The following is the letter that I sent to Damaris Santiago and Richard Marquis, the acting administrators of the Massachusetts Division of the Federal Highway Administration pertaining to the Environmental Assessment (EA) report on the Fore River Bridge. This letter communicates the numerous concerns we have with the potential impact from the proposed design of a vertical lift bridge on the Fore River Bridge Replacement Project.
January 25, 2011
Attn: Damaris Santiago
Richard Marquis
Acting Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Massachusetts Division
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
Re: EA Public Comments
Fore River Bridge
Project File Number: 604382
Dear Mr. Marquis,
As the locally elected municipal official, who represents North Weymouth and all the neighborhoods at the Southern base of the Fore River Bridge, I write to publicly comment on the Environmental Assessment (EA) report and communicate the numerous concerns we have with the potential impact from the proposed design of a vertical lift bridge on the Fore River Bridge Replacement Project. By way of background, please understand that I have attended all public information meetings and these comments are in the context of having absorbed all the information put forward by MassDOT in addition to asking questions and obtaining feedback over 18 months.
The Community of North Weymouth firmly believes that limiting the increase of the current channel width to 200 feet and accommodating a bascule design must be a priority. Increasing the channel width to 225 or 250 feet would have a severe negative environmental impact, on both the communities of Quincy and Weymouth because it would force upon us an unsightly vertical lift bridge.
North Weymouth, with a population of over 10,000 residents, is the only constituency, which has a full spectrum of concerns in that we are recreational boaters; commuters, who travel the bridge to work and school; local residents who will hear the construction and see the finished product everyday for the next 70‐80 years; as well as consumers, who utilize the goods and services provided by commercial interests that access the waterway. Additionally, it is our property values that will be affected by the short and long‐term impacts from the erection of a new bridge.
Despite the intention to remain within the original footprint of the former bridge, the reality is that because of the proposed bridge’s enormity, the “airprint” will forever change the landscape and region. The new bridge will either positively brand our town as a welcoming community, or, as we fear based on the current EA report, permanently scar the historic neighborhoods and business district along the second oldest settlement site in the nation within the 22nd largest municipality in Massachusetts.
For this reason alone, I can confidently deem the findings of the Environmental Assessment report to be significantly flawed. As a community, we cannot accept these findings because such a pivotal document in the replacement project process fails to take into account the most important environmental impact any structure in existence ever has: its very sight and the permanent, unalterable effects that such a visual imprint will have on its surroundings forever.
Recognizing the obvious negative impact on the environment a vertical lift bridge would have on the area, the Weymouth Town Council voted unanimously in favor of rejecting any vertical lift styled bridge. The Weymouth Historical Commission adopted a near‐identical resolution and Weymouth Mayor Susan Kay also publicly wrote and spoke in support of a 200‐foot channel width that allows a bascule styled bridge over the Fore River Channel. In short, all local officials are in agreement that no one in Weymouth wants what is being proposed in order to accommodate what seems to be a small but influential group of commercial and maritime interests.
With a $250 million appropriation of the people’s money, it is critical to do what is in the best interest of everyone. An incremental increase in the channel width to 200 feet (from the existing 175 foot width) allows commercial and maritime interests greater flexibility in utilizing the port. The bigger bridge allows fewer openings than what previously existed and what the current structure accommodates. A bascule bridge over a 200‐foot channel also offers fewer openings and improved commute times. The design aspect is for the residents, the property owners and the taxpayers who reside at the base of the bridge. For this, a 200‐foot channel width allows for the construction of a lowimpact, bascule styled bridge that preserves the character of the community.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts entered into an agreement before the previous bridge was demolished, which called for an appropriate replacement. As a life‐long resident of North Weymouth, I can resolutely assure you that the proposed vertical lift bridge is wholly inappropriate and totally unacceptable. Simply put, we do not need a channel wider than the Panama Canal.
I understand the timetable under which the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Coast Guard and MassDOT must operate in order to bring this project under the accelerated bridge program to fruition. However, in my experience as an elected official and prior to that as an aide in the state legislature, I am keenly aware of the notion that quality must trump expediency. The death of a young woman from the Central Artery/Tunnel Project of recent years aptly highlights what can happen when we rush to get a public works project done. In other words, things don’t have to be done right now, but they need to be done right.
On behalf of the 10,000 residents of North Weymouth, I urge the Federal Highway Administration to “do it right” and work toward a bascule styled bridge as the only acceptable structure in the Fore River Bridge replacement project.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments offered with Best Regards,
Victor Pap
CC:
U.S. Senator Scott Brown
U.S. Senator John Kerry
U.S. Representative William Keating
Frank A. Tramontozzi, P.E., Chief Engineer
