Donoreo from the article:
it seems likely that the engineers were pressured by the government
Conjecture.
such a recommendation was not supported by their research and expertise.
Also conjecture.
Basically a magazine did an FOI, cherry picked quotes, and then pushed their opinion as fact.
They certainly left out the opinion of engineers who’d said there’s a risk but the risk would require further study, ie. more money.
Let’s say for sake of argument that the government decided to go in a different direction following a cost / benefit analysis and did what this magazine believes the government should have done, which is repair this aging structure, and imagine someone was hurt as a result? Who would be blamed?
For better or for worse the government will usually chose the path of least liability and least cost. If there’s even an iota of risk involved in a project, they will regularly avoid it or pass it onto the next government.
At worst this was an overreaction erring on the side of safety.