March 17th CPPC: humbled yet still arrogant

 Generally, CPPC meetings are tedious, disorganized affairs.  Last Wednesday's meeting was entertaining.   At this meeting, we heard of future project cost increases flying out the window; we saw Michalak and Clancy raked over the coals; we smelled the stench of hubris when Bowen wanted to order around the MBTA and MassDOT and both Bowen and Lawrence wanted ways to muzzle abutters.

 1.  Belmont-Nitsch vs MBTA: Clancy reports

At a previous MPO meeting, Chair Mohler ordered to have Belmont come and explain its park/path 25% design plan, an unusual order triggered by our letters to the MPO. 
 
On Monday (March 15th): Clancy, Garvin, Michalak appeared before the MBTA’s Deputy Administrator John Ray.  Chief Railroad Officer Ryan Coholan and MassDOT’s Michael Trepanier were also there.   Clancy was stunned that they had to go through a thorough review of the 25% design plans with Ray who made comments and gave directions.   The acknowledged problem is that the park is being built next to a live rail.
 
The CPPC did try to appear vindicated on the jacking choice (I and Alex complained about tunnel jacking in our letters).  Various members defensively repeated  - echoing each other - that the MBTA wanted the assurance, certitude, [promise cross your heart] that tunnel jacking would be used for the underpass.
 
The reality is that the MBTA is not dead set on jacking for all underpasses and Ray probably questioned the use of jacking.  This is obvious because Clancy was troubled that, as he put it, the directions that Coholan gave last year did not hold up.  One of those directions was categorically stating that "jacking was the only method they [MBTA] would support". (Nitsch-MBTA meeting minutes.)   Coholan did not speak at all during this meeting. 
 
According to Clancy, Coholan said 10’ clearance from the rails was sufficient.  Ray said he wanted more clearance.  According to Clancy, Ray's demand for greater clearance means that the path will be thrown more on top of abutters. This means even graver issues of eminent domain for our homes and hence higher expense for the town.
 
Ray raised the issue of buried cables at the proposed underpass location; these cables need to be exactly mapped in order to draw up the proper design plans.  Ray continues to be concerned about the safety of the Brighton St crossing. 
 
(The buried cables that had not been taken into account in Nitsch's design reminded me of the Wilmington project with a 111% increase over the original budget ($11M to $23M) and Norwood  with a whopping 264% increase ($6M to $23M) that has vexed the MPO this past month.  If I recall, Wilmington's excuse was that they had run unexpectedly into a buried wall.)

What it boils down to is that Nitsch's design did not pass inspection.  Ray wants a large number of changes and Nitsch has to head back to the drawing board.  The MPO may have saved itself programming this project with a cost that may have escalated wildly in the future.

Clancy and Garvin concluded at the end of this meeting that: “the design is going to be what the MBTA wants it to be.”

2.  CPPC’s discussion about Ray's demands.

Leino: "Nitsch has work to do to address the MBTA’s concerns.”  They worried about how much this will set back the schedule.

Sugarman asked whether a new date for the soil borings had been set.  No date set but Leino explained that the reason the MBTA had not allowed the borings was because of the MBTA's concern over the plans and not because of a lack of flagmen.  Now, MBTA will allow the borings to  be done.

Bowen: she wanted to find a way to stop abutters from communicating with MassDOT and MBTA.  She also got annoyed at another point and, in a regal manner, said that the CPPC should command the attendance of the MassDOT and MBTA at some of their meetings.   Wisely,  Clancy pointed out that you do not give orders to the MassDOT or MBTA.

Lawrence was concerned that MBTA’s demands will slow down the 25% design plan submittal. He wanted to submit the current, very flawed plan which would be sort of spitting on the face of the MBTA and MPO.   Once again wisely, Clancy pointed out that that was not a good move after all of the MBTA’s changes.

Last year, after abutters wrote to the MPO, Lawrence lectured the wayward children (I and Paul) telling us - with a 'Father knows best" demeanor  - that abutters had to understand that all complaints should only be brought to the CPPC.  Yes - i thought - that would be as effective as talking down a well.
 
Now, Lawrence got angry at the submittal delay and how it was caused by our complaints reaching the MBTA via the MPO. He wanted to  “localize the parties involved and send a cease and desist!”. “Dig into who it is”, he growled, and muzzle the person(s).  Leino pointed out that they can’t stop abutters from contacting public agencies.
 
But the fact that our right to give our opinion is even discussed ...  *shake of the head* need I say more?





 

Popular posts from this blog

The Miracle of the Sketchily Scheduled Public Hearing

I've been on hiatus fron this blog after Nitsch's submission of the 25% design plan at the end of 2021.  All that time, I've continued to observe the CPPC meetings; they have been as interesting as watching paint dry. Nitsch's Michalak seemed to avoid the CPPC but, a few times, the CPPC succeeded in having Michalak show up to give a report of ... non-progress. This was confirmed by someone with knowledge of the project within the MBTA who complained to me of how Nitsch was not delivering the necessary engineering plan although 1 year had lapsed since the request made in 2022. Engineering plan vs design sketch  My MBTA interlocutor explained that an engineering plan is different from the design plan. The latter is a sketch; the former is plan that shows location of items and structures in the subsurface and surface of the project area.  The subsurface items include pipes and cables because you don't want to start digging - for example - to build a wall and then fin...
Read more

A Tangled Web

  Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive " Abutters have asked for the engineering plan for the 25% design submittal or what Stanton called the "revised" 25% design.  Since, on January 10, Michalak (PE or Project Engineer) announced that the Public Hearing had been scheduled then this revised plan had to exist at that date.  JS requested it from MassDOT Public Records on Februaru 23 and waited and waited.  Finally around March 14-15, JS received documents: the original, unrevised 25% design submission from November 2021, ROW papers, and the bridge worksheet with a submission date of January 24. (It's a tunnel or underpass but technically it becomes a bridge).   Note that it is the original 25% not the revised design so it still has a figure indicating that the tunnel will be "jacked".   The other fun part is that the bridge worksheet was submitted on January 24th not by December 21, 2023 as Michalak had said at the Dec...
Read more

Sept 15 - CPPC: A Fog of Words

Image
 Michalak and Clancy attended.   Michalak reported. 7 Channing Rd: Jammal scheduled a site meeting and, at the last minute, cancelled.  Clancy, Michalak will schedule again. Later on, Michalak said that submitting the 25% design did not depend on meeting Jammal: "that connection/spur is in the plan”.   All they wanted is Jammal’s approval of the spur/path planned for the side of the Chase building.  But Michalak conceded that the only thing he can see changing in the 25% are the access points such as the spur.  [My guess  is that they are likely to back down when it comes to the spur.] Soil borings 1.  Borings that required Keolis/MBTA were completed last week (week of Sept 6).   2.  Two other borings to be completed by the end of this week (week of Sept 13th).  These Pleasant St borings moved away from the ROW "to reduce cost and easier access”.* *Via FOIA request, I received Nitsch-GZA-Clancy emails .  This ROW issu...
Read more