Port of Churchill Manitoba

[drew]

^ yeah it wont be a pack the cooler and hop in the car road trip.

But, there will certainly be a sizable uptick in visitors to the area with road access.

I'd drive it - but I would need to purchase or rent a proper vehicle to do so. You wouldn't want to do that trip without 4x4 and proper tires, a few extra spares and a very trustworthy machine.

[EndIt]

https://issuu.com/travelmanitoba/docs/2024_churchill_econ_impact_-_industry_presentation

Check out page 11. The overwhelming number of tourists to Churchill are from outside of Canada, so most of these people wouldn't drive up even if they had the option, and I don't know any Winnipeggers who would burn vacations days driving to Churchill.

Based on the same doc, most of the visitors are eco-tourists coming to see the polar bears and northern lights. Just a guess, but I assume many of these tourists are probably tree-hugger types who would make a point of not driving and avoid burning fossil fuels.

[bomberjet]

Im surprised by how many people here discount building a road because its isolated, far north, etc. "Nobody goes there" because its hard to get to. Ill stop preaching. We'll see what the feds have cooked up soon enough.

[bomberjet]

One more point to my sermon. If the feds are going to be spending $500 billion on such projects, Manitoba needs to think of the biggest most grand things they possibly can. Expanding the north has to be one of those, with the ports on Hudson Bay being to of the list.

[drew]

Originally Posted by EndIt

https://issuu.com/travelmanitoba/docs/2024_churchill_econ_impact_-_industry_presentation

Check out page 11. The overwhelming number of tourists to Churchill are from outside of Canada, so most of these people wouldn't drive up even if they had the option, and I don't know any Winnipeggers who would burn vacations days driving to Churchill.

Based on the same doc, most of the visitors are eco-tourists coming to see the polar bears and northern lights. Just a guess, but I assume many of these tourists are probably tree-hugger types who would make a point of not driving and avoid burning fossil fuels.

eh - that kind of argument flies out the window once an all weather road is accessible.

Churchill is currently a very expensive place to visit - which is why it is limited to well heeled tourists and eco-tours. I'd love to visit, but it's not a practical use of limited travel time and money currently. A road would definitely change that - and reduce travel costs but a massive percentage.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by drew

eh - that kind of argument flies out the window once an all weather road is accessible.

Churchill is currently a very expensive place to visit - which is why it is limited to well heeled tourists and eco-tours. I'd love to visit, but it's not a practical use of limited travel time and money currently. A road would definitely change that - and reduce travel costs but a massive percentage.

Exactly, it's expensive to visit. Another challenge with Churchill is it's isolated and costs as much as a flight to Europe to get there, or a few hundred bucks via train at the expense of a couple full days of travel.

For Europe, I drop $800-1200 on a flight and I have more places to visit than annual vacation days - all accessible by cheap trains or busses.

Churchill, you can probably see everything and do the big tours that everyone does in 3-4 days at a leisurely pace. Then what? There aren't a ton of places to branch off and build a trip. You're stuck on Via Rail's train schedule back to Thompson or flying all the way back to Winnipeg.

Furthermore, outside of tours, there isn't a whole lot to do there. It's a town of 900 people. Go to St Adolphe or St Francis Xavier and see how much fun you can have just with their selection restaurants and bars. There isn't a ton to keep people there longer than their wildlife/nature sightseeing tours.

It would be much more palatable to have the flexibility with driving, and you can road trip to other northern locations that are only car-accessible.

For the sake of a commercial shipping port, rail upgrades should absolutely be priority #1. Bigger bang for your buck, it allow more capacity and higher speeds. Faster and more reliable shipping means more companies will select that as a shipping option, further utilizing the port. An all-weather road will bring tourism dollars but those aren't as big of numbers as commercial shipping.

[EndIt]

Originally Posted by drew

eh - that kind of argument flies out the window once an all weather road is accessible.

Churchill is currently a very expensive place to visit - which is why it is limited to well heeled tourists and eco-tours. I'd love to visit, but it's not a practical use of limited travel time and money currently. A road would definitely change that - and reduce travel costs but a massive percentage.

You're right that a road would make it more accessible, I just don't think there's that much latent tourist demand to be realized by road access. Who's gonna go to Churchill if Banff is roughly the same distance away on better roads and with more convenient rest stops? And to be frank, what other stops on the drive up north would appeal to the average tourist? Churchill and environs are always gonna be a niche destination.

There are other justifications for a road, but I really don't think tourism is one to focus on.

[drew]

Originally Posted by EndIt

Who's gonna go to Churchill if Banff is roughly the same distance away on better roads and with more convenient rest stops? It's always gonna be a niche location.
.

People who want to see Polar Bears, beluga whales and seals.

[BorealLynx]

Originally Posted by Mr Tall Forehead

Fair point. The road doesn’t need to be four lane though. Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay don’t even have twinned highways to major population centres.

Agreed. Let's not get carried away, because it'll be amazingly easy to rack up quite the tab for this project. Put 4-lane highways where they are needed, for example the Trans Canada Highway. Even if trucks are plying the highway to Churchill, there's no way there would be enough combined traffic (commercial + personal) to warrant 4 lanes.

We need to be realistic. Let's be clear WHY and WHERE 4-lane highways are appropriate.

Thankfully most of our ministries of transportation are grounded enough to apply sound engineering principles to highway design for appropriate traffic levels.

[BorealLynx]

Originally Posted by Hockey

^^^^This.

I agree that traffic volume won’t require 4 lanes. No arguement. However, it’s not about volume. It’s about safety, climate resilience, moving military in a crisis. Nation building is like a trans Canada highway north-south.

That’s what I think this is about, not building a better mouse trap for what is there already……? However if it’s fixing a railroad, why is this a boon to MB, really.

Let's build a Trans Canada Highway east-west first, then we can build one north-south. And I mean a REAL one, not the path we currently have crossing the mountains in BC and meandering around NW Ontario and Lake Superior.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by Hockey

^^^^This.

I agree that traffic volume won’t require 4 lanes. No arguement. However, it’s not about volume. It’s about safety, climate resilience, moving military in a crisis. Nation building is like a trans Canada highway north-south.

That’s what I think this is about, not building a better mouse trap for what is there already……? However if it’s fixing a railroad, why is this a boon to MB, really.

If we are going to go that route with 4-lane highways, then that idea should also apply to Highway 6 between Winnipeg and Thompson, Highway 16 from just west of Portage all the way to the Saskatchewan border and continuing towards Saskatoon, etc.

Believe me when I say travelling up and down Highway 6 or more recently, the more treacherous route from the MB-ON border to Thunder Bay, I'd love to see it 4-lane and divided. We also have to be realistic on what we have with traffic, and what resources we have in both funding and logistics, the latter referring to our military, which is a whole other topic to discuss.

Now I would argue that if Thompson and the immediate surrounding nearby recreational areas and parks like Paint Lake, have much more recreational activities and destinations (cabins, beaches, fishing spots, hiking areas, etc.) than they have already, then perhaps it would warrant the idea of twinning Highway 6 in the same way as twinning Highway 59 and Highway 44 from decades ago for the purpose of "easier" access to Whiteshell, Nopiming, and the Winnipeg River valley/watershed area.

But we are obviously not at that point, because there isn't a demand for it right now, unless they find something else that is much more valuable and coveted than nickel in the Thompson area.

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

Let's build a Trans Canada Highway east-west first, then we can build one north-south. And I mean a REAL one, not the path we currently have crossing the mountains in BC and meandering around NW Ontario and Lake Superior.

REAL Trans Canada that doesn't meander around NW Ontario and Lake Superior? you want a trillion dollar bridge crossing the lake as an Alternative? Not too many options mate....

[BorealLynx]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

REAL Trans Canada that doesn't meander around NW Ontario and Lake Superior? you want a trillion dollar bridge crossing the lake as an Alternative? Not too many options mate....

That was a figure of speech, not a recommendation to build a causeway across Lake Superior. A metaphor to indicate that the TCH is a horse-and-buggy path between Winnipeg (technically Falcon Lake) and Sudbury (technically Denlou). It's not safe, it's not a good option for commercial traffic, and it's not very worthy of being our National Highway. Most significantly, it forces most people driving from Eastern Canada to Western Canada and vice versa to drive through the USA, on their better limited-access interstates. National security, anyone?

There are improvements in the works, like the painfully slow twinning of the TCH from the MB-ON border to Kenora, and project from Thunder Bay up towards Nipigon, but those are almost cosmetic compared to the endless stretches around North Superior, the long stretch from Kenora to TB, and most of the drive from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury. How about a bypass around SSM rather than all traffic being forced to drive through shopping malls?

The highway does do a lot of meandering and winding because of the terrain and geography, but that's not the issue. Give me a winding 4-lane highway worthy of the status of a national highway and I'll enjoy the scenic twists and turns.

Sometimes pain is the best teacher. I almost wish that Trump would hard cut off all point-to-point inter-Canadian transit through the US, which is something he is nutty enough to try. Imagine if ALL inter-Canadian travel was forced to drive our current TCH to move our goods from east to west and vice versa; that might convince the naysayers to invest in finishing up this highway and making it driveable. Maybe it has to come to that...

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

That was a figure of speech, not a recommendation to build a causeway across Lake Superior. A metaphor to indicate that the TCH is a horse-and-buggy path between Winnipeg (technically Falcon Lake) and Sudbury (technically Denlou). It's not safe, it's not a good option for commercial traffic, and it's not very worthy of being our National Highway. Most significantly, it forces most people driving from Eastern Canada to Western Canada and vice versa to drive through the USA, on their better limited-access interstates. National security, anyone?

There are improvements in the works, like the painfully slow twinning of the TCH from the MB-ON border to Kenora, and project from Thunder Bay up towards Nipigon, but those are almost cosmetic compared to the endless stretches around North Superior, the long stretch from Kenora to TB, and most of the drive from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury. How about a bypass around SSM rather than all traffic being forced to drive through shopping malls?

The highway does do a lot of meandering and winding because of the terrain and geography, but that's not the issue. Give me a winding 4-lane highway worthy of the status of a national highway and I'll enjoy the scenic twists and turns.

Sometimes pain is the best teacher. I almost wish that Trump would hard cut off all point-to-point inter-Canadian transit through the US, which is something he is nutty enough to try. Imagine if ALL inter-Canadian travel was forced to drive our current TCH to move our goods from east to west and vice versa; that might convince the naysayers to invest in finishing up this highway and making it driveable. Maybe it has to come to that...

The type of highway you envision is doable - it will simply cost many billions of dollars and take a few decades. I've been travelling the Trans Canada through the Rockies on a fairly regular basis for the past 25 years. There has been tremendous improvement along that route, but it's been slow going and very expensive. While the geography in northwestern Ontario may not have the same elevation changes as the Rockies, the work is still largely similar. Not saying that it shouldn't be done - I actually agree that it should be - but it will be a massive undertaking.

[blueandgoldguy]

Edmonton to Fort Mac is mostly a single lane each way and some people are proposing a 4-lane highway from Winnipeg to Churchill?! The best we could hope for is more passing lanes along the route to a little past Gillam and then a nice wide 2 lane gravel road to Churchill (similar to the one that was constructed a few years ago to Tuktoyuktuq) with some sort of government-funded rest stop/convenience store/gas station along the way.

[Dalreg]

Actually a huge chunk of Highway 63 is twinned from Fort McMurray southward with plans to twin it completely to Edmonton.

A dual lane to Churchill from Thompson or Winnipeg is insane. A nice paved road with rest stops in a couple of locations will do just nicely.

[Wpg_Guy]

Great potential in Churchill port project — but…
By: Editorial
Posted: Monday, Sep. 8, 2025

Opinion

It’s a big job, but one which has to be done.

Prime Minister Mark Carney, seeking to bolster Canadian economic power at a time when its closest ally and trading partner is becoming increasingly hostile, wants to get started on some nation-building projects. Among them, he has indicated, is one to make some serious upgrades to Churchill’s port, funding for which is expected to be announced soon.

There’s plenty of merit to the idea — but doing it right will involve a great deal of work to more than just the port itself.


THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young
Prime Minister Mark Carney

New port infrastructure will provide Canada with superior export capabilities to what it can presently manage, enabling us to improve our trading relationships with Europe. (Premier Wab Kinew has also suggested it could open up new opportunities with South America.) At present, Churchil’s port is mostly used to export grain.

Carney has said the upgrade will result in what is “effectively” a whole new port, one which will be able to ship liquefied natural gas to international customers. It will also provide new pathways for shipping critical minerals — something which has already slowly begun at the port with shipments of zinc concentrate.

However, getting ships in and out of Churchill is one thing — getting the materials to Churchill, and having people there to do the work of loading it and managing other port activities, is another. And this is where the project must become quite ambitious.

First and foremost, there are the environmental concerns — a port in the north, and shipping routes that transit northern waters, need full and thorough analysis and review to protect not only fragile ecosystems, but the way of life of the region’s inhabitants.

And then, there are other critical practicalities.

There is no highway leading into Churchill, so all goods must come to the community by train — at least, goods in any significant quantity. Discussions over the feasibility of building such a road go back years, including in 2017 when a flood severed the community’s only land link, washing out the track near Gillam.

A roadway should be considered among the elements of a nation-building project in Churchill, not only because it will add to Canada’s options in getting goods in and out, but also because it will provide another point of connection for the relatively isolated Northern community. Further, it will also provide another means of getting people into Churchill — which is something the town will sorely need if the port ends up becoming a lot bigger and doing more business.

Churchill (pop. 870 per the 2021 census) is a small town — influxes of polar-bear-seeking tourists aside — and one where housing comes dear.

“We have a bit of a housing crisis here in Churchill,” former Churchill Chamber of Commerce president Dave Daley told the Free Press on Aug. 26, adding that many of the town’s Manitoba Housing units “have been degraded.”

That will also be a problem for Ottawa to consider. If it intends to create a bigger port in Churchill, it will need more people to work it, and those people will need someplace to live. Given that life in the North can be costly, it makes more sense for Ottawa to fold new, affordable housing into its plans for the community.

All things considered, it’s a monumental job. Opening new pathways — both from Canada to the rest of the world, and from Churchill to the rest of Canada — as well as major investments in housing and trade infrastructure, one with great benefits for Churchill itself and the rest of the country.

It could end up being exactly the kind of nation-building project Carney has in mind.

But only if it’s properly done.

Winnipeg Free Press

[pspeid]

^ Fairly obvious observations, but a good opinion piece. One thing I think it missed in favour of a massive upgrade to the Port and access is that a port and a rail line already exist, unlike Doug Ford's aspirational arctic port on James Bay. If some kind of arctic port is a government priority, Churchill is already half way (or more) there. A highway connection, improved rail access, housing and port facilities are all a huge undertaking, but it wouldn't be all from scratch.

[Cobb Nixon]

they would need a gas pipeline to churchill and then a liquefication facility so a road could be part of the pipeline project and then to power it why not build conawapa then build power lines to churchill and the nwt. getting approvals from all the stakeholders may be difficult.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Cobb Nixon

they would need a gas pipeline to churchill and then a liquefication facility so a road could be part of the pipeline project and then to power it why not build conawapa then build power lines to churchill and the nwt. getting approvals from all the stakeholders may be difficult.

Lets start with something simple.

Port of Prince Rupert currently has butane and propane export facilities. That goes to Asia and Latin America and the product is delivered to the port by rail car.

Lets to the same with Churchill. The port should be able to supply fuel into the arctic region as well as export.