- May 6, 2007
- Reaction score
No, what FHWA said is "this project is really complicated and the environmental impacts need to be studied in more depth than you're proposing". An EIS is meant to study environmental impacts, not to evaluate design alternatives. The alternatives you're promoting aren't offering environmental benefits (they're actually harming the river relative to the preferred alternative). Rather, you claim they offer operational and quality-of-life benefits.Activists asked MassDOT to improve the Harvard Flip and Wadsworth Path. No activist asked MassDOT for a 3-track West Station and 2 tracks to bypass West Station.
MassDOT asked FHWA to let them "move on an build something". FHWA said: No you will do the full EIS process. So actually the next two years of the process are absolutely about studying alternatives.
MassDOT / FHWA correspondance: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dQj2Xy1cpZfbDxaFA3cQr02nDtCheULM
And every argument you make comes down to "we asked MassDOT to change the project. They changed it, but no one asked for them to do make that specific change, which is stupid and bad". I don't think MassDOT is operating in bad faith and I don't think they're incompetent, I think they're trying to balance more concerns than you are. Some of those concerns aren't worth it (like the layover yard, which shouldn't go here). I said they've been constantly redesigning in response to input - I've read every presentation and watched every livestream, so I know. You're moving the goalposts.