There are a bunch of footbridges all along that river. It would really start to become a pain if more of them got inspected and condemned in that way.
In terms of cynicism, I suppose the counter question is are you really arguing that overengineering isnt a thing? Obviously sometimes it may be prudent, but surely sometimes it isn't and amounts to a waste. Im not an engineer and am 100% ignorant, but we were only allowed opinions on stuff we were experts in this discussion forum wouldn't be very populated!
I was interested in the last section of that report, 5.4 and 5.5, where they appear to suggest that remediation of the bridge could be an option at a cost of £50-80,000. It wasn't specified, unless I missed it, how long this might extend the lifespan of the bridge. Obviously if this only bought the bridge 10 years it wouldn't be worth it. In 5.5, they estimate the budget costs of the new bridge to be £80-120,000, quite a lot less than the £180k now quoted, which might grow further.
Again, the DfT looked into budget estimates and concluded that even people who know what they talk about have what they termed optimism bias, they suggested that reality was 1.6x the budget estimate and that was before material prices went mad.
Quote from: Paul B on February 04, 2024, 06:19:52 pm Again, the DfT looked into budget estimates and concluded that even people who know what they talk about have what they termed optimism bias, they suggested that reality was 1.6x the budget estimate and that was before material prices went mad.This is why I hated working as an estimator in the rope access industry. On big projects you were always pricing competitively against other estimators. It was a lose lose situation with two types of estimator. The bad estimators who priced in everything and therefore lost the work on price, and the other bad estimators who knowingly or otherwise didn't price in everything and therefore put in the lowest bid and won, at a price where the company made a loss. There were no good estimators. Only bad estimators good at blaming project managers for the loss.
This is why I hated working as an estimator in the rope access industry. On big projects you were always pricing competitively against other estimators. It was a lose lose situation with two types of estimator. The bad estimators who priced in everything and therefore lost the work on price, and the other bad estimators who knowingly or otherwise didn't price in everything and therefore put in the lowest bid and won, at a price where the company made a loss. There were no good estimators. Only bad estimators good at blaming project managers for the loss.
Again, I'm at the buffet so this reply will be brief. That's what you see as the public, but what underlies that issue is poor risk management on the client side (and probably a poorly written contract/works information).Change or variations or compensation events or whatever you want to call it, as Fultonious suggests is another issue but people can't get away with it if risk is managed correctly and the contract is sufficiently robust. Plus, choose your contractor wisely. They aren't all the same in their behaviours.
It seems like a huge issue in public sector projects too. Government puts huge contract out for tender, ridiculous low bid wins (government: "Look how much money we've saved!"), contractor fails to provide basic levels of service and either government shells out a load more cash so basic service can be provided or government is back in the same place it started, having to do the work at the original cost, but with a big bill for the contractor too.
In your experience Paul, are there clients who do these things well? I guess the examples that I see are where things don't go well, but is that common? How hard is it writing a tight contract?
I wonder if this is what happened to new university building opposite Weston Park hospital. They were well into construction before having to completely demolish it and build a slightly different building