| >At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. That's not the problem people complained about though -- the project's eventual quality/utility. The problem people complained about is the cost of the project -- and especially for overpaying for something that could be done for less. And that (overpaying) is a big problem for several reasons: 1) The money could go to other projects to better the city. 2) The money could be spend on future maintenance of the Big Dig itself. 3) The past history of such costly projects (fat margins and corruption-driven extras) nips the public appeal and political will to build new infrastructure in the bud. If the Big Dig could be had at 4B, or 8B as promised, or, heck, even 10-15, and ended up costing $22 billion, that's a huge problem -- regardless if it was cool once completed. Especially if the completed project is only $8B cool, and not $22B cool, and the extra money went not in improving it, but in delays, corruption, and other BS. Otherwise what you're saying is: "If a project can be built the same for N, it doesn't matter if we pay 2xN or 3xN due to over-charging/corruption, as long as the project is useful". As if the extra money don't come with lost project opportunities of their own... |
People complained before ground was even broken. Looking at the scope of the project in retrospect, as well as the known unknowns, I'm surprised anyone thought it would cost $8bn ($22bn seems too high, but I'm just an interested layman).