Someone mentioned why it was a "super two" and how it qualified for Autoroute status. I'm not sure on the specifics, but Canada on the whole has a very low population density compared to the United States. Much of Canada is the equivalent of driving through Nebraska or South Dakota. There just isn't the traffic to justify a complete four-lane upgrade - although the passing lanes and such will help.
ON 417/A-40 to the south is equally as nice but also barren. It goes through very few population centers for much of its length.
I do not agree with that.
Let's compare apples with apples. I-86 (NY) and A-50 have pretty much the same traffic ratings schemes (5,000 vpd lowest, 10-12,000 vpd rural, 50-75,000 vpd urban) in a somewhat hilly area. In both areas the highway are going through, there is an industrial and lumber history, the economy today is more about services or high-technology and agriculture. 86 is minimum 4-lane divided, 50 is mostly 2, 3 lanes, with small marginal 4-lane divided sections.
Density of counties crossed per superior network controlled-access highway |
A-50 | Data source : Institut de la Statistique du Québec |
County | Density (people/km²) | Land (km²) |
Agglomeration of Gatineau | 758.6 | 345.1 |
Papineau | 7.5 | 2926.9 |
Argenteuil | 24.5 | 1236.3 |
Mirabel | 84.8 | 483.1 |
Average | 71.1 | |
|
I-86 | Data source : Wikipedia |
County | Density (people/km²) | Land (km²) |
Chautauqua | 49 | 2751 |
Cattaraugus | 23.8 | 3362 |
Allegany | 18 | 2268 |
Steuben | 27.4 | 3608 |
Chemung | 84 | 1057 |
Tioga | 38 | 1344 |
Broome | 109.5 | 1831 |
Average | 42.8 | |
In my humble opinion, the reason for building Super-2s are beyond the simple fact that the density is low.
Here are my hypotheses :
- Canada does not have federal funding for most highways. Highways such as KH-417 and A-20 may bear the Trans-Canada shield, but they were built notwithstanding mid-sized settlements that could have been served by a highway that lately went through nowhere. Examples? Thurso, Hawkesbury, Lachute were too far from 417 to benefit from its construction. Joliette, Trois-Rivières, Donnacona, even Québec city where omitted when building the A-20 —yet a (provincial) bridge linked the north shore of Saint-Laurent river near Québec city to A-20 5 years following the A-20 construction—, even though they were living industrial cities with growing transportation needs. That also brings inconsistency, when the provincial needs and will betray the federal decisions. In eastern Canada, several instances of the TCH were built outside the city, serving through traffic but totally non-adaptive toward the local needs, often paralleling an existing road. For example, NB-2 does not dip into a city for almost all its length, except for licking the outskirts of 2 of the 3 biggest cities in the province.
- The interurban transportation demand is punctual (summer peaks) or lesser in the Ottawa/Montréal corridor, rather than Erie Lake/Hudson Valley route;
- The relationship between government authorities and roads are not quite the same in both countries, since the funding do not follow the same path. The 70's freeway moratorium in Québec allowed the province to go through horrible economical crisis without slashing in popular benefits (I won't enter in political details), and keeping the public opinion favourable toward freeway buildings (the moratorium had been declared when popular demand for stopping of the A-720 eastern extension were intense because of harsh expropriation). The Super-2 is a choice of building smaller, cheaper highways, not a response to a reduced need.
But those are hypotheses.
Great pictures,
AsphaltPlanet. They really show the vacuity of the place. I saw most of the signs you pictured patched twice or three times with foreign signs for cinematographic sets, as the empty airport is made available for filming. Once, it seemed to me that Austrian signs were put up.