HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 11:59 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
Solution to Northern Ontario Road problems:

Rip up the thin frost heaved asphalt and just regrade the gravel every few days.

I wonder, If the bridge in Nipigon, or a fire just west of there were to close the highway for a month, would that wake the rest of the province/country up to the truth of our highways?

Highway 11 from North Bay to Nipigon, and Highways 17 from MB Border to Nipigon, and then Sault St Marie to Arnprior should be twinned.

We in the north have a MASSIVE rail infrastructure. There is not a city that is not served by at least one rail line. The only provincially run rail line in the North, The Northlander was shut down because it was subsidized. By the way, all those beautiful GO Train lines are all paid for by the same government that shut down the Northlander.

It really does boil down to the fact that Queens Park does not care about the North.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 12:30 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
Solution to Northern Ontario Road problems:

Rip up the thin frost heaved asphalt and just regrade the gravel every few days.

I wonder, If the bridge in Nipigon, or a fire just west of there were to close the highway for a month, would that wake the rest of the province/country up to the truth of our highways?

Highway 11 from North Bay to Nipigon, and Highways 17 from MB Border to Nipigon, and then Sault St Marie to Arnprior should be twinned.

We in the north have a MASSIVE rail infrastructure. There is not a city that is not served by at least one rail line. The only provincially run rail line in the North, The Northlander was shut down because it was subsidized. By the way, all those beautiful GO Train lines are all paid for by the same government that shut down the Northlander.

It really does boil down to the fact that Queens Park does not care about the North.
I disagree with twinning the 11. While its cheaper than twinning the 17, it serves far less population. I think we should focus entirely on 17 twinning, in the following sections:

-MB border to Kenora
-Shabaqua to Nipigon for the 11-17 interline
-Sault Ste. Marie to Arnprior

To save costs, it should be Prairie-style highway--dual carriageway, but with minor intersections at grade and interchanges only at major junctions--everywhere except Petawawa-Arnprior which should be full freeway and carry the 417 designation.

That would be relatively affordable as it leaves the most expensive segment (Nipigon-Sault Ste. Marie) single-laned, but I imagine that will stilll cost several billion $. Make it a long term project (aim to complete it by 2030) and get federal funding assistance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 12:47 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
The only provincially run rail line in the North, The Northlander was shut down because it was subsidized. By the way, all those beautiful GO Train lines are all paid for by the same government that shut down the Northlander.

It really does boil down to the fact that Queens Park does not care about the North.
I'm fairly certain some lines of the GO system run at a profit. There's also the fact that they serve a region of about 8 million people for 250k+ daily ridership (so effectively all of Thunder Bay riding two and from work) with a total of 450 km of track and a number of buses. The Northlander was something like 1100km and was uniquely serving a region of a few hundred thousand at most. That's not really an issue of favouritism, more an issue of one region being much cheaper to serve and serves far more people. If it cost the same amount of money to provide something to 500k people in Northern Ontario and 500k people in Southern Ontario you would probably see the South lose out first since they per capita have a far weaker voice at Queen's park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 1:57 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,527
peak GO lines run at a profit (6-8am, 4:30-6:30pm), its the off peak, shoulder peak, and bus services that lose money, but even then they don't lose it hand over fist like the Northlander did.

Also, the EA for the section from North Bay to Mattawa has already been done and its at 400 series standards.

The 11/17 part between TB and Nipigon is already funded.

What I would like to see:

417 to Sudbury
17 twinned from Sudbury to Sualt. Ste. Marie like the bits around Thunder bay are being done
Thunder Bay to the 11/17 split to the west.

The rest of 17 and 11 would be upgraded to a 3 lane road like the sea to sky in Whistler

And of course the 400 to Sudbury, 11/17 fro Thunder Bay to Nipigon, and 17 from Manitoba to Kenora, all of which are already funded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 3:49 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
I wonder, If the bridge in Nipigon, or a fire just west of there were to close the highway for a month, would that wake the rest of the province/country up to the truth of our highways?
A month? A MONTH? What is this, the apocalypse? Are the charred remains of the forest going to miraculously become verdant within days of the fire moving on and then be lit aflame again???

In what universe does a forest fire close a highway for a month?

Is the road paved with thermite? "Highway 11 was an inside job!"

Wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
Highway 11 from North Bay to Nipigon, and Highways 17 from MB Border to Nipigon, and then Sault St Marie to Arnprior should be twinned.
A decent 2+1 highway built to Southern Ontario safety standards would likely be sufficient for the rural stretched. Near the cities and in some rural areas, twinning or a median would be ideal. There should be wildlife bridges as well, we don't have those here. (Much of the highway barely has shoulders.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
I'm fairly certain some lines of the GO system run at a profit. There's also the fact that they serve a region of about 8 million people for 250k+ daily ridership (so effectively all of Thunder Bay riding two and from work) with a total of 450 km of track and a number of buses. The Northlander was something like 1100km and was uniquely serving a region of a few hundred thousand at most. That's not really an issue of favouritism, more an issue of one region being much cheaper to serve and serves far more people. If it cost the same amount of money to provide something to 500k people in Northern Ontario and 500k people in Southern Ontario you would probably see the South lose out first since they per capita have a far weaker voice at Queen's park.
The difference was, there were communities that vitally depended on the Northland for transportation and supplies. Hypothetically, if GO were to stop functioning for a month (forest fire perhaps? ) life would be difficult but not impossible. But for some Northern communities, if the rail disappears, we're going to have to airlift people to safety because they'll lose their lifeline.

Granted it's only maybe 500 people province-wide at most and they shouldn't even be there. The province could just as easily build them airstrips. That would probably be the cheapest solution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 3:52 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,527
doesn't Northland still run to Moosonee, which is the place that really needs it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 4:31 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
That's the Polar Bear Express, which connects Cochrane to Moosonee. Rail service between Cochrane and Toronto still exists, as does the coach service throughout the region. Ontario Northland has extensive freight operations in Northeast Ontario, that's the bulk of its revenue. The passenger service operates at a loss and will likely be cancelled when they find a private sector buyer.

None of this exists in Northwestern Ontario, Greyhound only goes through the city twice a day in each direction and communities not located on Highway 17 are served by local services. Our long-distance travel is air based, not rail based. Our airport is only slightly less busy than Toronto City Centre, with a plane landing every 30 to 75 seconds during the day. We have several extensive, private sector airlines serving communities here and dozens of charter companies, as well as roughly hourly service to both of Toronto's airports (through four airlines) and roughly bi-hourly service to Winnipeg through three. A lot more expensive than rail, but considerably faster as well. If I time things right, I could get to downtown Toronto before someone else who leaves the same point at the same time can get to the next town over by car. Contrast this to Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie, whose airports look like Buttonville in a bush. Thunder Bay's is more like a baby sized Pearson.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 12:49 PM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,846
The Northlander was doomed the day they decided to twin Highway 11 to North Bay. The government could have chosen to put that money into the rail line to make it faster and more frequent, which would have been just as viable as the highway. The government simply chose to prioritize driving over rail. There's not really the population to justify both so the rail line didn't stand a chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
A month? A MONTH?
A decent 2+1 highway built to Southern Ontario safety standards would likely be sufficient for the rural stretched. Near the cities and in some rural areas, twinning or a median would be ideal. There should be wildlife bridges as well, we don't have those here. (Much of the highway barely has shoulders.)
Shoulders are actually pretty rare in most of the world. Even freeways don't generally have shoulders, especially on the inside lanes. There's usually no safe place to pull over except in designated areas. I've long thought that we overbuild our highways in this country; maybe if we relaxed our design standards a bit we could afford to build more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 1:07 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
The Northlander was doomed the day they decided to twin Highway 11 to North Bay. The government could have chosen to put that money into the rail line to make it faster and more frequent, which would have been just as viable as the highway. The government simply chose to prioritize driving over rail. There's not really the population to justify both so the rail line didn't stand a chance.



Shoulders are actually pretty rare in most of the world. Even freeways don't generally have shoulders, especially on the inside lanes. There's usually no safe place to pull over except in designated areas. I've long thought that we overbuild our highways in this country; maybe if we relaxed our design standards a bit we could afford to build more.
That's an interesting point. If you have full-width paved left and right shoulders on a freeway, you're for all intents and purposes doubling your asphalt and paving costs for every km of highway you build like this!
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 7:50 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,452
As controversial as it sounds, I think the province should depopulate those isolated communities--expropriate everything, bulldoze it, compensate everyone with a free house somewhere else (like in Sudbury or Thunder Bay or something). They cost a fortune to provide services to and provide little economic benefit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 9:15 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,801
The settler ones sure, but relocating native communities seems a bit more questionable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 9:44 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
The settler ones sure, but relocating native communities seems a bit more questionable.
Yes, very much agreed. Native villages should not be touched under any circumstances. Canadian-title communities though, should be depopulated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted May 25, 2014, 1:28 AM
Blitz's Avatar
Blitz Blitz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 4,524
I'm for twinning highways in the north but only if they also widen Hwy 401 from London to the Michigan border to 6 lanes and install a concrete median. Two more deaths recently from a transport truck crossing the way-too-narrow grass median into oncoming traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted May 25, 2014, 2:47 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,527
road deaths happen all over the province, you really have to pick and choose your battles. Besides, Ontario already has some of the safest roads on the continent.



London to Tilbury at 6 lanes would probably cost close to $600 million, roughly equal to the new build 4 lane highway 400 extension to Sudbury. (judging at the cost per km of the Windsor - Tilbury portion)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted May 25, 2014, 3:52 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
As I said a few pages ago, here it's the opposite. The regions have a disproportionate amount of political power and the complaints are that Montreal gets less attention than it normally should.

Toronto is the economic engine of Ontario, Montreal is the economic engine of Quebec, their well-being should definitely prime over most rural issues.
The problem is the inequity of how Queen's Park views the province. According to Queen's Park, and certainly the bureaucracy, there are 2 Ontarios...................Toronto and Other.

Take for example transit funding. Toronto is getting a $6 billion LRT line down Eglinton of which it doesn't have to cheap in one nickel. In fact maniple councillors scream blue murder when Queen's Park doesn't volunteer to pay for 100% of Toronto transit expansion. This is opposed to Ottawa's & Kitchener's LRT and London's BRT where the cities are expected to come up with at least one-third the cost.

This is true of all of TransitCity LRT lines...............Toronto doesn't {nor does it feel it should have to} contribute one nickel and if it wants more and doesn't get it then Queen's Park is "ignoring us".

The problem is that not only is Toronto the largest and most important city in the country but also it is also the only one of Canada's 5 largest metros that is a provincial capitol. The situation in BC, Quebec, and Alberta are not the same because their largest cities are not capitol cities so ttheir dominance is not nearly as overwhelming.

This is not only true politically but also on a government level. Most bureaucrats in those provinces live in Victoria, Quebec, and Edmonton while Toronto is home to most Ontario civil servants and all it's power brokers. The mandarines often have little concept of reality of life outside the GTA. For many of them Toronto and Ontario are one in the same and that has led to a completely Toronto-centric provincial government and political parties.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted May 25, 2014, 11:45 AM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,801
I'm sorry, but in Alberta's case it's probably more that there's two cities of about equal size that's at play. If the capital were in Calgary but Edmonton was still the same size it is in our reality that they'd probably have a fairly similar power balance. The two are what like 150k apart maximum?

With Toronto's treatment, as people have brought up many times it's status as a large city means it produces disproportionate amounts of wealth for the province. I'm sure that even if the capital were in Barrie or London or where ever it would still seem to be getting special treatment thanks to it's economic importance. Maybe not to the same degree, but that wouldn't stop the rest of the province from complaining.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted May 25, 2014, 7:07 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
Shoulders are actually pretty rare in most of the world. Even freeways don't generally have shoulders, especially on the inside lanes. There's usually no safe place to pull over except in designated areas. I've long thought that we overbuild our highways in this country; maybe if we relaxed our design standards a bit we could afford to build more.
Next you'll be telling me that paved roads are pretty uncommon and that even that is a waste of money considering the low traffic volumes in the north.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
As controversial as it sounds, I think the province should depopulate those isolated communities--expropriate everything, bulldoze it, compensate everyone with a free house somewhere else (like in Sudbury or Thunder Bay or something). They cost a fortune to provide services to and provide little economic benefit.
Outside of certain circumstances, I'm not sure how legal it is. The Federal Government still has the right to do virtually whatever it wants with First Nations (since it owns them directly; private land ownership is illegal on almost all reserves) but relocating a settler community involves private land, and for the most part the people that are left in those communities are only there because they're too stubborn to leave in the first place.

Regardless, lets look at the cost: The average house in Thunder Bay costs over $200,000. In Sudbury, it is probably more. Both cities have a problem with too few houses on the market, and Thunder Bay is actually facing a lot shortage crisis. (We don't have enough parcels of land ready to build houses on). So, in most cases homes will have to be built new, and in Thunder Bay that costs a minimum of $350,000. Assuming 25% of the rural households move to Thunder Bay and 75% move to Sudbury, we're looking at increasing Thunder Bay's housing stock by 50% and doubling the size of Sudbury. We'll have to build nearly 1,600kms of streets for 100,000 houses. We'll have to expand water plants, we'll have to expand public transit systems, we'll have to expand hospitals, we'll have to build schools, we'll have to have to hire police, we'll have to build fire stations and EMS dispatches, while at the same time systemically dismantling all the old towns and hamlets in an environmentally responsible way (to placate the Southerners; in the North our method of removing populated areas is to simply burn them down. Literally. This is how we have dealt with our ghost towns in the past.) Assuming two new hospitals ($300M each), 30 new schools($3M each), a new water plant for Sudbury ($100M; Thunder Bay's plant is overbuilt and could serve another 25,000 homes), 5 new fire halls ($8M each), 5 new EMS dispatches ($3M each), and 1,600kms of fully serviced roads ($0.5M/KM), we're looking at around 1.6 billion dollars being spent in both Thunder Bay and Sudbury, over an undetermined timeline, to build the infrastructure to absorb the populations, plus 20 to 40 billion to build homes for them. And that's a conservative estimate; Thunder Bay's hospital cost $400M in 2003, and the water plant was $100M in 2007.

That's just the infrastructure, too. You can be sure that a lot of people in those communities will fight any attempt to relocate them to the death.

In the long term it might be cheaper, but it's going to take a really long term to make up 20 to 40 billion dollars in savings, and the social and infrastructural issues that would arise from increasing Thunder Bay's and Sudbury's populations by double digit percentages over a few years would probably wipe out any hope of recovering that money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted May 26, 2014, 5:15 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
No one denies Toronto is Ontario's economic engine but that is no excuse for not making it pay for infrastructure that other cities pay for.

Toronto produces disproportionately more but it also is a huge beneficiary of Queen's Park largess. From infrastructure spending, government employees, cultural events and facilities..............Toronto does exceptionally well.

Toronto bitches it has to pay a portion of it's welfare costs which is true but it's not like the rest of the cities don't. They say they have more per-capita welfare costs than smaller places and towns which is no doubt true but at the same time Toronto didn't have to deal with the massive downloading of roads from Queen's Park in the 90s courtesy of Harris.

Some of the counties had huge highways downloaded to them that wrecked havoc on their finances which had very small effect on Toronto. This is way part of the welfare/disability payments were taken over by the province again. yes it helps everyone but disproportionately Toronto but you didn't see any of the highways the rural areas have to pay for being uploaded.

The GTA moans and gets gas plants cancelled at huge expense because they don't want it in their back years but push for wind power which of course means the ugly windmills blight the rural areas. they don't want them but you don't see Queen's Park cancelling any of those projects.

You can't run a province by favoring one place over everywhere else. The people of Sarnia, Smith Falls, and Sault Ste. Marie pay the same taxes and have to abide by the same laws as Torontonians so their needs should not be viewed as a mere annoyance.

When Toronto needs something it's considered essential but when somewhere outside the GTA needs something it's called discretionary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted May 27, 2014, 12:57 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
The City of Thunder Bay is the primary funding source for the Thunder Bay District Social Services Administration Board, which oversees welfare, disability and social housing from Upsala to Marathon; Neebing to Greenstone. An area of over 100,000 sqkm with 150,000 people.

So its no wonder they haven't been able to afford to build a single new housing unit since 1993.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted May 27, 2014, 2:38 AM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,358
Instead of splitting the province, moving the capital out of Toronto and into Northern Ontario would help balance out political power, much like New York state is administered from Albany, not NYC. I bet the north would get better roads, and government office rents would be cheaper without having to compete with rich corporate head offices. A brand new capital city could be an exciting project, creating a lot of jobs and innovation on the latest environmental and building technologies.

Yup, put the politicians out in the character-building ruggedness of the north and let's see what they're really made of
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:37 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.