Okay, many people say that I-35 isn't a true border-to-border route because it ends in Duluth on its north end and ends a mere 3000 feet (914 meters) north of the Mexican border at an intersection on its south end that isn't grade-separated. Would using a short cut-cover tunnel to connect I-35 to the bridge in Laredo make sense? I know the lack of a Mexico border connection and connecting I-35 to Mexico is a topic for the Mid-South regional board, but I-35 falls short of connecting to either border. Would extending I-35 to Canada (International Falls) along Hwys. 33 and 53 via way of towns such as Cloquet and Virginia be feasible and/or make better sense than using Hwy. 61 northward to the border, albeit requiring a new border crossing because the alignment would be east of the downtown International Falls area due to opposition that would arise from routing I-35 through the heart of town?
I don't see any sizable Canadian cities north of International Falls that's worth an extension via US 53. There's Thunder Bay via US 61, though from what I head, traffic counts don't justify an I-35 extension to the direction of Thunder Bay either.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 17, 2021, 11:34:28 PM
I don't see any sizable Canadian cities north of International Falls that's worth an extension via US 53. There's Thunder Bay via US 61, though from what I head, traffic counts don't justify an I-35 extension to the direction of Thunder Bay either.
Well, I-75 connects to Canada in Sault Ste. Marie, but outside of there, there's nowhere else sizable, unless you travel south to any of the important Ontario cities, most or all of which are in southern Ontario.
Short answer: No.
Thunder Bay (107,000 residents) is massive in comparison to International Falls (7100 residents) and Fort Frances (7700 residents) The traffic north of Virginia pales in comparison to North Shore traffic, or to the traffic south of Virginia. US-53 is very much a road to nowhere once the 4-lane peters out. The border crossing itself is a very low volume affair, effectively a driveway through a paper mill with rail traffic taking precedence. If the traffic counts were much higher than 200-300 cars a day (in a normal year), I'd be amazed.
With only about 1,300 vehicles (in a normal year) crossing at Grand Portage, international traffic to/from Thunder Bay hardly demands any kind of 4-lane highway. There's also not a large amount of cross border truck traffic, nor the significant industry that would generate that traffic. Thunder Bay's known far more as a water and rail port connection than a truck transportation hub.
SM-G991U
If, and this is a very huge
IF, there were ever a desire plus the political will and the funding for a limited-access connection across the border at International Falls, it would be easier to go west of town entirely, starting with passing southwest of the airport, continuing in a northwestward direction, and crossing the river somewhere 2-3 miles west of downtown. Though development impact wouldn't be zero, it would be less than with a crossing east of downtown as the OP suggests. A west-side alignment would also make it easier to connect to ON 11 and in the direction towards ON 71.
Realistically speaking (since this is not the Fictional Highways subfolder), there is zero funding, zero political will, and zero traffic demand for an I-35 extension to the Canadian border. Neither US 53 nor MN 61 towards the border see traffic volumes that justify even 4 lanes, let alone a controlled-access facility. US 53 also gets extremely rural but with a need to maintain local access, while following MN 61 brings one through the most challenging topography in the state (not to mention the winter storms off Lake Superior).
(edited to add)Quote from: JREwing78Thunder Bay (107,000 residents) is massive in comparison to International Falls (7100 residents) and Fort Frances (7700 residents) The traffic north of Virginia pales in comparison to North Shore traffic, or to the traffic south of Virginia.
While 53's traffic does peter out the further north of Virginia one goes, 61's traffic peters out even more once past Grand Marais. There's more Duluth-Int'l Falls traffic than there is Duluth-Thunder Bay, in no small part because of the border crossing.
Quote from: froggie on October 18, 2021, 12:49:11 AM
If, and this is a very huge IF, there were ever a desire plus the political will and the funding for a limited-access connection across the border at International Falls, it would be easier to go west of town entirely, starting with passing southwest of the airport, continuing in a northwestward direction, and crossing the river somewhere 2-3 miles west of downtown. Though development impact wouldn't be zero, it would be less than with a crossing east of downtown as the OP suggests. A west-side alignment would also make it easier to connect to ON 11 and in the direction towards ON 71.
Realistically speaking (since this is not the Fictional Highways subfolder), there is zero funding, zero political will, and zero traffic demand for an I-35 extension to the Canadian border. Neither US 53 nor MN 61 towards the border see traffic volumes that justify even 4 lanes, let alone a controlled-access facility. US 53 also gets extremely rural but with a need to maintain local access, while following MN 61 brings one through the most challenging topography in the state (not to mention the winter storms off Lake Superior).
(edited to add)
Quote from: JREwing78Thunder Bay (107,000 residents) is massive in comparison to International Falls (7100 residents) and Fort Frances (7700 residents) The traffic north of Virginia pales in comparison to North Shore traffic, or to the traffic south of Virginia.
While 53's traffic does peter out the further north of Virginia one goes, 61's traffic peters out even more once past Grand Marais. There's more Duluth-Int'l Falls traffic than there is Duluth-Thunder Bay, in no small part because of the border crossing.
I-5 ends at both borders. I-15 comes close at its south end (connecting via I-5). Every I-x5 east of I-35 makes a connection to coastal metro areas. (I-75 ending at a state route in Florida on its south end is a topic for the Mid-South forum, and I-45 doesn't leave Texas, also for the Mid-South forum). I-35 doesn't even end at either border, even though it comes extremely close to the Mexican border at its south end. Is the lack of connection to Canada because of Interstate 29 approximately 190 miles (305 km) to the west?
International Falls is dying and Koochiching County took some of the heaviest Census losses in the state between 2010-2020. Other than neighboring Fort Frances, there isn't a town of significance within hundreds of miles on the Canadian side. Hell, the Iron Range isn't doing a lot better - it was a heavy fixture in both national and global 2020 election speculation and an obsessive focus of one particular campaign, but they don't have enough punch to play a significant role in election outcomes anymore.
And yes, there is little demand for Duluth-Thunder Bay travel. I spend a lot of time in Grand Marais and when they need city services their big city is Duluth, despite being an 80-mile longer round trip than Thunder Bay.
I-35 should have been designated north of Kansas City on I-29, with a I-37 or I-39 designation connecting to Des Moines and Minneapolis.
Winnipeg is roughly 8 times larger than Thunder Bay and connects travelers to most of western Canada and Alaska. There's no reason to go north to Thunder Bay except Thunder Bay itself.
Winnipeg is a major trucking hub for central Canada. It's the point where most truck traffic bound for the eastern U.S. diverts south across the border, and a similar volume of traffic heads north and west across the Canadian plains to places like Calgary and Edmonton, and on to Alaska.
Even if travel distance to a U.S. locale is ultimately shorter staying in Canada through Ontario, the mostly 2-lane Hwy 17 through northern Ontario is a slow, cold, deserted slog compared to the Interstate highways in the U.S. Also, Canadian fuel is considerably more expensive. It's cheaper and faster to cut down to the U.S. That's reflected in traffic counts on the TCH east of Winnipeg.
SM-G991U
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 18, 2021, 02:01:31 AM
I-35 should have been designated north of Kansas City on I-29, with a I-37 or I-39 designation connecting to Des Moines and Minneapolis.
Winnipeg is roughly 8 times larger than Thunder Bay and connects travelers to most of western Canada and Alaska. There's no reason to go north to Thunder Bay except Thunder Bay itself.
Winnipeg is a major trucking hub for central Canada. It's the point where most truck traffic bound for the eastern U.S. diverts south across the border, and a similar volume of traffic heads north and west across the Canadian plains to places like Calgary and Edmonton, and on to Alaska.
Even if travel distance to a U.S. locale is ultimately shorter staying in Canada through Ontario, the mostly 2-lane Hwy 17 through northern Ontario is a slow, cold, deserted slog compared to the Interstate highways in the U.S. Also, Canadian fuel is considerably more expensive. It's cheaper and faster to cut down to the U.S. That's reflected in traffic counts on the TCH east of Winnipeg.
SM-G991U
Communities in Iowa and Minnesota wanted 35 to follow Route 65 in Iowa instead of following Route 69 because of opposition to the Route 69 route from Mason City businesses. And I-37 already exists in Texas.
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 02:24:40 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 18, 2021, 02:01:31 AM
I-35 should have been designated north of Kansas City on I-29, with a I-37 or I-39 designation connecting to Des Moines and Minneapolis.
Winnipeg is roughly 8 times larger than Thunder Bay and connects travelers to most of western Canada and Alaska. There's no reason to go north to Thunder Bay except Thunder Bay itself.
Winnipeg is a major trucking hub for central Canada. It's the point where most truck traffic bound for the eastern U.S. diverts south across the border, and a similar volume of traffic heads north and west across the Canadian plains to places like Calgary and Edmonton, and on to Alaska.
Even if travel distance to a U.S. locale is ultimately shorter staying in Canada through Ontario, the mostly 2-lane Hwy 17 through northern Ontario is a slow, cold, deserted slog compared to the Interstate highways in the U.S. Also, Canadian fuel is considerably more expensive. It's cheaper and faster to cut down to the U.S. That's reflected in traffic counts on the TCH east of Winnipeg.
SM-G991U
Communities in Iowa and Minnesota wanted 35 to follow Route 65 in Iowa instead of following Route 69 because of opposition to the Route 69 route from Mason City businesses. And I-37 already exists in Texas.
Well sure, but this had nothing to do with the number the freeway carried.
QuoteIs the lack of connection to Canada because of Interstate 29 approximately 190 miles (305 km) to the west?
No. It's because there's little demand for such a connection. And, despite what JREwing posted, I-29 is pretty empty in North Dakota outside of the immediate Fargo and Grand Forks areas.
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 12:23:18 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 17, 2021, 11:34:28 PM
I don't see any sizable Canadian cities north of International Falls that's worth an extension via US 53. There's Thunder Bay via US 61, though from what I head, traffic counts don't justify an I-35 extension to the direction of Thunder Bay either.
Well, I-75 connects to Canada in Sault Ste. Marie, but outside of there, there's nowhere else sizable, unless you travel south to any of the important Ontario cities, most or all of which are in southern Ontario.
Which isn't really an argument for why I-35 should be extended. And the traffic volumes on I-75 are four times what they are on MN-61 near the borders.
I don't think border crossings are an "if we build them, they will come" type of scenario. The busiest crossings are those with important cities from each country on either side of the border. Obviously I-5 is crazy busy on both ends because of Seattle/Vancouver and San Diego/Tijuana. There's a reason the Houlton/I-95 crossing handles less volume than 19 other Canadian crossings - there aren't any major towns from either side nearby. In situations where there are moderately sized "sister cities" on each side, i.e. International Falls/Fort Frances, it gets the bump in volume because the cities rely on economic ties, rather than anything the access that a limited access highway would bring.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJYZpWR/Canada.png)
Chris
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 18, 2021, 12:53:56 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 12:23:18 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 17, 2021, 11:34:28 PM
I don't see any sizable Canadian cities north of International Falls that's worth an extension via US 53. There's Thunder Bay via US 61, though from what I head, traffic counts don't justify an I-35 extension to the direction of Thunder Bay either.
Well, I-75 connects to Canada in Sault Ste. Marie, but outside of there, there's nowhere else sizable, unless you travel south to any of the important Ontario cities, most or all of which are in southern Ontario.
Which isn't really an argument for why I-35 should be extended. And the traffic volumes on I-75 are four times what they are on MN-61 near the borders.
Legitimately, the only improvements to MN 61 that are needed are a Two Harbors bypass and more passing lanes between Gooseberry Falls and Grand Marais.
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 01:16:58 PM
I don't think border crossings are an "if we build them, they will come" type of scenario. The busiest crossings are those with important cities from each country on either side of the border. Obviously I-5 is crazy busy on both ends because of Seattle/Vancouver and San Diego/Tijuana. There's a reason the Houlton/I-95 crossing handles less volume than 19 other Canadian crossings - there aren't any major towns from either side nearby. In situations where there are moderately sized "sister cities" on each side, i.e. International Falls/Fort Frances, it gets the bump in volume because the cities rely on economic ties, rather than anything the access that a limited access highway would bring.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJYZpWR/Canada.png)
Chris
Well, I-15's connection is also in a pretty rural area, unlike the south end where it currently ends at I-8 and continues south to I-5 (where it will end in the future) as a same-numbered state route (which will become I-15 after necessary improvements at the 15-94 interchange in San Diego are done) which is pretty urbanized.
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 17, 2021, 11:23:08 PM
Okay, many people say that I-35 isn't a true border-to-border route because it ends in Duluth on its north end and ends a mere 3000 feet (914 meters) north of the Mexican border at an intersection on its south end that isn't grade-separated. Would using a short cut-cover tunnel to connect I-35 to the bridge in Laredo make sense? I know the lack of a Mexico border connection and connecting I-35 to Mexico is a topic for the Mid-South regional board, but I-35 falls short of connecting to either border. Would extending I-35 to Canada (International Falls) along Hwys. 33 and 53 via way of towns such as Cloquet and Virginia be feasible and/or make better sense than using Hwy. 61 northward to the border, albeit requiring a new border crossing because the alignment would be east of the downtown International Falls area due to opposition that would arise from routing I-35 through the heart of town?
I've seen TxDOT supposedly perform studies a project to extend the I-69E freeway south to the border of Mexico eliminate the at grade intersection at the border, in Brownsville. If that happens, maybe I-35 can be extended too.
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 01:45:37 PM
Well, I-15's connection is also in a pretty rural area, unlike the south end where it currently ends at I-8 and continues south to I-5 (where it will end in the future) as a same-numbered state route (which will become I-15 after necessary improvements at the 15-94 interchange in San Diego are done) which is pretty urbanized.
I-15 is part of the route connecting Alberta's two main urban centers to the US. That's why that exists - I-35 would have no such connections north of the border.
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 01:45:37 PM
Well, I-15's connection is also in a pretty rural area, unlike the south end where it currently ends at I-8 and continues south to I-5 (where it will end in the future) as a same-numbered state route (which will become I-15 after necessary improvements at the 15-94 interchange in San Diego are done) which is pretty urbanized.
Sure. But that's the point I'm making. It doesn't matter what the highway type is if the area is rural. International Falls/Fort Frances is pretty rural. Grand Marais/Thunder Bay is pretty rural.
There are eight non-interstate crossings that handle larger volume than I-95 @ Houlton (which is the lowest interstate volume at the border):
Sumas, WA (WA9)
Point Roberts, WA (city street)
Massena, NY (NY37)
Calais, ME (US1)
Lynden, WA (WA539)
International Falls, MN (US53/71)
Madawaska, ME (US1)
Ogdensburg, NY (NY37)
What do those crossing have in common? Relatively big cities on the other side of the Canadian border.
Sumas -> Vancouver
Point Roberts -> Vancouver
Massena -> Cornwall
Calais -> The exception, but this is the faster way to Atlantic Canada rather than taking I-95 through Houlton
Lynden -> Vancouver
International Falls -> Fort Frances (large city relative to the surrounding population)
Madawaska -> Edmunston
Ogdensburg -> Ottawa
So in other words, the volume of the crossing is far more related to the surrounding population than it is to the type of highway that serves the crossing. There's nothing around Houlton/Woodstock of any size. Despite Sumas only connecting to BC via a state highway, because of the Vancouver metro area, it's highly trafficked.
If you upgraded WA9, would it get more traffic? Maybe a little.
If you upgraded US53 to International Falls, would it get more traffic? Maybe a little.
But in both cases it's not going to move the needle much because the volume has largely been determined by how many people live near the border and how many large cities are accessible nearby.
Chris
Quote from: Thegeet on October 18, 2021, 02:06:23 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 17, 2021, 11:23:08 PM
Okay, many people say that I-35 isn't a true border-to-border route because it ends in Duluth on its north end and ends a mere 3000 feet (914 meters) north of the Mexican border at an intersection on its south end that isn't grade-separated. Would using a short cut-cover tunnel to connect I-35 to the bridge in Laredo make sense? I know the lack of a Mexico border connection and connecting I-35 to Mexico is a topic for the Mid-South regional board, but I-35 falls short of connecting to either border. Would extending I-35 to Canada (International Falls) along Hwys. 33 and 53 via way of towns such as Cloquet and Virginia be feasible and/or make better sense than using Hwy. 61 northward to the border, albeit requiring a new border crossing because the alignment would be east of the downtown International Falls area due to opposition that would arise from routing I-35 through the heart of town?
I've seen TxDOT supposedly perform studies a project to extend the I-69E freeway south to the border of Mexico eliminate the at grade intersection at the border, in Brownsville. If that happens, maybe I-35 can be extended too.
I think it may have been I-69W mentioned in those studies, but assuming massive opposition in Laredo doesn't kill it off and force the 69 branch that will serve Laredo to be routed back to the World Trade International Bridge (also in Laredo), it may make sense, but they would have to protect urban areas of Laredo, so why not put it in a cut-and-cover tunnel to protect the urban areas? Also, Interstate 27 is planned to be extended to Laredo. I know all this is a topic for the Mid-South forum, but I-35 lacks connections to both borders, so extending at least 27 south to Mexico could likely extend 35 southward too. I know Interstate 2 will also end in Laredo, which will provide another interstate connection to Deep South Texas. I'm sure they would have to find a way to build it and minimize the damage done to the border area, and upgrade the (pardon my Spanish, or lack thereof), Puente Internacional Numero II Juarez-Lincoln Nuevo Laredo-Laredo, or Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge for short, to Interstate standards, or just tunnel it the whole way, albeit depending on the length, it may or may not require ventilation buildings.
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 01:16:58 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJYZpWR/Canada.png)
Chris
I'm curious about one thing: there are two crossings in Blaine, WA (I-5 and WA 543). Are those combined in this graphic (since I only see one line)?
Quote from: tmthyvs on October 18, 2021, 03:20:29 PM
I'm curious about one thing: there are two crossings in Blaine, WA (I-5 and WA 543). Are those combined in this graphic (since I only see one line)?
Unfortunately yes. The data they provide doesn't separate the various crossings within the same area. Derby Line, VT has three different crossings, but they amalgamate them all into one.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: tmthyvs on October 18, 2021, 03:20:29 PM
I'm curious about one thing: there are two crossings in Blaine, WA (I-5 and WA 543). Are those combined in this graphic (since I only see one line)?
Unfortunately yes. The data they provide doesn't separate the various crossings within the same area. Derby Line, VT has three different crossings, but they amalgamate them all into one.
Chris
Too bad. Thanks for the quick response (and the overall data is really interesting).
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 02:26:30 PM
I think it may have been I-69W mentioned in those studies, but assuming massive opposition in Laredo doesn't kill it off and force the 69 branch that will serve Laredo to be routed back to the World Trade International Bridge (also in Laredo), it may make sense, but they would have to protect urban areas of Laredo, so why not put it in a cut-and-cover tunnel to protect the urban areas? Also, Interstate 27 is planned to be extended to Laredo. I know all this is a topic for the Mid-South forum, but I-35 lacks connections to both borders, so extending at least 27 south to Mexico could likely extend 35 southward too. I know Interstate 2 will also end in Laredo, which will provide another interstate connection to Deep South Texas. I'm sure they would have to find a way to build it and minimize the damage done to the border area, and upgrade the (pardon my Spanish, or lack thereof), Puente Internacional Numero II Juarez-Lincoln Nuevo Laredo-Laredo, or Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge for short, to Interstate standards, or just tunnel it the whole way, albeit depending on the length, it may or may not require ventilation buildings.
I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6175942,-99.4917602,3a,49.5y,194.07h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIga3MR-BSxxubq12w1SC8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 02:26:30 PM
I think it may have been I-69W mentioned in those studies, but assuming massive opposition in Laredo doesn't kill it off and force the 69 branch that will serve Laredo to be routed back to the World Trade International Bridge (also in Laredo), it may make sense, but they would have to protect urban areas of Laredo, so why not put it in a cut-and-cover tunnel to protect the urban areas? Also, Interstate 27 is planned to be extended to Laredo. I know all this is a topic for the Mid-South forum, but I-35 lacks connections to both borders, so extending at least 27 south to Mexico could likely extend 35 southward too. I know Interstate 2 will also end in Laredo, which will provide another interstate connection to Deep South Texas. I'm sure they would have to find a way to build it and minimize the damage done to the border area, and upgrade the (pardon my Spanish, or lack thereof), Puente Internacional Numero II Juarez-Lincoln Nuevo Laredo-Laredo, or Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge for short, to Interstate standards, or just tunnel it the whole way, albeit depending on the length, it may or may not require ventilation buildings.
I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6175942,-99.4917602,3a,49.5y,194.07h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIga3MR-BSxxubq12w1SC8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6175942,-99.4917602,3a,49.5y,194.07h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIga3MR-BSxxubq12w1SC8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.
69W stops short of the border, before the toll plaza. Also, the bridge isn't open 24/7. Last I was there, it was closed on a Sunday afternoon.
So, I did some more digging, because the Pembina numbers seemed awfully low. Of course, it's because we're looking at total traffic, which naturally favors border cities.
Turns out the US DOT has a site which, among other things, returns total truck traffic by year. So I figured it was worth pulling some numbers for 2019.
https://explore.dot.gov/views/BorderCrossingData/Annual?:isGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&:embed=y
Some takeaways:
The crossing at Pembina, ND sees, on average, 603 trucks per day. Not Detroit level (4,200 trucks per day) or Port Huron level (2,200 trucks per day), but quite a bit for a border.
Portal, ND adds another 224 trucks per day. Pretty good for a middle-of-nowhere crossing with only 2-lane roads on each side.
By comparison:
- Sweetgrass (MT): 386 trucks per day
- Sault Ste. Marie: 110 trucks per day
- International Falls: 45 trucks per day
- Grand Portage: 34 trucks per day
- Al-Can Highway: 19 trucks per day
- Baudette: 14 trucks per day
- Warroad: 13 trucks per day
- Roseau: 8 trucks per day
Total border crossings by trucks for 2019:
|
|
| Detroit | 1,541,294 | | Buffalo Niagara Falls | 904,788 | | Port Huron | 808,541 | | Blaine | 369,777 | | Champlain Rouses Point | 298,365 | | Pembina | 219,927 | | Alexandria Bay | 192,589 | | Sumas | 154,508 | | Sweetgrass | 140,803 | | Highgate Springs | 98,226 | | Derby Line | 90,807 | | Houlton | 90,051 | | Portal | 81,371 | | Jackman | 73,038 | | Calais | 65,612 | | Eastport | 57,603 | | Kenneth G Ward Poe | 44,442 | | Ogdensburg | 40,558 | | Sault Sainte Marie | 39,979 | | Oroville | 28,500 | | Massena | 25,949 | | Dunseith | 24,515 | | Frontier | 23,757 | | Van Buren | 21,484 | | Raymond | 18,736 | | International Falls | 16,416 | | Fort Kent | 14,150 | | Trout River | 13,117 | | Grand Portage | 12,490 | | Point Roberts | 11,851 | | Norton | 11,313 | | Northgate | 10,718 | | Roosville | 9,768 | | Beecher Falls | 9,580 | | Walhalla | 8,873 | | Westhope | 8,362 | | Neche | 7,835 | | Alcan | 6,985 | | Laurier | 6,703 | | Fort Fairfield | 6,553 | | Sherwood | 5,806 | | Lancaster | 5,276 | | Baudette | 5,007 | | Warroad | 4,845 | | Metaline Falls | 4,733 | | Bridgewater | 4,728 | | Richford | 4,429 | | Fortuna | 4,053 | | Porthill | 3,922 | | Noonan | 3,305 | | Roseau | 2,942 | | Madawaska | 2,141 | | Skagway | 2,140 | | Piegan | 2,055 | | Wildhorse | 1,983 | | Limestone | 1,939 | | Antler | 1,856 | | Carbury | 1,817 | | Dalton Cache | 1,086 | | St John | 984 | | Maida | 849 | | Del Bonita | 708 | | Danville | 666 | | Vanceboro | 615 | | Turner | 538 | | Sarles | 472 | | Scobey | 467 | | Port Angeles | 436 | | Opheim | 314 | | Boundary | 297 | | Pinecreek | 250 | | Morgan | 200 | | Hansboro | 169 | | Hannah | 116 | | Ferry | 62 | | Willow Creek | 9 | | Ambrose | 5 | | Whitlash | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 17, 2021, 11:23:08 PM
Okay, many people say that I-35 isn't a true border-to-border route because it ends in Duluth on its north end and ends a mere 3000 feet (914 meters) north of the Mexican border at an intersection on its south end that isn't grade-separated. Would using a short cut-cover tunnel to connect I-35 to the bridge in Laredo make sense? I know the lack of a Mexico border connection and connecting I-35 to Mexico is a topic for the Mid-South regional board, but I-35 falls short of connecting to either border. Would extending I-35 to Canada (International Falls) along Hwys. 33 and 53 via way of towns such as Cloquet and Virginia be feasible and/or make better sense than using Hwy. 61 northward to the border, albeit requiring a new border crossing because the alignment would be east of the downtown International Falls area due to opposition that would arise from routing I-35 through the heart of town?
over just route it over I-69W
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 19, 2021, 12:22:52 AM
over just route it over I-69W
Which also stops short of the border. And that border crossing is a toll bridge, restricted to trucks.
Quote from: oscar on October 18, 2021, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6175942,-99.4917602,3a,49.5y,194.07h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIga3MR-BSxxubq12w1SC8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.
69W stops short of the border, before the toll plaza. Also, the bridge isn't open 24/7. Last I was there, it was closed on a Sunday afternoon.
How far short is that? It seems we are being a little over pendantic about what "border connection" means here.
For those that are picky on whether a route stops at the border or just short of it, what would you say about I-69/94 at Port Huron? I've always thought of it ending at the border, but the US Customs for the WB side and toll booth for the EB side are both about 0.7 miles west of the border line, and Google Maps stops marking the road as I-69/94 (or ON 402) past that point.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 19, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 18, 2021, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6175942,-99.4917602,3a,49.5y,194.07h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIga3MR-BSxxubq12w1SC8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.
69W stops short of the border, before the toll plaza. Also, the bridge isn't open 24/7. Last I was there, it was closed on a Sunday afternoon.
How far short is that? It seems we are being a little over pendantic about what "border connection" means here.
Thanks. I was wondering why a toll plaza at the border doesn't count as going to the border. From my POV, it's a classic example of an interstate going to the border (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6046007,-99.5163185,3737m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en). It's an entirely limited access connection from the border, designated as an interstate and connecting to I-35 with high-speed flyover ramps.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 19, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 18, 2021, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6175942,-99.4917602,3a,49.5y,194.07h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIga3MR-BSxxubq12w1SC8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.
69W stops short of the border, before the toll plaza. Also, the bridge isn't open 24/7. Last I was there, it was closed on a Sunday afternoon.
How far short is that? It seems we are being a little over pendantic about what "border connection" means here.
About 2/3 of a mile, at the last turnoff (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6004661,-99.526221,3a,75y,291.72h,90.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seaSVu0lmIyzpiPOxYeibGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Note that the interstates that end at the Canadian border actually go to the border; they don't stop at customs or toll booths.
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2021, 10:25:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 19, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 18, 2021, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6175942,-99.4917602,3a,49.5y,194.07h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIga3MR-BSxxubq12w1SC8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.
69W stops short of the border, before the toll plaza. Also, the bridge isn't open 24/7. Last I was there, it was closed on a Sunday afternoon.
How far short is that? It seems we are being a little over pendantic about what "border connection" means here.
About 2/3 of a mile, at the last turnoff (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6004661,-99.526221,3a,75y,291.72h,90.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seaSVu0lmIyzpiPOxYeibGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Note that the interstates that end at the Canadian border actually go to the border; they don't stop at customs or toll booths.
I think 2/3 of a mile is plenty close to consider it a "border connection."
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2021, 08:55:28 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2021, 10:25:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 19, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 18, 2021, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6175942,-99.4917602,3a,49.5y,194.07h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIga3MR-BSxxubq12w1SC8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.
69W stops short of the border, before the toll plaza. Also, the bridge isn't open 24/7. Last I was there, it was closed on a Sunday afternoon.
How far short is that? It seems we are being a little over pendantic about what "border connection" means here.
About 2/3 of a mile, at the last turnoff (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6004661,-99.526221,3a,75y,291.72h,90.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seaSVu0lmIyzpiPOxYeibGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Note that the interstates that end at the Canadian border actually go to the border; they don't stop at customs or toll booths.
I think 2/3 of a mile is plenty close to consider it a "border connection."
Would you also consider I-35 as having a border connection? Because its south end is even closer. Sure, it's not a freeway connection, but there are forum users (mostly from Ontario) who would vehemently argue that toll barriers and customs plazas automatically disqualify a road from being considered a freeway.
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2021, 01:14:48 PM
but there are forum users (mostly from Ontario) who would vehemently argue that toll barriers and customs plazas automatically disqualify a road from being considered a freeway.
That sounds a bit extreme to me. The following 2di would have non-freeway portions if that's the case:
I-44
I-64
I-69
I-70
I-75
I-76
I-77
I-78
I-80
I-81
I-87
I-88
I-90
I-94
I-95
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2021, 01:14:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2021, 08:55:28 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2021, 10:25:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 19, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 18, 2021, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 18, 2021, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
I thought I-69W already already went to the World Trade Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6175942,-99.4917602,3a,49.5y,194.07h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIga3MR-BSxxubq12w1SC8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
69W goes there, but only trucks can go there. No cars or pedestrians.
69W stops short of the border, before the toll plaza. Also, the bridge isn't open 24/7. Last I was there, it was closed on a Sunday afternoon.
How far short is that? It seems we are being a little over pendantic about what "border connection" means here.
About 2/3 of a mile, at the last turnoff (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6004661,-99.526221,3a,75y,291.72h,90.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seaSVu0lmIyzpiPOxYeibGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Note that the interstates that end at the Canadian border actually go to the border; they don't stop at customs or toll booths.
I think 2/3 of a mile is plenty close to consider it a "border connection."
Would you also consider I-35 as having a border connection? Because its south end is even closer. Sure, it's not a freeway connection, but there are forum users (mostly from Ontario) who would vehemently argue that toll barriers and customs plazas automatically disqualify a road from being considered a freeway.
I think they are being overly pedantic.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 20, 2021, 01:34:43 PM
I think they are being overly pedantic.
People being pedantic on AARoads? Nah......
Chris
Surprised that there's no mention of Duluth's importance as an aquatic port of entry from Canada that justifies it being on a major Interstate.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 20, 2021, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2021, 01:14:48 PM
but there are forum users (mostly from Ontario) who would vehemently argue that toll barriers and customs plazas automatically disqualify a road from being considered a freeway.
That sounds a bit extreme to me. The following 2di would have non-freeway portions if that's the case:
I-44
I-64
I-69
I-70
I-75
I-76
I-77
I-78
I-80
I-81
I-87
I-88
I-90
I-94
I-95
Three of those already have non-freeway portions (Breezewood, Jersey City, and Thousand Islands).
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2021, 04:23:00 PM
Surprised that there's no mention of Duluth's importance as an aquatic port of entry from Canada that justifies it being on a major Interstate.
I don't think anyone was arguing whether Duluth deserved to be on I-35; the argument was why it ends there rather than going to the border.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 20, 2021, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2021, 04:23:00 PM
Surprised that there's no mention of Duluth's importance as an aquatic port of entry from Canada that justifies it being on a major Interstate.
I don't think anyone was arguing whether Duluth deserved to be on I-35; the argument was why it ends there rather than going to the border.
Exactly. It was a discussion about why I-35 doesn't extend to the Canadian border. Besides the horrible expense of punching a Interstate-standard freeway along the North Shore, there's not enough traffic at the border crossing to warrant extending I-35 all the way to the border.
SM-G991U
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2021, 04:23:00 PM
Surprised that there's no mention of Duluth's importance as an aquatic port of entry from Canada that justifies it being on a major Interstate.
When I lived in Superior, I was part of a local lobby group that wanted to get the Soo Locks expanded to accomodate larger ships. Headed down to Madison for WI to pay its share. That was about 20 years ago. Still hasn't happened.
When PANAMAX ships and the like come into the Great Lakes, then Duluth will really matter...maybe... :D
(Welland Canal would also need widening...which will never happen)
Quote from: Rothman on October 20, 2021, 06:42:32 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2021, 04:23:00 PM
Surprised that there's no mention of Duluth's importance as an aquatic port of entry from Canada that justifies it being on a major Interstate.
When I lived in Superior, I was part of a local lobby group that wanted to get the Soo Locks expanded to accomodate larger ships. Headed down to Madison for WI to pay its share. That was about 20 years ago. Still hasn't happened.
I get the sense that enviro attitudes from those living around the lake have generally swung too far left for this to be viable at this point. Duluth is planning accommodations for cruise ships, which has generated some grumbling in that city.
Quote from: Rothman on October 20, 2021, 06:42:32 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2021, 04:23:00 PM
Surprised that there's no mention of Duluth's importance as an aquatic port of entry from Canada that justifies it being on a major Interstate.
When I lived in Superior, I was part of a local lobby group that wanted to get the Soo Locks expanded to accomodate larger ships. Headed down to Madison for WI to pay its share. That was about 20 years ago. Still hasn't happened.
When PANAMAX ships and the like come into the Great Lakes, then Duluth will really matter...maybe... :D
(Welland Canal would also need widening...which will never happen)
Welland Canal and the whole St Lawrence Seaway would need bigger locks.
Soo Locks are finally beginning construction of another 1200x110 lock, so that if the Poe Lock ever goes down there wouldn't be a huge economic impact on shipping.
BTW, almost nothing coming into Duluth comes from Canada (except maybe the occasional load of limestone). Some iron ore shipped from Duluth or other MN ports would end up in Nanticoke or Hamilton.
There has been interest in smaller container ships on the Great Lakes. There are 2 primary objections. First, a larger ship coming in to Halifax would need to be unloaded and then the containers put onto the smaller Great Lakes boat. And the winter shut-down would cause havoc with shippers - they don't want to have to find alternate modes for 2-3 months of the year.
Quote from: GaryV on October 20, 2021, 07:22:19 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 20, 2021, 06:42:32 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2021, 04:23:00 PM
Surprised that there's no mention of Duluth's importance as an aquatic port of entry from Canada that justifies it being on a major Interstate.
When I lived in Superior, I was part of a local lobby group that wanted to get the Soo Locks expanded to accomodate larger ships. Headed down to Madison for WI to pay its share. That was about 20 years ago. Still hasn't happened.
When PANAMAX ships and the like come into the Great Lakes, then Duluth will really matter...maybe... :D
(Welland Canal would also need widening...which will never happen)
Welland Canal and the whole St Lawrence Seaway would need bigger locks.
Soo Locks are finally beginning construction of another 1200x110 lock, so that if the Poe Lock ever goes down there wouldn't be a huge economic impact on shipping.
BTW, almost nothing coming into Duluth comes from Canada (except maybe the occasional load of limestone). Some iron ore shipped from Duluth or other MN ports would end up in Nanticoke or Hamilton.
There has been interest in smaller container ships on the Great Lakes. There are 2 primary objections. First, a larger ship coming in to Halifax would need to be unloaded and then the containers put onto the smaller Great Lakes boat. And the winter shut-down would cause havoc with shippers - they don't want to have to find alternate modes for 2-3 months of the year.
When I lived there, it was said the 1,000 footers were stuck in the Great Lakes due to the lack of larger locks.
Quote from: 1 on October 20, 2021, 04:44:23 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 20, 2021, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2021, 01:14:48 PM
but there are forum users (mostly from Ontario) who would vehemently argue that toll barriers and customs plazas automatically disqualify a road from being considered a freeway.
That sounds a bit extreme to me. The following 2di would have non-freeway portions if that's the case:
I-44
I-64
I-69
I-70
I-75
I-76
I-77
I-78
I-80
I-81
I-87
I-88
I-90
I-94
I-95
Three of those already have non-freeway portions (Breezewood, Jersey City, and Thousand Islands).
Agree about Breezewood and Jersey City, but not the Thousand Islands Bridge. Two lane undivided freeways exist.
Quote from: Rothman on October 20, 2021, 07:37:09 PM
When I lived there, it was said the 1,000 footers were stuck in the Great Lakes due to the lack of larger locks.
Very true. There are dozens of vessels confined to the four lakes above Niagara Falls/Welland Canal. Most are ore boats.
The idea of PANAMAX ships in Lake Superior seems like utter fantasy. The big markets are all downstream from The Soo. At best, getting them above Niagara Falls might have some merit since a container ship could go straight to Chicago without having to offload onto rail and truck on the coast. Only Chicago is large enough to make such an effort worthwhile. As an existing transportation hub with large brownfields areas near the shore down by Indiana that could be turned into a container port, it would be in better position to handle the job compared to anything further upstream.
Even then I have my doubts about the viability of such an endeavor simply because most of the stuff those ships would carry is coming from East Asia and the extra time to go all the way around and up into the Lakes seems like it might not be worth it to make every canal and lock between Lake Erie and Montreal big enough. Maybe if the Midwest swells with climate refugees from the West and South, it'll be viable. :-P
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2021, 02:34:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 20, 2021, 07:37:09 PM
When I lived there, it was said the 1,000 footers were stuck in the Great Lakes due to the lack of larger locks.
Very true. There are dozens of vessels confined to the four lakes above Niagara Falls/Welland Canal. Most are ore boats.
The idea of PANAMAX ships in Lake Superior seems like utter fantasy. The big markets are all downstream from The Soo. At best, getting them above Niagara Falls might have some merit since a container ship could go straight to Chicago without having to offload onto rail and truck on the coast. Only Chicago is large enough to make such an effort worthwhile. As an existing transportation hub with large brownfields areas near the shore down by Indiana that could be turned into a container port, it would be in better position to handle the job compared to anything further upstream.
Even then I have my doubts about the viability of such an endeavor simply because most of the stuff those ships would carry is coming from East Asia and the extra time to go all the way around and up into the Lakes seems like it might not be worth it to make every canal and lock between Lake Erie and Montreal big enough. Maybe if the Midwest swells with climate refugees from the West and South, it'll be viable. :-P
Heh. Yep, I agree.
^
Widening the St Lawrence Seaway locks and canals would make sense if/when the Arctic ice melts and East Asia producers ship their products via the Northwest Passage (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45527531). Ships won't even be limited by PANAMAX restrictions. There's potentially a viable route to the Great Lakes via the Northwest Passage/ Baffin Bay/ Labrador Sea/ Strait of Belle Isle/ Gulf of St Lawrence. Otherwise, it's just cheaper to use the East Coast ports (NYC, Philly, Norfolk, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville) and use road and rail to ship products to the Midwest.
I don't see it being very feasible from East Asia even with climate change. For starters, the Northwest Passage would only be useful for a few months out of the year (it will still ice over in the winter). Secondly, for a theoretical ship departing Hong Kong, it's approximately 6,000nm to Seattle and 6,500nm to L.A., while via the Northwest Passage it's 8,500nm just to get to Montreal (let alone into the Great Lakes).
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2021, 01:14:48 PM
Would you also consider I-35 as having a border connection? Because its south end is even closer. Sure, it's not a freeway connection, but there are forum users (mostly from Ontario) who would vehemently argue that toll barriers and customs plazas automatically disqualify a road from being considered a freeway.
Cross traffic, pedestrian crossings, parking, driveways, fronting retail, speed bumps, barrier arms, undivided cross sections, narrow lanes, stop control, design speeds in the sub 30 mph range... when the facility has more in common with a parking lot than an interstate highway, it's by definition not a freeway through there.
What's next, you're going to argue that I-70 at Breezewood is a continuous freeway? Because that's just as accurate.
Like, a continuous free-flow facility right up to the border infrastructure has its advantages - it separates border traffic from local traffic and decreases delay on that approach. But the border infrastructure itself is deliberately designed to stop traffic, provide retail and administrative facilities, and to allow for non-through traffic to move within the facility. That's most completely antithetical design possible to what a freeway is.
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 18, 2021, 11:54:04 PM
So, I did some more digging, because the Pembina numbers seemed awfully low. Of course, it's because we're looking at total traffic, which naturally favors border cities.
Turns out the US DOT has a site which, among other things, returns total truck traffic by year. So I figured it was worth pulling some numbers for 2019.
...
The crossing at Pembina, ND sees, on average, 603 trucks per day. Not Detroit level (4,200 trucks per day) or Port Huron level (2,200 trucks per day), but quite a bit for a border.
Maybe stating the obvious, but as far as traffic goes, that's just inbound to the USA. The bi-directional traffic is double that of course. (Saw the Port Huron numbers and thought it was a little low, checked the Highway 402 truck volumes and they were of course almost exactly double).
Quote from: cbeach40 on October 22, 2021, 02:44:44 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2021, 01:14:48 PM
Would you also consider I-35 as having a border connection? Because its south end is even closer. Sure, it's not a freeway connection, but there are forum users (mostly from Ontario) who would vehemently argue that toll barriers and customs plazas automatically disqualify a road from being considered a freeway.
Cross traffic, pedestrian crossings, parking, driveways, fronting retail, speed bumps, barrier arms, undivided cross sections, narrow lanes, stop control, design speeds in the sub 30 mph range... when the facility has more in common with a parking lot than an interstate highway, it's by definition not a freeway through there.
What's next, you're going to argue that I-70 at Breezewood is a continuous freeway? Because that's just as accurate.
Like, a continuous free-flow facility right up to the border infrastructure has its advantages - it separates border traffic from local traffic and decreases delay on that approach. But the border infrastructure itself is deliberately designed to stop traffic, provide retail and administrative facilities, and to allow for non-through traffic to move within the facility. That's most completely antithetical design possible to what a freeway is.
How much of that "non-through" traffic is really non-thru and not just part of the administration of the facility? I would call that a dividing line. Stuff like Breezewood has at-grades between different roads and driveways from private businesses. I'd consider the Duty Free (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3453841,-75.9809989,307m/data=!3m1!1e3) shops (which are just as often off the last exit as on the road, at least in NY) to be like service areas (not great ones, but we have stuff like that (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8942902,-73.8825879,3a,18.2y,40.57h,88.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR_C9aq2ndrnir4GtRX_xoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in NYC). Many of the other features are just like the old toll barriers that used to be all over the Thruway and around bridges/tunnels in NYC (aside from speed bumps - are those really being used now? I know Mexico had them but I don't recall US/Canadian customs plazas using them).
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why this debate seems to flare up with forum members from Ontario and nowhere else is because the US grandfathered so much stuff into the interstate system, whereas Ontario had the luxury of being pedantic about standards because the network was built from the ground up and serves Ontario's interests and nobody else's. Plus you guys didn't have much in the way of toll facilities before the electronic tolling era (border bridges and formerly the QEW bridge in Hamilton is all I can think of off the top of my head), so that precedent isn't there either.
Given how many interstates and freeways (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9166045,-74.4415608,3a,75y,219.73h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sulMMMly_tF4TRgXLyjaecw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have maintenance facilities (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1623737,-72.5261133,3a,75y,59.64h,93.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sal1d94QWuAW0W09kKxqOcQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dal1d94QWuAW0W09kKxqOcQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D148.34387%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) right on the road, getting that pedantic about what is and isn't a freeway would cause issues over here. Heck, if we really wanted to get down into the weeds, we could count this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2805477,-76.750894,3a,75y,62.84h,86.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRnOAgWzsVYKsOScBsA6yQA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DRnOAgWzsVYKsOScBsA6yQA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D223.93655%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). Sure, it's authorized vehicles only, but that's pretty much how a parking lot attached to a customs building is. You're only using it if you work there or got sent there for additional questioning or to pay duties. It's not like a home or business. Lots of toll roads in the US used to put tandem lots at the plazas. That has certainly required people to get creative in the AET era.
I don't know how much of your post was about my comment regarding I-35 rather than the reference to the argument in the Detroit Bridge Wars thread (I'll admit, I should have said "interstate/freeway quality" rather than "interstate standards" in that one, which gets the point across without getting bogged down in the minutiae), but if it was, I was just trying to point out that one can't say "it gets within 2/3 of a mile, it's close enough to count as an interstate to the border" because I-35 gets even closer but very obviously doesn't go to the border since the freeway ends and there are a bunch of traffic lights.