Why, in stories such as this, do we equate liquids (concrete) to olympic swimming pools and solids such as steel, to the number of Eiffel towers?
These aren't units of measure that help explain anything better than the cubic feet and tons that were used in the article. If people don't get cubic feet, so be it, but I don't think telling them it would fill up a football field to a depth of 10 feet really gets the point across any better.
Chalk it up to my scientific background, but that sort of thing in articles annoys me.
Best way to sum up the article? This bridge is really long and makes getting to an island 20 minutes faster.
There, no crazy analogies needed.