nvermind
If we ignored the complications the bridge could be rebuilt now faster and for less money. The difference is the complications, that’s where the time and money goes.
What possible evidence do you have to support that?
Having to keep one of the roadways open while you replace the other one, makes the project of replacing them a bit more complicated. It does not change the fact that replacing the roadways is a small subset of the work involved in building the entire bridge from scratch. And completing that small subset in the 21st century takes far longer than building the entire bridge did in the 1960s (and costs approx the same) .
It’s clear by now, that the OP is intent on ignoring all the facts presented, and to conclude that he already “knew” his own answer.
But I wanted to point out another element he ignores in his prejudices: different political climates.
Back in the 1960’s, the Democrats and Republicans didn’t have entire platforms designed around interfering in all manner of petty and larger ways, with the various projects that were pursued by civil engineers. It isn’t just safety and environmental regulations that slow things down these days, it is the active efforts of one party to interfere with the progress of projects, even as they are being executed.
Another variation of this interference that isn’t JUST a political game of one-up, is where Congress changes the parameters of the project AFTER it is in progress.
One example from a long while back now (the 80’s, I think) was an huge update of the computer systems and software which allows airports to monitor all incoming and outgoing flights. Air Traffic Control systems. The project was passed initially, and assigned to various private firms to execute.
But as the plans were being drawn up, Congress started meddling. They changed the overall parameters over and over again, each time requiring all the vendors employed, to start at the beginning again. This caused costs to rise steadily, and for deadlines to be missed. Naturally.
But Congress doesn’t talk to ITSELF. So when the delays and cost overruns were noticed, the same Congress which had directly caused the delays and additional costs, suddenly decided that they could all get reelected by pointing at the people who they had charged with coping with their incompetence, and screaming that private industry was purposely milking the Federal Government, and lolly gagging on the job. So the entire project was scrapped, turning the Congressionally caused cost overruns to be entirely eclipsed by all the money spent to date, being effectively thrown into the trash bin.
That had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the efficiency and ability of the Civil engineers who were thus abused.
Do you have any idea what kind of regulations are in place now that weren’t in the 1960s? Every single part of that bridge, every tool used, and the cost of every employee is much higher because of the laws and regulations put in place since then for safety and environmental purposes, in addition to record high costs to bribe politicians and line the pockets of their masters. The new bridge deck uses less steel than the old one. It would cost much less now if those regulations didn’t affect every step of the process. Even though energy costs used in making steel are higher now less energy is now needed because less steel is needed and the steel making process is more efficient. All those regulations and laws are creating new constraints on the project that didn’t exist in the 1960s along with the requirement to keep traffic running over the bridge the whole time which was impossible to do when it was first built. None of those things are higher engineering costs. The actual engineering costs and costs of construction of just the same work done originally are all lower if you ignore the complications that didn’t exist before. Unless some depleted resource like tin was heavily used to make the bridge the first time it could all be built for less money and less time now without those new constraints than in the 1960s because we have much better tools and manufacturing processes.
Not true at all. In fact I think joema presented the facts very succinctly above and could have answered my question in the OP.
The 1960s, when the Verrazano–Narrows Bridge was completed may well have been the point of “peak efficency”, I would have guess earlier.
Computer systems are a whole 'nother kettle of fish (I’ve personally developed air traffic control systems). Not really relevant to the OP, as they didn’t really exist prior to the 1940s, so can’t really be compared to bridges or tunnels.
Every post by joema completely refuted your assumption about efficiency being higher in the past. I can’t imagine how you can read them otherwise.
In fact, every post by every poster has said unequivocally that you’re wrong. You’re essentially arguing that 0.9999~ does not equal 1. You don’t have a leg to stand on. You might as well argue that wooden legs were far better than modern prosthetics because they were so much cheaper and quicker to make.
You certainly don’t speak for me so kindly STFU.
Moderator Warning
Surreal, you’ve been around long enough to know that personal attacks are not permitted in GQ (and abbreviations don’t get you off the hook). This is an official warning. Don’t do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
That is not a difference in construction efficiency of past vs present eras – it is the difference between efficiency of initial manufacturing vs rework. Our perceptions of this are skewed because in the US, massive bridge, dam, and superhighway construction was largely done in prior eras. Today much of the work is maintenance or rework of those. If a new rural superhighway, bridge or dam was built today to the same budget as prior eras it could likely be done faster and more efficiently.
An example of this is the second largest suspension bridge on earth, which is the Xihoumen Bridge in China. It was built in only two years: Xihoumen Bridge - Wikipedia
Initial mass manufacturing whether on an assembly line, superhighway or bridge can be rapid if executed and funded on a large scale. E.g, Chrysler can build an entire car from scratch – including all worker labor for all parts including the transmission, body, engine, assembly and testing – in 30 hours. Yet if that car required an engine rebuild, it might take a local mechanic over 30 hours. That’s the difference between initial manufacturing and rework. Rework is smaller in scope but inherently less efficient.