Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flint1979]

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.

[ethanhopkin14]

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. 

[Terry Shea]

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? 

[ethanhopkin14]

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. 

[vdeane]

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.

[74/171FAN]

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.

[ethanhopkin14]

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?

[AsphaltPlanet]

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.

[vdeane]

^^ 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, and it's likely that the Michigan side will be signed simply "Canadian flag/Bridge to Canada".

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.

[skluth]

^^ 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, and it's likely that the Michigan side will be signed simply "Canadian flag/Bridge to Canada".

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.

[1995hoo]

^^^^

"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."

[triplemultiplex]

"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.

[wanderer2575]

"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.

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.)

[bulldog1979]

"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.

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".

[bulldog1979]

"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.

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.)

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?

[Terry Shea]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[1995hoo]

"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.

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".

Looks like that was just the wording chosen at the time the signs were fabricated.

— Michigan DOT (@MichiganDOT) August 17, 2022

[skluth]

^^^^

"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.

[ethanhopkin14]

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

[wanderer2575]

"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.

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.)

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.

[skluth]

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

[Terry Shea]

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.

[cbeach40]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.