MINUTES
MASSACHUSETTS PORTS COMPACT MEETING #4
SUBJECT:
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
LOCATION:
Heritage State Park, Fall River
DATE/TIME:
September 9, 2013, 10:00 – 11:30 AM
COMPACT MEMBERS: Secretary Richard Davey, MassDOT
Josh Katz, Representing Senator Thomas McGee
Chris Busch, Representing Boston Mayor Thomas Menino
Mayor Carolyn Kirk, City of Gloucester
Jeff Stieb, Representing New Bedford Mayor Jonathan
Mitchell
Ken Fiola, Representing Fall River Mayor William
Flanagan
OTHER ATTENDEES: David Janik, MA CZM
Matt Morrissey, City of New Bedford
Terrence Nguyen, New Bedford HDC
Brad Washburn, MA CZM
Ed Washburn, Port of New Bedford
Michael Driscoll, DCR
Louis Elisa, Seaport Advisory Council
Ken Brisette, MA Office of Travel & Tourism
Scott Farmelant, Boston/Mills PR
Karl Hammond, PARE Corp
PROJECT TEAM:
Matthew Ciborowski, MassDOT Project Manager
Jay Duncan, AECOM Project Manager
Andrew Cairns, AECOM
Alden Raine, AECOM
Cheryl Coviello, GZA
Jack Wiggin, UMass Boston Urban Harbors Institute
Allison Novelly, UMass Boston Harbors Institute
Kate Barrett, Regina Villa Associates
Kerri Chace, Regina Villa Associates
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
PURPOSE/SUBJECT: Discuss remaining Plan process logistics, summarize work
completed since the last meeting, provide overview of the
Analysis and Funding Tech Memos, obtain public input
and discuss next steps.
Introductions
Massachusetts Ports Compact Chairman and MassDOT Secretary Richard Davey
opened the meeting at 10:00 AM and welcomed Compact members and the public.
Secretary Davey thanked Fall River for hosting the meeting and asked Ken Fiola, Fall
River Office of Economic Development, to say a few words. Mr. Fiola welcomed
Secretary Davey and the Compact members and said Mayor Flanagan was unable to
attend because he was attending a dedication ceremony for the new middle school. Mr.
Fiola said the City’s waterfront is prosperous and was pleased to note that new seasonal
ferry service from Fall River to Newport and Block Island will be announced today. He
said the new ferry service will benefit visitors to the City and attract people from the
Route 128/Route 24 area, New Bedford/Warren, Rhode Island area and greater Rhode
Island. The City is also working on a detailed market analysis to explore waterfront
development and activity opportunities.
Secretary Davey reported that the Route 79/Braga Bridge Improvements project ground
breaking event will occur Thursday, September 12 at Fall River Heritage State Park.
The project will knit downtown Fall River to its waterfront. (Note: this event was
rescheduled to Friday, September 13).
Presentation
Matthew Ciborowski, MassDOT’s project manager for the Ports Strategic Plan welcomed
the Compact members and the public, and noted the purpose of the meeting was to
discuss the remaining Strategic Plan process logistics, summarize work completed since
the last meeting, provide an overview of the Analysis and Funding Technical
Memoranda, obtain public input and discuss the next steps. He reminded Compact
members and other reviewers that comments on the Analysis and Funding Memoranda
distributed previously by email and presented today will be accepted for the next two
weeks (due September 23). Revised Technical Memoranda 1, 2 and 3 incorporating
Compact and other stakeholder comments would be posted on the website soon. The
approach to complete the Ports Strategic Plan is to finalize and distribute the Technical
Memoranda, develop preliminary recommendations with the Compact and other
stakeholders through individual stakeholder meetings in late October and early
November, hold public meetings in early November and finalize and publish the Ports of
Massachusetts Strategic Plan shortly thereafter.
Page 2 of 9
Mr. Ciborowski said once draft recommendations have been developed, the project team
will meet with each member of the Compact and other key stakeholders in their
communities to ensure the recommendations are vetted through the interest of each
City’s vision for their port. These meetings will occur throughout late October and early
November. The final plan will be presented at a public meeting in Boston and a location
on the North and South Shore.
Mr. Ciborowski summarized for the Compact Technical Memoranda 4 (Analysis) and 6
(Funding). Tech Memo 4 identified the gaps, deficiencies and unmet needs of the five
ports in terms of port operations (cargo, passenger transportation, fishing and fish
processing, new technology sectors); landside access (highway, rail) and institutional
context. Tech Memo 6 reviewed funding and financing opportunities for potential port
improvements. Mr. Ciborowski said this work provides a comprehensive list of potential
funding sources that are currently available. Recommendations have not yet been
included in the memos.
Tech Memo 4: Analysis, Major Points of Emphasis
Jay Duncan, AECOM Team Project Manager, presented Tech Memo 4 (Analysis). Mr.
Duncan said this memo is a significant section of the report because it analyzes the
existing conditions and trends at each port and identifies needs, issues and key points to
generate growth. The identified issues and themes are cargo, passenger transport,
fishing and fish processing, new technology sectors, landside access: highway and rail
and institutional context. Mr. Duncan described each issue and theme.
Cargo
Boston and New Bedford have major, multi-faceted cargo businesses. The common
issues are dredging (Boston has an ongoing dredging project to compete in the
industry), vertical and lateral clearance and capacity in cargo facilities.
Passenger Transport
All ports could operate in the cruise industry with existing or planned infrastructure, but
marketing is paramount. Mr. Duncan said the team was mindful that ports do not
compete with each other in these industries, which will be reflected in the
recommendations. Boston has a healthy cruise business, although there are parking
limitations (considered a key issue). All ports have ferry service or have expressed
desire for ferry service. Boston, Salem and Gloucester have large commercial excursion
operations, which are linked to significant local spending and jobs. There is an important
presence of private recreational vessels in all ports; although private vessel marinas are
not permitted in designated port areas (DPAs).
Page 3 of 9
Fishing and Fish Processing
This theme is relevant to Gloucester, New Bedford and Boston, all of which have large
fishing industries due to available infrastructure. There is a need for modern
infrastructure at other ports. There are groundfishery crisis impacts in Gloucester and
Boston. There is a large geographic disconnect between local fleet landings and
processing locations.
New Technology Sectors
New Bedford has offshore wind energy and Gloucester has a new maritime port
economy and marine sciences and technology. Mr. Duncan noted the Cruiseport facility
(where the last Compact meeting was held) is an example of the maritime port economy
development in Gloucester which needs to be better utilized for its intended use.
Landside Access: Highway and Rail
Boston, Fall River and New Bedford ports have potential for rail access. Key issues with
rail access include passenger service compatibility, bridge clearances and track
conditions. Materials are moved by truck (87% of freight tonnage) and by rail (6.5% of
freight tonnage). There is a need to relieve highway bottlenecks, maintain and improve
existing infrastructure (there are currently major projects underway or proposed in
Boston, Fall River and New Bedford). Mr. Duncan said an example of landside access is
Boston’s Track 61 project to improve and build-out the Marine Industrial Park.
Institutional Context
Each port has a DPA that covers much of its study area, and as the Compact is aware,
the study also looked at areas outside these boundaries. He also noted that local
ownership and control organizational structure differs at each port. Mr. Duncan
continued to present themes and issues specific to each port.
Boston Focus
The future of the container business in Boston is dependent on how Massport responds
to evolving global markets and infrastructure needs. Channel depth is a key issue for the
cargo and container market, and the Deep Draft Navigation Project affects potential at
Conley Terminal, liquid bulk at Chelsea Creek and break bulk (or general cargo) at
Marine Terminal, Medford Street. The adequacy of the landside access network in South
Boston for containers and other cargo (fish, bulk) and other Massport property is also an
issue. Boston must continue to nourish its ocean cruise business and address the longterm future of the Fish Pier. For rail access, Track 61 improvements and build-out of
Marine Industrial Park and is currently ongoing and there is a future potential at the
Medford Street Terminal.
Page 4 of 9
Fall River Focus
The role of the DPA and how the City wants to proceed with port plans is a key issue for
Fall River. A State Pier passenger strategy includes ferries servicing Newport and Block
Island, cruises and excursions. The State Pier requires improvements for cargo and
passenger uses and opportunities exist at City Pier once remediation of contaminated
sections is addressed. The current Route 79/Davol Street improvements project will
create an enhanced waterfront by linking it to the downtown and reconfigure the
“spaghetti ramps”, and any strategy should include how to incorporate this project. There
is opportunity for freight and passenger rail to the port via MassDOT’s proposed South
Coast Rail project. There is potential long-term at the Weaver’s Cove DPA site because
of its highway, rail and deep water attributes, but it requires remediation.
Gloucester Focus
Gloucester’s new maritime port economy shows promise but requires a business
development strategy as well as infrastructure investment. Marketing Gloucester as a
cruise port and leveraging the Cruiseport facility and Cape Ann attractions is a key need.
The federal groundfishery regulations and the condition of groundfish stocks will have
short and long-term impacts on the maritime port economy. A challenge is that DPA
facilities are mostly privately owned. This means less public input over future direction
and less ability for public funding. There is, however, an opportunity to develop a
financing and reinvestment strategy in partnership with MassDevelopment. Fishing,
excursions and recreational vessels require more dockage. The channel and berthing
depth in the DPA and channel depth in the Annisquam River will be a point of focus in
Gloucester.
New Bedford Focus
Key New Bedford issues are short- and long-term improvements at State Pier and a
strengthened state-city management partnership. The City’s role in offshore wind
business and the South Terminal project could have a substantial workforce and supply
chain impact. The future cargo business strategy will involve a strategy for the State
Pier, North Terminal and Maritime Terminal, Inc and advancing the Marine Highway
concept on the East Coast. The port requires berthing needs of commercial fishing fleet,
potentially extending Leonard’s and Homer’s Wharves. The access and excursion
sectors are a key issue, in relation to other waterfront activities and downtown
connections. A course of action will be required to remedy the Route 6 bridge clearance,
which restricts growth on the waterfront north of the bridge.
Salem Focus
The Salem Wharf requires completion, including a full-length deepwater berth at the coal
pier. There is a cruise marketing opportunity, connecting new port facilities to the historic
Page 5 of 9
waterfront and downtown. There is an opportunity to expand the commercial excursion
sector, with Salem Wharf complementing Pickering Wharf, depending on market,
dockage, access and parking needs. Dredging of the South River basin would complete
access to the waterfront, bringing small boat activity into an integrated
downtown/Pickering Wharf destination. The highway network is constrained by the
Derby and Webb Street configurations, which restrict access. Once the Power Station
conversion to gas is complete, approximately two-thirds of the site will be available for
development.
Mr. Duncan concluded his presentation and introduced Al Raine of AECOM to present
Technical Memorandum 6.
Tech Memo 6 – Funding and Financing, Major Points of Emphasis
Mr. Raine said Tech Memo 6 provides the basis for developing a strategy to fund the
recommendations. The report will recommend reasonable and relevant funding sources
for each port community. Federal and state and local sources were examined, program
domains are both port-specific and broadly applicable and the program types include
traditional grant funding and loan financing. Mr. Raine detailed different funding options
and provided specific examples. The funding sources include The Seaport Bond,
MassWorks, Massport Capital Program, FHWA/MassDOT Surface Transportation,
TIGER and specialized federal programs. Mr. Raine also described the key concepts of
infrastructure debt finance and business development.
The Seaport Bond has been a very relevant and direct source of maritime use state
funding. There were two bond bills, one in 1996 for $280 million and second in 2008 for
$110 million. For FY 2013, there has been $11 million in bond funding. Projects funded
through this bond include improvements such as: the Charlestown Navy Yard Pier 4
Dredge; Fall River State and City Pier; Gloucester Harborwalk; New Bedford South
Terminal and Salem Wharf and Ferry Pier.
MassWorks funding is usually a companion or alternative to the Seaport Bond and is a
consolidation of seven former standalone capital grants. The funding can be used for a
broad range of urban infrastructure improvements and favors Gateway Cities and sites
within a half mile of transit facilities. Mr. Raine noted that any project visible from the
Heritage State Park meeting room would be eligible for MassWorks funding, as it covers
many opportunities at ports.
The Massport Capital Program funds maritime capital projects by internally generated
Massport revenues and federal grants (no state funding). Between FY 2013 and 2017,
this program will provide funding for $153 million in maritime projects, with the Deep
Draft Navigation Improvement project (dredging) at the forefront. This funding can be
Page 6 of 9
limiting in that it generally funds Massport facilities, which do not constitute the entire
port area.
The FHWA/MassDOT Surface Transportation funding is structured to include FHWA,
MassDOT and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). This funding is often
directed towards helping downtown areas, and all five communities have a downtown in
close proximity to the port. Sample port area projects funded by FHWA/MassDOT
Surface Transportation include Chelsea Street Bridge (Boston), Route 79/Braga Bridge
Improvements project (Fall River), Annisquam River Bridge (Gloucester), Route 6 Bridge
Preservation (New Bedford) and Route 1A Bridge Street and Bypass (Salem).
TIGER grants are the most competitive and many worthy projects don’t receive funding
because the volume of requests greatly outweighs available funding. TIGER funded
projects include federally-eligible highway or bridge, port infrastructure and freight and
rail. Mr. Raine noted that port projects have fared well, noting 26 port related awards in
TIGER I-IV and 7 of the 52 in the latest TIGER V round.
Specialized federal programs fund projects such as harbor maintenance, security and
infrastructure programs around port locations. Example programs include Water
Resources Development Act (US ACE), Ferry Boats and Facilities (US DOT), Port
Security Grant Program (Homeland Security), Small Shipyard Program (MARAD) and
Clean Diesel Program (EPA). All Compact ports have benefitted from these sources in
the past.
Mr. Raine described two other key funding concepts in the infrastructure debt finance
and business development areas. Infrastructure debt finance includes the US DOT TIFIA
Credit Program, which are direct loans at low rates with favorable terms. Debt finance
can also be achieved using state value capture mechanisms using bond finances via
District Infrastructure Finance (“DIF”), Local Infrastructure Development Program
(“LIDP”) and Infrastructure Investment Incentive (“I-Cubed”) programs.
The business development component involves MassDevelopment which includes
finance and technical assistance that help to leverage private investment; MA Clean
Energy Center Offshore Wind program; and federal programs which focus on private
stakeholders providing capital for infrastructure, equipment and research and
development. Mr. Raine said these programs have mutually beneficial uses and fund
complicated downtown waterfront projects.
Comment/Input
Mr. Ciborowski invited the Compact members to comment on the information presented;
specifically noting areas that need more focus or aren’t relevant and can be omitted.
Page 7 of 9
Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk commended the team’s progress on the strategic plan,
which has evolved from a transportation and air quality focus to a broader ocean
economy and economic development focus. Mayor Kirk asked if the report would
recommend DPA ownership and control or local/municipality control. She recognized it
may be premature to make a recommendation, but asked about early thoughts. Mr.
Ciborowski said although there is a desire to make regulations that are consistent from
the state perspective, he recognizes there is a challenge in making general
recommendations because each port is unique. The project team has not reached a
recommendation on their approach, and he invited Compact members to weigh in.
Mayor Kirk said guiding principles rather than strict regulations would be more effective;
an example of this is the Ocean Plan, which uses a set of principles that guide regulatory
policy development. Mayor Kirk said she would like the see the Ports Strategic Plan
tailored to municipal policies rather than another layer of strict regulations similar to
those of DEP. Mr. Duncan said the team recognizes the differences and similarities
between each port and the report will propose recommendations that both provide
comprehensive (statewide) and individual recommendations (port specific) depending on
the need. Discussion about future ownership and how it affects each port will also be
addressed by the recommendations.
Secretary Davey said the report should offer broad principles with options of
recommendations that are on the table for discussion, including updating the current
legislation.
Mr. Fiola said current Chapter 91 regulations related to filled tidelands, which require all
development on the waterfront to be water dependent, are very constraining. Chapter 91
already provides protection to ports without the DPA overlay. Mr. Fiola said each port
community should identify their unique port challenges and get this information well
documented. An example of a port constraint in Fall River is that the City doesn’t have
the upland support services for a deep water port (container storage). Mr. Ciborowski
said identifying unique port challenges is an essential element of the report.
Secretary Davey suggested the potential of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) as a
funding source. He said that although the concept is in its infancy in Massachusetts,
ports around the nation and worldwide use PPP as a funding strategy. The PPP
Commission should be engaged.
Ed Washburn, Port of New Bedford, said the Seaport Council has been instrumental in
providing Seaport Bond grants for a state match as part of financing strategies.
Next Steps
Mr. Ciborowski said the next steps are to finalize Tech Memos 4 and 6, and comments
can be submitted until September 23. Mr. Ciborowski said comments on Tech Memos 1,
Page 8 of 9
2 and 3 received at and after the last Compact meeting have been reviewed and
incorporated in the report where appropriate, and the memos will be published and
posted within the next two weeks. The team will develop preliminary recommendations
and discuss and confirm the recommendations with the Compact members and other
key stakeholders. These meetings will occur in October and November, followed by
three public meetings proposed to be held November prior to finalizing the report.
There were no further comments, and Secretary Davey thanked the participants and
closed the meeting at 11:05 AM.
Page 9 of 9