> The economic angle is a bit confusing.
We don't need an economic angle to build great things that help people.
It's a bridge, it's meant to be a shortcut from point A to B.
We aren't just cogwheels in an economic system, there's more to life and progress as humans.
Guess China's resources aren't as limited as some of their competitors
That's not economics, that's optimization with inequality constraints.
> We don't need an economic angle [...] We aren't just cogwheels in an economic system
This kind of thinking is exactly how people go bankrupt. "But I deserve those shoes" "I need a Starbucks to get the day started" "This McMansion would make me happy" "I'd rather commute in a BMW than a Toyota"
It's paradoxical really. On one hand this mindset leads to bankruptcies, on the other it creates demand necessary to grow an economy.
There's probably a balance to be struck somewhere between the two approaches, but I wouldn't know where it is, as I stay firmly on the frugal side.
I believe that the saving four hours (two hours each way) to travel from or to the city, multiplied by the amount of current and potential vehicles, is a clear opportunity benefit.
Not to mention the fuel saved and pollution prevented. And increased economic development for the city.
Bridges are expensive to build and to maintain. Maybe people could be helped better other ways; economics is about making choices with limited resources.