Canadian Economic Stimulus

A Canadian-style interstate system might not be all that bad an idea. The federal government appropriating control of certain highways deemed of national interest (particularly those parts the provinces have no interest in looking after) would be a good thing.

It would certainly be a step up from the current Trans-Canada Highway, which leaves control of the individual role to the provinces that are more interested in building up the freeways between their own cities than those going toward other provinces. Hence the West Ontario issue, or the sharp difference in quality in Quebec between the Montreal-Quebec portion of the Trans-Canada and the rest.
 
But the Trans-Canada is so embarrassing! Have you seen it in Western Ontario? Ottawa has larger roads than the Province does out there. I agree that a full interstate-grade freeway network would be over kill, but there's some stretches of highway that could use some serious upgrades.

I fully agree that the Trans-Canada needs vast improvement, in fact the previous Liberal government had started a plan to widen it to four lanes across the entire country (which was criticised as waste by many at the time).

The US interstate system is a large and complex system, which is excellent, but the USA is a large country with many dense population centres spread out across the country. Canada on the other hand has a very small population relative to our size with the population distributed in bascially a straight line, the only cities of any consequence that lie off that line are Edmonton and Saskatoon.

Hence why our national highway system consists of one major road with a few branches.

I'm curious to see if Australia has a good highway system. They're the only country that is like us in that respect, so if they have a good system then they're the ones we should look to.
 
Someone make me a map! I suspect there wouldn't be much work to do other than the Trans-Can

Now the question is, do you make Edmonton and Saskatoon each its own spur, or do you run to parallel highways through the prairies that diverge at Winnipeg (like CN and CPR)?
 
If you look at existing roads, both the spur and parallel paths currently exist, though I can't comment on the quality of either of those.

Only the parallel path has a Trans-Canada designation. TC Hwy 16 diverges from TC Hwy 1 just past Winnipeg and runs through Saskatoon, Edmonton and on into Northern BC ending at Prince Rupert.

The spurs onyl have provincial designations.

Both paths are essential, the parallel roads are needed so that the northern cities have a fluid link to the east, and the spurs are necessary to link them with their southern neighbours, eg Edmonton and Calgary.

The problem in creating a true national highway system is that the roads themselves I believe are still under provincial jurisdiction and have a provincial designation as well as a TC designation. Forexaple, TC1 is Hwy 17 for its Ontario segment.

Prying the jurisdicition away from the provinces will not be politically easy, especially for the current Conservative government which touts itself as being very de-centralist.
 
Getting to Edmonton from the east is rather easy. Hwy 16 is a very nice road, all told. From the west, it's not so fun.

I thought TransCanada in Ontario was awesome. It was like the setting of a horror movie waiting to happen. Tight roads, exposed rocks, no traffic.

I don't think now is the right time to invest in the military, as far as hiring goes. I'd like to see an increase in our military capacity, because I'd like to increase what we're doing as world police. But I want that funded from sustainable budget, not as an investment itself.
 
This might end up being a double post. First attempt to send resulted in a connection timeout. Waited a half hour, post didn't show up.

If you look at existing roads, both the spur and parallel paths currently exist, though I can't comment on the quality of either of those.

Only the parallel path has a Trans-Canada designation. TC Hwy 16 diverges from TC Hwy 1 just past Winnipeg and runs through Saskatoon, Edmonton and on into Northern BC ending at Prince Rupert.

The spurs onyl have provincial designations.

Both paths are essential, the parallel roads are needed so that the northern cities have a fluid link to the east, and the spurs are necessary to link them with their southern neighbours, eg Edmonton and Calgary.

The problem in creating a true national highway system is that the roads themselves I believe are still under provincial jurisdiction and have a provincial designation as well as a TC designation. Forexaple, TC1 is Hwy 17 for its Ontario segment.

Prying the jurisdicition away from the provinces will not be politically easy, especially for the current Conservative government which touts itself as being very de-centralist.

Ever notice that the TC doesn't service you? I always found that bizarre.

I thought TransCanada in Ontario was awesome. It was like the setting of a horror movie waiting to happen. Tight roads, exposed rocks, no traffic.

There's a good chance I'll have to visit Brandon, MB this year. I would cut through Michigan and Minnesota before driving through Northern Ontario again.

I don't think now is the right time to invest in the military, as far as hiring goes. I'd like to see an increase in our military capacity, because I'd like to increase what we're doing as world police. But I want that funded from sustainable budget, not as an investment itself.

If we buy locally, we create jobs for the manufacture of planes and ships in addition to creating an on-going ability to maintain what we've built. We need projection capabilities, both heavy-lift and sea. It might be as simple as having Bombardier license to build American-designed heavy lift transports.
 
Ever notice that the TC doesn't service you? I always found that bizarre.

It's an attempt to cut Toronto off from the rest of the country, we know you're all trying to kick us out. ;)

Even without the Trans-Canada, Hwys 401, 400 and the QEW will suffice.
 
The US interstate system is a large and complex system, which is excellent, but the USA is a large country with many dense population centres spread out across the country. Canada on the other hand has a very small population relative to our size with the population distributed in bascially a straight line, the only cities of any consequence that lie off that line are Edmonton and Saskatoon.

In very general terms, yes. But on a more complex look, some though choices have to be made if you build a single highway: you can't put Toronto, Ottawa and Kingston - all 100K+ cities, in the top-30) on the same line, and neither can you do it for Montreal, Québec and Sherbrooke. Not without a LOT of silly and inefficient wiggling, anyway.

My proposal for a national highway system would be:

TransCanada 1 (Southern Plains Expressway): Begin at Vancouver, and ends in Ottawa, by way of Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury.

TransCanada 2 (Northern Plains Expressway): Begin at Prince George, BC (or possibly at the Alaska trail) and continues east to Winnipeg by way of Edmonton and Saskatoon.

TransCanada 3 (Ottawa Valley Expressway): Begin at Timmins, and continues east and south to Sudbury, North Bay, Ottawa, Montreal, Drummondville, then turn south to Sherbrooke and ends at the US border where it becomes Interstate 91.

TransCanada 4 (Laurentian Valley Expressway): Begin at the US border in Windsor, and heads on east through London, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, then north to Saguenay and Alma.

TransCanada 5 (Atlantic Expressway): Begin in Quebec City, and head east through Riviere du Loup, Rimouski where it turns south toward Edmumdston, Fredericton, Moncton and end in Halifax.

Then everything elsewhere in Canada is provincial responsibility.
 
In very general terms, yes. But on a more complex look, some though choices have to be made if you build a single highway: you can't put Toronto, Ottawa and Kingston - all 100K+ cities, in the top-30) on the same line, and neither can you do it for Montreal, Québec and Sherbrooke. Not without a LOT of silly and inefficient wiggling, anyway.

My proposal for a national highway system would be:

TransCanada 1 (Southern Plains Expressway): Begin at Vancouver, and ends in Ottawa, by way of Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury.

TransCanada 2 (Northern Plains Expressway): Begin at Prince George, BC (or possibly at the Alaska trail) and continues east to Winnipeg by way of Edmonton and Saskatoon.

TransCanada 3 (Ottawa Valley Expressway): Begin at Timmins, and continues east and south to Sudbury, North Bay, Ottawa, Montreal, Drummondville, then turn south to Sherbrooke and ends at the US border where it becomes Interstate 91.

TransCanada 4 (Laurentian Valley Expressway): Begin at the US border in Windsor, and heads on east through London, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, then north to Saguenay and Alma.

TransCanada 5 (Atlantic Expressway): Begin in Quebec City, and head east through Riviere du Loup, Rimouski where it turns south toward Edmumdston, Fredericton, Moncton and end in Halifax.

Then everything elsewhere in Canada is provincial responsibility.

Newfoundland wouldn't like that. :p
 
Newfoundland wouldn't like that. :p

Hey, we said INTERSTATE.

It can't be an interstate if there's nothing but water between this one state and all the other.

But yeah, if you return to the concept of a TransCanada road system, then definitely there would be one in NF, and a lot more in ON, QC, probably at least one more each in BC, AB, SK (north-south ones).
 
Hey, we said INTERSTATE.

It can't be an interstate if there's nothing but water between this one state and all the other.

Hawaii has interstate highways :D

But yeah, if you return to the concept of a TransCanada road system, then definitely there would be one in NF, and a lot more in ON, QC, probably at least one more each in BC, AB, SK (north-south ones).

Could always upgrade the Labrador highway.
 
Hawaii has interstate highways :D


So how does that work? Do you just put the throttle right to the floor when you cross the Nevada-California border and hope? I'm not sure my car could make it.
 
I do that now whenever I leave Nevada, but I keep ending up back here.
 
So how does that work? Do you just put the throttle right to the floor when you cross the Nevada-California border and hope? I'm not sure my car could make it.

Well it'd be a fun trip! The Interstate system is just a name for federally-financed freeways, not a description of the network. The Feds pay (partially) for a few freeways in Hawaii, though they don't carry the I-## designation that the network on the mainland does, but rather H-##

I think (though I'm assuming here) that the Interstate designation applies to freeways that are Federally-financed and built to specific standards: limited access, speeds, on-ramp / off-ramp curves, incline grades and the like. While they're nearly all 2+ lanes in each direction, that's not required. There's a long stretch of 2-lane freeway in New Hampshire and in New York towards the Thousand Islands Bridge that I've driven.

That's what I'd like to see in our isolated areas like western Ontario: controlled access, divided lanes, a shoulder and no friggin stoplights. Built and maintained partially through federal money.
 
That's what I'd like to see in our isolated areas like western Ontario: controlled access, divided lanes, a shoulder and no friggin stoplights. Built and maintained partially through federal money.

Divided lanes and a shoulder make sense to me, but outside of the Sudbury, SSM and Thunder Bay areas I can't see how controller access would make sense.
 
Divided lanes and a shoulder make sense to me, but outside of the Sudbury, SSM and Thunder Bay areas I can't see how controller access would make sense.

Traffic lights are quite a bit more dangerous than an underpass. If you're going to have a freeway where people are driving at 100+ you don't want to introduce stops.
 
I fully agree that the Trans-Canada needs vast improvement, in fact the previous Liberal government had started a plan to widen it to four lanes across the entire country (which was criticised as waste by many at the time).
It would still be a waste, considering the low population density of the country.
 
Traffic lights are quite a bit more dangerous than an underpass. If you're going to have a freeway where people are driving at 100+ you don't want to introduce stops.

Like the place in New Brunswick where train tracks cross the highway. :eek: I almost had a heart attack even though there was no train there at the time . :help: A bridge was too much to ask for? But the roads in Nova Scotia seemed quite nice.
 
Like the place in New Brunswick where train tracks cross the highway. :eek: I almost had a heart attack even though there was no train there at the time . :help: A bridge was too much to ask for? But the roads in Nova Scotia seemed quite nice.

Was that part of the Trans Canada or was it a NB highway?
 
Top Bottom