Perhaps slightly off topic, but I have to disagree - your postscript only looks at one aspect of the CA/T, there were other effects as well. For starters, the old elevated artery was way past it's useful life, and a replacement was absolutely needed. Once you realize that the elevated artery needed replacement, your options start to narrow very quickly: replacing the old elevated artery with a new elevated artery would have been more disruptive than the tunnel construction, and building a new highway in a separate location was feasible since there was no where else to put it. Digging an expensive tunnel was the least bad of a bunch of bad options, but frankly the city was paying for a bunch of stupid decisions that were made in the 1950's.
As for the positive effects of the Big Dig, it reconnected Boston with the water front, it freed up recreational land, it had a positive effect on Boston's air quality, and it significantly improved automobile traffic flow by separating out local traffic (which runs on the surface) from thru traffic (which runs in the tunnel) where before they all moved on the elevated highway which worsened congestion. Before the CA/T opened, this route:
would take a minimum of 90 minutes; double that estimate if you were traveling during peak hour. Triple it if there was an accident in the area. Right now, it's a 20 minute drive in non-peak hours, and well under an hour during peak times. Not bad.
That said, it would have been nice to have had more expanded transit to go along with the Big Dig. The Silver Line and the Old Colony lines (which were required as mitigation for the Big Dig) was a good start, but we could have done better.
(ftr, I worked on the Big Dig as a consultant from 1998-2001. I've also worked on several dozen domestic passenger rail programs, include T-Rex, BART Silicon Valley Extension, and the Acela mentioned in this discussion)
"Boston city proper had a 2008 estimated population of 620,535" 22,000,000,000$ / 620,535 = 35,450$ per person, for something they helps in some areas but made congestion worse in others.
Other options included reducing the number of cars large toll to get into the city which would for high quality and public bus system.
2% of 22billion is 440 million / year that pays for one hell of a public bus system. Heck, spend 22billion on an above ground mono rail network and you could build one hell of a system (~500 - 1500km). Most Boston traffic is just moving people from point A to B so public transportation is a real option. 13% of all commuting takes place by foot as it is, so even elevated bike paths could have significantly improved things.
"Boston city proper had a 2008 estimated population of 620,535" 22,000,000,000$ / 620,535 = 35,450$ per person, for something they helps in some areas but made congestion worse in others.
The presumption is that the artery is only being used by Boston residents. It's used by Boston residents to get out the city, by other MA residents to get into the city, and by non-MA residents to get in & thru the city, as well as delivering goods received in Boston ports to points north, south and west. Freight rail can (and does, vis the huge CSX yard in Allston) move a huge portion of that load, but you're still going to have trucks for the last-mile delivery to the industrialized areas in EMass. (and where has it made congestion worse?)
But even if you want to put everyone on buses, those buses still have to drive on something - the old artery couldn't be that something because it was falling apart, and alternatives have the same problem as an alternative highway system does. IOW. you're still talking about a tunnel system.
Perhaps slightly off topic, but I have to disagree - your postscript only looks at one aspect of the CA/T, there were other effects as well. For starters, the old elevated artery was way past it's useful life, and a replacement was absolutely needed. Once you realize that the elevated artery needed replacement, your options start to narrow very quickly: replacing the old elevated artery with a new elevated artery would have been more disruptive than the tunnel construction, and building a new highway in a separate location was feasible since there was no where else to put it. Digging an expensive tunnel was the least bad of a bunch of bad options, but frankly the city was paying for a bunch of stupid decisions that were made in the 1950's.
As for the positive effects of the Big Dig, it reconnected Boston with the water front, it freed up recreational land, it had a positive effect on Boston's air quality, and it significantly improved automobile traffic flow by separating out local traffic (which runs on the surface) from thru traffic (which runs in the tunnel) where before they all moved on the elevated highway which worsened congestion. Before the CA/T opened, this route:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=woburn%20to%20braintree%20ma
would take a minimum of 90 minutes; double that estimate if you were traveling during peak hour. Triple it if there was an accident in the area. Right now, it's a 20 minute drive in non-peak hours, and well under an hour during peak times. Not bad.
That said, it would have been nice to have had more expanded transit to go along with the Big Dig. The Silver Line and the Old Colony lines (which were required as mitigation for the Big Dig) was a good start, but we could have done better.
(ftr, I worked on the Big Dig as a consultant from 1998-2001. I've also worked on several dozen domestic passenger rail programs, include T-Rex, BART Silicon Valley Extension, and the Acela mentioned in this discussion)