The Alaska Highway Development

Abstract

Thirty-one years ago, in November of 1942, the Alaska Highway was opened for use as a military road. Built as a long-range defense measure, it was assumed that improvements would continue following World War II. Since that time, there have been many proposals to pave the road, but they have been blocked by political and economic considerations. The resulting highway had a good gravelled driving surface, but was rough and uneven. After the responsibility for the highway was transferred from the United States Army to the Royal Canadian Engineers, the terms of reference under which operations were carried out did not permit major road relocations. ... the alignment of the highway is essentially the same today as it was in 1943. The highway is Alaska's only land link with the lower forty-eight States and a major road serving the Yukon, yet of the nearly 1,525 miles of road, to date less than 400 miles are paved. The remaining 1,100 odd miles are at best a dusty and difficult ordeal .... With both United States and Canadian interest increasing toward the growth and development of the northwest, there can be little doubt that a paved road would be of substantial value to both countries. The present reaction to the issue of paving is somewhat a mirror of past negotiations. The federal governments of the United States and Canada are cool toward the issue, while local interest in both Alaska and the Yukon is quite high. ... Measures to improve the Alaska Highway have been periodically brought before the Canadian Parliament and the United States Congress, but a growing disparity of interests beginning in the 1950s, has made negotiations very difficult. ... The disparity in population and power between Canada and the United States has understandably created a defensive reaction on the part of Canadians which takes the form of sensitivity to any real or fancied slight to Canadian sovereignty. ... both countries now feel that the Canadian portion of the road would be better administered by Canada. Numerous bills were sponsored during that period for improving the road .... Subsequently legislation was introduced in the United States Congress which ... suggested an equal responsibility 50-50 capital outlay. However, the increasing cost-factor continually caused the demise of most proposals. ... The new bill [U.S. Senate Bill S. 2372] suggested that eighty per cent of the initial cost be borne by the United States as opposed to the 50-50 sharing proposal of two years before, and that Canada should assume the balance and undertake the general maintenance of the road. ... Similar bills were recently proposed and defeated in the Canadian Parliament. ... Subsequent attempts to improve the Alaska highway, or portions thereof, have been brought before the U.S. Senate, and have failed. ... it can be assumed that the tourist season affords the greatest number of travellers and accordingly the greatest difficulties (i.e. dust, gravel, mud, etc.). ... The travel pattern is uneven. There is heavy use of the highway in the south, and then the traffic pattern becomes very heavy again in the vicinity of Whitehorse. This seems to suggest that great numbers of travellers are using the ferry route as opposed to the highway. If this assumption is correct, then the paving of the 320 miles between Haines and Tok, and the 100 miles between Haines Junction and Whitehorse might prove to be less expensive and more beneficial to all concerned. ... The present traffic on the road averages 275 vehicles per day or 100,375 trips per year. According to the Alaska Department of Highways, paving the road will represent a saving in gasoline, time and wear and tear of over $4 million per year. It is also estimated that the anticipated minimum growth of travel will be ten per cent per year for the next decade. This means by 1980, the number of vehicles travelling that portion of the Highway will have tripled and the annual benefit will amount to nearly $10 million. For the entire period, the estimates are as follows: Construction cost - $43,200,000; Benefit - $70,709,260. The benefits generated by the savings will probably increase tourist travel. In turn this will necessitate increased facilities which undoubtedly bring a substantial increase in the number of visitors to the area. The number of tourists, however, should not be the major determining factor in regard to the paving issue. Whichever route may be chosen in the future for reconstruction and/or paving should be accomplished to serve the needs of the residents of Alaska and the Yukon. ...