Wednesday, February 24, 7:30 – 9:00 PM
Hingham Town Hall, Auditorium
210 Central Street, Hingham
The meeting will present the Fore River Bridge Replacement project and the two bridge types being evaluated as part of the 25% design process. The evaluation is being performed as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. The project team will also summarize comments received to date and how they are being incorporated into the environmental assessment. MassDOT staff will answer questions and gather public comments.
The permanent, movable replacement of the Fore River Bridge carrying Route 3A over the Fore River between Quincy and Weymouth, is funded by Governor Patrick's historic 8-year, $3 billion Accelerated Bridge Program.
To be added to the project email or US Mail distribution lists, please contact Stephanie Boundy, 617-973-8049 or by email at Stephanie.Boundy@state.ma.us.
Building on the pipe line idea a alternate and less costly solution would be.
• : Relocate the Citgo off loading pier from its present location to the ocean side of the Fore River Bridge. The distance is less than a mile and several alternatives could be considered for locating the pipe line.
• This would allow for less bridge openings which would improve the traffic flow and commute for the 30,000+ daily commuters.
• Improved safety in the navigable waters as the large ships wouldn’t have to pass through the bridge opening. A Coast Guard plus.
• With the high volume passage of the larger ships minimized maybe the Coast Guard would relax the requirements for the size of the bridge opening which would allow for a Bascule-type design to be used. This would be a big plus for the local neighborhoods of North Weymouth and Quincy Point.
Posted by: Tom Schonbach | February 08, 2011 at 07:32 AM
It is very short sighted to blame one particular government on our reliance on fossil fuels. Where do you expect to get fuel for your cars and homes if there are no facilities in our ports to import them? How much would you be willing to clog our highways even more if we were forced to import from trucks in New York? 80% of our commerce moves through our ports. The focus should be on safety of marine traffic with the least amount of impact to roadway users. This bridge will be here for a long time and the priority should be on safety not aesthetics. The NIMBY comment above is an irresponsible one. I expect MassHighway to act in the public safety interest in keeping this project safe. Do not focus on keeping everyone happy focus on your responsibility on safety to the public. Build it right the first time. Why is there no discussion of a tunnel which would have the least amount of impact to the public? Is it about money or safety MassHighway you have a responsibility to keep us safe do it.
Posted by: F, Atchitson | February 26, 2010 at 10:27 AM
I strongly encourage everyone to look at the proposed bridge designs and consider what you feel would be an appropriate solution for the area. The tower lift bridge seems even more detrimental than what is currently in place and will encourage the passage of much larger, and dangerous Panamax tankers. The decision should be made in the residents' best interest not Citgo's, a foreign company whose leader has vowed to bring down the US.
Posted by: B. Diem | February 25, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Whichever bridge design is chosen should incorporate the shortest possible opening time to limit traffic back up. The current temporary lift bridge takes way too much time to raise and lower the span.
Posted by: Steve Schiller | February 19, 2010 at 07:50 PM
Has any thought been put into having a pipe line that runs out past the Islands so that the tankers could off load there?? I think just for safety reasons alone more thought should be made into this.
Posted by: Anne P Bell | February 04, 2010 at 11:16 AM