New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge Corridor Study
Public Information Meeting 2 Summary
February 11, 2015
Seaport Inn and Marina Conference Center
110 Middle St
Fairhaven, MA
Ethan Britland, Project Manager for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT),
welcomed attendees. He said the purpose of the meeting is to provide information on the New BedfordFairhaven Bridge Corridor Study, and to share three bridge design alternatives that the engineers are
evaluating. The goal of the meeting was to get public feedback on the three alternatives and inform the
public of the next steps regarding design and environmental screening. Before the formal presentation
began, several officials shared their views on the corridor study.
The City of New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell said that replacing the New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge is a
unique opportunity for New Bedford and Fairhaven. He emphasized the importance of the port and
fishing fleet, and that freighter use has increased exponentially. Infrastructure improvements will not
only strengthen the port itself, but these improvements will aid existing and attract new businesses to
the area. He feels that the city needs to accommodate the growth at hand and that the narrow bridge
channels are inhibiting that growth because they make it difficult for large vessels to get into the North
Harbor. New Bedford is aiming to expand cargo growth that will create jobs in the years to come. He
also said the fishing fleets need more space, and that the bridge replacement will allow for this.
Mayor Mitchell acknowledged the age and historic significance of the bridge, but he said the bridge is
obsolete and that the city needs to move forward. He said there are ways to handle preserving the past,
such as re-purposing the bridge finials, while also looking to the future and expects these methods will
be addressed with all of the bridge alternatives.
Mayor Mitchell believes that the bridge needs to be permanently fixed, and that the band aid method of
dumping money into repairs was not a sustainable or practical solution. He wants planners to think longterm. Will a channel width of 150 feet, like the hurricane barrier, be wide enough in the years to come?
He noted that the City has been discussing a new bridge since the 1970s and that it’s time to move
forward towards getting the bridge replaced.
Chairman of the Fairhaven Board of Selectman, Robert Espindola, emphasized the need for solutions to
short- and medium-term problems that could be addressed. He urged the importance of fixing the
traffic signals for moving across the bridge and also the need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements
across the bridge.
Staff from State Representatives Antonio Cabral and William Straus indicated that they were attending
the meeting and would be bringing information back to these elected officials.
1
Before the meeting presentation began, Jeff Stieb, Executive Director of the New Bedford Harbor
Development Commission, showed a video of a recent cargo ship passing through the bridge to
demonstrate how narrow the bridge opening is, and how much work and care is involved in piloting the
large ships through the entrance into the North Harbor. It also showed how long it takes the large
freighters to move through the bridge channel, which exacerbates traffic delays on either side of the
bridge.
John Weston of HDR Inc., who provided a brief agenda for the meeting, introduced the study team, and
gave a background of the study purpose and process. He said the study team is now at the Alternatives
Evaluation phase.
John discussed key issues and constraints, as well as why it was important to study the bridge. He
discussed bridge reliability, navigational width and vertical clearance issues, frequency and duration of
bridge openings, environmental considerations, as well as bicycle and pedestrian conditions. He then
talked about how the width of bridge opening constrains vessels and leads to delays of cargo shipments
and increased costs. When a vessel has to sit in the harbor due to high winds and cannot unload its
cargo, it increases costs by approximately $40,000 a day. If this delay occurs with some frequency, it
could inhibit the desirability of the Port of New Bedford. 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 Harbor properties, a large enclosed EPA facility, marine industrial facilities, and the Designated
Port Area.
John Weston introduced Pete Davis, HDR Team Lead Bridge Designer and expert on moveable bridges,
who began a discussion of the three bridge alternatives being considered for the bridge replacement.
These include a vertical-lift bridge, a double-leaf bascule bridge, and a single-leaf rolling bascule bridge.
All three design alternatives were analyzed based on the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintenance of roadway traffic;
Maintenance of marine traffic;
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 both the closed and open
positions. Pete Davis said that it is important to note that all three of the alternatives would not produce
any significant savings on bridge delays for vehicular traffic. Pete Davis explained that it is not the bridge
opening itself that causes the time delay, but more a function of stopping vehicular traffic, bringing the
2
gates down, as well as the time it takes to get the vessels through the bridge. In fact, 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.
John Weston spoke about short- and medium-term alternatives that would aid the existing bridge’s
functionality. These include corridor traffic improvements, bicycle/pedestrian improvements, and
variable message/ITS message signs.
John Weston detailed plans for corridor traffic improvements, as well as bicycle and pedestrian
improvements. An evaluation of existing conditions found the Route 6 corridor is not a safe or pleasant
environment for bicycles or pedestrians. The study team is incorporating improvements for bicyclists
and pedestrians into the design planning to make sure recommended improvements take advantage of
the proposed South Coast Rail Whale’s Tooth Station, with good bicycle and pedestrian connections to
the bridge. A cross section view showed the potential improvements, including reduction in vehicular
lane width to accommodate bicycle lanes. He said it did not make sense at this point to eliminate one of
the vehicular travel lanes, but including designated bike lanes could be accomplished by narrowing the
existing vehicular lane widths. Sidewalk improvements along the “Octopus” intersection were presented
as well as Route 6/MacArthur Drive pedestrian ramp options. Existing locations of variable message/ITS
message signs were shown, as well as proposed locations for new signs to alleviate some of the traffic
congestion.
John Weston concluded with a slide about the next steps in the study process, specifically the evaluation
of alternatives. The evaluation criteria that will be used to assess alternatives include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Economic development opportunities;
Bridge operations- vertical and horizontal clearance;
Transportation impacts- construction duration, average delay times;
Safety;
Environment- impacts to natural resources;
Community impacts; and
Alternative feasibility.
The final steps for the study after alternatives analysis will be to develop improvement
recommendations with continued public and stakeholder participation. The study is projected to be
complete by mid-2015.
Following the meeting presentation, members of the public asked questions and made comments.
Public input is represented below in italics.
What happened to the 2020 Vision Plan that was done in the 1990s? This included a bypass route
causeway that went much further north and eliminated the bridge altogether. This seems like a much
3
cheaper alternative- is that plan off the table? And if so, the public should know about it. Why are we
looking into building another bridge?
Former New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang responded to this question, saying that he remembers that study
and that Congress had given money for it, but that the problem with that alternative was how to get
traffic over to the other side. He said the causeway wasn’t seriously considered because the costs
involved were so high, and it looked like another bridge would be needed anyway. Additionally he urged
consideration of future analysis of the vertical clearances of the Coggeshall Street bridge and the I-195
bridg, as he said they currently cut off the Acushnet River from the harbor and that a 14-foot clearance
was needed to support that development area of the City..
Do we believe that ships will come into the harbor that are wider than 150 feet, or do we believe that
ships will get taller in the future?
John Weston responded that for the largest types of vessels and commodities that currently come into
the harbor, 150 feet is a sufficient width, but that they will work with the Harbor Development
Commission (HDC) to make sure they have a clear understanding of the trends in vessels that the HDC is
seeing for the future. The study team wants to make sure they have the same goals in mind. It was also
noted that the bascule bridge alternatives would not create any impacts to vertical height clearance,
they open wide enough to allow any size heights to pass through. The vertical lift bridge has a vertical air
draft of 110 feet that is sufficient for typical vessels that serve the harbor today but limits specialized
cargo vessels, such as those carrying wind turbine components.
We need to think of the practical aspects of coming into the harbor. There is going to be limitations of
the draft of ships, we can’t dredge and dredge forever. The hurricane barrier is a certain size; the harbor
is very mixed used. We shouldn’t be trying to accommodate ships that won’t work in our harbor; this is
beyond what we are capable of handling or what is affordable. The pedestrian count out there is
probably very low at best. Could we look at ways to move pedestrian traffic on the outside of the bridge?
John Weston responded that the study team understood the challenges and would work with the
Harbor Development Commission as well as the community to target appropriate strategies. He also
said in regard to pedestrian access that pedestrian and bike access could definitely be designed to be
outside of the bridge structure.
What are the impacts going to be from Cottage Street in New Bedford to Huttleston Street in Fairhaven?
John Weston responded that no matter what alternative is selected, they aren’t going to really impact
traffic or congestion on the bridge, and that the bridge alignment will stay the same. Timing through the
bridge is really a factor of the time it takes to stop traffic, get the boats through, etc. This won’t change
with the new bridge as all the designs have the same delay times. No construction will take place in
Fairhaven up to Adams Street.
Vertical clearance standards in this area are 135 feet. This is a standard and what we should aim for
here. The team should look at the Brightman Street Bridge (in Fall River). This is a new bridge, 200 feet
4
double bascule with a 200-foot-wide channel. Large ships may come in and may need to be towed out of
our harbor; this would require a wider opening (more than 150 feet) to allow them to be towed out.
John Weston responded that they understand that the vertical clearance may need to be higher than
the 110 feet under the current concept and that 135 feet could be an appropriate design standard to
account for future changes in the harbor.
The New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal currently allows large freighters to be accommodated. We
should look at their needs. Perhaps these facilities will provide space for the type of vessels that people
envision in the North Harbor that’s driving the need for a wider bridge.
We also need to look at the entrance and the exit to the bridge. New Bedford has a population of
100,000 with lots of people who rely on public transportation. This area is not safe for any pedestrians.
This area has lots of low income and disabled people; they need some type of protection in this area.
Fairhaven on the other side has a population of 16,000 people. There are historic homes and a school
right near the bridge. This has a much different atmosphere. I signed an easement to the MassDOT
thinking it would be a sidewalk, and then they installed a traffic light and made my residential street look
like a highway. My experience with the state is not good. We want a completely transparent plan with
no hidden items or surprises.
John Weston responded that the alignment of the bridge will not change and that a bigger facility for
cars is not needed based on the travel volumes so the travel lanes and widths will stay the same.
Do any of these bridge designs require land takings?
John Weston responded that no takings of land will be required.
On Route 6, between Middlesex and Adams Street, new lights have been put in, but they really hold you
up and you can get stopped at two or three lights. This is one place that time could be saved, if you fix
the timing of the lights.
John Weston responded that the study team will look into this.
What is the timing of the construction with each of the scenarios?
Pete Davis responded that each of the scenarios has different project timing, and that those estimates
are pretty accurate because they have done many of these different bridges and can accurately estimate
the construction timing.
The last closing part of the bridge operation seems to take much longer. And you are saying that each of
the scenarios will have the same delay as the current bridge. How can bridge technology not have
improved since the current bridge was built?
5
Pete Davis responded that the timing is really a function of how long it takes to close the ramps, stop
traffic, get the vessels through, rather than the bridge operation itself. That only takes about 90
seconds, but all the other elements that come into play slow the opening and closing.
On behalf of the Hands Across the River Coalition, what is going to happen when they dredge? This river
harbor is heavily contaminated and we already have CAD cells, will this create another CAD cell in our
river?
John Weston replied that these concerns will all be looked at when an environmental impact study is
completed for the project. Single bascule bridges don’t have as many impacts to the water and sediment
itself, but the double-leaf bascule would have more impacts because a larger structure has to be built
beneath the water to house the bascule mechanism. But this will all be analyzed further in the
environmental impact study.
Jeff Stieb, Executive Director of the Harbor Development Commission asked to address the public
audience. He said the study was really important because it represents a 50 to 100-year opportunity to
develop New Bedford Harbor into a thriving port. In his view, replacing the bridge is necessary. He noted
that fishing is a significant economic driver in the downtown, but that the downtown itself is also a
treasure. The downtown is cut off from the waterfront by the existing commercial land uses and that
better pedestrian connections need to be made to the harbor. The bridge is important to open up the
north end of the port. He envisions tremendous potential for marine industrial north and south of
downtown. It will also make New Bedford a better place to live and make it a vibrant downtown. The
bridge is significantly important to the future vision of the city.
Ethan Britland concluded the meeting by reiterating that this is a conceptual planning study and thanked
all the participants. The next public meeting will take place in April.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
6