Changes in Mitigation

Abstract

This article explores the mitigation efforts of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project andcompares them with Boston’s urban renewal history. The CA/T project, known as the Big Dig, replaces the elevatedhighway built during urban renewal with a tunnel under Boston Harbor, a 14-lane crossing of the Charles River, and an 8-to-10-lane undergroundexpressway. The project is expectedto be completedin 2004 andwill cost more than $14 billion. Of this price tag, an estimated$3 billion has been spent on mitigation, with considerably more mitigation costs off budget. The extensiveness of mitigation for the CA/T project represents a distinct difference between urban renewal andhighway projects of the 1950s and1960s. In the 1950s, federal urban renewal and highway programs allowed local governments to steamroll over cities without adequate representation of citizen interests. In the 1990s, participation requirements andenvironmental review has ledto a reversal to the extent that citizen, business, andenvironmental stakeholders holdcritical veto points that can effectively derail public works projects. Although there are undoubtedly gains by having a more inclusive planning process, the extensive costs to mitigate issues raisedby stakeholder groups, especially environmental stake-holders, raises the question of whether other cities with decaying highway systems will be able to replicate the Big Dig. Given the reality of mitigation requirements, the prospect for future megaprojects does not look promising.