Site Map

 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the purpose of the Planning/Need and Feasibility Study?
2. Who is conducting the study?
3. How was the public involved in the study?
4. What are the results of the P/NF Study?
5. The recently released P/NF Study Report identifies ‘Potential Elements of the Recommended Strategy.’ Is the Partnership in agreement with these recommendations? If yes, what is its response? If no, why?
6. Some studies say that the number of cars crossing the border is down drastically since September 11, 2001. Why did the planning study conclude that more infrastructure capacity is needed?
7. Has the Partnership decided what corridors to study?
8. Have the corridors been changed since the Open Houses in June 2003?
9. Why is it taking so long to study the corridors?
10. Why is the DRTP proposal being carried forward into the next stage of the study?
11. Will the new crossing take the trucks out of Windsor?
12. What can be done sooner to help get the truck lineups off local roads?
13. If a new crossing is required, how much will it cost? What’s cheaper, a tunnel or a bridge?
14. Is the Partnership studying a tunnel for a new crossing?
15. Can the new crossing be a tunnel from Highway 401 to I-75 in Michigan?
16. The immediate problems at the border relate to security and customs and immigration; what is being done speed up/increase capacity for border inspections?
17. What actions are the Partners taking to improve rail and ferry service?
18. What is happening with the Windsor Gateway Action Plan (Nine Point Plan)?
19. Does the Partnership support DRTP as a short-term solution?
20. What are the next steps?
21. What is a TOR?
22. What kind of comments is the Partnership looking for?
23. What is a Purpose and Need Statement?
24. When will the Partnership make a recommendation?
25. Will the Partnership be studying the effects of diesel fumes?
26. When would a new crossing actually be open?
27. Would a new crossing have toll roads?
28. Would a new crossing be privately owned, like the Tunnel and Ambassador Bridge, or publicly owned?
29. How much did the study cost? Who paid for the study?

 

 

 

1. What is the purpose of the Planning/Need and Feasibility Study?
The purpose of the Planning/Need and Feasibility (P/NF) Study was to develop a long-term transportation strategy for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods across the United States and Canadian border within the region of Southeast Michigan and Southwest Ontario, including improved connections to national, provincial, and regional transportation systems.

The Planning/Need and Feasibility Study Report provides a comprehensive 30-year strategy to address both medium- and long-term solutions for ensuring the Southeast Michigan-Southwest Ontario border remains a key gateway between Canada and the United States.
[back to top]

 

2. Who is conducting the study?
The study is being conducted by the Canada-U.S.-Ontario-Michigan Border Transportation Partnership. This bi-national partnership includes representatives from Transport Canada, the United States Federal Highway Administration, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Michigan Department of Transportation.
[back to top]

 

3. How was the public involved in the study?
Over the course of the Planning Study, two rounds of Public Information Open Houses were held on both sides of the border, one in November 2002 and another in June 2003, where members of the public were provided opportunities to review, comment and ask questions on the study, as well as to discuss concerns with members of the study team.

Presentations were also made to municipal councils to provide information to and obtain feedback from the elected officials.

A Web site has been set up to provide the public with access to information and a forum for feedback throughout the project - the address is www.PartnershipBorderStudy.com.

In addition, both a Public and a Private Sector Consultation Group were established to provide agencies/stakeholders with opportunities to review the study's progress, raise their concerns and provide comments.
[back to top]

 

4. What are the results of the P/NF Study?
The study examined potential transportation alternatives to meet the projected growth in future trade and traffic between the two countries. The P/NF Report outlines the potential elements of a strategy to address transportation needs for the next 30 years.

The key elements of the strategy are:

  • Optimize border processing resources;
  • Construct a new, or expand an existing, international crossing connecting the interstate freeway system in Michigan to the provincial highway system in Ontario;
  • Optimize the use of the existing road network in the short- to medium-term (5 – 10 years); and
  • Implement travel demand measures and encourage use of other modes.
    The study also identified five road-based corridors in the Windsor/Essex County – Detroit/Wayne County area, where it would be feasible to develop a new or improved roadway and new/expanded crossing connecting the interstate freeway system in Michigan and the provincial highway network in Ontario.

[back to top]

 

5. The recently released P/NF Study Report identifies ‘Potential Elements of the Recommended Strategy.’ Is the Partnership in agreement with these recommendations? If yes, what is its response? If no, why?
The Partnership has taken this section of the P/NF Study Report as a recommendation from the Consultant Team. Responses from all government partners in the Partnership are being prepared.
[back to top]

 

6. Some studies say that the number of cars crossing the border is down drastically since September 11, 2001. Why did the planning study conclude that more infrastructure capacity is needed?
The need for additional infrastructure capacity is not based on short-term trends in traffic volumes.

Traffic volumes are expected to exceed the capacity of the existing border crossings within the next 30 years. Significant growth in truck traffic associated with growing trade between Canada and the U.S. and continued modest growth in passenger car traffic will lead to increased traffic volumes at the existing border crossings.

As a result of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and of ongoing national security concerns, heightened border security is a new reality facing all border crossings. Security priorities will affect border crossing operations; periods of rigorous inspection of all passengers and goods using border crossings will effectively reduce border crossing capacity, and lead to congestion on the road network in the vicinity of the border crossings.

Additional staffing, improvements to facilities and implementation of border crossing programs are all being pursued by border processing agencies. However, it is unlikely that any individual or collective improvements made will provide sufficient capacity to meet the medium- to long-term travel demand or during periods of heightened security.
The potential impacts resulting from disruption of the movement of people and goods across the Detroit River due to major traffic incidents, security concerns or maintenance operations are a significant concern to the Partnership. The existing roadway crossings of the Detroit River, namely the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, are more than 70 years old. Significant maintenance activities often have the potential to partially or completely close such structures to traffic. Given the importance of this trade corridor and the substantial number of people and economic activity dependent upon safe, reliable access across the Detroit River on a daily basis, governments have an important role to safeguard the public interest in the event of disruption in the corridor.
[back to top]

 

7. Has the Partnership decided what corridors to study?
No decisions regarding the locations for a new/expanded crossing have been made by the Partnership.

During the Planning/Need and Feasibility Study (P/NF) some preliminary corridors were identified, in order to confirm that feasible alternatives exist. These corridors were developed based on technical and environmental objectives to avoid the most sensitive/significant features (environmental, natural, social, economic, cultural) to the greatest extent possible, and to be of sufficient width to accommodate various route alignments.

The corridors presented at the Public Information Open Houses in June 2003, and in the P/NF Study have no official status at this time. During the environmental assessment process, formal study area limits will be developed, and a range of alternative corridors will be developed, analyzed and evaluated. It is anticipated that the corridors identified during the P/NF study will be brought forward into the formal environmental study, but additional corridors may also be considered. Under the environmental study processes in both Canada and the U.S., it is not possible to rule out any corridors at this time.
This is a bi-national study, and each alternative will have to be assessed as to their impacts and benefits to Ontario and Michigan, in order to find the best balance of all factors. The impacts to local communities on both sides of the Detroit River will be incorporated in the evaluation of alternatives in the environmental studies.
[back to top]

 

8. Have the corridors been changed since the Open Houses in June 2003?
No decisions regarding locations for a new/expanded crossing have been made by the Partnership.
[back to top]

 

9. Why is it taking so long to study the corridors?
The Bi-National Study is looking at the medium- to long-term needs of the border transportation network. The pressure for a quick solution to the study and the border crossing traffic problems is understandable. The Partnership will expedite the study as rapidly as laws and regulations permit while ensuring that stakeholders have adequate opportunities to provide input. In the meantime, short-term measures that are underway to address more immediate needs include providing additional staff at the border, promoting use of NEXUS and FAST, supporting plaza improvements and other initiatives, such as the Ambassador Bridge Gateway project and those identified in the Windsor Gateway Action Plan.
[back to top]

 

10. Why is the DRTP proposal being carried forward into the next stage of the study?
The P/NF Study identified that the DRTP proposal does not provide sufficient capacity to meet the long-term needs of the network. However, the DRTP proposal, in conjunction with other alternatives (i.e. another new/expanded crossing) may provide sufficient capacity to serve the projected travel demand. No decisions have been made as to whether the recommended plan for the border should be one new/ expanded crossing or more than one. Further, no decisions regarding the locations for a new/expanded crossing have been made by the Partnership.

During the P/NF Study some preliminary corridors were identified, in order to confirm that feasible alternatives for a new/expanded crossing exist. These corridors were developed based on technical and environmental objectives to avoid the most sensitive/significant environmental features (i.e., environmental, natural, social, economic, cultural) to the extent possible. These corridors were developed to be sufficiently wide to accommodate various route alignments.

The P/NF Study was not conducted within the formal environmental study processes of Canada and the U.S., and therefore the corridors presented in the P/NF Study have no official status at this time. During the formal environmental study process, study area limits will be developed, and a range of alternative corridors will be developed, analyzed and evaluated. It is anticipated that the corridors identified during the P/NF study will be brought forward into the EA/EIS study, but additional corridors may also be considered. Under the environmental study processes in both Canada and the U.S., it is not possible to rule out any corridors at this time.
[back to top]

 

11. Will the new crossing take the trucks out of Windsor?
No decisions regarding locations for a new/expanded crossing have been made by the Partnership and it is premature to comment on truck travel at the border crossing. The impacts to local communities on both sides of the Detroit River will be considered in the evaluation of alternatives in the environmental studies. Concerns with truck traffic in urban areas and its effects on neighbourhoods, will be considered in the forthcoming environmental studies, along with other issues related to the natural, social, cultural and economic features, and transportation benefits and costs.

The corridors presented in the P/NF Study have no official status at this time. During the environmental study process, formal study area limits will be developed, and a range of alternative corridors will be developed, analyzed and evaluated. It is anticipated that the corridors identified during the P/NF study will be brought forward into the EA/EIS study, but additional corridors may also be considered. Under the environmental study processes in both Canada and the U.S., it is not possible to rule out any corridors at this time. This is a bi-national study, and each alternative will have to be assessed as to its impacts and benefits to Ontario and Michigan, in order to find the best balance of all factors.
[back to top]

 

12. What can be done sooner to help get the truck lineups off local roads?
The Partnership identified a number of short-term measures to address more immediate needs including providing additional staff at the border, promoting use of NEXUS and FAST, supporting plaza improvements at existing crossings such as the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project and other initiatives, such as those identified in the Windsor Gateway Action Plan. The Partnership is supporting and encouraging the implementation of such short-term measures to the greatest extent possible.
[back to top]

 

13. If a new crossing is required, how much will it cost? What’s cheaper, a tunnel or a bridge?
No detailed cost estimates have been developed by the Partnership for new or expanded border crossings. Other corporate and private interests have publicly identified cost estimates for proposals they have developed for a new or expanded crossing and/or connecting roadway improvements. The Partnership will develop detailed cost estimates during the next stages of the study.

Generally speaking, tunneling is a more expensive method of construction than surface construction. The actual cost will vary, depending on the length of construction, geotechnical conditions in the region and the mitigation measures required to address impacts. However, the options of tunneling and bridge building will be considered during the EA/EIS studies.
[back to top]

 

14. Is the Partnership studying a tunnel for a new crossing?
All reasonable options will be considered during the EA/EIS Study. The new crossing may be a bridge or a tunnel. Alternative solutions will be evaluated, and mitigation will be developed, using a wide range of factors and indicators, which will represent natural, social, cultural, economic and engineering factors. The decision as to whether a new/expanded crossing will be a bridge or a tunnel will be made in the next stage of the study.
[back to top]

 

15. Can the new crossing be a tunnel from Highway 401 to I-75 in Michigan?
At this time, no decisions have been made regarding the feasibility of tunneling any portions of any new or improved road connections. Alternative solutions will be evaluated, and mitigation will be developed, using a wide range of factors and indicators. The indicators will represent natural, cultural, social, economic and engineering factors.
[back to top]

 

16. The immediate problems at the border relate to security and customs and immigration; what is being done speed up/increase capacity for border inspections?
Additional staffing, improvements to facilities and implementation of border crossing programs are all being pursued by border processing agencies and progress is being made in all these areas. However, it is unlikely that any individual or collective improvements made will provide sufficient capacity to meet the medium- to long-term travel demand or during periods of heightened security.

As a result of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and of ongoing national security concerns, heightened border security is a new reality facing all border crossings. Security priorities will affect border crossing operations; periods of rigorous inspection of all passengers and goods using border crossings will effectively reduce border crossing capacity, and lead to congestion on the road network in the vicinity of the border crossings.

The Partnership will consider these issues as it develops solutions to accommodate the capacity requirements of international traffic, while recognizing security concerns must also be addressed.
[back to top]

 

17. What actions are the Partners taking to improve rail and ferry service?
The P/NF Study identified greater use of the ferry and rail services and improvements to marine vessel services and rail corridors as elements of the proposed 30-year strategy for improving the transportation network. While increased use of other modes may improve utilization of the transportation network as a whole, it will not reduce the need for a new or expanded road-based crossing in the Detroit River area. Nevertheless, the Partnership is studying these elements of the strategy and will identify actions/policies for non-roadway alternatives in the near future.
[back to top]

 

18. What is happening with the Windsor Gateway Action Plan (Nine Point Plan)?
On March 11, 2004, the governments of Canada, Ontario and Windsor announced new measures that are part of a joint $300-million federal-provincial investment to help improve the Windsor Gateway. The five initial project investments include:

  • Improvements to the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel Plaza;
  • Construction of a pedestrian overpass near Assumption High School;
  • Construction of the Walker Road Grade separation at Grand Marais Road and completion of an EA for the Howard Road rail grade separation;
  • Improvements to Huron Church/Industrial Drive intersection; and
  • Implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems on the approach roadways of existing border crossings.

The announcement represents the first important steps in the new Let’s Get Windsor-Essex Moving strategy. It will be a multi-year strategy that will improve road safety, speed up the flow of cross-border traffic, protect and strengthen local jobs and growth, and beautify transportation corridors.

A subsequent agreement will be developed to identify additional projects that will be pursued to improve the efficiency of the Windsor Gateway. This new approach replaced the nine-point Windsor Gateway Action Plan.
[back to top]

 

19. Does the Partnership support DRTP as a short-term solution?
The DRTP has been participating in the bi-national planning process and sharing information with the project team. The Partnership understands that in Canada, DRTP intends to pursue federal approval for their proposal under the provisions of improvements to a railway. The DRTP application will be considered by the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation will be a review agency. On the U.S. side, DRTP has indicated that they are proceeding with activities under the process for obtaining federal approvals used for the Port Huron-Sarnia rail tunnel project. The Partnership is considering the DRTP proposal within the EA/EIS process, along with other crossing proposals.
[back to top]

 

20. What are the next steps?
The Partnership is moving forward with the formal environmental processes in both the U.S. and Canada. There are three environmental study processes that govern the major planning and approval of border crossing transportation projects. In the U.S., the process is governed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In Canada, the requirements of both the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA) and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) will apply to this project.
Overall, the three processes are similar, and their purposes are to:

  • Identify purpose and need for the proposed action;
  • Identify alternatives to the undertaking and alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking;
  • Identify and evaluate social, economic and environmental impacts (note: the main focus of the CEAA is to identify if the undertaking will cause any adverse environmental effect);
  • Analyze preliminary alternatives and identify practical alternatives;
  • Select recommended alternatives;
  • Conduct public consultation as part of the process;
  • Seek approvals and endorsement from statutory authorities; and
  • Provide a structured framework to assist public officials in making sound decisions.

The Partnership is proposing to follow an integrated study process which meets the requirements of NEPA, CEAA and OEAA.

As a member of the Partnership, the Ministry of Transportation is moving forward with the development of a Terms of Reference (TOR) for the preparation of the environmental assessment for Ontario.

Comments on the draft TOR will be sought from ministries, agencies, municipalities, stakeholders and the general public. As part of the on-going consultation program for this project, meetings, presentations and open houses will be scheduled to discuss the draft TOR. Comments will be incorporated in a final TOR, which will be submitted to the Ontario Minister of the Environment for approval. Once approved, the project will proceed with the environmental studies required to develop and select transportation alternatives.

In the U.S., FHWA and MDOT are developing a draft Purpose and Need Statement, in accordance with NEPA requirements.

A Project Description under CEAA will be developed once the nature of the project (study area and range of alternatives) is better defined.
[back to top]

 

21. What is a TOR?
The Environmental Assessment Act in Ontario requires proponents to prepare a Terms of Reference (TOR), before undertaking an individual environmental assessment (EA). A TOR is a document that describes:

  • the problems to be addressed in the EA;
  • the process to be followed to identify alternatives which address the problem;
  • the process to be followed to develop a study area;
  • the process to be followed for evaluation of alternatives; and
  • the public consultation process to be followed during the EA.

Comments on the draft TOR will be incorporated in the Final TOR, which is submitted to the Ontario Minister of the Environment. A TOR must be approved by Ontario’s Minister of the Environment before an individual EA can proceed.
[back to top]

 

22. What kind of comments is the Partnership looking for?
Comments on any and all aspects of the TOR are welcome and will be considered in the Final TOR. Information provided in the TOR includes:

  • Purpose of the project
  • Integrated process for conducting the EA
  • Framework for generating and assessing alternatives
  • Framework for defining study area
  • Proposed generation and evaluation criteria
  • Proposed evaluation methodology
  • Proposed consultation plan

[back to top]

 

23. What is a Purpose and Need Statement?
A Purpose and Need Statement is a requirement under NEPA. The statement describes why the project is needed and what problem(s) the project is intended to address. The Purpose of the Undertaking discussion in the OEA TOR is comparable to the NEPA Purpose and Need Statement. The Purpose and Need Statement is circulated to U.S. federal agencies with responsibility for approvals and permits related to the project. The agencies are requested to indicate any concerns regarding the purpose of the project or the process to be followed in completing the EIS. FHWA considers these concerns in finalizing the Purpose and Need Statement. Once the Purpose and Need Statement is finalized, scoping of the project can begin.
[back to top]

 

24. When will the Partnership make a recommendation?
Once the TOR is approved by the Ontario Minister of the Environment, the Partnership will move forward with the generation and evaluation of alternatives, to meet the requirements of environmental legislation in Canada and the United States (NEPA, OEAA and CEAA). This process will take approximately 2 to 3 years. At the end of this time, the Partnership will have developed, consulted and carried out preliminary design of a recommended plan for the border.
[back to top]

 

25. Will the Partnership be studying the effects of diesel fumes?
Air quality is one of many environmental factors that will be considered during the forthcoming environmental studies. Potential air quality impacts and mitigation measures will be identified and assessed. The overall impacts generated by each identified alternative will be compared to the overall potential benefits to the transportation network, as well as the impacts and benefits of the other alternatives, in determining which will be carried forward for further consideration.
In determining the recommended location for the new or improved road connections and new/expanded crossing, the Project Team will identify and compare all potential impacts and benefits to identify the alternative that results in the lowest overall impacts.
[back to top]

 

26. When would a new crossing actually be open?
Should a new crossing be selected at the end of the environmental study process, design and construction would follow. In total, it could take approximately 8 to 10 years between now and the opening of a new or expanded crossing.
[back to top]

 

27. Would a new crossing have toll roads?
The aspect of tolling the new or improved approach roadway connecting to a new/expanded border crossing has not been addressed. As the project moves forward, this issue will be addressed by the four governments sponsoring the study.
[back to top]

 

28. Would a new crossing be privately owned, like the Tunnel and Ambassador Bridge, or publicly owned?
No decisions have been made regarding the responsibility and cost of constructing and operating a new or expanded crossing. Whether a new crossing would be public, private or some combination, is an issue that is being considered by the four governments sponsoring the study.
[back to top]

 

29. How much did the study cost? Who paid for the study?
The cost to undertake the P/NF Study, prepare a Terms of Reference in accordance with OEAA, and prepare the NEPA Purpose and Need Statement, was $4.5 million (CDN).

The cost was equally shared by the Bi-National Partnership agencies – the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), Transport Canada, Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
[back to top]

 

Click here to view Stage 1 FAQ’s


Study Update |Stage 2: TOR/P&N | Stage 1: P/NF | Map Library | Schedule | Meetings & Events | Reports & Papers | Media Contacts | News Releases | FAQs | Fast Facts | Site Map | Contact Us | Home