MassDOT meeting, May 1, Cambridge, MA, USA
Last evening, May 1, 2014, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation met with folks at Cambridge City Hall. The meeting, concerned MassDOT’s looking into work on the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) within a short distance from the Charles River in Boston, MA, across from Cambridge.
The response to my comments was knowledgeable and the comments informed.
It was a pleasure not to see the organized highway lobby in the room, in contrast to the April 10 meeting. Unfortunately, a number of folks from the Cambridge Machine were there, and sounding like the Cambridge Machine. There really is not much of a difference among subdivisions of the Cambridge Machine.
One or two women were highly distressed that MassDOT would not give voting representation to their fake neighborhood association on a consulting group. If the choice is between the enemy and no seat at, I am very happy to see no seat. My experience is that the best way to get things done is to bar the Cambridge Machine and those influenced by it. I have frequently achieved a lot with no voting seat. And the further people get away from the Cambridge Machine, the more real action tends to get done.
MassDOT’s stated reason for the “omission” is that the project will not be occurring in Cambridge.
None of the formal “leaders” of the fake neighborhood association appeared in this meeting or at the April 10 meeting.
Instead of the highway lobbyists barking for their latest small vehicle highway goodies, various Cambridge Machine operatives spoke their lines. That included at least two folks who have shocking records on the environment. These were people who call a 10 story building, a 4 story building and a plaza in the middle “open space.” They were fighting for the small vehicle highways.
I have confidence in MassDOT. They are not perfect, but they are coming from the right direction.
I submitted copies of my three formal letters, which have been published here and which had been read by staff at the meeting. I gave the official color copies to the staff and back up black and white copies to two state representatives who showed up.
I anticipate I will follow up with a fourth formal letter going into the reality of the Urban Ring subway proposals. It is essentially an insult to provide this sort of thing to these professionals. The trouble is that Cambridge’s lying about the Urban Ring has been going on for more than 20 years. My reports will go in to keep the situation less dirty than it would be with no response to Cambridge and its friends. Cambridge’s dirty tricks are not necessarily done in public, or even by clear agents of the city. So it is very difficult to tell who has been compromised with their stunts.