rimjob_rainer comments on "Thin strip of land"

[–] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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).

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent