Not to be contrarian, but I see the need for two bridges, and I am not understanding why they want to demolish the Ambassador Bridge. (Or maybe they have by now?) Isn't that just replacing one monopoly with another, but this time owned by government(s)? And am wondering if that is better.
Hey Mark! There is a need for 2, maybe even 3 bridges. The new bridge won't be in operation until 2025, so the Ambassador has another 5 years to fight the powers that make up the rules. It is rare to have an important international crossing owned by a private person, and the governments thinks they are the entitled, rightful owners of this border crossing. The new tolls could add a nice amount to the government's coffers.
Not to be contrarian, but I see the need for two bridges, and I am not understanding why they want to demolish the Ambassador Bridge. (Or maybe they have by now?) Isn't that just replacing one monopoly with another, but this time owned by government(s)? And am wondering if that is better.
Hey Mark! There is a need for 2, maybe even 3 bridges. The new bridge won't be in operation until 2025, so the Ambassador has another 5 years to fight the powers that make up the rules. It is rare to have an important international crossing owned by a private person, and the governments thinks they are the entitled, rightful owners of this border crossing. The new tolls could add a nice amount to the government's coffers.
It'll be interesting to see the outcome...
This article has a lot of spicy food for thought