Monteiro Update

The case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is still in the maneuvering stages at the Appeals Court.

On January 31, Ms. Monteiro’s attorneys file a motion to file a surreply. They each have filed briefs stating their position. This motion would appear to be to add on to the reply brief already filed.

On February 3 and 4, Cambridge filed an opposition to the motion and a corrected opposition.

Remember the very extended pieces of paper filed in the Trial Court after the jury’s decision. The Appeals Court is much more stringent on these matters, but the paper is flying and both sides obviously think that there is good reason.

A POSSIBLE, TEMPORARY Win in Cambridge on the Grand Junction

1. Introduction.
2. Three members of the audience.
3. The Cambridge City Council.
4. Actual issues.
5. Summary.


1. Introduction.

It almost never is possible to fully evaluate controversial issues in front of the Cambridge City Council.

Having said that, it is possible that we had a very big but temporary win in Cambridge last night.

The Cambridge City Council discussed the Grand Junction passenger train proposal coming out of the state.

There was, I believe, one person in the audience who commented on the issue. I leafleted with a flier on the issue from Friends of the White Geese.

As usual, there were several people in the audience who have been active in Cambridge politics. My leaflet went into detail concerning the Urban Ring subway proposals and placed them in context with the Grand Junction rail proposal from a Cambridge perspective. It is highly likely that this was the first time that many of these people had been exposed to something other than a lie concerning key parts of the Urban Ring subway proposal.

It is always impossible to exactly characterize things in Cambridge. The facts from the Cambridge Pols concerning the Urban Ring subway have consistently including key falsehoods, passing off the inferior BU Bridge crossing as the only thing under consideration by the state.

Cambridge pols commonly are off in their own world, a world with very major disconnects from reality. That is because their elected officials are running on platforms targeted to please a very concerned electorate. Trouble is that the elected pols are on the wrong side on too many issues which are key to the voters. So you get a view of the world which is strikingly different from the view seen by the world outside Cambridge. The differences are so major that it silly to call these false statements other than lies.

I have long given up on trying to distinguish between the knaves and the fools. From a practical purpose, there is no difference. If the fools can rejoin reality at some point and treat the knaves with the treatment the knaves deserve, then there might be value in making a distinction.

I would be happy to pass on the flier. Please give me a request at boblat@yahoo.com.

2. Three members of the audience.

I spoke with a woman from North Cambridge who was there on another issue. She has been active in the planning for the extension of the Green Line streetcar / subway branch which currently ends at Lechmere in East Cambridge.

It was such a pleasure talking with her. It is so rare to work with somebody from Cambridge who is active in politics and who is in contact with reality, as opposed to what the Cambridge Pols put out. She understood the Urban Ring issues and she discussed them intelligently.

A second person I spoke with was a man sitting near her who did not talk during the meeting. He looked familiar and asked probing but knowledgeable questions. In retrospect, I presume he was a reporter, perhaps from the Cambridge Chronicle.

The third person who stood out very clearly was a probable (never possible to really be sure) victim of the Cambridge Pols. He bitterly opposed the Grand Junction plans and had been attending a lot of the meetings. Trouble is that he rejected the reality of the non stop con games from the Cambridge Pols out of hand.

He clearly had information I did not have concerning the various meetings which the state has been conducting. He reported pretty much unanimous objection by various residents to the proposal. Trouble is that he behaved (like many victims) like somebody in denial. He very clearly rejected out of hand anybody who would actually talk a reality which differs from that passed out by the Cambridge Pols. He saw my flier. My flier spoke reality in great detail, but he has been given a lot of lies.

He did not want to talk.

3. The Cambridge City Council.

It is pretty much impossible to tell when you are exposed to an orchestrated discussion from the Cambridge City Council.

In retrospect, last night looked like an orchestrated discussion.

Toomey made strong points against the state’s proposal and tore apart another councilor’s supposed attempts to maneuver. The other councilor repeated his comments before Toomey spoke and then backtracked after Toomey spoke.

As usual, the most destructive member was Davis. She always sounds like she is trying to be reasonable while maneuvering into bad territory.

The rest spoke, in general terms, against the proposal. But one member picked up a key point from my flier, a point which proves the lie that has been passed out in Cambridge that is the Cambridge version of political correctness on facts of the Urban Ring. That councilor’s responding quickly to that point in my flier raised a very real flag in retrospect. Did my very exact communication of reality on the Urban Ring move members of the council toward positions which have respect for their constituents on the related Grand Junction proposal?

It is always impossible to tell with certainty.

4. Actual issues.

I have gone into the real issues on this matter before on this blog.

All I am really trying to communicate is last night’s meeting.

The one new issue of possible substance was brought out from me by the reporter.

It is increasingly looking like the Grand Junction proposal is part of an attempt by the state to back out of the plans to expand South Station for South Coast Rail. It certainly would be quite expensive to tear down the adjacent post office and, I presume, pay for the replacement post office. Building that post office further into the South Boston Waterfront would also take up prime land which the state would rather see developed for business.

So Cambridge and Worcester/Framingham are being shafted. The initial foray is "just a few" trains. It looks like they are maneuvering to move all Worcester/Framingham trains from South Station to North Station and putting the South Coast Rail trains in the emptied trackage in South Station.

5. Summary.

It was a pleasure to see perhaps a little favorable move out of the Cambridge City Council.

Regrettably, the standard game in Cambridge is: “I am your friend, I am your friend, I am your friend, have I got a deal for you.”

The apparent victim of the Cambridge Pols who is in denial showed very clearly how effective the standard con is in Cambridge.

The woman from North Cambridge who intelligently discussed issues showed the possibility of responsible behavior in Cambridge.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART II

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART II

By Archie Mazmanian

In my teens in the mid-1940s, our rag-tag baseball team from Roxbury’s Orchard Park took a road trip to the West End’s ballpark with its magnificent view of the Charles River. This was well before urban renewal changed the West End with high rises taking advantage of views of the Charles. Our Orchard Park was a small converted pedestrian park whereas our West End friends had a full size ballpark with the nearby expanse of the Charles serving as relief from its congested neighborhood. This ballpark was a major difference between our Roxbury and their West End neighborhoods. Alas, the proximity of the Charles River made the West End land too valuable for mere West Enders with their ethnic diversities, who to their credit to this day remind us of the devastation to their once viable neighborhood. Yes, developers realized the long-term value of land proximate to the Charles: “If you lived here, ….”

During these same teen-years, I learned of the joys of nighttime skinny-dipping in Dedham at what we called Mother’s Brook, a part of the meandering Charles River. In checking Google recently, I learned the correct name is “Mother Brook,” which provided a connection by means of a canal dug to divert water from the Charles to the Neponset River to provide water power to factories along the latter. Communities downstream from Dedham’s Charles River complained about the diversion as it impacted their use of water power. Eventually this was resolved back when water power was still in use with “only” one-third of the Charles’ water diverted to the Neponset River.

[Note: Space limitations do not permit going into too much history of the Charles River and water power but those interested should do some “Googling.”]

After finishing law school and passing the bar in 1954, and then completing my deferred military draft requirements in early 1957, I started my law practice. One of my early clients was pioneering in the then infant medical device industry. His one-man start up was originally located in the Fens area, close by the Muddy River. As the firm grew, in the early 1960s a move was made to space in the large Lewando’s Cleansers, Dyers, Launderers facility in Watertown Square adjacent to the Charles River, a short distance downstream from a dam in Newton. Within relatively a few years, my client occupied just about the entire building, which it bought. In connection with the purchase, one of the sellers provided a map of a footprint of the building and lot going back many years when this was a mill building, depicting canals off the Charles providing water power in the bowels of the building. By my client’s time, of course, water power was history. But only a couple of years prior to my client’s purchase, water was being drawn from the Charles for toilet-use only in the building, when the Town of Watertown finally put a stop to that for reasons of health.

We accept today certain environmental laws. But such laws are only of fairly recent vintage. An old timer from Watertown Square told me back in the 1960s that in his youth the color of the water in the nearby Charles River would identify the day of the week based upon Lewando’s dyeing schedule. But dyeing outside of cloth manufacturing had ceased to be a significant part of Lewando’s business many years earlier.

I frequently made business trips to the Watertown Square facility. I recall one day in the late 1960s driving there and after getting out of my car in the parking lot adjacent to the Charles noticing a strong, heavy stench in the air. I was told that because the Charles was low due to a long drought in our region, herring were having difficulty “jumping” the dam in Newton to go farther upstream in their annual quest for survival of their species; that the herring that couldn’t make it swam and swam until they died. The Charles was not then kind to the herring or olfactory senses in Watertown Square.

My client’s Board of Directors included two Harvard Business School professors back then, one of whom related the story of strong odors in the School’s buildings (on the Boston side of the Charles) so annoying to students and teachers, they were thoroughly investigated. It turned out that the cause was attributed to methane seeping through the foundations, the source being hides, etc, from nearby Brighton abattoirs that had been dumped in and/or buried along the Charles going back over many, many years, with the continued rotting of these hides, etc, resulting in the development of methane. (I couldn’t resist asking my fellow Director at the time if perhaps this problem might have been attributable to the faculty.) Harvard attended to its problem to make sure the world wouldn’t be deprived of MBAs to serve our financial and banking communities. (No comments at this time on the Great Recession of 2008.)

This brings to mind the expression “What happens in Vegas remains in Vegas.” But what happens upstream in the Charles does not remain upstream. Perhaps those curious will do some “Googling” before Part III appears.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART I

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART I

by Archie Mazmanian

I have a vague memory of being at Magazine Beach as an infant with my parents, vague in that the memory was stirred when my family moved from Somerville to Roxbury in the mid 1930s where I was about to start the second grade. My father would bring a daily newspaper home from work; I recall in the summer months during heat waves reading references to certain counts at Magazine Beach that would result in “no swimming” allowed. My mother told me of taking my brother and me to Magazine Beach.

My next memory of the Charles River was as a pre-teen when my best friend and I on a hike from Roxbury to the Museum of Fine Arts discovered the Muddy River, exploring it to the Charles River. We noticed the abundance of carp, large and small, mostly black but some golden that we were told resulted from goldfish flushed in toilets. We tried to catch carp with drop lines using bread balls as bait but with no success; and worms didn?t work either. (Many years later, as a father, I explored the Boston side of the Charles River with my children, noting the many golden carp in the River this side of the Muddy River dam, recalling to them my earlier adventures.)

My best friend and I became interested in fishing from reading magazines. We bought fishing rods with bait casting reels. We learned about opening day for freshwater fishing and the stocking of trout, including in the Charles River. According to a sports column in a Boston newspaper, a great spot for catching trout was the Charles River in Dover. We were amazed when we studied a map of the River as it wended its way upstream many miles to Dover through many communities that we knew nothing about.

We checked train schedules to Dover and planned our trip to catch trout on opening day. We got to a rail station in Dover early in the morning and asked for directions to get to the bridge in Dover that was the hot spot for trout. We started walking when a Post Office truck stopped and asked where we were going and gave us a ride to the bridge. We were excited as we prepared to wet our lines and catch us some trout.

This was the first time we had fished with rod and reel. In my anxiety, I neglected to properly seat my reel in the rod and with my first cast the reel slipped into the River. Fortunately, I had knotted the line to the reel so that I was able to retrieve it by pulling up the line, all of it. Opening day was cold. We were unsuccessful in even getting a bite. So after a couple of hours, we decided to head home. We walked back to the train station and learned that it would be several hours at least before a train was scheduled for a return trip. So we asked about how we might get back to Roxbury.

We were told of a bus route that would get us to Watertown Square, where there was a Boston Elevated trolley line that would get us home. When we arrived at Watertown Square, we noticed the Charles River, much wider than at the bridge in Dover. But we were hungry and took the A Line trolley at Watertown Square into Boston and with several transfers home to Roxbury, weary, hungry and rejected with our first efforts at opening day fishing. The Charles River was not very accommodating.

[Part II will include subsequent encounters with the Charles River at Watertown Square.]

Politically incorrect to question MIT’s construction in the Charles?

1. Introduction.
2. A word from the bad guys.
3. The notice.
4. Response.


1. Introduction.

I have been passing on relevant state environmental notices a list in Cambridgeport for some time.

This is the first time anybody has responded that it is politically incorrect to wonder about somebody building in the Charles.

2. A word from the bad guys.

>In the Environmental Monitor report linked below is a listing for a Chapter 91 application in Cambridge.
>On following that posting, it turns out that MIT apparently wants to cover 13,940 square feet of the Charles River and be exempted from environmental protections in the process.

Just to clarify, here's what MIT is asking:
"Public notice is hereby given of the application by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to install and maintain approximately 13,940 square feet of floats at the MIT Sailing Pavilion located at 134 Memorial Drive in the municipality of Cambridge in and over formerly flowed tidelands of the Charles River. The proposed use of the project is to provide for docking and boating access to navigable waters and is a water dependent project."

Though I'm not sure, this may be just an extension or revision of the permit that has existed at that location for a long time. In any case, what objection could there be to this?

3. The notice.

http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2011/012611em/pn/5.pdf.

4. Response.

“In any case, what objection could there be to this?”

Last I heard, it was politically correct to be concerned about the environment of the Charles River. I have had one city councilor who rather clearly is associated apparently with the writer brag that Cambridge Pols have their own secret definition of environmentalism. According to this city councilor, it is politically incorrect to support the world’s definition of environmentalism, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

Then again, there is a minor matter of the state, with the support of MIT and a lot of pols, working to destroy hundreds of Memorial Drive trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. It is politically incorrect to be concerned about this massive destruction or about the dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach, or the heartless animal abuse associated with many bizarre projects.

Then again, I am told it is politically incorrect to wonder about the proposed / possible severe downgrading of Worcester/Framingham rail service.

I hear it is politically correct and pro-transportation to fight to change that service

a. from grade separate service to a South Station whose trackage is being increased in size for South Coast Rail with future connections to heavy rail subway at Yawkee / Kenmore Stations,

b. to grade crossings in Cambridge and a longer trip to North Station.

The key aspect to declaration of political correctness could be benefit to MIT.

Now, I see a pattern, a pattern which has been very much nonstop from the Cambridge pols as long as I have had the displeasure to be forced to be associated with them.

I am concerned about the world, and when I hear that it is politically incorrect to wonder about construction in the Charles because it “may be just an extension or revision”, of already destructive behavior, I have very real questions about what I am being told is political correctness.

BU Bridge area traffic configurartion

1. Archie Mazmanian Reports.
2. Editor’s Elaboration.


1. Archie Mazmanian Reports.

The 1/17/11 Boston Globe, at page 2 of the Metro section, features "BU bridge lane configuration is temporary" in addressing a question from a Brookline resident (not me).

The response from MassDOT is most interesting, as it includes a description of the final configuration when construction is concluded in December of this year (any bets?) that demonstrates the strong power of the bicycle lobby. In addition, the response makes reference to the Commonwealth Avenue bridge over the MA Turnpike Extension that will need replacing, but provides no timeframe.

The BU Bridge area will surely remain messy (on both the Boston and Cambridge sides) until the Commonwealth Avenue bridge work is completed.

And then the future may provide further messes with the proposed Charles River crossing for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring project under the BU Bridge via the Grand Junction Rail Line and on the Boston side via a viaduct under the Boston end of the Bridge to University Road via the courtesy of Boston University over its property.

This is on line at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/17/bu_bridge_lane_configuration_is_temporary/ .

2. Editor’s Elaboration.

Checking Google Maps, the Commonwealth Avenue bridge over the Mass. Pike for all practical purposes is the intersection of the BU Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue. On the south side, it extends pretty much to the Carlton Street Bridge (which continues to the Storrow Drive access road). On the north side, it extends to about the western end of the 808 Commonwealth Avenue building on the south side of the street.

The roadway Archie mentions which is proposed under the BU Bridge would pretty much go straight through the middle of the BU Building which is currently sitting in the block east of the BU Bridge. Naturally, that building would not survive.

GRAND(IOSE) JUNCTION

Archie Mazmanian comments, in response to my post at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/cambridge-con-artists-propose-move-of.html:

Your recent post triggered fond memories of Sesame Street when my kids were quite young, especially its "Schoolhouse Rock" ditties that helped prepare kids for school (and entertained parents), including "CONJUNCTION JUNCTION, WHAT'S YOUR FUNCTION?".

The Grand Junction brouhaha might be parodied with "GRAND(IOSE) JUNCTION, WHAT'S YOUR FUNCTION?". The key word is of course "FUNCTION" but that is also the mystery. This seems to be a "GRAND(IOSE)" idea but what is lacking is a vision of the "FUNCTION" and its connections.

Perhaps "GRAND(IOSE) minds at Harvard and MIT have something in mind for their institutions with trickle down benefits for us mere residents, except of course our Charles River White Geese whose gaggle would be further gagged.

Cambridge con artists propose move of Worcester/Framingham trains to Grand Junction

1. General.
2. The unbeatables just got beat.
3. The con — harming the folks they claim to be helping.
4. The Urban Ring Subway.
5. The losers cry they can’t lose.


1. General.

The Cambridge Day newspaper, at http://www.cambridgeday.com/2010/12/17/commuter-rail-through-cambridge-seen-as-cost-of-regions-fight-for-jobs/ , has, I am told, reported on plans for a rather bizarre passenger rail passenger route through Cambridge, with environment damage and more animal abuse at the Charles River. This route would be very severely harmful to the Charles River White Geese.

The report gave the impression that the proposal was supported by Cambridge City Councilor Leland Cheung. Cheung, according to the paper, seems to be defending this pretty much on the grounds that it is politically correct.

The actual quote reads: “The reality is, when you look at who’s behind it — the people who are involved with it already — it’d be a stretch to think we could stop it from happening,” Cheung said after the meeting, referring to the Grand Junction line. “I’ve been doing a lot of work to try to at least get a stop in Cambridge. If they’re going to come through, the worst thing would be for them to go through and not even stop in the city.”

Councilor Cheung has major support in the MIT and Harvard communities.

The English translation of Cheung’s quoted position is that stops in Cambridge could make moving Framingham/Worcester commuters to the Grand Junction more palatable. One of those likely stops would be highly destructive to the Cambridgeport neighborhood. The on grade crossings would be highly destructive to the heavy Cambridge road traffic.

There is a lot going on here and, as usual, a lot not being said.

The most common aspect to the Cheung position is one I have been hearing almost nonstop from the bad guys for the past 35 years: You can’t win. You can’t win. You can’t win. BUT HAVE I GOT A DEAL FOR YOU.

I have been hearing these pitches and hearing these pitches. I have a lot of victories during that period. Usually my chance of success gets better the further I keep the people making these pitches away from me.

As now, it is always nearly impossible to tell if somebody regurgitating the standard con is a con artist or a victim. The con situation in Cambridge is so normal that whether a particular person is con or victim is irrelevant. The followers follow very belligerently.

2. The unbeatables just got beat.

These unbeatable people seem to be going for this rail line BECAUSE THEY JUST LOST A VERY MAJOR VOTE AT THE HANDS OF THE LEGISLATURE.

The loss was with legislature’s vote to rebuild Yawkee Station where it is and funding that vote with $20 million.

3. The con — harming the folks they claim to be helping.

The con artists are highly destructive to the environment and keep pushing transportation proposals which may line their or their friends' pockets or expand their royal domain but which are inferior to the alternative transportation proposals.

Moving Framingham/Worcester commuters to the Grand Junction will be very destructive to the Charles River environment and its animals, and will be very harmful to Cambridge, both with regard to the sudden appearance of at working grade crossings and trains using them, and with the harm to neighborhoods that will be caused by the stations the con artists want.

The con artists cry over commuting needs of Framingham/Worcester while the con artists fight against those needs.

They cry that Framingham/Worcester needs more station tracks to park their trains. The con artists neglect to mention that South Station, where Framingham/Worcester now goes, is in the process of a massive expansion forced by the South Coast rail project. The state is buying and destroying the adjacent South Postal Annex to put tracks there. Those tracks are much more than is needed by South Coastal. Those tracks can support expansion of Framingham/Worcester.

The reality is that the con artists are fighting to move Framingham/Worcester to the Grand Junction because the con artists lost the key legislative vote which spent something like $20 million to rebuild Yawkee Station.

Moving Framingham/Worcester to the Grand Junction would make Yawkee Station quite useless.

4. The Urban Ring Subway.

The real fight is over the Urban Ring subway system which I have been working on for 25 years.

This proposed new subway line would connect Charlestown/Orange Line to East Cambridge / Green Line to Kendall / Red Line to Mass. Ave. / MIT rail crossing and then cross the Charles River by either of two routes. On the Boston side, they would connect to the Longwood Medical Area, and then to Ruggles / Orange Line.

There are two possible crossings of the Charles River.

The con artists' proposal is by far the inferior. First because they want streetcars rather than Orange Line Subway, second because of Yawkee Station’s location. Yawkee Station’s location has been decided by the $20 million rebuilding project. That location provides excellent connections between Framingham/Worcester commuters and the new Urban Ring / Orange Line spur (downtown fast), and all three Green Lines coming in to Kenmore. In addition to providing rapid cross town connection (in contrast to streetcars), it would connect locations on the ring to downtown by a direct route. The obvious phase 1, to Kenmore by the Longwood Medical Area from Ruggles, is badly needed by the hospitals there, which are a crucial part of the state economy.

The proposal with that Yawkee Station location also provides excellent connection to Fenway Park.

The con artists alternative is far inferior: in locations, in connections and with regard to support for the Red Sox. At absolute minimum, their streetcars are far inferior to Orange Line subway with direct downtown connection.

The con artists have lost the key vote. Excellent transportation for Framingham/Worcester in that vote is the key.

Their response: the irresponsible proposal to move Framingham/Worcester to the Grand Junction and far inferior service on that line for Framingham/Worcester combined with environmental destruction, heartless animal abuse and direct harm to Cambridge on road transportation with active grade crossings.

5. The losers cry they can’t lose.

The con artists are doing the usual con artist argument: They can’t lose, they can’t lose, they can’t lose, but have they got a deal for you.

But the con artists are fighting this fight because they have lost.

The con artists are crying “politically correct,” and “transportation is golden” over yet another inferior proposal.

But this is Cambridge, MA, and the con artists own Cambridge politics.

Updates: Monteiro, Anti bike Western Avenue “bike path”

1. Monteiro.
2. Anti bike Western Avenue “bike path” proposed, running to Charles River.


1. Monteiro.

Papers continue to be filed at the Appeals Court. The most recent filings were December 22.

Cambridge has filed more documentation concerning the case in Superior Court.

Attorney Laura R. Studen is now representing Ms. Monteiro and her fellow plaintiffs in the Superior Court case. Their technical name is now "appellees".

2. Anti bike Western Avenue “bike path” proposed, running to Charles River.

The Cambridge Chronicle printed my letter in its December 23, 2010 edition. It was the second letter on the editorial page, excellent positioning. The letter is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/bicycle-oddities.html.

Grieving goose in need for companion in southwestern Ohio

We have been informed of a 12 year old White China Goose in the Cincinnati area of Ohio whose mate has died.

She lives on a main street and is frantically looking for her mate. This could be deadly for her as well.

The two have been pets of an elderly couple who would be pleased to either take a companion goose to keep her company or to release her to people who have geese with whom she might be happy.

Please pass on at will.

Thank you, and ignore my prior post which erroneously stated that the problem has been corrected. That post has been deleted.

Bike lanes and the BU Bridge project

Bob,

As a follow up to a NYTimes editorial of 12/17/10 headed "There Oughta Be a Law" on problems with cyclists in NY City as well as the items in my earlier Email being forwarded, the 12/23/10 issue of the NYTimes includes five (5) Letters to the Editor. (No direct URL seems available; to access such letters, one would have to go to the NYTimes website and follow links.)

The most interesting letter from Louise Hainline et al should be read to apply it to the situation with the BU Bridge when the work project is completed. Here's a portion of a paragraph:

"When new bike lanes force the same volume of cars and trucks into fewer and narrower traffic lanes, the potential for accidents between cars, trucks and pedestrians goes up rather than down."

The BU Bridge project when completed will be reduced from 4 to 3 motor vehicle lanes with the addition of two bike lanes.

Another point raised in the letter:

"Furthermore, the D.O.T. data's lack of credibility is reinforced by our own videotapes. These show that the Prospect Park West bike lanes are used by half the number of riders the D.O.T. says, and that cyclists are not riding to commute as originally contemplated but are recreational users who could be better served by enhancing the existing lane 100 yards away in Prospect Park."

There are extensive bike lanes on the Boston side along the Charles River where no motor vehicles are allowed. Many of the bikers do not have cars and could use public transit. Many bikers in the area of the BU Bridge are college students at BU, whose biking may be for economic and other convenience reasons. This is truly a really small minority of people. It is far from clear that their efforts will result in any significant reduction of motor vehicle traffic. But it seems clear that motor vehicle traffic will be adversely impacted, with traffic issues leading to environmental issues. This is why I used the "tyranny of the minority" reference in the Email forwarded herewith. The problem is that motorists and pedestrians are not as well organized as the minority of cyclists. But this is changing in NY City. Perhaps like weather patterns, such concerns will come here.

Archie Mazmanian

Ed: Prior posting is at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/bicycle-oddities.html.

Welcome Ellen, Farewell Marilyn

Welcome to Ellen Schloss as the new Financial Director of Friends of the White Geese.

Ellen’s day job is manager of Beaks and Noses, Inc., a very clean halfway house for tropical birds.

She is a long time friend and a good friend. She has some good ideas and is hitting the ground running.

Thank you Ellen.

Marilyn Wellons is departing and will no longer be cochair. I will temporarily assume the title of chair. Marilyn was cocreator of Friends of the White Geese and has done a lot of good work over the years.

Comments on relocation of Allston Freight Yards

A very major part of the environmental destruction on the Charles River is Harvard’s purchase of the Mass. Pike (I90), the Mass. Pike exit facility, and the Beacon Park Railroad Yards in Allston.

That is right, Harvard owns a key part of the Mass. Pike. They purchased it from the state a few months after the MBTA’s study proved that the Grand Junction railroad through the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese, and its bridge across the Charles River could be used as an exit from the Mass. Pike.

An incredible amount of the destruction pending or accomplished can be explained as part of this project.

Harvard’s other maneuvers lead to the conclusion that Harvard plans to move Harvard Medical School to this Allston freight yard / Mass. Pike exit ramps location. All they have to do is empty it.

Part of the emptying is moving the freight yards. The plan for the freight yards is to move them to Worcester, MA.

Marilyn Wellons has commented on the Environmental Notification Statement on this matter, and provided us her comments, which are printed below.

I have reviewed the most recent issue of The Environmental Monitor at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/emonitor.aspx. I do not see this listed, so I assume the deadline is past.

Apologies to Marilyn. There was definite confusion in the receipt of this report.

December 13, 2010

Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office [Aisling Eglington], EEA No. 14673
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Aisling Eglington aisling.eglington@state.ma.us

Re: ENF No. 14673, CSX Worcester Expansion Project


Dear Secretary Bowles:

The ENF before you is narrowly focused. Its premise is that the Beacon Park Terminal (BPT) be closed and that its multimodal transportation functions move to Worcester.

The closing of BPT however is not a fait accompli. It is, according to the Memo of Understanding (MOU) between CSX and the Commonwealth, contingent on, among other things, determination of the environmental consequences of that closing and the expansion of the Worcester Terminal. Because it is so narrowly focused it cannot make the case for the asserted advantage to the region compared to retaining and modernizing BPT.

Specifically, and to cite only one aspect, Proponent’s reasoning at 5.8.2.3, Regional Emission Reductions—that the replacement of old equipment at Worcester and reduction of emissions, combined with the elimination of emissions from old equipment at a closed BPT is a straightforward benefit—is inadequate. The asserted advantage here misses the advantage to the region of the alternative, i.e., replacing old equipment at Beacon Park Yards and retaining its advantage for rail freight in the urban core.

There is a more significant problem. Throughout the public process involved with this proposed major change in transportation for the Boston MPO, EOT has failed to answer questions repeatedly raised about its effect on air quality in the region. At the March 25, 2010 public meeting on the state’s Freight Study, EOT stated in response to this specific question that there were no actual figures available to the public for air quality assessment, only a “guess” that it would improve—as the ENF now argues. EOT also confirmed that the actual numbers would not be forthcoming (Steve Olanoff question, Ned Codd response).

The ENF widens its scope from Worcester itself to assert regional benefits from the closure of BPT. It does not however advance regional data to support the claim that this is a greater benefit than the alternative it fails to discuss. Indeed, the ENF claims only a “general evaluation” rather than the detailed analysis required for, at minimum, greater credibility if not validity. If the percentage of “goods currently delivered to the Beacon Park Terminal via rail are ultimately delivered to points West of Boston by truck” are “significant,” the ENF should provide that percentage and supporting data. The ENF omits them (p. 5-17).

Given that the Allston Landing Multimodal Transportation Study, a prior work, addresses this and other issues of the proposed move, the continuing gaps in data and analysis are remarkable. The RFR for the Allston Study, posted by the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC) on 26 January, 2004, was awarded to HNTB. It was to consider “landside freight rail access to the Port of Boston, a commuter rail station, Urban Ring service, and the reconfiguration of the Massachusetts Turnpike. . . . [and] rail freight service as now conducted at Allston Landing South and connections to the local street system.” Consideration of these issues in a modernized BPT, as well as of the consequences of moving CSX’s multimodal operations to Worcester, are the proper scope for MEPA review now.

In commissioning the Allston study, EOTC affirmed the importance of “ensuring that a solid freight network [continue] to serve the port [of Boston], the City of Boston, and the New England region. To that end, EOT will be conducting a study to explore ways to assure a strong port-to-rail connection, at Allston Landing” (EOT long-term plan, quoted in Atlantic Northeast Rails & Ports, 05#03A, 18 March 2005, p.10).

The Commonwealth failed to allow completion of this comprehensive study and release of its draft. Its scope and preliminary findings would seem to bear directly on questions the ENF before you avoids asking. I urge you to require the full EIR the project actually demands for compliance with Federal law.

The ENF alludes to “future expansion” of the Worcester Terminal (5.0) and to an ultimate projection of not 150,000 container lifts per year but up to 200,000 (5.9.3), presumably the result of the undescribed future expansion. It is not clear whether the traffic analysis reflects both the full expansion with these additional lifts and the state’s assumed 70% increase in truck freight by 2030.

The discussion of wildlife habitat at 5.2.1 is admitted to be incomplete. The ENF does not, unfortunately, require the noting of urban wilds that give harborage to valuable species, e.g., skunks, raccoons, and possums, all natural predators of rats, or of their value to migrating songbirds. The projected destruction of trees and the urban wild around the scrap yard would be a major loss and should not be ignored.

A proper EIR may confirm the advantages of expanding Worcester and closing BPT as the ENF asserts. The ENF before you cannot and does not do so. I therefore also urge you to issue a Certificate requiring a full Environmental Impact Review that analyzes the true scope of the alternative to expansion of the Worcester Terminal.

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Wellons

Bicycle Oddities

1. Introduction.
2. Archie, New York Times, December 19, 2010.
3. Letter to Cambridge Chronicle.

1. Introduction.

I have commented on a bizarre bike path proposal in Cambridge on Western Avenue, connecting with Memorial Drive. The project is very destructive to bicycle use.

The project’s lack of value bears striking resemblance to the bizarre environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. In turn, the Magazine Beach project’s heartless animal abuse combines with bizarre environmental destruction in a project which is difficult to justify except as contractor welfare.

The powers that be in Cambridge are fighting, among other destructive projects, for a bicycle highway destroying massive amounts of riverfront and habitat.

Most recently the Cambridge City Council has announced a crackdown on bicycle lawlessness. I find the timing highly suspicious, after the reaction to the bike path nonsense on Western Avenue.

Archie Mazmanian offers comparable traffic nonsense in the below communication, followed by my proposed letter to the editor of the Cambridge Chronicle.

2. Archie, New York Times, December 19, 2010.

Today's NYTimes Week in Review section includes, on page 9, Bruce McCall's "Op-Art" feature titled "Shakedown Street" which might with humor reflect Cambridge officials on bike lanes, etc. A link to it might be appropriate for your Blog.
Archie Mazmanian

The URL is:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/19/opinion/20101219_mccall_opart.html?scp=1&sq=Op-Art%20+%2.

3. Letter to Cambridge Chronicle.

RE: Bikes, law enforcement and the Cambridge City Council

I have a couple of problems with the City Council’s supposed crackdown on bicycle lawlessness and with Councilor Kelley’s place in the situation.

First of all, I do not believe in coincidences, especially when dealing with the Cambridge City Government.

Cambridge recently announced a strikingly irresponsible bike path proposal for Western Avenue.

All of a sudden we see a remarkable reversal of position on bicycle safety from a city council which has long not wanted to know about dangerous biking.

Is this public safety? Or is it a shakedown to protect a bizarre project from very justified complaints from a well organized group with contempt for law?

I think pedestrians, drivers and other bicyclists should be protected from Cambridge’s culture of lawless bicyclists because the lawless bicyclists are dangerous, not because bicyclists, whether lawless or not, are properly objecting to a strikingly irresponsible project.

And, as usual, there is no proof, but a horrible stench.

Secondly, Mr. Kelley’s position on bicycle lawlessness is to favor of lawless bicycle operation.

Both Kelley and the recently deceased Bill Walsh look to me like products of lawless subcultures.

Walsh went along to get along. That was the way, he apparently thought, the way to do business with the banks. Thus mortgage practices which have been found illegal.

But Walsh’s lawlessness had nothing to do with his responsibilities as a city councilor and his lawlessness constituted no threat of physical bodily harm to third parties. And it was pretty secret.

Kelley admits publicly to lawlessness. Kelley’s public lawlessness demonstrates contempt for laws he is sworn to uphold.

Kelley’s admitted public lawlessness sends a very clear message to impressionable children that you do not have to obey inconvenient laws.

Kelley has publicly stated that he has been involved in collisions with pedestrians.

I have a friend who was laid up for six months when she was run down by a sidewalk bicyclist. I have seen contempt demonstrated for the handicapped by lawless bicyclists.

Walsh’s record as a public servant was impeccable. I prefer Walsh to the current city council.

Friends of the White Geese, online approaches to raise awareness.

Thank you to Irene S. Muniz Frias for her excellent report on the Charles River White Geese posted at http://irenesofia16.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/friends-of-the-white-geese-online-approaches-to-raise-awareness/.

She not only did an excellent job on the video, but her write up is well worthy of being posted on this blog.

Monteiro, "Reply" Filing by Cambridge in Appeals Court

We have been following the civil rights action of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge because this case shows a legally significant outside opinion as to the functioning of the Cambridge, MA, city government, and because the process could result in the removal of the Cambridge City Manager, a key participant in the environmental destruction ongoing on the Charles River.

We have reported the filing of Cambridge’s brief in the Appeals Court explaining its position on this matter, and the filing of Ms. Monteiro’s brief giving her side.

On December 13, 2010, Cambridge filed in the Appeals Court its “reply” brief, responding to Monteiro’s positions.

Official Status of the Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee now posted

1. Background.
2. Update.

1. Background.

On November 26, 2010, Archie posted a report on the November 22, 2010, Urban Ring Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting. That report, with my reply, is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/urban-ring-citizens-advisory-committee_26.html.

2. Update.

Archie supplements our report with the following:

*************

EOEEA Secretary Bowles' response of 6/22/10 to MassDot Secretary Mullan's letter of 1/22/10 is now available at the new Urban Ring website:

http://theurbanring.eot.state.ma.us/index.html.

Link on "Documents" at the top and scroll down to "MEPA Filings & Correspondence" and a click on the first item listed will access this response. This response spells out the current role of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) with MassDot as Phase 2 slumbers (as noted in the post on your Blog of my and your comments on the CAC's 11/22/10 meeting).

Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge Ready to Go Forward in Appeals Court

The Monteiro brief was filed and accepted on November 24, at the same time, apparently, as the filing of the motion to allow it late, a common way to do a late filing.

When the filing of the brief was posted on the docket, I cannot tell. It was certainly after the filing of the motion because when I saw the motion and reported it here, the motion was the most recent posting.

Note that the dispositive action came on November 29. The papers could very likely have been on the judge’s desk until then and were not posted until after the judge responded. The November 26 action is in the middle of the November 24's on the docket indicating this group of documents was in a pile and posted when the clerk came to them in the pile.

If anybody is aware of the posting of the briefs on line, I would certainly appreciate being informed of their location. Thanks.

The docket entries are:

11/23/2010 #14 Objection to any attempted late or subsequent filing of appellee's brief, filed by City of Cambridge.

11/24/2010 #15 MOTION to extend brief due date of Malvina Monteiro.

11/26/2010 RE#14 Noted. See action on paper #15. *Notice.

11/24/2010 RE#15: Allowed. The brief is accepted this date. *Notice.

11/24/2010 #16 SERVICE of brief for Plaintiff/Appellee Malvina Monteiro.

11/24/2010 #17 OPPOSITION to #15 filed by City of Cambridge.

11/29/2010 RE#17 The appellee's brief was accepted for filing on 11/24/10. The action allowing the filing of the brief is to stand. The appellant's objection to the accrual of postjudgment interest after 10/12/10, the date the appellee's brief was originally due, is referred to the panel designated to decide the appeal. *Notice.

Chuck Turner, Bill Walsh and the ethics of politics in Cambridge, MA, USA

For more than 15 years, I have done a weekly commentary on the Cambridge Environment on Cambridge Cable Channel 9 at 6:30 pm on Sundays.

This past Sunday, the show ahead of me, What You Should Know, was devoted entirely to a presentation by convicted Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner.

Councilor Turner told his side of his conviction on criminal charges stemming from his performance of responsibilities related to his office.

That struck me as very close to home, what with the oped I have had published in two installments in the Cambridge Chronicle, the judge and jury finding of reprehensible behavior by the Cambridge City Manager toward Malvina Monteiro, the failure of the Cambridge City Council to do anything other than spend millions defending the Cambridge City Manager, and the pretty much non stop nonsense coming out of the environmentally destructive Cambridge City Council that they are environmental saints.

So off the cuff, I devoted the first half of the show to my analysis of the interrelationships.

I compared the Turner situation to:

1. That of recently deceased and former Cambridge City Councillor William Walsh who was jailed for mortgage fraud charges unrelated to his responsibilities in office, and in which the sentencing judge praised Walsh for his commendable public service.

2. That of the finding of judge and jury in Monteiro v. Cambridge that Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy was “reprehensible” in destroying the life of a Black female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. Case is on appeal.

3. The failure of the Cambridge City Council to meaningfully review the Court’s decision in Monteiro, simply paying millions to defend the City Manager without getting independent legal opinion as to whether the City Manager should be fired.

4. The constant self adulation of the Cambridge City Council calling themselves environmental saints even though they are

A. Involved in massive environmental destruction and

B. Heartless animal abusers as part of a singular bizarre project.

I have waited a long time for the show to directly upload from my computer. It is taking so long, I think there is a serious glitch.

The title is: Ethics in Government: Turner, Walsh, and the Cambridge, MA, USA Government. The URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEdoxBEOk1s. It is also posted on the Charles River White Geese page on facebook.

Related YouTube postings are:

On the Monteiro case: City Manager Can be Fired, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.

On Cambridge’s environmental destructiveness and related: Cambridge, MA: Killing, rape, heartless animal abuse, destruction of park and river, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r6HY-ndOjo.

Please friend the Charles River White Geese on facebook, where detailed photos and additional information are also available.

Addendum.

This is our 500th blog posting. The email newsletter which preceded this blog got up into a distribution of more than 1300 and ran up to between 400 and 500 editions.

This milestone has a great deal of meaning because this video goes to the heart of perhaps the biggest problem in Cambridge politics and in the ongoing destruction of the environment of the Charles River and of the other wild parts of Cambridge.

Action on Monteiro - Late Appellate Brief

I have been reporting on the lateness of the filing of the brief in Appeals Court of the victorious plaintiff in Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

This would be the primary document in support of Malvina Monteiro which would considered by the Appeals Court panel reviewing the appeal by the City of Cambridge.

We have had action.

On November 23, 2010, Cambridge filed a motion in opposition to any late or subsequent filing of her brief.

On November 24, 2010, Monteiro’s attorney filed a motion to extend the brief due date.

This case is of major importance with regard to the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles River because the court orders below seem to indicate that the Cambridge City Manager should be fired. You fire the Cambridge City Manager, you fire one of the key environmental destroyers.

The findings of judge and jury are so strong, the superior court judge could very easily support an initiative by the Cambridge City Council to fire the City Manager without pension or golden parachute.

The key word used by the judge, and proved in her key opinion is “reprehensible.”

The key Superior Court opinion filed in this matter may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

Urban Ring Citizen’s Advisory Committee Meeting, November 22, 2010

1. Introduction.
2. Archie’s Report.
A. Main Report.
B. Addendum, November 27.
3. Editor’s Comments.
A. General / Background.
(1) Urban Ring Subway concept.
(2) Kenmore Crossing.
(3) BU Bridge Crossing.
(4) Brief comparison of alternatives.
B. Application. A victory for the Good Guys.


1. Introduction.

Archie Mazmanian and I attended the Urban Ring Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting last Monday.

He, with my strong request, has submitted the following report.

I was doing my own report as well, including a long analysis of the program. We have links to such information on the site, my comments and Marilyn’s. Archie has done such a good job that I may just add a third section going into an aspect I consider important.

2. Archie’s Report.

A. Main Report.

I reluctantly attended the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting on Monday, November 22, 2010, on the Urban Ring Phase 2 (as it continues to slumber), since the Agenda provided in advance did not disclose items of interest regarding the proposed Charles River crossing on, over or under the Boston University (BU) Bridge that would impact Cambridge, Boston and Brookline as the busiest portion of what was planned as an integrated ring for much needed public rapid transit in and around Boston and environs. With Phase 2 in the doldrums, not much has been going on, with attention being focused on certain segments of the proposed Phase 2 routes that might not be problematic (as would in spades be the case with the Charles River crossing). It’s somewhat like the political cartoon that appeared prior to the founding of America depicting a rattlesnake cut up into 13 segments, one for each of the colonies, titled “JOIN, OR DIE.” Could the rattlesnake (Urban Ring) function or survive segmented? Imagine if All the King’s Horses (MassDOT) and All the King’s Men (CAC) could not put Humpty-Dumpty (Phase 2) together again over the many, many years CAC members may continue to gather and dither.

A number of handouts were provided at the meeting, including a copy of the screen for the new Urban Ring website, finally in place, at:

http://theurbanring.eot.state.ma.us/

to which is to be transferred much of what was on the old website. [Note: After the meeting, I checked the new website and could not locate the important response dated June 22, 2010, from Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) Secretary Bowles in response to the January 22, 2010 letter from MassDOT Secretary Mullan; this response is quite important, as EOEEA had established the CAC several years ago and addresses the continuing role of the CAC as Phase 2 slumbers along.]

Much of the meeting dealt with an update of the Haul Road for the Phase 2 routes that include Chelsea and East Boston, plus an update on a proposed Silver Line extension to Chelsea, with various alternative all in living color that should be available on the new website for those interested.
This was followed by updates on Yawkey Station and Ruggles Station. The Yawkey Station is part of the proposed Rosenthal massive development near Kenmore Square that will include air rights over the MA Turnpike Extension. This development would impact for many years not only Kenmore Square but also Beacon Street and Brookline Avenue, all in Boston, with traffic and transportation issues that will also impact the Longwood Medical Area (LMA), Brookline, and Commonwealth Avenue from Kenmore to and beyond the BU Bridge; in turn, this will impact Cambridge because of the BU Bridge connection with Boston. And we are all aware of the issues with the BU Bridge as its lanes have been narrowed for repairs, etc, that may continue for a couple of more years. It was pointed out by a CAC member that Maitland Street, a short street between Beacon Street and Brookline Avenue, may prove to be a problem what with a Children’s Hospital proposed garage in the area of the Rosenthal project, unless steps are taken to address traffic and transportation issues that might be needed to coordinate with the Phase 2 routes from the BU Bridge crossing to the LMA, if and when those routes are finalized. Perhaps we might be looking ahead to near gridlock for several years, similar to the several years before Kenmore Square traffic could be restored to acceptable traffic conditions.

In addition to this Rosenthal project, the CAC has added Ruggles Station, which might better serve with improvements the nearby LMA. So, with Phase 2 segmented currently, the CAC has expanded its scope for Phase 2. Let’s hope the dots (aka segmented rattlesnake) can be reconnected over what may be a decade or more as memories of the Big Dig timeline may fade for some.

Item 6 of the Agenda consisted of “Other issues.” Some CAC members started to leave but were drawn back with reference to the Commonwealth’s recent purchase of the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) from CSX and a recent proposal that the GJRL that runs through and from Boston under the BU Bridge to and through Cambridge might serve as a commuter line between Worcester and North Station. The Boston Sunday Globe 9/12/10 “Starts & Stops” featured Eric Moskovitz’s article “Little-used rail line a key link to Worcester” on this proposal for the GJRL.

This got everyone’s attention. My interest relates mainly to Phase 2’s proposed Charles River crossing via a viaduct from the GJRL bridge under the BU Bridge to Commonwealth Avenue in Boston for Phase 2’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system’s articulated 60-foot buses that would service Phase 2. Cambridge residents of course should be concerned with the impact upon that community of such a commuter line passing through currently crowded areas of Cambridge. It was reported that there is currently proposed a potential ridership study to determine the economics of such a commuter line with the obvious capital costs involved. For some the interest is the connection to North Station and perhaps an eventual link between North Station and South Station, a long-time rail transportation dream in Boston supported by Gov. Dukakis. It was stressed that this is a study and much would have to be done and determined, particularly economically what with financial constraints, before proceeding further.

It was pointed out that the GJRL would have to continue as rail despite the sale by CSX to accommodate shipments of produce, etc, as in the past over the GJRL. During the public comment and question period, I made reference to the proposed two lanes for BRT buses that would augment the GJRL under the BU Bridge that then via a viaduct would rise above the tracks on the Boston side and eventually connect with Commonwealth Avenue for the proposed Phase 2 route to the LMA and inquired how that would be coordinated with the need to keep the GJRL as rail under the BU Bridge. The response of the CAC Chair was that the two BRT lanes would be separate from the rail line under the BU Bridge, pointing out that he had checked the former Urban Ring website that includes such a plan. Although I did not respond at the time, it is important to note that because Phase 2 continues in limbo, EOEEA has not made environmental determinations concerning the Charles River crossing as yet. There may be very serious environmental issues with the suggested augmentation of the GJRL bridge under the BU Bridge that would have to be addressed; these issues would become even more serious if the Worcester/North Station commuter rail were to result.

The next CAC meeting date was not set but it was indicated that it most likely would take place in about two months. While I plan to attend, having recently become an octogenarian, life may be too short for me to continue much further. Hopefully there are potential monitors out there on both sides of the Charles River who will pay attention to Phase 2’s proposed Charles River crossing and its impact upon their communities. And such monitors should not forget the elephant in the room, Harvard University, with its slumbering potential development of hundreds of acres in Allston (including air rights over rail yards) that might be serviced by Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. Such development by Harvard might emulate – and exceed – the Prudential Center that was developed quite extensively over rail lines.

A major issue to be considered by the CAC and residents of Phase 2 area communities impacted by the Urban Ring is whether addressing Phase 2 in segments may be appropriate and/or effective. Perhaps the survival of the Urban Ring, whether Phase 2 or Phase 3 (yes, Virginia, there may yet be a Phase 3!), may be better depicted by the aforementioned “JOIN, OR DIE” political cartoon. A potential future monitor with art skills might draw a similar cartoon for the segmented Urban Ring as a reminder.

Archie Mazmanian

B. Addendum, November 27.

I took another look at the new Urban Ring website referenced in my earlier comment and noted at the right hand side a link to the 1/22/10 letter from MassDOT Secretary Mullan to MEPA (E0EEA) but no link to EOEEA Secretary Bowles' response of 6/22/10. Why? I had brought this to the attention of MassDOT a month or so ago with respect such response being missing from the old website. A follow up review of the old website a week or so ago resulted in locating Secretary Bowles' response; but it was not linked in the same section as Secretary Mullan's letter, making it difficult to locate. To better understand the present status of the Urban Ring and its Phase 2, it is critical that Secretary Bowles' response be prominently posted on the new website.

3. Editor’s Comments.

A. General / Background.

(1) Urban Ring Subway concept.

The long run key impact on the Charles River stems on which route will be used to cross the Charles for the Subway line that should really be the main topic.

The BU Bridge Crossing would cross just east of the BU Bridge and be highly destructive to the environment of the Charles and the Charles River White Geese.

The Kenmore Crossing would cross west of the Mass. Ave. Bridge which is the next bridge east of the BU Bridge.

The Kenmore Crossing would use meaningful “heavy rail” rapid transit as opposed to street cars in the BU Bridge crossing.

The purpose of the Urban Ring subway is to get people off the downtown subway by providing a viable alternative. It would connect to the Orange Line (Community College / Sullivan) and Red Line (Kendall) in the northern part of the line and to the Longwood Medical Area and Orange Line (Ruggles) in the southern end.

Between the two would be the crossing of the Charles River, links to the three Green Line branches, link to the commuter rail, and link to Fenway Park.

(2) Kenmore Crossing.

The Kenmore Crossing accomplishes all of these tasks with one station.

It would be placed under Brookline Avenue over the Massachusetts Turnpike. One end connects to the Commuter Rail to Worcester and Framingham at Yawkey Station. The other end connects to the existing Kenmore Station and all three Green Line branches. It provides covered connection between and among all connecting lines.

(3) BU Bridge Crossing.

The BU Bridge Crossing does this with two stations. One station is at Mountfort Street and St. Mary’s, within view of the core of the BU Campus, Marsh Chapel. It would connect to the northern most Green Line Branch, the B / Boston College branch by a tunnel under St. Mary’s to the southern sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue. People would cross Commonwealth Avenue in the weather using traffic light protection to get to the Green Line inbound and to Branch B outbound.

Commuter rail would connect to Mountfort Station by dropping people at a relocated Yawkee Station. Commuter Rail would connect to the Green Line inbound by the tunnel. Commuters during the morning rush, with very large trains, would thus be dumped on one of the three line branches instead of at Kenmore where all the branches get together.

Urban Ring passengers and Commuter Rail passengers going outbound on Green Line branches C and D would proceed to a separate Urban Ring station about two blocks away between those two branches.

(4) Brief comparison of alternatives.

Fenway Park connections would be far inferior both for Urban Ring and Commuter Rail passengers.

The use of streetcars in the BU Bridge Crossing, alone, makes it far inferior to the Kenmore Crossing. The idea is to get people off the central subway. That will not be done with street car speeds.

This, combined with these far inferior connections on the BU Crossing makes the BU Crossing far inferior to the Kenmore Crossing with its heavy rail and excellent connections at Kenmore / Yawkee.

B. Application. A victory for the Good Guys.

During the presentation of the study of possible Worcester / Framingham trains on the Grand Junction, through the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese, one of the usual types encouraged the presenter to consider the impact of the proposal on the BU Bridge Crossing.

We had just had an extended presentation on the rebuilding of the Yawkee Station with, I think $20 million or something like that. The location would be its current location, exactly the spot which would be used by the excellent Kenmore Station in the Kenmore Crossing.

The usual type somehow did not notice that a choice has been made between the BU Bridge crossing’s inferior Yawkee Station and the Kenmore Crossing’s excellent Yawkee Station in favor of the Kenmore Crossing.

I commented that the study person should also look at the Kenmore Crossing.

Will the state trash the Fenway Park connections and excellent transportation connections they have just paid $20 million to lay the groundwork for and go forward with the inferior BU Bridge crossing rather than the Kenmore Crossing?

Are Harvard, BU, MIT and the City of Cambridge willing to pay that tab to push their beloved but drastically inferior BU Bridge crossing?

In Cambridge, there are a lot of people running around who look like friends of the Cambridge City Manager / City Council who have no interest when reality conflicts with the official Cambridge version of reality.

The official Cambridge version of reality has taken a very big hit on the Urban Ring with the $20 million construction of Yawkee Station where it fits into the Kenmore Crossing alternative of the Urban Ring.

Monteiro attorney apparently late in filing Appeals Court Brief

The brief of Malvina Monteiro in Monteiro v. City of Cambridge was due in the Appeals Court on November 16, 2010. That due date appears to have been missed.

The case was filed in Appeals Court on July 16, 2010. This was an appeal by the City of Cambridge from a Superior Court decision in which the judge wrote a very persuasive memorandum of decision. In her memorandum, she called and seemed to prove the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for destroying the life of this Black Cape Verdean department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The jury decision awarded Ms. Monteiro slightly over $1 million damages plus $3.5 million penal damages. As of May 24, 2010, this award had grown to slightly over $6 million with various costs and interest charges.

After one extension, Cambridge filed its appellate brief on September 10, 2010. Ms. Monteiro was granted an extension to November 16, 2010.

The public docket entries are marked accurate as of November 24, 2010.

They show a motion by Cambridge to amend the papers of record which they have filed. This motion was filed on November 16. The docket also shows the appearance of a new attorney for Cambridge on November 18.

An overworked staff frequently can swallow documents and fail to update the docket, and then suddenly, a fair amount of time later, you suddenly see a filing quite awhile ago.

You know as much as I do.

Update on destructive bicycle nonsense from Cambridge

My report on Cambridge’s anti-bicycle bike proposal for Western Avenue in Cambridge (November 6) may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/cambridge-ma-attacks-bicyclists.html.

Western Avenue becomes the Western Avenue Bridge, the second bridge west of the BU Bridge. The proposal ends at Memorial Drive and is apparently intended to link to one of the most environmental destructive initiatives on the Charles River.

Joseph Teller’s response (November 9) is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/western-avenue-neighbor-on-western.html.

I have just learned that the official version is posted at: http://www.box.net/shared/g4hl7zupht.

Monteiro Brief at the Appeals Court

Bob reports.

I just checked the docket again.

The does not show a filing yet of the Monteiro appellate brief. It was due 11/16/10. There is a notation at the bottom of the page, “As of 11/18/2010 02:02."

I anticipate that the brief has been filed and is in processing. This is a large document. This delay in posting, however, makes me feel better with regard to my prior reports of documents being filed. I had wondered how I had missed various postings for several days. A paper filed by Cambridge on 11/16/10 is posted, but I anticipate the brief simply is being processed, and the brief would be a lot larger than the Cambridge paper.

Walsh and the Cambridge City Council, last post?

1. Introduction.
2. Letter completing op ed, etc.


1. Introduction.

On October 21, 2010, I posted a proposed Cambridge Chronicle on this blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/op-ed-proposal-william-walsh-compared.html. Included in that posting was a link to an on line posting by the Chronicle.

Oddly, the following week, the op ed was partially printed by the Chronicle (and the omission reported here). It was cut because of lack of space.

The following week, a nasty anonymous response was printed by the Chronicle.

Yesterday, November 18, the Chronicle printed almost all of the following on page 15, the op ed page.

The beginning responds to Anonymous. The end attempts to summarize. The final word was not printed, although there did seem to be room for it.

2. Letter completing op ed, etc.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I have provided you the Walsh appeal decision which confirms facts quoted by you in my op ed.

An anonymous writer seems to think there is some sort of great ethics involved in the Walsh Law Firm having a bunch of employees who were convicted of crime and who kept out of actually being jailed by testifying against their boss. Anonymous has interesting ethics.

The following final third was omitted by you from the op ed you printed over my name:

“Walsh had his right to take his full appeals on matters which had nothing to do with Cambridge city government.

“In the Monteiro case, the City Council is implementing Walsh’s private mentality in the public sphere. Walsh played games with mortgages in a corrupt system in which a wink and a nod were part of the culture. Walsh was never as venal as the finding of the Monteiro judge against the Cambridge City Manager.

“The Malvina Monteiro matter shows the reason why state ethics laws which require the expulsion from office without pension for criminal venality in office should be expanded by the judge with city council initiative to the situation where the Cambridge City Manager has been found, in office, to have destroyed the life of a black, Cape Verdian city employee because she exercised her rights under civil rights law.

“The Monteiro case is not a matter when the Cambridge City Council is sitting back and watching while a miscreant defends himself for outside behavior. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is spending millions defending the miscreant in spite of a brilliant and persuasive opinion by the judge in the case. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is failing to exercise its duty to protect our employees and our government from behavior which a persuasive judicial opinion has called ‘reprehensible.’

“So I praise Bill Walsh for his commendable public service to the City of Cambridge.

“I condemn the current Cambridge City Council which continues in office a city manager persuasively demonstrated as ‘reprehensible’ by judge and jury for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro.”

My op ed was an integrated whole.

I have very strong knowledge of Walsh’s personal problems.

In spite of that knowledge, I have greater respect for Walsh as a public servant than I do for the current city council. Period.

Boston ConCom hearing on the MWRA Cottage Farm sewage treatment plant

1. Marilyn’s Report.
2. Bob Response / Elaboration.

1. Marilyn’s Report.

Marilyn Wellons attended the Boston ConCom's hearing on November 17,2010:

The Commission issued a Certificate of Compliance for MWRA work done in Boston on one of three sewer pipes under the river that connect to the Cottage Farm plant by the BU Bridge. The work finished in 2009.

Previously 2 of the 3 pipes led from Cottage Farm to another plant in Boston and ultimately to Deer Island. Flow in the long-unused third pipe was from Boston to Cottage Farm. The work was to reverse that flow, so that all 3 pipes now channel sewage treated at Cottage Farm to the next station in Boston.

It was part of the ongoing court-ordered cleanup of Boston Harbor and the Charles River. Municipalities along the Charles have spent more than $60M so far to separate sanitary and stormwater sewers that have previously been combined (CSOs).

In heavy rains CSOs discharge both stormwater and sewage into, e.g., the Charles River, Alewife Brook, and of course Boston Harbor itself, polluting them. Some CSOs still drain stormwater to Cottage Farm, but as I understand it, the ultimate goal is to have only sanitary sewers drain to it. The project increased Cottage Farm's capacity to treat and pump sewage, to reduce its overflow discharges into the Charles in such storms.

Because the goal is to separate sanitary and stormwater sewers, the MWRA would not have allowed a new connection for stormwater from the BU Bridge to connect to Cottage Farm--unlike the situation at the Cambridge Boat Club, where the sanitary sewer was allowed to tie in to it.

(The MWRA official I spoke with after the Boston ConCom hearing wasn't able to say why the BU Bridge's new stormwater system could not have connected to either Cambridge's or the DCR's own stormwater drains at Brookline Street or along Memorial Drive.)

The increased capacity at Cottage Farm may explain why Lake Pearl Street drained easily through Kathy Podgers's basement into the sanitary sewers, but Cambridge's stormwater system was overwhelmed in the July 10 storm this past summer.

2. Bob Response / Elaboration. Major angle in the sewer separation project.

Thank you Marilyn for the good report.

A few weeks ago, I reported on a decidedly bizarre bike arrangement planned by Cambridge for Western Avenue intersecting Memorial Drive two bridges to the west of the BU Bridge.

During that meeting, the July 12 flooding and the separation of sewers and storm water drains was also discussed. Presentation was by the City Engineer.

The City Engineer specifically stated that a repeat of the flooding of July 12 WOULD NOT be prevented by the ongoing upgrading / separating of the sewer and street drainage system. He stated that the one hour level of downpour was way beyond reasonable capability of the system.

He also added a point that I have never heard before.

He specifically stated that, while the separation will prevent the sewerage system from overflowing into the storm drainage pipes, the opposite is not true. Street drainage will overflow into the sewer pipes if the street drainage system is overloaded.

That overflow of street drainage into the sewer pipes was a major problem on July 12 in a favored establishment of mine on Mass. Ave., The Cellar. This neighborhood bar is in the basement of the building, on the north side of Mass. Ave. They had repeated problems with the sewerage system pumping waste into their establishment.

They controlled it and apparently kept the overflow into a limited part of the bar, but this will happen again under the separation project, and I assume others had similar problems.

Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting

Archie reports that the state is conducted an Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee meeting this coming Monday, November 22, from 4 to 6 pm at Conference Rooms 2 and 3 in the Transportation Building in Park Square.

I normally enter the building from Boylston Street down what is now an alley in the middle of Emerson College, just east of Charles Street facing the Boston Common. The building also has another more formal entrance off Charles Street just south of Boylston facing Park Square.

The Urban Ring was planned as a connecting subway line to allow folks to travel between outer portions of the existing subways without going downtown.

It has more recently been converted by the bureaucracy into fancy buses. A bunch of the possibilities are highly destructive to the Fenway area, the Charles River, Cambridge and the Charles River White Geese.

The group has been converted into an existing / non existing status but the meeting could have value.

Monteiro Update

The appellate brief of Ms. Monteiro was due yesterday, November 16. Those dates are not missed and there commonly is a delay in posting. The filing has not been posted yet.

Cambridge did file a motion on November 16 to amend the papers it has filed demonstrating the record below.

Boston Conservation Commission on MWRA at BU Bridge

1. Report.
2. Marilyn Comments.
3. The notice.


1. Report.

This coming Wednesday, at 6:30 pm, the Boston Conservation Commission will conduct a hearing concerning the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission “Cottage Farm/Brookline Connection and Inflow Controls Project, Soldiers Field Road, Charles River, Boston”.

Our initial impression was that it concerned the oil spill that occurred earlier this year because of, it would appear, sloppy work by a delivery person.

On rereading the below notice, however, it could concern work that was done on the Boston side just west of the BU Bridge.

If you are interested, the Boston City Hall entrance used is in the back end of Boston City Hall facing Faneuil Hall. The entrance is at the ground level not too far to the Cambridge side of the big stair well coming down from the plaza in the direction of Faneuil Hall.

This was quite major work. The DCR apparently coordinated major environmental destruction in what was wildlife habitat to the west.

2. Marilyn Comments.

If the hearing's in Boston it's not I think about the oil spill, which was on the Cambridge side.

Some years ago MWRA announced they were changing the configuration of pipes to and from Cottage Farm on the Boston side. This must be a hearing at the end of that project.

As we know, at the BU Bridge, the DCR has opted for the stormwater system that most damages public parkland at the White Geese's nesting area, rather than tie in to the MWRA's, Cambridge's, or its own adjacent sewers. It may have been possible to combine it with the MWRA's work now finishing up, with attendant savings.

3. The notice.

In accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, the Boston Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing in Boston City Hall, Room 801 on November 17, 2010 to review the following projects to determine what conditions, if any, the Commission will impose in order to protect the interests of the public and private water supply, ground water, prevention of pollution, flood control, prevention of storm damage, protection of fisheries and land containing shellfish, and protection of wildlife habitat:


6:00 PM Enforcement Order issued to Cedar Grove Cemetery for work conducted in areas subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act without a valid Order of Conditions, 920 Adams Street, Dorchester.

6:15 PM Update from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation on Order of Conditions DEP File No. 006-0647, issued for the construction of a water transportation docking facility adjacent to 500 Atlantic Avenue and Russia Wharf, Fort Point Channel, Boston.

6:30 PM Request for Certificate of Compliance for Order of Conditions DEP File No. 006-1142 from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority for the Cottage Farm/Brookline Connection and Inflow Controls Project, Soldiers Field Road, Charles River, Boston.

Walsh 2

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. General.
2. Detailed communication.
3. Citation.

1. General.

Not surprisingly, my op ed concerning William Walsh has received an anonymous response which got printed and which impugns my integrity.

You will recall that a significant part of the op ed was omitted. I attempted to at least get my final praise for Walsh printed. There have been no elaborations in response to my request.

2. Detailed communication.

I have just, on November 11, 2010, sent the following to the Editor of the Cambridge Chronicle.

**********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

In the Chronicle of November 11, 2010, you published an unsigned statement calling me a liar and stating that nobody in William Walsh’s office other than Walsh was convicted of crimes in association with Walsh’s jailing.

This anonymous statement very clearly communicated that there were no ethical problems in the Walsh Law Office other than with Walsh. My recollection is that there were at least two other convictions, both lawyers. I in now way ascribed the deficiencies of these people to every member of the Walsh law office at the time.

The following is taken from a judicial opinion concerning Walsh. I am providing documentation of one conviction because that is adequate to refute the claim of no convictions and no other ethical problems.

I am directly copying and pasting. I have omitted irrelevant procedural words in the beginning of the opinion and the opinion before paragraph 34 and after paragraph 37.

Please note that Schwartz is described as a senior attorney in the Walsh office, one of several codefendants with Walsh, who pleaded guilty and testified against Walsh. According to the judge’s findings, another co-defendant who plead guilty testified as to directions from Walsh which rather clearly describes directions to members of his office.


***********

United States of America, Appellee, v. William H. Walsh, Defendant, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 75 F.3d 1
Heard Oct. 3, 1995.Decided Jan. 23, 1996

Opinion of BOUDIN, Circuit Judge.

34
Walsh's brief raises two further issues, both unrelated to juror X. The first claim relates to the government's admitted failure to turn over certain documents in a timely fashion. The documents related to Frances Schwartz, a senior attorney working for Walsh who was assigned to the three development projects involved in this case. Schwartz was indicted with Walsh and was one of the co-defendants who pled guilty to the conspiracy count and testified against Walsh at trial.

35
On direct examination, Schwartz gave damaging testimony against Walsh. In addition to identifying a number of documents and describing the operations of Walsh's office, Schwartz testified to discussions and correspondence with Walsh that--as recounted and interpreted by Schwartz--confirmed Walsh's knowing participation in and direction of the fraud. Schwartz' testimony was thus quite damaging, although another co-defendant who pled guilty also testified that Walsh knowingly directed the concealment of the secondary financing.

36
Early in her cross-examination, Schwartz mentioned that she had "daytimers" or calendars that she had used to refresh her recollection. Later, on re-cross, she mentioned that she had allowed the government to review the daytimers and make copies of them. The defense immediately objected that it had never received the daytimers. The government said that these daytimers should have been disclosed earlier but had been overlooked when other materials from Schwartz had been made available to Walsh's counsel. Copies of the daytimers were provided to the defendant later that day.

37
Following a timely motion by Walsh to dismiss the case because of this delay, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Walsh's strategy would not have been substantially different if the daytimers had been disclosed earlier. The court instructed the jury that the government had failed in its discovery obligation, and it allowed Walsh to recall Schwartz to continue her examination, using the daytimers to try to establish inconsistencies between Schwartz' prior testimony and the daytimers. Walsh now complains that this was inadequate.

************

Now, please, you omitted the end of my OpEd, which very strongly watered down my problems with Walsh and said that, as a member of the Cambridge government, I commend Walsh and condemn the current incumbents. As a public person, Walsh’s ethics were impeccable.

My position is that I am deeply familiar with the shortcomings of William Walsh in his private life, but as far as public life goes, I prefer Walsh by a wide margin to the current city council.

Would you please correct your omission in some manner.

Thank you.

3. Citation.

I sent the following not long later as a second communication.

******

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The quote I just gave you came from: http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/75/1/475186/.

A Visit to the Goose Ghetto

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Report.
2. Ellen Schloss comments.
3. Response to Ellen.

1. Report.

Yesterday, November 10, I showed an interested person the situation with regard to the Charles River White Geese.

A lot of them were huddled under the tree where they had been hiding on the day their nesting area was destroyed. It was definitely not a spirited group.

They wandered under the trees in the mud left from the state’s destruction of ground vegetation.

Many more than usually would be were at the top of the hill toward the Grand Junction railroad tracks. This area has been unused in the past except during nesting. The ganders go up there to strut for the hens.

But there is no place else.

Another visitor produced a large plastic bag full of goodies for the Charles River White Geese. He said that local markets are quite helpful.

I have been aware of past contributions by Trader Joe’s, by the Coop in Central Square and by the wet shelter up the Grand Junction. They are good people in the world of a bad city government.

The actual numbers of the gaggle, not doing a count, would appear to be less than in the past. That is not at all surprising considering the heartless cruelty being inflicted on them.

Work, including permanent work has been done at the entrance toward the Memorial Drive / BU Bridge rotary.

This entrance was illegally created by BU and the DCR in 1999 as part of that outrage. Fencing which had kept the area wild and safe was torn open and access stairs and a ramp installed, here and a wooden stair with metal rail at the eastern end.

Marilyn Wellons had a meeting with the State Senator at that time. She complained about the destruction and mentioned that fencing had been left. She intended and wished that the fencing be put back where it had been. In front of her, the state senator got on the phone and promised that the situation would be corrected. The fencing was promptly removed.

The work commenced in 1999 with construction equipment entering the nesting area the morning BEFORE a scheduled Cambridge Conservation Committee meeting on the work. It was completed before the first day on which it could legally commence.

Boston University denied doing the 1999 work for something like six months, until the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned them for it. Then BU started bragging about the destruction and blamed their President’s secretary for the false denials.

The work I saw yesterday was as follows:

The 1999 stair case at the rotary was barely visible, buried and hidden in construction access. The ramp created then had been totally obscured with a dirt roadway.

The sidewalk at the rotary has been widened, space taken from the roadway. The widening ends a few feet onto the on ramp so that there is a bump out at the rotary.

2. Ellen Schloss comments.

Geez Bob these Cambridge officials really suck don’t they? When will they be replaced with people that have hearts?

3. Response to Ellen.

The big problem with Cambridge officials and the state officials with whom they are in bed is that the Cambridge pols do such effective lying about themselves.

Among other things, they loudly lie that they are pro environment and fool people into thinking they would never stoop so low.

The technique is to brag about things which have next to no value and frequently are really in the wrong direction while keeping the outrages as quiet as possible.

This is combined with massive organizations, especially supposed interest groups created in concert with the City Manager’s people. These supposed interest groups give a commonly false impression that they are independent of the city. The groups normally squelch meaningful activists as much as they can, and keep quiet the outrages while publicizing the city’s “beneficial” activities.

It is a house of cards. A lot of people involved in keeping a concerned public down.

The outrage on the Charles is one of the very major weaknesses.

The fact that the City Manager should be fired in response to the decision of judge and jury in the Monteiro case is another major weakness.

The numbers are highly distressing. The only member of the city council who, in my opinion, has possible redeeming attributes is Mr. Cheung. A very major factor in this is that he has not been around long enough to earn a negative feeling. His vote on the sign changes was definitely not encouraging.

Western Avenue neighbor on Western Avenue project

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Joseph Teller has responded to my report on the bizarre anti-bike construction coming on Western Avenue in Cambridge and stretching to the Charles. He, essentially, agrees on the portion of my comments restricted to Western Avenue. He adds some good information.

My comments are posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/cambridge-ma-attacks-bicyclists.html.

Joseph responds:

**********

We complained about these possible problems at the public meetings and they said that a solution would be worked out, but that there was no plans for sidewalk plows to be purchased (as is used in other cities) nor to have a contractor with such. They implied at the meetings that they assumed no one would be bicycling in the winter months, a clear lack of understanding on their part.

I gave up going to the meetings since the designer was ignoring any and all problems that didn't meet his vision. Public input was pretty much ignored regarding the bike paths and the parking spaces etc.

Add in plans to do heavy construction AT NIGHT on a residential street where people SLEEP AT NIGHT and its a special kind of hell they are building for those of us who live here.

Cambridge (MA) attacks bicyclists.

Bob La Trémouille reports.


Cambridge, MA is one of the two most important environmental destroyers on the Charles River.

Their tactics in environmental destruction key on flat out lies as to where the city council and the city is coming from.

The lies consist of bragging of things which have nothing to do with meaningful stuff, and not talking about the meaningful stuff.

One of the many attacks on the Charles River is for bicycle highways. They brag about being pro bicycle. The reality is that they are pro contractor welfare. If it makes money for contractors, it very frequently makes no difference how destructive it is.

Cambridge dropped the other shoe on bicyclists on Wednesday, November 3, with regard to bicycle “improvements” on Western Avenue, ending at the Charles and presumably linking to some of their favorite environmental destruction on the Charles.

They are putting in bike paths which will be useless for meaningful bicyclists. They brag they are enticing in a new generation of bicyclists, and if the real bicyclists do not like it, they can share a narrowed highway with cars.

The proposed “bike paths” would be a widening of the sidewalks on the right side of the road this one way street running from Central Square to the Charles. At each intersection, the “bike path” would move toward the main road, thus meandering all over Heck and FORCING people who want to get somewhere to get onto the NARROWED car lanes.

If the “bicyclists” want to make a left turn from the far right sidewalk, there will be TWO streets on the length of the bike path where they will be allowed to do so.

In winter these will be useless. Supposedly a CONTRACTOR will be PAID to keep it clean. Will that put snow on sidewalks for abutters to clean up? Very clearly, it will force meaningful bicyclists to stay on the NARROWED travel lanes because cars keep snow packed down and passable in winter to the benefit of the bikes. The sidewalks “bike paths” if only used by bikes will be impassable even if plowed because the bikes cannot keep the snow packed down.

Hey, they also brag of being pro Civil Rights, but have no problem keeping on with a City Manager who has been called “reprehensible” by judge and jury. Judge and jury found that he destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro, a black, Cape Verdean department head.

Judge and jury found that he did this in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The environmental destruction includes bizarre projects on the Charles which have no value except to the contractors PAID to do it, but which starve local animals and dump poisons on the banks of the Charles to feed sickly grass introduced in place of healthy stuff which survived for the better part of a Century. Then there is the bizarre wall of bushes which seem to have no value except to the Contractors who installed it and in starving the Charles River White Geese. By contrast all other vegetation is destroyed twice a year. The destroyed vegetation is meaningful, it protects migrating water fowl. And it is native. But it costs nothing. So it is destroyed twice a year, while the bizarre, destructive, introduced stuff grows and grows.

I could keep on going, but there is a lot of other stuff elsewhere on this blog.