A fantastic interview with Fred Salvucci [PDF], one of the premier transportation engineers and policy-wranglers of the latter half-century (and a prof in the program at MIT that I'm applied to). The subject is the Big Dig, which, amazingly turns out to be an "anti-highway project." What I didn't know was that the massive upgrade to Boston's mass transit system was actually a key part of the Big Dig, in terms of funding, politics, and project sequencing. This is certainly one of the most clearly stated presentations I've read of why it doesn't make sense to rip highways through city cores or neighborhoods, and what it takes to implement alternative solutions. For example:
Q: Do you remember your major victory when Frank Sargent publicly reversed his policy on highway building?A: Yes, of course. In many ways the most thrilling moment in the history of the antihighway fight was when we won. And then Governor Sargent went on television and said, basically, he had been the public works commissioner who had fought for the inner belt earlier in his career and, as governor he said it was a mistake and "I'm going to admit that mistake and stop the program and we're going to shift towards public transportation." I mean it was thrilling. It was thrilling for us that had worked hard on it, but also, in fairness to Sargent how often do you see a public official who gets up and says, "I was wrong"? I mean it was an incredibly courageous hing for Frank Sargent to do, and I'm a Democrat. I don't say many good things about republicans. But he was a great man. I mean he had worked for this program. He always had an environmentalist bent to him. [A] lot of people do political analysis as to why he did this or that. I think he just believed what he said. "This was a mistake and we're going to go in a different direction." It was a thrilling moment in the history of it.
And then we actually moved in that new direction. I mean we shifted the funds, partly under Governor Sargent, partly under Governor ukakis. Those monies that were going to go into destroying those neighborhoods or building the highways were shifted into refurbishing the commuter rail system, extending the Red Line, relocating the Orange Line, basically rebuilding the public transportation infrastructure of the city. That came out of that decision and another component of the same decision -- you can go check that speech that Frank Sargent gave -- was that the only highways that would continue to be studied within Route 128 would be the depression and widening of the Central Artery and the extension of I-90 over to Logan in an additional tunnel, the two components that are today called the Big Dig. Those were really part of that, if you will, anti-highway -- "anti-highway's" probably the wrong name -- pro-city decision that was made by Frank Sargent to shift towards a transportation strategy that would build the city instead of destroying it.
And a major component of that was, stop building destructive roads. Another major component was, put a lot of money into improving public transportation, and the third component that we're seeing built now is, take the existing Central Artery that's there and fix it. I mean fix it both from a transportation point of view, because it doesn't work, but also fix what it did to the city by etting it underground and knit the city back together again. That was a very thrilling moment in my life, when Sargent did it. And I've always respected him a great deal because of the courage that it took to do that.
Also, an as-of-yet unread interview with David Luberoff [PDF], co-author of the as-of-yet read great book Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment.
