1. Report.
2. Bob Replies.
1. Report.
Archie Mazmanian reports the following:
At EOT's website there are posted EOT's request for a two-week extension to March 6, 2009, and its grant. I take this to mean that EOT needed more time to respond to MEPA with respect to the many comments submitted on the RDEIR/DEIS. But I am confused by this in the response: "The Certificate on the RDEIR will now be issued on March 6, 2009." I would assume it might take MEPA months to review the RDEIR/DEIS, public comments and EOT responses to such comments. Maybe the "Certificate" is some sort of formality.
Considering the post-RDEIR/DEIS filing events about Harvard's financial problems and its development delays in Allston, as well as the economy in general, it would seem that EOT should withdraw the RDEIR/DEIS because of significant changes in circumstances. Or at a minimum, EOT should submit an Addendum reflecting such changes and their impacts, with an opportunity for the public to comment. Otherwise, MEPA's review would non-reflective of reality.
EOT has no meetings scheduled at least through May. It seems as if it has its head in the sand.
And Brookline's Transportation Board will consider the impact on Brookline of the BU Bridge redesign at its May 5th meeting. I understand the contracts for the redesign have been let out. What can Brookline do other than perhaps consider traffic changes on Brookline streets? And what can Cambridge do, assuming that the redesign will impact traffic in Cambridge? It seems that there is no coordination between not only municipalities and the state but also between state agencies.
Archie Mazmanian
2. Bob Replies.
The City of Cambridge and all eight continuing city councilors are the bad guys.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Monteiro Case Update
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Action this Week.
2. Evaluation.
3. Brief summary of the Record.
4. Prior Judge’s order in response to City’s Motion for Verdict for Defense.
1. Action this Week.
The following entries were placed on the docket during the past week in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Division Superior Court Civil Action MICV2001-02737:
I do not have access to papers in the case. I solely have access to the docket which is very abbreviated summaries of papers filed and similar actions.
February 25, 2009:
1 Pleading, Copy of 3 Transcripts, returned to Joan A Lukey, Esq.:
2 court does not except copies.
Joan A. Lukey is the City of Cambridge’s lawyer.
February 26, 2009:
1 Per Judge MacLeod-Mancuso's direction, clerk requested copies of
2 transcripts from Tracy E. Brown, Assistant to Defense Counsel, Joan
3 Lukey to be delivered to the Court. Copies of transcripts recevied
4 from: May 5, 2008, May 20, 2008, May 21, 2008 and transcript of
5 portions of testimony of Robert Healey (Pages 86-92)
2. Evaluation.
My guesstimate of the situation is that the longer the judge sits on this case, the more likely she is to come up with an order firing the Cambridge City Manager with loss of pension.
The actions of the City of Cambridge look to me like acts of desperation as a result of the city’s attorney agreeing with me in my guesstimate.
The judge is extending Cambridge every courtesy, thus documenting the judge's reasonableness toward the City of Cambridge.
3. Brief summary of the Record.
In May 2008, a jury found that the Cambridge City Manager had deliberately destroyed the life of a black woman Cape Verdean department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The jury ordered $1.1 million or so real damages plus $3.5 million penal damages.
Cambridge moved for verdict for the defendant notwithstanding the jury verdict or for reduction in damages.
In June a hearing was conducted on the motion. There were post hearing filings apparently stemming from the hearing, the last of which was in August.
In November, first the plaintiff’s attorney, then the defendants attorney filed letters with the court. I presume these were reminders to the court that the court’s decision was awaited on the post trial motions.
4. Prior Judge’s order in response to City’s Motion for Verdict for Defense.
On June 2, 2005, the following was placed on the docket by Judge Catherine A. White, the judge in the first trial:
No. Docket Entry:
1 ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict and/or
2 Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict:
3 Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a
4 long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of
5 discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However,
6 there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably
7 be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this
8 Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time
9 makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable. Plaintiff's statement
10 of supplemental authority, forwarded to the Court on April 21, 2005
11 does not persuade the Court to change its earlier rulings.
12 Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's earlier denial of
13 a motion for directed verdict on this issue is denied, and the motion
14 for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence remains
15 denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a) report to the Appeals
16 Court is also denied. ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed
17 Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed
18 Verdict: Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that,
19 admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial
20 complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate
21 her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that
22 could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events.
23 Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the
24 passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable.
25 Plaintiff's statement of supplemental authority, forwarded to the
26 Court on April 21, 2005 does not persuade the Court to change its
27 earlier rulings. Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's
28 earlier denial of a motion for directed verdict on this issue is
29 denied, and the motion for directed verdict at the close of all of
30 the evidence remains denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a)
31 report to the Appeals Court is also denied. Dated: May 27, 2005
32 (White, Catherine A.) Justice of the Superior Court. Dated: May 27,
33 2005
1. Action this Week.
2. Evaluation.
3. Brief summary of the Record.
4. Prior Judge’s order in response to City’s Motion for Verdict for Defense.
1. Action this Week.
The following entries were placed on the docket during the past week in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Division Superior Court Civil Action MICV2001-02737:
I do not have access to papers in the case. I solely have access to the docket which is very abbreviated summaries of papers filed and similar actions.
February 25, 2009:
1 Pleading, Copy of 3 Transcripts, returned to Joan A Lukey, Esq.:
2 court does not except copies.
Joan A. Lukey is the City of Cambridge’s lawyer.
February 26, 2009:
1 Per Judge MacLeod-Mancuso's direction, clerk requested copies of
2 transcripts from Tracy E. Brown, Assistant to Defense Counsel, Joan
3 Lukey to be delivered to the Court. Copies of transcripts recevied
4 from: May 5, 2008, May 20, 2008, May 21, 2008 and transcript of
5 portions of testimony of Robert Healey (Pages 86-92)
2. Evaluation.
My guesstimate of the situation is that the longer the judge sits on this case, the more likely she is to come up with an order firing the Cambridge City Manager with loss of pension.
The actions of the City of Cambridge look to me like acts of desperation as a result of the city’s attorney agreeing with me in my guesstimate.
The judge is extending Cambridge every courtesy, thus documenting the judge's reasonableness toward the City of Cambridge.
3. Brief summary of the Record.
In May 2008, a jury found that the Cambridge City Manager had deliberately destroyed the life of a black woman Cape Verdean department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The jury ordered $1.1 million or so real damages plus $3.5 million penal damages.
Cambridge moved for verdict for the defendant notwithstanding the jury verdict or for reduction in damages.
In June a hearing was conducted on the motion. There were post hearing filings apparently stemming from the hearing, the last of which was in August.
In November, first the plaintiff’s attorney, then the defendants attorney filed letters with the court. I presume these were reminders to the court that the court’s decision was awaited on the post trial motions.
4. Prior Judge’s order in response to City’s Motion for Verdict for Defense.
On June 2, 2005, the following was placed on the docket by Judge Catherine A. White, the judge in the first trial:
No. Docket Entry:
1 ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict and/or
2 Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict:
3 Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a
4 long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of
5 discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However,
6 there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably
7 be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this
8 Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time
9 makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable. Plaintiff's statement
10 of supplemental authority, forwarded to the Court on April 21, 2005
11 does not persuade the Court to change its earlier rulings.
12 Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's earlier denial of
13 a motion for directed verdict on this issue is denied, and the motion
14 for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence remains
15 denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a) report to the Appeals
16 Court is also denied. ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed
17 Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed
18 Verdict: Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that,
19 admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial
20 complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate
21 her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that
22 could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events.
23 Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the
24 passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable.
25 Plaintiff's statement of supplemental authority, forwarded to the
26 Court on April 21, 2005 does not persuade the Court to change its
27 earlier rulings. Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's
28 earlier denial of a motion for directed verdict on this issue is
29 denied, and the motion for directed verdict at the close of all of
30 the evidence remains denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a)
31 report to the Appeals Court is also denied. Dated: May 27, 2005
32 (White, Catherine A.) Justice of the Superior Court. Dated: May 27,
33 2005
Monday, February 16, 2009
Marilyn Wellons's comments on Urban Ring Phase 2
Public comment on the Urban Ring Phase 2 bus system was due February 10, 2009. Marilyn Wellons sent the following to Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian A. Bowles and Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Director Richard Bourre that day.
Dear Secretary Bowles, Mr. Bourre:
re: Urban Ring Phase 2 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, EOEA #12565
The revised draft acknowledges significant uncertainties regarding routes, financing, and regional and national economic futures. It nevertheless attaches numbers to critical factors affecting the realization of its goal, stated in the Executive Summary at 1.1, to reach a Locally Preferred Option (LPA). With these numbers and much less uncertainty it assesses the environmental costs and benefits of the LPA. Herewith my suggestions for further revision:
During ten year’s participation in discussions of the Urban Ring Phase 2 (UR2) for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), my focus has been on the Charles River environment around the Grand Junction Railroad and/or Boston University bridges. It has necessarily expanded to include other proposed river crossings and the Beacon Freight Yards in Allston.
Phase 3. I very much support public transportation, mass transit, and, in principle, the Urban Ring. Like many others, I favor going directly to the 2001 Major Investment Study’s (MIS) Phase 3A2 rail in the central corridor while improving existing bus routes, such as the No. 47, for example. Given the cost of the tunnel through Longwood Medical Area (LMA), the need to keep all Phase 3 options open (Secretary’s May 20, 2005 Certificate), and the renewed understanding of mass transit’s benefits, this makes more sense to me than spending money on BRT. Consequently the RDEIR’s failure to maintain alternative UR3A2 at the northern end of the LMA tunnel raises serious doubts about the state’s commitment Phase 3 and, with it, to environmentally responsible transportation planning.
Analysis of the RDEIR’s understanding of the Charles River and other riverfront parkland and of the Beacon Freight Yards does nothing to dispel these doubts.
Open Space. Beginning with Table 5.5.B’s misidentification of Charles River parkland around the UR2 river crossing in Cambridge (Segment B, sector 6) as entirely “commercial” (p. 5-11), the RDEIR fails to see the value of this land’s current use, in addition to sports and cycling, as urban wild—home to waterfowl, songbirds, rabbits, and hawks—and passive open space. Later references to “recreation” in the inventory of parks are to active uses, with no apparent sense of open space as a place for the re-creation of the human mind and spirit. Thus at the B6 Charles River crossing, the document’s attempt at fine-grained description of parkland vanishes. It quickly pulls away from the plants, animals, and humans whose habitat this is, to a satellite-level view of the entire “17-mile linear park . . . stretching from Watertown to the Charles River Dam in Boston” and its listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It notes bicyclists, walkers, and joggers, but not the many thousands of people who need unmediated contact with the natural world and have found it here.
The RDEIR at Section 5.7 cites “common,” not rare or endangered, plants and animals in this sector, apparently to dismiss their destruction as trivial. Just this indifference to the “common” has made many species rare, endangered, or extinct. Understanding the worth of the “common”—including us city dwellers—was the foundation of the Charles River Reservation in the first place. Also, please note the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), M.G.L. Ch. 131, is not restricted to protecting rare or endangered species. Consigning this “common” habitat to destruction, or accepting the rationalization that damage from UR2 is not permanent (Table 5-45, p. 5-146) is a travesty.
Please note that for UR2’s river crossings at the Malden and Charles Rivers Chapter 91 will apply. Not only will permanent structures replace parkland, but destruction will extend throughout the Riverfront Areas, unchecked by the WPA. Through 310 C.M.R. Sec. 10.58 (6), Chapter 91 nullifies the WPA in this land, i.e., riverfront in historically tidal rivers between the Mean Annual High Water Mark and a parallel line that is 200 feet away in Medford, 25 feet in Everett and Cambridge. As we have seen at the BU Bridge in Cambridge, Chapter 91 means that Conservation Commissions will not be able to require alternatives analysis, impose a less environmentally damaging alternative from UR2’s proponents for work within these Riverfront Areas, nor require mitigation (MADEP File #123-0215). While the RDEIR notes where in UR2 Chapter 91 applies, it fails to record the consequences.
The effect of Ch. 91 on WPA protections, themselves assumed in federal law requiring environmental review of this transportation project, would thus seem to raise serious, and unaddressed, questions about the validity of the RDEIR itself in the federal process.
Beacon Yards. The RDEIR fails to assess the environmental consequences of reducing or eliminating the Beacon Freight Yards. Harvard’s plans for this land are important to the RDEIR’s estimates of regional growth in jobs and population, hence ridership, hence the viability of UR2. However, the planned change from intermodal freight in the urban core to institutional uses will increase truck traffic in the region, with negative effects on public health. The RDEIR does not, for example, ask whether the presumed increase in public transportation ridership and assumed reduction of vehicle trips will offset these unexamined effects. It is not clear that the state’s Freight Study will consider this issue, or if it will, whether the results will be available before filing of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
I hope for consideration of these issues. Again, they raise serious doubts about the state’s commitment to environmentally responsible transportation planning as manifest in the UR2 RDEIR. While there is no doubt all involved in UR2 have worked long and hard on it, bureaucratic momentum alone should not justify the project.
Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons
Dear Secretary Bowles, Mr. Bourre:
re: Urban Ring Phase 2 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, EOEA #12565
The revised draft acknowledges significant uncertainties regarding routes, financing, and regional and national economic futures. It nevertheless attaches numbers to critical factors affecting the realization of its goal, stated in the Executive Summary at 1.1, to reach a Locally Preferred Option (LPA). With these numbers and much less uncertainty it assesses the environmental costs and benefits of the LPA. Herewith my suggestions for further revision:
During ten year’s participation in discussions of the Urban Ring Phase 2 (UR2) for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), my focus has been on the Charles River environment around the Grand Junction Railroad and/or Boston University bridges. It has necessarily expanded to include other proposed river crossings and the Beacon Freight Yards in Allston.
Phase 3. I very much support public transportation, mass transit, and, in principle, the Urban Ring. Like many others, I favor going directly to the 2001 Major Investment Study’s (MIS) Phase 3A2 rail in the central corridor while improving existing bus routes, such as the No. 47, for example. Given the cost of the tunnel through Longwood Medical Area (LMA), the need to keep all Phase 3 options open (Secretary’s May 20, 2005 Certificate), and the renewed understanding of mass transit’s benefits, this makes more sense to me than spending money on BRT. Consequently the RDEIR’s failure to maintain alternative UR3A2 at the northern end of the LMA tunnel raises serious doubts about the state’s commitment Phase 3 and, with it, to environmentally responsible transportation planning.
Analysis of the RDEIR’s understanding of the Charles River and other riverfront parkland and of the Beacon Freight Yards does nothing to dispel these doubts.
Open Space. Beginning with Table 5.5.B’s misidentification of Charles River parkland around the UR2 river crossing in Cambridge (Segment B, sector 6) as entirely “commercial” (p. 5-11), the RDEIR fails to see the value of this land’s current use, in addition to sports and cycling, as urban wild—home to waterfowl, songbirds, rabbits, and hawks—and passive open space. Later references to “recreation” in the inventory of parks are to active uses, with no apparent sense of open space as a place for the re-creation of the human mind and spirit. Thus at the B6 Charles River crossing, the document’s attempt at fine-grained description of parkland vanishes. It quickly pulls away from the plants, animals, and humans whose habitat this is, to a satellite-level view of the entire “17-mile linear park . . . stretching from Watertown to the Charles River Dam in Boston” and its listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It notes bicyclists, walkers, and joggers, but not the many thousands of people who need unmediated contact with the natural world and have found it here.
The RDEIR at Section 5.7 cites “common,” not rare or endangered, plants and animals in this sector, apparently to dismiss their destruction as trivial. Just this indifference to the “common” has made many species rare, endangered, or extinct. Understanding the worth of the “common”—including us city dwellers—was the foundation of the Charles River Reservation in the first place. Also, please note the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), M.G.L. Ch. 131, is not restricted to protecting rare or endangered species. Consigning this “common” habitat to destruction, or accepting the rationalization that damage from UR2 is not permanent (Table 5-45, p. 5-146) is a travesty.
Please note that for UR2’s river crossings at the Malden and Charles Rivers Chapter 91 will apply. Not only will permanent structures replace parkland, but destruction will extend throughout the Riverfront Areas, unchecked by the WPA. Through 310 C.M.R. Sec. 10.58 (6), Chapter 91 nullifies the WPA in this land, i.e., riverfront in historically tidal rivers between the Mean Annual High Water Mark and a parallel line that is 200 feet away in Medford, 25 feet in Everett and Cambridge. As we have seen at the BU Bridge in Cambridge, Chapter 91 means that Conservation Commissions will not be able to require alternatives analysis, impose a less environmentally damaging alternative from UR2’s proponents for work within these Riverfront Areas, nor require mitigation (MADEP File #123-0215). While the RDEIR notes where in UR2 Chapter 91 applies, it fails to record the consequences.
The effect of Ch. 91 on WPA protections, themselves assumed in federal law requiring environmental review of this transportation project, would thus seem to raise serious, and unaddressed, questions about the validity of the RDEIR itself in the federal process.
Beacon Yards. The RDEIR fails to assess the environmental consequences of reducing or eliminating the Beacon Freight Yards. Harvard’s plans for this land are important to the RDEIR’s estimates of regional growth in jobs and population, hence ridership, hence the viability of UR2. However, the planned change from intermodal freight in the urban core to institutional uses will increase truck traffic in the region, with negative effects on public health. The RDEIR does not, for example, ask whether the presumed increase in public transportation ridership and assumed reduction of vehicle trips will offset these unexamined effects. It is not clear that the state’s Freight Study will consider this issue, or if it will, whether the results will be available before filing of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
I hope for consideration of these issues. Again, they raise serious doubts about the state’s commitment to environmentally responsible transportation planning as manifest in the UR2 RDEIR. While there is no doubt all involved in UR2 have worked long and hard on it, bureaucratic momentum alone should not justify the project.
Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons
Monday, February 09, 2009
Urban Ring Submittal by Bob
Bob La Trémouille reports:
On February 9, 2009, I delivered by hand a hard copy of the following to MEPA with regard to the Urban Ring Phase 2.
This blog format does not convert footnotes from word processing programs. I have manually inserted the footnote notations in the text and have retyped them as endnotes placed at the very end of the report.
On February 10, 2009, I sent an electronic version to Mr. Bourre at his listed email.
**************
Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
ATTN: MEPA Office, EOEA #12565
Richard Bourre, Assistant Director
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
RE: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report / Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project
Contents.
1. Introductory.
A. General Concerns.
B. Specific Environmental Defects: Falsehoods and Omissions.
C. I have no intent to ascribe lies to the authors of this report.
D. What I support. Major environmental omissions in Analysis.
E. My background.
(1) Urban Ring.
(2) Railroad and legal experience.
(3) Environmental Experience on the Charles.
(4) Environmental Experience using Zoning and Rent Control.
(5) Environmental Experience Protecting Valuable Trees against the City of Cambridge.
2. General defects which doom the proposed report.
A. Introductory.
B. It does not consider all reasonable alternatives.
(1) Alternatives incorporated in Phase 3.
(2) Initial heavy rail phase in place of bus tunnel.
(3) Light Rail in Allston to support Harvard’s relocated Medical School, etc.
(4) The RDEIR/DEIS violates the terms on which the secretary’s order of May 20, 2005, was based.
C. Environmental Chapter.
3. Terminology tricks used by supporters of the BU Bridge crossing.
4. Environmental Chapter.
A. Overview.
B. Figure 5-1 contains blatant falsehoods.
(1) Introduction.
(2) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
(3) Animal habitat including wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries is falsely identified as in commercial use, industrial use, or transportation use.
(4) A significant portion of the area right at water’s edge east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge is misidentified as transportation use.
(5) On the Boston side, pretty much everything west of the BU Bridge is identified as in transportation use. Much of that identification is false.
(6) The bizarre nature of figure 5-1 may be dramatically recognized by observing the photograph of “sector 6" which is part of Figure 5-4 (sectors 5-8) on page 5-33.
(7) Google maps.
B. Table 5-5.B.
C. Figure 5-2.
D. Section 5.5.2, Air Quality Modeling Analysis.
E. Plants and animal species in habitat.
(1) General.
(2) The Charles River White Geese.
(A) Introduction.
(B) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
(C) Heartless Animal Abusers sound strikingly like heartless wife abusers.
(D) Wide recognition of value.
(3) Other residents and visitors.
F. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.
G. Wetlands Designation.
H. Estimated Water Resources Impacts by Alternative (acres), Table 5-21, page 5-80.
I. Wetlands Impacts, Table 5-22, page 5-80.
J. Estimated Filled Tideland Impacts by Alternatives (Acres), table 5-23, page 5-81.
K. Environmental Consequences. Analysis on page 5-82.
L. Section 5.15.3.1, affected environment, on page 5-143
M. Table 5-45, Areas of Moderate to Severe Impact in Section B, on page 5-146.
N. Comment from President Obama’s Inaugural Address.
5. Specific structural aspects of the proposal. Chapter 2, locally preferred alternative.
A. Bus proposals.
B. Longwood Medical Area Tunnel.
C. Kenmore (Heavy Rail) v. BU Bridge (Light Rail) Crossing.
(1) General.
(2) Kenmore Crossing.
(3) The BU Bridge crossing.
(4) Comparison of BU Bridge Crossing to Kenmore Crossing:
D. Kenmore Crossing — Initial phase conducted as part of Phase 2.
E. Allston proposal.
Addendum: What to do about the Charles River?
Endnotes [ed: were footnotes in submittal, this format does not permit footnotes]
Sir:
1. Introductory.
A. General Concerns.
My concerns about this report are threefold:
• General defects which doom the proposal.
• Specific environmental defects of the proposal.
• Specific structural aspects of the proposal.
B. Specific Environmental Defects: Falsehoods and Omissions.
My analysis includes objecting to false statements and inexcusable omissions about land use, animal habitat, quality of animal residents and environmental quality on the Charles River in the environmental section. In part, I document my objections on photographic evidence elsewhere in the RDEIR/DEIS. I also cite URL’s for large amounts of evidence on the Internet.
I find these defects not surprising. My decade long experience with the Department of Conservation and Recreation has exposed me to a large variety of techniques of deceit pretty much all of which I simply consider lying. I will hereafter refer to this agency as the DCR regardless of the name it was using at the time. I will not waste your time making a distinction among names.
My analysis includes one key flat out lie, that the DCR would do “no harm” to the Charles River White Geese. The DCR has repeated this lie many times over the past nine years in the DCR’s ongoing fight to destroy the environment of the Charles River, and to obscure its heartless animal abuse.
The obviousness of this flat out lie and the very great frequency of times it has been made reenforces exactly the value and importance of the Charles River White Geese. This is in aposition to that other status repeatedly proclaimed by the DCR.
A person continues in management capacity who has repeatedly promised “to do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese and who has starved them, confined them to a tiny part of their mile long habitat and then destroyed almost all the vegetation in the ghetto to which he has confined them. This person’s continued presence clearly demonstrates the moral, intellectual and environmental depravity of the DCR.
These defects in the package are consistent with the pattern of DCR falsehoods.
C. I have no intent to ascribe lies to the authors of this report.
Please note that, while repeatedly objecting to lies, I, in no way, ascribe the falsehoods to the team managing the Urban Ring package.
The original manager for the MBTA is a good friend.
I have no reason to have negative personal thoughts about the current Urban Ring team either.
D. What I support. Major environmental omissions in Analysis.
I initially proposed the Kenmore (Heavy Rail) crossing for the Urban Ring subway in 1986 about six years before the state started to recognize it as an option. I proposed it because it makes sense from a transportation point of view and corrects the very real environmental defects in the preexisting BU Bridge (light rail) crossing.
I understand the Cambridge-Longwood portion of the proposal and the Allston portion.
The busway proposals could very likely make sense outside this core subway and Allston area, either solely or in a mix with subway construction. The fact that they could make sense outside this area does not mean that the busway proposals should be forced on an area where they quite simply do not make sense.
As part of Phase 2, I support heavy rail subway using the Longwood Medical Area tunnel with direct connection to the Orange Line at Ruggles. I support a longer tunnel in Phase 2 ending at a temporary terminus at Kenmore/Yawkey. The modified tunnel would work well as the beginning part of an Urban Ring heavy rail subway using the Kenmore Charles River crossing. Failure to analyze such a heavy rail use as an alternative to the LMA bus tunnel is a major defect in this proposal report.
As stated in greater detail below, Allston service should be provided with a Green Line, light rail, spur running from the Commonwealth Avenue / BU Bridge intersection through Harvard Allston to the still existing Harvard Square subway tunnel. Connection can be made to Harvard Station by the existing busways. Failure to analyze such a heavy rail use as an alternative to the silly bus spaghetti proposed is a major defect in this proposal.
The Urban Ring project should provide meaningful transportation improvements. Bureaucratic intransigence is no excuse for doing these bizarre bus proposals, things which are downright silly and which include destructive parts of the BU Bridge crossing alternative currently called part of Phase 3.
E. My background.
(1) Urban Ring.
I have worked on the Urban Ring project since the mid 80's. I first proposed the Kenmore crossing six years before it became part of the official analysis.
(2) Railroad and legal experience.
I have two years on the ground railroad experience.
I am a lawyer in civil practice.
(3) Environmental Experience on the Charles.
I am the co-CEO of Friends of the White Geese, a Massachusetts non-profit founded in 2000 to defend the environment and the animals of the Charles River. One of the first acts of Friends of the White Geese was to discredit “Friends of Magazine Beach,” a group with connections to the Cambridge City Manager which had been fighting for environmental destruction in the BU Bridge area.
It was not long after this occurred that the “Charles River Conservancy” announced itself with overlapping membership to the “Friends of Magazine Beach.” This entity, with major developer funding, has proceeded to be involved in very heavy destruction of animal habitat, protective vegetation and the eggs of waterfowl. They have done these things as agent for the DCR.
Friends of the White Geese has been very active in the years since our creation. To date, we have prevented the outright killing of the Charles River White Geese. Killing them was advocated by the local State Representative and the MSPCA in a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle on August 4, 2000[1].
Friends of the White Geese has minimized the effectiveness of many lies which have been put out those who seek to destroy the environment of the Charles River and the many animals living near or visiting the Charles River. The lies include outrageous nonsense about the Charles River White Geese. I will analyze the Charles River White Geese in detail below.
To put it succinctly, unfounded insults have been tossed at these beautiful, valuable creatures by those working to destroy the Charles River’s environment. These insults most effectively demonstrate that heartless animal abusers sound a lot like heartless wife beaters when they are talking about their victims.
The Charles River White Geese are not the only targets of this ongoing campaign of destruction targeted at the animals of the Charles River. They are, however, the most visible and the most beloved.
(4) Environmental Experience using Zoning and Rent Control.
I have major downzoning victories. I have protected key and very visible parts of the environment in the City of Cambridge. Working as legal advisor, strategy advisor, and institutional memory for various groups, I, by vote of the Cambridge City Council, have protected ground level open space, housing and air quality while emphasizing reasonable levels of construction.
One of my victories forced the Inn at Harvard on Harvard University rather than a 72% larger building without surrounding open space and without the beauty of its varied walls. This victory was part of a series of downzonings which provided responsible protections for about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares.
Another victory, using rent control regulations, saved an historical building in a key Harvard Square location from needless destruction by Harvard. Again, the individual who was the most visible enemy in that fight has been active in Cambridge City Manager related initiatives.
Groups similar to the “Charles River Conservancy,” with connections to the Cambridge City Manager, are very active and very destructive in the City of Cambridge. My biggest problem in my environmental activities has been self-proclaimed “activists” with undisclosed ties to the Cambridge City Manager’s people. The self-proclaimed “activists” too often achieve exactly the opposite of what they claim to stand for.
(5) Environmental Experience Protecting Valuable Trees against the City of Cambridge.
On appeal, I obtained a preliminary injunction against Cambridge to prevent the needless destruction of what was one of the city’s best parks, a densely developed park consisting of a grove of about 30 one hundred plus year old trees.
The trial judge found that that park was not a park. The judge allowed major destruction as part of a proposal which promised many saplings in a nearby location. The Cambridge City Manager’s people bragged about something like 50 saplings being planted elsewhere when they destroyed the one hundred plus year old trees.
The saplings have since reached maturity. Almost all of the many saplings, fully grown, have recently been destroyed by the City of Cambridge. Destruction was for the obvious Phase 2 of the project which destroyed the hundred plus year old trees.
A Cambridge City Manager related group fought for the destruction of the hundred plus year old trees. Very recently, people who had been taken in by the City Manager’s friends were shocked when the replacement saplings were destroyed after reaching full growth.
The latest insult is a proposal to deck over the tiny park which has the remnants of those now one hundred thirty plus year old trees so that this undestroyed remnant of the ancient trees become very large potted plants.
The City of Cambridge is one of the principal actors in the ongoing destruction of the Charles River environment.
The key “regulators” are appointees of the environmentally destructive Cambridge City Manager[2].
2. General defects which doom the proposed report.
A. Introductory.
There are four basic defects which doom the proposed report.
• It does not consider all reasonable alternatives.
• It violates the secretary’s order of May 20, 2005.
• The environmental chapter includes clear and key falsehoods.
• The environmental chapter has significant omissions.
Your attention is drawn to the bottom of page 6 of the Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated May 20, 2005. Please note in the SCOPE section the first paragraph under “Project Phasing,” which states the following in sentences 2 and 3:
. . . the Revised DEIR should demonstrate that the implementation of Phase 2 would not adversely affect the implementation of Phase 3. I strongly encourage the MBTA to work towards implementing Phase 1 and to reconsider the phasing of the project to advance certain elements of Phase 3, which is proposed to use dedicated rights-of-way to provide heavy rail, light rail, BRT or some combination of these modes and would engender greater support for the Urban Ring concept as a whole than the implementation of Phase 2, which would rely heavily on buses in mixed traffic.
B. It does not consider all reasonable alternatives.
The submittal fails the most basic of requirements for an Environmental Impact Report by failing to consider having rail possibilities being accomplished in place of bus alternatives incorporated in Phase 2.
(1) Alternatives incorporated in Phase 3.
The submittal fails the most basic of requirements for an Environmental Impact Report by failing to consider having either of the two rail possibilities being accomplished at the same time as Phase 2 in place of bus alternatives incorporated in Phase 2.
The draft report fails to consider going forward with the Heavy Rail (Kenmore Crossing) or Light Rail (BU Bridge Crossing) Subway alternatives instead of going forward with the bus nonsense in those areas. These are simply designated by fiat as being in Phase 3.
(2) Initial heavy rail phase in place of bus tunnel.
As stated in detail below, it would make excellent sense IN PHASE 2 OF THE URBAN RING to use the proposed LMA bus tunnel instead as the initial phase of the heavy rail Kenmore Crossing alternative Urban Ring subway.
The LMA tunnel used as heavy rail could be connected directly to the Orange Line at Ruggles Station and have a temporary terminus at the Kenmore-Yawkey station. The Kenmore-Yawkey station is proposed to be located under Brookline Ave. over the Mass. Pike as part of the Kenmore crossing Urban Ring heavy rail alternative.
This initial phase Urban Ring heavy rail could be operated as a spur off the Orange Line and would provide direct service between Kenmore and the LMA on one end and Downtown Crossing, Tufts Medical Center and North Station, Charlestown and Malden, among other destinations.
This option is not considered in the RDEIR/DEIS. It should be considered in the RDEIR/DEIS.
(3) Light Rail in Allston to support Harvard’s relocated Medical School, etc.
The draft report fails to consider going forward with a Green Line (light rail) spur instead of the bus spaghetti in Allston.
A Green Line Spur would make excellent sense off the Commonwealth Avenue line (B line). Appropriate switches could be placed in the existing tracks in the vicinity of the Commonwealth Avenue - BU Bridge intersection. The spur should then run over the west bound lanes of Commonwealth Avenue and the northern sidewalk, then proceed on air rights above the commuter rail.
Rather than doing the silly turns at the Beacon Yards, the Green Line spur should proceed in a straight line above the Beacon Yards to Harvard’s proposed new boulevard north of Cambridge Street. The slope of the Mass. Pike just south of Cambridge Street is perfect for a raised Green Line to proceed above it.
After crossing Cambridge Street, the spur should promptly go through a portal and be constructed under Harvard’s proposed boulevard to North Harvard Street, and then proceed, underground cut and cover, south of and then west of Harvard Stadium. It should travel under the Charles River and under JFK Park, connecting with the still existing subway tunnel from Harvard Station which ends under the walkway between the Charles Hotel and Harvard’s JFK School of Government.
This tunnel connects directly to the bus tunnel in Harvard Station at Brattle Square.
A single terminal track could end at the bus tunnel, making transfers to bus and Red Line traffic through the existing tunnels.
Storage and layover tracks could be placed west of Harvard Stadium under cut and cover.
A permanent storage facility for Green Line vehicles should be considered for location at the Beacon Yards should the Beacon Yards no longer be needed for railroad use. It would be relatively simple to run a siding off the raised Green Line spur directly to the Beacon Yards.
(4) The RDEIR/DEIS violates the terms on which the secretary’s order of May 20, 2005, was based.
The secretary specifically required that Phase 2 not interfere with or predetermine Phase 3 construction.
The construction in Cambridge and over the Charles River resolves the crucial decision of Phase 3 in favor of the alternative which, from a transportation and environmental point of view, is the inferior of the two alternative Charles River crossings.
The proposal puts the Commonwealth in a position where the Commonwealth cannot go forward with the Kenmore (heavy rail) crossing and must go forward with the BU Bridge (light rail) crossing. Furthermore, the proposal accomplishes significant parts of the environmental damage associated with the BU Bridge crossing, which damage is part of the reasons for which the BU Bridge (light rail) crossing should be rejected[3].
C. Environmental Chapter.
Please see below.
3. Terminology tricks used by supporters of the BU Bridge crossing.
One of the many techniques of lying is games with terminology.
An initial objection must be made to the tactics of certain people who support the inferior BU Bridge (light rail) crossing.
One reason I reject light rail (BU Bridge crossing, Green Line technology) is because the purpose of the Urban Ring, as long as I have worked on it, has been to provide an alternative to taking the subways downtown. Light rail simply will not get people off the subways. It cannot compete because it is not fast enough.
There are other, environmental and structural, reasons to reject the light rail (BU Bridge crossing) subway alternative in favor of the heavy rail (Kenmore crossing). See below.
Supporters of the light rail BU Bridge subway option use terminology games to confuse well meaning individuals. The repeated use of the term “light rail” by BU Bridge crossing advocates to describe both subway alternatives confuses good people and creates the apparently deliberate effect of having people who would support heavy rail (Kenmore crossing) use the words “light rail” not realizing they are being had.
Such tactics are not acceptable, but should be recognized when reviewing comments. A lot of people have been fooled by this con game and use the term “light rail” to support the heavy rail Kenmore crossing or simply to support subway construction in general.
“Light rail” is street cars. Street cars are not an acceptable alternative. Street cars simply would not divert enough people from the central subway. Most people do not even think of street cars when thinking of subway, but individuals with unidentified agendas are fighting for street cars and doing their best to confuse people.
This lying by word games should not be rewarded.
4. Environmental Chapter.
A. Overview.
The chapter has major omission of analysis of animal habitat and includes information which is demonstrably false.
The cause could be falsehoods originating in the DCR which is aggressively destroying the natural environment of the Charles River.
B. Figure 5-1 contains blatant falsehoods.
(1) Introduction.
Figure 5-1 lists supposed uses on the Charles River which are flatly and simply false. The area which is falsified is exactly the area most subject to irresponsible environmental destruction. These false statements extend to the related text as well.
I find it no coincidence that the DCR and Cambridge have for the better part of a decade now been working to destroy the environment in the area of Cambridge falsified on this figure, that area within a half mile east and west of the BU Bridge. Similarly, there are clear falsehoods in the figure with regard to areas west of the BU Bridge in Boston.
The environmental destructiveness of these two entities is by no means final. Temporary success of irresponsible behavior should not be confused with permanent disruption. In particular, the Cambridge City Manager could be on the way out, by order of court in a civil rights case with Cambridge as the defendant. Additionally, all nine Cambridge City Councilors claim to be pro-environment (and pro-civil rights).
(2) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
To make it worse, the environmental destructiveness in the BU Bridge area has been prominently supported by the most basic of lies.
Starting in spring 2000 when the public started objecting to their attacks on the Charles River White Geese, DCR representatives repeatedly lied to many people concerned about the future of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The DCR representatives repeatedly denied any intent to harm the Charles River White Geese.
We had the plans. We knew these claims were lies. The DCR kept repeating the lies.
Even after they started starving the Charles River White Geese, DCR representatives repeated the lie that they had no intent to harm. The most visible of the liars, Richard Corsi, has justified the denial of intent to harm by claiming that starving them is not harming them. Corsi recently bragged in a public meeting that the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which replaced wetlands and animal habitat at Magazine Beach was keeping the Charles River White Geese from their food.
The Boston Sunday Globe printed a report on the attacks in early October 2004 which quoted this lie of Corsi’s right next to a photo of these hungry geese looking for their food at Magazine Beach but overwhelmed by construction equipment destroying their access.
The continued employment of Richard Corsi by the DCR shows very prominently the DCR’s contempt for the truth and for the environment.
(3) Animal habitat including wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries is falsely identified as in commercial use, industrial use, or transportation use.
According to Figure 5-1, the most delicate areas near the BU Bridge on the Charles River in Cambridge are in commercial use. These are animal habitat. They are wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries.
Full time users include the 25 year resident Charles River White Geese and permanent resident Pekin Ducks. Visitors include Canada Geese, Red-Tailed Hawks, Mallard Ducks, and many gulls. Rabbits have been seen in residence. Uses vary from open fields to temporary bizarre designer bushes which should be removed and should never have been introduced.
Many web sources are specified below with photographs and analysis truthfully identifying uses in this area.
Figure 5-1 misidentifies at least half of Magazine Beach to the west of the BU Bridge in Cambridge as commercial use.
An excellent photo of the DCR destroying wetlands abutting the Charles River in this area appeared in the Boston Globe, October 17, 2004 under the title “Battle of White Goose Beach.” There is a line in the middle of the commercial area west of the BU Bridge. That line could be the division between the playing fields / animal habitat and the MWRA plant which itself is covered with grass.
Figure 5-1 misidentifies the nesting area of the Charles River White geese, immediately to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, once again as commercial use.
A very recent photograph of this area appeared in the Boston Globe on September 14, 2008, in an article entitled “But who speaks for the Geese?” available on line at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/09/14/but_who_speaks_for_the_geese/. This photo gives a closeup on an Emden gander with a number of other geese behind him. Behind them are some of the little vegetation which has not yet been destroyed by the DCR between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse in the ongoing destruction since 2004.
In October 1999, Boston University acting for the DCR destroyed this area to plant grass. They put in a silly graveled walk. They called this a park. It was almost totally unused except by the animals whose homes were destroyed trying to remake their lives. The supposed pathway proceeded to wash into the Charles. Nature healed as many wounds as possible and the place grew back.
The DCR’s supposed Charles River Master Plan called for Magazine Beach to be a meadow to the river. There is a chance they may have changed their supposed Master Plan after the fact.
In September 2004, the DCR destroyed the wetlands at Magazine Beach next to the Charles River. They destroyed the protective vegetation lining the Charles River. They turned this area into a mudpit preventing access to the grass needed by the Charles River White Geese.
Simultaneously with this action, the City of Cambridge completed a sewer project east of the BU Bridge across from the Hyatt Hotel. They walled off that grass with plastic walls for no explained reason.
SIMULTANEOUSLY the DCR and its ally destroyed all the food of the Charles River White Geese by blocking their access and forced them to live only in a ghetto without eatable grass, the area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.
Since 2004, the DCR has simply destroyed the ground vegetation, destroying almost all of it between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, they dug it up and turned a vibrant ecosystem into bare land. Poisoning is likely since nothing has grown back where they have done their destruction.
In 2001-2004, there were several large scale, clearly professional instances of nest destruction with nesting geese “disappearing.” They were rather clearly killed and moved elsewhere for defending their nests, their eggs and their tiny babies.
In 2001, an individual obviously copycatting the DCR, killed many white geese on their nests. He then killed Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle.
The assassination of the leader of the gaggle led the 11 pm news on Channel 4. Channel 4 played the retrieval of his corpse from the river as the very first item on the news.
The Cambridge Chronicle dominated its front page with their report of our memorial service for Bumpy.
The DCR and Cambridge egged on the killer with the silence of consent in spite of repeated demands from the public for condemnation of the goose killings, stating that this nut was a threat to humans as well as to animals.
That fall, the animal killer graduated to rape and murder of a young woman. His group raped her where he had been beating to death nesting geese. His group murdered her on the Grand Junction railroad bridge.
The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing her rape and murder. The Cambridge City Council, after egging on her murderer with their silence, DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where she was victimized. The only one who mentioned the location, Councilor Henrietta Davis, promptly swallowed her words and looked around the room in a guilty manner.
Current supposed plans would destroy what little ground vegetation the DCR has not destroyed. A significant portion of the destruction is clearly unnecessary.
The DCR plans to reinstate the 1999 park construction which failed so miserably as opposed to the animal habitat which is vibrant except when attacked by the DCR.
Figure 5-1 misidentifies areas of woody perennials, trees abutting the Charles River to the east of the BU Bridge and on both sides of the Grand Junction railroad between the Charles River and Memorial Drive. All these areas are identified as commercial use.
Figure 5-1 misidentifies a heavily wooded area between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse as industrial use. All the ground vegetation in this area has been destroyed by the DCR.
The BU Boathouse could be properly identified as a water related use.
(4) A significant portion of the area right at water’s edge east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge is misidentified as transportation use.
It should properly be identified as open space or animal habitat.
(5) On the Boston side, pretty much everything west of the BU Bridge is identified as in transportation use. Much of that identification is false.
There is a large meadow immediately west of the BU Bridge which is also bounded by the Mass. Pike, the Grand Junction and Soldier’s Field Road. All of the waterfront between the BU Bridge and the River Street Bridge is animal habitat in a slope at and just above the water level and is developed parkland above this slope. The DCR is involved in ongoing attempts to destroy all animal life on the Charles River. There is an ongoing project next to the BU Bridge attacking wildlife and protective natural vegetation.
All these areas are falsely identified as in transportation use.
The meadow on the Boston side is proposed for the highway connecting the Grand Junction bridge and University Road. The Cambridge side would be destroyed for a lot of stuff identified and not identified. Staging and subordinate highways under various misleading names are most likely.
(6) The bizarre nature of figure 5-1 may be dramatically recognized by observing the photograph of “sector 6" which is part of Figure 5-4 (sectors 5-8) on page 5-33.
The BU Bridge crosses the river in the middle of the photograph. The heavily treed areas above (east) and below (west) on the left (Cambridge) side are identified in Figure 5-1 as industrial use. The meadow which is misidentified as transportation use is the green patch just below (west) of the right (south) end of the BU Bridge. All those trees to the left (north) of the meadow are called transportation use.
The sector 7 photograph on the same page is a much inferior view but it still shows a significant number of trees on the upper (south) side of the Charles River to the right (west) of the BU Bridge.
(7) Google maps.
The falsity of these statements in the document may be confirmed at maps.google.com, using the satellite view. These are large areas.
B. Table 5-5.B.
Table 5-5.B identifies uses near the BU Bridge as follows: Transportation 10.1%, residential, 35.5%, Recreational 0.0%, commercial 17.3%, industrial 0.0%, urban open space 12.7%, water 11.4%. This would rather clearly be based on the FALSE information discussed immediately above.
At absolute minimum, the recreational use is clearly erroneous. Designations of Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, the meadow east of the BU Bridge is almost certainly erroneous, similarly the woods bordering it and the woods between the Grand Junction Railroad and the BU Boathouse. Similarly, a very major part of Magazine Beach is misidentified.
As well, the meadow west of the BU Bridge and bounded also by Commonwealth Avenue, the Mass. Pike, the Grand Junction, and Soldier’s Field Road is misidentified as transportation use. Eyeballing the meadow west of the BU Bridge on Google Maps, it would appear to be about 150 to 200 feet square. This is not a small area of meadow, especially in the middle of a city.
Based on these problems, Table 5-6 on page 5-13, Summary of Anticipated ROW Impacts along the Urban Ring Project Corridor Based on Current Land Uses, seems highly suspect both for Cambridge and Boston. Notwithstanding this, the categories seem to be stacked against meaningful communication when animal habitat and open space is being destroyed.
C. Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2 on page 5-25 could possibly be correct but the results taken in real life demonstrate severe problems in the criteria.
I am looking at the area to the east of the water front animal habitat area being destroyed by the use of the Grand Junction Bridge. This area includes four red colored areas, two between Memorial Drive and Vassar Street, two north of Vassar Street. These four areas are MIT dorms / housing and include the school’s athletic fields. According to the explanation for the colors, these four areas satisfy both of the Social Justice criteria being evaluated. One of these areas could include a homeless shelter which is in a building rented from MIT and subject to conversion to MIT purposes at the end of the rental period.
A similar evaluation applies to much of the Boston University campus. The sea of red to the west of Kenmore Square has very little ownership other than by Boston University. The coloring immediately changes when leaving BU owned areas.
Each of the MIT and BU areas are very much exclusively university housing or other university facilities, although there are some business uses in very limited areas.
Both areas include hotels.
D. Section 5.5.2, Air Quality Modeling Analysis.
Section 5.5.2 is striking in its total lack of any information for the BU Bridge area.
E. Plants and animal species in habitat.
(1) General.
Section 5.7 purports to refer to plant and animal species in habitats. Section 5.7.2 concerns the BU Bridge area. Not mentioned is the antipathy of the DCR to animals living or visiting their property and the ongoing efforts by the DCR to destroy such life by whatever technique is open to it.
Nonetheless, the BU bridge area, IN SPITE OF GROSS MISBEHAVIOR by the DCR and its accomplices contains a vibrant population of living animals.
It very clearly is a waterfowl refuge. Failure to include it as such violates section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 codified 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 and implemented through Final Rule at 23 CFR 774, with a new rule March 2008 23 CRF 774.
Similarly, the riverbank on the south side of the Charles River west of the Grand Junction bridge is also a waterfowl refuge.
(2) The Charles River White Geese.
(A) Introduction.
Most valuable and very popular are the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.
The gaggle consists mostly of Emden Geese and White China Geese with a limited population of Toulouse Geese / Toulouse descendants. Some of the White China descendants bear vestigial Brown China markings.
For most of the past 30 years, they have lived in a habitat of about a mile east and west on the north side of the Charles River centering on the BU Bridge. Within that habitat, they did a minimigration, living in other parts of the habitat for 9 months of the year, and returning to their nesting area in the spring for mating and rearing of the young. The Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese is the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side.
They are a unique population. They are a tourist attraction which surprises people who encounter them. People go out of their way to visit them from various Boston suburbs. They are popular with local commuters who enjoy their beauty. If properly publicized they would be an even more valuable part of the Charles River world.
These are free animals who have survived on their own with very little human assistance for nearly 30 years until Cambridge and the DCR started their ongoing attempts to destroy them.
The uniqueness of a free gaggle of waterfowl which has lived in this wild area surrounded by civilization for nearly three decades and which has maintained a continuity of community cannot be understated.
(B) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
The DCR has noted the importance of the Charles River White Geese by the DCR’s repeated and flat out lies over the past ten years that the DCR had no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. The DCR defines starving the Charles River White Geese as not harming them. The DCR defines as taking the most environmentally destructive possible alternatives in various projects as not harming them.
(C) Heartless Animal Abusers sound strikingly like heartless wife abusers.
The DCR has irresponsibly confined the Charles River White Geese to the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side, directly impacted by Grand Junction plans. The statement that these proposals (page 5-67, section 5.7.2, Environment Consequences) “would not result in adverse impacts” is a knowing lie. The characterization of this important gaggle as “low value” is similarly a knowing lie.
(D) Wide recognition of value.
The beauty of these excellent and unique animals may be viewed at the follow sites. Their importance, their very presence, and the presence of many other animals, may be recognized through the fact that this list includes but a portion of the references obtained through Google. I offer this information and these citations in response to the continued lies coming out of the DCR:
• The Charles River White Geese website: http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org.
• The Charles River White Geese blog: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com.
• Historic Pages Photo Appreciation, proving historical analysis dating back to 1989: http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.
• Della Huff’s Show on goslings: http://www.pbase.com/dellybean/goslings
• Roy Bercaw: Visit to the Charles River White Geese, June 16, 2007: http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/06/charles-river-white-geese-June-16-2007.html.
• Roy Bercaw, A day at the Goose Meadow, April 2000 (note date in framing portion differs from the date in the video): http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends-of-charles-river-white-geese.html
• Cambridge Candle, January-February 1999: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html
• Zip Docs 02139, documentary about Charles River White Geese: http://cctvcambridge.org/node/2037
• MOVIE: “White Geese” by Akai Hoto, on deviantART: http://akaihato.deviantart.com/art/MOVIE-quot-White-Geese-quot-25167453
• Pictures taken along the Charles, 2004.07.16: http://www.aq.org/js/gallery/2004.07.16-charles/
• Freeman A. Report: 07/22/01, Charles River Wildlife Killings, The Charles River White Geese: http://www.freemanz.com/fzdc/political/01_07_22/index.htm
• Radio Boston, The Charles River (photos of the White Geese): http://www.flickr.com/groups/782470@N21/pool/with/2566129288/
• Charles River White Geese, YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM
• Photos of the Charles River White Geese, Linden Tea: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linden_tea/2196474800/
• iNaturalist.org report, observations by Tueda: http://inaturalist.org/observations/185
• White Geese video by Amy Rothwell: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6983789396318540077
• Fun on Foot in America’s Cities by Warwick Ford, Nola Ford: The Cambridge White Geese greet visitors: http://books.google.com/books?id=gAmIj4gh_7oC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22Charles+River%22+and+%22White+Geese%22&source=bl&ots=qUMjZm1ZPN&sig=2IRf_Rnz7cnP1xX4IkEB31x9wr8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
I will post this letter at charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com to simplify checking of these citations.
The Grand Junction rail and bridge use would be devastating to this valuable and threatened population of animals.
(3) Other residents and visitors.
The meadow to which the DCR in its extreme misbehavior has confined the Charles River White Geese also has included hawks, sea gulls, Canadas and various types of ducks. It is a haven for migratory waterfowl in spite of nearly ten years of DCR misbehavior.
Rabbits and other rodents are commonly visible.
F. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.
This ongoing pattern of lying would appear to come from the severe lack of fitness of key people in the DCR for their jobs. The mentality of these individuals is very clearly parks surrounded by cities. They rather clearly attack and destroy living creatures in their jurisdiction under whatever guise presents itself.
These individuals have no use for any areas which are wild as opposed to urban. They are aggressively destroying the wild areas on the Charles River because the wild areas on the Charles River do not fit their preconceived and incompetent ideas.
These individuals are very simply and aggressively unfit to manage environmentally sensitive environments because their reflexes are the reflexes of the 19th century. Their agents brag of support for 19th Century standards. 19th Century standards in turn caused so much environmental destruction. 19th Century standards continue to destroy our world because incompetents such as the DCR managers are so actively implementing the 19th Century equivalent of environmental management.
The DCR has a goal of and actively works for the driving away or killing water fowl in the water habitats of and near the Charles River controlled by the DCR. This is in sharp contrast to responsible environmentalists who object to the ongoing destruction of areas used by and needed for the survival of migrating waterfowl.
This is exactly the opposite of the goals of these reviews which are to safeguard wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries.
The key DCR people are unfit for their jobs.
G. Wetlands Designation.
On Page 5-73, the southern portion of the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, immediately east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side, is specifically protected as wetlands.
H. Estimated Water Resources Impacts by Alternative (acres), Table 5-21, page 5-80.
This shows 0.300 acres impacted for segment B, sector 6. This should include that portion of the Charles River bounded by the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge, by the BU Bridge, and by animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, the area to which the DCR has consigned the resident waterfowl by its misbehavior, misbehavior which can and should be reversed as a condition for the approval of this approval. The text on page 5-82 seems to indicate impact.
I. Wetlands Impacts, Table 5-22, page 5-80.
This shows 0.27 acres impacted for segment B, sector 6. This should include the animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, the area to which the DCR has consigned the resident waterfowl by its misbehavior, misbehavior which can and should be reversed as a condition for this approval.
The text at the bottom of page 5-82 seems to indicate otherwise.
I would suggest that the conditions listed in the supplement to this report be made conditions for approval if it is approved and I do not think it should be approved.
J. Estimated Filled Tideland Impacts by Alternatives (Acres), table 5-23, page 5-81.
0.39 acres is listed as impacted for segment B, sector 6. I presume this is the animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, the area to which the DCR has consigned the resident waterfowl by its misbehavior, misbehavior which can and should be reversed as a condition for the approval of this approval. The text on page 5-82 seems to downplay impact. Impact should not be downplayed.
I would suggest that the conditions listed in the supplement to this report be made conditions for approval if it is approved and I do not think it should be approved.
K. Environmental Consequences. Analysis on page 5-82.
Does not include discussion of the likely major impact on the animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. This directly abuts the Grand Junction Railroad and Bridge. “Incidental” impact is likely to be major.
I would suggest that the conditions listed in the supplement to this report be made conditions for approval if it is approved and I do not think it should be approved.
L. Section 5.15.3.1, affected environment, on page 5-143
This section mentions Charles River Reservation but makes no mention of water fowl habitat / refuge.
On the Boston side, this section mentions the Charles River Esplanade on the east. It makes no mention of the meadow bounded by the BU Bridge, the Mass. Pike, the Grand Junction Railroad and Soldiers Field Road through which would pass the connector from the highway proposed for the Grand Junction bridge to the underpass under the BU Bridge.
M. Table 5-45, Areas of Moderate to Severe Impact in Section B, on page 5-146.
Sector 6 mentions modifications to Memorial Drive and Grand Junction railroad bridge.
There is no mention whatsoever of the water fowl habit on either side, between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse and on the south bank of the Charles west of the BU Bridge.
The project would be devastating to Charles River Wild Geese and to the many other geese, ducks and other water birds which use this area as a refuge.
N. Comment from President Obama’s Inaugural Address.
The following comment stood out to me in our president’s inaugural address.
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
I have given a very small fraction of the wide variety of techniques of deceit to which we have been exposed by the DCR, Cambridge and their friends since the attacks on the Charles River started in October 1999.
In the middle of the environmental destruction the DCR and Cambridge responded to the killing of Nesting Geese and of the leader of the gaggle with a silence of support.
Their follower reached a climax with the rape and murder of a young woman in the Nesting Area and on the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
What is the difference between flat out silencing dissent and creating a company union organization funded by developer dollars which runs around claiming to be defending the Charles River while aggressively destroying it? This creates a wall for those who want to defend the Charles by the creation of a group which sounds great and destroys positive attempts to meaningfully defend the Charles River, as well as destroys the environment of the Charles River.
This is the standard function of a Company Union.
This is the so-called Charles River Conservancy, an entity which has acted as the agent of the DCR in destroying eggs of waterfowl and protective vegetation for more than five years now. In 2005, the Charles River Conservancy conducted a photo opportunity at Magazine Beach claiming that the 2004 destruction of the wetlands and food access made swimming easier. This was the creation of the bizarre wall of INTRODUCED vegetation BLOCKING OFF Magazine Beach from the Charles River and starving the White Geese.
The DCR has commonly worked through agents and then denied the actions of its agents as its actions. This is one of the many techniques of lying.
In that first attack on the environment of the Charles River in October 1999, the DCR worked through Boston University. Boston University started the destruction BEFORE a hearing scheduled on the matter in front of the Cambridge Conservation Commission, and completed the destruction before they were legally allowed to start any destruction.
Boston University then denied doing the destruction until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission six months later. Boston University then blamed the denials on the president’s secretary and starting bragging about the environmental destruction.
I have since objected to the highest levels of the DCR about Charles River Conservancy destructiveness ACTING AS AGENT for the DCR, poisoning waterfowl eggs, destroying protective ground vegetation. The response at a public meeting conducted in the boathouse just west of the Longfellow Bridge in Boston amounted to:
That is the Charles River Conservancy, what are we supposed to do?
At a recent meeting of a body appointed by the Cambridge City Manager, the DCR specifically admitted and accepted responsibility for environmental destructiveness by the Charles River Conservancy using politically correct words.
A flat out lie of lack of responsibility in a public meeting translates into reality when talking to political appointees appointed by a fellow destroyer.
In my analysis, I do my best to ignore fake distinctions pushed by the DCR. Lies are lies are lies. And claiming there is a distinction among the many skillful lying techniques is one of too many flat out lies.
It would be nice if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a government in reality which matches our government’s lovely claims of openness and of environmental concern.
5. Specific structural aspects of the proposal. Chapter 2, locally preferred alternative.
A. Bus proposals.
As stated above, it is entirely possible that the bus proposal makes sense outside the Cambridge to LMA and Allston portions of the proposal, with or without later subway construction. Bus routing in Cambridge to LMA and Allston portions is quite silly.
First of all, overlapping bus routes (page 2-3) are nothing but overlapping bus routes. They are not a rapid transit system.
B. Longwood Medical Area Tunnel.
The Fenway/LMA bus tunnel is an expenditure of $1.7 billion dollars for a bus tunnel that contains one bus stop? Bizarre, especially since the buses would leave the tunnel and drive in city rush hour traffic and be subject to the normal results. Equally bizarre in that there are now three alternatives for the northern portion of the tunnel.
The tunnel connecting to a Yawkey - Kenmore station under Brookline Avenue over the Mass. Pike as part of the Kenmore (heavy rail) subway crossing makes excellent sense in a proposal which is implementing heavy rail. It should be constructed connecting directly to Ruggles and to the Kenmore - Yawkey station as the first phase of an ultimate Urban Ring subway line. It should be constructed as a spur off the Orange Line. That would be the first portion of a heavy rail Urban Ring line. As part of phase 2, it would make excellent sense.
Even without the ultimate Urban Ring line extension, such a first subway stage could handle an Orange Line alternate route from Oak Grove to Ruggles to Kenmore. This would drastically increase transportation possibilities for LMA and Kenmore travelers, including Fenway Park.
At the Ruggles end, the train tunnel could be an alternate route for Orange Line trains. At the Kenmore-Yawkey end, the trains could operate in the same manner as the existing Alewife Station on the Red Line: two trains could stand at the Kenmore-Yawkey stop at a time, picking up passengers, with a switch just before arriving at the Kenmore — Yawkey stop.
Running trains through to a temporary terminus at Kenmore — Yawkey would eliminate the need for a rather duplicative stop next to the Riverside line at Park Drive, the current Fenway Park station, proposed as part of the LMA tunnel.
This could be phase 1 of full implementation of Urban Ring heavy rail, the Kenmore crossing.
Depending on the direction of the connection at Ruggles, people traveling traveling to or from Kenmore or the Longwood Medical Area could have one stop travel to any point on the existing Orange Line even without full implementation of the Urban Ring.
C. Kenmore (Heavy Rail) v. BU Bridge (Light Rail) Crossing.
(1) General.
I have worked on the Urban Ring since about 1985 because it is an excellent concept. The idea is to take pressure off the increasingly overloaded central subway system in Boston. The idea is to create a new subway line connecting the existing spokes so that people do not have to go into Downtown Boston to go from one outer point to another outer point.
There are two possible crossings of the Charles River, the Kenmore Crossing (which I first suggested in 1986), and the BU Bridge crossing. I suggested the Kenmore Crossing because the BU Bridge crossing is so destructive to the environment of the Charles River, and because of that silly stop in Cambridgeport, the Putnam Avenue/Fort Washington stop. As it has developed, details have come out under which the Kenmore Crossing is increasingly more superior. So naturally, the dirty tricks have started.
The Urban Ring subway would run from Charlestown / Somerville to Roxbury. There are variations as to how far it would go in either direction.
The environmental problem is at the Charles River.
The two possible Urban Ring Charles River crossings each connect proposed stations in Cambridge and in the Longwood Medical Area. The Cambridge station which is not controversial would be at Massachusetts Avenue where Massachusetts Avenue crosses what is now the Grand Junction railroad track. This track is located between Albany and Vassar Streets, near the heart of the MIT Campus. The Longwood stop seems to be getting firm at Avenue Louis Pasteur and Longwood Avenue.
(2) Kenmore Crossing.
The Kenmore Crossing would proceed under the Grand Junction tracks and then turn south under the MIT playing fields and under the Charles River to Kenmore Square. It would have a station under Brookline Avenue over the Massachusetts Turnpike. At that point, it would connect to the three Green Line branches going to Brookline, Newton, and Allston, and to the Commuter Rail coming in from Framingham and Worcester. It would provide a covered connection between the Commuter Rail Yawkey Station and the existing Kenmore Station. This station would provide excellent connection to Fenway Park. It would be heavy rail, Orange Line technology, which would allow the trains to run as alternate service / extensions on the existing Orange Line as well.
(3) The BU Bridge crossing.
The BU Bridge Crossing would be light rail, streetcars. It would have two additional stops. It would stop in Cambridge at the end of Putnam Avenue where it hits the railroad tracks near Fort Washington Park. It would then, by the original plans, proceed under the Charles River. This passage would cause severe damage to the environmentally sensitive area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse where the Charles River White Geese and other animals live whereas the Kenmore crossing is environmentally neutral.
Directly against the Massachusetts Turnpike there would be a stop at Mountfort and St. Mary’s. This is one block from the heart of the BU Campus, Morse Chapel. At this point, the BU Bridge crossing would connect to the Commonwealth Avenue (B) branch of the Green Line and connect to the Framingham-Worcester line. Connection to the Commonwealth Avenue line would be by a tunnel under St. Mary’s Street to the southern sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue. Commuters would then have to cross Commonwealth Avenue traffic exposed to the weather to get to one of the three Green Line branches.
Commuter Rail would not have direct connection to the other two Green Line branches, and would overload the Commonwealth Avenue line during morning rush hour. The original plans called for Yawkey Station to be moved away from Fenway Park so that it would be next to Mountfort Station, drastically reducing support for Fenway Park.
The line would proceed to a new station located under Park Drive about two blocks away. The new station would directly connect to the existing Fenway Park station on the Riverside (D) branch on one side and to a new station under Beacon Street on the Cleveland Circle ( C ) branch.
(4) Comparison of BU Bridge Crossing to Kenmore Crossing:
• The connections to the three western Green Line branches would be accomplished by two stations two blocks from each other instead of one station which would also connect to commuter rail,
• Commuter rail transfers would be made drastically inferior,
• Support for Fenway Park would be drastically inferior,
• The purpose of the Urban Ring would be drastically degraded because light rail is incredibly slower than heavy rail, and
• Green Line vehicles would not be able to switch off onto the Orange Line, providing greatly inferior flexibility of the system.
• The clear inferiority of the BU Bridge crossing is itself an environmental defect because that inferiority makes this crossing pretty much impossible to get meaningful riders off the central subway.
• In addition to pushing buses and environmental destruction for an area which should have the heavy rail subway, the existing proposal would make the heavy rail subway impossible in favor of the far inferior light rail subway. This is accomplished by the highway construction proposed for the BU Bridge area.
D. Kenmore Crossing — Initial phase conducted as part of Phase 2.
The proposed phase 2 second stop on the busway at the existing Fenway Park station is duplicative. If the tunnel runs as a heavy rail tunnel to Kenmore/Yawkey, the money could be much better spent on the really valuable Kenmore station as the temporary terminus of the Urban Ring subway.
The proposed portals in the phase 2 proposal are flatly and simply silly.
Please note that building an initial phase of the Urban Ring subway from Ruggles to Kenmore would in no way prevent possible extension of the Urban Ring subway to Dudley or Dorchester.
Just as a connection to Kenmore/LMA can be accomplished by switches west of Ruggles, switches east of Ruggles could connect to a spur / Urban Ring subway to Dudley or Dorchester. The western switch would support traffic to / from Malden, Downtown Crossing going to / from the LMA/Kenmore. The eastern switch would support traffic to / from Forest Hills connecting to / from Dudley or Dorchester. Traffic traveling to / from Dudley or Dorchester to / from the LMA, Kenmore and further Urban Ring points would simply go through both switches.
This bus thing is a very expensive, silly one bus stop bus way.
E. Allston proposal.
The fetish for buses gets carried to a silly extreme in the Allston proposal.
The proposal is silly, especially when compared to the obvious alternative rapid transit service.
Access by Green Line on a spur from the Commonwealth Avenue line at the BU Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue is simple, relatively inexpensive and highly efficient. Connection can be made directly to Harvard Station through the subway tunnel which continues to exist coming out of the busway and running to the wall between Harvard’s JFK School and the Charles Hotel.
The southern/eastern end of the Green Line spur can readily be constructed, first by placing switches on the existing Green Line tracks and extending those spurs over the highway and then over the edge of that bridge. The Green Line spur can be constructed on air rights over the commuter rail south of the Massachusetts Turnpike. The air rights light rail route can readily continue over the Beacon Yard and can easily be run over Cambridge Street to Harvard’s new boulevard where it can proceed to be built cut and cover.
The slope of the Mass. Pike south of Cambridge Street is ideal for running the Green Line spur over it.
The Green Line spur can continue under the new boulevard to North Harvard Street, then go around Harvard Stadium. There would be room west of Harvard Stadium for sidings for layovers. The Green Line spur can continue underground and under the Charles with a very direct route under JFK Park and minimal damage to JFK Park and minimal costs to connect directly to Harvard Station’s Red by way of the existing busway. The busway functions as Silver Line routes. Ready connections can be made to them as well.
Should the Beacon Yards no longer be needed for freight use, the Beacon Yards could readily be converted to Green Line storage. Access would be easy by a spur run off the overhead Green Line spur.
Once again, failure to propose and study this obvious Green Line spur as an alternative to the bus nonsense in Allston is an environment defect because the spur would be so clearly superior to the bus nonsense and could get people out of cars.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
cc:
Ned Codd
Director of Program Development
Exec. Office of Transportation and Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
Governor Deval Patrick
Massachusetts State House
Room 360
Boston, MA 02133
Cambridge City Council
c/o City Clerk, City Hall
795 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
Addendum: What to do about the Charles River?
The problem on the Charles River is a subset of man’s destruction of our world, but with the added hypocrisy of holier than thou nonsense in Cambridge and a wide variety of lying from the state bureaucracy.
Cambridge and the state bureaucrats are aggressive implementors of the failed and very destructive policies of the 19th Century, but they are implementing those policies in the 21st Century, destroying what little of nature has not been destroyed to date in the areas under their control.
Cambridge has been on the receiving end of a Civil Rights suit and a very strong jury verdict which is now under review by the judge. The jury found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of a black, woman Cape Verdean department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. This case could result in very major sanctions. The jury called for $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages. That case, at least in theory, could clean up Cambridge.
The state bureaucrats and their lies and their accomplices are the more immediate problem.
Key people in the DCR are quite simply unfit for their positions because of their contempt for the environment which is their trust. The most visible problem, Richard (Frederick?) Corsi, very clearly has demonstrated lack of fitness for his office, combining environmentally vile behavior, heartless animal abuse, and rather proud and public lying. To him, at minimum, should be joined the current DCR commissioner and Julia O’Brian, the woman who was head of planning for the then Metropolitan District Commission at the beginning of this continuing outrage.
I propose:
1. Chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else.
2. Return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap.
3. Kill the new, expensive drainage system at Magazine Beach. Green maintenance does not require this expenditure.
4. Let the Charles River White Geese return to Magazine Beach, their home of 25 years.
5. Let them return to their nesting area, the location of the current proposal for environmental destruction, as they deem necessary.
6. Put the staging for the BU Bridge repair project where it was for the BU Bridge sidewalk project, a location which is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.
7. To the extent these requirements delay the BU Bridge repair project, so be it. The DCR has scheduled things for maximum destruction. Minor delays for responsible behavior comport to the delays the DCR has already incurred in the area attempting to introduce vegetation at Magazine Beach which is unfit for planting on the Charles River. It should be noted that former Transportation Secretary Frederick Salvucci has publicly advocated delay of the BU Bridge repair project to coordinate it with needed work on the Boston side.
8. Prohibit the continuation of destruction of protective vegetation lining the Charles River. Require twice annual chopping to one foot of the bizarre designer vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach, or, better yet, require its removal. Prohibit the continued poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl.
9. Change the drainage to the Cambridge side in the BU Bridge repair project so that the draining goes into the existing Memorial Drive drainage. The complicated system IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ANIMAL HABITAT is just another technique to destroy the natural environment for which the DCR has such great contempt. Just another piece of bad faith.
10. Prohibit further work of any nature impacting the Charles River by the so-called Charles River Conservancy.
11. End the plans to destroy more than 449 to 660 healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.
12. End the plans to destroy all the cherry trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.
13. Fire the destructive managers at the DCR.
The environmental destructiveness of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project on the Charles River is most definitely NOT free standing but fits in with directly related environmental destruction efforts by the DCR and Cambridge. The coordination should be modified to minimize environmental destruction. Currently, the coordination maximizes environmental destruction.
Endnotes [ed: were footnotes in submittal, this format does not permit footnotes]
1. They used the phrase "humane treatment." When I sarcastically proposed "humane treatment" for the rep in a flier, he went on local cable accusing me of proposing that he be assassinated. Another technique of lying.
2. The level of control exercised by the Cambridge City Manager over his appointees is demonstrated by the ongoing case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court Case MICV2001-02737. In this Civil Rights action, the plaintiff is a black Cape Verdean woman who was a department head in the City of Cambridge.
The jury found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed her life (fired her) in retaliation for her filing a Civil Rights complaint. The jury awarded $1.1 million plus real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.
The judge is considering the verdict. It will be interesting to see if she orders the city manager fired and stripped of his pension. I am familiar with the docket and press reports of the case. The papers are on the judge's desk. The docket spells out a previous motion for judment by the judge which was rejected by the previous judge in the case.
The Cambridge City Manager has been quoted in the press as saying that the judge erred by not telling the jury that the plaintiff's Civil Rights complaint was rejected by the prior jury. There is no way that a bad civil rights complaint gives the Cambridge City Manager the right to destroy an employee's life in retaliation.
3. The use of the term "light rails" for subway proposals is very visible among people who have been active in the Cambridge City Manager's company union organizations in Cambridge. These "activists" seem to have very major positioning in the local chapter of at least one supposedly national environmental organization.
On February 9, 2009, I delivered by hand a hard copy of the following to MEPA with regard to the Urban Ring Phase 2.
This blog format does not convert footnotes from word processing programs. I have manually inserted the footnote notations in the text and have retyped them as endnotes placed at the very end of the report.
On February 10, 2009, I sent an electronic version to Mr. Bourre at his listed email.
**************
Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
ATTN: MEPA Office, EOEA #12565
Richard Bourre, Assistant Director
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
RE: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report / Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project
Contents.
1. Introductory.
A. General Concerns.
B. Specific Environmental Defects: Falsehoods and Omissions.
C. I have no intent to ascribe lies to the authors of this report.
D. What I support. Major environmental omissions in Analysis.
E. My background.
(1) Urban Ring.
(2) Railroad and legal experience.
(3) Environmental Experience on the Charles.
(4) Environmental Experience using Zoning and Rent Control.
(5) Environmental Experience Protecting Valuable Trees against the City of Cambridge.
2. General defects which doom the proposed report.
A. Introductory.
B. It does not consider all reasonable alternatives.
(1) Alternatives incorporated in Phase 3.
(2) Initial heavy rail phase in place of bus tunnel.
(3) Light Rail in Allston to support Harvard’s relocated Medical School, etc.
(4) The RDEIR/DEIS violates the terms on which the secretary’s order of May 20, 2005, was based.
C. Environmental Chapter.
3. Terminology tricks used by supporters of the BU Bridge crossing.
4. Environmental Chapter.
A. Overview.
B. Figure 5-1 contains blatant falsehoods.
(1) Introduction.
(2) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
(3) Animal habitat including wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries is falsely identified as in commercial use, industrial use, or transportation use.
(4) A significant portion of the area right at water’s edge east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge is misidentified as transportation use.
(5) On the Boston side, pretty much everything west of the BU Bridge is identified as in transportation use. Much of that identification is false.
(6) The bizarre nature of figure 5-1 may be dramatically recognized by observing the photograph of “sector 6" which is part of Figure 5-4 (sectors 5-8) on page 5-33.
(7) Google maps.
B. Table 5-5.B.
C. Figure 5-2.
D. Section 5.5.2, Air Quality Modeling Analysis.
E. Plants and animal species in habitat.
(1) General.
(2) The Charles River White Geese.
(A) Introduction.
(B) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
(C) Heartless Animal Abusers sound strikingly like heartless wife abusers.
(D) Wide recognition of value.
(3) Other residents and visitors.
F. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.
G. Wetlands Designation.
H. Estimated Water Resources Impacts by Alternative (acres), Table 5-21, page 5-80.
I. Wetlands Impacts, Table 5-22, page 5-80.
J. Estimated Filled Tideland Impacts by Alternatives (Acres), table 5-23, page 5-81.
K. Environmental Consequences. Analysis on page 5-82.
L. Section 5.15.3.1, affected environment, on page 5-143
M. Table 5-45, Areas of Moderate to Severe Impact in Section B, on page 5-146.
N. Comment from President Obama’s Inaugural Address.
5. Specific structural aspects of the proposal. Chapter 2, locally preferred alternative.
A. Bus proposals.
B. Longwood Medical Area Tunnel.
C. Kenmore (Heavy Rail) v. BU Bridge (Light Rail) Crossing.
(1) General.
(2) Kenmore Crossing.
(3) The BU Bridge crossing.
(4) Comparison of BU Bridge Crossing to Kenmore Crossing:
D. Kenmore Crossing — Initial phase conducted as part of Phase 2.
E. Allston proposal.
Addendum: What to do about the Charles River?
Endnotes [ed: were footnotes in submittal, this format does not permit footnotes]
Sir:
1. Introductory.
A. General Concerns.
My concerns about this report are threefold:
• General defects which doom the proposal.
• Specific environmental defects of the proposal.
• Specific structural aspects of the proposal.
B. Specific Environmental Defects: Falsehoods and Omissions.
My analysis includes objecting to false statements and inexcusable omissions about land use, animal habitat, quality of animal residents and environmental quality on the Charles River in the environmental section. In part, I document my objections on photographic evidence elsewhere in the RDEIR/DEIS. I also cite URL’s for large amounts of evidence on the Internet.
I find these defects not surprising. My decade long experience with the Department of Conservation and Recreation has exposed me to a large variety of techniques of deceit pretty much all of which I simply consider lying. I will hereafter refer to this agency as the DCR regardless of the name it was using at the time. I will not waste your time making a distinction among names.
My analysis includes one key flat out lie, that the DCR would do “no harm” to the Charles River White Geese. The DCR has repeated this lie many times over the past nine years in the DCR’s ongoing fight to destroy the environment of the Charles River, and to obscure its heartless animal abuse.
The obviousness of this flat out lie and the very great frequency of times it has been made reenforces exactly the value and importance of the Charles River White Geese. This is in aposition to that other status repeatedly proclaimed by the DCR.
A person continues in management capacity who has repeatedly promised “to do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese and who has starved them, confined them to a tiny part of their mile long habitat and then destroyed almost all the vegetation in the ghetto to which he has confined them. This person’s continued presence clearly demonstrates the moral, intellectual and environmental depravity of the DCR.
These defects in the package are consistent with the pattern of DCR falsehoods.
C. I have no intent to ascribe lies to the authors of this report.
Please note that, while repeatedly objecting to lies, I, in no way, ascribe the falsehoods to the team managing the Urban Ring package.
The original manager for the MBTA is a good friend.
I have no reason to have negative personal thoughts about the current Urban Ring team either.
D. What I support. Major environmental omissions in Analysis.
I initially proposed the Kenmore (Heavy Rail) crossing for the Urban Ring subway in 1986 about six years before the state started to recognize it as an option. I proposed it because it makes sense from a transportation point of view and corrects the very real environmental defects in the preexisting BU Bridge (light rail) crossing.
I understand the Cambridge-Longwood portion of the proposal and the Allston portion.
The busway proposals could very likely make sense outside this core subway and Allston area, either solely or in a mix with subway construction. The fact that they could make sense outside this area does not mean that the busway proposals should be forced on an area where they quite simply do not make sense.
As part of Phase 2, I support heavy rail subway using the Longwood Medical Area tunnel with direct connection to the Orange Line at Ruggles. I support a longer tunnel in Phase 2 ending at a temporary terminus at Kenmore/Yawkey. The modified tunnel would work well as the beginning part of an Urban Ring heavy rail subway using the Kenmore Charles River crossing. Failure to analyze such a heavy rail use as an alternative to the LMA bus tunnel is a major defect in this proposal report.
As stated in greater detail below, Allston service should be provided with a Green Line, light rail, spur running from the Commonwealth Avenue / BU Bridge intersection through Harvard Allston to the still existing Harvard Square subway tunnel. Connection can be made to Harvard Station by the existing busways. Failure to analyze such a heavy rail use as an alternative to the silly bus spaghetti proposed is a major defect in this proposal.
The Urban Ring project should provide meaningful transportation improvements. Bureaucratic intransigence is no excuse for doing these bizarre bus proposals, things which are downright silly and which include destructive parts of the BU Bridge crossing alternative currently called part of Phase 3.
E. My background.
(1) Urban Ring.
I have worked on the Urban Ring project since the mid 80's. I first proposed the Kenmore crossing six years before it became part of the official analysis.
(2) Railroad and legal experience.
I have two years on the ground railroad experience.
I am a lawyer in civil practice.
(3) Environmental Experience on the Charles.
I am the co-CEO of Friends of the White Geese, a Massachusetts non-profit founded in 2000 to defend the environment and the animals of the Charles River. One of the first acts of Friends of the White Geese was to discredit “Friends of Magazine Beach,” a group with connections to the Cambridge City Manager which had been fighting for environmental destruction in the BU Bridge area.
It was not long after this occurred that the “Charles River Conservancy” announced itself with overlapping membership to the “Friends of Magazine Beach.” This entity, with major developer funding, has proceeded to be involved in very heavy destruction of animal habitat, protective vegetation and the eggs of waterfowl. They have done these things as agent for the DCR.
Friends of the White Geese has been very active in the years since our creation. To date, we have prevented the outright killing of the Charles River White Geese. Killing them was advocated by the local State Representative and the MSPCA in a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle on August 4, 2000[1].
Friends of the White Geese has minimized the effectiveness of many lies which have been put out those who seek to destroy the environment of the Charles River and the many animals living near or visiting the Charles River. The lies include outrageous nonsense about the Charles River White Geese. I will analyze the Charles River White Geese in detail below.
To put it succinctly, unfounded insults have been tossed at these beautiful, valuable creatures by those working to destroy the Charles River’s environment. These insults most effectively demonstrate that heartless animal abusers sound a lot like heartless wife beaters when they are talking about their victims.
The Charles River White Geese are not the only targets of this ongoing campaign of destruction targeted at the animals of the Charles River. They are, however, the most visible and the most beloved.
(4) Environmental Experience using Zoning and Rent Control.
I have major downzoning victories. I have protected key and very visible parts of the environment in the City of Cambridge. Working as legal advisor, strategy advisor, and institutional memory for various groups, I, by vote of the Cambridge City Council, have protected ground level open space, housing and air quality while emphasizing reasonable levels of construction.
One of my victories forced the Inn at Harvard on Harvard University rather than a 72% larger building without surrounding open space and without the beauty of its varied walls. This victory was part of a series of downzonings which provided responsible protections for about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares.
Another victory, using rent control regulations, saved an historical building in a key Harvard Square location from needless destruction by Harvard. Again, the individual who was the most visible enemy in that fight has been active in Cambridge City Manager related initiatives.
Groups similar to the “Charles River Conservancy,” with connections to the Cambridge City Manager, are very active and very destructive in the City of Cambridge. My biggest problem in my environmental activities has been self-proclaimed “activists” with undisclosed ties to the Cambridge City Manager’s people. The self-proclaimed “activists” too often achieve exactly the opposite of what they claim to stand for.
(5) Environmental Experience Protecting Valuable Trees against the City of Cambridge.
On appeal, I obtained a preliminary injunction against Cambridge to prevent the needless destruction of what was one of the city’s best parks, a densely developed park consisting of a grove of about 30 one hundred plus year old trees.
The trial judge found that that park was not a park. The judge allowed major destruction as part of a proposal which promised many saplings in a nearby location. The Cambridge City Manager’s people bragged about something like 50 saplings being planted elsewhere when they destroyed the one hundred plus year old trees.
The saplings have since reached maturity. Almost all of the many saplings, fully grown, have recently been destroyed by the City of Cambridge. Destruction was for the obvious Phase 2 of the project which destroyed the hundred plus year old trees.
A Cambridge City Manager related group fought for the destruction of the hundred plus year old trees. Very recently, people who had been taken in by the City Manager’s friends were shocked when the replacement saplings were destroyed after reaching full growth.
The latest insult is a proposal to deck over the tiny park which has the remnants of those now one hundred thirty plus year old trees so that this undestroyed remnant of the ancient trees become very large potted plants.
The City of Cambridge is one of the principal actors in the ongoing destruction of the Charles River environment.
The key “regulators” are appointees of the environmentally destructive Cambridge City Manager[2].
2. General defects which doom the proposed report.
A. Introductory.
There are four basic defects which doom the proposed report.
• It does not consider all reasonable alternatives.
• It violates the secretary’s order of May 20, 2005.
• The environmental chapter includes clear and key falsehoods.
• The environmental chapter has significant omissions.
Your attention is drawn to the bottom of page 6 of the Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated May 20, 2005. Please note in the SCOPE section the first paragraph under “Project Phasing,” which states the following in sentences 2 and 3:
. . . the Revised DEIR should demonstrate that the implementation of Phase 2 would not adversely affect the implementation of Phase 3. I strongly encourage the MBTA to work towards implementing Phase 1 and to reconsider the phasing of the project to advance certain elements of Phase 3, which is proposed to use dedicated rights-of-way to provide heavy rail, light rail, BRT or some combination of these modes and would engender greater support for the Urban Ring concept as a whole than the implementation of Phase 2, which would rely heavily on buses in mixed traffic.
B. It does not consider all reasonable alternatives.
The submittal fails the most basic of requirements for an Environmental Impact Report by failing to consider having rail possibilities being accomplished in place of bus alternatives incorporated in Phase 2.
(1) Alternatives incorporated in Phase 3.
The submittal fails the most basic of requirements for an Environmental Impact Report by failing to consider having either of the two rail possibilities being accomplished at the same time as Phase 2 in place of bus alternatives incorporated in Phase 2.
The draft report fails to consider going forward with the Heavy Rail (Kenmore Crossing) or Light Rail (BU Bridge Crossing) Subway alternatives instead of going forward with the bus nonsense in those areas. These are simply designated by fiat as being in Phase 3.
(2) Initial heavy rail phase in place of bus tunnel.
As stated in detail below, it would make excellent sense IN PHASE 2 OF THE URBAN RING to use the proposed LMA bus tunnel instead as the initial phase of the heavy rail Kenmore Crossing alternative Urban Ring subway.
The LMA tunnel used as heavy rail could be connected directly to the Orange Line at Ruggles Station and have a temporary terminus at the Kenmore-Yawkey station. The Kenmore-Yawkey station is proposed to be located under Brookline Ave. over the Mass. Pike as part of the Kenmore crossing Urban Ring heavy rail alternative.
This initial phase Urban Ring heavy rail could be operated as a spur off the Orange Line and would provide direct service between Kenmore and the LMA on one end and Downtown Crossing, Tufts Medical Center and North Station, Charlestown and Malden, among other destinations.
This option is not considered in the RDEIR/DEIS. It should be considered in the RDEIR/DEIS.
(3) Light Rail in Allston to support Harvard’s relocated Medical School, etc.
The draft report fails to consider going forward with a Green Line (light rail) spur instead of the bus spaghetti in Allston.
A Green Line Spur would make excellent sense off the Commonwealth Avenue line (B line). Appropriate switches could be placed in the existing tracks in the vicinity of the Commonwealth Avenue - BU Bridge intersection. The spur should then run over the west bound lanes of Commonwealth Avenue and the northern sidewalk, then proceed on air rights above the commuter rail.
Rather than doing the silly turns at the Beacon Yards, the Green Line spur should proceed in a straight line above the Beacon Yards to Harvard’s proposed new boulevard north of Cambridge Street. The slope of the Mass. Pike just south of Cambridge Street is perfect for a raised Green Line to proceed above it.
After crossing Cambridge Street, the spur should promptly go through a portal and be constructed under Harvard’s proposed boulevard to North Harvard Street, and then proceed, underground cut and cover, south of and then west of Harvard Stadium. It should travel under the Charles River and under JFK Park, connecting with the still existing subway tunnel from Harvard Station which ends under the walkway between the Charles Hotel and Harvard’s JFK School of Government.
This tunnel connects directly to the bus tunnel in Harvard Station at Brattle Square.
A single terminal track could end at the bus tunnel, making transfers to bus and Red Line traffic through the existing tunnels.
Storage and layover tracks could be placed west of Harvard Stadium under cut and cover.
A permanent storage facility for Green Line vehicles should be considered for location at the Beacon Yards should the Beacon Yards no longer be needed for railroad use. It would be relatively simple to run a siding off the raised Green Line spur directly to the Beacon Yards.
(4) The RDEIR/DEIS violates the terms on which the secretary’s order of May 20, 2005, was based.
The secretary specifically required that Phase 2 not interfere with or predetermine Phase 3 construction.
The construction in Cambridge and over the Charles River resolves the crucial decision of Phase 3 in favor of the alternative which, from a transportation and environmental point of view, is the inferior of the two alternative Charles River crossings.
The proposal puts the Commonwealth in a position where the Commonwealth cannot go forward with the Kenmore (heavy rail) crossing and must go forward with the BU Bridge (light rail) crossing. Furthermore, the proposal accomplishes significant parts of the environmental damage associated with the BU Bridge crossing, which damage is part of the reasons for which the BU Bridge (light rail) crossing should be rejected[3].
C. Environmental Chapter.
Please see below.
3. Terminology tricks used by supporters of the BU Bridge crossing.
One of the many techniques of lying is games with terminology.
An initial objection must be made to the tactics of certain people who support the inferior BU Bridge (light rail) crossing.
One reason I reject light rail (BU Bridge crossing, Green Line technology) is because the purpose of the Urban Ring, as long as I have worked on it, has been to provide an alternative to taking the subways downtown. Light rail simply will not get people off the subways. It cannot compete because it is not fast enough.
There are other, environmental and structural, reasons to reject the light rail (BU Bridge crossing) subway alternative in favor of the heavy rail (Kenmore crossing). See below.
Supporters of the light rail BU Bridge subway option use terminology games to confuse well meaning individuals. The repeated use of the term “light rail” by BU Bridge crossing advocates to describe both subway alternatives confuses good people and creates the apparently deliberate effect of having people who would support heavy rail (Kenmore crossing) use the words “light rail” not realizing they are being had.
Such tactics are not acceptable, but should be recognized when reviewing comments. A lot of people have been fooled by this con game and use the term “light rail” to support the heavy rail Kenmore crossing or simply to support subway construction in general.
“Light rail” is street cars. Street cars are not an acceptable alternative. Street cars simply would not divert enough people from the central subway. Most people do not even think of street cars when thinking of subway, but individuals with unidentified agendas are fighting for street cars and doing their best to confuse people.
This lying by word games should not be rewarded.
4. Environmental Chapter.
A. Overview.
The chapter has major omission of analysis of animal habitat and includes information which is demonstrably false.
The cause could be falsehoods originating in the DCR which is aggressively destroying the natural environment of the Charles River.
B. Figure 5-1 contains blatant falsehoods.
(1) Introduction.
Figure 5-1 lists supposed uses on the Charles River which are flatly and simply false. The area which is falsified is exactly the area most subject to irresponsible environmental destruction. These false statements extend to the related text as well.
I find it no coincidence that the DCR and Cambridge have for the better part of a decade now been working to destroy the environment in the area of Cambridge falsified on this figure, that area within a half mile east and west of the BU Bridge. Similarly, there are clear falsehoods in the figure with regard to areas west of the BU Bridge in Boston.
The environmental destructiveness of these two entities is by no means final. Temporary success of irresponsible behavior should not be confused with permanent disruption. In particular, the Cambridge City Manager could be on the way out, by order of court in a civil rights case with Cambridge as the defendant. Additionally, all nine Cambridge City Councilors claim to be pro-environment (and pro-civil rights).
(2) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
To make it worse, the environmental destructiveness in the BU Bridge area has been prominently supported by the most basic of lies.
Starting in spring 2000 when the public started objecting to their attacks on the Charles River White Geese, DCR representatives repeatedly lied to many people concerned about the future of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The DCR representatives repeatedly denied any intent to harm the Charles River White Geese.
We had the plans. We knew these claims were lies. The DCR kept repeating the lies.
Even after they started starving the Charles River White Geese, DCR representatives repeated the lie that they had no intent to harm. The most visible of the liars, Richard Corsi, has justified the denial of intent to harm by claiming that starving them is not harming them. Corsi recently bragged in a public meeting that the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which replaced wetlands and animal habitat at Magazine Beach was keeping the Charles River White Geese from their food.
The Boston Sunday Globe printed a report on the attacks in early October 2004 which quoted this lie of Corsi’s right next to a photo of these hungry geese looking for their food at Magazine Beach but overwhelmed by construction equipment destroying their access.
The continued employment of Richard Corsi by the DCR shows very prominently the DCR’s contempt for the truth and for the environment.
(3) Animal habitat including wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries is falsely identified as in commercial use, industrial use, or transportation use.
According to Figure 5-1, the most delicate areas near the BU Bridge on the Charles River in Cambridge are in commercial use. These are animal habitat. They are wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries.
Full time users include the 25 year resident Charles River White Geese and permanent resident Pekin Ducks. Visitors include Canada Geese, Red-Tailed Hawks, Mallard Ducks, and many gulls. Rabbits have been seen in residence. Uses vary from open fields to temporary bizarre designer bushes which should be removed and should never have been introduced.
Many web sources are specified below with photographs and analysis truthfully identifying uses in this area.
Figure 5-1 misidentifies at least half of Magazine Beach to the west of the BU Bridge in Cambridge as commercial use.
An excellent photo of the DCR destroying wetlands abutting the Charles River in this area appeared in the Boston Globe, October 17, 2004 under the title “Battle of White Goose Beach.” There is a line in the middle of the commercial area west of the BU Bridge. That line could be the division between the playing fields / animal habitat and the MWRA plant which itself is covered with grass.
Figure 5-1 misidentifies the nesting area of the Charles River White geese, immediately to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, once again as commercial use.
A very recent photograph of this area appeared in the Boston Globe on September 14, 2008, in an article entitled “But who speaks for the Geese?” available on line at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/09/14/but_who_speaks_for_the_geese/. This photo gives a closeup on an Emden gander with a number of other geese behind him. Behind them are some of the little vegetation which has not yet been destroyed by the DCR between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse in the ongoing destruction since 2004.
In October 1999, Boston University acting for the DCR destroyed this area to plant grass. They put in a silly graveled walk. They called this a park. It was almost totally unused except by the animals whose homes were destroyed trying to remake their lives. The supposed pathway proceeded to wash into the Charles. Nature healed as many wounds as possible and the place grew back.
The DCR’s supposed Charles River Master Plan called for Magazine Beach to be a meadow to the river. There is a chance they may have changed their supposed Master Plan after the fact.
In September 2004, the DCR destroyed the wetlands at Magazine Beach next to the Charles River. They destroyed the protective vegetation lining the Charles River. They turned this area into a mudpit preventing access to the grass needed by the Charles River White Geese.
Simultaneously with this action, the City of Cambridge completed a sewer project east of the BU Bridge across from the Hyatt Hotel. They walled off that grass with plastic walls for no explained reason.
SIMULTANEOUSLY the DCR and its ally destroyed all the food of the Charles River White Geese by blocking their access and forced them to live only in a ghetto without eatable grass, the area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.
Since 2004, the DCR has simply destroyed the ground vegetation, destroying almost all of it between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, they dug it up and turned a vibrant ecosystem into bare land. Poisoning is likely since nothing has grown back where they have done their destruction.
In 2001-2004, there were several large scale, clearly professional instances of nest destruction with nesting geese “disappearing.” They were rather clearly killed and moved elsewhere for defending their nests, their eggs and their tiny babies.
In 2001, an individual obviously copycatting the DCR, killed many white geese on their nests. He then killed Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle.
The assassination of the leader of the gaggle led the 11 pm news on Channel 4. Channel 4 played the retrieval of his corpse from the river as the very first item on the news.
The Cambridge Chronicle dominated its front page with their report of our memorial service for Bumpy.
The DCR and Cambridge egged on the killer with the silence of consent in spite of repeated demands from the public for condemnation of the goose killings, stating that this nut was a threat to humans as well as to animals.
That fall, the animal killer graduated to rape and murder of a young woman. His group raped her where he had been beating to death nesting geese. His group murdered her on the Grand Junction railroad bridge.
The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing her rape and murder. The Cambridge City Council, after egging on her murderer with their silence, DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where she was victimized. The only one who mentioned the location, Councilor Henrietta Davis, promptly swallowed her words and looked around the room in a guilty manner.
Current supposed plans would destroy what little ground vegetation the DCR has not destroyed. A significant portion of the destruction is clearly unnecessary.
The DCR plans to reinstate the 1999 park construction which failed so miserably as opposed to the animal habitat which is vibrant except when attacked by the DCR.
Figure 5-1 misidentifies areas of woody perennials, trees abutting the Charles River to the east of the BU Bridge and on both sides of the Grand Junction railroad between the Charles River and Memorial Drive. All these areas are identified as commercial use.
Figure 5-1 misidentifies a heavily wooded area between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse as industrial use. All the ground vegetation in this area has been destroyed by the DCR.
The BU Boathouse could be properly identified as a water related use.
(4) A significant portion of the area right at water’s edge east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge is misidentified as transportation use.
It should properly be identified as open space or animal habitat.
(5) On the Boston side, pretty much everything west of the BU Bridge is identified as in transportation use. Much of that identification is false.
There is a large meadow immediately west of the BU Bridge which is also bounded by the Mass. Pike, the Grand Junction and Soldier’s Field Road. All of the waterfront between the BU Bridge and the River Street Bridge is animal habitat in a slope at and just above the water level and is developed parkland above this slope. The DCR is involved in ongoing attempts to destroy all animal life on the Charles River. There is an ongoing project next to the BU Bridge attacking wildlife and protective natural vegetation.
All these areas are falsely identified as in transportation use.
The meadow on the Boston side is proposed for the highway connecting the Grand Junction bridge and University Road. The Cambridge side would be destroyed for a lot of stuff identified and not identified. Staging and subordinate highways under various misleading names are most likely.
(6) The bizarre nature of figure 5-1 may be dramatically recognized by observing the photograph of “sector 6" which is part of Figure 5-4 (sectors 5-8) on page 5-33.
The BU Bridge crosses the river in the middle of the photograph. The heavily treed areas above (east) and below (west) on the left (Cambridge) side are identified in Figure 5-1 as industrial use. The meadow which is misidentified as transportation use is the green patch just below (west) of the right (south) end of the BU Bridge. All those trees to the left (north) of the meadow are called transportation use.
The sector 7 photograph on the same page is a much inferior view but it still shows a significant number of trees on the upper (south) side of the Charles River to the right (west) of the BU Bridge.
(7) Google maps.
The falsity of these statements in the document may be confirmed at maps.google.com, using the satellite view. These are large areas.
B. Table 5-5.B.
Table 5-5.B identifies uses near the BU Bridge as follows: Transportation 10.1%, residential, 35.5%, Recreational 0.0%, commercial 17.3%, industrial 0.0%, urban open space 12.7%, water 11.4%. This would rather clearly be based on the FALSE information discussed immediately above.
At absolute minimum, the recreational use is clearly erroneous. Designations of Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, the meadow east of the BU Bridge is almost certainly erroneous, similarly the woods bordering it and the woods between the Grand Junction Railroad and the BU Boathouse. Similarly, a very major part of Magazine Beach is misidentified.
As well, the meadow west of the BU Bridge and bounded also by Commonwealth Avenue, the Mass. Pike, the Grand Junction, and Soldier’s Field Road is misidentified as transportation use. Eyeballing the meadow west of the BU Bridge on Google Maps, it would appear to be about 150 to 200 feet square. This is not a small area of meadow, especially in the middle of a city.
Based on these problems, Table 5-6 on page 5-13, Summary of Anticipated ROW Impacts along the Urban Ring Project Corridor Based on Current Land Uses, seems highly suspect both for Cambridge and Boston. Notwithstanding this, the categories seem to be stacked against meaningful communication when animal habitat and open space is being destroyed.
C. Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2 on page 5-25 could possibly be correct but the results taken in real life demonstrate severe problems in the criteria.
I am looking at the area to the east of the water front animal habitat area being destroyed by the use of the Grand Junction Bridge. This area includes four red colored areas, two between Memorial Drive and Vassar Street, two north of Vassar Street. These four areas are MIT dorms / housing and include the school’s athletic fields. According to the explanation for the colors, these four areas satisfy both of the Social Justice criteria being evaluated. One of these areas could include a homeless shelter which is in a building rented from MIT and subject to conversion to MIT purposes at the end of the rental period.
A similar evaluation applies to much of the Boston University campus. The sea of red to the west of Kenmore Square has very little ownership other than by Boston University. The coloring immediately changes when leaving BU owned areas.
Each of the MIT and BU areas are very much exclusively university housing or other university facilities, although there are some business uses in very limited areas.
Both areas include hotels.
D. Section 5.5.2, Air Quality Modeling Analysis.
Section 5.5.2 is striking in its total lack of any information for the BU Bridge area.
E. Plants and animal species in habitat.
(1) General.
Section 5.7 purports to refer to plant and animal species in habitats. Section 5.7.2 concerns the BU Bridge area. Not mentioned is the antipathy of the DCR to animals living or visiting their property and the ongoing efforts by the DCR to destroy such life by whatever technique is open to it.
Nonetheless, the BU bridge area, IN SPITE OF GROSS MISBEHAVIOR by the DCR and its accomplices contains a vibrant population of living animals.
It very clearly is a waterfowl refuge. Failure to include it as such violates section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 codified 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 and implemented through Final Rule at 23 CFR 774, with a new rule March 2008 23 CRF 774.
Similarly, the riverbank on the south side of the Charles River west of the Grand Junction bridge is also a waterfowl refuge.
(2) The Charles River White Geese.
(A) Introduction.
Most valuable and very popular are the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.
The gaggle consists mostly of Emden Geese and White China Geese with a limited population of Toulouse Geese / Toulouse descendants. Some of the White China descendants bear vestigial Brown China markings.
For most of the past 30 years, they have lived in a habitat of about a mile east and west on the north side of the Charles River centering on the BU Bridge. Within that habitat, they did a minimigration, living in other parts of the habitat for 9 months of the year, and returning to their nesting area in the spring for mating and rearing of the young. The Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese is the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side.
They are a unique population. They are a tourist attraction which surprises people who encounter them. People go out of their way to visit them from various Boston suburbs. They are popular with local commuters who enjoy their beauty. If properly publicized they would be an even more valuable part of the Charles River world.
These are free animals who have survived on their own with very little human assistance for nearly 30 years until Cambridge and the DCR started their ongoing attempts to destroy them.
The uniqueness of a free gaggle of waterfowl which has lived in this wild area surrounded by civilization for nearly three decades and which has maintained a continuity of community cannot be understated.
(B) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
The DCR has noted the importance of the Charles River White Geese by the DCR’s repeated and flat out lies over the past ten years that the DCR had no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. The DCR defines starving the Charles River White Geese as not harming them. The DCR defines as taking the most environmentally destructive possible alternatives in various projects as not harming them.
(C) Heartless Animal Abusers sound strikingly like heartless wife abusers.
The DCR has irresponsibly confined the Charles River White Geese to the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side, directly impacted by Grand Junction plans. The statement that these proposals (page 5-67, section 5.7.2, Environment Consequences) “would not result in adverse impacts” is a knowing lie. The characterization of this important gaggle as “low value” is similarly a knowing lie.
(D) Wide recognition of value.
The beauty of these excellent and unique animals may be viewed at the follow sites. Their importance, their very presence, and the presence of many other animals, may be recognized through the fact that this list includes but a portion of the references obtained through Google. I offer this information and these citations in response to the continued lies coming out of the DCR:
• The Charles River White Geese website: http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org.
• The Charles River White Geese blog: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com.
• Historic Pages Photo Appreciation, proving historical analysis dating back to 1989: http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.
• Della Huff’s Show on goslings: http://www.pbase.com/dellybean/goslings
• Roy Bercaw: Visit to the Charles River White Geese, June 16, 2007: http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/06/charles-river-white-geese-June-16-2007.html.
• Roy Bercaw, A day at the Goose Meadow, April 2000 (note date in framing portion differs from the date in the video): http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends-of-charles-river-white-geese.html
• Cambridge Candle, January-February 1999: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html
• Zip Docs 02139, documentary about Charles River White Geese: http://cctvcambridge.org/node/2037
• MOVIE: “White Geese” by Akai Hoto, on deviantART: http://akaihato.deviantart.com/art/MOVIE-quot-White-Geese-quot-25167453
• Pictures taken along the Charles, 2004.07.16: http://www.aq.org/js/gallery/2004.07.16-charles/
• Freeman A. Report: 07/22/01, Charles River Wildlife Killings, The Charles River White Geese: http://www.freemanz.com/fzdc/political/01_07_22/index.htm
• Radio Boston, The Charles River (photos of the White Geese): http://www.flickr.com/groups/782470@N21/pool/with/2566129288/
• Charles River White Geese, YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM
• Photos of the Charles River White Geese, Linden Tea: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linden_tea/2196474800/
• iNaturalist.org report, observations by Tueda: http://inaturalist.org/observations/185
• White Geese video by Amy Rothwell: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6983789396318540077
• Fun on Foot in America’s Cities by Warwick Ford, Nola Ford: The Cambridge White Geese greet visitors: http://books.google.com/books?id=gAmIj4gh_7oC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22Charles+River%22+and+%22White+Geese%22&source=bl&ots=qUMjZm1ZPN&sig=2IRf_Rnz7cnP1xX4IkEB31x9wr8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
I will post this letter at charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com to simplify checking of these citations.
The Grand Junction rail and bridge use would be devastating to this valuable and threatened population of animals.
(3) Other residents and visitors.
The meadow to which the DCR in its extreme misbehavior has confined the Charles River White Geese also has included hawks, sea gulls, Canadas and various types of ducks. It is a haven for migratory waterfowl in spite of nearly ten years of DCR misbehavior.
Rabbits and other rodents are commonly visible.
F. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.
This ongoing pattern of lying would appear to come from the severe lack of fitness of key people in the DCR for their jobs. The mentality of these individuals is very clearly parks surrounded by cities. They rather clearly attack and destroy living creatures in their jurisdiction under whatever guise presents itself.
These individuals have no use for any areas which are wild as opposed to urban. They are aggressively destroying the wild areas on the Charles River because the wild areas on the Charles River do not fit their preconceived and incompetent ideas.
These individuals are very simply and aggressively unfit to manage environmentally sensitive environments because their reflexes are the reflexes of the 19th century. Their agents brag of support for 19th Century standards. 19th Century standards in turn caused so much environmental destruction. 19th Century standards continue to destroy our world because incompetents such as the DCR managers are so actively implementing the 19th Century equivalent of environmental management.
The DCR has a goal of and actively works for the driving away or killing water fowl in the water habitats of and near the Charles River controlled by the DCR. This is in sharp contrast to responsible environmentalists who object to the ongoing destruction of areas used by and needed for the survival of migrating waterfowl.
This is exactly the opposite of the goals of these reviews which are to safeguard wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries.
The key DCR people are unfit for their jobs.
G. Wetlands Designation.
On Page 5-73, the southern portion of the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, immediately east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side, is specifically protected as wetlands.
H. Estimated Water Resources Impacts by Alternative (acres), Table 5-21, page 5-80.
This shows 0.300 acres impacted for segment B, sector 6. This should include that portion of the Charles River bounded by the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge, by the BU Bridge, and by animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, the area to which the DCR has consigned the resident waterfowl by its misbehavior, misbehavior which can and should be reversed as a condition for the approval of this approval. The text on page 5-82 seems to indicate impact.
I. Wetlands Impacts, Table 5-22, page 5-80.
This shows 0.27 acres impacted for segment B, sector 6. This should include the animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, the area to which the DCR has consigned the resident waterfowl by its misbehavior, misbehavior which can and should be reversed as a condition for this approval.
The text at the bottom of page 5-82 seems to indicate otherwise.
I would suggest that the conditions listed in the supplement to this report be made conditions for approval if it is approved and I do not think it should be approved.
J. Estimated Filled Tideland Impacts by Alternatives (Acres), table 5-23, page 5-81.
0.39 acres is listed as impacted for segment B, sector 6. I presume this is the animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, the area to which the DCR has consigned the resident waterfowl by its misbehavior, misbehavior which can and should be reversed as a condition for the approval of this approval. The text on page 5-82 seems to downplay impact. Impact should not be downplayed.
I would suggest that the conditions listed in the supplement to this report be made conditions for approval if it is approved and I do not think it should be approved.
K. Environmental Consequences. Analysis on page 5-82.
Does not include discussion of the likely major impact on the animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. This directly abuts the Grand Junction Railroad and Bridge. “Incidental” impact is likely to be major.
I would suggest that the conditions listed in the supplement to this report be made conditions for approval if it is approved and I do not think it should be approved.
L. Section 5.15.3.1, affected environment, on page 5-143
This section mentions Charles River Reservation but makes no mention of water fowl habitat / refuge.
On the Boston side, this section mentions the Charles River Esplanade on the east. It makes no mention of the meadow bounded by the BU Bridge, the Mass. Pike, the Grand Junction Railroad and Soldiers Field Road through which would pass the connector from the highway proposed for the Grand Junction bridge to the underpass under the BU Bridge.
M. Table 5-45, Areas of Moderate to Severe Impact in Section B, on page 5-146.
Sector 6 mentions modifications to Memorial Drive and Grand Junction railroad bridge.
There is no mention whatsoever of the water fowl habit on either side, between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse and on the south bank of the Charles west of the BU Bridge.
The project would be devastating to Charles River Wild Geese and to the many other geese, ducks and other water birds which use this area as a refuge.
N. Comment from President Obama’s Inaugural Address.
The following comment stood out to me in our president’s inaugural address.
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
I have given a very small fraction of the wide variety of techniques of deceit to which we have been exposed by the DCR, Cambridge and their friends since the attacks on the Charles River started in October 1999.
In the middle of the environmental destruction the DCR and Cambridge responded to the killing of Nesting Geese and of the leader of the gaggle with a silence of support.
Their follower reached a climax with the rape and murder of a young woman in the Nesting Area and on the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
What is the difference between flat out silencing dissent and creating a company union organization funded by developer dollars which runs around claiming to be defending the Charles River while aggressively destroying it? This creates a wall for those who want to defend the Charles by the creation of a group which sounds great and destroys positive attempts to meaningfully defend the Charles River, as well as destroys the environment of the Charles River.
This is the standard function of a Company Union.
This is the so-called Charles River Conservancy, an entity which has acted as the agent of the DCR in destroying eggs of waterfowl and protective vegetation for more than five years now. In 2005, the Charles River Conservancy conducted a photo opportunity at Magazine Beach claiming that the 2004 destruction of the wetlands and food access made swimming easier. This was the creation of the bizarre wall of INTRODUCED vegetation BLOCKING OFF Magazine Beach from the Charles River and starving the White Geese.
The DCR has commonly worked through agents and then denied the actions of its agents as its actions. This is one of the many techniques of lying.
In that first attack on the environment of the Charles River in October 1999, the DCR worked through Boston University. Boston University started the destruction BEFORE a hearing scheduled on the matter in front of the Cambridge Conservation Commission, and completed the destruction before they were legally allowed to start any destruction.
Boston University then denied doing the destruction until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission six months later. Boston University then blamed the denials on the president’s secretary and starting bragging about the environmental destruction.
I have since objected to the highest levels of the DCR about Charles River Conservancy destructiveness ACTING AS AGENT for the DCR, poisoning waterfowl eggs, destroying protective ground vegetation. The response at a public meeting conducted in the boathouse just west of the Longfellow Bridge in Boston amounted to:
That is the Charles River Conservancy, what are we supposed to do?
At a recent meeting of a body appointed by the Cambridge City Manager, the DCR specifically admitted and accepted responsibility for environmental destructiveness by the Charles River Conservancy using politically correct words.
A flat out lie of lack of responsibility in a public meeting translates into reality when talking to political appointees appointed by a fellow destroyer.
In my analysis, I do my best to ignore fake distinctions pushed by the DCR. Lies are lies are lies. And claiming there is a distinction among the many skillful lying techniques is one of too many flat out lies.
It would be nice if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a government in reality which matches our government’s lovely claims of openness and of environmental concern.
5. Specific structural aspects of the proposal. Chapter 2, locally preferred alternative.
A. Bus proposals.
As stated above, it is entirely possible that the bus proposal makes sense outside the Cambridge to LMA and Allston portions of the proposal, with or without later subway construction. Bus routing in Cambridge to LMA and Allston portions is quite silly.
First of all, overlapping bus routes (page 2-3) are nothing but overlapping bus routes. They are not a rapid transit system.
B. Longwood Medical Area Tunnel.
The Fenway/LMA bus tunnel is an expenditure of $1.7 billion dollars for a bus tunnel that contains one bus stop? Bizarre, especially since the buses would leave the tunnel and drive in city rush hour traffic and be subject to the normal results. Equally bizarre in that there are now three alternatives for the northern portion of the tunnel.
The tunnel connecting to a Yawkey - Kenmore station under Brookline Avenue over the Mass. Pike as part of the Kenmore (heavy rail) subway crossing makes excellent sense in a proposal which is implementing heavy rail. It should be constructed connecting directly to Ruggles and to the Kenmore - Yawkey station as the first phase of an ultimate Urban Ring subway line. It should be constructed as a spur off the Orange Line. That would be the first portion of a heavy rail Urban Ring line. As part of phase 2, it would make excellent sense.
Even without the ultimate Urban Ring line extension, such a first subway stage could handle an Orange Line alternate route from Oak Grove to Ruggles to Kenmore. This would drastically increase transportation possibilities for LMA and Kenmore travelers, including Fenway Park.
At the Ruggles end, the train tunnel could be an alternate route for Orange Line trains. At the Kenmore-Yawkey end, the trains could operate in the same manner as the existing Alewife Station on the Red Line: two trains could stand at the Kenmore-Yawkey stop at a time, picking up passengers, with a switch just before arriving at the Kenmore — Yawkey stop.
Running trains through to a temporary terminus at Kenmore — Yawkey would eliminate the need for a rather duplicative stop next to the Riverside line at Park Drive, the current Fenway Park station, proposed as part of the LMA tunnel.
This could be phase 1 of full implementation of Urban Ring heavy rail, the Kenmore crossing.
Depending on the direction of the connection at Ruggles, people traveling traveling to or from Kenmore or the Longwood Medical Area could have one stop travel to any point on the existing Orange Line even without full implementation of the Urban Ring.
C. Kenmore (Heavy Rail) v. BU Bridge (Light Rail) Crossing.
(1) General.
I have worked on the Urban Ring since about 1985 because it is an excellent concept. The idea is to take pressure off the increasingly overloaded central subway system in Boston. The idea is to create a new subway line connecting the existing spokes so that people do not have to go into Downtown Boston to go from one outer point to another outer point.
There are two possible crossings of the Charles River, the Kenmore Crossing (which I first suggested in 1986), and the BU Bridge crossing. I suggested the Kenmore Crossing because the BU Bridge crossing is so destructive to the environment of the Charles River, and because of that silly stop in Cambridgeport, the Putnam Avenue/Fort Washington stop. As it has developed, details have come out under which the Kenmore Crossing is increasingly more superior. So naturally, the dirty tricks have started.
The Urban Ring subway would run from Charlestown / Somerville to Roxbury. There are variations as to how far it would go in either direction.
The environmental problem is at the Charles River.
The two possible Urban Ring Charles River crossings each connect proposed stations in Cambridge and in the Longwood Medical Area. The Cambridge station which is not controversial would be at Massachusetts Avenue where Massachusetts Avenue crosses what is now the Grand Junction railroad track. This track is located between Albany and Vassar Streets, near the heart of the MIT Campus. The Longwood stop seems to be getting firm at Avenue Louis Pasteur and Longwood Avenue.
(2) Kenmore Crossing.
The Kenmore Crossing would proceed under the Grand Junction tracks and then turn south under the MIT playing fields and under the Charles River to Kenmore Square. It would have a station under Brookline Avenue over the Massachusetts Turnpike. At that point, it would connect to the three Green Line branches going to Brookline, Newton, and Allston, and to the Commuter Rail coming in from Framingham and Worcester. It would provide a covered connection between the Commuter Rail Yawkey Station and the existing Kenmore Station. This station would provide excellent connection to Fenway Park. It would be heavy rail, Orange Line technology, which would allow the trains to run as alternate service / extensions on the existing Orange Line as well.
(3) The BU Bridge crossing.
The BU Bridge Crossing would be light rail, streetcars. It would have two additional stops. It would stop in Cambridge at the end of Putnam Avenue where it hits the railroad tracks near Fort Washington Park. It would then, by the original plans, proceed under the Charles River. This passage would cause severe damage to the environmentally sensitive area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse where the Charles River White Geese and other animals live whereas the Kenmore crossing is environmentally neutral.
Directly against the Massachusetts Turnpike there would be a stop at Mountfort and St. Mary’s. This is one block from the heart of the BU Campus, Morse Chapel. At this point, the BU Bridge crossing would connect to the Commonwealth Avenue (B) branch of the Green Line and connect to the Framingham-Worcester line. Connection to the Commonwealth Avenue line would be by a tunnel under St. Mary’s Street to the southern sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue. Commuters would then have to cross Commonwealth Avenue traffic exposed to the weather to get to one of the three Green Line branches.
Commuter Rail would not have direct connection to the other two Green Line branches, and would overload the Commonwealth Avenue line during morning rush hour. The original plans called for Yawkey Station to be moved away from Fenway Park so that it would be next to Mountfort Station, drastically reducing support for Fenway Park.
The line would proceed to a new station located under Park Drive about two blocks away. The new station would directly connect to the existing Fenway Park station on the Riverside (D) branch on one side and to a new station under Beacon Street on the Cleveland Circle ( C ) branch.
(4) Comparison of BU Bridge Crossing to Kenmore Crossing:
• The connections to the three western Green Line branches would be accomplished by two stations two blocks from each other instead of one station which would also connect to commuter rail,
• Commuter rail transfers would be made drastically inferior,
• Support for Fenway Park would be drastically inferior,
• The purpose of the Urban Ring would be drastically degraded because light rail is incredibly slower than heavy rail, and
• Green Line vehicles would not be able to switch off onto the Orange Line, providing greatly inferior flexibility of the system.
• The clear inferiority of the BU Bridge crossing is itself an environmental defect because that inferiority makes this crossing pretty much impossible to get meaningful riders off the central subway.
• In addition to pushing buses and environmental destruction for an area which should have the heavy rail subway, the existing proposal would make the heavy rail subway impossible in favor of the far inferior light rail subway. This is accomplished by the highway construction proposed for the BU Bridge area.
D. Kenmore Crossing — Initial phase conducted as part of Phase 2.
The proposed phase 2 second stop on the busway at the existing Fenway Park station is duplicative. If the tunnel runs as a heavy rail tunnel to Kenmore/Yawkey, the money could be much better spent on the really valuable Kenmore station as the temporary terminus of the Urban Ring subway.
The proposed portals in the phase 2 proposal are flatly and simply silly.
Please note that building an initial phase of the Urban Ring subway from Ruggles to Kenmore would in no way prevent possible extension of the Urban Ring subway to Dudley or Dorchester.
Just as a connection to Kenmore/LMA can be accomplished by switches west of Ruggles, switches east of Ruggles could connect to a spur / Urban Ring subway to Dudley or Dorchester. The western switch would support traffic to / from Malden, Downtown Crossing going to / from the LMA/Kenmore. The eastern switch would support traffic to / from Forest Hills connecting to / from Dudley or Dorchester. Traffic traveling to / from Dudley or Dorchester to / from the LMA, Kenmore and further Urban Ring points would simply go through both switches.
This bus thing is a very expensive, silly one bus stop bus way.
E. Allston proposal.
The fetish for buses gets carried to a silly extreme in the Allston proposal.
The proposal is silly, especially when compared to the obvious alternative rapid transit service.
Access by Green Line on a spur from the Commonwealth Avenue line at the BU Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue is simple, relatively inexpensive and highly efficient. Connection can be made directly to Harvard Station through the subway tunnel which continues to exist coming out of the busway and running to the wall between Harvard’s JFK School and the Charles Hotel.
The southern/eastern end of the Green Line spur can readily be constructed, first by placing switches on the existing Green Line tracks and extending those spurs over the highway and then over the edge of that bridge. The Green Line spur can be constructed on air rights over the commuter rail south of the Massachusetts Turnpike. The air rights light rail route can readily continue over the Beacon Yard and can easily be run over Cambridge Street to Harvard’s new boulevard where it can proceed to be built cut and cover.
The slope of the Mass. Pike south of Cambridge Street is ideal for running the Green Line spur over it.
The Green Line spur can continue under the new boulevard to North Harvard Street, then go around Harvard Stadium. There would be room west of Harvard Stadium for sidings for layovers. The Green Line spur can continue underground and under the Charles with a very direct route under JFK Park and minimal damage to JFK Park and minimal costs to connect directly to Harvard Station’s Red by way of the existing busway. The busway functions as Silver Line routes. Ready connections can be made to them as well.
Should the Beacon Yards no longer be needed for freight use, the Beacon Yards could readily be converted to Green Line storage. Access would be easy by a spur run off the overhead Green Line spur.
Once again, failure to propose and study this obvious Green Line spur as an alternative to the bus nonsense in Allston is an environment defect because the spur would be so clearly superior to the bus nonsense and could get people out of cars.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
cc:
Ned Codd
Director of Program Development
Exec. Office of Transportation and Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
Governor Deval Patrick
Massachusetts State House
Room 360
Boston, MA 02133
Cambridge City Council
c/o City Clerk, City Hall
795 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
Addendum: What to do about the Charles River?
The problem on the Charles River is a subset of man’s destruction of our world, but with the added hypocrisy of holier than thou nonsense in Cambridge and a wide variety of lying from the state bureaucracy.
Cambridge and the state bureaucrats are aggressive implementors of the failed and very destructive policies of the 19th Century, but they are implementing those policies in the 21st Century, destroying what little of nature has not been destroyed to date in the areas under their control.
Cambridge has been on the receiving end of a Civil Rights suit and a very strong jury verdict which is now under review by the judge. The jury found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of a black, woman Cape Verdean department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. This case could result in very major sanctions. The jury called for $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages. That case, at least in theory, could clean up Cambridge.
The state bureaucrats and their lies and their accomplices are the more immediate problem.
Key people in the DCR are quite simply unfit for their positions because of their contempt for the environment which is their trust. The most visible problem, Richard (Frederick?) Corsi, very clearly has demonstrated lack of fitness for his office, combining environmentally vile behavior, heartless animal abuse, and rather proud and public lying. To him, at minimum, should be joined the current DCR commissioner and Julia O’Brian, the woman who was head of planning for the then Metropolitan District Commission at the beginning of this continuing outrage.
I propose:
1. Chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else.
2. Return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap.
3. Kill the new, expensive drainage system at Magazine Beach. Green maintenance does not require this expenditure.
4. Let the Charles River White Geese return to Magazine Beach, their home of 25 years.
5. Let them return to their nesting area, the location of the current proposal for environmental destruction, as they deem necessary.
6. Put the staging for the BU Bridge repair project where it was for the BU Bridge sidewalk project, a location which is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.
7. To the extent these requirements delay the BU Bridge repair project, so be it. The DCR has scheduled things for maximum destruction. Minor delays for responsible behavior comport to the delays the DCR has already incurred in the area attempting to introduce vegetation at Magazine Beach which is unfit for planting on the Charles River. It should be noted that former Transportation Secretary Frederick Salvucci has publicly advocated delay of the BU Bridge repair project to coordinate it with needed work on the Boston side.
8. Prohibit the continuation of destruction of protective vegetation lining the Charles River. Require twice annual chopping to one foot of the bizarre designer vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach, or, better yet, require its removal. Prohibit the continued poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl.
9. Change the drainage to the Cambridge side in the BU Bridge repair project so that the draining goes into the existing Memorial Drive drainage. The complicated system IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ANIMAL HABITAT is just another technique to destroy the natural environment for which the DCR has such great contempt. Just another piece of bad faith.
10. Prohibit further work of any nature impacting the Charles River by the so-called Charles River Conservancy.
11. End the plans to destroy more than 449 to 660 healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.
12. End the plans to destroy all the cherry trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.
13. Fire the destructive managers at the DCR.
The environmental destructiveness of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project on the Charles River is most definitely NOT free standing but fits in with directly related environmental destruction efforts by the DCR and Cambridge. The coordination should be modified to minimize environmental destruction. Currently, the coordination maximizes environmental destruction.
Endnotes [ed: were footnotes in submittal, this format does not permit footnotes]
1. They used the phrase "humane treatment." When I sarcastically proposed "humane treatment" for the rep in a flier, he went on local cable accusing me of proposing that he be assassinated. Another technique of lying.
2. The level of control exercised by the Cambridge City Manager over his appointees is demonstrated by the ongoing case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court Case MICV2001-02737. In this Civil Rights action, the plaintiff is a black Cape Verdean woman who was a department head in the City of Cambridge.
The jury found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed her life (fired her) in retaliation for her filing a Civil Rights complaint. The jury awarded $1.1 million plus real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.
The judge is considering the verdict. It will be interesting to see if she orders the city manager fired and stripped of his pension. I am familiar with the docket and press reports of the case. The papers are on the judge's desk. The docket spells out a previous motion for judment by the judge which was rejected by the previous judge in the case.
The Cambridge City Manager has been quoted in the press as saying that the judge erred by not telling the jury that the plaintiff's Civil Rights complaint was rejected by the prior jury. There is no way that a bad civil rights complaint gives the Cambridge City Manager the right to destroy an employee's life in retaliation.
3. The use of the term "light rails" for subway proposals is very visible among people who have been active in the Cambridge City Manager's company union organizations in Cambridge. These "activists" seem to have very major positioning in the local chapter of at least one supposedly national environmental organization.
Temporary Internet Change, Urban Ring
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The following was received on February 9, 2009 from the Urban Ring consultants:
**************
Due to a server problem with the Urban Ring website, the RDEIR/DEIS is being
temporarily hosted on the Livable Streets website at
. EOT expresses its thanks
to Livable Streets for its commitment to public involvement on this project.
In addition, the document continues to be available in hard copy at public
libraries throughout the project corridor. The locations of these libraries and
information on how to submit comments on the project are still available on the
Urban Ring project website at www.theurbanring.com
We apologize for any confusion and inconvenience caused by this significant
computer problem, and we wanted to bring this to your attention as soon as
possible because the comment period closes tomorrow, February 10. If you have
any questions, you may contact me or Regan Checchio at 617-357-5772 x14 or
rchecchio@reginavilla.com.
Thank you.
Ned Codd
The following was received on February 9, 2009 from the Urban Ring consultants:
**************
Due to a server problem with the Urban Ring website, the RDEIR/DEIS is being
temporarily hosted on the Livable Streets website at
to Livable Streets for its commitment to public involvement on this project.
In addition, the document continues to be available in hard copy at public
libraries throughout the project corridor. The locations of these libraries and
information on how to submit comments on the project are still available on the
Urban Ring project website at www.theurbanring.com
We apologize for any confusion and inconvenience caused by this significant
computer problem, and we wanted to bring this to your attention as soon as
possible because the comment period closes tomorrow, February 10. If you have
any questions, you may contact me or Regan Checchio at 617-357-5772 x14 or
rchecchio@reginavilla.com.
Thank you.
Ned Codd
Friday, February 06, 2009
Urban Ring, Minutes January 6, 2009 Urban Ring Public Meeting Posted, Instructions for Submitting Comments
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Archie Mazmanian has been kind enough to pass on the URL for the minutes of the January 6, 2009, Urban Ring Public Meeting.
He has been frustrated with apparent delays in their being posted.
The minutes may be found at: https://www.commentmgr.com/projects/1169/docs/transcript%20final%202.pdf.
Please do not forget that comments on the urban ring environmental submission are due to the state next week. Two dates have been publicized. One was February 9, 2009. The Urban Ring website says February 10, 2009.
Copying the information from the home page, www.theurbanring.com, with edits for simplification:
***********
The Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/DEIS) is now available. Please click here [Ed. you need the home page.] to download a copy of the document.
Print Copies of the RDEIR/DEIS can be found at the following libraries (click on each location to view directions):
. . . .
Comments on the document must be submitted in writing (oral comments made at the public hearing will not be recognized by the MEPA office). A 60-day comment period has been established. Comments must be received no later than February 10, 2009. Written comments must be addressed to:
Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office, EOEA #12565
Richard Bourre, Assistant Director
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
617-626-1181 (fax; please follow up with a print copy of the fax)
Email [ed., link: Richard.Bourre@state.ma.us]
Public comments on the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS must be made to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, through the Commonwealth's Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process. The federal government conducts its own review of the document to ensure adequacy of the document under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and accepts public comment to the NEPA process in two ways: First, the comments made at the January 6 Public Hearing will be included in a transcript that will be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Second, the Executive Office of Transportation will compile all comment letters submitted to the EOEEA Secretary, along with response to comments, and submit them to FTA after the completion of the comment period (which closes on February 10, 2009).
Commenters may also copy the Project Manager at EOT:
Ned Codd
Director of Program Development
Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
617-973-7473
Archie Mazmanian has been kind enough to pass on the URL for the minutes of the January 6, 2009, Urban Ring Public Meeting.
He has been frustrated with apparent delays in their being posted.
The minutes may be found at: https://www.commentmgr.com/projects/1169/docs/transcript%20final%202.pdf.
Please do not forget that comments on the urban ring environmental submission are due to the state next week. Two dates have been publicized. One was February 9, 2009. The Urban Ring website says February 10, 2009.
Copying the information from the home page, www.theurbanring.com, with edits for simplification:
***********
The Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/DEIS) is now available. Please click here [Ed. you need the home page.] to download a copy of the document.
Print Copies of the RDEIR/DEIS can be found at the following libraries (click on each location to view directions):
. . . .
Comments on the document must be submitted in writing (oral comments made at the public hearing will not be recognized by the MEPA office). A 60-day comment period has been established. Comments must be received no later than February 10, 2009. Written comments must be addressed to:
Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office, EOEA #12565
Richard Bourre, Assistant Director
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
617-626-1181 (fax; please follow up with a print copy of the fax)
Email [ed., link: Richard.Bourre@state.ma.us]
Public comments on the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS must be made to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, through the Commonwealth's Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process. The federal government conducts its own review of the document to ensure adequacy of the document under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and accepts public comment to the NEPA process in two ways: First, the comments made at the January 6 Public Hearing will be included in a transcript that will be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Second, the Executive Office of Transportation will compile all comment letters submitted to the EOEEA Secretary, along with response to comments, and submit them to FTA after the completion of the comment period (which closes on February 10, 2009).
Commenters may also copy the Project Manager at EOT:
Ned Codd
Director of Program Development
Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
617-973-7473
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Praise for yet another con game on the Charles River and Response
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Letter - Self-Praise.
2. Comment from Victory2008 - Animal Abusers abuse Humans.
3. Animal Abusers and Nine Heartless City Councilors.
1. Letter - Self-Praise.
I have sent the following letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. It follows the usual orgy of praise from the apologists for the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge Chronicle posted it on their website on February 11, at 8:49 am.
TO: Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
RE: Letter: Congratulations on Charles River Zoning Change
Congratulations to the Cambridge City Council for yet another con game on the Charles River.
The supposedly great zoning change looks a lot different if taken in context, especially if you look at reality instead of self praise.
Three years ago, nine city councilors destroyed zoning protections on Memorial Drive across from Magazine Beach. They falsely said they were doing exactly the opposite.
The Planning Board lives in reality. The Planning Board implemented what the City Council voted for, without the lies, in the expansion of the Radisson hotel ON TOP OF Memorial Drive sidewalk.
So now, the city council is bragging about a great achievement. They say they are doing what they said they did three years ago, but allowing the Radisson expansion, and allowing a whole bunch of secret fine print.
At the same time, nine city councilors are digging up seven acres of dirt and grass at Magazine Beach, and replacing it with dirt, grass and chemicals. They also call themselves “Green.”
At the same time, nine city councilors continue at Magazine Beach a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which seems to have no purpose except to starve the local animals.
At the same time, the city councilors’ buddies at the DCR are destroying every bit of vegetation which they did not destroy between the BU Bridge and the Boathouse since 2004. 2004 is when the DCR and nine city councilors started starving the Charles River White Geese. They call the latest “improvement” the BU Bridge repair project.
The fact that that destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach is bizarre is irrelevant. Nine city councilors have passed the zoning change on Memorial Drive.
The fact that a key part of the BU Bridge repair destruction is for staging that belongs under Memorial Drive is irrelevant. Nine city councilors have passed the zoning change on Memorial Drive.
The fact that nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council and their friends at the DCR continue their attacks on the Charles River White Geese is irrelevant. Nine city councilors have passed the zoning change on Memorial Drive.
If you do not believe that all that is irrelevant, just listen to the City Council’s apologists praise the zoning change on Memorial Drive, a zoning change which does NOTHING other than undo the absolute minimum they can get away with of zoning they should not have passed three years ago.
2. Comment from Victory2008 - Animal Abusers abuse Humans.
February 12:
They say people who abuse animals will do the same to humans.
3. Animal Abusers and Nine Heartless City Councilors.
Bob, February 13:
A young woman was raped and murdered near the BU Bridge in Fall of 2001.
The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing the incident and DID NOT WANT to know where it occurred.
Henrietta Davis was the only one to mention the location. She swallowed her words and looked around guiltily.
It was a gang accomplished rape and murder.
One of the participants had been beating to death nesting Charles River White Geese there. She was raped where he had been beating beautiful MOTHER geese to death. She was murdered on the railroad bridge just above.
When this person was beating to death mother geese, decent human beings went to the Cambridge City Council. Decent human beings demanded that the Cambridge City Council condemn the animal abuse.
Decent human beings told the nine heartless animal abusers exactly what Victory2008 said.
The Cambridge City Council was 'neutral' with a wink and a nod.
After the animal abuser did the same to this woman, the Cambridge City Council DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where this young woman was raped and murdered.
1. Letter - Self-Praise.
2. Comment from Victory2008 - Animal Abusers abuse Humans.
3. Animal Abusers and Nine Heartless City Councilors.
1. Letter - Self-Praise.
I have sent the following letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. It follows the usual orgy of praise from the apologists for the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge Chronicle posted it on their website on February 11, at 8:49 am.
TO: Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
RE: Letter: Congratulations on Charles River Zoning Change
Congratulations to the Cambridge City Council for yet another con game on the Charles River.
The supposedly great zoning change looks a lot different if taken in context, especially if you look at reality instead of self praise.
Three years ago, nine city councilors destroyed zoning protections on Memorial Drive across from Magazine Beach. They falsely said they were doing exactly the opposite.
The Planning Board lives in reality. The Planning Board implemented what the City Council voted for, without the lies, in the expansion of the Radisson hotel ON TOP OF Memorial Drive sidewalk.
So now, the city council is bragging about a great achievement. They say they are doing what they said they did three years ago, but allowing the Radisson expansion, and allowing a whole bunch of secret fine print.
At the same time, nine city councilors are digging up seven acres of dirt and grass at Magazine Beach, and replacing it with dirt, grass and chemicals. They also call themselves “Green.”
At the same time, nine city councilors continue at Magazine Beach a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which seems to have no purpose except to starve the local animals.
At the same time, the city councilors’ buddies at the DCR are destroying every bit of vegetation which they did not destroy between the BU Bridge and the Boathouse since 2004. 2004 is when the DCR and nine city councilors started starving the Charles River White Geese. They call the latest “improvement” the BU Bridge repair project.
The fact that that destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach is bizarre is irrelevant. Nine city councilors have passed the zoning change on Memorial Drive.
The fact that a key part of the BU Bridge repair destruction is for staging that belongs under Memorial Drive is irrelevant. Nine city councilors have passed the zoning change on Memorial Drive.
The fact that nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council and their friends at the DCR continue their attacks on the Charles River White Geese is irrelevant. Nine city councilors have passed the zoning change on Memorial Drive.
If you do not believe that all that is irrelevant, just listen to the City Council’s apologists praise the zoning change on Memorial Drive, a zoning change which does NOTHING other than undo the absolute minimum they can get away with of zoning they should not have passed three years ago.
2. Comment from Victory2008 - Animal Abusers abuse Humans.
February 12:
They say people who abuse animals will do the same to humans.
3. Animal Abusers and Nine Heartless City Councilors.
Bob, February 13:
A young woman was raped and murdered near the BU Bridge in Fall of 2001.
The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing the incident and DID NOT WANT to know where it occurred.
Henrietta Davis was the only one to mention the location. She swallowed her words and looked around guiltily.
It was a gang accomplished rape and murder.
One of the participants had been beating to death nesting Charles River White Geese there. She was raped where he had been beating beautiful MOTHER geese to death. She was murdered on the railroad bridge just above.
When this person was beating to death mother geese, decent human beings went to the Cambridge City Council. Decent human beings demanded that the Cambridge City Council condemn the animal abuse.
Decent human beings told the nine heartless animal abusers exactly what Victory2008 said.
The Cambridge City Council was 'neutral' with a wink and a nod.
After the animal abuser did the same to this woman, the Cambridge City Council DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where this young woman was raped and murdered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)