DRAFT (REVISED 3.11.2014)
STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to evaluate transportation and associated land use issues, develop
potential solutions, and to recommend improvements along the Route 6 corridor between
County Street in the City of New Bedford and Green Street in the Town of Fairhaven. Specific
focus will be given to the options and impacts associated with the potential replacement of the
New Bedford/Fairhaven Bridge. It is important that the study be conducted utilizing an open
and inclusive public-participatory approach that also takes into account needs of MassDOT,
members of the Study Advisory Group, and other stakeholders.
STUDY BACKGROUND
The existing New Bedford/Fairhaven Bridge was completed in 1901 and is currently classified as
functionally obsolete. The bridge is actually a system of three bridges that connect the mainland
across two mid-harbor islands (Fish Island and Pope’s Island). The central bridge includes a
moveable swing-span that allows boats to pass through into the northern harbor area while the
east and west spans are fixed.
It currently takes between 15 and 20 minutes to fully open and return the swing span to a
closed position, resulting in extensive vehicular traffic delays (by comparison, modern moveable
bascule bridges typically have openings in the range of 6 to 8 minutes).
Additionally, the moveable span suffers from long-term deterioration despite extensive
maintenance repairs. According to the MassDOT Bridge Rating report from 2000, the machinery
and operating systems are in poor condition and require continued corrective maintenance and
replacement of critical parts.
The existing moveable bridge is also a barrier for larger ships accessing the northern waterfront
land within the designated harbor areas of New Bedford harbor. According to the 2010 New
Bedford-Fairhaven Municipal Harbor Plan, the future development of harbor activities north of
Route 6 (including expansion of refrigerated cargo operations, short sea shipping operations,
ferry, cruise ship and excursion/shuttle boat operations, etc.) is constrained by the horizontal
clearances of the existing swing-span bridge.
MassDOT is currently in the process of a $17.6 million project to increase the lifespan of the east
and west spans of the bridge through improvements that include replacing joints and bearings,
cleaning and repairing steel, and repairing the concrete and granite piers and abutments.
However, this project did not include any work on the central moveable span.
STUDY GOALS/OBJECTIVES
During the study’s initial months, preliminary goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria will be
developed and refined in conjunction with the Study Advisory Group (SAG). Goals define the
general intentions and purposes for conducting the study based on the issues that have to be
addressed. Objectives describe ways that the goals could be accomplished. The evaluation
criteria are used to qualitatively and quantitatively measure how well each alternative meets the
defined objectives.
2/27/14revised 3.11.14
1 | Page
The following draft Goals and Objectives are for consideration and discussion by the Study
Advisory Group and will be finalized as part of the intitial stages of the study.
The draft Goals of the study include the following:



Improve transportation vehicular, marine, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility, connectivity,
and safety within the study area and regionally;
Maximize economic development through improvements replacement or repair ofto the
New Bedford/Fairhaven Bridge; and
Identify feasible alternatives for short-, medium- and long long-term improvements in
the corridor.
The draft Objectives of the study include the following:








Facilitiate economic opportunities for water -dependent industries in the New Bedford
Harbor upper basin that may result from project alternatives;
Improve existing bridge operational speed and reliability of bridge to reduce delay and
travel time for vehicular and marine traffic;
Reduce impacts to local roadway traffic due to bridge span openings;
Mitigate impacts to marine traffic due to bridge span closings;
Improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility and connectivity in the corridor and regionally;
Minimize potential impacts to the community and environment from selected
improvements;
Support and ensure consistency with established local goals and regional plans; and
Develop feasible short-, medium- and long- term implementation plans for selected
improvements.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluation criteria are specific considerations, or measures of effectiveness, used to assess
benefits and impacts of alternatives developed during the study. The draft evaluation criteria
listed below are tied directly to the defined goals and objectives and therefore may change as the
study goals and obectives are finalized. Additionally, as detailed information is available
regarding differences among alternatives, evaluation criteria may be modified to provide the
most relevant information for decision making.
The draft Evaluation Criteria listed below include both qualitative and quantitative measures.
When possible, qualitative measures will be monetized for comparison across transportation
modes and to assess the overall performance of alternatives. All evaluation criteria – containing
both quantifiable or more subjective, qualitative measures of effectiveness – will be used to
determine the best solutions for the defined goals and objectives.
2/27/14revised 3.11.14
2 | Page
Economic Development Opportunities
Number of businesses impacted
Economic development impacts
Value of business
Number of jobs
Shipper cost savings
Bridge Operations
Bridge opening times
Minutes per bridge closure
Vertical clearances
Feet of vertical clearance
Horizontal clearances
Feet of horizontal clearance
Esitmated number of daily bridge openings
Number per day
Transportation Impacts
Corridor intersections level of service (LOS)
Operational functionality
Corridor volume to capacity ratios
50th and 95th percentile queues
Average roadway travel time along corridor
Travel time
Average roadway delay
Average vessel delay
Safety
Compliance with ADA requirements
Pedestrian and bicycle mobility and connectivity
Bicycle/pedestrian delay
Provision of bicycle facilities
Provision of pedestrian facilities
Vehicular safety
Marine safety
Conformance with AASHTO and MassDOT standards
Delay to emergency vehicle access
Impact to safe navigation
Delay to emergency marine access
Environment
Impact to coastal resources (sq. ft.)
Environmental impacts
Impact to wetland resources (sq. ft.)
Impact to natural resources
Impact to air quality and greenhouse gases from idling vehicles
Community
Impact to protected and recreational open space
Community impacts
Impact to historical/archeological resources
Impact to cultural resources
Impact to business access
Visual
2/27/14revised 3.11.14
Visual impacts
3 | Page
Alternative Feasiblity
Cost
Capital and maintenance costs
Construction duration
Construction phase impacts
Impacts to abutting land owners/businesses
Impacts to Marine traffic
Impacts to vehicular traffic
Right of way impacts
2/27/14revised 3.11.14
Permanent and temporary right of way impacts
4 | Page