Talk:Big Dig

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big Dig article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 12 months

Bridges and Tunnels C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Massachusetts / Boston High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance).
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as High-importance).

Engineering Mid‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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) [reply]

This calculation has further problems. The conversion of $14.6 billion from 2006 dollars to 1982 dollars by the cited website gives the figure $7.07 billion. This is irrelevant, however, since those $14.6 billion were not all raised and/or spent in 2006. Thus any conversion that does not take into account the spending time-line is going to be problematic. For this reason, I believe that the conversions are inherently misleading, and should probably be removed. Ihearthonduras (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Scheme Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram is much more annoying than helpful

While I appreciate the technological wizardry behind this diagram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Highway_System_Pre_Post_Big_Dig.gif), I have to say, I'd rather it wasn't in the article, especially in the lede. Because it switches back and forth between the Pre-dig and Post-dig so rapidly, I can't compare them. Of course, I can understand why having them switch more slowly would annoy others, but look, I had to watch this thing switch a dozen times before I was able to figure out which was the before and which was the after (and my original guess was wrong). Furthermore, it's hard to study the differences between them with them switching. Can we please just have two diagrams, side-by-side? This thing is giving me a headache, and I'm just not going to be able to learn what I had hoped to learn from this. Un school 19:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is pretty hard to compare with how fast the images switch, but the gif still has utility. I provided a static side-by-side image based off the gif and fit it in below. Hopefully this satisfies everyone. Hwamplero (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word in 1.1 second paragraph

Beginning of second paragraph reads "By 1970, building demolition and land clearances for had been completed along the I-95 right of way..." Missing something after "for". Probably should be "the Inner Belt" but I've never edited Wikipedia before so I'll let someone else verify & finalize.

I would also like to second the above post "Diagram is much more annoying than helpful". I also found it difficult to look at this quickly changing picture and make sense out of it. Side-by-side static comparison would be better, or at least slow it down, or even provide both options.

Moominpippi (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]