Dan Kennedy is asking similar questions to those that I’ve been wondering.
I can’t help but think about the Callahan and Sumner tunnels, and all those century-old tunnels used by the subway system. They’ve worked from the day they opened, and I can’t think of a structural disaster that’s ever befallen any of them.
So why is the Big Dig so different?
Here are the possible explanations that come to mind:
- As I suggested Wednesday, something about modular design is more failure prone than traditional steel-and-concrete construction done on the spot.
- There was something singular about the flawed oversight of this project and the same result would have happened with more traditional tunnel designs.
- The engineering feats that the Big Dig had to accomplish were more complex, leading to more precarious designs, so that the possibility of error was higher, or the consequences of error were more grave.
In the past, there have been major projects that have failed because of graft and poor construction before, though sadly my knowledge of history fails me, and I can’t think of specific examples.
Any reader insight would be welcome.
No comments have been added to this post yet.