Friday, February 15, 2019

Charles River Environment Destruction and Animal Abuse: Some of the Culture of Cambridge, MA Politics

Charles River Environment Destruction and Animal Abuse: Some of the Culture of Cambridge, MA Politics

The following is a transcript of an exchange from the Cambridge Town Hall page on Facebook.  This Facebook page was created in an attempt to get a forum for free, open and responsible discussion.

As I have mentioned, the fake neighborhood association which is now key in fighting for so many outrages on the Charles River runs an email exchange which is notable for censorship of responsible comments, particularly those objecting to the outrages supported by the group which runs the email exchange.  They do a lot of praising for irresponsible behavior and support their position by hiding the irresponsible stuff they support.

This outrageous behavior would appear to be at least part of the reason for creating the Cambridge Town Hall page.

The following exchange was part of a discussion of votes in the Massachusetts House of Representative to open up debate in the that legislative chamber to comport with progressive wishes.  I quote the comment to which I was responding.  From then on, there were no comments in this sequence except for mine and those of RW.  I am using initials to minimize personal identification without being total about it.  There are at least three obvious typos in my analysis which I have retained for accuracy.

One of RW’s comments have since been deleted, so only a summary is provided.  I do not know if the deletion were because of my complaint to Facebook, because RW realized how self-destructive the comment was, or because the moderator behaved responsibly.  I posted my final comment being unaware of this comment from RW.

RW is an activist who has been involved as a very active part of the bad guys for decades.  He runs probably the most visible webpage on Cambridge Politics.  He is notable for nastiness.  MD is a current state representative and a former Cambridge City Councilor who was very much in the middle of the first round of attacks on the Charles River and its animals.

Sitting City Councilors have participated in Cambridge Town Hall discussions in the past.  They have been less visible in recent weeks.  I have passed on condensations of several of my posts on this Blog while trying to avoid dominating the posts on this Facebook page.

* * * * *

[lead comment]

Strange MD voted no. She is my Rep. and her voters are very progressive. There are no excuses for this.

[Your Editor]

To understand MD, you need to understand her REAL RECORD on women's rights.

As a city councillor, she was part of the most reprehensible Women's Rights outrage in recent history - Robert Healy's destruction of the life of the Black Cape Cape Verdian Female department head, Malvina Montiero, because she worked for equal rights as a woman as a part of her employment.

Condemned by three levels of Court.

Appeals Court panel refused to honor Cambridge's appeal, funded by MD's City Council with an opinion.

The Court effort ran more than 10 million in Court counting the award and other costs.

In addition to actual damages, the jury awarded MORE than triple PENAL DAMAGES to show its contempt for Healy's behavior,

Healy was not fired, and NO CITY COUNCILLORS proposed to fire him.

The City Council showed where it stood by naming the police station for Healy, although MD may have been gone by then, promoted and claiming to be pro women's rights to get promoted.

She yells at the other guy. Is that not enough?


Please keep your character assassination to yourself. I may have disagreed with MD at times in the past, but to suggest that she is anything other than a consistent positive force for the interests of women is patently absurd.

[Your editor]

I live in reality.

The Monteiro reality is one that Healy took that woman's likelihood from her because she wanted equal pay for equal work.

Nine members of the City Council including MD had no use for reality. It is highly unusual to have a meaningful test where it counts on women's rights, a key issue for 50% + of the population. MD was one of nine councillors who ignored the jury and the trial judge's very clear message.

But then the Trial Judge's very strong message including pages of quotes from Healy is overwhelming.

How dare anybody look at the judge's opinion when looking at reality results in such a strong personal attack.

Or the Appeals Court panel's non-opinion opinion which refused to dignify the appeal funded by nine city councillors with an opinion.

These are professionals safe from the nastiness which is so normal in Cambridge politics.

The experts dared to look at reality.

Yelling at the other guy is highly insufficient when the experts are yelling at the Cambridge pols.

And a personal attack characterizing a highly respected judicial record as a personal attack shows way too much about the true level of Cambridge politics.

[Response by RW which was subsequently deleted suggested I consider suicide]

[your editor]

Was she on the City Council when the City Council UNANIMOUSLY named the Police Station after THAT PERSON?

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

Charles River: Tree “Protections” / Destruction, I90 Destructiveness

Charles River:  Tree “Protections” / Destruction, I90 Destructiveness

This report is essentially identical to a letter which has been delivered to the Cambridge City Manager and the Cambridge City Clerk for the Cambridge City Manager at its next meeting.  There are modifications to comport it to this medium.

The biggest oddity is the inclusions of photocopies of entire pages in our letter of June 6, 2017 to the Cambridge City Council.  Double clicking will greatly increase these pages in size.  These photocopies are taken from the file on the June 6, 2017 letter on the Charles River White Geese webpage at, pages 28, 29, 30, 34 and 35.  Please look there for better reproduction if necessary.   In the City Council hard copy, these photocopies occupy nearly full pages.  That reproduction works quite well.

1. Follow Up, Charles River and Grand Junction Destructiveness.
2. Our Analysis.
3. “Lying” photos and plans.
4. Destruction after the City Council gave its blank check.
5. Summary.

1. Follow Up, Charles River and Grand Junction Destructiveness.

Phil Barber has been kind enough to follow up on my communications at the last Cambridge City Council meeting with more concerning the Cambridge City Council’s outrages on the Charles River and the clear MIT environmental destruction on the former NECCO Spur.  It was two separate emails, including two educational photographs.  I am merging his communications.

The crossings comment refers to the map and analysis I provided of public streets the Cambridge City Council wants to really mess up with passenger trains crossing them.  Here is a copy of that graphic.

                                    Grand Junction (MassDOT plan) with CAMBRIDGE
                           CITY COUNCIL’s supported passenger  train interference with traffic.

The former NECCO Spur was about half the distance from the Charles River and the first arrow on the Grand Junction from the Charles River.  It ran on the upper side and went toward Massachusetts Avenue, which is the first arrow.

Over the last century, such rail / highway crossings have been constantly  separated from highways in communities with responsible leaders.

As is not at all unusual, enlightened behavior in the real world is strikingly opposed to practices in  the City of Cambridge, MA, USA, where enlightened words combined with reactionary realities are too often the norm, as with the SECRETIVE desires of the Cambridge City Council for the Grand Junction and for the public streets of Cambridge.

Here are Phil’s comments with limited edits to fit this medium without changing his meaning.

* * * * *

Good to see you were able to sort out the salient points from the mass of chaff in the I-90 reports etc. I noticed the other day that the bridge that carries Mem Drive over the Grand Junction has a jerry-built (temporary?) repair just like those made to the overpass, a lattice work of heavy steel columns and supports propping up the roadbed. I hadn't noticed this before but then I haven’t been over to the goose meadow in some time.

Support under Memorial Drive Bridge over Grand Junction
Courtesy Phil Barber, 2/4/19
 It also occurs to me that the width of the underpass would determine whether the right of way could be used for both rail and vehicle traffic. Originally the bridge and the right of way accommodated two tracks. It would be an impossibly tight fit to get two lanes of traffic plus the rail through this pinch point. I suppose they could pitch the whole thing as an “improvement” to the Mem Drive bridge which does seem to need replacing. The overpass continues to deteriorate too in spite of the repairs a few years ago. More brickwork falls off it every day, it seems. There’s even a netting under it where the rotary passes underneath to catch falling debris!

Your point about the grade crossings is well taken. You can gauge when rail traffic is coming from the sound of the engine’s horn as it successively crosses Cambridge St., Main St. and Mass. Ave., and the crossing at Ft. Washington. I notice that 5 PM, the height of the rush hour, is usually when Conrail shunts a few cars north on the line. Yesterday I saw an old GP24 pulling a couple of MBTA cars and one of the brand new passenger locomotives to the repair shop. It crossed the bridge with a great squealing of bearings and chugging. Two thousand horses under the hood, quite impressive. Daily commuter trains on the line would require full grade crossings and many delays. And they wouldn't be able to move through such an obstructed corridor at speed either.

* * * *

Here are  the cottonwoods in 1994.  These are the beautiful specimens on the closed NECCO spur  which were recently destroyed by MIT.  I suspect the ones at Magazine Beach seeded from them.  They produce millions of wind born seeds that blow everywhere.

* * * * *

2. My analysis.

A pivotal point in the discussion of the 2003 MBTA plan to created an I90 off ramp to Cambridge was the extent to which the Memorial Drive underpass would be widened.

The MBTA wanted 2 lanes plus a railroad bed.  Cambridge “planners” wanted a 4th right of way, obviously thinking of MIT's private exit / Inner Belt.

The Waverly Connector plans had extensive tree planting WITH OPENINGS exactly matching places to connect this new Inner Belt to Mem Drive.

3. “Lying” photos and plans.

Following are a few samples from our June 6, 2017 presentation of trees at Magazine Beach the Cambridge City Council wants to destroy, along with DCR filed plans.

As near as I can gather, the City Council’s presiding officer seems to consider the DCR’s PUBLICLY FILED PLANS to be lies on the part of the DCR (or us?).  All the time, of course, WHILE PLAYING A CON GAME ON THE VOTERS.

As demonstrated in the photos below, these PUBLICLY FILED plans INCLUDE flat out lies FROM THE DCR.

It is very difficult for the City Council’s presiding office to blame these lies on us.  BUT HE PUBLICLY HAS CALLED US LIARS.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation plays skillfully fraudulent word games.  The DCR uses terms familiar to the public in specialized meanings.  The DCR does not disclose the specialized meanings.  That rather clearly is fraud on the public. 

The “three trees” shown in the first plans for destruction repeated below, are in reality are ten trees, as shown in our photographs of them, but then the Presiding Officer calls us liars, so we must be lying that the DCR’s “three trees” are TEN.

We should think that, in a responsible city government, the DCR would be called the liars.  But this is not a responsible city government.  This is the City of Cambridge.

Double clicking should greatly increase the apparent size of these photoed pages.  These photos and the below photos may be directly viewed on the Charles River White Geese webpage at,

This is, of course, the magnificent grove which dominates the western end of the playing fields.

Two dead trees to the right (west) were destroyed during the past few months.

This is the most visible part of the excellent park across from Magazine Street.  Note that the DCR and the Cambridge City Council wants to destroy all but one of these trees at the same time as destroying the environmentally responsible parking lot heavily used by people not attractive to the top 1%. 4. Destruction after the City Council gave its blank check.

4. Destruction after the City Council gave its blank check.

After the City Council gave the DCR their blank check in Order 1 of April 24, 2017, and after our June 6, 2017 letter, the DCR, on behalf of the Cambridge City Council’s blank check, destroyed two street trees next to the MicroCenter Parking lot WHICH WERE NOT EVEN ON THE DESTRUCTION PLANS.

These formerly maturing trees were beloved by the owner of the MicroCenter parking lot.  NOTE THE MULCH AROUND THE TREE STUBS.  Decent human beings have a strikingly different attitude toward trees than that of the DCR and the Cambridge City Council, although the Cambridge City Council does love flim flam.

These are, of course, only excerpts.  There are a lot more VERY TERRIBLE THINGS THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL IS DOING.  The full report took 51 pages.  The report, TWICE PRESENTED TO THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL minus this last photo, may be viewed at

As I recall, the Cambridge City Council’s presiding officer calls this “lying.”

5. Summary.

The City Council should be:

(1) Reversing and rescinding its vote in Order 1 of April 24, 2017 supporting and seeking funds for this outrage and reversing and rescinding all related praise of the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation;

(2) Through the legislature, replacing the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation in all of its responsibilities in Cambridge with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation; and

(3) Repairing, insofar as possible, all damage inflicted on the Charles by the City of Cambridge, the DCR, its predecessor, and or / by agents / assistants of one or more, directly or indirectly, since November 1, 1999, and terminating all pending such destruction.

Continued failure to do all three would be in direct conflict with the self proclamations of environmental sainthood which are so common from members of the Cambridge City Council.

Saturday, February 02, 2019

Charles River: Transportation Secretary’s decision on I90 rebuild configuration in context.

RE: Charles River:  Transportation Secretary’s decision on I90 rebuild configuration in context.

A week or so ago, I published the decision of the Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation on the rebuild of I90 across the Charles River from Magazine Beach.  It is posted at.

Since then, the Cambridge City Council, or, more likely, the Cambridge Development Department speaking through the Cambridge City Council has weighed in.  I responded by passing on to the Cambridge City Council, or, more importantly, the many people who read its agenda / minutes, the decision with an analysis which is much more detailed that I did last time.  Plus, of course, the Cambridge City Council is increasingly coming out of the closet as the villain.  So I am communicating a bunch of issues to the voters, and transmitting the decision which is clearly different from what the Cambridge City Council / Development Department says.

APOLOGIES:  There are locations in Boston mentioned in this letter.  For me to spell out the locations in detail would simply make the post too long.  One succinct description is that "Kenmore" and "Yawkey Station" are very close to each other, very close to the Red Sox home of Fenway Park and perhaps a mile north of the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area which includes Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Children's Hospital of Boston, Brigham & Women's Hospital and, for the time being, the Harvard Medical School.  Mountfort / St. Mary’s is a very short block from the heart of the campus of Boston University, and perhaps half a mile west of Kenmore.  The eastern end of the proposed Green Line A spur is at the southern end of the BU Bridge and less than half a mile vaguely west of Mountfort / St. Mary’s.

RE: I90 Rebuild Project - Secretary’s Designation of “Preferred” Alignment

1. Secretary’s Decision Attached.
2. Some key points of background.
A. The “throat.”
B. Some other environmental outrages.
(1) January 2016.
(2) Magazine Beach.
(3) Former NECCO spur.
(4) Development Department management of information.
3. Right turn off River Street Ramp still undecided.
4. Cambridge City Council “Environmentalists” Support Environmental Destruction in Cambridge.
5. Summary.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

1. Secretary’s Decision Attached.

Three weeks ago, the Secretary of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation issued a decision which designated a preferred alignment for the rearrangement of I90 across from Magazine Beach.

This decision received almost immediate release to the press with, as near as I can gather no public communication of the exact terms of the preferred alignment to which I90 would be rebuilt.

At the January 2019 I90 Rebuild Advisory Committee meeting, I repeatedly requested that the Secretary’s decision be published so as to be publicly available.  I did not get very far with the engineers running the meeting, but Senator William Brownsberger was kind enough to refer me to his webpage on which he had published the decision, as he received that decision associated with his membership on the committee.

Since then, I have been publicizing the decision as broadly as I can within my resources.  I am accordingly providing to you as Attachment 2 a true copy of the decision which I received from Senator Brownsberger and which we have published on the Charles River White Geese Blog.

On reading the decision, it is clear that there are key caveats in the Secretary’s decision which make that decision strikingly different from any alignment previously under consideration, although it nominally is an acceptance of the “Hybrid” alignment.  The state / consultant engineers strongly emphasized this situation at the January meeting of the I90 Task Force.

Of particular interest to the powers that be in Cambridge, the key engineer refused to concur in response to an MIT surrogate’s attempt to characterize that the order amounted to victory for the outrages being sought by MIT and friends on the Grand Junction.  That particular surrogate was one of the more visible MIT surrogates fighting for the January 2016 outrage accomplished on the Charles River by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge.

Many of the outrages supported by this person have been sneaked into fine print and not so fine print in projects being pushed by the Cambridge City Council and its staff.

2. Some key points of background.

A. The “throat.”

Here is the photo of the area that was the most discussed part of the decision, the narrowest part of I90 across from Magazine Beach where the Cambridge City Council wants to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees.

B. Some other environmental outrages.

(1) January 2016.

Hundreds of mostly excellent trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges were destroyed in the DCR / Cambridge outrage of January 2016.

This  is described in detail in my video, WITH PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS,  posted at:

(2) Magazine Beach.

The various outrages, as usual, are being progressed and have been accomplished, with maximum secrecy to allow deniability to the guilty parties and to prevent responsible people from objecting.  Public objections have killed desired outrages in the past.

In addition to this order AND OTHER SUPPORTIVE ACTIONS, the City Council repeatedly praises the DCR’s plans for the Magazine Beach outrage.  The DCR has clearly communicated in its filings with the Cambridge Conservation Commission that the DCR’s relevant plans include the destruction of the 56 (originally 54) trees.  And the City Council’s presiding officer calls it a lie to say that the City Council supports this massive destruction?

The massive tree destruction supported at Magazine Beach by the Cambridge City Council has twice been communicated IN DETAIL to the Cambridge City Council in my 51 page analysis of June 6, 2017 of the publicly presented plans in context with the doomed trees which the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about.  That communication is posted on the Charles River White Geese webpage at  That communication in turn responds to the blank check given the Department of Conservation and Recreation by the Cambridge City Council in its Order 1 of April 24, 2017 published in city records at

(3) Former NECCO spur.

I have in last week’s meeting communicated more environmental outrage by MIT in the Grand Junction area by passing on photos by Phil Barber of the excellent row of cottonwoods on the former NECCO spur which has been destroyed rather clearly by MIT.  It is not far from the Charles River.

Phil has provided yet another photo of the MIT destroyed row of cottonwoods.

Here is his explanation and the photo.

* * * * *

Just came across a photo I took in 1983 of a corn syrup tanker on the NECCO spur, with the big trees [ed: destroyed by MIT] just to the right of it.  Found it sitting there one morning in the snow, not sure why it had been left by itself.  The post to the right is where Vellucci’s “great iron gate” and the X-crossover was.

* * * * *

“Vellucci” refers to the late city councilor / mayor for which the park in Inman Square is named.  That is the park in Inman Square which a majority of members of the City Council are currently in the process of destroying.

(4) Development Department management of information.

As I mentioned above, the CDD and the people influenced by it, for 20 years of more, denied the existence of the Kenmore Crossing alternative on the Urban Ring rail proposal.  Now that the BU Crossing alternative, supported by the CDD, seems to have lost to the Kenmore Crossing alternative, does the CDD now recognize its existence?

The biggest mistake that MassDOT has recently made is its determination to go to the CDD to determine the people to whom MassDOT should communicate its Charles River plans.  The CDD is MOST DEFINITELY not a neutral party, and the “advice” to MassDOT reflects its lack of neutrality.

Here is a MassDOT map of the Grand Junction with markings by me as to intersections which would be impacted by the creation of Commuter Rail service on the Grand Junction.  People coming out objecting to this impact were key in the earlier decision of MassDOT to reject Commuter Rail service on the Grand Junction.  So, naturally, the DCR tells MassDOT NOW to talk only to its friends and, most definitely NOT to talk to people impacted by the harm to the major arteries of Commuter Rail.

Distressingly, this environmentally destructive, VOTER OPPOSED outrage has been supported by the Cambridge City Council in order 2 of January 28, 2019.  The City Council did not discuss this order in public, maintaining the maximum secrecy associated with this project which it is so hated by so many voters.

This destructive proposal would impact animal habitat on the Charles River.  It would spew exhaust from cars on busy Cambridge highways, as marked on the map above, waiting for Commuter Rail closing off those busy highways.  This project would introduce into Cambridge conflicting configurations of car / train which have been routinely replaced in the past 50 or 100 years throughout the United States, and particularly in Massachusetts.  So naturally, the Cambridge Development Department is keeping it as secret as possible from the people who are affected, AND WHO HAVE PUBLICLY AND SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSED IT IN THE PAST.

Similarly, the closing of the right turn off the ramp to the River Street bridge primarily impacts people living near River Street and in much of the rest of the city.  Once again, DCR tells MassDOT to avoid discussing the killing of this turn with its primary users.

C. A responsible alternative to the VOTER HATED Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.

Enclosed as attachment 1 is my proposal for a Green Line A spur from Green Line B at the BU Bridge to Harvard Square with stops at Harvard’s future Harvard Medical School, North Allston, BU West, and Harvard’s Business School and Stadium.

The alignment would allow direct connection between Back Bay and Harvard Square, a totally new route reducing traffic on and greatly benefitting the Red Line, plus benefitting Harvard Square and beyond with this much easier access.

By contrast, Harvard is floating a horribly expensive reverse DEEP BORE Red Line Spur which would destroy and rebuild Harvard Station.  It would only connect to the relocated Harvard Medical School and the region of the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area. 

Green Line A would connect directly to Kenmore Square and Longwood Medical Area bus shuttles.  When the Urban Ring Kenmore Crossing comes into play, that will create a magnificent superstation at Kenmore Station / Yawkey Station, and from there link to a Longwood Avenue / Louis Pasteur, Ruggles and north by Orange Line technology.

I realize that, for a minimum of 20 years after the MBTA made the Kenmore Crossing part of the Urban Ring rail package in 1991, the Cambridge Development Department falsely denied its existence.  However, the rebuilding in place of Yawkey Station rather severely debunks the idea of moving Yawkey Station to Mountfort / Saint Mary’s as would be required by the BU Bridge Crossing supported by the Development Department.  I had a key part in Yawkey Station being  rebuilt in place and significantly upgraded.

That upgrade by the MBTA killed the BU Bridge route as a potential destroyer of the Wild Area between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse on Memorial Drive.  My video provides the key plans to destroy the Wild Area which were included in the January 2016 plans and which almost certainly are to be included in the, as usual, as secret as possible, plans for MDC Phase 3 destruction on the Charles River.

One related instance of possibly Cambridge harming action by MIT has occurred.  The construction of a massive dormitory on Vassar Street opposite the MIT playing fields has the odor of trying to prevent the Kenmore Crossing from going through this area in accordance with Urban Ring Kenmore Crossing plans.

If this construction does prevent the Kenmore Crossing from going through this area, the action is much more likely to harm Cambridge than to harm the Kenmore Crossing alignment.  The Longwood Medical Area definitely needs the Orange Line service which would be provided by the Urban Ring spur out of Ruggles to Longwood / Louis Pasteur and then to Kenmore, especially with the excellent Kenmore / Yawkey Superstation.

Longwood Medical Area is one of Massachusetts’ top money makers.  Its value to Massachusetts is far in excess of Cambridge’s plans in East Cambridge.  Additionally, Green Line A will reduce the overload of the Red Line so as to reduce the need for the Urban Ring to East Cambridge.

If MIT’s construction blocked the Urban Ring subway’s ability to connect by the Kenmore Crossing over the Charles River, the most likely result will be to terminate the Urban Ring subway at Kenmore.  That terminal with its Green Line A, B, C and D, and Commuter Rail connections, in turn, is a decidedly excellent place to end that spur.

The Urban Ring Kenmore Crossing route was my idea as well.  I proposed it five years before it the MBTA officially made it part of the Urban Ring subway package.

3. Right turn off River Street Ramp still undecided

It is encouraging to see that the Cambridge City Council by Order 2 of January 28, 2019 is now joining me in unequivocally opposing the killing of the right turn off the ramp to the River Street Bridge.

The engineers / consultants acknowledged at the January I90 rebuild Advisory Committee meeting that the right turn off the River Street ramp from Soldiers Field Road for access to Cambridge is still open for discussion.

The I90 rebuild proposal was changed, AT MY SUGGESTION, to allow direct connection between the future Harvard Medical School and Soldiers Field Road east of the River Street Bridge.

I suggested that this be combined with killing the left turn off the River Street Bridge ramp.  MassDOT, with the CLEAR  SUPPORT of all Cambridge appointed members was in the process of killing both the right and left turns.

I caught the change at a public presentation in Union Square, Allston.

I have been attending as many of the advisory committee meetings as possible.  Unfortunately, although I have requested I be included in committee mailings, I am not so included and find no public notice of these meetings.

So I was not able to point out this error to the key people before it was presented in public as a fait accompli.  The key consultant presenter was so shocked by my comments that, in an unprecedented act, he interrupted my formal public comments to argue that the Cambridge appointees agreed with the deletion of the right turn.  At least one Cambridge appointee, who was publicly identified by MassDOT’s consultant representative in the Union Square argument as supporting the change, has since then started giving a contrary impression in public comments which have been endorsed by the Cambridge City Council.

4. Cambridge City Council “Environmentalists” Support Environmental Destruction in Cambridge.

The outrage on the Grand Junction looks like a stalking horse for a private exit to MIT from I90.  I was an unrelated intern in the governor’s office when the governor put what was then considered the final resolution of the Inner Belt.  The commuter rail related widening of the Grand Junction railroad bridge looks like a stalking horse for an updated Inner Belt for MIT’s benefit.  Such a highway over A WIDENED Grand Junction Railroad Bridge was proven feasible by the 2003 MBTA study.

Additionally, the Cambridge City Council is trying to use this MassDOT decision as a way to get money from MassDOT to do environmentally destructive work on Memorial Drive, destroying who knows how many more trees in Magazine Beach, plus more than a hundred trees east of the BU Bridge.

* * * * * *

[Label:]  To the far left is the BU Bridge.  The angled lines from bottom middle to top right denote the Grand Junction.  To the left is the Goose Meadow.  To the right is the Wild Area.  Markings indicate EXACTLY ONE TREE NOT DESTROYED in the Wild Area.  (MDC destruction plans for the January 2016 outrage.)

* * * * ** *

* * * * * *
[Label:]  More than a hundred trees in the Wild Area are almost certain to be destroyed in the DCR’s Phase 3 destruction, which the Cambridge City Council wants funded by MassDOT.

* * * * * *

* * * * * *

[Label:]  This magnificent tree in the Goose Meadow dominates the view from the BU Bridge.  It is in the January 2016 destruction plans.  It would most likely be destroyed in Phase 3 Memorial Drive destruction which Order 2 of January 28, 2019 would have MassDOT fund. Note the DCR destruction plan above left [ed:  second prior photo].  This is the big tree near the left end.

* * * * * * *

The DCR has rejected this once and deferred work to associate it with more destruction work east on Memorial Drive.  Following are the DCR’s plans to destroy the thick woods between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse in the January 2016 outrage.

The DCR has announced it is working on a Phase 3 of its Charles River environmental destruction which would be funded by MassDOT if the Cambridge City Council has its way.

 It is silly to assume that they DCR will not finish the destructiveness of January 2016.  This is, of course, in addition to possible additional destruction at Magazine Beach.
The City Council passed order 2 on January 28, 2019 without comment.

TWO OF THE THREE SPONSORS of Order 2  spent much of the evening loudly proclaiming an emergency threatening the Cambridge tree stock, and claiming they were standing up to it.

Very clearly, the public members who spoke, in a very large number were demanding protection of Cambridge trees.

The first order section of Order 2, item D, seeks funding from MassDOT to ramp up the outrages for a third item of outrageous tree destruction on the Charles River.

To repeat some comments in my letter on order 7 of January 28, 2019:

At the January 28, 2109 meeting, you had a lot of people fighting against your destructiveness on the Charles River.  Con games are con games.  Lovely, saintly words do not reverse a false reality.

Reality is what you are doing on the Charles River.  It is outrageous, and it is allowed in your supposed protections.

5. Summary.

The total decision of the Secretary of Transportation will dominate further Massachusetts planning in the I90 rebuild.  It is attached in 15 pages, and is presented on the Charles River White Geese Blog at:,

To the best of my knowledge, the only prior public publication of this decision is the one on the Charles River White Geese blog and the version from which it was taken on Senator Brownsberger’s page.  My passing this decision on to you is a part of my continuing efforts to neutralize the overwhelming secrecy surrounding Charles River and Charles River related Grand Junction planning in Cambridge except for communications to friends of the Cambridge Development Department.

The engineers who made presentations at the January 2019 I90 rebuild advisory committee meeting very clearly stated that they really do not know what the decision’s impact on the project will be.