The article you quoted says "there seems to be no apparent benefit to an extensive routing of the nerve supplying the larynx," but it doesn't mention or address the three reasons I cited above.
So the main route between NY and Philly will loop through Chicago. We will build a secondary direct route between NY and philly, but it'll only allow access to certain suburbs not the entire city [1].
This route will connect NY and Chicago on its way there, and NY and philly on the way back. I certainly don't see any advantage to any other route. not even if I were omnipotent and omniscient could I do that.
>during development the recurrent [....] own is better design than if it were not.
During the building of the NY-Philly-throughChicago route, we will be bringing life and jobs to the local communities, so this is of course GOOD DESIGN.
ps.
[1] According to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_laryngeal_nerve "All intrinsic laryngeal muscles except the cricothyroids are innervated by the recurrent laryngeal nerve." so I don't know what you're talking about in (1)
If you are missing either of the superior or recurrent laryngeal nerve, you can still speak, although not as well as if you have both. Doctors use this hoarseness as a diagnostic for various chest issues.
United Airlines Flight 232 also illustrates the importance of running redundant cables through different paths. One piece of shrapnel pierced all three hydraulic systems on board, and nearly half the passengers were killed.
Come on man seriously? No, what makes sense if you are designing this is to make one direct connection between Ny-Philly and another NY-chicago.