New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge Corridor Study
Study Advisory Group (SAG) Meeting Summary
October 7, 2014
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 purpose of the meeting would be to review existing conditions in the study area, short and
medium-term alternatives, and conceptual long-term alternatives.
John Weston, an HDR consultant hired by MassDOT to conduct the study, proceeded with a
presentation on the study’s purpose, MassDOT’s 5-step Planning Process, current status of work
completed to date and existing conditions. The existing conditions analysis done by the study team
included traffic conditions for marine vessels and vehicles, bridge operations, future No Build conditions
and a summary of issues and constraints.
John Weston described the condition and operation of the swing bridge, including the number of bridge
openings. The 92-foot opening width and reliability of the bridge for vessels constrains harbor
development. He said that there were two major points to understand. Bridge openings for vessels
have dramatically increased in the last 30 years. Marine traffic has grown from 2,000 vessels annually in
the 1980s to about 14,000 presently and this number is expected to grow in the future. Secondly, the
duration of openings is not expected to decline, even with a new bridge. Most of the time the bridge is
opened is related to vessels, rather than the operation of the bridge opening and closing. The time
shaved off by a new bridge would likely be measured in seconds, rather than in minutes. While the
bridge opening time will likely not change, the way motorists are informed of openings and delay times,
and how they detour can be changed.
A thorough analysis of current and future (year 2035) conditions was completed over the summer.
Currently three intersections within the Regional Study Area perform poorly. An additional six
intersections are projected to fall into that category by 2035 if no improvements are made. A summary
of issues included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Expansion of the port north of the bridge is limited by the existing bridge. Bridge horizontal and
vertical clearance restricts maritime-based economic development.
Increased and longer bridge openings from increased marine traffic have resulted in longer
vehicle delay on the roadway connection between New Bedford and Fairhaven (Route 6).
Ongoing EPA cleanup of PCB contamination in the harbor will continue for several years.
Bridge construction, with related travel lane reductions have resulted in growing safety
concerns.
Pedestrian and bicycle is deficient, with limited and inhospitable conditions.
Access to Fish Island and Pope’s Island is limited to the existing Route 6 Bridge.
Study Advisory Group Meeting Summary (10.7.2014)
1 | Page
•
•
Due to unreliable travel times, there is no transit service over the bridge.
Congestion on the Route 6 corridor is expected to increase.
The following constraints were identified in considering alternatives for a new bridge:
•
•
•
•
•
To provide adequate horizontal clearance (width) for vessels to reach the North Harbor, a new
bridge opening should be 150 feet. This is the width of the hurricane barrier opening.
Cargo vessels require 100-125 feet of vertical clearance to enter the North Harbor.
The bridge would need to provide pedestrian and bicycle access across the bridge, as well as
maintain access to Pope’s and Fish Islands. At a maximum, the roadway should have no longer
5% grade for no longer than 800 feet. This suggests the vertical clearance should be less than 20
feet.
During construction, restrictions to marine traffic should be limited; more than one vehicular
lane in each direction should be maintained.
Environmental disturbance in the harbor should be limited.
Short/Medium Term Alternatives: The study identified several improvements that could be achieved
irrespective of a new bridge. They included:
1. Alleviate existing corridor congestion by adjusting signal timing and lane configuration in the
corridor at Kempton Street/Mill Street and Purchase Street and at Huttleston Avenue/Main
Street.
2. Make improvement to accommodate future corridor congestion on existing bridge detour
routes Bridge Street and Route 240, Howland Road and Main Street and on Coggeshall Street at
these four intersections Ashley Boulevard, Front Street, Belleville Avenue and the I-95 off ramp.
3. Identify alternative routes and/or improve Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) such as
timely warning signs to motorists that the bridge is closed or will soon close to vehicular traffic,
which would allow motorists to take an alternate route.
4. Improve corridor pedestrian/bicycle facilities by (a) segregating these uses onto separate
sidewalks; (b) reducing the number of vehicle lanes to permit the addition of bicycle lanes; (c)
creating new pedestrian connections between New Bedford; and (d) improve pedestrian
connections between downtown, Route 6 bridge and the future Whale’s Tooth Station.
Conceptual Long-Term Alternatives: Four bridge types were identified for further consideration. Each
has advantages and disadvantages. The bridge types are:
1. Double-Leaf Bascule Bridge: Offers least visual impacts and unlimited vertical clearance, but
requires the most lengthy bridge closure (18-24 months for construction). It would have
significant environmental impact during construction and is the most expensive movable bridge
type.
Study Advisory Group Meeting Summary (10.7.2014)
2 | Page
2. Double-Leaf Dutch/Rolling Bascule Bridge: Has unlimited vertical clearance, a shorter
construction period, and less environmental impact during construction. However, its
mechanism (industrial-looking counterweights needed to lift bridge) produces visual impact.
3. Vertical-Lift Bridge: Has less environmental impact during a shorter construction period, but
vertical clearance is limited to about 100 feet and its towers produce a visual impact.
4. No Build: Maintaining the existing bridge is expected to become more frequent and costly. In
addition, it limits further development of the North Harbor.
The next steps for the study will be to refine the short, medium, and long-term alternatives. A final
recommendation is expected to be made by early spring 2015.
Throughout the presentation SAG members posed questions and made comments. They are listed
below in italics.
Traffic and ITS
What is the order of magnitude of delay on corridor intersections?
The Octopus intersection is projected to have a 15-30 second increase between 2014 and 2035. The
Adams/Huttleston intersection will have a 30-60 second increase between 2014 and 2035. Currently,
the Level of Service (LOS) is at D, but we expect it to go to F by 2035 if no improvements are made.
I would have expected Main Street and Huttleston Avenue to have more of a delay issue than Adams
Street and Huttleston Avenue.
This is an intersection that we will more closely examine. Ethan Britland told the SAG that MassDOT will
provide LOS information after the meeting.
Is extending Route 240 to Route 140 out of the question?
Yes. There was so much opposition years ago that this was taken off the table.
Did you look at the impact on traffic if you could alert people before Route 240 that the bridge is open,
allowing them time to detour north onto an alternate route?
Paul Mission said that the SRPEDD study that looked at ITS sign network was just released. This study
details what drivers who routinely get stuck in traffic would like to see improved.
Regardless of what we do with the bridge, we need to better inform drivers. The current signs do not
work well. They don’t trigger properly when the bridge is about to open or open. A massive overhaul of
signage is needed.
Our understanding is that the existing ITS architecture is doing the best it can within its capabilities. We
recognize the limitations. Perhaps we may be able to change the location of current signs. We are
currently looking at the placement of the Fairhaven signs.
Replacement of the bridge is a megaproject. The ITS should move forward on a separate track, using
technology that will be compatible with the new bridge.
Study Advisory Group Meeting Summary (10.7.2014)
3 | Page
Ethan Britland responded that District 5 has stated that ITS improvements are not included in current
bridge project work scope but will be included as part of this study. John Weston added that an entirely
new approach to ITS is needed; existing technology must be completely upgraded or rethought.
Will the focus on traffic improvements be at the six intersections identified by your study as in need of
improvement?
Yes. This is where we will concentrate our attention.
Issues and Constraints
Minor accidents on the bridge are also tied to bridge openings, not just construction on bridge.
The New Bedford Harbor Development Commission recently discussed reducing the number of lanes
from two in each direction to one in each direction with a center turning lane. This could be explored in
more detail. It would improve conditions for bicyclists.
Allowing unimpeded emergency vessel transit through the bridge when it is open for vehicular traffic
should also be a constraint.
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
There is a need for short-term bike and pedestrian access on south side of bridge.
The current bridge construction project will reduce lane width from 12 to 11 feet; the remaining 4 feet
will be added to shoulders. This is not enough space to add in a bike lane by MassDOT standards but will
give bicyclists additional room.
Access on north side of bridge is less important considering the connections on New Bedford side. Would
it be possible to have a wider sidewalk to accommodate bikes and pedestrians on the south side? This
would make the sidewalks 7-8 feet. The sidewalks should be as wide as possible.
We cannot remove the pedestrian sidewalk on north side of bridge due to numerous businesses on
Pope’s Island, but we can provide additional or safer crosswalks to south side to allow connection to
downtown New Bedford.
Port needs
What port traffic are we trying to accommodate north of the bridge?
Jeff Stieb of the Harbor Development Commission responded that New Bedford is the second largest
industrial port in Massachusetts. The fishing industry is continuing to grow, as well as cargo. The north
port area has potential to expand for maritime, cargo, and manufacturing uses through the addition of
bulkheads and redevelopment of several sites. This could free up space at the State Pier and
surrounding areas adjacent to the downtown to allow for more public uses there. Maritime uses could
shift to the north and south. The bridge is a huge constraint. The hurricane barrier should be the
constraint for the entire port, not the bridge. Paul Mission added that the north port area has multimodal potential, given proximity to major highways and existing freight rail access. Having direct access
to a rail line allows for tremendous economic opportunity to ship goods.
By raising the existing bridge 6-foot clearance to a 20 foot vertical clearance, police, fire and harbor
master vessels would likely able to transit the bridge without it opening for marine traffic.
Study Advisory Group Meeting Summary (10.7.2014)
4 | Page
Given the impact to port operations and its economic potential, this bridge project has a much wider
interest than just the local municipalities of New Bedford and Fairhaven. The motivation is there to move
this project forward to fit into larger port and state plans. This is an important aspect of the project and
should be discussed at the next meeting.
Bridge Types
What are the opening differences between the bridge types?
There is no significant difference; they all take about the same time.
What are the height clearance requirements for wind turbines?
This is something we will have to look into this further.
Are the past studies that were reviewed as part of the long-term alternatives development available for
review by the SAG?
Yes. The study team will make a review of these studies available.
At the conclusion of the meeting Ethan Britland ask the SAG if there was any concern with the bridge
types discussed, such as the potential visual impacts. No major concerns were raised. A SAG member
suggested perhaps visual impacts could be mitigated through design or theme. It would be nice to
create a signature theme for the bridge (i.e., whales).
Meeting Attendees:
Bill Roth, Town Planner, Fairhaven
Bill Travers, MassDOT, District 5
Michele Paul, City of New Bedford
Paul Mission, Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District
Mark Mahoney, City of New Bedford
Jeff Stieb, Port of New Bedford
Mary Rapoza, City of New Bedford
Jill McLean, City of New Bedford
Jean Fox, MassDOT (South Coast Rail)
Al Medieros, Rep. Tony Cabral’s Office
Theodore Lorentzen, Fairhaven Improvement Association
Joseph Lopes, President, New Bedford City Council
Bob Espindola, Town of Fairhaven, Board of Selectmen
Buddy Andrade, Old Bedford Village
Dave Janik, MA Coast Zone Management, South Coast Office
Project Team:
Ethan Britland, Project Manager, MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
John Weston, HDR
Stefanie McQueen, HDR
Jill Barrett, FHI
Study Advisory Group Meeting Summary (10.7.2014)
5 | Page