Talk:Big Dig/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cost

I was under the impression a large part of the cost was due to massive embezzlement. Is this not so? If it's true, it should be mentioned. Vivacissamamente 06:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if embezzlement is exactly the word; I think it comes under the more general category of legalized graft. There were a lot of kickbacks, especially on behalf of politicians in South Boston, which has a somewhat inflated level of influence in Boston government. There was a lot of payoffs to keep neighborhoods happy, and a lot of money just plain flushed down the drain by contractors. (I don't think Bechtel will ever get another major project in Massachusetts, at least not for the next couple of decades.) Haikupoet 06:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cynicism is the heart of politics in Massachusetts, but despite numerous investigations by government and the press there has been no evidence of massive wrong doing. It is unlikely that this project could have been completed for less money given all its constraints. There were expensive design changes to mitigate various problems and community concerns, most resulting in a better project. Perhaps the biggest added cost factor (besides inflation) was keeping the existing Central Artery, subways and commuter rail functioning while the highway was constructed underneath. One small example: all the ground under the South Station approach yards had to be frozen solid to allow tunneling underneath without causing derailments. --agr 19:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is it not anywhere in this artical that this was a union-only job?[1]. I think it should be added since it was one of the reasons given for the over run of the cost and now seems to be the problem with the failures of the construction. --Napnet 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The link posted by Napnet is a website maintained by an organization of non-union contractors, who would benefit from any finger-pointing toward the unions. I don't see that as a neutral source, any more than I would an article posted on an IBEW or AFL-CIO (or other union) website. As pointed out by Dsjochrist below, the budget in 1991 was not $2.8 billion, but that is what the article states. We need a better source than that if we want to imply that union labor is responsible for a significant share of cost overruns. The same goes for blaming unions in general for the tunnel failure, even if it is determined that shoddy workmanship is to blame. Otherwise it sounds like we're saying "non-union would have done it better." It may be a fact that it was a union-only job, but actually blaming the union-only policy for the project's troubles would violate NPOV. Vorenus 14:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe this article was written relying on the lack of knowledge contained by newspaper reporters. The cost of the Big Dig was not initially 2.5 billion escalating the 14.625 billion. The 2.5 was a cost arrived at inception by state level departments. This was a figure on the conceptual design that did not include mitigation, site assessment, or environmental impacts. Once B/PB were brought on board the cost was estimated in the 7 billion dollar range. Keep in mind that this was in 1985 and the project did not commence until 1991. Federal guidelines did not allow for inflation costs to be included. Later, the scope of the project was changed to include the capping of Spectacle Island, the covering of additional tunnels and the redesign of both the Fort Point Channel Crossing and the Charles River Bridge, all at additional cost. Additionally, mitigation efforts are estimated to have been the source of almost one third the cost escalation.Dsjochrist 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)dsjochrist

Name

"Official"?? "The Big Dig" is the official name of the project?? Certainly it is the common colloquial name of the project, and the name used in the Boston Globe, but usually the official name is one that is known only to those who dig out legal documents --- acts of Congress and the like, and is not nearly so poetic. Michael Hardy 19:04 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

http://www.masspike.com/bigdig/index.html It appears to be the name MassPike Transit Authority uses, too. Official? I doubt it's listed in legal documents, but this is about as official as I would require. That's just me.

The official name is the Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CAT).

The original name, now shortened was Central Artery/Third Tunnel Project.15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)dsjochrist

Green Monster

I'm not a Bostonian, but doesn't Green Monster refer to the outfield wall at Fenway? Hence I removed the reference to the elevated central artery as such. Matthewcieplak 02:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely been used for the Central Artery, probably named after the wall at Fenway. --SPUI 02:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added the reference to Green Monster (disambiguation), and left the article without it. Without knowing the source of the name, (probably in reference to Fenway?) it's difficult to include except without context. So, if someone has a good idea as to its source, please let us know. Matthewcieplak 21:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the previous revisions referenced herein and added a citation for the reference "the Green Monster". This seems to be vernacular slang for the Central Artery. The article cited reinforces this theory as Boston mayor Thomas Menino used the term "Green Monster" publicly. However, Menino is not attributed as the creator of the term.--Deego1703 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Freeway or Highway?

Why call the Big Dig highway a freeway if nobody in Massachusetts will ever refer to it as such. As is clear in the article on freeways, people from Massachusetts make no distinction between a freeway or expressway, and often use the term highway as a catch-all. There is no reason to assume that, since many other states make such a distinction, it should be exclusively employed in this article on a Massachusetts highway. There are no "official" definitions in English; we don't have the luxury of the Academie française, as the French do. Of course, this could be a blessing, since we're able to preserve important regional and cultural linguistic heritages.

In Massachusetts, the term freeway is rarely, if ever, used. Making it the exclusive term in this article, which is on a Massachusetts highway, does not make sense.--AaronS 23:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is the case in many locales, especially major cities with many such routes, to use the terms interchangeably. But a generic term like highway does not convey the sense of a multi lane controlled access road to everyone who will read the article.

It is important to note that more than likely it will be non-Bostonians that are looking up information on the Big Dig, and will not have time to peruse the talk page to accomodate local terminologies. That being said, other options to maintain that extra meaning would be interstate (particularly for American readers), expressway (to a degree, but almost as generic as highway) or increasingly loosely autoroute or even autobahn.

To maintain the flow of the article, Interstate is probably unacceptable, leaving freeway and perhaps expressway the only logical options.

I hope I have contributed some useful points. --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Expressway certainly seems workable. I just see no reason to use a term that is foreign to many people. Otherwise, we might as well call it a dual carriageway, as many people in the British Commonwealth do.

The problem is that both expressway and dual carriageway also include divided surface roads with at-grade intersections in some areas. Maybe we could say controlled access expressway to make it clear - controlled access redirects to freeway. --SPUI (talk) 20:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case, why not just say controlled access highway? AJD 20:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That works too, as long as we have something precise. --SPUI (talk) 21:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right, let's do it. AJD 23:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the co-operation.--AaronS 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI--the current draft MassHighway manual refers to limited-access divided highways as "freeways." --Jnik 21:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The project is part of and funded by the Federal HIGHWAY Administration. 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)dsjochrist

I-695 ramps?

"Ultimately the Leverett Connector wound up using a pair of ramps originally constructed for Interstate 695, ironically making it possible for the mainline I-93 to carry more of the through traffic that was supposed to use I-695 in the original Master Plan." I'm not sure that is true. The stub ramps branching west off of the elevated portion of I-93 are still there, unconnected (I have a photo). Is there something else that I am missing? --agr 18:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The I-695/I-93 interchange was planned as a complete interchange, so there were four stubs built. The 93S-695S and 695N-95N stubs were used to connect the Leverett Circle Connector. The 93N-695S and 695N-93S stubs remain unconnected (I don't understand why they weren't just demolished, which would have made the exit 26B interchange geometry somewhat better). The CANA ramps which would have provided the connections between 93S and 1N, and vice versa, had Scheme Z been built, are reflected in the closed-off extra lanes of the City Square tunnel. 121a0012 03:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So, was it a success?

Was the project a success? I know the project was controversial. Now that it is complete, could the article quote some meaningful comments about its success? -- Geo Swan 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it will take time to really answer that question. Certainly all the roads go where they were supposed to go and the city kept functioning while the project was underway (a major concern). I don't commute into downtown Boston, but the general impression I get is that traffic is improved, though there are still traffic jam at rush hour, particularly south of the city, where there has been a lot of development. The rest of the day traffic moves; it didn't used to. Access to the airport is greatly improved. Boston may now have the most easily accessed airport of any major city; it's certainly up there. Development of the land above the project is only just beginning. The new bridge sure looks nice.

The real test, however, will be the long term impact on the region. The decline of the software industry here has hurt the area a lot. The high cost of living, particularly housing, was probably a bigger factor than traffic in keeping new business away, though it also indicates that people want to live here. There will always be second guessing about whether the problems could have been solved for less money or if investment in transit and affordable housing might have had a bigger impact. I'm not sure where a definitive answer will come from. --17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't count a dead motorist, 5 dead construction workers, thousands of leaks, one million of gallons of water leaking every month, debris falling and crushing cars, $10 billion over-budget, 6 years behind schedule, 15 years of traffic jams, ambiguous detours, political corruption, decay and disrepair of all other streets, and the fact that the whole thing will be at capacity in less than 4 years, then it was a huge success. MasterHalco 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Source for the claim that it 'will be at capacity in less than 4 years"? And by "it", what are you referring to? The I-93 tunnel? The Ted Williams tunnel? Geoff.green 11:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I need a source on a talk page??? Here's one: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/big_dig/ ; and another : http://mit.edu/its/pressclips.html. If you've been through the tunnel you can tell that traffic has started to slow down from month to month. And by "it" I mean the SE Expressway/Central Artery Tunnel. We should these questions: Were you really surprised that the Big Dig killed someone a mere three years after it opened? Were you surprised they wanted to reopen the tunnel Wednesday without re-inspecting it? Did it shock you that 230 panels in the I-90 connector were falling apart when public pressure finally made them re-inspect the panels? If engineers nationwide call it "The Big Botch" doesn't that say something?MasterHalco 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The roadtraffic-technology.com article you cite says that the big dig increased north-sourth capacity from 75,000 to 245,000 per day. That's a pretty substantial improvement. I suspect that is about the capacity of the sections of I-93 that connect to the project from the north and south. Any more capacity and you simply move the eventual traffic jams to the other sections (which sometime happens now on the Southeast Expressway). Every urban freeway ends up being congested during rush hour. The big benefit of the Big Dig was to be removing east-west traffic from the north south road that caused traffic tie-ups all day long. That seemed to be working until the I-90 tunnel had to be closed. Every big project has problems. The leaks are being fixed on the contractor's nickel. I live in the area and in my opinion they did an excellent job keeping traffic moving during construction. We'll know soon enough what caused the ceiling collapse and it will be fixed. --agr 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First, sorry I'm ranting, fellow wikipedians. I just want people nationwide to know how sorry I am for letting my state take your money for this deadly pork project. I have lived in Boston my whole life. The Big Dig is endemic of the corruption and apathy in our state. As an "area resident" have ANY of the failures of the Big Dig surprised you? In my opinion the best thing was getting the road out of the air and under the ground where I don't have to see traffic jams. $15 Billion is a lot to spend on a cosmetic improvement.

75,000 to 245,000 is a big improvement, but not enough. When the old artery was closed it carried 190,000 cars a day. We're already at almost 210,000. In four years we'll be at 250,000. When the big dig reaches capacity in 2010 it won't be the end of the world. It will, however, only get worse from there on. Yes, yes all roads eventually exceed capacity, but this one cost $15 billion and will reach capacity by 2010! Did they bother to crunch the numbers? After that it will quickly degenerate into what the old elevated artery was when they tore it down: 8 hour delays, bumper to bumper. And it will be like that by 2020. Then we'll have another Big Dig which will probably cost tens of billions.

Hahahaa. Boston is doomed now.70.64.7.224 23:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The leaks are a very big deal. Water + steel + concrete + vibrations - inspections = very bad things. There's not one or two, or one-hundred, or one-thousand leaks. There's almost 1,400 leaks as a result of poor construction and even worse design. Some have even suggested that the leaks may have contributed to the murderous tunnel collapse. As far as fixing the leaks: Bectel has said that repairing the leaks is now an ongoing maintenece project without end. And they haven't agreed to pay for it yet. Concrete slabs held up with glue and not pull tested, no breakdown lanes, Ted Williams Tunnel not deep enough, bad concrete, thousands of leaks, dead people, behind schedule, overbudget, the list goes on and on...How many "problems" is a "big project" allowed to have before we can get angry? Since 1999 these bolts have been failing and no one did anything about it until it killed someone. I hope they use a little forsight and try to fix problems BEFORE they kill people.

On the other hand, I only ride bikes, and I don't even own a car, so what do I care? MasterHalco 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not forget that there was a second component to the Big Dig (CAT/TP) that most forget- as part of the permitting process the state had to commit to massive upgrades to public transportation network in the region. This was done because the Conservation Law Foundation, headed by Douglas Foy, sued. The agreement included the Silver Line project, the Greenbush Project and others. Once all of these projects are complete can you ask the question. Jerem43 01:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Turning the old elevated roadway land into parks?

I seem to recall that reclaiming the old road areas for use as public open spaces was a big part of the sell for the Big Dig. Is there any updated information on how the projects to turn the ground the elevated roadways sat on into parks are coming along?

I was in Boston last week, and the surface overlying the dig is a wasteland of construction debris and weirdly routed traffic. There are signs though that these plans are proceeding.Sfahey 16:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The upcoming Rose Kennedy Greenway. Aside from the I90 connector, it's the only good part of the Big Dig. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Kennedy_Greenway

In order for a project to be deemed a success it is to be completed on time and on buget, given those parameters the project was and is not a success. Is the project going to be able to do what is what engineered to do, yes. B/PB is a joint venture composed to two of the industry's leading engineering companies and even with the media attention of the CA/T they have continued to be gainfully employed on various other projects. The ultimate failure ot the CA/T was the IPO. The management of the project was at the discretion of the MTA which was run by a politician who demanded the ability to approve designs and make all decisions as did his predessors. The complexities of the project and the IPO allowed the owner and the joint venture a close working relationship. But, in order for politicians to stay in office they must appease their constituents and large cost increases resulted. Many of the flaws that occured on the construction were contractor failures due to poor quality control which was to be the contractor's responsibility to maintain as part of the partnering agreement taken on contractually. B/PB was ultimately responsible for the design oversight and the assurance of the quality control efforts and as such are ultimately responsible. Leaks, widely reported throughout the media, are actually expected on all tunnels which employ pumping facilities underneath the roadway to rid the tunnel of seeping water. Additional seepage occurred as the tunnels are not sealed until nearly all other work is completed. Much of the water was the result of open manholes and areas not yet sealed. Remarks made to comments about dirt and debri not adequately removed from the concrete do not offer explanation that slurry walls cannot be removed of dirt and debri at construction by their design. Defects found later, at excavation, are to be repaired by the contractor as part of the contract. This work would be included in "quality control" which was not always done to standard. Slurry walls will continuously be prone to leaks as water that has been rerouted by sealing looks for other areas of access. Dealing with these issues will be part of routine tunnel maintenence and was expected. The use of slurry walls has been roven successful in tunnel applications throughout the United States and other countries, especially in Japan from where the technological advancements were imported for use on the CA/T.Dsjochrist 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)dsjochrist

The tunnel was expected to leak 10,000 gallons a month. It actually leaks more than one million gallons, 100 times more than what it was designed for. Whether or not B/PB pays for the ongoing repairs is a matter of much dispute. MasterHalco 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Other big digs

Has there been a disambig page created for other Big Digs (Liverpool, Regina, Cumberland Trail, etc)? --Kmsiever 22:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Big Dig" refers to the unofficial name of the project. The others you mentioned, such as the Cumberland Gap Tunnel project, is more of a standard tunnel bore through the mountain than anything. Seicer 21:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Map?

Would it be too much to ask for someone to include a map? Ideally, I would like a map with little detail (i.e., not a street map), but which shows what the major routes were before the Big Dig, and a second map showing how the Big Dig looks now. I mean, all this descriptive information is great, but is meaningless to those of us who live a thousand miles away and have never been to Boston (and yet still helped to pay for it). 68.154.210.100 15:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Map link [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bona Fides (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 July, 2006 (UTC).

why would this article be deleted?????????????????????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.6 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 July, 2006 (UTC).

Absolutely agree. Map map map map. A map of relocation of roads is essential to an article like this if somebody from somewhere else in the country wants to see what the "Ted Williams Tunnel" is or what "Callahan Tunnel" means. These are all just names to nonlocals.Loodog 01:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but drawing a map is not easy. Masspike has a nice one, but can we use it? The Massachusetts Archives states that "Records created by Massachusetts government are not copyrighted and are available for public use," but is the Turnpike Authority the "Massachusetts government"? Geoff.green 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The MTA is a "quasi-public" entity within the Commonwealth. [3] In my opinion, that qualifies their documents for use. --Raj Fra 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Map map map map....--Loodog 00:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want a map, draw one. I did:

--Dirk Hillbrecht 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn nice drawing, if any one has not told you yet: thank you very much - Jerem43 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

10 July Collapse

Can we please restrict the details of yesterday's collapse to a single section? I do not see the use in duplicating the information in two sections, just six paragraphs apart. --Kmsiever 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Combined. Seicer 03:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a section in the collapse discussion dealing with the Tunrpike Authoirty's secrecy and lack of disclosure with even government watchdogs, but it seems a bit tacked on there, because it's more of a general problem, not something having to do with the collapse itself. What are the thoughts of putting that in a separate section altogether? (I know I took it from a separate section back into the collapse section, but the entire section was based on one article, and the document request was made *after* the tunnel collapse (with one reference to Lynch's request last year), so I don't think it's sufficient to support the entire claim of secrecy. Geoff.green 11:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Other articles can easily be found to expand on the agency's secrecy, but if that should fall under the Turnpike Agency instead of this (to which both relate to), it could be easily moved. Seicer (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Because things are slowing down somewhat, and more is known, perhaps someone (Seicer?) should reorganize the topic to be less chronological and more topical (e.g. incident, description of problem, proposed solutions, who's in charge, ongoing crim. investigation). I could do it too, if no one else wants to. Geoff.green 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Save something for me to do at work tommorrow! :) Seicer (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with reorganizing the section - personally I think this should become its own article. However, things aren't slowing down. See my additions per this afternoon --Raj Fra 18:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I removed the bias tag because it does not apply in this situation. To install such a tag requires an explanation. All of the statements are cited as facts by several major newspapers, and it has been widely known for many years that were were coverups and defects in construction - which cumulated into a lawsuit and many investigations. Seicer (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased. Newspaper articles can be biased. There is only one side given to the issues. Check out http://www.bechtel.com/PDF/BigDig_KeyFacts_Dec2006.pdf for another side. Also please read http://www.bechtel.com/PDF/Big%20Dig%20Globe%20reply.pdf Also not enough is included about all the great technical achievements. It was an amazing project. 208.8.82.2 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The second paragraph of the section "Substandard materials" is lifted entirely from the article it cites.

I agree for Big Dig#Substandard materials. A cleanup tag has been applied. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anchor bolt

I was inspired by the latest thinking on this project to create a new article (and I just put in the link) on the humble anchor bolt. They sure screwed up on this one! --Zeizmic 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Is there a way someone could make a map comparing the old routing with the new routing of roads post Big Dig? --myselfalso 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

what is surprising about sunken ships

1. ship sinks
2. ship sinks further into silt
3. sea becomes land (either through being filled in, through being dammed off and drained or because some geological effect makes the seafloor rise above sea level)
4. ship is now underground.

not very far fetched is it? Plugwash 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A good portion of Boston is reclaimed sea. The best known area of reclamation is the Back Bay section of the city, it was originally tidal estuaries of the Charles River Basin. From what I have read and seen over the years, the total area of reclamation in Boston and Cambridge is some where in the range of 50+%. The Boston waterfront is another area of major reclamation over the years: people would build wharves of wood, the wharves would get replaced with stone jetties, and finally the areas between the jetties would be filled in. The process has repeated it several times since the city's founding in 1630. If a ship had sunk in an area that was to be filled in, it would be covered over. The fill was whatever junk the engineers of the time could find.

This has also occurred in parts of Manhattan, where the coast line has moved out over 1/2 a mile since New York's founding.

Jerem43 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of duplicate paragraphs about tunnel collapse

There were two identical paragraphs relating to the tunnel collapse. One was part of the "Current Status" section (now "Final Phases") and another was in its own section at the end. After trying to decide which should stay, I got rid of the current status one and left the other one, and renamed "Current status" section to "Final phases". Current status sounds too transient and temporary for a permanent article, and with the removal of the paragraph about the collapse, that section dealt more with wrapping up the project then with how it is at the moment therefore I renamed it to "Final phases". However I'm not sure this is the best name, maybe "Project completion" or something would be better. Anyway, hope everyone agrees with the removal of that paragraph. Rmkf1982 23:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation templates

I've been playing around with the disambiguation templates on the page, so as to refer to the Liverpool Big Dig as well. These three are most appropriate:

{{For2|other '''Big Dig''' projects|[[Big Dig (Regina, Saskatchewan)]] and [[Big Dig (Liverpool)]]}}

{{Two other uses|the Boston "Big Dig" project|the Canadian project|Big Dig (Regina, Saskatchewan)|the Liverpool project|Big Dig (Liverpool)}}

{{see also|Big Dig (Regina, Saskatchewan)|Big Dig (Liverpool)}}

Which produce, respectively:

For other Big Dig projects, see Big Dig (Regina, Saskatchewan) and Big Dig (Liverpool).

This article is about the Boston "Big Dig" project. For the Canadian project, see Big Dig (Regina, Saskatchewan). For the Liverpool project, see Big Dig (Liverpool).

See also: Big Dig (Regina, Saskatchewan) and Big Dig (Liverpool)

I have obviously subst'd them here, because this is only the talk page.

I think the middle is best, which is why I've used it, because it is the most explanatory; but the others all have their merits. I'll leave it to consensus as to which one prevails, but I've included all of them in the article, with the two not used suppressed by using <!-- and --> tags. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)