The Legislators want the $2 billion available in Federal matching funds if the private enterprise Bridge Company builds the new crossing (I have totally discounted DRTP as an alternative since they are too busy trying to get their money out by flogging their corridor to anyone ).
They do NOT want one penny of public money going into building a public bridge.
They do NOT want to build a public crossing a mile from the Ambassador Gateway project where Government funds have already been spent in contemplation of a twinned bridge.
They do want the Federal funds to be spent fixing up and building local Michigan roads.
I read an intgerview of what the MDOT director said. Here are some excerpts which you and Michigan Legislators may find of interest:
- Personalities In Politics: A Conversation With Kirk Steudle
Current Michigan Transportation Director Kirk STEUDLE was appointed by Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM earlier this year to replace outgoing Director Gloria JEFF.
Steudle is a 19-year veteran of the Department and trained in road building. The following is a question and answer interview MIRS conducted with the new Director last week. The interview topics range from his experiences in the new post to the Detroit River International Crossing and mending fences with the Legislature.
The following are excerpts from that discussion.
Q. When the state announced it would be assisting locals in accelerating projects by leveraging federal funds with state borrowing — does doing more projects now necessarily mean there'll be fewer projects done down the road?
A. What it means, particularly with the local Jobs Today, is that the primary driver was the federal funding that was attached to our last federal reauthorization that came specifically for earmarked projects. They were called high-priority projects.
What we heard loud and clear from many local communities was now we have this earmarked, but we don't have the match, and in that case, that money would stay in Washington, unless that particular member [of Congress] who designated it, changed it to another spot, that money can only be spent on that project.
So, there was the very real possibility we would leave federal money in Washington. That was the primary driver for this particular program. Let's pull all the possible funds from Washington and let's not wait until 2009 to do it, let's put them on the road now and let's help jump-start the economy...
What we saw here was the private sector side was down, so last October we said let's advance some MDOT projects in our Jobs Today program — let's pull those forward to help boost those up and get those folks working. Then we realized that's only part of the solution, we've got this federal aid sitting out there in Washington that could potentially not get used, so how do we pull it down and help the economy as well, spurring the public side investment while the private side is down as well.
In totality, you could say well, "yeah we're taking a project from 2008 and moving it into 2007," well that's true. That project was going to be done a couple of years later but now we've moved it forward and done two things. We've put people to work today when the market really needs it, and we've allowed the motorist to enjoy that brand new road for a year or two or three that they might not have been able to originally.
Q. Is MDOT still subscribing too the "Fix it First" theory that was laid down by the previous director?
A. That is a key driver in our program; so yes. Gov. Granholm said we have to focus on fixing what we have first. So, clearly that is a priority for us. But we also understand there is a balanced approach that we have to take. We have to maintain our eye on holding our assets together.
We've got multi-billions of dollars invested in roads across the State of Michigan. We have to make sure those are there for the future. At the same time we have to have the balance to say there are some capacity pieces that need to be moved in here, that are needed to enhance the system.
Q. The Detroit River Crossing, is it fair to say it will end up at Zug Island?
A. I'm not going to make any statements as to where it might end up because we're in the middle of that study process. There are viable alternatives, so it would be inappropriate for me to say it should be here, or it should be there.
I have no personal preference either, it's a federal process that has to be followed. We'll take input from every stakeholder, everyone that has an opinion, and we'll follow that federally mandated process.
Q. Why is the federal government going ahead with a crossing when we've had interest expressed from two private entities for projects that would accomplish the same goals?
A. The DRIC study does not preclude those from going forward. When the study started, they were all included in the analysis. Then for a variety of reasons they were not picked as practical alternatives.
But, that does not preclude them from building those projects. The statement said these are completely privately funded projects. That's absolutely right. They'll still have to do some form of environmental process on the Canadian and the American side to tie into the interstate system, and all the rest of it.
Q. So these projects, expanding the bridge or adding a tunnel, are they dead?
A. No, they're not dead at all. Those remain as viable private investment projects.
There could be room for two [private and public]. It depends on what comes out of the study as the best possible alternative. What we've heard from the business community is that they need more capacity across the Detroit River. That's their bottom line. I've heard from one manufacturer that they do 700 round trips across the border every day — they need additional capacity.
Q. What have you done repair the Department's relations with the Legislature?
A. I don't know if I want to answer that one [chuckles].
Let me put it this way. One of the priorities when I was appointed by Gov. Granholm was to meet with key legislators, meet with the full transportation committees and Speaker [Craig] DeROCHE (R-Novi) and Senate Majority Leader Ken SIKKEMA (R-Wyoming). I reached out in the first couple of weeks to meet with every single one of those folks.
And, I've continued to meet with these folks. What I'm focused on, stressing, "I'm not here with an agenda, but how do we work better together?" Because at the end of the day, what the governor did was to hire me to run an agency that is for all of Michigan.
In my view, the Legislature is a key component of this. They represent all of the 10 million people, so I've reached out to those folks and said let's figure out how to work together.
While I understand that the Director must be "politically correct" in not shutting down DRIC, frankly I am shocked that the Govenor has not done it after the Legislature's budget action and after she unilaterally took a number of crossings off the table Downriver for poltical purposes. She knows what the Mayor of Detroit wants and she still has not acted. I assume that she must now believe that she can win the State without Detroit and without Kwame's help. Dick Devos must be happy now!
On the one hand, the Director wants to utilize NOW matching funds for infrastructure jobs and to create new and fixed roads and on the other he seems reluctant to use $500 million of Bridge Co. money to get matching funds. He will use $80 million of scarce State funds and does not consider $500 million of private funds. Does anyone see a disconnect here?
One can go further. Imagine if the State has to pay for the new public crossing, what happens to the $80 million or other future State funds which goes into building roads. It cannot be used to get matching funds. Does anyone see a disconnect here also?
I can understand why the Director is reluctant to say what he is doing to repair relations with the Legislature. Nothing like talking platitudes while spitting in their faces! Effectively he has said that they are moving forward with a public bridge and private industry can do what they want.
Is Kirk Steudle really serious in thinking that TWO new crossings can be built. If so, perhaps he might call Gloria to see if she needs a new Deputy in Los Angeles.
As an aside, I will give Director Kirk Steudle a plaudit for one thing: he understands that infrastructure spending can create a lot of new jobs NOW when the economy needs it desperately. Too bad that Eddie and the Senior Levels cannot figure out that simple proposition and build the road to the bridge now! If any city in Caanda needs help now with unemployment, especially in light of the Ford announcement, it is Windsor.
No comments:
Post a Comment