MINUTES
MASSACHUSETTS PORTS COMPACT MEETING #3
SUBJECT:
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
LOCATION:
Cruiseport, Gloucester
DATE/TIME:
July 10, 2013, 1:00 – 2:30 PM
COMPACT MEMBERS: Secretary Richard Davey, MassDOT
Senator Thomas McGee, Chairman, Joint Committee on
Transportation
Mayor Carolyn Kirk, City of Gloucester
Mayor Kimberley Driscoll, City of Salem
Jeff Stieb, Representing New Bedford Mayor Jonathan
Mitchell
Deb Hadden, Representing Massport CEO & Executive
Director Thomas Glynn
Ken Fiola, Representing Fall River Mayor William
Flanagan
OTHER ATTENDEES: Colleen Gorman, Voice of the Port
Damon Cummings
Ed Washburn, Port of New Bedford
Kathryn Glenn, MA CZM
Kathy Winn, City of Salem
Lisa Garland, Gloucester
Marcia Hart, Citizen
Melissa Abbott, Cruiseport Gloucester
Mike Driscoll, DCR - Waterway
Patti Page, City of Gloucester Waterways Board
Peter Parsons - LICSW
Louis Elisa, Seaport Advisory Council
Rich Hersey, GIF CDC
Saul Garcia, City of Gloucester
Steven Smalley, Senator McGee’s Office
Valerie Nelson, Gloucester Resident
PROJECT TEAM:
Matthew Ciborowski, MassDOT Project Manager
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
David Mohler, MassDOT
Jay Duncan, AECOM Project Manager
Andrew Cairns, AECOM
Cheryl Coviello, GZA
Jack Wiggin, UMass Boston Urban Harbors Institute
Kate Barrett, Regina Villa Associates
Kerri Chace, Regina Villa Associates
PURPOSE/SUBJECT: Summarize work completed since the last meeting and
obtain feedback on the evaluation criteria/ratings, existing
conditions and market trends deliverables.
Introductions
MassDOT Secretary Richard Davey opened the meeting at 1:00 PM and welcomed
Compact members and the public. Secretary Davey is now Chair of the Compact,
succeeding former Chair Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray. Mr. Davey thanked
Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk for hosting the meeting. Ms. Kirk welcomed the Compact
members, public, and study team to Gloucester, and gave a brief background on the
Cruiseport building. She said the Cruiseport facility is part of the City’s vision for a
mixed-use port and economic development vision stemming from port operations. She
said that Gloucester is home to several fishing vessels and the port holds a Homeland
Security Certificate, allowing international cruise vessels to dock in the port. Mayor Kirk
noted the three new wind turbines in Gloucester located off Route 128; and said the goal
of the port is to find new ways to support a robust and modern economy while preserving
the core economy.
Presentation
Secretary Davey introduced MassDOT’s project manager for the strategic plan, Matthew
Ciborowski. Mr. Ciborowski welcomed the Compact members and the public, and said
three deliverables have been sent to Compact members for review. They include Tech
Memo 1 (Evaluation Criteria), Tech Memo 2 (Existing Conditions) and Tech Memo 3
(Trends).
Mr. Ciborowski said the purpose of the meeting is the summarize work that has been
completed since the last Compact meeting, obtain concurrence on evaluation
criteria/ratings, obtain feedback on existing conditions, summarize trends, obtain public
input and discuss the next steps. The Evaluation Criteria memo outlines the process that
will be used to screen and rate proposed recommendations to be developed; the
Existing Conditions memo identifies the existing status/physical conditions and economic
facilities at each port; and the Market Trends memo takes a global, national and local
look at past and predicted trends for the areas evaluated in the Strategic Plan. Mr.
Page 2 of 10
Ciborowski said comments on these draft technical memos can be submitted today
during the meeting or in writing by July 24. After the comments have been reviewed and
incorporated into the reports, the final memorandums will be posted to the MassDOT
website.
Preliminary Evaluation Criteria
Mr. Ciborowski said the preliminary Evaluation Criteria included the following factors:
travel time, rail connectivity, highway connectivity, ROW impacts, consistency with plans,
capital costs, environmental impacts, socioeconomic impacts, preserve existing
capabilities/strengths, create economic opportunities/strengths, build on other
investments, be a good neighbor and seek the highest return on investments.
Since the last meeting, the Evaluation Criteria has been expanded and organized into
five categories. Mr. Ciborowski said he is seeking feedback about the Evaluation Criteria
(Tech Memo 1) in the following capacities: are these appropriate items to evaluate, are
some more important than others and therefore should be weighted/scored more
heavily.
Evaluation Criteria – Tech Memo 1
Mr. Ciborowski outlined the five categories the Evaluation Criteria has been organized
into. They include operational (efficiency, capacity, road & rail connections); economic
(maritime jobs, regional jobs, new industry); land use (consistency with plans and
investments, ROW, DPA); environmental (impacts, ease or complexity of permitting);
and financial (capital cost, payback period, prospects for federal or P3, availability of
O&M funding). For each of the five categories, the sub-elements are evaluated based on
a 0-2 score. (For more detailed information about the evaluation criteria, please view
slides 7-11 of the presentation.) Tech Memo 1 provides preliminary ratings for each
category, and Mr. Ciborowski described each category and asked for feedback on the
criteria/ratings.
Mr. Elisa asked what type of feedback Mr. Ciborowski is seeking. Mr. Ciborowski said
the team is seeking feedback about any missing or unnecessary items, the scoring
system and whether some items should be weighted more heavily than others.
Operational
Mr. Elisa said the upland and immediate laydown areas at the ports and linkage between
the laydown area and the port itself should be considered.
Mayor Driscoll said connectivity should not be limited to highway and rail only, and sea
to sea connections ought to be considered in the criteria. Mayor Kirk echoed this
Page 3 of 10
feedback, and said the new maritime economy has much broader operations offshore,
including the relocation of several fish processing centers.
Mr. Elisa said MassDOT issued a report on intermodal transportation, highlighting the
need to minimize impacts to the environment and ship more goods by water.
Ms. Hadden said the word “capacity” does not reflect appropriately what it is being
evaluated here and should be changed to the volumes of cargo, fish and passengers
and how much the ports are currently handling.
Mayor Driscoll said the connectivity piece should be given some more thought, and the
“why” question should be incorporated into the evaluation process. Mr. Ciborowski said
the criteria will be weighed against each other to prioritize the final recommendations.
Mayor Driscoll asked if economic, jobs and internal investments will be evaluated. Mr.
Ciborowski responded that all those elements are included, and continued to explain the
proposed evaluation criteria.
Economic
Mayor Driscoll asked if “new industry” included opportunity at the port itself or a new
product. Mr. Ciborowski said probably both, and that “new industry” is intended to
evaluate port operations bringing new business to Massachusetts.
Mayor Kirk said Gloucester will submit written comments to the project team, but wanted
to highlight the importance of retaining port jobs to create a sustainable system, while
protecting and growing the existing economy.
Mr. Fiola asked how underperforming ports would be scored. For example, if the
community has alternative plans for the land (rather than port operations), how would
this be scored? Mr. Ciborowski said the evaluation should look broadly at the economy
of the entire City, not just the port. Secretary Davey said the purpose is to broaden the
job market, not just maritime specific jobs.
Mr. Elisa said it should be noted how the port supports itself. For example, Southeastern
Massachusetts has a tremendous opportunity. New Bedford has tremendous potential
for growth in new markets in the Northeast region and is currently working on a longrange plan. Mr. Elisa added that making improvements to transport goods closer to their
markets is critical. Mr. Ciborowski said hyper-local, city and regional connections to
markets for goods needs to improve, and the evaluation criteria should help address it.
The group discussed evaluating jobs on a variety of levels – port, city, and region – and
the importance of balance in considering transition ports versus newer ports.
Page 4 of 10
Land Use
Mr. Stieb said a bullet about individual Harbor Plans should be added to “Consistency
with Transportation Plans.” Mr. Fiola said not every community has an approved Harbor
Plan. Mr. Ciborowski said the category will be expanded to include plans from individual
communities, as appropriate.
Mr. Stieb said investments to highway systems located near ports should be considered
under the “Leveraging Other Major Investments” criteria.
Mayor Driscoll said the Designated Port / Chapter 91 category appears more regulatory
than DPA-compliant, and asked how the permitting issue would be evaluated. Secretary
Davey said the evaluation assumes the DPA appropriate. Mayor Kirk echoed the
permitting evaluation concerns, and said more general language would be helpful,
especially with the modernization of technology and evolution of port activities beyond
maritime/industrial relationships.
Mr. Elisa urged the project team to meet with the Department of Conservation and
Recreation (DCR) for their perspective on future use and growth at the state piers. Mr.
Ciborowski said the project team met with DCR last month to discuss the Plan,
operations at the ports they are engaged with and DCR’s involvement in this process.
The group discussed that the team should be cautious on how impacts to other ports are
graded, consider compatibility and that ports serve as back up for each other, that the
state shouldn’t look at funding as zero-sum but rather encourage competition, and areas
of opportunity and cooperation should be identified.
Environmental
The group discussed the importance of considering residential areas under the
“Community” category, as well as Environmental Justice populations.
Secretary Davey said “Approval and Permitting” should be omitted from the Evaluation
Criteria. He said although smaller projects are positive for budget and cash flow,
evaluating a project based on permitting complexities could hinder complicated but
beneficial projects. Secretary Davey recommended evolving this criterion into an
implementation plan theme.
Mayor Kirk said the language used throughout the Evaluation Criteria is biased towards
land transportation infrastructure, and suggested broadening definitions to include
reverse transportation from ports out to the ocean instead of ports onto land based
infrastructure. She urged the project team to think “ecosystem” wide – broadening the
investments around maritime potential. Impacts beyond traditional air, water and land
should also be considered.
Page 5 of 10
Financial
Secretary Davey discussed the “Magnitude of Capital Cost” category. He said it is critical
to be mindful of the issue or lack of budget, but it should not be at the forefront of the
Evaluation Criteria, and recommended eliminating the category. He noted that the
grading favors large magnitude projects and ignores projects that might have a small
budget that could achieve big gains.
Mayor Kirk said other operations that may not occur at the port itself but are beneficial to
the port should be considered in the criteria (including water and sewer, seawall
construction and dredging). Mayor Kirk said these types of beneficial but not portspecific elements often slip through the cracks, and are common in wastewater systems.
Mayor Kirk said other indirect investments that may not create jobs, but could facilitate
development should also be evaluated as an opportunity.
Mayor Driscoll questioned the costs associated with not investing in ports and said that
could be a reason to recognize the real value of investment at these locations.
Mayor Driscoll recognized some element of competition among ports, but questioned
what type of investments could have positive impacts at other ports. Mr. Ciborowski
agreed and cited as an example the Salem and Gloucester partnership, whereby the
Salem Ferry is maintained and repaired in Gloucester. He said secondary impacts will
be an important factor in this study. Secretary Davey said the state is not interested in
making significant investments with zero gain for the Commonwealth as a whole; and
noted it will be important to balance the inherit competiveness and similarities.
There was a discussion about the importance of cooperative opportunity and
improvements to the statewide ports system.
Mr. Ciborowski asked the Compact members if “Prospects for Federal Funding” should
be removed from the criteria after the discussion about eliminating the funding criteria.
Secretary Davey said the funding criteria should be collapsed into one category and the
likelihood of funding through all vehicles evaluated, and noted the importance of
public/private partnerships to the state.
Mr. Stieb asked how these criteria will be calculated. Mr. Ciborowski said they will be
proxies for evaluation criteria previously developed by MassDOT. Secretary Davey said
the evaluation should focus on the overall benefit to the community, not specifically the
bottom line, adding that investments for the community are critical. Tax base, job
creation and tourism are important to consider when evaluating.
Page 6 of 10
Existing Conditions – Tech Memo 2
Jay Duncan, Team Project Manager, presented Tech Memo 2 (Existing Conditions). Mr.
Duncan said the 100 plus page report has been distributed to the Compact members,
and he requested that members review the information and submit comments. The
overview of the ports includes the study area; location and access; organization and
management; and issues and opportunities. The analysis of port activities includes cargo
transport; passenger transport; and commercial fishing and seafood.
Mr. Duncan showed a map of each port and identified areas where the study area was
expanded beyond the DPA boundary (based on individual port community feedback)
and briefly identified the strengths of each port. The Boston study area has been
expanded to include the downtown ferry terminals. The strengths are cargo (multiple
types: container, fuel, automobiles, bulk), passenger (cruise, ferry, excursion), fishing
and seafood. The Fall River study area now includes the Marina and the Heritage State
Park and Central Waterfront. The strengths are cargo (fuel) and tourism (with potential
for passenger transport). The Gloucester study area now includes the Annisquam River,
Blynman Canal and Drawbridge, Stacey Boulevard, the seaward side of Commercial
Street and Marine Sciences Facility. The strengths include fishing and seafood,
passenger (excursion, cruise potential), and embracing the new maritime economy. The
New Bedford study area has been expanded to include the Hicks-Logan-Sawyer Master
Plan area, Pope’s Island and Route 6 Bridge and the South Terminal support parcels.
The strengths are passenger (ferry, excursion, cruise potential) and cargo (fuel). The
Salem study area now includes South River Basin and SESD Treatment Plant. The
strengths are passenger (ferry, excursion, cruise potential) and cargo (fuel).
Ms. Hadden said rail access within Boston (in South Boston and Charlestown) is a
potential that has not yet been realized. Although there are rail lines, they are not active.
Ms. Hadden said she recently attended a meeting with Chelsea Creek terminal
representatives, who are concerned because larger vessels cannot travel into the Creek.
The terminals are not part of Massport. This should be included in the report, since it is
in Boston’s DPA and should be in the study area.
Mr. Elisa said Fall River’s strength should include the import/exports to the Azores and
Cape Verde. He pointed out that Fall River does not have a Port Master Plan. He also
suggested adding shipping to Mexico and Latin America to New Bedford’s strengths.
Mayor Driscoll said commonalities among the ports should be identified to create greater
shared opportunities to benefit everyone. She said an example of a potential
commonality is the cruise industry. An extensive marketing campaign could create a
stronger industry for the state. Marketing and infrastructure investments can benefit
areas outside a port. The North End in Boston is an example. She pointed out that
Maine and Canada are growing cruise markets. Lastly, Mayor Driscoll said themes that
Page 7 of 10
support shared commonalities will be important in this process. Mr. Duncan added that
the cruise industry is growing worldwide, despite recent poor economic conditions.
Trends – Tech Memo 3
Mr. Duncan presented Tech Memo 3 (Trends). He said the memo addressed the
growing global, national and local trends for cargo freight, commercial fishing and
waterborne passenger transportation. Other trends to consider are wind power and
climate change.
Cargo Freight
Mr. Duncan described the trends of cargo freight. By 2040, U.S. cargo volumes will
double and container cargo will see the greatest increase; exports will see strong an
increase including elevated trade with India and East Asia; Panama Canal expansion
and expanded Suez traffic will benefit East Coast ports; container shipping will have
opportunities and challenges in Boston; Marine Highway, hub-and-spoke, and short-sea
concepts could benefit a range of ports. Mr. Duncan said the trend shows that East
Coast ports will have more cargo freight over the next few decades; and short sea
shipping, a port-to-port shipping method, poses an opportunity for more business in the
ports. The Jones Act (limiting the number of U.S. ports foreign flagged vessels can travel
to) may be a federal issue in terms of regulatory viability of short sea shipping.
Commercial Fishing
Mr. Duncan said there is a strong demand worldwide in the commercial fishing industry.
Over time, the US demand for commercial fishing will increase, but growth varies
depending on the species. Mr. Duncan said ground fishing is more regulated, therefore
less predictable.
Waterborne Passenger Travel
Mr. Duncan said waterborne passenger travel generally posted gains despite the
economy; more cruise providers are entering the market worldwide; Boston is growing
as a cruise port despite the loss in overall U.S. share; and smaller cruises, excursion
and ferry use are expected to continue growing.
Other Issues
Wind power and climate change are two issues that affect trends. For wind power
issues, Mr. Duncan said New Bedford seeks to become Cape Wind’s new port, and if
successful, there is future potential for an off-shore wind industry; and Gloucester and
Boston see potential in wind power as well. Climate change will require port
infrastructure to address sea level change, and rising water temperatures could shift
some fish stocks to colder water.
Page 8 of 10
Mayor Kirk said Gloucester will submit written comments about the Trends Memo.
Mr. Fiola said Fall River has three seafood processing centers that do not have a direct
connection to the state pier. He said it is common to truck the seafood to alternate
locations considering the high value of waterfront property. Mr. Fiola said analysis of
short sea shipping should be incorporated into cargo freight evaluation. Lastly, he said
the concept and the reality of these types of evaluations often encounter problems at the
implementation stage.
Mr. Elisa said the evaluation should address the impacts on infrastructure, a common
national challenge. He said thinking about how goods are shipped and how larger
vessels can be accommodated in ports is worthwhile, and support at the federal level is
necessary.
Nest Steps
Mr. Ciborowski said the next steps are to finalize deliverables 1, 2 and 3 (Evaluation
Criteria, Existing Conditions and Trends). The team will begin to develop deliverables 4,
5 and 6 (Port System Analysis, Preliminary Recommendations and Financial Analysis).
Mr. Ciborowski said the next Compact meeting will be in Fall River on September 9, with
a time and location will be announced as the date nears. The team will incorporate
today’s feedback and the written comments into the Tech Memos and post the revised
documents on the website. Mr. Ciborowski opened the floor to public comments.
Mayor Driscoll thanked the team for the opportunity to participate in the study, and said
she is looking forward to a targeted strategy to improve the port assets in the region.
Mayor Driscoll said the City of Salem will submit additional written comments.
Valerie Nelson, a Gloucester resident, said she agrees with the Compact members that
the Evaluation Criteria is too transportation focused. It’s not just a transportation issue
and requires holistic thinking. She said the focus should be on building education and
investing in and promoting companies and institutions. She suggested science,
technology and product development, such as nutraceuticals, offer opportunities beyond
seafood. Ms. Nelson said international matters should not crowd out local necessities,
including localized manufacturing and food sources, as the proximity of where goods are
made and consumed is critical and is a current paradigm shift. Ms. Nelson again urged
the team to avoid a transportation focus and be mindful of the local needs. Secretary
Davey thanked Ms. Nelson for her comments, and said transportation will not override
the vision of the ports, and the team will reflect more broadly in the revised Tech Memos.
Secretary Davey said the Compact is comprised of each port’s Mayor for a broader
representation (that is not transportation focused).
An attendee asked if the project team has reviewed the FEMA coastal flood maps to
evaluate the climate change impacts. He said Gloucester is essentially an island with the
Page 9 of 10
only two roads in and out located in low-lying areas. Mr. Ciborowski said the team is
looking at climate change, and will take the maps into account when developing the
recommendations for appropriate investments.
There were no further comments, and Secretary Davey thanked the participants and
closed the meeting at 2:40 PM.
Page 10 of 10