Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The Middlesex Fells Part 2 – Stranger Than Fiction – WITH POLL

By

“I am particularly concerned over two issues: impacts on area roadways, and impacts on MDC parkland.”

The Secretary also stated that “comment letters raise a number of concerns regarding the

assumptions that underlie the DEIR traffic analysis,” and ruled that the SDEIR should

explain “why the assumed baseline traffic generation has increased so markedly (from

2,150 daily trips in the ENF to 7,060 daily trips in the DEIR).

No flies on this guy.

Now it stayed this way for few years. The state and the parties negotiated a memorandum of understanding which didn’t say much other than the developers understood and agreed to the protection of the Fells and Parkways.

Then in 2005 the developers submitted a new plan (Plan 3) This added the 400 + residential units while reducing the office numbers. And guess what. In this plan the developers said the historic number of daily trips to the site had been 8,260 And, get this, the plan said that the new development will generate 8,010 daily trips. That’s less than  what goes in their now according to them.

The state sent back letters again asking to explain these significant discrepancies in their historic traffic trips representations. So again, the state told the developers to go pound sand.

After a $250,000 P.R. campaign in 2006 the developers came in with a new plan (Plan 4) which was basically the same as Plan 3 but everything was cut down by about 10%.  With these cuts the developers claimed the traffic trips per day when the project is completed will 7,540 and the historic trips per day remained at 8,260.

So according to the developers the new commercial residential proposal will generate 700 less car trips a day then their first plan which would have multiplied the number of daily trips by a factor of five.

Let’s recap. The developers first said 2,150 cars historically visited the site. When that number hurt them they raised it to 7,060 and finally settled on 8,260.

Remember these numbers are for past trips, not future expectations.

Were these numbers calculated with nefarious intentions? The Complaint causes one to draw that conclusion.

The plan also said there that no state permits will be needed because the new numbers (historic vehicular trips vs. expected vehicular trips) mean they do not have to any work to the historical roadways. Not even a curb cut.  Ain’t that funny?

The state rightfully said screw and the developers sued in Land Court. The state was relying and solid legal grounds and the data providing by the developer was on its face suspect.

Now, here is where Deval lost my vote.

On June 5th of this year Ian Bowles, The Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs issued an Advisory Opinion negating everything the state has done the past nine years to stop this monstrosity championed by land speculators who knew of these problems when the bought the land.

On September 13 the Patrick Administration and the developers entered into an agreement where the developers can proceed to build the project “immediately”.

The City of Medford and the Friends of the Fells, a non-profit working hard on this, filed a law suit in Middlesex Superior Court seeking an injunction and other remedies. The above facts were taken from the complaint

The developers have not filed an answer yet. That should be worth a read.

Next Part 3. The Lewis and Clark Exploitation: The Good Guys and Bad Guys

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Interesting read.  The Patrick administration has had a few environment related issues come up lately.

    <

    p>But really, like you were ever voting for Deval in the first place…

    <

    p>Wasn’t your choice between Cahill and Baker?  What took Cahill off the list.

  2. What you are saying is that once an environmental study is completed you cannot update that study with new data. What if the fist study was flawed ( say they did they avg trips per day on a holiday) once the flaw in the study design is found why wouldnt you run another sample? If you have proof that the developers are using made up data than say so. Collecting data is a funny thing, when you think you have all the answers something changes and all your assumptions become irrelevant. I guess you want a one strike and your out approach to collecting data.  

    • If the present governor wants to defile what pristine ahd historic park lands we now enjoy—that’s OK, because our governor is a liberal and liberals have the best of intentions. They know what is best for all of us.

      <

      p>It matters not that the new numbers as well as the old developers came up with are total BS— because the developers and land speculators have the best interest of the enviroment, the historic preservation of the land, the quality of life, and the best interest of everyone in MA. They think nothing of lining their own pockets and the hacks on Beacon Hill as well. But Deval Patrick and his minions think it is best—know why? because they aren’t going to be around in two years. They are going to walk away from the wreckage they leave behind. How many crappy malls do we need?

    • why all the silence from Charley, JConway and all of the other supporters of this plan?  Do you folks just think that this is going to go away?  It won’t.  The opinion exposes the machinations of the speculators. The governor’s complicity in this stunt should become a significant issue in next year’s race.  

      • In truth I haven’t had the time to review them, but a cursory examination of the advisory opinion seems to give reasonable reasons for the opinion.  Still need to look at the MOU.

  3. Surely there were sources cited for each “historical” traffic number. Right?

    <

    p>If the original number was wrong, and the updated numbers are better, then surely somebody has sources that show this. I’d like to see more data — especially with sources cited — and less political posturing.

    <

    p>Are you under the impression that your decision to vote for Charlie Baker “on this issue alone” is going to help your case? If so, then you demonstrate less political insight than usual.

    <

    p>Perhaps you might stick to easier targets, like Howie Carr, in order to minimize the risk of shooting yourself in the foot.

    • and Deval swallowed them hook, line and sinker.  In my opinion, Gutierrez cooked their numbers just like the savings and loans people cooked appraisals. They should have to explain the delta between their first numbers and their significantly escalated numbers.  This matter stinks to the high heavens.  Put this beside the draining of our rivers and the recent massacre at DCR and I think it is clear that we have a governor who has no environmental conscience at all. In regard to our greenest of governors, I think we have all been sold a bill of goods.

    • It cannot be minimized or just swept under the rug.  This is a huge story that will only get bigger.  Do you think that Cahill or Baker will hang the Fells, the DCR and the River Regs around Governor Patrick’s neck come debate time?  He had better address this stuff, and soon.  Waving dismissively won’t do it.

      • I looked at the traffic data. I’m not a transportation engineer, I don’t even play one on television.

        <

        p>I look at “Table 1: Woodland Road Traffic Volumes” on page 2 of “EXHIBIT C” in the MOU and I see eight traffic counts collected weekdays in 2005, 2007, and 2009, in spring, summer and winter, all between the driveways to the Langwood Commons site over a period of years, that average 16,725 trips per day.

        <

        p>The proposed development, according to this document (“Table 5: Langwood Commons Trip Generation Summary”, page 7, “EXHIBIT C”) , will add about 5,080 trips. That looks to me like an increase of about 33%.

        <

        p>The documents propose a set of changes in the “Transportation Safety Improvements Plan” that purport to address this increased volume.

        <

        p>I see what appears to be good solid data supporting a current traffic count of 16-17k trips per day. After all the histrionics about the past, I have seen NO evidence. No prior traffic studies showing “2,150 trips”, nor “7,060”, nor “8,260”, no plans claiming these numbers, no evidence to support the claim that the developer or the state somehow inappropriately cooked the current numbers.

        <

        p>Wherever we come down on this issue (and I’m still very much on the fence), I find your rhetoric on this thread — ” They are getting ready to rape the Fells, its cries are ringing in the air.” — intemperate to the point of distraction.

        <

        p>Please highlight what I’m missing.

        • The developers originally said the project would increase daily trips onto the property (different that # of cars passing by) from 2,150. to 8000+. Then they said it would increase the trips from 7000+ to 8000+.  

          <

          p>By the numbers new they submit and you cite, the traffic grows by 33%. That is a large number. But small to an increase of 400% and a deflated one if the estimated increase in daily trips. And most of that will be at rush hours.

          <

          p>So the developers went from an increase in daily visits from 400% to 33% without explanation.

          <

          p>The point you are missing Brookline is that the numbers supplied by the developers regarding historic daily visits to the site are highly suspect and more so because the discrepancies have not been explained, in spite of being asked through out the process.

          • I think the proposal should be evaluated based on the most reliable data available to us. If the current numbers are wrong, they should be corrected.

            <

            p>There are multitude of reasons why the historical data might change, some nefarious and some not. You seem to be making the argument that the change itself proves bad faith — not only on the part of the developer, but also on the part of the state.

            <

            p>Carl Sagan was fond of saying “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.” In my view, the claim that this issue demonstrates bad faith on the part of Governor Patrick’s administration is extraordinary. I suggest that, so far, I have not seen the correspondingly extraordinary evidence to support that claim.

            <

            p>Now, if you were to — for example — show that unusual low-interest mortgages were arranged by associates of the developer for Ian Bowle or his advisors, or if you were to show that a long chain of emails between Mr. Bowles and the developer were deleted, or if you were to show that current or past traffic data were manipulated by the consulting firm at the direction of the developer, then you’d have my attention.

            <

            p>At the moment, I see no evidence of such impropriety.

            • You want answes too. Have you read the links? Can you find anywhere  where the questions you raised have been answered by the developers?

              <

              p>Do you iunderstand that the state has been asking these questions for nine years? Do you understand that the issues you raise are reasonable questions yet the state has been unable to get those answers?

              <

              p>I doubt you are saying that all assumptions should be made in the developers favor when they refuse to explain the data descrepincies.

              <

              p>And the issue beyond that is the Gick Cheny reasding od the law which the Governow agreed with and now they don’t need any state permits.

          • I read all 12 pages of the VHB study.  This is probably the 3rd or 4th traffic study I’ve read done by VHB; I’ve certainly read studies by other consulting firms as well.

            <

            p>The traffic counts were done with ATRs — the black hoses that they put across the road to count vehicles.  My question to EB3 is:
            * Do you believe that the ATRs were miscalibrated on all five distinct seasons of collection?
            * Do you believe there was a conspiracy to drive 1000s more vehicles over the ATRs to inflate their numbers, all eight different data collection days?
            * Do you believe that VHB is just lying?

            <

            p>You’ve made it clear that you don’t believe their data based on older studies, but you’ve done no work explaining why you don’t believe their actual study, with numbers collected by a robot.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>I am skeptical of some of their numbers — but not those numbers.  I think they’re lowballing a few rows in Table 3, 4, and 5 — but not by so much that it throws doubt on the whole study.

            <

            p>I’ve also looked at the actual plans on how they would change the road configuration, intersection geometries, and so forth — and I like them.  The layouts are much cleaner, the intersections look safer, the traffic calmer, and don’t forget the much better pedestrian and bicycle amenities.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>To be clear, I’m not arguing that the project should go forward.  I am, however, arguing that the VHB report looks good and the plans for the road improvements* look good, and that claiming otherwise undermines other valid arguments against the project in my opinion.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>

            <

            p> * I’m no Robert Moses.  A road improvement does not imply just laying out even more pavement.  Generally, it implies the opposite.

            • the 2150 historical daily figure, which was when it was an active 200 bed hospital with emergency room, is consistent with that use.

              <

              p>They suddenly inflated that base line number to 7000+. The 7000+is inconsistent with the prior use of the hospital and raised the questions pointedly asked by the prior administrations.

              <

              p>The developers, whose responsibility is to do this, have not explained the discrepancies.

              <

              p>The most recent plan has all the numbers, including the suspect historical daily trips to the place, in order so they can now say they don’t need no schtinkin’ permits because they aren’t increasing the traffic.

              <

              p>Yet, in actuality they are replacing a 2,150 daily trip development with a 8,000 + daily trips.

              <

              p>That is what they did.

              <

              p>And The Patrick Administartion went along with thier specious argument. God only knows why.

              <

              p>I believe the temporary injunction will be issued.

              <

              p>Then time is own our side to get the word out.

              <

              p>I am told surveyers were doing their thing on Woodland Road today.

              • Look, I understand why it’s better for the developer if the count is higher.  The counts go back as far as 2005 — they didn’t just happen recently.  The first two counts were Feb 2005:
                Tuesday 16,240
                Wednesday 16,510

                <

                p>So, my question is: do you not believe the number?  Do you think it was made up or collected in error?

                <

                p>You’ve been asked this question numerous times, and have refused to answer, instead responding with a question or pointing out that it’s higher than the prior numbers.  There are a few studies, and you like the results of one but not the other — yet haven’t provided any evidence that the study reporting unfavorable numbers is flawed.  If you don’t answer this question, how can we move forward?  

                • the traffic when the Hospital was in full operation? That was years ago. Therefore it is a calculated guess. Their first guess was 2,150. The second was 7000+.  Curent traffic pattern studies don’t effect the number of trips years ago.. Do you understand?

                  <

                  p>The developers are saying there will be less trafic then when the hospital was in full swing years ago.

                  <

                  p>That is pattently false.

                  <

                  p>A 200 bed hospital with emergency room. That is about 2,150 trips per day.

                  <

                  p>A 400 housing units plus the proposed office space will bring in substantially more.

                • You cherry-pick a low number, the developer cherry-picks a high one — you’re both doing the same thing.

                  <

                  p>If this is the best you’ve got, it’s time to pick a new issue.

                • Not Me.

                  <

                  p>Why 2,150 to 7000+?

                  <

                  p>Do you work for a municipal government Brookline?

                • I’m just a programmer. I’m one of those small business owners that the state is working so hard to help.

                  <

                  p>I have no dog in this race, other than as a spectator to this thread that is rapidly flaming out.

                  <

                  p>I started sympathetic to your case. You are convincing me that I am mistaken.

                  <

                  p>My read of the traffic data is that it supports the decision of the state. If there are other arguments that are more persuasive, this is a really good time to present them.

                  <

                  p>I find you funny. I tend to like your style. I thoroughly enjoyed your skewering of Howie Carr, and I think you’ve done a valuable public service. I want to take you more seriously here — and you seem intent on making that impossible.

                • You have me completely lost. Can you point to where the data explains the change from 2,150 historical dailey trips to 7.000+.

                  <

                  p>My read of the data cannot find the explanation or how they arrived at the historical dailey trips. Your read is differnt I assume.

                  <

                  p>Can you explain this to me please.
                  One of us does not understand or you do not think this fact is important while I and the state do.

                  <

                  p>Or are you a Deval apoligists?

                  <

                  p>BTW I really don’t care if you like my style. I do care if you are purposely or ingnorantly missing important facts here.

                  <

                  p>LIKE THE CHANGE IN THE HISTORICAL DAILEY TRIP NUMBE

                  <

                  p>No traffic study should change it. On a historical study would change it.

  4. Did you read the post? The part about the Republican pro-business Enviornmental Secretary asking questions and looking for explanations?

    <

    p>

    The Secretary also stated that “comment letters raise a number of concerns regarding the
    assumptions that underlie the  traffic analysis,”

    <

    p>and

    <

    p>

    explain “why the assumed baseline traffic generation has increased so markedly (from
    2,150 daily trips in the ENF to 7,060 daily trips in the DEIR).

    <

    p>That has been the state’s position for nine years until the Patrick Administartion said never mind, we will take your word for it.

    • Instead of assumed historical traffic data, I’m suggesting that somebody has something real. Show us the numbers.

      <

      p>Charley Baker? Really?

      • What Ernie is saying is that prior to Deval, the state had been asking the developers the same exact question you’re asking Ernie, namely how on earth did they go from 2,150 daily trips to 7,060 daily trips, but the developers have never answered that question.

        • It is now the Eye Sore and Toxic Waste site of Eastern Massachusetts. There is no way in hell thatRte 18 would support automobile traffic ten fold—but the genius’s sold it to the drooling greedhead hacks—now the house of cards is collapsing and Weymouth is going to get stuck with the tab ob of cleaning the mess up. I wonder what part Honest John Bill Delahunt played in this matter?

          <

          p>Again—greed and politicians with their respective hands out. What’s in it for ME?

  5. Traffic engineers can determine current traffic volume quite accurately with in-road measurements.  This includes day of the week, time of day, direction of flow, and turn time and volume if the area in question is at an intersection or other re-directional feature.

    <

    p>Those counts are put into a massive study which interprets the current traffic conditions, includes detailed information on volume.  It takes into account and adjusts for seasonality, weekends, population growth, etc. etc.

    <

    p>These studies then try to predict the volume of new traffic anticipated from the development and its impact.  This often is more art than science, but traffic engineers have been at this a long time and so usually can and do give credible estimates.

    <

    p>It seems to me that an initial study may have erred on counting the historic traffic, and that new measurements and analysis were presented to Sec. Bowles.

    <

    p>It seems improbable — actually, highly unlikely — that professional engineers at the DEP would simply wave this revision through on politics alone, without voluminous substantiating data.

    <

    p>Bogus approvals based on favoritism have been issued in the past.  The numbers would tell you.

    <

    p>But Ernie, before you accuse Bolwes or Patrick of malfeasance, you should take a look at the traffic studies submitted (they should be public record.)  There’s a good chance initial counts were understated and then revised at the next submission.

    • Without looking at the studies, the change in estimates look fishy.  The historical data (from when the hospital was operating) would very likely be less than what’s proposed.  

      <

      p>They’re talking 400 or so apartments with no train station – that’s 1,000 people coming in and out every day.  How many people came in and out of the hospital?  DaveS, from an earlier post claimed there were hundreds, Regular Joe says there were 200 beds.  If we assume 400 employees and an additional 200 patients, visitors, suppliers coming in an out every day – that’s 600 or about 60% of what we can expect from just the apartments.  

      <

      p>The apartments are only a portion of the development, however.  How many people will come through due to the commercial portion – the same, half the number.  If we assume it’s half, that’s about 500 additional folks – all told roughly twice the historical number – so the notion that there will be less seems off.  

      <

      p>I keep on hearing that we should read these studies, maybe the traffic estimates were wrong – yet the Republicans, hardly an anti-development group, did read the studies and questioned the underlying assumptions of the traffic analysis.  To assume that Ernie is the one being disingenuous here seems crazy – this development at any cost line of thinking fits right in line with the Deval Patrick that wants to build casinos – it’s development and jobs when those are tough to come by.  

      <

      p>Normally I’m turned off by Ernie’s posts, even when I agree with him – but this one has been excellent – not a policy paper, which is what you all seem to be asking for, but a populist, informative and funny piece.  He doesn’t need the policy analysis, Romney did that for him.  All he’s got to show is how when one variable changes, the Patrick administration (who has demonstrated a lack of concern for thoughtful environmental policy of late), this thing gets passed – a clear sign of politics at work.    

      • … is being disingenuous at all.  I do think, however, that if we’re going to get bogged down in these particular numbers as being evidence of ‘something going on’, it would behoove everyone to obtain some understanding as to what the studies actually assert and their methodologies for asserting them.  Of course, answering these questions is much more a technocratic question than a political one.  It only becomes political if a problem shows up, but I wouldn’t assume such a problem a priori.  Indeed, the technocratic nature of such numbers would engender more, not less, caution on reaching conclusions before better understanding is achieved.  

        <

        p>Now Ernie points out that the suit wants answers to these questions, and that may well be (although their site doesn’t mention these issues about the traffic counts but rather that the suit alleges that the secretary and commissioner violated Environmental statues), but I’m also open the the idea that their questions were answered, but not satisfactorily (possibly justified or not).  

        <

        p>I just get cautious when technical engineering issues are punted around in a political argument or discussion.  I’m not discounting any possibility that politics are trumping engineering here, but I’m not assuming it either.  I’ve found that, in general, the misunderstanding of engineering is often a parsimonious explanation when this kind of dispute comes up (for both innocent and sinister reasons – potentially on either side).

      • Say the old hospital had 200 beds.  Let’s assume it was 75% occupied on average, for 150 beds.  5 FTE employees per occupied bed out not be unusual, so that would be 750 FTE.  Since not all employees work full time, the number of individuals is likely a lot more more (without taking patients and visitors into account).  

        <

        p>This leaves out the Church, the school and houses that were on the old site.

        • Are you saying that the prior hospital use was consistent with 2,150 daily trips or with 7000+ daily trips?

        • Are you saying that the prior hospital use was consistent with 2,150 daily trips or with 7000+ daily trips?

    • and they ignored the previous administrations’ inquiries into the same.  Now they spring more different numbers and Bowles just accepts them. That is all right by you I guess, but to those of us who love nature and love the Fells Reservation it is a complete abdication of his professional responsibility that warrants removal.

  6. I am no expert on development but the system requires the developers to do the studies? No one from the state does their own studies? We trust developers to give us the numbers? We should have state affilated engineers do a study and certify it authenticity. The no one can complain about the data

    • The developer pays for a study by a third party engineering firm.  You might worry that because the developer pays for the study that the study will reflect what the developer would like the study to show.  It’s good to worry about such things.  However, keep in mind that there are far more developers (and communities!) than transportation study firms, and if one gets a reputation for being “in the bag” for developers, they run the risk of being ignored or, worse, of communities informing a developer that a study from that particular firm won’t be considered.

      <

      p>Why should the state pay for the study instead of the developer?

      • … studies aren’t submitted to in a vacuum.  They are evaluated by the agency requiring the study, not just the firm paying for it.  Such evaluations by public agency employ experts of their own in their scrutiny.

    • Is your memory so short? The entire Big Dig was a fraud, done with fraudulent numbers by fraudulent architects and engineers, backed by fraudulent politicians in a fraudulent state.

      <

      p>But—the lemmings are certain that if Joe Blow raises his right hand and swears that the numbers are accurate—then it must be so. The testimony is unimpeachable.

      <

      p>God save me from fools!

      • In January of 2006 the environmental affairs secretary ruled (in a MEPA decision) that the ‘Langwood Commons’ housing and office development project submitted for the former hospital site surrounded by the Fells Reservation could not be built at the proposed scale due to generation of excessive traffic which would cause significant environmental impacts to the Fells historic parkways and parkland.  The developer was instructed in the ruling to provide a new environmental impact study based upon a smaller project proposal – a ‘reduced build alternative’ –  whose traffic impacts would not have adverse effects, and to demonstrate this the developer was required to quantify potential traffic impacts with baseline traffic data.

        <

        p>The developer’s proposed parkway alterations required for traffic mitigation were required to be identified and presented to the public for review and comment.

        <

        p>The developer has never followed through on this ruling.  No traffic numbers have been submitted for public review on the current project which is only 10% smaller than the project rejected as environmentally harmful in 2006.  The developers made sure there was no “next submission” of verifiable traffic numbers.  And now the environmental secretary and DCR commissioner have nullified all previous rulings which required this traffic impact data and analysis be provided by the developer for public review as a requirement for permits to proceed. These agreements now give the developers permission to build immediately without the developers ever having proven that the volume of the project’s traffic will not destroy the historic features of the Fells parkways which are listed on the national and state Registers of Public Places and serve to connect citizens to the incomparable century-old Fells Reservation, one of the cornerstones of the first metropolitan park system in the world.    

          • On June 5, 2009, the environmental affairs secretary – in response to a request from the developers –  issued an Advisory Opinion which nullified the requirement for the developers to file an new environmental impact report for a smaller project under the terms of the 2006 MEPA ruling.

            <

            p>Secretary Bowles Advisory Opinion rubber stamped the subterfuge whereby DCR (in a formal agreement reached with the developers) would subsequent to construction of the project act to make parkway alterations in lieu of the developer himself making such alterations.  This maneuver was set up solely as a way for the developers themselves to avoid seeking their own excavation permits for parkway mitigation construction and thus further their attempt to elude environmental review triggers.  

  8. Anyone who reads these documents will finish with a bad taste in their mouths.  The MEPA and DCR heads need to be told that what they are doing and allowing to have done is completely unconscionable.

    <

    p>I believe that the governor loves nature hence his retreat deep in the woods of the Berkshires.  Many of his constituents do not have the luxury of having a “camp” deep in the country.  They go to the public parks and they go to the public beaches.  If the governor has any ear at all he will address this situation.  They are getting ready to rape the Fells, its cries are ringing in the air.  The governor hears them because he follows BMG.  If the governor is getting wise counsel he will soon ride to the rescue.  If he doesn’t ride to the rescue the rape of the Fells will be a huge part of his legacy.

    • In 2006 MEPA issued a ruling on the Fells development project saying that the over-scaled project would cause unacceptable environmental traffic impacts to the Fells Reservation historic parkways and parkland.

      <

      p>In that ruling the environmental affairs Secretary stated that the project  “cannot be considered by the MEPA Office to be a ‘reduced build alternative [that] can be built without adversely affecting the character of the parkway’ as was required by the previous state environmental review decision.”

      <

      p>The environmental affairs Secretary ruled that the Developers were required to file a Supplemental Final Impact Report to be subject to MEPA review on a smaller scale project before state permits to allow the project could be considered.

      <

      p>To prove that such a smaller project could be built without environmental harm the Secretary’s ruling required quantification of traffic numbers for a reduced build alternative: citing “DCR’s concerns regarding the validity of historical traffic numbers,” the Secretary’s ruling stated in 2006: “The primary impact of concern for this project is traffic. Therefore, an appropriate reduced build alternative will be one whose associated traffic impacts can be reasonably mitigated without adversely affecting the character of the parkways. Necessary and responsive mitigation, in turn, cannot be developed until the project’s traffic impacts have been quantified, which itself requires accurate contemporary baseline information.”  

      <

      p>The Fells site developers refused to comply with this ruling and refused to provide any such traffic data for public review, and in September 2009 the environmental affairs Secretary did an about face and rescinded the 2006 ruling requiring that data of traffic level environmental impacts on a new smaller project be reviewed by MEPA and the public prior to permits being granted.  

      <

      p>The Secretary simply removed the project from any further environmental review, based solely on the claims made by the developers that the project required no permits because they claimed there would be no need to make alterations to the historic parkways to add capacity for thousands of additional daily traffic trips.

      <

      p>This deal stemmed from a letter dated April 15, 2007, in which the developers notified state officials of a proposed change in the configuration of a revised project plan, consisting of a mere 10% reduction in the proposed new office space to 225,000 square feet, and a mere 10% reduction in the proposed new residential space to 405 dwelling units compared to the prior project scale which had been rejected by the state in 2006.  The developers claimed that, with the new configuration, project traffic would be an additional 7,540 daily traffic trips. The developers unilaterally declared that “the project is now in line with historic traffic levels and we feel that a compelling argument can be made that there is now no requirement for [a DCR Access Permit].” In presenting this unsupported claim, the Developers ignored questions that DCR and the Secretary had raised in prior environmental MEPA reviews about inconsistencies in the developers’ earlier reports of the baseline traffic level for the Site, a matter that the Secretary had required to be addressed in the Supplemental Final Impact Report.

      <

      p>Subsequently, throughout the period between July 3, 2008, and April 21, 2009, the developers negotiated with representatives of DCR and EOEEA in an effort to identify a method for the project to proceed without any further MEPA review. Despite prior  doubts raised by DCR staff regarding the accuracy of the developers’ traffic numbers the primary objective of these negotiations was to create a scheme by which the developer could begin project construction immediately without submitting any traffic impact reports for public review. On September 18, 2009, the goal of the developers to begin immediate construction was granted in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by DCR and the developer, an action which is being challenged in Superior Court by citizens, the City of Medford and the Friends of the Middlesex Fells Reservation.

Archives