Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Alaska seems quite developed from the Fairbanks to Anchorage corridor, but you don't have to go far off the highway for it to be complete wilderness. I spent some time there and you'd drive on roads for miles and then they just end - in the sense the road doesn't go any further and everything after that is pretty much wilderness with maybe a few unused logging roads.


We stuck to pretty much the main roads, but I went to Denali as well, so I've experienced how vast and beautiful it is.

I was just curious and looked up the population density. Alaska has a population density of 1.3 people per square mile and Yukon just 0.07 per square km. If I did the math right Yukon has a population density of 0.027 people per square mile. Or Alaska is about 5 times more densely populated.

Of the 34 thousand people that live in all of Yukon, 25 thousand live in Whitehorse. That leaves just 9k people for everywhere else.


Population density isn't a great measure for how undeveloped an area is since population isn't uniformly distributed.

Like the Yukon, Alaska has most of its population in the cities and for Alaska it's along the coast in small towns. The interior is mostly wilderness.

But regardless, no doubt Yukon is as empty as you describe.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: