Sunday, February 25, 2018

Charles River I90 Proposal: MIT’s new Inner Belt fought for in THREE proposals. DEIR Report 6

Charles River I90 Proposal:   MIT’s new Inner Belt fought for in THREE proposals.  DEIR Report 6.

I. Introduction.
II. The Real Game:   A private exit from I 90 to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
* * * *
4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.
* * * *
6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.
* * * *
III. Marked up Index.
IV. Apology.


I. Introduction.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA for 37 years.  Most of that time, they lived and fed at the playing fields of the Magazine Beach recreation area.  Their habitat was a mile long stretch on the north / Cambridge side of the river centered on the BU Bridge

The Charles River White Geese were loved and admired.  People came from the suburbs to quietly commune with them.  In more recent years, they have been on the receiving end of heartless animal abuse from the City and Regional Governments.

The current issue is that, while they have been on the North Side for 37 years, Interstate Route 90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) has been on the south side for 50 years.  The state has decided I90 needs very major improvements.  Harvard University has decided it wants to move its Medical School to the largest part of the I90 turf on the Boston side.  Harvard owns a former railroad yard and I90 along with its exit ramps, subject to transportation uses.

A more detailed summary of the situation on the ground in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html

The engineers planning the rebuild of I90 (Mass. Pike) have to submit a Draft Environmental Impact Report to state regulators to satisfy statutory environmental requirements.


We have submitted a detailed response and are in the process of presenting that report on line.

Section III below presents the index to our DEIR comments and shows where we have published those comments on this blog.

In this report, we are presenting two non-consecutive sections because the content so overlap.

The game is presented in this photo presented by the state quite awhile ago.  We have added the captions and, of course, the Charles River White Geese are in the middle of the mess.

The area where the Charles River White Geese have spent most of their residence on the Charles River since 1981 is the Magazine Beach playing fields, marked Magazine Beach in this state satellite photo.

The vile state organization, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, which manages parkland along the Charles River has a goal for that parkland.  They want to kill off or drive away all resident animals.  Through a series of outrages, what was a mile long habitat has been reduced to the Goose Meadow, which is on the upper / north side of the Charles River between the BU Bridge and the Grand Junction rail bridge, which crosses the Charles River under the BU Bridge.  These areas are at the right of the map.

In the 60's / early 70's, plans to run an Interstate highway, the Inner Belt, north and south about a block east / right of the Grand Junction railroad were defeated by meaningful activists in the City of Cambridge, after a major PUBLIC battle.

Since Cambridge residents are still active, are still concerned, and still have pride in this victory, essentially the same goal is now being fought as secretly as possible.  In the 60's / early 70's, they called it a super highway.  Now they are calling it a bike path, or fancier words.

In 2003, the regional transportation authority, the MBTA, demonstrated that an updated Inner Belt could be built on top of the Grand Junction railroad connecting to Cambridge destinations, most particularly to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I90, the Mass. Pike, goes under the intersection of the BU Bridge and
Commonwealth Avenue in the lower right of this map.  The Grand Junction crosses under the BU Bridge, coming from the top right, and proceeds under I90, the Mass. Pike, and follows it to the upper left in the “throat area” of I90.

The MBTA showed that a ramp could be built from I90 going eastbound to the Grand Junction rail bridge.  Talking approximately, the ramp could separate from I90 at about the point where the word “Pike” appears in the photo.  The off ramp could travel over I90 and connect to the Grand Junction bridge.  Traffic to go westbound on I90 could readily be connected from the Grand Junction Bridge to I90 westbound.

Here are photos of the Grand Junction bridge[, first,] in the Boston, lower portion and[, secondly,] the
Cambridge, upper, portion.
 


In the first photo, if you look straight ahead, you can see a green sign.  That is above I90.  The gray line to its left is I90.

In the second, winter, photo can see the Goose Meadow, to which the Charles River White Geese have now been confined without food, on the left.  On the right is the Wild Area.  Free animals are visible on both sides, although heartless behavior by Cambridge, the DCR and their friends have been reprehensible.

DCR destruction plans which were mostly implemented in January 2016, show exactly one undestroyed tree in the Wild Area.  The MBTA plans showed an off ramp there to Memorial Drive heading east.

The MBTA plans called for the one railroad track which shows in the right side of the bridge in the latter photo to be moved to the left side of the bridge, which has been unused for decades.  In the former photo, the unused track area is to the right.

The MBTA plans called for a third lane to be cantilevered to the right (east) of the bridge, in the latter photo, and the left in the former photo. .  The cantilevered lane would handle northbound traffic from I90.  The current railroad track would be replaced with southbound traffic heading to I90 westbound..

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation proposal for rebuilding I90 do not call for any changes to the Grand Junction bridge.  MassDOT is very insistent that MassDOT is rebuilding I90 and not playing games over the Charles River.

Two “independent” proposals for the I90 rebuild call for a replacement of the Grand Junction Bridge WITH THREE TRAVEL LANES.  They claim one lane would be a bike path.  How long would that “bike path” remain?   And, of course, a whole bunch of the “right kind of people” are fighting for the supposed bike lane.

The people in Cambridge who achieved the destruction of hundreds of trees east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, are fighting for the destruction of another 56 west of the BU Bridge, and are dumping poisons into the Charles River.  These “right kind of people” have spent what appears to be years pitching for this private highway for MIT.

One of their most powerful tools in their fight is company union tactics.  In the manner of so many “protective groups” which have been associated with the three prior Cambridge City Managers, they very clearly sound great, and very often achieve the opposite of their lovely words.  EXACTLY COMPANY UNION.

One major tactic is censorship of any and all responsible alternatives to the destructive stuff they have fought for.  They certainly have sounded sweet about the destructive stuff, and the saints proposing the destruction.

Again, the principal purpose of Company Unions are to fill a void and prevent responsible entities from acting in that void.  They make themselves, supposedly the entity protecting a cause, and PREVENT protection of a cause by stifling meaningful protectors.  If company unions can get away with it, they openly fight for their terrible causes.

The City of Cambridge development department / city council, in its comments on MassDOT’s DEIR concerning the I90 rebuild has rejected the two alternate proposals for the I90 rebuild, which have other problems.  The Cabriidge City Council / Development Department  just ask that the Grand Junction railroad bridge be replaced with, of course, the widening to three lanes, including the HIGHLY TEMPORARY “bike” path.

Reality in Cambridge is so hostile to a north-south highway that lies are normal.

Much more detail in Section II of this report, bringing together two sections of our DEIR analysis, sections 4B and 6.


II. The Real Game:   A private exit from I 90 to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.
6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.


4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.

B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.

Both non MassDOT proposals would rebuild the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge with no meaningful communication to Cambridge residents of the destruction, and no meaningful study of the impact of the destruction.

Here are photos of the Grand Junction bridge from above.





One of the proposals has shown construction in the Wild Area on the banks of the Charles River east of the Grand Junction.  That massively treed area is to the right in this photo.

That part of the proposal is less vocal in more recent times.  Lack of vocality on such matters affecting Cambridge is commonly a matter of going under the RADAR to hide things from the voters.

Staging would probably create more destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, the ghetto to which they have been confined after multiple outrages.  This ghetto is the remnants of a habitat of these beloved, free creatures which stretched about a mile centered on the BU Bridge for most of the period since 1981.

[Ed.  I cannot find the photo submitted at this point in my computer.  Am substituting this comparable photo from same period.]

This photo was taken in the same shoot as the above.  Notice the Grand Junction railroad at the top of the hill, above thick, threatened trees.



Once again, this destruction is related to the failure of MassDOT to provide meaningful communication to the vast majority of Cambridge residents as the result of CDD manipulating in support of Cambridge plans which dated back to 1997.

These proposals rather clearly look like techniques furthering M.I.T.’s updated Inner Belt.  The impacts are reviewed in section 6.

DEIR Chapter 5, page 22, land analysis, omits impact on Cambridge side of the Charles by rebuilding of the Grand Junction railroad bridge in the two non MassDOT throat options.


* * * * *

6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.

Following is a state aerial / satellite photo of the key area.


In 2003, the MBTA in a badly justified study, proved that an off ramp can be built from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge over the Grand Junction Bridge across the Charles, under the BU Bridge.

In the upper left of the picture is the Mass. Pike (I90).  The upper portion is the inbound / Eastbound side.  Just below it is the outbound / Westbound side.

The MBTA study ran a ramp from the eastbound side over I90 to the Grand Junction Bridge.  A ramp from the Grand Junction Bridge to the outbound side is simple.

The MBTA study called for adding a lane to the Grand Junction Bridge to its left / east, by cantilever construction.  The right / west of the two track beds would be returned to rail use.  The left / east of the existing track beds would be used for southbound traffic.  The cantilevered / added far left lane would be used for northbound traffic.

Connection to Memorial Drive would be accomplished by a ramp through the Wild Area to Memorial Drive east, and a ramp through the area where Waverly Street has been built would connect to Memorial Drive east and west through the BU Bridge rotary.

Following is a photo of the end of the Grand Junction Bridge in Boston, taken from the BU Bridge.  The green sign straight ahead is above the Mass. Pike (I90).



The area to the right bottom shows the unused western train channel.  The wall which is on the right hand side is more clearly shown in the above photo to the right as well.

This right half of the bridge would return to use for rail operations.  The left half of the bridge would be used for westbound traffic, and the added, cantilevered, lane would be used for eastbound traffic.

The exit ramp would follow the Grand Junction up its right of way as far as builders want.

The vaguely white area straight ahead in the photo shows on the overhead photo as somewhat of a parking area.

Construction plans for the “Waverly Connector”, now Waverly Street, (see MIT plan below) included a fairly extensive tree planting plan which has not been implemented.  We commented to a developer type that the proposed locations for trees EXACTLY left room for ramps from MIT’s updated Inner Belt to the Waverly Connector.

Somehow the trees did not get installed YET.

This MIT plan brings the area between the Charles River and MIT turf into more clarity.  MIT turf is above and to the right.

A whole bunch of destructive projects fit the plan perfectly.  Others could be just contractor make work with no relation other than part of overall pig slop from a feeding trough.


The Grand Junction is diagonal, beginning between the Goose Meadow and the Wild Area and extending at the upper right to MIT territory.

The “Proposed Grand Junction Path” by no coincidence widens the right of way and would fit the widened Grand Junction Bridge.  It is the stalking horse for MIT’s updated Inner Belt.  With stereotypic lack of candor (to be nice), MIT recently “agreed” to build the portion roughly between Memorial Drive and Waverly Street.

The connector from the bike path to Vassar Street on the Ft. Washington Crossing at the upper right in the above MIT plan is a proposed end of the bikeway.  The bikeway would travel to the west on Vassar Street and turn on Amesbury Street (#1 on the MIT Plan) and connect to Memorial Drive.

Friends of the White Geese propose connecting to the bend of Vassar Street (in the MIT plan) by a minor taking, then to Memorial Drive.

Here is a photo of the area we propose for the taking.




















The path marked #4 in the MIT plan, in the middle of the Goose Meadow, was sneaked into the infamous Davis letter which gave the apparently deliberately false impression that it concerned the right turn onto the River Street Bridge.

The stalking horse for the updated Inner Belt is a bikeway.  MIT uses the con game name for it.

Here is the 2006 plan from the Cambridge Development Department package showing construction in the Wild Area.


From the same package, here is a blow up of the portion of the supposed bike highway to destroy the Nesting Area. 
[ed:  paragraph split because of this format, photo in report is a blowup of the bottom right corner of this, original photo]



On the next page [ed: below] is the real photo of the short leg aimed at Memorial Drive, the lower of the two parallel lines in this plan  [ed: the j in the bottom right].  The upper line of the two parallel lines is the main supposed bike highway.  The plan, as spelled out above, calls for a fence in the middle of the supposed public improvement.  The fence shows in the plan above.  It would prevent movement by resident animals between the Goose Meadow, bottom, and the Wild Area, top.



Note all the trees showing in the above plan to the right.  As is common, tree destruction is not documented.
Just more heartless animal abuse.

This stairwell was illegally constructed here by Boston University for the DCR in November 1999.  BU denied doing it until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission for it about six months later.  BU then blamed six months of lies on the Secretary of their President.  BU did not announce any sanctions on the secretary for six months of lies.

Below is that portion of the destruction plans of the DCR / Cambridge January 2016 Charles River outrage which are applicable to this area.  It shows exactly one tree NOT DESTROYED in the Wild Area, and no other trees remaining in the Wild Area.

At the top is Memorial Drive, the diagonal lines are the Grand Junction.  To the left is the Goose Meadow.  To the right is the Wild Area.  The tree that would NOT BE DESTROYED is identified by the circle with the number 535 in it.



And here are currently accurate photos of the Charles River frontage of the Goose Meadow and of the Wild Area.  They were taken from the BU Bridge before the 2016 destruction.  Note the above plan which shows exactly one not destroyed tree in the Wild Area.

The tiny figures are flotillas of the Charles River White Geese, hunting for food.  The Grand Junction Bridge shows in both photos.  That should be the BU Bridge to the bottom left of the left photo.  The proposed cantilevered construction would be done to the right of the Grand Junction bridge, in the right photo.








III. Marked up Index.

This is a customary feature, to show where our reports may be found on the Internet which present our submittal of comments concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the I90 rebuild project in Allston, Massachusetts, including its impact on the Charles River, its environment, and its animals.

The total letter to the environmental reviewers has been posted by the City of Cambridge in its official records on line at:  http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True, pages 96 to 125.  The associated transmittal letter to the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council has been posted at the same URL, pages 94 and 95.

Here is a break out of the Index to the submittal showing where portions have been printed.

1. Introduction.
A. Maneuvering with maximum secrecy by forces in Cambridge who cannot win in broad daylight.
B. The Issues.
2. Properly planned, the project can reduce traffic on Memorial Drive and elsewhere.

END OF REPORT 1, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river.html.

Summary of the situation in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html

This summary could be of value if you are only checking the official filing, which has been posted by the Cambridge City Clerk.

3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.
A. West Station should be trashed along with the publicly defeated Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction concept.
(1) Introductory.
(2) Trash it on railroad management grounds.
(a) Stations too close together.
(b) Projections for both adjacent stations are so low that delaying long distance commuters makes no sense.
(3) Trash West Station on grounds that it has been sold to well meaning people on an unsound basis.
(4) Statement that the project “does not preclude implementation of rapid transit services” is not true.
(5) Commuter Rail Shuttles from Longwood are Nonsense.
(6) Trash West Station on the grounds that the interests in Cambridge fighting for it are attempting to achieve, basically in secret, a goal they have been PROPERLY denied when their project was presented in light of day.
(a) General.
(b) This Outrageous Goal:  Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.
(i) No value to anybody but Kendall ‒ MassDOT Finding, when they were allowed responsible community input.
(ii) Environmentally destructive because it would block 7 major intersections, create major inconvenience to drivers, and create pollution from vehicle exhaust, waiting for commuter train passage.
(iii) Environmentally destructive because it would devastate the last visible animal habitat on this portion of the Charles River.

Section 3A presented in REPORT 3, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_13.html.

B. Far superior and far more responsible than Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction would be a new Green Line A Spur running from Commonwealth Avenue and the B.U. Bridge to the main work site in Allston to Harvard Square, which should be enthusiastically supported..
(1) General.
(2) Harvard Square.
(3) Summary.

Section 3B presented in REPORT 4, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/charles-river-responsible-rapid-transit.html


4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
A. Architects’ (ABC) Proposal ‒ Outrageous Destruction of Boston River Bank.

Section 4A presented in REPORT 5, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/charles-river-i90-proposal-extreme.html.

B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.
5. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.
A. Direct Application.
B. A terrible record being made worse.
6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.

IV. Apology.

I have been filing these segments on alternate days.  This report should have gone out days ago.  My laptop died and that took way to long to get the replacement.  Once I got on the report, it was such a nightmare, combining the complexity of my photos files with the nightmare of horrible sensitivity in the new Windows 10 computer.  I find the computer is responding to orders I never intended to give.  Part of my problem could very easily be that I have moved important photos to places I never intended to put them.  Fun, Fun, Fun.

This report HAS to get out.  It is out, perhaps with a subsequent correction.  I am distressed at the deficiencies, for which I STRONGLY apologize.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Charles River I90 Proposal: Half a Mile of riverbank Destruction from Boston Architects. DEIR Report 5

Charles River I90 Proposal: Half a Mile of riverbank Destruction from Boston Architects.  DEIR Report 5.

I. Introduction.
A.  General.
B.  Current Situation - I90 Rebuild.
C.  Villains on the Attack, Again.
D.  Resident Animals.
E.  Outrage from Architects.
F.  Animal Hatred from Fake Protectors.
II. Half a Mile of riverbank Destruction from Boston Architects.
III. Cross Section of the Destruction proposal.
IV. Marked up Index.


I. Introduction.

A.  General.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA for 37 years.  Most of that time, they lived and fed at the playing fields of the Magazine Beach recreation area.  Their habitat was a mile long stretch on the north / Cambridge side of the river centered on the BU Bridge

The Charles River White Geese were loved and admired.  People came from the suburbs to quietly commune with them.  In more recent years, they have been on the receiving end of heartless animal abuse from the City and Regional Governments.

B.  Current Situation - I90 Rebuild.

The current issue is that, while they have been on the North Side for 37 years, Interstate Route 90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) has been on the south side for 50 years.  The state has decided I90 needs very major improvements.  Harvard University has decided it wants to move its Medical School to the largest part of the I90 turf on the Boston side.  Harvard owns a former railroad yard and I90 along with its exit ramps, subject to transportation uses.

A more detailed summary of the situation on the ground in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html

C.  Villains on the Attack, Again.

Entities with bad records are involved, and they are proposing, once again, irresponsible and destructive transportation options which have lost in the past.

This report will be relatively short, because it is so vile.

One way to tell what the Fake Protectors are fighting for is TO OBSERVE WHAT THEY DO NOT CENSOR.

Two items which the Fake Protectors have been fighting for for what seems like years are two supposedly optional proposals.  The optional proposals kept getting presented in a favorable light, WHILE RESPONSIBLE PROPOSALS ARE KEPT SECRET.

D.  Resident Animals.

Below is the option from which what seems to be organized Boston Architects have proposed, the destruction of probably half a mile of river bank on the Boston Side.

To put things in perspective, two beauties of which we have been very fond lived in the area the Architect group wants to destroy for a year after they were abandoned at the Magazine Beach playing fields.  These are the Charles River White Ducks.
When the apparent villain graduated to rape and murder where he had been killing mother geese, the Cambridge City Council discussed the rape and murder for an hour but did not want to know where the rape and murder occurred.  The “private citizen” who is flaunted as the sainted leader on the Charles River this week was then a member of the Cambridge City Council.  She mentioned the location of the rape and murder.  She swallowed her words, and she returned to the tactic of her fellow councilors, not wanting to know where the rape and murder occurred .

Here is a photo of Bumpy (on the right) as part of a family group which raised and protected this baby goose, in the middle, whose mother was killed that terrible year.  The circumstances of her death were different from the killings of the rapist / murder.  Her death (“disappearance”) stunk of professional behavior, i.e. friends of the Department of Conservation and Recreation / City of Cambridge, the DCR in actuality.  The mate of the deceased goose went crazy.

Bumpy's son and his mate, with Bumpy as baby sitter, adopted the orphan.


I became aware that something was seriously wrong when I was investigating what was obviously a very serious situation.  Standing near the riverbank, I looked down and I saw the baby alone at my feet.  He was never left alone by Bumpy / his adoptive parents.

The day of the memorial for Bumpy was the first full day the Charles River White Ducks were free animals on the banks of the Charles River.

The Charles River White Ducks, on that day, the day after they were abandoned, were so innocent that they thought dogs were their friends.  They had to be taught, by the leader of the feeding organization, the  Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, what all that blue stuff, the Charles River, is for.

Here is a good file photo showing locations.



The main part of the I90 rebuild is at the upper left.

The Magazine Beach playing fields, where the Charles River White Ducks were abandoned, are above the Charles River.  To their right, and to the right of the BU Bridge is the Goose Meadow, the Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River White Geese are confined without food.  To the right of the Goose Meadow and crossing under the BU Bridge is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.  To its right above the Charles is the heavily wooded Wild Area, which Department of Conservation and Recreation plans show totally destroyed except for one tree.

E.  Outrage from Architects.

The area being destroyed by the Architects’ (“ABC”) proposal runs between the two bends of the river on the south / bottom side.

The ground level (in the formal section, below) shot of the riverbank the Architects (“ABC”), with past support of the Fake Protectors, are fighting to destroy, was taken between the bend and the Grand Junction.

Here is a photo of these innocent beauties happily on the Charles River.  Photo:  Phil Barber.


Unfortunately, their babies did not survive and they have not had another brood.

During their first full year of freedom, they lived to the left of the bend in the river, exactly in area the Architects (“ABC”) propose to destroy.

After their first year, the Charles River White Ducks moved their core area to the area of the Destroyed Nesting Area / Goose Meadow.  The Charles River White Ducks made friends with one or more of the migratory Mallard Ducks, and have been frequently seen in their company.  One of their friends apparently lost her mate and became a year round companion to the Charles River White Ducks.

F.  Animal Hatred from Fake Protectors.



II. Half a Mile of riverbank Destruction from Boston Architects.

4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
A. Architects’ (ABC) Proposal ‒ Outrageous Destruction of Boston River Bank.


4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Destruction not documented in any analysis.

The biggest variations in proposals for the I90 (Mass. Pike) Rebuild are in that portion of I90 west of the BU Bridge and between B.U. and the Charles River.  This area, because of its relative narrowness is referred to as “the throat.”

There are three options.  The two other than the proposal of MassDOT are bad and destructive.

A. Architects’ (ABC) Proposal ‒ Outrageous Destruction of Boston River Bank.


The architects’ proposal (they call themselves ABC) would build on and destroy the banks of the Charles.  This would destroy pretty much all of the river bank shown in the above photo (DEIR, chapter 7, page 1) from the bend toward the bottom up to the bend toward the top.  This may be an understatement.


Here is a photo of the river banks at ground level from Winter 2014.  Destruction would begin at about the bend in the river.



Further analysis in section 5 [Ed:  section 5 of our DEIR response, to be presented in a future report.].

III. Cross Section of the Destruction proposal.

This graphic is presented a later report, but is useful to include here.  It is copied in our analysis from the DEIR.


The area next to the river in the two above photos is presented to the left in this cross-section of the Architects’ (“ABC”) proposal.  The arrow shows the riverbank area that they would destroy by building on top of it.  As observed in the first of the two photos, the area being destroyed runs between the two bends in the river, and probably runs about half a mile.

The Fake Protectors doing so much damage on the Charles River normally censor responsible proposals.  They, with positive sounding words, repeatedly publicized this outrage, while, of course, KEEPING SECRET these INCONVENIENT details.


IV. Marked up Index.

This is a customary feature, to show where our reports may be found on the Internet which present our submittal of comments concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the I90 rebuild project in Allston, Massachusetts, including its impact on the Charles River, its environment, and its animals.

The total letter to the environmental reviewers has been posted by the City of Cambridge in its official records on line at:  http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True, pages 96 to 125.  The associated transmittal letter to the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council has been posted at the same URL, pages 94 and 95.

Here is a break out of the Index to the submittal showing where portions have been printed.

1. Introduction.
A. Maneuvering with maximum secrecy by forces in Cambridge who cannot win in broad daylight.
B. The Issues.
2. Properly planned, the project can reduce traffic on Memorial Drive and elsewhere.

END OF REPORT 1, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river.html.

Summary of the situation in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html

This summary could be of value if you are only checking the official filing, which has been posted by the Cambridge City Clerk.

3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.
A. West Station should be trashed along with the publicly defeated Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction concept.
(1) Introductory.
(2) Trash it on railroad management grounds.
(a) Stations too close together.
(b) Projections for both adjacent stations are so low that delaying long distance commuters makes no sense.
(3) Trash West Station on grounds that it has been sold to well meaning people on an unsound basis.
(4) Statement that the project “does not preclude implementation of rapid transit services” is not true.
(5) Commuter Rail Shuttles from Longwood are Nonsense.
(6) Trash West Station on the grounds that the interests in Cambridge fighting for it are attempting to achieve, basically in secret, a goal they have been PROPERLY denied when their project was presented in light of day.
(a) General.
(b) This Outrageous Goal:  Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.
(i) No value to anybody but Kendall ‒ MassDOT Finding, when they were allowed responsible community input.
(ii) Environmentally destructive because it would block 7 major intersections, create major inconvenience to drivers, and create pollution from vehicle exhaust, waiting for commuter train passage.
(iii) Environmentally destructive because it would devastate the last visible animal habitat on this portion of the Charles River.

Section 3A presented in REPORT 3, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_13.html.

B. Far superior and far more responsible than Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction would be a new Green Line A Spur running from Commonwealth Avenue and the B.U. Bridge to the main work site in Allston to Harvard Square, which should be enthusiastically supported..
(1) General.
(2) Harvard Square.
(3) Summary.

Section 3B presented in REPORT 4, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/charles-river-responsible-rapid-transit.html


4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
A. Architects’ (ABC) Proposal ‒ Outrageous Destruction of Boston River Bank.
B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.
5. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.
A. Direct Application.
B. A terrible record being made worse.
6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Charles River: Responsible Rapid Transit proposed instead of destructive dirty tricks.

Charles River: Responsible Rapid Transit proposed instead of destructive dirty tricks.

I. Introduction.
II. A responsible transit alternative to West Station / Commuter Rail / MIT’s secret fight for the Inner Belt, both of which are environmentally destructive, and which have lost when presented responsibly.
III. Marked up Index.


I. Introduction.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA for 37 years.  Most of that time, they lived and fed at the playing fields of the Magazine Beach recreation area.  Their habitat was a mile long stretch on the north / Cambridge side of the river centered on the BU Bridge

The Charles River White Geese were loved and admired.  People came from the suburbs to quietly commune with them.  In more recent years, they have been on the receiving end of heartless animal abuse from the City and Regional Governments.

The current issue is that, while they have been on the North Side for 37 years, Interstate Route 90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) has been on the south side for 50 years.  The state has decided I90 needs very major improvements.  Harvard University has decided it wants to move its Medical School to the largest part of the I90 turf on the Boston side.  Harvard owns a former railroad yard and I90 along with its exit ramps, subject to transportation uses.

A more detailed summary of the situation on the ground in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html.

Entities with bad records are involved, and they are proposing, once again, irresponsible and destructive transportation options which have lost in the past.

Friends of the White Geese have proposed a responsible option in place of the destructive stuff which we very effectively destroyed in comments on the Draft Environment Impact Report on the proposed Rebuilding of I90.

Those negative responses are presented in prior reports in this series (see section III for links).  Here is our positive suggestion, copied from the next section of our comments submitted to the Massachusetts environmental people, MEPA, and submitted to the Cambridge, MA, City Manager and City Council.


II. A responsible transit alternative to West Station / Commuter Rail / MIT’s secret fight for the Inner Belt, both of which are environmentally destructive, and which have lost when presented responsibly.

3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.
B. Far superior and far more responsible than Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction would be a new Green Line A Spur running from Commonwealth Avenue and the B.U. Bridge to the main work site in Allston to Harvard Square, which should be enthusiastically supported..
(1) General.
(2) Harvard Square.
(3) Summary.


B. Far superior and far more responsible than Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction would be a new Green Line A Spur running from Commonwealth Avenue and the B.U. Bridge to the main work site in Allston to Harvard Square, which should be enthusiastically supported.

(1) General.

We also submitted to the study committee the following alternative for a Green Line A spur running off the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge just west of the BU Bridge.  This summary was presented to the study committee.

A fork for this spur can readily be installed on Green Line B just west of the BU Bridge.



The diagonal line in the bottom right of this photo is an expansion joint for the bridge portion above the Worcester - Framingham Commuter rail line.  Its mate is the lighter colored line to the left of the yellow car.

The spur would go over the side of the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge to the right, between the two expansion joints, as shown below.



It would then be built on supports to the south of and above the Commuter Rail line, and to the south of I90 (which is under that portion of the bridge showing to the right of the expansion joint), until its platform reaches the level of I90.

Allowance for streetcars crossing the westbound  travel lanes of Commonwealth Avenue should be included in light cycle of the Commonwealth Avenue / BU Bridge / I90 rotary street arrangement to the rear of the camera.

This location is rather clearly a reasonable part of the street arrangement.



The Green Line A spur would then be constructed between I90 and Boston University with a possible stop at BU West, and a major stop at the future Harvard Medical School in the current I90 off ramp area / former rail yards.  There are two reasonable alignments after that. 

[Double clicking should greatly enlarge the plan.]

The better alternative would transition Green Line A from elevated to underground / cut and cover under North Harvard Street with stops at Cambridge Street, Franklin Street, and Harvard B School / Stadium before going under the Charles River and connecting to Harvard Station through the still existing tunnel which runs under Brattle Street / Square and the pedestrian pathway between the JFK School and the Charles Hotel.  Transition from above to below ground would occur in the main project area.

The other alternative would likely require a bridge over Cambridge Street.  It would not be able to get underground until after Cambridge Street because of the need to go over I90.  It would then transition to underground and proceed to North Harvard Street / Harvard Stadium under Harvard’s proposed Stadium Way.  Preferably, it would turn and proceed under North Harvard Street as in the preferred alternative.

Other alternatives would have the Stadium Way route circle the Harvard Station area before crossing the river further west of the Anderson Bridge before connecting to the tunnel as with the earlier alternative. (2) Harvard Square.

Map A shows the three possible Green Line A terminals at Harvard Station.

[Label to Map A]
Map A, Harvard Station AlternativesS1. Current Lobby.
S2. Lower Busway
S3. Under Brattle Square
 
[end of label]

Station S1 would provide direct access to the station lobby.  It would require moving the elevator to the opposite side of the current T structure, and would allow a stop at the landing, to which the coffee shop would be moved.

The landing was designed for and used for ticket sales until introduction of the Charlie Card rendered the facility unnecessary.  The coffee shop could expand the existing facility as needed.  Other existing smaller uses could remain, creating a lively, handicapped accessible, area.

This alternative would require slight narrowing of the ramp to the lower busway, with the end of street car terminal separated by moving the left wall of the walkway to transfer that space to the terminal.

Station S2 would share the lower busway with bus traffic.    This location could confuse fare management between bus and streetcar passengers.

Station S3 would require major reconstruction of Brattle Square with new entrances, one at Brattle Street, another at Mt. Auburn Street.  It would connect to the station lobby by the lower busway, and require relocation of the Brattle Square elevator to the new Brattle Street entrance.

The route of Green Line A has several possibilities in Harvard Square.  The preferred option is shown in Map A, traveling exactly in the existing tunnel from Harvard Station.


As shown in map B, the preferred route would continue in JFK park in a location where JFK Park has been designed to comply with cut and cover subway installation without harm to trees.

[Label to Map B]
Map B1. Preferred Route, cut and cover transitioning to deep bore /
other for travel under Charles River.
2. Alternate Route, follows route 1 to JFK Park, then goes to
station at Memorial Drive. Three river crossing alternatives.
Destructive of trees in JFK Park.

[End of Label to Map B]

The proposal as shown in Maps B, C and D (next page), suggests several alternatives on the Cambridge side, along with possible river crossings.  The Green Line A spur could include a stop at the Anderson Bridge / JFK Street and Memorial Drive.


[Label to Map C]
Map C3. Alternate. Cut & cover / deep bore /
other from Brattle Sq. by Eliot St. & JFK
St. to Mem. Drive Station with 3 river
crossing alternatives.

[End of label]

[Label to Map D]
Map D.4 and 5. Alternative deep bore
construction under JFK School for
routes 1
S 3
[End of Label]

A sixth possible route has large possible variability.  This would connect the alternate route west of Harvard Stadium.  Because of its flexibility we have not attempted to designate alternative crossing routes for the alternative route around Harvard Stadium.  There is considerable flexibility in location on both sides of Charles River.

Only one crossing is thus shown on the main map with the anticipation that alternatives would be studied as deemed necessary.

On the Cambridge Side, route 6 would connect to Route 1 at JFK Park end of the pathway between Eliot Square and JFK Park.  JFK Park is not designed to allow subway construction in this direction without tree destruction.   This crossing should not connect to a Memorial Drive Station.

We are not certain about the extent to which the Brattle Square entrances to Harvard Station interfere with the preexisting tunnel.  If they do, the entrances would have to be moved, probably to the far side of the leg of Brattle Street further from Harvard Square proper.  Park Street and other open air locations allow pedestrian crossing of tracks near streetcar stops, but that configuration is awkward to make handicapped accessible.  If pedestrian track crossing were feasible, access from the JFK street side of Brattle Street would be viable.  A major disadvantage would be the destruction of a nice park.

Station location S3 would require access relocation in any case.

(3) Summary.

Green Line A would provide possibly faster access for travel from Back Bay to Harvard Station and beyond, and thus decrease use of the Red Line between Harvard and Park and reduce transfer traffic at Park. 

Back Bay commuters to Harvard Station and west could exchange one transfer, at Park Station, for transfer at Harvard Station.  Back Bay commuters to and from Harvard Station would have direct connection from Back Bay.  Harvard Station currently handles passengers with great efficiency.  Harvard Station should readily handle the additional transfer traffic, especially with the Green Line A terminal in the lobby.

From a Boston point of view, there has been considerable concern from Allston residents about delay of West Station.  The trouble with their concern is that they have been told that West Station will provide their rapid transit needs.  That suggestion, to put it nicely, greatly misstates the value of Commuter Rail to Allston residents. 

Commuter Rail simply cannot provide the rapid transit needs of Allston residents.  Commuter Rail is not intended to provide transportation within terminal cities.  To be direct, transportation within terminal cities is destructive to the real goal of Commuter Rail, getting commuters into terminal cities from distant locations.

Green Line A with the North Harvard Street route would be a greatly needed improvement for Allston residents, and, in addition to taking traffic off the Red Line for Cambridge’s benefit, would provide easy rapid transit to multiple Cambridge locations for Allston and Back Bay residents, increasing business for Cambridge business people.  Harvard Square in particular would be accessible without transfer.

The plan we are proposing was originally provided to the study group three years ago.  MassDOT picked up on the killing of the left turn at River Street Bridge, but did not pick up on Green Line A.

An additional advantage is that we understand that there are problems with financing.  Adding Green Line A as part of the project expands possible financing sources.

Conduct of a hearing in front of the Cambridge City Council on television should properly further delay the response date for comments on the DEIR beyond February 8, 2018.


III. Marked up Index.

This will be a customary feature, to show where our reports may be found on the Internet which present our aubmittal of comments concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the I90 rebuild project in Allston, Massachusetts, including its impact on the Charles River, its environment, and its animals.

The total letter to the environmental reviewers has been posted by the City of Cambridge in its official records on line at:  http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True, pages 96 to 125.  The transmittal letter to the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council has been posted at the same URL, poages 94 and 95.

Here is a break out of the Index to the submittal showing where portions have been printed.

1. Introduction.
A. Maneuvering with maximum secrecy by forces in Cambridge who cannot win in broad daylight.
B. The Issues.
2. Properly planned, the project can reduce traffic on Memorial Drive and elsewhere.

END OF REPORT 1, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river.html.

Summary of the situation in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html

This summary could be of value if you are only checking the official filing, which has been posted by the Cambridge City Clerk.

3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.
A. West Station should be trashed along with the publicly defeated Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction concept.
(1) Introductory.
(2) Trash it on railroad management grounds.
(a) Stations too close together.
(b) Projections for both adjacent stations are so low that delaying long distance commuters makes no sense.
(3) Trash West Station on grounds that it has been sold to well meaning people on an unsound basis.
(4) Statement that the project “does not preclude implementation of rapid transit services” is not true.
(5) Commuter Rail Shuttles from Longwood are Nonsense.
(6) Trash West Station on the grounds that the interests in Cambridge fighting for it are attempting to achieve, basically in secret, a goal they have been PROPERLY denied when their project was presented in light of day.
(a) General.
(b) This Outrageous Goal:  Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.
(i) No value to anybody but Kendall ‒ MassDOT Finding, when they were allowed responsible community input.
(ii) Environmentally destructive because it would block 7 major intersections, create major inconvenience to drivers, and create pollution from vehicle exhaust, waiting for commuter train passage.
(iii) Environmentally destructive because it would devastate the last visible animal habitat on this portion of the Charles River.

Section 3A presented in REPORT 3, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_13.html.

B. Far superior and far more responsible than Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction would be a new Green Line A Spur running from Commonwealth Avenue and the B.U. Bridge to the main work site in Allston to Harvard Square, which should be enthusiastically supported..
(1) General.
(2) Harvard Square.
(3) Summary.
4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
A. Architects’ (ABC) Proposal ‒ Outrageous Destruction of Boston River Bank.
B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.
5. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.
A. Direct Application.
B. A terrible record being made worse.
6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.



Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Highway rebuilding (I90) on the Charles River. A bad Station Proposal. Environmental Comments 3.

Highway rebuilding (I90) on the Charles River.  A bad Station Proposal.  Environmental Comments 3.


I. Introduction.
II. DEIR Comments, Section 3.A.  A whole bunch of bad things with regard to “West Station.”
III. Marked up Index.


I. Introduction.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA for 37 years.  Most of that time, they lived and fed at the playing fields of the Magazine Beach recreation area.  Their habitat was a mile long stretch on the north / Cambridge side of the river centered on the BU Bridge

The Charles River White Geese were loved and admired.  People came from the suburbs to quietly commune with them.  In more recent years, they have been on the receiving end of heartless animal abuse from the City and Regional Governments.

The current issue is that, while they have been on the North Side for 37 years, Interstate Route 90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) has been on the south side for 50 years.  The state has decided I90 needs very major improvements.  Harvard University has decided it wants to move its Medical School to the largest part of the I90 turf on the Boston side.  Harvard owns a former railroad yard and I90 along with its exit ramps, subject to transportation uses.

Entities with bad records are involved.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology rather clearly looks like it wants to create an off ramp from I90 which amounts to its private property, on the Grand Junction Railroad which passes through the area to which the Charles River White Geese have been heartless confined without food.  A block from where MIT wants its private off ramp, 50 years ago, Cambridge activists killed another super highway, known as the Inner Belt.  To no surprise, the fight for MIT’s updated Inner Belt is being conducted as secretly as possible.

A few years ago, bureaucrats from the City of Cambridge along with Fake Protectors who dominate city politics fought to put Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction as well.  People then, as was done 50 years ago, fought and defeated Commuter Rail on environmental purposes.  The Massachusetts Department of Transportation listened to the objections and studied the situation.  MassDOT found that Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction, with its nightmare creating blockage of multiple major intersections, benefitted nobody except for developers at Cambridge’s Kendall Square, about half a mile from the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined.

There has been major destruction on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, with the government owners and the City of Cambridge, and a tiny number of Fake Protectors in the middle of the destruction.

The engineers working on the I90 rebuilt have been forced by the previous governor to add a Commuter Rail station to their project.  That Commuter Rail station is being fought for by the usual villains.  It is a euphemism for losing causes.  Cambridge politics regularly does very terrible things under loud euphemisms, with Fake Protectors running around lying about supposed sainthoods all over the place.

The engineers have submitted a draft environmental document for state review.

We have submitted a detailed response which is outlined in the final section of this, the third report in a series.

This third report concentrates on this West Station which the engineers are trying to stall.  The next report will present our alternative proposal to West Station, Commuter Rail and MIT’s private off ramp from I90.

Here, on general principles, are the plans for the future home of Harvard Medical School, and associated uses.



I90 is the thick curved area at the bottom of the triangle.

The Grand Junction and existing Commuter Rail facilities would follow the pretty double broken line below it.  The two thicker lines below the area marked “12" would be West Station. 

Here is an aerial photo of the area closest to the turf of the Charles River White Geese.  On the far side of the Charles River are the Magazine Beach playing fields which have been their home for most of the last 37 years.  The photo looks at the above area from a distance.  It is the wide area at the top of the highway.  The super highway you are looking at enters the above diagram from the bottom right.  The Grand Junction is under it.




I think that is the Grand Junction going under I90 just above the bottom edge of the photo and to the right of I90. 

The ghetto of the Charles River White Geese through, which the Grand Junction passes, is across the river and to the right.

And here is a photo of the portion of the project which includes the Charles River White Geese.



I90 is in the upper right corner.  The ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese are no confined is at the bottom left.  MIT’s private I90 exit would merge with the Grand Junction railroad bridge which is the lower of the two bridges and run to the bottom right, exactly the route of the Commuter Rail which also has been defeated in the past and is being now fought for with usual Cambridge con games.

II. DEIR Comments, Section 3.A.  A whole bunch of bad things with regard to West Station.

3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.
A. West Station should be trashed along with the publicly defeated Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction concept.
(1) Introductory.
(2) Trash it on railroad management grounds.
(a) Stations too close together.
(b) Projections for both adjacent stations are so low that delaying long distance commuters makes no sense.
(3) Trash West Station on grounds that it has been sold to well meaning people on an unsound basis.
(4) Statement that the project “does not preclude implementation of rapid transit services” is not true.
(5) Commuter Rail Shuttles from Longwood are Nonsense.
(6) Trash West Station on the grounds that the interests in Cambridge fighting for it are attempting to achieve, basically in secret, a goal they have been PROPERLY denied when their project was presented in light of day.
(a) General.
(b) This Outrageous Goal:  Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.
(i) No value to anybody but Kendall ‒ MassDOT Finding, when they were allowed responsible community input.
(ii) Environmentally destructive because it would block 7 major intersections, create major inconvenience to drivers, and create pollution from vehicle exhaust, waiting for commuter train passage.
(iii) Environmentally destructive because it would devastate the last visible animal habitat on this portion of the Charles River.


3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.

A. West Station should be trashed along with the publicly defeated Commuter Rail in Cambridge concept.

(1) Introductory.

The MassDOT organizers have been following directions of the Cambridge Development Department who lost when it last fought for Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction because of large numbers of Cambridge residents who fought the interference of Commuter Rail with major Cambridge traffic arteries.  The CDD has solved this problem by telling MassDOT NOT TO PRESENT the proposal to people in areas who killed Commuter Rail.  Such tactics are distressingly typical of the CDD during the three manager City Manager Machine.

Such tactics are antithetical to the responsible government Cambridge voters are constantly told they have.

The responsible solution is to trash West Station and, instead, proceed with meaningful rapid transit, the Green Line A spur which we first suggested to the Advisory Committee in 2014 / 2015.  The concept is presented in detail below, including graphics presented to the Advisory Committee..

It is our understanding that there are significant numbers of people objecting to delay of West Station.  We have three basic comments on the matter, as stated in subsections (2) through (4).

(2) Trash it on railroad management grounds.

I, personally, have two years railroad experience at an administrative / managerial level, including 6 months actual on the ground experience, and a lot of experience using Commuter Rail.

(a) Stations too close together.

The reality is that the proximity of the station at Boston Landing / New Balance to West Station is so close that adding another station at West Station is, from a railroad management point of view, nonsense. 

The purpose of a Commuter Rail System is to transport commuters in an efficient, prompt manner at a level of service which makes Commuter Rail a viable option to the users of the system.  The addition of West Station creates two stations in such close proximity that they very simply do not have the value to the system that two stations must have to justify their existence.  They are so close together that there is no meaningful difference in the system, and the combination needlessly slows down people from areas which need Commuter Rail.  The proximity of the stations is such that buses or rapid transit make the only sensible use for passenger needs in the Allston / Cambridge area, rather than a second station.

(b) Projections for both adjacent stations are so low that delaying long distance commuters makes no sense.

Additionally, projected usage both on West Station and Boston Landing / New Balance are so low (DEIR table 5.9.3) in comparison to Yawkey that there is a very real question as to whether either station makes sense.  The MBTA is slowing down people coming from Worcester, Framingham, and other long distances to drop off this tiny amount of people?  THIS IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF COMMUTER RAIL.

(3) Trash West Station on grounds that it has been sold to well meaning people on an unsound basis.

We have attended as many Working Group and general public meetings as we have been aware of, and able to attend.  We have requested that we be informed of working group meetings.  We have not been so informed.  We have attended, to our understanding, all Working Group meetings that we have been aware of.

We have attempted to assist the Working Group in its duties.  That assistance has included formal presentation of the Green Line A concept which we will go into below.

The reality is that, whether intentional or not, MassDOT has sold residents a bill of goods on West Station.

Residents want rapid transit.  Residents have been told that West Station will provide them the Rapid Transit they need.  That is very simply not the case.  Commuter Rail is intercity transportation.  Use of intercity transportation for transportation within cities is, for the most part, silly.

West Station cannot do the job it has been sold to residents as doing.  Since it cannot do the job it has been sold to residents as doing, it makes no sense to build it.

(4) Statement that the project “does not preclude implementation of rapid transit services” is not true.

Green Line A, described below, which we formally presented to the Working Group in 2014 / 2015, will do the job residents have been told would be done by West Station.  Green Line A could be prevented if allowances are not made to allow it to be built in such a manner as it should be built.

The DEIR, chapter 9, page 2 provides a very unsatisfactory response to this issue in its answer to the first sample question on West Station. 

The question in part reflects the constant push for Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction in spite of its resounding defeat when presented other than behind closed doors.

While the plans allow Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction in the future, the plans could prevent meaningful implementation of a Green Line A.  The situation gets worse because Harvard has been doing the usual fight for Harvard’s goals, people talking oh so sweetly.

Harvard is pushing for a reverse Red Line fork out of Harvard Station originating, according to the pitch, from Porter Station.  The Harvard proposal would be EXTREMELY expensive, Deep Bore Construction, with a major rebuild of Harvard Station.  It would amount to a private shuttle from Harvard Station to Harvard Medical School, to somewhere around the Longwood Medical Area. 

Green Line A would provide transportation which the neighbors are demanding and have been given the incorrect impression that they are getting.  However, the I90 work could prevent it and leave the Commonwealth with no choice other than the horribly expensive option that Harvard is floating, with transportation for the neighbors only to the extent they walk to the new Harvard Medical School.

(5) Commuter Rail Shuttles from Longwood are Nonsense.

There was a slide in the MassDOT presentation on the DEIR which seemed to project ridership based on shuttles from the Longwood Medical Area.  It is our understanding that Brookline people are highly disturbed about such buses running through Brookline.

Longwood is half a mile from Yawkey Station, also on the Worcester line.  The trip from Longwood to West Station sounds like something like three miles.  Additionally, existing shuttles, and many MBTA buses, to Kenmore should be readily adaptable to providing service to Commuter Rule users.  Existing service goes past Yawkey Station.  A quick stop on Brookline Avenue just before I90 at that point would do the trick very effectively.

The managers at Longwood would have to be extremely incompetent to run Commuter Rail shuttles to West Station.

Added to this analysis should be the still pending Inner Belt Rapid Transit discussions.  Inner Belt Rapid Transit should most definitely be provided as a spur out of Ruggles with service from Downtown Orange Line stations to Longwood at Louis Pasteur and Longwood Avenue, and then to the Kenmore / Yawkey superstation.


(6) Trash West Station on the grounds that the interests in Cambridge fighting for it are attempting to achieve, basically in secret, a goal they have been PROPERLY denied when their project was presented in light of day.

(a). General.

People on the opposite side from the Fake Protectors defeated Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction when it was MEANINGFULLY AND PUBLICLY studied by MassDOT.

So now, after the CDD was publicly defeated in open discussion in front of MassDOT, the CDD is telling MassDOT to ONLY go to the CDD’s friends to discuss the Mass. Pike (I90) rebuild, and not to talk to the people who defeated the CDD and its friends when they publicly proposed Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.

Notwithstanding this, the people who lost when MassDOT studied Grand Junction Commuter Rail use have had representatives at the Working Group meetings appointed by the Cambridge Development Department, the people who lost the last time.  And people who were very visible fighting for the destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive are suddenly appointed, AS BOSTON RESIDENTS, to the same committee.

So the people who lost the last time are surreptitiously attempting to reverse a decision made in public by secret maneuverings in a group which claims to have no jurisdiction outside of the rebuilding of I90 in Allston.

Irresponsible, but dirty tricks of this sort are normal in Cambridge politics.

MassDOT has considered use of the Grand Junction for commuter rail.  IN PUBLIC. 

MassDOT saw a lot of people who strongly objected.  MassDOT found that Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction makes no sense. 

The only thing that has changed is that, THIS TIME, MassDOT has only talked to people delivered to MassDOT by a fake group which ejects people from its ListServe if they make comments or offer to make comments on their ListServe contrary to the wishes of bureaucrats of the City of Cambridge or to others with comparable goals.

MassDOT should have shared its ideas in public, not in secret meetings managed by people who have a record of running around telling folks only to look at what they want folks to know about, and not to look at the things this fake group wants to keep secret.  But the entity referred by the CDD does tend to praise the CDD, which, in turn, has told MassDOT only to deal with these folks who praise CDD.

MassDOT should be communicating with the Cambridge City Council, preferably in meetings telecast to constituents on Cambridge Cable.  Talking to essentially secret meetings which do not really even claim to represent areas which would be harmed is unacceptable, but that is what has been done.

(b) This outrageous goal: Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.

(i) No value to anybody but Kendall ‒ MassDOT Finding, when were allowed responsible community input.

The only thing that has changed from the formal study of Commuter Rail by MassDOT is that the Cambridge Development Department has told MassDOT not to talk with the responsible people MassDOT talked with when MassDOT killed it the last time.

The finding then was that Commuter Rail has no value to anybody other than Kendall Square interests, and the advocates are exactly making ONLY THAT POINT, that it has value to Kendall Square.  They are making no claims that we are aware of, that Commuter Rail up the Grand Junction has any value EXCEPT to Kendall Square / M.I.T.

(ii) Environmentally destructive because it would block seven major intersections, create major inconvenience to drivers and create pollution from vehicle exhaust, waiting for commuter train passage.

Here is a state map of the Grand Junction with intersections marked which are negatively affected by Commuter Rail.



This was the secondary argument which killed Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction when responsible contact with Cambridge was ALLOWED BY CAMBRIDGE.

Commuter Rail would create a vehicular nightmare on the major streets it would cross, with associated increase in pollution and very major interference with transportation viability on the streets of Cambridge.

Railroad planning for the past 50 years or so has been antithetical to such outrageous interference with public streets in populous areas.  But, in the dead or night, forces of Cambridge are trying to force such irresponsible design on a population which has defeated it when the cause has been publicly fought for.

(iii) Environmentally destructive because it would devastate the last visible animal habitat on this portion of the Charles River.

There is only one tiny area on this part of the Charles where corrupt tactics by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge have yet to kill off animal habitat.  Running of commuter rail through this area would be devastating, both in the wild area east of the Grand Junction and in the area to which the Charles River White Geese, the most visible victims have been confined.

Photos and plans detailing destruction plans are provided below in our analysis of the real game going on, M.I.T.’s planned update to the Inner Belt project which was killed 40 years ago.  Since it was killed 40 years ago as a result of public discussion, it is being done with maximum secrecy now, using all sorts of stalking horse arguments.

Cambridge has its own destructive plans which have been progressed with comparable secrecy.  The MassDOT Davis letter forwards the plan, as just one excellent example of bad faith. 

The Davis MassDOT letter seems to have obviously been written by the Cambridge Development Department with “supporting” letters from the City Council and City Manager.  Massive habitat destruction was obfuscated by misleading tactics inflicted on the entities who had “support” pushed in front of them without meaningfully being told what they were supported.

And the letter’s principal visible function was to raise questions about a vote impacting the River Street Bridge which, according to MassDOT had the principal writer on the opposite side from the side she gives the impression she supports while in reality fighting for the outrages on the Charles River.

Please see sections 5 and 6 for analyses of the heartless animal abuse, and of M.I.T.’s updated Inner Belt proposal.  These analyses are also applicable here.

III. Marked up Index.

This will be a customary feature, to show where our reports on the blog fit into the document we filed for a February 9, deadline concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Review (DEIR, I think).

1. Introduction.
A. Maneuvering with maximum secrecy by forces in Cambridge who cannot win in broad daylight.
B. The Issues.
2. Properly planned, the project can reduce traffic on Memorial Drive and elsewhere.

END OF REPORT 1, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river.html.

Summary Report present in REPORT 2:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html

3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.
A. West Station should be trashed along with the publicly defeated Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction concept.
(1) Introductory.
(2) Trash it on railroad management grounds.
(a) Stations too close together.
(b) Projections for both adjacent stations are so low that delaying long distance commuters makes no sense.
(3) Trash West Station on grounds that it has been sold to well meaning people on an unsound basis.
(4) Statement that the project “does not preclude implementation of rapid transit services” is not true.
(5) Commuter Rail Shuttles from Longwood are Nonsense.
(6) Trash West Station on the grounds that the interests in Cambridge fighting for it are attempting to achieve, basically in secret, a goal they have been PROPERLY denied when their project was presented in light of day.
(a) General.
(b) This Outrageous Goal:  Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.
(i) No value to anybody but Kendall ‒ MassDOT Finding, when they were allowed responsible community input.
(ii) Environmentally destructive because it would block 7 major intersections, create major inconvenience to drivers, and create pollution from vehicle exhaust, waiting for commuter train passage.
(iii) Environmentally destructive because it would devastate the last visible animal habitat on this portion of the Charles River.
B. Far superior and far more responsible than Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction would be a new Green Line A Spur running from Commonwealth Avenue and the B.U. Bridge to the main work site in Allston to Harvard Square, which should be enthusiastically supported..
(1) General.
(2) Harvard Square.
(3) Summary.
4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
A. Architects’ (ABC) Proposal ‒ Outrageous Destruction of Boston River Bank.
B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.
5. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.
A. Direct Application.
B. A terrible record being made worse.
6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.