Mass DOT will hold three public meetings in mid-January to present the proposed reconstruction of Highland Ave in Needham and Needham and Winchester Streets in Newton. The project stretches from Webster Street in Needham to Route 9 in Newton. It would widen sidewalks, improve intersections, add raised bikes lanes and crossing signals and rehabilitate the bridge over the Charles River.
Weds. Jan. 10, 7 p.m.
Powers Hall
Needham Town Hall
1471 Highland Ave
Needham
Thurs. Jan. 11, 6 p.m.
Saco-Pettee Mill Building
156 Oak Street, Newton
Fri.Jan. 12, 8 a.m.
Saco-Pettee Mill Building
156 Oak Street, Newton
Are any of these meeting open to the public?
@Jesse Corey – Yes, all three are.
Reconstructing Needham Street without undergrounding the utilities is a waste of money. This is an issue that requires a vocal Mayor of Newton, who needs to stand up to the DOT. Don’t let the State shortchange the city by reconstructing Needham Street on the cheap. The impact of this reconstruction effects more than traffic. It also impacts the value of properties on Needham Street, and that how much they pay in property tax.
Mike: I’ve been told that there are significant soil quality issues that make undergrounding Needham Street very challenging and expensive, attributable in part to an actual underground book that’s still active (I’ve heard it!)
In addition, I understand the upgrading would require nearly every single property owner to substantially rewire every square inch of their entire property to be up to codes (I can only imagine that would be end of China Fair and other small, much admired businesses.)
Finally, it would delay the Needham Street project for another decade or more and risk losing the federal dollars that are available now and who knows what will happen to infrastructure dollars under our current administration.
All good points, Greg…
“Soil quality issues” can mean different things. They can range from high water tables to plumes of long forgotten pollutants. So before I accept “soil quality” as an insurmountable issue to undergrounding the utilities, I’d be curious what the DOT might be referring to.
You also mentioned undergrounding might cause property owners on Needham Street to have to rewire their buildings. I have no doubt that would be accurate in the case of several older buildings that are not even close to meeting code. You mentioned China Fair, and I think you’re likely correct about that building. In my opinion, a commercial building like that should be brought up to code. So I think that would be a good thing. I’m struggling to understand why undergrounding would cause any of the newer buildings to rewire. It sounds like someone might have given you inaccurate information.
I may be a little old fashioned. But I’m of the belief that if you set out to do a job, you should do that job right. Reconstructing Needham Street without undergrounding the utilities would be doing that job half-assed.
@Mike an additional issue, as far as I understand it, is space. Undergrounding wires takes up quite a bit of space due to the requirements around encasing wires appropriately. There are some existing underground utilities, including a major power trunk, on Needham Street, leaving little room for the necessary construction.
So doing the wires would require additional takings on behalf of the state, which will take significant resources and time.
I agree with you that it would make a lot of sense to do and make the street a much more pleasant location, but the number of complications added to an already complex project, unfortunately, make it impossible to do.
@Chuck– All fair points. I’m not saying undergrounding the Needham Street utilities would be easy or inexpensive. But I don’t believe any of the issues you mentioned are unusual for this type of project…
For example, you mentioned undergrounding the utilities would necessitate some land takings to widen the roadway a bit. DOT routinely does these types of takings. They recently took an 8′ strip from a commercial property I own on Route 105 in Lakeville, in order to widen the road for utilities. True, eminent domain can be time consuming and expensive. But it is seldom either when it just involves a sliver of property along an existing roadway…
You mentioned that there are “some existing underground utilities…” already in place along Needham Street. Actually, there are a lot of underground utilities already in place. The entire street already has a water line, a sewer line, and a gas line running beneath it. None of the logistical issues you mentioned kept those utilities from being installed. We should bury the power lines too.
@Greg – I assume you mean an underground brook? Or is it an underground audiobook you’ve heard? :)
Do you know where the brook runs?
This is an issue that city government has kicked the can down the road on since at least Mayor Manns’s administration. Years ago I presented Mann with a series of sketches ( before and after ) , illustrating the aesthetic benifits that could have been enjoyed, .. to no good effect.
The Board of Aldermen ( CC ) , could have mandated undergrounding of utilities on a piecemeal basis with every building permit ( or special permit ), issued over the years but they lacked the courage to do so.
Please all,.. the next time you drive down this boulevard look up and take in the view. It’s amazing !
I hope our new Mayor and the newly elected City Council read this thread. If there is a belief that Needham Street and Washington Street and Route 9/Boylston Street are our City’s prime retail/commercial economically beneficial passages, then beautifying them to make them visually attractive should be a very high priority. Undergrounding the wires would open the door to multiple transportation modes that can be choreographed for safety and ease of interaction.
Blueprint Bill and Sallee just make so much sense on this.
Folks, let me bottom line this for you.
1) It would be great if we could underground the utilities on Needham street. It would make the street wider, more open, and less a convoluted mess of poles and wires. This much is obvious to anyone who has ever driven down the street.
2) It will be expensive and difficult to get there from here. In certain areas in may not be possible. Reasonable folks can differ about whether the expense and difficulty is worth the benefit.
3) It would have been great if the city took this piecemeal. That’s why I was posting so much about the poles on Austin Street (fingers crossed they are truly going to go). Because aesthetics matter. And because if we don’t do it when the building is being constructed, it won’t ever get done. This is a case in point
4) Armchair quarterbacks (myself included) can make some very good points. But we often lack critical information. I didn’t know about the brook for instance. Water hazards can add considerable expense. There is a reason why some parts of the country never bury electrical wires.
To conclude, this is something that certainly COULD be done. It is something we would WANT to be done. But that doesn’t mean the facts on the ground ALLOW it to be done for a price we would deem reasonable or desirable.
That’s why piecemeal is ideal, especially when you can get the start or end of a street. I haven’t seen too much success in making developers contribute to a mitigation fund for later removal, or for collective will when faced with an insane pricetag.
For the record as well, the issue with the “takings” is not the end of the world. I’ve seen that happen before. It is an expensive pain. But it doesn’t make it impossible. But perhaps collectively with the brook and other factors….
I’ll note that this is one reason I’ve thought for a while that Washington Street will one day be a great retail street. Wide sidewalks, limited crossstreets, and wires along the pike give you a fair amount of options. I may not love the Orr Block, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see similar mixed use projects all along that street.
I’ll also note for Mike’s benefit that burying power lines is different that water/gas/sewer. Breakdowns in insulation and conductivity can make for “breaks” in underground cables, which are tougher to find or replace. There are tradeoffs. And the wrong environment can make the tradeoffs worse.
I learned a lot about this recently for a different project. It made me realize that my “why don’t they just bury the lines” was a bit simplistic. Money not being an issue I still support burying the lines, but it is a much closer call that folks who just are considering the aesthetic value of the street are considering.
The issue of undergrounding utilities has come up many times throughout the project at public meetings. MassDOT, without publicly stating any reason, flatly refused to take on undergrounding and said it was the city’s responsibility. The city has also balked at undergrounding, citing extremely high costs as well as fear of delaying or jeopardizing the project. While that sounded like a lame excuse several years ago during the early planning phases, at this point in the project it really does feel like it’s too late. I do remember one of the engineers saying that many of the overhead wires are no longer active and would come down during construction, so there may be at least some improvement.
It should also be noted that several special permits over the years have collected mitigation from developers earmarked for undergrounding, now totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has been suggested that a good place to start would be to spend this money on an undergrounding study to plan for strategic upgrades. The planners have suggested that it’s not possible to do this work piecemeal, but a study would be necessary in any case.
Lots of good info here:
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/od/undergrounding-distribution-lines.pdf
Randy– Great link. Lots of information for anyone interested in the topic.
What this really boils down to on Needham Street is money. I agree with fig that reasonable people may disagree on the value of undergrounding the remaining utilities. In my opinion it’s worth the cost. The City should still find a way to get this done with DOT. As Adam pointed out, the City has already collected some of the money. Perhaps a special property tax assessment on the rest of the commercial properties along Needham Street would help close the funding gap.
I believe the underground brook that is referred to is South Meadowbrook which drains most of Newton south of Route 9 from Needham Street to the Brookline town line. It surfaces next to the Nexxus and intermittently throughout the Northland property. This section was formerly the location of a fireworks factory that dammed the Brook to create a pond for safety’s sake.