Isambard Kingdom Brunel in modern Britain probably wouldn't bother with civil engineering; planning permission for his projects would get tied up in 10-15 year legal battles against NIMBYs.
Worthwhile noting that back then the country was significantly less full of people to mount objections. e.g. Paddington was built where it is because that was the edge of the city at the time. Similarly Bristol Temple Meads was built in a meadow area outside the city. The were no major roads unless built by Romans.
Well yeah modern day engineering projects are of course planned and built differently. Back in Brunel's day it wasn't unheard of for bridges to collapse outright or to be deliberately overengineered to the extent that they'd probably not be funded today (see the Forth Bridge as an example)
I dunno what NIMBYs would have been in a position to object to his bridges, though.
"We like the view of the Forth just fine as it is, thank you very much. And, a rail line? With all the train noise? Not to be thought of. It would ruin the peaceful charm of the scene."
An interesting historical example was the kromme lijn (curved line) in Delft (the Netherlands), which was in operation for all of 5 days before the landowner caved and ceded his land to the railway.
The landowner, incidentally, had purchased the land as an act of retaliation against the railway, feeling slighted after having previously sold land in Zandvoort (near Haarlem) to the railway.
I grew in one of the towns where the train ferry landed, which presumably became significantly more peaceful after the bridge was built. (Before my time, obviously)
It's 2.4 km long which puts it at about $200 million GBP / km.
The East Span of the Bay Bridge cost 6.5 billion USD in 2013 which would be 8.5 billion USD today or just shy of 7 billion GBP. It is 3.5 km long which puts it at $2 billion GBP / km.
It appears that the over-engineering yielded a cheaper result per kilometre and that more expensive projects will quite readily be funded, up to 10x higher.
I don't think you appreciate quite what an outlier that bridge is, and plugging the cost into an inflation calculator then comparing it the Bay Bridge or the new Queensferry Crossing isn't a good comparison either. It's maybe better to compare to an example from around that time, and as it happens there's actually a really good and relevant one we can use. The Forth Bridge was designed and constructed shortly after a slightly longer rail bridge over the river Tay had famously collapsed - a bridge which was constructed for 0.35 million GBP. So we're talking nearly 10x the cost for a bridge that is actually just a little bit shorter.
Veering slightly offtopic now, but I don't know we can confidently say it yielded a "cheaper" result too - maintenance over the years has been pretty expensive, since the bridge needed to be constantly coated with special paint to prevent corrosion. This has found its way into Scots language as a popular simile for a neverending task: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/like_painting_the_Forth_Bridg...
You don't need to compare to the "Bay Bridge". The Queensferry Crossing was recently completed and it sits right next to the Forth Bridge, it cost an estimated 1.35bn and it 2.7km long making it about £500 million per KM.
So there is a significant additional cost, however only one person was killed building it vs 73 for the forth bridge. It was also (of course) bitterly opposed by the green party, the friends of the earth, nimbies etc but thankfully these usual suspects were defeated.
You can't easily compare different bridges (especially on different continents!) with the different terrain. I assume the queensferry crossing is on the "3rd best" location to build a bridge on that part of the Forth, the Forth Bridge will have been able to choose the easiest route.
"After running your proposed project through the HM Treasury Green Book*, I'm afraid we can't justify funding it."
* The Green Book is how the government appraises public projects. It has often been accused of having a miserly view on the benefits of infrastructure, leading to regional disparities in spending.
