TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

From $250M to $6.5B: The Bay Bridge Cost Overrun

102 点作者 vinayak147超过 9 年前

22 条评论

triggercut超过 9 年前
Some of these extra costs could not have been prevented or foreseen. No one could have anticipated China&#x27;s thirst for steel back in 2001, let alone 1995&#x2F;6; or the fact that, prior to the GFC, investment in major&#x2F;mega public&#x2F;private infrastructure projects worldwide was snowballing due to burgeoning western economies, putting a significant increase on demand for that (relatively cheaper) steel too, as well as the engineering services and human capital to drive it.<p>One thing I see time and again, in projects I&#x27;ve either been involved with directly, or indirectly, is a failure to do any substantive geo-technical assessment in the early planning phases. Not understanding your environmental invariants properly (when they are usually diverse due to the physical scale of these projects) always comes back to bite you later on. It&#x27;s usually (eventually) a critical path item on any schedule since the structural design is so dependent on them.<p><i>&quot;In April 2006, a consortium involving American Bridge and Fluor won the tower contract. It was built in China to save money—a decision that carried its own costs when inspectors later found poor welding and busted bolts at key points that required fixing. Frick says the current $6.5 billion total is a rough estimate, and that it doesn’t include interest or financing costs.&quot;</i><p>A mistake most larger EPCM&#x27;s made in those days. The horror stories regarding the quality of Chinese steel and fabrication back then are very real. It is unthinkable now to let any fabrication of that nature happen there without adequate on-the-floor supervision and oversight.
评论 #10386518 未加载
评论 #10385960 未加载
tristanj超过 9 年前
The SF Chronicle did a great exposé on the bay bridge earlier this year. The Chronicle explains how the committee that selected the bridge was made up of specialists in fields only tangentially related to the job at hand — seismic experts, building engineers and architects. These people had not designed bridges before, and chose the design based on aesthetics, not practicality. When given a choice between two bridges: a conventional cable-stayed one at $1.5B and an experimental self-anchored suspension at $1.7B, they chose the attention-grabbing bridge over the practical one. This led to the <i>enormous</i> cost overruns we see today.<p>Note that the bridge isn&#x27;t unsafe, the modern span is much, much safer than the old WW2 era span. The new bridge won&#x27;t collapse in an earthquake. However, because of design failures and shoddy construction, it will last much shorter than planned.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sfgate.com&#x2F;bayarea&#x2F;article&#x2F;Bay-Bridge-s-troubles-How-a-landmark-became-a-6021955.php" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sfgate.com&#x2F;bayarea&#x2F;article&#x2F;Bay-Bridge-s-troubles-...</a>
评论 #10386993 未加载
评论 #10386822 未加载
quanticle超过 9 年前
This is yet another data point against people who argue, &quot;Well, civil engineers can estimate complex project accurately. Why can&#x27;t well software engineers?&quot; Well, as it turns out, civil engineers aren&#x27;t that good at estimating either, for the same reasons, no less. Shifting requirements are as much of a problem when building bridges and tunnels as they are when you&#x27;re building software.
评论 #10386012 未加载
lukasm超过 9 年前
There is joke in Poland that goes like this:<p>Polish minister goes to France to meet his counterpart. They meet in an amazing office and he asks his french college - How did you get money to build this? - Can you see the bridge outside the window? - Yes. - 500 mln on paper, built it for 250. Voilà.<p>After a year they meet again in Poland in even bigger an more magnificent building. French minister ask: - How did you get money? - Can you see the bridge outside the window? - No. - Voilà.
评论 #10388198 未加载
评论 #10387048 未加载
arel超过 9 年前
Regarding the prices of steel rising 50% can&#x27;t this be mitigated to some extent by buying core materials (or a proportion of) on the futures market which is specifically designed to protect the buyer from price fluctuations?
评论 #10387335 未加载
评论 #10386894 未加载
Fluxx超过 9 年前
On the <i>quadrupling</i> of the estimate from $250 million to $1 billion between 1995 and 1996, the article states:<p>&quot;<i>The cost increase was the result of detailed engineering studies conducted during the year or so after the initial estimate was released. Among other things, soil testing in the Bay had revealed that bridge pilings would need to be anchored “deeper into bedrock than expected,” she writes.</i>&quot;<p>Now hindsight is 20&#x2F;20 and I am not an engineer in this field, but it seems that if you&#x27;re floating an estimate that isn&#x27;t informed by the engineering studies necessary to give an accurate estimate then you probably shouldn&#x27;t have given that initial estimate in the first place? Or at least should have given the initial estimate as a range and&#x2F;or with a huge disclaimer that you might get into researching the bridge and the estimate could cost multiples more?
评论 #10388418 未加载
nashashmi超过 9 年前
I am a Civil Engineer and I see a problem in the industry so gaping wide, even CEOs of the industry claim the industry is ripe for &quot;disruption.&quot;<p>This industry is so old yet the innovation is really behind. <i></i>Technology<i></i> (?lame word?) should be speeding things up and making things more accurate and less error prone, but instead it seems to be delaying the time work gets completed.<p>Some promise is held in Information Modeling like BIM or CIM, but they are not trickling into the industry at the pace required. And further, many of the present day engineers are not in a position to understand this stuff.
评论 #10386705 未加载
ucaetano超过 9 年前
<i>That didn’t sit well. Pulitzer-winning architectural critic Allan Temko blasted the skyway option as “dull” and likened it to “an outsized freeway ramp.” MTC head Mary King said of the skyway: “While we appreciate the governor has offered vanilla ice cream, we want chocolate sauce on top.” One Oakland resident wrote that since the Bay Area was full of such creative types, “I think each of us should draw our own bridge” and send it to MTC for consideration.</i><p>Oh, you want the chocolate sauce on top? That will be an extra few billion dollars, please.
评论 #10386761 未加载
carsongross超过 9 年前
As a reminder, The Golden Gate Bridge, built in 1933, cost $1.5 billion in todays dollars, is 8,980 feet long (to the 11,616 feet of the eastern span) is 746 feet tall (to the 525 feet of the eastern span) and is tremendously architecturally significant, rather than looking like a highway onramp with a small sail plopped on one end of it.<p>Please stop this ride.
评论 #10387178 未加载
评论 #10387184 未加载
评论 #10387206 未加载
评论 #10388244 未加载
bigethan超过 9 年前
This quote hits close to home: “Basically at the onset of a project I think the higher ups prefer a dollar amount and schedule that doesn’t shock the public.”<p>When the people who are not knowledgeable about the actual details of the project require their expectations to be met, other expectations of theirs will not be met (the classic &quot;fast, cheap, or good, choose two&quot; joke). I like to say to people making unreasonable demands &quot;Do you want to be disappointed now, or later?&quot;
exelius超过 9 年前
In our environment of cost cutting and &quot;fiscal conservatism&quot;, I don&#x27;t see any other way to fund a large public works project.<p>If the first estimate had been $4 billion (assuming we&#x27;re taking $6.5 billion in 2015 dollars and working back to 1998 dollars), the project never would have gotten off the ground. The government would have said &quot;fuck no&quot; and asked for another bid. It would have been mired in discussions, argument, etc for years before eventually settling on a $1 billion price tag -- that will eventually balloon to $7 billion or so anyway, because the winning bidder intentionally underbid because it was the only way it would get approved.<p>The only way to build large public projects like this is to take advantage of the sunk cost fallacy (or &quot;bait and switch&quot;.) Government contractors will get their cut, and the regulatory tack-ons added by local governments to put their stamp on it (and get some operating budget!) also add money.
评论 #10386356 未加载
评论 #10387605 未加载
guelo超过 9 年前
I used to be a supporter of California&#x27;s high speed rail project until this bridge. It&#x27;s not just the cost overruns it&#x27;s also the shoddy work, the political interference, the secrecy, the publicly funded PR bullshiting, and the complete lack of accountability. I really doubt the rail project will be completed in my lifetime.
评论 #10388309 未加载
pcunite超过 9 年前
I found these links helpful:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cable-stayed_bridge" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cable-stayed_bridge</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Self-anchored_suspension_bridge" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Self-anchored_suspension_bridg...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Suspension_bridge_types" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Suspension_bridge_types</a>
ww520超过 9 年前
Big public projects have overrun. Another one is the Boston Big Dig. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Big_Dig" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Big_Dig</a>. The estimated cost was $2.8 billion initially and scheduled to complete in 1998, but it was completed only in 2007 with $14.6 billion. It&#x27;s estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, that will be paid off until 2038.
dqdo超过 9 年前
I wrote a paper on how to control the project cost escalation that is relevant to this discussion. Typically 90% of construction projects are completed over budget with median being 28% over. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;leanconstructionblog.com&#x2F;Target-Value-Design-as-a-Method-for-Controlling-Project-Cost-Overrun.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;leanconstructionblog.com&#x2F;Target-Value-Design-as-a-Met...</a>
samstave超过 9 年前
What I am upset about is that after $6+ Billion spent on the new bridge, we have no greater capacity nor throughput. The toll plaza is still a traffic jam, and they only built half a bridge with no extra capacity for such a huge amount....
spenrose超过 9 年前
I Do. Not. Get. This. Let&#x27;s say the final bill after another retrofit is $13B. At 270K trips&#x2F;day, $1&#x2F;trip pays for it in 14 years. For crucial infrastructure in more-or-less the richest region the world has ever known. Yes, the communication could have been handled better. But the real issue, the cost, is no scandal.
johan_larson超过 9 年前
I wonder if the accuracy of estimates would improve if the clients let it be known that if the accumulated cost ever exceeded twice the initial estimate (or some similar multiple), the whole project team running the show would be replaced, and the project potentially scrapped.<p>It would be hard to stick to such a pledge, of course.
评论 #10386108 未加载
ck2超过 9 年前
A better question is why didn&#x27;t they stop when it hit 100% overrun.<p>$6 billion overrun could have fed, clothed and health insured million of people
评论 #10387393 未加载
评论 #10387413 未加载
pbreit超过 9 年前
$250m figure is highly mis-leading since it refers only to upgrade costs. Building a new bridge is not equivalent.
bradys超过 9 年前
would have only been 500m if they were agile... &#x2F;s
AC__超过 9 年前
I see so many comments defending this obscene, blatant, pilfering of the public coffers. Call a spade a spade people, this thing is a massive scam. San Fran must be lousy with greasy wheels.