AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Great Lakes and Ohio Valley => Topic started by: mightyace on June 16, 2009, 05:35:15 PM

Title: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on June 16, 2009, 05:35:15 PM
US Government approval of the privately-owned Ambassador Bridge was apparently revoked recently.

This project is apparently in competition with a proposed bridge further down the Detroit River.

See US Gov freezes permitting for new span of Ambassador Bridge Detroit-Windsor (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4211) for more information.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Stephane Dumas on June 16, 2009, 08:40:11 PM
I wonder what they'll do now with the new approach planned for the future Ambassador bridge?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on June 17, 2009, 12:30:01 AM
Here's an article (http://www.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=14056) explaining the many problems that the government, both national and local, are having with the bridge company. The root of the whole issue is that the bridge company acts like it's a part of the federal government.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on June 17, 2009, 07:59:01 PM
No big surprise.  Dictator Lucifer Obama wants the government to control everything and wants to squash free enterprise.  Now why would he allow private ownership of a bridge that would compete with his bigger government producing span?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on June 17, 2009, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2009, 08:22:57 PM
Deride it if you will, but that "bigger government producing span" will have one huge advantage:  it'll provide a direct freeway connection between I-75 and ON 401 that doesn't involve a 60 mile trip up to Port Huron.  That alone makes it a worthy pursuit...

One would think that a freeway connection on the Canadian side of the Ambassador could have been done long ago.  That being said, why would the US govt now be trying to pull the plug on the twinning of the Ambassador if their bridge and connections are so superior?  Why?  Because Obama and his stooges are control freaks who are doing everything in their power to destroy capitalism and impose communism on us.  Control the banks, control the auto industry, control healthcare, control transportation and control the border crossings.  I'd say that's a pretty good start.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on June 18, 2009, 12:46:57 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on June 17, 2009, 07:59:01 PM
No big surprise.  Dictator Lucifer Obama wants the government to control everything and wants to squash free enterprise.  Now why would he allow private ownership of a bridge that would compete with his bigger government producing span?

Actually, you should direct your blame on the bridge company. They are the ones who start construction on other people or municipalities properties without any consent. They started building on riverside park, which is still property of the city of Detroit. The downriver bridge is an alternative plan, and it's only a plan. That's in case the bridge company is resistant to all efforts at a compromise. It's like the whole deal with Cobo hall. They'll try to settle the bridge dispute before letting the government build a bridge.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on June 18, 2009, 10:28:55 AM
Quote from: Hellfighter06 on June 18, 2009, 12:46:57 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on June 17, 2009, 07:59:01 PM
No big surprise.  Dictator Lucifer Obama wants the government to control everything and wants to squash free enterprise.  Now why would he allow private ownership of a bridge that would compete with his bigger government producing span?

Actually, you should direct your blame on the bridge company. They are the ones who start construction on other people or municipalities properties without any consent. They started building on riverside park, which is still property of the city of Detroit. The downriver bridge is an alternative plan, and it's only a plan. That's in case the bridge company is resistant to all efforts at a compromise. It's like the whole deal with Cobo hall. They'll try to settle the bridge dispute before letting the government build a bridge.
After reading the article it looks like all parties are to blame and no one seems to know who is running the show.  Typical.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on June 18, 2009, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on June 18, 2009, 10:28:55 AM
Quote from: Hellfighter06 on June 18, 2009, 12:46:57 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on June 17, 2009, 07:59:01 PM
No big surprise.  Dictator Lucifer Obama wants the government to control everything and wants to squash free enterprise.  Now why would he allow private ownership of a bridge that would compete with his bigger government producing span?

Actually, you should direct your blame on the bridge company. They are the ones who start construction on other people or municipalities properties without any consent. They started building on riverside park, which is still property of the city of Detroit. The downriver bridge is an alternative plan, and it's only a plan. That's in case the bridge company is resistant to all efforts at a compromise. It's like the whole deal with Cobo hall. They'll try to settle the bridge dispute before letting the government build a bridge.
After reading the article it looks like all parties are to blame and no one seems to know who is running the show.  Typical.

True, but the bridge company instigated the whole problem.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on June 18, 2009, 11:34:26 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on June 18, 2009, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on June 18, 2009, 10:28:55 AM
Quote from: Hellfighter06 on June 18, 2009, 12:46:57 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on June 17, 2009, 07:59:01 PM
No big surprise.  Dictator Lucifer Obama wants the government to control everything and wants to squash free enterprise.  Now why would he allow private ownership of a bridge that would compete with his bigger government producing span?

Actually, you should direct your blame on the bridge company. They are the ones who start construction on other people or municipalities properties without any consent. They started building on riverside park, which is still property of the city of Detroit. The downriver bridge is an alternative plan, and it's only a plan. That's in case the bridge company is resistant to all efforts at a compromise. It's like the whole deal with Cobo hall. They'll try to settle the bridge dispute before letting the government build a bridge.
After reading the article it looks like all parties are to blame and no one seems to know who is running the show.  Typical.

True, but the bridge company instigated the whole problem.
Possibly, if you can believe the press anyway.  I'm not sure about the credibility of either source.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on June 19, 2009, 06:52:27 PM
I've gotta wonder, given the terrible economic situation both countries are facing and the fact that you now need a passport to travel to Canada, why any bridge is even being considered now since obviously far fewer people will be traveling back and forth between the 2 countries.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on June 19, 2009, 06:55:24 PM
The truck traffic will greatly benefit from another bridge. That was mostly the reason the whole time.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 19, 2009, 11:22:58 PM
indeed.  all major highway projects are primarily designed with truck traffic in mind.  the fact that the occasional passenger vehicle uses the road too is completely incidental to its purpose.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on June 20, 2009, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 19, 2009, 11:22:58 PM
indeed.  all major highway projects are primarily designed with truck traffic in mind.  the fact that the occasional passenger vehicle uses the road too is completely incidental to its purpose.
Well I have to disagree with this statement since many highways ban or restrict truck useage, have separate truck routes and/or lower speed limits for trucks.  Some routes such as I-94 between Chicago and Detroit were obviously designed to carry a lot of truck traffic while on others you'd be hard pressed to ever see a truck.  But the point is, the bad economy is going to reduce (and no doubt has already reduced) truck traffic too, so the timing of this seems a bit odd.
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2009, 09:05:08 AM
On the flip side of that, the economy isn't going to stay bad forever.  Depending on who you ask or who you listen to, we might be over the hump already (though I personally don't think so yet).

The economy will be terrible as long as Obama and his already proven failed strategies are in place.  And I'm pretty certain he has designs on setting himself up as dictator for life.  He obviously can't do so if the economy is good, but if he causes the economy to fail in every aspect and uses George Bush as his scapegoat (which he has been doing) people will be begging for his socialistic/communist teachings because we would then have nothing to lose.  See FDR.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on June 20, 2009, 11:32:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on June 20, 2009, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 19, 2009, 11:22:58 PM
On the flip side of that, the economy isn't going to stay bad forever.  Depending on who you ask or who you listen to, we might be over the hump already (though I personally don't think so yet).

The economy will be terrible as long as Obama and his already proven failed strategies are in place.  And I'm pretty certain he has designs on setting himself up as dictator for life.  He obviously can't do so if the economy is good, but if he causes the economy to fail in every aspect and uses George Bush as his scapegoat (which he has been doing) people will be begging for his socialistic/communist teachings because we would then have nothing to lose.  See FDR.

Umm, thanks for derailing this topic. Let's not be a troll here and get back on topic of Bridge wars.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Revive 755 on June 20, 2009, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2009, 09:05:08 AM
On the flip side of that, the economy isn't going to stay bad forever.  Depending on who you ask or who you listen to, we might be over the hump already (though I personally don't think so yet).

That and right now construction costs seem to be down right now.

Regarding the bridge war, I say go ahead and build both; there will probably be need for a new bridge a few years after whichever bridge is built.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 20, 2009, 12:37:47 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on June 20, 2009, 11:22:33 AMWell I have to disagree with this statement since many highways ban or restrict truck useage, have separate truck routes and/or lower speed limits for trucks.  Some routes such as I-94 between Chicago and Detroit were obviously designed to carry a lot of truck traffic while on others you'd be hard pressed to ever see a truck.  But the point is, the bad economy is going to reduce (and no doubt has already reduced) truck traffic too, so the timing of this seems a bit odd.

highways with no trucks - the NY Parkway system is an enigma to me.  A lot of other truck-free roads are simply so old that they cannot support modern truck traffic.  CA-110 (Pasadena Fwy) is truck-free simply because it was opened in 1940 and hasn't been able to meet the demands of modern traffic.

separate truck routes - because trucks and cars merge very differently, so having a truck merge and then a car merge (see, for example, 5/405 junction or 5/99 in California) increases safety. 

lower speed limits - trucks can physically not go as fast, safely, as cars.  This is a basic fact of physics and is independent of how well the road is built.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on June 21, 2009, 12:31:43 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 20, 2009, 12:37:47 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on June 20, 2009, 11:22:33 AMWell I have to disagree with this statement since many highways ban or restrict truck useage, have separate truck routes and/or lower speed limits for trucks.  Some routes such as I-94 between Chicago and Detroit were obviously designed to carry a lot of truck traffic while on others you'd be hard pressed to ever see a truck.  But the point is, the bad economy is going to reduce (and no doubt has already reduced) truck traffic too, so the timing of this seems a bit odd.

highways with no trucks - the NY Parkway system is an enigma to me.  A lot of other truck-free roads are simply so old that they cannot support modern truck traffic.  CA-110 (Pasadena Fwy) is truck-free simply because it was opened in 1940 and hasn't been able to meet the demands of modern traffic.

separate truck routes - because trucks and cars merge very differently, so having a truck merge and then a car merge (see, for example, 5/405 junction or 5/99 in California) increases safety. 

lower speed limits - trucks can physically not go as fast, safely, as cars.  This is a basic fact of physics and is independent of how well the road is built.
And everything you just posted seems to prove my point.    :)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 21, 2009, 12:44:47 AM
I think what you are arguing is not "highways are more difficult for trucks", but rather "reality as a whole is more difficult for trucks".

modern freeways are laid out to give the trucks the best chance they can get, given an operating budget ... and breaking the laws of physics is very, very expensive.  To build a road down a mountain grade that trucks can handle at 40mph may be a significant engineering accomplishment.  To sign it for 65mph for cars is a small favor at the cost of a few rectangular pieces of aluminum and sheeting!
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Sykotyk on June 21, 2009, 01:15:54 AM
But, any 'new' project is built with trucks in mind. The only oddball I can surmise is the Legacy Parkway in Utah, which is truck-restricted. Today, almost any major road project has trucks in mind. And it's usually to get them off the surface streets in towns (i.e., bypasses, limited access routes, expressways).

As for the New York Parkways, most of those roads aren't suitable for trucks (i.e., low clearances). Unless you rebuilt every bridge to be 13'6 or higher, it can't/won't be a truck route. Plus, New York has a very workable setup: Expressways are truck friendly, Parkways are not (and, essentially, every expressway in NY is an interstate, while the parkways are mostly state routes, etc).

Sykotyk
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on June 21, 2009, 09:05:57 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 21, 2009, 12:44:47 AM
I think what you are arguing is not "highways are more difficult for trucks", but rather "reality as a whole is more difficult for trucks".

No.  I'm arguing against your original statement which was:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 19, 2009, 11:22:58 PM
indeed.  all major highway projects are primarily designed with truck traffic in mind.  the fact that the occasional passenger vehicle uses the road too is completely incidental to its purpose.
Obviously that's not the case.  I don't know of any highway that has only an "occasional passenger vehicle" on it.  Car traffic greatly outnumbers truck traffic even on the heaviest "truck routes" and, as already mentioned, many routes don't allow or restrict the use of truck traffic.  If routes were designed specifically or primarily for trucks and car traffic was incidental we wouldn't see 2 sets of speed limits.  There would be one speed limit and that would be the lower truck speed limit, since it wouldn't be the designers  intention for car traffic to get to where they are going so quickly. 

So I would contend that most routes are designed with car and truck traffic in mind while some routes are designed for car traffic only since some routes ban or restrict truck traffic.  Conversely I don't know of any route designated as a truck route where car traffic is not allowed.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Chris on June 21, 2009, 09:11:23 AM
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 21, 2009, 01:15:54 AM
But, any 'new' project is built with trucks in mind. The only oddball I can surmise is the Legacy Parkway in Utah, which is truck-restricted. Today, almost any major road project has trucks in mind.

I have read that trucks are allowed to use the Legacy Parkway in case of road closures on I-15.

QuotePlus, New York has a very workable setup: Expressways are truck friendly, Parkways are not (and, essentially, every expressway in NY is an interstate, while the parkways are mostly state routes, etc).

The downside is that the few expressways that do allow trucks, are loaded with them...
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on June 21, 2009, 10:38:55 AM
I don't know about the NYC parkways, but the ones upstate wouldn't be able to handle trucks even if you did reconstruct the bridges as they are just a layer or two of pavement on dirt with poor/nonexistant base.

However, the Lake Ontario State Parkway does allow commerical vehicles on the section in Orleans county (constructed about 40 years after the rest of the parkway) and was reconstructed east of Latta road so that it can handle trucks were the DOT to actually allow them on it.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on June 23, 2009, 04:26:58 PM
Looks like MDOT is retaliating by using a ramp as storage for dirt (http://freep.com/article/20090623/COL12/90623037/Detroit+bridge+company++State+dumped+dirt+on+ramp) to cut off modifications the bridge company made without MDOT's permission.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on June 24, 2009, 06:12:32 PM
I'm really not understanding this at all.  There must have been plans submitted and it must have been known precisely where the bridge was to be built.  It shouldn't be any surprise that a bridge being built to twin/replace another bridge is going to be built next to the existing bridge!  That being stated, it seems that a substantial amount of work has been done on what is now "disputed territory".  Why did the affected parties wait so long to even attempt to do anything and/or make it known that work was being done on land the builder supposedly doesn't own or have rights to?  I smell a rat, and the rat is usually a governmental entity.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on June 25, 2009, 01:21:17 PM
The bridge company unilaterally made changes to the design that made it not comply for federal funding.  Additionally, the government wants the new bridge downriver instead of a second span of the Ambassador bridge.

Personally I think the proposed downriver bridge is better as it would provide a direct connection between I-75 and ON 401.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on June 25, 2009, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 25, 2009, 01:21:17 PM
The bridge company unilaterally made changes to the design that made it not comply for federal funding.  Additionally, the government wants the new bridge downriver instead of a second span of the Ambassador bridge.

Personally I think the proposed downriver bridge is better as it would provide a direct connection between I-75 and ON 401.

You really want people to come in from Canada and the first thing they smell is Delray?  :crazy:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on June 26, 2009, 02:09:32 PM
Uh oh, here come the lawyers...

Michigan DOT sues Ambassador Bridge company charging breach of contract (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4228)

Ambassador Bridge responds to Michigan DOT law suit alleging breach of contract (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4229)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on June 27, 2009, 02:00:46 AM
It's official, I-75 will open on July 2nd (http://detnews.com/article/20090626/METRO05/906260444/1414/METRO05/I-75-to-open-for-traffic-next-week-at-Gateway-Project).
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawr apples on July 30, 2009, 03:45:19 AM
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/20217216/detail.html (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/20217216/detail.html)


driver confusion leads them into Canada
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on July 30, 2009, 08:25:37 AM
"Some of these people that accidentally go to Canada, if they are a U.S. citizen and they are worried about getting back, they shouldn't be because a U.S. citizen cannot be denied re-entry into the United States," Smith said.

So why the need for a passport at all now?  Wait, I know!  So the government can steal more of our money!
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on July 30, 2009, 11:53:39 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on July 30, 2009, 08:25:37 AM
"Some of these people that accidentally go to Canada, if they are a U.S. citizen and they are worried about getting back, they shouldn't be because a U.S. citizen cannot be denied re-entry into the United States," Smith said.

So why the need for a passport at all now?  Wait, I know!  So the government can steal more of our money!

Why have a passport?  Well, as it says later on in the article, they can delay you, possibly hours, while the border patrol verifies your identity.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawr apples on July 30, 2009, 03:24:11 PM
they can take all day for all I care, if I had known that I cannot be denied reentry I wouldve gone to BC last month
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on July 30, 2009, 09:19:37 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 30, 2009, 11:53:39 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on July 30, 2009, 08:25:37 AM
"Some of these people that accidentally go to Canada, if they are a U.S. citizen and they are worried about getting back, they shouldn't be because a U.S. citizen cannot be denied re-entry into the United States," Smith said.

So why the need for a passport at all now?  Wait, I know!  So the government can steal more of our money!

Why have a passport?  Well, as it says later on in the article, they can delay you, possibly hours, while the border patrol verifies your identity.
They can do that with or without a passport and with or without passport laws.  So what happens if I visit Canada w/o a passport.  I'm assuming they don't check on the Canadian side and they can't deny me re-entry, so what happens?  Is there a fine involved?  If so I'll bet the fine is less than half of what it would cost to buy a passport.  That would be a typical governmental program.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2009, 09:24:43 PM
the fact is, passports cost money.  $130 isn't that outrageous for what Uncle Sam does to prepare one for you.  Now would you rather they be free, and instead subsidized by general taxation, i.e. from the money of people who don't even want one
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on January 15, 2010, 08:07:48 AM
So now Maroun wants to offer his "toll credits" as part of MDOT's local match for federal money (http://www.freep.com/article/20100115/BUSINESS04/1150343/1202). It'll be interesting to see just how this plays into their squabble if Maroun is true to his word, of which MDOT is rightly highly skeptical.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Sykotyk on January 19, 2010, 04:01:26 PM
A friend and I went to Canada from Detroit (across the Amabassador) last fall. No passports. Just our licenses. Canada didn't care. Customs told us "We don't care, you're license is good enough for us. It's getting back into the states that could be trouble." Coming back later that night, we got through, pulled in, had our car inspected, sat in a waiting room for 20 minutes before being told we're free to leave. Maybe 45min tops from customs booth until we got to leave the Windsor Tunnel holding area.

I did get my passport last fall, as I do plan on going fly abroad at some time in the near future.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Alps on January 19, 2010, 06:58:05 PM
Latest news in the bridge wars:  Canada is ready to go for a new crossing.  http://www.dcnonl.com/article/id37126
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on January 27, 2010, 03:52:50 PM
MDOT is asking private firms to submit proposals (http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9620-230596--,00.html) for possibly being a partner in the Detroit River International Crossing project. I'll be interested to see just who would be willing to join on to this a project. Frankly, there's no way MDOT can shoulder its portion of the costs alone given its current fiscal state.

UPDATE, 2/1: A Freep article today (http://www.freep.com/article/20100201/BUSINESS06/2010341/1318/Moroun-ties-up-courts-to-stop-rival) makes note of Maroun's use of lawsuits on both sides of the border in order to stop DRIC. Maybe I'm being totally naïve, but wouldn't it make more sense for Matty to become a partner? Seems to me Maroun's company seems to benefit much more if they can get a cut of a new crossing rather than get nothing if it ultimately comes to be given his staunch opposition.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on February 01, 2010, 10:33:40 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on January 27, 2010, 03:52:50 PM
Maybe I'm being totally naïve, but wouldn't it make more sense for Matty to become a partner? Seems to me Maroun's company seems to benefit much more if they can get a cut of a new crossing rather than get nothing if it ultimately comes to be given his staunch opposition.

Given what's been said, do you think any of the gov't entities involved would let him in?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: froggie on February 02, 2010, 07:53:05 AM
Doubtful.  Maroun's dug his own hole....now he'll have to stew in it.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on February 08, 2010, 07:43:28 PM
Moroun loses another round in court...

Michigan court orders Ambassador Bridge to follow Gateway contract (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4584)

Quotehe Ambassador Bridge company suffered defeat today in a court case brought by Michigan DOT for breach of contract. Judge Prentis Edwards of Wayne County Circuit Court in a 15-page ruling found the Bridge company to be in violation of its contract commitments by failing to build its part of the Gateway Project (upgraded links to I-75 and I-96) as agreed in 2004.

The Judge ordered Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC) owner of the Ambassador bridge to:

1. remove structures built in the path of an agreed access road and to complete its construction in accord with the plans

2. submit a timetable to the court and Michigan DOT for complying with the contract within 21 days

3. pay the expenses of an independent project manager to oversee implementation of the contract
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on February 09, 2010, 07:37:22 PM
Canada looked to buy the Ambassador Bridge last year (http://www.freep.com/article/20100209/NEWS05/100209047/1318/Canada-explored-buying-Ambassador-Bridge-but-talks-stalled-sources-say), but talks have led nowhere. Obviously the stalled talks should be of no surprise to anyone.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on February 11, 2010, 11:18:02 AM
Brian Dickerson has a column in today's Freep (http://www.freep.com/article/20100211/COL04/2110557/) and makes a point to which I alluded earlier in this thread–Maroun would be better off dropping his dispute with MDOT and acting as a partner. It was also interesting to see that Maroun wanted a piece in the Canadian side of the Blue Water in addition to $3 billion and permission to build another bridge near Buffalo.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on February 11, 2010, 06:10:24 PM
IMHO The best all around would be for Maroun and the Canadian Government can come to an agreement for the latter to buy the Ambassdor Bridge and get him out of the picture.

However, given this:
QuoteReports are that previously Moroun has said he'd sell for $3b. The Canadian government has in the past valued the bridge at around half that - $1.5b.
from Canadian Gov moves to buy Ambassador Bridge from Moroun (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4588)

Plus other actions by Mr. Moroun, it doesn't look like he'll be going away anytime soon unless he assumes room temperature.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on February 12, 2010, 10:53:45 AM
Agreed.  Either the Canadian government should take over the Bridge and the Tunnel, or a joint MTO-MDOT authority should govern them (sort of like the authority that runs the bridges between NY and NJ in the NYC area).
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Scott5114 on February 13, 2010, 09:39:54 PM
You call this a bridge war? It's not a bridge war until the national guard is called out on both sides, martial law declared, and the governor makes a personal appearance, revolver in hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Bridge_War).
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on March 02, 2010, 07:49:49 PM
Now the Coast Guard has blocked Maroun's plan (http://www.freep.com/article/20100302/NEWS05/100302049/1320/Coast-Guard-blocks-Morouns-plan-for-2nd-Ambassador-Bridge-span), revealing it will not consider his application as long as Maroun remains in dispute with the city of Detroit over land rights near the bridge site.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on March 03, 2010, 03:20:01 PM
What are the chances Mouron will take this fight with MDOT all the way to top?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: J N Winkler on March 03, 2010, 04:21:25 PM
Can we just blow him up?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on March 11, 2010, 04:30:08 AM
Michigan DOT hopes for P3 law this year to allow new Detroit River toll bridge to Canada (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4648)

On the plus side, they're moving beyond Moroun, but in going with a P3, they need to make sure that they don't replace Moroun with someone else like him on the P3 project!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on March 18, 2010, 04:00:37 AM
Ambassador Bridge loses appeal against demo order (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4655)

Interesting Side Note:
QuoteIt is the largest US-Canada crossing in terms of truck traffic
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on March 27, 2010, 02:28:26 AM
When all else fails, bring in the lawyers.  :pan:

Ambassador Bridge company sues Canada, FHWA, Mendez, LaHood, Coast Guard, Allen, Napolitano, US of A (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4665)

More fun and games:
Ambassador Bridge owners DIBC extend complaint to NAFTA issues (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4668)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on April 16, 2010, 04:06:15 PM
Granholm wants the new bridge plans approved by June 1 (http://freep.com/article/20100416/BUSINESS06/100416032/1319/Granholm-pushes-deadline-for-new-bridge)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on April 19, 2010, 05:41:08 AM
Detroit bridge dispute sees rival PR efforts - lots of sound & fury about ifs, buts, & maybes (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4706)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Premier on April 20, 2010, 06:32:57 PM
This is a shame. I sure hope that all sides get their acts together and come to an agreement over the bridge. Playing politics over a bridge is very unacceptable and it has to stop, I don't care if it is a breach of contract or whatever. The last thing we need is a story about another bridge collapse because of this.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on April 20, 2010, 06:40:07 PM
^^^

Agreed.

IMHO, from what I've read, it looks like that the cross-border truck traffic could support either the second Ambassador Bridge span or the DRIC bridge, but not both in the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, I don't see the government entities and Mr. Moroun seeing eye to eye anytime soon.

The best hope for a solution would seem to be having Moroun out of the picture either by his retiring or expiring.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on April 23, 2010, 02:42:33 PM
Judge may hold Bridge President contempt in court (http://freep.com/article/20100423/NEWS01/100423056/1319/Judge-warns-bridge-firms-president-of-contempt)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Scott5114 on April 23, 2010, 06:45:23 PM
So when's Granholm going to show up brandishing a firearm?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Premier on April 23, 2010, 07:18:04 PM
Trying to get the bridge completed in one year is an understatement of the week, especially due to the fact that I-75 near I-96 was at one point closed to build the ramp to the new bridge.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on April 29, 2010, 11:01:58 AM
Canada wants to pay Michigan's share of $550 million (http://www.freep.com/article/20100429/NEWS15/100429026/1318/Canada-puts-550-million-on-table-for-new-bridge&h=f70d5&r5bb5e81f&refid=17).

Hmm, looks like Canada really wants to get this done. It would certainly give one of their citizens a boost.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on April 29, 2010, 02:36:56 PM
I say go ahead! Bypass the Moron!
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on April 29, 2010, 07:29:03 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on April 29, 2010, 02:36:56 PM
I say go ahead! Bypass the Moron!

I agree. 

From the article:
QuoteStamper (of Detroit International Bridge Company) said the new bridge is unnecessary because traffic between the two countries would be dropping, and said it would siphon off 75% of the Ambassador Bridge traffic.

Besides the fact the Moroun has been a royal pain in the ... to everyone, it is easier (read cheaper) to make an all freeway connection to a new bridge than the Ambassador on the Canadian side.

This one puzzles me:
QuoteRep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint, a leading proponent of the DRIC said a second bridge span is needed as a matter of national security as much as commerce.

"In this post-9/11 world, you must have a publicly held bridge,"  Gonzales said.

Why must it be publicly held?  The article doesn't say why the Honorable Mr. Gonzales thinks that.

I might agree on security on the issue of redundancy and having multiple crossings. 

But, being an idiot and a jerk is not, like Moroun, in and of itself a threat to security nor is private ownership.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on April 30, 2010, 03:35:39 PM
What a surprise, Moron sues Canada over the bridge offer (http://freep.com/article/20100430/BUSINESS06/100430026/1320/Moroun-to-sue-over-Canadas-offer)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Premier on April 30, 2010, 06:23:20 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on April 30, 2010, 03:35:39 PM
What a surprise, Moron sues Canada over the bridge offer (http://freep.com/article/20100430/BUSINESS06/100430026/1320/Moroun-to-sue-over-Canadas-offer)

Now I'm unimpressed. :pan:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on April 30, 2010, 11:25:31 PM
Quote from: The Premier on April 23, 2010, 07:18:04 PM
Trying to get the bridge completed in one year is an understatement of the week, especially due to the fact that I-75 near I-96 was at one point closed to build the ramp to the new bridge.
They're still going to use the ramp...it's just going to be a very long ramp to the downriver crossing! :)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: joseph1723 on April 30, 2010, 11:53:40 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on April 30, 2010, 03:35:39 PM
What a surprise, Moron sues Canada over the bridge offer (http://freep.com/article/20100430/BUSINESS06/100430026/1320/Moroun-to-sue-over-Canadas-offer)

Yeah I guess that's typical for him... I like your "conveniently" placed typo  :-D
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Stephane Dumas on May 01, 2010, 09:38:12 AM
Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard slams the 2nd bridge http://www.freep.com/comments/article/20100430/NEWS15/100430030/Bouchard-slams-2nd-bridge-plan
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on May 01, 2010, 03:09:22 PM
I have the perfect solution: let Mouron build the second bridge; force him to, in fact.  Also build the DRIC.  Having Mouron spend money and lose traffic should be enough punishment for his arrogance.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Premier on May 01, 2010, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: deanej on May 01, 2010, 03:09:22 PM
I have the perfect solution: let Mouron build the second bridge; force him to, in fact.  Also build the DRIC.  Having Mouron spend money and lose traffic should be enough punishment for his arrogance.

I don't see that happening. Especially if he is forced by the Supreme Court to demolish the recently constructed bridge.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 01, 2010, 07:34:16 PM
Quote from: The Premier on May 01, 2010, 07:33:10 PM
I don't see that happening. Especially if he is forced by the Supreme Court to demolish the recently constructed bridge.

what kind of government idiots will order the destruction of a perfectly serviceable bridge?  talk about a waste of money!
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on May 01, 2010, 09:09:48 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 01, 2010, 07:34:16 PM
what kind of government idiots will order the destruction of a perfectly serviceable bridge?  talk about a waste of money!

Right now it's merely an approach to a twin span to the Ambassador that the bridge company wants to build. The whole point of this dispute is determining whether building this approach was legal. Given Maroun's record, it's highly likely that it wasn't.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on May 02, 2010, 12:07:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2010, 06:45:23 PM
So when's Granholm going to show up brandishing a firearm?
Not her style.  She'll probably make another trip to China, recruit 5 Chinese men to build the bridge and then proclaim "I've solved our unemployment problem!"
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: haljackey on May 22, 2010, 02:03:23 AM
So much for progress.

The Canadian side is pretty much done. The Windsor-Essex Parkway has been finalized which will connect the new crossing to the 401. All that's left is to appraise the homes in the parkway's way so the thing can actually get built.

But there's no rush in building the parkway if the bridge and boarder plazas take longer to construct. This is the 21st century for crying out loud. I know there's a contract and it's a capitalist market, but don't choke international trade between two friendly countries that want to do loads of business with eachother in this economic climate.

Just "Get'er done".
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Stephane Dumas on May 22, 2010, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: rawmustard on May 01, 2010, 09:09:48 PM
Right now it's merely an approach to a twin span to the Ambassador that the bridge company wants to build. The whole point of this dispute is determining whether building this approach was legal. Given Maroun's record, it's highly likely that it wasn't.

Maybe they could find a way to recycle that approach, it'll be perfect for a stunt car chase a la Blues Brothers ;)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Scott5114 on May 25, 2010, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on May 02, 2010, 12:07:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2010, 06:45:23 PM
So when's Granholm going to show up brandishing a firearm?
Not her style.  She'll probably make another trip to China, recruit 5 Chinese men to build the bridge and then proclaim "I've solved our unemployment problem!"

See, when this exact thing happened on the Oklahoma/Texas border in 1931, Oklahoma Gov. William H. "Alfalfa Bill" Murray showed up at the scene with a revolver, the Oklahoma Department of Highways, and the National Guard behind him, bound and determined to get that damned new bridge open.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on May 25, 2010, 06:17:10 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2010, 03:33:20 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on May 02, 2010, 12:07:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2010, 06:45:23 PM
So when's Granholm going to show up brandishing a firearm?
Not her style.  She'll probably make another trip to China, recruit 5 Chinese men to build the bridge and then proclaim "I've solved our unemployment problem!"

See, when this exact thing happened on the Oklahoma/Texas border in 1931, Oklahoma Gov. William H. "Alfalfa Bill" Murray showed up at the scene with a revolver, the Oklahoma Department of Highways, and the National Guard behind him, bound and determined to get that damned new bridge open.
Governor Bill Murray?  That's a scary thought. :)  Not as scary as Gov. Granholm though I guess.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: J N Winkler on May 26, 2010, 01:33:17 AM
What were those "three C's" again?  Now that was scary.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on May 27, 2010, 11:27:22 AM
The Michigan House barely passed a bill which would allow Canada to pay for our part of the DRIC (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100527/NEWS06/5270369/1322/New-U.S.-Canada-bridge-barely-clears-House&template=fullarticle). It had no Republican support whatsoever. Now the bill goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it will very likely undergo several changes before going back to the House.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on May 27, 2010, 05:44:31 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on May 27, 2010, 11:27:22 AM
The Michigan House barely passed a bill which would allow Canada to pay for our part of the DRIC (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100527/NEWS06/5270369/1322/New-U.S.-Canada-bridge-barely-clears-House&template=fullarticle). It had no Republican support whatsoever. Now the bill goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it will very likely undergo several changes before going back to the House.
I'm surprised China hasn't tried to build it.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on May 28, 2010, 01:07:53 PM
Mouron's got more setbacks from the Michigan Supreme Court.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100528/METRO01/5280408/Ambassador-Bridge-company-gets-another-court-setback
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Hellfighter on May 28, 2010, 01:11:59 PM
Also, the ramp from the bridge to South I-75 will be opened today (http://www.freep.com/article/20100528/NEWS05/100528015/1320/I-75-ramp-near-Ambassador-Bridge-to-reopen-)!
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Premier on May 28, 2010, 06:50:06 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on May 28, 2010, 01:11:59 PM
Also, the ramp from the bridge to South I-75 will be opened today (http://www.freep.com/article/20100528/NEWS05/100528015/1320/I-75-ramp-near-Ambassador-Bridge-to-reopen-)!

Too bad the rest of the ramps aren't.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: haljackey on June 02, 2010, 04:18:28 PM
Here's something you might find interesting:




Windsor's Chris Vander Doelen: Moroun musings


By Chris Vander Doelen May 18, 2010

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/Windsor+Chris+Vander+Doelen+Moroun+musings/3040888/story.html#ixzz0pjFIfqAn

Windsor Star columnist Chris Vander Doelen.

Did you know that Canada refuses to fix up Highway 401 so traffic can cross the international border into Detroit easier?

It was news to me, too. I've been commuting daily through the many construction projects on our local section of the Trans-Canada Highway for years.

It's going to be a fabulous, world-class highway when it's finished. As a taxpayer and a driver, I couldn't be more pleased with the $500 million the province of Ontario and the federal government have spent rebuilding the 401 from Tilbury to Windsor in preparation for the new crossing over the Detroit River.

But all of that work is invisible to the Moroun family of Detroit, the people who own the Ambassador Bridge. They want to prevent anyone from building another crossing to compete with them.

"Canada has allowed the 401 to stay the way it has been for the past 40 years," Matthew Moroun, son of tycoon Matty Moroun, told a news conference Monday.

It was one of a slew of similar reality-defying claims uttered with straight faces by Moroun and his people.

Canada's alleged inaction on Highway 401 was supposed to illustrate why the Morouns should be left in charge of the border.

The Ambassador Bridge clan also called the meeting to refute a speech made an hour earlier by John Baird, Canadian minister of transport, infrastructure and communities.

According to the Morouns, Baird doesn't know anything about transportation or infrastructure -- or Windsor, to hear the Morouns tell it. But they do. They're experts.

Baird had just told 300 members and guests of the Detroit Economic Club that it's a misconception that the Morouns' plans to build a new bridge to Canada are all ready to go, except for the permits being issued.

"No, no, no, and no," an exasperated Baird said of the Ambassador Bridge's state of readiness. The Morouns have not submitted any applications to build their bridge, Baird said. They have not begun to meet environmental approvals.

The Morouns have not even started to prepare to begin to do anything at all about building its new bridge, the minister said. "On a scale of zero to 100, they're at ZERO," a sarcastic Baird told a blue-chip audience of Michigan's business leaders.

An hour later, the family and its lawyers (the elder Moroun wasn't in evidence) claimed they've done all the work necessary to pass an environmental assessment.

It's just that the evil Canadian federal government won't approve it.

"The gentleman should simply approve our environmental documents and allow us to go forward," Moroun said of Baird.

It was difficult to sit through. Maybe this guff works on Americans. But it left me shaking my head in disbelief that anybody could insult public intelligence this way.

The $550 million extra the Canadian government just put up so that Michigan doesn't have to break its budget to approve the new bridge? That money is "unbudgeted," Moroun claimed.

A Canadian federal cabinet minister had just said in public the funds are fully approved, but a foreigner says it's not true.

Ontario is behind the feds 110 per cent, and the two governments don't even get along politically. The City of Windsor now backs both senior governments.

So who are we going to believe -- our own three levels of government, which for the first time in living memory are singing in unison on the need for a new bridge to the U.S.?

Or do we listen to a guy from another country telling us our elected officials are not telling the truth, and our country is evil? Tough choice.

I couldn't help myself when Moroun -- a nice guy, actually -- claimed that the Canadian government is so lax about security concerns that it wasn't even guarding the Ambassador Bridge against international terrorism.

How does he know this? "You can't see any Mounties," Moroun said, straight face still intact.

I put up my hand. "Have you ever heard of CSIS? The Canadian Security Intelligence Service? You're not supposed to see them. They don't wear red coats."

There were some titters in the audience. After some blustering about 24-hour security, they ignored my question and moved on.

Sheesh. These people want to continue to manage North America's most important border crossing, and they pretend to not know that Canada's security forces don't dress like Dudley Do-Right.

What's scarier is that they undoubtedly do know the truth.

They're counting on some Americans to not know. Either way that makes them unfit to keep their monopoly over our border.

The sooner they don't stand between Canadians and Americans anymore, the better.

cvanderdoelen@thestar.canwest.com or 519-255-6852 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              519-255-6852      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              519-255-6852      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/Windsor+Chris+Vander+Doelen+Moroun+musings/3040888/story.html#ixzz0pjFRU9Jv




Also, can I suggest that this thread be moved to the new "Bridges" section, under the name "New Detroit-Windsor International Crossing"? (Or something like that.)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Premier on June 02, 2010, 06:16:19 PM
Or much harder. No wonder Hwy 401 has been completed;Michigan wants a new bridge, but Moroun doesn't want a bridge to compete with whatever MDOT and the MTO has. All he wants is an monopoly over the Detroit area border crossings. I won't be surprised if Moroun has to appear to federal court to break up that monopoly.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: MichiganDriver on August 18, 2010, 04:15:43 PM
Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel (Matty) Moroun has lost an important round in federal court when a judge denied his attempt to avoid having to rebuild his duty free facilities at the bridge as the Michigan Department of Transportation demands.

After a Wayne County judge ruled in February that Moroun's Detroit International Bridge Co. had to rebuild its bridge approaches as MDOT requires, Moroun appealed the ruling in state courts. When the bridge company lost its appeals in state courts, it attempted to shift the battle to federal courts on the grounds that Michigan could not regulate what happened at the bridge.

But U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan has ruled that there was no federal question involved, and that even if there was, the bridge company filed its action in federal court past a required deadline.

The ruling means that Moroun's bridge company is one step closer to having to either comply with Wayne County Circuit Judge Prentis Edwards' order to rebuild the bridge approaches at a cost of millions of dollars, or face a contempt hearing for not doing so.


Read more: Bridge company loses another round in court | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20100818/BUSINESS06/100818019/1320/Bridge-company-loses-another-round-in-court#ixzz0wzSSWtDH


This jerk certainly keeps his lawyers busy, now maybe he'll finally have to build the gateway correctly
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: hm insulators on September 02, 2010, 04:42:34 PM
Not that I know a lot about the issue, but has anyone noticed that the only difference between Moroun and "moron" is a single letter?  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Stephane Dumas on September 02, 2010, 05:43:54 PM
Quote from: hm insulators on September 02, 2010, 04:42:34 PM
Not that I know a lot about the issue, but has anyone noticed that the only difference between Moroun and "moron" is a single letter?  :sombrero:

I noticed that one too, Moroun is a real moron. I'm sorry but I couldn't resist :p
Title: Feds mull alternate DRIC route
Post by: Stephane Dumas on November 03, 2010, 04:57:57 PM
An article from the Windsor Star about the DRIC.
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Feds+mull+alternate+DRIC+route/3744102/story.html
Title: Lame-duck MI legislature won't take up DRIC
Post by: rawmustard on November 05, 2010, 08:25:11 AM
And over on this side of the river, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop reiterated DRIC won't be considered before the legislature adjourns for the year (http://www.freep.com/article/20101105/NEWS06/11050340/1322/Bridge-deal-is-stalled-in-Lansing).

UPDATE: Oh yeah, MDOT and the Ambassador Bridge company are currently going through another hearing. (http://www.freep.com/article/20101209/NEWS01/101209033/1318/Bridge-company-boss-State-caused-delays-not-us) :yawn:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: bulldog1979 on January 19, 2011, 09:07:43 PM
Governor Snyder has forged a deal with the FHWA for $550 million in funding in a match of the state's contributions for DRIC. Michigan will be able to use funding extended from Ontario and Canada for the state's contributions, eliminating the debt burden on Michigan. "We must work together to ensure this opportunity does not slip away," Snyder wrote in his speech outline.


Christoff, Chris (January 19, 2011). "Snyder Backs Downriver Bridge for First Time" (http://www.freep.com/article/20110119/NEWS15/110119102/1318/Watch-live-Snyder-backs-2nd-bridge-for-the-first-time) Detroit Free Press.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on January 19, 2011, 10:51:11 PM
Nice! A big "up yours" to Mouron & co. :D
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: MichiganDriver on January 20, 2011, 12:15:26 AM
Suck it Matty!!!
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: DanTheMan414 on January 21, 2011, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on January 19, 2011, 09:07:43 PM
Governor Snyder has forged a deal with the FHWA for $550 million in funding in a match of the state's contributions for DRIC. Michigan will be able to use funding extended from Ontario and Canada for the state's contributions, eliminating the debt burden on Michigan. "We must work together to ensure this opportunity does not slip away," Snyder wrote in his speech outline.

It was noted in today's (1/21) Free Press that at this time, the new Michigan Senate GOP Leader, Randy Richardville, is in support of the DRIC through private-public partnership, so long as it doesn't cost Michigan taxpayers.  However, the new Michigan House Leader, Jase Bolger, is not as sold on it, at least as of yet.  Gov. Snyder has his work cut out for him to that end, but it's finally a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: bulldog1979 on January 21, 2011, 08:25:26 PM
One commentator after the State of the State Address summed it up as, "Rick likes DRIC".
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: MDOTFanFB on January 31, 2011, 10:22:21 PM
Now I am watching WJBK, just found out the owner of a bait shop whose street it was on was torn up to make way for the new bridge plazas (and as a result there is no way to get to the shop) is now sueing the Bridge Company and he took it all the way to the Supreme Court.

BTW, the bait shop is on the U.S. side.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on February 01, 2011, 02:59:27 AM
^^^^

Interesting...

Back in December, Toll Roads News reported this.
Ambassador Bridge says dispute with holdout landowner resolved (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5022)

However, TRN was basically reporting off an Ambassador Bridge Co. press release.  Therefore, it is not surprising that the holdout landowner has a different story.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: bulldog1979 on February 06, 2011, 02:44:02 AM
Now bridge backers are suggesting that the span be named the "Gordie Howe Bridge"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_River_International_Crossing
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/the-gordie-howe-international-bridge-
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/02/forget_the_dric_how_about_the.html
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on February 06, 2011, 03:00:15 AM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on February 06, 2011, 02:44:02 AM
Now bridge backers are suggesting that the span be named the "Gordie Howe Bridge"

It's definitely better than any politician they could choose. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on February 06, 2011, 03:45:01 AM
How about building the bridge before they name it?

Or, at least, breaking ground on construction?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on March 09, 2011, 10:36:36 AM
Now the Marouns have hired Dick Morris (http://www.freep.com/article/20110308/BUSINESS06/110308059/Moroun-family-hires-high-powered-consultant-Dick-Morris) in the hopes that his spin can defeat DRIC.

Quote"I am absolutely convinced that this is another one of these public sector boondoggles like the big dig in Boston and the high speed rail in Florida," Morris said this morning during a call-in interview with Frank Beckmann on WJR-AM 760.

And keeping traffic snarled in Windsor isn't a boondoggle?  :hmm:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on April 25, 2011, 12:53:50 PM
The Detroit Free Press is running a series of articles about the battle over a new bridge. Included in this series is an interview with Matthew Maroun (Matty's son) (http://www.freep.com/article/20110424/OPINION05/104240455), an article which purports to separate some of the exaggerations made in the argument (http://www.freep.com/article/20110424/NEWS06/104240595/Detroit-Windsor-bridge-battle-Separating-out-truth), and today's article about how the Ambassador's owners profit from tax-free fuel (http://www.freep.com/article/20110425/NEWS06/104250381/Tax-free-fuel-sales-bonanza-Ambassador-Bridge-owners), plus an assortment of accompanying editorials and columns. I would presume that one last article will run for tomorrow's edition, but there's plenty of new material posted over the last two days.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: MichiganDriver on April 29, 2011, 06:53:54 AM
I never even considered the gas issues in why Maroun is fighting thing, but I'm not surprised. It all comes back lining his pockets at our expense
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: MichiganDriver on September 21, 2011, 01:35:33 AM
New International Trade Crossing bridge would ease border congestion, study says

QuoteThe Detroit International Bridge Co.'s proposed second bridge between Detroit and Canada would not eliminate the current congestion on both sides of the border but the New International Trade Crossing bridge would do so, according to an independent study released today by the Anderson Economic Group.

Anderson's analysis also found that Michigan taxpayers would not be on the hook for money borrowed to build either bridge. However, tolls to cross any new bridge would need to be increased if traffic volumes fall short of expectations.

The East Lansing-based economic consulting firm compared the two competing bridge proposals, which are at the center of a fierce battle between Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel (Matty) Moroun and Gov. Rick Snyder. Moroun's Detroit International Bridge wants to build a second span over the Detroit River while Snyder is backing the New International Trade Crossing bridge that would be operated by a public authority and compete against the Ambassador Bridge.

The Anderson report was not done for any clients and stops short of favoring one proposal over the other. The report "makes points in favor of both proposals," said Alex Rosaen, an Anderson consultant and one of the study's authors.

Manny has been lying through he teeth, but what's new
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on November 04, 2011, 09:36:37 AM
Matty may face jail, penalties, for contempt (http://www.freep.com/article/20111104/BUSINESS06/111040325/Ambassador-Bridge-owner-Matty-Moroun-may-face-jail-time-penalties?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)

All I can say it it's about damn time!
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on November 04, 2011, 10:32:11 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on November 04, 2011, 09:36:37 AM
Matty may face jail, penalties, for contempt (http://www.freep.com/article/20111104/BUSINESS06/111040325/Ambassador-Bridge-owner-Matty-Moroun-may-face-jail-time-penalties?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)

All I can say it it's about damn time!

I saw.  I liked.  Need to finish second bridge and approach to first bridge while this jerkoff is in jail.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on December 07, 2011, 01:47:25 PM
The Michigan Court of Appeals issued two (http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20111206_c298276_50_298276.opn.pdf) opinions (http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20111206_c297016_97_297016.opn.pdf) affirming lower court rulings in favor of MDOT in regards to the Gateway Project. My instincts tell me they'll be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. :/
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on December 07, 2011, 10:13:48 PM
Would Matty do anything else?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Daniel Fiddler on December 11, 2011, 05:44:22 PM
If Moron has been found in contempt already and could be facing incarceration, I think he will be walking on eggshells for now.
Title: Bridge owner Moroun to spend night in jail
Post by: Stephane Dumas on January 12, 2012, 08:06:17 PM
I spotted this article from the Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20120112/NEWS01/120112008/Matty-Moroun-Ambassador-Bridge-dispute?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Quote
A three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals Thursday evening denied 84-year-old billionaire Manuel (Matty) Moroun's and his top aide's request for release from jail pending appeal.

That means the Ambassador Bridge owner and president, sent to jail this morning by a Wayne County judge until they comply with his order to finish Gateway project ramps, will stay in jail at least until the appeals court hears further arguments.

It was not clear when they will occur.

It was the latest development in a stunning day that saw Wayne County Sheriff's deputies leading Moroun and Dan Stamper out of the courtroom Thursday morning. Circuit Judge Prentis Edwards denied motions from their lawyers seeking to delay the jailing pending appeal.

In an hour-long hearing of high drama in a packed courtroom, attorneys for the pair offered multiple arguments to keep the men out of jail. They said the men had resigned their positions with the Detroit International Bridge Co. and so were no longer able to control what happened in the dispute. An attorney for Stamper flourished a paper that he said was Stamper's resignation letter and laid it before the judge.

- Update: Resignations didn't take effect.

The lawyers also argued that jailing violated the constitutional rights of Moroun and Stamper. After Edwards rejected all their arguments and deputies led the men away, attorneys for the pair left immediately for the Michigan Court of Appeals to file appeals, hoping to win release for Moroun and Stamper before the end of the day.

Moroun had entered the courtroom smiling and greeting his associates, but appeared shocked and stunned after Edwards ordered him jailed.

And I spotted a interesting motivationnal poster at http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?12447-Ambassador-Bridge-Owner-Moroun-and-aide-Stamper-Jailed&p=296495#post296495
Title: Re: Bridge owner Moroun to spend night in jail
Post by: Brandon on January 12, 2012, 09:05:33 PM
The poster is MOST appropriate!  Matty Moron needs to spend a bit of time in the joint (Hell, put him in Jackson!) until he gets the point.
Title: Re: Bridge owner Moroun to spend night in jail
Post by: SP Cook on January 12, 2012, 09:52:43 PM
Judges who use contept powers in this manner are generally out of control.  In our free society, people are not jailed in matters that involve simple political disputes.
Title: Re: Bridge owner Moroun to spend night in jail
Post by: jOnstar on January 12, 2012, 10:29:59 PM
     I am half and half on the whole thing. It may be going a little too far putting a 80 + year old in jail for this, but at the same time... he was warned, and did not follow the court order intentionally. So... somthing had to be done here. I drive by the bridge at least twice a week, and it is almost embarrassing to see the unfinished bridge when this project has been going on for years now.

     The bridge has been a big issue this week. Not only this, but a worker who was painting the bridge fell off when he equipment failed. Sorry to say... he lost his life, but now the news is all over the contracting companies and the bridge company for past safety issues.
Title: Re: Bridge owner Moroun to spend night in jail
Post by: vdeane on January 13, 2012, 08:40:09 AM
While in general I disagree with the concept of contempt of court, it's warranted in this case.  Mouron broke the law.  He has no right to twin the Ambassador bridge and he is the only one that wants to.  Everyone else that matters (the state of Michigan and Canada) is dead set against it and want DRIC (as do many roadgeeks).  He is legally obligated to finish the gateway project as planned.  Just because he's rich doesn't give him the right to flout the law and do whatever he wants.  He made a contract.  Now he wants to change it.  Tough.
Title: Re: Bridge owner Moroun to spend night in jail
Post by: kurumi on January 13, 2012, 10:46:02 AM
Key paragraph from the Free Press article:

"MDOT sued the bridge company in 2009 after its saw that DIBC was not building its portion according to what MDOT said was the agreed-upon design. Instead, the company built a roadway that took traffic past the company's lucrative duty-free store and fuel pumps, and that kept thousands of trucks bound for expressways on Fort and other surface streets."

In other words, a mini-Breezewood.

Semi-related: Steve Perry discusses (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120111/ENT04/201110396/Journey-singer-dishes-South-Detroit-reference?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CEntertainment%7Cs) the use of non-existent "South Detroit" in the lyrics to "Don't Stop Believin'"
Title: Re: Bridge owner Moroun to spend night in jail
Post by: rawmustard on January 14, 2012, 08:45:23 AM
It should be noted here that Maroun and Stamper were released last night (http://www.freep.com/article/20120114/NEWS01/301140001) pending an expedited review by the Court of Appeals scheduled for Feb 2. There is also a summary discussing impacts to the neighborhood (http://www.freep.com/article/20120114/NEWS01/201140366/Moroun-s-unfinished-ramps-force-trucks-into-neighborhoods-disrupting-community) as a result of the dispute.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on February 08, 2012, 03:07:49 PM
Matthew (son of Matty) Maroun announced the controversial Pier 19 ramp will be removed (construction started today) and control of Gateway will be ceded to a committee with some outsiders (http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS05/120208027/Bridge-Co-promises-big-2-p-m-announcement-Gateway-dispute?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE). This is being done in hopes of preventing Matty Maroun and Dan Stamper being returned to jail.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on March 08, 2012, 02:53:38 PM
I'm rather shocked myself, but Judge Prentis Edwards ordered the bridge company to cede control of the Gateway project to MDOT and pay $16 million for the work (http://www.freep.com/article/20120308/BUSINESS06/120308013/matty-moroun-gateway-hearing). Whether this will get the work done faster isn't exactly clear at this point.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: texaskdog on March 08, 2012, 03:14:01 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on June 17, 2009, 12:30:01 AM
Here's an article (http://www.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=14056) explaining the many problems that the government, both national and local, are having with the bridge company. The root of the whole issue is that the bridge company acts like it's a part of the federal government.

Much like the federal reserve
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: bulldog1979 on March 09, 2012, 04:36:34 AM
Quote from: rawmustard on March 08, 2012, 02:53:38 PM
I'm rather shocked myself, but Judge Prentis Edwards ordered the bridge company to cede control of the Gateway project to MDOT and pay $16 million for the work (http://www.freep.com/article/20120308/BUSINESS06/120308013/matty-moroun-gateway-hearing). Whether this will get the work done faster isn't exactly clear at this point.

Ok, I have many issues with this "bridge war". I could go into great detail based on the facts on record, but MDOT and the State of Michigan has been a bully for decades.

1. I-75 and I-96 weren't directly connected to the bridge in the 1950s and 1960s. That would have been the perfect time to connect it to the freeway system. Our other international bridges were connected to the Interstates, but not the Ambassador Bridge.

2. The Ambassador Bridge has always been privately owned. Until Central Cartage (Matty Maroun's company) bought it in the late 1970s, the Detroit International Bridge Company, which together with Canadian Transit Company actually owns the structure, was publicly traded. CC bought up the remaining stock and took the companies private. Now DIBC/CTC have has been wholly owned subsidiaries of Central Cartage for over 30 years.

3. DIBC and MDOT signed a contract for the Gateway Project that included conceptual drawings, not final plans. The contract has provisions and leeway to make changes, in part, because no detailed drawings were included in it. Basically, it said that DIBC would built its half, MDOT would build its half, and the ramps the crossed the property lines would meet up.

4. There have been issues with City of Detroit abandoning the right-of-way for a city street. DIBC bought all of the adjacent property and included it in their plaza area. If 23rd St. were still a public street, then yes, DIBC would need to build the ramps to overpass the street. MDOT has insisted that the ramps be elevated to cross what shouldn't be a public ROW anymore.

5. DIBC built ramps right up to its property line already. MDOT did not build the connect on its side of the line. DIBC gave MDOT easements and access to its property so that the state could finish the connection. MDOT has demanded that DIBC give the state parcels of private property so they could finish the work saying that the easements weren't enough.

6. MDOT has not given DIBC the necessary permits to complete the one maintenance road that is supposed to connect to M-85 (Fort Street). The road, as I understand, is complete up to the edge of the trunkline ROW. Yet in court, this is another complaint by MDOT's lawyer.

Look, I'm not saying that Central Cartage/DIBC lacks any blame for these issues regarding their preparations for a second span. Their attitude at times is a bit too self-righteous in assuming that the original permissions and approvals for the bridge automatically allow them to build a second bridge. But the fact remains that the bridge is still privately owned, and businesses are allowed to make money and defend their interests. The state has bullied the company around, and claimed that DIBC hasn't built things according to the contract when the contract never had enough detailed specifications to follow.

The benefit to the state, so long as the judges and the media have played along, is that they are slowly fostering ill will against DIBC. If they can paint the company as the villains long enough, they could sway support for their new bridge. Unlike the state, DIBC can't use anything but its tolls and other income from things like its gas stations or duty-free shops to pay for maintenance. Michigan and Ontario could finance and maintain the new bridge with taxpayer money in addition to tolls, meaning they could set toll rates lower on DRIC and drive DIBC out of business.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on March 09, 2012, 11:32:50 AM
1. As mentioned in the Breezewood discussion, it was illegal at the time to build connections between toll roads and free roads with federal funding if the interchange only served the toll road.  As such, MDOT would have had to pay 100% of the cost of a direct connection at that time.

2. Just because they're private doesn't mean they get special powers to be above everyone else.  In fact, I would say that a business running something as important as our infrastructure should be given less freedom than a regular business.

3. This doesn't mesh with everything else reporting on the topic.  If true, it's questionable whether a valid contract exists at all.

6. The permits were probably considered to be included in the contract.

The reason for the new bridge is not to drive Mouron out of business, it's to make another crossing (and fix a breezewood between the US and Canada).  And what Mouron is doing isn't just protecting their business - it's artificially attempting to maintain a monopoly and status quo conditions.  Changing conditions is a fact of life for businesses, and you either adapt or die.  To attempt to force the status quo to stay the same to benefit your business is to go against the capitalistic underpinnings of our society.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mightyace on March 11, 2012, 12:54:53 AM
The more time goes on and the more I read about it, I wonder does it really matter who's more right?

IMHO, both sides have been playing word games and court games in the current fight.  So, if MDOT or DIBC is more right, that simply means they are less of an a**hole than the other side.

A pox on both their houses.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on April 21, 2012, 08:50:18 AM
Ambassador owners plan to take bridge battle to November ballot
http://www.freep.com/article/20120421/BUSINESS06/204210360/Ambassador-owners-plan-to-take-bridge-battle-to-November-ballot?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

I'll say this much about Moroun - he doesn't give up easily.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on May 15, 2012, 08:27:21 AM
One of the major parts of the Gateway project was opened yesterday, as the truck road was finally completed (http://www.freep.com/article/20120515/NEWS05/205150446/Part-of-Gateway-project-opens-eases-truck-congestion-in-Detroit?odyssey=nav%7Chead). There will be a ceremony at 10:30 this morning to commemorate this.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on May 16, 2012, 07:36:58 AM
More: http://www.freep.com/article/20120516/BUSINESS06/205160326/Truck-freeway-connector-opens?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

Not sure how MDOT figures they lose federal highway funding by opening already-finished ramps. I wish they would have given a better explanation, because that only fuels the fire further and makes them look bad.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on May 16, 2012, 01:49:50 PM
QuoteBridge customer: When the bridge company is allow to run the bridge, traffic flows. This snarl is from Gov. Rick Snyder's decision to take control!!
Yeah, right.  MDOT is the only entity that completed the gateway; the bridge company was busy pursuing the second span pipe dream.  They should be dissolved over this farce.
Title: New International Trade Crossing to be announced today
Post by: rawmustard on June 15, 2012, 07:54:13 AM
The next salvo in the Detroit Bridge Wars comes today as Governor Rick Snyder and Prime Minister Stephen Harper make joint announcements today on the new bridge (http://www.freep.com/article/20120615/NEWS15/206150454/With-video-New-bridge-big-reward-without-risk-lieutenant-governor-says). It will first be announced at 12:45 pm somewhere in Windsor, and then a second announcement at 2:45 pm will be made at Cobo Hall in Detroit. Both will be livestreamed from the governor's website (http://www.michigan.gov/snyder).
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: NE2 on June 15, 2012, 01:44:14 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 02, 2010, 05:43:54 PM
Quote from: hm insulators on September 02, 2010, 04:42:34 PM
Not that I know a lot about the issue, but has anyone noticed that the only difference between Moroun and "moron" is a single letter?  :sombrero:

I noticed that one too, Moroun is a real moron. I'm sorry but I couldn't resist :p

This post always gets me. A Mr. Dumas making fun of Mr. Moroun?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on June 15, 2012, 02:17:03 PM
Here's an article on the deal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577468383034028286.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

If Mouron is smart, he'll ask to be the contractor rather than suing.  Though I doubt Michigan would be happy with that.  He's so prepared to build a bridge anyways... he might as well build one that people actually want.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: MrDisco99 on June 15, 2012, 05:02:49 PM
Any unencumbered links to this story?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on June 15, 2012, 10:01:40 PM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on June 15, 2012, 05:02:49 PM
Any unencumbered links to this story?

http://www.freep.com/article/20110629/NEWS06/110628056
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 09:13:21 PM
Am I missing something, or is there no truck access from the bridge to I-75 north?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on August 13, 2012, 10:08:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 09:13:21 PM
Am I missing something, or is there no truck access from the bridge to I-75 north?

You are missing something. Check the Free Press article I posted earlier: http://www.freep.com/article/20120516/BUSINESS06/205160326/Truck-freeway-connector-opens?odyssey=mod

At a certain point north of the duty-free area, the truck road forks. Left heads north on I-75, and right takes a 180 degree loop over I-75 to enter the highway headed south.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 10:17:40 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 13, 2012, 10:08:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 09:13:21 PM
Am I missing something, or is there no truck access from the bridge to I-75 north?

You are missing something. Check the Free Press article I posted earlier: http://www.freep.com/article/20120516/BUSINESS06/205160326/Truck-freeway-connector-opens?odyssey=mod

At a certain point north of the duty-free area, the truck road forks. Left heads north on I-75, and right takes a 180 degree loop over I-75 to enter the highway headed south.
Except that what they show there as I-75 is actually the beginning of I-96. Unless there's a ramp not visible on either Google or Bing aerials, the only choices are sticking with I-96 or exiting to Michigan Avenue. And it's slightly too blurry to be sure, but the left overhead seems to say I-96 to US 12 I-94: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.320481,-83.081361&spn=0.000625,0.001032&gl=us&t=k&z=21 Contrast this with the car ramps, which split twice for the three freeways.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on August 14, 2012, 04:37:13 PM
Well, long range trucks could go to I-75 north via I-96 and I-94 at least... the missing movement looks like it's mainly an issue for local trucks.

I suspect that most truck traffic will ignore the Ambassador Bridge once DRIC is built though due to the ending of the Breezewood in Windsor unless there are delays on a particular day.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on August 14, 2012, 11:45:57 PM
True. That's an area with a lot of things happening in a small space, and there's little difference for the vast majority of truck traffic in choosing I-96 to I-94 to I-75 versus going straight to I-75. Local trucks would use the Michigan Ave exit.

Not that you're going to see a lot of trucks bound for Flint or points north - unless they originate from Windsor, they're likely taking the Blue Water bridge instead.

Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Stephane Dumas on November 07, 2012, 07:43:35 AM
Time to dust-off the topic, I spotted this article from the Tornto Star http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1283903--u-s-election-michigan-says-no-to-bridge-vote

Quote
"Michigan voters who cast ballots on a proposition that could have nixed the plan to build a new bridge linking Windsor to Detroit made it clear: they won't be bought.

Matty Moroun, owner of the Ambassador Bridge, the lone crossing between Windsor and Detroit, lost his fight Tuesday when voters said no to Proposition 6, which would have required a referendum vote every time a new international bridge is proposed.

In the months leading up to the vote Tuesday, Moroun funnelled nearly $40 million into a campaign against a second bridge, including millions to get the vote on the Michigan ballot.

The billionaire bridge-owner rakes in nearly $80 million annually from the crossing and had the proposition passed, the new crossing would have been subject to a state-wide vote.

"We're excited about it. It's been dragging on for the last 12 years,"  said Mark Dugal, business manager of the Ironworkers Local 700 in Windsor. "It's nice to know you can't buy the citizens of Michigan. It's fantastic."
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: NE2 on November 07, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Quote from: the media is dumb
the lone crossing between Windsor and Detroit
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on November 08, 2012, 12:28:17 AM
The media may be dumb, but Moroun was dumber. He squandered tens of millions that could've been spent on, say, fixing his bridge up.

You can't get Michigan to rub two nickels together to fill some potholes, but they're not stupid enough to turn down a gift horse when presented with one.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on November 08, 2012, 12:34:25 PM
People just weren't as stupid as Mouron thought.  He probably would have more success if he called a spade a spade and had voters vote directly on DRIC; instead, he tried to trick people into voting for a broad law to address a very specific issue.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Great Zo on December 15, 2012, 01:31:02 AM
Detroit News:
Feds allow Canada bridge steel (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121214/METRO/212140361/1409/rss36)

QuoteDetroit – The U.S. Federal Highway Administration will allow Canadian steel to be used in the construction of the New International Trade Crossing.

The administration granted a waiver that went into effect Thursday, allowing the span to be built without the restrictions of the federal Buy American policy, which requires only U.S. steel to be used. Eventually, selected contractors will be able to use steel produced in both countries.

Backers of the New International Trade Crossing said they were pleased by the decision – one that Gov. Rick Snyder petitioned for in August so that Canadian iron and steel could be used on Canada's portion of the new span.

This is the first of the three federal clearances needed before bridge construction can begin. Still remaining are approval from the US Coast Guard, and a presidential permit from the US Department of State.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on December 26, 2012, 01:29:31 AM
Some recent news:

Ambassador Bridge owners must pay $4.5M to reimburse MDOT for Gateway project completion
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312180034

New bridge over Detroit River to Windsor could take 7 years to complete
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312250117


The ferry to Harsens Island has also become an issue recently; Mouron and Co. are hinting at building a new bridge to the island to replace the ferry when the operation is shut down. The owner is struggling to keep the operation going and wants to retire.

Moroun revives Harsens Island bridge plan
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012308160218

Harsens Island ferry operator blasts Michigan Public Service Commission
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012308280046

Harsens Island ferry owner: I can wait to retire
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312180044
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: theline on January 10, 2013, 08:16:08 PM
I'm shocked the no one has posted the Daily Show's take on the new Detroit River bridge. Pretty funny stuff. Check it out:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-9-2013/bridge-to-canada (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-9-2013/bridge-to-canada)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on January 10, 2013, 09:32:58 PM
That Daily Show video is full of so much win. I wish it had aired before the ballot issue came up for a vote last November.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: theline on January 10, 2013, 10:14:18 PM
Thank goodness the numbskulls didn't prevail on that vote, though it was much closer than it should have been.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Great Zo on April 12, 2013, 04:27:20 AM
Huge news for the new bridge, as both the Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/article/20130412/NEWS15/304120117/New-bridge-gets-presidential-permit-announcement-expected-today) and Detroit News (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130412/METRO/304120373/New-Detroit-Windsor-crossing-reportedly-announced-today) are reporting that the Presidential Permit has been approved.

This comes just days after Matty Moroun (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013304090062) and Detroit mayoral candidate (and former Moroun employee) Fred Durhal (http://www.freep.com/article/20130405/NEWS06/130405079/) have both launched lawsuits to stop the bridge.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on May 31, 2013, 12:21:53 PM
Episode V: The Moron Strikes Back

Moroun expands lawsuit seeking to stop new Detroit-Canada span (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130531/METRO/305310323/Moroun-expands-lawsuit-seeking-stop-new-Detroit-Canada-span?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)

QuoteThe suit asks Judge Rosemary M. Collyer to block the crossing, arguing it seeks to "usurp" the Ambassador Bridge's "ability to maintain their franchise by building a new span" and violates the terms of a 1921 agreement creating the privately owned Ambassador Bridge, which carries more than one quarter of all U.S.-Canadian commercial traffic. It has argued the agreement's "right to repair, replace and enlarge" the Ambassador Bridge means the governments should allow the Ambassador Bridge company to build a second span, but it has been blocked for more than a decade.

The Ambassador Bridge has been in operation since 1929. Forbes magazine said the bridge takes in $60 million in tolls annually and $15 million in gas and duty free sales.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Great Zo on July 16, 2013, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: The Great Zo on April 12, 2013, 04:27:20 AMThis comes just days after Matty Moroun (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013304090062) and Detroit mayoral candidate (and former Moroun employee) Fred Durhal (http://www.freep.com/article/20130405/NEWS06/130405079/) have both launched lawsuits to stop the bridge.

No big surprise, but Durhal's lawsuit has been tossed out of court (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130716/METRO08/307160071/Judge-throws-out-state-rep-s-challenge-new-Detroit-River-bridge?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs).
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: lordsutch on July 16, 2013, 09:50:15 PM
This is contract clause 101: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River_Bridge_v._Warren_Bridge). Even if anyone opposing the new bridge can clear the hurdle of standing (Moroun might), it's pretty darn established law that just because you have a charter to do something it's not automatically exclusively yours unless the contract explicitly says so.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on August 16, 2013, 09:33:14 AM
Ambassador Bridge to raise toll fee (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130813/METRO05/308130052/Ambassador-Bridge-raise-toll-fee?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs)

Is he trying to raise more cash for his fight?

QuoteStarting Aug. 15, the Ambassador Bridge will raise its tolls for the second time in just over a year.

According to its website, the new fee for automobiles, passenger vehicles, station wagons, personal vans and empty pickups is now $5, up from $4.75.

In July 2012 the bridge company raised its fare from $4 per personal vehicle to $4.75.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 16, 2013, 10:51:35 AM
Or they want to make the toll collection experience smoother due to the elimination/reduction of coin change.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: thenetwork on August 20, 2013, 08:56:26 AM
What is with the $0.25-$0.50 cent difference in tolls depending on which way you cross?  When I used to cross between Detroit & Windsor back in the day, the only difference in tolls was whether you were paying in US or Canadian funds. 

Now that the Canadian/US dollar rates of exchange is pretty much even-steven nowadays, I just don't see why they just don't charge one toll price per vehicle class -- $CDN, $US or combination thereof -- or just charge the larger amount in one direction, and make it 'free' in the other, like the Peace Bridge in Buffalo/Ft. Erie
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on August 20, 2013, 09:53:46 AM
^^ There is a combination of traffic that crosses at Detroit-Windsor.  Some is commuter traffic for which the free one way, toll the other would work.  Other traffic is just going straight through and will not come back via this route.  In addition, you have two different entities owning the Bridge and the Tunnel, with a third owning the Blue Water Bridge up in Port Huron.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: thenetwork on August 20, 2013, 08:00:43 PM
I didn't mean to say that all 3 crossings needed to be the same price -- What I'm saying that I find it odd that the current toll on a SINGLE bridge or tunnel is one price one way and another price the other, regardless of what currency(ies) you use. 

And the free one way/pay toll the other isn't a bad option -- if you compare the number of people only crossing in the FREE direction vs. the TOLL direction the stats would probably balance out anyway, like in the case of the Peace Bridge & the other similar Niagara crossings.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on August 30, 2013, 05:17:03 PM
U.S. slams Ambassador Bridge owners' 'monopoly' claim, moves to dismiss Moroun argument (http://www.freep.com/article/20130830/NEWS06/308300129/ambassador-bridge-monopoly-NITC-michigan-canada-moroun)

Moron..er..Mouron is about to be handed his own ass.

QuoteIn a strongly worded response to Moroun's complaint against several federal officials, as well as a partnership between the nations and agencies in Michigan and Ontario to construct a new publicly owned span, federal lawyers slammed the bridge owner's claims as "nothing more than an attempt to rewrite the entire history of the Ambassador Bridge."

The filing said Moroun wants the court "not only to rewrite the Congressional statutes that authorized the construction and operation of the bridge, but to interfere with the United States' and Canada's sovereign powers to establish and maintain border crossings between their two nations."  The filing asks that all the claims be dismissed.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: getemngo on August 30, 2013, 06:20:28 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 20, 2013, 08:00:43 PM
I didn't mean to say that all 3 crossings needed to be the same price -- What I'm saying that I find it odd that the current toll on a SINGLE bridge or tunnel is one price one way and another price the other, regardless of what currency(ies) you use. 

That is weird... last time I crossed them, the Blue Water Bridge, International Bridge (Sault Ste Marie), and Peace Bridge all had same price whether you paid in U.S. or Canadian.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on August 30, 2013, 09:44:25 PM
Quote from: getemngo on August 30, 2013, 06:20:28 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 20, 2013, 08:00:43 PM
I didn't mean to say that all 3 crossings needed to be the same price -- What I'm saying that I find it odd that the current toll on a SINGLE bridge or tunnel is one price one way and another price the other, regardless of what currency(ies) you use. 

That is weird... last time I crossed them, the Blue Water Bridge, International Bridge (Sault Ste Marie), and Peace Bridge all had same price whether you paid in U.S. or Canadian.
I don't think this is about currencies or about different bridges.  It's about whether you're traveling eastbound or westbound.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: ibagli on August 31, 2013, 05:14:06 AM
It looks like the Blue Water Bridge tolls are set by different authorities. Eastbound tolls are set by MDOT and westbound tolls are set by the bridge authority in Canada.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on November 12, 2013, 02:40:18 PM
I think I smell some serious bullshit.

Moroun lawyer says Canada is trying to destroy Ambassador Bridge business (http://www.freep.com/article/20131112/NEWS/311120018/Moroun-lawyer-says-Canada-trying-destroy-Ambassador-Bridge-business)

QuoteA lawyer for Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel (Matty) Moroun claims the Canadian government is trying to run the historic Detroit River span out of business and that it would have been "madness"  for the original owners to build it if they had believed the U.S. or Canada would later try to strip them of their exclusive franchise.

"This is not just commercial activity: It is predatory activity, specifically designed to destroy (Moroun's) business,"  attorney Hamish P.M. Hume argued in a filing late last week in U.S. District Court in Washington.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2013, 12:19:09 AM
I think I can smell it too.

It would be madness to think that a single, four lane bridge with no real freeway connections would be adequate to handle the traffic over the Detroit River 100 years after the construction of the Ama$$ador.
What a douche.

This is what happens when for-profit corporations own critical transportation infrastructure.  I hope you are taking notes, Indiana.  This bullshit is you in a decade or two.

Michigan should totally eminent domain that goddamn bridge and shut this asshat up once and for all.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: NE2 on November 13, 2013, 12:30:46 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2013, 12:19:09 AM
a single, four lane bridge with no real freeway connections
Didn't they just connect it to I-75?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2013, 12:54:05 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2013, 12:30:46 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2013, 12:19:09 AM
a single, four lane bridge with no real freeway connections
Didn't they just connect it to I-75?
Eh, maybe technically...
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on November 13, 2013, 06:44:21 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2013, 12:30:46 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 13, 2013, 12:19:09 AM
a single, four lane bridge with no real freeway connections
Didn't they just connect it to I-75?

Yes, and I-96; however, it is on city streets on the Windsor side.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on November 13, 2013, 11:22:44 PM
IIRC, Moroun has made no serious attempt to propose a replacement or 2nd crossing that addresses the desire of Canada to route the cross-border traffic off city streets in Windsor. He's trying to cram a 2nd crossing in the same spot, something that the Canadians have consistently stated is a non-starter.

If Moroun wanted to maintain his hold on Detroit-Windsor border crossings, he should've played ball when he had the chance.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Great Zo on November 14, 2013, 09:26:37 PM
It's pretty likely that once the new bridge is completed in ~2020, Windsor will end truck access to the Ambassador. That would be the final and ultimate blow to Moroun's border-crossing standoff, though there's no guarantees he'll even be around to see it.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on May 02, 2014, 08:16:55 AM
Moroun's not done yet.

Did state's Detroit EM team use its clout to stymie Moroun bridge?
http://www.freep.com/article/20140502/NEWS06/305020016/ambassador-bridge-NITC-injunction-moroun
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Great Zo on June 03, 2014, 11:44:48 PM
The final permit for the new bridge has been granted by the US Coast Guard. This follows immediately on the heels of Matty Moroun losing a federal court case to stop the Coast Guard permit from being issued.

New international bridge project in Detroit wins final permit from Coast Guard (http://www.freep.com/article/20140603/NEWS06/306030190/bridge-permit-coast-guard)
QuoteWASHINGTON – Wasting no time after a judge cleared the way, the Coast Guard issued the last permit needed for construction of a new, government-owned international bridge from Detroit to Windsor that could put thousands of people to work in southeast Michigan and revitalize the trade corridor with Canada.

Word of the Coast Guard permit came today, even though the agency apparently issued the permit as early as Friday, the same day a federal judge overruled an objection from owners of the rival Ambassador Bridge.

While several issues still need to be worked out, the permit is a key step forward. Property on both sides of the border still must be acquired, and funding for a new customs plaza on the U.S. side still must be addressed by Congress or Canada.

"We have all the permits in place now,"  Gary Doer, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., told the Free Press. "Every time we run into a speed bump on this bridge, we've found a way to get around the obstacle. We see this as very good news today."
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on July 30, 2014, 02:19:16 PM
New authority to oversee Detroit-Windsor bridge (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140730/METRO05/307300075/New-authority-oversee-Detroit-Windsor-bridge)

QuoteA six-member international authority will oversee the construction of a public bridge between Detroit and Windsor and a CEO was appointed to lead the bridge authority, officials announced Wednesday.

The appointments to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority and the International Authority were announced by Gov. Rick Snyder and Canada's Transport Minister, Lisa Raitt, during a news conference about the New International Trade Crossing at the Canadian Club Heritage Centre in Windsor.

Check out the artist's renderings of the new bridge.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Revive 755 on July 30, 2014, 07:53:10 PM
^ Some reason the design was changed?  Or does the artist have his/her types of bridges mixed up?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: theline on July 31, 2014, 06:32:07 PM
Slide 4 labels the bridge as "Proposed NITC Bridge (Suspension Bridge Example)." That implies that the type of bridge was undetermined at the time of the rendering.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on August 18, 2014, 11:13:53 AM
"I would say I am 100% sure the bridge gets built,"  Carmine Palombo, deputy executive director of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, told the Free Press. "What I am not sure about is the when."

Detroit Free Press: Can anything stop construction of the new bridge to Windsor?
http://www.freep.com/article/20140818/BUSINESS06/308180006/NITC-bridge-Windsor-Snyder-Moroun
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on August 18, 2014, 06:08:42 PM
QuoteWithout a Customs inspection plaza, the new bridge wouldn't be allowed to carry any traffic.
I see no reason why the lack of a US customs plaza would prevent Canada-bound traffic from using the bridge.  It wouldn't be the only one-way border crossing.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on September 08, 2014, 04:56:03 PM
On Friday, Moroun associate Dan Stamper wrote a letter to the City Council and mayor's office offering $1.5 million for the land plus an additional $1 million for redevelopment of the community.

"We offer to build, not demolish,"  Stamper wrote in the letter. "Instead of destroying neighborhoods, they should be rebuilt."


Given Moroun's track record of not redeveloping Detroit properties (Michigan Central Station, for example), it's comical that anyone on the City Council is actually entertaining the idea. Emergency manager Kevyn Orr thankfully sees this nonsense for what it is.

Moroun offers Detroit $1.1M more than Michigan for land for new bridge
http://www.freep.com/article/20140908/NEWS01/309080170/Ambassador-Bridge-owner-Canada-Matty-Moroun
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on July 27, 2015, 08:13:00 AM
"Politicians and governments in Canada and the United States have let their seething anger at the obstreperous Moroun family eclipse the fact the bridge, by any objective standard, needs to be replaced," the publication wrote.

Let Morouns build their new bridge? Some say why not?
http://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2015/07/24/windsor-detroit--bridge-ambassador-moroun-traffic-gallagher/30614601/
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 27, 2015, 01:00:08 PM
There are much older bridges in good condition, so obviously he hasn't been maintaining it properly... and if he can't maintain the bridge he has, why should he be trusted to build a new one?

Besides that, no objection as long as he does this LEGALLY (no unilaterally just doing it like he tried the last time) and tears down the old bridge when done.  It should be a replacement, not a twinning.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: noelbotevera on July 27, 2015, 03:57:44 PM
Or, we can be a little sneaky here....why not let Michigan and Ontario build a crossing at Goderich, Ontario to White Rock/Forestville, Michigan. Its a crossing between Port Huron and Sault Ste. Marie, taking traffic out of Detroit, Detroit can be rebuilt, then we're all happy. The highways that it would connect would be M-25 to ON 8/ON 21. Boom.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on July 27, 2015, 04:15:48 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 27, 2015, 03:57:44 PM
Or, we can be a little sneaky here....why not let Michigan and Ontario build a crossing at Goderich, Ontario to White Rock/Forestville, Michigan. Its a crossing between Port Huron and Sault Ste. Marie, taking traffic out of Detroit, Detroit can be rebuilt, then we're all happy. The highways that it would connect would be M-25 to ON 8/ON 21. Boom.

Not a chance.  That's crossing Lake Huron at a pretty wide and deep point.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: getemngo on July 28, 2015, 05:34:52 PM
I'm assuming that was a joke (I hope). But even if it wasn't, this topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16026.0) covers the lack of additional crossings pretty well. It just doesn't make sense anywhere that there isn't a major city.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Rothman on July 29, 2015, 12:09:44 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2015, 01:00:08 PM
There are much older bridges in good condition, so obviously he hasn't been maintaining it properly... and if he can't maintain the bridge he has, why should he be trusted to build a new one?

Besides that, no objection as long as he does this LEGALLY (no unilaterally just doing it like he tried the last time) and tears down the old bridge when done.  It should be a replacement, not a twinning.

Trust a crook once, shame on him...trust a crook twice, shame on me.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 29, 2015, 12:57:38 AM
Matty Moroun Scores Victory; Council OKs Land Deal (from article)

http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/12830/matty_moroun_scores_victory_council_agrees_to_land_deal#.Vbhc7vlViko

Quote from: noelbotevera on July 27, 2015, 03:57:44 PM
Or, we can be a little sneaky here....why not let Michigan and Ontario build a crossing at Goderich, Ontario to White Rock/Forestville, Michigan. Its a crossing between Port Huron and Sault Ste. Marie, taking traffic out of Detroit, Detroit can be rebuilt, then we're all happy. The highways that it would connect would be M-25 to ON 8/ON 21. Boom.

A bit long I think. But hey, I've suggested a bridge once from Digby Nova Scotia to Lubec Maine through Grand Manan Island. Won't happen now, but with better technology in the future, who knows.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: SteveG1988 on July 29, 2015, 11:03:09 AM
The owner of the Ambassador Bridge is 100% in it for the money.

he charges the US price of fuel at his fuel station in the Duty Free zone. He pockets the difference between wholesale price and taxed price. If gas is 2.61 a gal off the bridge in Detroit, he charges that, but that includes about 54 cents in taxes that isn't paid.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: lordsutch on March 15, 2016, 07:57:17 PM
Just in case you were bored with the Matty Moroun saga, apparently the Coast Guard has decided to grant a permit (http://tollroadsnews.com/news/us-coast-guard-grants-moroun-a-permit-for-second-ambassador-span) for a second parallel Ambassador Bridge span. I can't imagine the traffic volumes warrant building it along with the Gordie Howe span, but I suppose either (a) Moroun will build it out of spite and slash tolls to feed more business to his gas pumps and/or (b) Moroun will build the new span as a de facto replacement for the decaying existing span and not bother repairing it when it becomes structurally deficient.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on March 15, 2016, 11:41:51 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on March 15, 2016, 07:57:17 PM
Just in case you were bored with the Matty Moroun saga, apparently the Coast Guard has decided to grant a permit (http://tollroadsnews.com/news/us-coast-guard-grants-moroun-a-permit-for-second-ambassador-span) for a second parallel Ambassador Bridge span. I can't imagine the traffic volumes warrant building it along with the Gordie Howe span, but I suppose either (a) Moroun will build it out of spite and slash tolls to feed more business to his gas pumps and/or (b) Moroun will build the new span as a de facto replacement for the decaying existing span and not bother repairing it when it becomes structurally deficient.
And the Canadians will, politely, continue to tell Mouron to go f*** himself.

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on March 16, 2016, 12:58:29 PM
The new span was always intended as a replacement, though I believe he wanted to leave the original in place for detours and such.  The approach is already built on the US side (note that traffic currently shifts over to the bridge from a rather large stub), but I'm not sure where it would end up in Canada.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: MisterSG1 on March 16, 2016, 02:14:35 PM
I've always believed that the Ambassador Bridge is in a more "strategic" spot, especially on the Michigan side, as I've generally seen I-96 as a sort of continuation of the 401, having said that, even if Moroun were to lower his toll rate once the Gordie Howe bridge is built, would that entice drivers to get off at Hwy 3 and use the Ambassador Bridge? Personally I don't think so because a freeway to freeway connection is more seamless. (mind you, people will use the Ambassador Bridge if the Gordie Howe bridge is plugged with a 2 hour wait)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Joe The Dragon on March 16, 2016, 04:07:23 PM
what if the Canadian gov body's ban's trucks on the bridge
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 14, 2016, 03:24:06 PM
N.Y. Times: Canadian Neighborhood Rots in the Shadow of an Unborn Bridge to Detroit (http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_33b7d4ce-fa7f-5142-a79e-28a31d0139dd.html)

QuoteWINDSOR, Ontario – It is a postapocalyptic streetscape that most Canadians associate with American cities like Detroit: boarded-up houses, burned-out roofs, a mess of scattered shingles, peeling paint and crumbling masonry. In some abandoned homes, the only residents are skunks, raccoons, rats and feral cats.

QuoteBut this vision of urban blight is not in an American city – it is in Canada, just across the border from Detroit.

QuoteThis corner of Windsor, a neighborhood called Sandwich, was settled in 1783 and was once a terminal for the Underground Railroad bringing American slaves to freedom in Canada. Many of its tree-lined streets boasted majestic 19th-century houses. The area around Indian Road, built largely in the last century, was a thriving neighborhood favored by professors from an adjacent university.

QuoteBut now Indian Road runs through a ghost neighborhood of over 100 boarded-up houses and three abandoned apartment buildings punctuated by a few, lonely occupied homes, a result of a long-running battle between an American businessman and Canadian governments at various levels.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: on_wisconsin on June 14, 2016, 05:10:31 PM
Yawn... Wake me up when the concrete starts pouring...
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Alex on June 14, 2016, 06:44:38 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 14, 2016, 03:24:06 PM
N.Y. Times: Canadian Neighborhood Rots in the Shadow of an Unborn Bridge to Detroit (http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_33b7d4ce-fa7f-5142-a79e-28a31d0139dd.html)

QuoteWINDSOR, Ontario – It is a postapocalyptic streetscape that most Canadians associate with American cities like Detroit: boarded-up houses, burned-out roofs, a mess of scattered shingles, peeling paint and crumbling masonry. In some abandoned homes, the only residents are skunks, raccoons, rats and feral cats.

QuoteBut this vision of urban blight is not in an American city – it is in Canada, just across the border from Detroit.

QuoteThis corner of Windsor, a neighborhood called Sandwich, was settled in 1783 and was once a terminal for the Underground Railroad bringing American slaves to freedom in Canada. Many of its tree-lined streets boasted majestic 19th-century houses. The area around Indian Road, built largely in the last century, was a thriving neighborhood favored by professors from an adjacent university.

QuoteBut now Indian Road runs through a ghost neighborhood of over 100 boarded-up houses and three abandoned apartment buildings punctuated by a few, lonely occupied homes, a result of a long-running battle between an American businessman and Canadian governments at various levels.

FYI, The article linked goes to a Richmond Times-Dispatch story about a Navy helicopter crash at Newport News.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on June 14, 2016, 08:22:43 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/world/americas/windsor-residents-caught-in-shadow-of-bridge-that-isnt-built-yet.html
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: 7/8 on July 06, 2016, 07:12:32 AM
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/final-piece-of-moroun-lawsuit-against-howe-bridge-dismissed (http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/final-piece-of-moroun-lawsuit-against-howe-bridge-dismissed)

QuoteU.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer last fall dismissed nearly all claims against the government entities.

But she left one claim outstanding – that the U.S. Department of State violated procedure when it granted a presidential permit in April, 2013 for the Howe bridge to be constructed.

Moroun's lawyers alleged approval of the Howe crossing agreement was "arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the U.S. Constitution."

Collyer on Monday released a 38-page ruling that detailed the lengthy process and public feedback periods undertaken by the U.S. government leading to approval of the permit for the Howe bridge.

She concluded the U.S. state department did act within the confines of authority grant by Congress and had a rational basis for approving the agreement.

^ Looks like Moroun's big law suit is finally over  :)

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/howe-bridge-project-appears-stalled (http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/howe-bridge-project-appears-stalled)

Quote
A $50-million early works project to prepare the customs plaza site in Windsor was launched a year ago by the bridge authority – a government-backed body assigned to oversee construction.

The first stage of the bidding process to select a global consortium to build the project was also triggered.

Everything remained on schedule and moving at a quick clip until last fall's federal election and change in government. A short list of three consortiums, from the six which applied, was released in January – over a month late.

The final bidding phase, known as a request for proposals, was to follow within a few weeks. Six months later, the bridge authority has not issued the request for proposals and given no explanation for the delay.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Amajeet Sohi responded to Masse's questions in the House of Commons a couple weeks ago, but provided no answers about the delay, saying the request for proposals will be released soon.

^ I was hoping to find news about how far the construction has gotten, and instead I find this  :angry:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: 7/8 on July 16, 2016, 12:22:25 PM
Not too surprising...
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-2020-opening-of-the-new-windsor-detroit-bridge-is-looking-like-a-long-shot (http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-2020-opening-of-the-new-windsor-detroit-bridge-is-looking-like-a-long-shot)

QuoteA 2020 completion date for the Gordie Howe International Bridge is looking increasingly doubtful as challenges persist in getting the multibillion-dollar crossing between Windsor and Detroit to the next stage.

The biggest hurdle? About 30 properties needed for the new crossing on the U.S. side  – 20 of them belonging to Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel "Matty"  Moroun –  but considered "problematic"  to acquire, according to Dwight Duncan, interim chairman of the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority.

"I won't be held to a date,"  he told the Star on Friday, the first time he has addressed the delay.

Duncan said a request for proposals to be issued to three short-listed international consortia is "ready to go"  but that the 3,000-page document won't be sent out until the bridge authority is confident all the potential risks have been mitigated.

The government-appointed bridge authority has received legal advice from both sides of the border and is confident "we'll get access to these properties,"  he said. The risky part is how long it could take if there's resistance and the matter has to be fought out in court.

QuoteDuncan sat down with the Star to explain why a request for proposals release, initially promised for January, still hasn't happened.

The request for detailed design proposals starts the clock ticking on the project, said the former Ontario finance minister. But getting the construction ball rolling before there's sufficient assurance all the necessary properties are in hand can have "huge cost implications down the road – in the multimillion dollars a month,"  said Duncan.

As of this week, 423 of 963 properties on the Michigan side had been purchased, but bridge authority officials feel only 30 of those are at risk of being challenged legally.

A number of the Moroun holdings are key properties. They include a portion of the 42-acre Central Transport truck terminal, the former Yellow Freight hub at 7701 W. Jefferson Ave. in Delray acquired by Moroun in 2010 after the new public crossing was first announced.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: 7/8 on August 02, 2016, 12:57:37 PM
A question for those more familiar with the area...

Do you think the new bridge will increase traffic on M-39 (Southfield Rd)? I'm thinking some people will use I-75 south to M-39 to get to I-94 west (and vice versa). Or do you think more people will go I-75 north to I-96 west to I-94 west?

Also, if you think M-39 will get more traffic, do you think the current road will be satisfactory for the new demand?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: lordsutch on August 02, 2016, 02:29:04 PM
Apparently there's  recent speculation that the Marouns may be willing to sell the Ambassador Bridge (http://windsorstar.com/opinion/columnists/jarvis-will-canada-buy-the-ambassador-bridge) to the Canadian government. Whether this is just a ploy to drag out the purchase negotiations for the Michigan-side properties the Marouns control or a serious offer, though, remains to be seen.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2016, 05:56:32 PM
Maybe the new bridge will have to wait until Maroun dies before it can be constructed.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on August 03, 2016, 12:31:31 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on August 02, 2016, 12:57:37 PM
A question for those more familiar with the area...

Do you think the new bridge will increase traffic on M-39 (Southfield Rd)? I'm thinking some people will use I-75 south to M-39 to get to I-94 west (and vice versa). Or do you think more people will go I-75 north to I-96 west to I-94 west?

Also, if you think M-39 will get more traffic, do you think the current road will be satisfactory for the new demand?

I suspect most would follow the freeways. M-39 isn't particularly easy to get on and off again, and it's not much of a shortcut. Following I-75 north to I-94 west, they wouldn't have to deal with stoplights and such. It looks out of the way on a map, but in actual driving it would function more smoothly than using M-39.

Now, if MDOT ever punched a 6-lane freeway through the existing M-39 section and built a gigantic interchange, traffic would favor that. But my bet is the only time M-39 in its current configuration would see a significant increase in traffic is if I-94 or I-75 near downtown turned into a parking lot.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: 7/8 on August 13, 2016, 11:10:36 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 03, 2016, 12:31:31 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on August 02, 2016, 12:57:37 PM
A question for those more familiar with the area...

Do you think the new bridge will increase traffic on M-39 (Southfield Rd)? I'm thinking some people will use I-75 south to M-39 to get to I-94 west (and vice versa). Or do you think more people will go I-75 north to I-96 west to I-94 west?

Also, if you think M-39 will get more traffic, do you think the current road will be satisfactory for the new demand?

I suspect most would follow the freeways. M-39 isn't particularly easy to get on and off again, and it's not much of a shortcut. Following I-75 north to I-94 west, they wouldn't have to deal with stoplights and such. It looks out of the way on a map, but in actual driving it would function more smoothly than using M-39.

Now, if MDOT ever punched a 6-lane freeway through the existing M-39 section and built a gigantic interchange, traffic would favor that. But my bet is the only time M-39 in its current configuration would see a significant increase in traffic is if I-94 or I-75 near downtown turned into a parking lot.

Thanks JREwing78 :)

------

I found this article from August 5th:
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/howe-bridge-authority-lost-its-way-threatens-project-masse-says (http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/howe-bridge-authority-lost-its-way-threatens-project-masse-says)

QuoteLocal MP Brian Masse called it "troubling"  and "alarming"  how Dwight Duncan – interim Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority chair – has staged talks with Ambassador Bridge owner Matty Moroun on a possible sale when he should be focused on finishing the Gordie Howe International Bridge.

"When did this project go from build to buy?"  Masse said at a news conference on Friday.

The mandate of the authority and interim chairman is to "get the job done of building a new crossing in the most transparent and quickest way possible,"  he said.

"Why are you engaging in these different conversations? It undermines the credibility of the position."

In a three-page letter sent Friday to Canada's Infrastructure Minster Amarjeet Sohi, Masse called on the federal government to launch a full evaluation of both Duncan and the authority which he said are "eroding public confidence in the project."

For more than a decade, Moroun has launched countless court challenges on the both sides of the border to stop the Howe bridge project which he fears threatens revenues at his privately owned Windsor-Detroit bridge.

At the end of July, Duncan detailed to The Star how both he and bridge authority CEO Michael Cautillo have indeed recently met informally with Moroun and his son Matthew.

"We had two good meetings,"  Duncan said. "I recommended to the government of Canada that it's worth further discussions."


Duncan said he was dispatched by government leaders to find out "how serious they are."

He also said the federal government can no longer "be held"  to the 2020 completion date for the Howe bridge and that discussions with the Moroun family were a factor.

"Why has the distraction to acquire the Ambassador Bridge become an issue for the authority?,"  Masse said.

The MP called it "critical"  both Duncan and the authority stick to what they were put in place to accomplish given how both the national and local economies are at stake and are relying on the long-awaited bridge project to meet its scheduled 2020 opening.

The authority said Friday that Duncan was not be available to respond. He also did not return a phone message from The Star.

Duncan also had blamed delays on the dozens of properties required for the bridge plaza on the Detroit side that are not yet in hand, including a few owned by Moroun.

That also angered Masse.

Several properties remained outstanding in Windsor prior to construction of the Herb Gray Parkway. They were expropriated and settled in court — years later in some cases.


"The U.S. side is not complicated,"  Masse said. "They have a condemnation process. To have that thrown in our face is curious to say the least."

A spokeswoman for the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority said it remains "fully committed"  to the bridge project.

"WDBA is committed to bringing the Gordie Howe International Bridge into service as quickly as possible while prudently managing all the risks associated with a project of this magnitude,"  Heather Grondin said in an email. "The RFP will be released to the proponents in due course."

Masse said he was not conducting a "witch hunt,"  but wants both Duncan and bridge authority to be held accountable.

"It's been a bloody war to get here and this is not the way to approach this,"  Masse said.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on August 14, 2016, 08:02:16 AM
Makes you wonder how much money exchanged hands between Mouron and Duncan during these "informal" meetings.

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: bulldog1979 on August 15, 2016, 05:13:51 AM
There have been a few cases over the decades where the powers that be could have bought the Ambassador Bridge out. The first was the original bankruptcy in the 1930s, when the builders defaulted on the construction bonds, and the bondholders were paid off in stock in a newly organized, publicly traded corporation. I think they're missed opportunities, and if one of them had been exercised early enough, it would be part of I-96 and Hwy 401 by now.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: 7/8 on August 17, 2016, 12:52:56 PM
An article posted today. A bit long, but I thought it was interesting:
http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/politics-and-prejudices-why-arent-they-building-the-new-bridge/Content?oid=2460363 (http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/politics-and-prejudices-why-arent-they-building-the-new-bridge/Content?oid=2460363)

QuoteBy this time, earth-moving equipment should be crawling over all the approaches leading to where the new Gordie Howe International Bridge is to rise.

Crews should be working to relocate utility lines as needed. Workers should be signing up for jobs – thousands of good-paying, construction jobs that will last for years.


More than four years ago, in what likely is the best thing he ever will have done as governor, Rick Snyder figured out a way to get around a legislature owned by Matty Moroun, the billionaire who owns the rickety Ambassador Bridge.

Every business interest in both Michigan and Ontario has known for years that a new bridge is essential. This is the two nations' economically most important border crossing.

Billions in trade, mainly heavy manufacturing components, moves across the old bridge every week. This is stuff that can't go through the tunnel. There is no backup system; if this bridge fails, it would be devastating to our economy. The structure may indeed be literally falling apart; it sent a shower of concrete into Windsor streets last fall.

On top of that, the Ambassador Bridge is in a lousy place for a major economic trade route. There are more than a dozen traffic lights between the end of the bridge and Highway 401, Canada's most important freeway. Moroun's contention that he should be allowed to build a second bridge next to his old one makes no sense logistically or environmentally.

The last thing the people who live in the wretched neighborhoods near the Ambassador need is to breathe more diesel exhaust and suffer through more noise pollution.

The new bridge has now won every approval necessary – presidential, parliamentary, environmental.

Enraged at first that someone was actually trying to make him play fair, Matty Moroun filed federal lawsuit after federal lawsuit attempting to block the new bridge from being built.

The only winners were the lawyers who billed him by the hour. He lost every count on every case. Meanwhile, the Canadians have built a system of beautiful access roads that will swiftly convey traffic from the Gordie Howe directly to 401.

The area is artfully landscaped, and partly concealed barriers are in place to shield residents from noise pollution.

But on this side of the border, nothing – except a little preliminary work at the site of what is to be the future U.S. customs plaza. Two weeks ago, Gregg Ward, the co-owner of the Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry, took me on a tour of the entire bridge area on both sides of the border. The contrast was huge.

Afterward, over lunch, he sighed. "I'm worried that it is being deliberately stalled," he said of the bridge.

He's not alone. Brian Masse, the member of Canada's parliament who represents Windsor, is suspicious as to whether the new Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau is as committed to the bridge as the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper was before he was defeated last fall.

Masse, who as a New Democrat is a member of neither party, has accused the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority of "losing focus," and was alarmed that Dwight Duncan, the interim head of the authority, has expressed interest in perhaps trying to buy the Ambassador Bridge, which he accurately described as an "aging, crumbling piece of infrastructure."


(Earlier discussions about buying the bridge collapsed when Moroun insisted on an unreasonable price. Apparently, Canada would buy it not to avoid building a new bridge, but to put an end to Moroun's interference.)

Ward's suspicions as to why things are stalled center around Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, who has been playing footsie for many months with Matty Moroun, who the mayor has made a controversial deal with over Riverside Park.

"Every year this project is delayed means more millions for Moroun," said Ward. He wonders why the mayor hasn't signed off to transfer jurisdiction over roads and easements in the area to the bridge authority, so they could begin requiring utilities to relocate lines, etc. as needed for the bridge.

When asked about all this, the Duggan administration's response was less than reassuring. After two days, I received a response from Jed Howbert, the executive director of the Jobs & Economic Team. "We continue to support the Gordie Howe bridge, and are committed to ensuring the needs of those who live in the community are addressed."


That raises the question of community benefits, often a sore point when it comes to development in the city.

There's little question that those who live near developments in Detroit have often been given short shrift when it came to how they were treated. Two different community benefits ordinances will be on the Detroit ballot this year.

Indeed, Ward told me, MDOT, the Michigan Department of Transportation, seems to have no intention of erecting the sort of noise barriers Canada has to shield the mostly poor people on the U.S. side who will be living within the shadow and the "noise footprint" of the Gordie Howe bridge.

Alan Ackerman is an attorney who represents most of the business owners in the bridge area. He is sympathetic to community benefits – but says "Duggan came a little late to the party, after Coleman Young and Kwame gave so much away."

His clients, most of whom were struggling to begin with, are not benefiting from the delay. "I've never seen anything like the power of Matty Moroun. He gets anything he wants," said Ackerman, who has been practicing law in the city for 44 years.

Canada recently began to back away from the previous insistence that the bridge would be finished and open by 2020.

Ackerman's guess is that it will be 2023 – and that it won't happen until all parties conclude an agreement with Moroun.

The biggest reason for the delay is that the Detroit-Windsor Bridge Authority still has to acquire many parcels of land, 30 or so of which are owned by – yep – Matty Moroun.


Ackerman is perhaps the area's foremost expert on eminent domain; he won the Michigan Supreme Court's historic "Poletown" ruling in 2004 that made it harder for economic development organizations to take homeowners' land.

Here, he thinks eminent domain could be used if needed in the case of the Moroun properties, but that things could be dragged out indefinitely unless a deal is reached with the state's greediest and most obnoxious billionaire.

Driving through New Jersey, he told me "You'll know it will happen when one day you hear that they've made a deal with Moroun." Hundreds of miles away, sitting at Johnny Noodle King, a short drive from his docks, Ward also agrees.

The new bridge will happen; it's too economically important to the region. As a human being, Ward is sort of the anti-Moroun. Looked at one way, he should be against any new bridge. His truck ferry exists because the rickety Ambassador isn't safe for trucks carrying hazardous materials.

The new bridge will be, and will put Ward, the 56-year-old single father of an autistic son, out of business.

Yet a new bridge is essential if we are to have a future. One thing working in its favor is biology.

Ward doesn't say so, but he knows in a few years, the 89-year-old Moroun will be dead.

Yet he also can look back at years of failed and thwarted attempts and delays, and a region sold out time and again.

"I worry," Ward said.

We all should.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on August 18, 2016, 02:45:55 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on August 17, 2016, 12:52:56 PM
An article posted today. A bit long, but I thought it was interesting:
http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/politics-and-prejudices-why-arent-they-building-the-new-bridge/Content?oid=2460363 (http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/politics-and-prejudices-why-arent-they-building-the-new-bridge/Content?oid=2460363)

The same day that editorial asks why work hasn't started on the new bridge, another article posts about the work that has been underway for a while on the new bridge.

http://windsorite.ca/2016/08/gordie-howe-bridge-work-progressesing/
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on September 02, 2016, 10:03:07 AM
Work continuing on the new bridge - 1 million tonnes of gravel have been placed to build the base for the plaza on the Canadian side, and significant drainage issues are being addressed.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/gordie-howe-bridge-plaza-work-making-signficant-progress

Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on November 01, 2016, 10:00:50 PM
Windsor Star: Behind the Bridge: Clock ticking on the new Windsor-Detroit crossing

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/behind-the-bridge-clock-ticking-on-the-new-windsor-detroit-crossing
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on November 02, 2016, 02:39:44 PM
At this point I suspect the bridge will never be built and ON 401 will forever be a breezewood.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: The Great Zo on November 10, 2016, 10:32:11 AM
http://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2016/11/10/bridge-authority-issues-bid-request-gordie-howe-span/93554060/

QuoteWho will build Gordie Howe bridge? Bids requested

In a big step forward for the Gordie Howe International Bridge project, the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority on Thursday announced that it has issued the formal request for proposals to three teams of finalists vying to build the massive span.

Those three teams, each consisting of multiple international firms with expertise in architecture, engineering, construction, finance, law, bridge operations and more, now have several months to submit their bids. The bridge authority, the Canadian entity charged with getting the project done, will then choose a winning team about a year from now. Formal negotiations for a completed agreement should wrap up about 18 months from now.

That completed agreement will begin what is estimated to be about a 48-month construction schedule, although the time needed to build the bridge could vary depending on what the winning team decides it needs. But a four-year schedule at the end of the selection process puts the expected opening of the bridge out to about 2022.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: 7/8 on March 08, 2017, 09:59:08 PM
It's been a while since any news has been posted here, so here's an article from March 2nd.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/gordie-howe-bridge-wins-engineering-award (http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/gordie-howe-bridge-wins-engineering-award)

QuoteGordie Howe bridge project wins engineering award

Even though it is still in the final bidding stage to find contractor, the Gordie Howe International Bridge project has been named the winner of a 2017 Engineering Project of the Year award.

The award was presented Thursday as part of the CG/LA's Project of the Year Awards at the 10th Global Infrastructure Leadership Forum in Montreal.

The Howe bridge project will include a six-lane bridge, customs plazas and two-kilometre feeder road in Detroit to link with I-75 freeway. It was announced Wednesday the planned Windsor-Detroit border crossing will also include a 3.6-metre bike and pedestrian path.

A contractor is expected to be selected for the Howe bridge project by the end of this year with construction to begin in mid-2018. It is hoped the bridge will open some time in 2022.


"The importance of this project has been recognized by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Donald Trump and now, the engineering aspects of the project are recognized by industry peers,"  said Canada's Infrastructure and Communities Minister Amajeet Sohi.

"The Gordie Howe International Bridge will take its place among the engineering landmarks celebrated around the world and we appreciate the international recognition it received today."
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: 7/8 on June 02, 2017, 05:27:58 PM
Here's the latest news:

http://www.trucknews.com/features/gordie-howe-bridge-start-date-now-set-next-summer/ (http://www.trucknews.com/features/gordie-howe-bridge-start-date-now-set-next-summer/)

QuoteWINDSOR, Ont. – Construction of the new Gordie Howe International Bridge should get underway in the summer of 2018, and take four years to build, top officials with the Crown corporation overseeing the bridge's construction and future operations say.

Windsor Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) president and CEO Michael Cautillo said the consortium to build the bridge will be chosen next spring. Asked by reporters following the WDBA's annual public meeting here if this means construction could start by summer 2018, Cautillo said, "I would think so, yes."  

Originally it was thought bridge construction would have been underway by now. But the process has taken longer than expected, in part owing to the time it has taken to acquire properties — especially on the American side — and a delay in issuing requests for proposals to prospective contractors. A change in the federal government following the October 2015 election has also been considered a factor. Three international proponents are now bidding to build the bridge, which has been estimated to cost $2 billion, but which authorities say is not an official figure, and is largely dependent on the winning bid's price.

The original projected opening of the bridge in 2020 has been moved to 2022.

Officials at the public meeting announced that 60% of US properties have now been obtained for the American port of entry and connection to Interstate 75. (All properties on the Canadian side have been acquired). The chief opponent of the bridge, Detroit businessman Matty Moroun, who owns the competing Ambassador Bridge, also owns some of the remaining property that's needed.

But WDBA interim chairman Dwight Duncan was undaunted in the face of any opposition. Despite Moroun's well known litigious nature, Duncan said the Gordie Howe's construction timeline will be met.

"You can be assured that we're going to fight them every single step of the way and we will win,"  he said. "And we have confidence, not only that we will win, but that we'll have the properties in the timelines we need them by."

Duncan said that long-term, the Gordie Howe bridge will generate significant economic activity for Windsor as a center for freight consolidation and logistics.

He said the new bridge will greatly expedite crossing the border whereas the present bridge is "effectively down to one or two lanes,"  due to rehabilitation work, and "trucks are lining up again."

Pointing to the vast transportation-related industries in the western Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Duncan said Windsor could get a piece of that pie.

"I have had conversations with people who are looking at a range of opportunities,"  he said. "Think about when you drive (along) the 401 — you go through Brampton, Mississauga, and you look at all those warehouses, that's all transportation, that's all logistics, there are a lot of people working in those places."

Meanwhile, WDBA president Cautillo suggested most truckers now using Windsor's Huron Church Rd. to access the Ambassador Bridge will shift to the Gordie Howe from the already completed six-lane Herb Gray Parkway, an extension of Hwy. 401.

"We do see that this crossing is going to be of great interest to commercial traffic, so truckers, and they in all likelihood will come off of Huron Church because this crossing is going to be more convenient to cross,"  he said.

Asked if he could specify a diversion target of truck traffic, Cautillo would only say "It's going to depend on the experience that the truckers are going to have on the new crossing of travel time savings that are going to be there, trip time repeatability, and ease of getting across the border."
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: getemngo on June 26, 2017, 02:50:06 AM
Duggan: Howe Bridge agreement reached (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2017/06/23/howe-bridge/103133660/)

QuoteMayor Mike Duggan announced Friday the city has reached an agreement with the state to sell land, assets and some streets for more than $48 million to be used in the project to build a second bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

...

Andy Doctoroff, special projects adviser to Snyder, noted the agreement announced Friday doesn't not complete the property acquisition process for the bridge.

"But the fact of the matter is property acquisition is on schedule, MDOT is doing an awesome job and we just have to continue doing what's necessary to acquire all of the several hundred parcels that are in the footprint,"  he said. "This (agreement), of course, is an important component of it and that's why we're thrilled about this."

He said the state has acquired about 70 percent of the parcels it needs, not including Detroit's parcels in the agreement.

Doctoroff said Friday's deal for Detroit's parcels will give the state all the land it needs in Detroit for the project, provided it's approved by the City Council. They still need land elsewhere.

Ignoring the "doesn't not" typo, I assume the bridge will also go through the city of River Rouge, and there's where all the remaining not-yet-acquired land lies?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: silverback1065 on July 16, 2017, 05:22:48 PM
ontario 401 should connect to i-75.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 16, 2017, 06:09:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 02, 2016, 02:39:44 PM
At this point I suspect the bridge will never be built and ON 401 will forever be a breezewood.

The recent extension of the 401 (Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway) from its previous western terminus to the bridge site will be a $1.4 billion Breezewood if the bridge doesn't get built.  Given the never-ending legal battles on the U.S. side, I was surprised Canada built the 401 extension without the bridge being more of a certainty.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on August 31, 2017, 10:08:08 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 16, 2017, 06:09:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 02, 2016, 02:39:44 PM
At this point I suspect the bridge will never be built and ON 401 will forever be a breezewood.

The recent extension of the 401 (Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway) from its previous western terminus to the bridge site will be a $1.4 billion Breezewood if the bridge doesn't get built.  Given the never-ending legal battles on the U.S. side, I was surprised Ontario built the 401 extension without the bridge being more of a certainty.


FTFY
It's a provincial project, constructed and owned by MTO. Saying "Canada built the 401 extension" would be like saying "the United States built the QLINE."


Back on the news, another of Matty's cases has been dismissed.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/29/judge-dismisses-bridge-lawsuit/105089098/
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on September 06, 2017, 09:47:49 PM
Whaaaaaat??? Are there pigs flying over Windsor right now?  :o

Morouns get Canadian permit for second Ambassador Bridge span, say they'll build soon
http://www.freep.com/story/money/2017/09/06/moroun-canada-bridge-windsor-detroit/639069001/ (http://globalnews.ca/news/3721721/ambassador-bridge-canada-span/)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: thenetwork on September 06, 2017, 10:19:17 PM
I am going to read into it that he is planning to build a second span which will ultimately replace the original span. 

He may run a twinned Ambassador Bridge for a while after the GH Bridge is finished and opened, maybe start a "toll war"with the two other local crossings, and then when he realizes he cannot sufficiently afford to maintain both spans, the original will be torn down (after nearly 100 years of service) and the toll will start to rise again.

All and all, I think it's a good move considering that the ol' bridge is well into it's golden years.  The Moroun's may just try to promote the bridge as "The Local's Crossing", referring to commercial & non-commercial traffic going to & from Windsor specifically, while competing against the Tunnel.

Although it's a little harder to cross (with passports or similar now needed) into Canada, Windsor is still a popular town for those college-agers in the US (within an hour or two of the bridge), as the "magical age" for booze, strip clubs and casinos is still 19. 

When I went to college in Toledo, nearly every guy in my dorm who turned 19 would road trip with a group to Windsor for a night or two of fun and frivolity that they would otherwise have to wait two more years in the States. After a couple of times to the strip clubs, it got boring fast (the casinos weren't there yet).  I looked for the trips to the clubs where we could all dance and drink at instead.

<Cue Barbra Streisand's "The Way We Were">
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on September 07, 2017, 01:24:17 PM
One of the stipulations of the approval was the demolition of the original span.
Regardless, given its age and condition keeping it open long term is likely not financially feasible.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on September 12, 2017, 08:13:13 AM
I suspect Canada struck a deal with the Morouns - we'll let you build your new bridge if you quit fighting construction of our bridge in the U.S. courts. There will be no real need to keep both the new and old Ambassador spans open, particularly when the Howe is operational.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on September 12, 2017, 04:38:46 PM
It looks as if it's headed straight for Zug Island which isn't in Detroit but rather River Rouge. Either that spot or where the Delray Boat Ramp in Detroit is at. Either way it'll end up at I-75.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: davewiecking on September 13, 2017, 08:40:49 AM
Ottawa removes the CEO of the Howe Bridge project, apparently due to delays in the bidding process. Original plan was to have a contractor picked by end of 2016; now bids not likely to be required until 2018, with contractor "likely to be chosen" in late 2018.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/ceo-of-howe-bridge-project-removed-from-post

Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on November 08, 2017, 04:28:32 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 06, 2017, 10:19:17 PM
I am going to read into it that he is planning to build a second span which will ultimately replace the original span. 

He may run a twinned Ambassador Bridge for a while after the GH Bridge is finished and opened, maybe start a "toll war"with the two other local crossings, and then when he realizes he cannot sufficiently afford to maintain both spans, the original will be torn down (after nearly 100 years of service) and the toll will start to rise again.

All and all, I think it's a good move considering that the ol' bridge is well into it's golden years.  The Moroun's may just try to promote the bridge as "The Local's Crossing", referring to commercial & non-commercial traffic going to & from Windsor specifically, while competing against the Tunnel.

Although it's a little harder to cross (with passports or similar now needed) into Canada, Windsor is still a popular town for those college-agers in the US (within an hour or two of the bridge), as the "magical age" for booze, strip clubs and casinos is still 19. 

When I went to college in Toledo, nearly every guy in my dorm who turned 19 would road trip with a group to Windsor for a night or two of fun and frivolity that they would otherwise have to wait two more years in the States. After a couple of times to the strip clubs, it got boring fast (the casinos weren't there yet).  I looked for the trips to the clubs where we could all dance and drink at instead.

<Cue Barbra Streisand's "The Way We Were">
He's about 90 years old, he'll probably be dead before it's ever built.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: abefroman329 on November 08, 2017, 04:22:35 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 06, 2017, 10:19:17 PMWhen I went to college in Toledo, nearly every guy in my dorm who turned 19 would road trip with a group to Windsor for a night or two of fun and frivolity that they would otherwise have to wait two more years in the States.

It's the same story in Western New York with Niagara Falls, though if you're in Buffalo, it's a really short trip.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 08, 2017, 10:12:41 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2017, 04:28:32 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 06, 2017, 10:19:17 PM
I am going to read into it that he is planning to build a second span which will ultimately replace the original span. 

He may run a twinned Ambassador Bridge for a while after the GH Bridge is finished and opened, maybe start a "toll war"with the two other local crossings, and then when he realizes he cannot sufficiently afford to maintain both spans, the original will be torn down (after nearly 100 years of service) and the toll will start to rise again.

All and all, I think it's a good move considering that the ol' bridge is well into it's golden years.  The Moroun's may just try to promote the bridge as "The Local's Crossing", referring to commercial & non-commercial traffic going to & from Windsor specifically, while competing against the Tunnel.

Although it's a little harder to cross (with passports or similar now needed) into Canada, Windsor is still a popular town for those college-agers in the US (within an hour or two of the bridge), as the "magical age" for booze, strip clubs and casinos is still 19. 

When I went to college in Toledo, nearly every guy in my dorm who turned 19 would road trip with a group to Windsor for a night or two of fun and frivolity that they would otherwise have to wait two more years in the States. After a couple of times to the strip clubs, it got boring fast (the casinos weren't there yet).  I looked for the trips to the clubs where we could all dance and drink at instead.

<Cue Barbra Streisand's "The Way We Were">
He's about 90 years old, he'll probably be dead before it's ever built.

Passed away in 2016, so you would be correct.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on November 10, 2017, 08:17:24 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 08, 2017, 10:12:41 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2017, 04:28:32 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 06, 2017, 10:19:17 PM
I am going to read into it that he is planning to build a second span which will ultimately replace the original span. 

He may run a twinned Ambassador Bridge for a while after the GH Bridge is finished and opened, maybe start a "toll war"with the two other local crossings, and then when he realizes he cannot sufficiently afford to maintain both spans, the original will be torn down (after nearly 100 years of service) and the toll will start to rise again.

All and all, I think it's a good move considering that the ol' bridge is well into it's golden years.  The Moroun's may just try to promote the bridge as "The Local's Crossing", referring to commercial & non-commercial traffic going to & from Windsor specifically, while competing against the Tunnel.

Although it's a little harder to cross (with passports or similar now needed) into Canada, Windsor is still a popular town for those college-agers in the US (within an hour or two of the bridge), as the "magical age" for booze, strip clubs and casinos is still 19. 

When I went to college in Toledo, nearly every guy in my dorm who turned 19 would road trip with a group to Windsor for a night or two of fun and frivolity that they would otherwise have to wait two more years in the States. After a couple of times to the strip clubs, it got boring fast (the casinos weren't there yet).  I looked for the trips to the clubs where we could all dance and drink at instead.

<Cue Barbra Streisand's "The Way We Were">
He's about 90 years old, he'll probably be dead before it's ever built.

Passed away in 2016, so you would be correct.

No, Matty Moroun's still alive.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on November 15, 2017, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 08, 2017, 10:12:41 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2017, 04:28:32 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 06, 2017, 10:19:17 PM
I am going to read into it that he is planning to build a second span which will ultimately replace the original span. 

He may run a twinned Ambassador Bridge for a while after the GH Bridge is finished and opened, maybe start a "toll war"with the two other local crossings, and then when he realizes he cannot sufficiently afford to maintain both spans, the original will be torn down (after nearly 100 years of service) and the toll will start to rise again.

All and all, I think it's a good move considering that the ol' bridge is well into it's golden years.  The Moroun's may just try to promote the bridge as "The Local's Crossing", referring to commercial & non-commercial traffic going to & from Windsor specifically, while competing against the Tunnel.

Although it's a little harder to cross (with passports or similar now needed) into Canada, Windsor is still a popular town for those college-agers in the US (within an hour or two of the bridge), as the "magical age" for booze, strip clubs and casinos is still 19. 

When I went to college in Toledo, nearly every guy in my dorm who turned 19 would road trip with a group to Windsor for a night or two of fun and frivolity that they would otherwise have to wait two more years in the States. After a couple of times to the strip clubs, it got boring fast (the casinos weren't there yet).  I looked for the trips to the clubs where we could all dance and drink at instead.

<Cue Barbra Streisand's "The Way We Were">
He's about 90 years old, he'll probably be dead before it's ever built.

Passed away in 2016, so you would be correct.
He's still alive trust me I'd know if he had died.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on March 06, 2018, 09:54:53 AM
Windsor Star - "Bridge company has hurdles to clear before twin span can begin, city officials say"
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/bridge-company-has-many-hurdles-to-clear-before-twin-span-can-begin
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Papa Emeritus on March 09, 2018, 09:35:51 AM
More good news for the Howe crossing:

1. The US Court of Appeals in Washington DC denied Matty Moroun's latest appeal trying to stop the Howe crossing from being built. Matty's only remaining course of action is to petition the Supreme Court to intervene, and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would hear his case even if he did so. Here's a link to the Detroit Free Press article:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/03/06/appeals-court-detroit-bridge-ambassador-gordie-howe/400802002/

2. A $61 million contract to oversee construction of the Howe bridge has been awarded to Parsons. Parsons will award the first construction contract soon, and construction is still planned to begin later this year:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/wdba-gordie-howe-bridge-parsons-1.4564659


Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on March 09, 2018, 04:20:54 PM
I have had enough of Matty Moroun to last me a lifetime. What a miserable human being.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Rothman on March 10, 2018, 08:11:26 AM
To be fair, he is simply exercising his legal rights.  Quintessential example of how privatization can go very, very wrong.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on March 10, 2018, 06:59:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2018, 08:11:26 AM
To be fair, he is simply exercising his legal rights.  Quintessential example of how privatization can go very, very wrong.
The Ambassador Bridge shouldn't be privately owned in the first place.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: wanderer2575 on March 11, 2018, 12:15:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2018, 08:11:26 AM
To be fair, he is simply exercising his legal rights.  Quintessential example of how privatization can go very, very wrong.

I won't argue against exercise of his legal rights, but I don't understand what Maroun and Company think they'll get from all the wrangling.  Canada has said NO to expanding the Ambassador Bridge.  That should be End of Story right there.  Maroun could ultimately get the approval and support of Gov. Snyder, the Michigan legislature, the Coast Guard, the courts, Congress, and everybody else on this side of the river.  But Canada has said NO and so his bridge expansion is not going to happen.  What am I missing here; why does he keep up the legal fight?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 12:24:33 AM
I agree that major bridges should be publicly owned.  Nevertheless, the Ambassador Bridge was privately owned from the start. (http://www.historicdetroit.org/building/ambassador-bridge/)  We deal with Moroun today because none of the public-sector players on either side of the Detroit River was willing to do more than issue loan guarantees.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Papa Emeritus on March 11, 2018, 05:45:08 AM
When the Ambassador Bridge was for sale in 1979, Matty Moroun outbid none other than Warren Buffett. Detroit's alternative newspaper, the Metro Times, published a letter to Buffett, about how locals near the Ambassador Bridge were fed up with Moroun, and wished Buffett had outbid Moroun for the bridge:

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2017/10/19/an-open-letter-to-warren-buffett-from-the-shadow-of-the-ambassador-bridge
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 11, 2018, 10:09:15 AM
Eminent Domain that bitch.
Problem solved.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: SEWIGuy on March 11, 2018, 10:32:02 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 11, 2018, 10:09:15 AM
Eminent Domain that bitch.
Problem solved.


Why pay that money when you have gone through the effort of building a new one?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 12:00:02 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 11, 2018, 12:15:33 AMI won't argue against exercise of his legal rights, but I don't understand what Maroun and Company think they'll get from all the wrangling.  Canada has said NO to expanding the Ambassador Bridge.  That should be End of Story right there.  Maroun could ultimately get the approval and support of Gov. Snyder, the Michigan legislature, the Coast Guard, the courts, Congress, and everybody else on this side of the river.  But Canada has said NO and so his bridge expansion is not going to happen.  What am I missing here; why does he keep up the legal fight?

Canada is not a monolithic entity.  The calculation is presumably that if Moroun is successful in getting the Gordie Howe crossing stopped, local players will fold and provincial and federal authorities will eventually follow suit and grant permits for an expanded crossing.

It should also be remembered that while this fight has been largely at Moroun's option, it is not inconceivable that it would occur even if the bridge were publicly owned.  It is all a question of how aggressive those responsible for the bridge choose to be in asserting their fiduciary duties.  The CEO of a joint stock company has a duty to his or her shareholders and in principle can be sued for failing to defend profits.  We see this fight as motivated by Moroun's personal greed largely because he is the principal shareholder in the bridge company.  However, the CEO of a public-sector bridge authority would also have a responsibility to bondholders, who could similarly take action in court to protect bond repayments if these were threatened.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on March 11, 2018, 12:20:03 PM
What happened is that the bridge was put on the NYSE to trade shares and Moroun bought enough shares to purchase the bridge. At least he's finally done something to Michigan Central Station after letting that building rot for 20+ years of his ownership.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Rothman on March 11, 2018, 12:26:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 12:00:02 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 11, 2018, 12:15:33 AMI won't argue against exercise of his legal rights, but I don't understand what Maroun and Company think they'll get from all the wrangling.  Canada has said NO to expanding the Ambassador Bridge.  That should be End of Story right there.  Maroun could ultimately get the approval and support of Gov. Snyder, the Michigan legislature, the Coast Guard, the courts, Congress, and everybody else on this side of the river.  But Canada has said NO and so his bridge expansion is not going to happen.  What am I missing here; why does he keep up the legal fight?

Canada is not a monolithic entity.  The calculation is presumably that if Moroun is successful in getting the Gordie Howe crossing stopped, local players will fold and provincial and federal authorities will eventually follow suit and grant permits for an expanded crossing.

It should also be remembered that while this fight has been largely at Moroun's option, it is not inconceivable that it would occur even if the bridge were publicly owned.  It is all a question of how aggressive those responsible for the bridge choose to be in asserting their fiduciary duties.  The CEO of a joint stock company has a duty to his or her shareholders and in principle can be sued for failing to defend profits.  We see this fight as motivated by Moroun's personal greed largely because he is the principal shareholder in the bridge company.  However, the CEO of a public-sector bridge authority would also have a responsibility to bondholders, who could similarly take action in court to protect bond repayments if these were threatened.
In the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 02:32:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2018, 12:26:55 PMIn the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.

I did have New York in mind as a precedent, but more in terms of the fact that Rockefeller had to obtain the acquiescence of TBTA bondholders before he could fire Robert Moses and thereby put an end to Moses' obstruction of transit investment.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: GenExpwy on March 12, 2018, 03:29:44 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 02:32:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2018, 12:26:55 PMIn the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.

I did have New York in mind as a precedent, but more in terms of the fact that Rockefeller had to obtain the acquiescence of TBTA bondholders before he could fire Robert Moses and thereby put an end to Moses' obstruction of transit investment.

Didn't the Thruway build the Tappan Zee Bridge where it is because the Port Authority wouldn't allow it in their territory, to protect its revenues?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2018, 07:39:26 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on March 12, 2018, 03:29:44 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 02:32:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2018, 12:26:55 PMIn the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.

I did have New York in mind as a precedent, but more in terms of the fact that Rockefeller had to obtain the acquiescence of TBTA bondholders before he could fire Robert Moses and thereby put an end to Moses' obstruction of transit investment.

Didn't the Thruway build the Tappan Zee Bridge where it is because the Port Authority wouldn't allow it in their territory, to protect its revenues?

I would sincerely doubt that.  Look at a map, compare where New Jersey is, then think about whether the NYSTA could exit New York.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Rothman on March 12, 2018, 07:59:32 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on March 12, 2018, 03:29:44 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 11, 2018, 02:32:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2018, 12:26:55 PMIn the case of public authority ownership, your scenario only plays out of each individual bridge is owned by individual authorities.  That seems unlikely given how things have played out elsewhere, like with PANYNJ, TBTA and NYBA in NY. 

I would also think that multiple authorities that would have the same major players on their boards or appointing their boards would be less likely to start a bridge war on the scale of what was allowed to actually happen in Detroit.

I did have New York in mind as a precedent, but more in terms of the fact that Rockefeller had to obtain the acquiescence of TBTA bondholders before he could fire Robert Moses and thereby put an end to Moses' obstruction of transit investment.

Didn't the Thruway build the Tappan Zee Bridge where it is because the Port Authority wouldn't allow it in their territory, to protect its revenues?
I have heard all sorts of crazy reasons why the Tappan Zee Bridge got put where it was, but there was the issue of taking the Thruway out of state, opposition in general to building a bridge across the Palisades or near NY state parks, and various other opposition groups in Westchester and Rockland counties that caused the only viable location to be the widest spot in the river. :D
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: J N Winkler on March 12, 2018, 12:00:12 PM
Regarding the Tappan Zee, the version of the story I have heard is that the Port Authority had either the right of first refusal or the right to block all major river bridges and estuarial crossings within 25 miles of a certain point in Midtown Manhattan.  The Wikipedia article on the old Tappan Zee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tappan_Zee_Bridge_(1955%E2%80%932017)) (the new one has a separate article) cites a New York Times article from 1950 in stating that the Port Authority did want to build a trans-Hudson crossing, but was blocked by Governor Dewey from doing so, and the Thruway was given the right to build a bridge of its own just outside the Port Authority's jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on March 12, 2018, 12:59:46 PM
From what I've heard, the Tappan Zee is where it is because the Thruway wanted to control the bridge carrying their road, and not have it be owned/maintained by the Port Authority or Bridge Authority.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on June 20, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Not news: The Morouns are still evil.

Moroun TV ad asks Trump to pick America, reject Gordie Howe bridge
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/06/20/moroun-trump-gordie-howe-bridge/717408002/
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Brandon on June 20, 2018, 04:48:02 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 20, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Not news: The Morouns are still evil.

Moroun TV ad asks Trump to pick America, reject Gordie Howe bridge
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/06/20/moroun-trump-gordie-howe-bridge/717408002/

Fuck Moroun.  At least the Michigan Central Terminal is in better hands now.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on June 20, 2018, 09:21:14 PM
Well, the idea of fixing the breezewood between ON 401 and the US was nice while it lasted.  Too bad it's not going to happen now.  I predict with absolute certainty that Trump will revoke the presidential permit and the bridge won't be built for a very long time, if ever.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Joe The Dragon on June 20, 2018, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 20, 2018, 09:21:14 PM
Well, the idea of fixing the breezewood between ON 401 and the US was nice while it lasted.  Too bad it's not going to happen now.  I predict with absolute certainty that Trump will revoke the presidential permit and the bridge won't be built for a very long time, if ever.
unless canada makes an deal now what is Moroun plan to fix that breezewood?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on June 21, 2018, 01:22:49 PM
Mouron doesn't care about fixing the breezewood.  He just wants to replace his bridge, leave the current one to rot rather than demolishing it, and have a monopoly.  The fact that everyone will have to use a few blocks of surface roads to connect between freeways doesn't matter to him because it means more toll money in his pockets, and there's a better chance of hell freezing over (heck, there's a better chance of the namesake Breezewood getting fixed!) than ON 401 connecting to the Ambassador Bridge because of the impacts on Windsor.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 06:11:12 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 20, 2018, 04:48:02 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 20, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Not news: The Morouns are still evil.

Moroun TV ad asks Trump to pick America, reject Gordie Howe bridge
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/06/20/moroun-trump-gordie-howe-bridge/717408002/

Fuck Moroun.  At least the Michigan Central Terminal is in better hands now.
I agree what a pathetic piece of shit that guy is. I was happy when he had to go to jail several years ago.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 05, 2018, 06:19:25 PM
Contractor has been selected for the Gordie Howe International Bridge:

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/bridging-north-america-will-build-gordie-howe-international-bridge
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: GaryV on July 05, 2018, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on July 05, 2018, 06:19:25 PM
Contractor has been selected for the Gordie Howe International Bridge:

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/bridging-north-america-will-build-gordie-howe-international-bridge

And the "artist rendering" shows a freakin Dutch ship going under it.  https://www.wagenborg.com/industries-we-work-with/breakbulk-project-cargo

Yes, the Wagenborg boats come into the Great Lakes.  But couldn't they have used a Canadian or US flagged boat?  Maybe they just wanted one with a good paint design.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2018, 07:37:33 AM
any maps of the routing?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 06, 2018, 09:44:28 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 06, 2018, 07:37:33 AM
any maps of the routing?

In the Project Renderings column on the right, the link marked Project Components:
https://www.wdbridge.com/en/project-overview-gordie-howe-international-bridge-project


And I think GaryV was right in that it was probably based on aesthetics, no thought on the ship's flag. Not being versed on shipping I wouldn't have even thought to look it up myself had I been putting the graphic together.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: roadman65 on July 08, 2018, 05:53:08 PM
So finally ON Highway 401 will have a connection to both I-75 and I-96 after years of an extended Breezewood through the streets of Windsor.

Bet that owner of the Ambassador Bridge is as pissed as some users on here when it comes to highway suggestions.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 09, 2018, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.

Plus the new facility will still be far from a freeway connection. The facility will not be geometrically designed even close to freeway standard, plus still have at grade intersections, high pedestrian activity, and of course there will be multiple stops required due to the toll and customs inspection. Breezewood as it sits now will be lightning fast compared to this.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on July 09, 2018, 01:08:04 PM
And as far as the owner of the Ambassador Bridge goes, f*** Matty Moroun.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: silverback1065 on July 09, 2018, 03:41:38 PM
so to be clear, this bridge is a go?  no more chances of it getting stopped?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 09, 2018, 04:02:08 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 09, 2018, 03:41:38 PM
so to be clear, this bridge is a go?  no more chances of it getting stopped?

I do not think that Maroun's pleas on Fox and Friends are going anywhere with the administration. 

Maroun has a lot of enemies around Michigan, and were the federal government intervene on Maroun's behalf, then I suspect they would remember that on Election Day.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Joe The Dragon on July 09, 2018, 05:25:22 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on July 09, 2018, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.

Plus the new facility will still be far from a freeway connection. The facility will not be geometrically designed even close to freeway standard, plus still have at grade intersections, high pedestrian activity, and of course there will be multiple stops required due to the toll and customs inspection. Breezewood as it sits now will be lightning fast compared to this.
blue water bridge is freeway to freeway other then customs it's kind of like the old skyway mcdonalds
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: GaryV on July 09, 2018, 06:36:56 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 09, 2018, 03:41:38 PM
so to be clear, this bridge is a go?  no more chances of it getting stopped?

That's what they announced, that there are no more legal challenges.  We'll see what Matty M has to say about it, though.

Speaking of, he's more well-respected these days for selling off that non-maintained wreck of the Michigan Central depot to Ford for redevelopment.  Yeah, right, great guy, doesn't keep up his property and then gets kudos when he sells it.  And probably at top dollar, too.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 09, 2018, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.
It may not be a gap in an interstate highway (but then, technically the non-freeway connections between other interstates and the PTC aren't either, and we still call them breezewoods), but it is definitely a gap in the North American freeway network.

Quote from: cbeach40 on July 09, 2018, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.

Plus the new facility will still be far from a freeway connection. The facility will not be geometrically designed even close to freeway standard, plus still have at grade intersections, high pedestrian activity, and of course there will be multiple stops required due to the toll and customs inspection. Breezewood as it sits now will be lightning fast compared to this.
Judging by the linked map, it looks pretty much like a freeway facility outside of the customs/toll plazas to me.  Considering that I regularly travel interstates that require stopping at physical toll booths, it seems acceptable to count such as a freeway connection.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on July 09, 2018, 11:59:39 PM
It angered me how long he let Michigan Central Station sit and rot before doing anything to it. I was extremely happy when I found out he sold it to Ford. It's ridiculous how long he let that building sit and rot for though, 22 years of owning it and doing next to nothing with it the entire time he owned it. And I'm not a big fan of his over his whining about a new bridge being built. That's just tough shit Matty, competition exists and this isn't Burger King you don't get things your way.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: roadman65 on July 12, 2018, 07:49:26 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.
No but having the main Ontario freeway stop short of the US Border and not even built close to a border crossing still is a big distance to travel to connect to those freeways on the US side that are at least a few blocks away for the tunnel and right up to I-75 for the bridge.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on July 12, 2018, 11:49:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 12, 2018, 07:49:26 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.
No but having the main Ontario freeway stop short of the US Border and not even built close to a border crossing still is a big distance to travel to connect to those freeways on the US side that are at least a few blocks away for the tunnel and right up to I-75 for the bridge.
Well the Ambassador Bridge is also almost 90 years old and Windsor is pretty developed in that area. 401 wasn't proposed until 1938 and I'm pretty sure development is what caused them to stop short of the bridge. I don't think 401 was open in the Windsor area until the 1950's.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people might already do this but I-69 north of Marshall actually serves as a very good bypass of Detroit. If you are coming from Chicago and your destination is Toronto it would be a lot easier to take I-69 to Port Huron vs. taking I-94 to Port Huron since on I-94 you'd have to travel through Metro Detroit and on I-69 you'd only have to travel through the Lansing and Flint areas.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: sparker on July 13, 2018, 02:04:44 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 12, 2018, 11:49:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 12, 2018, 07:49:26 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.
No but having the main Ontario freeway stop short of the US Border and not even built close to a border crossing still is a big distance to travel to connect to those freeways on the US side that are at least a few blocks away for the tunnel and right up to I-75 for the bridge.
Well the Ambassador Bridge is also almost 90 years old and Windsor is pretty developed in that area. 401 wasn't proposed until 1938 and I'm pretty sure development is what caused them to stop short of the bridge. I don't think 401 was open in the Windsor area until the 1950's.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people might already do this but I-69 north of Marshall actually serves as a very good bypass of Detroit. If you are coming from Chicago and your destination is Toronto it would be a lot easier to take I-69 to Port Huron vs. taking I-94 to Port Huron since on I-94 you'd have to travel through Metro Detroit and on I-69 you'd only have to travel through the Lansing and Flint areas.

Also, using the Blue Water/I-69/94 bridge between Port Huron and Sarnia sets you down on ON 402, which heads east and merges with 401 near London without any surface-street "gaps"; it's a continuous freeway all the way to greater Toronto and points beyond.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on July 13, 2018, 10:25:38 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 13, 2018, 02:04:44 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 12, 2018, 11:49:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 12, 2018, 07:49:26 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.
No but having the main Ontario freeway stop short of the US Border and not even built close to a border crossing still is a big distance to travel to connect to those freeways on the US side that are at least a few blocks away for the tunnel and right up to I-75 for the bridge.
Well the Ambassador Bridge is also almost 90 years old and Windsor is pretty developed in that area. 401 wasn't proposed until 1938 and I'm pretty sure development is what caused them to stop short of the bridge. I don't think 401 was open in the Windsor area until the 1950's.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people might already do this but I-69 north of Marshall actually serves as a very good bypass of Detroit. If you are coming from Chicago and your destination is Toronto it would be a lot easier to take I-69 to Port Huron vs. taking I-94 to Port Huron since on I-94 you'd have to travel through Metro Detroit and on I-69 you'd only have to travel through the Lansing and Flint areas.

Also, using the Blue Water/I-69/94 bridge between Port Huron and Sarnia sets you down on ON 402, which heads east and merges with 401 near London without any surface-street "gaps"; it's a continuous freeway all the way to greater Toronto and points beyond.
Actually what's funny is that I just went to Google Maps and put in Chicago to Toronto and they suggest the route that I mentioned or I-94 through Detroit to Port Huron. They are both 520 miles but via I-69 it's 8 hours, 32 minutes and via I-94 it's 8 hours, 38 minutes so only a 6 minute difference but this is at 10:19 on a Friday morning I bet at 4:19 on a Friday afternoon it'd take longer than 8 hours, 38 minutes. I'm surprised they don't suggest taking the Ambassador Bridge across and connecting to 401 after going through Windsor.

Now the other way around Toronto to Chicago they suggest the same routing but it's 519 miles and 7 hours, 56 minutes and then they have another suggestion and that's taking 401 to Windsor, crossing the Ambassador Bridge and then following I-96 to M-14 and connecting with I-94 on the westside of Ann Arbor, that one is 512 miles and 8 hours, 2 minutes. I still think your better off taking the route I originally mentioned and avoiding Detroit if you can since if you can avoid a metro area of 4 million people vs. going through two metro areas with about 400,000 people each I'll take the latter.

I'm not sure if a lot of people realize that taking M-14 to I-96 is a better route than taking I-94 between Ann Arbor and Detroit. It cuts off almost 2 miles and is about 7-10 minutes quicker. Plus you don't have to deal with the Metro Airport traffic either.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 19, 2018, 09:51:05 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 09, 2018, 08:56:46 PM
It may not be a gap in an interstate highway (but then, technically the non-freeway connections between other interstates and the PTC aren't either, and we still call them breezewoods), but it is definitely a gap in the North American freeway network.

And will continue to be in perpetuity.

Quote from: cbeach40 on July 09, 2018, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 11:56:33 PM
I wouldn't really call it a Breezewood like Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is no requirement for a continuous freeway on the Windsor side and the Ambassador Bridge isn't a part of any Interstate highway.

Plus the new facility will still be far from a freeway connection. The facility will not be geometrically designed even close to freeway standard, plus still have at grade intersections, high pedestrian activity, and of course there will be multiple stops required due to the toll and customs inspection. Breezewood as it sits now will be lightning fast compared to this.
Judging by the linked map, it looks pretty much like a freeway facility outside of the customs/toll plazas to me.  Considering that I regularly travel interstates that require stopping at physical toll booths, it seems acceptable to count such as a freeway connection.
[/quote]

The approximately 3 km between the two plazas will be an undivided facility with a 60 km/h design speed geometry. Not even getting to the plaza designs themselves. By any definition rooted in engineering, enforcement, construction, or reality it is not even close to a freeway.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 19, 2018, 03:17:41 PM
Lewiston-Queenston is undivided with a 15 mph speed limit.  Nobody calls it a Breezewood.  The American Span of the Thousand Islands Bridge is undivided, 40 mph, and two lanes.  Nobody calls it a Breezewood either.  Many toll roads go undivided at every single barrier (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3977635,-73.5041855,3a,75y,315.19h,81.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swLH_LFQEdXtsl8rmhxM2zw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwLH_LFQEdXtsl8rmhxM2zw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D155.06512%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).  We don't call them Breezwoods either.  It's close enough, I'd say.  Just because it doesn't cross every t and dot every i that an engineer (I'm a planner) would look at doesn't mean we should continue to call it a gap.  There's a world of difference between your standard bridge/toll/customs plaza issues and having to take a surface street or having at-grades.

This might just be a difference in transportation philosophy between Americans and Canadians.  My boss told me a story once about how NYSDOT and CBSA once got into the exact same argument over the I-87/A-15 border crossing.  In their mind, it was OK for trucks coming from the US export control facility to have to cross several lanes of traffic to get to the Canadian truck inspection lanes because of the whole "border crossings aren't freeways and require stopping anyways" thing.  As far as we're concerned, it's an interstate all the way to the border, and it's basically a freeway that happens to have booths that people are required to stop at.  It certainly seems like Canada is far more willing to compromise freeway standards around border areas than the US is, and much quicker to call something "not a freeway".  The fact that the US has significantly more ancient freeways that don't meet anything even remotely resembling current standards probably exacerbates the issue.  It's easier to compromise on what you call a freeway when you have to deal with thing like the BQE, I-490 through downtown Rochester, and the Surekill being part of the interstate system.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on September 28, 2018, 02:37:19 PM
Contract has been finalized
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/gordie-howe-bridge-construction-1.4842489

The new bridge will provide a six lanes of interrupted arterial connection between the Hwy 401 and I-75 freeways, as well as multi-use trails. It will cost $5.7B for the design/build/finance/operate/maintain contract, of which $3.8B is estimated to cover construction. Construction is to being next month.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on September 28, 2018, 08:24:46 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on September 28, 2018, 02:37:19 PM
Contract has been finalized
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/gordie-howe-bridge-construction-1.4842489

The new bridge will provide a six lanes of interrupted arterial connection between the Hwy 401 and I-75 freeways, as well as multi-use trails. It will cost $5.7B for the design/build/finance/operate/maintain contract, of which $3.8B is estimated to cover construction. Construction is to being next month.
R.I.P. Delray.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: skluth on September 30, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on September 28, 2018, 02:37:19 PM
Contract has been finalized
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/gordie-howe-bridge-construction-1.4842489

The new bridge will provide a six lanes of interrupted arterial connection between the Hwy 401 and I-75 freeways, as well as multi-use trails. It will cost $5.7B for the design/build/finance/operate/maintain contract, of which $3.8B is estimated to cover construction. Construction is to being next month.

And there was much rejoicing
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: GaryV on September 30, 2018, 04:25:58 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 30, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
And there was much rejoicing
Wrong thread.     :-D
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Stephane Dumas on July 13, 2020, 09:54:49 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).

So, is it ok to play the Wizard of Oz song "Ding-dong the witch is dead"?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: silverback1065 on July 14, 2020, 02:39:43 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on September 28, 2018, 02:37:19 PM
Contract has been finalized
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/gordie-howe-bridge-construction-1.4842489

The new bridge will provide a six lanes of interrupted arterial connection between the Hwy 401 and I-75 freeways, as well as multi-use trails. It will cost $5.7B for the design/build/finance/operate/maintain contract, of which $3.8B is estimated to cover construction. Construction is to being next month.

Arterial connection? this won't be limited access in canada?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 14, 2020, 02:44:09 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).

Free Press: Manuel 'Matty' Moroun, controversial owner of Ambassador Bridge, dies at 93 (https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2020/07/13/manuel-matty-moroun-owner-ambassador-bridge-dies-93/5430640002/)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).
There's one individual who I will not miss.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: sparker on July 14, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).
There's one individual who I will not miss.

I wonder if his heirs have the same penchant for litigation as good old Matty.  If so, they'll continue to be the proverbial thorn in the side of local cross-border issues.  But OTOH, they might be of the "take the money and run" sort, in which case MI and ON DOT's might wish to simply take the Ambassador off their hands just to avoid future conflicting interest (but wait until the Gordie Howe bridge opens to get the best price!).
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 14, 2020, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 14, 2020, 02:39:43 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on September 28, 2018, 02:37:19 PM
Contract has been finalized
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/gordie-howe-bridge-construction-1.4842489

The new bridge will provide a six lanes of interrupted arterial connection between the Hwy 401 and I-75 freeways, as well as multi-use trails. It will cost $5.7B for the design/build/finance/operate/maintain contract, of which $3.8B is estimated to cover construction. Construction is to being next month.

Arterial connection? this won't be limited access in canada?
It has a customs booth and toll plaza, plus the curves in the area don't meet 400-series highway standards.  Ontario is picky about what they call a freeway.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: silverback1065 on July 14, 2020, 08:34:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2020, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 14, 2020, 02:39:43 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on September 28, 2018, 02:37:19 PM
Contract has been finalized
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/gordie-howe-bridge-construction-1.4842489

The new bridge will provide a six lanes of interrupted arterial connection between the Hwy 401 and I-75 freeways, as well as multi-use trails. It will cost $5.7B for the design/build/finance/operate/maintain contract, of which $3.8B is estimated to cover construction. Construction is to being next month.

Arterial connection? this won't be limited access in canada?
It has a customs booth and toll plaza, plus the curves in the area don't meet 400-series highway standards.  Ontario is picky about what they call a freeway.

Interesting, so there won't be signals or driveway cuts so it's essentially limited access?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 14, 2020, 09:37:26 PM
Only that which would be expected for a border crossing.
https://bizxmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/WDBA-Financial-Close-News-Release-and-Backgrounders-EN-1-3.jpg
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 09:57:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 14, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).
There's one individual who I will not miss.

I wonder if his heirs have the same penchant for litigation as good old Matty.  If so, they'll continue to be the proverbial thorn in the side of local cross-border issues.  But OTOH, they might be of the "take the money and run" sort, in which case MI and ON DOT's might wish to simply take the Ambassador off their hands just to avoid future conflicting interest (but wait until the Gordie Howe bridge opens to get the best price!).
I'm hoping his family puts the bridge up for sale. I was thrilled when they sold Michigan Central Station. Never thought I'd see that building open again. I'm not sure though what his heirs are like. I was happy when he had to spend time in the Wayne County Jail several years ago.

I honestly don't think the Ambassador Bridge has much of a life span left.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: ftballfan on July 15, 2020, 10:40:22 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 09:57:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 14, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).
There's one individual who I will not miss.

I wonder if his heirs have the same penchant for litigation as good old Matty.  If so, they'll continue to be the proverbial thorn in the side of local cross-border issues.  But OTOH, they might be of the "take the money and run" sort, in which case MI and ON DOT's might wish to simply take the Ambassador off their hands just to avoid future conflicting interest (but wait until the Gordie Howe bridge opens to get the best price!).
I'm hoping his family puts the bridge up for sale. I was thrilled when they sold Michigan Central Station. Never thought I'd see that building open again. I'm not sure though what his heirs are like. I was happy when he had to spend time in the Wayne County Jail several years ago.

I honestly don't think the Ambassador Bridge has much of a life span left.
I'd expect the Ambassador to close for a massive overhaul once the new bridge opens
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: rawmustard on July 15, 2020, 10:57:45 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 14, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
I wonder if his heirs have the same penchant for litigation as good old Matty.  If so, they'll continue to be the proverbial thorn in the side of local cross-border issues.  But OTOH, they might be of the "take the money and run" sort, in which case MI and ON DOT's might wish to simply take the Ambassador off their hands just to avoid future conflicting interest (but wait until the Gordie Howe bridge opens to get the best price!).

His son Matthew has managed the business since the elder Maroun retired, and I know he's pretty much toed the company line when speaking on issues.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on July 15, 2020, 08:33:35 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on July 15, 2020, 10:40:22 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 09:57:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 14, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).
There's one individual who I will not miss.

I wonder if his heirs have the same penchant for litigation as good old Matty.  If so, they'll continue to be the proverbial thorn in the side of local cross-border issues.  But OTOH, they might be of the "take the money and run" sort, in which case MI and ON DOT's might wish to simply take the Ambassador off their hands just to avoid future conflicting interest (but wait until the Gordie Howe bridge opens to get the best price!).
I'm hoping his family puts the bridge up for sale. I was thrilled when they sold Michigan Central Station. Never thought I'd see that building open again. I'm not sure though what his heirs are like. I was happy when he had to spend time in the Wayne County Jail several years ago.

I honestly don't think the Ambassador Bridge has much of a life span left.
I'd expect the Ambassador to close for a massive overhaul once the new bridge opens
I agree with that if it is kept open.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mgk920 on July 16, 2020, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 15, 2020, 08:33:35 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on July 15, 2020, 10:40:22 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 09:57:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 14, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).
There's one individual who I will not miss.

I wonder if his heirs have the same penchant for litigation as good old Matty.  If so, they'll continue to be the proverbial thorn in the side of local cross-border issues.  But OTOH, they might be of the "take the money and run" sort, in which case MI and ON DOT's might wish to simply take the Ambassador off their hands just to avoid future conflicting interest (but wait until the Gordie Howe bridge opens to get the best price!).
I'm hoping his family puts the bridge up for sale. I was thrilled when they sold Michigan Central Station. Never thought I'd see that building open again. I'm not sure though what his heirs are like. I was happy when he had to spend time in the Wayne County Jail several years ago.

I honestly don't think the Ambassador Bridge has much of a life span left.
I'd expect the Ambassador to close for a massive overhaul once the new bridge opens
I agree with that if it is kept open.

Heck, as part of its reconstruction, I'd love to see the Michigan Central Station also be restored for use as the city's main train station.  It is ideally located in relation to both the city and the railroad network for that purpose.

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on July 16, 2020, 01:43:55 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 16, 2020, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 15, 2020, 08:33:35 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on July 15, 2020, 10:40:22 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 09:57:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 14, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 14, 2020, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on July 13, 2020, 08:56:43 PM
Although I don't see this ending the "wars," it should be noted that Matty Maroun has died aged 93 (https://www.michiganradio.org/post/detroit-billionaire-manuel-matty-moroun-has-died).
There's one individual who I will not miss.

I wonder if his heirs have the same penchant for litigation as good old Matty.  If so, they'll continue to be the proverbial thorn in the side of local cross-border issues.  But OTOH, they might be of the "take the money and run" sort, in which case MI and ON DOT's might wish to simply take the Ambassador off their hands just to avoid future conflicting interest (but wait until the Gordie Howe bridge opens to get the best price!).
I'm hoping his family puts the bridge up for sale. I was thrilled when they sold Michigan Central Station. Never thought I'd see that building open again. I'm not sure though what his heirs are like. I was happy when he had to spend time in the Wayne County Jail several years ago.

I honestly don't think the Ambassador Bridge has much of a life span left.
I'd expect the Ambassador to close for a massive overhaul once the new bridge opens
I agree with that if it is kept open.

Heck, as part of its reconstruction, I'd love to see the Michigan Central Station also be restored for use as the city's main train station.  It is ideally located in relation to both the city and the railroad network for that purpose.

:nod:

Mike
Ford owns the station now. I haven't been to Detroit in about a year and only live 100 miles from it. But anyway, I never thought the setup at MCS was relevant for Amtrak because the entrance to the railroad tunnel under the Detroit River isn't far from MCS so trains would have to back track but I think it would have been cool to have it used as a train station again.

I was thrilled when the Book Cadillac Hotel was renovated. I was actually one of the people that saved that building from being demolished.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 24, 2020, 03:56:30 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2020, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 14, 2020, 02:39:43 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on September 28, 2018, 02:37:19 PM
Contract has been finalized
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/gordie-howe-bridge-construction-1.4842489

The new bridge will provide a six lanes of interrupted arterial connection between the Hwy 401 and I-75 freeways, as well as multi-use trails. It will cost $5.7B for the design/build/finance/operate/maintain contract, of which $3.8B is estimated to cover construction. Construction is to being next month.

Arterial connection? this won't be limited access in canada?
It has a customs booth and toll plaza, plus the curves in the area don't meet 400-series highway standards.  Ontario is picky about what they call a freeway.

It also has pedestrian and cycling facilities and no median. So, it doesn't meet any standard of freeway regardless of jurisdiction.

The approach roads are now all freeway, but the bridge and plazas themselves are not anywhere close to that.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 24, 2020, 08:49:08 PM
No median?  Why would they build a bridge of that caliber with freeways on both ends with no median?

Bike/ped facilities wouldn't automatically disqualify something, depending on the circumstances.  The new Tappan Zee has a multi-use path, for example, and many states allow bikes on the interstate (especially out west).
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: GaryV on July 25, 2020, 07:51:07 AM
Because if you have to stop at customs at either end of a bridge, there's hardly any reason to make it 70 mph capable.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: sparker on July 25, 2020, 07:29:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 24, 2020, 08:49:08 PM
No median?  Why would they build a bridge of that caliber with freeways on both ends with no median?

Bike/ped facilities wouldn't automatically disqualify something, depending on the circumstances.  The new Tappan Zee has a multi-use path, for example, and many states allow bikes on the interstate (especially out west).
Quote from: GaryV on July 25, 2020, 07:51:07 AM
Because if you have to stop at customs at either end of a bridge, there's hardly any reason to make it 70 mph capable.


Question -- will there be some type of directional separation -- K-rail, beam, or at least some raised curbing -- in place of a full median on the Howe bridge?  Ancillary question -- are there visual plans for the structure and approaches available? 
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Joe The Dragon on July 25, 2020, 09:02:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 25, 2020, 07:29:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 24, 2020, 08:49:08 PM
No median?  Why would they build a bridge of that caliber with freeways on both ends with no median?

Bike/ped facilities wouldn't automatically disqualify something, depending on the circumstances.  The new Tappan Zee has a multi-use path, for example, and many states allow bikes on the interstate (especially out west).
Quote from: GaryV on July 25, 2020, 07:51:07 AM
Because if you have to stop at customs at either end of a bridge, there's hardly any reason to make it 70 mph capable.


Question -- will there be some type of directional separation -- K-rail, beam, or at least some raised curbing -- in place of a full median on the Howe bridge?  Ancillary question -- are there visual plans for the structure and approaches available?

planing some kind of lane control?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Mdcastle on July 25, 2020, 09:41:04 PM
Any news on if EZPass will be accepted?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 25, 2020, 10:28:07 PM
Quote from: GaryV on July 25, 2020, 07:51:07 AM
Because if you have to stop at customs at either end of a bridge, there's hardly any reason to make it 70 mph capable.

I didn't say it had to support 70 mph (there are LOTS of sections of interstate with speed limits below 55, especially in New York state, and most especially on bridges), but it should at least be some kind of freeway.  This would allow for ON 401 to end at the border as ON 402 does.  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.  Duty free stores are done as either a service area or off the last exit before the border.

And what would they do if the US ever came to its senses on national security and we adopted a schengen-like system?  They'd have to tear down the bridge and replace it!
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: ilpt4u on July 25, 2020, 10:38:36 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on July 25, 2020, 09:41:04 PM
Any news on if EZPass will be accepted?
Would be even more interesting if both EZ-Pass and 407-ETR Transponder/Accounts are supported. That is probably Fictional territory, tho
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 25, 2020, 11:30:03 PM
Canada doesn't do interoperability.  In Montréal alone, someone would need two different transponders just to use A-25 and A-30.  So E-ZPass, maybe (the NY international bridges use it, aside from a couple up north with no electronic toll collection), but 407 interoperability, definitely not.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: catch22 on July 26, 2020, 10:54:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 25, 2020, 07:29:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 24, 2020, 08:49:08 PM
No median?  Why would they build a bridge of that caliber with freeways on both ends with no median?

Bike/ped facilities wouldn't automatically disqualify something, depending on the circumstances.  The new Tappan Zee has a multi-use path, for example, and many states allow bikes on the interstate (especially out west).
Quote from: GaryV on July 25, 2020, 07:51:07 AM
Because if you have to stop at customs at either end of a bridge, there's hardly any reason to make it 70 mph capable.


Question -- will there be some type of directional separation -- K-rail, beam, or at least some raised curbing -- in place of a full median on the Howe bridge?  Ancillary question -- are there visual plans for the structure and approaches available? 

Start here:

https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/en
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 26, 2020, 10:15:39 PM
That multi-use path wouldn't disqualify it as a freeway in my book.  No different than the Tappan Zee, or the Goethals.  The lack of anything for a median is a bigger deal.  On MTR non-divided four-lane freeways were called super-4s.  Would that make this a super-6?  Ideally it would have been built another lane winder so there could be real left shoulders and a jersey barrier.  Failing that, they could narrow the right shoulders to fit in a barrier.

It's frustrating how Canada always seems to cheap out when it come to freeway connectivity, especially with respect to the border.  There seems to be a difference of philosophy at play.  In the US, the interstates were planned as a system first, to connect all the significant parts of the country to each other.  In Canada, freeway planning is based on more of a corridor approach, with upgrades targeted to specific areas based on certain conditions.  This is especially true outside of Ontario and Québec - in fact, no provinces other than those two even pay lip service to the idea of having a freeway system rather than corridors that happen to be freeways (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia both have theoretical systems, but in practice most of their centerline mileage consists of two lane roads).  As someone who has a very strong preference for the system approach over the corridor one, it's disappointing.  It basically turns the border into a giant Breezewood.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 27, 2020, 05:02:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 24, 2020, 08:49:08 PM
No median?  Why would they build a bridge of that caliber with freeways on both ends with no median?

(https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/3af60b8909916a2d56850af32bfb4e44.jpg)

Oh, wow, I wonder...  :rolleyes:

Quote from: vdeane on July 24, 2020, 08:49:08 PMBike/ped facilities wouldn't automatically disqualify something, depending on the circumstances.  The new Tappan Zee has a multi-use path, for example, and many states allow bikes on the interstate (especially out west).

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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2020, 10:28:07 PM
I didn't say it had to support 70 mph (there are LOTS of sections of interstate with speed limits below 55, especially in New York state, and most especially on bridges), but it should at least be some kind of freeway.

No it doesn't. That offers no advantage to throughput and, per below, does almost nothing for safety either.

Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2020, 10:28:07 PM
This would allow for ON 401 to end at the border as ON 402 does.

Hwy 402 ends 1.8 km from the border. And the section of road west of Front Street (some MTO, some BWBA) is not built to anywhere near freeway standard.
As an aside, Hwy 401 will end approximately 2.4 km from the border.

Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2020, 10:28:07 PM
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.  Duty free stores are done as either a service area or off the last exit before the border.

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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2020, 10:28:07 PM
And what would they do if the US ever came to its senses on national security and we adopted a schengen-like system?  They'd have to tear down the bridge and replace it!

Dealing with the engineering side of things, it would be possible to retrofit some of the bridges like the Gordie Howe or Blue Water. Not that I would expect such a thing to ever be necessary or desirable as described below, but there's no reason it can't be done.

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 (https://globalnews.ca/news/7185471/us-canada-border-travel-coronavirus-poll/) right now.

Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2020, 10:15:39 PM
That multi-use path wouldn't disqualify it as a freeway in my book.  No different than the Tappan Zee, or the Goethals.  The lack of anything for a median is a bigger deal.  On MTR non-divided four-lane freeways were called super-4s.  Would that make this a super-6?  Ideally it would have been built another lane winder so there could be real left shoulders and a jersey barrier.  Failing that, they could narrow the right shoulders to fit in a barrier.

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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2020, 10:15:39 PM
It's frustrating how Canada always seems to cheap out when it come to freeway connectivity, especially with respect to the border. There seems to be a difference of philosophy at play.
Yes, though as stated, only somewhat.


Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2020, 10:15:39 PM
In the US, the interstates were planned as a system first, to connect all the significant parts of the country to each other.  In Canada, freeway planning is based on more of a corridor approach, with upgrades targeted to specific areas based on certain conditions.

Why would the US develop a whole freeway system instead of just doing it where development dictates? Well, one:
US pop. 1956 - 170 million
Canada pop. 1956 - 16 million
US pop. 2020 - 331 million
Canada pop. 2020 - 38 million

And two, the full name of the system as the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

The US has the population base to make very few sections actually unnecessary. And the Cold War strategic impetus to build them where there isn't.

Basically, take a look at non-interstate highway in the US, particularly in areas away from Interstates. You get mixes of two and multi-lane arterials, with expressway and freeway segments mixed in. Why? Because that's all that's needed in those areas.
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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2020, 10:15:39 PM
This is especially true outside of Ontario and Québec - in fact, no provinces other than those two even pay lip service to the idea of having a freeway system rather than corridors that happen to be freeways (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia both have theoretical systems, but in practice most of their centerline mileage consists of two lane roads).

That's because they're incredibly empty. A freeway system is not necessary.

Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2020, 10:15:39 PM
As someone who has a very strong preference for the system approach over the corridor one, it's disappointing.  It basically turns the border into a giant Breezewood.

Breezewood is a different situation. Breezewood is where traffic is intentionally slowed down and an unsafe environment is created in spite of what proper traffic engineering judgement would dictate there. The borders are, by and large, exactly what they need to be.

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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: MisterSG1 on July 27, 2020, 05:24:41 PM
QuoteCanada 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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: sparker on July 27, 2020, 07:24:06 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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. 
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 27, 2020, 10:17:17 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on July 27, 2020, 05:02:02 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9521371,-78.7508649,3a,75y,263.5h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssnRjgE1mD8ctbEmg_H-5KQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that isn't a freeway.

Quote
Hwy 402 ends 1.8 km from the border. And the section of road west of Front Street (some MTO, some BWBA) is not built to anywhere near freeway standard.
As an aside, Hwy 401 will end approximately 2.4 km from the border.
How is that area not a freeway?  This (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9975079,-82.4186106,3a,75y,145.14h,75.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5of7U8lt6yBhMaOJAiinyQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5of7U8lt6yBhMaOJAiinyQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D110.07962%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664) 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!

Quote
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!

Quote
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 (https://globalnews.ca/news/7185471/us-canada-border-travel-coronavirus-poll/) 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.

Quote
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8182361,-122.4784685,3a,75y,173.57h,75.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4cD7ppkCbtE3hwbHUMjUXA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4cD7ppkCbtE3hwbHUMjUXA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D150.76222%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).  This is the Pont Champlain (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.469931,-73.5208046,3a,75y,294.6h,80.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNzYgfI1wTxllaKoatqsa9Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DNzYgfI1wTxllaKoatqsa9Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D7.96101%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).  I don't see anyone claiming they're not freeways.

Quote
Why would the US develop a whole freeway system instead of just doing it where development dictates? Well, one:
US pop. 1956 - 170 million
Canada pop. 1956 - 16 million
US pop. 2020 - 331 million
Canada pop. 2020 - 38 million

And two, the full name of the system as the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

The US has the population base to make very few sections actually unnecessary. And the Cold War strategic impetus to build them where there isn't.

Basically, take a look at non-interstate highway in the US, particularly in areas away from Interstates. You get mixes of two and multi-lane arterials, with expressway and freeway segments mixed in. Why? Because that's all that's needed in those areas.
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.
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?).

Quote
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.  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).  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.

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.

Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2020, 07:24:06 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7028838,-73.9462762,3a,75y,85.76h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDbOARN8W7imiXcJeJAfweg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DDbOARN8W7imiXcJeJAfweg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.33404%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).  For some reason a lot of new bridges have such system even if they appear to serve no discernible purpose.

Also, with a mile ore more between customs booths, anything below 50 would just feel painfully slow.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: GaryV on July 28, 2020, 08:20:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: mgk920 on July 28, 2020, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2020, 10:17:17 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on July 27, 2020, 05:02:02 PM

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 (https://globalnews.ca/news/7185471/us-canada-border-travel-coronavirus-poll/) 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.   :rolleyes:

Mike
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 28, 2020, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2020, 10:17:17 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on July 27, 2020, 05:02:02 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9521371,-78.7508649,3a,75y,263.5h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssnRjgE1mD8ctbEmg_H-5KQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  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 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/HDM_Ch_5_Appendix_5E.pdf)! 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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2020, 10:17:17 PM
How is that area not a freeway?  This (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9975079,-82.4186106,3a,75y,145.14h,75.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5of7U8lt6yBhMaOJAiinyQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5of7U8lt6yBhMaOJAiinyQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D110.07962%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664) 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!


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?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2020, 10:17:17 PM
Quote
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 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.

Quote
Quote
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 (https://globalnews.ca/news/7185471/us-canada-border-travel-coronavirus-poll/) 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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.


Quote
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.  :clap:

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2020, 10:17:17 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2020, 07:24:06 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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.

Quote
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.

Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 28, 2020, 01:30:58 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on July 27, 2020, 05:24:41 PM
QuoteCanada 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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 28, 2020, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2020, 10:17:17 PM

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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: MisterSG1 on July 28, 2020, 02:34:38 PM
QuoteFirst 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.

QuoteSo? 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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
Quote from: GaryV on July 28, 2020, 08:20:10 AM
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.

Quote from: mgk920 on July 28, 2020, 11:50:27 AM
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.   :rolleyes:
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?

Quote from: cbeach40 on July 28, 2020, 01:11:55 PM
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 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/HDM_Ch_5_Appendix_5E.pdf)! 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1505976,-77.6065188,3a,55.6y,118.52h,88.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1secH5nHZ5PXA-Nj6ej3Hbug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3934916,-72.8750752,3a,75y,187.22h,78.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soQp0wt_TDMYfBAci23YdeA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0115544,-73.4522609,3a,75y,358.2h,83.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sO7DkkZPtwIq1l62SAhGKBg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DO7DkkZPtwIq1l62SAhGKBg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D25.911224%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) 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).

Quote
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0081446,-73.452152,145m/data=!3m1!1e3)?
1. That strikes me as not too terribly different from a tandem lot or something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8908814,-75.2622804,73m/data=!3m1!1e3) - 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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0710067,-73.9012938,3a,48.5y,93.11h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s499XGTXd1z9HB9tVe7-sTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), 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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Joe The Dragon on July 28, 2020, 04:41:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
Quote from: GaryV on July 28, 2020, 08:20:10 AM
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.

Quote from: mgk920 on July 28, 2020, 11:50:27 AM
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.   :rolleyes:
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?

Quote from: cbeach40 on July 28, 2020, 01:11:55 PM
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 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/HDM_Ch_5_Appendix_5E.pdf)! 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1505976,-77.6065188,3a,55.6y,118.52h,88.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1secH5nHZ5PXA-Nj6ej3Hbug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3934916,-72.8750752,3a,75y,187.22h,78.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soQp0wt_TDMYfBAci23YdeA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0115544,-73.4522609,3a,75y,358.2h,83.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sO7DkkZPtwIq1l62SAhGKBg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DO7DkkZPtwIq1l62SAhGKBg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D25.911224%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) 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).

Quote
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0081446,-73.452152,145m/data=!3m1!1e3)?
1. That strikes me as not too terribly different from a tandem lot or something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8908814,-75.2622804,73m/data=!3m1!1e3) - 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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0710067,-73.9012938,3a,48.5y,93.11h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s499XGTXd1z9HB9tVe7-sTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), 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.

Quote
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
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 28, 2020, 05:07:55 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
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.


Quote from: cbeach40 on July 28, 2020, 01:11:55 PM
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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
Quote
Hey look, New York has a design standards document for tolling facilities (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/HDM_Ch_5_Appendix_5E.pdf)! 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.  :banghead:


Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
  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).

Quote
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:
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2020, 10:28:07 PM
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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2020, 10:28:07 PM
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)

Quote
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.  :-D

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 10:07:03 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on July 28, 2020, 05:07:55 PM
What? This entire discussion was based on you bemoaning whether something is a freeway or not is in any way important.  :banghead:
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.162241,-72.5273225,3a,25.3y,89.22h,91.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUGSGA73gp1n0M7QqeyP1MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  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.

Quote
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.  :-D
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Rothman on July 29, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
For those of us that know vdeane IRL, cbeach40 is sure not making a good impression with his demeaning and misplaced assumptions about her.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 29, 2020, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 10:07:03 PM
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?

(https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/hmc.gif)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 29, 2020, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 10:08:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Rothman on July 29, 2020, 10:24:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: hbelkins on July 29, 2020, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
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.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 29, 2020, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Terry Shea on July 29, 2020, 11:21:56 AM
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?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2020, 11:21:04 AM
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.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2020, 11:21:04 AMFrom 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?

Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2020, 11:21:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 11:49:34 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2020, 10:24:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 29, 2020, 01:46:15 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2020, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
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.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 29, 2020, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: renegade on July 29, 2020, 02:24:03 PM
It's amazing how people are getting bent out of shape over a bridge that hasn't even been built yet ... :crazy:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: ilpt4u on July 29, 2020, 02:40:38 PM
Quote from: renegade on July 29, 2020, 02:24:03 PM
It's amazing how people are getting bent out of shape over a bridge that hasn't even been built yet ... :crazy:
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
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: qguy on July 29, 2020, 02:43:12 PM
Wow... "Detroit Bridge Wars" wars. Who'da thunk it?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: vdeane on July 29, 2020, 03:10:03 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 10:08:57 AM
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).

Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 09:17:20 AM
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.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2020, 11:21:04 AM
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.

Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 11:48:53 AM
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.

Quote
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).

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 29, 2020, 01:46:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 03:24:29 PM
Right, so my reason for pointing out that you aren't an engineer, and that Cbeach40 is, is that you don't have the same technical knowledge of roadway design as Cbeach40 does.  And you're trying to argue as if you do, whether you realize it or not is annoying.

So with that in mind, it doesn't matter that you don't like the design of the bridge approaches, because (like me) you're just some asshole with an opinion on the internet.  The idea that you're opinion of the bridge approach somehow carries weight is annoying.  Especially when arguing with an actual industry professional.

And nobody is claiming that traffic engineers are somehow infallible.  Thought, I'd argue that there would be considerable more oversight on a multi-billion dollar international bridge than there would be on some rural traffic signal in rural Kentuky.  If that's the best example HB could find of engineering malfeasance, he's unknowingly agreeing with me.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: SEWIGuy on July 29, 2020, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 29, 2020, 03:10:03 PM
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.


My apologies.  But flexing on your high school GPA is a little strange.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 03:51:28 PM
I will attempt to guide this thread back on topic with some fun photos of construction & demo work posted on the Gordie Howe bridge site. First is the I-75/Clark St. bridge demo work. (https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/4807c618f8546b12b025ec43a47593f9.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 03:52:25 PM
Clark & I-75: (https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/c295ca894c50c77203d0f1d35ae7a09f.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 03:53:23 PM
More Clark & the Fisher Fwy: (https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/4800fe5f9fe1726623450c0f2fc12c45.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 03:54:36 PM
Livernois & I-75 demo work: (https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/06fd25779af3120e42e80e6baa51a6ba.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 03:55:16 PM
(https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/6bacee368098a29d7063766a0989a346.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 03:56:07 PM
Springwells & I-75: (https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/88f5f5218782eacd1a0ed795dc09e30e.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 03:57:23 PM
More Springwells & I-75: (https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/90c6b8a3694a543a7f81a45175e002b5.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 03:59:40 PM
The insert states "Construction of relocated Springwells bridge over southbound I-75". I don't live in the area anymore. Does anyone know how much/far the bridge is relocated?
(https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/6bb7ebe29612849f474fc168ff09ad69.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 04:00:48 PM
(https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/b9805bcbd7752421ac45c5c076e2698e.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 04:02:30 PM
Aerial view of US Port of Entry: (https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/330738d1157f56a3c47cce8b8aafd63b.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 04:04:01 PM
Wick drain installation at US Port of Entry: (https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/ba3895dbfbc8e7b0f023ee6062110d57.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Ryctor2018 on July 29, 2020, 04:06:07 PM
Canadian Port of Entry: (https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/u/gallery/e3560fc602bcda20282ed4182eea5b34.jpg)
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 29, 2020, 04:10:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 10:07:03 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on July 28, 2020, 05:07:55 PM
What? This entire discussion was based on you bemoaning whether something is a freeway or not is in any way important.  :banghead:
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.

What I used is also what major roadgeek sites like Kurami and Alpsroads define as a freeway. Like, being free flow and having and absence of cross traffic is pretty well the most essential feature to any definition of freeway.

Quote
Quote
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.

I said that having a low design speed does not disqualify something from being a freeway, but it does disqualify it from meeting Interstate standards. The Interstate standards part is a different aspect of the discussion, not applicable here.

So know what I was doing there? I was agreeing with you.  :banghead:

Quote
Maybe you should try looking at things from the perspective of a driver and roadgeek instead of an engineer.

That is literally what I'm doing, looking at things as a driver would see them and finding how it fails to meet driver expectancy. Which happens to be my job.

And as far as non-engineers go, they for the most part don't really care if a road is an expressway or freeway, at least when the flow is interrupted. It takes a really special kind of person to bemoan the lack of a freeway network - on roads that function like freeways, for example AB-2 between Calgary and Edmonton - while simultaneously saying violations of freeway design standards do not determine if it's not a freeway.

Like, the argument is perplexing in just how much it contradicts itself.

Quote
Quote

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?

I don't know, I'd say by being accomplished and happy enough in my recent life that I don't have to lean on childhood and school age glories to prop myself up?

Quote
Quote
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.
Quote
Funny how you only respond to points when you think you can use them to be arrogantly dismissive.

I mean, I'm not going to respond when I have nothing to address about the point. I just will respond to arguments that are terrible. And sorry I don't sugar coat when I call out people for making awful points.


Quote
  If you set the bar at cross traffic, here's the MassPike (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.162241,-72.5273225,3a,25.3y,89.22h,91.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUGSGA73gp1n0M7QqeyP1MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  I don't hear anyone arguing that it shouldn't be part of I-90.

I wouldn't say that shouldn't be part of I-90. I would say that sort of design should be eliminated from I-90 as it's terrible and does not meet what drivers would expect from an Interstate class freeway, but it doesn't matter.

Quote
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.

I don't have the AASHTO green book memorized, I just use this really handy website to look things up: www.google.com
It's great, can find a lot of things there.

But yeah, that's fine, but when you're making arguments about things like roadway design and driver expectancy and the like you're really pulling some Dunning-Kruger effect stuff there.

Quote
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.  :-D
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.
[/quote]

Funny how something that laypeople don't know about makes it into pop culture like The Onion or hit shows like Downton Abbey. Or has been routinely discussed when it comes to the NHL or Major League Baseball and its effect on their season for those in the sporting world.
But yeah, to claim that it's not something people were aware of is simply ludicrous.


Quote from: vdeane on July 29, 2020, 03:10:03 PM
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).

Because your argument is contradictory and incoherent.

Quote from: vdeane on July 29, 2020, 03:10:03 PM
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 said you were stupid, I'm sure you're smarter than I am in a number of areas (for example, based on your degree I'm sure you're far more tech savvy than I). I merely called out your arguments for being flawed, and when you doubled down, I pointed out you didn't know what you were talking about.

If you're going to have a debate, bring facts. If you want to express opinions, don't present them as facts and don't do so with snark and false authority.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2020, 11:21:04 AM
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.

Sounds more like an instance where a politician went with currying political favour instead of doing what's right from an empirical standpoint. But hey, corrupt politicians like are everywhere, every DOT has to deal with them.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2020, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 03:24:29 PM
And nobody is claiming that traffic engineers are somehow infallible.  Thought, I'd argue that there would be considerable more oversight on a multi-billion dollar international bridge than there would be on some rural traffic signal in rural Kentuky.  If that's the best example HB could find of engineering malfeasance, he's unknowingly agreeing with me.

I don't consider that to be engineering malfeasance. I consider that to be an instance of the layperson being right even when the engineers were "right" in their initial denial of the signal installation. In other words, common sense overrides doing things according to an arbitrary set of standards.

Of course, now, they'd probably insist on spending millions more to build a divided highway there and a J-turn/R-cut. Like they're doing here on a road that is already four lanes.

https://www.richmondregister.com/news/madison_county/no-green-light-transportation-cabinet-says-it-wont-fund-light-on-martin-bypass/article_45a4c8e3-fc38-5586-8914-bb8db4458770.html?fbclid=IwAR2154uZmvH6MkwU42SZ1ITm_cLS3LuGp3RgaX9PjPJbvLw40B_TwC24LpI
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on July 30, 2020, 12:29:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2020, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 29, 2020, 03:24:29 PM
And nobody is claiming that traffic engineers are somehow infallible.  Thought, I'd argue that there would be considerable more oversight on a multi-billion dollar international bridge than there would be on some rural traffic signal in rural Kentuky.  If that's the best example HB could find of engineering malfeasance, he's unknowingly agreeing with me.

I don't consider that to be engineering malfeasance. I consider that to be an instance of the layperson being right even when the engineers were "right" in their initial denial of the signal installation. In other words, common sense overrides doing things according to an arbitrary set of standards.

Of course, now, they'd probably insist on spending millions more to build a divided highway there and a J-turn/R-cut. Like they're doing here on a road that is already four lanes.

https://www.richmondregister.com/news/madison_county/no-green-light-transportation-cabinet-says-it-wont-fund-light-on-martin-bypass/article_45a4c8e3-fc38-5586-8914-bb8db4458770.html?fbclid=IwAR2154uZmvH6MkwU42SZ1ITm_cLS3LuGp3RgaX9PjPJbvLw40B_TwC24LpI

Was the layperson right?  I mean, it's not like a politician has never played political favour to their constituents by giving to their demands regardless of merit right?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 30, 2020, 12:45:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2020, 11:47:37 AM

I don't consider that to be engineering malfeasance. I consider that to be an instance of the layperson being right even when the engineers were "right" in their initial denial of the signal installation. In other words, common sense overrides doing things according to an arbitrary set of standards.

Of course, now, they'd probably insist on spending millions more to build a divided highway there and a J-turn/R-cut. Like they're doing here on a road that is already four lanes.

https://www.richmondregister.com/news/madison_county/no-green-light-transportation-cabinet-says-it-wont-fund-light-on-martin-bypass/article_45a4c8e3-fc38-5586-8914-bb8db4458770.html?fbclid=IwAR2154uZmvH6MkwU42SZ1ITm_cLS3LuGp3RgaX9PjPJbvLw40B_TwC24LpI

That's not common sense, that's people who don't know what they're doing using the wrong tool to try to solve the problem.

Putting in a simple signal at the intersection would not solve the problem as left turning drivers would not have any additional gaps and would increase the number of high speed rear end collisions. Plus would delay people on the busy road, which usually leads to increased speeding and aggressive driving in the adjacent sections. Adding a protected left turn phase would solve the left turn problem, but would exasperate those other problems as people are delayed longer and the light is red for more time.

Common sense does not mean going with what solution seems right to the layperson, regardless of whether it will actually solve the problem. Common sense is finding whatever solution that will actually work at solving the problem.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: skluth on July 30, 2020, 11:22:51 PM
Thanks Ryctor2018 for the pix. It's nice to see the progress happening for the bridge, though I feel sorry for the poor souls living on the side street detours. It beats the crap out of the most irrational argument I've seen this side of the Brady/Manning debate on Football Outsiders in the late Aughts.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: cbeach40 on July 31, 2020, 09:50:22 AM
Project team uploaded a new video this morning of the pour of the footings from a few weeks back.
https://youtu.be/62SizvoidSw
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: kalvado on July 31, 2020, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: cbeach40 on July 30, 2020, 12:45:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2020, 11:47:37 AM

I don't consider that to be engineering malfeasance. I consider that to be an instance of the layperson being right even when the engineers were "right" in their initial denial of the signal installation. In other words, common sense overrides doing things according to an arbitrary set of standards.

Of course, now, they'd probably insist on spending millions more to build a divided highway there and a J-turn/R-cut. Like they're doing here on a road that is already four lanes.

https://www.richmondregister.com/news/madison_county/no-green-light-transportation-cabinet-says-it-wont-fund-light-on-martin-bypass/article_45a4c8e3-fc38-5586-8914-bb8db4458770.html?fbclid=IwAR2154uZmvH6MkwU42SZ1ITm_cLS3LuGp3RgaX9PjPJbvLw40B_TwC24LpI

That's not common sense, that's people who don't know what they're doing using the wrong tool to try to solve the problem.

Putting in a simple signal at the intersection would not solve the problem as left turning drivers would not have any additional gaps and would increase the number of high speed rear end collisions. Plus would delay people on the busy road, which usually leads to increased speeding and aggressive driving in the adjacent sections. Adding a protected left turn phase would solve the left turn problem, but would exasperate those other problems as people are delayed longer and the light is red for more time.

Common sense does not mean going with what solution seems right to the layperson, regardless of whether it will actually solve the problem. Common sense is finding whatever solution that will actually work at solving the problem.
As for me, I would gladly continue this discussion as it may be pretty interesting and educative. But I would prefer a different thread, as this one is tainted and on a different topic.. moderators, can you split off?
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Papa Emeritus on January 05, 2021, 09:06:52 AM
Matty Moroun has scored another legislative victory, by getting the state of Michigan to allow haz mat shipments on the Ambassador Bridge. The authorization was included in a Covid relief bill, that Governor Whitmer signed even though she's opposed to haz mat going on the bridge. Canada, with good reason, is apoplectic about the rule change, and they're planning to fight hard to ensure it doesn't become a reality. More information here:

https://lessenberryink.com/2021/01/05/risking-our-lives-hazmat-and-the-ambassador-bridge/?fbclid=IwAR32gGKw94fcRbWEf5dXUTuJhzwDAq7GhvuHhpA4afCVkVCtQsPHGMOr_5k
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Flint1979 on January 05, 2021, 11:14:18 AM
Matty died about 5-6 months ago.
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: wanderer2575 on January 05, 2021, 11:25:15 AM
Quote from: Papa Emeritus on January 05, 2021, 09:06:52 AM
Matty Moroun has scored another legislative victory, by getting the state of Michigan to allow haz mat shipments on the Ambassador Bridge. The authorization was included in a Covid relief bill, that Governor Whitmer signed even though she's opposed to haz mat going on the bridge. Canada, with good reason, is apoplectic about the rule change, and they're planning to fight hard to ensure it doesn't become a reality. More information here:

https://lessenberryink.com/2021/01/05/risking-our-lives-hazmat-and-the-ambassador-bridge/?fbclid=IwAR32gGKw94fcRbWEf5dXUTuJhzwDAq7GhvuHhpA4afCVkVCtQsPHGMOr_5k

Incorrect.

QuoteGov. Gretchen Whitmer recently vetoed a controversial proposal that would have allowed hazardous materials to be transported over the Ambassador Bridge.

The legal language was tucked in to a broader bill aimed at providing relief to businesses and workers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.  Whitmer was able to use her line-item veto authority to remove the hazardous materials portion of the bill while signing the broader bill into law.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/30/ambassador-bridge-hazardous-materials-proposal-veto/4076989001/
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: JREwing78 on January 05, 2021, 07:43:29 PM
From the article:
Current Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, has opposed the idea too, but Republicans control  the legislature.  Michigan governors do have line-item veto power.  But that apparently applies only to things for which money is appropriated, and there is no direct appropriation in connection with the HazMat prohibition.

Some urged her to find grounds to veto it anyway. On Dec. 29, she did just that, declaring the HazMat language unconstitutional and unenforceable. Whether the legislature accepts that without a fight, however, remains to be seen.


The Canadians aren't going to allow it anyway, so this is kind of a pointless "victory".
Title: Re: Detroit Bridge Wars
Post by: Stephane Dumas on April 16, 2022, 09:44:44 AM
Here some photos showing the 2 towers of the Gordie Howe bridge posted on Skyscraperpage.
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9593348&postcount=1321