Monday, December 08, 2014

Expansion of I90 (Mass. Pike) change thoughts to elaborate on Grand Junction Passenger Traffic, including heartless animal abuse

Following is my third submittal concerning the environmental reviews on the South Station Expansion Project and the I90 Allston Interchange project.

The two projects overlap because of their undisclosed environmental destruction in East Cambridge, using the Grand Junction in eastern Cambridge for passenger service without spelling it out in the documents.

First I wrote the I90 Allston (Mass. Pike) analysis.  Then I wrote the South Station analysis.

My I90 comments on the Grand Junction passenger traffic were brief.  The relevant South Station analysis was detailed.  This amendment to the I90 comments adds the relevant South Station Analysis without substantive change.

Prior posts are as follows:

I90 Comments;

South Station Analysis:

Following is the amendment bringing the I90 comments up to date with my thinking in the South Station analysis.  It is a direct copy and the copy links the changes.


December 8, 2014

Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Holly Johnson, EEA #15278
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA  02114

RE: EEA #15278
I90 Allston Interchange Project
Modification of submittal of November 22, 2014

Madame Secretary / Ms. Johnson:


I submitted comments on November 22, 2014 with regard to EEA #15278.

On December 2, 2014, I submitted comments with regard to the South Station Expansion Project, EEA No. 15028, Draft Environmental Impact Report.

There was considerable overlap between the two submittals.  The latter submittal constituted my greater analysis of the overlap area.  In particular, section 3.c, West Station should be amended by inserting almost all of sections 1, 4 and 5 of my December 2, 2014 concerning my comments on the South Station Expansion Project, EEA #15278.  The only portion of these sections NOT hereby added to my submission on the I90 Allston Interchange Project is the second paragraph of section 1 of the South Station Analysis.

I am submitting this modification to the I90 Allston Interchange Project, EEA #15278, to provide the benefits of my further thinking in this file as well.

Therefor, I hereby modify my November 22, 2014 submission on the I90 Allston Interchange Project by adding the following as a new section 5.

Section 5.  Expansion of analysis of section 3.c, West Station.

a. General [section 1 of South Station analysis, Synopsis, minus the second paragraph].

The plans for South Station Expansion are deficient because they do not allow any room for any expansion beyond South Coast rail.  There seems to be exactly zero room after that.  Alternatives are proposed by me which should be considered.

With the current plans, new commuter train service which should go to South Station will have NO CHOICE but to go over the Grand Junction with major environmental destruction in Cambridge, starting with commuter rail traffic generated by West Station.

Failure to include analysis this totally new passenger route which is forced by the inadequate planning at South Station constitutes segmentation, both for interference with traffic on major Cambridge arteries and for environmental harm and increase of existing heartless animal abuse on the banks of the Charles River.  Cambridge and the Department of Conservation are already practicing heartless animal abuse on the banks of the Charles River targeted at long term, valuable and popular resident animals.

Analysis should include the DCR’s policy in its “Charles River Master Plan” of killing off or driving away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.

b. It is segmentation if the analysis does not include passenger traffic in East Cambridge.  Highway Conflict. [section 4 of the South Station analysis].

Below is MassDOT’s map of the Grand Junction railroad in Cambridge taken from an MIT submittal.  I have added thick markings of intersection conflict with existing road traffic.

As stated in my I90 Allston analysis, where will West Station trains go?  Why guarantee an environmental nightmare in the eastern part of Cambridge for trains which sensibly should go to South Station?

And the reality is that, given the obvious forcing of use of East Cambridge for future expansion, it looks like failure to include impact of future expansion on East Cambridge would not only be segmentation, but would be dishonest.

There was great hostility to expanding commuter rail to East Cambridge the last time it was proposed.  MassDOT’s analysis indicated that Grand Junction commuter rail use would have no value except for Kendall Square.  There has been no communication of what looks like a certain proposal to put West Station commuter trains on the Grand Junction.  Such lack of communication is dishonest.

Especially since creating underground facilities at South Station are obvious alternatives now, and there is no mention that the South Station expansion project as proposed will prevent future expansion and mandate use of the Grand Junction for West Station and other future expansion.

c. It is segmentation if the analysis does not include passenger traffic in East Cambridge.  Increase of existing heartless animal abuse. [section 5 of the South Station] analysis.

In addition to the highway conflicts, there would be very real environmental conflicts and the ramping up of existing deliberate heartless animal abuse on the Charles River:

The portion of the banks of the Charles River abutting the Grand Junction on both sides of the Grand Junction  is animal habitat.  It includes animals of long term residence on the Charles River.  In spite of a decade of outrageous misbehavior by Cambridge, the DCR and their friends, many resident animals continue to exist.

Of particular importance is the valuable popular gaggle of the Charles River White Geese who have resided on the Charles River for 34 years and have established a strong community readily admired by all familiar with them.  The vibrancy of this free community is an ideal subject for scholastic study.

Their biggest problem of the Charles River White Geese is vile treatment and abuse by Cambridge and the DCR.  The Charles River White Geese are, once again without mentioning it, being heartlessly and deliberately starved by Cambridge and the DCR taking their long term food at the Magazine Beach playing fields from them.

Cambridge’s map of the area is attached.  This is yet another environmental attack on the animal habitat.  Cambridge is considering building in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese and placing a fence following the railroad tracks blocking access between the two animal habitat areas.

The area which is animal habitat is bounded by the BU Boathouse on the north and the BU Bridge on the south, and by the hashed line to the left and the Charles River to the right.

This outrage has been achieved through flat out lying.

a. The DCR manager has repeatedly promised “no harm” to the Charles River White Geese while deliberately starving them.

b. Their food at the Magazine Beach playing fields has been taken from them with bizarre introduced bushes walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River.  This outrage has been achieved through multiple lies and lies of omission.:

(1) Never mentioned is the goal in the sanctified Charles River Master Plan to kill of or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.  This vile goal in itself should be addressed in any environmental analysis.

(2) The key DCR manager has spent ten years or more lying of no intent to harm them.  This flat out lie was included in the Boston Globe article on the start of deliberate starvation by a quotation next to a photo of a massive earth mover next to a tiny confused resident.

(3) The promise at the Magazine beach playing fields was a lawn to the river.  So the DCR and Cambridge simply ignored the promise, and rewrote the supposedly sacrosanct Master Plan to comport to their lies of omission.

(4) The DCR has contempt for bordering vegetation.  They, twice a year, destroyed all bordering vegetation on the Charles River basin, and claim incompetence for the bizarre wall.

(5) As many other projects as is conceivable includes heartless attacks on the residential animals supposedly incidental to the other projects.

(6) The DCR repeatedly and loudly has proclaimed an intent to restrict the banks of the Charles River to river related activities.  The starvation wall makes the Magazine Beach playing fields totally separated from the Charles River.  They might as well be five miles inland.

(7) Multiple other projects are in the works attacking resident animals while keeping the attacks secret.

(8) Fake groups associated with the City of Cambridge function as company unions to achieve Cambridge and the DCR’s destruction by keeping concerned folk busy chasing their tails.  And, in reality, too many supposedly transportation groups / protective groups are similarly influenced.

(9) Cambridge commonly lies about supposed sainthood through loud initiatives which have no relation or minimal relation to their community which, in reality, serve no purpose other than to convince the voters that heartless animal abusers are the opposite.  Excellent examples of this hypocrisy is

(a) The repeated yelling at Circus owners for their abuse of animals while

(b) Keeping Cambridge deliberate starving of the Charles River White Geese and other heartless abuse (Alewife in particular) as secret as they can get away with, and

( c ) Flat out lies that a government which is heavily involved in Charles River destruction and international relations has no business concerning itself with Charles River destruction.

The situation on the Charles River is an outrage.  Sneaking through more destruction through secret aspects to the South Station Expansion and the I90 Allston Interchange project fits a reprehensible pattern.

MassDOT has rejected more obvious attacks on the Charles River by rejecting proposals for highway construction over the Grand Junction bridge.

MassDOT is a responsible agency.  The same cannot be said for Cambridge, the DCR and their friends.  These dishonest entities should not be rewarded with destruction unavoidable after their maneuvering, but very real if you realize what is really involved in the South Station Expansion and I90 Allston Interchange project.


Robert J. La Trémouille