5 ms·

Yea... so as a Bostonian this will never happen. There are cheaper options like dropping a flood-wall out in the middle of the harbor. If anyone thought the Bi

Yea... so as a Bostonian this will never happen. There are cheaper options like dropping a flood-wall out in the middle of the harbor. If anyone thought the Big Dig was a clusterfuck then they have seen nothing if this vision became a reality... the idea of turning the Back Bay into a series of canals... an area built on landfill and poorly documented about where infrastructure is located along with tons of historic residential architecture is going to cost many times more money. Not to mention the Back Bay neighborhood association, which is probably the most powerful neighborhood associations in the United States due to a combination of power and wealth would throw a nutty (and rightfully so).

Retric 12y ago
The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive. IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago. A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's 90% pure land value with a token for the structure. (Aka move the same building to the middle of an Iowa cornfield and suddenly there not so valuable.)
- cjcole 12y ago
  Either it was poorly executed or disingenuously planned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig 'The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was plagued by escalating costs, scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests,[2][3] and one death.[4] The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998[5] at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006).[6] However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%)[6] as of 2006.[7] The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038.[8] As a result of the death, leaks, and other design flaws, the consortium that oversaw the project agreed to pay $407 million in restitution, and several smaller companies agreed to pay a combined sum of approximately $51 million.[9]'
  - Retric 12y ago
    I don't think they did a good job, but your cost estimates are rather divorced from reality. Inflation is a poor way to measure projects like this. Construction costs in the short term are only loosely coupled with overall inflation. Consider the just price of copper: http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/copper.aspx?timeframe=10y http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/copper.aspx?timeframe=10y Though most construction raw materials had similar price swings. Anyway, the project finished in 2007 amid a huge housing boom in the US which significantly increased costs. A well managed project could have probably been ~30% cheaper, but the much of the "190%" over run was well outside the projects scope. For comparison the hover dam is generally thought of as a well executed project despite ~98 directly related fatalities during construction. IMO, we have become vary critical of large construction projects in large part because rebuilding infrastructure is simply far more complex than clean slate construction in the middle of the wilderness, and even worse it negatively impacts peoples lives during construction. Especially in places like HN considering how few software projects are on time and under budget.
- colanderman 12y ago
  I can't find the answer with Google, but maybe someone here knows. During the raising of Chicago, how did they get the jackscrews under the buildings in the first place? Especially those (presumably) positioned in the interiors (as opposed to edges) of the buildings?
  - astrieanna 12y ago
    I think they go into the basement, as they do when raising buildings today. I don't know what they'd do for buildings without basements.
    - colanderman 12y ago
      But, presumably, you want to put the jacks where the structural walls of the basement already are? Is this not the case, or is the basement dug away piecemeal as jacks are inserted?
- akgerber 12y ago
  America has gotten pretty bad at tunneling, and it's much more expensive here than in Spain or France. Madrid buried its M30 high for far less money: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/m30_madrid/ http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/m30_madrid/ Note that the project included two contracts that included >4km highway tunnels, neither of which cost more than $1B USD. There were differences, of course. But read up on American tunneling costs versus those in Asia or non-English-speaking Europe, if you want to better understand why we can't have nice things.
  - mmanfrin 12y ago
    But read up on American tunneling costs Where? I'm kind of interested as to why it's so much more expensive here (other than the obvious labor cost and probably-more-stringent safety regulation)?
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Corruption. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/06/study-corrupt-states-spend-more-on-highways/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/06/study-corrupt-states-s... "According to research published in the journal Public Administration Review, states with higher levels of public corruption spend more money on highways and construction. The study found highway and construction projects and police programs provide the most opportunities for lawmakers to enrich themselves, according to Governing Magazine, and are positively correlated with state levels of corruption. Meanwhile, highly corrupt states also spend relatively less on health, education, and welfare — categories that were less susceptible to graft and bribery, the report found."
      - vonmoltke 12y ago
        Interesting how Texas and North Carolina managed to avoid the corruption endemic in their neighbors. In the case of Texas, though, there is plenty of localized corruption. Dallas proper and its southern suburbs are dirty as shit. The northern suburbs, not so much. I get the impression Massachusetts has something similar, with Boston metro being far more corrupt than the rest of the state.
- freyfogle 12y ago
  My impression was the big dig succeeded spectacularly at its goal: it was a machine to pump massive amounts of federal funds into Boston. As a nice side effect they also built some roads/tunnels/etc.
  - zalzane 12y ago
    now they just have to fix the damn green line olympics bid when?

Retric 12y ago

The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive. IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago. A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's 90% pure land value with a token for the structure. (Aka move the same building to the middle of an Iowa cornfield and suddenly there not so valuable.)

cjcole 12y ago
Either it was poorly executed or disingenuously planned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig 'The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was plagued by escalating costs, scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests,[2][3] and one death.[4] The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998[5] at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006).[6] However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%)[6] as of 2006.[7] The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038.[8] As a result of the death, leaks, and other design flaws, the consortium that oversaw the project agreed to pay $407 million in restitution, and several smaller companies agreed to pay a combined sum of approximately $51 million.[9]'
- Retric 12y ago
  I don't think they did a good job, but your cost estimates are rather divorced from reality. Inflation is a poor way to measure projects like this. Construction costs in the short term are only loosely coupled with overall inflation. Consider the just price of copper: http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/copper.aspx?timeframe=10y http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/copper.aspx?timeframe=10y Though most construction raw materials had similar price swings. Anyway, the project finished in 2007 amid a huge housing boom in the US which significantly increased costs. A well managed project could have probably been ~30% cheaper, but the much of the "190%" over run was well outside the projects scope. For comparison the hover dam is generally thought of as a well executed project despite ~98 directly related fatalities during construction. IMO, we have become vary critical of large construction projects in large part because rebuilding infrastructure is simply far more complex than clean slate construction in the middle of the wilderness, and even worse it negatively impacts peoples lives during construction. Especially in places like HN considering how few software projects are on time and under budget.
colanderman 12y ago
I can't find the answer with Google, but maybe someone here knows. During the raising of Chicago, how did they get the jackscrews under the buildings in the first place? Especially those (presumably) positioned in the interiors (as opposed to edges) of the buildings?
- astrieanna 12y ago
  I think they go into the basement, as they do when raising buildings today. I don't know what they'd do for buildings without basements.
  - colanderman 12y ago
    But, presumably, you want to put the jacks where the structural walls of the basement already are? Is this not the case, or is the basement dug away piecemeal as jacks are inserted?
akgerber 12y ago
America has gotten pretty bad at tunneling, and it's much more expensive here than in Spain or France. Madrid buried its M30 high for far less money: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/m30_madrid/ http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/m30_madrid/ Note that the project included two contracts that included >4km highway tunnels, neither of which cost more than $1B USD. There were differences, of course. But read up on American tunneling costs versus those in Asia or non-English-speaking Europe, if you want to better understand why we can't have nice things.
- mmanfrin 12y ago
  But read up on American tunneling costs Where? I'm kind of interested as to why it's so much more expensive here (other than the obvious labor cost and probably-more-stringent safety regulation)?
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Corruption. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/06/study-corrupt-states-spend-more-on-highways/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/06/study-corrupt-states-s... "According to research published in the journal Public Administration Review, states with higher levels of public corruption spend more money on highways and construction. The study found highway and construction projects and police programs provide the most opportunities for lawmakers to enrich themselves, according to Governing Magazine, and are positively correlated with state levels of corruption. Meanwhile, highly corrupt states also spend relatively less on health, education, and welfare — categories that were less susceptible to graft and bribery, the report found."
    - vonmoltke 12y ago
      Interesting how Texas and North Carolina managed to avoid the corruption endemic in their neighbors. In the case of Texas, though, there is plenty of localized corruption. Dallas proper and its southern suburbs are dirty as shit. The northern suburbs, not so much. I get the impression Massachusetts has something similar, with Boston metro being far more corrupt than the rest of the state.
freyfogle 12y ago
My impression was the big dig succeeded spectacularly at its goal: it was a machine to pump massive amounts of federal funds into Boston. As a nice side effect they also built some roads/tunnels/etc.
- zalzane 12y ago
  now they just have to fix the damn green line olympics bid when?