Talk:Big Dig

Death toll?

The article says four people were killed. Yet citation #4 (which is linked to that claim) only mentions the one lady who was killed by falling concrete. Was an official death toll ever published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.227.217 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Typo?

"Although the project was estimated in 1985 at $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006[update]),[3] over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars)[3] had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006[update].[4]" Why is a 1985 emstimate using 1982 dollars instead of 1985 dollars? Also the ratio between 2.8 to 6 billion is not the same ratio as 8.08 to 14.6 billion yet they are both meant to be 1982 to 2006 inflation conversions.Is Mise (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjupiter100 (talk • contribs)

Should the "Big Dig Disaster" link be removed?

I think the link (http://bigdigdisaster.com/) should be removed because it leads to a site that is similar to Digg.com. Does anyone agree?--Jjupiter100 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Shouldn't a clarification link or context for what "Powers Fasteners, the makers of the adhesive, revised their product specifications on May 15, 2007 to increase the safety factor from 4 to 10 for all of their epoxy products intended for use in overhead applications. The safety factor on Power-Fast Epoxy was increased from 4 to 16." be good? Without context, this information is useless other than to say it got better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satsuke (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Link

Scheme Z

Corruption and Fraud

Someone's taken issue with my recent edits, so I'll open things up for discussion. I submit that The Big Dig is noteworthy not for its cost, but because of its immense cost overruns, time overruns, and associated corruption and fraud. As it stands, the second paragraph focuses primarily on simply the cost, and includes an odd quote from Barney Frank. Only very late in the paragraph does it discuss the things that make The Big Dig noteworthy. The outset of this paragraph should explain why it is about The Big Dig that is noteworthy, and that is not simply the dollar cost. Lots of projects are expensive, but The Big Dig was something else. I invite comments on why this violates NPOV, or what alternate point of view I'm even taking.122.172.14.14 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations/footnotes/attributions

This article tries to cover a lot of ground, and obviously has involved a lot of effort. Article suffers for over-reliance on mass-media sources, and are sometimes incorrect or misleading. Furthermore, the citations/footnotes do not always support the statement(s) being made in the article text.

For example of propagation of misinformation: "At the beginning of the project, engineers had to figure out the safest way to build the tunnel without endangering the existing elevated highway above. Eventually, they created horizontal braces as wide as the tunnel, then cut away the elevated highway's struts, and lowered it onto the new braces.[26]" Reference 26 is to an Associated Press article, which may have contained this incorrect statement - the link is dead, but in any case the elevated highway was supported in place onn new underpinning supports, then the existing columns were cut out; it was never "lowered" - in fact it was never shut down during this process.

For example of misattribution to a cited source: "A $10 million contract, signed off as a cost overrun, was used to repair these leaks. Many of the leaks were a result of Modern Continental and other subcontractors failing to remove gravel and other debris before pouring concrete. This was not made publicly known to the media, but engineers at MIT (volunteer students and professors) performed several experiments and found serious problems with the tunnel.[33]" Reference 33 is to a WCVB TV article, which contains no original information on any of the statements made in the article paragraph, makes no reference to MIT involvement, and seems to mainly a TV follow up to a Boston Globe article.

This article covers a serious topic, and these types of omissions do Wikipedia a disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimfreemanIII (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)