I was looking at a map of Ontario and I noticed there are no major cities on the Canadian side of Lake Erie. I think the biggest town on the coast is Leamington with a population of around thirty thousand.
It seems like the coast of one of the Great Lakes would have been a natural area for cities to develop. But there’s no Canadian equivalent of Buffalo or Cleveland or Detroit. Or even Erie or Sandusky or Toledo.
I’m an Ohioan. There’s not much development on Lake Erie. I am not sure why, but I am thankful for it.
Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo?
But looking at a map of Canada - I’m wondering how many large cities they have? In the eastern half, there seem to be just a few large cities, all pretty much along the southern border. So the northern shore of Erie doesn’t really seem like much of an exception.
Technically Detroit too (if only a tiny bit of it…but it’s so close I think it counts).
Looking at map, this area is quite enclosed; by both Erie and two USA borders. Also unlike with Windsor and St. Catherines, these borders are too far to be economically useful (from cross border trade).
This area is also not on a route between anywhere. London and Hamilton lay between Toronto and the two US borders, and if we look on Lake Ontario, Kingston and Ottawa* are both on the route between Toronto and Montreal (Canada’s two biggest cities).
Not much industry to attract people to these places. However if you are rich and looking for a quiet spot on a big lake, I could see the attraction.
*Of course Ottawa is not on lake Ontario, but the Ottawa river, and it also benefits from simply being the country’s capital. The point of it being important because it lays between Toronto and Montreal still stands though.
Also the major cities in Ontario are mostly along or near… Lake Ontario. And when you look at it, moving upstream along the northern shore of Lake Erie on the Canada side leads you to… Michigan. It is not along the path for continued westward movement over land within Canada.
Drat, Ninja’d by Odesio!
Yeah, they all gravitate from Toronto (basically) people call it “the golden horseshoe”. Meh.
(And why did I get your name wrong? Y’all are melting into each other, I need rest…)
Man, from Toronto to Winnipeg through Canada is nearly 2000 miles (or 3200 km) with only 2 largish towns - Sudbury 160k and Thunder Bay 110k. That’s a pretty long stretch of road w/o many people!
I’ve driven that stretch (Toronto to Winnipeg). Yes, Sudbury and Thunder Bay are sizeable, and Sault Ste. Marie comes close (population 72,000), but there are any number of small towns along the way, so you’re never too far from a gas station, motels, restaurants, etc. The longest unpopulated stretch is the 220 km between Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie, which is because the road goes through Lake Superior Provincial Park.
As I recollect, the area north of Erie is the Bruce peninsula, mainly farmland. But it’s so far south that there’s no place to go, except the US, and what good Brit or Canadian would want to do that?
The lines of communication from the Bruce ran north-east, to Hamilton and Toronto, staying in British and later Canadian territory, but on land, which at that time was not as efficient and cheap as water transport. There was no easy water access from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie (you may recall there’s a bit of an obstacle between the two). Since water traffic on Lake Erie couldn’t connect to Lake Ontario, that hampered development on the north shore.
When it came time to build the railway to the Pacific, it wouldn’t go near the Bruce peninsula, because the goal was to have a railway entirely in Canadian territory. That meant going north-west, over Lake Huron and Lake Superior, at tremendous financial cost. The Bruce peninsula was a dead-end, for the purposes of an all-Canadian route, so no magic railway money to spur urban development.
The Grand Trunk, the first Canadian railway, would likely have been interested in trying to connect the Bruce Peninsula to US railways, because it had never been interested in all-Canadian routes, but the federal government turned off the financial taps to the Grand Trunk (it had originally been the earliest, prime example of “corporate welfare bums”, depending on government largesse to survive). The federal government was only interested in the all-Canadian route, as a nation-building exercise, not subsidising a railway that connected to the US lines.
It’s no surprise that Sir Alan Macnab, one of the joint Premiers of the Province of Canada, famously said: “All my politics are railways.” That was what drove the development of Central Canada in the mid-19th century, and Canada at large in the 1880s.
ETA: just by way of historical detail, one of Sir Alan’s descendants is now the Queen of the United Kingdom and Canada.
I’ve driven it, solo. You have plenty of time to think.
Google Maps tells me that driving the Trans-Canada Highway is 2075 km, which would be just under 1300 miles.
Still a long way.
I think you got some digits reversed – Toronto to Winnipeg is about 2300 km, not 3200, or about 1430 miles. The scenic Canadian route over the Great Lakes or the urban American route south of them are about the same distance; Google maps gives the American route as about 2211 km.
This article is a nice little mini-travel guide about both routes. The Canadian route goes through, or near, some of the most beautiful scenery on earth. There are numerous gorgeous provincial parks on or near the route, including Killarney with its clear lakes and spectacular white quartzite mountains.
I should have mentioned that there was eventually the Welland Canal, bypassing Niagara, which helped communications, but still didn’t deal with the main problem, that the Bruce was a dead-end, in terms of national development. The Welland is still running, as part of the St Lawrence Seaway.
Ah - you all are correct. I saw the 2000 on Google maps, and my American brain just assumed miles. I remember driving through Canada from Niagara to Detroit - basically what I recall is a HELLA lot of trees!
I agree with Dinsdale that Lake Erie “doesn’t reallyh seem like much of an exception” to the general rule. However, I’m wondering if - thanks to us of course - Lake Erie’s mid twentieth century reputation as a spoiled and polluted body of water had anything to do with discouraging Canadians.
Google:
Of all of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie had become predominantly polluted by the 1960s, largely due to the heavy industrial presence along its shores. With 11.6 million people living in its basin, and with big cities and sprawling farmland dominating its watershed, Lake Erie is severely impacted by human activities.
Ahem. Allow me to suggest the real issue here is “why is the US side so grossly over-populated?”
As for the stretch between Winnipeg and Toronto, it was summed up by my partner on one of our cross-country drives thusly a few times each day: “Oh, great. Another fricking stunning vista. Will this never end?”
Nobody in Detroit thinks that they are on Lake Erie. The Detroit River, which is actually a straight connecting Lake Huron and Lake Erie is what defines the Detroit waterway. Detroit metro doesn’t even extend down to Lake Erie, which I believe starts at Luna Pier where we built our nuclear power plant (which shows how much we care about Lake Erie!). Michigan gave up thinking that they were actually part of Lake Erie after they lost the war over the port of Toledo to Ohio and got the UP in return. Although we do show it on our maps of Great Lakes that we touch.
Because Americans left a Ring around the Lake.