Talk:Big Dig

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)

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)

Link

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

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. Unschool 19:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Question about total project cost and adjustment for inflation

I read the following paragraph and was struck by something that did not make sense to me:

"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion, US$7.4 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2020. The project was completed in December 2007 at a $14.6 billion, a cost overrun of about 97% when adjusted for inflation."

OK, we can start with the original estimate, $2.8 billion, and then adjust that number for inflation as of the date that the project was completed, December, 2007. This makes sense. What I don't get is why we're adjusting for inflation as of *2020, 13 years after the project was completed*.

Adjusted for inflation as of 2020, assuming the math is correct, $2.8 billion is equivalent to $7.4 billion. That is total inflation of 168 percent. However, we had nowhere near that increase in inflation during the years of the project, the 1990s to 2007. The 168 percent number seems to include the inflation from 2008 to 2020, so it's counting the 13 years AFTER the project was completed. Why would those years be included?

Whoever came up with the $7.4 billion number adjusted for 2020 inflation then divided $14.6 billion by $7.4 billion, to get a 97 percent increase in cost overruns over the original estimate when the project was completed in 2007.

The problem is that inflation from the 1990s to 2007 was much lower than 168 percent, so the math used above to get a 97 percent increase in cost overruns is way off. Adjusted for inflation as of 2007, that $2.8 billion original estimate is likely closer to $4 billion, meaning the cost overruns were 14.6 billion - 4 billion or about 10.6 billion. These numbers represent an increase of around 265 percent in cost overruns adjusted for inflation, which is a much higher percentage cost overrun than 97 percent.

Am I missing something that makes those numbers make sense? Please let me know if so. Thank you. ET-Warrior-san (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)