> Inquiring Minds Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Per the Wikipedia article that is linked to,
> under
> > the disadvantages section, “Weathering steel is
> > sensitive to humid subtropical climates. In
> such
> > environments, it is possible that the
> protective
> > patina may not stabilize but instead continue
> to
> > corrode. The same thing can happen in
> > environments laden with sea salt.” Paint will
> > help, but not prevent the eventual decay of the
> > structure. Sing steel in such a location was a
> > poor choice the first time around, and will be
> > proven to be a poor choice on the replacement
> > bridge, unless costly and time consuming
> > maintenance is performed at regular intervals
> > (repainting being the biggest). Although it is
> > nice for historical purposes to have the new
> > bridge be built the same as the old one, al all
> > concrete bridge would have been much better
> suited
> > to the environment and will cost much less to
> > maintain in the long run.
>
Excuse my ignorance, but how long did the bridge
last that they just removed? About 87 years,
right?

Are their reasons to believe the new, heavier
bridge, made of presumably better stuff to begin
with, won't last at least as long as the old one
did?

How many of you plan to be standing there in 2101
yelling, "I told you so!!" if they have to replace
this one after 87 more years?