Other Manitoba and Saskatchewan Developments

[1ajs]

churchill was not even the origonal port location on that line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Nelson,_Manitoba

and those that nay say its existance. only reason its not been viable is no ones tried. if we can keep some sorta local control it would be good as for thompson it fits into the cities long term goals to have stake in this line.

[drew]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

churchill was not even the origonal port location on that line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Nelson,_Manitoba

That's pretty cool. I wiki'd Port Nelson and found some pretty cool pictures from someone who took a snow mobile trip there.

The 100-year old bridge that still stands is pretty awesome. I had no idea that was even up there.

[LilZebra]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...owth-1.4988801


Why one bedroom community (Ile des Chênes) is thriving in the shadows of Winnipeg

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by LilZebra

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...owth-1.4988801


Why one bedroom community (Ile des Chênes) is thriving in the shadows of Winnipeg

I personally prefer a two or three bedroom community.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by drew

That's pretty cool. I wiki'd Port Nelson and found some pretty cool pictures from someone who took a snow mobile trip there.

The 100-year old bridge that still stands is pretty awesome. I had no idea that was even up there.

First occupied by Europeans in 1612!

[blueandgoldguy]

It would be cool to have a vehicular access to Churchill. Imagine how many more people in this province and within the region would be able to enjoy the main attractions like the polar bears and beluga whales given that it would no longer be prohibitively expensive just to travel there ($1000 return airfare per person vs. a few tankfuls of gas there and back plus a night stay in Thompson split between 2 - 4 people).

Then reality hits. How many billions in public investment would be required to build even a basic two-lane highway with a few passing lanes and a few rest stops along a 600 km stretch? Would there be any other economic opportunities that would present themselves with this road? And would that justify the cost? Then, of course, there would be the additional costs of maintaining this road every year. How many more millions of dollars would that cost annually?

[headhorse]

^ it would be better to invest in upgraded/new rail lines and faster train service

[Hecate]

Churchill needs a road and a rail line... time for this province and country to stop fucking the dog and get it done. Our own governments are holding us back... the port could be used in the summer to ship goods to other northern communities. This would Dramatically reduce costs for people all over the north and create jobs in our province. The added tourist benefits alone would change our province. Imagine hotels like Fogo island inn along the northern coast. An actual interpretive centre for the 350 year old stone fort with a museum filled with sunken treasures from the ships at the bottom of Hudson’s bay. Week long cruises touring the sights and sounds of Hudson’s bay bringing tourists and jobs and economic activity to other remote northern communities. Going to Churchill would be like going to Banff or whistler. But whatever nobody here has any vision for what our province could and should be. This should have been done 40 years ago. Shake my head.

[drew]

^ even if Churchill had road access, this wouldn't just be some typical road-trip to get there.

It would be hundreds of kilometres of two lane gravel, with extreme weather and very limited services.

It would certainly help Churchill economically, but we need to pump the brakes on thoughts of it becoming much more of a destination than it already is. If you have to drive a solid day nonstop in almost total isolation to get to a end of the road town, and then drive all the way back - is it much more convenient than the train?

Not to mention that these types of roads aren't really going to be accessible to vehicles beyond trucks and other heavy duty types.

You can drive up to Tuktoyaktuk as of last year, and Alaska has a beautiful paved highway all the way - but despite this - how accessible are these places in reality?

[cheswick]

The VIA rail line to Churchill is the most subsidized line in the country. To the tune of almost $1000 per passenger. Not sure on what basis people think there's some pent up demand to drive 15 hours through remote northern wilderness to go visit Churchill.

[Hecate]

300000 people a year travel the Alaska highway, it would be similar to the Churchill road in construction. Alaska’s main source of tourism is the cruises. If Alaska can do it so can we. It would become a bucket list type destination. Over 4,000,000 people a year visit Yellowstone national park in Wyoming... a state with less than 600,000 people. The park isn’t next to any major cities drawing tourists. It’s in the middle of nowhere. People go because it’s properly marketed and it’s accessible for everyone. You can stay in an expensive lodge or you you can camp in a cheap tent. How many people saw that price is right thing and thought that would be cool to go to Churchill... . only to find out it’s five grand a person and only for three days. You could take a family of four to Mexico for a week for the price of one person going to Churchill.

[drew]

^ Yellowstone is way more accessible than any of these northern communities, and it could be argued that no where in the lower 48 states is really that "isolated". Certainly not in comparison to Churchill. I have been to Yellowstone twice in the last 10 years, and we just went this past summer. It also has three ways in and out.

Churchill as it stands now is reasonably accessible. The best way to do it is to drive (on paved roads) to Thompson, and then catch the train from there.

Alaska is a right of passage type road trip that is mostly traveled by wealthy retirees from the southern US states (I have recently been to Whitehorse in the summer to see it firsthand). You take your RV on a massive road trip to visit a far flung state. These types of RVs are not going to be driving on hundreds of kilometres of gravel roads up to Churchill.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Hecate

300000 people a year travel the Alaska highway, it would be similar to the Churchill road in construction. Alaska’s main source of tourism is the cruises. If Alaska can do it so can we. It would become a bucket list type destination. Over 4,000,000 people a year visit Yellowstone national park in Wyoming... a state with less than 600,000 people. The park isn’t next to any major cities drawing tourists. It’s in the middle of nowhere. People go because it’s properly marketed and it’s accessible for everyone. You can stay in an expensive lodge or you you can camp in a cheap tent. How many people saw that price is right thing and thought that would be cool to go to Churchill... . only to find out it’s five grand a person and only for three days. You could take a family of four to Mexico for a week for the price of one person going to Churchill.

The average low in January in Juneau Alaska is -4C. Average low in Churchill is -31C.

Juneau port is accessible 365 days a year. Churchill port is accessible 3-4 months of the year.

So no, Churchill is no where similar to Alaska.

Yellowstone is remote? There are probably over 100 million people within the same driving time of that park that it would take to drive from Winnipeg to Churchill.

[bomberjet]

Providing road access won't be a eureka moment. What it will do is start the process. Cost of services would go down as stuff can be trucked in vs being shipped by rail or air or sea. It would spur competition. And hell yes I'd drive there!

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Hecate

300000 people a year travel the Alaska highway, it would be similar to the Churchill road in construction. Alaska’s main source of tourism is the cruises. If Alaska can do it so can we. It would become a bucket list type destination. Over 4,000,000 people a year visit Yellowstone national park in Wyoming... a state with less than 600,000 people. The park isn’t next to any major cities drawing tourists. It’s in the middle of nowhere. People go because it’s properly marketed and it’s accessible for everyone. You can stay in an expensive lodge or you you can camp in a cheap tent. How many people saw that price is right thing and thought that would be cool to go to Churchill... . only to find out it’s five grand a person and only for three days. You could take a family of four to Mexico for a week for the price of one person going to Churchill.

Churchill is roughly 1000km as the crow flies from Winnipeg. No other major city is nearby.

Major cities within 1000km of Old Faithful (arguably the main attraction of Yellowstone), as the crow flies:
Denver, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City.

Vancouver, Edmonton, Sacramento, Albuquerque, Oklahoma City are also just outside this 1000km.

Yellowstone is also near other parks, attractions, and amenities so people can make a road trip out of going to Yellowstone and the US Rockies. Churchill has Churchill, nothing except maybe York Factory to make a trip out of, so you have to be going there exclusively for Churchill and its attractions, not something to see on the way, as some people might treat Old Faithful, which would count towards the tourist count.

Churchill currently has no roads, and would probably require a gas station midway between Gillam and Churchill (270kms total), with nothing in between to justify doing a road building project in phases. Yellowstone is well linked.

Night and day in terms of comparison.

[1ajs]

churchill already gets cruise ships.......

and most people who go there only fly in for the day to see the bears

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Hecate

300000 people a year travel the Alaska highway, it would be similar to the Churchill road in construction. Alaska’s main source of tourism is the cruises. If Alaska can do it so can we. It would become a bucket list type destination. Over 4,000,000 people a year visit Yellowstone national park in Wyoming... a state with less than 600,000 people. The park isn’t next to any major cities drawing tourists. It’s in the middle of nowhere. People go because it’s properly marketed and it’s accessible for everyone. You can stay in an expensive lodge or you you can camp in a cheap tent. How many people saw that price is right thing and thought that would be cool to go to Churchill... . only to find out it’s five grand a person and only for three days. You could take a family of four to Mexico for a week for the price of one person going to Churchill.

Seriously, comparing Alaska to northern Manitoba?

[dennis]

I don’t even know why people bring up tourism as the most important use of a hypothetical road to Churchill. I am thinking of it as primarily a freight route. I would think a winter road would be appropriate. Currently there is none. (As far as I know.)

[bomberjet]

^ This Dennis. It would provide the communities with the most basic service.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

^ This Dennis. It would provide the communities with the most basic service.

For what it would cost for a road you could give each resident a $ million and tell them good luck somewhere else!