【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 l engineer George Washington review of the Holland Tunnel project serves to highlight the critical issues associated with estimating the costs of large plex projects and the fact that even the most distinguished engineers have trouble assessing cost drivers beyond the physical characteristics of a times there is no recognition of the cost drivers operating outside the project’s physical joint New York and New Jersey mission in 1918 remended a transportation tunnel under the river “Urges new tunnel under the Hudson.” 1918?！癆sk nation to share in tunnel to Jersey.” automobile was emerging as the predominate means of transportation and it was decided that this tunnel should be for vehicular a result the tunnel would employ new ventilation technologies to purge the exhaust gases produced by the internal bustion designs were considered for the tunnel, most notably, one by the engineer recently responsible for finishing the Panama Canal, George Washington envisioned a single, bilevel tunnel with opposing traffic on each made a planning project cost estimate of $12 million and 3 years for 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 design was the frontrunning plan “Hudson vehicle tube.” but he had responsibilities elsewhere and was not named chief engineer for the was named to head the 浙江工業(yè)大學之江學院畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）外文翻譯project along with a board of five consulting engineers “Name interstate tunnel engineers.” came to the project with vast experience in constructing subways and tunnels in New cost of the project was taken to be $12 million, Goethals’ planning produced a report in February of 1920 based on his analysis of the Goethals’ design of the findings were not what had been 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 board of consulting engineers gave unanimous support for Holland’s then presented a design of his own which was supported unanimously by the consulting ’s design, which was a major scope change, called for twin castiron 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 estimated the cost at $28,669,000 “Asks $28,669,000 for Jersey tube.” 1920 and construction time at 31/2 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 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 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, construction schedule had now grown to 5 project cost increased multiple times throughout the early years of construction as a result of scope creep, schedule delays, and traffic forecast necessitate larger entrance/exit plazas and acquisition of more right of way “Vehicular tube is growing.” increases in material and labor costs had added another $6 million to the project 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 intricate roadway designs for approaches, widening of the approach roadways, and architectural treatments increased the costs more scope of the ventilation system added cm to the tunnel 浙江工業(yè)大學之江學院畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）外文翻譯diameter and $4,422, also decided to substitute caststeel for castiron to increase the strength and safety factors of the tunnel more scope , the New Jersey ventilation shafts had to be redesigned along with their corresponding foundations at a cost of $700,000 due to unexpected soil conditions unforeseen of these changes increased the estimate to over $ funds were appropriated and it was believed that these were sufficient to plete the project, but by February of 1926, there was another increase of $3,200,000 “$3,200,000 more asked for tunnel.” The mission explained that the new costs were due to increases in labor and material costs challenge in controlling this time Holland died of heart failure and his assistant, Milton , took over as chief engineer only to die of pneumonia 4 months Singstad, the designer of the ventilation system then became chief engineer and brought the project to three different chief engineers within 5 months created confusion unforeseen April of 1924 water rushed into one of the tunnels from a leak forcing workers to make a hasty escape more unforeseen final appropriation was requested in early 1927 brought the total project cost to $48,400, November 13 of 1927 the tunnel officially opened “Work on tunnel began 7 years ago.” Methodology The cost escalation factors that lead to project cost growth have been documented through a large number of have identified factors individually or by factor presents a challenge to an agency seeking to produce accurate project cost part of a larger study seeking to improve cost estimates and management of costs from project conception to bid day, a thorough literature review was conducted to identify factors that influence cost estimates Anderson et literature review included exploration of research reports and publications, government reports, news articles, and other published pletion of the literature review the factors were analyzed and categorized by the researchers into factors that drive the cost increases experienced by transportation construction was acplished by triangulation where multiple