BBoooaaat ttM iMMoonn niittooorrriiinnngg aaattt ttthhheee ... · by three movable bridges that are...

1

CCCooonnnnnneeeccctttiiicccuuuttt RRRiiivvveeerrr EEEssstttuuuaaarrryyy RRReeegggiiiooonnnaaalll PPPlllaaannnnnniiinnnggg AAAgggeeennncccyyy

SSSaaayyybbbrrrooooookkk JJJuuunnnccctttiiiooonnn MMMaaarrrkkkeeetttppplllaaaccceee

444555555 BBBooossstttooonnn PPPooosssttt RRRoooaaaddd,,, PPP...OOO... BBBoooxxx 777777888

OOOlllddd SSSaaayyybbbrrrooooookkk,,, CCCTTT 000666444777555

www.crerpa.org

JJJaaannnuuuaaarrryyy 222888,,, 222000111111 (((RRReeevvv... 222///000999///111111)))

PPPrrreeepppaaarrreeeddd fffooorrr:::

CCCooonnnnnneeeccctttiiicccuuuttt DDDeeepppaaarrrtttmmmeeennnttt ooofff TTTrrraaannnssspppooorrrtttaaatttiiiooonnn

222888000000 BBBeeerrrllliiinnn TTTuuurrrnnnpppiiikkkeee

NNNeeewwwiiinnngggtttooonnn,,, CCCTTT 000666111111111

BBBoooaaattt MMMooonnniiitttooorrriiinnnggg aaattt ttthhheee CCCooonnnnnneeeccctttiiicccuuuttt RRRiiivvveeerrr,,,

NNNiiiaaannntttiiiccc RRRiiivvveeerrr aaannnddd SSShhhaaawwwsss CCCooovvveee

MMMooovvvaaabbbllleee RRRaaaiiilllrrroooaaaddd BBBrrriiidddgggeeesss

MMMeeemmmooorrriiiaaalll DDDaaayyy ttthhhrrrooouuuggghhh LLLaaabbbooorrr DDDaaayyy,,, 222000111000

http://www.crerpa.org/

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................... i.

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. ii.

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Shore Line East Service........................................................................................................................ 2

Shore Line East and the CT Draft State Rail Plan, 2010 to 2014.......................................................... 2

Proponents and Opponents................................................................................................................ 3

Historical Railroad Crossings (with 1934 and 1938 aerial photographs)............................................. 4

Present Day Movable Bridges (with maps and photographs)............................................................. 7

Movable Bridge Operation and Capital Improvement........................................................................ 9

Control of Train Movement in the New Haven to Boston Portion of the Northeast Corridor......... 11

Proposal for Boat Monitoring Program............................................................................................... 13

A. Methodology Assumptions............................................................................................... 14

B. Monitoring Locations........................................................................................................ 14

C. Total Hours....................................................................................................................... 15

D. Counting Methodology.................................................................................................... 15

E. Analysis............................................................................................................................ 15

Presentation of Results........................................................................................................................ 16

Overall Comparison of Boat Activity....................................................................................... 16

Boating Traffic as a Function of Waterway............................................................................. 16

Boating Traffic as a Function of Direction of Travel................................................................ 17

Weather Impacts on Boating Activity..................................................................................... 18

“Tall” vs. “Short” Boats........................................................................................................... 18

Boating Activity as a Function of Boat Type........................................................................... 19

Boating Activity as a Function of Time of Day........................................................................ 20

Bridge Closings....................................................................................................................... 22

Boats Waiting for Bridge Closings.......................................................................................... 24

Connecticut River...................................................................................................... 25

Waiting as a Function of Three Periods of the Day...................................... 26

Waiting as a Function of Boat Type and Direction....................................... 28

Niantic River.............................................................................................................. 29



Shaws Cove................................................................................................................ 33



Marinas, Boatyards, Moorings and Private Residential Docks: Upstream Boat Potential.............. 37

Connecticut River................................................................................................................... 37

Niantic River........................................................................................................................... 39

Shaws Cove............................................................................................................................ 40

Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................... 42 Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 44

3

Introduction

The North East Corridor (NEC) is home to one of the busiest, most complex, technically advanced track

structures in the world with over 1,800 trains each weekday, including slow freight trains traveling at

speeds of 30-50 mph, commuter trains that travel at speeds up to 80 mph, Amtrak Regional trains that

travel at 110 or 125 mph, and Acela Express trains that can reach speeds of 150 mph. This makes it the

fastest railroad in the western hemisphere, and among the ten fastest in the world. These trains all

share the same overcrowded, and often overwhelmed, track. The infrastructure deteriorated greatly in

the years following completion of the federally funded Northeast Corridor Improvement Project in the

early 1980’s. Very little was spent to upgrade the capital facilities on the NEC other than the funds to

electrify the track north of New Haven in the 1990’s. That changed starting in mid-2003, with a new

emphasis placed on bringing Amtrak’s equipment and infrastructure, including the three movable

bridges at the Connecticut River, the Niantic River and Shaws Cove, closer to a state of good repair.

Amtrak began the process of ramping up a significant capital program and has made substantial strides

in the upgrading of assets within the Northeast Corridor.

The NEC is overseen by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA), is owned by five separate entities and

hosts operations of nine (9) passenger and seven (7) freight railroads. The stretch of rail infrastructure

located between New Haven and New London and upon which Connecticut’s Shore Line East (SLE)

commuter railroad service operates is owned by Amtrak. As a result of Amtrak’s ownership, the

Connecticut DOT has entered into agreements with Amtrak to operate the SLE, and the DOT shares costs

with Amtrak for track maintenance, the cost of the train dispatch center located in Boston, police and

security, ushers, announcers and utilities at NEC stations, and corporate support functions. Since SLE

presently uses diesel traction power, costs do not include those associated with electric traction power.

The NEC cost-sharing formula uses train miles, unit miles, and/or car-miles to estimate operating and

maintenance costs.

The Amtrak operations, including the Acela and Regional services, generally cover their cost of

operations, but the state sponsored trains, including SLE, operate at a net loss thereby requiring

“contributions” or subsidies. For SLE, the cost per passenger is approximately $33 with the state

contributing approximately $30 of that per passenger cost. The annual deficit is approximately $18

million.

The Connecticut Department of Transportation’s vision for rail transportation in Connecticut is one

which “provides high speed, intercity, regional commuter and freight rail services that will be a catalyst

for smart growth, encourages greater mobility, promotes the state and regional competitive advantage

in the global economy, decreases highway and aviation congestion, reduces energy use, and improves

air quality.” This vision is based, in large part, on concern that the northeast region is dealing with

critical congestion on the existing transportation network. With current projections for an increase in

the volume to capacity ration that outpaces the rate at which the State can fund and add lane-miles to

highways, it is that much more important to advance that vision.

Amongst all of the state’s rail infrastructure assets, the Shore Line East (SLE) market between New

Haven and New London is one where encouragement of “smart and needed economic growth” is said to

be needed. With SLE, the service can be expanded very cost-effectively due to its existence in an

4

already established rail corridor. The positive nature of that potential expansion is mitigated, however,

by the fact that the Shore Line East runs along a portion of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) which is owned

by Amtrak, is heavily congested and is encumbered - at least between Old Saybrook and New London -

by three movable bridges that are upwards of a century old. Of those three bridges, the Niantic River

Bridge is currently undergoing replacement while the Connecticut River Bridge is scheduled for

reconstruction within the next five years. The Shaws Cove Bridge is inacceptable working order. In

addition to issues that arise as a result of the dependability of century-old infrastructure, there are

issues of bridge closings and the impact that such closings may have on a robust and economically

important recreational boating industry.

Shore Line East Service

With that as a backdrop, the DOT began in the mid-1980’s to investigate the feasibility of running a

commuter rail service along Amtrak’s NEC between New Haven and New London in an effort to reduce

congestion on the Quinnipiac River Bridge in New Haven. In May of 1990, the initial run of SLE between

New Haven and Old Saybrook began with operation only during peak Haven in July 2008. Continued

efforts for expansion would remove traffic and hours inbound to New Haven in the morning and

outbound to Old Saybrook in the evening. SLE provided the equipment, and through agreement,

Amtrak operated the trains. In 1996, the service was extended to New London on a limited basis. SLE

began offering permanent weekend rail service from Old Saybrook to New the resulting congestion,

safety and environmental impacts from the shoreline’s Interstate 95 corridor while providing more

transportation opportunities in a depressed economic climate. And, with existing infrastructure in

place, the cost of Shore Line East expansion would be cost-effective.

For a number of years, Connecticut has had enhancement of the SLE service to New London in their

planning sights. In a March 2, 2009 DOT Press Release, Governor Jodi Rell said that “Shore Line East

continues to grow ridership [from 2007 to 2008]”. Then DOT Commissioner Joseph Marie added “...[a]s

we continue to expand rail service in Connecticut, Shoreline East will be an essential component.”

Beyond the documented increase in ridership, a 2009 Customer Satisfaction Survey indicated that, in a

range from 1 to 7 with 1 being the highest, an average customer rating of 1.87 was given, an increase

from 2.07 from the previous year. Commissioner Marie commented that “...[i]t’s rewarding to see that

the improvements the Department has been making to the rail service have not gone unnoticed by our

customers.” On August 3, 2010, Governor M. Jodi Rell announced that more than $226 million to

purchase an additional 80 commuter rail cars for Metro-North’s New Haven Line was expected to gain

approval when the state Bond Commission met August 11, which it was. Although the new commuter

rail cars would be put into service on the Metro-North New Haven line, Governor Rell further stated that

“...[f]illing out the [rolling stock] fleet to 380 cars means we will have plenty of cars for Metro-North as

well as equipment to serve Shore Line East – and enough cars for service expansions in the years to

come.”

Shore Line East and the Connecticut Draft State Rail Plan, 2010 - 2014

The Department’s Draft State Rail Plan, 2010 – 2014 stated that Public Act 06-136, Section 2(d) required

the DOT Commissioner to identify obstacles to improved rail service on the SLE, including, but not

limited to, increased frequency of service, bi-directional commuter service, and weekend service. As a

result of the requirements of PA 06-136, Section 2(d), the DOT proposed three phases of SLE expansion:

5

(1) The addition of eight (8) round trips per day on weekends, and on mid-day round trip and one late

evening off-peak outbound train per day on weekdays (47 new trains per week) between New

Haven and Old Saybrook. This phase was implemented in July of 2008.

(2) Extension of all trains to New London was initially proposed. One major obstacle to the addition of

more trains between Old Saybrook and New London was said to be the three movable bridges that

Amtrak has responsibility for maintaining – the Connecticut River bridge, the Niantic River bridge

and the Shaws Cove bridge. Further complicating the extension was the regulatory responsibilities

of the US Coast Guard and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and issued

permits, including the Connecticut Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Concurrence which

limits the number of movable bridge openings that can occur so as not to further impact marine use

of the three waterways.

Due to the mitigating factors, the second phase only was able to include the extension of one

round trip to New London in February of 2010 and an additional three round trips in May of 2010.

In all, six round trips to New London are planned (one round trip is delayed due to an ongoing

Amtrak project). The results of the boat counting project would provide a basis for evaluating the

significance of the impacts of additional trains and bridge closings on marine traffic.

(3) Finally, a third phase is proposed to include bi-directional service on weekdays between New Haven

and New London. Prior to that phase being implemented, construction to add north-side platforms

at several SLE stations would have to be completed. Further, tunnels or overhead pedestrian

walkways would have to be constructed at all SLE stations as well.

As the May extension date anticipated in Phase 2 of the DOT’s goals approached, Governor Rell

announced that three additional trains were to be put into operation on May 10th with the remaining

one to be put into operation following the completion of construction of the fixed Miamicock Bridge

over the Pattagansett River in East Lyme. The Governor’s press release indicated that Commissioner

Marie was “working with the Connecticut Marine Trades Association to minimize the number of bridge

openings required and any impact on the commercial boating industry.” This statement fueled

speculation that the boating industry was standing in the way of rail extension between Old Saybrook

and New London, which Marie insisted was not the case. State policy was not being dictated by the

boating industry, Marie said, instead the increase in rail service to New London was a “very delicate

balancing act.” Now, Marie said, the expansion service was being rolled out on a gradual basis.

Proponents and Opponents

From the perspective of those outside of State government, expansion of the Shore Line East line from

Old Saybrook to New London is considered to be important for many reasons, most related to bringing

more commerce to the City of New London, where an expanded economy has been sought for years. A

website entitled “Shore Line East, All the Way, No More Delays!” (http://onemorestop.net/index.html)

has been launched to explain the background behind the expansion and to support the effort, from the

perspective of those in New London. Coalition partners are listed as the New London City Council, the

New London City Center District, the Southeastern Council of Governments, the Downtown New London

http://onemorestop.net/index.html

6

Association, New London Main Street, Mitchell College, Kente Cultural Center, the Chambers of

Commerce for Southeastern Connecticut and Block Island, Looking Out for Taxpayers and numerous

other public and private organizations. The American Public Transportation Association

(www.apta.com) lists numerous reasons for expansion including enhancement of personal

opportunities, fuel savings and reduction of congestion, economic opportunities, money savings and

reduction of carbon footprint.

As stated elsewhere, those that have concern about the addition of more train service are those that

feel that additional bridge closings may inconvenience boaters. The marine industry, they accurately

state, is an important and delicate part of the economy of southeast Connecticut that shouldn’t be

disrupted anymore than it already is under the current economic climate. Some suggest that the added

inconvenience caused by additional bridge closings might even translate to lost business. The

representative of that industry is the Connecticut Marine Trades Association, headquartered in Essex,

Connecticut (www.ctmarinetrades.org) The question to be addressed through the monitoring of boat

traffic in the three waterways impacted by the movable bridges is what, if any, impact can be

determined from the monitoring of boats during the summer season and what, if any, adverse impacts

will be experienced by boaters if additional Shore Line East trains are added to the corridor between Old

Saybrook and New London. The need for the monitoring at this point is two-fold; the state’s long-

planned desire to add additional train transportation between Old Saybrook and New London, and the

fact that the last monitoring occurred well over a decade ago, rendering those statistics invalid in the

eyes of most.

Historical Railroad Crossings

The railway line between New Haven and New London was completed in 1851 following the 1848

completion of the rail line from New York to New Haven. Those fifty difficult miles between New Haven

and New London included significant curves which veered north due to topographic considerations

before heading back toward the coast. Those curves are still said to plague Amtrak, creating stretches

where lower speeds are necessary. At the Connecticut River, however, crossings originally had to be

made by shuttling one or two train cars at a time onto ferries to connect with another locomotive

waiting on the other side to continue a trip. Ferrying train cars across the Connecticut ended in 1871

when the first single-track railroad wood drawbridge was constructed (photo below). The 1871 bridge

was later replaced in 1907 with the century old steel structure which exists today. The 100⁺ year old

1907 bridge is scheduled for reconstruction tentatively beginning around 2015.

The original 1871 Connecticut River Railroad Bridge, pictured here, lasted 36 years. In 1907 it was replaced with the 100⁺ year old steel structure that exists today. (Connecticut State Library Digital Photo Collection)

While today’s effort to add trains to the existing line has the backing of State government, the 1871

construction of the Connecticut River bridge crossing was opposed by both political and maritime forces.

http://www.apta.com/

http://www.ctmarinetrades.org/

7

At that time, powerful steamboat lobbyists were able to prevent the railroads from building bridges

across rivers including successfully stopping the construction of two Connecticut River bridges, one in

1866 (between Old Saybrook/Old Lyme crossing) and again in 1867 (between Middletown and

Portland). Opposition to the Old Saybrook/Old Lyme crossing continued during its construction as well;

stone-filled barges loaded from upriver Portland quarries were said to have been intentionally rammed

into the piers. Soon, technology and transportation needs overcame the opposition and the bridges

were completed. Eighteen years after the completion of the Connecticut River crossing, the ferried

train crossing at New London’s Thames River was replaced in 1889 with what was the world’s largest

double-track steel drawbridge in the world.

In 1934, the lower Connecticut River included two crossings, the 1907 railroad bridge and the 1911 Route 1 automobile bridge. In 1947, the Raymond Baldwin Bridge was constructed just south of the Route 1 bridge to carry both Route 1 and Interstate 95 across the river between Old Saybrook and Old Lyme. The original Baldwin Bridge was again replaced just south of that location in 1993. (Connecticut State Library Digital Photo Collection)

To fully appreciate the experience of ferrying train cars across the rivers, in 1868 Charles Dickens wrote

of his experience:

“....two rivers had to be crossed and each time the whole train is banged aboard a steamer.

The steamer rises and falls with the river which the railroad won’t do, and the train is

banged uphill or banged downhill. In coming off the steamer at one of those crossings

8

yesterday, we were banged up to such a height that the rope broke and the carriage rushed

back with a run downhill into the boat again. I whisked out in a moment, and two or three

others after me, but nobody else seemed to care about it.”

The Niantic River Bridge, which is in the process of replacement during the period from 2010 through

2013, was also originally built in 1907 and crossed the Niantic River channel in its present location. As is

the case today, the automobile bridge veered to the northeast from the railway bridge as the roadway

passed from East Lyme to Waterford. Route 156 now crosses the Niantic River channel in that location.

In 1934, the Niantic River channel included two railroad crossings, the current Amtrak bridge location (south) and a northern crossing which has since been removed. The existing Amtrak

crossing is in the process of replacement. (Connecticut State Library Digital Photo Collection)

Although the Connecticut and Thames River Bridges came along between approximately 20 and 40 years

following the establishment of the railroad corridor between New Haven and New London, the smaller

crossings such as that at the mouth of Shaws Cove was built when the railroad was established in the

early 1850’s with the existing swing-style movable bridge being replaced in 1987.

9

This aerial photograph was taken in September of 1938 shortly after the Great New England Hurricane of 1938. The New London Railroad Station is located landward of the five-masted tall ship and to the left of the Shaws Cove bridge. The Thames River draw bridge is located just out of the photograph to the upper left. Long Island Sound is located to the right. If the photo is inspected closely along the riverfront, one can see waterfront damage and several stranded ships that were tossed onto shoals by the hurricane.

(Connecticut State Library Digital Photo Collection)

Present Day Movable Railroad Bridges One of the major challenges facing the DOT in adding additional trains between Old Saybrook and New London is the existence of three movable bridges – bridges that close to allow for train crossings and then open to allow for marine traffic. During the summer, the “default” bridge position is open with closings occurring for approaching trains. During the non-boating season, the bridge is left down with openings only occurring for the rare passing of a boat. Two of the three movable bridges – the Connecticut River Bridge and the Niantic River Bridge – are upwards of a century old and constantly require substantial maintenance. The Niantic River Bridge, originally built in 1907, is currently being replaced while the Connecticut River Bridge is scheduled for replacement tentatively beginning in 2015. The older bridges are subject to mechanical difficulties and becoming stuck, a situation that will both disrupt train travel throughout the NEC and potentially disrupt the commercial and recreational boaters that make their way in and out of the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers until the replacements are complete. With the Shaws Cove Bridge having been replaced in 1987, all three movable bridges will have been replaced by the year 2018.

10

Connecticut River

Movable RR Bridge

Old Saybrook

Old Lyme

Niantic River

Movable RR Bridge

East Lyme (Niantic)

Waterford

Shaws Cove

Movable RR Bridge

New London

Groton

11

In 1999, Amtrak initiated high-speed passenger rail service in the NEC. As part of the requirements

imposed by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the USCG and the Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection (CTDEP), Amtrak developed a long-term capital improvement program and an

operating plan for the five movable bridges between Old Saybrook and the Stonington, Connecticut.

The program and plan were intended to ensure that adequate opportunities exist for boats tall enough

to require bridge opening to navigate through the bridges. Through working with federal and state

agencies and the Movable Bridge Advisory Board (MBAB), Amtrak was responsible for finding ways to

minimize the need for direct communication between mariners and bridge operators and to provide

better information to boaters regarding train schedules and operations and, most importantly to the

boating public, to maximize the amount of time the bridges are in the “open” position and permitting

boats to pass. The MBAB consists of representatives from the CMTA, the USCG, the FRA, the CTDEP and

the CTDOT as well as other commercial and recreational boat owners. The MBAB meets quarterly to

review movable bridge issues and to develop enhancements to communications and bridge operations.

Moveable Bridge Operating and Capital Improvement Plan

In October of 1996, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection issued an authorization

for the electrification of the northeast corridor between New Haven and Stonington, Connecticut.

Section 11 of that original application and subsequent authorization was a document entitled the

“Movable Bridge Operating and Capital Improvement Plan” (the Operating Plan). The Operating Plan

was developed to address issues concerning the passage of trains owned and operated by Amtrak and of

trains owned by the CTDOT and operated by Amtrak as Shore Line East (SLE) commuter rail over five

Amtrak-owned movable bridges. Of concern was the preservation of water-dependent uses on

Connecticut’s waterway as described in Section 22a-98 CGS of the Connecticut Coastal Management

Act. Specifically, concern existed over the maintenance of navigational access in the tidal rivers spanned

by the movable bridges and, potentially, the viability of recreational marinas and related commercial

facilities located upstream of the movable bridges.

Original Operating Plan

The original Operating Plan allowed for 34 daily Amtrak train crossings, 10 daily SLE train crossings and 2

daily Providence and Worcester freight train crossings, for a total of 46 daily crossings on weekdays.

There were fewer crossings on weekend days. For the purposes of this document, crossings were

considered to be one-way trips across the movable bridges. A round-trip would be considered two

crossings.

1999 Modification to Operating Plan

Prior to the implementation of electrification in 2000, a modification of the Operating Plan was made

that improved measures to ensure protection of navigation, but there were no changes in the number

of train crossings included in this modification.


In 2003, Amtrak increased the number of train crossings to 37 from 34 without the required

authorization from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Following an

enforcement action, Amtrak was permitted to increase the number of trains to 38 from 34 along with

the reduction of SLE trains from 10 per day to 2 per day. The total crossings (including the 2 Providence

12

and Worcester trains) totaled 42. The overall reduction in train crossings from 46 to 42 was therefore

considered to be consistent with the original Operating Plan. To compensate the SLE for its train

reduction, SLE monthly ticket holders were permitted to ride Amtrak trains instead.


In 2004, the CTDEP authorized the addition of one late-night “deadhead” (out of service, equipment

movement only) Amtrak train increasing Amtrak’s total crossings to 39 from 38. The total crossings

remained less than the original Operating Plan requirements.


The desire of the state to improve service to SLE is codified in Section 2d of Public Act 06-136 (HB 5844),

An Act Concerning the Roadmap for Connecticut’s Economic Future, which states that “[t]he

commissioner [of DOT] shall identify obstacles to improved rail service on Shore Line East, including, but

not limited to, increased frequency of service, reverse commute service and weekend service. The

commissioner shall report his findings and recommendations to the General Assembly not later than

January 1, 2007.” In a letter dated, February 3, 2010, Amtrak (on behalf of the CTDOT) requested a

modification of the Operating Plan by proposing the operation of six new SLE round-trip trains per

weekday (12 crossings) between Old Saybrook and New London thereby expanding SLE service further

east. Initially, two round-trip trains (4 crossings) have been added. Subsequently, four round-trip trains

(8 crossings) would be phased into service sometime between May and December of 2010. Of the 12

total additional crossings, eight would operate between 6am and 9pm, the most important time when

considering marine navigation. The crossings, including Amtrak, SLE and Providence and Worcester

lines, would total 45 trains per day.

Connecticut, Niantic and Shaws Cove Movable Bridges and Potential Impact to Marine Traffic

As stated above, it was known that additional closings of three movable railroad bridges located

between Old Saybrook and New London will be necessary in order to expand service to New London. In

order to fully gauge the impacts of the expansion on marine traffic, it was concluded that a new

monitoring investigation analyzing the extent of marine traffic at the movable bridges was required. As a

result of the varying interests and regulatory authorities involved in decisions regarding further bridge

closings, numerous stakeholders would need to be consulted and a consensus reached. Such

stakeholders include Amtrak, who owns the railway lines along the New Haven-to-New London stretch

of the shoreline; the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, who issued and must re-

issue the original Water Quality Certificate which dictates the number of permissible bridge closings;

the Connecticut Marine Trades Association (CMTA), which represents commercial boating interests

throughout Connecticut and at the State Capitol; the United State Coast Guard (USCG), who has

responsibility for the operation of the three movable bridges in question; and finally, the Connecticut

Department of Transportation (CTDOT) which owns, operates and funds the Shore Line East commuter

railroad.

In that counts of actual boating activity were conducted over a decade ago, the new monitoring

investigation was determined to be necessary in order to provide a baseline of boating use in the three

waterways between Old Saybrook and New London under today’s conditions. This investigation is an

13

effort, agreed upon in principle by the affected stakeholders at a meeting held in the DOT’s New Haven

rail headquarters on April 13, 2010, to develop a baseline of information with respect to the number of

boats passing through the three movable bridges in order to begin the process of evaluation of

additional bridge closings on the navigational industry which utilized the three waterways in question.

Control of Train Movement in the New Haven to Boston NEC

An important aspect of the train system and how it can impact the three movable bridges in question is

the dispatching system for train movement that is controlled electronically out of South Station in

Boston. The Centralized Electric and Traffic Control (CETC) center (Philadelphia CETC shown below left),

is best described as a darkened room with a computer-generated schematic of the entire NEC between

New Haven and Boston on the entire width of the front wall. This large room is the 24-7 home of eight

to nine dispatchers monitoring their specific areas of corridor responsibility and where the movement of

all trains and control of the movable bridges through that corridor occurs. For the area between Old

Saybrook and New London, three dispatchers oversee train movement and movable bridge operations

with the first “block” of responsibility extending from New Haven to “the view” just short of the

Connecticut River bridge in Old Saybrook. The second block extends from that point to a point just short

of the Shaws Cove bridge in New London with the final block extending from that point to Kingston,

Rhode Island.

Each block has its own peculiarities and challenges. The New Haven to Old Saybrook section, which

includes nine dispatcher-controlled signal blocks (with numerous intermediate computer-controlled sub-

signals) is one where train speeds out of New Haven are controlled via those signals to have trains

approach the Connecticut River bridge spaced so as not to allow trains to “bunch up” as much as is

possible. In that section, Shore Line East commuter trains can only use one track due to the absence

of station platforms on both sides of the right-of-way. The second section, including three dispatcher-

controlled signal blocks (and intermediate sub-signals) includes the oversight and control of both the

Connecticut River and Niantic River movable bridges and currently includes a stretch of construction

that temporarily limits all train traffic in that area to the use of one track due to track construction. The

third section includes the Shaws Cove, Mystic River and Thames River movable bridges and includes five

dispatcher-controlled signals (and intermediate sub-signals) in an area of increased freight train

movement.

Roughly speaking, the first dispatcher

“serves” the trains out of New Haven to

the second dispatcher. The second

dispatcher has to coordinate the passage

of those trains as well as those

coming from Boston through two

movable bridges as well as the limited

one-track section of the right-of-way

between those two bridges, while the

third dispatcher has to coordinate two

closely-spaced movable bridges along

with a significant amount of coalescing

Amtrak, DOT and private freight trains

CETC at Philadelphia’s 30th

Street Station

14

that travel through the more industrial Groton and New London area. As a note, further complicating

the job of all of the dispatchers is that of coordinating trains with speeds varying from 160 mph (the

Acela high-speed train) down to 30 mph (freight trains) as well as the numerous Amtrak track inspectors

who are required by the Federal Railroad Administration to inspect every foot of track from track-borne

pick-up trucks at least once every seven days.

A major consideration in minimizing disruption of train movement and marine traffic is the age of two of

three of the movable bridges. As stated, until approximately 2018, at least one of the movable bridges

will have an age in excess of 100 years. Although the most commonly broken and damaged parts of

those bridges (cables, commonly stressed bolts, etc.) are either stored on-site at the bridges or on the

trucks of the numerous maintenance crews stationed throughout the area, mechanical failures occur

which will disrupt either train traffic (if the bridge is stuck in other than its down-and-locked position) or

marine traffic (if the bridge is stuck and unable to be opened). Amazingly, when recent mechanical

failures have occurred, most have been corrected within 30 minutes to an hour of the occurrence.

To better understand how the process of train movement works through the area of the three movable

bridges, the following simplified description and schematic (below) is offered. When a train leaves New

Haven or approaches from New London, the responsible dispatcher (dispatcher areas of responsibility

shown in color) announces on an open intercom (all such communications are recorded) that the train is

passing Guilford (if from New Haven) and Groton (if from Boston). That verbal intercom warning allows

for the tenders operating the first movable bridge in the path of the train to prepare for their closing,

which takes a minimum of seven to eight minutes, beginning to end. If the train is the high-speed Acela,

the tender knows that he has a short period of time to get the bridge closed without the dispatcher

having to slow the train, causing a delay. If the train is traveling at a slower speed and is scheduled to be

stopping at one of the intermediate stops, then the tender knows he has more time, potentially allowing

more boaters to pass through the bridge before initiating the closing procedure. If two trains are

approaching, one from each direction, then there is the effort to have the two trains pass during the

same bridge closing. Slight delays don’t often make this possible or lead to bridge closings that can be

longer than the intended Coast Guard-regulated 20 minute maximum.

Once the dispatcher electronically activates the bridge from Boston, the tender is able to put the bridge

into operation. Once the train passes the first movable bridge, that bridge tender informs all via

intercom that the train has passed, giving the next bridge tender the warning to beginning their

procedures. He opens the bridge (if another train isn’t approaching) and then informs the Boston

dispatcher that the bridge is opened and at rest. The dispatcher then electronically disables the bridge

again until the approach of the next train. Once the train passes the next bridge, the same sequence of

communication and operation occurs until the train passes entirely through the area of the five movable

bridges in southeast Connecticut.

15

Summarizing, when a boater sees a closed bridge but doesn’t see a train, they can be sure that the

dispatchers are monitoring the locations of north and southbound approaching trains and coordinating

their movements and the opening and closings of the movable bridges in an effort to minimize

disruption to both the trains and the boat traffic under the bridges. The bridge tenders, often those

who are blamed when a bridge remains closed when it seems they can be opened, can only open or

close those bridges when the dispatcher in control at the CETC has electronically allowed the bridge

mechanical elements to be operated by the tender and has given the tender permission to do so. The

train movement “dance” is choreographed, with the help of the tenders and train engineers, out of the

CETC at South Station in Boston. Although a bridge tender may be given the permission for a “quickie”

five minute opening depending upon the location of approaching trains, some travelling at speeds of up

to 160 miles per hour, they have little control to do anything other than the dispatchers allow them to

do.

Given the complexity of train movement through that section of the Northeast Corridor, it is amazing

that as little marine disruption occurs as currently exists. As a November 29, 2010 letter from the

President of the Connecticut Charter and Party Boat Association (attached as Appendix A) testified,

despite the challenges faced due to the reconstruction of the Niantic River bridge and the general

challenges of train movement in the area of the Niantic River and Shaws Cove, the Association was quite

pleased how smoothly train movement and bridge openings and closings was orchestrated under the

direction of Amtrak train movement officials.

Proposal for Boat Monitoring Program

In order to obtain information regarding the number of boats that navigate the three southeastern

Connecticut waterways with movable bridges between Old Saybrook and New London during their most

active navigation periods, CRERPA was requested to submit a Scope of Work describing the details of

how such a survey should be accomplished, this based upon understandings reached between the

affected parties at the aforementioned April 13, 2010 meeting. Information that was determined to be

necessary included total counts for boats passing underneath the bridges both inbound and outbound,

the ratio of sailing vessels to power boats, the number of boats waiting because of bridge closings, the

amount of time the bridge is in the “down position” per closing, the total potential boat traffic count

(based on the number of boat slips located upstream of each movable bridge, an estimate of the

number of private residential docks and an estimate of public boat launch usage), commercial vs. “non-

commercial” traffic and other parameters as necessary in order to obtain a representative sample of

summertime navigational traffic.

Union Station New Haven

State Street New Haven

Area of Shore Line East Service

Branford

Guilford

Madison

New London

Clinton

Westbrook

Old Saybrook

CT River Bridge

Niantic River

Bridge

Shaws Cove

Bridge

Groton

16

A. Methodology Assumptions

Based upon the practicalities of providing monitoring between 12 and 14 hours per day every day of

the summer between Memorial Day and Labor Day, the stakeholders agreed that a representative

sampling of boating activity in the three waterways affected by the movable bridges could be

achieved on a staggered every-other-week basis. It was decided that the three holiday weekends –

Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and Labor Day – would be counted at all three waterways to

provide a baseline for what were likely three of the busiest weekends of boating during the summer.

The monitoring program would consist of twelve (12) hour days on Monday through Thursday,

commencing at 7am and concluding at 7pm. On Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Monday’s of the

three holiday weekends, fourteen (14) hour days were planned with monitoring commencing at

7am and concluding at 9pm.

As a result of the monitoring schedule, the total number of count days between Memorial Day and

Labor Day for all three bridge locations include:

Weekdays: 27 days

Weekends/Holiday Weekends: 36 days

Summarizing, the numbers presented in the tables that follow do not represent totals for the

season, rather, they are seen as representative and provide a good indication of the boating pattern

differences at the movable bridges in the lower Connecticut River, the Niantic River and at Shaws

Cove.

B. Monitoring Locations

1). Connecticut River. For the Connecticut River movable bridge, monitoring took place at two

locations: at the end of the docks at the Old Saybrook Town Landing on the west side of the

river and the DEP Marine Headquarters property at Ferry Landing in Old Lyme on the east side.

Site inspections indicated that both locations would provide superior visibility while taking into

account safety considerations for the monitoring analysts. From those points, boats passing

through the railroad bridge from both upstream and downstream directions can be easily

observed and counted. When the bridge is set to its down position to allow trains to pass,

queued boats can be readily observed and documented from both locations. In that the bridge

normally remains down for between approximately 7 to 8 minutes and upwards of twenty or

more minutes, sufficient time exists to conduct accurate counts. The DEP Boating Division was

contacted and made aware of the presence of monitoring analysts. In Old Saybrook, the Old

Saybrook Police Department was made aware of the monitoring analyst location at the end of

the Town Dock.

2). Niantic River. For the Niantic River opening bridge, monitoring was conducted from two

locations: the public access area underneath the western approach to the Route 156 bridge in

East Lyme’s Chini Park, and from the rear parking lot of Waterford’s Sunset Ribs restaurant.

From those locations, queuing on the upstream side of the Niantic movable bridge was easily

observable. Counts of queued boats moving north into the Niantic River were monitored by

17

counting the number of boats that moved through the channel immediately following the bridge

opening. Both the East Lyme and Waterford Police were notified of the presence of the

analysts.

3). Shaws Cove. For the opening bridge at Shaws Cove, monitoring was conducted from the public

area located off Howard Street which accesses the northern shoreline of Shaws Cove. The

location is one that Amtrak uses for its operations. At Shaws Cove, the only navigational

movement through the bridge occurs as a result of entering or exiting the cove. Counting was

much less rigorous in this location than in either the Niantic or Connecticut Rivers. The New

London Police were notified of the presence of the analysts.

C. Total Hours:

Based upon a schedule of counting every other week in a staggered fashion at all three bridge

locations, the total hours – equal at all three locations – totalled 2,232 hours, or 744 hours per

bridge.

D. Counting Methodology:

Staff of the Connecticut River Estuary Regional Planning Agency developed a field survey sheet that

was a printed version of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The survey forms had requirements for two

sections of information. One section included weather observations; the time each boat that passed

underneath the bridge; whether the vessel was power, sail or “other”; its direction of travel; and

estimates whether the boat would be able to pass under the bridge if the bridge were in the down

position. The second section of information included entries related to the bridge closings

themselves. Specifically, analysts noted the time of closing, the time of opening and the duration;

the number of vessels waiting on both the inbound and outbound sides of the bridges; identification

of whether the vessels were sail or power; and the number of trains passing per bridge closing.

The analysts were asked to transcribe their field survey forms onto the electronic version of the

form and then email them to CRERPA staff at the agency’s Old Saybrook office. In addition, the field

survey sheets were collected for the record of the monitoring.

E. Analysis:

The data was reviewed for accuracy and consistency and was then broken up into numerous

separate data sets for analysis. Those data sets included counts related to each specific waterway,

vessel traffic at particular times of day, vessel traffic related to direction of travel, minutes per

bridge closing, number of vessels queuing while waiting for the bridges to open, the direction the

queuing vessels were traveling, whether those vessels were power or sail boats, percentage of boats

waiting for a bridge to open compared to those passing while the bridge was open, and variations of

those criteria. Charts were produced to visually explain the raw numbers, which are presented in

report appendices.

18

Presentation of Results The follow section of the report presents various comparisons of results for the boat monitoring

conducted during the time period from Friday, May 28, 2010 (Memorial Day weekend) to Monday,

September 6, 2010 (Labor Day weekend). It is noted that due to the varying categories of data

collection and the varying methods of statistical compilation using that data, monitoring totals are not

always identical, but are considered accurate to within 3 to 5%. From the standpoint of conducting a

planning study, the results, comparison and conclusions reached are considered accurate.

Overall Comparison of Boat Activity

The three waterways where boating is being monitored and where the three movable bridges that are

the subject of this investigation differ significantly from the standpoint of their geographic

configurations and the boat traffic that is found in each. Of the three, the Connecticut River is the home

to the largest amount of boat traffic with the Niantic River and Shaws Cove following in that order. For

the purposes of this monitoring project, boating extends approximately 15 miles north of the mouth of

the Connecticut River and includes the shores of eight municipalities including Haddam, East Haddam,

Lyme, Chester, Deep River, Essex, Old Lyme and Old Saybrook. Boating in the Niantic River extends

approximately 3 miles north of its mouth and includes the municipalities of East Lyme and Waterford.

Shaws Cove is a small enclosed cove off the Thames River in New London.

Boating Traffic as a Function of Waterway

Comparison of the boating traffic in the three waterways during the survey period indicates that the

Connecticut River hosts approximately 55% of the total traffic while the Niantic hosts approximately

38% of the traffic. Shaws Cove, which is a small enclosed basin hosting only two marinas represents

approximately 7% of the total traffic.

TOTAL BOAT TRAFFIC by RIVER

Connecticut River, Niantic River, Shaws Cove Movable Bridges

Memorial Day to Labor Day, 2010

Connecticut River Niantic River Shaws Cove Total

MONDAY 3825 2128 398 6351 (15%)

TUESDAY 1122 1138 191 2451 (6%)

WEDNESDAY 1104 997 196 2297 (5%)

THURSDAY 1110 989 236 2335 (6%)

FRIDAY 3453 2687 510 6650 (16%)

SATURDAY 5648 4377 633 10,658 (26%)

SUNDAY 6517 3667 689 10,873 (26%)

Total 22,779 (55%) 15,983 (38%) 2853 (7%) 41,615

19

Mr. Don MacKenzie of Boats, Inc. in East Lyme, a boating facility specializing in boat maintenance,

indicates that many boaters from outside of the Niantic River area bring their vessels into the Niantic to

access repair facilities such as Boats, Inc. and others. For the three waterways combined and as would

be expected, boating traffic on Saturdays and Sundays amounts to over 50% of the total traffic with

Mondays and Fridays totally over 30% of the traffic.

Boating Activity as a Function of Direction of Travel Direction

As might be expected, traffic entering and exiting the waterways varies but is close to a 50/50 balance of

inbound and outbound traffic. The overall total for the three waterways shows that just under half the

boat count travel outbound while just over half travel inbound. The highest rate of northbound

(inbound) traffic occurs on Tuesdays, perhaps reflecting a pattern of access to boat servicing facilities

immediately following a weekend. Other than Tuesday’s 16% differential between northbound and

southbound traffic, the remaining days are relatively equal in their northbound/southbound

distribution.

Monday’s relatively high total (as compared to succeeding weekdays) is likely influenced by the three

Monday holidays during the summer (Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day) as well as long weekends

taken by boaters throughout the summer. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday together account for

approximately 18% of the total weekly traffic. It is noted that the statistics do not identify multiple runs

made by the same boat.

* Of the 41,615 power, sail and “other” boats counted (page 19), 737 did not include directional information, resulting in the

reduced 40,878 count shown above.

TOTAL BOAT TRAFFIC by DIRECTION

Connecticut River, Niantic River, Shaws Cove Movable Bridges


Northbound Southbound Total % N to S

MONDAY 3080 3292 6372 48/52

TUESDAY 1442 1032 2474 58/42

WEDNESDAY 1070 1159 2229 48/52

THURSDAY 1174 1115 2289 51/49

FRIDAY 3333 3272 6605 50/50

SATURDAY 5656 5003 10,659 53/47

SUNDAY 5359 4891 10,250 52/48

Total 21,114 19,764 40,878* 52/48

20

Weather Impacts on Boating Activity

For the most part, recreational boating is a fair-weather activity that greatly impacts the financial

success of boating facilities that cater to those boaters. Anecdotally speaking, interviews with marina

owners and operators as a part of this investigation reported that, despite the depressed economy,

2010 was a good year for the boating business. They attributed the high activity and marina occupation

statistics, simply speaking, to the good weather that the Connecticut shoreline experienced during the

2010 summer. Busy, they said, was far better than 2009 when more inclement weather kept boaters in

their slips and sometimes absent altogether. Looking at boating activity as a function of weather for

those boats where weather data was recorded (86% of the boating entries included weather

information), 74% of the activity occurred when the weather was described as sunny or some variation

thereof. During periods of cloudy weather, the number of boats drops to 22%. Boating during rainy,

hazy, foggy and windy weather accounted for approximately 4% of the boating activity.

“Tall” vs. “Short” Boats When it comes to the issue of bridge closures and delayed boats, it is thought that those boaters that wait for bridge openings fall into two categories: boaters that must wait due to the height of their boat, and boaters who choose to wait even though their boat could pass through the closed bridge. The latter category is boaters who would rather not chance a collision with the bridge or who don’t mind waiting. When interviewing marina operators and owners regarding the state of mind of those boaters who have

Boating Activity as a Function of Weather

Connecticut River, Niantic River and Shaws Cove

Memorial Day through Labor Day, 2010

Sunny Cloudy

Partly Cloudy Rainy Hazy Foggy Windy

# of Boats 26,457 7809 1178 285 83 17

% of Boats 74% 22% 3% < 1% < 1% < 1%

Comparison of “Tall” Boats vs. “Short” Boats Memorial Day through Labor Day, 2010

“Tall” “Short” Total % Tall

Connecticut River Clearance:

19ft, Mean High Water 22 ft, Mean Low Water

5144 17,371 22,515 23%

Niantic River Clearance (existing bridge):

11ft, Mean High Water; 14 ft, Mean Low Water

3908 12,391 16,299 24%

Shaws Cove Clearance:

3 ft, Mean High Water; 6 ft, Mean Low Water

2157 514 2671 81%

21

to wait for closed bridges, most, it is said, accept that such delays are just a part of boating in areas upstream of the movable bridges. Very few get upset to the point of moving to downstream boating facilities. Only one story was related regarding a boater who moved from an upstream marina to a downstream marina. As a part of the monitoring program, monitoring analysts were asked to estimate the height of boats as a part of their duties. “Tall” designations were assigned to those boats that appeared unable to pass under a closed bridge while a “short” designation referred to boats that appeared short enough to navigate under the bridge even if it was closed for a passing train. Since all sailboats had to wait for bridge closures they were identified as “tall”. Larger powerboats rigged with retractable fishing gear and/or antennae that appeared to have a height that prevented them from passing under a closed bridge were also identified as being “tall”. First, it must be recognized that the data representing “tall” and “short” boats is a rough estimate that was influenced by a number of factors, not least of which was the ability of the analysts to visualize the boats next to the bridge. This ability to estimate heights varies tremendously in differing individuals. That said, the most notable statistic is the comparison between the distribution of tall boats between the three movable bridges. Review of the height estimates shows that 1 in 4 boats would have to wait for a closed bridge at both the Connecticut River and Niantic River movable bridges. At the Shaws Cove bridge, however, 8 of 10 boats were of such height so as to have to wait for a closed bridge that opens. What this data probably reflects more than anything else is the low clearance found at Shaws Cove. Although a challenge to identify, “tall” power boats that could fit under a closed bridge if their gear was lowered was of interest as well. If monitoring is conducted another season, an effort should be made to better identify such “tall” boats. Boating Activity as a Function of Boat Type Boating analysts were asked to differentiate boats into three different categories: power boats, sail

boats and “other” types. Although the categories identified as “powerboats” and “sailboats” is self

explanatory, the category of “other” (which only accounted for approximately 5% of the total traffic) is

less simple and included commercial vessels such as tugboats, barges, workboats, cruise and tour boats

and other similar non-recreational vessels. Although cruise and tour boats are recreational, they are

commercial in nature and were thus excluded from the power boat count.

Number of Powerboats, Sailboats and “Other” Boats

Memorial Day through Labor Day, 2010

Connecticut River Niantic River Shaws Cove Total

Powerboats 20,685 (91%) 14,638 (92%) 2,281(80%) 37,604 (90%)

Sailboats 1,971 (8%) 307 (2%) 525 (18%) 2,803 (7%)

Other 123 (1%) 1,038 (6%) 47 (2%) 1,208 (3%)

Total 22,779 15,983 2,853 41,615

22

As was expected, power boats far exceeded the number of sailboats in all three waterways. In the

Connecticut and Niantic Rivers, power boats outnumbered sailboats by a 9 to 1 margin. In Shaws Cove,

that margin was slightly less at an 8 to 2 ratio of power boats to sailboats. In an interesting and perhaps

expected deviation from the statistical patterns, the percentage of “other” boats was significantly higher

in the Niantic River than in either the Connecticut River or Shaws Cove. That higher percentage is no

doubt due to the various cruise and tour boats that operate out of the Niantic River as well as the

possible contribution of boats working on the Niantic River Bridge. It is noted that, for the most part,

work boats associated with the bridge work didn’t move in beyond the inner highway bridge to any

great extent.

Where the Niantic River had an unusually high percentage of “other” types of boats amongst its boat

traffic , Shaws Cove was unique in that it included a much higher percentage of sailboats with almost

20% of the boats powered by sail. Perhaps this higher percentage is due to the differing boating

conditions – conditions more favorable for sailing – as one moves easterly along the Connecticut

shoreline toward the more open waters off Rhode Island. The Niantic River had the lowest percentage

of sailboats (2%) while the Connecticut River was in the middle with sailboats totaling 8% of the total

boat traffic.

Overall, power boats account for approximately 90% of all boating traffic traveling in and out of the

three waterways, sailboats accounted for approximately 7% of the traffic and “other” boats accounted

for approximately 3% of the traffic.

Boating Activity as a Function of Time of Day

Review of the collected data in the three waterways as a function of time of day indicates a pattern of

boating that is best described by the common statistical “bell curve”. The three charts of boat traffic

shown on page 21 demonstrate a small level of boating frequency early and late in the day with the

maximum amount occurring in the middle part of the day. The peak of usage is slightly different in the

three locations with a more defined peak showing up between 11am and 2pm in Shaws Cove than in the

other two waterways. Traffic in the Connecticut River and the Niantic River tends to show a peak

“plateau” between about 10 or 11am and 3 or 4pm.

With respect to the hours when trains would likely be added to the transportation system, three time

periods were highlighted in all three waterways , from 7am to 9am, 11am to 1pm and 4pm to 6pm. In

all three waterways, the greatest number of boats pass under the bridges during the midday period with

the evening period having the second most amount of traffic. The morning window is the time where

the fewest boats are on the waterways. It goes without saying that the addition of trains during the

midday hours would potentially impact the most boaters while the addition of trains during the morning

period would potentially impact the fewest. The impact of additional trains on boating during the

evening period would potentially result in impacts somewhere between the midday and morning times.

This information demonstrates during which times of the day fewer number of boaters will likely be

impacted by movable bridge closings.

23

Midday Commute

Midday Commute

24

Bridge Closings

One of the primary reasons behind monitoring boat activity in the Connecticut River, the Niantic River

and Shaws Cove is to better understand the impacts of movable bridge closings on the marine traffic

that passes through those movable bridges. With the possibility of additional trains being added to the

tracks between Old Saybrook and New London, concern has been raised by some over negative impacts

that could be created in the event of more bridge closings.

Of the many ways to look at bridge closing data and the number of boats that end up either having to,

or choosing to wait for a bridge to open, one important statistic is that which relates to how long a

bridge remains in a closed position. During the non-boating season, the “default” movable bridge

position is down (closed) allowing trains to pass. Too few boats travel the waterways in the “off” season

to require the bridge to remain open, only to close for approaching trains. During the boating season,

however, the “default” position is open allowing boats to pass until the approach of a train.

Minutes Per Bridge Closing for Three Movable Bridges


Minute

Interval

Connecticut

# of Closings

Niantic

# of Closings

Shaws

# of Closings

Average

# of Closings

0 – 10 112 (12%) 222 (26%) 95 (12%) 16%

11 – 20 505 (53%) 437 (51%) 267 (33%) 46%

21 – 30 186

(19%)

131

(15%)

198

(24%)

19%

31 – 40 77 (8%) 36 (4%) 96 (12%) 8%

41 – 50 29 (3%) 17 (2%) 52 (6%) 4%

51 – 60 22 (2%) 8 (1%) 20 (3%) 2%

61 – 70 10 (1%) 5 (<1%) 29 (4%) 2%

71 – 80 7 (1%) 5 (<1%) 12 (2%) 1%

81 – 90 5 (<1%) 4 (<1%) 8 (1%) <1%

91 – 100 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%) 3 (<1%) <1%

>100 7 (<1%) 2 (<1%) 16 (2%) 1%

Total 961 868 796 100%

84%

<30 min

92%

<30 min

69%

<30 min

81%

<30 min

25

77% of closings < 20 minutes




26

An important criterion by which the Amtrak system is measured is the duration of bridge closings.

United States Coast Guard regulations require that boats wait for closed bridges no more than twenty

minutes. Although Amtrak makes every attempt to comply with that federal regulation, it’s not always

possible. Dispatchers at the CETC in Boston and bridge tenders on the three bridges are often in a

position to decide whether to open a bridge after the crossing of a single train when they are aware that

another train, perhaps slightly delayed, approaches. Is the bridge left in the closed position for 30 or 40

minutes to wait for the delayed train, or is it more effective to raise (open) the bridge and then quickly

close it when the delayed train finally approaches? Another important factor involved is the fact that

the bridges are almost 100 years old; constant operation and wear has left them in need of

replacement.

A review of the bridge closure data for the three movable bridges indicates that, of the closures that

were monitored, the percentage of closings whose duration complies with the 20 minute requirement

ranges from approximately 45% to 77%. Closures at the Niantic and Connecticut River bridges are 20

minutes or less approximately 65% and 77% of the time, respectively, while Shaws Cove bridge closures

meet the 20 minute regulation approximately 45% of the time. For bridge closures of 30 minutes or

less, the percentage jumps so that bridge closings at the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers meet that

criterion 84% and 92% of the time, respectively. At Shaws Cove, 69% of bridge closings are for durations

of 30 minutes or less.

Bridge closings in excess of 40 minutes occur in less than 8% of the closings at the Connecticut River and

less than 4% of the closings at the Niantic River. The Shaws Cove bridge remains closed for periods longer

than 40 minutes in approximately 10% of the closures. The higher percentage of longer closures at

the Shaws Cove bridge was described by Amtrak officials as being a result of an increased amount of

freight train movement that occurs in the New London and Groton area when compared to areas further

south around either the Connecticut or Niantic River bridges as well as the generally slower speed of trains

either leaving or approaching New London Station. In addition, longer periods of time can pass when

boats are neither looking to enter or exit Shaws Cove, allowing the tender to leave the bridge in the closed

position, especially during weekdays.

For all three bridges in general, foul weather results in much fewer boats traveling the waterways. In

those circumstances, Amtrak and the bridge tenders choose to operate the bridges only as much as they

need to in order to save on wear-and-tear on the bridge mechanism. During such weather periods, the

bridges can be left in the “closed” position for greater lengths of time, which impacts the statistics of

bridge openings and closings.

Summarizing, the shortest bridge closing durations occur at the Niantic River movable bridge (which is

under active construction), followed closely by those at the Connecticut River movable bridge. The least

optimal closing durations occur at Shaws Cove.

Boats Waiting for Bridge Closings

As discussed above, the delaying of boats by bridge closures tends to be one of the focus points for

those concerned about adverse impacts to the marine industry if additional trains are added between

27

Old Saybrook and New London. As a result, data was collected which reflects how many boats waited

for bridge closings, from which direction they were traveling, whether or not such boats had to wait due

to their heights relative to the bridge height or chose to wait so as not to have a “close call”, and how

those numbers compared to the overall number of boats passing through the three movable bridges.

For the purposes of this monitoring program, analysts were asked to record the time of bridge closing as

measured from the beginning of the downward movement of the bridge to its final stop following its

opening. During that period, the analysts recorded the number of boats that queued both on the north

(outbound) and south (inbound) side of the bridges, recording what type of boat was queued (power vs.

sail) and whether or not the boats could pass under a closed bridge if the operator so chose. For the

later piece of data, analysts were asked to “estimate” whether such boats could pass or not. Sailboats

were universally considered as being too tall to pass under a closed bridge. The judgment came in on

the larger power boats, many that could have passed if their fishing or antennae rigging was lowered.

Through interviews, it was generally found that most power boaters would choose to wait than to go

through the process of lowering gear. Anecdotally speaking, upon inquiry of the many marina owners

and operators regarding how boaters felt about waiting for bridge closures, all said that most boats

accept that such occurrences are part of boating and didn’t get upset over having to wait. There were

those few, however, that don’t want to wait. In one instance in the Connecticut River, a marina

operator told a story of a private boater who loathed waiting for bridge openings so much that he

relocated his boat to a marina downstream of the Connecticut River movable bridge. That response to

bridge closings was the only such story heard. Of all of the marinas investigated as a part of this project,

business in one Essex Harbor marina was reported as being off in 2010. Where marinas investigated

were at 90 to 95 percent capacity, Essex Island Marina was reported being at 50% capacity due to the

type of business they do. Essex Island Marina is reported as being one who depends heavily on tourist

boating from other Connecticut and New York ports, tourists who enjoy visiting historic Essex Village.

The marina owner cites bridge closings and the delays they cause as being a prime reason boaters will

avoid coming up the Connecticut River to tie off at his marina.

Connecticut River

As discussed previously, monitoring data shows that the Connecticut River is host to over half of the boat traffic in the three waterways affected by movable bridges that are the subject of this investigation. The graphs and tables shown below reaffirm the distribution of boat traffic on the seven days of the

week with most of the traffic occurring on Monday (due to three holiday weekends and long weekends)

and Friday through Sunday, as one would imagine. This chart also compares the percentage of boats

that have to wait for bridge openings as a function of the total number of boats. It is interesting to note

that the smallest percentage of boats waiting for bridge openings occurs on Saturday, Sunday and

Monday. This is likely due to more boats passing through the bridge when it’s in the default open

position as a function of the overall number of boats in the river. Conversely, a slightly larger

percentage of boats waited for bridge openings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. On the

weekends, including Mondays, only approximately 1 out of every 10 boats ended up waiting for bridge

openings. Again, that ratio was slightly higher during the week. With the percentage of boats waiting

28

ranging between 6% and 16%, the average percentage of boats having to wait for bridge closings was

approximately 11%.

In raw numbers, during the boating season between May 15 and October 15, Amtrak reported that

openings of the Connecticut River movable bridge were delayed by 135 minutes (beyond the USCG-

required 20 minute bridge closing duration) a total of 45 times.

Waiting as a Function of Three Periods of the Day

In the Connecticut River, collected data shows that more boats had to wait for bridge closings during

the 11am to 1pm period of the day in six out of seven of the days of the week. Only monitoring on

Thursday indicated that the middle part of the day did not see the most boats waiting for bridge

closings. The second-highest number of waiting boats was forced to do so during the evening time

period when an average of 32% of all delayed boats waited. The lowest number of waiting boaters

occurred in the morning period when an average of 14% of all boaters waiting for bridge closings.

# of Boats Passing through Bridge Weekdays, Three Key Time Periods


M Tu W Th F Total

7a to 9a 20

(15%)

13

(4%)

10

(17%)

19

(25%)

27

(16%)

89

(18%)

11a to 1p 64

(49%)

36

(59%)

29

(48%)

26

(34%)

79

(46%)

234

(47%)

4p to 6p 47

(36%)

12

(20%)

21

(35%)

31

(41%)

67

(39%)

178

(35%)

Total 131

(100%)

61

(100%)

60

(100%)

76

(100%)

173

(100%)

501

(100%)

29

When considering just weekdays, the percentage of boaters waiting for bridge closings was slightly

lower during the middle part of the day with slightly higher percentages occurring during the morning

and evening periods.

The color graph below compares the number of boaters waiting in the Connecticut River for bridge

closings during three periods of the day for all seven days of the week.

# of Boats Waiting at the Connecticut River Bridge All Days of Week

Three Key Time Periods, Memorial Day to Labor Day

M Tu W Th F Sa Su Total

7a to 9a 20

(15%)

13

(4%)

10

(17%)

19

(25%)

27

(16%)

24

(13%)

23

(9%)

136

(14%)

11a to 1p 64

(49%)

36

(59%)

29

(48%)

26

(34%)

79

(46%)

119

(65%)

148

(57%)

501

(53%)

4p to 6p 47

(36%)

12

(20%)

21

(35%)

31

(41%)

67

(39%)

39

(22%)

87

(34%)

304

(32%)

Total 131

(100%)

61 (100%)

60 (100%)

76 (100%)

173 (100%)

182 (100%)

258 (100%)

941 (100%)

30

Waiting as a Function of Boat Type and Direction

In the Connecticut River, a total of 8% of those boats monitored were sailboats. Given that almost all

sailboats were of such height that they had to wait for bridge closings, it is not surprising that sailboats

consistently comprise a much higher percentage of boats waiting than in the overall monitored

population. The number of sailboats amongst the total number of waiting boats shows a consistent

pattern of the greatest percentage of waiting sailboats occurring on Fridays and Mondays, both

northbound (inbound) and southbound (outbound). Although not conclusive, this pattern could reflect

that a greater number of sailboats (which are more common on weekends) are found leaving port on

Fridays for longer excursions with a return to port on the following Monday.

20%

43%

10%

39%

16%

9%

31

Niantic River The Niantic River, with its reputation for being a center of boating maintenance and excursion boating, holds an important place in the marine economy of southeastern Connecticut. According to boat monitoring during the 2010 season, for every 5.5 boats that pass through the Connecticut River movable bridge, 4 boats pass through the Niantic River movable bridge. Although not counted as a part of the monitoring, it is said that many of the boats that make their way in and out of the Niantic River are there for boating services and are from elsewhere. Given the significant number of boats that traditionally make their way in and out of the Niantic River, this past summer’s reconstruction of the Niantic River movable railroad bridge was feared by most to be a marine nightmare. Amazingly, the significant impacts to boating that were expected did not materialize despite the reconstruction and despite the reconstruction of a smaller bridge further west of the Niantic that created further train movement problems (two tracks within the railroad right-of-way were reduced to one track). Where businesses utilizing excursion boats, such as the Mijoy, the Black Hawk and others, were likely to be impacted the greatest by bridge construction upheaval, a November 29, 2010 letter from the Secretary of the Connecticut Charter and Party Boat Association (Appendix A) congratulated Amtrak, describing the 2010 summer season as one where “...bridge openings and closings ran much smoother than in recent past years.”

Despite the lower clearance at the Niantic River movable bridge (19 ft MHW/22 ft MLW vs. 11 ft MHW/14 ft MLW) and the potential disruptions created due to bridge reconstruction and nearby track construction, the number of boats having to wait for bridge closings during the 2010 monitoring season at the Niantic was slightly lower than at the Connecticut River movable bridge. With the percentage of boats waiting ranging between 7% and 12%, the average percentage of boats having to wait for bridge closings was approximately 8%.

32

In raw numbers, during the boating season between May 15 and October 15, Amtrak reported that the Niantic River movable bridge was in the open position a total of 82 minutes beyond the USCG-required 20 minute bridge closing duration during 38 bridge movement events. Waiting as a Function of Three Periods of the Day In the Niantic River more boats are monitored as having to wait for bridge closings during the 11am to

1pm period on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays with the evening period having the second-

most number of waiting boats. Unlike the Connecticut River, the reverse was true on Tuesdays and

Wednesdays with more boats waiting during the evening period. As with the Connecticut River, the

fewest number of boats were monitored waiting during the morning period. A striking difference

between counts in the Connecticut River and Niantic River is that more boats were monitored on

weekdays as having to wait for bridge closings during the evening period as opposed to the midday

period. This is reflective of both the greater number of boats in the waterway during the evening time

period along with the greater number of trains passing the bridge.

When the Saturdays and Sundays are considered, the distribution which shows more boats waiting during the middle part of the day reappears. This, again, is likely a function of a greater number of boats in the waterway during the middle part of the day, thereby causing more boats to be delayed by bridge closings. The percentage of boats waiting during the morning period remains relatively constant around 10%.

# of Boats Waiting at Niantic River Bridge Weekdays

Three Key Time Periods, Memorial Day to Labor Day, 2010

M Tu W Th F Total

7a to 9a 6

(8%)

6

(17%)

7

(13%)

4

(10%)

1

(3%)

24

(10%)

11a to 1p 50

(63%)

8

(23%)

11

(20%)

6

(15%)

21

(57%)

96

(39%)

4p to 6p 23

(29%)

21

(60%)

36

(67%)

30

(75%)

15

(40%)

125

(51%)

Total 79

(100%)

35

(100%)

54

(100%)

40

(100%)

37

(100%)

245

(100%)

33

When displayed in colored graph form, the spike in the number of waiting boats can easily be seen on Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays where the evening spike in waiting boats can be seen on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

# of Boats Waiting at Niantic River Bridge All Days of Week

Three Key Time Periods, Memorial Day to Labor Day, 2010


7a to 9a 6

(8%)

6

(17%)

7

(13%)

4

(10%)

1

(3%)

13

(9%)

10

(7%)

47

(9%)

11a to 1p 50

(63%)

8

(23%)

11

(20%)

6

(15%)

21

(57%)

91

(64%)

95

(67%)

282

(53%)

4p to 6p 23

(29%)

21

(60%)

36

(67%)

30

(75%)

15

(40%)

38

(27%)

36

(26%)

199

(38%)

Total 79

(100%)

35

(100%)

54

(100%)

40

(100%)

37

(100%)

142 (100%)

141 (100%)

528 (100%)

34


In the Niantic River, a total of approximately 2% of those boats monitored were sailboats, the lowest

percentage of the three waterways (CT River, 8%; Niantic River, 2%; Shaws Cove, 18%). Given that

almost all sailboats were of such height that they had to wait for bridge closings, it is not surprising that

sailboats, other than on Fridays, consistently comprised a significantly higher percentage of boats

waiting than in the overall monitored population. The number of sailboats amongst the total number of

waiting boats shows varied quite a bit, although Wednesdays had the highest number of waiting

sailboats both inbound (northbound) and outbound (southbound).

35

Review of the monitoring data for sailboats and powerboats in the Niantic River shows a more

consistent number of boats having to wait for bridge closings than in the Connecticut River; there are no

“spikes” in the number on any given day. There are also a relatively consistent number of sailboats that

are counted amongst waiting boats. The small percentage of sailboats waiting for bridge closings in the

Niantic River is a function of fewer overall sailboats existing in the Niantic River in general, as reflected

in the few overall number of sailboats.

Shaws Cove

Sailboat

Powerboat

Sailboat

10%

10%

8%

15%

10%

8%

6% 16%

36

Unlike the significant amount of boat traffic in the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers, Shaws Cove is limited

in that it is a small protected cove off the Thames River with a limited number of boats. Where the

other two waterways have numerous marinas, public boat launches and private residential docks, Shaws

Cove is limited to three boating facilities: Crocker’s Boatyard, T. A. Scott (aka Captain Scott’s Marina),

and Hellier’s Yacht Sales. The total number of slips available in the cove is 276 with an additional 12

mooring spaces being provided by Hellier’s. During the 2010 boating season, 237 slips and all 12

moorings were occupied, resulting in a boat population of 249 boats. Further, with a 3 foot clearance at

Mean High Water and a 6 foot clearance at Mean Low Water, all but the smallest of boats cannot move

in and out of the cove without the opening of the Shaws Cove movable bridge. To add additional

challenges, that stretch of rail also accommodates more local freight traffic than other areas of the study

area, resulting in longer average bridge closings than at the Niantic and Connecticut Rivers. Fortunately,

the Shaws Cove movable bridge is the newest of the three, having been replaced as of 1987.

Review of the table of data for boats waiting for bridge closings at Shaws Cove for weekdays only shows

that more boats wait for bridge closings during the evening time period than during the morning and

midday periods. Review of the table of data for weekdays and weekends indicates that the same

percentage of boats waited for bridge closings during the evening period as well. Although the least

percentage of waiting boats existed during the morning time period, a higher percentage of boats were

delayed by bridge closings during the weekday period than when Saturdays and Sundays were included.

A review of the graph of the number of boats waiting for bridge closings as a percentage of the total

# of Boats Waiting at Shaws Cove Movable Bridge Weekdays Three Key Time Periods, Memorial Day to Labor Day, 2010

M Tu W Th F Total

7a to 9a 7

(12%) 16

(37%) 23

(37%) 8

(16%) 22

(24%) 76

(25%)

11a to 1p 20

(33%) 16

(37%) 12

(19%) 16

(31%) 31

(34%) 95

(31%)

4p to 6p 33

(55%) 11

(26%) 27

(44%) 27

(53%) 38

(42%) 136

(44%)

Total 60

(100%) 43

(100%)

62 (100%)

51 (100%)

91 (100%)

307 (100%)

# of Boats Waiting at Shaws Cove Movable Bridge All Days of Week Three Key Time Periods, Memorial Day to Labor Day, 2010


7a to 9a 7

(12%) 16

(37%) 23

(37%) 8

(16%) 22

(24%) 15

(16%) 9

(8%) 100

(19%)

11a to 1p 20

(33%) 16

(37%) 12

(19%) 16

(31%) 31

(34%) 45

(48%) 50

(43%) 190

(37%)

4p to 6p 33

(55%) 11

(26%) 27

(44%) 27

(53%) 38

(42%) 34

(36%) 56

(49%) 226

(44%)

Total 60

(100%) 43

(100%) 62

(100%) 51

(100%) 91

(100%) 94

(100%) 115

(100%) 516

(100%)

37

(shown below) shows that the number of boats waiting ranges between 32% and 75% with the largest

percentage occurring during on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Although the overall number of

boats entering and exiting the cove is not high compared to the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers, the

percentage that must wait for bridge closings is higher. Again, this is likely due to the greater amount of

rail traffic in and around Shaws Cove and New London in general when compared to the rail traffic

located in and around the Connecticut and Niantic River movable bridges.

Waiting as a Function of Three Periods of the Day

At Shaws Cove, the consistent timing patterns that were evident at both the Connecticut and Niantic

Rivers are absent. Specifically, where the number of waiting boats is sometimes lower than during the

midday and evening periods, that was not the case on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Similarly, the number

of waiting boats was less than the number of waiting boats during the midday period on Tuesdays and

Saturdays. The pattern seen in both the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers – fewest number of waiting

boats during morning hours, the greatest at midday and an in between number during evening hours –

only occurred on the Saturdays monitored. Unlike what seems like a predictable pattern of boating at

the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers, as reflected in the number of boats waiting for bridge closings,

Shaws Cove appears to have more of a random pattern with a less predictable nature.

From the standpoint of the potential for adding trains to the Shore Line East program, where clearer

opportunities are perhaps seen to exist first, during the morning hours and then during evening hours

with the least desirable time being the midday hours, these opportunities seem less clear when

considering the Shaws Cove movable bridge. Based upon the data collected as a part of the monitoring

program, the morning period has the fewest boaters, as shown by the number of boats waiting, on

38

Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays. It is the weekdays of Tuesday and Wednesday

when that pattern appears to break down. Summarizing, if an additional morning train were to be

scheduled during the 7am to 9am time period between Old Saybrook and New London, boat monitoring

suggests that marine traffic will be least impacted at the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers with a potential

for some impact at the Shaws Cove location. Midday hours at the Connecticut and Niantic have the

most potential for impact where impact at Shaws Cove may be significant on some days with less impact

on others. Where an additional train during the evening period would somewhat impact marine traffic

at the Connecticut and Niantic, it appears that a greater degree of impact may potentially occur at

Shaws Cove. Based upon the information collected, there seems to be no one time where minimal

impact may be expected with scheduling designed to minimize impacts to the greatest degree possible.


As discussed, unique conditions at Shaws Cove, including the low clearance of the Shaws Cove movable

bridge at Mean Low and Mean High Tide and the greater frequency and slower speed of train traffic in

the New London area, results in a higher percentage of the total boat traffic in and out of the cove being

delayed by bridge closings than in the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers. As seen on the accompanying

graph, the total percentage of boats delayed by bridge closings varies between 30% and 75% of the total

number of boats with a higher percentage of boats being delayed during the week than on weekends.

Although higher than the percentage of boats that must wait for bridge closings at the Connecticut and

39

Niantic River movable bridges, the lowest percentage of boaters delayed occurs on Saturdays, Sundays

and Mondays.

Like the Niantic River, there are several charter boats which call Shaws Cove “home”. As a result, the

opening and closing of the movable bridge is of great concern to the owners and operators of those

charters. In raw numbers, during the boating season between May 15 and October 15, Amtrak reported

that openings of the Shaws Cove movable bridge were delayed by 256 minutes (beyond the USCG-

required 20 minute bridge closing duration), three times the total delays at the Niantic River and two-

times the delay at the Connecticut River. Delayed bridge openings occurred approximately twice as

much at Shaws Cove due to the aforementioned conditions.

For inbound boat traffic – boats returning to the cove – sailboats were among the boats waiting for

bridge closings at percentages between 16% and 31% with an average of 23% of waiting boats being

sail-powered. The largest percentage of sailboats amongst waiting boats occurred on Tuesdays when 23

of 75 boats moving into the cove were under sail. On Sundays, 17 of 111 boats moving into the cove

were under sail.

For outbound boat traffic – boats leaving the cove on their way to the Thames River – sailboats were

among the boats waiting for bridge closings at percentages between 14% and 29% with an average of

21% of waiting boats being sail-powered. Although not significantly lower, perhaps the lower

percentage of sailboats waiting for bridge openings for outbound traffic is due to the sailboats waiting in

40

their slips for bridge openings rather than trying to queue in the small area of the Shaws Cove boat

basin.

Marinas, Boatyards, Moorings and Private Residential Docks: Upstream Boat Potential

Although the relationship between the numbers of boats which dock upriver of their respective movable

bridges with the amount of boat traffic was not determined as a part of this study, it is of interest to

view the marine traffic in each waterway with the boating number potential. In order to compare and

contrast the number of boats monitored in each of the three waterways, an investigation was carried

out which determined the number of available marina slips, boat yard slips, yacht club slips, mooring

location s (public and private) and private residential docks. Although the number of slips and estimates

regarding the occupancy rates was determined to be relatively accurate, there is an unknown with

respect to the daily launching of boats from the numerous public boat ramps upriver of the movable

bridges located in both the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers. In all three waterways, the

owners/operators of the various boat docking facilities, the local harbormasters and various members of

local Harbor Management Commissions were contacted in order to determine capacity and occupancy.

For private residential docks, recent aerial photographs were inspected.

Connecticut River

The following estimates are based upon interviews with operators and review of aerial

photographs for the marinas, yacht clubs and boat yards in the area located between the

Connecticut River movable bridge and just north of the Goodspeed Bridge between Haddam

and East Haddam, a distance of approximately 12 miles. For mooring field estimates, interviews

with harbormasters, marina operators and Harbor Commission members were used. Estimated

Total Potential is an estimate of the total number of slips, moorings and private residential

14%

23% 29%

Average Percentage of Sailboats: 21%

41

docks available while Occupancy Estimate represents an approximation of the number of boats

in the Connecticut River as seen on aerial photographs and as confirmed with marina owners

and operators. In the absence of more detailed information, an approximation of the number of

boats moored at private residential docks is used based upon a 90% rate of occupancy, slightly

less than the occupancy rate seen for local marinas. This approximation is considered

reasonable in that some docks have multiple boats while others are swimming docks where

property owners may not have boats, at least of any significant size.

Within the Connecticut River, there are a total of 32 boating facilities that provide slips for recreational

and commercial boating. Within those 32 facilities, there are approximately 2,835 slips which hosted

approximately 2,520 boats during the 2010 season, an occupancy rate of approximately 89%. Despite

what most considered a somewhat depressed economy, most of the marina owners and operators

interviewed reported that the 2010 boating season was successful, primarily because of the favorable

weather conditions. This sentiment was echoed by owners/operators in both the Niantic River and

Shaws Cove as well. The 2009 boating season, they felt, was looked upon less favorably because of

more frequent inclement weather. Even if high fuel prices keep boaters close to home, favorable

weather has a great impact on whether or not boaters come down to their boat from their homes.

Within the area in question, there are approximately 760 moorings in place, both private and public. Of

those 760 moorings, approximately 750 were occupied for an occupancy rate of approximately 98%. In

addition to the number of slips available in the lower Connecticut River, a review of aerial photographs

indicates that there are approximately 240 private residential docks that are, for the most part, at full

capacity. For the purposes of this planning study, an occupancy rate similar to that for marinas was

used to estimate the occupancy rate for boats at private residential docks. Old Saybrook (1,243),

Total

Slips

(a)

Slips

Occupied

(b)

Total

Moorings

(c)

Moorings

Occupied

(d)

Private

Docks

(e)

Private

Docks

Occupied

(f)

Estimated

Total

Potential

(a + c + e)

Estimated

Occupancy

(b + d + f)

Chester 780 677 (87%) 12 12 (100%) 10 9 (90%) 802 698 (87%)

Deep River 309 278 (90%) 50 50 (100%) 19 17 (89%) 378 345 (91%)

East

Haddam 0 0 0 0 9 8 (89%) 9 8 (89%)

Essex 385 297 (77%) 214 214 (100%) 53 48 (91%) 652 559 (86%)

Haddam 156 140 (90%) 0 0 25 23 (92%) 181 163 (90%)

Lyme 65 65 (100%) 140 135 (96%) 30 27 (90%) 235 227 (97%)

Old Lyme 105 96 (91%) 108 100 (93%) 52 47 (90%) 265 243

(92%)

Old

Saybrook 1,035 966 (93%) 239 239 (100%) 42 38 (90%) 1,316

1,243 (94%)

Estimated

Totals 2,835

2,519 (89%)

763 750

(98%) 240

217 (90%)

3,838 3,486 (91%)

42

Chester (698) and Essex (559), in descending order, had the greatest number of boats within the

investigation area.

Of the approximately 3,500 boats present, the number of sailboats was estimated to be approximately

10% of the total, which is consistent with the number of sailboats monitored in the Connecticut River at

the movable railroad bridge. It is noted that what is not included in this estimate of boat capacity is the

number of boats that are brought to the water by day and launched at the numerous State and Town

boat launches in the lower river. Among others, a major public launching site is in Old Saybrook

immediately south of the I-95 Baldwin Bridge, a location just upriver from the Connecticut River

movable railroad bridge. In the Niantic River, Don McKenzie of Boats, Inc. estimates that an additional

200 boats can be added to the waterway each weekend.

Niantic River

The following estimates are based upon interviews with operators and review of aerial

photographs for the marinas, yacht clubs and boat yards in the area located between the Niantic

River movable bridge and Route 156 to the north. For mooring field estimates, estimates were

made using aerial photographs. Estimated Total Potential is an estimate of the total number of

slips, moorings and private residential docks available while Occupancy Estimate represents an

approximation of the number of boats in the Niantic River as seen on aerial photographs and as

confirmed with marina owners and operators. In the absence of more detailed information, an

approximation of the number of boats moored at private residential docks is used based upon a

90% rate of occupancy, slightly less than the occupancy rate seen for local marinas. This

approximation is considered reasonable in that some docks have multiple boats while others are

swimming docks where property owners may not have boats, at least of any significant size.

In the Niantic River, the investigation extended from the Niantic River movable bridge north to the

Route 1 crossings over the western branch of the river, a distance of approximately 3 miles. Within that

area, there are a total of 12 boating facilities ranging from a several full-service marinas to small boat

clubs. Within those 12 facilities, there are approximately 775 slips which hosted approximately 740

boats during the 2010 season, an occupancy rate of approximately 96%. As was the case with the

marina operators in the Connecticut River, marina owners and operators interviewed reported that the

Total

Slips

(a)

Slips

Occupied

(b)

Total

Moorings

(c)

Moorings

Occupied

(d)

Private

Docks

(e)

Private

Docks

Occupied

(f)

Estimated

Total

Potential

(a + c + e)

Occupancy

Estimate

(b + d + f)

East Lyme 660 635 (96%) 75 56 (74%) 135 121 (90%) 870 812 (93%)

Waterford 115 107 (93%) 57 50 (88%) 76 68 (89%) 248 225 (91%)

Total 775 742 (96%) 132 106 (80%) 211 189 (90%) 1118 1,037 (93%)

43

2010 boating season was also successful, primarily because of the favorable weather conditions and

despite the issues that reconstruction of the Niantic River movable railroad bridge was thought to pose.

Although more of an estimate than in the Connecticut River, there are approximately 132 moorings in

place in the Niantic River, both private and public. Of those 132 moorings, approximately 106 were

occupied for an occupancy rate of approximately 80%. In addition to the number of slips available in the

Niantic River, a review of aerial photographs indicates that there are approximately 211 private

residential docks that are estimated to be at 90% occupancy, or 189 boats. East Lyme is host to

approximately 78% of the boats in the Niantic River (812) while Waterford is host to the remaining 22%

(225). The larger boating facilities along the East Lyme shore are responsible for the greater number of

boats in that municipality.

Of the approximately 1040 boats present, the number of sailboats was estimated to be approximately

7% of the total, which is consistent with the number of sailboats monitored in the Niantic River at the

movable railroad bridge. As the percentages indicate, there are fewer sailboats as a percentage of the

total in the Niantic River than in the Connecticut River. Again, what is not included in this estimate of

boat capacity is the number of boats that are brought to the water by day and launched at the

numerous State and Town boat launches in the lower river.

Shaws Cove

The following counts are based upon interviews with operators and review of aerial

photographs for the marinas and boating facilities inside of the Shaws Cove movable bridge.

Mooring field totals were determined through interviews and confirmed using aerial

photographs. Estimated Total Potential is determined using the total number of slips and

moorings available while Occupancy Estimate represents the slip and mooring occupancy in

Shaws Cove as determined by interviews with boating facility operators.

Shaws Cove, the most restricted of the three waterways, includes three boating facilities plus a boat

launch. Those boating facilities provide slips for recreational and commercial boats. Crocker’s Boat

Yard, the largest of the three facilities, includes 205 slips. T. A. Scott, also known as Captain Scott’s

Marina, includes 55 slips. Finally, Hellier’s Yacht Sales includes 19 slips. The total number of slips

available is 274. With 12 moorings in the cove, the total potential availability is 286 slips and moorings.

With 237 of the 274 slips occupied and all 12 moorings occupied, the occupancy during the 2010 season

was estimated to be 249 boats, for an 87% occupancy rate. Unlike either the Connecticut or Niantic

Rivers, Shaws Cove has no significant public launching facilities of which to speak.

Perhaps due to the location of Shaws Cove with respect to more open waters of Long Island, Fisher’s

Island and Block Island Sounds, the number of sailboats within Shaws Cove is higher as a percentage of

Total

Slips

(a)

Slips

Occupied

(b)

Total

Moorings

(c)

Moorings

Occupied

(d)

Private

Docks

(e)

Private

Docks

Occupied

(f)

Estimated

Total

Potential

(a + c + e)

Occupancy

Estimate

(b + d + f)

Shaws Cove

New London 274 237 (86%) 12 12 (100%) 0 NA 286 249 (87%)

44

the total with approximately 3 of 10 boats being powered by sail. Due to the low clearance at Shaws

Cove (3 feet MHW, 6 feet MLW), the ratio of power to sail boats is of less interest than in the other two

waterways because most boats, other than the smallest of boats, have to wait for bridge openings to

pass in and out of the cove.

45

Conclusions

The number and types of boats were counted every other week between Memorial Day and Labor Day

in 2010 in order to establish what was agreed upon as a representative sampling of boating patterns in

the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers and Shaws Cove during that period.

Total Boats by River

The Connecticut River was monitored as having 22,779 boats passing beneath the movable railroad

bridge, or 55% of the total monitored in the three waterways. The Niantic River was monitored as

having a total of 15,983 boats pass beneath that bridge, or 38% of the total. Shaws Cove was monitored

as having a total of 2,853 boats pass beneath the movable bridge, or 7% of the total. From the

perspective of days of the week, a total of 68% of the marine traffic passed beneath the three bridges

on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, 15% passed on Mondays, and a total of 17% passed beneath the

bridges on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Boat Types

As would likely be expected, of every ten boats counted in the three waterways, 90% were recreational

powerboats, 7% were recreational sailboats, and 3% were “other” types of boats (primarily

commercial). A little over 90% of boats in the Connecticut and Niantic Rivers and 80% of boats in Shaws

Cove were identified as powerboats; 8% of the boats in the Connecticut River were sailboats while only

2% of the boats in the Niantic River were sail-powered. Shaws Cove had upwards of 18% of its boats

identified as sailboats. Of the three waterways, the Niantic River included the highest percentage of

boats identified as “other” with a total of 6%.

Number of Boats per Hour

Perhaps the most informative of statistics are those describing how many boats pass beneath the three

movable bridges during given hours of the day. Assuming that additional bridge closings will impact

boats navigating the waterways during those train crossings, based upon the monitoring it can be

concluded that the least amount of impact will occur if an additional train or trains were to be added

during the 7am to 9am time period when the fewest number of boats were present in those waterways.

The second least amount of impact would occur if a train or trains were to be added during the 4pm to

6pm time period when the second least number of boats were monitored to be present in the

waterways. With the highest number of boats being present in the waterways anywhere between the

midday hours of 10am and 4pm, it can be assumed that the addition of a train or trains during those

hours would potentially have more impact on boats due to the number of boats present.

Bridge Closings

Using the U. S. Coast Guard regulatory requirement for bridge closings of no more than 20 minutes in

duration, the Niantic River movable railroad bridge – despite being under construction – was able to

limit closing durations to 20 minutes or less 77% of the closings monitored during the 2010 season. The

Connecticut River movable railroad bridge had closings of 20 minutes or less 65% of the monitored

closings. The Shaws Cove movable bridge, with greater freight train activity, had closings less than 20

minutes only 55% of the monitored closings. For durations of 30 minutes or less, the Niantic River

bridge met that criteria 92% of the time with the Connecticut River bridge meeting the 30 minute

46

criteria 84% of the time. The Shaws Cove movable bridge was closed 30 minutes or less for 69% of the

monitored closings. For closings of 40 minutes or less, all three bridges met that criterion over 90% of

the time with the Niantic River bridge closing for 40 minutes or less for 96% of the monitored closings.

Given the concern over the ongoing railroad bridge construction at the Niantic River and nearby track

construction that limited trains to one track between the Connecticut River and the Niantic River, it is

quite remarkable that the best bridge performance, in terms of the minimization of the duration of

bridge closings and disruption to marine traffic occurred at the Niantic River.

Boats Waiting for Bridge Closings

Given that more boats were monitored as being in the waterways during the midday portion of the day,

it goes without saying that more boats will be delayed by bridge closings that occur during those hours.

The Connecticut and Niantic Rivers were comparable in terms of the percentage of boats that were

required to wait for closed movable bridges to open. Although not conclusive, interviews with many of

the marina owners and operators suggest that delays to boaters caused by bridge closings are

sometimes inconvenient but considered to be part of the boating experience. The marina owners and

operators described few complaints of which they were aware. One marina owner did relate the story

of a boat owner who was apparently so impatient with delays caused by bridge closings that he decided

to leave a marina located upriver of the Connecticut River movable bridge in order to relocate in a

marina immediately downriver of the bridge. That, it was described, was an unusual occurrence. It

must be said that the owner of the Essex Island Marina, located upriver of the Connecticut River

movable railroad bridge, has expressed great concerns over additional bridge closings due to the type of

clientele that utilize that facility. Larger excursions from outside of the Connecticut River, it is said,

make their way upriver to Essex in order to visit tourist-friendly and historic Essex Village. If delayed,

the marina owner states those tourists (and their tourist dollars) will seek other ports and locations,

spending limited leisure time funds elsewhere. Although other commercial boaters and excursion

business have similar concerns, the Essex Island Marina is the only marina that was identified as having

an occupancy as low as 50% where all others in the three waterways had occupancies of between 85%

and 100%.

In the Connecticut River, approximately 10% or less of boats were delayed on Mondays, Saturdays and

Sundays while approximately 10% to 15% of the boats were delayed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and

Fridays. Slightly more than 15% of the boats were delayed on Thursdays.

In the Niantic River, fewer than 10% of the boats were delayed on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays

through Sundays. On Wednesdays, between 10% and 15% of the boats were delayed by movable

railroad bridge closings. By far, fewer boats were delayed by bridge closings at the Niantic River than at

the other two waterways. One condition that could contribute to this record is that, with generally

shallower water depths, the Niantic River is likely occupied by generally smaller boats that can pass

beneath the Niantic River movable bridge even when closed.

Closures of the Shaws Cove movable bridge, with its differing operating conditions and limited bridge

clearances, delayed 30% to 40% of passing boats on Mondays, Saturdays and Sundays. Up to 40% to

50% of the boats were delayed on Wednesdays and Fridays while between 50% and 60% of the boats

were delayed on Tuesdays. On Thursdays, approximately 70% of the boats were delayed. As stated

47

elsewhere, the combination of train operation conditions, larger boats and minimal bridge clearances

contribute to a greater number of boats being delayed by bridge closings. At Shaws Cove, delays caused

by railroad bridge closings are likely seen as a small price to pay for safe harbor and such close access to

Long Island Sound.

Recommendations

Educational Brochures. Although it is understood that information regarding the interrelationship of

northeast corridor train operations, the three movable railroad bridges in question and marine traffic

has been produced in the past, it is recommended that a new informational brochure be designed and

distributed to the numerous marinas, boat yards, yacht clubs, town halls and local libraries in order to

better educate the public regarding the operation of the railroad bridges at the Connecticut River,

Niantic River and Shaws Cove. Such a brochure would include simple explanations of operations of the

bridges to inform the boating public and others of how it works. There would be an explanation of

dispatching out of Boston’s South Station and how the local bridge tenders perform their jobs. Also

included would be explanations of why bridges may remain in a closed position for longer than desired,

or why most often bridges cannot be opened because a boater wants to pass and how the approach of

higher speed trains and even slight delays create situations where the finely-tuned bridge openings and

closings are not always optimally timed. Explanations would also include that, although the U.S. Coast

Guard rules and regulations require movable bridges to be closed for no more than 20 minutes at a

time, northeast corridor operations and the numerous variables that impact the operations don’t always

allow for bridges to maintain that type of schedule. Like all Amtrak dispatchers, the men and women

who handle the train operations between New Haven and New London are multi-taskers that face split

second decisions involving several trains at a time traveling in opposite directions at sometimes greatly

varying speeds.

Educational Link on the DOT and CMTA Websites

In a prominent location within the banners of the Connecticut Marine Trades Association website

(www.ctmarinetrades.org) and of the Connecticut DOT website (www.ct.gov/dot ) , there are several

links for general resources. Perhaps the CMTA and the Department would consider adding another

educational link that would summarize how Connecticut’s movable bridges operate during the summer

months. The emphasis on the educational material would be to explain the interactions of Amtrak and

train operations with why the movable bridges operate the way they do, including why bridges may be

closed for slightly longer than some boaters may desire. A web-based explanation of the intricacies of

the train operations and how they relate to bridge openings may go a long way toward a better

understanding of the factors involved in a very complicated system. With a better understanding,

perhaps the public – boaters in particular – will realize that the movable bridge operational system is a

complicated choreography that works amazingly well and that can likely accommodate additional bridge

closings for Shore Line East trains between Old Saybrook and New London without significant impact to

recreational or commercial boaters.

Bridge Clocks

Although potentially not a high priority as other operational or safety-related efforts, the clocks that are

posted on each of the movable bridges announcing a time estimate for the next bridge closing should be

kept in working order and operated regularly by the bridge tenders on the movable bridges.

http://www.ctmarinetrades.org/

http://www.ct.gov/dot

BBoooaaat ttM iMMoonn niittooorrriiinnngg aaattt ttthhheee ... · by three movable bridges that are...

Documents

Transcript of BBoooaaat ttM iMMoonn niittooorrriiinnngg aaattt ttthhheee ... · by three movable bridges that are...