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]

[1]https://trid.trb.org/view/369244