The South Route

 


 

After the PARE feasibility study was concluded in 2017, it recommended a South-North route that was endorsed by the BOS and approved by the CPIAC. 

MBTA's Assistant General Manager John Ray sent the town a November 16, 2018 letter raising safety concerns at the Brighton Rd RR crossing. 

As a result, the BOS considered whether to revisit its decision to endorse the PARE feasibility study's recommended route  (MBTA's Ray and MassDOT's Trepanier attended this meeting). Similarly, the CPIAC considered whether to vote to abandon the South-North route in favor of a North-only path.  From the view point that raising safety concerns is not the same as opposing or threatening the path's funding, these relevant points were extracted from the minutes.

October 4, 2018 -  CPIAC minutes

Leino insisted that the MBTA was against the South side crossing.

1.  he stated that the MBTA expressed safety concern about the Path crossing Brighton St from the South to the North side of the tracks; he stressed that the path can't get funded if the MBTA is opposed to the crossing; he stated that  it makes sense to move the path to the North side since the project will not get funded without the support of the MBTA.

2. he stated that he changed his mind because of a) MBTA's position and its rationale; b) decoupling of project 1A from 1B.

In support of Leino, Stanton stressed that the CPIAC had received new information from the MBTA that should influence the path's location.

Committee voted 3-2 to stay on the South side. Leino and Stanton voted against it.

January 28, 2019 - BOS minutes

Dash asked Ray and Trepanier whether proceeding with the South path would present a fatal flaw for the project. Ray said it would not but that safety concerns would have to be addressed. Trepanier noted that his and Ray's presence indicated the state's commitment to cooperating with the project

Stanton advocated for the North side route and stated that the design phase would give the CPPC the opportunity to present specific designs that would address the concerns of abutters.

Lawrence advocated for the North route due to safety and suggested the Board move forward with the proposal and address concerns as they arise in the design phase.

Archer said she would re-evaluate the PARE report based on the MBTA concerns to see if the recommendation for the South side would have changed.

---------------

I spoke to Archer in mid 2019.  Her recommendation was still the South side.  She explained that  standard signaling methods could address the MBTA's safety concerns.  She also recommended the Concord Ave. route as a good alternative to the North route from Alexander to Belmont Station.  Archer added that the Concord route's main requirement was traffic signaling at the Concord-Common intersection.  It was puzzling - she said- that the town had refused to consider signaling there which made it a "fatal flaw".  

However, it is not puzzling to me, an abutter that has followed this project closely for several years. It has become obvious for some time now that some people officially involved in this project are personally invested in making sure that this park/path is located in BCF's land.  It is the main goal of this blog to focus on this issue: a project currently budgeted at ~$25M (Brighton-Clark St) and with a potential to balloon (via construction overruns) to at least $50M may entice some to behave unethically for personal, under-the-table gain. On March 15

This blog also aims to air falsehoods and clear misinformation.  In light of the documents presented above, let's read how the CPPC rewrites history stating in this 2020 letter to the MPO that the North route was always the preferred route:

"After the issuance of the final feasibility study, and hours of robust public deliberation by the CPIAC and the Select Board (including meetings with the MBTA and MassDOT and multiple opportunities for additional public comment), the Select Board voted unanimously to approve the currently proposed alignment in early 2018.

Many of the residents whose comments you referenced in your June 16 email actively participated throughout this process, but ultimately disagreed with the result (which set the alignment on the north side of the railroad alignment

rather than the south side, and therefore closer to the residences along Channing Road)."

This past Tuesday (March 16th), Clancy and Michalak met with MBTA's Ray who, according to Clancy (March 17th CPPC meeting), once again expressed concerns over the safety of the Brighton Rd. crossing.  But the South route was ostensibly abandoned for the North because of concerns over crossing safety which begs the question: Will Leino, Lawrence and Stanton now press for abandoning the North side too?

Archer: author of the PARE Feasibility Report; Ray: MBTA Assistant General Manager; Trepanier: MassDOT Project Manager (temporary); Leino, Stanton, Lawrence: CPIAC and/or CPPC members.  Stanton is also BCF's vice president; Clancy, head of Community Development; Michalak, Nitsch project manager.

 




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