DOCSLIB.ORG

Dibc's Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dibc's Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction and Admissibility In the Arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Between DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE COMPANY, Claimant, and THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, Respondent. PCA Case No. 2012-25 DIBC’S COUNTER-MEMORIAL ON JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Jonathan D. Schiller William A. Isaacson 575 Lexington Avenue Hamish P.M. Hume New York, NY 10022 Heather King United States of America 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Tel: +1 212 446 2300 Washington, DC 20015 Fax: +1 212 446 2350 United States of America Tel: +1 202 237 2727 Counsel for Claimant Fax: +1 202 237 6131 Dated: August 23, 2013 Table of Contents PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 9 A. The Ambassador Bridge And Claimant’s Franchise Rights ......................................... 9 B. Canada Devoted Billions Of Dollars To Improve The Highway Connections To Other, Canadian-Owned Crossings, Including Its Nonexistent NITC/DRIC, But Has Not Built A Highway To The Ambassador Bridge/New Span............................ 11 1. Beginning In The Late 1990s, Both Canada And The United States Committed To Improving The Connections Of The Ambassador Bridge To Their Respective Highway Systems ................................................................ 13 a. The U.S. Gateway Project ............................................................................... 13 b. Canada Committed To A Highway Connection To The Ambassador Bridge .............................................................................................................. 14 i. The 2002 Canadian Memorandum Of Understanding Established A Framework To Connect Highway 401 To Existing Crossings ................. 14 ii. In 2004, Canada Renamed Its $300m Commitment The “Let’s Get Windsor-Essex Moving Strategy” ............................................................ 18 2. From 2001 Through 2008, The NITC/DRIC Partnership Explored Potential New Crossings Over The Detroit River ................................................................ 19 a. The NITC/DRIC Partnership Originally Considered A Highway Connection To The Ambassador Bridge New Span ....................................... 19 b. From 2005 To 2008, Canada Identified Areas Of “Continued Analysis” ...... 20 3. On May 1, 2008, Canada Announced Its Plans For The Windsor-Essex Parkway ....................................................................................... 21 4. From 2009 To The Present, Canada Has Sought Approvals, Financing, Permits, And Property Rights To Build The Windsor-Essex Parkway, Which Is Currently Under Construction ............................................................... 22 C. Since 2008, Canada Has Sought To Prevent Claimant From Building Its New Span............................................................................................................................. 25 1. DIBC Plans To Build The New Span ................................................................... 26 i 2. Canada Unlawfully Eliminated The New Span Location From Consideration In The NITC/DRIC Partnership Process ................................................................... 27 3. Canada Has Implemented Legislation And Regulations To Prevent Construction Of The New Span And To Ensure Construction Of The NITC/DRIC........................................................................................................... 33 4. In June 2012, The NITC/DRIC Partners Sign The Crossing Agreement ............. 38 5. Over The Past Several Years, Canada Has Delayed Granting Permits For The New Span .............................................................................................................. 39 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 40 I. CLAIMANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE NAFTA WAIVER REQUIREMENT ...... 40 A. Summary Of Claimant’s Position ............................................................................... 40 B. The Requirements Of The NAFTA Waiver Provision ............................................... 42 1. Investors Must Submit A Written Waiver With The Notice Of Arbitration ........ 42 2. Claimant Fulfilled The Requirements Of Article 1121 ........................................ 43 3. Enforcement Of The Waiver Occurs In Other Courts Or Tribunals ..................... 45 a. Canada Has Not Shown That This Tribunal Should Police Other Proceedings ..................................................................................................... 46 4. Exceptions To The Article 1121 Waiver Requirement ......................................... 49 a. The Waiver Only Applies To The Same Measures ........................................ 49 b. The Waiver Does Not Apply To “proceedings for injunctive, declaratory or other extraordinary relief, not involving the payment of damages, before an administrative tribunal or court under the law of the disputing Party” ........... 52 C. The Washington Litigation Is Consistent With The Article 1121 Waiver Because It Involves Different Measures Than This Arbitration, And Because It Seeks Only Declaratory And Injunctive Relief Under Canadian Law ........................................... 55 1. The Washington Litigation Involves Different Measures Than The NAFTA Arbitration ............................................................................................................. 55 a. Measures Challenged In NAFTA Arbitration................................................. 55 b. Measures Challenged In Washington Litigation............................................. 57 ii c. Canada Fails To Show That The NAFTA Measures And Washington Litigation Measures Overlap ........................................................................... 59 i. The “Highway 401 Measures” Do Not Overlap ....................................... 63 ii. Canada Fails To Identify Any “Franchise Measures” Being Challenged By Claimant In Both The Washington Litigation And This NAFTA Arbitration ................................................................................................. 64 iii. The “New Span Measures” Do Not Overlap ............................................ 66 2. The Washington Litigation Is Also Consistent With The Waiver Because It Seeks Only Declaratory And Injunctive Relief Under Canadian Law .............. 68 D. The CTC v. Canada Litigation Seeks Declaratory Relief In Canadian Court Under Canadian Law, And Seeks Damages Only With Respect To A Measure Not Challenged In This NAFTA Arbitration ..................................................................... 70 E. The Windsor Litigation Involves Different Measures Than This Arbitration And Seeks Declaratory Relief In Canadian Court .............................................................. 74 F. If The Tribunal Finds That A Claim Does Impermissibly Overlap, It Should Only Dismiss That Claim..................................................................................................... 76 II. CLAIMANT’S ROADS CLAIM AND NEW SPAN CLAIM ARE BOTH TIMELY ... 77 A. Summary Of Claimant’s Position ............................................................................... 77 B. The NAFTA Limitations Provision Relies Upon A Two-Part “Knowledge” Test .... 81 C. The Application Of The NAFTA Limitations Provision Depends Upon Whether The Breach Was A One-Time Act, A Continuing Act, Or A Composite Act ............ 83 1. Continuing Courses Of Conduct Generally .......................................................... 83 a. One-Time Acts ................................................................................................ 85 b. Continuing Acts .............................................................................................. 86 c. Composite Acts ............................................................................................... 90 2. Acts v. Omissions ................................................................................................. 91 3. Canada Is Incorrect That The Continuing Act Principle Does Not Apply In NAFTA Arbitrations ............................................................................................. 92 D. The Roads Claim Is Timely ........................................................................................ 94 1. Summary Of Claimant’s Position ......................................................................... 94 iii 2. Canada Did Not Adopt A Measure With Respect To The Roads Claim Until After The Limitations Period Began ..................................................................... 94 3. The Roads Claim Is A Continuing Act ............................................................... 101 4. Alternatively, The Roads Claim Is A Composite Act......................................... 102 5. Canada Argues The Limitations Period Began Before The Roads Claim Measure Was Adopted And Ignores Its Continuing Nature ............................... 103 E. The New Span Claim Is Timely................................................................................ 107 1. Claimant Did Not Suffer Loss Or Damage Pursuant To The IBTA Prior To 2009, At The Earliest .......................................................................................... 107 2. The IBTA Is A Continuing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WM-010 City of Windsor Parks
    WM-010 Shoreview Crt Rendezvous South RendezvousCt Circle Rendezvous Dr Lakeview Ave Shoreview Novello Ganatchio Trail Dr Cres Treverton Cora Greenwood Dr McTague Ct Cora Banff St Savanna St Jarvis Ave Whistler Ct Derek St Cres Greenwood Soloman St RadcliffNorbert St Blair St Maitland Ave Hong Ct Dillon Whistler Cres Gatwick Ave Boulder Cres Amalfi Ct Rockland St Boulder Cres Cobblestone Cres Duneshill Ave Maitland Ave Cobblestone Cres McNorton St Drayton St Banwell Rd Radcliff Ave Greenpark Blvd Blue Heron Lake Thistledown Ave Castle Hill Rd Blue Heron Dr Amalfi Dr Norcrest Ave Bay Castleton Ave East Riverside Bellagio Dr Lau rel Timbercrest Ave Kirkland Ave Echobay St Aldridge St Overland Dr Waterford Ave Arvilla St Beverly Glen St Cormorant St Tranquility Ave Ganatchio Trail Banwell Rd ElizabethKishkon Riverside Dr E Wyandotte St E Questa Dr Carrington St Arpino Ave Adelaide Ave Icewater Ave Chateau Ave Seville Ave Stop 26 Lublin Ave Ganatchio Clover Ave Scenic St Palmetto Viola Cres Pearson Ave Shamrock StSnowcrest East End Katella AveStonescape McHugh St Palmetto St Elinor St Sturgeon St Leathorne St Viola Cres Jerome St Little River Blvd. Luxury Ave Peche Island John MMenard St Frederica Ave Trappers Ave Mulberry Dr Sandpoint Beach St Venetian Ave ClairviewFlorence Ave Clover Ave Firgrove Dr Troup Cres Mancroft St Beverly IvanhillGlen St Ave Morningstar Ave Tyler Timber Troup Cres Morningstar McRobbieUrban Rd Lane Crt Leisure Sand Point Crt Thunderbay Ave Robinet RdMcRobbie Cres Bay Paulina Ct Banwell Rd Springhollow Cres Cres Vanderbilt
    [Show full text]
  • Border Crossings in Michigan
    ReasonReason forfor PresentationPresentation ►►ProvideProvide informationinformation onon Michigan’sMichigan’s borderborder crossingscrossings && theirtheir importanceimportance ►►CurrentlyCurrently operatingoperating underunder anan implicitimplicit BorderBorder PolicyPolicy embeddedembedded withinwithin thethe StateState LongLong RangeRange PPllanan ►►WouldWould likelike toto adoptadopt anan explicitexplicit BorderBorder PolicyPolicy OverviewOverview ► EconomicEconomic ImportanceImportance ► MDOT’sMDOT’s VisionVision ► CurrentCurrent GGooalsals ► ActionAction PlanPlan ► PlanPlanss atat EEaachch CroCrossssiingng ► StrategiesStrategies ► TheThe NextNext StepsSteps MichiganMichigan vs.vs. MontanaMontana TransportationTransportation ElementsElements forfor EconomicEconomic GrowthGrowth TransportationTransportation ElementsElements forfor EconomicEconomic GrowthGrowth AA goodgood transportationtransportation system:system: ►►ProvidesProvides forfor thethe seamlessseamless flowflow ofof goods,goods, servicesservices && peoplepeople ►►IncludesIncludes aa goodgood freightfreight networknetwork ►►EnsuresEnsures basicbasic mobilitymobility ►►IsIs securesecure && providesprovides redundancyredundancy (Homeland(Homeland security)security) TransportationTransportation ElementsElements forfor EconomicEconomic GrowthGrowth AA goodgood freightfreight systemsystem has:has: ► SufficientSufficient capacitycapacity ► ConnectivConnectivityity betwebetweenen && amoamonngg modesmodes && facilitiefacilitiess ► ModeMode choice:choice: rail,rail, road,road,
    [Show full text]
  • ANISHINABEG CULTURE.Pdf
    TEACHER RESOURCE LESSON PLAN EXPLORING ANISHINABEG CULTURE MI GLCES – GRADE THREE SOCIAL STUDIES H3 – History of Michigan Through Statehood • 3-H3.0.1 - Identify questions historians ask in examining Michigan. • 3-H3.0.5 - Use informational text and visual data to compare how American Indians and settlers in the early history of Michigan adapted to, used, and modifi ed their environment. • 3-H3.0.6 - Use a variety of sources to describe INTRODUCTION interactions that occured between American Indians and the fi rst European explorers and This lesson helps third grade students understand settlers of Michigan. the life and culture of the Native Americans that G5 - Environment and Society lived in Michigan before the arrival of European settlers in the late 17th century. It includes • 3-G5.0.2 - Decribe how people adapt to, use, a comprehensive background essay on the and modify the natural resources of Michigan. Anishinabeg. The lesson plan includes a list of additional resources and copies of worksheets and COMMON CORE ANCHOR STANDARDS - ELA primary sources needed for the lessons. Reading • 1 - Read closely to determine what the text says ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS explicitly and to make logical inferences from it. What are key cultural traits of the Native Americans • 7 - Intergrate and evaluate content presented who lived in Michigan before the arrival of in diverse media and formats, including visually Europeans? and quantitatively, as well as in words. Speaking and Listening LEARNING OBJECTIVES • 2 - Integrate and evaluate information presented Students will: in diverse media and formats, including visually, • Learn what Native American groups traveled quantitatively, and orally.
    [Show full text]
  • Detroit Heritage River Nomination Report
    Nomination of the Detroit River Submission Requirements This document sets out the criteria of the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board (CHRS) for the nomination of the Detroit River as a Heritage River within the Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS). The CHRS is the vehicle by which the nominating agency identifies the heritage significance of a river and justifies its inclusion in the CHRS. The purpose of this format is to act as a guide to nominating agencies and to provide consistency in the nomination process. CHRS provides an opportunity for the recognition and conservation of rivers deemed to be of outstanding Canadian heritage value. This value is obtained when it has been determined that a river is an outstanding representative of or unique in a province or territory. By the inclusion of such rivers in a single coast-to-coast system, they become representative of Canada’s river heritage as a whole, thus reflecting a “Canadian value”. 1 Nomination of the Detroit River Canadian Heritage Rivers System The Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) has been established by the federal, provincial and territorial governments to recognize outstanding rivers of Canada and ensuring management which will protect these rivers and enhance their significant heritage values for the long term benefit and enjoyment of Canadians. To qualify for the Canadian Heritage Rivers System, a river or section of a river must be of outstanding significance in one or more areas: natural heritage, human heritage, or recreational values. The nominated section should be large enough to encompass these values and provide the user with an appreciation of the river’s resources, as well as an enjoyable recreational experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Crossing Freight Travel Time and Delay
    Final Site Report EVALUATION OF TRAVEL TIME METHODS TO SUPPORT MOBILITY PERFORMANCE MONITORING AMBASSADOR BRIDGE To Office of Freight Mgt. and Operations Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590 April 2002 Border Crossing Freight Delay Data Collection and Analysis FY 2001 Data Collection – Ambassador Bridge Site Description The Ambassador Bridge is a large, imposing structure that connects Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario (see figures 1 and 2). The bridge is the single busiest international land border crossing in North America, serving as a portal for 27% of the approximately $400 billion in annual trade between Canada and the U.S. The bridge is 1.6 miles long from tollbooth to primary inspection checkpoint in either direction. The roadway is four lanes whose directional flow is controlled by overhead changeable electronic lane markers, often in combination with cones. The bridge operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. It facilitates the movement of many commodities between the U.S. and Canada, with the automotive industry being the most notable. Ambassador Bridge Figure 1. Area Map – The Ambassador Bridge. Both trucks and autos intermingle in the same lanes as they cross, then on the far side they separate into discrete lanes as they approach separate primary checkpoints, in both the U.S. and Canada. After primary inspection, trucks and autos mix as they exit Canadian Customs into Windsor, while trucks that exit U.S. Customs are segregated from autos. The Windsor-Detroit Tunnel is only a short distance away. The tunnel is for autos only, one lane in either direction.
    [Show full text]
  • CEN 304 SECOND EDITION Sailing Corrected to Monthly Edition No
    CEN 304 SECOND EDITION Sailing Corrected to Monthly Edition No. 02/2021 Directions Detroit River Lake St. Clair St. Clair River The Canadian Hydrographic Service produces and distributes Nautical Charts, Sailing Directions, Tide and Current Tables and the Atlas of Tidal Currents of the navigable waters of Canada. These publications are available from authorized Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart Dealers. For information about these publications, please contact: Canadian Hydrographic Service Fisheries and Oceans Canada 200 Kent Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0E6 Phone: 613-998-4931 Toll free: 1-866-546-3613 E-mail: [email protected] or visit the CHS web site for dealer location and related information at: www.charts.gc.ca Fisheries and Oceans Canada information line 1-613-993-0999 Canadian Coast Guard Search and Rescue Rescue Co-ordination Centre Trenton (Great Lakes area) 1-800-267-7270 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2020. DFO/2020-2034 Catalogue No. Fs72-3/4-2020E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-35797-3 Ottawa, 2020 (Aussi disponible en français) Cover photograph Capt. Henry Jackman, unloading in Sarnia Photo by: CHS, Rick Martin Pictograph legend Anchorage Light Pilotage Caution Lifesaving station Radio calling-in point Current Marina Wharf CEN 304 SECOND EDITION Sailing Corrected to Monthly Edition No. 02/2021 Directions Detroit River Lake St. Clair St. Clair River Second Edition 2020 Nautical Charts Protect Lives, Property and the Marine Environment Fisheries and Oceans Canada Users of this publication are requested to forward information regarding newly discovered dangers, changes in aids to navigation, the existence of new shoals or channels, printing errors, or other information that would be useful for the correction of nautical charts and hydrographic publications affecting Canadian waters to: Director General Canadian Hydrographic Service Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0E6 Table of Contents Lake Huron Preface.
    [Show full text]
  • Detroit‒Windsor Tunnel
    DetroitWindsor Tunnel 1 Detroit–Windsor Tunnel Detroit–Windsor Tunnel Carries 2 lanes connecting Jefferson Avenue (near I-375 and M-10) & Former Highway 3B Crosses Detroit River Locale Detroit, Michigan Windsor, Ontario Maintained by Detroit-Windsor Tunnel Company, LLC (jointly owned by City Councils of Detroit and Windsor) Total length 5160 feet (1573 m) Width 22 feet (7 m) Vertical clearance 13 feet (4 m) Opened 1930 Toll USD 4.00/CAD 4.50 (autos travelling into US) USD 4.00/CAD 4.75 (autos travelling into Canada) Daily traffic 13,000 vehicles The Detroit–Windsor Tunnel is an underwater highway tunnel connecting Detroit, Michigan in the United States, with Windsor, Ontario in Canada. It was completed in 1930. It is the second busiest crossing between the United States and Canada after the nearby Ambassador Bridge. About 13,000 vehicles (cars, vans, buses) use the tunnel each day.[1] The structure is jointly owned by the two cities. A 2004 Border Transportation Partnership study showed that 150,000 jobs in the region and $13 billion (U.S.) in annual production depend on the Windsor-Detroit international border crossing.[2] When constructed, it was only the third underwater vehicular tunnel constructed in the United States (after the Holland Tunnel between Jersey City, New Jersey, and downtown Manhattan, New York City, New York and the Posey Tube between Oakland and Alameda, California). Its creation was prompted by the opening of cross-border rail freight tunnels including the St. Clair Tunnel between Port Huron, Michigan and Sarnia, Ontario and the Michigan Central Railway Tunnel between Detroit and Windsor.
    [Show full text]
  • Amherstburg Harbour, 76
    7th Irish Fusiliers, 89 Amherstburg High School, 123, 131 A&P store, 41,101 See also GeneralAmherst High School A.E. Stewart (vessel), 74 Amherstburg Historic Sites and Monuments Board, 90 Abbottfamily, 59 See also Amherstburg Historical Sites and Abbott, R.H. (Dr.), 59 Museums Association AbnerC. Harding(tug), 127 Amherstburg Historic Sites Association, 98 Addleman, George, 6 Amherstburg HistoricalSites and Museums Association, Adoniram LodgeNo. 18,63 49,91 aeroplanes. See airplanes See also Amherstburg Historic Sites and Africa, 131 Monuments Board agricultural society, 122 Amherstburg Lawn Bowling Club, 54, 84, 123 air show, 5 Amherstburg, Maiden and Anderdon Agricultural airplanes, 1, 5-6,57,65-66 Society, 122 airport, 29 Amherstburg Public Library, 49,63,82,90,97 Alaska (dredge), 78 Amherstburg Public Utilities. See Public Utilities Alaska (sidewheeler), 106 Commission Alaska (steamer), 114 Amherstburg Public School, vii, 58,63 Aldrich, H., 93 Amherstburg Roller SkatingRink, 39 Alexander, W.J., 6 Amherstburg Rotary Club. See Rotary Club AUen, C.C. (Capt), 55 Amherstburg and St. Thomas Railway, 30 AlliedChemical, 6, 8,44, 96, 127 Amherstburg Stone (Juany, 82 See also Brunner Mond Canada Lumted Amlin, William, 11 Alloir, Benjamin Lapierre dit,75 Anderdon Tavern, 26,46, 50,57,113 AlmaStreet,2,31,56,95,100 Anderdon Township, 6,8,19,29, 34,35,36,69, 94,96, AMA Agricultural Society, 122 112,113,115,121,127,131 Ambassador Bridge. Seeinternational bridge annexation, 8,81 American Baseball League, 95 apartments, 8,10,101 American Consulate (Windsor), 20 Appel, Bennie, 44 American Hotel,63 Appel Grocery, 44 American Shipbuilding Company, 30 Apsley Street, 129 'Amherst40', 10,47,97 See also Sandwich Street Amherst Hotel, (5,6-7,64,105 Argument Club, 11-12 Arizona (passenger liner), 78 Amherst House.
    [Show full text]
  • The New International Trade Crossing
    The New International Trade Crossing July 2012 The new New International Trade Crossing is an investment in the future of the North American economy, of North American trade, and of North American manufacturing. Background On June 15, 2012 Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Governor Rick Snyder announced an Agreement between Canada and Michigan to build a new publicly owned bridge between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario. The crossing agreement establishes the framework for Canada’s and Michigan’s roles and responsibilities for the construction, financing operation and maintenance of the new international crossing. Benefits of the New International Trade Crossing The new bridge will provide a needed alternative at the busiest Canada–U.S. commercial border crossing, facilitating the movement of people and goods by ensuring border crossing capacity for the next 125 years. • By providing the first-ever freeway-to-freeway • The new bridge will further support national security connection at Detroit-Windsor and a ‘post-9/11’ and public safety priorities in Canada and the U.S., customs footprint vastly larger than the existing enhancing the initiatives in the Border Action Plan plazas, the new bridge will reduce delays due announced by Prime Minister Harper and President to congestion and the massive costs associated Obama in December, 2011. Having two profitable with them. No alternative project has authorization bridges at this vital crossing, each with their own to proceed. customs plaza, will provide redundancy critical to • It will create thousands of construction jobs and U.S. and Canadian national and economic security. long-term employment opportunities on both Security screening in Canada will occur at the plaza sides of the border.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambassador Bridge Border Crossing System
    Booz·Allen & Hamilton Ambassador Bridge Final Evaluation Report CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 9 FINDINGS 25 CONCLUSIONS 65 RECOMMENDATIONS 70 APPENDIX A-1 Booz·Allen & Hamilton i Ambassador Bridge Final Evaluation Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The US-Canada International Border Crossings (IBC) Project is a joint effort between the United States and Canada to provide a transparent, seamless border for expeditious crossing of people and goods through the application of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies at selected border crossing sites. Field operational tests were independently conducted at selected border crossing sites. This report details the evaluation of the field operational tests conducted at the Ambassador Bridge international border crossing site between Detroit, Michigan, USA and Windsor, Ontario, Canada. The purpose of the Ambassador Bridge Border Crossing System (ABBCS) field operational test (FOT) was to demonstrate the ability of ITS technology to expedite safe and legal international border crossings for both commercial and commuter vehicles in an operational environment. The ABBCS project objective was to develop and demonstrate an integrated system that would allow pre-processed vehicles, trade goods, and commuters to pass through international border checkpoints with expedited customs, immigration, and toll collection processing. Through the application of new and emerging technologies, the ABBCS was intended to facilitate the positive identification of commercial vehicles, crews and cargo, and commuter vehicles, drivers and passengers, as well as to facilitate the electronic payment of bridge tolls. The system operating concept was centered around the use of a system of in-vehicle transponders and roadside positive identification and classification equipment to gather pre-processed information for use in assessing the crossing status of a vehicle, its contents, and its occupants, and to collect tolls.
    [Show full text]
  • WINDSOR GATEWAY STATED PREFERENCE STUDY Detriot, MI / Windsor, ON
    APPENDIX A ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY This appendix contains the documentation of the origin-destination survey summary as provided by the subconsultant, IBI Group for the Transport Canada 2008 comprehensive study. February 2010 Page A-1 The report and its content are confidential and strictly as an advisory document, intended solely for use by Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) for the Detroit River International Crossing Study. Transport Canada TRAFFIC AND REVENUE FORECASTER: WINDSOR GATEWAY PROJECT ORIGIN-DESTINATION TRAVEL SURVEYS SUMMARY REPORT DRAFT DRAFT REPORT AUGUST 2008 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 2. PASSENGER CAR SURVEY DESIGN AND CONDUCT........................................................2 2.1 Survey Design ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.1 Roadside Survey ........................................................................................ 2 2.1.2 Mail-Back Survey........................................................................................ 3 2.1.3 US-Bound Travel ........................................................................................ 3 2.2 Survey Formats ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Roadside Formats .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sturgeon Comeback Enormous Fish Are Appearing Again in Detroit River
    Print Story - canada.com network Page 1 of 2 Friday » June 1 » 2007 Sturgeon comeback Enormous fish are appearing again in Detroit River Sharon Hill Windsor Star Thursday, May 31, 2007 Two female lake sturgeons caught near a $25,000 spawning bed made just for them near Fort Malden this spring are an encouraging sign for the international effort to bring back the threatened fish. The researchers who caught and released the sturgeon can't say for sure the fish spawned successfully on the rocks, but their presence in the area shows that the pre-historic-looking fish have discovered the spawning spot created two years ago. Just seeing a lake sturgeon, the largest fish in the Great Lakes, was an experience for Matthew Child, CREDIT: Special to The Star habitat and aquatic resource co-ordinator at the Lake sturgeon like this 60 plus pound one Essex Region Conservation Authority. caught near Fort Malden on the Detroit River in early May are a promising sign for "It's exciting as anything," he said Thursday. "It's the threatened species. Shown holding the pre-historic looking fish are Aime Bourdon one of awe and admiration to see these fish at close of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, range." Matthew Child of the Essex Region Conservation Authority and Jim McFee of Lake sturgeon can live to be 100 to 150 years old. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the largest recorded lake sturgeon was 7.5 feet long and weighed 310 pounds.
    [Show full text]