Saturday, June 27, 2015

Cambridge City Council Tables Expediting of Dog Killing

Cambridge City Council Tables Expediting of Dog Killing

I reported on June 20, 2015, that the Cambridge City Council was considering speeding up the killing of dogs held as strays.

Monday night, June 22, 2015, the City Council, on motion of Councilor Kelley, tabled the entire package which included the speeding up of killing.

Matters tabled can be considered by the Cambridge City Council at any subsequent regular meeting, and they frequently are.

My report was posted at

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Further Environmental Destruction by the City of Cambridge. This time in Kendall Square

Further Environmental Destruction by the City of Cambridge.  This time in Kendall Square

The following trees have been destroyed in Kendall Square.  I understand they are almost all on the inbound side of Main Street.

This destruction occurred, as near as I can gather, before the outrage on the Cambridge Common and, of course, before the latest charm offensive by fake groups and city employees, lying about their sainthood and omitting their vileness.

Thank God for MassDOT which seems to be the only barrier responsible people have as protection against a very destructive city government and TEN destructive city councilors.

* * *

238 Main St – Removal of 3 pear trees (9.6”, 11.6”, and 13.6”) due to . . . streetscape improvement project. . . .

Cambridge Center (on Main St) – Removal of 5 pear trees (13”, 13.2”, 12.9”, 7.7”, and 6.3”) due to . . .streetscape improvement project. . . .

Cambridge Center (on Main St) – Removal of 6 pear trees (6.3”, 5.7”, 8.7”, 15.6”, 13.8”, and 15.3”) due to . . . streetscape improvement project. . . .

326 Main St – Removal of 2 pear trees (15.8” and 17.1”) due to . . .streetscape improvement project. . . .

336 Main St – Removal of 2 pear trees (13” and 15.8”) due to . . . streetscape improvement projects. . . .

355 Main St – Removal of 7 pear trees (15.5”, 11.6”, 8.8”, 7.7”, 8”, 9”, and 8.1”) due to . . .streetscape improvement project. . . .

400 Main St – Removal of 2 pear trees (16.8” and 17.9”) due to . . . streetscape improvement project. . . .

* * *

The source of this list is the destruction posting by the city employee supposedly protecting trees.  I have omitted nonsensical crap from the list as posted.  Omitted crap includes the usual bragging about saplings.

Contractors get paid to destroy.  Contractors get paid for saplings.  “Everybody” is happy.

This report is based on two independent observations by people well familiar with the area.  The second person provided this list after checking to see that they were gone.

I am not providing names.  In the City of Cambridge, it can be dangerous to expect responsible behavior out of the City of Cambridge.  And if anybody challenges this statement, I have one word for them: Monteiro, Monteiro, Monteiro, Monteiro.

And, oh yeah, the guy who was condemned by three levels of court for destroying Monteiro’s life had the Police Station named after him.

Monteiro, of course, is the black Cape Verdian department head who was fired by the then City Manager (and police station namesake) in retaliation for filing a women’s rights complaint.

It is dangerous to expect self-proclaimed saints in the City of Cambridge to be saints in reality.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Cambridge, MA, City Council considers killing stray dogs sooner.

Cambridge, MA, City Council considers killing stray dogs sooner.

1. The vile animal / environmental situation in Cambridge, MA, USA.
2. Yet another proposal to make things worse.
3. Attendance procedures.
1. The vile animal / environmental situation in Cambridge, MA, USA.

Cambridge, MA, USA has draconian limits on the public behavior of dogs.

They, of course, are deliberately starving the 34 year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese by the bizarre and massive wall they built between Magazine Beach and the Charles River. They are considering worse attacks on them and are "neutral" toward outrages included in Ch. 286, of the Massachusetts Acts of 2014, "Historic Parkways". They paid for a mass pogrom of animals resident in 3.4 acres of the Alewife Reservation.
We have reported multiple animal abuse and environmental outrages at

2. Yet another proposal to make things worse.

Cambridge’s abuse of animals could be ramped up by a proposal in front of the City Council Monday night, June 22, 2015, at 5:30 pm.

This evening will see a proposal to cut back the kill day for strays held by the City of Cambridge from 10 days to 7 days.

This is in "Policy Order #10" concerning "Animal Control Regulations.

The motion by Councilor Carlone and Vice Mayor Benzan would move forward "proposed amendments to Chapter 6.04 [of the Municipal Code] entitled ‘Animal Control Regulations’".

The descriptive document is posted at

The next to the last paragraph on the first page is the description. Some bureaucrat considers it "unnecessary" to refrain from killing for 10 days and wants it reduced to 7 days. See the above link for so many other items of destruction of "unnecessary" parts of our world.

The key provision with changes is further in the document on page 7 (unnumbered pages). It is section 6.04.030.C.  I tried to copy it here, but was able to. 

3. Attendance procedures.

The Cambridge City Council meets on the second floor of Cambridge City Hall which is located at 795 Massachusetts Avenue across from the Central Square Post Office on the Harvard Square end of Central Square Cambridge.

The meeting starts at 5:30 pm.

All interested people may speak.

People who want to speak must sign up to speak not later than 6 pm.
Email comments may be sent to, but these do not become part of the record.

Emails received by the city clerk with request to transmit to the City Council which are received by her by Thursdays before meetings are passed on to them in the next meeting. Her email is

Friday, June 19, 2015

Charles River: Major victory on the Grand Junction, plus

RE: Charles River: Major victory on the Grand Junction, plus

1. Apology to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT).
2. MassDOT, Mass. Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Cambridge, MA.
3. Worcester Line Commuter Rail out of Consideration for Grand Junction.
4. The announcements.
5. Conclusion.
7. Cambridge’s Record.
1. Apology to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT).

The scope of your decision on the Grand Junction will be analyzed in detail below.

First and foremost, however, I regret not publicly praising you during my comment on Tuesday, June 16, at the Mass. Pike (I90) public meeting in Allston.

First of all, it took awhile to fully evaluate the major importance of those words on one slide. Only when I raised the issue at the Capital Investment Plan presentation in Taunton did the scope of what you have done fully sink in. There was no ambiguity and there was very great clarity in the response.

It seems very clear now that all commuter rail service on the Framingham - Worcester line will continue to terminate in South Station and none will be rerouted to North Station via the Grand Junction railroad or any other way.

Additionally, I did my best on Tuesday to keep my comments to the instructed two minutes.

I hope that, in addition to your continued excellence in Grand Junction planning, you will aggressively and successfully follow up with Olympics planners and achieve for the Olympics, for North Allston, and for Cambridge, the Back Bay, and for rapid transit planning in general, the very major advantages which can be achieved through the construction of the Green Line A spur I have proposed.

The value of the Green Line A spur increases the more I think of it, and the timing works excellently between the Mass. Pike work and the Olympics needs, plus this major and valuable regional transportation improvement will be an additional sweetener on a national scale to a Boston Olympics 2024.

In any case, thank you. At absolute minimum, I could not possibly have said everything that needed to be said in that 2 minutes, plus the full scope and importance of your decision did not come to my mind until my exchange in Taunton.

Thank you very much and my commendations.

2.   MassDOT, Mass. Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Cambridge, MA.

The impact of the DCR dates back to a reorganization of a very vile state department which comports well with the government of the City of Cambridge, MA.

Dealing with the DCR, the City of Cambridge, and MassDOT is like sitting in a room with two destructive children and one adult. The adult, MassDOT, is not perfect, but the adult is normal and responsible.

The legislature meaningfully communicated pretty much the same in the reorganization which stripped the former Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) of a lot of its power and folded the rest into the DCR. Power over bridges on the Charles River went to MassDOT, which already had the Grand Junction railroad. The rest of the MDC went into the DCR.

The reason was simple: flat out contempt in the legislature for the destructiveness and incompetence of the DCR. The City of Cambridge is very much in sync with the destructiveness. Regrettably, the planning department of the MDC is the destructive part, and that destructive planning department wound up in the DCR pretty much intact.

But on the Charles River, the adult is standing up to the irresponsible children.

This report, except as directly relevant, does not go into MassDOT excellent record in comparison to that of the
destructive children.

3. Worcester Line Commuter Rail out of Consideration for Grand Junction.

Dirty tricks are the norm in Cambridge Planning. The pols commonly fight "for" the wishes of their constituents and then "regretfully" and "after great thought" and after cynical maneuvering of their constituents, achieve what they wanted to achieve in the first place.

Here is MassDOT’s map showing the Grand Junction railroad in Cambridge.

The purpose of this railroad, historically, has been to provide connection for freight between train yards:
a. associated with Boston’s North Station (above the map) and
b. associated with Boston’s South Station (below the map). This is the yard which was mostly emptied a year or so ago and whose use is now under consideration in the Mass. Turnpike (I90) planning.

The Mass. Pike has a major exit to Cambridge and to Boston’s Brighton / Allston neighborhoods in the same area are the former rail yard. Cambridge’s Harvard University bought both about ten years ago subject to transportation uses.

Additionally, the Grand Junction has been used to transfer passenger cars between the two yards for use on the respective parts of the passenger system, plus I think there are maintenance facilities in the Mass. Pike area.

I have marked on the map the streets of the City of Cambridge whose traffic would be disrupted by each and every passenger train rerouted to the Grand Junction. This would constitute severe impact to traffic on those roads.

Here is the most recent MassDOT map showing their intentions in the key rebuilding area.

West Station is near the bottom slightly right of middle. Above it is the Mass. Pike. going around it.

MassDOT previously studied Cambridge’s gambit for commuter service on the Grand Junction. MassDOT found commuter passenger service on the Grand Junction had no value except for Cambridge’s Kendall Square which, in turn, is dominated by Cambridge’s Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT has major speculative development existing and planned near the Grand Junction Railroad.

MassDOT stated that MassDOT saw no value for commuter rail service on the Grand Junction as long as the commuter rail could go to South Station.

This week’s announcements strongly reaffirm that position.

4. The announcements.

In the Tuesday meeting concerning Mass. Pike rebuilding, there was one slide which stated that all commuter rail service from the commuter rail West Station (proposed as part of the planning) and a nearby proposed station would go to South Station. This is contrary to what had been previously discussed for West Station.

I hope I got this straight.

On Thursday, I went to MassDOT’s public presentation in Taunton, MA, to the south of Boston, concerning MassDOT’s capital plans for the next year.

I questioned the presenters and got a highly non ambiguous response that ALL commuter rail on the Framingham - Worcester line (which includes West Station and the Mass. Pike reorganization are) would go to South Station. No ambiguity whatsoever.
5. Conclusion.

Crossing the Charles River on the Grand Junction railroad with commuter rail service would have severe impact on the free animals on the Cambridge side and on the environment in which they live. That seems to be clearly off the table.

Once again, thank you Mass DOT.

6. Green Line A proposal.

Excellent idea and well but briefly presented by me at the Tuesday meeting.

Green Line A would readily be fit in with the MassDOT Mass. Pike plans. I have been carful in my plans to exactly specify the location of nothing in the main Mass. Pike rebuilding area.

The plan:

My most recent report on this concept has been posted at

That report includes links to all posts in the very detailed analysis I have provided.

7. Cambridge’s Record.


Recent summary at

A lot of photos.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Charles River: Green Line A, Olympics - Changes in Harvard Station.

RE: Charles River: Green Line A, Olympics - Changes in Harvard Station.
1. Mass. Department of Transportation Planning Capital Expenditures.
a. Green Line A on point for merit and for payment for honorable behavior.
b. Changes in Harvard Station?
c. Other?
2. Letter to the Secretary of Transportation.
3. The map.
4. Prior reports on Green Line A.
1. Mass. Department of Transportation Planning Capital Expenditures.
[above format mandated by the computer]

Yesterday afternoon, June 16, I attended a briefing from MassDOT on its plans for capital expenditures. I usually avoid it because the numbers they give tend to be extremely large and impossible for a non expert to evaluate.

Nevertheless, immediately after the meeting, I stopped off in a favorite Starbucks and posted the comment in section 2, below.

a. Green Line A on point for merit and for payment for honorable behavior.

First and foremost, the Green Line A proposal I have spent a lot of time on exactly fits their interests. So I passed on encouragement to go forward with this excellent concept.

I support it, first, because it is an excellent idea, and secondly, I think the actions of Olympics 2024 well deserve the commendation and support of decent human beings.

These folks are standing up to the belligerent heartless animal abuse of the City of Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and their fake groups. These are good people.

b. Changes in Harvard Station?

They had lovely maps posted. Next to Harvard Square, Cambridge was a comment concerning an emergency elevator, and concerning the busway.

These are exactly on point with regard to Green Line A and could be appropriate for modifications in the Green Line A proposal. So I asked them what they are doing.

c. Other?

I am going to try to find the fine print behind those big numbers, but comments are due very quickly.

If I find fine print which interests me as much as the Harvard comment, I will let them know, and pass it on to you.
2.   Letter to the Secretary of Transportation.


Stephanie Pollack, Secretary and CEO
10 Park Plaza, 4160
Boston, MA 02116


Madame Secretary:

Enclosed is a map presentation of a Green Line A spur which I suggest would be extremely helpful to the Olympics 2024 proposal and to rapid transit needs in Cambridge, North Allston and Back Bay plus points beyond.

The idea is to insert switches on the Green Line B west of the BU Bridge and run a line between the rebuilt Mass. Pike viaduct, through the Harvard Medical School area, and North Allston to Harvard Station, connecting to Harvard Station via the still existing Red Line tunnel from the current Harvard Station plaza, next to the lower busway, and ending between the JFK School and the Charles Hotel.

The attachment includes a number of links. My most recent analysis is posted at It includes a full list of links concerning parts of the possible line.

I am writing to you to support this idea.

I am also trying to get information on a project which could possibly impact this concept which I saw on your projects map at the Transportation Building meeting just now.

I understand money is being expended on "replacement elevator" and "busway repairs."

I would strongly appreciate getting adequate information on these projects to determine if they impact a Green Line A running out of Harvard Station.

In particular:

a. "Busway Repairs." The Green Line A spur would be operating in the former Red Line tunnel next to the lower busway. Does this work impact use of that tunnel?

b. "Replacement elevator." The biggest hangup in a Green Line A terminating at Harvard Station is the interrelationship with the two existing elevators.

(1) First of all, the Brattle Square elevator to the upper busway does not, apparently, impact the Red Line tunnel. However, its foundation could possibly impact or even block use of the Red Line tunnel next to the lower busway. Does that current elevator impact the Red Line tunnel use. Do your changes impact Red Line tunnel use?

(2) Secondly, a very major impediment to putting a terminus at the station plaza (option S1) is the existing elevator from street level to the plaza. My understanding is that the elevator would have to be moved to the northeast side of the headhouse to put a terminus at plaza level. This would allow a new elevator with a middle stop at the mezzanine. Do your changes alter the situation with regard to the impact of this existing elevator?

Thank you very much for your interest and consideration. I have major environmental experience on the Charles River and in Cambridge. I have major transportation experience starting with two years labor experience including about six months on the ground, for the then Penn Central Transportation Company.

I proposed the Kenmore Crossing for the Urban Ring concept in 1986, before the MBTA’s adoption of it as a formal alternative in 1991. It is now apparently the successful alternative, looking at the money spent on upgrading Yawkey Station, which is part of the Kenmore Crossing but would have to be moved if the other crossing were ultimately selected.

I am chair of Friends of the White Geese, an Attorney General recognized charitable organization. We appreciate our understanding that the Olympics would destroy a bizarre starvation wall at the Magazine Beach playing fields which seems to have no functional value except for heartless animal abuse in accord with the DCR’s plan to kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.

The DCR’s Starvation Wall at Magazine Beach directly and knowingly starves the 34 year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese, blocking access to their food of most of the last 34 years.

In coordination with our appreciation for Olympics 2024's responsible behavior at Magazine Beach, and the excellence of our proposal, we are hoping that Green Line A spur can be adopted. At minimum, I would appreciate further information of the Harvard Station work as described above.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

Robert J. La Trémouille

Individually and as chair, Friends of the White Geese

PS: Yahoo tells me there is a problem with the attachment. If it does not come through, the above link will bring you straight to it.

3. The map.

Yahoo would not let me attach the map of the Green Line A concept. I hope they check it out from the link. The link did include a small rendition.

I have more control over this blog.

Here is the map.

4.          Prior reports on Green Line A.

 [more unwanted computer help]

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Charles River: Update to Government Created Filth on the Charles.

Charles River: Update to Government Created Filth on the Charles.

Here is a map of the place of the origin of the ANNUAL Algae infestation created by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Its name is Ebersol Field.

The Charles River is to the left. Boston’s Massachusetts General Hospital and Beacon Hill neighborhood are to the right. Boston Harbor is above the map area, not really that far. The Massachusetts Avenue Bridge is below the area. The area is very close to the Longfellow Bridge. Then comes the Massachusetts Avenue Bridge, perhaps a mile to the south.

The source is Google Maps.

This supplements my report of June 6.


Saturday, June 06, 2015

Charles River: Government Created Filth Closes Down Swimming.

1. Caveat.
2. Charles River closed down for swimming.
3. Reality.
4. Relevance to ongoing outrages.

1. Caveat.

First of all, apologies.

I have been forced to "upgrade" to Windows 8, and there are a lot of pain in the neck problems. So web administrative details are a nightmare. I am working from multiple sources. The current information is clear. My crediting is a nightmare.

2. Charles River closed down for swimming.

I picked up the following somewhere. It is confirmed in a bunch of places.

* * * *
Charles River Swim Postponed due to Elevated Cyanobacteria Levels

Water samples collected at the Charles River Swim Dock on Tuesday, June 2 exceeded Massachusetts Department of Public Health guidelines for cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) in recreational waters. Due to the elevated cyanobacteria levels, the
Charles River Swim, scheduled for June 6, has been postponed to June 19. During a cyanobacteria bloom people and pets should avoid contact with water with cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) and rinse thoroughly after contact. If subsequent water quality samples do not show evidence of a bloom, the advisory will be lifted.


A group which claims to be a Charles River Watershed Association has done a beautiful analysis, while, of course, ignoring reality. I call groups like this fake groups because they all fit the same pattern. They claim love for their supposed loved things, but they cannot, somehow, recognize the obvious, when the obvious damns the bureaucrats pulling their strings..

I think real groups will recognize the obvious, even if the obvious is that their friends in government are the problem. Thus a group which "loves" the Charles River, but does not want to know the very great destructiveness inflicted on the Charles River comes from their friends in government strikes me as a fake group. A very real cheerleader for an irresponsible government, but a fake group as far as supposed concerns for the Charles River go.

This, after all is the Charles River, and is part of the stench which owns the government in the City of Cambridge.

3. Reality.

Reality, as is altogether too common, is based on government destructiveness.

The environmental outrage at the Magazine Beach playing fields was an expansion of irresponsibility by the Department of Conservation and Recreation at Ebersol Fields. Ebersol Fields is on the banks of the Charles River on the opposite, Boston side, perhaps two miles to the east, toward the harbor, near Massachusetts General Hospital.

The poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach’s playing fields to keep alive sickly introduced grass were first used at Ebersol Fields.

A few years ago, the DCR noticed that their beloved poisons were not working as well as they wanted at Ebersol Fields, so the DCR "upgraded" their beloved poisons. The poison upgrade was marked with a prohibition against using near water.

The next day, the Charles River was infested with algae from Boston Harvard to the Mass. Ave. Bridge. That infestation never previously occurred. That infestation has reoccurred annually or more often ever since.

So the fake groups bemoan reality and protect their friends.

To the fake groups, the reality that this recurring outrage comes from their friends in government is not acceptable. So reality to everybody else is not real in their world.

4. Relevance to ongoing outrages.

After all all, another fake group, at Magazine Beach is fighting to expand the use of poisons.

The DCR destroyed perfectly good grass at Magazine Beach and replaced that grass which had grown responsibly for most of a Century. They replaced the good grass with the introduction of sickly stuff which needs the DCR’s beloved poisons. So the DCR and Cambridge put in an expensive drainage system to drain off the poisons which should not be there in the first place.

The DCR and that fake group are fighting to expand this outrage.

The perfectly good grass which was replaced with sickly stuff is still alive on the hill west of the playing fields.

To the DCR and the fake group, good, environmentally responsible, grasses are unacceptable.

They want the sickly stuff and its poisons.

The fact that the DCR with its love for poisons has caused this annual or more infestation can’t be true. After all the DCR insists it is sainthood reincarnated, and the purpose of fake groups is to support ongoing lies of this sort from government.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Charles River: More money for destructive agency; budgets on both sides of environment.

Charles River: More money for destructive agency; budgets on both sides of environment.

1. Cambridge Chronicle report.
2. General Analysis.
a. Reality in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.
b. Starvation Wall at Magazine Beach.
c. BU Bridge to the Longfellow Bridge.
(1) Charles River White Geese.
(2) Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
(3) Highway proposal.
(4) Mass. Pike Off Ramp.
(5) Railroad to Boston University’s Cambridge Boat House.
(6) Hundreds of trees and animal habitat being destroyed on Memorial Drive.
(7) Longfellow Bridge.
(8) Memorial Drive / Longfellow Bridge.
d. Grand Junction Bike Highway.
e. Underpasses.
f. Cambridge Common.
g. Fresh Pond.
h. Alewife.
i. Flat out lies — example: Urban Ring.
3. Analysis.

1. Cambridge Chronicle report.

The Cambridge Chronicle is reporting on line on the budget for the Cambridge Development Department.  I am looking at

Here is their summary of the development department budget.  It says a lot.


    What it was last year: $6,335,440

    Total city budget: $545,870,875

    Percentage of total city budget: 1.35%

    Department by the numbers: CDD will hire a net zero associate planner, a housing associate planner and interns to assist with housing, economic development and the department’s website. The fiscal 2016 budget also includes $75,000 for a Grand Junction consultant and $50,000 for an urban design consultant.


2. General Analysis.

a. Reality in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.

This one exhibit from the fraudulent propaganda piece currently in Cambridge City Hall says everything about how vile the City of Cambridge and its City Council are

This photo is taken from the propaganda show's prior stop.  They say they have moved the show.  I have better things to do than to check each self destructive comment in their propaganda.

I will follow with items under serious consideration, approved by a unanimous city council or cleared with the Development Department and the reprehensible City Council does not want to know what is going on.

b. Starvation Wall at Magazine Beach.

The Cambridge City Council walled off the playing fields at Magazine Beach.

The key state manager has publicly bragged that this starves the Charles River White Geese by keeping them away from their food.  Before and then after.

This is a full grown woman standing in the only opening.  That opening can be seen in the second photo above, taken from the Boston side.

The state Department of Conservation and Recreation destroys all bordering vegetation on the Charles River basin twice a year, except for this starvation wall.

The DCR’s glorified Charles River Master Plan brags of intent to kill or drive away all resident animals.

Cambridge and friends destroyed the excellent grass in the Magazine Beach playing fields and replaced it with sickly stuff that requires poisons to survive.  To drain off the poisons they installed an expensive drainage system to drain off poisons to keep alive sickly introduced grasses which should not be in there in the first place.

The current fraud is fighting to keep the poisons and the deliberate starvation, to expand the poisons to the top of the hill west of the playing fields and to the wetlands behind the swimming pool, plus destroy the little guy’s parking lot and to put in a highway which is part of the excuse for massive tree destruction supported by the State House.

And, of course, the most important thing about the current fraud is the lie that they are defending the Charles River, so don’t look at all of the outrages, not just at Magazine Beach.

The flat out lies used to obtain this outrage included the lie that they were provided a “lawn to the river”, and the non stop lie of no “intention to harm” the Charles River White Geese.

Oh, and here is a photo of the little guys’ parking lot just west of the playing fields (and across from Magazine Street) they are fighting to destroy.

c. BU Bridge to the Longfellow Bridge.

(1) Charles River White Geese.

Heartless abuse, deliberate starvation.  Total habitat probably destroyed as part of the 2014 State House vote.

(2) Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

Entire area likely for casual destruction.  An excellent example is the Muddy River project near Fenway Park where a park was casually destroyed to be “improved.”

(3) Highway proposal.

This magnificent tree above the nesting area is one of the hundreds being destroyed.

This is Cambridge's map of its planned, J shape highway, dominating the Destroyed Nesting Area.

(4) Mass. Pike Off Ramp.

Harvard bought its future medical school site promptly after the local transit authority (MBTA) demonstrated the Grand Junction railroad bridge (photo below) could be expanded to handle an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) to Cambridge.  In this photo, the green sign in the middle is over the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Multiple outrages prepare the Cambridge side of the Charles River to receive this ramp.  The latest lie is a bike highway.  The usual “explanation” occurs: the usual lie of omission.  They brag of a Grand Junction bike highway and don’t mention the environmental destruction on the Charles River.

Cambridge’s sick Grand Junction Bike Highway (placekeeper) plans call for another starvation wall, a fence paralleling the railroad tracks.  That will prevent resident animals from going between the destroyed nesting area and the wild area.  In the first photo, the Charles River White Geese are desperately hunting for food.

(5) Railroad to Boston University’s Cambridge Boat House.

For the time being, perhaps very short, the area between the railroad and the boat house is a wild area.  Plans are to destroy every single tree.

(6) Hundreds of trees being destroyed on Memorial Drive.

I showed the tree above the Destroyed Nesting Area above.

This 105 tree grove will be decimated.  Think of the outrage on the Cambridge Common.  This plus massive destruction of much larger trees, plus the outrages

(7) Longfellow Bridge.

This excellent grove on top of the Kendall Square end was casually destroyed supposedly as part of the bridge renovation.

To this date, this is a not unreasonable rendition of the site when I went by it yesterday.  Destruction for nothing.  Business as usual in the vile City of Cambridge.

And I repeat, state agencies run plans past the development department.  The difference between Cambridge and responsible communities is obvious.

(8) Memorial Drive / Longfellow Bridge.

Excellent trees, casually destroyed.

d. Grand Junction Bike Highway.

If Cambridge had a responsible government, the bike highway would stop one block north of Memorial Drive up Vassar Street to the east, and connect to Vassar Street and then to Memorial Drive.  But Cambridge does not have a responsible government.

Here are photos of the responsible connector, from the railroad side, from close to it on the Vassar Street side, and from a position closer to Memorial Drive.

On this map, the responsible connector is to the left of the "G" in "Grand Junction."  The connector on Vassar Street to Memorial Drive runs from the "G" to "Memorial".

e. Underpasses.

The fraudulently named Charles River “Conservancy” got support for “underpasses” under the next three bridges to the west of the BU Bridge, and seems to have lied to the legislature that this included support for the $20 million of massive destruction.

The Department of Transportation, responsible for these bridges, has called this outrage an outrage and a waste of money.

f. Cambridge Common.



The Environmental Notification Form justified destruction on grounds that the trees (first photo) block the view of the monument readily visible in the second photo.

g. Fresh Pond.

Multiple year project to destroy animal habitat and replace it with gardens and the usual lie of “creating” animal habitat after it was destroyed.

h. Alewife.

3.4 acres destroyed, and bragged about.

This is Cambridge's publicity photo.

The trees in the background used to fill this entire area.

The cynical company union con game is a fake group which persuades people to do anything and everything except for what would work.  The leader/creator of the fake group bragged about the destruction.

The Cambridge City Council has repeatedly, over many years, yelled at private developers developing nearby private property IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPALLY CREATED ZONING.  The Cambridge City never mentions the municipally created zoning, nor does it mention its own outrageous destruction.

i. Flat out lies — example: Urban Ring.

Too many lies over too many years to count.

One excellent example is the proposal for an Urban Ring subway system connecting existing subway lines.  Naturally, Cambridge wants the irresponsible alternative of two possible Charles River crossings.  Cambridge lies that there is no other alternative under consideration.  Cambridge's irresponsible proposal is the BU Bridge alternative.

In 1991, the MBTA adopted a second, responsible alternative, the Kenmore Crossing, which I proposed in 1986.  The legislature has since subsidized the responsible alternative by subsidizing the rebuilding in place of Yawkey Station near Fenway Park.  The BU Bridge crossing requires it to be moved.

Zoning along the Grand Junction was created in the early 2000s based on the lie that only Cambridge’s irresponsible alternative was under consideration.

Last I heard, a couple of years ago, the Development Department was still lying that the apparently victorious alternative, the Kenmore Crossing, does not exist, 20 years after it was made a formal alternative.

Maps of the “non existent” Kenmore crossing taken from MBTA plans, first on the Cambridge side, then on the Boston side.

The City Manager reaffirmed Cambridge's interest in the Urban Ring subway concept in his comments on the Environmental Notification Form for the South Station expansion project last year.

Lying is normal in Cambridge, MA, USA.

I have major zoning victories as an environmental tool.  One big technical difference between my zoning initiatives and those written by the development department is that my zoning does what I say it does.

The existence of the fake groups and their real connection to the development department is just part of the corruption.

3. Analysis.

Key are the provisions for net zero and the Grand Junction consultant.  They are on the opposite sides of the divide.

They will brag about the netzero, and neglect to mention the massive amounts of environmental destruction which goes through the reprehensible destruction.

If Cambridge had a responsible city government, the department would be flat budgeted with NetZero in place of the destructive planners creating the above outrages and acting as the go to for the fake “protective” groups who go to the development department to find out their opinions.

Since Cambridge does not have a responsible government and will not end the Grand Junction bike path by connecting to Vassar Street and to Memorial Drive by Vassar Street, an additional planner for the Grand Junction bike highway is destructive and should not be funded.

Change that funding to a decrease.  Strip the department of the destructive planners doing these various outrages.

Actually, it would be a positive act to transfer city council related planning to the City Clerk, and possibly close down this vile department.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Charles River: Olympics Rapid Transit: A third possible Harvard Station, access from JFK Park

Charles River: Olympics Rapid Transit: A third possible Harvard Station, access from JFK Park.

1. Proposed route, Harvard Stations.
2. Harvard Station S1, S2, further elevator analysis..
3. Harvard Station S3.
4. Connection to and JFK Park.
5. The prior reports.

1. Proposed route, Harvard Stations.

I have been doing a series on possible new rapid transit service for the Boston 2024 Olympics.  A major part of my interest is my appreciation that the Boston 2024 Olympics peope want to destroy the starvation wall Cambridge and friends have created at Magazine Beach as part of their heartless abuse of the 34 year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese, and their environmental destruction at the Magazine Beach playing fields.

Normal human beings are a refreshing change over the vileness which dominates politics with regard to  Cambridge, MA, USA and its accomplices in their environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

And here is a layout of the three station alternatives for Harvard Station, in the upper part of this map.  I have presented Stations alternatives S1 and S2.  Here we will go into Station 3 and the preferred route in this area.

2. Harvard Station S1, S2, further elevator analysis..

Station alternative S3 only makes sense is S1 and S2 will not work.  It is a lot more expensive and intrusive.  It would still require the moving of the staircase as described in the S2 analysis, and, might require work on the Brattle Square elevator if it interferes with the tunnel.

Looking at the map, going with S1 or S2, the best alternative would be to rebuild the elevator in place if it obstructs the tunnel.  If that does not work, probably the lease obstructive alternative would be to put it on the south side of the Brattle Street side street.

Here is a photo from the sidewalk south of the Brattle Street sidestreet.  Straight ahead is current elevator.  A replacement elevator could readily be constructed on this plaza with a connecting tunnel above the Green Line A tunnel, very much on a straight line between the corners..

3. Harvard Station S3.

Here is the reverse camera view from the previous shot.  This is the last block of Eliot Street.  Station S3 would have to be constructed under this area if S1 and S2 were not feasible.

S3 is major construction. and almost certainly can be avoided.

It is unlikely that a full Green Line three car train could fit under this block.  So the station would almost certainly have to be stretched under Mt. Auburn Street and into the next block.

In the above picture, Mt. Auburn Street is visible.  The below shot is right at the corner.

The opening in the trees slightly right of the center of the photo is the walkway above the Green Line A tunnel.

Connection to Harvard Station would be through the Green Line A tunnel which would, in alternatives S1 and S2 be used for Green Line A.  Connection would be straight to the lower busway removing part of the non load bearing wall.

The waiting area for the lower busway could be expanded into the Green Line A tunnel to handle the traffic from Green Line A, station S3, in addition to folks waiting for buses.

In reality, the distance from the main station concourse to Green Line A would not be significantly different from the existing walk from the pedestrian concourse to northern end cars on Red Line trains.

The distance is longer than it could be with S1 or S2.

And the expense and disruption of S3 is very major.

S3's handicapped elevator would work very well operated in conjunction with handicapped access to the upper bus tunnel.  All that would be appropriate would be to put the elevator near the relocation of the elevator for access just to the busway, close to or to the left of where the photo is taken.  If necessary that one elevator could be used for access both to the upper busway and to station S3.  It certainly would be a lot simpler if the current busway elevator does not have to be replaced.

Once you do the major construction needed to build S3, pedestrian access would be just part of the major project.  There is plenty of room.  The biggest variable is how far beyond Mt. Auburn Street traffic would go.

The construction zone would probably not take up more than the two blocks, but it would take up the two blocks.

Traffic relocation, looking at the map, of traffic from Harvard Square would be left to Mt. Auburn Street.  It can readily handle it.  The block of JFK Street from Mt. Auburn to Eliot Street would have to be used as two way with on street parking, of course, removed.

Traffic to the Brattle Street side street would only be impacted if the upper busway elevator had to be removed.  If it does have to be removed, the first block of the side street would become a stub end.  During construction, all Brattle Street side street service would be from the next street to the north, which connects directly from Harvard Square.

Eliot Street from Eliot Street to JFK Street would see traffic which currently travels on Mt. Auburn Street.  The alternate route is clear.  That traffic would be turning north on JFK Street and then east on Mt. Auburn Street.

The combination of turns to JFK Street would significant increase traffic on JFK Street with probable backups on the approaches.

4. Connection to and JFK Park.

On the preferred alternative 1 route and its companion alternative 2, Green Line A would travel in the existing subway tunnel two stories underground.

This is the entrance from Eliot Street.  To the left is the newest JFK School building.  To the right is the Charles Hotel residential complex.

A view further in.

The trees up above are the ones you are looking at in the previous picture.  This parking lot of the JFK School used to be part of the Red Line train storage area.

On looking at these photos, I realize I was wrong in saying you cannot see the tunnel anymore because of the construction of the building straight ahead.

The thick black line is probably utilities.  As you approach the building, you will see a second line between the thick black line and the pedestrian walkway.  That line is the top of the existing tunnel.  The area between the lines is the tunnel.

Here is Harvard JFK School’s map of the area, and a better view of the parking lot and walkway support.

Access to extend the tunnel would be easy even after reaching the second Harvard Building next to the walkway / subway tunnel.

Here is the view of the walkway from JFK Park.

This is JFK Park.  This is where Alternative 1 would go.  There is even a break between the trees if construction were necessary further up.  JFK Park has been constructed to ease installation of a rapid transit connection.

There is a plaza which would probably have to be rebuilt.  It is between the location from which the last two photos were taken.  It could be possible that the construction under the pedestrian walkway could get far enough down for deep bore.  However, JFK Park, whichever means of crossing the Charles is chosen would have to be the center of construction of the northern end of the tunnel under the Charles River.  It seems inconceivable that that plaza could avoid being rebuilt.

The layout of JFK Park is perfect from an environmental impact point of view.  NO TREES WOULD BE DESTROYED in JFK Park for alternative 1, and JFK Park is key in the construction.

I am sorry about my lack of photo of the plaza.  I anticipate there was a lighting problem.  Note the overexposure above.

Here is a better view of the opening between trees.

5. Layover.

The double track Green Line A would have to end at JFK Park because of the existence of only tunnel room for one train.  There is room in JFK Park, without tree destruction, to add layover tracks for additional cars waiting to get into the terminus, or for storage.

If alternative S1 or S2 is chosen, the tunnel still exists connecting to the existing lower Red Line tunnel.  I am not certain if there is room between S1 and the Red Line tunnel to layover a train as well, almost certainly not.  If S2 is chosen and the rearrangement accomplished for S1, layover would be possible.

6. The prior reports.

General analysis:

BU Bridge end of Green Line A:

Charles River: Green Line A Rapid Transit for Olympics — Harvard Square:

Charles River - Harvard Square:  Corrections to Green Line A Harvard Station Proposal::

Charles River, Comments:  Olympics, Green Line A; fraud in Cambridge, MA, USA City Hall”

Charles River: Green Line A for Olympics, map with options:

Charles River: Olympics Rapid Transit map reorganized; change Green Line B rapid transit stop name?

Charles River: Olympics Rapid Transit: One Harvard Station site for consideration.

Charles River: Olympics Rapid Transit: A Second Harvard Station site for consideration: