A Contrite Developer Promises Action on Long-Delayed Cushing Village

By 1 Comment

Photo: Developer Chris Starr (photo 2012)

Apologetic and contrite, Chris Starr stood before the Belmont Planning Board and said he was sorry.

“I can’t begin to tell you how much each of these delays really impacts me,” said Starr.

“I’ve seen the frustration of people in Cushing Square, and I’ve seen the residents and the business owners … and I certainly empathize with what they are going through right now. And I share that frustration,” said Starr. 

Starr, who in 2010 sued each member of the Belmont Board of Selectmen and threatened in 2012 to develop a 40B housing development if the Planning Board would not move on the development, was penitent at the Dec. 3 meeting as he sought for the third time in the past four months either an extension or modifications to the proposed project that was approved nearly 30 months before.

“I want first to start off by apologizing for having to come back for yet another request. We are deeply sorry to do this … the simple fact is that there were some lender requirements that needed to address.

The Planning Board approved Thursday night the three “modifications” to a one-year extension to the special permit granted in July 2013 passing Starr’s Smith Legacy Partners to obtain the town permits to construct the residential/commercial/parking complex running from Belmont and Common streets onto Trapelo to Winston roads. 

The two-and-a-half year delay in construction was due in large part in the difficulty in securing a primary lender who would assume the risk in a project led by an inexperienced developer. 

Starr also announced Thursday that he is now to meet three agreed to “milestones” with the town to begin the initial construction phase of the project. 

“So we are really committed to making a change in Cushing Square and getting Cushing Village done,” said Starr.

The three strict milestones with deadlines as part of the agreement:

  • The developers must close on the deed for the municipal parking lot at a cost of $850,000 by Friday, Dec. 11,
  • Begin initial demolition on Friday, Jan. 15, 2016, and
  • Seek a building foundation permit from the town by Monday, Feb. 1, 2016. 

One of the modifications deals directly with the very first milestone, delaying the Dec. 11 closing of the sale of the municipal parking lot adjacent Trapelo Road by a week.  

Starr said he and his family is “committed to closing on the 18th” ending by thanking the Planning Board for “your understanding, your patience and I’m sure it won’t go unrewarded.” 

Mark Donahue, the Smith Legacy attorney, outlined the modifications that he noted was being required by Wells Fargo, the developer’s lead lender who will commit $15 million at the start of the project.

The first is a “force majeure” provision that allows the three milestones will be extended in the event of an extraordinary incident; relating to acts of God and not mere neglect or if the developer seeks a better deal.  

The second is what Donahue called “the lender saving provision” where the milestone dates are set aside if the lender exercises its rights of taking control of the property if it is determined the developer fails to meet his obligation to the bank. The lender, Wells Fargo, will then have the ability to negotiate a sale or a new deal with the town within the one-year extension, preventing the project from falling into “a black hole.”

The benefit of the second alteration is it “reassures the town” the project will be ultimately completed, with or without Starr at the helm, said Donahue.

“This is not to suggest in any fashion that the developer is walking away from these milestones,” said Donahue.

The third is the delay by a week of the first milestone. 

“We have frankly lost time as we … were communicating with the lenders,” said Donahue. 

The new additions, said Belmont Selectman Chair Sami Baghdady, will be beneficial to Belmont as it will allow the development to move forward whoever is in control of the project.

Saying that “we’re all frustrated to be here again” Baghdady said when looking at the development “in the bigger picture, we have to say to ourselves, ‘OK, what’s best for Belmont?'” 

None of the proposed language affects the one-year extension “and it’s still ticking,” said Baghdady. If the developer misses any of the milestone conditions, “we don’t want the special permit to terminate. We do want the lender to have the opportunity to come in, secure the project, take it over, finish the construction, cure, remedy and proceed.” 

“We don’t want a hole in the ground … and if this developer can’t make it continue, it is good for Belmont to have some else move in and move this project forward,” he said.

Cushing Village, at 164,000 sq.-ft. encompassing three buildings and two town blocks, would be the largest development in Belmont in recent memory. When completed in 18 months, the $63 million project will include 115 residential units, 38,000 sq.-ft. of retail spaces and underground parking that includes 50 municipal spaces.

After the closing, the public will see heavy equipment come to the municipal parking lot, the first building site, a few days later as the lot will be closed for the final time on Christmas week, according to Tony Papantonis, president and founder of Needham-based Nauset Construction.

Demolition of the S.S. Pierce building (at the corner of Common and Trapelo) and the former CVS building at Common and Belmont would then begin as well as prep work on the municipal lot within two weeks, in the first weeks of January 2016.

VIDEO: Belmont Resident Discuss Airplane Noise in Belmont, Region on NECN

By 1 Comment

Photo: Belmont’s Adriana Poole and Michael McLaughlin of Medford tell how a protest movement was born after a change in takeoff patterns at Logan Airport.

“Too many, too low, too loud,” Belmont resident Adriana Poole told host Sue O’Connell during an interview on New England Cable News’ “Broadside,” the network’s daily news analysis show, on Tuesday, Dec. 1, as she discussed how noise from planes taking off from Logan Airport has increased markedly over Belmont in the past three years due to changes imposed by the FAA.

A member of the activist group Boston West Fair Skies, Poole and fellow member Michael McLaughlin of Medford discussed the campaign to reduce the noise pollution that is creating a number of health issues for residents in communities impacted by the changes.

On Thursday, Dec. 3, US Rep Stephen Lynch (D-Boston) will host a public forum with the FAA and US Rep Katherine Clark at Milton High School to address growing complaints about the frequency and increased levels of airplane noise in local towns and neighborhoods that are impacted by Logan Airport air traffic.

See the video of the interview:

 

School Committee OK’s Land Survey for Possible Rink/Rec Center

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The varsity softball field.

The promise of a new ice skating rink and multi-purpose recreation center serving Belmont’s residents and sports teams took a baby step forward as the Belmont School Committee voted unanimously on Tuesday, Dec. 1 to allow a survey of school-owned property near Belmont High School by the non-profit seeking to build the facility.

The decision gives permission for the Belmont Youth Hockey Association to hire a firm to perform evaluation work on school property currently occupied by the Belmont High Varsity Softball field to determine if the surface is suitable for the construction of a recreation center and ice surface. 

“It’s a small step forward, but it is forward,” said Bob Mulroy, who has become the association’s point person for the project, that would include an NHL-sized skating rink, a second “half” skating surface that transforms into a field house for half the year, modern locker rooms, a community fitness center, and many more amenities.

According to Belmont School Superintendent John Phelan, the land survey will allow the association to return to the committee with a more detailed and concrete feasibility study. 

The $6.5 million complex – which would include off-street, on-site parking – would be overseen by a non-profit public/private partnership that would incorporate a wide array of town departments, the school committee, youth hockey and funders on the board.

In exchange for the land to build the center, Belmont schools, and high school teams will have use of the facilities at no cost. 

Back Again: Cushing Village to Seek More Changes to Development Permit

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The proposed Cushing Village development (left) and what is currently at the location (right).

Only three weeks after receiving an extension allowing it an additional year to construct its long-stalled project, the developers of the troubled Cushing Village residential/commercial/parking complex at Common Street and Trapelo Road will be back once again before the town’s Planning Board on Thursday, Dec. 3, as the project’s money backers are expected to demand modifications to the agreement to provide them even more legal and financial cover in the event the deal falls apart.

While neither the developer, Smith Legacy’s Chris Starr, nor the town’s point person on the project, the Office of Community Development’s Jeffrey Wheeler, would indicate what section of the extension requires altering, the one-year deadline of the special permit itself would not be affected, according to Sami Baghdady, chair of the Board of Selectmen. 

Baghdady led the Planning Board when it awarded the special permit to Starr in July 2013 to build a 164,000 sq.-ft. three-building development with 115 units of housing, shops and underground parking in the heart of Cushing Square.

This time, it’s the developer’s financial backers who are demanding the changes.

“It is my understanding that the proposed modifications to the one-year extension of the special permit are at the request of the developers’ lenders,” said Baghdady, who said the thrust of the revisions is to allow the lenders the opportunity to protect their interests in the event that the developer does not meet the time deadlines of the conditions.

But even Baghdady said the public will know the exact implications of the changes when the agenda item is taken up by the Planning Board.

“It is difficult to comment any further without the benefit of the developer’s presentation at the hearing,” said Baghdady.

Thursday marks the third time since August that the development team requested and received extensions and modifications to the special permit issued nearly 30 months ago. 

The latest extension, for 12 months, issued on Nov. 17, also stipulated the developers meet three strict deadlines as part of the agreement:

  • The developers must close on the deed for the municipal parking lot at a cost of $850,000 by Friday, Dec. 11,
  • Begin initial demolition on Friday, Jan. 15, 2016, and
  • Seek a building foundation permit from the town by Monday, Feb. 1, 2016. 

The meeting’s timing is also somewhat interesting, as it will occur at the same time thousands of Belmont residents will be attending the annual “Turn on the Town” Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony taking place in Belmont Center, a block from Town Hall. 

Belmont Police has issued traffic bulletins advising residents of road closures in the Center including Leonard Street being closed at 5:30 p.m., making travel to Town Hall difficult. 

Traditionally, the Planning Board holds meetings on Tuesday evenings.

Nomination Papers Are Now Available For Town-Wide, Town Meeting

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Town Clerk’s Office.

Nomination papers for the election of Town Meeting Members and Town-wide offices taking place at Belmont’s annual Town Election (Tuesday, April 5, 2016) are now available at the Town Clerk’s Office, located on the first floor of Town Hall.

The papers are due back to the Clerk for certification by Feb. 16, 2016 at 5 p.m.

Fifty certified signatures of registered Belmont voters are required for Town-wide office, 25 certified signatures of Belmont registered voters dwelling in the appropriate precinct are required for Town Meeting. It is always wise to obtain and provide at least 20 percent more signatures than the requirement to meet the certification minimums.

Getting Your Name on the Ballot

Running for election is simple. Have your neighbors and friends who are registered voters sign your papers and submit the signed forms to the Town Clerk by the deadline.

Town-wide Offices

To be considered a candidate for Town-Wide Office, you must be at least 18 years old and a registered voter of the Town of Belmont.

There are many Town-wide elected offices that will appear on the annual Town Election ballot. If you’re interested or want to share your skills in this way, you may file Nomination Papers until Feb. 16, 2016. 

The following is a list of elected Town-wide offices that will appear on the April 5 ballot:

Moderator

 elect one person for one year

Board of Selectmen

 elect one member for three years

Board of Assessors

 elect one member for three years

Board of Cemetery Commissioners

 elect one member for three years

Board of Health

 elect one member for three years
Members of the Housing Authority

elect one member for five years

elect one member of three years

Trustees of the Public Library

 elect two members for three years

Members of the School Committee

 elect two members for three years

Town Clerk

 elect one person for three years

Representative Town Meeting: Representatives from Each of the Eight Voting Precincts

The elected term of a Town Meeting Member is three (3) years, though should a resignation occur, there may be openings for one (1), or two (2) year periods.

In addition to the Twelve Representative Town Meeting Members that are elected for three-year terms from each of our eight voting precincts, there are also several partial terms available.

  • Precinct 3 – elect one person for one year
  • Precinct 5 – elect one person for one year
  • Precinct 7 – elect three people for one year

Incumbent Town Meeting Members

Incumbent Town Meeting Members who intend to run for re-election must notify the Town Clerk by signing and returning the Intention Letter that is mailed to them by Jan. 26, 2016. Missing the return deadline means having to collect signatures on nomination papers.

New Candidates for Town Meeting Member

To be considered a new candidate for Town Meeting Member, you must be at least 18 years old and a registered voter of the Town of Belmont. If you are currently serving as a Town Meeting Member, who was elected at a caucus, not by Town ballot, you will need to submit nomination papers as a new candidate.

Signatures of at least 25 registered voters of your precinct are required on the nomination papers. The Town Clerk must certify these signatures, so we always suggest obtaining about 20% more just to be safe.

Withdrawing Your Name From the Ballot

If you have taken out nomination papers and the signatures have been certified, but you change your mind, you may remove your name from the ballot by notifying the Town Clerk in writing by the deadline.

Opinion: Influence MBTA on Waverley By Writing to Gov’t Officials

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Commuter rail leaving Waverley Station.

We last left off with Belmont Board of Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady offering to the MBTA representatives a design charette with the Selectmen and an appointed  group of residents around the idea of making the Waverley Station handicapped accessible given the overwhelming public sentiments expressed at the “grande charette” held on Nov. 15 at the Beech Street Center.

Despite this apparent public response, I have a lingering notion that it will be of no consequence because the “fix is in” for a new station to be built on Pleasant Street as proposed by the MBTA in 2010 and now again in 2015.

So, I decided to personally tour each station on the Fitchburg line to see first hand what the accessibility status is of each station with the goal of trying to discern why the Waverley Station options under consideration by the MBTA are so extreme. 

(As a reminder,  they are currently simply closing the Waverley Station or building a new station on Pleasant Street, concurrently  closing Waverley and eventually closing the Belmont Station. Here are the results of the survey:)

There are sixteen stops between and including Fitchburg and Belmont

  • One (Kendall Green) has a locked station in disrepair with a rudimentary platform, no handicap access and no parking 
  • One ( Hastings) is a railroad crossing with no station, shelter, platform or parking.              
  • Two (Littleton and South Acton) have the full build out high platforms and handicap access proposed for the “new” Pleasant Street station. Both have extensive parking (300 spots plus) lots, but not garages. 
  • Two (Fitchburg and North Leominister) have “mini-high” platforms with ramps for handicap access and four story parking garages with elevators.
  • Three (West Concord, Brandeis/Roberts, and Waltham)  have “mini-high” platforms with ramps for handicap access, but limited parking
  • Three (Shirley,  Ayer, and Silver Hill)  have a station-like “shelters,” limited parking and rudimentary platforms with no handicap access,
  • Four (Lincoln, Concord, Waverley, Belmont)  have stations and platforms with no handicap access and limited parking

Briefly, we can summarize:

  1. Two of the stops on the Fitchburg line between the Fitchburg and Belmont Stations have the full buildout proposed for the Pleasant Street location or $30 million Waverley and both have 300-plus parking lots that are not possible at either the Pleasant Street or Waverley locations.
  2. Five stations have mini high platforms and ramps for handicap access. 
  3. Four stations including Waverley and Belmont could have mini high platforms and ramps providing handicap access at the platform level.
  4. Five stops are just stops and are unlikely ever to be upgraded to stations.  
Briefly, we can conclude:
  1. Practically speaking,  there are only 11 stops that could be considered for the station upgrade the MBTA is proposing for the Pleasant Street location or Waverley Station.
  2. However, large-scale parking lots or garages are required to justify such stations, and neither Pleasant Street nor Waverley meets this hurdle.
  3. Alternatively, the MBTA could install mini high platforms with ramp access at the platform level at the Lincoln, Concord, Waverley, and Belmont Stations.
  4. Platform access would have to be provided at the Waverley and Belmont Stations, but not at the Lincoln or Concord stations as the platforms are at street level in these locations.  
  5. As a result, 100 percent of the 11 stops between Fitchburg and Belmont would be handicap accessible at the platform level.  

So, what can be done?  

As stated in my opening comments, I’m not optimistic that a governmental response will rule the day on this question.  However, it is given that handicap access is a civil right, not an option and using the above approach we can see that the MBTA could achieve a 100 percent handicap access coverage of the Fitchburg line by simply changing the approach to installing mini high platforms in the four remaining stations and providing platform access for Waverley and Belmont. 
I urge concerned residents to organize a coalition of Watertown, Waltham, and Belmont residents to influence the MBTA to move in this direction by writing your municipal representatives, state representatives, Gov. Baker and Lt. Gov. Polito, Congressional representatives, the MBTA and the Mass AAB. I think it will take, at the least, 2,000 letters to be successful.
Disclaimer:  This is my opinion and I have not discussed the content of this letter with either Sami Baghdady or Mark Paolillo.
Jim Williams, Selectman
Glenn Road
 

Chair’s Sudden Resignation Has Planning Board Scrambling for New Member

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Mike Battista (right) and current Selectman Sami Baghdady.

The sudden and unexpected resignation of the popular chair of the Belmont Planning Board has town officials scrambling to fill that slot just as the board tackles several high-profile tasks.

The departure of Mike Battista on Nov. 11 is a significant loss to the board as he takes half a decade of experience and institutional history with him, having been on the board since 2010 and chair since 2013.

“I enjoyed my time as a member and as chair, I got to work with amazing people, both my colleagues on the Board as well as Town Staff and Residents. Giving back to a great Town was worthwhile and fulfilling. I leave with wonderful memories knowing the Board is in good hands,” he said, as former Warrant Committee Chair Elizabeth Allison temporarily takes over the board’s reins.

“Five years is longer than I hoped to be involved and I felt it was a perfect time to move on. My travel and work schedules are more demanding leaving less time for the important business of the Planning Board,” said the president of Moniques Bath Showroom in Watertown.

Battista leaves as the board is working to establish a sweeping town-wide zoning realignment for residential structures while shepherding the long-delayed Cushing Village complex towards a conclusion.

To fill this critical post, the Belmont Board of Selectmen is seeking volunteers interested in serving on the Board for the remainder of Battista’s term that will expire on June 30, 2016.

The primary objective of the Planning Board is to protect and preserve the character and the quality of life that defines Belmont. The Board addresses numerous issues that will likely have an impact on Belmont’s future, such as:

  • drafting zoning proposals,
  • studying land-use patterns,
  • reviewing traffic concerns, and
  • evaluating specific development projects.

There is no set criteria for membership and those with a variety of backgrounds will be considered. Residents with a knowledge and experience in the areas of land use, planning, and related law are highly encouraged to apply.

To apply, residents must complete a Community Volunteer Interest Form and submit it to the Office of the Board of Selectmen along with the requested supporting documents.

Interest forms can be obtained on the Selectmen’s page of the Town website or by visiting the office during regular business hours. The Office of the Board of Selectman is located in Town Hall; forms can be submitted via e-mail to selectmen@belmont-ma.gov.

The deadline for applying for the position is Wednesday, Dec. 9.

 

Town Wide, Town Meeting Nomination Papers Available Next Week

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Nomination papers 

Belmont Town Clerk Ellen Cushman told The Belmontonian nomination papers for Town Meeting and Town-wide office will be available at the Clerk’s Office starting next week. 

Cushman said she has yet to set the deadline for returning nomination papers to the Town Clerk’s office. 

The 2016 Town Election will take place on Tuesday, April 5. 

If you’re thinking of running for elected office in Belmont, Cushman is advising potential “runners” to take a look at the guide for Belmont’s elected government and how to run for elected office in the “Town of Homes.”

To be considered a candidate for town-wide office (such as selectman, school committee and several boards), you must be at least 18 years old and a registered voter in Belmont.

All candidates for town-wide office must secure the signatures of at least 50 registered Belmont voters. Cushman recommends that more signatures are collected and submitted in the event that some signatures are invalid. Holiday parties and get-togethers are great places to start gathering signatures.

Town Meeting Members whose terms expire in 2016 will receive a letter from the Town Clerk’s office by January asking if you would like to be considered a candidate for re-election. The member must sign and return the affirmation form to the Town Clerk’s office to be considered a candidate for re-election. 

Candidates for Town Meeting must secure the signatures of at least 25 registered voters from the precinct and return the signed nomination papers. Once again, Cushman recommends that more signatures are collected and submitted in the event that some signatures are invalid.

Despite T Assurances, Residents Push Against Pleasant St. Station ‘Alternative’

By 1 Comment

Photo: Erik Stoothoff, chief engineer for the MBTA.

Despite assurances by the MBTA a new commuter rail station on Pleasant Street is currently just one of many options being considered, the overwhelming number of residents who attended a public meeting on the future of the Waverley Station weren’t buying it.

“I don’t understand why Belmont must pay the price for the MBTA’s negligence or bad faith, but here we are,” stated Sterling Crockett of Trapelo Road to cheers of more than 100 people in attendance.  

But for the T, the issue at hand is nothing but removing obstacles that prevent all residents from taking the commuter line.  

“We are here in earnest the process of evaluating what the solution is for making the trains accessible here in Belmont,” said Erik Stoothoff, chief engineer for the MBTA.

The meeting held on Monday night, Nov. 16, at the Beech Street Center, was an opportunity for the MBTA to provide a preliminary findings as it is completing its feasibility assessment and evaluation of what would meet the requirements to update the facility so it is accessible to disabled individuals under the Americans with Disability Act.

The MBTA is currently under a legal order from the state’s Architectural Access Board to bring the station up to code after it made about $400,000 in repairs to the platform in 2012, triggering a review. 

In fact, it was little different than the initial presentation to Selectmen last month.

“Quite candidly, we have done very little work since our last meeting in anticipation of continuing the dialogue with the townspeople,” said Stoothoff.

John Doherty, who was recently named the Waverley project manager (“The face of the project” said Stoothoff) said the T through the work on the Fitchburg line, is looking to increase ridership, and improve the infrastructure and “multimodal linkage.” 

So far, the options available to the authority’s include:

  • Making the needed improvements at Waverley to make it accessible.
  • Close the station permanently.
  • Build a new Belmont station.
  • Combine Belmont’s two stations into a new one on Pleasant Street.

Doherty said due to the number of riders and the limited space, renovating the site would be “a pricey change” since the MBTA is attempting to standardize platform heights – to a “high-level” at four feet above the track running the length of the station. Currently, riders must descend stairs and jump onto the platform at both Waverley and Belmont stations. 

Also, previous ramp configuration would be “extremely difficult” to construct on the site as it would take up a great deal of space.

“It’s something we’re not looking to do in that form,” said Doherty.

Rather, newly reconstructed stairs and four elevators (two inbounds, two outbound) would be the alternative to bring Waverley up to ADA code.

Reiterating a point made at the last time the MBTA met with the Selectmen, Doherty said repair work at the aging and inaccessible Belmont Station, located at the Lions Club at the entrance to Belmont Center, while not imminent “that station will need to be upgraded … so when we do work at Waverley, we will consider what will need to be done at Belmont and fold them in together.” 

With the T reluctant to move Belmont station eastward as it would impact a long stretch of homes along Channing Road, “so rather than shifting east, shift west … and that one-mile stretch between Waverley and Belmont Center it becomes a natural progression [to look in that area],” said Stoothoff.

The one new feature is “a conceptional idea” of where a new station would be placed and its appearance. Located where the school bus depot is located on property owned by the Tocci brothers, the new station would also take a portion of land from Belmont’s Department of Public Work’s yard. 

The new station would be about a quarter mile up the tracks from Waverley towards Belmont station with a platform long enough to accommodate a nine-car train or about 800-feet, have parking and a pedestrian bridge so travelers can cross the tracks safely.

The total cost would be in the range of $30 million, roughly the same of renovating the Waverley stop to allow it to be accessible.

After 20 minutes. Residents and some from Watertown and Waltham citizens took the MBTA to task for attempting to move the stop to a not in my backyard constituency as well as several people who hoped to use their expertise in related fields to help convince the agency the best approach remains to keep the station opened. 

Judith Sarno spoke for many in the 3rd precinct where she is a Town Meeting member saying she was “adamantly opposed” to a new station as it would bring large numbers of vehicles into the neighborhoods.

For Anne Mahon, the station is a transportation hub for residents living in affordable housing in Belmont, Watertown and Waltham, providing them transportation to Boston’s job market. Moving it outside the square, even by just a quarter mile, could impact their employment opportunities.

After viewing the first selectmen’s meeting, Unity Avenue’s Erin Lubien said she left feeling “there have to be other options” to preserve the station that is an essential part of Waverley Square.

Rather than just write a letter or attending public meetings to express her concerns, Lubien contacted Annis Sengupta, an acquaintance and neighbor who just happens to be a Ph.D. in Urban Planning, to create a series of charts indicating the economic and transportation necessity the station has become and submitted other options, such as a municipal parking garage to accommodate commuters.

“I think there are a lot of people who want to work with you and try to solve this problem,” said Sengupta.

Primer: What to Know about Waverley Station’s Past, Present and Future

By 4 Comments

Photo: Waverley Station (Wikipedia)

The public meeting being held Monday, Nov. 16 at 7 p.m. at the Beech Street Center is advertised as representatives from the MBTA and the state’s Department of Transportation updating Belmont residents and commuters on a series of “options” to bring the Waverley commuter rail station up to code with the Americans with Disability Act.

But to Sue Bass of the Belmont Citizens Forum – the community organization seeking to maintain the small-town atmosphere of Belmont by preserving its natural and historical resources, limiting traffic growth, and enhancing pedestrian safety – the meeting isn’t likely to result in a Chinese menu of choices and alternatives for residents to select from. Rather, “hovering over the event” is whether Belmont can retain its “walkable” stations or will the future bring a new, parking dependent facility.

Bass’ Should Waverley Station Close?, written for the Forum’s November/December newsletter, is a history and primer on the issues facing the state, public transportation agency and Belmont concerning the station.

Below is Bass’ analysis, with permission from the Belmont Citizens Forum:

Should Belmont continue to have two commuter rail stations that people can walk to? Or is it better to have just one station with a parking garage that people can drive to? That’s not officially the topic of the MBTA commuter rail presentation on November 16, but it’s the question hovering over the event.

Formally, the meeting is about the T’s need to spend $15 million or more on a station that serves only 117 daily riders—or to close the station entirely. This issue arises because, several years ago, the MBTA spent $353,281 repaving the platform. That was more than 30 percent of the station’s value. In addition, the repaving did not raise the platforms to the level of the trains. Either violation alone—the spending or the failure to raise the platforms—  required that the station is made accessible for handicapped people, with an elevator or ramps, according to the state’s Architectural Access Board. Appeals have failed. The conclusion seems unassailable—make it accessible or close it. (State Sen.Will Brownsberger did what he called “a deep dive” on the issue, available at willbrownsberger.com/waverley-upgrade-obligation/.)

For the T, this situation either adds millions to its billion-dollar bill for system-wide repairs and upgrades—or it offers an opportunity to speed up commuter rail service on the Fitchburg line by eliminating a station that draws relatively few riders. In fact, it dangles the chance to replace two stations with low ridership by a single station in the middle, along South Pleasant Street, with a parking garage that could increase the total ridership. Daily ridership at the Belmont Center station was only 168 in April 2013, according to the latest data readily available, from the MBTA’s fascinating Ridership and Service Statistics, 2014, nicknamed the Blue Book, which is available at www.mbta.com/bluebook.  The average for the Fitchburg line is 361 boardings per station

For Belmont, sadly, this situation threatens the loss of one or both walkable stations and their possible substitution by a new station to which few could walk—plus a garage that would draw even more traffic to Pleasant Street at rush hours, when it is already jammed.

It’s time for us to do what we do so badly and infrequently: try to look ahead and make wise choices about our future.

To start, why is ridership on the commuter rail so low? From Waverley, the train offers a trip of 10 minutes or less to Porter Square and 20 minutes or less to North Station in Boston. It’s two minutes quicker from Belmont Center.

Parking might be one reason. The MBTA’s Blue Book reports no auto spaces at Waverley, though there are 12 bicycle spaces. It reports 115 auto commuter spaces at Belmont Center, but, in fact, the police department’s traffic office says only 20 spaces are available, at $90 a month—and only a handful of those are spoken for.

Is the price too high, compared with parking downtown? Are people unaware that spaces are available? Would ridership go up if the long-discussed Community Path brings cyclists to the Waverley Square and Belmont Center train stations? Or is the commuter rail service too unreliable, or too infrequent? Do too few people work downtown these days?

Demographically, Belmont should be using more public transportation. “We’re seeing a general trend where the inner core—within [Route] 128—is growing faster than the outer suburbs,” said Eric Bourassa, transportation director for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. “Part of it is because people do want to be closer to transit and commute in that way.”

Of course, Waverley Square has one of the busiest bus routes in the state, 73, with 6,424 daily boardings along the whole route and 753 at Waverley Station.

At the last meeting between MBTA officials and the Belmont Board of Selectmen, on Sept. 28, T officials said part of the challenge in making the two Belmont stations accessible is that both are on curves. The bend in the tracks makes it much more difficult and more expensive to provide roll-on service to the trains. The straight track along Pleasant Street between Waverley and Belmont Center appealed to the T for that reason.

Several in the audience suggested that a small shift in the location of the stop—a dozen feet or so—might solve that problem, at least at Waverley. Is that true? Would other simple solutions shave millions off the price tags for making Waverley accessible? It’s time to find out.

Sue Bass, director emerita