I read on here - and I hope someone can find the link because I just spent 20 minutes looking for it and now I can't find it - an economist or similar academic

I read on here - and I hope someone can find the link because I just spent 20 minutes looking for it and now I can't find it - an economist or similar academic grousing about a rail bridge in the UK that had been upgraded for the first time in an [arbitrarily long amount of time] to support heavier trains. The complaint was that, surely, a bridge should not last that long without needing an upgrade; you should build a cheaper bridge and replace it, because whatever gains you can make from investing the difference will outpace the replacement cost. I guess the point is that building a legacy of infrastructure is, generally, not economical and therefore should be foregone in favor of building a legacy of financial holdings.