Hacker News Reader

Comment by shortstuffsushi | Hacker News Reader

It feels like this should be titled something more to the effect of, "watch a bridge section be constructed on site and then installed over the span of a year." Noting it as "replaced in three days" feels wildly inaccurate.

View on HN

Time on site seems like a massively critical time variable, especially with infrastructure people want to use, e.g. a road/highway. Time off site is presumably much cheaper, certainly less disruptive.

The title feels informative to me.

I'm not sure what you mean about time on site, could you explain? They've been building this section of bridge "on site" by my understanding of the phrase, and have had the road way under the bridge diverted by construction for the past year. It appears to have been permanently redirected now. I assume during some of the work to the existing bridge, they've had traffic slowed, diverted, barreled, etc. Actual moving of old section out and new section into place in three days seems to pretend this was a speedy project with only minor disruption to local traffic, which doesn't seem quite right to me. I guess if the thought is just that that highway connected to the bridge is only (fully) closed for three days, that's certainly worth something over having it closed for the year it took to do the project.

According to the FAQ https://verandaplan.org/faq the road under the bridge is closed for 7 days (already closed) and the highway is closed for 3.

All in all that's a pretty low amount of time; often these are done by closing the road under for an unspecified amount of time, diverting all traffic onto one bridge span (reduce to one lane in each direction) and replacing the bridge a half at a time.

I misunderstood; you’re right, but as sibling comment says, short time to close down the affected roads completely matters.

So Usain Bolt can win gold medal in Olympics under 10 seconds totally disregarding all training he spent time on.

So all that matters is people watching it on TV?

I disagree much, because building site was there for months and road below was hindered all the time. Highway was maybe operating without closing lanes but that is not the full story there.

Your example would seem to answer itself. No-one understands the 100m record to be 17 years.

You and the sibling commenter are definitely correct, this construction method definitely appears to be preferable to just killing the road for a year. My qualm specifically is that the title doesn't really tell the full story (clickbait). I, at least, clicked it because I wondered how they could possibly have done all the prep and work in that sort of a window and the answer was they couldn't, but they still got my click.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com