4 ms·

the criticism amounts almost entirely to basic arithmetic and comparisons to existing systems that are built on rather different principles. But many of most i

the criticism amounts almost entirely to basic arithmetic and comparisons to existing systems that are built on rather different principles. But many of most important (and show-stopping) principles involved are the same, and those are what tend to cause delays and increase costs - things like running into unexpected geology, dealing with NIMBY's, the eminent domain process and so on. He seems to think that, in between, his colleagues have been perfecting the fine forms of the art and polishing its many facets. They (we) are. Want to see for yourself? Go to the Transportation Research Board annual meeting in Washington D.C.: http://www.trb.org/AnnualMeeting2014/AnnualMeeting2014.aspx http://www.trb.org/AnnualMeeting2014/AnnualMeeting2014.aspx Except feats that were once fairly common, such as building the Hoover Dam under budget and two years ahead of schedule [1], are in the realm of the mythical these days. You can say the same about the original elevated Boston Artery, the 19th century railroads, etc. The biggest difference between the mega-projects of old and today involve 1) the environmental process and 2) commitments to worker safety. It's fairly easy to build a project quickly when you don't care about splitting neighborhoods, killing/maiming workers and contaminating soil. The environmental process in particular has been a double-edged sword - it's done well in protecting the environment and communities, but it also provides means for anyone who doesn't like any facet of a project to significanty delay (or kill) it.

zeteo 13y ago
>The biggest difference between the mega-projects of old and today involve 1) the environmental process and 2) commitments to worker safety. I don't see why environmental and safety considerations are such big unknowns, I think we have a pretty good handle on both by now. Are they factoring to build it with pollution and no safety when they estimate the cost and schedule these days? In fact, if you read about the history of Hoover Dam there were a number of these things that they weren't legally mandated to do back then, but did them anyway. For instance, workers were offered employer-based health insurance (an arrangement that later evolved into what we know today as Kaiser Permanente).
- Anechoic 13y ago
  I think we have a pretty good handle on both by now In terms of a specific project, not really. Look at everything that goes into an environmental study: watershed/water quality, affected wildlife/endangered species, noise & vibration, soil contamination, archaeological issues, visual impacts, rodent/pests, etc, etc. On top of that, you have to consider the effects of all of those areas during construction and ongoing operations for 20+ years. And that doesn't even account for NIMBY issues. When you're getting into the details of a specific project, it can quickly become overwhelming, especially if you have people who may be philosophically opposed to the project hammering you with those issues time and time again. Are they factoring to build it with pollution and no safety when they estimate the cost and schedule these days? When you look at a project at a high level, you make general assumptions, but as you get more detailed and you know specifically what kind of equipment Take for example, tunneling: At the start of a project, your best information tells you that the sand down to 70ft below grade is clay, so you make your cost and construction estimates using this assumption. You get into detailed design and send drill crews out to collect sample borings and you find out that in much of the area where you assumed sand, you actually have bedrock coming up to 10ft below grade. Now you're plans have to change - instead of doing cut-and-cover tunneling everywhere, you have to blast in some sections, which means having to get a blasting contractor, deal with protecting nearby structures, changing traffic patterns to allow for the blasting etc. In the old days, the project would have just blasted, and if someone's foundation got cracked in the process, too bad. Today that won't fly. edit: just saw your edit In fact, if you read about the history of Hoover Dam there were a number of these things that they weren't legally mandated to do back then, but did them anyway. Compare the number of people killed at the Hoover Dam project compared with the number killed during the Big Dig.
  - zeteo 13y ago
    I really appreciate and thank you for the perspective you bring to this discussion. Even if I turn out to be completely wrong, I'll still be glad I initiated it if only to elicit this kind of response. That being said, I'm by no means persuaded. If the original technical estimates can't be completely precise, why do they always happen to always be inaccurate on the bad side these days? How come they rarely plan for bedrock and get a lot more clay instead? Overall, I understand there are new challenges today that older projects didn't encounter. On the other hand, they also had serious challenges that we don't meet (very bad transportation network, frequent strikes, including the wildcat variety, a much less educated workforce etc.) Maybe it's even true that, despite all the new technologies and infrastructure to help us, the cost per unit needs to be higher these days and work needs to proceed more slowly. But that still doesn't explain why projects almost always still run over that higher cost and longer schedule.

zeteo 13y ago

>The biggest difference between the mega-projects of old and today involve 1) the environmental process and 2) commitments to worker safety. I don't see why environmental and safety considerations are such big unknowns, I think we have a pretty good handle on both by now. Are they factoring to build it with pollution and no safety when they estimate the cost and schedule these days? In fact, if you read about the history of Hoover Dam there were a number of these things that they weren't legally mandated to do back then, but did them anyway. For instance, workers were offered employer-based health insurance (an arrangement that later evolved into what we know today as Kaiser Permanente).

Anechoic 13y ago
I think we have a pretty good handle on both by now In terms of a specific project, not really. Look at everything that goes into an environmental study: watershed/water quality, affected wildlife/endangered species, noise & vibration, soil contamination, archaeological issues, visual impacts, rodent/pests, etc, etc. On top of that, you have to consider the effects of all of those areas during construction and ongoing operations for 20+ years. And that doesn't even account for NIMBY issues. When you're getting into the details of a specific project, it can quickly become overwhelming, especially if you have people who may be philosophically opposed to the project hammering you with those issues time and time again. Are they factoring to build it with pollution and no safety when they estimate the cost and schedule these days? When you look at a project at a high level, you make general assumptions, but as you get more detailed and you know specifically what kind of equipment Take for example, tunneling: At the start of a project, your best information tells you that the sand down to 70ft below grade is clay, so you make your cost and construction estimates using this assumption. You get into detailed design and send drill crews out to collect sample borings and you find out that in much of the area where you assumed sand, you actually have bedrock coming up to 10ft below grade. Now you're plans have to change - instead of doing cut-and-cover tunneling everywhere, you have to blast in some sections, which means having to get a blasting contractor, deal with protecting nearby structures, changing traffic patterns to allow for the blasting etc. In the old days, the project would have just blasted, and if someone's foundation got cracked in the process, too bad. Today that won't fly. edit: just saw your edit In fact, if you read about the history of Hoover Dam there were a number of these things that they weren't legally mandated to do back then, but did them anyway. Compare the number of people killed at the Hoover Dam project compared with the number killed during the Big Dig.
- zeteo 13y ago
  I really appreciate and thank you for the perspective you bring to this discussion. Even if I turn out to be completely wrong, I'll still be glad I initiated it if only to elicit this kind of response. That being said, I'm by no means persuaded. If the original technical estimates can't be completely precise, why do they always happen to always be inaccurate on the bad side these days? How come they rarely plan for bedrock and get a lot more clay instead? Overall, I understand there are new challenges today that older projects didn't encounter. On the other hand, they also had serious challenges that we don't meet (very bad transportation network, frequent strikes, including the wildcat variety, a much less educated workforce etc.) Maybe it's even true that, despite all the new technologies and infrastructure to help us, the cost per unit needs to be higher these days and work needs to proceed more slowly. But that still doesn't explain why projects almost always still run over that higher cost and longer schedule.