Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AED Feasibility Study Final
AED Feasibility Study Final
Somerville, Everett
Massachusetts
Prepared for
Prepared by
June 2009
Table of Contents
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
ii
Table of Contents
Attachments
Attachment A: Design Criteria
Attachment B: PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment C: Cost Estimate
List of Figures
Figure No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
iii
Description
Project Locus
Bostons Alternative Transportation Network
General Study Area
Alternative 1 Modify Access Road, Dam & Gates
Alternative 1 Proposed Cross Section A-A
Alternative 2 New Fixed-Span Bridge Structure
Alternative 3 New Movable Span Bridge
Alternative 4 Modify MTBA Bridge
Table of Contents
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Project Purpose
The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), in cooperation with Exelon
New England Holdings, LLC are evaluating the feasibility of providing a bicycle and
pedestrian crossing over the Mystic River in the vicinity of the Amelia Earhart Dam,
located in Somerville and Everett, Massachusetts (See Figure 1). In addition, in
cooperation with the MBTA, DCR is also preparing conceptual design plans to
extend the Draw 7 Park bike path through the MBTAs Charlestown Bus
Maintenance Facility, to Route 99 in Everett, MA.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Executive Summary
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Executive Summary
Recommendation
Alternatives analyzed in this report to provide a bicycle and pedestrian crossing of
the Mystic River include:
A path over the lock gates;
A movable span bridge over the locks;
A new bridge upstream from the dam; and
Attaching a structure to the existing MBTA bridge.
The alternatives that utilize the dam or portions of the dam present significant
operational conflicts between the functions of the structure as a flood control and
navigation structure versus bicycle/pedestrian transportation. The cost of the new
structure alternative or the alternative utilizing the existing MBTA bridge is
expensive and requires construction of a new structure.
None of the alternatives analyzed in this study were found to be practical, feasible, or
within reasonable cost. We recommend that proponents work with the adjacent
communities and the Massachusetts Highway Department to modify the existing
roadway bridges and approaches (Route 99/Alford Street south of the dam, Route
28/Fellsway Bridge north of the dam) to provide the pedestrian and bicycle crossing
over the Mystic River as these structures are more readily adaptable to provide
bicycle and pedestrian transportation. It is our understanding that the Route 99
bridge is currently in design for replacement of the superstructure at its current
locations.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Executive Summary
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Executive Summary
Existing Conditions
Project Area
The Mystic River extends from Boston Harbor to the south and forms the southern
and southwestern boundary of Everett with the cities of Boston, Somerville and a
small portion of Medford. The river is tidal up to the Amelia Earhart Dam and nontidal thereafter. The physical character of the river varies greatly along its 12.5 mile
length. It progresses from a predominantly meandering, natural and pastoral
landscape in its northern reaches to a commercial and industrial landscape near the
project area. The degree of pedestrian and vehicular access to the water varies along
the rivers length and connections between these access points are discontinuous
within the project area.
The general study area is the Mystic River crossing bordered to the west by Draw 7
Park in Somerville and the Gateway Plaza/Mystic View Road in Everett to the east.
See Figure 3. The main element of this analysis is the Amelia Earhart Dam structure
and the adjacent waters of the Mystic River. Other existing river crossings in the
general study area include the Route 99 (Alford Street) roadway bridge to the south
(downstream)of the dam, an MBTA Orange Line bridge also south (downstream) of
the dam, an MBTA Orange Line rapid transit bridge north (upstream) of the dam
and the Route 28/Fellsway roadway bridge also located north of the dam. Another
element to crossing the Mystic River in the general project area is the implementation
of an extension of the path in Draw 7 Park south under the MBTA RR and through
an MBTA bus maintenance facility. That element is the subject of a separate
feasibility study.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Existing Conditions
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Existing Conditions
Several boat launch ramps and docking facilities are located on both sides of the river
immediately upstream from the dam.
There are three locks in the dam. Two of the locks are 120 feet long by 22 feet wide
with one large lock that is 325 feet long by 45 feet wide.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Existing Conditions
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Existing Conditions
Design Criteria
The shared-use path will need to accommodate a variety of users, including walkers,
bicyclists, joggers, persons with disabilities, skaters, for recreation, commuting and
local access. A paved shared-use path is the type of facility that can best meet the
expectations that users have for a non-motorized path in an urban area.
The primary references for the shared-use path design criteria include the 2006
Massachusetts Highway Department Project Development & Design Guide (MHD
Design Guide), 521 MCR The Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts
Architectural Access Board, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,
1999 edition, (AASHTO Guide), American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets (The AASHTO Green Book) and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD).
The relevant design information compiled from these references has been included in
the Attachment A, Design Criteria.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Criteria Evaluation
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
10
The proposed path will be adjacent to the existing control panels. The control panels
will need to be secured from public access or removed to a more suitable location.
Because the operators are at dam level, they do not have full visibility of the area.
The location of the path and railing system will cause the operators visibility to be
limited even further. For the stated reasons it is recommended that the control panels
be relocated into a secure cabinet in a more desirable location providing easy access
and improved visibility.
The addition of a wider and more user friendly walkway system over the lock gates
will require modifications to the existing gate structure. The additional walkway area
will more than double the existing dead load on the gates, the existing gate structural
members will require the addition of steel plates to accommodate the additional
loading, and the extra steel will in itself add significant weight to the existing gate
system. It is anticipated that the mechanical and movable components of the gate
system will need to be further studied and most likely require upgrading.
During periods of heavy rain, or when heavy rain is forecast and typically during
periods of ebb tide the lock gates are left open in lieu of using the pumps to manage
river flow. Closing the gates to allow pedestrian or bicycle crossings during these
periods will significantly increase the number of lock open/close cycles. Conversely,
waiting times for vessels to traverse the dam may increase if they have to wait for an
opening/closing cycle of the lock to allow for bicylce and/or pedestrian crossings.
The openings for boat traffic increase in the summer months. The summer months
will also be the time when the proposed path will see its highest usage. It is not
advisable to allow public access across closed lock gates when the lock is being filled
or drained for boat passage due to the potential that a pedestrian or bicyclists could
fall into the lock and be pinned or caught in the river current. It is highly likely that
pedestrians and bicyclists wishing to cross the river will incur significant delays
while the locks are opened and closed for boat passage.
Initial discussions with the Coast Guard indicate that although the Amelia Earhart
Dam is not a designated waterfront facility, the dam falls under the Maritime
Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) and CFR Title 33 Part 107.9 and is therefore under the
Coast Guards jurisdiction for the security of the dams operations and safety.
Meeting the security requirements for the Coast Guard will simultaneously meet the
security requirements for the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard
has indicated that the dam is not a critical homeland security asset and does not
require any extraordinary security measures. The Coast Guard will require measures
be put in place to restrict public access to the functioning areas of the dam such as the
lock mechanism and the control panels. Also, measures should be used to inhibit the
publics ability to interfere with watercraft navigating the river from any
walkways/paths that cross the water.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
11
Criteria 3: Geometrics
The reduced path width for bicycles is a concern. Bicyclists tend to avoid stopping
unless absolutely necessary. Directions to Dismount and Walk Your Bicycle would
most likely be disregarded. It is not practical or advisable to direct bicyclists into an
area where dam/lock operators and staff may be moving unexpectedly back and
forth across the path. Likewise, it is not advisable to expect operators to focus on the
operation of the locks while at same time be on the lookout for approaching
pedestrians or bicyclists.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
12
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
13
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
10
Criteria Evaluation
Criteria 3: Geometrics
In general, the geometrics of the proposed bridge crossing alternative would exceed
the minimum criteria with the exception that a relatively tighter radius is needed at
the bottom of the proposed ramp at Draw 7 Park to meet with the existing path.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
14
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
15
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
14
Criteria Evaluation
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
16
Criteria 3: Geometrics
In general, the geometrics of the proposed bridge crossing alternative would exceed
the minimum criteria with the exception that a relatively tighter radius is needed at
the bottom of the proposed ramp at Draw 7 Park to meet with the existing path.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
17
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
16
Criteria Evaluation
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
18
Criteria 3: Geometrics
In general, the geometrics of the proposed bridge crossing alternative would exceed
the minimum criteria with the exception that a relatively tighter radius is needed at
the bottom of the proposed ramp at Draw 7 Park to meet with the existing path.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
19
Alternative 1
Modify Access
Road & Dam
Significant increase in
lock open/closures.
Criteria 2: ROW
None.
None.
Some restriction on
maneuverability at lock
entrance. Require
additional staffing to
operate bridge.
None.
Criteria 3: Geometrics
Criteria 4: Accessibility
Connections
Criteria 5: Local/Regional
State Plans
Criteria 6: Cost
Provides direct
connection.
Compatible with local
and state plans.
$5.4 Mil
Criteria 7: Grades
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
20
Alternative 2
New Bridge
Some restriction on
maneuverability at lock
entrance.
Provides overlooks,
visual impact of new
structures.
Some fill and new
substructures in river.
Alternative 3
Movable Span
Alternative 4
Modify RR Bridge
No Impact.
Provides overlooks,
visual impact of new
structures.
Some fill and new
structures in river.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
21
Construction Cost
Conclusion
Criteria Summary
Although all the alternatives evaluated provide connections to planned local and
regional facilities, none of the alternatives provides a practical, feasible and cost
effective solution to provide a bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Mystic River.
Alternative 1 would locate the path on the existing dam access road and on the top
of the locks. This alternative would significantly increase the number of lock
open/close cycles especially during the peak seasonal use of the river by boats and
potential use of crossing by bicyclists and pedestrians. The geometry and path
surfaces on the dam would not meet several minimum shared-use trail design
criteria. The path alignment would also bring the public in close proximity to lock
operating machinery and dangerous river currents.
Alternative 2 is a new structure across the river independent of the dam. The design
adds an additional constraint and obstacle to river navigation. Placement of new
substructures in the river would also require substantial permitting efforts.
Alternative 3 locates the path along the existing dam access road then on a new
movable span structure independent of the locks. This alternative avoids bringing
the public close to the locks and requires less amount of substructure in the river
than Alternative 2. This alternative requires additional staff to operate and maintain
the movable span.
Alternative 4 locates the path on the existing MBTA rail bridge. This would require
extensive and expensive modifications to the existing MBTA bridge and construction
of an additional new bridge.
Given the close proximity of the other existing vehicle and pedestrian bridges in the
project area, we recommend the regional trail proponents work with communities
and appropriate state agencies to include improved bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations in any future rehabilitation or reconstruction of those structures.
Similar projects recently completed for bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on
existing bridges cost approximately $2,100 per linear foot of path on structure.
22
Conclusion
Attachment A:
Design Criteria
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
CRITERIA
REFERENCE
20mph
15 mph
10 12 ft
2 ft
3 ft
5 ft (side slope >3:1)
5 ft
Superelevation
2% maximum
140 ft (grade=5%)
130 ft (grade=2%)
Various Exhibit 3-8
Typical Section
Pavement Width
Shoulder Width
Clear Zone
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
DESIGN ELEMENT
Profile Grade
Paved
Unpaved
CRITERIA
0.5% minimum
5% maximum (ADA compliant)
3% maximum
REFERENCE
AASHTO 1999 Bicycle Guidelines
Based on SSD
Vertical Grades
5% max.
ADA
Vertical Clearance
8 ft minimum
Railing
Min. 42 height
Required for side slopes > 2:1
within 5 ft of path on a fill slope
> 10 ft high
Bridge Railing
Min. 54 height
CRITERIA
16 ft. desirable
15 ft. minimum
REFERENCE
AASHTO 199 Bicycle Guidelines
Curb Lane Width = Outside Travel Lane plus Paved Usable Shoulder
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
CRITERIA
14 ft. minimum
Curb Lane Width = Outside Travel Lane plus Paved Usable Shoulder
REFERENCE
2006 MHD Design Guide
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Attachment B:
PowerPoint Presentation
Details and costs in PowerPoint may differ from the report as these details were
updated based on public input and comment.
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Project Background
This project was undertaken as part of
the settlement of a federal enforcement
action taken by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for alleged violations
of the Clean Air Act.
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study is to identify
feasible options for a pedestrian and
bicycle friendly crossing of the Mystic
River at the Amelia Earhart Dam, and to
review the feasibility of extending the
Draw 7 Park bike path through the
MBTAs Charlestown Bus Maintenance
Facility to Route 99.
Study Limits
4 Crossing Options
Option 1 - Existing Dam Crossing
Option 2 - Bridge Structure
Option 3 - Lift Span over Locks
Option 4 - MBTA Bridge
Option 1
Advantages
Disadvantages
Restricted usage
30-40% down time due to lock operations
Dawn to dusk restrictions
Physical Impacts
major repairs to upgrade the existing dam structure for public
use.
Upgrade lock mechanical systems to accommodate wider
walkway
Relocate control systems to a secure location
Continuous maintenance and operations
Challenges meeting ADA requirements
$1,500,000
Upgrade Mechanical
Systems:
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
Total Cost
$ 5,000,000.00
Option 2
Advantages
Disadvantages
Option 3
Advantages
Disadvantages
Option 4
Advantages
Disadvantages
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Attachment C:
Cost Estimate
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
(LS)
(LF)
(SY)
(SY)
(LF)
(LS)
(SF)
(LS)
$1,250,000.00
$325.00
$35.00
$35.00
$25.00
$4,000.00
$15.00
$3,000,000.00
Alternative 1
Quantity
1
560
550
720
1,420
1
200
1
Cost
$1,250,000.00
$182,000.00
$19,250.00
$25,200.00
$35,500.00
$4,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,000,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL COST:
$4,518,950.00
$903,790.00
$5,422,740.00
SAY:
$5,423,000.00
Description
Bridge Construction
Ramp Construction
Bituminous Concrete Walk
Loam Borrow & Seed
Signage
Landscaping
Unit
Unit Cost
(LS)
(LS)
(SY)
(SY)
(SF)
(LS)
$5,140,000.00
$1,250,000.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.00
$10,000.00
Alternative 2A
Quantity
1
1
300
400
100
1
Cost
$5,140,000.00
$1,250,000.00
$10,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY
$6,414,000.00
$1,282,800.00
TOTAL COST:
$7,696,800.00
SAY:
$7,700,000.00
Alternative 2B
Description
Bridge Construction
Ramp Construction
Bituminous Concrete Walk
Loam Borrow & Seed
Signage
Landscaping
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
(LS)
(LS)
(SY)
(SY)
(SF)
(LS)
$3,760,000.00
$1,250,000.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.00
$10,000.00
1
1
300
400
100
1
$3,760,000.00
$1,250,000.00
$10,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY:
$5,034,000.00
$1,006,800.00
TOTAL COST:
$6,040,800.00
SAY:
$6,100,000.00
Cost
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
(LS)
(SY)
(LF)
(LF)
(SY)
(SY)
(SF)
(LS)
$5,050,000.00
$35.00
$325.00
$25.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.00
$10,000.00
1
650
260
570
425
600
100
1
$5,050,000.00
$22,750.00
$84,500.00
$14,250.00
$14,875
$3,000.00
$1,500.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY:
$5,200,875.00
$1,040,175.00
TOTAL COST:
$6,241,050.00
SAY:
$6,250,000.00
Cost
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
Bridge Construction
Bridge Approach Construction
Bituminous Concrete Walk
Loam Borrow & Seed
Signage
Landscaping
(LS)
(LS)
(SY)
(SY)
(SF)
(LS)
$4,600,000.00
$590,000.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.00
$10,000.00
1
1
770
1,800
100
1
$4,600,000.00
$590,000.00
$26,950.00
$9,000.00
$1,500.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY
$5,237,450.00
$1,047,490.00
TOTAL COST:
$6,284,940.00
SAY:
$6,300,000.00
Cost