Current Nitsch path schedule and cost

 

Briefly, in my own words, based on what Nitsch's Soltys said at the SB on Monday:

A - waiting for the MBTA permit to conduct the SUE.  As soon as that is done, revision of the 25% design for submission this July. 
B - review process is generally 30 days but it can be more.  Nitsch hopes for a 30 day review and approval of the 25% sometime in August, 2025
C - once 25% is approved, Nitsch can submit the 75% in September with another hoped-for 30 day review and approval which brings it to sometime in October, 2025.
D - Nitsch then working on 100% while ROW gets done.  Nitsch expects this phase to last 11 months.
E -  Nitsch expects to submit the 100% in Sept 2026 which is FY 2027.


Below is Nitsch as quoted from MassDOT public records ["Ad date" = MassDOT puts out contract bid]:

As discussed, attached is our DRAFT schedule showing a 2026 TIP year. Please note the following:

🔺Ad date listed for 9/12/26, the last weekend for advertising in 2026. Task 6
🔺Current critical path is SUE Level B, which is waiting for an MBTA access permit. We would need to have this completed by mid-June (pending MBTA). Task 65/66 

🔺Following that we would make the final sketch plan submission, 6/28/25, and then 75%/1st structural 8/27/25 (Tasks 59, 152, 157)
🔺Upon acceptance of PROW Plans, 11/9/25, the critical path becomes the ROW acquisition process. Which is scheduled to be completed by 8/27/26.
🔺Note the design reviews by MassDOT are shown as 30 days, and we will need confirmation from MassDOT on the review times as they typically like 60 days for non-current TIP year projects.
🔺Note the design submissions and acceptance of PROW plans is contingent on the MBTA access permit.
🔺Note submissions are contingent on timely review of private utility companies and MBTA.

With our discussion yesterday, if we are to move forward assuming the 2026 TIP year. In a couple of months (mid to end of May) we will re-evaluate the schedule and continue to discuss the TIP readiness. In the meantime, Nitsch will continue to reach out to MBTA weekly for regular schedule updates and push as many buttons as we can to attempt to move the access permit to approval. Internally, we will prep our design submissions as far as we reasonably can, so we are solely waiting for the SUE elements for completion.

As discussed today at our earlier meeting, we will reach out to MassDOT regarding a possible interim PROW submission before the 75% design.

Please see below summary of the major cost changes from 25% to 75%.
🔺25% Estimate (2022) (before MassDOT/MBTA contingencies & add-ons) = $13.0M 

🔺75% Estimate (2025) (before MassDOT/MBTA contingencies & add-ons) = $20.0M 

🔺Delta of ~$7.0M

    - Major cost increases:
        ⧫Overall unit price changes due to inflation = $1.8M
        ⧫Earthwork = $1.15M (note 25% comment to make the path a fill condition, more refined            quantities & hazmat disposal)
        ⧫Utility = $0.3M
        ⧫Landscaping elements (trees, furnishings, hardscapes, fences/railings, privacy screens)             = $1.25M

        ⧫Retaining Walls/Underpass = $1.9M (note change of construction type from jacking to             cut and cover, and further wall design limits)
        ⧫Misc items = $0.6M

  [End quote]

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

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

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