NEW BEDFORD-FAIRHAVEN BRIDGE
CORRIDOR STUDY
February 2015
MassDOT Study Identifies Improvement Options
Replacement of New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge
A Long-Term Improvement
A Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT) study to improve multimodal travel in
the Route 6 New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge corridor
has identified several short, medium and long-term
alternatives that will ease movement for motorists,
vessels, pedestrians and bicyclists.
The study, conducted by consultant firm HDR, began
in late 2013 and will offer final recommendations by
mid-2015.
MassDOT initiated the study to address traffic
congestion, unwelcoming conditions for bicyclists and
pedestrians and to better accommodate growth at
New Bedford’s port. Economic development in New
Bedford’s north harbor is limited by an 1880-era swing
bridge whose channel size is too narrow for twentyfirst century vessels.
Several types of bridges were analyzed as a
replacement to the swing bridge. Alternatives were
narrowed to three different designs (see page 2 & 3).
The study found that by adjusting the timing of
traffic signals congestion, present and future, can be
reduced. Improvements to bicycle facilities are being
considered (see page 3).
Photo credit: Mike Estabrook
Green Honduras, a refrigerated cargo ship, passes
through the open channel to New Bedford’s north
harbor carrying clementines. In 2010, $9 Million worth
of cargo was handled at the Port of New Bedford. The
port is important for New Bedford with an estimated
20% of the city labor force employed in industries
related to the port.
Roadway Cross-section of Future Moveable Bridge
5’
Sidewalk
5‘
Bike
Lane
11’
Westbound (WB)
Travel Lane
11’
Westbound (WB)
Travel Lane
11’
Eastbound (EB)
Travel Lane
64’
Right-of-Way
11’
Eastbound (EB)
Travel Lane
5‘
Bike
Lane
5’
Sidewalk
By widening the bridge, from 58’ to 64’ and reducing the width of the travel lanes from 12’ to 11’, there will be
enough room for two 5’ bike lanes. Currently there is only about six inches of shoulder on the swing bridge. In
spring 2015, when the road is re-striped after construction, the width of each of the four travel lanes will be
shaved by one foot, adding another two feet to the shoulder.
Existing Bridge
6’ UNDERCLEARANCE
95’
94’
MAX WATER ELEVATION
MUD LINE
SILT, SAND, & GRAVEL
Single Leaf Bascule Bridge
14’ UNDERCLEARANCE
MAX WATER ELEVATION
MUD LINE
SILT, SAND, & GRAVEL
Double Leaf Bascule Bridge
14’ UNDERCLEARANCE
MAX WATER ELEVATION
MUD LINE
SILT, SAND, & GRAVEL
Vertical Lift Bridge
14’ UNDERCLEARANCE
WHEN BRIDGE CLOSED
MAX WATER ELEVATION
MUD LINE
SILT, SAND, & GRAVEL
Comparison of Bridge Alternatives*
Bridge Type
Clearance
Construction
Horizontal
(channel width)
Vertical
(air draft)
Duration
Roadway
Closure
Navigational
Closure
Cost
Existing
(No Build)
94-95 feet
Unlimited
-
-
-
N/A**
Single Leaf
Bascule
150 feet
Unlimited
26 months
3 months
(23 months 2-lanes)
1 weekend
50-70 million
Double Leaf
Bascule
150 feet
Unlimited
37 months
24 months
(13 months 2-lanes)
3 weekends
85-100 million
Vertical Lift
270 feet
110 feet
33 months
2 weeks
1 weekend
90-120 million
* All bridges have the same open/close time (7.5 minutes). Roadway delay time is not expected to change.
** N/A Not available. The cost of rehabilitation will be developed later in this study.
What’s the best bridge design?
Is there a design that rises to the top as the best?
Not yet.
Cost and construction impacts differ among the
three options.
Each design has pros and cons. The vertical lift
bridge permits wider vessels to enter north harbor
but its towers limit the height of vessels and have
the most visual impact.
All designs will allow up to 14 feet underclearance,
as compared to the existing bridge’s six-feetunderclearance. The additional height will enable
emergency vessels and some small recreational
boats to pass under the bridge, slightly reducing
the number of openings for small vessels.
The height of vessels for the single and double leaf
bascule is unlimited but the width of the marine
channel is more than 100 feet less than a vertical
lift.
A key difference between the bascule designs is
where the lift mechanism is located. It’s on top of
the bridge for the single leaf but below the bridge
for the double bridge.
Do you think the appearance of the new bridge is
important? Text A for yes, B for no and C for no
opinion to (508) 449-0754. Or, complete our online
survey at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DQJDS2P.
Not So Fast...
A new bridge is not likely to shorten delays for
motorists when opened for marine traffic.
It will take about 7.5 minutes to open and close
the bridge, regardless of design. Most of the
wait time for motorists is due to the movement
of vessels.
Double leaf bascule bridge
Travel time will improve with better
communication. MassDOT plans to upgrade
and expand the sign system that alerts
motorists about the open/closed status of the
bridge so alternate routes can be used.
Single leaf bascule
Vertical lift bridge
Better ITS Signs to Alert Motorists Proposed
The existing sign system informing motorists if the bridge is open or closed uses outdated technology and
can be unreliable. MassDOT plans to replace the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) signs in the near
future. Additional signs with more features are being considered. New traffic information systems use cell
phone signals of travelers to give real time traffic data and have proven effective.
Existing
1.
I-195 (inoperable - needs
replacing)
Potential
5. Route 18 (after Pleasant St
exit)
A. Route 6 Westbound at Route 240
B. Route 240 Northbound at Route 6
2. Kempton St at Pleasant St
6. JFK Hwy at Union St
C. I-195 Westbound
3. Pleasant St at Route 6
7-9. Huttleson Ave/Main St
D. Huttleson Ave Westbound at Adams St
4. Purchase St at Route 6
Bicycle Pedestrian Improvements
E. Middle St Northbound at Huttleson Ave
Contact Us
Ethan Britland, Study Project Manager
Office of Transportation Planning
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
(857) 368-8840
ethan.britland@state.ma.us
www.mass.gov/massdot/newbedfordstudy