> From the federal government's point of view, you'd want to invest in weaker areas and bring them up to the same level as the rest of the country Building bri

> From the federal government's point of view, you'd want to invest in weaker areas and bring them up to the same level as the rest of the country Building bridges to nowhere in Alaska or fancy bridges/tunnels in places with zero population density is extremely unlikely to make these areas a net contribution to the federal budget over the long term - just the opposite. Arguably extremely rural areas are already oversubsidised and will be never self-sustaining in terms of infrastructure, in terms of just meeting the cost of maintaning roads, power, water, mail delivery infrastructure...