AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)  (Read 5538 times)

cbeach40

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 477
  • Location: Ontari-ari-ari-o
  • Last Login: April 30, 2022, 04:58:41 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2022, 12:31:30 PM »

If you really want to see some heads explode, keep signing it ON-401 into the United States. Hey, if we can have AR-43 in Oklahoma, why not? :sombrero:
Considering Canada paid for the bridge, I wouldn't completely rule that out  :)

Based on the emojis there's definitely some tongue in cheek here, but in the interest of roads discussion, the bridge itself will not be part of Hwy 401 as the highway ends where the GH bridge begins. Source: I did the sign design and plan for the westernmost bridge of the 401 and the MTO signs within the bridge plaza. Including a big ol' 401 ENDS in there.  :D
Logged

rhen_var

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 06:26:58 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2022, 12:57:52 PM »

Personally I think "TO ON-401" would be the best as it indicates that the bridge directly connects to that highway, as opposed to the Ambassador Bridge where it connects to city streets.  But I'm guessing in reality it will only say "Bridge to Canada" with a Canadian flag like the other crossings.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13092
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: Today at 01:17:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2022, 12:59:23 PM »

It's also worth noting that none of the 400-series highways that one would think end at the border actually do.  Ontario is a lot stricter on route signage with respect to jurisdiction and roadway standards than the US is - and the border plazas are no exception.  All of the 400-series highways end near the last interchange before the border (or, in the case of ON 405, where the last interchange used to be before it was removed).  It's not like the US, where the interstate designation continues to the border.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

GaryV

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Southeast Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:30 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2022, 01:29:14 PM »

I'm not sure "Bridge to Canada" would be the best solution. Which bridge?

The current "Bridge to Canada" vs "Tunnel to Canada" is unambiguous - provided of course that someone knows they are looking either for a bridge or a tunnel.  Add a 2nd bridge with the same signage, and some could get confused.
Logged

Evan_Th

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 296
  • Location: United States
  • Last Login: Today at 12:30:19 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2022, 02:57:48 PM »

How about signing it I-401?  :)
Logged

cbeach40

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 477
  • Location: Ontari-ari-ari-o
  • Last Login: April 30, 2022, 04:58:41 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2022, 03:03:50 PM »

I'm not sure "Bridge to Canada" would be the best solution. Which bridge?

The current "Bridge to Canada" vs "Tunnel to Canada" is unambiguous - provided of course that someone knows they are looking either for a bridge or a tunnel.  Add a 2nd bridge with the same signage, and some could get confused.


On this side, bridge name has been added (photo courtesy asphaltplanet whom I thank). Same treatment will be applied to the GHIB.



It's also worth noting that none of the 400-series highways that one would think end at the border actually do.

Why would they? None of the bridges from The Soo on downstream are owned or operated by the province or an associated agency. Unlike the Michigan and New York side of things where the state is involved in one form or another. All of those bridges are Federal, which puts them at a higher tier of government. MTO has no authority to designate them, and from a user standpoint there is zero benefit whatsoever to do so.


Ontario is a lot stricter on route signage with respect to jurisdiction

Yeah, that's not even remotely close to true. There's literally thousands of kilometres of road that are municipally owned and signed provincially, provincially owned but signed municipally, and where upper and lower tier municipality signage is completely ambiguous or nonexistent.

and roadway standards than the US is

 :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Tell us you know absolutely nothing about Ontario roadway standards without telling us you know nothing about Ontario roadway standards.


- and the border plazas are no exception.  All of the 400-series highways end near the last interchange before the border (or, in the case of ON 405, where the last interchange used to be before it was removed).  It's not like the US, where the interstate designation continues to the border.

Again, designation has zero to do with anything. And plaza design is not really distinguishable one side or another.

Really, just utterly baffled as to where you're getting this from.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 04:34:38 PM by cbeach40 »
Logged

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4130
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:08 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2022, 05:45:26 PM »

The approaches to the Ambassador Bridge don't have a number.  Why would they assign one for the Gordie Howe?

But if they absolutely need a number, how about CONN 401?

Already taken.  That's Schoephoester Rd near Bradley Airport in Windsor Locks :bigass:

But like CT SSR 401, the connection to the bridge should carry a secret M-401 designation, and the BGS should read TO ON 401 EAST with Toronto as the control.
Logged
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

CoolAngrybirdsrio4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 175
  • just looking at roads and stuff

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Ann Arbor
  • Last Login: May 10, 2022, 07:32:24 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2022, 09:14:05 PM »

Have it been decided what the US approach to the bridge be called yet? I see a few options here:
1) an x75
2) M-401 (my preference)
3) “Bridge to Canada”, without a route number.

Obviously MDOT has their own legal practices and such (ie, where and what is considered right-of-way), but the ramps leading to and from the bridge are I believe part of the Bridging North America concession agreement. So whether they designate a number to a facility that'll be owned and operated by a private consortium, is that something MDOT would do?

For that matter, I think that would eliminate an Interstate number, given how its funding source is foreign country.  :-D

Not sure what Michigan's policy is, but given how much of the US doesn't care about ownership with respect to route signing the way Ontario does, I'm not sure if that would be an issue.  Curve speeds and the lack of dividers on the bridge might be a bigger one... FHWA is stricter on making sure everything conforms to standards than they used to be, although this recently happened in Washington, so clearly there are exceptions around the border.
I'd bet it all on M-401, as it would make the most sense as a U.S. continuation of the provincial number.
MDOT never does anything that makes sense!
I don't see where making a bridge ramp into a route number really makes any sense.

Honestly, since the distance between the port of entry and I-75 being so short, what would be the point of signing the US side as anything unless it's longer.
Logged
Renewed roadgeek

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14917
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:40:41 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2022, 09:59:06 PM »

If you really want to see some heads explode, keep signing it ON-401 into the United States. Hey, if we can have AR-43 in Oklahoma, why not? :sombrero:
Considering Canada paid for the bridge, I wouldn't completely rule that out  :)

Based on the emojis there's definitely some tongue in cheek here, but in the interest of roads discussion, the bridge itself will not be part of Hwy 401 as the highway ends where the GH bridge begins. Source: I did the sign design and plan for the westernmost bridge of the 401 and the MTO signs within the bridge plaza. Including a big ol' 401 ENDS in there.  :D

I mean, they could take your 401 ENDS and stick it in Detroit somewhere :D
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13092
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: Today at 01:17:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2022, 10:09:36 PM »

I'm not sure "Bridge to Canada" would be the best solution. Which bridge?

The current "Bridge to Canada" vs "Tunnel to Canada" is unambiguous - provided of course that someone knows they are looking either for a bridge or a tunnel.  Add a 2nd bridge with the same signage, and some could get confused.


On this side, bridge name has been added (photo courtesy asphaltplanet whom I thank). Same treatment will be applied to the GHIB.



It's also worth noting that none of the 400-series highways that one would think end at the border actually do.

Why would they? None of the bridges from The Soo on downstream are owned or operated by the province or an associated agency. Unlike the Michigan and New York side of things where the state is involved in one form or another. All of those bridges are Federal, which puts them at a higher tier of government. MTO has no authority to designate them, and from a user standpoint there is zero benefit whatsoever to do so.
Better question: why wouldn't they?  Ontario's insistance in ending the route just because the road changes jurisdiction strikes me as bizarre.  Just look at ON 405 and I-190: ON 405 clearly ends roughly here based on the distance from this sign.  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that).  Although it seems that for whatever reason the interstates ending at the Mexican border behave more like 400-series highways do at the US border.  Not sure why FHWA treats the two borders differently.  Does the person in charge of determining interstate endpoints have 51st state syndrome?

Quote
Ontario is a lot stricter on route signage with respect to jurisdiction

Yeah, that's not even remotely close to true. There's literally thousands of kilometres of road that are municipally owned and signed provincially, provincially owned but signed municipally, and where upper and lower tier municipality signage is completely ambiguous or nonexistent.
Well, that's probably news to anyone who became familiar with Ontario's system post-downloading (including me, at least in detail, even though Ontario was the only jurisdiction I had memories of going to outside of NY until I was about 10 years old; nearly all of that was around the 1000 Islands; imagine my surprise when I discovered that ON 2 is now a lot shorter than I expected!).  There are now so many gaps caused simply by changes in ownership jurisdiction that I'd go so far as to say that the ON routes aren't a system in the sense that most Americans would understand highway systems - they're a bunch of corridors with a common branding.

Quote
and roadway standards than the US is

 :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Tell us you know absolutely nothing about Ontario roadway standards without telling us you know nothing about Ontario roadway standards.


- and the border plazas are no exception.  All of the 400-series highways end near the last interchange before the border (or, in the case of ON 405, where the last interchange used to be before it was removed).  It's not like the US, where the interstate designation continues to the border.

Again, designation has zero to do with anything. And plaza design is not really distinguishable one side or another.

Really, just utterly baffled as to where you're getting this from.
This is where actually reading what I post rather than putting words into my mouth and/or assuming you know what I'm saying would help.  If you had bothered to actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I was clearly talking about how such things affect how a route is signed.  Like I mentioned earlier, this is somehow part of I-5.  Could you see Ontario putting a 400-series highway?  I can't.  If anything, the fact that plaza design is similar just proves my point.

Now, I don't know what it is about Ontario, but why does it seems like roadgeeks from Ontario love to put words in my mouth, misinterpret what I say, and get antagonistic?  I can think of three of you who do that (one of whom I ended up unfriending on Facebook over this; my tolerance of such things has gone down to zero).  It's not a Canada issue as I have no such issue with roadgeeks from Québec.  Seriously, what is your (and the others) deal?
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

7/8

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4523
  • iRacing addict

  • Age: 27
  • Location: The K in KW (Kitchener, ON)
  • Last Login: Today at 01:41:36 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2022, 10:22:18 PM »

Now, I don't know what it is about Ontario, but why does it seems like roadgeeks from Ontario love to put words in my mouth, misinterpret what I say, and get antagonistic?  I can think of three of you who do that (one of whom I ended up unfriending on Facebook over this; my tolerance of such things has gone down to zero).  It's not a Canada issue as I have no such issue with roadgeeks from Québec.  Seriously, what is your (and the others) deal?

AORAB? (All Ontario Roadgeeks Are Bastards) :colorful:

I don't know who the other two are, but I agree cbeach is being needlessly snarky (I mean, 30 laughing faces, really?).

Anyway, my preference is for a "TO 401" sign on the Michigan side. The bridge approach is too short to need it's own signed route number IMO (though an M-401 would be cool to see).
Logged
Counties | Travel Mapping

“Yesterday I went, as we all must, to Peppa Pig World. [...] It has very safe streets, discipline in schools, heavy emphasis on new mass transit systems." - Boris Johnson

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4313
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:38 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2022, 11:43:26 AM »

IIRC, I-75 ends where the concrete barrier wall in the median ends before he International Bridge toll plaza.

Mike
Logged

cbeach40

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 477
  • Location: Ontari-ari-ari-o
  • Last Login: April 30, 2022, 04:58:41 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2022, 12:18:13 PM »

Better question: why wouldn't they?  Ontario's insistance in ending the route just because the road changes jurisdiction strikes me as bizarre.  Just look at ON 405 and I-190: ON 405 clearly ends roughly here based on the distance from this sign.  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that).  Although it seems that for whatever reason the interstates ending at the Mexican border behave more like 400-series highways do at the US border.  Not sure why FHWA treats the two borders differently.  Does the person in charge of determining interstate endpoints have 51st state syndrome?

As I said, as Ontario does not own the bridge, has absolutely no authority to designate it, and since it's not their property and structure to inventory and maintain, they have no reason to designate it. In cases like the Baudette-Rainy River bridge, yes that is included, as that is MTO's to deal with and they legally can do so.
Again, it's legally impossible and offers zero benefit to anyone who actually uses the roads.

Clearly indicating that the freeway facility ends improves traffic safety as the road environment is changing. That's the most basic application of human factors to roadway design. That's why, for example, MDOT signed I-75 ending at the plaza not the middle of the river, to warn drivers of a changing road environment.

Roadgeek pedantry will and absolutely should take a back seat to real life safety.


Quote
Ontario is a lot stricter on route signage with respect to jurisdiction

Yeah, that's not even remotely close to true. There's literally thousands of kilometres of road that are municipally owned and signed provincially, provincially owned but signed municipally, and where upper and lower tier municipality signage is completely ambiguous or nonexistent.
Well, that's probably news to anyone who became familiar with Ontario's system post-downloading (including me, at least in detail, even though Ontario was the only jurisdiction I had memories of going to outside of NY until I was about 10 years old; nearly all of that was around the 1000 Islands; imagine my surprise when I discovered that ON 2 is now a lot shorter than I expected!).  There are now so many gaps caused simply by changes in ownership jurisdiction that I'd go so far as to say that the ON routes aren't a system in the sense that most Americans would understand highway systems - they're a bunch of corridors with a common branding.

No, it's not changes in ownership, it's changes in function. The County Road system is the third tier behind 400-series and King's Highways, equal to Secondary Highways (the shared flowerpot shape being deliberate). It's akin to US-61 becoming MN-61 - the road does not serve a national function but a state function. These highways no longer served a provincial function but a regional one, so we're demoted.

And again, there are thousands of kilometres of roads throughout the province where the signage does not reflect ownership. Your ignorance of it doesn't mean it's not true.


Quote
and roadway standards than the US is

 :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Tell us you know absolutely nothing about Ontario roadway standards without telling us you know nothing about Ontario roadway standards.


- and the border plazas are no exception.  All of the 400-series highways end near the last interchange before the border (or, in the case of ON 405, where the last interchange used to be before it was removed).  It's not like the US, where the interstate designation continues to the border.

Again, designation has zero to do with anything. And plaza design is not really distinguishable one side or another.

Really, just utterly baffled as to where you're getting this from.
This is where actually reading what I post rather than putting words into my mouth and/or assuming you know what I'm saying would help.  If you had bothered to actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I was clearly talking about how such things affect how a route is signed.

No, you said "roadway standards" separately from signage. Don't move the goalposts. Have an honest discussion.

Like I mentioned earlier, this is somehow part of I-5.  Could you see Ontario putting a 400-series highway?  I can't.  If anything, the fact that plaza design is similar just proves my point.

Absolutely, as 400-series standards are less stringent than Interstate standards. Plus there's a pile of stuff throughout the province where existing 400-series routes have substandard stuff on them. Like this. Or this. Or this. Or this.

 
Now, I don't know what it is about Ontario, but why does it seems like roadgeeks from Ontario love to put words in my mouth, misinterpret what I say, and get antagonistic?  I can think of three of you who do that (one of whom I ended up unfriending on Facebook over this; my tolerance of such things has gone down to zero).  It's not a Canada issue as I have no such issue with roadgeeks from Québec.  Seriously, what is your (and the others) deal?

I don't care about you or your own opinion, but when you say things that range from factually incorrect to mistaken interpretations to outright lies, yeah, I'm going to call you on it.

Can't say why those from other areas haven't said anything. Maybe you say fewer false things about those areas. Maybe the sample of folks from there don't know whether what you said is accurate or not. I do know that, by random chance, there happens to be a knowledgeable and engaged few from here that do recognize them and grew weary of your act of All high and mighty when making things up then playing the victim when called on it.

Maybe start having discussions in good faith, and accept the fact that maybe you might be wrong sometimes. Especially when you're an outsider looking in, whether it be other jurisdictions of which you may not know the idiosyncrasies, or engineering, of which you definitely are enthusiastic but at times well out of your depth.

I don't know who the other two are, but I agree cbeach is being needlessly snarky (I mean, 30 laughing faces, really?).

Used to have more civil discussions, but after all this time of her song and dance and bad faith discussions and frequent and deliberate baiting, she's more than earned derision.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13092
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: Today at 01:17:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2022, 01:49:22 PM »

Now, I don't know what it is about Ontario, but why does it seems like roadgeeks from Ontario love to put words in my mouth, misinterpret what I say, and get antagonistic?  I can think of three of you who do that (one of whom I ended up unfriending on Facebook over this; my tolerance of such things has gone down to zero).  It's not a Canada issue as I have no such issue with roadgeeks from Québec.  Seriously, what is your (and the others) deal?

AORAB? (All Ontario Roadgeeks Are Bastards) :colorful:

I don't know who the other two are, but I agree cbeach is being needlessly snarky (I mean, 30 laughing faces, really?).

Anyway, my preference is for a "TO 401" sign on the Michigan side. The bridge approach is too short to need it's own signed route number IMO (though an M-401 would be cool to see).
Clearly not all, since you don't strike me as fitting that.  One of the other two isn't on this forum and it was over COVID discussions on Facebook.  The other was involved in a similar discussion on the other thread for this project.

For whatever reason, it seems this "Midwest - Great Lakes" board seems to be a cause of issues for me.  Must be something about the crowd here.

Better question: why wouldn't they?  Ontario's insistance in ending the route just because the road changes jurisdiction strikes me as bizarre.  Just look at ON 405 and I-190: ON 405 clearly ends roughly here based on the distance from this sign.  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that).  Although it seems that for whatever reason the interstates ending at the Mexican border behave more like 400-series highways do at the US border.  Not sure why FHWA treats the two borders differently.  Does the person in charge of determining interstate endpoints have 51st state syndrome?

As I said, as Ontario does not own the bridge, has absolutely no authority to designate it, and since it's not their property and structure to inventory and maintain, they have no reason to designate it. In cases like the Baudette-Rainy River bridge, yes that is included, as that is MTO's to deal with and they legally can do so.
Again, it's legally impossible and offers zero benefit to anyone who actually uses the roads.

Clearly indicating that the freeway facility ends improves traffic safety as the road environment is changing. That's the most basic application of human factors to roadway design. That's why, for example, MDOT signed I-75 ending at the plaza not the middle of the river, to warn drivers of a changing road environment.

Roadgeek pedantry will and absolutely should take a back seat to real life safety.
Route designations exist to help the traveling public navigate.  Gaps don't work for those purposes.  Now, I suspect there may be some differences in how one thinks of the border at play.  Ontario seems to very much be taking them as "ports of entry" rather than just random toll booth-like things on an otherwise continuous route.  I was trying to just state how Ontario doesn't designate routes to the border, and you jumped down my throat.  Clearly you're letting your opinion of past "discussions" color how you deal with me now.

And for the record, despite the placement of the "ends" sign (which tends to be approximate in the US and not an indication of the exact spot of the pavement a route ends), it officially goes to the border in the middle of the bridge.

Quote
Quote
Ontario is a lot stricter on route signage with respect to jurisdiction

Yeah, that's not even remotely close to true. There's literally thousands of kilometres of road that are municipally owned and signed provincially, provincially owned but signed municipally, and where upper and lower tier municipality signage is completely ambiguous or nonexistent.
Well, that's probably news to anyone who became familiar with Ontario's system post-downloading (including me, at least in detail, even though Ontario was the only jurisdiction I had memories of going to outside of NY until I was about 10 years old; nearly all of that was around the 1000 Islands; imagine my surprise when I discovered that ON 2 is now a lot shorter than I expected!).  There are now so many gaps caused simply by changes in ownership jurisdiction that I'd go so far as to say that the ON routes aren't a system in the sense that most Americans would understand highway systems - they're a bunch of corridors with a common branding.

No, it's not changes in ownership, it's changes in function. The County Road system is the third tier behind 400-series and King's Highways, equal to Secondary Highways (the shared flowerpot shape being deliberate). It's akin to US-61 becoming MN-61 - the road does not serve a national function but a state function. These highways no longer served a provincial function but a regional one, so we're demoted.

And again, there are thousands of kilometres of roads throughout the province where the signage does not reflect ownership. Your ignorance of it doesn't mean it's not true.
Either way, it's left Ontario's highway "system" with a ton of gaps that are unlike anything else on the entire continent.  That can't possibly serve through traffic going through towns very well.

Quote
Quote
and roadway standards than the US is

 :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Tell us you know absolutely nothing about Ontario roadway standards without telling us you know nothing about Ontario roadway standards.


- and the border plazas are no exception.  All of the 400-series highways end near the last interchange before the border (or, in the case of ON 405, where the last interchange used to be before it was removed).  It's not like the US, where the interstate designation continues to the border.

Again, designation has zero to do with anything. And plaza design is not really distinguishable one side or another.

Really, just utterly baffled as to where you're getting this from.
This is where actually reading what I post rather than putting words into my mouth and/or assuming you know what I'm saying would help.  If you had bothered to actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I was clearly talking about how such things affect how a route is signed.

No, you said "roadway standards" separately from signage. Don't move the goalposts. Have an honest discussion.

That is not how I meant it and I think you know that.  Let's take a look at the original sentence in question:
Ontario is a lot stricter on route signage with respect to jurisdiction and roadway standards than the US is - and the border plazas are no exception.
To put this in a mathematical way: "Ontario is a lot stricter on route signage with respect to (jurisdiction and roadway standards) than the US is...".  Stop twisting my words to mean what you want.

Quote
Like I mentioned earlier, this is somehow part of I-5.  Could you see Ontario putting a 400-series highway?  I can't.  If anything, the fact that plaza design is similar just proves my point.

Absolutely, as 400-series standards are less stringent than Interstate standards. Plus there's a pile of stuff throughout the province where existing 400-series routes have substandard stuff on them. Like this. Or this. Or this. Or this.
Two of those certainly count (the last reminding me of Québec, even), but the middle two don't.  One is RR 420 and not ON 420, and the other is an endpoint.

Quote
Now, I don't know what it is about Ontario, but why does it seems like roadgeeks from Ontario love to put words in my mouth, misinterpret what I say, and get antagonistic?  I can think of three of you who do that (one of whom I ended up unfriending on Facebook over this; my tolerance of such things has gone down to zero).  It's not a Canada issue as I have no such issue with roadgeeks from Québec.  Seriously, what is your (and the others) deal?

I don't care about you or your own opinion, but when you say things that range from factually incorrect to mistaken interpretations to outright lies, yeah, I'm going to call you on it.

Can't say why those from other areas haven't said anything. Maybe you say fewer false things about those areas. Maybe the sample of folks from there don't know whether what you said is accurate or not. I do know that, by random chance, there happens to be a knowledgeable and engaged few from here that do recognize them and grew weary of your act of All high and mighty when making things up then playing the victim when called on it.

Maybe start having discussions in good faith, and accept the fact that maybe you might be wrong sometimes. Especially when you're an outsider looking in, whether it be other jurisdictions of which you may not know the idiosyncrasies, or engineering, of which you definitely are enthusiastic but at times well out of your depth.

I don't know who the other two are, but I agree cbeach is being needlessly snarky (I mean, 30 laughing faces, really?).

Used to have more civil discussions, but after all this time of her song and dance and bad faith discussions and frequent and deliberate baiting, she's more than earned derision.

That's your opinion, but you and the others are all the same: you all twist my words like a prosecutor more concerned with sending someone to jail than sending the right person to jail.  "Anything you say can and will be used against you" and all that.  I am sick and tired of it.  I have no idea what I've done to offend you guys, but I'm sick and tired of the attacks.  I have Asperger's, so maybe that plays a part - people often misinterpret things I say in ways I don't intend.  Or maybe there are enough linguistic and cultural differences between the US and English-speaking Canada to cause problems but not enough to get any leeway (could explain why I have no problems with French-speaking Canadians, who I seem to get along with better than even other Americans).  I don't know, and at this point, I don't care.  I just know that this word twisting is a huge pet peeve of mine and it's doing nothing for my opinion of you three because of it.  I very nearly left the forum over the last incident.  Now yes, I should have used the phrase "interstate quality" rather than "interstate standards" (the latter of which evokes specific guidelines that I did not intend) in the similar "discussion" in the other thread.  But most people just figure out what I meant and engage on that basis.  They don't become abusive assholes and hold it against me until the end of time.  Maybe it's true that other countries are worse than the US for individuals who aren't neurotypical.

Honestly, if anything, you strike me as the pedantic one.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Terry Shea

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 521
  • Last Login: Today at 12:46:24 AM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2022, 05:00:08 PM »

How about signing it I-401?  :)
How about Alt I-75
Sault Saint Marie Ont
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13092
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: Today at 01:17:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2022, 10:25:10 PM »

Better question: why wouldn't they?  Ontario's insistance in ending the route just because the road changes jurisdiction strikes me as bizarre.  Just look at ON 405 and I-190: ON 405 clearly ends roughly here based on the distance from this sign.  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that).  Although it seems that for whatever reason the interstates ending at the Mexican border behave more like 400-series highways do at the US border.  Not sure why FHWA treats the two borders differently.  Does the person in charge of determining interstate endpoints have 51st state syndrome?

As I said, as Ontario does not own the bridge, has absolutely no authority to designate it, and since it's not their property and structure to inventory and maintain, they have no reason to designate it. In cases like the Baudette-Rainy River bridge, yes that is included, as that is MTO's to deal with and they legally can do so.
Again, it's legally impossible and offers zero benefit to anyone who actually uses the roads.
One more thing - the "legally impossible" aspect is clearly an Ontario thing.  Just look at Québec - there are two federal bridges in Montréal, yet the route designations don't stop and start on either side - they continue right through.  Honestly, the whole point of my comment in this thread was to mention how Ontario doesn't designate routes to the border and that ideas like "match the 401 number on the Michigan side of the bridge" don't really make sense because of that, and yet you're silent on the people suggesting those things.  You seem to reserve your ire for me.  And I honestly don't know why.  You claim it's "making things up", "acting all high and mighty", and "not discussing things in good faith", yet from my perspective you and AsphaltPlanet just started attacking me out of the blue in the Detroit Bridge Wars thread, which probably only served to cement your impression (however it came about) because I don't argue well when I feel attacked - the emotion scrambles my brain.  Clearly I must have done something way back when to offend you two and never known it.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14917
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:40:41 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2022, 10:36:05 PM »

Better question: why wouldn't they?  Ontario's insistance in ending the route just because the road changes jurisdiction strikes me as bizarre.  Just look at ON 405 and I-190: ON 405 clearly ends roughly here based on the distance from this sign.  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that).  Although it seems that for whatever reason the interstates ending at the Mexican border behave more like 400-series highways do at the US border.  Not sure why FHWA treats the two borders differently.  Does the person in charge of determining interstate endpoints have 51st state syndrome?

As I said, as Ontario does not own the bridge, has absolutely no authority to designate it, and since it's not their property and structure to inventory and maintain, they have no reason to designate it.

In the US, navigational purposes would be reason enough to give a road a number in some states. In Oklahoma, for example, all of the toll roads have been recently issued 300-series numbers, despite not being maintained by ODOT (which a number usually implies), simply because it's far easier to say "375" in directions and media reports than "Indian Nation Turnpike".

In our case, however, numbering authority is exercised by a commission that oversees both ODOT and OTA, whose members are appointed by the governor. The Transportation Commission presumably has plenary powers to issue a meat cleaver number to anything it wishes, be it a state highway, a toll road, a local road, a ham sandwich, etc.
Logged

cbeach40

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 477
  • Location: Ontari-ari-ari-o
  • Last Login: April 30, 2022, 04:58:41 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2022, 11:29:54 PM »

Route designations exist to help the traveling public navigate.  Gaps don't work for those purposes.  Now, I suspect there may be some differences in how one thinks of the border at play.  Ontario seems to very much be taking them as "ports of entry" rather than just random toll booth-like things on an otherwise continuous route.  I was trying to just state how Ontario doesn't designate routes to the border, and you jumped down my throat.  Clearly you're letting your opinion of past "discussions" color how you deal with me now.

And for the record, despite the placement of the "ends" sign (which tends to be approximate in the US and not an indication of the exact spot of the pavement a route ends), it officially goes to the border in the middle of the bridge.


No, you accuse me of not reading your words but you continue to misunderstand what I have said twice now very explicitly.

  • Ontario does not designate highways to the border as they do not run there. Provinces have no authority over Federal facilities.
  • Michigan and NY do have control of the bridges and it makes sense they would incorporate them into their routes. This is primarily an accounting type thing as signage at the international bridges does not refer to them as part of the respective highways. In fact, MDOT even deliberately makes it look like it's not as that is more conducive to the driving environment.
  • Route continuity makes sense when one is driving between routes. However, an international bridge is its own intermediate destination, requiring a vastly different behaviour than simple driving between points A&B.
Let's put it this way, one can't sign and designate the route and doesn't, the other can but still doesn't.

Quote
Either way, it's left Ontario's highway "system" with a ton of gaps that are unlike anything else on the entire continent.  That can't possibly serve through traffic going through towns very well.

A "ton of gaps" ? - there are 6 in the King's Highway network, and absolutely none of them have through traffic between them.
And really not atypical of North America, in fact here's a thread I found on the subject with two seconds of googling.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17050.0


Quote

That is not how I meant it and I think you know that.  Let's take a look at the original sentence in question:
Ontario is a lot stricter on route signage with respect to jurisdiction and roadway standards than the US is - and the border plazas are no exception.
To put this in a mathematical way: "Ontario is a lot stricter on route signage with respect to (jurisdiction and roadway standards) than the US is...".  Stop twisting my words to mean what you want.


Roadway design has been a tangential part of these discussions in the past, but if that is not your intended meaning in this instance then I do apologize for homing in on that. I was not deliberately trying to twist your words, I legitimately just interpreted it incorrectly, and again, I do apologize for that.

That being said, that clarified statement is still completely incorrect. Ontario plays so, so, so fast and loose with signage, especially route signage. Like, the blurring of lines between jurisdictions and design standards throughout this province are massive.
I already covered off jurisdictional, but for design, this and this, and this and this, and this and this, are supposedly at respective equivalent levels.

I'm not saying I like it, in fact I'd prefer that we were stricter about that. But that's the situation we're in.

Quote
Quote
Absolutely, as 400-series standards are less stringent than Interstate standards. Plus there's a pile of stuff throughout the province where existing 400-series routes have substandard stuff on them. Like this. Or this. Or this. Or this.
Two of those certainly count (the last reminding me of Québec, even), but the middle two don't.  One is RR 420 and not ON 420, and the other is an endpoint.

No, Hwy 420 from Stanley Street to the Rainbow Bridge was transferred December 4, 2002 but then re-established under a Connecting Link agreement effective April 30, 2003. The highway is continuous all the way to the bridge. Also, could have just as easily picked that Stanley intersection, which has sidewalk, entrances, curb & gutter, and of course a traffic signal right on a 400-series mainline.

And Hwy 406 makes a turn, that's not the actual terminus. East Main St west of the Canal is designated as Hwy 406. The end of the highway is behind the Google car there.

Not to mention the other at grade intersections on Hwy 400, or the one on Hwy 402 that was only eliminated because the Feds wanted to expand the customs plaza and bought that land up. Or the signalized, undivided portions of Hwys 406 & 407 that existed up until just a few years ago for them.

You've said Ontario has stricter standards, but that is absolutely not true.


Quote
That's your opinion, but you and the others are all the same: you all twist my words like a prosecutor more concerned with sending someone to jail than sending the right person to jail.  "Anything you say can and will be used against you" and all that.  I am sick and tired of it.  I have no idea what I've done to offend you guys, but I'm sick and tired of the attacks.

I don't twist your words. If your point is not clearly understood, just clarify it.

Though wait, what did I say earlier?

your act of All high and mighty when making things up then playing the victim when called on it.

 :nod:

Quote
I have Asperger's, so maybe that plays a part - people often misinterpret things I say in ways I don't intend.  Or maybe there are enough linguistic and cultural differences between the US and English-speaking Canada to cause problems but not enough to get any leeway (could explain why I have no problems with French-speaking Canadians, who I seem to get along with better than even other Americans).  I don't know, and at this point, I don't care.

Maybe it's that you don't communicate as well as you think you do and act like you're the authority on things when you're out of your depth then claim it's everyone else's fault when you get questioned on it?

Quote
  I just know that this word twisting is a huge pet peeve of mine and it's doing nothing for my opinion of you three because of it.  I very nearly left the forum over the last incident.  Now yes, I should have used the phrase "interstate quality" rather than "interstate standards" (the latter of which evokes specific guidelines that I did not intend) in the similar "discussion" in the other thread.  But most people just figure out what I meant and engage on that basis.  They don't become abusive assholes and hold it against me until the end of time.  Maybe it's true that other countries are worse than the US for individuals who aren't neurotypical.

Honestly, if anything, you strike me as the pedantic one.

As I said, you can clarify, don't just say "oh everyone can know what I meant" when that's completely untrue. A sizeable part of communication is lost in a text-only medium. So sometimes you need to clarify. But also sometimes you're just wrong.

Speaking as someone in another country who isn't neurotypical, I mean yes it has its challenges, but I'd imagine not too different vs the US. I wouldn't resort to childish name calling though, so who knows what the differences truly are.


One more thing - the "legally impossible" aspect is clearly an Ontario thing.  Just look at Québec - there are two federal bridges in Montréal, yet the route designations don't stop and start on either side - they continue right through.

Actually, the designations do. They may sign it across, but a provincial highway cannot be designated on federal lands and structures. It's the inverse of the MDOT situation, the route is signed but not designated, because it continues on both sides. At the border that doesn't happen, so again, why would that even be done?


Quote
  Honestly, the whole point of my comment in this thread was to mention how Ontario doesn't designate routes to the border and that ideas like "match the 401 number on the Michigan side of the bridge" don't really make sense because of that, and yet you're silent on the people suggesting those things.  You seem to reserve your ire for me.  And I honestly don't know why.

That's because you went out of your way to say additional things regarding Ontario's standards and practices that were completely untrue when examined. Things I, through my professional and personal experience, have very detailed knowledge of.

I thought you were trolling or baiting, because this isn't the first thread where you've brought those tangentially related things up out of the blue. But, if you truly are that oblivious, that you had no idea that would look like obvious trolling and oblivious to the gross inaccuracy of what you were saying, then I'm sorry if my response was harsh.

Quote
  You claim it's "making things up", "acting all high and mighty", and "not discussing things in good faith", yet from my perspective you and AsphaltPlanet just started attacking me out of the blue in the Detroit Bridge Wars thread, which probably only served to cement your impression (however it came about) because I don't argue well when I feel attacked - the emotion scrambles my brain.  Clearly I must have done something way back when to offend you two and never known it.

No, you just said something I disagreed with, and instead of a constructive argument you flipped out and decided to give it right back.

In any event, I hope this has cleared the air. I never take anything on here personally and I'm sorry if you have.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13092
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: Today at 01:17:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2022, 12:33:36 AM »

Interesting about ON 420, especially given as that part isn't signed with the provential shield but rather the regional route shield.  Is that in error or are regional routes considered to be part of the provincial system (similar to the class 1 town roads in Vermont signed with the circle shield rather than the green state route shield)?  I've always thought of them as being the equivalent of county routes.

Regarding standards, I seem to recall a good chunk of the discussion in the Detroit Bridge Wars thread hinging on the fact that even setting aside jurisdictional issues, that the bridges crossing the border didn't meet the standards to be called a freeway.  It must have made an impression on me that wasn't intended.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cbeach40

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 477
  • Location: Ontari-ari-ari-o
  • Last Login: April 30, 2022, 04:58:41 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2022, 03:41:48 AM »

Interesting about ON 420, especially given as that part isn't signed with the provential shield but rather the regional route shield.  Is that in error or are regional routes considered to be part of the provincial system (similar to the class 1 town roads in Vermont signed with the circle shield rather than the green state route shield)?  I've always thought of them as being the equivalent of county routes.

Well, that's the fun part of the whole Ontario signing not being based on jurisdiction - it's both.  :crazy:
So, it actually is signed with both RR flowerpots and Provincial Highway crowns.

So to answer the second question, yes, Regional Roads are the same as County Roads, ie, owned by the upper tier municipality and acting as the arterials within the region/county. To answer the first, while municipally-owned, which has the benefit of local control of things like entrances, adjacent development, pedestrian facilities, and utilities, it also is designated as a Connecting Link under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act as and therefore is also Highway 420. Does not meet 400-series standards, but still designated as such due to a host of historical baggage that quite frankly would cost way more to jettison than simply saying, "nah we're cool with this being an oddball" would.

So is it an error? I mean it's not entirely wrong, but I personally think it's incomplete and in need of improvement. But I mean, this is the same Region that in Port Colborne replaced the Hwy 3 markers with RR-3 ones, despite there being zero change in the legal status of the road since the 1970s. Seemingly due to politics, so lots to sift through there. Though that one was not a Connecting Link agreement but a Signage Agreement, which is a whole different situation.  :crazy:

That's the short answer. I probably should just do a post about this in the Canada section of the forum rather than derail this one further.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12261
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:08 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #45 on: January 30, 2022, 10:57:42 AM »

(similar to the class 1 2 town roads in Vermont signed with the circle shield rather than the green state route shield)?

FTFY.  I believe at this point all of the Class 1 roads (which are an odd joint state-town thing) have been replaced with the standard green shield.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13092
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: Today at 01:17:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #46 on: January 30, 2022, 05:23:54 PM »

Interesting about ON 420, especially given as that part isn't signed with the provential shield but rather the regional route shield.  Is that in error or are regional routes considered to be part of the provincial system (similar to the class 1 town roads in Vermont signed with the circle shield rather than the green state route shield)?  I've always thought of them as being the equivalent of county routes.

Well, that's the fun part of the whole Ontario signing not being based on jurisdiction - it's both.  :crazy:
So, it actually is signed with both RR flowerpots and Provincial Highway crowns.

So to answer the second question, yes, Regional Roads are the same as County Roads, ie, owned by the upper tier municipality and acting as the arterials within the region/county. To answer the first, while municipally-owned, which has the benefit of local control of things like entrances, adjacent development, pedestrian facilities, and utilities, it also is designated as a Connecting Link under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act as and therefore is also Highway 420. Does not meet 400-series standards, but still designated as such due to a host of historical baggage that quite frankly would cost way more to jettison than simply saying, "nah we're cool with this being an oddball" would.

So is it an error? I mean it's not entirely wrong, but I personally think it's incomplete and in need of improvement. But I mean, this is the same Region that in Port Colborne replaced the Hwy 3 markers with RR-3 ones, despite there being zero change in the legal status of the road since the 1970s. Seemingly due to politics, so lots to sift through there. Though that one was not a Connecting Link agreement but a Signage Agreement, which is a whole different situation.  :crazy:

That's the short answer. I probably should just do a post about this in the Canada section of the forum rather than derail this one further.
Interesting that you mention Port Colborne.  Staring at that area in Travel Mapping probably makes Ontario's highway system seem more fragmentary than it actually is (especially since TM doesn't have regional routes and doesn't care about things like connecting links and signage agreements - it just asks "is it signed with the King's Highway shield (y/n)?").
« Last Edit: January 30, 2022, 05:26:00 PM by vdeane »
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

7/8

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4523
  • iRacing addict

  • Age: 27
  • Location: The K in KW (Kitchener, ON)
  • Last Login: Today at 01:41:36 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #47 on: January 31, 2022, 10:29:14 AM »

Though that one was not a Connecting Link agreement but a Signage Agreement, which is a whole different situation.  :crazy:

That's the short answer. I probably should just do a post about this in the Canada section of the forum rather than derail this one further.

I'd be happy to learn more if you're up for it. I've heard of connecting links, but not signage agreements, so I'd like to learn the difference.
Logged
Counties | Travel Mapping

“Yesterday I went, as we all must, to Peppa Pig World. [...] It has very safe streets, discipline in schools, heavy emphasis on new mass transit systems." - Boris Johnson

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6728
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 06:43:56 AM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2022, 03:20:51 PM »

Don't worry folks it's not a guarantee or anything but it's not like a US/Canada border crossing is something new in Michigan. MDOT hasn't made any sort of highway up to the Ambassador Bridge or the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the other two bridge crossings are on the Interstate highway system on the US side. But anyway it's not a guarantee or anything but MDOT isn't going to make a state highway just to run up to the Canadian border it'll simply say Bridge to Canada of some sort probably mentioning the bridge name and replacing the other ones leading up to the Ambassador Bridge. Speaking of the Ambassador Bridge it's probably not going to be around much longer.

I know I will probably never use the Gordie Howe Bridge considering I have no desire to be in Canada again and if my travels take me to the east coast I will go around the south side of Lake Erie.
Logged

jOnstar1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Lenox Township, Michigan
  • Last Login: May 14, 2022, 02:32:38 PM
Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2022, 07:56:04 PM »

Some time back I remember there being a Youtube videos or maybe plans on MDOT showing the bridge signs on I-75 Ambassador Bridge to Canada & Gordie Howe Bridge to Canada.  Both signs included the Canadian Flag. I would still like to see a TO 401... but it's better than just the "Bridge To Canada".
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.