Slashdot Mirror


Source Code Dispute in Boston's Big Dig

JoshuaDFranklin writes "Boston's 'Big Dig' is famously long-running and over budget as noted before on Slashdot. But now Computerworld is reporting that a Software Ownership Battle Adds $10M to Cost of 'Big Dig'. The legal dispute was over whether Massachusetts had the right to share Transdyn source code with Honeywell, causing $2.72 million in damages and $7.2 million in costs of a four-month delay in the project."

45 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like a dodgy contract to me. by Blapto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They just didn't actually buy the software, just waved some money at somebody who let them use it.
    The state argued that Dynac had been modified as part of the project and had thus become a customized piece of software not subject to the legal safeguards for off-the-shelf applications.
    Bt of a dodgy arguement though...

    1. Re:Sounds like a dodgy contract to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I work for a state department.

      Current Federal law concerngin states and software is

      If we give you money for it it becomes ours to do with as we please, source included.

      Thats just the way it is. There is more code sharing that goes on between states then goes on on Kazza.

      Unfortunatly 99% of the stuff is so state specific it takes 6 months to get it to work anywhere but where it was designed to run.

  2. For those of us who don't live near Boston by Trogre · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... anyone care to fill us in on what the big dig is?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:For those of us who don't live near Boston by will_die · · Score: 5, Informative

      The idea is to put in a 8-10 lane expressway under the city of Boston. They have a site at www.bigdig.com.
      It has taken close to 20 year to do and has been extermly over run with greed, mismanagement, poor construction, and cost overruns.

    2. Re:For those of us who don't live near Boston by DataCannibal · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, it's a bit like software development. then?

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    3. Re:For those of us who don't live near Boston by Associate · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why don't they just knock Boston down and then build the highway?

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    4. Re:For those of us who don't live near Boston by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, that's what they did when they put the artery in the last time. This whole project is trying to repair that damage and increase traffic flow.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    5. Re:For those of us who don't live near Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are two major (and I do mean major) highways that run into Boston. Interstate 93, which ran North-South through the city and links with Interstate 95 (on both sides). 95 is the major transportation corridor of the Eastern USA. The other is Interstate 90, which, before the project was completed, ran from the outskirts of boston (but not all the way to 93) and from there, it goes West across the country (go to Chicago, for example).
      This project gave them a direct link. 90 now hits 93 directly. (So highway traffic doesn't have to congest street traffic.)

      It also provided a better way to get to Boston's Logan International Airport. This is one of the busiest airports in the US and probably the world. They did this with an underground (and underwater) tunnel.

      It also removed the above ground highway that used to run though the city. 93 used to be primarily above ground, running over the local roads, through parts of the Boston skyline. Now it primarily runs underground.
      Not sure what the current status is wrt the old structures being torn down.

      The cost for this was like, $1348674135151351(USD). I might be short on that. Want an example of the crazy costs of the project? It was cheaper to send Neil Armstrong to the moon (millions of miles) and back than it was to put an automobile across the Ford Point Channel (110 f'ing feet).

  3. And where'd that last .08 million go? by Chas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Into the politicians pockets of course! Just to make things look "neat".

    Ask a silly question...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  4. Re:My Rights OnSubwayLine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Read the FAQ!
    Slashdot seems to be very Boston-centric. Do you have any plans to be more U.S.-centric in scope?

    Slashdot is Boston-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Bostonians, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the Boston area. We're certainly not opposed to doing more stories about other cities, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the Boston area and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.
  5. It seems... by flumps · · Score: 4, Informative

    .. that (at least in the UK) government overspends on IT is quite common, so I'm not overly surprised really.

    http://www.computing.co.uk/news/1139418

    --
    "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
    1. Re:It seems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, what really gets me is how it's even possible to spend $452 million on a computer system. Even if you were building an entire ten-thousand user WAN across the entire UK, using fibre-to-desktop and optical switches, and specing crazy-ass Sgi workstations for each user..you'd not be close.

      £425 million spent on a database. A big database with an interface. The sort of IT project companies roll out for customer databases, or workflow management systems. Hell, some Lotus Notes installations approach the size and complexity of the CBA system, and I bet they never cost half a billion pound to implement.

      Consultant companies are scum sucking, do nothing, lackwitted money pits. Yet the system keeps them on the gravy train because of the convoluted bidding schemes placed exactly to keep these fuckwits sucking huge amounts of tax money to fail to implement a simple database. Fuckwits, the lot of 'em.

    2. Re:It seems... by MrMickS · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Having worked for a number of consultancy companies don't be so quick to blame them. The problems with large scale procurement of this sort is generally down to a complete lack of knowledge by the purchaser and the desire to have completely new systems every time. I have seen consultancy project both work and fail. The reasons have always been down to management, or lack thereof, of the consultancy from the client.

      We have a multi-billion pound project on the way at the moment in the UK. This is running into huge problems as well, who knows what the end cost will be, but I blame the approach rather than the consultants. Instead of spending money on huge monolithic systems with attendant ongoing support tie-ins, the government bodies should be defining the data that needs to be stored, the interfaces to them and the interactions between them. If they produced a well defined model they could then place a general specification out there and let individual authorities purchase compliant systems from the market. The degree of competition that this would introduce would improve the quality and reduce the chance of cost overruns.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    3. Re:It seems... by MrMickS · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, this is the job of the software architects, not the goverment. If it were left to the government it would be easy to see why it were a problem.

      Look at this internet thing we are using. It has defined objects and interfaces and methods of accessing them. Apply the same principles to government IT projects. The government can define the objects and interfaces and keep control of them. The information stored is based on the input of forms that the goverment writes in the first place after all. With a published set of interfaces and objects to deal with a market would exist bringing in competition. The only alternative is better management of huge monolithic projects as we have at present which patently does not work.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
  6. Typical by ArcSecond · · Score: 4, Informative

    So, let me get this straight: the problem was settled out of court for $350,000, but not before it had cost over $10 Million in over-runs and "damages".

    Once again, a triumph for dumbasses in Project Management everywhere. I guarantee you nobody lost their job over this. Not having the foresight to either keep the code Open, or secure the rights to the code when the contracts were signed, they should be though.

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

    1. Re:Typical by phayes · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA (yeah, I know this is /.). The code was never open in the first place.

      Company A wins the contract to do phase 1 by modifying their existing software product.

      Company B wins contract for phase 2. Company A refuses to deliver source code as it contains significant proprietary info. Segue into N month court battle ending up with a settlement in which company B sublicenses company A's info (for an undisclosed amount) & A gets .3M$ from BigDig.

      Company B goes way overbudet & negotiates a premature end to it's contract. BigDig is now negotiating with Company A to finish what it started.

      The 10M$ pricetag is from 3M$ BigDig wished they could have fined Company A for, + 7M$ in overruns from Company B.

      Opensource could have been a solution to the problems they encountered, but only if BigDig was ready to finance the development of the software from scratch. Company A came to the table with a big head start as they were only modifying their own existing software.

      Supplementary info: Company A is Californian & Company B is local. IMHO it sounds like somebody thought that the developers of the software was generic interchangable pork that could be used to buy votes locally & got burned when company A refused to play along...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:Typical by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Company B is located in Maryland.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Typical by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO it sounds like somebody thought that the developers of the software was generic interchangable pork that could be used to buy votes locally & got burned when company A refused to play along...

      Concur. This whole fracas happened because some moron project planner(s) assumed "softwares is softwares" and segmented the project in a way that was neither feasible nor logical, but was worth a few political brownie points.

      If phases 1 and 2 both relied on a single product, the same company should have been contracted for both (best case), or the contract language should had explicit language guaranteeing the openness and transferability of all resources pertaining to the project (less desirable, based on the time it'd take for Company B to get up to speed on Company A's product).

  7. Open code requirement in contract? by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if the open code requirement was in the contract -- it sounds like it wasn't...

  8. Re:this is so miniscule compared to total cost- Fp by photonic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is just one reason why governments should pay only for Free Software with taxpayer dollars...
    I think this is not really a case to bring up the whole open source debate. The application is probably too specific (a traffic management system for tunnels) that open sourcing it wouldn't have helped society too much (any geek here with a tunnel in his backyard?). It looks much more like a case where the government failed to put proper clauses in the contract from the beginning. If they knew beforehand that a different company would be able to win the contract for the second phase, than the possible transfer of the code should have been in the contract for the first phase. Just a typical contract screw up.
    --
    karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
  9. Poor Contract Writing by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative
    Boston should have required that they own any software that was written, modified or provided for the project, other than COTS stuff.

    Whenever I've written software for the federal government, they get the source code and everything they need to maintain the software themselves or have someone else do the work.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  10. Transdyn have to source by basingwerk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Transdyn have a SCADA system called Dynac. Now Honeywell have a contract to build the next phase of the control system and Transdyn "refused to turn over the Dynac source code to Honeywell, claiming that the technology was proprietary". Do the Project Managers even know that SCADA software is almost always a trade-secret, like Windows or anything else? Just because Dynac had been modified as part of the project does not mean that it is state property, or Open Source or anything at all, unless the contract says that.

    --
    I stole this .sig
    1. Re:Transdyn have to source by basingwerk · · Score: 2, Informative

      No way is it the same as Open Source. I'm assuming that the source code of Dynac is closed source/trade secret and has been cut to fit the specific bespoke requirements on this job. In some bespoke software models, it is advantageous to prevent access to the source, and limit interoperability with the outside world, in order to prolong the business relationship and create repeat business, by creating high costs to switch. It is a very old trick that all proper project managers are wary of. But it is quite legal unless the contract says otherwise.

      --
      I stole this .sig
  11. Re:this is so miniscule compared to total cost- Fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    (any geek here with a tunnel in his backyard?)

    "/me puts tinfoil hat on and raises hand"

  12. Re:this is so miniscule compared to total cost- Fp by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, it's a reason to always make sure that you specify in the contract that you wholly own any software that you have commissioned.

    Seriously, with an off the shelf product, I can fully understand the company keeping the source, etc to themselves. But for bespoke software? If you pay me to write code for you, I expect you to want to own it completely, not licence it from me. Sure, I may use a library that I want to keep hold of, but even then, I'd expect you to licence it from me in such a way that you can take teh whole lot and give it to a third party to support/maintain/modify on your behalf.

    Hey, it'd be better for me if you didn't, and were tied to me for future work, but that's not a reasonable expectation.

  13. A scam from the beginning by shotgunefx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Mass Turnpike Authority are the biggest f'cking crooks.

    They shouldn't even exist. It was formed to build the Mass turnpike. The tolls were added to pay the debt of constructing it. It was stipulated by law that it would be toll free once the debts were repaid. It should have been toll free in the 1960s. They keep spending money so it will never be finished.

    These are the guys trusted with god knows how many billions?

    I particularly like that they paid some outrageous amount (millions and millions, 48?) for a lot for material disposal, never used it, (here's the kicker) gave it back to the previous owner for free! People should be in jail for the shit that's going on.

    --

    -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
    1. Re:A scam from the beginning by stomv · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I particularly like that they paid some outrageous amount (millions and millions, 48?) for a lot for material disposal, never used it, (here's the kicker) gave it back to the previous owner for free!

      No, that's not what happened. At least, not quite. They siezed a parking lot from Frank McCourt (IIRC) using eminent domain, paying him the value of the lot, according to whatever court determines such things. Supposedly they did not end up using it for materials staging (not disposal), and then sold the lot back to McCourt. They sold it back to him for less than they paid for it, 'tis true. McCourt is now looking to sell the lot himself at a large profit.

      So, to clarify:
      1. The Big Dig paid for the lot from McCourt after using eminent domain to force the sale.
      2. It was to be used for staging.
      3. The Big Dig sold it back to him, at a loss.

      Mismanagement? To be sure. The worst part of the Big Dig? Nope, not by a long shot, in terms of cost, timeliness, risk exposure, nuisance for the city, etc.

      Then again, I don't think that the Big Dig is as big a screw-up as everyone makes it out to be. It was an incredibly difficult engineering problem, full of suprises and risk. Furthermore, since Massachusetts pay $1.21 to the USA in income taxes for every $1 the USA spends in Massachusetts, I feel as if the other 49 states "owed" us the Big Dig.

    2. Re:A scam from the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Furthermore, since Massachusetts pay $1.21 to the USA in income taxes for every $1 the USA spends in Massachusetts, I feel as if the other 49 states "owed" us the Big Dig.

      "The federal government owes us money."

      "What shall we do with it?"

      "Let's throw it in a big hole."

      Sounds reasonable.

    3. Re:A scam from the beginning by frankie · · Score: 2, Informative

      very few states that get as much or more from the Federal government as they pay

      False. Most states receive more from DC than they pay to it. Here's a complete list, with reference.

    4. Re:A scam from the beginning by La0tsu · · Score: 2, Funny

      "At least it would teach us a lesson."

      Yes: Never listen to you when it comes to money.

  14. sounds awfully expensive by belmolis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know nothing about this type of software, but hundreds of millions of dollars sounds like an awful lot. I gather that this is not the first attempt to develop such software, that it is a category that has been around for some time. Why is this not a relatively inexpensive matter of buying or licensing some off-the-shelf system and configuring it, rather the way people buy a database system and then set up their own record structures, specialized queries, and so forth? Can anyone explain why this would cost such an enormous amount?

  15. Huge Waste by Evets · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Big Dig is a huge waste of money. When I was working out in Boston, Congress told Mass. "No more money" and then proceeded to fire the guy heading up the project. (This was about 5 years ago).

    I watched them take down a bridge, then actually rebuild the same bridge. I don't know what exactly they accomplished, but it just seems like a stupid thing to do. There are so many unaccomplished goals, you would think that breaking down and rebuilding would be tasked for a later date while they focused on doing things that actually provided a tangible improvement.

    When I think about Government Waste, I think about how my schools were run. Every school I ever went to from elementary school through college was wrought with waste and mismanagement - and those people all had a real desire to improve things. Now make the organization millions of times bigger with employees that could give a care and you end up with a trillian dollars in waste all from situations like this where it took months for somebody to say "hey, if this is costing us so much money wouldn't it make sense to just settle and move on?"

    The apathy that government employees have is staggering. If half of the government organizations simply had one whistleblower that alerted the press about waste that they witnessed, we would... well, we'd be in the same situation because nobody would do anything about it... but theoretically we could reduce waste by billions of dollars.

    Why is it that after all this time and all these budget overruns that the people of Mass. haven't just said "This is a bad idea. Lets kill it!"? Eventually, they'll just call the project done and we'll have another Bradley Fighting Vehicle on our hands.

    1. Re:Huge Waste by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What rock have you been living under?

      Once someone wins the contract from the government, they'd pull the exact same shit, because the government knows that if they didn't pay up for whatever "cost overruns" and grant whatever time extensions, NOBODY would finish the job if the current bidder walked off the field, everyone would want to rip it out and start over.

      Where I live all road projects are done contractually, and we get crap like this all the time. Near my house there is a 2 mile section of road that has been "under improvements" for about 8 years. It was supposed to be converted from a two lane road to a four lane divided road, and the company doing the work decided to spend a couple of years building 1000 feet of northbound lane, then 1000 feet of southbound lane, alternating back and forth checkerboard style, and that was the temporary road! People had to zigzag back and forth for years while they built the "white squares" of permanent road into the pattern, at which point traffic had to be switched to zigzag back and forth along the permanent road (requiring new temporary patches to be built from segment to segment, as well)

      So don't blame bullshit like this on the government. Capitalists are every bit as skilled at extracting every last penny from the taxpayer.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Huge Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If the government is going to drop however many billions into this project, it should at least see it through until it is complete.

      Wrong. Economists call this the Sunk Cost Fallacy. "We've spent so much it would be madness not to finish the job."

      The only rational approach to spending more money is to consider today to be day zero. Forget the money you've spent. Calculate how much is needed to finish the job and decide whether it's worth it.

    3. Re:Huge Waste by Altus · · Score: 2, Funny


      yes... canning it now would be dumb... its practically finished.

      The plumbing and sewer infrastructure upgrade was sorely needed. I remember a few years ago there was a water main break in boston and when they dug it up the found the pipe that broke was made of wood.

      wood.

      as in hundreds of years old... made of wood...

      yea... maybe we should upgrade those.

      and the sewer system has needed an overhaul for years. the way the storm drains and residential drains are linked together causes massive pollution of the boston harbor whenever there is a heavy rain storm. these things are far overdue.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  16. Point to be made by Evets · · Score: 4, Informative

    The original bid went out in 1994 according to the article - which at that point access to source code was not a foreseeable issue for a lot of people in government purchasing departments.

    Also, this project was slated to take nearly a decade, at which point it was more than likely that other software might be available that would be able to handle the task.

    It's interesting to note that on top of the $10M, Honeywell upped their charge from a bidded $104M to $188M and explains away their cost overrun as a result of this dispute. So really, we're looking at now 94 Million Dollars being blamed on some poor schmuck in a purchasing department for not knowing that he should have included a source code clause in one of the 85 contracts he supervised that quarter.

    Now the purchasing people I know would blacklist any contractors associated with that kind of catastrophe, but then again, I don't know any of the bozo's working on the Big Dig.

    I understand that things can get out of hand occassionally and sometimes deadlines get missed and costs get to be over-budget. But nearly 100% over budget with no end in site? Just for this piece of the overall project that is wrought with this kind of thing? Maybe you shouldn't be hiring your project managers from the "welfare-to-work" program.

  17. Re:this is so miniscule compared to total cost- Fp by nathanh · · Score: 2, Funny
    (any geek here with a tunnel in his backyard?)

    "/me puts tinfoil hat on and raises hand"

    That would be a tinfoil hard hat, right?

    /me wonders if the canary also has a tinfoil hat.

  18. You missed the point entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Big Dig wasn't meant to make our commute any less arduous, it wasn't meant to educate our children, it wasn't meant to be anything other than a huge public works project which would inevitably become corrupted and suffer huge cost overruns- check out the history of the Brooklyn Bridge.

    The whole point of the Big Dig was to free up the land where the above ground artery ran. This is a huge, nearly priceless benefit for Boston. Not only does Boston regain several billion of dollars in downtown real estate- but it re-attaches the North end and Longwharf to the rest of the city. Cut off from the highway, those neighborhoods were difficult and unpleasant to get to, and severely devalued by the big ass highway running right past them. The benefit will be to make a more livable, more walkable city, with a downtown worth visiting.

  19. Bad deal for Honeywell by yakitori · · Score: 5, Informative
    The segment of Honeywell that was involved with Big Dig was HTSI (Honeywell Technology Solutions Inc). HTSI is involved in alot of NASA or military related contracts (primarily ground stations or satellite control like HST, Landsat, etc). HTSI was formally Allied Signal which was formally Bendix (NASA followers should know the name). Lockheed became prime on a major NASA contract and began shrinking HTSI's role in it, so Big Dig was an attempt to branch out into Intelligent Traffic Systems to save jobs. Anyway, it was a disaster since day one. Folks here viewed Big Dig as the last stop to hell. Long mandatory hours with no vacations, constant deadline dates that were pushed back week after week, quarreling customers that literally threw chairs at each other. There were weekly 'farewell' lunches for employees as everyone started jumping ship. HTSI didn't receive the Transdyn software for years. What little that was received had to be completely rewritten (thousands upon thousands of lines of code) because it did not fulfill any of the necessary requirements. Boston refused to pay cost overruns to HTSI was the big kicker that made HTSI start to hemorrhage money. Big Dig was a losing cause.

    HTSI eventually managed to recover. Lockheed royally screwed up their contract with NASA so it was ended early and HTSI managed to win on recompetes - by slitting their own throats but that is a story for another day... HTSI negotiated a way to end their involvement in Big Dig early (I guess HTSI learned a lesson and will only get involved in federal level contracts). Rumors are that Transdyn are negotiating to get back into writing the code for Big Dig. Hopefully they will have better luck the second time around. I'm sure there are lots of helpful comments in the current source revs in the ITS software for whoever develops it (particularly Transdyn :P)

  20. Private also by spectrokid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you have a big enough private company, you start seeing the same kind of attitude. "It is not my money." and a shrug. I think it has to do with volume and inertia, not with private/public.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  21. Re:My Rights OnSubwayLine by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Funny

    Okay, I suppose that in a highly technical sense, there is Worcester, but yeah, does it _really_ count? I don't think so.

    Worcester's basically the place that mothers tell their kids about to make them eat their vegetables or whatever. And it's not an interesting place.

    Certainly I think we can all agree that there's nothing further out, that the cosmos more or less ends at 495 except for Worcester which is sort of barely attached by 9 and the Pike.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  22. A little political history by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was having a conversation about this very topic with my brother in law the other night. He's a civil engineer who worked on the big dig for a number of years, until he decided to get out while his sanity was intact.

    We were discussing the now infamous leaks in the tunnel. The basic reason the tunnel leaks comes down to politics. Back in the day, ordinary people were treated as less than pawns when transportation projects were planned. They'd think nothing of bulldozing an entire historic neighborhood if it made some phase of the project a bit easier. And they put roads whereever the straightedge put the line, and anything the line went over be damned. Douglas Adams fans are familiar with this attitude. Boston neighborhoods have suffered particularly from this way of doing things. The West End, which was an ethnic neighborhood very similar to the now toney North End, was simply leveled in the name of "slum clearance", which meant razing the cozy little brick neighborhood and putting up massive, antiseptic, windswept concrete structures. When the original Central Artery was planned, they did not have the chutzpah to raze the old Faneuil Hall and it's marketplace, but they did plop a huge highway down between it and the waterfront. This process delayed the redevelopment of the old industrial waterfront for years, probably cost the economy billions.

    This process was so egregiously insensitive that entire political careers were made opposing transportation projects (how else does a guy like Mike Dukakis get to be governor?). People swore that never again would they destroy a neighborhood for the convenience of a transportation project. The political pendulum has swung so far the other way, that the decision was made when the new Central Artery was planned not to destroy a single building more than was physically necessary. As you know, in any engineering project, when one priority rises to the top, the others have to drop. That includes cost and water proofing.

    The way to accomplish this priority was to build the new highway almost entirely within the footprint of the old one, while the old one continued to run, not to mention avoiding any disruption of Boston's utilties, some of which date to the 19th century. The process was compared to doing open heart surgery on a patient while the patient played a game of tennis.

    Now, the leaks. In order to build the new tunnel more or less on the footprint of the old one, they excavated on the sides and built a slurry wall by injecting concrete into the excavation. Is it any surprise that it leaks? But, they did manage to build the thing without disrupting neighborhoods, other than the regular rerouting of traffic. And the artery, amazingly, actually does work -- traffic flows much better than it did before. And no building, no matter how old, unatrractive and decrepit, was taken down unless absolutely necessary, and cost be damned. But of course the tunnel leaks, and now Bechtel is stepping up and performing its predestined role as scapegoat. The rumors say that Bechtel was the best choice for this role because as a firm with strong Republican connections working on a Democrat instigated project, they wouldn't be sued quite as much.

    And thus the political excesses of one era make up in a rough (but expensive) way for those of another.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:A little political history by llefler · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now, the leaks. In order to build the new tunnel more or less on the footprint of the old one, they excavated on the sides and built a slurry wall by injecting concrete into the excavation. Is it any surprise that it leaks?

      You seem to imply that the use of slurry walls is the reason it leaks. I'll admit, I haven't read a whole lot on the problems with the Big Dig, but the ones I have seen indicated slurry contamination. It's a difference between a flawed application and a flawed process.

      I do remember reports that the World Trade Center used slurry walls to create the 'bathtub'. The WTC was build in 'reclaimed' land, and even after having two 110 storey building fall on it, it still only had minor leaks. And I can't swear to it, but I think LA used the process in parts of their subway system as well.

      For those that aren't aware, slurry walls are used in areas where there is too much ground water to pour conventional concrete.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
  23. Re:My Rights OnSubwayLine by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a big large engineering project which at this point has costs approaching the development of the space shuttle. They are attempting to fundamentally transform the city of Boston, and while this is a very honorable intention, have made the project into a mockery. It is years and billions of dollars overdue, and if you couldnt actually see the snail's pace of progress they are making, would be up there with Duke Nukem for vaporware awards.

    While not as revolutionary as something like the tunnel between France and England, it is nonetheless very a large undertaking that is attempting to transform a city. It has a very interesting history, as Boston's traffic problems in many ways stem from its attempt to be a "city of the future" and building highways/skyways cutting through the city before the federal government started building/funding interstates.

    In summary, if large engineering projects, urban planning and traffic engineering, local politics interacting with national politics, project management, and case studies in how projects grossly overrun their projected costs interest you, this should interest you even if you were not previously aware of the Big Dig.

    (Note: I find this quite interesting and I live over 500 miles away)

  24. I submitted this ages ago by doublem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here are your recent submissions to Slashdot, and their status within the system:

    * 2005-02-28 15:58:21 Software ownership battle adds $10M to cost of 'Big Dig' (Politics,Programming) (rejected)


    Who do you have to be sleeping with to get the /. editors to post a relevant article???

    I sent this story into /. LAST MONTH!

    Pathetic.

    Don't look to /. for recent news. All you get from this place is the old and stale.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA