We expect that this post may raise some eyebrows. And hopefully, it’s to let in more light.
Boston’s Big Dig project has been a long-term headache for Massachusetts drivers, taxpayers, legislators, and contractors. And if ever a project needed a contingency reserve just for aspirin, this is it.
Aside from an overspend of 1400% (with numbers in the 10s of billions of dollars), being years late…suffice it to say that there’s enough fodder in the Big Dig, in terms of lessons (not) learned, for several project management textbooks.
We want to focus on only one component of the Big Dig – something relatively simple. Lights.
Please take a moment and at least scan this article before finishing this blog post: CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE ON BIG DIG LIGHTING.
For those of you who didn’t click, here are some highlights:
- The current lighting for the tunnels is accomplished with 7.5 miles worth of 23,000 standard fluorescent lights, each weighing 120 pounds.
- The lights have several problems, the most immediately disturbing of which is that they were not designed to withstand moisture – and corrosion was causing them to fall. From the ceiling. Perhaps on to cars. So the lights are temporarily supported with plastic ties to hold them up against that probability of falling onto fast-moving (well, sometimes, anyway) traffic.
- A two year, $54M project, which will involve stopping and re-routing traffic, causing ongoing headaches for drivers, has been initiated to replace all of the lights with LED lighting. This is after a project to put the temporary “ties” up to prevent the lights from falling.
Now, to be fair, we’re not sure what other lighting options were available to the project team at the time the decision was made. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that there was LED lighting available, that the lights were more expensive than fluorescent, but weighed less and would have a much longer lifetime (fact – LED lights last 12 to 15 years versus the fluorescent 2 years). Let’s also assume that the LED lights would not have the issue of, say, falling off onto traffic. Further, let’s say (and this IS true) that the LED lighting would save about $2.5M per year just in power costs, (this does not include maintenance). There is also of course a green aspect to the reduced use of energy for lighting, the reduced emissions from cars not being stalled or stopped while frequent maintenance is taking place…and on…and on…
If you had this choice – to install something which has a lower installation cost, or a lower operation cost, we ask you NOT only which you’ d choose but what THINKING would go through your head.
Choice 1: My concern is about the project. I serve my stakeholders who seem interested in keeping costs down. My focus is on the deliverable to the traffic authorities.
Choice 2: I am considering the mission of the Big Dig which is to provide reliable, safe transport for drivers in the area at the lowest overall cost for the long-term.
We are really interested in hearing which you’d choose as a project manager in this situation.
Be honest. Which would you choose and why?
A guest post from Meika Jensen: e-waste matters
We provide you with this guest post by Meika Jensen because it covers a sustainability-oriented topic and could yield some personal and business projects for our readers.
eClean-up: A Look at Efforts to Clean Up Electronic Waste
Even if you regularly recycle your plastic and your paper, there may be another kind of waste that needs special attention: old electronics and batteries. While it is far harder to find places to recycle or properly dispose of electronics and batteries, it is important to do so because this category of waste presents unique dangers. Full of toxic metals, these products often should be disposed by someone who is properly trained. The knowledge levels needed to fully understand the sustainability issues involved may even require a masters degree. But this is often not the case as the world’s poorest brave toxic conditions to harvest the valuable metals that remain after electronics are discarded.
These electronics, referred to as e-waste when discarded, are hazardous because they contain heavy metals that begin to leak when packed into the acidic environment of a landfill. According to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 40% of the lead and 75% of the heavy metals found in landfills are the result of improperly disposed of e-waste. There is such a high concentration of electronic waste in most landfills that if there is a leak or run-off, it would be incredibly toxic and could poison groundwater.
The dangerous materials associated with e-waste are several: lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, PVC, and brominated flame-retardants, all with varying effects on the environment. Mercury, for example, causes improper brain function in individuals who are exposed to it for an extended time period. Small amounts of cadmium can accumulate in the human body, particularly the kidney, and cause irreversible health problems, while lead is known to cause damage to individuals’ nervous systems.
Within the United States, there has yet to be a federal law that address electronic waste comprehensively, though there have been several attempts at a National Computer Recycling Act, though this has yet to pass into law. Therefore, currently, the clean up of electronic waste is dealt with on the state level, with most states banning or restricting dumping of electronics.
California’s comprehensive e-waste program dictates all electronic devices are to be categorized and assessed, then levied a tax upon purchase that goes towards funding infrastructure for independent recyclers to collect electronics within the state. Once a consumer of an electronic device decides to recycle the device, he or she gets a small payment, in other words, a reimbursement of a portion of the previously assessed tax, for having recycled the item. Moreover, in California, it is illegal for any electronic waste to be placed within a landfill or otherwise thrown away.
Unlike the United States, which is just beginning to implement ecycling, Europe has had comprehensive legislation in place for collecting electronic waste since 2003. In the European Union’s strategy, each member country provides many easily accessed facilities for citizens to recycle their electronic equipment, in the hopes that, with knowledge and availability, most electronic consumers will recycle the vast majority of their electronic equipment. Unfortunately, without any incentive, the program has not been highly effective – only about one third of electronic waste in Europe is properly recycled, which has lead to European Union leaders revisiting the regulation.
One of the primary problems, in both the United States and Europe has been the illegal exporting of electronic waste to countries that have fewer restrictions on its disposal. Two countries that seem willing to accept electronic waste are China and Nigeria. In fact, it is estimated that ninety percent all electronic waste from the United States ends up in Chinese landfills. While this may seem advantageous to the United States, it is troubling as a worldwide trend. After all, when improperly disposed of, electronic waste is truly poisonous. Whether it poisons Americans or Chinese, the ultimate result will be widespread birth defects, sickness and death.
While these effects may not take place immediately, within twenty to a hundred years, the areas that have the most electronic waste disposals may become unlivable. Although the best way to quell the waste problem is to reduce the demand and consumption of the toxins, ramping up our recycling efforts is imperative.
Meika Jensen is an aspiring graduate student and freelance writer who hopes to continue to expand and use her extensive knowledge of the plastic industry, public policy and communication to educate the public and create social change to help the environment. You can follow Meika on Twitter @MeikaJensen .