New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge Corridor Study
Study Advisory Group (SAG) Meeting Summary
April 8, 2015
Buzzards Bay Coalition 114 Front 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. At this meeting the study team would
primarily discuss the long-term bridge alternatives. Three different bridge designs and a No-Build
Alternative under consideration were presented at the previous SAG meeting and at a public meeting
held in February. In late March, after meeting with the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission,
an option to increase the width of one of the bridge types was proposed to allow for a wider opening.
This option, the Double-Leaf Rolling Bascule was added to the study as Alternative 3W. The bridge types
that are being studied are:




Alternative 1 - Vertical-Lift Bridge: This bridge alternative could provide a navigational channel
width up to 270 feet and a maximum air draft of 135 feet. With this alternative, the horizontal
width limitation in the harbor would be 150 feet, or the width of the hurricane barrier. This
bridge type would create minimal disruption to vehicle and marine during construction. The tall
towers that would be needed to lift the bridge may raise aesthetic concerns. The bridge
superstructure would be built elsewhere and then would be floated in and installed over one
weekend. The estimated cost is $90-$120 million.
Alternative 2 - Double-Leaf Bascule Bridge: This bridge type offers a horizontal width opening of
150 (although it could be designed to be wider) feet and unlimited vertical clearance. It requires
the most lengthy road closure (24 months for construction) and one marine channel would be
lost during construction. It would have significant environmental impacts during construction
from dredging the foundations for the lift mechanism that would be located below the roadway
surface. The estimated cost is $85-$100 million.
Alternative 3 - Single-Leaf Rolling Bascule: This bridge type provides a navigational channel
width of 150 feet and unlimited vertical clearance. The lift mechanism is located above the
roadway rather than below the roadway surface. Closures during construction include three
months for the roadway, two months for the west channel, and one long weekend for both
channels while the new bridge is floated in and installed. The estimated cost is $50-70 million.
Alternative 3W - Double-Leaf Rolling Bascule. This bridge -alternative provides a navigational
channel width up to 220 feet and unlimited vertical clearance. The lift mechanism is located
above the roadway rather than below the roadway surface. Closures during construction include
three months for the roadway, two months for the west channel, and one long-weekend while
the new bridge is floated in and installed. The estimated cost is $90-110 million.
1

No-Build Alternative: In this alternative, the existing swing bridge would receive major
rehabilitation and the superstructure would be replaced. The existing channel openings, 94 and
95 feet, would remain unchanged from the existing width, with unlimited air draft. Roadway
closures during construction would last two weeks; navigational closure two long weekends. The
estimated cost is $45 million.
John Weston of HDR, the consultant firm hired by MassDOT to conduct the study, explained the criteria
used to analyze the various bridge alternatives. The analysis looked at how the bridge would operate
(vertical and horizontal clearance); transportation impacts (vehicle delays on Route 6); safety
(emergency vehicle access and navigational safety); economic development (shipper cost savings);
impact on environmental and community resources (natural and cultural); construction costs and
duration.
The results of the alternative evaluation show that there is a lot of similarity between the alternatives,
with a few exceptions:





The No Build Alternative would not expand the horizontal clearance for vessels beyond the
current channel opening of 95 feet.
The Vertical-Lift Alternative limits the height of vessels to 110-135 feet.
The cost of the Vertical-Lift Alternative is substantially higher ($90-120 million) compared to the
Single-Leaf Rolling Bascule ($50-70 million).
The Double-Leaf Bascule Alternative limits the horizontal opening to 150 feet.
The Double-Leaf Bascule Alternative requires a 24-month road closure during construction.
Ethan Britland asked the SAG to consider the design options under consideration and send design
preferences or factors considered unacceptable to team member Jill Barrett. In response to this remark,
a committee member said that the closure of Route 6 for two years to construct a new bridge would be
unacceptable and there appeared to be consensus on this view among meeting attendees.
Ethan outlined the next steps in the study. Ethan said a public informational meeting was scheduled for
May 7th at the Waypoint Center in New Bedford. After the public meeting, the study team will discuss
final recommendations with the SAG at a meeting in May. The recommendations will be conceptual and
followed by a phase -during which the bridge would be designed and the environmental (NEPA) process
will be carried out. Once both are completed, the project would vie for construction funding for the
project to be built. (This process could take around 10 years to be carried out.)
Throughout the presentation, SAG members posed questions and made comments. Questions or
comments (in italics) and study team responses are provided below:
Can the double-leaf bascule bridge be wider than 150 feet?
Yes. A width of 150 feet was selected because of the limitation of the width of the hurricane barrier. The
double-leaf bascule would also have 24 month roadway closure period but would have higher
2
environmental impacts because the two lift mechanisms would need to be built below the bridge,
requiring extensive in-water work. The team met with the Harbor Development Commission to get a
greater understanding of future plans for the harbor. After the meeting with the Commission, the team
added another bridge design alternative, the Double-Leaf Rolling Bascule. A double-leaf rolling bascule
bridge would allow for 220 feet in width.
Do you have any examples of a Double-Leaf Bascule Bridge?
Yes. We can provide photos.
Would the repair work done in the No Build Alternative, estimated to cost $45 million, be more than
what has been done to repair the bridge in the past?
Yes. The entire swing mechanism would be replaced. Some of the machinery could be kept. The central
pier that holds the turning mechanism and carries the weight of the bridge would not be changed and
the channel widths would remain the same.
Will the vertical clearance limitation on the Vertical-Lift Bridge (110-135 feet) be an issue?
Yes, we think that it could be. While the vessels that will access the north harbor in the future may not
necessarily be larger, communications equipment on top of vessels can really bring up the height of
vessels.
Better fenders may need to be built to protect the bridge, especially if the width is 150 feet.
During the next phase, the design phase, a navigational study will be completed to ensure that the
bridge will be designed to meet U.S. Coast Guard requirements.
You note a $480,000 annual operating and maintenance cost. Does this reflect the cost of delays when
vessels cannot get through? Will you consider opportunity costs?
Yes. This will be included in the final report but the benefits that could occur in north harbor associated
with increased development due to the North Terminal will not be detailed.
The Double-Leaf Bascule Alternative seems to have the most environmental impacts.
What is the draft that would be needed on the north side? Shouldn’t that be quantified?
Today there is sufficient draft for ships to get to the north terminal. Dredging would be needed for
larger vessels. Ed Washburn of the Harbor Development Commission said that currently the deepest
part of the north harbor is 30-33 feet. The federal channel’s depth is 30 feet. A federal act would be
needed to make it deeper.
With the CAD cells in the harbor, we have an opportunity to get things done. EPA’s process for the
superfund site is 30 days rather than a 3-5 year permitting process.
Do you expect SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) to have an issue with replacement of the bridge?
In the 1980s, the MA SHPO determined that the bridge could be removed. We are not able to determine
if they would have the same view 30 years later and we will not be able to ask them for an opinion until
there is a specific project. The biggest potential impact is visual. They are likely to focus on the truss
superstructure, but even this will have to undergo substantial work in a No-Build Alternative.
3
What is the long-term reliability of the Rolling Bascule bridge type?
This is something MassDOT’s maintenance staff has raised as a concern. We are in the process of
contacting other Departments of Transportation to learn about their experience with rolling bascules.
Would it possible to consider a Double-Leaf Bascule Bridge wider than 150 feet and what would be the
estimated cost?
Yes it could be made wider. We will develop an estimated cost for doing this.
What is the expected life span of a new bridge?
Seventy five years.
Jeff Stieb, Executive Director of the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission offered these views.
“Profound changes can occur during the 70 year life span of the bridge. People like to live near water so
port development will be harder. In New Bedford we have 4,000 linear feet of shoreline that can be built
out. It is a unique area. You cannot find any like it in other areas of the state. The harbor has a
connection to rail. It is a perfect place to invest. We don’t have a Commonwealth maritime strategy.
That’s why we don’t want the 150 foot limitation in a new bridge. We need to plan for the long term. The
extra cost of a wider bridge over 70 years is $500,000 a year.”
Ed Washburn added that the $500,000 would be covered by the shipping savings from vessels unable to
navigate into the north harbor during windy conditions. He said that economic constraints should be
added to the comparison matrix.
John Weston responded that the team has had difficulty identifying economic impacts which is different
from economic opportunities. The study has not factored in the impact on businesses on Pope Island
should the roadway be closed for 24 months.
There should be some changes to your alternatives evaluation matrix. For the No Build, there would be
no improvement to navigational safety so it should be highlighted as a differentiator. The construction
impacts for the Vertical Lift and the Double-Leaf Bascule should be indicated as secondary differentiators
due to the duration of construction.
We will revise the matrix.
When looking at all the alternatives, it seems like there is no perfect solution. Was no bridge ever
considered as an option?
It was not considered because of the expected impacts on marine commerce, impacts to local
businesses, truncation of local connectivity, and in consideration that Route 6 is part of the National
Highway System.
Will the bridge be replaced using accelerated construction?
The anticipated construction durations do include some accelerated construction techniques, however
due to the nature of the double-leaf bascule bridge construction accelerated construction techniques
are not applicable for that alternative.
4
Meeting Attendees:
Bill Roth, Town Planner, Fairhaven
Jeff Stieb, New Bedford Harbor Development Commission
Paul Mission, Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District
Ed Washburn, New Bedford Harbor Development Commission
Mary Rapoza, City of New Bedford
Kim Ferreira, MassMotion
Pamela Haznar, MassDOT District 5
Ines Gonsalves Drolet, Congressman Keating’s Office
Joseph Lopes, New Bedford City Council
Dave Janik, MA Office of Coastal Zone Management
Bob Espindola, Fairhaven Selectman
Al Medieros, Rep. Tony Cabral’s Office
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