June 3 - MPO and TIP Project Cost Ad Hoc Committee

MPO


The Board voted for the TIP 2022-26 hence BCP has no hope of inclusion until 2026 or later.  Two public comments received from Belmont: Friends of BCP and Belmont School Committee. Goentzel and Bowen attended.

TIP Project Cost Ad Hoc Committee


As I have been mentioning, the MPO is upset about budget woes brought about by project estimate increases and cost overruns.   To deal with these issues, the MPO formed this Ad Hoc Comm. to come up with recommendations.

Today was the first meeting.  An entertaining few minutes were brought about by Bowen who asked Chairman Bourassa to address the “misinformation”, “this notion floating around the town” that cost overruns would become the town’s burden.  To my delight, Mr. Bourassa told her that that was precisely one of topics for discussion.  Perhaps the news that indeed the town may be on the hook for part of the project’s construction budget may be what brought Friedman to the meeting soon after.

Mr. Kane pointed out that he stood by a statement he made in March 18th that “starting in 2027, the status of how projects are funded has to change”. He  proposed a funding tier system where communities may shoulder more of the funding.  For example, the MPO would only fund 80% of the project for a wealthy, White community (targeting Belmont) and 100% for an EJ* community.  Bowen spoke up complaining about this and probably did not make friends in this committee.

* EJ = environmental justice

Mr. Miller (FHWA) said that there was no incentive to keep costs down.  As an example, he mentioned bike paths and questioned how some cost $2.6M to $6M  per mile while the Belmont Comm. Path cost $12M / mile.

There was discussion about:
1. deciding to fund upon receiving the 25% design or later
2. the need for accountability throughout the process.
3. require matching funds from towns/municipalities / cost sharing
4. limit the amount of funding (as in this much and no more) / put limits on what will be funded / don’t fund 100% / if a community want to increase the scope of a project or upgrade then the town pays for it.

This meeting was recorded: https://youtu.be/PRm0-wYJAq8

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