4 ms·

Isn't that a good unintended consequence? They built out infrastructure which attracted lots of people & jobs. Today, SoCal is home to world-leading firms in en

• TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Which is why, when discussing infrastructure upgrades in our Hackerspace, I keep reminding that infrastructure is an enabler - it should not be built to support current needs, it needs a healthy margin to enable people to do more. People always find interesting ways to use up extra capacity.
  • bluGill 10y ago
    There is a limit to that. People point out all the growth that overbuilt freeways caused argue we need to build more freeways. Nobody every asks if the trend will continue. They want to bring that same growth to small middle of nowhere towns, but it isn't clear if that will happen. Also lost in the conversation is opportunity cost: sure people drove more and that drove growth to those areas. However what if the roads had not been built - what would have happened instead? We don't know, but it is fun to speculate. (maybe railroads would still be the most common mode of transport?)
• dba7dba 10y ago
  The unintended consequence I'm talking about is they expected it will take 100 years for the system to be utilized at full capacity but in reality it took just 20-30 years...