MBTA Construction Projects

IMG_5352.jpeg

Kendall head house is making progress.
 
stickbug said:
Isn't the hi-rail portal being built near the Russel Field entrance to Alewife? If so it seems unlikely that construction would block an RLX given that it's not near the end of the RL tunnels.
Click to expand...
Apologies for replying in a different thread, but you are indeed correct, and I am wrong - I had previously assumed they'd want to keep it on MassDOT/publicly owned land. The below is the current plan, and it's an interesting one - not least because IQHQ owns the proposed site, which apparently comprises part of the area they'd set aside for environmental restoration - and it's still in a floodplain, but this one is known to be full of asbestos. I guess we'll find out more as part of their public meeting on Monday.

1000037560.jpg
 
Stlin said:
Apologies for replying in a different thread, but you are indeed correct, and I am wrong - I had previously assumed they'd want to keep it on MassDOT/publicly owned land. The below is the current plan, and it's an interesting one - not least because IQHQ owns the proposed site, which apparently comprises part of the area they'd set aside for environmental restoration - and it's still in a floodplain, but this one is known to be full of asbestos. I guess we'll find out more as part of their public meeting on Monday.

View attachment 56123
Click to expand...

What is this tunnel for?
 
stick n move said:
What is this tunnel for?
Click to expand...
Hi rail access - basically a portal for trucks. The only other place on the north side where they can get equipment and stuff into and out of the Red Line tunnel between Alewife and JFK is the 1st Street Gate on the Longfellow Bridge, which isn't exactly convenient. As I understand it, the rationale is operational flexibility - the need to get things into and out of the tunnels has forced a lot of the service break-points in the current round of diversions.

For example, if you access is via the 1st Street Gate on the Longfellow bridge to for example build a new Alewife crossover, you basically need shut the red line all the way from Alewife to Park, even if the Harvard-Park segment isn't being touched. We saw this in the latest Alewife-Kendall closures - the evening/weekend extensions of the diversion to Park were driven by the need to use the 1st gate to get accumulated removed material out of the tunnels.
 
I’m amused by the “Pedestrian pathway to be improved under IQHQ development” notation on the plan. The path in question crosses the access road next to the boat section. There is no way they will allow that for security reasons.
 
RandomWalk said:
I’m amused by the “Pedestrian pathway to be improved under IQHQ development” notation on the plan. The path in question crosses the access road next to the boat section. There is no way they will allow that for security reasons.
Click to expand...
It's an existing paved pathway. I would be surprised if they attempted to close it.
 
RandomWalk said:
I’m amused by the “Pedestrian pathway to be improved under IQHQ development” notation on the plan. The path in question crosses the access road next to the boat section. There is no way they will allow that for security reasons.
Click to expand...
Presumably the access road will be ungated and any gate/security will be at the tunnel portal.
 
Longfellow said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/1frv35h


Not sure if this has been posted anywhere yet, but we are seeing some organized opposition to this project. This is not the only screed that has been posted, either.
Click to expand...
These are valid concerns and I'm curious how they will be dealt with. Tree removal is just about the worst thing you can do for urban temperature, and obviously digging up a bunch of soil contaminated with asbestos in an urban area is not great. But these are both solvable problems and if this is the least impactful way of doing this project then it obviously makes sense. I find it hard to imagine that building somewhere else is really an option because of the protected wetlands which are even more important than the trees.

If it's at all possible to comply with Cambridge's laws on asbestos contamination I'd really prefer that to happen though, if only to maintain good relations between Cambridge and the MBTA.
 
TheRatmeister said:
These are valid concerns and I'm curious how they will be dealt with. Tree removal is just about the worst thing you can do for urban temperature, and obviously digging up a bunch of soil contaminated with asbestos in an urban area is not great. But these are both solvable problems and if this is the least impactful way of doing this project then it obviously makes sense. I find it hard to imagine that building somewhere else is really an option because of the protected wetlands which are even more important than the trees.

If it's at all possible to comply with Cambridge's laws on asbestos contamination I'd really prefer that to happen though, if only to maintain good relations between Cambridge and the MBTA.
Click to expand...
Afaik they are already following all of the State regulations on asbestos removal.
 
bakgwailo said:
Afaik they are already following all of the State regulations on asbestos removal.
Click to expand...
I know, so yes they are legally in the right, but if following Cambridge's laws as well wouldn't make the project prohibitively expensive then it would be good to do so to keep everyone happy. Pushing and shoving your way through projects is a great way to make every successive project more and more difficult.
 
TheRatmeister said:
These are valid concerns and I'm curious how they will be dealt with. Tree removal is just about the worst thing you can do for urban temperature, and obviously digging up a bunch of soil contaminated with asbestos in an urban area is not great. But these are both solvable problems and if this is the least impactful way of doing this project then it obviously makes sense. I find it hard to imagine that building somewhere else is really an option because of the protected wetlands which are even more important than the trees.

If it's at all possible to comply with Cambridge's laws on asbestos contamination I'd really prefer that to happen though, if only to maintain good relations between Cambridge and the MBTA.
Click to expand...

The MBTA does not have a good track record when it comes to tree replacement either. I'm still waiting for them to bring back trees to the Quincy Center busway.
 
I think the Alewife Study Group was also behind objections to the wetland project between the Cutoff bike path and Alewife Brook.
 
I'd find it hard to believe the MBTA isn't going to follow whatever requirements are outlined in the City's regulations, in addition to MassDEP. Anybody that has dealt with soil excavation/hazardous materials knows it'd be really difficult to just stay the course here with not a care in the world that there's asbestos here.

For trees, you don't need pitchforks threatening to cancel the whole project to get them to add trees if you want them back. The flier seems a little dramatic and I fear it's setting up a tense relationship from the start.
 
stefal said:
For trees, you don't need pitchforks threatening to cancel the whole project to get them to add trees if you want them back. The flier seems a little dramatic and I fear it's setting up a tense relationship from the start.
Click to expand...
"hey maybe we should say something about trees" is not nearly as effective for community organizing. You're right that there's a tense relationship building, so the best path forward for the MBTA is to:
  1. Listen to community input at the upcoming meeting
  2. Actually take the feedback into account. Plant more trees, be more cautious around asbestos than they're technically legally required to be, and ideally leave the place better than it is now.
Alewife is about to undergo some big changes with the garage demolition so maintaining a good working relationship with groups like the Alewife Study Group is super duper important. These are all relatively easily addressable concerns, so this project seems like a pretty good and relatively inexpensive way to do that.
 
Hi-Rail tunnel meeting notes
  • The project is estimated to be fully offset by the otherwise increased maintenance costs in a relatively short timeline
  • Primary containments: Asbestos and naphthalene sulfonate
  • This project is separate from the Alewife redevelopment
  • The Cambridge requirements (tenting and venting) will not be complied with. Cited reasons are due to difficulties with construction under tenting, as well as welding in an enclosed space, but as others have mentioned IQHQ has fully complied while building in the area.
  • Project area was chosen to maximize distance from residences
  • Coordination with the garage project is noticeably lacking
  • This project is fully funded
  • Neighborhood impact of tunnel use will be minimal
  • Flood doors will be included in the design

Non-serious:
  • They really just had to shoe-horn some environmental benefits into the list
  • Wow they are not doing a good job at communicating these topics to lay-people. A lot of people asking for clarification of terms in the chat, one person, presumably with ASG, answering them.
  • Somebody thinks they need more than a month to process this information lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top