The document provides key facts about the Big Dig project in Boston, including its scope, costs, management, and factors contributing to cost increases. It was the largest and most complex urban transportation project in US history, replacing an elevated highway with an underground one. While it achieved major engineering accomplishments, the projected total cost increased dramatically from $2.6 billion to $14.6 billion due to factors like expanded scope, environmental mitigations, inflation, and schedule acceleration. Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff managed the project and worked to control costs, but cost estimates disclosed to officials were often higher than public figures stated by transportation agencies for political reasons.
The Art of Construction Staging: Design with the public in mind.
Improving mobility upon groundbreaking for major transportation and institutional projects.
LYNX Blue Line Extension Construction UpdateLeslie Blaser
This public meeting will inform the community about the progress of the light rail extension, answer questions, and share the overall vision for the Blue Line Extension alignment.
Lee Highway, U.S. Route 29 Phase III WideningFairfax County
This project consisted of construction of a box culvert extension, concrete sidewalk, asphalt trail, curb and gutter, 24-inch water line relocation, 8,650 feet of additional asphalt pavement, two bio-retention filters, five signalized intersections, and other related items.
The Art of Construction Staging: Design with the public in mind.
Improving mobility upon groundbreaking for major transportation and institutional projects.
LYNX Blue Line Extension Construction UpdateLeslie Blaser
This public meeting will inform the community about the progress of the light rail extension, answer questions, and share the overall vision for the Blue Line Extension alignment.
Lee Highway, U.S. Route 29 Phase III WideningFairfax County
This project consisted of construction of a box culvert extension, concrete sidewalk, asphalt trail, curb and gutter, 24-inch water line relocation, 8,650 feet of additional asphalt pavement, two bio-retention filters, five signalized intersections, and other related items.
Innovation in Civil Engineering and their Impact on Communities .
Civil Engineering Innovations,. in the Bandra - Worli Sea Link Project , Mumbai .Technical Instances of the Duttabad Constraint .
In these slides, we talk about infrastructure.
First tells that what is infrastructure. Secondly, its importance. At last, types of infrastructure.
Hope you enjoy our slides.
Thanks.
"Introduction to Civil Engineering" is a PowerPoint that provides an overview of civil engineering, and areas of specialization within the field, for primary and secondary students. Designed by Dr. Larry Rillet - Director of the Nebraska Transportation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln - and his educational outreach team members, the aim of this PowerPoint is to provide students with further exposure as to who civil engineers are and what they do. This lesson can be paired with a "Penny Boat" activity.
Expediting Infrastructure Repair Through Design-BuildUnshackle Upstate
Letter to Governor Cuomo highlighting the design-build method for disaster relief in New York State from Executive Director of Unshackle Upstate, Brian Sampson.
Infrastructure and Design Build ContractingWagner College
This monograph was written for Wagner College's Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform in August 2020 by Peter J. Kiernan, of counsel at Schiff Hardin in New York. Kiernan previously served as counsel to New York Gov. David Paterson, counsel to the deputy mayor for finance of the City of New York, and chief counsel to the New York State Senate Minority. As a Littauer fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, he wrote an analysis of the New York City fiscal crisis, which was published by Harvard. He is a graduate of John Carroll University, the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Cornell Law School.
When dignitaries broke ground on the Access to the Region’s Core (.docxphilipnelson29183
When dignitaries broke ground on the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) project in northern New Jersey in 2009, it was supposed to be a celebration to signal the start of a bright new future. Creating a commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River was not a particularly new or difficult idea, but it was viewed as a critical need. The project was first proposed in 1995, and every New Jersey governor after that time had publicly sup- ported the need for the tunnel. The reasons were compelling: The entire commuter rail system connecting
New York and New Jersey was supported by only one congested 100-year-old, two-track railroad tunnel into an overcrowded Penn Station in midtown Manhattan; both tracks had reached capacity and could no longer accommodate growth. Passengers were making more than 500,000 trips through Penn Station every day, with station congestion and overcrowding the norm. The project was especially critical for New Jersey residents because their commuter ridership to New York had more than quadrupled in the past 20 years from10 million annual trips to more than 46 million annual passenger trips. In the peak hours, the New Jersey Transit Authority operated 20 of the 23 trains heading into or out of New York. Building the ARC would double the number of New Jersey Transit commuter trains, from 45 to about 90, that could come into Manhattan every morning at rush hour.
· In the face of such congestion and perceived need, the ARC project was conceived to include the following elements:
· Two new tracks under the Hudson River and the New Jersey Palisades
· A new six-track passenger station, to be known as “New York Pennsylvania Station Extension” (NYPSE) under 34th Street, with passenger connection to Penn Station
· A new rail loop near the Lautenberg Secaucus Junction station to allow two northern New Jersey line trains access to New York City
· A midday rail storage yard in Kearny, New Jersey
Proponents also argued the environmental advantages of the project, noting that the ARC project would eliminate 30,000 daily personal automobile trips, taking 22,000 cars off the roads and resulting in 600,000 fewer daily vehicle miles traveled. The project was expected to thus reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 66,000 tons each year.
The ARC project was anticipated to take eight years to complete, coming into service in 2017. The cost of the project was significant, as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) reported the project cost as $8.7 billion in their Annual Report. In order to share the burden of the project costs, the funding as originally proposed included the following sources:
· Federal government: $4.5 billion
· Port Authority of New York and New Jersey:
· $3.0 billion New Jersey Turnpike Authority: $1.25 billion
A final important feature of the funding plan limited the exposure of the federal government for any project overruns, meaning that the government was locked into its original commitment amount only. Any .
Innovation in Civil Engineering and their Impact on Communities .
Civil Engineering Innovations,. in the Bandra - Worli Sea Link Project , Mumbai .Technical Instances of the Duttabad Constraint .
In these slides, we talk about infrastructure.
First tells that what is infrastructure. Secondly, its importance. At last, types of infrastructure.
Hope you enjoy our slides.
Thanks.
"Introduction to Civil Engineering" is a PowerPoint that provides an overview of civil engineering, and areas of specialization within the field, for primary and secondary students. Designed by Dr. Larry Rillet - Director of the Nebraska Transportation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln - and his educational outreach team members, the aim of this PowerPoint is to provide students with further exposure as to who civil engineers are and what they do. This lesson can be paired with a "Penny Boat" activity.
Expediting Infrastructure Repair Through Design-BuildUnshackle Upstate
Letter to Governor Cuomo highlighting the design-build method for disaster relief in New York State from Executive Director of Unshackle Upstate, Brian Sampson.
Infrastructure and Design Build ContractingWagner College
This monograph was written for Wagner College's Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform in August 2020 by Peter J. Kiernan, of counsel at Schiff Hardin in New York. Kiernan previously served as counsel to New York Gov. David Paterson, counsel to the deputy mayor for finance of the City of New York, and chief counsel to the New York State Senate Minority. As a Littauer fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, he wrote an analysis of the New York City fiscal crisis, which was published by Harvard. He is a graduate of John Carroll University, the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Cornell Law School.
When dignitaries broke ground on the Access to the Region’s Core (.docxphilipnelson29183
When dignitaries broke ground on the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) project in northern New Jersey in 2009, it was supposed to be a celebration to signal the start of a bright new future. Creating a commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River was not a particularly new or difficult idea, but it was viewed as a critical need. The project was first proposed in 1995, and every New Jersey governor after that time had publicly sup- ported the need for the tunnel. The reasons were compelling: The entire commuter rail system connecting
New York and New Jersey was supported by only one congested 100-year-old, two-track railroad tunnel into an overcrowded Penn Station in midtown Manhattan; both tracks had reached capacity and could no longer accommodate growth. Passengers were making more than 500,000 trips through Penn Station every day, with station congestion and overcrowding the norm. The project was especially critical for New Jersey residents because their commuter ridership to New York had more than quadrupled in the past 20 years from10 million annual trips to more than 46 million annual passenger trips. In the peak hours, the New Jersey Transit Authority operated 20 of the 23 trains heading into or out of New York. Building the ARC would double the number of New Jersey Transit commuter trains, from 45 to about 90, that could come into Manhattan every morning at rush hour.
· In the face of such congestion and perceived need, the ARC project was conceived to include the following elements:
· Two new tracks under the Hudson River and the New Jersey Palisades
· A new six-track passenger station, to be known as “New York Pennsylvania Station Extension” (NYPSE) under 34th Street, with passenger connection to Penn Station
· A new rail loop near the Lautenberg Secaucus Junction station to allow two northern New Jersey line trains access to New York City
· A midday rail storage yard in Kearny, New Jersey
Proponents also argued the environmental advantages of the project, noting that the ARC project would eliminate 30,000 daily personal automobile trips, taking 22,000 cars off the roads and resulting in 600,000 fewer daily vehicle miles traveled. The project was expected to thus reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 66,000 tons each year.
The ARC project was anticipated to take eight years to complete, coming into service in 2017. The cost of the project was significant, as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) reported the project cost as $8.7 billion in their Annual Report. In order to share the burden of the project costs, the funding as originally proposed included the following sources:
· Federal government: $4.5 billion
· Port Authority of New York and New Jersey:
· $3.0 billion New Jersey Turnpike Authority: $1.25 billion
A final important feature of the funding plan limited the exposure of the federal government for any project overruns, meaning that the government was locked into its original commitment amount only. Any .
Where new york stands on 5 big transportation projectsJohn Clemenza
Though some may be on track to be completed while others wallow in planning, here are five major projects underway that should make it easier for New Yorkers to get around. https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/policy/policy/new-york-5-big-transportation-projects.html
LEADERSHIP ROLES With a project of this magnitude, it .docxcroysierkathey
LEADERSHIP ROLES
With a project of this magnitude, it is important to have great leadership and communication.
The level of cooperation between the different agencies, contractors, and the public is
fundamental in having the project delivered on time. This project was led by Frank Gaines, who
is the lead bridge engineer for the city of San Diego for over 30 years. The project was awarded
to FlatIron West Inc. for the entire construction phase of the bridge. The traffic study was
performed by Rick Engineering and the bridge was designed by TYLIN International and led by
Project Engineer Kumar Gosh and Project Manager Jesus Garcia. The California Department of
Transportation is the primary owner of this project. Seaworld has a stake in this bridge because
they contributed $4.9 million to the project from their traffic mitigation fund. FlatIron
contributed to the schedule by updating the schedule when there were any delays such as
structural issues in the piles. An example is that the contractor had to perform a gamma test to
determine if there were any structural failures within the pile. The issue detected was a mixture
of slurry and concrete causing an inefficient consistency of the concrete. Due to this issue, the
project was delayed about a month and FlatIron had to update the delay. This delay depleted
most of the project float. Part of this delay was because once the workers made the mistake of
mixing the concrete, they decided to work on the next pile and not fix the first one. While
working on the second one, another structural issue happened and instead of fixing it they
wanted to continue with other piles. That is when Frank Gaines took initiative to tackle the
issues and instructed that the piles should be repaired before continuing.
Scheduling Contributors
● Owner: California Department of Transportation
● City Frank Gaines, Senior Bridge Engineer PE
● Contractors: FlatIron West Inc
● Traffic Study: Rick Engineering
● Bridge Designer:TYLIN INTERNATIONAL
● Project Engineer Kumar Gosh
● Project Manager Jesus Garcia
6
KEY PARAMETERS
It is common to experience delays in construction projects due to design faults, lack of team
accountability, resources and equipment management, etc. For the West Mission Bay Bridge
replacement project, one of their biggest conflict that affected the project schedule so far was
the construction of the concrete bridge piers. Since all of the live and dead loads of the bridge
are supported by its piers, it is crucial to construct them efficiently and safely. Equipment
failure and construction mistake should be taken into consideration when creating the
schedule. Any critical issue in equipment failure will likely take up all of the free float in the
schedule, and will not allow for any cushion for other potential delays. In this case, the project
suffered a significant delay because of a concrete pour mishap in one of its 24 ...
When Houston's Katy Freeway reopened after construction in 2009, increased vehicle speeds and transversely tined pavement surfaces created a noise level that was unacceptable to residents of surrounding villages. Funding was secured not only from TxDOT but also from the City of Houston and four villages. Transverse grooving was removed and NGCS was installed, improving noise significantly.
CASE STUDY 13.3 Dear Mr. President—Please cancel our project!”.docxmoggdede
CASE STUDY 13.3 “Dear Mr. President—Please cancel our project!”: The Honolulu Elevated Rail Project Speaking on the status of Honolulu’s Elevated Rail public transport system, former Hawaii Governor Benjamin Cayetano had an interesting message for President Trump: “As a lifelong Democrat and former governor of Hawaii, I opposed your candidacy. I must admit, however, that you are on the right track scrutinizing wasteful spending on pork barrel projects.” The admission by former governor Cayetano was prompted by the latest details emerging from a project that the New York Times has written is in danger of becoming a financial boondoggle. The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation’s (HART) 20-mile elevated heavy steel rail system that has been under construction for six years is now slated to cost nearly $10 billion, or $500 million per mile. If these costs are realized, Honolulu’s rail project would have the distinction of being the most expensive transit project in the country’s history. Honolulu is a beautiful but increasingly congested city on the south coast of Oahu. Residents and visitors have long complained that transportation options, highways, and other infrastructure have not kept pace with the growth of the city. In 2008 and following a close referendum vote, the city approved the beginning of the elevated rail system. To partially offset costs of the system, the mayor and city council instituted a temporary excise tax increase for residents and visitors. They also received $1.5 billion in Federal funding to support the project. Initially budgeted for $4.6 billion, the rail project is intended to start in the western edge of Honolulu, run through the middle of the city, and terminate at the Waikiki beaches. Included in the huge project are 21 stations, of which seven will be elevated and set 60 feet high above the city’s streets, and a 35-foot high elevated rail line that will run four miles through the middle of the city. The project has drawn fire from residents who are increasingly sick of blocked streets, traffic jams, and dirt and noise from multiple construction sites. In fact, a poll conducted in late 2016 showed that only 15% of the city’s residents favor completion of the rail project. Meanwhile, costs continue to rise. The original $4.6 billion budget was readjusted to $6.7 billion, and with the newly-announced delays in construction, being at least two years behind schedule and counting, the city has announced a five-year extension in the “temporary” excise tax to cover what critics are arguing will actually end up being over $10 billion in costs. Critics of the project such as Mr. Cayetano, who argues that the elevated rail “will change the beauty and ambience of the city forever,” also charge that in addition to its aesthetic shortcomings the final environmental impact study revealed that the rail project would, at best, reduce traffic congestion by under two percent and noted, “traffic congestion will be worse in t.
1.Use the following information to answer parts athrough h. Descdrennanmicah
1.Use the following information to answer parts a
through h. Describe what the results of each calculation
mean to you as a project manager. What
do you propose to do?
PV $25,000
EV $30,000
AC $29,000
BAC $1,000,000
a. Schedule variance (SV)
b. Cost variance (CV)
c. Schedule performance index (SPI)
d. Cost performance index (CPI)
e. Estimate to complete (ETC—first method)
f. Estimate to complete (ETC—second method)
g. Estimate at completion (EAC)
h. To-complete performance index (TCPI)
2.For a cost savings project, you have captured data
that show the following costs: delays between
operations = $900; broken/missing tools =
$1,200; water losses = $3,700; poor seals =
$1,500; other = $2,000. Construct a Pareto chart.
What would your next course of action be?
CaSe STUDy 13.2
The Superconducting Supercollider
Conceived in the 1980s as a device to accelerate particles
in high-energy physics research, the Superconducting
Supercollider (SSC) was a political and technical hot
potato from the beginning. The technical challenges associated
with the SSC were daunting. Its purpose was to
smash subatomic particles together at near the speed of
light. That would require energy levels of 40 trillion electron
volts. Using the physics of quantum mechanics, the
goal of the project was to shed light on some of the fundamental
questions about the formation of the universe.
The SSC was designed to be the largest particle accelerator
ever constructed, far bigger than its counterpart at
Fermi Laboratory. In order to achieve these energy levels,
a set of 10,000 magnets was needed. Each of the magnets,
cylindrical in shape (1 foot in diameter and 57 feet long),
would need to operate at peak levels if the accelerator
were to achieve the necessary energy levels for proton
collision. The expected price tag just for the construction
of the magnets was estimated at $1.5 billion.
The technical difficulties were only part of the overall
scope of the project. Construction of the SSC would be
an undertaking of unique proportions. Scientists determined
that the accelerator required a racetrack-shaped
form, buried underground for easier use. The overall
circumference of the planned SSC required 54 miles of
tunnel to be bored 165 to 200 feet underground. The initial
budget estimate for completing the project was $5
billion, and the estimated schedule would require eight
years to finish the construction and technical assemblies.
The SSC’s problems began almost immediately
after President Reagan’s 1988 kickoff of the project. First,
the public (including Congress) had little understanding
of the purpose of the project. A goal as nebulous as
“particle acceleration” for high-energy physics was not
one easily embraced by a majority of citizens. The original
operating consortium, URA, consisted of 80 public
and private American research centers and universities,
but it was expected that European and Asian scientists
also w ...
Walton Boulevard Reconstruction, APWA Project of the YearOHM Advisors
http://www.ohm-advisors.com. An APWA award-winning project, reconstructing Walton Boulevard, in the City of Auburn Hills, was no easy task. Start with 1.5 miles of road, an old bridge over a major freeway, and three government owners. Then, throw in high priority federal and state funding deadlines and a five month schedule to complete. No problem. If you're OHM, and you're committed to Advancing Communities!
Congress Parkway Construction Overview, January 2010Daniel X. O'Neil
Congress Parkway improvement project
Michigan Avenue to Wells Street.
Includes history, background, project goals & scope, as well as schedule and public outreach tactics
1. The Big Dig:
Key Facts About Cost, Scope, Schedule,
and Management
Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff
December 2006
2. The Big Dig:
Key Facts About Cost, Scope, Schedule, and Management
The Boston Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T) is the largest and most complex urban
transportation project ever undertaken in the United States. Dubbed the “Big Dig” by Bostonians,
it is the result of more than 30 years of planning and 14 years of construction to replace the
elevated section of the Interstate 93 Central Artery through downtown Boston with a much wider
underground highway, and to extend the Interstate 90 turnpike to Logan Airport via a third harbor
tunnel. The Big Dig ranks on a scale with the Panama Canal and the Channel Tunnel.
The CA/T comprises 161 lane-miles of interstate highway—over half underground. Its host of
civil engineering firsts include the world’s widest cable-stayed bridge, the deepest underwater
connection in North America, state-of-the-art freeway segments built only inches above old
public transit railways, an extensive deep-soil-mixing program to stabilize Boston’s historic soils
during construction, and an unprecedented ground freezing system to allow jacking of full-size
highway tunnel sections. The project has already been widely recognized through dozens of
awards for engineering and aesthetics.
Perhaps most remarkable, millions of residents and visitors have enjoyed continued access to the
city during more than a decade of construction starting in 1991. Through it all, Boston’s
downtown financial and commercial district has stayed open for business and the needs of
residential neighborhoods have been addressed. This engineering marvel will enable Boston and
the state of Massachusetts to meet their critical transportation needs in the 21st
century with a
great sense of civic satisfaction and pride.
These major accomplishments have come at a significant financial cost—now estimated at $14.6
billion for completed construction. The price tag rose dramatically over more than two decades as
the project was enlarged, redefined, and portions even put on hold by state officials to meet the
many often-conflicting concerns of Boston’s downtown business community, neighborhood and
environmental groups, adjacent landowners, taxpayer groups, and federal agencies.
The Big Dig’s cost has raised many questions over the years. Most recently, leaks and wall
defects in the I-93 tunnels have also generated concerns. This paper will:
• clarify the roles and responsibilities of the management consultant, Bechtel/Parsons
Brinckerhoff (B/PB);
• place the Big Dig’s cost growth in historical, political, and economic context;
• review the project’s program to identify and remedy leaks and wall defects; and
• offer a reminder of the many reasons why Democrats and Republicans, business and
community groups, local residents and national transportation experts, have come
together to support this project over many years.
Big Dig Key Facts2
3. Managing a Megaproject: Roles and Responsibilities
As the management consultant first retained in 1985 by the Massachusetts Highway Department
(MHD) and, later, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA), B/PB helped manage the Big
Dig through 2005, following widely accepted industry standards. As specified in 16 separate
contracts, B/PB was responsible for:
• providing preliminary design services;
• coordinating the performance of the final designers of record;
• coordinating the construction work of the various contractors;
• reporting on the project’s overall cost and schedule; and
• providing recommendations to MHD and MTA for decision making
Throughout the life of the project, MHD and MTA determined what got built, when, and for how
much. B/PB developed alternatives and provided its professional recommendations on the most
practical, cost-effective solutions but was not been empowered to choose among them.
Contracts for the final design and construction were awarded by MHD or MTA. Contractors are
contractually responsible to these Commonwealth entities for cost, schedule, and work quality.
B/PB’s job was to discharge the critical roles of construction administration, safety monitoring,
and project oversight—including estimating contract cost, monitoring contractors for adherence
to budget and schedule, overseeing the contractors’ quality control, and regularly reporting this
information to its customer.
B/PB’s role as management consultant changed significantly in 1998, when MTA combined key
B/PB personnel with those of the state in an Integrated Project Organization. MTA’s goal was to
streamline project management and decision-making and efficiently move the project from the
design phase to construction.
On December 31, 2005, B/PB’s role on the project ended under the terms of our contract.1
All
administrative and project oversight functions handled by B/PB reverted to MTA at that time.
Except for a few tasks such as completion of some record drawings and some safety monitoring,
MTA took over management of all remaining engineering and construction as well. B/PB
continued to provide staff, under MTA’s direction, to support services such as engineering,
claims and changes (negotiating settlements with contractors over payments for scope changes);
contract closeout (documenting completion of punch list items and final acceptance); parks
construction, and systems commissioning (planning for ongoing operation of project facilities).
In early 2006, the Big Dig reached the critical milestone of “substantial completion,” meaning
that essentially all facilities required for beneficial use of the project, including roads, ramps, and
tunnels, became open to the public. Contractors continued to work on small repairs and finishing
touches, road paving, and park construction.
On July 10, 2006, a tragic accident took the life of a woman driving through a tunnel on I-90
when concrete ceiling panels fell and crushed her car. Immediately after the accident, B/PB
offered its full support to Massachusetts Governor Romney, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
(MTA), the attorney general, and others who are working to investigate the accident, reopen the
highway, and address public concerns. The accident is still under investigation.
1
Work Program 15, February 1, 2001, Attachment A-1, section 10.0, “Duration of Work Program.”
Big Dig Key Facts3
4. Following the accident, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney ordered a “stem-to-stern” safety
review of Boston’s highway system, including bridges and tunnels. The review was conducted by
the independent engineering firm Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. On November 17, 2006,
reporting on the firm’s findings, the governor declared the system to be “fundamentally safe.”
Although the report cited some areas of concern, it found the Big Dig to be conservatively
designed and fundamentally robust, with significant built-in redundancy.
Growth in Project Cost
The concept of the Big Dig, as it took shape in the 1970s and early 1980s, reflected the conviction
of Boston-area leaders and public officials that the old Central Artery, the most congested
roadway in America, was nearing the end of its operational life. The multiyear job of redecking or
even replacing it threatened to strangle the city by disrupting traffic in and around the city of
Boston. The alternative concept of using “slurry wall” construction methods to build a new
underground artery while keeping the old roadway open in the interim, proposed by the state
Transportation Department, offered a way to free the city from gridlock in the long run without
bringing its economy to a standstill in the short run.
The initial cost estimate of $2.6 billion (in 1982 dollars) dated back to 1985, before B/PB was
hired, and was based on a preliminary concept developed by state officials before detailed
technical studies had been undertaken. In the years that followed, state officials followed a
deliberate and time-consuming process of consulting with various interest groups, negotiating
settlements to lawsuits, and modifying project plans to minimize real or perceived harm to the
Boston community. This process made the design more sensitive to community needs and
increased public acceptance, but the resulting mitigation measures made the project much more
expensive to design and build. With every extension of the project schedule, inflation took a
bigger bite. Local concerns were minimized by the fact that the federal government, at least in the
early years, was covering up to 90 cents on the dollar through the Interstate Highway Program.
As a result of this process, the cost of the Big Dig has always been a moving target. For example,
state officials significantly shifted the configuration of a proposed tunnel in Fort Point Channel in
response to objections from a large manufacturer and to take account of federal wetlands and
historic preservation rules. The new route in turn required a host of mitigation discussions and
measures to satisfy affected businesses and landowners.
To take account of local concerns in East Boston, the proposed airport interchange was
redesigned in 1987 and then again in 1988, only to provoke the ire of an exceptionally vocal and
determined owner of an off-airport parking lot. The state did not succeed in resolving his
demands until 1991.
The Charles River Crossing—required to connect the Central Artery with four other roadways—
triggered an even longer debate over concept and design. B/PB engineers and state officials
analyzed more than 50 separate design alternatives in an effort to satisfy opposition from a host of
groups, including the state’s own Metropolitan District Commission and the city of Cambridge.
The final concept was not approved by state officials until 1994—11 years after it was officially
proposed in the first Environmental Impact Report—at an added cost of a billion dollars.
In all, according to state officials, the project undertook more than 1,500 separate mitigation
agreements, accounting for at least one-third of the CA/T project’s total costs. The most
authoritative history of the project concluded that “what stands out most strikingly is the
Big Dig Key Facts4
5. extraordinary difficulty and expense, yet supreme importance, of consensus-building.” The
study’s authors, Harvard University scholars Alan Altschuler and David Luberoff, argued that
“the most powerful explanatory factor” behind the rising cost of the Big Dig was
a new paradigm (i.e. conceptual frame) that the state adopted for resolving conflicts between
project beneficiaries and those negatively affected by project construction. . . . The traditional
view was that large projects inevitably harm some bystanders, but that their self-interested
objections should not be allowed to block the realization of broad public benefits—or indeed
to drive up costs significantly. . . . Public projects are now subject to a multitude of
environmental, citizen participation, and other regulations, and are far more vulnerable to legal
challenges. As one consequence many fewer large public works projects go forward; but as
another those which do are far more expensive—since their budgets include larger, often
vastly larger, amounts for mitigation and compensation.2
Specific Cost Drivers
B/PB, working with state officials, has analyzed in much greater detail the specific drivers of cost
growth on the project. This analysis shows that the single biggest contributor to rising costs was
inflation, which by the end of the project will have added $6.4 billion to the original cost estimate
made in the early 1980s. That sum alone is more than half the difference between the original
estimate and projected final cost. Following federal rules, the original cost estimate included no
allowance or calculation for inflation.
Other key cost drivers (shown in current dollars) include:
1. Major growth in project scope and traffic maintenance added $2.7 billion to project costs.
Some major costs that were not part of the 1982 concept include:
• Rebuilding the Dewey Square Tunnels
• Adding new interchanges at Logan Airport and Massachusetts Avenue
• The use of more complex construction methods required for the Fort Point Channel
Tunnel
• The roofing of open-air tunnels in South and East Boston
• Building of temporary ramps to maintain traffic flow during construction
2. Environmental compliance and mitigation increased project cost by $3 billion. Examples
included:
• Redesigning the Charles River Crossing
• Disposing of material on Spectacle Island instead of in the waters of Boston Harbor to
develop a public park
2
David Luberoff and Alan Altschuler, Mega-Project: A Political History of Boston’s Multibillion Dollar
Artery/Tunnel Project (Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,
Rev. ed., April 1996)., VI-6 to VI-8. Such factors affect many other large projects as well, leading the
authors to note in another study that dramatic cost escalation of the kind seen on the Big Dig is “not out of
the ordinary for a major highway project.” See Altschuler and Luberoff, Megaprojects: The Changing
Politics of Urban Public Investment (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2003), 116-117, citing the
examples of Century Freeway and Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Big Dig Key Facts5
6. • Adding high-occupancy vehicle lanes to the Interstate 90 and 93 alignments
3. Accelerating the construction schedule cost some $600 million. In 1995, MHD decided to
increase the pace of the project after B/PB reported that trends pointed to a serious slippage in
its future schedule. Paying for more workers, more equipment, and more work shifts cost the
project about $600 million. As a result, the project’s completion date has slipped only nine
months in 11 years.
4. Accounting adjustments added $1.2 billion, reflecting changes in government guidelines for
allocating costs. For example, until 1999, MTA showed an insurance credit of up to $800
million as an offset to the overall project cost. In 2000, after several years of recognizing the
credit, the U.S. Department of Transportation disallowed this offset, effectively adding $800
million to the project’s price tag.
Figure 1 shows the relative contribution of these and other factors to the overall growth in project
cost estimates:
Figure 1
Inflation
55%
Other
7%
Accounting
Adjustments
7%
Scope Growth and
Traffic Maintenance
13%
Environmental
Mitigation
15%
Schedule Maintenance
3%
Causes of Growth in "Big Dig" Costs - From Concept to Reality
"Other" category includes differing site conditions, quantity variations,
design development, pricing variations, cost containment credits, and
contingency.
Cost Estimating and Disclosure
The process of developing cost estimates on the Big Dig was necessarily evolutionary. It is not
possible at the beginning of such a large, lengthy, and complex project to anticipate, with
precision, all final design and program decisions that will be made by the state and other
interested parties, as well as the extent and nature of unanticipated conditions that impact cost and
Big Dig Key Facts6
7. schedule. Nor is it possible to predict, with accuracy, the fluctuating bid climate and related
market conditions that may exist throughout the life of a long project. As decisions were made
and conditions evolved on the Big Dig, however, B/PB factored them into its cost assessments
and kept the client fully informed, even in the face of strong political pressures.
In 1994, B/PB provided the governor and state officials with a total cost estimate of almost $14
billion to complete the project. MHD (and later MTA), under federal and state pressure to hold
the line on project costs, was determined to maintain a total cost of $7.7 billion (about $10.4
billion counting inflation and third-party payments). It instructed B/PB to recommend scope
reductions where possible and initiate cost containment and other efforts to offset any cost
increases with cost savings. Then and later, the state transportation secretary’s office forcefully
reminded B/PB that responsibility for public discussion of project issues rested exclusively with
the public officials managing the project, and that the contract prohibited B/PB from making any
unauthorized statements to the public.
While advising that it would be very difficult to hold the line, B/PB worked aggressively with
MHD and MTA to recommend and implement savings and cost containment measures necessary
to meet the state’s objectives. By 2000, however, project scope changes, contractor claims, rising
construction costs, and changes in allowable accounting practices made it impossible for MTA to
maintain its zero-budget-growth mandate. MTA’s chairman announced a revised cost estimate of
$12.2 billion (including inflation). The new figure proved highly controversial, and various public
officials as well as the media moved quickly to assign responsibility for what was widely termed
a “cost overrun.”
The Inspector General of Massachusetts reported in 2001 that B/PB consistently “disclosed its
bona-fide total cost projections to Big Dig officials” during the entire 1994-2001 period. The IG
added, “B/PB insisted upon and, in fact, made full disclosure to local FHWA officials of each
exclusion, deduction, and accounting assumption” used in the project’s cost estimates.
Cost Control
The full story of spending on the Big Dig would record the creative and sustained efforts by
project personnel to save money and maximize value to taxpayers. Effective cost control starts
with systems and practices that facilitate accurate and timely cost reporting. B/PB developed a
state-of-the-art Construction Information System to track individual contract tasks, change orders,
and other data used in the assembly of project cost reports for MTA.
Combining this information with insights from years of engineering experience, B/PB developed
and recommended innovative cost-containment concepts that have saved close to $1.7 billion
over the life of the project with the assistance of MHD, MTA, and FHWA. They include:
1. Savings of $480 million from value engineering. B/PB gathered independent third-party
experts from around the world to review designs, ask questions, and make suggestions.
For example, the project saved $200 million from changes to the South Boston interchange
alignment.
2. Savings of $750 million from cost-containment actions. For instance, B/PB helped save $60
million for disposing of 17 million cubic yards of excavated material.
Big Dig Key Facts7
8. 3. Savings of $500 million from reducing the cost of insurance. An owner-controlled insurance
program eliminated the need for the contractor or consultant to buy commercial insurance. In
conjunction with the Big Dig’s excellent safety record, this approach eliminated overlapping
coverage and allows MTA to realize economies of scale.
Public officials must balance a variety of factors and have not always accepted B/PB’s
recommendations for cost control. Two examples:
• B/PB proposed a Purchase Street bypass that would have saved approximately 18 months
and, conservatively, more than $100 million; concerns about effects on traffic and
opposition from within the neighborhood led MTA to reject the proposal.
• The joint venture proposed not to restore the Dorchester Avenue bridge, which would
have saved tens of millions of dollars. MTA reversed its original acceptance after the
adjacent U.S. Postal Service regional headquarters objected.
Conclusion
Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff is proud of its role in helping the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
manage one of the largest, most complex, and technically challenging infrastructure projects in
U.S. history. In the course of successfully meeting those challenges, and responding to a
multitude of public concerns and interests, the project has changed in myriad ways over the past
quarter century, delaying its completion and increasing its cost. Through innovative engineering
and management, we helped the state control costs and schedule, saving taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars and bringing benefits more quickly to Boston-area motorists and residents.
The economic benefits to the region during construction have been enormous, and will continue
long into the future. The downtown Central Artery (I-93) is capable of carrying 245,000 or more
vehicles a day comfortably, far more than the old artery and without its infamous traffic jams. It
has cut the average trip through downtown Boston from 19.5 minutes to 2.8 minutes. In addition,
the Ted Williams Tunnel can carry more than 90,000 vehicles a day. By cutting downtown traffic
congestion, residents and businesses will enjoy benefits estimated at about $500 million a year.
That figure is based on lower accident rates, less wasted fuel from engines idling in stalled traffic,
and reduced late-delivery charges. The health benefits should also be substantial, starting with a
12 percent reduction in carbon monoxide levels.
The project will generate $7 billion in private investment and create tens of thousands of jobs,
according to a Boston consulting firm.3
Property values in downtown Boston are soaring as the
Big Dig reconnects neighborhoods severed by the old elevated highway and improves the quality
of urban life beyond the limited confines of the new expressway. Where the old elevated roadway
once stood, residents will now enjoy open space and modest development. The project will create
more than 260 acres of open space, including 30 acres where the existing Central Artery now
stands, more than 100 acres at Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor (where project soils are capping
an abandoned dump), and 40 more acres of new parks in and around downtown Boston. The
Central Artery is the first step toward an exciting urban renaissance.
3
For more on the study by Economic Development Research Group, Inc., see
http://www.masspike.com/user-cgi/news.cgi?dbkey=201&type=Archived&src=newsarchive.
Big Dig Key Facts8