Not disagreeing with the author's conclusion, but the price comparison to the original struck me as a bit odd.
Ceteris paribus, building the exact same bridge will result in the exact same failure. Some of the additional cost is precisely to avoid the present scenario repeating itself in the future.
How big that addition represents and how effective it is up for debate, but asking for a better bridge at inflation adjusted price is not a. apples to apples comparison.
If spending the 1887 price (adjusted only for inflation) got us an identical-to-1887 bridge, which lasted through another 125 years of mostly-neglected maintenance - very few people would refer to that as a failure.
No - but that 1887 bridge did not fail under heavier modern loads. And realistically, sourcing load-bearing members as weak as the 1887-tech cast iron might cost far more than using "average quality" modern reproductions.
Temperature only seems to be an issue because of the now-seized bearings.
Ceteris paribus, building the exact same bridge will result in the exact same failure. Some of the additional cost is precisely to avoid the present scenario repeating itself in the future.
How big that addition represents and how effective it is up for debate, but asking for a better bridge at inflation adjusted price is not a. apples to apples comparison.