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...

___

edit: this post and resulting thread made me realize that "wildlife crossing" sounds far too tree-hugger for our society. They need to rebrand to "obvious money-saving infrastructure," or better.

$15M is less than 4 Patriot PAC-3 MSEs. Which do you prefer your taxes to be spent on?

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

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

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.

This is peak bean soup theory on HN.

Always has to be at least one commenter, "but what about my highly specific scenario? All the other people benefiting are an aberration to my specific need or wild singular example"

Fund SNAP, not discount game meat through the deaths of others.

> there are many people that have a significant reliance on roadkill to fulfill their dietary needs.

I doubt that many people are collecting roadkill on a 75mph 6-lane divided freeway though, since I can't really think of any safe way to collect it.

But even if you could collect it, hitting anything small at that speed will completely pulverize it, and hitting anything larger will seriously hurt the vehicle's occupants, so it's probably best to stick to smaller roads.

Last thought before the deer goes through my windshield and kills me is: "At least someone can eat this roadkill."

Reducing car/animal collisions is a good thing for cars(drivers) and animals.

undefined

My brother almost died in a car wreck with a deer.

Ignoring my incredulity at this response, the risk to the lives of the drivers seems to me to be of greater importance than the potential that some people might benefit from the carcasses lying on the side of road.

> going to bed with a deep hunger in the pit of one's stomach.

I'm fine with that, as their dinner shouldn't depend on me suffering an horrible car crash and being hurt or killed.

The people will save a lot of money if they don't need to replace 500 cars each year, therefore more money to feed themselves. They will not be forced to eat dog corpses.

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.