Oct. 13 CPPC


 It is getting harder to be amused at these meetings.  However, there *was* one funny moment hinging around Leino and Paolillo talking about their meeting with Jammal last week.   

Stanton pleadingly asked:  had they broached the subject of the building itself?  The unspoken question fed by Stanton's desire  throbbed in the ether: did they ask Jammal whether they could demolish the L-shaped building into an "I"?  Seemingly flustered, Leino replied that they had not - a "Perish the thougth!!" implied.   

CPPC Chair R. Leino

Stanton then thrust back: had they broached the subject of landscaping for the spur? The shimmering arch of Stanton's much desired trellis appeared now in the ether. But once again, the answer was no. Seemingly deflated, Stanton sank back into silence. 

After that, it was mostly humdrum except that Michalak put a stop to the CPPC/Paolillo's plan to proceed with eminent domain (ED) appraisals and “transactions”, after the 25% design submission on October 29th.   

Michalak beat them over the head repeating that they had to wait for MassDOT to initiate the process at the MassDOT public hearing.   From reading the documents, I thought it was after 25% plan approval.  But, I was wrong; Michalak set it possibly years beyond that at the hearing.  

Nitsch's J. Michalak
The talk about transactions suggested that Jammal will put a price on his cooperation with the town.  Jammal also seems to be agreeing to the spur but he said he would have to talk to his tenant, Chase Bank,  who has a 20-year rental contract for 7 Channing.

Based on the new TIP policy, the bad blood that the town has fostered with the MBTA, the unsafe "French" plan and the incredible price tag of this project (lots of retaining walls with tie backs), my bet is that this project is going nowhere fast.    

My fear has been that these people would needlessly saddle us with liens while the project was in limbo.  Thanks to Michalak's putting the brakes on the CPPC, these people won't put liens on our properties for years to come and I assume the CPPC will have to kick back the CPA money they received for appraisals.

Interestingly, Michalak said with a hint of doubt in his voice that MassDOT would have to "sign off" on an environmental review prior to the town proceeding with ED (eminent domain). That hint of doubt made me wonder whether he already knew that the land is a toxic, heavy-metal containing slag that was used routinely during the time that these RR tracks were elevated. 

 

When it comes to ED, some retaining walls will need “tie backs” which means that they will gobble up more of our backyards as permanent easements.  The need for tie backs reflects the fact that we sit on "bad soil" i.e. clay.  Tie backs seem to be of two types as shown in the image: anchoring via metal bars or horizontal tieback with deadman.

Michalak talked of “permanent wall easements”, “temporary easements to construct the project as well as to construct the retaining walls necessary”.  "Temporary easements to construct the project" refers to turning our backyards into the construction road for at least 2-3 years as Pare’s Amy Archer explained to me. But "permanent wall easements"?!!  Why not build the walls within their own boundary?

One reason this meeting was a pain was that Michalak’s view of this process is that of the old MPO system when all that was required was 25% design submission to be put on the TIP.  In no way did the CPPC or Michalak acknowledge today that the MPO policy is about to fundamentally change (probably on Nov. 4th) as they talked about timeline in the coming months.    I assume this delusional stance is a political move to have positive publicity around the submission and the presentation instead of it being received with a whimper since now it is not a sure thing.   Nonetheless, Sara Smith of FBCP was there so I assume she will be posting a triumphant announcement in FB.

 In the real universe, the 25% submission now simply means that the project will be scored and reviewed by MassDOT including ~10 different MBTA departments.  The new policy gives the MBTA as a stakeholder a greater say on whether this design plan is accepted or not.   When we talk of the MBTA, let's remember the "French" plan and how it flouts safety as defined by the MBTA. 

When it comes to the scoring, the new policy introduces a cost effectiveness score.  The BCP was designed to be expensive (all those retaining walls! and the cries of "we must increase the budget!") and now that high price tag will be its Achilles' heel.  In addition, if the design is accepted then a sword of Damocles hangs over the town: if cost goes up beyond a certain threshold, the MPO may tell the town to pay for the added cost or the MPO may decide to take the project off the TIP.   

CPPC Vice-Chair B. Friedman
 As part of what will be a much-ballyhooed 25% design presentation, the CPPC will invite MassDOT Project Manager Trepanier and MassDOT Bike and Ped Board Coordinator Pete Sutton.  (Today, at the Oct. 14 MPO Open House, Friedman invited everyone present and TIP Manager Matt Genova accepted).  I wonder if the CPPC will also uncork Zoom bubbly as part of the good “optics” to impress the guests.

Selectman M. Paolillo

 

 

 

 

 

Next came Phase 2 planning. Paolillo says that someone (Epstein?) wants to expand the CPPC with people with new "skill sets". CPPC filed a prelim app for CPA $$ for Phase 2.  Leino talked of securing a design consultant for Phase 2.

CPPC Vice-Chair Friedman seems confused saying that tomorrow  (Oct 14) the Ad Hoc recommendations will be presented to the MPO Board but that has already happened.  Tomorrow it will be Open House for people to ask questions and/or discuss the new policy.   She has seemed consistently confused about the workings of the Ad Hoc committee and recently, she may have been confused as to the location of the BCP in Phase 2.

Next meeting: Oct 27 which seems may truly be when Michalak will present the plan.  I have been thinking of making this my last report but maybe not.    Writing this has reminded me  that it is indeed entertaining witnessing the doings of the delusional power set.

Popular posts from this blog

Project still at 25% not 75% - how to fool the masses

SCHEDULE DELAY   I have the thread of emails and docs on this matter from MassDOT public records ( link to docs ) so my suspicions about the fact they have been stuck at 25% have been confirmed.  In addition, Nitsch engineers came before the town and admitted it  twice ( link to 3/24 SB video - Nitsch at 1 hr 30 min; for the 3/19 CPPC recording, ask CPPC Chairwoman Muson). The project is still stuck in the first step. The 25% design plan has not been approved.  Nitsch still needs to do  the Subsurface utility survey - Class B (SUE) which is essential for the sketching and structural design of the tunnel.  Hence, they don’t have a clue as how to design the tunnel at this point.  Cutting corners, they submitted plans for a 75% for the rest of the path in the absence of a 25% revised and approved plan. Wisely, MassDOT rejected it because the 25% was missing.  In their own defense, Nitsch argued that,as they saw it, the tunnel was a “minor spur” an...
Read more

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

Tunnel jacking is MBTA's fault ... NOT

 I keep hearing town hall people blame the MBTA for the switch from tunnel jacking to cut & cover.  From the sequence of events that I witnessed, it was the town's own fault that the project started off with jacking. PARE vs NITSCH   It all started with the PARE to Nitsch switch at the design stage which was a very unconventional move. It's all described here  FIRST MEETING WITH NITSCH  At the first meeting after being hired, Michalak made mention of tunnel jacking. The committee members expressed some surprise saying they had expected cut & cover. Their surprise surprised me since the Nitch bid was so  much about jacking.  Michalak made it clear that the method to be used was jacking. SECOND MEETING WITH NITSCH At this meeting, Michalak talked about jacking but now he implied that he was obeying the town's wish to use jacking. This was quietly accepted by the committee members.  I was slack jawed at how responsibility for jacking had...
Read more