Presentation for Border Transportation Partnership

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

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

3. The Border Transportation Partnership

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. 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. 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. P/NF Study: Broad Geographic Area

8. Port Huron / Sarnia 14,100 19,300 Year2000 Year2030 5,700 12,700 Detroit / Windsor 51,600 69,300 Year2000 Year2030 12,800 27,900 P/NF Study Daily Travel Demand Base Case

9. P/NF Study Projected International Trade Two-Way Canada-U.S. TradePassing Through Detroit-Windsor(U.S. Dollars)

10. P/NF Study Economic Opportunities Opportunities Lost If No Improvements By Year 2030

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

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. Preliminary Statement of Project Purpose • 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. The purpose of the Detroit River International Crossing Project is to, for the foreseeable future (i.e., at least 30 years):

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. 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. 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. Detroit River CrossingsForecasted Traffic Volumes

21. Sensitivity Analysis

22. Detroit River Crossing Capacity

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

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

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. Tunnel Feasibility

27. Crossing Feasibility Summary

28. Plaza Functions

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. 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. 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. Evaluation Process TIME Aug ‘05 Jan ‘06 Jan ‘07 Dec ‘07 NUMBER OFALTERNATIVES AMOUNT OFANALYSIS Purpose of theUndertakingAssess PlanningAlternatives and DevelopIllustrative Alternatives Assess IllustrativeAlternatives &Identify PracticalAlternatives Refine andAssessPracticalAlternatives Select Technicallyand Environmentally Preferred Alternative;Refine & CompletePreliminary Design Steps in Evaluation Process

33. Balance of Social, Environmental andEngineering Factors

34. Consultation MUNICIPAL COUNCILS CITY/ TOWNSHIP COUNCILS CDN GENERAL PUBLIC U.S. GENERAL PUBLIC CDN REGULATORY AGENCIES U.S. REGULATORY AGENCIES CDN BORDERAGENCIES U.S. BORDER AGENCIES THE PARTNERSHIP CROSSING OWNERS, OPERATORS PROPONENTS FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITY CONSULTATION GROUP LOCAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MUNICIPAL ADVISORYGROUP CDNPROJECTTEAM EXPERTISE U.S. PROJECTTEAM EXPERIENCE PUBLICAGENCYGROUP PRIVATESECTOR ADVISORYGROUP

35. 2005 2006 2007 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Finalize Purposeof the Undertaking • Undertake Investigations of: • Technical Considerations • Social Environment • Economic Environment • Cultural Environment • Natural Environment • to Assess Practical Alternatives Undertake Assessment of Socio-economic, Cultural & Natural Environment & Technical Considerations & Identify Practical Alternatives RefinePracticalAlternatives Compile &Document Results of theseInvesti-gations PublicHearing(NEPA)Consultation/PIOH(OEAA) SelectTechnically andEnvironmentallyPreferredAlternative Complete PreliminaryDesign of Technically& EnvironmentallyPreferred Alternative Assess Planning Alternatives(Alternatives To) andDefine Study Area PROCESS STEP Develop Illustrative Alternatives Compile and Circulate Report(s) PracticalRoute AlternativesGeneration &AssessmentReport ConceptDesignAlternativesGeneration&Assessment Report(Ont.) AccessJustification Report(Mich.) DRIC PRODUCTS TransportationPlanning/NeedReport Study AreaExistingConditionsReport Illustrative RouteAlternatives Generation &Assessment Report CanadianPlaza AlternativesGeneration &AssessmentReport SelectionofTechnicallyPreferredAlternativeReport(Ont.) EngineeringReport(Mich.) Draft OEA Report Final OEA Report Decisionby MOE OEAA DraftCEAA ProjectDescription Draft CEAA ScopingDocument FinalCEAA ProjectDescription FinalCEAA ScopingDocument Draft CEAAScreeningReport Final CEAAScreeningReport Decisionby RA’s CEAA PROCESS PRODUCTS NEPA NEPAPurpose&NeedStatement NEPAScopingDocument DraftEnvironmentalImpactStudy FinalEnvironmentalImpactStudy Record ofDecisionfrom FHWA PUBLICMEETINGS Initial Public Outreach PIOH 1 PIOH 2 PIOH 3 PIOH 4 PIOH 5 On-going Meetings and Workshops on Project Issues CONSULTATION Consultation to include Concurrence Meetings as prescribed under NEPA(coordinated with U.S. Consultant), and additional meetings in U.S. and Canada on an on-going basis Study Process Schedule

36. Key Milestones

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

38. DRIC Project Time Line Detroit RiverInternational Crossing Route Planning and Environmental Assessment • Coordinated Canada – U.S. process • Streamlined within existing legislation • Public meetings have begun EA Review &Approval LandAcquisition Technically and Environmentally PreferredAlternative SelectedMid-2007 ENGINEERING / CONSTRUCTION NEWCROSSING2013

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. Len Kozachuk, P.Eng. Deputy Project Manager URS Canada Inc. Tel. (905) 882-4401info@partnershipborderstudy.com 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 100Windsor, Ontario N8X 3N9Tel. (519) 969-9696; Fax (519) 969-5012info@partnershipborderstudy.com Project Web Site: www.partnershipborderstudy.com Toll Free : 1-800-900-2649

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