"Are you kidding? I wasn't going to go along with any of those---routes. We're against all Inner Belts."

And in those terms, as bluntly expressed by one city councillor, Cambridge has fought the intrusion of the eight-lane highway into the City. The public appearances of the fight--meetings with the State Department of Public Works, a trip to Washington, vocal speeches and arguments--have been impressive. But looked at more realistically, Cambridge's struggle has had more elements of charade than serious strategy. The substance of the City's opposition has been meager, at best, and at worst, nonexistent.

What happened? In December, the DPW was ready to announce a route for the Belt. It delayed a decision until March at the request of City officials. The postponement was intended to give the City time to recommend an alternative to the Brookline-Elm route--the path long favored by the DPW and long feared by the City, since it passes within several blocks of Central Square and uproots 3000 to 5000 people. Yet, in the intervening months, the Council failed to come up with another route, and the delay served only to produce more division and delusion within the City. The DPW did in March what it would have done in December: it recommended Brookline-Elm.

Part of the reason for this ineffectiveness lies in the nature of Cambridge (and most of this state's) politics. Concrete issues have always played a secondary role to personalities--as the City Council demonstrated conclusively during the first 45 days of the new year. All January and part of February, the Council completely ignored the Inner Belt and concentrated instead on a heated personal battle over the removal of City Manager John J. Curry '19. That the Council was able to forget the Belt so easily must raise questions about the depth and sincerity of its opposition.

In fact, because most political power is based on personal contact rather than clear-cut policy issues, the City has rarely attacked the Inner Belt in a systematic fashion. For years, when the highway's development was in its preliminary stages, the City did virtually nothing to create and coordinate opposition within other communities affected by the Belt. Just as important, the fact that the Inner Belt has been kicking around for so long--it was first proposed in 1948--has helped mellow opposition to it.

Thus unprepared (and relatively unconcerned), the City Council devoted February to deciding what to do about the Belt. It had until March 1 to recommend an alternative to Brookline-Elm. A number of problems made that task most difficult.

First, it faced conflicting technical advice. Without any real leadership, traffic consultants hired by the City and a private group of City planners, the Cambridge Committee on the Inner Belt, had wandered their individual ways. There had been little coordination, and the Council had to evaluate a set of contradictory recommendations.

But that difficulty was insignificant next to the conflicts created by the variety of different routes. Basically, there were only two alternatives to Brookline-Elm St.--one went straight through heavy industrial country and the other right along the fringe of M.I.T.'s campus. M.I.T. condemned the second route--the railroad route--and included the other alternative (the Portland-Albany St. route) in its attack by innuendo. Large businesses, including the Polaroid Co., protected their own interests by attacking the Portland-Albany St. route. The City Council was caught in a cross fire of different interests: residents, business, and M.I.T., all pleading that they be saved from the Belt. Most councillors apparently decided that the risks of recommending any route were simply too great. But not making a recommendation was, as the Council's critics pointed out, implicit acceptance of Brookline-Elm.

But Cambridge's failure was not only the failure of the City Council. It was also the failure of other groups to provide significant leadership. Specifically, in the case of the staunchest opponents of the Brookline-Elm route, it was the inability of anyone to generate enough political pressure to counterbalance the businesses and M.I.T., and thereby force the Council into making a decision. The leadership in the affected neighborhoods was totally futile. A protest march on City Hall in late February drew only 100 people. (Incidentally, only one City Councillor showed up, and none apparently made any effort to help with any wider, more systematic organization. Except for the Council chambers, it seemed, the Councillors did relatively little.)

The proposals of the Cambridge Committee on the Inner Belt actually seemed to initiate whatever realistic debate there was in the Council. And yet, the committee has thus far failed to amass any significant political strength. What was needed (and probably still is) is the type of demonstration that removes the dispute from the exclusive realm of the politicians. The committee has done little to promote any political organization. In their defense, it might be said that by temperament, the committee members are not community organizers, and even if they were, the time they had was disproportionate to the task.

A variety of personal and institutional conflicts also contributed to the disunity of the City:

* the committee members and the Cambridge Planning Director differed over what should be done about the Belt, and this problem made their working together difficult.

* the committee members, though respected by some members of the City Council, never were able to gain the councillor's instinctive confidence.

* the councillors themselves were bitter at each other because of the city manager feud.

* all the major institutions who spoke out on the Belt (including M.I.T.) were unwilling to do anything more than protect their own interests.

This confusion and conflict left the state DPW unrestricted, and it predictably chose Brookline-Elm. Technically, the issue is not settled yet. The federal government, which must approve the state's choice, has promised Cambridge to review the entire project within a year.

The scope of this project makes it unlikely, however, that a major reversal is in the works. The government has already approved all the other major segments of the highway. Given the past persuasiveness of the City, a significant change in approach will be necessary if Cambridge is to gain anything at all from the federal study.