Is the 'Big Dig' Compromising Boston?

Over the past few months, Boston's Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project (better known as The Big Dig) has been hit by a new wave of criticism. The attack has come from Rep. Frank Wolfe, Republican of Virginia and chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. Local politicians have always been adept at pouncing on the project's numerous gaffes and missteps, but Wolfe's campaign is entirely unique. It is indicative of a new era in Boston politics.

By allowing Wolfe to attack the Big Dig, the established Massachusetts power structure supporting the project is showing a serious sign of weakness. It is giving way to the more conservative regime Wolfe symbolizes. This conquering sense of energy and vision (even if at times misled) is long overdue. However, it is pushing out an integral part of our proud Boston lifestyle.

Wolfe's proposal certainly appears to be in the best interest of the American people. More than 80 percent of the funding for The Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project comes from the federal government. It is the most expensive federally funded public works project ever, and cost projections increase almost yearly. While there is certainly a great need for highway improvements in Boston, there is no reason that Massachusetts should receive more federal assistance than any other state, especially when the long term costs are so undefined.

Wolfe's new proposal has challenged Massachusetts state authorities to come up with a fixed-cost projection. Without such a number, he says, there will be no further federal funds allocated to the project. Effectively throwing the ball into the state's court, it is hardly an extreme proposal.

But for many in Boston, Wolfe's campaign is heart-breaking. The proposed cap in Artery spending may appear logical, but it can also be seen as a personal assault upon the city of Boston. Though it may seem ridiculous to call an attack on a highway an attack on a city, there is a clear connection between the two institutions. Just like Ray Bourque or Mo Vaughn, the Big Dig is associated with aspects of our city which serve as a source of pride for local residents.

The federal funds paying for the 7.5 miles of roadway (3.5 of which are underground) have been guaranteed by a long series of colorful Congressional benefactors. The list includes Edward Kennedy '54-'56, the senior senator from Massachusetts, former House Rules Committee Chair J. Joseph Moakley of South Boston and former Speaker of the House, the late Thomas "Tip" O'Neill of Cambridge. In the Bay State, these are noble men who have served the interests of their community well. Many say The Big Dig was Tip O'Neill's final salute, his going away present.

From the perspective of today's budgetary quandaries, we might see the funneling of federal funds into The Hub as an abuse of power. Indeed, it seems to fit the stereotype of the entrenched pre-Gingrich liberal regime. But despite the new national distant for such political practice, it is almost a fact of life in Boston.

The leaders now fighting for the Central Artery inherit a tradition of patronage, machine politics and liberal policy. This aspect of our city is personified by politicians like the quick tongued William "Billy" Bulger, former president of the Massachusetts State Senate, current president of the University of Massachusetts, host of the state's most important St. Patrick's Day breakfast and brother to Whitey Bulger, who is currently running from the law.

While this political culture may not be congruent with the modern conception of good government, it is an integral part of Boston's character. We take pride in the Artery because of this unique political culture surrounding it.

But Wolfe's attack is evidence that our proud traditions are changing. No longer are leaders like Joe Moakley and Ted Kennedy able to keep uncooperative voices silent. For many its a sad fact--almost as if Wolfe burned down Fenway Park and slapped back up some pre-fab cousin of the Georgia Dome. A new, much less distinctive way of life, is taking over the city of Boston.

There are also many local politicians forcing this change. Young leaders like Gov. William F. Weld '66, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Lowell) and Rep. Peter Blute (R-Shrewsbery) have all departed from the traditional style of local politics. Meehan, a true social liberal, distinguishes himself by his budgetary discipline. He was given a near perfect rating by The Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to balancing the federal budget.

Republicans like Blute and Weld have also consistently supported political reform. Weld boasts of his strict fiscal discipline and his comprehensive campaign to streamline state government. Blute, often seen as the lone Gingrich disciple in the Bay State, has helped push many of the new Republican reforms through the House. Yet while both echo conservative principles, each is grounded by the state's inherently liberal nature. Both distance themselves from Republican party's extreme right wing.

Even the recent third-grade-style antics in the State House show distinctive changes. After a bit of confusion over how to pay his taxes and what's considered a gift from a lobbyist, former Speaker of the House Charles Flaherty, a staunch Cambridge Democrat, said he will not run for re-election. In the wake of his departure, there was a bitter battle for Flaherty's position. Through a coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans Thomas M. Finneran (D-Boston) was able to prevail over a more traditional Democratic with a strong backing.

In a sense, the Massachusetts political scene is on the wagon. Dry moderates, unwilling to over-indulge in their power are replacing red nosed liberals who specialize in patronage. But these changes are having their consequences. Not only are politicians like Frank Wolfe allowed to speak out, but we are loosing a piece of our city. The political culture that has characterized Boston for decades, separated us from any other Cleveland or Topeka, is slipping away.