AHC:Alaska Panhandle Road...

[naraht]

In the Alaska Boundary Dispute over the Alaskan Panhandle in 1905, one of the reasons that the British/Canadian position was unacceptable to the Americans was that the border would have cut across various Fjords that would have made the Alaska panhandle virtually unconnectable by road. However in the more than a century since, the United States has never connected any significant part of the Alaska Panhandle by road

Challenge: with a POD after 1910, have a road created linking Haines or Skagway (near where the panhandle joins the main part of the state) to Hyder (or somewhere near).

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Any chance that canada or britain apply pressure, saying ,,look, you claimed you wanted the land for a road, wheres the road? Were reopening negotiations...,, or at least the us fears that position?

[Kalvan]

The big problem is, whenever anyone tries, opposition in Congress characterizes it at a "Bridge to Nowhere."

[sloreck]

The US gets more paranoid about Japan earlier, maybe a decent (hard surface road) is built in the 1930s as part of the WPA...replacing a much primitive gravel road)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by sloreck

The US gets more paranoid about Japan earlier, maybe a decent (hard surface road) is built in the 1930s as part of the WPA...replacing a much primitive gravel road)

Errr.... first youd have to get that gravel road, our a dirt road or even a deertrail.

Second, none of those would do any good. There are no connecting roads from the bottom of the panhandle anywhere, so youd still need to send stuff by sea. If youre sending it by sea anyway, tnen send it all the way.

No, a panhandle road would be useless militarily.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Second, none of those would do any good. There are no connecting roads from the bottom of the panhandle anywhere, so youd still need to send stuff by sea. If youre sending it by sea anyway, tnen send it all the way.

No, a panhandle road would be useless militarily.

Actually, there is the Glacier Highway to the southern inland corner of the panhandle. I don't know when it was built, though.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Evan

Actually, there is the Glacier Highway to the southern inland corner of the panhandle. I don't know when it was built, though.

It looks like its initial connexion was north to the alaska,canada highway, and that highway 37 was built in the 60s. So little help there.

And there is still no connexion north to like Nome along the pannhaandle, right?

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Any chance that canada or britain apply pressure, saying ,,look, you claimed you wanted the land for a road, wheres the road? Were reopening negotiations...,, or at least the us fears that position?

Can't see that. The US wouldn't agree to a treaty stipulating US ownership only if they undertook certain improvements to the territory, and isn't going to accept a reopening of the negotiations on the basis of 'we didn't do what Canada wants with land that we own.'

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

It looks like its initial connexion was north to the alaska,canada highway, and that highway 37 was built in the 60s. So little help there.

And there is still no connexion north to like Nome along the pannhaandle, right?

No, unless you count the Haines Cutoff which runs from the northern enge of the Panhandle to the Alaska Highway.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Georgepatton

Can't see that. The US wouldn't agree to a treaty stipulating US ownership only if they undertook certain improvements to the territory, and isn't going to accept a reopening of the negotiations on the basis of 'we didn't do what Canada wants with land that we own.'

But if the refusal of the british,canadian position was explicitly ,,to build a road,, and they dont, that could allow for ... interesting negotiations. !,You claim you need these disputed islands to do X,but you never built the alaska road...,,

Sure, britain didnt want to play hardball with the us, and canada wasnt rally strong enough to. But in an alternate diplomatic setting, i could see the us building the blasted road just to ease rhetoric in other negotiations.

[Evan]

I agree - an alternate diplomatic setup is what it takes. I imagine the Canadian route is a lot easier, because that's where the road was built IOTL. So, there'd need to be some reason for it to be on American soil.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

But if the refusal of the british,canadian position was explicitly ,,to build a road,, and they dont, that could allow for ... interesting negotiations. !,You claim you need these disputed islands to do X,but you never built the alaska road...,,

Sure, britain didnt want to play hardball with the us, and canada wasnt rally strong enough to. But in an alternate diplomatic setting, i could see the us building the blasted road just to ease rhetoric in other negotiations.

Rhetoric? "We have to take part of Alaska away from America because they won't build a road there!"