WINDSOR, Ont. — The Ambassador Bridge formally submitted to Transport Canada its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed twin span of the current bridge.

The filing is the latest step in the approval process for the new six-lane, cable-stayed replacement just 100 feet west of the existing Ambassador.

The U.S. Coast Guard is presently conducting a similar environmental assessment for the U.S. authorities. If the private company gets the green light from both sides of the border, construction could begin in the fall of 2008.

The company has already spent $500 million on land acquisitions and regulatory processes for the project.

The business and environmental cases for the twin span are
solid enough to overcome any bias, says Ambassador boss.

Echoing public statements made in October about the EIS, Dan Stamper, president of the Ambassador Bridge said the study “found no significant adverse environmental effects from construction of the replacement span.”

If anything, the EIS concludes that a new structure improve air quality and reduce existing noise and vibration levels. The Ambassador’s assessment for Canadian officials employed sensitive receptors, using “state-of-science software. Noise sensitive receptors, that include “heritage structures,” measured 16 locations.

Earlier this year, Transport Canada said that the EIS needed to go even further. The study should measure such things as potential particulate matter and greenhouse gases from the estimated rate of future traffic flow, Transport Canada official Mark Butler said.

Asked recently by TodaysTrucking.com if he thinks Canada will judge the report fairly, considering Ottawa is also heavily invested in The Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) study — the binational group of bureaucrats in competition with the Ambassador to build a separate bridge downriver — Stamper acknowledged that “it does present challenges.”

However, he thinks his business case is solid enough to overcome any possible bias.

The Ambassador’s preliminary EA to the U.S. coast guard had previously received sharp criticism from Michigan and Detroit officials.

The Michigan Dept. of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Michigan State Historic Preservation officer all expressed concerns with how the EA dealt with issues such as air quality and noise impacts, as well as the relation of the new span to surrounding infrastructure (see link below).