New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge Corridor Study
Public Information Meeting 3 Summary
May 7, 2015
Waypoint Event Center
185 MacArthur Drive
New Bedford, MA
Ethan Britland, Project Manager for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT),
welcomed attendees, provided a brief agenda for the meeting and introduced the study team. He said
the purpose of the meeting is to provide information on the New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge Corridor
Study, and to review the bridge design alternatives that the engineers have been evaluating. The goal of
the meeting was to get public feedback on the bridge alternatives and inform the public of the next
steps, including identification of recommendations for future actions.
John Weston of HDR Inc. gave a background of why the bridge was being studied, including the key
issues and constraints. He discussed bridge reliability, structural soundness, navigational width, vertical
clearance issues, frequency and duration of bridge openings, environmental considerations, as well as
bicycle and pedestrian conditions. While there is great developmental potential for the North Harbor, it
is currently limited by the operational and physical constraints of the bridge. He noted the importance
of the Port of New Bedford and the money that marine commerce generates for the local economy.
John Weston said bridge constraints to the North Harbor limit the utilization of North Basin properties, a
large enclosed EPA facility, marine industrial facilities, and the Designated Port Area. He explained that
the 12 cargo vessels destined to the North Harbor in 2014 resulted in $1.2 to $1.8 million in direct
economic impact. John explained that eliminating the constraint at the bridge could increase the
business to the North Harbor.
Mr. Weston then began a discussion of the six long-term bridge alternatives being considered for the
bridge replacement. These include a Vertical-lift Bridge, a 150 foot Double-leaf Bascule Bridge, a 220
foot Double-leaf Bascule Bridge, a Single-leaf Rolling Bascule Bridge, and a Double-leaf Rolling Bascule
Bridge. There is also a No-Build alternative where the current bridge is repaired in place. All of the six
design alternatives were analyzed based on the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintenance of roadway traffic (road closures);
Maintenance of marine traffic (navigational closures);
Impacts to local businesses;
Aesthetics;
Construction requirements; and
Costs.
An overview was given for all of the bridge alternatives, as well as a section view, plan/profile, and
renderings of what the bridge would look like in place in the harbor in the open position. John said that
it is important to note that all of the alternatives would not produce any significant savings on bridge
delays for vehicular traffic. He explained that it is not the bridge opening itself that causes most of the
1
time delay. Stopping vehicular traffic, bringing the gates down, takes about 7 ½ minutes. Most of the
roadway delay is caused by the time it takes vessels to navigate through the channel. The number of
vessels that pass through the bridge at one time impacts this time greatly.
Mr. Weston went on to explain about the alternatives analysis and evaluation criteria that was looked at
for all of the bridge alternatives. The evaluation criteria included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bridge operations (i.e. vertical clearance, number of openings);
Transportation impacts (i.e. vehicle delays, connectivity);
Safety (i.e. emergency vehicle access, navigation safety);
Economic development (i.e. shipper cost savings);
Environment (i.e. coastal or wetland resource impacts);
Community (i.e. open space or cultural resources impacts); and
Alternative feasibility (i.e. costs, construction duration).
Mr. Weston explained the rating system employed in the matrices which summarizes the results of the
evaluation for all alternatives. He reviewed each of the evaluation criteria matrices and associated
resource mapping for each bridge alternative. All of these evaluation criteria are included in an overall
summary matrix explaining the differences in each alternative.
Mr. Weston introduced Stefanie McQueen of HDR Inc. who explained about the short- and mediumterm alternatives to improve multimodal mobility along the Route 6 corridor. These include corridor
traffic improvements, bicycle/pedestrian improvements, and variable message/ITS message signs. Ms.
McQueen explained that the corridor could realize traffic improvements with future conditions,
especially at the intersection of Kempton St/Mill St/Purchase St, or the “octopus intersection” as it is
known locally. Ms. McQueen also discussed some options for bicycle and pedestrian improvements in
the area of Route 6/MacArthur Drive, including the addition of a pedestrian ramp. Ms. McQueen then
reviewed some of the types of variable message signage that could be employed throughout the bridge
area to help drivers avoid delays.
Mr. Britland concluded the presentation with next steps in the study process. He said the team will
develop final recommendations and share them with the Study Advisory Committee later in May. The
study will issue a final report by the end of June 2015.
Following the meeting presentation, members of the public asked questions and made comments.
Public input is represented below in italics.
As it stands now, is the bridge only open at certain times?
Mr. Weston responded to this question, saying that there is a schedule during the day and some
openings occur on-demand at night. The same person added that it would be ideal if the ships only
came in at night to alleviate traffic issues during the day.
2
Who will pay for the bridge?
Mr. Weston responded that MassDOT will seek funds for the bridge construction. With a major project
such as this, money would be sought from the federal government and is typically not paid for by the
town/city.
With the potential casino coming into the area, that would negatively impact traffic at the bridge.
Mr. Weston acknowledged that this would likely have an effect on traffic congestion.
Why would you create a navigational channel that is wider than the hurricane barrier?
Mr. Weston responded that over the 75-year life of the bridge it is reasonable to consider that changes
to the gate of the hurricane barrier may be made. He added that since the bridge is a long-term
investment we need to consider potential long-term changes. The long-term navigational needs would
be examined in more detail during the design phase.
I am concerned that the sediment, including contaminated soils, will be removed and possibly cause
issues. I am concerned about the Fairhaven Oxford Village near where the CAD cells were developed.
Bigger ships will stir up sediment, which is probably contaminated with PCBs, which could cause a bigger
problem.
Mr. Weston responded that once the project goes into the design and environmental phase these issues
will be investigated through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. During that process
potential impacts of the project, such as those mentioned, are looked at in more detail. John indicated
that there is significant public involvement in the NEPA process, so there will be ample opportunity to
ask more questions and look into that further.
Are the costs you are presenting today’s costs? When it is actually built, will it cost more than it would
today?
Mr. Weston responded that the costs presented are today’s costs, and the cost to build the bridge in the
future would be more as inflation increases costs.
You mentioned a reliability risk with the rolling-type bridges, so is there a high risk of issues? Are there
any data or case studies that suggest anyone builds these types of bridges anymore? Do you know of
anyone building bascule bridges in the last 10 years?
Mr. Weston replied that there are not a lot of the rolling-type bridges built for highways. They were
mostly built for railroads since they are cheaper and faster to build, which means less down-time for the
railroad. But since railroads are private companies and have different operating needs than DOT’s they
have a different long-term view of investing in infrastructure. The team interviewed other states that
have rolling bascule highway bridges about maintenance and other experiences with this bridge type.
Florida liked the bridge, but Wisconsin and Michigan confirmed that they have had maintenance issues.
Since Michigan and Wisconsin have snow and harsher weather like Massachusetts, those
recommendations were weighed more heavily than Florida’s.
Mr. Britland added that rail bridges typically only have one or two tracks, while highways have four
lanes. And even though the railcars are heavier than highway traffic, highway bridges have more
frequent loads travelling over the bridge, which causes more stress and deterioration. Wind can also
torque the bridge when it’s in the upright position causing problems; with all of these factors combined
it’s not the preferred choice by the MassDOT bridge maintenance personnel.
3
What scenario gives the height/width to allow the most marine improvements?
Mr. Weston replied that there is not an easy answer. There are trade-offs with all of the options. We
need to hear more from the public and local stakeholders, so the final choice hasn’t been made yet.
What about the businesses at the bridge and how this project will affect the economic development
opportunities in the area?
Mr. Weston responded that he had heard that the recent construction has affected businesses in the
bridge area. With the rebuilding or replacement of the bridge, it is more likely that the businesses on
Pope’s Island would be most affected, especially if roadway impacts during construction last for two
years. It may be possible to explore ways to minimize impacts to businesses during the construction
phase.
Is this really about Route 6 or is this about fixing the bridge?
Mr. Weston responded that this project is about fixing the bridge, but also about transportation in the
Route 6 corridor since it all operates as a system. Once the study determined that the bridge would be
replaced in the same location, the focus of the study was shifted to the bridge itself. It is important that
we examine the corridor and not plan changes to the bridge in a vacuum.
I would like to hear more from the City on this project.
Mr. Weston responded that the planning team has had ongoing discussion with the New Bedford Harbor
Development Commission throughout the study. He said that vessel widths and other harbor
constraints will be important considerations in the design process. Mr. Britland asked the Harbor
Commission their thoughts.
Jeff Stieb, director of the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission, provided the Commission’s
view on thestudy:
It is critical to get as wide a bridge as possible, so ships are not delayed by the bridge. To be the safest
and most efficient, it needs to be the widest it can be. In the North Terminal area there is 4,000 feet of
waterfront development area on the New Bedford side. This area has rail and highway access, which is
unique in the state and represents a large opportunity. We want New Bedford to be the second largest
port in the state. Over the long term many things can change. The Port of Boston can’t build out much
more than it already is, so New Bedford’s port is a great pace to expand port and maritime activities.
Why was a single bascule bridge not considered? I’ve seen one span bridges work well in other parts of
the country.
Mr. Britland responded that Alternative 3 is a single bascule bridge, it is just listed here as rolling. It is
just a different way to raise the bridge span.
What is the timetable for the bridge project? Also, when will the current repairs be completed?
Mr. Britland responded that the existing bridge repairs will be completed this fall. The tough winter
slowed down progress a bit. If a build alternative is selected, they could conclude the study in about
two months. It takes approximately six to eight years for the design/engineering phase. Once funded, it
could take another two years, depending upon the type of bridge selected.
Is there any scrap value in the existing bridge?
Mr. Britland replied that this is often investigated as part of project development, but that many time
these older bridges have a lot of lead paint, which costs a lot to remediate. Reuse or scraping of the
existing structure will be investigated in the permitting phase.
4
Mr. Britland concluded the meeting by thanking all of the participants.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
5