Thus the City of Cambridge’s preferred and, of course, destructive alternative has become highly unlikely to be adopted. It get worse because there is a key aspect which only exists in alternative added in 1991, and the state legislature has subsidized that aspect. To the best of my knowledge, the Cambridge Development Department has, ever since, denied the existence of that alternate route. It was a route which I suggested five years earlier as a second possible route. In 1991, tthe state planners adopted a second route for this circumferential subway. There have been two alternative routes for the Subway concept since 1991. I have long been concerned about a subway line being planned connecting three existing Boston subways.
I attended what seemed tobe the first meeting. He asked that group for input as to development matters which could be improved in Cambridge transportation planning. He supposedly was seeking wide participation.
#MMASS PIKE CAMBRIDGE ON RAMP CLOSURE FULL#
The creator was promoted to a full time staff member of the City of Cambridge’s Development Department.Įarly on as a city staffer, this person created a city group. The creator of this particular “group” this key person was speaking for received a promotion about a year after creating the group. MIT is one of Cambridge’s biggest developers and is a major beneficiary of the various attacks on the Charles River. Another of the “group”s in the meetings regularly meets on the campus of MIT. That group had, and I believe still has, its office on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The key person purportedly was speaking as a member of a particular “group”. Pike (I90) on the hill above the Charles River.
Pike rearrangement, there has been one key person among various “groups.” The groups were involved in discussions concerning the work being done on the Mass. And those joiners create many different “groups” and then rope well meaning folk into joining the great sounding “groups.” Naturally, the “groups” are carefully controlled by the “founders” or by the people controlling the “founders.” There is no real difference in the important policies of the varying interrelated “groups.” Supposed differences exist only in the supposed points of emphasis of each “group.” The differing supposed points of emphasis make each “group” attractive to particular people without changing the core shared interest among the various “groups.” The “founders” do their best to obfuscate reality. The people fighting for damage to the Charles River are a very tiny minority. Thus they falsely proclaim themselves saints. This is the way Cambridge resolves its own vileness: yell at the other guy and keep the rotten situation in the City of Cambridge as secret as possible. On their own front, the Cambridge City Council is moving on a law supposedly to defend Cambridge against animal abusers OTHER THAN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE. Pike (I90) off ramp to Cambridge for the benefit of Harvard University. A bike highway would be a precursor to a Mass. MassDOT seemed to kill Cambridge, MA’s fight for a bike highway over the Grand Junction railroad bridge which runs under the BU Bridge, both of which cross the Charles River. The key portion of the presentation concerned the rebuilding of the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) south of and above the Charles River in Boston across from Cambridge, MA. On Thursday evening, Septemthere was a presentation by MassDOT (Massachusetts Department of Transportation).
0 kommentar(er)
