[Newsbot]

Title: Northern corridor could reduce 'the cost of everything in the North,' says researcher
Category: Misc CDN
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2016-06-09 07:15:49
Canadian

[martin14]

Only 60 years behind the U.S. in developing a real highway system.

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

Only 60 years behind the U.S. in developing a real highway system.

Still need to improve the Trans-Canada to being at least four lanes coast-to-coast and it needs to be improved to an expressway with no traffic stops along the way.

The argument that rural areas don't get enough traffic to justify a four lane limited access highway is proven false by the experience of the US Interstate system in rural areas because if you build it people will use it.

[fifeboy]

I read Richard Rohmers book on the Mid-Canada Corridor years ago. CBC did a recent piece on it.http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/morcellator-warnings-pope-on-homosexuality-and-mid-canada-corridor-1.2907399/canada-by-design-a-plan-to-develop-the-mid-canada-corridor-1.2907400
Interesting idea.

[DrCaleb]

The Mid-Canada corridor is a great idea. Here in Alberta, I always though it made sense to have a direct route from Fort Mac to Grande Prairie, as a lot of people travel that but have to go through Edmonton or Athabasca - and extra 5 hours - to get there. I suppose furthering that corridor to Uranium City, and Churchill also makes sense.

But the map in the article makes little sense. Jasper to Fort Mac? Fort Mac to Tuktoyuktuk? There already is a corridor from Fort Nelson to Yellowknife to Tuk. The Dempster highway just needs improvements. And what about Churchill to Iqualuit? The whole western shore of Hudsons' Bay is neglected there. And how could you get a highway through Northern Ontario and Quebec?

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

martin14 martin14:

Only 60 years behind the U.S. in developing a real highway system.

Still need to improve the Trans-Canada to being at least four lanes coast-to-coast and it needs to be improved to an expressway with no traffic stops along the way.

Fully agree with you on that - it should have been done decades ago.

In some provinces, it already is (Alberta) or mostly is (Ontario, Quebec). The places where it isn't is either mountainous regions (BC) or the less affluent provinces who don't have the money to invest in twinning it.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The argument that rural areas don't get enough traffic to justify a four lane limited access highway is proven false by the experience of the US Interstate system in rural areas because if you build it people will use it.

There are two key differences between Canada and the US - population and climate.

Where Canada's population is similar to the US, there is a fair amount of twinned highway (Trans-Canada, Yellowhead, 401, etc.), but in the more remote and less densely populated North, it simply doesn't make economic sense to twin highways that see 2000-4000 vehicles per day. I don't know about elsewhere, but IIRC, traffic needs to be around 10K vehicles/day before Alberta will look at twinning a highway. This is because the cost of maintaining the highway is more than the economic benefits of twinning.

In the USA, it made sense because it allowed people in New York state to drive to California to visit Disneyland, Hollywood, etc. (and vice versa) but there are no similar mega-tourist attractions in northern Canada to draw Canadians (or American for that matter) north. The other major users of the highway system, large trucks, can use a two lane paved highway just as easy as they can a four lane paved highway - it just enhances driver frustration, which potentially can lead to more crashes.

Climate is another huge factor in why it doesn't make economic sense to build the same kind of highway system in most of Canada - the freeze thaw cycle is far worse in Canada and destroys asphalt highways in short order. Even if we were to use concrete in highway construction, which hardly ever happens and often turns into a boondoggle (Edmonton's SW Henday leg was done in concrete and proved a costly mistake in terms of ongoing maintenance), the cost of concrete is prohibitive.

If Canada wants to improve its highway system - and I certainly think we should - the investment should be in expanding and improving the highways Canadians already use - the Trans-Canada and the Yellowhead highways. I think a better 'northern route', would be to extend the Yellowhead from Manitoba into northern Ontario and Quebec, not this weird road map some eggheads proposed, which makes next to no sense.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The Mid-Canada corridor is a great idea. Here in Alberta, I always though it made sense to have a direct route from Fort Mac to Grande Prairie, as a lot of people travel that but have to go through Edmonton or Athabasca - and extra 5 hours - to get there. I suppose furthering that corridor to Uranium City, and Churchill also makes sense.

But the map in the article makes little sense. Jasper to Fort Mac? Fort Mac to Tuktoyuktuk? There already is a corridor from Fort Nelson to Yellowknife to Tuk. The Dempster highway just needs improvements. And what about Churchill to Iqualuit? The whole western shore of Hudsons' Bay is neglected there. And how could you get a highway through Northern Ontario and Quebec?

I don't know about other provinces, but I've seen the vision for Alberta's network in 2050 and it includes a route from GP to Fort Mac, as well as another thousand or so KMs of twinned highways.

Of course, whether or not that vision comes to pass depends on who forms our government over the next couple decades. From what I've heard from friends in the GoA, the current government is not interested in expanding our road network for more cars - if they expand it, it will be for HOV/bus lanes and such.

And as I said above, the better 'mid-Canada route' in my mind would be to extend (and twin) the Yellowhead east into Ontario and Quebec.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

In some provinces, it already is (Alberta) or mostly is (Ontario, Quebec). The places where it isn't is either mountainous regions (BC) or the less affluent provinces who don't have the money to invest in twinning it.

I thought the Hwy 1 was a federal highway, paid for by federal dollars? If not, it should be.

[BeaverFever]

I understand increasing accessibility to the North, but I'm not sure I understand why it would be a West-East route instead of more/better North-South routes. I suspect that people in Flin-Flon or Churchill Manitoba probably would rather have better access to Winnipeg than to Attawapiskat or Moose Factory Ontario.

[herbie]

FFS the road to Prince Rupert is still only 2 lanes. A decades hot air about Gateways and super ports, if it wasn't such a beautiful drive it would drive you nuts.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

In some provinces, it already is (Alberta) or mostly is (Ontario, Quebec). The places where it isn't is either mountainous regions (BC) or the less affluent provinces who don't have the money to invest in twinning it.

I thought the Hwy 1 was a federal highway, paid for by federal dollars? If not, it should be.

From my understanding, the feds pay most of cost of building it (75% IIRC), but not the cost of maintaining it, so it costs provinces money if the feds twin it.

[herbie]

Oh gee it will cost money to maintain it, instead of pissing it away building 500 m passing lanes year after year. Cryin' shame!