against the bridge other than the (offensively effective), "Your grandchildren are going to pay for it?"

miahi 14y ago
"... and not to my grandchildren!"

chrischen 14y ago

There's also a tunnel though. Who owns that?

aculver 14y ago
"The tunnel is currently owned by Detroit–Windsor Tunnel LLC, which is a joint-venture between the City of Windsor and the City of Detroit, with each owning 50%." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit–Windsor_Tunnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit–Windsor_Tunnel Trucks can't go through the tunnel.

onetwothreefour 14y ago

Free markets at work! ;)

waterlesscloud 14y ago

I've heard that the owner of the current bridge wants to build another one right next to it himself, but that Canada has blocked him. Is that a factor in his opposition to the Canadian funded bridge?

alexsb92 14y ago

When this came up on Reddit earlier today, I read that if the vote passes through and they need a majority people to vote for it, but that doesn't happen, they will make the project a federal one instead of state, so no state money would be used for this, and nobody would be able to do anything against it.

walkon 14y ago

> The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again. Why laughable? If the owner of the bridge does not provide good enough value and operational efficiency, then competing bridges will be received with favor instead of skepticism. If the government owns the bridge/infrastructure and does not provide acceptable value or efficiencies, it would likely be even harder to create an alternative.

bluedanieru 14y ago
I just love having fifteen fucking bridges to the same fucking place.
kristopolous 14y ago
If I owned the only bridge in town, I'd be giving lots of money to the people that had the power to authorize new bridges; they may even be personal friends or current employees of mine (who better to call the shots on the bridge than someone who has already built one). I'd also sign near perpetuity contracts with all the shipping firms offering them lower rates for exclusivity of my bridge. I'd push for tougher building and environmental standards so that any would-be competitor would have a larger barrier to entry and have to go through a longer approval and vetting process than I ever did. My bridge would be the one with the proximity of gas stations, factories and major roads simply because it was there first. Other bridges then wouldn't be built not because I'm offering a better service, not because the patrons are charged fair tolls, and not because the roads are clean and well maintained. No. Other bridges wouldn't be built because my friends wouldn't approve them; they would be further away from the major roads, they would have to go out and pitch to each shipping client, and face a substantially higher cost of constructions. Additionally, they would have to deal with the arguments "We already have a bridge" and all the NIMBY lawsuits that comes with it. Hell, I'd even pay for their lawyers. I'd focus on maximizing profit and making sure I remain the only game in town. When someone has the capital and motivation to effectively stop the competition from ever forming it's in their interest to do everything they can to pre-emptively do so from the start. Heck, it's probably even outlined in the initial business proposal given that addressing potential competition is such standard practice.