Introduction and Summary Sam Schwartz Engineering PLLC (SSC) was retained by the City of Windsor, Ontario to provide the City with a recommended approach on how to address both commercial and passenger related traffic issues as they relate to the Detroit-Windsor border crossings. As an initial part of this work, SSC was to examine and evaluate current alternative proposals for new border crossings. The border crossing proposals are seen as the longterm solution to the problems of heavy international truck traffic on local streets in the City of Windsor. In addition, SSC was asked to consider other appropriate crossing alternatives. We evaluated each of the proposed crossings and their Canadian access routes. We initially evaluated the five river crossing corridors in the Bi-National Feasibility Report. Each proposal had significant deficiencies as described in this report. We conclude that the Industrial Crossing site (also referred to as the Central Crossing) best met the objectives of this study (described below) and that it must be linked, via a fully controlled new roadway with Highway 401. Four alternative highway links are presented in this report with recommendations. However, the citizens of Windsor and industry should not be forced to wait until 2015-2020 before the truck impacts are abated. We propose a number of items be included as an early-action program regardless of the outcome of the Bi-National process. There are clear benefits to building a segment of one of these roadways now as it would provide a bypass to relieve existing congestion and unsafe conditions. We also conclude regardless of the BI-National process, that a balanced transportation system be developed now which should include the following elements: A new rail tunnel to accommodate double-decked trains Rationalization of commercial and passenger rail lines A multi-modal facility at the airport linking ground, air and rail transport Increased capacity and attractiveness of the Truck Ferry An ITS system to balance traffic between Windsor-Detroit and Sarnia-Port Huron Improved operations at Detroit-Windsor Tunnel Continuation of throughput capacity and operational improvements at the Ambassador Bridge This summary is based on a draft technical report which will be finalized following consideration of comments received. 1
Objectives The current border crossing proposals were evaluated with regard for the following overall objectives: Solution must lead to strategic development and implementation of a coordinated and integrated transportation network that will satisfy current as well as long-term and anticipated projected future demands. The solution should also provide a long-term border vision and strategy that goes beyond fixing short-term problems and reflects increasing economic integration with the United States. Alternatives must incorporate the following: Consider the long-term objectives and not be reactive. Be least intrusive environmentally and socially. Consider the impact on existing neighborhoods, preserve the sense of community and take into consideration proximity to residential, commercial and institutional uses. Provide for choice and a flexible, integrated transportation network. Provide for redundancy. Get trucks off city streets. Provide a controlled access link to Highway 401. Discussion of alternatives Five opportunity corridors along with a number of site-specific proposals for crossing of the Detroit River were examined in depth within the Planning/Need and Feasibility Study done by the Border Transportation Partnership and published in January 2004 (see Figure 1). 2
Figure 1: Map of River Crossing Alternatives A main reason for building a new crossing is to get trucks off city streets and get trucks and good across the border. We present, in figure 2, the relative attractiveness of each crossing. As can be seen below the twinned Ambassador Bridge would attract the most trucks since only two crossings would remain- the Ambassador Bridge Twinned and the Detroit Windsor Tunnel. Building one of the other four crossings would result in the addition of a crossing; therefore some truck traffic would remain on the Ambassador Bridge. Of the four proposed new crossings, the Mich-Can proposal would attract the most trucks followed by the DRTP, Southern Crossing and lastly the Eastern Crossing. 3
Figure 2: Relative Attractiveness of River Crossings for Trucks 2030 Figure 3 shows that of the four independent crossing proposals the Mich-Can/Central Crossing Expressway would leave the fewest trucks on the Ambassador Bridge and consequently the fewest trucks on city streets. It is followed respectively by the DRTP, Southern Crossing and Eastern Crossing. Figure 3: Trucks remaining on Talbot Road, Huron Church Road and the Ambassador Bridge in 2030 4
River Widths Shorter crossings are desirable because costs are reduced; time to construct is shorter and impacts generally fewer. As shown in Figure 4 the Mich-Can/ Lauzon Parkway- E. C. Row Expressway, Ambassador Bridge and DRTP proposals are planned at relatively narrow widths of the Detroit River. The East Crossing would be about double the length of the three mentioned while the Southern Crossing would be four to five times longer. Figure 4: River Widths at Crossing Alternatives Clearly the South and East crossing would draw the fewest trucks and would require the longest bridges. We also find that they would affect environmentally sensitive areas, have significant community impacts and have poor access to the U.S. interstate system. Based on these criteria we decided that the South and East corridors should be eliminated from further serious consideration. The three crossings we then evaluated in further detail were: The Detroit River Tunnel Project (DRTP) Twinning of the Ambassador Bridge The Mich-Can proposal via Lauzon Parkway- E. C. Row Expressway These crossings are discussed and evaluated in this report. Routes to the river crossings were considered and alternative routes were developed as appropriate. 5
Crossing One: The DRTP Proposal The intent of the DRTP Proposal is to construct a dedicated two-way truckway from Highway 401 in Windsor to I-75 in Detroit and a new train tube with enough clearance to accommodate double-decked trains. Figure 5 shows the converted truck tunnels in relation to the double stack rail tunnel. Figure 5: DRTP Tunnel Configuration under the Detroit River; looking toward Detroit Double-decking the trains would increase the tunnel s efficiency and allow for the transport of intact trailers. This element receives our strong support and should be pursued at once. (See p. 26, Balanced Transportation) The truckway would use existing rail corridors for most of the way and offer connections with the E.C. Row Expressway as well. The two existing train tunnels under the Detroit River would be modified to accommodate trucks in two tubes (one lane in each direction). The tubes would be 4.06 meters wide (13.3ft) and 4.5 meters high (14.8ft). No shoulders will be provided in the tunneled segments. From the Windsor Portal (located north of Tecumseh Road) to Highway 401, the truckways would be in an open cut, at-grade or above grade. It would bridge over Tecumseh Road and Dougall Avenue by widening existing bridges. New bridges or underpasses would be built at Howard Avenue, Cabana Road, 6 th Concession Road and Walker Road. We presume, from engineering drawings we have received and from design constraints the truck and railway would be above grade for much of its length. Figure 6 shows the proposed DRTP route from Highway 401 north along existing rail corridor. 6
Figure 6: Plan view of DRTP proposal Figure 7 shows a rendering of the truckway crossing over Dougall Avenue. Figure 7: Proposed truckway and rail crossing at Dougall Avenue* *Conceptual rendering of DRTP bridge crossing at Dougall Ave. 7
Connections between the truckway and E.C. Row Expressway would have to be made via Dougall Avenue. For example, a northbound trucker on E.C. Row Expressway westbound would have to exit at Dougall Avenue, cross Dougall through a signalized intersection, enter a ramp to the truckway, and follow a serpentine path to another signalized intersection with the southbound truckway. When all lanes of the southbound truckway are stopped at the signal, the trucker would then be allowed to turn left onto the truckway northbound. Figure 8 illustrates the connection from E.C. Row Expressway to the truckway via Dougall Avenue. A trucker from the U.S. would have to pass through two traffic signals to get onto the eastbound E.C. Row Expressway. The first signal is at the serpentine road from Dougall Avenue, the second is to cross Dougall Avenue to access the E.C. Row Expressway ramp. Figure 8: Connection from EC Row via Dougall Avenue (Base drawing courtesy of DRTP) All EC Row Truck Traffic to or from the truckway would have to pass through Dougall Avenue at signalized intersections Similarly, local truckers on Dougall Avenue would have to pass through signalized intersections to enter the truckway. Canadian-bound truckers heading to Highway 401 would have to pass through three traffic signals. The first two are at the interchange with the E.C. Row Expressway. The third is at the terminus of the truckway. Trucks would exit at Provincial Road where they would face a traffic signal at the ramp to the 401. In the opposite direction, U.S.-bound 8
trucks would face one traffic signal at Provincial Road in Phase 1 as planned by the DRTP but in phases 2 and 3, a ramp would be constructed to bypass the signal. On the Detroit side, there would be a weave of ramps to provide access to and from I-75 and other points. Crossing Two: Twinning the Ambassador Bridge/CTC Parkway Under this proposal, a second bridge, four lanes wide, would be built adjacent to the existing Ambassador Bridge providing for four lanes in each direction. Figure 9 shows the proposed CTC Parkway route from Highway 401 to the bridge. A fully controlled limited access highway, three lanes in each direction, would be built from Highway 401 to the E.C. Row Expressway via Talbot Road and Huron Church Road. Figure 9: Plan view of the CTC Parkway proposal Figures 10 and 11 illustrate this proposed access highway. It is anticipated that the highway would be at grade or in an open cut below grade for much of its distance. A flyover ramp system would be used to link the Huron Church Road segment with E.C. Row s right of way. Local traffic would be bridged northbound at Highway 401 and southbound at E.C. Row Expressway. 9
Figure 10: Twinned Ambassador Bridge Access Route (Courtesy of Canadian Transit Corporation). Just south of E.C. Row Expressway the new highway would veer west and then, via a fly over ramp, enter the plaza area. In the scenario shown U.S. Customs would operate at this site. Alternatively, the ramp system could be amended so that Canadian customs would be housed at this site. Ramps to and from E.C. Row and the plaza area would also be provided. Traffic shown in Figure 11, after exiting U.S. Customs would follow the E.C. Row Expressway right-of-way westbound to Ojibway Parkway. From there it would head north along the right-of-way of the Essex Terminal Railway (ETR) through Sandwich-- the rail line would need to be shifted to the south to accommodate the roadway. All four rail grade crossings in the Sandwich community would be maintained: at Prince Road, Felix Road, South Street and Huron Church Road (at the foot of the bridge). We presume that the roadway from the bridge to the customs site would be 8 lanes wide, four in each direction to match the capacity of the bridge. The CTC recently stated that the segment could be six lanes wide. We think this is unrealistic. 10
Figure 11: Twinned Ambassador Bridge Access from E.C. Row (Courtesy of Canadian Bridge Corp.) The CTC Parkway would run at grade along the ETR with the exception of going under Prince Road and South Street, where grade separations would be constructed. Although the CTC has said that a below grade roadway would be a possibility though Sandwich, because its proposal includes relocating the existing ETR, it would likely encounter grade difficulties. If the rail line were to be dropped below grade with the roadway, extensive work would be required and the width of the corridor would need to be increased. Figure 12 shows the proposed access route for the twinned Ambassador Bridge 11
Figure 12: Twinned Ambassador Bridge Access Route/ Essex Terminal Rail through Sandwich The proposed roadway and bridge would be open to all traffic. The plan provides access to the bridge only from the 401 or E.C. Row; there would be no direct access to the bridge from city streets meaning some local traffic would have to back track (Note: The CTC has not ruled out local street access). It should be noted that on the Detroit side, improvements are underway to facilitate customs processing and access to I-75. Construction of the six-lane roadway at grade or in an open cut along Talbot Road would probably require the taking of private property. Similarly, some property may be taken for the flyover ramps between Huron Church Road and the E.C. Row Expressway rightof-way. Some private property will have to be taken in Sandwich. Crossing Three: Mich-Can Bridge Proposal via Lauzon Parkway/ E.C. Row Expressway The proposal is for a crossing located in the Central Corridor connected via Lauzon Parkway- E.C. Row Expressway. The proposed bridge would be located 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) southwest of the Ambassador Bridge at about Prospect Avenue in an industrial zone. It would be comprised of two lanes in each direction across the river. The Mich-Can Bridge Company proposes linking the bridge with E.C. Row Expressway but did not provide design details. There would be no direct connection to Highway 401. However, Mich-Can does support the construction of a link from the 401 to E.C. Row Expressway via Lauzon Parkway extension. On the Detroit side, Mich-Can is confident 12
that a link could be made with I-75 through the largely industrial area of River Rouge in Detroit. Figure 13 shows a map of the Mich-Can Bridge crossing. Figure 13: Map of Proposed Mich-Can Bridge Crossing The proposed Lauzon Parkway interchange would require the taking of some property. In addition E.C. Row Expressway would need to be widened to an estimated four lanes in each direction, between Lauzon Parkway and at least Huron Church Road, to accommodate the extra traffic. Evaluation of the Three Crossing Proposals The three crossing proposals are evaluated and compared on the following page for critical parameters. A more detailed evaluation appears in the full report. Table 1 summarizes the evaluation of the three proposals. DRTP The DRTP would only provide access for up to full size commercial trucks; no other vehicles will be permitted. This means cars and buses would still have to use local streets to access the Ambassador Bridge or Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. Oversized trucks would continue to use the truck ferry or the Ambassador Bridge. Since all cars and some truck traffic would continue to use the two other crossings, local streets, including Huron Church Road, are expected to reach capacity before 2030. The 13
Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor Tunnel are projected to reach unacceptable levels of service before 2030. In short, the DRTP proposal does not offer a long-term solution to border traffic. While there will be some relief at the river crossings some local streets will see worsened traffic conditions. In particular, Dougall Avenue, already suffering from poor traffic flow, will experience near gridlocked conditions with heavy truck traffic passing through multiple signalized intersections on both sides of E.C. Row Expressway. Should the length of the truckway be shortened from the river to E.C. Row Expressway all international truck traffic would be forced through two intersections on Dougall Avenue and queues of truck traffic can be expected in all directions. We are concerned that conditions at Dougall Avenue will be so poor that some trucks will avoid the DRTP and continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. In addition the DRTP proposal has the potential to funnel international trucks from the 401 along Dougall Avenue to access the truckway. Figure 7, shown earlier, depicts the circuitous route trucks will have to follow to get from the E.C. Row Expressway to the truckway via Dougall Avenue South of College Avenue, our engineering analysis indicates that trucks will travel at or above-grade for much of the truckway s length. The impacts of noise and air pollution are greater for at-grade and elevated highways than for tunneled or open-cut highways. Approximately 1262 residences, 82 commercial properties and a number of park areas are located within 200-meters of the non-tunneled segment of the proposed DRTP route. In addition, the customs/processing facility appears to be within 200 meters of housing exposing its residents to harmful particulate matter from idling trucks. The emissions can be expected to double if the customs facility is bi-national. Figure 14 is a rendering depicting queued trucks at the customs facility as seen from South Cameron Blvd. Figure 14 : Rendering of DRTP Customs Plaza area as seen from South Cameron Blvd. 14
The design of a single lane with no shoulders and walls on both sides is referred to by traffic engineers as a cattle-chute. A minor incident in a cattle chute typically has major impacts. A disabled vehicle would cause lengthy delays and backed-up idling truck traffic. For example a disabled truck that takes 15 minutes to clear, at a rate of 400 trucks per hour (peak demand at the Ambassador Bridge is already well over 300 trucks/hour), will generate a queue of 100 trucks or a distance of more than two kilometers. If there s a crash in the tunnel (with such sub-standard widths and no shoulders the frequency of crashes can be expected to be significant) and it takes a half-hour or longer to clear, queues of four or five kilometers can be anticipated. Figure 15 below illustrates the narrow and unforgiving widths of the truck tunnel. A crash with injuries could have region-wide impacts. It is just not prudent to rely on a single lane with no option to detour around a disabled or crashed vehicle. Figure 15: Typical DRTP truck tunnel section Trucks will have just 0.73 meters or less to the tunnel walls We are also concerned about the safety of the truckway in the open-air segment. According to the DRTP drawings, the truckway will typically have no divider between opposing flows of traffic. We strongly recommend this design be amended to include left side shoulders both ways and a jersey barrier down the center. This would markedly improve safety but require a wider roadway by approximately 7 meters. Additionally, at the E.C. Row interchange, the truckway will require more width to account for turning lanes. Figure 16 shows a comparison between the existing cross section, an improved cross section and a cross section as required at the E.C. Row interchange. These widths are 20.2m (66.2 ft), 27m (88.5ft) and 34.3m (112.5 ft.) respectively. 15
Figure 16: Comparison of Existing and Standard Engineered DRTP Corridor Widths Looking toward Detroit DRTP s cross section does not meet minimum standards Cross-section with jersey barrier and median shoulders meet minimum standards Cross-section vicinity Dougall Avenue An advantage of the DRTP proposal is that construction impacts should be relatively modest. However, some road closures will be necessary as bridges are built or widened over six streets: Tecumseh Road, Dougall Avenue, Howard Avenue, Cabana Road, Sixth Concession Road and Walker Road. In addition, the DRTP requires minimal private land taking in Canada, which might allow it to be the quickest built of the three river crossing alternatives. The DRTP has estimated it would take about 4 years to complete the truckway and tunnel once all approvals were obtained. We believe that it could take considerably longer by several years. Twinning the Ambassador Bridge/Canadian Transit Corporation (CTC) Proposal The CTC proposal provides adequate capacity and works acceptably from a traffic point of view. Traffic volumes on the bridge are expected to remain below capacity beyond 2030 with the proposed fully controlled parkway. The proposed parkway does, however, channel all cross border traffic to the E.C. Row Expressway west of Huron Church Road. 16
The performance of the interchange of the proposed route at Huron Church Road and E.C. Row Expressway is a concern. The customs processing facility appears to be adequate and in an industrial area. The major drawbacks of the CTC proposal are the impacts on several communities of the proposed access road. Nearly all property takings (approximately 8 residences and 4 commercial establishments) would occur in the neighborhood of Sandwich along the Essex Terminal Railroad corridor. Some property would have to be taken along Talbot Road and Huron Church Road. A network of bridges or underpasses would be needed to allow local circulation in Sandwich, and along impacted areas of Talbot Road and Huron Church Road. Approximately 1383 residences and 55 apartment or public housing complexes lie in a 200-meter corridor adjacent to the proposed route. We conservatively estimate theses 55 apartment buildings represent an additional 400 households. Additionally, the Forester High School lies within the 200-meter corridor adjacent to the proposed parkway. Air and noise quality would worsen for these impacted properties. Construction of the second bridge span and of proposed access route would pose significant and lengthy traffic disruptions during the reconstruction of Talbot and Huron- Church Road. The Windsor touchdown location for the second span would heavily impact adjacent residential areas and the University of Windsor during a lengthy construction phase. Finally, the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge would not offer redundancy if there is a major incident such as a crash with casualties, an overturned truck or a terrorist act. Mich-Can Bridge proposal via Lauzon Parkway/E. C. Row Expressway Although this new crossing would significantly reduce volumes along Huron Church Road by redirecting most of the truck traffic, the Mich-Can Bridge Crossing, as conceptually planned, with a direct link only to the E.C. Row Expressway, will fall short of removing most of the truck traffic from central Windsor. This alternative does not provide a direct connection to Highway 401. Heavy international truck traffic would continue to impact the center of Windsor, as the expectation is to link the 401 with E.C. Row at Lauzon Parkway. Approximately 1039 residences and 39 commercial establishments would be negatively impacted within a 200-meter corridor adjacent to the E.C. Row Expressway. Furthermore, a heavy weave of traffic will be created on E. C. Row westbound between Dougall Avenue and Huron Church Road. Along that stretch local traffic desiring to exit onto Huron Church Road would cross the international traffic heading west of the E. C. Row. We project poor traffic performance along this stretch of road. However, the physical features of a river crossing in the Central Corridor, if it could be combined with a thoughtful access plan, make the Central Corridor crossing a strong alternative. A more detailed examination of alternative connecting routes to the river crossing in this corridor is explored in our full report. 17
The Border Transportation Partnership, in its January 2004 Planning/Need and Feasibility Study Report, states that in the Central Corridor, the width of the river is between 0.6 and 0.75 km (0.4 to 0.5 mi), which eliminates the need for bridge structures located in the river. In addition, the river crossing is in close proximity of major transportation arterials, such as I -75. The Report also states that The Central Crossing Alternative provides better travel time savings and has a projected higher demand compared to the Twinned Ambassador Bridge Alternative. This is due to its more westerly location, which provides a shorter travel distance for the truck travel flow between Highway 401 in Canada and I- 75 Corridor and I-94 Corridor in the U.S., which is a significant portion of international long-distance truck traffic. A more direct route means fewer vehicle miles traveled which means less air pollution for the region. The touch down for a proposed bridge on the Canadian side is industrial. Likewise, land use on the Detroit side of the corridor is largely industrial and manufacturing, such as Zug Island and the former Solvay lands. According to the Report the Detroit Master Plan has identified that some of the residential areas will be transitioned to commercial and industrial uses in the future, which would further increase the viability of a central crossing. Comparison of Alternatives We looked at various parameters in comparing alternatives. These parameters are briefly summarized in Figure 17. As designed, only the Ambassador Bridge provides direct access, with no traffic signals, from both Highway 401 and E.C. Row Expressway. Both the Ambassador Bridge Twinning and the Mich-Can will reduce traffic significantly on local streets; the DRTP will not. Similarly, the two bridge proposals provide adequate long term capacity; the DRTP does not. All have at least 1000 residences within 200 meters, the zone where noise and air impacts may be significant. Only the Mich-Can provides for redundancy, in the event of a major crash of terrorist act, for all vehicles. The DRTP requires little or no private land takings while the other two will require some land acquisition/appropriation 18
Figure 17: Comparison of Proposed Crossings Ambassador DRTP Twinning Fully Controlled (+) Full control from (-) Fails South bound Access via 401 and 401 and E.C. Row both w/ 3 traffic signals to E.C. Row directions Highway 401; Fails Northbound in Phase 1 Traffic Impacts on (+) Reduction in local (-) Bottlenecks on Local Streets portions of Huron- Dougall Ave. may Church Rd. and Talbot cause truck diversion Rd. to Ambassador Bridge Mich-Can/ E.C. Row Extension (0) Full control only from E.C. Row (-) Major bottlenecks created on E.C. Row vicinity Huron Church Road Long term use (+) 2 added lanes in both directions Sufficient for long term (-) 1 added lane in each direction for trucks- Insufficient for long term (+) 2 added lanes in both directions Sufficient for long term Air and Noise Impacts in 200m (-) 1383 residences and 55 apartment complexes ; 33 commercial businesses (-) 1262 * residences and 82 commercial businesses (-) 1039 residences, 116 commercial and industrial businesses Approach Road Width (-) Six to Eight lanes (+) Two lanes (-) Widened E.C. Row - 8 lanes Toll Booth and Customs Impacts (+) Proposed Customs Facility in industrial areas at E.C. Row (-) Proposed Customs facility b/t Tecumseh Rd. and Dougall Ave. (0) Not Defined Added Redundancy (-) No (0) For trucks only (+) Yes Consistency with Community Goals (-) Heavy impact to Sandwich communitynot consistent (-) Proposed route bisects city of Windsor- not consistent (-) E.C. Row-Lauzon Ext. would add trucks to the E.C. Row thoroughfare-not consistent Land Acquisition (-) 8 takings and ROW expenditures needed (+) Little if any private lands needed for completion (-) 35 Takings and ROW expenditures needed Serious Flaws 19
The next step in our iterative process was to identify serious or fatal flaws in the alternatives. Figure 18 summarizes these findings. The DRTP does not provide redundancy for cars. Its traffic performance is poor and it has limited capacity. More than 1200 residences will be in the 200-meter impact assessment zone and if a second new crossing is required, that number will probably double. Moreover, the DRTP proposal would still require an additional crossing to alleviate growth in future truck traffic. The twinning of the Ambassador Bridge does not offer redundancy in the event of a major crash or terrorist action. Since the bridge is eight lanes wide the approach is most likely to be eight lanes wide (although the CTC has said six lanes would be adequate). The widest swath would pass though the Sandwich community and also affect the University of Windsor. South of E.C. Row we agree a six-lane roadway would be adequate. 1372 residences and 55 apartment complexes lie in the 200-meter impact assessment zone. We conservatively estimate the 55 apartment complexes add another 400 households, thereby bringing the number of residences impacted to 1783. The Mich-Can will require about 35 properties taken, mostly for the interchange at Highway 401 and Lauzon Parkway. About 1000 residences lie within the 200-meter residential zone-largely along the E.C. Row Expressway. Traffic performance on E. C. Row between Dougall Avenue and Huron Church Road will be poor. In Figure 18, we have highlighted in red those flaws that we think are not easily correctible. In the case of the DRTP and the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge there are serious flaws associated with the crossings themselves. The Mich-Can s serious flaws are all associated with the Lauzon Parkway/E. C. Row Expressway proposed route. We conclude that the combination of river crossing flaws and approach road flaws are fatal to the DRTP and the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge. We can not recommend the Mich-Can proposal because of the link with Highway 401 via Lauzon Parkway and the E. C. Row Expressway and the impact that would have on traffic and more than a thousand residences. Figure 18: Summary of Serious Flaws Ambassador Bridge- DRTP Twinning Lack of redundancy No redundancy for 6 lane highway cars along Talbot and Poor traffic Huron and Huron performance Church Road Limited capacity 8 lane highway 1262 residences though Sandwich Town impacted 1383 residences Safety compromised impacted Not fully controlled Mich-Can/E.C. Row and Lauzon Extension Dependent on widened E.C. Row Expressway and new Lauzon Parkway extension Major traffic disruptions to Windsor traffic 35 ROW takings 1039 residences impacted Significant air and noise 20
Significant air and noise impacts in Sandwich Significant air and noise impacts adjacent to route Another new river crossing would be required impacts adjacent to E.C. Row At this point in the analysis it was apparent that a bridge in the vicinity of the Central Corridor touching down in industrial areas of both Windsor and Detroit and spanning a narrow part of the river would be the best location for a new crossing. We refer to this proposed bridge as the Industrial Crossing. Access to the I-75 in Detroit appeared to be relatively straightforward. The bigger challenge was to develop a connecting route with Highway 401 in Windsor. We literally went back to the drafting board. 21
The Industrial Crossing: Access Options Option 1: Southern Route This proposed alternative route would extend the existing 401 Highway alignment to the southwest, parallel to the Outer Drive, over Howard Avenue. The alignment would then bend to the northwest into an alignment roughly parallel to Reaume Drive in LaSalle. The alignment would continue to the west until the Essex Terminal Railway (ETR) lands, follow the ETR to Ojibway Parkway, and then turn north onto Ojibway Parkway. Ojibway Parkway would then carry the proposed route north to the Central crossing. The proposed route would follow an existing hydro utility corridor coming off of the 401. Much of the land initially is agricultural land. There would be some impacts to residents where the proposed route would cross Howard, Huron Line and Disputed Road. Grade separations would be anticipated at all of these crossings. As the proposed route approaches Malden Road, the residential impact would be much more substantial since the proposed route would pass through the backyards of a number of houses. There would be substantial ROW impacts approaching the Essex Terminal Railroad ROW as there is a park and several light industrial and residential properties that may be impacted to achieve proper geometrics. We estimate that approximately 257 residences and 45 commercial properties lie within 200 meters of the proposed route. However the major impact of the route would be on the Town of LaSalle s future town center plans. The proposed route bisects the town s proposed urban center and a number of planned residential neighborhoods. Figure 19: Option 1: Southern Route 22
Option 2: Central Route A This proposed alternative route would extend the existing 401 Highway alignment southwest, parallel to Outer Drive, over Howard Avenue. The alignment would bend to the northwest into an alignment roughly parallel to Reaume Drive in LaSalle. From there the route would turn north onto Disputed Road and continue to the north until the intersection of Todd Lane/Cabana Road and Talbot Road. At this point, the proposed route would turn west and straddle the Windsor-LaSalle border, through mostly vacant woodland and parkland, and continue west to Sprucewood, where it would join up with Ojibway Parkway. Ojibway Parkway would then carry the proposed route north to the anticipated location for the Central Crossing. An estimated 254 residences and 36 commercial properties lie within 200 meters of the proposed route. As in Option 1, the Talbot Road Huron Church Bypass Combination would have considerable impacts to the Town of LaSalle, especially to areas that are currently being planned for town commercial districts and residential areas. Figure 20: Option 2: Central Route A 23
Option 3: Central Route B This proposed alternative route would utilize Talbot Road, preferably by separating international truck traffic from local truck traffic and moving the bridge-bound traffic into lanes that run below-grade. A partially below grade roadway/tunnel is feasible along this stretch of roadway since utilities are at a minimum. The proposed roadway would then pass under the Huron Church/ Talbot Road/Cabana Road/Todd Lane intersection and curl to the west. The route would straddle the Windsor-LaSalle border, continuing, possibly in a tunnel, through mostly vacant woodland and parkland where it would join the Ojibway Parkway. Ojibway Parkway would then carry the proposed route north to the anticipated location for the Central Crossing. Unlike the first two alternatives, this route would largely bypass proposed urban and residential centers within the Town of LaSalle. Property takings would be substantially reduced from those needed in the first two alternative routes. An estimated 614 residences and 36 commercial properties lie within 200 meters of the proposed route Figure 21: Option 3: Central Route B 24
Option 4 : Northern Route This proposed alternative route would utilize Talbot Road, preferably by separating international truck traffic from local truck traffic and moving the bridge bound traffic into lanes that run below-grade similar to the CTC proposal. The route would turn north onto Huron Church Road and run below grade until E.C. Row Expressway. The route would tunnel under (rather than fly over as proposed by CTC) E.C. Row Expressway and head westward to surface in the extended truck customs area planned for by the Canadian Transit Corporation. From the customs processing plaza the proposed truck route would go west in two dedicated lanes onto the E.C. Row Expressway. The proposed route would follow the E.C. Row Expressway to Ojibway Parkway. It would link to the Ojibway Parkway and continue west toward the location of the Central Crossing. An estimated 533 residences and 66 commercial properties lie within 200 meters of the proposed route. Figure 22: Option 4: Northern Route We think all four options must be developed in greater detail and receive public exposure to identify issues, faults and improvements. However, because of the potential impacts Options 1 and 2 would have on the future of the Town of LaSalle, SSC does not recommend pursuing them. Option 4 affects both Talbot Road and Huron Church Road; Option 3 lessens the overall impact by removing the Huron Church Road segment. Consequently, at this point, our preferred option is #3. We also recommend that context sensitive designs be developed where the roads pass through communities or parkland to minimize impacts. Such designs include cantilevering service roads above below-grade highways, short tunnels possibly with parquettes atop, and berms and other design features to muffle sound and air emission. 25
Recommendation: Industrial Corridor Bridge with New Connecting Routes. SSC concluded that a centrally located multi-lane bridge touching down in industrial areas of both Windsor and Detroit to be preferred. We also propose new connecting routes, different than those proposed by Mich-Can. The site of the proposed bridge is relatively narrow (0.6 and 0.75 km or 0.4 to 0.5 mi). Few protected or environmentally sensitive areas surround the likely approaches to the bridge. Furthermore a central location would be at the periphery, rather than the center of residential land use for the City of Windsor and Town of LaSalle. The proposed bridge would touch down in Windsor at or near Prospect Avenue. Furthermore, the combination of the Industrial Bridge and the proposed connecting routes reduces then number of residences in the 200- meter impact assessment area from more than 1000 to about 637 as compared to the other alternative. Need to Act Now We need to act now to get trucks off city streets; to get FAST trucks moving; to provide choice and flexibility in an integrated transportation network and to provide for redundancy. Balanced Transportation It would be a mistake for Windsor, Ontario, and Canada to rely solely on a highway solution to the border crossing problem. We propose a multi-modal and multi-facility approach. The additional modes would include ferry, rail, and air. The additional facilities would be the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the Blue Water Bridge and new rail infrastructure. Improve Rail Infrastructure The City of Windsor is the nexus of a half-dozen rail lines (CPR. CN, VIA, ETR, NS and CSXT) scattered throughout the city. We understand that there is an effort underway to rationalize these lines and integrate them within the fabric of the transport systems of Windsor and Ontario. These elements include: Combining rail operations into a single corridor A multi-modal (air, rail and truck) terminal at Windsor Airport A new high clearance rail tunnel, under the Detroit River, capable of accepting double-stacked trailers A new train station for passengers Possibility of integration with a high speed rail corridor extending from Windsor to Quebec City (via use of existing rail tubes) We strongly support the rail improvement program elements and urge that they be acted upon without delay. Increase ferry capacity to 1000 trucks/day 26
The Truck Ferry primarily transports trucks hauling hazardous materials and oversize/overweight trucks. A tug is used to transport the barge across the Detroit River, which can break ice, if necessary, during the winter month crossings. Stoppage or disruption of service due to weather is very rare. The Ferry operation receives no subsidies. The Ferry fees start at $30 US for a passenger automobile, $115 US for the typical semi-truck w/ trailer, and up to $1650 US for oversize/overweight vehicles. Fees are set based on the costs associated with the 165- mile alternative route for vehicles that would otherwise have to cross up at Port Huron/Sarnia. The ferry management is in negotiations with the automakers to offer a reduced semi-truck rate (approximately $50US per truck) if they would contract for the large volume of trucks crossing the border which supply their operations. It has been estimated that the current port infrastructure could handle 1000 trucks/day. This would require one additional barge and one additional tugboat. In addition there would be need to level the playing field when it comes to customs costs. The ferry operator currently pays for customs services; the bridge and tunnel do not. Currently, the ferry operates one shift, five days a week, ferrying 50-80 vehicles per day in both directions. Expansion to service for 1000 trucks/day could take less than a year. Financial incentives should be considered for ferry operators and for truckers deciding to use the ferries. Balanced Traffic between Blue Water Crossing and Windsor-Detroit Crossings Developing a balanced traffic network between the Sarnia-Port Huron and Detroit- Windsor Crossings would provide benefits without a new crossing but would be compatible with any of the new crossings. Essentially it means adopting acceptable levels of service guidelines at all facilities as a goal and maintaining the goal, as best possible, through Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) measures, policies, directing trucks after they are screened and pricing strategies. It sets aside the profit-motive, which means each facility is competing for the most traffic, with a utilitarian-motive: the greatest good for the greatest number. Such a scheme may require revenue sharing among participants. Authorities should consider rerouting long-haul trucks, originating from London or points east, to the generally better performing Blue Water Bridge. The Windsor-Detroit crossings carry four times the passenger vehicles and more than double the trucks as does the Sarnia-Port Huron crossing. Yet both have the same number of lanes. The Blue Water Bridge has three lanes in each direction; the Ambassador Bridge and the Windsor- Detroit Tunnel have three lanes combined in each direction. Origin and destination studies show that about 30% of commercial vehicle traffic currently using the Ambassador Bridge each weekday could also use the Blue Water Bridge without significant travel time increases. This change alone would lower the peak truck demand from 350 hour to 245/hour. The City of Windsor suffers more than Sarnia even if both 27
handle the same number of trucks; Sarnia has limited access highways (Interstate 94/Highway 401) leading to the Blue Water Bridge, Windsor has city streets leading to its crossings. Measures to re-route could be mandatory by pre-processing trucks at London and rerouting 30% to Blue Water Bridge or voluntary by using variable message signs and other forms of communications to long haul truckers advising them that the Blue Water Bridge is the faster route. Improving Operations at Existing Crossings The Ambassador Bridge has actively undertaken a number of projects to increase capacity at its facility and consequently improve operations. The four additional customs stations introduced in July have already improved flow. The current proposal is to add more booths Canada-bound that should also affect improvements In addition effort will be undertaken to address the new federal (US-Canada) 25% efficiency challenge. The Detroit-Windsor Tunnel has studies underway to improve traffic flow. We encourage and support the efforts at both facilities. Early Action Program 28
Planning, environmental assessment statements, design, land acquisition, and construction all take time. At the earliest a new river crossing with all the approach road and interchanges would be completed in 2015 and, to allow for contingencies, 2020. Windsor does not have the time to wait. Massive trucks will continue to rumble down local streets in growing numbers. Figure 23 illustrates capacity issues at the bridge in the near term. Pedestrians will continue to be at risk and neighborhoods exposed to air and noise pollution. Our opinion is that the current condition is untenable. Figure 23: Future Capacity at Ambassador Bridge By 20017 the Ambassador Bridge traffic will become unstable no matter how many customs stations are operating. Even today, when a lane is closed for maintenance or an accident the demand exceeds capacity for most of the day, which leads to queuing. We propose an early-action program which is needed before the outcome of the Bi- National process. The Truck Ferry s capacity could be increased in months if governments cooperate and provide funding. Rail rationalization and planning for a high clearance tunnel should begin now with a target date of 2010 for start of service. Improvements at the Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor Tunnel should be advanced with dispatch. We believe interim improvements in bridge and tunnel operations could be made in months (outlined in a separate report.) But even with these actions the citizens should not be forced to wait until 2015-2020 before the truck impacts are abated. We recommend that the segments of the options discussed for access to the Industrial Crossing be built as stand-alone infrastructure to serve existing needs until a new crossing is chosen. The elements include a bypass for trucks from Highway 401 to Brighton Beach; dedicated FAST lanes would cause truckers to continue on the route. The City owns a large tract of land at Brighton Beach that could 29
serve as a transportation center. From Brighton Beach a truckway would parallel E. C. Row Expressway to Huron Church Road. A special queue control signal (QCS) would be installed at that location. The QCS would be tied into an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) network that would allow for the metering of truck traffic onto Huron Church Road to prevent queuing on city streets. All queuing would be on the truckway in industrial areas, or at the Brighton Beach facility. Figure 24 shows the proposed bypass and traffic management center at Brighton Beach. Figure 24: Proposed bypass route with traffic and queue control center The truckway would also be linked to an improved roadway to the Truck Ferry. The current problems are so significant that this new roadway is justified as a bypass solution which links into the current crossings, regardless of whatever may be the outcome of the on-going Bi-National environmental assessment process. Conclusion A balanced multi-modal approach involving rail, water, air and surface transport should be employed to solve the current untenable traffic conditions. Paramount to this solution is the selection of the right river crossing for international truck traffic. A mistake was made decades ago when Highway 401 and E.C. Row Expressway were built and stopped short of the river. Major highways should not end in city streets. Trucks should not be traveling through residential neighborhoods. People should not be forced to cross, almost blindly, amidst a caravan of tractor-trailers. This is the moment to correct this mistake. 30
A new bridge should be built in the industrial areas of Windsor and Detroit. A direct connection to Highway 401 should be constructed as a fully controlled roadway capable of handling large trucks as well as general traffic. Pre-processing, customs and tolling should occur in state-of-the-art facilities. Context-sensitive design techniques should be applied in engineering the new highway. It must not be a road that separates communities. It should not be a visual blight. Art, trees, greenery and amenities should not take a back seat to civil engineering; we see them as integral to the facility. The process itself should not be seen as a compromise between the needs of international commerce and communities. Instead, it should be a challenge to build a facility that meets, as best possible, the needs of all. Windsor and the region deserve nothing less. Epilogue The City of Windsor is poised to dramatically change its urban face by removing thousands of trucks from city streets. We recommend it seize the moment and introduce design features to reflect its friendlier look. We envision Huron Church Road as a grand boulevard- the Champs Elysèes of Canada. The new bridge should be a signature structure. We propose a world competition for a world-class crossing. The waterfronts of Windsor and Detroit should be knitted together via the bridge for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. This region has the opportunity to set the world stage for border crossings. Huron Church Boulevard The Champs Elysèes of Canada 31