As near as I can tell, the original deal said Canada would charge tolls, which will be used to reimburse the Canadian government for the funds it spent to build the span, and Michigan would get half once that happened.

So the main new bit is the language around "net profits," which doesn't seem to change this original agreement.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Well thanks for the added context. My understanding was that the profits were going to Canada considering that we paid for the bridge.

I guess the Moroun's really obfuscated the information out there.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Like I said, it's possible I'm misunderstanding something about the tolls, but that's my interpretation.

The other piece of the "new deal" that seems to be new is the wording about the Americans having approval about changes to the tolls - Reuters says this means the US can veto any toll hike over 10% of the current value, which...I don't know, it seems like such a hike would be in their best interests to approve should it be proposed, since it would lead to more of the net revenue they seem to care so deeply about.

I'm also unclear about whether the "regional investment" the new deal refers to is some kind of new money unrelated to tolls. It would be nice to get clarity there.

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

US can veto any toll hike over 10%

Either direction. If, say, we lower the tolls to below the "other" bridge I believe Trumporreah would veto that to keep the other bridge profitable.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

That's not what the article says, but it would certainly make more sense.

BUT the current standard toll is $8.00 CAD, while the Ambassador Bridge toll seems to be $14.00 CAD.

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

Not sure who I was watching, Clause or Large Man Abroad, but one of them suggested this possibility and it seemed sound. Considering the difference in cost to the user it seems more sound, maybe we drop the rate to get even more traffic but doubt that we would as we want it paid off asarp. Though as usual the sound bite is more important than the actual facts and regardless of facts he will still shoot himself in the foot in the end (it really did sound bad for us at first). We just need to keep on shifting away until the states are not as important to us as they currently are

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 15 hours ago

It's never been about money for the state it's always been about doing favours for the Loosers that own the old shitty bridge so they don't loose profits.