Interstate 35 border connections

[Chrysler375Freeway]

Okay, many people say that I-35 isn't a true border-to-border route because it ends in Duluth on its north end and ends a mere 3000 feet (914 meters) north of the Mexican border at an intersection on its south end that isn't grade-separated. Would using a short cut-cover tunnel to connect I-35 to the bridge in Laredo make sense? I know the lack of a Mexico border connection and connecting I-35 to Mexico is a topic for the Mid-South regional board, but I-35 falls short of connecting to either border. Would extending I-35 to Canada (International Falls) along Hwys. 33 and 53 via way of towns such as Cloquet and Virginia be feasible and/or make better sense than using Hwy. 61 northward to the border, albeit requiring a new border crossing because the alignment would be east of the downtown International Falls area due to opposition that would arise from routing I-35 through the heart of town?

[SkyPesos]

I don't see any sizable Canadian cities north of International Falls that's worth an extension via US 53. There's Thunder Bay via US 61, though from what I head, traffic counts don't justify an I-35 extension to the direction of Thunder Bay either.

[Chrysler375Freeway]

I don't see any sizable Canadian cities north of International Falls that's worth an extension via US 53. There's Thunder Bay via US 61, though from what I head, traffic counts don't justify an I-35 extension to the direction of Thunder Bay either.

Well, I-75 connects to Canada in Sault Ste. Marie, but outside of there, there's nowhere else sizable, unless you travel south to any of the important Ontario cities, most or all of which are in southern Ontario.

[JREwing78]

Short answer: No.

Thunder Bay (107,000 residents) is massive in comparison to International Falls (7100 residents) and Fort Frances (7700 residents)   The traffic north of Virginia pales in comparison to North Shore traffic, or to the traffic south of Virginia. US-53 is very much a road to nowhere once the 4-lane peters out. The border crossing itself is a very low volume affair, effectively a driveway through a paper mill with rail traffic taking precedence. If the traffic counts were much higher than 200-300 cars a day (in a normal year), I'd be amazed.

With only about 1,300 vehicles (in a normal year) crossing at Grand Portage, international traffic to/from Thunder Bay hardly demands any kind of 4-lane highway. There's also not a large amount of cross border truck traffic, nor the significant industry that would generate that traffic. Thunder Bay's known far more as a water and rail port connection than a truck transportation hub.

SM-G991U

[froggie]

If, and this is a very huge IF, there were ever a desire plus the political will and the funding for a limited-access connection across the border at International Falls, it would be easier to go west of town entirely, starting with passing southwest of the airport, continuing in a northwestward direction, and crossing the river somewhere 2-3 miles west of downtown.  Though development impact wouldn't be zero, it would be less than with a crossing east of downtown as the OP suggests.  A west-side alignment would also make it easier to connect to ON 11 and in the direction towards ON 71.

Realistically speaking (since this is not the Fictional Highways subfolder), there is zero funding, zero political will, and zero traffic demand for an I-35 extension to the Canadian border.  Neither US 53 nor MN 61 towards the border see traffic volumes that justify even 4 lanes, let alone a controlled-access facility.  US 53 also gets extremely rural but with a need to maintain local access, while following MN 61 brings one through the most challenging topography in the state (not to mention the winter storms off Lake Superior).

(edited to add)

Thunder Bay (107,000 residents) is massive in comparison to International Falls (7100 residents) and Fort Frances (7700 residents)   The traffic north of Virginia pales in comparison to North Shore traffic, or to the traffic south of Virginia.

While 53's traffic does peter out the further north of Virginia one goes, 61's traffic peters out even more once past Grand Marais.  There's more Duluth-Int'l Falls traffic than there is Duluth-Thunder Bay, in no small part because of the border crossing.

[Chrysler375Freeway]

If, and this is a very huge IF, there were ever a desire plus the political will and the funding for a limited-access connection across the border at International Falls, it would be easier to go west of town entirely, starting with passing southwest of the airport, continuing in a northwestward direction, and crossing the river somewhere 2-3 miles west of downtown.  Though development impact wouldn't be zero, it would be less than with a crossing east of downtown as the OP suggests.  A west-side alignment would also make it easier to connect to ON 11 and in the direction towards ON 71.

Realistically speaking (since this is not the Fictional Highways subfolder), there is zero funding, zero political will, and zero traffic demand for an I-35 extension to the Canadian border.  Neither US 53 nor MN 61 towards the border see traffic volumes that justify even 4 lanes, let alone a controlled-access facility.  US 53 also gets extremely rural but with a need to maintain local access, while following MN 61 brings one through the most challenging topography in the state (not to mention the winter storms off Lake Superior).

(edited to add)

Thunder Bay (107,000 residents) is massive in comparison to International Falls (7100 residents) and Fort Frances (7700 residents)   The traffic north of Virginia pales in comparison to North Shore traffic, or to the traffic south of Virginia.

While 53's traffic does peter out the further north of Virginia one goes, 61's traffic peters out even more once past Grand Marais.  There's more Duluth-Int'l Falls traffic than there is Duluth-Thunder Bay, in no small part because of the border crossing.

I-5 ends at both borders. I-15 comes close at its south end (connecting via I-5). Every I-x5 east of I-35 makes a connection to coastal metro areas. (I-75 ending at a state route in Florida on its south end is a topic for the Mid-South forum, and I-45 doesn't leave Texas, also for the Mid-South forum). I-35 doesn't even end at either border, even though it comes extremely close to the Mexican border at its south end. Is the lack of connection to Canada because of Interstate 29 approximately 190 miles (305 km) to the west?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

International Falls is dying and Koochiching County took some of the heaviest Census losses in the state between 2010-2020. Other than neighboring Fort Frances, there isn't a town of significance within hundreds of miles on the Canadian side. Hell, the Iron Range isn't doing a lot better - it was a heavy fixture in both national and global 2020 election speculation and an obsessive focus of one particular campaign, but they don't have enough punch to play a significant role in election outcomes anymore.

And yes, there is little demand for Duluth-Thunder Bay travel. I spend a lot of time in Grand Marais and when they need city services their big city is Duluth, despite being an 80-mile longer round trip than Thunder Bay.

[JREwing78]

I-35 should have been designated north of Kansas City on I-29, with a I-37 or I-39 designation connecting to Des Moines and Minneapolis.

Winnipeg is roughly 8 times larger than Thunder Bay and connects travelers to most of western Canada and Alaska. There's no reason to go north to Thunder Bay except Thunder Bay itself.

Winnipeg is a major trucking hub for central Canada. It's the point where most truck traffic bound for the eastern U.S. diverts south across the border, and a similar volume of traffic heads north and west across the Canadian plains to places like Calgary and Edmonton, and on to Alaska. 

Even if travel distance to a U.S. locale is ultimately shorter staying in Canada through Ontario, the mostly 2-lane Hwy 17 through northern Ontario is a slow, cold, deserted slog compared to the Interstate highways in the U.S. Also, Canadian fuel is considerably more expensive.  It's cheaper and faster to cut down to the U.S. That's reflected in traffic counts on the TCH east of Winnipeg.

SM-G991U

[Chrysler375Freeway]

I-35 should have been designated north of Kansas City on I-29, with a I-37 or I-39 designation connecting to Des Moines and Minneapolis.

Winnipeg is roughly 8 times larger than Thunder Bay and connects travelers to most of western Canada and Alaska. There's no reason to go north to Thunder Bay except Thunder Bay itself.

Winnipeg is a major trucking hub for central Canada. It's the point where most truck traffic bound for the eastern U.S. diverts south across the border, and a similar volume of traffic heads north and west across the Canadian plains to places like Calgary and Edmonton, and on to Alaska. 

Even if travel distance to a U.S. locale is ultimately shorter staying in Canada through Ontario, the mostly 2-lane Hwy 17 through northern Ontario is a slow, cold, deserted slog compared to the Interstate highways in the U.S. Also, Canadian fuel is considerably more expensive.  It's cheaper and faster to cut down to the U.S. That's reflected in traffic counts on the TCH east of Winnipeg.

SM-G991U

Communities in Iowa and Minnesota wanted 35 to follow Route 65 in Iowa instead of following Route 69 because of opposition to the Route 69 route from Mason City businesses. And I-37 already exists in Texas.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I-35 should have been designated north of Kansas City on I-29, with a I-37 or I-39 designation connecting to Des Moines and Minneapolis.

Winnipeg is roughly 8 times larger than Thunder Bay and connects travelers to most of western Canada and Alaska. There's no reason to go north to Thunder Bay except Thunder Bay itself.

Winnipeg is a major trucking hub for central Canada. It's the point where most truck traffic bound for the eastern U.S. diverts south across the border, and a similar volume of traffic heads north and west across the Canadian plains to places like Calgary and Edmonton, and on to Alaska. 

Even if travel distance to a U.S. locale is ultimately shorter staying in Canada through Ontario, the mostly 2-lane Hwy 17 through northern Ontario is a slow, cold, deserted slog compared to the Interstate highways in the U.S. Also, Canadian fuel is considerably more expensive.  It's cheaper and faster to cut down to the U.S. That's reflected in traffic counts on the TCH east of Winnipeg.

SM-G991U

Communities in Iowa and Minnesota wanted 35 to follow Route 65 in Iowa instead of following Route 69 because of opposition to the Route 69 route from Mason City businesses. And I-37 already exists in Texas.

Well sure, but this had nothing to do with the number the freeway carried.

[froggie]

Is the lack of connection to Canada because of Interstate 29 approximately 190 miles (305 km) to the west?

No.  It's because there's little demand for such a connection.  And, despite what JREwing posted, I-29 is pretty empty in North Dakota outside of the immediate Fargo and Grand Forks areas.

[SEWIGuy]

I don't see any sizable Canadian cities north of International Falls that's worth an extension via US 53. There's Thunder Bay via US 61, though from what I head, traffic counts don't justify an I-35 extension to the direction of Thunder Bay either.

Well, I-75 connects to Canada in Sault Ste. Marie, but outside of there, there's nowhere else sizable, unless you travel south to any of the important Ontario cities, most or all of which are in southern Ontario.

Which isn't really an argument for why I-35 should be extended.  And the traffic volumes on I-75 are four times what they are on MN-61 near the borders.

[JayhawkCO]

I don't think border crossings are an "if we build them, they will come" type of scenario.  The busiest crossings are those with important cities from each country on either side of the border.  Obviously I-5 is crazy busy on both ends because of Seattle/Vancouver and San Diego/Tijuana.  There's a reason the Houlton/I-95 crossing handles less volume than 19 other Canadian crossings - there aren't any major towns from either side nearby.  In situations where there are moderately sized "sister cities" on each side, i.e. International Falls/Fort Frances, it gets the bump in volume because the cities rely on economic ties, rather than anything the access that a limited access highway would bring.



Chris

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I don't see any sizable Canadian cities north of International Falls that's worth an extension via US 53. There's Thunder Bay via US 61, though from what I head, traffic counts don't justify an I-35 extension to the direction of Thunder Bay either.

Well, I-75 connects to Canada in Sault Ste. Marie, but outside of there, there's nowhere else sizable, unless you travel south to any of the important Ontario cities, most or all of which are in southern Ontario.

Which isn't really an argument for why I-35 should be extended.  And the traffic volumes on I-75 are four times what they are on MN-61 near the borders.

Legitimately, the only improvements to MN 61 that are needed are a Two Harbors bypass and more passing lanes between Gooseberry Falls and Grand Marais.

[Chrysler375Freeway]

I don't think border crossings are an "if we build them, they will come" type of scenario.  The busiest crossings are those with important cities from each country on either side of the border.  Obviously I-5 is crazy busy on both ends because of Seattle/Vancouver and San Diego/Tijuana.  There's a reason the Houlton/I-95 crossing handles less volume than 19 other Canadian crossings - there aren't any major towns from either side nearby.  In situations where there are moderately sized "sister cities" on each side, i.e. International Falls/Fort Frances, it gets the bump in volume because the cities rely on economic ties, rather than anything the access that a limited access highway would bring.



Chris

Well, I-15's connection is also in a pretty rural area, unlike the south end where it currently ends at I-8 and continues south to I-5 (where it will end in the future) as a same-numbered state route (which will become I-15 after necessary improvements at the 15-94 interchange in San Diego are done) which is pretty urbanized.

[Thegeet]

Okay, many people say that I-35 isn't a true border-to-border route because it ends in Duluth on its north end and ends a mere 3000 feet (914 meters) north of the Mexican border at an intersection on its south end that isn't grade-separated. Would using a short cut-cover tunnel to connect I-35 to the bridge in Laredo make sense? I know the lack of a Mexico border connection and connecting I-35 to Mexico is a topic for the Mid-South regional board, but I-35 falls short of connecting to either border. Would extending I-35 to Canada (International Falls) along Hwys. 33 and 53 via way of towns such as Cloquet and Virginia be feasible and/or make better sense than using Hwy. 61 northward to the border, albeit requiring a new border crossing because the alignment would be east of the downtown International Falls area due to opposition that would arise from routing I-35 through the heart of town?

I've seen TxDOT supposedly perform studies a project to extend the I-69E freeway south to the border of Mexico eliminate the at grade intersection at the border, in Brownsville. If that happens, maybe I-35 can be extended too.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Well, I-15's connection is also in a pretty rural area, unlike the south end where it currently ends at I-8 and continues south to I-5 (where it will end in the future) as a same-numbered state route (which will become I-15 after necessary improvements at the 15-94 interchange in San Diego are done) which is pretty urbanized.

I-15 is part of the route connecting Alberta's two main urban centers to the US. That's why that exists - I-35 would have no such connections north of the border.

[JayhawkCO]

Well, I-15's connection is also in a pretty rural area, unlike the south end where it currently ends at I-8 and continues south to I-5 (where it will end in the future) as a same-numbered state route (which will become I-15 after necessary improvements at the 15-94 interchange in San Diego are done) which is pretty urbanized.

Sure.  But that's the point I'm making.  It doesn't matter what the highway type is if the area is rural.  International Falls/Fort Frances is pretty rural.  Grand Marais/Thunder Bay is pretty rural. 

There are eight non-interstate crossings that handle larger volume than I-95 @ Houlton (which is the lowest interstate volume at the border):

Sumas, WA (WA9)
Point Roberts, WA (city street)
Massena, NY (NY37)
Calais, ME (US1)
Lynden, WA (WA539)
International Falls, MN (US53/71)
Madawaska, ME (US1)
Ogdensburg, NY (NY37)

What do those crossing have in common?  Relatively big cities on the other side of the Canadian border.

Sumas -> Vancouver
Point Roberts -> Vancouver
Massena -> Cornwall
Calais -> The exception, but this is the faster way to Atlantic Canada rather than taking I-95 through Houlton
Lynden -> Vancouver
International Falls -> Fort Frances (large city relative to the surrounding population)
Madawaska -> Edmunston
Ogdensburg -> Ottawa

So in other words, the volume of the crossing is far more related to the surrounding population than it is to the type of highway that serves the crossing.  There's nothing around Houlton/Woodstock of any size.  Despite Sumas only connecting to BC via a state highway, because of the Vancouver metro area, it's highly trafficked.

If you upgraded WA9, would it get more traffic?  Maybe a little.
If you upgraded US53 to International Falls, would it get more traffic?  Maybe a little.

But in both cases it's not going to move the needle much because the volume has largely been determined by how many people live near the border and how many large cities are accessible nearby.

Chris

[Chrysler375Freeway]

Okay, many people say that I-35 isn't a true border-to-border route because it ends in Duluth on its north end and ends a mere 3000 feet (914 meters) north of the Mexican border at an intersection on its south end that isn't grade-separated. Would using a short cut-cover tunnel to connect I-35 to the bridge in Laredo make sense? I know the lack of a Mexico border connection and connecting I-35 to Mexico is a topic for the Mid-South regional board, but I-35 falls short of connecting to either border. Would extending I-35 to Canada (International Falls) along Hwys. 33 and 53 via way of towns such as Cloquet and Virginia be feasible and/or make better sense than using Hwy. 61 northward to the border, albeit requiring a new border crossing because the alignment would be east of the downtown International Falls area due to opposition that would arise from routing I-35 through the heart of town?

I've seen TxDOT supposedly perform studies a project to extend the I-69E freeway south to the border of Mexico eliminate the at grade intersection at the border, in Brownsville. If that happens, maybe I-35 can be extended too.

I think it may have been I-69W mentioned in those studies, but assuming massive opposition in Laredo doesn't kill it off and force the 69 branch that will serve Laredo to be routed back to the World Trade International Bridge (also in Laredo), it may make sense, but they would have to protect urban areas of Laredo, so why not put it in a cut-and-cover tunnel to protect the urban areas? Also, Interstate 27 is planned to be extended to Laredo. I know all this is a topic for the Mid-South forum, but I-35 lacks connections to both borders, so extending at least 27 south to Mexico could likely extend 35 southward too. I know Interstate 2 will also end in Laredo, which will provide another interstate connection to Deep South Texas. I'm sure they would have to find a way to build it and minimize the damage done to the border area, and upgrade the (pardon my Spanish, or lack thereof), Puente Internacional Numero II Juarez-Lincoln Nuevo Laredo-Laredo, or Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge for short, to Interstate standards, or just tunnel it the whole way, albeit depending on the length, it may or may not require ventilation buildings.

[tmthyvs]

Chris

I'm curious about one thing: there are two crossings in Blaine, WA (I-5 and WA 543). Are those combined in this graphic (since I only see one line)?

[JayhawkCO]

I'm curious about one thing: there are two crossings in Blaine, WA (I-5 and WA 543). Are those combined in this graphic (since I only see one line)?

Unfortunately yes.  The data they provide doesn't separate the various crossings within the same area.  Derby Line, VT has three different crossings, but they amalgamate them all into one.

Chris

[tmthyvs]

I'm curious about one thing: there are two crossings in Blaine, WA (I-5 and WA 543). Are those combined in this graphic (since I only see one line)?

Unfortunately yes.  The data they provide doesn't separate the various crossings within the same area.  Derby Line, VT has three different crossings, but they amalgamate them all into one.

Chris

Too bad. Thanks for the quick response (and the overall data is really interesting).

[vdeane]

I think it may have been I-69W mentioned in those studies, but assuming massive opposition in Laredo doesn't kill it off and force the 69 branch that will serve Laredo to be routed back to the World Trade International Bridge (also in Laredo), it may make sense, but they would have to protect urban areas of Laredo, so why not put it in a cut-and-cover tunnel to protect the urban areas? Also, Interstate 27 is planned to be extended to Laredo. I know all this is a topic for the Mid-South forum, but I-35 lacks connections to both borders, so extending at least 27 south to Mexico could likely extend 35 southward too. I know Interstate 2 will also end in Laredo, which will provide another interstate connection to Deep South Texas. I'm sure they would have to find a way to build it and minimize the damage done to the border area, and upgrade the (pardon my Spanish, or lack thereof), Puente Internacional Numero II Juarez-Lincoln Nuevo Laredo-Laredo, or Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge for short, to Interstate standards, or just tunnel it the whole way, albeit depending on the length, it may or may not require ventilation buildings.

I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge?

[Chrysler375Freeway]

I think it may have been I-69W mentioned in those studies, but assuming massive opposition in Laredo doesn't kill it off and force the 69 branch that will serve Laredo to be routed back to the World Trade International Bridge (also in Laredo), it may make sense, but they would have to protect urban areas of Laredo, so why not put it in a cut-and-cover tunnel to protect the urban areas? Also, Interstate 27 is planned to be extended to Laredo. I know all this is a topic for the Mid-South forum, but I-35 lacks connections to both borders, so extending at least 27 south to Mexico could likely extend 35 southward too. I know Interstate 2 will also end in Laredo, which will provide another interstate connection to Deep South Texas. I'm sure they would have to find a way to build it and minimize the damage done to the border area, and upgrade the (pardon my Spanish, or lack thereof), Puente Internacional Numero II Juarez-Lincoln Nuevo Laredo-Laredo, or Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge for short, to Interstate standards, or just tunnel it the whole way, albeit depending on the length, it may or may not require ventilation buildings.

I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge?

69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.

[oscar]

I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge?

69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.

69W stops short of the border, before the toll plaza. Also, the bridge isn't open 24/7. Last I was there, it was closed on a Sunday afternoon.