By Rosemary Macero and Diane Valle
The latest coverage of the Rutherford Avenue/Sullivan Square presentation read like a BPDA press release in its fawning praise of a “newly-designed space with a much-enhanced traffic pattern,” which assured readers the meeting “flowed very well,” and described City officials as “impressive,” with “confidence” the project will finally reach the finish line. The meeting may have flowed well, but the traffic will not.
Omitted intentionally were: 1) The fact that the City has delayed so long (since 2008) it is rushing through the process to redesign Rutherford Ave. to avoid losing $200 million in state funds. 2) The plan was rushed and underdeveloped and that many neighbors in the room remained unconvinced, deeply concerned, and rationally-opposed to the proposed “Rutherford Ave. Park” which no one will safely be able to access.
Respected community member Moe Gillen called the presentation “dishonest,” because it failed to include existing bus routes 92 and 93. Omission of these and other community concerns hide a depth of mistrust many residents feel toward the process, based on past experience with Plan Charlestown and other projects. The City approves multiple projects with no consideration for congestion, open space, flooding or pollution. The problems worsen and accountability is absent.
The real problem is that the City fails to plan and approves projects with no regard to the traffic, open space, flooding or pollution, which problems will only be exacerbated by uncontrolled volume of growth already approved and the stress that the uncontrolled development will impose on the same narrow street grid that struggles every day with existing traffic.
These central issues were largely omitted from the recent article — and glossed over if not completely ignored in the City’s presentation.
Rutherford Ave. redesign should not be rushed and considered in a vacuum. Residents are concerned about the cumulative effect of all projects feeding into Sullivan Square and Rutherford Avenue—projects in Charlestown and beyond and the impact on our neighborhood. Projects along Rutherford, at Sullivan Square, on Roland Street, at One Mystic, and across the Mystic waterfront and the completion of redevelopment of Bunker Hill Housing—2,699 homes at completion- plan to add 19,000 new residents to Charlestown without any consideration of infrastructure to access those units. The Rutherford Ave. project either ignores or fails to address the access issues by the existing population, not to mention population increases.
The Everett impact is even worse with the Encore Casino, the Kraft soccer stadium (25,000 seats not to mention workers, vendors, staff, media, and public safety personnel, with only 75 on-site parking spaces), and the Davis Companies Docklands’ plan for 100 acres with 3,000 housing units and a data center. Assembly Square is not even fully occupied.
Every one of these projects impacts Sullivan Square and Rutherford Avenue and adds traffic.
Residents need to know: Where are the traffic studies? What is the traffic impact when all of these projects come online? AND, how will decreasing Rutherford Ave. access solve the traffic problem now and in the future?
Frustration is the story. Failing to listen to meaningful community input is the cause.
At the meeting, the CNC Chair restricted community participation to a single question and declared debate out of order.
Dan Jaffe corrected incorrect information, raised valid transportation concerns, and was repeatedly silenced. Residents raised objections to a center-running bus lane and removal of travel lanes. Waiting for a bus in a median is not only dangerous, it is inaccessible — especially in winter, at night, or for seniors, children, and people with disabilities. It certainly is not for dog owners and reduces “park space” to a joke. These concerns were dismissed or ignored.
Johanna Hynes raised Section 106 and the need to protect historic resources. Mary Boucher called it “Groundhog Day,” describing the reality of commuting daily through Sullivan Square. Residents want safe access to public transportation, safe bike lanes; drivers want safe traffic lanes. Instead of removing lanes of access, the City needs to take land and construct an alternative route away from the existing community through Hood Park, behind Bunker Hill Community College to remove traffic from Rutherford Ave., and create a safer passage from North Station to Sullivan Square while creating community access to Rutherford Ave.
Charlestown needs facts, not slogans.
Charlestown needs plain answers and verifiable numbers. Road construction must establish capacity before vehicles ever drive on it. How many skewed “traffic studies” have residents been given over the years? Boston has the worst traffic in the country — results matter. Doing more of the same and rushing to spend money is dangerous folly.
As Rosemary Macero pointed out, Rutherford Avenue cannot absorb unlimited additional demand. She suggested exploring a spur off Cambridge Street to divert trips away from Rutherford. She also called for the construction of overhead pedestrian access.
The City had no meaningful response to flood-risk questions. Despite the money spent on climate studies, and the city, state, and federal flood maps which show Charlestown’s increased risk of flooding along the Charles and Mystic Riverfronts, Boston Harbor and the MIddlesex Canal, the City offered no plan to address these flood risks. Charlestown should not have to bear the burden of a known flood risk without a transparent long-term viable flood planning. Instead of rushing to spend $200 million to rebuild infrastructure with a plan that fails to deal with not only the traffic but the known flood risks, the City needs to plan for flooding, make sure access matches population, and listen to community concerns. Do we need to repeat the mistakes of the Seaport? www.inundationdistrict.com
The City claims a public benefit of five acres of “park.” This “park” is a green strip adjacent to a high-speed, high-traffic corridor for which people will have to take their lives into their own hands to reach. That is not a park any more than a “tree lawn” is a lawn. It is a strip along a congested roadway which will be inaccessible to children, the elderly and disabled, and adults who do not want to become so.
The City is in a rush to spend $200 million, without facts, without credible traffic planning, without workable alternatives, and without honest accounting for flood risk, but with false promises that invite irresponsible use of public money.
Taxpayers deserve planning. Residents deserve facts. The public deserves the whole picture.
Haste makes waste. Flooding creates loss.