4 ms·
Yup. And in most cases it simply doesn't make sense to spend the capital on the preparations. Ex: Atlanta gets roughly 2 inches of snow a year (usually one or
by horsawlarway 4y ago
Yup. And in most cases it simply doesn't make sense to spend the capital on the preparations.
Ex: Atlanta gets roughly 2 inches of snow a year (usually one or two minor snowfalls) and it's far cheaper to simply shut down for a day when it happens than it is to have the infrastructure in place to handle staying open.
Every 10 years or so we'll get a big snow, and be down for a week (ex: 2014) and people will freak out - but on the whole, still much cheaper to have that downtime than to be exorbitantly over-prepared for situations that are rare and not disastrous.
I suspect this will be the case for the mobile outage here - on the whole, the circumstances causing the outage (lack of power) is likely not recurring, and the costs of weathering this outage with existing infra is much more favorable than being over-prepared for blackout conditions which are rare.
- ethbr0 4y agoAs someone who lived there for awhile, was going to mention Atlanta too. And I'd assume similar latitude cities like Birmingham, Charlotte, and Dallas? Cities operate with limited budgets. It does not make financial sense to prepare for some relatively rare events, versus allocating that money to better prepare for likely events. If Atlanta had a fleet of snowplows, they'd be unused 75% of winters and used for only a couple days in 20%. Bad investment.