I don't think that the economy of wood is worse in the long run. It is quite much faster and cheaper to build with, and as long as it isn't allowed to be wet for long periods of time it also lasts indefinitely (there are wooden temples that are 1300 years old), and repairs are usually faster and easier than similar in concrete.
I'm not sure that's a good data point considering there is stone/masonry structures that old or older. Is there evidence that wood infrastructure is cheaper/more durable from a lifecycle perspective? The industry estimate for timber bridges is typically 20 years (although they may be treated to extend the life further) while 75 years or more for steel or concrete bridges. Timber/glulam also tends to deteriorate faster.
"At comparable ages and spans, smaller percentages of prestressed concrete bridges are classified "structurally deficient" than steel or timber bridges."[1]
