> >Will you build a bridge that’s inexpensive, but will have to be replaced in 25 years, or will you spend twice the money for more concrete and more steel to m

> >Will you build a bridge that’s inexpensive, but will have to be replaced in 25 years, or will you spend twice the money for more concrete and more steel to make it last for 50? > Of course the second (which is what is actually usually done) the issue being that in real world after 50/60/70/80 years the bridge won't be replaced/repaired . Was just relating this story to someone else the other day. As a kid, there was a lot of roadworks around us. Due to cold weather and hot summer, roads were constantly developing seams/buckles and potholes. This was often chalked up to 'unions bad - cheap materials - etc'. Newspapers would run 'investigations' every few years, etc. I think the road folks often did poor jobs of explaining decisions, and maybe it was literally always just "cheapest bid". But I look back at a road that was bad for years - it was repaved at least 3 x over a 10 year period I remember. THEN... it was expanded from 2 and 3 lane road to 6 lane. The land was there on both sides, and it had been in planning for probably 10+ years. Knowing the road will be torn up less than 10 years in the future, I can understand "just use cheapest patching for now" because it will get thrown away 3 years from now. However, that was never something that ever seemed to get across in news 'investigations'. Note, I'm going back to the 80s and 90s in my head, and I was younger - there may have been some info I missed, but even as I grew in to an adult... little hard info seemed to make it out to the general public.