Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Conservation Law Foundation to sue Kerasiotes, Cellucci et al.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Karen Okland Wepsic

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

In today's(July 2) Boston Globe page B3 and Boston Herald page 16 are
articles describing a proposed lawsuit to be brought by the Conservation
Law Foundation because many Urban Transit projects which were promised at
the outset of the Big Dig have not moved off the starting block while
highway projects and the extension of commuter rail have proceeded. The
Conservation Law foundation has called this "redlining". The CLF's
press release can be seen on their web page (www.clf.org).
The Los Angeles transit authority was sued by the Environmental Defense
Fund for not putting resources into the Los Angeles urban core and is now
under a consent decree with a special master for ten years so insure these
resources are used for Los Angeles urban transit. The Environmental Defense fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
brought the lawsuit. Details of the lawsuit and supporting documents can be
found on the Environmental Defense Fund's home page (www.edf.org).
There has to be an answer to the Conservation Law Foundation's proposal
to sue within 60 days.

Karen Wepsic


RTSPCC

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

> There has to be an answer to the Conservation Law Foundation's proposal
>to sue within 60 days.
>
>Karen Wepsic

The way Kerasiotes runs things, I think the reaction might be "go ahead and
sue". CLF themselves admitted at the end of the Globe article that the
enviromental law allows the MBTA to substitute other projects if they reduce
area emmisions by the same amount as the project being replaced. Thus, the MBTA
could replace the Blue Line Charles-Bowdoin connector with duel-mode buses from
South Station to Logan via the Transitway or with an underground moving
sidewalk between State and Downtown Crossing. The 46 new Orange Line cars could
be replaced with the 120 Green Line cars already delivered or on order, etc.,
etc.,
Somehow, I doubt this action will result in light-rail to Arborway or
Washington St. But maybe it will at least get the MBTA to develope a 20 year
procurement plan for the bus and rail fleets.

Harry H Conover

unread,
Jul 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/8/98
to
Karen Okland Wepsic (wep...@bcmp.med.harvard.edu) wrote:
: In today's(July 2) Boston Globe page B3 and Boston Herald page 16 are

: articles describing a proposed lawsuit to be brought by the Conservation
: Law Foundation because many Urban Transit projects which were promised at
: the outset of the Big Dig have not moved off the starting block while
: highway projects and the extension of commuter rail have proceeded. The
: Conservation Law foundation has called this "redlining". The CLF's
: press release can be seen on their web page (www.clf.org).

Great news! This will help the public to realize that the extreme
cost over-runs on the big dig are NOT due to engineering and construction
mis-calculation, but due to the costly political boondoggles that have
been parasites to the project since its very inception.

I can't help but wonder how much the "Conservation Law Foundation"
alone is going to cost the taxpayers. Multiply this by the selfish
self-interests of something like 150 other special interest groups
and it becomes obvious why the 'Big Dig' cost will eventually top
20-Billion, yet result in a road that is obsolete before it is
completed.

As a taxpayer, I wish special interest groups like the Conservation
Law Foundation a slow and painful demise -- your efforts cost us
dearly, yet produce nothing of positive consequence. I suggest
you join the ranks of your fellow ambulance chasers and give us
taxpayers a break!

Harry C.


Ron Newman

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to
In article <6o0u1s$5...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) wrote:

>
> I can't help but wonder how much the "Conservation Law Foundation"
> alone is going to cost the taxpayers. Multiply this by the selfish
> self-interests of something like 150 other special interest groups
> and it becomes obvious why the 'Big Dig' cost will eventually top
> 20-Billion, yet result in a road that is obsolete before it is
> completed.
>
> As a taxpayer, I wish special interest groups like the Conservation
> Law Foundation a slow and painful demise -- your efforts cost us
> dearly, yet produce nothing of positive consequence.

I'd say that the public transit improvements that were promised
in the CLF agreement (both those that were delivered and those that
haven't been yet) are a substantial positive consequence, as are all
of the new parklands to be developed as part of the Big Dig.

--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/

Harry H Conover

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to
Ron Newman (rne...@thecia.net) wrote:
: In article <6o0u1s$5...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
:

I won't disagree with that Ron, but can we afford them?

Costs for the Big Dig are currently close to triple the original
estimate, and likely to quadruple that estimate by project completion.

It is becoming apparent that a significant portion of that cost
escallation, if not the majority, stems from the many, many highway
un-related community perks that have been gradually added to the
program.

You are correct in your statement that some of these road un-related
costs were included as a component of the original estimate, however
a great many were not. (There appears to be a great deal of secrecy
being maintained in this area, and a clear separation of the costs for
costs associated with politically motivated adders vs. the baseline
project appears near impossible to obtain.)

The public has a right to know that a large component of the Big
Dig's cost growth is the result of 'good idea' adders far outside of
the scope covered by the original estimate, since a major chunk
of this will ultimately come from taxpayer pockets.

Engineers must stop taking all the heat for Big Dig fiscal problems.
It's time that responsible politicians and community do-gooders stood up
and began to admit and accept their share of the blame.

Harry C.

David J. P. Long - Change '_' in email to '.'

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to
con...@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:

>Great news! This will help the public to realize that the extreme
>cost over-runs on the big dig are NOT due to engineering and construction
>mis-calculation, but due to the costly political boondoggles that have
>been parasites to the project since its very inception.

So far, the most costly overrun that CAN be attributed to engineering
was the mistakes made when surveying the ground under the Fort Point
Channel for the I-90 connector to the Tunnel.

The jury is still out on how much more the Big Dig will cost from it,
but I believe numbers like $500M-$1.5B were thrown around. The
solution was to radically change how (and where) the box sections of
the tunnel will be built and how they will find their way under the
Channel.

Funny, though, is that nobody has mentioned how much more expensive or
cheaper this is from the original design...


+----/|-------------------------------------+-------------------+
| | | djl...@magic.mv.com \ Last update : |
| / | djl...@msn.com \ Rants - 6/15/98|
| ( ) http://www.mv.com/ipusers/magic \ ICQ# 8976662 |
+--`--' ----------------------------------------+---------------+

0 new messages