6 ms·
Hm, thank you. I checked a few sources when adding this one but will go back and double-check the specifics/qualifiers. Wikipedia, incidentally, seems to suppo
by pc 7y ago
Hm, thank you. I checked a few sources when adding this one but will go back and double-check the specifics/qualifiers.
Wikipedia, incidentally, seems to support the shorter timeline:
“The official start of construction took place on March 8, 1942, after hundreds of pieces of construction equipment were moved on priority trains by the Northern Alberta Railways to the northeastern part of British Columbia near Mile 0 at Dawson Creek. Construction accelerated through the spring as the winter weather faded away and crews were able to work from both the northern and southern ends; they were spurred on after reports of the Japanese invasion of Kiska Island and Attu Island in the Aleutians. During construction the road was nicknamed the "oil can highway" by the work crews due to the large number of discarded oil cans and fuel drums that marked the road's progress.[9] On September 24, 1942, crews from both directions met at Mile 588 at what became named Contact Creek,[10] at the British Columbia-Yukon border at the 60th parallel; the entire route was completed October 28, 1942, with the northern linkup at Mile 1202, Beaver Creek, and the highway was dedicated on November 20, 1942, at Soldier's Summit.”
- cldellow 7y agoThe road existed after 9 months, but it was unpaved and only open to military convoys, as it often needed repairs and was single track in places. This was fine for its purpose (a land route to get materiel to Alaska in case the Japanese attacked), but isn't what most people think of when they think of a highway. It's a huge achievement - something like 10,000 soldiers were involved in its construction. But I worry that when most people think highway they think of the interstate system - straight lines, gentle grades, paved, multiple lanes. This is more akin to the army setting up camp and building accomodations for thousands - we wouldn't say they built 1000 houses, they put up tents. Still an impressive logistical feat, but... different.
- pc 7y agoYes, that the name may be misleading is a fair point. Even though it was (I think) called the Alaska Highway from the beginning, I changed the text to say "military roadway" -- hopefully this helps to clarify. Thanks for pointing this out!
- goodcanadian 7y agoYou make a fair point. However, what was built would have been considered a highway at the time, so while the distinction is worth keeping in mind, it is more an evolution in the meaning of the word highway.
- vinay_ys 7y ago"...cost $793 per meter in 2019 dollars.". IMO, extrapolations like this are not very useful unless it also means it can actually be executed at that cost in 2019. Is that really the case here?
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoIt's not meant to be an extrapolation; it's meant to be a comparison. The point is they did it more cheaply than is conceivable today.
- paggle 7y agoNo, it's specifically meant to illustrate that the inflation in infrastructure costs has been wildly faster than the inflation in the rest of the economy. The US can't build infrastructure for any kind of reasonable cost anymore and it is a big fucking problem.
- jacobush 7y agoIt IS a big problem, but shifting stuff around in a dense city is different from piling some dirt into a shape on the tundra.
- clarry 7y agoAnd yet the infrastructure cost of rural areas is regularly cited as a problem, and moving people into big dense cities is proposed as the solution.