Quote:
Originally Posted by Tropics
Still hate the look of this thing. We got kinda screwed on this bridge because some of Caltrava's[sic] designs are awesome, especially his suspension cabled designs.
|
The design criteria allowed for no piers in the river, and the proximity to the heliport negated the possibility of a tower or suspended configuration, and placed an almost unrealistic height restriction on the project. The budget was also fixed at a price I consider low for achieving those lofty goals.
Given those constraints, I would like to have seen you, or anyone in Alberta come up with a better plan. The c-train bridge just to the west is about as innovative as Albertan engineering gets. What would you have done different?
It's not a trivial little problem to solve.
It's a shame the fabrication in Spain went awry, particularly for Graham, but deficiency correction and rework does average about 10% of every construction projects' ultimate cost, and this is little different. It's actually a better outcome for the taxpayer--the contract is a fixed-price, so Graham will have to absorb the cost of poor procurement.
I'm sure you don't hear about oilfield or roadways projects where the welding supervision was lacking or the scraper operator missed his grade and millions had to be spent correcting the quality control issues, but it happens all too often, and you actually pay for it, whether it be new taxes, higher usage fees, or a little more out of pocket at the pump.
Try thinking, and stop believing everything you see in the sun. At least you could save us the hassle of reading the same old rehashed propaganda.
It's a nice bridge and we're not going to tear it down. Leave it be.