 |
Questions
Regarding Current Conditions
Q:
Is the temporary bridge safe?
A:
Yes. MassDOT Highway Division conducts
frequent maintenance on the temporary bridge as well as scheduled and
spot inspections to ensure its safety.
Q:
What are the regulations regarding when the bridge can open?
A:
Regulations about when the Fore River
Bridge can open are set by the United States Coast Guard.
Regulations regarding the operation of the Fore River Bridge
can
be seen in
the lower right corner of this linked
document.
Q:
Can you tell me the proportion of openings requested by ship type?
A:
This pie
chart shows
the
average percent of openings triggered by the different ship types using
data gathered between 2005 and 2009. For example, during this
time, 14% of openings were caused by the tall masts of sloops, the main
type of recreational sailboat in the Fore River basin.
Questions on the
Replacement Bridge
Q:
What about a tunnel or
fixed crossing? Wouldn’t these options let traffic flow
without
interruption?
A:
In 2002, during the construction of the
temporary bridge, a report was prepared for MassDOT Highway Division
investigating the use of fixed bridge, tunnel
and movable
span options for the Fore River Bridge site. It was
determined
that the fixed bridge and tunnel would have resulted in significant
land-takings, substantial alterations to the surrounding neighborhoods
and the need to relocate many local businesses. While these options
would allow uninterrupted vehicular traffic flow, the community
impacts, environmental impacts, and project costs were determined to
both be too high. In addition,
a tunnel would not provide bicycle or pedestrian accommodations. Based
on
this study, the current design team was contracted to determine the
most
appropriate movable bridge type and to progress that design to the 25%
level.
Q:
If the new bridge is a
vertical lift bridge, will it be like the
temporary structure?
A: No.
A new, permanent vertical
lift bridge would not resemble the current temporary span in operation
or appearance.
The
temporary bridge has a number of problems including:
- A
less-than-pleasing appearance;
- Difficulty of
operation in cold weather and high
winds;
- A noisy
ride for motorists and abutters;
- An undesirable
roadway alignment for traffic;
- Slow opening and
closing times; and
- A challenging
inspection and maintenance regimen that
is expensive to MassDOT and inconvenient for motorists when lanes of
the bridge must be closed for inspection.
The majority of the problems associated with the
temporary bridge are due to the fact that it was designed for a fifteen year
life span using economical construction typical of a temporary bridge.
A new, permanent vertical lift would will be
designed to the latest standards and be attractive, provide a quieter
ride,
open and close significantly faster than the current span, operate
under harsh
weather conditions without difficulty and be much less challenging to
maintain,
ending the regular half closures for inspection and repairs.
Q:
Will the new bridge be quieter?
A:
The 1936 bridge had a steel open grid deck
which generated a characteristic hum. The current ACROW span bridge has
its own distinct set of noises because it has a steel plate deck system
which rattles when vehicles pass over it.
The proposed bridge will have a solid concrete deck that will
generate far less noise than either bridge as vehicles pass over it.
Q:
Is there a member of the project team responsible for giving the new
bridge an attractive appearance?
A:
Rosales + Partners, the team's bridge architect is internationally
recognized for their projects worldwide including the Zakim Bridge in
Boston. Members of the
Rosales + Partners team have been informed of the comments received
from the public
to date. They have attended meetings with the public to address
comments and will incorporate them
to the fullest extent possible. In addition, MassDOT has been
working with the local elected officials to ensure that architectural
details are incorporated into the design.
Q: The proposed vertical lift bridge option
offers a higher vertical clearance in the closed position; how will
this impact traffic flow?
A:
The additional vertical clearance offered by
the vertical lift bridge means that most recreational sailboats will be
able to pass under the bridge while it remains in the closed or "down"
position. This will help to reduce the number of bridge
openings
and keep traffic flowing over the
bridge
during the summer when recreational sloops frequent the Fore River
channel. Large ships, like oil tankers, will always require a
bridge opening.
Q:
The
duration of bridge openings and the associated impact on my commute are
my chief
concerns. How quickly will the new bridge open and close?
A: When
discussing a movable bridge, engineers use the term "cycle time" to
discuss how long it takes to stop traffic, open the bridge, transit the
vessel
through the opened bridge, close the bridge, and restart traffic.
Thanks to
modern lifting machinery, the vertical lift bridge would be able to
open in 2.5
minutes, allow a ship to pass and then close in 2.5 minutes. This
opening and closing time will be
significantly shorter than the current temporary bridge. Regardless of
the type
of bridge selected for this location, the opening and closing time will
be
essentially the same for all alternatives considered.
Q: There are
other 225-foot bascule bridges in the United States, so why doesn't
MassDOT want to build one?
A: The
bascule bridge alternative presented in the EA has a 315-foot span
length (trunnion-to-trunnion distance) and
225-foot navigable opening width (horizontal channel clearance). When
the
leaves rise into their near-vertical open position, the supporting
structure
under the roadway deck extends towards the navigation channel requiring
the
trunnions (points of rotation) to be set back significantly from the
edge of
the navigation channel. This is
true for
all bascule bridges. Thus, bascule bridges identified as having lengths
of 225 ft or
greater actually
span much narrower navigation channels. It is
also important to note that some internet sources for movable bridge
data do
not provide accurate information on bridge
span lengths.
To date the design team has only been able to confirm the presence of
one United States bascule bridge with a longer span than the EA bascule
alternative: the Charles Berry Bridge (CBB) in Lorain, Ohio. This
bridge was mentioned in the EA as an example of the potential
maintenance and replacement part issues associated with bascule
structures of extreme size. Because of current engineering design
standards, current code requirements, and the heavier weight resulting
from the increased live load requirements, the addition of fatigue and
seismic loadings to the design criteria, the increased wind and other
lateral load provisions, the wider bridge cross section to meet current
safety provisions (CBB is only 62 feet wide with four travel lanes and
two sidewalks, which would not meet current design criteria, the close
deck system (CBB has an open grate deck, which would not be acceptable
to the community), and the much more conservative mechanical design
criteria in today's code, a bascule bridge at the Fore
River site would occupy a much larger footprint for the supports and
would entail
much larger structural components and mechanical equipment than at the
CBB.
Questions
about the navigation
channel
Q:
Why does the horizontal channel clearance of the new bridge need to be
wider than the channel clearance of the 1936 bridge?
A: The
1936 bridge and its current temporary replacement both provide ships
with a
175-foot wide channel clearance. As a result of numerous allisions to
the
former and current temporary bridge, it is generally agreed by both
maritime
stakeholders, the United States Coast Guard and MassDOT that 175 feet does not
provide an adequate buffer for ships given the winds, cross currents
and
geometry of the bridge location. The mariners had requested a 300-foot
wide
navigation channel under the bridge; however, in the interests of
balancing the
needs of all the users of the bridge, the MassDOT Highway Division is
proposing
a channel width of 250 feet to safetly accommodate navigational needs.
Q: Why does the
navigation channel need to be so wide?
A: The existing navigation channels approaching the bridge site measure
at least 400 feet or more on the inboard side of the bridge and measure
300 feet on the outbound side of the turning basin immediately outboard
of the bridge so the 175-foot existing channel clearance represents a
significant obstruction. The proposed 250-foot channel width at
the bridge site represents a lessening of that restriction
and will provide a safe navigation channel.
Q: Did MassDOT
consider a 200-foot navigable opening width?
A: During the earlier stages of design development, a 200-foot
navigable opening alternative was evaluated. However, there are
multiple challenges associated with a bridge providing a navigable
opening narrower than the 250-foot preferred alternative. In
order to fully understand the context of the horizontal channel opening
in a bridge replacement project over a navigable waterway, there are a
number of factors that must be considered, many of which relate
directly to the Project's ability to meet the Purpose and Need as
outlined in Chapter 2 of the EA. They include:
- Limiting conflicts between proposed work and existing
infrastructure in the waterway;
- Protecting the proposed bridge from damage caused by
allisions (collisions by a ship);
- Potentially accommodating future vessel types
(without
deepening the channel);
- Achieving a navigable opening width acceptable to
marine users and applicable permitting agencies; and
- Maintaining consistency with CZM policies related to
the Designated Port Area.
Q:
Is Citgo the only stakeholder asking for a wider channel opening?
A:
All maritime stakeholders,
including the United States Coast Guard, would prefer a wider channel
opening. The old Fore River Shipyard remains a Coastal Zone
Management-Designated Port Area and a new bridge that will exist for 75
years must not preclude renewed marine activity and/or water dependent
industrial uses at this site.
For
more on what constitutes a
Designated Port Area, please click here
to
visit the relevant section of the Office of Coastal Zone Management's
website.
Questions
on
Construction
Q: How much will
this project cost?
A: MassDOT currently estimates the project will cost
$280 milion.
Q:
Will there be land takings associated with the new bridge?
A:
The project team will design a
bridge that will not require takings of homes or businesses. Temporary
construction easements and/or sliver takings may be required.
Q:
How will you build the new bridge?
A: The Fore River
Bridge
will be constructed by a design/build team. At the current level of
design, the design team anticipates that the
project will be constructed in roughly three phases: in the first
phase, the
movable span and approach spans of the new bridge will be built next to
the
temporary structure. In the second
phase, the approach ramps will be reconstructed in a number of stages.
In the
last phase, the temporary bridge will be demolished and the waterfront
amenities on the Weymouth
side of the river will be restored.
MassDOT
anticipates maintaining two lanes of traffic in each direction during
the peak
traffic hours with the exception of a short phase of construction where
traffic
will be restricted to one-lane in each direction in order to transition
to the
new bridge at the approaches.
Public
Involvement
Process
Q:
Will you work with the community to address traffic during construction?
A:
Yes. Throughout the public involvement
process, members of the design team have specifically welcomed members
of the community to send in their comments about the temporary
bridge construction process. We need to know what worked well
and
what should not be repeated from the traffic management plans
associated
with the 2002 construction of the temporary bridge. The design team
will also work with the police departments and traffic engineering
staff in both Quincy and Weymouth to keep traffic moving during
construction. MassDOT
will continue to keep the public informed of traffic pattern changes not only
through final design, but also during construction.
Q:
How are my comments used?
A: Your
comments are important to the project team. The project team must file
with a
number of federal agencies to obtain needed permits. These agencies
will not
grant the permits if they find that public involvement has not been
open and
effective in responding to public concerns. All comments received are
incorporated into the design to the extent possible within the scope
and budget
of the project. In addition, public comments help to form the special
provisions and specifications that the project team will write into the
design/build package.
If
you would like to add your comments
to those already received by the project team, please feel free to email or telephone the project's
public
involvement specialist.
Q:
I am concerned about the environmental process. How can
I obtain copies of the data going into the NEPA Environmental
Assessment
and other permitting documents?
A: The Environmental Assessment (EA) and supporting documentation was
completed in December 2010 and FHWA issued a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) in December 2011 in accordance with the NEPA process.
You can find more information about the NEPA
process by
visiting this
Federal Highway Administration web page. If you would like to
see a copy of the EA, please click
here. To view the FONSI, or its supporting documentation, please click here.
Q: I submitted a comment
during the Environmental Assessment (EA) comment period (December 13,
2010 to January 26, 2011). What will happen to my comment?
A: Whether you sent your comment on
the EA to MassDOT or FHWA, please be advised that both agencies
shared the comments they received to be sure they were
identified and reviewed. In consultation with FHWA, MassDOT
prepared responses to the comments received in compliance with NEPA
requirements. Please click here to find
a copy of your comment and its response in the Responses to Comments on
the Environmental Assessment document.
|
FREQUENTLY
ASKED QUESTIONS