Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLong Island to Connecticut Location & Placement of Hight Speed Ferry Service - _._-~ - ------- LONG ISLAND TO CONNECTICUT Location and Placement of a High Speed Ferry Service Report to the SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE November .1993 Suffolk County Planning Department ~of,e'tt J. gaffne!J County Executive SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Donald M. Eversoll Acting Chairman Mardooni Vahradian Secretary Michael Macco Frank Cichanowicz Edward Rosavitch Thomas Isles Richard Larsen Robert Martin Gilbert Shepard Samuel Stahlman Arthur Dodge SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PARTICIPATING STAFF Project Director Stephen M. Jones, AICP Planning Pearl Kamer Peter Lambert Carol Walsh Harry Withers Graphics Carl Lind Clerical Paula Davantzis COUNTY OF SUFFOLK .~ti1'Ji~'~'" ....-~I ~~~,; ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING STEPHEN M. JONES. A.I.C.P.. DIRECTOR OF flLANNING November 23, 1993 Honorable Donald R. Blydenburgh, Presiding Officer Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, N. Y. 11788 Dear Presiding Officer Blydenburgh: After many years of study and discussion, the concept of a new ferry service to Connecticut which would attract a commercial demand has escalated into a private sector proposal to do just that. Suffolk County now has an opportunity to get behind a privately funded initiative, which is not in anvone's back vard. We've concluded in the report that high speed ferry service to Connecticut is feasible and can attract a new commercial market. We hope you will agree and join us in supporting this project. SMJ:pd cc: Robert J. Gaffney S. C. Executive H. LEE DENNISON BUILDING . VETERANS MEMO"'AL HIGHWAY . HAU....AUGE. NEW VOlltK I 1788 . (518) 853-5182 FAX U511!U .!53~ Resolution No.4 - November 3, 1993 At the regular meeting of the Suffolk County Planning Commission held on Wednesday, November 3, 1993, Commissioner Vahradian moved for the adoption of the following resolution, seconded by Commissioner Rosavitch. The resolution was unanimously passed: 9 ayes (2 absent) WHEREAS, various studies over the past twenty years have indicated a need and desire for additional ferry service across Long Island Sound, and WHEREAS, ferry vessel technology has progressed to the acceptance and use of high-speed ferries which would shorten the travel time across Long Island Sound, and WHEREAS, a private sector initiative has received preliminary approval from New York and Connecticut to create a route from Shoreham to New Haven at no public cost, Be It Therefore RESOLVED, that the Suffolk County Planning Commission wishes to record its support for this private sector undertaking; encourage the Shoreham location because of its superior accessibility and existing infrastructure in place; and endorse a high level of government support and backing for this proposal. REPORT TO THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE LONG ISLAND TO CONNECTICUT Location and Placement of a High Speed Ferry Service Table of Contents Background Page 1 Current Conditions The Clean Air Act Increased Traffic Congestion Technology Advancements Private Financing Local Financing Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 High Speed Ferry Locational Factors Interstates Relationship to Existing Ferry Services and Bridges Access to the Long Island Expressway Harbor Configuration 6 6 7 7 8 Summary Analysis of Routes Sunken Meadow site Port Jefferson Orient Point Jamesport 8 9 9 10 10 Examination of Preferred Site site Availability Interstate Highway Linkage Harbor Configuration site Location 12 12 13 14 14 Examination of the Current Proposal 15 Summary 16 Appendix 19 Figures and Maps Figure 1 Oblique Aerial Photograph of Shoreham site Figure 2 Site Plan, Shoreham, NY Figure 3 Aerial Photograph of Shoreham site Figure 4 Picture of a model of the High Speed Ferry (Surface Effect Type Vessel) Map 1 Map 2 Long Island and Connecticut Interstate Highways Potential Ferry Routes Map 3 Shoreham Terminal site A. BACKGROUND In accordance with Resolution 727-1992 of the Suffolk County Legislature, the Planning Department was directed to conduct a feasibility study for high speed ferry service in Suffolk County. This resolution contained a number of underlying assumptions: 1. That high speed ferry technology is uncertain and untested. 2. That local government may not be able to shoulder infrastructure improvements of a supporting nature. 3. That the Shoreham site may be environmentally incompatible with the surrounding community. 4. That an appropriate location would be where the heaviest concentrations of population and commercial activity exist. Further direction came recently from the Energy, Environment and Economic Development Committee with a request to examine the feasibility of such a venture to determine its financial soundness, and also to examine a Jamesport location with access to and from the eastern terminus of the Long Island Expressway. The staff found fifteen prior studies of Long Island Sound ferry crossings going back to 1974, making this issue one of the most frequently studied on Long Island. A bibliography of these 1 studies is included in the Appendix. Review of these studies was concentrated in three major reports: 1. Tri-state Regional Planning Commission study, 1975, "Crossing the Sound". (synopsis and excerpts are in the Appendix. ) 2. Lona Island Sound Ferrv Imorovement Studv, 1981 NYS Department of Transportation/connecticut Department of Transportation. (Synopsis and excerpts are in the Appendix.) 3. Long Island Sound Shuttle Limited Partnership proposal, 1993. "Development and Operation of High Speed Ferry Service". Prior to 1992, the common thread through the studies and the major stumbling blocks to implementation were always two-fold: large sums of taxpayer supported dollars were required and displacement vessels comparable to existing craft were used as the models with respect to travel times. B. CURRENT CONDITIONS Conditions have changed which have caused a cross-Sound ferry route to become more feasible, more popular in its concept and worthy of support, both privately and publicly. Federal 2 legislation, technological advances and growing local support for economic stimulators are some factors that are currently in place that support the viability of a high speed ferry route. 1. The Clean Air Act This sweeping federal legislation, with its funding through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), is in the process of stimulating new activities, all of which are designed to lessen air pollution in the New York Metropolitan Area. From commuting patterns, employer responsibilities, transportation enhancements and additional road capacity improvements, government and private industry are actively seeking solutions which lessen air pollution. 2. Increased Traffic Congestion Because of the continued disarray of OPEC and the ready supply of foreign oil, gasoline prices are still very low domestically, even with the newly added state and federal taxes at the pump. There has been an upward trend in vehicle registrations in the past ten years and truck trips continue to increase as well. Coupled with wide-ranging infrastructure improvements in the region which had been postponed since the 1970's, traffic congestion is at an all time high, giving the New York Metropolitan Area the dubious distinction of being second only to Los Angeles as a "severe 3 non-attainment area", a bureaucratic term for having the dirtiest air on the east coast. 3. Technology Advancements The last twenty years have seen improvements to surface effect vessels (boats) which via water jet propulsion, improved hull designs and composite materials, or air fan design, are now capable of skimming the water surface at 45-60 knots, as opposed to displacement vessels in the 10-20 knot range. These engineering advancements alone have stimulated the interest of the private sector in re-examining a Long Island to connecticut ferry service, since travel time across the Sound would be halved to a 45-60 minute crossing. 4. Private Financing Private financing of ferry routes has become more feasible because technological advancements in ferry design have resulted in successful ferry routes operating both domestically and overseas. Financial feasibility results from the fact that the cost of the ferries comprises the majority of the cost of the ferry operation and the ferries can be put into service anywhere. This locational flexibility decreases the amount of risk taken by the mortgagors because new ferries have a resale value. The 4 necessity for pUblic investment is reduced because the boats are the major asset backing the private investment. The reduction of public investment in cross-Sound ferry service has brought the Departments of Transportation of New York and Connecticut together to actively reconsider a ferry crossing. 5. Local Economy Long ISland continues to struggle with a stagnant local economy. Companies are leaving Long Island, becoming less competitive or continuing to face the difficulties of trucking their products off the Island. Dramatically reduced travel times across the Sound brought about by the faster vessels have now caught the attention of the private sector. Trucking companies which currently move freight off the Island to New England are looking at shaving five hours off their road time,. double for the round trip. They, and manufacturing companies themselves, are considering the possibilities of new markets in New England which could be exploited via a quicker route across the Sound. A new, faster cross-sound ferry route looms larger than ever as an economic development initiative which will benefit Long Island. 5 6. Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant The decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant has dramatically increased the interest in a Shoreham-New Haven ferry route. The presence of an active nuclear plant at the site and its required safety precautions made Shoreham an unpalatable location. However, now that the power plant has been deactivated and high speed technology has improved, this location, at the widest point of the Sound, becomes feasible. C. HIGH SPEED FERRY LOCATIONAL FACTORS There are generally four important considerations which have guided the discussions of potential ferry routes during the last twenty years. These four factors do not reflect community perspectives. they strictly address the conditions necessary for a successful ferry operation. 1. Interstates Any route must take into account not only the Long Island Expressway and other commercial arterial highways on Long Island, but the location of interstate highways in Connecticut. The confluence of Interstate 95 and 91 in New Haven and the confluence of Interstate 95 and 395 west of New London are important factors in examining the most 6 Sprlngtiold I /" 80slon Worcester 87 I .1 Nowburgh .. 1 NORTH ~/---- /' _"I. . ;:. ._:1~~f1}:.'~ :Jor$: ltOOIll ~:J:J-o en:J(Q _lll ~ IllOW" --- III --Ill o :::I:C:J _....... a. (Q III ~ :J ~ a. en appropriate routes to New England across the Sound. (See Map 1, Long Island and connecticut Interstate Highways) 2. Relationship to Existing Ferry Services and Bridges Previous examinations of new routes have historically taken into account proximity to New York City bridges (particularly the Throgs Neck and Whitestone) and to the Port Jefferson-Bridgeport and Orient-New London ferry routes. Transportation planners have consistently ranked lowest those routes proposed west of Port Jefferson because they compete with the NYC bridges and would draw customers from the Port Jefferson ferry route, rather than fulfilling or creating a new service demand. 3. Access to Long Island Expressway While Long Island's parkways do carry increasing volumes of traffic, they are designed in the classic parkway configuration within park-like rights-of-way and built exclusively for non-commercial traffic. state parks are the parkway's ultimate destinations. It is not likely that these roads will be altered anytime soon to carry truck traffic due to the high cost of bridge replacement and reconfiguration of interchange geometry. Therefore, the Long Island Expressway will continue to function as the 7 primary, limited access commercial roadway for the future. Any north shore ferry terminal must be easily accessible to the Long Island Expressway for it to be a viable operation. 4. Harbor Configuration Due to the glacial geology of Long Island Sound and the north shore of Long Island, our coast is very different from Connecticut's and has relatively few sheltered harbors. A sheltered harbor on Long Island is crucial to ferry service because of prevailing northwest wind patterns during the fall and winter months which impede vessel docking. Long Island harbors are often accompanied by extensive wetlands, spits, artificial navigation channels, erosion and deposition areas. Wetlands preservation, channel dredging and other associated harbor management functions cause harbor creation and harbor maintenance to be an expensive proposition. D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF ROUTES The following are some ferry routes which have been examined during the past twenty years. A Jamesport route is also considered. The evaluations of these sites are summarized below regarding their effectiveness by current locational and other standards. Map 2 shows the locations of these sites. s \ I \ Bridgeport I / \\ Port Jellerson Bridgeport I I F \ eny Sunken Meadow / \ / \ I I I..-Proposed I Shore ham to New Haven I Ferry I I I Shoreham I Terminal I~ "- "- New Haven I " , Jamesport " '\ New London I Orienl Poinl Ferry / / I J\r 2' ". Cr . \ 0 0 \. ~ i~ g "... r ~ ..J ;;; ~ III 0 III II: " .. ~ I::> t! z U) 50_. P/cw. Map Adapted from 1991 Port Authority Ferry Feasibility Study s: Dl -0 N -0 o ..... ' CD ::l =. Dl " CD ~ ~ '< ::n o c ..... CD en 1. Sunken Meadow site This site might be considered for non-commercial, leisure purposes by utilizing Sunken Meadow Parkway as the approach. However, this site has no promise for attracting commercial operations due to parkway restrictions of truck access. Further, necessary harbor construction would be costly and disruptive to park operations. Landfall in Connecticut would be Sherwood Point, also a state park with similar construction constraints. Other Connecticut destinations would be either too close to current bridge travel or would add significantly to travel time across the Sound. 2. Port Jefferson This route is very successful in attracting tourist walk-ons from Connecticut. It has dramatically changed commerce in downtown Port Jefferson over the past twenty years. However, the dock configuration in Bridgeport and very poor access to the Long Island Expressway make this site a problem for expansion and attraction of commercial traffic. New road widenings, queuing areas, parking lots and approaches would be very disruptive to Port Jefferson and Port Jefferson Station and the costs to government to effectuate these access improvements would not be recovered. 9 3. orient Point This unhurried leisure route to and from New England has both benefitted and suffered because of its location. It is not a good site to contemplate an increase in ferry traffic because expansions to this location would be disruptive to the whole North Fork from Riverhead to orient Point. Middle Road/Main Road (CR 27 and CR 48), the preferred commercial access, would require a high level of public investment for road improvements to make travel time viable. The resulting losses in quality of life to the North Fork communities would far outweigh any economic gains. ("The benefit of isolation"). Major changes to what currently exists would not warrant sufficient public benefit. Further, this route is eastward of the major Hartford/springfield interstate connections in Connecticut. 4. Jamesport The Long Island Lighting company owns a 518 acre tract in Jamesport that straddles the Riverhead Town/ Southold Town border. The northern portion of the site is vacant and the southern portion is actively farmed. The site has Sound shoreline frontage and is therefore a possible ferry terminal site. (The Appendix contains a map of the Jamesport site with surrounding parcels). 10 Landfall in Connecticut would occur between the 1-95/91 New Haven connection and the 1-395/95 connection. utilization of this route by commercial traffic should not disrupt most North Fork communities east of Jamesport. Recommendations of the Special Groundwater Protection Area plan advise that areas north of Sound Avenue in Riverhead be used as transfer of development rights (TOR) receiving areas for residential development. The Jamesport site is in this recommended TOR receiving area. There are many potential negative impacts associated with the development of this site, including site access, harbor construction and impact to surrounding areas. Access to the LIE would require a connection to the eastern terminus of the Long Island Expressway, 8.3 miles away. Construction of this road, in the simplest of configurations, would cost at least $5 million for land acquisition of a minimum of 50 minimal acres of right-Of-way, and at least $25 million for engineering and construction of a simple two lane road. The completed extension to the LIE would provide access for additional tourist traffic to the North Fork via the LIE. Additional traffic would be routed through the core area of the pine Barrens resulting in additional development pressure in the adjacent compatible growth areas. The additional traffic brought to Riverhead and Southold towns 11 would create some economic advantage to wineries and other tourism associated businesses but would be coupled with increased development pressure on Riverhead and Southold farm areas. The site would require construction of a new harbor. Construction would be very costly, both financially and environmentally. Lastly, commercial traffic may perceive this route as too far east to be attractive for trucking, impacting the financial feasibility of this site. E. EXAMINATION OF PREFERRED SITE Based on site availability, locational criteria, improved technology and community and environmental factors, a Shoreham-New Haven route is the most desirable for the following reasons: 1. site Availability The proposed ferry terminal would be located on part of the site containing the decommissioned Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The removal of active reactor core materials re-establishes the site for traditional industrial development. The site is presently zoned L-4 industry by the Town of Brookhaven. A copy of Brookhaven zoning for the area is included in the Appendix. The site is owned by 12 Figure 1: Oblique Aerial Photograph of Shoreham Site Sound -- Road L1LCO Property Line........ North Country Road \ b / ~o'" /' .'" ./ "e" Llleo tfJ/ ,b /' Prlvate- ~~~ /' Road / / North Country Road 25A 25A William Floyd Parkway Rt 46 NORTH Map Adapted from 1991 Port Authority Ferry FeasIbility Study . , l s: 1lI -0 <.v (J) ::r o ""' co ::r 1lI 3 -t co ""' 3 :J 1lI (J) ;:;: co LILCO, a leading proponent of economic development for Long Island. The site contains disturbed areas which can accommodate queuing and the ferry terminal. The site is also large enough to provide a substantial buffer for the access road and queuing areas from surrounding residences. 2. Interstate Highway Linkage The site lies at the northern terminus of William Floyd Parkway (CR 46), a north-south, four lane, divided highway that does not restrict commercial traffic and intersects the Long Island Expressway with a high volume interchange. Currently, this road handles approximately 25,100 annual average daily traffic (AADT) in the most traveled section of the road north of the LIE. William Floyd Parkway is designed to handle 57,600 AADT. North Shore Properties development proposals mitigate traffic generation on CR 46 and present the potential for additional highway improvements. The Appendix contains a memorandum from SCDPW with detailed traffic volume data for William Floyd Parkway. The site has access directly to William Floyd Parkway via LILCO holdings. A relatively short, controlled driveway, a portion of which already exists, would be built solely on LILCO property. 13 The Shoreham site connects directly to New Haven Connecticut at the confluence of 1-95 and 1-91, the two major interstates serving all of New England. 3. Harbor Configuration The Shoreham site possesses a harbor facility constructed by LILCO for the power plant. The harbor may require additional alterations but the site's original wetlands have already been disturbed and can no longer be considered pristine. The site plan in Figure 2 shows a conceptual drawing for the ferry site. Figure 3 shows an aerial overview of the site. 4. Site Location Shoreham is located between the two existing cross- Sound ferry routes and presents the best possibility of capturing the commercial market for cross-Sound trips, without excessive financial or environmental cost. Although the site is located at the widest part of the Long Island Sound, technological advancements in vessel design will reduce travel time to Connecticut to 45-60 minutes. 14 I '-.! ........ ~ I :jP , , I' ; I"~ (lJ : '\ 11 i , 1~WI ,I I '1 I I \ ! \ r-\ . \ , u U I , .~ /"'\ "'I I r --- w r!U \ Long Island Sound Figure 2: Site Plan N \ L..-J .~ ..- ;; ;:; :; '" '" n ~ ~ .. .. c ; . I L- Sl'1'lil'LAN SIIORlillAM. NY \ - .---r- ~. , ....... . ..-.-'.... IUOII SPEED FERRY. New lI.yen/Sho,e.. , \ Lqw.d~S1IU1tIcUmlt"'''''''''''11J:iSU'l " ~ ' '\ '. COHC:UT\IAL sur 1 \. ,---- - -..... " \. _-::.::::: TA\1V Aa~uci....~.. TW911n.A ",' ~._- Source: L1SSLP 1993 High Speed Ferry Proposal -. ...- ,. --~ .~.- - --- .- --- -. .- \ . " '.., Figure 3: Site Aerial Photograph Figure 4: Model of a Surface Effect Type Vessel F. EXAMINATION OF THE CURRENT PROPOSAL The states of New York and connecticut have considered a private sector initiative to establish a Shoreham-New Haven ferry route and have found it feasible, subject to certain requirements. We agree and believe that this initiative should be encouraged and nurtured. In a 1991 study, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey estimated that a two boat ferry service between Shoreham and New Haven would operate at a deficit of at least $4.27 million. However, the Long Island Sound Shuttle Limited Partnership (LISSLP), in the confidential financial plan submitted to the bi-state review committee, projected increasing profits after their third year of operation. LISSLP believes that Port Authority revenue figures are low because the Port Authority based their projections on a traditional ferry service with a crossing time in excess of one and a half hours and did not take into account the additional demand the company feels will be created by the vastly reduced crossing time of under one hour. The Port Authority estimated that 50,000 trucks a year would use the service and LISSLP estimated 60,000 trucks a year. In addition, new vessel capacity will be greatly expanded compared to traditional boats. The new vessels will haVe a payload capacity of 450 passengers, 65 cars and 6 tractor trailers (or a combination of vehicles up to 239 tons). A model 15 of the Surface Effect Type Vessel is pictured in Figure 4. Revenue will also be enhanced with a more expensive fare schedule than that used for the 1991 study, but comparable and competitive with current ferry rates. LISSLP is prepared to invest $77.5 million into this venture with approximately $15.5 million in equity capital, the remainder of which will be financed. There are no public funds needed for this project to move ahead. The appendix contains an excerpt from the Proposal for Development and Operation of High Speed Ferry Service with the anticipated permit requirements. The permit process is crucial in assuring the mitigation of the proposals impact on the surrounding environment. G. SUMMARY Implementation of the proposed high speed ferry service will provide many benefits to Long Island's economy and transportation network. There is a clear economic need for ferry service to Connecticut. The amount of freight generated in central and eastern Long Island is expected to increase. Firms in central and eastern Long Island are currently "dead-ended" in terms of location and this contributes measurably to their transportation costs and to the final cost of their products. It is essential that Long Island preserve and enhance its manufacturing base. Freight service to Connecticut, provided it 16 could accommodate a significant number of tractor trailers, would help accomplish this goal. It could reduce the transportation costs of those manufacturers currently located in Suffolk County and help attract other manufacturers that need access to our skilled labor force but view Long Island's dead end geographic status as a major negative. Private financing of the ferry service with its associated minimal risk to taxpayers alleviates the public cost without diluting the pUblic benefit. As long as the private sector bears the financial burden of the proposed Shoreham-New Haven ferry route, there is no reason not to encourage the initiative. The removal of government as a major financing partner from the project shifts the burden of financial feasibility to the private sector. The public sector can now focus on the public need and desirability for improved and expanded ferry service and the economic benefit associated thereto. The associated impacts of development pressure and traffic congestion on existing local roads can be identified and miti- gated through the permitting process. The LISSLP projects a property tax eXPense of a little more than one half million dollars per year. The creation of new taxable property will help to offset the devaluation of the tax base caused by the decommissioning .of the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Also, the siting of a ferry terminal on the site should 17 not preclude additional development by LILCO in the event that more power generation is required in the future. The only public benefits that might be utilized by the designated ferry service company is fast tracking and credibility in the financial markets. Financial credibility would result from tax-exempt, private funding via an economic stimulator such as the Urban Development Corporation or an Industrial Development Agency. Fast tracking would be initiated by the town, county and state by speeding up the permitting process. A viable site has become available, advanced technology will provide shortened travel time, and private financing is feasible. The time is right for the development of a high speed ferry service from Shoreham to New Haven. 18 ~xcer~t: Proposal for Develoomenc and Opera~io~ of High Speed Ferr~ Service Compatibility of Shoreham Terminal Site With Power Plant: The exISting Inlet of the Shoreham site will be enlarged into a turning basin to facilitate :e:minal operation and provide a protected haven for maneuvering of the vessel. Surface effect vessels (SES) cause little or no wake and turbidity is greatly reduced by water jet propulsion, therefore, there will be minimal effect on water quality in the turning basin. The water intake for the anticipated continued Operatio1l of the power plant will not be affected by the use of the proposed SES vessel. Access and egress to and from the terminal will by-pass the plant and its main entrance and, therefore, will not interfere with the anticipated continued operation of the power facility. Consiscency of New Haven Terminal Site Wit/I Existing Harbor Developmenr The New Haven site expands on an existing operating shore facility. Development of the site will be an upgrade to existing conditions. Impact on Surrounding Environmenr The New Haven site is presently an active terminal handling several hundred trucks each day. Development of the ferry terminal facility will have little effect on present traffic or possibly reduce truck traffic in the immediate area. The continued commercIal use of the site will minimize any impact to the surrounding environment. The Shoreham site has been undergoing major construction and alterations for the past twenty years. The site has been exposed to considerably more heavy construction equipment. noise pollution, etc. as a result of the present activity than it will be by the proposed development and operation of a ferry terminal site. The permit process has been designed to address such impacts. Our design team includes services of experts in this area who will carry the permitting through the design and development phases. The anticipated permit requirements are listed below: 16 Proposal Excerpt P.l ^RMY (,ORI'S 01' ENGINI'ERS PERMIT Cor d.edSinS. bJeakwale. and/or grOIn c~lcnston$. dockinB facilities. shoreline and interface fDCililics including hulkheading pi1in8 3nd similar ilcli\'ilies. As part of the process sisler I:cdcral/\gcnci&:s including lhe Environmental Protection Agency, Unilcd Slalcs fish &. Wildlife Service and the United Slates Fisheries Service will be part orlhe rCBulalory review and pennining; proccssaoo Ihe NEPA process must be satisfied Pennil Co. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FOR CONSJRUC nON ACllVITIES iflhe silc is In acres or larger IHlEII^" CT TKAHIC COMMISSION: Permit required for parking and traffic of more than 200 cars. NEW YORK STATE: DEPARTMENT OF STATE: US. CO^ST l1lJ^RD PERMIT roo nO\'igalionallish1ins. A TOMIC ENERGY MlENCY . PERMIT. DE^CTIV A TION OF THE NUCl.E^R roWER P1.ANT CORE REACTOR While Ihis is normally the responsibility urlhe site owner .nd operalor, lhe chanae Dr use oflhe in-waler Ufell and upland may involve a deaclivalion aulhorizalion and working wilh Ihe Agency "sarding exisling pennit cunl.Jilions as wellDS pUlcnlial new pcnnils. COASTAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION: Co. d.edsing. breakwaler and/or groin exlcnsions,l.Jocking facililies, shoreline interface facililies including bulkhcading piling and similar aClivities. DEPARTMENT 01' ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONNECTICUT: PERMIT for dredging, breakwater andlor groin exlensions, dockinB facililics, shoreline inlerface facilities including bulkheading piling and similar aClivilies including a WATER QII^IITY CI:RTII'IC^TE STATE: '" 11 o '" o Ul PI ..... CT DEMRTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: !;l n III .a rt COASTAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION .s well.. PERMIT(s) for dredging, wave allenualion,l.Jockina facililies, shoreline interface facililies includina bull,;hcading piling and similar ilctivilics along with a W ^ TER Q\l^IITY CERTIFIC^ TE In the evenl of upland disposal of dredged malcnals, the NYSDEC will have 10 include sume '" In Ihe event of upland or in.water (wilhin CT Tenllori.1 Walen) disposal oC d.edsed male.ials. Ihe CTDEP will have 10 mclude same alung wilh a W ^ rER QlJAI.ITY CmrlFIC ^ 1'1' The NYSDEC will also have to include approval for any in upland construction activities within 100 feel of the shoreline if such activities are at an elevation less Ihan 10 NGVn unless there is a lawfully man made stnu:lurc (~m;h as a functional bulkhead, \\lull groin constructed prior In 8120/77 ) . N " " ~-----.------ -.---- -- ---. ~ '" t1 o '" o .. III I-' Ii' " II t1 '" rt '" ... PERMIT for STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES .fthe sile is 10 acres or I;u~cr willcmng. rUiuJ btuldmg aoJ/ur rchUlltJlIlg. OldL:4IM1C sc\~agc capaclly ;JIIJ :iallllOlry 1111.:111111':::' CITY 01' NLW III< VLN TOWN OF BROOKHA VEN: Exact rcquiremcnls are not known lInld ,he scupe ofllle PIOJCf.:1 has been dCII:nnmc:d. However. on a prchnun:Jry bitslS, accnrding 10 Zoning Director Phillip UIII.Jm: urahe Clly Plan Ollicc Ihe: folluwing approvals may be alltl arc comldcrcd 10 prubahl}' be rCljulrcd Exact requiremenls are nol known untillhc scope orlhe prOjcCI has been determined. However, on. preliminary basis, according 10 Commissioner Carole SWick of Planning and [nviromncnlal Dcvclopmcnllhc lollowlnC approvOils may be and are conSidered 10 probably be required: Zoning Change: liom Ihe lJoard 01' Alderman Planning Commission. Coaslal Sile Plan Review 'Iarhor Commission. Review ami RCl:UUlmClUlalions WETLANDS PERMIT for the in-water ood shoreline interface: activities includina the dredgina. breakwater and/or groin exrensions, docking facililies, bulk heading pilioS and similar activities. II is anticipated Ihat a fuUl::nvlronnu:nlallmpacl Slatc:menl will Ix: reqUired thai will a~d.rcss all the features dist:ussetl above alnny with certain speeilics In Ihe Cily urNew Ilavelllhal \..'uul~ probably inclu~e either a change in Ihe pcmlule~ uses ofa zonint: change or both sim;e ~XISlilll:;, zoninl:;, laws arc silenl regar~lng fen)' scrvll.:es in the harbor A~dilional cOllsi~cralion Ii.n Ihe I)'pe of lune Ihal wouM be deemed .IPPWllfi,lte sllL:h as a Mixed Planned Development Dlslrict or a Slale ~IIIIIICIII;llllbllllelllk\,,,-'ltllllllellt ,\,1.11111111..1 consideralton lIIust be given Iu IralJil.: IIIlerms uf Ihe replaeemenl oflhe Que IIndge, L-apacilY all~ tranie conflicls as well as obtilllling II SUle Trame Commisslun PermU due In Ihe creallun nfparklllg antllrallie lilr mOle limn 2110 ",dudes The Planning Comnll::isiun rel.Julrcs bulh a prdllUlnary Conceptual Approval and bier a DclallcJ .\ppro\lal under Iheir (\);Islal SlIe Ilbll He...lew SITE PLAN APPROVAL from the PLANNING BOARD incl"'inl Ihc: possibili!)' 0'" PUD MASTER PLAN APPROVAL VARIANCES and/or Special Pemilliom Ihc: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN BOARD for any needed zoninl chao.... As pan oflhe approval process within Ihe Town and New York S..le SEQR (the S.... Enyoronmcnial Qual.!)' Reyiew Act) will have to be complied wilh which will require the dClcnninalion ofa lead agency. coordinalion uf all NYS involved agencies, Ihe preparalion ofbom a l.ung I=onn Environmental Assessment Fann and a comprehensive Environmenlallmpacl Slaternent which will have to address the impacts of all of the proposed aClivilies as slilh=d ahu\lc a~ well as adJre~sinH Irunie. fUl1tl improvements including signalization, eXlcnsiuns, 20 19 APPENDIX Bibliography, Long Island Sound Ferry Studies Synopsis: crossina the Sound, Tri State Regional Planning Commission, 1975 Excerpt: Crossina the Sound, Tri State Regional Planning Commission, 1975, pp. 40-46. Synopsis: LI Sound Ferrv Service Imorovement StudY, NYS and CT Department of Transportation, 1981 Excerpt: LI Sound Ferrv Service Imorovement studY, NYS and CT Department of Transportation, 1981, pp. 8-9. Jamesport Site location map MEMORANDUM, November 5, 1993 Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Traffic Control and Engineering Division Zoning Map - Shoreham site and Surrounding Area, Town of Brookhaven and Town of Riverhead Excerpt: Prooosal for Develooment and Ooeration of Hiah Sneed Ferrv Service, Long Island Sound Shuttle Limited Partnership, 1993, pp. 16-20. 19 Bibliography: A~enc': Tri State RPC Tri State RPC Tri State RPC Tri State RPC Tri State RPC NYSDOT NYSDOT NYSDOT NYSDOT NYSDOT CONNDOT NYSDOT LIRPB SCDPW McLean Assoc. PANY&NJ Long Island Sound Ferry Studies ~ ~ L.I. Sound Ferry Study - Preliminary Waterways Assessment Sept/74 15 Potential Ferrv Routes Shortest time - Pt. Washington/Rye Sunken Meadow State Park/Sherwood Island State Park East Marion/Fenwick East Marion/Saybrook Point L.I. Sound Ferry Study - Land Access Feasibility Report 5 Site Evaluation Cost Alternatiaves L.I. Sound Ferry Service - An Economic Analysis of Ferry Service Across L.I. Sound 10 Possible Crossings East Marion/Fenwick Lowest Cost Crossing the Sound 9 Route Evalautions New Haven/Wading River, Centerville/Guilford L.I. Sound Ferry Study - Technical Supplement L.I. Sound Bridge Study - Vol XII - Ferry Service Old Saybrook/East Marion L.I. Sound Ferry Service Improved Study 7 Site Evaluations L.I. Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study - Environmental Considerations L.I. Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study - Summarv of Findings 7 Site Evaluations June/75 June/75 Dec/75 May/76 Dec/79 Dec/80 Jan/81 Feb/81 L.I. Sound Ferry Improvement Study Apr/81 8 Site Evaluations Improvements to Pt. Jefferson/Bridgeport & Orient Point/ New London Study New Haven/Shoreham L.I. Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study - Conclusions of the Policy Advisory Committee Members L.I. Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Shore ham/New Haven Support Ferry Study Shoreham Recommendations Town of Brookhaven Transportation Plan LILCO Site Recommendation Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study Feasible with Deficit Apr/81 Jan/90 Nov/90 Mar/91 Mar/91 /: Tri-State Regional Planning SYNOPSIS: Crosslna the Sound, Commission, 1975 The cross-Sound bridge option has been virtually eliminated by local opposition and lack of appropriate sites, but the transporta- tion need is still unmet. A new ferry would ease the difficulty of travel across the Sound at a much lower construction cost than a bridge. The 1975 Study evaluated the following factors, for each of the eleven potential sites: 1. Potential economic performance 2. Highway access, impact and feasibility 3. Shoreline site access, impact and feasibility 4. Terminal location and construction impact and feasibility 5. Overall feasibility The results, with 17-knot, 100-vehicle vessels carrying 500,000 vehicles per year, are as follows: Crossina Overall Feasibilitv Ratina 1- 2. 3. 4. 5. Lloyd Point-Stamford Sunken Meadow-Sherwood Point Port Jefferson-Bridgeport (current) Port Jefferson-Bridgeport (Fayerweather IS.) Wading River (Shoreham)-New Haven Poor Very Poor Fair * Very Poor Fair * 1975 Synopsis. P.l 6. Wading River (Shoreham)-East Haven Fair * 7. Centerville (Baiting HOllow)-Guilford Fair * 8. Hashamock Beach (Southold)-Westbrook Poor 9. Greenport-New London Poor 10. East Marion-Saybrook Point Poor 11- Orient Point-New London Good * * - Feasible Based on this analysis, no clearly desirable sites emerged for large-scale ferry service. Using lOO-vehicle capacity vessels, only the East Marion-Saybrook Point route shows projected revenues which are greater than costs. Unfortunately, the most attractive sites from an economic point of view have severe problems with feasibility of land access and the environmental impact of ferry terminals. The crossings on the North Fork were determined to have the highest potential savings for travelers. In Port Jefferson, major improvements would have to be made to accommodate a ferry serving just 200,000 vehicles per year. Port Jefferson's roads could not tolerate the 200,000 or more vehicles which would use a major ferry service. For the Sunken Meadow-Sherwood Point sites, land access is not feasible on the Connecticut side. There is good highway access to Sunken Meadow via the Sunken Meadow State Parkway, but very poor site access due to the presence of state parks on the Long Island and Connecticut sides. 1975 Synopsis. P.2 The worst: feature of the potential Shoreham crossings was their potential economic performance. The highest land access costs, exclusive of land acquisition, exist in the following locations: East Marion-Saybrook, orient Point-New London, Port Jefferson-Bridgeport, Wading River (Shoreham)-New Haven, and Sunken Meadow-Sherwood Point. Minimal additional increases in population and employment from a new 17-knot ferry (generally less than 1% in 30 years). were projected. Use of the ferry for commuting to work is not likely in large numbers because of the costs and time involved. The ferry would cause only a slight (less than 2%) reduction in travel on the Throgs Neck and Whitestone bridges. The ferry service would reduce fuel use and air pollution emissions slightly. A high-speed ship and Hovercraft would add to fuel and emissions because they would burn considerably more fuel per vehicle than it takes to drive around the Sound. The most significant environmental impact of the ferry is the traffic that will be generated on local access roads. Also, some limited services to travelers might develop at the terminal sites themselves. A possible alternative to a new ferry site is to improve service on the two existing ferry lines, possibly with the help of the states. 1975 Synopsis. P.3 Excerpts :.ro~ ~rOSSi!12 T~:e Sound. 1973 (T=i-State :.{el!ional ~l.:lnning Commission) IV SITE-BY-SITE .~~ALYSIS =1e econo:ic performance of each of the ferry services was sucmarized :rr .~;les :~a and IXb. A decision on implementing ferry service must also take :~e following other factors into account: 1) Highway Access, Impact and Feasibility--Impact of ferry 1 traffic on local roads, and feasibility of making needed improvements. Z) Site Access, Impact and Feasibility-Problems involved in providing access from the local roads to the shoreline. 3) Terminal Location and Construction Impact and Feasibility. 4) Overall Feasibility. SIn: tv ALUATION: Stamford - Lloyd Pt. 500,000 Vehicles per Year - by 100-Vehicle Vessels CR!::?IA RAU:>G REASON Economic ?e~formance POOR Benefits ~ costs - .703 Impact 0. Feasibility of: High'..ay Access POOR Tbe Long Island site is located far from major highways. Extensive improvements would have to be made. Site access FAIR No detailed study has been made. Ter::rral Location & Construct:':::. VERY POOR The harbor in Stamford is too narrow for the use of large ferry vessels. Extensive interference with local boating would occur in Lloyd Harbor. Overall Feasibility POOR 40 1975 Excerpts, P.1 SIn: :::v,u.UAIIO:\,: Sunken iieadow - Sherwood Pt. 500,000 Vehi~les per year - 100-Vehi~le Vessels CRL.:.:.L\ RAn~G REASON E~ono~~ ?erforman~e FAIR Benefits - Costs - .806 lcpa~" & Feasibility of: Highway Access GOOD Bath sites can be reached by 11m1ted access roads. 'truex. at Sunken Meadaw would have to use Route 2SA. r Site Ac~eSB VEIl.Y POOR tha term1l:1al access roads in both CC1lDIIcti- CUI: and Long IslaDd would be local:ed in Bl:ate ~arks ~r would require exeens~ve ilxcava:ion. Ter:1nal Location and Construcl:ion VERY POOR the term1l:1al sites would have to be 88:abl1shed on park laDd. Overall Feasibility VERY POOR SIn: EVALUAtION: Bridgeport (C=ent sica) - Port Jefferson 500,000 Vehicles per Year - 100-Vehicle Veseels CRI'ItRIA RAtnlG REASON Economic Performance POOR Benefits ~ COSl:s . .715 lmpac" & Feasibil1"y of: Highway Access VERY GOOD (CONN) POOR (NY) The site in Bridgeporl: is adjacenl: to 1-95 and within walking disl:ance of the bue and l:rain l:ermi.. ~ 1 Q. Local roads to PorI: Jefferson are alrJadv congested. tmprovemants are feasible but would have to overcome strong local opposition. Truck access may not be pOSSible at the currenl: site. Si"e A~~ess GOOD Modifications would have to be made to handle trucks in Bridgeporl:. Ter--1nal Location and Construcl:ion GOOD Both sites are located in nal:ural harbors. Overall Feasibility FAIR 41 1975 Excerpts, 1'.2 SI:E ~;AL:~:ION: Bridgepor" (Fayerwea"her Isl8Qd) - ?or" Jeffers~n 500,000 Vehicles per Year - lOO-Vehicle Vessel CRI:::::.!.\. RATING REASON Economic Performance POOR Benefits 4 Costs - .72 Impact & Feasibility of: Highway Access GOOD (CONN) POOR (NY) The site in Bridgeport is located near I-95. Local roads in Port Jefferson are already congested. Improvements are feasible but would have to overCDlllll local opposition. Site Access POOR (CONN) GOOD (NY) The Fayerweather 1s18Qd access road would have to go through part of SeaSide Park in Bridgeport. Terminal Location and Construction VERY POOR GOOD (NY) (CONN)The Fayerweather 1s18Qd terminal would require extensive dredging in oyster bays. Operation of the terminal loTould interfere with pleasure boating. Overall Feasibility VERY POOR SIn: EVALUATION: New Haven - Wading River 500,000 Vehicles per Year - 100 Vehicle Capacity Vessel CRIInIA RATING REASON Economic Performance POOR Benefits 4 Costs - .672 Impact & Feasibility of: Highway Access VERY GOOD Easy access to 1-95 in Connecticut. Easy access to William Floyd Parkway in Long 1s18Qd. . Site Access FAIR The Long Island site is an alternate site for a nuclear power plant. This may preclude the introduction of a ferry terminal. Access is good at the New Haven site. Terminal Location and Construction FAIR A one-half mile pier would have to be built on Long Is18Qd. Overall Feasibility FAIR 42 1975 Excernts. P.3 SIn: EVALt:.;:r:::ON: East Haven - Wading River 500,000 Vehicles per Year - laO-Vehicle Vessels CRL1:.KIA RATING REASON Economic Performance FAIl!. Benefits. Costs. .822 IlII;lacl: 50 Feasibility of: High....ay Access GOOD Improvements to local roads ....ould be required in East Haven. Easy acc:ua to William Floyd Parlalay on Lang Ialazui. Site Access FAIl!. The Long Island site is an alternate site for a nuclear paver plant. 'rhia may preclude tbe inl:roaucl:ion of a ferry t,......~~"'l!, I Terminal Location & COllStruction FAIl!. A one-half mile pier would have to b. built on Long Island. Overall Feasibility FAD. SIn: EVALUATION: Guilford -Centerv1ll11 SOO,OOO Vehicles per Year - laO-Vehicle Vessels CRI'1'tRIA RATI~:G REASON Economic Performance FAIR Benefits ~ Costs. .925 Impact 50 Feasibility of: High....ay Access POOR Eztansive ilIlprcvemenl:s ....ould have to be made to roads in residential areas on SachBIII Head in COllnecticul:. , Site Access GOOD No particular problems were apparent. Terminal Location and Construction FAIl!. A 600-foot pier would have to be built in Connecticut and a l400-foot pier on Long Island. Overall Feasibility FAIl!. 43 1975 Excerpts, P.4 SITE EVALUATIO~: Westbrook - Hashamock Beach 500,000 Vehicles per Year - lOa-Vehicle Vessels CRITERIA RATING REASON Economic Performance GOOD Benefits ~ Costs - 1.394 Impact & Feasibility of: Highway Access POOR Road improvements would have to be made through dense residential development in Connecticut. Site Access FAIR 'QIe shoreline is used for bathing in ~.nnecticut and New York. Terminal Location and Cons truc tion POOR A 900-foot pier would have to be built in Connecticut in an area of heavy pleasure boating. Overall Feasibility POOR SITE EVALUATION: New London - Greenport SOO,OOO Vehicles per Year - 100-Vehicle Vessels CRITERIA RATING REASON Economic Performance POOR Benefits Costs .. .706 Impact & Feasibility of: Highway Access GOOD (CONN) POOR (NY) Extensive highway improvements are required to handle ferry traffir. over 200,000 vehicles oer year. Site Access GOOD ~~ problems are apparent. Terminal Location and Construction GOOD No problems are apparent. Overall Feasibility POOR 44 1975 Excerpts, P.5 SIn: ZVALt'Arrm:: Saybrook Pt. - East lIarien 500,000 Vehi~es per Year - 100-Vehi~1e Vessel CRI1'!RI.\. RATING REASON Economi: ?erformance GOOD Benefits ~ Costs. 1.216 IlIlpa~t :. :easibllity of: Highvay .~cceS8 GOOD Extensive imprcv_u ":Jould have eo be made on the North Fork to h....oil. ferry traffic of over 500,000 vehicles per year. Site A~cess VERY POOR At Saybrook Pt. in COmlecticut a caua_ way would have to be built through lazId" protected by the establishment of the Coa:ecti~ut River Gateway Zone. Terminal l.ocatien & COt1Str::::tien VERY POOll 'rha term1nal facility would. have . streng visual impact on lazId i....)ml.d. for preservation in the Couaecticut liver Gataway Zone. Overall :easibility POOR SIn: EVALUAnO::: New Lond.en - Orient Pt. 500,000 Vehicles per Year - lOa-Vehicle Vessels CRI1'!RIA RATING REASON Economic ?erformance FAIR Benefits ~ Costs - .929 Impact & :easibility of: Highvay Ac~eSB GOOD Good. ac~ess" to I-95 in Connecticut. Il1gbway 1lllprovementB would. have to be mad.e on the North Fork to hand.le ferry traffic of over 500,000 vehicles per year. No problems anticipated. at either site. Ferry terminals have been established. at both sites. Site Access GOOD Terminal r.ccaticn and ConBtru~tion GOOD Overall :easibility GOOD 45 1975 Excerpts, P.6 ~ '" . OVERALL EVALUATION OF FERRY SERVICE 500,000 Vehicle Service - using 100-Vehicle Vessels IMPACT AND FEASIBILITY ECONOMIC HIGHWAY SITE TERMINAL OVERALL PERFORMANCE ACCESS ACCESS LOCATION FEASIBII.ITY S T A"FrIA'" -ll fly 0 PT - Poor Poor Fair Very Poor .. Poor SU~IK PI "EAI)- SIlWfJ PT. - Fair Good Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor .,FFF I CURR"'",' - . Poor Fair Good Good Fair RPI - PT PT JE,F F-RPr 'F'WTHR 1 S.II- Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor NEW "AVFN-,jAOI'lr, RIVER - Poor Very Good Fair Fair Poor FAST IlAVFN-IIAOrNr. RIVF" - Fair Good Fair Fair Fair l- . . r,UILFnoO-rF~rEAvILlF - Fair Poor Good Fair Fair WI'S T flAK HRQ-HASH4'lOHUC( - Good Fair Very Poor Very Poor Poor NEil LONOfl~-GAEENPORT - Poor Poor Good Good Poor f ASI "AIIIO'l-S AYBI{OOI( PT.- Good Good Very Poor Very Poor Poor NEW LONOO'l-OR lENT PT. - Fair Good Good Good Good , TABLE XI - '" ..., l.n '" X n l1> " d rt III ." ..., SYNOPSIS: L.I. Sound Ferrv Service Imorovement Studv, NYS and CT DOT, 1981 The major alternatives for ferry service corridors and terminal locations have been widely established over decades of cross-Sound transportation improvement studies, and by the geographic location of natural harbors, urban concentrations, and on-land facilities already in place. All major potential cross- Sound ferry service corridor and terminal location alternatives were identified and examined for this study. Little public support or technical evidence has been found in favor of the corridor alternatives to the west of Port Jefferson- Bridgeport. Those western alternatives could also significantly and adversely impact the present locally supported private Port Jefferson ferry service. No location clearly emerged on all counts as the most desirable alternative to pursue. However, of those alternatives, the Shoreham-New Haven crossing appears to offer the most promise (p.24). Its terminal locations have the best land access connections of all alternatives identified. This is an important factor in providing services for trucks, and for the need to consider shifting a portion of longer range and potentially much greater cross-sound vehicle and truck travel away from the existing cross-Sound service locations to avoid possibly significant adverse environmental or community impacts. But this corridor is the longest and potentially one of the most expensive to implement. The investment required for a "major improvement" in cross- 1981 Synopsis. P.l -:d Sound ferry services would equal 6.67 percent of the average estimates of investment required for a new bridge. Cross-Sound ferry services at this time are a matter of primarily private sector concern and ini tiati ve. Formal public invol vement is essentially limited to federal safety and operating authority controls, and to general governmental concern with such matters as traffic control, municipal harbor facilities and the environment, principally regarding dredging. The two State Departments of Transportation, together with local officials, should provide technical assistance and serve evaluation and coordination roles in the ferry project. A combination of crossing locations - especially with a possible third centrally located service - will provide the best potential for service improvements and traveler and economic benefits. The two existing crossing corridors appear best to meet the overall study objectives of economic feasibility and broad local support. still, study forecasts indicate that the additional overall regional cross-Sound travel demand can be served conveniently, and in some cases with a positive revenue-cost relationship, by a set of three rather than two ferry services. The user demand, cost, and revenue estimates developed by this study are generally encouraging for the private sector to take the initiative in cross-Sound ferry service improvements, financing, and operations. 1981 Synopsis, P.2 Excerpts From Long Island Sound Ferrv Service Improvement Study, 1981 (NYS & CT DOT) I. Orient Point-New Lonlion 2. Pen Jefferson-Bric1geport 3. Gr=port-New Lolllion 4. SW1k= Meac1ow-Bric1gepen S. Huntington Bay-Norwalk 6. Ori=t Point-Old Saybrook 7. East MarionlOrie:1t-Old Saybroolc (North Cove) 8. East MarionlOri=t-Old Saybrook (Ferry Point) 9. Shoreham-New Haven 10. Shoreham-East Haven (Lighthouse Pt.) 11. Shoreb.am-West Haven Con, usage, and revenue estimates associated with each of these cross-Sound ferry service corridor.terminal alternatives are given in subse- quent sec:ions of this report. Other sigllifi= consideratiollS and srwiy findings, including evidence of local or public SUppOrt for each of these corridor alt=3%ives, may be summarized as follows: . 1. Orient Point-New London: These termmi of the princi.,ar existing cross-Sound ferry service corridor have harbor and land ac- cess i~Jities generally adequate ior major service and usage in=es, and enjoy loc:ti support ior =t and l:."tpaCded service. Parlcing and staging ar= and passenger terminals are available, and = be readily Uilancied. ~linimum. if any, community or enviro=ental impacts are I:.'tPec".ed to be associated with service or iacilitY im- provements. Corridor c:ossing ciistance is about 14 nautical miles. with relatively little in-harbor mal1e'.1VerU1g and related tl'3.vel time penalties. 2. POrt J effe,t'soQ.Bridgeport: Also termini of existing ferry service (if only seasonal of 1imite:i capacity), harbor areas are ade. quate. but dock. parldng and S".agU::g. cd immediate land ac= iacilities require im- prove:n=ts beiore they = handle e'Ien moderate ca12acity and service im- prove:nents. This is partic-.1lariy trUe for use by heavy commercial trUcks at BridgepOrt. wl1ere the existing ferry ter- minal is adjac= to train and bus naaollS and the Conn=--..C".1t Turn.,ike. F:w if any community or othe: impacts are ~ecte:i to a=mpany se:vice and usage increases or careiuIly designe:i improvements. Local suppOrt for service UilansiollS is evident, including support, CSl'ecially in Bridgeport. for heavy comme:cial truck capacitY now lacIting. Cotridor crossing distance is jun over 12 nautical miles. but speed penalties for in-harbor operation are encountered at both t=mini. 3. Green.,ort-New London: The Mascony Ferry and Tra.lISilort Com.,any Inc. has proposed to Cl'C'ate on this cross-Sound corridor. wbich is longest of the alter- Datives ,"".,,";"= in terms of crossing diVtlnro: (almOst 20 nautical miles). That company has not pined a terminal site or smerallocal SUppOrt at Greenport. where in-harbor speed delays and pot=tial con- t1icts with the Shelter Island Ferry would be encountered. 8 1981 Excerpts, P.l J.. Sunke:l Meadow-Bridge;:ort: A new har- bor. or haif-..me: off-shore: trestle:. as well as ter::limti and parking facilities. wouid be: required at Sunken Mead.ow, which :s a major seashore re..eation and park facili- tY. Automobile ac= is good. but ac:ess for !l=.vy :0==-'..:.1 =:ks wouid be :iii- ficmt and! or :irt:-.Iitous at beth te.-;"i. Ther: is no evide:lce of local suppor. at Sunken Meadow, and major service facilities and operations would be =x;:e::ed to have significant cmuptive and en- viro===.:aJ. :cpac:s. Corr.dor c:'ossin" . " distance wouid be slightly more than 13 nautiQ[ miles but. with an off-shore trestle at Sunken Me:adow. cembined in-harbor time pe:-.aities would be lessened. 5. Huntin;:on-Norwalk: Probably the most western c:'oss-Sounti corridor that couid support fe.'Tf service, even with fast vessels, due to proxiI::ir:y to e:cisting bridges, these termini present major harbor development or operations problems and probable in- harbor spe::i delays, especially at Norwalk. Harbor. terminal. and land access im- provements would be required at both ter- mini and could be expec:ed to have signifi- cant co=unir:y and environmental im- pacts. partic:1larly from extensive dredging requirements at both termini and from a 1/3-1/2 mile pier at Huntington. Corridor crossing distance is somewhat less than 10 nautical miles. exclusive of in-harbor operations. There is some evidence of sup- port at Norwalk. but little co none at Hun- tington. 6- East MarionlOrient-Qld Saybrook (North 8. Cove. Ferry Point), and Orient Point.Old Saybrcok: The fint twO of these cross- Sound corridor alternatives would offer by far the shortest corridor crossing distance, at 71/2 miles (and thus m;";,.,,i..,= time and operating cost per tri;l), but, as with the last above corridor alternative, would require the creation of new harbor, terminal. and land ac= facilities (on the Long island side), and these plus dre::!ging and in- harbor time pe:lalties for Old Saybrook ter- minus. Significant e:lvironme:lw iI::1paC"..s could be expected at all llew te:::ninal- harbor fac'Jities_ None of these c:'ossing- corridor alternatives are sup pOrte:: locally. and opposition co a fer="J ope.ooation a.'1d facilities at all !lote:ltial Old Saybrook sites is very s::-ong. 9- Shoreham - New Haven. West Haven, 11. East Have:l (Lighthouse P':li:lt): Tnese sets of cross-Sound corridor alter""..atives 'Nouid have the longest corridor c:'ossing distances (16 to almOSt 19 nautical miles) of any alternatives srudied exc::pt for Gr=;:or.- New London. Some dredging and traffic im;lt"Ove:::==.ts would be required for the Connec:iC'.lt sites, and an en:'.r:!y new har- ber or 1/2 mile-long pier, t:::minai. and im- meCiate land access facilities wouid be ne::ied. at Shoreham. Possibly significant environmental impacts may be associated. with such im;lrovements. There is local SU;lport for the New Haven t=inalloca. lion. which would have very good access to Interstate highways. There is both strong seneral business sU;lport ana signifi=t local opposition to the Shoreham terminal sites, which could have very good access to major highways. 9 Jamesport Site .....' \ .; .... ..... ,; ~'\\~ \ -". co ./ ;\ ,~(/ c'. SUFFOLK COUlrTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Traf:ic Control and Engineering Division MEMORANDUM .' " ~ u ,~ November 5, 1993 '. u . iiiJ: !;,;.' . TO: Steve Jones, Director of Planning FROM: Matthew T. Rankel, P.E., Director of Traffic Safety RE: TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON WILLIAM FLOID PARlIHAY, CR 46 The following Table indicates 1992 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) on William Floyd Parkway from the LIE north to Route 25A. Peak hour volumes are also included. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM PEAK PM PEAK ON CR 46 1992 AADT NB SB NB SB between north C-D and Longwood Rd. 25,100 946 913 1050 961 Longwood Rd. to Rte. 25 15,400 447 899 755 415 Rte. 25 to Rte. 25A 9,600 353 626 552 377 We estimate capacity on CR 46 (LOS E) to be 2400 vehicles per hour (vph) per direction. Therefore, there is significant reserve capacity over existing volumes. While North Shore Properties will add substantial volumes to CR 46 as its developed, we would expect appropriate "mitigation measures to accommodate the additional generation. Should you require any additional information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. 1:~~" By: MTR:RCM:dpr p;-:- r:::-; ::: ~ mIl m1I2 =-co:':-nl':!:: ~ - I j:I€~lCENCE : - 2 R€SICENCE ~ - 5 PESIOENCE - - 10 RESIDENCE 3 - t j:I _ F=:SIDENCE ~. RES!OEtl:::E . ~_l I:I~':'CE~'':E illm!:l rnEL: I (POCf 1++ +1 KI:. ~ - Zoning ~a? LEGEND - Town ' MF _ Z R' ot Brookhaven SIDEUCE NH RESIOEW" mJI .. ~ PRC RESIDENCE ~ I( BUSINESS .. J BUSINESS ~ J - I eUSINESS ~ J~2 eUSINESS ~ ..,.,..." J ~ 3 BUSINESS J .. BUSINESS J -5 BUSINESS J -6 eUSINEcS ~ - I I NOUST~Y _ -4 INOUST"CIY 2-al-No DE '"lea VEL.OPMEIlT RPORATE~ VILLAGE Town of '<i ~ _""_' -=- verhead ~_.........,.. ~ :;;;;-~ ..-. - =-- iin!!" _. ' -. """,,1 -~ ~ ;:""_ ~ _. 7777:__ ~n_ ~ ,~ -_.-:~ ~ ii5!.L - ..., - --.: -. ~_. ~-= .-;::"-::::::- E;::: t - -, ~ 1 -~ \) > =<' I , .~, ) ( In ( '5' ~''''''~''''':'I;'''''''' I""" I ." ~. '- j " /;-' I .' ,/ f':' ) <, -. ~~cer~r: Pronosal cor Develonment and Onerario~ or High Sneed Ferr\' Service Companbiliry of Shoreitam Terminal Site With Power Plant: , The eXIsting mlet of the Shorenam site will be eniarsreci into a turning basin to facilitate :erminal operanon and provide a protected haven for maneuvering of the vessel. Surface effect vessels (SES) cause little or no wake and turbidity is greatly reduced by water Jet propulsion, therefore, there will be minimal effect on water quality In the turning basin. The water intake for the anticipated continued operari~n of the power plant will not be affected by the use of the proposed SES vessel. Access and egress to and from the terminal will by-pass the plant and its main entrance and, theretore, will not interfere with the anticipated continued operation of the power facility. Consisrency of New Haven Terminal Site Wit/J Existing Harbor Developmenr: The New Haven site expands on an existing operating shore facility. Development of the site will be an upgrade to existing conditions. Impact on Surrounding Environmenr: The New Haven site is presently an active terminal handling several hundred trucks each day. Development of the ferry terminal facility will have little effect on present traffic or possibly reduce truck traffic in the immediate area. The continued commercIal use of the site will minimize any impact to the surrounding environment. The Shoreham site has been undergOing major construction and alterations for the past twenty years. The site has been exposed to considerably more heavy construction equipment. noise pollution, etc. as a result of the present activity than it will be by the proposed development and operation of a ferry terminal site. The permit process has been designed to address such impaCts. Our design team includes services of experts in this area who will carry the permitting through the design and development phases. The anticipated permit requirements are listed below: Proposal Excerpt P.l 16 . ! ARMY l"ORI'S 01' F.NGlNF.F.RS rF.RMIT for dredgin8. breakwaler and/or groin extensions. docking facilities. shoreline and inlenact facilities including bulkheading piling :and similar activities. As pan of the process sisler J:cdcral Agencies including the Environmcnlal Protection Agency, United Slales Fish &. Wildlife Service Bnd the United Slates Fisheries Service will be pan orahe resulalory review and pennininB process aoo the NEPA process must be satisfied. Pennil for STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES iflhc sile is 10 acres or larger IHJEIM!.. CT TRAFFIC COMMISSION: Permit required for parking and traffic of more than 200 cars. NEW YORK STATE: us. COAST GlIARD PERMIT tilr n:l\'ig3Iionallighting. DEPARTMENT OF STATE: ATOMIC I'NF.RGY AGENCY. PERMIT - DEACTIVATION OF THE NUCI.F.AR POWER PlANT CORE REACTOR While Ibi. i. nonnalty the resp<Hlsibility of the site owner and operator, the change or use of the in-waler urea and upland may involve a deaclivation aulhorizalion and workinS wilh Ihe ^sency regardins exislins pennil condilions us well os pOlenlial new pennils. COASTAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION: for dredgin8. breakwaler and/or groin eXlensions, dockins facilities, shoreline interface facilities including bulkheading piling and similar aelivilies. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: CONNECTICUT: PERMIT for dredging, breakwater and/or groin extensions, docking facililies, shoreline inlcrface fseililies including bulkheading piling and similar &clivilies including a WATER Ql1ALlTY CERTIFICATE STATE: d 1 ) j' ) , , ~ CT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: " ~ 1 , 1 , . COASTAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION as well.. PERMIT(s) for dredgins. wave allenuslion, docking facililies, shoreline inlerface facililies including bul~heading piling and similar activities along wilh a WATER Ql1AUTY CERTIFICATE In Ihe evenl of upland disposal of dredged materials, the NYSDEC will have 10 include same, d In the event of upland or in.water (wilhin CT Terrilorial Walers) disposal of dredged malerials, Ihe CTDEP will have 10 include same along wilh a WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATE The NYSDEC will also have 10 include approval for any in upland construction aClivilies wilhin 300 feet of the shoreline if such aclivilies are at an e1evalion less than 10 NOVO unless Ihere is a lawfully man made struclure (~uch as a Cunctional bulkhead, wall groin eonSlJUcled prior to 8120177) " " II PERMIT ror STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES If the site is 10 acres or huger wulcnUl~. mad buddmg "nJ/m rdlluldmg. ,ukllllillC sc".agl.: ~araclly and S.II11IOU)' li.!.:lllll..:::. CITY or NLW IIAVLN TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN: Exact requirements are not known untillhc scope oflhe project has been detennincd. However. on a preliminary basis, according 10 Commissioner Carole Swick of Planning and [nvironmcnlul OcvclopmcI111hc liJllowlIIg approvals may be and are considered to probably be required: EXilel rcquircmcnls are nol known unllllhc scope of the pruJCCI has been dclcnnmed. Ilowcycr, on a preliminary baSIS, accnrdinc to Zoning Director Phillip BulJoc urlhe Clly Plan om!.:c Ihe followillg approvals may he and arc consldereJ lu plUb'lbly be rcqum:d WETLANDS PERMIT for ,he in-wa'er and shoreline interface activilies includina the drcdgina. breakwaler and/or groin eXlensions, docking facililies, bulkhcading piling and similar activilies. Zoning Change from Ihe Soard of Alderman Planning Commission ~ Coastal Sue Plan Rcvlew J J;.lrhor CommbsiulI - Rcview aull Reemmlll::lldations SITE PLAN APPROVAL from Ihe PLANNING BOARD Includinslhe possibility of a PUD MASTER PLAN APPROV AL It is anllcipated Ihat a lUll Environmenlallmpacl Stalement will be required thai Will address alllhe fcalures discussed ahove along with certain speeilic:> hI Ihe ell)' llf New II:lvl.:u lhat WllllIlJ prohably indtu..lc cither a chan"c in the permuted uses of a zoning change or bUlh since eXlsling zoning laws ,Ire sdelll regarding rerry servll;es 10 Ihe harhor Additional c;omillcralinn Illr Ihe type of zune Ihal would he deemed .lpplUpriale sllch a:> a Mixed Planned Dcvclopmenl Olslrict Of n Slnlc fl.hlllu.::1Ilal 1'1;111111.:11 Ik\'dullllll.:1l1 i\~hhll'"I.11 cOllsiderallOlllllu:>1 be given to trallil.: IIlleuns or Ihe replacement oflhe Que Bridge, capaCity and IratTie COnnielS as well as oblaming a Slate Trallie Commlsslllll Pcrnut Jue III thc r.:;n::almll ufpalkll1g and trallie fur more than 200 vehides The Planl1ill~ l'omI1USSiOIl requires buill OJ prdlllUnary Conceplual Approval ;)nJ Ialer a DeladeJ Approval under Iheir {'ll;I~lal Sile I'hm !tI.:VICW VARIANCES and/or Special Penm, from the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN BOARD for any needed zoning chahges. 'd ... o 'd o OJ III I-' As pan orlhe approval process wilhin the Town and New York S.... SEQR (lhe S..'e Environmen"l Quality Review Act) will have 10 be complied wilh which will require Ihe determination of ulcad ogcncy. coordinalion of all NYS involved agencies, Ihe preparation ofbolh a long Fonn Environmental Assessment Fonn and a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statemenl which will have 10 address Ihe impacts of all arlhe proposed aClivilies as staled ahuve as wetl ilS m.htres:oillH Irullie, WUII improvements incluJing signalization, extensiuns, l<' n lD ... 'd rt " '0 '" .....