really is an incredible convergence. i can understand the issue though.. it'd be like asking california to make building code ready to handle a 17.o earthquake. at some point, the massive extra cost isn't worth it bc the odds are so low. it becomes a risk tolerance question. also, people aren't as interested in spending extra on infrastructure.. it's not as sexy as typical social programs, even though those provide a social good.
I agree, engineering usually has cost value analysis. For NO, the dykes were designed for 200 year storms but a 500+ year storm came along and destroyed them. Liberty TX, downstream from Dallas was purposely allowed to flood, as they built flood dykes all along the Trinity to protect bigger cities. It was hard for them to tell flood victims it was designed that way. And now, the power grid, which probably just wasn't designed for this. To do so probably would have meant a rise in taxes or energy prices, and most voters and politicians worry about those things more than long term thinking. 5 days of misery or higher monthly costs? Most will take the former, at least when debating it in the relative warmth of their homes.
It seems we get a deep freeze every 10 years, and many think global warming will make extreme weather more extreme, so they may rethink this when adding to the power grid in Texas.
And to make this about hockey....damn, the Stars are cancelled again tonight.
I met Razor once, and told him my broadcast opening would be something like, "We're downtown Dallas, where the skies are clear, the temperatures are cool, and the forecast calls for a 100% chance of Dallas Stars Hockey!" Guess if that was ever used, we would have to modify it to a 99% chance of Dallas Stars Hockey. Of course, there could always be an in arena power outage, so it probably should technically ever been 100%, even it it's a snappier phrase.