Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 214 posts

Re: Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

#141

Post by bko »

pcl wrote: post #64

I really don't understand all the hyperbole around this bridge. It's a suspension bridge, so the relevant bits are at the pylons, which just happen to be on either side of a huge canyon. It clocks in at #14 on Wikipedia's list of longest suspension bridges, with a main span that is 603 meters shorter (2023 meters vs 1420) than the longest. More interestingly, to me at least, is the fact that 31 of the longest 50 are…

The thing that stuck out to me was this:

> The 2,890-metre-long structure, which took more than three years to complete, reduces travel time between the two sides of the canyon from two hours to two minutes.

Pretty impressive. I feel like things in the US take a lot longer and cost a lot more. The prime example is the second avenue subway extension which has been planned since 1920. But I just searched for a few significant bridges like the Gordie Howe bridge which took about 7 years and 6.4bn Canadian (connects US and Canada). And this bridge which seems a lot more of an engineering feat took 3 years and 8 months and cost between $280 to $292 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordie_Howe_International_Brid...

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3553875/the-new-tallest-...

Re: Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

#142

Post by causal »

potato3732842 wrote: post #129
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unnecessary until it's removed and a bridge collapses. Then it's the incompetent government.

[flagged]

Nobody is advocating for unnecessary checkboxing.

When 18-wheelers cross a bridge, it has to be engineered correctly. Unnecessary red-tape happens, but in no way would I want a bridge you "shoot from the hip" carrying my family alongside commercial trucks.

Re: Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

#143

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

screye wrote: post #15

Very impressive. The economic angle is a bit confusing. Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. Guizhou is a poor part of China, without much international tourism or trade. Wikipedia indicates it is meant to increase tourism, but even China's most attractive regions (Beijing, Shanghai, Great Wall, Chengdu, Chongqing) are under-visited. I can't imagine that Guizhou will be on foreign tourist's agenda f…

That's how you develop a country. If you always go by short term economics, nothing will ever get done.

Re: Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

#145

Post by actionfromafar »

delfinom wrote: post #135
screye wrote: post #15

Very impressive. The economic angle is a bit confusing. Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. Guizhou is a poor part of China, without much international tourism or trade. Wikipedia indicates it is meant to increase tourism, but even China's most attractive regions (Beijing, Shanghai, Great Wall, Chengdu, Chongqing) are under-visited. I can't imagine that Guizhou will be on foreign tourist's agenda f…

.....Are you why we don't have infrastructure in the US? If you want to uplift a region, you invest into it. A bridge that cuts travel time by 2 hours increases domestic trade, it can even increase domestic and international tourism long term.

Uplifting is woke in the US.

Re: Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

#146

Post by gwbas1c »

pcl wrote: post #64

I really don't understand all the hyperbole around this bridge. It's a suspension bridge, so the relevant bits are at the pylons, which just happen to be on either side of a huge canyon. It clocks in at #14 on Wikipedia's list of longest suspension bridges, with a main span that is 603 meters shorter (2023 meters vs 1420) than the longest. More interestingly, to me at least, is the fact that 31 of the longest 50 are…

Years ago I remember reading about an economist who stated something like, "the best way to stimulate an economy is to pay people to dig holes and then fill them in." (I wish I remember who said that.)

In modern times, that translates to paying people to build roads and bridges. Why pay people to sit on their butts and eat bon-bons when you can pay them to get something of value?

In more tangible terms, building infrastructure does elevate peoples' situations.

Re: Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

#147

Post by potato3732842 »

causal wrote: post #142
potato3732842 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Nobody is advocating for unnecessary checkboxing. When 18-wheelers cross a bridge, it has to be engineered correctly. Unnecessary red-tape happens, but in no way would I want a bridge you "shoot from the hip" carrying my family alongside commercial trucks.

It doesn't need to be "engineered" at all. You don't need some six+ figure person supported by a whole office of other 6 figure people to run numbers on cookie cutter stuff that's only slightly different than the last stuff. Hell, 99x/100 they're taking the numbers and then picking the closest cookie cutter beam shapes, rebar arrangements, concrete forms, etc, etc that do the job. What even is the point of having situation specific numbers if you're going to constrain your choices to finite options?

This is the kind of work that, before industry lobbyists got involved, used to be done using reference tables and all the intermediary make work didn't exist. Someone building a bridge would say the span is X, traffic is Y, and that would get them their beams, their spacing and their decking specs. From there they'd get their weight numbers and they'd cross that with the soil and get their footings.

And it's not just bridges, it's everything.

But there's too many people, too much money, and too many careers tied up in the racket and they'll screech every step of the way so it'll never get fixed until it's so flagrantly the source of problems that it's undeniable, and even then it probably won't, look at healthcare.

Re: Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

#148

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

bko wrote: post #141
pcl wrote: post #64

I really don't understand all the hyperbole around this bridge. It's a suspension bridge, so the relevant bits are at the pylons, which just happen to be on either side of a huge canyon. It clocks in at #14 on Wikipedia's list of longest suspension bridges, with a main span that is 603 meters shorter (2023 meters vs 1420) than the longest. More interestingly, to me at least, is the fact that 31 of the longest 50 are…

The thing that stuck out to me was this: > The 2,890-metre-long structure, which took more than three years to complete, reduces travel time between the two sides of the canyon from two hours to two minutes. Pretty impressive. I feel like things in the US take a lot longer and cost a lot more. The prime example is the second avenue subway extension which has been planned since 1920. But I just searched for a few sign…

Chinese civil engineers, and engineering orgs, are good because they get a lot of practice.

In the West, and especially in the US, individuals and orgs don't get practice, so when they finally do get a new contract they have to stumble around for 5-10 years figuring out all the institutional knowledge that was lost.

By the time they figure it out, the project is over budget, so it gets canceled, and then it's 20 years until the next half-hearted attempt. Lather rinse repeat.

At root, a lot of this stems from a "managerial" mindset in which people and skills can simply be "reallocated" on a dime. They can't. You can't uproot trees all the time. You plant one and then it grows over multiple human lifetimes.

Re: Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

#149

Post by potato3732842 »

bko wrote: post #141
pcl wrote: post #64

I really don't understand all the hyperbole around this bridge. It's a suspension bridge, so the relevant bits are at the pylons, which just happen to be on either side of a huge canyon. It clocks in at #14 on Wikipedia's list of longest suspension bridges, with a main span that is 603 meters shorter (2023 meters vs 1420) than the longest. More interestingly, to me at least, is the fact that 31 of the longest 50 are…

The thing that stuck out to me was this: > The 2,890-metre-long structure, which took more than three years to complete, reduces travel time between the two sides of the canyon from two hours to two minutes. Pretty impressive. I feel like things in the US take a lot longer and cost a lot more. The prime example is the second avenue subway extension which has been planned since 1920. But I just searched for a few sign…

>> The 2,890-metre-long structure, which took more than three years to complete, reduces travel time between the two sides of the canyon from two hours to two minutes.

The construction timeline and travel improvement are comparable to the New River Gorge bridge, which was completed in the US in ~50yr ago back when systems were structured to and the people who ran them actually were capable of producing results.

Re: Highest bridge unveiled at more than 2,000ft above ground

#150

Post by throw-the-towel »

gwbas1c wrote: post #146
pcl wrote: post #64

I really don't understand all the hyperbole around this bridge. It's a suspension bridge, so the relevant bits are at the pylons, which just happen to be on either side of a huge canyon. It clocks in at #14 on Wikipedia's list of longest suspension bridges, with a main span that is 603 meters shorter (2023 meters vs 1420) than the longest. More interestingly, to me at least, is the fact that 31 of the longest 50 are…

Years ago I remember reading about an economist who stated something like, "the best way to stimulate an economy is to pay people to dig holes and then fill them in." (I wish I remember who said that.) In modern times, that translates to paying people to build roads and bridges. Why pay people to sit on their butts and eat bon-bons when you can pay them to get something of value? In more tangible terms, building infr…

That was Keynes I think
Post reply on HN