Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSummary of FindingsREPORT TO OCTOBER 1979 LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY SUMMARY OF FINDINGS NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Edward F. Sullivan Study Director Based on Reports by Consultants: 1 URS/Madigan Praeger, Inc. Equitable Environmental Health, Inc. New York, New York Woodbury, New York Gibbons & Hyland, P.C. Yankelovich, Skelly 6 White, Inc. Garden City, New York New York & Stamford I/�h�l Kt�.V Ecc�✓vmNfR �G F��'FrA.st,'.vc- �}s :oc= �:1 ���, i�,%c . Ale,ore 7', /1/Fc.J y0ICA CONTENTS FOREWORD BACKGROUND Previous Crossing Studies Ferry Study Current Bridge Study Crossing Locations CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bridge Structures Approach Highways Economic Effects of Bridge Construction Energy Expenditures TRAFFIC Traffic Trends and Congestion Potential Traffic Travel Reported in Study Surveys Tolls and Revenues GROWT h Economic Outlook Residents' Expectations Businessmen's Expectations Econometric Modelling Regional Economy with No New Bridge Regional Economy with a L.I. Sound Bridge Central Bridge Eastern Bridge Comparison of Central and Eastern Bridges Population, Land Use and Community Services Travel Growth Fuel Consumption FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Revenues Capital Requirements BRIDGE IMPACTS Boating and Shipping Environment Perceptions of Impacts RAIL CROSSING FERRY SERVICE New Route Existing Routes CITIZENS' PREFERENCES Residents Business Executives Public Forums Alternatives Page 1 J 3 6 9 9 9 11 12 15 15 15 22 23 25 25 25 26 28 29 30 32 34 35 38 47 49 51 51 52 53 53 54 56 61 65 65 65 67 67 68 68 69 FOREWORD Since 1965, several studies were made of the feasibility of a bridge across Long Island Sound. Traffic, earnings, and, financial feasibility were estimated for up to eight crossings. These studies did not provide a complete picture of the impact such a bridge would have -- particularly in New England, and especially with respect to economic develop- ment and residents' preferences. A study published in 1971 recommended a crossing between Rye, New York, and Oyster Bay, New York. Due to strong opposition, the idea of a bridge was shelved in 1973. Pres- sure to consider a bridge continues, particularly from chambers of commerce and the motoring public. In light of continued expressions of interest in, as well as opposition to, a bridge Governor Carey directed Commissioner Hennessy to re-examine the feasibility of a bridge, and to provide current data for decisions regarding crossings from Long Island to New England. This Study updates: traffic and financial estimates; environmental, land use and community impacts; construction and maintenance costs; and structural costs to carry a railway. Energy consumption has been estimated. Opinions and interests of residents and businessmen in Long Island, Connecticut and Rhode Island were sampled. The impact of a bridge on economic development has been evaluated, both in terms of the large investment of capital dollars and reduction in travel time between the areas. Impacts on the economy -- jobs, housing, income, business activity -- we:re assessed for the area around the Sound. Feasibility of fast, frequent ferry service is also considered. This study did not attempt detailed investigations of all impacts, but rather provides current information about the need for a Sound crossing, its benefits, impacts, costs and acceptability in the light of present and foreseeable circumstances. Four Public Forums were held in Connecticut and Long Island, and two more are scheduled around the end of October. A 22 -member Policy Advisory Committee has been meeting regularly. (See inside front cover for list of members.) Members will draw their conclusions and present their advice to Commissioner Hennessy in November. This report summarizes fourteen reports drafted by con- sultants engaged for the Study (listed at end of report). A final report and recommendations will be delivered to Governor Carey by January 1, 1980. RArKC;RnUmn Long Island Sound has served as a transportation artery since early colonial times. Most of the movements of sailing vessels and steamboats were along the Sound, rather than across it. Farmers' produce moved to city markets, along with fish and shellfish. Goods moved out from mercantile cities such as New York and Boston to seaport towns along the Sound. "Not only did New York serve as a regional metropolis but also it emerged in the early decades of the 19th century as the national hub of transportation, commodity exchange, finance, and communication."1 Around the turn of the century, large dense popula- tions were supported by transit in cities, particularly in New York. Rail lines allowed commuting into the City from .Long Island, Westchester and Connecticut. The surge of motor vehicles set the stage for suburban booms in the 1920's and after World War II. Nassau County was overrun by rapid suburban growth, which spilled into Suffolk. Growth through the 1960's resulted from a combination of high birth rates, relief from overcrowding in the City, and unprecedented income. Peoples' desires could be satisfied for more housing, more space and more trans- portation. Parkways and expressways were built; many were immediately loaded with traffic. Expressways serving the area around the west of Long Island Sound carry some of the world's heaviest traffic loads. At the western end of Long Island, bridges were built to connect to Manhattan and the mainland, beginning with the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883, continuing to the Throgs Neck Bridge in 1961. Traffic grew steadily until the 1970's. (Figure 1.) This was an era of growth, and of fashioning struc- tures to accomodate it. As vehicular capacity was ap- proached on the Throgs Neck Bridge, attention moved up to Long Island Sound. Previous Crossing Studies Several studies of various Long Island Sound crossings were made between 1965 and 1971. A 1965 report by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority strongly advocated a bridge from Rye to Oyster Bay. P4 3 w 2 W J W W LL 2 O N Z _O J J 2 1 1 FIGURE 1 1905 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 YEAR A Long Island Bridge Study Committee, appointed by Governor Rockefeller, recommended construction of a bridge from East Marion, Long Island to Old Saybrook, Connecticut as a revenue -supported project. A Port Jefferson to Bridgeport crossing was estimated to cost more and yield less revenue, but still be financially feasible. In 1967, the New York State Legislature passed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Act, including authorization for two bridges: Oyster Bay to Rye; and Bridgeport to Port Jefferson. 3 In 1967-69, consultants examined railroad crossing feasibility, and determined that railroad traffic would not financially support a toll railroad crossing of the Sound. Connecticut's Commission to Study the Feasibility of a Bridge from the Bridgeport Area to Long Island in 1969 concluded that the bridge was financially feasible and desirable. In 1971, a team of planning, environmental and economic consultants studied crossings within New York, and to Connecticut and Rhode Island. They recommended Rye -Oyster Bay as the best choice for the first bridge crossing of Long Island Sound. The New York State Department of Transportation con- curred: "The growing need for the bridge and the advan- tages to be gained for society as a whole far outweigh the localized impacts that such a bridge might create."2 A central or eastern Long Island Sound crossing was not recommended, because of financial infeasibility and inability to relieve congestion on highways and bridges in New York City, western Long Island and Westchester County. It was noted that of these crossings, Old Saybrook - East Marion had the highest level of financial feasibility. In 1973 authorization for the Rye -Oyster Bay Bridge was repealed. Ferry Study Attention turned to improving ferry services. During 1974-75, Tri-State Regional Planning Commission conducted a Long Island Sound Ferry Study for Connecticut and New York State. Conclusions were: o High-speed hovercraft were too expensive. o Major expansion of ferry -boat services would be desirable. o The best crossing location, economically and operationally, would be Old Saybrook to East Marion. Terminals and access roads in these areas were strongly opposed by residents and officials of these areas. o If such a new route were ruled out, improvements to the existing ferries would be desirable. 4 Current Bridge Study A key feature of this Study is incorporation of public views throughout the course of the Study. The Policy Advisory Committee is providing inputs and assessments. Citizens' views were registered during May at two 'Public Forums in Connecticut and two on Long Island. A telephone survey of residents of Long Island, Connecticut and RhodE! Island was conducted to ascertain support for or opposition to 'a Long Island Sound Bridge, as well as perceptions of its effects. A personal, in-depth survey of business executives was also conducted to elicit their views, particularly about a bridge's effect on their business. This information was used in the economic forecasts. To assess financial feasibility of a bridge, costs and revenues have to be forecast. Construction, maintenance and operating costs were updated based on earlier studies. Traffic and revenues estimated in 1971 were also updated. Energy needed to build a bridge was also calculated. These items, which are relatively predictable, are presented in the next two sections. A bridge does not stand apart from its surroundings. Its usage is affected by growth in its service-shods. In turn, a bridge opens up easier trade links. Changes to economic linkages were simulated extensively, as reported in the section on Economic Outlook. More jobs support more people and homes; resulting effects on land development and community services are presented next. Based on all these factors, growth in trips across a bridge was projected. Fuel saved by shorter trips and con- sumed by newly generated travel is also reported. Looking at long-term streams of revenues and costs, financial feasi- bility was assessed for each crossing. A bridge will have other impacts, many less direct but nevertheless real. Analyses of such effects are presented, along with how citizens perceive them. Attention must be given to modes other than ,highways. Feasibility of a railway crossing and better ferry crossings are discussed. Finally, support for and opposition to a bridge is cata- logued, as registered in the surveys and public forums. People's suggestions about alternatives to a bridge are list- ed in the last section of this report. 5 Responses gathered in the Residents' and Business Executives' Surveys and Public Forums are included throughout this report. Randomly, 846 residents throughout Connecticut, Rhode Island and Long Island were selected, and interviewed by telephone. Another 213 families near possible bridgeheads were interviewed. They were all told where the five sites under study are located, then asked to rate them in order of preference. Subsequent questions related to the bridge at their preferred location. The survey of Business Executives took fewer samples (180), but they were face-to-face, hour- long interviews with top management. More detailed explanations of the analyses and surveys are contained in the series of Study Reports listed inside the back cover. N CROSSING LOCATIONS Five bridge corridors are encompassed in this Study, ranging from Port Jefferson - Bridgeport at the center of the Sound, to Orient Point - Watch Hill, Rhode Island at the east. Figure 2 sketches possible bridge locations. These study corridors are merely for the purpose of comparative cost estimates. TABLE 1 Long Island Sound Bridge Corridors Length Bridge Corridor (Miles) A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport 14.6 B Wading River/East Haven 19.3 C Riverhead/Guilford 19.2 D East Marion/Old Saybrook 9.8 E Orient Point/Watch Hill 24.6 (includes 10.3 miles across islands) Surveys of residents and of businessmen asked them to rank these crossings, from most favored to least. Port Jefferson to Bridgeport stood out as the preferred site. Support diminished progressively toward the east, so that Orient Point to Watch Hill rated lowest. ULSTER ORANGE RO('KLAND /� y0 ✓F�Str —� BERGEN PASSAM hSC 8o PROVIDENCE I KENT WASHINGTON I Ip5 -_ NEW HAVEN �,. •arta Warn Hill 98 BRI11 EnORT'♦ \'1 I, I • ��1 G�ilfom �� •• Old $sYbrook I F'jSl—, (,and ♦ � / • East Hevan �.S • / WESICHESTE v \ V • / • , �O \ s BR694 IDGEPORT �' / • •• E N. aKWPa • ' i i SOUhll i Plum /stand SOUTMWESTF.RNt1 PP • �© East Marion • Orient Point NEPP TIBNviKe ti •� ISL:1�D i G,•a,roe,.r )IY� c t s O• •O t-., J 15 SSS tiON�CUS U NOHWALK /: •1A (-O^6 287\t'STAMFORD ••i i ! n \ \ ,./ \�\'// J _ NEW _HOCHELLE� Z., UNION y 4 A 276 q DR 95 NEW YORK CITY am / oL1,A\ ATL,. 5 19 MILES 91 ate. 86 ILIT(IHF'IELD, 8 xuls ( HARTFORD yl 11 �� i J I II ('.APITOI. WINDHAM r O ¢ NORTHWESTERN `\ �• L_ / �NORTHEA' \ PougM1keeOsie X11 CENTRA!. II DCTCHF55 II{ _�-�� I CONNECTICUT \ �- ` 7 I � J � 11 y � II II CENTRAL !� \ I iK zr QsF- NAUGATUCK t f V \ Norwitli Bd _Z J 1 ^ VALLEY 1_ -'WATERBURV,`Il MIDSTATE _ z W52 Z a Q 2 SOUTHEASTERN IHOUSATONIC PUTNAM VALLEY 91-����\`/- 8'\1 p DANBURY J ��/ IS SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT / 1\ )11L IV ESTUARY LRIVER ONE New London OGroton PROVIDENCE I KENT WASHINGTON I Ip5 -_ NEW HAVEN �,. •arta Warn Hill 98 BRI11 EnORT'♦ \'1 I, I • ��1 G�ilfom �� •• Old $sYbrook I F'jSl—, (,and ♦ � / • East Hevan �.S • / WESICHESTE v \ V • / • , �O \ s BR694 IDGEPORT �' / • •• E N. aKWPa • ' i i SOUhll i Plum /stand SOUTMWESTF.RNt1 PP • �© East Marion • Orient Point NEPP TIBNviKe ti •� ISL:1�D i G,•a,roe,.r )IY� c t s O• •O t-., J 15 SSS tiON�CUS U NOHWALK /: •1A (-O^6 287\t'STAMFORD ••i i ! n \ \ ,./ \�\'// J _ NEW _HOCHELLE� Z., UNION y 4 A 276 q DR 95 NEW YORK CITY am / oL1,A\ ATL,. 5 19 MILES FIGURE 2 LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY, 1979 POSSIBLE LONG ISLAND TO NEW ENGLAND CROSSINGS ..-•. Existing Ferry Routes Roads Proposed or Under Construction •••••• Possible Bridge Crossings OPort Jefferson to Bridgeport OWading River to East Haven ORiverhead to Guilford C) East Marion to Old Saybrook O' Orient Point to Watch Hill 01 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bridge Structures Bridges are assumed to be 4 -lane roadways. Spans range from 100 feet for low level trestles, to substantially greater span lengths for trusses and cable -stayed or suspen- sion main spans. The following table shows estimated bridge costs in 1979 and escalated for inflation to the year 1988. This latter year represents the mid -point of a four-year construction period, following several years of definitive studies, reviews and permits. The estimated 1988 costs provide a basis for future financial planning. TABLE 2 Estimated Bridge Construction Costs Millions of Current Dollars Approach Highways Costs for three types of approach highways were cal- culated: - Four lane expressway with grade separation struc- tures, and service roads as required through developed areas. Expressway approaches terminate. at the Long Island Expressway and Connecticut Turnpike. Four lane limited access highway with at -grade intersections, terminating at nearest major highway. Two lane, instead of four lane, highway. Approach road right-of-way and construction costs are shown in Table 3, and total project costs in Table 4. Construction Costs Alternative Crossings 1979 19 A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport $490 $ 830 B Wading River/East Haven 750 1,280 C Riverhead/Guilford 660 1,120 D East Marion/Old Saybrook 450 760 E Orient Point/Watch Hill 850 1,430 Approach Highways Costs for three types of approach highways were cal- culated: - Four lane expressway with grade separation struc- tures, and service roads as required through developed areas. Expressway approaches terminate. at the Long Island Expressway and Connecticut Turnpike. Four lane limited access highway with at -grade intersections, terminating at nearest major highway. Two lane, instead of four lane, highway. Approach road right-of-way and construction costs are shown in Table 3, and total project costs in Table 4. MR TABLE 3 Four -Lane Ai)oroach Road Costs *Including upgrading 7.4 miles of William Floyd Parkway. ,*Including upgrading 2.2 miles of Route 25. ***Including upgrading 7.8 miles of Route 25. TABLE 4 Total Bridge and Approach Road Construction Costs Millions of 1988 Dollars Approach Road Construction Costs Ri ht-of-WayCosts Length Length (miles) Thousands of 1988 Dmllars (Miles) Location Expressway At Grade Expressway At Grade Expressway At Grade Port Jefferson 11.6 2.4 88,020 6,630 93,260 2,640 Bridgeport Total 1.2 12.8 1.2 3T 15,330 103,350 8,520 15,150 1,420 94,680 710 3,350 Wading River 8.7* 1.3 40,590 3,590 8,240 1,080 East Haven 3.6 3.6 49,100 30,440 18,530 4,330 Total 12.3 4.9 89,690 3+7020 26,770 5,410 Riverhead 5.7 1.0 43,440 2,690 16,220 510 Guilford 2.5 2.5.. 39,920 18,360 21,050 T260 23,4802- 1,940 0 Total 8.2 3.5 76,360 East Marion 25.2 3.8** 202,570 4,280 76,840 960 Old Saybrook 1.5 1.5 �+.� 33,770 236,34o 26,470 30,750 9P920 6-$-,760 1,900 2- Total ,960 Orient Point 31.2 8.1*** 281,350 7,460 96,570 1,960 Plum Island 3.1 3.1 28,490 10,170 9,870 1,730 Fishers Island 7.2 7.2 56,200 23,560 16,760 5,200 Watch Hill 4.0 2.8 37,180 20,680 16,710 1,490 Total 45.5 21.2 403,226 61,870 139,910 10,380 *Including upgrading 7.4 miles of William Floyd Parkway. ,*Including upgrading 2.2 miles of Route 25. ***Including upgrading 7.8 miles of Route 25. TABLE 4 Total Bridge and Approach Road Construction Costs Millions of 1988 Dollars Maximum Length Highway Approach Type Bridge Corridor (Miles) -Lane Expressway A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport 27 $ 849 $1028 B Wading River/East Haven 30 1319 1397 C Riverhead/Guilford 27 1144 1220 D East Marion/Old Saybrook 37 794 1083 E Orient Point/Watch Hill 60 1502 1973 Construction of two lane approaches would save between $2 and 8 million. In order to determine minimal cost for a Sound bridge, a two lane structure was estimated between Port Jefferson and Bridgeport. It would cost $650 million in 1988 dollars. The total cost with two-lane approaches would come to $666 million. Economic Effects of Bridge Construction Direct economic effects of Long Island Sound Bridge construction would result from labor payrolls, and purchases of equipment, materials and supplies. Distribution of economic benefits would depend on the size and nature of the required construction labor force and overall wage payments, and possible sources of the labor, equipment and materials re- quired for the contemplated bridge construction. About 40 percent of bridge construction costs would go for on-site labor and labor -related costs; 15 percent for equipment; and 45 percent for construction materials. More than 4,000 man-years of: worker time will be required for the construction of the crossing itself. Direct wage payments could exceed $160 million; including allowances for vacations and holiday time, this figure could approach $200 million. (Improvements to approach roads are not included in these figures.) Over the construction period, an average level of employment attributable to construction activity may be roughly 1,400. TABLE 5 Heavy Construction/Highway Construction Labor Pool Approximate Percent of Size Total Nassau -Suffolk 4,000 22 Connecticut 11,000 61 Westchester 2,000 11 Rhode Island 1,000 6 Total 18,000 100 Considering the attraction of a major construction project of long duration, it is possible that the geographic areas noted could supply virtually all of the required labor, though some specialty trades and other craftsmen and laborers would be drawn from substantially larger construction labor pools in New York City and elsewhere. It is evident from the 12 proximity of Connecticut to the proposed construction sites and the size of its heavy construction labor pool, that the bulk of the required labor would be from that State, and substantial amounts of wage payments would accrue to Connecti- cut residents. The location of various construction support facilities in Connecticut could reinforce this predominance of Connecticut labor in the overall work force. Many types of equipment are required for the proposed construction. Since the construction will'be over water,, numerous tugs, work boats, barges and other support vessels and barge -mounted marine equipment, including various types of cranes and even floating concrete plants, will be required. The bulk of payments for such equipment would probably not accrue to suppliers in the Region. Material includes: structural steel superstructure; superstructure and foundation concrete; piling and fendering; paving; electrical systems; and form lumber. Concrete com- ponents are: sand, gravel or aggregate, cement, reinforcing steel and prestressing steel. The steel superstructure would, in all likelihood, be provided by a major steel supplier/fabricator located outside the Region; Sources of sand and gravel are located in rea- onable proximity to the construction site. Cement to be required would probably be supplied from the northern Hudson Valley, transported in bulk to the site by barge. Steel, piling and lumber may be purchased through a regional middle- man, but the -basic source of supply would be outside the Region. Asphalt paving could be obtained from regional. suppliers. It is likely that two-thirds to three-quarters of material costs for bridge construction would be paid to suppliers outside the Region. Energy Expenditures Expenditures of energy for construction was calculated, reflecting manufacture of materials, installation, equipment used, and construction and related activities. Coefficients of energy expended per dollar were applied to roadway and bridge construction cost elements. Estimates of lenergy re- quirements for bridge and road construction cost (displayed in Table 6) total, from 25 to 55 billion Btus of various types of energy. To.set these_ numbers in perspective, they will be compared later to fuel saved and consumed by vehicles using the crossings TABLE 6 Estimated Energy Consumed by Long Island Sound Crossings Estimated Energy Consumed (Billion BTU) Construction Annual Maintenance Alternative Crossing Approach Locations Bridge Roads Port Jefferson, N.Y. to Total 19,465 Bridgeport, Conn. 16,465 3,000 Wading River, N.Y, to 20.3 5.6 East Haven, Conn. 25,480 2,400 Riverhead, N.Y. to 24.5 21,640 Guilford, Conn. 22,785 2,400 East Marion, N.Y. to 19.6 35.0 Old Saybrook, Conn. 15,640 6,000 Orient Point, N.Y. to Watch Hill, R.I. 28,480 10,800 Approach Total Bridge Roads Total 19,465 18.2 10.5 28.7 27,880 20.3 5.6 25.9 25,185 18.2 6.3 24.5 21,640 16.8 21.0 37.8 39,280 19.6 35.0 54.6 15 TRAFFIC Traffic Trends and Conqestion Except during World War II, traffic grew rapidly on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge until it reached its capacity around 1956. After the Throgs Neck Bridge opened in 1961, combined traffic on both bridges grew rapidly during the early sixties, then at a moderate rate until 1973, the peak year. (Figure 3.) Gasoline shortages depressed traffic in 1974. Automo- bile tolls had increased from 25fi to 50� in 1972, and went to 75� in 1975. After declining slightly in 1974, traffic has remained around the same level through the late 1970's. 70 60 N Z O 50 J J_ Z v 40 LL LL Q F ¢ 30 Q J 7 _U w 20 10 0 FI(:IIRF R tu rn a m m m i m rn rn '- '- YEAR .- '- Vehicular traffic often becomes severely congested on East River bridges, and on major highways near western Long Island Sound. Severe congestion occurs daily throughout Nassau, Queens and the Bronx. In mid -Westchester, I-95 also suffers from chronic congestion. In Connecticut, traffic is heavy but weekday congestion doesn't usually last more than an hour, occuring on Interstate routes at the cities. an The most widespread and prolonged congestion occur; on Sunday evenings in summertime. (Figure 4.) Stop -and -go traffic conditions are observed for several hours on: the Thhrogs Neck and Bronx-Whitestone Bridges; virtually the full length of the Long Island Expressway and Northern and Southern State Parkways; I-95 across Westchester and as far as Norwalk; and the Hutchinson River Parkway and I-684. On other Long Island and Connecticut highways, motorists may experience heavy traffic, but seldom prolonged congestion. Potential Traffic The prime source of traffic for a Long Island Sound crossing would be trips currently using the upper East ]diver bridges. An origin -destination survey was taken in May 1979 which updated the last (1969) survey. Vehicle movements that are potentially divertible to a Long Island - New :England bridge are shown in Table 7 and Figure 5. As many as three million vehicles per year might be diverted to a new crossing, depending on tolls and relative distance and time. Travel time will depend on congestion and on approach road quality. TABLE 7 Annual Vehicle Movements - 1979 Thousands of Vehicles Brooklyn Queens Nassau Suffolk Staten, Island, New Jersey & other states Fairfield Other Other County Connecticut New England 244 481 221 1906 2417 1655 784 1257 597 239 536 304 MU Source: Origin -Destination Survey - Throgs Neck, Bronx-Whitestone and Triborough Bridges. URS/Madigan-Praeger. 63 FA ►'-1' SOURCE: TRI-STATE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION i ONE BOTH DIRECTION DIRECTIONS ------- LIGHT =______ MODERATE CONGESTED �� -1 U ' zw;z I o I � 1 ' --•, � w1 w J zio ' U C4 i ' i lSO a� i ND ISLAND LONG d - fr- u " FIGURE 4 ' A� C E SUMMER SUNDAY TRAFFIC CONGESTION FREEWAYS p ON - 1977 p- �' 1 C CONGESTION OBSERVED (FOR 2 HOURS OR MORE) SUNDAY 4:00 P.M. TO MIDNIGHT A N ATL ►'-1' SOURCE: TRI-STATE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION i ONE BOTH DIRECTION DIRECTIONS ------- LIGHT =______ MODERATE CONGESTED �� l� J _L 71 1 } Z.Z 1 - I° �_�^Iz nr�` I Z� r I 1 r � � Ik f c SOURCE: 1979 SURVEY BY URS/MADIGAN-PRAEGER i AT THROGS NECK, WHITESTONE & J TRIBOROUGH BRIDGES ISLAND toNG SCALE 0 0 0 0 8 8 N NUMBER OF VEHICLES SOU oc v' n" Y . FIGURE 5a 1979 TRAVEL DESIRE LINES SUFFOLK CO. - CONNECTICUT / YJJJ \ \ �--- ----1 --- - -� f- ..r'-- ---- T�----- � I , I ' -1 ISLAND L���' soc. I- 1� IL\Tic ooQ oz) C:7 SCALE FIGURE 5h USI 1979 TRAVEL DESIRE LINES NASSAU CO. - NEW ENGLAND O O O G O SOURCE 1979 SURVEY BY URS/MADIGAN-PRAEGER 0 0 0 0 AT THROGS NECK, WHITESTONE & v M N TRIBOROUGH BRIDGES NUMBER OF VEHICLES l 1 j 1 c I , \ �--------1---- - -..r--- ---J J-------- _\ f— Z�__------- JJo ISI,ANB LONG yl. , ATt AN.fl SCALE 71�,715`�f C a M O O NUMBER OF VEHICLES FIGURE 5c 1979 TRAVEL DESIRE LINES N.J., S.1., BROOKLYN, QUEENS -NEW ENGLAND SOURCE: 1979 SiiR'vEi" BY URS/MADiGAN-PRAEGER AT THROGS NECK, WHITESTONE & TRIBOROUGH BRIDGES 21 Additional trips across the Sound can also be expected, which previously went elsewhere, along with new trips that would be taken simply because the crossing opens up new oppor- tunities. TABLE 8 Origin/Destination of Potential L.I. Sound Bridge Traffic Thousands of Vehicles, 19T57 Total 3108 2164 2479 3775 1685 1394 672 762 1427 1042 Putting these factors together results in estimates of potential traffic at each crossing: TABLE 9 Potential Traffic - Alternative Bridge Corridors - 1985* Diverted Traffic Alternative Bridge Corridor Generated Annual A Corridor: A B C D E A B C D E Nassau 1077 679 698 864 449 263 88 164 362 328 Suffolk 1069 821 773 710 450 1131 584 597 8o4 580 Queens 245 189 296 695 221 0 0 0 110 50 Kings 62 52 77 176 58 0 0 0 28 13 Manhattan & Richmond 91 73 122 298 92 0 0 0 31 13 N.J. & Other 363 349 512 1032 415 0 0 0 92 59 Total 3108 2164 2479 3775 1685 1394 672 762 1427 1042 Putting these factors together results in estimates of potential traffic at each crossing: TABLE 9 Potential Traffic - Alternative Bridge Corridors - 1985* -1985 is a benchmark year for which forecast data are generally available; traffic for 1990, the first assumed year of operation, is projected somewhat higher. Traffic Alternative Bridge Corridor Daily Annual A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport 12,300 4,500,000 B Wading River/East Haven 7,800 2,840;000 C Riverhead/Guilford 8,900 3,240,000 D East Marion/Old Saybrook 14,200 5,200,000 E Orient Point/Watch Hill 7,500 2,730,000 -1985 is a benchmark year for which forecast data are generally available; traffic for 1990, the first assumed year of operation, is projected somewhat higher. 22 Such amounts of traffic are low, compared with traffic handled by major roads and bridges in the Region.Growth on Long Island and in New England will increase traffic between them. (Growth is discussed more thoroughly in a later section.) Travel Reported in Study Surveys Responding to the Residents' Survey, when asked about travel around the Sound, Connecticut households claim to make seven trips per year to Long Island, on the average. Nassau County households averaged ten trips per year to Southern New England, while Suffolk County recorded six. Rhode' Islanders, at present, engage in the smallest amount of cross -Sound trips, averaging only two per household. Those respondents currently travelling from either Connecticut or Rhode Island to Long Island, or vice -versa, were asked to specify the nature of their trips. The majority of current trips are made for visits with family or friends (68 percent) or for vacations (67 percent). Thirty-seven percent of area respondents travelled for cultural/sporting activities and 31 percent for business purposes. Seventeen percent currently make shopping excursions, while 7 percent engage in education -related trips. Connecticut households reported lower percentages, and Suffolk higher, in all cases. Respondents were further asked to estimate the number of household trips to be made across a bridge at no tolls, a five dollar one-way toll, and a ten dollar one-way toll. The answers reveal a willingness to pay substantial tolls. '.Cable 10 illustrates the impact of tolls for each geographic area. TABLE 10 Mean Number of Estimated Future Yearly Trips" Present No Use Toll $5.00 $10.00 Connecticut 7 g 6 Rhode Island 2 4 2 Nassau 10 13 8 Suffolk 6 16 13 9 2? Prospective trips at high tolls would drop, due to fewer cross -Sound trips generated, as well as less diversion from existing bridges. Nassau residents are especially sensitive to toll rates, since they are fairly close to the Throgs Neck Bridge. The Survey of Business Executives likewise inquired about travel around the Sound by car and truck. About one- half of all firms interviewed make business car trips that traverse the Sound. About 20% of the firms ship goods to a destination across Long Island Sound. Of these firms' respondents, about 3 of 4 business executives felt that a $10 toll charge for a one-way truck trip on the bridge was about the right price or inexpensive. Nearly half would send trucks across a bridge at least once a week even if they were charged a $40 toll. Tolls and Revenues In order to determine revenues that can be gotten from bridge users, toll rates must be assumed. Base toll rates were set, considering the advantages in time savings and cost savings of using the new bridges in comparison with existing facilities. In keeping with conservative traditions of the financial community, consultants' assumptions regarding acceptable tolls tended to be lower than the survey responses might indicate. Rates that were assumed for heavy trucks average 4.45 times auto tolls. TABLE 11 Base Passenger Car Tolls - Year 1990 Bridge Corridor Passenger Car Toll A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport $4.00 B Wading River/East Haven 6.50 C Riverhead/Guilford 6.00 D East Marion/Old Saybrook 4.00 E Orient Point/Watch Hill 7.50 24 These tolls in 1990 would yield between $22 million and $27 million of net revenues. Such revenues fall considerably short of the levels needed to support bonds for bridge con- struction. (Financial feasibility will be discussed in a later section.) Thus far, this report has reviewed background, trends and present conditions related to a Lang Island Sound crossing, and some immediate, foreseeable results of its; construction. The next section looks ahead at various kinds of growth which would affect or be affected by a crossing. 2$ GROWTH In evaluating a capital investment of this magnitude, growth assumes special importance. Consequences of the area's growth can be perceived both positively and .negatively. Further, there is an interdependence among aspects of growth: jobs, income, population, housing, vehicles, traffic and community development. Possible gains to the region's economy due to a bridge are desired, yet damage to the area's character is feared. Because such sentiments run strong, the Study probed their extent, and analyzed likely dimensions of growth and their effects. Economic Outlook Perceptions of the effects of a bridge on business were recorded in both the Residents' Survey and the Business Executives' Survey. Extensive analyses were performed using econometric models which simulate interactions of industries in the Region's economy. Residents' Expectations In general, the majority of area respondents expect a bridge to have positive impacts on the economy. Seventy- eight percent of all respondents agreed that a bridge would substantially benefit the economy of the entire region. Of the 22 percent not agreeing with that notion, 72 percent agreed that a bridge would have substantial economic benefits at the bridgehead communities. Fifty-nine percent of the residents expected that the bridge would have a lasting effect on employment opportunities and 71 percent thought the project Would have an impact on business opportunities. Table 12 delineates. the responses of residents to the question of whether or not a bridge would have a positive effect, negative effect, or no effect at all, on certain industries. 26 TABLE 12 Residents' Response - Bridge Effect on Industry Industry Positive Negative No Effect Tourism g2% 2% IJ% Hotels and Motels 89 3 8 Restaurants 88 3 13 Construction 83 4 13 Shopping Malls 78 6 17 Manufacturing 72 7 21 Higher Education 46 9 45 Agriculture 43 17 41 Fishing and Shellfishing 40 30 30 Businessmen's Expectations Long Island businessmen expect an average increase in sales volume.of 16% three years after construction of a bridge across Long Island Sound. Many Long Island businesses report serving regional and national markets rather than local ones. With improved access to these markets (and the perceived transportation bottleneck of New York City by- passed) expanded business opportunities are expected. In Connecticut there is little need to cross the Sound to reach markets. Most businesses report market concentration in the New England area. Hence, little perceived economic impact would result from construction of a bridge according to businessmen surveyed. In fact, 7 in 10 respondents report that a bridge would have no effect on their total dollar. sales. Among those who do indicate support for a bridge, a 7% increase in sales is expected. Three-quarters of the business executives surveyed in Long Island strongly support constructing a bridge based. upon their perceived need for a "shot in the arm" which they see the bridge providing to their businesses and the local economy. Considerable concern is expressed about the state of Long. Island's economy which is viewed as stagnant. This concern is accentuated by business executives' feelings of being "closed in" and having to pass through the bottleneck of New York City traffic to reach destinations. These concerns are critical to Long Islanders. The need to cross the Sound is about equal for Long Island manufacturing/nonmanufacturing business executives surveyed. They report that their markets are largely regional and national rather than local. Over half of the respondent 27 firms serve the Hartford and Fairfield areas. Four in ten serve Eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island. The nature of these business establishments requires substantial travel across the Sound, at least daily. The bridge is perceived as a means of providing greater opportunity for growth and development through direct access to New England markets. Savings in travel time and fuel economy, as well as enhanced accessibility to market, are cited in this context. The bridge will also provide a direct link to New England economies with corresponding lowered dependence on New York City. This combination of benefits, it is thought, will strengthen an "independent" Long Island economy. In Connecticut the proposed bridge generates conflicting opinions. In contrast to the situation on Long Island, the bridge is not viewed as a solution to local area problems. The Connecticut business environment generally is perceived as healthy and, in some areas, booming. The bridge is seen as unnecessary to the economic health of the area. Unlike Long Island, regional market areas for Connec- ticut tend to be heavily concentrated in the immediate New England area. Less than one-third of Connecticut businesses currently serve Long Island at all and only a handful regularly need to cross the Sound on business trips. Manufacturing firms send heavy trucks across the Sound three times as fre- quently as nonmanufacturing firms. Both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing executives cross the Sound by car at about the same rate, about one trip a week. About one-half of the New York City area and Westchester County business executives perceive the bridge as having slight impact on their business operations or on the local economy. Supporters, two-thirds of whom already make frequent business trips from one side of Long Island Sound to the other, expect the bridge to help relieve traffic congestion around New York City. Economically, these businessmen expect an overall boost to Long Island and New England economies because of the bridge's ability to "tie the two areas together. These businessmen also feel that the bridge will increase profits from tourism and the value of real estate on Long Island. only 10 Rhode Island businessmen were interviewed. They cite improved access to Long Island markets as the greatest benefit of constructing a bridge, but slight benefits to their own business and local economy. There is some concern with the anticipated high cost of the proposed bridge and the resulting tax burden on local communities. 28 Econometric Modelling In order to study economic effects of a bridge on the New York metropolitan area and southern New England in relation to potential bridge landing sites, the entire Study region was divided into the following subregions: o New Jersey - northern nine -county industrial area except Bergen County o New York City - five boroughs o Northern Suburbs - Westchester Co., Putnam Co., Rockland Co., Bergen Co., Southwestern Connecticut o Nassau -Suffolk SMSA - Nassau and Suffolk Counties o Connecticut minus Northern Suburbs - all of the state of Connecticut except the southwestern portion o Rhode Island - all of the state. These subregions were chosen because econometric models are available based on this same geography, and each of these subregions can be expected to have differing economic impacts from construction of a bridge. New Jersey, New York City, Nassau -Suffolk, and the Northern Suburbs comprise the greater New York City metropolitan area. They are highly interrelated, so changes in one have a significant impact on the others. The regional economic analysis is structured to trace the changes in the output of the Region's economic sectors result- ing from changes in the make-up of the Region. These input changes might be changes in population, cost of doing business, level of business investments and other variables that in- fluence the economic climate of a region. Economic growth and impacts expected in the region are "simulated" through use of the input-output technique, a system of mathematical equations representing the regional (and sub -regional) economy at a given period of time. The economy was simulated for three distinct scenarios through 1985, 1990 and 2000: o Control solution with no bridge. The regional (and subregional) economy is estimated using basic rates of growth in each of the 23 economic sectors used in the model. 29 o Central bridge crossing. The level of output in the economy is forecast using basic rates of growth in each sector until 1982; then the growth in each sector is augmented to reflect the impacts of construction investment in the bridge. Beginning in 1985, growth rates reflect increased growth in sales that business executives anticipate if a central Long Island Bridge were built. These incremental sector growth rates were gradually diminished towards basic rates of eco- nomic growth. o Eastern bridge crossing. Similarly reflects modified business executive expectations if an eastern bridge crossing were built. Regional Economy with No New Bridge Having established itself as a commercial center well into the past, the New York City complex and its north-east hinterlands have reached a point of evolution at which explo- sive growth is neither anticipated nor considered advantageous. Instead, the region can look forward to slow but steady growth during the next decade. ANNUAL Economic Measure GROWTH RATE Industrial Output 2.7 Employment 0.7 Personal Income 3.3% _41. 7 "/o Growth in real* industrial output will be around -�--G per year from 1979 until 1990, taking the region from an output of $146,422 million* in 1979 to $194,835 million* by 1990, with the trend continuing until 2000. Each of the subregions will share in this steady growth. Industrial activity will tend to increase at a more rapid rate in the suburbs of New York City than in the City itself. Vlaile the broad trend will be a shift toward service industries within the region as a whole, the overall industrial mix will not *Throughout this Section, dollars are adjusted to a constant 1972 base to remove the effect of inflation. 30 experience dramatic change. For the most part, manufactur- ing - both durable and nondurable - will experience its largest growth in the suburbs. As with industrial output, employment will grow at a slow, steady rate. Throughout the period 197911990, :it will increase at an annual rate of 0.7% per year, resulting in employment in the region rising from 7,185,000jin 1979 to 7,816,200 by 1990. This trend is projected at even higher rates through 2000. Each of the subregions will experience an increase in employment. Personal income will tend to grow at an annual rate of 3.3%, rising from $118,559 million in 1979 to $165,401 million by 1990, and continuing to grow through 2000. (Unlike indus- trial output and employment, personal income figures are computed on a place -of -residence basis.) BASELINE ECONOMIC INDICATORS Levels of key indicators for the region with no bridge between Long Island and New England: Economic Indicator Industrial Output Employment Personal Income Millions _ 1979 1990 $146,442 $194,835 7.185 7.816 S118,559 $165,401 Regional Economy with a Long Island Sound Bride Construction of a bridge would have two kinds of impacts on the area's economy: o Expenditures on labor, materials, equipment and supplies would have a significant effect on cer tain businesses during construction. o Improved access to existing customers and new markets and suppliers would stimulate growth in sales, over the long term. In both cases, the econometric models are used c,:, calculate the flows of these purchases to other industries and to workers. Inputs to and results of these calculations are presented in the following sections. To supplement available statistics on economic trends, in the Business Survey, executives were asked to estimate the effect of a bridge (in their preferred location) on t;zeir business. Percent increases in sales, averaged by area, are listed in Table 13. 31 The number of interviews is small when sorted by in- dustry and area. Taken as a whole, however, patterns can be discerned. The economist responsible for this Study's econo- metric modelling examined each questionnaire to determine reasonable expected growth rates in output by industry. Some responses appeared extremely optimistic or pessimistic, so were discounted. Estimated growth rates from the survey, were used to -augment basic regional trends by industry. These augmented rates were introduced in the modelling structure (post -bridge) beginning in 1985. (Table 14). Thereafter, industry growth rates were gradually reduced to the basic trend level. TABLE 14 Incremental Growth Rates of Production Percent Central Crossing (first) TABLE 13 Increase in Sales After Bridge Opening Number of 3 Years Interviews 1-2 Years or More Long Island 51 120 16.% NYC & Westchester 50 2 3 ` Connecticut 69 3 4 Rhode Island 10 5 5 The number of interviews is small when sorted by in- dustry and area. Taken as a whole, however, patterns can be discerned. The economist responsible for this Study's econo- metric modelling examined each questionnaire to determine reasonable expected growth rates in output by industry. Some responses appeared extremely optimistic or pessimistic, so were discounted. Estimated growth rates from the survey, were used to -augment basic regional trends by industry. These augmented rates were introduced in the modelling structure (post -bridge) beginning in 1985. (Table 14). Thereafter, industry growth rates were gradually reduced to the basic trend level. TABLE 14 Incremental Growth Rates of Production Percent Central Crossing (first) Eastern Crossing (second) Northern Rest of N.Y.C. L.I. Suburbs Conn. R.I. Food Processing 3 2 1.5 1 Apparel 5 2.5 Printing & Publishing 1 4 1 1 0 2.5 0 1 Rubber & Chemicals 1.5 1 4 5 0 .75 2.5 2.5 Fabricated Metals 1 7.5 2 1 0 2.5 1 1 Non -Electrical Machines 2.5 •5 2.5 1.5 .25 5 Electrical Machines 6 4.5 5 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 5 Miscellaneous Durables 4 7.5 2.5 2.5 0 5 2.5 5 32 Central Bridge Since the econometric models are more reliable in the short term, the best results are obtained by assuming bridge construction from 1981 to 1984. If construction occured five years later, the relative effects would shift up the baseline accordingly. Construction of a central bridge is forecast to enhance growth by causing moderate upturns in key growth fates. In all cases, growth rates improve by less than 1%. However, given the size of the present regional economy, this small change in the growth rate is sufficient to generate a large number of new jobs, additional output, and increased personal income. Economic Measure ANNUAL GROWTH RATE Central Bridge No Bridge Industrial Output 3.1% 2.7% Employment 1.2 0.7 Personal Income 3.8 3.3 Not only will output grow at a faster rate - 0.4% greater - but it will be at a higher level by 1985 as a result of the bridge construction phase. Output will be $171,868 million in 1985 and grow to $202,321 million by 1990, with this trend continuing through to 2000. Increased output will occur in Nassau -Suffolk, the Northern suburbs and . I1/eLvyvxK (f,'f Y. DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL C/k///,o�✓s) Subregion Central Bridge Northern Suburbs A'l 7A.2. 13.6% Nassau-Suffolka� /sa 9.1 Co necticut qy,-� 13.3 (ibis Soui�,SfeeN) Ncu, yo�K C..y 4'7 f3 OUTPUT, 1990 No Bridge 13.2% 8.4 12.6 As time progresses and the regional economy adjusts to new conditions resulting from the bridge, Connecticut will get proportionally less of the growth while Nassau -Suffolk, the Northern Suburbs and New York City will get a; somewhat larger share of the growth in industrial output. 33 Employment in the region will grow from 7,55,000 in 1985 to 8,070,000 by 1990 and 9,753,000 by the end of the century. All parts of the region will tend to gain employment at the same or nearly the same rates, leaving them in about the same relative position. The pattern of change to the distribution of new jobs also displays an important feature. Soon after completion of the bridge, new jobs tend to be in Nassau -Suffolk and in the Northern Suburbs. However, given sufficient time for adjust- ment the new jobs tend more towards Nassau -Suffolk and Connec- ticut, although there are still quite a few jobs being created in the Northern Suburbs. This appears to indicate that initially firms operating in the Northern Suburbs will increase operations and therefore hire new persons. However, with the passage of time, firms will tend to locate or expand in Connecticut and Nassau -Suffolk. TABLE 15 Changes in Em to ment with Central Crossing thousands 1985 1990 New Jersey 6.0 18.2 New York City 11.7 32.6 Northern Suburbs 22.9 67.6 Nassau -Suffolk SMSA 23.4 88.4 Connecticut 4.5 36.0 Rhode Island 6.1 11.0 TOTAL 74.6 253.8 Personal income with a central bridge would ,be 12,- higher in 1990 than with no bridge. Employment Characteristics With no bridge, employment in durable goods manufacturing would decline substantially in Connecticut and slightly in Long Island, but increase in Rhode Island. A central crossing, five years after opening, would increase these jobs 4% in Connecticut, 25% in Long Island, and 3% in Rhode Island, as compared with no bridge. Employment in nondurable goods is projected to decline in Connecticut and Rhode Island, but in- crease in Long Island. A central crossing would increase such jobs in Connecticut by 600- and Long Island by 11%. The largest gains in employment in all three states will be non- 3'+ manufacturing. Without a bridge, nonmanufacturing jobs would grow 26% in Connecticut, 15% in Long Island, and 30% :in Rhode Island. A central bridge would add another 1-1/2% in Connec- ticut and 9% in Long Island. The largest numerical increases in jobs with a bridge would be: 25,000 in durable goods manu- facturing, 12,000 in retail trade, and 13,000 in services on Long Island; and 18,000 in Connecticut nonmanufacturing. Long Island would also gain 27,000 in wholesale trade, banking, business services, construction,_transportatioh, communica- tions; and utilities. The net conclusion is that building a central bridge will have substantial positive effects on the economy of the region. Eastern Bridge Like a central bridge, an eastern bridge will tend to increase economic activity, but somewhat less than a central bridge. Economic Measures ANNUAL GROWTH RATES Eastern Bridge No Bridge Industrial Output 2.9% 2.T" Employment 1.1 0.7'; Personal Income 3.6 3.30/ With an eastern bridge, industrial output will grow 0.19is faster than without a bridge. Additionally, construction will have pumped the economy up to a higher level. Industrial output will rise from $170,771 million in 1985 to $197,188 million by 1990 and continue this trend through 2000. New York City will get a somewhat lower share of output and Connecticut and Pdassau-Suffolk will gain somewhat. more. - As with industrial output, employment wi'?_ tend to grow at a more rapid rate with an eastern bridge, rIs-I_ng from _ 7,506,000 in 1985 to 7,943,000 by 1990 and continuing at a trend rate of 1.1% per year through 2000. Personal income will grow at a 0.2% higher rate with the bridge than without it. Each of the subrecions will share this growth, and the region as a whole will experience an in- crease from $140,219 million in 1985 to $167,482 million by 1990. 35 Comparison of Central and Eastern Bridoes The decision on which bridge to build - if any - rests on a variety of economic, political, and financial factors. On the basis of economic effects alone, the central crossing seems preferable. The following discussion compares the relative merits of the two corridors on the basis of the economic measures developed earlier. r 200 INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT (Millions) Year Central Bridge Eastern Bridge No Bridge a »/ .I6lk 1985 'Y'!,,,39-2 $170,772 $170,066 1990 $202-1- $197,188 $194,835 �„7aa� ant v LL INCREASE IN OUTPUT O Year Central Bridge Eastern Bridge z O 1985 J 1990 _J AM FIGURE 6 280- INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT 240 N Q a J J O 0 r 200 z a N z O U LL 160 O N z O J _J AM 120 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR 36 Clearly, the central crossing results in greater economic gains than the eastern crossing. For the most part, this is due to the current location of economic activity on both Long Island and Connecticut. On the Connecticut side of the Sound the central bridge is much closer to the Northern Suburbs and _ therefore tends to benefit them more than would an eastern crossing. EMPLOYMENT Thousands Year Central Bridge Eastern Bridge 1985 7,556 7,506 1990 8,070 7,943 INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT Year Central Bridge 1985 1.0% 1990 3.2% PERSONAL INCOME Millions Year Central Bridge Eastern Bridge 1985 $140,219 1990 $167,482 No Bridge 7,481 7,816 Eastern Bridge INCREASE IN PERSONAL INCOME Year Central Bridge D: �o 1985 1990 -►-6�/ 0.3% 1.6% No Bridge �3— Eastern Bridge On the basis of this analysis an easterly crossing would not be as economically beneficial as a more central crossing. However, there are a variety of other factors which Trust be considered in addition to economic effects. Further, the economic projections on which these conclusions are based presuppose that economic linkages currently in Place wi-J. continue in place or continue to evolve in the future as they have in the past. Businessmen and state and local off"icials might alter or at least influence some of these linkages. 10,000 9000 H m O LL O C 8000 Z y O H 7000 0 300 FIGURE 7 EMPLOYMENT 1970-2000 (QP`, co GQQ GQ QQ♦Q �O 1980 1985 1990 YEAR FIGURE 8 PERSONAL INCOME 1970-2000 1995 100 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 250- 50 0 e GQoyy GQGy Qpy� 2 200— 00 GQQ Z z Q♦OGQ U QO LL O N Z O 150 J _J m 100 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 38 Population, Land Use and Community Service Analyses of land use and community services were based on bridge -related employment projections from the New England and New York econometric models and on population estimates made from the employment projections. Population projections had been made, using demographic techniques, by agencies of each of the states. Current pro- jections are shown in Figure 9. The Wharton Econometric model originally assumed that population increases in Suffolk would merely offset declines in Nassau County. More optimistic increases projected by the New York State Economic Develop- ment Board were substituted in the model. Even so, employment forecasts without a bridge are not sufficient to sustain growth projected by the Board. A boost to Long Island's economy, such as a bridge might stimulate, would be necessary to achieve such a relatively high rate of growth. Without a bridge, Long Island job growth would keep pace with average statewide growth. The opposite holds in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Labor force projections by Rhode Island are much lower than Wharton's job forecasts. Likewise, labor force estimates, based on Connecticut's low -growth population forecasts, show only half as much increase as Wharton's employment. This implies that Connecticut and Rhode Island will attract people to their states, even without any bridge. Labor force has been increasing faster than population, for two reasons: higher proportions of women entering the labor market, and unusually large numbers of young people reaching working age. The net result is shown in Figure 10. FIGURE 9 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH 1970 -2000 7 + 6- 0.13 Washington County, 5 0.12 i Rhode Island(c) i 0.09 i c Coastal '•'• Connecticut 0.09 i 1.6 Planning 4 Regions(b) o .0 1.6 _ca CL 1.6 1.5 :r• -' 3 ooao � ovo aeae aaa a000 � a0 aaa ooao i ao aaa ooao Suffolk been oa0 000 1.8 eoaa County(a) a000 as 1.6 ova 000a ooao 000 oaa boob ooao 1.4 ao von vvee 2 11 0000 a0 eee Daae a000 boa 040 vena a000 00 0000 000a 0000 Dao 0000 eaeo 0400 oa 0000 base 0 00 — — been _. + + — — ++ ++ + ++++ ++++ ++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +++ ++++ ++++ 1 ++++ +++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +++ ++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ Nassau ++++ +++ ++++ ++++ County(a). 1.4 ++++ 1.4 +++ 1.4 ++++ 1.5 ++++ ++++ ++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++ ++++ ++++ 0 + ++ 1970 1980 1990 2000 a. New York State Economic Development Board 1978. b. Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, State Department of Health Sources 1979. c. Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program 1975. 40 N Z O_ J _J Z UJ V O LL 0 M Q J FIGURE 10 LABOR FORCE TRENDS 1970-2000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR The model's employment projections illustrated that a central bridge would stimulate significantly higher growth in Long Island and Connecticut than would an eastern bridge. With either bridge, the employment and population growth and related impacts would be strongest in Long Island, and less impact would be anticipated in Connecticut and Rhode Island. The central bridge would be a direct link to two major economic areas, providing direct access for exchange of goods and services between the Stamford-Norwalk-Bridgeport-ilew Haven corridor and the commercial -industrial areas of Nassau and western Suffolk. Although the proposed eastern bridge would also stimulate growth, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the central bridge. This is primarily because the eastern bridge would directly connect two residential - open space areas of relatively less significant activity. (Figure 11.) Projected higher growth in Long Island is due to opening the whole New England market area to Long Island producers. Rhode Island and Connecticut, on the other hand, now have direct access to the New England and New York City markets. A bridge would increase their market area to include Long Island, but this increase is small in relation to' their total market. Predictably, an eastern bridge would result in greater growth on Rhode Island than would a central bridge. 'HESS — i_--- CONNECTICUT ' I I Ll� - _, 1 CENTRAL F NAUGATUCK I �� ! MIDSTATE z VALLEY -- WATERBURY t z;o ' v N HOUSATONIC VALLEY ODANBURYi'�'q,AL (7DNit:`tL79( � )'VALLt �,,, ESt'UAitl [ !• / HAVEil( \[ '4 AMFORD ROCHELLE K LON,, 6 ATLAS'fIC ISLAND SOUND OCEAN 0 5 10 MILES FIGURE 11 Saybrook East Mari Graanport (rplum Island Orient Point ♦ Fishers Island LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY, 1979 EXISTING LAND USE _ 11910 "M Developed Land, .L� (Commercial, Industrial, Residential) Undeveloped Land, 1970 (Agriculture, Recreation, Vacant Land, Institutional, Natural Areas) 43 The models' projected economic growth and corresponding population growth is comparable to baseline growth even in Long Island. Saturation population is not expected to be reached in any areas of the study region because of bridge - induced population. In fact, the significant employment growth on Long Island stimulated by a bridge is less than Tri-State Regional Planning Commission's year 2000.ta.rget projections based on regional development guidelines. Although any additional growth will certainly increase demand for land use or community services, the bridge -induced in- crease, by itself, is smaller than the normal baseline increase. Therefore, the bridge -induced growth is not expected to have a major negative impact or exert major pressure on land use or community services. Nor are there indications that a bridge would reorient the directions of growth in the study region. Land use plans (Figure 12) discourage indiscriminate development. Loss of agricultural land is a potential disad- vantage of almost all land development and growth. However, because of the small magnitude of expected bridge -induced growth, and farmland programs, (Figure 13) bridge development is not expected to adversely impact agricultural land in the study region. Of all the community services, recreational opportunities and facilities are expected to experience the most significant bridge -related pressures. Although positive economic impacts to the tourism industry, and improved access and diversity of recreational experiences are potential benefits of a bridge, crowding and congestion on Long Island's south shore beaches are potential disadvantages. The increase in tourism to south shore beaches is likely to be substantial according to the Residents' Survey. Land use impacts in the immediate vicinity of the five bridge sites seem more significant than regional land use impacts. Obviously, sudden development of a bridge would have stronger, more evident, and more immediate effects on the town in which it is located than on the whole region. The greatest regional land use impacts are anticipated in western and central Suffolk especially in the towns of Brookhaven and Smithtown. Very little impact is expected in Nassau or eastern Suffolk County. STAMFORD ROCHELLE gTI,Ati'TI` OCEAN 0 5 10 MILES FIGURE 12 East Plum Island Orient Point � WKah Hill ♦ Fishers Island LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY, 1979 GENERALIZED PROPOSED LAND USE _ Commercial -Industrial Development ® High Density Residential Development (8 or more dwelling units/acre) Moderate Density Residential Development (2-8 dwelling units/acre) Open Space, Natural Areas; Rural Residential Development FIGURE 13 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL LANDS i ► 1 RIVERHEAD ' HUNTINGTON SMITHTOWN i i , '� •.: IV --------------7 r 4 ------ ! BROOKHAVEN i r , / BABYLON r/ ISLIP � o pQ SOUTHOLD �_--• •� ' SHELTER - ` ISLAND r -------- + ; EAST HAMPTON s , SOUTHAMPTON FARMLANDS PROGRAM PHASE 1 —COMPLETED - FARMLANDS PROGRAM PHASE 2 — FUTURE SITES — BID STAGE 1995 PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL LAND USE miles (NASSAU -SUFFOLK REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD 1978) ' Supplied by: Suffolk County Executive's Office in 1979. 47 Travel Growth Motor vehicle travel increased substantially during the past three decades. More than 200,000 vehicles were added per decade in Connecticut coastal regions. In Nassau -Suffolk, 440,000 were added per decade in the fifties and sixties, and 520,000 in the seventies. For the future, however, vehicle forecasts do not increase at these same rates. Connecticut's growth should be around 100,000 during the eighties, then 70,000 during the nineties. Nassau -Suffolk's increments should be less than 200,000 in the eighties, then 100,000 in the nineties. These numbers are based on Tri-State Re- gional Planning Commission projections made in 1977-78, which might be regarded as somewhat high compared with Connecti- cut's recent low -growth forecasts and economic growth projec- tions for Long Island. Vehicle trips are proportional to vehicle ownership. Growth of trips in areas that would generate traffic across Long Island Sound is shown in Table 16. Areas currently experiencing fast growth will slacken considerably after 1985. TABLE 16 Vehicle Trip Growth Percent increase 1985/1969 2010/1985 Connecticut 31 23 Rhode Island 22 25 Massachusetts 14 18 Suffolk 79 26 Nassau 28 13 Queens -Brooklyn 7 15 Richmond 73 43 New Jersey 47 20 The basis for traffic projections was the 1969 Origin - Destination Survey, since the 1979 O -D Survey had not yet been taken. Growth factors for each pair of areas, applied to base traffic between them, results in traffic estimates shown in Table 8 for 1985 and in Table 17 for 2010. 48 TABLE 17 Potential Traffic Alternative Bridge Corridors 2010 Traffic Alternative Bridge Corridor Daily Annual A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport 15,300 5,580,000 B Wading River/East Haven 9,700 3,550,000 C Riverhead/Guilford 11,000 4,030,000 D East Marion/Old Saybrook 17,600 6,430,000 E Orient Point/Watch Hill 9,100 3,320,000 Traffic growth for all the corridors is low; less than to per year. In prior studies annual traffic growth was on the order of 2.5%. The percentage of both light and heavy trucks in the vehicle stream ranges from 10% to 14% for the various allocations. The bridges would thus largely serve passenger cars but have a significant proportion of commercial vehicles. When asked about the nature of their travel if their favored bridge were built, 78% of the families surveyed said. they'd use it for vacationing, 62% to visit family or friends, another 62% for cultural or sporting activities, and 40% for business. Some mentioned shopping and school trips. 49 Fuel Consumption A new crossing would shorten many trips currently being made around the Sound. It would also induce some trips between Long Island and New England that would not otherwise have been made. Fuel would be saved by current trips diverted to a bridge, while additional fuel would be consumed by induced traffic. Estimates of these effects follow: TABLE 18 Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel Saved and Induced millions 1990 A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport B Wading River/East Haven C Riverhead/Guilford D East Marion/Old Saybrook E Orient Point/Watch Hill Diverted Traffic Induced Net Savings Traffic 40 28 37 17 33 22 26 47 38 35 Annual Fuel Consumption Saved and Induced (millions of gallons) 1990 Diverted Traffic Induced Net Savings Traffic A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport 2.5 1.2 B Wading River/East Haven 1.8 0.7 C Riverhead/Guilford 1.6 1.0 D East Marion/Old Saybrook 1.4 2.0 E Orient Point/Watch Hill 1.8 1.5 Balance -12 -20 -11 +21 -3 Balance -1.3 -1.1 -0.6 +0.6 -0.3 50 Although some fuel would be saved by shortening trips, induced trips offset these savings. These amounts of energy, however, are relatively small compared with energy consumed for bridge construction. Energy expended for construction and maintenance is related to energy saved by diverted trips, as follows: TABLE 19 Energy Ex enditures and Savin s Billions BTU Energy Requirements Annual Energy Saved 1990 Bridge Corridor Construction Maintenance Diverted Traffic A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport 19,465 29 321 B Wading River/East Haven 27,880 26 231 C Riverhead/Guilford 25,185 25 205 D East Marion/Old Saybrook 21,640 38 130 E Orient Point/Watch Hill 39,280 55 231 51 Annual net revenues were calculated for a forty year bonding period: 1990 to 2030. Present value of net revenues in 1985 were calculated, assuming bonds might be offered that year. Bonding capacity was then calculated based on a cover- age ratio of 1.20, which is a 20% margin of security against forseeable contingencies, required by bond purchasers. Allow- ances must also be made for debt service reserves, legal and financing costs, and interest during construction. Currently, interest rates for government -supported bond issues are close to 7%. At that rate, resulting bond issue proceeds available for construction costs are: TABLE 21 Bond Financing Proceeds millions FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Alternative _ Revenues A Traffic estimates for automobiles and trucks, multiplied by their respective toll rates (Table 11), produce gross toll ` revenues. Subtracting maintenance and operating costs gives net revenues: $305 $288 Bonding Capacity of TABLE 20 Estimated Toll Revenues and 197 204 226 Maintenance and Operating Costs - 2010 240 Bond Proceeds Available millions Gross Maintenance Net 175 Bridge Corridor Revenue & Operating Cost Revenue A Port Jefferson/Bridgeport $28.2 $3.2 $25.0 B Wading River/East Haven 29.6 3.5 26.1 C Riverhead/Guilford 32.0 3.2 28.8 D East Marion/Old Saybrook 35.4 3.0 32.4 E Orient Point/Watch Hill 33.9 3.5 30.4 Annual net revenues were calculated for a forty year bonding period: 1990 to 2030. Present value of net revenues in 1985 were calculated, assuming bonds might be offered that year. Bonding capacity was then calculated based on a cover- age ratio of 1.20, which is a 20% margin of security against forseeable contingencies, required by bond purchasers. Allow- ances must also be made for debt service reserves, legal and financing costs, and interest during construction. Currently, interest rates for government -supported bond issues are close to 7%. At that rate, resulting bond issue proceeds available for construction costs are: TABLE 21 Bond Financing Proceeds millions Alternative Corridor A B C D E - Present Value of Net Revenues - 1985 $236 $245 $272 $305 $288 Bonding Capacity of Net Revenues 197 204 226 254 240 Bond Proceeds Available for Construction 136 141 156 175 166 52 Capital Requirements Project construction costs minus bond proceeds gives the capital deficiency - funds which would have to be provided from other sources: Bridge Approaches - Northern - Southern Complete Project Cost Bond Proceeds Available for Construction Capital Deficiency TABLE 22 Capital Requirements millions Alternative Corridor A B C D _ E $ 830 $128o $1120 $ 760 $1430 17 68 4o 44 54 181 49 6o 279 489 $102 $1397 $1220 _$T-019-3 $1973 136 141 156 175 166 892 1256 1064 908 1807 Construction costs could be reduced by eliminating grade separation structures on approach roads. Even a two lane bridge is conceivable, but capital deficiency for a two lane bridge from Port Jefferson to Bridgeport would still be in excess of $500 million. So even for a least -cost facility, substantial funding would have to be raised from tax -supported sources. 53 BRIDGE IMPACTS Besides direct effects of bridge construction and operation, and growth consequences already discussed, a bridge would have impacts on its environs. General assess- ments were made of effects on boating and shipping, on wetlands, on noise, and on air and water quality. Boating and Shipping About 150,000 sail and motor boats are on Long Island Sound, attracted by its beauty, and favorable waters and winds. In addition to small harbors with service facilities, Bridgeport, New Haven and New London harbors accomodate commercial vessels with drafts up to thirty feet. The U.S. Navy has a major submarine base at Groton, Connecticut. North of Riverhead, Northville Industries operates an off- shore terminal for large tankers with drafts up to 60 feet. Major commodities shipped on the Sound are sand, gravel, crushed rock, and petroleum products (gasoline and fuel oil). The U.S. Coast Guard determined that a bridge must have a 1200 foot main span with 135 -foot vertical clearance. Small sailboats and motorboats could pass under the bridge's 25 - foot minimum clearance. About 80% of the sailboats, however, would have to detour around low trestles to find clearance. About half have masts greater than 35 feet high, thus consi- deration would have to be given to clearances under bridge spans to minimize interference with sailboats. A bridge also affects the wind, thereby causing sailboats difficulty or inconvenience. A bridge would normally have no effect on commercial shipping. In the past, little attention was given to colli- sions of ships with bridges, since such events seemed highly unlikely. It is true that the probabilities of collisions are very low, but they do occur. The most common causes of accidents are human error, mechanical failure, and weather conditions. In design of bridge structures, protective measures should be considered, such as reinforced piers, _ fendering, dolphins, fender -nets, and protective islands around main span piers. Operational measures can minimize the risk and severity of a collision: buoys; sound, light and radar signals; navigation restrictions; and vessel monitoring systems. 54 Environment Potential adverse effects on wetlands and associated ecosystems are a concern at all bridge crossings. The Port Jefferson -Bridgeport crossing shows the least wetland area traversed by proposed approach roads. The Orient Point Watch Hill crossing shows the greatest areas traversed. Direct loss of wetlands from construction can be eliminated or minimized with good site planning. Indirect disturbances, _ such as growth -induced pollution, siltation, and changes in groundwater quality, may have longer term adverse effects that must be studied in greater detail. Because wetlands provide habitat for breeding fish and wildlife, any signifi- cant adverse efimpacts to wetlands could trigger other wide- spread multiplier or secondary impacts. Another significant concern is the quantity and quality of shellfish populations that would be directly and indirect- ly affected by a new bridge (Figure 19). Direct adverse effects from siltation due to construction would be pre- dominantly local and temporary. Some positive increase in habitat for lobsters could result from shoaling and pilings. Assessment of long-term adverse secondary effects requires further study. Historically, coastal shellfishing habitats have been ruined by uncontrolled waster pollution associated with population and industrial growth. Secondary growth - induced effects, such as siltation, polluted runoff, and treated effluents, can significantly affect shellfishing areas, but the extent of the impact cannot be predicted at this time. Noise studies determined the number of people affected by change in ambient noise and desirable sleep noise levels. (Listed in Table 23). The East Marion - Old Saybrook bridge would affect the greatest number of people with "considerable impact" in daytime and nightime. Although traffic noises affect adjacent areas, they can be effectively controlled for any of the proposed crossings. Pollution of the Sound and water supplies is a problem which has gotten much attention in recent years. Most pollu- tion of the Sound appears to come from Connecticut, due to prevailing drainage patterns. After more than a decade of clean-up, that state is approaching its initial water quality - objectives, due to control of municipal and industrial sources. Long Island's groundwater quality was degrading in highly developed areas. The aquifer under Nassau and Suffolk was recently designated as a sole source by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed developments that would significantly affect the aquifer (directly or indirectly) are to be reviewed and regulated by EPA and the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board. TABLE 23 Environmental Effects Summary Bridgeport/ East Haven/ Guilford/ Old Saybrook/ Watch Hill/ Port Jefferson Wading River Riverhead East Marion Orient Point WETLANDS TRAVERSED (in 1,000 sq. ft.) Marshes 480 860 2,000 1,869 1,740 Inland Waters 100 190 260 390 1,730 Shorelines 90 80 80 80 2,960 Total 670 1,130 2,340 2,339 6,430 WILDLIFE Potential loss Potential loss Potential Potential dis- Potential dis- of habitat of habitat loss of turbance to turbance to habitat osprey nests osprey nests FISH & SHELLFISH Impact to regional populations considered minor. Potential positive local impacts related to habitat provided by artificial reefs. Potential local negative impacts related to loss of habitat, increased sedimen- tation, siltation, non -point source pollution. SCENIC AREAS Potential positive impact - access to views may be improved. Potential negative impact - relative to site design and viewer perception. NOISE People Affected by Total Ambient Noise Impact 5,600 150 800 1,400 800 People Affected by Total Desirable Sleep Noise Impact 175 75 425 425 475 WATER QUALITY Potential negative effects from: pilings and permanent structures (sedimentation, shoaling); construction -related runoff and sedimentation on wetlands and related ecosystems; increased traffic runoff on water supply, marine waters, and recreational waters; bridge -induced growth. AIR POLLUTANTS (tons per year in 1990) Carbon Monoxide -89 -154 -85 +157 -26 Hydrocarbons -7 -12 -7 +13 -2 Oxides of Nitrogen -30 -51 -28 +52 -9 56 In regard to air quality, the projected additional local and regional traffic generated from the bridge may result in slightly more or less vehicular emissions, depending on location. All of these general environmental issues require more detailed quantitative assessment of cumulative environmental impacts of any bridge sites that may be given serious con- sideration. A number of projected environmental problems can be minimized or avoided by planning policies for suitable population and commercial -industrial growth, control and regu- lation of water pollution, and careful engineering and siting of bridgeheads and access roads. Perceptions of Impacts Residents were asked about their engagement in four recreational activities: bathing; boating; fishing; and scenic drives and views. Many area residents currently enjoy the Long Island Sound for bathing (49 percent), boating (39 percent), and fishing (40 percent), while 61 percent enjoy the Sound for scenic drives or views. Bridgehead communities exhibit even greater utilization, with figures ranging from 54 percent for Southern New England boating activities to 80 percent for Long Island scenic drives or views. Residents' opinions were sought on how a bridge would affect these activities. Most respondents see no connection between a bridge and bathing or fishing conditions. Connec- ticut and Rhode Island residents perceive beneficial effects on boating, more so than Long Islanders; overall 18 percent felt effects on boating would be negative. Residents generally expect a positive effect on scenic drives and views. To determine residents' perceptions about the effects of a Sound crossing on nearby communities, respondents were asked their opinions regarding community proximity to the bridge, and effect on property values. The majority of all respondents tend to agree that the effects of the bridge will be beneficial. In particular, the majority agree that proximity to the crossing will make a community an even more desirable place in which to live and, similarly, it appears to the majority of residents that the bridge will not depress nearby property values. Even in Connecticut the majority agree; in Suffolk agreement reaches 66% and 740 on these two questions. Only a small percentage of bridge supporters envision deleterious effects from the crossing and, con- versely, the opposition rarely sees beneficial consequences. 57 When questioned about the environmental impact a bridge might have, 59 percent of all residents agreed that this im- pact would be acceptable. Connecticut has the most dissenters (36 percent). Of the 41 percent not forseeing an acceptable environmental impact, nearly half (49 percent) supported construction of a bridge at their preferred location. When the thirty percent who expected an unacceptable environmental impact were asked to specify: 32 percent of them felt the effects on air quality to be the most serious consequence; 19 percent answered shore lines; 15 percent suggested the impact on water quality; 12 percent worried about noise levels; and 21 percent felt that all the preceding categories would be unacceptably affected. Businessmen evaluate the proposed bridge in terms which go beyond transportation -oriented issues. While respondents evaluate the transportation systems primarily in terms of accessibility and time savings, the proposed bridge elicits opinions on a wider spectrum of concerns and issues. These include impact on local economy, tax issues related to construction and bridge maintenance, concern with natural environment and quality of life issues, as well as improved access to markets and a general rise in business sales resulting from improved transportation facilities. Supporters and opponents of the bridge differ most markedly in their evaluation of the bridge's impact on the "environment" and the "quality of life." These concerns are sensitive to differences in the perception of local economic climates. Long Island businessmen view the bridge as a necessary boost to the local economy and are less concerned with these issues. Connecticut opponents are very much concerned with the environment and quality of life impact of a bridge, and don't see a need for a bridge to boost local business. Connecticut opponents express concern with a bridge's negative impact on the natural environment and the beauty of the Long Island Sound area. They see the bridge as contri- buting to the deterioration of the suburban quality of life. The bridge is associated with problems of urban sprawl and road congestion. These latter concerns are not only personal, but are also part of a broader view of factors that make up the attractiveness of the local business environment. W Statements delivered at the Public Forums held during May expressed concerns about a bridge's impacts, as well as its positive effects. Speakers were evenly split on energy and air pollution - fuel savings are anticipated with a direct crossing, while air quality would deteriorate near a bridge and approach roads, although pollution would be relieved where traffic is diverted from congested highways. Most people expect a bridge to stimulate economic growth and employment. Concerns were expressed by many citizens about the effects on the environment. They worry about changes to the character of their area and quality of life. They fear sprawling development, effects on water supplies, and loss of agricultural land. A few expressed concerns about natural ecosystems as they talked about loss of wet- lands, and effects on fish, shellfish and wildlife. This report has thus far concentrated on a highway crossing of the Sound. Two other modes will how be examined: rail and ferry. FIGURE 14 from Road the N The n to ti by mo Islan freig ment RAIL CROSSING Just before the middl Manhattan to New Engl to Greenport, and boa ew Haven rail line sh otion of a rail link me. A rail connectio ving freight efficien d. Accordingly, prev ht demands were updat programs assessed. e of the las and ran via t to New Lon ifted the ro across the S n would seem tly from New ious studies ed, and curr 61 t century, the route the Long Island Rail don. Completion of ute to the mainland. ound emerges from time to benefit business England to.Long of railway costs and ent railroad improve - Construction costs were updated for a railway bridge and for a combined railway and highway bridge. Estimates are based upon a double track design with ballasted deck construction on trestle type concrete bridges, and open timbered decks on steel spans. The combined highway/railway structures are estimated on the basis of a four -lane highway and double track railway design, with a bi-level cross- section having a vehicular roadway above and railway tracks below. (See Figure 20.) Construction costs are two to three times those for highway bridges. TABLE 24 Railway and Railway/Hi2hway Brid a Costs millions of 1988 dollars Alternative Railway Highway Railway/Highway Corridor Bridge Bridge Bridge Port Jefferson/ Bridgeport $1,310 $ 830 $1,880 Riverhead/Guilford 2,140 1,120 3,300 East Marion/ Old Saybrook - 760 1,800 About ten freight carloads per day move from New England to Long Island, and a negligible number back from the Island. Large freight cars must be routed from Selkirk (Albany) via New Haven, due to clearance restrictions on the Hudson Division. Through improvements being made by the New York State Department of Transportation, these low clearances will be raised soon as far as the Bronx, and eventually to Long Island. Trailer -on -Flat -Car terminals are planned for I i ! �l I I I , I 1 I 1 I � � I I Guilford - Old Saybrook 1 ♦ 1 Bridgeport 1 1 East Marion � 1 �♦ SOUND i 1 LONG Port Jefferson ATLAN'fIC FIGURE 15 POSSIBLE RAILROAD/HIGHWAY CROSSINGS t ,r I I IA •o" Ix Ia I ( F f FIGURE 15 POSSIBLE RAILROAD/HIGHWAY CROSSINGS t 63 the Bronx, and potential terminals have been identified in Nassau and Suffolk. This program will significantly improve rail freight services to New York City and Long Island. Principal origins of freight for the New York metropoli- tan area are in the Midwest, Ilest and South. Thus, the program of removing restrictions on the Hudson Line and constructing rail/highway terminals in the New York City - Long Island area will be cost-effective and yield immediate benefits to business. It will take trucks off congested metropolitan highways, moving them by rail close to their destination. A railway crossing of the Sound would be expensive - more than $1 billion extra cost, plus more for connections, yards and upgraded trackage. Benefits would be miniscule, considering how few carloads move around the Sound. Prospects for substantial increase in carloadings would depend on ex- pansion of heavy manufacturing. But results of the Business Survey and economic analysis do not support substantial in- creases in heavy industry. 65 FERRY SERVICE Ferries sail between New London and Orient Point, and between Bridgeport and Port Jefferson. (Routes are charted on Figure 2.) Until recently, they operated seasonally, using old vessels. Cross -Sound Ferry Service now operates year-round service between New London and Orient Point, and put a new boat in service in May 1979. Bridgeport -Port Jefferson is also planning year-round service with new boats which can carry trucks. A fifty -vehicle boat such as that built by Cross Sound Ferry Service minimizes capital and operating costs. The Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Steamboat Company plans to build two such boats, and place them in service in 1980 and 1981. The Connecticut Development Authority is backing tax- exempt bonds for these boats to make interest rates lower and debt service manageable. New loading ramps have been built at New London and Orient Point, and are planned for Bridgeport and Port Jefferson. New Route The least -cost location for a Long Island Sound Ferry crossing is from East Marion, Long Island to Old Saybrook, Connecticut. Here the Sound is only 8-9 miles wide. A ferry can make this trip in an hour, including loading and unloading, rather than 1-1/2 hours on the existing routes. Shorter crossing time reduces operating costs. Capital costs would also be lower because fewer boats are needed. Consequently fares can be lower. Shorter time and lower fares would attract more vehicles. As costs of vessels, fuel and labor increases, the relative advantage of a shorter crossing continues to grow. A ferry terminal, however, has been vigorously opposed, especially by Old Saybrook. Along the town's east side, the Connecticut River's scenic and historic character has been protected by a state/local Compact which, according to local officials, allows sufficient discretion to block a ferry terminal. Existing Routes Recent and planned upgrading make present operations reasonably viable, and further expansion is worth consi- dering. When additional boats are placed in service, more frequent service becomes available, which in turn attracts MR more patronage. Presently, less than 100,000 vehicles per year are carried by both routes. A more efficient level appears to be near 500,000 per year, using nine 50 -vehicle ferries on both routes. To achieve this volume of traffic, lower fares would be required. Nine boats might cost $25 million to $30 million. Net operating revenues of $1-2 million would contribute to amortization, but fall short of full coverage at commercial interest rates. Subsidy per vehicle carried would range from $1 to $8 depending on volume and the particular cross- ing. According to the anlaysis, New London - Orient Point can generate more revenue than Bridgeport - Port Jefferson which is affected more by the Throgs Neck Bridge alterna- tive. By comparison, a route at the shorter crossing would not require any subsidy up to volumes well in excess of a million vehicles per year. Lower operating costs and debt service allow lower fares, around $10 per auto. A twelve - boat fleet could offer departures every ten minutes. Although an investment around $17 million for terminals is required (plus approaches) this would be more than offset by less capital expenditure for boats. In the long run, of course, ferry service will be affected if a vehicular crossing is built across the Sound. Nevertheless, addition of several boats appears worthwhile. 67 CITIZENS' PREFERENCES Early in 1979, surveys of residents and businessmen probed support and opposition to construction of a bridge between Long Island and Connecticut or Rhode Island. Senti- ments were also expressed by citizens at Public Forums. Keep in mind that at that early stage of the Study; the facts presented in this report were not available. Residents When asked if they would favor or oppose construction of a bridge at their preferred location, 72 percent of residents said they would support construction, 18 percent oppose and 10 percent were undecided. But given the alter- native of expending a large amount of money on this bridge or on some other transportation project, 48 percent of all respondents said the money should be spent on the bridge, 52 percent felt it should not. In Connecticut, 38 percent agreed that the money should be used for the bridge, in Rhode Island 56 percent, in Nassau County 48 percent, and in Suffolk, 67 percent. Looking at these responses in tandem, 40 percent of all respondents both agreed that the govern- ment should spend the money on the bridge and had answered that they would support construction at their preferred location; 17 percent of the respondents said the government should not invest in the bridge, and opposed construction; forty-four percent gave mixed responses and are therefore considered to be uncertain. Supporters of the bridge expect it to generate sub- stantial regional economic benefits. They currently travel around the Sound several times a year, and expect to travel even more if the crossing is built. Supporters believe that the bridge will have an acceptable environmental impact. Respondents who objected to construction of a bridge were asked whether the following reasons for opposition coincided with their own: Environmental Impact Increased Traffic Effect on Development Cost Proximity to Community Yes No 82% 18% 73 27 61 39 54 46 43 57 M Business Executives In the Business Survey, support and opposition to -the bridge varies most along geographic lines. Establishment size or type of industry account for very little variation. Support for the bridge is considerable on Long Island where 3 out of 4 respondents support bridge construction, while only 1 in 10 oppose it. Long Island support is based squarely on improving transportation and business, as reported in prior sections. Among Connecticut business executives, opponents slightly outnumber supporters. Opponents perceive virtually no beneficial bridge effects accruing to their business or to the local economy. They believe the costs associated with bridge construction and maintenance will create an unneeded tax burden. Connecticut supporters differ from opponents both in perception of a bridge's impact and in the importance placed on such impacts. Supporters parallel Long Islanders in reasons given for support. They cite enhanced access to markets, savings in time and distance travelled, and ex- pected benefits to their own business and that of the local economy. New York City/Westchester County area business executives are either indifferent or supportive. Almost half the res- pondents interviewed are neutral, neither supporting nor op- posing constructing a bridge. About 4 in 10 support thE! brige _ construction; about 1 in 6 oppose. There was some mention of increased road congestion and negative impact of a bridge on the natural beauty of the Sound. In Rhode Island, the ten business executives inter- viewed generally support constructing a bridge. They cite improved access to Long Island markets as the greatest benefit. But only slight benefits to their own business and local economy are noted. However, there is some concern with the anticipated high cost of the proposed bridge and the resulting tax burden on local communities. Public Forums Statements delivered at the Public Forums (or in writing) ran: 50 opposed, and 44 in favor of a bridge. A few were neutral, awaiting results of the studies. Connec- ticut's Governor and legislators from affected districts - are opposed. Bridgeport's mayor expressed support if the project would improve his city's economy. Officials of other localities are opposed. In fact, labor unions expressed M the only other support in Connecticut. On Long Island, support is more widespread: county officials, businessmen, trade and professional groups, university president, labor unions and the automobile club. Environmental and community groups are opposed. Alternatives Fifty-two percent of residents surveyed favored some other transportation project rather than a bridge. Such preferred projects spanned all modes: highways, railroads, airports, public transportation, and ferries. Some even suggested reducing taxes or spending on energy or the environ- ment. Many projects were mentioned, including: Dong Island Rail Road; I-84 from Hartford to Rhode Island; Connecticut shore roads and bridges; BradleyAirport; Connecticut Routes 7 and 25; Long Island Expressway; Suffolk Airport; road repairs; more and better ferries; and busses. Improving roads and mass transit were mentioned most frequently. When questioned whether they would favor substantial improvements to the currently operating ferry services, 25 percent of the respondents support both construction of a bridge and ferry improvements, 54 percent endorsed bridge construction over ferry improvements, while 16 percent pre- ferred the ferry and opposed the bridge. Only 4 percent rejected both plans to improve cross -Sound travel. While a good proportion of the residents felt improve- ments to the ferry system is a good idea, 68 percent of the respondents were opposed to the notion of tax support for these improvements. Among those respondents who favored only an improved ferry service, 44 percent remained opposed to the use of public funds to subsidize the enhancements. In order to gauge the intensity of support for a bridge, business executives were asked to rank "improvement" on roads, rail and ferry service to the bridge by strength of their attractiveness to business transportation needs. Except for Lori I land executives businessmen prefer improved roads Uwe '-f ridgeNOP-JI _a other transportation facilities. However, the bridge ranks a very close second. For all respondents, improved rail service and improved ferry service rank third and fourth in order of appearance. 70 A few Long Island businessmen volunteered that the Oyster Bay area is also an attractive alternative site, even though it was not offered as a choice in the questionnaire. In Public Forum statements, a Rye - Oyster Bay bridge was also strongly preferred by Robert D4oses and by the Long Island Farm Bureau. Several opponents mentioned mass transit improvements , or better ferry service instead of: any bridge. Ferry improvements were also mentioned by other bridge supporters. This report has summarized findings of surveys and analyses performed during the past several months related to a crossing of the Sound from Long island to New England. The material has been presented to the Policy Advisory Com- mittee, for their deliberations on the many issues related to such a crossing. The Committee and study staff will meet again with -the public in New Haven, Connecticut (October 29), and Hauppauge, Long Island (November 1), as members draw their conclusions on these issues. The Committee members will presented their conclusions and advice at their final meeting scheduled for November 28. Based on these findings and the Policy Advisory Commit- tee's conclusions, Commissioner Hennessy will make his recommendations to Governor Carey and the Legislature by January 1, 1980. Organizations, officials and interested citizens are invited to submit their conclusions and opinions by mid- November if possible to the Study Director. FIGURE 16A. PORT JEFFERSON -BRIDGEPORT CROSSING PORT JEFFERSON AERIAL VIEW QPOSSIBLE EXPRESSWAY CONNECTION 0POSSIBLE HIGHWAY CONNECTION LONG ISLAND EXPRESSWAY, EAST OF EXIT 61 ROUTE 347, VICINITY CRYSTAL BROOK HOLLOW ROAD FIGURE 16B. PORT JEFFERSON -BRIDGEPORT CROSSING BRIDGEPORT AERIAL VIEW QPOSSIBLE EXPRESSWAY CONNECTION CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE, VICINITY INTERCHANGE 30 FIGURE 17A. WADING RIVER -EAST HAVEN CROSSING WADING RIVERAERIAL VIEW POSSIBLE HIGHWAY OR EXPRESSWAY CONNECTION WILLIAM FLOYD PARKWAY AND ROUTE 25A FIGURE 17B. WADING RIVER -EAST HAVEN CROSSING EAST HAVEN AERIAL VIEW QPOSSIBLE EXPRESSWAY CONNECTION CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE, INTERCHANGE 53 Q FIGURE 18A. RIVERHEAD-GUILFORD CROSSING RIVERHEAD AERIAL VIEW 0POSSIBLE HIGHWAY CONNECTION SOUND AVENUE AND CROSS RIVER DRIVE QPOSSIBLE EXPRESSWAY CONNECTION LONG ISLAND EXPRESSWAY TERMINUS FIGURE 18B. RIVERHEAD-GUILFORD CROSSING GUILFORD AERIAL VIEW QPOSSIBLE EXPRESSWAY CONNECTION CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE, NORTH OF INTERCHANGE 59 FIGURE 19A EAST MARION -OLD SAYBROOK CROSSING EAST MARION AERIAL VIEW 0POSSIBL.E HIGHWAY CONNECTION ROUTE 25 AND ROCKY POINT ROAD FIGURE 19B. EAST MARION -OLD SAYBROOK CROSSING OLD SAYBROOK AERIAL VIEW POSSIBLE EXPRESSWAY CONNECTION CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE, INTERCHANGE 67 FIGURE 20A ORIENT POINT -WATCH HILL CROSSING ORIENT POINT -PLUM ISLAND AERIAL VIEW 0POSSIBLE HIGHWAY CONNECTION ROUTE 25 FIGURE 20B. ORIENT POINT -WATCH HILL CROSSING WATCH HILL -FISHER'S ISLAND AERIAL VIEW 0POSSIBLE HIGHWAY CONNECTION ROUTE 1 AND ROUTE 78 (OUTSIDE PHOTOGRAPH) REFERENCES 1. Meyer, David "Urban Industrial Growth of Coastal Connecticut in the Nineteenth Century's Lona Island Sound: The People and the Environment The Oceanic Society Stamford, Connecticut February 1978. #W„ 2. New York State Department of Transportation A Comprehensive Study of Proposed Bridge Crossings of Long Island Sound Summary Albany, New York January 1972. The reader interested in more details of the findings in this report is referred to the following reports prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation by the consultants -Our* listed. They may be obtained by writing the Study Urector at: Long Island Sound Bridge Study P.O. Box 35, Triborough Station New York, New York 10035 (After December 31, 1979, requests should be addressed to the Planning Division, New York State Department of Transpor- tation, State Campus, Albany, NY 12232). 4 w Ir a LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY CONSULTANTS' REPORTS Subieet I Background 11 Residents Survey Summary III Survey of Business Executives IV Economic Development V Land Use and Community Services VI Costs VII Traffic & Revenues VIII Financial Feasibility IX Energy X Navigation 6 Boating XI Environmental Considerations XII Ferry Service XIII Rail Freight Author Edward Sullivan Gibbons & Hyland Roger Pijacki Yankelovich, Skelly & White Equitable Environmental Health Wharton Econometric Forecasting Assoc. Equitable Environmental Health Inc. URS/Madigan-Praeger Gibbons & Hyland URS/Madigan-Praeger URS/Madigan-Praeger URS/Madigan-Praeger Equitable Environmental Health . URS/Madigan-Pradger Equitable Environmental Health Edward Sullivan Edward Sullivan t XIV RESIDENTS SURVEY - DETAILED FINDINGS Gibbons E Hyland Roger Pijacki XV RESULTS OF PUBLIC FORUMS May 1979