• rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    It is a relatively thin strip of land. I drove down the Carretera Austral a few years ago, you even have to drive through Argentina, because there are the sea and mountains and not enough space to “fit” a highway (alternatively you could take the ferry).

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m sorry, but at no point does Chile get too thin to fit a highway. It is just that part meets a gulf and wildlife territory. They are all national parks. The alternative (to going into Argentina or the ferry) would be to deforest hundreds of hectares and blow up mountains just so tourists get an scenic car ride (that is already pretty scenic and spectacular as it is).

      • rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s why I put the “fit” in quotes. There is no space for a highway because of gulf, mountains and national parks, and that is a good thing.

        If it was wider they would have built a highway for sure.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          I get what you meant. But it would be more apt to say that they don’t want a highway there, it’s not like it wouldn’t fit if they wanted. The whole thing is a biosphere reserve, new infrastructure is not allowed. It has nothing to do with the geographical wideness of Chile. To only have a ferry there is a choice. Bypassing through Argentina actually skips a good third of the official highway.