Talk:Big Dig/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cost

message: "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)
thread_title: Name

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I-695 ramps?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Turning the old elevated roadway land into parks?

message: Has there been a disambig page created for other Big Digs (Liverpool, Regina, Cumberland Trail, etc)? --Kmsiever 22:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Other big digs

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: 10 July Collapse

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: 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)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anchor bolt 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: # ship sinks
# ship sinks further into silt
# 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)
# ship is now underground.
not very far fetched is it?
Plugwash 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is surprising about sunken ships 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of duplicate paragraphs about tunnel collapse

message: 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:
Which produce, respectively:
: For other Big Dig projects, see Big Dig (Regina, Saskatchewan) and Big Dig (Liverpool).
:For the Canadian project, see Big Dig (Regina, Saskatchewan).  For , see .
:See also:
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  tags. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation templates