New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge Corridor Study
Study Advisory Group Meeting #1 Summary
February 27, 2014
Buzzards Bay Coalition
114 Front Street
New Bedford, MA
Ethan Britland, MassDOT Project Manager welcomed attendees. He said the New Bedford-Fairhaven
Bridge Corridor Study is a planning and feasibility study; it is a conceptual study and will not focus on
design. Ethan introduced John Weston as Project Manager of a team of consultants who will assist
MassDOT to conduct the New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge Corridor Study. John made a PowerPoint
presentation and fielded questions by the Study Advisory Group (SAG) members in attendance.
Highlights of the presentation are as follows:








The study will evaluate transportation and associated land use issues, develop potential
solutions, and recommend improvements along the Route 6 corridor. The swing bridge
connecting the communities of New Bedford and Fairhaven is functionally obsolete, constrains
marine traffic, and its opening results in extensive vehicle delays.
The study will focus primarily on the Route 6 bridge and the streets and port area up to the I195 bridge, but will also include a more regional street network and land area impacted by the
bridge.
The study will follow the five step MassDOT planning study process used in all feasibility and
planning studies - 1) project scoping, 2) identification of existing conditions and issues, 3)
alternatives development, 4) evaluation of alternatives and 5) recommendations.
The result of the study will be a phased action plan of short-term, medium-term and long-term
alternatives.
A Study Advisory Group (SAG) comprised of diverse stakeholders will guide the study process.
MassDOT will have a two-way dialogue with the group and expects SAG members to
communicate with their constituencies about the study.
A public involvement plan has been developed for the study that will include public meetings, a
project website and development of study documents such as newsletters and fact sheets.
The draft study goals are:
o Improve transportation mobility, connectivity and safety within the study area and
regionally;
o Maximize economic development through improvements to the New Bedford-Fairhaven
Bridge; and
o Identify feasible alternatives for short, medium and long-term improvements in the
corridor
Draft study objectives are:
o Facilitate economic opportunities for water dependent industries in New Bedford
Harbor upper basin that may result from project alternatives;
o Improve existing bridge operational speed and reliability to reduce delay and travel time
for vehicular and marine traffic;
o Reduce impacts to local roadway traffic due to bridge span openings;
o Improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility and connectivity in the corridor and regionally;
1
o

Minimize potential impacts to the community and environment from selected
improvements;
o Support and ensure consistency with established local goals and regional plans; and
o Develop feasible short, medium and long term implementation plans for selected
improvements.
Fourteen draft evaluation criteria were developed in these categories/impact areas:
o Economic development;
o Bridge operations;
o Transportation;
o Safety;
o Environment;
o Community; and
o Feasibility of alternatives.
SAG members were asked to provide the study team input on the draft study goals, objectives and
evaluation criteria that will be used to assess how well various alternatives developed meet the study’s
goals and objectives. The SAG offered the following comments about the goals and objectives:




In the first goal it should be clearly stated that improvement in mobility, connectivity and safety
are aimed towards maritime traffic as well as vehicles.
In the second goal it should be noted that improvement to the bridge should be rephrased to
include replacement or repair.
The goals and objectives should stress the needs of marine traffic equally with vehicle
transportation.
The committee made several suggestions for additional evaluation criteria:
o In the environmental category, consider the impact of emissions from vehicles stopped
for marine traffic to pass. This may contribute to greenhouse gases.
o In the safety category, add vessel safety.
o In the safety category, add vessel emergency access.
o In the alternative feasibility category, add criteria to consider impacts to business (lost
customers) when the bridge is open as well as during construction.
SAG members asked questions and provided comments to the study team as noted in italics below,
followed by responses made by team members.
What do you mean by “no-build”?
We look at existing conditions and then estimate future conditions without making any improvements.
The no-build is a measure used when comparing various improvement alternatives. In a no-build
scenario you would not modify the bridge or change the number of lanes but see what could be done to
better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians as well as consider the impact of changes to the
frequency of the swing bridge opening for marine traffic.
Will you look at development from a maritime perspective as well?
Yes. In the next couple of weeks maritime and economic development experts from our consultant team
will be visiting with representatives from the maritime industry to develop a full picture of existing
conditions and projected growth. They will be asking what if the bridge was changed, how would that
impact maritime opportunities? We will also review the New Bedford Harbor Plan to inform us on
expectations of the harbor.
2
Does the area of study include the Coggeshall Street passageway? There may be potential to expand
businesses north of that area.
Our understanding is that the clearance for the I-195 highway bridge (south of the Coggeshall Street
Bridge) is the same height as the Coggeshall Street bridge so both are limitations for vessels. Also we
think there are other issues north of there. The focus of this study is the Route 6 Bridge.
Are the goals and objective fixed?
No. We can expand them and are looking to the Study Advisory Group for feedback. We want to make
sure that we get the goals and objectives right as they are the foundation for our study.
From an economic standpoint when you evaluate the parcels north of the bridge, the land next to deep
water is more valuable. When you look for comparable land value, look beyond New Bedford. The Army
Corps of Engineers and the Harbor Commission has a lot of data on the value of cargo such as scallops,
clams, and clementines that are brought into the harbor.
Is there funding available for short term improvements, especially for bike safety improvements that are
needed now? The approach for bicyclists heading west from Fairhaven to New Bedford is very dangerous
for bicyclists in two places, especially for tourists who are unfamiliar with the area. It is a challenge for
bicycles and pedestrians to cross the area at the I-195 and Route 18 ramps. Could signage be put up?
Ethan Britland responded that the existing conditions analysis of this study will document where there
are problems. He added that sometimes MassDOT can implement more immediate improvements such
as pavement markings and signs that would be coordinated through the local MassDOT district. Bill
Travers of MassDOT’s District 5 said that the district has limited funds for a lot of needs. The district
would look at the area. Any signs installed by the department would need to follow established sign
criteria.
Will this committee stay active through the bridge design process?
This Study Advisory Group has been organized for the planning phase of the process. The subsequent
phases, such as environmental documentation, permitting and coast zone review, will all have their own
processes for public involvement.
Emergency access, both by vehicles and vessels, was noted as a problem. There is delay experienced by
those responding to emergencies on land and water.
It was noted that study graphics should identify the location of the navigation channel as well as
roadway lanes.
There was discussion about signage alerting motorists when the Route 6 bridge is closed to vehicles.
SAG members said better signs on I-195 that would alert motorists about the estimated time the bridge
would be closed that directed travelers to the next exit thereby avoiding the bridge crossing would be
helpful. Paul Mission of SRPEDD said that his agency recently completed a survey about real-time (ITS)
signage. It affirmed that there was confusion about wording on the sign to people from outside the New
Bedford area and concluded that people wanted better advance warning.
Upcoming study activities:
 SAG members learned that the study team would be collecting and analyzing traffic data in the
next month.
3


The team has bridge opening data for the last three years and its maritime consultant will be
investigating the size of vessels and frequency of bridge openings.
In March, traffic counts will be done while the bridge is closed to vehicular traffic during a
three-week shutdown as well as when it is open. The shutdown period will provide an
opportunity to understand where traffic is diverted when the bridge is out.
The next SAG meeting is anticipated in mid-late April. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Meeting Attendees:
Timothy Cox, Fairhaven Harbormaster
Joseph Lopes, New Bedford City Council
Mark Mahoney, New Bedford Emergency Management
Jim Hoyle, Federal Highway Administration, District 5
Dave Janik, Mass Coastal Zone Management
Sara Clermont, Mass in Motion New Bedford
Ken Pottel, Fairhaven Bikeway
Bill Roth, Town Planner, Fairhaven
Bob Espindola, Fairhaven Selectman
Naomi Carney, New Bedford City Council
Louis Elisa, Director, Seaport Advisory Council
Brad Lima, Mass Maritime Academy
Bill Travers, MassDOT, District 5
Diana Henry, New Bedford Historical Commission
Ellen Cebula, Deputy Director, Seaport Advisory Council
Lisa Estrela-Pedro, SRPEDD, Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District
Paul Mission, Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District
David Wechsler, Maritime International
Ronald Labelle, New Bedford Director of Public Infrastructure
Ed Anthes-Washburn, Port of New Bedford
Shane Sousa, MassDOT, District 5
Jeff Pontiff, E. J. Pontiff Real Estate
Study Team:
Ethan Britland, Project Manager, MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
John Weston, HDR
Stefanie McQueen, HDR
Jill Barrett, FHI
4