PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ABIGAIL ADAMS MIDDLE … › IMAGES_JPEG... · 10 resident owner, and please ask your question into the 11 microphone, as we do have a transcriptionist

Arlington Reporting Company (339)674-9100

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010 @ 7:00 P.M.

AT

ABIGAIL ADAMS MIDDLE SCHOOL-AUDITORIUM

89 MIDDLE STREET EAST WEYMOUTH, MA 02189

FOR THE PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OF THE FORE RIVER BRIDGE

ROUTE 3A OVER FORE RIVER Project No.: 604382

Bridge No.: f-01-002=n-06-001 Accelerated Bridge Program

BETWEEN THE CITY OF QUINCY AND TOWN OF WEYMOUTH

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

HIGHWAY DIVISION

LUISA PAIEWONSKY

HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR

FRANK A. TRAMONTOZZI, P.E. CHIEF ENGINEER

2

Arlington Reporting Company

(339)674-9100

PRESENTERS

Michael O’Dowd, Project Manager, MassDOT-Highway Division Bashir Madamidola, District 6 Representative, MassDOT-Highway Division Mark Pelletier, STV, Inc. Nicole Bulger, STV, Inc. Mark Ennis, STV, Inc. Miguel Rosales, Rosales Plus Parnters Nathanial Curis-Cabral, Howard/Stein-Hudson

SPEAKER INDEX

Name Page

Michael O’Dowd 5, 6, 9, 13, 55, 58, 60,

61, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119

Bashir Madamidola 10 Rep. James Murphy 6 Mayor Sue Kay 8 Councilor Victor Pap 9, 56, 57, 58 Mark Pelletier 15, 56, 57, 64, 72, 73,

87, 90, 108, 111 Nicole Bulger 22, 113, 116, 117

3


(339)674-9100

SPEAKER INDEX

Name Page

Mark Ennis 30, 39, 61, 62, 63, 64,

65, 86, 106, 109, 110, 111, 113

Miguel Rosales 34 Mike Lang 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 Ron Farna 67, 70 Bill Schrader 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 Gary Peters 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82,

83, 84, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94

Ron Adams 85, 87 Joanne Haracz 87 Dianne Madden 88, 87 David Watson 97, 101 David Oliva 102, 104 Sid McDonough 104, 106 Steve McCloski 106, 107, 108, 109 Gary Lawrence 112, 113 Timothy Donovan 114, 117 Gary Lowell 117, 118, 119

4


(339)674-9100

EXHIBITS

Description Page

Public Information Meeting Handout 122-132

Sign-In Sheet 133-134

5


(339)674-9100

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

2

MODERATOR MICHAEL O'DOWD: Good 3

evening, ladies and gentlemen. Is this microphone on? 4

Can everybody hear me in the back there? 5

My name is Michael O'Dowd. I welcome 6

you here tonight this evening to discuss the 7

Fore River Bridge replacement project. We've had a 8

number of them in the past. Many of you are familiar 9

faces. You have seen or have attended many of the 10

past public presentations and public information 11

meetings we have conducted over the past year and this 12

is one of the continuations. 13

And there were a number of questions, 14

comments raised subsequent to the last public meeting 15

in April, particularly with regards to the 16

architectural renderings of the vertical structure 17

that MassDOT had identified as being preferred in the 18

environmental assessment to be filed later this year 19

with the Federal Highway Administration. 20

And in response to that, we've asked 21

the architects for the design team to attend tonight's 22

meeting and also present a number of the renderings 23

and considerations that he has given, moving forward 24

6


(339)674-9100

with the identified bridge type. 1

So with that said, I would like to 2

please ask that anybody that has stepped in tonight, 3

before you leave, if you could please sign in, if you 4

have not already done so. 5

And if there are any questions 6

subsequent to the presentation by our design team, I 7

would ask you to come forward, please state your name, 8

your affiliation, whether you're an abutter or 9

resident owner, and please ask your question into the 10

microphone, as we do have a transcriptionist here 11

tonight taking a complete verbatim transcript of 12

tonight's proceedings. 13

Before we get started, and with my 14

introductions, I would like to introduce 15

Representative Murphy who would like to make a few 16

words tonight. 17

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MURPHY: From 18

here? 19

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Sure, that's fine. 20

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MURPHY: Hi 21

everybody, how are you doing? I'm Representative 22

James Murphy. I represent the town of Weymouth. And 23

I've worked along with Senator Hedlund, Representative 24

7


(339)674-9100

Bradley and Representative Mariano with regard to the 1

State delegation with regard to this project. And I 2

can say from my office and from all their offices 3

whose offices are represented here by their staff, 4

that we remain committed to working with all of you 5

along the South Shore. We know how important the Fore 6

River Bridge is to the town of Weymouth, but also to 7

the entire South Shore. 8

We stand here with you as residents 9

here tonight, and as your elected officials to work 10

with MassHighway and the Department of Transportation 11

to make sure whatever alternative is chosen. We take 12

all of your interests and concerns into mind. 13

This is the third meeting. There was 14

one in Hingham, there was one in Quincy, there is one 15

here tonight obviously, and there will be meetings 16

again as we move forward. 17

It's great to see so many people here, 18

residents who have a real concern for this project. I 19

also am here with Victor Pap who is the North Weymouth 20

District Councilor. Victor and I are working closely 21

on this project on behalf of all you. I'm also here 22

with Sue Kay, the mayor of Weymouth who is also 23

working closely with us. 24

8


(339)674-9100

So it really is a team effort to make 1

sure whatever is built here is going to be what the 2

residents want. We know how important the project is 3

to all of you. Thank you for all of you. 4

Mayor Kay, would you like to say a 5

couple of things? 6

MAYOR SUE KAY: Thank you, 7

Representative Murphy. Ladies and gentlemen, we don't 8

have a day-to-day, everyday pulse on exactly what's 9

happening; but I want you to know that I'm extremely 10

sensitive to the area, the residents in the area, what 11

you have had to put up with, so many projects over 12

there. I don't know how you have been as patient as 13

you have. 14

And on the other hand, Rep., I would 15

like to have seen this place full, because these 16

meetings are very important. So my main reasons for 17

staying very much involved and meeting with this 18

group, Mr. O'Dowd and his team is to make sure that 19

the residents, number one have a voice; and number 20

two, we mitigate these negative effects as much as we 21

can. Thank you. 22

Victor. Is it all right if Victor 23

comes up? 24

9


(339)674-9100

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Absolutely. 1

COUNCILOR VICTOR PAP: Thank you very 2

much. I don't want to take too much time. I don't 3

want to yell from my seat. But also I just wanted to 4

talk about Mayors Joe Sullivan and Tom Coke who have 5

been monitoring the project as well, even though 6

Braintree doesn't touch that part. And obviously I am 7

not going to speak on other elected officials' behalf, 8

but I think we have been advocating something that is 9

in tune with the residents who live in the immediate 10

area want that not only promote safety and security, 11

but economic vibrancy; so those are critical issues of 12

concern to us. And we are advocating for them along 13

with the North Weymouth Civic Association and other 14

concerned residents. So we just ask you to talk to 15

your friends and neighbors, and please provide your 16

input to MassDOT. Thanks very much. 17

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you very much, 18

Councilor Pap, Representative, Mayor. I would like to 19

get started by first introducing, to my immediate 20

right, Mr. Bashir Madamidola, he is with our District 21

6 office in Boston, and he will be staying on top of 22

this, doing the project reviews as the submissions go 23

forward, design stage submissions go forward. 24

10


(339)674-9100

To my left is Mr. Mark Pelletier, he's 1

the regional manager from the STV office in Boston. 2

To his left is Mr. Mark Ennis who is the lead 3

structural and project manager on the project. 4

Sitting over here is Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis. He is 5

with our public outreach coordination. He also works 6

for Howard Stein-Hudson. To his right is Nicole 7

Bulger who is leading the civil and highway design 8

portion of the project. And to her right is Miguel 9

Rosales. He is the architect who will be presenting a 10

number of architectural renderings that he's prepared 11

since we last saw you in April. 12

So I would like to commence by having 13

Bashir read the notice of the public information 14

meeting that was published in the Boston Herald and 15

Patriot Ledger on May 31, 2010 and was also advertised 16

on June 7th, 2010, also advertised in the Weymouth 17

News on June 3rd, 2010 and June 10, 2010. Bashir? 18

BASHIR MADAMIDOLA: Good evening. 19

"The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 20

Massachusetts Department of Transportation - Highway 21

division. Notice of Public Information Meeting. 22

Quincy-Weymouth: Proposed Fore River 23

Bridge Replacement Project File No. 604382. 24

11


(339)674-9100

A Public information meeting will be 1

held by MassDOT- Highway Division to discuss the 2

proposed Fore-River Bridge Replacement Project in 3

Quincy and Weymouth, MA. 4

WHERE: Abigail Adams Middle School 5

Auditorium 6

89 Middle Street 7

East Weymouth, MA 02189 8

WHEN: Monday, June 14, 2010 @ 6:30 p.m. 9

PURPOSE: The purpose of this meeting is to 10

provide the public with the opportunity 11

to become fully acquainted with the 12

proposed bridge replacement 13

alternatives of Bridge No. 14

Q-01-001=W-32-001 Route 3A over Fore 15

River. Following the presentation, 16

MassDOT staff will lead a discussion to 17

answer questions and gather public 18

comment. All views and comments 19

received at the meeting will be 20

reviewed and considered to the maximum 21

extent possible. 22

PROPOSAL: The project involves the replacement of 23

the Fore River Bridge, Route 3A over 24

12


(339)674-9100

the Fore River. The proposed Fore 1

River Bridge structure will have two 2

travel lanes, a bicycle accommodating 3

shoulder and sidewalks in each 4

direction. When completed, the project 5

will replace the existing temporary 6

ACROW moveable lifted bridge completed 7

and placed into service in 2005. 8

A secure right-of-way is necessary for 9

this project. Acquisitions in fee and permanent or 10

temporary easements may be required. The MassDOT is 11

responsible for acquiring all needed rights in private 12

or public lands. MassDOT's policy concerning land 13

acquisitions will be discussed at this hearing. 14

The community has declared that this 15

facility is accessible to all in compliance with the 16

ADA/Title II. However, persons in need of ADA/Title 17

II accommodations should contact Angela Rudikoff by 18

phone (617) 973-7005 or email 19

[email protected]. Requests must be made at 20

least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. 21

Luisa Paiewonsky Frank A. Tramontozzi, P.E. 22

Highway Division Chief Engineer 23

Boston, Massachusetts." 24

13


(339)674-9100

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you, Bashir. 1

So the reason for tonight's meeting, as 2

I mentioned earlier, was to try to bring the public up 3

to speed on the process that we have been continually 4

going through since the project design started, 5

September, I think it was the fall of 2008. We've 6

been moving forward. 7

One of the concerns that I've had is 8

that it's been expressed to me, subsequent to a number 9

of meetings, is that this project is being developed 10

under the Accelerated Bridge Program. And the 11

Accelerated Bridge Program was implemented in 2008 12

with the signing of the Accelerated Bridge Bond Bill. 13

It's $3 billion structurally deficient bridge repair 14

bridge rehabilitation or request program. 15

Governor Deval Patrick had signed it in 16

law. The intent was to address all structurally -- as 17

many of the structurally deficient bridge as we could 18

throughout the Commonwealth over the next eight-year 19

period. The expiration on this program is 2016, 20

that's expiration from a scheduled date and also with 21

regards to the funding availabilities. 22

The project has been moving at a pace 23

which is probably atypical of what many of you may 24

14


(339)674-9100

have considered to be a normal pace in the years gone 1

by. I have been with MassDOT-MassHighway for many 2

years, and this project is certainly moving rapidly. 3

But we do not want the public to feel that their 4

concerns, comments are being dismissed. That is not 5

the case. We are listening to you. That's why we are 6

conducting such a robust participation process over 7

the past 14 to 16 months now, and that will continue. 8

We want to keep you apprised of everything that's 9

going on. Your feedback is important to us. It does 10

bear on the direction that the design takes, and we 11

try exercise those comments to the maximum extent 12

practical. 13

But we realize that we have a project 14

that needs to keep moving forward, and we try to take 15

into account all of those concerns as we move forward 16

with that design and reach the goal. 17

Because, as I've stated in the past, 18

the goal is to replace the existing temporary ACROW 19

bridge that's out there right now. It does have a 20

limited life-span. It went into service in 2005, with 21

the understanding it would be replaced in its entirety 22

within 15 years. That will soon be upon us. So I 23

would like to stress that; but also stress the fact 24

15


(339)674-9100

that your comments are important to us, and we do need 1

to reflect those in all the documents moving forward. 2

With that said, I would like to 3

introduce Mark, I believe Mark Pelletier will be 4

giving the presentation. 5

MARK PELLETIER: Let me give this a 6

shot. Can everyone hear me? As Mike indicated, my 7

name is Mark PELLETIER. I'm vice president with STV. 8

We started working on this project about 9

September 2008, as Mike indicated. 10

A little bit about STV, we a firm that 11

specialize in bridges and tunnels. We have been in 12

Massachusetts since 1978. Our company has been in 13

business since 1912, and we have 1600 people in 30 14

offices around the country. We are one of the top 15

engineering firms in the country, and we're going the 16

bring that experience to bear on this particular 17

project, and we have been doing that within the last 18

18 months or so. 19

So just to orient you, I think we 20

started in September of 2008, which we began the 21

survey process, reviewing the existing data on the 22

project, and I'll go through what the scope and the 23

schedule is. But we started having public meetings, 24

16


(339)674-9100

perhaps March of 2009. This is actually our 11th 1

public informational meeting. 2

And so as Mike indicated, it's a little 3

different process than your normal MassHighway project 4

usually where you have the public meetings at the 25 5

level design. So we're approximately at the 6

10 percent, 15 percent design level at this point. 7

You're getting a lot of exposure of the project early 8

on in the process, and that helps us formulate our 9

project as we move forward. 10

What we have been trying to do at each 11

of these presentations is listen to your comments and 12

adjust our presentation a little bit to address some 13

of the concerns that were raised in the last 14

presentation. Our last presentation was April of this 15

year. And since that time we have met with both 16

conservation commissions in both Quincy and in 17

Weymouth; we met with both historic commissions in 18

Quincy and in Weymouth. 19

We are going to focus a little bit more 20

on the environmental permitting process as part of the 21

presentation; in addition to that, some of the 22

construction staging schemes associated with the 23

project. 24

17


(339)674-9100

In April, questions were asked about 1

the aesthetics of the bridge. We have our architect 2

here with some up-to-date renderings of the bridge, 3

which have been based on some comments that we have 4

received from these public information meetings, but 5

also from historic commission meetings. So we're 6

going to present that today, as well as some of the 7

background information that we presented all along, 8

and adjusted a little bit as we go along. 9

I think in addition to one of the 10

slides that we prepared -- actually, three of the 11

slides that we have prepared address the number and 12

type of vessels which pass through the channel, so we 13

will be presenting that as well. 14

So just to orient you, and if you can't 15

hear me at any time during the presentation, please 16

let me know, and I'll try to make an adjustment to the 17

microphone. I do this all the time. 18

A little orientation: We are here to 19

present the Quincy-Weymouth, Washington Street in 20

Quincy, Bridge Street in Weymouth, bridge replacement 21

project. Just to orient you: Route 3A; Quincy on the 22

left-hand side of the west the bridge, Fore River is 23

right at this location, and Weymouth on the east side 24

18


(339)674-9100

or right side of the slide. You have the USS Salem to 1

the southwest. The twin rivers to the northwest the 2

MWRA facility, and the Fore River station to the lower 3

right southeast corner of the project. 4

The existing, or the former bridge in 5

this alignment of Route 3A as been demolished, and we 6

have a temporary structure which has been in place 7

since approximately 2004. 8

The scope of what we have been asked to 9

do as the design consultants, and this is actually our 10

scope of work. We're coordinating with the 11

stakeholders, and you people are all the stakeholders 12

as well as the mariners and permitting groups, 13

MassHighway, MWRA. 14

We are currently at the 10 percent 15

level of design. We're a little bit farther along 16

than that. We have had 11 public presentations to 17

date, and that does not count all the other meetings 18

that we have had with the mayors of each community, as 19

well as a lot of the committees and legislative 20

representatives that we met with. 21

So our job was to evaluate a couple of 22

structure options. We're evaluating structure types 23

for the approaches as well as the movable span. And 24

19


(339)674-9100

for the movable span, we've evaluated the bascule 1

option, as well as a vertical lift option. We're 2

going to talk a little bit about those as we go 3

farther into the presentation. 4

Once we perform that evaluation, we'll 5

select the preferred alternative and present that 6

preferred alternative in a type study. Not only will 7

we present the preferred alternative, but we've 8

presented the other alternative as well. In our type 9

study, we've selected the vertical lift bridge option, 10

and we've compared that to the bascule bridge option. 11

And for the last 18 months and in those 12

11 public meetings we have gone through that process 13

with you. That's not our normal process. Usually we 14

go through our analysis and then we present you with 15

our findings. We've sort of walked you through along 16

the way as we've been doing our analysis, and that's a 17

little bit different than what the public is typically 18

used to. 19

So once we've prepared our selective 20

preferred alternative, we prepare our MEPA policy act 21

filing, and Nicole Bulger is going to talk about that 22

filing process and the steps we're going to go through 23

as part of that filing process. 24

20


(339)674-9100

Once we are finished with the 1

permitting process, they'll be establishing some 2

permitting requirements, that will include in our 25 3

level design documents. That will include design 4

plans for the structure that's going to be 5

constructed; construction staging plans which will 6

address traffic management and issues associated with 7

construction, and then traffic management plans for 8

the projects. 9

And we will prepare that in a design 10

built procurement package that will go out for 11

advertisement of the selection of a design build. 12

A little bit about the schedule. We 13

talked about fall of 2008 as our notice to proceed 14

date; the basic design occurred from fall 2008 into 15

the winter of 2009 and 2010. The basically, we went 16

through the initial stages of the project. We're at 17

the 25 design level at this point, spring of 2010, and 18

we're moving advancing to that 25 percent design 19

level. So we're at about 10 percent to 15 percent, 20

and we're advancing to the 25 percent design state. 21

That's occurring in spring of 2010 to spring of 2011. 22

In the fall of 2010, when we submit our 23

initial 25 percent design for MassHighway, we'll begin 24

21


(339)674-9100

preparing the procurement documents. And it actually 1

does take a little bit, a little while to prepare 2

these document and compare and review comments and 3

incorporate the those review comments into the set. 4

So it takes about a six-month period. 5

And then in the fall, I'm sorry, spring 6

of 2011, that will go out to bid for the design build 7

contractor, and then construction will occur in 2011 8

to 2015. 9

Our project goal was to provide a 10

permanent replacement for the Fore River Bridge that 11

maximizes the vertical channel clearance to reduce 12

openings of the structure. That's the fixed position. 13

We want to maximize vertical clearance. 14

We want to maximum our horizontal 15

channel clearance to improve navigation and speed, the 16

passage for mariners and ships through the channel. 17

We want to make sure we have a reliable and simple 18

structure to maintain. A little bit different than 19

the temporary structure that's out there today which 20

requires a lot of maintenance, you probably see that 21

on a daily basis. 22

We're accommodating bicyclists and 23

pedestrians in the permanent structure. And we want 24

22


(339)674-9100

one that's aesthetically pleasing. And in addition to 1

that, we want to make sure it meets budget constraints 2

and certainly that is an issue to date. 3

So at this time, Nicole Bulger who 4

leads or civil effort, will talk about profile 5

alternatives, and then the environmental permitting 6

process. 7

NICOLE BULGER: What you see here is 8

the profile that we have been looking at for about, 9

you have probably seen this live before. This goes to 10

the point about one of the main projects of the goal 11

is to maximize the vertical clearance that's available 12

for vessel passage. 13

What you see up there is the lower gray 14

curved line which represents the 1936 grade profile. 15

Then you see the blue line just below the red, that 16

actually represents what we were able to achieve in 17

our current design. That allows us to maximize the 18

vertical clearance for those vessels while still 19

maintaining five percent slopes on the roadway, in 20

order to maintain accessible guidelines. Maintain the 21

35-mile per hour posted speed limit that you currently 22

have out there with the temporary bridge; and minimize 23

our impacts to the rotary of the Quincy side, which is 24

23


(339)674-9100

to the left of the screen, and to the homes 1

immediately adjacent to the State highway layout in 2

Weymouth on the right side. 3

This is what we're looking at for our 4

cross section, again this is what we've shown before. 5

Four 12-foot travel lanes per vehicle, similar to what 6

was on the 1936 bridge. We're also providing 7

five-foot shoulder bicycle accommodations, one in each 8

direction, and a six to six-and-a-half foot sidewalk 9

on each side of the road. 10

This is what the cross section looks 11

like with the towers, to give you a little perspective 12

n how that fits in with the bridge itself. 13

Obviously, with this project we're 14

required to maintain permit and approval. Our main 15

permitting process is the National Environmental 16

Policy Act, or NEPA, I'll get into that a little more 17

later. We're also filing a U.S. Coast Guard Bridge 18

Permit application; a Fore River Water Quality 19

Certificate from the Massachusetts Department of 20

Environmental Protection; 404 permit from the U.S. 21

Army Corps of Engineers; a request for a Consistency 22

Determination from the Massachusetts Coastal Zone 23

Management Office. And a contact will be required to 24

24


(339)674-9100

file with the EPA for a National Pollution Discharge 1

relation. It's a permit related to storm water during 2

construction, and storm water discharge. 3

The National Historic Preservation Act 4

Memorandum of Agreement was signed prior to the 5

demolition of 1936 bridge, there were several 6

stipulations that were standard in that Memorandum of 7

Agreement. For example, this last month, MassDOT 8

presented this project to the Weymouth and Quincy 9

historical commissions. 10

Also important for me to point out that 11

this project is considered what's commonly known as a 12

Footprint Bridge Replacement Project, as well it 13

affords Federal exemption based on the Transportation 14

Bond Bill. That applies to bridges that are being 15

replaced with a replacement structure, along in 16

alignment to the existing structure and includes the 17

same number of travel lanes as the situation here. 18

Based on that bill, we are exempt from the 19

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA, 20

Chapter 91 licensing with FEP, and also the Wetlands 21

Protection Act. 22

More specific on the NEPA process, the 23

Federal Highway Administration is our lead Federal 24

25


(339)674-9100

agency for this project; the United States Coast Guard 1

is the coordinating agency because we are standing out 2

in the waterway. 3

This process incorporates public 4

comments, and I'll get into more specifically and 5

where that occurred as we move forward. We had just 6

completed our first draft of the Environmental 7

Assessment Document. That document addresses the 8

existing conditions, analyzes alternatives, and in 9

this particular document, we analyze the available 10

alternatives in leaving this temporary bridge in 11

place, the bascule bridge alternative and the vertical 12

lift bridge alternative. 13

We identified the potential impact of 14

those three alternatives that we propose. And we're 15

proposing mitigation that might be required. There's 16

the formal public comment period associated with that, 17

and ultimately the Federal Highway Administration 18

makes the determination. 19

This is the list of environmental 20

assessment impact categories that we addressed in the 21

documents based on the public comments that we have 22

received to date. Those that you see highlighted in 23

green seems to be what we hear from the community are 24

26


(339)674-9100

your major concerns: Those are noise, traffic, 1

vehicles, pedestrian and bicycles, visual impacts and 2

also construction impacts, and we'll try to address 3

those issues here at the presentation this evening. 4

To give you a more clear idea what the 5

environmental assessment schedule looks like: This is 6

a step-by-step run through the environmental 7

assessment process, so bear with me here. 8

MassDOT initially presented the project 9

to the public and received comments. Written public 10

comments that have been received to date are included 11

in the environmental assessment documents, along with 12

those responses to those comments. We have had 11 13

presentations since April of 2009. This is the public 14

information section. 15

The consultants STV and our design team 16

have prepared draft PA. We are currently what you 17

see, MassDOT reviewing our first draft of that 18

document, and they will provide comments to us in the 19

next couple of weeks. We will then revise the 20

environmental assessments per your comments and they 21

will submit that document to the Federal Highway 22

Administration. Federal Highway will review that 23

document. Their comments will come back to MassDOT. 24

27


(339)674-9100

MassDOT will again have us provide documents for 1

Federal Highway comments. And then the Federal 2

Highway Administration will publish that environmental 3

assessment for public comment for a minimum of 30 4

days. We anticipate that will occur this fall. 5

Federal Highway will then review all of 6

the written comments that they receive, and they will 7

issue a determination for the final project for NEPA 8

compliance. There are a lot of tests. I want to make 9

sure everybody has a grasp on this process, I'll be 10

happy to go back to the (unintelligible). 11

Specifically related to noise, that was 12

one of the primary concerns with the neighbors in the 13

area. We're proposing a mitigation in the 14

environmental assessment document related to noise. 15

We are proposing there will be a construction liaison 16

available to the community, so you have someone to 17

call if you have an issue. We will be complying with 18

Mass DEP guidelines as far as noise levels and adding 19

ten decibels as a threshold. Separate thresholds will 20

be established for day, evening and nighttime periods. 21

You won't have the same thresholds at night as you 22

have during the day, and the contractor will be 23

required to implement a noise control program. 24

28


(339)674-9100

This is part of the noise-sound 1

monitor. When we discussed noise previously at these 2

meetings, it was requested of us to define what ten 3

decibels means. Just to give you an idea of that, on 4

the bottom of the scale, you see that four or five 5

decibels, is a quiet urban area at night. When you 6

jump up to 55 decibels, you're at the noise level for 7

a typically quiet urban area during the day. That's a 8

ten decibel increase. That kind of gives you an idea, 9

this would be considered a quiet urban area. 10

Moving up to the traffic management 11

which is one of the other concerns that we heard 12

expressed by the community: We are looking to reduce 13

the number of bridge openings as a key goal of the 14

project because we know the traffic associated with 15

the bridge openings is not what the community is very 16

happy about. 17

More specifically, during construction, 18

actually during perfect condition, variable message 19

signs will be installed in the first phase of the 20

project. It is also called VMS. New traffic data is 21

plugged in, using that updated data in the traffic 22

management plan during this project. 23

We are reviewing the temporary traffic 24

29


(339)674-9100

management plan use during temporary bridge 1

construction. We would really like to hear any 2

comments that you might have on during the temporary 3

bridge construction for traffic mitigation, what 4

worked, what didn't (unintelligible). That will help 5

us move forward. We also worked to establish 6

construction criteria and thresholds, so we can put 7

them into our design documents that I talked about 8

earlier and we will and MassDOT will update the public 9

throughout the construction using various method 10

technology, so you're aware of any dangerous traffic 11

management concerns. 12

This is the variable message sign. 13

Right now there is the red dot to the right of the 14

screen and to the left, those are the locations that 15

we settled on. We're also looking at the various 16

areas out to try to divert traffic at locations at 17

other destination points, maybe direct traffic to the 18

highway if necessary. 19

We'll also be establishing a truck 20

route, we heard in your comments, for truck traffic on 21

the roadway is a big concern. This is one potential 22

truck route used by the MWRA. There are some issues 23

with the truck road, and we will work with the local 24

30


(339)674-9100

community and establish a truck route and keep those 1

trucks out as much as possible. 2

Now I will turn it to Mark Ennis for 3

construction sequencing. 4

MARK ENNIS: Thank you, Nicole. 5

Turning to the structure itself, as the previous 6

presentation, we have been given a very generic 7

sequence of construction; and now we're advancing the 8

design and looking a little more closely how the 9

contractor would build the bridge. We are taking the 10

opportunity to present one of the construction 11

sequencing schemes that we think has some good merit. 12

This particular scheme is the reason 13

why we're representing this particular scheme is that 14

it represents the scheme that is the shortest 15

construction duration, as it also has the least cost 16

associated with the construction work. So it goes to 17

advance. Just to give an explanation what you're 18

looking at here in the screen -- oh, the wrong one 19

guys. 20

There is a matrix here on the bottom 21

left-hand corner and indicates on the scheme we're 22

presenting here today. There are four significant 23

phases. We have phase one, two, three, four on the 24

31


(339)674-9100

left. The middle here shows the duration associated 1

with each of these phases: And 30 for the first, four 2

months for the second, one month for the third, and 3

finally five months for the fourth, for a total of 4

40 months. And on the right-hand side shows the 5

number of lanes open on Route 3A through each of those 6

four phases. 7

The scheme as seen shown above here is 8

a representative of things now. It shows the traffic 9

configuration that exists today. This is the Quincy 10

side here; that's the rotary there, and just off of 11

the screen to the left. And the green represents the 12

temporary bridge in its current configuration today. 13

During this phase, which lasts 14

30 months, which really represents the bulk of 15

construction activity. The movable span that we 16

built, the area in orange indicating the area of 17

construction. The movable span will be built and the 18

plank span will be built on the side extending back to 19

the Quincy approach and the Weymouth approach. And 20

during this whole time, these 30 months, traffic will 21

continue on the temporary bridge just as it does 22

today. 23

But because challenges from a traffic 24

32


(339)674-9100

perspective, we must rebuild the ramp, existing ramps 1

that are there present. The temporary bridge 2

diversion doesn't extend beyond the structure itself. 3

It merges in on either approach on those approach 4

ramps; so our challenge is to keep traffic moving 5

while we reconstruct the approach on these areas. 6

What we show here is that while we tie 7

into the existing structure, we build a ramp, and 8

rebuild one side of the ramp, we take this portion of 9

the structure here and here to accommodate the 10

contractor's activity. 11

This limits us to the number of lanes 12

available for roadway traffic for two. The traffic 13

goes in one lane in each direction going across the 14

temporary bridge during this time. Our estimate 15

during this period is four months. 16

And moving on to Phase Three: Again, 17

this is a relatively short phase. We anticipate no 18

more than a single month. What we intend to do here, 19

although we lost half of the temporary bridge, we now 20

have one side of the permanent structure, a completed 21

structure. We have rebuilt the north side of each 22

approach. We will be able to divert traffic on to the 23

new bridge, not the full width, which limits us to 24

33


(339)674-9100

just three lanes; but a fourth will have an 1

opportunity to open up one additional lane, and we 2

will be able to complete the work on the other side of 3

the temporary bridge, as we tie-in of what was the 4

previous bridge, open to roadway traffic what was the 5

previous bridge into the new existing rebuilt 6

structure. 7

And finally, as five months set aside 8

for the demolition of a temporary bridge, and that 9

shows -- the temporary bridge is shown shaded in 10

orange right here, construction activity will happen. 11

Actually through these five months, the bridge will be 12

entirely acting in its permanent condition: Four 13

lanes open, two in each direction. So this has, again 14

just as phases, number one has no impact on the 15

roadway. You will have full use of four lanes on the 16

bridge. 17

So the crucial time is phases two and 18

three which represents an impact, a reduction in the 19

number of lanes. And like I said, there are other 20

schemes that we're investigating the merits of; 21

however, we have identified this as the fastest 22

practical way to complete the structure. As always, 23

with construction, when something can happen more 24

34


(339)674-9100

rapidly, there is a cost savings associated with it as 1

well. 2

Moving on to the site of the bridge and 3

how the vertical lift bridge may appear, as Mark 4

indicated we have Miguel Rosales with us today to 5

describe how the design will work out. Miguel works 6

with the design team and the structural group in 7

particular; he heard all the comments generated in 8

these public meetings in the past, and he is 9

attempting to wrap those concerns into a construction 10

that the community can be proud of, but also meets the 11

fundamental nature of a movable structure as well, as 12

MassDOT and the community would want a good bridge 13

that would require minimal maintenance for many years 14

to come. 15

MIGUEL ROSALES: Well, I think that's 16

something that we can promise that the new bridge will 17

be better looking than the ordinary temporary existing 18

bridge. And we think that the new bridge will accent 19

the cultural character of the area. It's an area 20

that's is important for many neighborhoods, so it's 21

going to be quite high. It's going to be about 22

260 feet high, because you have to be able to support 23

the structure in order to open the portion and leave 24

35


(339)674-9100

out 360 feet clearance and high tide structures. 1

One of the issues that is important to 2

mention is, right now the temporary structure is that 3

we're looking at impact. There are many piers here, 4

and also a pier here. You have a lot of metal 5

structures underneath. Then when you are driving over 6

the bridge, there are also trusses, you know in that 7

structure, that complicates your ability of looking 8

out. And another issue is the structure doesn't have 9

a smooth profile. It's kind of awkward. It kind of 10

goes like pieces. The bridge was suppose to be 11

temporary. All of the pictures will be the new 12

improvements of the new structure. 13

This is the video what we have been 14

looking at. This is an all steel alternative that is 15

a main truss here that's going to go up and down, and 16

there's a steel tower. And you can see much cleaner 17

than before. You only have the main tower is going to 18

be wider. Most of the bridge here will appear on 19

land; there would be more use at a wider level. These 20

are much bigger than are right there now. 21

This is a more open structure; this is 22

also structure looking underneath. And we begin to 23

have what we call a bald structure, given what a 24

36


(339)674-9100

(unintelligible) come to approaching. We have no idea 1

(unintelligible) very simple. You don't have these 2

open gears where it's quite complicated. 3

This is when it's open. One of the 4

things with the existing temporary bridges, these 5

towers are not connected. Those are open in the 6

middle. They need to have more have a mast. They 7

need to stand all alone, take all the weight. All of 8

the machinery is taken at this level. And we're 9

taking, that cable that raises the structure up and 10

down. That's a reliable type of structure. 11

That's another view. You know, looking 12

from another location and new structure. And just off 13

here, this is exact location of the new bridge. This 14

is more of a transition which is quite awkward around 15

the area. 16

One of the things that has been 17

important, I think, is that trying to find some order 18

of the structure. So we basically have a modular 19

system and we have this shape break that goes all the 20

way up. At each of these locations, there will be an 21

opportunity to do some type of maintenance. You know, 22

these will be the beams that walk there and wrap 23

around the structure. People welcoming entrance that 24

37


(339)674-9100

will be located here. 1

This truss is going to be visibile and 2

because there has to be a truss, there's a minimum 3

depth of the structure. The structure, for example 4

here, that doesn't have a truss, is going to be deeper 5

because you don't have a bigger issue. 6

Another issue we need to have stairs 7

and elevator that go all the way up. They're going to 8

be controlled, kind of a room here that you're going 9

to be able to see out and then you see that goes all 10

the way up. 11

We thought maybe it was better to put 12

the stairs on this side, that is not a big welcome to 13

the neighborhood, that's the residential area, on the 14

other side of the river. 15

This is when it's higher up. Again, I 16

just want to emphasize this is a precedence, kind of 17

establishes all of the geometry of the bridge and this 18

is the structure we can explore that in the future. 19

What's important, we have all the main elements 20

basically it's like a machine. It has to go up and 21

down, you know, with certain criteria. We have 22

achieved all of those right now. And we can work on 23

others at another time (unintelligible). 24

38


(339)674-9100

This is another view from the river. 1

This is the neighborhood around, and this is the new 2

structure. 3

One of the elements that was done here, 4

is that we thought it would be interesting to have a 5

curve here on the truss, instead of having a straight 6

truss. And I have to tell you that not all trusses 7

are created equal. Just because you see the truss 8

right now in a temporary structure doesn't mean the 9

truss is going to be same. They use color. If you 10

want a special color (unintelligible) for the 11

structure, that would be a blue or white, something 12

that blends with the sky, that's something we could 13

explore in the future. 14

This is the bridge open. As you can 15

see, the measure of the structure from here to here, 16

is over 300 feet. That has to be completely open when 17

the bridge is in the open position. 18

That's when you look at some lighting, 19

on towers on the structure, meaning sometimes, for 20

example, you go through New York, the George 21

Washington Bridge, that's also a metal structure with 22

both ways, and they illuminate it at night and have 23

illumination, and that can be done at night or 24

39


(339)674-9100

explored in the future, if you wanted it. I think 1

aesthetics, lighting is not a very high cost compared 2

to the overall cost to the structure. 3

MARK ENNIS: Thank you, Miguel for that 4

presentation. As we work on this more, as we interact 5

with them and with architectural side, we certainly 6

see some great opportunity to come up with a 7

significant structure, a signature structure so to 8

speak, with the area that would be a source of pride 9

for the entire community. 10

We have presented in the past on the 11

issue of how we got to this point what we're 12

recommending to MassDOT to use just a vertical lift to 13

be built here. For the sake of completeness, we 14

propose to briefly recap some of that presentation in 15

a more summarized version for those who may not have 16

been present here in the past. 17

We certainly are -- our challenge here 18

is to meet, provide the bridge that works well for all 19

the stakeholders. Certainly, the road and commuters 20

and people who drive across the bridge on a daily 21

basis, and there are a lot that of cars on the bridge 22

32,000 vehicles on a daily basis, and we've identified 23

to reduce the number of openings that the bridge has 24

40


(339)674-9100

to perform and obviously reduce -- also to reduce the 1

duration of those openings. So reduce the number and 2

reduce the duration of the openings and subsequently 3

lift the impact to roadway traffic. 4

Similarly, we have had several meetings 5

outside of these public meetings with the mariners and 6

with the Coast Guard, and they have been very forward 7

in expressing their needs and concerns relative to the 8

new bridge. And these items are summarized here. 9

We actually had an opportunity to go 10

out and pass through the site on one of the large oil 11

tankers that come in and serve Citgo and up the 12

bridge. And we took the challenge through the area 13

and why the mariners are asking for a wider channel, 14

but not just for the vessels that use the channel, but 15

also for the participated vessels that are in the 16

future, under construction. And there is a new class 17

of vessels that's expected to be serviced once that 18

reconstruction work is completed, post class of 19

vessels. 20

So we have to be mindful not only of 21

the current users and the challenges they have moving 22

through the site, but the potential vessels that could 23

be using this site in the future. 24

41


(339)674-9100

And that boils down to their desire is 1

to have, the mariners' desire is to have at least a 2

250-foot channel width. Under negotiations, so to 3

speak, they did expect that they could perhaps live 4

with 225 feet, and the only thing at that point we 5

were able to bring the bascule as a serious 6

alternative at this site. 7

A previous description: A bascule 8

type-bridge, the bascule is very streamlined in that 9

the counterweight sits below -- actually, the 10

counterweight sits just below the deck level and it 11

does not require a high vertical tower feature that 12

vertical lift has. However, because this 13

counterweight is much closer to the trunnion, you need 14

a much higher counterweight to structure ratio, 15

counterweight you need three times the weight of the 16

structure for the counterweight. What happens when 17

the bridge gets longer and longer, that counterweight 18

gets quite large. 19

To accommodate that 225 span navigation 20

channel, that's the absolute minimum mariners would 21

consider, the trunnion to trunnion distance from the 22

bridge is a range of 316 feet; given the width of the 23

375 and solid deck, it will be the largest heaviest 24

42


(339)674-9100

bascule structure in the country. 1

Because of these large counterweights 2

for this structure size, it, as the picture shows, it 3

drops the counterweight down below the water level, 4

which is an unacceptable feature to have on a bascule. 5

Subsequently, you have to have a very large pit within 6

the pier system; so the pier would have to be 7

approximately 100-foot deep to accommodate the swing 8

of this counterweight as the bridge goes into the open 9

and closed position. 10

The other challenge we have with the 11

bascule is that it essential supports on the 12

cantilever system which is not structurally efficient; 13

but the structure, not only goes back and forth in the 14

closed position, it's a noticeable reflection of the 15

large span, but as we attempt to open the bridge in 16

the open condition, this flat area is close to 17

200-feet in height, which will be a giant sail, which 18

will put an enormous motor system that would be 19

required to operate this bridge. 20

So it's, we find it rather unfeasible 21

and it represents a significant structural challenge. 22

It's well beyond the typical range for bascule use 23

because of the draw. 24

43


(339)674-9100

A vertical lift bridge is a much more 1

stable structure as it is supporting at all time both 2

sides. And much like if you are carrying a ladder, if 3

you're carrying in the center, and rotating is very 4

challenging. As the ladder gets longer, if you have 5

with a ladder as you have with a vertical lift it's 6

much easier to have it. The raising and lowering of 7

the bridge, we have both ends of the bridge equally 8

supported all times, and that allows us for these 9

larger heavier structures to build, to provide a 10

structure that will perform well in all conditions. 11

As we well described this steel ropes 12

or cables that extended up over a pulley at the top of 13

this tower and have counterweights on the back side, 14

because of this configuration, we have one 15

relationship between counterweight and structural 16

weight; so it provides a much more economical system 17

in terms of balancing off of the structure weight. 18

Once spans gets into the ranges that 19

we're considering here, it's almost always a vertical 20

lift structure that's employed across the country, and 21

has been so for many years. 22

Here's the advantages we eluded to: 23

The vertical lift gives us an opportunity to move the 24

44


(339)674-9100

truss, that's above the roadway, 10 percent of the 1

roadway, and you might see the triangle of the truss 2

extended above the roadway. What this does is allows 3

us to maximize the horizontal clearance available for 4

vessels that come in the approach position, and that 5

requires a minimum number of times to open the bridge. 6

And as Mark Pelletier described, we 7

examined the possibility of both the bascule and a 8

vertical lift structure. The top corner represents a 9

photograph of a bascule bridge in Chicago; these are 10

rivers in Chicago. And the lower represents the 11

vertical lift, across the Cape Cod Canal the vertical 12

bridge. You might be able to see as you cross the 13

Bourne Bridge or Sagamore Bridge. 14

We actually receive some comments they 15

like the simple layout of the top corner and 16

structure. We worked with Miguel, and Miguel has 17

taken some of those features and employed into the 18

rendering we received today. 19

As we stated, the longer spans, a 20

vertical lift is the primary choice for movable 21

bridges. 22

Again, I'll try not to spend too much 23

time on this. We've studied the types that 24

45


(339)674-9100

investigated the two structure types, and we 1

investigated each of the two alternatives: The 2

vertical lift and the bascule. We also listed the 3

criteria here. They included the ability of cars to 4

pass across the bridge with minimal delays. The 5

acceptance of the mariners and Coast Guard of the 6

channel width, and the vertical clearance issues also 7

as they relate to the opening. 8

The site conditions, the parameter, the 9

engineering parameters that we just described, the 10

permitting agency constraints that Nicole just 11

covered. Certainly aesthetics, certainly the 12

life-time cost, maintenance of the cost of the bridge, 13

in addition to adjust the cost of the bridge itself. 14

Another item here to show the 15

comparison studies we have done: This shows a scour 16

analysis. As a result of the scour analysis involves 17

the amount of water actually, a large storm event 18

through the Fore River area. And the bridge itself 19

it's actually located in the jurisdiction of the 20

Fore River Estuary, and the speed of the water flowing 21

through here is quite rapidly, especially in a storm 22

condition, and it tends to flush away in the rain 23

which provides a challenge for the foundation. 24

46


(339)674-9100

As you can see the amount of scouring 1

as predicted for the vertical lift is a deeper scour 2

that's the range of 30 feet that's predicted for the 3

bascule. And you will notice, although the tower is 4

tall, actually the heading of the structure is the 5

bascule of the two structures that's reflected in the 6

large number of drill shafts in the massive pier 7

counter in case of the counterweight of the bascule 8

for the bridge of this scale. 9

We understand that people have a bad 10

experience with vertical lift because the temporary 11

bridge that's out there is a vertical lift, and that 12

might be their main experience with dealing with such 13

a structure; but we want to mention, there are many 14

characteristics of the temporary bridge that will not 15

be in place with the permanent structure that we're 16

proposing. 17

The temporary bridge was put up here to 18

allow what was originally the rehabilitation of the 19

Fore River Bridge to take place to what became of the 20

full replacement of the bridge; so it was built to 21

last 15 years. And the quality of the materials used 22

reflect that. 23

So the bridge will be designed, will 24

47


(339)674-9100

have a minimum design life of 75 years. So it will be 1

a much more massive robust and more conservatively 2

design structure. 3

The mechanical system associated with 4

the existing temporary bridge is basically based on 5

crane-type guidelines. We have a much smaller code to 6

conform with, which is the AASHTO, that requires all 7

permanent bridges in America to be built to support 8

roadway load. And one bill challenge they have with 9

the temporary bridge is the maintenance associated 10

with the wire rope. Because they're relatively 11

low-quality rope here, constant lubrication, 12

maintenance of those wires is required. That explains 13

virtually on a daily basis during noncommuting time 14

they have closure on one side or the other, and that's 15

to allow maintenance to go up and oil those cables; 16

and that will not be the case for the proposed bridge 17

that -- the bridge that we are proposing. 18

We will have some minimal maintenance 19

will be required, but it will be nothing approaching 20

the number of disruptions and distractions associated 21

with the existing bridge. 22

The channel certainly meets the 23

mariners' need of 250 feet. The work we're here is 24

48


(339)674-9100

designated for the area, it' to not limit the economic 1

development through the restrictions of the channel. 2

We have established with the Coast Guard and mariners 3

a 250-foot channel width associated with the vertical 4

lift which meets that criteria. 5

The ease of navigation will be 6

significantly better for the mariners and that 7

ultimately will speed the time they need to pass 8

through the bridge compared that to existing. 9

We have a concrete deck as opposed to 10

the steel deck, which is particularly louder as you 11

drive over it through the area. And the time opening, 12

you need to, just to know the size and the type of 13

machinery we will be using for operating the bridge, 14

we expect to save eight minutes off the typical time 15

that the bridge is closed. From the 21 minutes listed 16

there from the time the gates go down and rise up, the 17

bridge drops down and the gates go up again. That's 18

the entire 21 -- that's the entire time frame is 21. 19

Meaning the time the gate is going down and the time 20

of the gate going back up again. We expect that time 21

to drop 13 minutes, with respect to eight minutes 22

purely because of a better mechanical system for the 23

structure. So it's the main initial savings and wider 24

49


(339)674-9100

channel, and the mariners will have that they'll have 1

to pass through this. 2

In previous presentations, we have 3

pointed to the fact that because of the vertical 4

clearance associated, there will be a reduction in the 5

number of openings we have since defined the numbers 6

associated with openings, and actually filed by closer 7

inspection of the data that their dealt with, the 8

difference between the bascule bridge and vertical 9

lift bridge is larger than we anticipated. 10

Initially, we have identified that the 11

bascule bridge that we proposed, which is a vertical 12

area would be 41 feet, which would be 50 more opening 13

in one year which is vertical lift, which is a 14

underlying value of 58 and a half feet. As we attempt 15

to display here that's somewhat underplayed delta in 16

the opening. 17

We started here with the breakdown of 18

all the bridge logs. We're able to collect for the 19

1936 bascule which is to show here the bascule here, 20

opening log in the year 2000. And we also took the 21

average over four years from 2005 through 2009 of the 22

temporary opening of the bridge. We brought out a 23

total number of opening categories that you see. 24

50


(339)674-9100

But most of these categories remain 1

unchanged regardless of the removal of the bridge 2

because they're such large vessels, that you still 3

need an opening; however the two larger openings for 4

sloop or tankers and one is associated with opening 5

for maintenance. As I said, 300 opening for the 6

bascule bridge and that exists until recently. That's 7

vertical clearance, closed position of the tender line 8

of 33 feet. 9

Because the temporary bridge has a 10

higher vertical clearance, some 55 feet, we note that 11

a number of openings drops down to 84 if you look at 12

the average volume. But also because of the inherit 13

problems with the bridge, you can see from year to 14

year to year, the number of openings through the 15

maintenance is going at a steady value and will 16

continue to go. 17

We focused on the sloops, and we 18

plotted out for each bridge type as the number of 19

openings associated with that bridge, associated with 20

sloops, and then wrote down the data where the point 21

has vertical clearance at the tender line of 33 feet. 22

And the corners to 327 over here. 23

The existing bridge if you use the 24

51


(339)674-9100

average of it, which has a vertical clearance of 1

55 feet, it has 84 openings; so those would be those 2

two points. 3

The whole record of the vessels, of the 4

sloops that do require openings, so we do have a good 5

record of the heights of those vessels and 6

subsequently when you bring the vertical clearance of 7

58-and-a-half feet, we're able to determine the number 8

of openings that participated to be the average of the 9

temporary bridge, and that the street data port we 10

were able to establish this line which reflects the 11

relationship of the bridge clearance to the number of 12

openings. 13

Subsequently, for the bascule bridge 14

which has tremendously deep girders and a long 15

cantilever span, the vertical clearance at the tender 16

line is 41.5 feet. Using this line here as the 17

relationship back to the number of openings, we can 18

predict that the number of openings for sloops 19

associated with the 41-foot clearance comes out to be 20

235 openings. 21

So bringing those numbers forward, the 22

first column represents the projected vertical lift 23

structure, the second column represents the bascule, 24

52


(339)674-9100

and third is average record volume for the last 1

four years, five years for the vertical lift bridge. 2

And subsequent, we show we adjusted the sloops as we 3

show on that table, and also adjusted the number of 4

openings for maintenance associated with the new 5

construction of a good permanent structure, both 6

vertical lift and bascule. There is a significant 7

reduction in opening; hence, we're able to say that 8

the proposed vertical lift represents a structure that 9

would yield 475 annual openings which represents a 10

20 percent reduction than what we currently experience 11

with the temporary bridge; however, a bascule bridge 12

will represent five percent increase in the number of 13

openings. So the data between the proposed vertical 14

lift and propose bascule bridge, I think, is 178 15

openings or a 25 percent difference. 16

So as consequence we updated the chart 17

we've shown previously; again, showing a larger data 18

value associated with this more detailed comparison of 19

the data from the one we last did. 20

Just to summarize: As I've stated, as 21

Mark has stated, we have recommended to MassDOT a 22

vertical lift represents the best option in our 23

engineering judgment for this site. These reasons are 24

53


(339)674-9100

summarized here. A higher vertical clearance leads to 1

fewer openings, and has less impact to roadway use. 2

The smaller tower footprints involves less 3

environmental impact, and that is shown in part in 4

that scour analysis that we showed. Certainly a 5

vertical lift generates less potential for 6

construction. The accelerated construction 7

techniques, as the contractor will determine how 8

exactly to build this bridge. He will not be telling 9

him how he may construct the bridge. We see a great 10

opportunity to perhaps shore the construction schedule 11

to what we currently predicted. 12

So fewer sets of machinery are 13

associated with the vertical lift because there is 14

better balance on the load on the movable span and 15

conduit; the size of the motors are less and more 16

efficient system. Because the vertical lift is well 17

within the side of the parameter, (unintelligible) the 18

machinery involved and the components to operate and 19

material will be required for the bascule to operate 20

would be non-standard components that would be a 21

challenge not just to procure, but for maintenance in 22

years to come, which would obviously need for delays 23

with opening associated with prolonged maintenance 24

54


(339)674-9100

periods. 1

And hence, better maintenance equals 2

less traffic impacts. So the ride will certainly be a 3

better on the vertical lift; the bridge will be 4

supported all times. A bascule has that cantilever 5

action, if you go from one leaf to the other, you get 6

that rocking effect as you go across. 7

As we described the vertical lift will 8

perform better in high wind and less likely to run 9

into problems with those high wind events. 10

Actually, this is more of a technical 11

side, but it's actually easier to design from a 12

seismic perspective a vertical lift. The large tower 13

has some flexibility and provide tempering to seismic 14

activity, and that's how we designed it. We believe 15

the vertical lift has the best opportunity not to 16

impact the future economic development in the area, 17

given this is a designated port area. 18

Just in summary: We believe the 19

vertical lift represents the most efficient design for 20

this location. 21

In closing, I would like to mention 22

that the bascule has been a wonderful structure over 23

the years and a well-recognized symbol of the area; 24

55


(339)674-9100

but it's not the best movable span structure to be 1

built at this site. In 1902 when the first movable 2

span was constructed, a swing bridge was built at the 3

Fore River Estuary. In 1936, it was found that bridge 4

did not provide a channel wide enough for the growing 5

ship way on the bridge. At that time it was only 6

30 years and build a bascule bridge that could 7

accommodate 175-foot clearance which accommodated the 8

growth of the Fore River shipyard. 9

Now, we're somewhat in a similar 10

position where we're looking to put in a bridge that 11

meets the needs of the mariners, and also provides a 12

good structure for years to come. And it seems that 13

the position to go with the vertical lift is to change 14

the structure type is not unprecedented at this time. 15

With that, we'll open it up to questions. Thank you. 16


Mark, and thank you the SVT team which has done a very 18

thorough presentation for us. 19

Before I open the floor to the public 20

for general questions and comments, we will answer as 21

best we possibly could, understanding the plans 22

obviously are preliminary, the intent is to continue 23

to proceed with the public process and also the 24

56


(339)674-9100

environmental process, and be able to submit the 1

environmental assessment to Federal Highway towards 2

the end of this year, late summer, early fall. 3

To that end, if there are any questions 4

relative to that process, we'll be happy to answer 5

them as best we possibly can. 6

So before I open to the floor, I would 7

like to ask if there are any elected officials that 8

would like to make comments, ask questions. I ask 9

that you please stand, come to the front of the room, 10

to the microphone, state your name, your position 11

please, and we'll be happy to answer your questions. 12

Yes, Councilman Pap. 13

COUNCILOR VICTOR PAP: Victor Pap. 14

Thank you very much for the evolving dialogue in this, 15

one of one question and comment. Could you say Victor 16

Pap, District 1 Council here in North Weymouth. 17

The question is: Relative to the 18

opening times going from 21 minutes and down to 19

13 minutes; does that take into consideration there 20

would be inevitably larger tankers that travers more 21

time? In other words, are you comparing apples to 22

apples? 23

MARK PELLETIER: Currently we're 24

57


(339)674-9100

comparing apples to apples. It's very much what's -- 1

COUNCILOR VICTOR PAP: Wouldn't that 2

invite larger vessels then, so the time that it's open 3

would actually be probably longer than 13 minutes? 4

MARK PELLETIER: Well, I think the 5

reason why the channel width is growing is because 6

there have been a number of collisions associated with 7

tankers moving through the current channel. And 8

because of those collisions, the mariners move very 9

slowly through the channel. It's a very delicate 10

process that they undergo at the current time, where 11

the tug boats which align the tanker actually get the 12

tanker moving and then release themselves from the 13

tanker, because there's not enough room on either side 14

of the channel to get through the opening. The wider 15

channel will allow them to get them to follow through, 16

move through quicker. 17

It's not associated in getting larger 18

tankers. It doesn't preclude larger tankers from 19

coming to this location. I think what does include is 20

the draft of the tanker we have a limited channel 21

depth; that's a big stumbling point for larger tankers 22

using the channel. But a larger channel will be able 23

to speed up the tankers passing through that opening. 24

58


(339)674-9100

COUNCILOR VICTOR PAP: The architect 1

Miguel, the bridge aesthetics right now is to 2

accommodate an industrial area; and historically, the 3

shipyard was industrial; but I would certainly think 4

that now it's no longer industrial. 5

We are hoping to moving more toward 6

historic. I think that's a concern. Certainly I 7

heard on the aesthetics, you eventual guessed, all of 8

the meetings I want to reiterate that. There are 9

public safety concerns, there are property tax recall 10

concerns, and now there will be, you know, concerns in 11

terms of the history of the nature and what it does 12

for the long-term effect. 13

I would hate to see a situation where 14

you have basically crossed tracks and you're on the 15

bad section of the South Shore, and only to the other 16

bridge and again be another part, nice part of the 17

South Shore. With that, I hope you continue the 18

dialogue. 19

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you, Council 20

Pap. Are there any other elected officials who would 21

like to stand and say a few words? If not, I would 22

like to make the floor open to the public. I ask the 23

public please stand, do same as the Councilor did. 24

59


(339)674-9100

Yes, sir? 1

MIKE LANG: Hi, I'm Mike Lang, I'm from 2

East Bend Pennsylvania Association. I'm in awe. I've 3

worked on every major project in the Fore River basin. 4

I'm always in awe on the spin of the numbers you put 5

in here. Just comparing vertical lift bridge with the 6

existing structure that's there right now, is insane. 7

A plywood bridge would look better compared to this 8

bridge. 9

I think your comparison is off in that 10

manner. Your numbers are not even close to being 11

within the ballpark. 12

By the way: The largest tanker that 13

can get through that is probably, after math, which 14

has a 133-foot beam on that. Your problem with the 15

Fore River, just as Mr. Pelletier said, it's not just 16

so much height, because the sailboat isn't deep, 17

because it's not deep enough. The Fore River is all 18

ledge there. The silt comes down and covers the 19

ledge, but it's ledge. 20

Recently they finished the site project 21

over in Weymouth, they originally planned to put the 22

pipe underground. I seen the picture. It's all ledge 23

under there; so the draft is the biggest problem. The 24

60


(339)674-9100

idea you need a 250-foot span is a little 1

questionable. 2

By the way: Just doing very minimal 3

research, I find the Charles Berry Bridge in Ohio has 4

an approximate 30-foot span bascule bridge; that's 5

your problem. The problem with the sailboats leaving 6

the Fore River, they can't leave on the pier because 7

it isn't -- I have so many questions. 8

What I would like to cite is your 9

website too. Your website is awful. It doesn't give 10

you any data at all. What you should have, all that 11

you have all these meetings, additionally if you had 12

the contacts, Federal and State agencies that you're 13

going to have the permit with, plus the contacts, plus 14

the project numbers there. 15

If this is an open public meeting, you 16

should have the information available to the public. 17

Thank you. 18

MODERATOR O’DOWD: I'm glad you 19

mentioned that, sir. Today, I made direction for us 20

to post all of the public meeting minutes that have 21

been conducted over the past year and a half, make 22

them available for the public to view on that project 23

website. So by the end of this week, all of the 24

61


(339)674-9100

meeting minutes and summary of the public information 1

meetings will be made available for you and for others 2

to view. 3

MIKE LANG: I appreciate that, thank 4

you very much. I used the website to contact the 5

Stephanie Bound. 6

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Stephanie Boundry. 7

MIKE LANG: I asked how I could get the 8

minutes and I got nothing. I understand that's modus 9

operandi. 10

MODERATOR O’DOWD: If there's any 11

specific questions right now, I would be more than 12

happy to answer. 13

MIKE LANG: I have so many questions. 14

I would like to have one of your cards. I would be 15

grateful, I'll contact you. 16

MARK ENNIS: If I could follow-up: One 17

of the comments on the bridges in Ohio, the bridge in 18

Ohio, it does have a longer distance from trunnion to 19

trunnion than the bridge that we're proposing. The 20

bridge in Ohio is a single lane in each direction and 21

a steel deck on it, and a much lighter bridge as a 22

consequence. 23

Our bridge, because we would not 24

62


(339)674-9100

consider a lighter one. The bridge deck is 1

significantly heavier than the bridge in Ohio, and 2

would represent the largest heaviest bridge in the 3

United States. 4

MIKE LANG: Actually, they said in the 5

website this is the second largest bridge in the 6

United States. It also says it's got two lanes in 7

each way. 8

MARK ENNIS: I guess how you defined 9

it, it's certainly not 75-feet wide. It has an open 10

bridge deck which makes it much lighter; but there's a 11

significant drawback. One reason why that is defined 12

large, there are so many articles because they have to 13

shut the bridge down for six months. Recently they 14

had to replace the large mechanical equipment and they 15

have to swing the bridge in the opening position, and 16

the structure is so huge and the mechanical system is 17

so large, again, please check on line. I believe it's 18

a total six months without any load traffic being able 19

to cross the bridge for the very reason we're 20

proposing for the problems on a bascule structure. 21

MIKE LANG: Yours does say they were 22

able to access the bascule. If you were to go 23

bascule, you would not be able to get the parts, and 24

63


(339)674-9100

they also had the parts in 1988 when they rebuilt the 1

bridge. 2

MARK ENNIS: I think the point is, with 3

such a structure is certainly feasible, but the 4

six months delay when closed for traffic, is a six 5

solid months. 6

MIKE LANG: You're saying this bridge 7

will never break down, the one you're planning on 8

building? 9

MARK ENNIS: The vertical lift? 10

MIKE LANG: That's correct. 11

MARK ENNIS: The advantage with the 12

vertical lift, if we did have the situation, it would 13

not be left in the open position. 14

MIKE LANG: Would you want to tell 15

Citgo that? 16

MARK ENNIS: That would be -- 17

MIKE LANG: Back to that point about 18

the ledge, not that Citgo actually hit the ledge into 19

the pier, that's what you're dealing with if you want 20

to make it deeper. You understand that, I'm sure your 21

engineering, if you make it wide, then you make it 22

deeper, the damn thing is going to tip over in the 23

ocean. I used to be in the navy. I was in the North 24

64


(339)674-9100

Atlantic. 1

MARK PELLETIER: I don't think anyone 2

associated with this project is trying to make that 3

channel deeper. We have had meetings with the Army 4

Corps, in order to have that happen certainly it would 5

take significant amounts of money and many, many, many 6

years of permitting to have a deeper channel at this 7

particular location. 8

MIKE LANG: That's the point I'm trying 9

to make. The limiting fact is: The depth of the 10

channel, that limits the depth of the ship. 11

MARK ENNIS: We had conversations with 12

the mariners. The mariners do not contest that. We 13

have listed here the typical large tanker classes and 14

we have here the Panamax class vessel. The 15

post-Panamax vessel is second from the top. So the 16

Panamax is similar to the Aframax which is also listed 17

here as well. 18

But the issue that comes to in the 19

discussion relative to the draft is Citgo and many 20

other oil companies. They don't unload all their 21

cargo at one point. They will hit perhaps two or 22

three ports along the East Coast. Just because when 23

they're not fully loaded doesn't mean they may not use 24

65


(339)674-9100

the Fore River location; it doesn't preclude them from 1

bringing in a partially loaded post-Panamax vessel 2

which would still be able to come in given the -- 3

MIKE LANG: The organization I work 4

with talks to Citgo quite often. I am under the 5

impression they got -- they have to wait until high 6

tide to pull in their tankers. Like I said, Panamax 7

has a beam of 100 feet and a draft of 12.6 meters, 8

that comes out to 37 or 38, whatever it is. 9

MARK ENNIS: We drafted up to 41 feet, 10

and as you pointed out the draft that's currently 11

designated for the channel is 35 feet. So but the 12

draft is measured at mean low tide. As you described, 13

they have to wait until the tide comes up to a certain 14

elevation before they bring that in. 15

MIKE LANG: Exactly. I would 16

appreciate all this information on your website so I 17

could get something to work with. 18

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you. 19

There you are. 20

JEFF CUTLER: Thank you for all this 21

information. May name is Jeff Cutler and I work for a 22

number of newspapers and I'm also a local resident. 23

The one question I had during all of this: I don't 24

66


(339)674-9100

know if this is something you addressed already or are 1

going to address is a communication plan. Because 2

aside from seeing a brand-new bridge plan shown to 3

everyone, the main thing that I want, and it probably 4

affects other commuters is, we don't know when the 5

bridge is going up. There are so many agencies trying 6

to coordinate that information. 7

Citgo will send over to the Statehouse, 8

they'll send an e-mail, but we don't know about the 9

maintenance stuff. The DOT will put on a flashing 10

sign, sometimes it's accurate, sometimes it's not. 11

What I urge you to do, if you haven't thought of it 12

yet, some sort of communication plan to let people 13

know efficiently and broadly when the bridge is going 14

to be up so people can make other plans, regardless 15

what you finally put in or what we finally decide to 16

have you put in. 17

MODERATOR O’DOWD: That's a good 18

comment. We are working with the information 19

technology section at MassDOT to incorporate some 20

improvements within the structure itself, and also 21

regionally so that we can get that information out to 22

the commuters and residents, to the public relative to 23

projected openings, maintenance issues, when the 24

67


(339)674-9100

project or when the bridge may be scheduled for an 1

opening, or even when it's an emergency opening, so we 2

can actually get that message out to the commuters on 3

the highway as quickly as possible. 4

Yes, sir? 5

RON FARNA: My name is Ron Farna. I'm 6

a resident of East Weymouth. What strikes me is it's 7

pretty much obvious, you can take all those numbers, 8

all of those figures, all of the values and reduce 9

them to zero by building a tunnel, okay. So here we 10

go. Maybe we can, you can have essentially 11

reconstruct a good amount with more or less strain, 12

you don't have to deal with tides, all these various 13

factors. If you did, I agree, it may be more 14

expensive, but it will be permanent. It will 15

eliminate the rotary and eliminate any traffic, it 16

will be more conducive to any business that wants to 17

locate in this area. You no longer have that 18

nightmare of opening bridges. Okay. 19

And the areas that would be affected 20

are at a point now would probably be beneficial if we 21

did work some sort of eminent domain, you know, 22

arrangement, so that we can develop those areas. It's 23

a beautiful place. That place there, with all due 24

68


(339)674-9100

respect, it's a mess. It looks like hell. 1

This fellow who is arguing for a 2

bascule bridge, I think he's got something. I know it 3

looks a lot better than that thing does. What about a 4

permanent solution? 5

If you put a tunnel in there, okay, not 6

only do you eliminate all of this, completely 7

eliminate it, but, you know, you also have something 8

that future generations don't have to deal with this. 9

This thing is going to go on forever. 10

If it's a ledge, then they can deal 11

with that. They built the Big Dig. The percentage of 12

grade, declination, it's a 13 percent grade, the Big 13

Dig. We can deal with these things, you're engineers. 14

Why not solve the problem really, once and for all, 15

rather than this. Rather than this structure, okay. 16

Thank you. 17

(Applause) 18

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you, sir. 19

Just to address that quickly: MassHighway at the time 20

back in 2003, 2004, I believe, excuse me, 2002 it was, 21

another design team by the name of Vollmer Associates 22

had evaluated four difficult types of bridges that 23

could be replacement alternatives for the ACROW that 24

69


(339)674-9100

was placed at the service area. The tunnel was one of 1

the considerations that was given. 2

A fixed bridge was also another 3

consideration, given, providing adequate height and 4

clearance for all of the shipping traffic; and the 5

movable span bridges were also considered. Two 6

movable spans, meaning a vertical bridge or a bascule 7

bridge. There were a number of consideration given to 8

each of those. 9

Certainly the cost was a disadvantage 10

to the tunnel; but more importantly, a tunnel would 11

require a number of taking residential homes, 12

businesses that would have been impacted. To go 13

through that, you would have had to relocate a number 14

of individuals from their homes where they had lived 15

for a number of years. Streets would have been closed 16

off as a result; so you would have been closing off 17

access to Bridge Street or Washington Street, depends 18

on what side of the river you were on. 19

With the vertical lift structure, 20

excuse me, with the fixed structure, there would have 21

been significant impacts associated with that as well. 22

The decision was made subsequent to 23

that feasibility study being performed by Vollmer, 24

70


(339)674-9100

that a movable span was the most practical, economical 1

and suitable for all of the users: Navigational 2

marine users, pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicles. 3

It was going to be able to address all of those user 4

needs. 5

RON FARNA: If I could make one more 6

comment? 7

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Sure. 8

RON FARNA: I think some of the things 9

you're talking about, they heard while I was watching 10

it, but the fact of the matter is, in the long run, 11

those businesses will relocate. You're talking about 12

these areas are not exactly some sort of garden 13

vistas. They probably should be redeveloped anyway. 14

And bicyclists and stuff like that, 15

that can be dealt with that. I really don't think the 16

bicyclists will mind at all. The cost is a factor, 17

it's a huge factor, but if they spend billions of 18

dollars now, we're talking trillions of dollars on any 19

currency in this country. It's a waste of money, 20

let's build something that's worthwhile. Okay. 21

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you for your 22

comments, sir. 23

Yes. 24

71


(339)674-9100

BILL SCHRADER: I'm Bill Schrader from 1

Hingham. I would like to ask: How much consideration 2

was given to moving the Citgo dock north of the 3

bridge? I mean, this is not a desirable area to have 4

big tankers in the neighborhood unloading in the 5

neighborhood, terrorism. The question I have: How 6

much effort is it to move the docks, most of the 7

unloading docks, moving. 8

MODERATOR O’DOWD: My understanding, 9

having met with a number of officials and delegations 10

that represents Quincy, Weymouth, Braintree, Hingham 11

areas, that contact was made well over 10 years to 12

initiate something of that nature, and to investigate 13

whether or not an off-loading facility could have been 14

developed at this location. Ten years later, the 15

elected officials still haven't gotten any positive 16

responses. 17

I recently brought it to the attention 18

of mariners, I met with the mariners, I've met with 19

the Coast Guard in addition to meeting with the 20

elected delegation. What's involved in doing 21

something like that? The answer is, the short answer 22

is: It never would be permitted due to the 23

environmental impacts associated with it, within the 24

72


(339)674-9100

time frame that the existing bridge maintains or 1

remains serviceable. It would be years. And 2

certainly with the 10 years that has passed without 3

any positive feedback being given to the elected 4

officials, I don't think we could withstand that time 5

frame or that delay, and still be able to provide 6

services to all of the Commonwealth and all of the 7

users of this facility right now? 8

BILL SCHRADER: If it weren't for the 9

tankers, would that impact the design substantially? 10

I'm asking the engineers. 11

MODERATOR O’DOWD: I am an engineer 12

also. This is a designated port area. We have to 13

retain its services to all commercial industry within 14

the designated port. 15

BILL SCHRADER: I would like to hear 16

from the engineering firm: If there were no tankers, 17

would the design be different? 18

MARK PELLETIER: No, I agree with Mike. 19

You can't get around a designated port area. I think 20

that goes back to how the country was founded. 21

Certainly we have to deal with the Coast Guard and the 22

Federal Highway Administration. And it is the 23

designation as a port that is driving our design. 24

73


(339)674-9100

BILL SCHRADER: You would have the same 1

width even if there were no tankers, and the same 2

height even if there was no tankers? I find that hard 3

to believe. 4

My last question: How many movable 5

bridges that have been built in the United States in 6

the last 20, years for load carrying bridges for more 7

vehicles today? 8

MARK PELLETIER: I'm not sure I follow 9

your question. Chelsea bridge is very similar to this 10

particular bridge. 11

BILL SCHRADER: Was that built in the 12

last 20 years? 13

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Currently under 14

construction or in design that are movable spans, we 15

have one movable right now, we have the Brightman 16

Street in Fall River. 17

BILL SCHRADER: For 30,000 cars a day? 18

MODERATOR O’DOWD: There's places less 19

than that. We have the Bates Bridge in Haverhill, we 20

have Charles Street Bridge. We have a number of 21

projects. 22

BILL SCHRADER: How many have 30,000 or 23

more vehicles? 24

74


(339)674-9100

MODERATOR O’DOWD: I can't give you the 1

numbers of the DET. 2

BILL SCHRADER: That seems ridiculous. 3

South Shore depends on this traffic moving slowly. I 4

have never been at this current bridge where it took 5

only 21 minutes to raise this bridge. I find it hard 6

to believe any of your statistics. It's a huge 7

disruption for the whole South Shore. 8

MODERATOR O’DOWD: I understand and I 9

sympathize with you. But we have gone out there with 10

the opening and closing position. We talked to the 11

tender house operator to get what the time frame is; 12

we've talked to the mariners; we've talked to the 13

local public. Certainly the 23 to 26 minutes on 14

average is what we witnessed. Certainly there are 15

instances, and I'm aware of instances being with the 16

old bascule structure that took in excess 25 minutes. 17

BILL SCHRADER: What percent of the 18

30,000 drivers have you polled? You talk about 19

getting feedback from the neighbors; what percent of 20

the 30,000 drivers have you polled to see what they 21

might want? 22

MODERATOR O’DOWD: We've tried to 23

extend all invitations to participate in these 24

75


(339)674-9100

meetings, through web access, through mailings, 1

through television, through cable channels, in a 2

number of Facebooks. There is a Facebook page. We 3

try to exercise every ability to get this information 4

out to all of the public meetings we have conducted 5

over the past year, to as many of the users of this 6

facility, whether they be residents of the area, 7

merchants and navigational users, and importantly the 8

commuters as well. 9

We've gone as far as Hingham. We've 10

gone through -- we've had a public meeting in Hingham; 11

we have gone to Weymouth; we've been to Weymouth a 12

number of times. We have been in Quincy a number of 13

times. We try to get as broad of background and 14

diversification of the people who use this facility as 15

we can. 16

If you have any suggestions, perhaps to 17

reach out and perhaps more commuters and response and 18

-- 19

BILL SCHRADER: Certainly Hull, 20

Cohasset, Scituate, Marshfield, plenty of drivers who 21

use this. 22

MODERATOR O’DOWD: In the future, we'll 23

be sure to make sure we post this advertising in all 24

76


(339)674-9100

of the South Shore papers, in excess of the Patriot 1

Ledger. I know the Patriot Ledger has a fairly good 2

distribution area, but certainly we can go to the 3

other papers as well, including Marshfield, Cohasset, 4

Hull, Hingham. 5

Mr. Peters? 6

GARY PETERS: Good evening. My name is 7

Gary Peters. I'm from the Fore River Bridge 8

Association. Welcome to Weymouth. A couple of 9

questions relative to process; is this a public 10

hearing? 11

MODERATOR O’DOWD: This is a public 12

information meeting. It's not a public hearing. It's 13

a public information meeting. 14

GARY PETERS: So it's not a public 15

hearing. 16

MODERATOR O’DOWD: It's a public 17

information meeting. 18

GARY PETERS: It's yes or no question. 19

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Typically we conduct 20

a public hearing once an environmental document has 21

been filed or if we are presenting a 25 percent 22

drawing to the public. 23

GARY PETERS: At the risk of being 24

77


(339)674-9100

redundant, is your answer no? 1

MODERATOR O’DOWD: This is not 2

considered a public hearing. It's considered a public 3

information meeting. 4

GARY PETERS: You're taking minutes 5

tonight? 6

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Yes, we are. Yes. 7

GARY PETERS: Is there a copy, not only 8

of informational meetings, but your meetings that you 9

have had with the Coast Guard and stakeholders that we 10

can get information of that? 11

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Yes. As I mentioned 12

earlier, I will be making them available on the 13

project website. 14

GARY PETERS: That will include the 15

Coast Guard meetings and Massachusetts Area Councils, 16

and people who have a real stake in this bridge? 17

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Any public meetings 18

that we conducted as part of the process will be made 19

available. Minutes will be made available to you and 20

the public. 21

GARY PETERS: Would this be part of the 22

MEPA filing to date? 23

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Yes, they will 24

78


(339)674-9100

become part of the MEPA filing. 1

GARY PETERS: Will you use these 2

minutes for your bridge permit application to the 3

Coast Guard? 4

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Yes, we will. 5

GARY PETERS: Will you be using these 6

meeting minutes to the Metropolitan Area Planning 7

Council? 8

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Insomuch as we had 9

to program this project with the TIP and the funding, 10

the Transportation Improvement Program. If the 11

questions are asked relative to the MAP or MPO, then 12

certainly we'll make these available. 13

GARY PETERS: Redundant, but will you 14

file notice of intent so we can get a full view 15

similar to the process, yes or no? 16

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Mr. Peters, we've 17

had this discussion on many occasions relative to the 18

public process. And insomuch as your contact with a 19

number of regulatory agencies which we are 20

coordinating and consulting with to permitting this 21

project, I've inform you as well as receiving 22

information with others, that Massachusetts Department 23

of Transportation in this particular project is exempt 24

79


(339)674-9100

from filing under the MEPA, which is the Massachusetts 1

Environmental Protection Act. We are not exempt in 2

filing under the NEPA, which is the National 3

Environmental Policy Act. 4

And with that said, there are a number 5

of procedures and processes that we must follow as the 6

Department of Transportation to be in conformance with 7

that. And with that being said, we are moving forward 8

under the guise of environmental assessment. Now that 9

class of action was given to us to proceed under, or 10

by following under the Federal Highway Administration. 11

With that said, when we filed the 12

environmental assessment with Federal Highway, they 13

will review it, they will give us comment and 14

feedback; we, in turn, will address those comments and 15

feedback and resubmit them for their approval. 16

It is at that time that Federal Highway 17

will make the environmental assessment draft available 18

for public comments, as mentioned earlier, a 30-day 19

period; however, it's not unusual for us to make a 20

recommendation to request an extension. And because 21

this is a major project and we have received a number 22

of requests from the public, including yourself and 23

the association that you represent, that a 45-day 24

80


(339)674-9100

period may be worthwhile to give all the public an 1

opportunity to review all of the documentations that 2

is contained within the environmental assessment. 3

If, when we have had an opportunity to 4

address all of the public comments and responses that 5

are received, which Federal Highway will give us an 6

opportunity to address all of those comments, if and 7

only if, Federal Highway deemed, it's not MassDOT that 8

makes the decision, it's the Federal Highway 9

Administration who will make a determination as to 10

whether they will issue a no significant impact. It 11

will be their determination. 12

If they feel that we have not addressed 13

all of these concerns, then they can direct us to file 14

a notice of intent, which is essentially their telling 15

us to proceed forward with the EIS, which is a higher 16

level of environmental permitting on the NEPA side, 17

which is an environmental impact statement, EIS. 18

GARY PETERS: My question again was yes 19

or no. So no, you will not be filing such a document? 20

MODERATOR O’DOWD: I can't say yes or 21

no. When we file the environmental assessment, it is 22

the Federal Highway Administration which will direct 23

us in compliance with the environmental assessment as 24

81


(339)674-9100

to whether or not a notice of intent will be required. 1

GARY PETERS: The final question: All 2

of the comments, that you currently have $3 billion 3

that, you know, how many of theirs enjoyed a MEPA 4

process, with an M, Massachusetts Environmental Policy 5

Act. 6

MODERATOR O’DOWD: I'm working on one 7

now that's not enjoying it. That's part of our 8

regulation. There are specific projects that fall 9

within that regulation, there are specific projects 10

that don't. 11

The regulatory compliance that MassDOT 12

is obligated to address is specific to every project. 13

There is not one blanket statement or blanket permit 14

or approval process which constitutes compliance with 15

all projects. We have to look at each and every 16

individual project, its impact, the context of the 17

environment that it's surrounding, and what it is that 18

it's proposing to do. 19

In this particular instance, the 20

Fore River replacement project, we are essentially 21

replacing an existing bridge with a proposed structure 22

with the same or similar alignment, the same 23

functional equivalence as far as handling the volume 24

82


(339)674-9100

of traffic. We're not increasing capacity on this. 1

We're essentially replacing a new structure back in 2

the same alignment, same position as the existing, and 3

attempting to meet all of the users' needs and 4

demands. 5

So to state that, you know, there is 6

one blanket permitting process associated with all the 7

projects within the Accelerated Bridge Program, that 8

is not correct. 9

GARY PETERS: I'm not suggesting that 10

falls under NEPA, the National Environmental Policy 11

Act. You have three categories: Exclusion, 12

environmental assessment, which you think is the way 13

to go, and final notice of intent environmental 14

impact, all your problems. $3 billion, break that 15

down for us, please: What enjoys exclusion, what 16

enjoys environmental assessment, and what enjoys 17

environmental impact assessment of all of the billions 18

that you've spent? 19

MODERATOR O’DOWD: First of off, there 20

are approximately 200 bridges that are either touched, 21

rehabilitated or repaired as part of the Accelerated 22

Bridge Program. The program went into effect in 2008. 23

So of those 200 bridge projects that we are looking 24

83


(339)674-9100

at, some will fall within the CE, we call categorical 1

exclusion as Mr. Peters pointed out; some will fall 2

within the criteria of environmental assessment. 3

There are none currently on the program which meets an 4

EIS level of permitting at this stage. 5

As I mentioned, the purpose for 6

environmental assessment is for Federal Highway 7

Administration to make that determination as to 8

whether the impasse associated with the bridge 9

project, bridge replacement project, rehabilitation 10

project are in excess of those that can be addressed 11

within the EPA. 12

GARY PETERS: Fair enough. You still 13

have final -- 14

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Yes. 15

GARY PETERS: If you look at the 16

numbers, the $3 billion that's in the pipeline as we 17

speak, do you take into account that's relative to 18

that, the bridge approaching Weymouth, it is safe to 19

say about 20 percent of the entire budget? 20

MODERATOR O’DOWD: I don't understand 21

your question. 22

GARY PETERS: The $3 billion. 23

MODERATOR O’DOWD: There is $3 billion 24

84


(339)674-9100

within the program. That $3 billion is spread out 1

across 351 towns within the Commonwealth to address 2

200 bridges. 3

GARY PETERS: The 200 bridges, we're 4

talking in this case, about the second largest project 5

in that program; is that correct? 6

MODERATOR O’DOWD: It's one of five. 7

GARY PETERS: One of five? 8

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Yes. 9

GARY PETERS: One, as far as the DOT 10

information sheet, if you will, the Weymouth bridge is 11

the second, in 2,492,000, and here is Newbury bridge, 12

285, you know, out of $3 billion. It's a significant 13

project. 14

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Yes, it's very 15

significant. 16

GARY PETERS: Significant. 17

MODERATOR O’DOWD: This is a 18

significant. 19

GARY PETERS: Why it doesn't enjoy the 20

NEPA, I understand the technicality how it gets to 21

that point. I'm making a point. It's a huge point. 22

MODERATOR O’DOWD: It's not a 23

technicality. This is an exemption that's been 24

85


(339)674-9100

granted to us by the State legislature. It's not a 1

technicality, it's the law. 2

GARY PETERS: It's a technical part of 3

the law. I want to thank you for coming. I 4

appreciate it. 5

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you, sir. 6

Yes, sir? 7

RON ADAMS: Ron Adam, 8 Coolidge Avenue 8

in Weymouth, and I also teach at the Broadmeadow 9

Middle School on the other side of the bridge in 10

Quincy. And some of my students are interested in the 11

history of the shipyard. So the noise 12

post-construction, traffic noise, cars on the bridge, 13

I didn't see that discussion on the project goals. 14

I'm here speaking about the concern not only how the 15

bridge will look, but also how it will sound for 50 to 16

75 years. 17

The current bridge is noisy from 18

traffic. It overwhelms speakers, on moments of 19

silence on the U.S.S. Salem, U.S. Navy Building -- 20

United States Naval and Ship Building Museum, during 21

Memorial Day services, Veterans' Day services, for 22

example. 23

A new bridge is to serve as a good 24

86


(339)674-9100

neighbor to residents as well as to the U.S. Naval and 1

Ship Building Museum, it should do so with materials 2

that are chosen carefully to reduce that noise from 3

traffic post construction. 4

So I guess my question is: I'm 5

sincerely hoping, listening to tonight that ongoing 6

noise abatement will be part of the design, not just 7

during construction, but for the life of the bridge; 8

will it? 9

MARK ENNIS: Yes, there will be 10

significant -- we don't have hard data at this point. 11

We expect significant improvement in noise level with 12

the new permanent bridge. The temporary bridge is 13

particularly loud when vehicles drive over because the 14

deck system that that bridge provides comprises of 15

steel plates. 16

As vehicles drive over it, it 17

generates -- the solid steel plates, it generates a 18

lot of noise. That noise escalates. The deck system 19

for the future span as we are proposing will all be of 20

concrete. And even for the vertical lift structure, 21

even though it adds significant weight to the 22

structure, it adds a significant solid concrete deck 23

system, and that will provide noise level consistent 24

87


(339)674-9100

with any other roadway side bridge, which is 1

significantly lower than the level of noise on the 2

temporary bridge. Or for that matter, the movable 3

span has an open bridge technical system, which is 4

also noisy system. 5

MARK PELLETIER: Just -- we have 6

sampled the noise on the bridge area when busy based 7

on the data associated with existing conditions. 8

Joanne Haracz from AECOM is here today. Is there 9

anything that you can add relative to our noise on our 10

decks? 11

JOANNE HARACZ: We did look at noise in 12

the future. As Mark said the type of bridge that will 13

be concrete is much quieter than the deck that's there 14

now; so that helps in terms of your question. 15

RON ADAMS: I'm thinking this is the 16

time to examine material chosen for bridge deck, 17

baffles on the side, everything would be necessary for 18

aesthetics, appearance. But if it reduces the noise 19

level for 50 years on the residents in the area, or to 20

the historic need of the State's naval, I think it's 21

something worth mentioning. 22

MARK PELLETIER: We'll make sure as we 23

advance the design, we're cognizant of the issue. 24

88


(339)674-9100

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you, sir. At 1

this moment, I would like to ask Miss Dianne Madden. 2

Dianne Madden is representative from our environmental 3

section. She manages the MEPA process. And 4

considering the amount of comments, questions we 5

received over the past year relative to the MEPA 6

process, I asked Diane to come here tonight to explain 7

the MEPA process, particularly how the public 8

participation and how the public meetings that we 9

conducted over past year play into how the MEPA 10

process is documented in the environmental assessment. 11

So if you could bear with me, please, 12

one moment while Diane steps up to the microphone and 13

she can explain the process. And if there are any 14

specific questions relative to the MEPA process and 15

how it would be impacted, how it relates to this 16

project, please feel free to ask her questions. Thank 17

you. 18

DIANNE MADDEN: Thank you, Mike. Can 19

you hear me? 20

I would like to reiterate everything 21

that Mike said. I think he did a very good job giving 22

you an overview of the project, the severability of 23

the project, and applicability of difficult regulatory 24

89


(339)674-9100

requirements based on the environment that's around, 1

and the context that's around the project. So Mike 2

did a very good job on that. 3

As far as whether Federal Highway 4

requires an environmental impact statement, generally, 5

the only addition what I would make is that when the 6

Federal Highway would look at the environmental 7

assessment and the response to comments that are 8

received, and we'll make a determination whether there 9

is a finding of no significant impact is the 10

appropriate timing for Federal Highway to make and to 11

MEPA. 12

And the key point is there is nothing 13

significant about the project. If, after doing all 14

the process, reviewing documents, if they find that 15

there is something significant, they will require us 16

to go back and do -- refer to and prepare an 17

environmental impact statement. That's the only 18

addition I would make. That's a decision whether it's 19

so significant about the impact that have been 20

disclosed through the environmental assessment. If I 21

could just -- you had a question? 22

I wanted to mention: What Federal 23

Highway looks at most dramatically is public 24

90


(339)674-9100

involvement. That's really key -- key consideration. 1

Public involvement is the basis for all of this, as 2

one of the Federal Highway Administration said 3

recently. The MEPA process is one of discovery, 4

discussion and disclosure. It's our understanding, 5

and everybody having a really good discussion about 6

the project. So that is the real understanding of 7

this MEPA process. Just to address your point. 8

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Go ahead, 9

Mr. Peters. 10

GARY PETERS: Thank you. MEPA has 11

taken literally years to understand the language that 12

goes with it in fairness, a fickle word, mitigation 13

might be used in many different forms and so forth in 14

this particular process. It has an exact read, a good 15

hard citizen wants to participate, it would be 16

tantamount to go into a room, and you're holding it in 17

a foreign language. That's kind of my concern as we 18

go forward here. It's a specific process. It's very, 19

very detailed. People can do it. I've seen some 20

wonderful things. 21

MARK PELLETIER: Could you come, speak 22

into microphone? The gentleman with the TV camera 23

can't hear you. 24

91


(339)674-9100

GARY PETERS: Thank you. My concern is 1

on of jargon. We talk about the MEPA process, 2

mitigation is a term I will, could be used in many 3

different forms for a lot of different things; but for 4

the purpose of participation, what we're talking about 5

here it has a unique definition. It's not a word that 6

makes that point. You come to a meeting like this, 7

you follow MEPA, it's unique. It's like a foreign 8

language on to itself. To effectively participate in 9

a meaningful way, you have to give the people the 10

tools to do that. 11

And that's my point. I was hoping you 12

would send out a pamphlet, some, one of the overheads, 13

check out -- check out the guide, participate in MEPA, 14

and gives you kind of a better view what you're going 15

to be facing through various stages and so forth. 16

It's very, very -- I'm not going to say 17

what. You understand. It becomes easy. I think 18

people need to know, the words have to be made 19

available. People make comments. I don't think 20

you're going to make that quantum leap, fill in the 21

blank; am I wrong? 22

DIANNE MADDEN: There are quite a few 23

terms. Part of the process, you learn them as you 24

92


(339)674-9100

discuss them. Of question about mitigation, we want 1

to hear those discussions. It means, we're not 2

explaining ourselves very well. In addition to 3

concerns you have about regulatory agencies, you have 4

concerns, mariners have concerns, everybody has 5

concerns. We all have to go into the whole assessment 6

what's the best way to proceed. 7

We do need to train ourselves if there 8

are points. Words we don't explain, you do want to 9

discuss further and we can talk about mitigation. I'm 10

sure one of the topics. 11

GARY PETERS: We're talking about 12

Lebanese today, not giving these, not how can you 13

possibly have dialogue? How can that possibly take 14

place? 15

MODERATOR O’DOWD: We're asked, I, 16

personally and Mr. Peters have exchanged comments on 17

many occasions regarding this process. If there are 18

specific concerns, and I've asked this repeatedly, I 19

am happy to answer those questions relative to the 20

process, what are the terms, mitigation meaning one of 21

them. Certainly mitigation is a topic that we need to 22

address on every project. And mitigation can range 23

from everything to meeting with the public right now, 24

93


(339)674-9100

finding out what is important, how to lessen the 1

impact associated with construction. So to lessen the 2

impacts associated with fishery, wildlife, congestion, 3

traffic management. Those are all the issues relative 4

to mitigation. 5

There are other individuals that I felt 6

specifically geared toward money. That's not always 7

the case. There are a number of issues, a number of 8

different meanings associated with mitigation. 9

Anything we do at MassDOT relative to repair, 10

replacement, rehabilitation of a project, we attempt 11

to mitigate the impact associated with that 12

construction on the existing environment, and with the 13

conditions they're going to be in the final 14

configuration. 15

I've asked you this before, and 16

certainly I'm asking you again now: If there are 17

specific concerns that either myself or certainly 18

Diane could answer, I would be happy to do so. 19

GARY PETERS: I didn't come here to 20

make misery and torment. The Fore River Bridge 21

Association, that's in the document what we're looking 22

for, clear and pristine, start getting trust, public 23

trust. You were in town before. It never happened. 24

94


(339)674-9100

It was a disaster. The process, I have a bad taste 1

and I'm looking for trust. 2

MODERATOR O’DOWD: I understand that. 3

And I don't want to see -- you clearly demonstrated in 4

the past and on our past meetings at the Fore River 5

Bridge clubhouse, I don't want to see something like 6

that occur. Whether it's the MWRA action, whether the 7

former DOT action, MassDOT temporary bridge, whether 8

it be any pipelines or any other construction issues 9

that you have had to endure, or residents of the area 10

had to endure. We'll do everything we possibly can to 11

mitigate that. 12

We don't want to see that happening 13

again, because as you mentioned, it only exacerbates 14

the distrust and mistrust between the way the public 15

sees us at the DOT agency. I don't want that to be 16

associated with this project. I want this to be one 17

all the neighbors and businesses don't feel they have 18

been put out, disqualified or, by any means, excluded 19

from the participation process and ability to make it 20

successful. We don't want that. That's not good -- 21

that's not good experience, not good precedence for 22

anybody. 23

GARY PETERS: Nor do I. You're welcome 24

95


(339)674-9100

to Weymouth. We want you to build a bridge. We want 1

to share with you the experience we have had going 2

through the regulatory process lingo. I suggest the 3

group, we represent professional engineers, registered 4

senatorians, people like that, we need to go over. I 5

would love to move forward with some suggestions to 6

the group, three pages pointing to the environmental 7

aspect. What we're looking for are daily 8

conversations that need to take place. We would love 9

to work with you. Thank you. 10

MODERATOR O’DOWD: That's great. Thank 11

you very much, Mr. Peters. 12

Yes, ma'am, in the back? 13

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hi, thank you 14

for holding a number of these meetings. I want to 15

personally thank the architect Miguel for coming to 16

our meeting in Weymouth and presenting a very nice 17

rendering of the bridge that a lot of people in the 18

community feel would look a lot better than the other 19

renderings that we have seen. 20

My question is: As the design process 21

goes forward, what sort of communication will there be 22

between your office and these folks in the community 23

about as the design progresses? Will we know what 24

96


(339)674-9100

your thoughts are, and will we have any say or impact 1

on as that goes forward? 2

MODERATOR O’DOWD: We have made 3

comments to you publicly, and I'll repeat that now and 4

I've discussed this with our administrator, our 5

secretary and our chief executive engineer. They have 6

all been adamant on a quarterly basis to meet with the 7

public, come out, discuss what it is that transpired, 8

what it is the previous four months, get some 9

feedback, good, bad, indifferent. All of it is 10

important as to the process how we're able to 11

ultimately make our decision. 12

One of the next big major milestones of 13

the design is the completion of the environmental 14

assessment and making it available for the Federal 15

Highway Administration, who is responsible for the 16

NEPA compliance that we must undergo. That is 17

probably going to be scheduled for, as I mentioned 18

late September, early fall of this year. 19

If, for some reason, we are running 20

late on that, certainly in September some time, I 21

intend to be back here again with the public, 22

realizing that the summer is sometimes a difficult 23

time of year to get the public to attend public 24

97


(339)674-9100

meetings like this. It would be September some time 1

before we come back to you, present to you some more 2

information as much information as we can have on hand 3

for you to be able to see so that you can give us the 4

comments and feedback. 5

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. And 6

one quick comment: There seems to be a difference in 7

semantics on the bicycle accommodation. At one point 8

it's the bike lane and now it's a become a bicycle 9

shoulder. I was wondering if anybody here can explain 10

what happened there? 11

MODERATOR O’DOWD: It's semantics. 12

We've identified a five-foot wide, if I'm not 13

mistaken, identified five-foot cross-section-wide 14

delineated lane of travel. It's a bicycle 15

accommodating shoulder. Certainly we've striped it 16

for bicycle lane, bicycle use. Certainly in time for 17

emergency, if a car needs to pull over, certainly 18

that's the area available to them to use that. I know 19

the area, Mr. Dave Watson from Mass Bike is looking to 20

ask a couple of questions. Maybe he can address it 21

further. 22

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. 23

DAVID WATSON: I'm David Watson from 24

98


(339)674-9100

Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition. Thank you for having 1

a meeting. Thanks for coming out to all the local 2

residents. My comment and questions are a little bit 3

more limited in scope than some of the larger issues 4

that people in the local community have raised. 5

I did want to talk about bicycle 6

accommodations specifically. First of all, thank you 7

for including bicycle accommodations in the design at 8

this stage. I appreciate it. And it is consistent 9

with the latest Federal and State policies regarding 10

promoting sustainable active transportation. 11

My question is: Since this is a full 12

replacement project, even though it's a footprint 13

replacement, there is a certain amount of flexibility 14

and exact configuration of the bridge. Five feet as a 15

bike lane is a little bit larger than the minimum 16

standard in a bike lane, extra curb situation. 17

But what we typically see on bridges, 18

people in motor vehicles tend to accelerate as they go 19

over a bridge to near highway speeds, we've seen on 20

other bridges, and it is not comfortable for cyclist 21

to be in a fairly narrow five-foot corridor right next 22

to fast-moving traffic, despite the fact that the 23

speed limit may be designated to 35 miles an hour. 24

99


(339)674-9100

So I would like to know: Has 1

consideration been given to allocate more for 2

bicycles, perhaps doing a buffer bike lane or a 3

barrier separated facility? If it hadn't been 4

considered, can it be considered? 5

Also, has consideration been given to 6

the approaches and how bicyclists will get on and off 7

the bridge in both directions safely as part of the 8

journey moving through the entire corridor, not just 9

going across the bridge? 10

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank, Dave. Dave 11

and I worked on a number of projects. He represents 12

Mass. Bike Coalition. All of the projects that we do 13

across the Commonwealth now are geared to address 14

bicycle accommodations and multi-modal use, the 15

ability to sustain foot traffic, bicycle traffic or 16

whatever in addition to motorist travel. 17

The cross section that's been laid out, 18

once again, it is to try to maximize safe and 19

efficient use for all of the users within the existing 20

right of way layout that MassDOT currently owns. We 21

have looked at, but with specifically on the movable 22

portions of the bridge. The more cross section of the 23

width you add to the bridge, the heavier the deck 24

100


(339)674-9100

section is going to be. We have to be cautious and 1

careful as to how much load we want placed on the 2

bridge. 3

We're striving to make safe 4

accommodations for the bicyclists as well as the 5

pedestrians, as well as the motorist. And it gets to 6

the point where we have to find where that balance is 7

with the mechanical equipment, its ability to be able 8

to -- certainly, the larger mechanical equipment, the 9

larger those towers are going to get in order to 10

accommodate them. 11

So the provisions that we're 12

demonstrating right here is to be in compliance with 13

the directives with the laws associated with Federal 14

and State. 15

With regard to the approaches: That's 16

the question that's come to us from a number of other 17

residents both from the Weymouth side and on the 18

Quincy side as to what improvements we can make there. 19

That's something I brought back to our district office 20

to see if they can take consideration for that in 21

future development and future developments on 3A, 22

whether it be on Bridge Street or Washington Street. 23

So the limits are to transition bicycle 24

101


(339)674-9100

movements, pedestrian movements and motorists safely 1

from the proposed bridge replacement project out into 2

the existing cross section, existing roadway that's 3

there now. And in the future, be able to -- any 4

improvement that we make now won't preclude the 5

ability for future projects on the approaches to 6

accommodate that or even increase it, if at all 7

possible. 8

DAVID WATSON: A follow-up? 9

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Sure. 10

DAVID WATSON: Given the need to keep 11

the width of the deck within a certain range because 12

of the weight consideration, have you given 13

consideration to reducing the width of the travel lane 14

in order to allocate more space to bikes and 15

pedestrians while still accommodating the motor 16

vehicle traffic? 17

MODERATOR O’DOWD: It is always a 18

difficult balance, as you and I both know. Bob, what 19

it the preferred width for urban arterial lanes such 20

as this? Certainly five feet addresses it and meets 21

it, and it is complaint with all of the regulations 22

and directives; but what does Mass Bike prefer? 23

DAVID WATSON: We don't have a single 24

102


(339)674-9100

preferred width, much like the project development 1

guideline doesn't mandate particular width beyond set 2

minimums. But depending on the situation, 3

particularly when there is higher speed traffic, more 4

width is definitely desirable as is the potential for 5

looking at a buffer, or in a situation where it 6

wouldn't affect things like snow clearance, doing a 7

barrier, separated facility. But those are all things 8

we would want to look at. 9

And in a situation like this, we would 10

typically like to see greater than five feet, although 11

I wouldn't say it had to be six feet or seven feet or 12

whatever. But some kind of additional separation, so 13

that cyclists who are not comfortable being in close 14

proximity to traffic can still feel comfortable using 15

this facility. 16

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Okay. I'll discuss 17

this with the design team subsequently and I'll have 18

more information for you certainly within the next 19

project meeting. 20

Yes, sir? 21

DAVID OLIVA: Hi, I am David Oliva from 22

East Braintree. One point on the, I think our 23

Councilor Pap also mentioned that -- you mentioned 24

103


(339)674-9100

that an industrial area, and that the bridge work 1

reflects an industrial area. But I don't know if you 2

have spoken to Mr. Quirk who owns the 112 or 113 acre 3

of the shipyard, his master plan, his long-range plan 4

is to have a mixed-use community in there; so that 5

maybe, rather than an industrial reflection, you might 6

take that into consideration that there might be a 7

community there with something akin to like the 8

shipyard at Hingham or something. 9

And also the bike lane: Could you put 10

those, like, sound grooves along the bike lane so that 11

if a car is wandering over, at least a bike rider 12

would have an indication that somebody is coming into 13

his lane? 14

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Well, the approach 15

section is something we could easily accommodate that. 16

I question though the ability to do those on a bridge 17

structure themselves. We typically wouldn't do that; 18

am I correct? We typically wouldn't put those grooves 19

on the bridge section, because it impacts the amount 20

of wearing surface that's available on the structure 21

that we try to maintain two-and-a-half inches of mix 22

on a riding surface on a deck. 23

Once you start minimizing a deck of it, 24

104


(339)674-9100

it could have a severe impacts on the deck itself and 1

the durability of that. 2

DAVID OLIVA: Could you raise the bike 3

lane just a couple of inches? Just to kind of keep 4

the cars so they know not to go in there? Because 5

that concerns me too. I've driven over that, the old 6

bridge, and was always worried about getting run over. 7

So thank you. 8

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you. We're 9

working with Mass. Bike to identify ways of better 10

highlighting, delineating the differences between 11

motor vehicle travel lane versus a bicycle lane; so if 12

we can make it a 12-inch line, maybe placing, 13

delineation striping within the bike lane itself, just 14

to highlight the facility that it's not for motor 15

vehicle use. 16

Yes, sir? 17

SID MCDONOUGH: Sid McDonough. I live 18

in North Weymouth. I am also a bicyclist. I have a 19

brief suggestion about the bicycle lane. That's a 20

question really: Why do the bike lanes have to share 21

the same level as highway traffic? Why shouldn't the 22

bike lane be raised on the sidewalk and bicyclists be 23

separated from the pedestrians with a white line and a 24

105


(339)674-9100

difference in elevation between the bicyclists and 1

automobiles? 2

MODERATOR O’DOWD: That's a great 3

question. That's a question we faced on a number of 4

difficult locations. Perhaps Dave is probably a 5

better responder to that question than I am. One 6

thing we have in the past number of projects we have 7

undertaken is the ability to provide a wider lane for 8

bicyclists and pedestrians to share themselves, and 9

that would be a different level from the travel way 10

itself. 11

However, as Dave would attest, 12

oftentimes pedestrians don't like to be within the 13

same travel way or shared path as bicyclists. So it's 14

something that we consider on all projects that move 15

forward on MassDOT in an effort to accommodate all 16

multi-modes of travel. It sometimes works in some 17

facilities, and other times, it doesn't. 18

Traditionally, typically, more often than not on our 19

bridge structures, the bicycle accommodations are made 20

at the same roadway grade as motor vehicles, and we 21

try to highlight and delineate so that we can make it 22

a safe route, and pedestrian sidewalk use, 23

particularly a raised section six to eight inches over 24

106


(339)674-9100

the paved surface. 1

In this particular instance here, I 2

think the sidewalk widths that we're providing are 3

six feet. 4

MARK ENNIS: A little bit of widening 5

on the approaching, a little more. 6

MODERATOR O’DOWD: It's really not a 7

lot of space available to be able to provide that 8

width to both users safely. 9

SID MCDONOUGH: I'm sorry. If you had 10

a bike lane on the sidewalk level, you would have an 11

11-and-a-half foot sidewalk width. 12

MODERATOR O’DOWD: That's true. Keep 13

in mind that five feet also serves for vehicles in 14

emergency situations. Without that, you have no 15

shoulder, no safety zone available for any motorist to 16

pull over if something goes wrong. So there is a 17

balance between all of the criteria that we're trying 18

to meet and certainly that's one of them. 19

Yes, sir. Blue shirt. 20

STEVE MCCLOSKI: Steve McCloski, North 21

Weymouth. Thanks guys for coming again. The website 22

is not that bad, which is rare for State projects. 23

MODERATOR O’DOWD: I'm not sure if 24

107


(339)674-9100

that's good or bad. 1

STEVE MCCLOSKI: I almost don't 2

understand anymore why we need such a wide bridge if 3

the post-Panamax tankers draw too much water, we have 4

ledge, we have to dredge another 30 feet to 5

accommodate these. They'll never be able to come in. 6

If we talk about Panamax, they fit more tight; do they 7

need to give them 75 more additional feet to get 8

through? And could we give them 25 feet? And then we 9

wouldn't need such a wide opening, and then we 10

wouldn't need -- then we could look at the bascule, 11

and not look at the biggest one built in America, and 12

have such a wide boat. 13

Then basically they say, we're probably 14

not going to have a Panamax come through. If there 15

were no tankers, we'd still build 250-foot wide 16

channel. That's the point I want to throw out there. 17

Another thing I looked at is the 18

statistics tonight, different-wise numbers. They're 19

probably more accurate, but I was confused by the 20

sharp increase in sloop-related bridge openings; but 21

that was used by 80 a year to 200 plus. I kind of 22

noted the justification of that other numbers were 23

going down, maintenance, ships and tankers would go 24

108


(339)674-9100

down but sloops would go up. That confused me. 1

Another point I wanted to make in 2

regards to this is for commuters, if there are left. 3

There's still only the right of way that -- the only 4

guaranteed right of way are commercial vessels during 5

the 6:30 to 9:30 a.m. rush hour, and the 4:30 to 6

6:30 p.m. rush hour. So if you're going up the hill 7

sitting in rush-hour traffic, it's not the guy in the 8

sailboat, but it's the Citgo tanker that comes in, so 9

even if the sloop openings have increased, even as a 10

resident, I prefer the bascule design. Each sloop 11

increase number will increase, it wouldn't be during 12

rush hour. So you kind of got that in the back of 13

your mind, you will have traffic jam in North 14

Weymouth. 15

Having said that, I'm a resident in 16

North Weymouth. I drive over that bridge multiple 17

times. I already have to look at Bridge Street, the 18

giant concrete 200-foot plus smokestack. And from our 19

other meetings, it seems like you equated the height 20

is 265 feet approximately. 21

MARK PELLETIER: Yeah. 22

STEVE MCCLOSKI: Approximately 60 feet 23

taller than the current temporary bridge, correct? 24

109


(339)674-9100

MARK ENNIS: It's around 260 tall. 1

STEVE MCCLOSKI: And four. Not just 2

having one small smoke stack in the horizon on Bridge 3

Street, we'll have four. 4

MARK ENNIS: Two, yeah. 5

STEVE MCCLOSKI: Two? I think that's a 6

legitimate concern. You know, North Weymouth, you 7

mentioned is an industrial shipyard is classified. We 8

still have that legacy. I feel we are moving away 9

from that. It's a vital community there, not the 10

prettiest; this would be make it worse having giant 11

towers there. If you could do a bascule bridge, a low 12

profile more of the old design, it would serve just 13

about the same purpose as the vertical. It would cost 14

about the same. I know the technical cost will 15

increase with a Panamax because it's a 250 foot width 16

channel for tankers that won't come into that. 17

I don't want to see more of the like in 18

North Weymouth. I think you did your best showing it, 19

but you can't put lipstick on a pig. A pig is a pig. 20

I feel that's a great design for a vertical lift; but 21

in a neighborhood, I mean, I don't think it fits. 22

So I think that's about it. Have we 23

talked about Ebay at all tonight? With that, I'll 24

110


(339)674-9100

leave you. 1

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you very much. 2

MARK ENNIS: Can I make some comment? 3

I hope I can remember all the comments that you made. 4

Probably I won't. I think they were all well made. 5

The issue of the sloops being less than 10,000 tons 6

and then for not being able to open during commuting 7

times, the way we would say that, that means those 8

openings, depending what type of thing you have, 9

whether it's 200, 300 openings there to occur during 10

noncommuting times. And therefore more likely impact 11

the local residents, and not down the South Shore. 12

It's more likely to affect the people who live in the 13

Weymouth-Quincy-Braintree area as they do their short 14

trips, whatever they have to do during the day. 15

So it is those commuting times 16

three hours in the morning, three hours in the 17

evening, those and during weekdays; but the majority 18

of trips outside of those time frames, if you look at 19

the seven-day period, it's still a significant impact 20

to users of the bridge. And those people that are 21

most likely impacted are people who live in the 22

vicinity taking the short trip. 23

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I wouldn't mind. 24

111


(339)674-9100

I live right there. 1

MARK PELLETIER: I think one of the 2

issues that you hit on was channel width. I don't 3

believe, based on all the meetings that we had Coast 4

Guard, the mariners, all of the agencies. The channel 5

width that's been recommended to us by the various 6

groups is not to encourage wider tankers. It's to 7

accommodate the existing tankers that utilize the 8

channel today. So it's not for some future goal. 9

It's to accommodate the vessels that use the channel 10

today. 11

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That being said 12

though, it does seem like a jumble. If they're going 13

175 feet maybe -- 14

MARK ENNIS: This is your points are 15

very well taken, given that Mr. O'Dowd has these very 16

same discussion with the mariners, because the 17

mariners start off saying they would like a 300-foot 18

channel at this location, because the approach channel 19

on one side of the bridge is 400 feet, and the other 20

side is 300 feet, and this is some historic commitment 21

in the past to provide the mariners with a 300-foot 22

channel. Michael has worked very hard with the 23

mariner to get them to come down from 300 start. The 24

112


(339)674-9100

225 foot what you said is well understood. We had 1

this discussion the 225 feet on the other side, that 2

the 175 that put you up to 225 that's absolute minimum 3

starting point that we considered. Through 4

Mr. O'Dowd's great effort we got to that point that 5

they even put 225 on the table for discussion. 6

From our perspective, the 225 foot 7

channel -- trunnion to trunnion distance for a bascule 8

is well in excess of 200 feet. With a solid deck 9

system is a challenge that we described as well. Only 10

with a vertical lift we obtained in our attempt of 11

250 feet that we can go ahead to do that structure at 12

the same cost as a bascule will cost for this channel, 13

and the future environment. 14

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Yes, sir? 15

GARY LAWRENCE: Gary Lawrence, Century 16

21 here in town. On our information meeting packet 17

here, it says MassDOT's policy concerning land 18

acquisitions will be discussed at this meeting. Care 19

to comment on that how we're going to be discussing 20

land takings? 21

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Unfortunately, our 22

right of way representative is not with us right now. 23

At this point in time, we don't anticipate any 24

113


(339)674-9100

acquisition in land, permanent acquisition in land for 1

this project. 2

GARY LAWRENCE: It's a preexisting 3

Right of Way. 4

MARK ENNIS: Maybe Nicole can speak to 5

that a little bit. 6

MODERATOR O’DOWD: What's identified as 7

the process by which we need to go through to get 8

there. 9

NICOLE BULGER: We do not anticipate 10

permanent takings for homes or businesses. I think 11

that's what Mike was referring to. We do anticipate 12

potentially taking along the approaching walls on the 13

Weymouth side of the bridge, particularly, we'll be 14

rehabilitating those walls. In discussing with people 15

and the right of way in Weymouth, they have a layout 16

just beyond those retaining walls. We'll be looking 17

at to see if MassDOT will be able to require some 18

slivers of land along the first wall. But beyond 19

looking at temporary easement takings within the 20

layout in the waterway; but no permanent takings. 21

GARY LAWRENCE: Thank you. 22

MODERATOR O’DOWD: If any were 23

identified, the process by which we do that, our 24

114


(339)674-9100

design team develops a preliminary right of way plan. 1

It is submitted to our right of way representatives, 2

both in the MassDOT Boston headquarters office, and 3

also in our district office. Those plans are 4

reviewed; they identify the exact owner; what the 5

impacts are going to be to the owner. We'll then 6

contact the owner, our right of way representative 7

will then contact the owner, meet with them, discuss 8

what the impacts are going to be, exact size 9

commencing of the areas associated with construction, 10

whether temporary or permanent easements or 11

acquisitions, and they initiate that process. 12

So if an individual here were going to 13

be impacted by the design and construction of this 14

project, they would be contacted by a member of our 15

right of way bureau. And the right of way bureau 16

representative will then describe in accordance with 17

law, Federal and State law, what the action would be 18

and what your rights are under that action. 19

In the rear, sir? 20

TIM DONOVAN: Tim Donavan. Tim as in 21

Timothy. I'm a resident of North Weymouth. I'm also 22

a member of the Fore River Neighborhood Association. 23

I view the vertical lift bridge as a monument. It 24

115


(339)674-9100

would bring to the attention the motorists that they 1

are leaving Quincy and arriving Weymouth and vice 2

versa. I've already witnessed the construction of a 3

monument, that's the Goliath crane in Quincy. I have 4

witnessed the construction of a monument in Weymouth 5

and that's the chimney at the site of the energy power 6

plant. It tells me I'm in Weymouth, it tells me I'm 7

in Quincy. 8

From my side, I would prefer a mode of 9

transport across a river that harmonizes with both 10

communities that blends in with the surrounding -- the 11

river by itself is enough to tell me that I am in 12

Quincy or I'm in Weymouth. 13

Next item regarding the cross section 14

for the bridge and the pedestrian rail. There is 15

currently a no jumping sign on the road today. That 16

rail is not going to prevent people from jumping into 17

the river. It's not going to prevent people from 18

throwing rocks at moving boats below. You need to 19

think of some barrier that works. 20

On the Weymouth -- next item. On the 21

Weymouth side of the bridge there is a low point in 22

elevation in the road. There is currently a storm 23

water problem there that needs to be addressed with 24

116


(339)674-9100

the change in the profile of the bridge, the length of 1

the bridge. Currently we're experiencing water 2

problems with the existing catch basins. That problem 3

needs to be addressed, so that Weymouth is not stuck 4

with addressing the problem. 5

Thank you for listening. 6


sir. The pedestrian barriers is an issue that has 8

been brought to my attention before, and we are 9

looking into that to see whether or not we should be 10

providing a power -- what we call higher anti-missile 11

fence that would prevent an individual from wanting to 12

climb or prevent an individual from throwing something 13

out onto the waterway. That's a consideration we are 14

looking into. 15

With regard to storm water issues, we 16

are looking into that, how to improve the condition, 17

certainly not exacerbating it, making it any worse; 18

but ultimately we were make it more accommodating, 19

Nicole wants to say something. 20

NICOLE BULGER: I actually, we had 21

spoken with the D.P.W. director and mention that maybe 22

there could be more specifics to know the problem 23

you're having out there, particular the D.P.W. 24

117


(339)674-9100

director wasn't aware of any kind of water problem in 1

that area. Are the catch basins backing up, is that 2

the problem? 3

TIM DONOVAN: Yes. 4

NICOLE BULGER: Is this anything more 5

than that that you noticed? 6

TIM DONOVAN: No. 7

NICOLE BULGER: They're crowding around 8

them. 9

TIM DONOVAN: Yes. 10

NICOLE BULGER: Thank you. 11

TIM DONOVAN: There is going to be 12

additional storm water or collection from the proposed 13

bridge. The catch basin as it is today, the capacity 14

needs to be addressed. 15

NICOLE BULGER: We'll certainly look at 16

that. Thank you. 17

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Thank you, Nicole. 18

Thank you Mr. Donovan. 19

Yes, sir? 20

GARY LOWELL: The State right now is 21

having budget problems and I would -- I'm just 22

wondering -- 23

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Please state your 24

118


(339)674-9100

name. 1

GARY LOWELL: Oh, I'm sorry. Gary 2

Lowell from Weymouth. The State right now is having 3

budget problems. I'm just wondering how, from what 4

you described, the bridge will be very expensive. So 5

I was wondering how the State will go about and find 6

the money to pay for it. 7

MODERATOR O’DOWD: The monies that are 8

being provided to assist in construction, replacement 9

reconstruction of this project is through the 10

Accelerated Bridge Bond Bill, they signed into law by 11

Governor Patrick in 2008. In addition to that, the 12

Federal Highway Administration is also a participating 13

funding agencies for that project. Os ultimately it's 14

the result of the gas dollars and gas tax that's made 15

to the transportation agency. 16

GARY LOWELL: Is the money through 17

that, like if the project goes over budget for some 18

reason, does Massachusetts have to cover the funds or 19

do the funds you just mentioned cover anything even if 20

it goes over budget? 21

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Within our projected 22

budget for our project, we try to take into account or 23

we actually do take into account a contingency dollar 24

119


(339)674-9100

value amount that addresses the potential of overrun 1

work that increased in the cost during construction. 2

And certainly those costs are borne in the responsible 3

agency being MassDOT and the Federal Highway 4

Administration. 5

GARY LOWELL: Thank you. 6

MODERATOR O’DOWD: Any other questions 7

this evening? I would like to thank you all for 8

coming here tonight I would like to remind you that 9

the last sheet of the brochure that was picked up as 10

you came in the door tonight has a write-in comment 11

sheet, and I strongly urge that you submit all of your 12

comments in writing. Certainly all of the comments 13

you have with us are being recorded by our 14

transcriptionist stenographer, and they will become 15

part of the public documentations and the EA. And any 16

further comments you may have, wish to share with us, 17

I'll tell you submit them to me, to the Engineer's 18

office, Mr. Frank Tramontozzi. Before I go, I would 19

like to say we'll be here as long as necessary to 20

answer any specific questions or concerns you may 21

have. 22

I would like to thank you all for 23

coming. Thank you for this auditorium. Thank you 24

120


(339)674-9100

very much. 1

(Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 2

9:30 p.m.) 3

// 4

// 5

// 6

// 7

// 8

// 9

// 10

// 11

// 12

// 13

// 14

// 15

// 16

// 17

// 18

// 19

// 20

// 21

// 22

// 23

//24

Documents

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ABIGAIL ADAMS MIDDLE … › IMAGES_JPEG... · 10 resident owner, and please ask your question into the 11 microphone, as we do have a transcriptionist