Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have thought this for a long time and there is plenty of evidence to support this. This article pretty much articulates my feelings on the issue. We need to stop pretending we care about the north and the people there and face reality that we don't want to make it a priority and develop the proper infrastructure to improve the lives of people there and increase potential wealth for all Canadians. Here is the article The North and the great Canadian lie - Macleans.ca
What do you think?
I agree. I've been to the north several times, and it is my view that when smug Canadians point at Americans for not knowing anything about Canada, they have three fingers pointing back at them as a reminder that they are equally clueless about the northern half of their own country.
Quebec has a decent autoroute system and is expanding controlled access to NB (almost done). ..
Quebec has a good autoroute system in terms of its extensiveness, but it's somewhat less well designed and maintained than Ontario's 400-series of highways. (Though Quebec has done a massive rebuild in recent years, so it's greatly improved.)
Quebec has a good autoroute system in terms of its extensiveness, but it's somewhat less well designed and maintained than Ontario's 400-series of highways. (Though Quebec has done a massive rebuild in recent years, so it's greatly improved.)
I think for Canada coverage is more important than design. For example, Quebec has been making good progress on AR 20, closing the gap between Riviere-du-loop and Rimouski. It is also closing the gap on AR 85 between 20 and NB. It looks like it's almost finished there. It should be proud of its accomplishments there.
Quebec needs to finish AR 35 to I-89 at the Vermont border and AR 73 and the Maine border. Then it needs to focus on route 138 east to Blanc Sablon.
After that most would be quite satisfied with the road system there.
I think for Canada coverage is more important than design. For example, Quebec has been making good progress on AR 20, closing the gap between Riviere-du-loop and Rimouski. It is also closing the gap on AR 85 between 20 and NB. It looks like it's almost finished there. It should be proud of its accomplishments there.
Quebec needs to finish AR 35 to I-89 at the Vermont border and AR 73 and the Maine border. Then it needs to focus on route 138 east to Blanc Sablon.
After that most would be quite satisfied with the road system there.
All of these are planned for completion except for the road to Blanc-Sablon. They should all be done in the early 2020s I think.
It is important because you are simply looking at a two-dimensional map, and have never experienced it.
You should try it someday. It is easy to look at a flat map, and decide that Canada should double-track a limited-access, Interstate-quality freeway through there. It is quite another to drive that route, and be amazed that they were able to put a route of any kind through at all.
I've driven it, numerous times. In some places, double-tracking can be (and is) done: east of Thunder Bay, east of Sault Ste. Marie; and of course, the project continues on extending Highway 400 from Toronto to Sudbury. But then you get places like the top of Superior, where blasting made just enough room for one two-lane road hugging the cliffs. Blasting up there to make a double-tracked, Interstate-quality road that many Ontarians would never travel on just wouldn't sit well with the majority of Ontarians, who (as stated) would never use it. And they're the ones paying the tab; the federal government doesn't pay highway funds, as in the US.
Regardless, it is quite the trip, and I recommend it. North of Sault Ste. Marie, it is like a roller-coaster; one moment, you're at the shore of Lake Superior; the next, you're 300 feet above, twisting your wheel here and there, just to stay on the road. My in-car compass hits all points, as I drive. On a sunshiny summer morning, the drive is scenic and fun. On a fall evening, when the sun has set and the fog rolls in from Lake Superior, dropping visibility to maybe 50 feet, it is terrifying. I've driven that road in both conditions.
Getting back to your question, I'd suggest that until you've driven Highway 17 from Sudbury to Manitoba, and back again; you refrain from telling Ontarians and Canadians about how Ontario Highway 17 can be improved.
So because I haven't driven that specific route I have a gag order?
I had my honeymoon in Canada in summer 2013. We had both done the Caribbean/Hawaii thing before so decided to head north, especially since the weather is nice up there that time of year.
When we were in Quebec, we took route 138 east to 381 north to 175 south because I wanted to get a feel for the boreal forest and what the Canadian Shield looked like. I noticed that Quebec was able to have a four lane highway from Saguenay to Quebec City through the shield and it looks like they blasted that area well.
I think the hardest part of the development of the shield is the dramatic elevation change from the St. Lawrence Seaway to the actual shield, but that was the first developed area. Once you get over that cliff, the terrain is no more steep than what you'd see in say Tennessee.
Also, I have to say the boreal forest is quite stunted compared to what you'd see in say the Southeast US. So even the clearing of trees would be easier up there than say the SE US.
So because I haven't driven that specific route I have a gag order?
I had my honeymoon in Canada in summer 2013. We had both done the Caribbean/Hawaii thing before so decided to head north, especially since the weather is nice up there that time of year.
When we were in Quebec, we took route 138 east to 381 north to 175 south because I wanted to get a feel for the boreal forest and what the Canadian Shield looked like. I noticed that Quebec was able to have a four lane highway from Saguenay to Quebec City through the shield and it looks like they blasted that area well.
I think the hardest part of the development of the shield is the dramatic elevation change from the St. Lawrence Seaway to the actual shield, but that was the first developed area. Once you get over that cliff, the terrain is no more steep than what you'd see in say Tennessee.
Also, I have to say the boreal forest is quite stunted compared to what you'd see in say the Southeast US. So even the clearing of trees would be easier up there than say the SE US.
Other than that isn't the shield, but the Laurentian valley, you're totally wrong.
So because I haven't driven that specific route I have a gag order?
No, of course not. But if your argument comes from ignorance--which is indicated by your never driving the route--then your argument is diminished.
The distance between Saguenay and Quebec City is about 200 km (about 120 miles). The distance from the Manitoba border to Sudbury is 1200 km (about 720 miles). You're asking for an Interstate-quality highway on that stretch, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, and them only. This won't play well with Ontarians, most of whom will never drive that route.
I've watched the growth of Ontario's Highway 400 over twenty years, as I have driven that route many times during that time frame. Limited access, Interstate-quality, and yet, it took 20 years to get the 400 from Port Severn to Parry Sound. There are still 90 km (55 miles) to be completed to Estaire, where the highway becomes double-tracked again, on the way into Sudbury. Construction continues.
I've also seen the growth of Ontario Highway 17 east of Thunder Bay. Once, it was two lanes; now it is double-tracked at four lanes--for 20 km (12 miles) east of the city. That took ten or so years. It is still 750 km (450 miles) to Sault Ste. Marie. Construction continues.
Again, I suggest that you drive the route, understand the engineering difficulties involved, and then speak from a position of knowledge, rather than ignorance.
According to wikipedia, Saguenay is in a depression within the Shield. So route 175 from Saguenay to QC crosses the shield as it's outside that valley. That is my understanding:
"Saguenay is located in a depression in the Canadian shield called the Saguenay Graben, which has a somewhat more temperate climate than the surrounding region. This has encouraged agriculture and human settlement to take place. The relatively small and concentrated Lac St-Jean area where the city is located can be described as an isolated "oasis" in the middle of the vast remote wilderness of Northern Quebec"
No, of course not. But if your argument comes from ignorance--which is indicated by your never driving the route--then your argument is diminished.
The distance between Saguenay and Quebec City is about 200 km (about 120 miles). The distance from the Manitoba border to Sudbury is 1200 km (about 720 miles). You're asking for an Interstate-quality highway on that stretch, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, and them only. This won't play well with Ontarians, most of whom will never drive that route.
I've watched the growth of Ontario's Highway 400 over twenty years, as I have driven that route many times during that time frame. Limited access, Interstate-quality, and yet, it took 20 years to get the 400 from Port Severn to Parry Sound. There are still 90 km (55 miles) to be completed to Estaire, where the highway becomes double-tracked again, on the way into Sudbury. Construction continues.
I've also seen the growth of Ontario Highway 17 east of Thunder Bay. Once, it was two lanes; now it is double-tracked at four lanes--for 20 km (12 miles) east of the city. That took ten or so years. It is still 750 km (450 miles) to Sault Ste. Marie. Construction continues.
Again, I suggest that you drive the route, understand the engineering difficulties involved, and then speak from a position of knowledge, rather than ignorance.
Aren't you being a bit pedantic though? Is the terrain from Sault Ste Marie to Thunder Bay that much different than the terrain from QC to Saguenay?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Road between Saguenay and QC is in the shield
