Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Charles River: Debunking Attack by Cambridge Mayor on Live Cable Television

Charles River:  Debunking Attack by Cambridge Mayor on Live Cable Television

1. Introduction.
2. Two key documents.
3. Objections to specificity concerning City Council vote.
4. Nonsense concerning the destructive Bike Highway.
5. Destructive plans and doomed excellent woods.
6. Summary.

1. Introduction.

Monday evening, November 19, 2018, I was attacked on live cable from the chair of the Cambridge City Council by the City Council’s elected head, bearing the title of Mayor.

Following that attack, I attempted to send three communications to the City Council through the City Clerk, anticipating that they would be on the City Council Agenda of November 26, 2018.  I understand that, because of special rules for Thanksgiving week communications, and apparent confusion, the communications will be on the City Council agenda for December 3, 2018 instead.

The following replaces and expands on the two email communications, sent during and shortly after the meeting of November 19.  The third communication was in hard copy.  It quoted and expanded on my recent blog posting concerning the ongoing poisoning of the Charles River.

2. Two key documents.

Two key OUTRAGEOUS positions of Mayor McGovern deserve particular attention.  As usual, double clicking greatly increases the size of the reproductions.

McGovern was objecting to the following flier.

Reproduction in this media is less than perfect.  Please email me at boblat@yahoo.com for a PDF copy should you wish an excellent copy.

And here is the official record of McGovern’s motion to which it refers.  It was passed unanimously including supporting votes by six city councilors who have carried over to the current nine member City Council. Page 1 follows and then page 2.

The official record of the motion is at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1782&Inline=True, pages 308 and 309.  The official record of the vote is at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=1690&Inline=True, page 28.

The reproduction is better there.

3. Objections to specificity concerning City Council vote.

McGovern states that Order 1 of April 24, 2018, did not specify the destruction of 56 trees.

No.  It mentioned “dead or dying” trees, GIVING THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS BEING DESTROYED, and GAVE THE Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) A BLANK CHECK to destroy whatever it wishes.  Now, since the city council is irresponsible enough to give blank checks, the mayor is denying the obvious results of the blank check.

RESPONDING TO THE BLANK CHECK, by my letter of June 6, 2017, re-sent this year, I gave the city council a 51 page, 100+ graphic analysis matching up the DCR’s two destruction plans to photos of pretty much all of the trees at Magazine Beach, and proving that the BLANK CHECK authorized the destruction of 54 trees, MOSTLY EXCELLENT TREES.

Using the blank check, the DCR destroyed two more trees than they promised to.  I documented the increase from 54 to 56.

Now with that 51 page DETAILED analysis, McGovern is irresponsible enough to say that the city council’s BLANK CHECK DID NOT LIMIT DESTRUCTION TO 56 TREES.  No it didn’t.  The City Council was too irresponsible to place a limit on its blank check.

Now McGovern claims that since the city council gave an unlimited authorization, AND THE CITY COUNCIL, IN GREAT DETAIL TWICE had the parameters of that UNLIMITED AUTHORIZATION explained to the City Council, the City Council is not responsible for what the DCR is doing with the City Council’s blank check.


The detailed analysis which was presented twice to the City Council is posted at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html.

The additional report when two extra trees, lovingly cared for by the MicroCenter shopping center, were destroyed, is in city records at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1825&Inline=True, pages 151 to 157.

I was going to post here a photo of this irresponsible destruction, but there are 54 other trees being destroyed with the blessing and financial support of the Cambridge City Council for the project.

4. Nonsense concerning the destructive Bike Highway.

Secondly, Mayor McGovern made the blanket statement that the “multi-use” path is not destroying trees.  That   BLANKET STATEMENT is an admission of incompetence so great as to publicly state lack of fitness for office.

The “multi-use path” was the excuse for the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.  Almost all of those destroyed trees, if not all of which, were not "necessary" to be destroyed for the “multi-use path,” assuming there is ANY RESPONSIBLE EXCUSE FOR THIS PROJECT.

Notwithstanding this, the excuse for destruction claimed by the DCR THIS TIME is irrelevant.  It is plain and simple that the DCR is destructive.  Period.  Their destruction and the Cambridge City Council’s on Magazine Beach is explained by maximum secrecy.  Neither entity has any meaningful excuse for the continuing outrage.  The latest excuse by the Cambridge City Council, that the lead destroyer is their “kind of activist” shows just how extremely low the two entities can sink in their explanation for the unexplainable.

This latest nonsense amounts to, “How dare you say we are destroying 56 mostly excellent trees.  We gave a blank check.  It could easily be more.  The number has already increased since we gave the blank check.”

The outrageous nonsense spouted by McGovern is totally debunked by looking at Memorial Drive, should Mr. McGovern deign to look at what he is talking about, and should he somehow be familiar with what was there before destruction.  Fortunately, it is not necessary to look at Memorial Drive to realize the nonsense of this statement.

The DCR is now planning phase III of destruction on the Charles River.  That would follow up on the hundreds of excellent trees destroyed in January 2016, and rather clearly destroy the trees in that part of its plans for destruction which it did not destroy in January 2016.  Phase II is the current attack on 56 mostly excellent trees on Magazine Beach by the DCR and the Cambridge City Council.

I have documented that outrage in my video presenting the Final Cut of my analysis of the destruction of Memorial Drive in January 2016 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  This analysis INCLUDES in detail the destruction which is the obvious target of phase III, the essentially total destruction of the Wild Area between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse.

Plus the Goose Meadow, located between the Grand Junction and the BU Bridge would, at minimum, be further devastated by this outrage.  It is the ghetto to which the 38 year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese have been confined by multiple instances of habitat destruction.  It is clearly designated to be doomed based on a moderately knowledgeable  review of the plans.

The first two of the preceding references are included in our highly true flier publicizing the outrageous behavior of this Cambridge City Council at Magazine Beach.  The increase from 54 to 56 AUTHORIZED BY THE BLANK CHECK is a too narrow a point to include in a flier which is limited in space.

An additional analysis of this continuing outrage by an international expert, “Nature and Beauty Ripped out on the Charles River, “ may be viewed on video at https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA.

5. Destructive plans and doomed excellent woods.

Here are the DCR plans from their package presenting the January 2016 outrage.

And here is the thick woods seen from the BU Bridge.  The white figures in the water are part of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese.  The Goose Meadow is to the left.

"Somehow" the Cambridge Mayor would appear to be uninterested in this thick woods.

6. Summary.

Mayor McGovern’s false comments directed at me in the November 19, 2018, meeting are so totally divergent from reality and so nasty that I most definitely deserve an apology from the Cambridge City Council.

Above in section 2 are a true copy of the flier in question and of the city council’s blank check, order 1 of April 24, 2017.

Above in section 5 is a copy of the DCR “plan” for destruction of the thick woods between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse showing EXACTLY ONE TREE NOT DESTROYED, plus, once again, my photo of the thick woods the plans lie do not exist.

The fake DCR plans for the thick woods show the thick woods to the right of the Grand Junction railroad, which runs diagonally bottom to top between the Goose Meadow on the left and the Wild Area to the right.

As detailed greatly in my video and in the below photo, there are a lot more trees than the ONE TREE falsely showing in the DCR “plan.”  Why the falsehood?  Just more dishonesty.  Dishonesty works.

The mayor flat out lied about me because I have broadly publicized the above motion initiated by the mayor and passed by the City Council.  He called me a liar.

How dare I publicize the obvious authorizations of the city council’s blank check, while including in the publicity a link to my very clear debunking of the false “dead or dying” statement included in the city council’s blank check, and to my very detailed video placing all in context, including my analysis of willful destruction rather clearly intended for Phase III.

My debunking of the blank check has been provided twice to the city council in large, 51 pages, 100+ graphics, detail.  Wantonly ignoring that massive, detailed debunking of the “dead or dead” nonsense can only be described as willful.

My debunking is very clear, and is willfully ignored.

I expect a formal and prompt apology from the City Council, and achievement of the following objectives.

The City Council should be:

(1) Reversing and rescinding its vote in Order 1 of April 24, 2017 supporting and seeking funds for this outrage;

(2) Through the legislature, replacing the Massachusetts. Department of Conservation and Recreation in all of its responsibilities in Cambridge with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation; and

(3) Repairing, insofar as possible, all damage inflicted on the Charles, including its banks extending to and on and appurtenant to the roadways on its banks, damage by the City of Cambridge, the DCR, its predecessor, and or / by agents / assistants of one or more, directly or indirectly, since November 1, 1999, and terminating all pending such destruction.

Friday, November 16, 2018

Charles River: Phragmites, the Cambridge City Council’s “Kind of Activist” and an accelerating outrage.

Charles River:  Phragmites, the Cambridge City Council’s “Kind of Activist” and an accelerating outrage.

1. Introduction.
2. Phil’s analysis of Phragmites.
3. Some of the 56 trees being destroyed apparently imminently by the Cambridge City Council, the DCR and the City Council’s “Kind of activist”.
4. Heartless Animal Abuse, of course.

1. Introduction.

The Cambridge City Council wants to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach.

The only remaining explanation I am aware of is the position taken by Councilor Devereux with public support by Mayor McGovern, and silence from the rest of the tree destroyers.

The Cambridge City Council’s “kind of activist” has fought for the coming destruction for 8 years, according to her, although she keeps secret the 56 excellent trees she is fighting to destroy.

What she has bragged about is fighting, shudder, Phragmites.

Her technique is to go to a major poison drainage ditch which was created by Cambridge and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation during the outrages of the 2000's.

She has noticed, shudder, that Phragmites is growing there WITHOUT ANY CONTRACTOR BEING PAID TO PUT IT IN.

So she has pulled out a bunch of its surround the poison drainage ditch and put in plastic sheets to “prevent” regrowth.  The real impact of her magnificence is to reroute poisons which should be drained off the Poison Drainage SOMEWHERE.  The only somewhere available is the Charles River and its banks.  After all, that was why Cambridge and the DCR put the poison drainage ditches in.

Over the months, she has been pouring poisons into the Charles River, the phragmites has regrown through the plastic coverings.  However, it would appear that she has succeeded in dumping a lot of poisons into the Charles.

Where are the poisons coming from?  Well, until the outrages of the 2000's, Magazine Beach was clean, no poison, just a responsible riverbank.

Here is a photo of her blocking the poison drainage ditch and of neighboring city Somerville’s reaction to Phragmites.  This is a photo of the beautiful display of Alewife.  Alewife is an area where Cambridge and the DCR have destroyed 3.4 acres of the Silver Maple Forest, with another friend of the Cambridge Development Department telling people to look at everything but what Cambridge, the DCR and she are destroying there.

The blocked Phragmites:.

A responsible community, Cambridge's neighbor to the north, Somerville, proudly displaying this unpaid vegetation, Phil’s photo:

And here is a more recent view of the blocked poison drainage ditch, from Phil.

2. Phil’s analysis of Phragmites.

An attempt to eradicate the common reeds growing on Magazine Beach (Phragmites Australis) is currently underway, using a 2016 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We believe this effort is ill-advised and causing substantial negative impacts to the Magazine Beach ecosystem.

The argument that these reeds constitute a dangerous “invasive” species appears to be based on a 1995 study by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs entitled Phragmites: Controlling the All-Too-Common Common Reed, Wetlands Restoration & Banking Program. But this research is nearly a quarter of a century old and is now badly outdated.

It is true that Phragmites pose a problem in naturally occurring, established wetlands, where it is documented that they out-compete existing species. But Magazine Beach is man made landfill (the original shoreline is roughly where Granite Street is today) and the bioswale at Magazine Beach where they grow was not created until 2009. It’s worthy of consideration that our park is not located in the pristine wild but in the heart of a most unnatural environment, a densely populated human city. These Phragmites self-seeded from a long established patch further upriver around 2012 and prospered, as they are perfectly adaptable to the stressful urban environment as well as to the changing climate.

Newer studies have revealed the following regarding these reeds

 Phragmites is native to North America. Therefore there is no specific introduction site or date. There are currently studies being done on the possibility that in the early 20th century a more genetically aggressive strain came in from abroad, or that it may have been the result of a natural mutation in the native reed population.

 Studies document that reeds annually evaporate about 1000 liters of water per meter of growth area. At full growth the roughly one acre patch of Phragmites therefore removed approximately seventy-five tons of excess water per week from Magazine Beach. Since the Phragmites removal began, the adjacent playing fields have been nearly continuously waterlogged, a condition never observed before to this extent. The flooding of the lower bioswale in areas denuded of reeds is also unprecedented. It has created an ideal breeding lagoon for mosquitoes, which today may carry deadly West Nile Virus or encephalitis, and fosters the growth of dangerous algae.

 Phragmites absorbs up to four times more nitrogen than other reed species. Nitrogen is the chief pollutant found in fertilizers used on Magazine Beach. This past summer’s unusually extensive bloom of water plants and algae in the adjacent Charles River, with its detrimental effects on fish and waterfowl, appears to be another unforeseen consequence of the Phragmites removal.

 Phragmites absorbs three times more carbon than “native” plants in a high-nitrogen environment. Reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide is vital to halting global warming and sea level rise which threatens to inundate Magazine Beach altogether before the end of this century.

 Phragmites is today purposely planted in artificial wetlands at water treatment facilities, because of the species’ ability to extract heavy metals from the water and isolate them from the environment in its stalks. This ability may be of significant benefit for Magazine Beach, given what undocumented industrial toxins might be contained in its century-old landfill.

For further information, Google “benefits of Phragmites” or see:

If you are concerned about the problems caused by this ill-advised reeds removal initiative, please add your voice to those now asking for a moratorium on the destruction of the reeds at Magazine Beach and an updated environmental impact study.

Contact the Cambridge City Council: email citycouncil@cambridgema.gov

city clerk dlopez@cambridgema.gov

individual councellors dcarlone@cambridgema.gov,jdevereux@cambridgema.gov,ckelley@cambridgema.gov,amallon@cambridgema.gov,mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov,ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov,dsimmons@cambridgema.gov,ttoomey@cambridgema.gov,qzondervan@cambridgema.gov

Contact the Mass. Department of Conservation & Recreation. email https://www.mass.gov/orgs/department-of-conservation-recreation

3. Some of the 56 trees being destroyed apparently imminently by the Cambridge City Council, the DCR and the City Council’s “Kind of activist”.

This magnificent (six story high?) willow is doomed.  It dominates the Charles River boundary on the western end of the magnificent beach playing fields.

The story on this magnificent grove changes with the sort of lack of candor that Cambridge and the DCR are notable for.  It is slightly north of the will and, likewise, dominates the playing fields.  Two dead trees in the ten story grove have been correctly removed so far.  How much more will be destroyed varies with the sales pitch.  Total destruction may have been part of the words being bragged.  It is very hard to keep the repeatedly changing story straight.

This entire, magnificent seven tree grove is currently at pretty close to the western end of the destruction area, across from the parking lot of the MicroCenter shopping center and to the west of the Magazine Beach swimming pool.  It is totally doomed.

This park is between the two previous areas and really includes the first two photos.  Approximately 30 trees in this magnificent park are doomed.

4. Heartless Animal Abuse, of course.

The 37 year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese are the most valuable asset the Magazine Beach area has.  So, of course, heartless abuse of them is a factor of pretty much anything done around them.  So the abuse is being inflicted even worse.  Many less visible resident animals are on the receiving end of the ongoing and increasing abuse, but, because of their lack of visibility suffer without public knowledge.

Wild turkeys are commonly seen walking the streets of the densely populated City of Cambridge, MA, USA..

The Cambridge City Council’s “kind of activist” on heartless animal abuse, plaque from her propaganda show that she put on in Cambridge City Hall Annex.

Friday, November 09, 2018

Charles River: Improving the I90 rebuild proposal and protecting the environment once again.

Charles River: Improving the I90 rebuild proposal and protecting the environment once again.

The Secretary and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation has asked for comments on a report from an advisory committee she has appointed on improvements to her staff’s proposal for the the narrow portion of the rebuild of I90 across from Magazine Beach.

As is usual, the destruction lobby in Cambridge is pushing for changes which would damage the Cambridge environment including but not limited to the Charles River White Geese.  As is normal, our transit proposal is far more effective and responsible than the outrage attempted to be sneaked in by the bad guys.  They cannot win if they behave honestly.  So they do not behave honestly.  Business as usual in Cambridge, MA, USA.

Here is our letter of comment with copy to the Cambridge City Council and the Cambridge City Manager.

November 7, 2018

Stephanie Pollack
Secretary and Chief Executive Officer
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, MA   02116

RE: IRT, I90 Allston Rebuild

Madame Secretary:

1. Introduction.
2. Any and all construction north of the southern bank of the Charles River should be rejected.
3. That portion of the study team’s modification of the Highway Viaduct alternative which supports the viaduct on cantilever in both directions is commendable.  This is both because of open space improvements and because it adds another meaningful option for public transportation which is wanted, needed, AND PROMISED.

1. Introduction.

I am writing individually and as chair of Friends of the White Geese because the terrible things attempted to be sneaked into the I90 project greatly affect the animals, water and vegetation of the Charles River, and there are lot of people lying about which side they are on, and trying to do those terrible things through the guise of working on the I90 Allston rebuild.

In support of my activities I am enclosing a partial activist résumé.  The destructive people trying to use the I90 rebuild have the absolute horror that the voters might be aware that there are responsible people standing up to their destructive outrages.  My enclosing my partial activist résumé does a lot of debunking of that nonsense.  Of additional interest in this forum is the fact that I proposed the Kenmore Crossing on the Urban Ring rapid transit proposal five years before the MBTA made it part of the package.  The Cambridge City Manager brought up Urban Ring subway considerations in his comments on the South Station Expansion project, although, last I heard, the Cambridge Development Department had denied the existence of the Kenmore Crossing for a minimum of 21 years.

I attend as many meetings of the advisory committee on the I90 rebuild as I am able to, both resulting from my own needs and the consistent failure of the administrators to give me notice of meetings.

There are basically two groupings in Cambridge.  The voters want one thing.  The people who control the political establishment want strikingly different things.

The pols live in two worlds.  They need to get reelected.  The voters would not elect them if the voters were aware of what the pols are doing.  The pols have a distressing requirement under law to keep the voters informed of what they are doing.  So there is a conflicting situation, begrudging publicity of the very terrible things the pols are really doing, combined with false communications to the voters in an attempt to fool the voters as to what is going on.

The pols have, from their point of view, a very terrible situation.  They want to keep the people pulling their strings happy, but they also want to get reelected

For 40 years, I have been between the two entities, getting a lot done that the voters want done with the very real recognition of the massive secrecy in the pols.

I am copying this communication to the Cambridge City Council in order to use, horrors, the public record situation of the Cambridge City Council to communicate reality to a, perhaps, important part of the voters.

That massive secrecy is in the middle of doing very great harm on the Charles River and elsewhere in Cambridge.  I fail to get notices of these I90 meetings while destructive operatives get those notices.

You have appointed the IRT and have given a deadline of November 16 for comments.  If you have a lower level manager you want to handle the comments, please pass this comment on to the lower level manager.

Basically, I have two points.

One is all the dirty tricks being sneaked in in Cambridge which the people who control the pols have seen they cannot get done if the voters are aware of what they are doing.  So they are trying to sneak in those failures of responsibility into the I90 planning WITHOUT IT GETTING OUT TO THOSE NASTY PEOPLE, THE VOTERS.  Your people have done a very good job, insofar as possible, of limiting the I90 project to I90 as opposed to the dirty stuff the Cambridge operatives are trying to sneak in in spite of the voters.  But they are still trying.

Secondly, it is possible to achieve very valuable public transportation improvements coordinate with the I90 project which will achieve what voters in Cambridge AND IN BOSTON need and have been told they are getting.  That would be by the creation of a new branch of the Green Line running from the BU Bridge / Commonwealth Avenue area to BU West, to the main project area / the future Harvard Medical School, to the North Allston neighborhood, to Harvard Business School / Harvard Stadium, to Harvard Station.

Such a route would achieve very major goals being bragged about for the I90 project, plus it would greatly benefit the Red Line between Park Street and Harvard Station INCLUDING KENDALL SQUARE by rerouting a lot of passenger traffic originating in the Back Bay to Green Line A.

2. Any and all construction north of the southern bank of the Charles River should be rejected.

First of all, there are serious attempts to get this project to destroy portions of the Charles River to build portions of the project above the Charles.  Absolutely not.  We have learned better.  There is no need to destroy any part of the Charles River or of the animal habitat on either side of the Charles River, including but not limited to both banks of the Charles River.

Additionally, the rebuilding of any portion of the Grand Junction railroad south of I90 is a blatant violation of public comment needs and probably deliberate fraud on the public on the part of key actors in Cambridge.

No meaningful presentation of these concepts to Cambridge residents has been allowed as part of this study in striking contrast to the prior study by MassDOT of use of the Grand Junction for passenger train use.

But nonsensical claims of general support are bizarrely made.

The prior study was public and meaningful.  It resulted in very significant expression of public antipathy toward the concept, in particular because it blocks six major streets in Cambridge adding to existing traffic problems, as marked on the above MassDOT plan of the eastern part of Cambridge.  The great public outcry IS BEING PREVENTED THIS TIME BY THE UNDER THE COUNTER MANEUVERS.

* * * *

[label]  Intersections impacted by Commuter Rail proposals.  Yielding major objections with MEANINGFUL public input.  PLUS MAJOR CHARLES RIVER DAMAGE

* * * * *

Additionally, prior MBTA plans (2003) for an off ramp to Cambridge from I90 showed a highway through the thickly treed Wild Area woods between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse, as shown on the attached photo.  Another outrage coming from dirty tricks by people who cannot get these things when they operate other than in the shadows.

Cambridge residents are very proud of defeating THE INNER BELT when it was proposed without the secrecy of the current maneuvers.  [ed:  Interstate highway which would have created a swath in Cambridge about a block east of the Grand Junction.]

Many of the same people fighting for this destructive AND AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE option previously fought for the outrage on January 2016 in which the DCR / Cambridge destroyed hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.  This outrage was presented in our video / slide show posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  The “review” for this destruction, by special legislative fiat, was accomplished based of supposed reviews something like a decade earlier held in blatantly inconvenient locations supposedly for interested Cambridge residents.

These plans were included in the plans for the January 2016 outrage as far as the Wild Area and the related Goose Meadow between the Grand Junction and the BU Bridge.  Note that the plans show exactly ONE tree NOT destroyed in the Wild Area plus the destruction of an excellent tree in the Goose Meadow which graces the BU Bridge and its circle.  Here is a photo of the doomed and excellent tree.

These are the last remaining animal habitats in this part of the Charles River.  Here is a photo of the doomed magnificence.

During this review, operatives now seem to be fighting for this destruction under the guise of improving BU Bridge traffic

All this destruction is being kept secret by the machinations of related bureaucrats by supposed advocates from the public.


Here is a photo of the most visible victims, the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese which has been in residence since 1981.  Their habitat spanned a mile of the northern bank of the Charles River when these outrages started.  They were cherished as valuable residents in signs posted by the DCR until Cambridge started proposing destruction.  People commuted from the suburbs to join them.

That habitat has been ruthlessly reduced to the Goose Meadow between the BU Bridge and the Grand Junction, plus a small use of the Wild Area primarily in desperation seeking ground vegetation for nesting in spite of the belligerent destruction of as much ground vegetation as they could get away with by the DCR and its agents.

The photo includes but a small, again most visible, portion of the other free animals which are under attack by the DCR and Cambridge.

They have been heartlessly abused in a long series of outrages by Cambridge and the DCR.  The ghetto into which served as their nesting area and protection against the worst of the elements during most of their 37 year residence.  Most of the ground vegetation in their ghetto has been destroyed by the DCR and its friends.

All construction south of the southern bank of the Charles River should be prohibited because it is being conducted in secret AFTER LOSING WHEN PUBLIC NOTICE WAS ALLOWED.

3. That portion of the study team’s modification of the Highway Viaduct alternative which supports the viaduct on cantilever in both directions is commendable.  This is both because of open space improvements and because it adds another meaningful option for public transportation which is wanted, needed, AND PROMISED.

This excellent concept, on the north side, allows a commendable increase in open space by moving Soldiers Field Road partially under the viaduct.

On south side, the cantilever provides another alternative for the project to provide MEANINGFUL public transportation, as opposed to the nonsense being proposed, commuter rail, which, in turn, is, at minimum, a violation of public trust because this project is being used to secretly obtain destructive commuter rail on the Grand Junction railroad in Cambridge after it was rejected by a MassDOT study after meaningful public comment massively rejected it.

North Allston residents have demanded and deserve meaningful public transit, a Green Line A spur coming off the Commonwealth Avenue B line, connecting to the major part of the project area, the future Harvard Medical School and related uses, connecting to the North Allston neighborhood by two sensible stations, at North Harvard and Cambridge, and at North Harvard and Franklin, both locations which can readily hold the stations.

Additionally, Harvard would get ready connection for its medical students to the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area at Kenmore Station with future truly excellent service bu Urban Ring orange line subway connecting to a Harvard Medical Area station as proposed as Louis Pasteur and Longwood, and then providing direct same seat connection to the Orange Line inbound through Ruggles Station.  They would also get better transportation for their Business School and Stadium.

Nonsense provided by Harvard Medical Area “representatives” of providing shuttles to West Station for commuter rail remains nonsense because Yawkey Station is half the distance from the Harvard Medical Area.  Yawkey Station would, under the Urban Ring subway, become a part of the excellent Kenmore - Yawkey station with direct Green Line transfers to A, B, C, and D branches.

At the northern end of the Green Line spur, meaningful public transit could have direct connection to Harvard Station through the tunnel which still remains from the pre-Alewife extension Red Line.

I provided extensive analysis of multiple options in my comments on the last review.

Here, once again, is the proposal as I submitted it before.  The big difference is that, in addition to the reasonable location between the viaduct and Boston University, with a BU stop at its new facilities on the former armory site, the cantilever design allows the Green Line construction under the southern cantilever, moving further away from Boston University.

The previously proposed version between the viaduct and Boston University can easily be constructed by creating switches on the B line on the Commonwealth Avenue bridge, with two Green Line A tracks going over the side of the Commonwealth Avenue bridge onto its own bridge structure, dropping down to that location between the viaduct and Boston University.

The version allowed by the cantilever construction would allow construction further from Boston University property with a connection to Green Line B further east on its right of way.  Green Line A would be constructed under the Commonwealth Avenue right of way a sufficient distance to allow the proper slope for the Green Line vehicles moving between Green Line B and Green Line A.

Connection to Green Line B would need space close that that needed for existing storage between the operating tracks, and, as such, would cause no more a disruption in car traffic than the existing Green Line B right of way.

One track should be laid between the two traffic paths of Green Line with switches to and from trackage to and from Kenmore Station.  Single track territory would only be necessary in that portion where trackage at the Commonwealth Avenue level is being transitioned to trackage UNDER the Green Line B right of way, and then connecting to double trackage and proceeding to under the cantilever.

The access track could also be used to turn around subway trains which could  terminate at Boston University.

The biggest problem with construction under the cantilever would be possible interference with auto traffic crossing the Green Line B right of way to the extent that the transition is necessary from below the Green Line B right of way to the Green Line B right of way through an area currently used for auto crossing.

The connection could be coordinated with current discussion to reduce Green Line stations in the Boston University area.


Robert J. La Trémouille

Atch: Partial Activist Résumé.

[Ed.  The résumé is two pages.  The first is a table explaining the second, a marked up zoning map.  This medium cannot read the fancy formatting of the table.  So it is converted to a much more simpler format.]
Robert J. La Trémouille
Selected Activist Experience, Central Cambridge

I Maple Avenue Downzoning, C-1 to B
II Marie Avenue Park.  First neighborhood Open Space zoning.
III Cambridge St, N Side  C-2 districts btwn Hospitals changed to C-1.  C2B buffer created around Youville.
IV Mellen Street Downzoning.  The C-2A area and the C-1 which it surrounds were previously zoned C-3.
V Cambridge Common.  Opposed the destruction of the excellent thick park in Harvard Square corner .
VI I90 study I proposed Green Line A spur from Comm. Avenue / BU Bridge to Harvard Medical to Harvard Station.
Originated idea of connection of Harvard Medical Area to Soldiers Field Road east of BU Bridge.
VII JFK Park was laid out so that cut and cover construction of a subway tunnel.
VIII Harvard Houses district.  C-3 Ward changed to C-1.
IX Area in Harvard Square deleted by Ward petitioners from Ward petition as result of flat out lie.
X Ward Petition.  C-2B and O-2 areas, previously C3 / O3, plus the Harvard Houses area, south side of Mt. Auburn Street.
XI Saved the historical building at 10 Mt. Auburn at the Rent Control Board.
Block changed from Business B to Res C-1 by Ward
XII Personally saved Guffey Park at Arrow Street and Mass. Ave., in front of 2 Arrow Street..
XIII Kerry Corner. Zoning created here, the balance of the C-1, and the SD14 district were probably GREATLY influenced by my saving historical 10 Mt. Auburn.
XIV Corporal Burns Playground.  Helped save from Harvard expansion.
XV La Trémouille Petition as warped by rogue steering committee.  Business B became BB-1, BB-2.
La Trémouille petition downzoned most of Green Street between Hancock and Sellers from Mass. Ave. zoning to neighborhood zoning.  There were a number of related clean ups on the boundaries on Green Street.
XVI Anderson Petition.  O-3 to C-2B.  Clean ups of Green Street as noted in XV.
XVII Office to Office 1.  Created less dense Office Districts than Office 3.
XVIII Palmer Street.  Objected to destruction of every tree on the street because the trees “blocked the sunlight.”