Mem Drive Impasse

The recommended resign for the Boylston St. underpass may be the best one possible; but the best is often bad enough. For those who use the banks of the Charles for recreation or find the area attractive, it is very bad indeed. Although the proposed "extended-portal" structure would preserve Weld Boat House, it would sprawl over much of the riverbank and make reaching the remainder difficult. Yet the alternative--a conventional underpass bisecting the Boat House and taking even more land--is worse. And since it might cost $900,000 less to build, the conventional underpass may have the better chance of being approved by the Metropolitan District Commission.

If the MDC had proved that the underpasses are necessary, or that they will be sufficient, personal and aesthetic objections might lose some of their fore. But the MDC had not yet taken an "origin and destination" survey of the Drive's traffic, and has little idea of the effect of extending the Massachusetts Turnpike. It does not seem to have considered less radical alternatives to the underpass scheme, such as the relatively inexpensive system of traffic lights proposed by the Cambridge Planning Board. Even the most optimistic of experts--the MDC's consulting engineers--do not claim that underpasses alone will solve Mem Drive's traffic problems; only "creating matching capacities" along the entire Drive (i.e., widening it) will do that.

The state legislature should repeal or amend the legislation that called for the underpasses. Any bill considered at Thursday's public hearing would delay work on them (and they will all probably be combined into one measure by the metropolitan affairs committee). What matters is that the whole idea of the underpasses be reconsidered. If it is, the MDC may some day be as thankful as the people of Cambridge.