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 been smoothly  switched from Nitsch to the town.

From that point onward, the town was held responsible for the choice of jacking until, some time later, Michalak showed up and ruefully explained that the MBTA was demanding tunnel jacking for all projects that went under the rails.  He said that the MBTA officer (Chief of Rail Operations) had explained that the MBTA engineers did not approve of soil compaction issues seen when using cut & cover.  Michalak even presented some figures having to do with this compaction issues around tunnel structures.

Because of the evolving story line about jacking, I was distrustful so I contacted the MBTA's Chief Engineer who told me that there was no such demand for using jacking in all projects under the rails. He said that the decision on method was "on a case by case basis". Here's a detailed post about this that I wrote at the time. 

And there you have it, how the choice of the very expensive tunnel jacking method came about!

EPILOGUE

Nobody seemed to mind that jacking - this very expensive method - also happens to be highly unsuitable to our soil type and high water table (much later, Nitsch's Michalak revealed this at the MassDOT Public Hearing).

With jacking method seemingly secured, planning continued. I listened to the CPPC discuss widening the underpass from a pedestrian-bike walkway (10-12 ft) to a 2 vehicle road (~40 ft). This would raise the cost to astronomical levels likely satisfying the demand of a committee member who arrived several times saying "We must increase the budget!'.  But it would also increase the potential damage to our homes' structures and drive us crazy with the constant hammering at night* for months.

But as Nitsch's subcontractor Sean Sanger said to me: "Nothing will be allowed to stand on the way of a multimillion dollar project"

*plan was to jack at night when the trains were not running.  Jacking consists of smacking a piston against the soil every ~2 minutes making progress of a 1-2 inches each time. Largest jack makes an opening of ~20 ft so widening the underpass to 30-40 ft means that 2 sets of pits for the jack would have to be excavated. Double the time, double the expense, double the sleepless nights.

 

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