How the Gordie Howe International Bridge came to be is a city and nation-building story worth telling. The Windsor-Detroit crossing is the busiest commercial border crossing in North America. It handles about one-third of the trade between Canada and the US, or about $1 billion per day, much of which passes over the Ambassador Bridge.
This is problematic for a few reasons.
One, there are concerns about capacity. Two, the bridge is, unfortunately, in the wrong place and doesn't offer direct highway-to-highway access. A truck coming off the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor has to pass through something like 17 traffic lights before reaching Highway 401. And third, and most importantly, the bridge is privately owned.
So, at some point, various people in government got together and said, "Hey, this bridge is pretty critical to our respective economies, it might be in our national interests to have a publicly owned bridge."
The federal government of Canada reportedly tried to buy the bridge in 2009, but the late Manuel Moroun wanted too much for it, and a deal was not struck. So then, in 2012, the Canadian and US governments approved the construction of a new bridge, now nearing completion and called the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
However, a second river crossing meant that Moroun would no longer have a monopoly, and so, an aggressive lobbying campaign was mounted. It was so effective that the bridge almost got canceled and funding for it became a "third rail" in Michigan politics. To save the project, the following deal was struck:
Canada pays 100% of the ~C$6.4 billion cost to build the bridge.
From the outset, the bridge is a joint binational asset owned equally by the Government of Canada and the State of Michigan, even though Canada is financing the entire project.
Construction jobs and materials are sourced from both sides of the border.
Oversight of the bridge is handled by the International Authority, a board with equal representation (3 members from Canada, 3 from Michigan).
Canada receives 100% of the toll revenue until it recoups its costs; after that, toll revenue will be shared with Michigan.
In other words, the only way this deal got done was (1) for Michigan not to spend any money on it and (2) for Canada to finance Michigan. This was the solution to dysfunctional politics, where individual interests trump the greater good. I have not looked into and modeled the exact terms under which Canada is financing Michigan, but let's hope that taxpayers are being fairly compensated for bringing this solution.
Regardless, there's no doubt that this is a crucial nation-building project for both Canada and the US. It will be an exciting moment for our countries when it opens and people and goods begin to flow. Based on the current status of construction, my understanding is that this will happen early this year. It's basically ready.
Cover photo from Gordie Howe International Bridge
If you're a regular reader of this blog, you'll know that I like trains. So when I come across a video titled "This Sahara Railway Is One of the Most Extreme in the World," there's a high probably that I'm going to watch it — even if it's over 6 years old. Now for a second, I thought that I may have already written about this rail line, but AI tells me that I haven't.
The Mauritania Railway is one of the most iconic and famous lines in the world. It's approximately 704 kilometers long and it was built for the sole purpose of transporting iron ore from the Zouérat mines in northern Mauritania to the port city of Nouadhibou on the Atlantic coast. Iron ore represents somewhere around half of Mauritania's exports.
This railway runs some of the longest trains in the world — each train can have over 200 cars, which translates into trains that are up to 3 kilometers long. They can also transport up to 17,000 tons of iron ore, making it one of the heaviest trains anywhere in the world.
But what I find most fascinating about this railway is the informal economy that unintentionally emerged on top of it. Because the trains return from Nouadhibou to Zouérat empty, local fishermen and traders use it to transport product inland to towns along the line. And for many of these towns, this is their lifeline — it's their only connection to the outside world.
It's not a fun trip, nor is it a safe trip. It also takes 20 hours to travel from one end to the other. But it's importantly free and it provides economic opportunity. It's an extreme example of the power of rail. Here you have a single railway that likely shoulders at least a quarter of the country's entire GDP, and that's without including any of the benefits derived from its informal contributions.
If you haven't yet seen
As we have talked about many times before, the best answer to this question is that it's worth whatever money is left in your pro forma once you've accounted for everything else. This is what is called the "residual claimant" in a development model. And it means you start with your revenue, you deduct all project costs, including whatever profit you and your investors need to make in order to take on the risk of the development, and then whatever is left can go to pay for the land.
How the Gordie Howe International Bridge came to be is a city and nation-building story worth telling. The Windsor-Detroit crossing is the busiest commercial border crossing in North America. It handles about one-third of the trade between Canada and the US, or about $1 billion per day, much of which passes over the Ambassador Bridge.
This is problematic for a few reasons.
One, there are concerns about capacity. Two, the bridge is, unfortunately, in the wrong place and doesn't offer direct highway-to-highway access. A truck coming off the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor has to pass through something like 17 traffic lights before reaching Highway 401. And third, and most importantly, the bridge is privately owned.
So, at some point, various people in government got together and said, "Hey, this bridge is pretty critical to our respective economies, it might be in our national interests to have a publicly owned bridge."
The federal government of Canada reportedly tried to buy the bridge in 2009, but the late Manuel Moroun wanted too much for it, and a deal was not struck. So then, in 2012, the Canadian and US governments approved the construction of a new bridge, now nearing completion and called the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
However, a second river crossing meant that Moroun would no longer have a monopoly, and so, an aggressive lobbying campaign was mounted. It was so effective that the bridge almost got canceled and funding for it became a "third rail" in Michigan politics. To save the project, the following deal was struck:
Canada pays 100% of the ~C$6.4 billion cost to build the bridge.
From the outset, the bridge is a joint binational asset owned equally by the Government of Canada and the State of Michigan, even though Canada is financing the entire project.
Construction jobs and materials are sourced from both sides of the border.
Oversight of the bridge is handled by the International Authority, a board with equal representation (3 members from Canada, 3 from Michigan).
Canada receives 100% of the toll revenue until it recoups its costs; after that, toll revenue will be shared with Michigan.
In other words, the only way this deal got done was (1) for Michigan not to spend any money on it and (2) for Canada to finance Michigan. This was the solution to dysfunctional politics, where individual interests trump the greater good. I have not looked into and modeled the exact terms under which Canada is financing Michigan, but let's hope that taxpayers are being fairly compensated for bringing this solution.
Regardless, there's no doubt that this is a crucial nation-building project for both Canada and the US. It will be an exciting moment for our countries when it opens and people and goods begin to flow. Based on the current status of construction, my understanding is that this will happen early this year. It's basically ready.
Cover photo from Gordie Howe International Bridge
If you're a regular reader of this blog, you'll know that I like trains. So when I come across a video titled "This Sahara Railway Is One of the Most Extreme in the World," there's a high probably that I'm going to watch it — even if it's over 6 years old. Now for a second, I thought that I may have already written about this rail line, but AI tells me that I haven't.
The Mauritania Railway is one of the most iconic and famous lines in the world. It's approximately 704 kilometers long and it was built for the sole purpose of transporting iron ore from the Zouérat mines in northern Mauritania to the port city of Nouadhibou on the Atlantic coast. Iron ore represents somewhere around half of Mauritania's exports.
This railway runs some of the longest trains in the world — each train can have over 200 cars, which translates into trains that are up to 3 kilometers long. They can also transport up to 17,000 tons of iron ore, making it one of the heaviest trains anywhere in the world.
But what I find most fascinating about this railway is the informal economy that unintentionally emerged on top of it. Because the trains return from Nouadhibou to Zouérat empty, local fishermen and traders use it to transport product inland to towns along the line. And for many of these towns, this is their lifeline — it's their only connection to the outside world.
It's not a fun trip, nor is it a safe trip. It also takes 20 hours to travel from one end to the other. But it's importantly free and it provides economic opportunity. It's an extreme example of the power of rail. Here you have a single railway that likely shoulders at least a quarter of the country's entire GDP, and that's without including any of the benefits derived from its informal contributions.
If you haven't yet seen
As we have talked about many times before, the best answer to this question is that it's worth whatever money is left in your pro forma once you've accounted for everything else. This is what is called the "residual claimant" in a development model. And it means you start with your revenue, you deduct all project costs, including whatever profit you and your investors need to make in order to take on the risk of the development, and then whatever is left can go to pay for the land.
Cover photo by Andrzej Kryszpiniuk on Unsplash
Given that determining the value of land starts with revenue, one way to do a very crude gut check is to look at the relationship between land cost and revenue. This is sometimes called a land-to-revenue ratio. And historically, for new condominiums in Toronto, you wanted a ratio that was no greater than 10%. Meaning, if the most you could sell condominiums for was $1,000 psf, then the most you could afford to pay for land was $100 per buildable square foot.
However, this is, again, a very crude rule of thumb. I would say that it's only really interesting to look at this after the fact. Because in reality, things never work this cleanly. For one thing, there is always a cost floor. Don't, for example, think you can buy land in Toronto for $80 pbsf and sell condominiums for $800 psf, because this will not be enough to cover all of your costs. You will lose money.
Secondly, there are countless variables that have a huge impact on the value of development land. Things like a high required parking ratio, development charges and other city fees, inclusionary zoning, and so on. All of these items are real costs in a development model, and so they will need to be paid for somehow.
Typically this happens by way of higher revenues (in a rising market), a lower land cost (in a sinking market), or some combination of the two. But in all of these cases, it means your land-to-revenue ratio must come down to maintain project feasibility. This is why suburban development sites typically have a lower ratio -- too much loss-leading parking, among other things.
Of course, there are also instances where the correct answer could be a land-to-revenue ratio approaching zero, or even a negative number. In this latter case, it means your projected revenues aren't enough to cover all of your other costs, excluding land. For anyone to build, they will require some form of subsidy. And this is basically the case with every affordable housing project. They don't pencil on their own. (For a concrete example of this, look to the US and their Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.)
So once again, the moral of this story is that the best way to think about the value of development land is to think of it as "whatever money is left in the pro forma once you've accounted for everything else." Because sometimes there will be money there, and sometimes there won't be.
Photo by Jannes Glas on Unsplash
Cover photo by Andrzej Kryszpiniuk on Unsplash
Given that determining the value of land starts with revenue, one way to do a very crude gut check is to look at the relationship between land cost and revenue. This is sometimes called a land-to-revenue ratio. And historically, for new condominiums in Toronto, you wanted a ratio that was no greater than 10%. Meaning, if the most you could sell condominiums for was $1,000 psf, then the most you could afford to pay for land was $100 per buildable square foot.
However, this is, again, a very crude rule of thumb. I would say that it's only really interesting to look at this after the fact. Because in reality, things never work this cleanly. For one thing, there is always a cost floor. Don't, for example, think you can buy land in Toronto for $80 pbsf and sell condominiums for $800 psf, because this will not be enough to cover all of your costs. You will lose money.
Secondly, there are countless variables that have a huge impact on the value of development land. Things like a high required parking ratio, development charges and other city fees, inclusionary zoning, and so on. All of these items are real costs in a development model, and so they will need to be paid for somehow.
Typically this happens by way of higher revenues (in a rising market), a lower land cost (in a sinking market), or some combination of the two. But in all of these cases, it means your land-to-revenue ratio must come down to maintain project feasibility. This is why suburban development sites typically have a lower ratio -- too much loss-leading parking, among other things.
Of course, there are also instances where the correct answer could be a land-to-revenue ratio approaching zero, or even a negative number. In this latter case, it means your projected revenues aren't enough to cover all of your other costs, excluding land. For anyone to build, they will require some form of subsidy. And this is basically the case with every affordable housing project. They don't pencil on their own. (For a concrete example of this, look to the US and their Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.)
So once again, the moral of this story is that the best way to think about the value of development land is to think of it as "whatever money is left in the pro forma once you've accounted for everything else." Because sometimes there will be money there, and sometimes there won't be.
Photo by Jannes Glas on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
