New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge Corridor Study
Public Information Meeting Summary
June 11, 2014
New Bedford Public Library
613 Pleasant Street
New Bedford, 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, share what the study team has learned to date through data collection
and interviews, and to get public feedback of what the study team views as constraints and
opportunities for the harbor area.
John Weston of HDR Engineering, began his presentation of the study with an invitation to meeting
attendees to consider the information that will be provided and to let the team know if they think the
team is on the right track. John acknowledged that people who live in the New Bedford and Fairhaven
have a good understanding of the area and the team wants to make sure that what the team sees in its
data analysis resonates with the local population.
The purpose of the study is to evaluate multi-modal transportation and associated land use issues and
recommend improvements along the Route 6 corridor. John said that the area has been studied many
times. He is hopeful that this study will lead to improvements that are implemented.
The study team is using the MassDOT planning process as a framework to guide the study. Presently, the
study is in the beginning of the process. Draft goals and objectives, evaluation criteria and a Public
Involvement Plan have been completed and the team is finalizing an analysis of existing conditions,
issues and opportunities. John said it was appropriate to get public input now before the study advances
too far into the planning process. The study is being guided by a Study Advisory Group, comprised of
representatives of the city, harbor, bicycle, and neighborhood interests. Study documents are provided
to the public via a project website.
The following goals have been drafted for the study:



Improve vehicular, marine, bicycle and pedestrian, mobility, connectivity, and safety within the
study area and regionally;
Maximize economic development for the region; and
Identify feasible cost-effective alternatives for short, medium, and long-term improvements in
the corridor.
About every 12 years there needs to be a major repair to the New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge and every
30 years an extensive repair is needed. That is normal for a swing bridge of this age due to deterioration
of the steel and swing mechanism components. The bridge is safe but its long-term viability needs to be
considered.
1
John Weston noted that delays due to high winds restrict passage of vessels through bridge. When a
vessel has to sit in the harbor and cannot unload its cargo, it costs $40,000 a day. If this occurs with
some frequency, it inhibits the desirability of New Bedford as a port. While there is great developmental
potential for the north harbor, it is currently limited by the operational and physical constraints of the
bridge.
Most of the vessels, about a third, that go through the bridge are fishing vessels. Another 20% are
barges. The number of barges is a little inflated right now because of ongoing PCB removal in the
harbor, but it is anticipated that there will still be barge traffic after dredging.
Vehicular traffic on Route 6 is decreasing. The study team believes traffic counts from this year may be
little low because there is ongoing construction and it will increase when the construction is done. Still,
there has been significant overall decline of vehicles traveling over the bridge in the last 20 years.
John said the study team performed an environmental screening of the study area. It identified cleanup
of the harbor as the most significant environmental factor. Some tidal flats are located on Pope’s Island
and will have to be considered when developing alternatives. The bridge is eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. In 1980, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) ruled that
demolition of the bridge was acceptable as long as the bridge was appropriately documented. SHPO
recognized that sufficient function of the bridge was lost so that replacement was reasonable. However,
it was noted that thirty years later it is possible that SHPO may not have the same opinion.
An evaluation of existing conditions found the Route 6 corridor is not a safe or pleasant area for bicycles
and pedestrians. The study team plans to incorporate improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians into
the planning of alternatives and 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.
The study team has drafted objectives to achieve the study’s goals. Economic development is very
important. Also important is the desire to improve the speed and reliability of the bridge to reduce delay
and travel time for vehicular and marine traffic. Specific objectives are:







Facilitate economic opportunities for water-dependent industries in New Bedford Harbor;
Improve bridge operational speed and reliability to reduce delay and travel time for vehicular
and marine traffic;
Reduce bridge impacts to local roadway traffic;
Mitigate bridge impacts to marine traffic;
Improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility and connectivity to the corridor and regionally;
Minimize potential impacts to the community, businesses and environment for selected
improvements; and
Support and ensure consistency with established local goals and regional plans.
The study team identified many opportunities for improvement in the transportation corridor. These
opportunities include:
2





Increasing the channel/bridge width and clearance to allow larger vessels to access the north
harbor;
Roadway modifications to improve safety and connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians;
Enhanced ITS (variable message signs);
Improved rail and transit access; and
Redevelopment opportunities for the harbor area.
The next steps for the study will be to develop improvement alternatives. The study is projected to be
completed by mid 2015.
Following the meeting presentation, members of the public asked questions and made comments.
Public input is represented below in italics.
You did not mention transit in your study. Route 6 is not used as a route because bridge openings make
route timing unpredictable. We hope that improvements can make it more predictable so that we can
have transit on Route 6 in the future.
John Weston responded that the assessment of each alternative will include identifying any potential
transit improvements.
There needs to be improvements for bicycles as it is difficult especially at the western area of the bridge.
John Weston responded that the study team understood the challenges faced by bicyclists and will be
looking at how it can be improved. He said a priority for the study team would be to identify how to
establish good connectivity, especially with the planned South Coast Rail station. Ethan Britland said he
received a comment before the public meeting from a bicyclist who asked the team not to remove the
stairs at the western end of the bridge.
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 currently the port’s industrial area is divided into two parts and the north port area is crippled by
bridge. In the last year, three ships were each delayed one whole day because a 10-knot wind prohibited
passage through the bridge. Right now he said that the harbor is operating at a half of its capacity.
Jeff said that New Bedford harbor can serve a vital maritime role in Massachusetts. Boston Harbor is
suited to accommodate very large vessels. The Port of New Bedford cannot have large vessels but can be
center of New England fishing. Jeff noted that recreational boaters are restricted by the bridge if they
cannot get under the 6-foot clearance. Although he is not an engineer, Jeff said that he would like to see
a new “high and wide” bridge.
In addition to advocating for a new bridge, Jeff shared his vision for the city. He said the gem of New
Bedford is its harbor and downtown. Jeff said the city has to connect downtown to the waterfront; it has
to provide that opportunity. In his view, 25 years from now the state pier should be made available for
3
public or recreational use if the commercial or industrial uses currently located on the pier can be
relocated north of the bridge. He envisions tremendous potential for marine industrial north and south of
downtown.
Jeff Stieb identified rail as key to development in New Bedford in planning for the city’s future. He said
the city needs full industrial capability north and south of the bridge.
Ethan Britland responded that this study is looking 30 years into the future. The study team understands
that something significant needs to be done and that the port is tied to the economic health of the city.
I see that your schedule shows there will be three public meetings. What if there is a need for a fourth
public meeting?
Ethan Britland responded that typically MassDOT plans three public meetings for its conceptual planning
studies. The first meeting is to introduce the study to the public and to get input on goals and objectives.
At the second meeting, proposed improvement alternatives are reviewed. A third meeting is held to
present and get feedback on draft recommendations. Ethan noted that this study has another level of
public involvement through a Study Advisory Group that will meet eight times over the course of the
study. He said three public meetings seem sufficient, but if the team get towards the end and feels
another is needed, then MassDOT could consider holding a fourth meeting.
The bridge is part and parcel of who we are as a city – a fishing community. We need to educate the
public that the new bridge will not necessarily mean the bridge will allow high vehicular speeds over the
bridge.
Ethan Britland concluded the meeting by reiterating that this is a conceptual planning study. The idea is
to move through an environmental process and outline the steps of what needs to be done when the
study concludes.
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
4