There isn't a "forest behind" the airport in that picture - that's all housing. Moreover, its very expensive to expand airport property and completely redo a cargo terminal.
I'm sure Tarzan would be pleased to hear about such housing. How is the public transport in that "housing"?
While I can't offer a quantitative discussion, here a principle discussion about what is "expensive":
1) Golden age of British canals:
"This success proved the viability of canal transport, and soon industrialists in many other parts of the country wanted canals. After the Bridgewater Canal, the early canals were built by groups of private individuals with an interest in improving communications. In Staffordshire the famous potter Josiah Wedgwood saw an opportunity to bring bulky cargoes of clay to his factory doors, and to transport his fragile finished goods to market in Manchester, Birmingham or further afield by water, minimising breakages. Within just a few years of the Bridgewater's opening, an embryonic national canal network came into being, with the construction of canals such as the Oxford Canal and the Trent & Mersey Canal.
The new canal system was both cause and effect of the rapid industrialisation of the Midlands and the north. The period between the 1770s and the 1830s is often referred to as the "Golden Age" of British canals.
For each canal, an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise construction, and as people saw the high incomes achieved from canal tolls, canal proposals came to be put forward by investors interested in profiting from dividends, at least as much as by people whose businesses would profit from cheaper transport of raw materials and finished goods.
In a further development, there was often out-and-out speculation, in which people would try to buy shares in a newly floated company simply to sell them on for an immediate profit, regardless of whether the canal was ever profitable, or even built. During this period of "canal mania", huge sums were invested in canal building, and although many schemes came to nothing, the canal system rapidly expanded to nearly 4,000 miles (over 6,400 kilometres) in length."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... Golden_Age
Soon afterwards the railways took over and canals went out of use. Was it a wrong investment? No, because there wouldn't have been a railway invented without the industrial revolution the canals made possible.
2) Similar 2G was a necessary step to 4G.
Some of us want the B737 replaced by a new narrowbody. Why should Boeing do that if wingspan remains the same/ if gates remain forever limited to 35 m?
3) In the industrial revolution railway bridges were built with bricks. It's expensive to replace them with concrete structures. Should it be done?
4) If electric cars become popular five cars in one road at a time may require high electric power for recharging. The distribution system has to be massively strengthened. Should it be done?
5) It must have been expensive to lay an underground glass fiber network.
Unlike feudal societies which are stagnant, capitalist societies have permanent change.
I read new York has discussions about replacing a railway tunnel from the 1920s. Too expensive?
To know the value of such a tunnel is simple. Blow the old tunnel. The resulting cumulative property price decrease is the value of the railway system that tunnel enabled.
Why are Americans so critical to cost of infrastructure? Because it's financed by tax that was "stolen" from taxpayers?