Jump to content

Talk:Ambassador Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV Dispute & Removed Vitriolic Section

[edit]

I removed these vitriolic sections as they do nothing to further the article.

"Charles Charles and David Koch, wealthy industrialists, own Koch Carbon which purchases the black "high-sulfur, high-carbon waste" petroleum coke stored by Detroit Bulk Storage owned by Noel Frye and John Fry,[1] which uses an open storage method, creating an unsightly three-story high stockpile of their product covering an entire city block beside the Detroit River near the Ambassador Bridge"

"The Koch brothers, who challenge the science behind human activity causing climate change, sell petcoke overseas as fuel."

The second section is irrelevant to the Ambassador Bridge and should be put in a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.35.25 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


It's part of the immediate area, and is in my opinion relevant to the turmoil around the bridge owner. I've restored it, if you want to create a full article that is your prerogative, but should not be removed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Adding POV dispute. Their reasons for selling pet coke may or may not have anything to do with "the science behind human activity causing climate change". It would seem the only point to the restoration (instead of editing to a more NPOV would be to defame the Koch Brothers. A better way would be to not include the term "Koch Brothers" but maybe "Koch Industries".

These subsections are POV

  • "wealthy industrialist" - Clearly POV
  • "beyond regulations" - This would be for a judge to adjudicate and not WP
  • and identifying "The Koch brothers" - We do not know who made the decision at the company to use the stockpile.

What does this section even have to do with the bridge? There's a single sentence about obstruction of the view of the bridge, but it's otherwise irrelevant to the article. Even if it's "part of the immediate area," that doesn't have much to do with the bridge itself. -97.85.35.7 (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there's any impact of this to the area, it should be added to the article for that part of Detroit, not the bridge article itself. I.e. move the content after cleaning out the POV. AadaamS (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the whole section as it's entirely irrelevant. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove section (again?): this is a Wikipedia:Coatrack section. I'm with 97.85.35.7 and Floydian on this: The petcoke thing has no apparent relationship to the bridge. In the section, there is the vague nominal claim that some park used to have an "unobstructed" view of the bridge before the petcoke was there, but that's a pretty thin connection: It looks like this petcoke subject is simply someone's controversy in search of a Wikipedia article, and this article ended up "blessed" with it; this is classic Wikipedia:Coatrack behavior, and should be removed unless someone demonstrates a closer connection soon. --Closeapple (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notwillywanka, you have re-added that section when the consensus by editors on this talk page is that it does not belong in this article. Following this consensus, I am removing that section again. Do not re-add without discussing it here first please. Further, the statement about the view of the bridge from Assumption Park in Ontario is not supported by the cited source. AadaamS (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference WindsorStar18March2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Width

[edit]

What is the bridge's width? Funnyhat 03:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four lanes. Two in each direction. Flibirigit 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean, how wide is it in feet/meters? Funnyhat 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counting the parts that are falling off on the Canadian side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

This article is still pretty short, and doesn't cover much about the history or operations of the bridge. -- Beland 01:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions, stats, etc...

[edit]

I managed to archive a copy of the Ambassador Bridge's website before they took down all their data due to security reasons. Should i post the information here? I have the dimensions and so on. Apparently, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel told The Windsor Star that they would remove their information with the Ambassador Bridge, but they didn't. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggest beefing up the history of the bridge part of the article

[edit]

User F203 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should something be mentioned about how this is the only point in the lower 48 states where one can travel south from the US to Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.27.9.20 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Point" being Windsor-Detroit, I assume you mean. You can also drive south into Canada from Detroit through the tunnel a couple of miles away. By the way, the article says that the sidewalk was closed due to 9/11 security concerns. I'm pretty sure it was closed long before that because of suicide concerns. I lived in Windsor for 14 years and I am pretty sure it was closed then. I know I never saw anyone on it except bridge workers. Tim in Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.73.131.132 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did the bridge come to be privately owned?

[edit]

So how did the bridge come to be privately owned? The article does not say. One could infer a number of circumstances, but it is unlikely that the transaction that took it from public ownership to private ownership, some three decades or so, was an involuntary transaction. In other words, I would think we might infer that the public agency(ies) must have consented to sell the bridge since, it would appear, that the bridge was originally a public thoroughfare.

At any rate, I think the Wikipedia article would be greatly improved to have a WP:NPOV historical treatment of that chapter of the bridge's history. (and is sorely lacking without it). Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge was always privately owned. It was financed by a group of investors who formed the two holding companies on either side of the river. I agree that the article needs a history section though. I have two books requested through the Michigan eLibrary system to add such a section. They should be here within a week or so. Imzadi 1979 → 21:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Here's a bit more detail. Funny to see Forbes arguing for socialism http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/01/12/why-one-rich-man-shouldnt-own-an-international-bridge/?partner=yahootix Greglocock (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toll gate

[edit]

It would be perhaps trivial, but useful, to indicate the arrangement of toll gates. Current Google Earth photography seems to suggest that there is no automobile toll gate on the Canadian end of the bridge, which suggests to me that tolls are paid on the US side for both directions of traffic. Can someone confirm this, and if this is the case, mention it in the article? GBC (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that yes you pay the toll on the US side going either way. This happened after 9/11 when many people were refused entry into the US, had already paid the toll on entering from the Canadian side and felt they should not have to pay to use the bridge if the end result was not entering the US. It also helps the owner keep all funds on the US Side, not having to declare any revenues through the CTC and pay Canadian taxes. I do not have outside sources, just my own personal experience crossing the bridge, and conversations with employees.--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

99.181.131.215 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like his money has paid him freedom (my opinion, not encyclopedic in value): Fox @ Detroit]--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media

[edit]

In the media section, an inline hyperlink was pointing to a non existent page at History Channel, the "new" location for this is here, but no where in the page is the bridge mentioned. I do not remember that episode, I do not doubt that Ambassador is pictured, but the source/link does not represent that. I am unfamiliar with the IP added episode.

Monopoly / Tolls

[edit]

I added actual stats as publicly provided. I added up to date tolls. I don't see why these edits were undone. Everything I added had citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganCola (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits by MichiganCola

[edit]

Recents edits are very POV, and incorrect. Many of the "sources" are not reliable, and are not neutral. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 20:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific pls - Thus far things like new toll rates look like good update. Perhaps you could go over the edits one by one. What is not neutral? Things like "The bridge holds a monopoly on commercial truck traffic." was removed and replaced with more info, thus removing a POV? What sources are not reliable, thus far I see the removal of Government refs?Moxy (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed - holds a monopoly replaced with " bridge handles 60-70% of commercial truck traffic] to Canada"
Look like a positive edit that removed a POV
  • Added - "However, the Blue Water Bridge is an equally attractive route for shipping"
Not a problem..but not that relevant and can be removed
  • Added - "The Ambassador Bridge toll rate for cars is $4.75 in either CAD'
Looks like a good update with refs
  • Added - "However, the Public Bridge Operator's traffic data does not support this claim"
What is wrong with the views from the Public Border Operators Association?
  • Added- "Toll Road News says; "Few toll bridges or tunnels in the US are as sparsely traveled as the Detroit area bridges and tunnel"
Whats wrong here? the ref?
  • Added- "The DIBC has plans to construct a second span, as it is more economical than upgrading the current span while still being open for traffic."
Whats wrong here? Does need a better ref
  • Added - "There is debate as to the actual cost to Michigan/US residents "
Do you disagree there is a debate or are the refs not good? Looks clear there is a debate.

So what are we to do?Moxy (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the refs? Or are you just seeing that their are refs?
The toll rates put in are incorrect. The bridge is 4.75$ US or Canadian, the tunnel is 4.50 in Detroit USD or CAD and 4.75 in Windsor USD or CAD, the way it was "worded" does not reflect this. (The tunnel tolls are irrelevant here in my opinion, but beside the case)
'Toll road news' info is not relevant to the debate of international crossing, almost all the other toll bridges are commuter bridges in large metro areas in the states. It's also not a reliable third party source, needs to be independent of the subject.
Public Border Operators, is not third party verified, uses data provided by each bridge/tunnel/crossing owner, so who knows if the data is correct. - It's just raw data, the conclusions made are only that of the contributor.
The part on Blue Water Bridge being an attractive alternative is skewed, yes the distance factor is right, but the blue water bridge customs facilities were not built to handle the volume of commercial traffic, it was built for mostly car traffic, and is frequently backed up with Truck drivers going there, avoiding the road/bridge mess in Windsor/Detroit. (Also funny that it was built with the same type of
The DIBC has had "plans to build a second span" for decades, but has never been approved by the authorities on either side, only recently has tried to get approval, only to try and prevent an alternate crossing from taking place. The version in place about this is concise and accurate, and not sourced from you-tube.
60-70% of commercial traffic to Canada, no that's not a monopoly, but it might no be accurate depending on the source, I've been looking to re-word, thought it had been referenced in the past as that. The Application for Presidential Permit shows 30% of truck commerce travels through the Detroit-Windsor area. The Ambassador Bridge holds a virtual monopoly of this traffic.
Reading through the "Application for Presidential Permit" and "Activities Expenditures" referenced in the added paragraph "The debate as to the actual cost", makes no mention of debate over the costs, they simply show the costs, as stated, and that the state of Michigan can use the 550 million from Canada to get 2.2 billion in matching highway funds from the US DOT. The 263 million is included in that 550 million calculation.
Need to look at the references to make sure that what is added is what is provided and not WP:SYNTHESIS.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support UnQ's reversion here (was about to do it myself), these edits add POV to the article when there is no detectable pre-existing POV that needs to be countered. They are essentially carrying on the existing owner's campaign to retain control of the crossing. Beyond just the self-serving language, the sources provided are the thinnest of all possible gruel. Tollroadnews looks to be one guy sitting in an apartment or suite typing up a blog, with paid advertising, regurgitating a report paid for by a potential advertiser - not anywhere close to what we would accept as anything other than a totally partisan and/or unreliable source. And references to Google Maps? Are you kidding me? I suggest that MichiganCola propose each change one by one here on the talk page. There are so many other issues, it will be exhauting to discuss them in one big sprawling debate. Franamax (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only edits made by MichiganCola were to this article, I always assume good faith, but the edits make me question the intents of the account owner. (Trying to figure out what Cola would be, as Michigan "cola" (soda, or pop, or soft drink) would be Faygo®! )--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 00:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is more from Tollroadsnews [1]. "The obsessive Moroun-bashing/new bridge boosting press corps..." written as part of the "news" article, yeah, that's an objective third-party source. :) Franamax (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And to make things a bit more complicated, I've now removed the bit in the lede section about a truck monopoly, added here I think, in its entirety - it was sourced to an editorial, which is basically just one person's opinion. We need a more solid definition of monopoly than that. Franamax (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny! I just added it back in, and added two refs. The only way for almost all commercial truck to get across the Detroit river is the Ambassador Bridge. The big trucks can not use the tunnel, and the ferry does not carry enough traffic to make a dent. It's not a monopoly of all US Canadian Truck Traffic, but a virtual monopoly of Commercial truck traffic in Windsor/Detroit, which is 25% of all commerce between the two countries.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 04:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yikes, did you actually just do that? You yourself are saying here a "virtual monopoly" but in the article you choose to just say "monopoly"? Please, you are making a synthesis - could you revert back to my version and we can discuss good wording? None of the 3 sources in the lede section - and to note, lede sections are usually unref'd, since the actual article has the sources - support that wording in any reliable way. Please reconsider, and let's only draw conclusions solidly supported by multiple and reliable sources. Franamax (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not saying anything. The text was there, and was not mine, I was just adding support to the statement. The 30 or so trucks a day that take the ferry compared to the 8000 a day on the bridge do not compare. I use virtual as it is not an absolute monopoly (+99%), however the term monopoly applies none the less. AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service before the break-up, even though they did not own 100% of all the phone lines in the US, GTE had some markets, but they were a monopoly, and you could get MCI or another long distance carrier, you had to call in and use access codes etc. The only reason that the ferry is running is because hazardous materials can not go on the bridge. The options in Windsor/Detroit are The Ambassador Bridge, or the 5 ferry crossings a day? --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 10:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what about Port_of_Toronto? In 2015, the port received 1.7 million tonnes of cargo, 36th-largest in Canada, cite, the wiki article. The 25% is per vehicle traffic, only. ChrisPikula 18:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.26.127 (talk)
Great to see more people involved. To be honest I cant tell one web site from the next for reliability here. (normally edit history articles that use books) so I defer to those that have more knowledge on the topic. Hope that the original contributor will see this.Moxy (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the "monopoly" discussion, it is a very slippery slope to use that language. It is very much dependent on how narrow you want to make the market. Would you characterize Apple as having a monopoly on selling the iPhone? If you go read the Apple wiki, there isn't discussion of them having a monopoly on sales for the iPhone. The government mandated Environmental Impact Study for the DRIC includes the BWB in their traffic projections/impacts. If the BWB is being considered in this study, and it is in the same shipping lane, it should be counted. I linked to the Wiki explaining the duty free store, not sure what the dispute over that is about. The Jimmy Johns on my local street corner has a monopoly on selling subs at that exact location, yet I don't call it a monopoly. --MichiganCola (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the BWB not having proper plaza capacity, not sure what you mean here. MDOT just spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 10 years upgrading the BWB plaza after building a second span in the 1990s.--MichiganCola (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Public Border Operators Association not being a reliable source for traffic information. Their numbers match Michigan Department of Transportation for the years available for both. It is unclear who would have better data, read their about us. I don't know/see a better alternative. I could be wrong, but the Environmental Impact Study also uses this data if I am not mistaken. PBOA data was also used by MDOT in projections for the Blue Water Bridge expansion as well. If you want to maintain there is no good source of traffic information, it is then impossible to quantify how much truck traffic goes across the bridge period, not exactly helpful for discussion then. --MichiganCola (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest the Toll Road News article is irrelevant, is to ignore the main claim the DRIC is needed because of projected higher traffic being grounds for another crossing. Traffic is significantly down according to the available data. No one has made the case traffic is up if you go back further than 3 years. So either the justification for the DRIC on traffic grounds needs to be removed, or it needs to be pointed out projected higher traffic is not a fact.--MichiganCola (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the debate about cost, unsure of the path forward. References to articles which don't support the DRIC are considered POV/opinion/invalid, but paragraphs with clearly referenced facts showing cost of the bridge don't show grounds of debate and need to be removed?--MichiganCola (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

The current map is not that great. It shows more of Michigan (including the county divisions) than anything else. I put in a request for a new map.

Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Ambassador_Bridge_Map_request

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ambassador Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ambassador Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

update

[edit]

Updated developments on the fate of the bridge and its proposed twin span/replacement span. Article should be updated to make note of this http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2017/09/ambassador_bridge_to_be_demoli.html
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/moroun-scores-long-awaited-canadian-approval-to-build-twin-span
https://detroit.curbed.com/2017/9/6/16263618/ambassador-bridge-span-moroun SecretName101 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article info box sections that involve units

[edit]

Yes I get it the bridge is owned by an American company, but the bridge crosses Canada and therefore it is preferred that the units be primarily metric so Canadians can be more benefited. Yes I also get it, old Canadians still use Canadian customary units (imperial system) but again today’s Canadians prefer metric as primary units on these articles, such as this one (Ambassador Bridge). MetricSupporter89 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put metric first

[edit]

This is an international article so it needs metric first. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acroterion, please revert my edits now that I put Put metric first on the talk. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant please get my edits back, User:Acroterion MetricSupporter89 (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you blanked my message on your talkpage, I'll repeat myself here: "You need to open a discussion at Talk:Ambassador Bridge to obtain consensus, not just claim that one exists despite your edits being questioned by other editors. Please remember that Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy, and that you are not entitled to edit-war to promote the views expressed on your userpage." There are two parts - opening a discussion, which you've done twice now, and obtaining a consensus, which you have not. Please resist the urge to use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Given the image use policy, what specific purpose is served by the image gallery? Someone has put it back twice now, claiming that it "does add to the article", but without indicating how they think it does that. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I've moved two of the images from the gallery into the body of the article. That said, the article is under-illustrated now, so the photos in the gallery rectified that issue. That's the value that the gallery added to the article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article needs more images, add more images. You haven't explained why you wanted them in a gallery section. Nor have you explained why you deleted the content I added. I am reporting you now for breaking the three revert rule. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A gallery is not encouraged nor discouraged under our guidelines. Sometimes it's best to keep images in a gallery because to move all of them into the text would crowd out the prose at its current length. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text.. Three revert rule violation now reported [2] 46.208.152.52 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've already reached a compromise on the images, have we not? Two have been moved up, and gallery containing the rest is gone? Any of the rest could still be moved up, could they not? Since your issue with the gallery, and not the specific images, that concern is satisfied, right?

Regarding the stub articles on the two holding companies, as another editor and I have noted, they are not independently notable separate from the bridge, so we don't need articles on them to say what this bridge article already says. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at copyediting the images so they look reasonable on a large monitor, and done a few other tweaks, using Dartford Crossing and Hyde Park, London (both GAs) as a basic starting point. I'm not a fan of galleries I'm afraid, if they're your "thing", then Commons is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the News, and setting narrative

[edit]

So this article has information that is being parroted by news orgs, that it controls 25% of trade traffic between the US and Canada. The citation, 34, is a 404. This is weird, as the closest I've found online for that 25% citation is as a percentage of vehicle trade traffic. Not include port traffic. The Port_of_Toronto deals with 1.7 Million tonnes a year as per the wiki article. A Cargo ship can have 24k containers, and this road deal with like ~8k trucks per day. https://www.ezbordercrossing.com/list-of-border-crossings/michigan/ambassador-bridge/ So, uh, why is wikipedia influencing the narrative like this? ChrisPikula 18:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.26.127 (talk)

Other piece of information stands that 300 millions dollars a day (265 millions euros) of goods are exchanged each day (Le Monde), and 300 millions dollars is also the value given by RFI (RFI).
US-Canada road trade reach 48,4 billions dollars a year in 2012 (Transport Routier). That makes 222 million a working day.
This is much more than the 10 millions dollars the US gave to block the Canada (Le Devoir).
According to BTS, with 132 billion dollars in 2019, (605.5 million a working day), Detroit Michigan is a land port which is among Top 10 U.S. International Trade Gateways in 2019 by value of shipments.
When compared to Detroit, Michigan, USA,
  • International Land Trade via Detroit, Michigan, by Mode: 101 188 millions dollars for trucks in 2008 ( 84 % (BTS [3] ))
  • Incoming Full and Empty Container Crossings via Detroit, Michigan, 2008: 1482 thousand via truck, 210 thousand Via rail [4]
In 2020, 1 338 983 truck containers crossed the U.S.-Canadian Border Land-Freight Gateways in Detroit Michigan, which make it thefirst gateway when compared to others cities or rail. [5]
Also:
  • $501 billion CDN — Total Canada-U.S. trade (2010)
  • More than $1 billion CDN — Amount of daily Canada-U.S. trade (2010) [6]
  • Almost $500 million US — The amount of trade that passes daily along the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ont. and Detroit, the busiest border crossing in North America (same source)
  • 28,814 — Number of trucks that cross the border daily (2010)
  • 140,728 — Number of cars and other vehicles that cross the border daily (2010) [7]
When compared to Canada:
  • Windsor-Ambassador Bridge in Ontario:
    • 2.57 Two-way traffic volume in million movements, Crossings for Trucks, in 2011 [8] (Two-way traffic volumes were estimated by doubling one-way flows northbound into Canada.)
    • 24.4% of Border Crossings for Trucks in 2011.
    • 3.78 Two-way traffic volume in million movements, crossing for Cars/Other Vehicles, in 2011 (same source)
    • 6.8% of Border Crossings for Cars/Other Vehicles in 2011.
Compared to the Port de Chicago, there are 15 428 892 cargo tonnes in the Chicago port.
The dot provides those numbers for US Canada border in 2021:
  • Trucks: 30840 million value 51% (first)
  • Pipeline: 9785 million value 16% (second)
  • Rail: 8909 million value 15% (third)
  • Other: 4558 million value 7.5% (fourth)
  • Air: 3387 million value 5.6% (fifth)
  • Vessel: 3068 million value 5.1% (sixth out of seven)
  • Pipeline: 16.613399 million metric tonnes 47% (first)
  • Vessel: 7.719379 million metric tonnes 22% (second)
  • Rail: 6.367102 million metric tonnes 18% (third)
  • Trucks: 4.520342 million metric tonnes 12.8% (fourth)
  • Air: 0.017514 million metric tonnes 0.05% (fifth)
  • FTZ: 0.004019 million metric tonnes 0.011% (sixth out of seven)
Given that I've got basically no good clue on how to edit Wikipedia, could you update citations 33 & 34, as they deal with the 25% figure on the page, but currently 404? Chris Pikula 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source using statistics from the U.S. and Canadian Government. They claim 20%.BNN Bloomberg
Keep in mind that very little trade between the US and Canada is through ports. In any case, what exactly are you looking to change? - Floydian τ ¢ 02:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Official canadian statistic (Transport Canada) gives for Border Crossings for Trucks in 2011[9]:
Table RO19: Twenty Largest Border Crossings for Trucks, 2007 – 2011
That makes more than 50% in Ontario! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.75 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More Container Crossings Ambassador Bridge than trucks in Eurotunnel trains?

[edit]

It looks like:

  • in 2008, there 1482 thousand Incoming Full and Empty Container Crossings via truck via Detroit, Michigan
  • in 2007, 1 414 700 trucks were transported in Eurotunnel trains (source: Insee Nord-Pas-de-Calais - Bilan socio-économique 2007)

This makes Ambassador Bridge comparable to Eurotunnel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.75 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to Eurotunnel:

  • euro-tunnel transports 26% of the fright between GB/UK vs EU/Europe [10] with 5000 trucks a day
  • euro-tunnel transports 25% of UK vs mainland-Europe exchanges, that is 1,6 million heavy-good-vehicles a year [11]
  • euro-tunnel transports 1,6 million heavy-good-vehicles a year in 2016 [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.75 (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tax free fuel

[edit]

The article states that tax free fuel is sold by the owners of the bridge, but it should also mention where this exactly takes place, i.e. is there a gas station located in no mans land or why it is otherwise tax free. --217.149.172.70 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the website, it appears that fuel is sold at the duty frees on both sides of the bridge: in Detroit and in Windsor. While diesel is available on both sides of the Detroit River, it seems regular and premium are only available on the American side. Paris1127 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ambassador_Bridge&oldid=1212242962"