News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fast by cldellow on Friday December 20, 2019 @09:29PM (#21849201)
> The Alaska Highway. Starting in 1942, 1,700 miles of highway were built over the course of 234 days, connecting eastern British Columbia with Fairbanks, Alaska.

I grew up in Dawson Creek. Our claim to fame: "Mile Zero of the Alaska Highway starts here!"

The Alaska Highway as built in 1942 is nothing like a highway that most people would envision. It wasn't paved, for example. It was good enough for military vehicles with crews of soldiers who could make ad hoc repairs to the road as needed while they transited through, who had extensive survival skills, and could literally radio for assistance if needed.

It wasn't opened to the public until 1948 -- so perhaps 6 years, not 6 months, is a better estimate of its time.

It's also shrunk by almost 20% as it has been continually rebuilt to make it passable by passenger vehicles.

It's an accomplishment, no doubt, but I feel like omitting these significant caveats is meaningful.

Re:Fast by pc on Friday December 20, 2019 @11:45PM (#21849676)
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.”

Re:Fast by cldellow on Saturday December 21, 2019 @12:07AM (#21849740)
The 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.

Re:Fast by pc on Saturday December 21, 2019 @12:45AM (#21849846)
Yes, 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!
Re:Fast by goodcanadian on Saturday December 21, 2019 @08:35AM (#21851134)
You 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.
Re:Fast by vinay_ys on Saturday December 21, 2019 @12:31AM (#21849810)
"...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?

Re:Fast by OnlineGladiator on Saturday December 21, 2019 @03:14AM (#21850286)
It'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.
Re:Fast by paggle on Saturday December 21, 2019 @03:31AM (#21850336)
No, 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.
Re:Fast by jacobush on Saturday December 21, 2019 @06:06AM (#21850750)
It IS a big problem, but shifting stuff around in a dense city is different from piling some dirt into a shape on the tundra.
Re:Fast by Turing_Machine on Saturday December 21, 2019 @10:26AM (#21851578)
Most of the route is through extremely rugged mountainous terrain, not tundra, and developing a roadbed that can survive -70 F winters is a lot more involved than "piling dirt into a shape"

I traveled it before was paved, and it was, and is, a true engineering marvel.

Re:Fast by jacobush on Monday December 23, 2019 @08:23AM (#21863423)
Yes, I both unravelled my vast illiteracy on road engineering in general and understated a bit on purpose. My point was that there is not much existing infrastructure to take into account up there. Your point taken though.
Re:Fast by clarry on Saturday December 21, 2019 @06:19AM (#21850786)
And 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.
Re:Fast by jonfw on Saturday December 21, 2019 @08:35AM (#21851133)
One meter of road in the middle of san francisco would be used more than a meter of road in rural areas.

While the costs are higher- so are the benefits

Re:Fast by jmpman on Saturday December 21, 2019 @09:53AM (#21851410)
The benefits per dollar or per meter? How many passengers are traveling on a bus on Van Ness in a given rush hour?
Re:Fast by read_if_gay_ on Saturday December 21, 2019 @07:16AM (#21850921)
I think you could argue that infrastructure quality has grown at a pace that justifies the increased expense.
Re:Fast by OnlineGladiator on Saturday December 21, 2019 @12:17PM (#21852228)
Do you have examples? I feel like things have gotten 10x more expensive and they're built with half the quality. In San Francisco we have a leaning skyscraper, the Bay Bridge which some people are still unsure is safe despite being several years late and costing 5x as much as predicted, and the Transit Center which was however many months/years late and is continuously shut down for safety reasons.

I realize San Francisco is a microcosm, but in my experience the focus has been on extracting money via corruption and building the bare minimum you can without getting sued.

You could argue the money is going towards greater safety for workers, but I see no plausible argument that it's resulting in higher quality work.

Re:Fast by coldtea on Saturday December 21, 2019 @10:50AM (#21851707)
The opposite. Modern infrastructure is shit compared to decades ago...
Re:Fast by inimino on Saturday December 21, 2019 @12:50AM (#21849860)
The point is that it cannot be.
Re:Fast by Marazan on Saturday December 21, 2019 @07:07AM (#21850899)
According to the article it cost $4600 a day to build.

On a 8 hour work day on federal minimum wage that's only 52 workers being able to work on the entire project ignoring all machine and material costs.

Too right it couldn't be done today. Or there were a lot of costs accumulated by the project that were not assigned to the project.

Re:Fast by madsbuch on Saturday December 21, 2019 @07:55AM (#21851023)
I hope usd 4600 does not include labor costs of 10000 soldiers (salary, food, accommodation, etc.)
Re:Fast by edraferi on Saturday December 21, 2019 @10:02AM (#21851456)
Classic government accounting problem. People look free to managers, so more stuff gets brought in-house than it should.
Re:Fast by Marazan on Sunday December 22, 2019 @10:05AM (#21857458)
Oh balls, just realised I misread the comment about cost per meter as cost per mile so my calc is hilariously wrong!

Still the reported cost of the road at the tune excludes machinery and labour costs, it was purely material costs.

Re:Fast by mikestew on Saturday December 21, 2019 @01:39AM (#21849982)
“We chopped down enough trees and leveled enough ground that you drive supply trucks through...sort of.”

I rode it on a motorcycle in 2015. The days of a “I survived the AlCan” being a meaningful t-shirt are well behind us. It’s a little rough, mostly paved, but not what they built in 243 days.

Re:Fast by jacobolus on Friday December 20, 2019 @10:17PM (#21849371)
If you extend it to the whole Pan-American Highway, the timeline gets stretched to 3 or 4 decades from first proposals through execution, but the scope is pretty amazing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Highway
Re:Fast by lemoncucumber on Friday December 20, 2019 @10:43PM (#21849448)
I've always found it kind of surprising that the Darien Gap has never been closed. I can only assume that if Panama and Colombia were rich countries rather than poor countries that it would have happened. People solved the engineering challenges required to build the Channel Tunnel and the Øresund Bridge, after all.

(Note that I'm not saying that it should happen or that it would be a good thing necessarily.)

Re:Fast by BurningFrog on Friday December 20, 2019 @10:59PM (#21849508)
The Øresund Bridge was discussed for a century before being built, and was deeply controversial.
Re:Fast by kortilla on Saturday December 21, 2019 @03:22AM (#21850306)
It’s not just money, it’s a matter of government not having very good control over those northern areas of Columbia. Even if they built the road, it wouldn’t be safe to travel due to the density of smugglers and cartel activity in general.
Re:Fast by jacobolus on Saturday December 21, 2019 @01:03AM (#21849889)
Building (not to mention maintaining) a long road through a sparsely inhabited tropical marsh/swamp is pretty expensive and complicated, especially if you want to minimize environmental immpact.
Re:Fast by wh1t3n01s3 on Saturday December 21, 2019 @06:18AM (#21850784)
The reasons are mosly two: -deforestation -blocking illegal drugs
Re:Fast by joe_the_user on Friday December 20, 2019 @11:07PM (#21849549)
Yeah,

I think this example along with what I just randomly know about the other examples, gives the impression that this list is essentially meaningless.

I recall the "Marin Ships" being indeed constructed quickly but of very poor quality and in no way equivalent to constructing real navel ships quickly, just "we can put X amount of metal into the water and hope it doesn't sink too quickly".

And so forth, for significant number of these examples. Some of the examples, that I know nothing of, might be more "real" or more significant examples time-efficiency, but the list doesn't seem a credit to them. Lots of these are "yeah, we can put a stake in the ground quickly" and that's it.

Re:Fast by chiph on Saturday December 21, 2019 @07:53AM (#21851015)
I had to look this up. Marinships were the west coast Liberty Ships, built in Sausalito. Later they build fleet tankers & oilers there, probably to the same "get it done now" quality standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinship

My dad went to the European theater on a Liberty. He had the top bunk in the hold and spent the voyage looking at the truly awful welding that had been done in the shipyard. But they didn't have to last longer than a few years, so lots of corners were cut.

Re:Fast by travbrack on Saturday December 21, 2019 @03:00AM (#21850249)
This definitely cuts the snarky comparison to the bus lane in San Francisco down to size.
Re:Fast by audi0slave on Saturday December 21, 2019 @02:23AM (#21850133)
Sounds a lot like the Dalton highway , we had to rent a special vehicle which had a radio to do 2 way communication with the traffic and the highway wasn't paved.
Re:Fast by shkkmo on Saturday December 21, 2019 @03:21AM (#21850305)
A CB radio is not necessary on the Dalton highway, though vehicles that transit it frequently are usually equiped with one to communicate with the semis that make up much of the traffic (especially to coordinate passing on dusty sections). The Dalton has several unpaved sections but is fairly highly maintained and certainly does not require vehicles transiting to perform road work themselves. You certainly do not need survival skills (at least during the summer) to drive it as there is a consistent amount of semi traffic that can assist you if something goes wrong as well as periodic pump stations for the pipline. If anything, the Dalton would be more akin to the Alaska highway some time after it was opened to the public.
Re:Fast by reilly3000 on Friday December 20, 2019 @11:29PM (#21849622)
I drive the freeways just to go a few miles most days, and tens of thousands in a few years. Carbon be damned, I can't thank highways enough for the life they enabled. When teleportation comes along I'll firmly recant and hope this comment has disappeared, but until then I'm in debt to the national arteries I benefit from today.
Re:Fast by akouri on Friday December 20, 2019 @11:38PM (#21849645)
I can't punish freeways enough for the life they've enabled. The closest thing you will get to teleportation in your lifetime is moving to a city. Maybe you cannot get from one side of the world to another in a minute, but you certainly can walk down the street to get anything you need in a minute or two in good major cities.
Re:Fast by mentat on Saturday December 21, 2019 @02:12AM (#21850090)
How do you think things get too the cities?
Re:Fast by TeMPOraL on Saturday December 21, 2019 @03:17AM (#21850295)
In a dream world? Truck -> freight train -> truck.
Re:Fast by fredsanford on Saturday December 21, 2019 @02:35AM (#21850181)
Magical fairy dust from the trees we should not have chopped down? :)
Re:Fast by reilly3000 on Friday December 20, 2019 @11:50PM (#21849691)
You're right and I wish I could afford it. Real Estate prices are validation that cities are a better way to live. I bought a car 8 months ago and I've only driven 1500 miles but I'd love to drive less. We have inherited a legacy of feeble foresight and racism, built into our cities and roads, but we're going to build something better in our time.
Re:Fast by portlander12345 on Saturday December 21, 2019 @02:02AM (#21850060)
That’s an average of about six miles a day. Would you enjoy doing some of your travel by bicycle?
Re:Fast by nogabebop23 on Saturday December 21, 2019 @08:25AM (#21851112)
Most of the emperical studies I've seen suggest people who travel little by car generally do less trips vs. many shorter trips; i.e. they're not driving 6 miles a day, they're driving 20 miles twice a week.
Re:Fast by kortilla on Saturday December 21, 2019 @03:28AM (#21850328)
Anything you need... maybe, but most certainly not anything you want and it won’t be at a very good price.
Re:Fast by dajohnson89 on Saturday December 21, 2019 @05:34PM (#21853714)
I just had a delicious dinner (rice, chicken, veggies, soup) for $6 here in Brooklyn. I walked 3 blocks from my home to pick it up.
Re:Fast by computerex on Friday December 20, 2019 @11:34PM (#21849632)
Same here. I used to live in Jacksonville Florida and routinely used the I-95 to get around the city. What's funny is I'd always envision "warping" when getting on the highway, because inner city traffic speed is ~45 mph, and then it'd instantly jump to 80+ mph on the highway.
Re:Fast by Aperocky on Saturday December 21, 2019 @12:27AM (#21849798)
80mph+? Instant reckless driving in Virginia, anywhere in the state.
Re:Fast by fredsanford on Saturday December 21, 2019 @02:36AM (#21850185)
Florida is not a close minded Commonwealth unlike my home state...
Re:Fast by kortilla on Saturday December 21, 2019 @03:27AM (#21850325)
The limit is up to 80 in some western states (Utah, Idaho, etc).
Re:Fast by cardiffspaceman on Saturday December 21, 2019 @08:47PM (#21854592)
In Nevada and I believe other states before the 55 MPH speed limit was instituted, "reasonable and proper" was interpreted pretty broadly and might have exceeded 80 under good conditions.
Re:Fast by jamiek88 on Saturday December 21, 2019 @10:20PM (#21854957)
85 in parts of Texas Hill Country too.

Those wide empty roads going 55 feels like 30mph.

Re:Fast by desert_boi on Saturday December 21, 2019 @09:17PM (#21854707)
At least in Idaho, the speed limit is routinely flouted up to 90mph.
Re:Fast by xrd on Friday December 20, 2019 @11:38PM (#21849649)
This seems like a nice example of shipping something you are embarrassed of, like Reid Hoffman says.