During a back and forth between BMG’s BrooklineTom and another blogger concerning the Middlesex Fells development grab Tom said the following:
So you agree that Woodland Road is already choked. If it’s already choked, then more traffic won’t worsen it. You’ve repeated that “historical use of the roadway is important” multiple times, but you haven’t said how or why.
On top of his bizarro land logic (“more traffic won’t worsen it”) Tom, who calls him self a “Lifelong radical/progressive Democrat and activist” may have a misunderstanding of the slime ball moves that went on here.
According to the developer’s first application in 2001, when the hospital was in full swing years before it had 2,150 traffic visitors a day. That number is consistent with the use of a 200 bed hospital with emergency room, a church, and a nursing home; and the fact that it had parking spaces for less then 700 vehicles.
The new project, according to this plan, would almost double the daily traffic on Woodland Road and increase four fold the trips made to the hospital site, A very high percentage of these trips will be during rush hours. This considerable increase in traffic required re-construction of Woodland Road which required approval of the state.
On the second application the developers changed the number from 2,150 to 7000+ car trips a day to the hospital when opened years ago.
By changing the number the developers were able to say they will not be adding daily traffic trips to what the hospital had when it was in full operation. Therefore, according to the developers there will not be needed any changes on the roadway so permits are not required.
And after years of fiddling with the numbers and answering lawsuits the developers got the Patrick Administration to use a blind eye when examining this project.
There is overwhelming evidence to cause reasonable people to be highly suspicions of accuracy of the numbers used b the developers to justify their position.
Perhaps I am wrong and BrooklineTom or someone from the Patrick Administration can enlighten us.
Discuss
7 Comments . Leave a comment below.Every time this project was subjected to environmental review it was stymied and always by Republican administrations. So, the developer and the powers that be cook up a way to avoid environmental review and the person in charge of the Massachusetts environment signs off on it. So, it is clear that the project is injurious to the environment of the Lynn Fells Reservation but now the DCR and Ian Bowles will allow the damage with no review whatsoever. It is a shame that our government consists of those who do not appreciate what we have here. That is what happens when you elect representatives from Colorado and New York and a governor from Illinois. No historical perspective, no appreciation of what makes Massachusetts special. So the Fells will die a slow death and it will be Deval Patrick's fault. Thank God we elected such a progressive man. A man who has moved past environmentalism so that he may embrace unbridled corporate development in our state parks. I can't wait to see what he has in store for Richmond.
I've been following the back and forth on this because I travel on the road nearly every day. Yes, when you have a developer playing fast and loose with the numbers, and an allegedly progressive gubernatorial appointee playing "see no evil" - and a cadre of progressives willing to give said progressive governor a pass because, you know, after all, he's a progressive...there's bound to be some frustration, right? Imagine if they pulled this sh** in your neighborhood, BT? I wonder if you'd be willing to call this "cow patty" a "rose."
Plugging this as "protecting the environment" certainly has more progressive flavor than promoting this as "improving my commute" -- and the latter is the argument that at least two of the contributors here are actually making.
RegularJoe made this argument in another thread (emphasis mine):
Justice4all makes a similar case here (emphasis mine):
The sanctimonious platitudes about "groves of trees" are window-dressing -- the real issue seems to be commuter convenience for at least two of the commentators here. It would seem that their commitment to preserving the natural beauty of the Fells doesn't stop them from wanting to drive through it every day. It would seem that they mostly want to stop other people from doing the same.
Ernie seems to have trouble following the "bizarro land logic" that a container that is already full can't get "more full".
I have an alternative proposal: Bulldoze the existing development, reclaim the property to open space, and close Woodland Road to vehicular traffic altogether, replacing it by separate foot and bike paths.
That is, if open space and metropolitan parks are what the proponents here genuinely care about.
I don't take the road because it is not a commuting road. I take roads that were built to channel the traffic through expeditiously. Woodland Road is a parkway, built to service the park of which it is a part. As such, it is devoid of traffic control signals and is not conducive to commuting.
I don't want to commute on the road, I don't want the road changed. I want this historic roadway to remain the way it has for decades. You seem blissfully ignorant of what is going on here. This new project will inexorably change the roadway by doubling the traffic. DCR has plans to do so because of an agreement with the speculators. The people charged with protecting the roadway are going to destroy its unique qualities.
You are either terribly misinformed or are just being disingenuous. I never said I wanted to commute on the road. I don't. I have a way to get to work. I just want there to be environmental review of a huge project in the middle of an historic park system. I don't see how this runs afoul of a lifelong radical progressive. I would like to think that a progressive would favor environmental review of a project of this size.
Earlier, you wrote: Have you ever tried to use Woodland Road at rush hour? If it were not gridlocked I would be able to use it to get to work via route 93.
Above, you write: I don't want to commute on the road, I don't want the road changed.
Which of these contradictory assertions would you have us believe?
it is too crowded to use at rush hour. But the developers say that they can double the traffic on it with no remediation. Do you understand this? I am giving you actual firsthand knowledge about the condition of the road during rush hour. I told you that it is the road I would need to take to get to route 93 but that it is too clogged with traffic at rush hour. I take other routes to my job, not route 93, to avoid the traffic that already clogs the park road. I have a way to work, it only takes me 25 minutes to commute. There is no contradiction in my statements but there is a lot of dissembling in yours.
Excessive traffic impacts the environment, or has that lesson been lost on you or just conveniently ignored? So spare me the "bait and switch" sermon while you're switch and baiting. Yeah, you, that word that rhymes with "ripo-crite." And you didn't answer the question, BT. If a developer started playing with the numbers, and then footsie with a gubernatorial appointee in your neighborhood, would you be all good with it?
So let's ask why you're so willing to give Deval's appointee a pass on this?
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sun 19 May 4:28 AM