Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy• 0 s A WATER BRIDGE LINKING LONG ISLAND TO NEW ENGLAND A Study Prepared by the Task Force on A Long Island Sound Crossing of the Action Committee for Long Island ARTHUR T. ROTH Chairman MEMBERS DONALD EISELE OWEN T. SMITH SETH HUBBARD WALTER WOHLEKING INTERN Paul Cillo School of Health Care and Public Adminstration C.W. Post College Ex Officio Members WILLIAM J. CASEY ELLIS L. PHILLIPS, Jr. ACTION COMMITTEE FOR LONG ISLAND Bethpage, Long Island, New York 11714 u EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ferry Study Committee appointed by the Action Committee For Long Island has recommended that ferry service be established from Shoreham on Long Island's North Shore to New Haven on the South Shore of Connecticut. For a period of nearly 20 years the issue of a Long Island Sound crossing east of the Throgs Neck Bridge has been hotly debated. The proposal that a bridge be built between Oyster Bay on the North Shore of Long Island and New Haven on the South Shore of Connecticut met serious community opposition on both sides of the Sound and has been abandoned. Proposals that a bridge be built from various locations in Suffolk County have not met the opposition on the Long Island side that was evidenced in connection with the Oyster Bay proposal, but have met serious objection from governmental and civic leaders along the Southern Coast of Connecticut. • A study conducted by the Long Island Sound Bridge Task Force has indicated that a bridge between Long Island and Southern Connecticut supported by Revenue Bonds would require bonds totalling between 1.2 and 2.4 billion dollars (1979 dollars). If the potential tolls were used to support these bonds, there would be a shortfall of between .9 and 1.9 billion dollars depending upon the route selected. This shortfall would have to be made up by a subsidy. The committee has concluded that for approximately one percent, or one month's shortfall, it would be possible to develop efficient ferry service from Long Island to Southern New England. The Federal Highway Act authorized the use of Federal Highway funds for the construction of ferries. If Federal Highway funds are used to cover the capital cost of the ferries, the projections developed by the committee indicate that it would be possible to provide ferry service on a half hour headway basis, charging a toll that would be equivalent to those that have been recommended for a bridge without the need for operating subsidy. If the capital cost were met by the Federal Government, it would be possible operate the ferry service on a self sustaining basis with 18 hour service every half hour - a minimum of 72 crossings per day with additional crossings at peak hours - on a self sustaining basis if the average occupancy were fifty percent. If Federal Highway funds were not available and it was necessary to finance the capital cost of the equipment and the ferry • landing facilities out of operating funds, it would require 78 to 80% occupancy on a 18 hour per day, 72 crossings per day schedule. It is not anticipated that this level of operation is forseeable because of the rush hour peaks. • 0 Implementation of ferry service will require the cooperation of a number of organizations: a. The State of Connecticut b. The State of New York C. The Federal Highway Administration d. The County of Suffolk e. The City of New Haven It is anticipated that the service would be provided by an authority established for this purpose. The authority would be authorized to make such arrangements as may be required for the development of access to a proposed ferry site and the development of the ferry service as well as obtaining the necessary equipment. The authority would be operated as an autonomous agency in order to bring to it the efficiencies that are available through the use of an autonomous agency. Frequent, efficient ferry service between Long Island and Connecticut would have significant economic advantages for both communities: a. It would make available to southern New England firms the rich Nassau -Suffolk market. b. It would make available to Long Island firms the southern New England markets. C. It would make it possible for Long Island firms to ship materials to northeastern U.S. markets without the need to go through the City fo New York. d. It would make it possible for New England firms to ship goods to customers on Long Island. e. It would make it possible to bring together the aerospace industries of Long Island and those of Connecticut and Massachusetts. f. It would make it possible to bring together the strong electronics industries of New England and Long Island to create a joint electronics center rivaling any such center anywhere in the world. The energy saving resulting from this type of crossing is significant. If we look merely at the "diverted" traffic, the traffic that would have "driven around" the sound, but could take the ferry, the fuel savings would be in excess of 100,000 barrels per year. The report enumerates some of the sound crossing studies which have been prepared in the past decade. They have concluded that although needed, a bridge would not be self sustaining and would require a significant subsidy. Similarly, questions have been raised as to whether a ferry could be self sustaining. Prior studies of ferry service have shown the service not bearing its costs because of the tremendous burden of the capital costs. This burden would be eliminated if the capital cost were borne by the Federal Government as a part of the highway system. • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Executive Summary 1 Table of Contents 3 List of Tables 5 List of Photos 6 List of Charts and Maps ? Chapter I A Water Bridge Linking Long Island to New England 8 Chapter II 21 Long Island Development 10 Developing Manufacturing and Service Economy 10 Long Island Identity 10 Commerce Between Communities 11 Reaching New Markets 11 Service Oriented Markets 12 Movement of Freight Essential to Economic Development 12 Access to New England Market 13 Electronic and Electric Equipment 13 • Availability of Additional Markets 14 Eastern Long Island 15 C Chapter III Prior Studies 16 Chapter IV Need For a Crossing 21 Long Island Balance Sheet 28 Connecticut Balance Sheet 31 What Site? 33 Chapter V The Bridge Alternative 35 Capital Cost of A Bridge 38 Time for Construction 39 Financial Feasibility of a Bridge 39 Funding Methods 39 Port Jefferson to Bridgeport 40 Wading River to East Haven 41 Riverhead to Guilford 42 East Marion to Old Saybrook 43 Orient Point to Watch Hill 46 4 Chapter VI The Waterborne Alternative Use of Existing Data Characteristics of Ferry Service Chapter VII Site Selection Port Jefferson to Bridgeport Shoreham to New Haven East Marion to Old Saybrook Orient Point to Watch Hill Conclusion Chapter VIII What Equipment? Hovercraft Surface Effect Ship Hydrofoil Conventional Ferries Larger Vessels 100 Vehicle Ferry 50 Vehicle Ferry • Chapter IX Form of Organization Chapter X Budgets97 Chapter XII Financing Alternatives Interstate Highway Program Private Operation Chapter XII Energy Impact Appendix Computations and Route Date Prepared by Logistics for indicating routing and projected travel time form Long Island locations to selected destinations in Northeastern United States • 5 48 48 48 61 68 72 76 78 80 80 89 89 89 90 91 92 94 103 103 107 110 IS THERE A FERRY IN L.I.'S FUTURE CHAPTER I A WATER BRIDGE LINKING LONG ISLAND TO NEW ENGLAND For a period of nearly 20 years the issue of a Long Island Sound Crossing east of the Throgs Neck Bridge has been hotly debated on both sides of the Sound. Initially, it was proposed that the Metropolitian Transportation Authority construct a bridge from the area surrounding the hamlet of Oyster Bay to Rye, New York thus connecting the Oyster Bay - Seaford Expressway with the Cross Westchester Expressway. The site from Oyster Bay to Rye was apparently selected, as it represented the furthermost easterly location where a New York site, could be connected with another New York site, thus providing the mechanism for a connection without the need for approval of another state or the adoption of a • Compact. This site was the subject of considerable torment. Ultimately, the Governor (Nelson A. Rockefeller ) essentially abandoned the project, and the authority for the bridge was deleted from the Public Authorities Law. C The repeal of this portion of the Public Authorities Law has not stilled the cry for a bridge. There remains a number of organizations which urge the construction of a bridge either from Long Island to Westchester; Long Island to the South Shore of Connecticut; or Long Island to Rhode Island. The objections to the bridge are multi -faceted. One of the principal objections is financial. As is discussed infra, it has been estimated that a bridge would cost in excess of one billion dollars. This is not reasonable in light of the current hue and cry for economy in government. It is difficult to muster public support for proposals with a billion dollar price tag. Recognizing that some type of crossing would be effective in stimulating the economy of the Long Island region, William J. Casey, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Action Committee for Long Island appointed a Task Force to look into the possibility of an alternative means of crossing the Sound, recognizing that a Sound crossing is essential to the economic viability of Long Island. This report is a preliminary report of the Action Committee's Task Force. This report is based primarily on previously published data and does not include any substantial "new data," although it may draw some new conclusions from the existing data. 8 LONG ISLAND FERRY STUDY • • List of Photographs Plate I Photograph of "T" Boat" Now in operation from Orient Point to New London 37 Plate II Comparison of Hull Designs of Major Vehicle Carrying Boats Plate III Photograph of SES Vessel Manufactured by Bell Halter Plate IV Photograph of T Boat approaching Orient Point Plate V Photograph of T Boat discharging its cargo Plate VI Photograph of T Boat List of Maps Possible Long Island to New England Crossings 37 Long Island Sound Chart - Shoreham to New Haven 66 Long Island Sound Chart - Vicinity of Shoreham 67 Long Island Sound Chart — New Haven Harbor Shoreham Ferry Site 70 New Haven Ferry Site 71 7 • List of Tables Growth of Jobs by Category 14 Long Island Balance Sheet 28 Connecticut Balance Sheet 31 Capital Cost of A Bridge 38 Port Jefferson to Bridgeport 41 Wading River to East Haven 42 Riverhead to Guilford 43 East Marion to Old Saybrook 45 Orient Point to Watch Hill 46 Time and Distance Driving Around Highway 50 Time and Highway Travel Using A Ferry 51 Time and Highway Distance Using A Ferry - Commercial Vehicles 51 • Out -of -Pocket Costs of a Private Vehicle Driving Around 52 Time and Mileage Required to Travel From Long Island to Sites in the Northeastern United States - Driving Around 53 Time and Mileage Required to Travel From Long Isladn Sites to Northeast using Bridge From Shoreham to New Haven 56 Mileage and Time Figures Based on Ferry From Shoreham to New Haven 57 Mileage Comparisons Between Driving Around and Taking Ferry From Shoreham to New York 56 Time Comparisons Between Driving Around and Taking A Ferry From Shoreham to New Haven and Crossing A Bridge From Wading River to East Haven 57 Time and Mileage Savings (Losses) By Taking Ferry From Shoreham to New Haven Over Driving Around, i.e., Through the City of New York 58 Cost of Driving From Point to Point In A Passenger Auto 60 • • • A WATER BRIDGE LINKING LONG ISLAND TO NEW ENGLAND At the present time there are two private corporations providing ferry service between Suffolk and Connecticut. Limited service is provided from Port Jefferson to Bridgeport. This service is limited to seasonal service and is primarily serving the tourist market. The Port Jefferson service utilizes the M/S Martha's Vineyard. Service with greater frequency is also provided from Orient Point to New London. This service utilizes a newly designed "T" boat deriving its name from its conformance with United States Coast Guard Regulation "T" which allows the construction of a 217 foot boat to be crewed by a crew of 5 . This service is provided at a less than hourly frequency. 9 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • LONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER II LONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT Traditional views of a cross sound crossing have focused on the need to relieve the traffic pressures on the Throgs Neck Bridge and the Whitestone Bridge. A secondary consideration was the removal of heavy truck traffic from the inner portions of the New York Metropolitan Region by diverting this traffic directly to Connecticut. Today the reasons behind a bridge involve major issues of economic development. Developing Manufacturing and Service Economy Until the 1960's Long Island was primarily a bedroom community, providing residences for 182,000 who commuted to New York daily. This situation has changed significantly. No longer is Long Island limited to its role as the bedroom for Manhattan, as it is developing its own microcosm of the • New York regional area. In 1960 commuting to New York represented 40% of the total Nassau County labor force. By 1970, only 30% of Nassau's labor force was employed in New York City, less than 18% in Manhattan. Today's youth are less apt to be interested in commuting to New York than their fathers. It is anticipated that the 1980 census will show a similar 10% decline in the percentage of Nassau residents who commute to New York to work. More and more businesses are relocated to Long Island ... many of them because the "boss" lives on Long Island. As an economic entity, Long Island is called upon to shoulder its own weight. Long Island Identity In the late 1970's a major new regional perspective has developed. This new perspective was intensified by the Long Island at the Crossroads series published in Newsday and the subsequent conference co -hosted by the State University at Stony Brook, The Long Island Regional Planning Commission and Newsday. The abandonment of the bedroom to New York status has resulted in, decided tendency toward the East. In Nassau County, much of the development has been in the eastern • 10 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY r� L LONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT portions of the Town of Oyster Bay the most easterly of the three towns in that county. Oyster Bay's population has increased by 13,000 since the 1970 census, while North Hempstead and Hempstead have seen negligible increases. In Suffolk County, although development continues at Huntington adjacent to the Long Island Expressway ( Intra State Route 495) the most intensive development is in the towns of Islip and Brookhaven. Islip has grown from 270,880 to 314,170, and Brookhaven from 295,200 to 349,000. As Arthur D. Little noted in their study, the region's economic development has taken place farther and farther from the traditional centers of economic activity. Commerce Between Communities Traditionally suburban industrial areas develop business contacts with other suburban industrial areas. For example, in Northern New Jersey firms are more apt to deal with other firms like themselves in the suburban communities rather than do business with the firms in the central city. This phenomenon can also be demonstrated by the • interchange between Westchester and Rockland counties following the construction of the Tappen Zee Bridge. The reason for this distinction is seldom articulated but is clear. For residents of Westchester it is much easier to get to Rockland, or for residents of Fairfield County, Connecticut it is easier to get to Westchester, than it is for residents of Suffolk to get to Fairfield, even though the "as the crow flies" distance is the same. The lack of any significant commercial intercourse between the manufacturing plants of eastern Nassau County and Suffolk County on the one hand and the firms located in the New England region can be attributed to the difficulty encountered in crossing the sound, despite the fact that the "air" mileage is significantly less between Suffolk and Fairfield, Connecticut, than the distance to other markets. • Reaching New Markets The development of a Sound Crossing would open to the people of Nassau and Suffolk Counties a significant market opportunity which is not now being reached. Drastic action to stimulate the economic development activities on Long Island is essential. Once a leader in aerospace, electronics, printing and numerous other allied industries, Long Island now faces a precarious economic position. It cannot look to 11 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY is LONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT New York City for significant economic growth, thus it must look to its own development. It is essential that steps be taken to reestablish Long Island's superiority in the areas in which it has something to offer to the national economy. To effectively add to the G.N.P., Long Island must have an easy, safe, and economic means of getting merchandise out of its counties and into the hands of the customers who are waiting to buy the products that Long Island business provides. Service Oriented Industry Arthur D. Little Incorporated, in their report prepared for the Long Island Association's Sound Crossing Task Force, noted that Long Island relies heavily upon service -based industry, because of the high concentration of high income workers and the highest median income in the country. As an industrial employer, the Island ranks among the lowest of major suburban areas of equivalent size. For example, Bergan County has 124 manufacturing jobs for every 1,000 in resident population; Long Island has only 58 manufacturing jobs for every 1,000 of resident population. is The Long Island region has not seen the development of manufacturing jobs, because of the difficulty in getting goods off the Island. • Historically the Long Island region has relied upon its proximity to New York City for growth in employment. Unfortunately the City of New York has not seen a growth in jobs in the last decade. As a result the region must look to its own resources to improve its employment situation. Although the service sector will continue to grow, it cannot absorb the growth that is necessary for Long Island to get ahead. The region has not been in a position to look to non manufacturing jobs for economic growth. Most of the jobs that have been added to the Nassau Suffolk SMSA during the past 5 years have been non -manufacturing jobs. Although helpful, non -manufacturing jobs do not have the effect of manufacturing jobs. It is manufacturing jobs that bring money in from other sectors. Service jobs are merely a redistribution of funds within the region. 12 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • LONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT Growth Of Jobs By Category (Nassau Suffolk SMSA) Year Manufacturing NonManufacturing Total 1974 4,500 39,500 43,800 1975 500 34,100 34,600 1976 4,700 33,600 38,300 1977 6,500 48,800 55,300 1978 2,900 40,200 43,100 (Source: New York Department of Labor) Movement of Freight Essential to Economic Development The most effective means of encouraging additional "manufacturing" jobs on Long Island is to develop a means of getting merchandise off Long Island efficiently and effectively at a reasonable cost. That means does not exist today. With the exception of the relatively small amount of freight that is shipped through Islip -McArthur Airport (now known as the Long Island Airport) and a limited amount of agricultural produce shipped on the Orient Point -New London ferry, all of the goods manufactured on Long Island are trucked through the City of New York on their way to the various markets in other sections of the United States. Virtually no freight leaves Long Island via the Long Island Railroad, although a small amount arrives on the Railroad. It is useful to compare the Long Island region with Southern New England. The two are similar in many ways. Southern New England (Fairfield and Bridgeport Counties) is located near the City of New York; and Fairfield County participates in the managerial and professional jobs in the City of New York. Southern Connecticut, however, has a more balanced economy than that of Long Island. At the present time, the Southern Connecticut economy is growing at a faster rate than the Long Island economy. Manufacturing has always been a dominant component in the Southern New England region. Access to New England Markets A Sound crossing would provide the Long Island region with wider access to the rich New England markets. This access 13 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • LONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT would provide better opportunities for trade commerce on a interregional basis ( i.e. from Connecticut and Southern New England to Long Island; and from Long Island to Connecticut and Southern New England). This includes industrial products as well as consumer products. There is considerable similarity between the economies of the two areas. In both areas the manufacture of transportation equipment represents the principal industrial employer. On Long Island the transportation industry represents over 30,000 employees with 100 firms adding approximately $650,000,000 to $700,000,000 to the value of the goods . In Connecticut there are 1200 firms employing close to 75,000 people with a value added of $1,300,000,000 to $1,400,000,000. In Southern New England and Long Island the transportation equipment industries represent one out of five manufacturing jobs. If it were possible to link these communities with a commonality of interest in the transportation equipment industry (Military aircraft, helicopters, commercial aircraft) to the extent of over 100,000 employes and an annual value added in excess of 2 billion dollars could be developed. The region would take on • the proportions which it was once famous for, the air transportation center of the world. Nassau County speaks of Long Island as the cradle of aviation. If you in essence join Long Island and Southern New England, the resulting concentration of military transportation equipment would be without equal in the United States. • Electronic and Electric Equipment The second largest industry on Long Island is the Electronic and Electric Equipment Industry, which employs over 30,000 employees in 400 firms and adds $550,000,000 in value to the products that it deals in. This industry is closely allied to the electronic industry of Massachusetts, which represents approximately 75,000 of the Bay state's employees and Connecticut, which represents approximately 40,000 of the Nutmeg state's employees and a value added of $700,000,000. Availability of Additional Markets The development of an effective sound crossing would result in the development of additional markets for Long Island's 14 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • LONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT products. Adding Long Island to the market for firms in Southern New England would be equivalent to adding 2,600,000 consumers to the available market (a number equivalent to the market size of Dallas -Fort Worth or St. Louis). The market potential of New England for Long Island firms is even more dramatic. This marekt is demonstrated in the tables set forth on pages 00 through 00. Eastern Long Island Most of the industrial and commercial development that has occurred on Long Island in the past half century has occurred in Nassau County because of its proximity to New York City and to the markets which are available by traveling through New York City. Additional development must concentrate on the portions of Suffolk County further east on Long Island. Recent industrial activity in Nassau has been confined almost entirely to the Township of Oyster Bay which is located on the border between the counties of Nassau and Suffolk. Development in the town of North . Hempstead has been limited. The principal development in North Hempstead is the result of recycling of property previously used for other industrial or mining operations. 0 The heaviest industrial development has been occurring in Suffolk County in the Towns of Brookhaven and Islip. Industrial development has been forced to these towns because the property values and zoning requirements are such that the market place finds Brookhaven and Islip economic places for development. For many industries it is no longer economic to develop a facility in Nassau County because of the pressure of property values, high density of development, shortages of affordable housing and high assessments. 15 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY C] PRIOR STUDIES CHAPTER III PRIOR STUDIES There have been numerous studies prepared addressing the possibility of a crossing from the north shore of Long Island to the south shore of the State of Connecticut. Because of the availability of data, albeit somewhat dated, the committee has made no effort to develop extensive new data in this study. Some of the data that has previously been used has been updated to reflect modern conditions including fuel costs, higher interest rates, restricted availabilty of federal fundings, marketability of municipal securites, population changes, and alterations in population trends. Cost data, including construction estimates have been adjusted to reflect inflationary pressures. In some cases cost increases are projected significantly in excess of the inflationary adjustment to reflect abnormal price increments. Wherever previously published data is relied upon it is indicated. Similarly, where it has been updated, the updating has been referenced in this publication. • The following is a bibliography of prior studies which have been reviewed in connection with the development of this publication. This bibliography is not intended to be complete. It is intended to be indicative of the availability of material on this issue. A more comprehensive bibliography is set forth in the Appendix. is December 1971. b. Crossing the Sound, A Study of Improved Ferry Service on Long Island Sound, Prepared by the Tri State Planning Commission, 1976. c. Long Island Sound Ferry Study, Technical Supplement, Prepared by the Staff of the Tri State Planning Commission, 1976. d. Getting Across Without a Bridge, Series of Articles by Tom Morris, Transportation Reporter for Newsday, Garden City ( Now Melville ), New York ( 1977). 16 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PRIOR STUDIES e. People and the Sound A plan For Long Island Sound New England River Basins Commission Chapter entitled Ferrys and Bridges). f. Feasibility Report, Port Jefferson To Bridgeport Highway Bridge and Other Crossings, Prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation by Bertram D Tallamy Associates, Consulting Engineers ( 1968). . The Long Island Sound Bridge from Orient Point to New ;ngland, Prepared for the Tri State Bridge Committee by E. ionel Pavlo, D.Sc., C.E. (1963). h. Transportation Consultants Analysis and Evaluation of Long Island Bridge Feasability Study Reports. Prepared for the City of Rye and The Action Committee Against the Bridge of the Non -Partisan Civic Assocation, Inc. by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., August 1967. i. A com hensive Study of Proposed Bridge Crossings of Sound, prepared for the New York state of Transportation by Creighton Hamburg Inc. • This report provided for the following individual reports: • Regional Considerations, Creighton Hamburg, Inc. Transportation Operations, Creighton Hamburg, Inc. Financial Considerations, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Economic Studies, Economic Consultants Organization Inc. Natural Environment, Marine Sciences Research Center, State University at Stony Brook Noise, Bolt, Neranek and Newman, Inc. Air Pollution, Environment/One Corporation Community Impact, Planning Services Group Incorporated 17 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY PRIOR STUDIES Visual Impact, Carl Feiss, FAIA, AIP in cooperation with Robert N. Anderson, Jr., AIA Recreational Boating, Creighton Hamburg, Inc. j. Traffic Earnings and Feasibility of the Long Island Sound Crossing Between Oyster Bay and Rye, Prepared for the Department of Transportation and the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority by Madigan Hyland, Incorporated, 1965. k. Feasibility Report: Highway -Railroad Crossing, Suffolk County to Connecticut, Prepared for the Department of Transportation 1. Proposed Suffolk County, New York To Connecticut Crossings, Prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation, 1967. m. Long Island -New England Bridge Study Feasibility Report Summarv. Port Jefferson to Bridgeport Highway Bridge and • Other Crossings, Suffolk County to New York, Prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation. • n. Report on Financial Feasibility and Economic Impact, Prepared for the State of Connecticut. O. Benefits of A Long Island Sound Crossing, Prepared for the Long Island Association of Commerce and Industry by Arthur D. Little Inc., 1978. Sed Suffolk County New York to Connecticut Prepared For New York State Department of ation by Wilbur Smith and Associates, 1968. Environmental Impact Statment For Long Island Sound Crossing and Approach Highways, New England Thruway and the Cross Westchester Expresswav to the Seaford -Oyster Bay Expressway Route 135 at Jericho Turnpike (Route 25), prepared for the Metropolitian Transportation Authority and the New York State Department of Transportation, 1972. r. Long Island Sound Bridge Study, Prepared for The New York State Department of Transportation. At the time this report was prepared this study was not yet complete 18 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PRIOR STUDIES although a number of the individual consultants reports were available. (August 1979) These reports included: Survey of Business Executives, Prepared by Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. Traffic and Revenues, Prepared by URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc. for the New York State Department of Transportation. Financial Feasibility, Prepared by URS/Madigan- Praeger, Inc., for the New York State Department of Transportation. Navigation and Recreational Boating, Prepared by URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc. for the New York State Department of Transportation. Environmental Considerations, Prepared by Equitable Environmental Health, Inc., for the New York State Department of Transportation. •Energy,Prepared by URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., Equitable Environmental Health Inc., for the New York State Department of Transportation. • Costs, Prepared by URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., for New York State Department of Transportation. Ferry Service, Prepared by Edward Sullivan for the New York State Department of Transportation, 1979. Rail Freight, Prepared by Edward Sullivan for the New York State Department of Transportation, 1979. The 1979 studies undertaken on behalf of the New York State Department of Transporation were not final at the time of the preparation of this report. However draft copies of the reports were made available to the Committee. 19 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PRIOR STUDIES On the basis of this information available as a result of prior studies, the Committee determined to use the demand and basic economic impact data that has been developed in prior reports as the basis of this report. If the Committe had reached a contrary conclusion and decided to make its own analysis of the potential economic and environmental impact, it would have been forced to retain consultants. These consultants would have been forced to rely on the same information sources available to the earlier consultants. Basic macro economic data is derived from data developed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Unfortunately much of the data used in connection with the 1979 Long Island Sound Bridge Study will be of limited value because of the age of the basic data (derived from the 1970 census of population). New data will be available in late 1980. To the extent that members of the committee have been in a position to develop additional information based on their individual expertise, that information has been included in the report together with appropriate references. • is 20 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY C PUBLIC VIEWS CHAPTER IV NEED FOR A CROSSING That there is a need for a crossing of some type, most citizens will not quarrel. However, there are many citizens as well as public officials, who quarrel with the need for a bridge as that crossing. There has been significantly less opposition to proposals for the improvement of ferry service. Improved ferry service would provide many of the benefits of a bridge without the environmental hazards and dislike of the bridge. The support for the Bridge has emanated almost entirely from Long Island. The following statements are illustrative of sentiments expressed for a bridge on Long Island by public officials and community leaders appearing at the forums conducted by the Long Island Sound Bridge • Committee, Policy Advisory Board. Suffolk County Executive Klein Suffolk County's ties with New England date from before the American Revolution. The two regions shared whaling and fishing industries as well as product markets. Long Island and New England share a commonality of social and economic experiences ... no one wants a crossing in his backyard. Various sites must be studied further for their environmental and economic suitability as well as for their access to existing transportation networks ... if we forever say no to a Long Island Sound Crossing, it will ultimately become a fait accompli without the proper planning ... I believe a crossing to be both necessary and inevitable. Now is the time to plan it, design it and begin building it. Nassau County Executive Purcell The Long Island Sound community in Connecticut and Long Island has a combined population of nearly four and one-half million people, more people than 36 of 21 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY PUBLIC VIEWS • the 50 states. Between 1960 and 1970 employment in the four Connecticut counties grew by nearly 24% while employment in Nassau and Suffolk Counties grew by nearly 40%. ... If that water barrier did not exist, our economic integration would be natural and significant; an integrated part of the vast urban band that stretches from Washington to Boston ... other natural barriers have been effectively conquered by building bridges or tunnels. Long Island Sound is the principal remaining barrier. ... Severe fuel shortages ... powerful argument in favor ... people and goods could move between Long Island and New England in a straight line instead of a circle. That would mean less gasoline consumption, lower transportation costs for industry and ultimately lower prices in stores on both sides of the Sound. A bridge would benefit all of us in the Long Island Sound Community. For Long Island it would provide an alternative connection to the mainland enabling us to diversif your economy by attracting new industries and manufacturing firms. For Southern New England, it would mean easy accessibility to one of the largest and richest • consumer markets in the United States. A Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area that ranks ninth in the nation in population and that is among the leaders in income and retail sales. Acting President of State University of New York at Stony Brook, Dr. Alexander Pond: A Suffolk to central New England Bridge should be a principal regional priority. We live in the archtypical post war community virtually totally designed around accessibility by vehicles ... Our enormous population is the only major concentration in the country which is absolutely unserved by the interstate highway system. Our exclusion from that system is another spectacular example of how it is that Long Island must pay extra to visit their investments in the natural process at work elsewhere from the benefit of other regions.... A connection across the Sound to central New England will enrich both of its ends by reducing the crippling limitations on our own enterprises in reaching those populations and by opening our own enormous markets and attractions in institutions and tourism to a vast new audience. 22 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY L' PUBLIC VIEWS Huntington Township Chamber of Commerce A Long Island Sound crossing is important to the continued growth of the Nassau Suffolk region. New firms will locate here and existing firms will expand only if they are assured of relief in traffic congestion and less expensive movement of raw materials and finished products. Without an expeditious transportation system the lures of the sunbelt will look ever more attractive. A Long Island Sound crossing is an essential step in improving our transportation system ... expedite the orderly growth chances for our area to attract and retain blue chip companies and for our quality work force. Finally it will foster energy conservation by reducing travel time for area businessmen and local residents. Long Island Association If one views the Long Island Sound as a region, with New England as the north shore, and Long Island as the south shore, the concept of actuality comes into • sharper focus. Certainly we have more of a common interest with the communities 20 milesto the north than we have 60 to 70 miles to the west. Our economies are similar and complementary, our lifestyles and social structures have generally the same genius and we share the same great resource, Long Island Sound. is In addition to the organizations cited, numerous other organizations have taken formal expressions of the views in favor of a bridge. The labor movement is unanimous in support of the concept of a crossing. Similarly, the business community (organized chambers of commerce, business and professional organizations) have been virtually unanimous in support of the bridge. The opposition to a bridge has come from a limited group of environmentalists and others who fear the effect that the bridge would have on the Long Island Sound as well as the governmental leaders of the State of Connecticut who are virtually unanimous in opposition to the bridge. 23 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PUBLIC VIEWS Govenor Ella Grasso: I am opposed to the Long Island Bridge proposal ... a number of studies in the past have indicated no real economic benefit to Connecticut. United States Senator Ribicoff: The bridge will have serious repercussions on the entire Long Island Sound region. Millions of cars and trucks will be funnelled on to the already overcrowded Connecticut Turnpike and Merritt Parkway ... seriously worsen deterioration of the Sound's water quality, further strains on the regional transportation systems. Congressman Thomas Dodd At a time when we are trying to conserve fuel and to encourage people to use mass transportation to expend millions of dollars on such a project to establish the • proposed bridge would be a grave mistake.... Connecticut State Senator: • ... the State of Connecticut has no interest in such a bridge. A bridge would create a major change in the character of the area.... Development would become accelerated ... When the number one concern of this country should be the conservation of petroleum products through the development of mass transit proposals, it seems absurb to be considering a multi billion dollar project to encourage the use of more automotive travel. The people of Connecticut consider such a proposal an absurdity of which they want no part. Connecticut State Representative: I am staunchly opposed to the construction of any bridge to Long Island Sound. Such a bridge would result in severe dislocation for our communities and detract from the overall ambiance of the area. Any bridge for motor vehicle traffic across Long Island Sound would produce excessive traffic flow and 24 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PUBLIC VIEWS congestion, creating undue inconvenience for residence of Old Saybrook and surrounding areas ... totally nonproductive for our area ... seriously damaging the efforts of our communities to control their growth in order to preserve their unique identities. Council of the City of New London ... against the construction of a bridge connecting Long Island with Connecticut over our beautiful Long Island Sound. Madison Inland Wetlands Agency The idea of bisecting the Sound with a structure is revolting. Chairman of the Old Saybrook Conservation Commission We would like to keep this area in a manner which most who live here have chosen to become • accustomed. Connecticut Valley Action Committee • Unqualified opposition ... protect the unique senic historic and natural value of the Connecticut River Valley from mammouth construction projects. Old Saybrook Resident The quality of life in this area is more important than any prosperity that can be given to people ... Chairman of the Connecticut River Estuary Regional Planning Agency A bridge would adversely affect every single area of regional planning. First Selectwoman of Deep River I have never once spoken to anyone within the community that would like this bridge. We are unalterably opposed. 25 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PUBLIC VIEW'S First Selectman of Guilford ... this idea is so ridiculous, its pretty near a joke ... Never found anybody who has ever spoken in favor of this and many people have spoken against it ... don't wnat the thing messing up our Sound, or our shore. Old Saybrook Zoning Commission Voted unanimously to oppose the construction of any bridge or tunnel between Long Island and easterly Connecticut. ... Connecticut State Senator I can see no great benefits to the State of Connecticut and most especially to this area.... Bridgeport Area Chamber of Commerce A poll among business leaders in Bridgeport indicated • that 50% supported the bridge (1977). • Long Island Sound Task Force No cross sound link should be constructed. On Long Island industrial and residential growth would occur contributing to urban sprawl ... with fuel shortage, construction of a cross sound link would be a foolish impetus for increased automobile and truck traffic ... Urge any funds be used instead for improved mass transit and increased ferry service for the sound. Southwestern Regional Planning Agency ... agency continues to oppose a bridge crossing Long Island Sound. Business Community The division among the business community between those that favored the bridge and those that were opposed was made along lines similar to that of the public officials who appeared at the hearings. In a survey of Long Island 26 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY C. PUBLIC VIEWS business executives three out of four supported the bridge while only 1 in 10 opposed it. In New York City and Westchester, business officials who were interviewed either expressed support for the Long Island Sound Bridge or were indifferent. In Connecticut the reception of the Long Island Sound bridge proposal was more favorable among business leaders than by other segments of the community. However, even in the business community, supporters of the bridge numbered about the same as opponents of the concept. Those who were opposed to the bridge felt more strongly about their views than those who favored the structure. In Rhode Island virtually all of the business leaders interviewed supported the bridge. Long Island businessmen interviewed in connection with the proposal look for a significant increase in sales as a result of the Sound crossing. In interviews they indicated that the increase in sales volume which Long Island businessmen expect upon construction of the bridge across Long Island Sound approximates 12% within the first two years following the opening of the bridge. The business community projects a total average expansion of the Long Island economy of • 16% after five years of operation. In general, Long Island businessmen look upon the bridge as a means of providing the Long Island Economy a much needed shot in the arm. A sound crossing is looked upon as a means of providing a direct link up for the economies of the region without the need to depend on the troubled economy of the City of New York for the region's much needed economic support. n LJ The following balance sheets summarizes the perceptions of the bridge impact. The balance sheet is based on the Survey of Business Executives prepared byYankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., for the New York State Department of Transportation in connection with the Long Island Sound Bridge Study (August 1979), (Unofficial Preliminary Report). 27 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PUBLIC VIEWS LONG ISLAND BALANCE SHEET Perceptions of Bridge Impact Business Related Perceptions of Long Island Factors Situation Market Access Considerable regional/ and Volume national market activity Local Economy Stagnating Little or no expansion • Transportation Considerable trips across Needs sound New York seen as a bottleneck Quality of Life Mostly defined by economic health of area • Perceptive Bridge Impact Average 12% sales increase in 1-2 years; 16% in 3+ years Improved access to area markets Short and long-term boost Integration of Long Island with New England Reduction of economic dependence on New York Improved travel/time savings in fuel economy Bridge preferred to improvements No significant negative impacts 28 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PUBLIC VIEWS The following are excerpts from comments by Long Island executives: The bridge will expand the market for us. It will improve the turnover of inventory ... locally it will provide another labor market, widen sales markets. As a result (of the construction of the bridge) I would hire 250 more people, there would be an increase in business by 25%, there would be more hotel/motel use. Now New York City cuts us off. I would expand in New England dramatically and also expand purchasing from New England. I could ship to Canada and avoid the City. I might develop a retail business in Connecticut. The bridge will benefit the Long Island economy. From what I know ... I would approve a bridge. The development of Long Island can include necessary bakcup services and suppliers to Connecticut industry • and business and a bridge will give quick access to these needs. is Excellent idea and almost mandatory. The economy of Long Island will stagnate without it. It will increase business and decrease travel costs. It might even encourage expansion. It has merit in that it would save both time and mileage for both commercial and private (travel) ... not having to go through Queens (to get across Long Island Sound) will save us $50 in costs. The bridge would make me change my mind about moving out. The manufacturing sector on Long Island looks to the bridge as a means of providing access to potential suppliers in southern Connecticut as well as the southern Connecticut markets. One manufacturing executive said: "The bridge might convince our company to stay here. Most of Long Island's economy has moved away, a 29 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PUBLIC VIEWS major cause of this is the transportation situation, which forces us to go through New York." Long Island firms in the retail and wholesale trades have expressed confidence that a sound crossing would benefit their business. Typical comments include: The bridge would maximize my market in New England and, therefore raise the level of business. The bridge will decrease travel time for trucks and supervisory personnel to get to the Connecticut region. It will improve turnover of inventories, resulting in less investment in it. The bridge will change my mind about moving out of Long Island. It would save on fuel consumption. Connecticut businessmen interviewed do not look upon the bridge as a solution to local area problems. they do not feel thatthe bridge is necessary to the economic health of the community. Less than one/third of the businessmen • surveyed serve the Long Island region, those that do find that they do not have a significant need to cross the sound. Connecticut opponents to the bridge preceive virtually no beneficial bridge effects accruing to their businesses or to the local economy. Opponents believe that the costs associated with bridge construction and maintenance will create an unneeded tax burden. • The most often heard complaint is the effect the bridge would have on the environment. The Connecticut supporters of the bridge view it as having a moderate beneficial effect on the economy ofthe region, opening up additional markets to Connecticut firms. 30 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY :7 PUBLIC VIEWS CONNECTICUT BALANCE SHEET Perceptions of Bridge Impact Factors Supporters Opponents Impact on Business Expand markets No impact Moderate increase in sales: average 7% increase in 1-2 years/7.5% increase after 3+ years Expand availability of skilled/technical workers Impact on Local Integrate New England/ Long Island economies Improve economic • growth potential Transportation Lower transportation Needs costs/times i Bridge ranked second to improved highways s by preference r: No benefits Cost of construction V hill be borne locally/ eavy tax burden Strongly prefer improvements n highways, ferry service, and rail Little need to cross ound into Long Island Quality of Life No concern Detrimental environmentalimpact Increase congestion Increase urbanization 31 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY LJ PUBLIC VIEWS Typical comments by Connecticut opponents to the bridge include: The bridge will be too expensive to build. At this point in our economy and with its serious fuel shortages, the money spent in building a bridge would be far better spend in developing mass transit systems over the existing access to New York and Long Island .. we should concentrate our efforts on long term planning such as mass transit and not engage in projects that are designed solely to speed up the tempo of transportation. I think it is a foolish waste of money and would be an additional contribution to our inflationary economy. This is no time to appropriate a billion or more dollars to a project that is not needed.... it cannot help our business nor do I think it will contribute to the economy of this area. • The bridge will only benefit economies other than Connecticut. I see no practical benefits to Connecticut or to my business.. The benefits are to New York businessmen who can save time in reaching the New England markets. There is no foreseeable benefits to the bridge, it will bring about a host of problems such as increasing local traffic, greater urbanization and would make the natural environment less appealing ... it would not be as nice a place to live. The bridge is a bad deal because Fairfield and Westchester have not solved current transportation needs which the bridge will aggravate ... a bridge will turn this area into a metropolis of great complexity and not bridge any problem. 32 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • PUBLIC VIEWS WHAT SITE When asked for a preference as to site the business leaders questioned indicated the following ranking: 1. Bridgeport -Port Jefferson (attractive to 7 in 10 Long Island Residents). 2. East Haven -Wading River (attractive to 4 in 10 Long Island Residents). 3. Guilford -Riverhead (attractive to nearly 2 in .10 Long Island residents). 4. Old Saybrook -East Marion (attractive to nearly 2 in 10 Long Island residents). 5. Watch Hill -Orient Point (attractive to nearly 1 in 10 Long Island residents). • As noted in Chapter IV, public opinion on the Connecticut side appears to be virtually unanimous in opposition to the concept of a bridge. Public opinion on the New York side appears to be divided with most community leaders, business leaders and public officials favoring a cross sound link capable of handling cars, trucks and passengers, and a limited number of environmentalists opposing the link. • It is apparent that the project lacks the unanimity on both sides of the sound that is required to expedite a project with a billion dollar budget. In time it may be possible to establish to the satisfaction of the Connecticut public officials that the fixed link (bridge) between the two communities would be useful to both sides of the sound. Hopefully that unanimity will occur shortly. At that time serious consideration could be given to the bridge. After the key parties agree to the bridge, environmental review, corridor, and route hearings (if Federal funds are to be used) and other administrative delays would delay construction another 10 years. The interest of the environmentalist is such that they would be in a position to delay a project formany years by instituting successive law suits seeking to block construction. The Committee has undertaken this 33 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY r� L PUBLIC VIEWS study out of a belief that the Long Island economy cannot wait the 10 or 15 years that would be required. Based on a review of the sentiment of public officials and of the business community, it is apparent that support is overwhelming on Long Island for a sound crossing, although the concept is received with considerable reservation by business leaders and public leaders in the state of Connecticut. The Long Island community believes a crossing is necessary. It is interesting to note that although the questions in the survey were phrased in terms of a bridge, many of those interviewed made reference to a sound crossing. In their comments it is clear that the majority of leaders interviewed used the more general term. The leaders are looking initially for a means of transporting merchandise across the sound. The ability to transport passengers and passenger vehicles is of lesser importance. With few exceptions, the business leaders questioned were not concerned with the use of the bridge by workers for commutation, they wanted to transport merchandise and in • some cases supervisors to serve the southern New England market. They also wanted an effective method for merchandise from New England to reach the Long Island firms that rely on it to produce their own products. These goals could be satisfied almost as well by a ferry as by a bridge at a significantly reduced capital cost. The capital cost of providing ferry service for a million crossings per year would be between two and five percent of the cost of a bridge. • 34 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • BRIDGES CHAPTER V THE BRIDGE ALTERNATIVE A ferry is presented as an alternative to a bridge for several reasons: A. The capital cost of a fleet of ferries is between two and five percent the capital cost of a bridge. B. The time required to get underway with a modern ferry service is considerably less than the time required for the construction of a bridge. A bridge would probably take 15 years from the time there is general agreement on both sides of the sound that the bridge should be built. C. The environmental impact of a ferry is considerably less than the environmental impact of a bridge. To the extent that improved ferry service will divert traffic from the Long Island Expressway and the • Throgs Neck Bridge corridors, it may in balance have a positive environmental effect. is The argument to be made for a bridge instead of a ferry includes: A. The time for a ferry crossing is considerably longer (40 minutes to one hour) than it would take a car to cross on a bridge B. The operating cost for a ferry system would be somewhat greater than a bridge. C. The capacity of a bridge would be considerably greater than ferry service unless a large number of vessels were employed. There is little question that Long Island leaders feel that there is a need for a sound crossing. Polls have indicated that Long Islanders also support a sound crossing. The opponents are primarily individuals who live adjacent to the right of way and those who feel that a brige 35 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • • BRIDGES will interfer with their use of the sound. The need is an economic one, to move key personnel, equipment, merchandise, produce and other goods from New England to Long Island and from Long Island to New England. Both regions have strong agricultural communities. Both regions have stong transportation equipment industries. Both regions share similar populations in terms of family income, professionally oriented populations and similar factors. Bringing the two regions together economically makes sense. It makes so much sense that it should be done with the least delay possible. The development of a modern economical ferry service will facilitate the bringing together of the two regions. 36 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY W v ULSTER P / C / I ROCRLAND r / -4 .� RE RGEN PASSAIC VNION CITY r 91I S! E LIII NEN LD HILLS (-� 1 l HARTFORDi / � rRovloTNcf i I' E APITOL NUR INWt SiF RN I II ! / WINUNAM �NORTNl,STER ~--`_J- Inn NI Si ��--1 1 �� ' IUNNtI,11 IIT a 4.. ,g f �' IINIRAL < w r" < 0E1(-�. '� II N,UGAf UCk lI \\-%' -�v NIDSTATf ` ON—b' E�N e• w:w WATERBURY, Z p SOUTHEASTERN OIK FINNAN IN(HISAinNll VAt IIY _\ .-.• _J 91 li ��`-�.`'_ '\�-��-�� •• DAMBURY _��� 9 11 IS ('ONNECTIf UT �, 1 l9 SINITNIfNIRAL / - I RIVlR 1\5 G.otan •Ww NEWHAVEN M • .�wwd. HER \ I;RI All N 1,%I `� I ieYbevA `/ �/ \•RIIH,I NIRI �e �. 1 .^//.� • ,Irr• ', lhfrl /SIEnd Wf STI NESTS BRIDGEPORT • • O 694% � O E t �/SOIIT ESTI R. NO I,A \\I 1 EEE."'' • = SOUND Plum bland /\\l • i© Em l lm Orlrnl Point IS ,/t ', HfrElll IprtE . = s e IS ; yOMAELI No" ALk SONO • • A DI ., STAMFORD RROOCHELLE NASSAH m een J~— ,AT 1, A N, ~— ATLANT �0 POSSIBLE LONG ISLAND TO NEW ENGLAND CROSSINGS LONG ISLAND SOUND BRIDGE STUDY, 1979 ------ ERiiting Ferry Nooue .�... R,,dE Pro9loeRd or, Under Conitroction •••••• Pouible Bride C—sings OCEAN OA Port Jefferson to Bridpport 0� Wadi" River to Eeit Hw•n CC) Rnred ed to Guilford 00 Eat Marion to Old S•fbmak o R to CE) Orient Point to Watch Hill MILEt • BRIDGES CAPITAL COST OF A BRIDGE Five alternatives have been discussed for a crossing from Suffolk County: Port Jefferson to Bridgeport 14.5 miles Wading River to East Haven 19.5 miles Riverhead to East Guilford 19.5 miles East Marion to Saybrook 10.0 miles Orient Point to Watch Hill 24.6 miles Cost estimates for these crossings have been developed by URS/Madigan Praeger for the Long Island Sound Crossing Study. These estimates are set forth below: Alternative Crossing Construction Construction Costs 1979 Costs 1988 Port Jefferson/Bridgeport 490 million 830 million Wading River/East Haven 750 million 1,280 million • Riverhead/Guilford 660 million 1,120 million East Marion/Old Saybrook 450 million 760 million Orient Point/Watch Hill 850 million 1,430 million (cost figures in current dollars) n U If these figures are adjusted to reflect the 10 percent per annum inflation which the economy is now experiencing the 1988 costs would be approximately twice those shown. In addition to these costs it is necessary to develop cost estimates for the access roads: Alternative Crossing Construction Construction (Access Roads) Costs 1979 Costs 1988 Port Jefferson/Bridgeport 10,948,000 18,500,000 Wading River/East Haven. 23,340,000 39,440,000 Riverhead/Guilford 13,903,000 23,500,000 East Marion/Old Saybrook 19,895,000 33,660,000 Orient Point/Watch Hill 42,766,000 72,150,000 38 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • BRIDGES Note: The Port Jefferson -Bridgeport alternative relies upon the use of Route 347 a six lane divided arterial highway that is presently operating to capacity. The staff of the Suffolk County Planning Commission has indicated that this highway could not handle the addition of ferry traffic. If a highway were brought directly to the Long Island Expressway the figures shown would increase to $107,197,000 for current construction costs. 1988 construction costs would be approximately $180,000,000. Time For Construction If, following the issuance of the Long Island Sound Crossing report in December, a decision were made to immediately implement a favorable decision to build a bridge and the officals of Connecticut were in agreement to build the bridge, it would take at least ten years before the necessary corridor hearings, route hearings, design hearings, engineering, environmental approvals, Federal aid approvals, etc., were completed and construction begun. It has been estimated that construction would take two years. This statment involves a number of "if's" which are probably a • long way off. There is serious question whether the Long Island and Connecticut business communities can or should wait 10, 15 or 20 years for an effective link between the two sectors and a means to expand their economies. As will be discussed elsewhere, if a ferry service is implemented and a decision is subsequently made to construct the bridge, the equipment will be virtually depreciated by or before the completion of the bridge. If the equipment still has useful life at the time the bridge is built and there appears to be a market at one of the alternative sites, the ferry equipment could be placed in service at one of the alternative locations. In addition there is always a market for this type of equipment in the region. is Financial Feasibility of A Bridge The consultant retained for the major portions of the Long Island Sound Bridge Study, URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc. has reviewed the financial feasibility of the various Long Island sound crossings concluding that none of the crossings could be supported from the tolls. 39 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • BRIDGES Funding Methods Depending on the site chosen and the interest rate applicable at the time of the issuance of the bonds, an additional subsidy ranging from $804,700,000 to $1,835,800,000 would be required to build a bridge and the associated access roads. Assuming that these highways could be included in the Federal Highway System, the constructon costs are far beyond that which is available to the States of New York and Connecticut or Rhode Island in highway funds. If the project were to be undertaken it would require a significant direct subsidy either from the State Government or the Federal Government or the issuance of "general obligation" state bonds which would require a special bond issue. A financial summary for each of the alternative sound crossings has been abstracted from the URS/Madigan- Praeger study and included below: 40 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • BRIDGES Port Jefferson Bridgeport Capital Construction Costs 1985 Approach Road Cost Additional Cost for Approach to 495 Total Capital Cost Bond Issue Required for Full Bond Financing Interest at 6% 1,162 Interest at 7% 1,204 Interest at 8% 1,245 Present Value of Net Revenues Interest at 6% 278.4 Interest at 7% 196.7 Interest at 8% 168.5 Bonding Capacity of Net Revenues • Interest at 6% 232.0 Interest at 7% 196.7 Interest at 8% 168.5 Bond Proceeds Available for Construction Costs Interest at 6% 165.7 Interest at 7% 135.7 Interest at 8% 112.3 Construction cost Shortfall After Application of Bond Proceeds (Over Water Construction Only) Interest at 6% 664.3 Interest at 7% 694.3 Interest at 8% 717.7 830,000,000 198,000,000 97,000,000 1,125,000,000 Percent of Construction Costs From Bond Proceeds Interest at 6% 20.0 Interest at 7% 16.3 Interest at 8% 13.5 41 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • • BRIDGES Construction Cost Shortfall After Application of Bond Proceeds (Including Approach Construction) Interest at 6% 862.3 Interest at 7% 892.3 Interest at 8% 915.7 Construction Cost Shortfall After Application of Bond Proceeds 1,792 (Including approach construction to 495) Interest at 6% 959.3 Interest at 7% 989.3 Interest at 8% 1,012.7 Wading River East Haven Capital Construction Costs 1,280,000 Approach Costs 117,000 Total Project Cost 1,397,000 Bond Issue Required for Full Bond Financing Interest at 6% 1,792 Interest at 7% 1,856 Interest at 8% 1,920 Present Value of New Rvenues Interest at 6% 289.5 Interest at 7% 245.3 Interest at 8% 210.1 Bonding Capacity of Net Revenues Interest at 6% 241.3 Interest at 7% 204.4 Interest at 8% 175.1 Bond Proceeds Available for Construction Costs Interest at 6% 172.4 Interest at 7% 141.4 Interest at 8% 116.7 42 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • BRIDGES Construction Cost Shortfall After Application of Bond Proceeds (Over water construction only) Interest at 6% 1107.6 Interest at 7% 1139.4 Interest at 8% 1163.3 Percent of Construction Costs from Bond Proceeds Interest at 6% 13.0 Interest at 7% 11.0 Interest at 8% 9.1 Construction Cost Shortfall After Application of Bond Proceeds (Including Approach Construction) Interest at 6% 1224.6 Interest at 7% 1256.4 Interest at 8% 1280.3 Riverhead Guilford Capital Construction Costs 1,120,000 • Approach Costs 100,000 Total Project Cost 1,220,000,000 Bond Issue Required for Full Bond Financing Interest at 6% 1,568 Interest at 7% 1,624 Interest at 8% 1,680 Present Value of New Revenues Interest at 6% 320 Interest at 7% 271 Interest at 8% 232 Bonding Capacity of Net Revenues Interest at 6% 267.1 Interest at 7% 226.4 Interest at 8% 193.3 • 43 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY C] BRIDGES Bond Proceeds Available for Construction Costs Interest at 6% 190.8 Interest at 7% 156.1 Interest at 8% 129.3 Construction Cost Shortfall After Application of Bond Proceeds (Over Water Construction Only) Interest at 6% 929.2 Interest at 7% 963.9 Interest at 8% 990.7 Percent of Construction costs from Bond Proceeds Interest at 6% 17.0 Interest at 7% 13.9 Interest at 8% 11.5 Construction Cost Shortfall After Application of Bond Proceeds (Including Approach Construction) Interest at 6% 1029.2 Interest at 7% 1063.9 • Interest at 8% 1099.1 • 44 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY BRIDGES V.J East Marion Old Saybrook Capital Cost for the Bridge 760,000,000 Capital Cost for Approaches 323,000,000 Total Project Cost 1,083,000,000 Bond Issue Required for Full Bond Financing Interest at 6% 1,064 Interest at 7% 1,102 Interest at 8% 1,140 Present Value of New Revenues Interest at 6% 359.6 Intereat at 7% 304.8 Interest at 8% 261.0 Bonding Capcaity of Net Revenues Interest at 6% 299.7 Interest at 7% 254.0 Interest at 8% 217.5 • Bond Proceeds Available for Construction Costs Interest at 6% 214.1 Interest at 7% 175.2 Interest at 8% 145.0 Construction Cost Shortfall After Application of Bond Proceeds (Over water construction only) Interest at 6% 545.9 Interest at 7% 584.8 Interest at 8% 615.0 Percent of Construction costs From Bond Proceeds (Including approach construction) Interest at 6% 868.9 Interest at 7% 907.8 Interest at 8% 938.0 • 45 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • BRIDGES Orient Point Watch Hill Capital Cost for Bridge 1,430,000,000 Capital Cost for Approaches 545,000,000 Total Project Cost 1,974,000,000 Bond Issue Required for Full Bond Financing Interest at 6% 2,002 Interest at 7% 2,074 Interest at 8% 2,145 Present Value of New Revenues Interest at 6% 340.0 Interest at 7% 288.3 Interest at 8% 247.0 Bonding Capacity of Net Revenues Interest at 6% 283.3 Interest at 7% 240.3 Interest at 8% 205.8 • Bond Proceeds Available for Construction costs Interest at 6% 202.4 Interest at 7% 165.7 Interest at 8% 137.2 • Construction Cost Shortfall After Application of Bond Proceeds (Over water construction only) Interest at 6% 1,227.6 Interest at 7% 1,264.3 Interest at 8% 1,292.8 Percent of Construction Costs from Bond Proceeds Interest at 6% 14.2 Interest at 7% 11.2 Interest at 8% 9.6 46 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY BRIDGES • C] C] Construction Cost Shortfall After of Bond Proceeds (Including Approach Construction) Interest at 6% Interest at 7% Interest at 8% Application 1,772.6 1,809.5 1,937.8 47 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY C] A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE W T, fft-d o_ s THE WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE The Committee has concluded that the economy of Long Island requires some form of crossing in less than the 15+ years that will be required for a bridge if a bridge is to be built. If a decision is in fact made to invest the 1.5 to 2.5 billion dollars that would be required to build a mid or east Suffolk sound crossing it is therefore necessary to examine the possibility of a water borne crossing to determine if a water borne facility would replace or at least serve part of the function to be served by a bridge. It is because of the importance of this alternate that this study has been authorized by the Long Island Action Committee's Task Force on a Long Island Crossing. The purpose of this study is to examine a variety of potential ferry routes and determine the costs and benefits of each route. This report will also examine various alternative ferry vessels as well as the cost of developing sites and projecting anticipated • vehicles and passengers. Use of Existing Data • Very little "new data" has been developed for this study. Heavy reliance is made upon the data prepared by the TriState Planning Commission in connection with the 1975 ferry study, and the data included in the draft consultant's reports submitted in connection with the Long Island Bridge Study, which is anticipated to be completed in December 1980. Characteristics of Ferry Service To be successful and to have a significant economic impact on the region, ferry service must be designed to transport people, vehicles and materials to and from Long Island at a cost that makes Long Island attractive to business and industry and enables Long Island business to compete with the rest of the world without paying exhorbitant freight charges and experiencing unreasonable railroad freight delays. The toll for a ferry cannot be based on the cost of "driving around." The purpose of the ferry would not be to maintain the status quo, it would be designed to serve as an 48 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • is • A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE economic inducement to businesses to settle on Long Island and for Long Island businesses to expand on Long Island rather than move to other regions. To attract the volume of traffic that is necessary to have a significant effect on the economy of Long Island a ferry service must have the following characteristics: A. Speed and Economy. Using the ferry must result in a significant saving in time and/or transportation costs. The alternative which transportation systems must be compared with the cost and time of traveling around the sound via the Throgs Neck or Whitestone Bridges. B. Convenience. The ferry must be located in a place of optimum access. Existing ferry service suffers from locations which are not readily accessible to the primary road system. C. Frequency and Reliability. Travelers must have sufficient confidence that they will be able to get on a ferry to encourage potential riders to go out of their way to reach a ferry. Trips must be at such frequency that motorists will know that there will be room to get on the ferry when, or shortly after they arrive at the ferry site. There is a psychological comfort in seeing the ferry when you get to the ferry site, even if it is not yet at the dock. The fact that there is a ferry in sight affords satisfaction. The experience of Eastern Airlines is an example. When Eastern Airlines initially instituted the Shuttle to Washington D.C., and Boston, Massachusetts, many leaders of the transportation industry scoffed. It was said that many flights would leave with virtually no passengers. In the first year there were a few instances that the shuttle ran in more than one section. Now even off peak hour shuttles operate in multiple sections. Partially as a result of the convenience of the hourly departures, travel between New York and Washington has increased several fold during the period of the Shuttle's existence. D. Economy. The ferry must be significantly less expensive that the cost of "driving around." For passenger cars, the cost is measured in terms of 49 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY C] A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE -gas, oil and tolls. For trucks, the cost is measured in terms of labor, gas, oil, tolls and depreciation on the equipment. According to a study prepared bythe Tri State Planning Commission, the drive from Riverhead or the Intersection of the Sunken Meadow Parkway and I-495 to Hartford on existing highways takes 177.45 and 145.95 minutes respectively. The same study reports that a similar trip to New London takes 206.02 and 171.66 minutes respectively. Time and Distance Driving Around Highway (TriState Planning Commission Projection) Miles Minutes Riverhead -Hartford 177.45 199.07 Riverhead to New London 183.81 206.02 Sunken Meadow & I-495 to is Hartford 145.95 164.71 Sunken Meadow do I-495 to New London 152.31 171.66 is A similar study has been prepared assuming that there is a ferry from Wading Rver to East Haven. The cost of this trip can be estimated as follows: *For a passenger car at 180 per mile: 50 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE Time and Highway Using A Ferry (TriState Planning Commission Projection) 0 To apply this data to commercial traffic it is necessary to add the driver's time. For a truck the cost is significantly more.** • Time and Highway Distances Using A Ferry Commercial Vehicles • Riverhead to Hartford Riverhead to New London Intersection of Sunken Meadow and I-495 to Hartford Intersection of Sunken Meadow & I-495 to New London Mileage Mileage Tolls Total Riverhead to Hartford 31.92 2.00 33.92 Riverhead to New London 33.50 2.50 36.00 Intersection of Sunken Meadow 7.45 23.00 115.33 and I-495 to Hartford 20.43 2.00 22.43 Intersection of Sunken Meadow and I-495 to New London 27.12 2.50 26.92 **18t per mile is used by many firms for reimbursing employees for travel expenses. To apply this data to commercial traffic it is necessary to add the driver's time. For a truck the cost is significantly more.** • Time and Highway Distances Using A Ferry Commercial Vehicles • Riverhead to Hartford Riverhead to New London Intersection of Sunken Meadow and I-495 to Hartford Intersection of Sunken Meadow & I-495 to New London Mileage Tolls Labor Total 115.12 7.45 27.00 149.57 119.47 8.45 28.50 157.02 94.88 7.45 23.00 115.33 98.95 8.45 24.00 131.40 If overhead items are excluded, the out-of-pocket cost of a vehicle "driving around" is as follows: 51 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY C A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE Assume fuel to cost $1 per gallon and a vehicle gets 15 miles per gallon of fuel. Out of Pocket Costs of A Private Vehicle Driving Around Gas Tolls Total Riverhead to Hartford 12.15 2.00 14.15 Riverhead to New London 13.20 2.50 13.70 Intersection of Sunken Meadow and I-495 to Hartford 8.94 2.00 10.94 Intersection of Sunken Meadow and I-495 to New London 9.26 2.50 11.76 **Computed from data published by Tri State Planning Commission, Crossing • the Sound, 1976, adjusted to reflect increased travel times, and increased fuel costs. Mileage costs have been increased 20%; labor costs have been doubled to reflect 26 mile per hour average travel cost. is To be commercially competitive with "driving around" a ferry service should not significantly reduce the total travel time but significantly reduce the total cost of the crossing to the shipper or to the drive. Logistics Systems of Wellesley, Massachusetts, at the request of the committee has computed time and distance from sites on Long Island to sites in other parts of the United States. The results of these studies have been summarized on page 00 through 00. The complete statistics are contained in the Appendix on pages A-1 through A-37. 52 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE Time and Mileage Required To Travel From Long Island To Sites in the Northeastern United States Driving Around • The committee has computed the mileage and time to these regions based on trial times to the Shoreham site from the indicated communities and Logistic Systems' route analysis from New Haven to the ultimate destination assuming a bridge from Shoreham to New Haven 53 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY Miles Minutes Average M/P/H Calverton to Hartford 174 218 298 Calverton to Boston 272 336 466 Calverton to Albany 217 282 372 Calverton to Chicago 865 1056 1483 Calverton to Buffalo 467 580 801 Plainview to Buffalo 425 526 729 Plainview to Chicago 823 1002 1411 Plainview to Albany 175 227 300 • Plainview to Boston 230 281 394 Plainview to Hartford 132 163 226 Central Islip to Buffalo 441 546 756 Central Islip to Chicago 839 1023 1438 Central Islip to Albany 191 248 327 Central Islip to Boston 246 302 422 Central Islip to Hartford 148 184 254 • The committee has computed the mileage and time to these regions based on trial times to the Shoreham site from the indicated communities and Logistic Systems' route analysis from New Haven to the ultimate destination assuming a bridge from Shoreham to New Haven 53 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE • Times and Mileage Required to Travel From Long Island Sites to Northeast Using Bridge From Shoreham to New Haven Origin/Destination Miles Minutes Calverton to Hartford 68 85 Calverton to Boston 166 215 Calverton to Albany 161 225 Calverton to Chicago 892 1055 Calverton to Buffalo 445 549 Plainview to Buffalo 465 571 Plainview to Chicago 912 1103 Plainview to Albany 181 212 • Plainview to Boston 186 203 Plainview to Hartford 182 115 Central Islip to Buffalo 445 559 Central Islip to Albany 171 202 Central Islip to Chicago 902 1097 Central Islip to Boston 176 193 Central Islip to Hartford 142 103 C 54 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE Mileage and Time Figures Based On Ferry From Shoreham to New Haven (The ferry trip is computed at 75 minutes with 15 minutes each, for loading and unloading. This time has been demonstrated as being adequate in the New London to Orient Point service.) Origin/Destination Miles Minutes Calverton to Hartford 48 160 Calverton to Boston 146 278 Calverton to Albany 141 289 Calverton to Chicago 872 1163 Calverton to Buffalo 425 629 Plainview to Buffalo 445 649 Plainview to Chicago 892 1183 Plainview to Albany 161 307 Plainview to Boston 166 298 Plainview to Hartford 162 180 Central Islip to Chicago 882 1173 Central Islip to buffalo 435 639 Central Islip to Albany 151 297 Central Islip to Boston 156 288 Central Islip to Hartford 122 170 • 55 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE These mileage and time figures reflect significant mileage and time savings from Long Island sites, even as far west as Plainview to the New England locations. There is also a significant saving for eastern Suffolk locations traveling to upstate New York. Mileage comparisons are set forth in the following table: Mileage Comparisons Between Driving Around and Taking Ferry From Shoreham to New York Origin/Destination Driving Ferry Bridge Calverton to Hartford 174 48 68 Calverton to Boston 272 146 166 Calverton to Albany 217 141 161 Calverton to Chicago 865 872 892 Calverton to Buffalo 467 425 445 . Plainview to Buffalo 425 445 465 Plainview to Chicago 823 892 912 Plainview to Albany 175 161 181 Plainview to Boston 230 166 186 Plainview to Hartford 132 68 88 Central Islip to Buffalo 441 435 455 Central Islip to Albany 191 151 177 Central Islip to Boston 246 156 176 Central Islip to Hartford 148 58 78 • 56 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE Time Comparisons Between Driving Around and Taking A Ferry From Shoreham to New Haven and Crossing A Bridge From Wading River to Fast Haven Origin/Destination Driving Ferry Bridge Calverton to Hartford 218 135 75 Calverton to Boston 336 265 205 Calverton to Albany 282 275 215 Calverton to Buffalo 580 599 539 Plainview to Buffalo 526 619 520 Plainview to Chicago 1002 1153 1093 Plainview to Albany 227 262 202 Plainview to Boston 281 253 193 Plainview to Hartford 163 165 105 Central Islip to Buffalo 546 609 549 Central Islip to Chicago 1023 1043 983 Central Islip to Albany 248 252 192 Central Islip to Boston 302 243 182 Central Islip to Hartford 184 143 93 • 57 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE • Time and Mileage Savings (Losses) by Taking the Ferry From Shoreham to New Haven Over "Driving Around," i.e., Through the City of New York Origin/Destination Mileage Minutes Calverton to Hartford 128 93 Calverton to Boston 126 71 Calverton to Albany 76 7 Calverton to Chicago -7 -49 Calverton to Buffalo 42 -19 Plainview to Buffalo -20 -19 Plainview to Chicago -69 -151 Plainview to Albany -14 -35 Plainview to Boston 74 28 Plainview to Hartford 68 5 Central Islip to Buffalo 7 -63 Central Islip to Albany 41 -4 Central Islip to Boston 90 61 Central Islip to Hartford 26 31 58 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY �i A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE Time and Mileage Required To Travel From Long Island To Sites in the Northeastern United States Driving Around • The committee has computed the mileage and time to these regions based on trial times to the Shoreham site from the indicated communities and Logistic Systems' route analysis from New Haven to the ultimate destination assuming a bridge from Shoreham to New Haven 53 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY Miles Minutes Average M/P/H Calverton to Hartford 174 218 298 Calverton to Boston 272 336 466 Calverton to Albany 217 282 372 Calverton to Chicago 865 1056 1483 Calverton to Buffalo 467 580 801 Plainview to Buffalo 425 526 729 Plainview to Chicago 823 1002 1411 Plainview to Albany 175 227 300 Plainview to Boston 230 281 394 Plainview to Hartford 132 163 226 Central Islip to Buffalo 441 546 756 Central Islip to Chicago 839 1023 1438 Central Islip to Albany 191 248 327 Central Islip to Boston 246 302 422 Central Islip to Hartford 148 184 254 • The committee has computed the mileage and time to these regions based on trial times to the Shoreham site from the indicated communities and Logistic Systems' route analysis from New Haven to the ultimate destination assuming a bridge from Shoreham to New Haven 53 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE It is obvious that the ferry would provide significant savings for residents of both Nassau and Suffolk Counties traveling to northern and western Connecticut, and all of New England, as well as locations in New York State that are accessible from the New York Thruway. The routing developed for the committee by Logistics Systems for Buffalo and Chicago relied upon Interstate 80 rather than going up the New York Thruway. The ferry could prove useful to Nassau residents traveling (detailed routing appears in Exhibit A) to upstate New York locations like Albany at rush hour by avoiding the Cross Bronx Expressway or the New England Thruway, both highways that are used in excess of capacity at peak hours. The times presented here do not reflect rush hour conditions. The additional 35 minutes shown on the tables derived from the Logistic Systems' calculations for a trip from Plainview to Albany can more than be made up by avoiding a rush hour jam on the Cross Bronx Expressway and the Tappen Zee Bridge. • Consideration must be given to the cost of these trips projected by the Logistics Systems computations. Assuming that it costs 18t permile to operate a passenger car, the following represents the cost of traveling in a passenger automobile from the locations sited in this study including highway tolls. • $7 Ferry Charge is shown for illustrative purposes. Ultimate ferry charge will depend on multiple factors. See page 00 through 00. 59 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • .7 • A WATERBORNE ALTERNATIVE Cost of Driving From Point to Point in A Passenger Automobile Origin/Destination Ferry No Savings Savings Ferry Assuming $ 7 Toll Calverton to Hartford 8.64 33.32 26.78 19.78 Calverton to Boston 26.78 51.46 24.68 17.68 Calverton to Albany 26.44 43.06 16.62 9.62 Calverton to Chicago 163.50 165.70 2.20 -4.80 Calverton to Buffalo 81.50 94.06 12.50 5.50 Plainview to Buffalo 85.00 87.50 2.60 2.50 Plainview to Chicago 170.56 158.18 12.30 5.38 Plainview to Albany 30.12 39.50 9.29 4.29 Plainview to Boston 30.43 43.90 12.97 5.97 Plainview to Hartford 13.28 28.86 15.50 10.50 Central Islip to Buffalo 82.30 49.38 32.98 -39.98 Central Islip to Chicago 168.76 170.33 -1.57 -8.57 Central Islip to Albany 28.11 38.51 10.36 3.36 Central Islip to Boston 29.43 46.78 17.35 10.35 Central Islip to Hartford 11.08 12.22 12.14 5.14 To these costs, it is necessary to add the driver's time. 60 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • SITE SELECTION CHAPTER VII SITE SELECTION If it is determined that ferry service should be instituted, the next question that must be addressed is where should the service be established? The committee has reviewed a number of sites for ferry service. In an effort to keep this study within the confines of the existing data that has been developed in connection with prior studies, the committee has analyzed the sites that have previously been considered either by the various bridge studies or the Tri State Planning Commission's Ferry Study, as well as alternatives that are sufficiently close to sites which have been analyzed to render the data valid. Port Jefferson to Bridgeport At the present time there is ferry service from Port Jefferson to Bridgeport. This service operates only during • the tourist season and utilizes an older ferry formerly used in the Martha's Vineyard service, the M/S MARTHA'S VINEYARD. Studies prepared by URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., the consultant retained to provide the technical information for the Long Island Sound Bridge Study have indicated that a Port Jefferson -Bridgeport bridge would generate 12,330 crossings per day in 1985, with that figure growing to 15,290 in 2010. Annually this represents traffic of 4,501,798 vehicles per year. According to the study, 2,200,300 vehicles would have originated in or would be heading toward locations in Suffolk County. If only one-half of the Suffolk County portion of that traffic were to use the Port Jefferson to Bridgeport ferry, the effect on the highway system in Port Jefferson area would be extensive. The executive director of the Suffolk County Planning Commission has advised the committee that the highways in the region could not support that magnitude of traffic. Therefore, it would be necessary to make extensive improvements to the highway network before ferry service on the scale contemplated by this study could be implemented. These improvements would have to be similar to the improvements recommended in connection with the possibility of a bridge at that site. 61 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY 0 SITE SELECTION The minimal improvement that would be practical for the ferry service would be the development of a highway from the ferry dock to Route 347, a six lane divided arterial that is now operating virtually to capacity. This connection would be approximately 12,900 feet long. The cost of acquiring the necessary right of way would be $1,560,000. The construction cost for a two lane road to serve the ferry would be approximately $3,500,000, a four lane alternative would be $3,925,000. If it were determined that Route 347 could not handle the additional traffic it would be necessary to develop an expressway to Exit 61 of the Long Island Expressway, a distance of 61,000 feet. It would cost approximately $55,200,000 to acquire the right of way and an additional $52,097,000 to construct the road (in 1979 dollars). At the Bridgeport terminus it would be necessary to develop a limited highway to connect with the Connecticut Turnpike at Interchange 30. This highway would be approximately 6,400 feet. It is estimated that the right of way for this highway would cost approximately $420,000 for the highway. Construction costs wold be approximately $4,145,000 for a two lane highway and $9,076,000 if it were constructed as an expressway. Ferry Landing Site At the Port Jefferson terminus, the current ferry slip is located in the center of the Port Jefferson business district adjacent to the community dock. Port Jefferson is a community which has recently been redeveloped as a harbor -oriented tourist community. The present facilities, although adequate for the current service which is provided at four hour headway, could not handle the traffic that would be generated by the improved ferry service contemplated by this report. It has been suggested that the ferry terminal be moved to the west side of the harbor and a road be built connecting it to Route 347. No estimates are available for this construction. However, it must be noted that the west side of the harbor is now developed with a major oil receiving facility and a power plant operated by the Long Island Lighting Company. Thus, it is anticipated that a ferry terminal would have to be constructed at the northwest side of the present harbor and a highway built behind the LILCO plant - an area that is now developed with residential houses. The following order of magnitude figures have been developed by the committee solely for comparison purposes. 62 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY Land Acquisition Dredging is Construction SITE SELECTION 5 acres at $100,000 per 100,000 cubic yds at $2.00 per Ferry terminal, offices repair facilities Total cost exclusive of highways At the Bridgeport terminus, the current ferry slip is located adjacent to the railroad and bus station. It would require extensive rebuilding and modernization if it were to be used for trucks. The most likely site for an expanded and modernized ferry landing area is immediately to the north of the present facility, property which is owned by the City of Bridgeport. It is anticipated that there would be no additional dredging required to implement. Land Acquisition Construction Ferry terminal, offices Total 750,000 Harbor Access Problems At both ends of the Port Jefferson -Bridgeport alternative • there are considerable harbor access problems. It is anticipated that it takes approximately 15 minutes to get through the Bridgeport Harbor and 10 minutes to get through the Port Jefferson Harbor to the proposed ferry unloading areas because of harbor speed limits and other vessels in the harbor. Although it is a relatively short distance from Bridgeport to Port Jefferson, the actual crossing time will be as great as other sites because of greater harbor problems than will be found in other harbors. • Crossing Times The crossing time from Port Jefferson to Bridgeport will of course depend upon the nature of the ferry equipment selected. The following times are presented as illustrations of the scheduling for a Bridgeport to Port Jefferson ferry: 63 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY 500,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,700,000 0 750,000 SITE SELECTION • Hovercraft Number of ships required for I hour headway: 5 Loading time 15 minutes Harbor Delays Port Jefferson Port Jefferson 10 minutes Bridgeport 10 minutes Crossing time 15 minutes Unloading Time 15 minutes Total time 65 minutes Conventional Ferry Number of ships required for i hour headway: 7 inn Vphinlp Loading time 20 minutes Harbor delays Port Jefferson 10 minutes Bridgeport 10 minutes Crossing time 75 minutes Unloading time 15 minutes Total time 130 minutes T -Boat Number of ships required for i hour headway: 7 • Loading time 10 minutes Harbor Delays Port Jefferson 10 minutes Bridgeport 10 minutes Crossing Time Unloading time 10 minutes is Total time 98 minutes The Bridgeport -Port Jefferson site provides the decided advantage of a relative short crossing. However, despite the short crossing time at both ends of the journey, there are significant harbor obstacles increasing the total crossing time. In addition, at the Port Jefferson terminus, there are difficult access problems for vehicles. The streets of downtown Port Jefferson cannot handle additional traffic. If the present ferry were to increase in frequency of annual volume, the traffic burden on the village would not be tolerable. The roads in the village are not readily adaptable to expansion because of the very limited setbacks between the road and the improvements, especially the improved commercial areas. 64 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY SITE SELECTION The current traffic on the main arterial, i.e., Interstate 347 is is significantly in excess of capacity. Introduction of additional traffic would place further pressure on the highway. • • 65 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY RATES ON THIS Cef•,Rl } 9936 x N93G RME— Ah— .., ^ �..�. ^ ~wwr �e•w•r....., •er.r � wr ] L • ] ��� % lam•, J/� er � � �'. JK ��\� ' _ - l .w . w '��.]'. •' i.r,x * r•�+'�'r^?j,^'�`�••�; t +1T�,7�, i - r. 4r✓ L•' • ••IWr ^ �• r r rr h F .. w. •. �. .r .. a 'yw..�rrl w .. V •• '� V e 0 r MG .e L ---- + ME * rm er U ,ellNM1 �. .• JM­ Y(�rr Grp✓ I rI _fi � q• h i• •) ff tl t r�r - re "� • R t _ eH ri r� w • • q q+ a 'fl r]) L NO q• r rlv r). IC [ W � x Yt • N .. t rte q• � Y h [< � r» r M J roe 1 ' w y G...: n: r • tlJ eC 72 . rj^ ' ¢ w q, q. w •r 4 rtl nr w h •i rY .. ^'�^ r^ �' '..! r � ' w r .. " .J steer` w n r). •. ' u r � e' i .. ], s •- a ,. ]) ` .. , /.� ti ~^ a q w- n„ �r.F • ME 31 K n w ]) v •• w �- - r tl ]: �.• r•w`� +.."o/ �•'•• rJ y .► ter• � �. .. n Vv r l rw certYrr— r c - o••ctr ••r. v V '� I `( Tru{r...�r.r 4r•+,... rr.r l..pr ea.� i.• �C _�` w e �wib.�. W .• r.M.h � •; . "rr� •.• �.. `� ••.�.'Y` • r : 1 .�. ]rf. � O ... .w. •.=.�• .. •. .. I, �•.� �� ... _ .err h.... ,...... _, .'"`,"•. .... _.. _, . �...... .. Proposed Shoreham - New Haven Route for Improved Long Island Sound ferry service (N.O.A.A. Chart 12354 Excerpt). C� • PJ SITE SELECTION Shoreham to New Haven The Shoreham to New Haven site is a slight variation for the sites that have previously been reviewed either in connection with the several bridge proposals or the ferry study prepared by the Tri State Planning Commission, however, it is located sufficiently close to the earlier considered Wading River to East Haven site that the data would be comparable. The site that has been considered by the committee is located immediately west of the Long Island Lighting Company (nuclear) plant to New Haven run. It is not possible to develop a budget for these improvements in the absence of detailed engineering with respect to the construction of the dock and the buidling of a road through the "bluff." However, the following "Order of Magnitude" figures are provided, based on generally accepted construction cost estimates: Piling and Docking 6,000 sq. ft. at $68 per Construction of road through bluff $10 per square foot Construction of office, shop area, rest rooms, etc. 10,000 sq. ft. at $50 per Total Shore Facilities It is difficult to project the costs that will be incurred at the northerly end of the ferry in the absence of a determination as to the locale of the northerly terminus. For the purposes of this study, the expenses at the northerly terminus are projected to be the same as those at the southerly terminus. Shore facilities at northerly terminus Total Shore Facilities There will be a minimal amount of delay attributed to the speed limits imposed on vessels entering the New Haven Harbor. There will be no delay at the southerly terminus as that terminus will be on open water. The following times are presented as illustrative of the scheduling for Shoreham to New Haven ferry. 68 T /11Tr% TCT A 1TT1 O^T71TT1 TNTTTI T XI 94TTl 1I%r 408,000 20,000 500,000 1,064,000 1,064,000 2,128,000 SITE SELECTION Hovercraft Number of vessels required for I hour headway: 11 is Loading Time 20 minutes Harbor Delay New Haven New Haven 10 minutes Crossing Time 25 minutes Unloading 20 minutes Total Time 75 minutes Conventional Displacement Ship Loading Time 20 minutes Harbor Delay New Haven 15 minutes Crossing Time 75 minutes Unloading 20 minutes Total Time 130 minutes T -Boat Loading Time 10 minutes Harbor Delay New Haven 10 minutes Crossing Time 75 minutes Unloading Time 10 minutes Total Time 105 minutes • The Shoreham -New Haven site is easily the most accessible site on both sides of the sound. If an appropriate New Haven site can be located, it will be a few feet from the Interstate 95 - Connecticut Turnpike. On the other end, the site is less than one mile from the northerly terminus of the William Floyd Parkway, a under -used four lane express road leading from Interstate 495, the Long Island Expressway. At the easterly end, the Long Island Expressway is not operating to capacity. Of course, the Long Island Expressway is operating at well beyond its design capacity at its western terminus. The Shoreham -New Haven site has the disadvantage of being the longest run, i.e., the distance across the sound is longer at Shoreham than at any other part of the Island. However, this disadvantage is overcome to some extent by the fact that it is a point where there are essentially no harbor restrictions on the southerly side of the Sound and few harbor restrictions on the northerly site than would be encountered in other areas. 69 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY } . ." M Al l owe i w � E O .• '• f ,`•� t � > r� /1 Y„ _ _ _ _ 4 g ay e orf -`, !fo"a ' �,5;.: ��.,�.a' " y ,� elf, r. 1 r )•r r m 1 1 1 ��e :,i 7�' �n •r.f� ��' t r7 �•~ •.� — meq, � Vr - -- •:rr..-r w 1� r+��� lT" ��;; �n I Irk^ C Ql: IF 1.�'-'n..1 .' � _ -�, r— \ V,�l\ � ^in �� �I / '�-v`'• r 1 ) _ 'h, .oc •' )r ,_'., / �•� .�.� S I / Il � \ �J � �� `�� „1 1 �'1 ' •� �7. i �1�� f ( 1 ° t it 5� l k..,.� tri F� `f �� y � � }•-'' • � 1 Ir err . � r i � 1 77 ► All �IMIA��R I IrATNf� �T6R7 01,P"/O "at1 1), $ A I,t If it 'I xMWA �v N�410N 1. Afh ' �� i P i � � - � �._ '}I �� 0 �_ _ 1�, r l �; r• �1'I�y�"'� �-� � - IIS � ��/ a r �j r�li ���`a' ft- � � Q. ....I�JNC_.�r � � � I ( I �� ;,nanr �,� ; ° .�l ' 1 _ LC-, • .'�� �I � l•� ' � � � a � �J" (n ' nR I� �� / �`:-ir �'1� � �.TT' � d�P �.�.�� 3`!�li. _�—.�_1_�-� t e ���v��/: t�„�.1� 'I+ /:y ��I .� • 01 ' -'may % /,� �� `u: - ... �!--- - -�+ �; I•.� % ��. �� , 1 � ,r. • • • • Ne4v ven tarDOr snow-ing Pr0 osea Ie-rrY rouTe harbor and proximity to Connecticut Turnpike, 1II-1T905 (N.O.A.A �� " C/—, , Chart 1237 Excerpt)., f _ N E )A E' N JX n • AI IR SIA%' -"EA &AS 7A � y / ��t i� ;� •t, I i �''r`�,'-•'7*"ce 'E ® ��--r'�- _ �� ;•. f 3� ® /[� e • , , /�� '.ori. `I u o j p]7// /r°cJ \ � PW �(''[M M.Yf• lOr4 rMAIr\r\V1 f261 ��.► I ... • 1 J<w �� Ilvs 1J S. I e It 74 /Ile43 P r ✓ 3 li IC /., / o:`•x �� 2Q J ] J cc I`I r "I, —3 I \, j /' R•.• i �. f I , 7 5. IC .M,; I, iv � 3 � , '_ i HAVEN ✓/ , J • 1 5 = d �� e JJz ' • 1221 c s 6rnd7 Pl 1� ��' �� � • �' -151 lei �I �R:� /'> O > i L Oft ........... .rl ct • 1 c n �4ei ixa • \� 0 i t • 1 r..w..l.i' ;! !rte I I i t . 17 Ic It 12 1 I - r o17 1 • 'Ie 1 u c, �I. 4- n Roci I J '� w; I , I: 12 1,3 a • IF P`� . • I = 1 17 � 17 ' • IS COF '�' I• rB n�Alr�fw : . • i �� N 1 _ • 16 1 •i/ j f SITE SELECTION Studies prepared by URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., the • consultant retained to provide the technical information for the Long Island Sound Bridge Study have indicated that the Wading River -East Haven bridge would generate 2,835,933 trips in 1985, 1,404,968 of which would originate or terminate in Suffolk County. This represents approximately 4,000 traffic movements per day, well within the limits of existing highways. The improvements necessary to the highway system prior to the implementation of ferry service would be minimal. Initially ferry service could be instituted using a small portion of Route 25A (from the William Floyd Parkway to the construction road built by LILCO in connection with the construction of its Nuclear Power Plant at Shoreham) and the Long Island Lighting Company Construction road. From the terminus of the construction road at North Country Road it would be necessary to extend a highway to the ferry landing area. Ultimately it would be desirable to develop a two lane ferry access road running directly from the William Floyd Parkway to the ferry access area. This is a distance of approximately one mile. It is anticipated that this construction would cost approximately $250,000. Land acquisition costs would be small as the property is now owned by the Long Island Lighting Company. There are no improvements on the property. is Considerable improvements would have to be developed at the ferry site. There is now a "bluff" at the edge of the beach. It would be necessary to develop a road through that bluff to provide access to the ferries. It is anticipated that the "holding areas" in which vehicles would wait for a ferry as well as the service areas would have to be developed on top of the bluff and the bluff would have to be stabilized where a cut is created to reach the beach level. Cars would remain on the top of the bluff until the entire boat had been unloaded. The actual docking or bulkhead area would consist of a series of two or three bulkheads each wide enough to hold a boat with pilings for use in steadying the boat at the pilings. The design would be similar to that used by the current Orient Point to New London ferry service. East Marion to Old Saybrook Another site that has been considered for both a bridge and a ferry crossing is the East Marion to Old Saybrook site. This, one of the narrowest points on the sound is looked to as an attracive site for that reason. The opponents to the site point out the tremendous amount of highway construction that would be necessitated by the selection of this site. Studies prepared by the URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., the consulting firm retained for the technical portion of the 72 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY SITE SELECTION Long Island Sound Bridge study have indicated that the East • Marion - Old Saybrook ferry would result in 5,201,589 cross sound trips in 1985. (The report fails to identify the reason for a significant increase in the number of vehicles over the sites on -either side of the East Marion site. Presumbably this reflects the reduced toll. The Committee questions the elasticity of the demand; volume will be affected by factors other than toll cost.) Of the 5,201,589 crossings, 1,513,913 would have Suffolk County as their destination or origin. The present highway network in the area could not cope with this additional traffic. To institute ferry service it would be necessary to build a highway approximately 6,000 feet to Route 25 and upgrade Route 25 for a distance of 11,500 feet. This would cost approximately $2,335,000, plus approximately $570,000 in the cost of acquiring the necessary right of way. The most effective approach to the ferry would be an expressway to the Long Island Expressway. It is anticipated that a road of this type would cost approximately $119,902,000 plus, $45,480,000 in right of way costs. The traffic problems in the Old Saybrook area are similar. It would be necessary to develop a road to the Connecticut Expressway, a distance of approximately 8,000 feet. The right of way costs for this road would be approximately $1,250,000 for the highway. The actual construction costs would be approximately $12,410,000 for a two lane highway. • If a four lane express highway were used instead of the two lane highway, the construction costs would be approximately $19,988,000. • The cost of developing the facilities at the two terminals that would be necessary, would be similar to those outlined for Bridgeport and Shoreham. It is not possible to develop a budget for these improvements in the absence of detailed engineering with respect to the construction of the dock and the building of a road through the "bluff," however, the following "Order of Magnitude" figures are provided based on generally accepted construction cost estimates: 73 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY 0 SITE SELECTION Piling and Docking 6,000 ft at $68 per Construction of road between Long Island and through bluff $10 per ft Construction of office shop area, rest required for 3 hour headway: 6 rooms, etc. 10,000 sq ft at $50 per Construction of park- 10 minutes ing area 100,000 sq ft at $1.36 per Total Shore Facilities 20 minutes It is difficult to project the costs that will be incurred at the northerly end of the ferry in the absence of a determination as to the locale of the northerly terminus. For the purposes of this study, the expenses at the northerly terminus are projected to be the same as those at the southerly terminus. Shore Facilities at Northerly Terminus Total Shore Facilities 408,000 20,000 500,000 136,000 1,064,000 1,064,000 2,128,000 • This site has tremendous advantages in terms of time because of the shorter distance between Long Island and Connecticut at this point. The following estimates have been developed: Hovercraft Number of vessels required for 3 hour headway: 6 Loading Time 20 minutes Harbor Delay 10 minutes Crossing Time 15 minutes Unloading Time 20 minutes Total Time 65 minutes 100 Vehicle Displacement Number of vessels required for i hour headway: 6 Loading Time 20 minutes Harbor Delay 30 minutes Crossing Time 50 minutes Unloading Time 20 minutes Is Total Time 100 minutes 74 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY c: • SITE SELECTION 50 Vehicle Displacement Number of vessels required for 4 hour headway: 6 Loading Time 10 minutes Crossing Time 40 minutes Unloading Time 10 minutes Total Time 60 minutes The East Marion -Old Saybrook site has tremendous advantages in terms of the time required for a crossing. This distance is the shortest distance in Suffolk County. However, the land access to the site is virtually impossible to deal with. The present highways on Long Island cannot cope with additional traffic. Before this site were to be considered, it would be necessary to spend nearly $200,000,000 for access to the Long Island Expressway. It might be possible to upgrade Route 25 somewhat to provide limited access, however, this upgrading would not be sufficient to meet the long term needs of a successful ferry operation. 75 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY SITE SELECTION • Orient Point to Watch Hill There is now ferry service between Orient Point and New London. It has been suggested that a bridge or ferry service be instituted between Orient Point and Watch Hill, Rhode Island. This service would also "stop at," i.e., use part of Plum Island for its right of way. One of the principal reasons for the Watch Hill alternative is that it is not located in the State of Connecticut. As previously indicated, the governor of the State of Connecticut is opposed to the construction of a bridge in the State of Connecticut. The governor has not expressed herself on the issue of a ferry. By using Watch Hill as a terminus, it is possible to connect Long Island with the mainland without going through the State of Connecticut. Initial indications are that the State of Rhode Island would be more receptive to a bridge than the State of Connecticut has been. The Watch Hill alternative was also recommended to permit the bridge to rely on a series of "stepping stones" much in the same manner that the bridge to Key West in the State of Florida "steps" along the various islands in the Keys. The consultants that were retained in connection with the • Long Island Sound Bridge study have projected potential traffic for the Orient Point -Watch Hill ferry service at 2,726,434 of which 1,029,995 would have as their destination or origin, some point in Suffolk County. This traffic is considerably beyond the capability of the current highway network. If ferry service approaching this magnitude were to be instituted, it would require the improvement and repair of State Route 25 to a major degree. At a minimum, Route 25 would have to be upgraded for a distance of 41,000 feet. The total right of way costs would exceed $1,160,000. The construction costs would exceed $4,110,000. If the Long Island Expressway were to be extended to Orient Point, a distance of 165,000 feet, the construction cost would exceed $166,527,000, plus $57,000,000 for the acquisition of the necessary right of way. C] Although there is a terminal at Orient Point, if service were to be instituted at the level discussed in this report, it would be necessary to upgrade those facilities. The costs would be similar to those incurred at the Shoreham or East Marion sites. It is not possible to develop a budget for these improvements in the absence of detailed engineering with respect to the construction of the dock and the building of a 76 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY SITE SELECTION road through the "bluff," however, the following "Order of • Magnitude" figures are provided based on generally accepted construction cost estimates: C Piling and Docking 6,000 ft at $68 per 4081000 Construction of road through bluff $10 per ft 20,000 Construction of office shop area, rest rooms, etc. 10,000 sq ft at $50 per 500,000 Construction of park- ing area 100,000 sq ft at $1.36 per 136,000 Total Shore Facilities 1,064,000 It is diffcult to projct the costs that will be incurred at the northerly end of the ferry in the absence of a determination as to the locale of the northerly terminus. For the purposes of this study, the expenses at the northerly terminus are projected to be same as those at the southerly terminus. Shore facilities at Northerly terminus 1,064,000 Total Shore facilities 2,128,000 It would appear that there would be virtually no harbor problems at either end of the ferry. However, as the seas in that area are very rough, the ferry may have to slow down on certain occasions either for safety or for the comfort of the passsengers. The crossing times woudl be as follows: Hovercraft Loading time 20 minutes Crossing time 30 minutes Unloading time 20 minutes Total time 70 minutes Conventional 100 Vehicle Loading time 20 minutes Crossing time 120 minutes Unloading time 20 minutes Total Time 160 minutes 77 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • n U • T -Boat Loading time Crossing time Unloading time Total time SITE SELECTION 10 minutes 100 minutes 10 minutes 120 minutes The Watch Hill -Orient Point site is one of the least desirable considered. The distance is long - running time for a conventional ferry would be in excess of 11 hours. In addition, it would terminate at the Rhode Island end, a site a considerable distance from anyting else. The Rhode Island terminus would be north of many of the sites that the ferry would serve. For example, it would be significantly north of Hartford, New Haven, New London, the principal metropolitan areas of southern New England. It would be less accessible to the eastern New York locations that are cited as being major traffic generators. The highway construction costs for the Orient Point site would be enormous. Conclusion The following sites were considered by the committee: Bridgeport -Port Jefferson - a short running time, considerable access problems on both northern and southern sides of the sound. Shoreham -New Haven - ready access with virtually no capital expenditure at either port. Extensive bulkheading and dock facilities would be required to create an efficient means of loading and unloading the vehicles. East Marion - Old Saybrook - a short running time, but considerable access problems on both sides. Orient Point -Watch Hill - a long running time. Very diffuclt access on both sides, and a northerly terminus significantly further north than the principal market which the crossing is intended to reach. From the above summary of the various sites, it appears that the most favorable, albeit not perfect, would be from New Haven to Shoreham. It can be accomplished with the 78 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • SITE SELECTION least amount of capital "dry land" improvements. Although the running time is somewhat greater than the other sites, it is not enough to cause the development of additional equipment. 79 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • WHAT EQUIPMENT CHAPTER VIII WHAT EQUIPMENT Early in its deliberations, the committee determined that it should restrict its consideration to equipment that is now in use. Ultimately it may be advantageous to look at "state of the art" equipment, i.e., equipment that is now under development which could be utilized at a subsequent date. For example, the United States Navy now has under dev- elopment a vessel which will afford benefits in speed and stability, but with fuel effectiveness equivalent to convent- ional equipment. The committee recommends that these developments be actively monitored to permit their imple- mentation in the future. However, this project cannot afford the luxury of investing in research and development programs at this time. As a result, of the following two conventional designs and two advanced marine vehicles, all • currently in operation were reviewed: • a. The Hovercraft, SRN 4 b. 100 Vehicle Traditional Ferry C. So -Called "T -Boat" d. The Hydrofoil Each of these vehicles was analyzed in terms of physical characteristics, performance and cost. Much of the data set forth here is based on a report entitled State of the Art Marine Vessel Technology, prepared by the Tristate Plann- ing Commission in 1974 and updated to reflect present prices and conditions. The information concerning the so- called "T -Boat" is based on the information contained in the TriState Planning Commission's final study released in 1976 and discussions between the committee personnel and the designer and operator of the T -Boat now providing service on the Orient Point to New London service. Hovercraft Initially the committee was interested in the Hovercraft as a means of providing high speed service from Long Island to 80 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • WHAT EQUIPMENT New England, recognizing that the speed of the service will be a highly significant factor in developing the necessary commerce between the two regions. The Hovercraft rev- iewed was the Modified SRN 4, which is now in service between Dover, England and Calais, France. This vessel can carry 50 to 60 vehicles (increased from the earlier SRN's which could carry only 30 vehicles) and operates at 60 miles per hour. Early in the investigation numerous factors indicated that the Hovercraft would not be practical for this service: a. Cannot carry trucks. The Hovercraft is very limited in its ability to carry high density cargo economically. In the England to France service they do not carry any lorries (trucks) despite availability of area to do so. The SRN 4 can carry 50 cars, representing approx- imately 100 -130 tons. One truck may weigh 20 to 25 tons. The SRN carrying trucks might be limited to 4 trucks (and no cars) per crossing. It is clear to thecommittee that the principal demand for service or at least the portion of the demand that will have the greatest impact on the economy of the region will be • the ability of the service to move trucks. In the English Channel service from Dover to Calais, the Hovercraft operates a ferry. Trucks are required to take the conventional ferry for a three hour crossing rather than the one hour crossing on the Hovercraft. 1-1 b. Hovercraft is not fuel efficient. The Hovercraft is not ueI efficient. It uses approximately 1,000 to 1,200 gallons of jet fuel per hour. At the Shoreham to New Haven site that is recommended by the committee, the fuel usage would exceed 400 gallons per crossing. Assuming fuel to cost approximately $1 per gallon, the fuel cost alone would be approximately $10 per vehicle per crossing. (Assuming 80% of capacity for each crossing) This is substantially in excess of the optimal ferry toll and would require a significant government subsidy for the operation of the service. In addition, it would not be in accord with the Administration's Energy Program. The service if operated 24 hours a day would use 100,000,000 gallons of fuel per year. C. High capital cost. The capital cost of the Hovercraft is significantly higher than for other types of vessels. 81 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • WHAT EQUIPMENT It has not been possible to obtain an accurate cost figure for the SRN 4 Hovercraft as no manufacturer expects to build this vessel in the United States. In the United States, Bell Helicopter has the right to build the SRN 4, but has not received any orders and does not anticipate building any Hovercraft. In 1976 the TriState Planning Commission estimated that a Hovercraft would cost $15,400,000 (for the 30 vehicle version). This must be increased by a factor of at least 50% to reflect increased costs and inflationary pressures. Thus, the adjusted capital cost would be increased to $22,700,000. If service were to be held in reserve, it would be necessary to have three vessels representing a total capital investment of $68,100,000. If service were to be maintained on half hourly schedule, it would be necessaryto have six boats at a capital cost of $136,000,000. Quarter hour service could be maintained with nine vessels at a capital cost of $205,000,000. This would be significantly less than the capital cost of the construction of a bridge. However, if the increased operating expenses are added to the cost, it is clear that a significant operating subsidy would be required to pay the noncapital items. Operating six Hovercraft running at 30 minute headway would cost significantly in excess of $100,000,000 per year. If we assume that the ideal toll is $7, and that 1,500,000 vehicles will cross each year, the total toll revenues would be limited to $10,000,000 per annum, over $100,000,000 below the total expense. It is not realistic to assume that there will be a government operating subsidy for this operation to these proportions. If capital costs of $3,000,000 were added to these expenses, the level of government subsidy would not be in tune with current public sector fiscal management practices. d. High Operating and Maintenance Costs. The operating cost of a Hovercraft is very high. It carries a crew of 8, three of whom are "professionals" (a cross between a captain of a ship and an airplane). The ship must be laid up for major maintenance every 2,000 hours of operation. Operating costs have increased to $1,100 to $1,200 per hour exclusive of shore personnel, maint- enance or debt charges. The operational costs for each crossing would approximate $600 to $700 repres- enting a per vehicle cost approaching $20. 82 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • .w , � ,...- •'tom y,,: � d; �.� BeN® ✓�laa6 v�-aaavaav vi uLGU uY V1 LV U1J 1C31aU• "T -Boat" Terminal requirements are minimal. The ferry's draft is 8 feet, and most of the on and off loading facilitiesi are self contained. f "T -Boat." Constructed for and operated by the Orient Point - New London Ferry Company. r� U • • 1 -• - do - The "T -Boat" is a "Drive -Through" design. On and Off loading at Orient Point is accomplished via a bow ramp and doors. Vehicles on and off load by means of a stern ramp at the New London Terminal. "T-boat" 'Turn-Around 'Times are minimized as a result of the Drive-Through design and by retracting bow ramp and doors while leaving terminal facilities. TWIFIM 7M �(§ I a ' � V • WHAT EQUIPMENT Surface Effect Ship Recognizing that the Hovercraft was not appropriate for the cross sound service at this time, the committee turned to the Surface Effect Ship, which has been developed by the Halter Marine Company and Bell Helicopter. To date this joint venture has not built a Surface Effect Ship for vehicle carrying service, but has constructed a smaller vessel that can be used to transport men and equipment to oil well rigs off the coast of Louisiana. The joint venture, known as Bell Halter, estimates that it would be possible to build a vessel for this service carrying 40 to 50 cars for approximately 20 to 25 percent less than the cost of the SRN 4. The boat would have a somewhat lower maximum speed, but fuel consumption would be the same order of magnitude as the SRN 4. Hydrofoil Significant interest has been expressed in the hydrofoil. It is used extensively in Europe. The committee has • determined that its use would not be practical in this service for a number of reasons: • a. No hydrofoil has yet been built that has the ability to carry a significant number of vehicles. b. The Hydrofoil shares many of the operating, maintenance and capital cost disadvantages of the Hovercraft. Conventional Ferries Having explored the so-called state of the art vessels, the committee turned to conventional ferrys. These vessels fall into three main categories: a. Large vessels like the M/V SPOKANE used in the State of Washington. This ferry carries 200 cars. b. Medium sized vessels like the M/V CAPE MAY. This ferry carries 100 cars. 89 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • WHAT EQUIPMENT c. Smaller vessels like the so-called T -Boat which is limited to 50 cars. Larger Vessels The State of Washington has a large fleet of ferrys. Recently they have constructed a number of 200 vehicles and larger ferries which have the ability of traveling faster than the smaller ships. However, the capital and operating costs are high. Recently, Washington sought bids on a ferry and expected a bid in the range of $ , but the lowest bid received was $ The committee has determined that these larger ferries would not be appropriate for the Shoreham to New Haven service for a number of reasons: a. Efficiency. Smaller ferries would be more efficient for the proposed link sound usage. It would be possible to offer service across the sound at less headway than is necessary using the economic impact of a larger ferry. Passengers will be more apt to use the ferry if they are sure that they will not have to wait an extraordinary length of time to get on the ferry. The use of smaller ferries allows more frequent crossings. Although the use of smaller ferries increases labor costs, the reduction in fuel consumption and in capital costs more than offsets the increase in man to vehicle rates on the smaller boats. b. Fuel efficiency. The larger ferry is not fuel efficient for the vehicle traffic anticipated. On the M/V SPOKANE, a crossing from Shoreham to New Haven would use 325 gallons of fuel. On a per vehicle basis, however, it is significantly more efficient than the Hovercraft. It is projected that assuming 60% occupancy on the ferry that it would use approximately 2 gallons of fuel per vehicle. C. Higher Capital Cost. The capital cost of the larger ferry is significantly greater than the smaller vessels. The 440 foot 200 vehicle vessel was estimated to cost $15,200,000 in 1974. This figure must be increased by 50% to reflect increased costs and the decline in the currency. Thus, the capital cost of the vessel today would be $22,800,000. If service were to be provided 90 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY WHAT EQUIPMENT on an hourly basis it would be necessary to have three vessels costing $68,400,000. If service were to be provided on a half hourly service, it would be necessary to have six boats plus, a spare; seven boats would cost approximately $159,600,000. Service on the quarter hour would require 12 boats with a spare; 13 boats would cost $296,400,000. This would be significantly higher than the cost of providing service with this frequency with the Hovercraft. The studies of potential traffic indicate that the availability of service using 200 car ferries at quarter hour headway would exceed the demand. d. Dredging Cost. The 18 foot draft of the larger 200 car ferry would require extensive dredging as the vessel approached the Long Island shoreline, as well as extensive dredging in the New Haven Harbor. 100 Vehicle Ferry The committee also considered the use of smaller vessels like the M/V Delaware, which carries 100 vehicles. this . vessel has a capital cost of $7,480,000 (using 1976 figures) which must be inflated by 50% to $10,220,000. The Committee determined that these ferries would not be as useful as smaller ferries although they may be suitable initially if used equipment is readily available at a reasonable price. • a. Efficiency. The larger boat is not as fuel efficient as the smaller vessels. The M/V Delaware, for example uses 180 gallons of fuel per hour and has a maximum speed of 18 miles per hour. She would use 200 gallons of fuel per crossing, a fuel cost of $4 to $6 per vehicle per crossing. In addition, she carries a crew of nine, three professionals and six deck hands. It would be difficult to maintain the level of ferry toll that is desired and have the ferry service break even using this equipment. b. Greater frequency of service. A larger boat will not provide this service as readily as the smaller boats. It is anticipated that the use of the service will increase in direct proportion to the frequency of the service. It is not feasible to provide half hourly or quarter hourly 91 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY ,7 WHAT EQUIPMENT service with a boat that holds 100 vehicles. Even half hourly service would be in excess of the anticipated traffic for 1985 assuming a $7 toll. C. Capital cost. The capital cost of the larger boat is significantly greater than the smaller boats. As noted above, the larger boat will cost $10,220,000 per vessel. If service is to be maintained at half hourly headway, it will be necessary to have six boats, a capital cost of $61,320,000. Quarter hourly headway would require 10 or 11 boats costing $102,220,000. 50 Vehicle Ferry The committee also considered the so called "T" boat. The boat derives its name from the fact that it has been built to conform to Coast Guard regulation "T," thereby limiting the crew to five and reducing the number of Coast Guard regulations that must be met. To date one "T" boat has been built and is in service in the Orient Point to New London service. • There is no definitive information as to the cost of the "T" boat. The organization that is now using the boat in the Orient Point to New' London service designed and built the boat itself. Apparently it has yet to make a final determination as to the investment in the boat. In 1975 the TriState Planning Commission pegged the then current cost at $1,375,000. If this figure is inflated at the 50% rate that has been used in the analysis of the other vessels, the total cost jumps to $2,067,000 per vessel. There is considerable question whether the equipment can be built today for $2,000,000. For purposes of assuming a "safe" figure, the following analysis relies on a $3,000,000 construction cost. If service were to be provided on a half hourly headway, it would be necessary to have six vessels in service, a capital cost of approximately $18,000,000. If service were to be provided on quarter hourly service it would be necessary to have 10 vessels in service. The capital cost of this level of service would be approximately $30,000,000. Quarter hourly service would provide a maximum of 3,650,000 vehicle crossings per year (assuming 24 hour service); service at half hour headway would provide 1,825,000 vehicle crossings per year. Undoubtedly it is more practical to project service at approximately 50% of that which is physically possible. 92 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY WHAT EQUIPMENT LJ The committee feels that the "T" boat type ferry would be appropriate for this sevice for several reasons: a. Fuel efficient. The "T" boat uses 65 gallons of diesel fuel per hour operating at 15 knots (18 miles) per hour. A typical crossing would consume 70 gallons of diesel fuel, $1.4 per vehicle. b. Labor efficient. The Coast Guard regulations require only five in the crew. The present operator has found that additional deck hands are necessary to get the cars on the boat, direct traffic, secure the cars, etc. It is contemplated that this additional personnel would remain at the dock, if half hourly or quarter hourly service were instituted. C. Capital efficient. For purposes of this study the boat is projected to cost $3,000,000. It must be emphasized that this is not the result of a quotation, but a projection based on normal costs for the construction of this type of vessel, an adjustment of the cost of construction of the present vessel and an inflation adjustment to the cost cited by the TriState Planning • Commission in its report. 93 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY FORM OF ORGANIZATION . CHAPTER IX FORM OF ORGANIZATION The committee has given considerable consideration to the form of organization. Several alternatives have been considered: a. A private corporation. Although the members of the committee expressed a preference for private operation of the service, it could well be more beneficial to obtain the necessary capital for the construction of the vessels from Federal Aid Highway funds. Under the Federal Highway Act, Federal Aid Highway funds are not available for a ferry if it is operated by a private firm for profit. b. An existin authority. Consideration was given to operation by an existing authority. Several authorities were considered: (1) The Port of New York Authority. Although experienced in the operation and management of transportation systems and in piers and similar facilities, the geographical jurisdiction of the Port of New York Authority does not extend to the State of Connecticut. (2) The Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The MTA has experience in dealing with mass transit and in the operation of one of the busiest ferry services in the United States. However, as in the case of the Port of New York Authority, the MTA jurisdiction does not extend to the State of Connecticut. (3) The TriState Planning Commission. The TriState Planning Commission (formerly known as the TriState Transportation Committee) would not be appropriate because the State of Connecticut is in the process of pulling out of the TriState Planning Commission. (4) New York State Department of Transportation. Consideration was given to having the service operated by the New York State Department of Transportation as a function of the highway program in the State of New York. In many jurisdictions, • ferries are in fact operated by the state department of transportation or equivalent. The committee 94 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY FORM OF ORGANIZATION recommended that it would be more efficient if the • ferry service were established as part of an automaton body that would be expected to "break even" but not make money. (There is a requirement in the Federal Highway Act (see page 000) which limits tolls on a ferry funded by highway funds to an amount not to exceed the actual cost of operating the ferry.) If the ferry was operated by the New York State Department of Transportation, the ferry tolls would have to be paid into the state treasury as general fund payments and subsequently used for the operation of the ferry and other purposes. (5) The government of Suffolk County. Consideration was given to the government of Suffolk County operating the service. As Suffolk has a charter form of government, operation of a ferry service would require a special amendment to the Suffolk County Charter. In addition, the committee determined that it would be advantageous to have the authority operate separate and apart from any other governmental unit. In that manner the ferry tolls and other income would be used directly for the ferry and the ferry service would be an individual "profit center" albeit a nonprofit organization. Following these considerations, the committee determined is that the legislature of the State of New York should be asked to create a separate authority known as the Long Island Sound Ferry Authority with authority to enter into an arrangement with the State of Connecticut (subject to the approval of the United States Congress under the Compact clause of the Constitution) to permit ferry service between Long Island and Connecticut. A separate agency would have the following advantages: 0 a. The affairs of the ferry authority would not become intermingled with other agencies of government. b. The personnel responsible for the management of the ferry authority would be directly responsible to a board appointed for that purpose. c. The ferry would be a separate profit center. Funds from or for the ferry would not be used for other governmental purposes. d. The ferry authority would not become embroiled in issues which have no relation to the provision of ferry service. 95 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • FORM OF ORGANIZATION There is significant precedence for similar authorities in the State of New York. Many of the upstate communities have transportation authorities with the authority to provide transportation to Canada even though the funding is from U.S. sources. Authorities are also used to operate ferries in other parts of the United States. In Woods Hole, for example, an authority operates the ferry service. If it is ultimately determined that highway funds are not available for this project, consideration should be given to it being undertaken by a "for profit" or a "not for profit" private corporation. In either instance, the transaction should be structured to permit the issuance of tax free Industrial Revenue Bonds for the project. As a transportation project, the development of ferry service would not be subject to the limitations generally placed on industrial revenue bonds. There is no dollar limitation. A question may arise as to the ability of the Suffolk County Industrial Development Agency to issue bonds for a project that does not fit neatly into the definition of industrial. It is anticipated that problem could be overcome by legislation if necessary. 96 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • BUDGETS CHAPTER X BUDGETS The committee in proposing expedited efficient ferry service from Long Island to New Haven has kept in mind several financial objectives and constraints: a. Capital fund. In the search for capital funding it will be competing with other needs which have "been in the pipeline" longer. These include mundane, but necessary things like highway repair and modernization, bridge maintenance, as well as several major highway projects like "Westway," "modernization of the Long Island Expressway," "the Nassau Expressway," etc. The Federal Highway funding available to New York is limited. Once allocated to New York, the Department of Transportation has the responsibility to allocate it among the various transportation regions in the state. Once allocated to a region, the regional director is in charge of allocating it to various projects although there are complex planning and allocation formulas used in allocating the funds. b. Operating subsidies. In search for operating subsidies, it will be competing with massive deficits at the Long Island Railroad, the several bus systems, and the New York City Transit Authority. It is not likely that operating subsidies would be available. C. Economic development. The purpose of this project is not to provide commerce with a means of getting to Connecticut and New England at the same cost as is now the case. The objective is to provide commerce with a means of getting to Connecticut and to New England at a significantly lower cost than they now encounter, thereby encouraging a significant increase in commerce between the regions. 97 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY BUDGETS Budget For Service at 1,000,000 vehicles per year, operating 18 hours per day. (Exclusive of debt service or amortization) Ferry in each direction at half hour headway from 7 A.M. to 12 Midnight Operating Costs Chief Operating Officer of Authority 40,000 Assistant Operating Officer 30,000 Clerical Personnel (4) 40,000 Crews for 6 vessels, 3 crews for each 18 Captains @ $24,000 432,000 18 First Officers @$20,000 360,000 54 Deck Personnel @$10,000 540,000 10 Maintenance Personnel 150,000 30 Dock Personnel 300,000 Statutory Benefits 189,200 TOTAL PAYROLL 2,081,200 Benefits - 20% 378,400 Utilities 50,000 Fuel - 1,825,000 gallons @$1 1,825,000 Maintenance and parts 500,000 Insurance 500,000 Professional Fees 50,000 Advertising 100,000 Miscellaneous 500,000 • TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 5,984,600 If we assume that the equipment was obtained with Federal Funding, that the average vehicle toll will be $8.50 representing a mix of passenger cars and Trucks at the rate of 3 passenger cars paying $7 to 1 truck paying $12.50 per 98 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • BUDGETS crossing, the breakeven point will be at 704,070 vehicles per year representing approximately 50% of capacity for the system. Capital Costs The capital cost would be significant. If we assume the ships will cost $3,000,000 each, and the land improvements on either side will cost $2,128,000, the total capital cost will be $20,128,000. If Federal funding is not available, and it is necessary to operate the ferryservice on the basis where in it provides both its own capital and operating expenses, the situation becomes more difficult. The potential toll is forced much higher. There are several alternative sources of funding available: 1. Sale of tax exempt industrial revenue bonds where no collateral other than the ships and the ability of the • operating agency to collect tolls is involved. 2. The sale of so-called MarAd Bonds where bonds are sold with 80-90% guarantees by the Federal government. There does not appear to be any restriction on the sale of MarAd Bonds by a municipality. • 3. The sale of general obligation bonds by a local municipality. 4. The sale of general obligation bonds by the state following a state wide referendum. These alternative sources are discussed in greater detail at pages 00 through 00. As an illustration for budget purposes, lets assume that tax exempt bonds for this project can be sold at 8%, with amortization over a 20 year period. The annual charge for principal and interest would be $1,820,000 approximately, bringing the total cost for operating the system to $7,488,000. At the $8.50 average toll this would increase the number of crossings needed to support the system to 99 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • BUDGETS 870,000 per year, approximately 65% of capacity and approximately 62% of the total Suffolk County traffic projected for the proposed bridge from Wading River to New Haven. If we assume that the average vehicle toll will be $8.50 representing a mix of passenger cars and trucks at the rate of 3 to 1, the breakeven point will be at 1,175,000 vehicles per year representing approximately 46.2% of capacity for the system. This represents 80% of the total Suffolk County traffic projected for a bridge at the same site. From this data, it is apparent that the project is much more viable if Federal funding is available and the toll is pegged at the operating cost. As previously noted, the lower the toll, the more effective the project will be as a generator of economic development for the region. If Federal funding is not available, it is necessary to revaluate the various forms of organization that were considered: a. The County of Suffolk: If the County of Suffolk were to operate this system it would require an amendment to the County Charter. Presumably this would not be difficult to obtain if there was complete unanimity among the county officials on the issue. An amendment of this type to the County Charter would require an action of the New York Legislature and would have to be preceded by a Thome rule message," i.e., a resolution of the County Legislature asking the state to make the appropriate changes in the County Charter. If the County of Suffolk were to operate the ferry service it would be able to issue its general obligation bonds to support the ferry service. These bonds would sell at much more favorable rates than a bond supported only by the assets and revenues of the ferry authority.It is unclear if tax exempt private funding could be obtained for what at best is a risky private venture. Few banks or institutional investors are willing to get involved in any project that smacks of mass transport. Although unconventional, this project is certainly a different form of mass transit. b. A Private Corporation: Obviously there are extensive operational and construction savings that would be 100 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY :7 BUDGETS available if a private corporation were to operate the ferry service. It is unclear, however, if the County of New Haven would allow a private organization the access to the Harbor that they would afford to a Bi - state authority. The second issue is whether the private corporation would have the access to the financing to develop the program. Presumably, it could obtain at least 80% MarAd Bonds. However, regulations issued by the Maritime Administration have made it clear that any project to get Maritime Administration financing must be "viable" and economically sound. There is significant precedent for Federal funding for ferry projects. The states of Washington and Alaska have ferry systems that are funded by the Federal government. The Federal Highway Act specifically authorizes the use of Federal highway funds for ferry service where the ferry is integral to a primary system, but is not part of the designated interstate highway system. The Federal Highway Act provides: • (g) Notwithstanding section 301 of this title, the Secretary may permit Federal participation under this title in the construction of ferry boats whether toll or free, subject to the following conditions: • (1) It is not feasible to build a bridge, tunnel combination thereof or other normal highway structure in lieu of the use of such, (2) The operation of the ferry shall be in a route that has been approved as part of a Federal aid system, (3) Such ferry shall be publicly owned and operated, (4) That the operating authority and amount of the fares charged for passage on such ferry shall be under the control of the state and all revenues derived therefrom shall be applied, necessary costs of operation, maintained and repaired. 101 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • BUDGETS The Federal law requires that the toll be used for operation and maintenance. Thus, capital costs must come from other sources, the Federal government, or to the extent that the Federal government will not pay the entire cost of the program, the state government. To the extent that part of the ferry is used for passenger transportation as well as vehicle, that portion of the expenditure used for passenger transport may be eligible for capital assistance under the Urban Mass Transportation Act. There are two categories of transportation funding, the discretionary funds and the allocated funds. The allocated capital funds for mass transit have been spoken for, for many years to come. It is not anticipated that significant funds would be available from that source. It may be possible to get limited discretionary or demonstration funding. The United States Department of Transportation, authorization legislation adopted in 1978 specifically provided for a $25,000,000 expenditure by the Department of Transportation for a demonstration nonconventional transportation program in the New York area. (The Tri State Planning Commission is developing a proposal to implement this authorization with a water borne commuter transportation project. Initially $850,000 has been allocated for short demonstration to ascertain if there is a market for the project. This program would not appear to qualify for the $25,000,000 that has been authorized. However, if it is ultimately determined that the $25,000,000 cannot be used for the originally intended purpose - development of Hydrofoil -Hovercraft type service in the New York Harbor - it may be possible to have some of it used for a cross -sound ferry project. It is considerably easier to get the Department of Transportation intrested . in a nonconventional — state of the art technology. However, it would not be practical in this case because of the tremendous energy consumption of the present "state of the art" programs. 102 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY L-1 • FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER XII FINANCING ALTERNATIVES There are a number of way., projects like a ferry service. nature of the financing will organization. of financing major capital To a considerable extent, the dictate the nature of the The United States Department of Transportation has numerous programs which authorize the financing of water borne transportation projects. These include the Section 2 and Section 5 programs implemented by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration and the Federal Air Urban Systems Program (FAUST) as well as the interstate and intrastate highway construction funding. Interstate Highway Program Long Island is virutally excluded from the Interstate Highway Program. Until recently, a portion of the Long Island Expressway, that portion lying west of the Clearview Expressway was considered part of the Interstate Highway System. That portion of the highway is now the subject of a delisting program whereby the Mayor of the City of New York as the responsible public official of the City in which that highway is located, has asked that it be delisted from the program and that the monies that were intended to be used for upgrading that portion of the Long Island Expressway be diverted to other highway and mass transit programs of the City of New York. Although the Expressway is located primarily in the City of New York, it serves a significant portion of the residents of the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk. Indirectly, it serves the businesses of the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk in that the goods manufactured on Long Island and the goods destined for Long Island firms must pass over the Long Island Expressway to reach Long Island. At one time consideration was given to the possibility of extending interstate portions of the Long Island Expressway 103 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES and treat the Expressway as a portion of the interstate connecting via bridge to the I-95 in New England. Subsequently, however, the delisting of a portion of the Long Island Expressway has made it impossible to include that portion of the system in the interstate. Of course, it would subsequently be eligible for inclusion in the intrastate highway system. The Federal Highway Act does allow the use of intrastate highway funds for the construction of a ferry if certain criteria spelled out in the statute are met: 1. The property is not to be considered part of the interstate highway system. 2. The ferry is to be operated by a governmental agency. 3. The tolls on the ferry are to be limited to the actual cost of operation of the ferry. Thus, Federal highway funds are authorized to be used for a project of this type. To the extent that these Federal highway funds are those funds which are allocated to the states for other highway purposes, the availability of the funds is dependent upon the local transportation committee's allocation of the funds among varying priorities in the state. In addition to the so-called "entitlement funds," funds to which a state is entitled because of its position in the community of the states (this is based on a formula the principal portion of which is the population of the state), the Department of Transportation has what is known as discretionary and demonstration funds. Demonstration funds are limited in the main to programs involving systems, equipment or techniques that are unique. It may be possible to get some "demonstration" funds for this project because of the nature of the equipment that is proposed, the smaller 50 Vehicle vessel. It would be easier to get demonstration funds if the proposed use were unique. For example, if the project were to use a Hovercraft or a Surface Effect Ship, capital funding would be more readily available because of the uniqueness of the project. Initially the committee considered the possibility of this type of equipment because of its uniqueness and speed. However, early in the 104 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES committee's deliberations it was determined that the tremendous cost of the equipment coupled with the use of fuel would render the project impractical. In the competition for so-called entitlement funds, it is necessary for the project to compete with a number of other projects which seek to be funded, many of which have been on the drawing board for an extended period of time. Although not directly related, the action of the people on the transportation bond issue pending before the people this November will have an important effect on the prospects for a ferry. If the bond issue is not approved, the various projects that would have been funded by the bond issue will have to look to an alternative funding source. The principal funding sources will be the so-called demonstration or discretionary amounts provided for by the transportation bond issue. If the proposed ferry route were part of the interstate highway system, it would not be possible to obtain Federal funds for the construction of the ferry. However, as it is not a part of the interstate highway system, but part of the primary highway system, it is eligible for Federal funding. • The statute specifically provides: • Notwithstanding section 301 of this title, the Secretary may permit Federal participation through funds for any Federal aid system other than the interstate system, in any engineer and fiscal assessments, traffic analysis, network studies, preliminary modification planning and any other study necessary to determine whether a private toll bridge should be acquired by the state or political subdivision thereof. The availability of Federal funding for this project renders it considerably more advantageous for the Long Island resident. If the ferry service is not required to bear its capital cost, it can operate at $1.50 to $2 less than what would be required if the project were to be paid for on a basis whereby it would have to bear the costs of interest and amortization. The capital cost of the ferry alternative to a bridge would represent approximately one percent of the bonds that would have to be floated for the construction of a bridge. From Orient Point to Watch Hill, Rhode Island, the capital cost would represent approximately three 105 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES percent of the capital cost of the least expensive bridge proposal. To set the capital cost in a different perspective it would represent two percent of the amount that the bonds sold on the security of the tolls that could be collected from the bridge that fell short of the total capital cost of the bridge project. In the event that the Federal funding is not forthcoming, it will be necessary to look at alternative methods of providing this service for the people of Long Island and southern Connecticut region. One alternative is a quasi governmental authority which would have the authority to issue bonds, and operate a ferry. There is no provision in law for such an authority at the present time. The Port of New York Authority is authorized to operate bridges from New York to other states. Similar authority could be given to an authority organized by the State of New York for a similar purpose. An independent quasi governmental authority authorized to issue bonds which will turn will be exempt from both Federal and state taxation, because of the exemption, the bonds attract a more favorable interest rate. • The bonding requirements for this project would be significant. Service with 6 vessels will result in capital costs in excess of $20,000,000. Bonds of this magnitude, if marketable will command an interest rate approaching the prime rate because of the limited collateral. If we assume an interest rate of 10% and an amortization obligation of 20 years, the annual carrying charges will approximate 3 million dollars. Adding this three million dollars to the total projected budget for the project will result in a significant increase in the operating percentages that will be required to reach the point where the service would be self sustaining. In the discussion on page 00, it was pointed out that the service would be self sustaining at 50% of the total capacity of the system. If the capital costs are included that percentage increases to 65% of capacity and 62% of the total anticipated bridge traffic from Suffolk County. • If the capital cost of the equipment is not charged against the ferry service, it is clear that the service could operate on a self-sustaining basis with little need for operating subsidy. This has been demonstrated here and by prior studies. (1975, TriState Planning Commission, Long Island Ferry Service; 1979, Long Island Bridge Study, Chapter XII 106 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES If the service is more successful than anticipated it may be possible to develop limited reserves for the replacement of equipment. However, if the project is required to "pay its own way," i.e., bear the capital cost of the project, there is serious question whether it can operate without a significant subsidy. Most of the major ferry services operating in the United States operate at a deficit. There are several ferries which serve primarily tourists; communities operating on a seasonal basis that are profitable because it is not necessary to provide service when there is limited demand. However, in the case of the service which is contemplated by this study, it is essential that the service be provided on a regular basis every day. It is this type of service that will bring about the economic development that is the justification for this program. Private Operation 40 Although some savings in operating expenses could be achieved by private operation, the increases resulting from private operation would exceed the savings. Wage costs for private operation versus public operation would be similar as the employees would be represented by the same labor organizations. It may be possible to operate with a few less personnel at the terminals if the operation was privately operated. In addition, the terminal costs may be somewhat less if the service were operated by a private operator. Allowance for profit and taxes would significantly increase the overall operating costs. • 107 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY C7 FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES The following budget is representative of private operation: Chief Operating Officer 40,000 Assistant Chief Operating Officer 30,000 Clerical Personnel 30,000 Crews for 12 vessels, 3 crews each 750,000 36 Captains at 20,000 720,000 36 First Officers at 18,000 648,000 104 Deck Personnel 1,040,000 20 Maintenance Personnel 300,000 20 Dock Personnel 200,000 Statutory Benefits 300,800 TOTAL 3,300,880 Benfits 20% 601,600 TOTAL PAYROLL COST 3,902,480 • Utilities 50,000 Fuel 3,600,000 Maintenance and Parts 1,000,000 Insurance 750,000 Professional Fees 30,000 Advertising 50,000 Real Property Taxes 20,000 Miscellaneous 500,000 TOTAL 9,852,440 Profit at 10% 985,244 TOTAL BEFORE DEBT 10,837,684 Carrying Charges Interest at 15% 2,750,000 Amortization 1,250,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14,837,684 • 108 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY • • FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES Percentage of capacity required to reach breakeven point: 68% Given the nature of the ferry service and the need to provide service at a sufficient level to meet the peak demands and the need to maintain constant crossing to insure continual flow of traffic, it is not reasonable to expect 68 to 70% of occupancy based on a year round, day and night service. 109 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY ENERGY IMPACT CHAPTER XI ENERGYIMPACT Any transportation initiative must analyze its energy effectiveness. Clearly the ferry will be a significant energy user. As indicated in the budget section, ferry service operating at 30 minutes headway would use 1,800,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Ferry service operating at 15 minutes headway would use 3,600,000 gallons of fuel each year. This represents a significant savings over the fuel that would be consumed using alternative transportation methods, however. If we assume that the average vehicle on the ferry gets 15 miles for each gallon of gasoline, it would use the equivalent amount of fuel as driving across the sound on a bridge that does not exist. The real savings occur when you compute the amount of fuel that would have been used in "driving around," i.e., driving • to New York, crossing the Throgs Neck Bridge and driving up the Connecticut Turnpike. If we assume that on an average crossing, one-third of the vehicles are traveling to Boston, one-third to Hartford and one-third to Albany and we further assume that the boat is operating at 60% of capacity, the total fuel savings (based on a 15 miles to the gallon standard automobile) will be 268.9 gallons. For that trip, the ferry would use 70 gallons of fuel, representing a net savings of 198.9 gallons of fuel. If this savings is projected over 72 trips per day (30 minute headway) for an annual period, the savings jumps to $4,470,000 approximately 10,000 barrels per year. If there is sufficient traffic to operate the service at 15 minute headway, the savings increase to 8,940,000 gallons per year. The ferry is a net energy user, it is clearly a net energy saver. The only manner in which it is not an energy saver is the tendency which it has to encourage travel. However this is not a negative as noted here, as the travel that will be encouraged is commercial traffic. 110 LONG ISLAND SOUND FERRY STUDY