HomeMy WebLinkAboutLI Sound Ferry Service Improvement StudySUMMARY OF FIND~
NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILLIAM C. HENNESSY, Commissioner
LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STUDY
POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
John Carey
Mayor, City of Rye, New York
John Carson
Connecticut Department of Economic Development
Jeanetta Clazk
South Norwalk, Connecticut
Edward A. Connell
Stamford, Connecticut
Robert L. Cox
Garden City, New York
Jane Devine
Suffolk County Legislator, New York
James Duffy
Farmingdale, New York
Miguel Escalera
Selectman, Town of Clinton, Connecticut
Edward Gudelski
New Haven, Connecticut
Charles N. Hammarlnnd, Jr.
North Guilford, Connecticut
William W. Haffield
D~von, Connecticut
Ruth Hoffman
Mystic, Connecticut
Leo Jackson
Mayor, C~ty of New London, Connecticut
Frank T. Johnson
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
Robert A. Johnson
Mayor, City of West Haven, Connecticut
Hannah Komanoff
Supervisor, Nassau County, New York
Wallaro L. Maher
Garden City, New York
John Mandnnici
Mayor, City of Bridgeport, Connecticut
Francis J. Murphy
Mattituck, New York
John O'Neill
Melville, New York
William Pell, IH
Supervisor, Town of Southold, New York
Iohn Reffiy
Port Jefferson, New York
Lorna Selzman
East Quogue. New York
Edwin V. Selden, representing:
Mayor, New Haven, Connecticut
Harold Sheprow
Mayor, Village of Port Jefferson, New York
Bernard C. Smith
Northport, New York
Erwin Staller
Hauppauge, New York
C. Evans Tffies
Huntington Station, New York
Jessica Tomlinson
Wading River, New York
Joseph L. Townsend, Jr.
Greenport, New York
John Wrabel
Fairfield, Connecticut
'John P. Wronowski
New London, Connecticut
Co. ehairrnen:
William C. Hennessy
Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation
Arthu~ B. Powers
Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation
NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
William C. Hennessy, Commissioner
1220 Washington Avenue State Campus, Albany, New York 12232
February 17, 1981
OPEN LETTER TO CITIZENS OF THE REGION
For many years, there has been a strong public concensus that access improvements
across Long Island Sound would yield economic benefits to residents and communities
on either side of the sound. The Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement
Study was initiated in March, 1980, to identify possible ways to improve ferry
service. The New York State Department of Transportation, the Connecticut Depart-
merit of Transportation, and a Policy Advisory Committee including local officials
to
and co~unlty ~A.~ ~ have ~°" devoting ron~iderable time and effort completing
the study. Meetings have been held, and many citizens, special interest groups,
and local officials have presented ideas and recommendations ~o the Departments
and the Policy Advisory Committee. This input has been extremely valuable.
It is my pleasure to present to the committee and the public the report entitled
"Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study - Summary of Findings." /his
report summarizes the technical analysis and reflects public input received to
date. The report confirms the public concensus that improved ferry service is
both desirable and needed. The study has identified economic benefits that would
result from imp?oved service. It has determined operating and capital costs and
revenue potential, and has identified both short-term and long-term improvement
potentials.
We have arranged for "two Rublic forums to receive your comments and views on this
report and its findings. Any comment submitted in writing by }~rch i5, 1981,
will also be welcome. My committee co-chairman, Arthur Powers, Commissioner of
the Conmecticut Department of Transportation, and I will carefully evaluate
your co~emts. Then Mr. Powers and I will make specific recommendations to our
respective Governors. In particular, we would like your comments on the following
topics:
The need for ferry service improvement and the extent to which it may
be a stimulus for economic development.
/he location at which ferry service should be expanded or initiated.
The.use of public funds for capital improvements end for offsetting
possible operating deficits.
The extent to which government agencies should be involved in managing
and operating improved ferry service i.e., should the service be an all-
private operation, an all-government operation, or some combination of
the ~wo?
Commissioner Powers and I appreciate your interest and involvement in this impor-
tant study.
Sincerely,
W. C. HENNESSY
Commissioner
Enclosure
LONG ISLAND SOUND
FERRY SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STUDY
Summary of Findings
February 1981
Planning Division
New York State Department of Transportation
State Campus - Albany- New York 12232
CONTENTS
PART I. INTRODUCTION ............... 1
PART II. PRESENT FERRY SERVICE .............. 3
Service Characteristics .............. 3
Ridership .................. 4
Comparable Ferry Systems .............. 9
PART III. LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS AND COMPARISONS ....... 11
Huntington - Norwalk
Port Jefferson - Bridgeport
Sunken Meadow - Bridgeport
Shoreham - New Haven
East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook
Orient Point - New London
Greenport - New London
ll
11
14
14
14
15
15
PART IV. VESSELS .................
PART V. IMPACTS OF IMPROVED FERRY SERVICE .......
Environmental Impacts ...............
Terminal Considerations 20
Wetlands and Shorelines 20
Fish and Wildlife 21
Air Quality 21
Noise 21
Historical and Cultural 21
Economic Impacts ..............
Population, Land Use and Community Service .......
Energy Impacts of Improved Ferry Service ........
. 17
· 20
20
· 22
25
· 26
PART VI. E~PECTED FERRY USAGE AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS . . . 29
Development of Ferry Use Forecasting Method ...... 29
Impact of Fares, Service Levels, and Boat Speed on Usage . . . 30
Fare 30
Service Level 33
Boat Speed 33
Truck Potential ................
Comparison of Usage on 11 Alternative Routes ....
£
Auto Usage 39
Heavy Commercial Trucks 39
Passenger Usage 39
33
· 36
iii.
CONTENTS (Continued)
Costs and Revenues for Various Improved Service Options . . . 41
Operating Costs
Capital Cost
Comparisons of Revenues and Costs
Fares at 50% of Inflation Rate
Fully Inflated Fares
Introduction of a Third Ferry Service
Results
41
41
47
47
47
48
51
Summary .............. . . . .
PART VII. POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES
· . . 54
· . . 56
Federal Funding Programs ............. 56
State and Local Government and Public Authority Funding . . . 62
State and Local Authorities in New York 62
Connecticut Development Authority (Conn. DA) 63
Private Funding 63
Summary .......... . ....
PART VIII. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS .......
Organizational and Management Options .......
Private Operation, Ownership and Financing 65
Private Operation and Ownership, Financing
with Government Assistance 65
Private Operation, Government Ownership 66
Government Operation, Government Ownership 66
Timing Considerations .........
Implementation Scenarios ..........
PART IX. SUMMARY FINDINGS .............
APPENDIX.
· . . 64
· . . 65
· . . 65
· . 67
· . 68
· . 69
MAPS OF EXISTING AND POSSIBLE FERRY TERMINAL SITES . . 73
iV,
PART I. INTRODUCTION
There has been concern for many years that lack of improvement to north-
south access across Long Island Sound will limit the Island in developing its
full economic potential. The separation of the eastern three-fourths of Long
Island from the remainder of the metropolitan area, Connecticut, and New
England is an increasingly serious matter. Nassau and Suffolk counties, with
a population greater than the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, must depend for
all land transportation to Connecticut and New England on passage through one
of the world's most heavily traveled urban-core areas, over bridges that are
already at or rapidly approaching their capacity limits, and over expressway
and arterial systems that are experiencing severe congestion.
The effects of this separation are substantial. People have a need for
and generate a substantial number of long trips for business, educational,
cultural, and recreational purposes. More and more, as population grows and
as congestion increases on present highway links to the mainland, residents of
Long Island will find these longer trips more difficult and more time consuming
to make. As a result, some trips may not be made at all. Those which are
made will take longer or will be limited to particular portions of the day.
These conditions will make Long Island a less desirable place in which to
live, visit, or do business. As congestion increases it will become even more
difficult to move goods to and from the Island, and to maintain a prosperous
economy.
The Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study was initiated in
March of 1980, shortly after the New York State Transportation Commissioner
submitted his final report on the latest of a series of Long Island Sound
bridge studies. Citing potentially significant benefits to the region's and
Long Island's economy from a bridge crossing, Commissioner Hennessy found that
"a bridge is not financially attainable and does not have the necessary support
of responsible local, regional and state officials -- particularly in
Connecticut." He recommended to Governor Carey that the state "should not, in
the foreseeable future, devote further effort to the general or site-specific
investigation of a cross-Sound bridge at any location."
Rather, he said, "in cooperation with local officials and State of
Connecticut transportation and economic development officials, New York should
undertake the expansion of cross-Sound ferry services -- services which already
appear to have support, locally and at the state level on both sides of the
Sound. This effort should build upon existing private cross-Sound ferry
services." An expansion of ferry services would provide the desired Long
Island-Southern New England access improvements at much lower capital cost,
with much less potential for environmental or community impacts. Improved
ferry service could be developed much earlier than a bridge and would appear
to be financially feasible.
Commissioner Hennessy also recommended that a working group of state and
local officials be jointly established by the two states to examine improvements
of existing ferry services from financial, legal, and operating standpoints
and to recommead specific actions to implement feasible and needed improvements
to existing ferry services.
1
Governor Carey concurred with the recommendations as did Connecticut
Governor Ella Grasso. Governor F. 3oseph Garrahy of Rhode Island also
concurred in the bridge study report's principal conclusions and recommenda-
tions. Governor Carey, on March 16, 1980, directed Commissioner Hennessy to
establish, in cooperation with Connecticut officials, a bi-state task force to
consider possible improvements to existing ferry services across Long Island
Sound. In May, Governors Carey and Grasso appointed a Policy Advisory Committee
consisting of local officials and concerned citizens to give advice and make
recommendations to the transportation commissioners and study team throughout
the study.
The principal objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of a
major expansion of ferry services between Connecticut and Long Island. This
report presents the technical findings of the study team, which included staff
members from the Connecticut and New York State Departments of Transportation
and an independent consultant.
The following section of this summary report describes present services
in terms of physical and operational constraints, service characteristics and
usage, and financial considerations, and presents comparisons with other
existing U.S. ferry operations. Eleven crossing combinations at locations
considered for new or improved services are described in Part III. Critical
considerations in selecting terminal sites include crossing distances, harbor
constraints, highway service and site access, relation to nearby land and
water uses, construction costs, and local impacts during the construction
phase. Next is a description of the characteristics of vessels considered
suitable for inclusion in expanded services across the Sound. Environmental,
economic, community, and energy impacts are discussed in Part V. Part VI
develops forecasts of future ferry usage and revenues at each location and
compares revenues with the annual operating and capital costs. This is followed
by a section which discusses possible funding sources. The report concludes
with discussions of organization and management alternatives, timing of
improvements, and possible implementation scenarios.
This report does not present recommendations. Rather, its purpose is to
present technical findings as described above to the Policy Advisory Committee
and the genera] public to stimulate ideas, comments, and recommendations
relative to improving cross-Sound ferry service. These comments may be
presented at Public Forums to be scheduled in Connecticut and on Long Island,
at the Policy Advisory Committee meeting or in writing to New York State
Transportation Commissioner Hennessy.
All of these inputs will be considered by Commissioner Hennessy and
Commissioner Powers of the Connecticut Department of Transportation as they
prepare recommendations regarding improved ferry service to their respective
Governors in April, 1981.
2
PART II. PRESENT FERRY SERVICE
Two operators currently provide ferry service across Long Island Sound.
Cross-Sound Ferry Service, Inc. provides year-round service between Orient
Point, New York, and New London, Connecticut. The Bridgeport and Port
Jefferson Steamboat Company provides seasonal service between Port Jefferson,
New York and Bridgeport, Connecticut. A third company, MASCONY, after hearings
by the ICC, has been certificated to operate between Greenport, New York, and
New London, Connecticut. However, MASCONY has not been able to secure
permission from the Town of Greenport for a terminal there, since it conflicted
with the town's land use plan. Because of potential traffic operations
problems, NYSDOT denied the company access to a state highway to serve a
parking and staging area, so the service is not in operation.
Service Characteristics
The Orient Point-New London service is provided by three vessels. Two of
the ferries can carry 300-325 passengers and 20-22 autos, while the third can
accomodate 300 passengers and 51 autos. Ail three vessels can accommodate
trucks. Frequency of service ranges from a high of 24 one-way trips per day
in the summer to a low of 6-8 trips during the winter. During the spring and
fall months, 14 trips per day are provided. Crossing time ranges from 60 to
80 minutes, depending on the vessel.
The current fare for an auto and driver is $15.50 one-way. Individual
adult fares are $4.50 one-way and $7.00 round-trip. Children's fares are
$2.25 one-way and $3.50 round-trip. The one-way fare for pick-up trucks
ranges from $16.00 to $18.00, while the one-way cost for a tractor trailer
combination is $1.00 per foot. Fares for autos were increased $1.00 in 1979
and $0.50 in 1980. One-way adult passenger fares increased $0.50 and'children's
fares increased $0.25 in each of those years.
Terminal facilities for this service are minimal. At the New London
terminal there is parking space for 160 autos, with an additional 400 municipal
spaces available. The parking areas can accommodate growth. The ferry terminal
is near the Amtrak and bus station. Cross-Sound runs a van between the station
and the terminal. The site is approximately 1 mile from 1-95. The staging
area can be enlarged and improved. No passenger facilities are available.
At the Orient Point terminal there are parking spaces for 140 cars.
There is also a small waiting room with rest rooms, a snack bar, and gift
shop. This staging area is adequate for current operations and can be expanded
if necessary. There is bus service between the terminal and the Village of
Greenport. The terminal is located at the eastern end of Route 25.
Only one ferry provides the Port Jefferson-Bridgeport service. The
vessel can carry 1089 passengers and 36 autos, but no trucks. The existing
vessel is over fifty years old and on occasion has been out of service for
repair. Within the not too distant future, it is possible that the owners
will have to decide whether to overhaul the existimg vessel or acquire another
one.
This service is only operated between May and October. During the summer
and on weekends, 8 one-way trips are provided. Frequency of service is only 4
to 6 trips during the mid-week period in the spring and fall. The crossing
time is 90 minutes.
3
The one-way fare for an auto and driver is $17.00, with a $2.00 surcharge
for a reservation. Adult passenger fares are $4.25 one-way and $6.25 round-
trip. Child fares are $2.25 one-way and $3.25 round-trip. Auto fares were
increased $1.00 in 1979 and 1980. One-way adult and children's passenger
fares increased $0.25 during each of those years.
Terminal facilities at Bridgeport are adequate and are capable of handling
many times the current number of vehicles. Some parking is available at the
pier with additional parking in a nearby municipal lot. The terminal is
adjacent to the train and bus station and 1-95. The terminal is not accessible
to large trucks because of a low railroad underpass.
The Port Jefferson terminal is somewhat limited. Parking facilities can
be expanded. The Long Island Railroad Station is over one mile away. Vehicular
access to the site is through the business district via two-lane Route 25A.
Because of on-street parking, this road often operates at a low level of
service. Ferry traffic is circulated on less congested streets and causes
minimal impact on business district traffic.
Ridership
Annual ridership figures for the two ferry lines are shown on Table II-1.
In general, ridership has been increasing over the past several years. In
1979, the Orient Point-New London ferries carried 257,000 passengers and
103,000 vehicles, and the Port Jefferson-Bridgeport service carried 112,000
passengers and 25,000 vehicles.
These annual ridership figures do not show the seasonal nature of the
patronage. Though 1979, monthly patronage averaged 21,425 passengers on the
Orient Point-New London service and 18,725 passengers on the Port 3efferson-
Bridgeport service; the range in passengers is shown below.
Orient Point-New London
Port 3efferson-Bridgeport
3,313 - January
4,449 - October
54,161 - August
31,255 - August
The yearly variation in passengers is shown on Figure II-1. The yearly
variation in passenger vehicles is shown on Figure II-2.
The heaviest patronage on both lines occurs on late afternoons
(6:30 - 7:00) on Fridays and Sundays. During the summer weekends most of the
vehicle capacity on the Orient Point-New London Service is booked in advance.
Potential riders are turned away because of a lack of capacity.
Truck usage on the Orient Point-New London service shows a somewhat
dissimilar peaking pattern from passenger traffic. The peak month for trucks
is September, with August and October also exhibiting high usage. Patronage
declines during the spring and winter months, with the lowest usage figures
for January and February.
During the summer of 1980 a survey of ferry riders was conducted. The
results indicate the following:
4
Table.II-I
Annual Ridership
Orient Point - New London
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
211 000
i92 000
195 I00
198 200
201 300
204400
207527
201 218
213 834
257 109
Passenger Heavy
Vehicles Trucks
Total Vehicles
59,016 1,984 61,000
58,049 1,95! 60,000
61,822 2,078 63,900
65,595 2.,205 67,800
69,272 2,328 71,600
73,045 2,452 75,497
76,794 2,581 79,375
74,008 2,975 76,983
81,963 3,061 85,024
99,915 3,870 103,785
Bridgeport - Port Jefferson
1970 96,000 23,670 NA
1971 95,559 23,561 NA
1972 93,196 22,978 NA
1973 109,300 26,948 ~ NA
1974 84,160 20,750 NA
1975 93,537 23,062 NA
1976 91,285 22,507 NA
1977 90,158 24,434 NA
1978 96,890 25,055 NA
1979 112,350 25,393 NA
Includes Drivers
Figure II- 1
Monthly Passengers~ 1979
55-
50-
45.
40.
35
30
25~
20-
15-
10,
Orient Point-New London
.... Port Jefferson - Bridgeport
//~.1111 z~
6
Figure 11-2
Monthly Passenger Vehicles, 1979
Orient Point - New London
--- Port Jefferson - Bridgeport
22
2O
18'
10
8
6
4
7
For both services the largest share of riders, approximately 45 percent,
lived in New York State. For the Orient Point-New London line, the
second greatest was New England, other than Connecticut, (26 percent),
while for the Port Jefferson~Bridgeport line it was Connecticut (37.9
percent).
The primary reason for using the ferry lines was to travel to and from
recreational activities. Travel to and from a personal business activity
was also an important trip purpose.
Automobile was the most popular means of travel to the ferry. On the
Orient Point-New London Line 80 percent of the respondents drove their
car onto the ferry. On the Port Jefferson-Bridgeport line this figure
was only 30 percent. However, an additional 30 percent drove to the
terminal and parked their cars there, and 25 percent were auto passengers.
The average vehicle occupancy was 2.62 on the Orient Point-New London
line and 2.32 on the Port Jefferson-Bridgeport line.
The majority of passengers began and ended their trip in either south-
eastern Suffolk County or Connecticut.
When asked whether they would be willing to pay to reserve a space for
their cars on this ferry during peak periods most drivers indicated they
would, 76 percent on the Orient Point-New London line and 91 percent on
the Port Jefferson-Bridgeport line.
Fewer drivers would be willing to pay for a reservation during off-peak
periods, 52 percent on the Orient Point-New London line and 75 percent on
the Port Jefferson-Bridgeport line.
Passengers were asked what they liked about the ferry. The most popular
response was that it saved time. Other common answers were that they
enjoyed the trip and that the trip saves money.
Passengers were also asked what they disliked about the
The most common complaints concerned the cost of service,
at the access terminal, and the infrequency of service.
ferry service.
the congestion
An origin and destination tabulation of vehicle usage in 1979 was assembled
for travelers using the Throgs Neck and Whitestone Bridges. These two bridges
provide an alternative to the Long Island ferry service. If ferry service is
improved, vehicles may be diverted from these bridges. About 9.1 percent of
the auto traffic on the Throgs Neck Bridge exhibited a Long Island-Connecticut/
Northeast orientation. In addition, 8 percent of the truck traffic had this
orientation. If as little as 1 percent of this traffic was diverted to the
ferry service, then an additional 31,000 autos and 1170 trucks annually would
be handled by the ferries. On the Whitestone Bridge this orientation is not
as strong, 1.4 percent of the passenger cars and 1.0 percent of the trucks
exhibited this pattern. The potential for diversion from the Whitestone
Bridge is not very great.
8
Comparable Ferry Systems
Two ferry systems operate under circumstances that are similar to Long
Island Sound: 1. Cape May, New Jersey, across Delaware Bay to Lewes, Delaware;
and 2. Washington State Ferries across Puget Sound. Both systems operate
year-round and carry passengers, autos, and trucks. In addition, both connect
areas which can be reached by highway, although the land routes are via bridges
many miles from the ferries.
The Cape May-Lewes Ferry is operated by the Delaware River and Bay
Authority. It is closer in scale to the Long Island Sound operations. The
system has three ferries with a capacity of 100 vehicles. During the July and
August peak period, there are 24 one-way trips per day. This figure drops to
12 in the spring and fall and 8 during the winter. The crossing time is 70
minutes. Fares in 1979 were $8.00 per auto and driver. S2.00 nar n~r
and $10 - $32 per truck or combination. In 1978 212,000 vehicles and 642,000
passengers were carried on the ferries. Ridership figures exhibit a strong
seasonal variation. The months of July and August carry 40 percent of the
annual ridership. The service has consistently generated revenue that approxi-
mately covered operating expenses.
The State-owned Washington State Ferry System operates 18 vessels on 9
routes. Part of the system provides a commuter service. Ferry capacity
ranges from 40 to 206 autos. Crossing times vary from 20 minutes to 2 hours.
Fares in 1980 ranged from $2.70 to $21.00 for auto and drivers and from $0.75
to $4.95 for passengers. Ridership has been increasing steadily over the last
several years.
In 1979, the system carried 17.5 million passengers and 7.2 million
vehicles. Since 1968, operating and maintenance costs have been g~eater than
revenues. Portions of Washington State's Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax are dedicated
to Puget Sound ferries.
A summary and comparison of the operating data of the four ferry systems
is found on Table II-2. The data show that on a crossing hour basis, the Long
Island Sound ferries are less expensive. However, on a per vehicle or passenger
basis, the Cape May and Washington State systems are more efficient, because
of their greater capacity and use per crossing.
9
Table 11-2
Operating Data
Orient Point-
New London
Port Jefferson-
Bridgeport Cape May
Washington
State
Vessels 3
Crossings 5,120
Vessel-Miles 81,920
Vessel Operating Hours 10,240
Crossing Hours 7,328
Vehicles 103,785
Vehicles Per Crossing 20.3
Passengers 257,109
Operating Costs $1,811,599
Costs Per Crossing Hour $247.22
Costs Per Vehicle Mile $1..09
Costs Per Vehicle $17.46
Costs Per Passenger $7.05
1 3 18
1,042 4,236 NA
16,672 67,776 987,000
2,084 7,060 NA
1,563 4,942 NA
25,393 203,545 7,328,000
24.4 48 NA
112,350 642,000 17,500,000
$759,735 $2,708,000 $53,772,000
$466.07 $548.00 NA.
$1.79 $0.83 $0.57
$29.92 $13.30 $7.34
$6.76 $4.22 $3.01
i0
PART III. LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS AND COMPARISONS
Perhaps the single most important factor de'termining the economic success
and environmental acceptability of a ferry operation between Connecticut and
Long Island is the appropriate selection of terminal sites. Critical considera-
tions include: crossing distances, harbor constraints, highway service and
site access, relation to nearby land and water uses, construction costs, and
local impacts during the construction phase.
Figure III-1 shows and Table III-1 describes the locations considered in
this study and some of the critical factors at each terminal site. Figures 1
through 16 of appendix A are detailed maps of these locations. Preliminary
cost estimates for access roads and terminals are based on 1980 construction
cost levels, with no allowance for inflation.
Additional considerations at specific crossing sites include:
Huntington-Norwalk: This is probably the most westerly location that could
support a viable a ferry service. Any crossing further west would be too
close to the existing bridges between Queens and the Bronx to provide signifi-
cant savings in time, even assuming the fastest of available vessels and the
most favorable in-harbor and loading conditions. The city of Norwalk is
restoring the South Norwalk harbor as a regional attraction and the Mayor and
the City administration believe a ferry service might fit well with their
plans. A possible terminal site could be on the west bank of the harbor south
of the Route 136 Bridge.
This site has good land access, is about 1500' from the RR station and about 1
mile from the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95), Route 1, and Route 7.
There are, however, serious limitation to ferry operations. The direct route
into Norwalk Harbor is blocked by the Norwalk Island, requiring a circuitous
course through Sheffield Harbor. Speed is restricted to 5 knots for more than
a mile. Shoaling in the channels limits depths to as low as 6.2 feet. Extensive
dredging would be required to restore a 12' channel.
Alternate sites in the Huntington area for a potential Norwalk-Huntington
ferry crossing are:
1. On Huntington Bay, west of Huntington Crescent Y.C., off Beach
Avenue. A 2000-2500' pier to adequate water depth would be required.
Road improvements would be necessary for access to State Route 110
and the town road Park Avenue.
2. Huntington Harbor at State Route 110 in Halesite. Though this site
would lengthen the ferry crossings by approximately one mile through
the harbor, its proximity to Route 110 and to Park Avenue would be
favorable. Extensive dredging of the harbor would be required.
Port Jefferson-Bridgeport: The current terminal sites are capable of handling
many times the current number of vehicles. Lsnd access for autos and passengers
is excellent in Bridgeport. The Bridgeport terminal is adjacent to train and
bus stations and the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95). Some parking is available
at the pier, plus municipal parking nearby. An end-loading dock should be
added alongside the existing municipal pier. This pier is not accessible to
11
CITY
NEW HAVEN
i
/
/
LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STUDY 1981
POSSIBLE LONG ISLAND TO NEW ENGLAND CROSSINGS
..... E xistifl9 Ferr~ R~Jte~
~ Sunken Meadow- Bridgeport ~ Or[eat point - Old SaybrOOk
Figure III - 1
Table III-1
Ferry Terminal Locations
Location
Crossing Construction Dredging or
Distance(l) Costs(2) Accessi- Trestle
Cruise Harbor Terminal Access bility Needs
Norwalk 3.8 2.6 -(3) good
to Huntington
1) Beach Ave. 9.7 0.1 5.6 1.0 poor
2) HalesJte 9.7 1.0 5.6 0.3 fair
Bridgeport 1.5 1.3 2~8 exce!!
to Pt Jefferson 12.1 1.8 1.2 - good
to Sunken Meadow 13.1 0.1 7.7 - good
New Haven
I) Harbor 18.8 1.4 2.6 - good
2) Lighthouse Pt 16.4 0.1 5.1 1.3 fair
3) West Haven 16.0 1.4 9.3 - fair
to Shoreham 0.1 8.9 2.8 excell
Old Saybrook
1)n. of Ferry Pt 7.5 3.8 3.7 - excell
2)s. of RR Bridge 7.5 2.8 4.0 3.4 good
3)n. of North Cove 7.5 1.9 5.7 4.0 good
to East Marion/Orient 0.1 3.5 0.7 good
Old Saybrook
1)n. of North Cove 1.9 5.7 4.0 good
to Orient Pt 10.0 0.1 0.8 - good
New London 2.2 1.0 - good
to Orient Pt 13.8 0.1 0.8 good
to Greenport 19.5 2.8 2.5 0.3 fair
Extensive
dredging
2000-2500'
Extensive
2500-3000'
Some
2500'
1500'
Some
Some
500'
Some
(I) Cruise and harbor distances are in nautical miles.
(2) Costs are in millions of 1980 dollars.
(3) Access is presently available but may not be completely adequate.
13
large trucks because of a low underpass under the railroad. Future truck
access might be via an access road from the south between the powerplant and
the railroad, or via an existing dock on the east side of the harbor. In Port
Jefferson, the existing staging area and long-term parking area can be expanded;
the pier can be widened and a docking slip added.
Sunken Meadow-Bridgeport: A possible site for a ferry terminal in this area
is in Sunken Meadow State Park, but use of parkland for the ferry terminal may
create a problem. Terminal construction could provide facilities for recreation
such as fishing and perhaps boating. Ample space is available. Land access
via the Sunken Meadow Spur of the Sagtikos State Parkway and State Route 25A
is excellent. Truck traffic would be required to use Route 25A to the Sunken
Meadow Spur and the northerly extension of the Spur to the site. A 2500 -
3000' off-shore trestle to a ferry slip in adequate water depth would be
required.
Shoreham-New Haven: A ferry between these termini would cross the widest part
of the Sound. A potential terminal site lies at the north end of New Haven
Harbor. Some dredging would be required. Access to the Connecticut Turnpike
(I-95) and 1-91 is very close. During peak commuter hours, the roads in the
area are congested. The railroad station is about 4000' distant. An alterna-
tive to this terminal is the "Long Wharf" close by to the south. A site,
Lighthouse Point (East Haven), located between Lighthouse Point Park and Shell
Beach, is a possibility. Though this site would reduce ferry crossing time by
more than 15 minutes, the land access is about 3 miles from 1-95 (Interchange
40 and 50) over local roads. A site is also possible at West Haven 2.8 miles
south and west of the Harbor site.
Two alternate sites could be considered in the Shoreham/Wading River area.
One site is located just east of the mouth of the Wading River and the LILCO
plant. Land for development of on-shore staging area may require taking
several summer cottages. The other site, located just west of the LILCO
property, would not disrupt LILCO operations. The Brookhaven Town Beach is
located in this area at the western end. Land is available for an on-shore
staging area. However, a 50-60' high bluff would require excavation for part
of the staging area and for the access road. A 2500' trestle to adequate
depth of water and/or a dredged channel, and a new access road to William
Floyd Parkway, would be required for both sites.
East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook: This possible ferry crossing would be the
shortest of those under consideration and least costly to operate. Three
sites in Old Saybrook and three sites at Orient have been considered.
Sites considered in Old Saybrook are the following:
1. The site just north of Ferry Point requires opening the CONRAIL
bridge for ferry operations and would involve careful coordination
of rail and ferry schedules. Access to Route 9 and 1-95 at Exit 69
is less than 1 mile away. The marsh lands in the area are marginal,
so some filling may be permitted for an access road and on-shore
staging area. Dredging or a 1500' trestle to deeper water would be
required. It is possible that a trestle would interrupt ice-floes
in the river.
14
The second site is just south of the railroad bridge. Access to the
ferry loading facilities would be by a causeway atarting east of the
train station, paralleling the railroad, crossing over marsh land
and shallow water where it would be supported on piles. Some dredging
would be required at the ferry slip area.
The third site is located north of North Cove. Access at this site
will also start just east of the railroad station on a causeway
along an abandoned railroad right-of-way. This causeway would then
turn out over a corner of the marsh and through shallow water where
it would be supported on piles. Dredging would be required so that
the docked vessels would not interfere with the river channel. The
landside ends of the causeways for both sites would be near the Old
Saybrook railroad station about 3 miles from 1-95 via Route 1 and
Route 154.
All three sites at East Marion/Orient are in open water. Adequate
depth is reached a short distance from the beach requiring about a
500' trestle to the ferry slip.
1. The most easterly
access to Route 25.
an on-shore staging
be considered.
2. A second site is at
road of about 3500'
site is west of Terry Point and has close
There is land that could be acquired for
area. There are a few residential homes to
the western end of Truman Beach. An access
to Route 25 would be required. Vacant land
for development of an on-shore staging area is available. A
few residential homes are in the area.
The third site, the most westerly one, is west of Rocky Point.
A 4000' access road is required, and vacant land for an on-shore
staging area is available. A few residential homes are in the
vicinity.
Orient Point-New London: The existing Connecticut terminal for the Orient
Point - New London ferry operation is on the Thames River in close proximity
to AMTRAK's Union Station. This site is approximately 1 mile from 1-95 (Exit
#83) with long-term parking facilities that can accommodate growth. The
staging area can be enlarged and improved.
The I~,ng Island terminal is at the eastern end of Route 25. Long-term parking
facilities are available, and the staging area is adequate for present
operations. These facilities can be expanded as needed.
Greenport-New London: The Mascony Ferry and Transport Company, Inc. proposed
to operate a ferry service between New London, Connecticut, and Greenport,
Long Island. This ferry route would be one of the longest routes and would
include long distances of decreased vessel speed within both the New London
and the Greenport Harbors.
Two alternate sites are being considered by Mas¢ony. The first is south of
Front Street (R)ute 25) and east of Third Street. This site is east of and in
close proximity to the ferry slips used by the Shelter Island Ferry service.
Some modification of an existing slip would be required for the proposed ferry
operations. Ingress and egress to the site in this area is a problem. A
potential conflict with the Shelter Island ferry would have to be resolved.
15
The second site would use the Long Island Railroad property south of the
railroad and west of Third Street. Crossing of the railroad is required for
access, but access points can be at several different locations.
16
PART IV. VESSELS
Vessel characteristics of particular interest to a vehicle-carrying ferry
service between Connecticut and Long Island are: vehicle capacity, speed,
draft, method of loading, and capital and operating costs. Only displacement-
type vessels are considered here. The 1975 Tri-State ferry study clearly
demonstrated that the high speeds of hovercrafts and hydrofoils could not
offset the much higher operating costs when required to carry both vehicles
and passengers across thc Sound.
Ferries may be double-ended so they can operate in either direction (like
Shelter Island, Staten Island, and Puget Sound ferries), or single-ended (like
those on Long Island Sound and Delaware Bay). By eliminating the need to turn
around, double-ended vessels save significant amounts of time on shorter
crossings, but the higher capital costs may not be justified for the relatively
long Sound crossings. Both single-ended and double-ended ferries generally
have loading and unloading capability at both ends.
Vessel types considered in the evaluation of potential service expansion
in this study, and their characteristics, are given in Table IV-1. They
include vessels presently in service on Long Island Sound, vessels owned by
Mascony Ferry Transport Company and intended for service on the Sound, and new
designs and vessel types used by other ferry services in the United States.
Vessels designed for a maximum load of 100 tons, to fit under Subchapter T of
the U.S. Coast Guard Regulations, are referred to as "T-Boats". Smaller crew
requirements is the principal advantage of T-boats compared to vessels of over
100 tons capacity.
Catamaran (twin hull) ferries offer several advantages: stability,
speed, and less wake. Catamaran passenger ferries operate in Vancouver,
British Columbia, and Japan for inter-island service, and a vehicle-carrying
catamaran ferry has been operating in the Canadian Northwest. Catamaran
ferries were recently designed for Hawaiian Island service. For the purpose
of evaluation, it is assumed that a 20-knot catamaran T-boat can be designed
to carry up to 64 autos (with clearance for trucks in at least one lane).
Selection of vessel capacity depends on passenger and vehicle demand,
service frequency and operating efficiency. Larger ferries may cost less per
auto space, but headways and loading times are greater. They also require
high=r capacity access roads and staging areas. Ferry capacity in the range
of 50 to 100 autos appears most suitable for Long Island Sound routes.
Higher speeds reduce crossing time but require more horsepower, larger
engines, and increased vessel costs. Fuel costs are higher, because fuel
consumption rates increase rapidly with higher speeds. Twenty-knot ferries
are in service on Puget Sound, but Washington State's newest vessels cruise at
16 knots.
The three vessels owned by Mascony operated earlier between Lewes and
Cape May. They were replaced by shallow draft vessels to avoid annual dredging
due to shoaling inside Cape May. Since Mascony is interested in putting these
ferries in service on Long Island Sound, they have been included among the
alternatives for evaluation on several routes. Due to age and fuel consumption,
two of these vessels should be refitted with new engines and other machinery.
17
Table IV-1
Vessel Characteristics
VESSEL TYPES(l}
CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICE
Plum Island(2)
Caribbean Ferry(2)
New London
BRIDGEPORT-PORT JEFFERSON
STEAMBOAT CO.
Martha's Vineyard
MASCONY FERRY TRANSPORT CO.
Connecticut/Henlopen(2)
Greenport/Cape May
New Jersey
DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY
WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES
NEW LONDON, CLASS T-BOAT
CATAMARAN T-BOAT
Assumed
Capital
Capacity Speed Draft Cost
(autos~ (knots~ ~feet~
25 12
25 12
51 17
35 12
8 3,000
85 13 10
105 20(3) 10.5 4,000
105 20(3) 10.5 4,000
107 17 7.5 12,800
100 16 15.5 17,667
51 17 8 5,000
64 20 7,000
Crew
Size
Assumed Operating Costs
($ per crossing hour)
Payroll,
Fuel Supplies Maint.
9
6
6
63 104 34
10 41 182 87
10
9 110-135 150 44
9 110-135 150 44
9 110-135 150 44
9 150 44
6 63 104 34
6 90 131 34
(1) Ail vessels are single-ended except the Washington State Ferries.
(2) Not considered for a major service.
(3) After installation of internal combustion engines.
Evaluation of these vessels by competent marine engineers will be required if
they are to be considered seriously for inclusion in an expanded Long Island
Sound ferry system.
Vessel operating costs were deduced from annual reports of existing US
ferry operators to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Total reported operating
costs were allocated to three categories: fuel costs, payroll and supplies
and miscellaneous costs, and vessel maintenance costs. Fuel costs were found
to vary to some degree with the size of the service provided at a particular
location. The range of operating costs for existing and potential new vessels,
used in assessing the economic viability of alternate services, is indicated
in Table IV-lo
Older and slower boats may continue to play a role even after a fleet of
modern vessels is in service. Since ferry traffic is highly peaked, especially
on summer weekends, these boats might be used for additional runs at these
times. Crew and safety equipment needs for winter service would preclude
preparing all vessels for year-round use.
PART V, IMPACTS OF IMPROVED FERRY SERVICE
Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts related to improved ferry service could result from
construction of piers, parking areas and access roads, operation of vessels
and terminals, increased traffic levels, and secondary development. Significant
impacts could occur near the shoreline, both on land and in the water. The
present study interprets and assesses effects of improved ferry service based
on the most current and available information on the environmental resources
of the study area; however, it does not include new field work or generate new
data. The discussion that follows is a summary of a consultant prepared report,*
which provides more detail on the environmental issues and is available from
the Planning Division of the New York State Department of Transportation.
All of these environmental issues will require more detailed quantitative
assessments before major ferry service improvements can be implemented.
A complete, detailed Enviromental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required
if service is to be initiated at a new location. A less quantitatively detailed
environmental assessment is probably adequate for substantial service improve-
ments at existing sites.
Following are brief general discussions relating to specific environ-
mental issues.
Terminal Considerations. Two arrangements can be considered for proposed new
ferry terminals. The first arrangement has the terminals located near the
shorelines. This would involve the dredging of channels and turning basins,
as well as the construction of docks, jetties, and breakwaters. The other
arrangement consists of open-pile trestle structures which convey traffic to
terminals located in water depths adequate to accommodate the ferries. A
trestle structure eliminates the need for dredged channels, jetties, and
breakwaters. However, there would be problems associated with maintaining the
structure, and it might be necessary to suspend operations during very rough
weather. It should be designed to withstand impact and pressure from floating
ice.
Wetlands and Shorelines. Wetlands would be a significant factor in planning a
ferry germinal in Old Saybrook, Sunken Meadow or West Haven, and (to a lesser
extent) in Shoreham, Wading River, Orient or East Marion. Wetlands permits
would have to be obtained from the appropriate agencies. Erosion or accretion
of shorelines and/or wetlands could result from changes in the direction or
speed of currents caused by the construction of offshore facilities. These
potential impacts should be assessed for each site.
* Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study, Environmental Considera-
tions; Knight Associates, January 1981
2O
Fish and Wildlife. Any activity requiring modification of shorelines, wet-
lands, bottoms of water bodies, or circulation of water, could have immediate
and secondary impacts on fish and wildlife. Disposal of solid wastes, fuel
spills, dredging, possible resuspension of toxic materials, and construction
of jetties may all affect fish and wildlife. The degree of the direct impact
will depend on such variables as location, impact, mitigation efforts, and
species present. Active nests of osprey are located near the East Marion and
Orient sites. Other endangered species (the bald eagle and the peregrine
falcon) use potential terminal areas as flyways or as seasonal habitat. Rare
species of piping plover and terns also use these areas. The impact of terminal
construction on wildlife populations themselves is not thought to be great,
but destruction of wetlands could diminish habitat area. Any loss of prime
habitat in the Atlantic flyway is considered to be a potentially significant
impact.
The impact of piers on finfish was judged negligible in previous bridge
studies, which listed 16 finfish species of importance to commercial and
sportfishing that maintain populations in Long Island Sound waters. However,
increased silt concentrations produced by terminal construction could have a
local and short-term impact on fish.
Shellfish beds are located near possible ferry piers in West Haven and
Sunken Meadow, and in parts of Port Jefferson and Bridgeport harbors, although
pollution in the latter two harbors may preclude their use for food. Severity
of impact of dredging and terminal construction should be assessed for each
site. On £he other hand, the construciion of structures in the sound may
provide additional habitat for lobsters, fin fish, and other organisms.
Air Quality. Proposed improvements may result in increased vehicle activity
at loading and unloading points, but these increases are not expected to have
a significant impact on carbon monoxide levels. Since total vehicle miles of
travel will probably be reduced as a result of improved service, it is expected
that total vehicle emissions will be reduced.
Noise. Vehicle noise is generated principally by tires running at high speeds,
truck engine exhausts, and shifting of gears. Vehicles would not be operating
at high speeds at ferry terminals. Truck noise, however, could be a problem,
especially at night when desirable sleep noise-level standards are low.
Noise impact during construction will probably be heavy, because of the
driving of piles and other general construction activity. Suitable construc-
tion specifications should be written into the construction contract to mini-
mize the impact on nearby receptors.
Historic and Cultural. Shore areas often contain sites of historic or pre-
historic interest. In the course of planning any shore construction, an
evaluation of cultural and historic resources would be made to determine the
need for a cultural resource study. During construction, attention should be
given to possible archaeological disturbances particularly at Sunken Meadow,
Shoreham, and along the Connecticut River.
A number of environmental factors have been identified which should be
considered during further planning and design of ferry terminals and approaches.
21
Coordination with responsible agencies, public officials, special interest
groups and the general public will assure well balanced, acceptable plans.
A separate technical report has been prepared which provides more details
on the environmental issues.
Economic Impacts
Good, reliable year-round ferry service should increase patronage of
motels, restaurants, and tourist attractions on both sides of the Sound.
Easier, more economical cross-Sound access provided by improved ferry service
should also facilitate business travel, including truck shipments of food,
supplies, and products and provision of services. These activities should
create new jobs, provide increased personal income, and stimulate greater
output. Although forecasts of economic activity were developed for the Long
Island Bridge Study, separate economic forecasts were not developed for the
analysis of Long Island ferry service.
Detailed baseline forecasts for the Long Island and Connecticut economies,
as part of the New York region, were available from the Long Island Bridge
Study, which was completed in 1979. In that study two kinds of economic
impacts were estimated:
- th~ direct impacts that would be generated by an initial transportation
investment
- the continuing impacts that would be realized and substantially returned
to the community in the post-construction period
The latter impacts include the income effects of wage earners in the
construction stage, which are translated to gains in retail sales and services
during the construction period and for a short time thereafter. However, a
continuing stream of post-construction investment is necessary if an increased
level of economic activity is to be maintained. The level of this continuing
stream of investment would be determined by the perceptions of business prac-
titioners on the degree to which a transportation investment that provided
improved access and lower transportations costs would affect their business in
terms of increased sales and employment. These perceived impacts on sales and
employment were ascertained for the 1979 Long Island Bridge Study by inter-
viewing a group of businessmen.
The economic activity that might be generated by investment in a sub-
stantially improved ferry service was estimated by "scaling down" the economic
impacts attributed to a sizeable bridge investment. The direct impacts (couched
in terms of construction jobs) and the continuing impacts (couched in terms of
business output, employment, and personal income) were estimated for a sub-
stantial investment in ferry service; in practice, the investment would probably
be staged in a series of smaller units.
The average bridge investment indicated in the bridge study was about 1.5
billion dollars (mid 1980's). To indicate the relative scale, one possible
investment to improve cross-Sound ferry services significantly might be on the
order of 100 million dollars for:
22
12 new boats, 81.6 million dollars (1984 costs)
terminal and access costs, up to 20 million dollars for New York and
Connecticut (1984 costs)
total, up to 101.6 million dollars
This possible level of investment is about 6.67 percent of the average
transportation investment that was estimated for the bridge study. However,
it is recognized that investment in an improved ferry service would not provide
a cross-Sound transportation linkage as fast and convenient as that provided
by a more expensive bridge alternative; indeed, a proposal for improved ferry
service might elicit a different response from businessmen regarding the
impact of cross-Sound service on opportunities for increased sales.
Accordingly, the resulting economic activity attributed to the bridge was
scaled down (by 50 percent of the relative magnitude of the estimated ferry
and bridge investments, or a total of 3.33 percent) to reflect the potential
economic activity in Long island and Connecticut that might be realized from
improved ferry services. Other portions of the New York metropolitan area may
also realize some economic gains from improved ferry service, but Long Island
and Connecticut are considered the primary beneficiaries.
The direct impact of an investment of about 100 million dollars for
improved ferry service might result in about 300 construction jobs per year
over a three-year period of expenditure. The shipbuilding industry and road
and terminal construction industries would be the primary beneficiaries of
this direct investment. Employment in supply industries was not measured and
would also be a part of the immediate impacts of a transportation investment.
The continuing economic impacts that could be realized from a sustainable
level of business investment, as new sales opportunities are perceived from
improved ferry service, are depicted in Table V-I. Improved ferry service
could result in a sustainable level of public and private investment (by 1990)
that would yield the equivalent of 2500 additional jobs on Long Island and
1300 jobs in Connecticut. Output could expand by 170 million dollars on Long
Island and 50 million dollars in Connecticut. Personal income might also rise
by 150 and 60 million dollars respectively, for Long Island and Connecticut.
The gains in output, income, and employment for Connecticut and Long
Island should not be attributed directly to the investment for improved ferry
services. In fact the investment in improved ferry services results in a
perception of improved sales opportunities by business leaders who make the
investment decisions needed to realize those opportunities. It is this
mechanism that generates the longer-term improvements in the economic measures
for Long Island and Connecticut, through a sustained stream of investment.
The initial gains from the original investment for improved ferry services
would soon be dissipated in the economy if the sustainable investment in other
sectors of the economy is not forthcoming. In fact it is not correct to
attribute significant gains in economic activity solely to the initial invest-
ment for improved ferry services--although the improved accessibility provided
by the expanded ferry service would serve as the catalyst for the sustainable
investments in the other economic activities.
Increased levels of output, employment, and personal income are antici-
pated primarily from the increased level of business activities associated
with improved cross-Sound ferry service. A portion of this income would also
23
Table V-1
Measures of Economic Activity, Long Island and Connecticut, 1990
(Billions of 1984 dollars, thousands of employees)
o
Economic Measure
Output (Private, non-agricultural)
- Baseline forecast
- Attributed to ferry
- Total
Employment (Private, non-agricultural)
- Baseline forecast
- Attributed to ferry
- Total
Personal Income (Private, non-agricultural)
- Baseline forecast
- Attributed to ferry
- Total
Nassau-Suffolk Connecticut
45.64 86.94
.17 .05
45.81 86.99
726.9 1510.9
2.5 1.3
729.4 1512.2
68.32 87.78
.15 .06
68.47 87.84
NOTE: (1) Output and employment are estimated on a place-of-work basis,
while personal income is based on place of residence.
24
accrue to government through imposition of various types of taxes. With
respect to the taxes on personal income, the most important are the state
income tax and sales taxes. Real estate taxes are not directly income-related
and are generally utilized fully to support services. Employment gains and
income accruing from that employment partly reflect added employment oppor-
tunities available to the existing population. Additional employment of
residents would place only a small added burden on local government services,
and, in turn, would probably generate little in additional property taxes.
Other types of local taxes also support local services. Further, increased
revenue from local taxes may not be realized, even with an improved economy,
since, at local option, some of these taxes may be reduced, at least for a
period of time.
The two most important categories of additional tax contribution, then,
are state income and state sales taxes. Estimates of these taxes were prepared
~or Long lsiand (Connecticut does not impose state income tax). By 1990, at
current rates of taxation, an additional 6.9 million dollars (1984 dollars) in
state income taxes should be generated on Long Island by the gains in economic
activity resulting from improved ferry services. Correspondingly, at current
tax rates, an additional 3.2 million in retail state sales taxes should be
generated on Long Island. Thus, on Long Island, about 10 million dollars in
state tax should be generated annually.
Users of ferry service at the existing locations receive direct benefits
in the form of time savings and reduced travel costs. While these benefits
have not been quantified, the cost of making a cross-Sound trip by ferry
(including the travel to the ferry terminal) is generally lower than the
.?.erceived out-of-pocket costs for making a comparable vehicle trip around the
So6hd~ The time required to travel by ferry is also generally less than the
time required to make a comparable trip by auto. Expanded use of the existing
ferry services was noted in 1980, as more capacity was added; this also indi-
cates that users of the ferry service perceive cost and time savings in making
cross-Sound travel by ferry.
Population, Land Use and Community Service
Expanded ferry service would strengthen the link to two major economic
areas, providing improvements in direct access for the exchange of goods and
services between Connecticut and the commercial-industrial areas of Nassau and
Suff~lk Counties. Improved access to New England markets would contribute to
the economic growth expected on Long Island. Connecticut, on the other hand,
already has direct access to New England and New York City markets; while
improved access to Long Island would offer additional commercial opportunities
for Connecticut, the gains will not be not as large, relative to their current
total markets, as the gains expected on Long Island. Recreational trips and
other personal travel between Long Island and Connecticut, as well as to other
New England areas, would also be stimulated by improved ferry service.
Analyses of land use and community service were also based on the available
projections of economic activity. The estimated population growth due to
expanded ferry service is comparable to the normal or baseline growth expected.
A condition of population saturation is not expected to be reached in
either Connecticut or Long Island because of ferry-induced population growth.
25
Although any additional significant population increase would result in an
increased demand for more intensive use of land or community services, the
growth induced by improved ferry service is, by itself, much smaller than the
"normal" growth expected in the area and is not expected to exert significant
pressure on land use or community services.
Loss of agricultural land is always a potential disadvantage of nearly
all land development and growth. However, because the magnitude of the expected
ferry-induced growth is relatively small, and since there are existing agricul-
tural programs designed to preserve farmland, new or improved ferry service is
not expected to adversely impact agricultural land in the region.
Of all the community services, recreational facilities to serve the
expanded recreational opportunities provided by improved ferry service are the
most likely to experience additional pressure for development. Increases in
tourism to the Long Island south shore beaches is a likely possibility. The
positive economic impacts to the tourism industry and the diversity of recrea-
tional experiences are potential benefits that outweigh any possible disadvan-
tages that might accompany a gain in tourism.
Land-use impacts in the immediate vicinity of ferry sites would be more
significant than regional land-use impacts. Development of new or expanded
ferry service would have stronger, more evident, and more immediate effects in
the vicinity of existing or potential ferry terminals in Suffolk County or in
Connecticut, while land-use impacts outside these areas will be less.
Energy Impacts of Improved Ferry Service
The annual energy requirements for operating ferry boats as well as the
annual energy requirements for constructing ferry boats, terminals,'and access
roads were estimated. The net fuel usage of auto and truck travel was also
calculated, comparing the energy required to travel around the Sound to the
fuel required in traveling to and from the ferry terminals.* For each com-
parison, all energy is shown in equivalent gallons of gasoline, even though
several kinds of energy are used. These 1983-84 energy estimates for a three
boat service with fares increasing at 50 percent of the inflation rate for all
11 locations are shown in Table V-2. It is expected that parallel results
would be obtained with other levels of service and fares.
Note that the greatest energy savings occur at East Marion/Orient-Old
Saybrook (North Cove), where 644,000 gallons of fuel equivalent would be saved
each year by use of the cross-Sound service compared to driving around the
Sound. Other locations where ferry service provides substantial energy savings
are Orient Point-Old Saybrook (North Cove), Orient Point-New London, and East
Marion-Old Saybrook (Ferry Point), where the fuel equivalent savings are
640,000, 632,000 and 558,000 gallons per year.
* It is assumed that all travel indicated on the ferry would be made around
the Sound, even if ferry service were not available. This is probably not
true, since some of the travel (newly generated) would not be made if the
ferry service were not available.
26
Table V-2
Annual Energy Requirements for Three-Boat Service with Fares
Increased at 50 Percent of the Inflation Rate, 1983-84
(Thousands of equivalent gallons of gasoline)
~ Location
Net Ferry
Vehicle Use Operation
Construction Net
Ferry Terminal Access Total Savings
1. Orient Point-
New London
2. Port Jefferson-
Bridgeport
3. East Marion/Orient-
Old Saybrook
(North Cove)
4. East Marion/Orient-
Old Saybrook
(Ferry Point)
5. Shoreham New Haven
6. Shoreham-West Haven
7. Shoreham-East Haven
8. Orient Point-
Old Saybrook
(North Cove)
9. Huntington Bay-
Norwalk
10. Sunken Meadow-
Bridgeport
11. Greenport-
New London
1363 589 4.7 14.9 122.8 731 632
o~ ~ou 4.7 ~^ ~ 52.8 558 59
1245 366 4.7 74.3 122.8 569 676
1088 352 4.7 58.0 119.3 529 558
602 640 4.7 93.8 23.9 763 (161)
594 512 4.7 147.9 23.9 689 (95)
602 544 4.7 113.9 28.3 691 (89)
1305 449 4.7 50.1 126.3 630 675
354 384 4.7 67.0 11.3 467 (113)
507 544 4.7 72.9 26.2 648 (141)
932 545 4.7 28.5 2.6 581 351
· NOTES:
(1) Figures in parentheses are deficits.
(2)
A service life of 25 years was used for boats and 30 years for terminals
and access roads for the energy calculations. Calculations are based on
the r~lationship of energy usage to the value of the construction. Details
are shown in the technical reports.
27
Five locations showed negative annual savings when al/ construction and
operating energy was compared to the net fuel usage of vehicles. This ranged
from 89,000 to 161,000 gallons per year for the three Shoreham-New Haven area
locations, Sunken Meadow-Bridgeport, and Huntington Bay-Norwalk.
L
28
PART VI. EXPECTED FERRY USAGE AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This section of the report explains how the forecast method used to
estimate ferry usage was developed, and identifies the key elements of the
methodology. It also explores how fare levels, service levels (number of
boats and crossing frequency) and boat speed influence ferry usage and reve-
nues, thus permitting determination of a reasonably appropriate fare level,
service level, and boat speed to be used in forecasting usage and revenue at
each of 11 potential ferry-crossing locations. The potential for heavy truck
usage of the ferries is also examined. Forecasts of ferry usage are developed
and displayed for two future time periods, 1984 and 1994. The 1984 period
allows time to acquire and put several new boats in service, while the 1994
period permits added time for expansion of service and promotion of traveller
awareness of improved service. For each potential location, comparisons of
operating costs plus capitalized costs for boats and expected revenues are
made. Two different fares and a variety of service levels for each of the two
time periods are included in the analysis of costs and revenues. These com-
parisons show which locations would be capable of covering operating and boat
costs from revenues, and the amount of assistance needed for locations where
revenues would not fully cover costs.
Development of Ferry Use Forecasting Method
Data used to develop and test a method for predicting cross-Sound usage
are available from two sources:
A set of 1980 interviews of users of the two existing ferry services and
a sample survey of heavy trucks using the Triborough bridge system in
May 1979. Information from these interviews included trip origins and
destinations from which weighted average trip lengths and traveler re-
sponse to existing travel cost and time factors could be calculated.
Historical information for the past 10 years provided by operators of
the two existing cross-Sound ferry services. Information included
service schedules, fares, and the number of autos, light trucks, heavy
trucks, and passengers that were carried. From this, additional in-
sights on traveler perceptions of relative levels of service, travel
time, and costs could be drawn.
The key elements of this forecasting method are relative travel costs
(including the value of time) between an alternative route around the Sound
and the cross-Sound ferry service, and the available ferry service capacity
(schedules and boats). The methodology is designed such that the forecasts
produced are responsive to changes in service frequency, fares, and relative
travel costs, It also reflects such external factors as increased cost of
vessels, terminals, crews, fuel, supplies, etc., because of inflation.
The method used to estimate ferry usage depends on three basic assump-
tions:
29
Future trip patterns of ferry usage will be similar to those that were
found in the 1980 surveys, and for heavy commercial vehicles a 1979
survey of those trucks using the Throgs Neck, Whitestone and Triborough
bridges will be used.
The rate of general inflation will decline very gradually, from the pre-
sent level of about 13.3 percent annually to a long-term rate of 6 per-
cent by the mid-1990's.
The price of gasoline, which was about $1.25 per gallon for regular in
1980, will rise 25 percent above the rate of general inflation between
1980 and 1985. Fuel prices are adjusted to the rate of general infla-
tion after 1985, reflecting both the expected reduced dependence on
imported petroleum, as conservation efforts and improved efficiency in
the use of fuel continue, and gradual reduction in the general inflation
rate.
A computerized linear regression model was used to quantify the histori-
cal relationships among the principal data that are important in explaining
the usage of ferry service for the period 1970-1979. These historical rela-
tionships were then used to predict usage at each existing location; extension
of this technique, using similar levels of service and fares, permitted fore-
casts of potential usage at other service locations on Long Island Sound.
Forecasts of ferry usage were developed for several fare and service
levels, for 11 alternative locations, for three ferry user groups and for two
time periods. These individual variables are shown in Table VI-1.
A detailed description of the method used to forecast ferry usage, along
with complete forecasts of usage and revenue/cost comparisons, are described
in a separate technical report which can be obtained from the Planning Divi-
sion of NYSDOT.
Impact of Fares, Service Levels, and Boat Speed On Usage
Ferry usage was forecast for the Orient Point - New London location for
four fare levels and four service levels for 16-knot vessels, as well as for a
vessel capable of a 20-knot speed. The forecast covered the periods of
1983-84 and 1993-94. The purpose of preparing these forecasts was to deter-
mine the impact of various fare levels, service levels, and vessel speed on
ferry usage.
Fare. Figure VI-1 indicates the comparison of the initially expected auto
usage and revenues, using four fare levels, for a six-boat service at Orient
Point-New London for the time period 1994. The figure shows that as the fare
levels increase from fare level ~ through level ~, usage drops by only 18
percent. On the other hand, the estimated revenues produced by these changes
in fare levels increase almost 260 percent. It is apparent that usage is
relatively insensitive to fare, within the range of fares tested. It is also
clear that revenues would be maximized with the higher fares. Lowering fares
would not increase ferry usage enough to make up for the lost revenue due to
the lower fares. It will be shown later that the sum of the operating costs
and annualized capital costs for new boats, would require increasing fares at
a rate equal to, or higher than one-half the rate of inflation, if those costs
are to be covered by revenue generated from fares.
30
. Autos and
Light Tr.cks
· Passengers
· Heavy Trucks .
Table VI-!
Variables Considered in Developing Ferry Use Forecasts
1983~84 - Allowed sufficient
time to acquire
new boats or implement
other actions
· 1980 fares increased
by the full rate of
expected general in-
flation
Service
Existing fleet
and schedules
2 boats
1993-94 - Added forecast period
for expansion of
services and promotion
of trsveler awareness
· 1980 fares increased
by 50% of the rate
of expected general
inflatlou
3 boats
4 boats
· Continuation of 1980
fare levels
1980 Fare levels
sharply reduced by
approximately one-
third
6 boats
8 boats
Locations
Orient Point -
New London
Port Jefferson -
Bridgeport
East Marion/Orient -
Old Saybrook (North Cove)
East Marion/Orient -
Old Saybrook (Ferry Point)
Shoreham -
New Haven
Shoreham -
East Haven (Lighthouse Point)
Shoreham -
West Haven
· Orient Point -
Old Sayb¥ook (North Cove)
· Huntington Bay -
Norwalk
· Sunken Meadow -
Bridgeport
· Greenport -
New London
FIGURE VI-1
Comparison of Auto Usage and Revenue, Four Levels of Fare, Six Boat Service, Orient Point - New London, 1994
Change
260--
240 ~
220--
200
180
160 --
140 --
120 --
100 --
80 --
60 --
40
-20
BASE
fare d fare c fare b
Kev
fare d is the 1980 fare reduced by one-th/rd.
fare c is the 1980 fare.
fare b is increased at 50 percent of the rate of inflation.'
fare a is increased with the rate of inflation.
REVENUE
~USE
32
Service Level. Increasing service by adding boats results in substantial
gains in usage by each of three user groups, autos, heavy trucks, and passen-
gers (see Table VI-2). Increasing service from 3 boats to 4 boats permits 45
percent more crossings, and results in a gain of 30-37 percent in auto usage*
(depending on the fare level) in 1983-84. The 1994 auto usage forecast is
30-40 percent higher for the 4-boat level of service than for the 3-boat
service. Parallel but slightly smaller usage gains can be noted for heavy
trucks and passengers for the 4-boat service.
Increasing service from 4 boats to 6 boats (a 50 percent increase in
number of annual ferry crossings), and from 6 to 8 boats (a 33 percent in-
crease in number of annual ferry crossings), also produced substantial gains
in ferry usage. The analysis indicates that the amount of service offered has
a significant impact on ferry usage. Increasing service has a far greater
impact on usage than reducing fares.
Boat Speed. One boat presently in service is capable of a 16 knot speed.
Boats capable of 20 knot speeds were considered for the Orient Point-New
London service. These faster boats would have permitted reduced crossing
time, thus allowing two additional daily crossings which were to be utilized
during the "summer" season. Forecast usage of the 20 knot boats (fare level
b) was increased by about 10 percent, but the forecast operating and capital
costs increased 20 percent; thus, a 20 knot boat would be unable to generate
enough revenues to compensate for the added costs. Details can be found in
the separate technical report.
As a result of these tests, usage forecasts for the 11 possible crossing
locations were made using only the two higher fare levels and the 16 knot
vessel.
Truck Potential
Cross-Sound truck trips now using the congested East River Bridges offer
excellent potential for diversion to an improved cross-Sound ferry service.
An origin-destination survey of traffic on the Throgs Neck, Whitestone and
Triborough bridges determined that 238,000 trucks made trips between Long
Island and New England during 1979, 97,000 of which were to or from Suffolk
County. More than half were heavy trucks.
L~ore detailed origin/destination data for trucks using the Triborough
bridge were examined for a single day in May 1979. These data, for 410 heavy
trucks having cross-Sound travel orientation, revealed that 14 percent of the
travel (two way) was between Suffolk County or Northern Nassau County and
Bridgeport, while an additional nine percent of the travel was connected with
Southwestern Connecticut. Another 40 percent of the heavy trucks travelled
between other (more easterly and northerly) locations in Connecticut and Long
Island. Twenty-one percent of the heavy truck traffic showed a more easterly
orientation with thirteen percent of the total connected to Boston and the
other eight percent related to Rhode Island and other Massachusetts locations.
The remaining sixteen percent of the heavy travel was to or from the rest of
New England or ~pstate New York.
* For a 3-boat level of service, only one boat is assumed in use during the
"winter" season. For the other cases, one-half the boats are assumed in use
in the "winterf'
33
Table VI-2
Service
Initial Ferry Usase~ Orient Point - New London, Using
16-Knot Boats
(Thousands)
Autos Heavy Trucks Passengers
1983-84 1993-94 1983-84 1993-94 1983-84 1993-94
3 Boats
Fare a 154 147 6.5 6.3 394 376
Fare b 160 162 6.8 7.0 398 403
Fare c 168 183 7.3 8.1 406 442
Fare d 188 198 8.1 8.8 426 449
4 Boats
Fare a 211 204 8.5 8.4 530 512
Fare b 217 219 8.8 9.1 535 540
Fare e 225 240 9.2 10.2 543 580
Fare d 245 256 10.1 10.9 563 588
6 Boats
Fare a
Fare b
Fare c
Fare d
297 -- 11.8 -- 740
313 -- 12.5 -- 756
337 -- 13.8 -- 775
354 -- 14.5 -- 789
8 Boats
Fare a
Fare b
Fare c
Fare d
389 -- 15.1 -- 961
405 -- 15.9 -- 976
431 -- 17.1 -- 1000
448 -- 17.9 -- 1015
NOTE:
(1) Fare a is increased by the full rate of assumed inflation
(2) Fare b is increased by one-half of the rate of expected inflation
(3) Fare c is a continuation of 1980 fare levels
(4) Fare d is reduced by approximately one-third from 1980 levels
(5) Boats are 16 knots with a capacity of 50 autos
(6) Auto Drivers are also included in passenger totals
34
Given these patterns, it might be expected that heavy truck travel would
divide evenly between ferry service on western Suffolk and the eastern end of
Long Island. However, the more eastern location would offer relatively grea-
ter travel time savings than a western site and, therefore, a proportionally
greater share of potential heavy truck traffic would be diverted to an eastern
ferry site.
Initial estimates of heavy truck usage were based on trip patterns from
the survey of ferry users. The only truck service available was offered by
the ferry serving Orient Point-New London; these users reported trip patterns
that were concentrated in eastern and central Suffolk County. To alleviate
possible under-representation of potential truck usage from more westerly
locations, the diversion potential of heavy trucks from the Triborough Bridge
system was also investigated. This analysis, based on a one-day sample of 410
heavy trucks trip patterns, indicated a maximum diversion potential of about
40,000 trucks annually if ferry service is improved significantly at two
locations. This is about 30 percent of the heavy trucks that used the Tri-
borough bridges in 1979, for Nassau/Suffolk - New England travel.
The maximum potential usage of 40,000 trucks for significantly improved
ferry service is achievable by a 1983-84 time frame, and compares with initial
estimates of about 29,000 trucks for the 8 boat service for the two existing
sites when the regression model approach was used. Since the diversion ap-
proach is considered more representative of trip patterns exhibited by heavy
trucks, (than the trip patterns from existing truck users of ferry service)
the diversion approach was used in lieu of the initial estimates of truck
usage developed from the forecasting model. (The estimates from the model
were retained for the auto and passenger usage, since these trip patterns were
available from both existing ferry services). In addition to the diversion
potential of heavy trucks, the existing usage of ferry service by 3900 heavy
trucks was also included in the truck usage estimates for ferry service at the
eastern end of Long Island.
The technique used for truck diversion potential was based on estimates
of the immediately-perceived or "out of pocket" costs (including driver wages)
of trucks making a "similar" trip by using the Triborough bridge system or by
the improved cross-Sound ferry service. The diversion potential is propor-
tional to the ratios of those costs, with a very slight edge given to bridge
use to reflect its more obviously continous availability. For example, if the
cost .~f making a trip were equal for a "similar" trip using either the bridge
system of the cross-Sound ferry services, then slightly more than one-half of
those "similar" trips using the bridge system would be retained and slightly
less than one-half would be diverted to the ferry service. As the cost ratios
increasingly penalize one route over another(bridge vs. ferry, or one ferry
alternative vs. another)the proportion of "similar" trips diverting to the
less advantageous route would decrease. Previous transportation analyses,
including examination of actual after-the-fact cases and what analogies to
this cross-Sound situation exist, have constantly shown this proportional
pattern; a simplistic all-or-nothing assignment of individual trips is not
reflected in resultant overall travel patterns.
35
The cost ratios and diversion percentages developed and applied in this
study are shown below:
Cost Ratio Diversion Cost Ratio Diversion
1.00 48% 1.40 21%
1.05 46% 1.45 18%
1.10 41% 1.50 15%
1.15 37% 1.55 12%
1.20 34% 1.60
1.25 31% 1.70
1.30 27% 1.80
1.35 24% over 1.80 0
Principal Source: Analysis of Route 5S (NYS) corridor alternatives,1979
Note that no diversion was anticipated if the cost ratio exceeded 1.80.
Using the bridge distribution of heavy truck travel, costs were calcu-
lated for 13 areas representing towns or portions of towns on Long Island and
for 6 representative areas in Connecticut. These costs were calculated for
travel by bridge and for comparable travel for each of 11 ferry alternatives.
Based on a comparison of costs, trips were diverted from the bridge, based on
the percentage diversion indicated above for the corresponding cost ratio.
Regardless of the specific site, the potential for greatly increased
ferry usage by trucks is substantial, given improved ferry service.
Comparison of Usage on 11 Alternative Routes
Forecasts of ferry usage were prepared for 2,3,4,6, and 8 boats for a set
of fares increased by the full rate of inflation, and for a set of fares at 50
percent of the assumed inflation rate, for each of 11 alternative routes.
These forecasts were prepared for the 1983-84 and 1993-94 time periods for
each user group. Ferry usage resulting from fares reflecting full inflation
for different service levels is shown in Table VI-3. (Ferry usage resulting
from fares increased by 50 percent of the inflation rate was 5-10 percent
higher than usage resulting from fully inflated fares). These forecasts
assume two ferry services in operation and are for the purpose of comparing
the potential usage for alternative routes.
Historical ferry usage data (1970-79) that were used to develop the ferry
usage forecasting model were generally based on smaller boats and levels of
service that were not as frequent as those tested in the forecast period. For
example, three-boat service was offered at Orient Point during the historical
period; by 1994 service with up to 8 boats will be tested. This is a substan-
tial improvement in the service level and a reduction in the time spent
waiting for the next scheduled ferry. Improved ferry service will also be
promoted and, as the public becomes aware of that improved service, increased
usage above that indicated in the forecasting model is expected. Finally,
there will be some general travel growth in the region that will be attracted
to the improved ferry service. For these reasons it is reasonable to increase
moderately the 1994 ferry usage as indicated in the forecasting model. These
1994 forecasts were enriched by a magnitude of 10 percent. The forecasts of
ferry usage, reflecting this 10 percent enrichment, are shown (for fares that
are increased by the inflation rate) in Table VI-3.
36
Table VI-3
Projected Ferry Usage, Selected Locations, with Fare Increased at the Full Rate of Inflation
(Thousands)
AUTOS HEAVY TRUCKS PASSENGERS
1983-84 1993-94 1983-84 1993-94 1983-84 1993-94
1. Orient Point - New London
2 boats --
3 boats 154
4 boats 211
6 boats --
8 boats --
2. Port Jefferson - Bridgeport
2 boats 91
3 boats 110
4 boats 184
6 boats --
8 boats --
3. East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook
(North Cove)
2 boats 131
3 boats 154
4 boats 237
6 boats --
8 boats --
4. East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook
(Ferry Point)
2 boats 116
3 boats 134
4 boats 207
6 boats --
8 boats --
5. Shoreham - New Haven
2 boats 92
3 boats 110
4 boats 182
6 boats --
8 boats --
162 10.5 11.5 394 414
224 13.0 14.3 530 563
327 -- 18.6 -- 814
428 -- 23.0 -- 1057
95 5.2 5.8 335 347
116 6.3 6.9 413 437
197 10.3 11.3 660 702
300 -- 17.0 -- 1066
404 -- 22.5 -- 1422
138 8.8 9.8 351 365
164 9.6 10.8 408 428
254 13.1 14.4 612 651
371 -- 18.8 -- 934
485 -- 23.1 -- 1210
121 8.1 8.8 308 319
142 8.7 9.7 354 370
221 11.8 12.9 531 563
323 -- 16.8 -- 881
422 -- 20.7 -- 1053
96 4.4 4.9 246 257
117 5.2 5.8 291 307
196 8.6 9.5 463 496
297 -- 14.4 -- 741
396 -- 19.1 -- 981
Table VI-3, Cont'd
AUTOS
1983-84 1993-94
(Thousands)
HEAVY TRUCKS
1983-84 1993-94
6. Shereham - West Haven
2 boats 94 98 4.7 5.2
3 boats 112 119 5.6 6.2
4 boats 184 198 9.1 10.3
6 boats -- 297 -- 14.8
8 boats -- 399 -- 19.9
7. Shoreham - East Haven (Lighthouse Point)
2 boats 93 97 4.7 5.2
3 boats 111 118 5.6 6.2
4 boats 183 197 9.1 10.0
6 boats -- 298 -- 14.8
8 boats -- 397 -- 19.9
8. Orient Point - Old Saybroek
(North Cove)
2 boats 129 135 8.8 9.8
3 boats 152 162 9.7 10.8
4 boats 234 251 12.9 14.2
6 boats -- 369 -- 18.6
8 boats -- 483 -- 23.1
9. Huntington Bay - Norwalk
2 boats 80 85 3.7 4.0
3 boats 99 105 4.4 4.9
4 boats 171 184 7.7 8.4
6 boats -- 284 -- 12.8
8 boats -- 384 -- 17.1
10. Sunken Meadow - Bridgeport
2 boats 85 88 3.9 4.2
3 boats 103 108 4.6 5.1
4 boats 175 187 7.7 8.5
6 boats -- 288 -- 12.9
8 boats -- 387 -- .17.1
11. Greenport - New London
2 boats 86 79 3.6 3.9
3 boats 100 93 4.1 4.5
4 boats 149 143 6.1 6.6
6 boats -- 208 -- 9.5
8 boats -- 299 -- 12.2
PASSENGERS
1983-84 1993-94
255 266
301 317
472 505
-- 741
-- 993
250 261
296 312
468 501
-- 746
-- 987
346 361
403 422
599 638
-- 928
-- 1203
235 244
281 295
495 485
-- 728
-- 967
241 250
287 300
459 488
-- 734
-- 975
214 219
248 255
367 386
-- 557
-- 728
NOTES: (1) Fa~e is 'increased at the assumed rate of inflation.
(2) A~o drivers are included in passenger totals.
For the fares that fully reflect inflation, usage increases slightly
during the 1983-84 to 1993-94 period. This gain is on the order of 3 to $
percent for a given level of service. Fares that were increased by 50 percent
of the inflation rate result in a 10-12 percent gain in ferry usage during~
this 10 year period, for a given level of service. These gains in usage
reflect the relatively greater cost attractiveness of the ferry service as
well as greater awareness of that improved service.
Auto Usage (Includes Autos, Light Trucks and Motorcycles
The East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (North Cove) and Orient Point - 01d
Saybrook (North Cove) routes have the shortest crossing times and are an
attractive alternative for cross-Sound travel. As expected, these routes
showed the highest ferry usage. The highest level of auto usage (for a given
level of service and fare) is shown at the East Marion/Orient - 01d Saybrook
(North Cove) crossing where about 485,000 autos could be expected to use the
8-boat service for the 1993-94 period~ Usage on the three other routes Orient
Point Old Saybrook (North Cove), East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (Ferry
Point) and Orient Point - New London is within about 10 percent of the usage at
East Marion/Orient 01d Saybrook (North Cove). (See Figure VI-2 for an
illustration of auto and heavy truck usage in 1994 with a 6-boat service, for
all ll ferry crossings).
The more westerly routes, Huntington Bay - Norwalk and 'Sunken Meadow -
Bridgeport, did not attract as much usage because the relative attractiveness
of ferry service is reduced by the available bridge alternatives for cross-
Sound travel. The lowest auto usage is forecast at Greenport New London,
because of substantially longer ferry distance and crossing times.
The mid-Long Island routes, i.e., Port Jefferson Bridgeport and
Shoreham - New Haven, exhibited similar levels of forecast usage. Usage at
these locations is up to 20 percent less than that forecast for the highest
potential location at the East Marion/Orient - 01d Saybrook (North Cove).
Heavy Commercial Trucks
Estimates of the number of heavy commercial trucks that will use the
ferry system were developed from the previously-described diversion technique
for ferry usage at two independent locations. Usage is somewhat higher at an
eastt£n location and by 1994 about 23,000 heavy trucks would use ferry service
at an eastern location (eight boat service). Usage at Port Jefferson is
nearly as high and for a similar service level about 22,000 heavy trucks would
use that service in 1994. Annual heavy truck usage at Shoreham locations is
19,000 to 20,000 by 1994, while the more westerly locations show usage of
about 17,000 heavy trucks (eight boat service). The longer crossing time for
the Greenport - New London service results in the lowest heavy truck usage.
Passenger Usage
More passengers would be carried by Port Jefferson - Bridgeport service
than any other route. Nearly 1.5 million passengerm are forecast for the
8-boat service by 1993-94. The East Marion/Orient - 01d Saybrook (North Cove)
and the Orient Point - Old Saybrook locations are expected to have about 1.2
million passengers for the corresponding fare and service levels.
39
FIGURE VI-2
Comparison of Auto and Truck Usage, Six Boat Service, 1994 (Fare is increased at the rate of inflation)
Thousands
or,Vehicles
4.0~
TRUCKS
AUTOS
Key
1: Orient Point - New London
2: Port Jefferson - Bridgeport
3: East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (North Cove)
4: East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (Ferry Point~
5: Shoreham - New Haven (N. Harbor)
6: Shoreham - West Haven
7: Shoreham - East Haven (Light House Point)
8: Orient Point - Old Saybrook (North Cove)
9: Huntington Bay - Norwalk
10: Sunken Meadow - Bridgeport
11: Greenport - New London
3O0
180
160
140
120
4O
2O
0
2
3
5 6
Location
7 8 9 10 11
Costs and Revenues For Various Improved Service Options
After completion of the forecasts of ferry use for each location, esti-
mates of the associated annual operating costs and capital costs were calcu-
lated. Annual operating costs include all operating costs for boats and~
terminals (fuel, payroll, maintenance, etc.) and are based on costs reportedl
by existing cross-Sound operators and by operators of other services. (De-
tailed operating cost data are presented in Tables II-2 and IV-II of this,
report). These base period (1979) operating costs were calculated in terms of
cost per crossing hour, which permitted calculation of total operating costs
that reflected the amount of annual service offered at each location. Opera-
ting costs were increased by appropriate rates of inflation to reflect opera-
ting costs for the forecast periods.
Order-of-magnitude capital costs for boats, terminals, and access were
also estimated for each level of service at each location. Capital costs of
new facilities and equipmen~ were inflated to 1983-84, using the assumed rate
of inflation, to allow adequate time for "programming" and construction.
Capital costs were then annualized, assuming a twenty-five year period of
useful life and nine percent interest, which is about the current interest
rate for municipal bonds. (If a market interest rate say seventeen percent
were used in the calculation, the annualized capital costs would be sixty-
eight percent higher than those indicated).
Annualized capital and operating costs for several levels of service at
the two existing ferry service locations are shown in Table VI-4. Similar
costs for service at possible alternative locations are presented in Table
VI-5.
Operating Costs
For service with eight boats, the highest operating costs (both boat and
terminals) are shown at Shoreham - New Haven, Greenport -New London, Shore-
ham - East Haven, Sunken Meadow - Bridgeport, and Port Jefferson - Bridgeport.
This is directly related to the distance of the crossing and the harbor times.
Annual operating cost is in the 19-20 million dollar range at these locations.
The lowest operating costs for eight-boat service are shown at East Marion/
Orient - Old Saybrook (North Cove), Orient Point - Old Saybrook (North Cove)
and East Marion/ Orient - 01d Saybrook (Ferry Point) where annual operating
costs range from 15 to 16 million dollars per year. At the other locations,
including Orient Point - New London, annual operating costs are between 17 and
18 million dollars.
Capital Cost
Annualized capital costs for boats, terminals, and access roads would be
highest for the East Marion/Orient Old Saybrook (North Cove), and the
several Shoreham New Haven locations. Capital costs at these locations
range from 7.6 - 8.6 million dollars annually (for eight-boat service). These
higher costs reflect the cost of developing terminal facilities where none now
exist.
41
1. Orient Point-He~ London
Table VI-4
Projected Costs And Revenue. Existing Ferry Services
(Millio~s of Nominal or Current Dollars for The Year Indicated
Annual
Operating Cost Capital Cost (Annualized)
Boats b Terminals
Total Boats Terminal Access
All Costs
Revenue(l) Revenue(2)
1984
3 boats (2 existing. I new) 3.02 .90 .26 -- 4.18 4.88 5.51
3 boats (1 existing. 2 new) 3.19 1.60 .26 -- 5.06 4.93 5.56
3 boats (new) 3.19 2.10 .26 -- 5.55 4.93 5.56
4 boats 4.59 2.81 .26 -- 7.68 6.59 7.46
1994
3 boats (1 existing. 2 new) 6.27 I.B0 .26 -- 8.13 8.41 11.45
3 boats (new) 6.27 2.10 .26 -- 8.63 8.41 11.45
4 boats 9.00 2.81 .26 -- 12.07 11.2l 15.50
6 boats 13.20 4.21 .26 -- 17.67 15.72 22.26
8 boats 17.41 5.61 .26 -. 23.28 20.25 28.86
2. Port ,leiferson-Brldgeport
(1 existing, 1 new)
(new)
3.08 .72 .35 .40 4.55 3.20 3.47
2.81 1.40 .35 .40 4.96 3.50 3.91
3.34 2.10 .35 .40 6.19 4.29 4.86
5.04 2.81 .35 .40 8.60 6.86 7.94
5.50 1.40 .35 .40 7.b5 6.10 8.18
6.54 2.10 .35 .40 9.39 7.50 10.13
9.86 2.81 .35 .40 13.42 11.94 16.64
14.23 4.21 .35 .40 19.19 17.73 25.33
18.60 5.61 .35 .40 24.96 2t.55 371.90
1984
2 boar,
2 boats
3 boats
4 boats
1994
2 boats
3 boats
4 boats
6 boats
8 boats
NOTE; (1)
(2)
Table VI-5 Cont'd.
Capital Cost (Al.l.alized)
Boats Terminal
All Costs
Revum,c(2)
8 boats 18.93 5.61 2.02 .59 27.15 18,44 26.67
(North Cove)
1984
3 boats 2.67 2.10 .94 .58 6.29 4.92 5.53
4 boats 4.17 2.81 .9t* .58 8.50 7,32 8.2¢~
1994
2 boats 4.17 1.40 .94 .58 7.09 7.27 9.76
3 boats 5.23 2. lO .94 .58 8.85 8.39 I I, 46
4 boats 8.16 2.81 .94 .58 12.49 12.48 17.23
6 boats 11.95 4.21 .94 .58 17.68 17,52 24.93
8. Sunken Meadow-lit Jdgupot L
A_I_~_ C__qs t s
1984
2 boats 2.81 1.4(I 1.26 .40 5.87 ?.81 3.23
3 boats 3.36 2.t0 1.26 ,4t1 ?.10 3.37 3.86
4 boats 5.04 2.81 1.26 .40 9.51 5.54 6.39
1994
2 boats 5.49 1.40 1.26 .60 8.55 4,94 6.57
3 boats 6.55 2.10 1.26 .40 10.31 5,90 7.98
4 boats 9.86 2.81 1.26 ,40 14.33 9.61 13.40
6 boats 14.24 4.21 1.26 .40 20.11 14.28 20.41
8 boats 18.60 5.61 1.26 .40 25.87 18.91 27.27
9. Greenport-New London
NOTES:
1984
2 boats 2.92 1.40 .49 .o4 4.85 2.61 2.92
3 boats 3.66 2.10 .49 .04 6.29 3.02 L39
4 boats 5.68 2.81 .49 .04 9.02 4,45 5.03
199&
2 boats 5.72 1.40 .49 .04 7.65 6.40 5.82
6 boats 15.29 4.21 .49 .(14 20.03 10.58 14.98
8 boats 21.44 5.61 .49 .04 27.58 1'1.74 19.55
East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook
(North Cove)
East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook
(Ferry Point)
1984
2 boats 2.28 1.40 1.33 .68 5.69 4.29 4.82
3 boats 2,76 2.10 1.33 .68 6.87 4.99 5.59
4 boats 4.06 2.81 1.33 .68 8.88 7.41 8.39
1994.
2 boats 4.44 1.40 1.33 .68 7.85 7,35 9.90
3 boats 5.38 2.10 1.33 .68 9.49 8.5l 11.58
4 boats 7.96 2.81 1.33 .68 12.78 12.06 17.51
6 boats 11.47 4.21 1.111 .68 17.69 L/.66 25.119
8 boatq 14.97 5.6l 1.3'1 ,68 22.59 22.75 12.47
Table VI-5 co~t'd.
Pa~nual
Operating Cost
goats & Terminals
Total
Capital Cost (Annualized)
All Costs
Revenue(l)
8ewnme(2)
1984
2 boats 3.08 1.40 1.62 .40 6.50 2.82 3.26
3 boats 3.66 2.10 1.62 .40 7.78 l.ib 3.88
4 boats 5.54 2.81 1.62 .40 10.37 5.45 b.31
1994
2 boats 6.01 1.40 1.62 .40 9.43 4.82 6.79
3 boats 7.15 2.111 1.62 .40 11.27 5.72 8.01
4 boats 10.85 2,81 1.62 .40 15.68 9.25 12.83
8 boats 15.68 4.2t 1.62 .40 21.91 I],79 19.91
8 boats 20.52 5.61 l.b2 .40 28.15 18. t0 26.47
1984
2 boats 2.72 1.40 2.64 .40 7.16 2.92 '1.38
3 boats 3.23 2.10 2.64 .40 8.37 ].48 4.00
4 boats 4.85 2.81 2.64 .40 10.68 5.57 6.43
1994
2 boats 5.31 1.40 2.64 .40 9.75 4.97 6.89
3 boats 6.31 2.10 2.64 .40 11.45 5.92 8.29
4 boats 9.44 2.81 2.64 .40 15.29 9.47 13.50
6 boats 13.58 4.2l 2.64 .40 20.83 13.84 Itl.qB
g boats 17.71 5.61 2.64 .40 26.36 18.53 26,80
(Lighthouse Point)
1984
2 boats 2.87 1.40 2.02 .59 6.88 2.88 1.31
Comparisons of Revenue and Costs
Total revenues were calculated for ferry usage at both the fully inflated
fares and fares that were increased at fifty percent of the inflation rate.
These revenues for each location are shown in Tables VI-4 and VI-5. A com-
parison of revenues (for each of the fares) and costs at each location was
undertaken.
Fares at 50 Percent Of Inflation Rate
The first comparison was to determine the extent to which the lower fare
(increased at 50 percent of the inflation rate) would cover operating costs.
The second comparison examined the extent to which all operating costs and the
annualized cost of boats would be covered with fares increased at the full
inflation rate. These comparisons assume that public funds would be used to
improve or develop terminals and terminal access.
Fares increased at 50 percent of the inflation rate would cover all
operating costs for service at:
Orient Point - New London
Orient Point - Old Saybrook (North Cove)
East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (North Cove)
East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (Ferry Point)
Port Jefferson - Bridgeport
Operating costs for Shoreham - East Haven, Shoreham - West Haven, Huntington
Bay - Norwalk and Sunken Meadow - Bridgeport are covered for the higher ser-
vice levels in 1994. The shortfall of operating cost coverage would be high-
est for Greenport - New London service, ranging from 3 million dollars for
two-boat service in 1984, to 7.7 million dollars for eight-boat service in
1994.
Fully Inflated Fares
Fully inflated fares would cover both operating cost
cost of boats at:
and the annualized
East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (North Cove)
East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (Ferry Point)
Orient Point - Old Saybrook (North Cove)
Orie~t Point - New London
Port Jefferson - Bridgeport, except 1984 service which would
require financial assistance of 10,000 to 580,000 dollars
annually.
Revenue f-om the four, six and eight-boat service in 1994 would cover
operating and annualized boat cost at Sunken Meadow - Bridgeport, Huntington
Bay - Norwalk, Shoreham - East Haven and Shoreham - West Haven. These costs
would also be covered for six and eight-boat service at Shoreham - New Haven.
Service at Greenport - New London would not provide enough revenue to cover
operating and boat capital costs.
47
For the five locations where fully inflated fares generally cover opera-
ting and boat capital costs (for most service levels), the amount by which
revenue would exceed those costs was substantial. Using the eight-boat ser-
vice level for illustration, the following revenue surplus would result:
East Marion/Orient - 01d Saybrook (North Cove): 11.9 million
dollars
Orient Point - Old Saybrook (North Cove): 11.0 million dollars
Port Jefferson - Bridgeport: 9.9 million dollars
Orient Point - New London: 8.8 million dollars
East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (Ferry Point): 6.8 million
dollars
Figure VI-3 shows operating and boat capital costs compared to revenues
for selected locations.
Thus, a fare level between a fully inflated and a half inflated fare
would be sufficient to cover operating and capital costs for most service
levels at these locations.
Introduction of a Third Ferry Service
If a third ferry service were introduced, a significant number of new
riders who are not now using the existing (or an improved) ferry service at
Port Jefferson - Bridgeport or at Orient Point - New London will be attracted
to the new service. It is also likely that some of the users of the new ferry
service will be former users of the existing ferry services - in effect, some
of the users that are forecast for service at a new location will come at the
expense of the user forecasts for existing service locations. The same ratio-
nal and general results would be expected for the introduction of any "third
service" in addition to any two other services.
Independent forecasts of cross-Sound ferry usage were previously prepared
for each of 11 locations. Since two of these services already exist, it seems
reasonable to expect that service at one of these locations does not severely
impact usage of service at the other location -given comparable levels of
service and fare structures that are not too different. This expectation is
incorporated in those eleven forecasts. As indicated earlier, each forecast
assumes that the service being considered and the one now existing service
location that is farthest from the new one being considered.
However, introduction of a third ferry service - again, given comparable
levels of service and fares, may be expected to attract from each of the
other "existing" services, and will result in a reduction of the ferry usage
forecasts that were prepared under the assumption of two independent, but
co-existing services. For this study only "third service" combinations in-
volving both of the existing services, as the presumed "first two", have been
considered relevant.
48
Millions of dollars
(Nominal)
FIGURE VI-3
Comparison of Annual Operating Cost and Boat Capital Cost with Annual Revenue
Six Boat Service, 1994 (Fare is increased at the rate of inflation)
Key
1: Orient Point - New London
2: Port Jefferson - Bridgeport
3: East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (North Cove)
4: East Marion/Orient -Otd Saybrook (Ferry Point)
5: Shoreham - New Haven
6: Orient Point - Old Saybrook (North Cove)
7: Huntington Bay - Norwalk
8: Sunken Meadow- Bridgeport
OPERATING COST
BOAT CAPITAL COST
REVENUE
16
14
12
10
8
2
3
4
5
Location
6 7 8
The proportion of trips that would be attracted from the existing ser-
vices by introduction of a third service was estimated by examining the exis-
ting trip patterns for auto and passenger users of ferry service and, for
heavy trucks, the diversion potential from the Triborough bridges. The ori-
gins and destinations of auto and passenger ferry users were available from a
survey conducted in the summer of 1980, while truck usage was taken from the
1979 Triborough Bridge Authority sample. The general approach used for autos
and passengers was referred to as "the prudent man approach." Suppose for
example that a "prudent man" who currently uses the Orient Point - New London
ferry is contemplating trips from Riverhead in Long Island to either Hartford,
Connecticut or Boston, Massachusetts. If ferry service is introduced between
New Haven and Shoreham, it is expected that such a person would use the new
service for a Hartford trip but would continue using the Orient Point service
for the Boston trip. If trips from Riverhead to Hartford represent 2 percent
of the current usage, then this 2 percent will be lost by Orient Point if the
new service is introduced.
To help decide whether a "prudent man" making a particular trip would
divert to a new service, a number of assumptions were made. The most impor-
tant of these assumptions are:
(1) Comparable Levels of Service
All ferries will offer roughly equal frequencies and fares so that the
actual location of the ferry is the key reason for the choice decision;
net travel time is also a factor where significant differences in the
total trip is perceived.
(2) The First Ferry Assumption
This means that a traveler finding ferry use generally advantageous will
wish to board a ferry as early in his trip as possible. Thus, if ferry
service were offered between East Marion and Old Saybrook, a person
traveling from Riverhead, Long Island to Boston, Massachusetts would use
the new service. A person traveling from Boston to Riverhead would use
the Orient Point service. Thus, in both cases the person takes the
first ferry that is encountered.
This is a major simplifying assumption that might or might not be correct for
a given individual, but should give reasonable results when estimating total
demand.
(3) Cost Diversion For Heavy Trucks
As explained earlier, heavy truck potential for ferry usage was estimated
by diversion from the Triborough Bridge System. "Out of pocket" costs -
including driver wages - were used in determining the diversion, which
was based on the relative cost of making a "similar" trip by bridge or
by ferry. Equal costs were held to result in a diversion of slightly
less than one-half of those "similar" trips from the bridge system to
the ferry service. In this "travel service" instance, the ferry services
are assumed at three locations - the two existing locations and one of
the other alternative locations. Generally, the diverted trips would be
5O
attributed to the lowest cost ferry service; however, where the costs
were nearly the same, the diverted trips to ferry service would be
further "split", using the relative cost and appropriate share to each
ferry (from the diversion table, which was presented in an earlier sec-
tion. )
Results
Estimates of traffic losses to the other services were made as part of the
study. The introduction of service between Shoreham and New Haven will result
in a reduction of approximately thirty-five percent of the corresponding auto
and passenger usage and 33 percent of the heavy truck usage on the Orient
Point service and 25 and 44 percent, respectively, on the Port Jefferson
service.
Establishment of a third "travel:~ ferry service at East Marion-Old Saybrook
(North Cove) will result in a loss of 50 percent of the auto and passenger
usage and 60 percent of the heavy truck usage at Orient Point; losses at Port
Jefferson would be 17 and 40 percent, respectively. Similarly, a third service
at East Marion-Old Saybrook (Ferry Point) results in a 45 percent reduction in
auto and passenger traffic by 40 percent while 50 percent fewer trucks will
use the Orient Point-New London service; similarly reductions of 16 and 30
percent would be experienced at Port Jefferson.
Ferry service at locations to the west of Port Jefferson do not attract as
much travel from the existing ferry services due to lower cost and time
savings relative to travel on the Triborough Bridges. Introduction of new
service at Huntington Bay-Norwalk will reduce Orient Point auto and passenger
traffic and heavy truck usage by 13 and 10 percent respectively; Port Jeffer-
son traffic would decline by 20 and 30 percent, respectively. A new service
at Sunken Meadow-Bridgeport will reduce auto and passenger patronage by 17
percent and truck usage by 10 percent at Orient Point; similar losses at Port
Jefferson will be 30 and 40 percent. (Since the crossing time at Greenport-
New London is significantly longer than crossing times at the other locations,
this alternative was not tested for ferry service at three locations.)
1994 usage and financial data for ferry services at three locations are shown
in Table VI-6. Note that introduction of ferry service at a third location
draws some usage from the existing improved services, based on analysis of the
trip ~atterns and relative costs and time. Besides the forecasts usage gained
from the existing services, additional new travel would be generated due to
the unique locational characteristics of the new service. Conservatively,
this new travel was estimated at 10 percent of the usage gained from the
existing services for new services located east of Port Jefferson and 5 per-
cent for new services located west of Port Jefferson (where use of the Tri-
borough Bridges are a reasonably attractive travel choice).
Existing improved service at Orient Point-New London loses a substantial
amount of patronage to new services at Shoreham or East Marion. For this
eight boat example the loss in traffic to Shoreham is large enough to cause
retrenchment to six boat service at Orient Point(see Table VI-6 and its accom-
panying Figure VI-4). Losses to East Marion-Old Saybrook (North Cove) are
severe enough to cause retrenchment to four boats while the other East Marion
alternative leads to five boat service at Orient Point. Port Jefferson patron-
51
TABLE VI-6
Projected Ferry Usage at Three Locations, With Initial Service at Eight Boats, 1994
(Usage in Thousands, Revenue and Cost In Millions of Dollars)
Three Services
a) Orient Point-New London (150) (7.7) (370) 278 15.3 687 18.80 17.41
b) Port Jefferson-Bridgeport (10]) (10.0) (355) 303 12.5 lO67 24.89 ]8.44
e) Shoreham-New Haven 251 17,7 725 25 1.8 73 20.62 19.80
Orient Point-New London (214) (]3.8) (528) 214 9.2 529 14.15 Il.B1
(193) (9.2) (676) 235 12.6 529 15.]9 16.61
(61) (6.8) (213) 343 ]5.7 1180 28.06 21.33
254 16.0 689 25 1.6 69 19.98 L6.33
(171) (11.5) (423) 257 11.5 634 17.04 14.61
(65) (6.8) (228) 339 15.7 1194 28.06 21.33
236 18.3 651 29 1.8 65 19.]9 ]3.57
(56) (2.3) (].117) 372 19.6 920 25.04 20.22
(81) (6.9) (284) 323 15.6 1138 26.87 18.44
137 9.2 421 7 .5 21 11.51 8.17
a) Orient Point-New Lolldon
b) Port Jefferson-Bridgeport
c) East Marion-Old Saybrook (Ferry Pt.)
4. Three Services
a) Orient Point-New London
b) Port Jefferson-Bridgeport
c) Orient Point-Old Saybrook (N. Cove)
5. Three Services
a) Orient Point-New London
b) Port Jefferson-Bridgeport
c) Huntington Bay-Norwalk
6. Three Services
a) Oriemt Point-New Londom
b) Fort Jefferson-Bridgeport
c) Sunken ~adow-Bridgeport
(1)
(2)
(3)
(73) (3.5) (180) 355 [9.5 87] 24.01) 2O.22
(129) (9.0) (455) 275 8.9 96? 22.27 18.44
202 ]2.5 615 10 .fl 32 16.99 I 2.67
NOTES:
FIGURE VI - 4
PROJECTED FEI~RY USAGE AT THREE LOCATIONS WITH EIGHT BOAT SERVICE, 1994
(FI~ la Incmaeed At The Inflation Rate)
AUTO USAGE
COMMERCIAl. TR/JC~ USAGE
/
53
age supports six boat service with the new Shoreham service and seven boat
service if the East Marion service is introduced. The Orient Point and seven
boat service at Port Jefferson. On balance, introduction of a new central or
eastern service in conjunction with two existing services, each at the eight
boat level, results in more total service - but less than eight boat service
is needed at each location.
The more westerly services at Huntington Bay and Sunken Meadow attract less
patronage from the existing services than the more easterly new services.
Huntington Bay service builds to three boats while Sunken Meadow exhibits four
boats service. In each of these two instances, Orient Point service can be
reduced to seven boats and Port Jefferson service to six boats. Total service
at all three locations expands by one boat when the Sunken Meadow-Bridgeport
service is introduced, while total service remains the same with the intro-
duction of the Huntington Bay service.
Assu~ing that boats are transferred or sold among the ferry services, revenue
(fare increased at the rate of inflation) covers the operating and annual
amortized boat capital cost for each of the three service locations. Revenues
exceed costs by up to nearly 7 million dollars at several locations; however,
the Shoreham location shows the lowest revenue "coverage" - 700,000 dollars.
However, it is almost certain that reductions in service at the existing
locations will result in an additional loss of patronage because the level of
service at a given location is not as frequent as it was before a third ser-
vice was introduced. While no attempt is made to access the magnitude of
these possible additional losses in patronage, chamges in the financial posi-
tion of the ferry services could occur if a third ferry service is introduced.
S~mmar¥
Some important findings were developed in the analysis of ferry usage and the
financial implications of improved ferry service. First, the relationship of
usage to fare was shown to be fairly insensitive. Changing the fare level,
from about two-thirds of the present fare to a level which increases with
inflation, results in only about 20 percent decrease in ferry usage. Second,
the increased usage due to increased boat speed, from 16 to 20 knots, was not
sufficient to offset the greater costs of the higher-speed service. Third,
the factor having the greatest influence on ferry usage is service level,
i.e., number of boats and the way they are scheduled.
It was also determined that there would be significant potential for increased
ferry usage by trucks and that ferry sites toward the eastern end of Long
Island would attract proportionally more truck travel than locations in Wes-
tern Suffolk County.
When fares were increased by one-half the inflation rate, the operating costs
for improved cross-Sound travel were generally covered for the two existing
ferry services and for three possible services connecting with Old Saybrook.
It was also shown that fares established at this level would generally not
cover both operating costs and the annualized cost of boat capital on these
54
routes except at East Marion-01d Saybrook (North Cove) and Orient Point-01d
Saybrook. However, financial assistance would be minimal for the services at
Orient Point-New London, Port Jefferson-Bridgeport and East Marion-Old Say-
brook (Ferry Point).
Fares increased at the inflation rate would generally more than cover both
annual operating costs and the annualized capital costs of boats for services
connecting with Old Saybrook and for existing services at Orient Point-New
London and Port Jefferson - Bridgeport. By 1994 the 6 and 8 boat services at
all Shoreham locations and at Sunken Meadow - Bridgeport and Huntington Bay-
Norwalk would not require public assistance to cover all operating and boat
capital costs. However, service with fewer boats would require public assis-
tance of up to two million dollars annually to cover these costs. Service at
Greenport-New London would require substantial public assistance.
55
PART VII. POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES
This section of the report discusses possible funding sources for ferry
service improvements. There are a variety of forms of financial assistance
ranging from outright grants to loans, loan guarantees, and tax-free bonds.
The general sources of financial assistance are federal, state, and local
governments, public authorities, and private investors.
Federal Funding Programs
Table VII-1 details the various federal funding programs. As may be seen
from the table, the types of assistance include project grants, direct payments,
direct loans, guaranteed/insured loans, and tax deferments. There are four
possible ferry-related uses of these funds: vessel capital, vessel operating,
terminal capital, and terminal access. Vessel capital includes the purchase
of new vessels and upgrading or improving existing vessels. Vessel operating
includes all those costs incurred in the operation of the ferry service.
Terminal capital includes the construction of new terminal buildings, new
loading facilities, new parking and staging areas, new docks, or the improve-
ment and renovation of these facilities. Terminal access includes such things
as purchase of right-of-way, highway construction/reconstruction, utility
relocation, etc.
The four columns on Table VII-1 under "Possible Use of Funds" list either
a 'Yes' or 'No' for each fund use by program. A 'No' means that, in the
opinion of the program manager, the use of funds would not be eligible under
that particular program. A 'Yes' response does not necessarily guarantee that
the use is acceptable; it means that the program should be pursued further,
once definite recommendations for ferry service improvements have been made.
These programs may or may not change under the new administration.
Judging from the responses of the various managers of these federal
programs, it appears that some type of loan arrangement -- be it direct or
guaranteed -- is the most likely kind of financial assistance that will be
available. The grants and direct payments are available only in programs for
which this study's possible fund uses either are not likely to qualify or are
relatively low priority. It would appear that, at this point in time and
depending on final recommendations, the federal programs that present the best
likelihood of financial assistance include the Business/ Industrial Loans and
Community Facilities Loans of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA); the
Title XI Federal Ship Financing Guarantee of the Maritime Administration
(MAP, AD); the MAP, AD Construction Reserve Fund; and the Small Business Adminis-
tration (SBA) Small Business Loans.
As shown in Table VII-i, it is possible that Federal Highway Adminis-
tration (FHWA) Funds may be used to finance ferry-related projects. It should
be noted, however, that all transportation projects (including ferry projects)
in or serving urbanized areas, which use federal highway funds, must be included
in a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is a staged, multi-year
program of transportation improvements, submitted annually to the federal
government, and prepared under the direction of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization. In the case of Long Island, the TIP is prepared by the Nassau-
Suffolk Transportation Coordinating Committee, whose voting members include
the Nassau County Executive, the Suffolk County Executive, the Head of the
56
FmltA Community
facilltles Loans
(i.c., Public Works)
EOA Publ]c Works Impact
Projects (PWIP)
Guaranteed/
Insured
Loans
Direct
Loans
Project
Direct
Loans
Project
Grants
Public
or
Prlvate
Public
Body or
nOD-
profit
corp.
Public
only
Public
body or
profit
labia VII-i
Yes
Ye8
(ir
publicly
m~,,ed)
Yes
to 90% of
$6.5M in NYS
(fe~ $ left
this year)
$300 M
i)ationally
(nothing
loft for
IFY 81)
Min. 15% of
$300M from
Public
Works
- Only for areas outside of urbanized
- Eligible pop. < 50,000
- $25,000 of loan funds per one job
created
- Terms: Rates negotiable, 15-30 years
- "Looks like a real possibility"
- P~st serve rural areas (not necessarily
just outside rrb. area boondary)
- For essential community services and
facilities
- Terms: Max. 5% interest, 40 years
- Project must yield economic development
benefits, and lead lo job creation
- Both counties eligible For 5[F~ of
project coat
- No loans, just grants available
- "Probably not a high priority project"
- Project must yield economic
development benefits
- Stresses historical rehabilitation
and energy conservation retrofitting
of community buildings
- "Probably not a high priority proJect
Deparlment of Commerce Canto1'/
MARAD Title XI Federal
Ship Financing Guarantees
HARAI) Construction Reserve
Fund
Depart:me~ff. of Houslng end Urban
Development
Direct
~sranteed/
Insured
Loans
Guaranteed/
lnsuted
Loans
TBX
Deferment
Private No
only
PrivaLe
Any [ax.
paying
Flosting
docks
only
(not
land-
basnd)
No
$9.75B
($~
uneommltted)
Public Yes $&75R/yr.
apl)licanL naLiunslly
( I>~Jb 1 te
or
private
recipient)
- $10,000 per job saved or created
- Terms: Variable rates, up to 25 yra
- "Most unlikely"
- Shipowner must provide 12.5~ Lo 25~
of actual cost
- ~irat ease--first se:red, faf dollars
- 1oral processing time ,~1 yr.
-Ferma: Rates negotiable~ up to 25 yrs.
- Allo~s for deferment of capital gain
of tax payment on ~epurchase or
vessel
- Makes it ~ore economical to upgrade
or 't~ade-up' on vessels,
~obs and i~3rove tax base
- $10,000 UDAG per new job
- A leveraging program: Min. of $2.5
prlvate for every 1UDAG dollar
- "Probably not too likely"
1/ EDA Grants to states For Supplemental and Basic Funding of Titles I, iI~ II1, IV and IX Activities not funded.
Local Development
Company Loans
UMIA Section
Capital lmprovemel~t
P~oject
Grants
Direct
Guaranteed/
Insured
Direct
Guaranteed/
Insured
Project
Direct
Public
(local
body)
Private
Small
Private
Public
Possible Use of Funds
$150,000 max.
direct loan;
$500,000 max.
gust. loan
- Depends on how much locality is
getting now
- "More limited than UDAG"
- Lender of last resort
- Mostly loan guarantees
- lerms: Variable rates, 10-20 yrs.
- Loane up to 50% of total project
cost or $500,000, whichever is
smaller
- Terms: Variable rates, up to 25 yrs.
for funding
- Terms: Interest rate dep. on U.S,
Section 5
and Operating
FHNA Fedeyal A~d
Prima~y Sys[em
FtlWA Federal Aid
Urban System [~ansfer
P~ojec[
G~an[~
P~oject
Public
Public
Publlc
- Same as above; i.e.~ it must be
- Fuku~e monies ate already belng
ob]iga[ed
- Obligations of FAUS funds for lransit
p~ojects are chargeable to the
FY 1981 limitation.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Transportation, and the Executive Director of the Tri-State
Regional Planning Commission. Since FHWA funds have already been programmed
in the TIP for the next five years -- and in most instances there is a large
backlog of at least another five years' worth of other key priority highway
projects -- any decision to use federal highway funds for ferry-related
improvements would delay certain highway projects already programmed.
On Long Island, all terminal locations and access roads west of and
including the Shoreham site are within the urbanized area, and therefore FHWA
funds must be programmed in the TIP by the Nassau-Suffolk Transportation
Coordinating Committee. In Connecticut, all terminal areas except the Old
Saybrook sites are within urbanized areas, and any use of FHWA funds must be
programmed in the TIP's for their respective areas.
It is possible that federal highway funds can be used in projects that
involve an approach to a ferry (whether toll or free), or in the construction
of ferry boats themselves (whether toll or free). The FHWA requirements for
using federal highway funds for both types of projects follow:*
Projects involving approach to a ferry
The route (i.e., approach) to the ferry, must be included on either the
Federal Aid Primary or Federal Aid Secondary Highway Systems.
The route must not be part of the Interstate System.
The ferry may be either publicly or privately owned and operated, but the
operating authority and the amount of fares charged for passage shall be
under the control of a state agency or official, and all revenues derived
from publicly owned or operated ferries shall be applied to payment of
the cost of construction or acquisition thereof, including debt service,
and to actual and necessary cost of operation, maintenance, repair, and
replacement.
Projects involving construction of ferry boats
It is not feasible to build a bridge, tunnel, combination thereof, or
other normal highway structure in lieu of the use of such ferry.
The operation of the ferry shall be on a route which has been approved as
a part of either the Federal Aid Primary or Federal Aid Secondary Highway
Systems, and has not been designated as a route on the Interstate Highway
System.
The ferry shall be publicly owned and operated; public ownership could in-
clude state and local government or a public authority.
The operating authority and the amount of fares
such ferry shall be under the control of the
derived there from shall be applied to actual
operation, maintenance, and repair.
charged for passage on
state, and all revenues
and necessary costs of
* Quoted and paraphrased from US Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 129.
61
The ferry may be operated only within the state or between adjoining
states. No part of such ferry operations shall be in any foreign or
international waters.
Federal funding programs generally
project approvals and delivery of funds.
grant programs in which there are many
available funds.
require long lead time to secure
This would be particularly true of
"worthy" projects competing for the
State and Local Government and Public Authority Funding
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has the authority
"to assist in the development and operation of ... Transportation facilities
and services in the state, including...marine...facilities." This is broad
authority which would certainly provide a basis for State capital financial
assistance for construction, reconstruction, improvements, expansion and
acquisition of marine transportation facilities. NYSDOT also has the authority
to improve access facilities and to serve the ferry terminals, if the access
highways are on the state highway system. Otherwise, local government would
have the authority.
Connecticut DOT has authority for improving excess facilities, or con-
tracting for access improvements to terminals in Connecticut.
Neither DOT has the authority to provide operating assistance to ferry
services operating across the Sound. Neither DOT currently has funds budgeted
or available to provide improvements to ferry services. Appropriations by the
respective state legislatures would be needed for the state departments to
provide financial assistance for ferry improvements.
State And Local Authorities In New York. There are several other potential
funding sources through state or local authorities or agencias as follows:
State and local development authorities and agencies have the capability
to provide financial assistance to manufacturing and commercial economic
development projects through the issuance of tax-exempt Industrial Revenue
Bonds. In this way state and local governments are able to extend their
tax-exempt status, given for interest on government issues of bonds, to the
private sector. However, both the State Constitution and State statute preclude
the use of this type of financial assistance to businesses providing retail
sales or services to customers. In New York State local Industrial Development
Agencies, the Job Development Authority and the Urban Development Corporation
perform these functions.
Industrial Development Agencies are local agencies created under New York
State law to stimulate industrial development for private companies within or
serving the agencies geographic area. The New York State Job Development
Authority is a public benefit corporation established to aid the state's
general economic welfare by offering special financial assistance for the
encouragement of industrial, manufacturing, and research and development
activities. The New York State Urban Development Corporation is a public
benefit corporation and corporate governmental agency established to help
provide needed housing, industrial development, and civic improvements through-
out the state.
62
Industrial Development Agencies (IDA's), local entities designed to issue
tax-exempt bonds, have only the authorization to acquire land and construct
commercial and industrial facilities. Ferry services and facilities may well
fall outside state statutory and constitutional parameters.
There are six IDA's in Suffolk County. These are:
Suffolk County Industrial Development Agency
Town of Babylon Industrial Development Agency
Town of Brookhaven Industrial Development Agency
Town of Islip Industrial Development Agency
Village of Greenport Industrial Development Agency
Town of E. Hampton Industrial Development Agency
The State Job Development Authority can provide loans of up to forty
percent of project cost (up to a maximum of $1 million) for industrial and
commercial development resulting in the creation of new jobs. Local Develop-
ment Corporations are eligible to apply for funds on behalf of a commercial or
industrial facility. Again, however, state law does not permit the financing
of retail or service oriented businesses, and therefore there is some question
as to the extent to which JDA can finance such operations, if at all.
The Urban Development Corporation (UDC) has broad powers to provide
financial assistance to industrial and commercial projects where local IDA's
do not exist, where IDA's need additional assistance, or where local law or
policy prohibits IDA participation. However, while UDC has somewhat greater
flexibility than the IDA's in financing projects, they must still meet their
mandate to reduce blight and unemployment in an area eligible for assistance.
Furthermore, any specific project must be placed on the UDC project list,
which is submitted to the Legislature for approval each year, thus requiring
statutory action.
Connecticut Development Authority (Conn. DA). The Connecticut Development
Authority has legislation which specifically cites "acquisition and construc-
tion of ferry boats and such related facilities" as eligible for financial
assistance. This assistance is in the form of tax-exempt bonds for which the
company seeking assistance must find buyers.
The Connecticut Development Authority is subject to the Internal Revenue
Serv~ 2e Code Section 103(b) which sets a limit of $10 million for three years
before and after the date of the issue of the bond to private corporations.
This means that for a particular company seeking financial assistance,
Connecsicut Development Authority examines the expenditures of the company for
the prior t~ree years, then looks forward three years to see what expenses the
company had or will have that could be capitalized. The sum of this amount,
plus the new project, cannot exceed $10 million. Private companies are
eligible, and funds can be used for the purchase of boats (new or used), and
construction of docks and wharfs. Interest on the bonds is about 60-70 percent
of the prime rate and is negotiable between the borrower and lender. The time
period is also negotiable, with a legal limit of 40 years.
Private Funding. Private capital investments for Long Island Sound ferries
and terminals have been restrained by uncertainties regarding future ferry
use, and possible government actions, such as building a cross-Sound bridge or
63
establishment of a new ferry route. In addition, private investment is
inhibited by high financing rates. Undoubtedly investors are also reluctant
to invest in ferry boats or other improvements until they see the recommen-
dations of this study, which are to be made to the Governors of New York and
Connecticut.
Both existing ferry companies appear to be financially sound. The cross-
Sound Ferry Service recently put a New London class boat into service. This
boat was financed by bonds guaranteed by the US Maritime Administration.
However, the Bridgeport - Port Jefferson Steamboat Company has apparently been
unable to arrange financing for one new boat, even with eligiblity for tax-
exempt Industrial Development Revenue Bonds through the Connecticut Develop-
ment Authority. The ability to arrange capital financing for purchase of boats
and improvements to piers and terminals is vitally important to the continued
successful operation and expansion of ferry service, by the private sector.
Summary
It has been shown that there are many potential sources for public funding
assistance at the federal, state, and local levels. The types of assistance
include direct grants, loans, loan guarantees, and tax-exempt bonds. The
amount and availability of funds will depend upon how important the particular
government or authority views improved ferry service in relation to other
projects competing for the funds and how such projects fit the legal parameters
of the authority.
The next steps are to contact these funding agencies with specific ferry
improvement programs, to determine what funding would be possible.
64
PART VIII. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Organizational and Management Options
A number of organizational and management options either exist or could
be developed to implement major cross-Sound ferry service improvements. These
include:
Private operation, ownership, and financing
Private operation and ownership, financing with government assistance
Private operation, government ownership
Government operation, government ownership
A number of issues must be considered in addressing these implementation
possibilities. Both Connecticut and New York support the preservation and
enhancement of private enterprise, particularly as it relates to opportunities
for encouraging economic development. The private operators are experienced
in running ferry service and probably could provide an improved system that
would be efficient and economical. Thus the most desirable alternative is the
one which maximizes the role of the private sector in owning, operating, and
improving ferry service.
Private Operation, Ownership, and Financing. The existing services are
provided by two private companies on a for-profit basis; however, the general
concensus is that the services are insufficient to satisfy the demand, and
that some of the boats need to be modernized or replaced to increase the
attractiveness of the service. It is understood that the operators are
willing to provide expanded service but are not in a financial position to
attract sufficient private capital to accomplish major improvement Fo existing
services. This interest on the part of private sector is commendable, but to
date has not worked to greatly increase service. The chances are that a
strictly private venture leading to major service improvements will not be
attainable.
Private Operation and Ownership, Financing with Government Assistance. If
strictly private ventures do not appear possible, then the next best approach
would be to continue private operations and ownership, with financial assis-
tance provided by public agencies.
As described in Part VII there are numerous programs at the federal,
state, and local levels which offer opportunities for financial assistance.
This financial assistance is available in a variety of forms, i.e., grants,
loans, loan guarantees, and bonds with tax-free interest. Financing packages
could be put together involving one or more levels of government. For example,
it might be possible to get Industrial Development Bonds through local Indus-
trial Development Agencies and then use this as leverage to get an Urban
Development Action Grant (UDAG) from the Federal Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), to improve ferry terminals, parking, and staging
areas and docks~ Other possibilities would be for local or state legislatures
to appropriate funds which could be used to contract with private companies to
purchase serw~ce. For example, an appropriation could be made to New York
State DOT, which in turn could contract with the private operators for service
improvements.
65
There are obvious advantages to this approach. There would be little
government involvement and limited public investment. The experience and
~fficiency of private operators could be retained while the government involve-
ment would provide an opportunity to ensure service quality and offer financial
stability to the operation. No new organizational structure would be necessary,
and very little new legislation, if any, would be needed. It may be desirable
to appoint a Bi-State Advisory Committee to work with the private operators
providing advice and suggestions on perceived improvement needs and mechanisms
for their implementation.
Private Operation, Government Ownership. This option would provide for govern-
ment ownership of all or part of the capital investment in the service, with a
payback or lease agreement with the private operator, who then would provide
the desired level of service. Conceivably this could mean government purchase
of any new vessels and construction of new piers, leaving the existing
facilities in the hands of the current owners. It is not a certainty that
government would collect sufficient funds in this process to pay fully for its
capital investment, but whatever is returned reduces the actual public
investment. It has been demonstrated in Part VI of this report that fares
which are allowed to increase at a rate between one-half and full inflation
would pay for operating costs as well as amortized boat capital costs at most
locations. Depending on the location, then, there is a good chance that
government investment would be repaid.
This option could be accomplished in several ways. Given adequate
funding, state DOT's could own capital equipment and facilities and make the
necessary lease and service agreements with private operators. Another
possibility would be to create a bi-state or single-state authority with the
funding capability and legal authority to own boats, docks, terminals and
other capital equipment, and to be able to make agreements with the private
sector to operate the ferry service. The positive aspects of this approach
are that the operation remains in the private domain, there is return on the
public investment and service could be maintained at desired levels of service.
Government ownership would require enabling legislation, some public
~investment, contractual guarantees for levels of service and maintenance of
facilities and equipment, as well as continued government responsibility for
equipment and vessels. This option allows for direct representation by
affected local governments on a policy board. It is also possible to tie the
ferry service responsibilities to the provision of other transportation
services through-an authority.
Government Operation, Government Ownership. Under this option, government
agencies, at whatever level, would purchase the existing operations and would
invest public funds in the expansion of service. This approach has been taken
in the transportation industry before, particularly in public take-overs of
transit and bus companies. Generally, the mechanism for the transfer from
private to public ownership and operation has been through the creation of a
Transportation Authority for the purpose of maintaining/improving a needed
public service in a specific location. In these cases the private companies
were having financial difficulties and were faced with increased costs and
declining revenues from the fare boxes.
66
This management option could be accomplished by the creation of a
bi-state or single-state authority. This agency would need the financial
resources and the legislated authority to purchase equipment and set up manage-
ment and operating staffs to actually run ferry services. It would need to
plan for service needs, set up schedules, and operate the boats, terminals,
and associated capital facilities. They would be responsible for the upkeep,
repair, and replacement of the capital facilities as well. Simply put, the
agency would have total authority and responsibility for managing and operating
an improved cross-Sound ferry service. Given adequate financial resources and
authority, State DOT's or agencies of local government could take on this
responsibility.
This kind of management operation could guarantee a continuing service
and is simple organizationally. It would have the greatest impact on existing
operators, require the most extensive legislation, and take the longest time
to implement of the four organizational and management options discussed. It
would also be the most expensive option since it would require purchasing the
extensive assets of the present profitable operations.
Timing Considerations
There are a number of activities related to improving ferry service that
cannot be accomplished immediately. In addition there are questions that will
not be fully answered until service improvements are initiated.
To implement new service at a new location will take 3-5 years. For
example, site-specific Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) will be required
before federal or state approvals can be given to proceed. Permits from the
Coast Guard, I.C.C. and other agency approvals will be needed to begin
construction and/or service. Negotiations between public agencies and private
operators, relative to service, funding, and responsibility will be necessary.
Funding will have to be assured for capital improvements, and design and
construction plans prepared. Agreemenns with local communities to permit
construction of terminals and access roads will have to be worked out.
Commitments to shipyards to build new boats will have to be made, with funding
in place to make these commitments. Construction of new access roads and
trestles to adequate deep water could take several years.
Some questions will be answered only through time. For example, predicting
ferrl usage and revenues is by no means an exact science. Experience with
moderately improved service would be very useful in order to be sure that fare
levels are realistic, and that expected usage and revenues can in fact be
attained. Experimentation with fares and innovative services could be imple-
mented in the near term (1981-84) time period. The knowledge and experience
gained by an improved service could provide a sound basis for decisions
regarding investment in further improvements to the ferry service.
For the near term (1981-84), improvements can only be accomplished for
the existing services. Improvements could be made by adding new or used
boats, and improving terminal and access facilities. New boats could possibly
be built and r~ady for operation by the summer of 1982 if the private operators
could put together a financing package for ordering the boats in the very near
future. Boats could be added each year as the demand for service increases
and as funding assistance and/or increased revenues permit.
67
This kind of a staged process could allow desired improvements to be made
to the ferry service without involving unnecessary risks to investments of
public funds by public agencies.
Implementation Scenarios
/~ere are a number of different ways in which major improvements to ferry
service may be implemented. For example:
A decision could be made to concentrate all the improvements at the
two existing ferry locations. Sufficient numbers of boats could be
added to greatly improve service, reliability, convenience, and
capacity. Improvements to the terminal, staging, and parking areas
would be made consistent with the amount of new service provided.
Access improvements could be made to take care of the additional
traffic generated by the improved ferry services. In locations
where heavy truck traffic is perceived to cause traffic problems,
staging areas for trailers could be developed at remote locations
where they could be stored and then loaded on the ferry during
off-peak traffic periods. Usage and revenues compared to costs
would be monitored and service improvements added to the point where
~evenues or financial assistance did not support additional service.
It could be decided to implement service at a completely new
crossing location. As soon as assurance of financing assistance is
obtained, the Environmental Impact Studies could be gotten underway
for the locations to be considered for the new service. Work could
begin immediately on obtaining the necessary permits; agreements
could be worked out with local government on terminal and access
road locations; design of terminals, boats, staging of parking areas
and access facilities and other necessary actions could be started
Service improvements could be made to existing services in order to
monitor the impact of improved service and to begin building the
demand for new services when the new route opens.
A third possibility is to begin improvements to the existing ferry
service with an open mind about the location of the long range ferry
service. Then, after a period of improvement of existing facilities,
perhaps 3 ~o 4 years, the situation could be re-evaluated and a
determination made whether to relocate either of the existing ferry
services to a new location or to continue with improvements at the
existing locations.
Regardless of which of the above improvement options is chosen, the
findings of this study show that significant increases in service are both
desireable and achieveable. Actions to bring about service improvements must
start now. In addition, results of ferry service improvements should be
monitored closely during the next few years of operation. If usage builds as
expected, commitments can then be made for the more ambitious service expansion.
If usage and revenues fall below expectations, a review should be made to
determine the reasons. Ways can then be developed to increase usage to
predicted levels, or to scale down expectations and coramitments.
68
PART IX. SUMMARY FINDINGS
This report has described existing cross-Sound ferry services and 11
potential routes (including the present sites) where significant improvements
could be made to ferry services. Needed terminal and access improvements have
been identified and their costs estimated. Environmental considerations have
been noted, and economic and energy impacts were estimated. Forecasts of
usage and revenues were made, and revenues were compared to the operating and
capital costs of improved service. Potential federal, state, and local govern-
ment funding sources as well as private funding were identified. Finally,
different management options, timing considerations, and implementation sce-
narios were discussed. Significant findings are highlighted below.
Ferry services across Long Island Sound are provided by two private
companies.
Year-round service is offered between New London and Orient Point. Patron-
age has increased steadily as more service and capacity have been of-
feted. Three boats are loaded close to capacity throughout the sun, her,
and are unable to handle vehicle demand on summer weekends. The two old
smaller boats must soon be replaced.
One old boat operates five months of the year between Bridgeport and Port
Jefferson. It is packed with vehicles on nearly every trip during the
summer. Passenger ridership has grown steadily, and vehicle patronage
has increased as more service was offered. The Bridgeport and Port Jef-
ferson Steamboat Company would like to acquire a new boat, but to date
has not been able to arrange for financing.
3,700,000 vehicles per year use the East River Bridges to travel between
Long Island and New England, including 238,000 trucks. Many of these
auto and truck trips could be attracted to ferries if there were enough
capacity and frequent service. Six to eight modern boats operating at
each of two locations would increase patronage from seven to ten com-
pared to present usage.
The two existing routes offer the best potential for improving ferry
services in the short run. Several locations for new routes can be
considered over the long term. Feasibility will depend on a balance
among prospective costs, revenues, and environmental impacts, as well as
availability of funds.
Motorists have responded to increases in service and have not been deter-
red by fare increases necessitated by inflation. If fare levels were to
increase about the same rate as inflation, operating costs and capital
costs would be recovered on the existing routes and some new routes in
the long term.
The most efficient approach to funding and managing ferry operations is
to maximize private enterprise involvement.
This kind of a staged process could allow desired improvements to be made
to the ferry service without involving unnecessary risks to investments of
public funds by public agencies.
69
It will be prudent to add capacity and service in stages, anticipating
steady increases in patronage. Increased usage related to ferry improve-
ments could be carefully monitored to ensure that usage and revenues
measure up to projections. This would provide a sound basis for pro-
ceeding with the next stage of improvements, without involving unwarran-
ted risks to investment of public funds.
The need for public investment varies considerably by route. In several
instances, revenues could cover all costs: New London-Orient Point,
Bridgeport-Port Jefferson, and Old Saybrook to Orient Point or East
Marion/Orient. Deferral of principal payments might be needed during the
few early years, as patronage builds up to higher levels. New terminals
and access for Norwalk-Huntington and Bridgeport-Sunken Meadow would be
in the 11-12 million dollar range. Costs for the Shoreham-New Haven
routes would range between 15 and 21 million dollars. Public funds would
be needed for these terminals, since surpluses would not be generated
from operations.
A number of public funding sources have been identified which need to be
explored in detail when a specific plan for capital is developed.
Environmental impacts could result from significant new construction of
piers, parking areas, access roads, operation of boats and terminals, and
increased vehicular traffic. Significant impacts could occur near the
shoreline both on land in the water, especially in wetland area. Degree
of impact will have to be determined by site-specific environmental
assessments based on improvement proposals. No long-lasting effect is
expected on water quality, wildlife population, fin fish and shell fish,
or air quality.
Noise impacts are not expected to be significant.
Improved ferry service could have a beneficial impact on the economy of
Long Island and Connecticut. For example, a public and private invest-
ment on the order of 100 million dollars could provide substantial ferry
service improvements and result in the creation of 300 new construction
jobs a year for a three-year period of investment. More important are
the continuing benefits realized from a sustained level of business
investments, as new sales and business opportunities are perceived and
developed. By 1990, these could yield 2,500 additional jobs on Long
Island and 1300 jobs in Connecticut. Total personal income could in-
crease by 150 million dollars on Long Island and 60 million dollars in
income and sales tax could be realized by 1990.
Promotion and marketing of improved ferry services will be essential, to
increase awareness of shippers, residents, and travellers regarding
available service.
7O
Comments are now being solicited from public officials, interested groups,
and the general public. New York State Transportation Commissioner William
Hennessy and Connecticut Commissioner Arthur Powers will be specifically
addressing and making recommendations on the following issues:
1. Should ferry service be expanded?
2. Should service be expanded, at existing or new locations? If at a
new site, where should it be located?
How should ferry service be funded? Should improvements be made
only if they are self-supporting? Should public funds be used?
so should they be made available for capital improvements? For
operating assistance? For both?
If
To what extent should government agencies be involved in managing
and operating improved ferry service, i.e., should the service an
all-private operation, and all-government operation or some combina-
tion of the two?
Comments related to these issues will be very helpful in developing
recommendations for the respective Governors.
71
LEGEND FOR ALL MAPS
Site of Existing Ferry Terminal
Possible New Terminal Site
New or Existing IAccass Road
Scale as shown on each map; north at top of map
unless indicated otherwise.
Appendix Figure
Appendix Figure
Appendix Figure 3A:
Appendix Figure 3B:
Appendix Figure 4:
Appendix Figure 5:
Appendix Figure 6:
Appendix Figure 7:
Appendix Figure 8:
Appendix Figure 9:
Appendix Figure 10:
Appendix Figure 11:
Appendix Figure 12:
Appendix Figure 13:
Appendix Figure 14:
Appendix Figure 15:
Appendix Figure 16:
1: Norwalk Site
2: Bridgeport Site
New Haven Sites (West)
New Haven Sites (East)
Old Saybrook Sites
New London Site
Huntington Sites
Sunken Meadow Access Roads
Sunken Meadow Site
Port Jefferson Access Roads
Port Jefferson Site
Shoreham Access Roads
Shoreham Site
North Fork Access Roads
East Marion/Orient Sites
Orient Point Site
Greenport Sites
~u.o~lk
Har~oor
GYe~Ory
Island
tJ S Coast
Hammock
Appendix Figure
Point
~Wh~ ~Reef
1: N~lk Site
Jr HS
Calf Pas
Cai[ Pasture
Point
Round 5
Beach Grassy Ha
0 N
G
I S.
Appendix
A N D
2: Bridgeport Site
I
ScI
End
2000'
N D
A~g~ndix Figure 3A:
NE W HA VEN
HARBOR
New Haven Sites (West)
2000'
NE W HA VI~N
HARBOR
SOUND
Appendix Figure 3B:
New Haven Sites (East)
d htz/ ."Y
! Reservo~,r
Hi~'h ~
~ Sch
~Ol~t'Lyme
l
North
South
Appendix Figure 4: Old Saybr°°k Sites
2000'
1
Gris ~,~
East --
New L~udo
~,:~ ~' ,~'_
HARBOR
tuart (~
Appendix Figure 5:
.Walker
H'ill
~ Groton
New London Site
~.¢?o ' "%x,% i' Pm
//
HUNTINGTON
BAY
Yacht Club
Disposal
2,4
Appendix Figure 6:
Huntington Sites
0 2000' ~
0
0 ~000'
Appendix Figure 7:
Sunken Meadow Access Roads
/
GOLF COURSE
,. ~ '~'
eadow
I T' H T
0 2000'
Appendix Figure 8: Sunken Meadow Site
0 8000'
Appendix Figure 9:
Por~ Jefferson Access Roads
r~
i
:t
BM 16(
Sch
Sch
Appendix Figure 10:
Moneyhollow
Rock
Golf Course
Mather
t
Port Jefferson Site
/ V
0 8000'
Appendix Figure 11:
Shoreham Access Roads
shoreham
im c
BM
Radio
Towero
Substation
Appendix Figure 12: Shorehem Site
Terry
Golf Course
Marion
ORIENT
HARBOR
GARDINERS
ROAD
LANE
BAY
Appendix Figure 14: East Marion/Orient Sites
Mulford Pt
Rose Airport
Cem
Pt
Eagles N(
LONG
Browns
Piling
BEA CH
BAY
Appendix Figure 15:
Orient Point Site
20QO'
Scale
LONG ISLAND/
?
SOUND /
Inlet Pt
Irdet
) N~TY
/i PAR~
t~
Grl
Pipes
Coue
', East M
S
Island
Height:
Beach Clul
Shelter
)ungs Pt
Derin
Dering
Harbor
Greenport Sites
Marion
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2000'
Scale
~ Quaker ~'
larbor
District Split Anew on Ferry Bill
By Bob Uepm
The debate over a proposed high-
speed ferry service linking Suffolk
County to Connecticut shifted gears
somewhat last Wednesday when the
Suffolk Legislature urged New York
Slate to cooperate in eff~ to study the
proposal.
A nonbinding sense resolution with a
different twist from one on the same
topic that failed in the legislature last
month, passed by a 12-5 vote in Haup-
paage. In contrast to the failed motion
that would have asked Long Island
Lighting Company to pa~icipate in ef-
forts to establish a feny terminal at its
Shoreham site, the measure passed last
week does not have the word Shmehem
in it. It merely notes flint the county has
existing ferry operato~ Uaveling across
Lohg Island Sound and -~* the state to
take the lead in encouraging all parties
to cooperate in furthering "a thorough
examination" of a high-speed ferry
route to Connecticut. According to the
legislation, "une ecunomic development
would/nvolve encouraging and expand-
ing the existing cross-Sonnd ferry ser-
vice by adding high-speed ferry tech-
nology.''
Ferries currently traveling across
Long Island Sound have Long Island
terminals in Orient and Port Jefferson.
Suffolk Legislator Gregory Blass (R-
James'port), who voted against the bill,
found the measure that passed more ac-
cepteble than the "dangerous step" that
would have been taken had last month's
bill gained l~Oe. "I do feel flg~re is a
small measure of success for us in the
watered-down, genetic resohition that
Mr. Blass said he's joiulng forces
with Sts~ Senator Keonat~ LaVUlI~ (R-
Port Jefferson) and State Assembly-
woman Pa~icla Acampora (R-Ma,-
tuck) to urge die state ~o consider Port
Jefferson as a potential high-speed f~'y
site and not Orient. He said he abo co-
courages the development of a feny
~rm~d on the South FO~. 1~c lagis~-
tor said ~at in one "exsspr~afing" dis-
cussion about the sites of cun'ent feny
services on the non~m half of thc
county, an unnamed South Fork town
official, said, "Why should w~ ~ample
over ourselves when we c~ t~nple
over you?"
Mr. Blass said, "Just because they s~y
no doesn't mean they don't have a
sponsibility.'
Anger in Orient
Orient Association secre~J Freddie
Wachsberger, for one, is not pleased
with the turn of events and does not
want to see a high-speed ferry in her
community. "It gets more and more out-
rageons,' she said. "Nobody can believe
iL It's from disbelief to ouWage. At this
point in time, die only thing diat should
he studied is how to reduce the traffic
going through Southold Town."
Wading River Civic Association
president Sid Bail, whose organiTafion
joined other members of the Shoreham-
Wading River community in voicing
opposition to a high-speed ferry at
The Suffolk Times
We've got you covered
Shoreham, responded to last week's
resolution with "mixed feelings."
"I never wanted to drop this off on
another area," Mr. Bail said. "We just
questioned the economic viability and
environmental enaseqnenees of the pro-
l~ul.' The plan was spawned by Long
Island Sound Shuttle Partnership, die
winning bidder in a request for propos-
'It gets more and more
outrageous.'
--Freddie Wachsberger,
secretary, Orient Association
als that was issned by both Connecticut
and New York for a private operntor of
a high-speed ferry. "This isn't just a
NIMBY issue," he said. "To say [the
legislature] caved in to NIMBY inter-
ests is toudly ridiculous."
Mr. Bail said diere is some logic to
improving existing fen'y services, but
said the county's latest move does not
take pressure off members of his com-
inanity who'oppo~ die fen~.
The proposal has thc support of thc
Long Island Association, which claims
that a high-speed ferry would open
'1 never wanted te drep
this off on anether
area.'
--Sid Bail, president,
Wading River Civic Association
markets, enhance tourism and improve
the region's mmsportadun system.
What the Market Will B~ar
New York State Department of
Transportation spokesman David Mur-
ray seid it's now up to die market to see
whether the proposal stays afloat or
sinks. "We're waw, hing it with imerest,'
he said. "We hope flint it prospers."
Joe Civalier, executive assistant for
the DOT's assisUmt commissioner for
aviation and general Uanspon, repeat-
edly emphasized that local support is
necessary for the project to become a
reality. "We want to see this go, only if
it's supported at the local level," he
said. ''We're not going to force it down
'We don't want this,' then that would be
fha end of it.'
LI]_~O, mennwhile, still maintains its
"nenual' stance until a consensus is
"We remain neutral until the parties
for and ~i,~st thc forty work to obtain
that consensus," LILCO spokeswoman
Andrea Stanb said. "While we recog-
nlze that an issue like this is not going
to Set absolute consensus, an issue like
this needs general consensus from the
commtmlty."
Richard MacMun*ay, vice president
and general muna~er of Cross Sound
Ferry, which operates between Orient
and New London, Conn., did not return
a reporter's telephone messages prior to
presstime.
LOWEST PRICES
OF THE YEAR
San *!00-'200 per set
hun Sin Posturepedic Sets
Sale Priced from *S99
QUANTITIES ARE LIMITED
ALL IN-STOCK BEDDING - ON SALE
MATIRES~ OR BOXgZffiNG ~OLD SEPARATELY ALSO AT SALE PRICES
WHILE SUPPLY LASTS!
PHONE ORDERS TAKEN CALL
FREE
DELIVERY
· Setup d your new bedding
~;Fr~ee,rem°valofpacidngmatefials
frame with Posturepedh:
Goldin Furniture Co.
GREENPORT CARPET CO.
434 Main St. * 47%0940 · Greenpovt
OPEN MON. - SAT. 9-5
ASSISTANCE