Such things do exist. Unfortunately, they are called "textbooks".
Maybe, but not always. Remember that Richard Feynman took great issue with how integration was taught in most math classes and devised his own method (inspired from the Calculus for the Practical Man texts).
It sort of is the members only cigar club of academics. While I can read, understand, and subsequently implement most things in computer science land, when it comes to mathematical notation, there is a lot left to understand.
I think a LOT of people would benefit from a five or six video course simply showing a translation of complex notations to a working algorithm in a popular language, so the commonly used symbols start having meaning.
Then you'd still fail to account for symbols invented/repurposed in a single paper or by a single author.
Basically, the tool itself is a machine learning problem.
But... the Venn diagram of people able to do such a thing, people motivated to do such a thing (i.e. people reading academic papers who aren't math whizzes), and people with the time to do such a task... seems not to have a sufficient intersection. Most of us in this thread fulfill categories 1 and 2, but not 3... come to think of it, I have work to do... ducks.
Mathematical equations don't have any meaning taken by themselves; they just express a certain relationship between quantities without stating anything specific about what those quantities are.
Any translation of an equation to English would be a certain (usually lossy) interpretation of the equation for some particular quantities. But the same equation can have multiple interpretations in wildly different contexts.
Striking example is quantum mechanics. Physicists in the first half of the 20th century figured out a mathematical model (e.g. the Shroedinger equation) that worked perfectly well for predicting the behaviour of fundamental particles. Interpreting what the equation actually means (let's say in English) proved to be hard though and spawned multiple, sometimes conflicting or paradoxical interpretations. In fact, to this very day physicists are split on their favorite interpretation of QM. On the positive side, the mathematics of QM just works no matter how the result or the calculation are being interpreted.
eg http://www.dessci.com/en/products/mathplayer/tech/accessibil...
(yes, I know that's for IE. There are other systems though).