4 ms·

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 th

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/2026/01/wildlife-crossings-save-lives-cut-costs-and-protect-animals 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.

userbinator 6d ago
This section of highway had one deer-vehicle collision per day. That sounds like an extreme outlier.
- tenuousemphasis 6d ago
  Yes, they place these at places where they're needed, the outliers.
- deleted 6d ago
  [deleted]
lennartb 6d ago
I know cost-effectivness is often the deciding factor, but that's kinda sad, so: One deer hit a day, down 91% means ~330 deers saved per year. $15m spread over the working population (160m) of the US is less than $0.10 per person. So you're spending $0.10 to save 330 deer, which is a trade I would make.
- metiscus 6d ago
  You have to realize that it isn't just about saving deer. If you hit a deer at speed, it is going to do massive damage to your vehicle and potentially cause significant injury to the passengers, up to and including death. Overt fatalities are reportedly rare, like 0.1% or something, but the injury rate is closer to 5%.
- treis 6d ago
  The US does not have a shortage of deer. Mostly the opposite as their natural predators have been drastically reduced in numbers.
consumer451 6d ago
This has been stuck in my head ever since I wrote about the rebrand. My final proposal: "car-saver" or "car-saver overpass." "Today, our State Department of Transportation completed their latest car-saver overpass. This one will prevent more than 300 highway-speed collisions per year, saving drivers a lot of money, pain, and heartache."

userbinator 6d ago

This section of highway had one deer-vehicle collision per day. That sounds like an extreme outlier.

tenuousemphasis 6d ago
Yes, they place these at places where they're needed, the outliers.
deleted 6d ago
[deleted]

lennartb 6d ago

I know cost-effectivness is often the deciding factor, but that's kinda sad, so: One deer hit a day, down 91% means ~330 deers saved per year. $15m spread over the working population (160m) of the US is less than $0.10 per person. So you're spending $0.10 to save 330 deer, which is a trade I would make.

metiscus 6d ago
You have to realize that it isn't just about saving deer. If you hit a deer at speed, it is going to do massive damage to your vehicle and potentially cause significant injury to the passengers, up to and including death. Overt fatalities are reportedly rare, like 0.1% or something, but the injury rate is closer to 5%.
treis 6d ago
The US does not have a shortage of deer. Mostly the opposite as their natural predators have been drastically reduced in numbers.

consumer451 6d ago

This has been stuck in my head ever since I wrote about the rebrand. My final proposal: "car-saver" or "car-saver overpass." "Today, our State Department of Transportation completed their latest car-saver overpass. This one will prevent more than 300 highway-speed collisions per year, saving drivers a lot of money, pain, and heartache."