【正文】 勞動力成本將另一個 600 萬美元增加到項目的通貨膨脹。這時荷蘭總工程師死于 心臟衰竭，他的助手， Milton H. Freeman 接替總工程師 4 個月后死于肺炎。 每個因子的概念，提出了一種挑戰(zhàn)，一個機構(gòu)對項目的成本估計準(zhǔn)確。在隨訪現(xiàn)場為五個人訪談和通過沙斯黨通過一組“同伴交流”剩下的隨訪電話。 它總結(jié)成邏輯分區(qū)和分類，并在可視化的因素如何影響項目的成本估算 提供了 幫助。 在成本上升的一個因素是通過更好地了解各因素的驅(qū)動力因素或 起源。這是由三角在多個調(diào)查者或資料來源暗示同一因素。最后一筆專用款項被使用在早期 1927 年工程，總造價 48,400,000 美元。荷蘭也決定替代鑄鋼為鑄鐵增加強度和安全因素的多隧道范圍蠕變。”隧道委托的竣工日期是 1926 年 12月 31 日。 咨詢工程師的一致支持了荷蘭的分析。荷蘭帶著在構(gòu)建地鐵、隧道項目的豐富經(jīng)驗來到在紐約的這個項目。 11 項設(shè)計被考慮在隧道建設(shè)里，最值得注意的是，一個由工程師負(fù)責(zé)整理最近為完成巴拿馬運河建設(shè)的 George Washington Goethals。 HistoryHolland 隧道的案例研究 對以往 的 項目 經(jīng)驗，可以為建設(shè)一個優(yōu)質(zhì)項目的預(yù)算提供更好的理解。在很多情況下， 最后項目的成本已高于在最初的規(guī)劃編制和發(fā)布 的成本， 初步工程，最終設(shè)計， 抑或在開始建設(shè)時“ Mega 項目需要更多的前提研究來避免成本超支。 因此，如果任何項目超過預(yù)算，其他項目被從這個計劃刪除或降低范圍以提供必要資金來抵消成本的增長。 “Ask nation to share in tunnel to Jersey.” 1918. The automobile was emerging as the predominate means of transportation and it was decided that this tunnel should be for vehicular traffic. As a result the tunnel would employ new ventilation technologies to purge the exhaust gases produced by the internal bustion engine. Eleven designs were considered for the tunnel, most notably, one by the engineer recently responsible for finishing the Panama Canal, George Washington Goethals. He envisioned a single, bilevel tunnel with opposing traffic on each level. Goethals made a planning project cost estimate of $12 million and 3 years for construction. World War I had consumed much of the nation’s steel and iron production, so his design made use of cement blocks as the tunnel’s structural shell. His design was the frontrunning plan “Hudson vehicle tube.” but he had responsibilities elsewhere and was not named chief engineer for the project. Clifford M. Holland was named to head the 浙江工業(yè)大學(xué)之江學(xué)院畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文） 外文翻譯 7 project along with a board of five consulting engineers “Name interstate tunnel engineers.” 1919. Holland came to the project with vast experience in constructing subways and tunnels in New York. The cost of the project was taken to be $12 million, Goethals’ planning estimate. Holland produced a report in February of 1920 based on his analysis of the Goethals’ design of the project. His findings were not what had been expected. Holland found ? Goethals’ width of m would not acmodate the volume of traffic. ? Concrete blocks would not withstand the structural loads exerted on the tunnel. ? The construction methods required by Goethals’ design were pletely untried. ? The estimated cost of construction was grossly low. ? The work could not be pleted in 3 years. The board of consulting engineers gave unanimous support for Holland’s analysis. Holland then presented a design of his own which was supported unanimously by the consulting engineers. Holland’s design, which was a major scope change, called for twin castiron tubes. One advantage was that construction would follow established methods of tunnel construction that had been implemented for rail tunnels under the East River and further up the Hudson. Holland estimated the cost at $28,669,000 “Asks $28,669,000 for Jersey tube.” 1920 and construction time at 31/2 years. Debate about the tunnel design continued for more than a year creating disagreements between the New York and New Jersey Commissions and delaying the work—a schedule change. A disagreement about awarding a contract on the New Jersey side further delayed the start of construction and added over half of a million dollars in cost. Construction started on the New York side in October of 1920 and in late December 1921 the New Jersey portion of the tunnel was bid “Way all cleared for Jersey tunnel.” The mandated pletion date was December 31, 1926. The construction schedule had now grown to 5 years. Estimated project cost increased multiple times throughout the early years of construction as a result of scope creep, schedule delays, and inflation. Increased traffic forecast necessitate larger entrance/exit plazas and acquisition of more right of way “Vehicular tube is growing.” 1923. Then increases in material and labor costs had added another $6 million to the project inflation. By the beginning of 1924, reestimated costs had been increased by $14,000,000 “Vehicular tunnel cost up $14,000,000.” 1924 due to functional and aesthetic factors scope creep. More intricate roadway designs for approaches, widening of the approach roadways, and architectural treatments increased the costs more scope creep. Redesign of the ventila