MBTA Construction Projects

10.6.24

20241006_122524.jpg
 
TheRatmeister said:
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
Click to expand...
My take-away from the meeting was the MBTA made the classic blunder of making a decision and then trying to ram-rod it through the neighbors, instead of gathering neighborhood feedback and then "basing their design off of that". When you do the latter, you generally end up with the same design (with occasional exceptions), but you can list how you've designed it "based on popular feedback X" and "valid concern Y" and "after asking for input between A and B."

The worst faux pas they made was mentioning how they had already weighed several options, but (paraphrasing) "the contaminated soil was the only drawback with this option, whereas the other ones didn't really work for the MBTA as well". It came off as caring way more about their own priorities than about the nieghbors/'hood.

As a mostly dis-interested party, this bothered me more on a process level than anything, but the MBTA really shot themselves in the foot with their order of operations.
 
okin15 said:
My take-away from the meeting was the MBTA made the classic blunder of making a decision and then trying to ram-rod it through the neighbors, instead of gathering neighborhood feedback and then "basing their design off of that". When you do the latter, you generally end up with the same design (with occasional exceptions), but you can list how you've designed it "based on popular feedback X" and "valid concern Y" and "after asking for input between A and B."

The worst faux pas they made was mentioning how they had already weighed several options, but (paraphrasing) "the contaminated soil was the only drawback with this option, whereas the other ones didn't really work for the MBTA as well". It came off as caring way more about their own priorities than about the nieghbors/'hood.

As a mostly dis-interested party, this bothered me more on a process level than anything, but the MBTA really shot themselves in the foot with their order of operations.
Click to expand...
Yeah it was really stupid. For once I really don't think people actually have any objections to the project as a concept, even the location, provided the asbestos is handled well. If they were to tent and vent as the Cambridge law requires, I think basically everyone would be happy with that and the project could go ahead. There were definitely a couple people grumpy about the location but that was definitely not the majority opinion or even a sizable minority.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for the poor photography skills, but managed to grab a couple of shots last weekend of the demolition of the Georgetown Branch and track 1 of the Western Route over South Elm Street in Haverhill, just upstream from the Bradford Station.

I'm currently overseeing the reconstruction of the roadways in this area as part of a City of Haverhill contract and the T scheduled the shutdown of the roadway for overnight last Friday and Saturday to allow for their work.

The existing granite abutments are going to be reinforced and new cast-in-place bridge seats will be built on them. At the same time, a new span for tracks 1 and 2 will be built alongside the remaining truss. Another 49 hour shutdown will take place sometime next year when the old bridge is taken down and the new one slid into place.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5653.JPG
    IMG_5653.JPG
    3 MB · Views: 52
  • IMG_5654.JPG
    IMG_5654.JPG
    2.8 MB · Views: 54
Semass said:
Am I missing something? Why would they build a mini high on what appears to be a lovely long straight bit of track?
Click to expand...
It's a temporary mini-high to kick the can on a permanent accessibility solution. Perched on freestanding blocks with a flimsy deck, and not designed to last more than a decade.
 
Is that a new deck? The concrete looks quite aged at the end. Is that exposed rebar ends also? That's also a pretty unconventional connection detail between steel and concrete, no?
 
stefal said:
Is that a new deck? The concrete looks quite aged at the end. Is that exposed rebar ends also? That's also a pretty unconventional connection detail between steel and concrete, no?
Click to expand...
It's made from essentially surplus highway materials they pulled out of a closet. In terms of how to make a mini-high quickly and cheaply it's a good idea, but it's obviously temporary and it immediately starts a ticking clock for replacing it with a full-high, and I don't know that those commitments will be followed up on.
 
So many stations on the Franklin/Foxboro line are in desperate need of full reconstruction, but Franklin/Dean and Walpole rebuilds in particular have been overlooked for an obnoxiously long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top