Privatization of Public resources rears its ugly head in Boston!
- From: wolfbat359a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 17 Jul 2006 02:15:36 -0700
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=135480
headline:
Fein: The road to tragedy
By Michael R. Fein/ Guest Columnist
Sunday, July 16, 2006
In the wake of the fatal collapse of ceiling tiles in one of the Big
Dig tunnels on July 10, Governor Mitt Romney again called for the
removal of Turnpike Authority Matt Amorello. According to Romney's
statement, Amorello has been "secretive," "resisted oversight," and has
"failed to conform to the standards by which public business should be
conducted."
It is tempting to interpret this latest salvo as just another in a
long-standing turf war between the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
(MTA), an independent agency, and the Governor's office. But this issue
cuts deeper than the partisan wrangling which is a mainstay of Beacon
Hill. At the root of the Big Dig's problems (which include not only the
recent fatality, but a troubled history of shoddy workmanship, cost
over-runs and delays) is the gradual privatization of the "public
business" that the Governor described.
During the design phase of the project in the late 1980s and early
1990s, every effort was made to ensure that as little harm as possible
came out of the construction of this massive piece of transportation
infrastructure. These costly design changes and "mitigations" -- the
practice of mollifying critics through a seemingly endless variety of
accommodations -- sparked the beginning of the Big Dig's now legendary
cost-overruns. By the late 1990s, though, the project delays and cost
inflation that resulted from these decisions threatened to undermine
its completion.
In order to keep the project afloat, two key shifts in Big Dig
administration took place. The first was the transfer of control from
the Massachusetts Highway Department to the MTA in 1997. This was done
in order to gain access to the MTA's toll revenues, but a critical
consequence of this decision was to shift responsibility for a
multi-billion dollar mega-project out of public oversight and into the
hands of a public authority that, in the words of the Supreme Judicial
Court, stands "outside the machinery of government."
Because the public was wary of the high costs of mega-projects and
skeptical of the government's capacity to manage them, all emphasis was
on the MTA's capacity to expedite construction. Little attention was
paid to the possible implications of shifting Big Dig management to an
agency that would most certainly be reluctant to subject itself to the
costly delays that accompany public deliberation.
A year after the MTA took control of the project, the costs of
privatizing public business became more apparent. The MTA developed an
Integrated Project Organization with its lead contractor, the joint
venture of Bechtel/Parsons-Brinckerhoff. The intent of this move, which
brought almost 200 members of Bechtel's personnel onto MTA staff, was
to streamline management and fast-track the construction of the Big Dig
as it dragged on into its second decade. The result was that it became
increasingly difficult for the MTA to exercise independent control over
the private contractors responsible for overall quality control ...
(cont)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Still think appeasement works?
- Next by Date: Re: Privatization of Public resources rears its ugly head in Boston!
- Previous by thread: Re: Public vs. Private
- Next by thread: Re: Privatization of Public resources rears its ugly head in Boston!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
