Chapter Three

Airports and Seaports

Airports and seaports represent economic engines in the areas they serve. In addition, these facilities provide access to international markets essential to the long-term economic success of Connecticut. Transportation by air and sea is a critical element in a trade dependent economy. Airports and seaports are gateways to domestic and international trade connecting the state to the rest of the world. The Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis has estimated about 73 percent of the state's foreign exports leave through either the seaports (20 percent) or by air (53 percent), with the remainder leaving by road or rail. This contrasts with the total amount of freight shipped into or out of the state. Overall, 19 percent of total freight is shipped through the ports, while less than 1 percent is shipped by air.

Being situated between two well-developed transportation networks in the metro areas of New York and Boston has an impact on the development of Connecticut's sea and air ports. Consequently, these facilities tend to be orientated to smaller, niche markets. For example, Bradley airport is served by 19 passenger airlines, but international service at Bradley is limited.

In addition, the state's seaports, including the State Pier in New London, cannot accommodate the increased size of transatlantic ships or their containerized cargo. This diminishes the types and amounts of cargo the ports can handle. ConnDOT and DECD evaluate port investments at the State Pier and the two other significant ports on a case-by-case basis. Their vision for the ports is to serve specialized markets. Other observations about planning for these facilities, which are developed in more detail below, include:

• long-term planning for Bradley has been largely focused on its physical layout and on some expansion. The terminal expansion for Bradley is scheduled to be completed in 2002, and will only accommodate the airport's growth until 2006;
• ConnDOT does not have a clearly defined strategic plan for airport development. ConnDOT tends to respond to demand, not shape demand;
• the potential economic impacts of alternative development scenarios are either not calculated or considered in ConnDOT's planning process and the planning outcomes tend to focus on fiscal impacts; and
• not all sea and air port facilities that impact Connecticut's ability to access national and international markets are under state control or fully integrated into the state's planning process.

Planning for the state's airports and seaport generally occurs outside the highway and transit process described in Chapter II. Although some regional long-range plans (and the department's long-range plan) mention the presence of an airport or seaport and acknowledge the importance of those facilities in the region, no significant planning for the facility is done through that process. Also, the Transportation Improvement Plan does not include any funding for these facilities. The principal planning documents used to guide development at the state's seaport and airports follow a process similar to the one used by ConnDOT for major investment studies.

ConnDOT's Bureau of Aviation and Ports manages the State Pier in New London, Bradley International Airport, and the five general aviation airports -- Hartford-Brainard, Groton-New London, Waterbury-Oxford, Windham and Danielson. The Bureau of Aviation and Ports conducts planning for these facilities along with support from the Office of Intermodal Policy Planning within the Bureau of Policy and Planning. (Appendix B contains ConnDOT's organization chart.) Detailed below are the processes followed for airport and seaport planning.

Airports

The principal long-term planning document used by ConnDOT to guide the development of Bradley International Airport and the general aviation airports is a master plan. It contains detailed analysis of the current facilities, aircraft operations, and cargo. The focus of the process is on the physical aspects of the airport in order to shape the size and timing of future passenger, cargo, and general aviation facilities.

Typically, the master plan covers 15 to 20 years, with the early years being more detailed than the later years. There is no requirement that the master plan be updated within a specified time frame, but a new plan should be prepared as implementation of the projects in an existing plan are completed or are no longer viable as a result of changing circumstances.

A major component and a primary emphasis of the master plan is the airport layout plan. It shows the basic physical layout for the airport including its boundaries, any proposed additions, the location and nature of existing and proposed airport facilities, any proposed modifications and additions, as well as the location of existing and proposed non-aviation areas (such as cargo handling, parking, and other facilities).

The airport layout plan, and any change in it, is subject to Federal Aviation Administration approval. According to federal requirements, an approved plan is required in order for airport improvements to be eligible for federal funding, and airport development must be done in accordance with an approved plan.

Planning process. The planning effort at Bradley will be highlighted below as an example of the master planning process. The essential steps are the same at the general aviation airports, though the scope for those airports is obviously smaller. In its planning process, the focus of ConnDOT is on forecasting and responding to demand, not shaping demand. Overall, the approach is largely reactive and restrained by a limited vision.

Bradley master plan. The last comprehensive master plan conducted for Bradley was completed in 1993. It replaced a plan completed in 1977. A portion of the plan was updated by a 1997 study designed to assess aspects of the 1993 plan and begin refining and implementing some of its recommendations, specifically those dealing with construction of additional terminal capacity.

The process followed by ConnDOT for the development of the master plan in 1993 is similar to the process followed for major investment studies discussed in Chapter II. A technical committee was formed to advise ConnDOT and the consultants the department hired. This advisory committee was composed of representatives from the FAA, military, fixed base operators, airport business community, aviation industry, Bradley Commission, airlines (passenger and cargo), Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, DECD, and citizens of the surrounding communities - a total of 37 members.

The consultants performed the following activities:

• Analyzed current and projected passenger capacity, cargo, fleet mix, and other aspects of the operation
• Examined the physical structures including the airfield, cargo and passenger terminal facilities, as well as the adequacy of airport access
• Predicted that Bradley's service area would experience only moderate growth, while changes in the number of enplaned passengers and cargo would increase by a high rate (e.g., from 2.3 million passengers in 1991, to 4.0 million in 2000, and to 5.8 million in 2015)
• Found the state needed to upgrade physical facilities, in particular:
  • increase cargo facilities significantly;
  • construct new passenger facilities;
  • construct taxiways to enhance aircraft groundflow and capacity; and
  • make other improvements such as deicing pads, runway lights, and pavement overlays.
• Developed seven alternative concepts for expansion of the passenger terminal facilities. (An evaluation matrix was generated based on established goals and objectives for passenger terminal planning and design. These were grouped into four categories - airside, terminal, landside, and constructability. A weighting factor for each criterion was established. Each of the seven alternatives was evaluated based on how well it met the criteria and assigned a score of zero to five. Individual scores were multiplied by the weighting factors and totaled).
• Developed the three best alternatives further on a larger scale to refine aircraft parking limitations and better study the construction phasing. (These alternatives were presented to the technical committee, the Bradley Commission, and the public.)

As a result of the input of the advisory bodies, ConnDOT, and the consultant one of the alternatives was selected as the preferred terminal concept.

1997 update. A consultant was hired in 1996 to perform a financial feasibility study; prepare new passenger, cargo, and air operation forecasts; and complete preliminary engineering studies for expanding the passenger terminal complex. The consultant presented ConnDOT with a different terminal configuration than what was selected in the master plan and lowered the passenger forecasts. The planned terminal expansion has an expected completion date in 2002. This expansion is projected to meet Bradley's capacity needs only until 2006.

Schiphol report. Schiphol Project Consult, the airport management consultant hired in 1999 to examine the operation of Bradley, as discussed in Chapter IV, criticized ConnDOT's overall management of Bradley. The Schiphol report points out Bradley is located midway between the very competitive markets of New York and Boston. The consultant asserts Bradley is faced with a choice of either languishing between these two giant markets or carving out a profitable niche. Schiphol delineates a number of areas where future growth can occur - especially in domestic and international service as well as in cargo opportunities.

Schiphol examined a wide range of management issues that impact the operation of Bradley and ultimately affect planning. For example, Bradley has been criticized for not having a professional marketing strategy. If marketing is not aggressive, then this impacts the number of airlines using Bradley, which in turn affects passenger and cargo volume as well as revenues, and in the end planning. Due to their complexity all of the management issues will not be examined in this report; the focus here is on the planning function. Table III-1 summarizes Schiphol's findings and recommendations regarding the department's planning efforts along with the department's response.

Master plan update. The department is currently in the process of updating its master plan. It has recently hired a consultant and is working on developing a scope for the master plan. The new plan will not only include an airport layout plan but also a strategic plan and a business plan. The strategic plan for the first time will bring together the financial, management, and business plans to allow ConnDOT to manage the airport's overall development as well as its operation and maintenance "in a manner that will best achieve its goals and objectives." ConnDOT has also asked the consultant to perform a "back-in" financial analysis. Estimates of future revenue generated from existing sources will be used to establish budget figures that can be used in developing the capital plan.

Other concerns. There are two additional concerns worth noting about state aviation planning efforts having to do with other airports not under state control:

• Municipal airports are not really considered part of the state's planning scheme, except that they may present potential competition to Bradley. Tweed-New Haven, for example, is located in a strategic corridor, as defined by Gallis in Chapter I, minutes from downtown New Haven and convenient to Connecticut's population in the South Central and Southwestern parts of the state. It currently offers flights to major airports in New York, Philadelphia and Washington, though its capacity for expansion is limited; and
• In an effort to reduce congestion at Logan International Airport, Massport has developed a formal relationship with Manchester Airport in New Hampshire, Worcester Airport in Worcester, and T.F. Green Airport in Rhode Island. This relationship extends to joint planning, marketing, and interstate road and rail improvements. As feeder airports to and from New England's major hub and because Connecticut is not part of this network, this relationship may impact on future development of Bradley. This fact, combined with the already integrated air market in New York run by the Port Authority, increases the risk of Bradley losing market share as neighboring airports expand to consume Bradley's market.

Seaports

Connecticut has three deep-water ports that can service ocean-going vessels. The ports are located in Bridgeport, New Haven, and New London. Each port essentially serves a different niche of the import/export market. For example:

• New Haven, the largest port, handles most of the traffic flowing through Connecticut's ports. Liquid bulk accounts for 90 percent of the tonnage brought through the port, with petroleum products accounting for 95 percent of that tonnage. Petroleum products handled through the port have accounted for over 60 percent of those products used in the state. New Haven also imports some steel and iron, and exports iron and scrap steel. In addition, the Buckeye Pipeline, built in 1961 as part of a defense initiative, delivers 2.7 million gallons of heating oil, gasoline, and jet fuel daily along the I-91 corridor (including Bradley) from New Haven to its terminus at Westover Air Force Base.
• Tropical fruit from South America comprises the majority of the traffic at the port in Bridgeport, including most of New England's bananas. Other products include a small amount of liquid bulk product, coal, seafood, paper products, and vehicles. A Long Island ferry service (Bridgeport-Port Jefferson) also operates out of Bridgeport.
• The 1,000-foot State Pier Port of New London has recently been partially renovated after a collapse in 1993. Forest products, chemicals, road salt, and general cargo are the primary commodities of this port. A number of passenger and vehicle ferries also operate out of this port area serving Block Island, Long Island, Fisher's Island, Martha's Vineyard, and New Jersey.

Port operation and oversight. The responsibility for planning, managing, promoting, and operating the three major ports in Connecticut is spread among a number of entities. Only the State Pier in New London is under state control, and it is the only publicly owned port freight facility in the state. The essential strategy of the state is to promote the individual ports as one entity, "Port Connecticut," each serving a unique market. One marine terminal operator, Logistec, runs all three ports.

A number of private and local entities, though, including the Bridgeport Port Authority, the New London Port Authority, and the New Haven Harbor cooperative, have port-related responsibilities. In addition, during the 1993 legislative session, the Connecticut Coastline Port Authority (CCPA) was created to promote the economic development of the three port areas. A recent report by the Auditor's of Public Accounts found the effectiveness of the CCPA to be limited due to a low level of resources and lack of organizational independence from ConnDOT.

Port planning. Until recently, no comprehensive examination of port facilities and their development potential had been conducted. In the early 1990s, a number of events occurred that provided the impetus to examine the ports in a more systematic way. Ultimately, the process followed by ConnDOT was similar to the process used for its major investment studies.

1994 studies. In 1992, DOT initially formed a committee, composed of local officials, citizens, and representatives of DOT and the Department of Economic Development (DED -- now DECD) to select a new terminal operator for the State Pier in New London. The operator's contract was to expire, and it was believed a new operator was needed to bring in more traffic at the port to help invigorate the local economy in Southeastern Connecticut. At that time the economic viability of the region was threatened by a decline in defense spending. Concerns arose about the structural deterioration of the pier, its layout, and other limitations, so DOT and DED decided to hire a consultant to examine port operations and determine what could be done to maximize the potential of the port as a whole.

At the same time, the agencies decided to fund studies of the ports of New Haven and Bridgeport to determine whether a unified port of Connecticut was viable, what role, if any, each port should play in the State's economy, and what investments should be made to achieve these goals. The agencies also decided to use different consultants for each study because of the competitive nature of the ports for traffic and investments. The same basic scope of services was used to assure compatibility of the results.

State Pier collapse. While the studies were underway, the State Pier in New London collapsed, and service was discontinued. While the study of the New London port was intended to compare different alternatives to developing the State Pier, the focus shifted to measuring the financial feasibility of reconstructing the pier.

ConnDOT estimated the cost of reconstructing the State Pier would be about $24 million. The study projected the future annual direct benefits for a range of cargo scenarios. Both the mid- and high-range scenarios for cargo tonnage (350,000 to 500,000 tons) were substantially greater than what had ever been handled at the port. The present value of the total benefits for each of the cargo ranges over a 40-year period was calculated to be between $12 million and $33 million. The consultant concluded the state's investment would break-even based on the probability that a middle range cargo estimate would be met. ConnDOT was focused on ensuring that the investment in the port essentially paid for itself regardless of the wider economic impacts. A principal reason for this is that ConnDOT has a limited amount of money to spend on port activities and would have to take money dedicated to another mode of transportation.

Economic impacts, though, were calculated for the mid- and high-range cargo alternatives and estimated an additional $16 million to $21 million in direct and indirect business revenue would be generated, and the ranges of full-time, direct and induced jobs would range from 174 to 268.

DOT and DECD conclusions. Based on the three studies of the ports completed in 1994, four conclusions were developed by DECD and DOT with regard to further port development. They became the guiding principles for the departments when considering port investments. They were:

• Continued state agency coordination for port development - two mechanisms were identified to coordinate both transportation infrastructure and economic development investments in the ports: 1) an interagency Major Projects group at the state level, which no longer exists; and 2) the regional planning process (described in Chapter II).
• Continued recognition of the individual character of the three ports and their regional economies - Although no study specifically examined how the ports could be joined together, a linked system of ports was rejected because it was asserted the three ports, from a transportation and economic development perspective, operate as independent facilities. The state's role then should be limited to avoiding any duplication of public investment and marketing each port's unique character.
• Coordinated strategic investment for major economic development projects related to ports - Further investment in specific facilities would be limited to specific projects that could demonstrate concrete economic development potential. State investment in cargo handling facilities or other cargo transports modes such as containers need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine economic benefit.
• Determination of appropriate partnership among Connecticut Coastline Port Authority, ConnDOT, and other state agencies - A primary responsibility of CCPA is the marketing and promotion of the ports and port-related economic development. The authority, though, relies on funding from ConnDOT to operate. ConnDOT is responsible for transportation infrastructure improvements, while DECD has the responsibility for economic planning and development. Investment related to port business has been determined to require review on a case-by-case basis with all proposals submitted to DED and coordinated with ConnDOT. It was recommended DECD be added to the CCPA board to assist in evaluating the merits of any business request. In addition, joint support of marketing efforts was recommended. The commissioner of DECD subsequently become a member of CCPA.

1998 New London Study. In 1996, ConnDOT decided to take another look at possible development scenarios at the State Pier in New London. The 1994 study did not examine all of the development scenarios as intended because of the pier collapse in the middle of the study. A consultant was retained to conduct the study under the guidance of the Bureau of Policy and Planning.

Public participation in the process was obtained by the appointment of an advisory committee, key informant interviews, and a public meeting. A 13-member advisory committee was formed in August 1996. Regular public meetings were held with the advisory committee, and a formal public meeting was conducted to solicit the opinions of the general public for input. The general public meeting was held near the end of the study engagement (November 1997) to present the preferred development plan and implementation strategy.

A six-step process for the selection of the preferred development plan is illustrated in Figure III-1. The major steps are described below.

• The first step was to identify the goals of the study. The consultant developed a questionnaire to measure the attitudes and perceptions of the advisory committee toward the land use options and provide direction on establishing the goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria for development activities.
  • results of the questionnaire showed a strong preference for using the pier as a port and intermodal facility. The primary land use should be for cargo port and ferry terminal, and it should not be residential. Using the questionnaire and input from ConnDOT and the advisory committee, the goals and objectives were formulated. The goals were:
  • promote water dependent activities and encourage employment opportunities;
  • prepare a plan that is fiscally responsible and based on market realities; and
  • integrate the use of the pier facility with the capability of the physical characteristics of the site to support such uses.

• After the goals were formulated, the consultant performed a market analysis of potential marine cargo, potential cargo volume, potential real estate market opportunities, and a physical assessment of the port facilities.
• Five scenarios were developed based on alternative port and non-port related land uses, ranging from an all cargo port to a yacht club and residential area.
• The five scenarios were assessed qualitatively based on the general impact of the land use activity on the goals and impact criteria. There were eight criteria developed based on the general goals. This included:
  • Response to land use goals
  • Employment generation
  • Local taxes produced
  • User demand
  • Development cost feasibility
  • Environmental compliance
  • Coastal zone consistency
  • Linkage to transportation network
• The degree to which each alternative met the criteria was assigned a label of High, Moderate, or Low. Consequently, the preferred development plan was found to be a cargo port/ferry-cruise boat facility because it: had a land use activity that was strongly supported by the survey of advisory committee participants; had a terminal operator already interested; did not require a major financial commitment; and would not result in any major construction that would impact on the environment.

Development scenarios were not assessed based on quantitative data, but on general qualitative considerations. Although economic impacts for revised cargo ranges were calculated, they were not a key factor in the selection process. The estimated cargo tonnages for the mid- and high-ranges were reduced from the 1994 study. Consequently, the estimated business revenue was reduced to between $11 to $17 million and the total of direct and induced full-time jobs ranged from 125 to 174. Not all improvements have been completed to date. The terminal operator had projected in 1998 the tonnage for the port would be approximately 180,000 tons. Actual tonnage for the State Pier has averaged about 68,000 tons over the last two years.

Return to Year 2000 Studies

Return to Table of Contents