At a MoveMass meeting on May 19, 2006, Stephanie Pollock, formerly with the Conservation Law Foundation and now with the Northeastern Center for Urban and Regulatory Policy, spoke about public transportation and land use policy. She reported on work underway jointly between the Center and the Urban Land Institute, a developers' group.
Rather than summarize her very informative talk, I'll just note two things of interest to those of us following the interplay of planning for the Urban Ring and Harvard's "Allston Initiative."
1.) Pollock began by emphasizing the importance of transportation to successful development. "You can't," she said, "develop just anywhere and then expect transit to parachute in." We see that access to public transportation leads development, she said, and gave examples.
This contrasted, I thought, with the gist of an MBTA Urban Ring planner's statement that "Transportation is not the tail that wags the development dog. It has to be the other way around. You have to decide that somebody is going to build something and then you ask the question how to get people in and out of there" ((quoted in The Urban Ring, Envisioning an Interconnected Boston, by Michael Keegan, www.numag.neu.edu/9703/UrbanRing.html).
A synthesis of these two positions is probably underway in the real world right now, as we await the results of the Harvard-funded study of Transportation Alternatives in Allston for the Executive Office of Transportation. The alternatives will include the reconfiguration of the Mass Pike and public transportation, including the Urban Ring, as well as the Beacon freight yards, vital to Boston's economic competitiveness.
On the Urban Ring, I understand the Phase 2 Citizens Advisory Committee has not yet chosen consultants for revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report. In fact, it seems that the contract has not yet been put out to bid. This is a delay from the schedule suggested earlier this year. Possibly the RFR depends on the delayed EOT study.
2.) Because of the importance of access to public transportation to development, there are many in the region that want it. Pollock listed 12 "entities" that have asked for it just this year. They are: Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, Hyde Park, Lynn, City Square in Worcester, the City of Worcester, Fall River, New Bedford, Harvard University, Assembly Square in Somerville, and the City of Somerville.
When I pointed out the list failed to differentiate between Harvard, which is asking for public transportation for a project in the future, and places like Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, Fall River, New Bedford, and Somerville, for example, where existing populations have been underserved by public transportation for years, Pollock responded that the list was only a list--these entities had been the 12 asking for public transportation.
While this is certainly true as far as it goes, that public transportation planners would so quickly place Harvard alongside these communities where environmental justice is a real, live issue, is problematic, I think.
The Urban Land Institute is frankly a developer's organization. Harvard's Allston Initiative will spend billions of dollars over the next 50 years or so--some of it on transportation. I wonder how great the development resulting from any transportation project in any of the communities listed above would ever be, compared to what Harvard plans for Allston. If developers can calculate this, what will the planners and legislature do?
So although "environmental justice" is one criterion for choosing among competing public transportation projects, it seems a slender reed to withstand Harvard's plans to get to the head of the list. As Kathy Spiegelman, Harvard's Chief Planner for Allston said, whatever the Urban Ring is, they want it.
Toward that end, along the line of Harvard's apparently favored route for the Urban Ring Phase 2, Cambridge is confirming Cambridgeport and East Cambridge as "environmental justice" communities in a federal block grant application right now.
(I'm waiting for the announcement of a "public-private partnership" with Harvard for the Urban Ring, analogous to one for developing the Charles River Parklands with Harvard to its specifications, especially near the relocated Fogg Museum at 1380 Soldiers Field Road.)
Marilyn Wellons
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Transportation and environmental justice
For transportation planners, "environmental justice" means equal transportation service for poor/non-English speaking/zero-vehicle households. It's one of the main criteria for the Urban Ring, whether Phase 1 or 2 (bus) or Phase 3 (rail).
Cambridge is designating three planning areas--in East Cambridge, Cambridgeport, and North Cambridge--as economically disadvantaged and eligible for Federal block grants.
Whatever else is going on, the CDD's formal identification of these areas means that when Harvard makes its pitch for its version of the Urban Ring (i.e., over the Grand
Junction rail bridge--I cite Kathy Spiegalman's map at her May 10 talk to the Environmental Business Council--see blog posting, "Harvard's transportation plans in Allston"), Cambridge will be able to argue that Harvard's configuration serves "environmental justice."
Harvard can argue for the Grand Junction rail bridge either for Phase 2 (please note Kathy Spiegelman's Urban Ring map reinstated BRT4 from the west, but starting at the Harvard campus, not the western suburbs, as a spur of the Urban Ring) or, if there's a push to advance rail in this section, as Phase 3 in its spurious light rail incarnation.
This of course was what then-Cambridge City Council Candidate, now City Councillor Craig Kelley presented as the Urban Ring at the Dana Park Neighborhood Association's August, 2005 meeting. (One of his campaign staff had previously said it was endorsed by the Sierra Club and asked for signatures on a petition supporting it. There was some confusion on this point. When questioned, the Sierra Club never endorsed light rail over the Grand Junction rail bridge as the Urban Ring Phase 3, but never said what its position is, either. Craig later explained he had proposed it in an article in a Sierra Club publication.)
The west Cambridge zone serves transportation projects at Alewife and Route 2. I think we'll see another push for major highway work at Alewife at the Route 2
rotary and inbound using some more "environmental justice."
It may also be possible there will be some attempt in the third block grant neighborhood to connect a Harvard version of the Phase 3 Urban Ring now floating on the internet to some route to the north and east of Harvard Square--possibly Union Square?--again, see the posting about "Harvard's transportation plans in Allston."
Marilyn Wellons
Cambridge is designating three planning areas--in East Cambridge, Cambridgeport, and North Cambridge--as economically disadvantaged and eligible for Federal block grants.
Whatever else is going on, the CDD's formal identification of these areas means that when Harvard makes its pitch for its version of the Urban Ring (i.e., over the Grand
Junction rail bridge--I cite Kathy Spiegalman's map at her May 10 talk to the Environmental Business Council--see blog posting, "Harvard's transportation plans in Allston"), Cambridge will be able to argue that Harvard's configuration serves "environmental justice."
Harvard can argue for the Grand Junction rail bridge either for Phase 2 (please note Kathy Spiegelman's Urban Ring map reinstated BRT4 from the west, but starting at the Harvard campus, not the western suburbs, as a spur of the Urban Ring) or, if there's a push to advance rail in this section, as Phase 3 in its spurious light rail incarnation.
This of course was what then-Cambridge City Council Candidate, now City Councillor Craig Kelley presented as the Urban Ring at the Dana Park Neighborhood Association's August, 2005 meeting. (One of his campaign staff had previously said it was endorsed by the Sierra Club and asked for signatures on a petition supporting it. There was some confusion on this point. When questioned, the Sierra Club never endorsed light rail over the Grand Junction rail bridge as the Urban Ring Phase 3, but never said what its position is, either. Craig later explained he had proposed it in an article in a Sierra Club publication.)
The west Cambridge zone serves transportation projects at Alewife and Route 2. I think we'll see another push for major highway work at Alewife at the Route 2
rotary and inbound using some more "environmental justice."
It may also be possible there will be some attempt in the third block grant neighborhood to connect a Harvard version of the Phase 3 Urban Ring now floating on the internet to some route to the north and east of Harvard Square--possibly Union Square?--again, see the posting about "Harvard's transportation plans in Allston."
Marilyn Wellons
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Harvard's transportation plans for Allston
Kathy Spiegelman, Harvard's Chief Planner for the Allston campus, spoke May 10 at a meeting of the Environmental Business Council in Boston. I was able to attend.
On regional transportation issues, Spiegelman said public transportation--commuter
rail and the Urban Ring--should connect to the Allston campus, on the theory it would allow the university to achieve the highest and best use of its property. And further, that what is good for Harvard is good for us all.
Harvard's Director of Physical Planning, Harris Band, had told a meeting in Allston on May 8 that Harvard proposes to move the Urban Ring west, to serve its Allston campus. Spiegelman's Urban Ring map did not show such a deviation. Instead, it had what I took to be Phase 2 ("Bus Rapid Transit") from Longwood Medical Area north, crossing the river on what might have been the Grand Junction rail bridge, with the addition of a spur to Allston, i.e., what looked like the reinstatement of a segment of BRT4 on the Mass Pike.
The map was freeform, possibly the one shown at www.allston.harvard.edu/allston_room/harvard_content.html. I dwell on the lack of sufficient detail about the river crossing because both Spiegelman's and the website's map show either a connection from the Pike or from Storrow to the BU Bridge or from the Pike or Storrow to the Grand Junction rail bridge. With the exception of the Storrow inbound lane's ability to turn to Commonwealth Avenue at the BU Bridge, none of these connections is possible with the existing network of roads.
BRT 4 was a bus route that would have connected Pike traffic between Newton and Allston to Cambridge at Lechmere over a modified Grand Junction rail bridge. The T dropped it in June, 2003, even after Harvard announced its plans for the Allston campus, for lack of anticipated ridership. However, Cambridge strongly favored modifying the rail bridge for both BRT4 from the western suburbs, and BRT5 from LMA, to Lechmere. According to a Cambridge Development Department official at the March, 2006 Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, the city hopes this plan for the rail bridge will be reinstated.
Since BRT4 connects the Mass Pike to Cambridge and north toward I-93, any version of it resurrects the Inner Belt, the interstate highway connecting the Mass Pike and I-93 North cancelled in 1971.
To see whether Spiegelman's map showed, instead, a spurious version of the Urban Ring floated last year--light rail over the Grand Junction rail bridge--I asked her whether her Urban Ring map was for bus or rail. (All planning to date for Phase 3 has been for river crossing by tunnel only.) She said the Urban Ring was buses. When I explained Phase 2 is buses, Phase 3 is rail, she said that whatever the Urban Ring is, Harvard wants it for the Allston campus.
If Spiegelman's understanding of the Urban Ring is buses, I assume Harvard and Cambridge are working together to restore plans for this new Pike exit to Cambridge over the modified rail bridge, to be sold to the public as a dedicated BRT bus lane and a "public-private partnership" with Harvard. With construction of the Allston U-turn at the tolls this summer, the Pike Authority seems to be working for this as well. (Seewww.massturnpike.com/user-cgi/news, "Contract for Construction of Allston Turnaround Goes out to Bid This Weekend," 02/03/2006.) The Pike turnaround is being sold as an HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lane.
As we know, any such "dedicated" route for BRT or HOV rubber-wheeled vehicles is suitable for all rubber-wheeled vehicles. It can be converted for general use when politically feasible.
After showing Harvard's proposed commuter rail stop near the tolls, Spiegelman commented that it would allow an improvement in the Pike ramps. Since the Pike Authority's turnaround would allow access for east- and westbound traffic to and from Cambridge over the modified rail bridge, the potential improvement allowed would be replacement of the current Pike exit to Cambridge with one over the modified Grand Junction rail bridge.
The map circulating with a report of Harris Band's talk shows the Urban Ring as a rail link between LMA and Harvard Square, indicated as the Urban Ring Phase 3--rail. The exact route is unclear; Band did not distribute copies of the map. Whether this would be an extension of an old Red Line tunnel and connect Harvard's Cambridge and Allston campuses; whether it would connect to commuter rail; how, if it were to be some incarnation of the Urban Ring, it might connect to the north and east beyond Harvard Square, are unknown.
The Harvard Allston website continues to show very schematic maps with spare commentary. The Harvard-funded Executive Office of Transportation study by HNTB consultants, originally due at the end of February, will probably be more detailed and much clearer. It is however still forthcoming.
Finally, I note that using the Grand Junction rail bridge for the Urban Ring would gravely and adversely affect freight traffic in the entire metropolitan region and, I believe, compromise the international competitiveness of the Port of Boston--as well as put more trucks on our roads. But these may be minor considerations compared to the presumed benefits of providing the Urban Ring Harvard wants for its Allston Initiative.
Marilyn Wellons
May 11-20, 2006
On regional transportation issues, Spiegelman said public transportation--commuter
rail and the Urban Ring--should connect to the Allston campus, on the theory it would allow the university to achieve the highest and best use of its property. And further, that what is good for Harvard is good for us all.
Harvard's Director of Physical Planning, Harris Band, had told a meeting in Allston on May 8 that Harvard proposes to move the Urban Ring west, to serve its Allston campus. Spiegelman's Urban Ring map did not show such a deviation. Instead, it had what I took to be Phase 2 ("Bus Rapid Transit") from Longwood Medical Area north, crossing the river on what might have been the Grand Junction rail bridge, with the addition of a spur to Allston, i.e., what looked like the reinstatement of a segment of BRT4 on the Mass Pike.
The map was freeform, possibly the one shown at www.allston.harvard.edu/allston_room/harvard_content.html. I dwell on the lack of sufficient detail about the river crossing because both Spiegelman's and the website's map show either a connection from the Pike or from Storrow to the BU Bridge or from the Pike or Storrow to the Grand Junction rail bridge. With the exception of the Storrow inbound lane's ability to turn to Commonwealth Avenue at the BU Bridge, none of these connections is possible with the existing network of roads.
BRT 4 was a bus route that would have connected Pike traffic between Newton and Allston to Cambridge at Lechmere over a modified Grand Junction rail bridge. The T dropped it in June, 2003, even after Harvard announced its plans for the Allston campus, for lack of anticipated ridership. However, Cambridge strongly favored modifying the rail bridge for both BRT4 from the western suburbs, and BRT5 from LMA, to Lechmere. According to a Cambridge Development Department official at the March, 2006 Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, the city hopes this plan for the rail bridge will be reinstated.
Since BRT4 connects the Mass Pike to Cambridge and north toward I-93, any version of it resurrects the Inner Belt, the interstate highway connecting the Mass Pike and I-93 North cancelled in 1971.
To see whether Spiegelman's map showed, instead, a spurious version of the Urban Ring floated last year--light rail over the Grand Junction rail bridge--I asked her whether her Urban Ring map was for bus or rail. (All planning to date for Phase 3 has been for river crossing by tunnel only.) She said the Urban Ring was buses. When I explained Phase 2 is buses, Phase 3 is rail, she said that whatever the Urban Ring is, Harvard wants it for the Allston campus.
If Spiegelman's understanding of the Urban Ring is buses, I assume Harvard and Cambridge are working together to restore plans for this new Pike exit to Cambridge over the modified rail bridge, to be sold to the public as a dedicated BRT bus lane and a "public-private partnership" with Harvard. With construction of the Allston U-turn at the tolls this summer, the Pike Authority seems to be working for this as well. (Seewww.massturnpike.com/user-cgi/news, "Contract for Construction of Allston Turnaround Goes out to Bid This Weekend," 02/03/2006.) The Pike turnaround is being sold as an HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lane.
As we know, any such "dedicated" route for BRT or HOV rubber-wheeled vehicles is suitable for all rubber-wheeled vehicles. It can be converted for general use when politically feasible.
After showing Harvard's proposed commuter rail stop near the tolls, Spiegelman commented that it would allow an improvement in the Pike ramps. Since the Pike Authority's turnaround would allow access for east- and westbound traffic to and from Cambridge over the modified rail bridge, the potential improvement allowed would be replacement of the current Pike exit to Cambridge with one over the modified Grand Junction rail bridge.
The map circulating with a report of Harris Band's talk shows the Urban Ring as a rail link between LMA and Harvard Square, indicated as the Urban Ring Phase 3--rail. The exact route is unclear; Band did not distribute copies of the map. Whether this would be an extension of an old Red Line tunnel and connect Harvard's Cambridge and Allston campuses; whether it would connect to commuter rail; how, if it were to be some incarnation of the Urban Ring, it might connect to the north and east beyond Harvard Square, are unknown.
The Harvard Allston website continues to show very schematic maps with spare commentary. The Harvard-funded Executive Office of Transportation study by HNTB consultants, originally due at the end of February, will probably be more detailed and much clearer. It is however still forthcoming.
Finally, I note that using the Grand Junction rail bridge for the Urban Ring would gravely and adversely affect freight traffic in the entire metropolitan region and, I believe, compromise the international competitiveness of the Port of Boston--as well as put more trucks on our roads. But these may be minor considerations compared to the presumed benefits of providing the Urban Ring Harvard wants for its Allston Initiative.
Marilyn Wellons
May 11-20, 2006
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Nice Words From the Charles River Watershed Association
Daejanna Wormwood Malone reports:
Hi Bob, Last sunday (April 16, 2006) between 6 and 7am, there is a program on WZLX about various subjects in the state...this week Rob Zimmerman of the MWRA( or DCR for all I know)spoke about the water quality and the plan they have to improve the whole Charles River.
Apparently out beyond Waltham the river is questionally swimable, but the lower basin (starting at Watertown Falls) is still unfit most of the time. Rob even said the Basin by the jail has its good days, however, the waste on the bottom is toxic to man and any other beast as well. He is trying to devise a method of bottom waste removal and money to pay for it.
The program was an hour long and Zimmerman mention BRIEFLY the White Geese and mentioned what an asset they are to the public visiting Boston/Cambridge, moreover, their waste is not enough to effect the quality of the basin water because at least twice a day it is brackish water open to the ocean via Boston Harbor.
Those two sentences are not much but I listen weeklyto the light topics and maybe it reached a larger audience??? I certainly hope so.
Just thought you needed to read about it. Hope your spring goes well...and the wall is not "eroded"by passing boaters...I am looking into a way to desolve the material safely is anyone else?
Happy Spring, Blessed Be...
Daejanna
**********
Thank you for the good report. The Charles River Watershed Association is difficult to separate from the rest of the bad guys.
Their presentation to the people in Allston featured them bragging about intention to destroy native vegetation at Herter Park across from WBZ in Brighton.
Their friends from the Charles River Conservancy behave about as sickly from an environmental point of view as you can get. The Charles River Conservancy is the entity which is now on a twice yearly scalping of vegetation at water's edge along the Charles. This scalping is exactly what the CRWA was proposing at Herter West, just further back.
In the period from 2003 to 2005 the CRC ran around the first 10 miles of the Charles River poisoning as many goose eggs as they could get away with.
I am totally unaware of any negative words from the CRWA about the CRC.
Hi Bob, Last sunday (April 16, 2006) between 6 and 7am, there is a program on WZLX about various subjects in the state...this week Rob Zimmerman of the MWRA( or DCR for all I know)spoke about the water quality and the plan they have to improve the whole Charles River.
Apparently out beyond Waltham the river is questionally swimable, but the lower basin (starting at Watertown Falls) is still unfit most of the time. Rob even said the Basin by the jail has its good days, however, the waste on the bottom is toxic to man and any other beast as well. He is trying to devise a method of bottom waste removal and money to pay for it.
The program was an hour long and Zimmerman mention BRIEFLY the White Geese and mentioned what an asset they are to the public visiting Boston/Cambridge, moreover, their waste is not enough to effect the quality of the basin water because at least twice a day it is brackish water open to the ocean via Boston Harbor.
Those two sentences are not much but I listen weeklyto the light topics and maybe it reached a larger audience??? I certainly hope so.
Just thought you needed to read about it. Hope your spring goes well...and the wall is not "eroded"by passing boaters...I am looking into a way to desolve the material safely is anyone else?
Happy Spring, Blessed Be...
Daejanna
**********
Thank you for the good report. The Charles River Watershed Association is difficult to separate from the rest of the bad guys.
Their presentation to the people in Allston featured them bragging about intention to destroy native vegetation at Herter Park across from WBZ in Brighton.
Their friends from the Charles River Conservancy behave about as sickly from an environmental point of view as you can get. The Charles River Conservancy is the entity which is now on a twice yearly scalping of vegetation at water's edge along the Charles. This scalping is exactly what the CRWA was proposing at Herter West, just further back.
In the period from 2003 to 2005 the CRC ran around the first 10 miles of the Charles River poisoning as many goose eggs as they could get away with.
I am totally unaware of any negative words from the CRWA about the CRC.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
letter to the Boston Conservation Commission about further illegal clearing on the Charles River
On April 19 the Charles River Conservancy applied to the Boston Conservation Commission for permission to do yet more work on our Charles River public parklands. Given the CRC's history of work contrary to provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act, I submitted this letter to the Commission:
To the Boston Conservation Commission:
re: Request for Determination of Applicability from the Charles River Conservancy for pathway and landscaping improvements adjacent to the Eliot Bridge, Soldiers Field Road, Charles River (100-foot Buffer Zone to Inland Bank)
When considering this request and related filings by the CRC and/or the DCR, please consider the organizations’ history regarding the Wetlands Protection Act and your Commission’s orders. Because of this history, CRC projects bear a heavy burden of proof that they are in the public interest. The evidence of the CRC’s work along the river indicates they are not.
Your site visits in 2004 confirmed the CRC’s illegal destruction at Herter West and from there to the Anderson Bridge. As a result, you ordered, among other things, that
no vegetation management activities by volunteers, including cutting and pruning, shall occur on any property owned or managed by the DCR along the Charles River in Boston without direct supervision by DCR or Charles River Conservancy staff. (letter, Chris Busch to DCR Commissioner Abbott, January 13, 2005.)
On Friday, March 10, at 12:40 p.m. I came upon a solitary CRC “volunteer” cutting the waterfront plants from the Northeastern boathouse downriver near the catalpas. Please see the enclosed photographs of the CRC worker, who identified himself as Kenny and said he was cutting the plants “for the regatta” (October’s Head of the Charles?). Kenny said he had worked with the CRC’s Evan Moss the previous weekend and that Mr. Moss had agreed he could continue to cut during the following week, as he was indeed doing, unsupervised.
This incident underscores the DCR’s previous misrepresentations to the Commission about its willingness or ability to supervise “vegetation management” by its agent, the CRC. Contrary to the agency’s statements at your hearings and on your site visits to Herter West, the chainsaw-wielding, then-CRC Board of Advisors member Lawrence Coolidge was not a “loose cannon” in October, 2003 when he and other CRC “volunteers” illegally destroyed much of that urban wild. Mr. Coolidge not only participated in the project but funded it, as the CRC’s website continues to acknowledge. The website also reports the DCR’s approval of plans for that project. Please see www.charlesriverconservancy.org/projects/HerterPark/refurbish_Herter_Park.html.
Kenny, the unsupervised CRC “volunteer” on March 10, wore a Harvard cap and was working on the riverfront near Harvard’s planned Allston museum. As at nearby Herter West in 2003, the effect of this CRC work is to transform the Charles River parkland from the rural landscape its designers intended for us city dwellers to an office park for Harvard University’s corporate interests.
The DCR’s repeated failure to prevent such work indicates a policy of approval, although it is possible its “vegetation management” is only mindless. To get rid of an oriental bittersweet on the lagoon behind the Publick Theatre, for example, Mr. Moss’s workers destroyed every goldenrod and aster in full bloom there last September, revealing the theater’s dumpster and backside. Clear-cutting of the riverbank like Kenny’s keeps open vistas to the cars on the opposite shore. The DCR admits “invasive” false indigo holds the riverbank for free, yet weakens and kills it through the CRC’s perpetual clear-cutting. (How many acres of eroded riverfront parkland, how many acres of heron and herring habitat have we lost because of such “vegetation management”?)
The Wetlands Protection Act and your Commission have held the DCR to a higher standard of stewardship than this. Please keep the DCR’s and CRC’s history of actual destruction in mind when considering the CRC’s present request for continued work on our precious parkland and when reviewing DCR-CRC “vegetation management.”
Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons
To the Boston Conservation Commission:
re: Request for Determination of Applicability from the Charles River Conservancy for pathway and landscaping improvements adjacent to the Eliot Bridge, Soldiers Field Road, Charles River (100-foot Buffer Zone to Inland Bank)
When considering this request and related filings by the CRC and/or the DCR, please consider the organizations’ history regarding the Wetlands Protection Act and your Commission’s orders. Because of this history, CRC projects bear a heavy burden of proof that they are in the public interest. The evidence of the CRC’s work along the river indicates they are not.
Your site visits in 2004 confirmed the CRC’s illegal destruction at Herter West and from there to the Anderson Bridge. As a result, you ordered, among other things, that
no vegetation management activities by volunteers, including cutting and pruning, shall occur on any property owned or managed by the DCR along the Charles River in Boston without direct supervision by DCR or Charles River Conservancy staff. (letter, Chris Busch to DCR Commissioner Abbott, January 13, 2005.)
On Friday, March 10, at 12:40 p.m. I came upon a solitary CRC “volunteer” cutting the waterfront plants from the Northeastern boathouse downriver near the catalpas. Please see the enclosed photographs of the CRC worker, who identified himself as Kenny and said he was cutting the plants “for the regatta” (October’s Head of the Charles?). Kenny said he had worked with the CRC’s Evan Moss the previous weekend and that Mr. Moss had agreed he could continue to cut during the following week, as he was indeed doing, unsupervised.
This incident underscores the DCR’s previous misrepresentations to the Commission about its willingness or ability to supervise “vegetation management” by its agent, the CRC. Contrary to the agency’s statements at your hearings and on your site visits to Herter West, the chainsaw-wielding, then-CRC Board of Advisors member Lawrence Coolidge was not a “loose cannon” in October, 2003 when he and other CRC “volunteers” illegally destroyed much of that urban wild. Mr. Coolidge not only participated in the project but funded it, as the CRC’s website continues to acknowledge. The website also reports the DCR’s approval of plans for that project. Please see www.charlesriverconservancy.org/projects/HerterPark/refurbish_Herter_Park.html.
Kenny, the unsupervised CRC “volunteer” on March 10, wore a Harvard cap and was working on the riverfront near Harvard’s planned Allston museum. As at nearby Herter West in 2003, the effect of this CRC work is to transform the Charles River parkland from the rural landscape its designers intended for us city dwellers to an office park for Harvard University’s corporate interests.
The DCR’s repeated failure to prevent such work indicates a policy of approval, although it is possible its “vegetation management” is only mindless. To get rid of an oriental bittersweet on the lagoon behind the Publick Theatre, for example, Mr. Moss’s workers destroyed every goldenrod and aster in full bloom there last September, revealing the theater’s dumpster and backside. Clear-cutting of the riverbank like Kenny’s keeps open vistas to the cars on the opposite shore. The DCR admits “invasive” false indigo holds the riverbank for free, yet weakens and kills it through the CRC’s perpetual clear-cutting. (How many acres of eroded riverfront parkland, how many acres of heron and herring habitat have we lost because of such “vegetation management”?)
The Wetlands Protection Act and your Commission have held the DCR to a higher standard of stewardship than this. Please keep the DCR’s and CRC’s history of actual destruction in mind when considering the CRC’s present request for continued work on our precious parkland and when reviewing DCR-CRC “vegetation management.”
Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons
Boston Conservation Commission meeting April 19, 2006
On April 19 the Charles River Conservancy applied to the Boston ConCom for permission to do yet more work on our public riverfront parkland.
By the time I got to the meeting Richard Corsi (DCR)and Evan Moss (CRC) were finishing their presentation. I have the plans and plant list.
The project is to do things with "native plants" and "pervious surfaces" at the Eliot Bridge right where the CRC's "volunteers" previously cut down so many trees and shrubs for the Head of the Charles.
During public comment I distributed the letter (also posted) and photos about the DCR's unsupervised "vegetation management" on the Charles in March of this year, contrary to the Commission's previous order.
Summarizing the letter, I told the Commission that DCR and CRC representatives speaking to the ConCom had previously misrepresented CRC and DCR responsibility for illegal clearing in the past (October, 2003), that the unsupervised clearing was continuing, that the DCR and CRC were turning the riverfront into an office park for Harvard rather than protecting it as a public resource.
The ConCom voted to allow the project. One member admonished the DCR and CRC to supervise the "volunteers" and said I should monitor the project and tell the ConCom of any further violations. He then asked if I had anything to say. I replied that any ConCom remedy would come too late, after the damage.
The ConCom member said he was certain there would be remedies--did I remember the cherry trees? The Boston ConCom certainly did go after the DCR to get the donated Japanese cherries removed from the Esplanade, I know.
However, when dealing with outright vandalism, it's hard to remedy the destruction. The urban wild at Herter West still lacks the nice screen of plants that insulated it from the noise and sight of cars and commercial buildings on Soldiers Field Road. (This was among the things CRC Board of Advisors member and funder of the CRC project illegally cut down with his chain saw in 2003.) Can't paste the trunks and branches back on the trees and shrubs once they're gone.
And this unsupervised "vegetation management" is the third time the CRC has been involved in illegal doings on the river. The ConCom has previously taken steps to stop the damage, and the DCR and CRC have repeatedly violated the Commission's orders.
1.) In late February, 2002, my husband and I came upon CRC Board of Advisors member Lawrence Coolidge who was cutting down trees and other plants within one hundred feet of the river without an Order of Conditions from the Boston ConCom for the work. The Commission determined the DCR (then MDC) knew of Coolidge's illegal work, and in October, 2002 got a restraining order against the MDC to prevent further such vandalism.
2.) In September, 2003, Mr. Coolidge (still on the CRC Board of Advisors) was nevertheless at it again, this time paying for a major DCR project. He and other CRC volunteers again cut down and cleared trees and other plants illegally, as mentioned above. Having determined the clearing was beyond anything permitted, the BostonConCom informed the DCR Commissioner in January, 2005 that ". . . no vegetation maintenance activities by volunteers, including cutting and pruning, shall occur on any property owned or managed by the DCR along the Charles River in Boston without direct supervision by DCR or Charles River Conservancy staff" (letter, BostonConCom to DCR Commissioner, January 13, 2005, p. 2).
3.) Nevertheless, in March, 2006, an unsupervised CRC "volunteer" was cutting plants illegally on the Boston side of the river downriver from the Northeastern boathouse as described in my letter to the Boston ConCom. This time the ConCom took no action against the CRC apart from warning it to be sure to supervise the "volunteers" and the one member's asking me to monitor the CRC project just approved.
After the meeting the CRC "volunteer" coordinator asked why I hate him. He said once again he'd like to work with me (having said the same when I confronted him about his so-called supervision of the "volunteers" last fall when they indiscriminately cut down beautiful fall wildflowers behind the Publick Theatre. After denying any ["native"!] goldenrod had been cut down, he admitted having told his people they could clear cut). I tried to explain I don't hate him, I dislike the organizations he works for and with, and that he should get out of such unsavory company.
__________________________________________________
By the time I got to the meeting Richard Corsi (DCR)and Evan Moss (CRC) were finishing their presentation. I have the plans and plant list.
The project is to do things with "native plants" and "pervious surfaces" at the Eliot Bridge right where the CRC's "volunteers" previously cut down so many trees and shrubs for the Head of the Charles.
During public comment I distributed the letter (also posted) and photos about the DCR's unsupervised "vegetation management" on the Charles in March of this year, contrary to the Commission's previous order.
Summarizing the letter, I told the Commission that DCR and CRC representatives speaking to the ConCom had previously misrepresented CRC and DCR responsibility for illegal clearing in the past (October, 2003), that the unsupervised clearing was continuing, that the DCR and CRC were turning the riverfront into an office park for Harvard rather than protecting it as a public resource.
The ConCom voted to allow the project. One member admonished the DCR and CRC to supervise the "volunteers" and said I should monitor the project and tell the ConCom of any further violations. He then asked if I had anything to say. I replied that any ConCom remedy would come too late, after the damage.
The ConCom member said he was certain there would be remedies--did I remember the cherry trees? The Boston ConCom certainly did go after the DCR to get the donated Japanese cherries removed from the Esplanade, I know.
However, when dealing with outright vandalism, it's hard to remedy the destruction. The urban wild at Herter West still lacks the nice screen of plants that insulated it from the noise and sight of cars and commercial buildings on Soldiers Field Road. (This was among the things CRC Board of Advisors member and funder of the CRC project illegally cut down with his chain saw in 2003.) Can't paste the trunks and branches back on the trees and shrubs once they're gone.
And this unsupervised "vegetation management" is the third time the CRC has been involved in illegal doings on the river. The ConCom has previously taken steps to stop the damage, and the DCR and CRC have repeatedly violated the Commission's orders.
1.) In late February, 2002, my husband and I came upon CRC Board of Advisors member Lawrence Coolidge who was cutting down trees and other plants within one hundred feet of the river without an Order of Conditions from the Boston ConCom for the work. The Commission determined the DCR (then MDC) knew of Coolidge's illegal work, and in October, 2002 got a restraining order against the MDC to prevent further such vandalism.
2.) In September, 2003, Mr. Coolidge (still on the CRC Board of Advisors) was nevertheless at it again, this time paying for a major DCR project. He and other CRC volunteers again cut down and cleared trees and other plants illegally, as mentioned above. Having determined the clearing was beyond anything permitted, the BostonConCom informed the DCR Commissioner in January, 2005 that ". . . no vegetation maintenance activities by volunteers, including cutting and pruning, shall occur on any property owned or managed by the DCR along the Charles River in Boston without direct supervision by DCR or Charles River Conservancy staff" (letter, BostonConCom to DCR Commissioner, January 13, 2005, p. 2).
3.) Nevertheless, in March, 2006, an unsupervised CRC "volunteer" was cutting plants illegally on the Boston side of the river downriver from the Northeastern boathouse as described in my letter to the Boston ConCom. This time the ConCom took no action against the CRC apart from warning it to be sure to supervise the "volunteers" and the one member's asking me to monitor the CRC project just approved.
After the meeting the CRC "volunteer" coordinator asked why I hate him. He said once again he'd like to work with me (having said the same when I confronted him about his so-called supervision of the "volunteers" last fall when they indiscriminately cut down beautiful fall wildflowers behind the Publick Theatre. After denying any ["native"!] goldenrod had been cut down, he admitted having told his people they could clear cut). I tried to explain I don't hate him, I dislike the organizations he works for and with, and that he should get out of such unsavory company.
__________________________________________________
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
A Waddling and Dangerous Commute to Get Food for the Charles River White Geese — with Love from Boston / Cambridge Drivers
Bob La Tremouille reports:
In the early evening of Tuesday, April 18, I was coming across the BU Bridge when I encountered a group of geese commuting to the grass under the Memorial Drive overpass. The grass really is quite poor for the most part, but eight plus strikingly irresponsible city councilors and the Commonwealth's Department of Conservation and Recreation / Metropolitan District Commission are starving the Charles River White Geese.
There is some access to the grass on the Charles River across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, but the quantity of that grass is quite inadequate given the sick starvation situation which continues to be inflicted on the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach.
The Charles River White Geese are cautious pedestrians. In the goose meadow, they walk up to the area next to the sidewalk which is next to the goose meadow. They meander for awhile.
Then they go through the opening that was created in the meadow fence by the irresponsible behavior of the State DCR/MDC and of Boston University.
Then the Charles River White Geese stand on the edge of the sidewalk to the on ramp to Memorial Drive. They look at that luscious grass.
The Charles River White Geese look both ways and keep on looking both ways. They finally get up the nerve and decide it is safe to cross. They cross the on ramp to Memorial Drive to get to that luscious grass.
Trouble is that, after all that deliberation, they walk like geese. They slowly and deliberately meander as they cross the on ramp. They tie up traffic.
Last night, when I got there, most of last night's group was across the on-ramp to their beloved grass. One single China gander remained on the off ramp next to the grassy area.
Thinking it over, that China gander was probably the leader of the group, keeping an eye on the two stragglers who were having a difficult time getting up the nerve to cross. He was probably encouraging them on and serving as a beacon to show them where to go.
Once the stragglers got up the nerve to cross, the two stragglers had a difficult time crossing the off ramp rapidly and directly. The two stragglers walked like geese.
I came along on my bike and shushed the China gander to the grass, and I may have exacerbated the situation with the stragglers by moving the China gander, their leader, off the ramp.
I then got off my bike and went back to shush along the stragglers. Once the stragglers got the hint, they moved along rapidly.
The lady who was the first in the long line patiently waiting for the geese to cross gave me a loving thanks for helping the geese along. A gentleman who had been way behind her in line then pulled over to give me rather striking praise for helping the hungry geese to their grass.
From Boston-type drivers, as usual during these food crossings, there was not the slightest irritation at the geese crossing to get to their badly needed grass. No horns, no gripes, just praise to me for helping the Charles River White Geese through a dangerous situation.
Bostonians and Cantabridgians love the Charles River White Geese.
The problem of the Charles River White Geese is eight plus belligerently reprehensible Cambridge City Councilors, a truly sick state bureaucracy, and the heartless and very vocal development lobby which is the most visible beneficiary of the sick, environmentally destructive situation on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA, USA.
In the early evening of Tuesday, April 18, I was coming across the BU Bridge when I encountered a group of geese commuting to the grass under the Memorial Drive overpass. The grass really is quite poor for the most part, but eight plus strikingly irresponsible city councilors and the Commonwealth's Department of Conservation and Recreation / Metropolitan District Commission are starving the Charles River White Geese.
There is some access to the grass on the Charles River across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, but the quantity of that grass is quite inadequate given the sick starvation situation which continues to be inflicted on the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach.
The Charles River White Geese are cautious pedestrians. In the goose meadow, they walk up to the area next to the sidewalk which is next to the goose meadow. They meander for awhile.
Then they go through the opening that was created in the meadow fence by the irresponsible behavior of the State DCR/MDC and of Boston University.
Then the Charles River White Geese stand on the edge of the sidewalk to the on ramp to Memorial Drive. They look at that luscious grass.
The Charles River White Geese look both ways and keep on looking both ways. They finally get up the nerve and decide it is safe to cross. They cross the on ramp to Memorial Drive to get to that luscious grass.
Trouble is that, after all that deliberation, they walk like geese. They slowly and deliberately meander as they cross the on ramp. They tie up traffic.
Last night, when I got there, most of last night's group was across the on-ramp to their beloved grass. One single China gander remained on the off ramp next to the grassy area.
Thinking it over, that China gander was probably the leader of the group, keeping an eye on the two stragglers who were having a difficult time getting up the nerve to cross. He was probably encouraging them on and serving as a beacon to show them where to go.
Once the stragglers got up the nerve to cross, the two stragglers had a difficult time crossing the off ramp rapidly and directly. The two stragglers walked like geese.
I came along on my bike and shushed the China gander to the grass, and I may have exacerbated the situation with the stragglers by moving the China gander, their leader, off the ramp.
I then got off my bike and went back to shush along the stragglers. Once the stragglers got the hint, they moved along rapidly.
The lady who was the first in the long line patiently waiting for the geese to cross gave me a loving thanks for helping the geese along. A gentleman who had been way behind her in line then pulled over to give me rather striking praise for helping the hungry geese to their grass.
From Boston-type drivers, as usual during these food crossings, there was not the slightest irritation at the geese crossing to get to their badly needed grass. No horns, no gripes, just praise to me for helping the Charles River White Geese through a dangerous situation.
Bostonians and Cantabridgians love the Charles River White Geese.
The problem of the Charles River White Geese is eight plus belligerently reprehensible Cambridge City Councilors, a truly sick state bureaucracy, and the heartless and very vocal development lobby which is the most visible beneficiary of the sick, environmentally destructive situation on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA, USA.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Ongoing Zoning Proposals and Environmental Destruction in the Fresh Pond Area of Cambridge, MA, USA
Bob La Tremouille reports that he has submitted the following letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
The downzoning supported by the Cambridge Chronicle is on the north side of Concord Avenue in Cambridge, about a block east of the Fresh Pond reservation.
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Thank you for the editorial supporting the downzoning of the Cambridge Self Storage site across from the Armory on Concord Avenue. The reality is that the zoning proposal, while it would decrease allowed construction by 40%, still allows construction 50% larger than the residential neighborhood. The existing zoning is an example of bad regulation of development by the City of Cambridge. Our city already is by far the most densely developed city in the Commonwealth and clearly one of the densest in the country.*
I hope the Chronicle will join me in opposing really destructive initiatives in the SAME neighborhood. The big problem is the usual problem with regard to overdevelopment and environmental destruction: bad behavior by the Cambridge City Manager and his representatives.
One block away from the zoning change area, on the other side of New Street, the City Manager has filed for a third time a strikingly irresponsible upzoning.
The Self Storage site currently allows construction 2½ times the density of the neighborhood. The city manager is proposing 12 times neighborhood density at the whim of his appointees in the area north of Concord Avenue and west of New Street, running most of the way to the Burger King.
The City Manager wants his people to be allowed to permit construction 50% denser than HARVARD SQUARE north of Concord Avenue where the two shopping areas now sit. The upzoning would allow the same incredible density in the parking lots north of the railroad tracks in the Alewife Station area.
The City Manager has already started massive destruction of trees on the south side of Concord Avenue half a block west of New Street and continuing beyond the Burger King.
Visible to the public is the massive destruction of trees near Neville Manor. Less publicly visible is strikingly irresponsible destruction of healthy trees in Fresh Pond Reservation and much more irresponsible plans to come.
The City Manager wants to plant a thousand saplings between Concord Avenue and Fresh Pond. Thousands of healthy trees are in his way. So the City Manager is destroying thousands of healthy trees to make room for 1000 saplings.
This is part of a package in many parts of the city where the city manager has commonly destroyed mature trees to put in saplings or to put to replace perfectly good parks with “new” parks with much less numbers of trees.
The city manager is responding to the open space money in the community preservation tax which we voted for. We voted for a new tax for new open space. The city manager is destroying existing open space with that money to put in saplings and barren plazas.
The heartless, deliberate starvation of beautiful animals on the Charles River is part of this sick mentality, as is the destruction of Charles River wetlands to put in designer plants.
So thanks for supporting that one zoning proposal. Can I get the Chronicle to support meaningful opposition to our strikingly irresponsible City of Cambridge elsewhere in the same neighborhood?
* Explanation to the editor: you will hear numbers about residential density. We are among the three densest residentially in the state and near the top in that category in the country as well.
Those RESIDENTIAL DENSITY numbers are misleading because of our massive commercial development. Somerville, also in that top three residentially, has half per capita our commercial density. Chelsea is also nowhere near us in commercial development.
The downzoning supported by the Cambridge Chronicle is on the north side of Concord Avenue in Cambridge, about a block east of the Fresh Pond reservation.
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Thank you for the editorial supporting the downzoning of the Cambridge Self Storage site across from the Armory on Concord Avenue. The reality is that the zoning proposal, while it would decrease allowed construction by 40%, still allows construction 50% larger than the residential neighborhood. The existing zoning is an example of bad regulation of development by the City of Cambridge. Our city already is by far the most densely developed city in the Commonwealth and clearly one of the densest in the country.*
I hope the Chronicle will join me in opposing really destructive initiatives in the SAME neighborhood. The big problem is the usual problem with regard to overdevelopment and environmental destruction: bad behavior by the Cambridge City Manager and his representatives.
One block away from the zoning change area, on the other side of New Street, the City Manager has filed for a third time a strikingly irresponsible upzoning.
The Self Storage site currently allows construction 2½ times the density of the neighborhood. The city manager is proposing 12 times neighborhood density at the whim of his appointees in the area north of Concord Avenue and west of New Street, running most of the way to the Burger King.
The City Manager wants his people to be allowed to permit construction 50% denser than HARVARD SQUARE north of Concord Avenue where the two shopping areas now sit. The upzoning would allow the same incredible density in the parking lots north of the railroad tracks in the Alewife Station area.
The City Manager has already started massive destruction of trees on the south side of Concord Avenue half a block west of New Street and continuing beyond the Burger King.
Visible to the public is the massive destruction of trees near Neville Manor. Less publicly visible is strikingly irresponsible destruction of healthy trees in Fresh Pond Reservation and much more irresponsible plans to come.
The City Manager wants to plant a thousand saplings between Concord Avenue and Fresh Pond. Thousands of healthy trees are in his way. So the City Manager is destroying thousands of healthy trees to make room for 1000 saplings.
This is part of a package in many parts of the city where the city manager has commonly destroyed mature trees to put in saplings or to put to replace perfectly good parks with “new” parks with much less numbers of trees.
The city manager is responding to the open space money in the community preservation tax which we voted for. We voted for a new tax for new open space. The city manager is destroying existing open space with that money to put in saplings and barren plazas.
The heartless, deliberate starvation of beautiful animals on the Charles River is part of this sick mentality, as is the destruction of Charles River wetlands to put in designer plants.
So thanks for supporting that one zoning proposal. Can I get the Chronicle to support meaningful opposition to our strikingly irresponsible City of Cambridge elsewhere in the same neighborhood?
* Explanation to the editor: you will hear numbers about residential density. We are among the three densest residentially in the state and near the top in that category in the country as well.
Those RESIDENTIAL DENSITY numbers are misleading because of our massive commercial development. Somerville, also in that top three residentially, has half per capita our commercial density. Chelsea is also nowhere near us in commercial development.
Fresh Pond Logging to Resume April 18 - 21, 2006
Bob La Tremouille reports:
The City of Cambridge has issued the following announcement with regard to logging at Fresh Pond during the week of April 18 to 21, 2006:
***************
Fencing of trees and of the project site area has been the focus of
Northeast Sector Project work [between Concord Avenue and Fresh Pond] in the past week. Soil management work is in process, and will continue into the summer.
Next week's forecast:
Some landscape management work will take place next week. Concord
Avenue and the Perimeter Road will be the focus areas for the trimming and
felling of trees.
The construction fencing for the Northeast Sector Site is scheduled to
be installed next week. The black fencing will be placed around the
perimeter of the project, and will be removed as the new vegetation
becomes established.
For more information:
Please stop be either of the projects websites for more information:
The City of Cambridge has issued the following announcement with regard to logging at Fresh Pond during the week of April 18 to 21, 2006:
***************
Fencing of trees and of the project site area has been the focus of
Northeast Sector Project work [between Concord Avenue and Fresh Pond] in the past week. Soil management work is in process, and will continue into the summer.
Next week's forecast:
Some landscape management work will take place next week. Concord
Avenue and the Perimeter Road will be the focus areas for the trimming and
felling of trees.
The construction fencing for the Northeast Sector Site is scheduled to
be installed next week. The black fencing will be placed around the
perimeter of the project, and will be removed as the new vegetation
becomes established.
For more information:
Please stop be either of the projects websites for more information:
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Cambridge City Council Listens to Massachusetts Dept of Comm's & Rec. on Storrow Drive Work, 4/6/05
Edited by Bob La Tremouille
1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn Wellons Reports.
3. Kathy Podgers Reports.
1. Introduction.
The Cambridge City Council conducted a meeting at 11 am on April 6, 2005 on the Department of Conservation and Recreation's plans for Storrow Drive.
You will recall that, while the DCR will discuss integration of the project with the publicly favored Longfellow Bridge project, the DCR refuses to discuss coordination with the highly destructive work on Memorial Drive.
Both projects are clearly precursors to the DCR work on Storrow Drive.
2. Marilyn Wellons Reports.
This is an abbreviated report:
Karst Hoogeboom, Deputy Commissioner for Planning and
Engineering was the ranking DCR representative at the
hearing [Ed: in front of the Cambridge City Council, April 6, 2005, 11 am. Next to no notice was given and the meeting was conducted in the day, minimizing public knowledge or participation]. Others included engineering and public
relations consultants. DCR planner Karl Haglund used
the March 27 and 29, 2006, Power Point presentation
again.
Councillor Kelley was chair. Councillor Davis, Deputy
City Mgr. Rossi, Police Commissioner Watkins, Asst.
City Mgr. for Traffic & Paarking Susan Clippinger, and
City Clerk Margaret Drury attended.
The presentation included the table with data
supporting the DCR's statement that Memorial Drive is
at 21% (low, am inbound) to 57% (high, pm outbound)
capacity.
However, in response to Commissioner Watkins's
question about the effect of Mem Drive's traffic
lights on traffic flow, the DCR's traffic engineers
said the traffic signals render the table's data
meaningless. The DCR will have a better idea of Mem
Drive's capacity by September.
Officials praise the DCR for its open process but if
they present data they know are flawed, what does
"open process" mean? Someone please remind me when
the next public meeting is--I hope it's before
September so they can correct the table for public
discussion.
The results of other traffic surveys, including the
origin-destination study (suggested by a member of the
public--not the DCR--at the very first meeting in
February at the State House), will be done this
spring. On that study, Watkins noted the DCR plans
indicate no traffic count at the Pike exit into
Cambridge. DCR responded that not all counting spots
are on the DCR's map shown in the presentation (the
Pike exit was shown).
As we know, the Power Point presentation focuses on 4
options:
A3: Rehabilitate Existing Tunnel to Achieve 40-Year
Service Life;
B4: At-Grade Parkway with Traffic Signals;
C2: Old and New Tunnels, No Arlington Street
Westbound Exit (with vent buildings);
D2: New Tunnels with At-Grade Local Traffic (without
Vent Buildings).
Haglund said the size of vent buildings in option D2
would depend in part on traffic volumes--lower volumes
mean smaller vent buildings. I take that to mean
success in the DCR's previously stated goal of
permanently reducing traffic on Storrow by 30,000 to
50,000 vehicles per day could make option C2 more
attractive, especially to people in Boston.
At the Cambridge City Council hearing, the DCR seemed
to back off the goal of a permanent reduction, saying
they're looking at whether it would be possible. They
did say traffic on Storrow is heavy all day long. If
so, would whatever traffic is diverted to Mem Drive,
whether temporary or permanent, assume this pattern?
Responding to a comment from the public, Haglund
asserted that the Storrow tunnel is in imminent danger
of falling down, hence the urgency of the
environmental review and choice among options.
However, at earlier meetings the DCR has said there
can be no work on the Storrow tunnel til the
Longfellow Bridge is fixed, and mentioned a five-year
timeline. When I asked Haglund about the connection
of the Storrow work with the Longfellow work and work
on Mem Drive, he didn't comment on the bridge but said
the Mem Drive "Historic Restoration" wasn't connected
to the Storrow work.
(The DCR repeatedly refuses to discuss the timing of
these three projects or their relation to each other.
After a transportation meeting in Boston April 12, an
EOT consultant thought it reasonable to assume the DCR
is waiting for the results of the Harvard-funded
study, "Transportation Alternatives in Allston,"
before going public with its own plans to tie in to
that component of the whole puzzle. The Allston
report will be out in 6-8 weeks--the scope was
recently extended, not completely recast, as I
previously have reported.)
Of course these projects are physically and logically
connected, even if, as Haglund said of the Mem Drive
"restoration," they're bureaucratically separate. He
commented that the Mem Drive project reduced the
number of travel lanes as though that would mean
reduced traffic--but Storrow has two lanes in each
direction and carries a very intensive load. More
important than the number of lanes is limited access
(like Storrow now). Mem Drive, with the removal of
over 300 parking spaces between the BU and Longfellow
bridges, has much more limited access than before that
phase of "restoration." (The Director of EOT plans
couldn't figure out why, if the DCR's goal was to
reduce traffic on Mem Drive, they would would limit
access as they did by removing the parking spaces.)
Further plans for the "Historic Restoration" call for
straightening out Mem Drive in addition to adding the
westbound turns (toward the BU Bridge) from the Mass
Ave. Bridge outbound already accomplished. And of
course cutting down hundreds of trees will improve the
sight lines while providing the DCR cover for its
actual increase in Mem Drive's capacity ("the original
plans for Mem Drive didn't include all those trees").
The DCR presents its Storrow tunnel crisis as a
problem but also as an opportunity. I believe all
Storrow tunnel options are said to increase parkland,
some, obviously, more than others. This, as we know,
if a powerful argument. Increasing parkland has
allowed the DCR to eliminate all that public parking
on Mem Drive even as they work to make it Storrow's
equivalent.
Failing at maintenance, allowing its assets to
deteriorate, and then billing the crisis as an
opportunity sounds like the DCR's very familiar method
with its parkland. This keeps its planners in
business, sopping up money from mere snow clearing,
trash pickup and other maintenance of swimming pools
and their former skating rinks.
The DCR elides the problem that new tunnels couldn't
support canopy trees and that such trees would be
destroyed to construct the tunnels. Again, this
recalls the DCR's work on Mem Drive, where hundreds of
mature canopy trees will be cut down, even without a
tunnel. So many opportunities, so little actual green.
Cambridge Deputy City Manager Rossi asked about who
would bear the costs of policing traffic during the
construction and whether the state would pay for a
traffic consultant for Cambridge. Answers were The
State to the first question, Don't Know to the second.
(Boston has also asked for a state-funded traffic
consultant.)
Police Commissioner Watkins was most concerned with
the effect of all this on traffic and on the Mem Drive
roadway surface itself.
Marilyn Wellons
3. Kathy Podgers Reports.
Briefly, we met in Sullivan Chambers, and Craig Kelley seemed to be a main leader. we, the public, were all allowed to speak twice. The slide show seemed to be the same as at the Morse school.
Several new people came and spoke. When I mentioned that Mayor Reeves told me that I cannot use City Hall to announce the address of my blog, several folks came up to me and asked for it.
One thing interesting to me, was the presence of Police Commissioner Watson, who seemed to have been invited there for the purpose of supporting the claim we needed "mitigation" as funds to "repave" Memorial Dr after all the years of diverted Storrow Drive traffic tears it up.
This seems to be a maneuver (by those who claim they represent folks in Cambridge) to hi-jack my comment that the DCR needs to listen to folks in Cambridge and talk about our issues.
One thing is sure, I do not want mitigation to be more money for more highways, parkways or whatever! Enough already!
One thing I mentioned was wanting to hear "bird song." I pointed out trees were not enough, we needed understory.
Kathy
1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn Wellons Reports.
3. Kathy Podgers Reports.
1. Introduction.
The Cambridge City Council conducted a meeting at 11 am on April 6, 2005 on the Department of Conservation and Recreation's plans for Storrow Drive.
You will recall that, while the DCR will discuss integration of the project with the publicly favored Longfellow Bridge project, the DCR refuses to discuss coordination with the highly destructive work on Memorial Drive.
Both projects are clearly precursors to the DCR work on Storrow Drive.
2. Marilyn Wellons Reports.
This is an abbreviated report:
Karst Hoogeboom, Deputy Commissioner for Planning and
Engineering was the ranking DCR representative at the
hearing [Ed: in front of the Cambridge City Council, April 6, 2005, 11 am. Next to no notice was given and the meeting was conducted in the day, minimizing public knowledge or participation]. Others included engineering and public
relations consultants. DCR planner Karl Haglund used
the March 27 and 29, 2006, Power Point presentation
again.
Councillor Kelley was chair. Councillor Davis, Deputy
City Mgr. Rossi, Police Commissioner Watkins, Asst.
City Mgr. for Traffic & Paarking Susan Clippinger, and
City Clerk Margaret Drury attended.
The presentation included the table with data
supporting the DCR's statement that Memorial Drive is
at 21% (low, am inbound) to 57% (high, pm outbound)
capacity.
However, in response to Commissioner Watkins's
question about the effect of Mem Drive's traffic
lights on traffic flow, the DCR's traffic engineers
said the traffic signals render the table's data
meaningless. The DCR will have a better idea of Mem
Drive's capacity by September.
Officials praise the DCR for its open process but if
they present data they know are flawed, what does
"open process" mean? Someone please remind me when
the next public meeting is--I hope it's before
September so they can correct the table for public
discussion.
The results of other traffic surveys, including the
origin-destination study (suggested by a member of the
public--not the DCR--at the very first meeting in
February at the State House), will be done this
spring. On that study, Watkins noted the DCR plans
indicate no traffic count at the Pike exit into
Cambridge. DCR responded that not all counting spots
are on the DCR's map shown in the presentation (the
Pike exit was shown).
As we know, the Power Point presentation focuses on 4
options:
A3: Rehabilitate Existing Tunnel to Achieve 40-Year
Service Life;
B4: At-Grade Parkway with Traffic Signals;
C2: Old and New Tunnels, No Arlington Street
Westbound Exit (with vent buildings);
D2: New Tunnels with At-Grade Local Traffic (without
Vent Buildings).
Haglund said the size of vent buildings in option D2
would depend in part on traffic volumes--lower volumes
mean smaller vent buildings. I take that to mean
success in the DCR's previously stated goal of
permanently reducing traffic on Storrow by 30,000 to
50,000 vehicles per day could make option C2 more
attractive, especially to people in Boston.
At the Cambridge City Council hearing, the DCR seemed
to back off the goal of a permanent reduction, saying
they're looking at whether it would be possible. They
did say traffic on Storrow is heavy all day long. If
so, would whatever traffic is diverted to Mem Drive,
whether temporary or permanent, assume this pattern?
Responding to a comment from the public, Haglund
asserted that the Storrow tunnel is in imminent danger
of falling down, hence the urgency of the
environmental review and choice among options.
However, at earlier meetings the DCR has said there
can be no work on the Storrow tunnel til the
Longfellow Bridge is fixed, and mentioned a five-year
timeline. When I asked Haglund about the connection
of the Storrow work with the Longfellow work and work
on Mem Drive, he didn't comment on the bridge but said
the Mem Drive "Historic Restoration" wasn't connected
to the Storrow work.
(The DCR repeatedly refuses to discuss the timing of
these three projects or their relation to each other.
After a transportation meeting in Boston April 12, an
EOT consultant thought it reasonable to assume the DCR
is waiting for the results of the Harvard-funded
study, "Transportation Alternatives in Allston,"
before going public with its own plans to tie in to
that component of the whole puzzle. The Allston
report will be out in 6-8 weeks--the scope was
recently extended, not completely recast, as I
previously have reported.)
Of course these projects are physically and logically
connected, even if, as Haglund said of the Mem Drive
"restoration," they're bureaucratically separate. He
commented that the Mem Drive project reduced the
number of travel lanes as though that would mean
reduced traffic--but Storrow has two lanes in each
direction and carries a very intensive load. More
important than the number of lanes is limited access
(like Storrow now). Mem Drive, with the removal of
over 300 parking spaces between the BU and Longfellow
bridges, has much more limited access than before that
phase of "restoration." (The Director of EOT plans
couldn't figure out why, if the DCR's goal was to
reduce traffic on Mem Drive, they would would limit
access as they did by removing the parking spaces.)
Further plans for the "Historic Restoration" call for
straightening out Mem Drive in addition to adding the
westbound turns (toward the BU Bridge) from the Mass
Ave. Bridge outbound already accomplished. And of
course cutting down hundreds of trees will improve the
sight lines while providing the DCR cover for its
actual increase in Mem Drive's capacity ("the original
plans for Mem Drive didn't include all those trees").
The DCR presents its Storrow tunnel crisis as a
problem but also as an opportunity. I believe all
Storrow tunnel options are said to increase parkland,
some, obviously, more than others. This, as we know,
if a powerful argument. Increasing parkland has
allowed the DCR to eliminate all that public parking
on Mem Drive even as they work to make it Storrow's
equivalent.
Failing at maintenance, allowing its assets to
deteriorate, and then billing the crisis as an
opportunity sounds like the DCR's very familiar method
with its parkland. This keeps its planners in
business, sopping up money from mere snow clearing,
trash pickup and other maintenance of swimming pools
and their former skating rinks.
The DCR elides the problem that new tunnels couldn't
support canopy trees and that such trees would be
destroyed to construct the tunnels. Again, this
recalls the DCR's work on Mem Drive, where hundreds of
mature canopy trees will be cut down, even without a
tunnel. So many opportunities, so little actual green.
Cambridge Deputy City Manager Rossi asked about who
would bear the costs of policing traffic during the
construction and whether the state would pay for a
traffic consultant for Cambridge. Answers were The
State to the first question, Don't Know to the second.
(Boston has also asked for a state-funded traffic
consultant.)
Police Commissioner Watkins was most concerned with
the effect of all this on traffic and on the Mem Drive
roadway surface itself.
Marilyn Wellons
3. Kathy Podgers Reports.
Briefly, we met in Sullivan Chambers, and Craig Kelley seemed to be a main leader. we, the public, were all allowed to speak twice. The slide show seemed to be the same as at the Morse school.
Several new people came and spoke. When I mentioned that Mayor Reeves told me that I cannot use City Hall to announce the address of my blog, several folks came up to me and asked for it.
One thing interesting to me, was the presence of Police Commissioner Watson, who seemed to have been invited there for the purpose of supporting the claim we needed "mitigation" as funds to "repave" Memorial Dr after all the years of diverted Storrow Drive traffic tears it up.
This seems to be a maneuver (by those who claim they represent folks in Cambridge) to hi-jack my comment that the DCR needs to listen to folks in Cambridge and talk about our issues.
One thing is sure, I do not want mitigation to be more money for more highways, parkways or whatever! Enough already!
One thing I mentioned was wanting to hear "bird song." I pointed out trees were not enough, we needed understory.
Kathy
Sunday, April 09, 2006
DCR Meeting on March 29, 2006, Storrow Drive Reconstruction and Cambridge: The Party Line / Newspeak and Reality
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
1. Introduction.
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
B. More General.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
1. Introduction.
On March 29, 2006, the Department of Conservation and Recreation conducted a meeting on its plans for Storrow Drive at the Morse School in Cambridge directly across Memorial Drive from the Starvation Zone at Magazine Beach.
The following was distributed on April 3, 2006, by people who give the impression that they find controversy offensive (and give the impression that they are neutral on massive environmental destruction). It is unedited except to remove identification of the guilty:
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
We are all Cambridgeport residents and who were in attendance at last week's DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation) public meeting on Storrow Drive Tunnel Reconstruction options. This is to provide a brief report on the meeting and the DCR's on-going design and development of the project . The design options and more are outlined at the DCR website and further info may be obtained through DCR's public outreach contact person Nancy Farell. See DCR website contact info below. By way of background, Dept. of Conservatin & Recreation was transferred responsibility for the former MDC, and thus is responsible for Mem Drive and Storrow Drive (river areas).
[Ed: I somehow lost the DCR website info. The party line blends in the consultant’s position with their own Newspeak. I edited out the distinction and in editing signature blocks, edited out the website references the Newspeak people were alluding to.]
DCR confirmed that the Storrow tunnel reconstruction could take 2-4 years (depending which reconstruction strategy is implemented), and thus there will be a long period of traffic diversion involving increased traffic on Mem Drive, Mass Pike, area streets and bridges. Thus we want to emphasize this is an important citywide and regional transportation/traffic issue likely to impact our area, and it is important to let DCR and our city and state representatives know we need this to be implemented in a manner that is responsive to area concerns. State Reps. Alice Wolf and Mary Walz were in attendance, as were City Councillors Henrietta Davis and Craig Kelly.
It appears that the studies and planning will continue well into the fall of 2006 and that, if a final plan is approved, construction would not begin [until after the Longfellow Bridge repairs/reconstruction is complete and thus it is difficult for DCR to predict a begin date for the Storrow tunnel project]. At present, DCR assumes the project will be funded by state funding [through the sale of bonds]. Four major categories of addressing the redesign of Storrow Drive were highlighted and these 4 categories had various subdesigns. The different design options are set forth in the DCR website (see website info below). A Cambridgeport resident suggested a cut and cover tunnel design under the Charles river which would restore all of the Esplanade. Others suggested DCR work with MBTA to implement incentives for use of Mass Transit during the tunnel reconstruction. Other mitigation suggestions and concerns were voiced.
We recall the Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) saying they would continue to have open workshops on traffic issues when the analysis of their data collection is complete and that a September public meeting will be scheduled to go over the various traffic studies that will be conducted in the next month or two. We note DCR saying, despite some short-term reconfigurations, they would commit to no net reduction in trees, but perhaps increase trees and other landscaping amenities over time depending on the final design. Their main presenter was a recognized author on the subject of the Charles River, who appeared concerned with many bigger issues, including environmental concerns.
The accessibility of the DCR staff to answer all calls, take feedback, and try to provide an open process was mentioned several times during the presentation. We recognize there are tendencies in any bureaucracy not to be as open as all would like and we need to be vigilant and, as necessary, critical on behalf of our neighborhood. However, we believe we will have more credibility if we pursue such vigilance and offer our comments and criticisms in a balanced manner. The proposed tunnel reconstruction appears to be a complex and major project and the many details and mitigation proposals are beyond the scope of this email. However, we want to alert the list serv readers to the existence of an ongoing, dynamic and important public input process that is underway, and we are hopeful this will be of assistance as a partial introduction to and update on the subject. Remember, citizens and neighborhood groups can make a huge difference in these projects. Years ago, it was citizens groups that caused elected officials and planners to take heed of neighborhood concerns and radically alter and actually discontinue some of the objectionable Inner Belt highway contsruction proposals. So, it is incumbent on us to remind our State Reps, City Councillors and DCR that any Storrow reconstruction proposal be implemented only after careful and comprehensive consideration of Cambridge and other neighborhood needs. Given the fact that the closure of Storrow Drive for tunnel reconstruction could divert 100,000 cars a day, this is a project warranting community oversight and participation.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
Lots of stuff about "cooperation and coordination," with the reality strikingly different as usual for Cambridge.
They need Memorial Drive straightened out and want to destroy all those trees. The DCR/MDC says they will coordinate with the Longfellow Bridge project.
They flat out refuse to discuss the Memorial Drive coordination.
It is also interesting that the as-secret-as-possible meeting on the traffic counts seems to be unmentioned.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
This was distributed in the form of a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe on about March 30:
Reports about openness of the Department of Conservation and Recreation concerning the Storrow Drive project were demonstrated to be extremely inaccurate at a meeting in Cambridge on March 29, 2006.
The moderator flatly refused to discuss the relationship between the Storrow Drive project and environmental destruction on Memorial Drive which is rather clearly aimed at easing the Storrow Drive reconstruction.
Memorial Drive is in the process of having more than 449 to 660 trees destroyed in number interrelated projects. All the parking on the river side between the BU and Longfellow Bridges has been destroyed. Memorial Drive is being straightened out to handle the traffic from Storrow Drive.
Repeated questions about the Memorial Drive parking loss and ongoing tree destruction were answered by bragging about the tree protections on Storrow Drive.
The moderator, Mr. Karl Hoaglund, announced that most members of the public will be barred from attending a future meeting on traffic projections.
Mr. Hoaglund, in addition to being a high DCR official, has very visible association with the Charles River Conservancy. The CRC has supported the environmental destruction in Cambridge including this massive tree destruction and the bizarre ongoing project at Magazine Beach. The latter project along with a project across from the Hyatt has featured starvation attacks on the Charles River White Geese which are now in their 19th month. The CRC has poisoned every goose egg they can get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River for the past three years.
Looks like "openness" for Boston with the usual backroom dealing and environmental destruction for Cambridge.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
Dear Readers: A factual report on the Storrow Drive Closing presentation yesterday evening is forthcoming from [Identification of the guilty omitted.] Please look for it. Thank you.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
Councilor Kelley sent out the following after a maximally secret presentation DCR to the Cambridge City Council on April 6. This presentation was conducted during the day with absolutely minimal public notice. Marilyn did attend and has promised a report.
I consider the first paragraph irrelevant, but Councilor Kelley considers it relevant and I will grant him the courtesy of including it.
*********
While there may not be a connection directly between these issues, they are related and they are also related to a shooting in Jefferson Park in February, bricks being thrown through windows in North Cambridge a few weeks ago, loud little scooters running endlessly around Rindge Field at night and so on. Point being, our current policing efforts are not, around these issues, making people feel comfortable and it's not just a Cambridgeport, or North Cambridge, or Riverside, problem. So the question is, what systemic things can Cambridge as a City, to include the CPD but also youth services and the Cambridge Housing Authority and the school system and neighborhood groups and individuals and so on down the line do to make people more comfortable with our levels of safety and overall nuisance.
As someone said yesterday about the DCR's distinction between their upcoming Storrow Drive work and their ongoing Memorial Drive work, it is odd to have bureaucratic separation of things that are physically and logically related.
Thoughts?
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
The DCR connects and will coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Longfellow work. They will not connect and allegedly will not coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Memorial Drive work.
The difference is that they claim to be pro-environment and are flat out lying on Memorial Drive. The hundreds of trees being destroyed, the flat out deliberate starvation of beautiful animals, the deliberate destruction of wetlands, the twice annual destruction of native vegetation, the connection to the off ramp from the Mass. Pike - these are are matters of great shame. These are all good reasons to fire a lot of people, both at the DCR and in the City of Cambridge.
So they will not talk and they know the City of Cambridge will support them in not talking.
There is no sanction for refusing to talk. There is great sanction for living in reality.
B. More General.
One side of the problem is the complainer saying "they do not listen to us."
A much more serious part of the problem is people who consider meaningful complaints "impolite." You can say anything you want. Just do not be so "impolite" as to make meaningful complaints.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
In apparent response to a number of issues raised by Kathy Podgers, some ostensibly sensitive souls are talking about splitting the listserve quoted above. They do not want to be disturbed by reality.
Note, however, that such people commonly are very happy to have the sort of Party Line report distributed. They are just disturbed that somebody would mention negative things.
To quote:
**********
I don't think that the bantering that fills all of our mailboxes is a healthy way to share or refine ideas or that it serves us as a community. What I want from our list-serv are notices of meetings and major neighborhood events/reasons to be concerned. 5 or so such notices a month would serve me well. At our monthly meetings we can discuss these neighborhood issues as a community. We need to hear from more than the 4 or 5 folks who regularly present their points of view on the list-serv. They do not a community make.
**********
Note: The Party Line demands squelching “offensive” talks but have no response to those mentioning offensive things. Their response is censorship and reports positive in tone with key omission of matters which will never be discussed by them EVEN AFTER IT IS DONE.
Interestingly, the meetings which the Party Line favors are censored by the chair and at least one key councillor (Henrietta Davis) repeatedly shouts down those who talk reality.
At the same time, the Party Line repeatedly talks about “openness” by the DCR. What they find offensive are statements that prove the “openness” to be a lie.
This is the way things are done.
This is why Cambridge is on exactly the opposite environmentally from their lovely claims.
1. Introduction.
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
B. More General.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
1. Introduction.
On March 29, 2006, the Department of Conservation and Recreation conducted a meeting on its plans for Storrow Drive at the Morse School in Cambridge directly across Memorial Drive from the Starvation Zone at Magazine Beach.
The following was distributed on April 3, 2006, by people who give the impression that they find controversy offensive (and give the impression that they are neutral on massive environmental destruction). It is unedited except to remove identification of the guilty:
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
We are all Cambridgeport residents and who were in attendance at last week's DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation) public meeting on Storrow Drive Tunnel Reconstruction options. This is to provide a brief report on the meeting and the DCR's on-going design and development of the project . The design options and more are outlined at the DCR website and further info may be obtained through DCR's public outreach contact person Nancy Farell. See DCR website contact info below. By way of background, Dept. of Conservatin & Recreation was transferred responsibility for the former MDC, and thus is responsible for Mem Drive and Storrow Drive (river areas).
[Ed: I somehow lost the DCR website info. The party line blends in the consultant’s position with their own Newspeak. I edited out the distinction and in editing signature blocks, edited out the website references the Newspeak people were alluding to.]
DCR confirmed that the Storrow tunnel reconstruction could take 2-4 years (depending which reconstruction strategy is implemented), and thus there will be a long period of traffic diversion involving increased traffic on Mem Drive, Mass Pike, area streets and bridges. Thus we want to emphasize this is an important citywide and regional transportation/traffic issue likely to impact our area, and it is important to let DCR and our city and state representatives know we need this to be implemented in a manner that is responsive to area concerns. State Reps. Alice Wolf and Mary Walz were in attendance, as were City Councillors Henrietta Davis and Craig Kelly.
It appears that the studies and planning will continue well into the fall of 2006 and that, if a final plan is approved, construction would not begin [until after the Longfellow Bridge repairs/reconstruction is complete and thus it is difficult for DCR to predict a begin date for the Storrow tunnel project]. At present, DCR assumes the project will be funded by state funding [through the sale of bonds]. Four major categories of addressing the redesign of Storrow Drive were highlighted and these 4 categories had various subdesigns. The different design options are set forth in the DCR website (see website info below). A Cambridgeport resident suggested a cut and cover tunnel design under the Charles river which would restore all of the Esplanade. Others suggested DCR work with MBTA to implement incentives for use of Mass Transit during the tunnel reconstruction. Other mitigation suggestions and concerns were voiced.
We recall the Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) saying they would continue to have open workshops on traffic issues when the analysis of their data collection is complete and that a September public meeting will be scheduled to go over the various traffic studies that will be conducted in the next month or two. We note DCR saying, despite some short-term reconfigurations, they would commit to no net reduction in trees, but perhaps increase trees and other landscaping amenities over time depending on the final design. Their main presenter was a recognized author on the subject of the Charles River, who appeared concerned with many bigger issues, including environmental concerns.
The accessibility of the DCR staff to answer all calls, take feedback, and try to provide an open process was mentioned several times during the presentation. We recognize there are tendencies in any bureaucracy not to be as open as all would like and we need to be vigilant and, as necessary, critical on behalf of our neighborhood. However, we believe we will have more credibility if we pursue such vigilance and offer our comments and criticisms in a balanced manner. The proposed tunnel reconstruction appears to be a complex and major project and the many details and mitigation proposals are beyond the scope of this email. However, we want to alert the list serv readers to the existence of an ongoing, dynamic and important public input process that is underway, and we are hopeful this will be of assistance as a partial introduction to and update on the subject. Remember, citizens and neighborhood groups can make a huge difference in these projects. Years ago, it was citizens groups that caused elected officials and planners to take heed of neighborhood concerns and radically alter and actually discontinue some of the objectionable Inner Belt highway contsruction proposals. So, it is incumbent on us to remind our State Reps, City Councillors and DCR that any Storrow reconstruction proposal be implemented only after careful and comprehensive consideration of Cambridge and other neighborhood needs. Given the fact that the closure of Storrow Drive for tunnel reconstruction could divert 100,000 cars a day, this is a project warranting community oversight and participation.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
Lots of stuff about "cooperation and coordination," with the reality strikingly different as usual for Cambridge.
They need Memorial Drive straightened out and want to destroy all those trees. The DCR/MDC says they will coordinate with the Longfellow Bridge project.
They flat out refuse to discuss the Memorial Drive coordination.
It is also interesting that the as-secret-as-possible meeting on the traffic counts seems to be unmentioned.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
This was distributed in the form of a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe on about March 30:
Reports about openness of the Department of Conservation and Recreation concerning the Storrow Drive project were demonstrated to be extremely inaccurate at a meeting in Cambridge on March 29, 2006.
The moderator flatly refused to discuss the relationship between the Storrow Drive project and environmental destruction on Memorial Drive which is rather clearly aimed at easing the Storrow Drive reconstruction.
Memorial Drive is in the process of having more than 449 to 660 trees destroyed in number interrelated projects. All the parking on the river side between the BU and Longfellow Bridges has been destroyed. Memorial Drive is being straightened out to handle the traffic from Storrow Drive.
Repeated questions about the Memorial Drive parking loss and ongoing tree destruction were answered by bragging about the tree protections on Storrow Drive.
The moderator, Mr. Karl Hoaglund, announced that most members of the public will be barred from attending a future meeting on traffic projections.
Mr. Hoaglund, in addition to being a high DCR official, has very visible association with the Charles River Conservancy. The CRC has supported the environmental destruction in Cambridge including this massive tree destruction and the bizarre ongoing project at Magazine Beach. The latter project along with a project across from the Hyatt has featured starvation attacks on the Charles River White Geese which are now in their 19th month. The CRC has poisoned every goose egg they can get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River for the past three years.
Looks like "openness" for Boston with the usual backroom dealing and environmental destruction for Cambridge.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
Dear Readers: A factual report on the Storrow Drive Closing presentation yesterday evening is forthcoming from [Identification of the guilty omitted.] Please look for it. Thank you.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
Councilor Kelley sent out the following after a maximally secret presentation DCR to the Cambridge City Council on April 6. This presentation was conducted during the day with absolutely minimal public notice. Marilyn did attend and has promised a report.
I consider the first paragraph irrelevant, but Councilor Kelley considers it relevant and I will grant him the courtesy of including it.
*********
While there may not be a connection directly between these issues, they are related and they are also related to a shooting in Jefferson Park in February, bricks being thrown through windows in North Cambridge a few weeks ago, loud little scooters running endlessly around Rindge Field at night and so on. Point being, our current policing efforts are not, around these issues, making people feel comfortable and it's not just a Cambridgeport, or North Cambridge, or Riverside, problem. So the question is, what systemic things can Cambridge as a City, to include the CPD but also youth services and the Cambridge Housing Authority and the school system and neighborhood groups and individuals and so on down the line do to make people more comfortable with our levels of safety and overall nuisance.
As someone said yesterday about the DCR's distinction between their upcoming Storrow Drive work and their ongoing Memorial Drive work, it is odd to have bureaucratic separation of things that are physically and logically related.
Thoughts?
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
The DCR connects and will coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Longfellow work. They will not connect and allegedly will not coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Memorial Drive work.
The difference is that they claim to be pro-environment and are flat out lying on Memorial Drive. The hundreds of trees being destroyed, the flat out deliberate starvation of beautiful animals, the deliberate destruction of wetlands, the twice annual destruction of native vegetation, the connection to the off ramp from the Mass. Pike - these are are matters of great shame. These are all good reasons to fire a lot of people, both at the DCR and in the City of Cambridge.
So they will not talk and they know the City of Cambridge will support them in not talking.
There is no sanction for refusing to talk. There is great sanction for living in reality.
B. More General.
One side of the problem is the complainer saying "they do not listen to us."
A much more serious part of the problem is people who consider meaningful complaints "impolite." You can say anything you want. Just do not be so "impolite" as to make meaningful complaints.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
In apparent response to a number of issues raised by Kathy Podgers, some ostensibly sensitive souls are talking about splitting the listserve quoted above. They do not want to be disturbed by reality.
Note, however, that such people commonly are very happy to have the sort of Party Line report distributed. They are just disturbed that somebody would mention negative things.
To quote:
**********
I don't think that the bantering that fills all of our mailboxes is a healthy way to share or refine ideas or that it serves us as a community. What I want from our list-serv are notices of meetings and major neighborhood events/reasons to be concerned. 5 or so such notices a month would serve me well. At our monthly meetings we can discuss these neighborhood issues as a community. We need to hear from more than the 4 or 5 folks who regularly present their points of view on the list-serv. They do not a community make.
**********
Note: The Party Line demands squelching “offensive” talks but have no response to those mentioning offensive things. Their response is censorship and reports positive in tone with key omission of matters which will never be discussed by them EVEN AFTER IT IS DONE.
Interestingly, the meetings which the Party Line favors are censored by the chair and at least one key councillor (Henrietta Davis) repeatedly shouts down those who talk reality.
At the same time, the Party Line repeatedly talks about “openness” by the DCR. What they find offensive are statements that prove the “openness” to be a lie.
This is the way things are done.
This is why Cambridge is on exactly the opposite environmentally from their lovely claims.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Fresh Pond, Cambridge, MA - Your comments
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Concord Avenue, Cambridge, MA, resident - loves the reservation.
2. North Cambridge, MA, resident - loves nature, nesting hawks.
3. Nearby neighbor of mine in Cambridge Highlands - move out please.
I have received some comments that I think might be of interest.
1. Concord Avenue, Cambridge, MA, resident - loves the reservation.
This message is for the City Manager and the City Council:
I am a resident right in front of the recent cut down of a lot of the mature trees near Neville Manor.
It is very upsetting for me to see this. Fresh Pond is a big part of our life. We enjoy all the woods and the greenery there.
For all those mature trees to be cut down is such a shame, is such a shame. And I can’t express to you how upset me and my family are about this.
I know there will be saplings that are replacing those, but that does not give us the woods and the green area and all the creatures we see when we walk Fresh Pond and when we get to Fresh Pond.
I heard from a Realtor that it is going to be replaced by a soccer field, but that does not excite me as much as the natural woods that we have loved, and we really really want to prevent any more trees from being cut down. That is my very strong opinion.
I just wanted to voice that so that you are aware that a lot of the residents here are not very happy about this.
If you want to reach me, my number is [omitted]. I would be glad to talk with you if you want, but please please stop the destruction of our trees, the native trees which have been here for decades. It is just not worth the sacrifice to have new plants.
I just do not understand the reasoning, and I am really really going to miss them, the ones you cut.
It is like seeing animals killed. It is very very saddening.
Ok have a nice day.
2. North Cambridge, MA, resident - loves nature, nesting hawks.
I am a resident of North Cambridge.
I received a letter. "Do you think Fresh Pond Woods should be destroyed?" . . .
My personal opinion: no.
I have been watching the Hawks out here build their nests and raise their babies.
It is a sin.
I just hope you do the best you can.
3. Nearby neighbor of mine in Cambridge Highlands - move out please.
Bob,
I got a flyer at my door tonight. It is about the on going improvements at Fresh Pond.
I see and feel you don't think this is improvements. They are and will help this area for people
You Bob are a trouble maker have been and I guess always will be We don't like trouble so please go away.
Dan Brennan
1. Concord Avenue, Cambridge, MA, resident - loves the reservation.
2. North Cambridge, MA, resident - loves nature, nesting hawks.
3. Nearby neighbor of mine in Cambridge Highlands - move out please.
I have received some comments that I think might be of interest.
1. Concord Avenue, Cambridge, MA, resident - loves the reservation.
This message is for the City Manager and the City Council:
I am a resident right in front of the recent cut down of a lot of the mature trees near Neville Manor.
It is very upsetting for me to see this. Fresh Pond is a big part of our life. We enjoy all the woods and the greenery there.
For all those mature trees to be cut down is such a shame, is such a shame. And I can’t express to you how upset me and my family are about this.
I know there will be saplings that are replacing those, but that does not give us the woods and the green area and all the creatures we see when we walk Fresh Pond and when we get to Fresh Pond.
I heard from a Realtor that it is going to be replaced by a soccer field, but that does not excite me as much as the natural woods that we have loved, and we really really want to prevent any more trees from being cut down. That is my very strong opinion.
I just wanted to voice that so that you are aware that a lot of the residents here are not very happy about this.
If you want to reach me, my number is [omitted]. I would be glad to talk with you if you want, but please please stop the destruction of our trees, the native trees which have been here for decades. It is just not worth the sacrifice to have new plants.
I just do not understand the reasoning, and I am really really going to miss them, the ones you cut.
It is like seeing animals killed. It is very very saddening.
Ok have a nice day.
2. North Cambridge, MA, resident - loves nature, nesting hawks.
I am a resident of North Cambridge.
I received a letter. "Do you think Fresh Pond Woods should be destroyed?" . . .
My personal opinion: no.
I have been watching the Hawks out here build their nests and raise their babies.
It is a sin.
I just hope you do the best you can.
3. Nearby neighbor of mine in Cambridge Highlands - move out please.
Bob,
I got a flyer at my door tonight. It is about the on going improvements at Fresh Pond.
I see and feel you don't think this is improvements. They are and will help this area for people
You Bob are a trouble maker have been and I guess always will be We don't like trouble so please go away.
Dan Brennan
Fresh Pond, Cambridge, MA, USA: The villains identify themselves
Bob La Trémouille reports:
A new sign has appeared just west of the Neville Manor complex on Concord Ave. This is the location of the first and most visible of the logging on the Fresh Pond reservation.
A large number of mature trees was very visibly logged here at the beginning of this outrage: 20? 40? Once they are down, they are rapidly chopped up to give the impression they never existed.
The sign, appropriately, is in black background.
It announces "landscape improvements," neglecting, of course, to mention that saplings are in no way an improvement over the mature trees which have been destroyed, unless, of course, you are paid to destroy the mature trees or paid to install the saplings. And frankly, the most visible supporters of these projects tend to be people who make money out of destruction and replacement.
The most visible villain on the sign is City Manager Robert Healy.
Immediately below the name of Healy appears, credit given to Cambridge, MA Mayor Kenneth Reeves.
Below Reeves are the names of ALL eight other currently incumbent Cambridge, MA City Councilors including three who claim to be environmentalists.
One caveat: The city manager does a lot of lying by omission. He claims he has a right to only tell people about the saplings (or grass) he is planting; the Cambridge City Manager claims he has no duty to volunteer the nature of destruction involved.
Of course, as with regard to the truly sick situation on the Charles River, extended silence is very clearly consent and approval.
A new sign has appeared just west of the Neville Manor complex on Concord Ave. This is the location of the first and most visible of the logging on the Fresh Pond reservation.
A large number of mature trees was very visibly logged here at the beginning of this outrage: 20? 40? Once they are down, they are rapidly chopped up to give the impression they never existed.
The sign, appropriately, is in black background.
It announces "landscape improvements," neglecting, of course, to mention that saplings are in no way an improvement over the mature trees which have been destroyed, unless, of course, you are paid to destroy the mature trees or paid to install the saplings. And frankly, the most visible supporters of these projects tend to be people who make money out of destruction and replacement.
The most visible villain on the sign is City Manager Robert Healy.
Immediately below the name of Healy appears, credit given to Cambridge, MA Mayor Kenneth Reeves.
Below Reeves are the names of ALL eight other currently incumbent Cambridge, MA City Councilors including three who claim to be environmentalists.
One caveat: The city manager does a lot of lying by omission. He claims he has a right to only tell people about the saplings (or grass) he is planting; the Cambridge City Manager claims he has no duty to volunteer the nature of destruction involved.
Of course, as with regard to the truly sick situation on the Charles River, extended silence is very clearly consent and approval.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Fresh Pond, Cambridge, MA, USA: Related Initiatives; The Villains Brag
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Fresh Pond: Related Initiatives.
A. Introduction.
B. Neighborhood zoning problems.
C. The logging down the street.
D. The Cambridge city manager moves in exactly the wrong direction on zoning, as usual.
2. The Villains Brag.
A. Introduction.
B. Introductory / General.
C. Area being logged.
(1) Past destruction.
(2) Destruction to come.
D. Links.
1. Fresh Pond: Related Initiatives.
A. Introduction.
I sent the following letter to the Cambridge (MA, USA) Chronicle yesterday. The property in question is one short block off the Fresh Pond Reservation and from the eastern edge of the Cambridge, MA city manager’s proposed upzoning. The environmental destruction starts perhaps another block to the west.
I am subdividing it to fit this format:
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
RE: Letter: Tobin-Danehy Zoning Petition in Context
B. Neighborhood zoning problems.
Neighbors of the Cambridge Self Storage facility near the Sozio’s rotary on Concord Avenue have good reason to be concerned about development on the Cambridge Self-Storage site since a brief review of the zoning or the site (Residence C1A) indicates it allows construction 2½ times the allowed density in the neighborhood (Residence B).
There is more going on in their neighborhood than that, however, and the other problems include problems much worse than the problem at Cambridge Self-Storage.
The enemy, as in too many such problems, is the Cambridge City Manager.
C. The logging down the street.
On the Concord Avenue side of Fresh Pond, the Cambridge City Manager wants to plant 1000 saplings. This would run from the rotaries to the Burger King or further.
Trouble is that the existing trees are in the way of the City Manager’s saplings, so the City Manager is taking action. The City Manager is destroying large numbers of trees.
A guess based on the City Manager’s usual planting densities and the existing tree density would be destruction of 2000, 3000 or more trees. The logging has already commenced.
Death or forced eviction of valuable small resident animals is obvious. Destruction of bird nests during mating season is obvious. Looking at the starvation being inflicted on Charles River animals for more than a year and a half, this is business as usual.
Stirring up of resident rats is obvious. Where they will go is anybody’s guess, but the last thing that bothers the City Manager is behavior of animals affected by his projects. Clearly, they will be moved closer to people’s homes than they are now. The existing rat problem in various parts of the city can easily come from irresponsible developers.
D. The Cambridge city manager moves in exactly the wrong direction on zoning, as usual.
The City Manager has filed for the third time an incredibly massive upzoning in this area.
This upzoning affects construction on the north side of Concord Avenue running from Sozio’s Circle at least through both shopping centers. It also, at minimum, also threatens the north side of the railroad tracks at Alewife.
On the Cambridge Self-Storage site, the density allowed by zoning is 2.5 times that of the neighborhood. The City Manager’s pending upzoning could allow buildings 12 times the size of the neighborhood or worse. The City Manager’s proposal could allow buildings more than 50% denser than Harvard Square.
The neighborhood’s downzoning proposed for the Cambridge Self-Storage site, to Residence C-1 (50% denser than the neighborhood zoning) is clearly moderate.
The big threat is from the City Manager. I hope the neighbors are able to fight three fights at once. They are being attacked from three sides.
2. The Villains Brag.
A. Introduction.
Following is an email I got from the Cambridge city manager’s people concerning their logging initiatives.
Talk about “reviews” should be taken with a very major grain of salt. The people doing the reviews are appointed by the Cambridge city manager.
The entity which passes as a “Conservation Commission” in Cambridge, MA is so bad that they had maps of the outrage on Magazine Beach posted on their walls.
I will not insult you by translating “tree management.”
As with my letter to the editor, I have added subdivisions.
**********
B. Introductory / General.
Greetings from Fresh Pond Reservation!
Welcome to the Fresh Pond reservation Weekly email update.
At Little Fresh Pond, the first row of coir fascines is being staked into place along the perimeter of Little Fresh Pond. An erosion control fabric is being placed underneath the fascines, and will be spread out after the second row of fascines is put into place.
The new design for the southern wetland of Little Fresh Pond will be presented to the Cambridge Conservation Commission on Monday, March 27th.
The new design for the beach in the southeast corner of the Pond will also be presented to the Conservation Commission on March 27th.
Next week's forecast:
The coir fascines will continue to be placed along the shoreline of Little Fresh Pond.
Upon approval from the Conservation Commission, work on both the southwestern wetland and the southeastern beach area will move forward.
C. Area being logged.
(1) Past destruction.
Much work has taken place in the Northeast Sector. The slope behind Neville Place extending to Black's Nook has had extensive work done to it. Many of the invasive species have been cleared out, allowing Perimeter Path users visual access to the beautiful beeches on the slope.
Over the past two weeks, the organic matter on the slope was taken out, and erosion control log bars were placed into the soil. The soil was covered with a seeded mulch, and the mulch covered with a woody fiber matrix that will protect the new soil and the seeds it holds. A brush barrier is being erected along the perimeter of the slope area using the trimmings from native tree species on the Reservation.
[Ed: If you want to understand, what vegetation the City of Cambridge calls “native species,” check out the bizarre designer bushes which have been planted on the Charles River where wetlands and native vegetation has been destroyed. The most certain thing about the designer bushes is that they are “native” somewhere. They just are not native on the Charles River. “Invasive species” should be translated as “native species” if you are concerned about reality.]
Eventually the brush barrier, currently acting as protection for the slope area, will be removed, and the brush will be spread throughout the slope as plant protection and temporary erosion control.
Fencing of several of the trees along Concord Avenue has taken place, with more tree protection fencing to be placed throughout the site in the coming weeks.
(2) Destruction to come.
Next week's forecast:
Tree management will continue on site, with the trimming and felling of trees, as well as placement of tree protection fencing.
Starting with the regrading of the area behind Neville Place and moving up towards Concord Avenue, soils will be taken out and brought to Lusitania Field for storage and eventual cleaning and processing. Much of the soil--after being sorted and cleaned--will be used again on site.
Northeast Sector Project Walk-Abouts will begin April 3rd. Chip Norton, Watershed Manager, will be hosting the weekly information walks on Monday evenings through the summer. Anyone interested in learning more about the project should meet Chip Norton at 6 pm at the Walter J. Sullivan Water Treatment Facility at 250 Fresh Pond Parkway.
D. Links.
For more information:
See the attached Northeast Sector Project Guide created by a landscape architect who assisted with the project design.
Please stop be either of the projects websites for more information:
and be sure to check out the Little Fresh Pond Shoreline Restoration and Drainage Improvement Project Photo Album and the Northeast Sector Project Photo Album while you are there. This will be updated with new pictures on a weekly basis.
Feel free to email with questions or concerns, or stop by the Ranger Station located at 250 Fresh Pond Parkway to talk with a watershed staff member.
Look for our next update on Friday, March 31st! Please forward this on to anyone who is interested in the work going on at Fresh Pond Reservation. Please let me know if you would like to be taken off the distribution list.
Hannah D Wilbur
Office of Watershed Management
Cambridge Water Department
1. Fresh Pond: Related Initiatives.
A. Introduction.
B. Neighborhood zoning problems.
C. The logging down the street.
D. The Cambridge city manager moves in exactly the wrong direction on zoning, as usual.
2. The Villains Brag.
A. Introduction.
B. Introductory / General.
C. Area being logged.
(1) Past destruction.
(2) Destruction to come.
D. Links.
1. Fresh Pond: Related Initiatives.
A. Introduction.
I sent the following letter to the Cambridge (MA, USA) Chronicle yesterday. The property in question is one short block off the Fresh Pond Reservation and from the eastern edge of the Cambridge, MA city manager’s proposed upzoning. The environmental destruction starts perhaps another block to the west.
I am subdividing it to fit this format:
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
RE: Letter: Tobin-Danehy Zoning Petition in Context
B. Neighborhood zoning problems.
Neighbors of the Cambridge Self Storage facility near the Sozio’s rotary on Concord Avenue have good reason to be concerned about development on the Cambridge Self-Storage site since a brief review of the zoning or the site (Residence C1A) indicates it allows construction 2½ times the allowed density in the neighborhood (Residence B).
There is more going on in their neighborhood than that, however, and the other problems include problems much worse than the problem at Cambridge Self-Storage.
The enemy, as in too many such problems, is the Cambridge City Manager.
C. The logging down the street.
On the Concord Avenue side of Fresh Pond, the Cambridge City Manager wants to plant 1000 saplings. This would run from the rotaries to the Burger King or further.
Trouble is that the existing trees are in the way of the City Manager’s saplings, so the City Manager is taking action. The City Manager is destroying large numbers of trees.
A guess based on the City Manager’s usual planting densities and the existing tree density would be destruction of 2000, 3000 or more trees. The logging has already commenced.
Death or forced eviction of valuable small resident animals is obvious. Destruction of bird nests during mating season is obvious. Looking at the starvation being inflicted on Charles River animals for more than a year and a half, this is business as usual.
Stirring up of resident rats is obvious. Where they will go is anybody’s guess, but the last thing that bothers the City Manager is behavior of animals affected by his projects. Clearly, they will be moved closer to people’s homes than they are now. The existing rat problem in various parts of the city can easily come from irresponsible developers.
D. The Cambridge city manager moves in exactly the wrong direction on zoning, as usual.
The City Manager has filed for the third time an incredibly massive upzoning in this area.
This upzoning affects construction on the north side of Concord Avenue running from Sozio’s Circle at least through both shopping centers. It also, at minimum, also threatens the north side of the railroad tracks at Alewife.
On the Cambridge Self-Storage site, the density allowed by zoning is 2.5 times that of the neighborhood. The City Manager’s pending upzoning could allow buildings 12 times the size of the neighborhood or worse. The City Manager’s proposal could allow buildings more than 50% denser than Harvard Square.
The neighborhood’s downzoning proposed for the Cambridge Self-Storage site, to Residence C-1 (50% denser than the neighborhood zoning) is clearly moderate.
The big threat is from the City Manager. I hope the neighbors are able to fight three fights at once. They are being attacked from three sides.
2. The Villains Brag.
A. Introduction.
Following is an email I got from the Cambridge city manager’s people concerning their logging initiatives.
Talk about “reviews” should be taken with a very major grain of salt. The people doing the reviews are appointed by the Cambridge city manager.
The entity which passes as a “Conservation Commission” in Cambridge, MA is so bad that they had maps of the outrage on Magazine Beach posted on their walls.
I will not insult you by translating “tree management.”
As with my letter to the editor, I have added subdivisions.
**********
B. Introductory / General.
Greetings from Fresh Pond Reservation!
Welcome to the Fresh Pond reservation Weekly email update.
At Little Fresh Pond, the first row of coir fascines is being staked into place along the perimeter of Little Fresh Pond. An erosion control fabric is being placed underneath the fascines, and will be spread out after the second row of fascines is put into place.
The new design for the southern wetland of Little Fresh Pond will be presented to the Cambridge Conservation Commission on Monday, March 27th.
The new design for the beach in the southeast corner of the Pond will also be presented to the Conservation Commission on March 27th.
Next week's forecast:
The coir fascines will continue to be placed along the shoreline of Little Fresh Pond.
Upon approval from the Conservation Commission, work on both the southwestern wetland and the southeastern beach area will move forward.
C. Area being logged.
(1) Past destruction.
Much work has taken place in the Northeast Sector. The slope behind Neville Place extending to Black's Nook has had extensive work done to it. Many of the invasive species have been cleared out, allowing Perimeter Path users visual access to the beautiful beeches on the slope.
Over the past two weeks, the organic matter on the slope was taken out, and erosion control log bars were placed into the soil. The soil was covered with a seeded mulch, and the mulch covered with a woody fiber matrix that will protect the new soil and the seeds it holds. A brush barrier is being erected along the perimeter of the slope area using the trimmings from native tree species on the Reservation.
[Ed: If you want to understand, what vegetation the City of Cambridge calls “native species,” check out the bizarre designer bushes which have been planted on the Charles River where wetlands and native vegetation has been destroyed. The most certain thing about the designer bushes is that they are “native” somewhere. They just are not native on the Charles River. “Invasive species” should be translated as “native species” if you are concerned about reality.]
Eventually the brush barrier, currently acting as protection for the slope area, will be removed, and the brush will be spread throughout the slope as plant protection and temporary erosion control.
Fencing of several of the trees along Concord Avenue has taken place, with more tree protection fencing to be placed throughout the site in the coming weeks.
(2) Destruction to come.
Next week's forecast:
Tree management will continue on site, with the trimming and felling of trees, as well as placement of tree protection fencing.
Starting with the regrading of the area behind Neville Place and moving up towards Concord Avenue, soils will be taken out and brought to Lusitania Field for storage and eventual cleaning and processing. Much of the soil--after being sorted and cleaned--will be used again on site.
Northeast Sector Project Walk-Abouts will begin April 3rd. Chip Norton, Watershed Manager, will be hosting the weekly information walks on Monday evenings through the summer. Anyone interested in learning more about the project should meet Chip Norton at 6 pm at the Walter J. Sullivan Water Treatment Facility at 250 Fresh Pond Parkway.
D. Links.
For more information:
See the attached Northeast Sector Project Guide created by a landscape architect who assisted with the project design.
Please stop be either of the projects websites for more information:
and be sure to check out the Little Fresh Pond Shoreline Restoration and Drainage Improvement Project Photo Album
Feel free to email with questions or concerns, or stop by the Ranger Station located at 250 Fresh Pond Parkway to talk with a watershed staff member.
Look for our next update on Friday, March 31st! Please forward this on to anyone who is interested in the work going on at Fresh Pond Reservation. Please let me know if you would like to be taken off the distribution list.
Hannah D Wilbur
Office of Watershed Management
Cambridge Water Department
Friday, March 17, 2006
The official word on Harvard’s Memorial Drive Projects.
Bob Reports:
The official word on Harvard’s Memorial Drive Projects.
We reported a few week’s ago on this blog about complaints at Harvard’s Cowperthwaite project, in the middle of a residential neighborhood between east Harvard Square and the Charles River, about a block from the river. I had passed complaints I was aware of to the meeting the planning board had on planning for expansion of the Cambridge, MA, USA educational institutions.
On March 9, 2006, a committee of the Cambridge, MA, City Council had a meeting on this project. The meeting included comments on the related Mohoney site project at and near the corner of Western Avenue and Memorial Drive. It was scheduled during the daytime preventing participation by a lot of people.
A report on this meeting is included as part of the agenda for the Monday, March 20, 2006, meeting of the Cambridge, MA, City Council.
Reading the report on this meeting, it appears that some complaints which I understood were reports concerning the Cowperthwaite site concerned problems about the Mahoney site. Clearly, there are major dust problems and clearly, the university is not living up to the expected level of candor concerning hazardous substances in the soil.
The reports are at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/CommitteeReport.cfm?instance_id=263. I would be pleased to get any comments you might have at charlesriverwhitegeese@yahoo.com, or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Thank you.
The official word on Harvard’s Memorial Drive Projects.
We reported a few week’s ago on this blog about complaints at Harvard’s Cowperthwaite project, in the middle of a residential neighborhood between east Harvard Square and the Charles River, about a block from the river. I had passed complaints I was aware of to the meeting the planning board had on planning for expansion of the Cambridge, MA, USA educational institutions.
On March 9, 2006, a committee of the Cambridge, MA, City Council had a meeting on this project. The meeting included comments on the related Mohoney site project at and near the corner of Western Avenue and Memorial Drive. It was scheduled during the daytime preventing participation by a lot of people.
A report on this meeting is included as part of the agenda for the Monday, March 20, 2006, meeting of the Cambridge, MA, City Council.
Reading the report on this meeting, it appears that some complaints which I understood were reports concerning the Cowperthwaite site concerned problems about the Mahoney site. Clearly, there are major dust problems and clearly, the university is not living up to the expected level of candor concerning hazardous substances in the soil.
The reports are at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/CommitteeReport.cfm?instance_id=263. I would be pleased to get any comments you might have at charlesriverwhitegeese@yahoo.com, or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Thank you.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Thousands of Trees to be Destroyed at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA, USA?
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Environmental destruction has started at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA and looks like it will get a lot worse.
2. The environment at Fresh Pond.
3. The area around the area under attack.
a. Water Works.
b. City Manager upzoning proposal.
(1) The shopping center between Danehy Park and Alewife Brook Parkway (not identified on the map);
(2) Another shopping area west of Alewife Brook Parkway and streets to its west; and
(3) A paved area currently used for parking north of the railroad tracks on the other side of the tracks from area (2).
c. Application, flood zone.
4. Area under attack and threatened.
5. Public presentation of the City of Cambridge, MA, March 9, 2006.
6. The damage progresses.
7. Destruction at Fresh Pond in context.
8. Major destruction in process at Fresh Pond.
1. Environmental destruction has started at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA and looks like it will get a lot worse.
It is very difficult for a person who loves our world to associate with the City of Cambridge. Just when you think they could not stoop any lower, they prove you wrong.
Massive environmental destruction has started and a lot worse appears imminent in yet another part of Cambridge, MA on the grounds of the Cambridge owned Fresh Pond reservation. 2000 to 3000 or more healthy trees could be destroyed along with key animal and bird habitat.
2. The environment at Fresh Pond.
Fresh Pond is located in the westernmost of Cambridge, essentially across the street from Belmont. It is about half a mile from the Charles River. Fresh Pond has for quite awhile been used as part of Cambridge’s water supply system along with several other reservoirs. The state system acts as a backup.
The grounds of Fresh Pond are a natural oasis among an increasingly dense part of the Cambridge/Belmont urban environment. The surrounding neighborhoods are non-dense by Cambridge standards, but by the standards of most of the Unites States, they are quite dense.
There is a lot of animal habitat and many heavily wooded areas.
A good map from Yahoo of Fresh Pond and its environs may be found at: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=300+Fresh+Pond+Pkwy&csz=Cambridge%2C+MA+02138&state=MA&uzip=02138&ds=n&name=&desc=&lat=42.384138&lon=-71.142145&mlt=42.384138&mln=-71.142145&zoomin=yes&BFKey=&mag=2&resize=l&trf=0&compass=w
3. The area around the area under attack.
a. Water Works.
On the eastern extremity of the Fresh Pond Reservation at the star on the Yahoo map is Cambridge’s recently rebuilt water works. The area north of the Water Works to Concord Avenue has been nicely revegetated in recent years.
b. City Manager upzoning proposal.
Directly north of Concord Avenue are shopping centers which the Cambridge City Manager has been attempting to upzone.
A zoning proposal he has submitted would allow development at a density 50% denser than Harvard Square or more. Hopefully that proposal has been defeated with at least a little help from me.
But the fight is not over. What upzoning will be proposed next is yet to be seen.
The area most endangered by the most recent upzoning proposal was the area west of Danehy Park. Prime targets are
(1) The shopping center between Danehy Park and Alewife Brook Parkway (not identified on the map);
(2) Another shopping area west of Alewife Brook Parkway and streets to its west; and
(3) A paved area currently used for parking north of the railroad tracks on the other side of the tracks from area (2).
This paved parking area is of major importance because this entire region is a sensitive flood zone.
That parking lot it should be used for badly needed flood storage with a storage tank constructed under it. The city manager wants to destroy the Alewife reservation instead. Alewife is a few hundred feet further north of the area show on the map (click north to see it).
c. Application, flood zone.
That portion of the Fresh Pond Reservation on the south side of Concord Avenue across from the core upzoning area is being attacked.
This entire area is a flood zone.
4. Area under attack and threatened.
A map showing the City of Cambridge’s public version of the proposal is at http://www.CambridgeMA.gov/CWD/northeastsector.frm. There is a good map there with greater detail on this development area. The non-wooded area shown in brown on the Yahoo map contains buildings which are part of the city’s Neville Manor elderly housing.
A distressing number of large trees west of Neville Manor were casually destroyed last Thursday and Friday.
There are a number of trees at the entrance to the Neville Manor complex with yellow ribbons on them.
5. Public presentation of the City of Cambridge, MA, March 9, 2006.
Unaware that destruction had started, last Thursday, March 9, I attended a meeting in the Water Works building at which the City of Cambridge, through its number two man, Mr. Rossi, was “briefing” the public on plans for the northeast sector, the area under attack.
The Cambridge link I have given you purports to describe the plans.
I got to the meeting at the very end. I asked Rossi about the yellow ribbons. He said they marked trees designated for pruning, not for destruction. Other people followed up with questions clearly demonstrating concern about possible (or existing) harm to trees by the City of Cambridge.
Rossi answered the specific questions with very narrowly worded responses.
Then he added quite significantly to the public announcement of plans. He started bragging about intending to plant 1000 trees. He and his assistants started knocking existing trees.
In response to a question, Rossi stated that he did not have to make any public announcement of pending tree destruction.
6. The damage progresses.
The next morning, I for the first time saw the incredible destruction of large trees on Concord Avenue. If they had failed to destroy all the “protected” trees, I cannot vouch for it. The amount of major, mature trees destroyed was outrageous.
Further examination of the northeast sector area shows construction barriers around what looks like almost all groups of trees in the area AND BEYOND.
Some, not many trees have the yellow ribbons which indicate do NOT destroy.
Further construction barriers have been added since then and further destruction of trees has been accomplished in the Fresh Pond Reservation in the construction area.
Clearly, this area cannot accept 1000 saplings without MAJOR destruction of existing healthy trees. Tree plantings in areas already planted indicate that the density of sapling planting would be quite a bit less than the existing tree density.
7. Destruction at Fresh Pond in context.
The Cambridge City Manager destroyed Vellucci Park at Inman Square a couple of years ago.
When he did it, he justified the destruction on grounds that the trees in Vellucci Parkwere “too thick.” Vellucci Park was planted in the early 80’s with trees that had become quite beautiful, with a thick canopy.
Those trees were destroyed to create a barren plaza with a fraction of the trees not destroyed. The trees in Vellucci Park were quite a bit less dense than the existing trees in this part of Fresh Pond.
8. Major destruction in process at Fresh Pond.
This proposal and ongoing effort could very possibly be a scorched earth development of almost all trees in the affected area. The City Manager is very clearly low enough to do it.
Destruction of animal habitat is quite certain. I have seen possums scurrying across Concord Avenue to get to their homes on Fresh Pond. Raccoons, squirrels, chipmunks, and rabbits are among many species highly likely in the area. Birds, of course, nest in the area.
And it is a flood zone.
But Cambridge has an environmentally destructive City Manager.
Fresh Pond and its animal and avian population, not to mention the trees are in deep trouble.
1. Environmental destruction has started at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA and looks like it will get a lot worse.
2. The environment at Fresh Pond.
3. The area around the area under attack.
a. Water Works.
b. City Manager upzoning proposal.
(1) The shopping center between Danehy Park and Alewife Brook Parkway (not identified on the map);
(2) Another shopping area west of Alewife Brook Parkway and streets to its west; and
(3) A paved area currently used for parking north of the railroad tracks on the other side of the tracks from area (2).
c. Application, flood zone.
4. Area under attack and threatened.
5. Public presentation of the City of Cambridge, MA, March 9, 2006.
6. The damage progresses.
7. Destruction at Fresh Pond in context.
8. Major destruction in process at Fresh Pond.
1. Environmental destruction has started at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA and looks like it will get a lot worse.
It is very difficult for a person who loves our world to associate with the City of Cambridge. Just when you think they could not stoop any lower, they prove you wrong.
Massive environmental destruction has started and a lot worse appears imminent in yet another part of Cambridge, MA on the grounds of the Cambridge owned Fresh Pond reservation. 2000 to 3000 or more healthy trees could be destroyed along with key animal and bird habitat.
2. The environment at Fresh Pond.
Fresh Pond is located in the westernmost of Cambridge, essentially across the street from Belmont. It is about half a mile from the Charles River. Fresh Pond has for quite awhile been used as part of Cambridge’s water supply system along with several other reservoirs. The state system acts as a backup.
The grounds of Fresh Pond are a natural oasis among an increasingly dense part of the Cambridge/Belmont urban environment. The surrounding neighborhoods are non-dense by Cambridge standards, but by the standards of most of the Unites States, they are quite dense.
There is a lot of animal habitat and many heavily wooded areas.
A good map from Yahoo of Fresh Pond and its environs may be found at: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=300+Fresh+Pond+Pkwy&csz=Cambridge%2C+MA+02138&state=MA&uzip=02138&ds=n&name=&desc=&lat=42.384138&lon=-71.142145&mlt=42.384138&mln=-71.142145&zoomin=yes&BFKey=&mag=2&resize=l&trf=0&compass=w
3. The area around the area under attack.
a. Water Works.
On the eastern extremity of the Fresh Pond Reservation at the star on the Yahoo map is Cambridge’s recently rebuilt water works. The area north of the Water Works to Concord Avenue has been nicely revegetated in recent years.
b. City Manager upzoning proposal.
Directly north of Concord Avenue are shopping centers which the Cambridge City Manager has been attempting to upzone.
A zoning proposal he has submitted would allow development at a density 50% denser than Harvard Square or more. Hopefully that proposal has been defeated with at least a little help from me.
But the fight is not over. What upzoning will be proposed next is yet to be seen.
The area most endangered by the most recent upzoning proposal was the area west of Danehy Park. Prime targets are
(1) The shopping center between Danehy Park and Alewife Brook Parkway (not identified on the map);
(2) Another shopping area west of Alewife Brook Parkway and streets to its west; and
(3) A paved area currently used for parking north of the railroad tracks on the other side of the tracks from area (2).
This paved parking area is of major importance because this entire region is a sensitive flood zone.
That parking lot it should be used for badly needed flood storage with a storage tank constructed under it. The city manager wants to destroy the Alewife reservation instead. Alewife is a few hundred feet further north of the area show on the map (click north to see it).
c. Application, flood zone.
That portion of the Fresh Pond Reservation on the south side of Concord Avenue across from the core upzoning area is being attacked.
This entire area is a flood zone.
4. Area under attack and threatened.
A map showing the City of Cambridge’s public version of the proposal is at http://www.CambridgeMA.gov/CWD/northeastsector.frm. There is a good map there with greater detail on this development area. The non-wooded area shown in brown on the Yahoo map contains buildings which are part of the city’s Neville Manor elderly housing.
A distressing number of large trees west of Neville Manor were casually destroyed last Thursday and Friday.
There are a number of trees at the entrance to the Neville Manor complex with yellow ribbons on them.
5. Public presentation of the City of Cambridge, MA, March 9, 2006.
Unaware that destruction had started, last Thursday, March 9, I attended a meeting in the Water Works building at which the City of Cambridge, through its number two man, Mr. Rossi, was “briefing” the public on plans for the northeast sector, the area under attack.
The Cambridge link I have given you purports to describe the plans.
I got to the meeting at the very end. I asked Rossi about the yellow ribbons. He said they marked trees designated for pruning, not for destruction. Other people followed up with questions clearly demonstrating concern about possible (or existing) harm to trees by the City of Cambridge.
Rossi answered the specific questions with very narrowly worded responses.
Then he added quite significantly to the public announcement of plans. He started bragging about intending to plant 1000 trees. He and his assistants started knocking existing trees.
In response to a question, Rossi stated that he did not have to make any public announcement of pending tree destruction.
6. The damage progresses.
The next morning, I for the first time saw the incredible destruction of large trees on Concord Avenue. If they had failed to destroy all the “protected” trees, I cannot vouch for it. The amount of major, mature trees destroyed was outrageous.
Further examination of the northeast sector area shows construction barriers around what looks like almost all groups of trees in the area AND BEYOND.
Some, not many trees have the yellow ribbons which indicate do NOT destroy.
Further construction barriers have been added since then and further destruction of trees has been accomplished in the Fresh Pond Reservation in the construction area.
Clearly, this area cannot accept 1000 saplings without MAJOR destruction of existing healthy trees. Tree plantings in areas already planted indicate that the density of sapling planting would be quite a bit less than the existing tree density.
7. Destruction at Fresh Pond in context.
The Cambridge City Manager destroyed Vellucci Park at Inman Square a couple of years ago.
When he did it, he justified the destruction on grounds that the trees in Vellucci Parkwere “too thick.” Vellucci Park was planted in the early 80’s with trees that had become quite beautiful, with a thick canopy.
Those trees were destroyed to create a barren plaza with a fraction of the trees not destroyed. The trees in Vellucci Park were quite a bit less dense than the existing trees in this part of Fresh Pond.
8. Major destruction in process at Fresh Pond.
This proposal and ongoing effort could very possibly be a scorched earth development of almost all trees in the affected area. The City Manager is very clearly low enough to do it.
Destruction of animal habitat is quite certain. I have seen possums scurrying across Concord Avenue to get to their homes on Fresh Pond. Raccoons, squirrels, chipmunks, and rabbits are among many species highly likely in the area. Birds, of course, nest in the area.
And it is a flood zone.
But Cambridge has an environmentally destructive City Manager.
Fresh Pond and its animal and avian population, not to mention the trees are in deep trouble.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Cambridge, MA, USA
Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods
This analysis was originally published as part of the responses to our report on the rehiring by the Cambridge (MA) City Council of the Cambridge City Manager. We objected to Laura Blacklow's favorable reference to the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods. Our response was so long that it was out of scale in that report. I have thus split our response off separately.
1. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Bob, March 5, 2006.
2. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Marilyn, March 6, 2006.
3. Further about the cast of characters, Bob, March 6, 2006.
1. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Bob, March 5, 2006.
I would like to thank Laura for her comments. One very major nit, however, and that nit is the reason for the editors' control of comments that get put on this blog.
Cambridge, MA is a minefield for well meaning people who support responsible development.
One of the biggest pitfalls is organizations which are controlled by the development clique and which look like exactly the opposite. Some of these organizations are honest. Some are not. The key factor, however, is participation and impact by Cambridge's extremely active and extremely influential developer / contractor clique.
The so-called Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods has two key members. They and many others in the group have a long record of fighting for zoning petitions which sound terrific and which altogether too often have fine print which belies the terrific public claims. These people rather consistently function as apologists or worse for Cambridge's really destructive Development Department and City Manager.
One of the two key members is a director of the environmentally reprehensible Charles River Conservancy, subsidized by the developer lobby and worse than the Cambridge City Manager.
This group is publicly fighting for relocation of traffic on the south side of the Charles River (Boston, Newton, etc.) to the North Side (Cambridge, Watertown), and it gets a lot worse.
It is difficult to distinguish the second of the two key members from the first. He publicly spoke to the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals in 1998 supporting massive environmental destruction on the banks of the Charles River. In recent years, he led a zoning change in the Cambridgeport neighborhood, on the north side of Memorial Drive, which would greatly increase retail uses between Trader Joes and Western Avenue.
But they sound great. Just don't look at the real records or the fine print.
2. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Marilyn, March 6, 2006.
On the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods: In 1998 ACN leader Stash Horowitz and [City Councilor Henrietta] Davis spoke at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing about the BU boathouse. They pushed,unsuccessfully, to get the BZA to order BU to incorporate the goose meadow into its campus as "melioration" for the boathouse.
As we know, even in 1998 the DCR's plans for the goose meadow tied in to plans for the Urban Ring river crossing (MDC draft document for the Charles River Master Plan).
Horowitz is friends with Sage, owner of the Howard Johnson's [ed: now Radisson Hotel]. Horowitz makes no secret of this, of course.
Just as the Polaroid site question was arising, ACN leaders Horowitz, Moot, and Yarden invited me to a meeting at which they asked me directly how my neighborhood pulled off the 1996 Green Street zoning petition [ed: a number of key lots half a block off Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares]. Foolishly, I told them. The next thing I heard was not that the Polaroid neighbors were filing a downzoning, but that Horowitz was telling his neighbors and, later, the Riverside neighbors facing Harvard's expansion, that zoning petitions didn't work and negotiation would get them what they want.
Consequently you and I, who had been successful in several downzonings, were kept out of those issues.
When Horowitz [the second listed above, ed.] isn't fighting for harmful zoning, as you report, he's telling neighborhoods that they can't win zoning fights and should negotiate with Harvard or Polaroid or whoever. He then advises on the "negotiations" wrapped in the ACN's coak of virtue.
[ed: The first named above is John Moot.]
3. Further about the cast of characters, Bob, March 6, 2006.
The first named above is John Moot. The second is Horowitz.
The Polaroid 5 year "battle" by Horowitz concerned a very visible parcel across from the western end of Magazine Beach. It resulting in a "compromise" in which the buyers of the Polaroid parcel essentially got everything they wanted, and construction in the area NEAREST Horowitz was delayed. Subsequently Horowitz got retail legalized on that lot, where retail previously was illegal.
I have mentioned this testimony of Horowitz and City Councilor Davis to the BZA above. This is the game that is played. A developer wants to do something irresponsible. So his friends argue that the project should be made even more irresponsible as a condition of the granting of authority.
The Boston University Boathouse is immediately east of a dense woods which is part of the goose habitat. The dense woods is just east of the railroad track which is very important to them during nesting season. The railroad track is just east of the core goose nesting area.
Boston University wanted to massively increase the size of their boathouse and also wanted to essentially incorporate the nesting area into their campus.
The Cambridge City Manager's plans, still being forwarded, would link the goose nesting area to Magazine Beach by a roadway in the Charles River paid for with government money, going under the BU Bridge and to the river side of a pollution control plant.
Magazine Beach is already used by Boston University for its graduation ceremonies.
Horowitz and Davis argued for the destruction of the nesting area to extend that roadway and further connect the Boston University holdings.
Boston University owns pretty much all of Boston and much of Brookline on the southern end of the BU Bridge.
The Board of Zoning Appeals said no.
Boston University, with very clear illegalities, destroyed the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese in October 1999. Boston University denied doing it until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission six months later. Then they started bragging about it. They blamed the denials on their president's secretary.
For years, Boston University's friends argued that they had to destroy the nesting area because the BZA had ordered it. The reality that the BZA said "no" was irrelevant.
This analysis was originally published as part of the responses to our report on the rehiring by the Cambridge (MA) City Council of the Cambridge City Manager. We objected to Laura Blacklow's favorable reference to the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods. Our response was so long that it was out of scale in that report. I have thus split our response off separately.
1. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Bob, March 5, 2006.
2. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Marilyn, March 6, 2006.
3. Further about the cast of characters, Bob, March 6, 2006.
1. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Bob, March 5, 2006.
I would like to thank Laura for her comments. One very major nit, however, and that nit is the reason for the editors' control of comments that get put on this blog.
Cambridge, MA is a minefield for well meaning people who support responsible development.
One of the biggest pitfalls is organizations which are controlled by the development clique and which look like exactly the opposite. Some of these organizations are honest. Some are not. The key factor, however, is participation and impact by Cambridge's extremely active and extremely influential developer / contractor clique.
The so-called Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods has two key members. They and many others in the group have a long record of fighting for zoning petitions which sound terrific and which altogether too often have fine print which belies the terrific public claims. These people rather consistently function as apologists or worse for Cambridge's really destructive Development Department and City Manager.
One of the two key members is a director of the environmentally reprehensible Charles River Conservancy, subsidized by the developer lobby and worse than the Cambridge City Manager.
This group is publicly fighting for relocation of traffic on the south side of the Charles River (Boston, Newton, etc.) to the North Side (Cambridge, Watertown), and it gets a lot worse.
It is difficult to distinguish the second of the two key members from the first. He publicly spoke to the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals in 1998 supporting massive environmental destruction on the banks of the Charles River. In recent years, he led a zoning change in the Cambridgeport neighborhood, on the north side of Memorial Drive, which would greatly increase retail uses between Trader Joes and Western Avenue.
But they sound great. Just don't look at the real records or the fine print.
2. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Marilyn, March 6, 2006.
On the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods: In 1998 ACN leader Stash Horowitz and [City Councilor Henrietta] Davis spoke at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing about the BU boathouse. They pushed,unsuccessfully, to get the BZA to order BU to incorporate the goose meadow into its campus as "melioration" for the boathouse.
As we know, even in 1998 the DCR's plans for the goose meadow tied in to plans for the Urban Ring river crossing (MDC draft document for the Charles River Master Plan).
Horowitz is friends with Sage, owner of the Howard Johnson's [ed: now Radisson Hotel]. Horowitz makes no secret of this, of course.
Just as the Polaroid site question was arising, ACN leaders Horowitz, Moot, and Yarden invited me to a meeting at which they asked me directly how my neighborhood pulled off the 1996 Green Street zoning petition [ed: a number of key lots half a block off Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares]. Foolishly, I told them. The next thing I heard was not that the Polaroid neighbors were filing a downzoning, but that Horowitz was telling his neighbors and, later, the Riverside neighbors facing Harvard's expansion, that zoning petitions didn't work and negotiation would get them what they want.
Consequently you and I, who had been successful in several downzonings, were kept out of those issues.
When Horowitz [the second listed above, ed.] isn't fighting for harmful zoning, as you report, he's telling neighborhoods that they can't win zoning fights and should negotiate with Harvard or Polaroid or whoever. He then advises on the "negotiations" wrapped in the ACN's coak of virtue.
[ed: The first named above is John Moot.]
3. Further about the cast of characters, Bob, March 6, 2006.
The first named above is John Moot. The second is Horowitz.
The Polaroid 5 year "battle" by Horowitz concerned a very visible parcel across from the western end of Magazine Beach. It resulting in a "compromise" in which the buyers of the Polaroid parcel essentially got everything they wanted, and construction in the area NEAREST Horowitz was delayed. Subsequently Horowitz got retail legalized on that lot, where retail previously was illegal.
I have mentioned this testimony of Horowitz and City Councilor Davis to the BZA above. This is the game that is played. A developer wants to do something irresponsible. So his friends argue that the project should be made even more irresponsible as a condition of the granting of authority.
The Boston University Boathouse is immediately east of a dense woods which is part of the goose habitat. The dense woods is just east of the railroad track which is very important to them during nesting season. The railroad track is just east of the core goose nesting area.
Boston University wanted to massively increase the size of their boathouse and also wanted to essentially incorporate the nesting area into their campus.
The Cambridge City Manager's plans, still being forwarded, would link the goose nesting area to Magazine Beach by a roadway in the Charles River paid for with government money, going under the BU Bridge and to the river side of a pollution control plant.
Magazine Beach is already used by Boston University for its graduation ceremonies.
Horowitz and Davis argued for the destruction of the nesting area to extend that roadway and further connect the Boston University holdings.
Boston University owns pretty much all of Boston and much of Brookline on the southern end of the BU Bridge.
The Board of Zoning Appeals said no.
Boston University, with very clear illegalities, destroyed the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese in October 1999. Boston University denied doing it until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission six months later. Then they started bragging about it. They blamed the denials on their president's secretary.
For years, Boston University's friends argued that they had to destroy the nesting area because the BZA had ordered it. The reality that the BZA said "no" was irrelevant.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council to Hold Hearings on Urban Ring transportation plans
February 28, 2006
(Originally part of the City Manager Posting)
Cambridge to Conduct Public Hearings on the Urban Ring.
A. The proposal.
(1) General.
(2) Charles River Crossing.
(3) Highways and Buses.
B. Cambridge City Council Meeting.
(1) Monday Night.
(2) Past Experience and “Reality” in Cambridge, MA.
C. “Reality” Cambridge style.
Cambridge to Conduct Public Hearings on the Urban Ring.
A. The proposal.
(1) General.
The Urban Ring is a project of Boston’s regional transportation authority which stemmed from the need to take traffic off the downtown subway and to relocate the traffic to make the entire system work better. The basic concept is a new subway line which would run from Charlestown to Ruggles Station in Roxbury / the South End by way of Lechmere, Kendall, Mass. Ave near MIT, the Newton / Brighton Green Line branches and the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area.
(2) Charles River Crossing.
There are two possible crossings of the Charles River.
The good one, environmentally and from a transportation point of view would cross the Charles near the Mass. Ave. bridge and connect with the Green Line branches, Commuter Rail and Fenway Park by a new station between Kenmore and Fenway Park under the Mass. Pike. I suggested it to the MBTA about six years before they started to seriously look at it.
The other one has history going for it plus the political demands of Boston University, the Cambridge City Manager and a bunch of Cambridge developers.
It has an extra train stop at Putnam Avenue and the Grand Junction railroad tracks in Cambridge which is really threatening to the Cambridgeport neighborhood. It could be strikingly destructive to the Charles River environment. It would also stop quite close to the heart of the BU Campus at a location next to St. Mary’s Street on the far side of the Mass. Pike. It would directly connect from this station to commuter rail. By an awkward tunnel and walking across Commonwealth Avenue, it would connect from that station to the Commonwealth Avenue Green Line. It would also have another station very close to this one, under Park Drive between Beacon Street and the Riverside line, connecting to the Riverside Green Line at the existing Fenway station and to the Beacon Street line at another new station under Audubon Circle.
(3) Highways and Buses.
The MBTA has turned this good rapid transit concept (with the correct river crossing) into a bus / highway project called Phase 2, while the rapid transit is not phase 3. Phase 2 would create new highways in Cambridgeport and tar over part of the track area between Memorial Drive and Mass. Avenue.
B. Cambridge City Council Meeting.
(1) Monday Night.
Monday night, February 26, 2006, the Cambridge City Council decided to conduct public hearings on the MBTA’s Urban Ring transit proposals.
As is the wont of the Cambridge City Council, two members spent an excessive amount of time discussing this matter and saying nothing. Councilors Decker and Davis, both with bad records on the Charles River, had an extended disagreement on which committee should hear the matter and whether the hearings should be joint or separate. Both, without providing details, insisted they were on the side of the angels in the matter.
The Councilor who is chair of one of the committees participated in the discussion a little. Councilor Davis who chairs neither committee talked a lot.
(2) Past Experience and “Reality” in Cambridge, MA.
Key in my hearing of Davis’s comments was Davis’ apparent insistence that city staff present the plans to the public hearings.
Cambridge, on environmental matters, can live in a reality strikingly different from the reality that everybody else lives in.
The last time the Cambridge City Council conducted a hearing on the Charles River, it concerned the off ramp which would connect the Mass. Pike to Cambridge’s Cambridgeport neighborhood and to Memorial Drive.
Councilor Davis was insistent that no such possibility existed.
So they conducted a hearing at the Morse School, within view of Magazine Beach. The MBTA showed up and the MBTA behaved in a manner which was quite inappropriate from the point of view of the Cambridge pols. The MBTA had the nerve to tell the truth.
The MBTA informed the neighbors assembled that the MBTA had done engineering studies to determine if it were feasible to connect the Mass. Pike to Cambridge by way of the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge. The MBTA described this proposal as a rebuilding of the east side of the two track bridge so that the track on the eastern side would be replaced with a three lane road. The MBTA’s studies also showed the viability of moving the one track currently on the east side to the unused west side of the railroad bridge.
The MBTA clearly stated that the project was viable from an engineering point of view. The MBTA only withdrew from the project because it made no sense from a public transportation financing point of view. The latter was obvious from the beginning. They were proposing a major bridge rebuilding project to run an express bus from Newton to Cambridge. Such a bus would be unlikely to run more than three times an hour in rush hours, and that would be pushing it.
After this major defeat for truth City of Cambridge style, the minutes of the meeting were striking.
The minutes did not even recognize the existence of the rail bridge under the BU Bridge. The minutes talked only of the BU Bridge itself, over which a connection to the Mass. Pike would be silly.
C. “Reality” Cambridge style.
Councilor Davis has long been an advocate of the really bad BU Crossing.
Councilor Davis is talking of City of Cambridge staff reporting to the public on the Urban Ring proposals rather than the agency doing the work, the MBTA, doing the reporting.
City staff managing the information would ensure a “reality” more consistent with the official Cambridge view of reality.
Councilor Davis has good reason to fear the agency doing the work doing the talking.
The MBTA is much more likely to give an accurate version of reality to her voters.
(Originally part of the City Manager Posting)
Cambridge to Conduct Public Hearings on the Urban Ring.
A. The proposal.
(1) General.
(2) Charles River Crossing.
(3) Highways and Buses.
B. Cambridge City Council Meeting.
(1) Monday Night.
(2) Past Experience and “Reality” in Cambridge, MA.
C. “Reality” Cambridge style.
Cambridge to Conduct Public Hearings on the Urban Ring.
A. The proposal.
(1) General.
The Urban Ring is a project of Boston’s regional transportation authority which stemmed from the need to take traffic off the downtown subway and to relocate the traffic to make the entire system work better. The basic concept is a new subway line which would run from Charlestown to Ruggles Station in Roxbury / the South End by way of Lechmere, Kendall, Mass. Ave near MIT, the Newton / Brighton Green Line branches and the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area.
(2) Charles River Crossing.
There are two possible crossings of the Charles River.
The good one, environmentally and from a transportation point of view would cross the Charles near the Mass. Ave. bridge and connect with the Green Line branches, Commuter Rail and Fenway Park by a new station between Kenmore and Fenway Park under the Mass. Pike. I suggested it to the MBTA about six years before they started to seriously look at it.
The other one has history going for it plus the political demands of Boston University, the Cambridge City Manager and a bunch of Cambridge developers.
It has an extra train stop at Putnam Avenue and the Grand Junction railroad tracks in Cambridge which is really threatening to the Cambridgeport neighborhood. It could be strikingly destructive to the Charles River environment. It would also stop quite close to the heart of the BU Campus at a location next to St. Mary’s Street on the far side of the Mass. Pike. It would directly connect from this station to commuter rail. By an awkward tunnel and walking across Commonwealth Avenue, it would connect from that station to the Commonwealth Avenue Green Line. It would also have another station very close to this one, under Park Drive between Beacon Street and the Riverside line, connecting to the Riverside Green Line at the existing Fenway station and to the Beacon Street line at another new station under Audubon Circle.
(3) Highways and Buses.
The MBTA has turned this good rapid transit concept (with the correct river crossing) into a bus / highway project called Phase 2, while the rapid transit is not phase 3. Phase 2 would create new highways in Cambridgeport and tar over part of the track area between Memorial Drive and Mass. Avenue.
B. Cambridge City Council Meeting.
(1) Monday Night.
Monday night, February 26, 2006, the Cambridge City Council decided to conduct public hearings on the MBTA’s Urban Ring transit proposals.
As is the wont of the Cambridge City Council, two members spent an excessive amount of time discussing this matter and saying nothing. Councilors Decker and Davis, both with bad records on the Charles River, had an extended disagreement on which committee should hear the matter and whether the hearings should be joint or separate. Both, without providing details, insisted they were on the side of the angels in the matter.
The Councilor who is chair of one of the committees participated in the discussion a little. Councilor Davis who chairs neither committee talked a lot.
(2) Past Experience and “Reality” in Cambridge, MA.
Key in my hearing of Davis’s comments was Davis’ apparent insistence that city staff present the plans to the public hearings.
Cambridge, on environmental matters, can live in a reality strikingly different from the reality that everybody else lives in.
The last time the Cambridge City Council conducted a hearing on the Charles River, it concerned the off ramp which would connect the Mass. Pike to Cambridge’s Cambridgeport neighborhood and to Memorial Drive.
Councilor Davis was insistent that no such possibility existed.
So they conducted a hearing at the Morse School, within view of Magazine Beach. The MBTA showed up and the MBTA behaved in a manner which was quite inappropriate from the point of view of the Cambridge pols. The MBTA had the nerve to tell the truth.
The MBTA informed the neighbors assembled that the MBTA had done engineering studies to determine if it were feasible to connect the Mass. Pike to Cambridge by way of the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge. The MBTA described this proposal as a rebuilding of the east side of the two track bridge so that the track on the eastern side would be replaced with a three lane road. The MBTA’s studies also showed the viability of moving the one track currently on the east side to the unused west side of the railroad bridge.
The MBTA clearly stated that the project was viable from an engineering point of view. The MBTA only withdrew from the project because it made no sense from a public transportation financing point of view. The latter was obvious from the beginning. They were proposing a major bridge rebuilding project to run an express bus from Newton to Cambridge. Such a bus would be unlikely to run more than three times an hour in rush hours, and that would be pushing it.
After this major defeat for truth City of Cambridge style, the minutes of the meeting were striking.
The minutes did not even recognize the existence of the rail bridge under the BU Bridge. The minutes talked only of the BU Bridge itself, over which a connection to the Mass. Pike would be silly.
C. “Reality” Cambridge style.
Councilor Davis has long been an advocate of the really bad BU Crossing.
Councilor Davis is talking of City of Cambridge staff reporting to the public on the Urban Ring proposals rather than the agency doing the work, the MBTA, doing the reporting.
City staff managing the information would ensure a “reality” more consistent with the official Cambridge view of reality.
Councilor Davis has good reason to fear the agency doing the work doing the talking.
The MBTA is much more likely to give an accurate version of reality to her voters.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Environmental destroyer fighting to move traffic to the north side of the Charles River, in MA, USA
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
Environmental destroyer fighting to move traffic to the north side of the Charles River.
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
2. Marilyn – Traffic Analysis.
3. Bob addition:
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
Things are getting a little bit clearer.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy put the following notice in their monthly report for February 2006.
*************
Nonantum Road Tragedy and Hope for the Future
The death of two people on Nonantum Road in Newton has finally accelerated the commissioning of the traffic calming study that was included in last year’s budget. Narrowing the road and widening the pathway is the goal of this effort. To read a letter regarding this issue from the Conservancy to the Newton TAB in May 2005 click here.
*************
Nonantum Road is the extension of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road on the Boston side. It is equivalent to Birmingham Parkway or Charles River Road on the Cambridge side.
These poor people. They need their traffic moved to Cambridge.
The Charles River Conservancy has consistently fought for all the environmental destruction going on on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, not just for the destruction of hundreds of trees and straightening out of Memorial Drive, but all of the destructive things going on between the northern sidewalk of Memorial Drive and the Charles River. For the last three years, they have happily poisoned every goose egg they could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles Rive.
This latest initiative makes it very clear that (separate from the egg poisoning depravities), Cambridge is being destroyed by these people and their bureacrats and pols (including the Cambridge City Council) for the benefit of Boston.
2. Marilyn – Traffic Analysis.
Where does inbound traffic from the west cross over to the north side of the Charles to avoid Storrow Drive?
The DCR's just-announced plan to reduce the lanes on Nonantum Road would help divert traffic from Storrow to the Pike but also to Cambridge. Nonantum Road connects to the free inbound Pike exit at Newton Corner. Traffic from the west could stay on the Pike and pay the additional toll, or leave at Newton Corner, cross the river at Watertown Center (avoiding Nonantum Road) or deal with the single inbound lane on Nonantum, then cross at North Beacon Street, which would avoid backups on Soldiers Field and Storrow Drive.
In this connection I think Bob La Tremouille mentioned the Birmingham Parkway, which connects Nonantum Road to Western Ave. in Allston. [ed. For those who require exactness, the link is Nonantum – Watertown Center – Charles River Road – North Beacon Street – Arsenal Street [Western Avenue renamed in Watertown. Greenough Boulevard is the next link, from Arsenal Street Western Avenue to Memorial Drive.]
Traffic from the west could thus use Western Ave, briefly use Storrow to cross the Charles at River Street, then take Mem Drive eastbound (could be why the DCR instituted the right-only lane at that intersection--it otherwise makes no sense to me). Alternatively, traffic could turn left from Western and cross to Memorial Drive at North Harvard/JFK Street over the Anderson Bridge.
3. Bob addition:
As inserted above, there is yet another name for the Charles River roads on the north side which are for all meaningful purposes the extension of Memorial Drive / Birmingham Parkway in Watertown, MA. This named road runs from the end of Birmingham Parkway after a short jog on North Beacon Street. It is yet another boulevard which is "underutilized" ("shudder" according to the developers).
The name of this additional segment of the Charles River roads is “Charles River Road.”
Traffic from the Mass. Pike would be diverted to Watertown Square because of the "traffic calming measures on Nonantum Road and .2 minutes north of Nonantum Road is Charles River Road which becomes Birmingham Parkway which becomes Memorial Drive. (Ignoring a few jogs.)
So you see there is another purpose for giving the Charles River roads multiple names. Not only is it an excellent way to get tourists confused and into accidents, it is also a great way to confuse the voters.
Bob Reports:
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
Things are getting a little bit clearer.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy put the following notice in their monthly report for February 2006.
*************
Nonantum Road Tragedy and Hope for the Future
The death of two people on Nonantum Road in Newton has finally accelerated the commissioning of the traffic calming study that was included in last year’s budget. Narrowing the road and widening the pathway is the goal of this effort. To read a letter regarding this issue from the Conservancy to the Newton TAB in May 2005 click here.
*************
Nonantum Road is the extension of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road on the Boston side. It is equivalent to Birmingham Parkway on the Cambridge side.
These poor people. They need their traffic moved to Cambridge.
The Charles River Conservancy has consistently fought for all the environmental destruction going on on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, not just for the destruction of hundreds of trees and straightening out of Memorial Drive, but all of the destructive things going on between the northern sidewalk of Memorial Drive and the Charles River. For the last three years, they have happily poisoned every goose egg they could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles Rive.
This latest initiative makes it very clear that (separate from the egg poisoning depravities), Cambridge is being destroyed by these people and their bureacrats and pols (including the Cambridge City Council) for the benefit of Boston.
2. Marilyn's added information.
Where does inbound traffic from the west cross over to the north side of the Charles to avoid Storrow Drive?
The DCR's just-announced plan to reduce the lanes on Nonantum Road would help divert traffic from Storrow to the Pike but also to Cambridge. Nonantum Road connects to the free inbound Pike exit at Newton Corner. Traffic from the west could stay on the Pike and pay the additional toll, or leave at Newton Corner, cross the river at Watertown Center (avoiding Nonantum Road) or deal with the single inbound lane on Nonantum, then cross at North Beacon Street, which would avoid backups on Soldiers Field and Storrow Drive.
In this connection I think Bob La Tremouille mentioned the Birmingham Parkway, which connects Nonantum Road to Western Ave. in Allston. Traffic from the west could thus use Western Ave, briefly use Storrow to cross the Charles at River Street, then take Mem Drive eastbound (could be why the DCR instituted the right-only lane at that intersection--it otherwise makes no sense to me). Alternatively, traffic could turn left from Western and cross to Mem Drive at North Harvard/JFK Street over the Anderson Bridge.
3. Bob addition:
For the sake of completeness there is yet another name for the Charles River roads on the north side which is for all meaningful purposes the extension of Memorial Drive / Birmingham Parkway in Watertown, MA. This named road runs from the end of Birmingham Parkway after a short jog on North Beacon Street. It is yet another boulevard which is "underutilized" ("shudder" according to the developers).
Traffic from the Mass. Pike would be diverted to Watertown Square because of the "traffic calming measures on Nonantum Road and .2 miles north of Nonantum Road is Charles River Road which becomes Birmingham Parkway which becomes Memorial Drive.
So you see there is another purpose for giving the Charles River roads multiple names. Not only is it an excellent way to get tourists confused and into accidents, it is also a great way to confuse the voters.
Environmental destroyer fighting to move traffic to the north side of the Charles River.
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
2. Marilyn – Traffic Analysis.
3. Bob addition:
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
Things are getting a little bit clearer.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy put the following notice in their monthly report for February 2006.
*************
Nonantum Road Tragedy and Hope for the Future
The death of two people on Nonantum Road in Newton has finally accelerated the commissioning of the traffic calming study that was included in last year’s budget. Narrowing the road and widening the pathway is the goal of this effort. To read a letter regarding this issue from the Conservancy to the Newton TAB in May 2005 click here.
*************
Nonantum Road is the extension of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road on the Boston side. It is equivalent to Birmingham Parkway or Charles River Road on the Cambridge side.
These poor people. They need their traffic moved to Cambridge.
The Charles River Conservancy has consistently fought for all the environmental destruction going on on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, not just for the destruction of hundreds of trees and straightening out of Memorial Drive, but all of the destructive things going on between the northern sidewalk of Memorial Drive and the Charles River. For the last three years, they have happily poisoned every goose egg they could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles Rive.
This latest initiative makes it very clear that (separate from the egg poisoning depravities), Cambridge is being destroyed by these people and their bureacrats and pols (including the Cambridge City Council) for the benefit of Boston.
2. Marilyn – Traffic Analysis.
Where does inbound traffic from the west cross over to the north side of the Charles to avoid Storrow Drive?
The DCR's just-announced plan to reduce the lanes on Nonantum Road would help divert traffic from Storrow to the Pike but also to Cambridge. Nonantum Road connects to the free inbound Pike exit at Newton Corner. Traffic from the west could stay on the Pike and pay the additional toll, or leave at Newton Corner, cross the river at Watertown Center (avoiding Nonantum Road) or deal with the single inbound lane on Nonantum, then cross at North Beacon Street, which would avoid backups on Soldiers Field and Storrow Drive.
In this connection I think Bob La Tremouille mentioned the Birmingham Parkway, which connects Nonantum Road to Western Ave. in Allston. [ed. For those who require exactness, the link is Nonantum – Watertown Center – Charles River Road – North Beacon Street – Arsenal Street [Western Avenue renamed in Watertown. Greenough Boulevard is the next link, from Arsenal Street Western Avenue to Memorial Drive.]
Traffic from the west could thus use Western Ave, briefly use Storrow to cross the Charles at River Street, then take Mem Drive eastbound (could be why the DCR instituted the right-only lane at that intersection--it otherwise makes no sense to me). Alternatively, traffic could turn left from Western and cross to Memorial Drive at North Harvard/JFK Street over the Anderson Bridge.
3. Bob addition:
As inserted above, there is yet another name for the Charles River roads on the north side which are for all meaningful purposes the extension of Memorial Drive / Birmingham Parkway in Watertown, MA. This named road runs from the end of Birmingham Parkway after a short jog on North Beacon Street. It is yet another boulevard which is "underutilized" ("shudder" according to the developers).
The name of this additional segment of the Charles River roads is “Charles River Road.”
Traffic from the Mass. Pike would be diverted to Watertown Square because of the "traffic calming measures on Nonantum Road and .2 minutes north of Nonantum Road is Charles River Road which becomes Birmingham Parkway which becomes Memorial Drive. (Ignoring a few jogs.)
So you see there is another purpose for giving the Charles River roads multiple names. Not only is it an excellent way to get tourists confused and into accidents, it is also a great way to confuse the voters.
Bob Reports:
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
Things are getting a little bit clearer.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy put the following notice in their monthly report for February 2006.
*************
Nonantum Road Tragedy and Hope for the Future
The death of two people on Nonantum Road in Newton has finally accelerated the commissioning of the traffic calming study that was included in last year’s budget. Narrowing the road and widening the pathway is the goal of this effort. To read a letter regarding this issue from the Conservancy to the Newton TAB in May 2005 click here.
*************
Nonantum Road is the extension of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road on the Boston side. It is equivalent to Birmingham Parkway on the Cambridge side.
These poor people. They need their traffic moved to Cambridge.
The Charles River Conservancy has consistently fought for all the environmental destruction going on on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, not just for the destruction of hundreds of trees and straightening out of Memorial Drive, but all of the destructive things going on between the northern sidewalk of Memorial Drive and the Charles River. For the last three years, they have happily poisoned every goose egg they could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles Rive.
This latest initiative makes it very clear that (separate from the egg poisoning depravities), Cambridge is being destroyed by these people and their bureacrats and pols (including the Cambridge City Council) for the benefit of Boston.
2. Marilyn's added information.
Where does inbound traffic from the west cross over to the north side of the Charles to avoid Storrow Drive?
The DCR's just-announced plan to reduce the lanes on Nonantum Road would help divert traffic from Storrow to the Pike but also to Cambridge. Nonantum Road connects to the free inbound Pike exit at Newton Corner. Traffic from the west could stay on the Pike and pay the additional toll, or leave at Newton Corner, cross the river at Watertown Center (avoiding Nonantum Road) or deal with the single inbound lane on Nonantum, then cross at North Beacon Street, which would avoid backups on Soldiers Field and Storrow Drive.
In this connection I think Bob La Tremouille mentioned the Birmingham Parkway, which connects Nonantum Road to Western Ave. in Allston. Traffic from the west could thus use Western Ave, briefly use Storrow to cross the Charles at River Street, then take Mem Drive eastbound (could be why the DCR instituted the right-only lane at that intersection--it otherwise makes no sense to me). Alternatively, traffic could turn left from Western and cross to Mem Drive at North Harvard/JFK Street over the Anderson Bridge.
3. Bob addition:
For the sake of completeness there is yet another name for the Charles River roads on the north side which is for all meaningful purposes the extension of Memorial Drive / Birmingham Parkway in Watertown, MA. This named road runs from the end of Birmingham Parkway after a short jog on North Beacon Street. It is yet another boulevard which is "underutilized" ("shudder" according to the developers).
Traffic from the Mass. Pike would be diverted to Watertown Square because of the "traffic calming measures on Nonantum Road and .2 miles north of Nonantum Road is Charles River Road which becomes Birmingham Parkway which becomes Memorial Drive.
So you see there is another purpose for giving the Charles River roads multiple names. Not only is it an excellent way to get tourists confused and into accidents, it is also a great way to confuse the voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)