MINUTES
PORTS OF MASSACHUSETTS STRATEGIC PLAN
2013 Public Meetings:
Boston, November 18
Gloucester, November 20
New Bedford, November 25
Note: The same information was presented in each community. Comments and
attendance from each meeting location follow the presentation summary.
Presentation
Matthew Ciborowski, of MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning and Ports of
Massachusetts Strategic Plan project manager, welcomed the public and said the
purpose of the meeting is to summarize the Ports of Massachusetts Compact activities
and Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan draft recommendations, discuss next steps
and obtain public input. The meeting agenda included Strategic Plan process and
overview, Plan status/schedule, draft recommendations, next steps and public input.
Ports of Massachusetts Compact
Mr. Ciborowski said the Ports of Massachusetts Compact (the Compact) is an
association of legislators, municipalities and state agencies tasked with advancing
economic and strategic improvements in the Commonwealth’s five deep-water ports.
The five deep-water Massachusetts ports are Boston, Fall River, Gloucester, New
Bedford and Salem. The Compact has been in existence since March 2012 and has
been working with MassDOT to create a statewide Ports Strategic Plan. MassDOT has
been developing the Plan over the past eight or nine months, and will deliver it to the
Compact for approval in December 2013.
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Mr. Ciborowski described the Strategic Plan, which is comprised of six Technical
Memoranda. Technical Memorandum 1 developed Evaluation Criteria for rating and
comparing recommendations, focusing on operational, economic, land use,
environmental and financial topics. Technical Memorandum 2 evaluates port
infrastructure and existing conditions. Mr. Ciborowski said the project team visited each
port to evaluate site specific conditions. The memo provides an overview for each port,
including the study area, location and access, organization and management, and
issues and opportunities. The second part of Technical Memorandum 2 reviews the
current port activities, including cargo transport, passenger transport and commercial
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 617-973-7306
www.mass.gov/massdot
fishing and seafood processing. Technical Memorandum 3 describes macro maritime
trends, including international trends. The trends detailed include cargo freight,
commercial fishing, waterborne passenger transportation, offshore wind energy and
climate change. Technical Memorandum 4 is an analysis of the Massachusetts Port
System for Compact-wide and individual communities and examines port operations,
landside access and institutional context. Technical Memorandum 5 describes the
recommendations, including compact-wide recommendations and a set specific to each
deep-water port. Mr. Ciborowski said this memo will be completed following the public
meetings to ensure all comments have been considered and included, as feasible. In the
meantime, a matrix of the draft summaries is available at each meeting and will be
posted online. Lastly, Technical Memorandum 6 is an overview of potential funding and
financing sources and will catalogue federal, state and local options.
Plan Status and Schedule
Mr. Ciborowski reviewed the next steps for the Strategic Plan. The final Compact
meeting was Monday, November 18. The port recommendations are being presented to
the public at three meetings – in Boston on November 18, in Gloucester on November
20 (for the Gloucester and Salem ports) and in New Bedford on November 25 (for the
New Bedford and Fall River ports). The purpose of these meetings is to gather
comments or input from the public to be included in the final Ports of Massachusetts
Strategic Plan. All comments are due on December 2, and can be submitted at the
meetings or via postal mail, email, fax or phone. The final report will be completed by the
end of December.
Recommendations
Mr. Ciborowski said the recommendations are broken into six categories, one for
compact-wide and one for each of the major ports (Boston, Fall River, Gloucester, New
Bedford and Salem). The recommendations presented tonight have been developed
with input from meetings, interviews and Compact discussions; research of best
practices nation and worldwide; the knowledge and expertise of the team; and
administration policy initiatives. The process included members of the communities,
businesses, leadership from the state and local level and agencies. Mr. Ciborowski
noted that the application of evaluation criteria is still to come, and will be completed
within the next few weeks.
Compact-Wide Recommendations
Mr. Ciborowski said these are a general set of recommendations applicable to each port.
The compact-wide recommendations include: creating a comprehensive maritime
organization to better house recreational, passenger and transport activities under one
entity. Currently, activities of the Ports Compact, Ferry Compact and Seaport Advisory
Page 2 of 17
Council are not coordinated. Other recommendations are to transition jurisdiction of state
piers and funding; retain the Designated Port Areas (DPAs) and advance discussion on
future collaboration and flexibility; and a continued need for focus on groundfish
recovery, comprehensive dredging assessment, new maritime funding sources, cruise
marketing and commercial excursion and passenger transport. For the jurisdiction
transition, MassDOT would take on some of the port related roles of Housing and
Economic Development, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Coastal Zone
Management and Department of Environmental Protection. Mr. Ciborowski elaborated
on the ports issues that need more focus, saying groundfish recovery is a key issue for
the Commonwealth; there is an opportunity for advocacy and ensuring that policies and
regulations are applied appropriately across the Commonwealth; all of the ports need
dredging work and this effort requires an organized approach and process; funding
sources change over time which requires constant monitoring of what is available; and
cruise marketing needs a better statewide focus.
Mr. Ciborowski reviewed the recommendations for each port.
Boston
The report recommends supporting the Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project,
which is the single most important project to maintain the port’s national competiveness.
Truck and rail access should be preserved for port operations and moving goods. This
effort includes the Conley/Coastal Oil/Dedicated Freight Corridor for quick port to
highway travel avoiding residential neighborhoods, Track 61 improvements and
maintenance and improvements to existing truck networks. The dredging and landside
improvements are required just to keep the port operating at the status quo. The report
also recommends improving the Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP) maritime assets.
Lastly, the Strategic Plan supports the Massport Strategic Plan with a particular focus on
the Medford Street properties (in the Charlestown area), Cruiseport Boston/Black Falcon
Terminal and the future of Fish Pier.
Fall River
Fall River faces several land use and infrastructure issues that could improve access to
attractions and the waterfront if addressed. The Central Waterfront issues that could be
resolved with improvements include State and City Pier improvements, permanent ferry
service to Newport and Block Island, Route 79 boulevard redesign which will unlock
access to the waterfront, the “spaghetti ramps” project (I-195/R-79), and South Coast
Rail with a proposed station at the waterfront. Lastly, the Plan recommends long-term
industrial reuse at Weaver’s Cove and Brayton Point, which are distant from residential
neighborhoods and the downtown area.
Page 3 of 17
Gloucester
The Strategic Plan describes a series of business strategies applicable to the Gloucester
port. These strategies include supporting the new maritime economy (NME) by using the
waterfront to accomplish the City’s “maritime economy” goals; redeveloping the I4-C2
parcel as an NME anchor; inner harbor private property improvements; potentially using
programmed money to incentivize private interests to realize waterfront goals; and
increasing recreational vessel dockage. The Plan supports two necessary dredging
projects at Inner Harbor and the Annisquam River, which is often used as a cut-through
for vessels traveling around Cape Ann.
New Bedford
The Strategic Plan identifies locations in New Bedford that require infrastructure
improvements in order to unlock underutilized land. They include State Pier
improvements rather than just responding to issues with emergency repairs; Route 6
bridge replacement, a barrier to the northern harbor; offshore wind business
development; inner harbor maintenance dredging; and the South Terminal rail
connection from South Coast Rail. The report also recommends fishing fleet berthing
expansion; an excursion/public access hub at Fisherman’s Wharf; a recreational vessel
dockage study (as a long-term improvement); and South Coast Rail to bring activity to
the waterfront.
Salem
The recommendations for the Salem port focus on harbor infrastructure and
redevelopment at the Power Station. The Strategic Plan recommends completing the
Salem Wharf project, which is currently undergoing redevelopment at the Power Station
and will improve access to and from Salem once completed. The South River Basin
requires dredging and is currently only at six feet in depth in some locations. Integrating
the Harborwalk and Derby Street will play a key role in reconnecting historic Salem with
its waterfront. Another harbor infrastructure recommendation is improvements at the
Hawthorne Cove commercial fishing dockage, where there is private interest and
recreational boats.
The Power Station redevelopment recommendations are to continue the redevelopment
efforts of the Power Station DPA and evaluate the need for Derby/Webb Streets access
improvements.
Next Steps
Mr. Ciborowski said the next steps are to complete the public meetings over the next
week (Boston on November 18, Gloucester on November 20 and New Bedford on
November 25), receive comments by December 2 (to incorporate into the report) and
Page 4 of 17
develop the final Strategic Plan during December. Mr. Ciborowski shared his contact
information for project information or to submit comments.
Following the presentation, Mr. Ciborowski invited elected officials to speak, followed by
the general public.
Page 5 of 17
BOSTON PUBLIC MEETING
(Boston Port)
LOCATION:
Cruiseport Boston/Black Falcon Terminal
DATE/TIME:
November 18, 2013, 6:00 – 7:30 PM
ATTENDEES:
Phyllis M. Cahaly, MA Office of Travel and Tourism
Louis Elisa, Seaport Advisory Council
Valerie Gingrich, CZM
Marc Odler, US Info
Laurel Rafferty, Portscape
Jeffrey Stieb, Port of New Bedford
PROJECT TEAM:
Matthew Ciborowski, MassDOT Project Manager
Jay Duncan, AECOM Project Manager
Andrew Cairns, AECOM
Alden Raine, AECOM
David Vine, GZA
Allison Novelly, UMass Boston Urban Harbors Institute
Jack Wiggin, UMass Boston Urban Harbors Institute
Kate Barrett, Regina Villa Associates
Kerri Chace, Regina Villa Associates
Public Comments
Jeffrey Stieb, Port of New Bedford, said he is pleased with the work of the Strategic
Plan. The team listened and responded to comments and he thanked them on behalf of
the City of New Bedford.
Phyllis M. Cahaly, MA Office of Travel and Tourism (MOTT), asked Mr. Ciborowski to
discuss cruise marketing in more detail. Mr. Ciborowski said a coordinated marketing
campaign must be developed to drive growth of the cruise industry in Massachusetts.
Currently, smaller ships are being turned away from Boston, which can be supported in
Gloucester, New Bedford or the other ports. Cruise Canada and Cruise Maine have
effective strategies and a robust market that is being appropriately leveraged. Although
there is a market in Massachusetts and several ports have “flirted” with the potential,
there is no state-wide coordinated or sustained effort. Mr. Ciborowski said there is an
opportunity to develop state-wide initiatives to market cruising and a cruise industry
could be realized in the near future. He added that MassDOT should collaborate with
MOTT for a program similar to, and sustaining the work of, the Historic Ports Initiative.
Page 6 of 17
Marc Odler, a private consultant with US Info, asked for a rough timeline for completing
short, medium and long-term port goals. Mr. Ciborowski said non-infrastructure policy
and procedure recommendations can be implemented in the next year or so, especially
Compact-wide recommendations such as jurisdictional, state piers and the maritime
entity (found on the first page of the matrix handout). Major infrastructure improvements,
including the Route 6 bridge project would be longer term. However, there is ongoing
work to begin developing the larger infrastructure improvements such as the feasibility
study for replacing the Route 6 bridge which has begun.
Laurel Rafferty, Portscape and formerly of CZM, asked to what extent non-technology
reuses and new uses on the waterfront were explored, for example wind turbines in New
Bedford (a new use). Additionally, what industrial uses around the world could be
applicable at ports in Massachusetts? Andrew Cairns of AECOM said the Trends Memo
explored technologies and themes at other locations, including worldwide. For example,
it looked at wind turbines and liquefied natural gas fueling terminals for fueling
commercial vessels. There is room to account for them, but they were not specifically
identified at this time. Mr. Ciborowski said making changes to the DPA could be easier
for new uses. The Trends Memo evaluates where revenue is best generated to boost
the economy and the opportunities tend to be with traditional uses, for example
container and break bulk shipping which can be more lucrative and sustained in the long
term.
There were no further comments and the meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM.
Page 7 of 17
GLOUCESTER PUBLIC MEETING
(Gloucester and Salem Ports)
LOCATION:
Cruiseport Gloucester
DATE/TIME:
November 20, 2013, 6:00 – 7:30 PM
ATTENDEES:
Melissa Abbott, Cruiseport Gloucester
Susanne Altenburger, Phil Bolger and Friends
William H. Chambers, 1st District Pilot Comm.
Heather Dagle, 7 Seas Whale Watch
Chris Deeley, Burnham Associates
Kathryn Glenn, MA CZM
Sarah Maltoro, Mills PR
Jane Mead, Gloucester Resident
Patti Page, Seafood Processing
PROJECT TEAM:
Matthew Ciborowski, MassDOT Project Manager
Jay Duncan, AECOM Project Manager
Allison Novelly, UMass Boston Urban Harbors Institute
David Vine, GZA
Kate Barrett, Regina Villa Associates
Kerri Chace, Regina Villa Associates
Public Comments
Melissa Abbott, marketing manager of Cruiseport Gloucester, said she is tasked with
bringing cruise ship activity to Gloucester. Ms. Abbott asked if Gloucester could be part
of Massport’s booth at Seatrade Cruise Shipping Convention in Miami, the cruise
industry’s largest expo. Mr. Ciborowski said the Commonwealth requires a better
strategy to get cruise ship activity to the ports and market the cruise industry. Locations
that succeed in the industry have an integrated cruise marketing plan, including Canada
and Maine.
Ms. Abbott discussed the challenges of partnering with other cruise companies or states,
saying smaller communities are generally not accepted into the existing cruise industry
collaborative. For instance, Cruise Canada includes 10 major ports on the St. Lawrence.
Massport could use its existing position to leverage this opportunity. Ms. Abbott said
Massport is established within the existing cruise system and should be able to better
assist smaller port communities with breaking into the industry. A first step would be to
support Gloucester at the Seatrade Cruise Shipping Convention. Mr. Ciborowski said
Page 8 of 17
these types of issues and opportunities are exactly what the Strategic Plan aims to
address. Massport acknowledges it could be more supportive of smaller ports, and the
Compact and project team recommend using MOTT to strategize and develop a cruise
industry in the smaller ports. Mr. Ciborowski said the state should pay more attention to
the industry because there is a significant economic opportunity. Ms. Abbott said there
are models for how to develop the industry, using the industry for events such as speed
dating and dances.
Susanne Altenburger, Phil Bolger and Friends, said her company has been designing
boats since 1962 and she feels there is a disconnect between the people and the Port of
Gloucester. Ms. Altenburger said her company has a large contract with the US Navy.
She is concerned about how things operate in Gloucester, because the business is
extremely unsteady. Ms. Altenburger said she is concerned for the future of fishing in
Gloucester because there is a disconnect with Beacon Hill, the city and the fishermen;
what seems sensible (for example, low carbon emissions scalloping boats in New
Bedford) are not implemented in Gloucester. She sees opportunity in green shipbuilding.
She questioned why no legislation has been filed in support of greening fishing, and
wishes MassDOT had an overarching responsibility to leverage the resources of the
Gloucester port. The I4-C2 parcel is a private partnership, but the community should be
able to use it to connect the City to the harbor, including schools. Ms. Altenburger said
she is looking for ideas, resources and better avenues of communication to improve the
situation in Gloucester. Mr. Ciborowski said Ms. Altenburger has several good points
and there should be a greater connection between the state and the (especially smaller)
ports. Mr. Ciborowski said the project team has met with the mayors of each port
community (who also sit on the Compact) and the feedback included that there aren’t
enough ways to connect with the state, particularly discussing policy issues. There is “no
home” for the ports at the state level, and this effort (specifically the maritime
organization) would provide a place for the ports under the MassDOT umbrella with
dedicated staff.
Patti Page presented comments on behalf of the Mortillaro Lobster Company on
Commercial Street. They included: examine improvements to roadways (for vehicular
routes to facilities) and wastewater management; provide subsidies; invest in marine
research, including product testing, branding, fresh catch, kitchen brand, product
development for labs, research; publish a local seafood catalogue; revise the MA
Development Processing Study to include local systems, fresh and organic seafood (it
currently focuses on frozen seafood); support and maintain the DPA to avoid
encroachment due to rezoning, as these changes would create large scale issues;
develop the only publically owned waterfront parcel at 65 Rogers Street (I4-C2); improve
wastewater pretreatment for seafood processing. She asked what support and
protections MassDOT can bring to business owners affected by port regulations. Mr.
Ciborowski said the DPA is valuable and will continue to exist. Most DPA related issues
Page 9 of 17
are about flexibility and the regulations such as whether something is included in the use
table. The idea is to look at how the DPA interacts with the harbors and uses. CZM is
looking at how to streamline the process, but protections will not be removed. Ms. Page
said three multi-million dollar companies bought property and are looking to invest and
expand in the DPA. Ms. Page said Urban Harbors Institute has been contracted by the
Gloucester Fisheries Commission to provide a comprehensive dockage and vessel
study, and the study should be referenced or included as part of the Strategic Plan’s
recommendations. Mr. Ciborowski said the City is still defining “new maritime economy”
and discussing investments and initiatives to support traditional uses with new
technologies.
Jane Mead, Gloucester resident and formerly of CZM, asked how tonight’s meeting was
publicized. It was not on the City’s website or in the paper. Ms. Altenburger said she was
not aware of the meeting until this afternoon when she found it on the New Bedford
website. Mr. Ciborowski said MassDOT relies on the local cities to advertise the
meetings and they were given the notices and asked to distribute. Press releases about
the meetings were sent to the local newspapers, and Fall River and New Bedford outlets
called for more information and ran stories on the Strategic Plan and New Bedford
meeting. Communication will be an important focus going forward with a regular cycle of
opportunities for input.
Ms. Mead asked how the Strategic Plan integrates with the cities’ harbor planning. Mr.
Ciborowski said the plans will coordinate but remain separate. The harbor plans are
acknowledged in the Strategic Plan, but not specifically integrated because the plan is at
more of a high level. The harbor plans may, however, be instruments to implement
some of the recommendations in the Plan. The project team has met with Gloucester to
discuss how the Strategic Plan can support the Harbor Plan, and there are references in
the Strategic Plan to ongoing work within Gloucester.
Ms. Mead asked if the project team has met with the port operators group, which is an
interesting model worth looking at. Mr. Ciborowski said they have not.
There was discussion about the lack of attendance at the meeting. Ms. Altenburger said
it is noteworthy that no one from the Harbor Planning Committee attended. Ms. Page
said Mr. Ciborowski has been diligent with sending project emails.
Ms. Page said Gloucester, as a DPA, services other privately owned businesses and
communities. She said there has been a disconnect in financially assisting the very
community that maintains the maritime industry, which many others benefit from. Mr.
Ciborowski said private-public investments are challenging to maintain because
ownership and operations would remain separate at the port. For example, MassDOT
owns and operates all bridges, roads and tunnels. MassDOT and the Strategic Plan can
Page 10 of 17
learn best practices from agencies such as CZM and Mass Development to ensure
private sector interests are not lost in the process.
Ms. Page asked if the Compact could help streamline current regulations, including
Chapter 91 which took over 10 months to satisfy for a current project. Mr. Ciborowski
said the new maritime organization cannot expedite federal regulations, but will focus on
statewide issues and how DEP and CZM can help make the process more efficient.
Ms. Altenburger said zoning and permit delays are problematic because it is impossible
to predict where a business will be financially by the time these issues are resolved. Ms.
Dagle said the requirements should be streamlined to give businesses a fair chance to
succeed without having to worry about the future livelihood of the business based on the
outcome of the regulations. Ms. Dagle said a mixed-use DPA is vital and the state needs
to offer better guidance so business owners can engage in long-range planning which
has been problematic to date; the state needs to consider the challenges port
businesses face in planning and regulations. A changing landscape makes securing
financing difficult. It is unfair for the people and businesses that have invested in the
community and worked honestly for several years to be uncertain about their future. Mr.
Ciborowski said he will discuss these issues with the project team and see how they can
be addressed in the Strategic Plan.
Ms. Page said Jack Wiggins is overseeing the Harbor Plan review that the Harbor
Planning Committee commissioned; and asked what the Strategic Plan recommends in
regard to groundfish recovery. If there are no fish, there is no business. Mr. Ciborowski
said the report points out that there is not enough being done to support the fishing
industry at the state level, but does not identify specific solutions. It is flagged as an
important issue that needs attention. The Strategic Plan identifies port issues and needs,
and the next phase will focus on the solution. Jay Duncan, AECOM Project Manager,
said there are valuable but variable stocks of underutilized fish that could be advanced
and marketed better. Allison Novelly, UMass Boston Urban Harbors Institute, said
Gloucester has a more local food system, and the project team acknowledges local food
sources are one of the City’s visions. David Vine, GZA, said additional information about
groundfish recovery in the Strategic Plan can be found on the project website in the
Trends Memorandum.
Ms. Mead said the state does not have authority over National Marine Fisheries issues,
which changes regulatory schemes every three years. Some type of policy change
review should be implemented at the state level, and it could better use what authority it
does have through CZM in its regulatory review role. Mr. Ciborowski said advocacy is
important and MassDOT could function as the coordinated voice of the ports on marine
and safety issues, among others. Ms. Mead said the US Army Corps of Engineers (the
Corps) holds joint processing meetings, but the port representatives never attend. The
Page 11 of 17
Corps runs successful forums and programs. Mr. Ciborowksi said the project team will
look into the Corps’ efforts.
There were no further comments and the meeting adjourned at 7:25 PM.
Page 12 of 17
NEW BEDFORD PUBLIC MEETING
(New Bedford and Fall River Ports)
LOCATION:
New Bedford Free Public Library
DATE/TIME:
November 25, 2013, 6:00 – 7:30 PM
ATTENDEES:
State Representative William Straus
Hugh Dunn, Office of Congressman Bill Keating
Stephen Sylvia, Office of Representative Straus
Paul E. Anthony, Seafuels Marine New Bedford
Pierre Bernier, Maritime Terminal
Jono Billings, Cuttybunk Ferry Service
Jay Borkland, Apex
James Burker, Seastreak Ferry
Tom Bushy, District 3 Pilot Comm.
David Butler
Diane Butler, Manager, FR Line Pier
Martin Butler, New Bedford
Ray Callum, Michael Cullum Associates
Bob Chandler, Fair Haven Hardware
Lauren Costello, New Bedford EDC
Richard R. Cunio, Pier Manager DCR
Brian Curt, Fall River
Michael Driscoll, DCR Waterways
Jo Goode, Herald News
Dave Janik, MA CZM
Patricia Jayson
Bryan Jones, HDR Engineering
Jim Kendall, NB Seafood Consulting
Terence Lewis, TGL Consulting Inc
Greg A. Manchester, New Bedford
Henry Mastey, New Bedford
Kevin McLaughlin, Fairhaven Shipyard
Matt Morrissey, New Bedford EDC
Chet Myers, Apex
Joe Nauman, Acushnet
Susan Nilson, CLE Engineering
John Pearson, Mass Coastal Railroad
Jeff Pelletier, New Bedford EDC
Carlos Pena, CLE
Page 13 of 17
Christina Player, CLE Engineering
Jeff Pontiff, EF Pontiff Real Estate
John Reardon, Hercules SLR 4S Inc
Ken Rheaume, Fall River Redevelopment Authority
Bill Roth, Town of Fairhaven
David Santos, Dartmouth
Jeffrey Santos, USCG Auxiliary
John Silvia, Seastreak
Mark T. Voloza, Borris FR Line Pier
Joseph Waledad, New Bedford
Ed Washburn, Port of New Bedford
David Wechsler, Maritime International
Ariel Wittenberg, Standard Times
PROJECT TEAM:
Matthew Ciborowski, MassDOT Project Manager
Andrew Cairns, AECOM
Alden Raine, AECOM
Ken Parkinson, AECOM
Allison Novelly, UMass Boston Urban Harbors Institute
David Vine, GZA
Frank Mahady, FXM Associates
Kate Barrett, Regina Villa Associates
Kerri Chace, Regina Villa Associates
Public Comments
State Representative and Transportation Committee Co-Chairman William Straus said
he is pleased with the overall effort of the Strategic Plan and tonight’s attendance
reflects the port’s value and importance.
Jeffrey Stieb, Director of the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission, said his
organization has been following the Strategic Plan closely and has been involved with
shaping the recommendations. He said the Plan is heading in the right direction and the
Commission agrees with 99.9 percent of the recommendations; funding is the next
challenge. He offered to take comments from the public to incorporate into the
Commission’s formal comments, if they would prefer to contact him. Mr. Stieb read
comments on behalf of New Bedford Mayor Jonathan Mitchell: pleased with Strategic
Plan recommendations; maximize State Pier potential; State Pier improvements; attain
secure funding sources; funding decisions should be based on return on investment; use
public interest to create private sector jobs; create a designated and staffed port
organization; invest in key industries such as cargo and passenger transport, fishing and
Page 14 of 17
offshore wind; and complement existing modes. Mr. Stieb said he is looking forward to
receiving comments and will be available all day Wednesday to take calls and emails.
Jim Barker, President of SeaStreak, said his ferry operates from State Pier to Martha’s
Vineyard and he is interested in infrastructure improvements at State Pier. Without these
investments, SeaStreak will not be able to serve New Bedford in the long-term. Mr.
Barker said he is pleased overall with the Plan’s recommendations and welcomes
MassDOT’s assistance with port related activity. Lastly, Mr. Barker said he is interested
in short sea shipping and wind farm opportunities. Mr. Ciborowski said there have been
several comments about needing the state’s support on the waterfront.
Chet Myers of Apex said he is pleased with the overall recommendations but concerned
about the transition from DCR Waterways to MassDOT. He said there are several
smaller port consulting firms that have existing relationships with DCR and not
MassDOT, and asked if there is a transition plan in place so the firms are not at a
disadvantage. Mr. Ciborowski said the team is thinking about the transition now.
MassDOT doesn’t intend to lose DCR expertise or relationships with local communities
as a result of the transition.
Jono Billings, President of Cuttyhunk Ferry Service, said he is thrilled that the state is
combining the work of several agencies and will be involved with State Pier
improvements. Cooperation is vital. Cuttyhunk Ferry operates a ferry between New
Bedford and Cuttyhunk, an island populated by 100 people.
Bill Roth, Town of Fairhaven Planning and Economic Development, said he supports the
state’s Strategic Plan and consolidation approach; maritime facilities should be added to
the existing system; maritime services should have a high level of expertise; treating
them differently is a disservice. He noted that the MassDOT logo should be changed to
include a ship. Mr. Roth said a sustainable and dedicated funding source should be
identified; that ports should not have to compete with roads and bridges for funding (the
Seaport Bond Bill funded smaller non-maritime projects); and urged MassDOT not to
impose the 25 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent design reviews that MassDOT does
for highways on small waterfront projects, as it would be timely and expensive. Mr. Roth
said the local, smaller consulting firms have done very well with DCR and hopes
business would not be disrupted. He urged MassDOT to use the Master Services
Agreement process for construction projects. Mr. Roth said the Seaport Advisory Council
has been generous with smaller waterfront towns (like Fairhaven, Marshfield,
Provincetown, etc.), as well as the five deep-water ports. The proposed new Cabinetlevel maritime council should be as supportive as the Seaport Advisory Council has
been. Mr. Ciborowski said the comments are well taken. MassDOT does have smaller
niche processes that it uses for regional transit agencies and airports that could be used
for ports. Mr. Ciborowski said MassDOT would look to DCR for their maritime expertise.
He said the Compact and mayors understand the funding requires a balance based on
Page 15 of 17
port size and activity, and the project team is open to suggestions on how to shape that
process.
Brian Curt, a Fall River resident, asked if and underwater survey was conducted on
State Pier to ensure that it is structurally sound (pilings, etc.). Mr. Ciborowski said it was
not surveyed as part of this process. The Strategic Plan relied on survey information
from other studies. Mr. Curt asked if MassDOT would provide and fund parking if the
pilot ferry service to Block Island and Newport is permanently implemented. Mr.
Ciborowski said ferry service is a good economic driver and has been discussed as part
of this process, but it would be the City’s responsibility to sort out the details, including
parking. Mr. Curt asked about Weaver’s Cove. Mr. Ciborowski said the Strategic Plan
recommends long-term reuse at Weaver’s Cove. Mr. Curt asked about funding
allocation, and if the New Bedford funds received would be comparable to the Boston’s
funding. He suggested breaking the ports up regionally to allocate funding.
John Pearson of Mass Coastal Railroad said he is pleased with the recommendations.
He pointed out that several items are already in motion, including the Fall River Route
79/Braga Bridge project where three rail crossings onto the State Pier were rebuilt. Mr.
Pearson said other ongoing projects include tie and track improvements in Fall River and
New Bedford to enhance freight service to 25 MPH next summer; new track switches
installed near State Pier in Fall River; and three rebuilt bridges on the New Bedford
branch; and the McCarthy Boulevard project which will extend rail service to South
Terminal.
David Wechsler of Maritime Terminals, Inc. said he is skeptical that an organized
maritime council overseen by MassDOT would be successful. He said it’s important to
remove the entity from state government, so it’s not dependent on politicians and doesn’t
have to compete with highway projects for funding. He said Massachusetts has too
many regulatory government agencies and should look to Georgia for a successful
model, where the port authority works with private businesses and is free of outside
influence. He also commented on fruit and cargo referrals from Massport. Mr.
Ciborowski said Massachusetts has a very strong tradition of home rule.
Jim Kendall, a former commercial fisherman, said the fishing industry is not well
represented and is always an afterthought. As the largest maritime industry in
Massachusetts, local and small port business and interests need to be better supported,
and should have a seat on the maritime council as they do on the Seaport Advisory
Council. Mr. Kendall said there is proposed new development along the New Bedford
waterfront, including a restaurant, and asked if Chapter 91 and other regulations will
maintain the working harbor integrity. Mr. Ciborowski said the Strategic Plan does not
recommend any changes to Chapter 91. Mr. Kendall said New Bedford is the number
one fishing port, but without improvements to the pier’s infrastructure, the industry will
die. Preserving the DPA is essential to prevent encroachment on the fishing
Page 16 of 17
infrastructure. He asked how the Strategic Plan is involved in groundfish recovery. Mr.
Ciborowski said groundfish recovery is in the Strategic Plan recommendations to ensure
that it stays a focus. The project team will also continue to investigate public investment
in private companies, a unique but worthwhile setup. Mr. Ciborowski agreed there needs
to be a sustained focus to advocate for the fishing industry in New Bedford and
Gloucester. Mr. Stieb said there are two ongoing groundfish recovery efforts. A Division
of Marine Fisheries effort will evaluate the impacts to business that support ground
fishing as a result of catch limits over the past year. This report is especially relevant for
Gloucester and New Bedford. A second study, funded by the Seaport Advisory Council,
will evaluate the economic impact of catch limits throughout the supply and delivery
chain, and compare the economic value of farming versus ground fishing. Mr. Stieb said
these reports can demonstrate to elected officials the value of the ports and fishing
industry. Ed Washburn, Port of New Bedford, added that the organization has applied for
a third grant to evaluate species that are not being harvested, why they aren’t being
harvested and if they could be harvested using existing equipment.
Jeff Pontiff, a commercial real estate broker and owner/operator of Harbor Tours, said
he is pleased and supportive of the Strategic Plan. Mr. Pontiff said he is a proponent of
smart growth and mixed-use development and the need to preserve the DPA. He
pointed out that the Hicks-Logan Master Plan Area (95 acres immediately adjacent to
the DPA at North Terminal) will evolve toward smart growth and mixed-use
development, especially with the South Coast Rail plans. The Route 6 bridge and
access to the upper harbor are also important.
Jay Borkland of Apex said he supports the Seaport Advisory Council and its work on
dredging and infrastructure that has tremendous impact. These two issues are major
interests and needs. He recommended MassDOT leverage past work and build on the
Seaport Advisory Council’s work to create synergy.
There were no further comments and the meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.
Page 17 of 17