Did the Planners of the Golden Gate Bridge Plan Well?

¶ … Golden Gate Bridge

Tim Truitt

GM591 Strategic Project Management

Resources

Core Project Concept and Market Analysis

Costs and Benefits

Project Stakeholders

Project Strategy -- Recommended Courses of Action to Problems or Issues

After completing a project need and feasibility assessment to analyze the project of constructing the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, CA, I have determined that the Project was an excellent example of strategic project management that achieved the targeted goals and benefits. Safety concerns, mechanical concerns, fiduciary concerns, and local concerns have all been sufficiently addressed by Joseph Strauss, and the costs and benefits of the Project are clearly defined along with the Project's scope, risk, and strategy. Project stakeholders (local counties) have been adequately informed of the Project and have supported its implementation with a vote of confidence.

Project Goal

The goal of the Project is to construct the world's longest and tallest Suspension bridge circa 1937 (Kwan, 2007) connecting San Francisco to Marin County. Currently commuters are served by ferry boat. The bridge would facilitate growth around the bay by making travel easier (Young, Griffin, 1957).

Resources

The Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District (incorporated in 1928) gained approval to sell $30 million in bonds to finance the Project, budgeted at $27 million. In 1932, Amadeo Giannini, founder of Bank of America, purchased the bonds in order to facilitate the needs of the economy (FHWA, 2013). These bonds were paid off entirely by 1971.

Core Project Concept and Market Analysis

The core project concept was clearly expressed by Joseph Strauss, head of the Project, who assured local communities that local laborers would be safe during construction by placing a net underneath the construction zone. It addressed the scope of the Project, the risks, and the strategy. The main risk is durability due to earthquakes, and financial support. The Project's durability was assured by Strauss, who stabilized the anchorages which support the towers and can hold up during earthquakes (Kwan, 2007), and the swinging effect of the suspended bridge would also be effective in sustaining earthquakes. The Project was determined by the planners, Strauss, Charles Alton Ellis (principal engineer), and Leon Moisseiff, designer of the Manhattan Bridge, to be fit for execution. Their expertise and authority on bridge building is a resounding vote of confidence for local communities. The finances are to come from bonds to be sold.

Costs and Benefits

The costs and benefits are as follows. The cost is $27 million for construction, financed by bonds sold to Bank of America. The benefits are the facilitation of regional growth by allowing easier access to San Francisco from Marin County commuters. The toll charges for using the bridge will retire the principal owed in bonds to BofA plus the $39 million in interest by 1971.

Project Stakeholders

The local counties voted to approve the Project. Southern Pacific Railroad, which owned the ferry fleet, opposed the Project. The suit only led to locals boycotting usage of the ferry. Humboldt County also opposed the Project on the basis of the tremendous flow of traffic that would result (FHWA, 2013).

Project Strategy -- Recommended Courses of Action to Problems or Issues

The safety net has alleviated concerns of workers and strong anchorages have alleviated concerns of designers. The Golden Gate Bridge District was created to oversee construction and finance of the Project. San Francisco has joined this district as well as other counties. This circumvents the displeasure of Humboldt County residents (Gudde, 1949). We recommend that this Project commence without delay.