HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 19, 2014, 3:59 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,688
Being a native Londoner, going to Goderich was "going up north". The South really has no connection to the North and frankly very little connection to Ottawa either which is seen as more Quebec centered than Ontario.

Frankly, the reality is that unless you live between London and Coborg and south of Barrie, you really are on the periphery of the province. It's a sad and unfair fact but fact none the less.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 19, 2014, 4:08 AM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
The fact that Northern Ontarians have to get into this argument over who is more deserving of a safe highways is probably the main issue behind any separatist sentiment. We shouldn't have to convince someone living in suburban Durham that we need a safer highway and then get "Well, Taunton Road is busier so fuck you!" as a response. The government finally responds to over 40 years of asking and demanding a better highway for this region and the south complains that we "cost too much".

We're not the ones who argued to the Queens Privy Council in London that we should remain in your province.
Do all Northern Ontarians act as petutantly as you? Maybe if you people weren't so childish, you might have gotten your twinned highways by now, which was something I wholly supported until I read this moronic post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 19, 2014, 6:38 AM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
The fact that Northern Ontarians have to get into this argument over who is more deserving of a safe highways is probably the main issue behind any separatist sentiment. We shouldn't have to convince someone living in suburban Durham that we need a safer highway and then get "Well, Taunton Road is busier so fuck you!" as a response. The government finally responds to over 40 years of asking and demanding a better highway for this region and the south complains that we "cost too much".

We're not the ones who argued to the Queens Privy Council in London that we should remain in your province.
I hope this post (and this thread in general) enlightens some people about the struggles of anywhere in Ontario NOT in the GTA or nearby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Being a native Londoner, going to Goderich was "going up north". The South really has no connection to the North and frankly very little connection to Ottawa either which is seen as more Quebec centered than Ontario.

Frankly, the reality is that unless you live between London and Coborg and south of Barrie, you really are on the periphery of the province. It's a sad and unfair fact but fact none the less.
Hence the problem and hence the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
Do all Northern Ontarians act as petutantly as you? Maybe if you people weren't so childish, you might have gotten your twinned highways by now, which was something I wholly supported until I read this moronic post.
Jeez, what's your damage?

How is he being childish or petulant? If anyone's being childish, it's you for saying that you no longer support twinned highways for Northern Ontario because of a single person's post that you deemed moronic.

As for why twinned highways don't exist in Northern Ontario already, is because the region is constantly ignored by GTA-centric Ontario until an election rolls around.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 19, 2014, 2:39 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,804
I don't want to see the province split up. The North is the only region with any reason to, but they would have to support way to much infrastructure and way too many isolated communities for it to be viable.

As for splitting Toronto off, that would be bad news for Hamilton and the rest of the Horseshoe. Either it gets tacked on Toronto and then promptly ignored completely or it gets split from Toronto and suddenly commuter transit like GO and many other important issues become a two province issue that would be a nightmare to deal with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 19, 2014, 4:12 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 Doady View Post
Do all Northern Ontarians act as petutantly as you? Maybe if you people weren't so childish, you might have gotten your twinned highways by now, which was something I wholly supported until I read this moronic post.
Ah, the classic "I'll only support you if you're obedient" trope!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix View Post
As for why twinned highways don't exist in Northern Ontario already, is because the region is constantly ignored by GTA-centric Ontario until an election rolls around.
Southern Manitoba has twinned highways. Saskatchewan has twinned highways. New Brunswick has twinned highways. Newfoundland doesn't have a fully twinned network, but the highways around St. John's are much better than those around Northern Ontario's large cities. Pretty much anywhere you go in Canada, cities with 100,000 people or more have better developed highway infrastructure than those in Northern Ontario (and London, which not only gets forgotten in highway funding but in transit funding as well).

It's kind of ironic that Western is Lakehead's rival in inter-university sports. That's the city we probably have the most in common with in Southern Ontario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
I don't want to see the province split up. The North is the only region with any reason to, but they would have to support way to much infrastructure and way too many isolated communities for it to be viable.
Somehow, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan are able to do it. If we develop the Ring of Fire, we'd probable be able to make it on our own. Especially since, if we were separate, all of the revenue would stay in the north. As it is, all of the money will go to Queens Park before we get a share.

But I can't really buy the concern from Southern Ontario that the North "will struggle" on its own. Ontario and Manitoba fought over us because of our resources, and it isn't much different today, except Manitoba is out of the picture. If we cost that much to be a part of Ontario, why does Ontario not want us to leave? Altruism?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 19, 2014, 9:54 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Somehow, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan are able to do it. If we develop the Ring of Fire, we'd probable be able to make it on our own. Especially since, if we were separate, all of the revenue would stay in the north. As it is, all of the money will go to Queens Park before we get a share.

But I can't really buy the concern from Southern Ontario that the North "will struggle" on its own. Ontario and Manitoba fought over us because of our resources, and it isn't much different today, except Manitoba is out of the picture. If we cost that much to be a part of Ontario, why does Ontario not want us to leave? Altruism?
If you guys develop the Ring of Fire, implement a responsible lumber program, and look into developing hydro-electric infrastructure like Quebec has, and a hypothetical Northern Ontario could easily be a have province within a generation or two.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 19, 2014, 11:54 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Northern Ontario isn't as well suited to hydro-electric generation as Quebec and Manitoba. Contrary to popular belief, much of Northern Ontario actually isn't on top of the Canadian Shield:


The Canadian Shield is the red and orange portions.

The region is the world's largest wetland, and a lot of places where it would be optimal to build a dam (where we haven't built one already) would result in the displacement of First Nations communities, a controversial and costly process that could do more social harm than the economic benefits are worth.

Also consider that in their first 50 years of existence, a large dam project will actually result in more CO2 and methane released into the atmosphere than a coal plant over a similar time line, could potentially lead to the alteration of a much larger area of land, and contributes to increased amounts of mercury in local wildlife. We often portray hydroelectric projects as "green", but the reality is they're not. It's just less obvious how damaging they are. Hydroelectric projects in conjunction with waterfalls aren't as bad, the plant is usually located downstream and fed via an aqua duct (plants like this are located at Kakabeka Falls and Niagara Falls) but there are far less opportunities for this kind of dam in the north. We have three dams in succession on the Nipigon River, and while their reservoirs are small (except for Pine Portage, which rose the level of Lake Nipigon quite a bit, resulting in the displacement of a reserve in the 1950) the three of them only produce about 300MW.

Solar and wind are also fairly contentious here, both of them take up a lot of land. It's easier to plant them on farmland that is already cleared but we don't have much of that. Installing wind turbines is hugely disruptive to the environment, requiring an acre of clear cut land per turbine, and you'd need a lot of them to replace what we lost with TBGS going off-line.

Last edited by vid; May 20, 2014 at 12:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 19, 2014, 11:55 PM
eemy's Avatar
eemy eemy is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,456
Honestly, I think the fact that Northern Ontario is bundled in with Southern Ontario means that the federal government can easily ignore what is a national issue (connecting two parts of Canada by highway) and pretend it's a provincial issue (which it is as well, but to a far lesser degree). If Northern Ontario were to split off, it probably would be able to attract far more federal funding for highway programs precisely because it cannot fund such infrastructure on its own and because such infrastructure has a disproportionately large impact nationally. The federal government is never going to acknowledge that fact as long as they are dealing with Queen's Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 12:29 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
I don't think this federal government cares if goods travel through this region to get to the south, they might as well go through the US as far as they're concerned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 1:17 AM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Somehow, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan are able to do it. If we develop the Ring of Fire, we'd probable be able to make it on our own. Especially since, if we were separate, all of the revenue would stay in the north. As it is, all of the money will go to Queens Park before we get a share.
Population Density:
Saskatchewan 1.75 /km2
NFL 1.38 /km2
Northern Ontario 0.9/km2

And let's not forget that Saskatchewan and NFL both are also seeing massive resource booms, so it isn't like Northern Ontario would have a boost on them. It would be stretched even worse. I'm not saying it would be doomed, but it would be in trouble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
But I can't really buy the concern from Southern Ontario that the North "will struggle" on its own. Ontario and Manitoba fought over us because of our resources, and it isn't much different today, except Manitoba is out of the picture. If we cost that much to be a part of Ontario, why does Ontario not want us to leave? Altruism?
Ontario and Manitoba were arguing over cheap lumber in a day when lumber was pretty well king. That's not the case now. As to why the south doesn't want the north to leave, in part because it would be annoying to deal with the massive distraction to the government, in part because they don't want Ontario reduced to a tiny Maritime sized sliver of land, in part because Canadians just aren't fond of separatism of any sort after all the complaining and grumbling Quebec does, and in part out of laziness out of not wanting to need to know another province name. Maybe a few realise that would mean they'd have to get health plans when they pop up north of cottage country. I'm sure you're average person in Windsor or Kingston doesn't sit there counting the tax savings they get because Northern Ontario is a part of Ontario still (I'm guessing there probably aren't any tax savings to be had anyway).

I personally don't want the North to leave because then my OSAP would be a nightmare. I go to university in Ottawa, but live in Thunder Bay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 2:11 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 Beedok View Post
Population Density:
Saskatchewan 1.75 /km2
NFL 1.38 /km2
Northern Ontario 0.9/km2

And let's not forget that Saskatchewan and NFL both are also seeing massive resource booms, so it isn't like Northern Ontario would have a boost on them. It would be stretched even worse. I'm not saying it would be doomed, but it would be in trouble.
But we're not building roads over almost all of our geographic area like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. We've got over 300,000sqkm that won't be accessed by road or rail. The population density south of 51 is definitely higher than Newfoundland Island.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
Ontario and Manitoba were arguing over cheap lumber in a day when lumber was pretty well king. That's not the case now. As to why the south doesn't want the north to leave, in part because it would be annoying to deal with the massive distraction to the government, in part because they don't want Ontario reduced to a tiny Maritime sized sliver of land, in part because Canadians just aren't fond of separatism of any sort after all the complaining and grumbling Quebec does, and in part out of laziness out of not wanting to need to know another province name.
Having to hold separate debates, a region-specific ministry, and devote half a billion dollars of infrastructure funding isn't distracting? Land area is pretty irrelevant if all you're losing is an economic drain, and while separatism might be a somewhat valid complaint, having to know another province name certainly isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
Maybe a few realise that would mean they'd have to get health plans when they pop up north of cottage country. I'm sure you're average person in Windsor or Kingston doesn't sit there counting the tax savings they get because Northern Ontario is a part of Ontario still (I'm guessing there probably aren't any tax savings to be had anyway).
And again we're back to the "Northern Ontario costs money" argument. Is the added cost worth it to avoid having to learn another word?

I don't even want the North to separate, I just want a regional government so that we have something to respond to local issues more quickly and effectively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
I personally don't want the North to leave because then my OSAP would be a nightmare. I go to university in Ottawa, but live in Thunder Bay.
I couldn't even quality for OSAP. Provincial boundaries shouldn't be so much of a hurdle when it comes to post secondary education anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 4:23 AM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
We have five times the highway kilometres.

We don't have regional roads here. The province provides funding for those directly. If you really want to get an adequate comparison of how much it costs to maintain and upgrade our highways, versus those in the south, you need to merge the MTO's Southern Ontario highways budget with all of the upper-tier municipalities' county roads maintenance budgets.
Well regional roads aren't paid for by the province, they're paid for through municipal property taxes. Many of them were downloaded by the province in the 90s with no way to pay for them, something northern Ontario didn't have to deal with. Kind of goes against the narrative that the south gets all the attention.

When you have a region with five times the highway km with 6% of the population, it just goes to show how much one region subsidizes the other. It's been argued that roads in the GTHA pay for themselves while in the rest of the province roads are subsidized. The details of that study can be debated (it doesn't take into account costs like pollution, congestion, etc.), but the point is that building so many roads for so few people is a large burden on the province's highway budget.

Quote:
Twinned highways don't have regular head-on collisions causing death. Twinned highways have space to pass at all times, not just intermittently. Twinned highways can have higher speed limits. No highways in Northern Ontario currently have speed limits above 90km/h, but traffic travels at over 120km/h at most times. It's dangerous. A twinned highway would be safer, and an accident or washout wouldn't paralyze the region as easily as it currently does.
Twinned highways are unnecessary where there are only 2000 cars per day. And when there are 1000 km or more of Highway 17 alone with those kinds of volumes, twinning the whole stretch through difficult terrain would be a colossal waste of money. Yes, obviously there are deaths. That's a criticism of driving in general, which is the most dangerous way to travel by far. Australia doesn't have twinned highways across the outback, Russia doesn't have them across Siberia, New Zealand doesn't have them across the south island, and the Scandinavian countries and Scotland don't have them into their northern reaches either. A twinned highway across a region like northern Ontario doesn't exist anywhere in the world that I can think of.

Twinning remote, lightly travelled highways in the name of safety is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer: it's excessive and ineffective. Hint: the countries I mentioned above don't rely on roads to travel nearly as much as we do, they rely much more on safer modes of transportation. They're also more efficient with highway upgrades, like using cheaper 1+2 setups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
But I can't really buy the concern from Southern Ontario that the North "will struggle" on its own. Ontario and Manitoba fought over us because of our resources, and it isn't much different today, except Manitoba is out of the picture. If we cost that much to be a part of Ontario, why does Ontario not want us to leave? Altruism?
Well, it would struggle on its own. Just look at how much infrastructure there is compared to the population to support it. Resource wealth is great but no large, advanced economy depends on it primarily. Even in Norway it's only 20% or so of the economy, and the rich petro-countries like Qatar are very small. If the Ring of Fire were fully exploited it would still only account for a small percentage of Ontario's economy. The vast majority of wealth is generated in cities. That's why some of the wealthiest countries in the world are city-states like Singapore and Luxembourg: they have no hinterland to support.

And as for why Ontario doesn't want the north to leave, a lot of people in Toronto do want to create their own province so more of the wealth created in the city would stay there instead of supporting rural and remote areas. The city has been starved of infrastructure money for a generation and only now is it starting to catch up. Which brings me back to the point I've been making all along. The idea that many of you have that the GTA gets all the attention and is a burden on the rest of the province is completely false. Be careful what you wish for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
I don't think this federal government cares if goods travel through this region to get to the south, they might as well go through the US as far as they're concerned.
I think it's a cost-benefit thing. It would cost tens of billions to twin the Trans-Canada across northern Ontario, never mind maintenance costs, and the economic benefits would be nowhere near that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 7:10 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
But we're not building roads over almost all of our geographic area like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. We've got over 300,000sqkm that won't be accessed by road or rail. The population density south of 51 is definitely higher than Newfoundland Island.
The northern half of Saskatchewan is pretty devoid of inhabitants and roads, as is a good chunk of NFL, so you can probably nearly double their population densities to get a decent guess at what they actually build infrastructure for. Northern Ontario is in a similar boat I suppose, but I think it's effective density is still somewhat below NFL's and they're always discussing ways to cost cut on infrastructure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Having to hold separate debates, a region-specific ministry, and devote half a billion dollars of infrastructure funding isn't distracting?
Spending 5 seconds longer fidgeting with your door because the lock is a bit off is an annoyance most people would put up with even if they two hours to fix it would save time in the long run it doesn't seem it. A constant minor distraction isn't seen as being as serious as spending on large concentrated amount of time on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Land area is pretty irrelevant if all you're losing is an economic drain, and while separatism might be a somewhat valid complaint, having to know another province name certainly isn't.
Land area is irrelevant to anything but pride, but people aren't ratonal. As for the other province name, it's not really a serious issue, but considering how little other parts of Ontario are on their mind most folks in the southern regions would see that as about relevant. I'm sure someone from Northern Ontario would bring that up as a thing to grumble about if the Windsor-London region wanted to leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
And again we're back to the "Northern Ontario costs money" argument. Is the added cost worth it to avoid having to learn another word?
There's 12 million people in southern Ontario vs. 700-800k in the North. Say paying the North's infrastructure and social services bills costs about $50 a year per person for the province, it would be about $250 a year per person for the North on it's own. The South can be as apathetic about the North's grumbling as they could be about Windsor or the Niagara Region, or wherever. What would be a serious expense for the North on it's own doesn't really occur to the South as being an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
I don't even want the North to separate, I just want a regional government so that we have something to respond to local issues more quickly and effectively.
That makes sense. The North does already have a disproportionate voice in at Queen's Park though, the 11 least populace ridings in Ontario are the 11 ridings in the North. In the Horseshoe there's MPPs representing up to like 2.5x as many people. I suppose if it got a regional government it would probably see it's see count drop to 8 or 9 to be more in line with the rest of the province.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
I couldn't even quality for OSAP. Provincial boundaries shouldn't be so much of a hurdle when it comes to post secondary education anyway.
It shouldn't be, but it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 1:32 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Then fuck it, you win. We don't need twinned highways. Poor Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 3:15 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Then fuck it, you win. We don't need twinned highways. Poor Toronto.
I must say I understand their point of view... Where would you cut to free up the funding for your new twinned highways?

When you live in a remote area, it comes with the territory. There are pros and cons, and among the cons, you generally have "no freeways" and "relatively narrow roads" and "limited alternative routes". Wouldn't be very fair to have so many people pay for such a small group -- honestly, there are probably plenty of potential mass transit improvement projects in Toronto that would need, or could use, more funding, and they should be a priority over the North's highways.

If we want to encourage humanity to live greener, mass transit and density is the way to go. "No highway improvements for you guys, we wouldn't want to make life easier over there, and while at it, you should know we'd appreciate it if you packed up and moved to Toronto, your environmental footprint would become a lot smaller if you did" kinda makes sense, if I may be so blunt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 11:24 AM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,846
^lol well I wouldn't go that far, but people have to be realistic in what they're asking for. This isn't a "poor Toronto" thing like vid sarcastically says. I'm just putting some doubt on the idea that the north is neglected in favour of Toronto. What's being demanded here has never been done in any comparable region anywhere in the world. Nobody has yet articulated what makes northern Ontario unique or more dangerous than the regions I mentioned earlier, whose versions of the Trans-Canada tend to look like this. Why not ask for something a little more achievable, like the 2+1 system they built on the highway to Whistler and is common in Sweden? And lastly, if you have $20 billion to burn and you want to improve safety, a twinned highway is barking up the wrong tree entirely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 4:28 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Then fuck it, you win. We don't need twinned highways. Poor Toronto.
The issue is that Toronto will grab a lot of Queen's Park's attention so the other regions (west, east, north, niagara, etc.) feel somewhat ignored, but the province can't function without Toronto. I would say that eastern Ontario is actually the only part that could split off, it has the population thanks to Ottawa and is fairly compact. Most of the rest of the south is pretty connected to Toronto, or needs money from Toronto to help deal with it's economic and infrastructure issues (manufacturing in London and Windsor region, infrastructure and lumber in the north). It's just a sad fact that the Province won't quite work. I'm sure Manitoba's north feels just as ignored by Winnipeg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 8:10 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
I'm sure Manitoba's north feels just as ignored by Winnipeg.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 12:13 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,551
About the complete twinning of Northern Highways, I don' think Vid quite realizes how large Northern Ontario is. Twinning the entirety of highway 17 for example, yet alone highway 11 or other smaller routes, would be the equivalent of twinning from Calgary to Winnipeg. All the while intersecting only 4 decent sized urban areas, only 3 of which are above 100,000 people. It simply cannot make economic sense. Twinning sections of it may be possible and reasonable sure, but most of it is not reasonable to twin. ESPECIALLY because large portions of the highway see less than 2,000 cars a day, when the general standard to "justify" a freeway is 10,000.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 2:22 AM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,804
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.
As I mentioned, northern Ontario's votes tend to get 2-3x the seats many in the Golden Horseshoe get.
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 6:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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