“Big Dig” ProjectTHE CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT (CA/T)

A CASE STUDY ON PROJECT COMPLEXITY.

Project Description

Located in Boston, MA, on the northeast coast of the United States.

Includes tunnels, highway interchange connections, bridges and pedestrian facilities

Project Map

Project Description

Rerouted the Central Artery (Interstate 93), into a 3.5-mile (5.6-km) tunnel.

Construction of the Ted Williams Tunnel.

Construction of the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge over the Charles River.

Construction of the Rose Kennedy Greenway in the space vacated by the previous I-93 elevated roadway.

Project Description Planning Phase started in 1982 Construction work – 1991-2006 Estimated Completion - 1998 Actual Completion – Dec 31, 2007Estimated Cost - $2.8 billionFinal Cost - $14.6 billionCost over run – 190%

Official project owner - Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Joint venture of Bechtel and Parson Brinkerhoff

Source: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com

Why Boston Needed the Big Dig?

Traffic improvements and substantial reductions in congestion Improving mobility in downtown Boston Reconnect neighborhoods severed by the old elevated highway

Source: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us

Central Artery: Before and After

Source:http://www.bigdig.com

Problems faced

Escalating costsScheduling overrunsDesign flawsCharges of poor execution and use of substandard materialsFatal Ceiling CollapseCriminal arrests and one death

Source: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com

Complexity Factors - Cost Contingency Usage

◦ Construction Contracts◦ Management Contingency◦ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority CEO Contingency

Risk Analysis◦ Location◦ Utilities

Estimate Formation◦ Ted Williams Tunnel◦ Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge◦ Center Artery (I-93)

Complexity Factors - Cost

Figure. Big Dig Project Cost Growth (National Research Council 2003)

55%

15%

8%

7%

5%

3%

2%5%

Chart Title

Inflation

Environmental/Mitigation

Scope Growth

Accounting Changes

Traffic

Schedule Maintenance

Contingency for Unknowns

Other

Complexity Factors - Schedule Timeline Requirements

◦ Community Conflicts

Milestones

Schedule Control◦ Software Programs

Complexity Factors - Technical Scope of Project

Owner’s Internal Structure

Design Method

Complexity Factors - Context Public

◦ Economic Value of Boston

Utility Coordination◦ 29 Miles of Underground Utility Relocation and Updating

Land Use Impact◦ 300 acres of Green Space

Complexity Factors - Financing Federal Funding

State Funding

Borrowing Against Future Funding

Project Dimension Complexity Ranking

DIMENSION RANK

Context 5

Cost 4

Technical 3

Financing 2

Schedule 1

Project Dimension Complexity Rating

DIMENSIONS SCALE (0 – 100)

Cost DimensionComplexity

99

Schedule DimensionComplexity

90

Technical Dimension Complexity 95

ContextDimension Complexity

100

Financing Dimension Complexity 92

Complexity MapThe Big Dig Project

Technical

Cost

FinancingContext

Schedule

0102030405060708090100

Critical Planning and Analysis Methods

Method 1: Define Critical Success Factors◦ Community Needs◦ Political Restrictions◦ Federal and State Funding◦ Major Project Components

◦ Center Artery (I-93)◦ Ted Williams Tunnel◦ Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge

Method 2: Assemble Project Team Communication Collaboration

◦ Example◦ Ted Williams Tunnel Ceiling Panel Collapse

Method 3: Project Arrangements Design-Bid-Build

Value Engineering

Dispute Resolution

Dispute Resolution Board

Method 4: Early Cost Model and Finance Plan

Incorrect Initial Cost Model and Finance Plan

The cost model would have included ◦ Inflation◦ Project Risk- Account for Cost Overruns◦ More detail over Design Costs

Method 5: Develop Project Action Plans

Major Obstacles◦ Restrictive Legislation◦ Acquisition of ROW◦ Cooperation of Utilities◦ Community Support

Tools for Managing Complex Projects The following tools were used in the Big Dig Project:

•Public involvement plan

•Critical permit issues

•Offsite fabrication

•Co-locate team

•Dispute resolution plan

Public Involvement Plan◦ Project planners worked with community groups, government & business leaders to

create a consensus of how the project would be built

◦ Mitigation: The process of keeping the city open and making certain all affected groups would be treated fairly

◦ Informed, organized interest groups press for their demands

◦ Public involvement plan produces early project wins of consensus but at the expense of late project soaring project costs

Critical Permit Issues◦ Bechtel/Parsons Brinkerhoff (B/PB):

◦ Engineering authority that approved, permitted, and released designs for construction◦ Construction managers in charge of contractors & sub-contractors

◦ B/PB operated the project with the philosophy of getting this done, ask questions later

◦ Many plans that were permitted and released for construction were incomplete, contained numerous errors, and lacked proper subsurface exploration

◦ The lax oversight produced an estimated $750 million in construction over-runs

Offsite Fabrication◦ Utilized successfully on the CA/T project

◦ Several examples are:◦ Immersed steel tubes for the Ted Williams Tunnel◦ Steel box girder sections for the Bunker Hill Bridge

◦ Utilized successfully on the CA/T project

◦ Offsite fabrication of box girders and steel tubes produced accurate sections per specification that could be test connected at the factory to insure smooth and timely installation

◦ Quicker assembly time at the job site with smaller construction crews as compared to onsite fabrication

◦ Exposure of construction workers to difficult job environments was reduced as compared to onsite fabrication

Co-Locate Team◦ Co-Locate elements of the project team to produce a cohesive team effort to complete a

project

◦ Perhaps the most controversial tool

◦ In 1998, State of Massachusetts combined B/PB with state workers into one integrated project organization

◦ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was at the top of the organization chart

◦ State of Massachusetts designated B/PB as “owner’s representative” in several instances

◦ Who is in charge?

Dispute Resolution Plan◦ Two noteworthy dispute resolution plan techniques were utilized on the CA/T project:

◦ Partnering◦ Mediation

◦ Partnering was practiced on the CA/T project for construction projects with a duration of least one year and a value of $1 million or more

◦ Mediation was utilized to resolve the dispute of responsibility for leaks at the Fort Point Channel tunnel area

References◦ Bartlett School of Planning (UCL). (2011). “The Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project (‘The Big Dig’), Omega Centre.” Bloomsbury,

London. ◦ Gelinas, N. (2007). “Lessons of Boston’s Big Dig.” City Journal Autumn. New York, New York. ◦ Greirman, V. (2010). “The Big Dig: Learning from a Mega Project.” NASA, <

http://appel.nasa.gov/2010/07/15/the-big-dig-learning-from-a-mega-project/> (November 13, 2013).◦ Hsu, J. Mckay, S., McKnight, M. (2003). “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Boston’s Central Artery/Tunnel Project” Carnegie Mello University.

Pittsburgh, PA.◦ Lewis, R. and Murphy, S. (2003). “Artery Errors Cost More Than $1b.” The Boston Globe, <

http://www.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/bechtel/> (November 13, 2013). ◦ Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). (2013). “The Central Artery/Tunnel Project-The Big Dig.” MassDOT Highway

Division. <http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TheBigDig.aspx> (October 5, 2013).◦ National Research Council. “Completing the "Big Dig": Managing the Final Stages of Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Washington, DC:

The National Academies Press, 2003.◦ Poole, R.W., Samuel, P. (2011). “Transportation Mega-Projects and Risk.” Reason Foundation Policy Brief 97. Los Angeles, CA. ◦ Saltzman, J. (2009). “Big Dig Contractor Modern Continental Pleads Guilty.” Boston Globe. <

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/05/modern_continen_2.html> (October 5, 2013).◦ Salvucci, F. P. (2008). “Unearthing the Big Dig.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA.◦ Wood, D. (2001). “Learning From the Big Dig.” Federal Highway Administration: Public Roads, <

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/01julaug/bigdig.cfm> (November 13, 2013).