Scheme Z: How to Kill a Bridge Plan

When the state's plan for a mammoth 11-story highway interchange--the infamous "Scheme Z"--surfaced more than two years ago, Cambridge pundits and curmudgeons for once could agree. They hated it.

Cambridge civic associations, private citizens and city government all had something to say about the high-profile project. The proposed I-90/Route I interchange over the Charles River, part of the state's $5 billion blueprint for a new central artery highway, had to go.

True, a few union members and advocates backed the project, worried that conflict over Scheme Z would throw a wrench into the entire Central Artery project, which the state's Department of Transportation has said will create 15,000 jobs. But proponents were clearly the silent minority.

Opponents claimed that Z would turn into an environmental blight and a gigantic eyesore on 70 acres of East Cambridge land. Traffic, pollution and noise, they said, would be the result.

Daniel E. Geer, co-chair of Cambridge Citizens for Liveable Neighborhoods, called Scheme Z "a loop-de-loop, above-ground monstrosity." "Bury Scheme Z" graffitti appeared on signs in subway trains which advertised the jobs and cash flow created by the Central Artery. And Elizabeth Epstein of the city's Conservation in Commission said she had "good reason to believe that there are better alternatives."

Last March, the city of Cambridge and the Charles River Watershed Association, a citizens' environmental advocacy group, announced their intention to sue the state to block Scheme Z.

Councillor Edward N. Cyr at the time voiced the prevailing sentiment when he said that although the state's portion of the interstate highway system had become direly outmoded, Z was "just not a good long-term solution."

For once, it looks like the little guys will get their way.

In April, after months of discussion and meetings, the blue-ribbon committee convened by the state specifically to improve the design of the crossing over the Charles gave the definitive nix to the $47 million Scheme Z. And at its most recent meeting last week, the group agreed to focus its attention on a bridge design approximately half the size of Z.

The preferred alternative, "Committee Improvement Package 5," is one-half the width of Z and 35 feet lower, and has four fewer ramps and five fewer river piers.

According to Cambridge architect Hugh A. Russell '64, one of the city's voices on the bridge committee, "there've been enormous improvements."

"It's very clear that everything that's being studied now is enormously superior to Scheme Z," Russell says.

But the controversy remains unresolved.

The new plan, which Cambridge's bridge watchers strongly back, comes with a hefty $840 million price tag--almost twice the twice the price of Scheme Z. And when the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) agreed last month to fund 90 percent of the Central Artery project, it did not necessarily agree to foot a higher bill for an improved bridge.

Although the Highway Administration indicated its support for the work of the committee, the plans it approved included blueprints for the old Scheme Z. So no one is quite sure whether the government will agree to pay. If it doesn't, the state could get stuck with a bill it can't afford.

"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.     SCHEME Z  CIP 5 Baseline Cost  $430 million  $840 million Completion Date  1998  15-17 months after Z Bridges  3 bridges, 275 ft. wd.  1 bridge, 168 ft. wide Piers  11  6 Loop Ramps  Outer 105 high  75 ft narrower than Z