FM1 Long Island Sound Task 3 Cover - on-line · • This Task 3 Technical Memorandum, which presents evaluations of a broad range of potential sites and services, and recommends a

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Task 3 – Initial Screening of Alternatives

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.

June 30, 2004 www.camsys.com

final memorandum

final technical memorandum

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Task 3 – Initial Screening of Alternatives

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.

June 30, 2004

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Final Technical Memorandum for Task 3

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 7151.032

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 The Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan ............................... 1-1 1.2 LISWTP Deliverables............................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 About this Technical Memorandum for Task 3 ................................................. 1-3

2.0 “Long List” of Alternatives.......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Existing Sites and Services .................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Potential Sites and Services under Consideration Outside of the LISWTP ... 2-2 2.4 Input from Public Outreach Process.................................................................... 2-3 2.5 Other Inputs............................................................................................................ 2-16 2.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 2-16

3.0 Definition of Screening Criteria ................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Methodology........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Identification of Screening Factors ...................................................................... 3-1 3.4 Segmentation by Type of Service......................................................................... 3-3 3.5 Evaluation of Sites Versus Evaluation of Routes............................................... 3-3 3.6 Fatal Flaw Assessment .......................................................................................... 3-4 3.7 Creation of Screening Templates ......................................................................... 3-5

4.0 Initial Screening Assessment ...................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 The Screening Process ........................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Site Screening.......................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4 Integration of Site Scoring and Route Scoring ................................................... 4-14 4.5 Sustainability .......................................................................................................... 4-23 4.6 Potential for Public Benefit ................................................................................... 4-23

5.0 Supplemental Screening Assessment........................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Initial Formulation of the “Short List”................................................................. 5-1 5.3 Subsequent Revisions to the Initial “Short List” ................................................ 5-3 5.4 Recommended Short List Based on Supplemental Screening Assessment ... 5-10

Appendix A Detail of Initial Screening Scores

Appendix B Supplemental Surveys and Mode Choice Modeling

Appendix C Town of East Hampton Comments


Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii

List of Tables

3.1 Site Screening Template (Passenger Service)............................................................ 3-6

3.2 Site Screening Template (Freight Service)................................................................. 3-7

3.3 Route Screening Template (Passenger Service)........................................................ 3-8

3.4 Route Screening Template (Freight Service)............................................................. 3-9

4.1 Site Screening Criteria (Community Acceptance).................................................... 4-3

4.2 Site Screening Results (Community Acceptance) .................................................... 4-4

4.3 Site Screening Criteria (Marine Conditions) ............................................................. 4-5

4.4 Site Screening Results (Marine Conditions).............................................................. 4-6

4.5 Site Screening Criteria (Highway [Auto and Truck] Access) ................................. 4-8

4.6 Site Screening Results (Highway [Auto and Truck] Access).................................. 4-9

4.7 Site Screening Criteria (Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access)........................... 4-10

4.8 Site Screening Results (Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access) ........................... 4-11

4.9 Site Screening Criteria (Land Use) ............................................................................. 4-12

4.10 Site Screening Results (Land Use) .............................................................................. 4-13

4.11 Summary of Scoring (Water Taxi) .............................................................................. 4-14

4.12 Summary of Scoring (Fast Ferry)................................................................................ 4-16

4.13 Summary of Scoring (Conventional Passenger/Vehicle Ferry)............................. 4-18

4.14 Summary of Scoring (Emergency Passenger Service) ............................................. 4-20

4.15 Summary of Scoring (Truck Ferry) ............................................................................ 4-21

4.16 Summary of Scoring (Container Barge to/from PANYNJ) .................................... 4-22


Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v

List of Figures

2.1 Input on Locations and Services (Southold CPW)..................................................... 2-5

2.2 Input on Locations and Services (Stamford CPW) .................................................... 2-6

2.3 Input on Locations and Services (New Rochelle CPW) ............................................ 2-7

2.4 Input on Locations and Services (Lower Manhattan CPW)..................................... 2-8

2.5 Input on Locations and Services (New London CPW) ............................................. 2-9

2.6 Input on Locations and Services (New Haven CPW) ............................................... 2-10

2.7 Input on Locations and Services (Glen Cove CPW) .................................................. 2-11

2.8 Input on Locations and Services (Stony Brook CPW)............................................... 2-12

2.9 Input on Locations and Services (Shoreham CPW)................................................... 2-13

2.10 Input on Locations and Services (Advisory Committee).......................................... 2-14

2.11 Input on Locations and Services (Summary).............................................................. 2-15

5.1 Short-Listed Sites and Services from Initial Screening Assessment........................ 5-2

5.2 Recommended Short-Listed Sites and Services from Supplemental Screening.... 5-12

1.0 Introduction


Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan

The Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan (LISWTP) is being undertaken as a joint effort of three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) along the Sound – the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, and the South Western (Connecticut) Regional Planning Agency. The two key objectives 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.”

The LISWTP mission recognizes that waterborne transportation has the potential to bene-fit 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 differ-ent services with each other, but also coordinates them with the larger intermodal passen-ger and intermodal freight transportation system, so that the specific strengths of waterborne transportation – its flexibility and relatively low cost – can be fully utilized.

The LISWTP process has five 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 analyses that are typically applied to highway or rail transportation 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.


1-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

• 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 (CPWs) and Public Review Meetings (PRMs). The LISWTP is consensus oriented – it aims to achieve common ground. It is not intended to “pick winners and losers” from among communities, services, agencies, and/or operators.

• 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 (PANYNJ’s) “Port Inland Distribution Network,” the NYMTC Regional Freight Plan, the Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) effort, and other initiatives addressing improved water-borne transportation.

1.2 LISWTP Deliverables

There are four major deliverables for the LISWTP:

• The Task 2 Technical Memorandum, which presented relevant background data and identifying critical issues and opportunities (available on the project web site at www.nymtc.org/waterborne_plan.index.htm);

• This Task 3 Technical Memorandum, which presents evaluations of a broad range of potential sites and services, and recommends a “short list” of sites and services for further evaluation;

• The Task 4 Technical Memorandum (future), which will present more detailed evalua-tions of the short list sites and services; and

• The Final Report, which will subsequently summarize all relevant information.

All project deliverables should be completed in the summer of 2004.



1.3 About this Technical Memorandum for Task 3

This Technical Memorandum documents the data, results, and findings of Task 3. It is organized as follows:

• Section 1.0 presents an introduction to Task 3 and this Technical Memorandum.

• Section 2.0 presents the results of Task 3.1 – develop a “long list” of potential alterna-tives for passenger and freight service corridors, routes, terminal locations, and vessel/service types.

• Section 3.0 presents the results of Task 3.2 – establish screening criteria and thresholds for identification of initially preferred services to be carried forward for detailed analysis.

• Section 4.0 presents the Initial Screening Assessment to evaluate and prioritize alterna-tive passenger and freight services based on screening thresholds and criteria. This reflects screening performed based on information available through February 29, 2004, when the Draft Technical Memorandum on Task 3 was distributed for review.

• Section 5.0 presents Supplemental Screening Assessment based on additional informa-tion available after February 29, 2004, including: the results of a series of PRMs to obtain additional public feedback and input; the results of initial technical investigations of sites and services (undertaken as Task 4 of the LISWTP); and addi-tional technical materials and documents provided by local and regional governments, most notably by the Town of East Hampton in opposition to the expansion of existing ferry services or the establishment of new services. Some of the services identified in the Initial Screening Assessment were eliminated based on the Supplemental Screening Assessment; conversely, other opportunities not included in the Initial Screening Assessment were identified though the Supplemental Screening Assessment process.

• Section 6.0 presents the results of Task 3.4 – based on the application of screening crite-ria, define four to eight services (including corridors, routes, terminal locations, and vessel/service types) to be carried forward as “initially preferred alternatives” for further analysis in Task 4.

• Appendix A presents additional backup material for the screening process.

• Appendix B presents the results of additional travel demand surveys that were con-ducted as a follow-on to initial surveys documented in the Task 2 Technical Memorandum.

• Appendix C presents analyses prepared by the Town of East Hampton in response to the Draft Technical Memorandum on Task 3.

2.0 “Long List” of Alternatives



2.0 “Long List” of Alternatives

2.1 Overview

This section presents the findings of Task 3.1. The purpose of Task 3.1 is to: develop a “long list” of potential alternatives for passenger and freight service corridors, routes, terminal locations, and vessel/service types.

In this task, the consultant team documented potential alternatives for passenger and freight service corridors, routes, terminal locations, and vessel/service types for further study. The alternatives included a mix of existing service refinements and new services. This effort was informed by the public scoping and focus group meetings conducted during Task 2, as well as input from the Steering and Advisory Committees. Public out-reach suggestions reflected, to varying degrees, consideration of a variety of factors, including:

• Potential market capture. Are the potential sites and services consistent with the demand corridors and user preferences identified in Task 2? Where will the develop-ment of services be most successful in terms of traffic levels, mitigation of congestion on the regional transportation network, and revenue generation?

• Marine structures and navigation. Is there a protected harbor? Is the harbor deep enough to accommodate passenger/freight vessels? Is the protection appropriate (weather, wave action)? Do marine structures exist at the site to support vessel access requirements, or do new facilities need to be constructed (piers, marinas, a bulkhead)? Have environmental concerns been addressed (dredging, permitting)? Have naviga-tional issues been addressed?

• Highway access. What are the known deficiencies in the roadway network that will sig-nificantly affect access to a site, and what plans have been developed (and are in the design/implementation process) to improve those conditions? Where are significant congestion points or capacity deficiencies in the roadway that have been identified through preliminary field investigations? What are the traffic concerns or issues raised through the public outreach process regarding site accessibility? Where are the feeder routes to sites with sufficient capacity to accommodated potential marine terminal-generated traffic?

• Rail access. What rail station locations accommodate a direct connection and efficient linkage? While the likelihood of extending rail service will not be in most cases a rec-ommended scenario, the opportunity to prove efficient intermodal service by linking rail to ferry shall be explored. The process of identifying potential sites for rail to ferry



service must recognize and incorporate such issues as waterfront access, land use compatibility, environmental sensitivities, traffic circulation, parking, and ease of implementation.

• Passenger terminals. What are the locations on the North and South shores of Long Island Sound where it is physically possible to site ferry terminals? What are the order-of-magnitude physical requirements for prototypical passenger and freight terminal developments?

• Marine cargo terminals. Where is it physically possible to accommodate the design parameters of a marine cargo ferry terminal?

• Natural marine resources. How will marine resources be impacted?

The purpose of the long list is to define the broadest “universe” of possibilities to meet the goal of the study, which is improving regional mobility and reducing automobile depend-ence. Therefore, sites and services were included in the long list if they:

• Are existing sites/services;

• Are potential sites/services being studied or planned outside of the LISWTP; or

• Were recommended through the public outreach process (including a series of CPWs, Steering Committee meetings, and Advisory Committee meetings, as described in the Task 2 Technical Memorandum).

2.2 Existing Sites and Services

The long list includes the following existing sites and services:

• Bridgeport-Port Jefferson;

• New London-Orient Point; and

• New London-Montauk (seasonal).

2.3 Potential Sites and Services under Consideration Outside of the LISWTP

The long list includes the following potential sites and services, which are currently in the advanced planning stage:



• Bridgeport-PANYNJ container barge;

• Bridgeport-Stamford-LaGuardia Airport (LGA)/Lower Manhattan fast passenger ferry;

• Glen Cove-Lower Manhattan fast passenger ferry; and

• LGA-Manhattan passenger ferry.

2.4 Input from Public Outreach Process

The LISWTP study process includes an extensive public outreach program. In addition to regular meetings of the project Steering and Advisory Committees, CPW events were held in:

• Southold, Long Island;

• New Rochelle, New York;

• Stamford, Connecticut;

• Lower Manhattan, New York;

• New London, Connecticut;

• New Haven, Connecticut;

• Glen Cove, Long Island;

• Stony Brook, Long Island; and

• Shoreham, Long Island.

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 suggestions and concerns on maps and in text form. Written notes from each workshop are presented in the Task 2 Technical Memorandum. 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 2.1 through 2.11 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.

Sites shown in green and yellow have been included on the long list. Sites shown in red have been excluded from further consideration.

Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan

Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

Cambridge System

atics, Inc. 2-5

Figure 2.1 Input on Locations and Services Southold CPW

Montauk

Light rail serving North and South Forks, connecting to ferry and LIRR at Calverton/Riverhead

Calverton/Riverhead

Mid-islandmonorail

Bridge or tunnel located 'somewhere across Sound"

Extend LIRR from Port Jefferson to Shoreham; high-speed or light rail east of Shoreham

Napeague Bay

Extend LIRRFrom Port Jeff.to Shoreham

Norw

alk

New

Haven

Westbrook

Guilford

Madison

Old Saybrook

New London

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed

Yellow = Mixed Reaction

Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction

Passenger Feeder/Water Taxi

Passenger Fast Ferry

Conventional Vehicle/ Passenger Ferry

Identified Port/Landing Site

Legend of Participant Recommendations

Freight Ferry

Ft. Pond Bay

Oyster Bay N

.W.R.

Port Jefferson

Shoreham

Mt. Sinai

Sunken MeadowG

len Cove

Huntington

Sag Harbor

South Shore ferry connections between Manhattan, Sheepshead Bay, Captree Basin, South Fork and North Fork

Deerfield

Lower Manhattan

Orient

North Fork, South

Fork, Shelter Island

Greenport

Northville

Mattituck

Service to multiple CT sites

Montauk

Light rail serving North and South Forks, connecting to ferry and LIRR at Calverton/Riverhead

Calverton/Riverhead

Mid-islandmonorail

Bridge or tunnel located 'somewhere across Sound"

Extend LIRR from Port Jefferson to Shoreham; high-speed or light rail east of Shoreham

Napeague Bay

Extend LIRRFrom Port Jeff.to Shoreham

Norw

alk

New

Haven

Westbrook

Guilford

Madison

Old Saybrook

New London

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Ft. Pond Bay

Oyster Bay N

.W.R.

Port Jefferson

Shoreham

Mt. Sinai

Sunken MeadowG

len Cove

Huntington

Sag Harbor

South Shore ferry connections between Manhattan, Sheepshead Bay, Captree Basin, South Fork and North Fork

Deerfield

Lower Manhattan

Orient

North Fork, South

Fork, Shelter Island

Greenport

Northville

Mattituck

Service to multiple CT sites


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

2-6 Cam

bridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 2.2 Input on Locations and ServicesStamford CPW

Stamford

Rye Playland

LGA

Summer service to Southold and Montauk

Link CT job centers with LI workforce

Port ChesterMamaroneck

Larchmont/

New Rochelle.Freight barge to/fromBridgeport energy plant

Bridgeport

SoutholdMontauk

New London

To Atlantic City

Lower Manhattan

Bus to Foxwoods

Opposition to truck or freight ferry at Stamford

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Bus Connections

Freight fer

ries to

reduce I-95 tru

cks

Glen Cove

Stamford

Rye Playland

LGA

Summer service to Southold and Montauk

Link CT job centers with LI workforce

Port ChesterMamaroneck

Larchmont/

New Rochelle.Freight barge to/fromBridgeport energy plant

Bridgeport

SoutholdMontauk

New London

To Atlantic City

Lower Manhattan

Bus to Foxwoods

Opposition to truck or freight ferry at Stamford

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Bus Connections

Freight fer

ries to

reduce I-95 tru

cks

Glen Cove


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

Cambridge System

atics, Inc. 2-7

Figure 2.3 Input on Locations and ServicesNew Rochelle CPW

Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Stewart Airport to Suffern to Port Chester commuter rail link

Lower

Manhattan

Norw

alk

Port Chester

Beacon, NY to Danbury, CT commuter rail line

Pelham

Mam

aroneck

Larchmont/

New

Rochelle

New

Haven

ShorehamI-91 to Floyd Pkwy.

bridge/tunnel

LGA

Port Wash.

Glen Cove

Oyster Bay

Huntington

Northport

I-278 to Oyster Bay

Expwy. bridge/Tunnel

Madison

New London

Waterville

Northville

Napeague Bay

[Sites in yellow are good for passenger ferry, but not auto or truck ferry]

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Stamford

To Shoreham, Northville or Waterville

Summer/weekend service to/from Westchester

To/from Manhattan and Westchester

Bridgeport container

barge with feeder

service to LI


Recreational “party boats”

Jitney feeder service on I-278 from Stewart Airport to Rye Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Stewart Airport to Suffern to Port Chester commuter rail link

Lower

Manhattan

Norw

alk

Port Chester

Beacon, NY to Danbury, CT commuter rail line

Pelham

Mam

aroneck

Larchmont/

New

Rochelle

New

Haven

ShorehamI-91 to Floyd Pkwy.

bridge/tunnel

LGA

Port Wash.

Glen Cove

Oyster Bay

Huntington

Northport

I-278 to Oyster Bay

Expwy. bridge/Tunnel

Madison

New London

Waterville

Northville

Napeague Bay

[Sites in yellow are good for passenger ferry, but not auto or truck ferry]

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Stamford

To Shoreham, Northville or Waterville


To/from Manhattan and Westchester

Bridgeport container

barge with feeder

service to LI


Recreational “party boats”

Jitney feeder service on I-278 from Stewart Airport to Rye


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

2-8 Cam


Figure 2.4 Input on Locations and ServicesLower Manhattan CPW

Bridgeport

Mamaroneck

LGA

Westchester To L.I. East End Summer Car Ferry

Rye (Playland)

Bus From Rye To I-278 Office Parks

Port Chester

Lower

Manhattan

Glen Cove

Stony Brook

New Rochelle

Stamford

Southold

New London

New

Haven Consider using ferries

to transport buses

Shoreham

Roosevelt

Island

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Container and Truck Ferri

es

Ferry sites shown could serve as major hubs for a variety of services

Bridgeport

Mamaroneck

LGA

Westchester To L.I. East End Summer Car Ferry

Rye (Playland)

Bus From Rye To I-278 Office Parks

Port Chester

Lower

Manhattan

Glen Cove

Stony Brook

New Rochelle

Stamford

Southold

New London

New

Haven Consider using ferries

to transport buses

Shoreham

Roosevelt

Island

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Container and Truck Ferri

es

Ferry sites shown could serve as major hubs for a variety of services


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

Cambridge System

atics, Inc. 2-9

Figure 2.5 Input on Locations and ServicesNew London CPW

New London

Separate Freight & Pass. Connections With Rail

Sag Harbor

Ft. Pond Bay

Lower

Manhattan

Container Barge to PANYNJ

Harbor And Cross-Thames Water Taxi

OrientW

aterville

New

Haven/

East Haven/

Groton

Old Saybrook

Madison

Wading River

Sunken Meadow

BayvilleN

orwalkGreenw

ich

PANYNJ

Thames River service

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

New London

Separate Freight & Pass. Connections With Rail

Sag Harbor

Ft. Pond Bay

Lower

Manhattan

Container Barge to PANYNJ

Harbor And Cross-Thames Water Taxi

OrientW

aterville

New

Haven/

East Haven/

Groton

Old Saybrook

Madison

Wading River

Sunken Meadow

BayvilleN

orwalkGreenw

ich

PANYNJ

Thames River service

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

2-10 Cam


Figure 2.6 Input on Locations and ServicesNew Haven CPW

New

Haven

ISP

JFK

JFK-EWR Freight Ferry

LGA

Container/truck ferr

y

West H

aven

Branford River

Bridgeport

Rye

Stamford

Norwalk Greenwich

Port Jefferson

ShorehamNorthport

EWR

Lower M

anhattan

Orient

Greenport Montauk

Fishers Island

Westerly, RI

Link LI labor to CT job centers

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

PAN

YN

J

New

Haven

ISP

JFK

JFK-EWR Freight Ferry

LGA

Container/truck ferr

y

West H

aven

Branford River

Bridgeport

Rye

Stamford

Norwalk Greenwich

Port Jefferson

ShorehamNorthport

EWR

Lower M

anhattan

Orient

Greenport Montauk

Fishers Island

Westerly, RI

Link LI labor to CT job centers

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

PAN

YN

J


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

Cambridge System

atics, Inc. 2-11

Figure 2.7 Input on Locations and ServicesGlen Cove CPW

Oyster Bay

Shoreham

Port Washington

Larchmont –

City Island

Inter-airport air cargo ferry

Recreational ferry between Glen Cove and Bear Mountain via Manhattan

Glen C

ove

New

Haven

Bridgeport

Norw

alkStamford

Port Chester

Rye (Playland)

JFK

Lower

Manhattan

Huntington

Northport

SunkenM

eadow

Port Jefferson

Shinnecock Inlet

New London

Orient

EWR

Montauk

Napeague Bay

Waterville

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Greenport

Freight Ferry to New England

“North Shore Connector” Services

Oyster Bay

Shoreham

Port Washington

Larchmont –

City Island

Inter-airport air cargo ferry

Recreational ferry between Glen Cove and Bear Mountain via Manhattan

Glen C

ove

New

Haven

Bridgeport

Norw

alkStamford

Port Chester

Rye (Playland)

JFK

Lower

Manhattan

Huntington

Northport

SunkenM

eadow

Port Jefferson

Shinnecock Inlet

New London

Orient

EWR

Montauk

Napeague Bay

Waterville

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Greenport

Freight Ferry to New England

“North Shore Connector” Services


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

2-12 Cam


Figure 2.8 Input on Locations and ServicesStony Brook CPW

Lower

Manhattan

Shoreham

Riverhead

Sag Harbor

Shoreham or Northville to CT between New Haven and Lyme

Port Jeff. Harbor

to LIRR trolley

L.I. labor to CT & Westchester

Port Jefferson

Stony Brook – Port

Jeff. rail link

Electric rental cars available

Use L.I. eastern bays to move people

New

Rochelle

Manorhaven

Glen CoveO

yster Bay

Huntington

Northport

Greenport

Northville

New

Haven

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

LGA

Port Wash.

Lower

Manhattan

Shoreham

Riverhead

Sag Harbor

Shoreham or Northville to CT between New Haven and Lyme

Port Jeff. Harbor

to LIRR trolley

L.I. labor to CT & Westchester

Port Jefferson

Stony Brook – Port

Jeff. rail link

Electric rental cars available

Use L.I. eastern bays to move people

New

Rochelle

Manorhaven

Glen CoveO

yster Bay

Huntington

Northport

Greenport

Northville

New

Haven

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

LGA

Port Wash.


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

Cambridge System

atics, Inc. 2-13

Figure 2.9 Input on Locations and ServicesShoreham CPW

Shoreham/

Wading River

Inter-airport air cargo ferryBridgeportN

orwalk

Stamford

Huntington

Sunken Meadow

Port Jefferson

New London

LGA

EWR

Greenport

Glen Cove

Riverhead

Sag Harbor

Larchmont

Oyster Bay

Northport/

Asharoken

[Note: Some participants registered global objections to any/all waterborne services, existing or future; those opinions are not reflected on this Summary map.]

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Shoreham/

Wading River

Inter-airport air cargo ferryBridgeportN

orwalk

Stamford

Huntington

Sunken Meadow

Port Jefferson

New London

LGA

EWR

Greenport

Glen Cove

Riverhead

Sag Harbor

Larchmont

Oyster Bay

Northport/

Asharoken

[Note: Some participants registered global objections to any/all waterborne services, existing or future; those opinions are not reflected on this Summary map.]

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

2-14 Cam


Figure 2.10 Input on Locations and ServicesAdvisory Committee

Orient

LIRR Connections at Port Washington, Glen Cove, Bayville, Port Jefferson, Montauk

Feeder barge, B

ridgeport

to Port of NY/NJ

Offsite parking

near 25A

ShorehamWaterville

Montauk

New Haven

Bridgeport

Stamford

Port

Jefferson

Sunken

Meadow

Northport

BayvilleGlen CovePort

Washington

LGA

Lower

Manhattan

PANYNJ

No LIRR extension to Orient Point

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Orient

LIRR Connections at Port Washington, Glen Cove, Bayville, Port Jefferson, Montauk

Feeder barge, B

ridgeport

to Port of NY/NJ

Offsite parking

near 25A

ShorehamWaterville

Montauk

New Haven

Bridgeport

Stamford

Port

Jefferson

Sunken

Meadow

Northport

BayvilleGlen CovePort

Washington

LGA

Lower

Manhattan

PANYNJ

No LIRR extension to Orient Point

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction






Freight Ferry


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

Cambridge System

atics, Inc. 2-15

Figure 2.11 Input on Locations and ServicesSummary

Stamford

Port Chester

Rye (Playland)Port W

ash.

Glen Cove

Oyster Bay

Shoreham

Stony

Brook

Bridgeport

New

Haven

New

LondonWest H

aven

Ft. Pond Bay

Sunken Meadow

Mt. Sinai

Port Jefferson.

Calverton/ Riverhead

Sag Harbor

Montauk

Northville

LGA

New Rochelle

Orient

Fishers Isl.

Westerly, RI

Old Saybrook

Guilford

Madison

Westbrook

Shinnecock Inlet

Norw

alk

Greenwich

Wading River

JFK

Napeague Bay

Mamaroneck

Larchmont

Bayville

Branford River.

Roosevelt Isl.

Lloyd Harbor

E. Marion

Deerfield

Hunts Point

Manorhaven

O.B.NWR

.

Northport

Huntington

Greenport

Southold

Waterville

Midtow

n

and Lower

Manhattan

PANYNJ

EWR

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction



Stamford

Port Chester

Rye (Playland)Port W

ash.

Glen Cove

Oyster Bay

Shoreham

Stony

Brook

Bridgeport

New

Haven

New

LondonWest H

aven

Ft. Pond Bay

Sunken Meadow

Mt. Sinai

Port Jefferson.


Sag Harbor

Montauk

Northville

LGA

New Rochelle

Orient

Fishers Isl.

Westerly, RI

Old Saybrook

Guilford

Madison

Westbrook

Shinnecock Inlet

Norw

alk

Greenwich

Wading River

JFK

Napeague Bay

Mamaroneck

Larchmont

Bayville

Branford River.

Roosevelt Isl.

Lloyd Harbor

E. Marion

Deerfield

Hunts Point

Manorhaven

O.B.NWR

.

Northport

Huntington

Greenport

Southold

Waterville

Midtow

n

and Lower

Manhattan

PANYNJ

EWR

Color Key

Blue = None Opposed


Red = None In Favor

Floating Transfer

Intermodal Junction





2.5 Other Inputs

During the course of the Task 2 effort, outreach and coordination with other public agen-cies resulted in the definition of identification of two additional critical markets:

• Lower Manhattan commuters; and

• Bronx freight ferry service to/from John F. Kennedy (JFK) International Airport and other locations.

These options, while not geographically specific, are also part of the long list.

After completing the CPW program and developing an initial draft of the Technical Memorandum for Task 3, the material was presented in a series of PRMs, where addi-tional feedback was obtained. This feedback was incorporated into the final screening analyses discussed in Section 5 (Supplemental Screening Assessment) of this Technical Memorandum.

2.6 Summary

The resulting long list consists of:

• Each of the sites shown on Figure 2.11, along with the various permutations of service routes and types shown on Figures 2.1 through 2.10; and

• The sites and services identified in the sections above regarding existing services, potential services, and other inputs.

Subsequent work consists generally of developing and applying screening criteria to this long list, in order to develop a “short list” of the most promising sites and services (in Tasks 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4) that will ultimately be subject to more detailed study and evalua-tion (in Task 4).

3.0 Definition of Screening Criteria



3.0 Definition of Screening Criteria

3.1 Overview

This section presents the findings of Task 3.2. The purpose of Task 3.2 is to: establish screening criteria and thresholds for identification of initially preferred services to be carried for-ward for detailed analysis.

In this task, the consultant team established screening criteria and thresholds for identifi-cation of initially preferred services to be carried forward for detailed analysis. The intent was to arrive at a reasonable process for reducing the number of alternatives from the very large (the “long list” developed in Task 3.1) to the manageable, and to ensure that this is part of the record of the project.

3.2 Methodology

The development of screening criteria occurred in phases, and was reviewed and refined in close consultation with the project Steering and Advisory Committees. The key mile-stones in this process were as follows:

• Identification of Key Screening Factors;

• Segmentation by Type of Service;

• Evaluation of Sites Versus Evaluation of Services;

• Fatal Flaw Assessment; and

• Creation of Screening Criteria Templates.

Each of these is discussed below.

3.3 Identification of Screening Factors

Potential screening factors were initially identified in the following categories.



• Market capture. Potential screening criteria to determine whether a service is poten-tially feasible from a market capture perspective included number of customers, total customer revenues, number of vessels/trips, and comparable indicators.

• Marine structures and navigation. Potential screening criteria included: the availability and condition of marine structures (piers, wharves, docks, breakwaters, bulkheads, etc.); harbor protection requirements; potential dredging requirements; and concept-level feasibility of viable construction alternatives for terminals (floating versus fixed platform, materials).

• Highway access. Potential screening criteria included: general roadway capacity to accommodate additional marine terminal-generated traffic to the site; known conges-tion points along primary feeder routes to the site and their severity; general ability to mitigate potential impacts; and “designability” of access improvements at the immedi-ate marine terminal site access points (relating to general physical/geometric condi-tions and the ability to design in turn lanes, drop-off lanes, etc.).

• Rail and transit system connectivity. Potential screening criteria included: the distance between rail stations and existing/potential ferry facilities; ability to provide an effi-cient link between ferry services and bus transit, bicycle and pedestrian networks; and opportunities to provide direct connections between waterborne freight and rail service.

• Passenger terminal constructability and compatibility. Potential screening criteria included: available land area, including terminal site and ancillary site areas; adjacent context, including land use, open space, scale and character of the built environment, existing landmarks and notable buildings, and potential and existing views and vistas; site conditions, including current and past uses, nature of the soil, and geotechnical and environmental constraints; accessibility, including pedestrian, vehicular, and mass transit access; compatibility with local zoning; ownership; constructability; ability to mitigate adverse impacts; and opportunities to create public amenities.

• Freight terminal constructability and compatibility. Potential screening criteria included: availability of adequate acreage and site dimensions; geotechnical conditions; site his-tory; site access; and adjoining uses, particularly regarding proximity to sensitive receptors.

• Marine resource issues. Potential screening criteria included: wetlands; significant habi-tats; threatened and endangered species; potential for mitigation; and potential for creation of amenities.

These factors were refined and reformulated throughout the remainder of Task 3.2, but continued to serve as the core considerations.



3.4 Segmentation by Type of Service

Through the public outreach process, it became evident that a wide variety of vessel types and services would have to be considered, and that certain sites could be excellent candi-dates for certain types of vessels and services but poor candidates for other types of ves-sels and services. Also, it was noted that certain sites could be used to accommodate emergency operations, but were poor candidates for permanent services.

Therefore, it was determined that the best course was to develop separate sets of criteria that could be used to assess suitability for different types of vessels and services. That would, for example, enable a shallow-draft harbor to be evaluated positively for a shal-low-draft water taxi service, but negatively for a deeper-draft vehicle ferry or freight vessel.

A total of eight categories were identified:

• Passenger water taxi;

• Passenger/vehicle conventional ferry;

• Passenger fast ferry;

• Passenger emergency/temporary service;

• Truck-only ferry;

• Container barge;

• Non-container barge; and

• Freight emergency/temporary service.

3.5 Evaluation of Sites Versus Evaluation of Routes

The long list identified more than 60 existing or potential ferry sites, interconnected by hundreds of potential service routes. Detailed evaluation of each site-route combination was impractical. Therefore, to more efficiently reduce the number of possibilities, a two-step evaluation process was identified:

• The first step was to identify sites that appeared most promising to accommodate one or more of the eight types of ferry services (identified above), without regard to spe-cific destinations or routes. This screening significantly reduced the number of possi-bilities to a more manageable number.

• The second step was to look at the various service routes that were recommended from the surviving sites, based on the long list, and identify those with the highest potential and benefit.



From the list of potential evaluation factors, certain factors were most beneficial in assessing candidate sites – community acceptance, marine conditions, highway access, non-highway access, and suitability of the type of land use. Other factors were most bene-ficial in assessing candidate routes – principally market capture and the underlying factors of service frequency, speed, reliability, cost, profitability, and “end-to-end” trip-making. Other important factors are the sustainability of the service, the ability of the site to support the anticipated intensity of land use, and the potential for the creation of public benefits as defined by the goals of the LISWTP.

3.6 Fatal Flaw Assessment

Public outreach and meaningful public involvement is a critical part of the LISWTP proc-ess. Most of the public comment and feedback has been generally supportive – and often enthusiastic – towards waterborne opportunities. However, there have been a number of areas in which public input and/or local ordinance restrictions have argued against waterborne services:

• The CPW process identified one site – Mt. Sinai – that was a consensus “rejection.”

• Comments received from citizens in the Shoreham/Wading River and Northville areas were strongly against development – or even consideration – of ferry services in those communities. To date, there has been no countervailing input in favor of ferry services from these communities. It should be noted that many study participants – members of the public who participated in the CPWs, as well as members of the Steering and Advisory Committees – who felt that Shoreham, Northville, and (to a lesser degree) Mt. Sinai should not be eliminated from further consideration. They argued that the study had only heard objections from a limited number of organized community groups and that more input was needed.

• The Town of East Hampton prohibits, by ordinance, the establishment or operation of vehicle ferry services, or of any ferry services capable of speeds exceeding 20 knots. The Town of East Hampton sites identified by the CPW process included Montauk, Napeague, Ft. Pond Bay, and Sag Harbor Village.

The LISWTP is a consensus-based plan. There is no intent or effort to force waterborne services onto communities. Therefore, for purposes of the LISWTP, the presence of identi-fied community opposition to a potential site or service is being treated as a “fatal flaw.” Fatally-flawed sites were not ranked or evaluated (positively or negatively) using the study’s evaluation criteria (as developed and applied in Task 3), and will not be the sub-ject of any subsequent recommendation – either for or against – by the study. Sites and services defined as fatally flawed for purposes of the LISWTP are:

• Shoreham – fatally flawed for all services;

• Northville – fatally flawed for all services;



• Mt. Sinai – fatally flawed for all services; and

• Montauk, Napeague, Ft. Pond Bay, and Sag Harbor Village – fatally flawed for vehicle services, and for passenger services capable of exceeding 20 knots.

An initial formulation of the short list recommendations was presented at a series of PRMs. At the Southold PRM, there was substantial opposition expressed to the idea of expanding existing ferry service from Montauk, or to establishing new ferry services else-where on the South Fork. Some attendees spoke in favor of ferry services, but the clear majority of attendees were in opposition. Subsequently, the Town of East Hampton sub-mitted detailed technical assessments arguing the unsuitability of Montauk, Napeague, Ft. Pond Bay, and Sag Harbor Village for ferry services. Under the LISWTP work plan, these types of assessments are being performed (and would have been published) as part of Task 4. However, because this feedback (both from the public and from the Town) is being offered in response to the Task 3 screening assessments, the LISWTP Steering Committee believes that it should be treated as part of the Task 3 work effort. Therefore, this information has been included in a Supplemental Screening Assessment, which is dis-cussed in Section 5 of this Technical Memorandum.

3.7 Creation of Screening Templates

To systematize and document the overall evaluation process described above, a total of four screening templates were developed:

• Two site screening templates (one for passengers and one for freight), shown as Tables 3.1 and 3.2; and

• Two route screening templates (one for passengers and one for freight), shown as Tables 3.3 and 3.4.

Each template consists of sites or routes down the rows, and type of service (water taxi, conventional ferry, etc.) across the columns. Within each cell, there is space to assign a score to each site or route. The scores range from “++” to “- -.” Non-numerical scoring was chosen to avoid giving the impression that the scores are based on rigid, mathemati-cal rules; in fact, the scores represent summary assessments and judgments of the consult-ant team, and reflect both quantitative and qualitative information.



Table 3.1 Site Screening Template Passenger Service

Factor Passenger Water Taxi

Conventional Passenger/Vehicle

Ferry

Fast Passenger

Ferry

Emergency or Temporary

Service

Community Acceptance

++ Current use, or proposed use in advanced planning stages + Proposed use with apparent local support o Other/unknown - - Proposed or potential use, opposed or contrary to plans and

regulations Marine Conditions

++ High scores for “Draft and Constructability” and “Overall Marine Conditions”

+ Good scores for “Draft and Constructability” and “Overall Marine Conditions”

o Acceptable scores for “Draft and Constructability” and “Overall Marine Conditions”

- - Other

Highway Access + Good local access scores and regional access scores o Acceptable local access scores and regional access scores - Other

Non-Highway Access

++ Excellent non-highway and transit access + Good non-highway and transit access o Other

Suitability of Type of Land Use

+ Good fit (highly supportive) o Adequate fit (generally compatible) - Poor or unacceptable fit



Table 3.2 Site Screening Template Freight Service

Factor Truck Ferry

Container Barge

Non-Container Barge


Service

Community Acceptance

++ Current use, or proposed use in advanced planning stages + Proposed use with apparent local support o Other/unknown - - Proposed or potential use, opposed or contrary to plans and regulations

Marine Conditions

++ High scores for “Draft and Constructability” and “Overall Marine Conditions”

- - Other

Highway Access + Good local access scores and regional access scores o Acceptable local access scores and regional access scores - Other

Non-Highway Access

o All

Suitability of Type of Land Use

++ Current use, or proposed use in advanced planning stages + Proposed use with apparent local support o Other/unknown - - Proposed or potential use, opposed or contrary to plans and regulations



Table 3.3. Route Screening Template Passenger Service

Factor Passenger Water Taxi


Ferry

Fast Passenger

Ferry


Service

Market Demand ++ Proven market + Unproven market, high forecasted demand o Unproven market, medium forecasted demand - - Unproven market, low forecasted demand ++ Proven sustainability

Sustainability as Private Operation

+ Unproven with low risk (high forecasted demand, proven technology)

o Unproven with moderate risk (forecasted demand not high or technology not proven)

- - Unproven with high risk (combination of low demand, unproven technology)

Suitability of Site to Anticipated Intensity of Use

++ Good fit o Acceptable fit - - Poor fit

Potential to Generate Benefits as Defined by Study Goals

++ High potential benefit to regional/local transportation system and economy

+ High potential benefit but concentrated on regional side versus local side

o Potential for measurable benefits, but not at high levels - - Other



Table 3.4 Route Screening Template Freight Service

Factor Truck Ferry

Container Barge

Non-Container Barge


Service

Market Demand ++ Proven market + Unproven market, high forecasted demand o Unproven market, medium forecasted demand - - Unproven market, low forecasted demand

Sustainability as Private Operation

++ Proven sustainability + Unproven with low risk (high forecasted demand, proven

technology) o Unproven with moderate risk (forecasted demand not high or

technology not proven) - - Unproven with high risk (combination of low demand, unproven

technology)

Suitability of Site to Anticipated Intensity of Use

++ Good fit o Acceptable fit - - Poor fit

Potential to Generate Benefits as Defined by Study Goals

++ High potential benefit to regional/local transportation system and economy

+ High potential benefit but concentrated on regional side versus local side

o Potential for measurable benefits, but not at high levels - - Other

4.0 Initial Screening Assessment



4.0 Initial Screening Assessment

4.1 Overview

This section presents findings related to Task 3.3. The purpose of Task 3.3 is to: evaluate and prioritize alternative passenger and freight services based on screening thresholds and criteria.

In this subtask, the consultant team applied the screening thresholds and criteria pre-sented in Section 3.0. This was undertaken as a group process, with input from all con-sultant team members, the project Steering and Advisory Committees, and the three MPO sponsors for this study. The outcome is the formulation of an initial “short list” of sites and services that will be assessed in detail in Task 4 of the LISWTP.

The material in this section reflects screening performed based on information available through February 29, 2004, when the Draft Technical Memorandum on Task 3 was dis-tributed for review. Additional information was obtained after February 29, 2004, including: the results of a series of PRMs to obtain additional public feedback and input; the results of initial technical investigations of sites and services (undertaken as Task 4 of the LISWTP); and additional technical materials and documents provided by local and regional governments, most notably by the Town of East Hampton in opposition to the expansion of existing ferry services or the establishment of new services. This additional information is reflected in the Supplemental Screening Assessment, discussed in Section 5 of this Technical Memorandum.

There are no “magic formulas” for making site and service decisions on a purely statistical basis, and no fixed “cutoff line” for whether a site or service might make sense. Few of the sites and services on the long list are absolutely good or absolutely bad; most are some-where along a continuum of better or worse, depending on the particular use envisioned for them. Therefore, the screening criteria have been defined in terms of a generalized plus-and-minus system, and have been applied using available data and best professional judgment. In some cases, numerical scores were assigned to various factors during the evaluation process. Some of these scores refer to quantitative performance measures, and in other cases they are intended to document judgments and assessments that are qualita-tive in nature.

The initial findings and judgments of the consultant team were shared with the project Steering and Advisory Committees, and with the boards of the three MPOs sponsoring the study. Ultimately, these sites need to undergo a more rigorous and quantitative assessment, which is the purpose of Task 4. Again, these are not recommendations for or against specific ferry services – they are simply guidelines to identify sites and services for further evaluation.



4.2 The Screening Process

Sites and services defined as fatally flawed in Task 3.2 were excluded from further screening or assessment, and do not appear in subsequent evaluation tables. These included:

• Shoreham/Wading River (no services acceptable);

• Northville (no services acceptable);

• Mt. Sinai (no services acceptable); and

• Montauk/Napeague/Ft. Pond Bay/Sag Harbor Village (passenger services acceptable if not exceeding 20 knots, vehicle services not acceptable).

Remaining sites were evaluated on a plus-minus basis against the following criteria:

• Community acceptance;

• Marine conditions;

• Highway (auto and truck) access;

• Non-highway and transit access (including rail freight, rail and bus transit, pedestrian and bicycle access, etc.); and

• Land use suitability.

For the highest scoring of the remaining sites, services between them were evaluated quantitatively (insufficient data were available at this point in the study to support a for-malize ranking) against the following criteria:

• Potential market demand;

• Likelihood of sustainable service; and

• Potential to generate benefits consistent with the goals of the LISWTP.

Independent assessments were performed for eight different types of services:

• Four types of passenger services – water taxi; conventional passenger/vehicle ferry; fast passenger ferry; and emergency or temporary passenger service.

• Four types of freight services – truck-only ferry; container barge; non-container barge; and emergency or temporary freight service.



4.3 Site Screening

Potential for Community Acceptance

The potential for community acceptance is a vital consideration in the LISWTP. In evalu-ating this potential, the team used its best professional judgment, taking into account a variety of factors, including:

• Whether a site has a ferry service, or is actively planning a ferry service at this time;

• Whether community representatives expressed interest or support for such services;

• Whether private-sector ferry operators expressed interest in providing such services;

• Whether there was local enthusiasm from CPW participants;

• Whether there is a historic public record of support or opposition for ferry proposals; and

• Input and guidance from regional and local governments.

The Community Acceptance criteria are shown below, and the results of the screening are shown in Table 4.2 on the following page. Please note that screening was performed only on sites that were not deemed fatally flawed. All of the remaining sites (not fatally flawed) received some measure of acceptance, at least for certain types of marine services.

Table 4.1 Site Screening Criteria Community Acceptance

Services Criteria

All ++ Current use, or proposed use in advanced planning stages + Proposed/potential use with apparent local support o Other/unknown - – Proposed/potential use, opposed or contrary to plans and regulations



Table 4.2 Site Screening Results Community Acceptance

Passenger Factor

Passenger Water Taxi

Fast Passenger

Ferry


Ferry


Service

++ LGA, Lower Manhattan, Midtown

Bridgeport, Glen Cove, LGA, Lower Manhattan, Midtown, New London, Orient Point, Stamford

Bridgeport, Greenport, Port Jefferson, New London, Orient Point, Montauk (passenger only)

None

+ All other sites New Rochelle, New Haven, Huntington

New Haven None

o None All other sites None All sites

- None None All other sites None

Freight Factor

Dedicated Truck Ferry

Container Barge

Non-Container Barge


Service

++ None Bridgeport Bridgeport, New Haven, New London

None

+ Bridgeport New Haven, New London

None None

o New Haven, New London

None Stamford, Port Jefferson, other larger existing ports

All sites

- All other sites All other sites All other sites None



Marine Conditions

Screening evaluations based on marine conditions were performed using the detailed site-by-site marine inventories presented in the Technical Memorandum on Task 2. The proc-ess took into account two different sets of factors:

• Whether a site offers adequate channel dimensions for a given service, or can be feasi-bly improved to provide adequate channel dimensions. The team assigned a “Draft and Constructability” score (from +2 to -2) to measure this attribute.

• Whether other important marine conditions work for or against a potential service. These conditions include: inland transit distance; bridge clearances; currents; oper-ating restrictions; hazards; interfering traffic; and existing facilities and terminals. The team assigned a rating (from +2 to -2) to each of these attributes, and the ratings were combined into an “Overall Marine Conditions” score.

The detailed site-by-site scores are presented in Appendix A. After these scores were developed, they were used to support the Marine Conditions Screening Criteria, as shown in Table 4.3 below. Table 4.4 presents the results.

Table 4.3 Site Screening Criteria Marine Conditions

Services Criteria

Passenger and Freight, except Emergency Service

++ Draft and Constructability = 2 and combined Overall Marine Conditions >= 0.50

+ Draft and Constructability >= 1 and combined Overall Marine Conditions >= 0.25

o Draft and Constructability >= 0 and combined Overall Marine Conditions >= 0.00

- – Other Passenger and Freight, Emergency Service

++ Draft and Constructability = 2 - – Other



Table 4.4 Site Screening Results Marine Conditions

Passenger Factor


Fast Passenger

Ferry


Ferry


Service

++ All sites not listed below

Atlantic City, Bridgeport, Elizabeth, Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Lower Manhattan, Midtown, New Haven, New London, Orient Point, Port Chester, Port Jefferson

Bridgeport, Elizabeth, EWR, Lower Manhattan, Midtown, New Haven, New London, Orient Point, Port Jefferson, Montauk (passenger only)

Bridgeport, Elizabeth, EWR, Lower Manhattan, Midtown, New Haven, New London, Old Saybrook, Orient Point, Port Jefferson

+ Calverton/ Riverhead, New Rochelle, Orient Point, Port Jefferson, Roosevelt Island, Shinnecock Inlet, Southold

Bay Shore, Greenport, Greenwich, Larchmont, Mamaroneck, Mattituck, New Rochelle, Oyster Bay, Port Washington, Sheepshead Bay, Shinnecock Inlet, Southold, Stamford, Tarrytown

None None

o Old Saybrook, Sunken Meadow

All other Atlantic City, Beacon, Bear Mountain, Ft. Pond Bay (passenger only), Greenport, Huntington, LGA, Napeague (passenger only), Old Saybrook, Oyster Bay, Port Chester, Port Washington, Roosevelt Island, Sheepshead Bay, Stamford, Stewart Airport, Tarrytown

None

- – Danbury, Foxwoods, JFK, Stony Brook

Danbury, Foxwoods, JFK, Lloyd Harbor, Stony Brook, Sunken Meadow, Waterville, Westerly, Rhode Island

All other All other



Table 4.4 Site Screening Results (continued) Marine Conditions

Freight Factor


Container Barge

Non-Container Barge


Service

++ Bridgeport, Elizabeth, EWR, Lower Manhattan, Midtown, New Haven, New London, Port Jefferson

+ Atlantic City, Beacon, Stamford, Stewart Airport

o Bear Mountain, Greenport, Huntington, LGA, Old Saybrook, Oyster Bay, Roosevelt Island, Tarrytown

- - All other

Highway (Auto and Truck) Access

Screening evaluations based on highway access were performed using the detailed site-by-site access inventories presented in the Technical Memorandum on Task 2. The proc-ess took into account two different sets of factors:

• Whether a site offers adequate regional access, focusing on connectivity to the larger regional transportation system. For autos, the team assigned ratings (+2 to 0) based on two factors: proximity to a four-lane road, and proximity to a parkway or expressway interchange. For trucks, the team assigned ratings (+2 to 0) based on two factors: proximity to a four-lane road, and proximity to an expressway interchange. These were combined into a “Regional Access” score.

• Whether a site offers adequate local access, focusing on the immediate community. The team assigned scores. For autos, the team assigned ratings (+2 to 0) based on five factors: condition of local road; congestion of local road; number of traffic signals on local road; availability of alternative routes; and capacity of local road. For trucks, the team assigned ratings (+4 to 0) based on seven factors: grade of local road; condition of local road; congestion of local road; number of traffic signals on local road; avail-ability of alternative routes; capacity of local road; and oversize access. These were combined into a “Local Access” score.

The detailed site-by-site scores are presented in Appendix A. After these scores were developed, they were used to support the Highway Access Screening Criteria, as shown in Table 4.5 on the following page. Different standards are applied, depending on the vehi-cle access dependency associated with each potential service – freight has the highest standards for both regional and local access, followed by conventional vehicle ferry, then fast ferry, and finally water taxi. Table 4.6 subsequently presents the results according to these criteria.



Table 4.5 Site Screening Criteria Highway (Auto and Truck) Access

Services Criteria

Water Taxi + Local Access >= 7 o Local Access >= 4 - Other

Fast Ferry + Regional Access >=1, Local Access >= 7 o Regional Access >=1, Local Access >= 4 - Other

Conventional Passenger/Vehicle Ferry

+ Regional Access >=2, Local Access >= 7 o Regional Access >=2, Local Access >= 4 - Other

Freight + Regional Access => 3, Local Access >= 10 - Other



Table 4.6 Site Screening Results Highway (Auto and Truck) Access

Passenger Factor


Fast Passenger

Ferry


Ferry


Service

+ Atlantic City, Branford, Bridgeport, Calverton/ Riverhead, Elizabeth, EWR, Greenport, Greenwich, Larchmont, Lower Manhattan, Madison, Midtown, Montauk, New London, New Rochelle, Oyster Bay, Port Jefferson, Rye, Sag Harbor, Sheepshead Bay, Shinnecock, Stamford, Stony Brook, Sunken Meadow, West Haven, Westerly

Atlantic City, Bridgeport, Calverton/ Riverhead, Elizabeth, EWR, Greenwich, Larchmont, Lower Manhattan, Madison, Midtown, New London, New Rochelle, Oyster Bay, Port Jefferson, Rye, Sheepshead Bay, Stamford, Stony Brook, Sunken Meadow, West Haven

Atlantic City, Bridgeport, Calverton/ Riverhead, Elizabeth, EWR, Greenwich, Lower Manhattan, Midtown, New London, New Rochelle, Rye, Sheepshead Bay, Stamford, Sunken Meadow, West Haven

None

o Beacon, Bear Mountain, Ft. Pond Bay, Glen Cove, Guilford, LGA, Mamaroneck, Manorhaven, Napeague, New Haven, Norwalk, Old Saybrook, Orient Point, Port Chester, Roosevelt Island, Southhold, Tarrytown, Mattituck, Westbrook

Beacon, Glen Cove, LGA, Mamaroneck, Manorhaven, New Haven, Norwalk, Old Saybrook, Port Chester, Roosevelt Island, Tarrytown, Westbrook

Beacon, LGA, Mamaroneck, New Haven, Norwalk, Old Saybrook, Port Chester, Port Jefferson, Roosevelt Island, Tarrytown, Westbrook

All sites

- All other All other All other None

Freight Factor


Container Barge

Non-Container Barge


Service

+ Atlantic City, Beacon, Bridgeport, Elizabeth, EWR, LGA, Mamaroneck, New Haven, New London, Rye, Sheepshead Bay, West Haven

- All other sites



Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access

Screening evaluations based on transit (rail and bus), pedestrian, and bicycle access were performed using the detailed site-by-site access inventories presented in the Technical Memorandum on Task 2. The process took into account the following factors:

• Whether a site offers direct (short walk) or nearby (long walk or shuttle) transfers to commuter or intercity railroads;

• Whether a site offers direct or proximate access to bus services; and

• The quality of pedestrian access and bicycle access (provision of sidewalks, steepness of grades).

These factors are critically important as we try to link ferry services with other non-automobile modes, as part of larger “trip chains” that can compete effectively with automobiles.

These factors apply only to passengers. Connections between freight ferry/barge and rail freight were examined, but the level of service provided by freight railroads operating in the east-of-Hudson region is not good – the amount of traffic they handle is small, and they are not being used as the “first mile” or “last mile” of waterborne commodity moves. While there may be some slight utility to connections between freight ferry and rail ser-vices, this is not viewed as a significant factor for purposes of site evaluation.

The detailed site-by-site scores are presented in Appendix A. After these scores were developed, they were combined in the form of screening criteria, as shown in Table 4.7. The provision of non-highway access is viewed as a positive or strong positive influence, but sites are not penalized for deficiencies in this regard. Table 4.8 presents the results according to these criteria.

Table 4.7 Site Screening Criteria Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access

Services Criteria

Passenger ++ Non-Highway Access Score >= 14 + Non-Highway Access score >= 7 o Other



Table 4.8 Site Screening Results Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access

Passenger Factor


Fast Passenger

Ferry


Ferry


Service

++ Greenport, JFK, Larchmont, Lower Manhattan, Mamaroneck, Midtown, New London, New Rochelle, Port Jefferson, Roosevelt Island, Rye, Sag Harbor (passenger < 20 knots only), Sheepshead Bay, West Haven

+ Atlantic City, Beacon, Branford, Bridgeport, Calverton/Riverhead, Elizabeth, Glen Cove, Greenwich, Guliford, LGA, Manorhaven, Montauk (passenger < 20 knots only), New Haven, Norwalk, Orient, Oyster Bay, Port Chester, Port Washington, Stamford, Tarrytown

o All other

Freight Factor


Container Barge

Non-Container Barge


Service

o All sites

Land Use

Initial screening evaluations based on land use compatibility were performed using the detailed site-by-site access inventories presented in the Technical Memorandum on Task 2 and supplemental field surveys.

Water taxi was viewed as a low-impact, benign use. Given the highly positive recom-mendations this use received in the community outreach process – and the fact that almost all of the sites included in the “long list” had been recommended as water taxi locations – all sites were viewed as compatible for this use.

Fast ferry suitability was more complicated. A formal assessment took into account the following factors (site-by-site scores are presented in Appendix A):

• Compatibility with, and positive reinforcement of, existing land uses;

• Availability of nearby parking; and

• Potential impacts on woodlands, wetlands, or parklands.

For conventional car/passenger ferry services, sites with existing services were deemed compatible. Given the generally negative reaction by most communities to new car ser-vices – primarily due to anticipated land use and traffic impacts – all other sites were



deemed less compatible. For freight services, the team relied on the Community Acceptance factor to determine whether such uses could be considered compatible.

These are obviously very preliminary assessments. More significant and meaningful determinations of compatibility will be undertaken in Task 4; for present purposes, this initial evaluation is intended only for screening out the least-compatible sites.

Table 4.9 Site Screening Criteria Land Use

Services Criteria

Water Taxi + All Fast Ferry + if Land Use Score >= 14; o if Land Use Score >= 7; – if other


+ if existing use; – otherwise

Freight Same as Community Acceptance ratings



Table 4.10 Site Screening Results Land Use

Passenger Factor


Fast Passenger

Ferry


Ferry


Service

+ All Atlantic City, Beacon, Branford, Bridgeport, Calverton/ Riverhead, Elizabeth, EWR, Glen Cove, Greenport, Guilford, LGA, Lower Manhattan, Mamaroneck, Manorhaven, Midtown, New London, New Rochelle, Norwalk, Old Saybrook, Oyster Bay, Port Jefferson, Port Washington, Rye, Sheepshead Bay, Shinnecock, Stony Brook, Tarrytown, West Haven

Bridgeport, New London, Orient Point, Port Jefferson, Montauk (passenger only)

None

o None Bear Mountain, East Marion, Greenwich, Larchmont, Madison, Mattituck, New Haven, Northport, Orient, Port Chester, Roosevelt Island, Southhold, Stamford, Waterville, Westbrook, Westerly

None All

- None All other All other None

Freight Factor


Container Barge

Non-Container Barge


Service

++ None Bridgeport Bridgeport, New Haven, New London

None

+ Bridgeport New Haven, New London None None

o New Haven, New London

None Stamford, Port Jefferson, other existing ports

All sites

- - All other sites All other sites All other sites None



4.4 Integration of Site Scoring and Route Scoring

Dedicated site scores were tabulated for each of eight possible services, based on the crite-ria defined previously. Site-by-site details are presented in Appendix A, and an overall summary is presented below. Certain sites on the south shore of Long Island were evalu-ated for marine conditions (as a matter of information), but not for other factors (because they are outside the study area), and are not included in the summary tables.

An interim version of the LISWTP ferry demand model was prepared in order to test potential services from the highest scoring sites. The model focused on peak-hour com-muter travel (primarily the fast ferry market), and provided useful initial feedback on potential options. This did not allow for a full application of the route scoring criteria, so sites have not been formally ranked on that basis – but this information was important in making preliminary assessments about general market potential.

Based on the combination of site screening information and initial demand modeling, the team formulated a set of initial site/route/service strategies considered promising for further evaluation in Task 4. These are discussed below.

Water Taxi

Based on the screening process, every site considered had a positive score, and could be potentially suitable for water taxi service. No sites could be absolutely excluded, although some sites are clearly more attractive than others; generally, the team considered a score of 4 or above to be acceptable.

Table 4.11 Summary of Scoring Water Taxi

Score Site

8, 7 Larchmont, Lower Manhattan, Midtown, Greenport, New London, Rye, Sag Harbor, Sheepshead Bay, West Haven

6 Atlantic City, Branford, Bridgeport, Elizabeth, Greenwich, LGA, Mamaroneck, Montauk, New Rochelle, Port Jefferson, Stamford

5 Beacon, Calverton/Riverhead, EWR, Glen Cove, Guilford, JFK, Madison, Manorhaven, New Haven, Norwalk, Port Chester, Roosevelt Island, Tarrytown, Westerly

4 Bear Mountain, Ft. Pond Bay, Mattituck, Napeague, Orient, Oyster Bay, Port Washington, Shinnecock, Westbrook

3 or less East Marion, Huntington, Lloyd Harbor, Northport, Southhold, Stony Brook, Sunken Meadow, Waterville, Old Saybrook



Although the interim demand model did not provide any quantification of water taxi demand, there are some obvious market factors that must be taken into account. First and foremost, water taxi is a slower-speed, lower-capacity mode, most suitable for shorter-distance moves between waterfront origins and destinations, where it can be potentially competitive with auto.

The resulting strategy was to identify clusters of good-scoring water taxi sites located in reasonable proximity to each other, that could be linked as part of logical services. Sites located at longer distances from each other were considered poor candidates, even if they scored well, because water taxi services operating over longer distances would be less competitive in terms of attracting market share.

Two main water taxi services were identified.

• Manhattan-Westchester-Connecticut Coast Water Taxi. This would be a full-year service (or set of services) providing connections for business and recreational users. Potential stops would be: Lower Manhattan; Midtown Manhattan; Hunts Point (being addressed as part of a parallel effort to the LISWTP); New Rochelle; Larchmont; Mamaroneck; Rye; Port Chester; Stamford; and Norwalk. It could be an end-to-end service, or as a set of services along different segments. This would be a transporta-tion amenity along the lines of a small express bus, rather than a high-capacity/high-speed transportation service provided by a commuter railroad, and would substitute for auto trips between coastal destinations in the linked communities. LGA could be part of this itinerary, although airport users tend to be sensitive to time and the service might be too slow for their needs. Other intermediate stops in the New York boroughs (Brooklyn, Queens, and Bronx) and the Connecticut coast (Greenwich) might also be integrated into the service. This is a highly flexible concept that could be developed in different phases, depending on the level of interest and demand of each participating community, at relatively low cost.

• Inner Forks Water Taxi. This would be a seasonal service aimed at meeting the increased peak-season transportation demand associated with seasonal residents and tourists. The vessels could be passenger only, or they might also include provisions for carrying a limited number of automobiles, akin to the Shelter Island ferries. Potential stops could include: Orient Point; Greenport; Calverton/Riverhead; Shinnecock Inlet; Sag Harbor Village; and Napeague/Ft. Pond Bay/Montauk (Napeague and Ft. Pond Bay do not score as well as Montauk, but offer certain advantages as alternative sites).

A number of other sites scored well, but have not been proposed for water taxi service, because they could not be easily integrated into services linking a series of nearby desti-nations, or because the area could be served by another alternative site, or because the site is not within the primary LISWTP study area.



Fast Ferry

Based on the screening process, many sites were considered suitable for fast ferry services, with a score of 4 or better. However, a fast ferry imposes greater demands on a site than a water taxi. This is reflected in the fact that many sites that scored acceptably for water taxi did not score acceptably for fast ferry.

Table 4.12 Summary of Scoring Fast Ferry

Score Site

8, 7, 6 Lower Manhattan, Midtown, New London, Bridgeport, Port Jefferson, New Rochelle

5, 4 Atlantic City, Elizabeth, EWR, LGA, Mamaroneck, New Haven, Sheepshead Bay, Stamford, Glen Cove, Larchmont, Orient, Oyster Bay, Port Chester, Rye, Tarrytown, West Haven

3, 2, 1 Calverton/Riverhead, Greenport, Greenwich, Manorhaven, Norwalk, Roosevelt Island, Beacon, Old Saybrook, Port Washington, Branford, Guilford, Madison, Sag Harbor, Shinnecock, Westbrook

0 or below Mattituck, Southhold, Stony Brook, Bear Mountain, East Marion, Huntington, Northport, JFK, Sunken Meadow, Waterville, Westerly, Lloyd Harbor

The role of fast ferry is to provide longer-haul, high-speed, high-capacity transportation service between more distant points, with a limited number of stops – something like a commuter railroad running on the water. During peak periods, they serve primarily commuter and business trips; in the off peak, they accommodate recreational travel.

Sites scoring 4 or higher were subject to a further evaluation using an interim version of the LISWTP demand model. The model provided initial estimates of the percentage diversion from automobile that could be expected, and the number of trips that could be anticipated. These estimates were used as guidelines for selecting the following site-pairs for further assessment.

• New London-Orient Point Fast Ferry. These are existing services, and further study would focus on potential enhancements. New London scored extremely well as a fast ferry site, but Orient Point did not – New London is closer to a larger population base and is well served by highway and transit, in comparison to Orient. The possibility of services from New London to points further west were tested using the interim demand model, and the model indicated the potential for positive diversion from automobile for peak-hour travel between New London and Port Jefferson, Glen Cove, LGA, and Manhattan; however, the number of auto travelers actually making these trips in the peak hour was small, and the model may have imposed excessive time penalties on the automobiles. It may be the case that off-peak travel can generate



additional demand on these routes, and this will be explored in Task 4. But the pri-mary focus will be on enhancements to the New London-Orient Point service.

• Bridgeport-Port Jefferson Fast Ferry. Bridgeport-Port Jefferson has a successful con-ventional passenger/vehicle service, and further study would focus on potential enhancements in the form of a fast ferry operation. Both sites scored extremely well, but both sites could benefit from improved access and connectivity (transit linkages, traffic management, etc.). Other routes from Bridgeport were tested using the interim demand model, but the model indicated that Port Jefferson is the strongest route. The model found some diversion from auto for Bridgeport-Orient Point, but very little overall traffic to divert; the model found more traffic between Bridgeport-Glen Cove, but less of that traffic would divert to fast ferry.

• Manhattan-LGA-Westchester-Stamford-Bridgeport Fast Ferry. The interim model identified Manhattan and LGA as significant generators of traffic that could poten-tially be diverted to ferry. The interim model found positive indicators for Rye-LGA, Rye-Manhattan, Stamford-LGA, and Stamford-Manhattan. Both Rye and Stamford scored well (as did Manhattan and LGA). The interim model did not indicate as much traffic for Bridgeport-LGA and Bridgeport-Manhattan; however, the possibility of combining Bridgeport demand to Stamford, LGA, and Manhattan (and possibly other interim sites) warrants its inclusion in this service. Some planning for this type of ser-vice is already underway. Combined service between New Haven and Manhattan/LGA/Stamford/Bridgeport was not as high, so it is not included. One other initially recommended inclusion is New Rochelle, which scored very highly; although demand from New Rochelle was not tested with the interim demand model, it is anticipated to be similar to Rye. Other good-scoring sites along this route (Larchmont, Mamaroneck, Port Chester, and Greenwich) could have easily been included (or substituted), but the team’s initial assessment is that this formulation is, on balance, the most promising. In practice, there might also be many service permu-tations – express services that omit LGA or other interim stops, versus local services that might include additional stops. Finally, this service could work in tandem with the Manhattan-Westchester-Connecticut Coast water taxi service, with fast ferry ser-vice to key “hubs” and water taxi connections to other adjoining communities.

• Manhattan-LGA-Glen Cove Fast Ferry. The interim model also found positive indi-cators for Glen Cove-LGA and Glen Cove-Manhattan. Glen Cove is a high-scoring site, it has had ferry service to Manhattan in the recent past, and there are plans to reinstate the service again in the future. The possibility of extending this service fur-ther east to Port Jefferson was tested with the interim demand model, but the indications were not positive.

• Stamford-Huntington Fast Ferry. Throughout the LISWTP process, many partici-pants have requested that the consultant team examine a new cross-sound service west of Bridgeport-Port Jefferson. Stamford is a logical point on the Westchester-Connecticut side, because it serves as a major employment center, and because it is some distance from bridge crossings. On the Long Island site, the team selected Huntington. Although Huntington did not score especially well as a potential fast



ferry site, it has been included because: 1) there are no other sites being considered between Glen Cove and Port Jefferson, and Huntington is equidistant between the two; and 2) there were repeated public requests that the consultant team consider Huntington. The interim demand model has not yet been applied to this potential service. In the event that obstacles to placing a fast ferry in Huntington cannot be overcome, other options would be Stamford-Glen Cove, Rye-Glen Cove, and/or New Rochelle-Glen Cove. If ferry terminals are built in any of these locations to serve Manhattan/LGA travel, they might then be linked with a cross-sound service.

• New Haven Fast Ferry. New Haven scores extremely well as fast ferry site, and the interim demand model suggests the possibility of positive demand to sites between Port Jefferson and Orient Point. However, during the course of the LISWTP, it was not possible to identify a potentially suitable site along this stretch of the Long Island north shore – the sites most frequently mentioned (Shoreham, Wading River, and Northville) have all been deemed “fatally flawed.” The team will continue to test the general attributes of a New Haven to Long Island North Shore service, but will not specify or test an actual location on the Long Island side – so this will necessarily be a partial analysis only.


Based on the screening process, a limited number of sites were considered suitable for conventional passenger/vehicle ferry services, with a score of 4 or better. A conventional passenger/vehicle imposes greater demands on a site than either fast ferry or water taxi, and this is reflected in the fact that few sites scored acceptably.

Table 4.13 Summary of Scoring Conventional Passenger/Vehicle Ferry

Score Site

4 or above New London, Bridgeport, Port Jefferson, Orient Point, Montauk 3 Lower Manhattan, Midtown, New Haven

2 or below All other

The list of readily-acceptable sites is, as it turns out, limited to those sites that already have such a service. In large part, this is due to the fact that no community representatives (except New Haven) stepped forward in favor of hosting such a service; rather, most were actively opposed, and this is reflected in the scoring criteria the team applied. Absent this input, and trying only to solve a transportation problem, the consultant team might have otherwise raised two additional possibilities:



1. A conventional passenger/vehicle service between New London and the South Fork. This would have allowed vehicles to reach the South Fork almost as fast as the North Fork, bypassing local roads on both forks and reducing congestion on the Shelter Island Ferries. However, this was strongly opposed, not only by LISWTP participants, but also by the SEEDS process, whose recommendations the LISWTP is following for purposes of consistency.

2. A conventional cross-sound passenger/vehicle service somewhere between the Whitestone Bridge and the Bridgeport-Port Jefferson Ferry. But finding sites on either side of the Sound to accommodate such a service – and the vehicle traffic it would bring – would be extremely problematic.

This being the case, the consultant team has identified the following conventional passenger/vehicle services for further assessment:

• New London-Orient Point Conventional Ferry (vehicles and passengers). This would focus on potential enhancements (access and site improvements) to the existing facilities.

• Bridgeport-Port Jefferson Conventional Ferry. Similarly, this would focus on poten-tial enhancements (access and site improvements) to the existing facilities.

• New Haven Conventional Ferry. Among sites not currently hosting conventional ferry services, New Haven has a top score. New Haven has asked to be considered for this type of service. However, as with fast ferry, the logical Long Island terminals for this potential service – Shoreham or Northville – have been deemed fatally flawed, so this will be a partial analysis only.

• New London-South Fork Conventional Ferry (passenger service not exceeding 20 knots). This would focus on potential enhancements to the existing service between New London and the South Fork, in the form of: possibly increasing the service fre-quency from the existing ferry location (Montauk); or possibly locating a comparable service in an alternative location (Ft. Pond Bay or Napeague). It is recognized that neither Ft. Pond Bay nor Napeague scored highly for this use, so there would have to be a compelling argument for providing services in these locations as opposed to Montauk; this is discussed in detail in Section 5.

Emergency Passenger Service

The key criteria here are: can you get a conventional high-capacity vessel into the site immediately, on a moment’s notice? And can you get people to and from the site, pref-erably via transit? All other considerations are secondary, because all other associated impacts are temporary and can be addressed with interim measures – temporary struc-tures, temporary traffic routing, temporary shuttle buses and parking, etc. The only con-cern is moving people in the event that other critical elements of the transportation system are disrupted.



Table 4.14 Summary of Scoring Emergency Passenger Service

Score Site

Best (4 or 3)

Lower Manhattan, Midtown, New London, Port Jefferson, Bridgeport, New Haven, Orient Point

Acceptable (2)

Elizabeth and EWR (via Port Newark/Elizabeth), Old Saybrook

Unacceptable (0 or below)

All other

These can be thought of as the core sites for a Long Island Sound Emergency Transportation System. Emergency issues as they relate to these sites will be addressed in Task 4. The LISWTP team has received several communications expressing concern that this emergency service designation might be a “Trojan horse” designed solely to circum-vent the Town of East Hampton’s prohibition of passenger services in excess of 20 knots – or, as one public speaker put it, to “overthrow our zoning code.” This is categorically untrue, as the LISWTP makes no recommendation to establish services prohibited by ordinance.

Truck Ferry

Many parts of the country are examining the possibility of increased use of dedicated truck ferries to relieve congestion on overburdened local, regional, state, and interstate highways. The advantage of truck ferries is that they remove part of the trip from the highway system, conferring benefits over that distance and location. The disadvantage of truck ferries is that they create new traffic at their origins and destinations. Based on the screening process, a very limited number of sites were considered suitable for truck fer-ries. This is not surprising, given that their impacts are even greater than conventional passenger/vehicle ferries.



Table 4.15 Summary of Scoring Truck Ferry

Score Site

Best (3 or higher)

Bridgeport, New Haven, New London

Acceptable (1-2)

EWR, Elizabeth


All other

The key service opportunity here is to intercept trucks in New Jersey that are bound for Connecticut or New England, and allow them to use a truck ferry in lieu of driving the southern tier (Narrows Bridge), northern tier (George Washington Bridge), or Tappan Zee crossings. On the New Jersey side, the service could run from somewhere proximate to PANYNJ and EWR – not necessarily at Port Newark/Elizabeth, where space is limited (and expensive), but possibly at another industrial waterfront area with good access to the New Jersey Turnpike, such as Tremley Point or Carteret. On the Connecticut side, the service could run from Bridgeport initially, then possibly extending to New Haven and/or New London.

Such a service, if successful, would offer transportation benefits to New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The critical problem is that a truck ferry moves not only the truck, but also the driver – and unless the ferry saves the driver time and money in comparison to driving, he/she has no incentive to use it. There is an alternative formulation, in which large trucking companies could deliver trailers to the ferry with a set of New Jersey driv-ers, and then pick them up in Connecticut with a set of Connecticut drivers, but this is asking a lot from trucking companies, who as a rule prefer simpler logistics.

Container Barge

Container barge services are substantially different from truck ferries. All that is moved on the barge is the container, which is lifted or rolled onto and off of the barge. The driver does not move with the cargo, so driver time and cost is not an issue.

Coastwise container barges have been operating from U.S. East Coast ports for many years, including operations at PANYNJ. Over the past few years, PANYNJ and several other ports in the region have cooperated in developing a concept known as the Port Inland Distribution Network, or PIDN, in which containers would be moved directly from PANYNJ terminals to other inland locations (by rail) or coastal locations (by barge).



Albany was the first PIDN barge site, and Bridgeport has recently been approved as the second.

Table 4.16 Summary of Scoring Container Barge to/from PANYNJ

Score Site

Best (3 or higher)

Bridgeport, New Haven, New London

Acceptable (1-2)

EWR, Elizabeth


All other

The PANYNJ-Bridgeport service will be reflected in the Task 4 analysis. Potential enhancements to be tested include extending the service to New Haven, and and/or New London. Other than Hunts Point, which is being considered as part of a parallel study, no other sites in the study area were deemed suitable for this use.

Non-Container Barges and Vessels

Non-container barge services exist throughout Long Island Sound, and are vital in sup-plying the region with fuels (coal, oil, and petroleum), aggregates (sand and gravel, con-crete), and other necessary bulk materials. It is vital to continue to accommodate these traditional port activities – these are extremely heavy commodities, and if they had to be shifted to alternative modes (primarily truck, given the limited extent of the east of Hudson rail freight system), the transportation results would be quite bad. Moving into Task 4, the LISWTP envisions that Long Island Sound’s leading ports – Bridgeport, New London, New Haven, Stamford, Port Jefferson, Hempsted Harbor, et al. – will continue to provide the necessary capacity to meet future demand.

Emergency Freight Services

Under emergency conditions, the LISWTP envisions that throughput through Long Island Sound’s existing cargo ports might undergo surges in throughput. This will be assessed as part of Task 4.



4.5 Sustainability

There is insufficient data at this time to determine whether the new services described in the previous section would be sustainable as private operations over the long term, or whether public subsidies might be required for short-term or long-term assistance. We do know that many of these services – Bridgeport-Port Jefferson, New London-Orient Point, Long Island Sound’s cargo ports, etc. – are sustainable today.

4.6 Potential for Public Benefit

Taken as a package, the LISWTP recommended short list of sites and services aims to shift a percentage of commuter and recreational auto traffic to ferry, and to retain and enhance the use of waterborne freight in lieu of trucking. This offers the possibility of traffic improvements along major regional highways (I-95, Long Island Expressway) and in local communities. It also offers other potential benefits – increased transportation choices, greater transportation connections among communities, and greater redundancy and emergency capacity within the total transportation system. Task 4 will examine the impact of the LISWTP program on the region’s major highways, using the NYMTC Best Practices Model.

However, we are fully aware – and we caution the reader to remember – that the volumes of people and goods moving within this region are staggeringly large. The LISWTP addresses a limited subset of the overall transportation system and will not, by any stretch of the imagination, “solve the problem.” At best, it will be able to divert a modest (but meaningful) share of traffic from the highway system to alternative modes, at a reasonable cost, with acceptable levels of impact. If it is successful in doing so, it can make a measur-able, worthwhile, and cost-effective contribution to the region’s transportation system and the well-being of its users, and that would be its inherent benefit.

5.0 Supplemental Screening Assessment



5.0 Supplemental Screening Assessment

5.1 Overview

This section presents additional findings related to Task 3.3. The purpose of Task 3.3 is to: evaluate and prioritize alternative passenger and freight services based on screening thresholds and criteria.

The material in this section reflects screening performed based on information available subsequent to February 29, 2004, when the Draft Technical Memorandum on Task 3 was distributed for review. Additional information obtained after that date includes: the results of a series of PRMs to obtain additional public feedback and input; the results of initial technical investigations of sites and services (undertaken as Task 4 of the LISWTP); and additional technical materials and documents provided by local and regional gov-ernments, most notably by the Town of East Hampton.

5.2 Initial Formulation of the “Short List”

Based on the analyses presented in Section 4, the Initial Screening Assessment recom-mended the following “short list” of sites and services for evaluation in Task 4:

• Enhancements to existing facilities, services, and landside connections: Bridgeport-Port Jefferson; New London-Orient Point; and New London-South Fork.

• Services currently in the planning stage: Container barge between Bridgeport and PANYNJ; Bridgeport-Stamford-LGA/Mid-Lower Manhattan Fast Ferry; and Glen Cove-LGA/Mid-Lower Manhattan Fast Ferry.

• Potential new services: PIDN extensions and potential truck ferry from Bridgeport to New Haven and New London; New Haven-Long Island North Shore Conventional/Fast Ferry; Stamford-Huntington Fast Ferry; Rye and/or New Rochelle-LGA/Mid-Lower Manhattan Fast Ferry; Westchester/Fairfield Coastal Water Taxi; and “Inner Forks” Seasonal Water Taxi/Small Conventional Ferry.

• Regional freight services that were short-listed for examination in the Hunts Point Waterborne Freight Assessment, a parallel effort to the LISWTP.


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

5-2 Cam


Figure 5.1 Short-Listed Sites and Services from Initial Screening Assessment

Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Mid/Low

er

Manhattan

Port ChesterMam

aroneck

Larchmont/

New

Rochelle

New

Haven

LGA

Glen

Cove

Huntington

New London

Color Key

Blue = Vehicles/Passengers

Yellow = Passengers only

Dk. Blue = Containers, Vehicles, and/or Passengers

Intermodal Junction

Passenger Water Taxi (varying speeds)

Fast Pasesnger Ferry (30+ knots)

Conventional Ferry, Vehicle/ Passenger or Passenger Only (< 20 knots)


Legend

Freight Barge

Stamford

Montauk

Calverton/Riverhead

Napeague Bay

Ft. Pond Bay

Port Jefferson

Sag Harbor Village

Orient

Greenport

Port

Shinnecock Inlet

Hunts Point

Enhance current service, facilities, and connections

Enhance service, facilities, and connections

Enhance service, facilities, and connections (pax service only, not to exceed 20 knots in Town

of East Hampton)

Seasonal "

Inner Fork

s"

Water T

axi or Small

Pax/Auto Loop

Services

Note: The various fast ferry alternatives to/from LGA and Manhattan are depicted as "express" services, butcould include intermediate stops.

New Haven to LI North Shore (generic assessment, no LI site)

Port

Norw

alk

Truck Ferry

EWR,

NJ

JFK

East End freight connection for fish, meat, produce

Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Mid/Low

er

Manhattan

Port ChesterMam

aroneck

Larchmont/

New

Rochelle

New

Haven

LGA

Glen

Cove

Huntington

New London

Color Key




Intermodal Junction





Legend

Freight Barge

Stamford

Montauk

Calverton/Riverhead

Napeague Bay

Ft. Pond Bay

Port Jefferson

Sag Harbor Village

Orient

Greenport

Port

Shinnecock Inlet

Hunts Point




of East Hampton)

Seasonal "

Inner Fork

s"

Water T

axi or Small

Pax/Auto Loop

Services



Port

Norw

alk

Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Mid/Low

er

Manhattan

Port ChesterMam

aroneck

Larchmont/

New

Rochelle

New

Haven

LGA

Glen

Cove

Huntington

New London

Color Key




Intermodal Junction





Legend

Freight Barge

Stamford

Montauk

Calverton/Riverhead

Napeague Bay

Ft. Pond Bay

Port Jefferson

Sag Harbor Village

Orient

Greenport

Port

Shinnecock Inlet

Hunts Point




of East Hampton)

Seasonal "

Inner Fork

s"

Water T

axi or Small

Pax/Auto Loop

Services



Port

Norw

alk

Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Mid/Low

er

Manhattan

Port ChesterMam

aroneck

Larchmont/

New

Rochelle

New

Haven

LGA

Glen

Cove

Huntington

New London

Color Key




Intermodal Junction





Legend

Freight Barge

Stamford

Montauk

Calverton/Riverhead

Napeague Bay

Ft. Pond Bay

Port Jefferson

Sag Harbor Village

Orient

Greenport

Port

Shinnecock Inlet

Hunts Point




of East Hampton)

Seasonal "

Inner Fork

s"

Water T

axi or Small

Pax/Auto Loop

Services



Port

Norw

alk

Truck Ferry

EWR,

NJ

JFK

East End freight connection for fish, meat, produce



5.3 Subsequent Revisions to the Initial “Short List”

Public Review Meetings and Other Input

As previously discussed, a program of PRMs was conducted following the release of the Draft Technical Memorandum on Task 3 and the Initial Screening Assessment “Short List.” Two meetings were held in each of the following locations:

• Lower Manhattan;

• Bridgeport;

• Stamford;

• Southold;

• Glen Cove;

• Bronx;

• New Rochelle; and

• Port Jefferson.

In addition, the team has received communications from several communities in the study area. Generally, three types of input have been received through these meetings and through follow-up contacts with community representatives:

• Requests to add more potential sites and services to the initial short list;

• Requests to limit or modify subsequent analyses of sites and services on the initial short list; and

• Requests to delete sites and services from the initial short list.

Requests to Add Sites and Services to the Initial Short List

The LISWTP team was requested to add the following seven sites and/or services to the study process:

• Port Chester – Manhattan fast ferry;

• Stamford – Glen Cove fast ferry;

• New Rochelle – Glen Cove fast ferry;

• Orchard Beach (Bronx, at Pelham Bay north of City Island Road);

• Co-op City (Bronx, off the Eastchester Bay inlet south of City Island Road);



• Ferry Point Park (Bronx, at the northern landing of the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge); and

• City Island.

At this time, the LISWTP work plan does not allow for assessments of these additional sites and services; however, such assessments could be undertaken through amendments to the LISWTP work plan, or through other analytical efforts.

Requests to Limit or Modify Analyses of Short-List Sites and Services

Bridgeport to Port Jefferson Fast Ferry

The Village of Poquott adopted a resolution dated March 11, 2004, “urging that no addi-tional ferry traffic be permitted in the Port Jefferson Harbor Complex.” Separately, the LISWTP team has understood that the Village of Port Jefferson, while strongly supporting its existing ferry service, has significant concerns about the potential for increased vehicle traffic associated with changes in ferry operations.

Initial Task 4 assessments suggest there is currently very little demand for a passenger-only fast ferry service between Bridgeport and Port Jefferson. The LISWTP demand model indicated that at an average speed of 35 knots and an average one-way fare of $25, a fast ferry would attract perhaps 30 additional passengers per day, in comparison to the existing option (walk-on to a 15-knot ferry at $14 per trip). Decreasing the fare and increasing the speed for the fast ferry option did not significantly affect this demand esti-mate. The primary demand – for drive-on service, and for walk-on “day trips” – appears to be well accommodated by the existing service. Therefore, further consideration of a fast ferry option is not recommended. Further consideration of enhancements to the existing service is recommended, and will focus on landside facilities (terminals, parking, and supporting land uses) and transportation system connectivity (signage, access routes, transit connectors, etc.).

New Haven to “Generic Point” Long Island

The LISWTP has envisioned testing conventional and fast ferry services between New Haven and transportation system links (“generic points”) on the Long Island north shore, without specifying particular sites or locations, as a general test of the value of the con-cept. Recently, the Bridgeport-Port Jefferson ferry operator announced plans for a new terminal in New Haven, which would create a New Haven to Port Jefferson connection. This connection will serve as one of the points tested for New Haven service.

New London to Orient Point Conventional and Fast Ferry

Concern was expressed about the potential negative impacts of increasing frequency or capacity on these existing services. The LISWTP demand model indicated that the existing market is well served by current services, and no increase in frequency or capac-ity is indicated. Therefore, it is recommended that the LISWTP explore enhancements to



landside facilities (terminals, parking, and supporting land uses) and transportation sys-tem connectivity (signage, traffic flows, transit connectors, etc.), but no change in service volumes.

Stamford to Huntington Fast Ferry

For the Initial Screening Assessment, the LISWTP team elected to retain Huntington as a potential site largely in response to expressed community support. Subsequently, the team learned (and it was later reported in the New York Times) of concerns that had been raised among Huntington officials related to the difficulty of developing an appropriate landing facility, the local traffic impacts, and the potential unsuitability of marine access conditions. Preliminary Task 4 assessments suggest that:

• There is currently very little demand for a passenger-only ferry service (fast or other-wise) between Stamford and Huntington. The LISWTP demand model indicated that with a one-way fare of $15 and average service speeds of 15 to 35 knots, a fast ferry would attract perhaps 30 to 45 passengers per day. Decreasing the fare did not signifi-cantly affect this demand estimate. From anecdotal evidence, there is reason to believe that there is “latent” demand for a Huntington to Stamford service, based on work-force access. In other words, these trips are not occurring today (hence they do not show up in our current demand estimates) but might be expected to occur if an attrac-tive cross-sound transportation option is provided. Such a service might be akin to a “black car” on the water – a dedicated workforce transportation service – but we are not able to estimate this demand based on available data.

• The proposed use is highly compatible with the existing marine uses. However, the development within the harbor area is saturated. The existing density may conflict with the addition of a busy ferry landing, and private land would need to be acquired to accommodate 96 parking spaces.

• For the approach, during the summer months vessels will not be able to maintain top speeds in the harbor due to the amount of moorings and traffic within the harbor. In general, there will be significant transit time incurred while the vessels remain at appropriate speeds for the 1.5 miles into the Municipal marina landing. Due to the minimal current within the operational area and shallow water depths, there may be a significant amount of ice formation during the winter months, which will impact ter-minal operations.

It is therefore recommended that analysis of a Huntington-Stamford fast ferry service not undergo further assessment under the LISWTP. We understand that a private ferry operator has proposed an alternative: using an amphibious highway-water vehicle to pick up passengers at a park-and-ride station in Huntington, drive to Cold Spring Harbor, and then operate at 30 knots between Cold Spring Harbor and the Connecticut coast. Such a service could be a potentially viable means of extending cross-sound transportation to Huntington residents with reduced local impacts.



New Rochelle to Lower Manhattan Fast Ferry

Initial work under Task 4 examined the potential for a fast ferry service at two New Rochelle sites: one adjoining existing marina and parking deck, and one at Beaufort Point (on the opposite side of the inlet from the marina). Feedback from New Rochelle suggests that a different alternative – Fort Slocum – would be preferred.

Glen Cove to Lower Manhattan Fast Ferry

Initial work under Task 4 examined the potential for a fast ferry service at the former Fox Navigation site in Glen Cove. Feedback from Glen Cove suggests that a different alterna-tive – the esplanade site – would be preferred. This is currently the subject of a major planning study being led by Glen Cove.

Stamford to Lower Manhattan Fast Ferry

Initial work under Task 4 examined the potential for a fast ferry service at the Northeast Utilities property. Feedback from Stamford suggests the possibility of an alternative site, located due south of the Northeast Utilities property along the West Branch of the Rippowan River, closer to open water.

Rye to Lower Manhattan Fast Ferry

Concerns have been raised by officials in Rye regarding the potential service and its local impacts, and we are working to address them.

Requests to Delete Sites and Services from the Initial Short List

Inner Forks Water Taxi Vehicle Services

Numerous reviewers observed that the Initial Short List map published on February 29, 2004, contained an error: namely, it showed the possibility of a small conventional vehicle ferry calling at Sag Harbor Village. In fact, Sag Harbor Village is within the Town of East Hampton, and is covered by the Town’s prohibition on vehicle ferry services. The Initial Short List map (Figure 5.1) includes this correction.

Without Sag Harbor Village, an Inner Forks vehicle ferry as envisioned would make calls only at Orient, Greenport, Riverhead, and Shinnecock. [Currently, the Shelter Island South Ferry takes on and discharges vehicles at North Haven, a short drive north from Sag Harbor Village; however, none of the public participants in this study suggested that we consider options for North Haven.] Preliminary Task 4 assessments suggest the following:



• The preferred site in Riverhead is off the Peconic River near the aquarium and the commercial district. The site offers excellent pedestrian access to local attractions, as well as good regional access by highway. However, the site itself is highly con-strained. It is adjacent to a busy marina, and offers little or no space for adjacent on-site parking or vehicle queuing. Therefore, a vehicle ferry would not be recom-mended in Riverhead. This leaves us with the possibility of a vehicle ferry only between Orient, Greenport, and Shinnecock Inlet.

• Orient and Greenport already accommodate vehicles, but these sites and their access roads are constrained. There is a potential site on the east side of Shinnecock Canal that provides ample vehicle parking and queuing capability, but the ability of local roads to accommodate additional traffic would be an issue.

• The value of a vehicle ferry service linking Orient and Greenport would appear to be marginal. Between Orient and Greenport, assuming we have a 15-knot operation, the vessel transit time (excluding loading and unloading) for seven nautical miles is 28 minutes, versus an unconstrained drive time of 15 minutes.

• The value of a vehicle ferry service linking Greenport and Shinnecock is somewhat better, but still questionable. Between Greenport and Shinnecock, assuming we have a 15-knot operation, the vessel transit time (excluding loading and unloading) for 16 nautical miles is 64 minutes, versus an unconstrained drive time of 58 minutes for 34 miles, which is potentially competitive. However, the demand would probably be limited to trips beginning or ending in the geographic area between Southampton and Westhampton – further east, the water route via Shelter Island is more attractive, and further west, one would simply drive to the North or South Fork.

Overall, further assessment of an Inner Forks vehicle service is not recommended as part of the LISWTP. However, further assessment of an Inner Forks Water Taxi (a 15 to 20 knot, low-capacity, passenger-only service linking pedestrian-oriented commercial dis-tricts) is still recommended. While the point-to-point demand for local residents to move between these districts is fairly low, there is the possibility to intercept out-of-region sea-sonal visitors at one or more parking sites, where they could leave their cars and visit multiple Peconic Bay towns entirely by water. These parking intercept sites might include visitor information facilities and other amenities, and could be located some distance from the waterfront (e.g., just off the main highways, and linked to the ferry sites by a shuttle bus).

Town of East Hampton Services

Numerous reviewers commented that Draft Technical Memorandum on Task 3 did not adequately explain that vessel services in excess of 20 knots are not permitted at Town of East Hampton sites and would not be considered in the LISWTP. This important distinc-tion has been clarified in the new Initial Short List map (Figure 5.1) and elsewhere in this Final Technical Memorandum. The fact that vehicle services (also prohibited) are not being considered for the Town of East Hampton has also been emphasized.



Operations at Napeague, Ft. Pond Bay, and Montauk

At the PRM in Southold, substantial opposition was expressed by many speakers to the use of Ft. Pond Bay, Napeague, and Montauk for any ferry operations, even if they meet the Town of East Hampton’s operating requirements (e.g., passenger only, not in excess of 20 knots). While not unanimous – we heard from other points of view, both at the meeting and through other venues – it clearly represented the majority view of those attending, and merits careful consideration.

The Town of East Hampton subsequently provided extensive comments regarding the scoring process used in the Draft Task 3 Technical Memo. The Town of East Hampton also adopted a resolution concurring with planning staff’s conclusion that “creation or expansion of a passenger ferry in Napeague State Park, the Duryea site on Ft. Pond Bay, or the Viking site on Coonsfoot Cove on Lake Montauk would be inconsistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, would not meet the Town’s established site plan/special permit standards, and has the potential for numerous detrimental impacts.” Both of these documents are reproduced in Appendix C.

Many of the Town’s findings are fully consistent with the initial LISWTP Task 4 assess-ments. We had planned to publish those assessments (in their final form) in a subsequent Task 4 Technical Memorandum, but it seems appropriate to discuss them here (in their preliminary form), alongside the Town’s comments.

• Napeague (former Fish Factory Site). The Town’s analysis objects on the grounds that the site “is zoned Parks and Conservation and a passenger ferry represents a prohib-ited use,” that a ferry would be inconsistent with adjoining residential properties, that the water and land areas surrounding the site are highly sensitive, that there is limited opportunity for improving site access, and that the site is 2.5 miles from the nearest commercial district.

− The LISWTP land use analysis acknowledges the presence of prohibitive zoning, potentially incompatible residential land uses, and marine environmental sensitivity.

− The LISWTP transportation assessment states: “the location is not recommended for water taxi operations because of its remote location and lack of connectivity to population centers.” Overall, the site is considered a poor location for a pedes-trian-oriented water taxi, because there is nowhere to walk. The LISWTP trans-portation assessment also notes that substantial highway improvements would be needed to support a conventional ferry.

− The LISWTP marine assessment identifies the need for “enormous capital improvements in order to utilize the existing infrastructure,” while also noting “there is excellent potential for the site to develop into a multi-functional terminal” should such expenditures be made. However, while there is some limited demand for additional conventional passenger ferry service between the South Fork and the Connecticut coast – perhaps 75 to 150 passengers per day – the demand



appears to fall well short of the levels needed to support a major investment in ferry service infrastructure at Napeague, and to mitigate its negative impacts.

− Overall, further consideration of the Napeague site is not recommended.

• Ft. Pond Bay (Tuthill Road). The Town’s analysis objects on the grounds that the site has poor soils and that a ferry operation would not meet numerous special permit conditions relating to nature of use, lot area, land use compatibility, circulation, parking, environmental protection, and other factors.

− The LISWTP design analysis finds that there simply isn’t enough room on the site to consider establishing a ferry terminal operation without substantially impacting existing land uses. Limited site access and environmental sensitivity is also noted. Further consideration of the Ft. Pond Bay site is therefore not recommended.

• Montauk (Viking site). The Town’s analysis objects on the grounds that “expansion of the existing ferry use could have detrimental consequences on the scarce availability of waterfront real estate that would best be preserved for traditional fishing uses and not displaced by ferries and the tourist-oriented facilities, such as retail uses, that follow.” The Town notes the lack of public transit, limited parking, and the potential for unac-ceptable traffic impacts on local and regional roads. Finally, the Town quotes a variety of comments from the Natural Resources Director to the effect that ferry boat opera-tions would negatively impact water quality and aquatic communities. We would fully concur with these findings if we were envisioning a high-volume, high-frequency ferry service, akin to the New London-Orient Point operation. However, the LISWTP is envisioning the possibility of something quite different, to which the Town’s find-ings may be less applicable.

− The lack of public transit and on-site parking are legitimate concerns, which could potentially be addressed through the development of off-site parking and a shuttle bus system, possibly connecting with the LIRR station and local attractions. This could be an effective way to keep cars away from the Montauk waterfront, bene-fiting existing and future ferry operations. It is considered to merit further explo-ration, even if future ferry operations do not expand beyond present levels.

− The LISWTP does not contemplate the physical expansion of the existing ferry terminal. It does contemplate that the existing terminal might accommodate addi-tional passenger-only trips between Montauk and New London. Preliminary demand estimates would seem to support a maximum of one trip each way per day in peak season. This modestly-expanded service is unlikely to attract car traf-fic from anywhere except the East End, because Orient Point offers more frequent service, faster service, and less drive time to other Long Island origins and desti-nations. Increases in local traffic (accessing the waterfront, or preferably a remote parking site as discussed above) may well be offset by the reduction in longer-distance car trips to/from Montauk made possible by the ferry service. This would need to be tested by traffic modeling. It is also recognized that at this level of demand, the economic payback to the vessel operator might be extremely lim-ited, and might not be a viable business proposition.



− The LISWTP also contemplates that a limited passenger-only water taxi service might call at the existing site. Montauk’s various attractions – its working water-front, nearby commercial district, and natural resources – make it a natural desti-nation for the traveler. Today, that traveler comes to Montauk by car; in the future, that traveler might have the option to come by water taxi instead, with transit service connections to nearby attractions. This could help reduce demand on the East End’s congested highways in peak season.

− Montauk hosts an active commercial maritime community, and one extra round-trip per day by a conventional ferry would not appear to represent a substantial potential change in the level of marine environmental impact. As for water taxis, they tend to be smaller in size, shallower in draft, and lower in wake and propeller wash than conventional vessels, and are being built with clean engines that mini-mize environmental impacts.

− Overall, we believe these possibilities to improve the functionality of Montauk’s existing ferry service, and to potentially benefit East End transportation through limited additional services, merit the development of additional information. This does not represent an endorsement or a recommendation of such services – it sim-ply represents an acknowledgment that additional information would be useful in addressing these questions more conclusively, one way or the other.

5.4 Recommended Short List Based on Supplemental Screening Assessment

Based on the analyses documented previously, the following sites and services are rec-ommended for more detailed assessment:

• Enhancements to Existing Operations:

− Bridgeport-Port Jefferson (facility and connectivity improvements);

− New London-Orient Point (facility and connectivity improvements); and

− New London-Montauk (service and connectivity improvements).

• Services Currently in the Planning Stage:

− Container barge between Bridgeport and PANYNJ;

− Bridgeport-Stamford-LGA/Mid-Lower Manhattan fast ferry; and

− Glen Cove-LGA/Mid-Lower Manhattan fast ferry.



• Potential New Services:

− PIDN extensions and potential truck ferry from Bridgeport to New Haven and New London;

− New Haven-Long Island North Shore generic assessment, conventional/fast ferry;

− Rye and/or New Rochelle-LGA/Mid-Lower Manhattan fast ferry;

− Westchester/Fairfield Coastal water taxi;

− “Inner Forks” peak season water taxi (Orient-Greenport-Riverhead-Shinnecock-Sag Harbor Village-Montauk); and

− Services recommended for further consideration in the draft Hunts Point Waterborne Freight Assessment.

Figure 5.2 on the following page illustrates the resulting Recommended Short List of sites and services to undergo further analysis, along with additional sites that have been sug-gested for potential inclusion in the LISWTP.


Final Technical Mem

orandum for Task 3

5-12 Cam


Figure 5.2 Recommended Short-Listed Sites and Servicesfrom Supplemental Screening

Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Mid/Low

er

Manhattan

Port Chester

Mam

aroneck

New

Rochelle

New

Haven

LGA

Glen

Cove

New London

Color Key




Intermodal Junction




Sites/Services to be assessed by the LISWTP

Legend

Freight Barge

Stamford

Montauk

Calverton/Riverhead

Port Jefferson

Sag Harbor Village

Orient

Greenport

Port

Shinnecock Inlet

Hunts Point

Enhance facilities and connections


Enhance service and connections (pax only, < 20 knots)


New Haven to LI North Shore (generic assessment)

Port

Norw

alkTruck Ferry

NJ

Other suggested sites/services

Other suggestions: Ferry Point Park,

Orchard Beach, Co-op City, City Island

Other suggestions : Glen Cove -Stamford, New Rochelle-Stamford, and

Port Chester-Manhattan fast ferries

Bridgeport

Rye Playland

Mid/Low

er

Manhattan

Port Chester

Mam

aroneck

New

Rochelle

New

Haven

LGA

Glen

Cove

New London

Color Key




Intermodal Junction




Sites/Services to be assessed by the LISWTP

Legend

Freight Barge

Stamford

Montauk

Calverton/Riverhead

Port Jefferson

Sag Harbor Village

Orient

Greenport

Port

Shinnecock Inlet

Hunts Point



Enhance service and connections (pax only, < 20 knots)


New Haven to LI North Shore (generic assessment)

Port

Norw

alkTruck Ferry

NJ

Other suggested sites/services

Other suggestions: Ferry Point Park,

Orchard Beach, Co-op City, City Island

Other suggestions : Glen Cove -Stamford, New Rochelle-Stamford, and

Port Chester-Manhattan fast ferries

Appendix A Detail of Initial Screening Scores


Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A-1

Detail of Initial Screening Scores

About Appendix A

This Appendix presents additional site-by-site detail as backup for the site screening evaluations presented in Section 4.0 relating to Marine Conditions, Highway Access, Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, Land Use, and overall scoring.

Marine Conditions

Screening evaluations based on marine conditions were performed using the detailed site-by-site marine inventories presented in the Technical Memorandum on Task 2. The proc-ess took into account two different sets of factors:

• Whether a site offers adequate channel dimensions for a given service, or can be feasi-bly improved to provide adequate channel dimensions. The team assigned a “Draft and Constructability” score to measure this attribute.

• Whether other important marine conditions work for or against a potential service. The team assigned an “Overall Marine Conditions” score to measure this attribute.

Table A.1 Draft and Constructability Scoring

+2 Nothing required; immediate operations possible; emergency service accommodated +1 Minor improvements – dredging and pier modifications; no channel improvements 0 Moderate improvements – dredging and/or pier construction -1 Major improvements – dredging, pier construction, channel improvements -2 Infeasible to provide needed improvements

Draft assumptions: Water Taxi (three to six feet); Fast Ferry (eight feet); Conventional and Emergency Passenger (10 feet); Truck, Container and Non-Container Barge (12 feet); and Emergency Freight (12 feet).


A-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Table A.2 Overall Marine Conditions Scoring

Protection

Inland Transit

Distance Bridges Currents Restrictions Hazards Interfering

Traffic Existing Facilities

Existing Terminal

+2 Excellent <0.25 NM

None None None None None Good waterfront development

Multiple

+1 Good 0.2 to 0.75 NM

Fixed; Clearance OK

Minimal Minimal; no effects on transit

Minimal Minimal Moderate development

Single

0 Adequate 0.75 NM to 1.25 NM

Clearance OK; No Opening Required

Light Minor effects on transit

Moderate; charted

Minor affects on transit

Minor Development

None

-1 Poor 1.25 NM to 2.0 NM

Opening Required

Moderate Moderate effects on transit

Moderate; uncharted

Moderate effects on transit

Sparse development

-

-2 Unsatisfactory >2.0 NM No Clearance

Heavy Significant effects; transit limited

Multiple uncharted and daytime only transit

Significant effects; transit limited

No development

-

Table A.3 Site Scores for Draft and Constructability

Passenger Services Freight Services

Site Water Taxi

Fast Ferry Conventional Emergency

Truck Ferry

Container Ferry

Non-Container Emergency

Atlantic City 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 Bay Shore 2 1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Bayville 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Beacon 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Bear Mountain 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Branford 2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Bridgeport 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Calverton/ Riverhead

2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

Danbury -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Deerfield 2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 East Marion 2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Elizabeth 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 EWR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Foxwoods -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Ft. Pond Bay (passenger only)

2 N/A 0 0 N/A -1 -1 -1

Glen Cove 2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Greenport 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0



Table A.3 Site Scores for Draft and Constructability (continued)


Site Water Taxi


Truck Ferry

Container Ferry


Greenwich 2 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Guilford 2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Huntington 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Islip 2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 JFK 2 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Larchmont 2 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 LGA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lloyd Harbor 2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Lower Manhattan 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Madison 2 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Mamaroneck 2 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Manorhaven 2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Mattituck 2 1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Midtown/ 40th Street West

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Montauk (passenger only)

2 N/A -1 -1 N/A -1 -1 -1

Napeague Bay/ Promised Land (passenger only)

2 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 0

New Haven 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 New London 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 New Rochelle 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Northport 2 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 Norwalk 2 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Old Saybrook 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 Orient Point 1 2 2 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 Oyster Bay 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Chester 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 Port Jefferson 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Port Washington 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 Roosevelt Island 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rye 2 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 Sag Harbor Village (passenger only)

2 N/A -2 -2 -2 N/A -2 -2

Sheepshead Bay 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 Shinnecock Inlet 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Southold 1 1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 Stamford 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 Stewart Airport 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Stony Brook -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Sunken Meadow 0 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Tarrytown 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waterville 2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 West Haven 2 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 Westbrook 2 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 Westerly, RI 2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2



Table A.4 Site Scores for Overall Marine Conditions


Site Water Taxi


Truck Ferry

Container Ferry


Atlantic City, NJ 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Bay Shore 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Bayville 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Beacon 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Bear Mountain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Branford 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Bridgeport 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Calverton/ Riverhead

0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38

Danbury -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 Deerfield 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 East Marion 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Elizabeth, NJ 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 EWR 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 Foxwoods -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 Ft. Pond Bay (passenger)

1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00

Glen Cove 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Greenport 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Greenwich 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Guilford 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Huntington 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Islip 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 JFK -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 Larchmont 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 LGA 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Lloyd Harbor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Lower Manhattan 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Madison 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Mamaroneck 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Manorhaven 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Mattituck 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Midtown/40th Street West

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Montauk (passenger)

0.50 N/A 0.50 0.50 0.50 N/A 0.50 0.50

Napeague Bay/ Promised Land (passenger)

0.88 N/A 0.88 0.88 0.88 N/A 0.88 0.88

New Haven 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 New London 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 New Rochelle 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Northport 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Norwalk 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Old Saybrook 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Orient Point 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Oyster Bay 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88



Table A.4 Site Scores for Overall Marine Conditions (continued)


Site Water Taxi


Truck Ferry

Container Ferry


Port Chester 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Port Jefferson 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Port Washington 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Roosevelt Island 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Rye 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Sag Harbor (passenger)

1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00

Sheepshead Bay 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shinnecock Inlet 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Southold 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Stamford 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Stewart Airport 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stony Brook 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sunken Meadow 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Tarrytown 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Waterville 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 West Haven 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 Westbrook 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Westerly, Rhode Island

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Highway (Auto and Truck) Access

Screening evaluations based on highway access were performed using the detailed site-by-site access inventories presented in the Technical Memorandum on Task 2. The process took into account two different sets of factors:

• Whether a site offers adequate regional access (focusing on connectivity to the larger regional transportation system). The team assigned a “Regional Access” score to meas-ure this attribute.

• Whether a site offers adequate local access (focusing on the immediate community). The team assigned a “Local Access” score to measure this attribute.



Table A.5 Regional Access Scoring

Service Criteria

All Distance from nearest four-lane road: 2 if <= 1,000 feet, 1 if <= 1 mile, 0 otherwise For autos, distance from nearest parkway or expressway interchange: 2 if <= 1,000 feet, 1 if <= 1 mile, 0 otherwise For trucks, distance from nearest expressway interchange: 2 if <= 1,000 feet, 1 if <= 1 mile, 0 otherwise

Table A.6 Local Access Scoring

Service Criteria

Auto 2 = good, 1 = fair, 0 = poor/needs improvement for: condition of local road; number of traffic signals on local road; availability of alternative routes; and capacity of local road

Truck 2 = good, 1 = fair, 0 = poor/needs improvement for: steepness and grade; condition of local road; number of traffic signals on local road; availability of alternative routes; and capacity of local road 4= yes, 0 = no for: oversize vehicle accessible

Table A.7 Site Scores for Highway Access Regional

Area Site Four Lane

Parkway/ Expressway

Expressway Only

Auto Total

Truck Total

Atlantic City Harrah’s Casino 2 2 2 4 4

Atlantic City Magellan Avenue (at North Delaware Avenue)

2 0 0 2 2

Atlantic City New Hampshire Road 2 0 0 2 2

Atlantic City Rhode Island Piers (near Trump Marina)

2 2 2 4 4

Beacon Beacon Station 2 1 1 3 3



Table A.7 Site Scores for Highway Access (continued) Regional

Area Site Four Lane

Parkway/ Expressway

Expressway Only

Auto Total

Truck Total

Bear Mountain Bear Mountain 0 0 0 0 0

Branford Goodsell Point Boat Launch (off Harbor Street)

0 0 0 0 0

Branford Harbor Street 0 0 0 0 0

Bridgeport Admiral Street (at Harbor)

2 2 2 4 4

Bridgeport Central Avenue (at Seaview Avenue)

2 1 1 3 3

Bridgeport Fayerweather Yacht Club

1 1 1 2 2

Bridgeport Pequonnock Yacht Club

2 1 1 3 3


Indian Island County Park

1 0 0 1 1


Peconic Avenue (Near train station)

1 0 0 1 1


Riverhead Golf Course

2 0 0 2 2

East Marion Bay Avenue 0 0 0 0 0

East Marion Rocky Point 0 0 0 0 0

Elizabeth East Port Street 2 2 2 4 4

Elizabeth Jersey Gardens Mall 2 2 2 4 4

Ft. Pond Bay 0 0 0 0 0

Glen Cove Hempstead Harbor Club and Foxwoods Ferry

1 0 0 1 1

Glen Cove Park (Towns Beach) 1 0 0 1 1

Greenport Fifth Street 0 0 0 0 0

Greenport Greenport Ferry Terminal (LIRR Station)

0 0 0 0 0

Greenwich Cos Cob Station 1 1 1 2 2

Greenwich Game Cock Road 1 1 1 2 2

Greenwich Indian Harbor Yacht Club

1 1 1 2 2

Guilford Guilford Point Beach 0 0 0 0 0

Guliford Sluice Creek (off New Whitfield)

0 0 0 0 0




Area Site Four Lane

Parkway/ Expressway

Expressway Only

Auto Total

Truck Total

Huntington Woodland Drive 1 0 0 1 1

JFK Jamaica Bay/Howard Beach

2 2 1 4 3

Larchmont Walnut Avenue (off Larchmont Avenue)

1 0 0 1 1

LGA 2 2 1 4 3

Lloyd Harbor Park 0 0 0 0 0

Lower Manhattan Battery Park City (Winter Garden)

2 2 0 4 2

Lower Manhattan South Ferry 2 2 0 4 2

Lower Manhattan South Street Seaport (Fulton Street)

2 1 0 3 2

Lower Manhattan South Street Seaport (Wall Street)

2 1 0 3 2

Madison Island Avenue (off Post Road)

1 0 0 1 1

Madison Wharf Road (off Boston Post Road)

1 0 0 1 1

Mamaroneck Harbor Island (off Post Road)

2 1 1 3 3

Mamaroneck Hommocks Road (off Post Road)

1 0 0 1 1

Manorhaven North Shore Yacht Club 1 0 0 1 1

Midtown West 40th Street 2 2 0 4 2

Mattituck Mattituck Creek 0 0 0 0 0

Montauk Lakeside Court 0 0 0 0 0

Montauk Montauk State Park 0 0 0 0 0

Montauk Tuthill Road 0 0 0 0 0

Napeague Napeague Harbor (Lazy Point)

0 0 0 0 0

New Haven Alabama Street at Water Front

2 2 2 4 4

New London Cross Sound Ferry 2 1 1 3 3

New London Ft. Trumbull 1 0 0 1 1

New Rochelle Hudson Park (off Pelham Road)

1 1 1 2 2

New Rochelle Shore Park (entrance off Pelham Road)

1 1 1 2 2




Area Site Four Lane

Parkway/ Expressway

Expressway Only

Auto Total

Truck Total

New Rochelle Town Dock Road (off Pelham Road)

1 0 0 1 1

Northport James Street 0 0 0 0 0 Northport Woobine Marina 1 0 0 1 1 Norwalk Gregory Point 0 0 0 0 0 Norwalk Ischoda Yacht Club 1 1 1 2 2 Old Saybrook Ferry Road 1 1 1 2 2 Old Saybrook Smith Neck Road 1 0 0 1 1 Orient Orient Point 0 0 0 0 0 Orient Orient Yacht Club 0 0 0 0 0 Oyster Bay Bayview 1 0 0 1 1 Oyster Bay Beach Park 1 0 0 1 1 Port Chester Marina 1 1 1 2 2 Port Jefferson Port Jefferson Yacht

Club 2 0 0 2 2

Port Jefferson Shore Road 1 0 0 1 1 Port Washington Beachway Drive 1 0 0 1 1 Port Washington Towns Dock 1 0 0 1 1 Roosevelt Island 2 1 0 3 2 Rye Rye Beach and

Playland 2 1 1 3 3

Sag Harbor Hillside East 0 0 0 0 0 Sag Harbor Yacht Club 0 0 0 0 0 Sheepshead Bay 2 2 2 4 4 Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet

(North) 0 0 0 0 0

Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (South)

0 0 0 0 0

Shinnecock Shinnecock Road 0 0 0 0 0 Southhold Town Harbor Lane 0 0 0 0 0 Stamford Kosciuszco Park 1 1 1 2 2 Stamford Yacht Haven 2 0 0 2 2 Stony Brook Cordwood Path 1 0 0 1 1 Stony Brook Shore Road 1 0 0 1 1 Sunken Meadow Callahan’s Beach Road 2 2 0 4 2 Sunken Meadow State Park 2 2 0 4 2 Tarrytown Losee Park 1 1 1 2 2 Waterville Bally Beach 0 0 0 0 0




Area Site Four Lane

Parkway/ Expressway

Expressway Only

Auto Total

Truck Total

West Haven City Point 2 2 2 4 4

West Haven Water Street (at Main Street)

2 1 1 3 3

Westbrook Captains Drive (off Seaside Avenue)

0 0 0 0 0

Westbrook Salt Island Road 1 1 1 2 2

Westerly Margin Street 0 0 0 0 0

Westerly Washington Street 0 0 0 0 0

Table A.8 Site Scores for Highway Access Local

Area Site Local Road

Traffic Lights

Alternate Routes Capacity Grade

Oversize Access

Auto Total

Truck Total

Atlantic City Harrah’s Casino 2 1 2 2 2 4 7 13


1 1 1 1 2 4 4 10

Atlantic City New Hampshire Road

2 0 2 2 2 4 6 12


2 0 2 2 2 4 6 12

Beacon Beacon Station 2 2 0 2 2 4 6 12

Bear Mountain Bear Mountain 0 2 0 2 2 0 4 6


2 2 2 1 2 0 7 9

Branford Harbor Street 2 2 2 2 0 4 8 12


2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13


2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13


2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14


2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13



Table A.8 Site Scores for Highway Access (continued) Local


Traffic Lights


Oversize Access

Auto Total

Truck Total



2 2 0 2 1 4 6 11



2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13



0 2 1 2 1 0 5 6

East Marion Bay Avenue 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 4

East Marion Rocky Point 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3

Elizabeth Jersey Gardens Mall 2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

EWR East Port Street 1 2 2 2 2 4 7 13

Ft. Pond Bay 0 2 0 2 2 0 4 6


1 0 1 2 2 4 4 10

Glen Cove Park (Towns Beach) 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 4

Greenport Fifth Street 2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13


2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13

Greenwich Cock Road 2 2 1 1 2 0 6 8

Greenwich Cos Cob Station 2 2 2 2 1 4 8 13


2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

Guilford Guilford Point Beach

1 2 2 1 2 4 6 12


1 2 2 1 2 4 6 12

Huntington Woodland Drive 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 4

JFK 0 1 1 1 2 0 3 5

Larchmont Walnut Avenue (off Lorch Avenue)

2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

LGA 1 2 1 2 2 4 6 12

Lloyd Harbor Park 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 3

Lower Manhattan

Battery Park City (Winter Garden)

2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

Lower Manhattan

South Ferry 2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

Lower Manhattan

South Street Seaport (Fulton Street)

2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

Lower Manhattan

South Street Seaport (Wall Street)

2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14


2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13





Traffic Lights


Oversize Access

Auto Total

Truck Total


2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14


1 1 1 1 2 4 4 10


1 1 0 0 1 0 2 3

Manorhaven North Shore Yacht Club

1 0 1 2 2 0 4 6

Mattituck Mattituck Creek 1 2 1 1 2 4 5 11

Midtown West 40th Street 2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

Montauk Lakeside Court 2 2 1 2 0 0 7 7

Montauk Montauk State Park 1 2 0 2 0 4 5 9

Montauk Tuthill Road 1 2 1 0 2 0 4 6


0 2 0 2 2 0 4 6


1 2 1 1 2 4 5 11

New London Cross Sound Ferry 2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

New London Ft. Trumbull 1 1 2 1 2 4 5 11


2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14


2 2 2 1 2 4 7 13


2 2 2 1 1 4 7 12

Northport James Street 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2

Northport Woobine Marina 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2

Norwalk Gregory Point 2 1 1 2 2 4 6 12

Norwalk Ischoda Yacht Club 2 0 2 2 2 4 6 12

Old Saybrook Ferry Road 1 2 1 2 2 4 6 12

Old Saybrook Smith Neck Road 1 2 1 2 2 4 6 12

Orient Point Orient Point 1 2 0 1 2 4 4 10

Orient Point Orient Yacht Club 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 3

Oyster Bay Bayview 2 1 2 2 2 4 7 13

Oyster Bay Beach Park 2 2 1 2 2 0 7 9

Port Chester Marina 1 2 1 1 0 0 5 5

Port Jefferson Port Jefferson Yacht Club

2 2 0 2 2 4 6 12

Port Jefferson Shore Road 2 2 1 2 0 4 7 11





Traffic Lights


Oversize Access

Auto Total

Truck Total

Port Washington

Beachway Drive 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 3

Port Washington

Towns Dock 2 1 0 0 2 0 3 5

Roosevelt Island

2 2 1 1 2 4 6 12

Rye Old Rye Beach Avenue (near Rye Beach and Playland)

2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

Sag Harbor Hillside East 2 2 0 0 2 0 4 6

Sag Harbor Yacht Club 2 2 2 1 2 4 7 13

Sheepshead Bay

2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13

Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (North)

2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13


2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13

Shinnecock Shinnecock Road 2 2 0 2 2 4 6 12

Southhold Town Harbor Lane 1 2 1 2 1 4 6 11

Stamford Kosciuszco Park 2 2 2 2 2 0 8 10

Stamford Yacht Haven 2 1 2 2 2 4 7 13

Stony Brook Cordwood Path 0 2 1 2 2 0 5 7

Stony Brook Shore Road 2 2 1 2 2 4 7 13

Sunken Meadow

Callahan’s Beach Road

2 2 1 2 0 4 7 11

Sunken Meadow

State Park 2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

Tarrytown Losee Park 1 2 1 2 1 4 6 11

Waterville Bally Beach 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 5

West Haven City Point 2 2 1 1 2 4 6 12


2 2 2 2 1 4 8 13


1 2 1 1 2 4 5 11

Westbrook Salt Island Road 2 2 1 1 2 4 6 12

Westerly Margin Street 2 2 2 2 2 4 8 14

Westerly Washington Street 1 2 2 2 1 0 7 8



Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access

Screening evaluations based on transit (rail and bus), pedestrian and bicycle access were performed using the detailed site-by-site access inventories presented in the Technical Memorandum on Task 2. The process took into account the following factors shown in Table A.9 below.

Table A.9 Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Scoring

Service Criteria

Passenger 2 = good, 1 = fair, 0 = poor/needs improvement for: steepness of local road; condition of local road; presence of sidewalk 4 = yes, 0 = no for: bus service 6 = co-located or within short walk of rail transit station, 4 = longer walk or short shuttle trip to rail transit station, 0 = no rail transit service

Freight None

Table A.10 Site Scores for Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access

Town Site Steepness Local Road

Train Station

Bus Route Sidewalk Total

Atlantic City Harrah’s Casino 2 2 0 4 2 10


2 1 0 0 2 5

Atlantic City New Hampshire Road 2 2 0 4 2 10


2 2 0 4 2 10

Beacon Beacon Station 2 2 6 0 0 10

Bear Mountain Bear Mountain 2 0 0 0 0 2


2 2 0 0 0 4

Branford Harbor Street 0 2 0 4 2 8

Bridgeport Admiral Street (at Harbor) 2 2 4 0 0 8


2 2 4 0 2 10

Bridgeport Fayerweather Yacht Club 2 2 4 0 2 10

Bridgeport Pequonnock Yacht Club 2 2 4 4 0 12



Table A.10 Site Scores for Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access (continued)


Train Station



Indian Island County Park 1 0 4 0 0 5



1 2 4 0 2 9


Riverhead Golf Course 2 2 4 0 0 8

East Marion Bay Avenue 2 0 0 4 0 6

East Marion Rocky Point 0 1 0 4 0 5

Elizabeth Jersey Gardens Mall 2 2 0 4 2 10

EWR East Port Street 2 1 0 0 0 3

Ft. Pond Bay 2 0 4 0 0 6


2 1 4 0 0 7

Glen Cove Park (Towns Beach) 1 1 4 0 0 6

Greenport Fifth Street 2 2 6 4 0 14


2 2 6 4 2 16

Greenwich Cock Road 2 2 4 0 0 8

Greenwich Cos Cob Station 1 2 4 0 0 7

Greenwich Indian Harbor Yacht Club 2 2 4 0 0 8

Guilford Guilford Point Beach 2 1 0 0 2 5


2 1 6 0 2 11

Huntington Woodland Drive 1 0 4 0 0 5

JFK 2 0 6 4 2 14


2 2 4 4 2 14

LGA 2 1 0 4 2 9

Lloyd Harbor Park 2 0 0 0 0 2


2 2 6 4 2 16

Lower Manhattan South Ferry 2 2 6 4 2 16


2 2 6 4 2 16


2 2 6 4 2 16


2 2 0 0 0 4


2 2 0 0 0 4


2 1 6 4 2 15





Train Station



1 1 6 0 0 8

Manorhaven North Shore Yacht Club 2 1 0 4 2 9

Mattituck Mattituck Creek 2 1 0 0 0 3

Midtown West 40th Street 2 2 6 4 2 16

Montauk Lakeside Court 0 2 4 4 0 10

Montauk Montauk State Park 0 1 4 4 2 11

Montauk Tuthill Road 2 1 4 4 0 11


2 0 4 0 0 6


2 1 4 0 0 7

New London Cross Sound Ferry 2 2 6 4 2 16

New London Ft. Trumbull 2 1 6 0 0 9


2 2 4 4 2 14


2 2 4 4 2 14


1 2 4 4 2 13

Northport James Street 1 0 0 0 2 3

Northport Woobine Marina 1 0 0 4 0 5

Norwalk Gregory Point 2 2 6 0 0 10

Norwalk Ischoda Yacht Club 2 2 6 0 2 12

Old Saybrook Ferry Road 2 1 0 0 0 3

Old Saybrook Smith Neck Road 2 1 0 0 0 3

Orient Orient Point 2 1 0 4 0 7

Orient Orient Yacht Club 2 0 0 4 0 6

Oyster Bay Bayview 2 2 6 0 0 10

Oyster Bay Beach Park 2 2 6 0 2 12

Port Chester Marina 0 1 6 0 0 7

Port Jefferson Port Jefferson Yacht Club 2 2 4 4 2 14

Port Jefferson Shore Road 2 2 4 0 2 10

Port Washington Beachway Drive 2 0 6 0 0 8

Port Washington Towns Dock 2 2 6 0 2 12

Roosevelt Island 2 2 6 4 2 16

Rye Rye Beach and Playland 2 2 4 4 2 14

Sag Harbor Hillside East 2 2 6 0 0 10

Sag Harbor Yacht Club 2 2 6 4 2 16

Sheepshead Bay 2 2 6 4 2 16





Train Station


Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (North) 2 2 0 0 0 4

Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (South) 2 2 0 0 0 4

Southhold Town Harbor Lane 1 1 0 0 0 2

Stamford Kosciuszco Park 2 2 4 0 2 10

Stamford Yacht Haven 2 2 4 4 0 12

Stony Brook Cordwood Path 2 0 0 0 0 2

Stony Brook Shore Road 0 2 0 0 0 2

Sunken Meadow Callahan’s Beach Road 0 2 0 0 0 2

Sunken Meadow State Park 2 2 0 0 0 4

Tarrytown Losee Park 1 1 6 4 0 12

Waterville Bally Beach 2 0 0 0 0 2

West Haven City Point 2 2 4 4 2 14

West Haven Water Street (at Main Street) 1 2 4 4 2 13


2 1 0 0 2 5

Westbrook Salt Island Road 2 2 0 0 2 6

Westerly Margin Street 2 2 0 0 2 6

Westerly Washington Street 1 1 0 0 0 2

Land Use

Initial screening evaluations based on land use compatibility were performed using the detailed site-by-site access inventories presented in the Technical Memorandum on Task 2 and supplemental field surveys. The process took into account the following factors:

• Compatibility with, and positive reinforcement of, existing land uses;

• Availability of nearby parking; and

• Potential impacts on woodlands, wetlands, or parklands.

The team developed qualitative summary evaluations of general land use compatibility and suitability (summarized in Table A.11 below).



These rankings applied only to Fast Ferry passenger services. Evaluation standards for Water Taxi, Conventional Ferry, and Freight are described in Section 4.0 of this Technical Memorandum.

Table A.11 Land Use (Fast Ferry) Scoring

Services Criteria

Passenger 6 = good, 3 = fair, 0 = poor for: compatibility with existing/emerging land uses 2 = good, 1 = fair, 0 = poor/needs improvement for: support for commercial/tourist uses; support for residential commuters; availability of nearby parking; potential for impacts to woodlands; potential for impacts to wetlands; and potential for impacts to parklands

Freight Not scored

Table A.12 Site Scores for Land Use Fast Ferry

Town Site Cur

rent

or P

oten

tially

C

ompa

tible

Use

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

erci

al/

Tour

ism

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

uter

s

Park

ing

With

in W

alk

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Woo

ded

Are

as

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Wet

land

s

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Park

land

s

Tota

l

Atlantic City Harrah’s Casino 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 18


3 0 0 2 2 2 2 11

Atlantic City New Hampshire Road

6 0 0 2 2 2 2 14


6 2 2 2 2 2 2 18

Beacon Beacon Station 6 0 2 0 2 2 2 14

Bear Mountain Bear Mountain 6 0 2 0 0 2 0 10


6 2 0 2 2 0 2 14

Branford Harbor Street 6 2 0 2 2 2 0 14



Table A.12 Site Scores for Land Use (continued) Fast Ferry

Town Site Cur

rent

or P

oten

tially

C

ompa

tible

Use

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

erci

al/

Tour

ism

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

uter

s

Park

ing

With

in W

alk

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Woo

ded

Are

as

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Wet

land

s

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Park

land

s

Tota

l


6 0 2 0 2 2 2 14


6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16


6 2 0 2 0 2 2 14


6 0 2 0 2 2 2 14



6 2 2 0 0 2 2 14



6 0 2 2 2 2 2 16



6 2 2 0 2 0 2 14

East Marion Bay Avenue 6 0 0 0 2 0 2 10

East Marion Rocky Point 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 10

Elizabeth Jersey Gardens Mall 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 18

EWR East Port Street 6 2 2 0 2 2 2 16


6 2 2 2 2 2 2 18

Glen Cove Park (Towns Beach) 3 2 0 2 2 2 2 13

Greenport Fifth Street 6 2 0 2 2 0 0 12


6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16

Greenwich Cock Road 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 6

Greenwich Cos Cob Station 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 8


6 0 0 0 2 2 2 12

Guilford Guilford Point Beach

6 2 0 2 2 2 0 14


6 2 2 2 2 2 2 18

Huntington Woodland Drive 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4

JFK 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 4




Town Site Cur

rent

or P

oten

tially

C

ompa

tible

Use

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

erci

al/

Tour

ism

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

uter

s

Park

ing

With

in W

alk

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Woo

ded

Are

as

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Wet

land

s

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Park

land

s

Tota

l


3 0 0 2 2 2 2 11

LGA La Guardia Airport 3 2 2 2 2 0 2 13

Lloyd Harbor Park 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2


6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16

Lower Manhattan South Ferry 6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16


3 2 0 2 2 2 2 13


6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16


3 2 0 2 2 2 2 13


3 2 0 2 2 2 0 11


6 2 0 2 2 2 0 14


0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Manorhaven North Shore Yacht Club

6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16

Mattituck Mattituck Creek 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 8

Midtown West 40th Street 6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16


0 0 2 0 2 2 2 8

New London Cross Sound Ferry 6 0 2 2 2 2 2 16

New London Ft. Trumbull 3 2 0 2 2 2 0 11


6 2 2 2 2 2 0 16


6 2 0 2 2 2 0 14




Town Site Cur

rent

or P

oten

tially

C

ompa

tible

Use

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

erci

al/

Tour

ism

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

uter

s

Park

ing

With

in W

alk

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Woo

ded

Are

as

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Wet

land

s

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Park

land

s

Tota

l


3 2 2 2 2 2 2 15

Northport James Street 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 6

Northport Woobine Marina 3 2 0 2 2 2 2 13

Norwalk Gregory Point 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 8

Norwalk Ischoda Yacht Club 6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16

Old Saybrook Ferry Road 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 16

Old Saybrook Smith Neck Road 6 2 0 2 2 0 0 12

Orient Orient Point 6 2 0 2 2 0 0 12

Orient Orient Yacht Club 6 2 0 0 2 0 2 12

Oyster Bay Bayview 6 2 2 0 2 2 2 16

Oyster Bay Beach Park 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 16

Port Chester Marina 6 0 0 0 2 2 2 12

Port Jefferson Port Jefferson Yacht Club

6 2 2 2 2 2 2 18

Port Jefferson Shore Road 6 2 0 0 2 0 2 12

Port Washington Beachway Drive 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 6

Port Washington Towns Dock 6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16

Roosevelt Island 3 2 0 2 2 2 2 13

Rye Old Rye Beach Avenue (near Rye Beach and Playland)

6 2 2 2 2 2 0 16

Sheepshead Bay 6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16

Shinnecock Shinnecock Inlet (North)

6 2 2 2 2 0 0 14


6 2 2 2 2 0 0 14

Southhold Town Harbor Lane 3 0 0 2 2 0 2 9

Stamford Kosciuszco Park 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 13

Stamford Yacht Haven 3 2 0 2 2 2 0 11

Stony Brook Cordwood Path 6 0 0 0 0 2 2 10

Stony Brook Shore Road 6 2 0 2 2 2 2 16




Town Site Cur

rent

or P

oten

tially

C

ompa

tible

Use

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

erci

al/

Tour

ism

Supp

ort f

or C

omm

uter

s

Park

ing

With

in W

alk

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Woo

ded

Are

as

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Wet

land

s

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

on

Park

land

s

Tota

l

Sunken Meadow Callahan’s Beach Road

0 2 0 2 2 0 0 6

Sunken Meadow State Park 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 6

Tarrytown Losee Park 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 18

Waterville Bally Beach 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 7

West Haven City Point 6 2 0 2 2 0 2 14


3 0 0 2 0 0 0 5


0 2 0 2 2 2 2 10

Westbrook Salt Island Road 3 2 0 2 2 2 0 11

Westerly Margin Street 3 2 0 2 2 2 2 13

Westerly Washington Street 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 11

Summary of Site Scores

Scores were tabulated for each of eight possible services, based on the criteria defined in Section 4.0 of this Technical Memorandum, and are presented on the following pages. Certain sites on the south shore of Long Island were evaluated for marine conditions (as a matter of information), but not for other factors (because they are outside the study area); these are not included in the summary tables.



Table A.13 Summary of Site Scores Water Taxi

Town Community Acceptance

Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Atlantic City 1 2 1 1 1 6

Beacon 1 2 0 1 1 5

Bear Mountain 1 2 0 0 1 4

Branford 1 2 1 1 1 6

Bridgeport 1 2 1 1 1 6

Calverton/Riverhead 1 1 1 1 1 5

East Marion 1 2 -1 0 1 3

Elizabeth 1 2 1 1 1 6

EWR 1 2 1 0 1 5

Ft. Pond Bay 1 2 0 0 1 4

Glen Cove 1 2 0 1 1 5

Greenport 1 2 1 2 1 7

Greenwich 1 2 1 1 1 6

Guilford 1 2 0 1 1 5

Huntington 1 2 -1 0 1 3

JFK 1 2 -1 2 1 5

Larchmont 1 2 2 2 1 8

LGA 2 2 0 1 1 6

Lloyd Harbor 1 2 -1 0 1 3

Lower Manhattan 2 2 1 2 1 8

Madison 1 2 1 0 1 5

Mamaroneck 1 2 0 2 1 6

Manorhaven 1 2 0 1 1 5

Mattituck 1 2 0 0 1 4

Midtown 2 2 1 2 1 8

Montauk 1 2 1 1 1 6

Napeague 1 2 0 0 1 4

New Haven 1 2 0 1 1 5

New London 1 2 1 2 1 7

New Rochelle 1 1 1 2 1 6

Northport 1 2 -1 0 1 3

Norwalk 1 2 0 1 1 5

Old Saybrook 1 0 0 0 1 2

Orient 1 1 0 1 1 4



Table A.13 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Water Taxi


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Oyster Bay 1 2 -1 1 1 4

Port Chester 1 2 0 1 1 5

Port Jefferson 1 1 1 2 1 6

Port Washington 1 2 -1 1 1 4

Roosevelt Island 1 1 0 2 1 5

Rye 1 2 1 2 1 7

Sag Harbor 1 2 1 2 1 7

Sheepshead Bay 1 2 1 2 1 7

Shinnecock 1 1 1 0 1 4

Southhold 1 1 0 0 1 3

Stamford 1 2 1 1 1 6

Stony Brook 1 0 1 0 1 3

Sunken Meadow 1 0 1 0 1 3

Tarrytown 1 2 0 1 1 5

Waterville 1 2 -1 0 1 3

West Haven 1 2 1 2 1 7

Westbrook 1 2 0 0 1 4

Westerly 1 2 1 0 1 5

Table A.14 Summary of Site Scores Fast Ferry


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Atlantic City 0 2 1 1 1 5 Beacon 0 0 0 1 1 2 Bear Mountain 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 Branford 0 0 -1 1 1 1 Bridgeport 2 2 1 1 1 7 Calverton/Riverhead 0 0 1 1 1 3 East Marion 0 0 -1 0 0 -1



Table A.14 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Fast Ferry


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Elizabeth 0 2 1 1 1 5 EWR 0 2 1 0 1 4 Glen Cove 2 0 0 1 1 4 Greenport 0 1 -1 2 1 3 Greenwich 0 1 1 1 0 3 Guilford 0 0 -1 1 1 1 Huntington 1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 JFK 0 -2 -1 2 -1 -2 Larchmont 0 1 1 2 0 4 LGA 2 0 1 1 1 5 Lloyd Harbor 0 -2 -1 0 -1 -4 Lower Manhattan 2 2 1 2 1 8 Madison 0 0 1 0 0 1 Mamaroneck 0 1 1 2 1 5 Manorhaven 0 0 1 1 1 3 Mattituck 0 1 -1 0 0 0 Midtown 2 2 1 2 1 8 New Haven 1 2 1 1 0 5 New London 2 2 1 2 1 8 New Rochelle 1 1 1 2 1 6 Northport 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 Norwalk 0 0 1 1 1 3 Old Saybrook 0 0 1 0 1 2 Orient 2 2 -1 1 0 4 Oyster Bay 0 1 1 1 1 4 Port Chester 0 2 1 1 0 4 Port Jefferson 0 2 1 2 1 6 Port Washington 0 1 -1 1 1 2 Roosevelt Island 0 0 1 2 0 3 Rye 0 0 1 2 1 4 Sheepshead Bay 0 1 1 2 1 5 Shinnecock 0 1 -1 0 1 1 Southhold 0 1 -1 0 0 0 Stamford 2 1 1 1 0 5 Stony Brook 0 -2 1 0 1 0 Sunken Meadow 0 -2 1 0 -1 -2 Tarrytown 0 1 1 1 1 4



Table A.14 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Fast Ferry


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Waterville 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3 West Haven 0 0 1 2 1 4 Westbrook 0 0 1 0 0 1 Westerly 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Table A.15 Summary of Site Scores Conventional Passenger/Vehicle


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Atlantic City -1 0 1 1 -1 0 Beacon -1 0 0 1 -1 -1 Bear Mountain -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 Branford -1 -2 -1 1 -1 -4 Bridgeport 2 2 1 1 1 7 Calverton/Riverhead -1 -2 1 1 -1 -2 East Marion -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5 Elizabeth -1 2 1 1 -1 2 EWR -1 2 1 0 -1 1 Ft. Pond Bay (passenger)

-1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Glen Cove -1 -2 -1 1 -1 -4 Greenport 2 0 -1 2 -1 2 Greenwich -1 -2 1 1 -1 -2 Guilford -1 -2 -1 1 -1 -4 Huntington -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3 JFK -1 -2 -1 2 -1 -3 Larchmont -1 -2 -1 2 -1 -3 LGA -1 0 0 1 -1 -1 Lloyd Harbor -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5 Lower Manhattan -1 2 1 2 -1 3 Madison -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5 Mamaroneck -1 -2 0 2 -1 -2



Table A.15 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Conventional Passenger/Vehicle


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Manorhaven -1 -2 -1 1 -1 -4 Mattituck -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5 Midtown -1 2 1 2 -1 3 Montauk (passenger only)

2 2 -1 1 1 5

Napeague (passenger only)

-1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

New Haven 1 2 0 1 -1 3 New London 2 2 1 2 1 8 New Rochelle -1 -2 1 2 -1 -1 Northport -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5 Norwalk -1 -2 0 1 -1 -3 Old Saybrook -1 0 0 0 -1 -2 Orient 2 2 -1 1 1 5 Oyster Bay -1 0 -1 1 -1 -2 Port Chester -1 0 0 1 -1 -1 Port Jefferson 2 2 0 2 1 7 Port Washington -1 0 -1 1 -1 -2 Roosevelt Island -1 0 0 2 -1 0 Rye -1 -2 1 2 -1 -1 Sag Harbor (passenger only)

-1 -1 -1 2 -1 -2

Sheepshead Bay -1 0 1 2 -1 1 Shinnecock -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5 Southhold -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5 Stamford -1 0 1 1 -1 0 Stony Brook -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5 Sunken Meadow -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3 Tarrytown -1 0 0 1 -1 -1 Waterville -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5 West Haven -1 -2 1 2 -1 -1 Westbrook -1 -2 0 0 -1 -4 Westerly -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5



Table A.16 Summary of Site Scores Emergency Passenger


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Atlantic City 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Beacon 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Bear Mountain 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Branford 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Bridgeport 0 2 0 1 0 3 Calverton/Riverhead 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 East Marion 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Elizabeth 0 2 0 1 0 3 EWR 0 2 0 0 0 2 Ft. Pond Bay (passenger)

0 -2 0 0 0 -2

Glen Cove 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Greenport 0 -2 0 2 0 0 Greenwich 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Guilford 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Huntington 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 JFK 0 -2 0 2 0 0 Larchmont 0 -2 0 2 0 0 LGA 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Lloyd Harbor 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Lower Manhattan 0 2 0 2 0 4 Madison 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Mamaroneck 0 -2 0 2 0 0 Manorhaven 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Mattituck 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Midtown 0 2 0 2 0 4 Montauk (passenger) 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Napeague (passenger) 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 New Haven 0 2 0 1 0 3 New London 0 2 0 2 0 4 New Rochelle 0 -2 0 2 0 0 Northport 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Norwalk 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Old Saybrook 0 2 0 0 0 2 Orient 0 2 0 1 0 3 Oyster Bay 0 -2 0 1 0 -1



Table A.16 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Emergency Passenger


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Port Chester 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Port Jefferson 0 2 0 2 0 4 Port Washington 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Roosevelt Island 0 -2 0 2 0 0 Rye 0 -2 0 2 0 0 Sag Harbor (passenger)

0 -2 0 2 0 0

Sheepshead Bay 0 -2 0 2 0 0 Shinnecock 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Southhold 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Stamford 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Stony Brook 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Sunken Meadow 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Tarrytown 0 -2 0 1 0 -1 Waterville 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 West Haven 0 -2 0 2 0 0 Westbrook 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 Westerly 0 -2 0 0 0 -2

Table A.17 Summary of Site Scores Truck Ferry


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Atlantic City -1 1 1 0 -1 0

Beacon -1 1 1 0 -1 0

Bear Mountain -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Branford -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5


Calverton/Riverhead -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

East Marion -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Elizabeth -1 2 1 0 -1 1



Table A.17 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Truck Ferry


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

EWR -1 2 1 0 -1 1

Glen Cove -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Greenport -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Greenwich -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Guilford -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Huntington -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

JFK -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Larchmont -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

LGA -1 0 1 0 -1 -1

Lloyd Harbor -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Lower Manhattan -1 2 -1 0 -1 -1

Madison -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Mamaroneck -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Manorhaven -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Mattituck -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Midtown -1 2 -1 0 -1 -1

New Haven 0 2 1 0 0 3


New Rochelle -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Northport -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Norwalk -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Old Saybrook -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Orient -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Oyster Bay -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Port Chester -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Port Jefferson -1 2 -1 0 -1 -1

Port Washington -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Roosevelt Island -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Rye -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Sheepshead Bay -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Shinnecock -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Southhold -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Stamford -1 1 -1 0 -1 -2



Table A.17 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Truck Ferry


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Stony Brook -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Sunken Meadow -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Tarrytown -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Waterville -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

West Haven -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Westbrook -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Westerly -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Table A.18 Summary of Site Scores Container Barge


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total


Beacon -1 1 1 0 -1 0


Branford -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5


Calverton/Riverhead -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

East Marion -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Elizabeth -1 2 1 0 -1 1

EWR -1 2 1 0 -1 1

Ft. Pond Bay -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Glen Cove -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Greenport -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Greenwich -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Guilford -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Huntington -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

JFK -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Larchmont -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

LGA -1 0 1 0 -1 -1



Table A.18 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Container Barge


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Lloyd Harbor -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5


Madison -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Mamaroneck -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Manorhaven -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Mattituck -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Midtown -1 2 -1 0 -1 -1

Montauk -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Napeague -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

New Haven 1 2 1 0 1 5


New Rochelle -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Northport -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Norwalk -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Old Saybrook -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Orient -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Oyster Bay -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Port Chester -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Port Jefferson -1 2 -1 0 -1 -1



Rye -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Sag Harbor -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5


Shinnecock -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Southhold -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Stamford -1 1 -1 0 -1 -2

Stony Brook -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5


Tarrytown -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Waterville -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

West Haven -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Westbrook -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Westerly -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5



Table A.19 Summary of Site Scores Non-Container Barge


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total


Beacon -1 1 1 0 -1 0


Branford -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5


Calverton/Riverhead

-1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

East Marion -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Elizabeth -1 2 1 0 -1 1

EWR -1 2 1 0 -1 1

Ft. Pond Bay -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Glen Cove -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Greenport -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Greenwich -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Guilford -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Huntington -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

JFK -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Larchmont -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

LGA -1 0 1 0 -1 -1

Lloyd Harbor -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5


Madison -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Mamaroneck -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Manorhaven -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Mattituck -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Midtown -1 2 -1 0 -1 -1

Montauk -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Napeague -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

New Haven 2 2 1 0 2 7


New Rochelle -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Northport -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Norwalk -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Old Saybrook -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Orient -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5



Table A.19 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Non-Container Barge


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Oyster Bay -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Port Chester -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Port Jefferson 1 2 -1 0 1 3



Rye -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Sag Harbor -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5


Shinnecock -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Southhold -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Stamford 1 1 -1 0 1 2

Stony Brook -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5


Tarrytown -1 0 -1 0 -1 -3

Waterville -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

West Haven -1 -2 1 0 -1 -3

Westbrook -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Westerly -1 -2 -1 0 -1 -5

Table A.20 Summary of Site Scores Emergency Freight


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Atlantic City 0 1 1 0 0 2

Beacon 0 1 1 0 0 2

Bear Mountain 0 0 -1 0 0 -1

Branford 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3


Calverton/Riverhead 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

East Marion 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3



Table A.20 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Emergency Freight


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Elizabeth 0 2 1 0 0 3

EWR 0 2 1 0 0 3

Ft. Pond Bay 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Glen Cove 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Greenport 0 0 -1 0 0 -1

Greenwich 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Guilford 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Huntington 0 0 -1 0 0 -1

JFK 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Larchmont 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

LGA 0 0 1 0 0 1

Lloyd Harbor 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Lower Manhattan 0 2 -1 0 0 1

Madison 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Mamaroneck 0 -2 1 0 0 -1

Manorhaven 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Mattituck 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Midtown 0 2 -1 0 0 1

Montauk 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Napeague 0 0 -1 0 0 -1

New Haven 0 2 1 0 0 3


New Rochelle 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Northport 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Norwalk 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Old Saybrook 0 0 -1 0 0 -1

Orient 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Oyster Bay 0 0 -1 0 0 -1

Port Chester 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Port Jefferson 0 2 -1 0 0 1

Port Washington 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Roosevelt Island 0 0 -1 0 0 -1

Rye 0 -2 1 0 0 -1

Sag Harbor 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3



Table A.20 Summary of Site Scores (continued) Emergency Freight


Maritime Conditions

Highway Access

Transit Access

Land Use Total

Sheepshead Bay 0 -2 1 0 0 -1

Shinnecock 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Southhold 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Stamford 0 1 -1 0 0 0

Stony Brook 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Sunken Meadow 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Tarrytown 0 0 -1 0 0 -1

Waterville 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

West Haven 0 -2 1 0 0 -1

Westbrook 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Westerly 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3

Appendix B Supplemental Surveys and Mode Choice Modeling


Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-1

Supplemental Surveys and Mode Choice Modeling

About Appendix B

This Appendix describes the survey design, survey instruments, and initial model estima-tion results for the mode choice models developed for the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan. The purpose of this study is to estimate the demand for various modes of travel between key origins 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 residents from communities in Long Island and Connecticut that could utilize and benefit from these proposed ferry services. A prelimi-nary, statistically based predictive ridership model has been developed from the survey.

The survey and model results described here reflect two survey “waves.” The first wave collected information from potential ferry users with destinations in Manhattan, Long Island, and Southwestern Connecticut; these findings were documented the Technical Memorandum on Task 2. The second wave included additional commuters to Manhattan destinations, with a focus on lower Manhattan. This Appendix is a comprehensive update of the initial Task 2 write-up, with changes to incorporate the results from the second wave sample.

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.


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, Fairfield, 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.



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 cus-tom-design the choice experiments based upon the individual’s most recent trip. Each respondent 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.



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;



• 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 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.

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 NYMTC 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;



• 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 provided 176 completed questionnaires and the second sample provided 129 completed questionnaires, for a total of 305; each respondent answered four choice experiments, so the total sample provided 1,220 observations.

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.



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. More than 50 percent of the respondents were part of the Manhattan market. Among the remaining the respondents a little over half represent the LaGuardia market. Overall, the sample reflects the importance of commute trips for the proposed ferry service.

Table B.1 Respondent Travel Distribution

Market Share (Percent)

Cross Sound 56 (18.81%)

To Manhattan 172 (57.77%)

To LaGuardia 70 (23.42%)

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 for the Cross Sound and LaGuardia markets. However, because commute trips are an important market for the proposed ferry service, the second survey wave is focused entirely on HBW trips to Manhattan. This is reflected in Table B.2.

Table B.2 Distribution of Purpose

Purpose Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

HBW 5 (8.93%) 112 (65.12%) 14 (19.71%)

HBNW 51 (91.07%) 60 (34.88%) 56 (80.29%)

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 48.6 percent of all respondents



travel by transit as their main modes of travel. Additionally, 26 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 (Access/Egress Modes in [ ]) All Markets

Mode Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Drove alone 21.43[21.43/14.29]% 9.30[46.88/-]% 18.28[-/-]%

Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with one other person

30.36[28.57/28.57] 6.98[26.56/-] 38.71[33.33/-]

Driver or passenger in a private vehicle with two or more other people

23.21[50.0/28.57] 9.30[7.03/-] 24.37[8.33/-]

Walk -[-/-] -[14.84/41.41] -[25.0/25.0]

Public transit bus -[-/7.14] 1.16[1.56/5.47] 1.43[-/8.33]

Rail/Train -[-/-] 73.26[-/0.78] 2.87[-/-]

Subway -[-/-] -[-/42.97] -[-/-]

Ferry 23.21 - 1.43

Dedicated van service 1.79 - 2.87

Taxi - -[2.34/8.59] 8.60[-/16.67]

Other -[-/21.43] -[0.78/0.78] 1.43[33.33/50]

Note: “-” denotes a share less than 0.5 percent.

Findings on market-specific mode shares include:

• The Manhattan market has a non-transit mode share of 15 and 45 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 – 23 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 84 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.



Table B.4 presents survey results for average travel costs, times, and vehicle occupancies. LaGuardia trips are the longest and most expensive, on average, while Cross Sound trips have the lowest parking costs. Manhattan has the lowest average travel times, at around one and one-half hours. The persons per vehicle figures reflect the fact that most reported trips in this survey are non-work trips, which tend to have higher occupancies than do work trips as indicated by the Manhattan trips.

Table B.4 Additional Trip Characteristics

Variable Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Daily parking cost $6.30 $17.40 $27.00

Travel time from home to destination 121 minutes 93 minutes 102 minutes

Number of people in travel group 2.4 1.8 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 15.56% 17.53% 37.67% Partial 13.33 9.09 7.17

Parking costs

None 71.11 73.38 55.16

Full 20.00 15.58 37.67 Partial 8.89 8.44 5.38

Toll costs

None 71.11 75.97 56.95

Full 15.56 16.88 37.67

Partial 6.67 16.23 1.79

Transit costs

None 77.78 66.88 60.54



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. Manhattan respondents report somewhat higher ownership levels than do the other two markets.

Table B.6 Basic Household Characteristics

Variable Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Number of members in household 2.7 3.2 2.7

Number of household members younger than 18

0.7 1.3 0.8

Number of employed household members (full and part-time)

1.6 1.6 1.6

Number of vehicles in household 2.4 2.2 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:

• Thirty to 75 percent of respondents report having received a college degree or greater, with the Manhattan market having the highest percentage (Table B.7).

• More than 60 percent 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-eight percent of Cross Sound respondents earn $100,000 or more, while 55 and 24 percent of Manhattan and LaGuardia market respondents, respectively, earn $100,000 or more (Table B.9).

• All three markets 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).

• More than two-thirds of the respondents are married or living with a partner (Table B.12).



Table B.7 Distribution by Education Percent

Education Level Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Some high school or less 1.79% 0% 0%

High school graduate or equivalent 7.14 6.40 5.73

Some college or technical school 17.86 18.60 24.01

College graduate 44.64 33.72 40.14

Graduate or professional degree 28.57 40.70 28.67

Refused 0 0.58 1.43

Table B.8 Distribution by Job Status Percent

Current Job Status Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Employed full-time 60.71% 76.74% 67.03%

Employed part-time 19.64 12.79 12.90

Unemployed 3.57 1.74 0

Retired 10.71 6.40 10.04

Homemaker 5.36 1.74 5.73

Student 0 0 1.43

Disabled 0 0.58 2.87



Table B.9 Annual Income Distribution Percent

Income Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Less than $15,000 1.79% 1.74% 1.43%

$15,000 to less than $25,000 0 1.74 2.87

$25,000 to less than $50,000 19.64 12.21 17.20

$50,000 to less than $75,000 14.29 9.30 19.71

$75,000 to less than $100,000 17.86 11.63 24.37

$100,000 to less than $150,000 23.21 20.35 11.47

$150,000 or greater 14.29 34.30 12.90

Refused 8.93 8.72 10.04

Table B.10 Distribution of Gender Percent

Gender Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Male 51.79% 50.58% 48.39%

Female 48.21 49.42 51.61



Table B.11 Distribution by Age Percent

Age Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

18 to 24 years 5.36% 4.07% 2.87%

25 to 34 years 16.07 9.88 14.34

35 to 44 years 23.21 38.37 21.15

45 to 54 years 23.21 27.91 30.11

55 to 64 years 17.86 12.21 17.20

65 to 74 years 12.50 5.81 7.17

75 years and older 1.79 1.16 5.73

Refused 0 0.58 1.43

Table B.12 Distribution by Marital Status Percent

Marital Status Cross Sound To Manhattan To LaGuardia

Single 17.86% 19.77% 12.90%

Married/Living with partner 69.64 71.51 69.89

Divorced/Separated 5.36 5.23 8.60

Widowed 7.14 3.49 7.17

Refused 0 0 1.43

Choice Experiment 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.

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 43 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 43 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 Work

(Current Percent) Non-Work

(Current Percent)

Private automobile 60 (80%) 53.43 (74.51%)

Ferry (without car) 0 3.43

Ferry (with car) 5 (20%) 17.16 (23.21%)

Express ferry 30 22.06

Transit 5 (0%) 3.92 (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 27 percent and 12 percent of choice experiments for work and non-work respectively.

Table B.14 Distribution of Choice by Purpose for Manhattan Market Percent

Choice of Mode Work


(Current Percent)

Private automobile 13.62 (15.18%) 25.83 (45%)

Express ferry 27.45 12.08

Transit 58.93 (83.93%) 62.08 (53.33%)



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 Work


(Current Percent)

Private automobile 50.91 (71%) 60.27 (84%)

Express ferry 25.45 16.07

Transit 23.64 23.66 (3.57%)

Stated-Preference Mode Choice Estimation Results

The purpose of this model estimation phase was twofold: 1) to verify that there is suffi-cient variability in the data collected before completing the last round of data collection; 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.

Three stated-preference models were estimated in multinomial logit – one each for Cross-Sound/Coastal, Manhattan, and LaGuardia markets. The following subsections provide a technical discussion of the logit model and present the initial model estimation results.

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 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

The results of the model estimation exercise for the Manhattan, LaGuardia, and Coastal models are shown in Table B.16 below. For each model, the variable name, estimated coef-ficient value (the weight) used in the model and the T-statistic are presented. The final likelihood values and the rho-square statistics appear as the last entries in the table.

Each model has the following alternative choices:

• Auto;

• Rail Walk;

• Rail Transit;

• Rail Auto;

• Express Ferry Walk;

• Express ferry Transit;

• Express ferry Auto; and

• Conventional Ferry (only for the Coastal Market).



Table B.16 Mode Choice Estimation Results Stated-Preference

Manhattan Trips LaGuardia Trips Cross-Sound/Coastal* Variable Estimate t-stat Estimate t-stat Estimate t-stat

15 RAILWALK 0.1904 0.2 -2.2921 -2.59 -7.5336 -4.70

20 RAILTRAN 1.2946 1.4 -1.3190 -1.08 -1.5089 -0.31

25 RAILAUTO 0.8218 1.2 -0.2311 -0.15 -3.6605 -1.50

30 CFERRY -4.0031 -3.33

35 FERRYWLK -1.3105 -1.8 -4.2668 -4.46 -6.1945 -3.52

40 FERRYTRN -2.5560 -1.7 -0.1560 -0.11 -5.3145 -1.92

45 FERRYCAR 0.3776 0.4 -2.2147 -2.43 -5.6963 -3.97

Auto

Auto IVTT -0.0117 -6.1 -0.0154 -5.69 -0.0190 -5.48

Auto Toll -0.1913 -1.4 -0.0618 -0.50 -0.2703 -1.46

Rail Walk Access

Access Time -0.0124 -0.7

IVT -0.0256 -7.8 -0.0202 -4.68 -0.0102 -3.24

Fare -0.0643 -7.0 -0.0200 -1.84

Peak Frequency -0.0025 -0.8 -0.0001 -0.04 -0.0024 -0.56

Off-peak Frequency -0.0025 -0.8 -0.0001 -0.04 -0.0024 -0.56

Number of Workers 0.4058 2.7 0.8976 2.75

Rail Transit Access

Transit Access Time -0.1165 -3.5 -0.0211 -0.55 -0.1207 -0.72

Transit Cost -1.5697 -1.15

IVT -0.0256 -7.8 -0.0202 -4.68 -0.0102 -3.24

Fare -0.0643 -7.0 -0.0200 -1.84

Peak Frequency -0.0025 -0.8 -0.0001 -0.04 -0.0024 -0.56



Rail Car Access

Car Access Time -0.0407 -0.90 -0.0969 -0.93

Car Cost -0.1170 -3.5 -0.1053 -1.31 -0.2697 -1.11

IVT -0.0256 -7.8 -0.0202 -4.68 -0.0102 -3.24

Fare -0.0643 -7.0 -0.0200 -1.84

Peak Frequency -0.0025 -0.8 -0.0001 -0.04 -0.0024 -0.56





Table B.16 Mode Choice Estimation Results (continued) Stated-Preference

Manhattan Trips LaGuardia Trips Cross-Sound/Coastal* Variable Estimate t-stat Estimate t-stat Estimate t-stat

Conventional Ferry

Ferry IVTT -0.0102 -3.24

C ferry Peak Frequency -0.0024 -0.56

C ferry Off-peak Frequency -0.0024 -0.56

Mid to High Income -2.5117 -4.67

Express Ferry Walk Access

Walk Access Time -0.0673 -1.01

IVT -0.0256 -7.8 -0.0202 -4.68 -0.0102 -3.24

Fare -0.0643 -7.0 -0.0200 -1.84

Peak Frequency -0.0013 -0.5 -0.0001 -0.04 -0.0024 -0.56


Number of Workers 0.6884 3.8

Express Ferry Transit Access

Transit Access Time -0.0372 -0.46

Transit Access Cost -0.3969 -0.6 -1.5231 -2.53 -0.8265 -1.04

IVT -0.0256 -7.8 -0.0202 -4.68 -0.0102 -3.24

Fare -0.0643 -7.0 -0.0200 -1.84

Peak Frequency -0.0013 -0.5 -0.0001 -0.04 -0.0024 -0.56



Express Ferry Car Access

Car Access Time -0.0303 -1.2 -0.0247 -0.63

Car Cost -0.2466 -5.1 -0.0752 -1.04 -0.0748 -1.16

IVT -0.0256 -7.8 -0.0202 -4.68 -0.0102 -3.24

Fare -0.0643 -7.0 -0.0200 -1.84

Peak Frequency -0.0013 -0.5 -0.0001 -0.04 -0.0024 -0.56



Final Likelihood -1057.0394 -348.1718 -253.5761

ρ2 w.r.t. constants 0.094 0.0901 0.1602

Note: The Coastal Trip Model estimation has common variable for IVT and Fare as follows: (IVT(mode) + Fare(mode)/$25)



A brief discussion of the results follows:

• In-Vehicle Times (IVT) are not modeled specific to each mode. The coefficients of all these variables are found to be significant 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. The fares are negative and significant for all alternatives and are constrained to the express ferry walk access fare. The greater the costs of using a car, the less likely it is that the specific mode will be chosen.

• 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. All the other variables in this group represent the walking or biking time to and from the transit stations or ferry terminals. All of these variables are negative as expected and show that the more access or egress times, the lesser the likelihood of the mode being chosen.

• 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 coefficients are negatives but not all are 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. All of these coefficients are negative as expected but significant only for the Manhattan mar-ket. This indicated that respondents belonging to the Manhattan market are more sen-sitive to costs and times and this is to be expected given that most of the trips undertaken are commute trips.

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 are able to use the model to quantitatively estimate the demand for different ferry routes with different service characteristics.

Appendix C Town of East Hampton Comments

Town of East Hampton 300 Pantigo Place – Suite 105

East Hampton, New York 11937-2684

Planning Department Telephone (631) 324-2178 Marguerite Wolffsohn Fax (631) 324-1476

Director April 19, 2004

Alan Meyers Cambridge Systematics 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Re: Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Dear Mr. Meyers, The Town of East Hampton Planning Department, as an Advisory Committee member, has reviewed the draft final memorandum for Task 3 of the Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan and offers the following comments and recommendations. As a general comment, the locations listed in the tables are inconsistent with regard to the sites in East Hampton. The sites evaluated include three located in Montauk referred to as Tuthill Road, Lakeside Court and Montauk State Park in some tables and as Fort Pond Bay and Montauk (no specific location) in others. Lakeside Court represents a short cul-de-sac street serving a residential development, with large residences located along the shoreline of Lake Montauk and provides no opportunities for development without condemnation of existing residences. Therefore, this site would be completely unacceptable for ferry service and should be eliminated from consideration. Montauk State Park consists of over 700 acres of parkland and 5 miles of coastline. Without specifying a location in Montauk State Park, it is not be possible to evaluate the criteria. Similarly, the Fort Pond Bay coastline has varying conditions and cannot be properly analyzed without identifying a specific site or area. The Town’s opposition to developing a ferry service in Montauk State Park would be the equivalent to that of it’s stated position to a ferry service in Napeague State Park. It is the Town’s understanding that maps for the study depict the site of the existing Viking Ferry on Lake Montauk as the third site being evaluated, but it does not appear to be analyzed in the study or listed in the matrix. The tables should be clarified and revised to be consistent with each other and to provide an analysis for each of the sites.

2

Community Acceptance (Page 2-4) The Screening Process indicates that vehicular ferries were defined in Task 3.2 as fatally flawed in Montauk, Fort Pond Bay and Napeague and therefore were excluded from further screening or evaluation and would not appear in the subsequent evaluation tables. However, these three sites are included in Table A.15 Summary of Site Scores. The scoring of these sites only lists Community Acceptance as – 1 when the use is prohibited under the Town Code. Further comment is not being offered for the scoring of the other criteria as the report states that the sites will not be analyzed. Fast passenger ferry - All three sites in the Town of East Hampton were ranked o - Other/unknown. The Town has legislation that would prohibit any passenger ferry capable of traveling in excess of 20 knotts per hour. This would not accommodate a fast passenger ferry and therefore, the three East Hampton sites should be reranked to -- Proposed/potential use, opposed or contrary to plans and regulations. Passenger water taxi - All three sites located in the Town were given the second highest ranking, + Proposed/potential use with apparent local support. There does not appear to be any basis for this classification. No community support has been vocalized. Community opposition to any type of ferry in the Town was heard at the second Southold public workshop. Additionally, the three sites do not appear to meet the six criteria developed for evaluation of community acceptance. Only the Montauk site has an existing ferry service. The other two sites do not presently have a ferry site and are not planning one. Community opposition has been expressed for any ferry service operating in the Town. No local ferry operators have expressed and interest in operating a water taxi. There was no local East Hampton enthusiasm expressed at any of the CPW for ferry service in the Town. There is historic opposition for ferry proposals in the Town. The local East Hampton government has clearly expressed an opposition to a proposal for any ferry service in the Town. Especially given the fact that the study includes ferries capable of carrying automobiles as a water taxi, it is recommended that the ranking of all three sites for fast passenger ferry and passenger water taxi be reclassified to o - Proposed/potential use, opposed or contrary to plans and regulations. Draft and Constructability/Marine Conditions In Table A-3 Site Scores for Draft and Constructability, all three East Hampton sites were rated ++ (Nothing required; immediate operations possible; emergency service accommodated) for water taxi’s and Fort Pond Bay and Napeague, o (Moderate improvements- dredging and/or pier construction) for fast passenger ferry service.

• Napeague- The site has not commercially utilized since the 1960’s and the pier and bulkheading are in a state of severe disrepair and would require reconstruction.

3

Regional Access In Table A.7 Site Scores for Highway Access, all East Hampton sites ranked 0, greater than 1 mile from 4 lane highway or expressway rank, the lowest of three rankings under this criteria. However, as defined the three rankings do not allow for an accurate assessment of regional access. All of the East Hampton sites are located between 20 and 30 miles from the nearest four lane highway or expressway. There is a significant difference between being 1 mile from the nearest four lane highway or expressway and needing to travel over 20 miles to the Napeague site and 30 miles to the Lake Montauk site over local roads that seasonally operate at or over capacity. Local Access As a general comment, the criteria used for rating local road access to the ferry sites does not take into consideration existing congestion or LOS. The Town has one main east/west artery, Montauk Highway, serving all of the sites. This two lane road operates at or over capacity during the summer months when it can be anticipated that water taxi or passenger ferry service would be most utilized. Four of the sites in the Town were given a +2, the highest rating, for capacity even given the congestion. The roads were also rated on traffic lights, grade and alternate routes. Congestion and level of service have a more significant impact on the ability to use the roads then these factors. Table A.8 - Fort Pond Bay and Tuthill Road are evaluated as separate sites. The coastline of Fort Pond Bay covers an extensive geographic area with widely varying conditions. The location on Fort Pond Bay needs to be clarified. Tuthill Road (Duryea site) is the only site on Fort Pond Bay zoned Waterfront that would permit a passenger ferry. Tuthill Road is a 20’ wide private right of way over residentially zoned parcels that provides no opportunity for creating a public road or sufficient improvements. Access to other parcels on Fort Pond Bay are over roads with steep slopes and roads that would require substantial improvements. Fort Pond Bay is rated a +2 (good) and Tuthill Road +1,or fair, for capacity. Both of these ratings should be reevaluated. Lakeside Court is a short cul de sac in a road in a residential subdivision and should not be rated a +2 for Local Road or Capacity. Montauk State Park does not contained improved roads. In Table A.13 and 14, one Montauk and one Fort Pond Bay site is included in the matrix. The Table does not identify which one of the various Montauk and Fort Pond Bay sites is listed. Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access

o Table A-10 Site Scores for Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Access - Fort Pond

Bay/Tuthill Road scores Local Road as +1. Tuthill Road is a private 20’ wide right of way that lacks sufficient width to become a public road and would require improvements. The ranking should be adjusted accordingly.

o Montauk State Park – There are no sidewalks.

4

Land Use The initial categories of screening factors identified on pg 3-2 included available land for terminal and ancillary uses, adjacent context of land use, open space, scale and character of the built environment, potential and existing views and vistas, site conditions including current and past uses, nature of soils, environmental constraints, pedestrian access, compatibility with zoning and suitability of the site to the intensity of use. Land use was only evaluated for fast ferry service. Passenger water taxi – The use was considered benign and all sites under review in the study received a score of +1 in the summary scoring table, where scores vary from –2 to +2. The Napeague site is located in a residential neighborhood, located 2.5 miles from the nearest commercial area. The site is part of State Parkland and in a Parks and Conservation zoning district. The ranking is inappropriate for the site and should be reevaluated. Table A-14 Summary of Site Scores rates the various types of ferry service based on scores ranging from +2 to –2. The Town finds that the following scores should be re-evaluated.

o A fast ferry at the Napeague site would be inconsistent with zoning and the existing residential and parkland land uses and potentially have negative impacts on wetlands and parkland. This site does not meet two of the three stated criteria. A 0 Land Use score is inappropriate for this site.

o The Fort Pond Bay site lacks availability of sufficient parking for the anticipated

use, would be detrimental to the existing commercial fishing use, considered a high priority use for the site in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and has the potential to negatively impact wetlands associated with Tuthill Pond. A 0 Land Use score is inappropriate for this site.

o The Montauk site lacks area in the proximity to provide sufficient parking without

displacing existing uses. The use would be detrimental to the Montauk commercial fishing industry by encouraging tourist related facilities in an area where upland support facilities for commercial fisherman are needed. A +1 Land Use score is inappropriate for this site.

Table A.15 Conventional Pax/Vehicle Ferry – This type of service was rated + if existing; - otherwise. This does allow for the consideration of whether or not a site is appropriate for the expansion of an existing service. The capacity of the existing parking area for the Viking Ferry already operates over capacity. Sites vs Routes Page 4-15 states that Inner Forks Water Taxi might also include a provision for a limited number of vehicles, akin to the Shelter Island ferry services. The Town objects to a ferry carrying vehicles being referred to as a water taxi. Such a service is prohibited under the Town’s zoning.

5

The report states that primary focus for new fast ferry routes on the on the East End of Long Island will be Orient Point-New London and South Fork-New London with possible use of Fort Pond or Napeague, even though they scored poorly. Table 4.12 Summary of Scoring for Fast Ferry indicates that the sites were scored on a basis of 0 to 8. Both of these sites are listed as 0 or below, the lowest rating. The report states that sites scoring 4 or higher were to be subject to further evaluation. The point of the ranking is to determine where ferry service is appropriate. The Town objects to further consideration of routes that have been ranked 0 or below. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this plan and we look forward to working with you further on the plan. Sincerely, JoAnne Pahwul, AICP Assistant Planning Director JP

6

Reco don’t extend LIRR to Orient Check location of RR and bus to Southold/compare to EH sites

Town of East Hampton 300 Pantigo Place – Suite 105

East Hampton, New York 11937-2684

Planning Department Telephone (631) 324-2178 Marguerite Wolffsohn Fax (631) 324-1476

Director April 15, 2004

To: Town Board From: JoAnne Pahwul, Assistant Planning Director Re: Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan Ferry Sites The Draft Long Island Sound Waterborne Transportation Plan (LISWTP), prepared by Cambridge Systematics and dated February 2004, includes three alternative locations for passenger ferries in the Town of East Hampton under study. These sites include the former fish factory site in Napeague State Park, the Duryea site on Fort Pond Bay, and the Viking site at Lake Montauk. As requested, the Planning Department has reviewed Chapter 255 of the Town Code (Zoning), the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, dated August 1997, the Open Space Plan, dated September 1995, and the Waterfront Revitalization Plan, dated February 1999, all adopted into the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and evaluated the subject ferry sites with regard to these plans. Larry Penny, Natural Resources Director, has also contributed comments on the potential impact of ferries operating at these sites. A copy of all of the regulations regarding ferries found in Chapter 255 of the Town Code is attached for the Board’s review. Zoning Code: Use and Special Standards Pursuant to §255-11-10 (Use Table) of the Town Code, vehicular ferries represent a prohibited use in the Town of East Hampton. Passenger ferries are classified as a special permit use and only permitted in a Waterfront zoning district. The special permit standards for a passenger ferry found in §255-5-50 require a finding that the ferry will not result in a significant increase in overall traffic volume on the streets of the Town, or an increase in traffic volume that would result in a decrease in the level of service of any road segment or intersection by one full grade. The site must also be of adequate size to accommodate an improved parking area for long term parking and for handling the pickup and delivery of passengers. Additionally, the type of ferry

2

permitted is restricted to one that has less than two thousand horsepower installed and is not capable of exceeding 20 knots per hour. High speed ferries that currently carry passengers to casinos average 30 knots per hour (35mph). Cross Sound’s vehicular ferries cruise between 11-15 knots per hour and all but two have greater than 2,000 horsepower. Two of the smaller ferries, with less than 2,000 horsepower have vehicular capacities of 22 and 35 cars, and passenger capacities of 130 and 300, respectively. A passenger ferry use would also be subject to the general special permit standards that apply to all special permits (§255-5-40) and to special standards for passenger ferries found in §255-11-88. Transportation Plan The Transportation Plan found that traffic levels on Montauk Highway, the Town’s main artery, are already at or near capacity, with excessive delays, during long periods over the summer months. The study further found that traffic on the Town’s roadways has been increasing at a rate of 8% per year, far faster than the average rate of traffic growth on Long Island and that a ferry at any of the three locations under study would result in degrading the level of service on the Town’s road system by at least one grade. As a result of these findings, the report recommended against the establishment of additional ferry services. Open Space Plan Two of the subject sites are developed parcels and the third is part of preserved parkland and the Open Space Plan does not make any recommendations specific to the sites. General recommendations in the plan apply to the Napeague State Park site. LWRP The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, prepared by the Town and dated February 1999, makes a number of recommendations that affect the subject sites ranging from land use, flooding and erosion, public access and recreation, habitat, scenic and visual, and surface and groundwater policies. Napeague State Park Site SCTM#300-108-1-3.1 The draft LISWTP includes a passenger ferry landing site on a portion of the Napeague State Park, that was the former location of a fish rendering factory that operated until the 1960’s. The site is improved with dilapidated metal buildings and deteriorating bulkheading and docks. The site is zoned Parks and Conservation and a passenger ferry represents a prohibited use. Napeague State Park is comprised of 1,253 acres of preserved land and the site is surrounded on two sides by parkland and on a third by Napeague Bay. This entire area of the Napeague stretch is zoned low density residential and is comprised of residentially

3

developed land or preserved parkland. This parkland is part of a larger block of preserved land totaling over 4,000 acres of open space and undisturbed habitat. The Town and State have both expended large sums of public funds to preserve this environmentally sensitive area from development, with recent Community Preservation Fund purchases as late as 2003. Napeague is characterized as a low sandy area with fragile dunes and wetlands. This sensitive environmental area has an exceptionally high habitat and recreational value. Large areas of Napeague have been designated by the New York State Department of State as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, a geographic area determined to be of statewide significance based on a quantitative analysis of ecological factors. The entire Napeague stretch is located in a flood zone, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and was completely inundated during the 1938 hurricane. These maps also indicate that large areas of Napeague are designated as a coastal barrier and that the subject ferry site would be located in VE (el 11) and AE (el 9) flood zones and subject to coastal flooding and velocity wave action in a 100 year flood. Elevations in the area of the Napeague State Park where a ferry terminal and parking area would be likely range from approximately 6-7’, with groundwater found at approximately 3-4’. The Suffolk County Soil Survey, prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Soil Service indicates that the soils found on site primarily consist of Dune Land and that this soil type is suitable only for use as wildlife habitat or recreation. The low depth to groundwater and sandy soils would limit the site’s ability to attenuate nitrates, bacteria and other harmful components of an on-site septic system. Napeague Harbor, located in close proximity to the south, has pristine water quality and represents one of the cleanest narrow mouth embayments on all of Long Island. Napeague Harbor is a highly productive area for marine finfish and shellfish and has been a shellfish seeding area and an important component of the Town’s shellfish hatchery. Napeague Harbor has not been subject to shellfish closings as many of the other harbors and bays in the Town have. The area is comprised of low density residential development located in an A-Residence zoning district. Only one commercial use is found in this area. An aquaculture facility is located on the adjoining lot to the west. This use is a pre-existing, nonconforming use in a residential zoning district and the parcel recently received subdivision approval for three residential lots. A ferry use would be inconsistent with the residential character of the area. The site lacks pedestrian access or public transportation and a ferry terminal would represent an isolated commercial use in an area characterized by residential uses and parkland. The site is 2.5 miles from any commercial activity. Two access points, Cranberry Hole Road and Napeague Meadow Road, both bordering extensive wetland systems associated with Napeague Harbor and traversing an area designated by New York State as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Napeague Meadow Road, with a narrow right of way with no shoulders, is in close

4

proximity to wetlands on both sides, leaving no opportunity for road widening. Cranberry Hole Road, the access leading west, is a two lane road restricted in areas by wetlands on both sides. This road crosses a narrow bridge over the LIRR that has limited sight distance. Vertical and horizontal curves have also been identified as concerns on this road. Open Space Plan The site is part of a block of preserved open space, including both the easterly and westerly sides of Napeague Harbor, totaling over 4,000 acres. The Town’s Open Space Plan, prepared by the Planning Department and dated September 1995, and subsequently adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, states that protected open space should be provided in as large blocks of open space as possible in order to ensure biodiversity and the health of the Town’s ecosystems. The Town’s Open Space Plan also includes a goal of providing as much public access as possible to the water for fishing and recreational purposes. Protecting the Town’s scenic resources and protecting surface and groundwater quality are other stated goals of this plan. Constructing a ferry on this site would have a negative impact on these goals. LWRP The LWRP recommends that the site be utilized for low impact recreational uses such as a public fishing pier, rustic campground and educational programs related to the site’s ecology or historic past. A ferry use on the site would be inconsistent with this recommendation. The LWRP also states that the proposed use of this site as a ferry terminal would be incompatible with environmental constraints found on site and the capacity of the adjoining rural roads. §255-5-40 General Special Permit Standards The proposal to consider a passenger ferry at the Napeague site is inconsistent with the following special permit standards. It is noted that the site has been analyzed under the special permit standards, although the use is prohibited and not a special permit use.

A. Nature of Use – The nature of the use is not in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Town’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. The use is prohibited in a Parks and Conservation zoning district. A ferry at this location would be detrimental to the established character of the residential neighborhood. A ferry use would not be the most appropriate use of the land. The use has the potential to result in traffic congestion in a residential neighborhood. The use would be detrimental to the scenic character of the area.

C. Adjacent use - The noise and traffic generated by a ferry use would impact the

orderly and reasonable use of the adjoining residential properties. A ferry would also negatively impact passive recreational uses on the adjoining parkland.

D. Compatibility - The use represents a prohibited use under zoning and is not

compatible with the existing parkland use of the site. A ferry use is also incompatible with the character of the adjoining residential neighborhood. The

5

increased traffic associated with the use would also be incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Development of the site for a ferry use would result in a commercial facility isolated from any other complimentary commercial uses. Construction of a ferry terminal and parking area on this site would eliminate scenic vistas of Gardiners Bay.

G. Circulation - Neither Cranberry Hole Road or Napeague Meadow Road are

adequate to handle the traffic anticipated from a ferry. The site is not accessible for pedestrians and is located over 2.5 miles from any commercial activity. The site lacks any form of public transportation

H. Buffering and screening - The site contains low growing vegetation and does not

provide any buffering or screening to adjacent residential or parkland uses.

I. Runoff and Waste - The site contains sandy soils and a low depth to groundwater. Impacts of a sanitary system associated with a commercial facility has the potential to impact the water quality of Napeague Bay. The impacts of increased traffic along the Cranberry Hole Road and Napeague Meadow Road have the potential to negatively impact the water quality of Napeague Harbor.

K. Environmental Protection - Access to the site runs through a New York State

designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The Napeague site is comprised of Dune Land and Beach soils. The Soil Survey of Suffolk County prepared by the Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation states that Dune Land soils are only suitable for use as wildlife habitat or recreation. The site has a shallow depth to groundwater that is insufficient to attenuate the potential impacts from a septic system. Elevations along the waterfront and the cleared and previously developed portions of the site range from 6.5’-9.5’, with groundwater found approximately 2.5’ to 4.5’ below grade.

Additionally, according to the Town’s Natural Resources Director, the site is unacceptable for a ferry for the following reasons:

1) Federally threatened and state endangered piping plovers breed in the immediate vicinity of the site. Such breeding would certainly be disrupted by ferry activity. 2) There are state listed plants that reside on

the shore in the immediate vicinity of the site including seabeach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) and red pigweed (Chenopodium rubrum), as well as ones on the upland portion of the site, including, pine barren sandwort (Minuartia carolinana). These plants would be impacted by construction of ferry terminal and frequent wave wash, pollution and debris.

3) The shallow subtidal benthic substrates over which

the ferries would pass on their way into and out of

6

the terminal is invested with beds of subaquatic vegetation (SAV) which have high aquatic habitat value and which are much needed by fish and invertebrates of various species, as well as diamondback terrapins. These beds would be damaged directly by prop wash and, most importantly, the turbidity resulting from prop wash. 4) Federally endangered Kemp's Ridley turtles summer in the waters of Napeague Bay, including the waters through which the ferries would pass on a frequent basis. Marine turtles would be subject to injury and death from contacts with moving hulls and props. 5) Cranberry Hole Road which would serve the ferrys' vehicles is edged with several rare species of plants and osprey nests. Improving it to accommodate ferry vehicle traffic would prove to be injurious to these plants. Fort Pond Bay, Montauk: Duryea Site SCTM#300- 16-1-8.1,8.2,8.6,8.7 The Draft LISWTP also includes the Duryea site, located on Fort Pond Bay, as a site under study for the creation of a new passenger ferry facility. The site is zoned Waterfront /Harbor Protection Overlay District and is developed with five buildings and a 260’ pier that have historically been associated with the commercial fishing industry, including fish packing, ice making, wholesale lobster distribution, and a fish market. The site is comprised of 1.44 acres of upland and is narrowly configured, with widths ranging from 80’ to 160’. The site fronts on Tuthill Pond on the easterly side and Fort Pond Bay on the westerly side and contains wetlands, beaches, dunes, and bluffs. Most of the site is comprised of Beach soils. The Suffolk County Soil Survey describes these soils as having a severe limitation for construction of sewage disposal systems and buildings. A small area of MnE (Montauk loamy sand, sandy variant, 15-35% slopes) with escarpments is located on the northerly most portion of the property. The majority of the site is relatively low with elevations approximating 6’. The low depth to groundwater and narrow configuration of the parcel restrict the ability of siting a septic system on the site that conforms to the Town’s minimum 200’ wetland setback requirement and to achieve a minimum 4’ separation to groundwater as required in a Harbor Protection Overlay District. The site is located in Zone VE (11) and AE (el 9) flood zones and is considered to be subject to velocity wave action and flooding in a 100 year flood. The 1938 hurricane displaced the original Montauk fishing village partially located on this site. The site is vulnerable to storm surges and is the subject of frequent overwashes from Fort Pond Bay to Tuthill Pond.

7

The site does not have frontage on a public road. Access to the site is over a 20’ wide private right of way that traverses other privately held property. This right of way does not provide sufficient width to construct a road to full Town specifications and does not provide for parking. The narrow configuration of the parcel and the presence of surface waters on two sides does not allow for an area to construct sufficient parking for a passenger ferry and does not allow for the construction of any parking or other facilities that would conform to the Town’s minimum wetland 100’ setback requirement. Traffic, parking, and nonpoint pollution from a ferry could result in risks to the water quality of Tuthill Pond and Fort Pond Bay. Fort Pond Bay is an exceptionally pristine body of water. The nearby Town Shellfish Hatchery is dependent on the high quality of the surface waters of Fort Pond Bay. This facility provides juvenile hard clams, oysters and scallops to stock Town and State waters, maintaining and enhancing stocks for The LWRP The LWRP includes a number of findings and recommendations regarding the site. This report finds that a change in use to a ferry terminal would replace a long held commercial fishing use, a permitted high priority use in a waterfront district, and a high priority fish market use. The report finds that there is a shortage of such commercial facilities in the Town and recommends that the use should be retained in the future for commercial and recreational fisherman. §255-5-40 General Special Standards The site fails to meet the following special permit standards.

A. Nature of Use - The proposal would be detrimental to the established character of adjoining residentially zoned neighborhoods. The proposal does not represent the most appropriate use of the land. The use has the potential to be detrimental to dunes and beaches, to the finfish and shellfish industries and to surface and groundwater quality.

B. Lot Area - The lot area is not sufficient, appropriate or adequate for the subject

use or to allow for a reasonable expansion of the use. The site consists of a relatively small area, narrowly configured, with environmental constraints that include beaches and dunes and wetlands on two sides.

C. Adjacent properties –The adjoining parcels are residentially zoned and contain

residences and the traffic and activity from a commercial ferry use on the site would prevent the orderly and reasonable use of these properties.

D. Compatibility - A ferry would eliminate the possibility of retaining a traditional

fishing industry use on the parcel.

G. Circulation - The site lacks appropriate road infrastructure. Access to the site is over a narrow, 20’ wide private right of way that crosses residentially zoned land.

8

The narrow configuration of the parcel, existing buildings and environmental constraints restrict the opportunity to provide adequate infrastructure.

H. Parking - The narrow configuration, relatively small size, and environmental

constraints of the parcel results in the lack of an area to provide parking.

J. Runoff and waste - Traffic, parking and nonpoint pollution would substantially increase risks to water quality in Tuthill Pond and Fort Pond Bay.

K. Environmental Protection - Tuthill Pond, lacks areas with appropriate wetland

setbacks. The development has the potential to impact the high water quality of the surface waters of Fort Pond Bay, an important resource for the Town’s Shellfish Hatchery. This hatchery provides an important source of shellfish seed stock for all of the Town’s enclosed harbors. Fort Pond Bay is also important to the Town’s gillnetting, trapping and trawling fishery industry. The area is prone to flooding with frequent overwash from Fort Pond Bay to Tuthill Pond. In a Category 3 or greater hurricane, the area would be expected to experience overwash/flooding. The Town’s zoning regulations require a 100’ wetland setback for all new structures and parking and a 200’. There is no place on the parcel where this can be achieved.

Additionally, the following comments regarding environmental concerns were prepared by Larry Penny, Natural Resources Director:

1) The site is immediately proximate to Tuthill Pond

which is a grow-out area for several fish, including American eels, and a widely used habitat for a variety of waterfowl and waterbirds such as the black-crowned night herons. Parking and road improvements, vehicle lines, and vehicle movements would heavily impact the pond and its species. 2) Fort Pond Bay is an important winter feeding area for common loons, which are listed as special concern by New York State. It is also the feeding grounds in the winter for a variety of other waterfowl (scoters, eiders, harlequins, mergansers) and waterbirds(great cormorants, rare gulls, red- necked grebes, razorbills, and the like). The vital life activities of these birds would be interrupted by the ferries. 3) Fort Pond Bay is an important breeding, grow-out and/or feeding area for several economically important fish species, including tautog, black seabass, scup, striped bass, summer flounder, winter flounder and bluefish. The life cycles of these fish would be significantly disturbed by the sounds, lights and prop washes generated by

9

frequently passing ferries. 4) Fort Pond Bay is frequented by several endangered

marine turtle species in the summer. These are the Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, green, hawksbill and loggerhead turtles. The frequent passing of large ferries would interrupt their feeding behavior. The risk of death and injury because of ferry-- turtle collisions would be greatly increased should ferry service be initiated.

5) Industrial Road serving Tuthill Road would have to

be greatly improved to accommodate ferry vehicle traffic. Such improvement would certainly impair the quality of the wetlands and ponds on each side of the road, including Fort Pond, a New York State designated significant habitat area.

6) The water intake serving the town's shellfish

hatchery is close to the proposed site. Any impairment of the water quality from ferry use or spills could be translated to the water drawn into the hatchery.

Coonsfoot Cove Site, Lake Montauk: Viking/Site (SCTM#300-6-3-5, 9, 11, 12) The Viking Ferry site on Lake Montauk is listed in the Draft LISWTP as a third alternative passenger ferry site under study. The Viking Ferry presently provides seasonal service to Block Island Sound and to a lesser extent to New London, CT, and also accommodates a charter fishing fleet. The waterfront site is comprised of less than an acre and is zoned Waterfront/Harbor Protection Overlay District. Parking for the existing facility is provided on a 0.35 acre parcel on the westerly side of West Lake Drive that seasonally operates at capacity. The site is located in a Zone VE (el 10) and Zone AE (el 9) flood zone and is anticipated to be subject to velocity wave action and flooding in a 100 year flood event. The LWRP finds that the expansion of the existing ferry use could have detrimental consequences on the scarce availability of waterfront real estate that would best be preserved for traditional fishing uses and not displaced by ferries and the tourist oriented facilities, such as retail uses, that follow. Instead, the report recommends, that the Town should be encouraging the development of adequate shoreside support facilities for the commercial fishing industry.

10

§255-5-40 General Special Permit Standards A. Nature of use - An expansion of the existing passenger ferry site that would involve converting additional land to a ferry use has the potential to displace existing and future commercial fishing support facilities with tourist oriented facilities and would not be consistent with the goals of Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. B. Lot Area - The existing site does not appear to allow for expansion of support facilities. C. Adjacent Properties – If sufficient area cannot be provided for parking, overflow parking could interfere with the orderly operation of the adjacent parcels. G. Circulation - The site is not served by public transportation and access is dependent upon the use of Montauk Highway, the only major east/west artery serving the Town. This road already operates at capacity during the summer months. H. Parking - The existing site does not allow for the creation of additional parking. K. Environmental – The Natural Resources Director finds the expansion of a ferry terminal in Coonsfoot Cove, Lake Montauk to be of concern for the following reasons. 1) Lake Montauk of all of the tidal embayments and tidal creeks in East Hampton Town tributary to the Peconic Estuary is the most important in terms of size, diversity and productivity. The lake's water quality and aquatic communities would suffer as a result of ferry boat service; impacts to Coonsfoot Cove would be translated to the rest of the lake by tidal currents. 2) The water quality in Coonsfoot Cove has been improving because of the use of pumpout facilities by Lake Montauk vessels, the control of runoff from precipitation and reforms in boat washing and boat maintenance that have taken place over the last ten years. Ferry boat activity would fly in the face of these improvements. 3) The bottom of Coon's Foot cove is heavily silted over. Ferry boat prop wash would increase the amount of fine particles suspended in the water column greatly increasing turbidity. Turbidity has been shown to severely impact and curtail eelgrass growth because it significantly attenuates light penetration. Lake's Montauk's eelgrass cover has decreased from about 50% in 1980 to less than 10% in 2003. Turbidity particles also clog the gills of fish and crustaceans, thus impeding

11

respiration. 4) The bottom sediments of Coonsfoot Cove are replete with heavy metal deposits (e.g., lead). Heavy metals are toxic to fish and invertebrates and can be biomagnified in food chain tissues. Resuspending them in the water column is by will increase the risk of injury to these organisms. In summary, the creation or expansion of a passenger ferry in he Napeague State Park, the Duryea site on Fort Pond Bay, or the Viking site on Coonsfoot Cove on Lake Montauk would be inconsistent with the Town’ s Comprehensive Plan, would not meet the Town’s established site plan/special permit standards, and has the potential for numerous detrimental impacts. JP

12

255-1-20 DEFINITIONS EXPANSION, SUBSTANTIAL

C. Passenger ferry terminals. In addition to the other provisions of this subsection regarding substantial expansion of structures or uses, a substantial expansion of a passenger ferry terminal shall be deemed to result from any increase in ferry passenger capacity, as defined in this chapter. Such increase shall be regarded as a substantial expansion regardless of its magnitude and regardless of whether it is due to an increase in the number of ferries using the terminal, the replacement of one ferry with another having a larger capacity, an increase in the capacity of an existing ferry, an increase in the number of ferry trips daily or other cause. [Added 12-18-1997 by L.L. No. 40-1997] FERRY -- A vessel used in the business of carrying passengers between any port or place in the Town of East Hampton and any other port or place without the town. Compare "excursion boat." [Added 12-18-1997 by L.L. No. 40-1997] FERRY PASSENGER CAPACITY [Added 12-18-1997 by L.L. No. 40-1997; amended 2-9-1999 by L.L. No. 6-1999] -- The number of persons which a vessel used as a ferry may lawfully carry as passengers, under the rules and regulations of the United States Coast Guard or other regulating authority then in effect. As applied to a passenger ferry terminal, this term shall mean the maximum number of passengers which could have departed from the terminal on publicly scheduled trips under a "best-day" condition. Ferry passenger capacity for a ferry terminal under a "best-day" condition shall be calculated as follows: (1) determine the passenger capacity of any ferry departing from the terminal on a given calendar day (midnight to midnight); (2) multiply this passenger capacity by the number of departures made by that ferry from the terminal on that day; and (3) add to this number the products of (1) times (2) for every other ferry departing from the terminal on that same day. The use of this formula shall be subject to the following provisos:

A. The day used in making this calculation shall be that which yields the highest number for the terminal's ferry passenger capacity (i.e., the "best day" in terms of the potential number of ferry passengers departing the terminal on publicly scheduled trips).

B. Each ferry whose departure is used in making this calculation shall be a ferry which regularly docks at or uses the ferry terminal. C. Each departure used in making this calculation shall be a bona fide ferry departure open to the public and shown on the ferry terminal's published sailing schedule.

FERRY TERMINAL, PASSENGER -- Any dock, wharf, pier or other place at which a ferry embarks or disembarks passengers, including ticket offices, parking areas and all other related facilities. This term shall not include a facility for embarking or disembarking motor vehicles to or from a ferry. [Added 12-18-1997 by L.L. No. 40-1997]

13

FERRY TERMINAL, VEHICLE -- Any dock, wharf, pier or other place at which a ferry embarks or disembarks passengers and motor vehicles (i.e., trucks, buses, cars and/or motorcycles), including ticket offices, parking areas, queuing aisles and all other related facilities. [Added 12-18-1997 by L.L. No. 40-1997] 255-5-50 SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND SAFEGUARDS (SPECIAL PERMIT) FERRY TERMINAL, PASSENGER [Added 12-18-1997 by L.L. No. 40-1997]: (1) No special permit shall be issued hereunder unless the Planning Board shall find and determine that the passenger ferry service to be accommodated by the proposed passenger ferry terminal will not result in either of the following adverse effects:

(a) A significant increase in overall traffic volume on the streets of the town; or (b) An increase in traffic volume along any portion of a state road, county road or other collector street or an increase in traffic volume at the intersection of a state road, county road or other collector street with another state road, county road or collector street, such that traffic flow on that road segment or at that intersection would be degraded by an amount equivalent to a reduction in the level of service of the road segment or intersection by one full grade. For the purpose of applying this standard, "level of service" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in the Highway Capacity Manual prepared by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council.

(2) The site shall be of adequate size to accommodate an improved parking area capable of handling pickup and delivery of passengers as well as areas for long-term parking, all of which areas are large enough for the peak number of passengers anticipated to use the terminal. (3) In order to assist the Planning Board in making the determinations required by Subsections (1) and (2) hereof, every application for a special permit hereunder shall state a maximum ferry passenger capacity for the terminal. The Planning Board shall use this capacity in evaluating the eligibility of the proposed use for a special permit and may set a lower maximum capacity as a condition of any special permit which it issues if the Board believes this is necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Any special permit actually issued by the Planning Board shall impose a maximum ferry passenger capacity for the terminal. Said capacity shall not be increased unless a new special permit has first been issued therefore. (4) The limitations on vessel horsepower and capable speed which are found in Subsection (1) of the subsection entitled "Passenger Ferry Terminal," in § 255-11-88 of this Code shall be expressly included as a condition of any special permit issued hereunder. (5) The site shall be provided with public rest rooms.

14

255-5-40. GENERAL STANDARDS ( SPECIAL PERMIT) No special permit shall be granted unless the issuing board shall specifically find and determine that:

A. Nature of use. The use proposed will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of this chapter as the same are set forth in § 255-1-11 hereof.

B. Lot area. The lot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use, as

well as reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof.

C. Adjacent properties. The proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, particularly where they are in a different district.

D. Compatibility. The site of the proposed use is a suitable one for the location of

such a use in the town, and, if sited at that location, the proposed use will in fact be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance.

E. Effect on specific existing uses. The characteristics of the proposed use are

not such that its proposed location would be unsuitably near to a church, school, theater recreational area or other place of public assembly.

F. F. Use definition. The proposed use conforms to the Town Code definition of

the special permit use where such definition exists or with the generally accepted definition of such use where no definition is included in the Code.

G. Circulation. Access facilities are adequate for the estimated traffic generated

by the proposed use on public streets and sidewalks, so as to assure the public safety and to avoid traffic congestion; and, further, that vehicular entrances and exits shall be clearly visible from the street and not within 75 feet of the intersection of street lines at a street intersection, except under unusual circumstances.

H. Parking. There is room for creation of off-street parking and truck loading

spaces at least in the number required by the applicable provisions of this chapter, but in any case adequate for the actual anticipated number of occupants of the proposed use, whether employees, patrons and visitors; and, further, that the layout of the spaces and related facilities can be made convenient and conducive to safe operation.

I. Buffering and screening. Adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be

provided to protect adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use.

J. Runoff and waste. Adequate provision can and will be made for the collection

and disposal of stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse and other liquid, solid or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate.

15

K. Environmental protection. The natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes and without significant negative impact to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site.and without significant negative impact to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site.

L. Compliance with other laws. The proposed use can and will comply with all

provisions of this chapter and of the Code, including Chapters 180 and 185 thereof, which are applicable to it, and can meet every other applicable federal, state, county and local law, ordinance, rule or regulation.

M. Conformity with other standards. The proposed use can and will meet all of the

general standards for special permit uses in particular districts set forth in § 255-5-45 and also meets all of the specific standards and incorporates all of the specific safeguards required of the particular use, if any, by § 255-5-50.

§ 255-1-11. Purposes. This chapter is adopted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town of East Hampton by regulating the uses of lots and lands and the dimensions, locations and uses of buildings and structures throughout the town, exclusive of the Incorporated Villages of East Hampton and Sag Harbor therein, in order to achieve the following related specific objectives: A. Orderly growth: to guide and regulate the orderly growth, development and

redevelopment of the town in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan and the long-range objectives, principles and goals set forth therein as beneficial to the interests of the people.

B. Protection of neighborhoods: to protect the established character of neighborhoods, especially residential neighborhoods, the social and economic well-being of residents and the value of private and public property.

C. Proper use of land: to promote, in the public interest, the utilization of land for the purposes for which it is the most appropriate and to protect and responsibly promote public access to and usage of publicly owned lands and waters.

D. Affordable housing: to provide for affordable housing of the type and in the locations where the same will be most beneficial to those town residents of low and moderate income who wish to continue to live and work in East Hampton, but who find that escalating real estate values make it difficult or impossible for them to do so.

E. Preservation: to promote in the public interest the preservation of prime agricultural land, productive wetlands, protective barrier dunes and beaches, unique vegetation, important animal habitats and other natural resources and man-made features of historical, environmental or cultural significance to the community.

F. Water recharge: to secure through the regulation of land use in morainal water recharge areas and by other means the maximum recharge of the town's fresh groundwater reservoir and thereby to assure a permanently adequate supply of wholesome and pure water for use by the human community as well as a continuing natural balance and integrity of existing ecosystems in the town.

16

G. Clean water: to protect and promote the fisheries and resort industries of the town by perpetuating and, where necessary, restoring a healthful biological and chemical balance throughout the town's waters, including its bays, harbors, wetlands, estuaries, ponds, streams, kettleholes and other bogs, natural drainage channels and watercourses, as well as in the adjacent sounds and ocean.

H. Safety and health: to secure safety from fire, panic, flood, storm and other dangers, to provide adequate light, air and convenience of access for all properties, to avoid the creation of nuisances and other conditions impinging upon the quiet enjoyment and use of property and to prevent environmental pollution and degradation of whatever kind.

I. Prevention of overcrowding: to prevent the overcrowding of land or buildings, to avoid the undue and unnecessary concentration of population and to lessen and where possible, to prevent traffic congestion on the public streets and highways.

J. Property values: to conserve the value of buildings, to promote the economic vitality of established commercial centers and to enhance the value of land generally throughout the town.

K. Expedited review: to streamline, integrate, coordinate and, to the extent practicable, expedite local governmental review of development and land use proposals without compromising the thoroughness or quality of such review.

L. Aesthetic attributes: to perpetuate and enhance areas of natural beauty, to retain outstanding water views and other open vistas available to residents and visitors and to perpetuate generally those aesthetic attributes and amenities which not only please the eye, but which together are the essence of the nationally recognized character of the town.

255-11-88 ADDITIONAL RULES FOR PARTICULAR USES FERRY TERMINAL, PASSENGER [Added 12-18-1997 by L.L. No. 40-1997]: (1) Special permit required. No person shall construct, commence to use or substantially expand a passenger ferry terminal nor commence any passenger ferry service, without having first obtained a special permit pursuant to Article V hereof which specifically authorizes the proposed use and approves the onshore terminal facility to be employed. (2) Vessel limitations. No ferry which has more than two-thousand installed horsepower and the capability of traveling at a speed in excess of 20 knots nor any vehicle ferry of any description shall dock at or otherwise make use of any passenger ferry terminal or be allowed to dock at or make use of such facility, except in case of emergency.

(3) Determination of ferry passenger capacity. The Building Inspector shall determine and at all times keep a record of the ferry passenger capacity of every passenger ferry terminal within the town. In his file for each such terminal, he shall record and keep all documents or other materials or information forming the basis for his determination of the terminal.

Documents

FM1 Long Island Sound Task 3 Cover - on-line · • This Task 3 Technical Memorandum, which presents evaluations of a broad range of potential sites and services, and recommends a