AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Great Lakes and Ohio Valley => Topic started by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 13, 2022, 02:01:53 PM

Title: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 13, 2022, 02:01:53 PM
Notable Events with the bridge's construction

The Canadian Port of Entry is currently under construction:

A time lapse of the US bridge towers from November 2020 to last September, where it looks like they are near completion.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: JREwing78 on January 13, 2022, 05:01:32 PM
We have additional discussion about the Gordie Howe in this thread:
Detroit Bridge Wars
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1144.325 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1144.325)

Probably makes sense for the Gordie Howe to have its own thread, but there's a lot of discussion about it in the other thread.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: wanderer2575 on January 13, 2022, 05:51:19 PM
Does anyone have a link to a rendering showing where the bridge is located and the routing of the connections to I-75 and ON-401?  I haven't been able to find one.  Where the I-75 interchange is being constructed seems quite a distance north of the ON-401 terminus.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SkyPesos on January 13, 2022, 06:20:43 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: JREwing78 on January 13, 2022, 07:08:51 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.

#3 is the most likely out of that group - the ramps dump straight into the border crossing plaza before hopping on the Gordie Howe. But it will need something additional to distinguish the two crossings. Given the politics involved (the Moroun family will take any opportunity to sue if it appears the Ambassador Bridge plays 2nd fiddle to the Howe on official signage), that could be tricky, but a few ideas:

- Designate the Howe with a "To 401", complete with shield, on the Howe exit, and the Ambassador with a "To 3" designation (although ultimately you can reach the 401 from both).
- Designate the Howe as an express or a "to Toronto" route, with the Ambassador with a "local", "downtown Windsor" or other wording to suggest the Howe is the through routing
- Signage showing estimated crossing times via the Ambassador, the Howe, and the tunnel, guiding travelers to the fastest option
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: catch22 on January 13, 2022, 08:47:49 PM
Does anyone have a link to a rendering showing where the bridge is located and the routing of the connections to I-75 and ON-401?  I haven't been able to find one.  Where the I-75 interchange is being constructed seems quite a distance north of the ON-401 terminus.


This is from the bridge's web site.  More diagrams here: https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/en/gallery#2

(https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/9ff902e8d227d83535df5ac1215562f5.jpg)
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SkyPesos on January 13, 2022, 08:50:18 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.

- Designate the Howe with a "To 401", complete with shield, on the Howe exit
I like this one as well. Ideally, I like to see some sort of highway 401 mentioned on the BGS for the Gordie Howe Bridge exit on I-75, either with M-401, or as you said, To ON 401
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on January 13, 2022, 09:23:12 PM
Does anyone have a link to a rendering showing where the bridge is located and the routing of the connections to I-75 and ON-401?  I haven't been able to find one.  Where the I-75 interchange is being constructed seems quite a distance north of the ON-401 terminus.
It looks like it's going to be between Post Street, Campbell Street, Jefferson and the train tracks south of Fort and the bridge will cross just north of the mouth of the Rouge River. The ramps should be between like Dragoon and Junction.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 13, 2022, 11:05:32 PM
We have additional discussion about the Gordie Howe in this thread:
Detroit Bridge Wars
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1144.325 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1144.325)

Probably makes sense for the Gordie Howe to have its own thread, but there's a lot of discussion about it in the other thread.

I was actually debating whether I would've posted there or created a new thread about it
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Molandfreak on January 13, 2022, 11:12:50 PM
- Designate the Howe with a "To 401", complete with shield, on the Howe exit, and the Ambassador with a "To 3" designation (although ultimately you can reach the 401 from both).
Complete with the green "to" signs? :bigass:
(http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/hwy2tb.jpg)
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 on January 26, 2022, 01:18:14 AM
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
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: vdeane on January 26, 2022, 12:58:47 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9996931,-122.7545668,3a,75y,194.79h,97.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCgDCB4jylfRgr2_YaUTvUg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) recently happened in Washington, so clearly there are exceptions around the border.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Henry on January 26, 2022, 01:19:46 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9996931,-122.7545668,3a,75y,194.79h,97.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCgDCB4jylfRgr2_YaUTvUg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: GaryV on January 26, 2022, 01:31:41 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?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SkyPesos on January 26, 2022, 02:28:54 PM
If it's not going to have a number, "TO ON 401" would be the best option to sign it imo.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: skluth on January 26, 2022, 03:40:15 PM
Is there an M-9? I know it's a short route, but that was his uniform number. Though I agree either M-401 or "To ON 401" would be better.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on January 26, 2022, 05:24:29 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.
It'll indeed be #3. They aren't going to make a route number for a bridge ramp.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on January 26, 2022, 05:29:38 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.

#3 is the most likely out of that group - the ramps dump straight into the border crossing plaza before hopping on the Gordie Howe. But it will need something additional to distinguish the two crossings. Given the politics involved (the Moroun family will take any opportunity to sue if it appears the Ambassador Bridge plays 2nd fiddle to the Howe on official signage), that could be tricky, but a few ideas:

- Designate the Howe with a "To 401", complete with shield, on the Howe exit, and the Ambassador with a "To 3" designation (although ultimately you can reach the 401 from both).
- Designate the Howe as an express or a "to Toronto" route, with the Ambassador with a "local", "downtown Windsor" or other wording to suggest the Howe is the through routing
- Signage showing estimated crossing times via the Ambassador, the Howe, and the tunnel, guiding travelers to the fastest option
It's not going to matter what the Mouron family wants or does. The Ambassador Bridge's days are numbered, it's a 90 year old bridge that is in dire need of an upgrade and is getting replaced. But anyway they aren't going to make it an Interstate number and no other bridge has a state highway number they aren't going to do that either.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on January 26, 2022, 05:30:55 PM
Is there an M-9? I know it's a short route, but that was his uniform number. Though I agree either M-401 or "To ON 401" would be better.
No there isn't but it there isn't a route number needed for a bridge to Canada. It'll probably be a ramp with Bridge to Canada signs just like the Ambassador Bridge. Screw the Moroun family btw.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Scott5114 on January 26, 2022, 08:29:50 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:
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: mgk920 on January 26, 2022, 08:55:11 PM
I agree that it will most likely be '(unnumbered) "'Bridge To Canada' (Passports required)".

Also, since I do consider it to be likely that the (non-Bug related) border crossing restrictions and procedures will be substantially eased back within the foreseeable future, either (in reduced order of likelihood):

- M-401
- I-(odd)x75.
- I-96

Mike
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Terry Shea on January 26, 2022, 11:05:39 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9996931,-122.7545668,3a,75y,194.79h,97.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCgDCB4jylfRgr2_YaUTvUg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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!
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on January 27, 2022, 06:29:12 AM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9996931,-122.7545668,3a,75y,194.79h,97.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCgDCB4jylfRgr2_YaUTvUg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: abefroman329 on January 27, 2022, 10:17:29 AM
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:
:-D It'll be the Amero all over again!
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SkyPesos on January 27, 2022, 10:33:30 AM
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  :)
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 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
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: rhen_var 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: vdeane 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: GaryV 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Evan_Th on January 27, 2022, 02:57:48 PM
How about signing it I-401?  :)
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 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.
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_401_images/401_dv_5-5_west_Jul15.jpg)


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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: jp the roadgeek 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9996931,-122.7545668,3a,75y,194.79h,97.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCgDCB4jylfRgr2_YaUTvUg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Scott5114 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
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: vdeane 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.
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_401_images/401_dv_5-5_west_Jul15.jpg)


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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1569711,-79.056313,3a,75y,62.88h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si15XgP5uhOBlVWAKZ8Y3zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) based on the distance from this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1551263,-79.0644378,3a,75y,78.71h,94.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUBRb7Z81SUogZfTlbKhmAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that (https://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/)).  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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9997781,-122.7545487,3a,75y,196.2h,100t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sy67lxX-z1-JB5b-OwskuCg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dy67lxX-z1-JB5b-OwskuCg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D185.67082%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) 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?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: 7/8 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).
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: mgk920 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
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1569711,-79.056313,3a,75y,62.88h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si15XgP5uhOBlVWAKZ8Y3zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) based on the distance from this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1551263,-79.0644378,3a,75y,78.71h,94.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUBRb7Z81SUogZfTlbKhmAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that (https://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/)).  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 (https://goo.gl/maps/P5VJqkS4qUd1BAhV6) 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9997781,-122.7545487,3a,75y,196.2h,100t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sy67lxX-z1-JB5b-OwskuCg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dy67lxX-z1-JB5b-OwskuCg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D185.67082%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) 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 (https://goo.gl/maps/9VXPpdw7vgJyxFL56). Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/vgCGgKtYdFW899p47). Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/22ZHwTQpwP52Psmt8). Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/5VapqfmfkSgNhA9A9).

 
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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: vdeane 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1569711,-79.056313,3a,75y,62.88h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si15XgP5uhOBlVWAKZ8Y3zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) based on the distance from this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1551263,-79.0644378,3a,75y,78.71h,94.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUBRb7Z81SUogZfTlbKhmAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that (https://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/)).  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 (https://goo.gl/maps/P5VJqkS4qUd1BAhV6) 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9997781,-122.7545487,3a,75y,196.2h,100t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sy67lxX-z1-JB5b-OwskuCg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dy67lxX-z1-JB5b-OwskuCg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D185.67082%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) 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 (https://goo.gl/maps/9VXPpdw7vgJyxFL56). Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/vgCGgKtYdFW899p47). Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/22ZHwTQpwP52Psmt8). Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/5VapqfmfkSgNhA9A9).
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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Terry Shea on January 28, 2022, 05:00:08 PM
How about signing it I-401?  :)
How about Alt I-75
Sault Saint Marie Ont
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: vdeane 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1569711,-79.056313,3a,75y,62.88h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si15XgP5uhOBlVWAKZ8Y3zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) based on the distance from this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1551263,-79.0644378,3a,75y,78.71h,94.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUBRb7Z81SUogZfTlbKhmAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that (https://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/)).  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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Scott5114 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1569711,-79.056313,3a,75y,62.88h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si15XgP5uhOBlVWAKZ8Y3zA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) based on the distance from this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1551263,-79.0644378,3a,75y,78.71h,94.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUBRb7Z81SUogZfTlbKhmAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  I-190, meanwhile, ends in the middle of the bridge at the border (and yes, I verified that (https://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/)).  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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 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.

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 (https://goo.gl/maps/K8JSzghfJcXkmWmo8) and this (https://goo.gl/maps/wdc5j4BWSNAw4EWf7), and this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8zMhB47KxpqYT4t5) and this (https://goo.gl/maps/ZdkLWrEswsFk2JQx6), and this (https://goo.gl/maps/g89F48fXYMDBaTMe9) and this (https://goo.gl/maps/bxMFMhxUcLcGU6zv5), 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 (https://goo.gl/maps/9VXPpdw7vgJyxFL56). Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/vgCGgKtYdFW899p47). Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/22ZHwTQpwP52Psmt8). Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/5VapqfmfkSgNhA9A9).
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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: vdeane 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0961943,-79.0794619,3a,37.6y,203.01h,99.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sADn2cW7kE7xhYBE6DkWrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0961943,-79.0794619,3a,37.6y,203.01h,99.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sADn2cW7kE7xhYBE6DkWrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  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 (https://goo.gl/maps/2fMMfXQjehHKYuau7).

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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: froggie 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: vdeane 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0961943,-79.0794619,3a,37.6y,203.01h,99.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sADn2cW7kE7xhYBE6DkWrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  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 (https://goo.gl/maps/2fMMfXQjehHKYuau7).

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 (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?u=vdeane&rg=ON) 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)?").
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: 7/8 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 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.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: jOnstar1979 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".
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on February 01, 2022, 08:22:38 PM
I am glad that Fort Wayne has been preserved in the process of constructing the bridge. :)
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SkyPesos on February 02, 2022, 12:05:34 AM
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.
From your location, isn't the Blue Water Bridge the better/quicker option to get to Ontario than the Gordie Howe (or any other Detroit area bridges) in the first place?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 09:32:23 AM
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.
From your location, isn't the Blue Water Bridge the better/quicker option to get to Ontario than the Gordie Howe (or any other Detroit area bridges) in the first place?
It depends on where in Ontario I'd be going to.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 09:33:40 AM
I am glad that Fort Wayne has been preserved in the process of constructing the bridge. :)
Well it would have to be, it's a historic site so they wouldn't be able to do anything to it.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SkyPesos on February 02, 2022, 10:50:40 AM
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.
From your location, isn't the Blue Water Bridge the better/quicker option to get to Ontario than the Gordie Howe (or any other Detroit area bridges) in the first place?
It depends on where in Ontario I'd be going to.
I’m thinking of London eastward, including the Toronto area and Niagara Falls (to re-enter the US if going to Upstate NY/New England).
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 11:00:18 AM
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.
From your location, isn't the Blue Water Bridge the better/quicker option to get to Ontario than the Gordie Howe (or any other Detroit area bridges) in the first place?
It depends on where in Ontario I'd be going to.
I’m thinking of London eastward, including the Toronto area and Niagara Falls (to re-enter the US if going to Upstate NY/New England).
London would be quicker to go over the Blue Water Bridge from where I'm at (I'm in Saginaw) it's about a 3 hour or so drive not counting the time you spend at the border to clear customs. Toronto and Niagara Falls same thing. Like if I was heading to Boston or somewhere near there it's still almost 2 hours quicker to go through Canada but I'm also thinking of the travel due to the pandemic.

Now get this, if I was heading to NYC it's about 700 miles and 11 hours to go via I-75, US-23, Ohio Turnpike, I-80 across PA and NJ. To go through Canada which is actually the shorter route by about 15 miles takes an extra half hour and yet another route consisting of also going through Canada but doing a slightly different routing in New York is one more mile but an extra half hour as well.

To go to Buffalo through Canada is about 6 hours and 360 miles. To go on the south side of Lake Erie it's about an extra hour and 100 miles. My whole point is that if you don't have to be in Canada it's not an outrageous amount of time difference to just stay in the United States and go around the south side of Lake Erie.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 on February 02, 2022, 11:40:58 AM
I’m thinking of London eastward, including the Toronto area and Niagara Falls (to re-enter the US if going to Upstate NY/New England).

To or from London and easterly, it's pretty close to even and will be even when the GHIB opens. Traffic at the crossings or the roads leading to/from them is my deciding factor when I'm making that journey.

(Though streamers off Lake Huron making the winter drive on the 402 treacherous can come into play, but that's only occasionally a factor).
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 07:23:50 PM
If I was going to Burlington, Vermont I wouldn't re-enter the US until I got to the border crossing at Swanton, Vermont and then take I-89 the rest of the way after re-entering the United States. That wouldn't require me to use the Gordie Howe Bridge. Unless I was starting in Detroit and going to like Toronto then it would make more sense than going to Port Huron and taking 402 to 401 when I can hook up with 401 in Windsor but that's if my starting point was in the Detroit area. The only time it'd make sense to use the Mr. Hockey Bridge would be if I was going to like Winsdor or Leamington or Amherstburg or somewhere like that.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Terry Shea on February 03, 2022, 01:12:17 AM
If I was going to Burlington, Vermont I wouldn't re-enter the US until I got to the border crossing at Swanton, Vermont and then take I-89 the rest of the way after re-entering the United States. That wouldn't require me to use the Gordie Howe Bridge. Unless I was starting in Detroit and going to like Toronto then it would make more sense than going to Port Huron and taking 402 to 401 when I can hook up with 401 in Windsor but that's if my starting point was in the Detroit area. The only time it'd make sense to use the Mr. Hockey Bridge would be if I was going to like Winsdor or Leamington or Amherstburg or somewhere like that.
If you were going to Windsor that still probably wouldn't make sense because everything of interest in Windsor is closer to the tunnel or Ambassador Bridge.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on February 03, 2022, 06:59:17 AM
If I was going to Burlington, Vermont I wouldn't re-enter the US until I got to the border crossing at Swanton, Vermont and then take I-89 the rest of the way after re-entering the United States. That wouldn't require me to use the Gordie Howe Bridge. Unless I was starting in Detroit and going to like Toronto then it would make more sense than going to Port Huron and taking 402 to 401 when I can hook up with 401 in Windsor but that's if my starting point was in the Detroit area. The only time it'd make sense to use the Mr. Hockey Bridge would be if I was going to like Winsdor or Leamington or Amherstburg or somewhere like that.
If you were going to Windsor that still probably wouldn't make sense because everything of interest in Windsor is closer to the tunnel or Ambassador Bridge.
That's true too. I'm trying to remember but the last time I was in Windsor was several years ago and I believe I used the tunnel both ways.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 on February 03, 2022, 08:52:03 AM
Gallery update on the official project site, updated progress on the US POE.
https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/en/gallery
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on February 03, 2022, 09:05:47 AM
Gallery update on the official project site, updated progress on the US POE.
https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/en/gallery
Looking at the first picture it looks like it's going between Zug Island and Fort Wayne just as I had assumed.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 on February 03, 2022, 09:54:51 AM

This is from the bridge's web site.  More diagrams here: https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/en/gallery#2

(https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/9ff902e8d227d83535df5ac1215562f5.jpg)

Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on February 03, 2022, 05:01:32 PM

This is from the bridge's web site.  More diagrams here: https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/en/gallery#2

(https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/9ff902e8d227d83535df5ac1215562f5.jpg)

I've been in that area of Detroit since construction started and you can get the idea that it's going to be between Jefferson on the south, Fort or in that general area on the north, Green on the west and Campbell on the east. Pretty much eliminating a good portion of Delray.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 09, 2022, 03:02:12 PM
The towers are getting close to being completed:

Quote
The Gordie Howe International Bridge project team will soon begin work on the final portion of the bridge tower—the pylon head—that will connect Windsor, Ontario with Detroit, Michigan.

The project team says the tower legs—or lower pylon—have reached their full height of 460 ft. The design-build team under Bridging North America will complete the final 262 ft of the tower over the remainder of 2022.

- https://www.roadsbridges.com/gordie-howe-international-bridge-enters-next-stage-tower-construction
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 28, 2022, 12:07:19 AM
Cool video by B1M

Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2022, 11:59:20 AM
On this side, bridge name has been added (photo courtesy asphaltplanet whom I thank). Same treatment will be applied to the GHIB.
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_401_images/401_dv_5-5_west_Jul15.jpg)

The sign on the right is original; the bridge name was not recently added.

The sign on the left is newer.  I assume that with construction, all traffic must exit at Huron Church Road and cannot continue to Ojibway Parkway, correct?

Something else I noticed the other day while goofing off in Google Maps Streetview:  The signs on the westbound 401 at Dougall Parkway are fairly new, and the sign for 401 now says "Bridges to USA" with the plural "s" temporarily greened out.
https://goo.gl/maps/XWEqXDVP1icDKYDu7

Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Papa Emeritus on May 16, 2022, 04:04:39 PM
I am glad that Fort Wayne has been preserved in the process of constructing the bridge. :)
Well it would have to be, it's a historic site so they wouldn't be able to do anything to it.

There have been off and on discussions about making Fort Wayne a part of the River Raisin National Battlefield Park. The main unit of River Raisin is in Monroe, with a second unit in Brownstown Township. Personally, I support adding Fort Wayne to the National Park System, because it would draw more visitors to the fort.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 16, 2022, 10:10:17 PM
Interesting about ON 420, especially given as that part isn't signed with the provential shield but rather the regional route shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0961943,-79.0794619,3a,37.6y,203.01h,99.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sADn2cW7kE7xhYBE6DkWrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  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 (https://goo.gl/maps/2fMMfXQjehHKYuau7).

Then again, you have this a little bit farther beyond that sign. lol. https://goo.gl/maps/JHmmhuNGvcCqufLs5
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 16, 2022, 10:12:17 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

Does this mean you'll also finally get ON-3 shields added along Huron Church Road between EC Row & the Ambassador Bridge?  :-P
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 on May 24, 2022, 10:45:52 AM
Then again, you have this a little bit farther beyond that sign. lol. https://goo.gl/maps/JHmmhuNGvcCqufLs5

Yeah, saw that one a few weeks ago. There's just so many things wrong with that sign, both content and design.

Does this mean you'll also finally get ON-3 shields added along Huron Church Road between EC Row & the Ambassador Bridge?  :-P

Tried, couldn't get others to play ball on it. Not yet at least.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 24, 2022, 08:19:07 PM
Does this mean you'll also finally get ON-3 shields added along Huron Church Road between EC Row & the Ambassador Bridge?  :-P

Tried, couldn't get others to play ball on it. Not yet at least.

Hope you can convince others soon, as when you have this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/BTMwaxt6Tf5WQ4mF8) with a big ON-3 shield on it for the exit, and then 'nothing'.  Could honestly confuse some people who were looking for the shields after that exit.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 on May 26, 2022, 09:35:34 AM
Does this mean you'll also finally get ON-3 shields added along Huron Church Road between EC Row & the Ambassador Bridge?  :-P

Tried, couldn't get others to play ball on it. Not yet at least.

Hope you can convince others soon, as when you have this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/BTMwaxt6Tf5WQ4mF8) with a big ON-3 shield on it for the exit, and then 'nothing'.  Could honestly confuse some people who were looking for the shields after that exit.

There are supposed to be signs going into that area just off that particular ramp as part of the reconstruction of the ramp terminals at Hwy 3 and EC Row. The Windsor portion west (or if you will, north) of Industrial, Windsor had some construction projects going on so adding the signs through there was a logistical headache. I'll try again when that work is done.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: dvferyance on May 27, 2022, 08:23:09 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.
I think an I-96 extension would be the best option. Then all Michigan interstates would touch Canada.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Terry Shea on May 28, 2022, 01:57:42 AM
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.
I think an I-96 extension would be the best option. Then all Michigan interstates would touch Canada.
That would make no sense whatsoever.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on May 28, 2022, 08:45:35 AM
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.
I think an I-96 extension would be the best option. Then all Michigan interstates would touch Canada.
I think the best option is to have no route number and a sign saying Bridge to Canada. It's not like there is a long highway ending there. Ramps to and from I-75 with no number is probably what is going to happen. MDOT isn't going to be interested in putting up a highway number for no reason at all.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SkyPesos on May 28, 2022, 10:57:17 AM
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.
I think an I-96 extension would be the best option. Then all Michigan interstates would touch Canada.
I think the best option is to have no route number and a sign saying Bridge to Canada. It's not like there is a long highway ending there. Ramps to and from I-75 with no number is probably what is going to happen. MDOT isn't going to be interested in putting up a highway number for no reason at all.
For no route number, I would appreciate at least a mention of ON 401 with a “TO 401” on the signs approaching the bridge.

Maybe even London or Toronto as a control city, but that’s a pie in the sky dream knowing MDOT signage.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 28, 2022, 12:36:35 PM
Moroun Bypass
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Ryctor2018 on May 28, 2022, 06:34:16 PM
MDOT will probably sign it internally. Maybe CONN-75 or something like that for maintenance purposes. For the general public, I expect it to be unsigned.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: ilpt4u on May 28, 2022, 07:26:53 PM
How about making a Gordie Howe Bridge Shield, and sign it with that?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on May 28, 2022, 11:01:32 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.
I think an I-96 extension would be the best option. Then all Michigan interstates would touch Canada.
I think the best option is to have no route number and a sign saying Bridge to Canada. It's not like there is a long highway ending there. Ramps to and from I-75 with no number is probably what is going to happen. MDOT isn't going to be interested in putting up a highway number for no reason at all.
For no route number, I would appreciate at least a mention of ON 401 with a “TO 401” on the signs approaching the bridge.

Maybe even London or Toronto as a control city, but that’s a pie in the sky dream knowing MDOT signage.
They wouldn't use London or Toronto they'd just use Canada. Canada is used by MDOT when a route leads to one of the International bridges.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on May 28, 2022, 11:03:22 PM
Moroun Bypass
I loved it when that moron had to spend a night in the Wayne County Jail. I just call him Manuel Moron.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 31, 2022, 01:39:07 PM
I think I've said as much before but a LOT of drama could have been avoided and a LOT of money could have been saved if the state or federal government had simply eminent domained the Ambassador Bridge and cut out the profiteering Mourons.

Good thing Canada had the stones to start building the Howe regardless of that nonsense going on west of the river.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: catch22 on May 31, 2022, 03:23:39 PM
The GHB recently posted a couple of drone flyover videos showing the progress to date on both sides of the river.

US side: 
Canada side:
To chime in on whether or not the connector will have its own route number on the US side, my guess is no, since the ramps will only extend from I-75 to the north side of the bridge property (at the NS railroad tracks).  My guess is they will be less than 1/2 mile long.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: bessertc on June 03, 2022, 12:51:26 AM
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.
I think an I-96 extension would be the best option. Then all Michigan interstates would touch Canada.
I think the best option is to have no route number and a sign saying Bridge to Canada. It's not like there is a long highway ending there. Ramps to and from I-75 with no number is probably what is going to happen. MDOT isn't going to be interested in putting up a highway number for no reason at all.
For no route number, I would appreciate at least a mention of ON 401 with a “TO 401” on the signs approaching the bridge.

Maybe even London or Toronto as a control city, but that’s a pie in the sky dream knowing MDOT signage.

While, realistically, the U.S. side will just consist of ramps leading from I-75/Fisher Frwy directly into the U.S. Toll & Customs Plaza (or whatever they call it) and, therefore, it's not really even a route—much like the existing ramps from I-75 to the Ambassador Bridge just down the way a bit—I had suggested to my best friend that works for the Federal Higwhay Administration, Michigan Division office that MDOT should just number the ramps as "M-9" anyway, regardless of the length or lack of length of the "route." She thought it was the best idea she heard in a long time and said she'd take it to the FHWA and MDOT folks coordinating the U.S. side of the construction. And for anyone who doesn't understand the significance of M-9... firstly, you cannot be my friend. (I'm a huge hockey and Red Wings fan.) Second, check these out:
(http://www.michiganhighways.org/etc/howe9.jpg)

So, you know how MDOT now includes the Canadian Flag on signs for routes leading to Canadian crossings (e.g. I-94/I-69 heading to the Blue Water Bridge and Ambassador Bridge exit ramps off I-75/Fisher Frwy in Detroit), why not just add an "M-9" diamond next to the Canadian Flag? I am going to create a couple sign mock-ups along those lines to give to my friend to send to her other FHWA and MDOT colleagues so... who knows? I know MDOT well enough to not expect anything to come of it, but... maybe??
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2022, 11:25:03 AM
While, realistically, the U.S. side will just consist of ramps leading from I-75/Fisher Frwy directly into the U.S. Toll & Customs Plaza (or whatever they call it) and, therefore, it's not really even a route—much like the existing ramps from I-75 to the Ambassador Bridge just down the way a bit—I had suggested to my best friend that works for the Federal Higwhay Administration, Michigan Division office that MDOT should just number the ramps as "M-9" anyway, regardless of the length or lack of length of the "route." She thought it was the best idea she heard in a long time and said she'd take it to the FHWA and MDOT folks coordinating the U.S. side of the construction. And for anyone who doesn't understand the significance of M-9... firstly, you cannot be my friend. (I'm a huge hockey and Red Wings fan.) Second, check these out:
(http://www.michiganhighways.org/etc/howe9.jpg)

So, you know how MDOT now includes the Canadian Flag on signs for routes leading to Canadian crossings (e.g. I-94/I-69 heading to the Blue Water Bridge and Ambassador Bridge exit ramps off I-75/Fisher Frwy in Detroit), why not just add an "M-9" diamond next to the Canadian Flag? I am going to create a couple sign mock-ups along those lines to give to my friend to send to her other FHWA and MDOT colleagues so... who knows? I know MDOT well enough to not expect anything to come of it, but... maybe??

I hate to burst your bubble, but the reason the Canadian flag graphic was added is additional hand-holding for idiot motorists who cannot comprehend the words "Canada" and "Bridge to Canada" as controls, even though they are well within the 140-character limit of a tweet.  (Specifically, the debacle when the I-94/I-69 terminus at Port Huron was realigned and motorists who hadn't yet updated their GPSs ignored the new signs and found themselves on the Blue Water Bridge instead of on M-25.)  Showing both a Michigan route shield and a Canadian flag defeats the purpose of the latter and will really confuse the hell out of a lot of people.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: ilpt4u on June 04, 2022, 12:23:15 PM
Showing both a Michigan route shield and a Canadian flag defeats the purpose of the latter and will really confuse the hell out of a lot of people.
Show three graphics:
1) Create & Use a new “Gordie Howe Bridge” Shield
2) ON 401 Shield. If you want to use the the “To” print above the shield, fine
3) Canadian Flag
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 05, 2022, 11:42:22 AM
I can engage in Fictional as much as the next person, but signs for this bridge will be up in a couple years and therefore I look at this from a Reality angle.  And the reality is this:  I'm sure many in-the-loop MDOT staffers personally would love to send a "screw you" message to the Maroun bridge company by including a Canadian route shield and control cities.  But MarounCo has engaged MDOT in litigation previously, it clearly has no qualms about doing it again if it think it's been wronged, and certainly MDOT knows that would not be the best expenditure of limited tax dollars.  MDOT's responsible course would be to not poke that particular sore spot.

Bottom line:  I expect we'll see "Bridge to Canada" and a flag graphic, and maybe also the bridge name.  Nothing more.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: bessertc on June 08, 2022, 06:03:51 PM
I hate to burst your bubble, but the reason the Canadian flag graphic was added is additional hand-holding for idiot motorists who cannot comprehend the words "Canada" and "Bridge to Canada" as controls, even though they are well within the 140-character limit of a tweet.  (Specifically, the debacle when the I-94/I-69 terminus at Port Huron was realigned and motorists who hadn't yet updated their GPSs ignored the new signs and found themselves on the Blue Water Bridge instead of on M-25.)  Showing both a Michigan route shield and a Canadian flag defeats the purpose of the latter and will really confuse the hell out of a lot of people.

Oh, I know precisely why the Canadian flag was added to the freeway signs. Remember, my best friend works at the Michigan Division of the Federal Highway Administration. She and I have had many interesting discussions over the years. She and I also know many of the same MDOT staffers, too, so while we're on the same page 90–92% of the time, those remaining 8–10% of the time, we can get into it pretty well!  :poke:

My personal opinion is that if you need a Canadian flag on the sign to help you better read the word "C a n a d a" on said same sign, that's clear grounds for immediate drivers license revocation. Period. It's the same as failing your eye test. Or driving slow in the left lane of the freeway. You have no legitimate right to be on our highways if you can't read a sign. And if you were distracted by something else in your vehicle... doesn't matter. In fact, even worse, in my book. You're piloting a lethal weapon at deadly speeds. If you can't use it properly, which includes not reading a Harry Potter novel or balancing your checkbook while driving and it also means being able to understand what "C a n a d a" means when you're heading to Canada. So, if an sign saying "M-9 [CanFlag] / Gordie Howe Int'l / Bridge to Canada" confuses you, please report to your nearest Secretariah State branch (Michigan Residents) or DMV Office (other states' residents), turn your license in and make sure the Uber and/or Lyft apps are on your smartphone, because you should NEVER be behind the wheel again. Again, this is my personal opinion, which is why I'm not a politician or a spokesperson, but I know I ain't the only one who feels this way.

And if someone can't fathom driving on an "M-9" to reach Canada via a bridge... my God, I sure hope they live on the approach roadways for the International Bridge, Bluewater Bridge, Gordie Howe International Bridge, Matty Maroun Memorial Ambassador Bridge, or Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, then!! Personally, I need to drive on several different highways to reach Canada with different numbers... and I do it all without being confused one bit!

</rant>
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 08, 2022, 06:25:43 PM
I hate to burst your bubble, but the reason the Canadian flag graphic was added is additional hand-holding for idiot motorists who cannot comprehend the words "Canada" and "Bridge to Canada" as controls, even though they are well within the 140-character limit of a tweet.  (Specifically, the debacle when the I-94/I-69 terminus at Port Huron was realigned and motorists who hadn't yet updated their GPSs ignored the new signs and found themselves on the Blue Water Bridge instead of on M-25.)  Showing both a Michigan route shield and a Canadian flag defeats the purpose of the latter and will really confuse the hell out of a lot of people.

Oh, I know precisely why the Canadian flag was added to the freeway signs. Remember, my best friend works at the Michigan Division of the Federal Highway Administration. She and I have had many interesting discussions over the years. She and I also know many of the same MDOT staffers, too, so while we're on the same page 90–92% of the time, those remaining 8–10% of the time, we can get into it pretty well!  :poke:

My personal opinion is that if you need a Canadian flag on the sign to help you better read the word "C a n a d a" on said same sign, that's clear grounds for immediate drivers license revocation. Period. It's the same as failing your eye test. Or driving slow in the left lane of the freeway. You have no legitimate right to be on our highways if you can't read a sign. And if you were distracted by something else in your vehicle... doesn't matter. In fact, even worse, in my book. You're piloting a lethal weapon at deadly speeds. If you can't use it properly, which includes not reading a Harry Potter novel or balancing your checkbook while driving and it also means being able to understand what "C a n a d a" means when you're heading to Canada. So, if an sign saying "M-9 [CanFlag] / Gordie Howe Int'l / Bridge to Canada" confuses you, please report to your nearest Secretariah State branch (Michigan Residents) or DMV Office (other states' residents), turn your license in and make sure the Uber and/or Lyft apps are on your smartphone, because you should NEVER be behind the wheel again. Again, this is my personal opinion, which is why I'm not a politician or a spokesperson, but I know I ain't the only one who feels this way.

And if someone can't fathom driving on an "M-9" to reach Canada via a bridge... my God, I sure hope they live on the approach roadways for the International Bridge, Bluewater Bridge, Gordie Howe International Bridge, Matty Maroun Memorial Ambassador Bridge, or Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, then!! Personally, I need to drive on several different highways to reach Canada with different numbers... and I do it all without being confused one bit!

</rant>

My personal opinion syncs with yours, but the reality is that a large part of government bureaucracy is to protect a blameless citizenry (I borrowed that phrase from P.J. O'Rourke's excellent book Parliament of Whores).
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: rte66man on June 18, 2022, 06:10:40 PM
I hate to burst your bubble, but the reason the Canadian flag graphic was added is additional hand-holding for idiot motorists who cannot comprehend the words "Canada" and "Bridge to Canada" as controls, even though they are well within the 140-character limit of a tweet.  (Specifically, the debacle when the I-94/I-69 terminus at Port Huron was realigned and motorists who hadn't yet updated their GPSs ignored the new signs and found themselves on the Blue Water Bridge instead of on M-25.)  Showing both a Michigan route shield and a Canadian flag defeats the purpose of the latter and will really confuse the hell out of a lot of people.

Oh, I know precisely why the Canadian flag was added to the freeway signs. Remember, my best friend works at the Michigan Division of the Federal Highway Administration. She and I have had many interesting discussions over the years. She and I also know many of the same MDOT staffers, too, so while we're on the same page 90–92% of the time, those remaining 8–10% of the time, we can get into it pretty well!  :poke:

My personal opinion is that if you need a Canadian flag on the sign to help you better read the word "C a n a d a" on said same sign, that's clear grounds for immediate drivers license revocation. Period. It's the same as failing your eye test. Or driving slow in the left lane of the freeway. You have no legitimate right to be on our highways if you can't read a sign. And if you were distracted by something else in your vehicle... doesn't matter. In fact, even worse, in my book. You're piloting a lethal weapon at deadly speeds. If you can't use it properly, which includes not reading a Harry Potter novel or balancing your checkbook while driving and it also means being able to understand what "C a n a d a" means when you're heading to Canada. So, if an sign saying "M-9 [CanFlag] / Gordie Howe Int'l / Bridge to Canada" confuses you, please report to your nearest Secretariah State branch (Michigan Residents) or DMV Office (other states' residents), turn your license in and make sure the Uber and/or Lyft apps are on your smartphone, because you should NEVER be behind the wheel again. Again, this is my personal opinion, which is why I'm not a politician or a spokesperson, but I know I ain't the only one who feels this way.

And if someone can't fathom driving on an "M-9" to reach Canada via a bridge... my God, I sure hope they live on the approach roadways for the International Bridge, Bluewater Bridge, Gordie Howe International Bridge, Matty Maroun Memorial Ambassador Bridge, or Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, then!! Personally, I need to drive on several different highways to reach Canada with different numbers... and I do it all without being confused one bit!

</rant>

My personal opinion syncs with yours, but the reality is that a large part of government bureaucracy is to protect a blameless citizenry (I borrowed that phrase from P.J. O'Rourke's excellent book Parliament of Whores).

He will be greatly missed. I have all of his books and reread them every few years.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: RoadMaster09 on June 18, 2022, 07:42:56 PM
I think a hidden I-x75 (say, I-775 but unsigned in the field), signed as "TO 401" and "TO I-75". That would be the most logical to avoid confusion.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on June 19, 2022, 07:49:04 AM
Why would a ramp leading to and from an International bridge need a highway number? The only reason that I-75 is on the International Bridge and I-69 and I-94 are on the Blue Water Bridge is because those highways end at the border, otherwise they too wouldn't have a highway number on them and it's only half the bridge anyway. This is no different than the leadup to the Ambassador Bridge or Detroit-Windsor Tunnel neither of which carry a highway number.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: bulldog1979 on June 19, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
If I-75 were farther inland at that location, I'd advocate for a number to connect from the freeway to the bridge. My choices would be I-175 (logically fits in the progression of 3dIs northward in the state), M-401 or M-9. As it stands, I don't see a point given the short length unless we have some sort of jurisdictional reason that we need to number it.

If a short connector were to be built from the bridge to I-94, then I'd say that should get a number and add a possible I-x94 to the list of options.

As a side note, in an alternate universe, the Ambassador Bridge would be part of I-96 much as the International Bridge is part of I-75, and it have been properly connected to the bridge long before the Gateway Project.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: jzn110 on June 20, 2022, 11:30:17 AM
M-9 would actually be pretty cool. And besides, it wouldn't be the shortest M-highway in Michigan if designated as such.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: bulldog1979 on June 20, 2022, 07:42:04 PM
If we got M-9... I'd then be itching to get M-2, M-4 and M-7 put into use some place.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 08, 2022, 04:00:12 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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on August 08, 2022, 04:10:22 PM
If I-75 were farther inland at that location, I'd advocate for a number to connect from the freeway to the bridge. My choices would be I-175 (logically fits in the progression of 3dIs northward in the state), M-401 or M-9. As it stands, I don't see a point given the short length unless we have some sort of jurisdictional reason that we need to number it.

If a short connector were to be built from the bridge to I-94, then I'd say that should get a number and add a possible I-x94 to the list of options.

As a side note, in an alternate universe, the Ambassador Bridge would be part of I-96 much as the International Bridge is part of I-75, and it have been properly connected to the bridge long before the Gateway Project.
The difference though is that the International Bridge was built around the same time I-75 was, the Ambassador Bridge was built well before I-96.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Terry Shea on August 11, 2022, 12:10:56 AM
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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2022, 09:33:55 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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
How doesn't it?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on August 11, 2022, 09:35:08 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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
It doesn't and we all know MDOT would never do such a thing. I don't get why people can't accept that it's not going to have a highway number.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 15, 2022, 03:59:53 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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
How doesn't it?

It's 5 miles, which 3.5 miles of it are preexisting freeway.  You make it seem like I just suggested routing I-90 all the way up there to cross the bridge and then go back on the other side. 
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Terry Shea on August 15, 2022, 06:37:56 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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
How doesn't it?

It's 5 miles, which 3.5 miles of it are preexisting freeway.  You make it seem like I just suggested routing I-90 all the way up there to cross the bridge and then go back on the other side. 
That makes just about as much sense.  What purpose would be served to have EB I-96 head southwesterly (and more westerly than southerly at that point) for a few miles and multiplex with I-75 and then turn off towards Canada?  We can't even get potholes filled and you want to waste money fulfilling a wet dream of yours or something? 
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 10:15:15 AM
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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
How doesn't it?

It's 5 miles, which 3.5 miles of it are preexisting freeway.  You make it seem like I just suggested routing I-90 all the way up there to cross the bridge and then go back on the other side. 
That makes just about as much sense.  What purpose would be served to have EB I-96 head southwesterly (and more westerly than southerly at that point) for a few miles and multiplex with I-75 and then turn off towards Canada?  We can't even get potholes filled and you want to waste money fulfilling a wet dream of yours or something?

The difference here is no new roadway would need to be built, it's just a designation.  The bridge and approach is going to be built regardless of what you call it, so it's not like pothole money is going to be wasted with any designation you slap on it.  It was just a question, not a wet dream..that's a tad graphic.

From the eastern terminus, I-64 westbound runs due east.  From it's eastern terminus, I-40 runs almost due north for 120 miles.  US-101 southbound from it's northern terminus runs 82 miles northbound.  I-25 has a spot where the northbound lanes run southbound between Santa Fe and Las Vegas.  You act like this would be the first time an interstate may actually veer off it's posted cardinal direction.  It's happened before.  Those are extreme examples, not including places like El Paso where I-10 actually runs through the town in a north-south direction. 

Back to why I brought it up, I personally think having a route attached to the American side of the bridge gives some sort of orientation once you get to the US side.  You cross the bridge and you are traveling on westbound I-96 or westbound I-975, or heck, they can call it I-401, to me it gives you a sense of direction.  Having it not have a designation makes you think, and I getting dumped off on surface streets somewhere?  I think having ON-401 cross a bridge to a no-name road kinda diminishes a great highway.  ON-401 should directly connect to our interstate system in my opinion.  Its just that, my opinion.  They can name it whatever name they want to name the approach from I-75 to the bridge if just calling it Gordie Howe Street helps keep costs down for your pothole fund. 
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: vdeane on August 16, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
I think having ON-401 cross a bridge to a no-name road kinda diminishes a great highway.  ON-401 should directly connect to our interstate system in my opinion.  Its just that, my opinion.
Well, ON 401 won't be crossing a bridge to a no-name road, but neither will it connect directly to our interstate system, and if you want it to, you're not just going to have to talk to MDOT, but also to MTO, since they don't designate the 400-series highways onto the international bridges.  The designation stops where MTO jurisdiction does, so even if you got Michigan to sign the bridge as something, there would still be a gap, making the whole exercise pointless.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 16, 2022, 01:05:05 PM
I think having ON-401 cross a bridge to a no-name road kinda diminishes a great highway.  ON-401 should directly connect to our interstate system in my opinion.  Its just that, my opinion.
Well, ON 401 won't be crossing a bridge to a no-name road, but neither will it connect directly to our interstate system, and if you want it to, you're not just going to have to talk to MDOT, but also to MTO, since they don't designate the 400-series highways onto the international bridges.  The designation stops where MTO jurisdiction does, so even if you got Michigan to sign the bridge as something, there would still be a gap, making the whole exercise pointless.

Well there is justification to include the Gordie Howe Bridge in usasf in Travel Mapping since we have the Betsy Ross Bridge in there, but that discussion can be had when it opens.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 01:47:34 PM
I think having ON-401 cross a bridge to a no-name road kinda diminishes a great highway.  ON-401 should directly connect to our interstate system in my opinion.  Its just that, my opinion.
Well, ON 401 won't be crossing a bridge to a no-name road, but neither will it connect directly to our interstate system, and if you want it to, you're not just going to have to talk to MDOT, but also to MTO, since they don't designate the 400-series highways onto the international bridges.  The designation stops where MTO jurisdiction does, so even if you got Michigan to sign the bridge as something, there would still be a gap, making the whole exercise pointless.

As a side, I thought ON-405 met I-190 at the border..

In fairness, I am really not thinking about the bridge itself, even though I did say "cross the bridge to the border."

I am really focusing on the approaches to the bridge. We all know ON-401 will be designated up to the approach. The few thousand feet from there to the border (on the bridge) will be ASSUMED ON-401.  The US side has no highway to connect to, other than a T interchange with I-75.  In other words, its not like you are extending a pre existing interstate that just ended abruptly.  The US side will be a whole new construction to get it from the border to I-75.  I am more talking about that roadway.  You can stop both the ON-401 and the I-401 designations at the bridge, but everyone will just assume you are still on those highways when crossing the bridge.  I am not trying to get technical to the exact spot you stop the designations.

When you say "so even if you got Michigan to sign the bridge as something, there would still be a gap, making the whole exercise pointless" implies you stop the ON-401 designation a few miles from the start of the bridge.  As it is, you will get out of customs an be right on ON-401. 

This is no different than secret designations.  I-345 is signed as I45 southbound and US-75 northbound.   It is not either of those roads because they both ended already, but everyone thinks they are what they are signed because it's just easier to think of it that way. 

I am focusing on the roadway past the bridge.  Do we just call it Sam Cooper Blvd?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 16, 2022, 02:36:08 PM
I’d love to see MDOT sign the Gordie Howe Bridge with both a Canadian Flag as well as an Ontario Highway 401 shield. I doubt that’s how they’d sign it, but it’d be pretty neat if they did.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: vdeane on August 16, 2022, 09:40:50 PM
^^ I think you might be thinking ON 401 will get closer to the bridge than it will.  Note that the west end of ON 402 isn't where the bridge touches down, but the pavement/speed limit change inside exit 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9892275,-82.4067385,3a,75y,318.49h,82.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-6z_8NBSN2CrV9AsSyQh0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), and it's likely that the Michigan side will be signed simply "Canadian flag/Bridge to Canada (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9905567,-82.4551656,3a,28.7y,73.39h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smSDRhVsDiLtDunmD8AqgHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)".

I think having ON-401 cross a bridge to a no-name road kinda diminishes a great highway.  ON-401 should directly connect to our interstate system in my opinion.  Its just that, my opinion.
Well, ON 401 won't be crossing a bridge to a no-name road, but neither will it connect directly to our interstate system, and if you want it to, you're not just going to have to talk to MDOT, but also to MTO, since they don't designate the 400-series highways onto the international bridges.  The designation stops where MTO jurisdiction does, so even if you got Michigan to sign the bridge as something, there would still be a gap, making the whole exercise pointless.

Well there is justification to include the Gordie Howe Bridge in usasf in Travel Mapping since we have the Betsy Ross Bridge in there, but that discussion can be had when it opens.
I could see a broader discussion also including the Canadian side of the Blue Water Bridge, Lewiston-Queenston (currently shown as part of ON 405 even though ON 405 ends where the interchange with Niagara Parkway used to be), International Avenue in Calais, and the Peace Bridge.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: skluth on August 17, 2022, 10:56:02 AM
^^ I think you might be thinking ON 401 will get closer to the bridge than it will.  Note that the west end of ON 402 isn't where the bridge touches down, but the pavement/speed limit change inside exit 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9892275,-82.4067385,3a,75y,318.49h,82.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-6z_8NBSN2CrV9AsSyQh0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), and it's likely that the Michigan side will be signed simply "Canadian flag/Bridge to Canada (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9905567,-82.4551656,3a,28.7y,73.39h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smSDRhVsDiLtDunmD8AqgHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)".

I'm glad you shared Canadian flag/"Bridge to Canada". That's the best idea I've seen and I'm glad Michigan is already using it. Elegant and simple. I like it.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: 1995hoo on August 17, 2022, 11:31:18 AM
^^^^

"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 17, 2022, 01:26:31 PM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: wanderer2575 on August 17, 2022, 02:04:16 PM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

Maybe no longer.  "Toll" instead of "fare" is on the plans for new signs approaching the Mackinac Bridge and International Bridge in the Upper Peninsula.  (Previously posted in the "Interesting Signs" thread.)

(https://i.imgur.com/pcu4XBC.jpg)
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: bulldog1979 on August 17, 2022, 02:51:37 PM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

I've always felt that the idiosyncratic signage is a holdover from the days when the Mackinac Bridge opened and replaced the ferries, or when the International Bridge opened and replaced those ferries at the Soo. Since I-75 was being built in that time period, it was probably just a simple matter of copying the terminology over from one set of signs to another. My grandparents lived in Cheboygan and always talked about paying the bridge fare, never the toll.  It's just how the locals talked. Even the state map used "fare facilities" in the descriptions until 2006; 2007 was the first year they used the word "toll".
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: bulldog1979 on August 17, 2022, 02:54:02 PM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

Maybe no longer.  "Toll" instead of "fare" is on the plans for new signs approaching the Mackinac Bridge and International Bridge in the Upper Peninsula.  (Previously posted in the "Interesting Signs" thread.)

(https://i.imgur.com/pcu4XBC.jpg)


Looks like the Soo will get flags on the BGSs as well to match up with Port Huron and Detroit. That will be cool. Switching the terminology on the signs is somewhat overdue considering the wording was switched on the state maps 15 years ago.

Any idea where I can look at the rest of the plans?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Terry Shea on August 17, 2022, 07:14:18 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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
How doesn't it?

It's 5 miles, which 3.5 miles of it are preexisting freeway.  You make it seem like I just suggested routing I-90 all the way up there to cross the bridge and then go back on the other side. 
That makes just about as much sense.  What purpose would be served to have EB I-96 head southwesterly (and more westerly than southerly at that point) for a few miles and multiplex with I-75 and then turn off towards Canada?  We can't even get potholes filled and you want to waste money fulfilling a wet dream of yours or something?

The difference here is no new roadway would need to be built, it's just a designation.  The bridge and approach is going to be built regardless of what you call it, so it's not like pothole money is going to be wasted with any designation you slap on it.  It was just a question, not a wet dream..that's a tad graphic.

From the eastern terminus, I-64 westbound runs due east.  From it's eastern terminus, I-40 runs almost due north for 120 miles.  US-101 southbound from it's northern terminus runs 82 miles northbound.  I-25 has a spot where the northbound lanes run southbound between Santa Fe and Las Vegas.  You act like this would be the first time an interstate may actually veer off it's posted cardinal direction.  It's happened before.  Those are extreme examples, not including places like El Paso where I-10 actually runs through the town in a north-south direction. 

Back to why I brought it up, I personally think having a route attached to the American side of the bridge gives some sort of orientation once you get to the US side.  You cross the bridge and you are traveling on westbound I-96 or westbound I-975, or heck, they can call it I-401, to me it gives you a sense of direction.  Having it not have a designation makes you think, and I getting dumped off on surface streets somewhere?  I think having ON-401 cross a bridge to a no-name road kinda diminishes a great highway.  ON-401 should directly connect to our interstate system in my opinion.  Its just that, my opinion.  They can name it whatever name they want to name the approach from I-75 to the bridge if just calling it Gordie Howe Street helps keep costs down for your pothole fund. 
You seem to be missing the point.  Changing signage, putting up new signs and adding to the bookwork factor all costs money for something totally unnecessary and completely stupid.  I-25 runs in the wrong direction briefly to avoid mountains.  It's practically unavoidable, but it's also a moot point because the entire freeway is signed and is going to be signed as I-25.  What else are you going to do?  Have a stretch in the middle of I-25 without a highway designation?  Or maybe we could label it I-96! ;)  I-64 briefly runs in the reverse direction due to stupidity on the part of the state DOT.  I-10 and I-40 don't run in the reverse direction.  I-10 runs N-S to again avoid mountains and the I-40 section in question should probably have another route number attached to it.  At any rate, multiple wrongs don't make a right and is never a valid reason for rationalizing anything.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on August 17, 2022, 09:11:06 PM
MDOT isn't going to make a pointless concurrency. They are pretty much against concurrencies as most of them in the state are short. The longest one is I-75 and US-23 running together for 73 miles between Standish and Flint. They try to keep them as short as possible and a lot of times will terminate a route instead of extending it along a concurrency. Like M-46 could have easily been routed along M-82 and M-57 could have easily been routed along M-46 west of US-131. Instead M-46 has a 16 mile concurrency with US-131, M-57 ends at US-131 and M-82 exists.

They also took US-10's concurrency off I-75 between Bay City and Waterford when nothing changed, all of former US-10 when it got scaled back to Bay City is still in the state highway system. US-24 was extended to end at I-75. So MDOT really isn't too fond of concurrencies.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: 1995hoo on August 18, 2022, 10:27:00 AM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

I've always felt that the idiosyncratic signage is a holdover from the days when the Mackinac Bridge opened and replaced the ferries, or when the International Bridge opened and replaced those ferries at the Soo. Since I-75 was being built in that time period, it was probably just a simple matter of copying the terminology over from one set of signs to another. My grandparents lived in Cheboygan and always talked about paying the bridge fare, never the toll.  It's just how the locals talked. Even the state map used "fare facilities" in the descriptions until 2006; 2007 was the first year they used the word "toll".

Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: skluth on August 18, 2022, 11:19:28 AM
^^^^

"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

And I want everybody to use bubbler to refer to a drinking fountain but I'm not the Emperor of the English Language either.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2022, 11:36:06 AM
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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
How doesn't it?

It's 5 miles, which 3.5 miles of it are preexisting freeway.  You make it seem like I just suggested routing I-90 all the way up there to cross the bridge and then go back on the other side. 
That makes just about as much sense.  What purpose would be served to have EB I-96 head southwesterly (and more westerly than southerly at that point) for a few miles and multiplex with I-75 and then turn off towards Canada?  We can't even get potholes filled and you want to waste money fulfilling a wet dream of yours or something?

The difference here is no new roadway would need to be built, it's just a designation.  The bridge and approach is going to be built regardless of what you call it, so it's not like pothole money is going to be wasted with any designation you slap on it.  It was just a question, not a wet dream..that's a tad graphic.

From the eastern terminus, I-64 westbound runs due east.  From it's eastern terminus, I-40 runs almost due north for 120 miles.  US-101 southbound from it's northern terminus runs 82 miles northbound.  I-25 has a spot where the northbound lanes run southbound between Santa Fe and Las Vegas.  You act like this would be the first time an interstate may actually veer off it's posted cardinal direction.  It's happened before.  Those are extreme examples, not including places like El Paso where I-10 actually runs through the town in a north-south direction. 

Back to why I brought it up, I personally think having a route attached to the American side of the bridge gives some sort of orientation once you get to the US side.  You cross the bridge and you are traveling on westbound I-96 or westbound I-975, or heck, they can call it I-401, to me it gives you a sense of direction.  Having it not have a designation makes you think, and I getting dumped off on surface streets somewhere?  I think having ON-401 cross a bridge to a no-name road kinda diminishes a great highway.  ON-401 should directly connect to our interstate system in my opinion.  Its just that, my opinion.  They can name it whatever name they want to name the approach from I-75 to the bridge if just calling it Gordie Howe Street helps keep costs down for your pothole fund. 
You seem to be missing the point.  Changing signage, putting up new signs and adding to the bookwork factor all costs money for something totally unnecessary and completely stupid.  I-25 runs in the wrong direction briefly to avoid mountains.  It's practically unavoidable, but it's also a moot point because the entire freeway is signed and is going to be signed as I-25.  What else are you going to do?  Have a stretch in the middle of I-25 without a highway designation?  Or maybe we could label it I-96! ;)  I-64 briefly runs in the reverse direction due to stupidity on the part of the state DOT.  I-10 and I-40 don't run in the reverse direction.  I-10 runs N-S to again avoid mountains and the I-40 section in question should probably have another route number attached to it.  At any rate, multiple wrongs don't make a right and is never a valid reason for rationalizing anything.


I think you proved my point for me.  Thanks
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: wanderer2575 on August 18, 2022, 02:49:41 PM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

Maybe no longer.  "Toll" instead of "fare" is on the plans for new signs approaching the Mackinac Bridge and International Bridge in the Upper Peninsula.  (Previously posted in the "Interesting Signs" thread.)

(https://i.imgur.com/pcu4XBC.jpg)


Looks like the Soo will get flags on the BGSs as well to match up with Port Huron and Detroit. That will be cool. Switching the terminology on the signs is somewhat overdue considering the wording was switched on the state maps 15 years ago.

Any idea where I can look at the rest of the plans?

Item #026 on the 03/04/2022 letting list.  You need to have an account on the "MI Login for Third Party" site and access to MDOT e-proposals.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: skluth on August 18, 2022, 06:30:02 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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
How doesn't it?

It's 5 miles, which 3.5 miles of it are preexisting freeway.  You make it seem like I just suggested routing I-90 all the way up there to cross the bridge and then go back on the other side. 
That makes just about as much sense.  What purpose would be served to have EB I-96 head southwesterly (and more westerly than southerly at that point) for a few miles and multiplex with I-75 and then turn off towards Canada?  We can't even get potholes filled and you want to waste money fulfilling a wet dream of yours or something?

The difference here is no new roadway would need to be built, it's just a designation.  The bridge and approach is going to be built regardless of what you call it, so it's not like pothole money is going to be wasted with any designation you slap on it.  It was just a question, not a wet dream..that's a tad graphic.

From the eastern terminus, I-64 westbound runs due east.  From it's eastern terminus, I-40 runs almost due north for 120 miles.  US-101 southbound from it's northern terminus runs 82 miles northbound.  I-25 has a spot where the northbound lanes run southbound between Santa Fe and Las Vegas.  You act like this would be the first time an interstate may actually veer off it's posted cardinal direction.  It's happened before.  Those are extreme examples, not including places like El Paso where I-10 actually runs through the town in a north-south direction. 

Back to why I brought it up, I personally think having a route attached to the American side of the bridge gives some sort of orientation once you get to the US side.  You cross the bridge and you are traveling on westbound I-96 or westbound I-975, or heck, they can call it I-401, to me it gives you a sense of direction.  Having it not have a designation makes you think, and I getting dumped off on surface streets somewhere?  I think having ON-401 cross a bridge to a no-name road kinda diminishes a great highway.  ON-401 should directly connect to our interstate system in my opinion.  Its just that, my opinion.  They can name it whatever name they want to name the approach from I-75 to the bridge if just calling it Gordie Howe Street helps keep costs down for your pothole fund. 
You seem to be missing the point.  Changing signage, putting up new signs and adding to the bookwork factor all costs money for something totally unnecessary and completely stupid.  I-25 runs in the wrong direction briefly to avoid mountains.  It's practically unavoidable, but it's also a moot point because the entire freeway is signed and is going to be signed as I-25.  What else are you going to do?  Have a stretch in the middle of I-25 without a highway designation?  Or maybe we could label it I-96! ;)  I-64 briefly runs in the reverse direction due to stupidity on the part of the state DOT.  I-10 and I-40 don't run in the reverse direction.  I-10 runs N-S to again avoid mountains and the I-40 section in question should probably have another route number attached to it.  At any rate, multiple wrongs don't make a right and is never a valid reason for rationalizing anything.


I think you proved my point for me.  Thanks

I think you missed his point so completely that you didn't even feel the rush of air over your head
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Terry Shea on August 18, 2022, 10:35:58 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.

What about extending Interstate 96 down Interstate 75 to the bridge and having it be an extension of Interstate 96?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
How doesn't it?

It's 5 miles, which 3.5 miles of it are preexisting freeway.  You make it seem like I just suggested routing I-90 all the way up there to cross the bridge and then go back on the other side. 
That makes just about as much sense.  What purpose would be served to have EB I-96 head southwesterly (and more westerly than southerly at that point) for a few miles and multiplex with I-75 and then turn off towards Canada?  We can't even get potholes filled and you want to waste money fulfilling a wet dream of yours or something?

The difference here is no new roadway would need to be built, it's just a designation.  The bridge and approach is going to be built regardless of what you call it, so it's not like pothole money is going to be wasted with any designation you slap on it.  It was just a question, not a wet dream..that's a tad graphic.

From the eastern terminus, I-64 westbound runs due east.  From it's eastern terminus, I-40 runs almost due north for 120 miles.  US-101 southbound from it's northern terminus runs 82 miles northbound.  I-25 has a spot where the northbound lanes run southbound between Santa Fe and Las Vegas.  You act like this would be the first time an interstate may actually veer off it's posted cardinal direction.  It's happened before.  Those are extreme examples, not including places like El Paso where I-10 actually runs through the town in a north-south direction. 

Back to why I brought it up, I personally think having a route attached to the American side of the bridge gives some sort of orientation once you get to the US side.  You cross the bridge and you are traveling on westbound I-96 or westbound I-975, or heck, they can call it I-401, to me it gives you a sense of direction.  Having it not have a designation makes you think, and I getting dumped off on surface streets somewhere?  I think having ON-401 cross a bridge to a no-name road kinda diminishes a great highway.  ON-401 should directly connect to our interstate system in my opinion.  Its just that, my opinion.  They can name it whatever name they want to name the approach from I-75 to the bridge if just calling it Gordie Howe Street helps keep costs down for your pothole fund. 
You seem to be missing the point.  Changing signage, putting up new signs and adding to the bookwork factor all costs money for something totally unnecessary and completely stupid.  I-25 runs in the wrong direction briefly to avoid mountains.  It's practically unavoidable, but it's also a moot point because the entire freeway is signed and is going to be signed as I-25.  What else are you going to do?  Have a stretch in the middle of I-25 without a highway designation?  Or maybe we could label it I-96! ;)  I-64 briefly runs in the reverse direction due to stupidity on the part of the state DOT.  I-10 and I-40 don't run in the reverse direction.  I-10 runs N-S to again avoid mountains and the I-40 section in question should probably have another route number attached to it.  At any rate, multiple wrongs don't make a right and is never a valid reason for rationalizing anything.


I think you proved my point for me.  Thanks
Not sure how I could have done that.  There was absolutely no point to prove.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 on August 20, 2022, 11:38:17 PM
Spoke with someone I know who's been more thoroughly involved in the project than I have on the Ontario side. He said MDOT have no intention to assign a route number. They're just treating it as an interchange on I-75.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on August 21, 2022, 09:25:34 AM
Spoke with someone I know who's been more thoroughly involved in the project than I have on the Ontario side. He said MDOT have no intention to assign a route number. They're just treating it as an interchange on I-75.
That's why I laughed when people were suggesting route numbers, I know MDOT pretty well and know that they would never assign a route number to a ramp just to go to Canada. The International and Blue Water Bridges both already have a route leading up to the bridge, the Gordie Howe Bridge won't have a route leading up to the bridge.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: hwyfan on November 12, 2022, 07:39:50 PM
I don't understand why the Gordie Howe Bridge - six lanes wide, is being constructed without a median barrier (whether adjustable or fixed) between the opposite directions of traffic.  I would think given the heavy traffic and winter road conditions, that would be a priority.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on November 12, 2022, 11:53:22 PM
I don't understand why the Gordie Howe Bridge - six lanes wide, is being constructed without a median barrier (whether adjustable or fixed) between the opposite directions of traffic.  I would think given the heavy traffic and winter road conditions, that would be a priority.
The Mackinac Bridge doesn't have one and I'd be a heck of a lot more worried about something happening on that bridge than the Gordie Howe Bridge.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SSOWorld on November 13, 2022, 09:50:04 AM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

Maybe no longer.  "Toll" instead of "fare" is on the plans for new signs approaching the Mackinac Bridge and International Bridge in the Upper Peninsula.  (Previously posted in the "Interesting Signs" thread.)

(https://i.imgur.com/pcu4XBC.jpg)

(https://i.imgflip.com/70lo4b.jpg)
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SSOWorld on November 13, 2022, 09:51:28 AM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

Maybe no longer.  "Toll" instead of "fare" is on the plans for new signs approaching the Mackinac Bridge and International Bridge in the Upper Peninsula.  (Previously posted in the "Interesting Signs" thread.)

(https://i.imgur.com/pcu4XBC.jpg)

What - no "STRAIGHT THRU"?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: skluth on November 13, 2022, 03:36:02 PM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

Maybe no longer.  "Toll" instead of "fare" is on the plans for new signs approaching the Mackinac Bridge and International Bridge in the Upper Peninsula.  (Previously posted in the "Interesting Signs" thread.)

(https://i.imgur.com/pcu4XBC.jpg)

What - no "STRAIGHT THRU"?
No no. The signs to Canada should read "AHEAD"!
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Lyon Wonder on November 13, 2022, 07:50:41 PM
Will the Ambassador bridge still be open after 2024 since it's privately owned even though for all intents and purposes the Gordie Howe is its de-facto replacement?

Anybody think if the Ambassador gets demolished it'll be quickly imploded with explosives or be slowly torn down by being dismantled "piece by piece" like what they're currently doing with the old I-74 twin suspension bridges over the Mississippi River in the Quad Cities between IA and IL, a process that's expected to take about 18 months to complete that started last September?
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Flint1979 on November 13, 2022, 08:21:37 PM
Will the Ambassador bridge still be open after 2024 since it's privately owned even though for all intents and purposes the Gordie Howe is its de-facto replacement?

Anybody think if the Ambassador gets demolished it'll be quickly imploded with explosives or be slowly torn down by being dismantled "piece by piece" like what they're currently doing with the old I-74 twin suspension bridges over the Mississippi River in the Quad Cities between IA and IL, a process that's expected to take about 18 months to complete that started last September?
I don't expect the Ambassador Bridge to make it another 10 years.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: JREwing78 on November 13, 2022, 08:42:30 PM
Will the Ambassador bridge still be open after 2024 since it's privately owned even though for all intents and purposes the Gordie Howe is its de-facto replacement?

The Moroun family has a considerable investment in the existing bridge and its property (including the duty-free stores and fuel pumps).

They haven't moved forward on building out the 2nd span, blaming the Canadians for not allowing them to keep the original span once the 2nd is completed. They also are prepared to keep lawyers busy extorting more money for its various Detroit properties taken for the Gordie Howe. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2022/07/18/moroun-properties-bridge-canada-gordie-howe-international-bridge/7821846001/
 (https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2022/07/18/moroun-properties-bridge-canada-gordie-howe-international-bridge/7821846001/)(subscription required)

Though, in this article from the CBC, they're trying to put on a good front and continue to try to sweet-talk the Canadians into letting them proceed with the new span and customs plaza. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ambassador-bridge-mathew-moroun-convoy-1.6380486
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: SSOWorld on November 13, 2022, 08:42:40 PM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

Maybe no longer.  "Toll" instead of "fare" is on the plans for new signs approaching the Mackinac Bridge and International Bridge in the Upper Peninsula.  (Previously posted in the "Interesting Signs" thread.)

(https://i.imgur.com/pcu4XBC.jpg)

What - no "STRAIGHT THRU"?
No no. The signs to Canada should read "AHEAD"!
Not in Michigan.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: amroad17 on November 14, 2022, 03:52:32 AM
"Pay Fare Ahead"? Are they going to transport my car across the bridge for me, perhaps with me still sitting in it? If not, it's not a "fare." It's a "toll."

"Toll" is pronounced "fare" in Michigan.  Otherwise delicate sensibilities will be upset. :P

Maybe no longer.  "Toll" instead of "fare" is on the plans for new signs approaching the Mackinac Bridge and International Bridge in the Upper Peninsula.  (Previously posted in the "Interesting Signs" thread.)

(https://i.imgur.com/pcu4XBC.jpg)

What - no "STRAIGHT THRU"?
No no. The signs to Canada should read "AHEAD"!
Not in Michigan.
In Wisconsin. The two down arrows are spelled "AHEAD" in the Badger State.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 14, 2022, 10:28:19 PM
Looks like the opening might be delayed by a few months:

Quote
A report by financial analyst S&P Global Ratings dated over a year ago estimated completion by April 25, 2025, thanks to construction delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and other issues. However, a subsequent report by S&P report completed two months ago obtained by the Star newspaper pushes completion back to the middle of August 2025.

- https://www.worldhighways.com/wh12/news/possible-delays-gordie-howe-bridge
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 on November 16, 2022, 02:11:04 PM
I don't understand why the Gordie Howe Bridge - six lanes wide, is being constructed without a median barrier (whether adjustable or fixed) between the opposite directions of traffic.  I would think given the heavy traffic and winter road conditions, that would be a priority.

Given the lower speed design it's not necessary from a safety point of view. Adding it would require either adding width to the bridge or reducing the width of the lanes/facilities on it. The former would massively add cost, the latter would be detrimental to safety. Plus would be an extra thing to maintain, and make both snow removal and revising the directional the lane balance more difficult.

Will the Ambassador bridge still be open after 2024 since it's privately owned even though for all intents and purposes the Gordie Howe is its de-facto replacement?

From a traffic stnadpoint, no as both can serve different destinations on the US side, and offers redundancy and capacity at a critical point.
The truck ferry, I believe its days are numbered as hazmat will be allowed on the GHIB but not the Ambassador.

For the Ambassador replacement span, as I've heard while replacement bridge may have the regulatory clearance to go ahead they still would need financial backing to actually do it. Obviously nothing will be made public on that until it's finalized.

Anybody think if the Ambassador gets demolished it'll be quickly imploded with explosives or be slowly torn down by being dismantled "piece by piece" like what they're currently doing with the old I-74 twin suspension bridges over the Mississippi River in the Quad Cities between IA and IL, a process that's expected to take about 18 months to complete that started last September?

Aside from the obvious joke of "fall down on its own" I could see if going either way. The critical part will be minimizing disruption the shipping for the least cost, so whether dropping the structure and towing it away immediately is the way to do it or taking it apart piece by piece with boat traffic moving underneath is up to some engineers and bean counters.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 17, 2022, 02:39:53 PM
I don't understand why the Gordie Howe Bridge - six lanes wide, is being constructed without a median barrier (whether adjustable or fixed) between the opposite directions of traffic.  I would think given the heavy traffic and winter road conditions, that would be a priority.

Well that's what happens when you sit on your hands for decades until the Canadians can't take it anymore and do the whole thing themselves.  They get to design it how they want.
You can bet your ass if this had been a more collaborative process than it was between Michigan and Ontario without that meddling troll up river constantly throwing legal wrenches into the works, the new bridge would be barrier separated.  SOP for American highways facilities of this nature these days.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: bulldog1979 on November 18, 2022, 10:07:14 AM
Anybody think if the Ambassador gets demolished it'll be quickly imploded with explosives or be slowly torn down by being dismantled "piece by piece" like what they're currently doing with the old I-74 twin suspension bridges over the Mississippi River in the Quad Cities between IA and IL, a process that's expected to take about 18 months to complete that started last September?

The Ambassador has already been deconstructed once. When it was built the first time, it used a different type of steel wire for its cables. Faults were found with that type of steel. (I believe another suspension bridge in Rhode Island using the same type of style cabling collapsed.) The bridge was deconstructed by removing the road deck and the problematic cables. New main cables were strung, and the road deck was rehung before it finally opened to traffic.
Title: Re: Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)
Post by: cbeach40 on November 21, 2022, 01:39:35 PM
I don't understand why the Gordie Howe Bridge - six lanes wide, is being constructed without a median barrier (whether adjustable or fixed) between the opposite directions of traffic.  I would think given the heavy traffic and winter road conditions, that would be a priority.

Well that's what happens when you sit on your hands for decades until the Canadians can't take it anymore and do the whole thing themselves.  They get to design it how they want.
You can bet your ass if this had been a more collaborative process than it was between Michigan and Ontario without that meddling troll up river constantly throwing legal wrenches into the works, the new bridge would be barrier separated.  SOP for American highways facilities of this nature these days.


MDOT and the respective US federal agencies have been very involved in the design and have set numerous requirements. Median barrier design (or lack thereof) would have been a joint decision.

Also, Canada isn't paying for it, it's s joint venture with revenues split between them. The politics prevented the US agencies from fronting the cash so Canada is fronting 100% and the splitting will now begin once that's been fully recouped instead of immediately.