1. General.
2. Developer types from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
3. Other issues.
4. Summary.
1. General.
Last night, July 19, 2011, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation held a public meeting on their plans for the River/Cambridge Street and Western Avenue Bridges across the Charles River. These are the next two bridges to the west from the BU Bridge and the 30 year habitat of the Charles River White Geese.
2. Developer types from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
Loudly present were representatives of the falsely named Charles River Conservancy, blatant construction / design types, flaunting their contempt for the supposed purpose (looking at the name) of their organization.
They implored on MassDOT to “find a way to get things done” on their destructive highway project in the Charles River. “Getting things done” is a developer term with a secret definition. The secret definition is contempt for the environment, contempt for historical preservation, contempt for inconvenient laws, contempt for common decency.
The developer types have a dream. They want a new highway in the Charles on the Cambridge side, destroying the Charles, destroying wetlands, heartlessly abusing beautiful valuable animals and furthering the destruction of all animals, and destroying massive numbers of trees. They call this “getting things done.”
MassDOT is something the contractor types have contempt for: a public agency doing its job, a responsible, ethical, pro-environment, pro-historical protection, pro DOING THEIR JOB agency.
MassDOT thinks that, as far as their work on these two bridges goes, this irresponsible highway project is way out of bounds. The project would involve massive fill in the Charles. It would interfere with the waterway. It could require chopping holes in the bridge supports. It could only be justified from a mission point of view if both bridges could not be repaired in a historically responsible way. But they said it more nicely than I do.
I stood up and praised MassDOT. It is such a relief, after dealing with Cambridge for 35 years and the Department of Conservation and Recreation and its predecessor for perhaps 15 years, to deal with a governmental agency worthy of being proud of.
3. Other issues.
I asked MassDOT to make certain that their project complies with national standards for highway markings on one way streets.
I pointed out to MassDOT that their plans for the River / Cambridge Street bridge would cause traffic relocation to the Mass. Ave. Bridge, Memorial Drive and the Cambridge side streets, and that their traffic studies should allow for this.
MassDOT is continuing Cambridge’s bizarre bike arrangement from Western Avenue. I pointed out that Cambridge’s resolution for commuter bicycle traffic wanting to go straight ahead without a bunch of ins and outs, and for bicycles wanting to make left turns was summarized in the comment that the bikes would not be legally required to used the silly proposal. Bikes could join cars in the much narrowed car lanes.
I suggested to MassDOT that MassDOT rethink continuing Cambridge’s nuttiness.
There were other seriously thought out comments on the handling of bicycle traffic on the two bridges and the southern access.
4. Summary.
I got fed up with the poor dears with their dreams from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. I walked out, I believe, during a plea to “get things done.”
