Windsor/Detroit bridge is a go!

[Topaz]

Even though on both sides of the border in Windsor On and Detroit Mich. there is opposition to building a new bridge, both, Canada and the US have come to an agreement and the Gov. of Michigan will announce it sometime in June. This bridge is going to cost big bucks and Canada's is handing over 1.4 Billion to get it built. Canadians shouldn't worry because we are going to get the money back through tolls and so, this is why the Tories are allowing more duty free shopping over in Michigan for Canadians. So all those going over the new bridge, will be paying twice for this new bridge the government will now own, until the debt is paid off. http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/06/01/new-bridge-deal-imminent/

[cybercoma]

Even though on both sides of the border in Windsor On and Detroit Mich. there is opposition to building a new bridge, both, Canada and the US have come to an agreement and the Gov. of Michigan will announce it sometime in June. This bridge is going to cost big bucks and Canada's is handing over 1.4 Billion to get it built. Canadians shouldn't worry because we are going to get the money back through tolls and so, this is why the Tories are allowing more duty free shopping over in Michigan for Canadians. So all those going over the new bridge, will be paying twice for this new bridge the government will now own, until the debt is paid off. http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/06/01/new-bridge-deal-imminent/

The tolls aren't that big of a deal. Confederation Bridge costs $45 to cross. This is good news for Windsor believe it or not.

[TheNewTeddy]

There is a small tunnel connecting the two cities, as well as a rail connection. Neither can handle much capacity.

There is just one other bridge, the Ambassador bridge, connecting the two. A full 1% of the US GDP crosses this bridge, and if it were taken out of commission, it would do serious damage to both our economies. A single terrorist attack could destroy the bridge, and THAT is why we need a second one.

[cybercoma]

There is a small tunnel connecting the two cities, as well as a rail connection. Neither can handle much capacity.

There is just one other bridge, the Ambassador bridge, connecting the two. A full 1% of the US GDP crosses this bridge, and if it were taken out of commission, it would do serious damage to both our economies. A single terrorist attack could destroy the bridge, and THAT is why we need a second one.

A terrorist attack?

The Ambassador Bridge was built in the 20s and it's privately owned. The ownership has refused to release the maintenance records to the government. I believe the issue is more about the long-term viability of the crossing and the fact that our governments have no control over the maintenance and operations of the Ambassador Bridge. The crossing is much too important to rely on a private corporation that has been uncooperative in the past.

[Smallc]

Not to mention that the Ambassador bridge dumps traffic into downtown Windsor. The new bridge will make travel much quicker.

[TheNewTeddy]

All also good reasons for a second connection.

I'd also personally like to see an additional connection south of Sarnia, and perhaps, another in the Sault Ste Marie area. Ontario's connections to the USA are atrocious. I think New Brunswick has more connections with Maine than we do with the 3 states we share a land border with.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd also personally like to see an additional connection south of Sarnia, and perhaps, another.....

No way...Mexico doesn't need so many bridges to The Promised Land...why does Canada?

[TheNewTeddy]

Reliable Trade.

When you can walk from backyard BC to backyard Washington with nary a fence, I really do not see how a Teddy suggested "two additional bridges in Ontario" is going to bring either Canada or the USA to it's knees.

[cybercoma]

Not to mention that the Ambassador bridge dumps traffic into downtown Windsor. The new bridge will make travel much quicker.

The Tunnel dumps traffic into downtown Windsor. The Ambassador Bridge does dump traffic into a commercial district on Windsor's West End though. Huron Church Road also has a high school on it. It's not ideal, so the point you're trying to make is still valid. Just a bit off geographically.

[cybercoma]

No way...Mexico doesn't need so many bridges to The Promised Land...why does Canada?

It won't happen. The Ambassador Bridge connects US I-95 and CA 401 highways. Any other bridge would require drivers to take secondary highways to get back to the major highways. Besides, no one in their right mind is going to build a bridge or tunnel over or under one of the great lakes just for the sake of another crossing. It would be too expensive and carry too little traffic to be viable.

[Smallc]

It's going to happen. Look up the Windsor - Essex parkway.

[cybercoma]

It's going to happen. Look up the Windsor - Essex parkway.

I was referring to Teddy's claim that they should build yet another bridge besides the Parkway.

[TheNewTeddy]

Freeways that cross the border, or, come close.

I-95

The I-95 crosses into NB and on to NB highway 95. Both are freeways. freeway-to-freeway connections are too rare.

I-91

Connects to Quebec highway 55. A freeway-to-freeway connection.

I-89

Dumps on to Quebec highway 133. While this highway has been twinned in parts, it is not controlled access. This twinned section ends a few KM north of the border and 133 becomes a simple one-lane-each-way rural highway.

I-87

This dumps into Quebec highway 15, a freeway.

Lets hop over to the west coast shall we.

I-5

A freeway-to-freeway connection, this highway dumps into BC 99.

I-15

Dumps into Alberta highway 4. While Highway 4 is twinned in parts, it is not controlled access. Eventually Highway 4 dumps straight on in to Lethbridge, red lights and all.

I-29

Dumps into Manitoba highway 75. While twinned, it is not controlled access, and, goes straight though Morris Manitoba as it's Main Street.

Now on to Ontario

I-75

The problem happens before you even cross the border. The connecting bridge is only one lane each direction. When you do get in to Canada, you find the "highway" ends at Huron St.

I-81

On a map this looks fine and dandy, but the reality is once you cross the border, you are funnelled into a single-lane-each-way road to the 401. Best yet, despite what the map says, it's not controlled access.

I-94

A freeway-to-freeway connection with the 402 though Sarnia.

I-190

Connects to the 405 as a freeway-to-freeway connection.

This is where we reverse the trend, and rather than have US freeways end at the border, we have Canadian freeways do it.

420

This freeway ends in the middle of downtown Niagara Falls, before crossing over as a simple road bridge.

QEW

This connection, the Peace Bridge, has 3 lanes total. I would presume they reverse the centre lane as needed. While the connections are very awkward, I suppose it could qualify as freeway-to-freeway as it does connect to I-190

Finally we get to Windsor.

401

One of the busiest, widest, oldest, and economically important highways in the world, comes to an end, by dumping on to Talbot Road. If that's not insulting enough, Talbot itself dumps on to Huron Church road. This road cuts though Windsor, generally avoiding much due to parkland/undeveloped land along it. Oh, and don't forget to stop for passing trains, as some train tracks cross near the border post. When you get to the US, there are some awkward connections to I-75.

No wonder Americans think we are a joke. If you had to drive into this country on your truck, and this is what you saw, you'd laugh too.

[bush_cheney2004]

....No wonder Americans think we are a joke. If you had to drive into this country on your truck, and this is what you saw, you'd laugh too.

Then clearly the provinces would already have the incentive to improve existing "freeway" and pedestrian access without additional crossings. Canada has more US border crossings than Mexico, but the Mexico-US border has more total motor vehicle and passenger crossings according to this data:

http://nats.sct.gob.mx/nats/sys/tables.jsp?i=3&id=32

Busting up the privately owned Ambassador Bridge monopoly at a single crossing is a different matter altogether.

[The_Squid]

No way...Mexico doesn't need so many bridges to The Promised Land...why does Canada?

Because we love you guys! We have friends there, we do business there. Why is that so hard to understand? Much of our border is not even defended. There is nary a fence! Check out 0 Avenue running along BC and Washington. You walk through a grassy divide to get into the heavily defended US of A.

Edited June 2, 2012 by The_Squid

[punked]

Building bridges and roads help stimulate the private sector by making it easier and cheaper to move goods. This is a good investment.

[Topaz]

Just for debate do you think there's anything to the following? http://www.greatdreams.com/political/superhighway_facts.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

Because we love you guys! We have friends there, we do business there. Why is that so hard to understand?

You just hate our "government", right?

Much of our border is not even defended. There is nary a fence! Check out 0 Avenue running along BC and Washington. You walk through a grassy divide to get into the heavily defended US of A.

So what? I live less than a two hours drive from the Canadian border, but I don't ever worry about crossing it....no reason to do so.

Edited June 3, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

You just hate our "government", right?

[Guest Peeves]

Because we love you guys! We have friends there, we do business there. Why is that so hard to understand? Much of our border is not even defended. There is nary a fence! Check out 0 Avenue running along BC and Washington. You walk through a grassy divide to get into the heavily defended US of A.

If Europe doesn't need borders why do we with the USA but then, we can't bring wine across some provincial borders..laughable. And the NDP stopped the opportunity to rectify that.

[The_Squid]

If Europe doesn't need borders why do we with the USA but then, we can't bring wine across some provincial borders..laughable. And the NDP stopped the opportunity to rectify that.

The Conservatives have been in power a decade and haven't done anything to ease the cross-Province trade barriers.

[Guest American Woman]

If Europe doesn't need borders why do we with the USA but then, we can't bring wine across some provincial borders..laughable. And the NDP stopped the opportunity to rectify that.

For one thing, the countries that don't need "borders" are members of a common union - countries not belonging to the EU do require border checks - as does England, since arrival generally involves air, ferry, or train.

I do think the fact that most European countries are the size of one state or one province is also a factor. We're not talking about the same land masses/populations.

I can't imagine that there would be no border checks between Canada and the U.S. - the U.S. is concerned about drugs and terrorist-minded people entering the U.S. and I would imagine Canada is concerned about guns going into Canada.

[guyser]

we can't bring wine across some provincial borders..laughable.

Huh?

Yes you can, passed 2867-0.

Now go buy some Okanagan wine and drive back to ONtario....stat!

Ed-amend #s

Edited June 7, 2012 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

Huh?

Yes you can, passed 2867-0.

Now go buy some Okanagan wine and drive back to ONtario....stat!

Ed-amend #s

Some U.S. states have border checks for fruits and plants - and we're not supposed to move firewood. Also, for example, we can't (legally) buy a lot of alcohol in Wisconsin and bring it across the border into Michigan. There aren't any border checks for that, though. Or the firewood. But I suppose if one were stopped for something else, they would be held accountable. Are there no such 'restrictions' among the provinces?

[guyser]

Some U.S. states have border checks for fruits and plants - and we're not supposed to move firewood. Also, for example, we can't (legally) buy a lot of alcohol in Wisconsin and bring it across the border into Michigan. There aren't any border checks for that, though. Or the firewood. But I suppose if one were stopped for something else, they would be held accountable. Are there no such 'restrictions' among the provinces?

Not on wine....anymore. Used to be, couldnt transport across Prov border . Fine was like $200 or so.

Wood is voluntary and almost no one does it.

Fear not brothers and sisters, still lots of dumb laws on the book...like if you went to a drive thru liqour store in Canada, the moment you take receipt of the sack of beer you are in violation of the law and can be arrested tho likely only ticketed and beer confiscated.

Get pulled over with any liquor in your car and you are not driving home from the LCBO/Beer store.....well you too could lose that booze and be fined.

Normally, and thankfully, the cops only ticket if in reach from the drivers seat...but that inlcudes hatchbacks.

Frankly, in ONt, let the passenger drink in the pssgr seat all they want. The fine is stupid low and given to the person drinking , and does not show up on your abstract.

Its an LLBO violation, not CCC nor Prov Offense (HTA)

Oh yeah, professional painters out there, dont paint your ladder, against the law.

Signing off...I am Hart Pomerantz (oldtimers will get the reference)

Edited June 7, 2012 by guyser