only a single bid for US$1.4 billion was received, considerably more than their estimate of around $780 million. This was partially because of a rise in the cost of steel and concrete, particularly as a result of the concurrent building boom in China, but also due to construction uncertainties owing to the innovative design. The entire project, requiring 100,000 tons of structural steel, was expected to cost $6.2 billion as of July 2005, up from a 1997 estimate of $1.1 billion (for a simple viaduct) and a March 2003 estimate of $2.6 billion that included a tower span. Despite the increase in costs, construction began on the replacement on January 29, 2002, with completion originally slated for 2007. The span finally opened on September 2, 2013. Removal of signature span On September 30, 2004, the office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that, without sufficient funds authorized by the legislature, the bid must be allowed to expire. It was, at the time, unclear if this would require a redesign to obtain a less expensive span. On December 10, 2004, the governor's office announced that the signature span concept had been scrapped, with the bridge to be the simple viaduct originally proposed. The design, having gone full circle, remained expensive due to the continued high cost of materials. Many argued that there would be little difference in final cost with this lesser proposal since that concept required obtaining new permits, perhaps adding another two or three years; furthermore, a viaduct may not even be able to obtain Coast Guard approval, since the maximum width of the ship channel would be reduced by almost half. Local reaction to this announcement was intense, with most suggesting that the bridge be built to appear as proposed — either in the steel material as bid or using a reinforced concrete tower of similar appearance but of lower cost. Reinstatement of original design The standpoint of pro-"signature bridge" activists and regional politicians was reinforced by a legislative analyst's report in late January 2005. The report indicated, due to additional time delays and all new permitting requirements, that the governor's viaduct proposal could likely cost additional funding and take longer to complete than the proposed signature span. This view was reinforced by a further report in March 2005 indicating that the delay imposed by the governor had already added at least $100 million to the expected cost (subsequently