If most of that are technical drafts going down to smallest details, I can imagine how it could be sort of reasonable. Large things like, say, nuclear power plants or huge ships have literally millions of parts.
Seems pretty reasonable actually. Final reports contain -everything- and I really do mean everything.
Design docs and drawings obviously (easily 1k pages more if you fit it on a4), since each trade needs it's own views. Specifications are included, as a legal document that calls out which regulations every possible system will follow and calls out exceptions (proof they apply). All possible testing from receiving it (and documentation including pictures), proof of setup, proof of commissioning (IE construction essentially needs to do what a tech bro would do with automated testing, by hand with with each step documented and signed for, and each possible state the system could be in). Any other type of test report NETA/material quality/thermography/whatever (a single breaker easily comes to two pages of test report, a voltage/current meter easily comes to three pages per phase). Pictures are likely kept to only two per A4 page.
Basically it's a "declaration from ignorance", since big numbers sound scary and wasteful to others who haven't worked in the field.
The question is, why did it cost significantly more to produce that document than it cost Norway to just build an even bigger tunnel? Pages might be misleading, but cash is not.
> Seems pretty reasonable actually. Final reports contain -everything- and I really do mean everything.
No it doesn’t. It’s an outrage and a powerful argument against the entire system that produced it. There is no sane way that spending more money on stakeholder consultation for a comparable tunnel than Norway spent on building one can be defended.
