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.