Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)

[Beltway]

I have doubts the President will follow through on his threats to block traffic on the Gordie Howe Bridge when it opens. For one thing, Trump is actually sensitive to what happens with the stock market and treasury yields.

Nothing in his public statements, campaign speeches, interviews, or policy documents includes any threat to shut down the Gordie Howe Bridge, block traffic, or interfere with its opening. That idea seems to be coming from speculation and social media and forum chatter, not from anything he has actually said. There's simply no factual record of such a threat.

R E L A X !

[ElishaGOtis]

I have doubts the President will follow through on his threats to block traffic on the Gordie Howe Bridge when it opens. For one thing, Trump is actually sensitive to what happens with the stock market and treasury yields.

Nothing in his public statements, campaign speeches, interviews, or policy documents includes any threat to shut down the Gordie Howe Bridge, block traffic, or interfere with its opening. That idea seems to be coming from speculation and social media and forum chatter, not from anything he has actually said. There's simply no factual record of such a threat.

R E L A X !

Erm acktchually 

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116043090074364624

I will not allow this bridge to open until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given them, and also, importantly, Canada treats the United States with the Fairness and Respect that we deserve. We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY. With all that we have given them, we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset. The revenues generated because of the U.S. Market will be astronomical.

[Scott5114]

A thousand points to @ElishaGOtis for completely fucking owning Beltway.

[Beltway]

Even if taking that post at face value, it's still not a threat to block traffic or shut down the bridge. It's political rhetoric about compensation and ownership, not an operational directive. There's no legal authority, no mechanism, and no policy action behind it.

[Scott5114]

Even if taking that post at face value, it's still not a threat to block traffic or shut down the bridge.

I will not allow this bridge to open

I guess he's technically not shutting down the bridge because you can't shut down what has never opened...

There's no legal authority

No shit! So what do you advocate happening when Donald Trump does something he has no legal authority to do, such as

not allow this bridge to open

?

[MikeTheActuary]

There's no legal authority, no mechanism, and no policy action behind it.

To more explicitly make the point I raised earlier: the news has been filled with stories over the past several months of government action having been taken in contravention of law and regulation.

[PColumbus73]

There's no legal authority, no mechanism, and no policy action behind it.

To more explicitly make the point I raised earlier: the news has been filled with stories over the past several months of government action having been taken in contravention of law and regulation.

Regularly dismissing statements made by the president as him being 'just a silly boi' doesn't bode well for the government legitimacy as a whole. To Canada's credit, they don't come behind Mark Carney and say 'teehee, just kidding'.

[kphoger]

Nothing in his public statements ... anything he has actually said

Even if taking that post at face value

LOL!

— He never said that.
— Yes, he said exactly that.
— Well, only if you read he actually said.

[Beltway]

Even if taking that post at face value, it's still not a threat to block traffic or shut down the bridge.

I will not allow this bridge to open

I guess he's technically not shutting down the bridge because you can't shut down what has never opened...

Nothing in that post describes any administrative action that would actually stop the bridge from opening. There's no reference to CBP authority, no DHS directive, no invocation of any statute, and no operational mechanism. It's rhetoric, not an actionable plan.

[ElishaGOtis]

Even if taking that post at face value, it's still not a threat to block traffic or shut down the bridge.

I will not allow this bridge to open

I guess he's technically not shutting down the bridge because you can't shut down what has never opened...

Nothing in that post describes any administrative action that would actually stop the bridge from opening. There's no reference to CBP authority, no DHS directive, no invocation of any statute, and no operational mechanism. It's rhetoric, not an actionable plan.

This is valid. It's basically how Governor Mike DeWine apparently threatened to veto a transportation omnibus bill a few years back because someone put in a provision calling for 75mph speed limits. Obviously no veto was conducted because the provision was removed from the bill, but such a thing is a valid comparison (rhetoric only with no action). A TruthSocial post is not any directive or executive order.

[kphoger]

I will not allow

Nothing in that post describes any administrative action that would actually stop the bridge from opening. There's no reference to CBP authority, no DHS directive, no invocation of any statute, and no operational mechanism. It's rhetoric, not an actionable plan.

If not through any legal means, then one must assume he plans to prevent its opening through illegal ones.

[Beltway]

Nothing in that post describes any administrative action that would actually stop the bridge from opening. There's no reference to CBP authority, no DHS directive, no invocation of any statute, and no operational mechanism. It's rhetoric, not an actionable plan.

If not through any legal means, then one must ass/u/me he plans to prevent its opening through illegal ones.

There...

[Beltway]

Nothing in that post describes any administrative action that would actually stop the bridge from opening. There's no reference to CBP authority, no DHS directive, no invocation of any statute, and no operational mechanism. It's rhetoric, not an actionable plan.

This is valid. It's basically how Governor Mike DeWine apparently threatened to veto a transportation omnibus bill a few years back because someone put in a provision calling for 75mph speed limits. Obviously no veto was conducted because the provision was removed from the bill, but such a thing is a valid comparison (rhetoric only with no action). A TruthSocial post is not any directive or executive order.

If a bridge could be opened or closed by a post on social media, half the country would be running the DOTs by now, and giving us a lot bigger problems than a bridge opening.

[Terry Shea]

I find it both amusing and infuriating that these political posts are being allowed, when I was told point blank a few years ago:

"Cut back the politically aggressive posts in the Michigan Notes thread.  You will be moderated for 5 days."

Even though I hadn't made any "politically aggressive" posts or anything even remotely resembling a political post!  I stopped posting completely for over a year after this absolute nonsense, and quite frankly this entire site has been deteriorating for years, IMO.  I believe a few individuals at the top who control things don't want fair dialogue and/or debate. 

I'm here to glean and share information about highways, not to tout any certain agenda, political or otherwise.  And I believe we should all be on equal footing in this regard: free from bias, prejudice and power-hungry individuals.  I hope this isn't too "politically aggressive."   

[ElishaGOtis]

I find it both amusing and infuriating that these political posts are being allowed, when I was told point blank a few years ago:

"Cut back the politically aggressive posts in the Michigan Notes thread.  You will be moderated for 5 days."

Even though I hadn't made any "politically aggressive" posts or anything even remotely resembling a political post!  I stopped posting completely for over a year after this absolute nonsense, and quite frankly this entire site has been deteriorating for years, IMO.  I believe a few individuals at the top who control things don't want fair dialogue and/or debate. 

I'm here to glean and share information about highways, not to tout any certain agenda, political or otherwise.  And I believe we should all be on equal footing in this regard: free from bias, prejudice and power-hungry individuals.  I hope this isn't too "politically aggressive."   

Right there with you... the only thing about this thread is that the politics presented here could directly affect the opening of this very bridge in question.

REGARDLESS...
Poly = many
Ticks = blood sucking parasites

[Scott5114]

Right there with you... the only thing about this thread is that the politics presented here could directly affect the opening of this very bridge in question.

Yes, it's not like it would be reasonable to ask the entire forum to just pretend the bridge isn't open due to some unnamed phantom force keeping it closed for reasons which cannot be discussed.

Since the very inception of the forum rules about politics, it has always been intended for directly-transportation-related topics to be exempt from them. This should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially as I have personally pointed out this exemption on several occasions. (That being said, "directly transportation related" is a pretty narrow window—we don't need to have the discussion wander to other aspects of President Trump's regime other than his transportation policy.)

[Rothman]

Nothing in that post describes any administrative action that would actually stop the bridge from opening. There's no reference to CBP authority, no DHS directive, no invocation of any statute, and no operational mechanism. It's rhetoric, not an actionable plan.

This is valid. It's basically how Governor Mike DeWine apparently threatened to veto a transportation omnibus bill a few years back because someone put in a provision calling for 75mph speed limits. Obviously no veto was conducted because the provision was removed from the bill, but such a thing is a valid comparison (rhetoric only with no action). A TruthSocial post is not any directive or executive order.

If a bridge could be opened or closed by a post on social media, half the country would be running the DOTs by now, and giving us a lot bigger problems than a bridge opening.

I don't think anyone was claiming that one could close a bridge through posting on social media.

However, a President can certainly make thwir position known through such on a matter.

[kphoger]

Nothing in his public statements, campaign speeches, interviews, or policy documents includes any threat to shut down the Gordie Howe Bridge, block traffic, or interfere with its opening ... There's simply no factual record of such a threat.

I will not allow

Nothing in that post describes any administrative action that would actually stop the bridge from opening. There's no reference to CBP authority, no DHS directive, no invocation of any statute, and no operational mechanism. It's rhetoric, not an actionable plan.

If not through any legal means, then one must assume he plans to prevent its opening through illegal ones.

If a bridge could be opened or closed by a post on social media ...

I don't think anyone was claiming that one could close a bridge through posting on social media.

However, a President can certainly make their position known through such on a matter.

Exactly.  Nobody said that The Orange Man was actively preventing the bridge's opening by means of a social media post.  Nobody said that the post described any "administrative action", "directive", "statute", or "operational mechanism".  All anyone said is that he did in fact make a public statement threatening to interfere with the bridge's opening.  A social media post from the President is a public statement.

[kphoger]

Even if taking that post at face value, it's still not a threat to block traffic or shut down the bridge.

I will not allow this bridge to open

I guess he's technically not shutting down the bridge because you can't shut down what has never opened...

Nothing in that post describes any administrative action that would actually stop the bridge from opening. There's no reference to CBP authority, no DHS directive, no invocation of any statute, and no operational mechanism. It's rhetoric, not an actionable plan.

Baloney may be reserved, but clarity is still worth posting.  What I notice is a recurring pattern:  ill-founded assertions, counterarguments, and sarcastic defensive replies about time cards that derail threads away from the actual truth.  That's sabotage and spectacle drift, not stewardship.

[Great Lakes Roads]

The tolling system on the Gordie Howe Bridge will NOT be interoperable with another tolling system! 

[Sani]

That is unfortunate. I wonder what the reasoning is?

I couldn't find a recording of the webinar online, but it looks like it was a Teams meeting held last Wednesday, 3/4.

[Sani]

Toll rates have been announced. Passenger cars will be $8 CAD / $5.75 USD.

[GaryV]

No wonder the Marouns are willing to pay $1M to try to keep it from opening.

https://www.ambassadorbridge.com/auto-toll-rates/

[thenetwork]

No wonder the Marouns are willing to pay $1M to try to keep it from opening.

https://www.ambassadorbridge.com/auto-toll-rates/

Definitely the Maroun's are going for the greed -- $20.00 round trip for cars.

For a perspective view, the bridge crossings over the Niagara River between Ontario and New York only charge $6.00 -- and that's Canada-bound traffic only.

So for eastbound travelers, to take the Ontario "short-cut" between Michigan and New York, you will be able to get from Detroit to Buffalo (via the Gordie) for just $5.75 (USD) in tolls!!!

[7/8]

For every month 2025, the Blue Water Bridge surpassed the Ambassador Bridge as the busiest Canada-US commercial crossing. This is due to the increased tolls at the Ambassador Bridge:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/gordie-howe-bridge-delays-truck-traffic-shifts-north-ambassador-tolls-9.7150543