Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)

[oscar]

The new $20 note (supposedly coming in 2027 and featuring King Charles instead of Queen Elizabeth)

It really should be a Native figure or anyone but a foreign leader.

I got a quarter in circulation with King Charles' face on it. That ship might've already sailed.

[LilianaUwU]

The new $20 note (supposedly coming in 2027 and featuring King Charles instead of Queen Elizabeth)

It really should be a Native figure or anyone but a foreign leader.

I got a quarter in circulation with King Charles' face on it. That ship might've already sailed.

First coin in full 3D, by the way, to accomodate Charles' ears.

[thenetwork]

Back to the Gordie...

Have they announced what the toll will be for your average passenger car yet?  And how does it compare to the other Detroit (and Port Huron) crossings?

[JREwing78]

Back to the Gordie...

Have they announced what the toll will be for your average passenger car yet?  And how does it compare to the other Detroit (and Port Huron) crossings?

There's no reason to suspect that it would be significantly more expensive than the Ambassador Bridge or Detroit Tunnel, which are $9 and $8.25, respectively, for a private automobile crossing.

The Canadians have a strong interest in diverting cross-border traffic out of Windsor - it's a major reason for the Gordie Howe bridge's existence to begin with. They also need the volume to start paying down the bonds on the new bridge.

What *could* happen is the Ambassador's owners discounting their border crossing fares. That obviously cuts into already waning income, but they have room to discount to try to preserve their fueling business and duty-free store profits.

[wanderer2575]

Back to the Gordie...

Have they announced what the toll will be for your average passenger car yet?  And how does it compare to the other Detroit (and Port Huron) crossings?

There's no reason to suspect that it would be significantly more expensive than the Ambassador Bridge or Detroit Tunnel, which are $9 and $8.25, respectively, for a private automobile crossing.

The Canadians have a strong interest in diverting cross-border traffic out of Windsor - it's a major reason for the Gordie Howe bridge's existence to begin with. They also need the volume to start paying down the bonds on the new bridge.

What *could* happen is the Ambassador's owners discounting their border crossing fares. That obviously cuts into already waning income, but they have room to discount to try to preserve their fueling business and duty-free store profits.

I think a big part of all this will be based on the usage statistics.  I think frequent users to/from the immediate Windsor area (e.g. commuters) would be more likely to go with whichever is the least expensive option.  But I think that a whole lotta infrequent users, especially to/from points east of Windsor, would gladly pay not only the Ambassador's current rate but also an additional premium for the convenience of the direct freeway-to-freeway connection.  With those folks, discounting their current fare would only hurt the Ambassador's owners.

(I'm not suggesting a higher toll on the Gordie Howe as much as I'm suggesting that lowering the toll on the Ambassador might not do much to preserve its usage counts.)

[Papa Emeritus]

Back to the Gordie...

Have they announced what the toll will be for your average passenger car yet?  And how does it compare to the other Detroit (and Port Huron) crossings?

There's no reason to suspect that it would be significantly more expensive than the Ambassador Bridge or Detroit Tunnel, which are $9 and $8.25, respectively, for a private automobile crossing.

The Canadians have a strong interest in diverting cross-border traffic out of Windsor - it's a major reason for the Gordie Howe bridge's existence to begin with. They also need the volume to start paying down the bonds on the new bridge.

What *could* happen is the Ambassador's owners discounting their border crossing fares. That obviously cuts into already waning income, but they have room to discount to try to preserve their fueling business and duty-free store profits.

I think a big part of all this will be based on the usage statistics.  I think frequent users to/from the immediate Windsor area (e.g. commuters) would be more likely to go with whichever is the least expensive option.  But I think that a whole lotta infrequent users, especially to/from points east of Windsor, would gladly pay not only the Ambassador's current rate but also an additional premium for the convenience of the direct freeway-to-freeway connection.  With those folks, discounting their current fare would only hurt the Ambassador's owners.

(I'm not suggesting a higher toll on the Gordie Howe as much as I'm suggesting that lowering the toll on the Ambassador might not do much to preserve its usage counts.)

I think long distance truckers are the group of people most likely to favor the Gordie Howe. Even if the toll is $5 more for a semi, many drivers would gladly pay it if it enables them to bypass Windsor and get, say, from Toyota's factories in Kentucky to their factories in Cambridge, Ontario 15 minutes faster.

The group of people least likely to switch from the Ambassador to the Howe are people in Ontario taking flights out of DTW. From the US end of the Ambassador, it's easy to go up 75/96 to 94, then take 94 west to DTW. The route from the US end of the Howe to DTW is more complex. Although Windsor is a nice airport (its airport code is YQG, and the airport's slogan, based on the code, is "Your Quick Getaway"), it has so few flights that you'll see a LOT of cars with Ontario plates parked at DTW.

[PColumbus73]

Doesn't the Ambassador Bridge still suffer from deferred maintenance? Is it possible that once the Gordie Howe opens, that the Ambassador gets a weight limit, or gets restriped to a two, or three-lane roadway?

[mgk920]

Well, seeing as the 'Howe' feeds directly into both the ON 401 freeway and I-75, it will offer much more value and utiliy than the other crossings.  Thus I am expecting its (fare) rate card to be higher than the others.

Mike

[Flint1979]

Back to the Gordie...

Have they announced what the toll will be for your average passenger car yet?  And how does it compare to the other Detroit (and Port Huron) crossings?

There's no reason to suspect that it would be significantly more expensive than the Ambassador Bridge or Detroit Tunnel, which are $9 and $8.25, respectively, for a private automobile crossing.

The Canadians have a strong interest in diverting cross-border traffic out of Windsor - it's a major reason for the Gordie Howe bridge's existence to begin with. They also need the volume to start paying down the bonds on the new bridge.

What *could* happen is the Ambassador's owners discounting their border crossing fares. That obviously cuts into already waning income, but they have room to discount to try to preserve their fueling business and duty-free store profits.

I think a big part of all this will be based on the usage statistics.  I think frequent users to/from the immediate Windsor area (e.g. commuters) would be more likely to go with whichever is the least expensive option.  But I think that a whole lotta infrequent users, especially to/from points east of Windsor, would gladly pay not only the Ambassador's current rate but also an additional premium for the convenience of the direct freeway-to-freeway connection.  With those folks, discounting their current fare would only hurt the Ambassador's owners.

(I'm not suggesting a higher toll on the Gordie Howe as much as I'm suggesting that lowering the toll on the Ambassador might not do much to preserve its usage counts.)

I think long distance truckers are the group of people most likely to favor the Gordie Howe. Even if the toll is $5 more for a semi, many drivers would gladly pay it if it enables them to bypass Windsor and get, say, from Toyota's factories in Kentucky to their factories in Cambridge, Ontario 15 minutes faster.

The group of people least likely to switch from the Ambassador to the Howe are people in Ontario taking flights out of DTW. From the US end of the Ambassador, it's easy to go up 75/96 to 94, then take 94 west to DTW. The route from the US end of the Howe to DTW is more complex. Although Windsor is a nice airport (its airport code is YQG, and the airport's slogan, based on the code, is "Your Quick Getaway"), it has so few flights that you'll see a LOT of cars with Ontario plates parked at DTW.

It's farther to take that route because you are going too far north to catch I-94. It's easier to take I-75 South to the Southfield North to I-94 West even coming from the Ambassador Bridge that route is easier going to Metro so anyone going over the Gordie Howe Bridge is going to take that route rather than take I-75 North to I-96 West to I-94 West.

[wanderer2575]

Back to the Gordie...

Have they announced what the toll will be for your average passenger car yet?  And how does it compare to the other Detroit (and Port Huron) crossings?

There's no reason to suspect that it would be significantly more expensive than the Ambassador Bridge or Detroit Tunnel, which are $9 and $8.25, respectively, for a private automobile crossing.

The Canadians have a strong interest in diverting cross-border traffic out of Windsor - it's a major reason for the Gordie Howe bridge's existence to begin with. They also need the volume to start paying down the bonds on the new bridge.

What *could* happen is the Ambassador's owners discounting their border crossing fares. That obviously cuts into already waning income, but they have room to discount to try to preserve their fueling business and duty-free store profits.

I think a big part of all this will be based on the usage statistics.  I think frequent users to/from the immediate Windsor area (e.g. commuters) would be more likely to go with whichever is the least expensive option.  But I think that a whole lotta infrequent users, especially to/from points east of Windsor, would gladly pay not only the Ambassador's current rate but also an additional premium for the convenience of the direct freeway-to-freeway connection.  With those folks, discounting their current fare would only hurt the Ambassador's owners.

(I'm not suggesting a higher toll on the Gordie Howe as much as I'm suggesting that lowering the toll on the Ambassador might not do much to preserve its usage counts.)

I think long distance truckers are the group of people most likely to favor the Gordie Howe. Even if the toll is $5 more for a semi, many drivers would gladly pay it if it enables them to bypass Windsor and get, say, from Toyota's factories in Kentucky to their factories in Cambridge, Ontario 15 minutes faster.

The group of people least likely to switch from the Ambassador to the Howe are people in Ontario taking flights out of DTW. From the US end of the Ambassador, it's easy to go up 75/96 to 94, then take 94 west to DTW. The route from the US end of the Howe to DTW is more complex. Although Windsor is a nice airport (its airport code is YQG, and the airport's slogan, based on the code, is "Your Quick Getaway"), it has so few flights that you'll see a LOT of cars with Ontario plates parked at DTW.

It's farther to take that route because you are going too far north to catch I-94. It's easier to take I-75 South to the Southfield North to I-94 West even coming from the Ambassador Bridge that route is easier going to Metro so anyone going over the Gordie Howe Bridge is going to take that route rather than take I-75 North to I-96 West to I-94 West.

That's four miles shorter, but not easier or faster.  Southfield between I-75 and I-94 is a surface road with traffic signals, and the ramps from Southfield north to I-94 west (from the GHB) and from Southfield south to I-75 north (to the GHB) are tight loop ramps.

On the other hand, having to move from the right-hand merge onto I-75 north to the left-hand exit to I-96 in a little less than a mile leaves something to be desired.  I-75 thru traffic will really have fun with all the new truck traffic coming off the GHB doing that maneuver.

[webny99]

Yeah, I think the lack of direct connection between I-94 and I-75, requiring a hop on M 39 or backtracking on I-75 is going to mean that most truck traffic originating west of Marshall is still going to heavily favor taking I-69 through Lansing/Flint and crossing at Port Huron. Same is also true for most of the northern/western Detroit metro, which will still favor I-94 to Port Huron.

[Flint1979]

Back to the Gordie...

Have they announced what the toll will be for your average passenger car yet?  And how does it compare to the other Detroit (and Port Huron) crossings?

There's no reason to suspect that it would be significantly more expensive than the Ambassador Bridge or Detroit Tunnel, which are $9 and $8.25, respectively, for a private automobile crossing.

The Canadians have a strong interest in diverting cross-border traffic out of Windsor - it's a major reason for the Gordie Howe bridge's existence to begin with. They also need the volume to start paying down the bonds on the new bridge.

What *could* happen is the Ambassador's owners discounting their border crossing fares. That obviously cuts into already waning income, but they have room to discount to try to preserve their fueling business and duty-free store profits.

I think a big part of all this will be based on the usage statistics.  I think frequent users to/from the immediate Windsor area (e.g. commuters) would be more likely to go with whichever is the least expensive option.  But I think that a whole lotta infrequent users, especially to/from points east of Windsor, would gladly pay not only the Ambassador's current rate but also an additional premium for the convenience of the direct freeway-to-freeway connection.  With those folks, discounting their current fare would only hurt the Ambassador's owners.

(I'm not suggesting a higher toll on the Gordie Howe as much as I'm suggesting that lowering the toll on the Ambassador might not do much to preserve its usage counts.)

I think long distance truckers are the group of people most likely to favor the Gordie Howe. Even if the toll is $5 more for a semi, many drivers would gladly pay it if it enables them to bypass Windsor and get, say, from Toyota's factories in Kentucky to their factories in Cambridge, Ontario 15 minutes faster.

The group of people least likely to switch from the Ambassador to the Howe are people in Ontario taking flights out of DTW. From the US end of the Ambassador, it's easy to go up 75/96 to 94, then take 94 west to DTW. The route from the US end of the Howe to DTW is more complex. Although Windsor is a nice airport (its airport code is YQG, and the airport's slogan, based on the code, is "Your Quick Getaway"), it has so few flights that you'll see a LOT of cars with Ontario plates parked at DTW.

It's farther to take that route because you are going too far north to catch I-94. It's easier to take I-75 South to the Southfield North to I-94 West even coming from the Ambassador Bridge that route is easier going to Metro so anyone going over the Gordie Howe Bridge is going to take that route rather than take I-75 North to I-96 West to I-94 West.

That's four miles shorter, but not easier or faster.  Southfield between I-75 and I-94 is a surface road with traffic signals, and the ramps from Southfield north to I-94 west (from the GHB) and from Southfield south to I-75 north (to the GHB) are tight loop ramps.

On the other hand, having to move from the right-hand merge onto I-75 north to the left-hand exit to I-96 in a little less than a mile leaves something to be desired.  I-75 thru traffic will really have fun with all the new truck traffic coming off the GHB doing that maneuver.

It's 2 minutes longer to go that route, it takes 5 minutes to get from I-75 to I-94 along the Southfield. You're going to be struggling with traffic on I-94 anyway since that freeway is undersized. I know that the Southfield is a surface road in that area but it's still a good way to go especially when traffic on I-94 is a mess. I-75 thru traffic is already a mess in that area so yeah it's going to be fun with all the additional truck traffic.

[Flint1979]

Yeah, I think the lack of direct connection between I-94 and I-75, requiring a hop on M 39 or backtracking on I-75 is going to mean that most truck traffic originating west of Marshall is still going to heavily favor taking I-69 through Lansing/Flint and crossing at Port Huron. Same is also true for most of the northern/western Detroit metro, which will still favor I-94 to Port Huron.

The traffic along the Southfield moves pretty well and the lights are timed right for the most part. It's only 5 minutes to get between I-75 and I-94 only adding on about 2 minutes to the entire drive. Whenever I notice that a route is much shorter but only say 2-5 minutes longer I take the much shorter route. I have had to use that route to get between downtown and Metro.

[cbeach40]

While the destination beyond the border will of course play a factor but the real time crossing delays are the bigger factor, even if the route is less direct. Anecdotally, I've used the Blue Water or Ambassador Bridges to get to Downtown Detroit, despite the tunnel being most direct.

My own speculation is the toll rates will be comparable to the other two Detroit River crossings, not the Blue Water or the Soo bridges. They probably could get away with the lower toll rate but I would guess since the market is already bearing those rates that they'll be in the same neighbourhood so they can get the initial investment and the P3 paid that much sooner.

I used to take French in middle and high school, and I'm seeing some questionable labeling on that sign. With "pont" being the equivalent to the English "bridge", the literal translation would be "Bridge Ambassador Bridge" and "Bridge Gordie Howe Bridge", which is just as redundant and stupid as "Tunnel Windsor-Detroit Tunnel" is, as it's apparently the same in both languages as I found out by typing in Gooogle Translate.

No, the labeling is correct. It's not about equivalence it's about visual clarity. While putting "Tunnel Windsor-Detroit Tunnel" would be following the standard translation patterns used on the other two crossings, visually it would be more distracting.

Furthermore, per MTO signing policies the tunnel didn't need any additional identifiers - the two bridges are differentiated and by virtue of being a tunnel it is automatically differentiated. But since the other two did have identifiers then omitting it would also be more distracting.

In the end competent engineering for human factors doesn't always mean the most literal application. Design should always be built for user safety, not for the checklist.

From what I've seen, it's a common Ontario signing convention to take advantage of French adjectives going after nouns and put the French noun first, the adjective in the middle, and the English noun last. (I think normally they put the nouns in smaller text, too, but cbeach might have had a reason to not follow that practice.) Takes up less space than writing out "Ambassador Bridge - Pont Ambassador" but still makes the sign bilingual.

Exactly.

Also, taking advantage of common nouns isn't even limited to road signs. It's pretty standard all over the place.

Also, sort of rude to tell the sign designer their sign is stupid to their face, but that's between y'all two...

   De rien

[1995hoo]

"Pont [name] Bridge" is not unique to Ontario. You can find various big green signs in the Montreal area that use that form, though they're inconsistent in whether they do that or just use "Pont."

[vdeane]

"Pont [name] Bridge" is not unique to Ontario. You can find various big green signs in the Montreal area that use that form, though they're inconsistent in whether they do that or just use "Pont."

Not sure "inconsistent" is the word I'd use.  Signage put up by the Federal Bridge Corporation is bilingual.  Signage put up by MTQ or local governments is not.