1. 1 Presentation for Border Transportation Partnership Detroit River International Crossing May 31, 2005

2. 2 Presentation Outline Background Planning/Need and Feasibility Study Existing and Proposed Crossings DRIC Study Elements DRIC Study Process DRIC Study Schedule

3. 3 The Border Transportation Partnership

4. 4 The Project Team Lead Partner Canadian Side Ontario Ministry of Transportation Lead Partner U.S. Side Michigan Department of Transportation Consultant Team Canadian Side Consultant Team U.S. Side

5. 5 Why a Border Transportation Partnership? Individual studies by Michigan and Ontario in the 1990’s Need for long-term improvements was recognized Within the mandates of: –Transport Canada; –U.S. Federal Highways Administration; –Ontario Ministry of Transportation; and –Michigan Department of Transportation Each agency agreed to partner in a joint study

6. 6 Planning/Need and Feasibility Study (“The Bi-National Study”) Develop a 30-year transportation strategy: –Consistent with environmental assessment requirements: Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Ontario Environmental Assessment Act U.S. National Environmental Policy Act –Multi-modal Completed January 2004

7. 7 P/NF Study: Broad Geographic Area

8. 8 P/NF Study Daily Travel Demand Base Case 5,700 19,300 12,700 14,100 Year 2000 Year 2030 Port Huron / Sarnia 12,800 69,300 51,600 27,900 Year 2000 Year 2030 Detroit / Windsor

9. 9 P/NF Study Projected International Trade Two-Way Canada-U.S. Trade Passing Through Detroit-Windsor (U.S. Dollars) 20012030 $90 Billion +/- $150 Billion+/- (64% Increase)

10. 10 Opportunities Lost If No Improvements By Year 2030 P/NF Study Economic Opportunities SEMCOG-Essex Economy Michigan-Ontario Economy Cumulative Employment (Full Time Equivalent Jobs) 19,750 – 24,000 70,000 – 84,000 Annual Production (Year 2000 U.S. Dollars) $3.0 - $3.4 Billion $6.2 – $6.8 Billion

11. 11 P/NF Study Network Connections Options for maintaining the movement of people and goods should be provided The current border crossings are 75 years old and will reach capacity in 10-15 years This key trade route requires a new or expanded border crossing

12. 12 P/NF Study Summary Elements of 30-Year Strategy Ensure sufficient border processing resources Optimize the use of existing network in the short to medium-term (5-10 years) Encourage use of other modes and diversion to Bluewater Bridge to reduce travel demand Construct a new or expanded crossing from the interstate freeway system in Michigan to the provincial highway system in Ontario

13. 13 P/NF Conclusions Clear need for improvements at Windsor-Detroit Planning and approval process is unique Integrated bi-national public planning process Initiate Ontario EA Terms of Reference

14. 14 Private Sector Proposals AMB ETR Mich-Can Proposal Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry Twin AMB DRTP Proposal Hennepin Pt. Crossing, Inc.

15. 15 The DRIC EA/EIS Study Will: Coordinate the U.S. and Canadian work programs Assess impacts for route, plaza, and crossing alternatives –Engineering –Social –Economic –Cultural –Natural environment Incorporate public and agency input

16. 16 Preliminary Statement of Project Purpose The purpose of the Detroit River International Crossing Project is to, for the foreseeable future (i.e., at least 30 years): Provide safe, efficient and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian-U.S. border in the Detroit river area to support the economies of Michigan, Ontario, Canada and the U.S. Support the mobility needs of national and civil defense.

17. 17 Preliminary Statement of Project Need To address future mobility requirements across the Canada-U.S. border, there is a need to: Provide new border crossing capacity to meet increased long-term demand; Improve system connectivity to enhance the seamless flow of people and goods; Improve operations and processing capability; Provide reasonable and secure crossing options in the event of incidents, maintenance, congestion, or other disruptions.

18. 18 Ontario EA Terms of Reference Purpose of the Undertaking The purpose of the undertaking is to provide for the safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian-U.S. border in the Detroit River area to support the economies of Ontario, Michigan, Canada, and the U.S.

19. 19 Our Goal: Approved location for a river crossing Approved connections to freeways in Canada and U.S. Approved locations for plazas in Canada and the U.S. Comprehensive engineering to support approvals, property acquisition, design and construction Submission for approval by December 2007

20. 20 Detroit River Crossings Forecasted Traffic Volumes

21. 21 Sensitivity Analysis ScenarioYear Capacity Reached Base Forecast10 to 15 years Sensitivity Tests High Trade GrowthAdvance 3 years Low Trade GrowthDefer 3 years Diversion to Intermodal RailDefer 2 years High Diversion to St. Clair River CrossingDefer 6 years High Passenger Car DemandAdvance 4 years Low Passenger Car DemandDefer 5 years Extreme Low ScenarioDefer 11 years Extreme High ScenarioAdvance 7 years

22. 22 Detroit River Crossing Capacity Crossing Facility Year Capacity Reached US Road Access US Border Processing Bridge / Tunnel CAN Border Processing CAN Road Access Ambassador Bridge> 30 years 5 to 10 years 10 to 15 years 5 to 10 years Detroit-Windsor Tunnel 0 to 5 years 5 to 10 years > 30 years 5 to 10 years

23. 23 Bridge Types Cable Stay Bridges –Main spans up to 1,500 ft Greenville Mississippi River Bridge – 1,300 ft

24. 24 Bridge Types Suspension Bridges –Main spans over 1,500 ft Tacoma Narrows Bridge – 2,800 ft

25. 25 Tunnel Types Soft Ground Bored Tunnels Rock Bored Tunnels Cut/Cover – Submerged Mined (Drill and Blast) Construction –Bored tunnels in soft ground up to 80 ft/day –Bored tunnels in hard rock up to 30 ft/day Cost –Comparable to very long span bridges –$160 to $240 US million/mile

26. 26 Tunnel Feasibility CategorySouthernCentralEastern Soft Ground Bored Tunnel Not feasible Insufficient soil depth Possibly Feasible Soil depth varies from marginal to insufficient Feasible Marginal soil depth Rock TunnelNot Feasible Poor rock Deep tunnel/ long approaches Poor history Not Feasible Poor rock Even deeper tunnel/ long approaches Poor history Not Feasible Poor rock Very deep tunnel/ long approaches Submerged TunnelNot Feasible Rock excavation required Environmental Issues Technically Feasible – Engineering Not Feasible & Prudent – Environmental Issues Technically Feasible – Engineering Not Feasible & Prudent – Environmental Issues

27. 27 Crossing Feasibility Summary Location Type South CentralEast Grosse IleFighting Island Soft Ground Bored Tunnel No Yes Rock Bored TunnelNo Submerged TunnelNo BridgeYes

28. 28 Plaza Functions

29. 29 South Crossing Corridor Further Distances to Freeways Intensely Developed in US Detroit River is approximately 3 miles wide Piers Likely in Detroit River Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Numerous Natural Environmental Impacts Poor Connections to West Airport Flight paths Rural in Canada Direct Route Southerly

30. 30 Central Crossing Corridor Short Connections to I-75 and EC Row Expressway Major Infrastructure Improvements Required for Connection to Freeway in Canada Difficult Connection to I-75 Industrial Development Many Brine Wells Environmental Justice Concerns Detroit River is Narrowest Natural Environmental Impacts

31. 31 Eastern Crossing Corridor Densely Developed in Both Nations Less Desirable from a Travel Demand Perspective Impacts to Belle Isle Detroit River is Over one mile wide Natural Environmental Impacts Mid Length Connections to Freeways

32. 32 Evaluation Process Select Technically and Environmentally Preferred Alternative; Refine & Complete Preliminary Design Refine and Assess Practical Alternatives Assess Illustrative Alternatives & Identify Practical Alternatives Purpose of the Undertaking Assess Planning Alternatives and Develop Illustrative Alternatives Purpose of the Undertaking Assess Planning Alternatives and Develop Illustrative Alternatives Steps in Evaluation Process TIME Aug ‘05 Jan ‘06 Jan ‘07 Dec ‘07 NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES AMOUNT OF ANALYSIS

33. 33 Balance of Social, Environmental and Engineering Factors PROPOSED EVALUATION CRITERIA Socio- Economic Environment Property and Access Community Effects (Noise, Disruption, etc.) Land Use Strategies Disposal Sites & Contaminated Areas Cultural Environment Archaeology Heritage and Recreation Natural Environment Air Quality Agricultural Areas Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Groundwater and Surface Water Noise Other Resources Special Wildlife and Habitat Areas Wetlands Woodlands Technical Considerations Traffic and Network Operations Engineering/Constructability Cost

34. 34 Consultation THE PARTNERSHIP PRIVATE SECTOR ADVISORY GROUP COMMUNITY CONSULTATION GROUP CDN PROJECT TEAM EXPERTISE MUNICIPAL COUNCILS MUNICIPAL ADVISORY GROUP CDN GENERAL PUBLIC CDN BORDER AGENCIES CROSSING OWNERS, OPERATORS PROPONENTS CDN REGULATORY AGENCIES LOCAL ADVISORY COUNCIL U.S. PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE CITY/ TOWNSHIP COUNCILS PUBLIC AGENCY GROUP U.S. GENERAL PUBLIC U.S. BORDER AGENCIES FIRST NATIONS U.S. REGULATORY AGENCIES

35. 35 Study Process Schedule

36. 36 Key Milestones Study Area Features, Opportunities & ConstraintsApril ‘05 Initial Set of Crossing Alternatives & Connecting Routes in Canada and the U.S. June ‘05 Final Set of AlternativesDecember ‘05 Results of Social, Economic, Environmental and Engineering Assessments Winter ‘06 Preferred Crossing Location & Connecting Routes in Canada and the U.S. Spring ‘07 Finalize Engineering and Mitigation MeasuresSummer ‘07 Document Study and Submit for ApprovalsEnd of ‘07

37. 37 Who Decides? DRIC Study Partnership Recommendation OEAA Minister of Environment CEAA Federal Agencies NEPA U.S. Agencies APPROVALS

38. 38 DRIC Project Time Line 200520062007200820092010201120122013 EA Review & Approval Coordinated Canada – U.S. process Streamlined within existing legislation Public meetings have begun NEW CROSSING 2013 Land Acquisition Technically and Environmentally Preferred Alternative Selected Mid-2007 Technically and Environmentally Preferred Alternative Selected Mid-2007 Detroit River International Crossing Route Planning and Environmental Assessment Detroit River International Crossing Route Planning and Environmental Assessment ENGINEERING / CONSTRUCTION

39. 39 Project Contacts – Canadian Study Mr. Dave Wake Windsor Projects Coordinator Ministry of Transportation Tel. (519) 873-4559 detroit.river@mto.gov.on.ca Mr. Roger Ward Senior Project Manager Ministry of Transportation Tel. (519) 873-4586 detroit.river@mto.gov.on.ca DRIC Project Office 2465 McDougall Street, Suite 100 Windsor, Ontario N8X 3N9 Tel. (519) 969-9696; Fax (519) 969-5012 info@partnershipborderstudy.com Mr. Len Kozachuk, P.Eng. Deputy Project Manager URS Canada Inc. Tel. (905) 882-4401 info@partnershipborderstudy.com Project Web Site: www.partnershipborderstudy.com Toll Free : 1-800-900-2649

40. 40 Project Contacts – U.S. Study Mr. Mohammed Alghurabi Senior Project Manager Michigan Department of Transportation Tel. (517) 373-7674 alghurabim@Michigan.gov Mr. Joe Corradino DRIC Project Manager The Corradino Group Tel. (313) 964-1926 jccorradino@corradino.com Project Web Site: www.partnershipborderstudy.com Toll Free : 1-800-900-2649 Detroit Project Office The Corradino Group, Inc. 535 Griswold Street Buhl Building, Suite 918 Detroit, Michigan, 48226 Tel. (800) 880-8241 Southfield Project Office The Corradino Group, Inc. 20300 Civic Center Drive, Suite 410 Southfield, Michigan, 48076 Tel. (248) 799-0140 Fax (248) 799-0146