I. Introduction.
II. A responsible transit alternative to West Station / Commuter Rail / MIT’s secret fight for the Inner Belt, both of which are environmentally destructive, and which have lost when presented responsibly.
III. Marked up Index.
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: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html.
Entities with bad records are involved, and they are proposing, once again, irresponsible and destructive transportation options which have lost in the past.
Friends of the White Geese have proposed a responsible option in place of the destructive stuff which we very effectively destroyed in comments on the Draft Environment Impact Report on the proposed Rebuilding of I90.
Those negative responses are presented in prior reports in this series (see section III for links). Here is our positive suggestion, copied from the next section of our comments submitted to the Massachusetts environmental people, MEPA, and submitted to the Cambridge, MA, City Manager and City Council.
II. A responsible transit alternative to West Station / Commuter Rail / MIT’s secret fight for the Inner Belt, both of which are environmentally destructive, and which have lost when presented responsibly.
3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.
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.
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.
We also submitted to the study committee the following alternative for a Green Line A spur running off the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge just west of the BU Bridge. This summary was presented to the study committee.
A fork for this spur can readily be installed on Green Line B just west of the BU Bridge.
The diagonal line in the bottom right of this photo is an expansion joint for the bridge portion above the Worcester - Framingham Commuter rail line. Its mate is the lighter colored line to the left of the yellow car.
The spur would go over the side of the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge to the right, between the two expansion joints, as shown below.
It would then be built on supports to the south of and above the Commuter Rail line, and to the south of I90 (which is under that portion of the bridge showing to the right of the expansion joint), until its platform reaches the level of I90.
Allowance for streetcars crossing the westbound travel lanes of Commonwealth Avenue should be included in light cycle of the Commonwealth Avenue / BU Bridge / I90 rotary street arrangement to the rear of the camera.
This location is rather clearly a reasonable part of the street arrangement.
The Green Line A spur would then be constructed between I90 and Boston University with a possible stop at BU West, and a major stop at the future Harvard Medical School in the current I90 off ramp area / former rail yards. There are two reasonable alignments after that.
[Double clicking should greatly enlarge the plan.]
The better alternative would transition Green Line A from elevated to underground / cut and cover under North Harvard Street with stops at Cambridge Street, Franklin Street, and Harvard B School / Stadium before going under the Charles River and connecting to Harvard Station through the still existing tunnel which runs under Brattle Street / Square and the pedestrian pathway between the JFK School and the Charles Hotel. Transition from above to below ground would occur in the main project area.
The other alternative would likely require a bridge over Cambridge Street. It would not be able to get underground until after Cambridge Street because of the need to go over I90. It would then transition to underground and proceed to North Harvard Street / Harvard Stadium under Harvard’s proposed Stadium Way. Preferably, it would turn and proceed under North Harvard Street as in the preferred alternative.
Other alternatives would have the Stadium Way route circle the Harvard Station area before crossing the river further west of the Anderson Bridge before connecting to the tunnel as with the earlier alternative. (2) Harvard Square.
Map A shows the three possible Green Line A terminals at Harvard Station.
Map A, Harvard Station AlternativesS1. Current Lobby.
S2. Lower Busway
S3. Under Brattle Square
[end of label]
Station S1 would provide direct access to the station lobby. It would require moving the elevator to the opposite side of the current T structure, and would allow a stop at the landing, to which the coffee shop would be moved.
The landing was designed for and used for ticket sales until introduction of the Charlie Card rendered the facility unnecessary. The coffee shop could expand the existing facility as needed. Other existing smaller uses could remain, creating a lively, handicapped accessible, area.
This alternative would require slight narrowing of the ramp to the lower busway, with the end of street car terminal separated by moving the left wall of the walkway to transfer that space to the terminal.
Station S2 would share the lower busway with bus traffic. This location could confuse fare management between bus and streetcar passengers.
Station S3 would require major reconstruction of Brattle Square with new entrances, one at Brattle Street, another at Mt. Auburn Street. It would connect to the station lobby by the lower busway, and require relocation of the Brattle Square elevator to the new Brattle Street entrance.
The route of Green Line A has several possibilities in Harvard Square. The preferred option is shown in Map A, traveling exactly in the existing tunnel from Harvard Station.
As shown in map B, the preferred route would continue in JFK park in a location where JFK Park has been designed to comply with cut and cover subway installation without harm to trees.
Map B1. Preferred Route, cut and cover transitioning to deep bore /
other for travel under Charles River.
2. Alternate Route, follows route 1 to JFK Park, then goes to
station at Memorial Drive. Three river crossing alternatives.
Destructive of trees in JFK Park.
[End of Label to Map B]
The proposal as shown in Maps B, C and D (next page), suggests several alternatives on the Cambridge side, along with possible river crossings. The Green Line A spur could include a stop at the Anderson Bridge / JFK Street and Memorial Drive.
[Label to Map C]
Map C3. Alternate. Cut & cover / deep bore /
other from Brattle Sq. by Eliot St. & JFK
St. to Mem. Drive Station with 3 river
crossing alternatives.
[End of label]
Map D.4 and 5. Alternative deep bore
construction under JFK School for
routes 1 S 3
[End of Label]
A sixth possible route has large possible variability. This would connect the alternate route west of Harvard Stadium. Because of its flexibility we have not attempted to designate alternative crossing routes for the alternative route around Harvard Stadium. There is considerable flexibility in location on both sides of Charles River.
Only one crossing is thus shown on the main map with the anticipation that alternatives would be studied as deemed necessary.
On the Cambridge Side, route 6 would connect to Route 1 at JFK Park end of the pathway between Eliot Square and JFK Park. JFK Park is not designed to allow subway construction in this direction without tree destruction. This crossing should not connect to a Memorial Drive Station.
We are not certain about the extent to which the Brattle Square entrances to Harvard Station interfere with the preexisting tunnel. If they do, the entrances would have to be moved, probably to the far side of the leg of Brattle Street further from Harvard Square proper. Park Street and other open air locations allow pedestrian crossing of tracks near streetcar stops, but that configuration is awkward to make handicapped accessible. If pedestrian track crossing were feasible, access from the JFK street side of Brattle Street would be viable. A major disadvantage would be the destruction of a nice park.
Station location S3 would require access relocation in any case.
(3) Summary.
Green Line A would provide possibly faster access for travel from Back Bay to Harvard Station and beyond, and thus decrease use of the Red Line between Harvard and Park and reduce transfer traffic at Park.
Back Bay commuters to Harvard Station and west could exchange one transfer, at Park Station, for transfer at Harvard Station. Back Bay commuters to and from Harvard Station would have direct connection from Back Bay. Harvard Station currently handles passengers with great efficiency. Harvard Station should readily handle the additional transfer traffic, especially with the Green Line A terminal in the lobby.
From a Boston point of view, there has been considerable concern from Allston residents about delay of West Station. The trouble with their concern is that they have been told that West Station will provide their rapid transit needs. That suggestion, to put it nicely, greatly misstates the value of Commuter Rail to Allston residents.
Commuter Rail simply cannot provide the rapid transit needs of Allston residents. Commuter Rail is not intended to provide transportation within terminal cities. To be direct, transportation within terminal cities is destructive to the real goal of Commuter Rail, getting commuters into terminal cities from distant locations.
Green Line A with the North Harvard Street route would be a greatly needed improvement for Allston residents, and, in addition to taking traffic off the Red Line for Cambridge’s benefit, would provide easy rapid transit to multiple Cambridge locations for Allston and Back Bay residents, increasing business for Cambridge business people. Harvard Square in particular would be accessible without transfer.
The plan we are proposing was originally provided to the study group three years ago. MassDOT picked up on the killing of the left turn at River Street Bridge, but did not pick up on Green Line A.
An additional advantage is that we understand that there are problems with financing. Adding Green Line A as part of the project expands possible financing sources.
Conduct of a hearing in front of the Cambridge City Council on television should properly further delay the response date for comments on the DEIR beyond February 8, 2018.
III. Marked up Index.
This will be a customary feature, to show where our reports may be found on the Internet which present our aubmittal 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: http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True, pages 96 to 125. The transmittal letter to the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council has been posted at the same URL, poages 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 http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river.html.
Summary of the situation in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html
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 http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_13.html.
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.
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.
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.
