I've been thinking about a distinction between 'offensive' and 'defensive' infrastructure:
The end result of completing a defensive infrastructure project is simply maintenance of a status quo (avoiding a deterioration), rather than a leap forward. Defensive projects are necessary and worthwhile, but a patchwork of smaller-scale, easier-to-fund defensive projects may crowd out offensive projects that require higher political vision and a longer payoff time.
Offensive
Archetypal project: US Transcontinental Railroad, opening up the American West for much faster settlement and growth
China's construction on South China Sea islands
Physical infrastructure for major new trade routes:
Hoover Dam, Snowy Hydro, Israel National Water Carrier bringing water to new regions
Major land reclamation, e.g. Netherlands Zuiderzee Works; hypothetical Atlantropa
Enabling infrastructure for a new sector, e.g. space (Kennedy Space Center, Baikonur Cosmodrome) or nuclear (Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - if it worked!)
Technical infrastructure that enables new commerce sectors
GPS satellites
Rapid Earth observation satellites
Human Genome Project investment in sequencing technology
Other major research infrastructure
Fictional examples from golden age scifi, e.g. space elevator, draining Mediterranean to create farmland, bridging the Gibraltar Strait — sometimes would be ecologically disastrous, but the scale of ambition is the key point
Charter cities and neo-city projects like Brasilia or Masdar — noting that these often fall short in practice
Depending on how you define 'infrastructure', might include major schemes of institution-building that create significant new opportunity for particular groups
Disneyland (built among orange orchards and farmland) and Walt Disney World (built among swampland)
Defensive: