MINUTES
MASSACHUSETTS PORTS COMPACT MEETING #2
SUBJECT:
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
LOCATION:
State Pier, New Bedford
DATE/TIME:
April 30, 2013, 1:00 – 2:30 PM
COMPACT MEMBERS: Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray
Senator Thomas McGee, Chairman, Joint Committee on
Transportation
Secretary Richard Davey, MassDOT
Secretary Richard Sullivan, EEA
Mayor Jonathan Mitchell, City of New Bedford
Mayor Carolyn Kirk, City of Gloucester
Chris Busch, Representing Boston Mayor Thomas Menino
Deb Hadden, Representing Massport CEO & Executive
Director Thomas Glynn
Kathy Winn, Representing Salem Mayor Kimberley Driscoll
Ken Fiola, Representing Fall River Mayor William
Flanagan
PUBLIC ATTENDEES: Approximately 15 members of the public attended
PROJECT TEAM:
Matthew Ciborowski, MassDOT Project Manager
Jay Duncan, AECOM
Al Raine, AECOM
Andrew Cairns, AECOM
Frank Mahady, FXM Associates
Jack Wiggin, UMass Boston Urban Harbors Institute
Allison Novelly, UMass Boston Urban Harbors Institute
David Vine, GZA GeoEnvironmental
Kate Barrett, Regina Villa Associates
PURPOSE/SUBJECT: To present an overview and gather input on the strategic
plan scope of work
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
Introductions
Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray opened the meeting at 1:00 PM and welcomed
Compact members and the public. He noted that of all the transportation infrastructure
modes, Massachusetts ports are the most historic. New Bedford was known for whaling,
Gloucester for fishing and Salem and Boston for trade. There are a number of
challenges facing the ports today: more stringent fishing regulations, the widening of the
Panama Canal and associated short sea shipping, and the closure of Salem Station are
all impacting the ports. The Patrick-Murray Administration asked the Massachusetts
Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to prepare a strategic plan to address the
challenges and plan for the future. He noted that all of the Compact participants are
strong advocates of identifying ways to maximize use of port infrastructure to maximize
support for our maritime resources and promote economic development. Lieutenant
Governor Murray said the purpose of the meeting was to hear a presentation by the
MassDOT team that was selected by the five port communities. He first asked Mayor
Mitchell to say a few words.
Mayor Mitchell thanked Lieutenant Governor Murray and welcomed participants. He
noted the many ways that the state is helping New Bedford. Secretary Sullivan is
providing state support to turn the Haskell property that is currently a nursery into a
public park. Secretary Davey is supporting investments in rail infrastructure in the city.
The administration recognizes that the city is a place to grow jobs and has value that
needs to be activated. These and other initiatives demonstrate its commitment to
economic development. New Bedford has many assets including the industrial area on
Route 18, rail access and fishing. He is working to develop the port facilities to support
the offshore wind industry. He appreciates Lieutenant Governor Murray’s interest in
helping and his experience as a former mayor and with rail and ports. Mayor Mitchell
thanked Secretary Davey for spearheading the ports initiative, which is a collaborative
effort that benefits from his attention. He also thanked Secretary Sullivan for supporting
the city in preserving public spaces and in making it a premier offshore wind industry
port. Mayor Mitchell noted that Senator McGee and Representative Straus have been
instrumental in growing rail and port infrastructure investment, and he appreciates their
leadership. Mayor Mitchell welcomed Mayor Kirk and noted her support of the fishing
industry. He added that Representative Markey also recognizes the many assets of the
city.
Mayor Mitchell reported on a recent trip to Germany. A delegation of 32 participated from
New Bedford and elsewhere, including city officials such as the economic development
and port directors, and representatives from the state’s clean energy center. The city
wants to build a $100 million port facility to stage the Cape Wind construction. He said
the delegation toured two cities to look at how they incorporated wind energy into
Page 2 of 9
economic development. The cities had 25 percent unemployment, but are now in the
single digits. New Bedford can experience similar growth with planning and
infrastructure. Service industries that support wind energy have great potential and there
is a palpable vibrancy. He noted that 25 percent of the nation’s wind resources are off
Martha’s Vineyard. Public/private partnerships, regulations and tax incentives will help
develop a multifaceted port. It is already home to the number one fishing fleet in the
nation, due in part to the healthy scallop fishery, and cargo is expanding. The New
Bedford waterfront also has many recreational opportunities. For instance, it is in the top
15 yachting destinations. Mayor Mitchell said he appreciates the state’s support, which is
good for all ports.
Presentation
Lieutenant Governor Murray introduced MassDOT’s project manager for the strategic
plan, Matthew Ciborowski. Mr. Ciborowski thanked Lieutenant Governor Murray and
other Compact members, and Mayor Mitchell for hosting the meeting.
Mr. Ciborowski said the purpose of the meeting is to summarize the Compact process,
introduce the MassDOT strategic plan team, summarize the strategic plan process,
obtain Compact and public input and define next steps. The ports are key to economic
development. The strategic plan will define individual port strengths and niches and
identify opportunities to sustain and strengthen their vibrancy. It will look at the ports
individually, and as a cohesive group. The result will be a plan that identifies targeted
and sensible investments. It is not a zero-sum game, but rather a question of collective
investments. The goal is not to eliminate competition, but to increase the
competitiveness of Massachusetts with collaboration and cooperation.
Mr. Ciborowski described the key tasks of the Compact. Qualitative and anecdotal
information will be used to identify the importance of the ports to economic viability. The
Compact will connect the functions of the ports to environmental issues, tourism and
jobs and develop a comprehensive mission for them. A key deliverable of the Compact
is the strategic plan. Mr. Ciborowski displayed a slide showing the strategic plan team
members, a skilled and experienced team chosen by the Compact communities.
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning is the overall project manager. AECOM is
the consultant project manager focusing on cargo, economics and financing. GZA
GeoEnvironmental will focus on infrastructure, FXM Associates on economics, UMass
Boston Urban Harbors Institute on fisheries, KCUS/Portia Management on cargo and
Regina Villa Associates on public involvement.
Mr. Ciborowski explained the strategic plan scope of work. The team will review
background data. It will develop evaluation criteria, infrastructure and operations
inventories (marine and landside) and a cargo/use inventory. The team will look at
maritime trade and nationwide and industry wide trends, such as short sea shipping.
Page 3 of 9
These tasks will support an analysis of the Compact port system. The team will identify
financing options and develop recommendations and a report with the Compact’s
assistance. Mr. Ciborowski noted that the ports strategic plan initiative is similar to the
Beyond Boston study completed last year, which helped position 15 Regional Transit
Authorities to advocate for themselves more effectively.
Mr. Ciborowski displayed a slide illustrating the strategic plan process. The inputs will be
information collected in meetings with port staff and businesses that want access to the
ports, a needs assessment and analysis of market opportunities. Metrics for the
evaluation will include elements such as jobs and earnings by industry, support of
existing industry, diversifying into new industries, environmental compatibility, timing of
benefits, safety, compatibility with local plans and vision and budgets. The result will be
a plan that fulfills the mandate to develop a strategy and solicit feedback, supports
Compact planning and decision making, provides information to the public and key
stakeholders and reduces uncertainty for the private sector on the direction for the ports.
The team will develop a plan that has tangible, actionable steps that doesn’t sit on a
shelf.
Mr. Ciborowski reviewed the seven plan deliverables and the proposed schedule for
each. The first step is to determine how to evaluate judgments and identify what is in
each port and what each port is doing. Evaluation criteria will be developed in May
(deliverable 1) and the inventory of maritime port infrastructure and operations
(deliverable 2) will be completed in June. Financing options (deliverable 3) will be
completed in June, but work to identify additional options will continue throughout the
plan process. Identification of maritime transportation trends (deliverable 4) and an
analysis of the Compact ports system (deliverable 5) will be completed in July.
Recommendations with action steps (deliverable 6) will be completed in August and the
final report (deliverable 7) released in October.
Mr. Ciborowski reviewed the public participation program plan. Four
stakeholder/Compact meetings are planned – a kick off (this meeting); to present
deliverables one through four; to present deliverables five through seven; and to present
the final report. The second meeting will be in late June (in Gloucester) and the third in
late August (in Fall River) and are planned as Compact meetings. The fourth public
meeting will be in September (in Boston) to present the recommendations, prior to
completing the report. Secretary Davey asked if the intent is to present or listen at the
public meeting. Mr. Ciborowski said the draft document will be available before the
meeting. An overview of the document will be presented and feedback solicited.
Secretary Davey suggested that the three remaining public meetings be held in Boston,
the South Shore and North Shore in order to provide a good geographic balance.
Mr. Ciborowski reviewed next steps. Ongoing activities include port meetings,
infrastructure inventory and financial analysis. Deliverables one through four include
Page 4 of 9
developing the evaluation criteria and reporting on the infrastructure inventory, maritime
transportation trends and port systems analysis. The next meeting will report on the
results of these activities.
Key discussion points for today’s meeting are the evaluation criteria, key issues at each
port and study area boundaries (a critical decision). He asked the Compact members if
the meeting schedule and deliverable review seem realistic. He asked if they would like
to receive the chapters as they are ready or all at once. Mayor Kirk requested to receive
them as they are ready. She also requested they be sent enough in advance to provide
time to review before the meetings. She suggested a week or two in advance. Mr.
Ciborowski added that the draft documents will be posted on the website for public
review after one round of internal reviews had been completed.
Mr. Ciborowski explained that the evaluation criteria will help evaluate investments by
determining how they are compared and judged. He reviewed a draft set of criteria the
team had identified and asked for Compact members’ thoughts. The draft criteria
include:













Travel time
Rail connectivity
Highway connectivity
Right-of-way impacts
Consistency with community plans
Capital costs
Environmental impacts
Socioeconomic impacts
Preserve existing capability/strengths
Create economic opportunity
Build on other investments
Be a good neighbor
Seek the highest return on investment
Lieutenant Governor Murray suggested adding jobs as part of the creating economic
opportunity criteria. It is essential to making strategic investments. Secretary Sullivan
suggested adding tourism. Mayor Kirk suggested including cross-connectivity between
the port systems. For instance, some ports provide back-up services to other ports. An
example is when the Gloucester US Coast Guard station responds to incidents in
Boston, if Boston’s station is busy elsewhere, or when a wind turbine is delivered to
Gloucester because it cannot be trucked into another community. Another example is
when large ships are in Boston and smaller vessels dock in the other ports because
there isn’t enough space for them in Boston. Chris Busch suggested adding vulnerability
to sea level rise and climate change. Deb Hadden suggested looking at the strength of
existing businesses and their ability to grow. Are they on the decline or upswing? Ability
Page 5 of 9
to compete with ports outside of Massachusetts is also important. Lieutenant Governor
Murray added that preserving and promoting individual and collective capabilities and
strengths is important. Should the ports be branded individually or collectively for tourism
and marketing budgets and campaigns? Ken Fiola said regulations should be looked at.
Some designated port areas (DPAs) are still relevant, but others hinder economic
development. Secretary Davey agreed that regulations should be looked at. The
relationship between port owners, operators and MassDOT should also be considered.
He urged the team to look at opportunities for the ports strategic plan to intersect with
Massport’s current strategic planning process and with financing and the Public/Private
Partnership Commission’s work. Global markets should be looked at, such as the
Panama Canal and Europe and Asia, so investments are resilient and can react to
global changes. Markets should be anticipated for the next 10 to 15 years with the goal
to promote and preserve the state’s ports. Mayor Mitchell suggested looking at port
governing capacity for market development and potential. He noted the different
structures in New Bedford (Harbor Development Commission) and Boston (Massport).
Senator McGee added that connection by water to the ports should be considered, not
just rail and highway. Louis Elisa, Seaport Advisory Council, suggested looking at capital
costs and environmental impacts of deep draft vessels. Panamax ships will require more
demand for dredging and there will be bridge impacts. New York, Delaware and
Pennsylvania have started to address this issue. It will be necessary in Fall River, New
Bedford and Boston.
Mr. Ciborowski thanked the group for their input. He said the team will take the
suggestions made today and will report on how they have been implemented in
modifying the evaluation criteria. He asked Jay Duncan, Team Project Manager, to lead
the discussion of key port issues and boundaries.
Mr. Duncan noted that what the team was looking for was some input similar to that
offered by Mayor Mitchell in his opening remarks. Namely, what the Compact members
feel are the assets of each port, the issues facing each and what they envision the future
to be at each. Three areas that the team is seeking input on are evaluation criteria, key
issues and study area boundaries. As for the study area boundaries, the team is starting
with the DPAs, but would like Compact feedback on whether they should be expanded
at specific locations. He said that the team will be meeting with officials at each port to
obtain more detailed information, so just a high level summary would be good to hear at
today’s meeting. He mentioned that the team had already met with Gloucester officials
the prior day.
Gloucester
Mayor Kirk said it’s important to recognize the assets of the area north of Boston. There
are really two different coasts. Gloucester has strategic access to the Gulf of Maine and
competes with New Hampshire and Maine. It’s important to drive jobs and investment
Page 6 of 9
into Massachusetts from these areas. Marine science and technology are an opportunity
for the area north of Boston. Gloucester is second to Boston in investments of this type.
It’s number two in number of patents, with private investment and innovation. This sector
is a rich area of opportunity. Gloucester is accessible by land and sea. The science and
technology sector is compatible with fishing and offers an opportunity to diversify. Mayor
Kirk agreed that the DPAs should be looked at. They were established in the 1970s and
may no longer be relevant. The strategic plan should not be restricted to the DPAs. She
noted that the Annisquam River has potential but access is restricted by the drawbridge.
The US Coast Guard in Gloucester can’t provide back-up assistance to Newburyport
because it would have to go around Cape Ann rather than via the river. As she pointed
out earlier, the interconnections are important such as offloading turbines and US Coast
Guard patrols. She added that the Salem Ferry hauls out in Gloucester. She suggested
the study area also be extended to Commercial Street on the south.
Secretary Sullivan noted that there may be resources available within the Secretariats to
assist ports, which are not apparent. For instance, fisheries disaster relief could be used
for science and innovation of the type mentioned by Mayor Kirk.
Boston
Chris Busch, City of Boston, said container shipping and the cruiseport are important to
Boston, as is fuel and LNG shipping. The harbor also has many recreational and public
resources. The mayor established an innovation district in South Boston. The Marine
Industrial Park is an innovation model for manufacturing, commercial, industrial and
shore side leases. There are some infrastructure challenges. The DPA is an issue for
Boston, limiting development opportunities.
Deb Hadden, Massport, said that there are operators beyond Massport in Boston
Harbor, such as private terminals. A key challenge is Conley Terminal. It receives about
200,000 containers a year, but that is a small number when compared to other ports.
Massport wants to increase the volume of containers and the number of jobs. Container
shipping is hard to break into. Ships calling are getting larger. There are three trade
lanes serving Boston – northern Europe, the Mediterranean and the Far East. Ships
from the Far East can transit either the Panama Canal or the Suez Canal to reach
Boston. She noted that after 13 years of effort, the Army Corps of Engineers has
approved the project to evaluate dredging Boston Harbor to handle deep drafts of 47
feet in the inner harbor and 51 feet in the outer harbor to handle Panamax ships. The
estimated project cost is $300 million. Only half the cost will be paid by the federal
government, so funding must be secured from other sources to pay for the remainder.
Massport will also need to build larger cranes that can reach higher and further out to
load/offload containers on the bigger ships. Financing for these improvements is key.
The cruise side of the port is a success story for Massport. It is also picking up in other
ports in the state for day tours or ship calls. The challenge on the cruise side is that a
Page 7 of 9
second cruise terminal is needed. One terminal cannot process passengers from two
ships. The Boston fishing industry is smaller than the other ports, but there are
connections among the ports and Massport benefits from Gloucester and New Bedford
fleets. The boats from these ports also visit Boston. She reported that the bulk terminals
are privately managed. Wind turbine testing, new and used automobile distribution and
road salt and granite storage also take place on Massport property. The DPA helps
Massport protect its interests and property uses. No modification of the study area
boundaries were suggested for Boston.
Fall River
Ken Fiola, City of Fall River Office of Economic Development, said the city wants to use
the waterfront for non-water dependent uses, so the DPA is a problem. Its port is not of
the industrial scale that the others are and it would like flexibility to include recreation
and entertainment businesses in addition to water dependent ones such as cruise. The
DPA regulations were implemented with the promise of state and federal investment,
which hasn’t occurred. Fall River’s port is 17 miles from the ocean. He said a one size
fits all approach will not work for the ports. Chapter 91 is a challenge and Fall River
competes with Providence and Newport, which don’t have the same regulatory
challenges in using their waterfront. The city would like to have restaurants on the
waterfront but filled tidelands can’t be used and the DPA prevents it. Fall River could be
a recreational port with landside development. He said there is no sense in maintaining
the DPA if it’s not productive in terms of quality of life and jobs. No change of the study
area was suggested.
Salem
Kathy Winn, City of Salem, said that Salem has been focusing on water transportation
and the Salem Ferry has been a success story, but there are challenges such as
financial constraints. The city would like to make water connections to other areas such
as Lynn and South Boston to create a robust system. The city is dealing with the
challenge of the build out of the power plant site. There is a deep water dock at the
power plant and a public/private partnership would help spur development. No change of
the study area was suggested.
New Bedford
Mayor Mitchell elaborated on his earlier comments. The focus should be on what ports
do well, and do a lot. New Bedford’s fishing fleet is number one in the nation in value of
landings. Alaska is second, but its catch is half the value. New Bedford will be an
offshore wind port. It’s a recreational port with Pope’s Island, provides ferry service and
is home to shipbuilding on the Fairhaven side. Loosening up the DPA will help
communities connect residents to the waterfront by providing public access. There
Page 8 of 9
should be a balance of retail, marine and industrial uses, but uses are complicated by
Chapter 91 and the DPA. He said specialization won’t work for New Bedford. The city’s
port is multifaceted and specialization isn’t necessary to grow. Extending rail to the
South Terminal and pier infrastructure upgrades are necessary.
Jeff Stieb, New Bedford Harbor Development Commission, asked the team to extend the
study boundary to look at the potential of the Hicks Sawyer area north of the DPA.
Louis Elisa, Seaport Advisory Council, said the team should focus on intermodal access
and integration, because the US EPA’s new truck regulations may become a problem
that integration can overcome.
Mr. Ciborowski thanked the Compact members and public for their helpful input. He
noted that the PowerPoint presentation will be posted on the Compact website.
Secretary Davey closed the meeting, thanking the participants. He said the schedule is
helpful with the public meeting planning. He realizes that MassDOT is expecting a lot
from Compact members in a short timeframe and he appreciates their input greatly.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 PM.
Page 9 of 9