"Where the money really comes from hasn't been worked out," Russell says. But he adds that "if it's the right thing to do,...someone will figure out a way to make it happen."
"[The FHA] has the obligation to pay for an...environmentally appropriate highway," says former Secretary of Environmental Affairs John P. DeVillars, who mandated a new bridge design even as he approved the artery project this January.
"I think we all want to get things moving...but it should be done right," DeVillars says. "This is a project that will be with us for decades, and it makes sense to do it right."
Such caution is only natural, given the blatant failure of the state's existing portion of the interstate highway system.
When the Central Artery was erected in 1959, it was designed to carry approximately 75,000 vehicles daily. It now carries a daily load of more than 190,000.
No one wants to repeat past mistakes. In fact, plans and procedures for the entire project, slated to break ground in October, have been subject to intense public scrutiny. Often they have been found lacking.
Late last month, Boston's Conservation Law Foundation gave notice of its intention to sue the Federal Highway Administration to make the artery more environmentally sound. The organization issued a statement alleging that "the Feds welched on promises made during environmental review" and arguing for "a broader transportation package."
At the same time that Cambridge and the Charles River Watershed Association filed notice of intent to sue to stop Z, the Sierra Club and Boston's Committee on Regional Transportation threatened the state with litigation over other aspects of the project.
But everyone involved has the same goal: to obtain an efficient and lasting highway system for Massachusettes. "Our goal is not to stop the project, but to make sure the project goes ahead in compliance with [the law]," says Stephen H. Burrington, the Conservation Law Foundation's attorney.
Despite the controversies and threatened law suits, citizen involvement seems to have actually had an impact in the Scheme Z debate, replacing (in theory) the 11-story monstrosity with a smaller, more popular bridge plan.
Whether theory becomes practice is for another legislative year to determine.
Stanley Miller '52, who chairs the bridge design review committee, says he, at least, is happier. "I myself am very pleased with where we've come out today, and I think it's the right place," Miller says.
A TALE OF TWO SCHEMES
Scheme Z is the design for the Charles River crossing originally proposed by the state. CIP 5 is the preferred alternative. Dark gray lines indicate proposed construction.