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.
Just a note: The Hwy 1 bypass at Calgary is complete, it's so much nicer to cruise by the city than right through it. And Regina's bypass was different the last time I went through there (September) than I remember it being? The trip was overall much more efficient, on the Trans Canada the entire way from Kamloops, BC to Sudbury, ON, a drive I've made 3 times total now between 2009 and this past September.
Canada also didn't need to have full interstates covering the entire country because we don't have any nuclear warheads. The Interstates are partially funded by the US military and were originally constructed so that they could move ICBMs across the country secretly. Their construction and funding was justified by national security issues, not demand, which there wasn't enough of when they started up the system.
There sure was demand. The Ohio Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, etc were all built prior to the US Interstate Highway system due to the high demand for high speed travel between the US's industrial cities. These roads were paid for by state funding (and tolls).
Canada might be blessed to not have so many interstates. While I've used the interstates enough times, they've brought with them unwanted sprawl, development, crime, and disruption of wildlife habitat. If I91 and I89 were never built in Vermont I'd be perfectly fine. Canada has a vast undeveloped wilderness in its northern parts and a very rural prairie section that are better left alone.
There sure was demand. The Ohio Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, etc were all built prior to the US Interstate Highway system due to the high demand for high speed travel between the US's industrial cities. These roads were paid for by state funding (and tolls).
BIMBAM was not talking about those NE & Midwest freeways,
more to do with Interstates in non heavily populated areas where 2 lane hwys would be sufficient.
Good examples, I-25 in Wyoming between Cheyenne and southern Montana.
I-95 in Maine past Portland
I-15 in Idaho and Montana
Demand doesn't really justify, partly built for strategic military reasons.
BIMBAM was not talking about those NE & Midwest freeways,
more to do with Interstates in non heavily populated areas where 2 lane hwys would be sufficient.
Good examples, I-25 in Wyoming between Cheyenne and southern Montana.
I-95 in Maine past Portland
I-15 in Idaho and Montana
Demand doesn't really justify, partly built for strategic military reasons.
Precisely, thank you. In Canada we DO have interstate like highways between our major cities in the heavily populated parts of the country like the Quebec-Windsor corridor. What we don't have, as is the purpose of this thread, is interstate like highways in less populated areas like Northern Ontario. The US DOES have this sort of thing, and the reason they do is military strategy and that explains the difference.
See, this is what I always found interesting of Canada is only tiny part of two biggest Provinces (Ontario and Quebec) is actually inhabited. Ontario has most of it population in strip from Detroit's border to Ottawa. Which most of Quebec has it along the St. Lawrence river.
Your guys explanation of Northern Ontario gives a batter idea why no bother settling it. I am guessing it similar case for Northern Quebec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons
Fully agree with Bimbam. With the exception of a few places (Kenora, Dryden, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Timmins, Kapuskasing, and the like), Northern Ontario is basically uninhabitable. It is either solid granite or muskeg--a substance that is centuries-worth of rotting vegetation and water. It may be five feet deep here, or two hundred feet deep there. The Canadian Pacific Railway may have got the accolades for building a cross-country rail line in 1885, but some years later, the Canadian National Railway followed the more dangerous and challenging route through northern Ontario and north of Lake Nipissing. (And yes, I've travelled that route on a passenger train. From Capreol, it is 24 hours of nothing but rocks and trees and muskeg, followed by more rocks, more trees, and more muskeg. Until you're just outside of Winnipeg.)
And there is something else: the geography itself. It took a lot to engineer and blast the existing two-lane road through the billion-year-old granite; I don't expect them to do the same for a four-lane road that won't carry the kind of traffic that would justify the cost. I've driven the TCH up there more than a few times; it is like a roller-coaster between Thunder Bay and Wawa: one minute, Lake Superior's waves threaten to wash over the car, and the next minute, you're 300 feet above the lake, heading into a 15% downgrade that has you at the lake's surface again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Ears popping the whole time. My in-car compass covers all eight points it has, the road twists so much.
There is more to it than winter, and it is geography. Tony, you should try it sometime in summer--you'll see what I mean.
Precisely, thank you. In Canada we DO have interstate like highways between our major cities in the heavily populated parts of the country like the Quebec-Windsor corridor. What we don't have, as is the purpose of this thread, is interstate like highways in less populated areas like Northern Ontario. The US DOES have this sort of thing, and the reason they do is military strategy and that explains the difference.
I honestly think if there is will to do so, it would be done even if there wasn't enough demand. I know many rural parts of the US has interstate / controlled access highway even though it not needed. I think some of is due to stimulus package.
If Canada actually wanted to spend the money (just for public works project) it could upgrade those highways.
Another, thing I wanted to point was the Manitoba, specially Winnipeg lack of fully controlled access highways. Closest Winnipeg comes is the Perimeter/101 Highway which has couple of controlled interchanges mixed with tons at-grade intersections. Being a city of 700K population plus I would think there would be at least 1 fully controlled access highway.
Think is provinces with small population than Manitoba such as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia actually has nice system of controlled access highways!
The distribution of Canada's major cities is also more linear than in the United States. As a result, you'll see more of a grid-type layout in the U.S. than in Canada. The vast majority of Canada's major cities are along its southern border with the United States, so freeway-grade roads are only really needed in that area of the country.
Last edited by Off-beat; 12-31-2012 at 01:34 AM..
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.
