Considering that a little two-lane road wouldn't accomplish the goals of the highway, and one big enough to be useful for transport of raw materials in useful quantities (along with the various amenities that would have to be build along with it, like fuel depots, lodging, and food establishments, it would do serious damage to the migration routes of a lot of animals. And of course, those associated amenities would be built near existing sources of water...
Think the problems the Alaska Pipeline had, and all it really had to deal with was one migratory species — the caribou and one associated predator (wolves). Building a multi-lane highway through the Serengeti is going to screw up all of the herd herbivores, and the predators that follow them.
I'm unsure how highways are built over there, but I imagine that the individuals involved in the construction themselves would be problematic for the ecosystem if they have to scavenge the area for wood, food, and the like. I remember some articles put out by National Geographic and some other publications a while back that said that while rations were generally issued, foraged meat was still a very popular commodity in the mining/logging communities.
A train? In the middle of Africa? Why didn't anyone think of that before
I would think a large paved highway would stop the Great Migration. Imagine this herd
◊ trying to get across.
The main issue I can think of with a train is that it would have to be a ground train rather than a raised train, on account of being a cargo, rather than a transport train, and elephants are a lot bigger than cows.
Fight smart, not fair.What kind of highways are we talking about? Upgrading thier shoddy roads to a two land highway with a reasonable speed limit shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Now if you excuse me, Starfleet is about to award the Christopher Pike Medal to my dick. — SF Debris
iirc, a 5+ lane highway
As far as I can tell this pretty much won't work, either you drive the traffic in such a way that doesn't kill thousands of animals a year, or you might as well have routed the road around the park.
I mean, there's animals all over the current dirt road, laying right smack in the wheel ruts. You think the trucks will have a chance to avoid them at 70 mph? Or that the animals will have a chance to move?
As for how bad, exactly, it's going to be...probably somewhere on the low end of our expectations, as is usually the case for environmental impact-because there are elements we don't understand fully.
As for the economic impact...seems like trading some short term gain for long term destruction of a natural resource. Natural resources like those use for phones become depleted after a while, and then what? Now you've destroyed your replenishing resource for a temporary boost.
I'd like to research more, but I'm having a hard time finding unbiased sources...can anyone find me a reason they can't just route the damn road around the park, rather than driving it through what's supposed to be a particularly sensitive area of it?
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.This is what developing nations get for not raping their environments before the environmental movement. I'm sorry but your nation is going to remain an undeveloped economic backwater because the developed world wants to keep your native fauna untouched because they feel bad about killing off all of their animals.

Source
tldr - There are raw materials in that part of Africa that are needed for cell phone and hybrid car batteries, so they want to build a highway through the Serengeti to transport the materials. Scientists say the highway would disrupt the ecosystem.
He rattled off the reasons: cheaper goods; getting to the hospital faster; being better connected to towns; and having a higher chance of someday getting electricity and cellphone service.
However, also this to consider:
So... thoughts? Anyone familiar with African ecology, politics, and/or economy?
edited 31st Dec '10 3:10:41 PM by melloncollie