News   May 10, 2024
45 Storeys Proposed to Replace 10 Storeys in Islington Village
 968     0 
News   May 10, 2024
Crane Comes Down at Menkes' Festival Condos as Phase 2 Breaks Ground
 1.3K     0 
News   May 10, 2024
LCH Developments Launching Cliffside Condos Above the Scarborough Bluffs
 1K     0 

Roads: Ambassador & Gordie Howe Bridges

ShonTron said:
It wasn't until relatively recently that the Tunnel Bus wouldn't accept bicycles. Sure you have to pay the bus fare (which is separate and higher than other Transit Windsor routes), but you'd go from downtown to downtown. The Ambassador Bridge used to have a sidewalk but it was closed in 2001 due to "security concerns" and removed.

The views from the new bridge would be pretty cool, but yeah, it does sort of go from nowhere to nowhere from an active transportation standpoint.
Click to expand...

The whole active transportation thing for the Gordie Howe was definitely an odd choice, since both sides of the bridge are in industrial areas with heavy truck traffic.

Windsor does have a large concentration of parks on the Canadian side of the bridge, namely Black Oak Park, Ojibway Park, Malden Park, and Mic Mac park, but they're all separated from each other by the Ojibway Parkway, the 401, and industrial sites. The bike pathway connects to Ojibway Parkway, which has no sidewalk if you're going south past the perimeter access road. The city is currently focusing hard on active transport and is trying to create a large bike path network, with varying degrees of success, so I suspect at some point, there will be a push for a dedicated bike path here to connect the parks and the bridge.

Detroit is not quite as lucky, the lands surrounding the US side of the bridge are all industrial or neglected neighbouhoods, save for historic Fort Wayne. The roads and sidewalk will most likely be rebuilt, but there's nothing to really connect to in the area. The cycle path connects to the east of the site, which is close to I-75, which will have pedestrian overpasses to help make it more accessible. Detroit, unfortunately, wants to make the surrounding bridge lands entirely industrial, so I suspect it won't be too friendly to cyclists over there.
 
Last edited:
ericmacm said:
The whole active transportation thing for the Gordie Howe was definitely an odd choice, since both sides of the bridge are in industrial areas with heavy truck traffic.

Windsor does have a large concentration of parks on the Canadian side of the bridge, namely Black Oak Park, Ojibway Park, Malden Park, and Mic Mac park, but they're all separated from each other by the Ojibway Parkway, the 401, and industrial sites. The bike pathway connects to Ojibway Parkway, which has no sidewalk of you're going south past the perimeter access road. The city is currently focusing hard on active transport and is trying to create a large bike path network, with varying degrees of success, so I suspect at some point, there will be a push for a dedicated bike path here to connect the parks and the bridge.

Detroit is not quite as lucky, the lands surrounding the US side of the bridge are all industrial or neglected neighbouhoods, save for historic Fort Wayne. The roads and sidewalk will most likely be rebuilt, but there's nothing to really connect to in the area. The cycle path connects to the east of the site, which is close to I-75, which will have pedestrian overpasses to help make it more accessible. Detroit, unfortunately, wants to make the surrounding bridge lands entirely industrial, so I suspect it won't be too friendly to cyclists over there.
Click to expand...

I can see why Detroit wants that area to remain industrial, it's good for the tax base and for employment not tied to Dan Gilbert's white Downtown. Located near highways and towards River Rouge and Zug Island, it's not the kind of place it should be encouraging new housing (there's enough land for that). Detroit has a lot of bike lanes too these days, but none on Fort, which would connect the MUP with Downtown.
 
Streety McCarface said:
Oh come on, that bridge is an icon for the area. It should be restored and put to better use (passenger car traffic only, bike/walking traffic perhaps?)
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree that it would be great to preserve it as an interesting Art Deco suspension bridge. Perhaps they could preserve one lane of traffic in each direction and install wide sidewalks and bike paths.

The only drivers allowed to use it would be commuters and local residents with passes. Trucks would be banned. Reducing the traffic would still benefit West Windsor greatly. Trucks, in particular, make a lot of noise on the bridge when drivers engine brake. Getting rid of the massive customs plaza in favour of a compact plaza and turning Huron Church into a grand tree-lined boulevard with a focus on walking and cycling infrastructure would help to revitalize the area.
 
On another note, when I lived in Windsor without a car, I always wanted to cycle on the Detroit side. They have many bike paths, bike lanes, and quite little traffic on account of the city's recent depopulation. However, it wasn't possible to cross the river with a bike when I lived in Windsor. The tunnel bus didn't allow bikes at the time. I applaud the Gordie Howe's proposed pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. I would have used it.

Also, as Corktown gets revitalized and downtown Detroit continues to develop, the Ambassador Bridge would be quite a convenient crossing into Detroit for cyclists. University of Windsor students would probably cross by bike or on foot to go to Slow's or some of the other bars and restaurants in the Corktown area. Moreover, it's only about a 10 minute bike ride from the bridge to downtown Detroit along the riverfront. The views are great too.
 
junctionist said:
Actually, I agree that it would be great to preserve it as an interesting Art Deco suspension bridge. Perhaps they could preserve one lane of traffic in each direction and install wide sidewalks and bike paths.
Click to expand...
It could be made NEXUS-only too, like the Whirlpool-Rapids Bridge in Niagara Falls, ON/NY.
 
junctionist said:
Actually, I agree that it would be great to preserve it as an interesting Art Deco suspension bridge. Perhaps they could preserve one lane of traffic in each direction and install wide sidewalks and bike paths.

The only drivers allowed to use it would be commuters and local residents with passes. Trucks would be banned. Reducing the traffic would still benefit West Windsor greatly. Trucks, in particular, make a lot of noise on the bridge when drivers engine brake. Getting rid of the massive customs plaza in favour of a compact plaza and turning Huron Church into a grand tree-lined boulevard with a focus on walking and cycling infrastructure would help to revitalize the area.
Click to expand...
Would agree- the Ambassador Bridge would be better off serving car & active-only traffic.

Of course, the Marouns would never agree to it...
 
lenaitch said:
With limited traffic, how do the owners pay to maintain the bridge?
Click to expand...

I could see the government expropriating it one day. The smaller amount of traffic could still be enough to offset maintenance. It just wouldn't necessarily be that profitable anymore.

It probably won't be that profitable anyway with most traffic using the new bridge.
 
junctionist said:
I could see the government expropriating it one day. The smaller amount of traffic could still be enough to offset maintenance. It just wouldn't necessarily be that profitable anymore.

It probably won't be that profitable anyway with most traffic using the new bridge.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of a precedent for a government-owned international bridge - could be wrong. I'm not sure what would be in it for them given that they will have essentially paid to build it's competition and would be inheriting an aging infrastructure.
 
lenaitch said:
I'm not sure of a precedent for a government-owned international bridge - could be wrong. I'm not sure what would be in it for them given that they will have essentially paid to build it's competition and would be inheriting an aging infrastructure.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely a precedent for government-owned international bridges. Almost all bridge-based border crossings, except for the Ambassador Bridge (and probably some more obscure crossings), are owned by either/both the US and CA governments. The entities that own the bridges are usually set up as crown corporations/federal agencies, and if they are jointly owned, have representatives for both countries as part of the executive boards.

In the case of the Ambassador, the government has made it clear where they stand - they want it ripped down. They recently issued approval for a new span of the Ambassador on the condition that the old bridge be ripped down within 5 years. If they bought or seized the company, and wanted to keep a bridge operating in that area, they could simply just build the new span and rip down the old one, since they've already issued approval, and all of the design work is purportedly complete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max
ericmacm said:
There is absolutely a precedent for government-owned international bridges. Almost all bridge-based border crossings, except for the Ambassador Bridge (and probably some more obscure crossings), are owned by either/both the US and CA governments. The entities that own the bridges are usually set up as crown corporations/federal agencies, and if they are jointly owned, have representatives for both countries as part of the executive boards.

In the case of the Ambassador, the government has made it clear where they stand - they want it ripped down. They recently issued approval for a new span of the Ambassador on the condition that the old bridge be ripped down within 5 years. If they bought or seized the company, and wanted to keep a bridge operating in that area, they could simply just build the new span and rip down the old one, since they've already issued approval, and all of the design work is purportedly complete.
Click to expand...
You are right in general.
It's actually quite surprising the number of Owners of intentional bridges in Ontario.
  1. Niagara Bridge Commission owns 3 - Queenston-Lewiston, Whirlpool, Rainbow
  2. Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority owns the Peace Bridge.
  3. Windsor–Detroit Bridge Authority owns the Gordie Howe.
  4. Private owner (Moroun) for Ambassador Bridge
  5. Cities of Detroit and Windsor own the Tunnel.
  6. Federal Bridge Corporation owns the Bluewater Bridge and Soo International Bridge. As well as the 1000 Island (Gananoque) and Seaway Bridge (Cornwall) to the East.
  7. Sandwiched between the two others is Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge owned by Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority (A public "agency" in NY).
  8. Back up North, you have the Pigeon River Bridge (Thunder Bay) and Rainy River-Beaudette Bridge are owned by the MNDOT and MTO.
  9. In between these two, is the For-Francis-International Falls Bridge, owned by Boise Cascade and Abitibi Consolidated (a lumber company).
So of the 15 crossings (counting upcoming Gordie Howe), 9 are joint federal, 2 are joint provincial/state, 1 is joint municipal, 1 is solely US state, and 2 are private/corporation.
 
ericmacm said:
There is absolutely a precedent for government-owned international bridges. Almost all bridge-based border crossings, except for the Ambassador Bridge (and probably some more obscure crossings), are owned by either/both the US and CA governments. The entities that own the bridges are usually set up as crown corporations/federal agencies, and if they are jointly owned, have representatives for both countries as part of the executive boards.

In the case of the Ambassador, the government has made it clear where they stand - they want it ripped down. They recently issued approval for a new span of the Ambassador on the condition that the old bridge be ripped down within 5 years. If they bought or seized the company, and wanted to keep a bridge operating in that area, they could simply just build the new span and rip down the old one, since they've already issued approval, and all of the design work is purportedly complete.
Click to expand...

Do the feds really want the Ambassador to be torn down and replaced with a new bridge? Aren't they essentially saying that if a new bridge goes up, the old one must come down? That policy doesn't necessarily mean they want the old one demolished. It could just be that they don't want an abandoned bridge next to the new one or that they don't want two large bridges at that location indefinitely.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top