4 ms·
I have been having similar lamentations recently. One obvious example: the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The original bridge was built in 1933; it took them less
by jblow 15y ago
I have been having similar lamentations recently.
One obvious example: the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The original bridge was built in 1933; it took them less than 3.5 years to build it.
Now, they are just trying to replace the eastern span (the bigger one, but hey, less than the full bridge), with technology from nearly a century later. They have been "working on it" for 9 years. It is currently scheduled to run another 2 years from now (if it somehow gets done on time) and is 6 times more expensive than originally projected.
For a bridge. That doesn't have any more traffic capacity than the bridge it is replacing.
- caf 15y agoHow many workers died during the original construction?
- caf 15y agoObviously I was too subtle, so I'll answer my own rhetorical question: there were between 23 and 28 fatal accidents during the original construction of the Bay Bridge, depending on how you count them. This rate of industrial accidents simply isn't acceptable these days, and improved worker safety slows construction.
- mtviewdave 15y agoIt takes much less time to build a new bridge from scratch than to replace half of a bridge in-place. From the Bay Bridge FAQ (http://baybridgeinfo.org/faq http://baybridgeinfo.org/faq): "One of the greatest challenges in performing any seismic safety work on the Bay Bridge is that traffic must be kept moving. This has required the construction of temporary structures, and shifting of traffic from the existing bridge to the temporary structures. Major construction and demolition work is often scheduled during nights and weekends in order to minimize disruption to commute-hour traffic. This elaborate scheduling has extended the length of time that it takes to complete the seismic safety work."