Sunday, February 25, 2018

Charles River I90 Proposal: MIT’s new Inner Belt fought for in THREE proposals. DEIR Report 6

Charles River I90 Proposal:   MIT’s new Inner Belt fought for in THREE proposals.  DEIR Report 6.

I. Introduction.
II. The Real Game:   A private exit from I 90 to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
* * * *
4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.
* * * *
6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.
* * * *
III. Marked up Index.
IV. Apology.

I. Introduction.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA for 37 years.  Most of that time, they lived and fed at the playing fields of the Magazine Beach recreation area.  Their habitat was a mile long stretch on the north / Cambridge side of the river centered on the BU Bridge

The Charles River White Geese were loved and admired.  People came from the suburbs to quietly commune with them.  In more recent years, they have been on the receiving end of heartless animal abuse from the City and Regional Governments.

The current issue is that, while they have been on the North Side for 37 years, Interstate Route 90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) has been on the south side for 50 years.  The state has decided I90 needs very major improvements.  Harvard University has decided it wants to move its Medical School to the largest part of the I90 turf on the Boston side.  Harvard owns a former railroad yard and I90 along with its exit ramps, subject to transportation uses.

A more detailed summary of the situation on the ground in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:

The engineers planning the rebuild of I90 (Mass. Pike) have to submit a Draft Environmental Impact Report to state regulators to satisfy statutory environmental requirements.

We have submitted a detailed response and are in the process of presenting that report on line.

Section III below presents the index to our DEIR comments and shows where we have published those comments on this blog.

In this report, we are presenting two non-consecutive sections because the content so overlap.

The game is presented in this photo presented by the state quite awhile ago.  We have added the captions and, of course, the Charles River White Geese are in the middle of the mess.

The area where the Charles River White Geese have spent most of their residence on the Charles River since 1981 is the Magazine Beach playing fields, marked Magazine Beach in this state satellite photo.

The vile state organization, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, which manages parkland along the Charles River has a goal for that parkland.  They want to kill off or drive away all resident animals.  Through a series of outrages, what was a mile long habitat has been reduced to the Goose Meadow, which is on the upper / north side of the Charles River between the BU Bridge and the Grand Junction rail bridge, which crosses the Charles River under the BU Bridge.  These areas are at the right of the map.

In the 60's / early 70's, plans to run an Interstate highway, the Inner Belt, north and south about a block east / right of the Grand Junction railroad were defeated by meaningful activists in the City of Cambridge, after a major PUBLIC battle.

Since Cambridge residents are still active, are still concerned, and still have pride in this victory, essentially the same goal is now being fought as secretly as possible.  In the 60's / early 70's, they called it a super highway.  Now they are calling it a bike path, or fancier words.

In 2003, the regional transportation authority, the MBTA, demonstrated that an updated Inner Belt could be built on top of the Grand Junction railroad connecting to Cambridge destinations, most particularly to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I90, the Mass. Pike, goes under the intersection of the BU Bridge and
Commonwealth Avenue in the lower right of this map.  The Grand Junction crosses under the BU Bridge, coming from the top right, and proceeds under I90, the Mass. Pike, and follows it to the upper left in the “throat area” of I90.

The MBTA showed that a ramp could be built from I90 going eastbound to the Grand Junction rail bridge.  Talking approximately, the ramp could separate from I90 at about the point where the word “Pike” appears in the photo.  The off ramp could travel over I90 and connect to the Grand Junction bridge.  Traffic to go westbound on I90 could readily be connected from the Grand Junction Bridge to I90 westbound.

Here are photos of the Grand Junction bridge[, first,] in the Boston, lower portion and[, secondly,] the
Cambridge, upper, portion.

In the first photo, if you look straight ahead, you can see a green sign.  That is above I90.  The gray line to its left is I90.

In the second, winter, photo can see the Goose Meadow, to which the Charles River White Geese have now been confined without food, on the left.  On the right is the Wild Area.  Free animals are visible on both sides, although heartless behavior by Cambridge, the DCR and their friends have been reprehensible.

DCR destruction plans which were mostly implemented in January 2016, show exactly one undestroyed tree in the Wild Area.  The MBTA plans showed an off ramp there to Memorial Drive heading east.

The MBTA plans called for the one railroad track which shows in the right side of the bridge in the latter photo to be moved to the left side of the bridge, which has been unused for decades.  In the former photo, the unused track area is to the right.

The MBTA plans called for a third lane to be cantilevered to the right (east) of the bridge, in the latter photo, and the left in the former photo. .  The cantilevered lane would handle northbound traffic from I90.  The current railroad track would be replaced with southbound traffic heading to I90 westbound..

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation proposal for rebuilding I90 do not call for any changes to the Grand Junction bridge.  MassDOT is very insistent that MassDOT is rebuilding I90 and not playing games over the Charles River.

Two “independent” proposals for the I90 rebuild call for a replacement of the Grand Junction Bridge WITH THREE TRAVEL LANES.  They claim one lane would be a bike path.  How long would that “bike path” remain?   And, of course, a whole bunch of the “right kind of people” are fighting for the supposed bike lane.

The people in Cambridge who achieved the destruction of hundreds of trees east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, are fighting for the destruction of another 56 west of the BU Bridge, and are dumping poisons into the Charles River.  These “right kind of people” have spent what appears to be years pitching for this private highway for MIT.

One of their most powerful tools in their fight is company union tactics.  In the manner of so many “protective groups” which have been associated with the three prior Cambridge City Managers, they very clearly sound great, and very often achieve the opposite of their lovely words.  EXACTLY COMPANY UNION.

One major tactic is censorship of any and all responsible alternatives to the destructive stuff they have fought for.  They certainly have sounded sweet about the destructive stuff, and the saints proposing the destruction.

Again, the principal purpose of Company Unions are to fill a void and prevent responsible entities from acting in that void.  They make themselves, supposedly the entity protecting a cause, and PREVENT protection of a cause by stifling meaningful protectors.  If company unions can get away with it, they openly fight for their terrible causes.

The City of Cambridge development department / city council, in its comments on MassDOT’s DEIR concerning the I90 rebuild has rejected the two alternate proposals for the I90 rebuild, which have other problems.  The Cabriidge City Council / Development Department  just ask that the Grand Junction railroad bridge be replaced with, of course, the widening to three lanes, including the HIGHLY TEMPORARY “bike” path.

Reality in Cambridge is so hostile to a north-south highway that lies are normal.

Much more detail in Section II of this report, bringing together two sections of our DEIR analysis, sections 4B and 6.

II. The Real Game:   A private exit from I 90 to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.
6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.

4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.

B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.

Both non MassDOT proposals would rebuild the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge with no meaningful communication to Cambridge residents of the destruction, and no meaningful study of the impact of the destruction.

Here are photos of the Grand Junction bridge from above.

One of the proposals has shown construction in the Wild Area on the banks of the Charles River east of the Grand Junction.  That massively treed area is to the right in this photo.

That part of the proposal is less vocal in more recent times.  Lack of vocality on such matters affecting Cambridge is commonly a matter of going under the RADAR to hide things from the voters.

Staging would probably create more destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, the ghetto to which they have been confined after multiple outrages.  This ghetto is the remnants of a habitat of these beloved, free creatures which stretched about a mile centered on the BU Bridge for most of the period since 1981.

[Ed.  I cannot find the photo submitted at this point in my computer.  Am substituting this comparable photo from same period.]

This photo was taken in the same shoot as the above.  Notice the Grand Junction railroad at the top of the hill, above thick, threatened trees.

Once again, this destruction is related to the failure of MassDOT to provide meaningful communication to the vast majority of Cambridge residents as the result of CDD manipulating in support of Cambridge plans which dated back to 1997.

These proposals rather clearly look like techniques furthering M.I.T.’s updated Inner Belt.  The impacts are reviewed in section 6.

DEIR Chapter 5, page 22, land analysis, omits impact on Cambridge side of the Charles by rebuilding of the Grand Junction railroad bridge in the two non MassDOT throat options.

* * * * *

6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.

Following is a state aerial / satellite photo of the key area.

In 2003, the MBTA in a badly justified study, proved that an off ramp can be built from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge over the Grand Junction Bridge across the Charles, under the BU Bridge.

In the upper left of the picture is the Mass. Pike (I90).  The upper portion is the inbound / Eastbound side.  Just below it is the outbound / Westbound side.

The MBTA study ran a ramp from the eastbound side over I90 to the Grand Junction Bridge.  A ramp from the Grand Junction Bridge to the outbound side is simple.

The MBTA study called for adding a lane to the Grand Junction Bridge to its left / east, by cantilever construction.  The right / west of the two track beds would be returned to rail use.  The left / east of the existing track beds would be used for southbound traffic.  The cantilevered / added far left lane would be used for northbound traffic.

Connection to Memorial Drive would be accomplished by a ramp through the Wild Area to Memorial Drive east, and a ramp through the area where Waverly Street has been built would connect to Memorial Drive east and west through the BU Bridge rotary.

Following is a photo of the end of the Grand Junction Bridge in Boston, taken from the BU Bridge.  The green sign straight ahead is above the Mass. Pike (I90).

The area to the right bottom shows the unused western train channel.  The wall which is on the right hand side is more clearly shown in the above photo to the right as well.

This right half of the bridge would return to use for rail operations.  The left half of the bridge would be used for westbound traffic, and the added, cantilevered, lane would be used for eastbound traffic.

The exit ramp would follow the Grand Junction up its right of way as far as builders want.

The vaguely white area straight ahead in the photo shows on the overhead photo as somewhat of a parking area.

Construction plans for the “Waverly Connector”, now Waverly Street, (see MIT plan below) included a fairly extensive tree planting plan which has not been implemented.  We commented to a developer type that the proposed locations for trees EXACTLY left room for ramps from MIT’s updated Inner Belt to the Waverly Connector.

Somehow the trees did not get installed YET.

This MIT plan brings the area between the Charles River and MIT turf into more clarity.  MIT turf is above and to the right.

A whole bunch of destructive projects fit the plan perfectly.  Others could be just contractor make work with no relation other than part of overall pig slop from a feeding trough.

The Grand Junction is diagonal, beginning between the Goose Meadow and the Wild Area and extending at the upper right to MIT territory.

The “Proposed Grand Junction Path” by no coincidence widens the right of way and would fit the widened Grand Junction Bridge.  It is the stalking horse for MIT’s updated Inner Belt.  With stereotypic lack of candor (to be nice), MIT recently “agreed” to build the portion roughly between Memorial Drive and Waverly Street.

The connector from the bike path to Vassar Street on the Ft. Washington Crossing at the upper right in the above MIT plan is a proposed end of the bikeway.  The bikeway would travel to the west on Vassar Street and turn on Amesbury Street (#1 on the MIT Plan) and connect to Memorial Drive.

Friends of the White Geese propose connecting to the bend of Vassar Street (in the MIT plan) by a minor taking, then to Memorial Drive.

Here is a photo of the area we propose for the taking.

The path marked #4 in the MIT plan, in the middle of the Goose Meadow, was sneaked into the infamous Davis letter which gave the apparently deliberately false impression that it concerned the right turn onto the River Street Bridge.

The stalking horse for the updated Inner Belt is a bikeway.  MIT uses the con game name for it.

Here is the 2006 plan from the Cambridge Development Department package showing construction in the Wild Area.

From the same package, here is a blow up of the portion of the supposed bike highway to destroy the Nesting Area. 
[ed:  paragraph split because of this format, photo in report is a blowup of the bottom right corner of this, original photo]

On the next page [ed: below] is the real photo of the short leg aimed at Memorial Drive, the lower of the two parallel lines in this plan  [ed: the j in the bottom right].  The upper line of the two parallel lines is the main supposed bike highway.  The plan, as spelled out above, calls for a fence in the middle of the supposed public improvement.  The fence shows in the plan above.  It would prevent movement by resident animals between the Goose Meadow, bottom, and the Wild Area, top.

Note all the trees showing in the above plan to the right.  As is common, tree destruction is not documented.
Just more heartless animal abuse.

This stairwell was illegally constructed here by Boston University for the DCR in November 1999.  BU denied doing it until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission for it about six months later.  BU then blamed six months of lies on the Secretary of their President.  BU did not announce any sanctions on the secretary for six months of lies.

Below is that portion of the destruction plans of the DCR / Cambridge January 2016 Charles River outrage which are applicable to this area.  It shows exactly one tree NOT DESTROYED in the Wild Area, and no other trees remaining in the Wild Area.

At the top is Memorial Drive, the diagonal lines are the Grand Junction.  To the left is the Goose Meadow.  To the right is the Wild Area.  The tree that would NOT BE DESTROYED is identified by the circle with the number 535 in it.

And here are currently accurate photos of the Charles River frontage of the Goose Meadow and of the Wild Area.  They were taken from the BU Bridge before the 2016 destruction.  Note the above plan which shows exactly one not destroyed tree in the Wild Area.

The tiny figures are flotillas of the Charles River White Geese, hunting for food.  The Grand Junction Bridge shows in both photos.  That should be the BU Bridge to the bottom left of the left photo.  The proposed cantilevered construction would be done to the right of the Grand Junction bridge, in the right photo.

III. Marked up Index.

This is a customary feature, to show where our reports may be found on the Internet which present our submittal of comments concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the I90 rebuild project in Allston, Massachusetts, including its impact on the Charles River, its environment, and its animals.

The total letter to the environmental reviewers has been posted by the City of Cambridge in its official records on line at:, pages 96 to 125.  The associated transmittal letter to the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council has been posted at the same URL, pages 94 and 95.

Here is a break out of the Index to the submittal showing where portions have been printed.

1. Introduction.
A. Maneuvering with maximum secrecy by forces in Cambridge who cannot win in broad daylight.
B. The Issues.
2. Properly planned, the project can reduce traffic on Memorial Drive and elsewhere.

END OF REPORT 1, posted at

Summary of the situation in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:

This summary could be of value if you are only checking the official filing, which has been posted by the Cambridge City Clerk.

3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.
A. West Station should be trashed along with the publicly defeated Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction concept.
(1) Introductory.
(2) Trash it on railroad management grounds.
(a) Stations too close together.
(b) Projections for both adjacent stations are so low that delaying long distance commuters makes no sense.
(3) Trash West Station on grounds that it has been sold to well meaning people on an unsound basis.
(4) Statement that the project “does not preclude implementation of rapid transit services” is not true.
(5) Commuter Rail Shuttles from Longwood are Nonsense.
(6) Trash West Station on the grounds that the interests in Cambridge fighting for it are attempting to achieve, basically in secret, a goal they have been PROPERLY denied when their project was presented in light of day.
(a) General.
(b) This Outrageous Goal:  Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.
(i) No value to anybody but Kendall ‒ MassDOT Finding, when they were allowed responsible community input.
(ii) Environmentally destructive because it would block 7 major intersections, create major inconvenience to drivers, and create pollution from vehicle exhaust, waiting for commuter train passage.
(iii) Environmentally destructive because it would devastate the last visible animal habitat on this portion of the Charles River.

Section 3A presented in REPORT 3, at

B. Far superior and far more responsible than Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction would be a new Green Line A Spur running from Commonwealth Avenue and the B.U. Bridge to the main work site in Allston to Harvard Square, which should be enthusiastically supported..
(1) General.
(2) Harvard Square.
(3) Summary.

Section 3B presented in REPORT 4, at

4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
A. Architects’ (ABC) Proposal ‒ Outrageous Destruction of Boston River Bank.

Section 4A presented in REPORT 5, at

B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.
5. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.
A. Direct Application.
B. A terrible record being made worse.
6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.

IV. Apology.

I have been filing these segments on alternate days.  This report should have gone out days ago.  My laptop died and that took way to long to get the replacement.  Once I got on the report, it was such a nightmare, combining the complexity of my photos files with the nightmare of horrible sensitivity in the new Windows 10 computer.  I find the computer is responding to orders I never intended to give.  Part of my problem could very easily be that I have moved important photos to places I never intended to put them.  Fun, Fun, Fun.

This report HAS to get out.  It is out, perhaps with a subsequent correction.  I am distressed at the deficiencies, for which I STRONGLY apologize.