Quote:
Originally Posted by drew
They just need to twin 17 from MB to Kenora. Beyond that maybe a 3-lane system or increasing passing lanes are adequate for the amount of traffic IMO.
|
This is exactly the thinking that I'm railing against. Designing highways based on traffic volumes alone might make sense for generic infrastructure, but not for the one highway that connects Canada from East to West. If we can't classify the TCH as a national highway at the level of a "Nation-Building" initiative, then we will never have a national highway - it will forever remain a national path.
By this line of thinking, there will never be a highway to Churchill or even a dirt road for that matter, and it wouldn't even justify any upgrade to the rail line to Churchill. Traffic volume makes sense for determining interchanges along the TCH or the Perimeter Hwy, and for twinning Hwys 59 and 52 to Steinbach, but not for the only artery that connects Canada as a nation, from the perspectives of both personal travel and commercial transportation.
My point - you can't assess "nation-building" projects on the same merits as regular infrastructure; otherwise, they would have already been done. The whole point here is to make a difference where conventional justifications might fall short.
Threaded Mode