A Fresh New Face!

 


It the morning of July 12,  2019, I attended the Nitsch and PARE presentations in town hall in a bid for the BCP design contract.  I only had received one public meeting notice during the PARE feasibility study so I was poorly acquainted with the PARE team.

As I saw the two engineering teams file into the BOS room, I was struck by the professionalism and polish of one vs the sloppiness of the other.  The presentations were also a study in contrasts: a full presentation of the design challenges and how to address them vs a tedious exposition of tunnel jacking which was the expertise of GZA, one of Nitsch's subcontractors.

After reading the proposals and attending the presentations, it seemed obvious who should win the contract: PARE.  

After the PARE and Nitsch ended the presentations and left, the CPPC opened up a meeting and the first comment was offered by Friedman.  As soon as I heard her words, I had no doubt that the CPPC would hire Nitsch.   It seemed that the decision had been made BEFORE the presentations.  

For the next hour or two, the discussion revolved around criticizing PARE for non-existent and inane flaws.  For example, Friedman scoffed and deemed Archer (PARE's presenter and author of the feasibility study) ignorant for talking of the "abandoned rail bed" because, according to Friedman, there was no such thing.  At hearing such an unfair comment, I interrupted and pointed out that BCF land was the site of the old, abandoned B&M rail bed. 

Fire Chief Frizzell had been routinely left out of CPPC meetings but he did attend this one; I had informed him that it was scheduled.  Chief Frizzell said that PARE had a much better handle on safety issues  of a multi-use path that runs along live, high speed rails.  As far as I could see, his comment was ignored. As a matter of fact, it was not included in the July 12 draft minutes.

In between attacking PARE, CPPC members cast about for positive comments to make about Nitsch and all they came up with was that Nitsch was a "fresh new face".  By the second meeting on July 15, the CPPC seemed to have hit upon an additional reason for hiring Nitsch: scheduling.   So I heard how Nitsch knew all about scheduling and that Nitsch had a contact in the MBTA that would make the scheduling proceed without a hitch.  Here are the draft July 15 minutes.

So, sure enough, the CPPC chose Nitsch.  Should I mention that ,luckily for us abutters, the scheduling is running over one year behind schedule?

Now, as to the draft minutes: the CPPC struggled quite a bit over the span of several meetings to  - as CPPC Chairman Leino and others said - "clean them up".  Finally, seemingly frustrated,  Leino said that he would work on the minutes over the weekend to "clean them up".  At the following meeting, the "cleaned up" July 12 and July 15 minutes were introduced and approved.


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