Talk:US Highway Administration releases interim report on Boston's Big Dig: press release claims tunnel safe, but report does not/Notes

The central claim of this article is that the report from the FHWA about the Big Dig does not say that the tunnel is safe. I have read the report twice very carefully, and I have asked others to read it as well. As far as I have found, no other nwes source agrees with my analysis, so I am presenting it as original reporting. The report is linked from the article; I welcome others to confirm or disconfirm my findings.

Also, feel free to publicize this article-- personally, I think that the AP and Boston Globe are dropping the ball here by taking the word of the press release over the engineers' report. I would be glad to hear that they have at least considered the objection I raised. Pingswept 17:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Email exchange with New York Times reporter
Thanks for your note. It was an oversight on my part - the quote was from the report's cover letter. Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,

At 11:34 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote: >Hello > >I just read your April 5th article entitled "U.S. Declares Boston's >Big Dig Safe for Motorists." > >Right at the start, you said that the FHWA report said that the >"tunnel project is structurally sound and safe for motorists." I read >the report, and I couldn't find any evidence to support your claim. > >The closest that I could find was the quote you included later in your >article from section 7.0, Closing Remarks, in which the report states >that the project is "adequately addressing the tunnel leaks." This >says nothing about the safety of the tunnel; it just covers how well >the the leaks are being repaired. > >The report states in section 6.0 about the repairs to the September >slurry wall breach, "Whichever option is selected must be implemented >quickly to ensure the safe and uninterrupted passage of of the >traveling public." This is equivalent to saying that the tunnel will >only be structurally sound if the repairs still being planned are >made. > >Was there some other part of the report that I missed? I know that >Amorello said that the report said the tunnel was structurally sound, >and the FHWA press release repeated the claim, but the report itself >doesn't contain that statement. > >I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Can you offer some explanation? > >Sincerely, > >Cambridge, Massachusetts

Raphael Lewis' April 5 article in the Boston Globe mentions that the cover letter included with the report was written by Mary E. Peters, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, not one of the engineers who wrote the report. In the first paragraph of his article, Lewis attributes the statement that the tunnel is "structurally sound" to the report, though he later also attributes it to the cover letter. Pingswept 05:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Email exchange with Boston Globe reporter
Hi ,

Thanks for writing. The term I quoted is from a cover letter accompanying the report written by FHWA administrator Mary Peters. It was her summation of what the report says. That said, I believe the closing remarks on Page IV state quite clearly that FHWA is satisfied that the slurry wall situation is isolated, and the report also says that the roof leaks are "low-level." So adding those assessments to the administrator's own statement that the tunnels are structurally sound, you have a clear statement about the tunnel's integrity.

State House Reporter The Boston Globe

> Hello > > I'm an amateur writer for the collaborative news site Wikinews > (http://en.wikinews.org). > > I just read your April 5th article entitled "Big Dig tunnels sound, US > says." > > Right at the start, you said that the FHWA report said that the tunnel > is "structurally sound." I read the report, and I couldn't find > evidence to support your claim. > > The closest that I could find was in section 7.0, Closing Remarks, in > which the report states that the project is "adequately addressing the > tunnel leaks." This says nothing about the safety of the tunnel; it > just covers how well the leaks are being repaired. > > Was there some other part of the report that I missed? I know that > Amorello said that the report said the tunnel was structurally sound, > and the FHWA press release repeated the claim, but the report itself > doesn't contain that statement. To me, there's a big difference > between a statement about tunnel safety made in a report written by > engineers and a statement on the same topic in a cover letter by an > administrator. > > I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Can you offer some explanation? Did I > miss a section of the report or something? > > Sincerely, > > Cambridge, Massachusetts

A sane response, but I don't find it particularly convincing. Specifically, I don't agree with the notion that an administrator's evaluation of an engineering report can be mixed with engineers' statements to make a stronger statement about an engineering problem. Pingswept 01:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)