I think Vancouver still becomes a major city, but the question becomes what is the easiest route to the coast for a railway north of the 48th parallel? I once read that the Okanagan was a major route to the coast back when the British controlled modern-day Washington and Oregon, but that shifted to the Fraser Canyon when the border shifted to the 49th parallel. If the transcontinental railroad could have gone to the 48th parallel, maybe it bypasses the Fraser Canyon and goes through the Okanagan (Kamloops doesn't become as prominent) and goes west further south. I don't know about the harbours, but maybe it terminates at Burlington/Mount Vernon.

Taking it a step further, Crowsnest Pass is lower and more gentle pass than Kicking Horse Pass or Rogers Pass. Maybe the Transcontinental Railroad would have not angled NW at Medicine Hat, but rather continued due west through Lethbridge, Crowsnest Pass, and possibly a better corridor through northern Washington. As a result, Lethbridge probably would be the preeminent city in Alberta, instead of Calgary, and the settlement patterns of interior BC would be quite different.

Yes, IMO that is much what would have happened. There would still be a major Western Canadian terminus, depending on the access canyon or valley most available,, but not as it is now.
I think that, as it would not have been wedged up against the North Shore mountains, there might still have been railway / industrial areas and towns wehere Vancouver is now.
The sunnier parts of SW Canada, extending to now-NW Washington State, would have been more coveted for their sunnier, milder conditions, areas near the mountains less regarded.
I'm sure Vancouver would still have turned out to be similar to the city we have today, only displaced southward and more sprawling, with farming towns around it.

Hearst Ontario has a university.

http://www.uhearst.ca/

I mean it kinda sucks that the one really large coastal valley basin on the northern west coast has the border cut right through it for us. Lost a sizeable chunk of developable land.

It sort of would be the equivalent if the Mexican/US border cut through the Los Angeles basin.

Having the extra land to the south would allowed Vancouver CMA to ultimately be larger. Probably a metro with few extra million people in the long long run.

George Vancouver explored Puget Sound (including Whidbey Island) in 1792, and claimed it for Great Britain on 4 June the same year, and naming it for one of his officers, Lieutenant Peter Puget.
Check the links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whidbey_Island

https://web.archive.org/web/20170818...ry-Images.html

https://www.historylink.org/File/5060







:yeahthat

Northern border regions of The United States are kind of backyard of USA and these regions would have been the front garden of Canada and would have developed more (Density, Investments etc..)
(Sorry for my English I'm not native English speaker)






:cheers:

It would have made a lot more sense if the international border had been set at Duluth Minnesota (the westernmost point of the Great Lakes System). Canada would have had more equal access to the Great Lakes transport when that mattered, plus easier pipeline potential over the past x-years, and we would also have control of what is currently the entire Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia Combined Statistical Area along with all of Puget Sound and the Olympic peninsula.

The British should have only ceded Oregon to the Americans, with the Columbia River forming the border between the two countries up to the 47th Parallel (Duluth is like 46,8). It would have been a much more fair deal, especially considering the accessions the Americans got later from the Mexican Federation. If we had all of Washington and most of Idaho, I wonder how different Canadian identity would be. There would be far greater equality between west and east, possibly even nearly equal populations. A far larger zone with a far better climate than anything out east would have really ruffled some things up historically.

In all, I think it would have helped make Canada much more globally competitive since confederation (economically, politically, infrastructurally, etc). It could have also possibly spawned a much complex federal system due to increased habitability and arability margins, 8 provinces instead of the 4 current western ones (K'ómoks (or Quadra maybe?) - Vancouver Island - Capital: Victoria, Cascadia - Washington/Idaho - Capital: Seattle, Pacifica - Mainland British Columbia - Capital: New Westminster, Alberta - Southern Alberta, Capital: Calgary, Athabasca - Northern Alberta, Capital: Edmonton, Assiniboia - Southern Saskatchewan - Capital: Regina, Saskatchewan - Northern Saskatchewan - Capital: Saskatoon, and Manitoba the same)

I fail to see what it would change in terms of access to Great Lakes transport. (Thunder Bay says "I'm actually not as landlocked as Chad seems to think".)

Easier to get the rail and road network to Duluth than T-Bay.

:previous: Dingdingding! And as usual, Lio paints himself a contrarian idiot :haha:

Closer to the west by nearly 300 kilometers (10% closer to Pacific ports), and far more favourable terrain for infrastructure development. The time, labour, and construction costs savings are all obvious no-brainers. Well, for most people they are.


Also, keep bringing up the whole five year old "landlocked" argument, Lio. I love shutting your bitchass down every single time :)

Marginal difference though, because once it's built, it's there. Gazillions of tons of Prairie grain from your home neck of the woods managed to make their way by rail to the Great Lakes and then on to Western Europe despite Canada not having Duluth.

It would have been nice for Canada to have more land (especially since as MonctonRad pointed out, the U.S. would barely have noticed, while for us that new strip of land would be among our choicest), but it doesn't change anything in terms of access to water for transportation purposes.

I think interest in this topic is over.:):cheers:

Let me change the question

What would happen if highlighted disputed area of Oregon Country / Columbia District was given to Canada ?
How it would affect Seattle and Vancouver (BC)?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...goncountry.png

[QUOTE=YUNEMUS;9020166]Let me change the question

What would happen if highlighted disputed area of Oregon Country / Columbia District was given to Canada ?
How it would affect Seattle and Vancouver (BC)?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...goncountry.png[/QUOTE

Vancouver and Pugent Sound would still be the premier ports of the region. The Columbia bar is a major impediment for shipping. The ports to the north are very sheltered, easy to enter and exit and are closer to Asia (That is why Prince Rupert is a major container port).

For me a more interesting question is what would have happened to Canada if the full American claim to 54.40 was given to the United States?

Canada would then only have a tiny little single sliver of access to the Pacific Ocean, and would have the remaining northern portion simply have become part of the Yukon? (And maybe that expanded Yukon Territory would have become a province instead?)

This is not the question I asked..You can keep your idea to yourself..:koko:

Well it’s the question I’m asking in the spirit of this thread, so you can keep that to yourself :shrug:

These threads usually evolve and expand into broader and more varied subjects.

Just look at my least / most Canadian thread. The listing of top 3 cities for each category was largely forgotten by the second or third page and eventually started talking about American cities...

So don’t take offense.

And dealing with foreign languages and writing systems when travelling! ;)

I would have gone bold and ALL CAPS.

But seriously, your posts do not get to dictate what others want to say. So, calm down. You get to post what you want, and others get to post what they want.