About my Hypothetical Autoroute System

The Autoroute system is designed to enhance trade and ensure uniformity within Canada’s road network.
Distinct from the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH), the Autoroute system encompasses both north-south routes and connections to the United States and one territory (Yukon, via Highway 2).
Regarding the Autoroute system, it is conceivable that the TCH could be restored to its original alignments prior to any future realignments. This approach would preserve numerous existing TCH alignments, albeit with renumbering to distinct highways. While this strategy may not be optimal for trade purposes, it could serve historical significance, akin to the designation of Route 66.
It is improbable that there will be more than one Autoroute within a single territory. This is primarily due to the limited road network, geographical constraints such as permafrost and peat bogs, and low population density.
The term “Autoroute” originates from the Quebec freeway system.
Certain Canadian Autoroutes are more likely to function as beltways rather than inner-city freeways. This includes routes such as A-1 in Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, and Montreal; A-2 in Edmonton and Lethbridge; and A-4 in Saskatoon and Regina.
Inner-city freeways may occasionally serve as spur routes or, in some instances, non-freeway business routes.
Inner-city Autoroutes include routes such as A-3 in Edmonton, A-1 in Toronto, A-3 in Ottawa, and A-2, Deerfoot Trail, in Calgary.

Autoroutes are typically designed to serve high-traffic routes connecting major urban centres. Consequently, they are often intended as intercity connection routes. This suggests that:

Autoroutes replacing Highways in Northern Ontario leading to the US border (such as 71, 61, and 75) are less likely to occur. Despite connecting to major US highways (such as interstates or US routes), these routes would either be too short in length or lack sufficient traffic volume.
While this scenario remains hypothetical, it presents a compelling concept for a Canada National Highway Plan. This plan could serve as a long-term vision for the next 100 years, guiding the development and management of Canada’s highway system.

Relationship with the Trans-Canada Highway

The Autoroute system may be mistaken for the Trans-Canada Highway. Both serve similar functions, but the Autoroute system is comparable to the Interstate system in the United States, while the Trans-Canada Highway is comparable to the US Route system in the United States (Route 66, for instance). The Trans-Canada Highway ranges from a two-lane rural highway to a four-lane divided highway and may have multiple private entrances and at-grade intersections remaining. This route will not replace the Trans-Canada Highway system but could be a partial successor, similar to how Interstates replaced the US Route system. The Autoroute system would most likely bypass cities, while the TCH acts like Route 66, traveling on city streets.

Unlike the TCH, the Autoroute system, however, has a national construction standard similar to the Interstate Highways in the United States: a minimum four-lane divided freeway with entrances only accessible by grade-separated interchanges. Despite the four-lane standard, in areas with landform constraints (such as the Rocky Mountains or Northern Ontario), it may remain a super two, super two with occasional passing lanes or a two-plus-one road, but still must comply with accesses only by grade separations. The Autoroute System has both North-South Routes marked with Even numbers, and East-West Routes marked with Odd Numbers. The system will also be composed of pre-existing freeways including most Quebec Autoroutes, some 400-Series Highways, and some Intercity connections (Highway 2 in AB; Designated as A-2). Plus, if mining industries recover in the Territories, some Territorial Autoroutes could possibly exist. Most North-South Autoroutes linking to the US Border are usually connected to a pre-existing or future Interstate Highway.

Not all of the Trans-Canada Highway or pre-existing freeways (such as the 400 series) will become part of the Autoroute system. City routes of the TCH, such as Highway 1 in Calgary (16th Avenue) and Highway 1 in Winnipeg (Portage Avenue, Broadway Avenue, Main Street, St. Mary’s Road, Fermor Avenue), will not become Autoroutes. Instead, they will be designated as business loops. Highway 1 in Vancouver Island and between Hope and Kamloops won't due to landform constraints and A-1 uses the Coquihalla Highway. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland may not become part of the Autoroute system because of the low traffic volume and limited intercity connections, even if a freeway system could exist. Despite Highway 11 (Fort Frances, Ontario to North Bay) and Highway 71 (Fort Frances to Kenora) in Ontario being part of the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH), they would less likely be designated as Autoroutes due to the sparse and low population along these routes.

The 400-Series Highways, could become Autoroutes, but would less likely to be renumbered. That's mainly due to it being an old system and drastic changes could create confusion for longtime travellers and commiters. And because there's so many 400 Series Highways, may not be worth the cost to rename and rearrange all of them. However, they would act as a subsystem of the Autoroute system. Plus, Highway 401 does hypothetically connect to A-1 outside of Montreal, therefore it would be a major spur route of A-1. Highway 417 is an exception of the 400-Series not being renumbered. It is a vital link of the Trans-Canada Highway, and it creates travel consistency across the country.

There may be some non-Autoroute highways that could eventually meet Autoroute standards but may not receive an Autoroute designation. This is similar to freeways in the United States, which are not always marked as an Interstate.