Detroit Bridge Wars

[GaryV]

Re: Canadian freeways - Hwy 17 along the north shore of Lake Superior wasn't completed until 1960.  There was no road there at all.  (Maybe a few paths, but nothing that could be traversed by most vehicles.)  Compare that with how much of the Interstate system was planned, in progress or finished by 1960.

[mgk920]

In terms of Schengen-type crossing, at this point there's far more resistance to that one the Canadian side than the American. Notwithstanding the litany of issues that already existed prior to this year, but the COVID-19 crisis has galvanized a lot of Canadians against the notion of ever allowing unfettered access. Heck, even fettered access is widely unpopular right now.

Isn't that all due to coronavirus?  Why wouldn't things go back to normal once the pandemic is done?  Spanish flu became a historical footnote that nobody talked about before this year, for example.

Before the 2001-09-11 attacks, the USA was still very worried about Canada's relatively lax entry standards, especially WRT those claiming 'refugee' status.  Also, I remember the City of Seattle, WA cancelling their planned NYE celebrations in 1999-2000 due to reported threats and that the USA's border guards stopped a terrorist with bomb-making stuff at the ferry terminal in Port Angeles, WA at about that same time.

A number of years later, I was talking with a USA border guard at a display booth at a local air show where he pretty much flatly said that Canada and the USA were on track to setting up a 'Schengen style' system and eliminating the mutual border checkpoints by about 2004 had that attack not happened.

Yes, it is very expensive to keep tabs on that line which is artificially drawn through some of the most remote territory on the planet and to instead keep watch on the relatively few continental entry ports (sea ports, major airports) would save a s***load of public treasure while maintaining a necessary healthy level of security.  Remember that north of the Mexico-USA border, North America is an *island*.

At least publicly, though, the main hangups on the USA side have always seemed to have centered around Canada's attitude towards the Drug War™ while on the Canadian side it was the 2nd Amendment to the USA's Constitution.   

Mike

[cbeach40]

Adjacent facilities not necessarily (though it's not a great idea). Transverse pedestrian facilities/activities - as will occur within the bridge complex - absolutely do disqualify it. At least based on MTO, AASHTO, and FHWA/HCM's definition of a freeway.

I'm not sure where that would be... the multi-use path designs don't show any crosswalks.  Are you referring to within the customs booths and toll barriers?  If so, that's no different than the Thruway.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that isn't a freeway.

A freeway is, by definition, free of cross traffic. If pedestrians are crossing the facility then it is by definition not a freeway in that particular segment.
Also, that segment in the link not only has marked crosswalks but also does not have a median. By all definitions, not a freeway.

Hey look, New York has a design standards document for tolling facilities! Now, why would tolling facilities have their own design document instead of just using the existing and widespread freeway design? Oh right, because toll facilities are non-freeway segments within larger freeway corridors. Arguing that they are is lunacy.

How is that area not a freeway?  This looks like a typical major bridge on a freeway to me, although the speed limit is absurdly low.  How is anyone supposed to hold 30 mph on that?  Must feel very, very painful to cross!  And I thought 25 on the Mid-Hudson was bad!

• The vertical and horizontal curves meet maybe a 40 mph design speed
• The I-69/94 approach/departure doesn't even meet that much
• Neither does the Hwy 402 side
• Speed change lane (SCL) length and ramp radii do not come anywhere close to Interstate/freeway standard on either side
• There are SCL-less entrances and at grade intersections on both sides
• There's on-street parking on both sides
• There's a business in the centre of the roadway on the Canadian side
• Clear zone and roadside safety do not meet freeway standards
• Traffic calming devices installed on I-69/94
• Barrier curb on the Canadian side

I know it may be surprising, but somehow a facility built in the 1930s doesn't quite match up with current standards. And as such they built the adjacent infrastructure to a better level but didn't blow a pile of money making it freeway standards with zero benefit. Wow, who knew? 

That's completely false. None of the Interstates at/approaching the border maintains full Interstate design standards. Road side safety, lane configuration, curb design, cross roads, ramp design, curves - not a single one of the Interstates that end at the Canadian border actually check all of the boxes that make full Interstate standard.

I just took a look at I-29 and I-95, and I'm very familiar with I-81 and I-87.  They strike me as no worse than a typical toll barrier.  No worse than trucks cutting across the road at the tandem lot.  Significantly better, in fact!

Okay, let's do this. Failures to meet Interstate design standards all the way to the border (your criteria):

• I-5 - park in the median, crosswalk, at grade intersections, barrier curb, insufficient number of lanes, horizontal curves <50 mph DS, SCL do not meet 50 mph DS
• I-15 - at-grade intersections, traffic calming devices, insufficient shoulder/clear zone
• I-29 - at-grade intersections, on-street parking, geometry does not meet 70 mph DS or even 50 mph DS for that matter
• I-75 - undivided, insufficient number of lanes from plaza to border, geometry does not meet 50 mph DS, at-grade intersections
• I-69/94 - as above
• I-190 (PB) - at grade intersections, on-street parking, geometry does not meet 50 mph DS, undivided from plaza to border, barrier curb, insufficient shoulder, insufficient clear zone
• I-190 (LQ) - Undivided, traffic calming devices (both horizontal and vertical deflection, which is INSANE if it were a freeway), low speed curves, at grade intersections
• I-81 - For someone "very familiar" with this crossing you'd know that this may be the most egregious example of Interstate standards not being applied all the way to the border. Obviously the Thousand Islands Bridge is an undivided two lane facility. In addition to that you've got end treatments not being applied to roadside hazards, barrier curb, at grade intersections, and of course, sub-70 or 50 mph DS curves
• I-87 - at-grade intersections, traffic calming, curves of obvious insufficient design speed. But you already knew all of that if you're supposedly "very familiar" with this one too
• I -89 - curves of obviously insufficient design speed
• I-91 - at-grade intersection, barrier curb
• I-95 - at-grade intersection, on-street parking, SCL do not meet DS

I mean, that was just what's readily apparent to anyone at first glance here. Granted, Interstate standards are intended for through travel, as opposed to border approaches which are by definition low speed and irregular circumstances. To that point, it's more prudent to not build to Interstate standard.

In terms of Schengen-type crossing, at this point there's far more resistance to that one the Canadian side than the American. Notwithstanding the litany of issues that already existed prior to this year, but the COVID-19 crisis has galvanized a lot of Canadians against the notion of ever allowing unfettered access. Heck, even fettered access is widely unpopular right now.

Isn't that all due to coronavirus?  Why wouldn't things go back to normal once the pandemic is done?  Spanish flu became a historical footnote that nobody talked about before this year, for example.

First of all, the Spanish Flu pandemic might not be talked about much in your circles, but in others it is. And to claim that something that killed fifty million people is but a historical footnote is completely asinine.

And no, as I clearly said in the front half of my statement, there's a litany of issues that has made an open border with the USA unpalatable here. mgk920 touched on some of the biggest ones, but by and large attitudes in Canada, even pre-pandemic, were waning away from any type of Shengen-type agreement. COVID has just push that argument even further in that direction.

A single lane would not be sufficient size if the intention is to eventually build a barrier and upgrade it to freeway standard. And if there were to be one, it's not the 1980s anymore, low performance barriers like Jersey Barriers are not sufficient for separating opposing traffic. To build to freeway standard you'd need high performance barriers between opposing traffic and between traffic and the ped/bike facility.

In any event, doing so will a) massively increase the weight load on the structure b) complicate winter maintenance c) cost a lot to build d) provide minimal benefit to safety as it's operating at low speed e) cost a lot to maintain long term f) eliminate the ability to be flexible with lane configurations to adjust for traffic flow, road work, etc.

Adding an extra lane or provisions for a barrier would add tens, if not hundreds of millions to the cost of the project. All for something that by all accounts would be demonstrably worse.

In terms of categorization, I mean it's a unique facility in and of itself. Between the various design criteria of roadways (freeway/expressway/arterial/collector/local) it doesn't meet the standards for the first two, nor the patterns for the latter two. So you could go with arterial, but as I said, it's unique, I don't think any standard provincial, state, or national design criteria were created for the project. Heck, there was even talk at one point about explosive resistance designs on the approach roads, which very, very, much do not conform to any standards.

Meanwhile, this is the Golden Gate.  This is the Pont Champlain.  I don't see anyone claiming they're not freeways.

*Sigh*, you obviously didn't even bother to read what I actually wrote there. Or if you did you obviously didn't understand it, either willfully or incompetently (based on context clues I can bet which of the two).

First, the Champlain Bridge was designed to the above standards, though a very minor compromise was made to accommodate changes to the cross-section (which sometimes is necessary). But you don't deliberately build an compromised cross section on a $5.7 billion dollar bridge. I cannot begin to describe just how astoundingly idiotic of an engineering decision that would be. Especially to prepare for a situation that would not con
Secondly, the Golden gate Bridge, with its entrances on the approaches definitely does not meet HCM, FHWA, or AASHTO's freeway standards. Not to mention the design speed and low performance barriers show that road authority is definitely not treating it as a freeway.

Again, bridges can be unique features of highway systems. Ensuring they meet driver expectancy and engineering demands are what matters, not some farcical demand that it must be a freeway without any kind of rational or scientific or empirical reason why that's a good idea.

There's no freeway between I-15 and Calgary.  There's no freeway in Manitoba period.  If Canada were part of the US, there would be an interstate all the way from Vancouver to Winnipeg if not Thunder Bay.  I-15 would go north to Edmonton.  Winnipeg's beltway would be a 3di.  I-29 would go to Winnipeg.  Vancouver's freeway system wouldn't be fractured in two parts that don't connect.  I could go on.

So? None of those are needed. It would be a waste of money and resources, and in the case of Vancouver, detrimental to the urban area.

Now, there probably wouldn't be more freeways in the maritimes, but they'd be signed more as a system rather than a shield that's shared with two-lane roads (in Nova Scotia most of them are limited access at least, but even that isn't the case in New Brunswick; why bother having a special shield if you're not going to make the roads that use it special?).

Roads aren't supposed to be "special" they're supposed to get you where you're going. I love them, but they are in their very nature utilitarian. NB's system is based on directional guidance, not classification. Which makes sense in an area where congested urban areas just aren't a thing.

Freeways are just another type of road, nothing magical about them. Sometimes they're needed, sometimes something lower order is sufficient or even desirable. A preference for a system, doing so flying in the face of logic, or engineering and planning competence, makes no sense.

Tell that to Dan McNichol, the author of The Roads that Built America, one of the greatest books about roads ever written.  His introduction exudes the greatness inherent in the interstate highway system.

Yeah, I've read it a long time ago, back before I got into highway planning and engineering as a career. Back then it was interesting, albeit a bit cringe with his nationalist bent. Re-reading it now it's pretty basic when it comes to the road stuff and tiresome with the rhetoric.

As a young roadgeek who was always strongly oriented towards freeways (I never cared about non-freeways prior to being involved in the roadgeek community, and even now, 95% of my caring is mapping clinched routes on Travel Mapping).

Cool story. You do you. 

Besides, when I drive, I want to set the cruise control to 70 and not deal with slowing down or stopping.  Besides, as someone who thinks in terms of uniform systems, taking a road outside the system to get between to points on the system just feel weird.

Okay, but that doesn't explain the practical necessity of a trans-border freeway when building that is utterly impossible due to the presence of border checkpoints.

Living near Albany, I can get to most anywhere in North America on an all-freeway route without going out of my way to most anywhere that is connected to the main freeway system.  The main exceptions are Rhode Island (and that's borderline; I-495 isn't that far off from MA/RI 146) and Vermont (which annoys me).  If/when I have to move to an area for which this is not true, I will feel sad.  I even search for apartments based on how well the freeway system connects them to the rest of the metro area.

Does it trouble you to have to drive on the non-freeway segment across the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge? Knowing that you'll have to stop on either side? Knowing that it will add a grand total of zero minutes to your journey whether it were built to freeway standard or arterial?

It's more bothersome to me to have to slow or stop at toll barriers, knowing at a) they increase the risk of collisions and b) they are long since outdated by technology. If a freeway becomes a free-flow expressway or arterial, it makes no difference. If an interrupted flow facility has no median, it makes no difference.

^^^^^^^^^
OK, look at the artists' rendition of the bridge details, including the overhead variable sign with green or red arrows -- the lanes are reversible!!!!, obviously to "tailor" the capacity for the dominant commute direction at a given time.  That would certainly account for the lack of median, since unless a movable rail or series of bollards (e.g. the Golden Gate Bridge) was deployed, the full carriageway would have to be open construction, with at least the two center lanes reversible for 4+2 peak-hour commute configuration.  Off-peak, it would likely default to a 3+3 situation.  But if the bridge speed limit stays below 50 mph, a median barrier may not be necessary. 

That striping doesn't look like it's set up for a reversable lane.  For some reason a lot of new bridges have such system even if they appear to serve no discernible purpose.

Final pavement marking design is not complete yet, this was just an image for illustrative purposes.

And the purpose in every single application is apparent - to open or close the lanes. That's is the sole function of those lights, don't see what's so hard about that. Whether you need to reverse flow or perform maintenance in the lane, those lights are there for that.

Also, with a mile ore more between customs booths, anything below 50 would just feel painfully slow.

The Blue Water Bridge is 1.3 miles from the Michigan toll plaza to Canadian Customs. Traffic flows 60-80 km/h between them under free flow conditions and it feels fine.

[cbeach40]

Canada is like that. Handful of medium and large cities with freeway networks between them, and then a whole lot of nothing where you can go ages without seeing another soul. So only the problem areas get upgrades.

Ooh, so if that's the case, and you clearly used the word Canada, would you care for the reasoning on why NB-2 has a freeway section between Grand Falls and Woodstock? Check the AADT of those sections, definitely no warrants for such a road there and yet it exists. Even better is them wanting to twin NB-11 into a full freeway.

Point I'm saying is by your logic, much of NB-2 shouldn't be a freeway.

Oh, you think you've got me! How fun, how clever!
First of all, if traffic is the only thing that dictates it, then those volumes possibly could be handled by a two lane highway (I don't care enough to look it up, for the sake of argument let's say they're low). But sometimes there are safety concerns which are handled best by a freeway. For example, in Ontario Highway 11 between Bracebridge and Huntsville has volumes that can be handled by the existing facility, but the safety concerns have made it such that a freeway upgrade is in the cards for it. Every road has unique collision patterns, there's not a one size fits all solution.

In this specific case the cost difference between widening and freewayization may have been not too dissimilar (it's only about 100 km in forgiving terrain, definitely could be the case here). In that case just spend a little more and get the best bang for your buck. And sometimes highway upgrades are used as job creation tactics (we're going to see a lot of that in the near future).

Point is though, there are a lot of factors that may have led to the choice to upgrade that portion of highway to full freeway, and unless someone here was on the project team and wants to share then we won't know what they are.

But, what's done is done, it has been built as a freeway. Whether it should be or not now is completely immaterial.

[SEWIGuy]

There's no freeway between I-15 and Calgary.  There's no freeway in Manitoba period.  If Canada were part of the US, there would be an interstate all the way from Vancouver to Winnipeg if not Thunder Bay.  I-15 would go north to Edmonton.  Winnipeg's beltway would be a 3di.  I-29 would go to Winnipeg.  Vancouver's freeway system wouldn't be fractured in two parts that don't connect.  I could go on.  Now, there probably wouldn't be more freeways in the maritimes, but they'd be signed more as a system rather than a shield that's shared with two-lane roads (in Nova Scotia most of them are limited access at least, but even that isn't the case in New Brunswick; why bother having a special shield if you're not going to make the roads that use it special?).

I mean, do they really need those freeways?  It looks like the rural parts of the Trans Canada Highway in Manitoba get a fraction of the daily traffic that I-94 does in western North Dakota for instance.

[MisterSG1]

First of all, the Spanish Flu pandemic might not be talked about much in your circles, but in others it is. And to claim that something that killed fifty million people is but a historical footnote is completely asinine.

If that's really the case, why is this never taught in any basic history class around here. Most Canadians can tell you about Vimy Ridge and the Armistice but they couldn't tell you about the Spanish Flu, most believed things transitioned peacefully into the "Roaring 20s" . Heck, I even took history classes at the university level as my electives and we went right from armistice to roaring 20s.

I only knew it existed prior to this because the Stanley Cup was mysteriously not awarded in 1919, otherwise that's the only way I knew of any kind of significant problem. Sure, in the virology field and it's related fields this may be known, but did Joe Public who grew up in Canada, prior to all this know what the Spanish flu was, I'm willing to bet very few did.

So? None of those are needed. It would be a waste of money and resources, and in the case of Vancouver, detrimental to the urban area.

See, this is kind of like what I was getting at with my original post about New Brunswick. Can you argue that a freeway from Quebec City to Halifax is justified? So if a freeway as Val suggests from Vancouver to Winnipeg is not needed than why is a freeway from Quebec City to Halifax appears to have no objection? NB-2 is part of the national corridor you could argue, but how can NB justify turning NB-11 and NB-7 into freeways.

The attitude you are showing, honestly, it would be like arguing back in 1949 that building the Yonge Subway would be a colossal waste of money and we would still be riding streetcars on Yonge Street. There was little justification of rapid transit back then but it has sure paid off. This is kind of what I'm getting at and hence why I'm a big proponent of making Hwy 411 and Hwy 417 a reality. It opens a tremendous opportunity for more efficient commercial traffic.

[vdeane]

Re: Canadian freeways - Hwy 17 along the north shore of Lake Superior wasn't completed until 1960.  There was no road there at all.  (Maybe a few paths, but nothing that could be traversed by most vehicles.)  Compare that with how much of the Interstate system was planned, in progress or finished by 1960.

I certainly wouldn't nominate ON 17 along Lake Superior for a freeway.  That part of Canada is actually as desolate as cbeach40 wants us to believe that every part of the country other than southern Ontario and Québec is.

A number of years later, I was talking with a USA border guard at a display booth at a local air show where he pretty much flatly said that Canada and the USA were on track to setting up a 'Schengen style' system and eliminating the mutual border checkpoints by about 2004 had that attack not happened.

Yes, it is very expensive to keep tabs on that line which is artificially drawn through some of the most remote territory on the planet and to instead keep watch on the relatively few continental entry ports (sea ports, major airports) would save a s***load of public treasure while maintaining a necessary healthy level of security.  Remember that north of the Mexico-USA border, North America is an *island*.

At least publicly, though, the main hangups on the USA side have always seemed to have centered around Canada's attitude towards the Drug War™ while on the Canadian side it was the 2nd Amendment to the USA's Constitution.   

Yeah, I'm still wishing for the post-9/11 security state to go away and for that plan to come to fruition.  Doesn't hurt that I'd also like to see the War on Drugs go away, so that hangup has never struck me as in any way valid.  In any case, the only legitimate activity at national borders is to screen goods for prohibited items and things that need duties paid, and to screen out inadmissible people.  The law enforcement dragnet operation we've ended up with is not one of them.

Seems to me that if we set up a Schengen style system and deployed the CBP resources from Canada to Mexico, we'd both save money (reduced operating costs) and massively improve border security.  Might even improve crossing times down there, too - does the Mexican border have the same issue the Canadian border has where half the booths always seem to be closed?

A freeway is, by definition, free of cross traffic. If pedestrians are crossing the facility then it is by definition not a freeway in that particular segment.
Also, that segment in the link not only has marked crosswalks but also does not have a median. By all definitions, not a freeway.

Hey look, New York has a design standards document for tolling facilities! Now, why would tolling facilities have their own design document instead of just using the existing and widespread freeway design? Oh right, because toll facilities are non-freeway segments within larger freeway corridors. Arguing that they are is lunacy.

Ah, you're being pedantic with respect to freeway definitions, I see.  In the US, whether something meets modern AASHTO/FHWA standards is completely irrelevant to whether it's considered a freeway or not.  This is because we grandfathered in a lot of old toll roads into the interstates - if the interstate signage had to stop at every booth, there would be a LOT of gaps in the system!  It's only in the last 20 year that FHWA got pedantic about designating new interstates - and such is a major reason why the I-86 project in NY stalled.  I grew up with things like the Thousand Islands bridge (which, since you mentioned it later, I'll mention that the US side is four miles away from the border and that I-81 between there and the border looks like any other rural interstate in NY), Thruway toll barriers, and this part of I-490 built in the 1980s (which I'm sure you'd say isn't a freeway because it has a design speed less than 50 mph, oh noes!), so I'm probably a bit looser with definitions than you are.  Outside of the area I grew up in, the northeast is riddled with stuff like this (which, by the way, has a 55 mph speed limit).  We don't have the luxury of declaring everything that doesn't meet 2020 400-series highway standards "not a freeway"!  In general, controlled access, no at-grades, at least one interchange is enough for us - even medians are optional, depending on the circumstances (though such optionality is mainly for super-2s and reversible lanes on bridges).

I consider customs booths to be equvalent to toll booths when evaluating whether something is a freeway.  It's when the "customs booths mean it's not a freeway and therefore nothing around it needs to be a freeway either" methodology comes into play that I get annoyed.  Ever notice that at-grades like this tend to appear on the Canadian side and not the US side?  That's this methodology in play (for the record, why does that exist anyways?  Seems to me exit 1 provides all the needed connections).

Okay, let's do this. Failures to meet Interstate design standards all the way to the border (your criteria):

• I-5 - park in the median, crosswalk, at grade intersections, barrier curb, insufficient number of lanes, horizontal curves <50 mph DS, SCL do not meet 50 mph DS
• I-15 - at-grade intersections, traffic calming devices, insufficient shoulder/clear zone
• I-29 - at-grade intersections, on-street parking, geometry does not meet 70 mph DS or even 50 mph DS for that matter
• I-75 - undivided, insufficient number of lanes from plaza to border, geometry does not meet 50 mph DS, at-grade intersections
• I-69/94 - as above
• I-190 (PB) - at grade intersections, on-street parking, geometry does not meet 50 mph DS, undivided from plaza to border, barrier curb, insufficient shoulder, insufficient clear zone
• I-190 (LQ) - Undivided, traffic calming devices (both horizontal and vertical deflection, which is INSANE if it were a freeway), low speed curves, at grade intersections
• I-81 - For someone "very familiar" with this crossing you'd know that this may be the most egregious example of Interstate standards not being applied all the way to the border. Obviously the Thousand Islands Bridge is an undivided two lane facility. In addition to that you've got end treatments not being applied to roadside hazards, barrier curb, at grade intersections, and of course, sub-70 or 50 mph DS curves
• I-87 - at-grade intersections, traffic calming, curves of obvious insufficient design speed. But you already knew all of that if you're supposedly "very familiar" with this one too
• I -89 - curves of obviously insufficient design speed
• I-91 - at-grade intersection, barrier curb
• I-95 - at-grade intersection, on-street parking, SCL do not meet DS

I mean, that was just what's readily apparent to anyone at first glance here. Granted, Interstate standards are intended for through travel, as opposed to border approaches which are by definition low speed and irregular circumstances. To that point, it's more prudent to not build to Interstate standard.

I already talked about the Thousand Islands Bridge above... regarding at-grades, are you including stuff like this?
1. That strikes me as not too terribly different from a tandem lot or something like this - after all, it's not like just anyone is allowed to use it.  Driving on I-87, you don't even notice it.
2. If the story my supervisor tells is accurate, that was installed during border post upgrades due to how CBSA designed the Canadian side over NYSDOT's objections.  It didn't sound like the NYSDOT people involved were very happy about that.  As far as we're concerned, an interstate doesn't stop being an interstate just because the last US exit has been passed.  We also have state touring routes on roads we don't maintain rather than have a ton of gaps in the system, so our philosophy is evidently the total opposite of Ontario's here.

Not sure what you're talking about with curves, especially I-87.  Are you referring to the thing CBP has done with all the construction barrier?  I'm not sure why that's there, and I really wish they would remove it.  Looks like they're trying to replicate the travesty they committed when they "upgraded" (read: downgraded) the booths on I-5.

(personal opinion)

First of all, the Spanish Flu pandemic might not be talked about much in your circles, but in others it is. And to claim that something that killed fifty million people is but a historical footnote is completely asinine.

I was in advanced level (AP equivalent) social studies in 10th grade and took AP US History (college level) in 11th.  I don't think the Spanish Flu got more than a paragraph or two, at that.  World War I got at least a chapter.  World War II and related topics got a whole section of the book.  Maybe they teach about it more in Canada, I don't know.  But it certainly isn't much of a part of the US history curriculum.

So? None of those are needed. It would be a waste of money and resources, and in the case of Vancouver, detrimental to the urban area.

I was thinking more along the lines of BC 17 being a freeway (which - why isn't it?  This is relatively new, too!) than BC 99.  A big dig-style tunnel connecting the end of its freeway with TCH 1 would be nice , but I'm guessing it's not actually feasible.

Yeah, I've read it a long time ago, back before I got into highway planning and engineering as a career. Back then it was interesting, albeit a bit cringe with his nationalist bent. Re-reading it now it's pretty basic when it comes to the road stuff and tiresome with the rhetoric.

It's not perfect, I'll admit.  Looking over the introduction, especially the part about how nowhere else has anything like the interstate system seems to be part outdated (see: China) and part flat-out wrong (see: Western Europe).  Still, it left an impact on an impressionable young roadgeek who, at that point, had probably not been outside of upstate NY and nearby parts of Ontario (with annual vacations in the 1000 Islands, I probably crossed the border between the two dozens if not hundreds of times on the river without even knowing it when I was young).

Final pavement marking design is not complete yet, this was just an image for illustrative purposes.

And the purpose in every single application is apparent - to open or close the lanes. That's is the sole function of those lights, don't see what's so hard about that. Whether you need to reverse flow or perform maintenance in the lane, those lights are there for that.

If the lanes actually are going to be reversible upon completion, than I can see the lack of median and the signs.  I'm not sure what their purposed would be on places like the Tappan Zee, however.  The lanes there can't be reversed because of the median; if they were, the temporary cones and barrier used would be present, rendering the dynamic signs unnecessary.  Same for a lane closure due to construction.

The Blue Water Bridge is 1.3 miles from the Michigan toll plaza to Canadian Customs. Traffic flows 60-80 km/h between them under free flow conditions and it feels fine.

I think I'll be the judge of whether it feels fine if/when I ever get around to clinching it.  I now the 25 mph limit on the Mid-Hudson and the 55 limit (apparently finally restored - it was 45 for years due to the construction, even on the side that was finished) on the Tappan Zee feel quite slow (painfully so, in the case of the Mid-Hudson).  There are some places where the speed limit is low enough that adhering to it is quite hard because I keep unintentionally going faster - it takes a LOT of self-control not to.  Looking at the street view, the Blue Water looks like it might be one of them (the Mid-Hudson definitely is), though I can't say for sure since I've never been there.

[Joe The Dragon]

Re: Canadian freeways - Hwy 17 along the north shore of Lake Superior wasn't completed until 1960.  There was no road there at all.  (Maybe a few paths, but nothing that could be traversed by most vehicles.)  Compare that with how much of the Interstate system was planned, in progress or finished by 1960.

I certainly wouldn't nominate ON 17 along Lake Superior for a freeway.  That part of Canada is actually as desolate as cbeach40 wants us to believe that every part of the country other than southern Ontario and Québec is.

A number of years later, I was talking with a USA border guard at a display booth at a local air show where he pretty much flatly said that Canada and the USA were on track to setting up a 'Schengen style' system and eliminating the mutual border checkpoints by about 2004 had that attack not happened.

Yes, it is very expensive to keep tabs on that line which is artificially drawn through some of the most remote territory on the planet and to instead keep watch on the relatively few continental entry ports (sea ports, major airports) would save a s***load of public treasure while maintaining a necessary healthy level of security.  Remember that north of the Mexico-USA border, North America is an *island*.

At least publicly, though, the main hangups on the USA side have always seemed to have centered around Canada's attitude towards the Drug War™ while on the Canadian side it was the 2nd Amendment to the USA's Constitution.   

Yeah, I'm still wishing for the post-9/11 security state to go away and for that plan to come to fruition.  Doesn't hurt that I'd also like to see the War on Drugs go away, so that hangup has never struck me as in any way valid.  In any case, the only legitimate activity at national borders is to screen goods for prohibited items and things that need duties paid, and to screen out inadmissible people.  The law enforcement dragnet operation we've ended up with is not one of them.

Seems to me that if we set up a Schengen style system and deployed the CBP resources from Canada to Mexico, we'd both save money (reduced operating costs) and massively improve border security.  Might even improve crossing times down there, too - does the Mexican border have the same issue the Canadian border has where half the booths always seem to be closed?

A freeway is, by definition, free of cross traffic. If pedestrians are crossing the facility then it is by definition not a freeway in that particular segment.
Also, that segment in the link not only has marked crosswalks but also does not have a median. By all definitions, not a freeway.

Hey look, New York has a design standards document for tolling facilities! Now, why would tolling facilities have their own design document instead of just using the existing and widespread freeway design? Oh right, because toll facilities are non-freeway segments within larger freeway corridors. Arguing that they are is lunacy.

Ah, you're being pedantic with respect to freeway definitions, I see.  In the US, whether something meets modern AASHTO/FHWA standards is completely irrelevant to whether it's considered a freeway or not.  This is because we grandfathered in a lot of old toll roads into the interstates - if the interstate signage had to stop at every booth, there would be a LOT of gaps in the system!  It's only in the last 20 year that FHWA got pedantic about designating new interstates - and such is a major reason why the I-86 project in NY stalled.  I grew up with things like the Thousand Islands bridge (which, since you mentioned it later, I'll mention that the US side is four miles away from the border and that I-81 between there and the border looks like any other rural interstate in NY), Thruway toll barriers, and this part of I-490 built in the 1980s (which I'm sure you'd say isn't a freeway because it has a design speed less than 50 mph, oh noes!), so I'm probably a bit looser with definitions than you are.  Outside of the area I grew up in, the northeast is riddled with stuff like this (which, by the way, has a 55 mph speed limit).  We don't have the luxury of declaring everything that doesn't meet 2020 400-series highway standards "not a freeway"!  In general, controlled access, no at-grades, at least one interchange is enough for us - even medians are optional, depending on the circumstances (though such optionality is mainly for super-2s and reversible lanes on bridges).

I consider customs booths to be equvalent to toll booths when evaluating whether something is a freeway.  It's when the "customs booths mean it's not a freeway and therefore nothing around it needs to be a freeway either" methodology comes into play that I get annoyed.  Ever notice that at-grades like this tend to appear on the Canadian side and not the US side?  That's this methodology in play (for the record, why does that exist anyways?  Seems to me exit 1 provides all the needed connections).

Okay, let's do this. Failures to meet Interstate design standards all the way to the border (your criteria):

• I-5 - park in the median, crosswalk, at grade intersections, barrier curb, insufficient number of lanes, horizontal curves <50 mph DS, SCL do not meet 50 mph DS
• I-15 - at-grade intersections, traffic calming devices, insufficient shoulder/clear zone
• I-29 - at-grade intersections, on-street parking, geometry does not meet 70 mph DS or even 50 mph DS for that matter
• I-75 - undivided, insufficient number of lanes from plaza to border, geometry does not meet 50 mph DS, at-grade intersections
• I-69/94 - as above
• I-190 (PB) - at grade intersections, on-street parking, geometry does not meet 50 mph DS, undivided from plaza to border, barrier curb, insufficient shoulder, insufficient clear zone
• I-190 (LQ) - Undivided, traffic calming devices (both horizontal and vertical deflection, which is INSANE if it were a freeway), low speed curves, at grade intersections
• I-81 - For someone "very familiar" with this crossing you'd know that this may be the most egregious example of Interstate standards not being applied all the way to the border. Obviously the Thousand Islands Bridge is an undivided two lane facility. In addition to that you've got end treatments not being applied to roadside hazards, barrier curb, at grade intersections, and of course, sub-70 or 50 mph DS curves
• I-87 - at-grade intersections, traffic calming, curves of obvious insufficient design speed. But you already knew all of that if you're supposedly "very familiar" with this one too
• I -89 - curves of obviously insufficient design speed
• I-91 - at-grade intersection, barrier curb
• I-95 - at-grade intersection, on-street parking, SCL do not meet DS

I mean, that was just what's readily apparent to anyone at first glance here. Granted, Interstate standards are intended for through travel, as opposed to border approaches which are by definition low speed and irregular circumstances. To that point, it's more prudent to not build to Interstate standard.

I already talked about the Thousand Islands Bridge above... regarding at-grades, are you including stuff like this?
1. That strikes me as not too terribly different from a tandem lot or something like this - after all, it's not like just anyone is allowed to use it.  Driving on I-87, you don't even notice it.
2. If the story my supervisor tells is accurate, that was installed during border post upgrades due to how CBSA designed the Canadian side over NYSDOT's objections.  It didn't sound like the NYSDOT people involved were very happy about that.  As far as we're concerned, an interstate doesn't stop being an interstate just because the last US exit has been passed.  We also have state touring routes on roads we don't maintain rather than have a ton of gaps in the system, so our philosophy is evidently the total opposite of Ontario's here.

Not sure what you're talking about with curves, especially I-87.  Are you referring to the thing CBP has done with all the construction barrier?  I'm not sure why that's there, and I really wish they would remove it.  Looks like they're trying to replicate the travesty they committed when they "upgraded" (read: downgraded) the booths on I-5.

(personal opinion)

First of all, the Spanish Flu pandemic might not be talked about much in your circles, but in others it is. And to claim that something that killed fifty million people is but a historical footnote is completely asinine.

I was in advanced level (AP equivalent) social studies in 10th grade and took AP US History (college level) in 11th.  I don't think the Spanish Flu got more than a paragraph or two, at that.  World War I got at least a chapter.  World War II and related topics got a whole section of the book.  Maybe they teach about it more in Canada, I don't know.  But it certainly isn't much of a part of the US history curriculum.

So? None of those are needed. It would be a waste of money and resources, and in the case of Vancouver, detrimental to the urban area.

I was thinking more along the lines of BC 17 being a freeway (which - why isn't it?  This is relatively new, too!) than BC 99.  A big dig-style tunnel connecting the end of its freeway with TCH 1 would be nice , but I'm guessing it's not actually feasible.

Yeah, I've read it a long time ago, back before I got into highway planning and engineering as a career. Back then it was interesting, albeit a bit cringe with his nationalist bent. Re-reading it now it's pretty basic when it comes to the road stuff and tiresome with the rhetoric.

It's not perfect, I'll admit.  Looking over the introduction, especially the part about how nowhere else has anything like the interstate system seems to be part outdated (see: China) and part flat-out wrong (see: Western Europe).  Still, it left an impact on an impressionable young roadgeek who, at that point, had probably not been outside of upstate NY and nearby parts of Ontario (with annual vacations in the 1000 Islands, I probably crossed the border between the two dozens if not hundreds of times on the river without even knowing it when I was young).

Final pavement marking design is not complete yet, this was just an image for illustrative purposes.

And the purpose in every single application is apparent - to open or close the lanes. That's is the sole function of those lights, don't see what's so hard about that. Whether you need to reverse flow or perform maintenance in the lane, those lights are there for that.

If the lanes actually are going to be reversible upon completion, than I can see the lack of median and the signs.  I'm not sure what their purposed would be on places like the Tappan Zee, however.  The lanes there can't be reversed because of the median; if they were, the temporary cones and barrier used would be present, rendering the dynamic signs unnecessary.  Same for a lane closure due to construction.

The Blue Water Bridge is 1.3 miles from the Michigan toll plaza to Canadian Customs. Traffic flows 60-80 km/h between them under free flow conditions and it feels fine.

I think I'll be the judge of whether it feels fine if/when I ever get around to clinching it.  I now the 25 mph limit on the Mid-Hudson and the 55 limit (apparently finally restored - it was 45 for years due to the construction, even on the side that was finished) on the Tappan Zee feel quite slow (painfully so, in the case of the Mid-Hudson).  There are some places where the speed limit is low enough that adhering to it is quite hard because I keep unintentionally going faster - it takes a LOT of self-control not to.  Looking at the street view, the Blue Water looks like it might be one of them (the Mid-Hudson definitely is), though I can't say for sure since I've never been there.

sfpr should be been an freeway

[cbeach40]

Yeah, I'm still wishing for the post-9/11 security state to go away and for that plan to come to fruition.  Doesn't hurt that I'd also like to see the War on Drugs go away, so that hangup has never struck me as in any way valid.  In any case, the only legitimate activity at national borders is to screen goods for prohibited items and things that need duties paid, and to screen out inadmissible people.  The law enforcement dragnet operation we've ended up with is not one of them.

Seems to me that if we set up a Schengen style system and deployed the CBP resources from Canada to Mexico, we'd both save money (reduced operating costs) and massively improve border security.  Might even improve crossing times down there, too - does the Mexican border have the same issue the Canadian border has where half the booths always seem to be closed?

To overly simplify it from a Canadian perspective, the conservative elements object to border erosion due to nationalism and worried about subsumption into the US. The liberal elements are concerned about the proliferation of firearms and the near constant mass shootings that seem to happen there, not to mention the aggressively anti-immigrant policies of the US. Both sides object to the massive police state apparatus, at least as its held by a foreign power.

Overall, trust of the USA to be responsible is incredibly low at this point in Canada. The pandemic is just proving that everyone is right to feel that way.

A freeway is, by definition, free of cross traffic. If pedestrians are crossing the facility then it is by definition not a freeway in that particular segment.
Also, that segment in the link not only has marked crosswalks but also does not have a median. By all definitions, not a freeway.

Hey look, New York has a design standards document for tolling facilities! Now, why would tolling facilities have their own design document instead of just using the existing and widespread freeway design? Oh right, because toll facilities are non-freeway segments within larger freeway corridors. Arguing that they are is lunacy.

Ah, you're being pedantic with respect to freeway definitions, I see.

What? This entire discussion was based on you bemoaning whether something is a freeway or not is in any way important. 

In the US, whether something meets modern AASHTO/FHWA standards is completely irrelevant to whether it's considered a freeway or not.  This is because we grandfathered in a lot of old toll roads into the interstates - if the interstate signage had to stop at every booth, there would be a LOT of gaps in the system!  It's only in the last 20 year that FHWA got pedantic about designating new interstates - and such is a major reason why the I-86 project in NY stalled.  I grew up with things like the Thousand Islands bridge (which, since you mentioned it later, I'll mention that the US side is four miles away from the border and that I-81 between there and the border looks like any other rural interstate in NY), Thruway toll barriers, and this part of I-490 built in the 1980s (which I'm sure you'd say isn't a freeway because it has a design speed less than 50 mph, oh noes!), so I'm probably a bit looser with definitions than you are.

Design speed is not relevant to whether or not something is a freeway, it's relevant to whether or not something is built to Interstate standards. Seriously, try reading before responding.

Outside of the area I grew up in, the northeast is riddled with stuff like this (which, by the way, has a 55 mph speed limit).  We don't have the luxury of declaring everything that doesn't meet 2020 400-series highway standards "not a freeway"!

First, 400-series standards are actually less strict than Interstate standards. Secondly, whether or not something is a freeway is irrelevant, unless you're someone with the intellectual flexibility to accept that a non-freeway high capacity road vs a freeway really doesn't make a lick of difference. And as such a network of one makes no sense unless it's actually needed.

In general, controlled access, no at-grades, at least one interchange is enough for us - even medians are optional, depending on the circumstances (though such optionality is mainly for super-2s and reversible lanes on bridges).

I consider customs booths to be equvalent to toll booths when evaluating whether something is a freeway.  It's when the "customs booths mean it's not a freeway and therefore nothing around it needs to be a freeway either" methodology comes into play that I get annoyed.

That's because you're cherry picking what you're mad about to fit your arbitrary definition. You're making up your own reality then being mad that those who actually work and study the field actually don't subscribe to your Dunning-Kruger inanity.

  Ever notice that at-grades like this tend to appear on the Canadian side and not the US side?  That's this methodology in play (for the record, why does that exist anyways?  Seems to me exit 1 provides all the needed connections).

Okay, let's do this. Failures to meet Interstate design standards all the way to the border (your criteria):

• I-5 - park in the median, crosswalk, at grade intersections, barrier curb, insufficient number of lanes, horizontal curves <50 mph DS, SCL do not meet 50 mph DS
• I-15 - at-grade intersections, traffic calming devices, insufficient shoulder/clear zone
• I-29 - at-grade intersections, on-street parking, geometry does not meet 70 mph DS or even 50 mph DS for that matter
• I-75 - undivided, insufficient number of lanes from plaza to border, geometry does not meet 50 mph DS, at-grade intersections
• I-69/94 - as above
• I-190 (PB) - at grade intersections, on-street parking, geometry does not meet 50 mph DS, undivided from plaza to border, barrier curb, insufficient shoulder, insufficient clear zone
• I-190 (LQ) - Undivided, traffic calming devices (both horizontal and vertical deflection, which is INSANE if it were a freeway), low speed curves, at grade intersections
• I-81 - For someone "very familiar" with this crossing you'd know that this may be the most egregious example of Interstate standards not being applied all the way to the border. Obviously the Thousand Islands Bridge is an undivided two lane facility. In addition to that you've got end treatments not being applied to roadside hazards, barrier curb, at grade intersections, and of course, sub-70 or 50 mph DS curves
• I-87 - at-grade intersections, traffic calming, curves of obvious insufficient design speed. But you already knew all of that if you're supposedly "very familiar" with this one too
• I -89 - curves of obviously insufficient design speed
• I-91 - at-grade intersection, barrier curb
• I-95 - at-grade intersection, on-street parking, SCL do not meet DS

I mean, that was just what's readily apparent to anyone at first glance here. Granted, Interstate standards are intended for through travel, as opposed to border approaches which are by definition low speed and irregular circumstances. To that point, it's more prudent to not build to Interstate standard.

I already talked about the Thousand Islands Bridge above... regarding at-grades, are you including stuff like this?
1. That strikes me as not too terribly different from a tandem lot or something like this - after all, it's not like just anyone is allowed to use it.  Driving on I-87, you don't even notice it.

First of all, you set the bar at:

It's worth noting that where interstates go to the border, full interstate standards are maintained all the way to the border itself - not just to US customs on the other side.  If any kind of additional access beyond what would also be used at a toll booth (such as for export control), it's done as a ramp.

Like, you set the bar there. Interstate standards all the way to the border. So yeah, a full at-grade intersection, regardless of access, is a HUGE violation of those standards. A maintenance turn-around is not a problem as traffic does not conflict. This is a full on transverse movement. I'm just awestruck that could in any way be construed as Interstate standard.

For someone who allegedly works for a DOT, you sure don't seem to know much about roads.

2. If the story my supervisor tells is accurate, that was installed during border post upgrades due to how CBSA designed the Canadian side over NYSDOT's objections.  It didn't sound like the NYSDOT people involved were very happy about that.  As far as we're concerned, an interstate doesn't stop being an interstate just because the last US exit has been passed.  We also have state touring routes on roads we don't maintain rather than have a ton of gaps in the system, so our philosophy is evidently the total opposite of Ontario's here.

Not sure what you're talking about with curves, especially I-87.  Are you referring to the thing CBP has done with all the construction barrier?  I'm not sure why that's there, and I really wish they would remove it.  Looks like they're trying to replicate the travesty they committed when they "upgraded" (read: downgraded) the booths on I-5.

(personal opinion)

First of all, the Spanish Flu pandemic might not be talked about much in your circles, but in others it is. And to claim that something that killed fifty million people is but a historical footnote is completely asinine.

I was in advanced level (AP equivalent) social studies in 10th grade and took AP US History (college level) in 11th.  I don't think the Spanish Flu got more than a paragraph or two, at that.  World War I got at least a chapter.  World War II and related topics got a whole section of the book.  Maybe they teach about it more in Canada, I don't know.  But it certainly isn't much of a part of the US history curriculum.

No, they don't teach it here. They don't teach a lot of things in either country, but that doesn't mean that it's not important or those who are actually in the field do study it.

I mean, they don't devote much time to highways and bridges, but here we are. 

So? None of those are needed. It would be a waste of money and resources, and in the case of Vancouver, detrimental to the urban area.

I was thinking more along the lines of BC 17 being a freeway (which - why isn't it?  This is relatively new, too!) than BC 99.  A big dig-style tunnel connecting the end of its freeway with TCH 1 would be nice , but I'm guessing it's not actually feasible.

Yeah, I've read it a long time ago, back before I got into highway planning and engineering as a career. Back then it was interesting, albeit a bit cringe with his nationalist bent. Re-reading it now it's pretty basic when it comes to the road stuff and tiresome with the rhetoric.

It's not perfect, I'll admit.  Looking over the introduction, especially the part about how nowhere else has anything like the interstate system seems to be part outdated (see: China) and part flat-out wrong (see: Western Europe).  Still, it left an impact on an impressionable young roadgeek who, at that point, had probably not been outside of upstate NY and nearby parts of Ontario (with annual vacations in the 1000 Islands, I probably crossed the border between the two dozens if not hundreds of times on the river without even knowing it when I was young).

Final pavement marking design is not complete yet, this was just an image for illustrative purposes.

And the purpose in every single application is apparent - to open or close the lanes. That's is the sole function of those lights, don't see what's so hard about that. Whether you need to reverse flow or perform maintenance in the lane, those lights are there for that.

If the lanes actually are going to be reversible upon completion, than I can see the lack of median and the signs.  I'm not sure what their purposed would be on places like the Tappan Zee, however.  The lanes there can't be reversed because of the median; if they were, the temporary cones and barrier used would be present, rendering the dynamic signs unnecessary.  Same for a lane closure due to construction.

The Blue Water Bridge is 1.3 miles from the Michigan toll plaza to Canadian Customs. Traffic flows 60-80 km/h between them under free flow conditions and it feels fine.

I think I'll be the judge of whether it feels fine if/when I ever get around to clinching it.  I now the 25 mph limit on the Mid-Hudson and the 55 limit (apparently finally restored - it was 45 for years due to the construction, even on the side that was finished) on the Tappan Zee feel quite slow (painfully so, in the case of the Mid-Hudson).  There are some places where the speed limit is low enough that adhering to it is quite hard because I keep unintentionally going faster - it takes a LOT of self-control not to.  Looking at the street view, the Blue Water looks like it might be one of them (the Mid-Hudson definitely is), though I can't say for sure since I've never been there.

Well, I used to drive it multiple times per month before COVID, and that's what traffic flows at when it's wide open.
I mean, it's designed for about 40 mph. It's pretty obvious that's where it'll flow.

[vdeane]

What? This entire discussion was based on you bemoaning whether something is a freeway or not is in any way important. 

And we obviously have different criteria for what does and does not count as a freeway.  I use the typical roadgeek definition.  You use your's.

Design speed is not relevant to whether or not something is a freeway, it's relevant to whether or not something is built to Interstate standards. Seriously, try reading before responding.

Sure, make one sentence take over the argument.  Maybe you should try looking at things from the perspective of a driver and roadgeek instead of an engineer.

That's because you're cherry picking what you're mad about to fit your arbitrary definition. You're making up your own reality then being mad that those who actually work and study the field actually don't subscribe to your Dunning-Kruger inanity.

Again, I'm measuring against what a roadgeek would consider to be part of the freeway system.  And if you don't think I'm smart, you should know that someone said my IQ was near genius level when I was young and I had a 4.0 through high school and college.  How do you measure up?

Like, you set the bar there. Interstate standards all the way to the border. So yeah, a full at-grade intersection, regardless of access, is a HUGE violation of those standards. A maintenance turn-around is not a problem as traffic does not conflict. This is a full on transverse movement. I'm just awestruck that could in any way be construed as Interstate standard.

For someone who allegedly works for a DOT, you sure don't seem to know much about roads.

Funny how you only respond to points when you think you can use them to be arrogantly dismissive.  If you set the bar at cross traffic, here's the MassPike.  I don't hear anyone arguing that it shouldn't be part of I-90.

As for not having the AASHTO Green Book memorized, why would I?  Not everyone who works at a DOT is a design engineer.  My degree is in computer science.  Getting my current job was my first exposure to transportation as anything other than a hobby.

No, they don't teach it here. They don't teach a lot of things in either country, but that doesn't mean that it's not important or those who are actually in the field do study it.

I mean, they don't devote much time to highways and bridges, but here we are. 

Well, we were discussing in the context of public opinion.  Public opinion is created by the public, not epidemiologists.  Last I checked, the public was composed of laypeople.

[Rothman]

For those of us that know vdeane IRL, cbeach40 is sure not making a good impression with his demeaning and misplaced assumptions about her.

[SEWIGuy]

And if you don't think I'm smart, you should know that someone said my IQ was near genius level when I was young and I had a 4.0 through high school and college.  How do you measure up?

[AsphaltPlanet]

For those of us that know vdeane IRL, cbeach40 is sure not making a good impression with his demeaning and misplaced assumptions about her.

cbeach40 works as a traffic engineer, and although vdeane works for a DOT, it's not as a traffic engineer, despite an attempt to become one.  It's pretty unfair that vdeane seams to think that she is on equal footing with an actual traffic engineer despite the fact she just likes this forum way, way too much.

[SEWIGuy]

For those of us that know vdeane IRL, cbeach40 is sure not making a good impression with his demeaning and misplaced assumptions about her.

cbeach40 works as a traffic engineer, and although vdeane works for a DOT, it's not as a traffic engineer, despite an attempt to become one.  It's pretty unfair that vdeane seams to think that she is on equal footing with an actual traffic engineer despite the fact she just likes this forum way, way too much.

Whoa, whoa, whoa....

I thought she was some sort of super genious.  Why wouldn't anyone hire her as a traffic engineer?

[AsphaltPlanet]

Lol.

I find that vdeane often starts arguments with very flawed basic assumptions.

This argument started because she indicated that she would have preferred the bridge have proper freeway to freeway geometry.  I understand her basic premise, but the argument that she is making is based on some fantastical idea that there is one day not going to be a customs house between Canada and the USA.  I visit the USA often, and agree the border is annoyance.  But, border stations are also not going anywhere, and the idea that the geometry of the bridge approach should ignore the reality of the existence of the border checkpoint is stupid.  Vdeane is making a stupid argument.  Having read her posts before, she often makes stupid arguments.  I'm not saying this to mean, but at some point a spade is just a spade.

I've met both Cbeach40 and Vdeane in real life, and while they are both amiable folks, but Cbeach40 is a traffic engineer and Vdeane is not.  Period.

[Rothman]

Whether vdeane's argument is valid or not, I still find cbeach40's arrogant and dismissive responses to be more about insulting vdeane than disagreeing with her argument on its merits.

[hbelkins]

For those of us that know vdeane IRL, cbeach40 is sure not making a good impression with his demeaning and misplaced assumptions about her.

cbeach40 works as a traffic engineer, and although vdeane works for a DOT, it's not as a traffic engineer, despite an attempt to become one.  It's pretty unfair that vdeane seams to think that she is on equal footing with an actual traffic engineer despite the fact she just likes this forum way, way too much.

I'm not an engineer, although I too work for a DOT and I deal with engineers on a daily basis. The problem with engineers in general is that while they may be correct technically and according to certain established criteria, very often they're misguided from a practical standpoint. For example, people want "Slow, Children Playing" or similar signs installed, but the standard engineering response is the signs can't be installed because they're not in the MUTCD. Ditto for the frequent requests we get to install those big mirrors at blind entrances that show approaching traffic. As a practical matter, why not install these?

From a non-engineer's perspective, it seems we too often avoid practical and easy solutions simply because they don't meet some engineering criterion that makes no sense to the traveling public.

I've told this story before. Several years ago, there was a push to install a traffic signal at an intersection on the AA Highway (KY 9) in northeastern Kentucky. There'd been several wrecks there, some fatal, when vehicles pulled across the road from a stop sign. Local residents and elected officials were pushing to have the signal installed, but the engineers at KYTC kept telling them the intersection didn't meet warrants for a signal. The KYTC secretary, a former state representative, finally stepped in and said, "I'm not an engineer, but I see the need for a traffic light here, so we're going to install one." This was an instance where practicality won out over engineering guidelines.

For those of us that know vdeane IRL, cbeach40 is sure not making a good impression with his demeaning and misplaced assumptions about her.

cbeach40 works as a traffic engineer, and although vdeane works for a DOT, it's not as a traffic engineer, despite an attempt to become one.  It's pretty unfair that vdeane seams to think that she is on equal footing with an actual traffic engineer despite the fact she just likes this forum way, way too much.

Whoa, whoa, whoa....

I thought she was some sort of super genious.  Why wouldn't anyone hire her as a traffic engineer?

Maybe because of the lack of an engineering degree and a PE license?

[Terry Shea]

I quit reading when the subject matter started getting lengthy, boring, personal, vindictive, arrogant and just downright stupid and childish.  I don't really care how smart someone thinks they are or how big their ego is.  Well actually I do...I tend to to dismiss whatever the blowhard is saying and take it with several grains of salt.  At any rate, can we save such discussions for the Mensa forum and get back to discussing Detroit Bridge Wars here?

[AsphaltPlanet]

I'm not an engineer, although I too work for a DOT and I deal with engineers on a daily basis. The problem with engineers in general is that while they may be correct technically and according to certain established criteria, very often they're misguided from a practical standpoint. For example, people want "Slow, Children Playing" or similar signs installed, but the standard engineering response is the signs can't be installed because they're not in the MUTCD. Ditto for the frequent requests we get to install those big mirrors at blind entrances that show approaching traffic. As a practical matter, why not install these?

Because government should do it's best, where possible, to offer standard decisions when it comes to spending the public's money.  That way they don't have the illusion of playing favourites.

From a non-engineer's perspective, it seems we too often avoid practical and easy solutions simply because they don't meet some engineering criterion that makes no sense to the traveling public.

I've told this story before. Several years ago, there was a push to install a traffic signal at an intersection on the AA Highway (KY 9) in northeastern Kentucky. There'd been several wrecks there, some fatal, when vehicles pulled across the road from a stop sign. Local residents and elected officials were pushing to have the signal installed, but the engineers at KYTC kept telling them the intersection didn't meet warrants for a signal. The KYTC secretary, a former state representative, finally stepped in and said, "I'm not an engineer, but I see the need for a traffic light here, so we're going to install one." This was an instance where practicality won out over engineering guidelines.

Sure, but the Kentucky department of Transportation didn't disband the traffic engineering department because of this singular instance right?

So, despite the fact that the elected official disagreed with the traffic engineering staff member on this one singular occasion, they didn't stop trusting the traffic engineering staff's judgement in general right?

Maybe because of the lack of an engineering degree and a PE license?

There seems to be lots of lower level traffic engineering jobs that don't require an engineering seal.  I can't speculate as to the reasons of why Vdeane wasn't offered a traffic engineering position anymore than you can, but in my experience with my government employer, the employer will try to move competent staff to the best position possible whenever possible.  Read into that what you like.

[AsphaltPlanet]

Whether vdeane's argument is valid or not, I still find cbeach40's arrogant and dismissive responses to be more about insulting vdeane than disagreeing with her argument on its merits.

Chris may be arrogant in his argumentative style -- he is.

But you aren't defending vdeane's argument either.

[SEWIGuy]

For those of us that know vdeane IRL, cbeach40 is sure not making a good impression with his demeaning and misplaced assumptions about her.

cbeach40 works as a traffic engineer, and although vdeane works for a DOT, it's not as a traffic engineer, despite an attempt to become one.  It's pretty unfair that vdeane seams to think that she is on equal footing with an actual traffic engineer despite the fact she just likes this forum way, way too much.

I'm not an engineer, although I too work for a DOT and I deal with engineers on a daily basis. The problem with engineers in general is that while they may be correct technically and according to certain established criteria, very often they're misguided from a practical standpoint. For example, people want "Slow, Children Playing" or similar signs installed, but the standard engineering response is the signs can't be installed because they're not in the MUTCD. Ditto for the frequent requests we get to install those big mirrors at blind entrances that show approaching traffic. As a practical matter, why not install these?

From a non-engineer's perspective, it seems we too often avoid practical and easy solutions simply because they don't meet some engineering criterion that makes no sense to the traveling public.

I've told this story before. Several years ago, there was a push to install a traffic signal at an intersection on the AA Highway (KY 9) in northeastern Kentucky. There'd been several wrecks there, some fatal, when vehicles pulled across the road from a stop sign. Local residents and elected officials were pushing to have the signal installed, but the engineers at KYTC kept telling them the intersection didn't meet warrants for a signal. The KYTC secretary, a former state representative, finally stepped in and said, "I'm not an engineer, but I see the need for a traffic light here, so we're going to install one." This was an instance where practicality won out over engineering guidelines.

For those of us that know vdeane IRL, cbeach40 is sure not making a good impression with his demeaning and misplaced assumptions about her.

cbeach40 works as a traffic engineer, and although vdeane works for a DOT, it's not as a traffic engineer, despite an attempt to become one.  It's pretty unfair that vdeane seams to think that she is on equal footing with an actual traffic engineer despite the fact she just likes this forum way, way too much.

Whoa, whoa, whoa....

I thought she was some sort of super genious.  Why wouldn't anyone hire her as a traffic engineer?

Maybe because of the lack of an engineering degree and a PE license?

Doesn't seem to be much of an obstacle for someone who has near a genius IQ and got a 4.0 throughout high school and college.  Of course, I am assuming she didn't go to school in Kentucky.

[renegade]

It's amazing how people are getting bent out of shape over a bridge that hasn't even been built yet ...

[ilpt4u]

It's amazing how people are getting bent out of shape over a bridge that hasn't even been built yet ...

Especially one that will give a much more direct and "freeway" -style link directly from I-75 and ON-401 - 2 pretty prominent routes on both sides of the border. Of course there will be Customs and Tolls, but compared to the tunnel and existing bridge, much less of a "Breezewood"  if you will

[qguy]

Wow... "Detroit Bridge Wars" wars. Who'da thunk it?

[vdeane]

Lol.

I find that vdeane often starts arguments with very flawed basic assumptions.

This argument started because she indicated that she would have preferred the bridge have proper freeway to freeway geometry.  I understand her basic premise, but the argument that she is making is based on some fantastical idea that there is one day not going to be a customs house between Canada and the USA.  I visit the USA often, and agree the border is annoyance.  But, border stations are also not going anywhere, and the idea that the geometry of the bridge approach should ignore the reality of the existence of the border checkpoint is stupid.  Vdeane is making a stupid argument.  Having read her posts before, she often makes stupid arguments.  I'm not saying this to mean, but at some point a spade is just a spade.

I've met both Cbeach40 and Vdeane in real life, and while they are both amiable folks, but Cbeach40 is a traffic engineer and Vdeane is not.  Period.

I never said "the whole argument is premised on it".  That was your claim.  It was one thing of many.  I would say the whole thing is mainly premised on the corridor vs. network approach.  I would say that being between the border posts is not a reason for using a lower level of facility regardless, especially as one only encounters customs upon entering a country - we don't have exit inspections on the US/Canada border.

Yes, I still pine for the 90s, and quite frankly don't understand why more people don't.  But it's hardly the only argument.  I view the freeway network the same way one would view any other network, be it a transit network, broadband network, etc.  Not as a collection of corridors that may or may not connect that happen to meet certain criteria.  That has always been the fundamental thrust of my argument, and I don't understand why people don't see that (or care).

cbeach40 works as a traffic engineer, and although vdeane works for a DOT, it's not as a traffic engineer, despite an attempt to become one.  It's pretty unfair that vdeane seams to think that she is on equal footing with an actual traffic engineer despite the fact she just likes this forum way, way too much.

Not really sure what you're talking about here.  I've never applied or taken a civil service test for any job in the Civil Engineer or Engineering Technician career lines - everything has been in the Transportation Analyst line (except for taking the Intermodal Transportation Specialist 2 exam; to date, they have yet to post such a position that I was actually interested in applying for).  I did consider civil engineering as a major for college back when I was in high school, but when visiting colleges realized that such would require a lot of non-transportation coursework that I wasn't really interested in, plus I wasn't sure if I wanted to sit in an office drawing up plans as a career.  At the time I was getting into computers and thought I might like to be an IT person, so I decided to major in computer science, which also left me more room for humanities electives (which I still maintain are the most interesting classes I took in high school or college).  In hindsight that may have been a mistake, but what's done is done.

The problem with engineers in general is that while they may be correct technically and according to certain established criteria, very often they're misguided from a practical standpoint.

Agreed.  Engineers are the type who will plan to remove a sidewalk from a bridge that has one even though the town's comprehensive plan calls for expanding the sidewalk network and putting in more development in the area, particularly calling out attention to the creek the bridge crosses, and which has a parking lot with trail access right next to the bridge.

Sure, but the Kentucky department of Transportation didn't disband the traffic engineering department because of this singular instance right?

So, despite the fact that the elected official disagreed with the traffic engineering staff member on this one singular occasion, they didn't stop trusting the traffic engineering staff's judgement in general right?

Wow.  That is quite a leap to make.  Nobody was saying that engineers are unimportant or untrustworthy - just that they are not the all-knowing, end-all be-all of transportation knowledge that they (and you and cbeach40) seem to think.

There seems to be lots of lower level traffic engineering jobs that don't require an engineering seal.  I can't speculate as to the reasons of why Vdeane wasn't offered a traffic engineering position anymore than you can, but in my experience with my government employer, the employer will try to move competent staff to the best position possible whenever possible.  Read into that what you like.

Again with this idea that I somehow tried to become a traffic engineer.  Of the positions I've actually applied for:
-Back in early 2014, when I was unemployed, I applied for two positions in Region 1: a Senior Capital Program Analyst Trainee, which is in large part Excel "database" analysis, and a Transportation Analyst position in Planning oriented around data processing and Planning review tasks.  I ended up getting the latter after the hiring manager was impressed with my computer background and (barely) convinced management to go that direction rather than a traditional Planner (arguing that computerization was the future and that the Planning stuff could be taught, especially given the level of planning done in a Region and my roadgeek background)
-A Senior Transportation Analyst (STA) position in Region 9 that included the GIS coordinator role.  Turns out the GIS part would only have been a small part of the role and I wasn't as interested in the rest of it (or moving)
-A STA position in Main Office that was IT-oriented but, as it turns out, was only ever intended as a transfer for someone in a different title who wanted to change it to something more vulnerable.  Never even got the interview, given that they only had one person in mind (who was already doing the job) in the first place.
-A STA in Region 2 where the posting was oriented around financial duties, but which the person who hired me convinced me to apply for because he was friends with the hiring manager for that position, who specifically wanted me after being impressed with my knowledge during the annual Highway Data Services conference.  Alas, he was overruled on that - a manager above him wanted to hire a friend of their's, so that's who was hired.  Said manager doesn't even have a transportation background - they're friends with the governor and are a political appointee.  Such is how government works in New York.
-A STA in Region 4 that was the regional rail coordinator position (which I already do part of assisting the person who hired me).  This one ended up going to the person who was under the old rail coordinator there and who was doing the work, so not too far out of the question.  Still, the person who hired me to my current TA position (I use that phrase because they since shuffled a few people around, including him, resulting to me being supervised by someone else; this happened a few months before this particular interview, in fact) says there's reason to suspect office politics were involved here, as well.

In any case, since I started as a grade 18, going six years at the same job is not unusual for someone in my position, especially as there are only two promotions in my career line before one leaves the civil service system for appointed management positions.  Not to mention that I'm picky; I want a job I take to be at least as good as what I have now, so I'm not applying for anything and everything just to get a promotion for the sake of having one like many people do (I know someone who did that and hated the new position so much that she was only there two weeks before she left for the position she had before).

Doesn't seem to be much of an obstacle for someone who has near a genius IQ and got a 4.0 throughout high school and college.  Of course, I am assuming she didn't go to school in Kentucky.

I did not come to this forum to be made fun of.  Now, people in my family have been telling me that I'm very smart since I was little, and I didn't have reason to question if that was exaggerated until late 2013, but still, I think I'm fairly intelligent, and don't appreciate you making fun of my because of me defending myself from cbeach40 accusing me of being stupid.  I never claimed to be coming at this thread from an engineering perspective, but from my perspective as a roadgeek and a driver.  In any case, this who affair has been good for seeing how people really feel about me (combined with a few other things), and maybe it's time I take a step back from the roadgeek community and re-evaluate.  It's clear I'm not as welcome as I thought I was.