Continued from Section A POGO's Report: No Light At the End Of This Tunnel: Boston's Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project




Rejecting Recommended Solutions

Despite all of the waste that has occurred in the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, there are times when safety or pragmatism justify higher costs. A project of this magnitude deserves the best blueprint to ensure effectiveness and safety. The managers of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project have overlooked many FHA recommendations throughout the process. An internal Federal Highway Administration memo outlines their disappointment with Massachusetts' design for the Third Harbor Tunnel. Regardless of the rise in cost one recommendation would have created, the suggestion would have been a more effective alternative to the existing tunnel. The Assistant Transportation Planner for the Federal Highway Administration asserted:

"I believe that our overall objective as an agency should be to improve the HOV [High Occupancy Vehicle Commuter] system that the State is proposing and to make it work rather than looking for ways to kill it and thereby save a buck. . . . There is no question in my mind that by itself this 'HOV System' would prove to have little merit. . . . Such a position, in my opinion, would not, however, be either in the public's best interest nor consistent with this agency's goals of investing its funds wisely. I say this because I am convinced that, without a good HOV system, the Third Harbor Tunnel will be obsolete the day it is opened to traffic and the depressed Central Artery will, be at best, an inferior facility. . . . Although this would be costly, it would be a small price to pay to protect our investment in the tunnel." (Emphasis Added) [See Appendix J, p. 1]

The number of lanes approaching the tunnel from downtown will narrow from eight lanes to four lanes. The current design allows for four lanes of traffic, three open lanes and one HOV lane, to merge into the two-lane tunnel. In addition to the natural bottleneck that has been created by the reduction of lanes approaching the tunnel, a traffic light will be installed before the tunnel's entrance to allow the HOV lane access to the tunnel while the three lanes are stopped and vice versa. The bottleneck will be magnified due to the traffic light. The light and the bottleneck will nullify any chance this highway has to be truly effective. Ironically, Massachusetts has potentially caused greater traffic congestion, at taxpayers expense, in their effort to alleviate the city's traffic problems.

The FHA has spoken out against the problems with the State's design. FHA stated that the HOV system does not continue through the Third Harbor Tunnel, thus, considerable congestion will develop and the benefits of the HOV lane will not be realized. [See Appendix K, p. 2] This concern was raised before the design for this section had been completed. The document went on to assert, "Since the tunnel is still in the design stages, serious consideration should be given to accommodating an exclusive HOV through the tunnel." [See Appendix K, p. 2] The tunnel below Boston Harbor has been completed and is awaiting use in the near future. The HOV was not continued through the tunnel, as requested by the FHA, and the tunnel is practically impossible to alter or to improve at a later time.

The Value Engineering (VE) team is a group of Bechtel/Parsons engineers who have, ironically, even had their suggested recommendations rejected by Massachusetts. VE is a review process aimed at simplifying designs and reducing design and construction cost. The VE team alone suggested $2.8 billion worth of savings that had been rejected or stalled in bureaucratic limbo. [See Appendix L, p. i]

The DOT Inspector General has stated, the Federal Highway Administration Massachusetts Division and Massachusetts Department of Public Works have " . . . failed to properly address and analyze recommendations of Division engineers, VE study teams, and other transportation officials." The Massachusetts Inspector General agreed with the lack of consideration that has been given the VE recommendations:

" . . . MassHighway has not taken full advantage of value engineering, thereby forgoing opportunities to simplify designs and significantly cut costs. . . . The value engineering program is flawed not in concept, but in execution. Pursuing cost savings and design simplification has not been a high priority for the Project. From the beginning, the value engineering program has been plagued by lack of independence, delays, misinformation, and management errors." [See Appendix L, p. i]

The VE team made a total of 652 recommendations, of which over 300 have been accepted by Massachusetts, saving $325 million of the total $2.8 billion potential savings. The Massachusetts Inspector General reported, however, that the total savings is overstated because not all of the recommended actions could have been implemented. [See Appendix L, p. i] However, the remaining 300 recommendations were rejected or stalled. In spite of the recommendations that the VE team suggested, the Massachusetts Inspector General found a major conflict in allowing personnel from the management companies to perform this vital role. The report stated, "Employing staff from Bechtel Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff to perform value engineering analyses compromised the program's independence." [See Appendix L, p. ii]

A third association has also had their recommendations foiled by Massachusetts. Known as the TIDE Committee, Tunnel Improvement Design Elements, engineers who were "affiliated" with the Central Artery/Tunnel Project as well as local engineers, recommended changes in Central Artery/Tunnel Project designs. The committee suggested several changes to the Central Artery/Tunnel Project that would have been more cost-efficient, less questionable, and much safer. The TIDE Committee proposed improvements that could have saved an estimated $530 million, yet their recommendations were disregarded.27


Can Massachusetts Afford The Central Artery/Tunnel Project?

Massachusetts could become the biggest victim as costs escalate and the completion date is prolonged. Massachusetts is responsible for up to 20% of the final cost of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project and the amount connected to this percentage has grown drastically since the cost has ballooned to $9.6 billion. The Federal government could and should eventually cut back on the amount of funding that the Central Artery/Tunnel Project is allocated or it could decide not to participate in many areas that the State has expected.

This would cause a major problem for Massachusetts. The State is not ready for the huge increases in costs in the future. Federal money that has been appropriated for the entire State has been funneled into the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Slowly other parts of the State could see funds for other highways decrease. Internal audits by the Massachusetts Inspector General have stated that Massachusetts would have to increase state funds for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project due to negligent audit processes.28 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts could feel the backlash of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project for many decades to follow.


Recommendations

Clearly, Boston needs to improve its outdated and inadequate road system. This does not, however, give the State of Massachusetts the right to abuse the American taxpayer.

POGO brought this scandal to the attention of Senator William Cohen (R-ME), Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, who is currently conducting an investigation into the cost overruns that have occurred during the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Senator Cohen stated:

"A lack of meaningful oversight and accountability for this project may be unnecessarily costing the taxpayer billions of dollars. As we have seen many times before, Congress gets sold on a low dollar project only to see it grow three or four fold before it is completed."29

There is precedent for handling this disaster. The DOT has frozen Federal funding of a subway system in Los Angeles. In an October 5, 1994 press release, the DOT announced the work performed on the subway did not meet the standards that the Department of Transportation has established:

"Disturbed by continuing technical and management problems . . . U.S. Federal Transit Administrator Gordon J. Linton today suspended future Federal funding for the entire program and halted all tunneling . . . until numerous difficulties are resolved." [See Appendix M, p. 1]

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena added, "These steps are meant to deliver a firm message that the Clinton Administration believes in the Red Line project, supports its continuation, but insists that it be built in a safe and fiscally responsible manner." [See Appendix M, p. 2])

In a letter sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the Los Angeles project Gordon Linton stated, "The grantor-grantee relationship, however, is between the FTA [Federal Transit Administration] and the LACMTA [Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority], and it is LACMTA's responsibility to demonstrate that it is exercising proper stewardship of the Federal resources it has contracted to receive." [See Appendix M, Attachment, p. 2])

A similar stance should be taken by the Department of Transportation on the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project to ensure "that it be built in a safe and fiscally responsible manner". Two of the contractors who are working in Los Angeles are also working on the Boston Central Artery/Tunnel Project, Parsons and Kiewit (a subcontractor). Funding was frozen in Los Angeles due to the inability of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to handle such a project. A parallel could be easily drawn from MTA to Massachusetts. And the identical "grantor-grantee relationship" that has caused problems in LA, is also the root of Massachusetts' inability to handle the Central Artery/Tunnel Project.

The precedent has been set by DOT to freeze Federal participation in state programs and to evaluate the work performed, look at rising costs, and reconsider Federal funds which will be allocated to the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in the future.

Freezing Federal funding in the Central Artery/Tunnel Project would be the first step in a multiple-step process to properly oversee the State and Bechtel/Parsons. Independent design, construction and accounting firms would also be essential in effectively providing oversight to the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. In response to the Senate investigation, Massachusetts Governor William Weld stated that he endorsed establishing a Federal cap on spending on the Central Artery/Tunnel Project.30 However, these steps need to be performed in the near future. Final designs in many areas of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project are close to completion. Changes made now could ultimately affect a percentage of the construction in its beginning stages or in construction soon to commence. It is very important to shine light onto the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Many more problems are likely to surface in projects that was designed in 1995, but is not scheduled for completion until 2004.