June 9 CPPC: spinning us into disaster

(Scroll down for two videos containing audio clips.)

At the June 7th TM, Selectman Epstein stated that Clancy informed him by email that the MBTA's minimum clearance* requirement between rail and BCP was 14' (Jody Ray communicated this at a March 16, 2021 MBTA -Nitsch meeting).  But that was before the French Amendment threw the town into a tizzy.

*The clearances are based primarily on: need for a 9' minimum to replace railroad ties; 14' minimum for track maintenance. The latter clearance allows for both doors on a pickup truck to be opened simultaneously without having one of the doors clipped by a passing train (personal communication from MBTA official).

Mr. French, acting as TMM, filed an amendment to remove from Article 12 the funds needed for the town to strip him of 3K-4K sq. ft. of his land at 40 Brighton Rd. The town countered - acting via Clancy - by requesting from the Nitsch engineers a 25% design change so that the BCP would not stray into French's land and stay within the bounds of the DCR easement negotiated some years ago.  Nitsch produced it:  a plan that Clancy said: "frankly took a lot of steam out of the amendment that was presented to TM on Monday night."

But, in order to do so, the plan could not stick to the MBTA's 14' minimum requested by MBTA's Jody Ray; it had to be shrunk down to 9' or 11' offset FOR THE ENTIRE 700' LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY.   It is not likely that the MBTA would accept that based on a Nitsch-MBTA minutes from March 2020.  This is what the MBTA has had to say about clearance:

"MBTA noted that the proposed 11-foot offset provides the minimum required for track  maintenance and prefers the setback be increased ..."

#40 Brighton  
• Nitsch proposes an 11-foot offset between the track and path along building face.  
• There is an existing 13.8-foot easement between the building and the MBTA ROW for the  purpose on constructing the path.  
• MBTA noted that they are aware of the existing easement  
• MBTA prefers that the setback be increased at this location.   

The minutes indicate clearly that the MBTA does not deem 11' offset sufficient yet they are going to be pushed into 9' regardless of any safety concerns. This  is where the problem lies: that Senator Brownsberger has seemingly vowed to  - what sounds like - strongarm the MBTA with the help of Governor Baker if need be or as CPPC's Leino put it: 

[Sen. Brownsberger] really is going to go to bat for the town on this to make sure that the MBTA is not an obstacle
When it comes to the crossing gate (CPPC's Chairman Leino refers to it as a "pole" in the quote below), the MBTA has already expressed concerns over the safety of the Brighton St. crossing either from the south or the north sides of the tracks.  The MBTA has requested that there be a 6' clearance of the BCP from the crossing gate but the French plan allows only for 1' clearance according to Selectman Epstein.  In addition, in the March 2020 minutes we learn:

Brighton Street Crossing  
• Nitsch noted a new traffic signal is currently the preferred option  
• MBTA noted that all new 4-way gates may be required  
• MBTA noted that during train crossings, they prefer all movements are stopped, therefore the  path/roadway crossing should not be allowed to run concurrently with trains.  
• MBTA noted there is a new fiber signal line for a Positive Train Control (PTC) system  adjacent to the tracks.  
• Preferred alternative as presented in the Conceptual Design Report has potential but needs  to be developed further. 

Obviously if there is no space (6') for safely separating the BCP from the gate,  there will be no space to install the second gate.  Also, the reference to the PTC system raises red flags when it comes to pursuing construction close to the tracks.

Now that the town has a plan that removed French's objection to the permanent easement (there is still a temporary easement to be dealt with) but a plan with two features that Selectman Epstein made clear the MBTA deems potentially unsafe.  So how will those contradictions be addressed?  At the June 9th CPPC meeting, I witnessed what seemed to be the rehearsal of how will this be spinned.

Overhead view of 40-42 Brighton St and Oliver GIS property map.

The French plan showing the new route of the BCP close to the RR.

The French plan showing the new route of the BCP close to the RR as it intersects with Birghton St.


Why had the BCP been planned within French's land when now sticking to the DCR easement is sufficient?

 Placing the path within French’s land was because Nitsch knew that clearance

 “is not up to MBTA standard or at least their desire, O.K.? Jody Ray’s desired width” 

so it was a decision to satisfy MBTA. But due to French’s concern, Nitsch realigned it with the easement and Michalak made the point that - considering the “terrain”, “topography” and “actual functional use” of the area bordering the rail - 

“how at the end of the day, our project is probably going to improve that for the MBTA!”.
Land between building (left) and tracks

How does 9' rather than 14' clearance for a distance of 700' becomes acceptable?

Argument 1. 

Michalak is confident that the MBTA will accept this even if it is their bare minimum for a quite longer stretch than Nitsch had wanted is that Michalak said that “this is not changing what the MBTA has now.” This is not running on the MBTA’s property so it is not changing - from the perspective of offset between the French property which they can right now use for whatever they want and do use for whatever they want ... they can go right up to this 9’ minimum offset for the whole width of their property and so flipping it around: 

for the MBTA to insist that the town needs to do a permanent taking so that they can have more space than they have right now is not a tenable position.”

 “I hadn’t really been thinking of it that way but when John Michalak said that I was like Oh O.K.! Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.” 

“As Senator Brownsberger said in his comments at TM he really did interrogate them [Nitsch engineers] about this, he heard that too and he said it I think as clearly as one can say it that he really is going to go to bat for the town on this to make sure that the MBTA is not an obstacle especially given that they don’t really have a logical leg to stand on as John [Michalak] pointed out.” 

Argument 2.  

At the meeting with Nitsch, another engineer explained that “the grading here is uneven so in this space between the tracks and the path, 

the grading is not even ... and it is not really usable for the purpose that they’ve said they want to use it for, they’ve said they want to get their equipment in here so that they can change up the tracks when they need to do that and it requires some large equipment but the fact is today that this area is not usable for that purpose. 

So one thing that John said at the meeting is that

 it is very likely that as a part of this process we will be regrading the MBTA ROW here such that it will be usable. 

Thus, even though we won’t be getting their sort of desired width of this greater than 9’ thing we will be improving what they have versus the status quo today. So this is one more selling point as to why this is actually working out pretty well for the MBTA even if we are not doing a permanent easement to get them more space that they currently have.”




How do you explain narrowing the safe clearance from the required 6' to 1' as the BCP passes by the crossing gate?  

Michalak assured the town that Nitsch had had that conversation with the MBTA. “Their basic view was look! the sidewalk that we have right now is just as close so again you are not changing current conditions in a material way here. Now you’ve got another path going this way when you already have people having to traverse super close to that pole just on the existing sidewalk. So again, this is a question that has been asked and answered by Nitsch and the MBTA and it does not appear to be a barrier to this design.” 

“This plan reflects what Jody Ray’s expectations are in terms of our design” as expressed by Ray in the March 16th meeting."
40 Brighton St. The parking spots shown are on the DCR easement where the plan locates the BCP. The crossing gate is shown at left.



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