Cambridge, MA, USA Destroys More Trees, Missed Show

1. Introduction.
2. Context.
3. These Destroyed Trees.
a. 36 Dana Street, Chatham Side, Tree Number 1.
b. 36 Dana Street, Chatham Side, Tree Number 2.
c. 38 Dana Street, Dana Side.
d. 40 Dana Street.
4. Missed show shortly after photos.


1. Introduction.

George Despotes has been kind enough to report apparently wanton tree destruction by the City of Cambridge, MA, USA, about five block or so from the impending outrage on the Cambridge Common.

He says no notices were posted, in violation of one of Cambridge's supposed ordinances.

2. Context.

The key to environmental destruction in Cambridge is fake protections under which folks are given a chance to object, then Cambridge frequently goes ahead with the irresponsible destruction Cambridge wanted to do in the first place.

But they were “heard”.

Destruction of street trees has been highly controversial but excessively common.

This fits the outrage on the Cambridge Common.

This fits the outrage at Alewife.

This fits the outrage on the Charles River.

The position of the City Councilors is always well meaning, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE YELLING AT THE OTHER GUY.

This fits the outrage on the Cambridge Common.

This fits the outrage at Alewife.

This fits the outrage on the Charles River.

And then, of course, you have all those fake groups falsely praising an envirionmentally destructive City Council with its constant pious noises and not wanting to know about what it is doing.

This fits the outrage on the Cambridge Common.

This fits the outrage at Alewife.

This fits the outrage on the Charles River.

It will be interesting to see if there is any input from the Cambridge City Council.

All members of the Cambridge City Council receive abbreviated, email, versions of these posts, with links unless the email contains the total content of the blog report.

And the Cambridge City Council, along with its fake groups constantly tells us about its sainthood.

It does differ from one fake group fighting for destruction on the Charles River.  They use whatever corrupt tactics work to prevent meaningful discussion of reality while lying of sainthood.  And fighting for whatever destruction they keep secret through their corrupt tactics.

3. These Destroyed Trees.

On September 28, at about 5:30 pm, I went to the area George reported and took multiple photos of tree stumps.

Three out of four destroyed trees looked like recent destruction.

I saw no signs of any explanation for destruction or notice of intent to destroy.

a. 36 Dana Street, Chatham Side, Tree Number 1.

b. 36 Dana Street, Chatham Side, Tree Number 2.

c. 38 Dana Street, Dana Side.

d. 40 Dana Street.

4. Missed show shortly after photos.

This shoot was about an hour before my scheduled Cable Show on Channel 9, Cambridge, MA at 6:30 pm on Sundays.  If you were watching for me, I hope the folks apologized for me.

What happened was that, at about 6:10 pm, I hit the wall.

A gentleman was working in the studio on, I believe, matters related to his show.

I asked if he would be willing to take my show.  He was kind enough to do so and CCTV management assisted, given my problem.

I had worked on a movie gig the prior day, from 4:40 am to 8 pm.  I did not get a great deal of advanced notice and got much less sleep than I would have liked before the gig.  After the gig, I tried to get enough sleep to compensate.  It did not work.  I was sleeped out, and I found myself in a bad position when I would have liked to do my show.

I am sorry I was not able to do the show.

If he had not been around, I would have gone forward with my show, but I have seen those symptoms before.

Mass. Pike over Charles River: The Cambridge side. Plus Update of Series.

Mass. Pike over Charles River: The Cambridge side.  Plus Update of Series.


1. Introductory.
2. The Cambridge Side of the Charles River.
3. The position of the Cambridge City Council on their heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
4. Update, September 25, 2014.
a. Green Line A Spur.
b. Highway over the Charles.


1. Introductory.

This is the fourth in a series of reports on presentation of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) concerning MassDOT’s ongoing work on rearranging the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) on the Allston (Boston) side of the Charles River.

Prior reports were printed as follows:

a. General Summary.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/mass.html

b. Possible Green Line A spur to service Harvard’s new Harvard Medical School area.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/mass-pike-over-charles-river-possible.html.

c. Rejection of Cambridge’s initiative to run a highway over the Grand Junction railroad bridge. over the Charles River.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/mass-pike-over-charles-river-massdot.html.

2. The Cambridge Side of the Charles River.

Here are a few photos of the area which is the foodless prison of the Charles River White Geese.  It used to be their nesting area.  Their home and food for most of the last 33 years at Magazine Beach has been blocked to them by the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields.

The state (with the obvious general support of key planning staff in Cambridge) has destroyed as much ground vegetation in their prison / former nesting area as it can get away with.  The Cambridge Conservation Commission has been helpful within the severe limits of its jurisdiction.

There are photos of beauty.  There are photos of devastation care of the reprehensible state bureaucrats with help from the City of Cambridge.  There are photos of nature working to heal itself.  Nature could possibly heal itself if allowed to so, but the food of the Charles River White Geese will not come back without an end to the deliberate starvation of them by the Cambridge City Council and the state bureaucrats.

This is the area targeted for a bicycle highway by the plans under consideration by the Cambridge City Council.  Their highway will include a fence blocking access by them to the other part of the wild area.  I went into details on this fence in the last report, on the highway to Boston.

This report overlaps a lot of photos provided in that report.  I will not go over them again. (1.c, above).

The area on the far side of the Grand Junction railroad bridge is further animal habitat to which the Charles River White Geese have been forced to go to get protection for their nests after the Machine destroyed their ground vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Cambridge and the DCR are starving the Charles River White Geese.

Cambridge’s plans would build a fence separating the Destroyed Nesting Area for the balance of the animal habitat.

If you follow the Grand Junction away from the Charles River, you will come to a white building on your right, with a parking lot closer to the Charles.  This parking lot is all that separates the Grand Junction from Vassar Street.  It turns at its nearest point to the Grand Junction and proceeds to Memorial Drive.

Here are two photos of the building between the Grand Junction and Vassar Street.

The first photo shows the back of the building facing the Grand Junction railroad.  The second photo, from Vassar Street, shows the side of the building perpendicular to the Grand Junction railroad.  Putting in a bike highway next to that building connecting the Grand Junction to Vassar Street would be simple, and could be done with relatively little land taking from the property owner.

They go to Memorial Drive by this route and they have achieved their goals without increasing the heartless animal abuse they have inflicted on the Charles River White Geese, with a lot less expense, and with a much shorter route for the bicyclists and pedestrians.

Here is a photo of the excellent tree looming above the Destroyed Nesting Area which would be destroyed under Chapter 286 of the Acts of 2014.  The photo is taken from the Bike Highway route proposed in the Destroyed Nesting Area.

The woman leading the con game to keep people from protecting the Charles River was flat out shocked when I pointed out that she was destroying this excellent tree.  She has persisted in her con game without abate.

Then again, her con game is so without merit that the only question which exists with regard to her presentations in very controlled Cambridge Machine meetings is the nature of the excuse or other maneuver the Machine will use to prevent any and all response to her nonsense.

The tree destruction plans are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html.  The very first page is a cover sheet.  The next page is destruction at the Destroyed Nesting Area.  This tree is shown at the top of the plan and is clearly marked for destruction.

The Cambridge City Council was “neutral” on the destruction of this excellent tree and hundreds of its fellows.  Two members of the Cambridge City Council, Cheung and McGovern publicly support this highway route.

3. The position of the Cambridge City Council on their heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.

Here is a copy of an order seeking legal advice on the Cambridge City Council’s defending Cambridge from heartless animal abusers in traveling shows.

The Cambridge City Council through tactics of this sort, with minimal relevance to the City of Cambridge, routinely lies to the voters that the Cambridge City Council is holier than thou.

The reality is the ongoing heartless starvation of the 33 year resident Charles River White Geese by the Cambridge City Council and by the state bureaucrats who want to kill off all animal residence of the Charles River Basin or drive them away.

The reality is the destruction of 3.4 acres or more of the Alewife Reservation along with the same state bureaucrats along with an “unavoidable” pogrom of animals whose families lived in that area for centuries.  The reality at Alewife is that the current policies of the Cambridge City Council will likely lead to the total destruction of the Alewife woodlands and a further animal pogrom.

But the Cambridge City Council does a lot of lying about itself through self proclamations of sainthood by yelling at the other guy and keeping the vileness of the Cambridge City Council as secret as possible.

4. Update, September 25, 2014.

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014, the fake neighborhood association conducted a meeting which included presentations concerning the Massachusetts Turnpike project.  I will go into greater detail on that meeting in a later report.

However, there were two points made which impact this series of reports.

a. Green Line A Spur.

My understanding was that the state plans concerning the Mass. Pike viaduct’s rebuilding was that the rebuilding would not bring the viaduct closer to Boston University buildings south of the viaduct.

There was a comment that the existing viaduct in, at least in part, above Boston University property.

The comments of the speaker left me uncertain if the original announcement that the viaduct would not be moving closer to the BU buildings still applies.  I questioned the representative and was left uncertain on this issue.

Clearly, it is not the intent of MassDOT to do any land takings in the current project, and it seems that the existing viaduct is not only at the BU property line, it is at least partially over the property line.

This does not seem to change my idea that a Green Line spur could be placed between the two.  It would simply require the use of eminent domain, which is not unusual for transportation projects.

The possibility, however, of a stop for Boston University’s high rise dormitories and the neighboring arena could possibly bring BU’s support of the idea without a major fight.

Additionally, however, new direct subway transportation for BU to Harvard Square and the Red Line would clearly be in BU’s best interests, along with the improved service for this complex to downtown Boston in the other direction.

My report with photos on the possible Green Line spur is at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-green-line-streetcar-light-rail.html.

The two key maps are in the second report of this series concerning the possible Green Line A spur, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/mass-pike-over-charles-river-possible.html.

b. Highway over the Charles.

Along with the MassDOT representative also appeared a representative of a Machine related group in Allston.  I have gone into an extended analysis of the machinations of these various maneuvered groups.  She fits the exact pattern.  As ever, it is impossible to comment on whether she is a true core person or just one of the many folks the Machine drags into its initiatives.

She confirms my understanding that MassDOT has killed the highway plans.

She, speaking from the usual sales pitch mentality, foresees resuming the fight in, I believe, three years.

So, from the Machine point of view, they are hoping to get around MassDOT.

Thank God for MassDOT.

Mass. Pike over Charles River: MassDOT Stands up to Cambridge AGAIN

1. Introduction.
2. Cast of Characters.
3. The Key Environmental Issue.
a. Background.
b. The off ramp by a different name.
c Analysis.
4. Summary.

1. Introduction.

On Thursday evening, September 18, 2014 there was a presentation by MassDOT (Massachusetts Department of Transportation).  The key portion of the presentation concerned the rebuilding of the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) south of and above the Charles River in Boston across from Cambridge, MA.  MassDOT seemed to kill Cambridge, MA’s fight for a bike highway over the Grand Junction railroad bridge which runs under the BU Bridge, both of which cross the Charles River.  A bike highway would be a precursor to a Mass. Pike (I90) off ramp to Cambridge for the benefit of Harvard University.

On their own front, the Cambridge City Council is moving on a law supposedly to defend Cambridge against animal abusers OTHER THAN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.  This is the way Cambridge resolves its own vileness: yell at the other guy and keep the rotten situation in the City of Cambridge as secret as possible.  Thus they falsely proclaim themselves saints.

2. Cast of Characters.

The people fighting for damage to the Charles River are a very tiny minority.

They, however, are joiners.  And those joiners create many different “groups” and then rope well meaning folk into joining the great sounding “groups.”  Naturally, the “groups” are carefully controlled by the “founders” or by the people controlling the “founders.”  There is no real difference in the important policies of the varying interrelated “groups.” Supposed differences exist only in the supposed points of emphasis of each “group.” The differing supposed points of emphasis make each “group” attractive to particular people without changing the core shared interest among the various “groups.”  The “founders” do their best to obfuscate reality.

In the meetings on the Mass. Pike rearrangement, there has been one key person among various “groups.”  The groups were involved in discussions concerning the work being done on the Mass. Pike (I90) on the hill above the Charles River.

The key person purportedly was speaking as a member of a particular “group”.  That group had, and I believe still has, its office on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Another of the “group”s in the meetings regularly meets on the campus of MIT.  MIT is one of Cambridge’s biggest developers and is a major beneficiary of the various attacks on the Charles River.

The creator of this particular “group” this key person was speaking for received a promotion about a year after creating the group.  The creator was promoted to a full time staff member of the City of Cambridge’s Development Department.

Early on as a city staffer, this person created a city group.  He supposedly was seeking wide participation.  He asked that group for input as to development matters which could be improved in Cambridge transportation planning.

I attended what seemed tobe the first meeting.  I have long been concerned about a subway line being planned connecting three existing Boston subways.  There have been two alternative routes for the Subway concept since 1991.  In 1991, tthe state planners adopted a second route for this circumferential subway.  It was a route which I suggested five years earlier as a second possible route.

To the best of my knowledge, the Cambridge Development Department has, ever since, denied the existence of that alternate route.  It get worse because there is a key aspect which only exists in alternative added in 1991, and the state legislature has subsidized that aspect.  Thus the City of Cambridge’s preferred and, of course, destructive alternative has become highly unlikely to be adopted.

So I suggested to this staff member and creator of this guys “group” that he, the staff member of the Cambridge Development Department, arrange it so that the City of Cambridge stops putting out a position on these subway routes which is a blatant lie, a blatant lie shared by no responsible person working on the issue.

I was pulled off the mailing list for meetings of the group where I made the suggestion.

3. The Key Environmental Issue.

a. Background.

The Grand Junction railroad runs through the foodless habitat which has been forced on the Charles River White Geese as the only place they are allowed to live.  The Grand Junction proceeds over the Charles River from there.  It runs under a viaduct containing the Massachusetts Turnpike.  It then proceeds to the railroad yard which Harvard now owns and wishes to develop.

Here is a photo of the approach of the Grand Junction Bridge to the Massachusetts Turnpike on the Boston side of the river.

MassDOT is in the process of rebuilding the Massachusetts Turnpike in this area.  In the photo, you can see the most problematic part of the work.  This is the raised viaduct on which the Mass. Pike travels.

The key issue as far as the Charles River and Cambridge are concerned is how will the future connection tbetween the railroad yard and the Grand Junction bridge be achieved.  In the photo, the tracks are on the Grand Junction Bridge.  The reconstruction of the Mass. Pike will be in the vicinity of the Grand Junction bridge in the area where the tracks are going in the photo.

The discussions in the meetings of the MassDOT advisory group on the rebuilding ran as follows:

The frontsperson for the Cambridge Machine and his friends argued for a whole bunch of work between the Mass. Pike and the Charles River, including access routes to the Grand Junction railroad bridge.  The work they pushed would insert into the area their beloved bike highways.  That beloved bike highway would be of major harm to the animal habitat on the Cambridge side, and would later become Harvard’s Mass. Pike off ramp to Cambridge.

The one thing which is clear is that MassDOT has to leave at least enough room accessing the Grand Junction railroad bridge for one track for the Grand Junction railroad track.

The analysis came in the discussion of rearrangement of the Mass. Pike viaduct.

There is a very tiny space available for everything.

Here is a photo of Boston University’s map at the edge of the nearby Commonwealth Avenue.  It does not show the Grand Junction or the railroad bridge.

Here is my markup of the Green Line A proposal.  It shows the Grand Junction but does not have the excellent detail of the BU Map.

Here is another public Boston University Map which shows the area in the upper left corner and provides a pretty good depiction of the situation there, but it also has its limitations.

Hopefully, among the three maps, you will have an adequate idea of the situation.

Additionally, my photo of the Grand Junction shows, under the Grand Junction, Soldiers Field Road, the second highway between the Boston University buildings and the Charles River.  At the bottom right is the existing bike highway on the Boston side of the Charles River.

The Mass. Pike and Soldiers Field Road are clear in the first Boston University Map, but that map does not show the railroad.  The combination of the two roads and the Grand Junction is shown on the other two maps, but the other two maps do not provide the good blow up of the key section that exists in the first BU map.

b. The off ramp by a different name.

What these latter day “activists” are fighting for is not at all surprising.

I saw the same plans when the MBTA, the local transit authority, announced them in 2004 / 2005 after its study to see if an off ramp could be built from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge over the Grand Junction bridge.

Here are a few key pictures, moving the camera along the railroad tracks / off ramp.

What the MBTA proposed was to widen the Grand Junction bridge by cantilevering a new highway right of way on the east (Boston Harbor) side of the Grand Junction bridge.

Dah, dah, the “activists” want to cantilever a new highway right of way on the east (Boston Harbor) side of the Grand Junction Bridge.

In the first two photos, the eastern addition would be to the left of the area shown.  The unused track is to the right.

The currently unused track area would be reactivated.  The existing track area would be used as a highway ramp, and the new right of way would be the second ramp.  The quiet animal area would be widened to add the new highway.

The geese are enjoying the Charles River to the west (left) of the bridge in the prior photo.  The vegetation above the geese is above the right end of the gaggle in the below picture.  The railroad track can just barely be seen through the tiny hole in that vegetation.  It runs right to left behind the tree.

Cambridge has changed the plans to make them more vile.  The Cambridge plans call for a fence between the highway lanes and the railroad which would block access between the Destroyed Nesting Area and the less visible animal habitat east of the railroad. In this photo, the overpass is straight ahead.  To the left is the destroyed nesting area.

Below, the geese are gathering in the area to the left, with the same trackage visible in the top left .

The area to the right in the above picture is less publicly known wild area to which the Charles River White Geese have been forced.

The Cambridge proposal (supported so far by Cheun and McGovern) would run a fence preventing access between left and right.

Geese looking for food under the Memorial Drive overpass.

This is the far side of the Memorial Drive overpass.  The next photo is of the same location from the overpass.

This is the alternate bike highway.  Straight ahead is the Vassar Street turn.  All the bikes have to do is travel through the cleared space.

The photo is taken back to the fence in the previous photo.

Following that fence to the left as you look at this building, and you come to the area where Cambridge's vegetation plans left room for exits from Harvard University's / the MBTA's off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Greater analysis below of the new highway and those games.

This is the alternate bike highway.  Straight ahead is the Vassar Street turn.  All the bikes have to do is travel through the cleared space.

The second photo above is taken back to the fence in the previous photo.

Following that fence to the left as you look at this building, and you come to the area where Cambridge's vegetation plans left room for exits from Harvard University's / the MBTA's off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Greater analysis below of the new highway and those games.

The current underpass under Memorial Drive would be widened to give the new road room to move.

Cambridge argued in 2004 - 2005 that they wanted the underpass to be wider.

After you pass the area where Cambridge’s bike highway should cut over to Vassar Street and then to Memorial Drive, you come to new Cambridge construction which is very telling.

Cambridge built a roadway behind 620 Memorial Drive, at the corner of Memorial Drive and Brookline Street, and across Memorial Drive from the goose Destroyed Nesting Area and that magnificent, now condemned tree.

The roadway was advertised to be providing access to Memorial Drive / Boston from a new office / lab area largely owned and being built on behalf of MIT.

Like Vassar Street on the east side, this new road turned as it approached the tracks.  Of great interest, however, was the tree planting plan.  Trees, trees, trees, EXCEPT for areas next to the tracks left without trees.  Those area correspond to access to and from the Mass. Pike off ramp.

I pointed out the openings to the contractor.  Not at all surprisingly, no saplings have been planted yet.

The MBTA plans and the “activists’” plans called for a highway to be built along the tracks or beyond Kendall Square.

No surprise whatsoever, not even the lies by which the new road would be created.  Lies are the norm when you are dealing with people like this.

But they need to get access to the Grand Junction railroad bridge from the Boston side.

c. Analysis.

MassDOT, in its reconstruction of the Mass. Pike is widening I90 (Mass. Pike) to bring I90 closer to current Interstate Highway standards.

In meetings before the most recent meeting, MassDOT obtained agreement among pretty much everybody to move Soldiers Field Road to the south so that it would be, at least in part, under a portion of the rebuilt Mass. Pike viaduct.

The Machine was fighting for as much open space as they can get south of the Charles River along with as much access as they can get to the Grand Junction.  These are the same people who just got $20 million out of the State House for the destruction of hundreds of trees on the north, Cambridge, side of the Charles River.

When MassDOT was making their presentation, I listened closely for their description of access changes to the Grand Junction bridge.  No such description was made.  A Machine operative who spoke after me, pretty much begged MassDOT to create room for more than just one track to the Grand Junction.

I caught the omission before he spoke.  I noticed in the presentation diagrams that they showed a lot less of Soldiers Field Road under the Mass. Pike than had previously been shown.  Thus much less space was being provided between the highway and the Charles River

Thus there was less room between the highways and the Charles River exactly where the Machine wants access to the Grand Junction railroad bridge.  You add that to no mention of greater access to the Grand Junction bridge, and I was very happy.

I effusively praised, and continue to praise, MassDOT for, yet again, standing up to outrages coming out of the City of Cambridge and its friends.

MassDOT has determined, as of the current moment, there is not enough room to do all that Cambridge and its buddies are fighting for, and that all that they will be leaving access for will be that one track for the Grand Junction.

No bike highway, no pedestrian highway, just that one track connecting to the Grand Junction bridge.

4. Summary.

This is at least the third time that MassDOT has stood up to the Cambridge for the benefit of the environment.

This position places the onus for destruction associated with the Grand Junction railroad solely on the Cambridge City Council.  The Cambridge City Council is not getting an excuse for irresponsible behavior from MassDOT.

I will go further into Cambridge’s outrage on its side of the Charles River in my next report.

Mass Pike over Charles River: Possible Street Car Spur

1. Comment.
2. Possible Streetcar (“Green Line”) Spur.
3. Other construction in the area.
a. Direct applicability.
b. Related projects.

1. Comment.

I reported yesterday that the MassDOT meeting on Thursday, September 20, 2014, announced a rebuilding which leaves room for a streetcar spur between the highway and adjacent Boston University buildings.

I got the following studious comment:

**************

Hi.   These two new projects could include a connection from the turnpike area to the Green Line.
Recently MassDOT announced:

 Project 606541 - the rebuilding of Comm. Ave. over the turnpike by the BU Bridge.   "STREET OVER I-90 & MBTA
This project involves the replacement of the bridge superstructure along I-90 at Commonwealth Ave "


There is a also preliminary project that rebuilds the supports of the road -
Project 606538 - which "includes substructure improvements to the Commonwealth Avenue bridge over the Massachusetts Turnpike and MBTA."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project 606541

(Click here for a glossary of terms)

Project Description:
BOSTON- BROOKLINE- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, B-16-055, COMMONWEALTH AVENUE OVER I-90 & MBTA & DECK REPAIR, B-27-018, CARLTON STREET OVER I-90 & MBTA
This project involves the replacement of the bridge superstructure along I-90 at Commonwealth Ave and the repair of the deck at Carlton Street over I-90 and MBTA.
Location:

    City of Boston
    Town of Brookline

Design Responsibility: Consultant
Construction Begins: Summer 2014
Project Manager: Steven E McLaughlin [Email MassHighway]
Estimated Total Contract Cost: $69,850,126.50
Estimated Total Federal Participating Construction Cost: N/A
MassHighway District: District 6
Current Status: This project has been advertised for construction bids. (as of 05/10/2014)


************

I will give a bit more detail as to the possible line, and then go into related projects.

2. Possible Streetcar (“Green Line”) Spur.

I published a very detailed photo analysis of the area the route could be created at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-green-line-streetcar-light-rail.html.

This is an on the ground analysis.

I have presented two relevant maps.

The first focuses on this area, the “viaduct” area which is being rebuilt, and whose location is crucial to any Green Line Spur.

The green line spur would come off the raised Commonwealth Avenue bridge over I90 and the commuter rail, lower to a comparable height to the highway and BU’s buildings, and proceed between the two until you get into the primary I90 / rail yard area, the future Harvard Medical School plus.

The first map shows how the spur would connect to Kenmore Square / Kendall Station.

The second map focuses on the Harvard Medical School area, including the viaduct.  A stop would be viable for Boston University’s new high rise dormitories and for Agannis Arena.

A Green Line spur could be run through the Harvard Complex, with a stop for that complex.

Going beyond the complex, it would have great neighborhood value by being run under North Harvard Street with stops at Cambridge Street and Franklin Street.  It could proceed further with a stop for Harvard Business School / Harvard Stadium.

It would then go under the Charles River and connect to busways which are part of the Harvard Station by a tunnel which continues to exist after the 1978 reconstruction of Harvard Station.  Access would be readily available to the bus tunnel complex in a stub end arrangement.

The need for a stub end arrangement adds a requirement for a layover facility under fields owned by Harvard University on either side of North Harvard Street, before crossing the Charles River.

MassDOT has a useful fact sheet on line at https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/HighlightedProjects/AllstonInterchange/Allston_I-90_FactSheet.pdf.

3. Other construction in the area.

a. Direct applicability.

Here is one of the photos on the link I provided above, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-green-line-streetcar-light-rail.html.  Greater detail can be obtained at that link.

The photo is taken standing on the Commonwealth Avenue bridge over I90 / Mass. Pike in the middle of the existing streetcar / Green Line tracks.

A separation in the bridge structure starts at the left about a quarter of the way up on the photo.  The separation proceeds diagonally to the right.  If you look very carefully, a companion separation starts at the end of the concrete divider on the left.  It also runs to the right.

The area between these two separations is the bridge over the commuter rail / main line to Worcester / Framingham.

The point where the camera is standing is close to where a switch would have to be installed for the Green Line spur.

The camera is standing on the bridge above I90 / Mass. Pike.  The spur would go off the Commonwealth Avenue bridge above the commuter rail.

The buildings to the right are the Boston University buildings which follow the Mass. Pike. viaduct.  The viaduct rises so that the commuter rail goes under the viaduct until the right of way widens again.

The Green Line spur would be built between these buildings and the Mass. Pike viaduct.

b. Related projects.

The construction which the writer mentions at the beginning of this report seems to come to the point where the camera is, and up to the first divider.

Mention is made of Carlton Street.  The photo is taken not far to the west of where the highway on the BU Bridge crosses Commonwealth Avenue.  Carlton Street is the next street to the east of the BU Bridge / Commonwealth Avenue intersection.  Boston being Boston, its name changes between Commonwealth Avenue and the Charles River.

The BU Bridge / Commonwealth Avenue road complex is a very large, very complicated traffic circle / rotary which extends to various other local roads.  And the changes coming are very complex as well.

Interestingly, running a Green Line spur off at this point would be much less complicated with regard to the highway traffic than are the multiple changes which are in process.  The one real complication would be a need to allow for the spur in traffic light operation.

Any actual construction on a Green Line spur would not come until after the rebuilding of the Mass. Pike viaduct, although there clearly could be savings by combining the projects.

Harvard will not be building in the Mass. Pike / rail yard area for at least ten years, according to their various projections.  Nevertheless, service of a Green Line spur could be a value to the neighborhood and to Harvard’s construction at North Harvard and Western, plus to the Harvard Business School / Harvard Stadium area.

Going forward with the BU Bridge / Commonwealth area Avenue projects will, at minimum provide the same sort of stability to these bridges as would be provided to the Mass. Pike, and would definitely simplify construction of a Green Line spur.

I am not specifically familiar with plans for the area of Commonwealth Avenue above the commuter rail.  It is highly likely that the plans the writer presents go into that area.  It is a relatively small area and certainly, I should hope, is part of the BU Bridge / Commonwealth Avenue related projects.  The wording of the announcement reflects naming confusion which is normal when referring to transportation entities in the Boston area.  The commuter rail is part of the MBTA and, thus, is likely to be part of this project.

The discussions of the plans for the area gave no indication or reason to think that significant changes are intended.

Mass. Pike (I90) above the Charles River, MA, USA - MassDOT Rejects ANOTHER Cambridge Outrage

1. Introduction.

2. Street Car Spur continues to be possible.

3. Assistance for Highway over Grand Junction Rejected.

4. Cambridge Common Destruction.

5. Summary.

1. Introduction.

Last night, September 18, 2014, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation conducted another public presentation in the Allston neighborhood of Boston.  They were updating folks on the progress of planning for the rebuilding of the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) which looms over the Charles River on the south, Boston side.

The state will be rebuilding the elevated portion of the highway which passes through a rather narrow band west of the BU Bridge.

From my point of view, there were two key aspects.

2. Street Car Spur continues to be possible.

First, although the existing highway structure is being torn down and rebuilt, the new structure will be no closer to Boston University’s buildings which neighbor the highway to the south.  

What this does is continue to leave room for a streetcar spur to be constructed between the two groups of structures.  That possible spur could provide public transportation from Commonwealth Avenue west of the BU Bridge to Harvard’s new complex and then to Harvard Square.

The Commonwealth Avenue end could connect to the existing streetcar line by way of low technology switches.  The existing line connects Kenmore Station and Downtown Boston to Boston College.  The Harvard Square end could connect to existing Harvard Station bus tunnels by an existing tunnel which runs from the bus tunnels perhaps half the distance to the Charles River.

3. Assistance for Highway over Grand Junction Rejected.

The big victory would appear to be a rejection by MassDOT of Cambridge’s attempts to get MassDOT to assist Cambridge in  its plans  to build a bike highway (and later a Mass. Pike off ramp) over the Grand Junction railroad bridge under the BU Bridge.  

This would be yet another attack on the wildlife living on the north banks of the Charles River, most visibly but not solely, the Charles River White Geese.

4. Cambridge Common Destruction.

One of the four new Cambridge City Councilors attended.  He went out of his way to obtain the flier I was passing out, which was targeted at the Cambridge City Council and its accomplices.

The flier is dominated by the outrageous State House authorization of $20 million to the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges on Memorial Drive, close to the Charles River.

Also prominent in the flier is the imminent destruction of many excellent trees on the Cambridge Common by the Cambridge City Council.  For space considerations, the flier solely discusses the plans to destroy the excellent grove of trees which form the entrance to the Cambridge Common from Harvard Square.  The horror of these plans is such that this relatively small part of the flier is overwhelmed by this outrage.  

Omitted, quite distressingly, are the plans to destroy other excellent trees at the far end of the Cambridge Common from Harvard Square.  This destruction, on its own, would be shocking.  The trouble is that this destruction is way outweighed by the absolute horror of the Cambridge City Council’s destruction near Harvard Square.

If the councilor wants to give responsible behavior on the Cambridge Common a chance, that councilor would, apparently, have to take action in the City Council meeting this coming Monday, September 22, by suspension of the rules.  Once those trees are destroyed, they will be destroyed.

5. Summary.

I anticipate I will follow with detailed reports on the importance of the MassDOT actions.  There are a number of past reports on this blog already posted on these matters.

Cambridge, MA, USA City Council and Conservation Commission discuss Alewife.

Cambridge, MA, USA City Council and Conservation Commission discuss Alewife.

0. Cambridge’s “achievement” at Alewife.
1. Introduction.
2. Cambridge City Council.
a. Council action.
b. Reality.
c. Chronicle fails to publish Cambridge’s bragging of destruction.
3. Cambridge Conservation Commission.
a. Report to the Cambridge Conservation Commission.
b. Fake group policies.
c. Responsible behavior.
d. My comments to the Conservation Commission.


0. Cambridge’s “achievement” at Alewife.

Details below.

1. Introduction.

Last Monday evening, September 14, 2014, both the Cambridge City Council and the Cambridge Conservation Commission discussed Alewife.

2. Cambridge City Council.

a. Council action.

The City Council and City Manager were reported by the Cambridge Chronicle as discussing private property on the Route 2 side of Alewife.  The City Council made pious noises.

The Cambridge Chronicle report is on Page A7 of their edition of September 11, 2014.

b. Reality.

This property is the subject of a nearly 20 year con game by one of the usual fake groups.

I have reported the destruction of 3.4 acres of Cambridge owned Alewife by the Cambridge City Council located behind 165 CambridgePark Drive.  I have published the City of Cambridge’s puff photo bragging about the destruction.  Here it is again.

c. Chronicle fails to publish Cambridge’s bragging of destruction.

This photo was attached to a press release printed loyally on a blog written by a long time Cambridge Machine activist.

It is highly unlikely that Cambridge failed to send the same blurb and photo to the Cambridge Chronicle.

To the best of my knowledge, it has never been published by the Cambridge Chronicle, but the Cambridge Chronicle has repeatedly published nonsense out of the Cambridge City Council and out of the fake group.

The prior editor did publish a letter from the leader of the fake group.  She bragged about Cambridge destruction of 3.4 acres of irreplaceable woodlands identical to the woodland she claims to be defending from private developers.  She has spent nearly 20 years telling concerned folks to ignore public development.

She has spent nearly 20 years yelling at private developers obeying municipally created zoning, but has a great deal of difficulty mentioning that the Cambridge City Council which has made so much lovely words about Alewife controls the zoning under which the Cambridge properties in private ownership have been severely overdeveloped.

Repeated letters by me reflecting reality since they changed editors, have failed to be published.  They keep on printing nonsense, but have no use for even photos of reality.

Here is the Cambridge’s puff piece photo of their destruction of 3.4 acres + of the Alewife Reservation behind 165 CambridgePark Drive.  The trees in the background occupied the entire area of the photo until the Cambridge City Council destroyed them.

3. Cambridge Conservation Commission.

a. Report to the Cambridge Conservation Commission.

Monday evening, the Cambridge Conservation Commission had three items on its agenda concerning Alewife.  I think it was very much telling that I was the only person in the audience not related to a developer.

The first two hearings concerned the large project between Alewife Station and Route 2, Cambridge Discovery Park.  The third was on the former nightclub site.

The board, after the first hearing asked the Executive Director about litigation concerning the fake Alewife group.  As near as I could gather, another windmill got tilted with the usual results.  The exec commented that the fake Alewife group was seeking organization assistance from her and she provided some.

b. Fake group policies.

These various company unions have a very clear pattern.  They very strongly support almost any and all attempts to work toward their stated objectives.

The only courses of action the core people seem antagonistic toward are the ones most likely to work.

The fake groups, in particular, get downright hostile toward the idea of talking with the Cambridge City Council.  Inasmuch as the real purpose of company unions is to keep trouble makers from achieving their desired goals, it is not at all surprising that folks are chased away from the Cambridge City Council.  True, the Cambridge City Council is terrible, but they are the only real game in town, inasmuch as they do have to stand for election.

The supposed groups do seem to be involved in a lot of petty litigation.  That really stems from the zoning written by city staff.  It has a lot of fake protections.  When fake protections turn out to be fake, folks are talked into suing.

The last thing, the key people want, however, is any attempt to change zoning to make it responsible and meaningful.

At Alewife, the real property in action, without changing zoning, now is the publicly owned property, so folks are told to ignore the publicly owned property.  Heck, you talk to a city councilor and you might get something done.

On the other hand, you talk to a city councilor and do not get things done, and you realize that the Cambridge City Council is the problem.  You do that, and you might even find responsible people elected to the Cambridge City Council.

The leader of this group has stooped very low.  She has spent nearly twenty years telling people to yell at private developers and ignore the City Council, with its zoning powers and its development powers.  The latter is particularly important because Cambridge owns much of Alewife.  The area it does not own, the Cambridge City Council has given outrageously dense zoning to.

The leader of the fake group has even stooped to praising the City Council’s destruction of 3.4 acres on municipally owned forest while yelling non stop at private developers obeying the City Council’s zoning.

The alleged neighborhood association fits the pattern as well.  Never talk to the city council if at all possible.  Yell at developers obeying the zoning, insofar as they can maneuver folks in that direction.

It is very clear to me that the fake groups are funneling Alewife in the path of total destruction: Tilt at windmills on the private development, and let Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation destroy, destroy, destroy, while keep the latter, highly possible wins, away from well meaning people.

c. Responsible behavior.

The Cambridge City Council’s destruction of 3.4 acres of the Alewife Reservation behind 165 CambridgePark Drive was advertised as provided protection against the worst possible storm in any two year period, a two year storm.

There have been two fifty years storms in the 25 years.  They were very devastating.

Flood protection is seriously deficient, and the fake groups are telling folks to yell at the private developers, and how dare you yell at the City Council.

The trouble is that the Alewife area needs protection against 100 year storms.  Destroying 3.4 acres for protection against 2 years is the usual cynical Cambridge lie.

That protection has to come somewhere, either under privately owned property by city easement or by destroying the publicly owned Alewife reservation.

The leader of the fake protective group has publicly praised the first step toward destruction of the entire reservation.

Both groups are anathema toward talking responsible behavior with the City Council.  You do that, something might get done.

And the real goal of the folks pulling the strings very clearly is total destruction of Alewife.

And, once again, here is the fake group (and the Cambridge Chronicle)’s achievement to date, photo courtesy of the City of Cambridge:

d. My comments to the Conservation Commission.

I spoke to the Conservation Commission and the developers.  The Cambridge Discovery Park (the one between Alewife Station and Route 2) developer helped things out by mentioning the “MDC lot” in his presentation.  I led by introducing myself including my very major development / environmental experience.

That experience includes my writing the zoning that is returning the "MDC lot" to the environment, the lot the developer mentioned.  I communicated my contempt for the fake protectors, and I followed with my wishes that Cambridge provide the needed flood protection as part of future projects in addition to the flood protection required by the individual projects.

The reality is that, as is usual with the various Company Union groups, the victims, the well meaning folks, have only been talking with the bad guys and folks controlled by the bad guys.  The victims are committed to chasing their tails because there are so many people telling them to chase their tails.

And the people supporting tail chasing always sound so good.