On the <i>quadrupling</i> of the estimate from $250 million to $1 billion between 1995 and 1996, the article states:<p>&quot;<i>The cost increase was the result of detailed engineering studies conducted during the year or so after the initial estimate was released. Among other things, soil testing in the Bay had revealed that bridge pilings would need to be anchored “deeper into bedrock than expected,” she writes.</i>&quot;<p>Now hindsight is 20&#x2F;20 and I am not an engineer in this field, but it seems that if you&#x27;re floating an estimate that isn&#x27;t informed by the engineering studies necessary to give an accurate estimate then you probably shouldn&#x27;t have given that initial estimate in the first place? Or at least should have given the initial estimate as a range and&#x2F;or with a huge disclaimer that you might get into researching the bridge and the estimate could cost multiples more?