Positive News on the Grand Junction, WITH MAJOR CAVEATS.
[Ed: This posting has been modified from its original posting. It was first intended to be a draft for a letter to the Cambridge City Council, its Finance Committee and the Cambridge City Manager. In the process of finalizing a number of changes were made. This posting has been updated to reflect the changes as submitted on May 9, 2022.]
1, Introduction.
2. Caveat.
3. Possible Details. Area omitted by the City Manager’s funding proposal — General.
A. The Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
B. The Wild Area and the Destroyed Nesting Area.
4. Limited Overview. The part omitted by the City Manager in his funding proposal.
5. Limited Overview. The responsible portion of the Grand Junction “Path” funded by the Cambridge City Manager and proposed by the City Manager for funding by the Cambridge City Council.
6. Supplement.
1, Introduction.
Con artists in Cambridge, MA, are fighting for aa whole bunch of destructive things. The Grand Junction Railroad in the eastern part of Cambridge is pivotal in a whole bunch of things. Here is a simplified map from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT):
The Grand Junction in Cambridge starts at its railroad bridge over the Charles River at the bottom of the map. It then proceeds diagonally up and to the right, then straightens out into a path directly up, crossing the municipal boundaries near the top of the map.
At the point where the Grand Junction and the Charles River interconnect in Cambridge is the last remaining abode of free animals for miles. Here is a close up of that area and the adjacent Magazine Beach recreation area. The BU Bridge is at the bottom and the Grand Junction Railway bridge may be seen crossing under it. My notes indicate that the source of this map is the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
The area which is the last remaining abode of free animals is above the Charles River between the two bridges, along with the area to its right.
The tourist loved Charles River White Geese are the most visible, BUT BY NO MEANS THE ONLY, residents. The Charles River White geese have lived on the Charles River for 42 years. During most of that time their main habitat AND FOOD was at the Magazine Beach Recreation Area. The habitat was approximately a mile long centered on the B.U. Bridge.
Heartless abuse and deliberate starvation by governmental entities have confined the Charles River White Geese to the animal habitat, their Destroyed Nesting Area. Here is a winter photo of a group of them there admiring the Charles. The structure in the background above their heads is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
One of the currently active destructive cons is called the “Grand Junction Path” for bicycles.
My most recent blog report on the details of the “Grand Junction Path” was my letter to the Cambridge City Council of February 16, 2021. This is posted on official page of Friends of the White Geese at:
http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm. The official version is posted by the City of Cambridge at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2394&Inline=True, city council agenda for their March 15, 2021 meeting, pages 131 to 161.
On May 2, 2022, the Cambridge City Council was considering money for the Grand Junction Path in City Manager’s Agenda item 5 as follows:
“[T]he appropriation and authorization to borrow $15,000,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of a multi-use paths [2 proposed not relevant to this analysis omitted], and Grand Junction Path, which runs from Henry Street to Gore Street on both City, MIT and MassDot property.”
Final decision appears to be due on June 8, 2022.
2. Caveat.
The deletion of a major portion of the way this project has been described by the Cambridge Development Department as stated in section 4 is good.
There is a very major defect, however.
The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation is proposing a Part III of its destructive outrages for Memorial Driver to impact that part of Memorial Drive which runs on the Charles River from west of Harvard Square to the area which has been omitted in the City Manager’s Grand Junction Path funding proposal. The omission in the funding request is of that destructive segment which has been skillfully and repeatedly alluded to during discussion of the Grand Junction Path proposal.
I have spent way too much time on responding to this outrage by whatever name is currently being used.
The deletion of overlap with the DCR on the Charles River is nice. The responsible thing is to end the destruction on the Charles River and these non stopping outrages. The important thing is a lot more than just being nice.
The only viable way to do stop the destruction on the Charles River, has to be by action of the legislature. The legislature has to finish what the legislature tried to do ten years or so ago. Then the legislature destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission, among other reasons, to protect the Charles River from the destruction and incompetence of the MDC.
In working to protect the Charles River, the legislature replaced the Metropolitan District Commission on the Charles with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.
The “planners” from the MDC transferred to the DCR with their destructive plans and have already accomplished massive destruction consistent with those plans. The DCR initiative included massive destruction YEARS AFTER ITS “REVIEWS” had passed the end of their period of validity. Now the DCR is reinvigorating a proposal which has spent years in a well deserved oblivion.
The legislature must salvage what can be salvaged from its destruction of the MDC. The legislature must fire the DCR on the Charles River and transfer all its duties on the Charles River to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. The Cambridge City Council can AND SHOULD demand this from the legislature.
MassDOT is not perfect but the DCR and the Cambridge City Council approach being perfect from the wrong direction. MassDOT commonly looks like the adult in the room with two destructive brats. The DCR and Cambridge.
Any and all actions to improve the Charles River which do not include firing the DCR are a con game. The same applies to the non stop fraud of “protecting trees” in Cambridge coming out of the Cambridge City Council. If you do not fire the DCR, you are pulling a con game on both issues. PERIOD.
My video of the outrages accomplished by the DCR and Cambridge in January 2016 between the B.U. Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge may be reviewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o. There are a lot more materials. This is not the place to go into them.
3. Possible Details. Area omitted by the City Manager’s funding proposal — General.
I have Googled the situation. The result was a number of entries, but only one recent, from the Cambridge Development Department. People Googling the subject must be aware that the con artists are very determined even though we keep beating them. The con artists massively defend their outrageous demands, so they splatter their lovely propaganda and splatter their lovely propaganda. They also have a record of losing where it counts most, MassDOT.
The key words in this funding order are “Grand Junction Path, which runs from Henry Street to Gore Street on both City, MIT and MassDot property.”
The Grand Junction Railroad in Cambridge is the target for this bicycle highway.
The Cambridge Development Department is selling the Grand Junction Path as running from “pathways proposed in the Allston I-90 Interchange project.” The Allston I-90 Interchange project is in Boston and has been extensively discussed on this blog.
I have not been able to keep in contact with changes during COVID.
MassDOT has aggressively fought back outrages from the Cambridge con artists to misuse the MassDOT rebuilding of I90 in Boston to piggyback multiple outrages being fought for by Cambridge con artists. The con artists have been unsuccessful in achieving their goals above board in Cambridge, so they are trying to sneak them through however they can. MassDOT consistently describes the I90 rebuild project as solely in Boston, PERIOD. MassDOT has limited the outrages totally insofar as they are clearly impacting Cambridge, and not Boston.
Abuses on the Grand Junction are exactly what the con artists are fighting for.
Henry Street as stated in the City Manager’s is a responsible alternative as southern terminus of the Grand Junction Path to what the Cambridge con artists are fighting for.
I could go into massive details, but trying to go into massive details on Charles River Planning, plus on putting Charles River planning into the appropriate regional context is the reason why I have not gotten anything out in ages. The current action is extremely good. I hope it stays extremely good.
4. Limited Overview. The part omitted by the City Manager in his funding proposal.
The following is a briefer restatement of our analysis in our February 16, 2021 letter.
A. The Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
This is a still from minute 1.59 of “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,”
posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw.
The bridge very visible over the Charles River is the B.U. Bridge. Under it is the Grand Junction railroad bridge. The con artists have floated so many wild claims. The reality is that they cannot achieve those wild claims without widening the Grand Junction railroad bridge. MassDOT has constantly fought the demands.
The nonsensical claims of the Cambridge Development Department on the Grand Junction Path are that the Grand Junction Path should connect to paths associated with the I90 rebuild project translate into widening this bridge AND A LOT OF DAMAGE TO THE CAMBRIDGE RIVERFRONT. I90 is the major highway below the BU Bridge in this photo and to the right. The DCR, contrary to the wishes of the legislature is determined to inflict massive destruction on the mature trees on the Charles River and destroy its animal habitat, the last animal refuge for many miles. The DCR’s contempt for its responsibilities on the Charles River has even extended to the DCR poisoning the Charles River.
Between the Grand Junction railroad bridge and the B.U. Bridge on the Cambridge side is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. This is the important part of their 42 year habitat on the Charles River which has not YET been destroyed to them by the DCR (Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation) and Cambridge.
The thick green area directly above the DNA is the Wild Area, which is associated with the DNA and is a major part of the undestroyed habitat. The building directly above it on the river is a boat house which is owned by Boston University. Boston University dominates the Boston side (at the right and the bottom of the photo) of this part of the Charles River, including a number of big buildings The Wild Area is a key part of the area which the con artists are fighting to destroy. I will not go into further discussion here. Describing this destruction and all the games is a major reason why I have been off line for so long.
The portion of I90 shown in the picture is a major part of the I90 rebuild project.
Here is a photo of the Boston end of the Grand Junction railroad bridge. This bridge is crucial in the con games. The con artists fight to widen it.
The green sign above the furthest point seen of the railroad is above I90. It is seen mostly from its edge. Careful review of this picture to the left of that sign shows a car traveling outbound (westerly) on I90.
The metal structure to the right in the picture is part of the portion of the railroad bridge above the Charles River. Soldiers Field Road, Boston, is the road below the visible portion of the Bridge. In the prior photo, Soldiers Field Road shows between I90 and the Charles River.
B. The Wild Area and the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Here is a better view of the Wild Area which the con artists want to destroy. To the left is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The tiny white figures are a group of the Charles River White Geese hunting for what little of their food for most of their more than 40 years of residence has not been destroyed to them by government.
In January 2016, the DCR with assistance from the Cambridge Development Department and deafening silence from the Cambridge City Council destroyed hundreds of mostly excellent trees between the B.U. Bridge and the second bridge to its east, the Longfellow Bridge, including almost all of the food of the Charles River White Geese which had not been previously destroyed.
Our video of that outrage is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o. The plans included destruction of the Wild Area with major destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area. That portion of the plans was not accomplished YET. Explaining the YET is a major reason why I have not been visible for the last month plus.
The City Manager condemned in this video was the predecessor of the current City Manager. That same City Manager also directly managed the outrages inflicted on Magazine Beach in the 2000's, and directly managed the destruction of 3.4 acres of the “irreplaceable” Silver Maple Forest in the Alewife reservation by Cambridge and the DCR. The quoted word was frequently used by the Cambridge City Council WHILE KEEPING THE GOVERNMENTAL DESTRUCTION AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE.
Here is the relevant portion of the plans for the January 2016 outrage
.The Grand Junction railroad runs from the bottom left to the top middle.
The left side of the plans is the Destroyed Nesting Area. The right side of the plans is the Wild Area.
Dealing with the DCR involves repeatedly refuting fraud from the DCR. An excellent example of that fraud is the tree numbered 535 near the bottom right hand corner of the plan. The destruction plans give the impression of providing great detail about the destruction. The fraud is highly obvious in this plan.
The tree numbered 535 IS THE ONLY WILD AREA TREE IN THE ABOVE PICTURE WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE DESTRUCTION PLANS. Clearly it is shown because it is the only tree not planned for destruction.
So MASSIVE DESTRUCTION IS HIDDEN IN A CLAIM OF PROTECTION.
Major destruction would, “of necessity” be inflicted on the Destroyed Nesting Area as part of this outrage. A portion of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese may be seen off the Wild Area in the above photo, desperately hunting for food which had not yet been destroyed. MUCH MORE OF THEIR FOOD WAS DESTROYED AFTER THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN.
The roadway running from left to right is Memorial Drive, the Cambridge equivalent of Soldiers Field Road. Road identification on the Boston side is horribly confused. The Boston boulevard clearly is Soldiers Field Road to the west of the BU Bridge. To the east the boulevard may or may not have a different name. Two names are seen when traveling on it.
Above Memorial Drive is part of the very great, although perhaps temporary, victory announced without fanfare by the Cambridge City Manager. This area to Henry Street is deleted from the Cambridge Development Department’s description of the Grand Junction Path.
Here is another shot of the Charles River White Geese. It was taken in a BITTERLY COLD WINTER. The trees visible are the Wild Area in winter. The cove in which the Charles River White Geese are swimming is a pocket of warmth in the middle of extreme bitter cold. To the east of this cove is Boston University’s boat house. To the west of this cove is the Grand Junction Railroad and the Destroyed Nesting Area.
The photo was taken from Memorial Drive’s sidewalk
5. Limited Overview. The responsible portion of the Grand Junction “Path” funded by the Cambridge City Manager and proposed by the City Manager for funding by the Cambridge City Council.
Here at minute 9.28 of the drone video is the portion of the Grand Junction Railroad / Grand Junction “Path” which is nearest the Charles River. The current vote’s ending the Grand Junction Path does a very good job of limiting the southern end of the Path to that portion seen here. I will go into more accurate detail in a later photo.
There are three major arteries visible in this photo, from left to right are the Grand Junction Railroad, Vassar Street and Memorial Drive. Vassar Street turns toward the river just out of this picture toward the bottom. With this turn, Vassar Street goes around the building at the bottom of this photo.
Here is an official, Cambridge Development Department rendition of the Grand Junction Path:
The left most portion of the Grand Junction Railroad / Grand Junction Path is what shows in the photograph.
The Cambridge Development Department provided a simplified rendition. Here is my cropping of the simplified rendition to that part which is relevant to the current situation.
We interpret Point 2 as Henry Street, the southern terminus which is being considered in the funding vote. We are using the Development Department map to communicate our point.
Our identification on points 1 and 2 in the Development Department map IS DIFFERENT from their interpretation in their on line version from which this is taken. The different interpretation is associated with the MUCH BETTER AND MORE PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION in the excellent map of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) reproduced below.
To the left of and below point 2 is the portion which is omitted from the current proposal. The longer yellow line is Memorial Drive. The arrow ends at the B.U. Bridge. The area bounded by the B.U. Bridge and Memorial Drive minus the protuberance on the right (the B.U. Boathouse) is the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area.
Point 1 is approximately the point where we have proposed that the bike path end. NOTE THAT OUR PROPOSAL WOULD PROVIDE A LONGER BIKE PATH THAN IS IN THE FUNDING PROPOSAL.
Point 3 is the Fort Washington crossing. This is the point where the 2014 detailed proposal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has proposed that the bike path end.
Here are our photos of the tiny taking which would be necessary for the responsible, non nonsense bike path terminus which we propose
The first photo is the view from Vassar Street at the curve of Vassar Street: Our proposed path would run along the building at the right. The tracks can be seen to the left rear of the building.
We propose that existing parking to the right of the camera be taken as part of the project for the purpose of creating a parking structure providing the combination of parking currently in that location and replacing with usage right the parking lost in creating the bike connection.
This is the track view from the railroad corner of the building abutting our proposed connection.
Here is a view from across the tracks. The connection would be straight ahead. The
relocation of parking for the connection would be on the near side of the building straight ahead.
Probably the best graphic rendition of this area was presented by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in its 2014 report presenting the fourth alternate ending, presented below.
On the back cover of that report is a photographic overview. Here is a crop of that to the location of our proposed connection.
At the top is the Grand Junction Railroad / Grand Junction Path. Below, to the left of the white building is where our proposed connection would go..
Proceeding, across the street is a massive parking lot which could be partially taken to increase capacity by a parking structure with deeded parking rights as appropriate to the owner of the parking replace by the connection to offset parking taken for the connection.
And the photo gives an excellent rendition of the final leg of our connection, ending the bike path at Memorial Drive.
The first alternate ending is the currently proposed Henry Street alternate. The second alternate ending is the wild demand from the Cambridge Development Department and the Cambridge con artists that the Grand Junction Path go to I90. Ours is the third alternate ending.
The fourth, MIT alternate, ending would connect to Vassar Street at Fort Washington and end the path at that point (point 3 in the development department map, above). Here is MIT’s excellent rendition of the area in question, taken from its 2014 report / proposal.
The Grand Junction Railroad / Grand Junction Path runs from the upper right corner diagonally downward to the bottom at about 1/3 of the way from the left. Directly below it is Vassar Street with its turn around the building. Not far from the upper right corner is MIT’s suggested connection of the Bike Path from the Grand Junction to Vassar Street. The number 1 indicates that this is MIT’s preferred bicycle route ending. This connector already exists. It is named the Fort Washington Crossing after the park at its upper end.
Our proposed connection is from the Grand Junction to Vassar Street is written into the map with the broken black line from the Grand Junction to the turn of Vassar Street. MIT’s rendition has our connection just below Waverly Street (essentially parallel to the top and bottom edges of the map. Henry Street is the next street above Waverly. This map shows the reason for our reversal of number identification from the Cambridge Development Department presentation. Our proposed connection is below both Waverly and Henry streets.
Somehow, the “Henry Street” proposal being funded gets somewhere, but my understanding is that the end of the bike path follows Waverly Street INTO THE TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE at Brookline Avenue. By contrast, the MIT proposal and our proposal get to Memorial Drive by way of Vassar Street / Amesbury Street.
Both the MIT alternate and our alternate are safer and saner than the “Henry Street” route which appears to go by way of Waverly Street. #5 identifies the Grand Junction Bridge and #4 is honesty from MIT showing plans to develop the Destroyed Nesting Area which are otherwise kept secret.
The Waverly Street route looks like a design INTENDED TO LOSE. It is so dangerous that it is nonsensical. It is, however, far less irresponsible than connecting to I90 which is nonsense. I think the correct term for the Waverly / Henry route is doppleganger, suicidal and deliberately suicidal. By contrast, both our connection to the Vassar Street curve and MIT’s connection at Fort Washington are viable routes.
6. Supplement.
Long experience with the Cambridge City Council breeds well earned skepticism.
A few weeks ago, the Cambridge City Council approved a combination of easements which could very easily block the Forth Washington Crossing.
Secret games repeatedly get played. At least one easement was confusingly named, to put it mildly.
Here is a drone photo from minute 8.12.
The trees at the bottom are probably Fort Washington Park. Directly above it is the Grand Junction Railroad, and directly above the railroad is a monstrous MIT dorm between the Grand Junction and Vassar Street. It was created with zoning games from the Cambridge City Council. That building blocks a responsible alternative for a subway route in planning. The alternative preferred by the con artists in Cambridge would destroy the Wild Area.
The easement games which were played were described as RELATED TO AN MIT DORM IN PLANNING, rather clearly between the Grand Junction and Vassar Street. Would they block the Fort Washington crossing and thus MIT’s alternate bike path route?
If the Cambridge City Council voted to block the Fort Washington Crossing with YET ANOTHER MONSTROUS DORM, the only alternative to Henry Street, whatever “Henry Street” is, is the Grand Junction Path Ending and connection to the Vassar Street turn proposed by Friends of the White Geese.
[signature]
P.S. One of the usual “explanations” for the outrages on the Grand Junction is the Urban Ring subway.
The alternate route favored by the con artists was intended to be forced by blocking that portion of the “Kenmore Crossing” in Cambridge. MassDOT and the legislature very emphatically responded by upgrading the Landsdowne Station which the con artists want to move to make their alternate feasible. Landsdowne Station is a major part of the Urban Ring proposal. Here is the completed Landsdowne Station as part of the beginning of that related project. It would appear that Cambridge’s obstruction has defeated only Urban Ring service to Cambridge. Please be happy, however, in that our proposed Green Line A spur would reduce the overload on the Red Line in Cambridge between Park and Harvard, plus improve service to Harvard Square from the Back Bay, Brookline and Brighton.
As far as the Urban Ring goes, it will likely wind up as an Orange Line spur from Ruggles to Kenmore and the Commuter Rail and Green Line connections at a merged Kenmore / Landsdowne Station because of the very great value to Massachusetts of the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area.
Cambridge con artists have stabbed Cambridge in the back again.
Not at all incidentally, the author suggested the Kenmore Crossing in the first place, and was the first to notify the Landsdowne Place developer of Cambridge’s intentions to move Landsdowne Station. Landsdowne Station was greatly improved by the state in the time between our discussions and the beginning of construction of the station project.
Our Green Line A spur proposal will provide needed connections to the hospitals for current Medical Area schools being relocated from Harvard / Longwood Medical Area to Harvard’s coming Allston Village Campus on the Boston banks of the Charles River. People wanting details of the Green Line A spur should contact us at boblat@yahoo.com. Providing those details here would be way irrelevant to the purpose of this letter. Supporting that the Green Line A spur, however, would be of great value to Cambridge.
