The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFerry Study - Long Island SoundRECEIVED JUN 1 '11981 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTME. `gANS?ORTATION William C. Hennessy, Commissioner to 1220 Washington Avenue, State Ca, elftION ndl'ork 12232 To Persons Interested in the Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study: I am pleased to send you herewith a copy of the report Executive Summary and Recommendations, Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study. In Part I of the report you will find Commissioner Powers' and my recom- mendations to Governors Carey and O'Neill while Part II contains a summary of the conclusions and a description of the study process. I hope the information contained in the report is of value to you. If you should desire additional copies, they may be obtained by calling (518) 457-1965 or addressing a request to: Planning Division, New York State Department of Transportation, State Office Campus, Albany,NY 12232. Sincerely, W. C. HENNESS Commissioner Enclosure i STATE OF NEW YORK • EXECUTIVE CHAMBER HUGH L. CAREY, GOVERNOR Jill A. Schuker, Press Secretary 518-474-8418 212-977-2716 FOR RELEASE: SUNDAY MAY 3, 1981 GOVERNOR SEEKING IMPROVED FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT Governor Hugh L. Carey today said he will seek a major program of bi-state ferry service across Long Island Sound to further eco- nomic development opportunities on the Island in a way that is environmentally sound. He will d51S Lite Legislature tv approve nro- posals that will: -- Appropriate $10 million to guarantee private -risk capital loans to purchase new vessels and provide dock, pier and terminal improvements. -- Appropriate $1.25 million for improvements at existing ferry service terminals at Port Jefferson and Orient Point. -- Appropriate $500,000 for engineering, operation and environ- mental studies relevant to a third ferry service location. -- Authorize creation of a L.I. Sound Ferry Service Commission. -- Authorize the State Department of Transportation to coordinate efforts for ferry service improvements. The Governor's proposals are based on a DOT ferry service improvement report. The report indicates that principal improvement costs can be financed by user revenues. The report is the result of a year-long study by the transportation departments of New York and Connecticut and a bi-state Policy Advisory Committee. The report is an outgrowth of a bridge feasibility study ordered by the Governor and completed in late 1979. That study found that the high cost of a bridge connection between the two states made financing impossible. The new report recommends staged access and terminal improve- ments and the purchase of new vessels for the two existing terminals (Port Jefferson - Bridgeport and Orient Point _ New London). It also calls for the evaluation of a potential third major year-round service between Shoreham and New Haven. Governor Carey said "The report's conclusions argue persuasively for improved and expanded cross -Sound ferry services, and for private sector capabilities to maintain a dominant role i.n such services." "The proposals are practical in concept and magnitude and repre- sent the only viable alternative to improved accessibility across Long Island Sound for commercial and private: travelers alike," the Governor said. - more - - 2 - According to both States` transportation commissioners, costs to fully implement .improved ferry services could approach or exceed $100 million. The report indicates that ferry traffic could grow ten -fold or more in the next decade. Proposed year-round ferry service would provide hourly or more frequent peak season schedules using between 12 and 16 modern fuel and cost-efficient vessels. Governor Carey said his proposals give DOT " a clear mandate to make ferry service improvements." He said DOT would work with its Connecticut counterpart, local governments, commissions and private corporations to achieve the improvement -expansion goal. Both states will seek federal participation to the maximum extent possible. The proposed Commission would be made up primarily of local officials and public representatives. (rot) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION William C. Hennessy, Commissioner n �n Region 10 Office: New York State Office Building Veterans Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11787 March 10, 1981 Honorable William R. Pell Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Pell: k MAR 1 2 1981 s 10 I would like to thank you for your assistance and that of Mr. Doug Clark, Custodian, of your staff, at our Public Hearing on the Long Island Sound Ferry Study held in the Southold Town Hall on March 9, 1981. Mr. Clark is to be commended on his knowledge and cooperation regarding lighting and the public address system operation which was appreciated by our personnel in setting up and conducting this meeting. Thank you again for your interest in our transportation program and for the use of your facilities. Very tru yours, A. H= EMERY Regional Director Aud. Du:e File I" s X r: STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILLIAM C. HENNESSY, Commissioner OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 1220 Washington Ave. State Campus, Albany, N.Y. 12232 Phone (518) 457-6400-1-2 John K. Bryan Jr, - Public Relations Officer CcntacT: Jack Devine LI FERRY STUDY SUDS "3Y ISSUED* FORUMS SCHEDULED • Ecom FOR RELEASE FAls V DNESDAY FEBRUARY 18, 1981 --81-18 The New York State Department of Transportation today announced availability of a staff report, "Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study -- Summary of Findings," and invited public comment in writing or at one of two public forums scheduled by the study's Policy Advisory Committee. The first forum will be held Thursday, February 26, in Hauppauge, L.I., at the Suffolk County Executive Legislative Building north of Veterans Memorial Highway and the second will be held Monday, March 2, in New Haven, Connecticut, in t�7_e Southern New England Telephone Company auditorium at 300 George Street, North of-' Route 34 Oak Street Connector, Each session will begin promptly at 7:30 p.m. with a brief presentation of study findings to date, and a discussion by Policy Advisory Committee members of their conclusions thus far. Questions and public statements will then be solicited. The study staff's summary report now available confirms public consensus that improved ferry service is both desirable and feasible. It identifies potential economic benefits, and outlines operating and capital costs and revenue potential. The study examined types of vessels suitable for cross -Sound service and devel- oped patronage and revenue estimates for various levels of service and fares, for six new routes as well as two existing routes. Capital costs for boats, terminals and access roads were projected, along with operating costs for terminals and vessels. Possible sources of funds for improvements have been outlined. Basically, the report finds that the two existing ferry routes offer the best potential for improving service in the short run.. Several new routes could be considered over the long term, their feasibility depending on prospective costs, revenues, environmental impacts and availability of funds. Six to eight modern boats operating at each of two existing or nes^ locations would increase patronage about seven -fold. Among the economic benefits perceived, beyond the construction sti=11 us, are new sales and business opportunities that could provide 21500 additional jobs on Long Island and 1,300 jobs in Connecticut and increases in total personal income amounting to $150 million on Long Island and $60 million in Connecticut. An additional $10 million in New York State income and sales taxes could be generated by 1990. -more- -2- 0 #81-1._ Copies of the report may be obtained from; Planning Division, New York State Department of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12232, (telephone 518 - 457-2064); NYSDOT Region 10, State Office Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, L.I., NY 11787, (telephone 516 - 979-5123); or in Connecticut from the Planning & Research Bureau, Connecticut Department of Transportation, P.O. Drawer "A", 24 Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield, CT 06109, (telephone 203 - 566-5214). Public comments at the two public forums and in writing will be especially helpful to William C. Hennessy, New York State Transportation Commissioner, and Arthur Powers, Connecticut DOT Commissioner, who are expected to make specific recommendations to their respective Governors by the end of April. Comments may be submitted to Commissioner Hennessy until March 16 at the New York State Department of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12232. The Policy Advisory Committee members will present their final conclusions and advice to the Commissioners at their final meeting on March 12. Public comments should address the issues of service expansion, whether it should be made at all, whether it should be made at existing or new locations, whether ferries should be self-supporting or government subsidized, and whether service should be privately- or government -operated or some combination of the two. The current study is an outgrowth of an earlier Long island Sound bridge feasibility study, which concluded that a bridge would bring significant economic benefit:, but its very high cost would be impossible to finance. Instead, it was concluded that efforts be directed toward improvement of ferry services across the Sound. Those conclusions were concurred in by Governors Carey of New York and Garrahy of Rhode Island and the Late Governor Grasso of Connecticut. E: 1 RECEIVED iUN 12: 1 J I I I 91 86 _ I 6 52 67 I / LITCHFIELD 6 HILLS r ` HARTFORD ��' �_ ! PROVIDENCE ULSTER 3 I NORTHWESTERN CAPITOL j "S"AMNORTHEASTERN O Poughkwpsie ¢ I CENTRAL I I\ +l� DUTCHESS �_�T _�- CONNECTICUT I ll�l `- �� W � ,Y = 7 CENTRAL 84 /�j - `IQ I r Newburnh �^ —��'F I II NAUGATUCK -.s v MInSTATE 0Norwich fJl� —_ S�z II�_J VALLEY WATERBUR V, I1 ` I 11 Y52 OH95 O U S _ 11 SOUTHEASTERN IC �/ 9 ��, WASHINGTON PL'TNAM IHOUSATONIC VALLEY `\ J v 91 /'-�-�� /,-��_�-�✓� 1 ORANGEa 8' I 7A 1 DANBURV �>✓/ 1$ SOUTH CENTRAL 1� CONNECTICUT G 1 _ 1 ,y L RIVER Er,O��C New LonAon ; OGroton Wnmrly 'ALLErI „£1 NEW HAVEN �.�� weem Hal 7 �� .,� r 95a V -� 6REAL11 ♦ v '1 0 Q BRII)GFPORr � -. Guilford Old Saybrool �Ly ©� Fishers Island 67 WESrCHESTF `,� \ 1 Ee Haven95 = O r / s BRIDGEPORT }r / ,,jj - ROCKLAN.1 m PaPKWpi-71, F SQLvD ••. Po ntd j,Clum is/and t • sOG'EMwFsrtl<, r , = G..zn:�, ♦ , LJ t East Marlon \ I MEP 7ufiryv�xE1 AVD / •r / � ,y !V � \\ C �t }� ; •� O (SL' � Green ..,,u.r,••",f' CJ(�\\�� )�)� NORWALK S It ✓Fjjs,Fk x9 297 \\ ` O_ TAMFORDiOA �i . Snnrenem: � 25 � ' I I 9 y^ 5 nken \ Po Jefferson rl�ver;,eatl '✓� /1 67 Meadow l• 25A / 27 NEW RO(3HELLE/ 112 J r 1 25A 25 24 1: .� 180 �LIS O;•.aer aaroascrpou B, 25A a 25 347 r ._— / � 495 Pneswr .�T��✓'" O I- _-L-ND SOUND FERRY SERVICE IMPRCb �.a`,E 280 /454 POS"iRIP LONG kSL AND TO NEW ENGLAND cRDSSiN` `u 1SLY HUnSON 9 Y 495 Existing Ferry Routes 78 .......... Possible Ferry Crossings ` 67$ 11101{ X27 / 1\ Huntington Bay- Norwalk CI East Marion/Orient -Old Saybrook U F )c[ 4 ¢F ! © 278 Sunken Meadow-Bridgeport O Orient Point- Old Saybrook IC smtrte � d LAN7 n 95 EW YOATG Port Jefferson-Bridgeport O Orient Point -New London NRK CITY o s Io O Shoreham-New Haven HO Greenport-New London MILES STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arthur B. Powers, Commissioner 0 April 30, 1981 Honorable Hugh L. Carey Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Dear Governors Carey and O'Neill: 4q A 1 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION William C. Hennessy, Commissioner Honorable William A. O'Neill Governor of the State of Connecticut State Capitol Hartford, Connecticut 06115 We are pleased to be able to forward for your consideration at this time our findings and recommen- dations on a plan of action for major improvements in regularly scheduled ferry services across Long Island Sound. We believe that the conclusions outlined in our enclosed summary report argue persuasively for the desirability and financial feasibility of greatly expanded cross -Sound ferry services -- and of private sector capabilities to maintain a dominant role in such services. We are confident that our ferry service expansion proposals are practical in concept and magnitude, and capable of broad public support in Connecticut and on Long Island. We also believe that these proposals offer the only viable solution in the foreseeable future to improved accessibility across Long Island Sound for commercial and private travelers alike. Additional detailed study, negotiations and actual experience with improved services will be neces- sary to provide definitive answers to, and to implement, all aspects of our proposals -- however, it now seems clear that: potential response from all groups of users - autos, commercial trucks and passengers - can be tapped immediately and could grow in the next decade to ten or more times present usage, even at fare levels designed to recover most, and in some situations all, operating and investment costs; 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, as well as offering the service design, implementation staging and operational flexibility necessary to maximize positive, and control or avoid any negative, impacts; while the order of magnitude of investments to fully implement potentially desirable services could approach or exceed $100 million, the call on public resources need not be substantial in total, and may properly be shared among benefiting jurisdictions. Such investments both can and, as a practical matter, must be made on an incremental basis, thus providing all parties ample opportunity to make prudent decisions in the light of current information; and the best mechanisms to address evolving operations, service and investment choices are private sector operators, investors and users on the one hand, and on the other, public officials, primarily those with direct responsibilities at the local level, through cooperation between continuing organizations established in each State for that purpose. In preparing these conclusions and recommendations we have made diligent efforts to solicit the views and advice of public officials, the business community, ferry service operators here and elsewhere, and the resident public of Connecticut and Long Island. The assistance and guidance provided by the thirty-two members of this study's Policy Advisory Committee has been particu- larly helpful. We believe that these findings are very positive for the future of improved transportation between Long Island and Connecticut, and that our recommended action program can serve as the catalyst for achieving that future. Sincerely, t HENNESSYARTHUR B. POWERS ssioner Commissioner NYS Department of Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation Enclosure • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STUDY A Joint Undertaking of the Departments of Transportation of the States of New York and Connecticut APRIL 1981 PREFACE Transportation access between Long Island and New England is essentially dependent upon 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 only current transportation alternatives to those routes for travel between Long Island and points throughout New England are two long establish- ed, but also capacity -constrained, cross -Sound ferry services -- Port Jefferson -Bridgeport and Orient Point -New London. While usage of these services has been steadily increasing, they can now handle only a small fraction of current or potential cross -Sound travel. Further, only the Orient Point -New London service at the eastern end of Long Island Sound now has any capability of transporting commercial trucking. The west - central Sound routing, Port Jefferson - Bridgeport, is seasonal, operating during the late spring to early fall peak travel season. This situation has engendered a strong feeling of isolation among many individuals and businesses on Long Island. There is a widely held belief that major improvements in cross -Sound transporta- tion access would yield significant economic benefits to the residents, commercial enterprises, and communities of southern New England (primarily in Connecticut) and of Long Island (primarily Suffolk County). In response, a number of studies of new bridges or ferry services have been undertaken since the mid -sixties, each generally re -enforcing belief in the potential bene- fits of improved cross -Sound access but failing to establish clearly a course of action that is viable, financially attainable, and broadly supportable on both sides of the Sound. Each of those earlier studies had focused largely on recourse to massive public investments and had sought a single, dramatic solution. Incremental actions, multiple coordinated improvements, and the concept of public-private partnerships have been largely ig- nored. In the Spring of 1980, immediately following the most recent examination and rejection of a new cross -Sound bridge, at any location and for the foreseeable future, New York and Connecticut Governors Carey and Grasso directed their respective Departments of Transportation to in- itiate a broad, cooperative investigation of alter- native improvements in cross -Sound ferry services --services which in concept already ap- peared to have support, locally and at the state level on both sides of the Sound, and which might offer a financially viable solution to the continu- ing cross -Sound transportation access issue. The objectives of this study have been to assess the overall desirability and feasibility of major improvements in cross -Sound ferry services as transportation investments, and to develop a pro- gram of near and longer-term actions that would carry out such improvements. During the course of the study, the existing and nine alternative cross -Sound ferry locations have been examined: singly, in coordinated combinations, for two future time periods, at from four to six service levels, considering two different vessel speeds and cost profiles, and with up to four variations in fare levels for three user groups (autos, commer- cial trucks, and walking passengers). Cost estimates for vessels, harbor and land access im- provements, and day-to-day operations have been prepared, as have general estimates of energy, en- vironmental, community, and regional economy impacts. Potential financing sources, alternative levels of service and coordination of schedules, and possible public and private sector roles have also been examined. Distinguishing elements of this study have been its conservatively oriented analysis of potential travel demand and revenues, and the review and evaluation mechanisms of public forums, an informed technical task force, and an intimately involved Policy Advisory Com- mittee. The principal conclusions and recommendations of this cooperative study are presented in this report. Other study reports document technical forecasts and evaluations, the views expressed at the public forums, and the judgements of in- dividuals serving as members of the study's Policy Advisory Committee. The Connecticut and New York State Departments of Transportation wish to thank the 32 members of that Committee, and the many other individuals, groups, and agencies that have made substantial contributions to this study effort. CONTENTS Page PART I ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 1 PART II SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND STUDY PROCESS 5 PART III STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND REFERENCES .......... 27 Ifi PART I ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issues North -south access across Long Island Sound, for automobile travel, to a lesser extent for passengers, and increasingly for heavy commer- cial trucks, continues to be considered by many people (particularly residents of Long Island) as a necessary element, in fact the critical need, for continued economic growth. Others view new development associated with economic growth as not always desirable. The findings and recommendations summarized in this report focus on the transportation aspects of these issues; that is, the overall desirability and feasibility of major improvements in cross -Sound ferry services as transportation investments. Because of the multitude of potential alternatives for such service investments (in terms of loca- tions, service levels, vessel types and numbers, fares, timing, and public and private roles) and the unique nature of ferry services as part of a transportation system, the translation of this broad issue into specific addressable questions, and the interpretation of subsequent findings, must be approached with caution. Still, in a somewhat generalized form the questions are clear: • Is there reason to believe that there exists significant user demand to warrant major improvements in cross -Sound ferry services at existing and/or at alternative crossing locations? • Is there reason to believe that potential de- mand is strong enough to support fare levels sufficient to pay for the costs of such service improvements; that is, for operating costs, for vessel and terminal costs and for access improvement costs? If not, are there reasonable potentials for financing remain- ing improvement costs from other than user -revenue sources? • What combination(s) of location, vessel, terminal, service level, and fare appear to offer the best user and revenue -cost results? • Would the implementation of such service improvements have a positive impact on the economies of Long Island and Connec- ticut, and on energy consumed in cross - Sound transportation? What is the general magnitude of these impacts? • Would there be a significant impact on the physical environment and on community facilities and development? Would the im- pact be positive or negative? • Does the concept of significant improve- ment of cross -Sound ferry services have the broad support of elected state and local of- ficials, and of residents, on both sides of the Sound? Is that support evidenced for existing ferry service locations? At what, if any, other crossing corridor locations has such support been evidenced? • Can mechanisms be created to allow for a continuation of established private in- itiatives while assuring that any necessary public investments are prudent and that, together with private sector investments, they actually result in the accomplishment of identified public objectives? Positive findings have been sought and are now in Staged land access and terminal im- hand or can be put in place for effective detailing, provements and vessel acquisitions for the testing, and resolution for each of these ques- two existing Port Jefferson -Bridgeport and tions, and for the long range resolution of this Orient Point -New London services, to br- long-standing transportation issue. ing both of those services up to frequent, adequate year-round capabilities with Recommendations amenities for auto, passenger, and com- mercial truck users. This will provide a 1. The States of New York and Connecticut-- demonstration of market promotion and and their several directly benefiting demand, and an opportunity to put in place localities --should work toward a continuing bi-state, state -local, and public - cooperative policy commitment and a private working arrangements. Existing cooperative public-private program of pro- mechanisms such as the Connecticut moting major, immediate, and continuing Development Authority and local In - improvements in cross -Sound ferry services dustrial Development Authorities on Long to levels needed to serve transportation de- Island should be utilized to encourage mand in a safe, reliable, cost-effective, and private sector investment. coordinated manner. Necessary steps toward enabling legislation, bi-state and state -local arrangements, and detailed im- • Initiation of detailed engineering, opera- plementing studies, negotiations, and pro- tions, financial, and environmental studies gramming actions should be initiated im- toward implementation of a third major mediately. year-round cross -Sound ferry service routing, somewhere between New Haven While eventual future levels, types, and and Shoreham. New service in this general combinations of services cannot be stated location has the greatest number of sup - with precision at this point, year-round porters on both sides of the sound, of any ferry services on the order of hourly or location studied, and has the best land - more frequent peak -season headways, access potential of all sites studied. utilizing twelve to sixteen modern fuel and However, many residents and organiza- cost-efficient vessels and at least two cross- tions from the Shoreham -Wading River Sound routings, appear to be a fully Area opposed this site. These detailed reasonable, financially viable, and publicly studies are recommended because of the desirable target. This would represent an strong support for this location, and to increase of one or more full-service cross- provide detailed answers as to the en- ing corridors on a year-round basis, a com- vironmental engineering and operating bined service capacity increase on the order feasibility issues raised by those opposed to of 500 percent, at an estimated investment the site. The implementation and coordina- cost approaching $100 million over ten or tion of such an additional service should be more years. Improvements at this scale are dependent on positive findings of these projected to attract usage ranging from studies, and on evidence of both market eight (for autos and passengers) to fifteen response to the improvement of existing times current levels (for heavy trucks). services and a desire to initiate such a ser - These projections are at fare levels suffi- vice on the part of the private sector. A cient to support all operating and most, if third major service location could supple - not all, investment costs. ment and relieve future limitations on ser- vice expansions at existing terminal loca- 2 . The four key elements of the recommended tions, provide valuable operational flex - program should be: ibility as well as enhanced service in the central Connecticut and Suffolk County New York areas. Should this third service location be established, private operators and investors must be given the op- portunity to shift their vessels and opera- tions to meet the evolving needs. • Creation of continuing organizations, ap- propriate to each of the States, charged with responsibility, within the policies and guide -lines enunciated in these recommen- dations, for conducting the examination of a third major cross -Sound ferry service, monitoring services and usage, making ser- vice and improvement recommendations, taking the lead role in securing private and public funding for such improvements and in negotiating assistance and service agree- ments, and providing technical, service coordination and promotion assistance generally. These organizations should be composed of appointed public and private sector members, draw upon the expertness of public agencies and groups, private operators, and the business community, and provide necessary bi-state cooperation on cross -Sound ferry service matters. An important role in these organizations` should be played by responsible officials at the local level whose jurisdictions might be directly impacted and might benefit from ferry service improvement programs. • Identification of initial public funding that can serve as a catalyst for major private funding for identified improvements in ferry services and facilities. As it is ex- pected that the principal improvement costs --new vessels, ancillary equipment, and terminal amenities-- can be financed by user revenues, public funding of loan guarantees only, for these costs, is recom- mended. Additional public funding for minor access, information and space reser- vations improvements to existing ferry ser- vices, for the studies recommended for a possible third major service, and for the other direct expenses of the continuing 3 organizations proposed, will also be re- quired. All possible federal sources should be further investigated and federal funding secured, for these actions and for the fun- ding of fixed improvements for a third ferry service, should such a service be found feasible and desirable. 3 . Public policies with regard to cross -Sound ferry services should generally emphasize: • Private sector operation and financing of vessels, terminals, and ancillary equipment; restriction of state -local financing to general purpose access and public facilities improvements; maximum reliance on user charges to support improved and continued cross -Sound ferry services. • Support of the efforts of authorized private operators in improving services, in in- stituting such new services as may be found feasible and desirable, and in adjusting their operations and repositioning their equipment to best meet evolving cross - Sound service requirements or oppor- tunities. • Careful examination of, and sensitivity to, the economic, environmental, traffic, and energy consumption elements of service improvements and operations. • Coordination and coordinated promotion of cross -Sound ferry services between the States and their localities, among ferry ser- vice operators, and with related transporta- tion service or other planning and im- plementation programs. As no single ser- vice location can be best for all potential users, and no single user group should be held to have overriding needs, all improved or new services should be planned to ac- commodate all user groups (automobiles, commercial trucks, and walk-on passengers). All such services should be planned, operated, and marketed as elements of one combined service. A staged program for improvements to ex- isting services, as well as possible initiation of and improvements to a new service. This program should be carefully evaluated at each stage prior to formal financial or other commitments. While estimates of user response are very encouraging, im- provements must be undertaken incremen- tally as a practical matter, and periodic evaluations of the public desirability of cur- rent and future improvements, as well as the extent of private sector interest in such improvements, are certainly prudent. Clear recognition of the importance of user amenities (protection from weather, reser- vation systems, public transportation con- nections, long term parking and the like), and specialized freight services (special ferry schedules or equipment, exclusive runs, freight or truck consolidation ser- 4 vices, etc.). Without these elements, the potential value of the other improvements and policies here recommended will be lessened. It is of greatest importance to focus the attention of potential users, the financial community and the public at large on this staged program of ma- jor cross -Sound ferry service improvements and to make clear State and local government com- mitment to implementation of these recommen- dations. Consistent, cooperative and coordinated public and private efforts will be required for the success of the ambitious program proposed. It will be equally important to affirm clearly the im- portance of private sector investments and opera- tions and, just as clearly, to disavow the establish- ment of a public or publicly financed service in direct competition with private investment in- itiatives. PART II SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND STUDY PROCESS The major elements, considerations, and pro- cesses of this study are outlined below with em- phasis on those elements and findings bearing most directly on the issues listed at the beginning of Part I of this report: • Alternatives considered and factors involv- ed in their selection, and evaluation. • Ferry usage estimates and methods, at a range of service and fare levels, and related revenue projections. • Cost estimates for various types, locations, and levels of service; and costing assump- tions, funding possibilities, and cost - revenue relationships. • Service improvement or usage -related im- pacts (environmental, energy, land use), and the need for additional investigation, if any. • Operating and implementation considera- tions, and public-private roles. • Support, for service improvements, generally, and at a specific location or sets of locations. These six areas of examination are intertwined in the evaluation presented. In each case, the prin- cipal findings or conclusions are accompanied by a brief explanation of the technical or other ap- proach used in their derivation and are listed again in summary form at the end of Part II. The references given in Part III, including interim and technical study reports, provide fuller explana- tions and descriptions. In this regard, the reports on the study's public forums and the judgments of the study's Policy Advisory Committee members stand on their own and, while generally supportive of many of the conclusions presented there, are not repeated in this summary docu- ment. This has been a most challenging investigation, quite different, in many respects, from more traditional transportation service evaluations --even those dealing, as does this study, with broadly dispersed trip patterns to be served by im- proved facilities. The central analysis for this evaluation of the transportation feasibility of significantly expanded cross -Sound ferry services is economic. The analysis involves estimation of travel times and costs for a set of trips using ferry service, and for the same trips, not using a ferry, for a portion of their overall trip length. Ferry usage is estimated by comparing the relative time and cost differentials for each overall or total trip using as opposed to not using the ferry service. Estimates of fare revenues are made after ferry usage is determined. Then revenues are compared to the operating and investment costs of making ferry service improvements. Three considerations are crucial to the understan- ding of study findings: • Even frequently scheduled ferry services are not exactly the same as highways in terms of availability for use and in terms of expected traveler usage. This is particularly true where the ferries would be primarily serving relatively lengthy trips, which are not repetitive, as in urban or commuter travel, and not concentrated at origin or destinations as in intercity public transpor- tation. No full analogies to this situation, or to the cross -Sound ferry services to be studied, are available for direct extrapolation. Thus a conservative application of accepted transportation demand and economic evaluation concepts is clearly called for. • There are a large number of ferry service locations and characteristics to be con- sidered, and perhaps an equally large number of operational, financing, impact and implementation factors to be reviewed. In a general feasibility study such as this, some sorting out, and development of a set of reasonable and addressable alternatives representing the range of practical and desirable services and implementation ac- tion, is required. Further examination and detailing of these alternatives is expected to be necessary as ferry service improvements are implemented. This technical and public evaluation of cross -Sound ferry service does not start in a vacuum. There have been a variety of previous examinations of cross -Sound transportation possibilities, and of their economic and environmental implication. There are other somewhat similar ferry ser- vices in operation. There exist data on cur- rent cross -Sound travel demand as well as the informed judgments of transportation and other professionals. Most importantly, there are two privately -owned and operated ferry services now in operation across Long Island Sound. Those services, and their continuation, and the investment, and ex- perience possible through private sector in- volvement in service improvements, must be fully considered in examining feasible and desirable cross -Sound ferry services for the future. Location and Service Alternatives Cross -Sound ferry service alternatives are defined in this study in terms of four sets of factors: vessels, fares, paired terminal locations and resul- tant routes or corridors, and capacity. Each of these alternatives and factors can be critical in terms of its influence on service quality and quantity and thus on travel demand and user demand revenues. Each will have important associated cost and impact factors that may be critical to overall economic and public support conclusions. Ferry service corridors and terminal locations are probably the most critical factors in terms of public, governmental, and operator ac- ceptance. The corridor/terminal factors are also very important considerations in relation to the timing of service improvement implementation. Where adequate harbor and land access facilities exist, improvements in ferry service capacity and frequency can be made fairly readily. On the other hand, some time will be required where new harbors must be created and significant land ac- cess improvements made before the first incre- ment of new service can be initiated. The principal factors associated with individual vessels include: speed (and thus open water and round trip crossing times); fuel and crew re- quirements (and thus operating costs); capacity for automobiles, heavy commercial trucks, and/or passengers; displacement (in terms of draft requirements); method of loading - unloading (and thus pier, ancillary equipment, and in -harbor turn -around -time); and capital costs, and design and acquisition time. For the consideration of existing or near term service possibilities, the make-up of the current existing or pending fleet, and of any other available vessels, is also important. Safety, inspection, maintenance requirements (other than costs), and on -board user amenities can also be very impor- tant, but have been assumed to be satisfactory for any vessel considered, and thus to have no impact on the study's economic and desirability in- vestigations. For study costing, forecasting, and evaluation purposes emphasis was placed on identification of a currently known vessel type that could be con- sidered generally satisfactory for all location and service alternatives to be examined, based on in- formation available from existing Long Island Sound, Cape May, and Puget Sound experience. Detailed consideration of specific, individual, and combined fleet vessel configurations is ap- propriate for later implementation examination. Vessels designed for a maximum load of 100 tons, to fit under Subchapter T of U.S. Coast Guard Regulations and commonly referred to as "T boats," were selected. Such vessels have many desirable attributes: passenger, auto, and heavy commercial truck capabilities; relatively desirable and efficient 16 knot cruising speeds; small crew requirements (and thus fuel efficient and low operating cost characteristics); relatively low capital costs (approximately $5 million); minimum channel depth requirements (eight feet), and capacities adequate for the service levels anticipated, (50 autos, 5 loaded commercial trucks, or a combination thereof within weight limits, plus passengers). Their low costs and reasonable speed could allow the fleet sizes and service frequencies most conducive to encourag- ing positive user response and cost -revenue results. Their moderate per vessel capacity, com- bined with frequent regular schedules, would result in a spreading of land access traffic impacts and place a minimum strain on terminal, dock and access facilities generally. The current Orient Point -New London ferry service operation has recently replaced one of its vessels with a "T boat." Faster or larger capacity vessels would be more costly to purchase and operate and, per dollar invested, could not provide the same ser- vice frequency, a particularly critical factor in user demand and revenue response. Such vessels operated elsewhere have required significant capital and/or operating subsidies. Fares, as out-of-pocket user charges, may be more noticed by travelers than other travel costs, except perhaps those for vehicle gasoline or diesel fuel; thus they can have a direct impact on the magnitude of actual cross -Sound ferry usage and the capacity needed to serve that usage. Low fares may encourage usage and high fares discourage it, although neither the recent experience of current cross -Sound ferry operations with increased fares, nor our analysis of the portion fares are to total trip costs, suggests that demand is very sen- sitive to fare levels. The revenue derived from user fares is a critical factor in the evaluation of improvement feasibili- ty. Fare revenues are particularly important to private sector initiative, investment and profit potential. These are major considerations in this evaluation, which also recognizes established policies, in both Connecticut and New York, favoring private enterprise solutions and the avoidance of operating subsidies for trans- portation services whenever possible. Four fare levels have been examined in this study's usage and revenue forecasts. The basis for these examinations are, first, the experience of the current cross -Sound ferry services, which have each enjoyed usage increases while raising fares significantly in each of the last two years, and se- cond, study estimates of the impact of inflation on the several elements of total cross -Sound travel costs. Initial study forecasts examined fares at the following levels: sharply reduced by approximate- ly one-third of current levels, continued at 1980 levels, increased from 1980 levels at half the forecast general inflation rate, and increased at the full forecast inflation rate. Since use of the low fare levels was estimated to result in very little increase of usage and in sharply reduced revenue, only the last two fare alternatives were examined in all location and service alternatives. Overall, study forecasts indicate that a fare level between these two alternatives -- increased at or near the rate of general inflation -- should be utilized by ferry service operators for subsequent service im- provement financing purposes (see Table I for an example). Service corridors and terminal location considera- tions include, in addition to the presence or ade- quacy of harbor and terminal facilities and of public and other support, the following factors: land access, parking and staging facilities and their adequacy (and thus potential improvement costs); traffic loads and possibly related safety, and environmental considerations; similar con- siderations associated with harbor improvement, dredging, and vessel operations; and, most im- portant for transportation service and economic cess facilities generally adequate for major evaluations, total trip distance and time (the sum service and usage increases, and enjoy local of time required for open water, in -harbor, support for current and expanded service. loading or unloading, and possible waiting delays Parking and staging areas and passenger to board, and of the on -land travel times and terminals are available, and can be readily distances necessary to get to or from ultimate trip expanded. Minimum, if any, community or origin and destinations before and after the ferry environmental impacts are expected to be trip). associated with service or facility im- provements. Corridor crossing distance is The principal alternatives for ferry service cor- about 14 nautical miles, with relatively little ridors and terminal location have been widely in -harbor maneuvering and related travel established over a decade or more of cross -Sound time penalties. transportation improvement studies and public discussions,and by the geographic location of 2. Port Jefferson -Bridgeport: Also termini of natural harbors, urban concentration, or on -land existing ferry service (if only seasonal of access facilities already in place. While detailed limited capacity), harbor areas are ade- sub-alternatives may be considered further for quate, but dock, parking and staging, and implementation purposes, there are essentially immediate land access facilities require im- eleven cross -Sound ferry service corridor -terminal provements before they can handle even location alternatives (see map inside front cover). moderate capacity and service im- 1. Orient Point -New London provements. This is particularly true for 2. Port Jefferson -Bridgeport use by heavy commercial trucks at 3. Greenport -New London Bridgeport, where the existing ferry ter - 4. Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport minal is adjacent to train and bus stations 5. Huntington Bay -Norwalk and the Connecticut Turnpike. Few if any 6. Orient Point -Old Saybrook community or other impacts are expected 7. East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (North to accompany service and usage increases Cove) or carefully designed improvements. Local 8. East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (Ferry support for service expansions is evident, Point) including support, especially in Bridgeport, 9. Shoreham -New Haven for heavy commercial truck capacity now 10. Shoreham -East Haven (Lighthouse Pt.) lacking. Corridor crossing distance is just 11. Shoreham -West Haven over 12 nautical miles, but speed penalties for in -harbor operation are encountered at both termini. Cost, usage, and revenue estimates associated with each of these cross -Sound ferry service corridor -terminal alternatives are given in subse- quent sections of this report. Other significant considerations and study findings, including evidence of local or public support for each of these corridor alternatives, may be summarized as follows: Orient Point -New London: These termini of the principal existing cross -Sound ferry service corridor have harbor and land ac - 3. Greenport -New London: The Mascony Ferry and Transport Company Inc. has proposed to operate on this cross -Sound corridor, which is longest of the alter- natives examined in terms of crossing distance (almost 20 nautical miles). That company has not gained a terminal site or general local support at Greenport, where in -harbor speed delays and potential con- flicts with the Shelter Island Ferry would be encountered. r- 4. Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport: A new har- bor, or half -mile off -shore trestle, as well as terminal and parking facilities, would be required at Sunken Meadow, which is a major seashore recreation and park facili- ty. Automobile access is good, but access for heavy commercial trucks would be dif- ficult and/or circuitous at both termini. There is no evidence of local support at Sunken Meadow, and major service facilities and operations would be expected to have significant disruptive and en- vironmental impacts. Corridor crossing distance would be slightly more than 13 nautical miles but, with an off -shore trestle at Sunken Meadow, combined in -harbor time penalties would be lessened. S. Huntington -Norwalk: Probably the most western cross -Sound corridor that could support ferry service, even with fast vessels, due to proximity to existing bridges, these termini present major harbor development or operations problems and probable in - harbor speed delays, especially at Norwalk. Harbor, terminal, and land access im- provements would be required at both ter- mini and could be expected to have signifi- cant community and environmental im- pacts, particularly 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 to none at Hun- tington. 6- East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (North 8. Cove, Ferry Point), and Orient Point -Old Saybrook: The first two of these cross - Sound corridor alternatives would offer by far the shortest corridor crossing distance, at 7 1/2 miles (and thus minimize time and operating cost per trip), but, as with the last above corridor alternative, would require the creation of new harbor, terminal, and land access facilities (on the Long Island I side), and these plus dredging and in - harbor time penalties for Old Saybrook ter- minus. Significant environmental impacts could be expected at all new terminal - harbor facilities. None of these crossing - corridor alternatives are supported locally, and opposition to a ferry operation and facilities at all potential Old Saybrook sites is very strong. 9- Shoreham - New Haven, West Haven, 1.1. East Haven (Lighthouse Point): These sets of cross -Sound corridor alternatives would have the longest corridor crossing distances (16 to almost 19 nautical miles) of any alternatives studied except for Greenport - New London. Some dredging and traffic improvements would be required for the Connecticut sites, and an entirely new har- bor or 1/2 mile -long pier, terminal, and im- mediate land access facilities would be needed at Shoreham. Possibly significant environmental impacts may be associated with such improvements. There is local support for the New Haven terminal loca- tion, which would have very good access to Interstate highways. There is both strong general business support and significant local opposition to the Shoreham terminal sites, which could have very good access to major highways. The capacity factors for cross -Sound ferry ser- vices, in addition to considerations of the capacities and speeds of individual vessels, and of land access and shore facilities specifically noted above, are: the number of vessels assigned to a crossing corridor (and thus, given trip length and in -harbor time factors, the frequencies or head - ways that can be achieved); the hours of opera- tion of those vessels (and thus the daily, annual, and peak season number of Sound crossings that may be accomplished on a given crossing cor- ridor); and the number of crossing corridors on which ferry service is available (and thus total cross -Sound service capacity). For the purpose of this broad feasibility study, focus on annual service capacity is considered to be sufficient. The well-established seasonal nature of cross -Sound travel is recognized in demand, revenue, and cost estimates by assuming a typical vessel scheduling pattern. For example, if a total vessel fleet of four is the alternative being examin- ed for a particular crossing corridor, all four vessels are assumed operating during the peak season, one during the least demand period, and two or three, depending on specific time and loca- tion factors, in the intermediate periods. Similar- ly, established patterns of daily vessel service hours are assumed within the annual capacity calculations. Also deemed appropriate for this study are con- siderations of fleets of up to eight vessels on any one crossing corridor alternative, and of com- binations of two and three -corridor services in simultaneous operation. Eight vessels of almost any type and size would represent a major in- crease in service capacity over the current situa- tion, and certainly if more than one corridor were considered, the increase would be sufficient for evaluations of major overall changes in service, usage, costs, and revenues. No one cross -Sound corridor could provide the most desirable or cost- efficient routing for all potential travel between these complex sub -regions, and two cross -Sound ferry services now are in operation, with a third service corridor already federally authorized. Given these considerations and the State policies with regard to support for private enterprise solu- tions, examinations of single, all -or -nothing cross -Sound ferry service corridors would be both futile and misleading. Thus usage forecasts were prepared for paired sets of corridor services (the existing, and each one of the new service corridor alternatives paired with the existing corridor service farthest separated from it in location) and for sets of three service corridors (one new and two existing). These forecasts were prepared for fleets of two, three, four, six and, in cases where usage forecasts at these levels appeared encouraging, eight new vessels. (See Table 1 for an example capacity alternative and estimated usage for one cross -Sound corridor alternative.) 10 In sum, study forecasts have considered: a range of vessel fleet sizes, four fare levels, eleven cor- ridor terminal locations, two vessel speeds, and sixteen combined service capacity alternatives. While early study findings enabled concentration on the more promising combinations of locations and services, the number of alternatives evaluated is quite large and is presumed to have covered the reasonable range of possibilities. Expected Ferry Service Usage Forecasts of usage, revenue, and capital and operating costs have been developed for all poten- tially significant alternative cases. For each alter- native case usage and revenue forecasts have been made for the following: three user groups, automobiles (including light trucks and motor- cycles), heavy commercial trucks, and passengers (including auto drivers), and two future time periods, 1983-4, as the earliest that services with up to four vessels could be in place on existing cross -Sound corridors or similar new corridor ser- vices initiated, and 1993-4, as a point in time when full, combined cross -Sound service im- provements could be expected to be accomplished and to be receiving full user response to those im- provements in capacity and reliability. This ap- proach enables evaluation of the service response, capacity requirements, and the revenue contribu- tion of each user group. It also permits estimation of potential near-term and longer range cost - revenue results and investment requirements for staged improvement and financial planning pur- poses. The key elements of the study's usage forecasting method are relative travel costs (including the value of time) between alternative cross -Sound corridors and the alternative of driving around the Sound, and the available capacity of the cross - Sound ferry services being considered. This methodology is designed such that the forecasts produced are responsive to changes in service fre- quency, fare levels, and relative total travel costs. It also reflects such external factors as the increas- ed cost of vessels, terminals, crews, fuel, etc. due to inflation. There are three basic assumptions: Future cross -Sound travel patterns, par- ticularly for automobiles and passengers, will be similar to those of current users of existing cross -Sound ferry services. For heavy commercial truck travel, patterns will be similar to those currently using the Triborough Bridge system and, for eastern cross -Sound corridor alternatives, those currently using the Orient Point -New Lon- don ferry service. The use of both these travel patterns, with appropriate assign- ment of trucks to ferry service corridors, is assumed to alleviate possible underestima= tion of potential heavy truck travel, due to the absence of a central cross -Sound ferry service capable of being used by such trucks in the base period. • The rate of general inflation will decline very gradually, from the 1980 level of about 13.3 percent annually to a long term rate of 6 percent by the mid -1990's. The price of gasoline, and of diesel fuel, will rise 25 percent above the rate of general inflation between 1980 and 1985. Fuel prices are adjusted to the rate of general in- flation after 1985, reflecting both the ex- pected reductions in dependence on im- ported petroleum and in the rate of general inflation, and expected benefits from conservation efforts and improved vehicle efficiencies. The principal data available to develop in detail and to test a usage and revenue forecasting method are: Interviews of 1980 users of the two existing cross -Sound ferry services from which trip purposes, origins and destinations, weighted average trip lengths, and traveler attitudes to travel cost and time, and ser- vice frequency and reliability, could be derived. • Historical information for the past 10 years provided by the operators of the two ex- isting cross -Sound ferry services, including service schedules and fares, vessel capacities and speeds, and the number of autos and light trucks, heavy commerical trucks, and passengers that were carried. From this data, additional insights on traveler perception of, and probable response to, relative levels of service, travel time, and costs could be drawn. A one -day sample of heavy commercial trucks using the Triborough Bridge system in 1979 from which the travel patterns and cost and time factors for such trips could be identified. The principal relationships explaining 1970-79 cross -Sound ferry usage for autos and passengers were quantified through regression analysis and used to forecast future usage at those, and, by ex- tension, all alternative cross -Sound service cor- ridors. As noted above, this approach was also used, separately, for heavy commerical truck forecasts on the eastern crossing corridor alter- natives, while a relative time and cost -based diver- sion approach was used to forecast truck usage in general. As also noted earlier, forecasts were prepared for each crossing corridor alternative. In each case the existence of another, co -existing crossing corridor alternative, with similar service levels, is implied. Total potential travel was assigned to that ferry service alternative offering the best relative time and cost, or should these factors be essentially equal, to that ferry service alternative first encountered on the overall trip origin -destination routing. Forecasts involving three co -existent crossing corridor ferry services, and truck diversion to ferry services from the Triborough Bridge route, were developed in essentially the same manner. These approaches, and the resulting forecasts themselves, are believed to be soundly based, if somewhat conservative. The principal limiting factor is caution, both for financial and detailed service planning and, in technical analysis, in forecasting the longer term impacts of very large increases in individual and overall cross -Sound ferry services. Future potential cross -Sound travelers, of any or all user groups considered, may respond to readily available, reliable, and in- tensively marketed cross -Sound ferry services, at rates beyond those that can be explained by time, costs, and capacity factors. While such a result might well be experienced particularly for com- mercial truck travel and non -auto related passengers, there is no basis now available to predict accurately the magnitude of such events. In the longer range forecasts presented here, these possibilities are recognized by adding a 10 percent growth, or enrichment, factor to 1993-4 forecasts to accommodate both travel growth generally and the expected positive reaction of the region's travelers to what will then be very significantly in- creased cross -Sound ferry service levels. Later forecasts, sensitive to actual user response to some improvements then in place, will provide the means to re-examine these estimates prior to addi- tional private or public sector investment deci- sions. Tables I and II give data on example crossing - corridor fare, and capacity alternative forecast results. The principal conclusions of this study's demand forecasts and analyses are as follows: As has been pointed out for many years, the principal constraint on cross -Sound travel is the limited cross -Sound service available. The selected example forecasts given in Table I indicate that user response from all three potential user groups are estimated to increase dramatically with each increment of increased cross -Sound ferry service capacity provided. It also in- dicates that higher fare levels will not significantly dampen that response. Recent experience on both existing cross -Sound ferry services have demonstrated just this finding; both have increased fares in each of the last two years while dramatically in- creasing their ridership. Ridership increases at Orient Point -New London, on the order of twenty percent between 1978 and 1979, also reflect the capacity and amenity im- provements of a new "T -boat." 1. The order of magnitude of forecast near term cross -Sound ferry usage at all crossing corridor alternatives investigated could be very large, in an absolute sense, and when compared to the recent 1979 usage of cur- rent cross -Sound ferry services of more than 25,000 passenger vehicles and 112,000 passengers (including drivers) at Port Jefferson -Bridgeport, and almost 100,000 passenger vehicles, 260,000 passengers (in- cluding drivers), and 4,000 heavy commer- cial trucks at Orient Point -New London. For instance, four-vessel fleet cases, 1984 forecasts show a doubling of passenger usage, more than a doubling of passenger vehicles, and more than a three -fold in- crease in heavy commercial truck usage at Orient Point -New London. Even more dramatic relative increases are forecast at Port Jefferson -Bridgeport, where more than 10,000 heavy commercial trucks would be using a service capability that did not even exist previously. The largest usage estimates are generally forecast on one or more of the crossing cor- ridors with a terminal location in the Old Saybrook area, reflecting the short crossing distance and relatively convenient land ac- cess of that crossing corridor alternative. At the other extreme, the long crossing distance and in -harbor time penalties pro- duce much lower, but still significant, de- mand forecasts for the Greenport -New London crossing corridor alternative. The next poorest forecast showings are those of the westernmost crossing corridor alter- natives, Huntington -Norwalk and Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport. Both of these alter- natives are constrained by their proximity to the Triborough Bridge system. The Huntington -Norwalk estimates also reflect the impact of severe in -harbor time penalties upon what could otherwise be a short and quick cross -Sound trip. The several crossing corridors with a terminal at Shoreham are forecast at the next highest TABLE I PROJECTED FERRY USAGE, PORT JEFFERSON—BRIDGEPORT, 1983-84 and 1993-94 (Thousands) 1983-84 1993-94 Fare 1 Fare 2 Fare 1 Fare 2 1. Autos 335 342 347 381 2 boats 91 95 95 106 3 boats 110 115 116 128 4 boats 184 188 197 209 6 boats — -- 300 315 8 boats — --- 404 418 2. Trucks 2 boats 5.2 5.7 5.8 6.3 3 boats 6.3 6.8 6.9 7.5 4 boats 10.3 11.2 11.3 12.3 6 boats --- --- 17.0 18.5 8 boats -- --- 22.5 24.5 3. Passengers 2 boats 335 342 347 381 3 boats 413 426 437 479 4 boats 660 667 702 741 6 boats --- --- 1066 1086 8 boats --- --- 1422 1444 NOTES: • Fare 1 is increased at the rate of inflation. • Fare 2 is increased at one-half of the rate of inflation. • Auto Drivers are included in passenger totals. usage, reflecting the mixed impacts of cen- tral location and good land access somewhat offset by long crossing distance. • The two existing service corridors are forecast to receive the highest usage of any corridors but those with an Old Saybrook terminal, with the overall trip pattern, good access and relatively short crossing distance favoring the Orient Point -New London crossing. In fact, with the exception of the East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook cor- ridor, no crossing corridor alternative adja- cent to an existing service is forecast to have a better user demand performance when forecasts are developed for sets of two co -existent crossing corridors. 13 • Assuming that more than one co -existent cross -Sound ferry service corridor is desirable from a transportation service point of view, the combined usage estimates for eight -vessel fleet and two - crossing corridor cases generally forecast passenger vehicle demand between 800,000 and 900,000 annually --almost eight times combined usage in 1979, passenger (in- cluding driver) demand from 1.7 to 2.6 million annually --five to almost eight times combined 1979 experience, and heavy com- mercial truck demand between 29,000 and 46,000 annually --more than ten times 1979 usage and, in the minimum combined forecasts, at Orient Point -New London, the only existing crossing with heavy com- mercial truck capacity. • A further possibility is that of cross -Sound ferry service operating on three crossing corridors. The possible results of such com- bination cannot be read directly from Table II, as any of the new crossing corridor alternatives would draw the majority of its use from adjacent crossing corridors. A third crossing would provide additional flexibility in crossing opportunities, thus saving time and cost for an additional group of users. Total ferry usage would be greater with three co -existent crossings than with two. A third crossing corridor could also be used for the design and develop- ment of specialized ferry services -- particularly those for heavy commercial trucks whose demand is least serviced now and whose potential community impacts might be most disturbing. This possibility is further discussed at the end of the next sec- tion of Part II, together with an example of forecasts considering three co -existing cross -Sound ferry services serving all user groups. TABLE II PROJECTED FERRY USAGE, FOUR BOAT SERVICE FOR 1983-84 AND BOTH FOUR AND EIGHT BOAT SERVICE FOR 1993-94 (Thousands) Location Autos Heavy Trucks Passengers (3) 1983-84 1993-94 1983-84 1993-94 1983-84 1993-94 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 Boat Boat Boat Boat Boat Boat Boat Boat Boat Orient Point -New London 211 224 428 13.0 14.3 23.0 530 563 1057 Port Jefferson -Bridgeport 184 197 404 10.3 11.3 22.5 660 702 1422 East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (N. Cove) 237 254 485 13.1 14.4 23.1 612 651 1210 East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (Ferry Pt.) 207 221 422 11.8 12.9 20.7 531 563 1053 Shoreham -New Haven 182 196 396 8.6 9.5 19.1 463 496 981 Shoreham -West Haven 184 198 399 9.1 10.3 19.9 472 505 993 Shoreham -East Haven 183 197 397 9.1 10.0 19.9 468 501 987 Orient Point -Old Saybrook (N. Cove) 234 251 483 12.9 14.2 23.1 599 638 1203 Huntington Bay -Norwalk 171 184 384 7.7 8.4 17.1 455 485 967 Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport 175 187 387 7.7 8.5 17.1 459 488 975 Greenport -New London 149 157 299 6.1 6.6 12.2 367 386 728 NOTES: (1) Fare is increased at the rate of inflation. (2) Locations are treated independently, two services are implied. (3) Auto drivers are included in passengers. 14 Estimated Costs and User Revenues Cost estimates have been developed for access and terminal improvements (including new har- bors or long piers where necessary), for the acquisition of new vessels (T -boats), and for the operations of such vessels. These capital and operating cost estimates for vessels are based on the costs reported by existing cross -Sound operators and operators of other ferry services, and have been increased at the forecast rates of inflation. Access and terminal facility costs were estimated, respectively, by State Department of Transportation personnel and the study's technical consultant. Particularly with regard to the terminal and vessel cost estimates, it should be noted that these capital costs are order -of - magnitude estimates. They are reasonable for use in this study's broad feasibility evaluations but were not based on detailed engineering or design efforts or firm commitments on the part of ship builders. The results of these preliminary cost estimates are shown in Table III for four-vessel services in 1983-4, and for eight -vessel services in 1993-4, for each of the crossing corridor service alternatives investigated. The capital investment costs are shown in 1984 and 1994 dollars as appropriate to the indicated year of assumed investment commit- ment. In the context of this study's forecasting approach, these service levels and costs may be taken to represent maximum cases for each alter- native crossing corridor. The Table's revenue estimates are derived from usage estimates which assumed that service was actually offered at only two --but also always at two --alternative crossing corridors at a time, as explained above. Financing costs were also estimated and capital costs annualized, assuming a twenty-five year period of useful facility or vessel life, and a nine percent interest rate (about the current rate for municipal bonds). Annualized costs for capital in- vestments were derived on this basis. When com- bined with projected annual operating costs, these annualized figures give the amounts of revenue necessary to cover loans and day-to-day operating 15 expenses if the cross -Sound ferry service alter- native in question is to be successful, particularly as a private sector undertaking. Table III also summarizes these annualized costs for the service levels and times shown, and gives comparison user revenue estimates for those services and years. Table IV presents more detail on alternative ser- vice levels, investment cost annualizations, and fare levels for estimated results for the two ex- isting cross -Sound ferry service corridors. (Because of the very large number of alternative service combinations considered in this study, on- ly selected examples can be given in this summary report; a full exposition of study results is given in the technical reports referenced in Part III.) Not surprisingly, projected annual operating costs are estimated to be greatest for those crossing cor- ridor alternatives having the longest crossing distances and in -harbor time requirements, while the several East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook corridor alternatives, with the shortest crossing distances and limited in -harbor times, are estimated to have the lowest annual operating costs. The Orient Point -New London service alternative is the intermediate case. Still, the range of estimated annual operating costs is not great overall, with the eight -vessel cases having a high of $20-21 million and a low of $15-16 million. The picture for estimated annualized costs for harbor, terminal, and access improvements is quite different from those for annual operating costs. Such cost estimates are significantly higher for the East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook and the Shoreham -New Haven crossing corridor alter- natives because of estimated costs required to develop harbor -terminal facilities where none now exist. Annualized capital costs for vessels, of course, are a direct function of vessel choice, operating frequency -scheduling, and fleet size, and would show user variation among crossing corridor alternatives. In sum, the estimates given in both tables indicate that, at least in concept, many of the alternative TABLE III PROJECTED COSTS AND REVENUE OF FERRY SERVICE AT ALTERNATE LOCATIONS 1984 AND 1994 (Millions of Nominal or Current Dollars for the Year Indicated) Annual Annual Location Operating Total Capital Total Cost Inventment(l) costs(,) Revenue(2) Revenue(3) Boats & Terminals Boats Terminal Access 1. Orient Point - 6.59 7.46 - 23.28 New London 28.86 3.93 8.60 6.86 19844 boats 4.59 27.60 2.55 33.90 1994.8 boats 17.41 55.10 2.55 2. Port Jefferson - 22.75 32.47 .98 8.24 Bridgeport 7.34 .98 22.60 19.88 19844 boats 5.04 27.60 3.44 6.31 1994-8 boats 18.60 55.10 3.44 3. East Marion - Old 5.57 6.43 3.93 26.36 Saybrook (N. Cove) 26.80 5.80 10.56 5.53 1984-4 boats 4.06 27.60 13.06 26.67 1994-8 boats 14.97 55.10 13.06 4. East Marion - Old 22.62 32.33 1.47 8.76 Saybrook (Ferry Pt.) 6.29 1.47 23.94 18.77 1984-4 boats 4.29 27.60 10.22 6.39 1994-8 boats 15.85 55.10 10.22 5. Shoreham - New Haven 1984-4 boats 5.54 27.60 15.91 1994-8 boats 20.52 55.10 15.91 6. Shoreham -West Haven 1984.4 boats 4.83 27.60 25.93 1994-8 boats 17.71 55.10 25.93 7. Shoreham -East Haven 19844 boats 5.14 27.60 19.84 1994-8 boats 18.93 55.10 19.84 8. Orient Point -Old Saybrook (N. Cove) 1984-4 boats 4.17 27.60 9.23 1994-8 boats 15.73 55.10 9.23 9. Huntington Bay - Norwalk 1984-4 boats 4.64 27.60 11.39 1994-8 boats 17.02 55.10 11.39 10. Sunken Meadow - Bridgeport 1984-4 5.04 27.60 12.38 19948 boats 18.60 55.10 12.38 11. Greenport - New London - 7.68 6.59 7.46 - 23.28 20.25 28.86 3.93 8.60 6.86 7.94 3.93 24.96 23.55 33.90 6.68 8.88 7.41 8.39 6.68 22.59 22.75 32.47 .98 8.24 6.46 7.34 .98 22.60 19.88 28.34 3.93 10.37 5.45 6.31 3.93 28.15 18.30 26.47 3.93 10.68 5.57 6.43 3.93 26.36 18.53 26.80 5.80 10.56 5.53 6.39 5.80 27.15 18.44 26.67 5.70 8.50 7.32 8.26 5.70 22.86 22.62 32.33 1.47 8.76 5.45 6.29 1.47 23.94 18.77 27.07 3.93 9.51 5.54 6.39 3.93 25.87 18.91 27.27 1984-4 boats 5.68 27.60 4.81 .40 9.02 4.45 5.03 1994-8 boats 21.44 55.10 4.81 .40 27.58 13.74 19.55 NOTES: (1) Total capital costs are in 1984 dollars. These are "annualized" over 25 years at 9% interest and added to annual operating costs, yielding annual total cost. (2) Revenue is calculated with fare increased at one-half of the inflation rate. (3) Revenue is calculated with fare increased at the rate of inflation. Wei 10 TABLE IV PROJECTED COSTS AND REVENUE, PORT JEFFERSON -BRIDGEPORT AND ORIENT POINT -NEW LONDON, 1984 AND 1994 (Millions of Nominal or Current Dollars for the Year Indicated) Year Annual Annualized Capital Cost and Operating Cost Total Total Total Service Boats & Terminals Boat Terminal Access Cost Revenue(l) Revenue (2) 1. Port Jefferson -Bridgeport 1984 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 1994 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 8 boats 2. Orient Point -New London 1984 3 boats 4 boats 1994 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 8 boats 2.81 1.40 .35 .40 4.96 3.50 3.97 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 7.65 6.10 8.18 6.54 2.10 .35 .40 9.39 7.50 10.13 9.86 2.81 .35 .40 13.42 11.9 16.64 14.23 4.21 .35 .40 19.19 17.73 25.33 18.60 5.61 .35 .40 24.96 23.55 33.90 3.19 2.10 .26 5.55 4.93 5.56 4.59 2.81 .26 - 7.68 6.59 7.46 6.27 2.10 .26 8.63 8.41 11.45 9.00 2.81 .26 12.07 11.21 15.50 13.20 4.21 .26 17.67 15.72 22.26 17.41 5.61 .26 23.28 20.25 28.86 NOTES: (1) Revenue 1 is calculated from fare increased at one-half of the inflation rate. (2) Revenue 2 is calculated from fare increased at the inflation rate. cross -Sound ferry service improvements examin- ed in this study can be economically feasible ven- tures at fare levels increased at or almost at the rate of general inflation. This assumes that user revenues are not called upon to finance initial ter- minal or access improvements. It also assumes, of course, that user response is as least as positive as we expect it to be, and that other study cost 17 estimates, and subsequent implementation ac- tions, prove to be reasonable, and that financing can be obtained at the rates estimated. For these reasons, prudence could direct a somewhat cautious incremental approach to implementing cross -Sound ferry service improvements, testing cost factors, and actual usage and revenues at each step. As discussed in much more detail in this study's full technical findings report, the usage prospects appear to be both entirely reasonable and very positive for immediate or relatively near-term in- vestments. As discussed later in Part II of this report, public sector investment in initial access and harbor -terminal improvements would appear not only to be required for the success of major cross -Sound ferry services generally, but to be an investment likely to gain the significant trans- portation service related economic benefits for the region as a whole, beyond those received in lowered travel times and direct costs by cross - Sound travelers. Even when limiting concern to economic or finan- cial considerations however, additional factors should be further investigated. For instance, although a full marginal cost analysis was beyond the scope of this study, it may be observed that, on an annual basis, the largest service level ex- amined at each crossing corridor location (eight vessels) is estimated to operate at about a 60 per- cent load factor. Lower service levels (four to six vessels) on the other hand are estimated to operate at 70 percent or greater load factors. While the latter cases would provide potential users with less frequent service, they could also be viewed as being more cost-effective, conservative investments. Such considerations, and others dealing with the specifics of vessel availability and scheduling in peak vs. off-peak seasons as noted earlier, cannot be resolved now or by a general evaluation study, and are best left to those with operational and financial decision-making responsibility in the future. Consideration of the combinations of crossing - corridor ferry service alternatives that might offer the best solution to overall cross -Sound transpor- tation needs is much more complex. From several points of view, the two existing crossing corridors appear best to meet overall study objectives of economic feasibility and broad local support, and to do so at various levels of service. They also ap- pear to offer advantages in terms of relatively low public investment requirements for access and harbor -terminal improvements, to have few if any UR potentially adverse community or environmental impacts, to be able to accept more rapid service improvement actions, and to have in place ferry operators willing to undertake such im- provements. Still, study forecasts indicate that the additional overall regional cross -Sound travel de- mand can be served conveniently, and in some cases with a positive revenue -cost relationship, by a co -existent set of three rather than two cross - Sound ferry services. Table V and the chart below provide an example of such a possible future situation, indicating estimated results from the joint transportation service and cost consideration of the Port Jefferson -Bridgeport, Orient Point -New London, and Shoreham -New Haven crossing corridors. While it is immediately evident that the user de- mand (for all user groups) forecast to be serviced by a new Shoreham -New Haven crossing corridor would be drawn primarily from potential user de- mand on the other two crossing corridors, there would be an additional increment of user demand served. The estimated individual revenue -cost results, without inclusion of investment costs for access and harbor -terminal improvements, are positive. Note that eight vessels are initially forecast as associated with each of the existing crossing corridors considered as a set of two co- existent services. Six vessels would be associated with each, and with the additional new location service, when the third crossing corridor is added. The combined vessel fleet for three co -existent crossing corridors would thus increase from 16 to 18 in this 1994 example. With service coordina- tion, advanced planning, and opportunity for private operators to compete for rights to provide new service and to shift their vessels, it is possible to envision a smooth, economical, and fiscally - sound adjustment to a future three -crossing cor- ridor service case. Additional Potential Impacts The principal focus of this study, and of this sum- mary report so far, has been on the potential overall economic feasibility of alternative cross - Sound ferry service improvements, and on how ., TABLE V NOTES: • Revenue is calculated with fares increased at the rate of inflation. • Costs are annual operating costs and annualized boat capital cost. • Auto drivers are included in passengers. that issue might pertain to private sector in- itiatives and financing. That is not the only ques- tion however, either for State and local govern- ments in considering their approval or support for one or more such ferry service improvement pro- posals, or for proposal proponents in the public or private sectors. Environmental assessment in- terests and procedural requirements, potential energy savings or costs, and possible regional economic and community impacts must also be considered. Environmental impacts of cross -Sound ferry ser- vices and of related shore or inland facility im- We provements will have to be examined in detail prior to implementation. State and/or local or federal review, evaluation and approval pro- cedures will have to be satisfied, and acceptable plans prepared to avoid or minimize potentially adverse impacts. Even substantial upgrading of existing service, including increases in vessel fleets, harbor improvements requiring moderate dredging, and traffic access improvements, may be found to have little or no negative impact on the environment or local community resources. However, cross -Sound service at a new location would certainly require a complete, detailed En- vironmental Impact Statement (EIS). For such a new location, a docking facility and terminal PROJECTED FERRY USAGE AT THREE LOCATIONS, 1994 (Usage in Thousands, Revenue and Cost in Millions of Nominal Dollars. Figures in Parentheses Indicate Losses.) Orient Point Port Jefferson Shoreham Measure and and and New London Bridgeport New Haven 1. Usage Loss or Gain (150) (101) 251 Autos (7.7) (10.0) 17.7 Trucks (370) (355) 725 2. Retained or New Usage Autos 278 303 25 Trucks 15.3 12.5 1.8 Passengers 687 1067 73 3. Total Usage Autos 278 303 276 Trucks 15.3 12.5 19.5 Passengers 687 1067 798 4. Revenue 18.80 24.89 20.62 5. Costs 17.41 18.44 19.89 6. Service - No. of Boats I nitial-Two Locations 8 8 Final -Three Locations 6 6 6 NOTES: • Revenue is calculated with fares increased at the rate of inflation. • Costs are annual operating costs and annualized boat capital cost. • Auto drivers are included in passengers. that issue might pertain to private sector in- itiatives and financing. That is not the only ques- tion however, either for State and local govern- ments in considering their approval or support for one or more such ferry service improvement pro- posals, or for proposal proponents in the public or private sectors. Environmental assessment in- terests and procedural requirements, potential energy savings or costs, and possible regional economic and community impacts must also be considered. Environmental impacts of cross -Sound ferry ser- vices and of related shore or inland facility im- We provements will have to be examined in detail prior to implementation. State and/or local or federal review, evaluation and approval pro- cedures will have to be satisfied, and acceptable plans prepared to avoid or minimize potentially adverse impacts. Even substantial upgrading of existing service, including increases in vessel fleets, harbor improvements requiring moderate dredging, and traffic access improvements, may be found to have little or no negative impact on the environment or local community resources. However, cross -Sound service at a new location would certainly require a complete, detailed En- vironmental Impact Statement (EIS). For such a new location, a docking facility and terminal CHART PROJECTED,FERRY USAGE AT THREE LOCATIONS WITH EIGHT BOAT SERVICE, 1994 AUTOS (Fare Is Increased At the Inflation Rate) ►ASSENGlRS ITWMAAMMI ORIENT SHOREHAM PORT ORIENT SHOREHAM PORT ORIENT SHOREHAM PORT PONT JEFFERSON POINT JEFFERSON POINT JEFFERSON could be located on the shoreline; in effect, this would be an artificial harbor breaking the coastline, requiring new construction, dredging and disposal of dredged material. Alternatively, an off -shore, deeper water, docking facility and terminal could be constructed with perhaps lesser shore interruption and impact to adjacent areas, but with potential maintenance and service relia- bility concerns due to ice, storms, and tides. Sub- jects for investigation include: 20 • erosion or accretion of shorelines or wetlands, with associated permit re- quirements, particularly where a natural harbor or ferry terminal facilities do not now exist; • fish, bird, or other wildlife habitat modifications including water pollution and disruption of nesting areas; M air and noise pollution from construction and increased traffic, including mitigating actions; and disturbances of parkland, recreational ac- tivities, and historic, archaeological, or cultural sites. Energy savings potential for travel across rather than around Long Island Sound has been a factor of considerable interest in this study and in most recent evaluations of transportation im- provements. While out-of-pocket costs for fuel are of primary interest to travelers, net energy savings are critical for the public consideration of the relative energy benefits of cross -Sound ferry service improvement alternatives. There are three elements to investigate: net private passenger and truck fuel consumption savings from ferry service related reductions in highway vehicle operations, the fuel consumed in operating the vessels pro- viding the ferry service, and the energy, in various forms, consumed in the construction of vessels, and ferry terminals, and access improvements. Table VI gives the results of an example net energy analysis; similar relative results are associated with other levels of service and fares. While it is not surprising that the westernmost crossing corridors, those with longer distances, and those requiring extensive harbor -terminal facilities construction, fare relatively poorly, it is somewhat surprising that five of the eleven cross- ing corridors show overall net energy costs rather than savings. Two other observations are poten- tially significant. While the figures in Table VI ap- pear large, the maximum net annual energy sav- ings shown represent only one one-hundreth of one percent of annual transportation energy con- sumed in 1980 in New York State. Conversly, the largest net annual energy cost shown represents only one-half of one percent of the least energy estimated in late 1979 to be required to construct a new Long Island Sound Bridge. The economic activity that might be generated by an investment in substantially improved cross - Sound ferry services was estimated by "scaling down" the regional economic impacts attributed to the very much larger investments estimated to be required for a new cross -Sound bridge in the 1979 New York State Department of Transporta- tion study. The estimates include direct economic impacts from construction and continuing im- pacts from improved inter -regional access and ad- ditional increases in sales expected by business, as estimated from a survey for that bridge study. Three measures of anticipated economic impact are estimated: increases in industrial -commerical output, in employment, and in personal income. An investment of about $100 million (probably staged in a series of smaller units) was assumed for a "major improvement" in improved cross - Sound ferry services -- (12 new boats at $81.6 million in 1984 dollars and $20 million for ter- minals and access). This order -of- magnitude ferry service investment would be 6 Z/3 percent of the average 1979 estimates of investment required for a new bridge. However, for the purpose of estimating potential regional economic impacts of ferry service improvements, this percentage of estimated bridge investment impacts was reduced by half to take into account a possibly perception of potential sales and business investment oppor- tunities associated with ferry services, since the latter would provide somewhat less fast or conve- nient travel than could a bridge. Thus, the $100 million investment might result in 300 construc- tion jobs for three years. The continuing economic impacts of possible additional business investment and sales could translate to an equivalent of 2500 additional jobs on Long Island and 1300 in Connecticut by 1990. The value of business output would expand by 170 million dollars on Long Island and 50 million in Connec- ticut, and personal income might also rise by 150 and 60 million dollars, respectively, for Long Island and Connecticut, by that year. On Long Island, approximately $10 million might be generated annually in State sales and income taxes as a result of these increases in general economic activity. TABLE VI ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR THREE BOAT SERVICE, 1983-4 FARES INCREASED AT HALF THE INFLATION RATE (Thousands of Equivalent Gailons-ofGasoline) Saving Added Consumption Total Net From Ferry Net Location Vehicle Use Operation Construction Total Savings Orient Point - New London 1363 589 142 731 632 Port Jefferson -Bridgeport 617 480 78 558 59 E. Marion/Orient- Old Saybrook (North Cove) 1245 366 203 569 676 E. Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (Ferry Point) 1088 352 177 529 558 Shoreham -New Haven 602 640 123 763 (161) Shoreham -West Haven 594 512 177 689 ( 95) Shoreham -East Haven 602 544 147 691 ( 89) Orient Point -Old Saybrook 1305 449 181 630 675 Huntington -Norwalk 354 384 83 467 (113) Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport 507 544 104 648 (141) Greenport -New London 932 545 36 581 351 Other types of community impacts potentially associated with cross -Sound ferry service im- provements are not expected to be evident or significant, except perhaps at locations adjacent to ferry terminal locations in Suffolk County or in Connecticut. As the increment of population growth and land use development that may be ex- pected to be derived directly or indirectly from the possible cross -Sound ferry service improvements is very small in comparison to the official baseline forecasts of these factors, no specific impacts on such matters as conversion of agricultural land, school population, or public water or service re- quirements are identified. Increased use of recrea- tional and tourist -related facilities might be ex- pected however. Traffic impacts that might occur close to ferry terminals will be studied as part of the environmental assessments noted earlier. However, the approximately 400 thousand private vehicles and 20 thousand heavy commer- cial trucks that might be attracted to ferry ter- minal in 1994 can be translated into a maximum of somewhat more than 50 private vehicles and 5 trucks per hour of vessel capacity, with additional vehicles or trucks moving and accumulating in short -peak periods or for specialized ferry ser- vices. With careful access and service design and scheduling, the potential disruptive impacts of this traffic would be minimized. Public -Private Roles, Financing and Implementa- tion Considerations Cross -Sound ferry services at this time are a mat- ter of primarily private sector concern and in- itiative. Formal public involvement 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 user demand, cost, and revenue esitmates developed by this study, while subject to further testing over time, are generally encouraging for the continuing primacy of private sector initiative in cross -Sound ferry service :im- provements, financing, and operations. That primacy, and support for private sector in- itiatives, are already the established transporta- tion policy of New York and Connecticut. At the same time, potentially significant public benefits to travelers and communities on both sides of Long Island are estimated to accompany major F -S improvements in cross -Sound ferry services, and improvements to harbor and land -side transpor- tation facilities can be held to further a variety of public objectives. Public action on such im- provements, careful public attention to possible environmental, community, and continuing ser- vice adequacy issues, and, most importantly, clear public policies with regard to cross -Sound transportation (particularly policies supportive of private sector initiative and disavowing com- petitive public action) appear to be the only public commitments necessary to assist major cross - Sound ferry service improvements. Potential financing of ferry service improvements was addressed in detail in this study's technical summary report. While a few federal programs were identified as possible sources for financing new vessel acquisition through grants, or more commonly, through lower interest loans, pro- blems in the securing and use of such funding were also identified. In all cases, ferry service in- vestments would have to compete for limited overall program funding with alternative transportation or non -transportation projects within the region or nationally. The same would be true of public financing for terminal and land access improvements. Public funds for transpor- tation programs have not been increasing in re- cent years, while overall needs have, and current federal policies indicate that funding of many of the programs identified earlier in this study may be significantly reduced. However, concerted, cooperative efforts of the public and private sec- tor leadership of the Long Island Sound region may be able to improve these conclusions at the federal level, and are certainly warranted on the basis of the potential benefits identified. Such ef- forts should concentrate on incentives to en- courage private sector investment in new vessels for private ownership and operation, and on im- proving the eligibility and funding prospects for federal support of harbor, terminal, and land ac- cess improvements. The findings of this study in- dicate that such a public-private partnership could be both appropriate and sufficient to achieve an effective program of cross -Sound ferry service improvements. 23 A number of additional assistance mechanisms are available to state and local governments. On the financial side these include tax exemptions and loan or loan guarantee capabilities to directly assist private initiatives, or to lower the costs and increase the potential of securing private sector financing. Economic development programs generally, and the existing capabilities of such in- stitutions as the Connecticut Development Authority and several Industrial Development Agencies of, or in Suffolk County on Long Island, may be of material aid in the light of the broad economic benefits identified. Both the enabling authorities and the funding of transportation agencies, state and local, in the two States would have to be strengthened before these agencies could play major financial roles. The two State Departments of Transportation, together with local officials and others, should continue their promotional, technical assistance, and evaluation and coordination roles toward cross -Sound ferry service improvements even without specific additional implementing powers or funding. Serving as a catalyst to bring together private sector interest in financing new vessels, and promoting federal financial assistance, are examples. Initiating and supporting the thorough technical and public examination of potential en- vironmental impacts of cross -Sound ferry service improvements in general, and of the engineering, operation, financial and environmental investiga- tion necessary to resolve the desirability and loca- tion of a third cross -Sound ferry service in parti- cular, are clearly necessary functions for those agencies. While this study's findings with regard to a new, or third, cross -Sound ferry service cannot be definitive, the overall weight of evidence available at this time indicates that such an additional ser- vice may well be both desirable and affordable in the future. It is clear that a number of technical and public support issues must be thoroughly ad- dressed, and that initiations of necessary con- struction and other actions to implement a new service at any location could not be started without, and until, their resolution. It is also clear that while all major potential cross -Sound ferry service corridor and terminal location alternatives have been identified and examined during the course of this Study, none has clearly emerged, on all counts, as the most desirable alternative to pursue. However, of those alternatives, the Shoreham -New Haven corridor appears to offer the most promise, and should be further examin- ed cooperatively, publicly, and in detail. To date, neither strong nor unusual support has been evidenced for any of the cross -Sound ferry service corridor alternatives except those two cur- rently in operation. Little public support, or technical evidence, has been found in favor of the corridor alternatives to the west of Port Jefferson -Bridgeport. Those alternatives could significantly and adversely impact the present locally supported private ferry service between those locations, if implemented. Little public sup- port and some opposition on Long Island, and adamant opposition in Connecticut, has been evidenced for this Study's several East Marion/Orient/Orient Point -Old Saybrook ferry service corridor locations, even while study transportation and energy analyses have again in- dicated those corridors' potential service and financial advantages. The Greenport -New Lon- don corridor alternative does not fare well in this study's several evaluations and neither State nor local support in New York has been forthcoming for current federally authorized but not initiated services. There is local concern on Long Island, and serious technical and environmental issues outstanding, for the Shoreham -New Haven cor- ridor alternative. That corridor is the longest and potentially the most expensive to implement. However, study evaluations of potential user de- mand and of eventual financial feasibility are fair- ly positive, the corridor has support on Long Island and in Connecticut, and its terminal loca- tions have the best land access connections of all alternatives identified --a factor considered to be 24 potentially very important for both a major effort to provide service and facilities for heavy com- mercial truck travel across the Sound, and an an- ticipated need to consider the issue of 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. It is also clear that some form of continuing public organization is desirable to follow-up on these implementation proposals, and to provide an ongoing forum to monitor and coordinate cross -Sound ferry services, and their improve- ment, in the public interest. In keeping with study findings and established public policies, this organization need not be either an operating authority or a formal bi-State body. Each State should consider an organizational form, member- ship, and set of responsibilities best suited to its own traditions and interests. It appears to be both necessary and desirable, however, that these organizations work closely together and that such organizations provide for, in their membership, the involvement of the local areas most likely to be impacted by, or to be the principal beneficiaries of, continued and improved cross - Sound ferry services. Principal Findings and Conclusions There is strong evidence of potential cross - Sound travel demand from all groups of users (passenger vehicles, heavy commer- cial trucks, and passengers) that can be tap- ped immediately and could grow in the next decade to ten or more times present ferry service usage, even at fare levels designed to recover most, and in some situations all, operating and investment costs. A combination of crossing locations -- especially with a possible third centrally located service --will provide the best poten- tial for service improvements and traveler and economic benefits, as well as permit- ting the service design, implementation staging, and operational flexibility ,, . necessary to maximize positive, and control Private sector financing of the major ele- or avoid any negative, impacts. ment of cross -Sound ferry service improvements --new, modern, and energy • Existing cross -Sound ferry services appear and operating cost-efficient vessels --should to be financially sound, well supported be achievable, with public sector com- locally, and interested in proceeding with mitments limited to facilitating private in - facility, equipment, and overall service im- vestments and accomplishing relatively provements; those services and locations modest land -side access and terminal im- also appear to offer the most cost and other provements. Removal of speculation about impact effective --and certainly the most public actions to compete with private sec- rapid-- opportunities for major service im- for cross -Sound ferry services, or to pro- provements. ceed eventually with a cross -Sound bridge, would eliminate a major, perceived stumbl- e While the investment needed to fully imple- ing block to private sector investment. ment potentially desirable services could approach or exceed $100 million, the call The best mechanisms to address evolving on public resources need not be substantial operations, service, and investment choices in total, and may properly be shared among are private sector operators, users, and in - benefiting jurisdictions. Such investment vestors on the one hand and on the other, both can and, as a practical matter, must be public officials, primarily those with direct made on an incremental basis, thus pro- responsibilities at the local level, through viding all parties ample opportunity to cooperation between continuing organiza- make prudent decisions in the light of cur- tions established in each State for that pur- rent information. pose. )I 25 PART III _ LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STUDY POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE John Carey William L. Maher Mayor, City of Rye, New York Garden City, New York John Carson John Mandanici Connecticut Department of Economic Development Mayor, City of Bridgeport, Connecticut Jeanetta Clark Francis J. Murphy South Norwalk, Connecticut Mattituck, New York Edward A. Connell John O'Neill Stamford, Connecticut Melville, New York Robert L. Cox William Pell, III Garden City, New York Supervisor, Town of Southold, New York Jane Devine John Reilly Suffolk County Legislator, New York Port Jefferson, New York James Duffy Lorna Salzman Farmingdale, New York East Quoque, New York Miguel Escalera Edwin V. Selden, representing: Selectman, Town of Clinton, Connecticut Mayor, New Haven, Connecticut Edward Gudelski Harold Sheprow New Haven, Connecticut Mayor, Village of Port Jefferson, New York Charles N. Hammarlund, Jr. Bernard C. Smith 1. North Guilford, Connecticut Northport, New York William W. Hatfield Erwin Staller Devon, Connecticut Hauppauge, New York Ruth Hoffman C. Evans Tilles Mystic, Connecticut Huntington Station, New York Leo Jackson Jessica Tomlinson Mayor, City of New London, Connecticut Wading River, New York Frank T. Johnson Tri-State Regional Planning Commission Robert A. Johnson Mayor, City of West Haven, Connecticut Hannah Komanoff Supervisor, Nassau County, New York Co-chairmen: William C. Hennessy Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation Arthur B. Powers Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Greenport, New York John Wrabel Fairfield, Connecticut John P. Wronowski New London, Connecticut REFERENCE REPORTS Summary of Findings New York State Dept. of Transportation, February 1981 Land Access Feasibility Report New York State Dept. of Transportation, December 1980 Conclusions of the Policy Advisory Committee Members Knight Associates, April 1981 Results of Public Forums Knight Associates, April 1981 Environmental Considerations Knight Associates, January 1981 Copies of the above reports are available from the Planning Division, New York State Department of Transportation, State Campus, Albany, New York 12232. i 11 RECEIVED f E B 171981 MMMT SUMMARY OF FINDINGS aoa@ 001L, 0[0 SOUND Fn ERRY SERVICE IMPROVEMENT MEy. ` f NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STUDY 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 Clark 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. Hammarlund, Jr. North Guilford, Connecticut William W. Hatfield Devon, Connecticut Ruth Hoffman Mystic, Connecticut Leo Jackson Mayor, City 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 Co-chairmen: William C. Hennessy Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation Arthur B. Powers Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation William L. Maher Garden City, New York John Mandanici Mayor, City of Bridgeport, Connecticut Francis J. Murphy Mattituck, New York r John O'Neill Melville, New York William Pell, III Supervisor, Town of Southold, New York John Reilly Port Jefferson, New York Loma Salzman EaFt Quogue, New York Edwin V. Selden Mayor, New Haven, Connecticut Harold Sheprow Mayor, Village of Port Jefferson, New York Bernard C. Smith Northport, New York Edwin Staller Hauppauge, New York C. Evans Tilles Huntington Station, New York Jessica Tomlinson Wading River, New York Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Greenport, New York John Wrabel Fairfield, Connecticut 1 John P. Wronowski r New London, Connecticut f NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF 'a ANSPORTATION William C. Hennessy, Commissioner RA 1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, New York 12232 a 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 Department of Transportation, and a Policy Advisory Committee including local officials and community leaders, have been devoting considerable time and effort to completing the study. Meetings have been held, and many citizens, special interest groups, and local officials have presented ideas and recommendations to 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." This 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 improved 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 (2) public forums to receive your comments and views on this report and its findings. Any comment submitted in writing by March 15, 1981, will also be welcome. My Committee co-chairman, Arthur Powers, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation, and I will carefully evaluate your comments. 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. . The location at which ferry service should be expanded or initiated. The use of public funds for capital improvements and for off- setting 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 two? Page 2 Commissioner Powers and I appreciate your interest and involvement in this important 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 } PART III. LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS AND COMPARISONS . . . . . . . . 11 M Huntington - Norwalk 11 Port Jefferson - Bridgeport 11 Sunken Meadow - Bridgeport 14 Shoreham - New Haven 14 East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook 14 Orient Point - New London 15 Greenport - New London 15 PART IV. VESSELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 PART V. IMPACTS OF IMPROVED FERRY SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Terminal Considerations 19 Wetlands and Shorelines 19 Fish and Wildlife 20 Air Quality 20 Noise 20 Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Population, Land Use and Community Service . . . . . . . . . . 24 Energy Impacts of Improved Ferry Service . . . . . . . . . . . 25 PART VI. EXPECTED FERRY USAGE AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS . . . . . 27 Development of Ferry Use Forecasting Method . . . . . . . . . 27 Impact of Fares, Service Levels, and Boat Speed on Usage 28 Fare 28 Service Level 28 Boat Speed 32 Truck Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Comparison of Usage on 11 Alternative Routes . . . . . . . . . 33 Vehicle Usage 33 Passenger Usage 33 CONTENTS (continued) Costs and Revenues For Various Improved Service Options . . . 37 Operating Costs 37 !� Capital Cost 37 Comparisons of Revenues and Costs 37 Fares at 50% of Inflation Rate 43 Fully Inflated Fare 43 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 PART VII. POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Federal Funding Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 State and Local Government and Public Authority Funding . . . 52 State and Local Authorities in New York 52 Connecticut: Development Authority (Conn. DA) 53 Private Funding 53 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 PART VIII. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Organizational and Management Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Private Operation, Ownership and Financing 55 Private Operation and Ownership, Financing with Government Assistance 55 Private Operation, Government Ownership 56 Government Operation, Government Ownership 56 Timing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Implementation Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 PART IX. SUMMARY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 APPENDIX. MAPS OF EXISTING AND POSSIBLE FERRY TERMINAL SITES . . 63 iv. PART I. INTRODUCTION There has been concern for many years that lack of improvement to the north -south access across Long Island Sound will limit the Island in developing its full economic potential. The increasing separation of the eastern three- fourths of Long Island from the remainder of the metropolitan area, Connecticut and New England is a 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 effect of this separation is becoming increasingly telling. 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 of 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 recommend 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. With Governor F. Joseph Garrahy of Rhode Island also concurring 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 addition, in May Governors Carey and Grasso appointed a Policy A 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, financial considerations and presents comparisons with other existing U.S. ferry operation.s. Eleven crossing combinations at locations considered for new or improved services, are described in Part III. Critical considera- tions 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 sutable 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 general 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.. K a PART II. PRESENT FERRY SERVICE Two operators currently provide ferry service across the 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. Due to 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 54 autos. All 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 I-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 existing 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 1.979 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 I-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. 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 averages 21,425 passengers on the Orient Point -New London service and 18,725 passengers on the Port Jefferson - Bridgeport service, the range in passengers is shown below. Low High Orient Point -New London 3,313 - January 54,161 - August Port Jefferson -Bridgeport 4,449 - October 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 t Annual Ridership Orient Point - New London Bridgeport - Pori: Jefferson 1970 96,000 Passenger Heavy 1971 Year Passengers* Vehicles Trucks Total Vehicles 1970 211,000 59,016 1,984 61,000 1971 192,000 58,049 1,951 60,000 1972 195,100 61,822 2,078 63,900 1973 198,200 65,595 2,205 67,800 1974 201,300 69,272 2,328 71,600 1975 204,400 73,045 2,452 75,497 1976 207,527 76,794 2,581 79,375 1977 201,218 74,008 2,975 76,983 1978 213,834 81,963 3,061 85,024 1979 257,109 99,915 3,870 103,785 Bridgeport - Pori: 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 5 55 611 45 r. 35 0 c 0 30 P, x 25 x �a Q a 20 15 10 W Figure 11 - 1 Monthly Passengers,1979 i cn - 22 20 18 Figure 11-2 Monthly Passenger Vehicles, 1979 — Orient Point - New London --- Port Jefferson - Bridgeport 10 8 6 4 2 z� ra 9 x � z� 0 a H > v For both services the largest share of riders, approximately 45%, lived in New York State. For the Orient Point -New London line the second greatest was New England, other than Connecticut, (26%), while for the Port Jefferson -Bridgeport line it was Connecticut (37.9%). 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% of the respondents drove their car onto the ferry. On the Port Jefferson -Bridgeport line this figure was only 30%. However, an additional 30% drove to the terminal and parked their car there and 25% 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 car on this ferry during peak periods most drivers indicated they would, 76% on the Orient Point -New London line and 91% on the Port Jefferson -Bridgeport line. Fewer drivers would be willing to pay for a reservation during off-peak periods, 52% on the Orient Point -New London line and 75% 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 ferry service. The most common complaints concerned the cost of service, the congestion at the access terminal, and the infrequency of service. 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% of the auto traffic on the Throgs Neck Bridge exhibited a Long Island-Connecticut/Northeast orientation. In addition, 8% of the truck traffic had this orientation. If as little as 1% of this traffic was diverted to the ferry service, then an r additional 31,000 autos and 1170 trucks annually would be handled by the ferries. On the Whitestone Bridge this orientation is not as strong, 1.40/0 of the passenger cars and 1.0% of the trucks exhibited this pattern. The potential for diversion from the Whitestone Bridge is not very great. 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; I 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, $2.00 per passenger 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% of the annual ridership. The service has consistently generated revenue to approximately cover 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 greater 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 shows 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. This is due to their greater capacity and use per crossing. N Table I1-2 Operating Data 10 Orient Point- Port Jefferson- Washington New London Bridgeport Cape May State Vessels 3 1 3 18 Crossings 5,120 1,042 4,236 NA Vessel -Miles 81,920 16,672 67,776 987,000 Vessel Operating Hours 10,240 2,084 7,060 NA Crossing Hours 7,328 1,563 4,942 NA Vehicles 103,785 25,393 203,545 7,328,000 Vehicles Per Crossing 20.3 24.4 48 NA Passengers 257,109 112,350 642,000 17,500,000 Operating Costs $1,811,599 $759,735 $2,708,000 $53,772,000 Costs Per Crossing Hour $247.22 $466.07 $548.00 NA. Costs Per Vehicle Mile $1.09 $1.79 $0.83 $0.57 Costs Per Vehicle $17.46 $29.92 $13.30 $7.34 Costs Per Passenger $7.05 $6.76 $4.22 $3.01 10 PART III. LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS AND COMPARISONS Perhaps the single most important factor determining 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 a ferry service could be viable. Any crossing further west would be too close to the existing bridges between Queens and the Bronx to provide significant 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 administra- tion 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 will 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 lengthens the ferry crossings by approximately one mile through the harbor, its proximity to Route 110 and to Park Avenue is favorable. Extensive dredging of the harbor would be required. w Port Jefferson -Bridgeport: The current terminal sites are capable of handling many times the current number of vehicles. Land 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 N N PoueAY.qu. IIIIIITII SS PUINAM IIx AN1:I 0 87 ./' � ) wtsluostEx' RIH AIANH Im— / 7 CITY I lj / - 91 86 I I[(m '"I /U 6 HUIS[ HARTFORD '" 1 1 l r l AYI IIII. I NORTN WES TERN I 1� �1 1 1 / WINIIHAM �I L-- NIIMTHE A! l IfNN-Illlt 1- / 7 LENTxAI. � 1 & r" II NAli1:A111(K \\`-%� `�V `\ GNorritlr t -J vAl flr �- WATERBURY1 11 52 SOIQHEASII RN Hnseulrnl 91 i DANBURY ��r 9( 15 SnlI H I I. N I R AL IONNEITIIIrr RIVER I.SIUARI' JN N_ I.... ; G ` 25 vAlu.} i Il NEW HAVEN 7 • ` 95 ` ,__�' v s J -tl/G \w / ✓' ,RI11x 4w NI �,cvxtore ow suer O BRIDGEPORT �: l-'i.lha•r.1 /sluHd EPORT E I IiiNNrIRF P L (D) I:6dN I t NORWAIK ; 1 ()\Ir O ;© U I Figure III - 1 yJLIN 1) 0",L . } Ylunl lslw(d orl H En. Mxioy crwnwr, / w„r 0, FAS U_ — 5 10 MILES WASHINGTON I LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STUDY 1981 POSSIBLE LONG ISLAND TO NEW ENGLAND CROSSINGS Existing Ferry Routes .....»... Possible Ferry Crossings (,I) Huntington Bay - Norwalk (El East Marion/Orient -Old Saybrook (1 Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport LJ Orient Point -Old Saybrook C) Port Jefferson - Bridgeport (G) Orient Point -New London (, D� Shoreham -New Haven CHD Greenport -New London e Table III -1 Ferry Terminal Locations (1) 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 Crossing Construction Dredging or Distance(1) Costs(2) Accessi- Trestle Location Cruise Harbor Terminal Access bility Needs Norwalk 3.8 2.6 -(3) good Extensive dredging to Huntington 1) Beach Ave. 9.7 0.1 5.6 3.0 poor 2000-2500' 2) Halesite 9.7 1.0 5.6 - fair Extensive Bridgeport 1.5 1.3 1.8 excell to Pt Jefferson 12.1 1.8 1.2 - good to Sunken Meadow 13.1 0.1 7.7 - good 2500-3000' New Haven 1) Harbor 18.8 1.4 2.6 - good Some 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 2500' Old Saybrook 1)n. of Ferry Pt 7.5 3.8 3.7 - excell 1500' 2)s. of RR Bridge 7.5 2.8 4.0 3.4 good Some 3)n. of North Cove 7.5 1.9 9.7 4.0 good Some to East Marion/Orient 0.1 3.5 0.7 good 500' Old Saybrook 1)n. of North Cove 1.9 9.7 4.0 good Some 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 - fair (1) 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. 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 I-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" closeby 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 I-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 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. A In Old Saybrook 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 I-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. The second site is ;just south of the railroad bridge. Access to the ferry loading facilities would be by a causeway starting 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. 14 The third site considered in Old Saybrook 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 I-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 site is west of Terry Point and has close access to Route 25. There is land that could be acquired for an on -shore staging area. There are a few residential homes to be considered. 2. A second site is at the western end of Truman Beach. An access road of about 3500' to Route 25 would be required. Vacant land for development of an on -shore staging area is available. A few residen- tial homes are in the area. 3. 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 I-95 (Exit #83) with long term parking facilities that can accommodate growth. The staging area can be enlarged and improved. The Long 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 Mascony. The first is South of Front Street (Route 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. 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 diversified. 15 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 the 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 of New London, CT 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 higher 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. 16 Table IV -1 Vessel Characteristics (1) All vessels are single -ended except the Washington State Ferries. (2) Not considered for a major service. (3) After installation of internal combustion engines. Assumed Assumed Operating Costs Capital ($ per crossing hour) Capacity Speed Draft Cost Crew Payroll, VESSEL TYPES(1) (autos) (knots) (feet) ($000) Size Fuel Supplies Maint. CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICE Plum Island(2) 25 12 9 Caribbean Ferry(2) 25 12 6 New London 51 17 8 3,000 6 63 104 34 BRTDGEPORT-PORT JEFFERSON STEAMBOAT CO. Martha's Vineyard 35 12 10 41 182 87 V MASCONY FERRY TRANSPORT CO. Connecticut/Henlopen(2) 85 13 10 10 Greenport/Cape May 105 20(3) 10.5 4,000 9 110-135 150 44 New Jersey 105 20(3) 10.5 4,000 9 110-135 150 44 DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY 107 17 7.5 12,800 9 110-135 150 44 WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES 100 16 15.5 17,667 9 150 44 NEW LONDON - CLASS T -BOAT 51 17 8 5,000 6 63 104 34 CATAMARAN T -BOAT 64 20 7,000 6 90 131 34 (1) All 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 seriously considered 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, 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 are indicated in Table IV -1. 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. 18 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 avail- able from the Planning Division of the New York State Department of Transpor- tation. 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 improvements 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. Wetlands and Shorelines. Wetlands would be a significant factor in planning a ferry terminal 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 Impacts; Knight Associates, January 1981 19 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. Severity of impact of dredging; and terminal construction should be assessed for each site. On the other hand, the construction of structures in the sound may provide additional habitat for lobsters, fin fish, and other organisms. Air Quality. While it is anticipated that proposed improvements may result in increased vehicle activity at loading and unloading points, 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 minimize the impact on nearby receptors. 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. 20 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: - the 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: - 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. 21 The direct impact of an investment of about 100 million dollars for improved ferry service might result in about 140 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 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 for Long Island (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 22 r Table V-1 Measures of Economic Activity, Long Island and Connecticut, 1990 (Billions of 1984 dollars, thousands of employees) Economic Measure Nassau -Suffolk Connecticut 1. Output (Private, non-agricultural) - Baseline forecast 45.64 86.94 - Attributed to ferry .17 .05 - Total 45.81 86.99 2. Employment (Private, non-agricultural) - Baseline forecast 726.9 1510.9 - Attributed to ferry 2.5 1.3 - Total 729.4 1512.2 3. Personal Income (Private, non-agricultural) - Baseline forecast 68.32 87.78 - Attributed to ferry .15 .06 - Total 68.47 87.84 NOTE: (1) Output and employment are estimated on a place -of -work basis while personal income is a residence concept. 23 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 perceived out-of-pocket costs for making a comparable vehicle trip around the Sound. 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 indicates 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 Suffolk 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. 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. 24 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 comparison, 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. Five locations showed negative annual savings when all construction and operating energy was compared to the net fuel usage of vehicles. This ranged from 95,000 to 161,000 gallons per year for the three Shoreham -New Haven area locations, Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport, and Huntington Bay -Norwalk. * It is assumed that all travel indicated on the ferry would the Sound, even if ferry service were not available. This true, since some of the travel (newly generated) would not ferry service were not available. 25 be made around is probably not be made if the Table V-2 NOTES: (1) Figures in parentheses are deficits. r (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 relationship of energy usage to the value of the construction. Details are shown in the technical reports. 26 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) Net Ferry Construction Net Location Vehicle Use Operation FerjZ Terminal Access Total Savings . 1. Orient Point- 1363 589 4.7 14.9 122.8 731 632 New London 2. Port Jefferson- 617 480 4.7 20.5 52.8 558 59 Bridgeport 3. East Marion/Orient- 1245 366 4.7 106.8 122.8 601 644 Old Saybrook (North Cove) 4. East Marion/Orient- 1088 352 4.7 58.0 119.3 529 558 Old Saybrook (Ferry Point) 5. Shoreham New Haven 602 640 4.7 93.8 23.9 763 (161) 6. Shoreham -West Haven 594 512 4.7 147.9 23.9 689 (95) 7. Shoreham -East Haven 602 544 4.7 113.9 28.3 691 (89) 8. Orient Point- 1.305 449 4.7 85.3 126.3 665 640 Old Saybrook (North Cove) 9. Huntington Bay- 354 384 4.7 67.0 - 456 (102) Norwalk 10. Sunken Meadow- 507 544 4.7 72.9 26.2 648 (141) Bridgeport 11. Greenport- 932 545 4.7 28.5 - 578 354 New London NOTES: (1) Figures in parentheses are deficits. r (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 relationship of energy usage to the value of the construction. Details are shown in the technical reports. 26 PART VI. EXPECTED FERRY USAGE AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Part VI of this 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 revenues, 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 all potential locations, comparisons are made of operating costs plus capitalized costs for boats, with expected revenues. These comparisons are made using two different fares and a variety of service levels, for each of the two time periods. These comparisons show which locations would be capable of covering operating and boat costs from revenues, and what amount of assistance would be 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 ferry usage are available from two sources: A set of 1980 interviews of users of the two existing ferry services. Information from these interviews included trip origins and destinations from which weighted average trip lengths and traveler response 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 insights 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: Future trip patterns of ferry usage will be similar to those that were found in the 1980 surveys. 27 The rate of general inflation will decline very gradually, from the present level of about 13.3 percent annually to a long-term rate of 6 percent 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 inflation 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 histor- ical relationships among the principal data that are important in explaining the usage of ferry service for the period 1970-1979. These historical relationships were then used to predict future usage at each existing location; extension of this technique, using similar levels of service and fares, permit- ted forecasts 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 for which usage forecasts were prepared 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 Division 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 determine the impact of various fare levels, service levels, and vessel speed on ferry usage. Fare. Figure VI -1 compares the 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 d through fare: level a, usage drops by only 15 percent. On the other hand, the revenues produced by these changes in fare 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. 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 28 V Table VI -1 Variables Considered in Developing Ferry Use Forecasts Users Forecast Years Fares Service . Autos and 1983-84 - Allowed sufficient 1980 fares increased Existing fleet Light Trucks time to acquire by the full rate of and schedules Old Saybrook (North new boats or implement expected general in - Passengers other actions flation 2 boats Heavy Trucks . 1993-94 - Added forecast period for expansion of services and promotion of traveler awareness N . 1980 fares increased by 50% of the rate of expected general inflation . Continuation of 1980 fare levels . 1980 Fare levels sharply reduced by approximately one- third . 3 boats 4 boats . 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 Saybrook (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 Percent Change 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 Key f-,4; s the 1980 fare reduced by one-third. is the 1980 fare. is increased at 50 percent of the rate of inflation' is increased with the rate of inflation. REVENUE USE 30 It Table VI -2 Ferry Usage, Orient Point - New London, Using 16 Knot Boats (Thousands) Autos Heavy Trucks Passengers Service 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 c 225 240 9.2 10.2 543 580 Fare d 245 256 10.1 10.9 563 588 6 Boats Fare a -- 297 -- 11.8 -- 740 Fare b -- 313 -- 12.5 -- 756 Fare c -- 337 - 13.8 -- 775 Fare d -- 354 -- 14.5 -- 789 8 Boats Fare a -- 389 -- 15.1 -- 961 Fare b -- 405 -- 15.9 -- 976 Fare c -- 431 -- 17.1 -- 1000 Fare d -- 448 -- 17.9 -- 1015 NOTES: (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. 31 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 increase in number of annual ferry crossings), also produced substantial gains in ferry , usage. The analysis indicates that the amount of service offered has a signifi- cant 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 over 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. More detailed origin/destination data for trucks using the Throgs Neck Bridge were examined for a single day in May 1979. These data, for 403 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 travelled to or from the rest of New England or upstate 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 "winter". 32 Given these patterns, it might be expected that heavy truck travel would divide between western Suffolk and the eastern end of Long Island. However, the more easterly location would offer relatively greater travel time savings than a western site and, therefore, would divert a proportionally greater share of its divertable travel to the ferry. Thus, truck usage would be expected to be greater at an eastern ferry site. 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 and 6 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 of the three user groups. 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 alternative routes. Vehicle Usage. The of East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (North Cove) and Orient Point - Old 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 both auto and truck usage (for a given level of service and fare) is shown at the East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (North Cove) crossing where almost 340,000 autos could be expected to use a 6 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 - Old Saybrook (North Cove). See figure VI -2 for an illustration of auto and truck usage in 1994 with a six boat service, for all 11 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 and truck 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 most heavily used location at the East Marion/Orient - Old Saybrook (North Cove) crossing. Passenger Usage. More passengers would be carried by Port Jefferson -Bridgeport service than any other routes. Nearly one million passengers are forecast for the 6 boat service by 1993-94. The East Marion/ Orient -Old Saybrook (North Cove) location is expected to have nearly 850,000 passengers for the corres- ponding fare and service levels. 33 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 4 boats 6 boats 8 boats 2. Port Jefferson -Bridgeport 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 3. East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (North Cove) 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 4. East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (Ferry Point) 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 5. Shoreham -New Haven 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 6. Shoreham -West Haven 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 154 147 6.5 6.3 394 376 211 204 8.5 8.4 530 512 -- 297 -- 11.8 -- 740 -- 389 -- 15.1 -- 961 91 86 3.9 3.8 335 315 110 105 4.5 4.5 413 397 184 179 7.2 7.1 660 638 -- 273 -- 10.4 -- 969 131 125 5.5 5.3 351 332 154 149 6.3 6.2 408 389 237 231 9.3 9.2 612 592 -- 337 -- 13.1 -- 849 116 110 4.9 4.8 308 290 134 129 5.6 5.5 354 336 207 201 8.3 8.1 531 512 -- 294 -- 11.5 -- 737 92 87 4.4 4.2 246 234 110 106 5.0 4.9 291 279 182 178 7.7 7.6 463 451 -- 270 -- 10.9 -- 674 94 89 4.6 4.5 255 242 112 108 5.3 5.2 301 288 184 180 7.9 7.8 472 459 -- 270 -- 11.1 -- 674 I D I 1 Table VI -3, Cont'd (Thousands) AUTOS HEAVY TRUCKS PASSENGERS 1983-84 1993-94 1983-84 1993-94 1983-84 1993-94 7. Shoreham -East Haven (Lighthouse Point) 2 boats 93 88 4.5 4.4 250 237 3 boats 111 107 5.2 5.1 296 284 4 boats 183 179 7.9 7.8 468 455 6 boats -- 271 -- 11.1 -- 678 8. Orient Point -Old Saybrook (North Cove). 2 boats 129 123 5.3 5.2 346 328 3 boats 152 147 6.2 6.0 403 384 4 boats 234 228 9.2 9.0 599 580 6 boats -- 335 -- 12.8 -- 844 -9. Huntington Bay -Norwalk 2 boats 80 77 3.4 3.3 235 222 3 boats 99 95 4.1 4.0 281 268 4 boats 171 167 6.7 6.5 455 441 6 boats -- 258 -- 9.9 -- 662 10. Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport 2 boats 85 80 3.8 3.7 241 227 3 boats 103 98 4.5 4.4 287 273 4'boats 175 170 7.0 6.8 459 444 6 boats -- 262 -- 10.0 -- 667 11. Greenport -New London 2'boats 86 79 3.9 3.8 214 199 3 boats 100 93 4.4 4.3 248 232 4 boats 149 143 6.3 6.1 367 351 6 boats -- 208 -- 8.5 -- 506 NOTES: (1) 'Fare is increased at the assumed rate of inflation. (2) Auto drivers are included in passenger totals. (3) Boats have a capability of 16 knots and a capacity of 50 autos. Thousands of Vehicles 360 — 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 2a Q FIGURE VI -2 Comparison of Auto and Truck Usage, Six Boat Service, 1994 (Fare is increased at the rate of inflation) Key 1: Orient Point — New London ybrook (North Cove) ybrook (Ferry Point), Harbor) ht House Point) (North Cove) t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Location 36 .•5W :'AUTOS Costs and Revenues For Various Improved Service Options After completion of the forecasts of ferry use for each location, estimates of the associated annual operating costs and capital costs' were calculated. Annual operating costs include all operating costs for boats and terminals (fuel, payroll, maintenance, etc.) and are based on costs reported by existing cross Sound operators and by operators of other services. (Detailed operating cost data are presented in Table II -2 Part 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. Operating costs were increased by appropriate rates of inflation to reflect operating 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 equipment 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 six boats, the highest operating costs (both boat and terminals) are shown at Shoreham -New Haven, Greenport -New London, Shoreham -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 14-15+ million dollar range at these locations. The lowest operating costs for six boat service are shown at East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (North Cove), Orient Point -Old Saybrook (North Cove) and East Marion/ Orient -Old Saybrook (Ferry Point) where annual operating costs range from 11.5 to 12.1 million dollars per year. At the other locations, including Orient Point - New London, annual operating costs are between 13 and 14 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 6-7 million dollars annually (for six boat service). These higher costs reflect the cost of developing terminal facilities where none now exist. • Comparisons Of Revenues 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 comparison of revenues (for each of the fares) and costs at each location was undertaken. 37 W Oo Table VI -4 Projected Costs And Revenue, Existing Ferry Services (Millions of Nominal or Current Dollars for The Year Indicated) Annual Operating Cost Capital Cost (Annualized) Boats & Terminals Area and Service Total Boats Terminal Access 1. Orient Point -New London 1984 -- 4.18 4.65 -- 3 boats (2 existing, I new) 3.02 .90 3 boats (1 existing, 2 new) 3.19 1.60 3 boats (new) 3.19 2.10 4 boats -- 8.13 4.59 2.81 1994 -- 8.63 7.27 9.88 3 boats (1 existing, 2 new) 6.27 1.60 3 boats (new) 6.27 2.10 4 boats -- 23.28 9.00 2.81 6 boats 19.19 13.20 4.21 8 boats 17.41 5.61 2. Port .Jefferson -Bridgeport 1984 2 boats (1 existing, i new) 3.08 .72 2 boats (new) 2.81 1.40 3 boats 3.34 2.16 4 boats 5.04 2.81 1994 2 boats 5.50 1.40 3 boats 6.54 2.10 4 boats 9.86 2.81 6 boats 14.23 4.21 NOTES: (1) Fare in increased at 50% of the rate of expected inflation, (2) Fare is increased at the expected rate of inflation. Total Total All Costs Revenue(1) Revenue(2) .26 -- 4.18 4.65 -- .26 -- 5.06 4.68 5.30 .26 -- 5.55 4.68 5.30 .26 -- 7.68 6.30 7.18 .26 -- 8.13 7.27 9.88 .26 -- 8.63 7.27 9.88 .26 -- 12.07 9.76 13.53 .26 -- 17.67 13.80 19.59 .26 -- 23.28 17.83 25.51 .35 .40 4.55 3.04 3.90 .35 .40 4.96 3.32 3.90 .35 .40 6.25 4.16 4.74 .35 .40 8.60 6.65 7.73 .35 .40 7.65 5.40 7.31 .35 .40 9.39 6.60 9.06 .35 .40 13.42 10.52 14.86 .35 .40 19.19 15.60 22.60 � ti Table VI -5 Projected Costs And Revenue Of Ferry Service At Alternative Locations (Millions of Nominal or Current Dollars for the Year Indicated) Annual Operating Cost Capital Cost (Annualized) Boats & Terminals Total Boats Terminal Access 1. East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (North Cove) 1984 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 1994 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 2. Fast Marion/Orlent-Old Saybrook (Ferry Point) 1984 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 1994 2 boat's 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats Total Total All Costs Revenue(1) Revenue(2) 2.28 1.40 1.33 .68 5.69 4.09 4.61 2.76 2.10 1.33 .68 6.87 4.76 5.39 4.06 2.81 1.33 .68 8.88 7.14 8.16 4.44 1.40 1.33 .68 7.85 6.38 8.55 5.38 2.10 1.33 .68 9.49 7.41 10.06 7.96 2.81 1.33 .68 12.78 11.12 15.45 11.47 4.21 1.33 .68 17.69 15.66 22.30 2.39 1.40 1.04 .10 4.93 3.59 4.05 2.87 2.10 1.04 .10 6.11 4.14 4.69 4.29 2.81 1.04 .10 8.24 6.23 7.11 4.66 1.40 1.04 .10 7.20 5.60 7.50 5.59 2.10 1.04 .10 8.83 6.44 8.72 8.40 2.81 1.04 .10 12.35 9.66 13.42 12.12 4.21 1.04 .10 17.47 13.64 19.41 O Table V1-5 cont'd. Annual Operating Cost Capital Cost (Annualized) Boats 6 Terminals Total Total Total Boats Terminal Access All Costs Revenue(1) Revenue(2) 3. Shoreham -New Haven 1984 2 boats 3.08 1.40 1.62 .40 6.50 2.80 3.26 3 boats 3.66 2.10 1.62 .40 7.78 3.34 3.88 4 boats 5.54 2.81 1.62 .40 10.37 5.37 6.25 1994 2 boats 6.01 1.40 1.62 .40 9.43 4.35 6.06 3 boats 7.15 2.10 1.62 .40 11.27 5.17 7.27 4 boats 10.85 2.81 1.62 .40 15.68 8.29 11.89 6 boats 15.68 4.21 1.62 .40 21.91 12.28 17.83 4. Shoreham -West Haven 1984 2 boats 2.72 1.40 2.64 .40 7.16 2.89 3.36 3 boats 3.23 2.10 2.64 .40 8.37 3.43 3.98 4 boats 4.83 2.81 2.64 .40 10.68 5.47 6.36 1994 2 boats 5.31 1.40 2.64 .40 9.75 4.51 6.24 3 boats 6.31 2.10 2.64 .40 11.45 5.33 6.37 4 boats 9.44 2.81 2.64 .40 15.29 8.46 12.07 6 boats 13.58 4.21 2.64 .40 20.83 12.30 17.85 5. Shoreham -East Haven (Lighthouse point) 1984 2 boats 2.87 1.40 2.02 .59 6.88 2.85 3.31 3 boats 3.42 2.10 2.02 .59 8.13 3.39 3.94 4 boats 5.14 2.81 2.02 .59 10.56 5.43 6.31 5. Shoreham -East Haven (Lighthouse Point) Continued 1994 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 6. Orient Point -Old Saybrook (North Cove) 1984 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 1994 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats 7. Huntington Bay -Norwalk 1984 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 1994 2 boats 3 boats 4 boats 6 boats Table VL -5 Cont'd. Annual Operating Cost Capital Cost (Annualized) Boats & Terminals Total Total Total Boats 'Terminal Access All Costs Revenue(1) Revenue(2)_ 5.62 1.40 2.02 .59 9.63 4.43 6.18 6.68 2..10 2.02 .59 11.41 5.26 7.39 10.05 2.81 2.02 .59 15.47 8.40 12.02 14.49 4.21 2.02 .59 21.31 12.38 17.99 2.13 1.40 .94 .58 5.05 4.03 4.63 2.67 2.10 .94 .58 6.29 4.70 5.43 4.17 2.81 .94 .58 8.50 7.08 8.19 4.17 1.40 .94 .58 7.09 6.27 7.70 5.23 2.10 .94 .58 8.85 7.30 10.17 8.16 2.81 .94 .58 12.49 10.98 15.51 11.95 4.21 .94 .58 17.68 15.53 22.70 2.61 1.40 1.16 .43 5.60 2.69 3.10 3.10 2.10 1.16 .43 6.79 3.23 3.75 4.64 2.81 1.16 .43 9.04 5.38 6.27 5.10 1.40 1.16 .43 8.09 4.26 5.79 6.07 2.10 1.16 .43 9.76 5.12 7.06 9.07 2.81 1.16 .43 13.47 8.47 11.98 13.05 4.21 1.16 .43 18.85 12.60 18.21 N Table VI -5 Cont'd. Annual Operating Cost Capital Cost (Annualized) Boats & Terminals Total Total Total Boats Terminal Access All Costs Revenue(1) Revenue(2) 8. Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport 1984 2 boats 2.81 1.40 1.26 .40 5.87 2.79 3.22 3 boats 3.34 2.10 1.26 .40 7.10 3.35 3.88 4 boats 5.04 2.81 1.26 .40 9.51 5.47 6.37 1994 2 boats 5.49 1.40 1.26 .40 8.55 4.46 6.01 3 boats 6.55 2.10 1.26 .40 10.31 5.33 7.28 4 boats 9.86 2.81 1.26 .40 14.33 8.64 12.18 6 boats 14.24 4.21 1.26 .40 20.11 12.79 18.46 9. Greenport -New London 1984 2 boats 2.92 1.40 .49 -- 4.81 2.63 2.94 3 boats 3.66 2.10 .49 -- 6.25 3.03 3.40 4 boats 5.68 2.81 .49 -- 8.98 4.44 5.05 1994 2 boats 5.72 1.40 .49 -- 7.61 4.06 4.86 3 boats 7.16 2.10 .49 -- 9.75 4.68 6.23 4 boats 11.14 2.81 .49 -- 14.44 6.85 9.43 6 boats 15.29 4.21 .49 -- 19.99 9.59 13.58 NOTES: (1) Fare Is indexed at 50% of the expected rate of inflation. (2) Fare is fully Indexed at the expected rate of inflation. Fares At 50°; 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), and both East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook locations. Full operating costs would be covered for the Port Jefferson -Bridgeport service except for the two -boat service levels. Full operating costs would not be covered for most service levels at all other locations. The shortfall of operating cost coverage would be highest for Greenport -New London service, ranging from .3 million dollars for two boat service in 1984, to 5.7 million dollars for six boat service in 1994. Fully Inflated Fare. The fully inflated fare would cover both operating cost and the annualized cost of boats at: East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (North Cove) East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (Ferry Point), except 3 boat service in 1984 which falls short about 280,000 dollars annually. Orient Point -Old Saybrook (North Cove) Orient Point -New London Port Jefferson -Bridgeport, except 3 and 4 boat 1984 service which would require financial assistance of 700,000 and 120,000 dollars annually Financial assistance on the order of 1 to 1j million dollars would be required annually for the service between Shoreham and West Haven and East Haven sites and about 2 million dollars for the Shoreham to New Haven site. Huntington Bay -Norwalk service would need up to 1j million dollars annually, as would the Bridgeport -Sunken Meadow service. Greenport -New London service would require an additional 1.4 to 5.9 million dollars annually depending on the service and time period. For the five locations where fully inflated fares would cover operating and boat capital costs (for most service levels), the amount by which revenue would exceed those costs was substantial. Using the six boat service level for illustration, the following revenue surplus would result: . East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (North Cove) - 6.6 million dollars . Orient Point -Old Saybrook (North Cove) 6.5 million dollars Port Jefferson -Bridgeport - 4.3 million dollars 43 East Marion/Orient-Old Saybrook (Ferry Point) - 3.0 million dollars . Orient Point -New :London - 2.2 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 all service levels at these locations. Summary Some important findings were developed in this part of the report. First, the relationship of usage to fare was shown to be fairly inelastic. Changing the fare level, from about two-thirds of the present fare to a level which increases with inflation, results in only about a 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 western Suffolk County. It was shown that: fares increased by one-half the rate of inflation would cover operating costs for improved service for the two existing services and for services connecting with Old Saybrook, but would not cover full operating and annualized cost of boats for the services connecting with Old Saybrook and, with minor exceptions, all service levels for the existing ferry locations. Public financial assistance on the order of 1 to 2 million dollars annually would be required for most of the other potential sites, but it could be as high as six million dollars at Greenport -New London. Service improvements to provide 8 -boat service at New London -Orient Point would quadruple usage by 1994. Six -boat service at Port Jefferson -Bridgeport would increase usage by ten times the current amount. 44 Millions of dollars (Nominal) 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 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 — Old Saybrook (Ferry Point) 5: Shoreham — New Haven 6: Orient Point — Old Saybrook (North Cove) 7• W—ti..*— Rau — M.—.16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Location 45 'ERAT►NG COST IAT CAPITAL COST :VENUE PART VII. POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES This section of. the report discusses funding sources which may be possible for funding 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 (MARAD); the MARAD Construction Reserve Fund; and the Small Business Adminis- tration (SBA) Small Business Loans. As shown in Table VII -1, 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 46 Table VII -1 Federal Funding Programs W 0 4 C 4J Possible Use of Funds +� ^� :o AI m 4--1rnE O W C W m 4J md) U H .1 W •14 .-1 4J C W C N W 4J C H •H H yp, N_V O1 O W N •H n. W .14 14 7 O_ O- W •-1 N a a)W N H N N •.�1 � C- •� H O_ �H W E d H U W ri .-1 •••1 .-I co G7 EE E V C W N 7 :N zL.L.a A k. W f- oa a N as GI W �U N O. >C: 0 W r u W U O> C1Zr O U Department of Agriculture FmHA Business and Guaranteed/ Public Yes * Yes Yes Guarantee up - Only for areas outside of urbanized Industrial Loans Insured or to 90% of area Loans Private loan amount - Eligible pop. < 50,000 - $25,000 of loan funds per one job created - Terms: Rates negotiable, 15-30 years - "Looks like a real possibility" FmHA Community Direct Public Yes No Yes Yes $6.5M in NYS - Must serve rural areas (not necessarily Facilities Loans Loans Body or (few $ left just outside urb. area boundary) non- this year) - For essential community services and profit facilities corp. - Terms: Max. 5% interest, 40 years - "Chances are very good" Department of Commerce EDA Grants and Loans Project Public No No Yes Yes $300 M - Project must yield economic development for Public Works and Grants, only (if nationally benefits, and lead to job creation Development Facilities Direct publicly (nothing - Both counties eligible for 50A of (i.e., Public Works) Loans owned) left for project cost FFY 81) - No loans, just grants available - "Probably not a high priority project" EDA Public Works Impact Project Public No No Yes Yes Min. 15A of - Project must yield economic Projects (PWIP) Grants body or $300M from development benefits non- Public - Stresses historical rehabilitation profit Works and energy conservation retrofitting corp. of community buildings - "Probably not a high priority project" R. Table VII -1 (Continued) 1/ EDA Grants to states for Supplemental and Basic Funding of Titles I, II, III, IV and IX Activities not funded. C 4J4- Possible Use of Funds T � 4J C _ -4 OP E O W C N a7 +i CO N U Gi rl .--4 CO .-I +J N --i C N N C W H W C N •H N W'0 rn N W •14 •r{ •r1 14 7 W 4J W ••i W CO W W N -4 _W E •.i $4 a •.i W E W W u A> 14 •mo -i cc N i v C o ID W 3 u a y 7 4_ m a a• a W N a W CO W W a W CO W U P O z U_l..a r oa aW LJ C: -U Department of Commerce Cent. l/ EDA Business Development Direct Private No No No No - - $10,000 per job saved or created Assistance Loans, only - Terms: Variable rates, up to 25 yrs Guaranteed/ - "Most unlikely" Insured Loans MARAD Title XI Federal Guaranteed/ Private Yes No Floating No $9.758 - Shipowner must provide 12.5% to 250 Ship Financing Guarantees Insured docks ($2B of actual cost Loans only uncommitted) - First come --first served, for dollars (not - Total processing time e� l yr. land- — Terms: Rates negotiable, up to 25 yrs. based) MARAD Construction Reserve Tax Any tax- Yes No No No Varies - Allows for deferment of capital gain Fund Deferment paying of tax payment on repurchase of corp. vessel - Makes it more economical to upgrade or 'trade -up' on vessels. Department of Housing and Urban Development Urban Development Action Project Public Yes No Yes Yes $675M/yr. - Project must generate new permanent Grants (UDAG) Grants applicant nationally jobs and improve tax base (public - $10,000 UDAG per new job or - A leveraging program: Min. of $2.5 private private for every 1 UDAG dollar recipient) - "Probably not too likely" 1/ EDA Grants to states for Supplemental and Basic Funding of Titles I, II, III, IV and IX Activities not funded. THh1v W1 [-I Wfinrinnfrl) a 4J CC Possible Use of Funds 4J 4- '••1 U E C E 0k C '-4 14 � N OmCm N •'C N ,J N •H -1 .iccaa a) i4J a) W C m •'C -0 C0 •H W Nm W .-4 C y m _0 CT E 'D C O a) •11 O. N -4 7 Cl Cr N •'I CO O_ N N N a) E •••1 N O_ E a) N O .-1 •.i -4 W CJ m D NJ•. Z U- l- a_ 4_ W i- O Q O_ a/ Q [r m m f, N O- ? O a) W F- CJ d U 1- Q O? 011, )Q O U Department of Housing and Urban Development Cont. Community Development Project Public No No No Yes Varies - Depends on how much locality is Block Grants Grants (local getting now body) - "More limited than UDAG" `.mall Business Administration Small Business Loans Direct Private Yes * Yes Yes $150,000 max. - Lender of last resort Loans, Small direct loan; - Mostly loan guarantees Guaranteed/ Businesses $500,000 max. - Terms: Variable rates, 10-20 yrs. Insured guar. loan Loans Local Development Direct Private Yes Yes Yes Varies - Loans up to 500 of total project Company Loans Lonna, cost or $500,000, whichever is Guaranteed/ smaller Insured - Terms: Variable rates, up to 25 yrs. Loans Department of Transportation UMTA Section 3 Project Public No No No No - - Service must be considered "mass Capital Improvement Grants, transportation" service to qualify Grants and Loans Direct for funding Loans - Terms: Interest rate dep. on U.S. Treasury lending rate, up to 40 yrs. - "Present type of service more than likely does riot qualify" Table VII -I (Continued) 01 o c� C3 4J 4J q�� C E Possible Use of Funds 4J H •'ii n N .a+ o, C • 1 .•-I ca-� .-1 ca c. •C u (U a� m v (MH N •y o 14-� •11 ro d .N .* .0 m ro C ro •11 .0 C N •.q N H (aC (a .1 v C o a N 14 D a v N •14 N a rJ N(D a -4 c, a a 0 P u -4•.a -4 ro E z a) a) a >• t- N i- Oa 0-0 ¢W a) Cdm _ --IU a _moo a) ro -U o Ia o> o¢ o U UMTA Section 5 Formula Public No No _r• No No - - Same as above; i.e., it must be Capital and Operating Grants "mass transportation" Assistance Formula Grants FHWA Federal Aid Project Public No No No Yes** — $12.5M - Future monies are already being Primary System Grants per year obligated FIIWA Federal Aid Project Public Yes No Yes Yes Approx. $16M - Obligations of FAUS funds for transit Urban System Transfer Grants per year for projects are chargeable to the t.l. FY 1901 limitation. * Can be used for working capital costs. O *'� This assumes the ferry route is on the Primary System. 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:* 1. 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. 2. 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 charged for passage on such ferry shall be under the control of the state, and all revenues derived there from shall be applied to actual and necessary costs of operation, maintenance, and repair. * Quoted and paraphrased from US Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 129. 51 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 require long lead time to secure project approvals and delivery of funds. This would be particularly true of grant programs in which there are many "worthy" projects competing for the available funds. L 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, or contracting for access improvements, to terminals in Connecticut. Neither DOT has the authority to provide operating assistance to ferry operators. Neither DOT currently has funds budgeted or available to provide improvements to ferry services. Appropriations by the respective state legis- latures would be needed for the state departments to provide financial assis- tance for ferry improvements. State And Local Authorities In New York. There are several other potential funding sources through state or local authorities or agencies 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 throughout the state. 52 Industrial Development Agencies (IDA's), local entities designed to issue tax-exempt bonds, only have 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 flexi- bility than the IDA's in financing projects, they must still meet their mandate to reduce blight and unemployment in an area eligible for assistance. Further- more, 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 Service 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, Connecticut Development Authority examines the expenditures of the company for the prior three 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 53 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. r 54 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 to 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 service. For example, an appropriation could be made to New York State DOT, which in turn could contract with the private operators for service improvements. 55 There are obvious advantages to this approach. There would be little government involvement and limited public investment. The experience and efficiency 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. If the level of service proved to be unsatis- factory, government' could quickly change operators. 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 operations 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. 56 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. This agency 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 reasonably 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. Agreements 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 ferry 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 ready 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. 57 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 There are a number of different ways in which major improvements to ferry service may be implemented. For example: 1. 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 and 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 while awaiting ferry service during off --peak traffic periods. Usage and revenues compared to costs would be monitored and service improvements added to the point where revenues or financial assistance did not support additional service. 2. 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. 3. 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 to 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. M 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 commitments. 58 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 government funding sources as well as private funding were identified. Finally, different management options, timing considerations, and implemen- tation scenarios 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. Patronage has increased steadily as more service and capacity have been offered. Three boats are loaded close to capacity throughout the summer, 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 Jefferson 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 about seven -fold compared 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 con- sidered 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 deterred 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. 59 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 proceeding with the next stage of improvements, without involving unwarranted 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. Public investments would also be needed to partially cover boat capital costs at some locations. The Shoreham -New Haven locations would require from 50 thousand. to 2 million dollars annually, without the possibility of recovering the public funds. The same situation would apply at Huntington Bay -Norwalk and Sunken Meadow -Bridgeport, with annual invest- ments of up to 1i million dollars required. 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 areas. 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 Connecticut. An additional 10 million dollars in New York State 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. Me 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 questions: 1. Should service be expanded? 2. Where should service be expanded at existing locations, or on a completely new route? If at a new route, where should it be located? 3. Should ferries be self-supporting or government subsidized? 4. How should improved ferry service be funded? S. What organizations and management arrangements should be used to assist with financing and managing improved ferry service: all private operations, all government -provided service, or somewhere in between? Comments related to these issues will be very helpful in developing recommendations for the respective Governors. 61 Appendix MAPS OF EXISTING AND POSSIBLE FERRY TERMINAL SITES LEGEND FOR ALL MAPS OSite of Existing Ferry Terminal Possible New Terminal Site O = = = = New or Existing Access Road Scale as shown on each map; north at top of map unless indicated otherwise. Appendix Figure 1: Norwalk Site Appendix Figure 2: Bridgeport Site Appendix Figure 3A: New Haven Sites (West) Appendix Figure 3B: New Haven Sites (East) Appendix Figure 4: Old Saybrook Sites Appendix Figure 5: New London Site Appendix Figure 6: Huntington Sites Appendix Figure 7: Sunken Meadow Access Roads Appendix Figure 8: Sunken Meadow Site Appendix Figure 9: Port Jefferson Access Roads Appendix Figure 10: Port Jefferson Site Appendix Figure 11: Shoreham Access Roads ^_ Appendix Figure 12: Shoreham Site Appendix Figure 13: North Fork Access Roads Appendix Figure 14: East Marion/Orient Sites Appendix Figure 15: Orient Point Site Appendix Figure 16: Greenport Sites t t < c •� `� Jeffe MM A h f, �t� 0 LU To e'rs :11 j.ocKw000 sT •.NsHWe Jr HS • :%i . �i. a rr •. ERNEY 01r X41 �..1'' ' 1 'v '� '• `.- rcB S�' ®•�URIdPI ,Y '�� • i � � � � 8M 14 / r�/ ; •� Hiih a A '(/ � ROA9A ' D H A + 1 4 4. No tch o m ��West v B �: k\VA 9eh mor' t \,\ N': ., V ",� 4i �:: �: ©� • • 8 �'�i\\ •i 1, >� � o° = N N C I ,4 �'r", N 18 •� y �\ :. �• ;' • � -91,b ~ I �srRi •` � HA B I.• � Jf '�� ° �\ ��Nf,b� 136 I� • il� •,� MIrr lull if /10111 I 1 �, . / r,V. �?. al >,� I • .�� A '1•. �^\a 8M 16. ]�.�`'. S M24 C rCIC Ire I WT;—" i' 1`f:ii /.N O 1, °� •� N ��.• v �1 • V �O �i .r rl Sh ehaven m 1 \ 1 F F N� o Golgourse s Seaview 74 V, Park 20. A \- -- n v �. .•„ �`-` as \ > \ •`� X11 L�7*v Beeo{cside�r, �., • ✓ I' , o f. �.r vel k • \ • 136 \ \ \ o d .� :...''.� x-•11 �1�•'•9� _- o '� M+t> Point r r Paath City Park (_*and Cat! Pas • 1: , o x �.- _ U S Coast Guar •: 11M_ S•;' • •;�1 'r 'i^g� ,, eW -Sta Gaitasture _ • �' � � i • - iiOtnt d II � I • � -..- - ... Bim. - ••y • _ 7 ,.• QP _ / Ip Light Round 5 I Beach Grassy Hai JAG em Li a re . �1 ?1Id • �i 1\. I / lsianxi 5 e: Raymond b % 0 . ` ;I / Lam ; x Raeks BaaMt . - .i Isiah i'rdai Rai .�\y.•C�i Keyser 0-- 2000 Point «�'• ;� ,�.f" r� � �/ Cedar /eUght Scaile d: 1l • „r ` a i ✓A ~", / Hammock / - - _ Rogers • .+ •.a s� - l I_ ��1e�� _ i�,� nwbite Reef Appendix Figure 1: Norwalk Site Svihra Park '.�_ ��1, .f -� --� '�.i �"1 � D �/ Sch � w PV 1 I ~ i Park`___• iWa r ` ` Oh �.i1_ t Paula, e Ch dye iV�i 1 �� LUUI� rpe��_ � M// �� U \Yen 30 � 0li BM 1 r ' I ti Py/ / PJ Drive•I \•�� 2 �� BMS Th@atP�rs , s R i s1 1 !C � seg . rfie}i� 7r f • St IL � n�a � PJB V/ rary �. 1 t "l ;1 r Sc i �r � be Z LW e+ I P � � \� ) ��• � ride rt � I •\�\ j� ` IRC c :. 4 7 Q1. I NT 11IL�� A NU � �� av ast End �� S e r� BM • a ��Park� I' � re.,ht Yard j�F I I llb i �j R L i 3 (SL'irFiih�8e`''W 'll4 U a�- !r ic `crit .'I' ' ��' ;,7',-_,.; c`� 'c�,�'�(`%// �, �— 1 `� y�� `11 11 ✓;�<' ERCH faDievy'.ibd�(i PJ�i\ ��/� j:�(� 9• 'IINfi. \,% �b ?� ti,�� 1<—�� I l M i_ off,wam ood \ �/ °lam � A � � ,�- c til. � ,� �. � �� ►`';-��,, �- /6Fl. 1 S, to �+ i SAh Cem/Kil�� Klein Mein ria .\/ J��j. �� V��\ • ' +�^'�rO�c�a -- �� A� I pI ■ ��'^ �y C rthou �f tip! we LHiah Sc S \\. ( ^ , ✓' % '• \ Pt : JE ��. �� I I �� `� k i •,� NP i Ib S �IT Flt H G �/ f sr �dc+Bue Pt UN �. DG x `�Vv tits --j •�y�� ( s: i •\ :' BR1,`D©EPORT ti lot; � 71 :.. / / II (''gyp A �.o`.•. r u el or �pEMER �sL�=,PARK w ��—� /East I• 'Ra°d SEpSi� \ C Tovfer a, >�� P seN e, 1 .....:..: ... ( r p 2004' Light Scale B S.--- L— A N D S 0 U N D Appendix Figure Z: Bridgeport Site //SV liNi ER34 h �' 7 ° h1o7D tau' r 43 A \ ill I I c U r C Sehl B � iL� CLL 'r !I"`I :C CC a «\ Bern ,n / r ..n meteBM 331 io A e\ER Ki�be. , ` e� qty g 161 AA 72 /' \\ \\ o II R • j i;. 'I,pt;i /\ � N Huh x!► I r�ena . '�✓�/ Sandy Cams`f?t W,wh}ylt6�� Black Rock;;. 0 - - 2000' 9M 1 -3 w' 'Scale Appendix Figure 3A: Now Haven Sites (West) tee- �? 4 r' + - 45 -�. _ + rr 1 qty g 161 AA 72 /' \\ \\ o II R • j i;. 'I,pt;i /\ � N Huh x!► I r�ena . '�✓�/ Sandy Cams`f?t W,wh}ylt6�� Black Rock;;. 0 - - 2000' 9M 1 -3 w' 'Scale Appendix Figure 3A: Now Haven Sites (West) 7 yP __li( :,• t .. uinn iac 4 e i } eter I 1 .« 1 E HANG � � I I I I. •� �� / ~ n / !/ 7 1 F1 r ` •: ` j Haven East 1 SINTE • • /.' n \\ \ J I 1 %�' /R ry r 9 0w Pollywog•.. j jL� l _ • Pon 1 I . AE#�FiA N GE + 1 ',( •�t'� L . 631 �L �f6 I 00 04R `� St An IN RCHA " "',►• 50 l Drive ' ;c• i i l I .'•�.�/��l �' �� o�c ao eater uz )1 ow Imo. v I ewage � �4// c %/ E CHIN ) .e t n A\ Q �/r /oNt Wd�oer� r �r h -------------- erbrook t4-1 Se 15 ull NE W HA V iNm Reynharn 9a t 1 I I = IL._ Hilt � lid �' =' f•47�. Ht H A A B OR I �; a" r,WNSEBeacongo 13 Lam' rig 5andyWjw Had I I� 1, 1(i� . g✓'� r 1 1 t Black Rock:.* oq ; ✓i ,tt1 I �� tc�'°, + i1 + ! 1. • For ■■ Cts/\ ��\��UY/ Y f Fi TWE HAVEN .W d I RPOR -* p Light" I , t , A rtn$ ay ound 112 UPU1M sr, lift 2000• I SOUND o� Potn3. - Nti - _ - 8_ „k �/ / • Sala Appendix Figure 38: New Haven Sites (East) \� P. -� - --- \ "�•r 46. Fe ,• — M , ��, t 11 _ �. s• 9 5 1 NTERCH 70 •� ��` :1 0140 Hith s 1�1 xINTERCHAN •• • II .• ! I� i I j: .• $Y ►gCh 68&69 Ferry�Cthadwick •1 • �.;L , Ola' Lyme sI Hill I+ ° oil _ EPNpN�_: r_ LIN��_'' �R � �'s ` �� / / �i -e,+ ✓%•O 7��'` � •,f RP � /�• � 1 i�Q is _ � •, �-�'. .i. vasa Fleightsv-,- {z� • •" - t .J. _-. ;( -i _� • er+• � ---- z 1 _ :.' ♦ • ;� '�_ _=' :� 1 � i r.�.�" - �- - 'fir i - - !' � '. . t _ zLyrre Coun •i►•• t;s _ .• _i 0� /l 1i'- —� Lr t' -i .v __�,�- -'• I.fnt s1 t em•,, +�"4�' Wi0 I` - �' Al •� SM L e, j 24 tip 'sH _ =r •° i - - f _ _ - Town � .__ _ '� _ i � ,� - - -'dna •i, _ ! bra tercem "► _ _ - Rrversidr .North Cove brook 2 Saybrook 96fiVte :d' Saybrook - Pt S om Poverty -:Pt, _ -�,+�a4 Lv' �•� 1•'�1• .'E fir"-�+ i �\ ks4 I 7. ,. _ +� _ 'fr• \\ \ Poverty Isla 0 2000' Scale �. • / South Cove V Grin Appendix Figure 4: Old Saybrook Sites *"1 =00 'r* q d ; ''.�:• ,.s - •� „`� ., \ .Walker Substa • n ti Wee e' T `✓ yr. ; � ;� ' � �s414 Star Mem aria r� .1111 BM t • , � ri ge •:/ rOLL piroP 22 • s... � �� ont • \� "_� a ` e GAY �;',•• ! G ,' 32 8 Back„v! ate 5 + , 2 I �, Mor an - r HiQ Staff ' 1,x ++� Z ,. �'� Park HKh \ { •a; per101 /! s \' M ru 'bio—' to oer in its ! Lakes '•Park \\., h ent RsrK y' ` �4 \ `\ `jWNlC) I Seh u ' g f —Q1P4? `1 I ' \ Liblof • 2 urge :;,,ER N ♦ -� - Unron;n, /-� 1'� 1�1� YIVJl`I �lF+( '��, x• / IS4%4 ✓ �BM33) t �i it ' c �✓ � �. .� �, S r-: y \ �, ��/ i _ 'LF fR�I Milli¢5�^ •GtiO T C3RIStiV � •D "Scb ♦ /r^iQc� �:ty uto—+Houst' I (` ViLV 11 V I • E 1 J Led and 213V �\ 1 )1 ) I { � ��: reef Ho rt am Ug daffi '213 /\\ iar pi 9\\ \ I I ! +�� \� A• •/ � � 0P St Jabephs � / I T �ItiRUMtTT'1LLI _ `*j Q z f E: . 1 In, Mercer :41 0121 v scc it I I I �— ? Soh • ilory �„s,q>i �.--=.2 _ i e � ' I � II ►� I p, _ _ „4� ^ Water. ♦♦ ' stn sal Pl w, r to ? IsIAndelto% ?5' 1 i `s r%' Graton ' i-Caulkinv� d u"dge; I \ _ ri H=Pg3 �r<-- - ,,�,,v� Jr Hijr. Park �r �� l f I J I �1. �� West �.• � I )I �ree\�,'�`�tern t n�; eta i ; /'I � ` .a.. �h , r�XYp ock `. / 23 — r,l ren �� a� M I ` . 00+ g % NE� LONDON I � I �� '.•'. .:, HARBOR20 Ch tuart 1H . o I cFl •\'� . :d r��, •; � -"" � �. � i lag Mitehel� ` \ , U ••' • `�," QPa4jc v se \�\ 1 ! 1 \ '•• ; • •p • • Shennecos _ «r• \ \\\\ i II P, ��\• • Country Club ; Cn ' �� :•�� \. , 1 i •� III I !I �' •. ' 7 Hammt ��i I i ''�.••. ''iw.�� ". t ��'` I I Ho Pond bsi`' �— A \ /�' I II I Islands Pepaerbox • , _ 1 22` CP+ \\ \ 1 ' 120 • Htll ��C '\ W I mni�l*a�i I Easterl� ocks I I Poi frossett� N, 20 C 2000 :,� �• : _--.� � `, �, '1 , Scale JilewiLondon Harbonl Iu SCONSTIN6 oU � %��AAA��ddaddDDDDD �� • •�'�• // r Lsothouse ' I Roc1c�� TxwtN�11[� •,n tea, �, i .� � Appendix Figure 5 New London Site HUNTINGTON 24r Tido# Ffa3 0 BAY ` 27 Ugh gat ; Wincoma i Point r Incom V F Hun n on rfterts wtu tR . UN !tel Go w 2 Huntington o c Yacht Club _ li 5 p %i wT � r t r 75 /a /9Kotewomake j Yacht Club "Halnt elk �cks \�N. fn � ,. _. _. .. _ RiSTMr« .. .. 97 _ rr Sewage a Disposals \'•. /� �QF MAPtE StN J ' Rai �� ! OR i9 N tJ�E untin� W 4r Hun ta EP St e5 oc to 1 IR \ �nfk c�f� 1525 �i9/ \ lld ��r a Green Golf Co se itus <J 8 H /1 1 sQ \ C v COVE UHC 92 u n yF ry Av 35 ten ° " \�rJWetenL A a Lam' Rural Cem � it 3�� f\'c. F CHESTNUT (176 \ `,'✓\ \ 0 2000 9z :� .: y r �� Scale Irk` —��' FinnnnBmn` �_ �Sta\,1�_� \ q� i �� High Sc G �( Appendix Figure 6: Huntington Sites tit ur rc, a. to • EAST NOle TNPQQT P V 0 PP K�Noc . PANIC I �► t7 ar 2s v 4�� er S M / T T W N RT / / I / S L / P =_ 0 8000, qy. w Scale Appendix Figure 7: Sunken Meadow Access Roads le d ZZ Oi JeffsI - PCA g Q 01 O K H A E N Rau re t s 0 8000• Scale Appendix Figure 9: Port Jefferson Access Roads Moneyhollow 4 —� � \� • • �\\' v *RockJet ............. ..... \ PORT Hay r HMIs . vv'%JEFFERSO i ! �� °Q Coll Club 'SCAR BOR •� Golf Course 73 Ajit � ROAO, if tax d I� i \� 0 Subst4, ovd, � �`� •i% °, rys 0 i .a °j -\i =---Disposal Light rNO11111"al 87 k''ri- i�icoaeter Water St ries G I♦ '. •. Little F Tank��a 12� \ •m� o' % '� ti I � ij l �' HEST ii - C ji S3p` wril {1 /• �. G .t '4 arYhaven .l l ✓ -1 /% Sch T JEFF,Z S W V✓ k� �� Tank .{ Sherwood Sch Mather 0 0� ^�, • Memorial \ i r ospit3l✓�'��1V _L >� r'' ns 1 Cedar Hill�63 �r Cem ° r r1r X 91 �r \ 8M 166 _ •11 �. x•., .�q� I ,� LONG I .1 wa --- �. pit 'X x ■a 4W1.\ kin r+ ocx 1 Ism* 74 ' X --x .� I •x x. '.X II `l�• / '► r_�// ` •\N ` i /347 4� x � � x Sandpif= Co t t.�'- _ •� // \ 112 I /75' r X meewogae 0Ni Sch i \ i A �� r ��CNI'Nt --3Y _,_� •�• Substation 71 • �� i° � i '.��( Mf� K sf ',I�yEI %/� � .I f,i, :11. � p •. li '\90'9 •\ i I�11�, F' �' lam} rl;�'f--•-'—,�,�,,,l lll: 1. \� •'1 l NO �. 5T V1.; • � �• - - -- - - -= d A\� �N' j �Tohn 1 0 X000' 40 Scale 16 ul� � �• �1� C(" 4 m Water,i — �1 Appendix Figure 10: Port Jefferson Site 'N- d Sills O Rock Shor-_eham--- �)Sfidi hat ' \ 69 I ` ' 4 BEET" Nor 1- - � .II l�_��L4<-�_ 1 , 1 0 u o Radio,, Towers Appendix Figure 12: Shoreham Site � w Wading River Landine Car �l. A is ' dor Trailer 2000' %A 1 scale �R l ✓ E R � I a V % R,41--OWEAO � a 5` u t n a � cJd J'A IGPv ..__ ji T r a h SHELTER V 1 d � IS LA ND 60 0 14000• Scale Appendix Figure 13: North Fork Access Roads s \\y ' 4P$�ro.vns Hill 1' 0 SJ1E Terry oLake ON Nunn S57 21 BM `Village \��r y`en e? o q — Oeo.n• •• ICenlral C'. orie Tem RocRRI OAD Pf 52`✓bh ��A •� �•• �e '[�Nq • • o�y� •� O_RCti. < . t ' I/R"�� `� o �•• ��...l/� � � io • tYrRn-' o arr FLEICH 5 LVO • O \..///\\\ Orient !w rPA MpA\. •LAW 49 7PEor, a- u, am\i/� Yacht Club H x x P tiad(•`\\� \� 0 R I E N TW AU ��• o• ` ��. P X / HA % O : moo.• \ r♦ P --t O $j • 9 Z2 I East �, Marion • • 321• S,, •�\`•9 �" GARDINERS Gulf Course °'��'' • '\ \ P� �` (( " ' East Mario�j%: i *35 Alari,)n•, z t�'> Goll Course - _ \.a ICP 34 lond Appendix Figure 14: East Marion/Orient Sites BAY o z000• Scale f 0s,,0 • O• Appendix Figure 15: Orient Point Site ent int Reed Qo� d • ,4 • ,� Orient Pt Lighthouse F ERR" 0 2000' Scale LONG ISLAND SOUND '\\ East Marion • �. Golf Course - \• F ` • East M 5 Mal Golf Course 4p/ La � o 25 ;\ . \ 0 25 •� ,•�� CL �` •/ / 'sad•. •`\•'yn BM 16 . al •\ 11( Inlet Pt 25St�rJin� \ •v✓� S.; A� tiriing _a3 j _ fie«} 27 Inlet '�j�a \ w �•,u �� ! C��I�, ��' leaves F Pond ty St A0es--1*J COUNTY 2'�e Cell, PARK 1\ BM ! S'tz� Gr,W Hill ° � �`. �� fah •.O �� v�, v. �.�� =Silver v✓�C�,�� , :� v,,- (\ Lake ��\� [!�^dye Youngs Pt s eDrwv, �117por�.,� • / sPosae�/C Nate It"i' owr� H_a�1i�� / L,ght 1\ PO 'I Greet',�hlj �� 53 82� / BM1 `fin 25 /� ✓I,� 0 /^`1� /i .' p \'� � z � � X25_ lg• ; C-- � LP 'I�r— �� _ Dave -.n • i _ /'� �I Theater• ,l� �• �.tii. Lights j Derin /CJsol ne 1 I ✓ ' • J �e ��• Pip"q ering Harbor ve Fanning ' •1\ ° ��`•� �i� Pt iz. ,1 Dering � -- W, Pipes / ° Harbor 11�� ( / Cheqult Our Lad' Cove iJ c f — Beach Club--, yacht Club Shelter/ �� Island./ Heights / I o I C r ✓i i, �• N 1HR P� f..n. I Res 0 2000' J _- ws � •� � '.NicKam -� /�� Scale ,v �•.i° J vl ,� 1'1i Golf 'cr-� �Conkling U1 j.lslar d� Coursa .d Quaked .•� Appendix Figure 16: Greenport Sites