Study Advisory Group Meeting #3
October 7, 2014 – 4:00PM
Buzzards Bay Coalition, New Bedford
Agenda
• Introductions
• Study Purpose & Process
• Existing Conditions
– Existing Traffic
– Future No-Build Conditions
– Summary of Issues & Constraints
• Short & Medium-Term Alternatives
• Conceptual Long-Term Alternatives
• What’s Next?
– Refine Alternatives (Short, Medium, & Long-Term)
– Alternatives Analysis (Evaluation Criteria)
– Project Schedule
Introductions
• MassDOT
– Ethan Britland – Project Manager
• HDR Study Team
– John Weston – HDR Team Project Manager
– Stefanie McQueen – HDR Team Deputy Project Manager
– Jill Barrett (FHI) – Public Involvement
Study Purpose
• Evaluate multi-modal
transportation & associated
land use issues
• Develop potential solutions
• Recommend improvements
along the Route 6 Corridor
Study Process
MassDOT 5-Step Planning Process
Project Status Update
• Work Completed to Date:





Draft Goals & Objectives
Evaluation Criteria
Public Involvement Plan
Existing Conditions
Issues & Constraints Analysis
• Work Underway:
– Preliminary Short & Medium-Term Alternatives
– Conceptual Long-Term Alternatives
• Next Steps:
– Refine Alternatives (Short, Medium, & Long-Term)
– Evaluate Alternatives (using Evaluation Criteria & Public Input)
– Make Final Recommendations for Improvements
Existing Conditions
• Existing Traffic Conditions
– Marine Traffic
– Bridge Operations
– Vehicular Traffic Level of Service (LOS) and Detours
• Future No-Build Conditions
– Bridge Detours & LOS
– Corridor Intersection Delays & LOS
• Summary of Issues & Constraints
Marine Traffic
• Increasing Number of Vessels/Year
• Historic Navigational Traffic (vessels/year)
Sources: 1985 EA, 2010-2013 MassDOT Monthly Drawbridge Reports
Bridge Operations
• Bridge Operating Cycle
– Minimum time to open and close: 7.5 minutes
– Average time depending on vehicular, pedestrian,
and marine traffic clearance times: 12.5 to 22.5
minutes
Minimum
Time
Average
Time
Intersection Level of Service (2014)
•
••-===::::::.•••-Mtles
0
NEW BEDFORD-FAIRHAVEN BRIDGE
CORRIDOR STUDY
025
05
1
~n~m..-
(I.OS E cw F)
0
Intersection Level of Service (2035 No Build)
c:J locaiStudyAIN
c
••••• ChemeUio<n:laoyLne -
fleoonal Study /Ilea -
a.~~cW~g Foolpmt
OponSpoc./Pubilcland
•
••-====-•••-Mi
les
0.25
0.5
1
0
/
NEW BEDFORD-FAIRHAVEN BRIDGE
CORRIDOR STUDY
\ \ '\.
..
lntersecbon (LOSE or F)
0
Existing Detour Routes
••-===----~ Miles
0
7
NEW BEDFORD-FAIRHAVEN BRIDGE
CORRIDOR STUDY
025
05
1
Detours & Intersection LOS (2035 No Build)
Eastl>clnl R16 Tral!ic~ Weslboord R16 Tra!lic
0
c
l..ocal SWdy ,._
---===::::.____
0
/
NEW BEDFORD-FAIRHAVEN BRIDGE
CORRIDOR STUDY
RegonaiSWdyAtea -
0.25
Open Specen>~Jbloc lend
----- Chime! eo.mery lrle -
0.5
\ \ "\.
&J4dmgFOOVnt
•
Miles
1
~(LOSEorF)
0
II
Corridor Intersection LOS & Delay
0.125
NEW BEDFORD -FAIRHAVEN BRIDGE
CORRIDOR STUDY
0.25
Summary of Issues
• Bridge limits port expansion potential in North
Harbor
• Increased and longer bridge openings due to
growing marine traffic has resulted in longer
vehicle delay
• Existing PCB contamination in harbor & ongoing
EPA cleanup
• Bridge construction/travel lane reductions have
resulted in growing safety concerns
Summary of Issues
• Existing vehicular congestion on Route 6 Corridor
expected to increase through 2035
• Pedestrian & bicycle environment is deficient
and access to bridge from New Bedford is limited
• Transit service over bridge eliminated due to
bridge opening delays & inconsistent travel times
• Access to Fish Island and Pope’s Island limited
to bridge
Summary of Constraints
• Provide adequate horizontal clearance to
decrease shipping constraints into North Harbor
• Minimize bridge closure during construction phase to prevent disruption to marine traffic
• Cargo vessels require 100-125 feet of vertical
under-clearance to enter the North Harbor
Summary of Constraints
• Pedestrian and bicycle access across bridge (5% max roadway grade, no longer than 800 feet)
• Maintain more than one vehicular lane in each
direction to provide queuing space and turning
movements
• Maintain access to Fish Island & Pope’s Island
• Minimize environmental disturbance in harbor
Short/Medium-Term Alternatives
• Alleviate Existing
Corridor Congestion by
Adjusting Signal Timing
and Lane Configuration
at Corridor
Intersections:
– Kempton St./Mill St. &
Purchase St. (Octopus
Intersection)
– Huttleston Ave. & Adams
St.
Short/Medium-Term Alternatives
• Make Improvements to
Accommodate Future
Corridor Congestion on
Existing MassDOT Detour
Routes:
– Bridge St. & Rt 240
– Coggeshall St. & Ashley Blvd.
– Coggeshall St. & S. Front St.
– Coggeshall St. & Belleville
Ave.
– Coggeshall St. & I-195 Off
Ramp
– Howland Rd. & Main St.
Short/Medium-Term Alternatives
• Identify Alternative
ITS Routes and/or
Improve ITS
Systems – Potential
benefits for autos and transit
Short/Medium-Term Alternatives
• Address Corridor
Bike/Pedestrian
Environment
Deficiencies
– Improve Corridor
Bicycle Facilities
• Segregate bicycle and
pedestrian uses onto
separate sidewalks
• Reduce number of
vehicle lanes to permit
addition of bicycle
lane(s)
Short/Medium-Term Alternatives
• Address Corridor
Pedestrian
Environment
Deficiencies
– Create Pedestrian Connections to Bridge from New
Bedford
– Improve pedestrian facilities between downtown New
Bedford, Route 6 bridge, and future Whale’s Tooth Station
Long-Term Alternatives
• Rationale for Identification & Screening of
Preliminary Long-Term Alternatives
– Review of Previous Studies & Conclusions
– Consideration of Primary Attributes of Bridge
Alternatives
•
•
•
•
Corridor Alignment
Bridge Vertical Clearance
Marine Channel Horizontal Clearance
Potential Bridge/Crossing Types
Corridor Alignment
New Corridors:
1. South of 1-195
2. Wamsutta Street to
Pope's Island
State Pier/South
Terminal to Fairhaven
industrial area
North of Hurricane
Barrier
Hurricane Barrier
NEW BEDFORD-FAIRHAVEN BRIDGE
CORRIDOR STUDY
Bridge Vertical Clearance
60'
50'
35'
VERTICAL CLEARANCE
20'
6' (existing)
To Fairhaven
Shore----+
HORIZONTAL
SCAlE IN FEET
VERTICAL
NEW BEDFORD-FAIRHAVEN BRIDGE
CORRIDOR STUDY
Bridge Opening Requirements
2035 Projected Vessels & Openings
Bridge Vertical Clearance & Opening
Reductions (2035 Projections)
2013 – 5,531 openings
2035 – 5,766 openings projected
(4% increase)
> 50 Ft = 35% Reduction
> 20 Ft = 14% Reduction
Potential Crossing or Bridge Types
Bridge/Crossing Type
Issues or Constraints
Tunnel
Disruptive to surrounding area and
requires significant financial
resources
High-Level Fixed Bridge
Significant impact to environment
and community, would require new
access to islands
Low-Level Fixed Bridge
Would create barrier to marine traffic
Swing Bridge
No change or benefits
Bridge Removal
Loss of direct local connection
between New Bedford and Fairhaven
Conceptual Long-Term Alternatives
• Bridge Types for Further
Consideration:
– Double-Leaf Bascule Bridge
(Standard)
– Double-Leaf Dutch or Rolling
Bascule Bridge
– Vertical-Lift Bridge
– Continued Maintenance of
Existing Bridge (No Build)
Vertical-Lift Bridge
James River Bridge, Virginia (U.S. 17)
Double-Leaf Bascule
Berkley Bridge, Norfolk, VA (I-264)
Rolling Bascule
Mystic River Bascule Bridge, Mystic, CT
Double-Leaf Bascule Bridge (Standard)
• Significant
construction impact
(environmental)
• Most expensive
movable bridge type
• Requires lengthy bridge closure (18-24 months)
• Unlimited vertical
clearance
• Least visual impacts
SW Second Ave Bridge, Miami, FL
Rethe Bridge, Hamburg, Germany (under construction)
Double-Leaf Dutch/Rolling Bascule Bridge
• Less construction
impact (environmental)
• Unlimited vertical
clearance
• Shorter construction
period
• Visual impacts
(counterweight)
Jackson Street Bridge, Joliet, IL
Piushaven Bridge, Tilburg, Netherlands
Vertical-Lift Bridge
• Less construction
impact (environmental)
• Limits vertical clearance
• Shorter construction
period
• Visual impacts (towers)
Botlek Bridge, Rotterdam, Netherlands (under construction)
Pont Jacques Chaban-Delmas, Bordeaux, France
New Memorial Bridge, Portsmouth, NH
Continued Maintenance of Existing Bridge
(No Build)
• Ongoing maintenance
expected to become
more frequent and
more costly
• No change to channel
width restrictions or
reduction of bridge
openings
• Does not encourage
redevelopment of North
Harbor Area
Bridge Type Example Videos
• Dutch Bridge Example:
http://www.youtube.com/v/fmOk_mwC_TQ
• Rolling Bridge Example:
http://www.youtube.com/v/2qa6a3LJjQ4
What’s Next?
• Refine Alternatives (Short,
Medium, & Long-Term)
• Alternatives Analysis
– Evaluation Criteria will be
used to assess the
Alternatives
• Economic Development
Opportunities
• Bridge Operations
• Transportation Impacts
• Safety
• Environment
• Community
• Alternative Feasibility
Example Criteria:
• Number of businesses
impacted
• Construction Duration
• Vertical & horizontal
clearance (feet)
• Estimated number of
bridge openings
• Average delay times
• Impact to natural
resources
• Capital & maintenance
costs
Project Schedule
Questions?
Comments and feedback can be emailed to jbarrett@fhiplan.com