task 2 – baseline data for transportation plan development ......task 2 – baseline data for...

288
Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency South Western Regional Planning Agency prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Eng-Wong Taub & Associates Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. Gruzen Samton Architects, Planners & Int. Designers HydroQual Inc. M.G. McLaren, PC Management and Transportation Associates, Inc. STV, Inc. September 30, 2003 www.camsys.com final memorandum

Upload: others

Post on 30-Sep-2020

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development

prepared for

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency South Western Regional Planning Agency

prepared by

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

with

Eng-Wong Taub & Associates Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. Gruzen Samton Architects, Planners & Int. Designers HydroQual Inc. M.G. McLaren, PC Management and Transportation Associates, Inc. STV, Inc.

September 30, 2003 www.camsys.com

final memorandum

Page 2: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

final technical memorandum

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development

prepared for

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency South Western Regional Planning Agency

prepared by

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300 Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815

with

Eng-Wong Taub & Associates Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. Gruzen Samton Architects, Planners & Int. Designers HydroQual Inc. M.G. McLaren, PC Management and Transportation Associates, Inc. STV, Inc.

September 30, 2003

Page 3: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 7151.021

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need.................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 The National Policy Imperative ........................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Scope and Schedule ............................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 About This Report.................................................................................................. 1-6

2.0 The Role of Waterborne Transportation in Long Island Sound and the Region ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Worldwide Ferry Operations ............................................................................... 2-1 2.2 History of Ferries on Long Island Sound............................................................ 2-16 2.3 Current Ferry Operations on Long Island Sound.............................................. 2-23 2.4 Current Freight Barges and Vessels on Long Island Sound............................. 2-27 2.5 Importance of Waterborne Transportation ........................................................ 2-28

3.0 Passenger and Freight Transportation Markets....................................................... 3-1 3.1 Overview of Methodology.................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Passenger Movement............................................................................................. 3-2 3.3 Goods Movement................................................................................................... 3-13 3.4 Summary ................................................................................................................. 3-27

4.0 Potential Opportunities for Waterborne Transportation in Long Island Sound........................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Previous Studies and Proposals ........................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Short-Sea Shipping Opportunities....................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Results of Community Planning Workshops..................................................... 4-17 4.4 Potential Sites and Services................................................................................... 4-30

5.0 Inventory of Vessel Types, Marine Resources, and Landside Accessibility ..... 5-1 5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Passenger and Freight Ferry Types and Technologies for

Consideration in Long Island Sound................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Marine Conditions Inventory............................................................................... 5-19 5.4 Highway Access Conditions Inventory .............................................................. 5-30 5.5 Transit Access Conditions Inventory .................................................................. 5-40 5.6 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 5-45

6.0 Demand Modeling and Screening of Alternatives ................................................. 6-1 6.1 Passenger Demand Modeling .............................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Freight Demand Modeling ................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Screening of Alternatives ...................................................................................... 6-3

Page 4: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

ii Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 7151.021

Table of Contents (continued)

Appendix A Summaries of Community Planning Workshops ................................. A-1 Southhold CPW Stamford CPW 1 New Rochelle CPW Lower Manhattan CPW New London CPW New Haven CPW Glen Cove CPW Stony Brook CPW Shoreham CPW Stamford CPW 2 Hunts Point CPW

Appendix B Passenger Surveys and Mode Choice Models ....................................... B-1

Appendix C Freight Surveys and Mode Choice Models ............................................ C-1

Appendix D Reference Sources and Relevant Studies................................................ D-1

Page 5: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii

List of Tables

2.1 2001 World Ferry Industry Totals ................................................................................ 2-2

2.2 Domestic Ferry Volumes (Internal Markets) .............................................................. 2-3

2.3 International Ferry Volumes, Passengers ................................................................... 2-6

2.4 International Ferry Volumes, Freight .......................................................................... 2-7

2.5 Leading Ferry Origin-Destination Volumes (International and Domestic Markets) ........................................................................ 2-9

2.6 North American Passenger Ferry Volumes (U.S. and Canada Markets of More Than One Million Annual Passengers) ......................................... 2-13

2.7 North American Freight Ferry Volumes for Leading U.S. and Canadian Passenger Markets........................................................................................ 2-14

2.8 Ferry Services in Long Island Sound ........................................................................... 2-25

3.1 Top 25 Daily Passenger Car Trips by County ............................................................ 3-6

4.1 Proposed PIDN Inland Distribution Volumes ........................................................... 4-2

4.2 U.S. Fuel-Taxed Inland Waterway System ................................................................. 4-4

5.1 The Cross Sound Ferry Fleet......................................................................................... 5-3

5.2 Conventional Passenger Vessels in New York Harbor............................................. 5-4

5.3 Representative Ferry Characteristics by Type............................................................ 5-16

5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory ....................................................................................... 5-20

5.5 Regional Access Inventory, Key Criteria ................................................................... 5-30

5.6 Regional Access Inventory ............................................................................................ 5-31

5.7 Local Access Inventory, Key Criteria........................................................................... 5-33

5.8 Local Access Inventory .................................................................................................. 5-34

6.1 Four-Step Transportation Planning Process Applied to Freight ............................. 6-2

Page 6: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v

List of Figures

2.1 Regional Ferry Routes.................................................................................................... 2-24

2.2 Passenger Ferry Services in New York Harbor.......................................................... 2-26

2.3 Port Commerce Around Long Island Sound, Year 2000........................................... 2-27

3.1 LISWTP Data Analysis Subregions.............................................................................. 3-2

3.2 Year 2000 Population by County.................................................................................. 3-3

3.3 Year 2000 Employment by County .............................................................................. 3-4

3.4 Daily Passenger Car Trips Within and Between Subregions ................................... 3-5

3.5 National Roadway Segments with More Than 100,000 Vehicle Trips per Day..... 3-7

3.6 National Roadway Segments Approaching or Exceeding Capacity....................... 3-7

3.7 Commuter and Intercity Rail Passenger Service Frequency 1997 ........................... 3-8

3.8 Amtrak Intercity Ridership Between City Pairs 2000................................................ 3-9

3.9 Average Weekday Ridership, Year 2000..................................................................... 3-10

3.10 Average Weekend Ridership, Year 2000..................................................................... 3-11

3.11 Long Island Sound Transit System Usage 2000 ......................................................... 3-12

3.12 Breakdown of Goods Movement by Movement Type.............................................. 3-14

3.13 Annual Inbound and Outbound Commodity Flows by County 2000.................... 3-15

3.14 Forecasted Growth in Freight Volume Between 2000 and 2025 .............................. 3-16

3.15 Summary of 2000 Freight Flows Millions of Annual Tons .......................................... 3-17

3.16 Summary of Forecasted 2025 Freight Flows Millions of Annual Tons ...................... 3-18

3.17 Freight Mode Shares for the Long Island Sound Region.......................................... 3-19

3.18 Freight Mode Shares by County 2000.......................................................................... 3-20

3.19 Top 5 Regional Commodities ....................................................................................... 3-21

Page 7: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

vi Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

List of Figures (continued)

3.20 Top Waterborne Commodities ..................................................................................... 3-22

3.21 Daily Truck Trips Within and Between Subregions.................................................. 3-23

3.22 Roadway Segments with More Than 10,000 Daily Truck Trips .............................. 3-24

3.23 Through Goods Movement Volumes .......................................................................... 3-25

3.24 Rail Freight Activity by Line Year 1997....................................................................... 3-26

4.1 Freight Transportation “Service Spectrum”................................................................ 4-5

4.2 Mode Split for EU Freight Shipments 1999................................................................. 4-8

4.3 U.S. Domestic Freight Movement Year 2000............................................................... 4-12

4.4 Community Planning Workshop Summary Map Southold, New York – August 1, 2002 ............................................................................. 4-19

4.5 Community Planning Workshop Summary Map Stamford, Connecticut – September 17, 2002, and December 11, 2002........................... 4-20

4.6 Community Planning Workshop Summary Map New Rochelle, New York – September 19, 2002 ............................................................... 4-21

4.7 Community Planning Workshop Summary Map Lower Manhattan, New York – September 24, 2002........................................................ 4-22

4.8 Community Planning Workshop Summary Map New London, Connecticut – September 26, 2002............................................................. 4-23

4.9 Community Planning Workshop Summary Map New Haven, Connecticut – October 1, 2002 .................................................................... 4-24

4.10 Community Planning Workshop Summary Map Glen Cove, New York – October 3, 2002 .......................................................................... 4-25

4.11 Community Planning Workshop Summary Map Stony Brook, New York – October 10, 2002 ..................................................................... 4-26

4.12 Community Planning Workshop Summary Map Shoreham, New York – December 10, 2002...................................................................... 4-27

Page 8: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. vii

List of Figures (continued)

4.13 Advisory Committee Planning Workshop Summary Map Bridgeport, Connecticut – September 17, 2002 ................................................................ 4-28

4.14 Planning Workshop Summary Map Composite Summary of Site Recommendations................................................................ 4-29

5.1 Bridgeport-Port Jefferson Ferry – Grand Republic.................................................... 5-2

5.2 Cross Sound Ferry – John H.......................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 South Ferry and North Ferry Vessels .......................................................................... 5-3

5.4 Staten Island Ferry – Samuel I. Newhouse ................................................................. 5-5

5.5 Cross Sound Ferry – Sea Jet I ........................................................................................ 5-6

5.6 Fox Navigation – Sassacus ............................................................................................ 5-6

5.7 Seastreak – New York .................................................................................................... 5-6

5.8 New York Water Taxi .................................................................................................... 5-7

5.9 Odyssey Class Ferries, Sample Configurations.......................................................... 5-8

5.10 Fjellstrand’s FerryCat 120 Concept Design................................................................. 5-9

5.11 Afai Ships 60-meter (200-foot) Car Ferry .................................................................... 5-10

5.12 Rodriquez’ Aquastrada TMV 114 ................................................................................ 5-11

5.13 Bottom View of SeaCoaster Hull.................................................................................. 5-12

5.14 Griffon 8000TD Hovercraft ........................................................................................... 5-13

5.15 Canal Boats, Inc. Water Taxi Vessel ............................................................................. 5-14

5.16 Hydra-Terra Amphibious Vehicle from C.a.m.I., LLC ............................................. 5-15

5.17 Flarecraft .......................................................................................................................... 5-15

5.18 Columbia Coastal Container Barge.............................................................................. 5-17

Page 9: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1.0 Introduction

Page 10: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Need

The region adjoining Long Island Sound and its tributaries – including Suffolk and Nassau Counties, coastal Connecticut, Westchester, the Bronx, and Queens – suffers from chronic highway congestion. Despite the presence of commuter rail and bus transit net-works that are among the most heavily used in the nation, congestion on regional high-ways, connectors, and local access roads is in many cases already unacceptable, and is forecast to worsen further over the next 20 years.

Opportunities to provide significant additional highway capacity are limited, and the effect of modest improvements will be – not surprisingly – modest. Efforts are underway to approach the highway system with a series of aggressive management strategies that offer some promise; at the same time, there is substantial planning at the regional and multi-state level for major commuter rail investments to accommodate growing demand.

Overlaid on top of the congestion issue is the issue of transportation system redundancy. Prior to the attacks of September 11th, transportation planners generally focused on the goals of economy, efficiency, and maximum utilization – getting the most performance out of the least infrastructure. The attacks of September 11th turned this traditional approach on its head, by demonstrating that over-reliance on a single element of the transportation system can lead to major systemwide breakdowns in the event of a service interruption in that element. Fortunately, even with the loss of PATH service to Lower Manhattan from New Jersey, an alternative mode was available and could be pressed into service – the region’s ferry system.

Long Island Sound has a long maritime history, and hosts several well-established and successful ferry operations. But in light of growing congestion and the need for transpor-tation system “redundancy,” the question has been asked: Can more be done on the water to meet the region’s critical transportation needs?

This is an open question – it may be that there are huge untapped opportunities, waiting to be developed with guidance and support from the public sector. Or it may be that waterborne services are too expensive to develop and operate in relation to the amount of traffic they can attract, relegating them to a useful – but limited – niche service. In fact, there is significant discussion and activity regarding the implementation of new – and quite exciting – ferry services on the Sound and in New York Harbor by various public and private agencies. At the same time, other regions – San Francisco, Seattle, et al. – are also looking to significantly upgrade their ferry operations.

Page 11: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

1-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

These issues led three Metropolitan Planning Organizations along the Sound – the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, the Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, and the South Western (Connecticut) Regional Planning Agency – to undertake the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan (LISWTP). The two key objec-tives of the LISWTP are:

• “To explore the potential for expanded use of Long Island Sound and its tributaries for waterborne passenger and freight transportation.”

• “To develop a plan for waterborne transportation for Long Island Sound through the year 2025.”

These objectives embed a variety of key principles. The LISWTP mission recognizes that waterborne transportation has the potential to benefit both passenger movement and freight movement. It also recognizes that waterborne transportation services need to be part of a larger plan that not only coordinates the different services with each other, but also coordinates them with the larger intermodal passenger and intermodal freight trans-portation system, so that the specific strengths of waterborne transportation – its flexibility and relatively low cost – can be fully utilized. Finally, the scope is open-ended in terms of the geography that can be examined, the sites that can be proposed, and the services that can be explored. From high-speed advanced technology passenger ferries to low-speed “water taxis,” from fast and reliable truck ferries to slower, traditional bulk barges, eve-rything is on the table for examination and – hopefully – improvement.

The LISWTP process has four major features:

• The LISWTP aims to develop a long-range regional plan of feasible, beneficial, and sustainable marine transportation improvements that reduce the region’s reliance on highways. It is not intended to attract traffic to the detriment of non-highway modes; rather, it aims to support other non-highway modes and improve their competitive-ness and attractiveness versus the highway.

• The LISWTP looks to put waterborne transportation through the same types of com-prehensive, rigorous analyses that are typically applied to highway or rail transporta-tion plans. It examines infrastructure conditions, market demand, connectivity to other modes, transportation benefit/cost, and community/land use/environmental impacts. It will identify potential waterborne services that appear most promising, but it will not serve as a detailed study of feasibility, cost, or impact for such services – follow-on studies will be needed to achieve that level of detail.

• The LISWTP is grounded in an extensive public outreach process. It is guided by a Steering Committee, an Advisory Committee, and an aggressive schedule of Community Planning Workshops. The LISWTP is consensus oriented – it aims to achieve common ground, not to “pick winners and losers” from among communities, services, agencies, and/or operators.

Page 12: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-3

• The LISWTP is mandated to examine the broadest range of: routings (across the Sound, along the coasts, to/from Manhattan, to/from special generators such as air-ports or recreational facilities); markets (commuters and other work trips, recreational travelers, package freight, trucks, containers); services and facilities (enhancements to existing services, development of entirely new services); and technologies (from the conventional to the cutting edge).

• The LISWTP is being coordinated with other ongoing regional planning efforts. These include the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s “Port Inland Distribution Network,” the NYMTC Regional Freight Plan, the Sustainable East End Development Strategies effort, and other initiatives addressing improved waterborne transportation.

1.2 The National Policy Imperative

The LISWTP is fully consistent with a major Federal initiative emerging from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MarAd) – short-sea ship-ping. MarAd sees the issues of growing congestion, limited opportunities for new capac-ity, and need for transportation system redundancy at a national level, and is promoting efforts to use marine resources more effectively. In fact, a project that has been proposed in this region – the “Port Inland Distribution Network” initiative, which will move con-tainers between North Jersey and the Connecticut coast by barge instead of by truck, is being held up as a model for the rest of the country. MarAd’s web site (www.marad.dot.gov) notes:

“One of Captain William G. Schubert’s chief goals during his term as Maritime Administrator is the establishment of an efficient, economical, and environmentally-friendly U.S.-flag short-sea shipping system as a way of relieving congestion on the Nation’s already overburdened highway and rail transportation networks, according MarAd’s associate administrator for ports, intermodal and environmental activities Margaret Blum. In a March 28th presentation before transportation editors, reporters, and industry officials attending the Transportation Table’s bi-weekly luncheon meeting at the National Press Club, Blum said the development of a short-sea system, similar to those that are faring well in Europe, is being pressed hard by Schubert both in the public arena and within the Bush Administration. Blum underscored Schubert’s strong commitment to getting a viable short-sea shipping system off and running. “If he gets anything done, he wants this done,” Blum said. “We are pressing hard for this on the 10th floor (the office of the Secretary of Transportation) at DOT.” Schubert has already embarked on a number of initiatives including the hosting of a highly successful conference last November in New York, which drew an overflow audience of high-level industry officials who now are working with government officials on a number of fronts, Blum noted.

Page 13: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

1-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

The Port of New York and New Jersey, which on March 31st launched a new twice-weekly barge service moving ocean containers up the Hudson River to the Port of Albany, is the first port to begin a major short-sea service, Blum pointed out. The new system is projected to divert at least 10,000 containers from highway to barge transportation during the first operating year. Other projects are being considered in a number of port cities, including the Port of Anchorage, Alaska; ports in Pennsylvania; Alabama; and the Port of Tampa, Florida, Blum said. The U.S. Department of Defense is also showing a strong interest in the issue, Blum added. With more than 25,000 miles of inland and costal waterways; waterway links to some 460,000 miles of pipelines; waterways connections to 152,000 miles of rail; and port connections to 45,000 miles of interstate highways, the United States is well poised to launch a successful short-sea transportation system, Blum said. Blum also cited economic advantages of short-sea shipping. For example, one 15-barge tow can carry the same cargo moved by 870 trucks, Blum said. In other words, “One sailing vessel can carry the equivalent of 12 miles of trucks moving bumper to bumper.”

1.3 Scope and Schedule

The LISWTP Scope of Services provides for five major tasks.

1. Develop and Conduct a Community Involvement Program:

− Establish and participate in meetings of the project Steering Committee and Advisory Committee.

− Provide ongoing municipal coordination.

− Conduct public scoping meetings.

− Conduct public/community outreach meetings.

− Create and maintain a project web page.

2. Develop Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development:

− Investigate the maritime history and the current use of Long Island Sound.

− Collect information on existing/proposed ferry services for Long Island Sound.

− Obtain prior reports, plans, and studies relevant to ferry services for Long Island Sound.

− Inventory marine terminals, marinas, and harbors in Long Island Sound.

− Inventory passenger/freight vessel technologies applicable to service in Long Island Sound.

Page 14: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-5

− Inventory highway connections to marine terminals, marinas, and harbors in Long Island Sound.

− Inventory railway connections to marine terminals, marinas, and harbors in Long Island Sound.

− Inventory transit (bus, paratransit, air) connections to marine terminals, marinas, and harbors in Long Island Sound.

− Identify and quantify major passenger movements (at the area-to-area or corridor level) that could potentially be served by ferry.

− Identify and quantify major freight movements (at the area-to-area or corridor level) that could potentially be served by ferry.

− Conduct a preference survey for attributes of passenger ferry service and construct a baseline passenger mode choice model for ferry services.

− Adapt the Cross Harbor Freight Movement MIS shipper choice model to develop baseline freight shipper choice model for ferry services.

− Prepare a Technical Memorandum on Task 2.

3. Data Development and Initial Screening of Alternatives:

− Develop a “long list” of potential alternatives for passenger and freight service cor-ridors, routes, terminal locations, and vessel/service types.

− Establish screening criteria and thresholds for identification of initially preferred services to be carried forward for detailed analysis.

− Evaluate and prioritize alternative passenger and freight services based on screening thresholds and criteria.

− Based on the application of screening criteria, define four to eight services (including corridors, routes, terminal locations, and vessel/service types) to be car-ried forward as “initially preferred alternatives” for further analysis in Task 4.

− Prepare a Technical Memorandum on Task 3.

4. Analysis of Initially Preferred Alternatives and Development of Recommendations:

− Evaluate the initially preferred alternatives with respect to market capture using the mode choice models.

− Perform sensitivity analyses and assess “what if” scenarios using the mode choice models.

− Evaluate the initially preferred alternatives with respect to constructability of ter-minal facilities.

− Evaluate the initially preferred alternatives with respect to terminal accessibility.

− Evaluate the initially preferred alternatives with respect to environmental and regulatory issues.

Page 15: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

1-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

− Evaluate the initially preferred alternatives with respect to effects on existing regional passenger and freight services.

− Quantify the capital, operating, and maintenance costs.

− Prepare summary assessment and draft statement of recommendations.

− Technical Memorandum on Task 4.

5. Project Documentation:

− Final Report and Final Abstract.

Substantive work on the LISWTP began in May 2002 and was originally planned to be completed within one year. The timeframe was subsequently been extended to allow for a much more significant degree of public outreach in the scoping and issues identification process, and to delay technical investigations until after public comment was complete. According to the revised schedule:

• Task 3 will be completed by September 30, 2003;

• Task 4 will be completed by December 1, 2003; and

• Task 5 will be completed by December 31, 2003.

A sixth task – an assessment of ferry services to/from the Hunts Point area of the Bronx, including but not limited to a freight ferry connection with JFK Airport – has been added to the project and will extend into calendar year 2004.

1.4 About This Report

This report represents the Technical Memorandum on Task 2, Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development. It addresses the specific technical subtasks identified in the Task 2 Scope of Work, along with some additional supporting investigations.

It should be noted that the order and organization of this report does not strictly follow the order of subtasks under Task 2. The materials developed as part of Task 2 have been re-organized around major thematic elements for easier reference and reading, and tech-nical “background” material (of interest generally to a more limited audience) has been placed in Appendices.

This document does not offer recommendations. It is intended as background informa-tion to support the development of recommendations in subsequent study phases.

Page 16: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2.0 The Role of Waterborne Transportation in Long Island Sound and the Region

Page 17: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1

2.0 The Role of Waterborne Transportation in Long Island Sound and the Region

2.1 Worldwide Ferry Operations

Data Sources

In order to compare and “size up” the New York City-Long Island Sound regional ferry market in relation to other markets throughout the world, the study team analyzed national and world ferry statistics. The two primary data sources for this analysis are:

1. ShipPax Information’s Statistics 02 world ferry data book; and

2. U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 1999 National Ferry Database (NFD).

The ShipPax ferry database is updated annually by ShipPax Information of Sweden. The company collects data from world ferry providers for a number of variables and the resulting database and annual statistics guide are recognized as the industry standard. For 2001, the ShipPax database contains passenger, vehicle, and truck freight totals. The ShipPax database also contains freight data for containerized freight (20-foot equivalent units or TEUs) and rail cars. In general, detailed data on freight units (TEUs and rail cars) is sparse in the ShipPax data.

Despite its best efforts to collect all world ferry data, ShipPax acknowledges that its data-base is far from complete. ShipPax avoids making estimates for ferry routes where data are not available, but the Statistics 02 book does contain an estimate for total world pas-senger, vehicle, and truck/trailer moves. Table 2.1 shows the collected totals against the estimated totals for world passenger, car, and truck/trailer moves. For the purposes of this analysis and the comparisons to the study area market, the ShipPax estimates will be used as world baseline totals. Table 2.1 shows both the collected totals and world esti-mates of total ferry service.

To give some perspective to these data, the annual total for ferry passengers is approxi-mately the same as annual world airline passengers. Thus, world ferry transportation is on par with world air transportation in the number of passengers carried on an annual basis.

Page 18: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 2.1 2001 World Ferry Industry Totals

Passengers Cars Trucks/Trailers

Estimated Total 1,000,000,000 150,000,000 25,000,000

Collected Total 810,802,112 124,647,680 20,018,693

Source: ShipPax Statistics 02.

The second set of data used for this analysis is the U.S. DOT’s National Ferry Database, or NFD. The NFD contains a wide array of variables describing ferry services, vessels, and ridership. The database, however, lacks any type of freight data beyond the recognition of some rail units moved by ferry. The database fails to differentiate, for example, between trucks and passenger vehicles; the NFD lists a single category for vehicles. Thus, freight data in this analysis is more readily available from the ShipPax data than from the NFD. Consequently, there is little freight data for ferries for this analysis of U.S. ferry operations.

Within this analysis, the NFD is the source of most U.S. ferry market because it provides a more comprehensive set of ferry service information than does ShipPax for the United States.

Domestic Markets (Moves within Countries)

Countries with domestic ferry markets have internal ferry services that move passengers and goods within their borders. These national markets are comprised of ferry services that link islands to mainland areas (Vancouver Island to Canada, for example), islands to other islands (Greek Islands, for example), and parts of cities set around waterways (Jersey City to Wall Street, for example). According to the ShipPax and NFD data, the United States has the highest annual passenger total of any single country, with more than 113 million riders accounting for roughly 13 percent of all world ferry ridership. Indonesia and Turkey are second and third, with nearly 91 million and 89 million annual passengers, respectively. China and Norway, with 65 million and 52 million annual pas-sengers respectively, round out the top five. Table 2.2 on the following page gives pas-senger, vehicle, and freight statistics for all 28 countries with at least one million annual passenger ferry trips.

Page 19: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-3

Table 2.2 Domestic Ferry Volumes (Internal Markets)

Rank Country Passengers Cars Buses Trucks/Trailers TEUs Rail Cars

1 United States1 113,300,000 32,200,000 260,814 11,432 2 Indonesia 90,811,000 3 Turkey 89,029,399 555,007 4 China 65,561,045 203,470 5 Norway 52,188,558 22,972,114 596,978 6 Greece 50,389,203 8,155,155 189,834 2,378,749 7 Philippines 47,671,866 8 Canada 35,713,225 12,946,816 59,893 475,108 16,200 9 Italy 32,788,435 4,099,381 25 1,652,725 246,845

10 Portugal 26,430,482 232,524 11 Denmark 26,142,927 9,814,985 63,332 1,258,966 12 Sweden 23,962,388 10,739,923 1,181 46,220 13 Russia 23,700,000 14 Brazil 22,548,727 599,124 4,591 6,766 15 Great Britain 21,826,451 4,748,847 51,478 1,553,919 16 Australia 16,030,961 143,124 17 Netherlands 6,754,358 2,667,085 1,400 72,666 18 Croatia 6,564,477 1,752,461 19 Germany 6,422,664 703,767 157 38,560 20 Spain2 5,304,300 905,426 637 137,972 34,632 21 Japan3 4,146,000 1,079,900 844 1,718,250 22 New Zealand 3,988,200 260,000 50,000 1,250,000 23 Guyana4 3,729,698 101,559 80,270 24 Malta 3,172,410 789,426 25 France 2,775,478 632,454 60,517 26 Finland 1,548,446 578,364 1,367 19,313 27 Estonia 1,312,487 431,393 28 Puerto Rico 1,132,244

Total 784,945,429 117,312,305 374,739 10,377,134 50,832 1,496,845

Source: Unless otherwise noted, all data adapted from Statistics 02: The Yearbook for Passenger Shipping Traffic Figures by ShipPax Information. Most data are 2001 and some are 2000.

Notes: Bus category includes caravans. Some trailer data based on estimates of lane meters of deck capacity. 1 Passenger and vehicle data are from ShipPax via “a passenger vessel association in the United

States.” The remaining data are from ShipPax. The U.S. DOT’s NFD shows approximately 113 million passengers and 32 million vehicles by ferry in 1999. Truck data are from the NFD and individual service providers in the New York City area.

2 Includes Spanish Enclaves Melia and Ceuta. 3 Includes only long-distance routes. Known as a much larger market. 4 Trucks includes buses.

Page 20: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

With approximately 32.2 million annual vehicle moves, or 21 percent of the world total, the United States also leads the world in ferry transport of cars. In this category, the United States is followed by Norway with 22 million annual car moves and by Canada and Sweden with approximately 13 million and 11 million annual car moves, respectively. In general, car ferry moves are highest in North America, Northern Europe, and Mediterranean Europe, including Greece, Italy, and Croatia. The Japanese ferry industry also moves more than one million cars per year.

A similar pattern is true for waterborne bus moves. The leading country for waterborne bus moves is Greece, followed by Denmark, Canada, and Great Britain. Data on bus moves, however, is limited in the ShipPax and NFD sources, and these countries may not represent the highest actual waterborne bus movements.

On the freight side, Greece leads the world in trucks and trailers transported by ferries, with nearly 2.3 million annual moves. Japan, Italy, Great Britain, and Denmark each move between one and two million trucks and trailers annually. Norway, Canada, the United States, and Spain each move more than 100,000 trucks and trailers annually. As noted in the tables in this section, the numbers of trucks and trailers moved in the United States is not accurate because, in both the ShipPax data and the NFD, trucks and trailers are aggre-gated with cars and other vehicles. The statistic provided for the United States for trucks and trailers represents data from individual service providers participating in this study.

Other important freight elements include containerized freight, represented in the pre-ceding table as TEUs and rail cars transported via ferry. In the container category, there are only two countries with data on internal container moves: Spain and Canada, which both move more than 15,000 containers each year between their respective mainlands and outlying islands. In the rail category, the data are also sparse at the domestic level. New Zealand leads the world outright in domestic waterborne transport of rail cars, with roughly 1.25 million annual moves between its North and South Islands. Italy also moves significant numbers of rail cars internally, especially between the Italian Peninsula and Sicily and Sardinia. Finally, the United States moves some internal rail cars by water. Most of the approximately 11,000 annual moves take place in New York Harbor; Hampton Roads, Virginia; and Alaska.

International Markets (Moves between Countries)

For passenger movement, the France-Great Britain market is the most important interna-tional market in the world, with nearly 38 million annual riders. Other important inter-national passenger markets include Denmark-Sweden (24 million), China-Macao (nearly 10 million), Finland-Sweden (8.8 million), and Indonesia-Singapore (8.6 million). The international region with the highest ridership is the Baltic Sea region, with more than 54.2 million annual international passenger moves. The English Channel ferries move 41 million annual international passengers and Southeast Asian ferry services transport nearly 18 million annual international passengers, mostly between Hong Kong and Macao and Singapore and Indonesia.

Page 21: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-5

The Canada-U.S. international market serves nearly one million passengers annually. Important U.S.-Canada ferry connections include Bay of Fundy service between Maine and Nova Scotia; services linking British Columbia to Washington State and Alaska; and some service on the Great Lakes between the two countries.

The leading international pair for vehicle moves is Great Britain-France followed closely by Denmark-Sweden with 6.2 and 5.2 million vehicles, respectively. Other European pairs, especially among the Baltic Sea countries, comprise the most important group of international vehicle markets. The U.S.-Canada market, for comparison, moves just more than 200,000 vehicles annually.

International goods movement via trucks and trailers by ferry is dominated by English Channel markets. The Great-Britain-France market alone moves more than three million annual trucks and trailers. Each of the Great Britain-Belgium, Great Britain-Netherlands, Denmark-Sweden, and Sweden-Germany markets transport more than 700,000 trucks and trailers per year. Other important ferry bridge service for trucks and trailers is Ireland to Great Britain (679,000) and Greece to Italy (400,000). Beyond inter-European connections, ferries carry at least 46,000 trucks and trailers annually between Spain and Morocco.

For other freight units, including TEUs and rail cars, the English Channel and Baltic Regions dominate the international ferry freight market. For TEUs, the markets are, in order, Great Britain-Belgium (250,000), Norway-Denmark (198,000), and Great Britain-Netherlands (34,000). For rail cars, the Belgium-Great Britain market dominates with roughly 550,000 annual rail car moves across the English Channel. Other markets include Germany-Sweden (98,000), Finland-Sweden (9,800), and Great Britain-Netherlands (7,000). The NFD shows an exchange of 33 rail cars by ferry for 1999 between the United States and Canada (Alaska and British Columbia).

Tables 2.3 and 2.4 on the following pages list international ferry markets of more than one million annual passengers, including the U.S.-Canada market.

Page 22: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 2.3 International Ferry Volumes, Passengers

Rank Market Passengers Cars Buses Trips PAX/Trip

1 France-Great Britain 37,993,434 6,262,150 221,024 55,091 690

2 Denmark-Sweden 24,037,994 5,243,703 81,020 115,377 208

3 China-Macao 9,792,867 58,015 169

4 Finland-Sweden 8,836,079 717,321 17,247 15,155 583

5 Indonesia-Singapore 8,611,000

6 Denmark-Germany 7,777,596 1,654,959 48,687 46,498 167

7 Estonia-Finland 5,968,067 232,308 11,291 8,648 690

8 Denmark-Norway 3,883,966 571,552 11,509 5,628 690

9 Great Britain-Ireland 3,854,398 844,018 16,365 13,772 280

10 Greece-Italy 2,671,583 511,961 12,778 8,491 315

11 Germany-Sweden1 2,424,544 424,120 10,124 15,919 152

12 Great Britain-Netherlands2 1,960,060 402,507 5,776 7,109 276

13 France-Italy 1,716,981 532,577 61 2,443 703

14 Argentina-Uruguay 1,688,726 154,050

15 Norway-Sweden 1,284,538 242,253 2,861 3,698 347

16 Belgium-Great Britain3 1,248,193 771,471 2,500 6,002 208

17 Morocco-Spain 1,106,174 244,142 4,365 2,104 526

18 Canada-United States 983,964 206,351 226 1,771 556

Source: Unless otherwise noted, all data adapted from Statistics 02: The Yearbook for Passenger Shipping Traffic Figures by ShipPax Information. Most data are 2001 and some are 2000.

Page 23: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-7

Table 2.4 International Ferry Volumes, Freight

Rank Market Trucks/Trailers TEUs Rail Cars

1 France-Great Britain 3,071,259

2 Belgium-Great Britain3 753,997 252,358 547,201

3 Great Britain-Netherlands2 742,744 34,701 7,219

4 Denmark-Sweden 740,120

5 Germany-Sweden1 700,357 98,696

6 Great Britain-Ireland 679,542

7 Greece-Italy 402,021

8 Denmark-Germany 347,306

9 Finland-Sweden 235,992 9,812

10 Denmark-Norway 105,454 197,905

11 Estonia-Finland 104,437

12 Morocco-Spain 46,509

13 Norway-Sweden 18,818

14 France-Italy 4,804

15 Canada-United States 2,701 33

Source: Unless otherwise noted, all data adapted from Statistics 02: The Yearbook for Passenger Shipping Traffic Figures by ShipPax Information. Most data are 2001 and some are 2000.

Notes: 1 Includes 2,339 passenger rail cars. 2 Trailers includes 1,400 trade cars and rail represents exp. cars. 3 Rail represents exp. cars.

Page 24: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Leading Ferry Origins and Destinations

These domestic and international markets define a series of major regional ferry services. These represent the leading origin-destination pairs for ferry travel, whether domestic or international, in the world today.

Among regional markets, Istanbul, Turkey, leads the world with annual passenger movements estimated at 89 million, or nearly nine percent of the world total. The Istanbul metropolis sprawls over two sides of the Bosporus Strait and, despite two large bridges connecting the European and Asian sides of the City, hundreds of thousands of daily commuters use ferries to cross the channel. Hong Kong, a similarly situated metropolis, ranks second to Istanbul with nearly 57 million annual passengers riding ferries between Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and myriad regional destinations. The New York City region is third in the world for passenger movements, with approximately 43 million. New York City is followed closely by the English Channel market between Great Britain and France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. That market accounts for 41 million annual passengers, a larger market share than the Channel Tunnel, which moves 17.8 million annual passengers by rail between Calais, France, and Folkstone, England.

Other important regional passenger ferry markets include Greece (subdivided into “island service” and “minor crossings”); Denmark; metropolitan Lisbon, Portugal (built over two sides of the Tejo River); the Puget Sound region of Washington State; British Columbia; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Sydney, Australia.

The Puget Sound market leads world regions in waterborne transport of cars. In that region, ferries move more than 11 million vehicles between various islands and mainland locations, including Seattle. Following Puget Sound are Denmark (9.8 million), British Columbia (7.7 million), and the English Channel region (7.4 million).

The undisputed regional leader for waterborne truck/trailer transportation is the English Channel, where more than 4.5 million trucks and trailers cross by ferry annually (18 percent of the world total). Connections between the Italian Peninsula and Sardinia and Sicily are the next two most important regional truck-by-ferry markets, serving two million and 1.45 million trucks and trailers annually. Overall, European regional markets overshadow all others in volume of trucks and trailers moved by ferry. The first non-European market on the list is Atlantic Maritime Canada, where approximately 144,000 trucks/trailers move by ferry each year. However, it should be acknowledged that part of this European dominance may be because of the lack of separation of trucks and trailers from other vehicles in the U.S. data from ShipPax and NFD.

Leading ferry volumes by origin-destination region are listed in Table 2.5 on the following page.

Page 25: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-9

Table 2.5 Leading Ferry Origin-Destination Volumes (International and Domestic Markets)

Rank Market Passengers Cars Buses Trucks/Trailers Rail Cars

1 Bosporus/Istanbul, Turkey1 89,029,399 555,007 2 Hong Kong, China 56,595,716 21,051 3 New York City Region, United States2 43,268,671 2,311,289 5,000 Staten Island 19,270,397 367,594 Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island –

New York-New Jersey 10,856,554

Hudson and New York-New Jersey 7,596,692 5,000 Long Island Sound (includes Shelter

Island)3 4,162,939 1,913,062 30,633

South Long Island 1,205,362 Brooklyn/Queens-Manhattan 176,727

4 English Channel4 41,201,687 7,436,128 229,300 4,566,600 5 Greece Minor Crossings 32,715,401 6,657,175 183,008 2,000 6 Lisbon-River Tejo, Portugal 26,231,296 209,276 7 Denmark 26,142,927 9,814,985 63,332 1,258,966 8 Puget Sound, United States 25,698,589 11,084,596 9 Denmark-Sweden 24,037,994 5,243,703 81,020 740,120

10 British Columbia, Canada 21,286,686 7,703,504 58,037 330,948 11 Greece Island Service 17,673,802 1,497,980 6,826 2,000 12 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 17,000,000 13 Sydney Harbor, Australia 14,915,000

Source: Unless otherwise noted, all data adapted from Statistics 02: The Yearbook for Passenger Shipping Traffic Figures by ShipPax Information. Most data are 2001 and some are 2000.

Notes: Small countries (Denmark, Greece, etc.) included as single regional markets. 1 Figure for Istanbul Fast Ferry Company (Deniz Otobusleri) from ShipPax and annual estimate of

other Bosporus ferry services from various sources. 2 From the U.S. DOT’s NFD, 1999, one-way trips. ShipPax New York estimate is 34,200,264 passen-

gers and 1,427,126 vehicles and does not include New York Fast Ferry and New York Water Taxi. 3 Truck totals provided for Fishers Island, Bridgeport & Port Jefferson, and Cross Sound services. 4 Includes Great Britain to France, Belgium, and Netherlands. The Channel Tunnel, by contrast,

carried 17.8 million passengers, 2.6 million vehicles, 75,000 buses, and 1.2 million trailers. Includes all moves, including North Sea ferries, between Netherlands and Great Britain.

5 Includes intra-island and Italian peninsula-island traffic. 6 Includes Shetlands, Orkneys, and Hebrides. 7 From the NFD, U.S. DOT 1999, vehicle figures include trucks and trailers. 7a From the NFD, U.S. DOT 1999, vehicle figures include trucks and trailers. Lake Champlain does

not include all services.

Page 26: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 2.5 Leading Ferry Origin-Destination Volumes (International and Domestic Markets) (continued)

Rank Market Passengers Cars Buses Trucks/Trailers Rail Cars

14 Texas Gulf Coast (Houston/Corpus Christi), United States

13,367,100 4,122,070 121,376

15 Sicily, Itlay5 11,935,696 772,759 1,451,718 216,979 16 China-Macao 9,792,867 17 Channel Islands, Great Britain 9,470,570 1,560,800 24,536 245,427 18 Finland-Sweden 8,836,079 717,321 17,247 235,992 19 Indonesia-Singapore 8,611,000 20 Italian Lakes 8,000,000 21 Denmark-Germany 7,777,596 1,654,959 48,687 347,306 22 Estonia-Finland 5,968,067 232,308 11,291 104,437 23 San Francisco Bay, United States 5,920,964 24 Salvador-Itaparica, Brazil 5,548,727 581,353 22,362 6,766 25 St. Lawrence River – Quebec, Canada 5,442,168 2,497,025 26 Sardinia, Italy5 5,391,718 1,530,485 2,068,499 29,866 27 New Orleans/Mississippi Delta,

United States 7 4,321,884 2,528,939

28 Glasgow-Clyde, Scotland6 4,123,975 1,069,975 9,576 52,427 29 Martha’s Vineyard/Nantucket,

Massachusetts, United States7 4,029,291 576,000 108,805

30 Denmark-Norway 3,883,966 571,552 11,509 105,454 31 Great Britain-Ireland 3,854,398 844,018 16,365 679,542 32 Irish Sea (England/Scotland to

N. Ireland), Great Britain 3,248,146 727,684 7,545 696,335

Source: Unless otherwise noted, all data adapted from Statistics 02: The Yearbook for Passenger Shipping Traffic Figures by ShipPax Information. Most data are 2001 and some are 2000.

Notes: Small countries (Denmark, Greece, etc.) included as single regional markets. 1 Figure for Istanbul Fast Ferry Company (Deniz Otobusleri) from ShipPax and annual estimate of

other Bosporus ferry services from various sources. 2 From the U.S. DOT’s NFD, 1999, one-way trips. ShipPax New York estimate is 34,200,264 passen-

gers and 1,427,126 vehicles and does not include New York Fast Ferry and New York Water Taxi. 3 Truck totals provided for Fishers Island, Bridgeport & Port Jefferson, and Cross Sound services. 4 Includes Great Britain to France, Belgium, and Netherlands. The Channel Tunnel, by contrast,

carried 17.8 million passengers, 2.6 million vehicles, 75,000 buses, and 1.2 million trailers. Includes all moves, including North Sea ferries, between Netherlands and Great Britain.

5 Includes intra-island and Italian peninsula-island traffic. 6 Includes Shetlands, Orkneys, and Hebrides. 7 From the NFD, U.S. DOT 1999, vehicle figures include trucks and trailers. 7a From the NFD, U.S. DOT 1999, vehicle figures include trucks and trailers. Lake Champlain does

not include all services.

Page 27: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-11

Table 2.5 Leading Ferry Origin-Destination Volumes (International and Domestic Markets) (continued)

Rank Market Passengers Cars Buses Trucks/Trailers Rail Cars

33 China Coastal 3,200,000 178,663 34 Malta 3,172,410 789,426 35 Strait of Gibraltar Morocco-Spain-

Spanish Enclaves 3,093,865 608,354 4,365 66,164

36 London-Themes, Great Britain 2,790,260 809,650 4,481 315,511 37 Auckland Harbor, New Zealand 2,788,200 38 Los Angeles/Channel Islands,

California, United States7 2,733,179 293,716

39 Hampton Roads, Virginia7 2,672,017 912,617 4,400 40 Greece-Italy 2,671,583 511,961 12,778 402,021 41 North Carolina Rivers and Coast,

United States7 2,525,622 1,008,753

42 Upper Great Lakes, Michigan and Wisconsin, United States7

2,503,864 709,486

43 Atlantic Maritime Canada 2,442,041 869,233 2,662 144,160 44 Boston, Massachusetts, United States7 2,427,279 202,207

Source: Unless otherwise noted, all data adapted from Statistics 02: The Yearbook for Passenger Shipping Traffic Figures by ShipPax Information. Most data are 2001 and some are 2000.

Notes: Small countries (Denmark, Greece, etc.) included as single regional markets. 1 Figure for Istanbul Fast Ferry Company (Deniz Otobusleri) from ShipPax and annual estimate of

other Bosporus ferry services from various sources. 2 From the U.S. DOT’s NFD, 1999, one-way trips. ShipPax New York estimate is 34,200,264 passen-

gers and 1,427,126 vehicles and does not include New York Fast Ferry and New York Water Taxi. 3 Truck totals provided for Fishers Island, Bridgeport & Port Jefferson, and Cross Sound services. 4 Includes Great Britain to France, Belgium, and Netherlands. The Channel Tunnel, by contrast,

carried 17.8 million passengers, 2.6 million vehicles, 75,000 buses, and 1.2 million trailers. Includes all moves, including North Sea ferries, between Netherlands and Great Britain.

5 Includes intra-island and Italian peninsula-island traffic. 6 Includes Shetlands, Orkneys, and Hebrides. 7 From the NFD, U.S. DOT 1999, vehicle figures include trucks and trailers. 7a From the NFD, U.S. DOT 1999, vehicle figures include trucks and trailers. Lake Champlain does

not include all services.

Page 28: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

For other freight elements at a regional level (TEUs and rail cars), the same conclusions apply as those presented for world domestic markets, but are broken down into regional totals. For example, Canada’s total TEUs are wholly represented by Atlantic Maritime region shipments (New Brunswick/Newfoundland/Nova Scotia). For rail cars, the regional leader is New Zealand’s North-South Island market followed by Italy-Sicily (more than 216,000) and Italy-Sardinia (nearly 30,000 annual rail cars). The U.S. rail car movements, mentioned previously, are comprised mostly of regional movements in New York Harbor and Hampton Roads, Virginia.

North American Ferry Markets

The North American ferry market list is comprised of the U.S. and Canadian regional ferry markets discussed above. Major ferry markets of North America generally consist of the following types, classified by primary function:

• Commuting: Major metropolitan areas spanning bays, rivers, lakes, and other water-ways (San Francisco Bay, for example);

• Recreational: Major recreational areas on barrier islands, lakes, coastal areas, or rivers (Delaware Bay, for example); and

• Functional: Markets that serve a combination of ordinary/commuting and recrea-tional needs located in areas inaccessible by most other travel modes (British Columbian Islands, for example).

There are many North American ferry markets beneath the one million annual ridership threshold. Before detailing the large markets, it is important to at least mention some of the smaller ones. Many small ferry markets exist, for example, on the many rivers of the Southern and Central United States, including the Mississippi and Ohio River basins. Some small services cross the Intracoastal Waterway along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Important services operate on the Ohio River in Kentucky, the St. John’s River near Jacksonville, Florida, and on the Monongahela River near Pittsburgh. Ferries link com-munities on opposite sides of the Columbia and Willamette Rivers in the Pacific Northwest. Nearly 500,000 annual passengers cross San Diego Bay by ferry. The Chesapeake Bay and its various tributary rivers constitute a market that moves more than 900,000 passengers and 700,000 cars each year. Small, yet important services carry pas-sengers and vehicles in diverse locations such as Dubuque, Iowa (Mississippi River), and Bullfrog, Utah (Lake Powell). And the United States and Mexico are linked by a hand-drawn, three-car ferry across the Rio Grande River between Los Ebanos, Texas, and Diaz Ordaz, Mexico. That small international system carries approximately 122,000 passengers and 77,000 cars annually.

North American markets are summarized in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 on the following pages.

Page 29: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-13

Table 2.6 North American Passenger Ferry Volumes (U.S. and Canada Markets of More Than One Million Annual Passengers)

Rank World Rank Market Passengers Cars Buses

1 3 New York City Region, United States1 43,268,671 2,311,289 Staten Island 19,270,397 367,594 Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island – New York-New Jersey 10,856,554 Hudson and New York-New Jersey 7,596,692 Long Island Sound (includes Shelter Island)2 4,162,939 1,913,062 South Long Island 1,205,362 Brooklyn/Queens-Manhattan 176,727

2 8 Puget Sound 25,698,589 11,084,596 3 10 British Columbia Canada 21,286,686 7,703,504 58,037 4 14 Texas Gulf Coast (Houston/Corpus Christi) 13,367,100 4,122,070 5 23 San Francisco Bay 5,920,964 6 25 St. Lawrence River – Quebec Canada 5,442,168 2,497,025 7 27 New Orleans/Mississippi Delta 4,321,884 2,528,939 8 29 Martha’s Vineyard/Nantucket Massachusetts 4,029,291 576,000 9 39 Los Angeles/Channel Islands California 2,733,179 293,716

10 40 Hampton Roads Virginia 2,672,017 912,617 11 42 North Carolina Rivers and Coast 2,525,622 1,008,753 12 43 Upper Great Lakes Michigan/Wisconsin 2,503,864 709,486 13 44 Atlantic Maritime Canada 2,442,041 869,233 2,662 14 45 Boston Massachusetts 2,427,279 202,207 15 50 Lake Champlain (Charlotte to Essex) 1,978,040 1,041,074 16 51 Maine 1,959,088 292,344 17 56 Delaware Bay/Philadelphia 1,586,299 394,235 18 59 Detroit/Windsor United States-Canada 1,220,546 946,755 19 61 St. Louis Missouri 1,024,965 854,138 20 62 Canada-U.S. West Coast 565,464 121,923 21 63 Canada-U.S. East Coast 418,500 84,428 226

Total 190,660,928 40,834,988 60,925

Source: Unless otherwise noted, all data adapted from Statistics 02: The Yearbook for Passenger Shipping Traffic Figures by ShipPax Information. Most data are 2001 and some are 2000. U.S. data are from the U.S. DOT’s NFD unless otherwise noted.

Notes: The NFD data on cars represent trucks and cars. 1 From the U.S. DOT’s NFD, 1999 one-way trips. ShipPax New York estimate is 34,200,264 passen-

gers and 1,427,126 vehicles and does not include New York Fast Ferry and New York Water Taxi.

Page 30: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 2.7 North American Freight Ferry Volumes for Leading U.S. and Canadian Passenger Markets

Market Trucks/Trailers Rail Cars

New York City Region, United States1 5,000 Staten Island Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island – New York-New Jersey Hudson and New York-New Jersey 5,000 Long Island Sound (includes Shelter Island)2 30,633 South Long Island Brooklyn/Queens-Manhattan

Puget Sound British Columbia Canada 330,948 Texas Gulf Coast (Houston/Corpus Christi) 121,376 San Francisco Bay St. Lawrence River – Quebec Canada New Orleans/Mississippi Delta Martha’s Vineyard/Nantucket Massachusetts 108,805 Los Angeles/Channel Islands California Hampton Roads Virginia 4,400 North Carolina Rivers and Coast Upper Great Lakes Michigan/Wisconsin Atlantic Maritime Canada 144,160 Boston Massachusetts Lake Champlain (Charlotte to Essex) Maine Delaware Bay/Philadelphia Detroit/Windsor United States-Canada St. Louis Missouri Canada-U.S. West Coast Canada-U.S. East Coast 2,701

Total 738,623 14,400

Source: Unless otherwise noted, all data adapted from Statistics 02: The Yearbook for Passenger Shipping Traffic Figures by ShipPax Information. Most data are 2001 and some are 2000. U.S. data are from the U.S. DOT’s NFD unless otherwise noted.

Notes: The NFD data on cars represent trucks and cars. 1 From the U.S. DOT’s NFD, 1999 one-way trips. ShipPax New York esti-

mate is 34,200,264 passengers and 1,427,126 vehicles and does not include New York Fast Ferry and New York Water Taxi.

Page 31: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-15

Alaska has the most extensive route system but only a fraction of the total U.S. ridership (approximately 617,000). The highest ridership of any of the Alaska routes, the Ketchikan International Airport ferry to downtown Ketchikan from the airport’s Gravina Island location, accounts for approximately 62 percent of total state passenger traffic and 57 percent of total annual vehicle traffic. The remaining passengers and vehicles are dis-tributed among hundreds of miles of additional routes.

With more than 43 million annual riders, the New York City-Long Island Sound market is the largest passenger ferry market in North America. The next largest North American market is Puget Sound, with 25.6 million annual passengers. British Columbia is third, with approximately 21 million annual passengers. Long Island Sound, as a subregion of the New York regional market, accounts for more than 4.1 million annual passengers.

The study area region is the sixth largest ferry market for vehicle transportation in North America. The New York City-Long Island Sound market is around 2.3 million annual vehicles – trailing Puget Sound (11 million), British Columbia (7.7 million), Texas Gulf Coast (4.1 million), the New Orleans/Mississippi Delta (2.5 million) and Quebec/ St. Lawrence River (2.5 million) markets for annual movement of vehicles by ferry. Long Island Sound accounts for more than 1.9 million of the 2.3 million vehicles handled within the New York City-Long Island Sound market region.

As mentioned previously, the NFD lacks freight data variables and fails to separate trucks and trailers from vehicle totals. Thus, for this analysis, the freight data sources are either ShipPax or individual ferry operators surveyed as part of this study. The existing freight data show that British Columbia is the largest known truck/trailer ferry market in North America with 330,000 annual moves. Ferry services in Atlantic Maritime Canada, the Texas Gulf Coast, and Martha’s Vineyard/Nantucket markets each carry more than 100,000 trucks and trailers annually. The reported total of 30,633 for the New York region represents trucks carried by the Fishers Island, Cross Sound, and Port Jefferson and Bridgeport services. This total does not include trucks moved by any other service in the region, including the Staten Island or Shelter Island ferries.

The ShipPax data show 16,200 TEUs moved by ferry in Atlantic Maritime Canada. There is no other record of containerized ferry shipments in North America. However, as men-tioned previously, there is some movement of rail cars by ferry in North America. In that category, the New York City region is the leading market with an estimated 5,000 annual rail cars moved between Greenville Yard in New Jersey and South Brooklyn via the Cross Harbor Float Bridge. Another rail float operation near Norfolk, Virginia (Hampton Roads), moves approximately 4,400 rail cars each year.

The New York City-Long Island Sound region is not currently a strong market for freight transportation by ferry. In comparison to similarly sized European markets, including those with fixed highway and rail links, the study area region moves a low proportion of goods by truck or trailer via ferry. However, the analysis shows that the New York City-Long Island Sound region is one of the largest passenger markets in the world and the largest in North America, and that Long Island Sound itself is a critical link for moving passengers and vehicles within the region’s overall transportation network.

Page 32: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

2.2 History of Ferries on Long Island Sound

Ferry service in the Long Island Sound region has existed in various forms since the Colonial period. This section of the Technical Memorandum outlines important and note-worthy events in ferry and maritime history in the Long Island Sound region. Data sources for this historical survey are diverse, including local histories, ferry operation histories, past technical studies, and regional news sources. Pertinent historical events are presented in this section along a timeline, beginning with the oldest operating ferry ser-vice in the United States in Connecticut. The following timeline is by no means compre-hensive. Its purpose is to present important events that portray the advance and decline of ferry technologies, services, and demand in Long Island Sound region. Other impor-tant maritime and ferry related events are also included.

Timeline of Ferry Service on Long Island Sound

1655 – Rocky Hill-Glastonbury (Connecticut) Ferry begins carrying passengers across the Connecticut River just south of Hartford on a small raft with push polls. From push polls, the ferry graduated to horse-on-treadmill power, steam in 1876, and finally diesel. The ferry is the oldest continually operating service in the United States.1

1600s to early 1700s – Early sailing operations were preferable to the bumpy ride of overland stage coaches for travel between the New York City area and points in Long Island and New England. Most journeys were coastal rather than cross-sound because of unpredictable tides and wind.2

Early 1700s to 1815 – Horse-powered ferries run regularly scheduled services in Long Island Sound using horses on treadmills to power paddlewheels. This improved reliabil-ity somewhat over sailing vessels until the arrival of steam to the Sound in 1815.3

1739 – Rye-Oyster Bay Ferry commences operations, linking Westchester County to Long Island.4

1 History of Chester-Hadlyme Ferry from the Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of

Aviation and Ports. (http://www.dot.state.ct.us/bureau/ap/app?rock.html) 2 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study. 1991. 3 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “Shipshape in Suffolk” by Bill Bleyer.

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs518a.htm) 4 The History of the City of Rye, New York. Excerpted from Kaiser Publications on the Rye

municipal web site. (http://www.ci.rye.ny.us/content_gen_info_home.htm)

Page 33: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-17

1741 – Oyster Bay-Connecticut ferry capsizes in a storm. The horse-powered ferry, oper-ated by Thomas Jones, is destroyed in a storm, killing 10 passengers, including six slaves, and six horses.5

1754 – New Rochelle-Cow Neck (Port Washington) ferry service begins, followed later by the “Hugenot” ferry between New Rochelle and Sea Cliff on Long Island.6

1765 – Ferry service from Huntington to Connecticut begins. The service continued until 1916.7

1769 – Chester-Hadlyme (Connecticut) Ferry begins service, connecting King’s Highway in Fort Hill, Parish of Chester, to Norwich Road in Lyme. Throughout the Revolutionary War, the ferry transported supplies across the Connecticut River. From 1769 to the arrival of a steam-powered barge in 1879, oarsmen pushed the ferry using long polls. The ferry was privately operated until 1917 when it was acquired by the Connecticut Department of Transportation.8

Late 1770s – Sag Harbor is an important Revolutionary War port to the British, who con-trolled Long Island from early in the war. Sag Harbor continued to be important as a port of entry with a customs house after the war and as the whaling capital of the region through the 1840s.9

Late 1700s to Late 1800s – Suffolk County is New York State’s second largest ship-building center outside of Brooklyn/New York City. More than 327 wooden vessels were constructed in the County between the late 1700s and 1884. Port Jefferson was the leading shipyard in the County, with other important yards at Northport and Greenport.10

5 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “Shipshape in Suffolk” by Bill Bleyer.

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs518a.htm) 6 New Rochelle City History. (http://www.newrochelleny.com/18thcentury.html) 7 Newsday’s L.I. History.com.

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/spectown/hist006i.htm) 8 History of Chester-Hadlyme Ferry from the Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of

Aviation and Ports. (http://www.dot.state.ct.us/bureau/ap/app?rock.html) 9 Shelter-Island.org. A Brief History. (www.shelter-island.org/history.html) and Newsday’s L.I.

History.com. “Sag Harbor, a Port Bigger than New York” by Bill Bleyer. (http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/spectown/hist006c.htm)

10 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “Shipshape in Suffolk” by Bill Bleyer. (http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs518a.htm)

Page 34: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Late 1700s – Shelter Island Ferry begins service between Shelter Island and Greenport operated by Samuel G. Clark. Later, Clark sold his original ferry business and started a rowboat service between North Haven and Shelter Island (South Ferry).11

1781 – British warship Culloden runs aground at Montauk. Most of the crew survived during the accident caused by a Nor’easter.12

1880s to 1920s – Ferry service between Manhattan and Sea Cliff transports vacationers to the Village of Sea Cliff on steamboats.13

1800s – Sag Harbor and Greenport are important fishing and whaling ports with many vessels operating in the region. In 1850, a whale was caught in the channel between Greenport and Shelter Island.14

1815 – The steam-powered “Fulton” sails through Hell Gate, marking the arrival of steam ships to the Long Island Sound region. Fulton’s North Hudson River Steamboat Company ran regularly scheduled trips on the Sound between New York and New England and Connecticut shore locations, especially between Bridgeport and New Haven.15

1829 – Glen Cove steamboat service begins with regularly scheduled trips on the Linnaeus to other Long Island ports.16

1836 – Steamboat service from Port Washington to Manhattan begins operating.17

11 South Ferry Incorporated. Shelter Island South Ferry History Page.

(www.pagelinx.com/sisferry/hist.htm) 12 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “The Wreck of the Lexington” by Bill Bleyer.

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs513a.htm) 13 Newsday Time Machine. L.I. History.com.

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/tmachine/htim618.htm) 14 Shelter-Island.org. A Brief History. (www.shelter-island.org/history.html) 15 The Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Company. Centennial History. 1983; and Port

Authority of New York and New Jersey. Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study. 1991. 16 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “Shipshape in Suffolk” by Bill Bleyer.

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs518a.htm) 17 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “Port Washington: A Suburb That’s United in Diversity” by Rhonda

Amon. (http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/spectown/hist003o.htm)

Page 35: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-19

1838 – The Jakobson Shipyard is founded in Oyster Bay. Founded during World War II, the shipyard built naval vessels and tugboats; it was the largest tugboat facility east other Mississippi until ceasing operations in 1993.18

1840 – The Steamboat Lexington burns and sinks four miles off Eatons Neck en route from Manhattan to Stonington, Connecticut. One hundred forty passengers and crew perish.19

1844 – The Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) is completed from Brooklyn to Greenport to provide an efficient transportation link between Boston and New York City. The rail link was originally built on Long Island instead of Connecticut because of the Island’s gentle topography.20

1844 – Ferry services are started in conjunction with LIRR to move goods and freight between the Island and mainland and especially between Greenport and Stonington, Connecticut, to transfer to the Old Colony Railroad to continue to Boston.21

1847 – Ferries cease operation in the eastern Sound because of LIRR completion. Ferry operations in the Eastern Sound cannot compete with railway links to New England, including the soon-to-be-completed New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad (1850), which established a direct rail link between New York City and Boston.22

1850s to 1937 – The Bayville-Oyster Bay Water Taxi and Bayville-Stamford ferry connect Bayville to the rest of Long Island and Connecticut.23

Early 1850s – Steamboats operate from Lloyd Neck and Port Jefferson, carrying passen-gers and freight.24

18 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “Oyster Bay Hamlet: A Place the President Made Famous” by Bill

Bleyer. (http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/spectown/hist003h.htm) 19 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “The Wreck of the Lexington” by Bill Bleyer.

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs513a.htm) 20 Long Island Rail Road History web site. (http://www.lirrhistory.com/) 21 Long Island Rail Road Historical Society Homepage.

(http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/lirrhs.html) 22 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study.

1991; and Long Island Rail Road Historical Society Homepage. (http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/lirrhs.html)

23 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. (http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/spectown/hist002o.htm)

24 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “Shipshape in Suffolk” by Bill Bleyer. (http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs518a.htm)

Page 36: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

1859 – North/South Fork steamboat service to New York City begins, serving Sag Harbor, Greenport, and Orient en route to and from New York.25

1870s – Regularly scheduled sailing ships run between Port Jefferson and Bridgeport. The sloop service carried both passengers and freight.26

1871 – Shelter Island becomes a summer tourist destination with the opening of the Prospect resort (now the Chequit Inn). Summer residents traveled to the area via ship from New York City to Greenport.27

1879 – A tourist ferry links New York City to Glen Island (New Rochelle). The service, owned and operated by former U.S. Congressman John H. Starin, consisted of 12 steam-boats that carried several million New York residents to a recreation area, zoo, and theme park on Glen Island.28

1880s to 1890s – Long Island Rail Road reaches additional shore destinations of the Sound, including extensions to Northport (1867); Glen Cove (1868); Sag Harbor (1870); Port Jefferson (1873); Montauk (1881); Whitestone (1886); Oyster Bay (1889); Wading River (1895); and Port Washington (1898).29

1883 – Bridgeport, Port Jefferson & Steamboat Company formed to increase the reliabil-ity of shipments of agricultural products from the farms of Long Island to the industrial Northeast and to provide a more comfortable ride than sailing sloops. Summer service consisted of multiple daily round trips; with several weekly round trips the rest of the year. The service took advantage of intermodal rail connections on both sides of the Sound.30

1888 – The Shelter Island Ferry expands to haul carriages and cargo behind a 32-foot boat. The Clark family continues to own and operate the service, expanding several more times with larger craft through the early 1900s.31

25 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “Shipshape in Suffolk” by Bill Bleyer.

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs518a.htm) 26 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study.

1991. 27 Shelter-Island.org. A Brief History. (www.shelter-island.org/history.html) 28 New Rochelle City History. (http://www.newrochelleny.com/19thcentury.html) 29 Long Island Rail Road Historical Society Homepage.

(http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/lirrhs.html); and Long Island Rail Road History Page. (http://www.lirrhistory.com/)

30 The Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Company. Centennial History. 1983; and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study. 1991.

31 South Ferry Incorporated. Shelter Island South Ferry History Page. (www.pagelinx.com/sisferry/hist.htm)

Page 37: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-21

1890s – Regular steamboat ferry service operates between Manhattan and Western Long Island. Destinations included the Sunken Meadows area served by the New York & College Point Ferry Company.32

1892 – Ferry service operates in Oyster Bay Sound.33

1904 – Slocum excursion steamer burns and sinks in the East River en route from Manhattan to picnic grounds on Long Island. Approximately 1,000 perish.34

1927 – The Montauk Steamboat Company ceases operations to the East End. The com-pany, a subsidiary of the Long Island Rail Road, operated between New York, Greenport, and Sag Harbor.35

1930s – New York-Rye ferry service brings visitors from Manhattan to Rye Beach Playland, a 60-acre Art Deco-style amusement park.36

1931 – New Rochelle-Port Washington service begins transporting passengers, automo-biles, and freight between a slip on Fort Slocum Road in New Rochelle to Port Washington. The service is operated by Electric Ferries.37

1938 – The Hurricane of 1938 devastates the region and nearly sinks Bridgeport & Port Jefferson’s Park City near Bridgeport.38

1938 to 1939 – The LIRR abandons extensions to the Sound shore. In 1938, the LIRR abandons the Wading River extension; in 1939 the Sag Harbor extension.39

32 Cudahy, Brian J. 1990. Over and Back: The History of Ferryboats in New York Harbor. New

York City, Fordham University Press. 33 Long Island Rail Road Historical Society Homepage.

(http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/lirrhs.html) 34 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “The General Slocum Disaster” by Bill Bleyer.

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/7/hs743a.htm) 35 Cudahy, Brian J. 1990. Over and Back: The History of Ferryboats in New York Harbor. New

York City, Fordham University Press. 36 A brief history of the Westchester County Sound Shore. (http://www.hvp.com/hist.html) 37 Cudahy, Brian J. 1990. Over and Back: The History of Ferryboats in New York Harbor. New

York City, Fordham University Press; and New Rochelle City History. (http://www.newrochelleny.com/20thcentury.html)

38 The Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Company. 39 Long Island Rail Road History web site. (http://www.lirrhistory.com/)

Page 38: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-22 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

1940 – Cross Sound Ferry begins seasonal service between Orient Point, New York, and New London, Connecticut.40

1946 – Bridgeport services to Rye and New York City are suspended.41

1951 – The Forsberg family establishes the Viking Fleet in Montauk. The operation spe-cializes in fishing charter services and later adds ferry services to Block Island. Viking is currently the largest privately owned fishing fleet on the Northeast coast.42

1962 – The Tugboat Gwendoline Steers sinks during a storm with 95 mph gales. All nine aboard perished.43

1975 – Cross Sound expands to year-round service with John P. Wronowski’s acquisition of New London Freight Lines.44

Mid-1980s – Glen Cove to Manhattan ferry operates.

Mid-1980s – Delta and Pan Am Shuttles operate from LaGuardia.

Early 1990s – Shelter Island South Ferry enhances North Haven dock with a new plat-form and jetty built from dock piling from the Staten Island ferry slips.45 Early 2000s – Fox Navigation operates between Glen Cove-New London and Glen Cove-Manhattan.

Early 2000s – Delta Shuttle operates from LaGuardia.

April 27, 2003 – Cross Sound Purchases the Grand Republic from the Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Ferry Company to replace an aging ferry and increase capacity on its New London-Orient Point route.46

40 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study.

1991. 41 The Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Company. Centennial History. 1983. 42 Interview with Eleanor Donnelley, General Manager, and Paul Forsberg, Owner, of Viking in

July 2002. 43 Newsday’s L.I. History.com. “Claimed by the Sea: Twenty Prominent Local Shipwrecks.”

(http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs513b.htm) 44 Cross Sound Ferry Services. Cross Sounder, Summer 2002. 45 South Ferry Incorporated. Shelter Island South Ferry History Page.

(www.pagelinx.com/sisferry/hist.htm) 46 Newsday. April 27, 2003. “Ferry Co. Makes Waves” by Bill Bleyer.

Page 39: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-23

2.3 Current Ferry Operations on Long Island Sound

Oars and sails, horses and steam, and finally diesel have powered waterborne services in the Sound for more than 300 years. Ferries rose to prominence before the railway era and became the mode of choice for vacationers and some commuters during the decades pre-ceding the Stock Market Crash of 1929. The ensuing Great Depression and competition from highways led to the demise of most Sound ferry services. Today, as increasing highway demand and tourism opportunities push ferry ridership upward, ferry services in the Sound region stands to benefit from a new shift toward levels of historic demand for waterborne transportation.

Currently existing ferry services thrive in the eastern portion of the study area. Year-round services include:

• The Bridgeport-Port Jefferson Ferry, which carried 815,157 passengers (including vehi-cle drivers) and 422,023 vehicles in 2000; of these, 8,733 were commercial vehicles.

• The Cross Sound Ferry, which carried 1,114,843 passengers and 377,977 vehicles in 2000.

• The two Shelter Island ferries, connecting the North and South Forks of Long Island (approximately 1,000,000 vehicles per year).

• The Fishers Island Ferry between New London and Fishers Island (156,400 passengers, 40,900 cars, and 4,900 trucks in 1997).

• The Block Island Ferry from Providence and Newport (approximately 6,500 to 9,000 annual passengers).

During the summer holiday season, demand for ferry service in the sound expands dra-matically. Year-round ferry services use more frequent vessel sailings to accommodate increased demand, and several seasonal ferry services provide additional capacity on popular summer routes. These include:

• Viking Fleet’s passenger ferry service from Montauk to New London (approximately 2,500 to 4,000 passengers per season) and Block Island (approximately 25,000 to 50,000 passengers per season).

• A high-speed passenger service from Point Judith to Block Island.

• Interstate Navigation Company’s ferry service to Block Island from New London and Newport.

Figure 2.1 shows the location of each of these ferry services, and potential connections to existing regional passenger rail service.

Page 40: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-24 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 2.1 Regional Ferry Routes

North Haven

Ferries are a flexible and cost-effective transportation service that can be tailored to suite the specific attributes of the route served. Table 2.8 contains a summary of the existing services, including the frequency of service and example fares for comparison between services. In actuality, the schedules and fare structures of the various ferries differ greatly and include volume discounts, size-based pricing, round-trip discounts, and bicycle/ motorcycle rates. The fares included below are calculated for comparison purposes, using a standard car, walk-on passenger, and truck for each service’s method of calculating fare. As would be expected, fares for similar services on competing routes are relatively close to each other.

There is, however, a remarkable degree of variation in service characteristics – service fre-quency, for example, ranges from one round trip per day on longer excursion routes to 122 round trips on short commuter services.

Page 41: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-25

Table 2.8 Ferry Services in Long Island Sound

Route Operator Round Trip

Sailings per Day Season Example Fares*

Bridgeport to Port Jefferson

Bridgeport Port Jefferson Ferry Company

11 (winter) 16 (summer)

Year-Round Auto (with driver) Walk-on Passenger Truck (with driver)

$38.50 $14.00

$101.00

New London to Orient Point

Cross Sound Ferry Company

15 (winter) 22 (summer)

Year-Round Auto (with driver) Walk-on Passenger Truck (with driver)

$36.00 $10.00

$106.00

New London to Orient Point (Sea Jet)

Cross Sound Ferry Company

5-6 Year-Round Walk-on Passenger $15.50

Greenport to Shelter Island Highlands

North Ferry Co. Up to 60 (demand responsive)

Year-Round Auto (with driver) Walk-on Passenger Truck (with driver)

$8.00 $1.00

$29.00

North Haven to Shelter Island

Shelter Island South Ferry, Inc.

Up to 109 (winter) Up to 122 (summer)

Year-Round Auto (with driver) Walk-on Passenger

$7.00 $1.00

Montauk to Block Island

Viking Fleet 1 (daily mid-Jun. to mid-Sept.; Fri.-Sun.

otherwise)

May 8-Oct. 12 Walk-on Passenger $17.00

Montauk to New London

Viking Fleet 1 (Fri. and Sun.) May 22-Sept. 7 Walk-on Passenger $17.00

New London to Block Island

Interstate Navigation Company

1 (daily) 2 (Friday)

Jun. 8-Sept. 8 Auto (with driver) Walk-on Passenger

$25.00 $13.50

New London to Fishers Island

Fishers Island Ferry District

4 (winter weekend) 7 (shoulder Friday) summer schedule not

available

Year-Round Auto (with driver) Walk-on Passenger Truck (with driver)

$27.00 $7.50

$132.00

Point Judith to Block Island (High-Speed)

Island Hi-Speed Ferry

schedule not available

Mid-May to mid-Oct.

Walk-on Passenger $14.00

Point Judith to Block Island

Interstate Navigation Company

1 (winter weekend) 10 (summer)

Year-Round Auto (with driver) Walk-on Passenger Truck (with driver)

$25.95 $8.30

$203.84

Newport to Block Island

Interstate Navigation Company

1 (daily) Jun. 29 to Sept. 3 Walk-on Passenger $8.25

Note: * Example fares for comparison are calculated using one-way peak fares for: 1) passenger car with driver; 2) adult walk-on passenger; and 3) 52-foot tractor-trailer truck (40-foot container length).

Page 42: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-26 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

In addition to these current services within the region, Viking Fleet also operates a sea-sonal service from Montauk to Martha’s Vineyard.

Until 2002, Fox Navigation also ran a high-speed commuter ferry from Glen Cove to Lower Manhattan, and high-speed excursion services from Glen Cove to New London, and from New London to Martha’s Vineyard. The commuter service was discontinued in November 2002. The two excursion services had not been offered during the previous season.

Finally, it is worth noting that passenger ferry service in New York Harbor has seen a major renaissance over the past two decades, after a prolonged period of decline. There are currently four private carriers (New York Waterways, Seastreak, New York Water Taxi, and Liberty Park Water Taxi), as well as the Staten Island ferry, providing service on more than a dozen routes. After the September 11, 2001 attacks and loss of the World Trade Center PATH train, cross Hudson ferry ridership increased by an estimated eight million annual passengers.

Figure 2.2 Passenger Ferry Services in New York Harbor

Page 43: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-27

2.4 Current Freight Barges and Vessels on Long Island Sound

Car ferries operating on Long Island Sound also accommodate trucks, but the volumes are relatively low. There are currently no railcar ferries operating on the Sound. Most of the waterborne freight moving within the Sound is handled by freight-only barges and deep-draft ocean-going cargo vessels.

Freight-only barges and vessels operate extensively within the Sound, calling at a variety of major marine terminals within the region. Marine freight serves a significant role in the region’s transportation system, both for domestic cargo and for international import/ export cargo. Figure 2.3 shows the location of major cargo port facilities in the region. The Port of New York and New Jersey is by far the largest port complex, with 138.7 million annual short tons of international and domestic maritime traffic. New Haven and Providence also had significant marine traffic of 10.6 and 8.9 million short tons in 2000. Other ports around the region serve primarily local demand.

Figure 2.3 Port Commerce Around Long Island Sound, Year 2000

Page 44: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

2-28 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 2.3 also illustrates the relative volume of marine freight moving on the major ship-ping channels of Long Island Sound. It is interesting to note that the Sound is already a major shipping channel, carrying more freight traffic than the offshore coastal channel south of Long Island. Only the mouth of New York Harbor, with its concentration of international maritime traffic, is more heavily used.

2.5 Importance of Waterborne Transportation

World and national data shows that Long Island Sound is already one of the most impor-tant regions for waterborne passenger and freight movement in the United States. Beyond documenting this fact, the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan is con-cerned with the questions of:

• How much of the transportation market is currently not served by waterborne transportation?

• Are there opportunities to capture additional volumes in order to reduce the demand on the region’s limited highway capacity?

• What types of improvements and services would be needed to maintain and increase waterborne traffic? Given a range of constraints – marine conditions, highway access, rail access, market demand, local land use issues, environmental concerns, and devel-opment and operating cost – which are most likely to prove feasible and beneficial?

Page 45: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3.0 Passenger and Freight Transportation Markets

Page 46: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-1

3.0 Passenger and Freight Transportation Markets

3.1 Overview of Methodology

The study area covers a large geographic area and base metropolitan population. For purposes of initial assessment, the study team defined three subregions to the entire study area:

• The Long Island subregion includes Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and represents the southern border of the study area, as well as the geographically separated communi-ties on Long Island.

• The Northern Coast subregion includes all of the coastal counties from Westchester County, New York, to Bristol County, Rhode Island. The subregion includes all of the communities with waterfront access to Long Island Sound and Narragansett Bay, and encompasses the heavily trafficked I-95 highway and Northeast rail corridors.

• The New York City subregion includes the boroughs of Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. This subregion is a concentrated hub of both population and employ-ment, and a nexus of transportation activity within the study area.

The subregions are depicted in Figure 3.1 on the following page. Summary statistics on passenger and goods flows are presented at a subregional level to illustrate major flow characteristics and markets.

Breakdowns of this data at smaller geographic units are also available, and will be used in subsequent phases of the LISWTP effort to assess the demand and impact characteristics of specific ferry service locations.

Page 47: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

3-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 3.1 LISWTP Data Analysis Subregions

3.2 Passenger Movement

The Long Island Sound study area enjoys what may be the most comprehensive package of transportation options anywhere in the country. Land use and transportation systems have developed in tandem for the past 400 years. Transportation has influenced the set-tlement of the region, just as settlement has influenced the provision of transportation services.

The region’s tremendous concentration of population and unusual geography have com-bined to facilitate successful transit service in applications that, elsewhere in the country, have fallen victim to competition with the personal automobile. Large demand is both an asset and a detriment, however; and the cost and personal mobility remains a major con-straint on further growth of the New York metropolitan area.

Underlying Settlement and Development Patterns

To understand passenger movement, it is first important to understand the underlying socioeconomic forces that determine passenger transportation demand by transit and pri-vate auto. The volumes and modes of commuter trips, in particular, are determined largely by the distribution of population and employment throughout the region.

Page 48: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-3

Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of population across the study area counties, as recorded by the year 2000 census. Not surprisingly, the New York City center of New York, Kings, and Queens Counties represents a defined concentration of regional population, with each county having between 1.5 and 2.5 million residents. Westchester County, Southwestern Connecticut, and Long Island also have consistently high populations. The eastern por-tion of the study area is generally less populated, with the exception of Providence County.

Figure 3.2 Year 2000 Population by County

Source: U.S. Census 2000.

Figure 3.3 shows the distribution of year 2000 employment across the study counties. Employment density generally matches population, with a few notable exceptions:

• Manhattan (New York County) has a tremendous concentration of employment that far outpaces its share of regional population or its percentage of land area. The 2.5 million jobs in Manhattan represent more than twice the employment in any other county in the study area.

• Because of this concentration of employment in Manhattan, many of the residents of Brooklyn and Queens do not work in their home boroughs. Thus, Kings and Queens Counties have a relatively lower employment in comparison to population.

Page 49: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

3-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

• Nassau and Suffolk Counties have a relatively greater share of employment than population. This would seem to suggest that most of the residents of these counties also work on Long Island.

Figure 3.3 Year 2000 Employment by County

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment and Wage Program, 2000.

The overall conclusion from a consideration of population and employment is that there are significant geographic and social drivers for passenger trips between the Manhattan CBD and the outlying boroughs of New York City, Long Island, Westchester, Fairfield, and New Haven Counties. It is also reasonable to expect significant passenger travel between Westchester, Fairfield, and New Haven Counties; as well as between Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Finally, based on the distribution of population and employment, there is a strong potential for passenger trips between the Long Island subregion and the west-ern counties of the Northern Coast subregion, although current transportation options limit this demand.

Passenger Vehicle Trip Patterns

Figure 3.4 depicts a summary of daily subregional passenger-car trips in the study area. This data comes from the NYMTC Best Practices Model trip tables, and reflects year 2000 travel patterns. Passenger vehicles include private automobiles, vans, and taxis.

Page 50: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-5

Figure 3.4 Daily Passenger Car Trips Within and Between Subregions

Source: NYMTC Best Practices Model.

The vast majority of auto trips are between points within the same subregion, most nota-bly in the Long Island (4.8 million daily auto trips) and North Coast (2.5 million daily auto trips) subregions. Autos are also used for a significant number of trips between the Long Island and North Coast subregions, and New York City (308,000 and 202,000 daily trips in each direction, respectively). There are currently very few auto trips (5,000 daily trips in each direction) between Long Island and the North Coast. This low number reflects, in part, the current difficulty of making these trips through the gauntlet of New York City traffic, or via ferry services.

Table 3.1 contains the county-level breakout of passenger auto trips for the top 25 county-to-county travel pairs. The county-level flows mirror those of the subregional flows, with the eight largest pairs being auto trips entirely within one county. The largest movement between two different counties is 161,000 daily Suffolk to Nassau County trips.

Page 51: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

3-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 3.1 Top 25 Daily Passenger Car Trips by County

Origin Destination Daily Auto Trips

Suffolk Suffolk 2,498,964 Nassau Nassau 1,977,841 New Haven New Haven 1,256,720 Queens Queens 1,145,418 Kings Kings 1,086,918 Westchester Westchester 989,719 New York New York 708,238 Bronx Bronx 498,573 Suffolk Nassau 160,565 Nassau Suffolk 160,126 Queens Nassau 155,314 Nassau Queens 154,386 Westchester Bronx 136,552 Bronx Westchester 135,969 Kings Queens 124,827 Queens Kings 124,619 Bronx New York 75,825 New York Bronx 75,328 New York Queens 75,175 Kings New York 74,941 New York Kings 74,663 Queens New York 73,467 Fairfield Westchester 67,021 Westchester Fairfield 66,949

Source: NYMTC Best Practices Model.

Regional passenger vehicle travel takes place within the context of significant regional roadway congestion. Figure 3.5 shows the national roadway network, with links that car-ried more than 100,000 daily vehicles in 1999 highlighted in green. The Long Island Sound study area is near the middle of the single largest concentration of these high-volume roadways in the country. Figure 3.6 expands on this point, by showing links that were either approaching or exceeding their estimated capacities in 1999. Again, the Boston to Washington corridor experienced tremendous demand for its limited roadway infrastructure.

Page 52: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-7

Figure 3.5 National Roadway Segments with More Than 100,000 Vehicle Trips Per Day

Figure 3.6 National Roadway Segments Approaching or Exceeding Capacity

Page 53: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

3-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Commuter and Intercity Rail Ridership and Networks

The Long Island Sound study region is well served by heavy rail, and regional passengers take advantage of the opportunities provided by these services. As shown in Figure 3.7, some regional rail corridors carried more than 250 trains each day in 1997. Rail service frequency is highest closer to the Manhattan CBD, becoming less frequent along the vari-ous branch lines farther from New York City. Amtrak provides intercity passenger rail service along the Northeast Corridor and Hudson Line. Commuter service is provided by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Metro North Railroad (MNR) and Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), as well as by Connecticut DOT’s Shore Line East service.

Figure 3.7 Commuter and Intercity Passenger Rail Service Frequency1997

Figure 3.8 portrays Amtrak’s 2000 ridership along the Northeast Corridor. While not as significant as the New York to Washington section of the corridor, the Boston to New York portion of the corridor carries 400,000 riders each year. These statistics also predate the full implementation of Acela Express service on the corridor, which has dramatically increased Amtrak’s ridership between Boston and New York.

Page 54: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-9

Figure 3.8 Amtrak Intercity Ridership Between City Pairs2000

NYC-Boston 400,000

NYC-WDC 1,100,000

NYC-Albany 500,000

Figures 3.9 and 3.10 show weekday and weekend passenger volumes for Metro North’s New Haven Line, the Long Island Rail Road, and the Shore Line East. These commuter services focus heavily on transporting commuters between Manhattan/New York City, and the surrounding counties. Ridership levels increase steadily closer into Manhattan, reaching 235,000 riders per day for the LIRR (all lines) and 84,000 riders per day for the Metro North’s New Haven Branch. Average weekend volumes are roughly one-half to one-quarter of average weekday volumes.

The Shore Line East serves the less populated eastern portion of the North Coast subre-gion, and does not provide a direct link to the Manhattan CBD. This results in lower rid-ership than the other segments of the rail network. The Shore Line East does not provide service on weekends.

Page 55: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

3-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figu

re 3

.9A

vera

ge W

eekd

ay R

ider

ship

, Yea

r 200

0

Sour

ce:

MTA

Met

ro N

orth

, MTA

Lon

g Is

land

Rai

lroa

d, a

nd C

onnD

OT

Ride

rshi

pC

ount

book

s, 20

00.

Page 56: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-11

Figu

re 3

.10

Ave

rage

Wee

kend

Rid

ersh

ip, Y

ear 2

000

Sour

ce:

MTA

Met

ro N

orth

, MTA

Lon

g Is

land

Rai

lroa

d, a

nd C

onnD

OT

Ride

rshi

p C

ount

book

s, 20

00.

Page 57: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum on Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-12

Transit System Ridership

In addition to commuter and intercity rail, there are 15 transit systems providing bus, subway, and paratransit service in the study area. These systems range from specialized bus services like the New York Airport Service, to the enormous New York City Transit System, to local transit districts. Figure 3.11 shows the relative size of these services, including the types of transit service offered. MTA New York City Transit is the largest system with 9.9 billion passenger-miles carried in 2000, and is the only system in the region offering heavy rail subways as a service type. Other transit services offer combina-tions of bus and paratransit, and carried between half a million passenger-miles and 200 million passenger-miles in 2000. The local transit systems serve a dual role in passen-ger mobility: they provide service to local communities throughout the region; and they extend the regional reach of commuter rail service by providing connecting service to the major rail gateways.

Figure 3.11 Long Island Sound Transit System Usage2000

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transit Database 2000.

Page 58: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-13

3.3 Goods Movement

Freight transportation is a significant, but often overlooked, component of the region’s economic engine. It also places great demands on regional roadways, where residents become acutely aware of the impacts of freight movement on traffic congestion. Unlike the passenger transportation system, which is highly diversified across a number of alter-native travel modes, the region’s freight transportation system depends inordinately on trucks to keep shipments moving. This key issue, and its potential maritime solutions, is the core of the freight effort of the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan.

The Long Island Sound Market

A tremendous volume of goods move into, out of, and through the Long Island Sound study area. In 2000, 311.5 million tons of freight moved through the region in some form. This represented $797.6 billion worth of goods. Even more remarkably, the volume of goods moved in 2025 is expected to increase to 528 million annual tons. This represents a 69.5 percent growth over current volumes in just 25 years, or 2.1 percent compounded annual growth. This rate of growth in volume of goods movement outpaces the rate of regional population growth (expected to be less than one percent compound annual growth).

The Long Island Sound Region is principally a consuming market. Figure 3.12 shows the breakdown of goods movements by movement type: moving inbound into the region, moving outbound from the region, moving internally within or between counties in the region, and moving through the region without stopping. The majority of goods move-ments (40.9 percent) are inbound flows. It is also surprising to note the large proportion of through freight movements (16.6 percent). This topic will be discussed in greater detail under the truck movement discussion.

Page 59: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum on Task 2

3-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 3.12 Breakdown of Goods Movement by Movement Type

62.2 Million Annual Tons16.6%

111.5 Million Annual Tons29.8%

152.8 Million Annual Tons40.9%

Outbound

Inbound

Internal

Through

47.1 Million Annual Tons12.6%

Figure 3.13 on the following page shows the 2000 freight volumes for the nine study area counties included in the Cross Harbor EIS commodity flow data. Much of the freight activity is concentrated in Kings, New York, and Queens Counties. Unlike population, however, freight activity is spread much more evenly among points around the region, including concentrations in New Haven and Suffolk Counties.

Page 60: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-15

Figure 3.13 Annual Inbound and Outbound Commodity Flows by County2000

Source: Reebie Associates, TRANSEARCH 2000 data prepared for the Cross Harbor EIS.

As shown in Figure 3.14 on the following page, growth in freight activity is forecasted to affect counties with smaller current freight volumes to a greater extent than those with more established goods movement centers. To be sure, Brooklyn and other freight inten-sive counties will experience large growth, but the more surprising trend is the relatively faster growth of freight activity in Westchester, Fairfield, and Suffolk Counties, and the relatively slower growth of freight activity in New Haven County. This supports anec-dotal evidence that major freight distribution centers are increasingly being located in outlying suburban settings – a phenomenon that leads to “freight sprawl.”

Page 61: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum on Task 2

3-16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 3.14 Forecasted Growth in Freight Volume Between 2000 and 2025

Source: DRI-WEFA and Reebie Associates, forecasts of TRANSEARCH 2000 data prepared for the Cross Harbor EIS.

This national trend toward outwardly expanding logistics chains is further supported by examining data on the ton-miles and vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) used to serve the Long Island Sound study region. Looking only at truck freight movements that either begin or end within the study area, both national ton-miles and national VMT show significant increases. Ton-miles are expected to increase from 96.4 billion to 174.9 billion ton-miles in 25 years, while VMT are forecast to increase from 5.5 billion to 10 billion. The 81.4 percent increase in both qualities is even greater than the 69.5 percent growth in freight tonnage, which suggests that the same freight is traveling longer distances between warehouses en route to its final destination.

Figures 3.15 and 3.16 on the following pages synthesize the Reebie TRANSEARCH infor-mation to produce summaries of freight movement for 2000 and 2025, respectively. They contain explicit information about the types of goods movement, and the relative likeli-hood of these movements being served by new waterborne services on Long Island Sound. In reading these figures:

• The flows marked in blue (which include that majority of goods movements) are flows of freight that come from or go to one of the subregions from points outside of the study region. In general, these moves are not susceptible to diversion to new marine service. The exceptions to this rule are cross-sound moves to and from Long Island that may be attracted to a ferry service, and a small portion of the coastwise moves connecting coastal destinations (such as those targeted by the Port Authority’s PIDN

Page 62: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-17

program). Freight flows between study subregions and points further south on the Atlantic Coast are expected to grow even more rapidly than other flows, suggesting that there may be some opportunities here for enhanced marine traffic. Services designed to attract this market would require trip ends outside the study region, which limits their consideration in this study.

• The flows marked in green are regional coastwise through flows that connect points on the eastern seaboard and pass entirely through the region without stopping. These trips are highly divertable to marine mode, provided that the commodity being shipped is not time sensitive. Services designed to divert this traffic, however, involve trip origins and destinations along the entire eastern seaboard, and are beyond the regional scope of this study.

• The flows marked in red move between points inside the study region. This is the pri-mary target market for initiatives under study in this plan. These trips can take advantage of a ferry service’s direct travel routes and short trip distances to bypass the circuitous landside paths around the region’s unique geography. Cross-sound moves, in particular, can benefit from travel time/distance reductions.

Figure 3.15 Summary of 2000 Freight FlowsMillions of Annual Tons

Page 63: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum on Task 2

3-18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 3.16 Summary of Forecasted 2025 Freight FlowsMillions of Annual Tons

Freight Mode Shares

Figure 3.17 shows the regional mode shares for freight movement. Freight movement in the Long Island Sound Region is highly dependent on trucking (see Figure 3.17 on the following page). One would expect trucks to haul the majority of freight tonnage, because most rail and air trips – and a significant number of marine trips – begin and end with a truck dray. In the case of the Long Island Sound Region, however, the 78.3 percent of goods carried by truck is a significantly higher share than in other regions around the country.

Page 64: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-19

Figure 3.17 Freight Mode Shares for the Long Island Sound Region

61.8 Million Tons19.9%

Other

Water

Truck

244 Million Annual Tons78.3%

5.7 Million Tons1.8%

The region does, however, make effective use of maritime freight transportation to move certain heavy, low-value commodities. For the region as a whole, 19.9 percent of tonnage is carried by water. Figure 3.18 shows mode share for each of the nine counties covered by the Cross Harbor TRANSEARCH dataset. New Haven and New York Counties both move 40 and 33 percent, respectively, of their total tonnage by water. Queens and Kings Counties both move roughly 20 percent of their goods, and Suffolk and Fairfield Counties both move roughly 10 percent of their goods by water.

Only Bronx, New Haven, and Queens Counties move a measurable portion of goods by rail or air. In the aggregate, less than two percent of total tonnage in the region moves by rail or air. (Air, however, accounts for a much higher percent of total freight value.)

Page 65: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum on Task 2

3-20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 3.18 Freight Mode Shares by County2000

Major Commodities

The commodities moved in the Long Island Sound region are typical of major population centers with a primarily service-based economy. As shown in Figure 3.19 on the fol-lowing page, the top commodities include energy (petroleum or coal products), building supplies (clay, concrete, glass, and stone products), consumer goods (warehousing and distribution), and food. Chemical and allied products round out the top five commodities moved. These top five commodities represent 72 percent of all tonnage moved in the study region, which speaks to the relative absence of manufacturing in the region (and the associated movement of diverse raw materials).

Page 66: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-21

Figure 3.19 Top 5 Regional Commodities

21.6

45.2 44.137.9

15.6

46.6 1.2

0

0.1

1.10.5

0.6

0.20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Annual Tons (in Millions)

Other

Marine

Truck

Petroleum orCoal Products

Chemicals orAllied Products

Clay, Concrete,Glass, or Stone

Products

Food orKindredProducts

Warehouse andDistribution

Center

Figure 3.20 on the following page presents the top five maritime commodities as a com-parison to the previous figure for all modes. One commodity – petroleum and coal prod-ucts – represents far and away the greatest portion of marine movements. The top five commodities represent 98.9 percent of all domestic marine tonnage. Figure 3.20 also indi-cates the water mode share for the top five waterborne commodities. With the exception of clay, concrete, glass, or stone products (which are carried mostly by truck), all of the major marine commodities have waterborne mode shares greater than 70 percent, and are thus highly tied to the water mode. These two measures indicate the extraordinary degree to which waterborne freight serves a niche market in Long Island Sound.

Page 67: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum on Task 2

3-22 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 3.20 Top Waterborne Commodities

Petroleum orCoal Products

Waste or ScrapMaterials

Clay, Concrete,Glass, or Stone

Products

MiscellaneousFreight

Shipment

Crude Petroleum,Natural Gas, or Gasoline

Annual Tons by Water (in Millions)

Top 5 Commoditiesrepresent 98.9 percentof all marine tonnage.

10

20

30

40

60

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

70

50

30

10

90

Marine Mode Share (in Percent)

50

Waterborne Tonnage

Share of this Commodity Moving by Water

Truck Movement

Trucks are the cornerstone of the region’s freight transportation system. As shown in Figure 3.21 on the following page, hundreds of thousands of truck trips link destinations within the region each day. These travel patterns from the NYMTC best practices model mirror those of passenger car movements, with the majority of truck trips connecting shorter distances within a single subregion. Trunkline truck movements connect the Long Island and North Coast subregions to New York City. Relatively few trucks travel directly from Long Island to the North Coast Subregion, because of the current difficulty of this connection.

Page 68: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-23

Figure 3.21 Daily Truck Trips Within and Between Subregions

Source: NYMTC Best Practices Model.

The large number of regional truck trips takes place within the context of even larger truck movements up and down the I-95 corridor. Figure 3.22 on the following page depicts the national roadway network, with links that carry more than 10,000 trucks each day high-lighted in orange. As with passenger vehicle traffic, the study region is in the middle of the nation’s largest concentration of high-volume truck links.

Page 69: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum on Task 2

3-24 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 3.22 Roadway Segments with More Than 10,000 Daily Truck Trips

Regional through traffic (overhead) in Southwestern Connecticut exemplifies this problem of truck congestion. Figure 3.23 on the following page shows both the volume of over-head traffic and the ratio of overhead traffic to origin-destination traffic for the Cross Harbor data region. Fairfield and New Haven Counties not only experience a large volume of overhead traffic, but this overhead represents more than two-thirds of the freight that moves on the Counties’ transportation system. For the most part, this impact comes from the concentration of truck traffic on I-95 and I-84 between New England and the Mid-Atlantic. The resulting truck trips lead to congestion on regional roadways, but do not directly benefit the region’s economy by serving local businesses. A similar impact occurs, to a lesser extent, in Queens and Nassau Counties for goods traveling to Suffolk County.

Page 70: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-25

Figure 3.23 Through Goods Movement Volumes

Source: Cross Harbor EIS.

Page 71: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum on Task 2

3-26 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Rail Freight Movement

In general, rail freight is not an important element of the current East-of-Hudson freight transportation system. As shown in Figure 3.24, limits on the East-of-Hudson rail infra-structure and frequent passenger rail service result in smaller volumes of rail freight in comparison to the major West-of-Hudson lines. Only Bronx and New Haven Counties have any appreciable rail service, and this service involves a circuitous routing from the north. Since the 1997 data year, the New York and Atlantic Railway has managed to grow rail traffic on Long Island moderately. The rail mode share, however, remains very low.

Figure 3.24 Rail Freight Activity by Line, Year 1997

While the physical potential for marine-rail intermodal exchange does exist in New Haven, New London, and the Bronx, the market potential for such moves may be limited by shorter inland distribution distances and current rail levels-of-service to these rail gateways.

Page 72: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-27

3.4 Summary

The passenger and freight flow data presented in this section describe enormous volumes of traffic moving into, out of, and within the study area. Currently, the percentage of pas-senger traffic being handled by the region’s ferry system is relatively small. The percent-age of freight traffic being handled by water is somewhat larger, but this is due primarily to barge and cargo vessel movements of bulk commodities, and not to the movement of trucks or containers (carrying higher value commodities) via barge or truck/rail ferry. The following section of this Technical Memorandum describes opportunities to increase the role of ferries and waterborne transportation for both passenger and freight movement.

Page 73: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

4.0 Potential Opportunities for Waterborne Transportation in Long Island Sound

Page 74: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-1

4.0 Potential Opportunities for Waterborne Transportation in Long Island Sound

4.1 Previous Studies and Proposals

Since 1970, a variety of studies and proposals have been put forward for new services in Long Island Sound, in addition to the existing services described in Section 2.0 of this Technical Memorandum. The LISWTP is not endorsing any services at this point in the study process, and the intent is simply to report ideas that have been raised – and not nec-essarily recommended – in one form or another. It is also important to note that the LISWTP is not addressing the various Cross-Sound bridge and tunnel concepts that have been – and continue to be – put forward.

Potential waterborne service enhancements that have been discussed include:

• Enhancements to existing ferry terminals (Bridgeport-Port Jefferson, New London-Orient Point).

• Restoration of passenger service between Glen Cove and Manhattan.

• New passenger services to the South Fork to bypass Shelter Island Ferry (passenger only and passenger-vehicle).

• New high-speed passenger services along the Connecticut coast (New London/New Haven/Bridgeport/Stamford), providing access to LaGuardia Airport and Manhattan.

• New passenger services focusing on Lower Manhattan connectivity to regional com-muter markets.

• New container freight barge service between the region’s marine container terminals (Port Newark/Elizabeth, Howland Hook, and Red Hook) and several locations on the Connecticut coast (Bridgeport, New Haven, New London).

• New freight service to/from JFK Airport.

• New passenger and freight service development for the north shore of Long Island (Shoreham, Sunken Meadow, et al.).

Page 75: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Improvement of existing ferry terminals is an ongoing process, independent of the LISWTP. There are plans to improve access and intermodal connectivity at the Bridgeport-Port Jefferson terminals, and the issue of parking area expansion at Orient Point is in the process of being resolved.

Planning for potential new passenger services is continuing, independent of the LISWTP. These include high-speed passenger services to the South Fork, along the Connecticut coast (serving LGA and Manhattan), and between Glen Cove and Manhattan. These are at varying stages of development and their ultimate implementation dates are unknown at this time.

Planning for potential new freight services is well advanced. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s “Port Inland Distribution Network” (PIDN) initiative calls for the development of barge and rail services to move containers between port facilities and a series of inland “dense trade clusters.” Table 4.1 contains a breakdown of anticipated 2020 PIDN flows, measured in Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs).1

Table 4.1 Proposed PIDN Inland Distribution Volumes

PIDN Trade Cluster 2020 TEUs Service Mode

Hartford and Springfield 69,940 Barge Worcester and Framingham 379,990 Barge Hanover 255,644 Barge Reading and Camden 284,249 Barge Pittsburgh 44,729 Rail Rochester 43,372 Rail Albany 122,508 Barge Buffalo 30,202 Rail Syracuse 25,722 Rail Total – Dense Trade Clusters 1,256,356

To date, two barges have been run on the Albany route, albeit with very little traffic. Plans call for the next service – which is projected to handle substantially more volume – to be implemented at Bridgeport, with potential future service to New Haven, New London, and possibly additional sites in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. 1 A TEU is a common measure of intermodal marine traffic volume. It equals the volume available

in an intermodal container that is 20 feet long, eight feet, six inches tall, and eight feet wide (roughly 1,360 cubic feet). A standard 40-foot container is equal to two TEUs.

Page 76: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-3

4.2 Short-Sea Shipping Opportunities

The PIDN service is one type of “short-sea shipping” service. With the new Federal emphasis on short-sea initiatives, the LISWTP sees these services as a major opportunity.

Coastal (or coastwise), short-sea, and inland shipping describe marine shipping opera-tions between ports along a single coast, involving a short sea crossing or occurring along an inland waterway. Examples of these routes include Jacksonville to San Juan; Tacoma to Anchorage; Halifax to Boston; Los Angeles to Seattle; Pittsburgh to Monterrey, Mexico; St. Louis to New Orleans; or Rotterdam, the Netherlands, to Gothenburg, Sweden. These shipments can be domestic or international in nature, though in the United States, short-sea shipping operations typically consist of domestic cargo.

The key difference between short-sea and deep-sea operations is length of haul; deep-sea shipments normally consist of cargo moving over open ocean between continents while short-sea, coastal, or inland waterway operations normally consist of cargo moving within a single continent over coastal waters or inland waterways.

Though the routes and ports of call for short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway shipping operations may differ, they typically handle the same types of commodities, share the same issues and constraints, and face the same competition from other modes for freight traffic. As a result, they will be considered together for the purposes of this memorandum.

The I-95 Corridor Coalition is investigating the use of short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway shipping as operational strategies that may mitigate the effects of increasing highway congestion and effectively increase the capacity available to freight shipments in the I-95 region. The use of these strategies to enhance or complement existing intermodal terminal operations is more common in Europe, though some ports and terminals in the United States are beginning to investigate the use of these services to improve port capacity.

U.S. Waterway System Overview

The U.S. waterway system consists of approximately 25,000 miles of inland, intracoastal, and coastal waterways and channels, approximately 12,000 miles (48 percent) of which are capable of handling commercial traffic.2 The waterway system also includes 192 commer-cially active lock sites with 238 individual lock chambers. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 designated nearly 11,000 miles of this waterway system as the fuel-taxed inland waterway system. Commercial users of this system, defined in Table 4.2

2 Marine Transportation System, Report to Congress, 1999.

Page 77: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

below, pay a per gallon fuel tax that is deposited in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and used to fund inland navigation projects each year.

Table 4.2 U.S. Fuel-Taxed Inland Waterway System

Waterway Rivers included

Alabama-Mississippi-Georgia River System

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and Warrior, Tombigbee, Coosa-Alabama, Mobile, and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers

Columbia-Snake River System

Columbia, Snake, and Willamette Rivers

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

Navigation channel running 1,340 miles from Brownsville, Texas, to St. Marks, Florida

Lower Mississippi River System

Mississippi River south of Cairo, Illinois, including the Ouachita, Arkansas, Red, Verdigris, White, and Yazoo Rivers and Lake Pontchartrain

Upper Mississippi River System

Mississippi River north of Cairo, Illinois, plus the Illinois, Missouri, and Kaskaskia Rivers

Ohio River System Ohio, Tennessee, Cumberland, Monongahela, Allegheny, Kanawha, and Green Rivers

Though the Fuel-Taxed Waterway System handles a significant portion of the total amount of inland waterway and coastal traffic within the United States, there are several other inland waterways and coastal routes within the I-95 Corridor region that handle or are capable of handling commercial traffic. These include the St. Lawrence Seaway System, the Delaware/Chesapeake Canal, the Cape Cod Canal, and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from Atlantic Canada to Virginia. Commonly used short-sea routes include those connecting the Atlantic and the Caribbean; the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean; and the Pacific Coast to south Pacific islands.

Cargo and Vessel Types

Each freight mode offers certain advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost, speed, reliability, visibility, and security, with shippers buying freight services that best fit their specific shipping needs. Figure 4.1 shows the spectrum of freight transportation services with the approximate cost per pound and key service characteristics. As can be seen, waterborne movements are at the far end of the spectrum in terms of price, speed, and reliability. The water mode typically offers less speed and reliability, but provides transportation at a far lower unit cost.

Page 78: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-5

Figure 4.1 Freight Transportation “Service Spectrum”

Fastest, most reliable, most visible

Lowest weight, highest value,

most time-sensitive cargo

Slower, less reliable, less visible

Highest weight, lowest value,

least time-sensitive cargo

Fast, reliable, visible

Range of weight and value

Rail intermodal competitive with truck over longer distances

Space Air Cargo Truck Rail Intermodal Rail Carload Rail Unit Water

$10K/lb. $1.50/lb. 5-10¢/lb. 3¢/lb. 1¢/lb. 1/2-1¢/lb. 1/2¢/lb.

Higher……………………….....Service Cost Continuum………..……………….Lower

Short-sea shipping operations typically handle several types of cargoes:

• Bulk/breakbulk. Bulk or breakbulk shipments include commodities such as coal, grain, lumber, steel, or petroleum. These types of commodities are well suited to shipment by barge, as they are high-weight and low-value goods and are typically not time sensitive.

• Containerized cargo. Short-sea shipments of containerized cargo are more common in Europe than in the United States. Short-sea container operations in the United States are currently limited to international (ISO) containers (40 feet x 8.0 feet x 8.5 feet). Domestic containers (53 feet x 8.0 feet x 9.0 feet) and truck trailers are typically not handled via short-sea operations. Many short-sea and coastal carriers handle containerized cargo as part of a feeder service, transporting containers from smaller ports (at which the deep-sea carriers do not call) to large deepwater ports.

• Roll-on/Roll-off (ro/ro) cargo. Ro/ro traffic normally consists of rolling cargo, such as automobiles, trailers, or other chassis-mounted cargo. These types of shipments are also well suited to short-sea movements, as they do not need cranes for loading or unloading and hence can be loaded and unloaded at congested or less-developed ports with little or no shore-side infrastructure (i.e., cranes).

• Specialized cargo. Coastal and inland waterway carriers also carry specialized cargo, particularly cargo that is too heavy or cumbersome to be transported by truck or rail. Examples of such cargo include large electrical generation equipment, cranes, assem-bled drilling platforms, or other oversize/overweight cargo.

Page 79: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

• Empty containers. Redeployment of empty containers is an important service pro-vided by short-sea shipping operations, particularly in Europe, where container imbalances among coastal ports often occur as the result of shifts in trading partners among European countries.

Although the transport of containerized freight by coastal, short-sea, and inland operators is increasingly common, the majority of short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway shipping cargo consists of bulk or breakbulk cargo, such as coal, petroleum, grain, or lumber. Short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway operators play an important role in the transport of these high-weight/low-value commodities, but it is in the shipment of containerized cargo, provision of feeder services to move containers from small to large deepwater ports, and the redeployment of empty containers that short-sea or coastal shipping can have the greatest impact on congestion relief on the nation’s highways.

There are several different types of vessels involved in short-sea shipping operations, including pull barges, push barges, load-on/load-off (lo/lo) ships, roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) ships, and high-speed vessels.

Pull Barges

The pull barge is the most commonly used vessel for short-sea operations in the United States. Typical pull barges have a capacity of between 400 and 700 TEUs and are capable of handling between 150 and 270 53-foot domestic containers. Containers or truck trailers are secured on deck and stacked three or four high. These barges also handle bulk and breakbulk cargo. Barges are typically pulled by 5,000 horsepower tugs at a speed of approximately 10 knots (11.5 miles per hour).

Pull barges are common in U.S. short-sea shipping operations due, in part, to Federal regulations governing domestic maritime trade. U.S. Coast Guard regulations stipulate minimum crew size based on the vessel’s registered tonnage, which in the case of a pull barge is the tug vessel, not the barge itself. The crew of the tug, typically about eight, is much smaller than that of a self-propelled vessel similar in size to the pulled barge, allowing shippers and carriers to move significant amounts of freight with minimal crew requirements; a self-propelled vessel of 700 TEU capacity would require a crew of 20.3

Push Barges

Push barges are similar to pull barges with the exception that there is a cut-out in the stern of the barge for a tug. The tug and the push barge are lashed together to act as a single vessel, allowing for greater speed and efficiency in comparison to traditional pull barges.

3 Louisiana State University National Ports and Waterways Institute, High Speed Ferries and

Coastwise Vessels: Evaluation of Parameters and Markets for Application, June 2000.

Page 80: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-7

Load-on/Load-off (lo/lo) Vessels

Load-on/Load-off (lo/lo) vessels are used to transport containers in short-sea operations. They are self-propelled vessels similar in design to large, ocean-going container ships, but are much smaller, with capacity between 100 and 1,000 TEUs.4 Some lo/lo vessels include deck-mounted handling cranes, which while they reduce capacity, allow easy loading and unloading of containers at ports without adequate shoreside cranes.

Roll-on/Roll-off (ro/ro) Vessels

Roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessels are used in short-sea shipping of rolling cargo, as the need for cargo handling systems and personnel is reduced, lowering port costs and allowing ro/ro vessels to call on smaller and less-developed ports. These vessels carry trailers, chassis-mounted containers, cars, and other rolling machinery, and sometimes use a “drive-through” system with access both forward and aft, speeding the loading and unloading process. The capacity of ro/ro vessels is typically one-quarter to one-half that of a lo/lo vessel of similar size, as cargo cannot be stacked (due to wheels) and significant space is needed for on-load and off-load ramps. The reduced capacity of ro/ro ships is at least partially offset by the reduced cargo handling and port costs accrued by these vessels.

High-Speed Vessels

The use of high-speed vessels, capable of attaining speeds of 28 knots (32 mph) or higher, is growing in both short-sea and deep sea shipping operations. There are several types of fast ships, including catamarans, hydrofoils, and traditional displacement ships utilizing lighter construction materials. These ships can attain speeds well above traditional tug-barge combinations and containerships, decreasing the transit time between ports-of-call. Though prototypes of several fast ships are currently in use along short-sea and coastal routes in the South Pacific and Europe, they have not yet been deployed in the United States. Several high-speed ferries for service in Alaska are currently being built at Derecktor Shipyard in Bridgeport.

European Short-Sea, Coastal, and Inland Waterway Shipping Operations

Short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway shipping has a long history in Europe. Even today, approximately 45 percent of the freight shipments among members of the European Union (EU) occur via water, as can be seen in Figure 4.2.

4 Clarkson Research Studies, The Containership Register, 1999.

Page 81: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 4.2 Mode Split for EU Freight Shipments1999

Road

Sea

Rail

Inland Waterway

Source: EU Directorate-General for Energy and Transport.

Short-sea and coastal shipping are among the fastest growing elements of the European freight market, growing by 27 percent from 1970 to 1999. By comparison, shipments by truck have grown approximately 50 percent in the same time period while rail shipments have actually decreased by 13 percent.

Port of Hamburg

The Port of Hamburg was founded in 1189 at the confluence of the Aster and Elbe Rivers in Hamburg, Germany. The port now provides access to the markets of Eastern, Northern, and Central Europe and is one of the world’s largest container handling ports.

More than 20 percent of the cargo arriving at the Port of Hamburg is delivered to its final destination via short-sea or inland waterway. In fact, in 2001, more than 11,600 short-sea vessels from 23 different carriers departed from the Port of Hamburg, carrying 10.2 million metric tons (11.2 million short tons) of cargo. Typical commodities handled include coal, ore, feed, and grain. The Port of Hamburg provides service to several coun-tries via short-sea and coastal shipping, including:

• Portugal/the Azores;

• North Africa;

• East Mediterranean/Black Sea;

Page 82: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-9

• West Mediterranean/Adriatic Sea;

• Spain;

• North Sea/the Netherlands/Belgium/France;

• Great Britain/Ireland/Iceland; and

• Scandinavia/Baltic Sea.

Overall, there are 128 departures per week to these destinations.

Port of Rotterdam

The Port of Rotterdam, located at the confluence of the Rhine and Maas Rivers and the coast of the North Sea, is the largest port in Europe, handling more than 300 million metric tons (331 million short tons) of cargo in 2001. Nearly 40 percent of the cargo arriving at the Port either arrives or departs the port facility via short-sea shipping or inland water-ways. Rotterdam maintains regular barge service to Belgium, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, and Hungary via inland waterway; and serves more than 20 European countries via short-sea service. Typical commodities handled via inland waterway include coal, iron ore, and grain. Containerized freight is frequently moved via inland waterway as well. Nearly 5,000 TEUs per day (more than 25 percent of the con-tainers handled daily at the Port of Rotterdam) move to their final destinations via barge on one of 20 daily scheduled departures.

Stena Line

Stena Line provides short-sea passenger and freight service between 17 destinations in Europe, including: Ireland, Northern Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, Holland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Poland. Stena operates a fleet of 32 vessels, including four high-speed catamarans capable of attaining speeds in excess of 40 knots (46 mph). In 2002, Stena handled more than 1.3 million units of freight.

Factors of Success

There are several factors that contribute to the success of short-sea, coastal, and inland shipping in Europe. Though some of these factors (e.g., geography) are specific to Europe, others may be transferable to short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway shipping operations in the United States. Factors that contribute to the viability of short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway shipping in Europe include:

• Geography. The geography of Europe lends itself to short-sea, coastal, and inland shipping operations, as many countries border on the relatively calm waters of the Adriatic, Mediterranean, Black, and Baltic Seas. Shippers are able to reach markets in North, Central, and Western Europe as well as North Africa and Asia along these coasts. The continent also has a highly developed inland waterway system,

Page 83: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

connecting the North Sea with the Mediterranean. The ability to reach major markets via coastal and inland water routes is a distinct advantage to short-sea shipping operations in Europe.

• Cabotage laws. U.S. cabotage law, the Jones Act, requires vessels engaged in maritime trade to be U.S.-built, U.S.-documented, U.S.-owned and controlled, and U.S.-crewed. The cabotage regulations within EU, however, are more flexible, allowing carriers from any of the EU member states to provide waterway transport within any other member state as long as the vessel owner is a citizen of a member state; has his or her principal place of business in a member state; and the majority of the vessel crew are citizens of member states. These more flexible cabotage laws make it easier for European short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway carriers to conduct business in and provide cost-competitive service to a wide range of markets.

• Multi-jurisdictional planning and project programming. Another factor in the suc-cess of short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway shipping in Europe is the involvement of the European Union. The EU is made up of 15 member countries working together toward broad regional goals in the areas of transportation, trade, energy, and others. Member states have granted the EU specific powers while retaining their individual sovereignty. The Directorate General for Energy and Transport of the EU acts as a regional transportation planning entity, defining goals and outlining European trans-portation policy; member countries are responsible for putting plans into place. The increased use of short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway shipping has been empha-sized by the EU as a strategy to relieve forecasted congestion on the region’s high-ways. To implement this strategy, the EU has developed the Marco Polo program, a EUR 115 million (U.S. $125 million ) initiative to provide capital funding for the con-struction or improvement of non-road freight transportation facilities, including waterway and port infrastructure and railroad improvements. The EU has also dedicated funding to a series of projects designed to develop trans-European trans-portation (TEN-T) networks in several areas, including highways, intermodal net-works, and inland waterways. These projects range from the implementation of ITS on existing transportation infrastructure to the development of new transportation networks. From 1996 to 1997, a total of EUR 38 billion (U.S. $41 billion) was spent on TEN-T projects, with the EU providing 30 percent of the funding.5 Such aggressive planning and programming of freight improvement projects, including those projects designed to improve the efficiency of short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway ship-ping, allows these operations to compete more effectively with other transportation modes.

• Involvement of shippers, carriers, and government agencies in the promotion of short-sea shipping services. In 1995, the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management convened the Dutch Round Table for Short-Sea Shipping, a public-private coalition designed to educate potential users of short-sea services of the

5 FHWA International Technology Exchange Program, Freight Transportation: The European Market.

June 2002.

Page 84: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-11

benefits offered by this mode of transportation; and to discuss the issues and con-straints that were discouraging the use of these services by Dutch businesses. Partici-pants included representatives from shippers, carriers, ship agents and owners, terminal operators, port authorities, and customs bureaus. The success of this group in bringing together the various stakeholders involved in short-sea shipping and addressing short-sea shipping issues led to the creation of the Short-Sea Information Bureau within the Dutch government. This mission of the Bureau is to increase awareness of the benefits of short-sea shipping; collect and analyze data describing short-sea operations; initiate and coordinate research efforts; and advocate for greater use of short-sea operations by Dutch shippers. In 2000, several other European coun-tries, including Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Greece, Italy, France, and Portugal initiated their own short-sea information bureaus. These individual bureaus, with the support of the EU, now make up the European Short-Sea Promotion Network, which provides existing and potential users of short-sea services the ability to quickly and easily access information describing the types of services available throughout the continent; and provides opportunities for regional stakeholders, including shippers, carriers, government agencies, and others to gather and discuss common issues and concerns.

• Inefficient rail system. The commodities handled by rail and coastal, short-sea, and inland waterway shipping are often similar, consisting of some containerized freight as well as significant amounts of high-weight/low-value bulk commodities, such as coal, grain, and metal products. However, the existing rail system in Europe often prevents the rail mode from being able to provide efficient transportation for these and other commodities. Because each European country still maintains its own national state-owned railroad, there is no coherent network for freight shipments. Furthermore, railroads in Europe, unlike those in the United States, typically treat freight shipments as a low priority, preferring to cater to the higher revenue-producing passenger market. Many tunnels in Europe have low clearances, pre-venting double-stack operations, and pneumatic brakes in use on many European railroads limit train length. Finally, rail gauge differs among some countries, forcing the transfer of cargo from one train to another at some border crossings.6 As a result of these and other rail inefficiencies, short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway shipping operations are able to capture more market share in Europe than in the United States.

U.S. Short-Sea, Coastal, and Inland Waterway Shipping Operations

In contrast to Europe, a relatively small percentage of U.S. domestic freight movement occurs by water, as shown in Figure 4.3 on the following page. (Figure 4.3 does not include international waterborne tonnage.) This is due in large part to the relative efficiency of U.S. highway and rail systems, and to the fact that many U.S. production and consumption centers are not accessible by water.

6 Michael Babb. “European Ports Seek Hinterland Routes,” in Logistics Management, September 1998.

Page 85: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 4.3 U.S. Domestic Freight MovementYear 2000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0Millions of Tons Billions of Tons-Miles Billions of Dollars

Truck78%

Rail16% Water

6%Rail28% Water

12%

Truck60%

Rail6% Water

1%

Truck88%

Air5%

Source: Reebie Associates’ TRANSEARCH and U.S. DOT Freight Analysis Framework Project.

The following sections describe the current short-sea, coastal, and inland waterway ship-ping operations within the United States, along with the issues and constraints affecting short-sea, coastal, and inland shipping operations in the United States.

Columbia Coastal Transport

Columbia Coastal Transport (CCT) began operations in 1990 as a feeder service for inter-national containers moving out of major deepwater seaports on the East Coast. CCT also provides short-sea service to Freeport, Bahamas, and Cuba. The line handles containers as well as ro/ro and military cargo on 14 barges with capacities ranging from 400 to 912 TEUs. In 1999, CCT handled approximately 200,000 boxes.7 CCT offers regularly sched-uled service between the following points:

• Northern Service: between New York/New Jersey, Boston, and Portland (ME) (twice weekly);

• Mid-Atlantic Service: between New York/New Jersey, Baltimore, and Philadelphia (twice weekly);

7 National Ports and Waterways Institute of Louisiana State University, High Speed Ferries and

Coastwise Vessels: Evaluation of Parameters and Markets for Application, June 2000.

Page 86: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-13

• Chesapeake Service: between Norfolk and Baltimore (four times weekly);

• Wilmington Service: between Wilmington (Delaware), Charleston, and Savannah (twice weekly);

• Southern Service: between Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Port Canaveral, Port Everglades, and Miami (twice weekly); and

• Gulf Service: between Houston and New Orleans (twice weekly).

In addition, CCT provides service to Freeport and Cuba on demand and is one of the container-on-barge operators proposing to provide service to the Port of Albany as part of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s Port Inland Distribution Network.

Matson Navigation

Matson Navigation provides coastal shuttle services between Los Angeles, Seattle, and Vancouver (British Columbia); between Seattle, Oakland, and Hawaii; and between Guam and Saipan on self-propelled containerships. Matson operates a fleet of 17 ships with capacities ranging from 316 to more than 2,800 TEUs.

Though Matson hauls domestic freight between these coastal destinations and also pro-vides empty container repositioning services, its main market is to provide feeder service for shipping lines whose northernmost port of call is the Port of Los Angeles. In fact, Matson is the “connecting carrier” for 46 shipping lines calling on the Port of Los Angeles. Typical cargoes include newsprint, lumber, and wood pulp (moving southbound for export); and frozen cargo (moving northbound).

Evans Delivery Company/Hale Intermodal Transport

Evans Delivery Company, a regional LTL carrier serving the Northeast United States, recently acquired Hale Intermodal Transport, a tug and barge operator providing sched-uled, twice-weekly service between Norfolk and Baltimore on a fleet of two barges, each with a capacity of 450 TEUs. Evans/Hale also provides charter, on-demand barge service between Houston and New Orleans for Maersk-SeaLand.

Trailer Bridge

Trailer Bridge began operations in 1991 and currently provides twice-weekly short-sea service between Jacksonville and Puerto Rico on three lo/lo and five ro/ro barges. Trailer Bridge’s ro/ro barges are designed to haul domestic 53-foot containers. Trailer Bridge is a combination service, providing integrated highway and barge transportation to its cus-tomers in the mainland United States and in Puerto Rico. Trailer Bridge provides direct service to:

Page 87: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

• Atlanta (six-day total transit);

• Charlotte (six-day total transit);

• Chicago (seven-day total transit);

• Columbus, Ohio (six-day total transit);

• Dallas (seven-day total transit);

• Houston (six-day total transit);

• Louisville (six-day total transit);

• Memphis (six-day total transit);

• Minneapolis (eight-day total transit);

• Newark, New Jersey (seven-day total transit); and

• St. Louis (six-day total transit).

Totem Ocean Trailer Express

Totem Ocean Trailer Express provides short-sea service between Tacoma and Anchorage on three self-propelled ro/ro vessels and will take delivery of two new ro/ro vessels in 2003. Totem provides three-times-weekly service during the summer months and twice-weekly service during the winter. Totem’s short-sea service is highly competitive with truck transportation because the distance between Tacoma and Anchorage is much shorter by water (1,447 nm (1,665 statute miles)) than by highway (2,400 statute miles via the Alcan Highway).

Sea Star Line

The Sea Star Line provides short-sea service between points in the mainland United States, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Service between Jacksonville and San Juan is provided five times per week; weekly service is provided between Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, Port Everglades, and San Juan; and service between Houston and San Juan is provided every 10 days. Sea Star operates a fleet of two combi-nation ro/ro-lo/lo vessels, each with a capacity of 1,129 TEUs.

Port of Pittsburgh

The Port of Pittsburgh, located at the confluence of the Monongahela and the Alleghany Rivers, is the third busiest inland port in the United States, handling approximately 53.9 million tons of cargo in 2000. In an effort to attract potential barge shippers, the Port of Pittsburgh Commission has developed SmartBarge, an Internet portal designed to allow potential shippers to receive quotes for barge transport between specific origin des-tination pairs; compare barge transport prices with truck prices; and inquire as to the availability of barge equipment on any given date. Through the development of SmartBarge, the Port hopes to attract more containerized traffic.

Page 88: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-15

Issues and Constraints for U.S. Short-Sea Shipping

Several issues and constraints that hinder effective short-sea/coastal shipping operations in U.S. markets.

• Port infrastructure and operations. Nearly all existing short-sea shipping operators in the region call at deepwater seaports. These deepwater ports are typically set up to handle large, ocean-going container ships, which are their primary customers and sources of revenue, and typically have preference when it comes to berth, labor, and equipment availability. This is a particular concern for lo/lo ships, which require a significant amount of labor and equipment for loading and off-loading of cargo.

• Port handling costs. The typical handling charge for coastal lo/lo vessels to $200 to $250 per lift, or $400 to $500 total (on-load and offload).8 Because the average length of haul for short-sea or coastal services is significantly shorter than those of ocean-going ships, these port costs account for a higher percentage of the overall cost of transpor-tation service, making it more difficult for short-sea or coastal services to compete with truck and rail. The PIDN service to Bridgeport is proposed as a ro/ro service, to minimize these time and cost penalties.

• Trip frequency. Unlike trucks, short-sea and coastal carriers do not offer transporta-tion services on demand; rather, they provide service on fixed schedules. Unlike rail-roads, however, which typically provide daily or twice-daily service to origins and destinations, none of the short-sea and coastal operations in the United States provides even daily service; in fact, service frequency of the existing U.S. coastal services described earlier varies from one to five times per week. As “just-in-time” logistics practices continue to increase the demand for frequent deliveries of goods, short-sea and coastal carriers may need to increase trip frequencies in order to effectively com-pete with these other modes.

• Backhaul traffic. In most U.S. domestic and international trade lanes, cargo flows are not balanced – more cargo moves in one direction than in the other. This means lower utilization of capital equipment and labor costs, lower revenues, and higher costs to the shipper – all of which affect the feasibility and sustainability of short-sea opera-tions. Creating a balance between “headhaul” and “backhaul” revenues is therefore critical.

• Cabotage laws. Cabotage laws are enacted by countries to require coastal and intra-coastal traffic to be carried on their own nationally registered- and sometimes built and crewed ships. The defining U.S. cabotage law is the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, known as the Jones Act. The Jones Act affects all vessels engaged in the transportation of cargo or passengers between two points within the United States, its territories, and possessions, as well as vessels engaged in dredging, towing, salvage, fishing, and

8 Ibid.

Page 89: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

other marine operations. Under the Jones Act, vessels engaged in these activities are required to be U.S.-built, U.S.-documented, U.S.-owned and controlled, and U.S.-crewed. The Jones Act helps maintain the viability of U.S. shipbuilders; ensures a strong merchant marine; allows the United States to sustain the maritime infrastruc-ture necessary for national defense purposes; and contributes to the safety of the ves-sels and vessel operators engaging in maritime operations. However, it prevents foreign-built, -owned, or -operated ships from engaging in domestic trade. Some shippers argue that the Jones Act results in higher shipping rates for coastal or short-sea cargo, as ships constructed in the United States are typically more expensive than those built in other countries (due to higher labor rates and materials costs) and U.S. merchant mariners are typically paid more than their foreign counterparts. These shippers feel that the requirements of the Jones Act prevent short-sea and coastal shipping from being able to compete effectively with other, deregulated modes.

• Domestic containers. Short-sea operations in the United States are currently limited to international (ISO) containers (40 feet x 8.0 feet x 8.5 feet). Domestic containers (53 feet x 8.0 feet x 9.0 feet) and truck trailers are typically not handled via short-sea operations, making it difficult for short-sea or coastal shipping to compete with trucks for traffic. In fact, only two short-sea operators in the United States (Trailer Bridge and Matson) routinely handle domestic containers.

• Harbor Maintenance Tax. The Harbor Maintenance Tax was established in 1986 as part of the Water Resources Development Act. The tax is levied on all commercial vessels passing through Federally maintained channels. The funds collected are deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to offset channel maintenance costs. Until 1998, the tax was assessed on all cargo (imports, exports, and domestic cargo). In 1998, the tax on exports was declared unconstitutional; the fee on imports is currently being challenged, as well. In 2002, more than $800 million was expected to have been collected from this assess-ment. The Harbor Maintenance Tax particularly affects shipments along inland waterways, as a strict interpretation of the tax requires it to be paid each time cargo passes through a Federally maintained channel. The transshipment goods by barge from the Port of New York-New Jersey, for instance, could result in the tax being lev-ied twice: once upon arrival at PANYNJ and again upon arrival at the inland port, if accessed via a Federally maintained channel.9 This tax structure may place short-sea, coastal, and inland shipping at a price disadvantage in comparison to other modes.

• Lack of dedicated Federal funding stream. According to a 2002 General Accounting Office report,10 Federal expenditures for the commercial marine transportation system averaged approximately $3.9 billion annually from 1999-2001; approximately

9 Robert Mottley, “New York-New Jersey’s Inland Alternative,” in American Shipper Journal of

International Logistics, Vol. 43, No. 6, June 2001. 10 U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Financing and a Framework for Infrastructure Investments,

September 2002.

Page 90: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-17

80 percent of these funds came from the U.S. Treasury’s general fund. During the same time period, Federal expenditures for the aviation and highway transportation systems averaged $10 billion and $25 billion, respectively.11 Unlike funding for the marine transportation system, funding for the aviation and highway transportation systems is obtained exclusively through the collection of user fees. Reliance on the Treasury’s general fund makes future project planning and programming difficult, as fluctuations in the available surplus of the general fund are difficult to predict year to year. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has reported a backlog of more than 500 authorized projects that cannot be funded out of the general fund.12 Some stake-holders believe that better defining the Federal role in maintaining and improving the marine transportation system along with creating a dedicated Federal revenue stream would improve the competitiveness of coastal, short-sea, and inland shipping in com-parison to other modes.

4.3 Results of Community Planning Workshops

The LISWTP study process includes an extensive public outreach program. The initial phase of this program was designed to:

• Inform the study area community about the study purpose and process; and

• Actively solicit input and recommendations for potential enhancements to existing services, and for the location and provision of new services, both pro and con.

In addition to regular meetings of the project Steering and Advisory Committees, a total of 12 open public forums have been held – one project kickoff meeting in Bridgeport, and 11 “Community Planning Workshop” (CPW) events held in:

• Southold, New York (Long Island);

• Stamford, Connecticut (two workshops);

• New Rochelle, New York;

• Lower Manhattan, New York;

• New London, Connecticut;

• New Haven, Connecticut;

• Glen Cove, New York (Long Island);

• Stony Brook, New York (Long Island);

11 Ibid. 12 American Society of Civil Engineers, Navigable Waterways Fact Sheet.

Page 91: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

• Shoreham, New York (Long Island); and

• Bronx, New York.

Each CPW had the same format: an overview presentation on the study purpose and scope; a plenary session in which participants discussed the role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services, and their visions for waterborne transportation over the next 20 years; and a breakout session where participants documented their sugges-tions and concerns on maps and in text form.

Written notes from each workshop are presented in Appendix A for reference. Generally, the results can be summarized as follows:

• People find the idea of improved waterborne transportation very attractive. They want better options for moving passengers and freight; they want to relieve conges-tion; and they want to support economic development, both locally and regionally.

• People are very concerned about the potential negative impacts of expanded water-borne transportation. This includes: vehicular traffic and parking; marine environ-mental impacts and dredging; potential public costs and subsidies; and long-term sustainability of services.

• People are very receptive to innovative approaches. They suggested looking at a wide range of vessel types and technologies. They directed the study to focus on intermo-dal connections and clear signage to minimize highway traffic. They recommended consideration of more than 60 potential ferry sites and hundreds of potential service routes.

Many of the sites and services were recommended with conditions and limitations. That is, many sites were viewed as appropriate for low-intensity, low vehicle trip-generating services (such as passenger water taxi), but not for higher intensity services (such as vehi-cle ferries).

Participants also encouraged the study to look beyond current and forecasted demand for business and non-business travel within the study area, and to consider the potential for induced demand (new trip-making resulting from new services), for special events-generated demand, and for emergency response-related demand.

Figures 4.4 through 4.14 on the following pages offer a general characterization of the potential waterborne transportation sites and services that were identified at each CPW. The maps are color coded: green means that all commenters were in favor; yellow means that some were in favor or that there were limitations and conditions on their approval; and red means that all commenters were opposed. Readers should refer to the CPW summary notes in Appendix A for context and additional detail, beyond these generalized summary graphics.

Page 92: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-19

Figu

re 4

.4C

omm

unity

Pla

nnin

g W

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y M

apSo

utho

ld, N

ew Y

ork

–A

ugus

t 1, 2

002

Mon

tauk

Ligh

t rai

l ser

ving

Nor

th a

nd S

outh

For

ks,

conn

ectin

g to

ferr

y an

d LI

RR a

t Ca

lver

ton/

Riv

erhe

ad

Cal

vert

on/

Riv

erhe

ad

Mid

-isla

ndm

onor

ail

Brid

ge o

r tun

nel l

ocat

ed

“som

ewhe

reac

ross

Sou

nd”

Exte

nd L

IRR

from

Por

t Je

ffers

on to

Sho

reha

m; h

igh-

spee

d or

ligh

t rai

l eas

t of

Shor

eham

Nap

eagu

e Ba

y

Exte

nd L

IRR

From

Por

t Jef

f.to

Sho

reha

m

Norwalk

New Haven

Westbrook

Guilford

Madison

Old

Lym

e

New

Lon

don

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Ft. P

ond

Bay

Oyster Bay N.W.R.

Port Jefferson

Shoreham

Mt. Sinai

Sunken Meadow

Glen Cove

Huntington

Sag

Har

bor

Sout

h Sh

ore f

erry

conn

ectio

ns b

etw

een

Man

hatta

n, S

heep

shea

d Ba

y, C

aptr

ee B

asin

, Sou

th F

ork

and

Nor

th F

ork

Dee

rfie

ld

Lower M

anhatt

an

Ori

ent

Nor

th F

ork,

Sout

h

Fork

, She

lter I

sland

Greenport

Northville

Mattituck

Serv

ice t

o m

ultip

le CT

site

s

Mon

tauk

Ligh

t rai

l ser

ving

Nor

th a

nd S

outh

For

ks,

conn

ectin

g to

ferr

y an

d LI

RR a

t Ca

lver

ton/

Riv

erhe

ad

Cal

vert

on/

Riv

erhe

ad

Mid

-isla

ndm

onor

ail

Brid

ge o

r tun

nel l

ocat

ed

“som

ewhe

reac

ross

Sou

nd”

Exte

nd L

IRR

from

Por

t Je

ffers

on to

Sho

reha

m; h

igh-

spee

d or

ligh

t rai

l eas

t of

Shor

eham

Nap

eagu

e Ba

y

Exte

nd L

IRR

From

Por

t Jef

f.to

Sho

reha

m

Norwalk

New Haven

Westbrook

Guilford

Madison

Old

Lym

e

New

Lon

don

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Ft. P

ond

Bay

Oyster Bay N.W.R.

Port Jefferson

Shoreham

Mt. Sinai

Sunken Meadow

Glen Cove

Huntington

Sag

Har

bor

Sout

h Sh

ore f

erry

conn

ectio

ns b

etw

een

Man

hatta

n, S

heep

shea

d Ba

y, C

aptr

ee B

asin

, Sou

th F

ork

and

Nor

th F

ork

Dee

rfie

ld

Lower M

anhatt

an

Ori

ent

Nor

th F

ork,

Sout

h

Fork

, She

lter I

sland

Greenport

Northville

Mattituck

Serv

ice t

o m

ultip

le CT

site

s

Page 93: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figu

re 4

.5C

omm

unity

Pla

nnin

g W

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y M

apSt

amfo

rd, C

onne

ctic

ut –

Sept

embe

r 17,

200

2, a

nd D

ecem

ber 1

1, 2

002

Stamford

Rye Play

land

LGA

Sum

mer

serv

ice t

o So

utho

ld a

nd M

onta

uk

Link

CT

job

cent

ers

with

LI w

orkf

orce

Port Chest

er

Mam

aronec

k

Larchmont/

New R

ochell

e.Fr

eight

bar

ge to

/from

Brid

gepo

rt en

ergy

pla

nt

Bridgeport

Sout

hold

Mon

tauk

New

Lon

don

To A

tlant

ic C

ity

Lower M

anhatt

an

Bus t

o Fo

xwoo

ds

Opp

ositi

on to

tr

uck

or fr

eight

fer

ry a

t Sta

mfo

rd

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

dati

ons

Frei

ght F

erry

Bus C

onne

ctio

ns

Freig

ht fe

rries

to

redu

ce I-

95 tr

ucks

Glen Cove

Stamford

Rye Play

land

LGA

Sum

mer

serv

ice t

o So

utho

ld a

nd M

onta

uk

Link

CT

job

cent

ers

with

LI w

orkf

orce

Port Chest

er

Mam

aronec

k

Larchmont/

New R

ochell

e.Fr

eight

bar

ge to

/from

Brid

gepo

rt en

ergy

pla

nt

Bridgeport

Sout

hold

Mon

tauk

New

Lon

don

To A

tlant

ic C

ity

Lower M

anhatt

an

Bus t

o Fo

xwoo

ds

Opp

ositi

on to

tr

uck

or fr

eight

fer

ry a

t Sta

mfo

rd

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

dati

ons

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

dati

ons

Frei

ght F

erry

Bus C

onne

ctio

ns

Freig

ht fe

rries

to

redu

ce I-

95 tr

ucks

Glen Cove

Page 94: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-21

Figu

re 4

.6C

omm

unity

Pla

nnin

g W

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y M

apN

ew R

oche

lle, N

ew Y

ork

–Se

ptem

ber 1

9, 2

002

Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Stew

art A

irpor

t to

Suffe

rn to

Por

t Che

ster

co

mm

uter

rail

link

Lower

Manhattan

Norwalk

Port Chester

Beac

on, N

Y to

Dan

bury

, CT

com

mut

er ra

il lin

e

Pelham

Mamaroneck

Larchmont/

New Rochelle

New Haven

Shoreham

I-91

to F

loyd

Pkw

y.

brid

ge/tu

nnel

LGA

Port Wash.Glen Cove

Oyster BayHuntington

Northport

I-278 to Oyster Bay

Expwy. bridge/Tunnel

Madison

New

Lon

don

Wat

ervi

lle

Nor

thvi

lle

Nap

eagu

e Ba

y

[Site

s in

yello

w a

re g

ood

for p

asse

nger

ferr

y, b

ut

not a

uto

or tr

uck

ferry

]

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Stamford

To S

hore

ham

, Nor

thvi

lle or

Wat

ervi

lle

Sum

mer

/wee

kend

serv

ice t

o/fro

m W

estc

hest

er

To/fr

om M

anha

ttan

and

Wes

tche

ster

Brid

gepo

rt co

ntai

ner

barg

e with

feed

er

serv

ice t

o LI

Sum

mer

/wee

kend

serv

ice to

/from

Wes

tche

ster

Recr

eatio

nal

“par

tybo

ats”

Jitne

y fee

der s

ervi

ce

on I-

278

from

Ste

war

t A

irpor

t to

Rye

Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Stew

art A

irpor

t to

Suffe

rn to

Por

t Che

ster

co

mm

uter

rail

link

Lower

Manhattan

Norwalk

Port Chester

Beac

on, N

Y to

Dan

bury

, CT

com

mut

er ra

il lin

e

Pelham

Mamaroneck

Larchmont/

New Rochelle

New Haven

Shoreham

I-91

to F

loyd

Pkw

y.

brid

ge/tu

nnel

LGA

Port Wash.Glen Cove

Oyster BayHuntington

Northport

I-278 to Oyster Bay

Expwy. bridge/Tunnel

Madison

New

Lon

don

Wat

ervi

lle

Nor

thvi

lle

Nap

eagu

e Ba

y

[Site

s in

yello

w a

re g

ood

for p

asse

nger

ferr

y, b

ut

not a

uto

or tr

uck

ferry

]

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Stamford

To S

hore

ham

, Nor

thvi

lle or

Wat

ervi

lle

Sum

mer

/wee

kend

serv

ice t

o/fro

m W

estc

hest

er

To/fr

om M

anha

ttan

and

Wes

tche

ster

Brid

gepo

rt co

ntai

ner

barg

e with

feed

er

serv

ice t

o LI

Sum

mer

/wee

kend

serv

ice to

/from

Wes

tche

ster

Recr

eatio

nal

“par

tybo

ats”

Jitne

y fee

der s

ervi

ce

on I-

278

from

Ste

war

t A

irpor

t to

Rye

Page 95: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-22 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figu

re 4

.7C

omm

unity

Pla

nnin

g W

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y M

apLo

wer

Man

hatta

n, N

ew Y

ork

–Se

ptem

ber 2

4, 2

002

Bridgeport

Mamaroneck

LGA

Wes

tche

ster

To

L.I.

East

End

Sum

mer

Car

Fer

ry

Rye (Playland)

Bus F

rom

Rye

To

I-278

Offi

ce P

arks

Port Cheste

r

Lower

Manhattan

Glen Cove

Stony Brook

New Roch

elle

Stamford

Sout

hold

New

Lon

don

New Haven

Con

sider

usi

ng fe

rries

to

tran

spor

t bus

es

Shoreham

Roosevelt

Island

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Cont

ainer

and T

ruck

Fer

ries

Ferr

y sit

es sh

own

coul

d se

rve a

s maj

or

hubs

for a

var

iety

of se

rvic

es

Bridgeport

Mamaroneck

LGA

Wes

tche

ster

To

L.I.

East

End

Sum

mer

Car

Fer

ry

Rye (Playland)

Bus F

rom

Rye

To

I-278

Offi

ce P

arks

Port Cheste

r

Lower

Manhattan

Glen Cove

Stony Brook

New Roch

elle

Stamford

Sout

hold

New

Lon

don

New Haven

Con

sider

usi

ng fe

rries

to

tran

spor

t bus

es

Shoreham

Roosevelt

Island

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Cont

ainer

and T

ruck

Fer

ries

Ferr

y sit

es sh

own

coul

d se

rve a

s maj

or

hubs

for a

var

iety

of se

rvic

es

Page 96: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-23

Figu

re 4

.8C

omm

unity

Pla

nnin

g W

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y M

apN

ew L

ondo

n, C

onne

ctic

ut –

Sept

embe

r 26,

200

2

New

Lon

don

Sepa

rate

Fre

ight

& P

ass.

Con

nect

ions

With

Rai

l

Sag

Har

bor

Ft. P

ond

Bay

Lower

Manhattan

Cont

aine

r Bar

ge to

PA

NYN

J

Har

bor A

nd C

ross

-Th

ames

Wat

er T

axi

Ori

ent

Waterville

New Haven/

East Haven/

Groton

Old Saybrook

Madison

Wading River

Sunken Meadow

BayvilleNorwalk

Greenwich

PAN

YN

J

Tham

es R

iver

ser

vice

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

New

Lon

don

Sepa

rate

Fre

ight

& P

ass.

Con

nect

ions

With

Rai

l

Sag

Har

bor

Ft. P

ond

Bay

Lower

Manhattan

Cont

aine

r Bar

ge to

PA

NYN

J

Har

bor A

nd C

ross

-Th

ames

Wat

er T

axi

Ori

ent

Waterville

New Haven/

East Haven/

Groton

Old Saybrook

Madison

Wading River

Sunken Meadow

BayvilleNorwalk

Greenwich

PAN

YN

J

Tham

es R

iver

ser

vice

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Page 97: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-24 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figu

re 4

.9C

omm

unity

Pla

nnin

g W

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y M

apN

ew H

aven

, Con

nect

icut

–O

ctob

er 1

, 200

2

New Haven

ISP

JFK

JFK-

EWR

Frei

ght F

erryLG

A

Cont

ainer

/truc

k fer

ryWest Haven

Branford River

Bridgeport

Rye

Stamford

Norwalk

Greenwich

Port Jefferso

n

Shoreham

Nor

thpo

rt

EWR

Lower Manhattan

Ori

ent

Gre

enpo

rt

Mon

tauk

Fish

ers

Isla

nd

Wes

terl

y, R

I

Link

LI l

abor

to C

T jo

b ce

nter

s

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

PANYNJ

New Haven

ISP

JFK

JFK-

EWR

Frei

ght F

erryLG

A

Cont

ainer

/truc

k fer

ryWest Haven

Branford River

Bridgeport

Rye

Stamford

Norwalk

Greenwich

Port Jefferso

n

Shoreham

Nor

thpo

rt

EWR

Lower Manhattan

Ori

ent

Gre

enpo

rt

Mon

tauk

Fish

ers

Isla

nd

Wes

terl

y, R

I

Link

LI l

abor

to C

T jo

b ce

nter

s

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

PANYNJ

Page 98: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-25

Figu

re 4

.10

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing

Wor

ksho

p Su

mm

ary

Map

Gle

n Co

ve, N

ew Y

ork

–O

ctob

er 3

, 200

2

Oyster Bay

Shoreham

Port Washington

Larchmont –

City Island

Inte

r-ai

rpor

t air

carg

o fer

ry

Recr

eatio

nal f

erry

bet

wee

n G

len

Cove

and

Bea

r M

ount

ain

via

Man

hatt

an

Glen Cove

New Haven

Bridgeport

Norwalk

Stamford

Port Chester

Rye (Playland)

JFK

Lower

Manhattan

Huntington

Northport

SunkenMeadow

Port Jefferson

Shin

neco

ck In

let

New

Lon

don

Ori

ent

EWR

Mon

tauk

Nap

eagu

e Ba

y

Wat

ervi

lle

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erryGre

enpo

rt

Freig

ht F

erry

to N

ew E

ngla

nd

“Nor

thSh

ore C

onne

ctor”

Serv

ices

Oyster Bay

Shoreham

Port Washington

Larchmont –

City Island

Inte

r-ai

rpor

t air

carg

o fer

ry

Recr

eatio

nal f

erry

bet

wee

n G

len

Cove

and

Bea

r M

ount

ain

via

Man

hatt

an

Glen Cove

New Haven

Bridgeport

Norwalk

Stamford

Port Chester

Rye (Playland)

JFK

Lower

Manhattan

Huntington

Northport

SunkenMeadow

Port Jefferson

Shin

neco

ck In

let

New

Lon

don

Ori

ent

EWR

Mon

tauk

Nap

eagu

e Ba

y

Wat

ervi

lle

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erryGre

enpo

rt

Freig

ht F

erry

to N

ew E

ngla

nd

“Nor

thSh

ore C

onne

ctor”

Serv

ices

Page 99: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-26 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figu

re 4

.11

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing

Wor

ksho

p Su

mm

ary

Map

Ston

y Br

ook,

New

Yor

k –

Oct

ober

10,

200

2

Lower

Manhattan

Shoreham

Rive

rhea

d

Sag

Har

bor

Shor

eham

or N

orth

ville

to

CT

betw

een

New

H

aven

and

Lym

e

Port Jeff. H

arbor

to LIRR trolley

L.I.

labo

r to C

T &

Wes

tche

ster

Port Jefferso

n

Stony Brook – Port

Jeff. rail lin

k

Elec

tric

rent

al ca

rs a

vaila

ble

Use

L.I.

east

ern

bays

to

mov

e peo

ple

New Rochelle

ManorhavenGlen Cove

Oyster Bay

HuntingtonNorthport

Gre

enpo

rt

Nor

thvi

lle

New Haven

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

LGA

Port Wash.

Lower

Manhattan

Shoreham

Rive

rhea

d

Sag

Har

bor

Shor

eham

or N

orth

ville

to

CT

betw

een

New

H

aven

and

Lym

e

Port Jeff. H

arbor

to LIRR trolley

L.I.

labo

r to C

T &

Wes

tche

ster

Port Jefferso

n

Stony Brook – Port

Jeff. rail lin

k

Elec

tric

rent

al ca

rs a

vaila

ble

Use

L.I.

east

ern

bays

to

mov

e peo

ple

New Rochelle

ManorhavenGlen Cove

Oyster Bay

HuntingtonNorthport

Gre

enpo

rt

Nor

thvi

lle

New Haven

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

LGA

Port Wash.

Page 100: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-27

Figu

re 4

.12

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing

Wor

ksho

p Su

mm

ary

Map

Shor

eham

, New

Yor

k –

Dec

embe

r 10,

200

2

Shoreham/

Wading River

Inte

r-ai

rpor

t air

carg

o fer

ryBridgeport

Norwalk

Stamford

Huntington

Sunken Meadow

Port Jefferson

New

Lon

don

LGA

EWR

Gre

enpo

rt

Glen Cove

Riv

erhe

ad

Sag

Har

bor

Larchmont

Oyster Bay

Northport/

Asharoken

[Not

e: S

ome p

artic

ipan

ts re

gist

ered

glo

bal o

bjec

tions

to

any/

all w

ater

born

e ser

vice

s, ex

istin

g or

futu

re; t

hose

op

inio

ns a

re n

ot re

flect

ed o

n th

is Su

mm

ary

map

.]

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Shoreham/

Wading River

Inte

r-ai

rpor

t air

carg

o fer

ryBridgeport

Norwalk

Stamford

Huntington

Sunken Meadow

Port Jefferson

New

Lon

don

LGA

EWR

Gre

enpo

rt

Glen Cove

Riv

erhe

ad

Sag

Har

bor

Larchmont

Oyster Bay

Northport/

Asharoken

[Not

e: S

ome p

artic

ipan

ts re

gist

ered

glo

bal o

bjec

tions

to

any/

all w

ater

born

e ser

vice

s, ex

istin

g or

futu

re; t

hose

op

inio

ns a

re n

ot re

flect

ed o

n th

is Su

mm

ary

map

.]

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Page 101: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-28 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figu

re 4

.13

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

Pla

nnin

g W

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y M

apBr

idge

port

, Con

nect

icut

–Se

ptem

ber 1

7, 2

002

Ori

ent

LIRR

Con

nect

ions

at P

ort W

ashi

ngto

n, G

len C

ove,

Bayv

ille,

Port

Jeffe

rson

, Mon

tauk

Feed

er ba

rge,

Brid

gepo

rt

to P

ort o

f NY/

NJ

Offsite parking

near 25A

ShorehamW

ater

ville

Mon

tauk

New Haven

Bridgep

ort

Stamford

Port

Jefferson

Sunken

Meadow

Northport

Bayville

Glen Cove

Port

Washington

LGA

Lower

Manhattan

PAN

YN

J

No

LIRR

exte

nsio

n to

Ori

ent P

oint

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Ori

ent

LIRR

Con

nect

ions

at P

ort W

ashi

ngto

n, G

len C

ove,

Bayv

ille,

Port

Jeffe

rson

, Mon

tauk

Feed

er ba

rge,

Brid

gepo

rt

to P

ort o

f NY/

NJ

Offsite parking

near 25A

ShorehamW

ater

ville

Mon

tauk

New Haven

Bridgep

ort

Stamford

Port

Jefferson

Sunken

Meadow

Northport

Bayville

Glen Cove

Port

Washington

LGA

Lower

Manhattan

PAN

YN

J

No

LIRR

exte

nsio

n to

Ori

ent P

oint

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yello

w =

Mix

ed R

eact

ion

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Pass

enge

r Fee

der/

Wat

er T

axi

Pass

enge

r Fas

t Fer

ry

Con

vent

iona

l Veh

icle

/ Pa

ssen

ger F

erry

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Frei

ght F

erry

Page 102: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-29

Figu

re 4

.14

Plan

ning

Wor

ksho

p Su

mm

ary

Map

Com

posit

e Sum

mar

y of

Site

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Stamford

Port Cheste

r

Rye (Play

land) Port W

ash.

Glen Cove

Oyster Bay

Shoreham

Stony

Brook

Bridgeport

New Haven

New London

West Haven

Ft. Pond Bay

Sunken Meadow

Mt. Sinai

Port Jefferso

n.

Cal

vert

on/

Riv

erhe

ad

Sag Harb

or

Montauk

North

ville

LGA

New Roch

elle

Ori

ent

Fish

ers

Isl.

Wes

terl

y, R

I

Old Lyme

Guilford

MadisonWestbrook

Shin

neco

ck

Inle

t

Norwalk

Greenwich

Wading River

JFK

Napeague Bay

Mamaro

neck

Larchmont

Bayville

Branford River.

Roosevelt

Isl.

Lloyd Harbor

E. M

ario

n

Dee

rfie

ld

Hunts Point

ManorhavenO.B

.NW

R

.

Northport

Huntington

Green

portSo

utho

ldWate

rvill

e

Midtown

and Lower

Manhattan

PANYNJ

EWR

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Stamford

Port Cheste

r

Rye (Play

land) Port W

ash.

Glen Cove

Oyster Bay

Shoreham

Stony

Brook

Bridgeport

New Haven

New London

West Haven

Ft. Pond Bay

Sunken Meadow

Mt. Sinai

Port Jefferso

n.

Cal

vert

on/

Riv

erhe

ad

Sag Harb

or

Montauk

North

ville

LGA

New Roch

elle

Ori

ent

Fish

ers

Isl.

Wes

terl

y, R

I

Old Lyme

Guilford

MadisonWestbrook

Shin

neco

ck

Inle

t

Norwalk

Greenwich

Wading River

JFK

Napeague Bay

Mamaro

neck

Larchmont

Bayville

Branford River.

Roosevelt

Isl.

Lloyd Harbor

E. M

ario

n

Dee

rfie

ld

Hunts Point

ManorhavenO.B

.NW

R

.

Northport

Huntington

Green

portSo

utho

ldWate

rvill

e

Midtown

and Lower

Manhattan

PANYNJ

EWR

Col

or K

ey

Blue

= N

one

Opp

osed

Yel

low

= M

ixed

Rea

ctio

n

Red

= N

one

In F

avor

Floa

ting

Tran

sfer

Inte

rmod

al Ju

nctio

n

Iden

tifie

d Po

rt/L

andi

ng S

ite

Lege

nd o

f Par

ticip

ant R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Page 103: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

4-30 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

4.4 Potential Sites and Services

Potential sites and services identified by prior studies, assessment of potential short-sea initiatives, and community input – as summarized in sections 4.1 through 4.3 above – is to be carried forward through the LISWTP study process. During the course of the Task 2 effort, outreach and coordination with other public agencies resulted in the definition of identification of two additional critical markets:

• Lower Manhattan commuters; and

• Bronx freight ferry service to/from JFK and other locations.

From this point forward, the process consists generally of:

• Data collection for these potential sites and services (presented in Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this Technical Memorandum);

• Screening of alternatives to develop a “short list” of most promising sites and services (to be accomplished in Task 3);

• Detailed evaluation of “short list” alternatives (to be accomplished in Task 4); and

• Preparation of a final report and recommendations (to be accomplished in Task 5).

Page 104: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5.0 Inventory of Vessel Types, Marine Resources, and Landside Accessibility

Page 105: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-1

5.0 Inventory of Vessel Types, Marine Resources, and Landside Accessibility

5.1 Overview

There are many factors that determine whether a particular waterborne service is feasible, beneficial, and sustainable. Among these is the availability of suitable:

• Vessel types;

• Marine resources (channel depths, navigation characteristics, etc.);

• Highway access to the marine facility (for cars or trucks); and

• Rail and bus transit access to the marine facility.

There are many other factors as well – market demand, land use and environmental fac-tors, economic development potential, profitability, need for public investment, etc. – but the factors listed above represent minimum threshold requirements that potential services must meet in order to be considered.

For the potential sites and services discussed in Section 4.0, inventories of vessel, marine, highway, and transit conditions were performed. These inventories will support the development and application of screening criteria in Task 3 of the LISWTP.

5.2 Passenger and Freight Ferry Types and Technologies for Consideration in Long Island Sound

A key element of the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan is to develop an inventory of potentially applicable passenger and vehicle vessel types. This includes not only designs that have been proven in service in the study area and elsewhere in the United States, but also advanced designs that are emerging throughout the world. It is recognized that some of these “cutting edge” designs may ultimately prove infeasible or undesirable for use in the study area. Those determinations will be made in Task 4 of the study, as part of the service recommendations.

Page 106: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Vessel Types Currently Operating in the Region

Conventional Passenger/Car Ferries

Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Ferry Company operate a fleet of three monohull passen-ger/car ferries between Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Port Jefferson, New York. The fer-ries have loaded drafts of between 11.5 and 11.9 feet and carry 1,000 passengers and roughly 100 vehicles.

Figure 5.1 Bridgeport-Port Jefferson Ferry – Grand Republic

Cross Sound Ferry operates six monohull passenger/vehicle ferries. These are deeper draft vessels (drawing around 10 feet), with cruising speeds in the range of 11 to 15 knots.

Figure 5.2 Cross Sound Ferry – John H

Page 107: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-3

Table 5.1 The Cross Sound Ferry Fleet

Ferry Specs John H. Susan Anne

Cape Henlopen

New London

North Star Caribbean

Sea Jet I (Fast Ferry)

Length Overall (feet) 240 250 327 210 168 128 122

Beam (feet) 60 53 55 44 42 38 51.5

Draft (feet) 10 11 10 10 9 7 5.7

Cruising Speed (knots) 13 15 12.5 15 11 13 28

Date Built 1989 1964 1941 1979 1968 1972 1989

Power (horsepower) 3,000 3,300 3,000 2,400 1,800 1,440 5,000

Car Capacity 120 80 90 45 35 22 0

Passenger Capacity 1,000 840 900 300 300 130 400

South Ferry, Inc. and North Ferry, Inc. operate four passenger/vehicle ferries each and have approximately five-minute transits between Shelter Island and North Haven (South Fork) and Greenport (North Fork), respectively. Three of the South Ferry vessels have passenger capacities between 99 and 153, with space for around 12 to 15 cars. They are expected to replace one of the oldest vessels with a 20-vehicle capacity vessel. The loaded operating draft of these vessels is between five and seven feet.

Figure 5.3 South Ferry and North Ferry Vessels

Page 108: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Viking Fleet operates three seasonal passenger vessels (monohull designs, hulls 25 to 40 years old) between Montauk, Block Island, Rhode Island, New London, and Mystic. They range from 50 to 348 passengers, and have operating drafts between seven and 10.1 feet.

New York Waterway operates a large fleet of conventional passenger-only vessels on more than 20 routes between New Jersey and Midtown/Lower Manhattan; until recently, they also provided service across the East River.

Table 5.2 Conventional Passenger Vessels in New York Harbor

Vessel Name Passenger Capacity

Displacement (Tons)

Loading Type

Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Draft (Feet)

Shuttle I 120 83 Side/Stern 74.5 18.5 8.3 Shuttle II 120 83 Side/Stern 74.5 18.5 8.3 Shuttle III 98 75 Side 64 16.5 5 Shuttle IV 149 96 Side/Stern 95.3 19.7 5.9 Shuttle V 149 93 Side/Stern 75 22.1 7.4 PI-Manhattan 350 90 Bow 90 20 4 PI-New Jersey 350 90 Bow 90 20 4 West New York 148 62 Bow 62 20 4 Port Imperial 146 69 Bow 77 20 4 Weehauaken 64 55 Bow 50 14 4 George Washington 399 95 Bow 87 25 6 Thomas Jefferson 399 95 Bow 87 25 6 Alexander Hamilton 399 95 Bow 87 25 6 Abraham Lincoln 399 95 Bow 87 25 6 Henry Hudson 404 99 Bow 87 25 6 Robert Fulton 404 99 Bow 87 25 6 Empire State 404 99 Bow 87 25 6 Garden State 404 99 Bow 87 25 6 John Stevens 399 95 Bow 95 24 6 Theodore Roosevelt 149 71 Side 93 28.5 3.3 Sinatra Class 149 89 Bow 79 28.5 3.3 Express I 260 97/61 Side 82 28.8 7 Express II 300 97/61 Side 82 28.8 7 City Express 149 99 Side 100 22 5 Bravest 350 156 Bow/Side 130 33.3 5.9 Finest 350 156 Bow/Side 130 33.3 5.9

Page 109: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-5

New York City’s Staten Island Ferry fleet consists of nine vessels, ranging between 196 and 300 feet in length, with drafts of between 16 and 21.7 feet. These are very high-capacity vessels, carrying up to 6,000 passengers per trip.

Figure 5.4 Staten Island Ferry – Samuel I. Newhouse

Fast Ferries

The only vessel currently operating on the Sound that is not a monohull vessel is the Sea Jet I, operated by Cross Sound Ferry from New London, Connecticut, to Orient Point, New York. Sea Jet I (shown in Figure 5.5) is a 121-foot, 400-passenger, 28-knot catamaran ferry, which makes a 16-mile transit in around 40 minutes. (The standard definition of a “fast ferry” is 30-knot service; Sea Jet I is reported as a 28-knot vessel.)

Fox Navigation of New London, Connecticut, previously operated the 34-knot, 400-passenger catamaran Millenium between Glen Cove, New York, and Wall Street, but that service was suspended. Fox Navigation owns two additional high-speed catamarans, the 45-meter TriCats Sassacus and Tatobam. During their years of operation (they are cur-rently sitting dockside, out of operation), they were the fastest passenger-only ferries in North America and sailed on various routes in Long Island Sound. They have capacities of 268 and 301 passengers respectively, with loaded service speeds of 43 knots.

Page 110: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 5.5 Cross Sound Ferry – Sea Jet I

Figure 5.6 Fox Navigation – Sassacus

In New York Harbor, Seastreak operates a fleet of four fast passenger catamarans between Manhattan and Atlantic Highlands, Highlands and South Amboy, New Jersey. The New York and the New Jersey have a length of 140.7 feet and a draft of 6.4 feet, and carry up to 400 passengers each at a service speed of 38 knots. The Manhattan and the Liberty have a length of 82 feet and a draft of 6.4 feet, and carry up to 300 passengers each at 30 knots.

Figure 5.7 Seastreak – New York

Page 111: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-7

Water Taxi

One vessel type that may be applicable for protected waterways, such as harbors and along the rivers in the Long Island Sound, is the water taxi. Although these vessels have typically had low passenger capacity and have been operated in warmer climates where a fully enclosed vessel is not necessary, there have been several recent versions of these shallow-draft vessels that may be useful in ports around the Sound.

The newest and most notable water taxi in the northeast at this time is New York Water Taxi, which began service at the end of September 2002, operating with stops at Fulton Ferry Landing in Brooklyn, Wall Street/South Street Seaport (Pier 11), Battery Park (Pier A), and Battery Park City (World Financial Center). They are operating three 53-foot alu-minum catamarans with low-wake hulls, as shown in Figure 5.8. These vessels are claimed to have low-emission engines. They have a capacity of 75 passengers, an oper-ating draft of roughly four feet, and a speed of 24 knots. The vessels have “bow-on berthing” to minimize turnaround times. The vessels are designed to USCG Subchapter T for service on protected waterways.

Figure 5.8 New York Water Taxi

Freight Vessels

Local waterborne cargo on Long Island Sound is transported either in trucks on ferries, on shallow-draft (up to nine feet) barges, on dedicated freight ferries, or on deeper draft self-powered cargo vessels.

Most of the tonnage moved in and around Long Island Sound consists of oil and aggre-gates (sand and gravel, cement, etc.), which is typically carried on bulk barges between Connecticut and the north shore of Long Island.

Page 112: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Containers are currently being moved by barge to/from PANYNJ marine terminals, but not to/from Long Island Sound terminals; the next phase of the PANYNJ’s Port Inland Distribution Network program is a container barge service to/from Bridgeport.

Last year, Derecktor Shipyard delivered a new aluminum freight ferry, the America, for service between Long Island and Fire Island. It is a traditional, single-chine hull designed to carry cargo for building contractors on Fire Island. The boat was designed to Subchapter T and has a small area forward on the main deck for bulk cargo and passen-gers, followed by an open cargo deck large enough to accommodate cement trucks. The stern has a hydraulic ramp for loading and unloading. Service speed is 15.5 knots.

Vessel Types Not Currently Operating in the Region

Conventional Passenger/Vehicle Ferries

A very innovative design on the market is from the Canadian company, Robert Allan Ltd. The Odyssey class ferries are modular monohull ro/ros with standard end (bow and stern) units, wheelhouse units, and deckhouse units to suit a particular space demand. As the operator expands or changes service routes, the vessel may be split and additional modules added. The capacity of the typical composite vessels ranges from 64 to 180 cars (with passenger capacity ranging from 250 to 600.) Operating speeds range between 10 and 16.5 knots and the operating draft is 2.0 meters. The company literature boasts cost effectiveness, low-wake wash, and operational efficiency.

Figure 5.9 Odyssey Class Ferries, Sample Configurations

Page 113: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-9

Fast Passenger and Fast Passenger/Vehicle Ferries

Derecktor Shipyards (which has two shipyards on Long Island Sound) is currently building a 240-foot fast ferry (designed by Nigel Gee and Associates, Ltd.) for the Alaska Marine Highway System. These vessels carry 250 passengers and 35 large vehicles (typi-cal for Alaska), and have an operating speed of 35 knots in up to sea state six.

SeaConn, LLC has plans to start up Flying Boats, operating with a technically advanced 214-foot, 375-passenger pentamaran design. The ferry is specifically designed for low emissions, low noise, and low wake. With waterjet propulsion (three units each), these vessels will have operating speeds of more than 60 knots (their web site states 70 knots.) Tentative plans are for operation between both shores of Long Island Sound and Manhattan/LaGuardia Airport.

There are numerous high-speed passenger and car ferry designs available in Europe and Asia. Most of them are catamaran hulls with diesel engines (some designs allow for a choice of diesel or a gas turbine configuration) and waterjets. Designers tend to have a selection of four to five typical designs based on route and operator needs. Operating speeds in the range of 35 to 60 knots are available, depending on vessel length and passenger/car capacity. Several newer designs are highlighted in the following paragraphs.

A new double-ended high-speed car ferry design out of Norway is attracting attention. The 80-meter FerryCatTM 120 (Figure 5.10) was designed and built by Fjellstrand AS, and has a capacity of 112 cars and 400 passengers. The operating speed of the vessel is 22 knots, much faster than typical car ferries, as mentioned above. The design incorporates several safety and comfort features, including a bridge that may be rotated 180 degrees each time the vessel reverses direction. The propulsion system for the vessel incorporates four Ulstein Aquamaster Azipull podded propulsors, each powered by a diesel engine. The cost of these vessels is stated to be in the neighborhood of $29 million.

Figure 5.10 Fjellstrand’s FerryCat 120 Concept Design

Page 114: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Afai Ships in China presents a variety of designs, including a 200-foot car ferry with diesel engine propulsion and capacity for 438 passengers and 52 vehicles. This catamaran design has a 6.9-foot draft and an operating speed of 40 knots.

Figure 5.11 Afai Ships 60-meter (200-foot) Car Ferry

The Afai Ships top-of-the-line design is the 110m Super Ferry catamaran with gas turbine engines that has an operating speed of around 60 knots. The hull is a wave-piercing design, and the designer claims that the vessel can operate in wave heights up to 4.5 meters. The vessel can accommodate 700 or more passengers and 100 cars, and is designed for international voyages of up to 500 nautical miles. Though this is obviously not practical for the Long Island Sound routes being investigated, it presents an example of the extreme end of the range of vessels available.

Rodriquez Caniteri Navali, an Italian company, is well known for its high-speed monohull designs. The Aquastrada TMV 114 (shown in Figure 5.12 on the following page) is a 370-foot monohull ferry that has a capacity of 928 passenger and 200 cars (as well as three trucks in lieu of 14 cars). It has waterjet propulsion (with diesel or gas turbine powering options) and a maximum operating speed of up to 50 knots (with an operating draft of approximately 8.6 feet.) The company has installed its own Seaworthiness Management System (S.M.S.) and boasts high levels of passenger comfort, as well as excellent maneuverability.

Page 115: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-11

Figure 5.12 Rodriquez’ Aquastrada TMV 114

Generally speaking, the arguments in favor of fast ferries have been speed (resulting in better service frequency and travel time characteristics) and passenger comfort (given that these are generally high-end designs). The arguments against fast ferries have included high fuel consumption and environmental (principally wake) impacts, but these impacts can vary significantly depending on the specific vessel design and application. The chal-lenge is to maximize service at an acceptable cost and level of impact. This equation has been solved for the fast ferries currently operating in the region, and next-generation ves-sel designs may offer additional opportunities.

Surface-Effect Vessels

The category of surface-effect ships encompasses numerous variations on hull designs, but all of them essentially center on an induced air layer between the water and hull (or hulls, in the case of catamaran vessels) to reduce friction drag and ultimately increase fuel effi-ciency. Some hovercraft fit into the surface-effect ships category, but these will be dis-cussed in a later section of this Memorandum.

Several companies, including DK Group of the Netherlands, are working on designs that use nozzles to generate gas bubbles into an air cavity in the hull of the ship. They refer to this technology as an “air cavity ship,” or ACS. Air Ride Craft of Florida has developed a patented air-assisted catamaran design, the SeaCoaster concept, which has recesses built into the underside of each hull (shown in Figure 5.13 on the following page). Air is blown into the recesses and the result is pressurized air cushions that support up to 80 percent of the hull’s displacement. The company states that the powering requirements at high speeds are approximately 60 percent that of a regular catamaran.

Page 116: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 5.13 Bottom View of SeaCoaster Hull

In conjunction with an ongoing transportation study for the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Seaworthy Systems of Connecticut has expanded on the SeaCoaster to develop a concept design for a 350-passenger ferry with extremely low emissions, low-wake wash, and low internal and external noise. This vessel, known as the “Green Machine” because of its environmentally conscious design, has a length on deck of approximately 140 feet, a maximum draft at rest of 5.7 feet, and a design operating speed of 35 knots.

Hovercraft

Air-cushioned vehicles, which have been used in military surface for many decades, have become a new alternative for passenger ferries. In the past, there have been numerous manufacturers of smaller versions (less than 10 passengers) of hovercraft as well as hover-craft kits that could be purchased and built by anyone. Several companies are taking this technology and applying it to larger passenger ferries. Advanced Hybrid Aircraft in Oregon is has several hovercraft vessels in its product list, the largest of which is the Saturn class, having a 20-passenger capacity with a cruising speed of 90 knots. This vessel is still in the design stage and has yet to be built.

Griffon Hovercraft of Southampton, England, currently operates several designs world-wide, including Scandinavia, and the commercial concept design of their Griffon 8000TD shown in Figure 5.14 on the following page (they also have a military version) has a capacity of 80 passengers with a more modest full-load cruising speed of more than 40 knots. The smaller Griffon 2000TD has a capacity of 18 to 25 passengers and an operating speed of 35 knots, and Crowley Marine Services has recently placed an order with Kvichak Marine Industries of Seattle (the licensed U.S. manufacturer) for a vessel to be operated in Alaska.

Page 117: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-13

Figure 5.14 Griffon 8000TD Hovercraft

The advantages to hovercraft are that the craft travels entirely above the water, so there is little surface friction and the craft achieve higher speeds (up to around 100 knots). These craft are amphibious (with no operating draft), and as such can be operated directly from water to land, especially in locations where shallow water may be a problem. They had been considered for operation in certain areas of San Francisco Bay, especially near the airport where additional port facilities (piers, etc.) would not be required by the use of a hovercraft. The primary disadvantages to hovercraft include high capital and mainte-nance cost (because the technology is relatively new and materials are expensive), the ride is not as smooth as conventional passenger ferries, and there are high levels of exterior noise generated by the craft. It is thought at this time there are no existing commercially operated hovercraft ferry service in the United States, and most hovercraft applications have been for the military.

Water Taxis

A variety of companies, such as Water Taxi, Inc., offer other shallow draft vessels for use in protected areas. These vessels operate primarily in warm-weather areas such as Fort Lauderdale. A new design from Canal Boats, Inc., offered by Water Taxi and shown in Figure 5.15 on the following page, offers a passenger capacity between 49 and 70 (varying as the length varies between 33 and 42 feet). These designs are also to USCG Subchapter T for inland routes. The lightweight diesel electric plant, while limiting the speed of these vessels, allows an operating draft of three feet, which makes it ideal for some of the potential, not-currently-established Long Island ports.

Page 118: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 5.15 Canal Boats, Inc. Water Taxi Vessel

Many cities with inner harbor areas such as Baltimore and Boston are currently operating water taxis, though they are more “open” designs than the Canal Boat, Inc. design above, and as such are even less practical in the winter months on Long Island Sound. Again, it should be noted that these vessels will typically be classified under USCG Subchapter T for inland waterways.

Amphibious Vessels

Many port cities around the country have begun to use amphibious “duck” vessels for passenger transportation, especially in the tourist trade. These vessels are essentially buoyant bodies built on over-the-ground truck or RV chassis. The technology dates back to the military’s amphibious DUKW vehicles of World War II. Several companies such as Chicago DUKWs have restored and modified old DUKWs for use in tours. Others have taken the old technology and built upon it to develop new RV-style vehicles with modern safety enhancements. Cool Amphibious Manufacturers International, LLC (C.a.m.I., LLC) has patents pending on its Hydra-Terra design (shown in Figure 5.16 on the following page). One version of this amphibious vehicle has a capacity of 49 passengers. The vehi-cle is built to ABS standards and is USCG certified. It is powered by diesel engines. Ves-sel speed was not available, but it is believed to be around eight to 10 knots.

Page 119: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-15

Figure 5.16 Hydra-Terra Amphibious Vehicle from C.a.m.I., LLC

“Wing in Ground” Craft

Flarecraft Corporation in Connecticut is currently testing a Wing in Ground (WIG) craft. WIG craft have been in development since the late 1980s and are essentially boat-airplane hybrids. The craft develops a ground effect as the wing passes over the surface of the water. The air pressure beneath the wing keeps the wing from touching the water, and the vessel acts as a hovercraft does. Figure 5.17 depicts a craft that the owner operated on Narragansett Bay until it crashed and was destroyed in the summer of 2002. The Flarecraft prototypes are currently five-seaters, but the Japanese are working on designs of the next generation WIG. Their S-90-200 passenger/cargo amphibious WIG would seat 220 passengers. The largest benefits from these vessels include high speed (100 mph in the case of the Flarecraft) and fuel efficiency (from the ground effect). There are, however, safety concerns regarding this technology.

Figure 5.17 Flarecraft

Page 120: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.3 Representative Ferry Characteristics by Type

#1 Conventional

Car Ferry

#2 Fast Car

Ferry

#3 High-Speed

Ferry

#4 Fast Car

Ferry

Builder/Owner Cross Sound Ferry Rodriquez Cantieri Navali

SUPERSHUTTLE AMD

Country United States Italy Australia Australia In Service Yes Yes Yes Yes For U.S. Market Yes Not yet Not yet Not yet USCG approved Yes Not yet Not yet Not yet Model N/A TMV 114 62 M Supershuttle AMD 1130 Hull type Monohull Monohull Monohull Catamaran Dimensions (Lx B) 168’ x 42’ 372’ x 54’ 203’ x 28’ 254’ x 64’ Draft 9’ 8.6’ 4.3’ 7’ Engine type Diesel engines (6) Diesel engines (2) Gas turbines Gas turbines Propulsion type Shaft/propeller 3 waterjets 2 waterjets 2 waterjets Total propulsion output: HP/KW 1,800/1,323 38,340/28,590 16,300/12,000 42,376/31,600 Cruising speed (knots) 11 50+ 40+ 57 Maximum speed (knots) N/A N/A 60 60 Capacity (PAX) 300 928 450 446 Capacity (Cars) 35 200 0 52 Wake Average Low wash/wake N/A N/A Emissions N/A Average Low – GT/LNG Low – GT/LNG Capital Cost $5 million $47 million $15 million $40 million Operating Cost $1.2 million $12 million $7.1 million $15.6 million

#5 High-Speed

Ferry

#6 Surface-Effect

Ship #7

Hovercraft

#8 Amphibious “Duck”

Builder/Owner AMD Griffon/Kvichak C.a.m.I. Country Australia United States United States United States In Service Yes No No Yes For U.S. Market Yes Yes Yes Yes USCG approved Yes Potentially Yes Yes Model AMD 385 Green Machine 2000TD Hydra-Terra Hull type Catamaran Catamaran Hovercraft Duck Dimensions (Lx B) 143’ x 39’ 139’ x 40’ 39’ x 15’ 39’ x 8.5’ Draft 4.9’ 5.5’ (- 2’) ~4’ Engine type Diesel engines (2) Diesel engines Diesel engines Diesel engine Propulsion type 2 waterjets Shaft/propeller Fans Shaft/propeller Total propulsion output: HP/KW 7,108/5,300 6,440/4,800 (2) 150 HP 210 HP Cruising speed (knots) 57 35 35 Maximum speed (knots) 60 Capacity (PAX) 350 488 18-25 48 Capacity (Cars) 0 0 0 0 Wake Low wash/wake Low wake/wash Low wake Average Emissions Low Extremely low Moderate Average Capital Cost $10 million $9 million $1 million $650,000 Operating Cost $3.3 million $3.6 million $425,000 $400,000

Page 121: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-17

Freight Vessels

Many of the vessels described in the passenger section are capable of carrying trucks of varying sizes (from vans to large combination tractor-trailers), and could be utilized in truck ferry services.

Container barges are another option. In an effort to alleviate some of the tractor-trailer traffic on regional highways and expressways, alternative methods to move sea containers from ports in New Jersey to regional destinations are being investigated as part of the Port Inland Distribution Network (PIDN) initiative. There are two primary types of container barges – load-on/load-off (lo/lo) and roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro). A lo/lo barge is loaded by a port facility crane in a manner similar to a containership. With ro/ro barges, the contain-ers are rolled onto the barge via ramps, either as a complete tractor unit, or as a separate chassis, handled by yard tractors.

One company providing container barge services, Columbia Coastal, currently operates a fleet of 11 container barges, which are: between 250 and 393 feet in length; between 14.5 and 23.5 feet of draft; and between 450 and 912 TEUs (20-foot container equivalent units) capacity.

Figure 5.18 Columbia Coastal Container Barge

Notes and References on Vessel Inventory

Notes

Ferries built in the United States will be classified by the U.S. Coast Guard in one of sev-eral categories: Subchapter T, K, or H, and/or High-Speed Craft. In general, Subchapter T ferries are those that are less than 100 gross tons and carry less than 150 passengers. Crewing requirements for these vessels will be the least restrictive (fewer and less certified crew required). Subchapter K ferries are those less than 100 gross tons but carrying more than 150 passengers, or having overnight accommodations for more than 49

Page 122: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

passengers. These will generally require a greater number of crewmembers with greater qualifications. Those vessels built to Subchapter H are generally greater than 100 gross tons. Again, the crew certification requirements will be greater than those for Subchapter T boats. Any vessel that is designed to the High-Speed Craft Code will require crewmembers with type-specific (e.g., high-speed) training. Additionally, for Subchapters K and H and High-Speed Craft, design and operating requirements for areas such as lifesaving and firefighting equipment will be greater and more comprehensive than those for Subchapter T. Thus, operating and capital costs for these vessels will likely be greater than for Subchapter T vessels.

References

Air Craft Ride, “SeaCoasterTM Air Assisted Catamaran,” (2000), Retrieved February 28, 2003, from http://www.seacoaster.com/index.htm.

Boats and Designs, (n.d.), Retrieved February 5, 2003, from http://www.watertaxi.com/ Commercial/COMBoatDesigns.Asp.

Burg, Don and Wayne Johnson, “Air-Assisted Catamaran, the Seacoaster Concept,” pre-sented at the Royal Institution of Naval Architects International Conference on “Hydrodynamics of High Speed Craft, 1999.”

C.a.m.I., LLC, “Hydra-Terra,” (May 6, 2002), Retrieved February 26, 2003, from http://www.camillc.com/hydra.htm.

C.a.m.I., LLC, “National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation M-00-5” (n.d.), Retrieved February 26, 2003, from http://www.camillc.com/hydra.htm.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Boating Division, “High Speed Ferry Safety Task Force of Long Island Sound,” one-page informational brochure, Summer 2002.

DK Group, “DK Design of AIR CAVITY SHIPs,” (n.d.), Retrieved February 28, 2003, from http://www.dkgroup.dk/design.html.

“Ferry designers tackle the truck market,” Marine Log, July 2002, p.13.

Flying Boats, (n.d.), Retrieved February 7, 2003, from http://www.seaconn.com/index2.html.

Griffon Hovercraft, “Griffon 8000TD Hovercraft,” (n.d.), Retrieved February 26, 2003, from http://www.griffonhovercraft.com/8000TD.htm.

HyperTek, “FlareCraft,” (1999), Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.sfgate.com/hypertek/9703/flarecraft.shtml.

“The Odyssey Class Ferries,” promotional brochure, (n.d.), Robert Allan Ltd.

Page 123: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-19

Press Release, Say goodbye to traffic: New York Water Taxi to revolutionize travel around NYC, August 8, 2002, Retrieved February 5, 2003, from http://www.nywatertaxi.com/nywt/site/pressrelease_1.php.

Rodriquez Cantieri Navali, “The Aquastrada Range of Monohulls,” (n.d.), Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.rodriquez.it/market/fastferries.html.

Zizes, G. Justin, “Derecktor NGA 16m catamarans enter service in New York,” FastFerry International, September 2002, p. 28.

5.3 Marine Conditions Inventory

Each potential site identified in the Community Planning Workshop process was reviewed and evaluated on the basis of 25 separate marine conditions criteria. These included:

• Location;

• Navigability, channel depth, and tidal range;

• Protection, bottom type, and current;

• Bridge clearance, Coast Guard restrictions, boat traffic, and navigational hazards;

• Marine recreational and commercial activities; and

• Other relevant conditions.

National datasets (U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) were used to initially complete a site comparison matrix (see Table 5.4, presented in 10 parts on the following pages). This was followed up with site visits by LISWTP project team staff with direct navigation experience on Long Island Sound. It is recognized that national data may not be current in all cases, and this inventory will be continuously updated as better informa-tion becomes available throughout the course of the study.

In some locations, more than one potential operating site exists, and follow-up evaluations at a finer level of geographic detail will be warranted if the location is advanced to detailed assessment in Task 4.

Page 124: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 1 of 10)

1 Captree Basin AO SS 45 Great South Bay; Fire Island Inlet; Atlantic Ocean Yes No Yes 1.9 2.3 1 8 8 5 - 6 0.4

2 Westerly, RI LIS NS 111.4 Pawcatuck River Yes No Yes 2.6 3.1 1.5 7 4.1 Unk 6

3 Foxwoods LIS NS None None No No No -- -- -- -- -- -- --

4 Fishers Island LIS NS 103.4 West Harbor; LIS Yes No No 2.5 3 1.4 12-20 12 3-7 0.64

5 New London LIS NS 97.9 Thames River; LIS Yes Yes Yes 2.6 3.1 1.5 Var Var Var 0

6 Old Lyme LIS NS 93.6 Connecticut River; LIS Yes No Yes 3.1 3.7 1.7 25 10 Unk 3.43

7 Westbrook LIS NS 81.6 Menunketesuk and Patchogue Rivers; LIS Yes No Yes 4.1 4.7 2.2 10 7D; 50W 5 0.51

8 Madison LIS NS 74.5 LIS Yes No Yes 4.9 5.6 2.6 13 None 3 0

9 Guilford LIS NS 70.5 Guilford Harbor; LIS Yes No Yes 1.65 1.8 0.86 7 4 4 0.68

10 Branford LIS NS 64LIS; Branford Harbor;

Branford River Yes No Yes 5.9 6.8 3.1 9 7D; 100W Unk 0.79

11 New Haven LIS NS 59.9New Haven Harbor; LIS;

Quinnipiac River Yes Yes Yes 6 6.9 3.2 22 30D; 500W 7 0.2

12 West Haven LIS NS 59.9 New Haven Harbor; West River; LIS

Yes No Yes 6.2 7.1 3.3 14 5.4D; 75W Unk 1.44

13 Bridgeport LIS NS 47 LIS; Pequonnock River Yes Yes Yes 6.8 7.7 3.6 19 10D; 200W 6 1.61

14 Norwalk LIS NS 36 LIS Yes Yes Yes 7.1 8.2 3.8 15 6 6 2.67

15 Stamford LIS NS 30 Stamford Harbor; LIS Yes Yes Yes 7.2 8.3 3.9 19-25 10D; 125W 6 1.46

16 Danbury LIS NS None None No No No -- -- -- -- -- -- --

17 Greenwich LIS NS 26.4 Captain/Greenwich Harbor/ LIS Yes No Yes 7.4 8.5 4 13 9D; 130W Unk 1.07

18 Port Chester LIS NS 25.8 Byram River; LIS Yes No Yes 7.2 8.5 3.9 9-13 10D; 50W Var 0.71

19 Rye LIS NS 23.6 LIS Yes No Yes 7.2 8.4 3.9 15 7 Unk 0.36

20 I-287 (Tarrytown) HR E 25 Hudson River Yes No Yes 3.2 3.7 1.8 14 8 06-12 0.37

21 Beacon HR E 54 Hudson River Yes Yes Yes 2.8 3.2 1.5 21 None Unk None

Inla

nd T

rans

it D

ista

nce

(9)

Moo

ring

Dep

th

(4)

Dee

p D

raft

Cri

teri

a (2

)

Site Waterway

Axi

s

Cha

nnel

Dep

th

and

Wid

th (8

)

Nav

igab

le?

(1)

Shor

e

MTL

(6)

Mile

post

Mea

n Ti

dal

Rang

e (4

)

Spri

ng T

idal

Ra

nge

(5)

Shal

low

Dra

ft C

rite

ria

(3)

Entr

ance

Dep

th

(7)

Page 125: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-21

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 2 of 10)

1 Captree Basin Sand Sand light 65 V; 494 H Fixed None No wake zone within Captree Basin

Shoals immediately adjacent to channels

2 Westerly, RI River; well protected soft mud/sand 0.5E; 0.6F Following N/A N/A None Wake restrictions

throughout River shoaly throughout

3 Foxwoods -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

4 Fishers IslandAll except NE storms; small breakwater

Sand & Shell 0.6 E/F Cross N/A N/A None No wake zone in harbor Old Pile fields, small

islands and outcroppings

5 New London Large harbor with coves; breakwaters Var 0.4 E/F

Following N/A N/ASubmarines have ROW;

Security Zones at various locations

6mph restriction within 200 ft of docks or piers Few; wide open port

6 Old Lyme River; well protected soft mud/sand 1.0 E/F Following

19V 81V; 218H

Bascule Fixed None 5mph through certain areas Ice in winter; barge traffic

7 Westbrook Little Unknown Unk N/A N/A None None Shoals; river traffic

8 Madison Small rock jetty rocky; sand 0.4 E/F Crossing N/A N/A None None Rock outcrops

9 Guilford Moderate proceeding inland Unknown Weak and

Variable N/A N/A None No Wake; 5mph speed limit

Rock Outcrops, Reef, Shoals, very shallow

outside channel

10 Branford Moderate proceeding inland Unknown Weak and

Variable N/A N/A None None Rock Outcrops Shoals outside channel

11 New Haven Large harbor with coves; breakwaters Hard Mud/Sand 0.4 E/F

Following N/A N/A Navigation Restrictions at Tomlinson Lift Bridge None Rock Outcrops

Shoals outside channel

12 West Haven Large harbor with coves; breakwaters Hard Mud/Sand Weak and

Variable N/A N/A None No wake in West River; 4mph in channel

Rock Outcrops Shoals outside channel

13 Bridgeport Seawall and breakwaters Shell; mud 0.5E; 0.6F

Following N/A N/A None Posted No wake and speed restricted zones Few; wide open port

14 Norwalk Inland harbor Shell; mud 0.6E; 0.4F Following N/A N/A None 4mph in harbor; multiple

no wake zones Shoals and Rocks

15 Stamford Inland Harbor; breakwaters Unknown 0.6E; 0.4F

Following N/A N/A None 4 mph through harbor Rocks; shoals

16 Danbury -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

17 Greenwich Inland harbor Unknown 0.4E; 0.5F Cross N/A N/A None 4mph in harbor; multiple no wake zones shoals; rocks

18 Port Chester Inland harbor Unknown Weak and Variable 60V; 100H Fixed None 4mph in harbor; multiple

no wake zones Shoals and narrow channel

19 Rye Inland harbor Unknown 0.4 E/F Crossing N/A N/A None 4mph in harbor; multiple no wake zones shoals; rocks

20 I-287 (Tarrytown) Little Protection Mud; Rock 1.10E; 1.40F Crossing 123V; 500H Fixed None None Minimal

21 Beacon Little Protection Unknown 1.10E; 0.8F Crossing 147V; 760H Fixed None None Minimal

Protection Bottom Type Current Near Mooring (10)

Bridge Clearance (11) CG Restrictions Boat Traffic RestrictionsOperable Bridge

Restriction Navigational HazardsSite

Page 126: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-22 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 3 of 10)

1 Captree BasinCaptree Robert Moses

State Parks; many other small

Heavy pleasure and fishing Charter Fishing Yes No This is a very busy area with party fishing boats. Navigation is strict, tight channels

and shoals are throughout the bay.

2 Westerly, RI Viking Marina; 3 others Light pleasure None Yes No Very long transit up a narrow river. Gets passengers inland quite far, but may sacrifice transit time. Stonington might be a secondary option.

3 Foxwoods -- -- -- -- -- No accessible waterway other than a small tributary. Would require a significant amount of canal building.

4 Fishers Island 2 small marinas Light pleasure None Yes No - Small Ferry

Only one good harbor for mooring/anchoring which will take a beating from a northerly or northeasterly storm.

5 New London Crocker's Boat Yard; many others

Moderate Pleasure; sailing

Submarines; Heavy shipping and tankers Yes

Yes - Ferry New London

to OrientWell established, busy commuter, industrial, and military port

6 Old Lyme Old Lyme Dock Co.; 3 small marinas Light pleasure Moderate barge and

shipping to Hartford Yes NoSignificant problems in the winter with the river freezing over. Average transit up the river as the channel up to Lyme is fairly well maintained. Significant currents

up to 4kts are common at the mouth of the river

7 Westbrook Brewer's Pilot Marina; 5 others

Moderate to heavy pleasure None Yes No Good protection from two river branches that have moderate ice problems during

the winter months. Good waterfront marina development.

8 Madison 2 small marinas Light pleasure and fishing None Yes No

Two wharfs are established along the shore for protection and access by boaters. Depths are shallow and would require minor dredging any possibly a channel for

deeper draft boats.

9 Guilford Brown's Boat Yard Moderate pleasure None Yes NoDifficult entry to the harbor - many obstructions. Small town marina to

accommodate only small boats. Upriver is protected by the Audubon Society

10 Branford Pier 66 Marina; Branford YC; 3 others Light pleasure Minimal Yes No Moderate ices problems during the winter when the river freezes. Access to the

downtown portion of the river is limited due to 3.5ft channel depth.

11 New Haven Oyster Point Marina; 2 others Light pleasure Moderate commercial

tankers and barge Yes Yes - Oilers and Industrial Well established, busy commuter and industrial port

12 West Haven West Cove Marine Light pleasure Moderate commercial tankers and barge Yes No Very little distance difference than New Haven. Facilities are at the head of West

River which is significantly shallower that the rest of New Haven Harbor..

13 Bridgeport Captain's Cove seaport; 9 others

Light to moderate fishing/pleasure

Heavy shipping; tankers;ferries Yes

Yes - Bridgeport to

Port JeffWell established, busy commuter and industrial port

14 Norwalk Norwalk Cove Marina; 10 others

Moderate pleasure and fishing traffic

Light barge and shipping Yes

Yes - Industrial Terminal

Well established and protected harbor, with an many marinas and landing.

15 Stamford Multiple small marinas; Harbor Park Marina

Moderate pleasure and fishing traffic Minimal Yes No Well established and protected harbor, with an inner seawall for additional

protection.

16 Danbury -- -- -- -- -- No accessible waterway other than a small tributary. Would require a significant amount of canal building.

17 Greenwich Multiple small marinas; Palmer Point Marina

Moderate pleasure traffic Minimal Yes No Many options on harbors including Cos Cob Harbor, Indian Harbor, and others.

18 Port Chester Multiple small marinas Moderate pleasure traffic None Yes No

Upriver there are many more barge and commercial marinas as one approaches the city. Good drafts and navigation until north of the city. Approved waterfront

revitalization program.

19 Rye Multiple small marinas Moderate pleasure traffic None Yes No

Many marinas and waterfront access. Navigation is harder at night as there are many rocks exposed at MLW with day markers only. Approved waterfront

revitalization program.

20 I-287 (Tarrytown) Tarrytown Marina; 2 others

Light pleasure and fishing

Light shipping and barge Yes No Good access to the waterfront. Significant ice problems during the winter months

when the Hudson freezes.

21 Beacon New Hamburg; 2 others Light pleasure and fishing

Light shipping and barge Yes No Small marinas common with some areas of commercial capable platforms.

Significant ice problems during the winter when the Hudson Freezes.

Har

bor o

r M

oori

ng

Faci

litie

s?

Traffic Existing Terminal? CommentsCommercial TrafficAdjacent MarinasSite

Page 127: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-23

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 4 of 10)

22 Bear Mountain HR W 41 Hudson River Yes Yes Yes 2.9 3.4 1.8 32 None Unk None

23 Stewart Airport HR W 49 Hudson River Yes Yes Yes 3.5 1.7 21 None Unk None

24 Mamaroneck LIS NS 21 Mamaroneck Harbor; LIS Yes No Yes 7.3 8.6 3.9 12 8D; 80W Unk 0.82

25 Larchmont LIS NS 19.9 Larchmont Harbor; LIS Yes No Yes 7.3 8.4 3.9 16 8 5 0.61

26 New Rochelle LIS NS 18.4 Eastchester Bay; Hutchinson River Yes No Yes 7.3 8.4 3.9 12 8D; 75W Var 0.55

27 Roosevelt Island ER W 5.3 East River Yes Yes Yes 4.8 5.8 2.6 22 None Unk None

28 40th St West HR E 4 Hudson River Yes Yes Yes 4.3 5.2 2.3 40 39 15+ None

29 LGA ER SS 12 Flushing Bay Yes Yes Yes 6.8 7.9 3.7 23 15D; 150W 6 0.2

30 Lower Manhattan (The Battery) Datum Datum 0 New York Harbor Yes Yes Yes 4.56 5.52 2.5 40 39 15+ None

31 EWR NJ W 10 Newark Bay Yes Yes Yes 5.08 6.15 2.77 40 33 30+ 6.5

32 Elizabeth, NJ NJ W 10 Newark Bay Yes Yes Yes 5.08 6.15 2.77 40 33 30+ 6.43

33 Atlantic City, NJ NJ W 90 AO; Abescon Inlet Yes No Yes 4.09 4.95 2.2 20 16 5-10 0.31

34 JFK AO SS 22 Jamaica Bay; Grassy Bay Yes No Yes 5.4 6.9 2.8 19 7D Unk 9.81

35 Sheepshead Bay AO SS 14 Rockaway Inlet Yes No Yes 4.1 5 2.2 18 9-23 5-10 0.9

36 Islip AO SS 52Connequot River; Great

South Bay Yes No No 0.7 0.8 0.3 6 4-5 3-6 1

37 Shinnecock Inlet AO SS 78.5 Shinnecock Bay; AO Yes Yes Yes 2.9 3.5 1.5 27 12 6 3.24

38 Calverton/Riverhead LIS NF 121.8 Peconic Bay; Peconic River Yes No Yes 2.9 3.4 1.4 8 6 Unk 2.54

39 Deerfield LIS NF 116.3 Peconic Bay; Bullhead Bay Yes No Yes 2.4 2.9 1.4 15 8 unk 0.8

40 Sag Harbor LIS NF 107.5 Shelter Island Sound; Gardniers Bay Yes No Yes 2.5 3 1.4 39 10 7 0.92

41 Napeague Bay/ Promised Land AO SF 142 Napeague Bay; BIS; AO Yes No Yes 2.3 2.7 1.3 5-25 24-28 unk none

42 Ft. Pond Bay AO SF 138 Ft. Pond Bay; BIS; AO Yes Yes Yes 2.13 2.59 1.24 15 none unk None

Site

Axi

s

Shor

e

Mile

post

Waterway

Nav

igab

le?

(1)

Dee

p D

raft

Cri

teri

a (2

)

Shal

low

Dra

ft C

rite

ria

(3)

Mea

n Ti

dal R

ange

(4

)

Spri

ng T

idal

Ra

nge

(5)

MTL

(6)

Entr

ance

Dep

th

(7)

Cha

nnel

Dep

th

and

Wid

th (8

)

Moo

ring

Dep

th (4

)

Inla

nd T

rans

it D

ista

nce

(9)

Page 128: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-24 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 5 of 10)

Bear Mountain Little Protection Rocky 1.10E; 0.8F Crossing 155V Fixed None None Minimal

Stewart Airport Little Protection Rocky 1.10E; 0.8F Crossing 155V Fixed None None Minimal

Mamaroneck Inland harbor grass; rocky Weak and Variable N/A N/A None 4mph speed restriction in

channelShoals; unmarked rock

outcrops

Larchmont Inland harbor Unknown 0.4 E/F Following N/A N/A None 4mph speed restriction in

channelShoals; unmarked rock

outcrops

New Rochelle Inland River Mud; hard sand 0.4 E/F Following

59H; 13V 68H; 8V

Bascule Rolling Lift None None Shoals; Obstruction laden

complicated channel

Roosevelt Island Minimal from South and North

mud/sand; organic clays

2.90E; 2.80F Following 44V Lift; East

Channel None None Heavy currents; rock outcrops

40th St West Minimal protection mud/sand; organic clays 1.4 E/F Crossing N/A N/A None None None

LGA Inland cove; good protection soft mud/sand Unknown N/A N/A No vessels height 35+ ft

under 1mi visibilityTransit with no delay in

channel None

Lower Manhattan (The Battery) Minimal mud/sand;

organic clays3.5E; 2.9F Crossing 183V Fixed VTS Report Procedures None Minimal

EWR Inland harbor mud/sand; organic clays 0.7 E/F Crossing 138V; 800H Fixed VTS Report Procedures;

Navigation restrictions Regulated private traffic Large traffic

Elizabeth, NJ Inland harbor mud/sand; organic clays 0.7 E/F Crossing 138V; 800H Fixed VTS Report Procedures;

Navigation restrictions Regulated private traffic Large traffic

Atlantic City, NJ Inland Harbor; breakwaters sand and mud Weak and

Variable 60V Fixed None NoneShoaling at Clam Cr.;

Constantly shifting Nav Aids

JFK Inland bay; good protection Unknown 1.5E; 1.6F

Following 26V; 101H Swing None None Shoaling; narrow channels

Sheepshead Bay Inland bay; good protection sand and mud light N/A N/A None None Shoals, wrecks

Islip Inland river/bar; good protection mud/shell 0.2E/F N/A N/A None None Shoals

Shinnecock Inlet Inland bay; moderate protection sand/mud 2.3E; 2.5F

Following N/A N/A None None Shoals throughout bay

Calverton/Riverhead Inland waterway; good protection sand/mud unk 25 V; 88 H Fixed None None Shallow and narrow

DeerfieldInland harbor;

moderate protections

hard sand/mud light N/A N/A None None Shallow and narrow

Sag Harbor Inland bay; good protection hard sand/mud Unk N/A N/A No sailing in harbor No wake in harbor Rock fields; shoals; narrow

transit and breakwater

Napeague Bay/ Promised Land

Inland bay; moderate protection hard sand/mud 1.6E; 1.2F

Crossing N/A N/A None None Shoaling

Ft. Pond Bay Inland bay; good protection Unknown light N/A N/A None No Wake in Harbor Shoaling; pile fields

Site Operable Bridge Restriction CG Restrictions Boat Traffic Restrictions Navigational HazardsProtection Bottom Type Current Near

Mooring (10)Bridge

Clearance (11)

Page 129: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-25

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 6 of 10)

22 Bear Mountain State Park Marina Light pleasure and fishing

Light shipping and barge Yes No Small marinas common with some areas of commercial capable platforms.

Significant ice problems during the winter when the Hudson Freezes.

23 Stewart Airport Viking Boatyard; 2 others

Light pleasure and fishing

Light shipping and barge Yes No Small marinas common with some areas of commercial capable platforms.

Significant ice problems during the winter when the Hudson Freezes.

24 Mamaroneck Harbor Island Municipal; 4 others

Heavy pleasure traffic; sailboat racing None Yes No

Many marinas and waterfront access. Navigation is harder at night as there are many rocks exposed at MLW with day markers only. Approved waterfront

revitalization program.

25 Larchmont Larchmont YC; 3 others Heavy pleasure traffic; sailboat racing None Yes No

Many marinas and waterfront access. Navigation is harder at night as there are many rocks exposed at MLW with day markers only. Approved waterfrom

revitalization program.

26 New Rochelle Wright Island Marina; Imperial YC; 8 others

Light pleasure boat traffic None Yes No

Many marinas and waterfront access. Navigation is harder at night as there are many rocks exposed at MLW with day markers only. This is common along the

entire NY/CT coastline of the sound.

27 Roosevelt Island None Light pleasure moderate ferry; shipping; barge No No No established marinas, will have terminal installations similar to the current

projects in NYC at Pier A, and Battery Park City.

28 40th St West Chelsea; numerous others Light pleasure heavy ferry; shipping;

barge Yes Yes - NYWW Hub Established

29 LGA Worlds Fair Marina; 6 others Moderate Pleasure light barge and shipping Yes No

Much waterfront is available, but established marinas are a bus ride away from the terminal. Best bet is to build a terminal at the airport and develop landside access.

Many security issues are involved as well.

30 Lower Manhattan (The Battery) Numerous Moderate pleasure Heavy shipping; tankers;

ferry; industrial Yes Yes - Numerous Established

31 EWR Numerous Light pleasure Heavy shipping and industrial Yes Yes - 2 Marine

TerminalsAccessed through Newark Bay at the Marine terminals. Would require transit via

bus inland to the airport.

32 Elizabeth, NJ Numerous Light pleasure Heavy shipping and industrial Yes Yes - 2 Marine

Terminals Established

33 Atlantic City, NJ No less than 15 marinas Moderate pleasure Light barge and shipping Yes No Established marinas throughout the area with little to no restrictions on navigation.

34 JFK Norton Point Marina Moderate pleasure and fishing traffic Minimal No No

This is in the very marshy area of the island. Most of the waterfront is un-developed, and the best marina is on the east side of the airport. Best bet would be

to build an actual terminal at the airport and develop land access.

35 Sheepshead Bay Viking Marina; 3 others Moderate Pleasure; fishing Light shipping Yes No Small protected bay close to the Rockaway inlet. No significant detrimental

characteristics.

36 Islip Several small marinas Moderate seasonal fishing and pleasure None Yes No Quiet area along the south shore with many marinas. Shallow at the head of the

river, and no access upriver.

37 Shinnecock Inlet No less than 10Light to moderate

seasonal fishing and pleasure

Commercial fishing Yes No Very busy commercial fishing port with an unstable bay and channel. Continuous dredging performed to maintain depths means good access.

38 Calverton/Riverhead A couple of small marinas

Light pleasure and fishing None Yes No Very long transit from Orient Point, through the Peconic Bay, Shelter Island Sound,

and a small river. Moderate ice problems during the winter months.

39 Deerfield Town Dock Light pleasure and fishing None Yes No Very small fishing town with a small harbor and marina.

40 Sag Harbor Village of Sag Harbor; 8 others

Heavy seasonal fishing and pleasure None Yes

Yes - small local

passengerBusy harbor with an inner entrance and outer harbor protected by a breakwater.

41 Napeague Bay/ Promised Land Private

Light to moderate seasonal fishing and

pleasureCommercial fishing Yes No Very small fishing town with a small harbor and marina, "The Promised Land"

42 Ft. Pond Bay Private Light seasonal fishing and pleasure Commercial fishing Yes No Very small fishing town with a small harbor and marina.

Adjacent Marinas CommentsSite Traffic Commercial Traffic

Har

bor o

r M

oori

ng

Faci

litie

s?

Existing Terminal?

Page 130: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-26 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 7 of 10)

43 Lake Montauk AO SF 135 Lake Montauk; BIS; AO Yes No Yes 1.9 2.3 1 19 10-12D 2-6 0.75

44 Orient Point LIS SS 97 Orient Harbor; SIS; LIS Yes No Yes 2.5 3 1.4 14 8 5-8 0.1

45 East Marion LIS NF 103.9 Orient Harbor; SIS; LIS Yes No No 2.5 3 1.4 43 None 2-5 0.1

46 Greenport LIS NF 104.9 Orient Harbor; SIS; LIS Yes No Yes 2.4 2.9 1.4 24 None Unk None

47 Southold LIS NF 105.8 Orient Harbor; SIS; LIS Yes No Yes 2.3 2.7 1.3 50 6.5 Unk 0.48

48 Waterville LIS SS 88 LIS Yes No No 4 4.6 2.1 21 None 2 0.13

49 Northville LIS SS 77.8 LIS Yes No Yes 5.4 6.2 2.9 19 None Unk 0.37

50 Wading River LIS SS 66.1 LIS Yes No No 5.9 6.8 3.1 17 3 Unk 0.2

51 Shoreham LIS SS 64.1 LIS Yes No No 5.9 6.8 3.1 23 None Unk 0.2

52 Mt. Sinai LIS SS 57.9 LIS; Mt. Sinai Harbor Yes No Yes 6 6.9 3.2 23 8 Unk 0.54

53 Port Jefferson LIS SS 55.5 Port Jeff Harbor; LIS Yes Yes Yes 6.6 7.5 3.5 22-30 23D; 300W 8-14 1.9

54 Stony Brook LIS SS 48.5 Smithtown Bay; Porpoise Channel; LIS No No No 6.1 7 3.2 9 3D; 35W 3-5 1.47

55 Sunken Meadow LIS SS 42.5 Nissequoge River; LIS No No Yes 7 8 3.8 16 8 Unk 1.27

56 Lloyd Harbor LIS SS 35 Huntington Bay; LIS Yes No No 7.4 8.5 4 20 None 1 0.86

57 Huntington LIS SS 36.5 Huntington Harbor; LIS Yes No Yes 7.3 8.4 3.9 20 13 12-18 1

58 Northport LIS SS 36 Northport Bay; LIS Yes No Yes 7.3 8.4 3.9 9 None 2-8 0

59 Oyster Bay LIS SS 31.5 Oyster Bay; Cold Spring Harbor; LIS

Yes Yes Yes 7.3 8.4 3.9 20 16 Unk 1.1

60 Bayville LIS SS 25 LIS Yes No Yes 7.4 8.5 4 7 None 4 2.2

61 Glen Cove LIS SS 21 Hempstead Harbor; LIS Yes No Yes 7.3 8.6 3.9 16 4.5 8 0.66

62 Manorhaven LIS SS 23.5 Manhasset Bay; LIS Yes No Yes 7.3 8.6 3.9 9 None Unk 0.34

63 Port Washington LIS SS 18 Manhasset Bay; LIS Yes Yes Yes 7.3 8.6 3.9 29 11 Unk 0

Site

Axi

s

Shor

e

Mile

post

Waterway

Nav

igab

le?

(1)

Dee

p D

raft

Cri

teri

a (2

)

Shal

low

Dra

ft C

rite

ria

(3)

Mea

n Ti

dal R

ange

(4

)

Spri

ng T

idal

Ra

nge

(5)

MTL

(6)

Entr

ance

Dep

th

(7)

Cha

nnel

Dep

th

and

Wid

th (8

)

Moo

ring

Dep

th (4

)

Inla

nd T

rans

it D

ista

nce

(9)

Page 131: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-27

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 8 of 10)

43 Lake Montauk Inland bay; good protection mud/shell 0.6E; 1.2F

Crossing N/A N/A None No wake in harbor Endeavor Shoals; rock outcrops; inland shoaling

44 Orient Point Minimal soft mud/sand 0.3E; 0.4F Crossing N/A N/A None None Shoals; rock outcrops

45 East Marion Inland cove; good protection mud 1.2E; 1.5F

Crossing N/A N/A None None Shoals

46 Greenport Inland cove; good protection soft mud/sand 1.2E; 1.5F

Crossing N/A N/A None None Minimal

47 Southold Inland; small bay soft mud/sand Weak and Variable N/A N/A None No wake; aquaculture

restricted zones Obstructions; shoals

48 Waterville None hard 0.70E; 0.9F Crossing N/A N/A None None Obstructions; shoals

49 Northville None hard 0.70E; 0.9F Crossing N/A N/A None None Obstructions; shoals; tanker

mooring field

50 Wading River None rocky; hard sand 0.6E; 0.4F Crossing N/A N/A None None Obstructions; shoals

51 Shoreham None rocky 0.6E; 0.4F Crossing N/A N/A None None Obstructions; shoals; high

currents through Plum Gut

52 Mt. Sinai Inland cove; good protection soft mud/sand Weak and

Variable N/A N/A None 5 mph speed restriction Heavily occupied mooring fields; shoaling

53 Port JeffersonInland Harbor;

susceptible from the North

rocky; soft sand E1.9; F2.6; Following N/A N/A None 5 mph speed restriction Minimal

54 Stony Brook Inland tributary; good protection grass; mud Neg N/A N/A None No wake in Porpoise

Channel

Significant shoaling in channel; very narrow

throughout

55 Sunken Meadow Inland tributary; good protection rocky Weak and

Variable N/A N/A None No wake inside harbor rocks and shoals

56 Lloyd Harbor Inland cove; good protection soft mud/sand 0.4 E/F Crossing N/A N/A None 5 mph speed restriction Narrow channel; shoals

57 Huntington Inland harbor Unknown 0.4 E/F Crossing N/A N/A None 5 mph speed restriction; Marked water ski-area Narrow channel; shoals

58 Northport Inland; susceptible from NW soft mud/sand Weak and

Variable N/A N/A None No wake inside harbor Shoals

59 Oyster Bay Inland bay; good protection rock; soft sand E 0.4; F0.7

Varies N/A N/A None No wake inside harbor Shoals; rock outcrops

60 Bayville Inland cove; good protection shell; grass; mud Weak and

Variable 9V; 76H Bascule None 5 mph speed restriction No shelter; Shoals

61 Glen Cove Inland Harbor rocky; sand 0.3E; 0.1F Variable N/A N/A None No wake inside harbor Minimal

62 Manorhaven Inland harbor/bay; good protection soft mud/sand E0.3; F0.4 N/A N/A None 5mph in harbor; multiple

no wake zones Minimal

63 Port Washington Inland harbor/bay; good protection soft mud/sand E0.3; F0.4 N/A N/A None 5mph in harbor; multiple

no wake zones Minimal

Protection Bottom Type Current Near Mooring (10)

Bridge Clearance (11)

Operable Bridge Restriction CG Restrictions Boat Traffic Restrictions Navigational HazardsSite

Page 132: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-28 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 9 of 10)

43 Lake Montauk No less than 15 Heavy seasonal fishing and pleasure Seasonal passenger ferry Yes Yes

Lake Montauk is restrictively shallow through most of the area, but established docks and marinas have good access to the waterfront and can accommodate

deeper drafts.

44 Orient Point See Greenport Heavy seasonal fishing and pleasure Passenger/Car Ferries Yes

Yes - Orient to New London

CT and to Plum Island

Established Terminal with an unused ferry slip that the car-carriers are too deep in draft to use.

45 East Marion See Greenport Heavy seasonal fishing and pleasure None No No No real area for terminal along the waterfront.

46 Greenport Brewer's Yacht Yard; 9 others

Heavy seasonal fishing and pleasure Passenger/Car Ferry Yes Yes Small town with many marinas and waterfront. Good access to the north fork with

little inland transit required.

47 Southold Port of Egypt Marine; 4 others

Heavy seasonal fishing and pleasure None Yes

Yes - small local

passenger

Small town with many marinas and waterfront. Good access to the north fork with little inland transit required.

48 Waterville None Light to moderate seasonal fishing None No No Wide open to the Sound with a very small canal. No facilities for transient boaters.

Would require complete terminal construction.

49 Northville None Light to moderate seasonal fishing Yes - tankers offshore No No Small commercial harbor, with mooring fields for tankers. No real facilities for

boating have been established and would require complete terminal construction.

50 Wading River None Transit only None No No Wide open to the Sound with a very small canal. No facilities for transient boaters. Would require complete terminal construction.

51 Shoreham None Transit only None No No Wide open to the Sound with a very small canal. No facilities for transient boaters. Would require complete terminal construction.

52 Mt. Sinai Old Man's Boatyard; 1 other

Moderate pleasure, fishing None Yes No Small protected harbor that is busy with mooring traffic. Area at head of harbor is

built up and could provide ferry access.

53 Port Jefferson Pt Jefferson Town Marina; 4 others

Moderate pleasure, sailing

Moderate shipping, ferry, and industrial Yes Yes; LI to

Bridgeport CT Established Terminal

54 Stony Brook Stony Brook YC Light pleasure None Yes No Harbor entrance is shoaled at low tide and would require dredging to accommodateboats with 3+ ft of draft. The entire entrance is privately marked and maintained.

55 Sunken Meadow Sunken Meadow State Park Marina

Light pleasure - state park None Yes No State Park Marina entrance is shoaled at low tide and would require dredging to

accommodate boats with 3+ ft of draft.

56 Lloyd Harbor No less than 15 Heavy pleasure, fishing, and sailing None Yes No

Protected bay that is very shallow throughout. Would require a channel to be dredged to the most accessible spot. Very close to Huntington as the alternate

location.

57 Huntington No less than 15 Heavy pleasure, fishing, and sailing None Yes No Protected bay with many marinas and minimal insland transit. Most areas have

very good access to the waterfront and facilities are well established.

58 Northport Britannia Yachting Center; 4 others

Heavy pleasure, fishing, and sailing None Yes No Protected bay with many marinas and minimal insland transit. Most areas have

very good access to the waterfront and facilities are well established.

59 Oyster Bay No less than 15 Heavy pleasure, fishing, and sailing Minimal Yes No Protected bay with many marinas and minimal insland transit. Most areas have

very good access to the waterfront and facilities are well established.

60 Bayville Private Light - resort community None Yes No No shelter; Private community with no public marinas or facilities. Inland side is completely restricted by the bascule bridge and a very shallow creek/bay.

61 Glen Cove Glen Cove Yacht Service; 4 others

Heavy pleasure, fishing, and sailing Minimal Yes No Protected bay with many marinas and minimal insland transit. Most areas have

very good access to the waterfront and facilities are well established.

62 Manorhaven No less than 20 Heavy pleasure, fishing, and sailing Minimal Yes No Protected bay with many marinas and minimal insland transit. Most areas have

very good access to the waterfront and facilities are well established.

63 Port Washington No less than 20 Heavy pleasure, fishing, and sailing Minimal Yes No Protected bay with many marinas and minimal insland transit. Most areas have

very good access to the waterfront and facilities are well established.

CommentsAdjacent Marinas Traffic Commercial Traffic

Har

bor o

r M

oori

ng

Faci

litie

s?

Existing Terminal?Site

Page 133: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-29

Table 5.4 Marine Conditions Inventory (sheet 10 of 10)

Notes:

(1) Navigable waterway is defined as access by a 3 ft draft vessel at MLLW that is loaded to maximum passenger capacity.

(2) Deep draft criteria is defined as a harbor able to accommodate vessels with a loaded draft of greater than 10ft at MLLW.

(3) Shallow draft criteria is defined as a harbor able to accommodate vessels with a loaded draft of 4ft or greater at MLLW.

(4) Mean Range defined as the mean difference between high and low tidal levels (ft)(5) Spring Range defined as mean difference between high and low spring tides (ft)(6) MTL is defined as mean tide level above MLLW (ft)(7) All depths are at MLLW (ft)(8) Channel depth is defined at MLLW (ft) at lowest charted point; Channel width

is defined as minimum with encountered during transit (ft)(9) Inland transit is defined as distance in a channel to point of moor; generally restricted

to 5 mph in speed and/or no wake. Defined in Nautical Miles(10) Currents are in knots; Cross current is predominant across main navigable channel,

following current is predominant parallel to main navigable channel.(11) Vertical bridge clearances are at MHW (ft); width restrictions at minimum (ft)

Abbreviations

Unk UnknownLIS Long Island SoundMLLW Mean Lower Low WaterMHW Mean High WaterE Ebb, current defined in knotsF Flow, current defined in knotsMTL Mean Tide LevelVar VariableD DeepW WideV Vertical Clearance, ftH Horizontal Clearance, ftSIS Shelter Island SoundBIS Block Island SoundLIS Long Island Sound

Axes and Mileposts

Axis Shore Description

LIS NS Long Island Sound, North ShoreSS Long Island Sound, South ShoreNF Long Island Sound, North Fork Long Island

AO SS Atlantic Ocean, South Shore Long IslandSF Atlantic Ocean, South Fork Long Island

ER E East River; Eastern ShoreW East River; Western Shore

HR E Hudson River; Eastern ShoreW Husdon River; Western Shore

NJ W New Jersey; Western Shore

The Milepost measurement is defined as the distance, in nautical miles, from the Battery, NYalong the axis and shore noted. Actual distance to the proposed ferry landing is the Milepost measurement plus the Inland Transit Distance.

Page 134: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-30 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

5.4 Highway Access Conditions Inventory

Each potential site was reviewed and evaluated for its local highway accessibility, as well as its accessibility and connectivity to major regional highways. The overall suitability of access for autos and trucks was assessed, and the feasibility of potential improvements was considered. National, regional, and local data on highway infrastructure was util-ized, and each site was visited by a transportation planning professional from the LISWTP team to validate conditions and provide useful qualitative information. Regional access evaluations are discussed in Tables 5.5 and 5.6; local access evaluations are discussed in Tables 5.7 and 5.8.

Table 5.5 Regional Access Inventory, Key Criteria

Criteria Answer (score) Explanation

Proximity to Transportation Facilities Good, Bad or Very Bad (2,1,0 - equal weight for all questions)

1. Distance to Nearest Rail Line (not nearest passenger station) <1000' = 2, 1000' to 1 mi = 1, >1 mi = 0

2. Distance to Nearest Regional/Major Airport (does not include general aviation airfields) <1 mi = 2, 1 mi to 10 mi = 1, >10 mi = 0

3. Distance to Nearest 4-lane Roadway <1000' = 2, 1000' to 1 mi = 1, >1 mi = 0

4. Distance to Nearest Parkway Interchange OR Expressway Interchange (for passenger vehicle access) <1000' = 2, 1000' to 1 mi = 1, >1 mi = 0

5. Distance to Expressway Interchange ONLY (for commercial vehicle access) <1000' = 2, 1000' to 1 mi = 1, >1 mi = 0

6. Population Density (of City, Village, Town or Hamlet) <2,000 people per square mile (psm) = 0, 2,001 to 10,000 psm = 1, >10,000 psm = 2

Page 135: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-31

Table 5.6 Regional Access Inventory (sheet 1 of 2)

State Town Site Rail Airport FourLane Parkway/ Expressway

Expressway only

Population density

Score (11 max.)

CT Branford Goodsell Point Boat Launch (off Harbor St.) 1 1 0 0 0 1 3

CT Branford Harbor Street 1 1 0 0 0 1 3CT Bridgeport Admiral Street (at Harbor) 2 1 2 2 2 1 10

CT Bridgeport Central Avenue (at Seaview Avenue) 1 1 2 1 1 1 7

CT Bridgeport Pequonnock Yacht Club 1 1 2 1 1 1 7CT Bridgeport Fayerweather Yacht Club 1 1 1 1 1 1 6CT Greenwich Cos Cob Station 2 1 1 1 1 0 6CT Greenwich Game Cock Road 1 1 1 1 1 0 5CT Greenwich Indian Harbor Yacht Club 1 1 1 1 1 0 5CT Guilford Guilford Point Beach 1 0 0 0 0 0 1CT Guliford Sluice Creek (off New Whitfield) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1CT Madison Island Avenue (off Post Road) 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

CT Madison Wharf Road (off Boston Post Road) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

CT New Haven Alabama Street at Water Front 0 1 2 2 2 1 8CT New London Cross Sound Ferry 2 1 2 1 1 1 8CT New London Ft. Trumbull 1 1 1 0 0 1 4CT Norwalk Ischoda Yacht Club 1 0 1 1 1 1 5CT Norwalk Gregory Point 0 0 0 0 0 1 1CT Old Lyme Ferry Road 1 0 1 1 1 0 4CT Old Lyme Smith Neck Road 1 0 1 0 0 0 2CT Stamford Kosciuszco Park 1 1 1 1 1 1 6CT Stamford Yacht Haven 0 1 2 0 0 1 4CT West Haven City Point 1 1 2 2 2 1 9CT West Haven Water Street (at Main Street) 1 1 2 1 1 1 7CT Westbrook Salt Island Road 1 0 1 1 1 0 4

CT Westbrook Captains Drive (off Seaside Avenue) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY Beacon Beacon Station 2 1 2 1 1 1 8NY Bear Mountain Bear Mountain 2 0 0 0 0 0 2NY Brooklyn Sheepshead Bay 2 1 2 2 2 2 11

NY Captree Captree State Park (Robert Moses Park) 0 0 2 2 0 0 4

NY Corona World's Fair Marina 1 2 2 2 2 2 11NY Cortlandt Bayview Road (near Military site) 1 0 1 1 0 0 3NY East Marion Bay Avenue 1 0 0 0 0 0 1NY East Marion Rocky Point 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

NY Glen Cove Hempstead Harbor Club and Foxwoods Ferry 1 0 1 0 0 1 3

NY Glen Cove Park (Towns Beach) 1 0 1 0 0 1 3

NY Greenport Greenport Ferry Terminal (LIRR Station) 2 0 0 0 0 1 3

NY Greenport Fifth Street 1 0 0 0 0 1 2NY Huntington Woodland Drive 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

NY Larchmont Walnut Avenue (off Larchmont Avenue) 0 1 1 0 0 1 3

NY Lloyd Harbor Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Mamaroneck Harbor Island (off Post Road) 1 1 2 1 1 1 7

NY Mamaroneck Hommocks Road (off Post Road) 0 1 1 0 0 1 3

NY Manor Haven North Shore Yacht Club 0 1 1 0 0 2 4NY Montauk Tuthill Road 2 0 0 0 0 0 2NY Montauk Lakeside Court 1 0 0 0 0 0 1NY Montauk Montauk State Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 136: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-32 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.6 Regional Access Inventory (sheet 2 of 2)

State Town Site Rail Airport FourLane Parkway/ Expressway

Expressway only

Population density

Score (11 max.)

NY Napeague Napeague Harbor (Lazy Point) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1NY New Rochelle Hudson Park (off Pelham Road) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

NY New Rochelle Town Dock Road (off Pelham Road) 1 1 1 0 0 1 4

NY New York City Battery Park City (Winter Garden) 2 1 2 2 0 2 9NY New York City South Ferry 2 1 2 2 0 2 9NY New York City West 40th Street 2 1 2 2 0 2 9NY New York City Roosevelt Island 2 1 2 1 0 2 8

NY New York City South Street Seaport (Fulton Street) 2 1 2 1 0 2 8

NY New York City South Street Seaport (Wall Street) 2 1 2 1 0 2 8

NY Newburgh Pier 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 7NY Northport Woobine Marina 0 0 1 0 0 0 1NY Northport James Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Northville Pier Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Nyack Main Street & River Street 2 0 1 1 1 1 6NY Orient Orient Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Orient Orient Yacht Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Oyster Bay Beach Park 2 0 1 0 0 1 4NY Oyster Bay Bayview 1 0 1 0 0 1 3NY Peconic Mill Road 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

NY Pelham Shore Park (entrance off Pelham Road) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

NY Ponquogue Shinnecock Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Port Chester Harbor Drive 1 1 1 1 1 2 7NY Port Jefferson Port Jefferson Yacht Club 1 0 2 0 0 1 4NY Port Jefferson Shore Road 0 0 1 0 0 1 2NY Port Washington Beachway Drive 1 0 1 0 0 1 3NY Port Washington Towns Dock 1 0 1 0 0 1 3NY Queens Jamaica Bay/Howard Beach 2 2 2 2 1 2 11NY Queens La Guardia Airport 1 2 2 2 1 2 10NY Queens Dock Street Pier 1 2 2 0 0 2 7NY Riverhead Peconic Ave (Near train station) 2 0 1 0 0 0 3NY Riverhead Riverhead Golf Course 1 0 2 0 0 0 3NY Riverhead Indian Island County Park 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

NY Rye Old Rye Beach Avenue (near Rye Beach and Playland) 1 1 2 1 1 1 7

NY Sag Harbor Hillside East 0 1 0 0 0 0 1NY Sag Harbor Yacht Club 0 1 0 0 0 0 1NY Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (North) 0 1 0 0 0 0 1NY Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (South) 0 1 0 0 0 0 1NY Shoreham Woodville Landing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Southhold Town Harbor Lane 2 0 0 0 0 0 2NY Stony Brook Cordwood Path 1 1 1 0 0 1 4NY Stony Brook Shore Road 1 1 1 0 0 1 4NY Sunken Meadow Callahan's Beach Road 0 0 2 2 0 1 5NY Sunken Meadow State Park 0 0 2 2 0 1 5NY Tarrytown Losee Park 2 1 1 1 1 1 7NY Wading River Creek Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Wading River Wild Wood State Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Waterville Bally Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 137: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-33

Table 5.7 Local Access Inventory, Key Criteria

Criteria Answer Criteria Answer

Location & Appearance Good, Bad or Very Bad (abbreviate G, B, V) Multimodal Access Y or N or write-in

1. Overall first impression 12. Odometer reading from expressway to site (to 0.1-mile accuracy)

2. Grade/Steepness of terrain 13. 2-lane road within 500 - 1000 ft of shore

3. Presence of existing land uses (explain in "Comments")

14. 4-lane road within 500 - 1000 ft of shore

Existing Access Roadway Capacity/Condition

Good, Bad or Very Bad (abbreviate G, B, V)

15. Expressway interchange within 500 - 1000 ft of shore

4. Local Road 16. Train station within 1/4 mile or 10-minute walk of shore

Existing Access Roadway Traffic Good, Bad or Very Bad (abbreviate G, B, V)

17. Bus route within 1/4 mile or 10 minute walk of shore

5. Congestion on expressway-to-shore link route

18. Sidewalks/paved pathways within 500 - 1000 ft of shore

6. Number of traffic lights on expressway-to-shore link route

19. Access for oversized vehicles (comment if "No")

7. Number of alternate routes Possible Environmental Limitations Y or N

8. Capacity for additional traffic on link roadways 20. Fatal flaw (comment if "Yes")

Parking (any type including on-street) Y or N or write-in 21. Impact on wooded area

9. Within 500 - 1000 ft of shore 22. Impact on wetlands10. Within 1/4 mile or 10-minute walk of shore 23. Impact on parklands

11. Approximate number of available spaces if present 24. Impact on historic resources

25. Impact on residential26. Impact on tourism/recreation

27. Overall final impression (Good, Bad or Very Bad - G, B, V)

Page 138: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-34 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.8 Local Access Inventory (sheet 1 of 6)

State Town Site Overall First

Steep-ness

Existing Land Use

LocalRoad Congestion Traffic Lights Alternate

Routes Capacity

CT Branford Goodsell Point Boat Launch (off Harbor St.) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

CT Branford Harbor Street 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2CT Bridgeport Fayerweather Yacht Club 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2CT Bridgeport Admiral Street (at Harbor) 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

CT Bridgeport Central Avenue (at Seaview Avenue) 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

CT Bridgeport Pequonnock Yacht Club 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2CT Greenwich Cock Road 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 1CT Greenwich Indian Harbor Yacht Club 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2CT Greenwich Cos Cob Station 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 2CT Guilford Guilford Point Beach 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1CT Guliford Sluice Creek (off New Whitfield) 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1CT Madison Island Avenue (off Post Road) 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2

CT Madison Wharf Road (off Boston Post Road) 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

CT New Haven Alabama Street at Water Front 0 2 0 1 2 2 1 1CT New London Ft. Trumbull 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1CT New London Cross Sound Ferry 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2CT Norwalk Gregory Point 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 2CT Norwalk Ischoda Yacht Club 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2CT Old Lyme Smith Neck Road 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2CT Old Lyme Ferry Road 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2CT Stamford Kosciuszco Park 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2CT Stamford Yacht Haven 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2

CT West Brook Captains Drive (off Seaside Avenue) 0 2 0 1 2 2 1 1

CT West Brook Salt Island Road 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1CT West Haven Water Street (at Main Street) 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2CT West Haven City Point 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1NY Bear Mountain Bear Mountain 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2NY Brooklyn Sheepshead Bay 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

NY Captree Captree State Park (Robert Moses Park) 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

NY City of Beacon Beacon Station 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2NY Corona World's Fair Marina 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2NY Cortlandt Bayview Road (near Military site) 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 2NY East Marion Bay Avenue 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0NY East Marion Rocky Point 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 0NY Glen Cove Park (Towns Beach) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

NY Glen Cove Hempstead Harbor Club and Foxwoods Ferry 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 2

NY Greenport Fifth Street 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

NY Greenport Greenport Ferry Terminal (LIRR Station) 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

NY Huntington Woodland Drive 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

NY Larchmont Walnut Avenue (off Lorch Avenue) 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

NY Lloyd Harbor Park 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0

NY Mamaroneck Hommocks Road (off Post Road) 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0

NY Mamaroneck Harbor Island (off Post Road) 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1NY Manor Haven North Shore Yacht Club 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 2NY Montauk Lakeside Court 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 2NY Montauk Tuthill Road 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 0NY Montauk Montauk State Park 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 2

Page 139: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-35

Table 5.8 Local Access Inventory (sheet 2 of 6)

State Town Site Parking 500ft

Parking Walk Spaces Odo-

meterTwo Lane

Four Lane

ExpInter Chg

Train Station

Bus Route

Side-walk

CT Branford Goodsell Point Boat Launch (off Harbor St.) 2 2 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 0

CT Branford Harbor Street 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 4 4CT Bridgeport Fayerweather Yacht Club 0 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 4CT Bridgeport Admiral Street (at Harbor) 0 0 0 6 6 0 4 0 0 0

CT Bridgeport Central Avenue (at Seaview Avenue) 0 2 0 4 6 6 0 0 0 4

CT Bridgeport Pequonnock Yacht Club 0 0 0 6 6 6 4 0 4 0CT Greenwich Cock Road 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0CT Greenwich Indian Harbor Yacht Club 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0CT Greenwich Cos Cob Station 2 2 2 6 6 0 0 6 0 0CT Guilford Guilford Point Beach 2 2 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 4CT Guliford Sluice Creek (off New Whitfield) 2 2 1 4 6 0 0 6 0 4CT Madison Island Avenue (off Post Road) 2 2 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 0

CT Madison Wharf Road (off Boston Post Road) 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0

CT New Haven Alabama Street at Water Front 0 0 0 6 6 0 4 0 0 0CT New London Ft. Trumbull 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0CT New London Cross Sound Ferry 2 2 2 4 6 6 0 6 4 4CT Norwalk Gregory Point 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0CT Norwalk Ischoda Yacht Club 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 4CT Old Lyme Smith Neck Road 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0CT Old Lyme Ferry Road 2 2 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0CT Stamford Kosciuszco Park 2 2 1 6 6 0 0 0 0 4CT Stamford Yacht Haven 2 2 0 4 6 6 0 0 4 0

CT West Brook Captains Drive (off Seaside Avenue) 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 4

CT West Brook Salt Island Road 2 2 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 4CT West Haven Water Street (at Main Street) 2 2 1 6 6 0 0 0 4 4CT West Haven City Point 2 2 0 6 6 0 0 0 4 4NY Bear Mountain Bear Mountain 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Brooklyn Sheepshead Bay 2 2 2 6 6 0 0 6 4 4

NY Captree Captree State Park (Robert Moses Park) 2 2 2 6 6 6 0 0 4 0

NY City of Beacon Beacon Station 2 0 2 4 6 0 0 6 0 0NY Corona World's Fair Marina 2 2 2 6 0 6 0 6 4 0NY Cortlandt Bayview Road (near Military site) 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0NY East Marion Bay Avenue 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 0NY East Marion Rocky Point 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 0NY Glen Cove Park (Towns Beach) 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY Glen Cove Hempstead Harbor Club and Foxwoods Ferry 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY Greenport Fifth Street 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 6 4 0

NY Greenport Greenport Ferry Terminal (LIRR Station) 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 6 4 4

NY Huntington Woodland Drive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY Larchmont Walnut Avenue (off Lorch Avenue) 0 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 4 4

NY Lloyd Harbor Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY Mamaroneck Hommocks Road (off Post Road) 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0

NY Mamaroneck Harbor Island (off Post Road) 2 2 1 6 6 6 0 6 4 4NY Manor Haven North Shore Yacht Club 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4NY Montauk Lakeside Court 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 0NY Montauk Tuthill Road 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 6 4 0NY Montauk Montauk State Park 2 2 2 0 6 0 0 0 4 4

Page 140: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-36 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.8 Local Access Inventory (sheet 3 of 6)

State Town Site Over-size Flaw Wooded Wet-

landsPark-lands

Histor-ical

Resid-ential Tourism Overall Score (max

84)

CT Branford Goodsell Point Boat Launch (off Harbor St.) 0 6 2 0 2 2 0 2 4 48

CT Branford Harbor Street 4 6 2 2 0 2 0 2 4 56CT Bridgeport Fayerweather Yacht Club 4 6 0 2 2 2 0 2 4 54CT Bridgeport Admiral Street (at Harbor) 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 55

CT Bridgeport Central Avenue (at Seaview Avenue) 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 61

CT Bridgeport Pequonnock Yacht Club 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 65CT Greenwich Cock Road 0 6 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 36CT Greenwich Indian Harbor Yacht Club 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 45CT Greenwich Cos Cob Station 4 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 47CT Guilford Guilford Point Beach 4 6 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 52CT Guliford Sluice Creek (off New Whitfield) 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 65CT Madison Island Avenue (off Post Road) 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 50

CT Madison Wharf Road (off Boston Post Road) 4 6 2 2 0 2 0 2 4 51CT New Haven Alabama Street at Water Front 4 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 39CT New London Ft. Trumbull 4 6 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 43CT New London Cross Sound Ferry 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 76CT Norwalk Gregory Point 4 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 34CT Norwalk Ischoda Yacht Club 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 56CT Old Lyme Smith Neck Road 4 6 2 0 0 2 0 2 4 48CT Old Lyme Ferry Road 4 6 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 54CT Stamford Kosciuszco Park 0 6 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 56CT Stamford Yacht Haven 4 6 2 2 0 2 0 2 4 60

CT West Brook Captains Drive (off Seaside Avenue) 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 49

CT West Brook Salt Island Road 4 6 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 52CT West Haven Water Street (at Main Street) 4 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 52CT West Haven City Point 4 6 2 0 2 2 0 2 4 60NY Bear Mountain Bear Mountain 0 6 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 26NY Brooklyn Sheepshead Bay 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 71

NY Captree Captree State Park (Robert Moses Park) 4 6 0 0 2 2 2 2 4 65

NY City of Beacon Beacon Station 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 58NY Corona World's Fair Marina 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 70NY Cortlandt Bayview Road (near Military site) 4 6 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 41NY East Marion Bay Avenue 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 22NY East Marion Rocky Point 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 25NY Glen Cove Park (Towns Beach) 0 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 26

NY Glen Cove Hempstead Harbor Club and Foxwoods Ferry 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 41

NY Greenport Fifth Street 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 4 49

NY Greenport Greenport Ferry Terminal (LIRR Station) 4 6 2 2 2 0 0 2 4 61

NY Huntington Woodland Drive 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 11

NY Larchmont Walnut Avenue (off Lorch Avenue) 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 54NY Lloyd Harbor Park 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 15

NY Mamaroneck Hommocks Road (off Post Road) 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 19NY Mamaroneck Harbor Island (off Post Road) 4 6 2 2 0 2 0 2 4 70NY Manor Haven North Shore Yacht Club 0 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 38NY Montauk Lakeside Court 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 34NY Montauk Tuthill Road 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 38NY Montauk Montauk State Park 4 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 39

Page 141: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-37

Table 5.8 Local Access Inventory (sheet 4 of 6)

State Town Site Overall First

Steep-ness

Existing Land Use

LocalRoad Congestion Traffic Lights Alternate

Routes Capacity

NY Napeague Napeague Harbor (Promised Land) 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 2

NY New Rochelle Town Dock Road (off Pelham Road) 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1

NY New Rochelle Hudson Park (off Pelham Road) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2NY New York City Roosevelt Island 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1

NY New York City South Street Seaport (Fulton Street) 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

NY New York City Battery Park City (Winter Garden) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

NY New York City South Ferry 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

NY New York City South Street Seaport (Wall Street) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

NY New York City West 40th Street 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2NY Newburgh Pier 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 2NY Northport James Street 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0NY Northport Woobine Marina 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0NY Northville Pier Avenue 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2NY Nyack Main Street & River Street 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 2NY Orient Orient Yacht Club 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0NY Orient Orient Point 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 1NY Oyster Bay Bayview 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2NY Oyster Bay Beach Park 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2NY Peconic Mill Road 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2

NY Pelham Shore Park (entrance off Pelham Road) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

NY Ponquogue Shinnecock Road 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2NY Port Chester Harbor Drive 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 1NY Port Jefferson Shore Road 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2NY Port Jefferson Port Jefferson Yacht Club 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2NY Port Washington Beachway Drive 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0NY Port Washington Towns Dock 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0NY Queens Dock Street Pier 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 1NY Queens Jamaica Bay 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 1NY Queens La Guardia Airport 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2NY Riverhead Indian Island County Park 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 2NY Riverhead Riverhead Golf Course 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2NY Riverhead Peconic Ave (Near train station) 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 2

NY Rye Old Rye Beach Avenue (near Rye Beach and Playland) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

NY Sag Harbor Hillside East 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 0NY Sag Harbor Yacht Club 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1NY Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (South) 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2NY Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (North) 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2NY Shoreham Woodville Landing 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 2NY Southhold Town Harbor Lane 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2NY Stony Brook Cordwood Path 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 2NY Stony Brook Shore Road 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 2NY Sunken Meadow Callahan's Beach Road 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 2NY Sunken Meadow State Park 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2NY Tarrytown Losee Park 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2NY Wading River Creek Road 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1NY Wading River Wild Wood State Park 1 2 0 2 2 2 1 2NY Waterville Bally Beach 0 2 1 0 2 2 1 0NY Waterville Matituck Creek 0 2 0 1 2 2 1 1

Page 142: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-38 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table 5.8 Local Access Inventory (sheet 5 of 6)

State Town Site Parking 500ft

Parking Walk Spaces Odo-

meterTwo Lane

Four Lane

ExpInter Chg

Train Station

Bus Route

Side-walk

NY Napeague Napeague Harbor (Promised Land) 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0

NY New Rochelle Town Dock Road (off Pelham Road) 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 4 4

NY New Rochelle Hudson Park (off Pelham Road) 2 2 1 4 6 0 0 0 4 4NY New York City Roosevelt Island 2 2 2 4 6 0 4 6 4 4

NY New York City South Street Seaport (Fulton Street) 2 2 1 6 6 0 0 6 4 4

NY New York City Battery Park City (Winter Garden) 0 2 1 6 6 6 0 6 4 4

NY New York City South Ferry 2 2 1 6 6 0 4 6 4 4

NY New York City South Street Seaport (Wall Street) 2 2 1 6 6 6 0 6 4 4

NY New York City West 40th Street 2 2 1 6 6 6 4 6 4 4NY Newburgh Pier 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Northport James Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4NY Northport Woobine Marina 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0NY Northville Pier Avenue 2 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Nyack Main Street & River Street 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 4NY Orient Orient Yacht Club 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 0NY Orient Orient Point 2 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 4 0NY Oyster Bay Bayview 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Oyster Bay Beach Park 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 4NY Peconic Mill Road 2 2 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 0

NY Pelham Shore Park (entrance off Pelham Road) 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 4 4

NY Ponquogue Shinnecock Road 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Port Chester Harbor Drive 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Port Jefferson Shore Road 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 4NY Port Jefferson Port Jefferson Yacht Club 2 2 1 4 6 0 0 0 4 4NY Port Washington Beachway Drive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Port Washington Towns Dock 2 2 1 4 6 0 0 6 0 4NY Queens Dock Street Pier 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 4NY Queens Jamaica Bay 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 6 4 4NY Queens La Guardia Airport 2 2 2 6 6 0 0 0 4 4NY Riverhead Indian Island County Park 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Riverhead Riverhead Golf Course 2 0 0 4 6 6 0 0 0 0NY Riverhead Peconic Ave (Near train station) 2 2 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 4

NY Rye Old Rye Beach Avenue (near Rye Beach and Playland) 2 2 2 4 6 6 0 0 4 4

NY Sag Harbor Hillside East 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0NY Sag Harbor Yacht Club 2 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 4 4NY Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (South) 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (North) 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Shoreham Woodville Landing 2 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Southhold Town Harbor Lane 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Stony Brook Cordwood Path 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0NY Stony Brook Shore Road 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Sunken Meadow Callahan's Beach Road 2 2 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Sunken Meadow State Park 2 2 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Tarrytown Losee Park 2 2 0 4 6 0 0 6 4 0NY Wading River Creek Road 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Wading River Wild Wood State Park 0 2 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 4NY Waterville Bally Beach 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0NY Waterville Matituck Creek 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0

Page 143: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-39

Table 5.8 Local Access Inventory (sheet 6 of 6)

State Town Site Over-size Flaw Wooded Wet-

landsPark-lands

Histor-ical

Resid-ential Tourism Overall Score (max

84)

NY Napeague Napeague Harbor (Promised Land) 0 6 2 0 2 2 0 0 4 37

NY New Rochelle Town Dock Road (off Pelham Road) 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 58

NY New Rochelle Hudson Park (off Pelham Road) 4 6 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 63NY New York City Roosevelt Island 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 67

NY New York City South Street Seaport (Fulton Street) 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 67

NY New York City Battery Park City (Winter Garden) 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 75NY New York City South Ferry 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 75

NY New York City South Street Seaport (Wall Street) 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 77NY New York City West 40th Street 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 81NY Newburgh Pier 1 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 37NY Northport James Street 0 6 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 22NY Northport Woobine Marina 0 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 36NY Northville Pier Avenue 0 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 43NY Nyack Main Street & River Street 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 53NY Orient Orient Yacht Club 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 22NY Orient Orient Point 4 6 2 0 0 2 0 2 4 47NY Oyster Bay Bayview 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 41NY Oyster Bay Beach Park 0 6 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 51NY Peconic Mill Road 0 6 2 0 0 2 0 2 4 45

NY Pelham Shore Park (entrance off Pelham Road) 4 6 2 2 0 2 0 2 4 59

NY Ponquogue Shinnecock Road 4 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 39NY Port Chester Harbor Drive 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 29NY Port Jefferson Shore Road 4 6 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 48NY Port Jefferson Port Jefferson Yacht Club 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 63NY Port Washington Beachway Drive 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 13NY Port Washington Towns Dock 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 50NY Queens Dock Street Pier 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 31NY Queens Jamaica Bay 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 37NY Queens La Guardia Airport 4 6 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 60NY Riverhead Indian Island County Park 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 28NY Riverhead Riverhead Golf Course 4 6 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 51NY ` Peconic Ave (Near train station) 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 56

NY Rye Old Rye Beach Avenue (near Rye Beach and Playland) 4 6 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 70

NY Sag Harbor Hillside East 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 26NY Sag Harbor Yacht Club 4 6 2 2 2 0 0 2 4 55NY Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (South) 4 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 35NY Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (North) 4 6 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 41NY Shoreham Woodville Landing 0 6 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 35NY Southhold Town Harbor Lane 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 31NY Stony Brook Cordwood Path 0 6 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 27NY Stony Brook Shore Road 4 6 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 51NY Sunken Meadow Callahan's Beach Road 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 36NY Sunken Meadow State Park 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 50NY Tarrytown Losee Park 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 63NY Wading River Creek Road 0 6 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 35NY Wading River Wild Wood State Park 0 6 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 42NY Waterville Bally Beach 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 22NY Waterville Matituck Creek 4 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 31

Page 144: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-40 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

5.5 Transit Access Conditions Inventory

Table 5.8 on the previous pages indicates the relative accessibility of different sites to bus service and rail service.

Bus Services

Bus services provide a high degree of route flexibility, but with less unit capacity than rail, and are subject to service delays associated with surface traffic. Specific opportunities to link buses and waterborne operations will be explored in greater detail as potential ser-vices are defined in Tasks 3 and 4.

Rail Services

The potential to link commuter rail and waterborne services is sufficiently important that it should be specifically addressed prior to the screening process, as this factor may be a significant determinant in the desirability and utilization of a ferry service. A number of potential rail-water linkages were identified in the Community Planning Workshop proc-ess, including the use of ferries to provide an alternative connection between Lower Manhattan and the region’s commuter railroads.

Rail/Ferry Connections – MTA Long Island Railroad

The MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) provides all commuter and suburban rail service on Long Island. It encompasses nine branches that accommodate approximately 300,000 weekday passenger trips. Rail operations, which are conducted 24 hours a day, seven days a week, are focused primarily on peak-period/peak-direction commuter service to and from the business districts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, although a large number of off- and reverse-peak riders are also accommodated.

The physical infrastructure of the LIRR reflects both historic ridership patterns and the more recent eastward trend in land development. While much of the west end of the rail-road is furnished with multi-track alignments and sophisticated signal system protection, the eastern segment of each branch consist of a single-track alignment and, in the cases of the Main Line east of Ronkonkoma and the Montauk Branch east of Patchogue, opera-tional rules have not been modernized. These considerations limit the potential frequency of bi-directional train movement and are factors in determining the feasibility of more fre-quent train service.

The following inventory is a listing of existing and potential transfer points between rail and ferry services on Long Island. In general, the listing is shown by branch and proceeds from west to east. The listing for each station includes proximity to the marine facility; scheduled rail service; rail ridership levels; and access to the local roadway network.

Page 145: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-41

Montauk Branch

The Montauk Branch provides rail service to the South Shore communities of Long Island. The non-electrified segment between Babylon and Montauk currently interfaces with 11 ferry routes from four stations. It should be noted that this portion of the Montauk Branch provides access to many resort communities, a fact that is reflected in the numbers of pas-sengers carried on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday during the summer season. Train frequency is constrained by the single-track alignment east of Sayville and the lack of a signal system east of Patchogue. (A new signal system has been designed for this segment and preliminary installation has begun.) The average speed of LIRR trains to stations on the Montauk Branch east of Babylon is approximately 35 mph from Penn Station. It should be noted that most ferry schedules are adjusted to match train schedules.

• Bay Shore. This station is approximately one mile from two adjacent ferry terminals that serve six communities on Fire Island. Rail passengers are transported to and from the ferry terminals by van or taxi, although a small number of ferry passengers walk. Roadway access is excellent, and sidewalks and traffic signals are in place for pedes-trians. The frequency of trains to Bay Shore is two per hour during peak periods and hourly during off-peak and weekends. (A large percentage of ferry passengers use peak-period, peak-direction trains.) The total ridership at Bay Shore is approximately 1,500 trips Mondays through Thursdays and 1,800 Fridays during the summer months. Some ferry service from Bay Shore is maintained year-round.

• Sayville. Sayville station is approximately one mile from the ferry terminal that serves three Fire Island communities during the summer season only. Taxis and vans are the principal means of access to the ferry terminal. Roadway access is excellent, and traf-fic signals and sidewalks are in place. The frequency of train service is the same as at Bay Shore. Total ridership at this station is approximately 1,100 trips Mondays through Thursdays and 1,400 Fridays.

• Patchogue. The ferry dock at Patchogue serves one Fire Island community during the summer season only and is less than one mile from the station. Access to the ferry terminal is via taxi or on foot. The frequency of train service is the same as at Bay Shore and Sayville. Roadway and pedestrian access are good. Ridership at Patchogue is 1,200 trips Mondays through Thursdays and 1,300 Fridays. (Patchogue is an inter-mediate terminal for commuter service, a fact that is responsible for the frequency of train service.)

• Bridgehampton. This station may be used to access the South Ferry to Shelter Island. The ferry terminal in North Haven is five miles from the station and is served by taxi. Train service to Bridgehampton is infrequent except for seasonal trains on Fridays and Sundays during the summer months. Roadway access is somewhat circuitous between the station and the ferry terminal. Ridership at this location is minimal except for Friday evenings and Sunday evenings, when approximately 650 trips are made.

Page 146: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-42 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

• Montauk. The terminal station at Montauk is in a location that is four miles distant from the ferries to Block Island and to New London. Taxi and Suffolk County Transit bus route 10-C provide access, but the route is circuitous. The frequency of train ser-vice is limited except for Fridays and Sundays in summer. Only 100 rail passenger trips are made to and from Montauk on summer weekend days.

Main Line

The Main Line between Riverhead and Greenport serves the North Fork of Long Island. Rail service is limited to three daily round-trips and is constrained by the single-track alignment and the lack of a signal system.

• Greenport. Greenport station is located adjacent to the North Ferry terminal of the Shelter Island Ferry. It also provides access via taxi and Suffolk County Transit bus route 5-92 to the Cross Sound Ferry to New London, Connecticut, and to the ferry to Plum Island. Approximately 25 daily trips are made to and from Greenport.

Oyster Bay Branch

• Sea Cliff. This station is located three miles from the Glen Cove ferry landing. Access is by taxi. Approximately 350 daily trips are made to and from this station.

Port Jefferson Branch

The Port Jefferson Branch provides rail service to the North Shore of Long Island. Recent improvements to the signal system and the introduction of dual-mode locomotives that operate directly to Penn Station have improved the reliability and attractiveness of the branch-line operations.

• Port Jefferson. This terminal station provides rail access to the Bridgeport-Port Jefferson ferry. The station is three miles from the ferry terminal and access is pro-vided by taxi and Suffolk County Transit bus route 5-61. From the station, the road is downhill through residential and downtown commercial development to the water’s edge. Approximately 1,000 rail passenger trips are made to and from Port Jefferson each weekday.

Rail/Ferry Connections – MTA Metro-North, Amtrak, and Shore Line East

The MTA Metro-North Railroad (MNR) provides suburban and commuter rail services the New York counties north of Manhattan and to Connecticut. Through Westchester County and Connecticut, the MNR New Haven Line generally follows the shoreline of Long Island Sound. Rail operations are conducted approximately 20 hours per day, seven days per week. Approximately 95,000 one-way riders travel along the New Haven Line each weekday. MNR operations are focused on the peak commuter rush periods. The New Haven Line is also used by Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains and, to a lesser extent,

Page 147: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-43

by Shore Line East trains. Shore Line East trains operate within the state of Connecticut, with their western terminus at New Haven.

Metro-North New Haven Line, Connecticut

The New Haven Line consists of a four-track alignment as far north as Devon (49.9 miles) and a three-track alignment between Devon and New Haven (12.1 miles). The line is fully equipped with a modern signal system to support the weekday operation of approxi-mately 280 trains. There is no significant impediment to increasing service frequency on the New Haven Line. The average speed of MNR trains on the New Haven Line is 45 to 55 mph, depending on the number of station stops made by the individual train. Rail ser-vice is supported by an extensive network of feeder bus services.

The frequency of train service among and between stations in Connecticut is somewhat more variable than service among and between stations in Westchester County. This dif-ference reflects the facts that Stamford is a terminal for certain MNR trains and that the New Canaan, Danbury, and Waterbury Branches diverge from the New Haven Line. Accordingly, Stamford, which also serves Amtrak trains, has five- to 10-minute service during peak periods and 10- to 15-minute service during the off-peak period. On the other hand, South Norwalk and New Haven have only hourly service during off-peak hours and 15- to 20-minute service during the peaks. (New Haven also serves Amtrak and Shore Line East trains.)

Existing transfer points between rail and ferry services include the following:

• Bridgeport. The Bridgeport-Port Jefferson ferry is an existing waterborne service that connects with both MNR and Amtrak at Bridgeport Station. The ferry terminal is located a short distance from the railroad station, although there are active plans to develop a centralized intermodal passenger facility that will encompass ferry, rail, and bus services. Approximately 3,000 MNR and 150 Amtrak weekday passenger trips are generated at Bridgeport.

• New London. The New London station is proximate to the Cross Sound Ferry termi-nal, which provides service to Orient Point, Fishers Island, Block Island, and Montauk. New London has become a major transfer point for passengers traveling to Connecticut casinos via express buses.

The following discussion considers a number of potential sites to serve as terminals for ferries engaged in service to Manhattan and for intracoastal trips. In the case of Manhattan access, it is well to consider the potential value of waterborne travel as a possi-ble contingency in the event either Grand Central Terminal or the MNR Harlem River Bridge is rendered inoperable. Such an eventuality could effectively shut down direct commuter rail access to the central business district. (Unlike the LIRR, MNR has only one terminal in the central business district of Manhattan, although there have been several studies recommending access to Penn Station.)

Page 148: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

5-44 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

• Stamford. The station here is adjacent to the West Branch of Stamford Harbor and is proximate to the commercial district of the city. The combination of frequent train service and this proximity offers good potential for an effective rail/ferry transfer.

• South Norwalk. Norwalk Harbor is proximate to the station here and both are near the commercial district. South Norwalk also offers good potential for an effective rail/ferry transfer.

• New Haven. New Haven serves as a terminal station for MNR and Shore Line East trains and is a major stop on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor. This combination makes it a potential location for rail/ferry transfer, even though the station is some distance from the waterfront.

Metro-North New Haven Line, Westchester County

Within Westchester County, there are six Metro-North stations along the New Haven Line that are close to Long Island Sound. These stations are all situated in settled urban areas and lie within a mile of the shoreline. The frequency of train service to all six stations is half-hourly during off-peak and quarter-hourly during peak periods.

• New Rochelle. The station at New Rochelle is situated approximately one mile from the waterfront. Roadway access via North Avenue and Pelham Road provides for the location of a ferry terminal at several possible locations. The distance from this com-munity to Lower Manhattan is approximately 14 miles. This relatively short distance makes New Rochelle a candidate location for regular and contingency service to Manhattan.

• Larchmont. This station is situated on Chartsworth Avenue, a roadway that provides access to the waterfront approximately one mile away.

• Mamaroneck. Mamaroneck Avenue provides direct access to Harbor Park, which is located only one mile away.

• Harrison. The station at Harrison is somewhat remote from the waterfront in that the local roadway network appears to serve only residential areas and country clubs. Access to Mamaronek Harbor, two miles distant, may be gained via Harrison Avenue and the Post Road.

• Rye. The waterfront at Rye offers a wide range of potential open-water locations for a ferry terminal, although roadway access is circuitous.

• Port Chester. This station is in close proximity to the Byram River. Access via Westchester Avenue is direct and unimpeded.

Page 149: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-45

5.6 Conclusion

Sections 5.1 through 5.5 have presented a large amount of information, and it is not intended that the reader derive a particular message or conclusion from the material. Rather, the material is intended to serve as a resource for reference throughout the study process, and will be used to inform findings and recommendations in subsequent phases of the LISWTP effort.

Page 150: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

6.0 Demand Modeling and Screening of Alternatives

Page 151: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-1

6.0 Demand Modeling and Screening of Alternatives

6.1 Passenger Demand Modeling

As part of Task 2, the team developed a passenger mode choice model to estimate ferry service demand in comparison to other alternative modes. The model is capable of evalu-ating how much demand between any two points in the region could be expected to shift to ferry, given certain service characteristics – primarily cost, speed, frequency, and reli-ability – associated with the ferry option. By varying the service characteristics of the ferry, the effects on demand can be observed, and an optimum service profile developed if demand is sufficient.

Appendix B of this report describes in detail the survey design, survey instruments, and initial model estimation results for the mode choice models. The models were based on new data derived from a household survey of 176 residents from communities in Long Island and Connecticut that could utilize and benefit from these proposed ferry services. A preliminary, statistically based predictive ridership model has been developed from the survey. [A second sample of Connecticut and Long Island residents, focusing on Manhattan commuters, was surveyed after these initial results were tabulated; the results of the second survey will be presented in the Task 3 Technical Memorandum.]

The stated-preference survey used in this study is a state-of-the-practice, technically sound instrument for assessing the potential demand for a new or substantially different transportation service. In this stated-preference survey, respondents were presented with a number of scenarios describing time, cost, and other service options for travel to Manhattan, the Connecticut shoreline, or Long Island by different modes of travel, and asked to choose the mode they would actually use. Respondents selected a preferred mode in four separate scenarios, or “choice experiments.” Other, “revealed-preference” questions, concerning the last trip of interest to this study and about household character-istics, were asked as well. Trip-related revealed-preference questions included the specific trip origin and destination, trip purpose, mode of travel used, and the time of day the trip was made.

Level of Service (LOS) variables were introduced into the experimental design in order to give respondents realistic representations of the time and costs associated with deter-mining their choices of potential new service to travel between the given ori-gin/destination pairs. The main objectives that were kept in mind while determining the values of the LOS variables were a) that they reflect current and future scenarios realisti-cally; and b) that there be sufficient variance in LOS among the choice experiments.

Page 152: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

6-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

The model factors have been input to a spreadsheet that is linked to three other sets of data: 1) the baseline demand for movements between any two zones in the region; 2) the level-of-service criteria (fixed) being offered by non-ferry services for those movements; and 3) the level of service criteria (variable) we are offering for a ferry service. By varying the ferry service criteria, we will be able to use the model in Tasks 3 and 4 to quantita-tively estimate the demand for different ferry routes with different service characteristics.

6.2 Freight Demand Modeling

Also as part of Task 2, the team developed a mode choice model for freight movement. The freight model accomplishes the same purpose as the passenger model, but is designed spe-cifically to estimate mode shifts in commodity flows, rather than person flows. The freight model was largely adapted from work performed for the New York City Economic Development Corporation’s Cross Harbor Freight Movement EIS, and has been used with their permission. The model is described in detail in Appendix C.

The transportation impacts of freight movement can be analyzed using the standard four-step transportation planning process. This analytical approach is identical to that used on passenger transportation projects, with the only difference being the sources of data. This process is summarized in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Four-Step Transportation Planning Process Applied to Freight

Step Data Source Comparable Data Source for

Passenger Transportation Study

Trip Generation Reebie Associates TRANSEARCH database

Regional economic and demographic forecasts

Trip Distribution Reebie Associates TRANSEARCH database

Regional household or in-vehicle surveys

Mode Split Discrete (mode) choice model Discrete (mode) choice model or regional travel demand model

Trip Assignment Regional travel demand model Regional travel demand model

Page 153: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-3

The role of the mode choice model is to determine how baseline forecasts of trip volumes, modes, and origin-destinations patterns would be affected by the introduction of new transportation choices, or changes in the types of services offered by existing transporta-tion choices. The mode change data (reflecting trucks removed from the highway net-work) can then be incorporated into regional travel demand models, which reassign the remaining highway traffic.

To utilize the freight mode choice model in the LISWTP, it will be necessary to define a series of level of service attributes corresponding to proposed freight ferry and barge alternatives. These attributes will include cost, speed, and reliability. Each potential alternative service defined through the Screening Process (Task 3) will be modeled as part of Task 4. Potential services to be modeled could include:

• Port Inland Distribution Network Barge between Port Newark/Elizabeth and Connecticut;

• Enhanced Truck Ferry across the Sound; and/or

• Enhanced Truck Ferry serving coastal markets, New York City, and regional airports.

6.3 Screening of Alternatives

The next step in the LISWTP is to develop a series of screening criteria, and to apply these criteria to the various sites and services identified in the Task 2 work effort, using the data developed for and presented in this Task 2 report.

Page 154: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Appendix A Summaries of Community Planning Workshops

Page 155: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS AUGUST 1, 2002, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK

Two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in Southold on August 1st. At each session, the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues to be considered. The study team presentation was followed by a “plenary session” discussion where participants provided feedback and input. The workshops concluded with “breakouts” where participants met together in small groups and recorded their own ideas on flip charts and maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards provided for their use. This Summary consists of: a record of the first plenary session; a record of the second plenary session; and a compendium of the ideas recorded in the two breakout sessions.

PLENARY SESSION #1 Topic A: Role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. Problems

• Ferries do not provide seamless transfers to other transportation modes. • Trip time is quicker by automobile than ferry. • Weather conditions can be a negative. • No pump out stations between Mt. Sinai and Glen Cove. If ferry service is

increased, there will need to be more stations. • Increased ferry services can result in more garbage being thrown over

board thus requiring more beach clean ups. • Orient Point only has landside connections for cars at the moment. There

are no connection options for other modes. • Areas of environmental sensitivity should not be considered. Oyster Bay

Wildlife Refuge should be off limits.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 156: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

Opportunities

• Use the ferry trip as productive work time – provide on-board computer internet links.

• Areas with existing maritime activities are the best locations for any new or expanded activities.

• Points of access should be increased along the Sound. • Productivity on the ferry should be accounted for and promoted. • Port Jefferson to Huntington or Port Jefferson to Glen Cove should be

serviced by existing ferries. • As more people view the Island from the water, it may generate increased

awareness and stewardship of natural marine resources. • Should provide a service from New London to the South Fork. Travel

time and distance is an issue. This is being looked at by the SEEDS study. • More locations should share the burden of automobile traffic to/from

ferry services. • Look to attract New England customers that have 2nd homes or are

visiting the area. • Could provide water taxi from north fork to south fork via Sag Harbor.

Topic B: “Vision” for waterborne transportation in 20 years

• Provide on-board vessel technology to allow people to work productively. • Use of alternative vessel technologies such as hovercraft. • Focus on intermodal connections using alternative modes like train. For

example, could take train in South Hampton to Orient, then ferry to New London and onwards.

• Use of light rail serving north and south forks with a ferry terminal north of Calverton. Develop ferry facility with light rail and LIRR connections.

• Add at least 2 more ferry landings beside Orient and Port Jefferson -- possibly Shoreham and Montauk.

• Encourage multiple ferry companies to create competition. • For vehicle ferries, restrict trucks or permit trucks during off hours. • Different types of services (passenger only, passenger plus car, truck, etc.)

in different locations most appropriate for their different needs. • Consider light rail along the north fork from LIRR to Greenport. • Look at Puget Sound models for truck and railcar ferries. • Buses on ferry - “floating transfer” for people and packages. • Make it more worthwhile not just faster. Provide something no other

mode can provide. Promote the community of ferry riders and create a further sense of community. Include amenities such as lectures on board, education displays and shopping opportunities.

Page 157: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

PLENARY SESSION #2 Topic A: Role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. Problems

• Local traffic volumes increase especially when ferry comes in from New London.

• Orient shoulders the burden of hundreds of cars on the roadway - need to distribute more evenly and equitably, and create a regional balance.

• Take into consideration the infrastructure’s capability on the landside. • Orient traffic has grown without significant expansion of facilities.

Opportunities

• Route ferries from elsewhere, such as Wading River or Brookhaven. • Need to improve connections and coordination between ferry & train

schedules. • Consider smaller waterborne services that are expandable, a way to make

the service impact more equitable. Some places are taking more of the burden than others, which affects quality of life in places like Southold.

• Service at Montauk generally produces auto traffic in the reverse peak direction – westbound trips on Friday, eastbound trips on Sunday – which minimizes traffic impacts.

• Consider ferry service to the Riverhead area to relieve congestion on the north fork.

• Improve train service to get people out of the cars.

Topic B: “Vision” for waterborne transportation in 20 years. • Faster and smaller-scale services, spreading out terminals to other

locations. • Consider alternative vessel types --hovercraft, etc. • There are several smaller ferry services with the ability to expand. • Potential for publicly-run and financed ferries – e.g., Nova Scotia, North

Carolina - Outer Banks, Puget Sound. • Evaluate possible public/private partnerships. • Northville (North of Route 105) only needs minor improvements, and has

an existing four-lane highway. • Ferries that run a long the Long Island Shore. • Monorail down the middle of the Island.

Page 158: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

4

• Bridge or Tunnel across the Sound. • Combination of Ferry Service and Train/Bus Service. • High-speed ferry from NY to Shoreham then ride to Greenport on light

rail, to relieve the traffic on the expressway. • Economic link between Long Island and Connecticut, not just NY. Serve

industry-related traffic year round, not just seasonal tourist traffic. Train to Greenport - New England by boat. Help decrease the traffic.

• Flexible ferry systems that can be expanded or contracted as needed. • LIRR used to go to Wading River. This could be another location for the

ferry to New London. BREAKOUT SESSIONS Written Notes and Comments

• Build terminals in Connecticut to attract transportation services (bus

services etc.) • Divert traffic destined for Orient Point before it arrives at North Fork;

divert in Northville or Shoreham. • Additional service should be added in East Marion, not Orient. • A new high-speed, passenger-only ferry should be initiated between Sag

Harbor and New London. • Car service should be diverted to Montauk, perhaps Fort Pond Bay or the

State-owned land at Napeague Bay. These options are good if they divert cars from Orient.

• The State should build terminals (through the EIS) and services will follow.

• There should be a connection between the coast and the Long Island Rail Road. This connection should be at North Calverton/Grumman and should be linked to downtown revitalization. The connection could go straight across with less tight navigation. The ferries could operate in inclement weather in a wider area of the Sound. The difficulties of this proposal include difficulties in creating a landing in the natural bluff along the shoreline; the crossing across the Sound is at the widest point; and the service would be dependent on increased light rail from the LIRR terminal to the ferry terminal (on existing LIRR right-of-way).

• There should be a Greenport passenger-only service from Greenport to New London. It would be connected to the Calverton site by a light rail line that would replace the existing LIRR. The service (both the light rail and the passenger ferry) would be subsidized or a commuter rail pass would be offered.

Page 159: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5

• A Shoreham ferry service has the benefit of landing at an industrialized power plant. The drawback is the increased traffic in the communities near the ferry terminal.

• A Montauk ferry service would reduce the car load at Orient. • There should be a service from New Haven to Shoreham. This service

would be good for moving trucks across the Sound. • A new casino in Bridgeport would make parking problematic at Port

Jefferson. • Senior citizens prefer ferry service across the Sound to driving to

Connecticut via New York City. • A service should be established from Huntington to New York City. • A ferry terminal should be considered for Northville, as it is already a

commercial site/port. • A ferry service should connect Montauk to New London at Fort Pond Bay.

A train connection at Montauk would serve the terminal at Fort Pond Bay. • There should be a car-only (no freight ferry service from Norwalk to

Sunken Meadows (cars only on the parkway). • A service should be established from New London to the South Fork, at

the Smith Fish Factory at Napeague. • There should be a Shoreham to New London freight ferry service.

Notes/Drawings on Maps

• One suggestion was for a passenger-only fast ferry service should be initiated between Montauk Harbor and New London. Another suggestion was for a combination of a passenger-only fast ferry and car ferry.

• A ferry service should be initiated between New York City and Napeague following the south shore of Long Island.

• There are two possible sites for ferry landings on the South Fork: 1) Napeague (on State land); and 2) Fort Pond Bay. The Napeague site is free of residential use. Specifically, the Napeague Meadow Road leading to the landing site, which could be used as the staging area, crosses vacant land from Montauk Highway to the landing area.

• Sag Harbor opposes ferry operations and denied Shelter Island South Ferry’s attempt for a direct Sag Harbor-Greenport passenger ferry.

• Orient is inconvenient to most people. The passenger ferry should go between New London and Greenport because both those locations have rail stations.

• Reduce the load on Greenport and move to other locations. No trucks should be allowed except at Shoreham.

• There is a rail connection to Greenport that should be utilized. • Route 48 is overloaded.

Page 160: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

6

• There should be a New York City to Sag Harbor ferry connection along the north shore of Long Island.

• There should be a truck and auto ferry service linking Shoreham and New London.

• A terminal should be established at Riverhead to serve the North and South Forks and Shelter Island with ferries.

• In Riverhead a good location for a terminal for buses and car parking would be at the abandoned parcel between Kramer Avenue and Suffolk Life.

• There should be a railroad linkage at Riverhead. • There should be a large transportation hub at the old Grumman site at

Calverton connecting the Long Island Expressway with a light rail system that operated 24 hours and 7-days a week. The light rail should run on the existing Long Island Rail Road track but be electrified. There should also be an off-shore platform terminal north of Riverhead Town for service across the Sound.

• The Long Island Rail Road should be extended from Port Jefferson Station to Shoreham to serve a ferry terminal there.

• There are wetland issues at Shoreham. • Extend the William Floyd Parkway to a ferry terminal at Shoreham. • The Shoreham proposals would impact the forest, traffic, and the local

community. • There is a narrow breakwater at Shoreham. • There should be no ferry service in Oyster Bay or Mt. Sinai Harbor. • A ferry connection should be made between Huntington and Port

Jefferson. A trolley or jitney could connect Huntington’s downtown to the ferry landing.

• A site for a small passenger ferry is at the mouth of the Nissequogue River and Sunken Meadow State Park.

• A ferry service should go along the south shore of the Sound and between New York City and Eastern Long Island and land near Mattituck/Cutchogue on the Sound.

• The Shoreham service to New Haven could be a combination of either trucks and autos or a high-speed passenger ferry and a vehicle ferry.

• The service between Shoreham and New Haven could also be freight only. • There should be service between Shoreham and New London for trucks

and autos. • From Northville there should be service to New Haven. This service

should be vehicles and also passenger only ferries. • Ferries from Northville and Shoreham would take traffic off the North

Fork.

Page 161: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

7

• Service from Northville could also serve areas between New Haven and the Connecticut River on the Connecticut side of the Sound including Guilford, Madison, and Westbrook.

• In addition to service between Sag Harbor and New York City, there should be service from Sag Harbor to Greenport, to Orient, to and Old Lyme (Connecticut River).

• There should be 1 to 3 ferries per week between Orient and Fishers Island, NY.

• There should be ferry service from Riverhead to Greenport and from Riverhead to the south fork (north of Deerfield). These services could be for autos or passengers only.

• There should be shore ferry service connecting the North Fork and Huntington to New York City.

• On the south shore of Long Island, there should be service between Captree Boat Basin, Sheepshead Bay, and New York City. This service could move beachgoers and link to Jones Beach and the Robert Moses Causeway.

Page 162: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS STAMFORD, CT – SEPTEMBER 17, 2002

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in Stamford, CT on September 17th, 2002. At each session, the study team began by convening a “plenary session.” During the plenary session, the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues, responded to questions about the study, and led an open group discussion of two main topics: • The role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and

regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. • Participants’ visions for waterborne transportation in 20 years. The plenary session was followed by a “breakout session” where participants met together in small groups and recorded ideas on maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards provided for their use. This Summary consists of a record of the plenary sessions, followed by a combined summary of the ideas from the breakout sessions. This Summary is intended to document the workshop outcomes for the public record. All suggestions regarding specific sites, services and/or facilities represent the views of workshop participants, and do not constitute findings or recommendations by the study team or its sponsoring agencies.

WORKSHOP SESSION #1 AND #2 Questions and Answers • Are weather conditions a concern when seas get high? This depends on the specific

vessel – some vessels are more sensitive than others to high sea states, but there are ferries that operate year-round in high seas.

• Will you consider the environmental impacts of dredging? This will be addressed in the study as a factor in evaluating the feasibility and desirability of potential services.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 163: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • Stamford is already an active harbor. It accommodates leisure craft and two freight

terminals (for cement and asphalt). The harbor is not deep, but can accommodate barges and ferries.

• The community is interested in ferry service, but the passenger demand is uncertain, and may not be known until there is actually a service up and running. There have been many expressions of interest over the last six years. The biggest impediment has been the availability of parking, which is expensive. The availability of land is also an issue, but one site is already leased to a potential operator. Overall, Stamford believes that ferry service could divert traffic from I-95.

• A cross-sound route would enhance Stamford’s role as an employment center, by improving connections for companies that have offices in both Stamford and Long Island, and by enabling Long Island residents to commute to work in Stamford. For example, UBS/Warburg moves 250 employees per day between Stamford and Long Island.

• There has been active discussion of ferry service to LaGuardia airport.

• Stamford is not seen as a good location for truck ferries or substantially increased cargo activities.

• People would use a ferry service if it was convenient and affordable (not much more than cost of tolls). Weekend/recreational use might be more attractive, because schedules would be less of an issue. Summer use would be more attractive, because it would avoid road construction and beach traffic; road conditions are more predictable in winter.

• The Wales to Dublin hydrofoil service carries approximately 100 people and is an example of a good service. It might be a model for a fast service between Stamford and New York City.

• Suggested routes could include Stamford to New York City (commuter and recreation), Stamford to Montauk (recreation), and Stamford to LaGuardia airport. There might be excursion services to Foxwoods, to Atlantic City, or to other recreational destinations.

• Consider integration of ferry and bus services, possibly connecting at Rye Playland.

• Level of comfort and quality of service are key issues in attracting markets. The coordination of intermodal connections with other modes is also important.

SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES AND DRAWINGS

• A cross-sound barge could serve the energy plant in Bridgeport.

• An express passenger commuter service should be established between Bridgeport, Stamford, and Downtown Manhattan.

Page 164: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

• A ferry should run from Stamford to Southold and Montauk for summer trips to the Hamptons.

• Ferries should be used to take trucks off I-95 to reduce accidents and thereby save time.

• New Rochelle/Larchmont; Mamaroneck; Port Chester; and the Cove Island area near Stamford could serve as terminals.

• Parking is a major concern at the Cove Island location.

• Ferries could take recreational and dinner passengers to New York City.

Page 165: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS NEW ROCHELLE, NY – SEPTEMBER 19, 2002

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in New Rochelle, NY on September 19th, 2002. At each session, the study team began by convening a “plenary session.” During the plenary session, the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues, responded to questions about the study, and led an open group discussion of two main topics: • The role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and

regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. • Participants’ visions for waterborne transportation in 20 years. The plenary session was followed by a “breakout session” where participants met together in small groups and recorded ideas on maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards provided for their use. This Summary consists of a record of each plenary session, followed by a combined summary of the ideas from the breakout sessions. This Summary is intended to document the workshop outcomes for the public record. All suggestions regarding specific sites, services and/or facilities represent the views of workshop participants, and do not constitute findings or recommendations by the study team or its sponsoring agencies.

WORKSHOP SESSION #1 Questions and Answers • The City of New Rochelle is interested in surface transportation and is currently

working on an intermodal hub for rail and bus. Long ago there was a ferry stop on David’s Island. Perhaps that site can be reconsidered for future service and maybe the marina. The team will consider this.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 166: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

• Will the study look at economic impacts? Not in a detailed way. The NYMTC Best Practices Model will be used to estimate highway impacts at a regional level, but the study will not analyze local economic impacts for specific locations.

• How will the Federal government be involved? Federal funding is supporting the study and may be needed to support programs identified in the study.

• How is ferry service in the [upper] Hudson? The City of Yonkers is currently negotiating to establish a Haverstraw to Yonkers to Manhattan service.

• Do the successful services in other areas of the country still need public subsidies? What is private vs. public? The Puget Sound service is publicly supported and highly successful. It serves both urban and rural areas and carries more passengers than almost any system in the country. The San Francisco service is private and does not have the ridership of the Puget Sound service.

• Have you looked at the history of service in the area, including College Point, for example? That is something the study will consider.

• What is the history of ferry service in Long Island Sound? Will the study look at this? Yes.

• How will the plan affect funding from upcoming ISTEA reauthorization? A lot of areas are fighting to get mass transit money away from New York City. This study will not make specific funding recommendations.

• How much space does a staging area require? How many parking spaces etc.? It depends on a number of factors, such as the type of service, the demand for service, and the size of ships.

• Has seasonal traffic been considered, i.e. Long Island service would be busier during the summer? The seasonal aspect of demand is understood and will be considered.

• What kind of a relationship are you considering between ferries and host communities? Ferry service has positives (improved access and economic activity) and negatives (development and traffic related impacts) for host communities, and both need to be considered.

• What kind of effect will this have on the [commuter] railroads? There may be an opportunity to enhance rail service by using the ferry as a connector in a multimodal trip.

• Have you though of service between Westchester and Brooklyn? That is something we will look at.

• Have you thought about a hub network with big and small ports and ferries? This is an option.

• Has the study received any feedback from environmental groups? Yes, at the Southold meetings we received specific comments from environmental groups identifying environmentally sensitive locations and issues. Environmental interests are also represented on the project Advisory Committee.

Page 167: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

• Will Metro North and LIRR wage war against the study if they perceive the ferries will erode their customer base? No, they are both participating in the study. Our goal is to enhance regional transportation and encourage the growth of non-highway modes, not shift traffic off the railroads.

• The study should look at weather sensitivities. Will the service be canceled in fog or high seas? It depends on the type of ship. The current service between Port Jefferson and Bridgeport and Orient and New London consists of larger ships and weather is not usually a factor.

Issues, Recommendations, and Visions • There should be a service between Westchester and the South Fork of Eastern Long

Island. A lot of people go from Westchester to the Hamptons. Also, there should be service between Westchester and Wall Street to support those who commute there.

• There should be hub stations. Big ferries are not feasible in most of the bays and harbors. There should be small boats, maybe 20-30 person “water taxis” that connect smaller harbors with larger ships at hub stations.

• A hub system is a bad idea because passengers become less willing to transfer multiple times.

• There should possibly be a service between the parking lot near the Whitestone Bridge in Bronx and New York City.

• The study should consider the recently completed Westchester County – Fannie Mae study on housing and commuting. That study identifies Long Island commuters coming into Westchester County.

• The Westchester housing stock is expensive and the County will need Long Island workers to fill positions created by efforts to bring in biotechnology and high technology sectors to the county.

• The study should consider bus connections.

• The study should look at connecting to the new Air Train at JFK.

• The study should look at ferry services that failed or services that do not run every year because of financial or ridership fluctuations.

• The study should look at real estate development opportunities that could be associated with ferry terminals to generate taxes and revenues.

• The study should look at the price range for ferry service. What is affordable?

• The biggest issue of the study is the link between parking and ferries.

Page 168: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

4

PLENARY SESSION #2 Questions and Answers • New York and San Francisco are bidding for the 2012 Olympics. Will this study look

at the needs of NYC 2012 for waterborne transportation? The NYC 2012 transportation plan relies heavily on ferry service to move athletes between venues and the Olympic Village, to provide emergency services, and to improve the accessibility of venues. The study will coordinate with the NYC 2012 plan.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • There should be two improvements in the region. First, there should be an east-west

commuter railway connecting the various branches of the Metro North from Suffern, New York to Port Chester, New York. From Port Chester, there should be a ferry service to Downtown New York. The service should begin in Bridgeport and stop in Stamford, Port Chester, New Rochelle, Midtown, and Downtown. There is a tradition of ferries in New Rochelle; we still have a dock here. The Northeast Thruway ruined the ferries. There should be more grand-scale transit, “the type Robert Moses would develop if he were alive and realized he had mistakenly built a lot of highways.” Also, there should be a ferry between Westchester and Long Island (Glen Cove or Huntington Station). This Westchester-Long Island service would be a weekend/recreational service since there may not be much demand between the two locations. You may be taking some people away from trains and buses that go to NYC.

• One of the problems with our site selection is that there are speed restrictions in many of the harbors. You can’t find a place for a ferry dock and parking area in any of the locations close to open water (where you would not be slowed by harbor wake restrictions) because most locations close to open water are in expensive neighborhoods. The only realistic location where a service would not be slowed by 15 minutes to get into a harbor would be Playland Dock. It has a large parking lot and is close to open water. Speed restrictions in some locations means that the service takes too long to be feasible.

• Supplemental water taxi is good. But there should be a fixed link, in the next 20 years, either a bridge or tunnel, between Long Island and Connecticut.

SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES AND DRAWINGS

• There should be commuter/recreational ferry service between New Rochelle and Port Washington that would give riders and opportunity to dine at the restaurants.

• There should be cruises to allow one to see the community from a different perspective (from water); there should be party boats.

• There should be a Westchester to Long Island ferry service.

Page 169: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5

• There should be a service linking New Rochelle, LaGuardia Airport, and Manhattan.

• A ferry terminal should be established on the north side of Orchard Beach in Pelham Bay Park where there are adequate roads and highways and parking.

• Use the historic landing site near Throgs Neck for parking and Montauk service.

• There should be bridge/tunnel linking the Long Island Expressway with I-278 from Rye to Bayville and then through Syosset (Oyster Bay Expressway)

• The Playland site is a more feasible terminal for ferries.

• There should be a Rye to Port Chester to Oyster Bay ferry.

• There should be service from Westchester to Montauk on weekends.

• There should be a ferry from Westchester to the Connecticut beaches near Madison.

• Bridgeport could be an inland cargo/container distribution hub for Long Island.

• There should be a bridge/tunnel linking I-91 in Connecticut to the Floyd Parkway on Long Island. The channel is deep enough for a tunnel and weatherproof.

• There should be service between New Haven and the Shoreham area with possible terminals at Shoreham, Northville, or Waterville.

• There should be service to New London from Manhattan and Westchester.

• There should be a ferry from Bridgeport to NYC with stops at Stamford, Port Chester, and New Rochelle.

• A ferry should carry traffic from the hotels in Stamford to the Rye Ferry to Oyster Bay or Glen Cove, Long Island where a connection could be made to LIRR or jitney.

• Norwalk is a good location for ferry service because it is urban and closer to Westchester than Bridgeport.

• A series of ferry routes should serve locations on both sides of the Sound: Northport, Lloyd Harbor, Oyster Bay, Glen Cove, and Port Washington on the south side and Bridgeport, Norwalk, Stamford, Port Chester, Mamaroneck, Larchmont, Pelham Manor, and Orchard Beach on the north side.

• A rail like should be built between the Stewart Airport and Suffern and Port Chester where the ferry connects to Bridgeport (as a stop on a Bridgeport-P. Chester-Pelham-New York City route).

• New Rochelle cannot take big ferry boats in its harbor.

• Port Chester is a bad location for ferry service.

• There should be a rail line from Beacon to Danbury, CT to “react” to the ferry service to Beacon.

• Increased tax revenue and convenient access to cafes and shops that spring up around ferry terminals make the traffic “pill” easier to swallow (traffic from other communities coming to the host community to access the ferry service.)

Page 170: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

6

• There should be service from Rye, Larchmont, and Pelham to Downtown New York to avoid the transfer at Grand Central Station.

• There should be a hovercraft or high-speed ferry from NYC to Westchester.

• There should be a feeder jitney on I-278 from the airport area (Stewart) to Rye.

Page 171: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS LOWER MANHATTAN – SEPTEMBER 24, 2002

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in Lower Manhattan on September 24th, 2002. At each session, the study team began by convening a “plenary session.” During the plenary session, the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues, responded to questions about the study, and led an open group discussion of two main topics: • The role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and

regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. • Participants’ visions for waterborne transportation in 20 years. The plenary session was followed by a “breakout session” where participants met together in small groups and recorded ideas on maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards provided for their use. This Summary consists of a record of each plenary session, followed by a combined summary of the ideas from the breakout sessions. This Summary is intended to document the workshop outcomes for the public record. All suggestions regarding specific sites, services and/or facilities represent the views of workshop participants, and do not constitute findings or recommendations by the study team or its sponsoring agencies.

WORKSHOP SESSION #1 Questions and Answers

• Will the study look at moving people from inner areas to coastlines? This could be something to get people out of their cars to go to the shore. We will look at the landside connections necessary to reach inland markets.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 172: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

• Are we looking at ways to get people to places cheaper and faster? Ferries must provide some form of advantage over alternative modes – speed, cost, comfort, etc. – to be competitive. In some cases, they may not be cheaper or faster, but still be desirable. In other cases, they may not be competitive at all.

• Are you looking at Connecticut to Manhattan routes? Yes.

• Are you looking at subsidies? We are identifying costs, but not necessarily subsidies to find out where it makes sense to have service. We are identifying potential ridership and will be looking at price sensitivity as part of that.

• Driving is subsidized. How can you make other modes competitive? This is a global question. We are not putting this question in the study but we are asking this same question about transportation generally.

• Are you looking at environmental effects? That is one of our screening criteria. If we recommend service to a particular community, we will avoid environmentally critical areas.

• Are you looking at emissions or new technology? We are not modeling car vs. ferry emissions tradeoffs. But we are going to characterize vessel emissions by type, and we will model changes in highway emissions-related costs.

• Robert Moses wanted bridges across Long Island Sound. How can a ferry match that kind of volume of traffic? Will the percentage of traffic taking ferries from Long Island to New England be measurable? Will the traffic be equivalent to a bridge in terms of traffic moved? We do not expect to handle nearly the level of traffic that a bridge might. Ferry services will not significantly affect regional growth patterns, nor will they divert large numbers of auto trips from their current routes. Instead, we are looking at the potential for small percentage gains for a ferry, and asking whether specific ferry services are sufficiently beneficial and feasible to warrant a recommendation to move forward with additional planning. Even a 1% change might have a positive impact.

• Which Connecticut ferry terminal sites would keep business in Lower Manhattan? Rye has been mentioned. What sites have Metro North service and parking areas? We are still looking at this but many businesses do leave Lower Manhattan because of transportation. Stamford and Bridgeport are other possible locations.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • There is a distinction between Long Island and San Francisco ridership mentioned in

the presentation. Long Island trips are for leisure, San Francisco trips are for commuting. Ferries best serve large densities.

• There are some comments and statistics on commuters crossing Long Island Sound in a New York City article about a year ago.

• The advantage of ferry travel is adaptability. Small ferries can serve large markets and large ferries serve large markets.

Page 173: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

• It seems like you should look at potential trip generation based on fares. For example, if you charge $10 you generate 100 riders vs. a $20 fare that generates 10 riders. Once you have these numbers, you can assess the funding mechanism, including subsidies needed.

• Ferries could provide good, cheap access from Connecticut to Lower Manhattan. If we assume Metro North will be extended to Lower Manhattan, it would be natural to use ferries to move commuters until the rail link is completed. And sometimes it makes sense to add ferries to decrease rail congestion, especially if it costs more to add rail capacities.

• Ferries have to be frequent to reduce congestion on rail lines.

• Seamlessness is also important. There are seamless systems in San Francisco and Sydney. Perhaps a single transit pass could be used on bus/ferry and rail/ferry trips.

• There should be a radio station developed with current information about traffic and travel conditions on all modes.

• A ferry would connect to mass transit (complete integration).

• In an ideal transportation system, there would be zero emissions.

• In 20 years, the price of oil will increase 20 fold. Gridlock will be prevalent everywhere. The result will be traveling by Suffolk transit to the ferries to get to New England. There will be substantial high-speed ferry service to airports and stadiums. A key to making this happen is having good access to ferry terminal locations.

• Freight should play a role to divert freight from trucks to rail and barges. This should be especially true for small trucks.

• The ports should move containers by barge within the region.

• There should be good scheduling and coordination among modes.

• The south shore of the Long Island Sound is relatively inaccessible and in the wrong direction for most commuters. The north shore of the Sound is more accessible. Maybe the LIRR should run more trains to the Long Island City ferry terminal to move commuters to the train there.

• Venice has quick stops. There is service every 15 minutes. There should be fast, frequent, visible service.

PLENARY SESSION #2 Questions and Answers • New Jersey DOT completed a study of ferry potential. Will this study consider their

findings? We will obtain and review their study.

Page 174: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

4

• Is there anything in the study’s demand model that would gauge the induced demand that ferry service would provide? The model measures diversion between modes based on existing and forecasted demand between origin-destination pairs. There is a further adjustment, external to the model, that would have to be made to reflect demand related to new land uses or changes in travel patterns.

• What kinds of commodities are divertable to ferry? A variety of intermodal dry van commodities, just-in-time deliveries (UPS, Federal Express, US Postal Service), and bulk commodities could be divertable, depending on the levels of service offered.

• How are you analyzing commodities? There are separate demand forecasts by origin-destination pair and by commodity type at the 2-digit STCC level. There are 50 commodity classes at this level.

• Will you explain why certain commodities are thrown out if you determine why they are not divertable? Yes, we will describe the results of the modeling process.

• How will you calculate the benefits of reduced congestion? We will calculate time, fuel, and operating cost savings using the NYMTC “Best Practices” travel demand model and the “STEAM” analysis package developed by Cambridge Systematics for FHWA.

• Will you look at the benefits of reducing transit congestion? Metro North is the most congested line in the USA. We are not looking to reduce the region’s use of transit, but what we would hope to do is come up with alternatives that effectively connect with and supplement rail transit as part of an overall intermodal network.

• What kind of freight equipment is needed if you bring freight into the equation? This depends on the type of operation. If it is roll-on/roll-off, truck parking and staging areas are the most critical need. If it is lift-on/lift-off, you need areas for cranes, yard equipment, and cargo storage.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions

• “Over and Back” by Brian Cudahay is the definitive history of ferry boats in New York City. That book says there were 200 million annual ferry riders in 1908. Currently there are 70,000 weekday riders on the private ferries with a stop in one of the 5 New York City Boroughs.

• The temporary barges at Pier A and Battery Park City are held by spud piles driven into the mud that hold the barge horizontally and let it rise vertically. The Pier A barge is secured by two piles driven into the bedrock and metal loops connected to the barge.

• At each ferry terminal you need adequate parking, especially at suburban ferry stops.

• There are landside access issues that must be considered. However, the landside issues are unique to each ferry stop. For example, in Lower Manhattan there is no parking needed; in suburban areas parking is needed.

• Suburban “origin” terminals need services to support the gathering of people.

Page 175: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5

• The ten sites of the study’s outreach meetings are natural sites for ferry hubs. But there should also be water taxi feeder services to serve the larger ferries in these hubs. Thus, this would be a two-tiered system with hubs served by larger ferries with smaller ferries serving as feeders into the hubs.

• There are different issues for commuter and recreational ferry users.

• If there were more ferry service then ferries would carry a greater share of the cars.

• The market share of the Nassau/Suffolk ferries should be considered in this study.

• There should be some way to jitney the people to and from the ferries to the job centers if those centers are not immediately adjacent to the ferry terminals.

• There should be a roll-on/roll-off ferry to carry a bus from point A to point B via a ferry. This might work between Suffolk County and Boston, for example. Think of it as an “Aqua-Bus.”

• The study should also consider movement of high value and time sensitive freight by ferry. For example, UPS, FedEx and perishables.

• Docking infrastructure should be more universally compatible to handle the different types of ferries throughout the region.

• In 20 years: you should be able to get anywhere by water. Every waterfront town should have a dock but there should be larger collecting points for larger vessels. There should be increased use of (on-demand) water taxis as a first step to see if the volumes warrant fixed service.

• The current smaller boats (Otter class) carry less than 100 people and locally only require two crew members (a captain and a deck hand) thereby greatly reducing the labor costs for ferry companies.

• Re-hub the buses based on water transit. Keep transit hubs at rail stations and other traditional hubs, but make sure there are good bus connections to the ferry terminals in Manhattan and in the coastal cities.

SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES AND DRAWINGS

• A ferry service should be initiated between Bridgeport, CT and the Shoreham area of Long Island. This would be a good route but would require heavy subsidies.

• Bridgeport is a good location because of the existing parking garage.

• There should be a Westchester to Long Island car ferry service in the summer.

• There should be a Lower Manhattan to New Rochelle route with a stop at FDR Island.

• There should be a water taxi between New Rochelle, Larchmont, Mamaroneck, and Rye.

• Jitney service should be offered from Rye to the office parks along the I-287 corridor.

Page 176: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

6

• The ferry landing at Rye should be at the site of the Playland.

• A car and passenger ferry should be initiated between Stamford and Lower Manhattan.

• A ferry service should exist between Rye and New Rochelle and Lower Manhattan.

• There should be a ferry between Stamford and LaGuardia Airport.

• There should be a service from Port Chester to Manhattan.

• There should be a ferry between Mamaroneck and Manhattan.

• Rye Playland has good parking and access and would be accessible to buses.

• Port Chester is a good location because of the short walking distance to the Metro-North line and the Bee Line Buses.

• Increased water traffic around Mamaroneck will cause environmental problems related to the spreading of sewage in the Sound.

Page 177: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS NEW LONDON, CT – SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in new London, CT on September 26th, 2002. At each session, the study team began by convening a “plenary session.” During the plenary session, the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues, responded to questions about the study, and led an open group discussion of two main topics: • The role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and

regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. • Participants’ visions for waterborne transportation in 20 years. The plenary session was followed by a “breakout session” where participants met together in small groups and recorded ideas on maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards provided for their use. This Summary consists of a record of both plenary sessions, followed by a combined summary of the ideas from the breakout sessions. This Summary is intended to document the workshop outcomes for the public record. All suggestions regarding specific sites, services and/or facilities represent the views of workshop participants, and do not constitute findings or recommendations by the study team or its sponsoring agencies.

WORKSHOP SESSION #1 AND #2 Questions and Answers

• Are you including the Southeast Connecticut Council of Governments in the study? They have not been involved to date, but will be added to the study mailing list and invited to join our Advisory Committee. [Note: Jim Butler from Southeast Connecticut Council of Governments attended Session #2.]

• What is the study timeframe? The study timeframe is through the year 2025, but there will be a range of recommendations covering both near-term and long-term opportunities.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 178: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

• Does the proposed rail freight tunnel between New Jersey and Brooklyn factor into this study? The tunnel proposal addresses a different geography and need than this study. The idea is to create a direct freight connection between Long Island and the national rail network to reduce the need for trucking across the Hudson River. Our study is looking at reducing the need for trucking and auto trips across Long Island Sound and along the coastlines of Long Island and Connecticut.

• How is the market analysis being conducted? Baseline data on passenger origin-destination flows is being obtained from the NYMTC “Best Practices” regional travel demand model. Baseline data on freight origin-destination flows is being obtained from a commercial database called “Transearch.” The baseline data is being modified with a household survey of travel preferences, with a review of other recent travel surveys as available, and with external adjustments for reasonably anticipated changes in land use and travel patterns.

• These services are seasonal. What happens in the off-season? Some of the tourist destinations, like the South Fork beaches, are very seasonal, but the demand for many services is year-round. Modern ferry equipment can operate in all four seasons. The Bridgeport-Port Jefferson and Cross Sound Ferry operate year-round with very few trips cancelled due to inclement weather.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • New London should be strongly considered for a “Port Inland Distribution

Network” facility to receive container barges from Port Newark/Elizabeth. The local impacts are manageable and we are “ready to go.”

• The Transportation Strategies Board plan will represent Connecticut’s official

position on a variety of transportation issues, including ferries. It will be submitted on December 15th.

• You need to consider the impact of legislation that prevents dredging and dumping

spoils within 15 miles of the coast. • There is an opportunity for a feeder service operating from New London to the east.

Ferries need to integrate with and enhance rail service. • There is an opportunity to divert “through freight” to the water, by loading trucks

onto ro-ro barges. This may be a bigger opportunity than for passengers. It would depend on giving trucking companies a better alternative than the all-highway route, by “leap-frogging” them around congestion. You would just move the container or trailer, not the driver. Ferries become more attractive when they allow trucking companies to complete more trips in a shorter time period.

Page 179: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

• Suggest separate freight and passenger services at New London. These “multi-modal centers” would be coordinated with Amtrak and there could be a common ticket for both. Around 90% of current cross-sound business is leisure travel and only 5% is truck. The rail lines do not provide enough clearance for double-stack containers.

• The seamless connection of ferry transportation and parking is important to make

the overall trip fast and easy. • Suggest service to the South Fork of Long Island. Ferries can handle 30% of the peak

market between New England and the South Fork. A site at Fort Pond Bay would allow for seamless connection between the ferry and the LIRR. On the North Fork, waters are not as navigable west of Orient Point, and Greenport has limited channel capacity. Sag Harbor is a small, dense village and is too congested for ferry service.

• New London to Manhattan is a potential market. • Other potential markets might include local service – a water taxi within the harbor.

Pfizer has two sites on either side of the Thames and has run a water shuttle. This would reduce traffic on the I-95 bridge.

• Should also consider using ferries for intercity service along the east coast. SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES AND DRAWINGS

• There should be a passenger only ferry from Fenwick (near Old Saybrook) to Orient/Greenport. There could also be a one-per-day automobile ferry serving that same route.

• There should be a small ferry route (40 passengers max.) between East Haven and

the Wading River area. • There should be additional ferries between the Madison (CT) area and Waterville

(Long Island); and between Norwalk and Sunken Meadow as required by future demand.

• There should be a ferry service between Greenwich, CT and Bayville, Long Island. • A Themes River ferry service consisting of small (40 person) vessels should be

established with stops up and down both sides of the river between Groton and New London and several ferries exclusively running between Groton and New London.

Page 180: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS NEW HAVEN, CT – OCTOBER 1, 2002

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in New Haven, CT on October 1, 2002. At each session, the study team began by convening a “plenary session.” During the plenary session, the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues, responded to questions about the study, and led an open group discussion of two main topics: • The role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and

regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. • Participants’ visions for waterborne transportation in 20 years. The plenary session was followed by a “breakout session” where participants met together in small groups and recorded ideas on maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards provided for their use. This Summary consists of a record of each plenary session, followed by a combined summary of the ideas from the breakout sessions. This Summary is intended to document the workshop outcomes for the public record. All suggestions regarding specific sites, services and/or facilities represent the views of workshop participants, and do not constitute findings or recommendations by the study team or its sponsoring agencies.

WORKSHOP SESSION #1 Questions and Answers

• Along the Connecticut coast, because it is shallow, you must dredge. Have you considered this in the study? Yes, we must consider water depths, to determine what sort of vessels could operate and whether they would be a good fit for the potential market demand.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 181: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

• Do you have the trip density necessary for hub and spoke systems? We don’t know yet. We will look at the model to see it there are origin-destination pairs with high traffic and we will look at special events and generators, like LaGuardia Airport. The highest origin-destination pairs are Nassau and Suffolk internal moves and Southwestern Connecticut internal moves. We will also look at these places to and from Manhattan. We will also look at railroad hub and spoke integration.

• Are you studying different sites? Yes, many participants are drawing potential sites onto maps during the breakout sessions of these community planning workshops.

• Are you going to project trips if a ferry existed? For example, the New Haven to Wading River (Long Island) route would open up new markets. We will use data on general origin-destination patterns from the NYMTC “Best Practices” regional travel demand model. We are not doing a fine-grain study of “induced demand” on specific routes.

• We had a consultant do a market potential study using a marketing study software package. You might do something similar and also you should look at the past use of the Sound for freight. A big part of our effort is looking at past studies and services.

• Do not get set on an alternative that requires constant dredging. The capital cost is not just for initial dredging but for continued dredging over the years. Dredging is addictive. We understand that this is a major life-cycle cost that needs to be considered as part of project feasibility assessments.

• Have you reviewed the Connecticut DOT’s study from Branford to Stamford? Yes.

• Will the study identify blocks of people who work in one place and need to get to another? UBS Warburg in Stamford, for example, has been named as one employer who needs to move large numbers of personnel across the Sound on a regular basis. We will look at this.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • Taxpayers are not going to pick up the tab for this; major investment will have to be

private.

• There should be a ferry from New Haven to Suffolk for passengers, cars, and freight.

• There should be freight ferry transit from New Haven to Port Elizabeth, New Jersey. The truck with cab and driver would also ride the ferry. It would be a large vessel, similar to those used between Cape May, New Jersey and Delaware.

• The business community can pay for this. There is a demand. All Wall Street has to know is that the land and permits are in place. But we have to the eminent domain and permits. We have to get over parochial interests. This plan should say something bold.

• We are proposing a Port Inland Distribution Network (P.I.D.N.) service between Port Newark/Elizabeth and New Haven. Also, we have to see if the ferry is competitive with the rail.

Page 182: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

• We have sufficient staging areas for a freight ferry. UPS said they would send 17 Boston-to-Long Island trips each day by ferry. Cars from Boston to Long Island could also take the ferry. Dozens of companies in New England and Long Island could open new markets using a ferry to cross the Sound. And the ferry gives Connecticut air travelers an alternative to Bradley by opening up access to MacArthur-Islip Airport.

• There is major potential for intermodal----rail, highway, and water---freight at New Haven.

• It may be possible to relocate tank farms on the New Haven waterfront to free up space for ferry terminal operations.

PLENARY SESSION #2 Questions and Answers • How did the historic ferry systems die? Other modes of transportation – mostly the

automobile and truck – offered a more attractive alternative.

• How does this study affect trains? We see opportunities to integrate with the regional rail system, and possibly enhance it. But we do not want to create ferry ridership by diverting rail riders to the ferry – our goal is to reduce auto and truck traffic to the extent we can.

• The trend I see is parks on one side of the harbor (the west side) and commercial on the east side. I would suggest you look at the New Haven harbor plans for this study. We will do so.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • The City wants to put a highway on Long Wharf, but it is too valuable a property.

The City should buy air rights over the railroad for a new highway.

• A hovercraft could be considered to run trucks off I-95 to New York City.

• Get the Governors of New York and Connecticut to get involved. Convey information from this study to them. They said they would work together on issues. You must get government involvement.

• Anything in New Haven should be on the other side of the Thompson Bridge.

• I-95 in Connecticut is starting to become like the Long Island Expressway. Rush hour is up to 7 ½ hours.

• There should be Cross Sound service out of New Haven and along the coasts through the sound that is fast and not too expensive.

• Hells Gate could be a waterborne traffic jam with increased commercial traffic and difficult tidal conditions.

Page 183: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

4

• If the weather stays good (no ice), there could be good service. The Harbor has been ice free for years.

• Eighteen-wheelers should be diverted off the road. There should be fast ferries to take these off the road.

• Do not combine passengers with fast freight. Use dedicated, mission-sensitive freight vessels.

• There should be better coordination between bridges and railroads so that bridges are raised in a timely manner for passage of waterborne vessels. It can sometimes take hours for a bridge to raise and technically, the bridge should raise over a federal waterway every time a vessel approaches.

• Lace together the labor market of Long island to the employment centers of Connecticut using triangular routes. For example, there should be a triangular route between Bridgeport, New Haven, and Northport (Long Island). Triangulate services that serve regional employers. There are sufficient ports for the right size vessels to do this.

SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES AND DRAWINGS

• Ferry service should be established between New Haven and Shoreham and also between New Haven/Shoreham and Montauk.

• Ferry service should be established between Bridgeport and Manhattan with a stop at Shippan Point near Stamford.

• A time-sensitive ferry should run from Newark Airport to Pier 40 on the Upper West Side.

• A freight ferry should run between Newark Airport and JFK.

• There should be a hierarchical route structure with priority and secondary routes. The priority route would run from Stamford to Pier 11 on Wall Street and a secondary route would feed it with stops along the Connecticut shore from New Haven to Bridgeport to Norwalk to Stamford and from Rye to Greenwich to Stamford.

• A Stamford to LaGuardia service should also be started.

• A Service from Manhattan to Orient should be established with a stop or feeder service from Port Jefferson.

• There should also be service from New Haven to NYC with stops in Bridgeport and Stamford.

• A service should also run from New Haven to Westerly, RI via Fishers Island.

• There should be a coastal ferry from New London to New Haven to Bridgeport and Stamford terminating at LaGuardia.

• The New Haven to Shoreham ferry should carry passengers and freight.

Page 184: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5

• A ferry catering to golfers should run from New Haven to Greenport.

• A ferry should run from Manhattan to the Branford River area east of New Haven for recreational service.

• There should be a ferry service between New Haven and Port Jefferson with a landside connection to MacArthur Airport to open up the Connecticut market to that airport.

• West Haven is a potential site for a passenger ferry. West Haven Economic Development Corporation.

• Freight could be loaded quickly onto ferries from I-95 at New Haven on a New Haven to Shoreham route.

Page 185: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS GLEN COVE, NY – OCTOBER 3, 2002

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in Glen Cove, NY on October 3, 2002. At each session, the study team began by convening a “plenary session.” During the plenary session, the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues, responded to questions about the study, and led an open group discussion of two main topics: • The role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and

regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. • Participants’ visions for waterborne transportation in 20 years. The plenary session was followed by a “breakout session” where participants met together in small groups and recorded ideas on maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards provided for their use. This Summary consists of a record of each plenary session, followed by a combined summary of the ideas from the breakout sessions. This Summary is intended to document the workshop outcomes for the public record. All suggestions regarding specific sites, services and/or facilities represent the views of workshop participants, and do not constitute findings or recommendations by the study team or its sponsoring agencies.

WORKSHOP SESSION #1 Questions and Answers • Will the study examine subsidies in other locations? Except for the Staten Island Ferry,

there are no current subsidies in the New York area.

• Will the study look at specific sites? What North Shore sites is the study considering? Yes, sites will be identified through data analysis and community outreach.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 186: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

• Will the study look at service to East Hampton? The Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) study is modeling an East Hampton alternative for SEEDS that will inform this plan.

• Will this study coordinate with the Hempstead harbor and other plans? Yes, it will conform.

• Will the study assume the use of EPA improvements in engine emissions for the modeling of cost and environmental benefits? The off-road standards do not go into effect for a few years but the study should assume low emissions ferries. Ferry vessels last a very long time and it is likely older vessels would be used.

• Will the study model bridges? This study will not model bridges, but there are other efforts, including SEEDS, that will look at bridges.

• Is the South Shore part of the study? The study principally considers the Sound but may look at service through the Sound to the South Fork.

• Are educational institutions involved in the study? Educational institutions are part of the Advisory Committee.

• Sources of public funding should be identified in the study. This will be addressed.

• Will Connecticut and Long Island citizens work together on this? They are working together through the public workshop and committee meeting process.

• What is the New York City Department of Transportation’s receptiveness to increased ferry transportation? NYC is open to this.

• Do you see a Port Authority licensing agency instead of small communities with self-interests influencing the process? Should we look at this? Should we look at franchising entities?

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • The study should consider aging populations that cannot drive and need more

transit service like ferries.

• Need to consider what the impacts will be on the harbor communities of increased cars and trucks.

• A low capacity ferry for 1,000 cars per day would not generate much noticeable traffic on Glen Cove Road. There should be a ferry like this between Glen Cove and Port Chester.

• A few years ago, there was a hovercraft that carried 20-30 people operating to Manhattan.

• Glen Cove has been an historic commercial hub---it does have potential to become more of a commercial center today and there is capacity for more people to come to Glen Cove.

Page 187: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

• There should be service from the North Shore to the Financial District running from Port Washington or Glen Cove.

• The Mayor of Stamford wants to ferry his labor market from Long Island through Glen Cove.

• Ferries could also assist in evacuation, as they did 9/11/01, in case of an emergency.

• New Jersey is getting $100 million, mostly for ferries. The South Shore should be getting a share of that money. Also, there are now three Wall Streets: Jersey City, Stamford, and the Financial District. All three should be interconnected.

• Port Jefferson has benefited from ferry service. There should be a North Shore connecting ferry between North Shore towns.

• Ferries opened the door to Fox to gambling.

• Who is going to get the Fulton Fish Market site? It just closed and it would be an ideal location for a ferry terminal. UPS is currently looking at that side.

• The ferry service should be affordable. Currently it is price exclusive.

• A “Union” ferry terminal should be considered where multiple services and service providers could operate from once facility.

• There should be air freight by ferry. A lot of cargo could be moved from JFK to New Jersey using ferries.

• The State subsidizes bus service -- why not ferries?

• You might need a public authority to run and own the services.

• An existing transportation agency should be used to perform any public role, not a new level of bureaucracy.

• A transportation hub is a good idea. You need to figure out how to use bus to get people on the ferry.

• Currently 17% of Long Island’s housing stock is apartments. The demand for apartments will grow in the future. This is an opportunity to create mixed-use apartment developments on the water that cater to ferry commuters.

• A good hub for transportation activity is the Pilgrim State Hospital site. It has a rail link that could be linked to a ferry hub. Housing and office buildings could also be built there.

Page 188: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

4

PLENARY SESSION #2 Questions and Answers • This plan should recognize the Long Island Coastal Management Plan by the New

York Department of State. That plan designates State maritime centers---places where New York State would encourage services and other places where development would not be desirable because of environmental sensitivities. We are working with the New York Department of State to gather all related studies, including this one.

• Will the study look at weather and how ferries deal with weather? Specifically, will the study look at other systems, including English Channel systems on how they deal with weather and other issues? There are many well-run ferry services all over the world. Will this study learn from them? Yes, we will be reviewing their operations.

• Will the study examine vessel characteristics? Yes, we have a naval architect on the study team to look at vessel technology and performance.

• The study should also look at ferry service on Lake Champlain to see how that service deals with the weather. OK.

• The study should look at ferry service to and from Logan Airport in Boston, and examine the Hong Kong service----it is fully subsidized, even high-speed ferries are subsidized. OK.

• There should be coordination between this planning effort and the NYC 2012 Olympic bid effort because that bid relies heavily on the use of ferries for delivery of athletes and spectators to venues. OK.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • Ferry operations should support farming and mari-culture to make farming on Long

Island competitive. Hunts Point Market is too far for the farmers to move their products. This makes it prohibitive for farmers to export produce. If we could support the farmers with ferry service, this would help the farmers.

• There should be recreational use service to Manhattan from Glen Cove.

• The LIRR is too slow; and it only serves New York City. There are no north-south connections and no connection to Orient.

• Service and frequency of the Glen Cove to Manhattan route need to be increased. One needs to be able to go into New York City at 9:15 a.m. instead of only 6:30 a.m., for example.

• A ferry service should allow exit from Long Island without having to go through Throg’s Neck.

• There are very successful ferry services throughout the world that might offer a pattern for increased service in this area.

Page 189: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5

• Port Washington is a poor site for ferry service to Manhattan because it is currently served by a LIRR line and the journey to Manhattan only takes 35 minutes. Glen Cove is not served well by LIRR; the ride to Manhattan takes much longer and is less direct.

• Cross Sound ferry service is needed.

• The priorities of Glen Cove ferry customers in order are: 1) scheduling---the ferry service has to be convenient for work hours; 2) comfort---many of the riders like to sleep; 3) not the subway---the riders like to sit down and not be crowded with many other people; 4) fear---since September 11th, there is a fear that the next terrorist act will be on a subway.

• The mass transit service should be willing to pay for ferry service.

• Most Glen Cove riders are former LIRR customers.

• The reason many people ride the ferry is that water transport offers a higher quality of life.

• The price needs to be more competitive with the railroad. Currently many people would like to ride the ferry cannot because it costs too much.

• The service should utilize the Commuter Choice Transit Benefit.

• There is no reason why we cannot ferry trucks across the Sound similar to what is done across the English Channel in Europe.

• Long Island, because of the limited use of waterborne transportation, does not act like an island. Stockholm acts like an island with its interconnected ferry service.

• There should be a service between Port Jefferson and the East End that carries cars.

• There should be a ferry service for harbor hopping and a ferry service that is express. The harbor hopping would be from Port Jefferson to Huntington, for example.

• If a ferry ride is fun, you can get more riders.

• Long Island ferries would assist in the case of an evacuation.

• Fox Navigation tried a Glen Cove to Shea Stadium service but it failed.

• There should be a ferry North to New England for freight, produce, and fish. The service would connect to a rail service.

• Ferry service is very important to the County Executive (former Glen Cove Mayor). In Seattle, ferries have become a mindset. We should have that mindset.

• A vision for what the ferry vessels would look like and feel like might include:

-- Cable news and television. A combination of business and recreational needs.

-- Seats must recline to sleep.

-- Good terminals that fit the environment with covered access to the boats.

Page 190: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

6

-- Rotating exhibits and maps and charts on the walls with nautical and natural information.

-- Interpretive geologists and naturalists explaining the natural environment in the Sound.

-- Interpretive signs and way finding signs to enable riders to know where they are and what they are experiencing.

-- Internet access.

-- A place for kids to stand out on the front of the bow; a place to go outside to be closer to the water; captain’s visits for kids.

-- On large ferries, have a saltwater fish tank with indigenous species.

SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES AND DRAWINGS

• The Playland site in Rye is a good location as it feeds connections to the north.

• Oyster Bay is a bad place for ferries because there are a few private owners with large pieces of property.

• Oyster Bay should not be considered because it is environmentally sensitive because of shellfish and its use as a recreational area and fishing area.

• Do not extend the William Floyd Parkway through an important forest resource.

• There should be a service from New London to the Shinneock Inlet on the South Fork of Long Island.

• There should be a service between Port Jefferson and Huntington.

• A feeder vessel should run between Port Washington, City Island, and Larchmont. Another feeder service should run from Glen Cove to Sunken Meadows to Port Jefferson to Shoreham to Southold to Orient to Napeague on the South Fork.

• Floating barges should be anchored in the middle of the Sound to act as transfer points for smaller ferries to larger ferries. This would eliminate some need for cars (for example, from Bridgeport to Shoreham). Barges should be anchored between New Haven and Shoreham; Bridgeport and Port Jefferson; and Norwalk and Huntington, for example, to facilitate feeder/hub-and-spoke service.

• There should be a passenger ferry from New London to Greenport where connections could be made to the LIRR; the LIRR would, consequently, need to maintain increased service.

• There should be a passenger and auto ferry from Port Chester to Glen Cove.

• A ferry service should be established between Stamford and Oyster Bay.

• Oyster Bay is a good location for ferry service because the LIRR station is close to the waterfront creating a good intermodal connection. Also, Oyster Bay is close to deep water (1 mile) and near heavy oil and commercial docks.

Page 191: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

7

• A ferry should run from Glen Cove to Rye.

• A ferry should run from Glen Cove to the South Fork (Montauk and Napeague) with stops at Sunken Meadows and Port Jefferson.

• A ferry should run from Port Washington, around Manhattan Island (including the Harlem River) and up the Hudson to Bear Mountain with stops along the way. This may be for recreation (Bear Mountain) or commuting.

• There should be a local community ferry taxi running along the Sound shore on Long Island with stops in Port Washington, Glen Cove, Lloyd Harbor, Asharoken, Stony Brook, Port Jefferson, and Waterville (to serve the Mattituck Inlet).

• There should be service from Port Jefferson to New Haven (I-91) especially for ski trips.

• There should be service between New Haven and Oyster Bay.

Page 192: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS STONY BROOK, NY – OCTOBER 10, 2002

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in Stony Brook, NY on October 10th, 2002. At each session, the study team began by convening a “plenary session.” During the plenary session, the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues, responded to questions about the study, and led an open group discussion of two main topics: • The role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and

regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. • Participants’ visions for waterborne transportation in 20 years. The plenary session was followed by a “breakout session” where participants met together in small groups and recorded ideas on maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards provided for their use. This Summary consists of a record of each plenary session, followed by a combined summary of the ideas from the breakout sessions. This Summary is intended to document the workshop outcomes for the public record. All suggestions regarding specific sites, services and/or facilities represent the views of workshop participants, and do not constitute findings or recommendations by the study team or its sponsoring agencies.

WORKSHOP SESSION #1 Questions and Answers

• Will the Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) study look at a ferry to East Hampton, and what is the impact on this study? The SEEDS study proposed to look at an East Hampton ferry, which met with opposition. This study will follow the lead of the SEEDS study with respect to this issue.

• Will the plan make an effort to communicate its findings in a clear graphic format? We think this is extremely important and will make every effort to do so.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 193: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

• Will there be enough cars taken off the highway to make a difference? We don’t know, but even a small improvement may be beneficial.

• There are “NIMBY issues” to consider – channel depth, terminal location, parking, community impacts, etc. These are legitimate issues and concerns of potential host communities, and we are taking them seriously. The issue is how to equitably balance between regional benefit and local impact.

• You need to quantify ferry demand and diversion from other modes. This is a major part of our effort.

• Looking at Puget Sound may not be a valid model for operations in this region. What in Puget Sound looks like Port Jefferson? Puget Sound includes a mix of large and small, urban and non-urban facilities. We are looking at other models as well.

• You need to consider intermodal coordination, scheduling, and linkages. We see this as an important opportunity.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • Most of Long Island is faced with transportation problems. Non-vehicular ferries

across the Sound would be best, connecting to public transportation for service to the South Shore and other destinations. We do not want to bring more vehicles into the Hamptons.

• Connections between ferries and land-based transit are critical. The Port Jefferson trolley between the ferry terminal and LIRR station is a good example, but it required a subsidy and ceased operation when its funding ran out.

• At a policy level, we need to balance between the goals of industrial and economic development on the one hand, and the increased demand for transportation services on the other.

• We should implement the proposed Port Inland Distribution Network service.

• You need to consider quality of life impacts – for example, what would happen if you built a garage on the Port Jefferson waterfront.

• From the Huntington area, a large population makes a possible high-speed passenger ferry potentially attractive.

• There were plans in the works a number of years ago for a Shoreham community ferry going from the William Floyd Parkway. This should be included as part of the Long Island Sound Plan, but developed carefully with attention to environmental issues.

• The Riverhead community needs to be addressed carefully as well; environmental issues need to be treated sensitively.

• Need to look at whether or not the proposed Shoreham facility is feasible.

Page 194: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

• Any proposed ferry services should keep industrial development at a minimum. This kind of development could generate more truck traffic. Ferry services should aim for pedestrian traffic, to minimize the amount of vehicular traffic.

• Results of Shoreham community survey indicated that some are adamantly against a ferry terminal, while some are interested in raising their tax base. Overall, most are unwilling to believe that ferries would be enough of an economic benefit to outweigh the costs of environmental degradation, quality of life, etc.

• There is already increasing utility development in the Shoreham area; residents are not pleased. Road access to ferry would go through residential areas and result in even more impact.

• Shore traffic would destroy the Shoreham environment. There are already problems in Brookhaven and Riverhead. Shoreham tidal resources are at risk; any transportation link would be catastrophic.

• Port Jefferson offers a good example of how to manage impacts. Port Jefferson could not stop truck traffic once the ferry started, because the ferry was federally subsidized and mandated, and truck traffic was federally protected. If the Waterborne plan gets federal money, planners need to be wary of federally mandated truck traffic.

• If ferry terminal construction came hand in hand with federal money for infrastructure development for the area, residents might find construction more palatable; especially if they do not have to pay for needed infrastructure development with community taxes. Ferries are useful, but only if federally or state-supported.

• There is a signage issue for ferry traffic coming into Port Jefferson. NYSDOT signage uses too much “expressway language”, which is not suitable to a village like Port Jefferson. DOT, etc., need to consider smaller signage for small-town ferry terminals, and need to be more sensitive to the characteristics of the community.

• Dredging is a big consideration. Any ferry terminal development must work with larger existing harbors. Construction must not work its way into smaller existing harbors.

• Vessel safety is also a big issue that needs to be considered with any proposed ferry development put on the table.

• Higher-capacity vessel services could take up too much space. In Huntington harbor, residents were even against paddlewheel boats -- they were too large. Ferry developers need to be aware that the community will be against anything more than 20-30 passengers.

• In Port Jefferson, a plan was once in the works for a highway along area power lines. It might be an option to relieve truck traffic.

• Water transport will only make modest contributions to congestion relief. The real issues are about highway and rail transport. Could rail handle more freight? That would be a major solution.

Page 195: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

4

• Vision for Port Jefferson in 20 years: infrastructure would be available that moves truck traffic more efficiently. Agencies would work better together with each other and with the community to create a development scheme that equalizes traffic loads and infrastructure development.

• Would like to have a sense that there is a plan for the region. Right now, development feels chaotic and market-driven. It would be great to know that intermodal transportation plans are really in the works, and more collective, regional planning is underway.

• Consider ferries that are site specific, made for that region alone and not recycled from another community.

PLENARY SESSION #2 Questions and Answers • Will you be developing a funding program? We will look at costs and general types of

funding sources, but we are not developing funding programs for specific services. The study lead agency (NYMTC) is the primary source for accessing federal funds.

• You need to integrate this work with the Regional Freight Plan. This is being done.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions • Shoreham and Sag Harbor (Sacony Oil site) are possibilities, but have access

problems. You need to create positive offsets for the local communities. This might be a lease agreement or “passenger facilities charge” that funds local improvements. Ferry development could augment desirable waterfront revitalization. Community incentives and adherence to smart growth principles should be provided for host communities.

• Ferries could dovetail with access to public transportation. People living near public transportation could get tax breaks, and would have incentive to move to an area served by public transportation. Also would be an incentive to choose ferry service over car use.

• Ferry travel between communities in Long Island needs to be explored using water taxis.

• There are numerous opportunities and potential for intermodal system development (Park-n-Ride, train, bus, waterborne, etc.). There is also a tremendous workforce potential (Port Jefferson is an example), not just from Long Island to Manhattan, but from Long Island to CT and Westchester, as well.

• Must look at more affordable ferry services. Current services are too expensive, and any new ferry developments must be more affordable.

Page 196: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5

• Further east on Long Island, you need to look at land-based problems, such as limited road access due to limited land access. Long-range plans need to examine the amount of loads that eastern Long Island can handle.

• Look at Port Jefferson’s trolley system as an example of possible congestion relief.

• The inner bays on eastern Long Island could become a real source of transporting people.

• Historical vessels could be a real draw; recycle other vessels into ferry vessels.

• Freight ferries would definitely help relieve truck traffic.

• A water taxi is a good possibility -- requires no dredging.

• A potential market: companies based in Long Island with subsidiaries in CT and/or Westchester.

SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES AND DRAWINGS

• Initiate a ferry between Larchmont/New Rochelle and Manorhaven (north of Port Washington), Long Island.

• There should be service from the Shoreham-Northville, Long Island area to Connecticut between New Haven and Old Saybrook.

• Vessels should be designed to minimize wake, emissions, and fuel consumption.

• There should be service between Shoreham and New Haven.

• The Floyd Parkway should be extended to the Shoreham waterfront.

• There should be light rail connections to the ferry service.

• There should be a trolley between Port Jefferson Harbor and Port Jefferson Station of the LIRR.

• Local landside circulation should be emphasized.

• The service should be intermodal for passengers; cars should stay inland.

• There should be expanded shore service for recreational hops between Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, Maspeth, Astoria, College Point, LaGuardia, Port Washington, Glen Cove, Oyster Bay, Northport, and Old Field/Port Jefferson. The service should be a fast ferry but should not be accessed by car, only transit (trolley, etc.).

• The Floyd Parkway should be “interstate” status to Shoreham; from Shoreham to New Haven there should be a passenger ferry.

• Shoreham is not an acceptable site due to unacceptable local impacts.

• There should be service from Port Jefferson and then to Greenport and the South Fork. There should be no cars on the service; passengers only.

• Electric rental cars could be available on the South Fork upon disembarking.

Page 197: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

6

• There should be a water taxi (no cars) along the Shore (Glen Cove, Lloyd Harbor, and Northport) to Port Jefferson.

• The LIRR trolley to Port Jefferson could move 265 passengers a day and cost $125,000 per year. This would move people from the train and from remote parking to Port Jefferson. There improvements could be paid for by the car traffic that uses the ferries through fare increases.

• There should be appropriate signage for pickup and delivery.

• There should be some type of rail link between Stony Brook and Port Jefferson harbor.

Page 198: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS SHOREHAM, NY – DECEMBER 10, 2002

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in Shoreham, NY on December 10th, 2002. At each session, the study team began by convening a “plenary session,” where the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues, responded to questions about the study, and led an open group discussion of two main topics: • The role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and

regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. • Participants’ visions for waterborne transportation in 20 years. The plenary session was followed by a “breakout session,” where participants met together in small groups and recorded ideas on maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards. This document is a combined summary of the two workshop sessions. It is intended to document and preserve key points and issues for the public record. All suggestions regarding specific sites, services or facilities are the views of workshop participants, and do not constitute findings or recommendations by the study team or sponsor agencies.

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS Questions and Answers • Does your study advocate a ferry in Shoreham? The study has not formulated any

recommendations, and is not proposing any specific services at this point. Our purpose in being here is not to advocate for or against a ferry but to see if there is any interest in one, to get input about the various needs of communities along the Long Island Sound, and to hear your comments.

• Have you identified the demand for ferry service? We have gathered background data on origin and destination travel patterns. There will be detailed demand modeling and forecasting later in the study for both passenger and freight.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 199: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

• Have you done any surveys of people using ferries? We are conducting a household survey of automobile users in the region to see if they might shift to ferries, and we have information about current ferry users from the operators and other studies.

• Do you have any figures on environmental impacts that are caused from ferries, per passenger or per passenger car? The impacts will vary depend on the volume of traffic and the size, speed and design of the vessel system. These issues will be part of the general assessment of alternatives.

• Is there any data that demonstrates whether large vs. smaller boats are more efficient? Smaller boats are most efficient in terms of service frequency, but larger boats are more efficient in terms of cost and fuel.

• Are there any figures available that show the amount of truck traffic that would be reduced as a result of being transferred to ferry traffic? Not at this time. The actual diversion will depend on the service we can offer under each alternative.

• Are there any real life experiences in different parts of the country where it has worked to use ferries to divert traffic? Puget Sound has an excellent system, as does New York Harbor. The San Francisco Bay Area is another example of a region that is looking at ferries to supplement other transportation modes.

• While in Seattle I was impressed with its ferry system. They have parking areas reserved specifically for servicing vehicles that are at least four times the size of a Home Depot Parking lot. However, the road systems in that area are huge compared to those that exist on the Sound. Highway access his is clearly a constraint for outlying areas of Long Island.

• Should there be a ferry service from Shoreham/Wading River to Connecticut? Isn’t this what we are talking about? We are here to talk about the pros and cons of potential ferry services anywhere in the Sound, not just Shoreham/Wading River.

• Where are the project overview summaries located? They can be found on the project website.

• How do you come up with a criteria to evaluate what is “good” or “bad?” A “long list” of potential sites and services has been suggested through the Community Planning Workshop process, along with some important evaluation criteria – marine environment, traffic impacts, and financial feasibility – and we will be refining and applying screening criteria later in the study.

• How do you balance New Haven vs. Wading River; e.g., the balance between what New Haven thinks vs. what Wading River thinks? It seems that Wading River will be more impacted compared to New Haven. We are getting opinions and feedback from both areas, not just one versus the other.

• What is the priority of community impact in the screening process? It will be at the topmost level of the screening process.

• Will ferry operations be a private enterprise or a government enterprise? That issue is still on the table; we don’t know what form they will take.

• Are you working with the Tri-State transportation campaign? Yes.

Page 200: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

• How can you replicate ferry services such as those of New London or Bridgeport in an area where there are meadows, hills, and predominately rural land use? We are not looking to replicate services where they don’t fit. The communities within the study area are tremendously diverse and have different needs and constraints. Some are interested in one kind of ferry service, some in a different kind, and some are not interested at all. The services need to be a good fit to their communities, or they won’t work.

• None of the examples of ferries you cited in your presentation (Puget Sound, New York Harbor, San Francisco) are applicable to north shore of the Long Island Sound. Obviously, the north shore of Long Island is not as developed or well-served by highways and transit. We would have to address issues facing vehicle traffic at a site-by-site level, and different and smaller ferry services would have to be looked at.

• Looking at current ferry traffic between Port Jefferson and Bridgeport: is there any data on annual vehicle capacity? How does this data match with what they are capable of doing? Are they at or near capacity? In Port Jefferson, what is the capacity? Surely this should be the first place you look before coming to Wading River. This is a complex question. The capacity of an existing ferry service can be changed fairly easily, just by adding or subtracting vessels. Operators try to match capacity to demand, which varies depending on the season. The issue is more about demand – would improved ferry services in current locations, or different services in new locations, attract a market that the current services cannot, and benefit our highways in the process?

• Will there be any county participation in the field inspections? That is a good idea for later in the process, when we look at specific alternatives.

• Have people mentioned Shoreham elsewhere in these workshops? Yes, other communities have mentioned it as a possible site.

• This plan is specific to water, but not other modes? It is specific to water, but we are looking closely at landside connections by train, bus, and auto, as well as pedestrian and bicycle access.

• When the report looks at the communities surrounding proposed ferry services, how far out will it look? In Shoreham, you need to look at the larger geographic area to see the effects on the community. We don’t have a fixed distance or scale – we will need to be flexible, depending on the site.

• Will you deal with the vehicle traffic generated by ferry service to Foxwoods Casino, where 75% of the traffic is from west of the North Fork? We will address this.

• The Shelter Island people have no alternative? Shelter Island is dependent on the North Ferry and South Ferry, which also handle some percentage of through traffic.

• What is your timeline? We are shooting for June of 2003 to conclude the study

• Will your Environmental Analysis be completed by June of 2003? We are only doing a preliminary screening of environmental issues, not a full environmental analysis of specific proposals, which would have to be a separate process.

Page 201: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

4

Issues, Recommendations and Visions

• We are opposed to a ferry terminal in Shoreham. You need to increase the potential of existing ferry terminals in the Sound, not create a new ferry service in Shoreham. The Shoreham community already feels “beaten up” by the power plant, and now the community is starting to feel that the same thing is going to happen with ferries being built here. A Shoreham terminal is “just not viable.” “No New Haven to Shoreham ferry!”

• The JFK ferry issue to Manhattan is a regional problem. We need to be looking for a regional approach, not just in Shoreham

• There are no terminal facilities on the north shore of the Long Island Sound compared to the south shore on the Connecticut side

• Ferries coming to small communities will actually increase congestion. You have to look at the number of vehicle miles traveled that will decrease to see if there is a benefit to adding vehicle miles traveled elsewhere.

• Ferry services have to be developed in pairs: one cannot just have a receiver but must also have a launch site too.

• Can ferries make a meaningful contribution to reducing congestion? They are not going to solve the region’s transportation problems.

• A ferry terminal that serves Foxwoods Casino should be further west of Orient Point, since the majority of traffic is coming from that area.

• Leave the water as is -- no need to utilize it. Best to use a bridge or tunnel.

• You must make rail connections available if these ferries are going to be successful.

• Before building any new ferry terminals, it must be determined whether existing routes are at capacity or not. We should look to increase the capacity of existing ferry services first, before building any new services.

• The Port Jefferson terminal is limited in its cycle time, and this limits its capacity.

• Freight carriers would like to by-pass New York City, with ferries from Long Island to NJ, CT, and Norfolk, avoiding the Long Island Expressway. Instead of a freight ferry terminal, use rail freight further out to Orient Point.

• Mass transit serves limited needs in this area – we are auto-dependent.

• There is not a tremendous need for Cross-Sound transportation from the Long Island side.

• Possible location of a terminal: use the failed mall off LIE exit; go through parking lot to get to ferry. Could be picked up by bus at the other end.

• Port Jefferson has limited parking, so move the Port Jefferson terminal west onto a major road (25A) close to the Sound (buy Port Jefferson out), being sure it is not in a residential area. Also, most people live west of the ferry terminal so it makes sense to do this.

Page 202: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5

• The Port Jefferson ferry should be subsidized to make it more affordable -- this would increase its usage.

• A Port Jefferson to New London ferry may be more popular than a ferry in Shoreham. A small passenger only ferry going only from Port Jefferson to New London might be cheaper and more efficient.

• At the Shoreham site, the jetty built for the power plant caused destructive erosion activity, so planners need to avoid jetties that will affect the ecology of the area.

• Regarding the possibility of a “low impact” water taxi from Shoreham: where would you be going that would be any real destination?

• There is a Long Island Sound Study done by the EPA office in Stanford. The Office of Ecology in Riverhead is part of this Long Island Sound Study

• Must look at other examples of ferry services: freight, deep-water ports, “smart ports,” mega-ships, etc.

• You need to consider that dredging changes area sedimentation and the entire local ecology.

• Orient Point already has a lot of traffic from the South Fork and feels overloaded. A passenger ferry could possibly alleviate this.

• A possible terminal site is Kings Park (Sunken Meadow) -- large area available.

• A ferry to LaGuardia Airport from Port Jefferson is a good idea, but would have to be fast enough – perhaps a High Speed Ferry. Ferries might also help create a connection between Connecticut and MacArthur Airport.

• High-speed vessels create air and noise pollution, damage the environment, and consume fuel – planners must carefully consider these impacts. Planners must also consider the impact a ferry could have on the fishing industry; must involve the fishing community.

• Could create a fast ferry to Boston, or to Delaware.

• A ferry in Greenport might work; however, rail connections are slow to NYC.

• Add low cost rental cars at ferry ports, or possibly a “zip car” (shared care arrangement).

SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES AND DRAWINGS

While the workshop participants were clearly opposed to ferry service at Shoreham, specifically, they did recorded a number of suggestions on the breakout session maps. • There could be a bus terminal for gamblers north of Laurel, NY. • A parking fee structure should be considered at Orient. Parking fees for West

Enders should be expensive; for East Enders, inexpensive.

Page 203: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

6

• There could be ferry service between Sunken Meadow, NY and Bridgeport, CT and

Sunken Meadow, NY and Norwalk, CT. • There should be no service to Shoreham or Wading River. Connecting Shoreham

and New Haven is inefficient because that is the widest crossing on the Sound. • A ferry could link Huntington, NY and Stamford, CT. • From Huntington, there could be a direct landside connection of 110 to the LIE. • At Greenport there could be an intermodal connection from the LIRR to a passenger-

only ferry destined for New London. • From Port Jefferson there could be a high-speed ferry to LaGuardia Airport. • A ferry service could run between Brooklyn, NY and New Jersey. • From Riverhead, there could be a passenger and car ferries to Greenport and Sag

Harbor. From Riverhead, there could also be a passenger only ferry to Sag Harbor. • A ferry service could run from Laurel Hollow (South of Lloyd Harbor) to both

Stamford and Larchmont, NY. • A ferry service could run between Larchmont and Glen Cove. • A ferry service could run between Asharoken and Stamford. • The Port Jefferson Ferry fare should be less expensive. • A ferry service could run between Sunken Meadow and Green Farms, CT. • A ferry could connect the Bayville-Oyster Bay-Asharoken area to Stamford. • Because there is a higher population to the west (NYC and environs), parking

terminals should be installed as close as possible to the LIE and I-95 and bus and train connections should take passengers from those parking terminals to ferry terminals to keep cars off the roads.

Page 204: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS STAMFORD, CT – DECEMBER 11, 2002

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, two Community Planning Workshop sessions were held in Stamford, CT on December 11th, 2002. At each session, the study team began by convening a “plenary session,” where the study team presented an overview of the study process and key issues, responded to questions about the study, and led an open group discussion of two main topics: • The role and potential for new/expanded waterborne services to address local and

regional transportation problems – problems and opportunities. • Participants’ visions for waterborne transportation in 20 years. The plenary session was followed by a “breakout session,” where participants met together in small groups and recorded ideas on maps. Participants were also invited to complete and return comment cards. This document is a combined summary of the two workshop sessions. It is intended to document and preserve key points and issues for the public record. All suggestions regarding specific sites, services or facilities are the views of workshop participants, and do not constitute findings or recommendations by the study team or sponsor agencies.

SUMMARY OF PLENARY SESSIONS Questions and Answers • Regarding government support: what funding do you see involved in this project? Federal

funding has been provided to conduct the study. The study itself will look at funding needs and potential funding sources for particular services.

• A critical issue in waterborne transport is dredging. In federally funded projects, the approval process for dredging is cumbersome. How do you foresee that implemented plans will handle such stumbling blocks? The strategy will have to be to find deep enough water to begin with (11-12 feet), or to utilize shallow-draft vessels to minimize dredging requirements, and consider deepening as a last resort. Dredging is definitely a critical constraint.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 205: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

• Has the study integrated with any USDOT truck traffic studies? We have federal truck flow data from the USDOT Freight Analysis Framework, along with regional truck data from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Additionally, we are using a New York City commodity flow database to quantify regional truck flows.

• Is the project team looking into TEA21 funding? Not at this time, especially as TEA21 is soon to expire. Currently, NYMTC is trying to identify programs at the state level. Agencies that make up the Council on both sides of the Sound can make funding decisions and recommendations for reauthorization.

• Are you looking at increasing the capacity of the ferry system? Some ports are already capable of handling ferry services, and these workshops have elicited a number of suggestions for increasing their capacity. We are also looking at the potential capacity of other sites, in light of critical constraints (water depth, highway/rail access, community impacts, etc.).

• You are looking at Seattle and other models to assess ferry services in NY/NJ/CT region. Are there any models of freight ferries with our geography and land use constraints? There are some short-haul container barges in use by the Port Authority, but most long hauls in this country travel by truck only. We will look to European models as well.

• In Germany there is an interesting development: zeppelins are being reintroduced as possible transport. Is there any interest about this in this region? Any interest in seaplanes? We are aware of these ideas, but are not looking at them as part of this study. But as highway capacity gets worse and worse, we expect that localities will be more and more open to innovative approaches.

• Why hasn’t New Jersey been more involved with introducing more ferry services onto the Long Island Sound? Most ridership in the Sound is between Connecticut and Long Island, while most New Jersey trips are to/from Manhattan. The issue is probably total demand and level of service vs. existing rail and auto alternatives. However, some services -- such as New Jersey to LaGuardia or JFK airport – seem like untapped opportunities.

Issues, Recommendations and Visions

• In most trucking communities -- such as those along the Florida coast where long-

haul freight ferry services were been proposed -- long-haul, tractor-trailer trucks are owner operated, and these drivers will not abandon their vehicles to any freight transport unless they can travel with the vehicle, making such transport very difficult. Trucks must be able to drive on and off.

• Perception is a big issue. Citizens and lawmakers want vehicles off the road, but assume that marine alternatives must necessarily involve deep-water ports. Elected officials need to be warmed to the idea that you do not need deep water to run successful freight water transport. That is the only way that the word can get out to voters.

Page 206: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

3

• It is possible to transport offloaded cargo, holding tanks, and storage truck cargo onto barges. For example, Devine Bros. take 275 trucks off the road daily -- with only 2 barges per 275 trucks. Short haul freight does not necessarily have to be trucked -- barge-friendly commodities should be researched.

• When thinking “terminal”, one could perhaps see beyond deep-water port constraints. Most ports are in the wrong location -- having been built according to 19th century needs -- and present geography/land use requires entirely different port infrastructure. This fact needs to be addressed.

• One potential ferry location is Shore Island State Park, Exit 18 off I-95 in Connecticut, which is mostly unused between September and June. It could be a prime site for a passenger ferry -- state-owned, with ample parking – it is shallow-draft, but could work with smaller vessels.

• Catamaran Lines, out of Stamford, has done a private study of regional NY/CT travel patterns using ferry operator information and area codes. Their data has altered their original thinking of where to place their terminals. This information demonstrates that current travel patterns no longer fit the old port locations, and that studies of current travel patterns are invaluable.

• A ferry to LaGuardia airport is a good idea; it could run from Stamford and pick up at other areas along the way.

• There is some cross-Sound commuting interest, but probably not enough volume to be economically viable. The main issue with cross-Sound travel is that passengers will insist on bringing their cars, as public transit does not serve enough local area. In order to get people out of their cars, it must be very convenient for them to get to work, and this would require door-to-door transit, which is nearly impossible to provide, considering the diversity of work locations. Unless this kind of transit or some sort of efficient shuttle service is provided, commuters will continue to rely on their cars as the primary journey-to-work mode.

• Most transit planning focuses on large corporation, suburb to Manhattan, 9-5 workday schedules. These work patterns are not representative of today’s market, which consist largely of smaller firms working longer hours, and traveling locally. Whatever kind of ferry transit is proposed must take these existing work patterns into account, and commuting times and travel between local destinations must be seamless, in order to get people to use transit instead of their cars.

• The public needs to be made aware of the minimal investment that ferries require: the mode of transportation is already in place (the water) and needs no reconstruction. It is inexpensive and easy to manipulate.

• Maritime transport sees the least amount of revenue going back to the federal government. Air transport: recovers roughly 91%. Highway transport: recovers roughly 71%. Maritime transport: recovers roughly 21%.

Page 207: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

4

• There is concern that the Coast Guard’s budget has been slashed to the point where ferry transportation security might be in jeopardy. However, the point was made that the recently introduced Homeland Security bill has a large amount of funding earmarked for the Coast Guard. This might offset potential security lapses.

• Need to continue to look at ferry transport models that mix public/private investment (Puget Sound, etc.). Comparative costs vary from model to model, and considerations need to be made that reflect cost constraints for this region.

• Cost/affordability of the price of a ferry ticket will be a big consideration as to whether or not any ferry service is successful. Commuter costs must not be too much more than those of other modes, such as the train or bus.

• It seems that some of the ideas of horizontal ferry travel (between communities in Long Island) need to be explored.

• The key is to find a market; e.g., Metro North’s ridership median income is $153K, but these higher-income people are willing to take the train because it is convenient. This keeps costs down, and so lower income people can also afford the train. Ferry service needs to do likewise.

• The main challenge in developing a LI Sound regional ferry is that it will be competing with a successful service (Metro North). However, a ferry to LaGuardia is a different situation that could work well since it would be serving an underrepresented market.

• Why not try to do something different rather than compete with an already-occupied market? Instead of a NYC-based travel market, create something regional that train/bus transit cannot provide.

• Location is essential. Glen Cove may have not been a good location, even though it was extensively lobbied.

• Key idea: harvest Queens as a workforce to Fairfield County. The reverse commute is getting more and more common, and Metro North does not serve that Queens community from Long Island City through Hell’s Gate, nor a number of other reverse commute markets. These reverse commute work patterns should be examined thoroughly, as they make up a market that is not currently being served.

• Any terminals built should not be near train stations. Not only for congestion issues, but if the terminal is far from a train station, it will not have to slow down as much. However, waterfront real estate away from train stations is very expensive.

SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES AND DRAWINGS

• A mixed-use development should be created at the Stamford ferry terminal. • A ferry service should run from Stamford to Glen Cove and to Pier 2 in Downtown

New York City.

Page 208: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

5

• There are low draft constraints for ferry vessels in harbor areas between Port Chester and Stamford.

• Dredging is needed in Bridgeport and Norwalk. • A good location for a ferry terminal is Sherwood Island near Green Farms, CT

because of its large underutilized parking area, especially between September and May.

• There are shellfish beds south of Norwalk harbor.

Page 209: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

1

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PLANNING WORKSHOPS HUNTS POINT, BRONX – MAY 6, 2003

As part of the Public Outreach effort for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan, a Community Planning Workshop was held in Hunts Point, Bronx on May 6th, 2003. The Power Point presentation on the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan and an overview of the Hunts Point Waterborne Freight Assessment were followed by the comments and questions from the audience:

How the air quality will be affected by the new ferry service?

A parking lot by the ferry terminal for private vehicles should be considered

Will there be a place for private boat docking? Access to LI recreation sites? Access to Chelsea Piers?

Connections of different modes of transit should be considered

The cost of products might increase because of the change in the

transportation mode(air-ferry-fish market)

Not using trucks could cause job loses

The consultant should conduct interviews with residents and businesses

The ferry service could be very useful to move people to/from other places(boroughs) to jobs

Passenger ferry should be faster and cheaper for commuters to work than the

existing transportation system

A passenger ferry service to Manhattan should be considered. It would be more convenient and cost efficient for the commuters than to drive

Would be considered routes to and from Long Island for freight & jobs?

Waterfront Neighborhoods Job Link … Airports, LIC, Sunset Park, H.P.

LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Page 210: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

2

Would the study evaluate the necessity of government subsidies for this ferry service?

How the Olympics could affect the ferry service?

More goods could be expected to come to New York through airports in the

next 20 years

Any significant amount of goods comes to the region by ships to seaports

A ferry service, if approved and implemented, should be operated by the private sector

The overall concern about the existing requirements and regulations

The vision of the region in 20 years

- Use clean fuel vehicles - Reduce the usage of cars on streets and increase the public

transportation - It is vital to focus on parking issues - Eliminate the double handling of goods to Hunts Point - Development of other types of industries, markets and goods - South Bronx residents should get new recreational opportunities - Vessels should be fast and designed to move people and goods - Goods should be moved at night, empty containers in the early

morning, people in the day time - Freight ferry from Hunts Point to Manhattan - Adjust ferry and flight schedules - Freight ferry from Long Island to Hunts Point would reduce number of

trucks on the LIE and congestion - Ferry service should be flexible to switch between routes depending

upon demand and need

Page 211: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Appendix B Passenger Surveys and Mode Choice Models

Page 212: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-1

Appendix B

Passenger Surveys and Mode Choice Models

Overview

This section describes the survey design, survey instruments, and initial model estimation results for the mode choice models developed for the New York Metropolitan Planning Commission (NYMTC) Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Study. The pur-pose of this study is to estimate the demand for various modes of travel between key ori-gins and destinations along and across the Long Island Sound, with particular focus on the feasibility of ferry services. This effort relies on data derived from a household survey of 176 residents from communities in Long Island and Connecticut that could utilize and benefit from these proposed ferry services. A preliminary, statistically based predictive ridership model has been developed from the survey.

The survey and model results described here reflect the first of two survey “waves.” The first wave collected information from potential ferry users with destinations in Manhattan, Long Island, and Southwestern Connecticut. Survey respondents from the second wave include only commuters to Manhattan destinations with focus on lower Manhattan. The second wave of data has been merged with the first.

Introduction

The stated-preference survey used in this study is a state-of-the-practice, technically sound instrument for assessing the potential demand for a new or substantially different trans-portation service. In this stated-preference survey, respondents were presented with a number of scenarios describing time, cost, and other service options for travel to Manhattan, the Connecticut shoreline, or Long Island by different modes of travel, and asked to choose the mode they would actually use. Respondents selected a preferred mode in four separate scenarios, or “choice experiments.” Other, “revealed-preference” ques-tions, concerning the last trip of interest to this study and about household characteristics, were asked as well. Trip-related revealed-preference questions included the specific trip origin and destination, trip purpose, mode of travel used, and the time of day the trip was made.

Page 213: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

The survey used in this study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, potential respondents were recruited by phone. Potential recruits agreeing to participate were asked a few initial trip-related questions during the phone conversation. In the second phase, the main questionnaire, including the stated-preference experiments, was mailed to survey participants. The responses to the mailed questionnaire were retrieved by a follow-up phone call.

Recruitment Survey

Recruitment Method

One of the main challenges in this survey was the recruitment of households with relevant trips. Relevant trips refer to individuals who could feasibly use and benefit from either existing ferry services in the Long Island Sound or the proposed new ferry services. In order to get realistic and reliable responses from survey respondents, questions about an actual, rather than hypothetical, trip are asked. In order to identify the communities that were most likely to generate trips in the relevant ferry corridors within the counties of Nassau and Suffolk in Long Island; New Haven, New London, Faifield, and Middlesex in Connecticut; and Westchester County in New York, the consultant team used the NYMTC trip table and general knowledge of local travel patterns. Within these communities, the team used random dialing to recruit respondents for the survey. The recruitment survey-ors asked respondents whether they had made relevant trips in the past six months. The period of six months is long enough to increase the probability that the household made such a trip, while short enough for the respondent to recall the most relevant details about the trip.

A discrete number of specific origin/destination locations were identified during the sur-vey design. The consultant team anticipated that respondents were more likely to have made trips between some of these locations than others. In order to increase the response rate of the least likely trip locations, respondents were asked whether they had made a trip to the most difficult to reach market first and, subsequently, to more likely locations if the previous response was negative. The order of the origin/destination locations was as follows:

For Connecticut or New York residents:

1. Long Island (Suffolk or Nassau County);

2. LaGuardia Airport;

3. MacArthur/Islip Airport; and

4. Manhattan.

Page 214: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-3

For Long Island residents:

1. Connecticut;

2. LaGuardia Airport; and

3. Manhattan.

Recruitment Questionnaire

The stated-preference experiments are custom designed for each respondent. Respondents are first asked questions about the specifics of their most recent relevant trips. This infor-mation is then used to prepare choice experiments that are realistic for a specific, actual trip. For this purpose, the recruitment questionnaire asked:

• What was the origin of that trip (home, work, or other)?

• What was the origin address of that trip (address or postal code)?

• What was the destination of that trip (home, work, or other)?

• What was the destination address of that trip?

• How did you make that trip (mode of travel)?

• If by public transportation (rail, ferry, and bus), how did you (what mode) get between your origin and the public transportation system?

• How did you get between the system and your destination?

• How many people were traveling together?

• What day of the week did you make that trip?

• What time of day did you make that trip?

Examples of the full recruitment questionnaire appear at the end of this section.

Stated-Preference Questionnaire

Individuals who agreed to participate in the survey received the stated-preference ques-tionnaire by mail. The data collected in the recruitment questionnaire were used to custom design the choice experiments based upon the individual’s most recent trip. Each respon-dent was asked to respond to four different choice experiments. In each experiment, the respondent was asked to choose among three or five main alternatives depending on the origin/destination market to which the respondent belonged.

Page 215: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

For trips across the Long-Island Sound (Connecticut to Long Island and Long Island to Connecticut), five modal alternatives were presented:

• Private auto only;

• Ferry with car on-board;

• Ferry without car on-board;

• Express ferry (autos not allowed); and

• Transit.

For each of the last three alternatives (ferry without car on-board, express ferry, and rail transit) the respondent was further asked to choose how to access the system (at the home end) among five alternatives:

• Walk;

• Bike;

• Transit;

• Drive and park; and

• Get a ride.

The respondent was also asked how to get from the system to the final destination. For each of the non-auto alternatives (ferry without car on-board, express ferry, and rail transit) the respondent was asked to choose among three alternatives:

• Walk;

• Transit; and

• Taxi.

For trips to Manhattan and LaGuardia, only three main alternatives were available as regular ferry is not an option for these markets:

• Auto;

• Express ferry; and

• Transit.

Various travel time and cost attributes were included in the choice experiments. The val-ues of these attributes were varied among respondents and experiments, following princi-ples and techniques designed to ensure the statistical validity of the resulting model. The following section describes how the values for these variables were determined. The attributes were:

• In-vehicle travels time for all modes;

• Access time to transit/ferry by the different access modes including walk and bike;

Page 216: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-5

• Frequencies of the ferry and the various transit modes;

• Parking cost for auto modes (including auto access);

• Tolls for auto modes; and

• Fares for ferry and transit modes.

Design of the Level of Service Variables for the Stated-Preference Experiments

The Level of Service (LOS) variables were introduced into the experimental design in order to give respondents realistic representations of the time and costs associated with deter-mining their choices of potential new service to travel between the given origin/ destination pairs. The main objectives that were kept in mind while determining the val-ues of the LOS variables were a) that they reflect current and future scenarios realistically; and b) that there be sufficient variance in LOS among the choice experiments.

Auto travel times were computed from the NYMTC model. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) schedule tables were used for all transit times. Ferry times were calculated from the known operating characteristics of the express and regular ferries, the distances between origins and destinations, and the anticipated docking and loading/unloading times. In order to introduce variability into the experiments, the LOS variables changed slightly from one experiment to the next. The reason for introducing the variability into the survey design is to understand the time and cost “tipping” points that induce respondents to switch from the choice of one mode to another. Ferry and train travel times and costs, access and egress times, and costs from home to the origin station and from the destination station to the final destination were changed. Auto travel times were varied between 60 and 140 percent of the NYTMC calculated travel times; these times were averaged with the actual auto travel times reported by respondents to obtain more realistic auto travel times for the various experiments. The train fare was obtained from the MTA web site for specific origin/destination pairs and these were also changed among the experiments in order to introduce variance.

Retrieval Questionnaire

In the retrieval questionnaire, respondents were called and asked to report their choices for the choice experiments. In addition, respondents were asked a few more questions about the actual trips described for the choice experiments, as well as a few socioeconomic ques-tions. Questions about the actual trip included:

• The various modes used in the trip (main mode, access mode, and egress mode);

• Auto occupancy (if auto used);

• Whether an auto was available to make the trip;

• The frequency of such trips;

• Any parking fees and subsidies;

Page 217: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

• The time of the trip;

• The number of stops made on the way; and

• The estimated door-to-door travel time.

The socioeconomic questions included:

• Age;

• Household size and number of children;

• Number of workers in the household;

• Level of education;

• Employment status;

• Gender;

• Employment type;

• Auto ownership;

• Household income; and

• Reimbursement for various transportation costs (parking, tolls, and transit).

The Survey Sample

The initial survey sample includes 176 completed questionnaires, with each respondent answering four choice experiments resulting in 704 choice experiment observations for model estimations.

For analysis purposes, we define three main travel markets as follows:

1. “Cross Sound” includes trips from Long Island to Connecticut and from Connecticut to Long Island. Many individuals making these trips can be expected to do so on a less-frequent-than-daily basis, given the trip time and distance between these points. The existing Bridgeport to Port Jefferson service is representative of this market.

2. “To Manhattan” includes trips from Long Island to Manhattan, from Connecticut to Manhattan, and trips along the Connecticut/New York coast. Trips in this market are the most frequent, as many travelers from Long Island and Connecticut are daily trav-elers. Current non-auto mode shares to Manhattan are the highest in the entire United States. The concentration of employment in Manhattan and the relatively high incomes among travelers make this market a particularly attractive one.

Page 218: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-7

3. “To LaGuardia” includes trips from Connecticut/New York to LaGuardia or to MacArthur/Islip Airport and from Long Island to LaGuardia. This is a niche market for travelers who need to save time with a direct connection from and to the airport.

The following sections provide some basic statistics on the sample.

Trip Characteristics

Table B.1 presents the distribution of the respondents in terms of the three main markets. A fairly even split among the three markets resulted, because of the design of the recruit-ment survey, as described above.

Table B.1 Respondent Travel Distribution

Market Share (Percent)

Cross Sound 55 (31.25%)

To Manhattan 62 (35.23%)

To LaGuardia 59 (33.52%)

Table B.2 shows the distribution by trip purpose as either home-based work (HBW) or home-based non-work (HBNW). As can be seen from this table, there were very few HBW trips reported in the survey. Because commute trips are an important market for the pro-posed ferry service, the second survey wave is focused entirely on HBW trips.

Table B.2 Distribution of Purpose

Purpose Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

HBW 4 (7.3%) 9 (14.5%) 12 (20.3%)

HBNW 51 (92.7%) 53 (85.5%) 47 (79.7%)

Page 219: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table B.3 presents the actual mode used by respondents in their relevant trips as the main travel mode, as access mode, and as egress mode. Roughly 21.5 percent of all respondents travel by transit as their main modes of travel. Additionally, 7.5 percent of respondents reported traveling by ferry. However, as the subsequent discussion shows, these shares vary by market considerably.

Table B.3 Transportation Mode Distribution (in Percent); All Markets

Mode Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Drove alone 15.91% 13.56% 1.69%

Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 1 other person

27.84 40.68 6.78

Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 2 or more other people

22.16 23.73 6.78

Walk - 8.47 27.12

Public transit bus 0.57 3.39 10.17

Rail/Train 21.02 - -

Subway - - 18.64

Ferry 7.39 - -

Dedicated van service 1.70 - -

Taxi 2.84 3.39 13.56

Other 0.57 6.78 15.25

Findings on market-specific mode shares include:

• The Manhattan market has a non-transit mode share of 33 and 46 percent for work and non-work travel respectively; this would appear to represent a significant market opportunity given the time and cost of travel to the island.

• The Cross Sound market has a relatively high ferry mode share – 25 percent indicating that the existing ferry is a viable mode of travel, at least for trips of this length and fre-quency (fewer daily trips).

• For the LaGuardia market, non-work trips rely mostly (almost 90 percent) on auto travel, while taxi and van services accounts for roughly one-third of all work trips. Users of taxi and van services pay a premium for the convenience and flexibility these services offer; water taxi or ferry services offered as competitive services would have to be sufficiently fast and frequent to compete effectively in this market.

Page 220: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-9

Table B.4 presents survey results for average travel costs, times, and vehicle occupancies. Manhattan trips are the longest and most expensive, on average, while Cross Sound trips have the lowest parking costs. LaGuardia has the lowest average travel times, at around one and one-half hours. The persons per vehicle figures (2.4 to 2.7) reflect the fact that most reported trips in this survey are non-work trips, which tend to have higher occupan-cies than do work trips.

Table B.4 Additional Trip Characteristics

Variable Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Daily parking cost $6.30 $16.00 $27.00

Travel time from home to destination 123 minutes 117.5 minutes 102 minutes

Number of people in travel group 2.4 2.7 2.4

Table B.5 presents the travel subsidies for various transportation costs respondents get from their employers. These data are not trip specific. Almost consistently across all travel markets, roughly one-third of all respondents report receiving some kind of travel subsidy, for parking, tolls, or transit.

Table B.5 Distribution of Travel Subsidies (Percent)

Type of Cost Level of Subsidy Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Full 15.91% 17.39% 32.61% Partial 13.64 15.22 8.70

Parking costs

None 70.45 67.39 58.70

Full 20.45 17.39 32.61 Partial 9.09 17.39 6.52

Toll costs

None 70.45 65.22 60.87

Full 15.91 19.57 34.78 Partial 6.82 13.04 2.17

Transit costs

None 77.27 67.39 63.04

Page 221: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Socioeconomic Data

This section represents some basic socioeconomic and demographic statistics about the respondent population. Table B.6 provides basic statistics about the household size, chil-dren, employees, and vehicle ownership. Household characteristics are consistent across travel markets, with the largest variation appearing in number of vehicles per household. Cross Sound respondents report somewhat higher ownership levels than do the other two markets, and this appears be somewhat related to number of employed persons.

Table B.6 Basic Household Characteristics

Variable Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Number of members in household 2.7 2.7 2.7

Number of household members younger than 18

0.7 0.9 0.8

Number of employed household members (full and part-time)

1.6 1.4 1.5

Number of vehicles in household 2.4 2.1 2.2

Tables B.7 through B.12 present further distribution regarding some of the various socio-economic and demographic data of the sample. These tables reveal:

• Fifty to 70 percent of respondents report having received a college degree or greater, with the Cross Sound market having the highest percentage (Table B.7).

• One-half to two-thirds of all respondents are employed full-time. A small number, around three percent, report being unemployed (Table B.8).

• All three travel markets are relatively affluent. Thirty-six percent of Cross Sound respondents earn $100,000 or more, while 22 and 21 percent of Manhattan and LaGuardia market respondents earn $100,000 or more (Table B.9).

• Manhattan travel market respondents tend to be female, while Cross Sound and LaGuardia respondents are evenly split between male and female (Table B.10).

• The age distribution is relatively equal across the three travel markets, with the 35- to 55-year group being the largest cohort (Table B.11).

• Single people comprise from one-quarter to one-third of all recipients (Table B.12).

Page 222: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-11

Table B.7 Distribution by Education (Percent)

Education Level Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Some high school or less 1.82% 0% 0%

High school graduate or equivalent 7.27 14.52 6.78

Some college or technical school 18.18 32.26 27.12

College graduate 43.64 29.03 35.59

Graduate or professional degree 29.09 22.58 28.81

Refused 0 1.61 1.69

Table B.8 Distribution by Job Status (Percent)

Current Job Status Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Employed full-time 58.18% 56.45% 66.10%

Employed part-time 21.82 16.13 10.17

Unemployed 3.64 3.23 0

Retired 10.91 17.74 13.56

Homemaker 5.45 4.84 6.78

Student 0 0 1.69

Disabled 0 1.61 1.69

Page 223: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table B.9 Annual Income Distribution (Percent)

Income Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Less than $15,000 1.82% 4.84% 1.69%

$15,000 to less than $25,000 0 4.84 1.69

$25,000 to less than $50,000 20.00 27.42 13.56

$50,000 to less than $75,000 16.36 14.52 22.03

$75,000 to less than $100,000 18.18 16.13 27.12

$100,000 to less than $150,000 23.64 12.90 8.47

$150,000 or greater 12.73 9.68 13.56

Refused 7.27 9.68 11.86

Table B.10 Distribution of Gender (Percent)

Gender Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Female 47.27% 62.90% 50.85%

Male 52.73 37.10 49.15

Page 224: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-13

Table B.11 Distribution by Age (Percent)

Age Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

18 to 24 years 5.45% 4.84% 3.39%

25 to 34 years 18.18 17.74 13.56

35 to 44 years 21.82 22.58 22.03

45 to 54 years 21.82 25.81 28.81

55 to 64 years 18.18 11.29 15.25

65 to 74 years 12.73 14.52 8.47

75 years and older 1.82 3.23 6.78

Refused 0 0 1.69

Table B.12 Distribution by Marital Status (Percent)

Marital Status Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Single 18.18% 27.42% 13.56%

Married/Living with partner 69.09 59.68 71.19

Divorced/Separated 5.45 4.84 3.39

Widowed 7.27 8.06 10.17

Refused 0 0 1.69

Choice Experiments Results

Tables B.13 through B.15 present the mode choice distribution in the choice experiments for work and non-work trips for the three markets. These results indicate the choices the respondents made based on the survey experiments and the time and cost levels they were presented. Caution should be exercised when interpreting these results, as they do not indicate what the demand is for any proposed ferry service. These results are used to build a predictive model (as described in the next section), which allows the consultant team to estimate the demand for ferry services and other modes of travel, based on expected levels of time and cost.

Page 225: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table B.13 presents the results of the choice exercise for the Cross Sound market. Note that while non-work respondents chose ferry in roughly 44 percent of all the exercises, ferry with car was chosen 17 percent of the time. This contrasts with the existing share of ferry travel in this market, which is 25 percent. The express ferry service appears to be an attractive option for both work and non-work travelers.

Table B.13 Distribution of Choice by Purpose for Cross Sound Market (Percent)

Choice of Mode HBW

(Current Percent) HBNW

(Current Percent)

Private automobile 75 (100%) 52.94 (74%)

Ferry (without car) 0 3.43

Ferry (with car) 0 16.67 (25%)

Express ferry 18.75 23.53

Train 6.25 (0%) 3.43 (0%)

Table B.14 presents the results of the choice exercise for the Manhattan market. Manhattan travelers were not offered the ferry with car option. Respondents chose express ferry in six percent and 13 percent of choice experiments for work and non-work respectively. The addition of 100 Manhattan-specific respondents from the second survey wave will yield much more robust and significant results for this market.

Table B.14 Distribution of Choice by Purpose for Manhattan Market (Percent)

Choice of Mode HBW

(Current Percent) HBNW

(Current Percent)

Private automobile 30.56 (33%) 25.47 (44%)

Express ferry 5.56 13.21

Train 63.89 (67%) 61.32 (56%)

Page 226: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-15

Table B.15 presents the results of the choice exercise for the LaGuardia market. Both the work and non-work markets show a marked decrease in the choice of auto from the reported current usage, a substantial increase in transit usage, and a significant willingness to use the ferry option. These results indicate that there is a demand for better non-auto options to the LaGuardia market.

Table B.15 Distribution of Choice by Purpose for LaGuardia Market (Percent)

Choice of Mode HBW

(Current Percent) HBNW

(Current Percent)

Private automobile 47.92 (67%) 59.57 (96%)

Express ferry 25 14.36

Train 25 26.06 (4%)

Don’t know 2.08 0

Initial Stated-Preference Mode Choice Estimation Results

The final stated-preference model will be based on all completed questionnaires, each including four choice experiments resulting in almost 1,200 observations. Currently, only 176 completed questionnaires with 704 choice experiments observations are available for model estimations. As the results and even the model structure can significantly change with the addition of so many records, only very preliminary model estimation was con-ducted. The purpose of this model estimation phase was twofold: 1) to verify that there is sufficient variability in the data collected before completing the last round of data collec-tion; and 2) that there no problems with the questionnaire design. These models include only LOS variables, as these are the design variables that we can control in our survey design. These are also the most important policy variables that we want to test their effects on the ferry ridership.

At this point, two initial stated-preference models were estimated in multinomial logit. The following subsections provide a technical discussion of the logit model and present the initial model estimation results.

Page 227: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Logit Model

The logit model is a discrete choice model based on the random utility theory. The logit model estimates the probability of each alternative out of a finite number of alternatives being chosen by an individual, given the various attributes of the individual and the vari-ous alternatives. In the logit model, a utility function is defined for each alternative and is specified as:

iii VU ε+=

where:

Ui = the utility of alternative response i for a given traveler;

Vi = the systematic component of the utility; and

εi = its random component.

The systematic component of the utility can be written as:

ii XV β ′=

where Xi is a vector of attributes for alternative i, and β is a vector of coefficients.

In the logit model, εi are independently and identically Gumbel distributed. The probabil-ity that alternative i will be chosen is given by:

( ) ( )( )∑

=

Lii

i

VVipµ

µexpexp

where µ is the scale parameter, and L is the set of available alternatives.

In the case of a linear utility function, the parameter µ cannot be distinguished from the overall scale of the βs, and therefore it is omitted from the utility function. The linearity of the parameters of the logit model is widely used in behavioral studies, as its likelihood function is globally concave and finding its maximum is a relative straightforward com-putational problem; at the same time, it provides the flexibility for a wide range of func-tional forms.

The parameters βs are estimated by using the maximum likelihood method. The likelihood of the entire sample is the product of the likelihood of the individual observations and can be written as:

( ) ( ) inYn iPL Π=β

Where Pn(i) is the probability that the nth person in the sample chooses alternative i; and Yin is a dummy variable that is equal to 1 if a person n chooses alternative i and equals zero

Page 228: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-17

otherwise. Pn(i) are functions of the various βs; by maximizing the function L, we find the most likely estimates of the βs. It is usually more convenient to maximize the logarithm of the likelihood function:

( )∑ ∗= iPYL nin log()log

The maximum of log L is then computed by differentiating it with respect to each of the βs and setting the partial derivatives as equal to zero. This is done with the Alogit software, developed by Rand Europe using an approximation technique known as the Newton-Raphson algorithm.

Different combinations of potential models containing various permutations and combina-tions of the variables available were estimated. The primary evaluation criteria for judging the quality of each model was:

1. The “rho-square” statistic, which is a measure of fit between the estimated weights (Betas) and the reported choice of mode.

2. The “T-statistic,” which is the ratio of the weight to the model error for each variable tested. The closer the weight and the model error are in size, the lower the T-statistic and the less valuable or useful is the variable tested.

3. The likelihood – the greater the decrease in this value between the model with “con-stants only” and with the final coefficients, the higher the quality of the model.

4. The signs associated with the weights – generally speaking, higher times and higher costs decrease ferry and transit use, and one expects a negative (-) sign for these vari-able weights.

Initial Model Estimation Results

Table B.16 presents the initial model estimation results for two models. Model 1 includes all markets and is estimated based on all the observations collected so far. This model has four alternative choices:

• Auto;

• Ferry;

• Express ferry; and

• Train.

At this point we did not separate between ferry with car and without car and we also did not model access modes. Depending on the final frequency of the various alternatives, we will decide regarding the final modes in the model. These models are also not segmented by trip purpose – work versus non-work – which is expected to be the case in the final models.

Page 229: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table B.16 Mode Choice Estimation Results – Stated-Preference

Model 1: All Markets Model 2: Only Manhattan

and LaGuardia Markets Variables Estimate t-stat Estimate t-stat

Constants Slow Ferry (11 SFerry) 0.352 0.3 Express Ferry (12 ExpFerry) 0.861 0.7 -0.711 -0.4 Rail (13 Train) 1.658 1.3 1.476 1.0

In-Vehicle Times (IVT) Auto (20 AIVT) -0.018 -9.9 -0.017 -8.3 Slow Ferry (21 SFIVT) -0.010 -2.6 Express Ferry (22 FFIVT) -0.030 -6.2 -0.027 -5.1 Rail (23 RIVT) -0.021 -5.9 -0.020 -4.8

Travel Costs and Fares Auto (30 ACOST) -0.023 -2.4 -0.022 -2.0 Slow Ferry Fare(31 SFCOST) -0.002 -0.1 Express Ferry Fare (32 FFCOST) -0.013 -1.2 0.002 0.2 Rail Fare (33 RCOST) -0.155 -2.6 -0.113 -1.6

Walk/Bike Access/Egress Times Auto Egress Time (34 AEGRTIME) 0.035 2.0 0.016 0.7 Ferry Access Time (35 FACCTIME) -0.010 -0.7 0.177 2.3 Ferry Egress Time (36 FEGRTIME) -0.052 -1.9 -0.007 -0.2 Rail Access Time (37 RACCTIME) -0.024 -0.6 -0.042 -1.0 Rail Egress Time (38 REGRTIME) -0.010 -0.3 0.021 0.6

Transit Access/Egress Times and Costs Ferry Transit Access/Egress Time (40 FTRAET) -0.027 -0.8 -0.005 -0.1 Ferry Transit Access/Egress Cost (41 FTRAEC) -0.102 -0.4 -0.937 -1.6 Rail Transit Access/Egress Time (42 RTRAET) 0.007 0.2 0.016 0.4 Rail Transit Access/Egress Cost (43 RTRAEC) 0.614 1.8 0.583 1.5

Car and Cab Times and Costs Ferry Car Access Time (45 FCARACCT) 0.018 0.7 -0.050 -1.3 Ferry Car Access Cost (46 FCARACCC) -0.116 -2.9 -0.076 -1.2 Ferry Cab Access/Egress Time (47 FCABAET) -0.028 -1.2 -0.016 -0.4 Ferry Cab Access/Egress Cost (48 FCABAEC) 0.022 1.9 -0.022 -1.0 Rail Car Access Time (49 RCARACCT) -0.029 -1.0 -0.046 -1.4 Rail Car Access Cost (50 RCARACCC) -0.134 -3.2 -0.147 -3.2 Rail Cab Access/Egress Time (51 RCABAET) -0.019 -0.9 -0.021 -0.9 Ferry Cab Access/Egress Cost (52 RCABAEC) -0.007 -0.3 -0.033 -1.2

Initial Likelihood -830.07 Likelihood with Constants Only -783.39 Final Log Likelihood -595.1165 -382.0084 rho^2 w.r.t. Constants 0.2403 0.2047

Page 230: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-19

Model 2 is a model for markets that have only express ferry as alternative ferry. These markets include all trips to Manhattan and LaGuardia and the model is estimated based only on the observations of respondents who made trip to one of these destinations. For this model, there are only three alternative choices:

• Auto;

• Express ferry; and

• Train.

A brief discussion of the preliminary results:

• Constants: The constants are dummy variables equals 1 for the specific mode they describe and equal zero otherwise. Their role is to capture various factors not repre-sented by other variables and to avoid bias in the other variables. None of the constants in these models is significant.

• In-Vehicle Times are modeled specific to each main mode – auto, rail, ferry (only in Model 1), and express ferry. The coefficients of all these variables are found to be sig-nificant at the 95 percent confidence level and have the correct negative sign – meaning as in-vehicle travel time by each mode increases, the probability of choosing this mode decreases.

• Travel Costs and Fares are also modeled specific to each main mode. They are nega-tive and significant for the auto and rail in Model 1 and for auto in rail Model 2. They are not significant in all other cases.

• Walk/Bike Access/Egress Times represent the walking or biking time to and from the various modes. Auto egress time represents the walking time from the parking to the final destination for the auto mode. This variable is positive and counter intuitive to the expected results and needs further investigation. All the other variables in this group represent the walking or biking time to and from the transit stations or ferry terminals. In Model 1 all of these variables are negative as expected, and in Model 2 there are some mixed results.

• Transit Access/Egress Times and Costs represent the travel time and cost of the transit modes used to access the main mode (rail or ferry) and egress from it to the final desti-nation. All ferry-related coefficients are negatives and the rail-related coefficients show mixed results, but all are not significant.

• Car and Cab Times and Costs represents the travel time and cost by auto or cab to access the main mode (rail or ferry) and egress from and to the final destination. Except for the ferry car access time and the ferry cab access/egress cost, all of these coefficients are negative as expected.

As mentioned earlier, these results are very preliminary and should not be used to draw any conclusions. The fact that not all coefficients have the expected sign should not bother us at this time, as additional model estimation – including various model structures –

Page 231: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

B-20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

should be tested to finalize these results. This should be done once we have all the data collected, as these results and model structure can change significantly with an increase of 50 percent in observations.

Model Utilization

The model factors have been input to a spreadsheet that is linked to three other sets of data: 1) the baseline demand for movements between any two zones in the region; 2) = the level-of-service criteria (fixed) being offered by non-ferry services for those movements; and 3) the level of service criteria (variable) we are offering for a ferry service. By varying the ferry service criteria, we will be able to use the model in Tasks 3 and 4 to quantitatively estimate the demand for different ferry routes with different service characteristics.

Page 232: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Examples of Passenger Survey Recruitment Questionnaire

Page 233: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitudes Survey

NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL TRAVELER CHOICE AND ATTITUDES SURVEY

Recruit Survey Final (April 7, 2003)

0. Record telephone exchange. 1. Hello, my name is ______________________, and I’m calling from Corey, Canapary &

Galanis Research. This is not a sales call. In cooperation with the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, we are conducting a survey [today/tonight] about commuting and travel in your area. This study will be used to help plan transportation improvements in your region.

Alternate Intro: for Manhattan commuter segment Hello, my name is ______________________. In cooperation with the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, we are conducting a survey about commuting and travel in your area. Do you or does anyone in your household commute or take regular business trips to Manhattan? [IF NECESSARY, ADD: - This study will be used to help plan transportation improvements in your region. - We are interested in work commute trips. - Calling from Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research on behalf of the NY Metropolitan Transportation Council. [INTERVIEWER NOTE: This recruit survey will take about 5 minutes. The callback survey will take about 15 minutes.]

Refusal 1 Thank/Terminate Business/Non-residential 2 Thank/Terminate Language 3 Thank/Terminate 1a) In what county do you live? (Determine potential destinations by county.) Nassau (Long Island) 1 {Q. 1b} Suffolk (Long Island) 2 {Q. 1b} New Haven (Conn.) 3 {Q. 1b} New London (Conn.) 4 {Q. 1b} Fairfield (Conn.) 5 {Q. 1b} Middlesex (Conn.) 6 {Q. 1b} Westchester (N.Y.) 7 {Q. 1b} Other 6 Thank/Terminate 1b) Is your workplace, or the location of the place that you take regular business trips, south

of Canal Street in Manhattan, or not? South of Canal Street 1 {Q. 2} North of Canal Street 2 {Q. 2}

- “South of Canal” would include anyone who works on Canal Street.

INTRODUCTION

Page 234: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

- 2 -

Skip to Q.2h if interviewing for Manhattan commuters 2. In the last six months, have you made a trip from your home to a destination in any of

the following locations? (Ask for each.) Yes No DK (For Connecticut or New York residents, ask): a. Long Island (Suffolk or Nassau County) 1 2 3 b. La Guardia Airport 1 2 3 c. MacArthur/Islip Airport 1 2 3 d. Manhattan 1 2 3 (For Long Island residents, ask): e. Connecticut 1 2 3 f. La Guardia Airport 1 2 3 g. Manhattan 1 2 3 2h. (If south of Canal Street in Q1b, ask): How often do you travel from your home to lower Manhattan (on or south of Canal Street) for work or business purposes? (If north of Canal Street in Q1b, ask): How often do you travel from your home to Manhattan for work or business purposes? 5 or more days a week 1 3 - 4 days a week 2 1 - 2 days a week 3 1 - 3 days a month 4 Less than once a month 5 Thank/Terminate Don’t know / refused 6 Thank/Terminate

Page 235: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

- 3 -

[IF RESPONDENT HAS NOT MADE A TRIP TO ANY OF THE DESTINATIONS IN Q.2, ASK Q.3 THROUGH Q.7] 3. In the past 6 months, has any other adult in your household traveled from your home to

[Potential Destinations in Q.2]? Alternate Question 3: for Manhattan commuter segment

Does anyone else in your household commute or take regular business trips to Manhattan?

Yes 1 {Q. 4} No / DK 2 Thank/Terminate 4. Could I please speak with the adult from your household that made the trip to [Potential

Destinations in Q.2]? Refusal 1 Thank/Terminate Transferring to correct respondent 2 {Q. 7} Correct respondent not available 3 {Q. 5} 5. What would the best day and time for me to call that person? Record day and time _______ {Q.6} 6. And what is that person’s name? Record name for callback _______ Thank/Terminate 7. (Upon transferring) Hello, I’m calling from Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research. In

cooperation with the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, we are conducting a survey [today/tonight] about commuting and travel in your area, and we were just told that you have recently made a trip to [Potential Destinations in Q.2] that we would like to ask you about.

Refusal 1 Thank/Terminate Continue 2 {Re-Ask Q.2}

Page 236: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

- 4 -

INVITATION 8. Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research, in cooperation with the New York Metropolitan

Transportation Council, is conducting a study to more fully understand the attitudes and travel choices of people who make these kinds of trips. If you agree to participate, we will mail you a survey packet for you to review. We will arrange a time to call you back and ask some more questions that will take about 15 minutes of your time. This study is being conducted for research purposes and no attempt will be made to sell you anything. Your responses will be strictly confidential.

Would you be willing to participate? Yes 1 {Q. 9} No 2 Thank/Terminate 9. Would you spell your name and give me your home address (so I can mail you the

survey packet)? Name: _____________________________________________ Street Address ______________________________________ City: _________________________ State: ____ Zip: ________________ Telephone Number: _________________________________ {Q. 9a} 9a) Is this address your home location? Yes 1 {Q 10} No 2 {Q.9b} 9b) Can you tell me the streets of a major intersection that is near your home? a. Record intersection____________________________ b. City___________________________ c. State _______ d. Zip______________ {Q 10} Refusal 1 Thank/Terminate 10. In the next few days, we will be sending you the survey materials in a large envelope

with a red box that says “New York Area Travel Survey”. We’d like to call you back in about a week to collect your responses. What is the best time to reach you?

Record a preferred time ____________________ Notes: ________________________________________ {Q.11} Note: Interviewer shifts are 4pm-9pm (Mon-Fri, Sun) and 12:30pm-4:30pm (Sat).

INVITATION

Page 237: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

- 5 -

INVITATION 11. Before we send you any materials, we would like to know a little about your last trip from your home to [Q.2 Response. See Note] Note: Respondents will be asked about one destination from Q.2. That destination will be the first one they said “yes” to in Q.2, in the order listed. Specific address information will not be collected if the respondent’s destination was one of the airports. “Manhattan commuters segment” will be asked about their work trip to Manhattan. Can you tell me the location of your destination in [Q.2 Response. See Note]? Do you recall the address or street intersection of this trip? a. Record street address or intersection __________________________ b. Record City __________________________ c. State ___ d. Zip ___________ e. Record place name __________________ {Q. 12} 12. What was the main purpose for making that trip? (Do not read responses, but prompt and

clarify, as necessary) Commute to work 1 {Q. 13} Work-related business 2 {Q. 13} Personal business (appointments, etc.) 3 {Q. 13} School/University 4 {Q. 13} Shopping 5 {Q. 13} Recreation/entertainment 6 {Q. 13} Trip to Casino (for gambling/entertainment) 7 {Q. 13} Other (specify): _________________ 8 {Q. 13} 13. When you made that trip, how did you travel? (Do not read responses, but prompt and

clarify, as necessary) Drove alone in a private vehicle (car, pick-up, SUV, motorcycle, etc.) 1 {Q. 14} Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 1 other person for at least part of the way 2 {Q. 14} Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 2 or more other people in vehicle for at least part of the way 3 {Q. 14} Public transit bus 4 {Q. 14} Rail/Train 5 {Q. 14} Ferry 6 {Q. 14} Dedicated van service 7 {Q. 14} Taxi 8 {Q. 14} Other (specify): _________________ 9 {Q. 14} Don’t know 10 {Q. 14} Refuse 11 {Q. 14}

TRIP INFORMATION

Page 238: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

- 6 -

14. Did you make that trip on a weekday or on a Saturday or Sunday? Weekday 1 {Q.14a} Weekend Day (Saturday or Sunday) 2 {Q.15}

14a. Was any of your traveling on that trip during peak hours, that is, between 6am - 9am in the morning or between 3pm - 7pm in the afternoon? Between 6am - 9am in the morning (morning peak) 1 {Q.15} Between 3pm - 7pm in the afternoon (afternoon peak) 2 {Q.15} Did not travel during peak period hours 3 {Q.15}

15. What would you say your total door-to-door travel time from home to your destination

was for this trip, not including time spent making any stops? Record time estimate in minutes. (DK = 999) _____ {Q16}

INVITATION 16. Thank you. We will mail you the additional materials that we told you about. Please

have your survey materials available (near the phone) when we call you {at [PREFERRED TIME]; in a week or so}. We greatly appreciate your cooperation with this study.

Interviewer: Describe envelope again if necessary. GENDER (by observation): 1 MALE 2 FEMALE Pick up from Sample Sheet (SAMPNUM) TYPE IN HH ID # FROM SAMPLE SHEET: ________________ (AREA) Home Area: 1 CT / NY 2 LI (DATE) DATE INTERVIEW COMPLETED: __________________________

REMINDER

Page 239: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

10/15/2003

Ms. Ilyse Lyman 53 Harvest Hill Lane Stamford, CT 6905

Dear Ms. Lyman:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research is conducting the survey, in cooperation with the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council.

Travelers through the greater New York Area continue to express frustration at growing roadway congestion and a lack of travel options. As part of ongoing efforts to understand the transportation needs of people, like yourself, we would like to know how you travel and what factors are important in your travel decisions. The best way to find out is to ask you. The information you provide will help us identify how to expand and improve travel options for people in your community.

You are one of a small number of people who are being asked to give their opinions on these matters. A few days ago, you received a call from our researchers and indicated a willingness to participate in this survey. In order that our results truly represent the thinking of travelers throughout the greater New York area, it is important that all survey questions are answered.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The survey has an identification number for mailing and retrieval purposes only. Your name will never be placed on the survey, and your responses will not be sold to or shared with any other group or individual.

We will contact you in a few days to gather your survey responses. Our interviewer will ask you to refer to this survey packet when she/he calls you to do the telephone survey, so please keep it near the phone. If you would like, you may review the enclosed survey and prepare your answers prior to our return call.

Sincerely,

Jon Canapary Project Director Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research (800) 877-1201

Page 240: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Please review all of the questions. One of our researchers will contact you in a few days

to gather your answers.

A Survey of Resident’s Preferences

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Travel Options in the Greater New York Area

Page 241: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Page 1

TRAVEL OPTIONS IN THE GREATER NEW YORK AREA A SURVEY OF RESIDENT’S PREFERENCES

INTRODUCTION Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. On the following pages, you will be asked to evaluate several alternative travel options for the trip that you described during the recent telephone survey. The trip that you described had the following features:

Trip from your home to the destination

Trip Origin: Stamford, CT

Trip Destination: Malverne, NY

Trip Purpose: Personal business

Time Period: Weekend, Unreported time period

3

We will be calling you in a few days to ask you to respond to the questions in this booklet. During that call, we will also ask you a few additional questions about the trip you described. Please keep this survey booklet in a convenient place so that you can refer to the questions when we call you. Please feel free to review the survey booklet and prepare your answers prior to our return call.

Many of the questions in this survey booklet and those that will be asked during our return call will ask you to consider the specific conditions related to your trip that has the features described above. In answering these questions, please think about your most recent actual trip that had those features, and remember how you made your travel choice.

If you have any questions regarding the survey, please ask the interviewer during our return call.

Page 242: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Page 2

HOW WOULD YOU TRAVEL?

In this section, we would like you to evaluate different potential transportation services that might be available in the near future for travelers. These transportation services are based on current services, but they may have slightly different features from the services now being offered.

To evaluate the transportation services, please consider the trip that you told us about on the phone and that is summarized on page 1 of this booklet. In the exercises that follow, we will ask you to choose among several different transportation options for completing this trip. These transportation options include:

• Travel in a private auto;

• Bus or rail transit; and

• Ferry transit, either regular ferry with the option to take the car on board or express ferry for passengers only.

The following pages contain a series of four choice exercises, each one offering a choice among four different ways you could make a trip such as your most recent trip from Stamford to Malverne for Personal business.

• For each exercise, please assume that the only available travel options are the four that are shown. Please compare the options, and then select the way that you would have traveled if those were your available choices.

• Please assume that the transit (including ferry) options shown in the exercises are operating and available to you, even though they may not currently exist.

• Please answer the questions as realistically as possible, with the specific needs of the trip you have described in mind.

• Please do not choose the drive option if you do not have an auto available to you for making such a trip.

Page 243: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Choice Exercise 1: Transportation Options for Your Trip

Page 3

Your choices are: Option A:

Private Automobile Option B:

Ferry Option C:

Express Ferry Option D:

Train

Your trip will cost… $3.50 toll (Southbound) $6.90 ferry fare each way OR $24.15 ferry fare including car

$10.50 ferry fare each way $12.00 train fare each way

Your trip will take… 2 hr. 0 min. drive 1 hr. 55 min. ferry ride 0 hr. 35 min. ferry ride 2 hr. 30 min. train ride

PLUS Access from home to the transit station or ferry terminal

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 5 min. bike ride, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare, OR • 15 min. car trip with

$8.00 parking cost, OR • 15 min. car trip with 10 min.

boarding with your car

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 5 min. bike ride, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare, OR • 15 min. car trip with

$8.00 parking cost

PLUS • 30 min. walk, OR • 10 min. bike ride, OR • 20 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. car trip with

$4.00 parking cost

PLUS Access to your final destination

PLUS $15.00 parking cost, with 30 min. walk from parking

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 20 min. taxi ride with

$30.00 extra fare, OR • 20 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 20 min. taxi ride with

$30.00 extra fare, OR • 20 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare

PLUS • 25 min. walk, OR • 25 min. taxi ride with

$20.00 extra fare, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

Service schedule Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 30 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 30 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., with a train or bus every: • 90 min. in commute hours • 120 min. during midday • 120 min. in the evening

1. Which of the five options above would you choose? (circle one)

A: DRIVE B1: FERRY WITHOUT CAR

B2: FERRY WITH CAR

C: EXPRESS FERRY

D: TRANSIT

2. If you chose option B1, C, or D, how would you get from home to the transit station ferry terminal? (circle one)

A: WALK B: BIKE C: TRANSIT D: DRIVE AND PARK

E: GET A RIDE

3. If you chose option B1, C, or D, how would you get from the transit station or ferry terminal to your destination? (circle one)

A: WALK B: TAXI C: TRANSIT

Page 244: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Choice Exercise 2: Transportation Options for Your Trip

Page 4

Your choices are: Option A:

Private Automobile Option B:

Ferry Option C:

Express Ferry Option D:

Train

Your trip will cost… $4.00 toll (Southbound) $17.30 ferry fare each way OR$60.00 ferry fare including car

$26.25 ferry fare each way $15.00 train fare each way

Your trip will take… 2 hr. 25 min. drive 2 hr. 10 min. ferry ride 0 hr. 45 min. ferry ride 2 hr. 35 min. train ride

PLUS Access from home to the transit station or ferry terminal

PLUS • 25 min. walk, OR • 8 min. bike ride, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$2.50 extra fare, OR • 25 min. car trip with

$8.00 parking cost, OR • 25 min. car trip with 10 min.

boarding with your car

PLUS • 25 min. walk, OR • 8 min. bike ride, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$2.50 extra fare, OR • 25 min. car trip with

$8.00 parking cost

PLUS • 25 min. walk, OR • 8 min. bike ride, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$2.50 extra fare, OR • 25 min. car trip with

$8.00 parking cost

PLUS Access to your final destination

PLUS $10.00 parking cost, with 25 min. walk from parking

PLUS • 25 min. walk, OR • 15 min. taxi ride with

$5.00 extra fare, OR • 15 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare

PLUS • 25 min. walk, OR • 15 min. taxi ride with

$5.00 extra fare, OR • 15 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare

PLUS • 25 min. walk, OR • 15 min. taxi ride with

$20.00 extra fare, OR • 15 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare

Service schedule Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 30 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 30 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., with a train or bus every: • 30 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

1. Which of the five options above would you choose? (circle one)

A: DRIVE B1: FERRY WITHOUT CAR

B2: FERRY WITH CAR

C: EXPRESS FERRY

D: TRANSIT

2. If you chose option B1, C, or D, how would you get from home to the transit station ferry terminal? (circle one)

A: WALK B: BIKE C: TRANSIT D: DRIVE AND PARK

E: GET A RIDE

3. If you chose option B1, C, or D, how would you get from the transit station or ferry terminal to your destination? (circle one)

A: WALK B: TAXI C: TRANSIT

Page 245: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Choice Exercise 3: Transportation Options for Your Trip

Page 5

Your choices are: Option A:

Private Automobile Option B:

Ferry Option C:

Express Ferry Option D:

Train

Your trip will cost… $2.00 toll (Southbound) $17.30 ferry fare each way OR$60.00 ferry fare including car

$26.25 ferry fare each way $12.00 train fare each way

Your trip will take… 2 hr. 0 min. drive 2 hr. 10 min. ferry ride 0 hr. 40 min. ferry ride 2 hr. 40 min. train ride

PLUS Access from home to the transit station or ferry terminal

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 7 min. bike ride, OR • 20 min. transit trip with

$1.50 extra fare, OR • 20 min. car trip with

$4.00 parking cost, OR • 20 min. car trip with 10 min.

boarding with your car

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 7 min. bike ride, OR • 20 min. transit trip with

$1.50 extra fare, OR • 20 min. car trip with

$4.00 parking cost

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 7 min. bike ride, OR • 20 min. transit trip with

$1.50 extra fare, OR • 20 min. car trip with

$4.00 parking cost

PLUS Access to your final destination

PLUS $10.00 parking cost, with 20 min. walk from parking

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 30 min. taxi ride with

$30.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 30 min. taxi ride with

$30.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 30 min. taxi ride with

$10.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

Service schedule Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 15 min. in commute hours • 60 min. during midday • 60 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 15 min. in commute hours • 60 min. during midday • 60 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., with a train or bus every: • 60 min. in commute hours • 120 min. during midday • 120 min. in the evening

1. Which of the five options above would you choose? (circle one)

A: DRIVE B1: FERRY WITHOUT CAR

B2: FERRY WITH CAR

C: EXPRESS FERRY

D: TRANSIT

2. If you chose option B1, C, or D, how would you get from home to the transit station ferry terminal? (circle one)

A: WALK B: BIKE C: TRANSIT D: DRIVE AND PARK

E: GET A RIDE

3. If you chose option B1, C, or D, how would you get from the transit station or ferry terminal to your destination? (circle one)

A: WALK B: TAXI C: TRANSIT

Page 246: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Choice Exercise 4: Transportation Options for Your Trip

Page 6

Your choices are: Option A:

Private Automobile Option B:

Ferry Option C:

Express Ferry Option D:

Train

Your trip will cost… $3.50 toll (Southbound) $6.90 ferry fare each way OR $24.15 ferry fare including car

$10.50 ferry fare each way $15.00 train fare each way

Your trip will take… 2 hr. 45 min. drive 2 hr. 1 min. ferry ride 0 hr. 45 min. ferry ride 2 hr. 25 min. train ride

PLUS Access from home to the transit station or ferry terminal

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 7 min. bike ride, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$1.50 extra fare, OR • 20 min. car trip with

Free parking cost, OR • 20 min. car trip with 10 min.

boarding with your car

PLUS • 20 min. walk, OR • 7 min. bike ride, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$1.50 extra fare, OR • 20 min. car trip with

Free parking cost

PLUS • 25 min. walk, OR • 8 min. bike ride, OR • 15 min. transit trip with

$2.50 extra fare, OR • 25 min. car trip with

$2.00 parking cost

PLUS Access to your final destination

PLUS $15.00 parking cost, with 25 min. walk from parking

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 25 min. taxi ride with

$5.00 extra fare, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 25 min. taxi ride with

$5.00 extra fare, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

PLUS • 30 min. walk, OR • 20 min. taxi ride with

$10.00 extra fare, OR • 20 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare

Service schedule Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 60 min. in commute hours • 120 min. during midday • 120 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 60 min. in commute hours • 120 min. during midday • 120 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., with a train or bus every: • 120 min. in commute hours • 120 min. during midday • 120 min. in the evening

1. Which of the five options above would you choose? (circle one)

A: DRIVE B1: FERRY WITHOUT CAR

B2: FERRY WITH CAR

C: EXPRESS FERRY

D: TRANSIT

2. If you chose option B1, C, or D, how would you get from home to the transit station ferry terminal? (circle one)

A: WALK B: BIKE C: TRANSIT D: DRIVE AND PARK

E: GET A RIDE

3. If you chose option B1, C, or D, how would you get from the transit station or ferry terminal to your destination? (circle one)

A: WALK B: TAXI C: TRANSIT

Page 247: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

10/15/2003

Ms. Donna Smith 22 Heburn Rd Hamden, CT 6517

Dear Ms. Smith:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research is conducting the survey, in cooperation with the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council.

Travelers through the greater New York Area continue to express frustration at growing roadway congestion and a lack of travel options. As part of ongoing efforts to understand the transportation needs of people, like yourself, we would like to know how you travel and what factors are important in your travel decisions. The best way to find out is to ask you. The information you provide will help us identify how to expand and improve travel options for people in your community.

You are one of a small number of people who are being asked to give their opinions on these matters. A few days ago, you received a call from our researchers and indicated a willingness to participate in this survey. In order that our results truly represent the thinking of travelers throughout the greater New York area, it is important that all survey questions are answered.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The survey has an identification number for mailing and retrieval purposes only. Your name will never be placed on the survey, and your responses will not be sold to or shared with any other group or individual.

We will contact you in a few days to gather your survey responses. Our interviewer will ask you to refer to this survey packet when she/he calls you to do the telephone survey, so please keep it near the phone. If you would like, you may review the enclosed survey and prepare your answers prior to our return call.

Sincerely,

Jon Canapary Project Director Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research (800) 877-1201

Page 248: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Please review all of the questions. One of our researchers will contact you in a few days

to gather your answers.

A Survey of Resident’s Preferences

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Travel Options in the Greater New York Area

Page 249: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Page 1

TRAVEL OPTIONS IN THE GREATER NEW YORK AREA A SURVEY OF RESIDENT’S PREFERENCES

INTRODUCTION Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. On the following pages, you will be asked to evaluate several alternative travel options for the trip that you described during the recent telephone survey. The trip that you described had the following features:

Trip from your home to the destination

Trip Origin: Hamden, CT

Trip Destination: New York City, NY

Trip Purpose: Recreation (Casino)

Time Period: Weekday, Evening

4

We will be calling you in a few days to ask you to respond to the questions in this booklet. During that call, we will also ask you a few additional questions about the trip you described. Please keep this survey booklet in a convenient place so that you can refer to the questions when we call you. Please feel free to review the survey booklet and prepare your answers prior to our return call.

Many of the questions in this survey booklet and those that will be asked during our return call will ask you to consider the specific conditions related to your trip that has the features described above. In answering these questions, please think about your most recent actual trip that had those features, and remember how you made your travel choice.

If you have any questions regarding the survey, please ask the interviewer during our return call.

Page 250: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Page 2

HOW WOULD YOU TRAVEL?

In this section, we would like you to evaluate different potential transportation services that might be available in the near future for travelers. These transportation services are based on current services, but they may have slightly different features from the services now being offered.

To evaluate the transportation services, please consider the trip that you told us about on the phone and that is summarized on page 1 of this booklet. In the exercises that follow, we will ask you to choose among several different transportation options for completing this trip. These transportation options include:

• Travel in a private auto;

• Bus or rail transit; and

• Express ferry transit for passengers only.

The following pages contain a series of three choice exercises, each one offering a choice among four different ways you could make a trip such as your most recent trip from Hamden to New York City for Recreation (Casino).

• For each exercise, please assume that the only available travel options are the three that are shown. Please compare the options, and then select the way that you would have traveled if those were your available choices.

• Please assume that the transit (including ferry) options shown in the exercises are operating and available to you, even though they may not currently exist.

• Please answer the questions as realistically as possible, with the specific needs of the trip you have described in mind.

• Please do not choose the drive option if you do not have an auto available to you for making such a trip.

Page 251: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Choice Exercise 1: Transportation Options for Your Trip

Page 3

Your choices are: Option A:

Private Automobile Option B:

Express Ferry Option C:

Train

Your trip will cost… $3.50 toll (Southbound) $46.50 ferry fare each way $7.00 train fare each way

Your trip will take… 5 hr. 0 min. drive 1 hr. 30 min. ferry ride 1hr. 50 min. train ride

PLUS Access from home to the transit station or ferry terminal

PLUS • 30 min. walk, OR • 10 min. bike ride, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. car trip with

Free parking cost

PLUS • 30 min. walk, OR • 10 min. bike ride, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. car trip with

Free parking cost

PLUS Access to your final destination

PLUS $15.00 parking cost, with 30 min. walk from parking

PLUS • 30 min. walk, OR • 30 min. taxi ride with

$30.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

PLUS • 30 min. walk, OR • 30 min. taxi ride with

$30.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

Service schedule Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 60 min. in commute hours • 120 min. during midday • 120 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., with a train or bus every: • 60 min. in commute hours • 120 min. during midday • 120 min. in the evening

1. Which of the three options above would you choose? (circle one)

A: DRIVE B: EXPRESS FERRY

C: TRANSIT

2. If you chose option B or C, how would you get from home to the transit station ferry terminal? (circle one)

A: WALK B: BIKE C: TRANSIT D: DRIVE AND PARK

E: GET A RIDE

3. If you chose option B or C, how would you get from the transit station or ferry terminal to your destination? (circle one)

A: WALK B: TAXI C: TRANSIT

Page 252: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Choice Exercise 2: Transportation Options for Your Trip

Page 4

Your choices are: Option A:

Private Automobile Option B:

Express Ferry Option C:

Train

Your trip will cost… $4.00 toll (Southbound) $31.00 ferry fare each way $5.00 train fare each way

Your trip will take… 3 hr. 35 min. drive 1 hr. 20 min. ferry ride 1 hr. 40 min. train ride

PLUS Access from home to the transit station or ferry terminal

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 5 min. bike ride, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare, OR • 20 min. car trip with

$8.00 parking cost

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 5 min. bike ride, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$1.50 extra fare, OR • 30 min. car trip with

$2.00 parking cost

PLUS Access to your final destination

PLUS $15.00 parking cost, with 25 min. walk from parking

PLUS • 30 min. walk, OR • 20 min. taxi ride with

$12.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$1.50 extra fare

PLUS • $20.00 min. walk, OR • 30 min. taxi ride with

$20.00 extra fare, OR • 20 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

Service schedule Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 30 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., with a train or bus every: • 15 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

1. Which of the three options above would you choose? (circle one)

A: DRIVE B: EXPRESS FERRY

C: TRANSIT

2. If you chose option B or C, how would you get from home to the transit station ferry terminal? (circle one)

A: WALK B: BIKE C: TRANSIT D: DRIVE AND PARK

E: GET A RIDE

3. If you chose option B or C, how would you get from the transit station or ferry terminal to your destination? (circle one)

A: WALK B: TAXI C: TRANSIT

Page 253: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Choice Exercise 3: Transportation Options for Your Trip

Page 5

Your choices are: Option A:

Private Automobile Option B:

Express Ferry Option C:

Train

Your trip will cost… $4.00 toll (Southbound) $31.00 ferry fare each way $5.00 train fare each way

Your trip will take… 5 hr. 0 min. drive 0 hr. 30 min. ferry ride 1 hr. 40 min. train ride

PLUS Access from home to the transit station or ferry terminal

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 5 min. bike ride, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare, OR • 20 min. car trip with

$8.00 parking cost

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 5 min. bike ride, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$1.50 extra fare, OR • 30 min. car trip with

$2.00 parking cost

PLUS Access to your final destination

PLUS $15.00 parking cost, with 25 min. walk from parking

PLUS • 30 min. walk, OR • 20 min. taxi ride with

$12.00 extra fare, OR • 30 min. transit trip with

$1.50 extra fare

PLUS • $20.00 min. walk, OR • 30 min. taxi ride with

$20.00 extra fare, OR • 20 min. transit trip with

$3.00 extra fare

Service schedule Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 30 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., with a train or bus every: • 15 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

1. Which of the three options above would you choose? (circle one)

A: DRIVE B: EXPRESS FERRY

C: TRANSIT

2. If you chose option B or C, how would you get from home to the transit station ferry terminal? (circle one)

A: WALK B: BIKE C: TRANSIT D: DRIVE AND PARK

E: GET A RIDE

3. If you chose option B or C, how would you get from the transit station or ferry terminal to your destination? (circle one)

A: WALK B: TAXI C: TRANSIT

Page 254: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Choice Exercise 4: Transportation Options for Your Trip

Page 6

Your choices are: Option A:

Private Automobile Option B:

Express Ferry Option C:

Train

Your trip will cost… $5.00 toll (Southbound) $38.75 ferry fare each way $5.00 train fare each way

Your trip will take… 2 hr. 10 min. drive 1 hr. 15 min. ferry ride 1 hr. 35 min. train ride

PLUS Access from home to the transit station or ferry terminal

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 5 min. bike ride, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare, OR • 15 min. car trip with

$2.00 parking cost

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 5 min. bike ride, OR • 15 min. transit trip with

$2.00 extra fare, OR • 15 min. car trip with

$2.00 parking cost

PLUS Access to your final destination

PLUS $15.00 parking cost, with 20 min. walk from parking

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 25 min. taxi ride with

$12.00 extra fare, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$2.50 extra fare

PLUS • 15 min. walk, OR • 25 min. taxi ride with

$25.00 extra fare, OR • 25 min. transit trip with

$2.50 extra fare

Service schedule Service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a ferry every: • 15 min. in commute hours • 60 min. during midday • 60 min. in the evening

Service from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., with a train or bus every: • 15 min. in commute hours • 90 min. during midday • 90 min. in the evening

1. Which of the three options above would you choose? (circle one)

A: DRIVE B: EXPRESS FERRY

C: TRANSIT

2. If you chose option B or C, how would you get from home to the transit station ferry terminal? (circle one)

A: WALK B: BIKE C: TRANSIT D: DRIVE AND PARK

E: GET A RIDE

3. If you chose option B or C, how would you get from the transit station or ferry terminal to your destination? (circle one)

A: WALK B: TAXI C: TRANSIT

Page 255: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 1 -

NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL TRAVELER CHOICE AND ATTITUDE SURVEY

Retrieval Survey Final (4/14/03)

1. Hello, my name is ______________________, and I’m calling from Corey, Canapary &

Galanis Research. May I please speak with [Respondent name]? Refusal 1 Thank/Terminate Transferring to correct respondent 2 {Q. 2} Correct respondent not available 3 {arrange callback} 2. I’m calling to follow up on the survey you started on [RecruitDay and Date]. When we

spoke to you before, we told you we were going to mail you some survey materials in a large white envelope (With red lettering...it has a red box which says: “New York Travel Survey”). Do you have these materials or can you get them now?

Yes 1 {Q. 5} No, Misplaced 2 {Q. 3} No, Never Received 3 {Q. 3} 3. Can I arrange to send you some replacement materials? Yes 1 {Q. 4} No/Refuse 2 Thank/Terminate 4. We will be re-sending you the survey materials in the next few days. We would like to

call you back in about a week to collect your responses. Is [interview time] a good time to reach you? Establish alternate callback time as necessary.

Record an agreed-upon time ____ Thank/Terminate

INTRODUCTION

Page 256: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 2 -

5. {Once the respondent has mailout materials) As you may recall, we spoke to you about a trip you made between your home and a destination in [destcity] near the intersection of [dest street 1] and [dest street 2]. You told us that you traveled for the purpose of [purpose]. Do you recall your most recent trip that fits this description?

Yes 1 {Q. 6} No/Refuse 2 Thank/Terminate 6. Now, I would like to ask you for some more details about your most recent trip like this.

How many days per week do you usually travel to this place for [purpose] during [period]?

Less than once per week 0 {Q. 7} One day 1 {Q. 7} Two days 2 {Q. 7} Three days 3 {Q. 7} Four days 4 {Q. 7} Five days 5 {Q. 7} Six days 6 {Q. 7} Seven days 7 {Q. 7} 7. On your most recent trip to this place for [purpose], how did you travel? (Do not read

responses, but prompt and clarify, as necessary) Drove alone in a private vehicle (car, pick-up, SUV, motorcycle, etc.) 1 {Q. 11a} Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 1 other person for at least part of the way 2 {Q. 11a} Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 2 or more other people in vehicle for at least part of the way 3 {Q. 11a} Public transit bus 4 {Q. 8} Rail / Train 5 {Q. 8} Ferry 6 {Q. 8} Dedicated van service 7 {Q. 8} Taxi 8 {Q. 8} Other (specify): ______________ 9 {Q. 11a} Don’t know 10 {Q. 11a} Refuse 11 {Q. 11a}

Page 257: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 3 -

8. How did you get between your home and the [mode] system? (Do not read responses, but prompt and clarify, as necessary)

Drove alone in a private vehicle (car, pick-up, SUV, motorcycle, etc.) 1 {Q.9} Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 1 other person for at least part of the way 2 {Q.9} Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 2 or more other people in vehicle for at least part of the way 3 {Q.9} Walk 4 {Q.9} Bicycle 5 {Q.9} Public transit bus 6 {Q.9} Rail / Train 7 {Q.9} Taxi 8 {Q.9} Other (specify): ______________ 9 {Q.9} Don’t know 10 {Q.9} Refuse 11 {Q.9} 9. And how did you get between the [mode] system and your destination in [destcity]?

(Do not read responses, but prompt and clarify, as necessary) Drove alone in a private vehicle (car, pick-up, SUV, motorcycle, etc.) 1 {Q.10} Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 1 other person for at least part of the way 2 {Q.10} Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with 2 or more other people in vehicle for at least part of the way 3 {Q.10} Walk 4 {Q.10} Bicycle 5 {Q.10} Public transit bus 6 {Q.10} Rail / Train 7 {Q.10} Subway 8 {Q.10} Taxi 9 {Q.10} Other (specify): _______________ 10 {Q.10} Don’t know 11 {Q.10} Refuse 12 {Q.10} 10. (If Q8=1 skip to Q.12, otherwise ask: ) Was there a private vehicle available that you could

have used for making your trip that day to your destination in [destcity] or to the [mode] system?

Yes 1 {Q. 12} No 2 {Q. 12} Don’t know 3 {Q. 12} Refuse 4 {Q. 12}

Page 258: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 4 -

11a. (If Q7 = 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, skip to Q.12; otherwise ask: ) Did you pay to park at your destination in [destcity]?

Yes 1 {Q. 11b} No 2 {Q. 12} Don’t know 3 {Q. 12} Refuse 4 {Q. 12} 11b. How much did you pay to park at your destination in [destcity]? Record parking price in cents (DK/refuse=99999) {Q. 11c} Total price for parking provided 1 {Q. 11c} Monthly rate provided 2 {Q. 11c} Annual rate provided 3 {Q. 11c} 11c. Did anyone subsidize or reimburse the parking cost, or did you pay to park yourself? Subsidized/reimbursed 1 {Q. 12} Partially subsidized/reimbursed 2 {Q. 12} Paid for parking themselves 3 {Q. 12} Partially paid for parking themselves 4 {Q. 12} Don’t know 5 {Q. 12} Refuse 9 {Q. 12} 12. Again, thinking about the last time you traveled from your home to that destination in

[destcity], what time of day did you arrive at your destination? Record military time-of-day (DK/refuse=12:59) ___________ {Q. 13} 13. When you made the trip, did you make any stops on the way for any of the following

reasons… (Read responses, check all that apply) a. Drop-off or pick-up passengers 1/0 b. Purchase fuel for a vehicle 1/0 c. Meal or refreshment 1/0 d. Other shopping 1/0 e. Work-related errand 1/0 f. Social visit 1/0 g. Recreation or entertainment 1/0 h. Other (specify): ____________ 1/0 No Stops 1/0 Note: Field 10 is No Other/Next Question. It is an ‘out’ code used by the computer. 14. What would you say your total door-to-door travel time from home to your destination

was (not including time spent making any stops)? Record time estimate in minutes. (DK=999) ___________ {Q. 15}

Page 259: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 5 -

14a. How many total people (including yourself) were in your group on this trip? _________ (Write in number. DK/refuse=99999) (If more than one in Q14a) 14b. How many of (in your group) were under 18 years old? _________ (Write in number. DK/refuse=99999) 15. When you returned from your destination to your home on that most recent trip, what

time of day did you arrive at your home? Record military time-of-day (DK/refuse=12:59) ___________ {Q. 16} 16. When you made that return trip, did you make any stops on the way for any of the

following reasons… (Read responses, check all that apply) a. Drop-off or pick-up passengers 1/0 b. Purchase fuel for a vehicle 1/0 c. Meal or refreshment 1/0 d. Other shopping 1/0 e. Work-related errand 1/0 f. Social visit 1/0 g. Recreation or entertainment 1/0 h. Other (specify): ___________ 1/0 No Stops 1/0 Note: Field 10 is No Other/Next Question. It is an ‘out’ code used by the computer. [INTEVIEWER: Enter Options Code.] 1 = 3 columns (3 options listed) 2 = 4 columns (5 options listed or 4 options listed for the Manhattan Commuter segment) 17. Now I would like you to refer to the booklet we mailed to you. Page 1 of this booklet

introduces you to the booklet. Page 2 introduces the “choice exercises” on the following pages. Pages 3 through 6 present four “choice exercises”, with each exercise showing different options that you might have for traveling between your home and your destination. {Note to interviewer: Respondent should not select a “private automobile” option if there are no vehicles available to the household.} Please turn to page 3 of your booklet. This page is titled “Choice Exercise 1: Transportation Options for Your Trip.” Please review the four options that are presented on this page. Remember, we are interested in the specific trip we have been discussing.

Page 260: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 6 -

18a. If these were the only options available to you, which option would you have selected for your recent trip… (Read responses, check one only)

Private Automobile 1 {Q.19a} Ferry (without car) 2 {Q.18b} Ferry (with car) 3 {Q.19a} Express Ferry 4 {Q.18b} Train* 5 {Q.18b} Commuter Rail to Express Ferry* 7 {Q.18b}

Don’t Know 6 {Q.19a} *For the Manhattan commuter segment interviews: Train listed as “Commuter Rail” and “Commuter Rail to Express Ferry” was added as an option. 18b. Based on the options presented in Question #2, how would you travel between your

home and the [Q.18a] system? a. Walk 1 {Q. 18c} b. Bike 2 {Q. 18c} c. Transit 3 {Q. 18c} d. Drive a car and park 4 {Q. 18c} e. Get a ride by car 5 {Q. 18c} Other (specify) 6 {Q. 18c} Don’t Know 7 {Q. 18c} 18c. Based on the options presented in Question #3, how would you travel between the

[Q.18a] system and your destination near the intersection of [deststreet 1] and [deststreet 2]?

a. Walk 1 {Q. 19a} b. Taxi 2 {Q. 19a} c. Transit 3 {Q. 19a} Shuttle* 4 {Q. 19a} Other (specify) 5 {Q. 19a} Don’t Know 6 {Q. 19a}

*Shuttle not listed on mailout but will most likely be a response for trips by ferry where the trip purpose is “trip to Casino”.

Page 261: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 7 -

19a. Now please turn to page 4 of your booklet. This page is titled “Choice Exercise 2: Transportation Options for Your Trip.” Please review the three/five options that are presented on this page. If these were the only options available to you, which option would you have selected for your recent trip… (Read responses, check one only)

Private Automobile 1 {Q. 20a} Ferry (without car) 2 {Q. 19b} Ferry (with car) 3 {Q. 20a} Express Ferry 4 {Q. 19b} Train* 5 {Q. 19b} Commuter Rail to Express Ferry* 7 {Q. 19b} Don’t Know 6 {Q. 20a} *For the Manhattan commuter segment interviews: Train listed as “Commuter Rail” and “Commuter Rail to Express Ferry” was added as an option. 19b. Based on the options presented in Question #2, how would you travel between your

home and the [Q.19a] system? a. Walk 1 {Q. 19c} b. Bike 2 {Q. 19c} c. Transit 3 {Q. 19c} d. Drive a car and park 4 {Q. 19c} e. Get a ride by car 5 {Q. 19c} Other (specify) 6 {Q. 19c} Don’t Know 7 {Q. 19c} 19c. Based on the options presented in Question #3, how would you travel between the

[Q.19a] system and your destination near the intersection of [deststreet 1] and [deststreet 2]?

a. Walk 1 {Q. 20a} b. Taxi 2 {Q. 20a} c. Transit 3 {Q. 20a} Shuttle* 4 {Q. 20a} Other (specify) 5 {Q. 20a} Don’t Know 6 {Q. 20a}

*Shuttle not listed on mailout but will most likely be a response for trips by ferry where the trip

purpose is “trip to Casino”.

Page 262: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 8 -

20a. Now please turn to page 5 of your booklet. This page is titled “Choice Exercise 3: Transportation Options for Your Trip.” Please review the three/five options that are presented on this page. If these were the only options available to you, which option would you have selected for your recent trip… (Read responses, check one only)

Private Automobile 1 {Q. 21a} Ferry (without car) 2 {Q. 20b} Ferry (with car) 3 {Q. 21a} Express Ferry 4 {Q. 20b} Train* 5 {Q. 20b} Commuter Rail to Express Ferry* 7 {Q. 20b} Don’t Know 6 {Q. 21a} *For the Manhattan commuter segment interviews: Train listed as “Commuter Rail” and “Commuter Rail to Express Ferry” was added as an option. 20b. Based on the options presented in Question #2, how would you travel between your

home and the [Q.20a] system? a. Walk 1 {Q. 20c} b. Bike 2 {Q. 20c} c. Transit 3 {Q. 20c} d. Drive a car and park 4 {Q. 20c} e. Get a ride by car 5 {Q. 20c} Other (specify) 6 {Q. 20c} Don’t Know 7 {Q. 20c} 20c. Based on the options presented in Question #3, how would you travel between the [Q.20a] system and your destination near the intersection of [deststreet 1] & [deststreet 2]? a. Walk 1 {Q. 21a} b. Taxi 2 {Q. 21a} c. Transit 3 {Q. 21a} Shuttle* 4 {Q. 21a} Other (specify) 5 {Q. 21a} Don’t Know 6 {Q. 21a}

*Shuttle not listed on mailout but will most likely be a response for trips by ferry where the trip purpose is “trip to Casino”.

21a. Now please turn to page 6 of your booklet. This page is titled “Choice Exercise 4:

Transportation Options for Your Trip.” Please review the three/five options that are presented on this page. If these were the only options available to you, which option would you have selected for your recent trip… (Read responses, check one only)

Private Automobile 1 {Q. 22} Ferry (without car) 2 {Q. 21b} Ferry (with car) 3 {Q. 22} Express Ferry 4 {Q. 21b} Train* 5 {Q. 21b} Commuter Rail to Express Ferry* 7 {Q. 21b} Don’t Know 6 {Q. 22} *For the Manhattan commuter segment interviews: Train listed as “Commuter Rail” and “Commuter Rail to Express Ferry” was added as an option.

Page 263: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 9 -

21b. Based on the options presented in Question #2, how would you travel between your home and the [Q.21a] system

a. Walk 1 {Q. 21c} b. Bike 2 {Q. 21c} c. Transit 3 {Q. 21c} d. Drive a car and park 4 {Q. 21c} e. Get a ride by car 5 {Q. 21c} Other (specify) 6 {Q. 21c} Don’t Know 7 {Q. 21c} 21c. Based on the options presented in Question #3, how would you travel between the

[Q.21a] system and your destination near the intersection of [deststreet 1] and [deststreet 2]?

a. Walk 1 {Q. 22} b. Taxi 2 {Q. 22} c. Transit 3 {Q. 22} Shuttle* 4 {Q. 22} Other (specify) 5 {Q. 22} Don’t Know 6 {Q. 22}

*Shuttle not listed on mailout but will most likely be a response for trips by ferry where the trip purpose is “trip to Casino”.

22. Now to finish up, I would like to ask you a few questions for classification purposes

only. All your responses will be kept strictly confidential. In which of these categories does your age fall? (Read responses, check one only)

18 to 24 years old 1 {Q. 23} 25 to 34 2 {Q. 23} 35 to 44 3 {Q. 23} 45 to 54 4 {Q. 23} 55 to 64 5 {Q. 23} 65 to 74 6 {Q. 23} 75 and over 7 {Q. 23} (DO NOT READ) Refuse 8 {Q. 23} 23. What is your current marital status? (Read responses, check one only) Single 1 {Q. 24} Married / living with partner 2 {Q. 24} Divorced/separated 3 {Q. 24} Widowed 4 {Q. 24} (DO NOT READ) Refuse 5 {Q. 24} (Note: there is no Q.24)

Page 264: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 10 -

25. Including yourself, how many people currently live in your household? Record number (Refuse=99). ___________ {Q. 26} Note: if ‘1’ or ‘99’ skip to Q.27 26. And how many of these people in your household are under the age of 18? Record number (Refuse=99). ___________ {Q. 27} 27. Including yourself, how many of the people in your household work outside the home,

either on a full-time or part-time basis? Record number (Refuse=99). ___________ {Q. 28} 28. How many registered vehicles including cars, light trucks, vans, or motorcycles are

available to members of your household? Record number (Refuse=99). ___________ {Q. 29} 28a. Can you give me a rough estimate of how much it costs (would cost) you to drive your vehicle for the one-way trip from your home to ____________ [trip destination]? This would include all car related costs, but not tolls, parking or fares.

[INTERVIEWER: If asked, you may explain that the car related costs include: gas, car payments, upkeep, insurance, etc.]

$ _________________

[INTERVIEWER: Round to nearest whole dollar amount. If Don't know type in '9999'. Note: this question was not asked of all respondents, it was added after many of the callback interviews had been completed]

29. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? (Read responses, check one only) Some high school or less (Grade 1-11) 1 {Q. 30} High school graduate or equivalent 2 {Q. 30} Some college or technical school 3 {Q. 30} College graduate 4 {Q. 30} Graduate or Professional Degree 5 {Q. 30} (DO NOT READ) Refuse 6 {Q. 30}

Page 265: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 11 -

30. What is your current job status? (Read responses, check one only) Employed full-time 1 {Q. 31} Employed part-time 2 {Q. 31} Unemployed 3 {Q. 32} Retired 4 {Q. 32} Homemaker 5 {Q. 32} Student 6 {Q. 32} Disabled 7 {Q. 32} (DO NOT READ) Refuse 8 {Q. 32} 31. Do you receive any reimbursement from your employer (or company).... a. for parking costs paid on your work commute trips? (probe for full or partial

reimbursement) Yes, full reimbursement 1 {Q31b} Yes, partial reimbursement 2 {Q31b} No, no reimbursement 3 {Q31b} b. for bridge or highway toll costs paid on your work commute trips? (probe for full or

partial reimbursement) Yes, full reimbursement 1 {Q31c} Yes, partial reimbursement 2 {Q31c} No, no reimbursement 3 {Q31c} c. for public transit costs paid on your work commute trips? (probe for full or partial

reimbursement) Yes, full reimbursement 1 {Q32} Yes, partial reimbursement 2 {Q32} No, no reimbursement 3 {Q32} 32. What was your approximate total year 2002 annual household income before taxes?

(Read responses, check one only) Under $15,000 1 {Q. 33} $15,000 to under $25,000 2 {Q. 33} $25,000 to under $50,000 3 {Q. 33} $50,000 to under $75,000 4 {Q. 33} $75,000 to under $100,000 5 {Q. 33} $100,000 to under $150,000 6 {Q. 33} $150,000 or more 7 {Q. 33} (DO NOT READ) Refuse 8 {Q. 33} 33. That’s all our questions! Thank you so much for your help. If Appropriate, add: Information from this survey will help to shape transportation planning

decisions in the greater New York area. Comments by respondent:

Page 266: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

New York Travel Choice and Attitude Survey

- 12 -

34. (Record gender) Male 1 Complete Female 2 Complete Pick up from Sample Sheet (R_resp#) Respondent Number from Recruiting Questionnaire: ______ (Note: Use this respondent number to link retrieval data to any additional recruit data) Contact Information First Name: __________________________ Last Name: __________________________ Phone Number: __________________________ Recruit questionnaire data for specific questions: R_Q1a (home county) _____ R_Q2dest (trip destination) _____ R_Q2a_____ R_Q2b_____ R_Q2c_____ R_Q2d_____ R_Q2e_____ R_Q2f_____ R_Q2g____ R_Q14 (weekday/weekend trip) _____ R_Q14a (peak/offpeak) _____ R_Q15 (door-to-door travel time) _____ (Date) Date Callback Interview Completed: _____ (Code numbers used for dates, 1 = 2/20, 2 = 2/21,...32 = 3/17) (ADDEXPL) Field added to indicate interviews where the additional express ferry amenity explanation was included in the interviewer’s explanation of choice exercises to respondents. This explanation included on all interviews from 3-4-03 and on. ADDEXPL = 1. Indicates additional ferry amenity explanation was included. (ADDCARC) Field added to indicate interviews where the car costs question (Q.28a) was added. This question was only asked if the respondent had one or more vehicles available to the household (Q.28). This question was added on 3-7-03. ADDCARC = 1. Indicates car question asked (if respondent had car available).

Page 267: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Appendix C Freight Surveys and Mode Choice Models

Page 268: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-1

Appendix C

Freight Surveys and Mode Choice Models

Freight Forecasting and Diversion Model

The purpose of this section is to describe in greater detail the methodologies used to develop the freight forecasting and modal diversion (highway to marine) model for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan (LISWTP). The model was adapted from work performed under the New York Cross Harbor Freight Movement Environmental Impact Study (the “Cross Harbor Study”), and will be used to determine the modal diversion (from truck to barge or ferry) potential associated with waterborne system improvements to be proposed in the LISWTP.

Overview of Methodology

The transportation impacts of freight movement can be analyzed using the standard four-step transportation planning process. This analytical approach is identical to that used on passenger transportation projects, with the only difference being the sources of data. This process, and the data sources that support it, are summarized in Table C.1 on the following page.

The role of the mode choice model is to estimate how many trips would divert from their existing modes to other modes, based on how well each mode serves a shipper’s specific transportation service needs and requirements. The mode change data (reflecting trucks removed from the highway network) can then be incorporated into regional travel demand models, which reassign the remaining highway traffic.

Page 269: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

C-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table C.1 Four-Step Transportation Planning Process Applied to Freight

Step Data Source Comparable Data Source for

Passenger Transportation Study

Trip Generation Reebie Associates TRANSEARCH database

Regional economic and demographic forecasts

Trip Distribution Reebie Associates TRANSEARCH database

Regional household or in-vehicle surveys

Mode Split Discrete (mode) choice model Discrete (mode) choice model or regional travel demand model

Trip Assignment Regional travel demand model Regional travel demand model

Trip Generation and Distribution

The total volume of freight moving into, out of, and through the region (trip generation) was determined for the planning region using the commodity flow data (TRANSEARCH) produced by Reebie Associates and forecast into the future by DRI-WEFA.1 This data was disaggregated by commodity, mode, and origin-destination pairs; hence, it also provides trip distribution data. In a typical passenger transportation study, trip generation forecasts would be developed using regionally generated estimates of future growth in population, employment, and land use.

The analysis also uses additional sources to augment the TRANSEARCH data in key areas. Most notably, all of the dollar values used in the report are based on average commodity values calculated from a regional selection of the 1993 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) pro-duced by the U.S. DOT.2 Because the tonnage of commodity flow is more critical in sizing the regional rail freight infrastructure than the value, greater emphasis is placed on the tonnage forecasts.

1 The planning region consists of the counties making up the regions of the New York

Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the North Jersey Transportation Planning Commission (NJTPA), and Southwestern Connecticut (Fairfield, New Haven, and Litchfield Counties). Other counties are reflected in the dataset as external zones.

2 All dollar values have been inflated to 2000 dollars using GDP inflation factors produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

Page 270: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-3

The TRANSEARCH database is compiled from a combination of publicly available goods movement sources, as well as direct reporting from shippers and carriers across the coun-try. It tracks goods movement information by point of origin, destination, commodity category, and mode of shipment. The data includes information on domestic moves within the United States by truck, rail, air, and marine modes. It also includes international goods movement from Canada and Mexico by both truck and rail. The dataset does not track pipeline movements, nor does it track international air and port goods movements. The focus of the project is on the diversion from truck to rail of North American overland freight traffic. However, domestic rail and truck movements serving international gate-ways are tracked in the data.3

The 2000 baseline data was also used to generate a forecast of commodity movements for the target analysis year of 2025. The future forecasts were generated by DRI-WEFA, using anticipated growth in employment/output for each economic market sector. The forecast reflects forecasted growth and contraction of local economies across North America, and the expansion or decline of major industry groups. The economic forecast was produced in December 2001, and accounts for the anticipated impacts of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the regional and national economies. The attacks were forecast to have a pro-nounced impact on regional economic growth in the near term, but it was anticipated that in the long-term the region would return to pre-September 11th growth rates.

Forecasted mode splits were generated by growing current commodity groups, assuming that existing mode shares would be maintained within each group. Any mode shifting is due entirely to changes in the regional mix of commodity flows. These future mode splits are, therefore, independent of capacity limitations or proposed changes to the transporta-tion system. Mode split changes because of project alternatives are estimated by means of the mode split model described below.

The Cross Harbor Study commodity flow analysis divided North America into 30 county-level “internal” analysis zones (as indicated in Figure C.1) and 22 multi-county “external” analysis zones (see Figure C.2).

The Cross Harbor Study commodity flow data represents the most accurate and compre-hensive information available for the region. In comparison to prior datasets, major enhancements include: a more detailed zone structure; improved reporting of rail traffic; and better reporting of warehousing and distribution volumes.

The current dataset documents roughly 582 million tons moving into, out of, within, and through the 30-county internal study area. Of this, roughly 164 million tons (28 percent) moves within the region and 417 million (72 percent) moves between the region and other points in North America. Because the intraregional flows represent primarily short-haul truck trips, they are unlikely candidates for diversion to rail (the focus of the Cross Harbor Study), but may be candidates for diversion to truck ferry or barge services.

3 Separate data from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) was used to

forecast international maritime traffic.

Page 271: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

C-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure C.1 County-Level Freight Flow Analysis Zones

The forecast of future commodity flows in the region is 70 percent (989 million tons) for the period 2000-2025, consistent with the U.S. DOT’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) for the nation as a whole. In comparison, the forecast increase in the number of trucks crossing the Hudson River screenline in the NYMTC Best Practices Model (BPM) is only 20 to 25 percent depending on the type of truck. As the region’s prosperity grows, the vol-ume of freight activity will increase relative to other economic indices such as population and employment. Factors such as population and employment are forecast to increase by six and 15 percent respectively between 1995 and 2020. The increasing specialization of economic activity across regions of the nation (and across nations of the world) means that a given level of economic activity generates more trade (and hence more freight traffic) than previously. The region once produced far more of the products that it now imports and consumes. This changing nature of economic activity in the region – the continuation of a long-term shift from manufacturing to a service-based economy – will change the nature of freight shipments from large bulk movements to smaller but more highly valued shipments.

Page 272: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-5

Figure C.2 External Freight Flow Analysis Zones

In a typical passenger transportation study, the distribution of trips (i.e., origin and desti-nation patterns) is determined by locally conducted surveys. However, this distribution is already embedded in the TRANSEARCH database, in the form of county-to-county ton-nage flow tables, divided by commodity type and mode. These tonnage flows are directly convertible to vehicle equivalents (trucks, railcars, etc.) using Federal data for load factors.

Mode Shift and Choice Modeling

The purpose of the freight mode choice model is to estimate the diversion of freight from truck to alternative moves. Hence, a trip generation methodology based on projecting truck counts into the future could not address this issue. Therefore, new surveys were conducted as part of the Cross Harbor Study to capture shippers’ preferences if new non-truck services are introduced with specified service levels. These surveys, called stated-preference surveys, are different from revealed-preference surveys, which measure travel-ers’ reactions to already existing service choices. These surveys were designed to provide

Page 273: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

C-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

insight into shipper receptivity to rail as an alternative to truck, but the results can also be applied to assess other alternative modes and services.

For the Cross Harbor Study, model development involved five key steps:

1. Defining level of service parameters for existing freight transportation options;

2. Fielding a stated-preference survey among regional freight shippers;

3. Creating a regional freight mode choice model based on the data collected in the ship-per choice survey;

4. Defining levels of service parameters for project alternatives to be tested (rail and railcar-on-barge alternatives, in the case of the Cross Harbor Study); and

5. Applying the mode choice model to specific alternatives to estimate the diversion potential.

For the LISWTP, steps 4 and 5 will be repeated, using level of service estimates corre-sponding to the different types of freight ferry service that could be offered.

Defining Level of Service Parameters

Measures of “Level of Service”

In building the existing freight mode choice model, level of service (LOS) tables were cre-ated for railroad and truck travel times, cost, and reliability between the North American external markets and the New York/northern New Jersey region. These tables were used to create reasonable service alternatives for the shipper survey and as inputs to the mode choice model. Five critical LOS measures were assessed:

1. Overall trip time;

2. Overall cost;

3. Delivery window;

4. Reliability within the delivery window; and

5. Frequency of service.

Truck Level of Service

Truck travel distances were calculated from each of the 22 external markets to the edge of the NYMTC model area region. The National Highway Planning Network was used to identify the highways used by trucks to travel between the region and the external mar-kets. The NYMTC Best Practices Model (BPM) for 2025 was used to determine the dis-tances and highway impacts and benefits within the study area. The highways included in the BPM were deleted from the National Highway Planning Network (NHPN). The

Page 274: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-7

remaining highway paths were used to identify the travel distances by highway outside of the NYMTC model area. The highway network and paths used are shown in Figure C.3.

Figure C.3 Freight Mode Choice Model External Highway Network

The distances from the edge of the NYMTC model area to the study area markets were cal-culated directly by the assignment module of the NYMTC model. The paths chosen were based on AM peak-period travel times. For the portion of the travel outside of the NYMTC model region, the truck was assumed to travel at 55 miles per hour (mph) over the dis-tances identified from the NHPN. For the portion of travel on the highways inside the NYMTC model region, the congested path assignments were used to identify the AM peak-period travel times.

The total of the external and within NYMTC region travel times outside of the region was further adjusted to account for the hours of service rules for truck drivers. The current hours of service rules require an eight-hour rest period after every 10 hours of driving. While teams of truck drivers allow for continuous driving, this study assumed solo truck drivers and the total LOS travel times were increased by eight hours after every 10 hours of travel.

The LOS truck costs were based on the times and distances identified as described above. The Characteristics and Changes in Freight Transportation Demand (Cambridge Systematics, NCHRP Project 8-30, 1995) gives the cost for a variety of trucking configurations. For the configuration that would apply to the broadest range of commodities, that of a five-axle 53’ dry van hauling a 33,000 pounds payload, the shipper’s cost was given as $1.20 per mile

Page 275: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

C-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

and, with 15 percent empty miles, as $1.40 per loaded mile in 1995 dollars. The report further suggests that the costs should be updated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index for non-local trucking. That index indicates that 2000 trucking costs have increased by 5.6 percent (2000 index = 108.1, 1995 index = 102.3). This would mean that the 2000 operating cost (charged to the shipper) should be $1.48 per loaded mile. For a cost per mile of $1.48 and an average travel speed of 55 mph, the cost would be $81 per loaded hour.

The toll costs in the EIS reflect current toll charges. On March 25, 2001, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) instituted congestion pricing in conjunction with a toll increase. The new toll for a five-axle truck would be $30 for cash at all times and for trucks using EzPass electronic toll collection would be $30 for peak hours (6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.), $17.50 overnight (midnight to 6:00 a.m.), and $25 off-peak (all other times). The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority’s toll rates have reflected EzPass since 1996. While congestion pricing is not in effect, there is a differential for trucks using EzPass. The rates for a five-axle truck on the Triborough, Whitestone, and Throgs Neck Bridges (north crossing) are $19 each way for cash and $15.20 for EzPass. The rates for a five-axle truck on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge (south crossing) are $16.50 for cash and $13.20 for EzPass (although they are col-lected at double this rate westbound only). For purposes of establishing the truck LOS, it was assumed that the peak hour rates on the PANYNJ bridges apply and that the EzPass rates apply on all other crossings.

The $1.48 per mile cost was applied to the external distances outside of the NYMTC model area. The $81 per hour cost was applied to the travel times from the NYMTC model, increased by 30 minutes for within market travel, plus the backhaul time. Based on the toll crossings used to reach the market area, the appropriate toll rates were added, including those for the backhaul trip.

As a final step in calculating the LOS truck costs, the total truck trip costs were divided by 17.5 tons, the average weight of a fully loaded payload found in the Census Bureau’s Vehicle Inventory and Usage Survey (VIUS) to develop market-to-market costs per ton.

Railroad Level of Service

The LISWTP is primarily concerned with diversion of truck traffic to ferry or barge alter-natives, but will also address the potential for railcar-on-ferry or “rail float” operations. This was one of the alternatives addressed in the Cross Harbor Freight Movement MIS and EIS, and is built into the existing freight mode choice model.

Levels of service were developed for each of the 22 exterior zones in the United States, Canada, and Mexico as defined by the commodity flow analysis, combined with the fol-lowing five destinations within the study area:

• Brooklyn;

• Queens;

Page 276: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-9

• Central Long Island;

• Bronx/Westchester/Southwestern Connecticut; and

• Manhattan.

Level of service measures were developed as follows:

• Time. Overall trip time indicated the actual time that a shipment would take to move from the shipper’s facility to the eventual end user. This time was built up from a line-haul routing analysis and a local analysis. As many as 250 different line-haul routings into the study area were considered for a single external origin, and an average of more than 4,000 line-haul routings into the study area were considered.

• Cost. Cost (to the shipper) indicated the actual total cost (per ton) that the shipper would experience in moving the product from the shipper’s facility to the eventual end user. As with trip time, cost considered both a line-haul cost from the point of origin to regional rail facilities and end users.

• Delivery window. The delivery window reflected the prevailing industry standards of what constitutes an on-time delivery.

• Reliability within the delivery window. Reliability was essentially built up in the same fashion as trip time. Both a line-haul routing and a local reliability were built up for each of the several thousand routings for each alternative.

• Frequency of Service. Frequency of service was based on both the actual frequency of line-haul service from an external zone into the study area and (in the case of carload service) the actual frequency of local trains within the study area.

Fielding the Stated-Preference Survey

In the stated-preference survey, different shipping alternatives were described in terms of the attributes that describe the alternative – travel time, cost, reliability, frequency of ser-vice, delivery window, mode, and destination. The values of each of these attributes were systematically varied from one survey form to the next, requiring different shippers to choose alternatives under varying levels of service. This information was then used to estimate a choice model to identify how shipping decision-makers traded off the attributes when making their shipping decisions.

This technique is typically used to forecast consumer response to products and services that do not presently exist. Typical applications include a new public transportation ser-vice such as a rapid transit system in a region with only bus service today, or innovative consumer products such as cellular telephones and paging devices. The advantage of this approach in comparison to standard survey techniques is that it tests respondent’s choice preference against a range of future service attributes, and these results are then used to develop a model that can predict choices under a specific set of service attributes.

Page 277: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

C-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

The sampling plan was designed to target truck shippers most likely to divert to rail. The sample was limited, therefore, to shipments that must travel across the river/harbor, are not already on rail for any part of the journey, have an origin and/or destination within the New York/northern New Jersey region, and are at least truckload size. The analysis was not limited to traditionally “rail-bound” commodities but looked instead at all commodities that move in significant quantities across the harbor and that are not already on rail. Sec-ond, the diversion potential was not assessed based on national trends but rather on the specific responses of New York-based shipping decision-makers.

The sample was based on receivers in 10 East-of-Hudson counties: Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau, Suffolk, New York (Manhattan), Bronx, Dutchess, Putnam, Westchester, and Fairfield (Connecticut) counties. Receivers were used as a starting point for the sur-veys. Data was collected on the shipments that they receive. If they were the decision-makers for how these shipments arrive, they were asked to complete the choice experiments to determine their use of potential new harbor crossing alternatives. If they were not the decision-makers, they were asked to identify the decision-maker, who was then called and asked to complete the choice experiments.

Many companies receiving goods in the East-of-Hudson market did so through distribu-tion centers located in a ring around the market: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. For those businesses that could identify a distri-bution center, the survey started at the distribution center as the decision-maker for ship-ments. In the unlikely event that the distribution center was not responsible for the shipment decision, the decision-maker was identified, called, and asked to complete the choice experiments. This led in some cases to the ultimate “originator” of the shipment (“the shipper”) who could be located anywhere in North America.

This analysis focused only on domestic (i.e., North American) shipments that either origi-nate in or are destined to (or both) locations within the 30-county New York/northern New Jersey region and that must cross the Hudson River. This includes intraregional shipments that have both an origin and a destination within the region, and interregional shipments that have either an origin or a destination in the region. In the case of interregional ship-ments, the shipment would originate in or be destined to one of the external North American regions. Because intraregional shipments tend to be short, it was expected that the results of the choice exercise would find the most diversion potential coming from the interregional trips, which account for the majority of commodity movements in the region.

Based on the information obtained on the way goods move in the region, the manufac-turing and wholesale Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes were used to identify likely receivers in the East-of-Hudson market. Businesses receiving truckload or larger sized shipments in the region were identified. Businesses that receive many of these ship-ments are likely to have a distribution center and were covered with the distribution center sample. Manufacturing facilities, however, are likely to receive direct shipments of raw materials, so they were contacted directly. The transportation, communication, public util-ity, finance, insurance, real estate, business service, health, social services, and public administration businesses are unlikely to receive shipments directly from other businesses in truckload or larger sized shipments. In the retail sector, businesses will either receive

Page 278: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-11

shipments from their distribution center or from a wholesale supplier. Thus, by sampling the distribution centers, manufacturers, and wholesalers, those businesses that are respon-sible for the majority of the truckload size or larger shipments moving in the region were sampled. Retailers in the East-of-Hudson subregion were not sampled because they are unlikely to directly receive truckload-sized shipments except via a wholesaler or distribu-tion center.

The sample was split into two groups, with a goal of completing approximately 150 sur-veys for the manufacturing and wholesale receivers and 150 surveys for the distribution centers. Dun & Bradstreet data was used as the sample source. Dun & Bradstreet provides a comprehensive list of the businesses in the region that can be sorted and pulled according to the sample criterion. The actual response to the survey was 150 receivers and 117 distri-bution centers. All of the potentially eligible distribution centers (3,090) were contacted. A wide variety of commodities and geographic origins and destinations were represented in the sample.

Figures C.4 and C.5 illustrate the current delivery window and delivery reliability con-straints that surveyed shippers impose on their shipments today. More than one-third of the respondents have a delivery window of eight hours or less while more than 90 percent have a delivery window of 24 hours or less. More than three-quarters currently have shipments arrive within their delivery windows more than 90 percent of the time.

Figure C.4 Shipper Delivery Window

24 to 48 Hours (5%)

12 to 24 Hours (47%)

8 to 12 Hours (7%)

More than 48 Hours (2%) 2 Hours or Less

(6%)

2 to 4 Hours (9%)

4 to 8 Hours (24%)

Page 279: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

C-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure C.5 Percent of Deliveries Needed “On Time” (Within Delivery Window)

100% (25%)

51-60% (1%)

96-99% (44%)

0-50% (5%) 71-80% (8%)

81-90% (7%)

91-95% (8%)

61-70% (2%)

Figure C.6 shows the current truck route for shipments crossing the Hudson River. More than half of the trips (52 percent) come across the George Washington Bridge (I-95 northern crossing).

Figure C.6 Current Hudson River Truck Crossings for Respondents

* This includes the Goethals or Outerbridge Crossing Bridges and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge.

Holland Tunnel (6%)

I-278 Corridor (22%)*

Newburgh-Beacon (I-84) Bridge (3%)

Other (2%)

George Washington Bridge (52%)

Tappan Zee Bridge (7%)

Lincoln Tunnel (8%)

Page 280: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-13

Creating the Mode Choice Model

The results of the choice survey were used to estimate a disaggregate diversion choice model. A disaggregate model is based on the behavior of individuals who made decisions about the mode of shipment. The diversion model is a discrete choice model by its nature. A discrete choice model is a model where one has to choose between few discrete alterna-tives that can’t be quantified on a scale. In this case, we are interested in modeling the probability that a shipper will decide to divert commodity flow from current truck routes to the different new harbor crossing alternatives described above.

For this project, a “logit” mode choice model was estimated and applied. In the logit model, each alternative provides the shipper with a utility and a decision-maker is mod-eled as selecting the alternative with the highest utility among those available at the time the choice is made. However, the model recognizes that these utilities are random vari-ables and therefore rather than estimate a specific choice, it estimates the probability that each alternative is chosen. This probability is defined as the probability that this alterna-tive has the greatest utility among the available alternatives. The process of converting the disaggregate probabilities to aggregate choices is done in model application.

For the Cross Harbor Study, the final set of rail and truck level of service parameters for each cross-harbor alternative were input to the model to obtain the truck to rail diversion percentage. This percentage was then applied to the 2025 forecasted TRANSEARCH data-base to determine the total volume of cargo that would divert to rail under each alterna-tive. These forecasts were disaggregated by commodity type, origin-destination pairs, and type of rail service (i.e., intermodal, carload, transload). Sensitivity runs were conducted to test changes in diversion that would result from varying combinations of highway bridge truck and freight tolls crossing the Hudson. For the LISWTP, level of service parameters corresponding to marine transportation options will be substituted.

Traffic Assignments and Highway Impact Evaluation

The Cross Harbor Study was primarily concerned with finding effective alternatives to moving freight by truck, and the LISWTP shares that same objective. To forecast the effects of the alternative Cross Harbor scenarios on highway travel conditions in the New York metropolitan area, the project team combined:

1. Reebie Associates TRANSEARCH Commodity Flow forecasts;

2. The Census Bureau’s Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) dataset;

3. NYMTC’s Best Practice Model; and

4. The new shipper choice diversion model forecasting tool developed for this study.

Page 281: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

C-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Linking the TRANSEARCH and NYMTC Databases

The first step in the forecasting process was to identify the truck trip movements that are likely to be candidates for modal diversion. Reebie Associates and DRI-WEFA provided base year and forecast year (2025)4 estimates of commodity flows to and from counties in the New York metropolitan area by freight mode and STCC code.5 Average payload fac-tors from the VIUS dataset were applied to convert the TRANSEARCH database’s annual truck tonnage estimates into commodity truck estimates. These payload factors provided average truck weights by each commodity and distance class. They were based on trucks based in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. An annualization factor of 300 days per year was applied to obtain average daily truck estimates.

Once the commodity flows had been translated to truck movements into and out of the counties of the metropolitan area, these truck movements were disaggregated to the finer geography used in the NYMTC BPM. The base year and forecast year No Action com-modity flow truck trip end estimates for the 28-county6 NYMTC model region were allo-cated to NYMTC’s 3,586 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) and 111 external stations based on SIC-specific employment forecasts for each TAZ. The final “commodity truck” trip table was calculated by combining all of the truck trip estimates for each STCC code and origin-destination pair.

The commodity truck trip table developed from the TRANSEARCH database was sub-tracted from the NYMTC truck trip table, so that two separate truck tables could be applied to the NYMTC Model.

Developing the Highway Network

The 2025 forecasts relied on the BPM “2025P” highway network, which represents the cur-rent highway network, plus all Long-Range Plan Infrastructure projects proposed for the 4 As noted earlier, 2010 forecasts were developed by the consultant team by means of

interpolation between 2000 and 2025. 5 Standard Transportation Commodity Codes and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) are

closely related. The SIC system is the Federal classification system created by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for reporting business statistics. SIC codes are used by the Bureau of the Census and other Federal agencies that collect and publish business data. The SIC code system has become the national standard used to classify, sort, and categorize every industry, and is used as an identifying system in business directories, publications, and statistical sources.

6 The NYMTC BPM model region does not coincide exactly with the 30-county study region used for the purposes of disaggregating Reebie data. Specifically, it includes Mercer County, New Jersey, which is not in the NJTPA region and was therefore not included in the Reebie regional definition, and excludes Litchfield County, Connecticut, and Sullivan and Ulster counties, New York. The only effect of this discontinuity is that it is not possible to produce regional statistics for the three excluded counties that would, in any event, be minimally impacted by this project.

Page 282: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-15

region. The 2010 forecasts relied on the NYMTC “2025N” highway network, which repre-sents the current highway network, plus improvements programmed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) through 2007. These networks were modified very slightly to reflect certain truck restrictions not currently in those networks. For these forecasts, it was assumed that commodity trucks would be restricted from the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, but that other trucks would be allowed to use these facilities.

Trip Assignments

The multimodal multi-class highway assignment procedures followed those used by NYMTC. The No Action highway assignment was performed using the files and proce-dures provided to the project by NYMTC and its consultant, Parsons Brinkerhoff. A 2000 base-year assignment was completed first, updating the BPM base year from 1996, and then for the 2025 No Action Alternative.

The shipper choice diversion model forecasting tool was then used to predict changes in commodity truck trips to and from the region’s counties. The county-level changes in truck trips forecast by the diversion model for each 2025 alternative under consideration were then allocated to TAZs using the SIC-specific employment forecasts by TAZ.

In each case, the commodity truck trip table was modified to reflect the results of the ship-per choice diversion model. The other vehicle class trip tables were unchanged – in other words, no additional auto trips were created to backfill space left on the highways by diverted trucks. In some cases, elimination of trucks on major highways (and hence reduced congestion) attracted auto trips to major highway from parallel arterial routes.

Next Steps in Applying the Freight Model

To fully adapt the Freight Mode Choice Model for use in the LISWTP, it will be necessary to define a series of level of service attributes corresponding to proposed freight ferry and barge alternatives. These attributes will include cost, speed, and reliability.

Each potential alternative service defined through the Screening Process (Task 3) will be modeled as part of Task 4. Potential services to be modeled could include:

• Port Inland Distribution Network Barge between Port Newark/Elizabeth and Connecticut;

• Enhanced Truck Ferry across the Sound;

• Enhanced Truck Ferry between Connecticut and New York City and/or New Jersey; and

• Enhanced Truck Ferry between Long Island and New York City and/or New Jersey.

Page 283: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Appendix D Reference Sources and Relevant Studies

Page 284: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. D-1

Appendix D

Reference Sources and Relevant Studies

Inventory of Related Studies

The Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan (LISWTP) is utilizing a wide variety of past and current studies and datasets. These are referenced below.

New York

• Long Island Sound Ferry Study, Draft Land Access Feasibility Report, New York State Department of Transportation, 1975.

• Long Island Sound Bridge Study – Ferry Service, New York State Department of Transportation, 1979.

• Long Island Sound Bridge Study – Ferry Service, New York State Department of Transportation, 1979.

• Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study, New York State Department of Transportation and Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1981.

• Village of Greenport Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Village of Greenport, 1988.

• Ferry Access Study, Suffolk County, 1990.

• Brookhaven Town Comprehensive Plan, 1991.

• Long Island to Connecticut – Location and Placement of a High-Speed Ferry Service, Suffolk County, 1993.

• Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program Volume 2, New York State Department of State, 1996.

• Town of East Hampton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, 1997.

Page 285: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

D-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

• Origin-Destination Study for the Shelter Island North Ferry, Dunn Engineering, 1998.

• Compendium of Freight Information, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, 1997.

• Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, New York State Department of State, 1999.

• Port Jefferson Harbor Complex Harbor Management Plan, 1999.

• Marine Inventory Update, Suffolk County, 2000.

• NYMTC Freight Facilities and Systems Inventory, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, 2000.

• Pilgrim Intermodal Freight Transportation Center Feasibility Study, New York State Department of Transportation, 2001.

• NYMTC Regional Freight Plan, Tasks 4 and 6, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, 2001.

• Terminals and Warehouses Survey Results, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, 2001.

• Fulton Fish Market at Hunts Point Draft EIS, New York City Economic Development Corporation.

• Shoreham Hamlet Study, 2002.

• Town of Southold Local Waterfront Program, 2002.

• Glen Cove Seaport Center Request for Proposals, Glen Cove Industrial Development Agency, 2002.

• Northeast Association of State Transportation Officials (NASTO) Freight Service and Investment Study, New York State Department of Transportation and Maine Department of Transportation, 2002.

• Ferry Boat Discretionary Fund Site Investigations/Meetings, New York State Department of Transportation, 2002.

• New York Cross Harbor Freight Movement Environmental Impact Study, New York City Economic Development Corporation (ongoing).

Page 286: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. D-3

• Long Island Transportation Plan 2000, New York State Department of Transportation (ongoing).

• Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) Inventory and Analysis, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (ongoing).

Connecticut

• Southwest Corridor Study Update, Implementation Plan, and Two-Year Report, Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1998-2000.

• Intrastate Passenger Commuter Ferry Study (New Haven, Bridgeport, Norwalk, Stamford), Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2001.

• Container Barge Feeder Service Study: Bridgeport, New Haven, New London, Norwich, Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2001.

• Bridgeport Intermodal Center Project, City of Bridgeport, 2001.

• Connecticut’s Ports: Transportation Centers for People and Goods, Connecticut Maritime Coalition, 2002.

• Coastal Barge Feeder Service Study and Container Barge Operating Plan, Port of New Haven, South Central Region Council of Governments, 2002.

• Port Inland Distribution Network Concept – Bridgeport’s Implementation Experience, Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, 2002.

• Container Feeder Port Service – Bridgeport Barge Operating Plan, Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, 2002.

• Intermodal Transportation Inventory, Marine and Pipeline Transportation, Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2002.

• Connecticut’s Ports: Transportation Centers for People and Goods, Connecticut Maritime Commission, 2002.

• Port Connecticut Transportation and International Trade Resource Directory, 2003.

• Twenty-Year Strategic Plan for Transportation in the Coastal Corridor, Initial Transportation Strategy, Working Group Updates, and Action Plan for Connecticut 2003-2023, Connecticut Transportation Strategies Board, 2001-2003.

Page 287: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

D-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Rhode Island

• Rhode Island Waterborne Passenger Transportation Plan, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, 1998.

• Transportation 2020, Rhode Island Department of Administrative Information Services, Statewide Planning Program, 2002.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ)

• Shoreham-New Haven Ferry Feasibility Study, PANYNJ, 1991.

• Staten Island+Middlesex to Manhattan Ferry Service Assessment, PANYNJ, 1996.

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Application, Bridgeport Coastal Barge, PANYNJ, 2000.

• The Economic Impact of the Port Authority Interstate Transportation Facilities, PANYNJ, 2000.

• Fort Lee Ferry Feasibility Study, PANYNJ, 2000.

• Port Chester–LaGuardia Airport Ferry Assessment, PANYNJ, 2001.

• Yonkers+Riverdale to Manhattan Ferry Assessment, PANYNJ, 2001.

• Freight Movement in the NY/NJ Region: The Importance of Being George, PANYNJ, 2001.

• PANYNJ Regional Ferry Program Update, PANYNJ, 2002.

Other Regional Studies

• Crossing the Sound: A Study of Improved Ferry Service on Long Island Sound, Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 1975.

• Assessment of the Market Demand for New Jersey Ferry Services, New Jersey Department of Transportation, 2000.

Page 288: Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development ......Task 2 – Baseline Data for Transportation Plan Development prepared for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum for Task 2

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. D-5

Other National Studies

• Transportation Research Record #1608, Ferry Transportation Planning and Operations, 1997.

• Transportation Research Record #1677, Transit – Intermodal Facilities, Rail Systems, Commuter Rail, Major Activity Circulation Systems, Light Rail, Ferry Systems, and Rail Maintenance, 1999.

• U.S. Marine Transportation System – Waterways, Ports and their Intermodal Connections, Implementation Plan v.7, U.S. DOT Maritime Administration, 1999.

• U.S. Maritime Trade and Transportation, MARAD/Coast Guard/Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1999.

• Transportation Research News #209: “Ferries in the 21st Century,” 2000.

• “High Speed Ferries and Coastwise Vessels,” Ports and Waterways Institute, 2000.

• Transportation Research Record #1704, Transit – Rail Transit and Maintenance, Commuter Rail, Major Activity Center Circulation Systems, Light Rail Transit, and Ferry Service, 2001.

• U.S. Waterway Data and Navigation Data Center Publications CD (National Commodity Flows, Navigation Channels, Ports and Harbors, Vessel Characteristics, Year 2000.

• Transportation Research Record #1762, Transit Rail, Commuter Rail, Major Activity Center Circulation Systems, Light Rail, and Ferry Service, 2001.

• Intermodal Access to U.S. Ports – Report on Survey Findings, Maritime Administration, 2002.

• Transportation Research Record #1782, Marine Transportation and Port Operations, 2002.

• Transportation Research Record #1793, Transit – Intermodal Facilities, Rail Transit, Commuter Rail, Light Rail Transit, Maintenance and Ferry Transportation, 2002.

• Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 11-02, U.S. Coast Guard, 2003.