Charles River: MIT Proposes Alternative to Cambridge’s Destructive Grand Junction Highway

Charles River: MIT Proposes Alternative to Cambridge’s Destructive Grand Junction Highway

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology submitted a report to Cambridge in October 2014 concerning Cambridge’s outrageous plans on the Grand Junction railroad.

Here is an exact copy of portions of page 12 of the report.  This is MIT’s map of the Memorial Drive end of the bike highway.  MIT’s notes to bullets 1 and 3 are copied without edit.

In bullet 3, MIT states that the Cambridge plans come too close to the MIT building at 640 Memorial Drive.

In bullet 1, MIT suggests that the destructive southern portion of Cambridge bike highway plan be ended at Cambridge’s Fort Washington Park and be connected to Memorial Drive from there.

MIT proposes an alternate route which would end Cambridge’s bike highway at the existing pedestrian connector from Fort Washington Park.  MIT’s proposal would run the bike highway along the connector to Vassar Street, turn right, and then turn left at Amesbury Street, the street which contains the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

The bike highway would connect to the existing bike highway on Memorial Drive with a traffic light for protection.

To put this in perspective, here are the routes manually drawn on the relevant portion of MIT’s cover photo.

Also included is this rendition is the relevant part of a destructive "activist" proposal in front of the Mass. Department of Transportation’s group which is studying the rearrangement of the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) on the southern side of the Charles River across from Magazine Beach.

This friend of Boston University / MIT / Department of Conservation and Recreation proposes that the Wild Area between the Grand Junction and BU’s Cambridge Boathouse be destroyed.  This, TO NO SURPRISE, fits in with DCR destruction plans for the Wild Area cited favorably in the Cambridge study.  I printed those plans in my last report.

The other destructive “activist” plan in front of MassDOT proposes to destroy the Boston bank of the Charles River across from Magazine Beach and build over the Charles River as part of the package.  That architect bragged of similar construction elsewhere on the Charles.

The bragging architect did not mention that the governments doing that construction were also dumping raw sewerage in Boston Harbor.

The four concepts, destroying the Boston shore of the Charles River, destroying the Wild Area which is part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese, Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s outrages, and dumping raw sewerage in Boston Harbor are all one stinking group.  

But the destructive “activists” never mention their fellow travelers and the fact that they and their fellow destroyers are rightly condemned by decent human beings.

Charles River, Confessions of Destructiveness by the City of Cambridge

Charles River, Confessions of Destructiveness by the City of Cambridge

I have gone over the package the Cambridge City Council is talking about when it brags of a “bike path” on the Grand Junction railroad.

Here are two plans bragging of their destructiveness.

It is highly likely that at least the first outrage is included in the $24 million blessed by the State House in 2014.  The second one is the one that friends of the DCR, etc. are trying to ram through the MassDOT group working on the Mass. Pike rearrangement, along with the first, at least as far as the Wild Area is concerned.

Note the word “retaining wall” pointing at the on ramp to Memorial Drive.  That retaining wall would remove all the dirt in the wild area and turn it into environmentally useless flat land, without all those trees.  This is exactly what the DCR is bragging about when it shows exactly one undestroyed tree in their tree destruction plans.

Note “pedestrian underpass” under the BU Bridge.  This is the sort of destructive stuff that MassDOT fought against under the next three bridges.  It looks like this “pedestrian underpass” would be built in the Charles River next to the Destroyed Nesting Area and next to the planned to be destroyed Wild Area.  This would wipe out the last refuge from the elements for the Charles River White Geese.

Note the fence placed next to the hill which would block access between the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area.

It is no coincidence that the exact proposal in this map for widening the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge was used in the local public transportation agency (MBTA) plan to create an off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge.  The euphemism this week is bike path, but a lot of destruction being done in the Memorial Drive area is slated for that off ramp.

Harvard bought their future Medical School location only months after the MBTA issued this plan.

So when the greedy and destructive folks sit back, and Harvard / MIT figure they need that off ramp, forget about the bennies being bragged of by the greedy and destructive folks.

And here is what the Wild Area looks like before all those bad city councilors and their friends go to work.  They would never stoop so low?  Have you looked at the Cambridge Common recently?

Charles River: Comments to MassDOT, basic criteria for Created Open Space Managed by DCR

Charles River: Comments to MassDOT, basic criteria for Created Open Space Managed by DCR.

1. Introduction
2. Summary of Responsible Criteria for Created Open Space, based on DCR’s Outrages in Past.
3. Final Link.


1. Introduction

I recently published an analysis of the horribly irresponsible Department of Conservation and Recreation in was posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/charles-river-massdot-plan-for-mass.html.

This analysis converted into a written package I submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation on September 17, 2015 at its final advisory committee meeting before it decides on it favorite package for the Mass. Pike rebuild on the Boston side of the Charles River.

The written package seems to have pushed the limits for document size when I included the graphics.

What I am going to try to do is report added sections,


2. Summary of Responsible Criteria for Created Open Space, based on DCR’s Outrages in Past.

Here is section 5 of the letter, with this title.  The analysis is based on my prior report, link above.  The listings which are not specifically justified were justified in the prior report which became with some embellishments, the prior sections of the DCR letter.

These are criteria which should be imposed on the DCR if the DCR is managing open space created as a result of the Mass. Pike work.  This, of course, assumes that MassDOT does not seek or does not obtain legislative permission to have a responsible manager for created open space rather than the DCR.

These are issues which, when dealing with a responsible entity, would be obvious.

The fact that they have to be spelled out for the DCR demonstrates just how bad the department is.

******

These criteria should apply with or without getting rid of the DCR.  Continued participation of the DCR mandates formalization.  Explanation is only provided where necessary, assuming the presence of justification elsewhere in this report.

A. Prohibit the walling off of the Charles River from the open space being constructed, as has been done by the bizarre 14 foot or so high wall of INTRODUCED BUSHES created by the DCR which prevents access between the Magazine Beach playing fields and the Charles River for humans and for the Charles River White Geese.

B. Prohibit wanton destruction of ground vegetation.

C. Prohibit wanton destruction of larger vegetation.

D. Prohibit use of poisons in general and in maintenance of vegetation in particular.  Expensive drainage systems, in particular, are no excuse for irresponsible dumping of poisons.

Use of poisons next to the Charles River by the DCR is routine and is expanding.

The annual algae infestation on the Charles River was created by the DCR dumping poison marked “do not use near water” on Ebersol Fields by MGH when their beloved poisons did not satisfy them.  The next day the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge with the algae infestation which is now annual.

The Magazine Beach playing fields has seen its healthy environmentally responsible grass destroyed and replaced with sickly stuff which requires poisons.  To “protect” the Charles River from the poisons, an expensive drainage system has been installed.  The responsible alternative: do not destroy the responsible grass in the first place.

The healthy grass was in place successfully for the better part of a Century.  The sickly stuff is not working.

So the DCR is planning to dig all the sickly INTRODUCED GRASSl up and put in more poison requiring grass.

PLUS the DCR wants to destoy the UNDESTROYED RESPONSIBLE GRASS on the top of the hill west of the Magazine Beach playing fields and behind the swimming pool.  The DCR want replacement with poison drinking grass.

E. Punish routine lying by sanctions up to and including firing of the individuals in question.  In particular, the long time manager of the Magazine Beach playing field area should be barred from participation in this project and in all matters related to this project based on many years of multiple lies.

The participation of such a belligerently dishonest person is inexcusable.  His lies have kept outrages on the Cambridge side going when the outrages should have been killed immediately.

F. Prohibit destruction of vegetation for parking.  Require workers to park AND DRIVE outside vegetated areas.

Long before the outrage of the railroad workers, we had wondered about patterns of vegetation destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area.  The contempt for the environment displayed by these workers and by THAT SAME IRRESPONSIBLE DCR MANAGER show that the destruction was from irresponsible DCR behavior.

G. Prohibit destruction of existing parking.

The destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive has been fought for for more than a decade based on multiple, varying excuses.  All that counts is the destruction, not the latest excuse.

The same applies to plans for destruction of existing parking on the top of the hill west of the playing fields.

That parking is needed for poor people who use the picnic area.  Destruction was simply demanded in the only “public discussion” to date, in which the entire package was rejected so soundly that the fake group conducting the “public discussion” refused to conduct a vote and instead indulged in corrupt tactics to steal a “vote.”

The fake group has repeatedly insisted they are not fighting for destruction, but the fake group has stopped mentioning the parking lot.

That is the latest game.  They, in their sick way, contend they are not fighting for destruction.  They are dictating that it is not politically correct to mention the soon to be deceased victim.

This is the latest technique in fights for destruction, company union organizations that lie they are defending and fight for destruction by suppressing discussion while loudly proclaiming their sainthood and the sainthood of the people pulling their strings.

H. Prohibit  implementation of the DCR’s policy of killing off or driving away resident animals.

I. Prohibit killing off or driving away resident animals, directly or “incidental” to other efforts.

J. Prohibit destruction of animal habitat for open space creation, not just of “protected” animals, but of all resident animals.

K. Prohibit “replacement” of habitat as an excuse for destruction.

Once you have destroyed habitat, you have killed the residents.

L. Prohibit destruction of bird nests and / or of materials needed for nesting.

M. Prohibit the use of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” in any manner.  Their destruction is wanton.  In addition to comments elsewhere in the report, I have seen the CRC condemned by members of the Boston Conservation Commission for environmental destruction in the area in question.  CRC’s explanation: incompetence of CRC.  CRC’s contempt for resident animals is wanton.

M. Require that open space be created around existing trees to the extent they exist.  Prohibit the destruction of trees in the “creation” of open space.

Note the 33 photos in the final link in this report.


3. Final Link.

http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/charles-river-more-money-for.html.

Charles / Mass. Pike: Destroyers target Goose Wild Area, Boston Shore.


1. Introduction.
2. Destruction of the Wild Area, Stalking Horse for Mass. Pike Off Ramp to Cambridge.
3. The Architects’ Proposal.
4. Related matters.


1. Introduction.

Last night, September 18, 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation team working on the rebuilding of I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) on the Boston side of the Charles River held a meeting of its advisory committee.

The meeting was introduced as the last meeting to be conducted before MassDOT reaches a firm position on its desired parameters for the construction work.

There were two extensive speakers.

Here is my marked up satellite photo from the regional transit agency showing the key area targeted by the destructive duo.

The spaghetti on the left is the area Harvard is targeting for its relocated Medical School one of these Centuries.  The Mass. Pike runs out of it left to right and west to east through the middle and then along the bottom.  Below the Mass. Pike on the left is Boston University.  Above the Mass. Pike is the Charles River and then Cambridge.  The BU Bridge goes straight through the middle, with the Grand Junction railroad bridge under it.

Harvard owns pretty much all of the land covered by the MassDOT study.  Harvard's ownership is subordinate to use for transportation purposes.

Harvard bought its holdings several months after the local transportation agency, the MBTA released a report saying that the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge could be converted to an off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge.

After issuing the report, the MBTA “realized” that the costs of the project would be too much to pay, given the supposed purpose they were researching, Express Bus service from the Newton Suburb to Cambridgeport / Kendall Square.  The MBTA came to this “realization” with a straight face, inasmuch as the MBTA was talking about, probably, two or three express buses in in the morning and two or three back in the evening.  It does not take an abacus to calculate that such construction would not be justified by two or three round trips of one express bus Monday through Friday.

A lot of the environmental outrages being inflicted on the Cambridge side can be explained as readying Cambridge to received traffic from the Mass. Pike via such a bridge.


2. Destruction of the Wild Area, Stalking Horse for Mass. Pike Off Ramp to Cambridge.

The first presenter last night gave a pitch for the usual stalking horse / bike highway on the Grand Junction railroad bridge.

He described his proposal as providing access from the main BU Campus to BU’s Cambridge Boathouse east of the Wild Area, which in turn is east of the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.

English translation: he wants to destroy the Wild Area between the Grand Junction railroad bridge and the BU Cambridge Boathouse.

The Wild Area is the next area east of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, on the east side of the Grand Junction railroad.  The Charles River White Geese have been forced to use the Wild Area for nesting because of all the destruction of ground vegetation.  In the worst weather, the Charles River White Geese can be seen in the waters off the wild area seeking protection not available in the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Here is a view of the access to the railroad bridge on the Boston side.  The southern edge of the bridge is the metal pieces showing at the bottom.  If you look closely straight ahead, you will see a green sign above the Mass. Pike.

This highway proposal would cross the bridge running from the Mass. Pike and turn and run (left, behind the camera) through the Wild Area to the BU Cambridge Boathouse.

One of the first happenings after the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” starting destroying the environment for the Department of Conservation and Recreation was the destruction of all ground vegetation in the Wild Area.

One of the second happenings after the Charles River "Conservancy" started the environmental destruction for the DCR was the destruction of most of the ground vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting Area west of the Grand Junction railroad bridge.

Omitted from destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area was that area in and near the area which the DCR wanted to destroy as part of the rebuilding of the BU Bridge.

At least one depiction of the off ramp from Mass. Pike to Cambridge showed an access ramp going through the Wild Area.  It is no coincidence that the supposed bike highway would connect to the BU Boathouse through exactly that path.  Such a route would create most of the off ramp desired for the ramp from the Mass. Pike.

Here are the DCR plans for destruction of the Wild Area as part of the DCR’s proposed destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge east of the BU Bridge.

The impact of the DCR plans is the same in the two versions of the plans not kept secret, plans dated 2003 and 2009.  The current game is maximum secrecy, maximum damage. $20 million was bless by the legislature in 2014.

The DCR plans show exactly one tree not being destroyed.  They do not deign to mention anything else.  Dishonesty is the norm dealing with these people.

Here is the BU satellite photo showing the Wild Area published in 2014.

Here are photos by me of the Wild Area from the BU Bridge taken last winter and a week or so ago.

The small white figures in the immediately above photo are members of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese.

Here is a photo from the worst of last winter of the Charles River White Geese swimming in the apparently only part of the Charles River not frozen over at that time.  The photo is taken through the Wild Area.

All trees between the Grand Junction railroad and the yellow BU Boathouse would be destroyed but one.


3. The Architects’ Proposal.

MassDOT’s most recently announced plan would rebuild the Mass. Pike in the narrow part of the photo area of the first photo, between the BU Bridge and Harvard’s property to the left.

MassDOT’s proposal is responsible.  Most of the road in this area is on stilts, starting at about the Grand Junction and going west.  They would tear it down and rebuild it pretty much in place.  Part of the adjoining Soldiers’ Field Road would be moved under the Mass. Pike to allow minor widening, with all of the widening toward Soldiers’ Field Road and the Charles River.

The Architect proposal would rebuild it on the ground with extensive parts of their related items built at least in part on a new retaining wall which would destroy the animal habitat on the edge of the river and any inconvenient trees.  They would probably cantilever above the river.

The Architect giving the presentation, among other examples, show irresponsibly built parts of the river roads abutting the Charles River as good examples of what he was proposing.

His argument basically was that they had done this sort of thing before, why not again?

A lot of responsible people condemn the same construction as irresponsible behavior which should not be repeated, much like dumping waste in Boston Harbor.  At the same time as this construction was being done on the Charles, waste was being dumped in Boston Harbor.  The “responsible” architect did not extend his comparison to the obvious irresponsibilities of his comparisons.


4. Related matters.

I submitted written comments which were an expansion of my most recent report, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/charles-river-massdot-plan-for-mass.html.

There were significant changes, but the entire thing really is too big for one report.  I will follow up with portions.

Clearly these presentations were irresponsible.

The pitch they are giving, in addition to supposed glorious ideas, was allegations of cost savings.

This could be dangerous.

We have a commendable agency, MassDOT, whose responsibilities were expanded by the legislature by giving MassDOT major responsibilities of the now deceased Metropolitan District Commission.  The rest of the MDC was folded into the DCR.

The legislature achieved part of its goals in putting a responsible agency, MassDOT, on the Charles River bridges.  MassDOT has been commendable in standing up to outrages from DCR / Cambridge government types on the Charles River and has been commendable in standing up to similar outrages on the Grand Junction.

The folding of the MDC into the DCR was a waste of time.  The MDC lives without meaningful change except in name.  It is silly to make a distinction between MDC before and DCR after.  They are both vile and very compatible with the destructive City of Cambridge, MA.

And we have a ramping up of DCR / Cambridge type fight for destruction on the Charles River.

Charles River, MassDOT Plan for Mass. Pike, Irresponsible environmental manager, irresponsible alternate proposals.

Charles River, MassDOT Plan for Mass. Pike, Irresponsible environmental manager, irresponsible alternate proposals.

0. Introductory.
1. Summary.
2. One very telling piece of the DCR’s Record — the Creation of an annual blight by the DCR's  use of poisons on the Charles River..
3. The DCR adds Contempt for Resident Animals to its Contempt for the Land and Water of the Charles River.
4. The DCR uses blatant lies in its fight for destruction on the Charles River.
A. General.
B. Lies in the attacks on the Charles River White Geese.
C. Lies in the construction of the bizarre wall walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River.
D. Lies in the reduction of playing fields at Magazine Beach.
E. Lies in the DCR's fight to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.
F. Fight for destruction by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”
G. The latest project of the fighters for destruction — the Grand Junction outrage.
H. Some Destruction by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy:”
I. The most visible victims of these multiple outrages — the Charles River White Geese.
J. More destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese — Railroad Worker destruction blessed by the DCR in spite of Cambridge Conservation Commission objections.
K. Cambridge’s planned destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area.
L. The DCR is unfit for environmental management in general and, in particular, management of the open space being created.
M. Have the legislature prohibit this irresponsible entity from responsibility for the new open space and Soldiers Field Road.
5. The DCR’s Cheerleaders and related, fighting for more destruction, should be rejected along with the DCR whom they idolize.
6. Use the terrible DCR Record as the basis for prohibitions in use of created open space.
7. Green Line A spur from Comm. Ave. and the BU Bridge in Boston to Harvard Station in Cambridge.
8. The context.

0. Introductory.

This report, of necessity, only reflects a tiny part of the problem with the Department of Conservation and Recreation and its friends, whether declared friends or supposedly independent.

The original draft was written on my smart phone on the set of a major movie on which I was working, during down time in “holding.”  The original drafts has been expanded and clarified, but the core is unchanged.

I am amazed at how much good work I got done under those circumstances, and amazed at the subsequent amount of work which was necessary to expand, refine and clarify while realizing that very major parts of this terrible record must, of necessity, be omitted.

Here are the most recent plans of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for the largest part of the work they are doing on the Mass. Pike at the future home of the Harvard Medical School.  The Charles River is on the right.  The proposed new green space is the area marked green abutting the Charles River.

The lower right corner of the above map shows on the left of my following marked up edit of an MBTA provided apparent satellite photo.  That area is still present.  It is under the proposed rearrangement of the Mass. Pike in the above plan.

The Magazine Beach playing fields are above the Charles River.  In the middle of the photo is the BU Bridge.  Running under the BU Bridge from left to right is the Grand Junction railroad bridge.

1. Summary.

The biggest defect in the current plan of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for the rearrangement of the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) on the Boston side of the Charles River is the reprehensible record of the entity which has charge of the environmental improvements which would be created.

The biggest problem with too many those who want the most important changes to the MassDOT plan is that too many of the change seekers are hand in glove with the environmentally destructive entity which is the likely manager of the environmental improvements and are fighting for the destructive cause of that vile organization.

It must be recognized that this report, of necessity, is a very abbreviated report of the vile record of the DCR and its fellow destroyer, the City of Cambridge.


2. One very telling piece of the DCR’s Record — the Creation of an annual blight by the DCR's use of poisons on the Charles River..

One, and by no means not the only, excellent example of the problem with the Department of Conservation and Recreation is the annual algae infestation on the Charles River.

This infestation originates in the DCR’s love of dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles River.  Several years ago, their beloved poisons were not performing up to snuff at Ebersol Field near Massachusetts General Hospital.   MGH, in turn, is located not far from the dam which turns the eastern end of the Charles River into a managed pond.

So the DCR dumped on Ebersol Field poisons marked “Do not use near water.”

The next day, the Charles River was dead with algae from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge.

Since then, this outrage is an annual infestation.


3. The DCR adds Contempt for Resident Animals to its Contempt for the Land and Water of the Charles River.

The DCR adds to its contempt for its land and its waters contempt for the animals who live there whom it has a duty to protect.

The DCR’s “master plan” for the Charles River calls for the killing or driving away of all animals residing there.

The bizarre wall the DCR has built walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River has no apparent purpose except to starve the 34 year resident and valuable tourist attraction, the Charles River White Geese.

This bizarre 14 foot high wall of introduced vegetation exists nowhere else on the Charles River Basin.  It has only one tiny opening, the former location of a boat ramp which was destroyed by the DCR without explanation.

Here are some photos of this introduced wall.

The first photo is from the Boston side of the Charles River.

The tiny figure is that of an adult woman.  She is standing in the only opening of this outrage.

This is a before picture.

The bizarre work at the playing fields included the addition of a series of massive, never trimmed, bushes to block off the only opening to the Charles River White Geese.  This outrage makes entry by the Charles River White Geese impossible.

4. The DCR uses blatant lies in its fight for destruction on the Charles River.


A. General.

Added to the contempt for water, land and animals, is the flat out lying by which the outrages are achieved.


B. Lies in the attacks on the Charles River White Geese.

In the Boston Sunday Globe’s section leading report of the DCR’s commencement of this heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, the Globe combined a telling photo with their quote of a flat out lie which has been repeated by the DCR for most of the last 15 years.

The photo was that of a small goose standing next to and overwhelmed by earthmoving equipment being used to take away its food and its home at Magazine Beach by keeping it from the playing fields.

The flat out lie was printed right next to that photo.  The key manager never stopped lying of his lack of intention to harm the beautiful animals he and the DCR have been heartlessly abusing.  Except in small meeting when he claimed the right to this heartless abuse was justified by the irresponsible provisions in the “Charles River Master Plan.”

That Charles River Master Plan calls for the killing and / or driving away of all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.

Here is a photo of friends of the Charles River White Geese feeding the hungry animals when they were first deprived of their food and home of most of the last 34 years.

And cheerleaders praise the heartless abuse of this valuable gaggle which has survived on its own for 34 years in the middle of civilization, loved by decent human beings and an active tourist attraction until the heartless abuse.


C. Lies in the construction of the bizarre wall walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River.

The bizarre wall was implemented as a blatant falsehood in violation of yet another provision of that “Charles River Master Plan.”  That was the direct promise to build a lawn to the river.  When the DCR, by the introduction of the bizarre wall, proved that the DCR was lying, the DCR simply changed the lie after the fact.

The DCR’s official explanation of the starvation wall may be that proclaimed by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”  The CRC conducted a swim in to brag of the IMPROVEMENTS TO SWIMMING supposedly provided by the poisons and by the bizarre wall constructed by the DCR and Cambridge.

D. Lies in the reduction of playing fields at Magazine Beach.

The DCR also promised improvements to the playing fields.  This was proven a lie by the destruction of playing field space to put in an expensive drainage system to drain off the DCR’s beloved poisons. ..

The DCR and Cambridge destroyed native grass on the playing fields which had survived without poisons for the better part of a Century.  The DCR and Cambridge then destroyed the playing fields to drain off the poisons being dumped on the shores of the Charles to keep alive sickly grass which has no business on the banks of the Charles.

The DCR’s beloved poisons and sickly grass have been ineffectual.  The sickly poison drinking grass which replaced responsible grass is scheduled to be destroyed again.  It is scheduled to be rebuilt and replaced with more poison drinking sickly stuff.  Additionally, the DCR wants to destroy the responsible native grass on the hillside to the west of the playing fields and the responsible native grass in the wetlands behind the swimming pool.

You guessed it.  They are putting in more sickly grass which needs poisons, poisons not needed by the responsible NATIVE grass they want to add to their destructive record, and which has survived responsibly for the better part of a Century.


E. Lies in the DCR’s fight to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

You add to this the fight to destroy hundreds of excellent trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.  The “explanation” for this outrage varies with the audience.

The earliest “explanation” for the destruction translated as “won’t it look great in 40 years.”

In 2009, the Boston Globe did a story on the DCR seeking Obama recession fighting moneys to destroy the hundreds of trees currently threatened.  The lie then was that the DCR was DESTROYING ONLY SICKLY TREES.  I have the plans and am happy to provide them.  As may be readily observed, none of the targeted trees are diseased, and none of the destruction plans call any of them diseased.

But the Boston Globe thought they were dealing with a responsible agency and the Boston Globe happily printed this blatant lie.

In 2014, the State House blessed the destruction with an allocation of $20 million.

Here are some of the targeted, excellent trees.  It really is impossible to fully communicate the scope of this outrage.

The first tree looms over the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.  It is located very close to the BU Bridge.

Destruction plans are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html


F. Fight for destruction by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”

The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” bragged when money was first put on the table in the 2014 legislative cycle that the money was the implementation of a petition the CRC had distributed WHICH MADE NO MENTION OF MASSIVE TREE DESTRUCTION.  Naturally, this falsely named group used the latest excuse for massive destruction.

The project which this destructive entity obtained signatures in support of for was an irresponsible project to create “underpasses” under the next three bridges.  MassDOT, being a responsible agency has condemned this project as environmentally irresponsible and a waste of state money.


G. The latest project of the fighters for destruction — the Grand Junction outrage.

Now a lot of people who fought for all of this irresponsible destruction, and who want the irresponsible DCR to manage the MassDOT proposed increase in open space in Boston, are spouting pious about spending money on yet another destructive project.  Their latest supported outrage involves more destruction on the Cambridge side of the Charles River as a result of the misuse of the Grand Junction railroad bridge.

The DCR’s tree destruction plans call for all trees EXCEPT ONE to be destroyed in the Wild Area between the railroad and the BU Boathouse.

Here is the relevant part of their destruction plans.  The broken lines running from bottom to top in the middle of the plan is the Grand Junction railroad.  To the right of the plan is BU's Cambridge Boat House.  The DCR shows one tree NOT destroyed.  They do not even dignify the massive destruction by pointing out destroyed trees.

Here is what the targeted dense woods, the Wild Area look like now.  The above plan would destroy EVERY tree BUT ONE between the Grant Junction railroad bridge and the (yellow) BU Cambridge Boathouse.

This picture was taken in the worst of the last very bitter winter.

This photo was taken September 12, 2015, during the preparation of this blog report.  The small white figures are part of the Charles River White Geese.

Here are the Charles River White Geese in the water beneath the Wild Area during that terrible winter.  This was the only free water available..

Here is an older picture of the desperate Charles River White Geese hunting for some food in the railroad right of way.

H. Some Destruction by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy:”

The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has, by agreement with the DCR, acted as environmental destroyer for the DCR.  After the agreement, all ground and hillside vegetation was destroyed in the Wild Area between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse.  This is the same heavily treed area where the DCR plans call for destruction of all trees but one.

About half the ground vegetation in the area between the railroad and the BU Bridge was destroyed.  The DCR’s overly destructive BU Bridge repair plans destroyed most of the undestroyed ground vegetation.  “Remediation” of the DCR’s destructiveness in the BU Bridge repair plans has been nonsensical.  To the extent introduced vegetation lives, it is vegetation comparable to the irresponsible stuff walling off the Charles River from the playing fields.


I. The most visible victims of these multiple outrages — the Charles River White Geese.

Who does this heartlessly abuse?  The Charles River White Geese, of course.

This area is the portion of their habitat they used as their Nesting Area and for protection during bad weather.  It was lush and beautiful, supporting a variety of wild animals, all condemned by the vile provisions in the Charles River Master Plan to kill off or drive away all resident animals.

The 34 year resident Charles River White Geese are confined to this destroyed area without food.

The DCR have made it worse.


J. More destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese — Railroad Worker destruction blessed by the DCR in spite of Cambridge Conservation Commission objections.

The Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned irresponsible use of the not destroyed portion for parking on a project on the tracks by railroad workers.  They were too lazy to park next to Memorial Drive in a manner comparable to the responsible parking accomplished by MassDOT in its implementation of the DCR’s irresponsible BU Bridge repair plans.

So the DCR told the workers to get out of the tiny portion of the area in the CCC’s jurisdiction.  The DCR BLESSED THE IRRESPONSIBLE AND DESTRUCTIVE PARKING elsewhere, which added to the destruction of the ground vegetation and which destroyed larger vegetation.

The DCR’s bedfellows dumped crushed stone in this previously lush area.  When they left an additional load of truck stone was dumped in the area after parking use had ceased.

MassDOT implemented the DCR's plans for BU Bridge repair as responsibly as possible, with none of this outrageous parking.  Here are two photo of the highway ramp where responsible management would have parked.

Under the Memorial Drive overpass was being used for another project (the fence).  There was still plenty of room to park to the left of the on ramp, if the people in charge are / were fit for their jobs.  The corner to the right in the first photo is the entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area.

The next photo shows the staircase illegally constructed by Boston University at about the location of the car further away in the above photo.

These photos show the horrible walk these husky workmen would be faced with if they were too lazy to climb the stairs.  This and a related walk are the only places crushed stone should be placed.  Both are in the BU Bridge repair area and supposedly are remediation.

K. Cambridge’s planned destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area.

Cambridge has its own destructive plans which include building in the Destroyed Nesting Area and building a fence preventing direct access between the Destroyed Nesting Area.  The Charles River White Geese have been forced to nest in the dirt of the Wild Area because it is less destroyed than the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Cambridge pols are publicly campaigning for the destruction with the usual lies of omission.  They praise the overall proposal and “neglect” to mention the destruction and heartless animal abuse on the banks of the Charles River.

Here is a copy of the plan the Cambridge pols keep as secret as possible.

Not only should the environmental outrages on the Cambridge side not be expanded as part of the Mass. Pike work, this irresponsible, rogue department should have no responsibilities for any area created as part of the Mass. Pike work.


L. The DCR is unfit for environmental management in general and, in particular, management of the open space being created.

Ideally, the DCR should be barred from management of the open space being created and barred from Soldiers Field road.


M. Have the legislature prohibit this irresponsible entity from responsibility for the new open space and Soldiers Field Road.

The legislature, in its wisdom, has shown its contempt for the DCR / its predecessor by transferring the river bridges to MassDOT.

The truly irresponsible DCR should be barred from any expansion of its irresponsible behavior, and from management of Soldiers Field Road..


5. The DCR’s Cheerleaders and related, fighting for more destruction, should be rejected along with the DCR whom they idolize.

And its cheerleaders, including those complicit in this terrible record of the DCR, should simply be treated with the lack of respect due the destructive agency they support without condition.

Harvard bought the prime area of this study a few month's after the MBTA showed how this railroad and railroad bridge could be converted to an off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge.  So many outrages fit a pattern of upgrading Cambridge to handle this traffic.  So we get lovely sounding con games.


6. Use the terrible DCR Record as the basis for prohibitions in use of created open space.

The terrible DCR record should stand, at minimum, as the basis for a point by point prohibition of action in Boston which follows on the outrages in Cambridge.  Description of prohibited acts should point by point condemn further outrages and lying by the DCR in Boston.

Naturally, this is only a far inferior alternative to barring the DCR from the created lands and Soldiers Field Road because of its proven irresponsibility.


7.  Green Line A spur from Comm. Ave. and the BU Bridge in Boston to Harvard Station in Cambridge.

This is an ideal time to go forward with this project, which is badly needed by the residents and employers of North Allston.

I have provided an extensive series on this matter.  The most recent report is at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/charles-river-olympics-rapid-transit_23.html

8. The context.

Here are 33 photos of destruction in Cambridge of which the Charles River outrage is just a part.

http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/charles-river-more-money-for.html.

The Charles River: MassDOT, the Mass. Pike work, and a good meeting.

1. Apologies.
2. MassDOT and the Mass Pike Rearrangement.
A. Introductory.
B. Good meeting.
C. Boston Redevelopment Authority.
D. Harvard University.
E. Excellent guest.
3. Summary.

1. Apologies.

This is the second of three reports I have been promising.  I was very pleased with my photos in the report I have published.

It looks like the report on the Muddy River Canada Goose situation will not go forward, for technical reasons.

I have deferred the most important report of the three, in part because I really want to get this one right.  Another reason was that I was very happy with the photo report being on top.  Prominently featured in the first report is a beautiful goose whom I am very pleased to brag about.


2. MassDOT and the Mass Pike Rearrangement.

A. Introductory.

I have been issuing many reports on the series of meetings conducted by MassDOT (the Mass. Department of Transportation) concerning their anticipated rebuilding of I90 (Mass. Pike) on the South Side of the Charles River across from the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.  Now is the time to get into true environmental issues.

In the August meeting, the staff attempted to leave an opening for structured new comments from the group.  That has turned into what appears to be a major opening for comments in the next meeting.

Here are MassDOT plans of the current situation and the apparent plans for the rearrangement as those plans currently stand.

B. Good meeting.

The staff scheduled several very well done presentations.

The technical presentations were particularly useful.  Unfortunately, they really do not come into the scope of this blog, so I will just leave that as a deserved compliment to them.

Two presentations were within the area our interest, from the Boston Redevelopment Authority, and Harvard University.

C. Boston Redevelopment Authority.

The BRA is a nominally independent body which really is the Mayor’s planning arm.  Within the structure of the City of Boston, it has considerably more power than the usual planning department.

The BRA is hiring a consultant who will be on board quickly and issue a report next year to the BRA on the consultant’s evaluation of the plans.

D. Harvard University.

Harvard sounded like Harvard.

Harvard is seeking an agreement with MassDOT on the details of the rearrangement.  Since Harvard pretty much owns all the land in question, an agreement makes good sense.

The presentation, however, was true Harvard.  Harvard presented their PROPOSAL as if it were written in stone and WOULD be the reality.

Hubris, to put it mildly.

Harvard purchased the land in question several months after a report issued by the public transit agency, the Metropolitan Boston Transportation Authority.

The property contains a lot of spaghetti, the exit from the Mass. Pike to the Brighton neighborhood of Boston and to Cambridge.

It also contains the vestiges of a once massive railroad yard, the Beacon Yard.  That has moved to Worcester except for a few facilities needed by the state for the regional state system.

The MBTA report indicated that an off ramp was possible to Cambridge over the Grand Junction railroad bridge from the Mass. Pike.  A whole bunch of destruction on the Cambridge side, planned or accomplished smells like bureaucrats, etc., preping the place for the Off Ramp.

Promptly occurring on the Boston side was a change in the Mass. Pike spaghetti which rendered the off ramp more workable.

Some bureaucrats tried to deed the place to Harvard without restriction.

The legislature caught them.

The legislature made the transfer contingent on continuing to provide transportation needs of the community.

Harvard conveniently ignored the severity of the legislative limitation on its ownership.

E. Excellent guest.

I brought to the meeting a visiting professor from the University of Graz in Austria, Professor Robin Pope.

I have shown Robin around the situation on the Cambridge side of the Charles River because of her interest in the Charles River White Geese.

She neglected to mention that she is a transportation expert.  And a clearly impressive speaker.

She did me proud.  She made some excellent comments and displayed good grasp of the issues, including the limits of building transportation upon transportation upon transportation.

And she very effectively put in a good word for the Charles River White Geese.

She made me proud.

Here are some views she had of the Charles from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, where she has been staying.  I led with one of my photos.  The Hyatt Regency is on the north side of Memorial Drive heading east.  In buildings of importance, going east from the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area, first comes Boston University’s Cambridge Boat House on the river, and then comes the Hyatt.

The photos show Memorial Drive and the Charles directly in front of the hotel, the Charles and Boston to the east of the hotel, and the Charles to the west of the hotel.  The last photo shows BU's Cambridge Boat House, the Wild Area, the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge, and the BU Bridge, respectively.

The lead photo to this blog report is a more distant version of the last photo.  The two massive buildings in the upper right of the lead photo are Boston University’s massive, rather new, dormitories which are a few buildings from and which tower over the area that Harvard owns and MassDOT is rearranging.

3. Conclusion.

OK, I have given you the basics of the meeting.

Next will come the policy coming up in the next meeting.  This will include photo, maps, etc.

This is the difficult part.  But this is a logical separation of reports.