Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive Summary and RecommendationsRECEIVED ,JAN 9 1900 Tolurr C1erW Souttie(d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS aoIDg land Bridge Study NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILLIAM C. HENNESSY, Commissioner % NEW JERSEY LONGISLAND 1 NEW YORK CITY PUTNAM HOUSATONIC VALLEY _\ ECONOMIC SUBREGIONS `\�—�—�� ♦♦ r I ORANGE \� ROCKLAND m j�♦ / ,n\F� r m > >F* Rk � r SFY BERGEN PASSAIC �I, _1P CITY G .A 1 L_ ' 91 8fi r-� ' S2 I 6 7 LITCHEIELO HARTFORD9 HILLS ( J HARTFORD!!' j I I PROVIDENCE 1 i I L---� J I `I I_ L. ,1 CAPITO/ WINDHAM [NORTHEASTERN r NORTHWESTERN CENTRAL I� II _ _ I —�1 —�' KENT CONNECTICUT -�Q 7II CENTRAL % II\ BI ( `� U Q II I NAUGATUCK L \`! I �J v MIUSTALE \ __ O Norwich y % VALLEY \ \ _ i — ` 11` 52 IL_J WATERBURY, I I ZOI= f a SOUTHEASTERN V L' _ `"1— ^( \ / I 2 9 ♦♦♦♦ i WASHINGTON PUTNAM HOUSATONIC VALLEY _\ 91 {i' `\�—�—�� ♦♦ r -.J r/ ( S 10 v`/- l\ I �♦ 78 ♦ 1 DANBURY �r 15 SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT 4GJ _ _ )J 1 L RIVERf ` EC Westerly ESTUARY (,ONN New London OGro[on VALLEY 25 NEW HAVEN ( �r�• Wath Hill �I 7 2TnY �'Q GREATER ♦ \ ��, I • • . Old Saybrook % A % Island BRIDGEPORT VESTCHESTE t\2� • Eert H—Fishers cuiuom • % • •E �.p< BRIDGEPORT % 634 _ .' %••••� *iO • r •� Plum // pcW''y • i r SOLjND Island SOUTMI+ ESTE RNli PP • /\\\\ \\ t •. j© j'- E.. Marion • Orient Point MEpPI J1 1CPNPIKE 1 IS : AND ISLreenport G �oNNECt NOR WALK ` �O L(Y • 287 i ' STAMFORD L a .,, �_ • •i % • y° e • • 25 ROCHELLE nCEAN LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY, 1979 POSSIBLE LONG ISLAND TO NEW ENGLAND CROSSINGS .............. Existing Ferry Routes ..... Roads Proposed or Under Construction •••••• Po;sihle Bridge Crossing- U Port Jefferson to Bridgeport CENTRALE* ENTRALE© Wading River to East Haven © Riverhead to Guilford OEASTERN East Marion to Old Saybrook OOrient Point to Watch Hill ATLANTIC 0 6 10 MILES LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY, 1979 POSSIBLE LONG ISLAND TO NEW ENGLAND CROSSINGS .............. Existing Ferry Routes ..... Roads Proposed or Under Construction •••••• Po;sihle Bridge Crossing- U Port Jefferson to Bridgeport CENTRALE* ENTRALE© Wading River to East Haven © Riverhead to Guilford OEASTERN East Marion to Old Saybrook OOrient Point to Watch Hill NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION William C. Hennessy, Commissioner 4A 1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, New York 12232 To Persons Interested in the Long Island Sound Bridge Study: I am pleased to send you herewith a copy of the report that I have sent to Governor Carey, entitled Long Island Sound Bridge Study, Executive Summary and Recommendations. In Part I of the report you will find my recommendations to the Governor while Part II contains a summary of the conclusions and a description of the study process. I hope the information contained in the report is of value to you. If you should desire additional copies, they may be obtained by calling (518) 457-1965 or addressing a request to: Planning Division, New York State Department of Transportation, State Office Campus, Albany, NY 12232. Sincerely, W. C. HENNESSY Commissioner Enclosure NEW YORK STATE OEPARTMMOF TRANWORTATION William C. Hennery, Comminiorw �A 1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, New York 12232 December 20, 1979 Honorable Hugh L. Carey Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Dear Governor Carey: Following your direction of September 1978, I have undertaken a broad study of the feasibility and potential effects of a bridge across Long Island Sound. In doing so, I have updated previous investigations of bridge costs and use, and of environmental and community impacts. I have drawn upon new evaluations of the effect a bridge would have on projected employment, potential economic development and energy con- sumption. I have made diligent efforts to solicit the views and advice of public officials, the business community, and the resident public of Connecticut, Rhode Island and the metropolitan New York area. The assistance and guidance provided by the twenty-two individuals com- prising the Study's Policy.Advisory Committee has been particularly valuable. The report I am formally transmitting to you today describes the findings of this year-long cooperative effort and presents my principal conclusions and recommendations for a future course of action. As evidenced by more than ten years of public discussions, answers to the many questions pertaining to the desirability of a bridge across Long Island Sound are not simply come by, nor easily summarized as a simple yes or no conclusion. Nonetheless, I believe that the principal technical findings of this study and the views of the Policy Advisory Committee are both consistent and overwhelmingly persuasive. Any bridge between Long Island and New England could produce significant benefits for the economies of tis regionparticularly for the economy of Long Island but the construction of such a bridge cannot be self - financed through toll -supported revenue bonds. The estimated shortfall is between $892 million and $1.8 billion and is beyond reasonable expec- tations of funding from current or anticipated governmental sources. Even if the additional financial and other support that is not now present were to be provided, a major cross -Sound bridge could not be in place for a decade or more. The alternate actions I am proposing for your consideration are less dramatic, but are feasible, can be broadly supported and can produce positive benefits., I recommend that positive efforts by local and regional planning agencies be directed toward alternate actions to improve Long Island and cross - Sound access, and to assist the economic development objectives of the areas affected. Concerned officials should place their principal economic stimulus energies and hopes on other than a single, massive transportation facility that cannot be afforded or provided in the foreseeable future. I urge the careful consideration of these proposals by all interested parties and the forging of a cooperative effort, under your leadership, toward their effective implementation. I and my entire Department are ready to assist. Sincerely, W. C. HENNESSY Commissioner Enclosure EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY DECEMBER 1979 New York State Department of Transportation Albany, New York PREFACE Since 1965 nearly a dozen studies of Long Island Sound bridge or ferry crossings have been made. While the focus and findings of these studies have varied, none has encom- passed a broad evaluation of the potential economic impact -- jobs, income, business activity -- of a new Sound bridge crossing, or sought out the views. expectations and advice of residents and businesses throughout the region, as an integral part of their study process. This study, insti- tuted at the direction of Governor Carey late in 1978, has accomplished both of those objectives. It has also updated and drawn together the findings of previous bridge or related studies and drawn conclusions as to the overall desirability and feasibility of a bridge between Long Island and New England. The essential elements of this study's approach have been surveys of residents and business executives, application of regional economic analysis techniques, updates of cost and revenue or tither financing source estimates, and the review and evaluation mechanisms of both public forums and an intimately involved Policy Advisory Committee. While five bridge crossing locations were considered for costing and other purposes, the study's essential economic impact analyses focused on three generalized cases -- no bridge, a central Sound bridge, and an eastern Sound bridge. The study has also estimated. generally. the energy and community impacts of alternative bridge crossings and the general feasibility of alternative rail and ferry services. It has not dealt in detail with the site specific impacts or with actions that might be associated with a particular bridge location. Consideration of other than cross -Sound transportation actions, or of alternative economic or job development actions, have also been beyond the study's scope. The principal conclusions and recommendations of this study are presented in this report. Other study reports document technical forecasts and evaluations. the views expressed at two sets of public forums, and the judgments of individuals serving as members of the study's Policy Advisory Committee. The New York State Department of Transportation particularly wishes to dtiank the 22 mem- bers of that Committee, and the man}, other individuals. groups and agencies that have made substantial contribu- tions to this study effort. CONTENTS PART 1 ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 1 PART II SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS & STUDY PROCESS .......... 3 PART III STUDY PARTICIPANTS & REFERENCES ................ 13 t PART I ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS A bridge across Long Island Sound continues to be held by some -- particularly on Long Island -- as the solution to economic development, employment growth and physical isolation problems. Others have suggested alternative cross -Sound transportation solutions or view such a bridge and expanded development as problems to be avoided. The findings and recommendations summarized in this report focus on the transportation aspects of these issues; that is, the overall desirability and feasibility of a cross -Sound bridge, or alternative thereto, as a transportation invest- ment. Simply stated the questions addressed were, first: O Would a cross -Sound bridge have a positive impact on the economy of the region. and on Long Island -s economy in particular? o Could bridge costs be supported by revenue bonds. or financed through otherwise uncommitted or divertable public funds? C Does a bridge, at any location, have the necessary positive support of elected officials — State and local — and of residents, on both sides of the Sound? And. second. unless the answers to all three questions are positive -- as has not been found to be the case. what alternative actions are available to State and local officials? Recommendations New York State should not, in the foreseeable future, devote further effort to the general or site-specific investigation of a cross -Sound bridge at any location. While potentially of significant benefit to the region's and Long Island's economy through increased inter- regional accessibility, a bridge is not financially attain- able and does not have the necessary support of responsible local. regional and State officials -- particularly in Connecticut. However. should these officials come to widely support the concept of a bridge as part of a long term plan, New York should support efforts of the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission and of local and regional planning bodies in both States. to identify a favored bridge -crossing location and to secure the necessary additional funding needed to finance bridge and access road construction. 2. In cooperation with the local officials of current ferry terminal locations and the State of Connecticut transportation and economic development officials. New York should undertake the expansion of cross - Sound ferry services -- services which already appear to have support, locally and at the State level on both sides of the Sound. This effort should build upon existing private cross - Sound ferry services. Consideration of greatly expanded ferry services, or of new or additional ferry crossing locations. should be deferred until supporting cross - Sound demand has been established. A working group of State and local officials should be jointly established by yourself and Governor Grasso to examine improvements of existing ferry services from financial, legal and operating standpoints. and to recom- mend specific actions to implement feasible and needed improvements to existing ferry services. Their reporting target should be six months. I am ready to assist. In addition to vessel requirements. this group should examine the need for and feasibility of minor terminal and traffic flow or access improvements -- for example the provision of adequate off-street parking and alternative routing of ferry traffic within Port Jefferson during peak periods at least. It should also consider and make specific recommendations on such options as: Service frequencies and the most practical timing of equipment and service improvements: annual and five -,year improvement targets looking, per- haps, to a goal of reliable year-round service with frequent headways and a modern combined fleet of 8-10 vessels accommodating passengers and fifty vehicles. including typical truck configura- tions. The form of required public assistance: i.e.. State capital investment. grants to local communities. capital loans or loan guarantees. tax exemptions and, on a longer term, operating assistance or purchase of service contracts. o Financing and administrative mechanisms; i.e., via StateDOT's or an existing Authority -- such as the MTA which now has authority to contract pursuant to joint service arrangements for service between portions of its district (Nassau -Suffolk) and pioiats outside the district (Conn.), or a new or separp.te Authority established by interstate agreement. Joint State legislation and/or Con- gressional approval of such an institution may be unnecessarily complicating action, and identifi- cation of an acceptable mechanism under present legislation would probably be preferred. o Fare schedules to encourage usage and to provide maximum user revenues, and appropriate "fair - 2 rate -of -return" controls on operator receipts from fares and public support. o Sources of necessary public funds -- federal, state and local, and of their availability for ferry services, vessels, terminals and access facilities: examination of economic development, transpor- tation and other alternative funding programs: determination of capabilities of providing appro- priate levels of financial support which may be required from the ''States and benefiting local jurisdictions. • Effective and necessary ancillary actions, such as scheduling- ticketing-teservation services or service promotion campaigns. w r PART II SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND STUDY PROCESS The major elements of this study's public involvement and technical evaluation processes are outlined below, with emphasis given to those processes bearing directly upon the issues stated at the beginning of Part I of this report: Potential economic benefits from bridge construction and improved inter -regional access. Bridge costs and revenue and other funding sources. and The considered opinions of residents and officials as to the nature and magnitude of the economic and community impacts of a bridge, and of their support or non-support for such a bridge. These three areas of examination are intertwined in the evaluation presented and, with the consideration of rail and ferry services incorporated in part at the request of the study's Policy Advisory Committee, provide the core of this study's conclusions concerning the overall desirability and feasibility of a new cross -Sound bridge. In each case. the principal findings or conclusions are accompanied by a brief explanation of the technical or other approach used in their derivation and listed again in summary form at the end of Part II. The references listed in Put III provide fa&r explanations and descriptions. In this regard, the reports on the study's public forums and Advi- sory Committee judgments stand on their own and. while supportive of the conclusions presented here, are not repeated in this Summary document. Intensive efforts to involve the public throughout the study by use of public forums. surveys of residents and busi- nesses, and the Policy Advisory Committee, as well as a careful accounting of the potential economic benefits of a new bridge. are distinguishing characteristics of this study. These characteristics set it apart from previous evaluations of such a bridge and indicate that the major issues involved go far beyond those of a traditional transportation project analysis. Two conceptual points concerning the surveys and economic analyses are critical to the understanding of study findings: The resident survey was largely a tally of support or non-support for a new bridge, bridge locations. or alternative cross -Sound transportation. However. the judgments of surveyed business executives regarding potential bridge impacts were used as the principal basis to adjust — to increase — the magnitude and distribution of forecast sales and employment beyond 3 the levels projected for the "base" case. the future economy of the region without a bridge. The forecasts of regional and subregional economic indicators, without and with a new bridge, are com- prehensive in scope and directly related to other regional and national forecasts of population and economic activity. They do not deal only — or even primarily — with the direct short-term and "mul- tiplier" effects of bridge construction investment. but consider all aspects of the region's economy and what the increased sales and employment potentially fostered by a new bridge's major improvement of inter -regional accessibility might mean in the longer term for economic development, area employment rates. and State and local tax revenues. Residents and Business Surveys Attitudes and expectations of residents and business executives from throughout the region were obtained from carefully designed surveys early in the study process. The purposes of these surveys were to supplement both the views expressed at public forums and the views and judg- ments of Advisory Committee members. A telephone poll of more than 1.000 residents of Long Island. Connecticut and Rhode Island indicated varying degrees of support or opposition to a new bridge. Strongest support — 59% — for government funding of a bridge at their preferred location was indicated by Suffolk County residents. Only 3017c of surveyed Connecticut residents showed such "hard" support for a new bridge. while nearly 1_5% evidenced strong opposition. Forty-six percent of surveyed residents of Rhode Island and 401 of those surveyed in Nassau County indicated -'hard" support for a new bridge. Support for improved ferry service was sub- stantial — over 40%, overall: 25` of the region's surveyed residents favored both a new bridge and terry improve- ments. while 16% preferred ferry improvements over construction of a new bridge. A high proportion of all survey respondents felt that construction of a new bridge would stimulate economic activity. especially in bridge- head communities. In depth personal interviews of 180 business executives produced results ranging from strong support for a new bridge — more than 705c on Long Island. to more moderate support — 30910 in Connecticut. About half of respondents in the New York City area and Westchester County per. ceived a new cross -Sound bridge as having little or no impacts on their business. Long Island business executives anticipated an average 16% gain in sales three years after a new bridge was opened. Connecticut business executives anticipated a 7% gain. In summary, regional residents and business executives divided about equally in terms of their firm support for public investment in a new bridge, and their expectations as to its potential benefits. Supporters looked primarily to economic and transportation access improvements, non - supporters to bridge costs, environmental or community impact problems. A significant proportion of both groups gave mixed or uncertain responses, or anticipated no direct impact on their areas or activities. A similar mix of views was also obtained from the study's public forums. Four forum's were held last May, two in Connecticut and two on Long Island. One additional forum was held in Connecticut and on Long Island last fall, following publication of the initial findings of the study's technical consultants. The same result may be said to characterize the composite judgments of the study's Policy Advisory Committee. This Committee, working together and through subcommittees on environmental, economic and community impact concerns, provided suggestions and policy direction to technical evaluations throughout the study and ensured a thorough examination of study issues. The shared and individual conclusions and recommendations of Committee members, doc wnented sep=t*, are supportive of cite findings and recommended actions described here. Economic Impact Estimates The economic projections developed for this study made use of existing regional economic accounting and fore- casting models designed to reflect the particular make-up of the region's economic activity, and that of its major sub- regions. These models simulate the workings and inter- relationships of the region's activities depicted by twenty- three private, nonagricultural economic sectors. For exam- ple, they trace changes in such elements as construction materials, sales and business investment through to their results in terms of the subsequent sales and investments generated in other economic sectors, and measured in terms of increased employment and personal income. For this study's base case; i.e., the forecast of the region's economic growth should no new bridge be built. existing economic sector relationships and current official estimates of economic and population growth were utilized. For the study's two alternative economic forecasts, each of which assume that a new bridge is to be built, these relationships and growth estimates were adjusted to reflect specific additional economic stimuli. These adjustments account for 4 the capital investment and employment due to bridge construction. and the increases in sales, business investment and employment anticipated to follow the opening of a bridge. Study forecasts were made in terms of three standard measures of economic activity. These were the value of overall industrial or combined economic sector output, employment, and personal income. Each of these economic activity measures were developed for four different years: 1979, the base year; 1982. a theoretical start of bridge construction year; 1985, a theoretical end of construction year; and 1990, a year selected to represent a point in time five years after completion of a bridge. For each measure and year, economic forecasts were prepared for the region as a whole and for each of six subregions. Finally, since the economic forecasting models were not sensitive enough to distinguish between portions of the subregions, the five alternative bridge crossing corridors were combined into two cases, a central bridge, and an eastern bridge corridor case. (See map on inside cover for the: location of bridge corridors and for the areas comprising tb.e subregions.) Current and forecast values for these measures, years, sub -regions and the three cases — no bridge, central bridge, eastern bridge — are shown in Tables 1 3 below. For each of the two bridge cases, normal or no -bridge economic growth rates are assumed to 1982. At that point the direct impacts of bridge investment and employment are added and multiplier impacts calculated for the years through 1985. Beginning in 1985, and building to full impact in 1988, economic sector measures are enriched to reflect the increased sales and investments in each of the sub -regions, as geaerally anticipated by the executives interviewed during the study's survey of businesses. From that point to the year 2000, economic sector growth rates were forecast to gradually revert, but now at a higher base, to the normal rates of growth contained in official regional forecasts and used for the study's no -bridge base case. This approach allows the separate impacts of construc- tion and of improved interregional accessibility to be examined, and the build -the -bridge cases to be directly compared with each other and with the no -bridge case. A new bridge between Long Island and New England would provide a major improvement in inter -regional accessibility. This in turn would encourage . additional business and industrial investment for the expansion of existing markets and for the development of new markets. The regional economic growth represented by. and more importantly the additional growth flowing from, these additional invest- ments are projected to be substantial in absolute terms. The forecast regional economic activity gains from business sales and investment in the period following completion of a bridge far outshadow the employment and other impacts of bridge construction itself. The original public investment in a bridge is expected to result in direct employment TABLE 1 TABLE 3 COMBINED ECONOMIC SECTOR OUTPUT: Priv6b Non-Agricuttural Output, PERSONAL INCOME: No Oridp vs. Cant* and Eam I Bridges Personal Income, (B91iom of 1972 DoNWO vs. Central and Eum - Bridge AREA NO BRIDGE CENTRAL EASTERN 1979 1990 1900 1996 NEW JERSEY (PART) 32.2 46.6 459 46A NEW YORK CITY 630 732 74A 734 NORTHERN SUBURBS 16.7 26.a 27.8 26.9 NASSAU -SUFFOLK 112 16,3 16.4 17A CONNECTICUT (PART) 17A 2" 29A 24A RHODE ISLAND 5.6 94 9A 9.6 REGION 1464 194.6 200,3 1972 TABLE 2 NORTHERN SUBURBS EMPLOYMENT: Private Non-Agftultural Employment, No Bridges vs. Central and Enw. Bridges 31.6 (Ttwumult of Emplolne) 16.2 aL4 AREA NO BRIDGE CENTRAL EASTERN 1979 1990 1990 1990 NEW JERSEY WART) 15436 16BL3 1710.5 1696.1 NEW YORK CITY 2544.4 3907.3 2699 2676.6 NORTHERN SUBURBS 921.9 /6751 11424 10634 NASSAU -SUFFOLK 646.6 726.9 615.3 7904 CONNECTICUT (PART) 10069 IN19 1277.9 12673 RHODE ISLAND 339.4 4124 422A 425.0 REGION 7165.0 7916.2 6070.0 79411 NOTE: Empbymutt a Vio-ofMak Emp1oY�Mnt 5 increases averaging about 1.400 jobs per year for the three-year construction period: after that nearly all employ. ment directly related to a bridge would cease. Further, it is estimated that benefits to the region from bridge construc. tion employment and construction equipment and mater- ials would be diluted. perhaps by 40c,c. due to the necessity of calling on specialized equipment and materials suppliers located in other regions of the country. Tables 1 - 3 show 1979 and 1990 forecast measures of economic activity for the region as a whole and for each of the six study subregions. As the absolute values in these tables demonstrate, the results for each economic activity measure varies somewhat among the subregions for the no -bridge and for each bridge case. but, generally. each subregion shares in the growth projected for the region as a whole. These relative differences of projected increase, between the no -bridge case and either of the bridge cases. and. to a lesser degree, between the central and the eastern bridge crossing cases themselves, are of particular impor- tance for this study. Also of importance is how the several subregions are projected to fare. relative to each other. within these overall regional estimates. By 1990 large gains are shown to occur in all of the econo- mic activity measures even without a cross -Sound bridge. Substantial additional gains ranging from a maximum gain of 33% in employment. with a central bridge, to a mini- mum of 4% in personal income. with an eastern bridge. are projected to occur in addition to the gains which would occur without a bridge. Clearly the central bridge would produce more economic activity gains for the region than as eastern bridge. The central bridge would induce 2.3 times more personal income. 2.3 times more economic output and 2.0 times more employment than an eastern bridge. Examination of economic measure projections among the six subregions also shows substantial shifts in relative positions among the three cases. Care must be taken to recognize the very real differences in relative gains stated as a percentage compared to gains shown in absolute terms. Percentage gains may overstate the importance of absolute gains and vice versa. With this caution. certain points may be made. In the no -bridge case. the principal absolute gains in econo- mic output are projected for New York City. New Jersey and the Northern Suburbs. but the other three subregions are also projected to register substantial gains. In terms of employment. the top percentage gainers are projected to be the Northern Suburbs and Rhode Island subregions. with the Connecticut. Long Island and New Jersey subregions - in that order - not far behind. In terms of personal income. the Northern Suburbs. closely followed by Connecticut and Long Island. are projected to be the percentage increase leaders. TABLE 3 PERSONAL INCOME: Private Non-Agricuhural Personal Income, No Bridge vs. Central and Eum - Bridge (B91iom of 1972 Doors" AREA NO BRIDGE CENTRAL EASTERN 1979 1990 1960 1990 NEW JERSEY (PART) 24.4 332 35.5 33.3 NEW YORK CITY 36.5 472 47.7 47.4 NORTHERN SUBURBS 19.8 31.4 33.1 31.6 NASSAU -SUFFOLK 16.2 aL4 28.3 25.7 CONNECTICUT (PART) 15.6 215 24.3 23.6 RHODE ISLAND 4.1 5.7 5.4 5.9 REGION 118.6 166.4 170.2 167.5 5 increases averaging about 1.400 jobs per year for the three-year construction period: after that nearly all employ. ment directly related to a bridge would cease. Further, it is estimated that benefits to the region from bridge construc. tion employment and construction equipment and mater- ials would be diluted. perhaps by 40c,c. due to the necessity of calling on specialized equipment and materials suppliers located in other regions of the country. Tables 1 - 3 show 1979 and 1990 forecast measures of economic activity for the region as a whole and for each of the six study subregions. As the absolute values in these tables demonstrate, the results for each economic activity measure varies somewhat among the subregions for the no -bridge and for each bridge case. but, generally. each subregion shares in the growth projected for the region as a whole. These relative differences of projected increase, between the no -bridge case and either of the bridge cases. and. to a lesser degree, between the central and the eastern bridge crossing cases themselves, are of particular impor- tance for this study. Also of importance is how the several subregions are projected to fare. relative to each other. within these overall regional estimates. By 1990 large gains are shown to occur in all of the econo- mic activity measures even without a cross -Sound bridge. Substantial additional gains ranging from a maximum gain of 33% in employment. with a central bridge, to a mini- mum of 4% in personal income. with an eastern bridge. are projected to occur in addition to the gains which would occur without a bridge. Clearly the central bridge would produce more economic activity gains for the region than as eastern bridge. The central bridge would induce 2.3 times more personal income. 2.3 times more economic output and 2.0 times more employment than an eastern bridge. Examination of economic measure projections among the six subregions also shows substantial shifts in relative positions among the three cases. Care must be taken to recognize the very real differences in relative gains stated as a percentage compared to gains shown in absolute terms. Percentage gains may overstate the importance of absolute gains and vice versa. With this caution. certain points may be made. In the no -bridge case. the principal absolute gains in econo- mic output are projected for New York City. New Jersey and the Northern Suburbs. but the other three subregions are also projected to register substantial gains. In terms of employment. the top percentage gainers are projected to be the Northern Suburbs and Rhode Island subregions. with the Connecticut. Long Island and New Jersey subregions - in that order - not far behind. In terms of personal income. the Northern Suburbs. closely followed by Connecticut and Long Island. are projected to be the percentage increase leaders. For the central bridge case, Long Island. closely followed by the Northern Suburbs subregion, are projected to be the clear beneficiaries — percentagewise — in terms of economic output, although the New York City and Connecticut subregions will also benefit substantially in absolute terms. In additional employment terms. Long Island is projected to benefit twice as much as the Northern Suburbs, while together these two subregions would garner almost two- thirds of projected additional regional employment growth over the no -bridge case. Long Island. the Northern Suburbs and, to a lesser ektent, Connecticut are projected to receive the vast majority of additional increases in personal income. In the case of an eastern bridge crossing, Long Island is projected to receive about two-thirds of additional econo- mic output gains over the no -bridge case. That subregion is also projected to benefit from more than half of additional employment gains and almost two-thirds of additional gains in personal income. In summary, the region as a whole and each of its sub- regions are projected to enjoy substantial increases in economic activity with or without a new cross -Sound bridge. However. quite substantial additional economic growth is projected to accrue to the region from the con- struction and use of a new bridge in either the central or the eastern cases. The central bridge case is projected to be considerably more beneficial regionwide. Not surprisingly, Long Island and the Northern Suburbs subregions are projected to receive the greatest relative projected econo. mic activity increases. Cost Estimates Five bridge corridor alternatives between Long Island and New England were considered in this study for costing purposes. (See map inside report ,cover.) These alternatives represent a crossing length ranging from nearly ten miles at East Marion — Old Saybrook to nearly twenty-five miles at Orient Point — Watch Hill. The estimated costs for any one of these alternatives — including any necessary approach highways — would be substantial. Cost estimates for a four -lane bridge with expressway approach roads range from slightly over one billion to nearly two billion in 1988 dollars. Estimates for a minimum capital cost case. a two-lane bridge with two-lane approach roads for the Bridgeport — Port Jefferson alternative. reduce funding requirements by about thirty percent. The bridge and approach road cost estimates given in Table 4 are updates. considering current construction, materials and labor practices. of estimates prepared as part of earlier Long Island Sound bridge studies. These earlier cost esti- mates were first updated to reflect 1979 costs — the year that this study was undertaken — and proijected to 1988. using a conservative but typical long-term compound annual inflation rate of six percent. TABLE 4 COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE BRIDGE CROSSINGS, 1979 AND 1988 (MILLIONS OF 1979 OR 1988 DOLLARS) ALTERNATIVE A. PORT JEFFERSON —BRIDGEPORT 1979 1988 6 I f BRIDGE 490 830 APPROACH ROADS 117 198 TOTAL 607 1028 B. WADING RIVER — EAST HAVEN BRIDGE 750 1280 APPROACH ROADS 69 117 TOTAL 819 1397 C. RIVERHEAD —GUILFORD BRIDGE 660 1120 APPROACH ROADS 59 100 TOTAL 719 1220 D. EAST MARION — OLD SAYBROOK BRIDGE 450 760 APPROACH ROADS 191 323 TOTAL 641 1083 E. ORIENT POINT — WATCH HILL BRIDGE 850 1430 APPROACH ROADS 321 543 TOTAL 1171 1973 6 I f Additionally. order of magnitude estimates were made of a railroad and a railroad -highway combination bridge. These estimates indicate that a railroad bridge would cost one and one-half to two times as much as the four -lane highway bridge with expressway approach roads. A combined railway/highway bridge would add at least S 1 billion to the cost of a highway bridge. Further, rail service on Long Island is oriented toward New York City and the major markets of the mid -west, west and south. About ten freight carloads per day move from New England to Long Island and virtually no loads return, and this market demand has little potential for growth. A cross -Sound highway tunnel was estimated to cost between seven and ten times as much as bridges at the same locations. In summary, whatever combination of bridge and approach road locations are considered, a new bridge between Long Island and New England would represent a truly gigantic construction investment. Referring to 1979 cost estimates shown in Table 4 of between 5600 and S1,170 million, funding requirements for a new cross -Sound bridge may be compared to the 1978-79 statewide highway program lettings of New York State which added up to 5625 million. Similarly, but more closely related to the impact area of a new cross -Sound bridge, the special Accelerated Transit Program, with multiple funding sources and ad- dressing many major capital improvements throughout the New York metropolitan area, totals more than 5800 million. Traffic, Toil Revenue and Finaltcing The primary source of traffic estimated to use a new Long Island to New England bridge is from diversion of current or future trips made via existing East River bridges at the extreme western end of Long Island Sound. The greatly improved inter -regional accessibility created by a new bridge would also create opportunities for reorientation of existing travel patterns and encourage entirely new trips to be made. This study's estimates of average annual daily traffic using a new cross -Sound bridge range from maximum values of 9,100 to 17.600 in the year 2010. depending on which bridge alternative is considered. These levels of traffic are not considered high for a bridge of the type being ex- amined, and its relief of traffic congestion on the existing high volume East River bridges and major connecting highways in New York City. Westchester County and western Long Island would not be great. User fees, or tolls. have been examined in this and all previous studies of a new cross -Sound bridge as an approach to funding all or part of the capital construction costs of such a new facility. In each case. projected toll rates must be designed to maximize the revenue available to support revenue bonds. Toll rates must be set so that the combina- tion of rates and the number of users produces the highest total toll revenue. Rates set too high could discourage usage to the point that the higher toll does not offset the loss of revenue due to lower usage. The 1990 level of passenger car tolls used for revenue projections range from 54.00 to S77.50. Projected tolls for heavy trucks would be about 4.5 times the tolls charged passenger can. TABLE 5 POTENTIAL TRAFFIC AND ANNUAL REVENUE, ALTERNATIVE BRIDGE CORRIDORS (DATA IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT FOR DAILY TRAFFIC) NOTE (1) Traffic estimates we for the year 2010, the midpoint of the 40 -year bonding period 1990-2030. (2) Dollars am millions of 1985 dollars, representing the first year that bonds might be offered. AVERAGE DAILY ANNUAL GROSS MAINTENANCE & NET TRAFFIC TRAFFIC REVENUE OPERATING COST REVENUE PORT JEFFERSON — BRIDGEPORT 15300 5.580 $28.2 $3.2 525.0 WADING RIVER — EAST HAVEN 9700 3.550 29.6 3.5 26.1 RIVERHEAD —GUILFORD - 11000 4.030 32.0 3.2 28.8 EAST MARION — OLD SAYBROOK 17600 6.430 35.4 3.0 32.4 ORIENT POINT — WATCH HILL 9100 3.320 33.9 3.5 30.4 NOTE (1) Traffic estimates we for the year 2010, the midpoint of the 40 -year bonding period 1990-2030. (2) Dollars am millions of 1985 dollars, representing the first year that bonds might be offered. TABLE 6 FINANCES: Bonding and Capital Requirements (Millions of Dollars) A B C D E PRESENT VALUE OF NET REVENUE (1985) 236 245 272 305 268 BONDING CAPACITY OF NET REVENUE 197 204 226 254 2+40 BOND PROCEEDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION 136 141 156 175 16B TOTAL BRIDGE AND ACCESS COST 1028 1397 1220 1063 1973 CAPITAL DEFICIENCY 892 1256 1064 908 1807 Whore A is Port Jefferson — Bridgeport B is Wading River — Eat Haven C is Riverhead — Guilford D is Eat Marion — Old Saybrook E is Orient Point — Watch Hill Net toll revenues ranged from S25 million to S32 million in the year 2010, midpoint of the time period used in this study's revenue bonding evaluations. Using a 77c interest rate. which was typical of government -supported bond issues in mid -1979. the revenue bond proceeds available to support construction costs range from S136 to S175 million. (See Table 6.) At higher interest rates, bond proceeds would be lower and capital deficiencies higher. These projections indicate that only 8 to 169 of the projected capital cost requirements of new cross -Sound bridge and associated approach roads could be supported by toll revenues. Very large capital deficiencies remain in each alternative crossing case. None of those alternatives can be considered as self-supporting, or, from a bonding point of view. financially feasible. Other financing, on a very large scale. would have to be obtained. However. a source for such financing is not now available. nor is the appearance of such a source anticipated. Placing a new bridge and its approach roads on the Federal- -Aid Highway System would not increase funds available to the states from federal highway aid programs. Currently available funds from that federal source are both fully committed and already inadequate to finance critical immediate action needs. The same holds true for current State and local funding for highway purposes. Anticipated funding from future regular federal highway program appropriations is not expected to be anywhere near the magnitude of the capital deficiencies shown in Table 6 on an annual or multi-year basis. Special congressional appro- priations would appear to be necessary to obtain a major increase in federal funding. 8 Future State and local tax revenues are the only other identifiable source of funds to cover projected capital deficiencies of a new cross -Sound bridge. In this regard, it should be noted that the projected economic stimulus of such a bridge would generate up to S 120 million annually in additional New York State income tax revenues five years after a new bridge were opened to traffic. Similarly. additional New York State sales tax revenues from the projected economic stimulus of a new cross -Sound bridge could reach S90 million annually. Together. these addi- tional annual projected revenues would cover between 10 and 20% of total projected bridge and approach road capital requirements. Local governments in New York and State and local governments in New England benefiting economically from a new cross -Sound bridge would also experience tar revenue increases. However. dedication of such revenues for bridge construction purposes is not likely. and even if it were. it would clearly require lone -term. cooperative commitment among the states and communi- ties involved. In summary. projected toll revenues from traffic using any of the new cross -Sound bridge alternatives would fall far short of supporting the capital construction costs of a bridge and its associated approach roads. State and federal funds — current or anticipated -- are not available at anywhere near the scale required to make up the capital funding deficiencies projected for such a bridge. Special congressional action or multi -State bonding. or both. would be required to obtain necessary financing. A new bridge between Long Island and New Eneland could not be self-supporting and. in terms of assured or anticipated governmental funding. is not financially feasible. Energy Requirements There are two types of energy requirements to consider in determining the net energy costs, or savings. of a transpor- tation proposal. First is the energy required to construct and maintain a facility. For example. energy must be expended for fabricating materials; producing cement. stone and asphalt; moving and installing materials; and operating vehicles, boats and equipment. Second is the energy, usually gasoline of diesel fuel, required for travel on the facility. The first is almost always a net energy loss; the second may be either a loss or a savings, depending on whether or not the facility reduces the number and length of vehicle trips made within the study area. The Port Jefferson — Bridgeport bridge and approach road alternative is projected to require the least energy for construction. The Orient Point — Watch Hill alternative would require the most energy for construction. almost twice as much. As Table 7 clearly shows. the magnitude of projected energy requirements to construct any of the new bridge and associated approach road alternatives far out- weighs potential energy savings from the diversion and shortening of cross -Sound trips. It would take at least 67 years to recap the energy expended for construction through fuel savings from diverted or shorter cross -Sound trips even should these annual savings estimates occur. Fuel savings from diverted travel would. in all probability. be diminished -- if not overwhelmed -- by additional cross -Sound travel attracted by a new bridge. In summary. the initial and overall net energy requirements of any of the new cross -Sound bridge alternatives will be quite significant. in fuel and energy dollar cost terms. Maximum posuble annual energy savings of fuel from diverted travel would average about one percent of the energy required for bridge induced travel. annual bridge maintenance and initial bridge and approach road construc- tion. Environment, Population and Community Impacts The identification and evaluation of specific impacts due to the construction or use of a new bridge was beyond the scope of this study. Such examinations require resources, and a focus on specific locations that are more appropriate once the alternatives are narrowed to a manageable few. In the same way. the various impacts on land use, environ- mental resources and community services cannot be esti- mated in detail or in terms of specific locations. However, estimates may be made of the general nature and magnitude of bridge or economic growth impacts. Building a bridge would have the most immediate and severe impacts on the shoreline and approach corridors. At least one bridgehead of each corridor has extensive wet- lands or is heavily developed. The Orient Point — Watch Hill alternative would traverse the greatest amount of wetlands. the Port Jefferson — Bridgeport crossing the least. Although long-term damage could be minimized on some corridors, there would be disruption during construction. Many people expressed concern about the impact of a bridge on the Sound itself. Sailboats would be incon- venienced, and the structure could present a slight but not negligible hazard to shipping. Safety. noise, air quality. shell fish habitat and impacts regarding the quality .of scenic views appear to be of lesser concern, or to have promise for both positive and negative impacts of a minor nature, depending on the bridge corridor. All of these environmental issues will require more detailed quantitative assessment should future conditions warrant further consideration of a new cross -Sound bridge. it appears that many potential adverse environmental impacts. caused by bridge construction or use. could be minimized or avoided with careful site selection and good design. construction and maintenance practices. TABLE 7 ENERGY EXPENDITURES AND SAVINGS, FIVE BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES (BILLIONS OF BRITISH THERMAL UNITS) ANNUAL NET ENERGY SAVING CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE DIVERTED TRAVEL PORT JEfFERSON — BRIDGEPORT 19465 29 321 WADING RIVER — EAST HAVEN 27880 26 231 RIVERHEAD — GUILFORD 25185 25 205 EAST MARION — OLD SAYBROOK 21640 38 180 ORIENT POINT — WATCH HILL 39280 55 231 9 The environmental and community impacts of regional economic development, stimulated by a new cross -Sound bridge, may be more significant than those associated directly with bridge construction and use. Here, local land use, job development and community services policies will be especially critical, if maximum benefits from projected population and economic activity gains are to be realized, and adverse impacts avoided. This study utilized the latest official population forecasts of the three states involved. These forecasts anticipated a modest population growth for the region as a whole — about 2.9% from 1979 to 1990, or less than one-quarter of 1% per year. However, most of this increase is forecast for the three study subregions projected to be most affected by a new bridge — Long Island, the Northern Suburbs and Connecticut. Projected additional employment increases, due to a bridge, may have minimal impact on population growth. The fore- casted additional 254,000 jobs in 1990. with a central bridge, is less than the current unemployment level of 353,000 in the New York City, Northern Suburbs and Long Island subregions. Thus. a new bridge might act primarily to "take up the slack" rather than generate work force or population increases. Residents of eastern Long Island and Connecticut are fearful that a bridge would bring unwanted development and change the rural character of their areas. Eastern Long Island and Connecticut are the principal locations of expected economic growth with or without a bridge. In generl. the economic growth estimated to result from a cross -Sound bride is not expected to gready influe= residential or other land use development, or the need for community services. Loss of some agricultural land may be a potential disad- vantage of any residential or business development in agricultural areas; however, as pointed out this loss is not expected to be severe and could be ameliorated by existing county farmland preservation programs. Certain improvements in community services are needed, simply to accommodate the "normal' or no -bridge projec- tions of economic activity growth. While the water supply in Suffolk County is not a limiting factor. maintaining its quality is of crucial importance. In summary. many of the potential adverse impacts caused by bridge construction or use could be minimized or avoided by use of good design and construction practices. The environmental and community impacts stimulated by economic gains attributed to a new bridge may be more significant than those associated with actual construction. Modest pressures for land development are expected to occur in Suffolk County and at specific bridgehead loca- tions. The detrimental impacts can, again. be mitigated by existing county farmland preservation programs. 10 Ferry Service New or expanded ferry service is a relatively low cost transportation option that can be implemented in a rela- tively short period of time. 'Presently ferry service is pro- vided between Orient Point and dew London and Port Jefferson and Bridgeport. In 1975. 58.500 cars and 4.000 trucks used the year-round service between Orient Point and New London. An additional 20.300 vehicles used the Port Jefferson — Bridgeport ferry service. In 1979, the ferry service is expected to carry 100.000 vehicles. It has been estimated that nine or ten boats with a capacity of fifty vehicles each could provide Lang Island Sound ferry service for about 500.000 vehicles annually — or about five times the number of vehicles carried by the existing service. The cost of Otis service. including necessary terminal improvements. is estimated at about S50 million — which is about 2.5 to S.00 of the capital costs required for the bridge alternatives considered. If new or expanded ferry service is instituted it should be preceded by a complete technical study designed to assess the need for ferry service, the adequacy and capacity of the existing service, the cost of approach roads at new or existing locations. the need for terminal improvements and the number and kind of boats required for year-round service. Bi -State support for specific Merry service and a mechanism for financing the needed improvements as well as supporting annual operating costs must also be secured. Principal Findings and CondusWos Regional residents and business executives divided about equaW is terms of dbnr firm support for public investment in a new bridge, and their expectations as to its benefits. Supporters pri- marily looked to economic and transportation access improvements. non -supporters to bridge costs. environmental and community problems. A significant proportion z3v-e mixed or uncertain responses, or anticipated no direct impact on their areas or activities. A similar mix of views was obtained from the study's public forums and from the Policy Advisory Committee. The region as a whoie and each of its subregions will enjoy substantiai increases in economic activity with or w'it"011I a cross -Sound bridge. Quite substantial auc:rcnA economic growth would accrue to the r:_ ori with a new bridee. A new bridge along with, its approach roads would be a gigantic constrac-ion investment. Cost esti. mates at the time )f _onstruction ran_ae from 51.028 million to 5'.0-3 million. A railroad bridge would be 50 to i,X percent more expensive than a highway bridge and a combined railway; highway bridge would increase the highway bridge costs by S 1 billion. t • Projected toll revenues from traffic using any of the new cross -Sound bridge alternatives would fall far short of supporting the construction costs. State and federal funds. current or anticipated, are not available to make up the huge capital funding deficiencies. • Projected annual average daily traffic volumes on a new cross -Sound bridge are not at a level to relieve traffic significantly on existing bridges or major highway connections. • The initial and overall net energy requirements of any new cross -Sound bridge will be quite signifi- cant. The annual energy savings of fuel from diverted travel are estimated to average about one percent of the total fuel and other energy required by entirely new traffic generated by a bridge, bridge maintenance and initial construction. 11 • Many of the potential adverse impacts caused by bridge construction or use could be minimized or avoided by use of good design and construction practices. The environmental and community impacts stimulated by a bridge may be more significant that those associated with actual construction. Modest pressures for land develop- ment are expected to occur in Suffolk County and at specific bridgehead locations. • Expanded cross -Sound ferry services could provide desired Long Island -Southern New England access improvements at much lower capital costs. with much less environmental or community impacts and much sooner than a bridge. Improved ferry service already has support locally and at the state level on both sides of the Sound. ly PART III STUDY PARTICIPANTS & REFERENCES Policy Advisory Committee J. Norman Chopy Rhode Island Department of Transportation Robert L. Cox National Bank of North America Robert V. Cox Long Island Trust Company Jane Devine Suffolk County Legislator Lucien DiMeo Mayor of Hamden South Central Connecticut Council of Elected Officials Robert Donnelly Riverhead Town Planning Board James Duffy Local 138 Operating Engineers Edward Gudelski Swot Ctntrai Connectim Regional Planning Agency Troy Gustayson, Editor Suffolk Times Ruth Hoffman Southeastern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency Frank T. Johnson Tri-State Regional Planning Commission Hannah Komanoff Supervisor. Nassau County 13 Henry Maguire Connecticut River Estuary Regional Planning Agency John Mandanici Mayor of Bridgeport Barbara J. Maynard First Selectwoman Old Saybrook, Connecticut Loma Salzman Friends of the Earth East Quogue. Long Island Robert Scheuing Hempstead Bank Senator Bernard C. Smith Northport. Long Island Erwin Staller Hauppauge, Long Island C. Evans Tilles Huntington Station, Long Island Jessie Tomlinson Wading River Civic Association John E. Wrabel Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency Charmtan: William C. Hennessy, Commissioner Department of Transportation State of New York Study Refer"ce Reports A. OVERVIEW REPORTS: Policy Advisory Committee — Conclusions Results of Public Forums Summary of Findings B. TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTS: Background Residents Survey Findings Survey of Business Executives Economic Development Land Use and Community Services Costs Traffic & Revenues financial Feasibility Energy Yavigation & Boating Environmental Considerations Ferry Service Rail Freight 14 Edward Sullivan Edward Sullivan Edward Sullivan Edward Sullivan Gibbons & Hyland Roger Nacki Yankelovich, Skelly & White Equitable Environmental Health, Inc. Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, Inc. Equitable Environmental Health. Inc. URS/Madigan-Praeger Gibbons & Hyland URS/Madigan-Praeger URS/Mad*an-Praeger URS/Madigan-Praeger Equitable Environmental Health. Inc. URS/'Madigan-Praeger Equitable Environmental Health. Inc. Edward Sullivan Edward Sullivan i f RECOM OCT 18 1979 mm cm, soumd � LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY SUMMARY of FINDINGS REPORT TO: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDWARD F. SULLIVAN OCTOBER 1979 STUDY DIRECTOR LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE J.'Norman Chopy R de Island Department of Transportation ert L. Cox Iona) Bank of North America ert V. Cox g Island Trust Company Jane Devine Suffolk County Legislator Lucien DiMeo Ma or of Hamden South Central Connecticut Council of Elected Officials Robert Donnelly Ri erhead Town Planning Board es Duffy al 138 rating Engineers and Gudelski ith Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency Try Gustayson, Editor Suffolk Times Ruh Hoffman Sotheastern Connecticut ;Regional Planning Agency Fr nk T. Johnson Tri-State Regional Planning (Commission Hannah Komanoff Supervisor, Nassau County Henry McGuire Connecticut RiveriEstuary Regional Plann�ng Agency John Mandanici Mayor of Bridgeport Barbara J. Maynard First Selectwoman Old Saybrook, Con}ecticut i Lorna Salzman Friends of the Earth East Quogue, Long! Island Robert Scheuing Hempstead Bank Senator Bernard Ci. Smith Northport, Long Island i Erwin Staller Hauppauge, Long Island C. Evans Tilles Huntington Statiojn, Long Island Jessie Tomlinson j Wading River Civik Association John E. Wrabel Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency) Chairman: William C. Hennessy, Commissioner. Department of Transportation State of New York i i