Instead of doing that boring thing the unthinking do - I challenge you to ask why 15M seems like a lot.

Is it a lot in comparrison to the costs to the taxpayers for all the emergency crews responding to animal caused accidents over the lifetime of the crossing, not to mention dealing with carcasses of animals, etc?

How much of any single person's tax money went into it? How long until those few cents get paid off in terms of saved time and gas by not dealing with the traffic backup from those accidents? How much do those few cents amortize to your savings in reduced insurance since thats less potential accident you have to bet against... how much savings does that reduction confer on your expected direct costs in cas you had been in a the accident?

Does 15M still seem like a lot?

Maybe you think it could be built cheaper - how? Show your work.

All these things sure are an interesting conversation to have. Much more interesting than "hur dur, 15M is a big number" anyway.

Cool - want to suggest changes to the legal code to lower the cost?

$15M is dirt cheap for the USA. That buys you like 100 yards of urban light rail or something. :)

The ROI is beyond solid. It's actually insane this wasn't done sooner at this location. The normal ROI for a wildlife crossing is 15 years. Here, it's two to three years.

> Cost savings: Each prevented wildlife–vehicle collision can save thousands of dollars—more than $19,000 per deer crash, $73,000 per elk, and $110,000 per moose—in vehicle, injury, and wildlife costs, making well-placed crossings a strong investment [0]

This section of highway had one deer-vehicle collision per day.

365 * $19,000 = $6,935,000 per year.

[0] https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/202...

I'm curious about the POV you're coming from. I don't think the number of deer who don't get hit is relevant to the math on injury prevention, traffic prevention, and ongoing operational and property damage costs.