The exact route of former TO-US 2 in Quebec
SPUI
provincial routes (17-2-14) TO-US 2 followed.
It appears that TO-US 2 followed current 342 from Ontario (including the
Vaudreuil area bypass; this was built by 1935) into current 20. I can't tell
if it used current 20 or 5e Av across Ile Perrot. Upon entering Montreal, it
turned south along Rue St-Anne, Ch Lakeshore, Boul Beaconsfield, Ch
Bord-du-Lac, and Boul St-Joseph (all along the lakeshore). At either Boul
St-Joseph or Rue St-Patrick TO-US 2 turned inland to downtown Montreal; I am
not sure of the exact route there (likely Boul St-Joseph to Rue St-Jacques.
I'm also not sure whioch bridge (current 112 or 134) it took. If it took
112, it turned southeast on Av Victoria to current 134. If it took 134, it
just went all the way down 134. At La Prairie it turned east on 104. TO-US 2
used old 104 to 223, and 223 south to New York (but using Rue
Jacques-Cartier through St-Jean-sur-Richelieu).
--
Dan Moraseski - 15th grade at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/spui/www/ - FL NJ MA route logs and exit lists
J.P. Kirby
news:3eb14de0$0$3937$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
> I am making some assumptions here based on a 1935 Montreal area map on
> which provincial routes (17-2-14) TO-US 2 followed.
Do you have any proof whatsoever that TO US 2 even existed, let alone what
the route was? Everything I've heard about this route revolved around
someone knowing someone who made signs for it, and what's to say they just
didn't put those signs up along the border near US 2's end?
JPK
--
J.P. Kirby, Captain of all Obvious!
v5...@unb.ca jpk...@hotmail.com
-----------
"EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT OUR NEW GARDEN SENSATION SALADS ACCEPTING
APPLICATIONS"
- sign at Wendy's
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in
> news:3eb14de0$0$3937$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
>
>> I am making some assumptions here based on a 1935 Montreal area map on
>> which provincial routes (17-2-14) TO-US 2 followed.
>
> Do you have any proof whatsoever that TO US 2 even existed, let alone what
> the route was? Everything I've heard about this route revolved around
> someone knowing someone who made signs for it, and what's to say they just
> didn't put those signs up along the border near US 2's end?
>
edfellow.mit.edu
Ron Wilbanks talked to someone at NYSDOT.
J.P. Kirby
news:3eb15511$0$3938$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
>>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3e238a64%240%243951%24b45e6eb0%40sena
> tor-b edfellow.mit.edu
> Ron Wilbanks talked to someone at NYSDOT.
>
Yeah, so if you use one sign as an example, it means that it was signed all
the way through Ontario and Quebec?
I think you read too much into what Ron Wilbanks said. It looks to me that
that sign was posted somewhere near the border along or near ON 17
(probably Sault Ste. Marie) showing people the way to the border.
Really, I think your idea of a TO-US 2 has as much credibility as Tim
Brown's idea of Wisconsin state-outline markers.
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in
> news:3eb15511$0$3938$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
>
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3e238a64%240%243951%24b45e6eb0%40sena
>> tor-b edfellow.mit.edu
>> Ron Wilbanks talked to someone at NYSDOT.
>
> Yeah, so if you use one sign as an example, it means that it was signed
all
> the way through Ontario and Quebec?
One sign? Ron reports that these signs were put up all over the place.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3C7FB18E.EC26FDB8%40ameritech.net has a
little more information from Ron.
>
> I think you read too much into what Ron Wilbanks said. It looks to me that
> that sign was posted somewhere near the border along or near ON 17
> (probably Sault Ste. Marie) showing people the way to the border.
>
> Really, I think your idea of a TO-US 2 has as much credibility as Tim
> Brown's idea of Wisconsin state-outline markers.
That's your opinion. Personally I don't care about yours and I'm sure you
don't care about mine.
J.P. Kirby
news:3eb18d65$0$3927$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
> J.P. Kirby wrote:
>> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in
>> news:3eb15511$0$3938$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
>>
>>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3e238a64%240%243951%24b45e6eb0%40se
>>> na tor-b edfellow.mit.edu
>>> Ron Wilbanks talked to someone at NYSDOT.
>>
>> Yeah, so if you use one sign as an example, it means that it was
>> signed
> all
>> the way through Ontario and Quebec?
>
> One sign? Ron reports that these signs were put up all over the place.
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3C7FB18E.EC26FDB8%40ameritech.net
> has a little more information from Ron.
Again, I only think these signs were posted in the same fashion as the
signs for I-87/89/91 in Quebec - have maybe one or two signs at major
intersections in Montreal and that's it. It was not a major numbered road
as you seem to infer from your posts.
If you show me one example of a sign in say, Ottawa, Pembroke or Sudbury, I
will be completely surprised.
It's interesting that NOBODY in Canada has ever heard tell of this TO US 2.
And I'm sure the majority of posters on a group like canroads know more
about roads in that part of the country than some university student in
Boston.
Between this and the San Francisco debacle a couple of months ago, I
suggest you keep your nose out of places you haven't been to or know
nothing about.
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in
>>
>> One sign? Ron reports that these signs were put up all over the place.
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3C7FB18E.EC26FDB8%40ameritech.net
>> has a little more information from Ron.
>
> Again, I only think these signs were posted in the same fashion as the
> signs for I-87/89/91 in Quebec - have maybe one or two signs at major
> intersections in Montreal and that's it. It was not a major numbered road
> as you seem to infer from your posts.
I agree with you - there were probably signs where you needed to switch
routes and not much else.
>
> If you show me one example of a sign in say, Ottawa, Pembroke or Sudbury,
I
> will be completely surprised.
I'd shit a cube too if I found one. Unfortunately there are probably none
remaining on public roads (though I'm sure there are some in garages). New
England Interstate shields have probably suffered the same fate, though I
have reason to believe one was posted until about 5 years ago in
southwestern Vermont.
>
> It's interesting that NOBODY in Canada has ever heard tell of this TO US
2.
You've asked EVERYBODY in Canada? Thought not.
> And I'm sure the majority of posters on a group like canroads know more
> about roads in that part of the country than some university student in
> Boston.
That argument would only work if I had no sources. I gave my sources, and I
trust them.
>
> Between this and the San Francisco debacle a couple of months ago, I
> suggest you keep your nose out of places you haven't been to or know
> nothing about.
I've been to Montreal, so does that make it OK?
I'll talk all I want about whatever I want, despite attempts to keep the
status quo of knowledge. If you really don't want to read my posts, killfile
me.
Adam Prince
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
news:3eb19869$0$3936$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
He may have not...however, ther has not been any Canadian input that this in
fact was the case.
>
> > And I'm sure the majority of posters on a group like canroads know more
> > about roads in that part of the country than some university student in
> > Boston.
>
> That argument would only work if I had no sources. I gave my sources, and
I
> trust them.
But the sources are this person told me from an e-mail he got from this
perdson who heard it from another. Yes, a DOT spokesperson was involved;
however, a spokesperson from the PA Turnpike denied use of Clearview font by
either the PTC or PennDot. Sources are 'sources' until they become fact.
> >
> > Between this and the San Francisco debacle a couple of months ago, I
> > suggest you keep your nose out of places you haven't been to or know
> > nothing about.
>
> I've been to Montreal, so does that make it OK?
> I'll talk all I want about whatever I want, despite attempts to keep the
> status quo of knowledge. If you really don't want to read my posts,
killfile
For you are the all mighty, all knowing, 'THE ROADGEEK'
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> news:3eb19869$0$3936$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>> J.P. Kirby wrote:
>>> And I'm sure the majority of posters on a group like canroads know more
>>> about roads in that part of the country than some university student in
>>> Boston.
>>
>> That argument would only work if I had no sources. I gave my sources, and
I
>> trust them.
>
> But the sources are this person told me from an e-mail he got from this
> perdson who heard it from another. Yes, a DOT spokesperson was involved;
> however, a spokesperson from the PA Turnpike denied use of Clearview font
by
> either the PTC or PennDot. Sources are 'sources' until they become fact.
>
There were only two people involved: the DOT employee and Ron Wilbanks. I
copied his email to me directly into here.
Adam Prince
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> J.P. Kirby wrote:
> > "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in
> > news:3eb15511$0$3938$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
> >
> >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3e238a64%240%243951%24b45e6eb0%40sena
> >> tor-b edfellow.mit.edu
> >> Ron Wilbanks talked to someone at NYSDOT.
> >
> > Yeah, so if you use one sign as an example, it means that it was signed
> all
> > the way through Ontario and Quebec?
>
> One sign? Ron reports that these signs were put up all over the place.
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3C7FB18E.EC26FDB8%40ameritech.net has a
> little more information from Ron.
But when asked further, he says and I quote "No it was sporadic."
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C7FC55D.E6010C35%40ame
ritech.net
That would defeat the 'all over the place' statement you attribute to him.
Adam Prince
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> Adam Prince wrote:
> > "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> > news:3eb19869$0$3936$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >> J.P. Kirby wrote:
>
> >>> And I'm sure the majority of posters on a group like canroads know
more
> >>> about roads in that part of the country than some university student
in
> >>> Boston.
> >>
> >> That argument would only work if I had no sources. I gave my sources,
and
> I
> >> trust them.
> >
> > But the sources are this person told me from an e-mail he got from this
> > perdson who heard it from another. Yes, a DOT spokesperson was
involved;
> > however, a spokesperson from the PA Turnpike denied use of Clearview
font
> by
> > either the PTC or PennDot. Sources are 'sources' until they become
fact.
> >
> There were only two people involved: the DOT employee and Ron Wilbanks. I
> copied his email to me directly into here.
So Shawn DeCasaari, who you stated, in a prior thread, was involved was not
involved?
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3c7efa55%240%243940%24b
45e6eb0%40senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
>> There were only two people involved: the DOT employee and Ron Wilbanks. I
>> copied his email to me directly into here.
>
> So Shawn DeCasaari, who you stated, in a prior thread, was involved was
not
> involved?
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3c7efa55%240%243940%24b
> 45e6eb0%40senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
Shawn told me what Ron had told him. Then I emailed Ron and got it directly
from him.
Adam Prince
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> Adam Prince wrote:
> > "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> > news:3eb19c1f$0$3949$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >> There were only two people involved: the DOT employee and Ron Wilbanks.
I
> >> copied his email to me directly into here.
> >
> > So Shawn DeCasaari, who you stated, in a prior thread, was involved was
> not
> > involved?
> >
> >
>
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3c7efa55%240%243940%24b
> > 45e6eb0%40senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
>
> Shawn told me what Ron had told him. Then I emailed Ron and got it
directly
> from him.
Furthermore, the e-mail only explains of the relation between Ontario and
New York...nothing between Ontario and Michigan.
Plus with the 'sporadic' signing. It is very much possible that the signs
were only near the border...and not a defined route.
JP's skepticism is warranted...further information is needed before one
could say TO US 2 was a directly signed route.
SPUI
By 'all over the place' I meant everywhere necessary to follow the route,
not just at the border crossings. Sorry about the confusion. This means
there were at least 7 signs:
eastbound and westbound in Sault Ste-Marie
eastbound and westbound at the Ontario/Quebec line
eastbound and westbound in downtown Montreal
westbound at the New York line
This would have been enough to follow the route, if the signs were worded
correctly.
SPUI
> Furthermore, the e-mail only explains of the relation between Ontario and
> New York...nothing between Ontario and Michigan.
It's possible that all the US 2 shields came from New York, and Michigan had
no involvement.
>
> Plus with the 'sporadic' signing. It is very much possible that the signs
> were only near the border...and not a defined route.
Except that Ron says that it was signed in Montreal.
>
> JP's skepticism is warranted...further information is needed before one
> could say TO US 2 was a directly signed route.
What do you mean by 'directly signed'? I really doubt it was signed from
intersecting roads, but it was almost definitely signed enough to be able to
follow it all the way. Only 7 signs would have been needed for this.
Adam Prince
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> Adam Prince wrote:
> > Furthermore, the e-mail only explains of the relation between Ontario
and
> > New York...nothing between Ontario and Michigan.
>
> It's possible that all the US 2 shields came from New York, and Michigan
had
> no involvement.
Yes, very much so...
> >
> > Plus with the 'sporadic' signing. It is very much possible that the
signs
> > were only near the border...and not a defined route.
>
> Except that Ron says that it was signed in Montreal.
Ron says that he was told from a NYDOT official, correct?
> >
> > JP's skepticism is warranted...further information is needed before one
> > could say TO US 2 was a directly signed route.
>
> What do you mean by 'directly signed'? I really doubt it was signed from
> intersecting roads, but it was almost definitely signed enough to be able
to
> follow it all the way. Only 7 signs would have been needed for this.
Directly signed as in besides at the 7 turns...a few reassurance
markers..and done in both directions.
There may have been signs...but 30 year old DOT stories and no definitive on
how it was done..really leaves it in question. Were signs posted
probably...but is there a definite route known no..
Adam Prince
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
That's relying heavily on the ifs.
SPUI
> There may have been signs...but 30 year old DOT stories and no definitive
on
> how it was done..really leaves it in question. Were signs posted
> probably...but is there a definite route known no..
Given the sign format (TO US 2 FOLLOW foo), all you have to know is what foo
is and get information on the former alignment of foo.
I'm sure we'd all love to see an old photo, AASHTO documentation, or even a
newspaper article. I checked the New York Times archives but couldn't find
anything; a quick search of the Library of Congress archives also gave
nothing. The best would probably be for someone that knows French to go to
the agency that maintains the roads in Quebec and try to find something.
Adam Prince
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> Adam Prince wrote:
> > There may have been signs...but 30 year old DOT stories and no
definitive
> on
> > how it was done..really leaves it in question. Were signs posted
> > probably...but is there a definite route known no..
>
> Given the sign format (TO US 2 FOLLOW foo), all you have to know is what
foo
> is and get information on the former alignment of foo.
> I'm sure we'd all love to see an old photo, AASHTO documentation, or even
a
> newspaper article. I checked the New York Times archives but couldn't find
> anything; a quick search of the Library of Congress archives also gave
> nothing. The best would probably be for someone that knows French to go to
> the agency that maintains the roads in Quebec and try to find something.
Then the correct assertion is...TO US 2 signs were used in Canada, but it
unknown at this time the level or amount of signage was used to note this
route.
Ron Wilbanks
Let me shed some light on this issue if I may?
Back in the early 1990s, I wrote to all of the state DOT's in search of
old State, U.S., and Interstate sign diagrams. When the NYSDOT did not
answer my initial and second inquiry, called up their chief traffic
engineer in Albany and talked with him and he gave me the the telephone
number to the sign shop.
The person I talked with at the sign shop had been with them for around
30 years and was very knowledgeable about the different style signs that
were used, but explained to me that everything they have in the form of
old documents, manuals, photos and alike are stored in boxes in a
warehouse in Albany. He also stated, that if I wanted to come out and
spend a few months going through all of the material and find what I am
looking for that it could be arranged, since they have no archivist
(like some other state DOTs do)to perform this task. However, this
would be a real intense project, since many of the boxes are unmarked.
We talked about the size and design of the U.S. Marker in New York and
how it changed over the decades. He mentioned that they used to receive
trailblazer markers for the New York Thruway and some of the roads in
the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and neighboring states. In return the
state sign shop would send them trailblazer markers on a reciprocal
basis. He also mentioned that in the late 1950s they sent Quebec around
a two dozen 24" US-2 markers without the "state name" but with larger
numerals. Some of the signs did have "TO - US" where the state name
should have been in the top cavity.
He mentioned that this was a common practice to help guide motorists
through the Montreal area via Vaudreuil and follow US-2 into Ontario, a
practice that they had done for years, because following the route
through Montreal changed over a few times since the 1930s. Likewise,
Ontario and Quebec, would give NYSDOT several markers as part of an
"exchange" program to use in the counties surrounding the border area.
However, this program ended in the 1960s. Moreover, around 1961, he
drove on 17 to Sault Ste. Marie with his wife and remembered seeing two
faded US-2 trailblazers around North Bay, but never thought anything
about it.
From what I gathered, these signs were not stand alone independent
markers but were used as part of larger sign assemblies that probably
read something like: "For continuation of "US-2" follow 20" using the
shield shaped cutouts do it with.
In Michigan, when I talked with Charlie Reynolds at MDOT, he also
informed that they did trade some of their route markers with Ontario
for trailblazers during World War II and into the early 1950s. However,
he did not elaborate which routes this was done for, only that they were
placed within several miles of border to guide motorists through the
correct streets.
I hope this clears this matter up?
Sincerely,
Ron
Sonic
Yes, it does and thanks for your input. The signs were
used...however, it is sketchy on how it was signed. Michigan stated
that it was closer to the border, and New York indicates it may have
been a loosely posted route.
---Adam
Barry L. Camp
> In Michigan, when I talked with Charlie Reynolds at MDOT, he also
> informed that they did trade some of their route markers with Ontario
> for trailblazers during World War II and into the early 1950s. However,
> he did not elaborate which routes this was done for, only that they were
> placed within several miles of border to guide motorists through the
> correct streets.
It probably would have been for Hwys 3 and 3b for the Ambassador Bridge and
Detroit Windsor Tunnel, respectively.
I have very faded memories of seeing trailblazers for these signs as a kid,
and they certainly are not there now. These days in Detroit you can see
"Bridge to Canada" and "Tunnel to Canada" trailblazers, with a maple leaf
graphic.
Barry L. Camp
Ron Wilbanks
Let me shed some light on this issue if I may?
Back in the early 1990s, I wrote to all of the state DOT's in search of
old State, U.S., and Interstate sign diagrams. When the NYSDOT did not
answer my initial and second inquiry, I called up their chief traffic
engineer in Albany and talked with him and he gave me the the telephone
number to the sign shop.
The person I talked with at the sign shop had been with them for around
30 years and was very knowledgeable about the different style signs that
were used, but explained to me that everything they have in the form of
old documents, manuals, photos and alike are stored in boxes in a
warehouse in Albany. He also stated, that if I wanted to come out and
spend a few months going through all of the material and find what I am
looking for that it could be arranged, since they have no archivist
(like some other state DOTs do) to perform this task. However, this
would be a real intense project, since many of the boxes are unmarked.
We talked about the size and design of the U.S. Marker in New York and
how it changed over the decades. He mentioned that they used to receive
trailblazer markers for the New York Thruway and some of the roads in
the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and neighboring states. In return the
state sign shop would send them trailblazer markers on a reciprocal
basis. He also mentioned that in the late 1950s they sent Quebec around
two dozen 24" US-2 markers without the "state name" but with larger
numerals. Some of the signs did have "TO - US" where the state name
should have been in the top cavity.
He mentioned that this was a common practice to help guide motorists
through the Montreal area via Vaudreuil and follow US-2 into Ontario, a
practice that they had done for years, because following the route
through Montreal changed a few times since the 1930s. Likewise, Ontario
and Quebec, would give NYSDOT several markers as part of an "exchange"
program to use in the counties surrounding the border area. However,
this program ended in the 1960s. Moreover, around 1961, he drove on 17
to Sault Ste. Marie with his wife and remembered seeing two faded US-2
trailblazers around North Bay, but never thought anything about it.
From what I gathered, these signs were not stand alone independent
markers but were used as part of larger sign assemblies that probably
read something like: "For continuation of "US-2" follow 20" using the
shield shaped cutouts to effectively get the message across.