New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge Corridor Study
Study Advisory Group (SAG) Meeting Summary
June 24, 2015
New Bedford Library, 613 Pleasant Street
New Bedford, MA
Ethan Britland, Project Manager for MassDOT, welcomed Study Advisory Group (SAG) members. He said
that the study team has completed its analysis of short, medium and long-term alternatives, including
design options to replace the New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge. The study has progressed to its final stage
where recommendations are made. Ethan noted that feedback from last SAG meeting in April and
public meeting in May caused the study team to evaluate two additional bridge designs that would
provide more height and width for vessels. John Weston of HDR, MassDOT’s consultant for the study,
delivered a presentation to the SAG in which the new alternatives, study recommendation and next
steps were detailed.
The new bridge design alternatives are:
•
•
Alternative 1T: Taller Vertical Lift Bridge: The height of the two towers would be 200 feet,
providing an air draft of 150 feet and a navigational channel width up to 270 feet. The
construction duration would be 33 months, with one two-week roadway closure and a
navigational closure of one long weekend. This bridge is estimated to cost $100-130 million.
Alternative 3D: Double-Leaf Dutch Style Bascule Bridge: In this design the counter-weight is
located above the roadway surface and the bridge deck is lifted using a pivot point (heel
trunnion). The navigational channel width is 200 feet with an unlimited air draft. The
construction duration would be 26 months, with a three month roadway closure and a
navigational closure of one long weekend. This bridge is estimated to cost $100-125 million.
Each bridge design was evaluated using the following criteria: bridge operations, transportation impacts,
safety, economic development, environmental and community impacts and feasibility. The key
difference between the two designs is variations in roadway closure during construction, height and
width for vessel clearance and long-term reliability risk.
The study recommends the two new alternatives, Alternatives 1T and 3D, be advanced into Preliminary
Design. This phase would include a Bridge Type Study and a US Coast Guard Navigational Evaluation.
The study is scheduled to be completed by the end of July. After a 30-day public review period, the final
corridor study report will be issued in September. Ethan Britland explained that the final report would
indicate the Planning or Step 2 of the MassDOT project development and design process is complete.
Study completion would be followed by the Project Initiation phase where information developed as
part of this study is reviewed through a formal MassDOT process to establish if the project should
advance through additional development phases. Once the long-term recommendation is approved and
initiated, the project would progress into a phase in which the bridge is designed and the environmental
documentation and Right-of-Way is completed. The schedule for this phase is typically established at
1
four years or more. Funding, procuring a contractor and constructing the bridge are projected to take
another seven years beyond this.
While the long-term recommendation of replacing the existing swing bridge will take at least 10 years to
implement, several short/medium term recommendations are in process (bridge roadway
reconstruction and pedestrian improvements at the “Octopus Intersection”) and the project to upgrade
of bridge’s ITS condition signage network is underway.
Ethan Britland updated the SAG on the current Route 6 construction project. He said that when the
pavement markings are installed the travel lanes on the bridge will be reduced from 12 feet to 11 feet
providing additional shoulder space for bicyclists but not a full bike lane. It was noted that one of the
recommended sidewalk improvements likely cannot be the standard four feet wide due to existing
street and building configurations.
Signal timing improvements can be addressed once roadway construction is complete and traffic
patterns return to normal conditions.
SAG members asked the study team numerous questions about the bridge design and the process for
moving the project forward. Questions raised by the SAG are in italics below:
Bridge design
Bill Travers: Why was the no build considered a “medium risk” for long-term reliability? Is the whole
structure being replaced?
John Weston: The No Build Alternative would be a replacement in kind. The risk is related to the
possibility of the bridge mechanics failing and the inability of moving the bridge. All moveable bridges
have some risk of this occurring, regardless of the bridge type. he No-Build risk would be similar to the
Double Bascule Alternative.
Mary Raposa: Are there examples of a similarly sized single-span Dutch Bascule bridge?
John Weston: There was a 100-foot long temporary Dutch-style bridge recently constructed in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida but that bridge was both temporary and located in a climate very different than New
Bedford.
Mary Raposa: Do all the alternatives include bike lanes?
John Weston: All alternatives would be designed to be wide enough to accommodate a full bike lane,
except for the No Build Alternative, which can’t be expanded without impacting the navigational
clearances.
Buddy Andrade: We have problems with freezing and a lot of snow in the winter, how would the Dutch
Bascule handle that? I think a Vertical Lift is the best choice.
John Weston: All moveable bridges, including the Dutch Bascule have lots of moving parts where things
could go wrong. Without having the experience of Dutch Bascule bridges of the size we need in New
Bedford, we will need to conduct additional analysis during the design phase to assess the impacts of
New Bedford conditions on the long-term reliability.
2
Ed Washburn: Does the Chelsea Creek Bridge have a 175 foot air draft?
John Weston: It may, but when comparing the costs of the two bridges they will be very different since
the construction of the approach spans are very different between the two bridges.
Pam Haznar: What is the height of the Cape Cod Canal Bridge? Is it 135 feet? It was built a long time ago
by the Army Corps and seems like it would be a reasonable comparison.
John Weston: I am not sure, but most of the vertical lift bridges in the Northeast have a clearance of 135
feet which was a standard established by the War Department at a time when many bridges were being
built. There are very few bridges in the Northeast with a clearance higher than 135 feet.
Pam Haznar: I think the Fore River Bridge is 135 feet.
Michael Sullivan: What goes into calculating Operating and Management costs?
John Weston: Labor, electricity, oil or components required annually. It does not include minor capital
repairs such as painting and repairing the gates.
Bill Roth: We have not talked aesthetics. Two hundred foot towers would be very big. I would not want
the length of a two-year closure to build outweigh aesthetics.
Ed Washburn: The bridge would be next to tall radio towers.
Ethan Britland: We have talked about aesthetics in previous meetings and asked this question in a public
opinion survey. This is a working port and it’s likely that the tower would have lights.
John Weston: During the design phase aesthetics will receive a lot more attention. We have seen
attractive bridge designs. It is possible to get nice architectural features on a bridge that does not drive
the costs up too much.
Mary Rapoza: The Dutch Bascule seems like a simpler design to operate, why aren’t the costs lower than
the Vertical Lift?
John Weston: A lot of the expense is labor and the electricity required to move the bridge.
Buddy Andrade: My major concern is: Will the bridge break down?
Bill Roth: The Canal Bridge has been there a long time.
Ethan Britland: Each moveable bridge type has some reliability issues and all will be required to
periodically be closed for maintenance.
Buddy Andrade: We need a new bridge for economic development in North Harbor, but is there enough
room for the bigger ships to turn around?
John Weston: That’s why a navigational study is done. It will ask the questions, what is the right height
and width of the bridge to accommodate the vessels that will use it? This will incorporate plans for
improvements in the North Harbor area (such as the North Terminal) and dredging plans and
constraints.
Ed Washburn: As we look at the North Terminal extension, we’ve talked with EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency) about navigational needs. Right now, we can easily maneuver north of Fish Island. As
you go further north there are questions about how a large vessel can get out. Also right now we are in
the SER [State Enhanced Remedy] process with EPA regarding cleaning up the harbor. Once EPA is done,
3
we lose our ability to utilize that process, which includes expedited permitting and would result in higher
costs to manage the contamination disturbed with construction of a new bridge.
Process for getting the project built
Bill Roth: How long will it take to start constructing a new bridge?
Ethan Britland: If everything goes smoothly, seven years; however it normally takes 7-10 years.
Somewhere in that period the funding would also need to be secured for the project to proceed into
construction.
Bill Roth: Is there a cost to the project initiation phase?
Ethan Britland: No. This is an internal MassDOT process.
Bill Roth: Do you stop at planning? Who carries this project forward?
Ethan Britland: I would prepare the project initiation forms and shepherd it forward. This is a tool to
bring a planning project to the next phase. When the study report is final, I can bring it to decisionmakers for project development. It will be reviewed by the Project Review Committee.
Pam Haznar: The committee looks at all the highway projects and makes decisions within fiscal
constraints.
Bill Roth: I have been in Fairhaven for 14 years and this is the third time that I have been at the table for
studies to replace the bridge.
Ethan Britland: This study and the involvement of local officials will allow me to advocate for the bridge.
Ed Washburn: Is there any way that you can come back to this forum to give updates?
Ethan Britland: Once the study is done, it becomes the responsibility of the District [MassDOT District 5].
After the Project Review Committee review, the project would go to environmental permitting. As part
of that process a bridge type study and a US Coast Guard navigational study would be conducted. The
historical and cultural review process [section 106 and 4(f)] will also be undertaken.
Bill Travers: There will be more public outreach during the environmental process but perhaps not this
group.
John Weston: When a project like this goes through the MEPA [Massachusetts Environmental Protection
Act] process, a local steering committee is often formed that acts like this group has in providing input.
Ethan Britland: The final report will lay out an implementation plan.
Al Medeiros: Does this project have to get into the State’s capital plan?
Ethan Britland: Yes.
Bill Roth: What we need help with is money – to get from Step 3 (Project Initiation) into Step 4 (Design,
Environmental & Right-of-Way).
Ethan Britland: If the project is approved by the Project Review Committee, then there will be funding
for Step 4.
4
Other concerns
Buddy Andrade: We need to let the businesses in the vicinity of the bridge know how the project will
affect them.
Ethan Britland: Yes, although the two proposed bridge designs do not change current access to the
businesses.
Ed Washburn: Will the railroad access in the area of McArthur Boulevard change due to bridge
construction?
John Weston: No. Railroad access along the line will not change. Additionally, construction of the new
bridge would not change the bridge from Fish Island to the main land.
Ed Washburn thanked the study team for their work. He said that the new alternatives shown to the
SAG at the meeting indicated that the team was listening to the City’s feedback.
Meeting Attendees:
Bill Roth, Town Planner, Fairhaven
Lisa Estrela-Pedro, Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District
Ed Washburn, New Bedford Harbor Development Commission
Mary Rapoza, City of New Bedford
Bill Travers, MassDOT District 5Pamela Haznar, MassDOT District 5
Dave Janik, MA Office of Coastal Zone Management
Al Medieros, Office of State Representative Tony Cabral
Michele Paul, Director of Environmental Stewardship, City of New Bedford
Michael Sullivan, Office of State Representative Bill Straus
Audra Riding, Office of State Senator Mark Montigny
Buddy Andrade, Old Bedford Village
Project Team:
Ethan Britland, Project Manager, MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Michael Clark, MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
John Weston, HDR
Stefanie McQueen, HDR
Jill Barrett, FHI
5