English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-07-18 12:35:26 · 4 answers · asked by esha26 1 in Science & Mathematics Engineering

Ok, ty for the answers so far and in reply to one of them by "they" I meant design engineers!

2007-07-18 13:38:29 · update #1

4 answers

It comes down to the all mighty dollar. Technology is being developed that can reduce the engine noise created by diesel engines, but this can increase the cost of a single piece of machinery by 10% (meaning $10,000 to $100,000 depending on the machine). Some technologies, like electric motors, can require enormous amounts of capital to implement. Electric trains works in metro areas, but electric construction equipment on a rural construction site is not practical at this point in time because of the high cost of the temporary electrical system needed to charge or operate this equipment.

Some of the sounds found at a construction site are for safety, like the back-up beeps on most large equipment. Some things will never be eliminated. In locations where rock needs to be removed, blasting is frequently the only economical method of making the rock movable. Larger equipment is typically louder because of physics, and we are trying to reduce the construction times on larger projects all the time. This typically means that bigger machines are needed to do the project.

In summary, there are things that can be done, like use smaller machines and implent new technologies, but the almighty dollar forces contractors to use larger equipment with cheaper technology. I encourage less pollution where ever possible (noise is pollution), but I still care about by wallet also, most contractors have a similar view.

2007-07-19 07:40:31 · answer #1 · answered by Ryan K 2 · 0 0

Have at it. Many general contractors would jump at noise abatement devices that don't compromise construction schedules. We already have electric buses and trains, but electric buses aren't very popular, and changing a bus route requires a major outlay.

BTW, at some time in the not-too-distant future, you become a part of "they", like it or not.

2007-07-18 20:01:46 · answer #2 · answered by Helmut 7 · 0 0

They're more expensive.

Here in DC, we're trying to figure out if we can afford to add two stops to the MetroRail, despite the fact that 30-40 years ago, dozens of stops were built.

Which I think is another sign that we're more bankrupt than we think.

2007-07-18 19:44:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Why can't they?

They can, and Jeff gave the reason why they don't.

The world is run by accountants not engineers.

2007-07-18 21:45:51 · answer #4 · answered by dmb06851 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers