ML20079F458
| ML20079F458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1984 |
| From: | Mcguire P, Eric Michel, Monteith J, Roberts R, Turano M SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079F461 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8401180269 | |
| Download: ML20079F458 (239) | |
Text
- ..
1 cy.,. *[3 DOCKETED i USNRC l
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION j W MN 17 P2:52 l l
Be fore the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Boardrre ;. .
)
l
)
In .he Matter of )
)
LING ISIAND LIGHTING CCMPANY )
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shcrehzun Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) ) (Emergency Planning)
)
)
AMENDED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF INSPECTOR RICHARD C. RCBERTS, INSPECTOR JOSEPH L. MCNTEITH, DEPUTY INSPECTOR PHILIP MCGUIRE, DEPL7Y INSPECTOR MICHAEL J. TURANO, JR., AND CAPTAIN Erd!N J. MICHEL ON BEHALF CF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY PLANNING CCNTENTIONS 65 AND 23.H --
E'.%CUATION TIME ESTIMATES AND EPZ ACCESS CCNTROL January 1C. 1984 4
D T
a o . O AMENDED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF INSPECTOR RICHARD C. ROBERTS, INSPECTOR JOSEPH L. MONTEITH, DEPUTY INSPECTOR PHILIP MCGUIRE, DEPUTY INSPECTOR MICHAEL J. TURANO, JR., AND CAPTAIN EDWIN J. MICHEL ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 65 AND 23.h --
EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES AND EPZ ACCESS CONTROL I. Introduction Q. Please state your names, occupations and professional backgrounds.
A. My name is Richard C. Robertu. I am an Inspector l
assigned to the Office of the Chief of District, County of Suffolk Police Department.
My name is Joseph L. Monteith. I am the Commanding Offi-cer of the Sixth Precinct, County of Suffolk Police Department.
~
I hold the rank of Inspector in the Police Department.
My name is Philip McGuire. I am the Commanding Of ficer of the Special Patrol Bureau, County of Suffolk Police Department.
I hold the rank of Deputy Inspector in the Police Department.
My name is Michael J. Turano, Jr. I am the Executive Of-ficer of the Sixth Precinct, County of Suffolk Police Department. I hold the rank of Deputy Inspector in the Police Department.
o o . O My name is Edwin J. Michel. I am a Captain assigned to the Office of the Chief of District, Ccunty of Suffolk Police Department. I was formerly the Executive Officer of the Highway Patrol Bureau of the Department.
A statement of our qualifications and experience is At-tachment I hereto.
Q. Please briefly explain the general organization and structure of the Suffolk County Police Department so that your respective jobs are set in proper perspective.
A. The Suffolk County Police Department has approxi-mately 2600 officers, of which about 1800 are assigned to the Patrol Division. There are three Divisions in the Department
-- Headquarters, Detective and Patrol. The Headquarters Division provides equipment / logistical support services to the Department and includes the Operations, Communications and Records, and Personnel Bureaus. The Detective Division handles investigations of major crimes (e.g., homicides, narcotics, arson and other felony offenses). In addition to the Major Crimes Bureau, the Detective Division includes the General Services and Special Services Bureaus. The Patrol Division is responsible for providing day-to-day police service to the five western townships of the County. These five townships are
- i 1
l 1
i.
! o . o l
spread over 540 square miles, with over one million residents.
An organizational chart of the Suffolk County Police Department is appended to this testimony as Attachment 2.
! Within the Patrol Division, there are six Precinct Commands together with a Highway Patrol Bureau, Marine Bureau and Special Patrol Sureau. The Highway Patrol Bureau has about 125 officers and is charged with patrolling the Long Island Ex-pressway and with providing traffic enforcement of selective roadways within the six Precinct Commands. The Marine Bureau has about 65 officers and is assigned responsibility for pa-trolling selected beaches and the harbors and waterways adja-cent to Suffolk County, including the Long Island Sound. The Special Patrol Bureau has about 90 officers and exercises ccmmand over Sections such as the Canine, Aviation and Emergen-cy Services Sections. The Special Patrol Bureau is also re-sponsible for performing special services for the Department; its personnel are issued special weapons and equipment and are trained in areas such as the detection and disposal of explo-sive devices.
The Sixth Precinct provides police services to the Shoreham site and the surrounding area, including almost all of the LILCO 10-mile EPZ. The Sixth Precinct's area of l
l I
. e . o responsibility covers 176 square miles in northern Brookhaven township; approximately 225,000 persons reside within this area. Approximately 250 officers are assigned to the Sixth Precinct, which is broken down into 21 patrol sectors. The other five Precinct Commands are similarly broken down into patrol sectors and are responsible for providing police service to the rest of the Suffolk County Police District.
II. Purposes and Conclusions Q. What is the purpose of this testimony?
A. The purpose of this testimony is to address Emergency Planning Contentions 65 and 23.H, and to discuss concerns regarding the evacuation time estimates set forth in Appendix A to the LILCO Transition Plan, at V-3, and OPIP 3.6.1, Attach-ment 2, and LILCO's proposals to control access into the EPZ.
LILCO estimates that the time for evacuation will vary from about two to two-and-one-half hours for only the inner EPZ sec-tors, to a maximum of approximately six hours for evacuation of the entire EPZ under adverse' weather conditions.1/ We have identified a number of deficiencies and inaccuracies in the 1
1/ See, scenarios 16 and 20, Table II, Appendix A, at II-8.
See also, Table XIV, Appendix A, at V-3.
. , . - ~ - - .
i
)
. . . 6 traffic control scheme relied upon by LILCO in arriving at the evacuation time estimates set forth in the LILCO Plan, which lead to certain conclusions. We have also identified a number of deficiencies in LILCO's proposals to control access into the EPZ which lead to certain conclusions.
Q. What are these conclusions and where are they discussed?
A. LILCO's evacuation time estimates are inaccurate, I
unreliable and should be far longer. In our opinion, LILCO's evacuation time estimates are underestimated for a number of reasons. First, as discussed in Part III, LILCO has underestimated the time required for people to mobill:e and ready themselves for evacuation, and has ignored the heavy traffic congestion that will be caused by mobilization traf fic.
Second, LILCO's traffic control plan, which unre-alistically assumes that LILCO personnel can undertake police powers and effectively implement police-type functions, will lead to additional traffic congestion which has been ignored in LILCO's evacuation time estimates. For example, as discussed in Part IV of this testimony, LILCO's Plan prescribes evacua-tion routes and its traffic model assumes that all evacuees 4
l I
I I
i
e 4 s b l l
! l will comply with such prescribed routes. This assumption, l
l however, is unrealistic since evacuees will likely refuse to j travel contrary to their own perceptions of the most expeditious and safest way out of the EPZ. Those evacuees j, deviating from LILCO's prescribed evacuation routes will cause confusion and anxiety on the part of other evacuees, leading to i
traffic congestion and increasing evacuation times.
In addition, as discussed in Part V, LILCO 's attempt to i " discourage" motorists from moving in a direction contrary to its prescribed evacuation routes will also impede traffic flow, resulting in additional congestion and further increasing evac-uation times. In fact, LILCO's attempt to control traffic by such means as prescribing traffic routes, " discouraging" motor-ists frem deviating from those routes, and utilizing various traffic control strategies and mechanisms,2/ may cause aggres-sive behavior on the part of evacuees, resulting in conflicts with LILCO's traffic guides that will lead to traffic block-ages, confusion, accidents and possibly injuries, all of which
- increase congestion. These conclusions are discussed in Part 7 E of this testimony.
i
-2/ In our view, such attempts to control traffic by LILCO are unlawful. We understand that this issue will be addressed separately in the context of other Contentions.
i l
t
---,n. - . - . . . _ . - -_. --c. , --
i
- j. . .
- I A further example of LILCO's flawed traffic control plan
-- the direction of traffic by LILCC's traffic guides contrary to traffic signals -- is discussed in Part VII of this testimo-ny. In our opinion, these examples lead to the conclusion that LILCO's traffic control plan is inherently flawed and will result in sevarely disrupted traffic flow and substantially in-creased evacuation times.
Third, LILCO's evacuation time estimates ignore certain factors which increase congestion and thus increase evacuation times. These factors are discussed in Part VIII of this testi-many and include car accidents and breakdowns, cars running out of gas, the absence of shoulders on roadways, road construction and repair, and the abandonment of vehicles. These factors would, as a practical matter, seriously impact an evacuation.
Fourth, we discuss in Part IX of this testimony LILCO's ineffective measures for spotting congested areas so that appropriate measures for evacuees to avoid such congestion can be bnplemented.
Finally, Part X of this testimony addresses Emergency ,
Planning Contention 23.E and discusses LILCO's inadequate measures for controlling access into the LILCO EPZ during an
. . . a evacuation. In fact, the LILCO Plan virtually ignores access control into the EPZ. As a result, persons could be exposed to, and contaminated by, health-threatening radiation doses.
Moreover, the resulting cross traffic and conflicting traffic mcVements would likely result in additional traffic congestion, thereby increasing LILCO's evacuation time estimates.
In summary, based on our experience as police officers, we believe that LILCO's evacuation time estimates are unrealistic and underestimated. In our opinion, the real world, likely to occur, practical problems of evacuation would result in evacua-tion times far longer than those assumed by LILCO.
III. Contentions 65.A and 65.B Q. Contentions 65.A and 65.B allege that the LILCO evac-uation time esti=ates ignore or underestimate the time required for people to mobilize and ready themselves for evacuation. Do you agree with these Contentions?
A. Yes. It is our understanding that LILCO's evacuation time estimates are derived from a traffic model developed by KLD Ascociates ("KLD"). (See Pigozzi testimony). Professor Pigozzi has testified that KLD's model assumes that there will be a 20-minute " mobilization time" following a recommendation
. s . s e
to evacuate, after which all evacuation traffic would begin to evacuate over a period of about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. (See Pigozzi testino-ny; Appendix A, at V-7). LILCO thus appears to believe that
' all evacuation trips will have ccmmenced within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 20 minutes of the first evacuation advisory. In our opinion, this KLD/LILCO time estimate is unrealistic and seriously underestimates the time it will take for the public to mobilize and prepare for evacuation.
Q. Please explain how LILCO has underestimated mobiliza-tion time.
A. We agree with Professors Herr and Pigozzi that, between the time evacuation is recommended and the time evacuees begin to evacuate, traffic within the EPZ will become congested as a result of pre-evacuation trips, i.e., trips that people may take to prepare for evacuation. (See Pigozzi testi-many; Herr testimony). Pre-evacuation trips would include, for example, travel from work to schools and/or homes and travel frcm homes and/or work to banks, stores, gas stations, and other such facilities in order to obtain money and supplies.
We would expect there to be a substantial nanber of such pre-evacuation trips by people preparing to evacuate. In fact, Professors Herr and Pigozzi have testified that there could be
as many pre-evacuation trips as evacuation trips. (See Herr testimony; Pigossi testimony). As a result, traffic within the EPZ will become heavily congested, thereby lengthening the time necessary to complete mobilization travel and to prepare for evacuation.
C. Is this pre-evacuation congestion taken into consid-eration by the LILCO Plan?
A. No, and as a result the LILCO evacuation time estimates are too short. The LILCO Plan does acknowledge that there will be pre-evacuation trips by some people before they evacuate the EPZ. (See Appendix A, at IV-8; see also Appendix A, at V-3). However, the effect of such pre-evacuation trips on LILCO's evacuation time estimates is ignored.
Q. Please explain.
A. Under the*LILCO Plan, specific evacuation routes are assigned for each of the 19 subzones in the EPZ. Further, KLD's traffic model assumes that evacuees will not deviate from these routes,.and that traffic on the routes will be in the di-rections prescribed by LILCO. (See Pigozzi. testimony). Howev-er, according to LILCO, persons who are not in the process of evacuating vil'1 be permitted to travel along and across these i
l 1 ,
- 1
\
l 1
1 I
l l
l L
l prescribed evacuation routes in any dir,ection. (Appendix A, at IV-8). As a result, evacuating traffic going in the prescribed direction on a LILCO designated evacuation route will ccme into conflict with pre-evacuation traffic travelling in a different direction, or entering and leaving the route at places different frcm those designated by LILCO.
For example, pre-evacuation traffic will cross evacuation routes, or turn left against the prescribed traffic flow, ei-ther of which will require the evacuating traffic to stop.
i Whatever particular traffic maneuvers may be involved, the l
pre-evacuation traffic will cause significant interruptions of the flow of evacuation traffic. Given the large number of pre-evacuation trips anticipated, the times required for people to mobilize and prepare for evacuation will increase, since people attempting to get to homes or other pre-evacuation des-tinations will be slowed by congestion. Evacuation times will therefore be substantially increased. of course, this increase in mobilization timas will delay evacuation from the EPZ,
! thereby lengthening evacuation times. (See Pigozzi testimony) .
Evacuation times will also be lengthened by conflicts between evacuating traffic and traffic already on the roads within the EPZ when an evacuation begins. (See Pigozzi l i t
i
testimeny). As Professor Pigossi points out, KLD has assumed that this " background" traffic will be moving with the evacua-tion traffic flew at the time evacuation begins. Based on our 1
experience as police officers, we believe that this is an unre- 1 alistic assumption, since traffic will be moving, as it normal-ly would be, in all directions. This will lead to interrup-tions of traffic flow, resulting in further delays for mobili-sation and evacuation traffic, which will further lengthen evacuation times.
IV. . Contention 65.C.4 Q. Contention 65.C.4 alleges that the LILCO traffic control plan, as described in Appendix A to the LILCO Plan, in some instances directs evacuees to travel contrary to their perceptions of the most expeditious way out of the EPZ. The Contention alleges that this will cause confusion and anxiety on the part of evacuees, leading to traffic congestion which, if taken into account, would substantially increase LILCO's evacuation time estimates. Do you agree with Contention 65.C.4?
A. Yes. Not only has LILCO assigned specific evacuation i
routes and destinations to the EPZ population (see Appendix A,
~ , _ _ -_. -
f 4 at IV-75 through IV-165), but the evacuation time estimates i
contained in the LILCO Plan assume that there will be strict adherence to those evacuation routes, without deviation (see Pigozzi testimony). (See Lieberman deposition of September 19, 1983, at 86).3/ In our opinion, the concept of prescribine evacuation routes, coupled with LILCO's assumption that there will be strict adherence with these routes by evacuees, is un-realistic. Indeed, in our opinion, the destination assignments and evacuation routing strategy adopted by LILCO will be ig-nored by many evacuees, thereby increasing substantially the evacuation times assumed by LILCO.
O. Why do you believe that the destination assignments and evacuation routing strategy adopted by LILCO will not be j adhered to by evacuees?
A. People choose routes based on their knowledge of the roads. Direction is not the only consideration; other charac-teristics, such as congestion, the number of traffic lights and
! stop signs, and whether a road is familiar, are also consid-ered. During an evacuation, people will have their own i
l 3/ For a discussion of a study by LILCO of a so-called
" uncontrolled" evacuation run, see Pigozzi testimony.
j i 6
, , _---.-+,e. , - - _ - . % -, ,, .u- . _ . - - .-- -
.-= _ _ -- __ . - - - . _ - -- _-
i i i I perceptions of the "best" routes out of the EPZ. Unless their l I
"best" routes happen to coincide with LILCO's prescribed evacu-ation routes, people are likely to disregard the LILCO routes in favor of their own.
i For example, people who are familiar with the roads where they live or work avoid travelling the main roads at times when traffic is perceived to be heavy, such as during rush hour, ,
when big events are over, during heavy shopping times, or around holidays. Instead, they use "short cuts" that are not so heavily travelled. There would be no reason for people to ,
deviate from these familiar "short cuts" in the event of an emergency at Shoreham requiring evacuation. However, there
, would be good reasons for people to insist on travelling along i such "short cuts," especially if they perceive LILCO's evacua-tion routes to be contrary to their best way out of the EPZ --
for example, because they perceive the direction of the route 1 l to be unsafe (i.e., toward the Shoreham plant) or because they J
i believe that the route will be heavily travelled and thus ,
i congested by other evacuees. For example, the Rocky Point residents north of Route 25A would likely avoid the intersec-tion of Broadway and Route 25A during periods of congestion by I utilizing the back roads north of Route 25A, such as King Road i
l
l or Prince Street, to travel at their discretion either east or west out of the area. Should enough evacuees deviate from LILCO's prescribed routes and use such "short cuts," evacuation times could be increased due to conflicting traffic flows.
As police officers, we commonly observe that whenever traffic is congested, some motorists will disregard established traffic patterns in an attempt to avoid the congestion. A common example of this occurs whenever traffic is' congested on the Long Island Expressway (Rt. 495). Then, many motorists drive along the shoulders in an effort to avoid delays. This occurs even though it is unlawful to drive along the shoulders and despite the fact that motorists know that police officers routinely patrol and actively enforce infractions of this nature along the Long Island Expressway.
It is also common for motcrists to avoid pre-established routes in order to " find their own way." Examples include shortcutting through residential areas and shopping centers to avoid congested intersections. Suffice it to say that whenever motorists perceive an advantage to a "different" route, they are likely to use it. Thus, it is unrealistic to assume that evacuees will adhere to LILCO's prescribed evacuation routes.
LILCO's evacuation times are therefore underestimated, since i
1
those estimates unrealistically assume uninterrupted, ,
ccmpatible traffic flows, with evacuees, without exception, i complying with LILCO's prescribed evacuation routes. (See Lieberman deposition of September 19, 1983, at 86).
Q. But doesn't the LILCO Plan describe mechanisms for controlling traffic and ensuring that evacuees adhere to pre-scribed evacuation routes?
A. The LILCO Plan calls for LILCO personnel to direct traffic in an attempt to " encourage" evacuees to adhere to pre-scribed routes, by using such techniques as blocked lanes, concurrent continuous ficw treatments, channelization, barri-cades and signs, and the conversion of roadway sections to one-way traffic flow (see Appendix A, at IV-5 through IV-65). In our opinion, however, even if it is assumed that such tactics are lawful and capable of being implemented, they still will not enable LILCO to prevent, or even " discourage," significant numbers of evacuees from deviating from the evacuation routes prescribed in the LILCO Plan. Nor will they prove very suc-cessful in controlling traffic and preventing congestion.
For example, LILCO intends to employ channelization treat-ments on selected sections of the evacuation network in order I
- . t to increase capacity at intersections where turn movements are signific. int and traffic demand is high. (Appendix A, at T.V-19 ;
Appendix A, Table IX). Such channelization treatments involve adding a traffic lane by using roadway shoulders, channelizing existing lanes, closing existing lanes, and/or adding lanes as
" turn pockets" to separate through movement traffic from turning traffic. LILCO's traffic guides, using signs, barri-ers, cones and vehicles, would implement this traffic control technique. (Appendix A, at IV-19).
In our opinion, the traffic channelization strategies de-scribed in the LILCO Plan would likely fail to control traffic flow. In part, this is because there are insufficient traffic guides to carry out this technique. Under the LILCO Plan, 193 traffic guides will be expected to man 147 traffic posts in the event of an evacuation of the entire lO-mile EPZ. (Appendix A, Figure 8 ) . Should traffic guides fail to report to their assigned posts, or should they be delayed in getting to their posts, there would be insufficient personnel to cover all assigned traffic posts. Of course, channelization strategies should never be attempted at intersections which are not manned.
I
Q. Doesn't LILCO's traffic control plan require every intersection within the 10-mile EPZ to be manned?
A. No. In fact, a significant nanber of intersections are not manned. It is necessary to understand the difference between LILCO's traffic control posts and traffic nodes.
Different traffic strategies and instructions are assumed for such posts and :. odes, and, in many cases, posts and nodes represent different geographical locations. Traffic control posts are intersections where LILCO's traffic guides will be directing traffic or otherwise implementing some kind of traf-fic control strategy. They are identified in Figure 8 of Ap-pendix A. Traffic nodes are locations which may or may not be manned by traffic guides and which were identified by the ccm-puter modelers who derived LILCO's evacuation time estimates.
The vast majority of traffic nodes are associated with turn movements for the LILCO evacuation routes. Come traffic nodes are not located at intersections and some do not involve turn movements. Some that do involve turn movements are not manned by traffic guides. Most traffic nodes involving traffic tern movements are identified in Table XII of Appendix A.i/
4/ LILCO's latest revision to its Plan and the traffic control strategies outlined in Appendix A (Revision 3 )
substantially revised Table XII of Appendix A. Table XII, (Footnote cont'd next page)
Q. Are there problems with tra traffic channelization strategies described in the LILCO Plan other than problems that could arise because, due to the insufficient number of traffic guides, channelization strategies might have to be att2mpted at intersections which are not manned?
A. Yes. In some instances, the strategies to be imple-mented for channelization treatments will be impossible or ex-tremely difficult to implement. For example, the chan-nelization treatment to be implemented between traffic nodes 7 and 30 calls for establishing two lanes of traffic westbound while still providing for one lane of traffic eastbound on (Footnote cont' d frcm previous page) as now written, no longer discusses every traffic nede involving turn movements. In our opinion, LILCO has not provided a satisfactory explanation of why it deleted from Table XII its previous discussions regarding these nodes and the turn movements associated with them. It is clear, however, that by removing nodes and the discussions regarding turn movements from Revision 3, LILCO conve-niently eliminated many of the inconsistencies which char-acterized previous versions of its Plan, including inconsistencies between the traffic control strategies that were to have been implemented by the traffic guides and the strategies that were prescribed for evacuating traffic at traffic node locations. (Compare, for example, the discussion regarding traffic node 54 (Appendix A, Table XII) and the traffic guide instructions for post
- 108 (Appendix A, Figure 8) in Revision 2 of the LILCO Plan).
1
Route 25A between Echo Avenue and County Road 83, a distance of about 2,000 feet. (Appendix A, Table IX, at IV-20). Route 25A in this area is a two-lane roadway, with a limited paved shoul-der eastbound and almost no paved shoulder westbound. Utility poles stand close to the road surface on both sides of the highway, and the westbound shoulder is further impeded by the curbing of a gas station on the north side, just east of County Road 83. LILCO's channelization strategy would therefore require extensive use of cones and the need for westbound traf-fic to straddle double barrier pavement markings. It would not be possible to implement this strategy without considerable lead time, and even then, traffic would likely back up and be-ccme congested due to the narrowness of Route 25A at this loca-tion. In addition, the revised Plan does not provide for assigning LILCO traffic guides to two intersecting streets along this stretch of roadway, frcm where motorists will want to exit onto Route 25A and enter the main traffic stream or possibly need to cross through two lanes of traffic in order to travel east. A further discussion of LILCO's channelization treatments on selected roadway sections (Appendix A, Table IX) is appended to this testimony as Attachment 3.
.. o . .
I l Moreover, LILCO's use of cencurrent continuous flow treat-ments at selected intersections (see Appendix A, Table V) would i generally fail to control traffic flow. LILCO proposes to man-date traffic movements through these selected intersections so that conflicts with other traffic movements can be avoided. In this way, traffic movement is to be kept continuous. LILCO's traffic guides are assigned responsibility for enforcing this traffic control strategy. (Appendix A, at IV-9).
However, the concurrent continuous flow treatments man-dated by Appendix A often ignore conflicting traffic movements which are likely to occur at the intersections selected by LILCO. In addition, LILCO's concurrent continucus flow treat-ments ignore the likelihood that motorists may insist on trav-elling through an intersection in a direction different frcm that required by the LILCO Plan. As a result, the " positive control" sought by LILCO at thesa selected intersections is not likely to be achieved, i.e., traffic movements may not be continuous, and the increase in capacity and significant reduc-tions in travel times assumed by LILCO (see Appendix A,. at IV-9) may not be realized.
For example, the concurrent centinuous flow treatment for the intersection of Rocky Point Rcad and Route 25 (see Appendix A, at IV-ll) prescribes the following traffic flow movements:
i
Rccky a. Vehicles moving south on go 3; Rocky Point Road will be 24/1,G,L,.M Roac routed west onto Rt. 25.
I
__-'s b. Vehicles moving west on Rt .
gr 25 will be routed south onto
~
Middle Island Road.
d Rt. 25 c. Positive control is required at node 24 to assure continuous movements. !
This ficw treatment is unlikely to achieve continuous traffic
=cvement at this intersection, primarily because traffic ficw will be interrupted by northbcund traffic on Yaphank-Middle Is-land Road (CR 21) and by eastbound traffic on Route 25. LILCO itself ackncwledged the existence of such northbound traffic in previous versiens of its Plan, and routed 'uch s traffic to the west. (See discussion regarding traffic node 24, Appendix A, Table XII, Rev. 2). Ecwever, Revision 3 to the LILCO Plan deleted any mention of northbound traffic at this intersection, and it is not taken into account by LILCO's proposed concurrent centinucus ficw treatment. Nevertheless, it is likely that there will be northbound traffic at this intersection and that this traf.fic will disrupt LILCO 's proposal for continuous ficw.
In addition, centinuous ficw at this location will also likely be interrupted by southbound traffic wishing to continue south, 6
I l and by eastbound traffic wishing to continue east. As a result, rather than continuous flow at this intersection, there will be conflicting traffic flows, likely to result in traffic delays and congestion. A further discussion of the intersec-tions at which LILCO's concurrent continuous flow treatments are to be implemented is appended to this testimony at Attach-ment 4.
LILCO's plan to convert roadway sections to one-way flow (Appendix A, Table VIII, at IV-18) in order to increase roadway capacity would also face serious problems if implemented by LILCO. For example, in order to convert Lower Rocky Point Road and North Country Road to one-way westbound traffic between Woodhull Landing Road and Shore Road (traffic links 2,102 and 102,1), LILCO would have to control traffic from the approxi-mately 15 side streets that enter onto Lower Rocky Point Road and North Country Road from residential areas. Eight of these I side streets, however, have not been made traffic posts under l LILCO's Plan. Thus, there will be no traffic guides available to prevent traffic from these side streetc from entering onto f
and travelling east along this section of Lower Rocky Point 4
Road and North Country Road, an area where the hilly, winding terrain 1Luits sight distance. In addition, this section of
=. o . .
Lower Rocky Point Road and North Country Road is travelled by school buses for all four Miller Place schools. In fact, two of these schools are located on this roadway section. These buses are on the road as early as 7:15 a.m. and as late as 6:15 p.m. In our opinion, there is insufficient road capacity (read width) for buses to travel against the LILCO proposed two lanes of one-way traffic flow. No alternative paths are available to school buses and extensive delays will result in pre-evacuation trips and in returning school children to their homes. A further discussion of the problems that would be encountered by LILCO's proposal to convert this roadway section to one-way flow is appended to this testinony as A:tachment 5.
LILCO's reliance on signs -- assuming they even get installed -- to direct evacuation traffic is also impractical and unworkable. (See, e.g., Appendix A, at IV-70). Such signs may be defaced, turned around, torn down or collected by souvenier hunters. In addition, some signs would be destroyed during automobile accidents or by snow plows during snow remov-al operations. As a result, when the signs were needed, they might not all be in place. It is not difficult to imagine the frustration among motorists and the traffic problems that would result should motorists following vandalized or damaged signs i
- a. . . .
1 suddenly find themselves facing a dead-end street, not knowing where to go.5/
Blocking the main traffic lanes on limited access highways in order to facilitate access to the highways by traffic from the entrance ramps (see Appendix A, Figure 8.2) might help to control traffic flow, but this technique would also likely cause congestion on the limited access highway to the rear of the blocked lane (s). In addition, due to driving habits and conditioning, some motorists attenpting to enter onto such highways would slow down or even stop because they will antici-pate a need to merge with traffic already on the highways --
even though none might exist. Thus, further congestion would result on the access route as well.
Similarly, techniques such as requiring turn mcVements and otherwise prescribing traffic flow will also lead to congestion and would likely fail to deter motorists frcm deviating from LILCO's prescribed evacuation routes. In addition, in some 5/
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1978 edition) devotes a section to " Signing for Civil De fense."
LILCO, however, has removed the " Civil De fense" legend l frem the signs it plans to install to help direct evacua-i
! tion traffic. Further, LILCO is without authority to install such road signs. See footnote 2, supra.
l
. c . .
instances motorists are expected to follow prescribed routes of their own accord. (See Appendix A, Table XII, at IV-29 through IV-51). In fact, there are traffic nodes where turn movements are prescribed, but which are not manned by traffic guides.
For example, at traffic node 64, eastbound traffic is required to turn south, cross the Peconic River, travel east, then travel south on Center Drive. (See Appendix A, Table XII, at IV-45). However, there are no traffic guides assigned to these turn locations. There fore , traffic, after crossing the river, could mistakenly travel back into the EPZ and toward the plant, along Nugent Drive. In addition, traffic could travel further east beyond County Center Drive into what will likely be a heavily congested traffic circle. See also traffic node 125 (Main Street and Yaphank Road), where no traffic guide is posted to advise motorists regarding their route (s) out of the EPZ (traffic links 26, 125 and 125, 34).
Moreover, even where LILCO relies upon traffic guides to enforce the traffic flow prescribed by the LILCO Plan, problems will occur. Significant problems, for example, will arise be-cause these traffic guides will not be obeyed by many evacuees.
As previously noted, if people decide that it is in their best interests to disregard LILCO's prescribed routes, they will do
~26-
i l .
so, irrespective of the directions / instructions /" discourage-ment" given by a LILCO traffic guide. Once one or two motor-ists decide to disregard a LILCO traffic guide and "go their own way," other motorists will quickly follow, and LILCO's pre-scribed scheme of traffic control will be lost. It requires special training and experience to establish and maintain traf-fic flow and established traffic patterns; in addition, an in-timate knowledge of the local road network is important. (See Suffolk County testimony on Contentions 39-41 and 44.D, E and F (Training) and Contention 15 (LILCO's Lack of Credibility)).
Even with adequate training and experience, it is not always possible to prevent motorists from deviating from pre-established routes; there are times when the officers under our com=and find it difficult to prevent such deviation. Thus, it is unrealistic to assume that LILCO's traffic guides will be able to establish and maintain the prescribed traffic flow along the evacuation routes outlined in the LILCO Plan. They will not have sufficient training or experience; nor will they recessarily be even remotely familiar with the local roads.
(See, e.g., J. Barrows deposition at 75-76, where Mr. Barrows, a designated LILCO traffic guide, testified that he has never been within the EPZ or to the Shoreham plant. In fact, he did not even know where the EPZ was located).
l
l l
l Othar problems must be expected due to inconsistencies l
between the traffic control strategies to be implemented by t LILCO's traffic guides and the strategies prescribed for evacuees at traffic node locations. (Compare Figure 8 and Table XII of Appendix A) . For example, traffic node 75 i
corresponds to traffic post 929. The node description "reccmmends" that "[a]11 vehicles moving east on River Road
[should) turn east onto Middle Country Road, Rt. 25." (See Ap-pendix A, Table XII, at IV-46). This recommended turn move-ment, however, is in direct conflict with the traffic control strategy for traffic post #29, where the traffic guide is in-structed to " discourage" traffic to the southeast, and to "fa-cilitate" traffic to the northwest. (See Appendix A, Figure 8, at IV-54). Moreover, the traffic control strategy for traffic post $29 conflicts with the strategy to be bnplemented at traf-fic post #19, located 1/4 mile to the north, since the LILCO traffic guide there is instructed to " discourage" all further northbound traffic. These conflicting traffic strategies and instructions will lead to confusion among motorists as well as LILCO's traffic guides. ,
Q. Would evacuation times necessarily be increased by evacuees' deviating from LILCO's prescribed evacuation routes?
A. Yes. As noted by Professor Pigo==i, the evacuation modeled by KLD relies upon LILCO's use of prescribed routes.
This has allowed KLD and LILCO, on paper, to avcid as much as possible conflicts between traffic flows, and to make optimum use of available roadway capacity. (See Pigozzi testimony) .
The result of minimizing conflicts in traffic flow and of mak-ing optimum use of road capacities is reflected in LILCO's low
! evacuation time estimates. ,
These time estimates, however, are not based on reality.
The reality is that drivers are likely to take whatever routes out of the EPZ that they perceive to be the safest and quickest. As a result, there will likely be significant devia-tion from the evacuation routes prescribed by LILCO. For exam-pl e , people may ignore the LILCO routes because they are per-ceived as ill-advised and riskier than their own alternate routes. Of course, there will also be people who deviate from the LILCO routes unintentionally because they will have for-gotten rcutes or because, as non-residents , they may not be aware of LILCO's routes. In our opinion, this deviation from LILCO's evacuation routes will likely increase LILCO's evacua-tion time estimates, which are based upon this unrealistic as-sumption that all evacuees will strictly adhere te prescribed routes.
- -_ -- - n - - ,
_ ~ - .
Q. Are there specific routes designated by LILCO as evacuation routes which you believe would be disregarded by evacuees?
A. Yes. We believe that people will deviate from pre-scribed routes no matter how sound the traffic strategy. How-ever, several of the routes prescribed by LILCO are illogical and inappropriate and thus are especially unlikely to be followed by evacuees. (See Herr testimony).
The following examples discuss traffic control strategies which, under the LILCO Plan, are to be carried out by traffic guides at traffic control posts ( see Appendix A, Figure 8, at IV-52 through IV-65). In our opinion, the traffic routing strategies at these posts are likely to be perceived as con-trary to the safest and quickest route out of the EPZ by a substantial number of motorists. As a result, motorists are likely to disregard the instructions given by LILCO's traffic guides at these locations, resulting in traffic delays and con-gestion.
Post 45 - North Country Road & Rt. 25A at Woodville Road
-- This. traffic control post is located close to the west of the Shoreham plant, with the LILCO traffic guide instructed to l
1
)
l
l
. . . o
" facilitate" traffic east along Route 25A to Ridge Road.
(Appendix A, at IV-52). This attempt to direct traffic in an easterly direction, toward the plant, is not likely to be per-ceived as a safe route out of the EPZ and will likely be disre-garded by evacuees.
Post 49 - Rt. 25 at Ridce Road -- The LILCO traffic guide at this post is to direct 40 percent of southbound traffic west and 60 percent south; he is to " discourage" traffic frem pro-ceeding east on Route 25. (Appendix A, Figure 8, at IV-52; Table XII, at IV-39). Discouraging traffic from proceeding east at this location would, in all probability, lead to con-gestion and confrontations between motorists and LILCO's traf-fic guide, since the William Floyd Parkway, a major highway which would be perceived as providing ready access south and out of the EPZ, lies less than one mile to the east. Moreover, in our opinion there are not sufficient traffic guides at this location to carry out the traffic control strategy proposed by LILCO, especially considering LILCO's proposal to channelize traffic at this location by forming a right turn pocket "at the approach to Route 25." (See Appendix A, Table IX, at IV-20).6/
6/ In Revision 2 of the LILCO Plan, link. ( 3 8, 40), a 1-1/4 mile section of Ridge Road (southbocad) between Whiskey Road and Route 25, was included in Table VIII (" Conversion of (Footnote cont'd next page)
e Post $10 - Rt. 25 at Wading River Manor Rd. and Post #11-Wading River Manor Rd. at Grumman Blvd. -- The LILCO traffic
{
guides at these locations are instructed to " facilitate" traf-fic to the south and to " discourage" traffic to the north. In addition, the traffic guide at post #10 is to " discourage" i i
traffic to the west. (See Appendix A, at IV-52 and IV-53).
These traffic instructions will be disregarded by a significant number of Grumman employees who will want to travel north and west after leaving their place of employment at the nearby Grcaman Aerospace facility.
Post #14 - Rt. 25 at Edwards Avenue -- The LILCO traffic guide at this post is to " facilitate" all eastbound traffic on Route 25 south on Edwards Avenue. All southbound traffic on (Footnote cont'd from previous page)
Roadway Sections to One-way Flow") . This one-way flow treatment was removed in Revision 3 because, according to counsel for LILCO, "a physical survey of the link showed it could accommodate three lanes." Thus, it was made a channelization treatment and listed in Table IX of Appen-dix A. (See letter from D. Irwin regarding Revision 3 dated December 22, 1983, Attachment 1, at 4). However, LILCO's apparent utilization of this link to accommodate three lanes of traffic has not been included or otherwise explained anywhere in Revision 3 of the Plan, with the exception of that small section of this roadway "at [ the]
approach to Middle Country Road," where LILCO intends to channelize traffic by forming a right turn pocket. (See Appendix A, Table IX, at IV-20).
i 1
l i
Edwards Avenue is to be directed east on Route 25. (Appendix A, at IV-53). Motorists travelling south on Edwards Avenue are likely to disregard the instruction to head east on Route 25 because they would want to proceed south across the intersec-tion, and then continue south on Edwards Avenue, so that they could enter the Long Island Expressway at westbound Entrance Ramp 71, or continue southeast on County Road 94 (Nugent Drive), from where they could then proceed out of the EPZ.
Post #17 - Nugent Drive (CR 94) at Toppings Path -- This traffic post is located within sight of the Long Island Ex-pressway Entrance Ramp 71. The LILCO traffic guide at this post is instructed to " discourage" all westbound traffic on Nugent Drive. However, he is given no instruction to "facili-tate" traffic in any direction. (Appendix A, at IV-53). This traffic strategy therefore necessarily requires westbound traf-fic on Nugent Drive, which may have intended to enter the westbound Long Island Expressway, to make a "U" turn and then to proceed back toward Riverhead. Such a strategy would be disregarded by virtually every such motorist. Even though mo- .
torists gaining access to the Long Island Expressway would have .
to travel within the EPZ until Exit 66 (Sills Road) is passed, .
they would be within sight of the Long Island Expressway at the l
l l
o
point of this traffic post and, without question, the Long Island Expressway would be perceived as their quickest route out of the EP" .
. Post #37 - Rt. 25A at Broadway -- The LILCO traffic guide
)
at this location is instructed to direct traffic east on Route 25A. (Appendix A, at IV-55). This instruction will likely be perceived as contrary to the best route out of the EPZ, since motorists would be required to travel toward the relatively close-by Shoreham plant.
Post 4140 - Randall Road at Rt. 25A -- The LILCO traffic l
guide at this location is to direct traffic to the east. This guide is also to " discourage" traffic from proceeding to the 1
west or the south. ( Appendix A, at IV-65). These traffic instructions will likely be disregarded by many motorists.
Directing traffic to the east at this location will likely be perceived as contrary to a safe route out of the EPZ, since it requires motorists to drive in the direction of the Shoreham plant. For the same reason, it will likely be difficult to "diacourage" traffic from proceeding west or south.
As the preceding examples make clear, substantial numbers of evacuees can be expected to deviate from LILCO's prescribed i
1 I
l 1
ie l l
{ .
4
traffic rcutes. This will result in conflicting traffic flows and congestion. (See also Pigozzi testimony; Herr testimony; Saegert testimony). The traffic congestion which will occur will be exacerbated by the inability of LILCO's traffic guides to direct or control traffic effectively.
I Q. Please explain why LILCO's traffic guides will be un-able to direct or control traffic effectively.
t A. People are generally skeptical about accepting direc-tions from others. They may accept the dircetions of uniformed personnel, such as police officers, because of the authority I
they possess and the goverr; ment institutions they represent.
t But they will pay far less attention to persons out of uniform, partly because they have no reason to believe that such persons are authorized to regulate the conduct of others, and partly because they have no reason to believe that there is a way for such persons to enforce compliance with the instructions or directives being given.
While motorists are generally willing to accept the direc-tions and instructions of a uniformed police officer directing traffic, they are less willing to obey a person who is out of uniform, even if that person happens to be a police officer.
l I
l
We have all directed traffic while out of uniform and, almost without exception, there are some motorists who attempt to ig-nore or disregard Whatever instructions are given. Directing traffic is always difficult, but to direct traffic without the semblance of authority provided to a police officer by his uniform is even more difficult.
LILCO's traffic guides, there fore , would face an almost insurmountable task in attempting to direct evacuation traffic along LILCO's prescribed routes. In fact, many evacuees will.
likely identify the traffic guides as LILCO employees and blame them for forcing them to evacuate their homes. (See Saegert testimony). As a result, whatever dircctions are given will likely be viewed with skepticism and even hostility, leading to traffic delays. (See also Suffolk County testimony on Conten-tion 15 (LILCO's Lack of Credibility)).1/
Further, driver behavior is shaped by perceptions of the traffic' directions being given. When such directions are 7/ Of course, traffic would likely be delayed for other reasons as well. For exanple, because traffic guides will be viewed as LILCO employees, evacuees would likely try to solicit information regarding what is happening at the plant, and the degree of danger involved. This would also result in traffic backups and delays.
l l
1
i i
1 contrary to intended goals and, from a driver's perspective, are ill-advised, drivers may behave aggressively and may delib-erately disobey whatever directions are given. As discussed earlier, many of the turn movements and evacuation routes pre-scribed by LILCO will be perceived as being contrary to the in-terests of evacuees, and they will respond accordingly. At best, evacuees will argue with or attempt to persuade LILCO 's traffic guides that a mandated traffic route is not the best way out of the EPZ . This will cause traffic delays and conges-tion as traffic backs up behind upset drivers.8/ Such delays and congestion may lead to physical confrontations between LILCO's traffic guides and evacuees and even between evacuees, 8/ Revision 3 of Appendix A no longer describes the actions of traffic guides as " preventing" evacuees frcm travelling contrary to LILCO's prescribed evacuation routes; instead, traffic guides are now described as " discouraging" evacuees frem travelling contrary to prescribed routes.
Conversely, evacuees are to be " encouraged" to comply with LILCO's prescribed routes and its traffic control measures, such as channelization treatments. LILCO's traffic guides will " facilitate," or give priority access to, those vehicles which follow LILCO's prescribed routes and traffic control measures. (See Appendix A, at IV-23a and Figure 8).
In our opinion, whether described as " preventing" or
" discouraging" traffic flow, the result will be the same:
there will be traffic delays and congestion as confused or angry motorists are given directions which they will per-ceive as contrary to their best interests.
l further delaying evacuation times. Without question, a substantial number of evacuees will simply ignore the direc-I tions given by LILCO's traffic guides and travel along routes that they believe provide a more direct way out of the EPZ.
An analogous situation can be found at places of roadway construction. Despite advance warning signs advising motorists that an upccming lane is closed, some motorists will invariably continue in this lane until they reach the construction site barrier and can go no further. They will then attempt to merge into the adjacent lane, causing delays and congestion. They will also verbally and sometimes physically abuse construction workers, especially the road flagmen, whom they blame for caus-ing the traffic congestion and delayr.. (See, e.g., the excerpt frcm the September 8, 1983 Newsday article, appended to this testimony as Attachment 6).
This same type of driver behavior, or worse, must be ex-pected to occur should an evacuation of the EPZ ever be neces-s a ry . In our opinion, this is another reason why LILCO's traf-fic control plan could not be implemented and carried out suc-cessfully.
.. 4 . .
C. Wouldn't LILCO's training program for the traffic guides alleviate many of the problems you have described?
A. No. We have reviewed LILCO's training program for the traffic guides and, in our opinion, it is totally unre-alistic to expect that, based on the training received, LILCO's traffic guides will be able to direct or control traffic with any degree of success, particularly in light of the extreme circumstances and high anxiety that would exist during an evac-uation. (See Saegert testimony). Many specific deficiencies in the LILCO training program will be discussed in detail in the Suffolk County testimony concerning Contentions 39-41 and 44.D, E and F. Certain matters are pertinent here, however.
Classroom training, at best, can only provide the fundamentals of traffic control techniques. However, the abil-ity to direct and control traffic successfully is a skill that can only be developed through time and experience in the field.
For just this reason, rookie police officers, after 18 weeks of intensive training, testing, and graduation from the Suffolk County Police Academy, assume patrol duties under the close su-pervision of a veteran police officer, who prepares a daily report on the rookie police officer's progress. During the first year, rookies are kept on probation status, watched by
. e o o i
I veteran officers. Only after a year',s time is the probation status removed. In fact, for the first six months, a rookie police officer is never sent into the field without the direct supervision of a certified training officer.
Despite these precautions, trained police officers will invariably make some mistakes during the early years of a ca-reer. It is not unusual, for example, for a rookie police of-ficer caught up in his first high speed chase to be involved in an accident. Such " rookie accidents" are part of learning how to deal with stress and anxiety. Mistakes also occur in the course of directing traffic which, in some respects, is a difficult task for even experienced police officers. To repeat, traffic direction is a skill. It is a skill which requires the ability to concentrate on a variety of changing facts and circumstances while performing under, at times, stressful conditions. Overcoming the stress, anxiety and frus-tration invariably connected with traffic control duties requires considerable experience.
In our opinion, LILCO's proposed reliance upon inexperi-enced persons, who are not receiving sufficient ongoing training, to perform traffic control responsibilities is im-practical, unworkable, and cannot lead to a traffic. control l
l
plan capable of being implemented. It will create confusion rather than eliminate it and will likely result in increased traffic congestion and traffic accidents. Nevertheless, LILCO intends to use just such inexperienced persons as traffic guides. (See, e.g., 'J. Barrows deposition).9/ LILCO's traffic guides are LILCO employees. The vast majority are meter readers; th,e others are persons with jobs such as customer relations representatives. (See ccmputer printout dated October 27, 1983, entitled "LERO Organization," produced by LILCO on November 11, 1983 in response to Suffolk County dis-covery requests ("LERO Organization printout")). For the most
! part, these traffic guides will have never directed traffic, even under training conditions, since the LILCO training pro-gram does not include any traffic direction exercises. In fact, the LILCO drills and exercises for traffic guides really consist of little more than familiarization with the mobiliza-tion and briefing procedures that are expected to be imple-mented at the various staging areas. Each traffic guide's
" field experiences," for example, will consist of little more l
l 9/ For example, during his deposition, Mr. Barrows stated that he was not qualified to be a traffic guide, that he had no experience in directing traffic, and that he had never directed traffic. ( Barrows deposition at 25-26, 51-52).
. . . o than driving to the location of a traffic control post, where he can observe the post and traffic conditions. (See "Long Is-land Lighting Company Local Energency Response Organization Traffic Guidance Drill," prepared by Impell Corporation, October, 1983, and produced by LILCO on November 16, in re-sponse to Suffolk County discovery requests) . Thus, if LILCO's traffic guides are ever put to the test, it vill be during a radiological emergency, under conditions that would severely test even an experienced police officer.
The LILCO traffic guides will face other obstacles as well. Many of them do not live or work in or near the EPZ. In fact, more rhan 55 percent of LILCO's traffic guides live more than 30 miles from the Shoreham plant, and more than 59 percent work more than 30 miles frcm the plant. (See data regarding approximate distances frcm the Shoreham plant for LILCO-designated traffic guides, prepared from the LERO Organization printout and appended to this testimony as Attachment 7).
These persons, therefore, will probably not be intimately familiar with the area and the traffic posts assigned to them.19./ Familiarity with the area -- including side roads and 1
10/ For example, Mr. Barrows testified at his deposition that j he did not know the boundaries of the EPZ. (Barrows depo-l sition at 75-76). Nor could he identify the location of l
(Footnote cont'd next page)
l 0 . . .
established traffic patterns -- is extremely knportant to the performance of traffic control duties and, like actually directing traffic, can only be learned over time through direct experience. Even with the best possible advance planning, un-expected conditions will develop requiring bnmediate decisions and changes in traffic strategies. Without a good knowledge of the area, including familiarity with the local roadways and the locations of emergency and special facilities, more often than not, the decisions made by traffic guides and the changes in traffic strategies that they may be required to implement will not be successful. Coordination of traffic between the LILCO traffic guides would suffer, very likely resulting in conflict-ing traffic flows and congestion.ll/ For example, traffic may
+ 't (Footnote cont'd from previous page) the Shoreham plant more precisely than "the north shore of Long Island." (Id.) This was despite the fact that he had already received his classroom overview training regarding the LILCO Plan. (Id. at 66). That is, although he had been " trained" by LILCO about the location of the plant and the EPZ, he still could not identify either the plant's location or the EPZ boundaries.
11/ Coordination between traffic guides will, in any event, be
~
limited due to the communications system proposed under the LILCO Plan. Deficiencies in LILCO's communications system will be discussed in Suffolk County testimony ad-dressing Contentions 28-34 (Communications Among Emergency Workers).
be directed into a heavily congested area, thereby further delaying evacuation times. Should a LILCO traffic guide not be familiar with the area Where he is posted, traffic could be directed contrary to instructions that might be communicated to t
him while he is at his post, simply because the area is unfa-miliar and the streets and roads unknown. Lack of familiarity with the area will also lead to evacuees losing confidence in LILCO's routing strategy, since LILCO traffic guides would be unable to answer inquiries frcm evacuees or to tell them Where a particular or alternate route will take them. Of course, mo-torists would also lose confidence in the LILCO traffic guides, and this would further undermine the LILCO traffic control strategies that are to be hnplemented and enforced at other traffic posts and designated intersections.
C. Please summarize the concerns and conclusions you have made with respect to contention 65.C.4.
A. In our opinion, LILCO's traffic control plan is in-herently flawed. It is a paper exercise, and would not work.
It is based on a traffic control scheme with prescribed routes end traffic movements. It therefore lacks the flexibility to deal with problems likely to occur during an evacuation. (See Herr testimony; see also Pigozzi testimony) .
!. . . e ,
I l
I I
M.o r eover , LILCO's plan is based on some unrealistic as-samptions. It is unrealistic to assume that LILCO personnel can effectively direct and control traffic. It is also unrealistic to prescribe evacuation routes, just as it is unrealistic to l
assume that evacuees will ccmply with LILCO's prescribed routes and traffic control strategies, even if those routes and strategies are contrary to their perceptions of the most expeditious way out of the EPZ. Nevertheless, LILCO's traffic control scheme relies upon such unrealistic assumptions. In our opinion, this scheme is therefore unwockable and could never be successfully implemented.
V. Contention 65.C.1 Q. Contention 65.C.1 alleges that by screening motorists noving in a direction contrary to LILCO's prescribed traffic routes, LILCO traffic guides will impede traffic flow and cause traffic congestion, further increasing LILCO's evacuation time estimates. Do you agree with this Contention?
A. Yes. We understand that in Revision 2 of Appendix A, LILC'O for the first tLne " abandoned" the concept of formal
" screening" of motorists moving in a direction contrary to pre-scribed traffic flows to determine whether each motorist has a
- - . _ _ - . = _ - - - . _ - - ._- . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . . .-
- 1. s . e "gcod reason" for going in that direction. (See LILCO's Reply 4
]
to Suffolk County's Motior.s for Delay of Its Testimony Filing, i
dated November 10, 1983, at 3-4, citing LILCO's " abandonment of forcible evacuation perimeter control measures") . LILCO, how-ever, still intends to " discourage" traffic moving contrary to prescribed traffic ficws. (Appendix A, at IV-23a and Figure
- 8). For example, LILCO traffic guides will use cones to channel traffic onto certain roads or to close one or more
, lanes to traffic. (Lieberman deposition of September 20, 1983, at 253-54). Other devices, such as barriers and vehicles, will also be used in an attempt to force evacuees to travel along prescribed routes. (Appendix A, at IV-19). Under the best of circumstances, such traffic control devices will likely disrupt traffic and cause considerable congestion by causing traffic to slow down. For example, some personal contact between traffic guides and motorists moving in directions contrary to pre-scribed traffic flow will still be necessary. Motorists will stop to ask questions or to persuade traffic guides to let them go in their intended directions. At the very least, motorists
- may slow down before going through a barricade or cones set up j to " discourage" them frcm driving in a particular direction.
l
! In short, LILCO's traffic control scheme will cause disruption and, ultimately, congestion because motorists will have to slow down or stop in response to the LILCO traffic controls. i i
. , . - - -,- ,- _ - . , - . -._w , , , _ , , _ . - ,
,. o .
- I Morever, even with LILCO's abandonment of a formal screening process, there will have to be at least two traffic guides at cach traffic post. Otherwise, any time that a traf-fic guide talks to one motorist, several others will likely tike advantage of the opportunity to proceed along intended routes that might be contrary to the routes or traffic strategies prescribed by LILCC. Of course, motorists who stop because they are confused or because they want to ask questions will block motorists behind them from continuing. This will back up traffic and cause motorists to change lanes, likely re-i sulting in further delays in traffic ficw.
From a practical standpoint, there fore , the traffic control methods proposed by LILCO will only cause additional traffic congestion and delays. The end result will likely be that motorists will travel in Uhatever direction they wish to travel, but it will take them even longer to get there because they will have to deal with LILCO traffic guides or control mechanisms, and resulting delays and congestion, along the way.
LILCO's traffic control methods and devices and its ef-forts to " discourage" motorists from travelling contrary to prescribed traffic flows may also lead to confrontations l between traffic guides and evacuees. Even under " normal"
i . . . .
1 traffic conditions, police must often confront angry motorists who do not wish to obey traffic directions. For example, driv-
! ers stuck in congested traffic frequently display anger and hostility toward police officers if they believe that the offi-cers are doing an inadequate job of directing traffic. Under the conditions that would exist during a radiological emergen-cy, anger and anxieties could quickly escalate into aggressive behavior. The fact that LILCO's traffic guides will not be uniformed or authorized to direct traffic will eliminate con-straints that might otherwise prevent many drivers from dis-
- playing such aggression. As a result, LILCO's traffic guides might be assaulted by enraged drivers. Surely, they will be ignored by many people. (See Saegert testimony).
i l
In summary, LILCO's proposed methods of dealing with mo-i torists who wish to go in directions contrary to the LILCO pre-scribed routes will not work and will, in fact, result in back-ups and delays. (See Pigozzi testimony; see also Herr testimo-ny).
l 1
l'
. - - , e -,. - i
I VI. Contention 65.C. 2 Q. Contention 65.C.2 alleges that LILCO's attempted use of traffic controls will cause aggressive behavior on the part of evacuees and conflicts between evacuees.and traffic guides, resulting in traffic delays and increased traffic congestion.
Do you agree with this Contention?
A. Yes. There is every reason to expect aggressive behavior by motorists attempting to evacuate the LILCO EPZ .
Whenever there are heavy, stop-and-go traffic conditions, driv-ers become aggressive and more willing to disregard traffic laws. As police officers, we have all witnessed the frequent lane changing and shoulder riding that invariably occur when traffic is congested. During rush hour traffic on the Long Is-land Expressway, shoulder riding is common, despite intensive law enforcement against this hazardous practice. It is also ccmmon for motorists to travel along service roads, which are one-way routes adjacent and parallel to the Long Island Ex-pre s sway , in an attempt to bypass congestion on the Expressway.
During a radiological emergency and subsequent evacuation of the EPZ, this would be a particular problem for motorists --
and traffic guides -- unfamiliar with the area, because many of the Expressway service roads in Suffolk County are incomplete and dead end without warning.
l The aggressive behavior which must be expected on the part of those attempting to evacuate the EPZ will stem in part from fear of radiation and in part from the confrontations with traffic guides that will result when motorists decide that it is in their best interests to travel contrary to the directions of LILCO's traffic guides. (See discussion, supra). Fear affects driver behavior and performance. Fear causes people to take whatever action they feel is necessary to protect themselves and their families. If a LILCO traffic guide were to " discourage" a driver already fearful for his and his fami-ly's safety from driving on a certain road, there is little likelihood that the LILCO traffic guide's directions would be obeyed. (See Saegert testimony). If the driver were allowed to take the road, other drivers would likely follow his lead, hoping perhaps that he would lead them to a short-cut route that would evacuate then more quickly. The most well-meaning efforts by LILCO traffic guides would not be able to prevent this from happening.
~
In our opinion, the aggressive behavior by evacuees which I
I has to be expected during a radiological emergency would leave LILCO's traffic guides powerless to control traffic or to l
I enforce LILCO's traffic strategies. This aggressive behavior 1
i l
l .
l l
would likely result in accidents, traffic backups, and potential grid-lock. Without question, traffic guides themselves would face the brunt of driver hostility and aggres-l siv eness . During the gasoline shortages of the 1970 's, drivers on Long Island literally fought over positions in gas lines.
At least one person was killed when an overly aggressive driver drove into hin as he was pumping gas into his car. In our opinion, similar aggressiveness could result during a radiological emergency and ensuing evacuation, for then people would face life-threatening fears for their safety. For this reason, it is reasonable to expect assaults and fist fights between motorists and between motorists and LILCO traffic guides.
In short, there is a very real potential for conflicts between LILCO's traffic guides and evacuees. Such conflicts would result in traffic backups, confusion, accidents and possibly injuries, all of which would increase traffic conges-tion and evacuation times. (See also Herr testimony; Saegert testinony) . The LILCO Plan and tbne estimates, however, never address such behavior, thus ' reflecting their lack of validity to the real conditions that would be faced on Long Is?.and.
(See Pigozzi testimony) .
l VII. Contention 65.C.3 O. Contention 65.C.3 alleges that because LILCO's traf-Lic guides will not alter traffic signal lights, the traffic control strategies they implement may be contrary '.o the direc-tions given by the signals, causing confusion and congestion and further delaying traffic movement. Do you agree with this contention?
A. Yes. Attempting to regulate traffic contrary to traffic signals or control devices, such as traffic lights, is extremely difficult and usually proves unsuccessful. It results in confusing motorists. People are conditioned to pay attention to and obey traffic signals by years of habit and driving experience. Moreover, traffic signals are generally much more visible to approaching traffic than is a person standing in the highway or intersection. Thus, any time traf-fic is directed contrary to traffic signals, motorists are being given mixed instructions as to how they are to proceed.
When uniformed police officers direct traffic under these circumstances, the results are not always successful, and there is almost always a problem. LILCO's traffic guides, however, will experience even more difficulty in attempting to direct t
i
l l
l l
traffic against traffic signals. In all probability, motorists will only obey LILCO's traffic guides or traffic signals when, by doing so, they are able to do what they want to do anyway, i.e., go forward. In any event, motorists will become confused, thereby increasing the likelihood of accidents, possibly with injuries, further causing delays in traffic flow.
Q. Couldn't LILCO's traffic guides direct traffic in coordination with traffic signals such as traffic lights?
A. No. Many traffic lights are traffic actuated, i.e.,
they are designed to cycle in accordance with the flow of traf-fic. The sporadic traffic flow and delays that will result frem the confusion of motorists approaching intersections where the traffic is being directed by LILCO's traffic guides will disrupt the normal function of traffic signals, thereby making it impossible for traffic to be directed in coordination with the cycle of the signals. For this reason, police officers, when required to direct traffic against traffic signals, will either turn off the signals or put the signals on flash. In this way, motorists are not confused by conflicting instructions and the officers can gain control of the situa-tion. However, LILCO's traffic guides are not going to change traffic signals in any way. (Compare Appendix A, Rev. O to l
I Append 52 A, Rev. 3). Thus, motorists will be confronted by conflicting instructions, leading to confusion and further increasing traffic congestion and evacuation times.
VIII. Contention 65.D C. Contention 65.D reads as follows :
The LILCO time estimates assume that
'[n]o major vehicle breakdown or other types of incidents [will] occur which block major routes for an extended time." (AP-pendix A, at V-2). This assumption is un-realistic and leads to an underestimation of the time required for evacuation. Exam-pies of factors which increase congestion and thus increase time estimates, and which should have been included in LILCO's estimates, include:
- 1. Anticipated traffic accidents and automobile breakdowns, including running out of gas ( for example, the Suffolk County police responded in 1982 to 10,000 incidents such as accidents and breakdowns on the Suffolk County portion of the Long Island Expressway, thus indicating the potential for this factor to influence se-verely evacuation times)
- 2. The absence of shoulders on some primary or secondary routes which will be used during an evacuation;
- 3. Road construction / repair work ,
which can be assumed to be ongoing at any time; and
- 4. Abandonment of vehicles under emergency conditions.
C- - .
Q. Do you agree with this Contention?
A. Yes. As pointed out in Contention 65.D, Appendix A, at V-2, states explicitly that LILCO's evacuation time estimates do not consider the effects of " major vehicle break-down[s] (or other types of incidents)" which may block evacua-tion routes. In our opinion, without considering such factors as accidents, breakdowns, cars running out of gas, the absence of shoulders on some evacuation routes, road construction and i
repair, and the abandonment of vehicles, the LILCO time estimates are unrealistic and substantially underestimate the time required for evacuation.
Q. In your opinion, are traffic accidents and automobile breakdowns liksly to occur during an evacuation?
i A. Certainly. During 1982, the Suffolk County police responded to approximately 10,000 incidents such as accidents and breakdewns just on the Suffolk County portion of the Long Island Expressway, a distance of approximately 43 miles.
Accidents and breakdowns occur every day, and during the emer-gency atmosphere of an evacuation, the number and severity of these incidents would likely increase dramatically. (See Polk l
I testimony). Of course, it would not take a major accident or i
l l
l l
%.w t breakdown to cause heavy congestion and traffic backups.
During an evacuation, with heavy traffic conditions, interrup-tions in trahfic flow would cause congestion.
People are re-luctant, in most situations, to drive away from an accident they are invclved in and leave their cars where they are, even after a minor accident, until the police arrive to "investi-gate." During an evacuation, people would likely be more willing to move on and worry about the damage later. However, some people would step and at least engage in conversations and, depending on the circumstances, confrontations with the driver ( s) of the other car ( s) might result. Some drivers would stop their cars in traffic lanes, blocking traffic behind them.
This would cause other drivers to change lanes, increasing the chances of other accidents. Of course, some accidents might resbit in injuries to drivers or passengers that are severe enough that continuing out of the EPZ would be impossible.
Fur ther, some cars would be damaged and unable to move.
Invariably, drivers passing by the scene of an accident will slow down and " rubberneck," further slowing traffic. If a ve-hicle were damaged so as to render it inoperable, it may be im-,
possible to move it to the shoulder of the road (assuming one exists) because, in all probability, the shoulder would be unavailable due to its use as a traffic lane by motorists seeking to get around the accident.
r
( .
l l
l
. o . .
1 Other factors also would slow traffic. Even without accidents, breakdowns will occur. (See Folk testimony). For example, cars will run out of gas and will likely be abandoned.12/ In the heat of summer, slow moving traffic results in some vehicles overheating and stalling in traffic lanes. Fog and heavy rain reduce traffic flow and can cause congestion. Winter storms, particularly snow or ice storms, also result in reducing traffic flow, causing congestion, as slow moving traffic loses friction with road surfaces. During a snowstorm in 1979, nearly 3,000 vehicles were abandoned in the traffic lanes of the Long Island Expressway when a tractor trailer slid in the snew, blocking the Expressway.
Q. Where, in your opinion, would most traffic accidents and breakdowns occur during an evacuation?
A. It is safe to say that many accidents and traffic problems would occur at traffic intersections. Attached to this testimony as Attachment 8 is a list of the 14 intersec-tions within the Sixth Precinct with the highest number of 12/ LILCO's plan to dispense fuel from LILCO fuel trucks at l
locations along evacuation routes (Appendix A, at IV-176) will be addressed in Suffolk County's testimony on Conten-tion 66.
reported traffic accidents during the year beginning September 1982. Three of these intersections are not designated as manned traffic control posts under Appendix A, even though, for these three intersections, a total of 57 traffic accidents were reported during the last year.13/ If all the accidents that could affect an evacuation were included in this total, the figure would be substantially higher. All these intersections are located within the Sixth Precinct patrol area inside the 10-mile EPZ.
Major highways and heavily travelled roads would also be prime problem areas for accidents and breakdowns. These would include the Long Island Expressway, the William Floyd Parkway, Route 347, Route 112, the Sunrise Highway, Nicolls Road, and Routes 25 and 25A. Traffic flew would be heaviest along these routes and, accordingly, a significant number of accidents and breakdowns would likely occur. Attached to this testimony as Attachment 9 is a chart showing the results of a study prepared by the Suffolk County Police Department of traffic accidents which occurred during the last year along designated roadway I 13/ Under New York law, an accident is required to be reported
~~
if the property damage exceeds $400, or if the accident.
results in personal injury. Of course, a substantial number of accidents that fall within these criteria are probably not reported.
l l
l
l l
l sections of five major highways within the Sixth Precinct (Rt.
25, Rt. 25A, County Road 21, County Road 83, and Rt. 112) relied upon by LILCO as maj or evacuation routes. (See gene ra' ly , evacuation routes, Appendix A, at IV-75 through IV-165). The roadway sections chosen correspond to traffic nodes identified in Appendix A. Two traffic nodes were selected for each major highway. Intersecting roads between these nodes and the major highways were identified and surveyed for traffic accidents reported during the last year. A total of 816 traffic accidents were reported at the 118 intersections identified. Of these 118 intersections, only 30 are designated
! as manned traffic control posts in Figure 8 to Appendix A.
Many of the roads and intersections in the bnmediate vi-cinity of the Shoreham plant also provide likely locations for traffic accidents and breakdowns. Certain roads, for example North Country Road, North Wading River Road, and Randall Road (east), are somewhat hilly and winding and their capacity to handle heavy traffic flow is severely limited. Nonetheless, these roads are relied upon by LILCO as evacuation routes.
(See generally, evacuation roittes, Appendix A, at IV-75 through IV-165). Even some of the major highways close to the Shoreham plant, such as Routes 25 and 25A, are intersected by a number of streets and thus become heavily congested very quickly.
l l
Q. Would the absence of shoulders on primary or second-ary routes increase traffic congestion and delay traffic flow?
A. Yes, and there are a number of roads in the EPZ that either have no shoulders or have inadequate shoulders. In fact, only the Long Island Expressway and the William Floyd Parkway have fairly wide shoulders along most of their road surfaces. The other major roadways in the EPZ -- Routes 25 and 25A -- have Ihnited shoulders in substantial areas.
Many of the secondary roads in the EPZ have shoulders that are not paved, and, in reality, are just strips of sand. These shoulders could not be driven without four-wheel drive vehi-cles; other vehicles would sink into the shoulder area. In addition, many of the roads without shoulders are flanked by wooded areas, embankments, or gullies. Thus, any vehicle breakdown or accident would block a* substantial part of the roadway, severely limiting traffic flow. Along these roads, emergency vehicles would be severely hampered or even precluded from quickly responding to traffic accidents and other energencies, since there would be no route of access not blocked by evacuating traffic.
Attached to this testimony as Attachment 10 is a listing of shoulder capacities for roadways in the EPZ.
Q. Would road construction / repair work increase traffic congestion and delay traffic flow?
A. Yes. At any given time, there is construction or road repair taking place on roads in Suffolk County. See At-tachment 11 to this testimony for a description of State and Suffolk County road improvement projects currently included in the Nassau-Suffolk Transportation Improvement Program for the period April 1984 - March 1989. Road construction and repair or maintenance work impedes traffic flow even under normal conditions. In an evacuation, with increased traffic flow, traffic congestion and delays would be far worse. Moreover, some construction / repair work could not be stopped so as to allow traffic to proceed unimpeded. For example, cement may be broken open for repair work; these lanes could not be repaired quickly and would be unavailable to traffic.
Due to the congestion created by road construction and repair work, attempts have been made to' close certain roadways during nighttime hours in order to perform repair work with the least disruption to traffic. The Long Island Expressway is an
example of where, despite this approach, heavy congestion at detours and at secondary roads has resulted. In addition, there have been several instances of truck drivers not familiar with the area who have attenpted to bypass construction by en-tering parkways, only to strike overpasses which do not provide sufficient clearar.ce. This has brought about disastrous consequences: not only is the Expressway then closed to all traffic, but the secondary parkway road is blocked off as well.
Q. Would the abandonment of vehicles increase traffic congestion and delay traffic flow?
A. Yes. When vehicles are abandoned, traffic lanes be-come impassable until the vehicles can be pushed off the road surface or towed away. On roads where there are no shoulders, towing is the only option. Towing a vehicle is a time consuming process even when the emergency equipment is avail-able. Of course, under the congested traffic conditions that would characterize an evacuation of LILCO's EPZ, it is unlikely that tow trucks would be able to quickly get to dis-abled/ abandoned vehicles.
! People will abandon vehicles for any number of reasons. l During adverse weather conditions, for example, the abandonment l
l l l
l l . - -
1 of vehicles is commonplace. Until another motorist renders assistance to remove the vehicle from the. road, the dis-abled/ abandoned vehicle will ramain in a traffic lane and cause delays and possibly accidents since other motorists change i lanes in an attempt to get around the disabled / abandoned vehi-1 cle. While some people might ordinarily render assistance to a disabled motorist, many other people will merely drive around the disabled vehicle and continue on their way. This would certainly be more likely during a radiological emergency.
Then, people would probably only stop to render assistance if they believed that removal of the vehicle frcm the roadway I would provide their only way to continue driving out of the i
EPZ.
IX. Contention 65.H Q. Contention 65.H alleges that LILCO has not provided enough evacuation route spotters to cover the evacuation routes and that, in any event, these route spotters will be unable to t move expeditiously through heavily congested traffic. As a resul t, it is clabned that LILCO will be unable to know about and to knplement appropriate measures for evacuees to avoid such congestion, resulting in increased evacuation times. Do you agree with this Contenti n?
1
l A. Yes. There is no doubt that the six evacuation route spotters provided for under the LILCO Plan (Plan, Figure 2.1.1, page 3 of 4) cannot cover the 11 evacuation routes prescribed by LILCO (see Appendix A, Figure 8.1), even assuming that there would be no traffic congestion impeding their travel through the EPZ. Of course, there will be such congestion, and LILCO's evacuation route spotters will be sdbject to the smme traffic conditions prevailing for other vehicles. Movement through congested traffic conditions will be difficult, if not impossi-ble, at times. To our knowledge, these route spotters will not be driving vehicles recognized by the public as emergency vehi-cles; nor will these vehicles be equipped with sirens, or red lights. Further, travel along shoulders, if they exist, will be impeded by other traffic and, in all likelihood, abandoned / disabled vehicles. There is no reason to expect other motorists to yield to these route spotters and, as a re sul t, they will travel only as fast as the traffic flow permits.
l
e i X. Contention 23.H j
Q. Contention 23.H alleges that the LILCO Plan fails to provide adequate measures at the EPZ perbneter to control access to evacuated areas. Do you agree with this Contention?
A. Yes. In our opinion, regardless of the technique or i
tactic used, LILCO's traffic guides will not be able to provide f adequate control of access into the LILCO EPZ. In the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, some persons will attempt to get to their homes and families and they will not be deterred by the fact that this would cause them to travel into i
the LILCO EPZ. Other persons would seek access into the EPZ for other reasons, including p.erhaps to loot vacated houses and i
'. businesses. In addition, transients and others not aware of an evacuation order might unintentionally enter into the EPZ and thereby be exposed to, and contaminated by, health-threatening radiation doses. Whatever the reason, LILCO's traffic guides I will not be able to control access into the EPZ with any degree i
of success. This is primarily because the LILCO Plan virtually ignores access control into the LILCO EPZ or portions of the EPZ. (See Attachment 12 to this testimcny for a listing of in-tersections that would have to be manned by persons with requi-site authority in order to prevent vehicular traffic into evacuated areas of the EPZ).
1 Even if LILCO were to provide for adequately manned traf-fic control posts at every route into the LILCO EPZ, its traf-fic guides would not be able to provide adequate access control into the EPZ. LILCO's traffic guides lack the authority and the training and experience to direct and control traffic ef-fectively. Thus, evacuees are likely to disregard Whatever instructions are given to them by these traffic guides. (See discussion, supra).
In our opinion, even trained, experienced police officers would find controlling access into the EPZ to be an exceedingly difficult task. We sometimes have problems keeping people out of restricted areas during emergencies. If people wish to enter the area and believe they have good reason for doing so, they will do whatever they can to get into the area, irrespec-tive of the risk to their personal safety. We have all
' witnessed police officers having to restrain people who believe that their families are trapped frcm entering burning homes.
There is no reason to believe that people would act differently if they believed their families were trapped or otherwise helpless inside the EPZ. They would do whatever was necessary to get into the EPZ. Traffic would be disrupted by traffic congestion and accidents. Disagreements and arguments between l
l l
o , ,
motorists and LILCO's traffic guides would occur. Some violence could be expected.
Moreover, without adequate access control into the EPZ, some persons may travel into evacuating areas without even realizing that they have done so. Then, of course, there would likely be additional traffic congestion within the EPZ, further increasing LILCO's evacuation time estimates.
Q. Do you have any other concerns regarding access control into the EPZ?
A. Yes. The LILCO Plan fails to provide adequate measures to control access into the EPZ from the East End of Long Island. As a result, people evacuating from the East End may cross into the EPZ without even knowing that they are trav-elling into contaminated areas.
LILCO apparently recognizes the necessity of preventing traffic originating east of the EPZ from entering the EPZ dur-ing evacuation. For example, at IV-8 of Appendix A, LILCO states that it will establish control posts at Sound Avenue and Doctor's Path ( traffic post 116) and at Old Country Road and Roanoke Avenue (traffic post 23) in order to " discourage" westbound traffic "from continuing west toward the EPZ and to i
redirect traffic south toward Sunrise highway." LILCO also intends to establish traffic control posts at three other loca-tions (traffic posts 21, 22 nnd 112) that could also perform this access control function. (See Appendix A, Figure 8).
Ecwever, it would be necessary to establish traffic control posts at several other additional locations in order to reroute all westbound traffic from the East End south toward the San-rise Highway. Attachment 13 to this testimony sets forth other locations that would have to be manned.
For example, there are several routes into the EPZ from both the North and South Forks of Long Island. However, as mentioned, the only LILCO traffic control posts that would be able to control access from the North and South Forks are the five traffic posts mentioned above. On the North Fork, there are no traffic posts along Northville Turnpike. On the South Fork, there are no traffic posts along County Road 104 or State Route 24. In our opinion, LILCO's failure to provide for traf-fic posts or other measures to control access into the EPZ from the East End is a further serious deficiency of the LILCO Plan which emphasizes LILCO's incapability to devise or implement a workable plan.
0- . .
Q. Does that complete your amended testimony?
A. Yes.
i
1 3 8 AT".A G E 1 1
1 i
i i
O a
1 A :achment 1 Statements of Cualifications of Suffolk County Police Department Witnesses on Emercency Plannine Cententicn: 65 and 23.E Suffolk County hereby submits the qualifications of the following suffolk County Police Department officers who will I testify on E=argency Planning Contentions 65 and 23.H on behalf of Suffolk County: .
Inspector Richard C. Roberts Inspector Joseph L. Monteith Deputy Inspector Philip McGuire .
Deputy Inspector Michael J. Curano, Jr.
Captain Edwin J. Michel 4
9 4
9 I
le I
f l
I r
l
---m , ,_
7 I
RICHARD C. ROBERTS Suffolk County Police Department Yaphank, New York EDUCATION:
BA Degree, Criminal Justice Southhampton College, Long Island University Southampton, New York AAS Degree, Police Science State University Farmingdale, New York FBI National Academy Quantico, Virginia successfully completed several in-service training courses, including Criminal Investigation School, Police Supervisor School and executive development seminars, conducted by my employer, the New York State Chief's of Police Association, the FBI Training Division and the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
EMPLUYMENT:
May 1956 to December 1959 l Criminal Investigator District Attorney's Office County of Suffolk, New York Conducted investigations of major crimes and indictable offenses, assisted in trial prepara-tion and performed related investigative activities.
January 1, 1960 to Present Inspector Suffolk County Police Department Yaphank, New York As a member of a Department with 2,600 sworn officers and 800 civilian employees, have been assigned to supervisory and managerial positions with progressive levels of responsibility. Performed duties at Squad, Bureau and Division levels, managing personnel engaged in patrol activities and the investigation of all classes of crime.
Performed duties as a Precinct Commander, responsible for the performance of 235 sworn officers and other
auxiliary police personnel. Area of responsibility included managing law enforcement activity in an area 170 square miles with a population of 235,000.
Developed skills as a supervisor, planner and administrator during twenty-six (26) years as a professional law enforcement officer.
Participated in developing and implementing special
. tactical response plans for policing municipal facilities and industrial complexes, including the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station and Parr Meadows Race Track.
Coordinated police and security activities with f acility and contract security groups representing large shopping center complexes, industrial sites and government facilities.
Presently assigned as an Inspector with the Office of the Chief of Patrol, Suffolk County Police Department.
AFFILIATIONS:
New York State Association' of Chiefs of Police -
FBI National Academy Associates National Sheriff's Association American Society for Industrial Security i
1 Eceume of Joseph L. Monteith Fi?.SC:'A: DAT!.: Born: Decer.ber 23. L'939
!!arried. 2 children Eccellent Eecith C ', 190 lbs.
E:: CATI:": Manhattan Coilace
'E.E.A. in Econchics, June 23_ 296 M.S. in Management, September i; 1979 PRCFESSICT'AL T?AINI.'G: Certificate from the Moran Institute for the Study of Juvenite Delinquency, St. Ts~rence University, June 1966 Certificate in Barcotic Lau Enforcement, The U.S. Dept.
of Justice, Druc Enforcement A6ninistration, March 1976 Graduate, F.B.I. Nat5cnct Academu, March 1975 (200th Session)
Certificates frca various Lau Enforcement Schools sponsored by the Suffolk County Police Department.
The Neu Iork State Chiefs of Police Association, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the American Academy for Professional Lau Enforcement.'
E??LO!!E*":: Suffolk County Police Department, Iaphank Avenue:
Icohank.Rev Iork it980 June 1962 - Catober 1965 Patrolman: Perfomed att of the duties of this position 3ncluding foot patrol, desk duty and Sector Car Assign.
ments.
~
October 1965 - January 1967 Detective: Juvenile Aid Bureau - Responsible for invest.
igating crimes involving persons under the age of 16 years, preparing cases for presentation in Farily Court, and envising the County Attorney on the disposition of these cases. Also responsible for periodic inspection of public places frequented by young people (Licensed Premises, Pool Halls, etc.) and taking enforcement action when varranted.
. muary 1967 - At::ch 1923 Detective: Fifth Squad - Responsible for the investigation of all felonies and certain misdemeanors comitted within the area of the Fifth Precinct. Duties included taking statements from complainants, defendants and witnesses as weit as developing leads, conducting crime scene searches, mking arrests, and preparing cases for Grand Jury presen-tation.
M::ch 1989 - Aprit 1989 Detective: Criminal Intelligence Squad, (A 12 member unit assigned to the office of the Chief of Detectives 1 -
Responsible for the ccmpilation and analysis of data concerning the histories, associates. movements etc.
of persons knoun or suspected to have connections with Organized Crime.
Page :
bhrdh tat? - April 1959 cont'd Detective Cr:minal Inteilicence S uai 1 Duties included physical c5 electronic surveillance catensive report criting, as voit ac close ticisen l uith other Feden t State. City and Local Lau Lhforcs- I ment Agencies. l April 2222 - !brah 1972 Scraeant: Fifth Precinct - Duties included the direct supervision of to police officers assigned to foot and motor patrol in a 25 square mite area; evaluating the performances of these officers, enforcing the Depar:=ents Rules and Procedures and assuming con:rol of police operations during a given tour of duty when required to da 30.
Shrch 1272 - thy 197: Detective Sergeant: Juvenite Aid Eureau - Responsible for assigning and supervising 2 detec:ives in a tour of duty in a comand with county-wide responsibility.
Duties included eatensive report uriting, evaluation of personnet and revieu of all Fdly Court Cases before submission to Family Court.
Shy 227: - January 1974 Lieutenant: 9.ird Precinct - Over att responsibility for a]LaToon consisting of 6 Sergeants and 72 Police Officers. Duties included assignment of all personnet during a tour of duty. inspecting personnet for fitness for duty, handling civilian complaints and assuming responsibility for the oventi police mission in the absence of the Comanding Officer or Eaecutive Officer.
.c'nL:ry 2274 - June 1978 Detective Lieutenant: Narcotic Squad - Eaecutive Officer of the Unit. Responsible for narcotic drug enforcement in Suffolk County. Duties included supervising seven Detective Sergeants and fifty Detectives uorking out of three office locations; eatensive report uriting, revieu of Grand Jury Cases and consultation with members of the District Attorney's Staff and U.S. Attorneys Office.
D:aing this assignment assisted in the form: tion of the Long Island Drug Enforcement Task Force, a coopentive effort of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Neu Iork State Police, Nassau and Suffolk County Police Depart-ments and the District Attorney's of both counties to infiltrate and neutm lize high Levet drug ope ntions .
on Long Island.
June L278 - January 1979 Detective Lieutenant: - Comznding Officer Personnet Bureau (Promoted to Captain white in this position in February 1977) - Repo d ng to a Deputy Chief Inspector.
."ne responsibilities of this position included AMnis-tm tive Centrol of the processing of att police and civilian employment applicants, prepantion' and certifi-cation of payrotts for a 3,000 member Department, as cett as comand responsibility for the Dnployee Re ctions Unit (Medical Evaluation Unit - both instituted during my tenure),The Personnel Investigation Unit and the Chaplain's Unit. Other duties included liaison and Coordination with the County Department of Civil Service, The County Eaecutive's Budget Office as cett as the County Department of Personnel and Labor Relations.
l l
l l
Page 3 January 1979 to January 1981 Decuty Inspector: Execurive Officer of i
the Third Precinct - Overall Administrative l
responsibility for a unit consisting of 257 sworn and 9 civilian personnel as well as 50 School Crossing Guards in an area with a population approaching 250,000.
Duties include enforcement of internal 1 discipline as well as evaluating the overall '
need for police services and allocatino resources to accomplish the police mission.
On site inspection of personnel, frequent liaison with Town and County Officials, cooperation with Civic Leaders and utili-zation of Community reS:urces are required.
January 1981 to Present Inspe ctor : Commanding Officer of the Sixth Precinct - Duties consist of exer-cising control over all members of my Command . I en held responsible for the accomplishment of the police mission through the effective administration and operation of my Command including, but not limited to, deployment of personnel, discipline and efficiency, departmental property and equipment, comlaint investi-gation , procedure compliance , , inspection ,
etc.
TEACHING EXPERIENCE: State University of New York A & T School at Farmingdale September 1971 to Present I have served as an Adjunct Instructor and Assistant Professor. In addition I have instructed periodically at the Suffolk County Community College since January 1976.
Areas of Experience include: Introduction to Law Enforcement, Police Adn.inistration, Juvenile Delinquency, Criminal Investigation and History of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
MEMBERSHIPS: American Association of University Professors Suffolk County Police Benevolent Associati~on Suffolk County Detectives Association (Past Financial Secretary and Treasurer)
Suffolk County Super!or Officers Association Police Holy Name Society of Suffolk County (Past Vice-President and President) .
American Association for Professional Law Enforcement F.B.I. National Academy Associates International Association of Chiefs of Police New York State Association of Chiefs of Police Patchogue Council 725 Knights of Columbus Sayville Yacht Club
REFERENCES:
Available upon request
P0i.lCE DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NEW YORK INTERNAL. CORRESPONDENCE
! TO: Police Commissioner Donald J. Dilworth DATE: 5/3/82 e ;0m Deputy Inspector Philip McGuire COPY TO C.O. Special Patrol Bureau, Command 6400 5L3.ECT- RESUME OF SERVICE NAME Philip McGuire DATE OF BIRTH May 15, 1934 ADDRESS 32 Thornhedge Road Bellport, New York 11713 TELEPHONE # 516-286-0933 ,
i The undersigned was appointed to the Babylon Town Police Department on August 1,1956 and served in the capacity of a patrol officer and desk officer until the inception of the Suffolk County Police Department on January 1,1960 at which time he was assigned to the First Precinct.
After performing patrol duties and administrative duties at the First Precinct, ths.: undersigned was promoted to Sergeant in October, 1963 and assigned to the Second Precinct.
He was reassigned to the First Precinct during 1965 and then promoted to Lieutenant in January, 1969 and performed the duties of a platoon commander, supervising the activities of a squad of approximately 70 men.
In May, 1972, he was promoted to_, Captain and assigned as the Executive of ficer of the First Precinct, he continued in that assignment af ter having been promoted to Deputy Inspector in January, 1974. .
In January, 1975, the undersigned was assigned as the Executive of ficer of the Legal and Inspection Bureau until February, 1977 when he was assigned as an Assistant to the .
Chief of District.
f In February, 1979, he was assigned as the Commanding officer 4
of the Special Patrol Bureau and remains in that assignment to this date.
This assignment entails the administration and direction l of the Emergency Service Section, the Aviation Section, the Canine Section, the Crime Scene Section, and the Courts Section.
i r
^
SCCS M
' i 1
1 Police Commissioner Donald J. Dilworth 5/3/82 j i
The Emergency Service Section personnel are issued special weapons and equipment and are trained in detection and disposal of explosive devices. This section would have a major role in the defense and protection of a public utility installation within the County.
It is also conceivable that the Aviation and Canine Sections would be deployed in a mission of this type.
The undersigned has attended various schools and seminars dealing with police operations, ethics, investigations and re-lated subjects given by the F.B.I., the IACP, New York City Police Department and the Suffolk County Police Department.
Respectfully submitted,
~
kl Philip McGiire, Deputy Inspector C.O. Special Patrol Bureau Command 6400 PMcG:if 6
e l
l l
l Resume of: Michael J. Turano, Jr.
t PERSCNAL DATA: Born: November 17, 1921 Married: Wife, Margaret Children: Laura , M1 =hael , Je f f rey ,
Richard and Scott ItCCATION- Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice /Sehaverial Science frem New Ycrk Institute of Technolcev, Olc Westnury, New Yorn Graduate - F.B.I . National Academy ,
December 1976 (107.h sess:.ca; Certificates from various Law Enforce-ment Schools, Training Sessiens and Se=inars:
Suffolk County Police Deparement, Municipal Pclice 'fraining Ccuncil, New Ycrk City Police Department, Suffolk.
Ccunty Execut.ive Department, Federal Bureau cf Investigation John, Jay College,
- United States Civil Service Cc:m.ission State University of New York, United States Fced & Drug Administration, New York State Traffic Safety Council, Tri-State organi=ed Crime Council, New Yerk State Cniefs of Police Associatien.
IS*P LOS'Ir :
June 1956 - December 1959 Smithtown Police Department Patrolman: Performed various duties in th:.s capacity le foot patrol, desk duty, motor patrol, etc.
January 1, 1960 NOTE: As a result of a public referandum five (5) Western Suffolk County Townships clong with other local law enforcement agencies formed the Suffolk County Police Department.
January 1960 - October 1964 Patrolman: Assigned to Communications Bureau. Duties including radio dispatching, complaint receiving, teletype cperator, etc. ,
? age 2 --.~.~
Cc:cber 1964 - July 1965 Detective: Juvenile Aid Eureau '-
Respensamle fc investigating cri=es involving juveniles (under 15 years of age) , preparing cases fer presentatic:
in Family Court and cenferring w i th the County Attorney presecuting these cases. Cenduct periodic inspectiens cf public places frequented by juveniles , ie premises licensed te sell alechelic beverages , etc. and take enf orcement -
acticns whenever warranted.
July 1965 - January 1970 Serseant: Patrol Divisien - Duties includec that"cf Desk Superviser, Pa r:1 Superviser and, at tires, Platoon Commander.
Supervising 3 te 20 Patreimen with respen-sibilities toward ccepliance with Depart-ment Rules & Procedures , training, evalua-ting personnel performance and direct involvement /centrol of incidents when required.
January 1970 - July 1973 1.ieutenant : Patrel Divisics - Overall respons:.ni.:. ty fer a Plateen censisting of five (5) Sergsants and thirty (30)
Police Officers. Duties included assign-ment of all perscnnel during a tour of duty, handling civilian ec=mlaints and assu=ing responsibility fer the everall Police =issien in the absence cf .he Commanding Officer er F.xecutive Cfficer.
1 July 1973 - February 1977 Captain / Detective Cactain: Detective Dav:.sien - Me:mer of me Chief of Detectives Staff. Respcnsibilities varied as need arose, is review of individual Detectives Crd d nal Investigaticns , direct super-vision at scene of major cr4 inal incidents until arrival of Divisien Superviser, ensure ad=inistrative and precedural -
cc=pliance with Departments Rules & Pre-cedures, lialsen with District Attcrney's Office. Detective Division Training Officer with responsiki-des for individual training needs, developed in conjunctics with Police Academy Staff, curriculum for Departments Criminal Investigation
':hool.
-January 1976 - December f979 Detective Captain: Detective Divisien -
Formulated and commanded Departments ;
Hostage Negotiating Team. Responsible for selections, initial and monthly training j
' of personnel, direct centrol of negotiatiens at scene, critique of every incident by.
those members present. l l
l I
l l
l
o . .
I l
l Page 3 l
l i
Tecruary 1977 - July 1978 Detec-ive Cactain: Cetective ::ivisien -
C===anc;ng cificer of the Narcetic Senad.
Responsible for inves iga.icn of Narcetic Law violatiens in Suffolk Ccunty, develcped liaisen with Federal, State and local agencies including the Lcng Island cr:g Infcreement Task Force, wnere I had ,
assigned den (10) Datectives 'and one (1) (
Sergeant. Task Fcree was a eccperative effert of the :: rug Enforcement Ad=inis- ;
tra.icn , New Ycrk State Police , Oistrict Atterney's office .and County Pelice
' Departments of both Nassau and Suffolk Counties to infilitrate and, neutralice high level drug operations en Lcng Island.
Maintain files and statistics en known illicit distributors , transperters and addicts. Responsible for activity of forty-eight (48) Detectives and four (4)
Sergeants and a siceable ready fund.
July 1978 to Present De=utv Insoecter: Patrol Oivisien -
Execu ve Officer - Assist Cem=anding Officer, and in his absence , assume responsibility for accomplishing the.
Police mission through effective admin-istratien and operatien of the Precinct
- in all that it entails , ie personnel, cer:munity, tactical, etc. Assigned Precinct perscnnel consists cf 217 Police officars, eight (8) I.ieutenants, twenty-five (25) Sergeants , three (3) Civilians and forty-eight (48) School Cressing Guards, enccmpassing approximately 190 square mile area and servicing a populatien of apprcximately 220,000 persens.
FRATERNAL ORGA'C::ATION Suffolk County Police Benevolent I'.IMBE RSE!PS : Association Suffolk County Superior Of ficers Association Suffolk County Detectives Associatien Columbian Association Suffolk SuffolkCounty' County Police Conference Suffolk County Police Association New York State Association of C11efs of Police F.B.I. National Academy Associates e
e O
l COUNTY OF SUFFOLK S
Eh,
-a
. ;.;5 s--
c
.- c ..
. n.. ,m.
POLICE DEPARTMENT arscMr Prepared August 22, 19E3 IW :; J . M CE L, CA?TAni Ixecutive Officer, Eighway Pa__-=1 Sureau Suf f c1k C :::y ' police Depa= =nenu *
?cLICE SERV CE EX?IRIENCE 7-22-63 - Appcinted as Probationary Patr:1 man - Suff=1k County
?clice Acade=y 9-24-63 - Assigned to the Patrol Divisica, T"4 -d ?re d =t 1-5-70 - Pr: meted to Sergeant, remad 9ed assigned := the
-w4-4 3:aci=e; 9-22-75 - Pr===ted to Lieu enant, assigned t: First Precin=.
2-21-77 - Transf e: red to Eighway Pa .rol Bureau as 0.2.C. of radar and cycle enforcement 1-19-81 - Pr= meted to Captai= assigned to Chief cf P'atr:1 Division's offi=e 3-30-81 - "ransferred t.= Highway Patrol Bureau as Executive Officer r :0CATIONAL 3ACKGROUND June, 1959 - Craduated frem Islip High Schoci canuary, 1977 - Graduated Magna Cu= Laude fr=m New Ycrk Institute of Technology - Majer Behaverial Scie ==a and Md al Jus ice June, 1982 - Graduated from the F.3.I. National Academy, osantico, Virginia, accredited by the University of virginia
?IRSONAL
- 14eight: 170 Eealth: Excellent Age: 42 Height: 5'9" Married since July 20, 1962 to June D. Michel, one child Teri Ann, age 15 Residan . cf,,Suffelk County and the Town of Islip since 1949 ,
,.?
e O
Al":'ANC 2
{
1 i
i
- l1 0 ~lli I illi Illi Illi Illi illi Illi n i i in a i.> .
3
._i I ; !!! ij ia , I : ! ! d
.t il , t!ia~llio.linna.li,9lii
!r i a' ,
o g !
!.'i j J I, e!
I il a l s- : t O li j .L',iii __IlliJilidilt !n 'llii; ! lihlluh i!!i]Il 1 a
s ;
I Iimj!.I li i,l ll
" lli lili Ijiilj li . i li Ili -
illiillInll 21 6 -11.
E.
O i l
5 ; . e I i E. '
L l!i liti ;it ilii .ii Ill:
5 _= _
C:5A li O' u ! Is
- i i, y -.
j is i ,.
gg j i ! g i ti u lu 1;u 11: Ili ii- it is liii SE !! :!! :i I -
e s- :
sa g!
5;5 i !! !"
1 11 I5, se v I lllll li lli 11 111 ll! l11 ll1: li i llli g5 -
- ~ i L jin s I! .li ! u I li u lu ..li u lu
~
lj, __
l' i llli Illi,11: lilt lili !lli :lli n O i
}lr 2 -,
e l U- !,1 --
, li i - si g
llii ili i a ll Illi lli
, J ii i i -
3111, lili. ,Ill:._,Illi ille illi e _
I!!i il!!:
ATTACHMENT 3 9
e 4
l
~ . . . . -
Attachment 3 SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS OF TABLE IX, APPENDIX A -- CIIANNELIZATIO TREATMENTS ON SELECTED ROADWAY SECTIONS yj LILCO Description (Table IX) of Proposed Channelization Approach _
Treatments SCPD Analysis (7,30) Rt. 25A, W.B. Establish 2 lanes, the inside Rt. 25A and Patchogue/Mt. Sinal lane is reserved for left- Road (CR 83):
turning traffic onto link (30,13), Patchogue-Mt. Sinal Rd.
Channelizing traffic between Echo Avenue and County Road 83 into two westbound lanes and one east-bound lane would be very difficult, and perhaps impossible, because:
, 1) Even under normal circumstances, this is an. extremely busy inter-
- section, with substantial accident experience. (See Attachment 8 to this testimony).
- 2) Rt. 25A, in this area, is a two-lane road with a limited paved shoulder eastbound and almost no paved shoulder westbound. Utility poles stand close to the pavement on both sides of the highway and the westbound shoulder is further impeded by curbing in front of a gas station on the north side of Rt. 25A, just east of CR 83.
- 3) Westbound traffic would have to straddle double barrier pavement markings and stay within the special i lanes created by traffic cones.
1/ Based'on Appendix A, Revision 3.
Attachment 3 (cont . ) ,
LIILO Description (Table IX) of Proposed Channelization '
Approach Treatments SCPD Analysis
- 4) There would have to be consid-erable lead time for LILCO personnel to set out the extensive number of traffic cones that will be necessary to implement this strategy. It would not be possible, therefore, to implement this proposed channeliza-tion treatment on short notice.
(24,23) Route 25, W.B. Establish a left-turn pocket Rt. 25 and East Bartlet_t Road:
for' traffic turning south onto This is traffic post 4123. The link (23,133), E. Bartlett Rd. LILCO proposal for channelizing traffic could not be carried out I safely by the two traffic guides ,
assigned to this location. In !
addition, LIIf0's proposed channeli-zation treatment will likely confuse
, motorists, who will see no reason for turning left onto Fast Bartlett Road, but will instead want to con-tinue west. See also SCPD analysis regarding this intersection in Attachment 4 to this testimony.
(75,74) LIE, W.B. Reduce number of lanes from 3 Long Island Expressway westbound to 2 by blocking outside lane at Edwards Avenue: LILCO's proposal upstream of the entry ramp at may cause congestion on the Long node 74, to permit a protected Island Expressway to the rear of the movement for traffic entering blocked lane. In addition, conges- ~
the expressway from the ramp link tion may result on the entry ramp.
(128,74). See testimony, at 25-26.
4
I Attachment 3 (cont.)
LIlfO Description (Table IX) of Proposed .
Channelization l Approach Treatments SCPD Analysis (122,44) LIE, W.B. The outside 2 lanes are closed to The possibility for congestion due permit the traffic on the entry to LIILO's channelization proposal i ramp, (42,44), protected access is greater at this location than onto the LIE, W.B. link (44,48). at the location described above The inside lane services through ((75,74) LIE, W.B.) because traffic traffic on the W.B. LIE to link is generally heavior along this (44,48). Lane closure is removed portion of the Long Island Express- ,
within 3-1/2 hours after the start way. I of the evacuating trip generation, providing the full 2 lanes of capac- In addition, LILCO intends to ity for this section of the LIE. close 2 of 3 westbound Expressway Af ter 4-1/2 hottrs, all 3 lanes will lanes. This will certainly create be opened. At that time, the congestion on the Long Island entering ramp traffic will merge Expressway to the rear of this i
with the LIE traffic. blockage.
e
a +12 - - a o o e
,I i
e ATTACHMENT 4 i
h-
Attachment 4 SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMEllT ANALYSIS OF TABI.E V, APPENDIX A -- CONCURRENT CONTINUOUS FLOW TREATf1EllTS 1/
Description of Flow Pattern LILCO Proposal SCPU Analysis Vehicles moving south on It is unlikely that LIILO's g North Rocky Point Landing proposal will work. Clearly, Ibint Road will be routed west it is reasonable to expect Lansing onto Route 25A. evacuation traffic along Rt. 25A
~
3d, at this location. In fact, a significant amount of traffic 1NT will likely materialize from the residential areas to the east of this location and from traffic post 137 (Broadway a
. Rt. 25A), where a substantial number of motorists will likely MM 2h disregard the traffic guide instructions to travel cast (toward the Shoreham plant) because they will perceive travel 1ing to the east to be contrary to 1.he best route out of the EPZ. Thus, it is not likely that there will be concurrent continuous flow, as proposed by LitCO.
1/ Dased on Appendix A, Revision 3.
1
Attachment 4 (cont.) ,
Description of Flow Pattern LIlf 0 Proposal SCPD Analysis Vehicles moving west on LIICO's proposal assumes little 23/K,L Route 25 will either or no evacuation traffic east-Middle Country Road, Rt. 25 continue west (451) or turn bound along Rt. 25 and northbound south onto East Bartlett along East Ilartlett Road.
Road. This assumption is unrealistic.
LIIf0's trsffic strategy ignores evacuation traffic i northbound on East fla r t l e t t.
Road from the residential areas to the south of this location.
t I,I I O's strategy also ignores Bartlett evacuation traffic travelling east on Rt. 25, as wel1 as the Road eastbound traffic that will result from residents attempting to reach their homes to the east. This traffic will likely result in causing congestion and interrupting the concurrent continuous flow proposed by LI If D.
- a. Vehicles moving south on Concurrent continuous flow at Rocky Point Road will be this location will likely be Rocky routed west onto Rt. 25. interrupted by northbound traf-Point fic on Itocky Point Road (CR 21)
Road b. Vehicles moving west on and by castbound traffic on 24/K,G,L,M , _ Rt. 25 will be routed Rt. 25. In fact, I. I lfo 's
~
y g south onto Middle previous node discussion (see f Island Road. Appendix A, Table XII, node 24, Rev. 2) acknowledged the exis-Rt. 25 c. Positive control is tence of northbound traffic and 9~
required at node 24 to routed such traffic to the
. assure continuous move- west. Ilowever, this discussion ments, was deleted in Revision 3 to the LIICO Plan. In addition to this northbound traffic, concurrent continuous flow at this
At t aclamen t 4 (cont.) .
Description of Flow Pattern I,ILCO Proposal SCPU Analysis location will also likely be interruuted from south-bound t raf f ic wishing to continue sout h and f rom west -
bound traffic wishing to con-tinue west. As a result, traffic flow through this intersection will likely be disrupted, reducing capacity and increasing traffic times.
- a. Vehicles moving east At the outset, it should be j on Rt. 25A will be noted that the I,II.Co f low routed south onto Ridge pattern does not accurately Rd; depict these critical inter-North Coun sections (node 36). Further,
'g'g*,
Road
[ b. Vehicles moving south on North Country Rd. ,
the III.CO strategy does not take into account the traffic signal at the intersection of will be routed east on Rt. 25A. Randall Road and Rt. 25A. This
- d [ 'f . I
- c. Positive control is signal will likely interrupt traffic flow. In addillon,
[ 0 required at node 36 westbound traffic on Rt.. 25A Y = to assure continuous would be expected from the 3 ,
movements. residential neighborhoods j
Rt. 25A on the north side of Rt. 25A, Ridge T directly to the east of this location. Iloweve r , I. I I.CO ' s Road If i Randall continuous flow strategy does not take this westbound traffic into account.. flor does it take into account the Iact that evacuating motorists travelling southwest on florth Country Road are likely to' resist any I attempt to be routed east on'
Attael ment 4 (cont.) .
Description of Flow Pattern LIILO Proposal SCPD Analysis Route 25A, as proposed by L1!ro, due to their perception of this direction as a pour route out of the EPZ, since it is toward the plant. Based on the above, it is likely that rather than the " positive control" required to assure continuous traffic movements, there wilI be traffic backups and congestion at this location.
In addition, although available as a southbound evacuation route, no provision has been made by
, LIlr0 to utilize Randall Road, south of Rt. 25A. In fact, the traffic guide,at. traffic post $140 is instructed to
" discourage" a11 traffic from travelling south on Randall Road. (See Appendix A, Figure 8).
9 4
-4 _
Attachment 4 scent.) .
Description of Flow Pattern LIILO Proposal SCPD Analysis
- a. Vehicles moving east on LIIf0's traffic con *rol W B,C Rt. 25A will be routed strategy assigns only two Rt. M south onto Lane 1 of traffic guides to this inter-Wm. Floyd Parkway. section (traffic post 1125),
j _ _ __ ___ _ ( b. Vehicles moving west on which includes two major high-ways divided by a large mall.
C/ / / /J h r/ / / fy", '
Rt. 25A will be routed south onto Lane 2 To have any chance of achieving
--- ~ ~ -
. the " positive control" required ,
7"' of Wm. Floyd Parkway.
f to assure continuous flow at this
]1 P 9 3- ~
- c. Positive control is intersection, additional traffic I \ guides would be necessety. Even
, f l required at node 37 to then, in view of tiie inadequacy assure continuous move- of I,Ilf0's token attempt to l ment and proper lane restrict northbound traffic on g separation. the William Floyd Parkway south l -
of this location, it is likely g that westbound to southbound I. Nm. Floyd traffic flow will be interrupted l
g ,
by northbound traffic.
5 In fact, the I.IIro Plan itself i !b I
~
creates a nctural conflict with the desired continuous flow pat. tern at this location. For i
example, northbound traffic on the William Floyd Parkway is encouraged by the left turn restriction at the intersection of the William Floyd Parkway and Whiskey Road (traffic post 58). III addition, it is unlikely that the two traffic guides at this location will be able to " discourage" all west to east traffic, thereby result-ing in disruption of LIICO's ,
proposed continuoun flow treat-ment. It is also unilkely that i
O Attachment 4 (cont.) .
Description of Flow Pattern LILCO Proposal SCPD Analysis LILCo?s traffic guides will be able to" discourage"all south to easterly traffic movement. If such traffic is successfully discouraged, lioweve r , the only alternative available for these motorists will be to become part of tlic westbound flow on Rt. 25A, and then be re-routed south on the William Floyd Parkway. This again will conflict with Lll,CO's proposed strategy.
- a. Very light traffic mm. Floyd Pkwy. bnto William Floyd Y 8C " #9'"9 " 'P ' ""'
traffic on the William Floyd Parkway from Whiskey
- d. is expected.
Parkway from making U_ turns 39/B,C,G l or turning left oito Whiskey I b. Vehicles moving south a , eva ua ing m r sts
.' ] lq. l on William Floyd Parkway would be forced further north
' continue south. into a critical traffic area
". I (the William Floyd Parkway and
,. c. Left turns ento Whiskey Rt. 25A intersection described
, l Road from north-bound above). LI LCO's proposal Wm. Floyd Pkwy. to be assumes that castbound traffic Ag l on Whiskey Road will be stopped l l discouraged.
at Ridge Road before reaching Whiskey'RA. l g this location. Iloweve r , east-bound traffic will likely come k4 ! from Randall Road. In addition, continuous flow will likely be disrupted by those northbound
, motorists attempting a left turn onto Whiskey Road to go to their residences nearby. In any event, the two traffic guides provided cc91d not control traffic flow at this location, a four lane highway separated by a wide mall.
I Attachment 4 (cont.) .
Description of Flow Pattern LIIf0 Proposal SCPD Analysis
- a. Utilize the shoulder At the outset, it should be on Wm. Floyd Parkway noted that I.IICO's proposal 42/GeBeN j south of Longwood is a channelization strategy
' Road to service that should be discussed else-j l traffic from Longwood where. (See Pppendix A, Magwood Road. Table IX). In addition, the
[/ If l ][
LI I.CO flow diagrem does not
- b. The middle lane on Wm. depict what. the real traffic
- h. Floyd Parkway can pattern would likely be at 7 l Floyd either enter the ramp this location. In fact, there Pkwy. feeding westbound LIE is an absence of any discussion I I If l- or continue south on or instruction to traffic guides Wm. Floyd Parkway. (see Appendix A, Table XII and l Figure 8) relating to the move-
- c. Ramp narrows to a ment and accommodation of traf-
[ , single lane as it merges fic from the Brookhaven National with the north LIE Laboratory. This traffic would g l service road. originate from the east and
, would likely need to travel in f g all directions during pre-evac-f nation. This substantial f g amount of additional traffic
] I will certainly complicate any
- / l continuous f low, t rea tmen t. a t.
/
l this location and would likely
/ / require additional traffic
/ g guides. Further, this inter-
/ l section is controlled by a traffic signal, and LIICO's traffic guides might therefore have to direct traffic against the signal in an attempt to prevent. queues. This would cause confusion among motorists, and woisld likely lead to traffic backups and congestion.
O Attachment 4 (cont.) ,
Description of Flow Pattern LIlfo Proposal SCPD A6alysis
- a. Vehicles moving south LIIro's proposal does not on Wading River-Manor- realistically depict the traffic ville Rd. continue flow likely at this intersectiorg south. ecpecially from the west. The traffic guide at this location
- b. Positive control is (traffic post I128) has been required at node 53 given no instructions to deal to assure continuous with east and west traffic, 53M.,D -
Rt. 25A movement. which is likely to be.substan-tial since Rt. 25A is the major y l east-west roadway in this crea.
% This is likely to result in
,, congestion and interruption of LIILO's proposed continuous flow treatment. It should be noted Wading River- at pri r to the release of Pevision 3 to the 1.1140 Plan, Manorville Rd. traffic guide instructions (Appendix A, Figure 8) and turn movements at node locations (Appendix A, Table XII) addressed these concerns.
Revision 3, however, no longer discusses cross traffic flows at this location.
e
O
. Attachment 4 (cont.)
Description of Flow Pattern b!LCO Iroposal SC PI) Analysis
- a. Vehicles moving south The continuous flow sought by Bulse on llulse Landing Rd. LILCO at this intersection will Landing will continue south, he interrupted by eastbound 55/E'J Road traffic from traffic post i108;
. b. Positive control is in addltlon, flow wi11 be Sound hve, required at node 55 to interrupted by westbound
% assure continuous move ' traffic on Sound Avenue.
37 ment. LI LCO's proposal also ignores
. northbound traffic from traffic post 112 (Rt. 25A and llulse Landing Road).
- a. Vehicles moving south on The continuous flow sought by
? I?dwards Ave. will be LILCO at this intersection will routed east onto Middle be interrupted by tioth east-73/I,0,7 "" yRa . ) un an wesgounti txarIic.
, Moreover, a signif icant nu.aber g,g ,
- b. Vehicles moving east of southbound evacuees will Avenue Middle on Middle Country Rd. likely refuse to turn east onto l-m unt n ad,. will be routed south -
Middle Cou'ntry Road, since t. hey
- l (C ; onto Edwards Avenue. will want to enter the Long Island Expressway at Exit 71,,
i
. c. Positive control is just south of this location --
l required at node 73 a route that will likely be to, assure continuous perceived as a good route out movement. of the EPZ.
lI I
9 9
\ , 6 ATTACHMENT 5 1
I
. At t achment 5 SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTHEt1T AtJALYSIS OF TAbbE VIII, SECTIONS TO OllE-WAY Ff.OWgj APPENDIX A -- CONVERSION OF ROADWAY LIICO Description Numbea of Proposed of SCPD Analysis licading One-Way Flow Link Lanes Restricting traffic solely to e
2 West Lower Rocky Point Road and westbound flow along this section (2,102) North Country Road are made (102,1) 2 West of. Lower Rocky Point Road and North one-way westbound between Country Road is not practical Woodhull Road and Shore Road because:
to facilitate heavy flow.
- 1) There are several side streets entering onto I.ower Itocky Point Road and North Country Road from the residential areas, both north and south of this roadway section.
- Restriction to one-way flow (between traffic node 2 and traffic node 1) would require positive traffic control at approximately 15 side streets intersecting this section of Lower Rocky Point Road and North Country Road to prevent any eastbound traffic and because the terrain in this area is hilly and winding, resulting in 1imited sight distance. Eight of t hese side streets, however, do not I. ave traffic guides assigned under the LIIf0 Plan (see Appendix A, Figure 8).
1/ Based on Appendin A, Revision 3. .
k D
o o
Attachment 5 (cont.)
Number LILCO Description of of Proposed Link Lanes Heading One-Way Flow SCPD Analysis
- 2) There is insufficient road width for both two lanes of westbound traffic and the school bus traffic which might have to travel eastbound along this section of Lower Rocky Point Road and North Country Road in order to provide transportation for resident school children.
e l
l
_2-
6 e 6 A"."." ACHE:C 6 e
l
.. C Exce ret Frem Sectember 8, 1983 NEWSDAY Artiele
.~
- .. w . -
iS n an "E/
~
ti g! l r It Out
.t .t~ .
~
[By Carsie Agus I ~
% hen a motortat maste a road crew. l he twomes a taxpaye An anm r.r.a. !
_f_--
!s er af evthty of ncut.s:. :he '
. Almost as had is Jericho Tunpise. They wor >t road, t.be men gy, u the es- ! .QNorthern Stasa Parkv sy. No.trucsa, for one
-.Conar.w.i .sn ne par , ,,,g ,
teams. Expreeway drrvers ar= pure vinous.
Ta an awessene thing to c. cop the tras: on the expressway. To create a work noese in tlac contar lane
-- the :nosa dangerons wort ar:ustica of aE, the one they call":he Cahforns W'gWe* - aG three lanse most be halted far a few ner.ents. It's !!ka bold:ng j back the Rad Sea, all thus surging. powerf ss
- ahead, and only a flag forgewenon. faogsof tas l maiorisis are pure w-
~3(ase as me Jet!" yeII.Jer*y DeGrachy the flag-men. flasma:. is a rmannejob and allths : nan hata l ' tt. Far one th:ng, there is no annpa:uonskap for the I . flagman, w : stands alone wits the trade a few hun-l i dred fast absed of tbs men. .
- !ra hers: g." said DeGruchy, as*be listlersly waved his cag. A Camma ande man: suck his head out the sindow bellowed. "Tou'n reorth.
Issst" DeGreeny ismoredit. "At the end of the day, when they're c:n=:ng house ham work, they throw I thines at you. ney* at you. They throw anyttung they beve handy, anyttung"they can hit you with, sad curang." He did name curiang hunself a laser that day. When they took the lanch ordsrs.
they farget DeGracity. An hour after lunch was over, he saarmed onT his pass to raise heil Didn't go back.
l
' Nobody blamed him, either. t One day when John loess was flassms, a car re-fbssd to asop."Iscreamed at hun.*You saqud F and F sad IT He sorted running after toe. Hopped out and snarted chases me seresanng, Tm gonna .!:. ll your
- l l
l I
l '
l
O e e l
A':"."ANO 7 O
e 4
e . e 1
. 1 Attachment j'_
COMP!!.ATION CF APPROXIMATE DISTANCES FRCM SHCREHAM PLANT FOR LILCD TRAFFIC GUIDES 'b' Residences Number of Miles Traffic Guides Percentace 0-5 5 1.5 6-10 7 2.2 11-15 25 7.8 16-20 20 6.3 21-25 44 13.8 26-30 42, 13.2 31-35 24 7.5 3G-40 44 13.8 41-45 66 20.7 46-50 23 7.2 Over 50 19 6.0 319 100.0%
l e
l 6
l
-1/ Based on data supplied by LILCC in response to discovery
- requests by Suffolk County.
l
. .
- L
- l l
Werk Offices Number of Miles Traffic Guides Percer. tace O- 5 O 0.0 6-10 0 C.0 11-15 38 12.0 16-20 0 0.0 21-25 40 12.5 26-30 52 16.3 31-35 1 0.3 36-40 72 22.6 41-45 29 9.1 46-50 87 27.3 over 50 0 0.0 319 100.0%
m 3
l I
l W
- 6 9 e
e e
AMAM.T8 G
e
? .
I i
i e
O 9
o , o A::ach:nent 8 Intersecti ns Within he Six h Precinct, Suffolk C:unty Police Depar rent, Sc"felk County, ?;ew Ye t, With Eighast Number of Roper.ed Metc; Vehicle Accidents fSectember 1982-Sectember 1983)
L*LCO "RA7.:C , f CON"ROL PCST 2/ n'"IRSIC"*CN EA.v_.I* S r:A; Route 25A and Rocky Peinu Rd. Rocky ?cint 79 sia
- 41 Reuta 25A and Miller Place Rd. Miller Place 24
- 56 Reute 25A and C=unty Rd.83 Miller Place 23 Reuta 25A and Chest =ut St. Mt. S*-m' 20 Reute 25 and Homestand Cr. Ceram 20
-67 Reu.e 25 a=d Mt. Sinai/C= ram Rd. Ceram 29
. e65 Reute 25 and Route 112 ceram M
- 63 Route ~25 and Cc==ty Rd. 83 Selden 32 County Rd.83 and Route 112 C= ram 23 ess
- 60 County Rd. E3 and cid Town Rd. Ceram 23 Route 112 and Reute 347 Port Jeff Station 33 d50 Reute 112 and Rose I.ane Port Jsff Station 24
- 145
- 35 Rocky Pei=t Rd.and Route 25 Middle 2sland 39
~
Route 112 and Pine Rd. Ceram 17 1/
- Based c: Appendix A, Revision 3.
. I
e , e f e e' e ad o em o e e o Ja e e
- m ,. =. "*
- L g - = =
Pes. = i
- @
- 0 l ld@lj> g Oi3 {.5 E2 [3ip;y>,;[g ~ 1.5 L,..O}20tal ' '
j9
' I Rte.25A and l ,. , .
7 8 8 7 1 3 8 8 8 8 11 , 79 38 Rock 7 ? ' Ed' ; 1 1 l Rte. 25A and :
7 1 L 3 2L L1 P'"-r ? lace Rd 2 1 '1 ,L 1 Rte.2FA and '
L 2 1 2 21 Com y Rd 83 -
3 2 2 3 3 1 56 l -
Ete.25 A and .
2 1 L L 6 20 2 hest =ut St 1 1 1 I
Rte.25 and .
L 3 2 1 2 1 20 Ecmastead Dr 3 2 2 i ,
Rte.25 ad 2 3 L 3 L L 1 5 i 2C 6; ) Mt 9'-=' /CeraE Rd 1 1 1
~
~
Ree.25 and 7 2 7: 6 2 7 2 16 Rte.112 2 6 2 3 65
' Rte.25 and 2 6 5 L 2 6 3 1 37 63 County Rd 83 1 1 1 Cesar:7 Rd 81 and ,
2 2 1 L 2 5 23 Rte.112 1 2 2 59
.Cou=ty R'd 33 and ,
L 3 1 5 23 5 3 60 Cid Town Rd 1 1 Rte.112 and L 2 3 2 2 L 39 Rte.3L7 5 7 3 1 50 _
Ete.112 and L 5 3 1 2 3 2A
?.ese lone 1 1 2 1 1 145 l . l ..
1 I .
l l 1 - .[ -
_ . .l .
l
~
$J t.' :.,x,y,d y Yb d*ei he 181a> ,is I. Ed J. Eh [2 ;iiiE i .:; i.E ia kW el :::c res: I Roekt Fei= Ed and 4 3 ~5 7 2 2 L -2 2 . T !4 39 35 >te 25 3
Rta.112 and 2 1 17 1 1 L 3 1 1 Pine Road 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l' I l' l
- l. I I: ' l I I I I l l.
I .
I l i I Ill II I I I I
I I 1 I
l l l I I I
! l I l I I I I '
I I I I I I
1 i ~l I I
-l '
I I
~
i I l
l l- .
I i
I i l I l i
'l .
I I I . 3 l !
I l
.l.
I l- 'I l .- .___
l .I l.
~
l .,.-.. ,. ;.. . . .I .... ~l .I l .. .I _ ,_
e
- e a
t ACACDCC 9 O
l f
t I
- . s I
Attachment 9 Reperted Traffic Accidents Aleng Roadway Sections of Five Major Eighways (Rt. 25, Rt. 25A, County Road 21, County Road 83 and Rt. 112)
Within the Sixth Precinct, Suffolk County Police De:artment, Suffolk Ccunty, New York ,
(Secterter 1982-Secterber 193 3) j Prepared By Suffolk County Police Department November 4, 1933 1# References to LILCO traffic centrol posts are from Appendix A, Revision 3.
t l
l
)
-l l
tr'"': Rt* 25A fren Randall M,dading ?.1ver Oc R:e.347,Mt.51=ai I
- m * - -.
20 ' *
- x,2 _f ,
. ,f
_2! ? . - - --
Qj,j> ,i j; *j ,.i,i_
rt
'~'
4
- ,2- ?_po l~ ipi !.E<,..E :-C--
Rte.291 - c
! I '
- l l l l -
Conter Rd .
i 5
- g g g g l*iI I *
' 8 I _
0 3=An.;;;g I Rd 3S ' ?.ocky Point M l7 8 8 7 1 1 1 3 8l8 8 8 11 79
.=11:sav 2r ? L !5 l !2 *
!A . *9 Fa chogue M 1 1 1 i
21 1 1 l- j i 7
2rockhaven Cr 1l l l1 1 1 1 5 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 17 l '.festchester Or 4 5 3 2 2, 1c 40 t North Country Rd 2 1 1
2 2 5
, Et.mter Ave t
2 1 1 1 1 7 8 Radic Ave 1 5
lTylerAve 2 1 1 1
! Harrison Ave 2 1 2 1 1 l1 s t
2 1 3
- Farkside Ave 1 1 1 1 l 5 lCakland. Ave 1 1 1 fParkAve 2 4 1 7 1- 4 3 2a 41 l Miller Place M 1 1 n
!SylvanAve.
1 1 1 5 l Pipe Stave Hollow M 1 1 o
1 3 , , _
37 l Icho Ave .
1 1 lLincolnAve 4
2 2 i Feach Tree La 1 2 1 1 1 1 7 55 lMt54"mi M -Coram Rd a i
3 2 2 3, 4 2 3. 1 1 -
2 23 56 l County Road 83
- 1 2
', 1 .
fMtSinalAve .
1 2 1 1 4. 4 6 20 lChestnutSt 1 -
. OO 1 l 1 2e 1 1 1 7 l~les: Gate .
1 I ..
= ._. - .
2 Rte.25A from Randall M.;iading River to Rte.347, Mt.Sinai Pos: 4 s .
m
.e. . . ...ae -
.=
o ;c y
.s. s. te
- =c ;
- ,l:2 1 i>. , ep 15 [ji _*3t !mi
- Rte.25A @ lu3 l e> ,,. 3 !,g ,o. 3 F="dall M.W. River ,
I 1 I2 3 ., _. _
l 125 IW m.Floyd Pkwy.
1 '2 2 2 1 1 )- 1 11
- H"* Finn La 2 1 1 l1l- l 5 1 1 2
l31ack Foot Trail a
0 -_
!F' g Rd ,
2 3 lMillerAve 1
o lTelsa St .
O Station M 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 10 lF="dallRd o
!Rosewell Ave I
O l3ellMeadAve 6 ! Ridge ad O I
4 ?
lNor?.h Country M 1 1 1 3 n
f'Joedv111e i Rd I 1 1 2 Mater Rd 0
fFishRd O
fVan3urahSt 0
fHarrisenSt 2 1 5 lHe*~? 5t 2 laecusen5: 2 1
lJeffersenSt 1 1 1 2 fMadisonSt 0
fMenre-St n
lAd a-a St l -
. 1 1 f f?/lerAve 17eixat ,l , 2 l
_ 37 isreaeway l 1 l1 .
2__.
I l, , ,
Iza.te M _
,e, - , -, - - - -_ -- e _ ___ - , - - - - - -
. l dm- R e.25A from ?n- Mail Rd,'iading ?.iver :: R;e.367,Mt Sinai x,: . - - .
...e . . . .
. a .e s .
=-e2A is 13_i=is '!,_ !.E--a
,n_
s4 C_=. .ei i-.'I i. ,!^ i-e - i..s E, - . s'- -,_
los a:, 3c7 l !2l !1l l1 l e I I. I ! 1I 6 --
.I .l I l' .I I I i l I I .I i i _.
l l 64 ev:A 4.,42-3l l _a -
I I I I I I i l- I I I i l IlI ~l i i i i i
l I i
-]
l l
l I I I l l
l I
i l .
l -
I l
I
- j -
1 i
I
! I -
i
I -
- =- =te.25 frc= i=.71cvd :kwy. ?,idze, oc re 1:.2 cc a= .
Pos: =- s .
. .- . .a ,e m . . . .e . . . .
-e c.c - --
cc a o ; = =42 :. 3 L ,>. , e e 1IS 9>
- ro.m}
ta-.- --f-
- 3. G=-
o d I <:. ! 2 ,+ ,= ,,I =- le 1
tr)- i=o = be -h me l- l- li k 18,62, t.. , (a cicvar i i i l
i l
I i ! I 13.4,.13 5 ! " * : 07d - #7 leaf} 1l l* l l l1 ) l l ) l 6 39 l ?$-611 M . l*1 (
9 f Ri4e M. 3 1 l l l1f 1l 6 L
l 2 1 f1 l- l lRav=crRd.
l l1 l l l l l1 l l l' l 2 l.Woodlo: M. - t 1 1 j 3 1 1 1 136 l,Wadd"g River Rollow Rd l *Icedvilla Rd . _1 2[ 1 2 1 . 7 i 2 l1 1 1 l2 5 l2urransad 35 l Rocky Nint/Yapank M 3 4 3 5 7 2 2l4 2 2 1 - ' 39 1
123 2a-tiet* 2d 1 1
1 3 1
Church La.
1 2 1
l Arnold 30 2 1 8 lSweezyTcwnRd 1 2 1 1
. , 1 6 f Sweery Ta 2- 2 1 0
'dilsen Rd 1 5 1 1 1 1 7
.1fe Dr 4 3 2 1 2 1 20 3 2 2 Ec=estead Dr 4 3 L L 1 5 20 1 2 1 3 s- I $t.31-ai Cora: Rd 1
- 1 2 6 Cc==try Club 1 1 1 h 1 1 Tudor La 1 1 2 9 2 2 1 l~f*="*eldDavisDr 11 2 2 2 2-S I 2 1 l
! l 3=ith ?4 6 2 1 3 l 'iestfield. Rd s 2 2
iakeview Ter-ace 2 - 1
. ? 10 1
.,, fan ; 3=4 *h ?d 1 3 130 .
7 6 2 7 2 66 65 ^l4:e.112 2 6 l2 3 7 2 -
l c.rane To w l _24 7 l
i
- I i I -
], Oc"nty Rd 21(Rocky Fein: Rd) ".rce R e 2;A; Rocky Nin Oc R:e 25,y.idd:.e Is1.
- m. . - . . . .
- .= .
.5r. i j ,i xs .14 :m14- -e
> o . ; = =;
County Rd 21 i} @= la81S ,. 3 :.E E'd 15 ,5 2i 20 1 a'-
7 8 l 8 ,! 7 l 1 l 1 l 1 l 3 l' 8 8 l' 8 l 8 f 11 79 33 are 25A i l I l ! O
' Weed ?q I '
l 121 w.isxer ae I,I I l, si ll I I I I l 5 l l. I n
. - , . , . .- =, ne,. at l l l l l l l l I l,I l l I I I i i i 1 3ev uss-se uey ae i 1. I l:eene:staneat l l l l l' l l l c
- s ; a:e 23 3 4 31217 2 2lul212i I, 4 29 l I I
! I 1-.4 _I u4 I I I i l I I I i I i l II i I I I i l Ii t
I I
I l
I i I .
- I I I l r l
l l . .
i
, l II l- .
~
l l l l l f -
l
l I
I I
5 - County Rd,S5 frc= Rt.25A,Mt.Sinai to at.25,5eiden Pes . * ' ,.
- m
. . ..e . . .
. a. .
l cou=:7 R=ae S5 g p =: p jm ~- ag 3 j <b ;2 ici !! g.--] :..E ::a:.
w - ~ <
66 la:.25A 3 2 2l3 l yl 2 l_ 3 .
- .I, 4 -2 2-I i a:.51=at cc:a= Re.
l' l' I l 'I2I'I I I '
l l l l l l I -
lSu :e 5:. - - -
l l l I l- a l hee 'a.
s l l
.l'l2 i7 l1 l
- l1 l.l, I 92 55 lCana' " l ' ' ~
1 1 2 L 61 l.:ineRd.
p 3 4 * *
I 9 .-
c 2 2 5c IRt.112 -
n 1 1 2 l =.awled na Pa.h
- 2' 60 1 1 5 4 3 3 1 lcidOcwn ud L 6 2 * '7 55 !Rt.25 1 2 1 6 1 5 2 l -
- .:2, .g l
I i
l i
~
I l
I.
- l. _
l l, I
\
l .
1 i I_
l i l ,
I l ll l I l
i
t .
i I
?. e 25 ,Caran w asa ' R e.'12 frc=.R:e 347,?cr Jefferson 5 a. ::
P:s: * , .
.e
.e . . . . .- .
m . . .
R:e 112
-Ifh IE J i <1b2. 14 2a 14 -: :E;G. E42]. _ 3-
- $f- l"S1=$ i oi$ :5 7-c.r.lE'd~
so R:a 3a7 5 7l3 1l l kl2l'3 2 l' 2 l lL 33 145 ! Rose Iane l' (1 l 1l 2 l1 l f4)1l5l3).1l2l3l2h i State St i I ! I I II III I i 11 I1 l l l l l l l 1 l l1 l l l l Jel*-= Rd o 12 5, 31 cycle Path 1 1 1 1 f
4 1l1 f 2l f 1
l1 l l l 1
l 3rockhnven Dr ,
lKelseyAve l0 2
1 1 lCentralAve l _
1 1 f lJefferscaAve 2 5 l ' dash
- stc= Ave l l 2l 1 l
lC t
l Grove St. 1 1 l l l l Industrial ad l 1 1 3 1
l 'dedgewood Or l l 'iindscr 0:
l1 l 1 0
l l l . ate ,
1 l Glen =ere Ia 1 2 1 17 3 1 1 4 3 1 l Pine 24 0 l Kens 1=gion Gate 23 2 2 3 4 2 5 59 l County ?.d 83 1 2 2 3
1 1 I
l Hawled-* Fath l1 0
l ;Gibbs Rd 6 5
1 l cid rewn Ed 1 2
1 Cld No.Cou=try Rd l 2 7 2 46 2 6 7 2 7 6 6-l'*a25 2 l3 ,
I I-Total 183__
l l
I l
e 8 i ATE"EE 10 i
I i
1 f
4 Attachment 10 4
Evaluation of Roadway Shoulder Adequacy Along LILCO Evacuation Routes (Appendix A, Table IV, at III-17 through III-33a)
Prepared By Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Traffic Division i
I January 13, 1984 W
I J
i
l i
Roadway Section Links Adecuate Shoulder Sound Avenue, (92, 55) No Westbound From Cak Drive to Hulse Landing Rd.
Sound Avenue, (54, 55): No l
Eastbound (55, 92);
From No. Country Rd. (92, 70);
to Edwards Ave., (70, 73);
then Southbound on Edwards to Rte. 25 Sound Avenue, (55, 54) No Westbound From Hulse Landing Road to No. Country Rd.
Route 25A, Eastbound (11, 36) Yes From No. Rocky. Point Landing Rd. to Ridge Rd.
I Route 25A, Westbound (11, 10) Yes From No. Rocky Point Landing Rd. to Rocky Point Rd.
Route 25A, Westbound (54, 53) Yes From No. Country Rd.
to Wading River-Manerville Rd.
Route 25A, Westbound ( 9, 8) Yes From Radio Ave.
to Miller Place Rd.
Route 25A, Westbound ( 8, 7) Yes From Miller Place Rd.
to Echo Ave.
Route 25A, Westbound ( 7, 30) Yes From Echo. Ave. to Patchogue-Mt. Sinai Road
l I
j Roadway Section Links Adecuate Shoulder Route 25A, Westbound (30,6) Yes From Patchogue-Mt.
Sinai Rd. To Crystal Brook Hollow Rd.
Route 25A, Westbound (6,12) Yes From Crystal Brook Hollow Rd. To Route 112 .
- Route 25A, Eastbound (6,30) Yes From Crystal Brook Hollow Rd. To Patchogue- -
Mt. Sinal Rd.
Route 25A, Westbound (53,37) Yes From Wading River- .
Manerville Rd. To - -
William Floyd Pkwy.
i-Rocky Point Rd. ' Southbound (10,78) ; Yes From Route 25A to Yap- (78,16) ;,
hank Middle Island Rd. (16,19)
Lower Rocky Point Road, Westbound (3,2) No From Sound Lower Rocky Point Rd. , To No. MilAer Place Road ,
Lcr.rer Rocky Pt. Rd.
No. Count mf Rd., Westbound (2,102) ; No From No, Miller Place (102,1)
Road to Old Post Rd./
Shore Road Old Post Rd./ Shore Rd., .
Wes*M und (1,35) No From No. Countmf Rd.
To Puritan Path
. l Roadway Section Links Adequate Shoulder No. Country Road, Westbound (1,103) No From Old Post Rd./
Shore Rd. To Crystal Brook Rollow Road No. Country Road, Westbound (103,79) No From Crystal Brook Hollow Rd. to-
. Main St.
No. Miller Place Rd ,
Southbound (2,4) No From Lower Rocky '
Point Rd. to '
Echo Ave.
=
Echo Avenue, SW (4,7)
No From No. Miller Place Rd. to Rt. 25A New York Aveaue, Westbound (105,4) No From Sound' Lower Rocky Point Rd.
to Icho Ave.
No. Rocky Point Landing Rd., SE (104,5) No From Sound. Lower Rocky Pt. Rd. to Hallock Landing Rd.
Hallock Landing Rd.,
Southbound (5,10)
From No. Rocky Pt.
Landing Rd. to
~
Route 25A
- T Roadway Section .
Links Ader nate Shoulder No. Rocky Point Landing ,
Rd., Southbound (5,11) No From Hallock Landing Rd. to Route 25A.
Patchogue-Mt. Sinal 4
Rd., Southbound (30,13) ; Yes From Route 25A to .
Canal Rd. i
. Patchogue-Mt. Sinai Rd., Southbound (17,46) Yes From Route 112 to Route 25 -
Mt. Sinai-Coram Rd.,
i Southbound (14,18) Yes
~
From Whiskey Rd. ,
to Pine Rd. .
Mt. Sinai-Coram Rd.,
- Southbound (18,22) No From Pine Rd. to Route 25 .
Mt. Sinai-Coram Rd.,
No Northbound ,
(22,18);
From Route 25 to (18,14)
Whiskey.Rd. .
Route 112, Southboun'd (12,82) Yes From Hallock Ave. to Grove Street Route 112, Southbound (82,17) Yes f
From Grove Street to Patchogun-Mt. Sinal Rd. .
Route 112, Southbcund (17,21) Yes From Patchogue-Mt.
Sinai Rd. to Middle Country Rd.
l
[
Roadway Section Links Adecuate Shoulder Route 112, Southbound (21,68) Yes From Middle Countrf Rd. to Milton St.
Route 112, Southbound (68,47) Yes From ' Milton St. ' to -
Granny Rd.
Route'112, Northbound (21,17) Yes From Middle Countrf Rd. to Patchogue- '
, Mt. Sinai Rd.
Route 25A Northbound (12,79) Yes From Hallock Ave.
to North Country Rd.
Canal Road, Westbound (14,13) No From Mt. Sinai-Coram -
Rd. to Patchogue-Mt. Sinal Rd.
Canal Road, Westbound (13,12) No From Patchogue-Mt.
. Sinal Rd. to Ballock Ave. -
Canal ^ Road, Easthound. (12,13) No From Hallock Ave. to '
Patchogue-Mt. Sinai .
Rd. , .
Canal Road, Eastbound (13,14) No From Patchogue-Mt.
i Sinal Rd. to Mt.
l Sinai-Coram Rd.
Whiskey Rd.,'Sastbound (16,38) No from . Hollow Rd. to ,
Rocky Point Rd.
I
s
- 1 Roadwav Section Links Adecuate Shoulder Whiskey Rd., (16, 15) No Westbound '
From Rocky Point Rd.
to Miller Place-Yaphank Rd. .
Whiskey Rd., (15, 14) No Westbound From Miller Place-Yaphank Rd. to Mt. Sinai-Coram Rd.
Whiskey Rd., (38, 39) No Eastbound From Ridge Rd. to William Floyd Pkwy.
Radio Ave., ( 9, 83) No Southbound from Rt. 25A to Miller Place-Yaphank Rd.
Miller Place-Yaphank (83, 15) No Rd., Southbound From Radio Ave.
to Whiskey Rd.
Miller Place-Yaphank (15, 19) No Rd., Southbound From Whiskey Rd.
to Rocky Point Rd.
Yaphank-Middle (19, 24) No Island Rd.,
Southbound From Rocky Point Rd.
to Route 25-Ridge Rd., (36, 80) No Southbound from
- Rt. 25A to Wading River-Hollow Rd.
s Ridge Rd., .
(38, 40) No Southbound from Whiskey Rd.to Rt. 25 r
s
- s Roadwav Section Links Adequate Shoulder Ridge Rd., (40, 38) No Northbound From Route 25 to Whiskey Rd.
Old Country Rd. , (77, 76); Yes Westbound (76, 75)
From Osborn Ave.
to Rt. 25 Old Country Rd. , (75, 76); Yes Eastbound (76, 77)
From Route 25 to Osborn Ave.
Route 25, Westbound (75, 73)
Yes From Old Country Rd.
to Edwards Ave.
Route 25, Westbound (58, 93)
Yes From Rt. 25A to Line Rd.
Route 25, Westbound (93, 56) Yes From Line Rd.
to Wading River-Manorville Rd.
Route 25, Westbound (56, 86) Yes From Wading River-Manorville Rd. ,
to Old Saddle Rd. l Route 25, Eastbound (86, 56) Yes From Old Saddle Rd.
to Wading River-Manorville Rd.
Route 25, Eastbound (56, 93) Yes l From Wading River-Manorville Rd.
to Line Rd.
o
- Roadway Section Links Adequate Shoulder Route 25, Eastbound (93, 58) Yes From Line Rd. to (58, 95)
Fresh Pond Ave.
Route 25, Eastbound (95, 73) Yes From Fresh Pond Ave.
to Edwards Ave.
Route 25, Eastbound (73, 75) yeg from Edwards Ave.
to Old Country Rd.
Route 25, Westbound (64, 65)
Yes from Peconic Ave. (65, 75) to L.I. Expressway Nugent Drive, West- (66, 128) Yes bouond to L.I.E.
Edwards Avenue, (73, 128) No Southbound From Rt.- 25.to L.I.E.
L.I. Exp ressway, Westbound (75, 74) Yes From Rt. 25 to Edwards Ave. ,
L. I. Expressway, (74, 94)
Westbound (94, 98)
From Edwards Ave. (98, 96) to Mill Rd. (96, 71)
(71,88) Yes (88, 122)
(122, 44)
(44, 48)
(48, 33)
(33, 32)
(32, 29)
(29, 62)
_a_
= -
Roadway Section Links Adequate Shoulder 1 Sunrise Highway,' (63,90) ; Yes Westbound (90,45) ;
From Wading River (45,129)
Rd. to Yaphank Rd.
Route 25, Westbound- (86,101); Yes From Old Saddle.Rd. (101',9 9 ) ;
to Randall Rd. (99,40)
Route 25,WestbouEd (81,24) Yes From Hollow Rd. to Yapha.sk-Middle Island Rd.
Route 25, Westbound (23,22) ;. Yes From East Bartlett (22,21)
Rd. to Rt. 112
~
Route 25, Westbound h(21,131) Yes From Rt. 112 to New Lane Route 25, Westbound (40,81) Yes Frcm Randall Rd.
to Hollow Rd.
Route 25, Westbound (24,23) Yes From Yaphank-Middle Island Rd. to E.
Bartlett Rd.
Route 25, Eastbound (21,22) Yes t
From Rt. 112 to Mt.
Sinai-Coram Rd.
Route 25, Eastbound (22,23) Yes From Mt. Sinai-Coram (23,24)
Rd. to Yaphank-Middle Island Rd.
d Roadway Section Links Adequate Shoulder Route 25, Eastbound (24,81) Yes From Yaphank-Middle Island Rd. to Rollow .
Rd.
Route 25, Eastbound (81,40) Yes From Hollow Rd. to
. Randall Rd.
Route 25, Easthound (40,113); Yes From Randall Rd. to (113,111);
old Saddle Rd. (111,86)
No. Wading River, Bulse (91,52) ; No Im" ding Rd., East to (52,55)
Southbound From Dogwood Lane '
to Sound Ave.
l No. Wading River Rd., i ,
Westbound (52,91) No From Bulse Landing Rd. to Dogwood Lana ,
No. Wading River Rd., (91,51) ; No Westbound (51,53)
From Dogwood Lane to Wading River-Manerville . .
Rd., then southbound on Wading River-Manorville Rd. to Rt. 25A L.I. Expressway, (31,126) Yes Eastbound (126,124)
From -
b O
g an e G e
_ .,,vw. - . . - . . . - _ . , . . - __- - _, _ _ y - . . _ , _ -- _
Roadway Section Links Adequate Shoulder L. I. Expressway, (119, 50) Yes Eastbound At William Floyd Pkwy.
L.I. Expressway, (74, 75) Yes Eastbound From Edwards Ave.
to Rt. 25 William Floyd Pkwy, (37,84) Yes Southbound From Rt. 25A to midway between Rt. -
25A and Whiskey Rd.
William Floyd Pkwy, Southbound Yes From midway between (84, 39)
Rt. 25A and Whiskey Rd. to Whiskey Rd.
William Floyd Pkwy, (39, 121) Yes Southbound (121,110)
From Whiskey Rd. ,
to Middle Country Rd. West Entrance Ramp William Floyd Pkwy, Southbound, between (110, 112) Yes Middle Country Rd. (112, 87) and L.I. Expressway (87, 42)
(42, 44) e 9
o '
Roadway Section Links Adequate Shoulder William Floyd Pkwy. (43, 118) Yes Southbound (118, 89)
From beginning of (89, 45) westbound entrance
.ranpto L.I.E. to Sunrise Hwy.
William Floyd Pkwy. (42, 43) Yes Southbound From Longwood Rd.
to beginning of westbound entrance ramp off L.I.E.
L.I. Expressway, (50, 88)
Eas.tbound from Wm. (88, 114)
Floyd Pkwy to Ed- (114, 116) Yes wards Ave. (116, 98)
(98, 94)
(94, 74)
Hulse Landing, (55, 77) No Northbound From Sound Avenue to Rt. 25A Rt. 25A, Southbound (57, 58) Yes From Hulse Landing Rd. to Rt. 25 Rt. 25A, Northbound (58, 57) Yes From Rt. 25 to Hulse Landing Rt. 25A, Northbound (57, 54) Yes From Hulse Landing Rd. to Sound Ave.
I l
l '
t l
Roadway Section Links Adequate Shoulder Wading River-Manor-ville Rd., South-(53,56) No bound From Rt. 25A'to Rt. 25 -
Willia = Floyd Parkway, Northbound (49,120); .Yes From L.I. Expressway (120,42);
Eastbound Entrance (42,87);
. Ramp 68 to Rt. 25 (87,100);
Exit Ramp (100,41)
Longwood Road, East- No bound (25,132)
From Yaphank-Middle Island Rd. to Wading River-Hollow Rd.
Longwood. Road, East-(109,42) No bound From Smith Rd. to' William Floyd Pkwy.
Iast Bartlett Rd. '
No (23,133)
Northbound From Rt. 25 to Ashton Rd.
Ashton Rd., Granny Rd., ,
Westbound (133,69) No From'E. Bartlett Rd.
to Coram and Yaphank Rd.
No Granny Rd., Westbound (69,130)
From Ceram and Yaphank Rd. to Middle Island Rd.
Coram and Yaphank Rd.,
(21,69) No Southbound
-- From Rt. 25 to Granny Rd.
a -
Roadway Section Links Adequate Shoulder Smith R5ad,
, Southbound ( 40,109) No i From Route 25 to Longwood Road ,
Wading Fiver-
' Hollow Rd., North- ~
bound (132, 81) No From Et. 25 to
. Longwood Rd.
North Country Rd.,
No Westbound '
(85,36)
From midway between Randall Rd. and Rt.
25A to Rt. 25A .
Sound Beach Blvd.,
Southbound . (105,9) No From New York Ave. '
to Rt. 25A Miller Place Rd.,
Southbound (4,8) No From New York Ave. to Rt. 25A Yaphank-Middle Island Rd.
Sills Rd., Southbound (24,25); No From Rt. 25 to L.I. (25,26) ;
Expressway, Westbound, (26,127) ; ,
Exit 66 (127,29)
Yaphank Rd., Southbound (125,34); No From L.I. Expressway (34,67) ; Yes to Sunrise Rwy. (67,129) Yes 1
i Yaphank-Middle Island Rd.
Southbound (26,125) No From Sills Rd. to L.I. (125,33)
Expressway Westbound Exit 67 p , . _ ._
Roadway Section Links. Adecuate Shoulder (28,26) No Main Street, N.W.
From Yaphank Rd. to Yaphank-Middle Island Rd. -
Main Street, S.E. (38,48) No From Yaphank Rd. to L.I. Expressway, Eastbound Exit 67 Yaphank Rd., Northbound (123,2S) No From L.I.E. Ramp 67 to Main Street Sills Rd., Southbound (127,31) No From Long Island Ave. ~
to L.I. Expressway ,
Eastbound Entrance Ramp #66 L,I. Expressway Ramp, Southbound (124,123) Yes From L.I. Expressway Exit 67 to Yaphank Ed.
L.I. Expressway Exit Ramp 63, Southbound (119,118) Yes From L.I. Expressway to William Floyd Pkwy.
L.I. Expressway -
Entrance Ramp 69, Westbound (117,71) Yes From Center Moriches Rd. to L.I. Express-way .
Wading River.-Manor-ville Rd., Southbound (56,59) No From Et. 25 to Schultz Rd.
O
Roadway Section Links Adecuate Shoulder Schult: Rd., Center Moriches Rd., South-bound (59,107); No From Wading River- (107,117)
Manerville Rd. to L.I. Expressway -
Wading River Rd.,
Southbound *(117,115): No From L.I. Express- (115,97);
way to Sunrise (97,63)
Hwy.
Center Moriches Rd.,
Northbound (72,60) No From L.I. Expressway Eastbound Entrance Ramp #69 to Schultz Rd.
Wading River-Manorville Rd., Northbound (59,56) No From Schultz Rd. to Rt. 25 Wading River-Manorville Rd., Manor Rd., David Terry St., Southbound (61,98) No From Schultz Rd. to Lanes Rd.
Lanes Rd., Southbound (61,98) No From David Terry St.
to L.I. Expressway i
David Terry St. , Manor Rd.,' Northbound (61,108) No From Lanes Rd. to Wading River-Manor-ville Rd.
l
. 1 1
I I
l l
Roadway Section Links Adecuate Should'cr Wading River-Manorville "Rd., Northbound (108,59) No From Manor Rd. to Schultz Rd.
Rt. 25 Exit Ramp, '
Southbound (113,112) Yes From Rt. 25 to William Floyd Pkwy, Rt. 25 Entrance Ramp, (100,111) Yes Eastbound .
From William Floyd .
Pkwy. to Rt. 25 Rt. 25 Exit Ramp, Southbound (111,100) Yes From Rt. 25 to William Floyd Pkwy.
Rt ., 25 Entrance Ramp, Yes Southbound (110,99)
From William Floyd -
Pkwy. to Rt. 25 L.I. Expressway, Entrance Ramp 71, Yes Westbound . (128,74)
From Nugent Dr. to L.I. Expressway Rt. 25A, Eastbound (36,37) Yes From Randall Rd. to
' William Floyd Pkwy.
Rt. 25A, Eastbound (37,53) Ye8 From William Floyd ?
Pkwy. to Wading River-Mancrville Rd. .
i
. o ,
Roadway Section Links Adequate Shoulder l
t Patchogue-Mt. Sinai (13, 17) Yes Rd., Southbound From Canal Rd. to l
Route 112 Ridge Rd., South- ( 80, 38) No bound, From Wading River-Hollow Rd. to Whiskey Rd.
Route 25, Eastbound, (65, 64) Yes From Mill Road to Rt. 94A Route 25, offramp (99, 110)
Yes Southbound From Rt. 25 to Wm. Floyd Pkwy.
Wading River- (59, 108) No Manorville Rd. (108, 61)
Southbound
, .From Schultz Rd.
to Mill Rd.
L.I. Expressway (118, 119) Yes -
Entrance Ramp, Eastbound From Wm. Floyd Pkwy to L.I. Expressway l
1 1
1
l ATTACHMENT 11 x-
~\
_. . _ __. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ . _ _ . _..__ .
. e r
i Attachment 11 State and County Road Improvement Projects Currently Included in the Suffolk County Transportation Improvement Program for the <
Period April 1984 through March 1989 Prepared By Suffolk County Department of Public Works, .
Traffic Division 9
December 1983 i
a a
i t .
l t
t 8
. l
(
I
/.. .
s * ( l N
(
, c 2 I
% h Q 1
. s ..
N %
2 %
.ez
-i:
- a e, R 4
e s m
.; 6 %
% 4
.'. .e s i
.f* & Y Q
? "? ! V %%
2 ;% .L we R(4 w
& Y #3 y (N Y
- e. .
% k.
)* EQ w
- e K) y
- * ". ? R q ~
- s w e-
~ * '.). ,. s+ \ i,_ y R a Q U g q. ,4 i
x..
(') .. }
sO9- .
4 ~4 i
1* 2>e l C lg ) v. $.s* -
~dk &w Dh N Wk '
i = . a -
- s. ;
i W = w Uq w 5
- q. (
e 7 gQ t
- e.e ,
5 2
~
,e vs sos E dee s=
sV "I E
=
$"* kMk
.i
.i z <
z .c Q 9 M 5
W 8 .
i -
2- a a
- 4
. a 7 ww" .? o n
-2 s e
=E ~.
1 3 J
a g
w
-w ww
<-, g) D 'u a
.i w
g
<> g e.! @ T
- e. g g -
n*
I 3
- e. .In'
<Ze o
+
Q
=
g *
., ==
s= m wa 3S O O
- g
- Q Q g"* w *= S f5 4 m e . . N.
1 x 5- me o me o o a o j s u s.
a ew
.3 c Xe w a 0
= 3H { & & 4 & &
D =0 - e4 4 .e e e
- e. =Q c.
= a a a a a 2
W . < < < < < .-
<3 w <. &. 4 6 3
- e w= 0 2 3 3 3 2 ww so . e. e. e. n.
2 o C' O O e o us 2 2 2 2 2 .
w e c. .
c.
g e>g e -
=-
e>
w o 2>
i a- a- o e >a e-4 g
2= -> um w
w 2 <- <w 4- 22 a 3x we
% XI I SW
.m 2 ewx=
T=w o-w
=
c<< <m3 2 w
=0s r. e v rs > == i.e = w == = f4 0 - Nw f E >O* >Qg> WCW
- Dae l g*2x 34+
- 4 2 3 =* 2
- e. Z san 4. e- 2 w .
4 s >- wa-l w 5=
.= 3
-w I22so -<
< z..s a
}g = = - 2 m.
= = -
O 4
g - 9.
2 2w .
3Lw 2< > x3- g 3 == Q ** 3- 3* g == w i == -,o e < -Q == s - < M,O >= SJa
+
s,. =-- -,2Wg
-a g
n--
>== -===
, =cs q-z. n.c n-c-
,<s s --== - 2c -
g=!c 8
1 L C s= . -= cowse
,210.Q37m3 ---a 0 3a Q2=-3
=ce C ., == 2<e Z2 t.2 S e e - :- ,O ,- , n, a.
- 8. - u. eg g ,,
i I . .
1 I
I ! . .
(
l
% 8 i
=
l t
l ')
4
- a
% 3 k%
M Y .
Y ' *E* w f%
N -
- g M s
% % =$
e s%
c.
s q
k N Q t w
c 6 0 s S > %
A = -
%+
y 1 Q 6 : N 6
$. 4 v i
- a. > e. si 9 .
se w
v Dx i
9 e ,t) ... i a s
% M h, h 'q "a f 4 K .
= ,
e>A 5 .'
-e y .
N
!. ?o ~ N v. e. s U
-2>. e. N Q, q q
> e': N N h.k 5 3 ' kJ ; e e
2 8@ N
~
P Vi y
- / 8h M
.=. =w m. e. s, n.
em as is. @ en W e e .
2 > 89
- p ee /7 N
- m- > . =
e
.e rW 5
.e g
== 3 * ,
- w z.> a. e.
I U wm, '
O.
O[
-a -, a I I"
- g
.#= wi
-w aw<-, UgI e-
= <> g g== e.
to .
3 a= g a M. -1 e-
= *M -
A.
< < c> Ie 30 N O
. og 2e um
>$w --
9 *
- O ce 5 .
- 8 m 3w - e. 5 , 5
. . e. n.
C == me CO O O O O =
x me w v .e- aw c *e
=
="
a
~
g a- a
- v. "w A e
A e
> e' =
e
- e. 2- 5 .~ a: a a 2 m a 2 e -
4 e 4 e .
< 2 3 e 4. N L. a..
e w5 = 3 &
>< 3 >
Z ww *
.a.<o n O. o.
a n 2
eeo 2 e 2 2 2 2
= =. > .
> 23 4 e
.=
wa 3 .u a e2 e oc e eZ- e ==
5 wx > < -2 e u
C >c O3 C2 e 3 L 23 ae= = >u w a et C == 2 4w a 4 4= w M2G
.a e .g 3 0 = W" 4C c3 a,p- ge
-ao M 4. 2 ng- n .n 3= -3
=<> w .s I > : -* >>2- me >=a we
- 3. e s x zh- =ez- za-= -e ==, em W3 w22
-- g- = - .
w .C. 3C -* Q2>=3 O-a=
U2
-E 3&
40 e-COO
-a 30x : .J Z ww- == -e O =. Q >
a= ,eA M 3 , > ee ec : M == 3
> .* m
.1 e :2x
- 2=0 =<a JG N w .e a. a.9 a :: a.- a > N*- :r - > am awC=
201 MM=w M9 M*30- N3gsa
- CDOC 003=L O -g =2 -
> 9 =24 .as cec- zwa>e a042 as Q:-e o:-se O.g--e.-.a = owe -Osea -zam I
l
- g a ~y - ,
e e, -
e c
e
- * . .g sr + . 4 ra ..t*.
. ,. * /.
, .!
- a - ) ..: : * . v. . **
- ' * #r 't* a M*'44a " i * ' E'
.....-..,n .. . .
l
- IJA55AU-Suff0tK I.I.P. ADDE t4DUM - INFORMAil0N.ONLY Suf f 0LK COUNIV ON $i AIE illCatWAV SYSIEM PAGE 13 - 4 100% STATE FUNDS-NOVEMBER 4 1943
- 186* PIN /stuulf tamtf o/Coutely A MILE F.A.
- ANNUAL ElfMENI COSIS $N MILLIDid5 Insf4 Of SCulPIION 9 AGE FUNC f uND SVR IOf COMMlilfD F.V. F.V. F,V. F,V.
F.V.
svPt or woux 5 iss-ao) FVea-o4 so-as as-as as-a7 a7-se as a9 Po - e',
'() A t V lMPu (NI-e
~
b# , ;
HvJSA4GOU$1,StlLL ROAD- #
- g suus,,P ,Cc nr.P .
Gewannae f h)m e4og '
i si tutJ9R9 84v110 5 N 4.3 U-MA R&P
$lO Al#W4 n l MPl?HVE ME NI -
1.000 4.
[ )(8/F O d ~~ 'WaWfQ&g / pO A/
tav 4 But ??f M) Sly (1I-f I'ULA WB EUAD) . 60/N4ha*M js [y6 dd (s edef)
$ s:r.n ,
I j? s2 lutrPso NV los s N s.o 9-PA psp 3.500 3.500C L L Exr>>sy - Es.% son,rria,t> '
s70ADWA W IMelOVEM(NI- d t-
/S8 ' MM ,ph 8'u t orsG IStFiso EsPets w AY I
- MA*K IJO*U N'!454)
, ( W PAfAC/Ng S'I 1848J99 4 lav35 5 N . S-MC Dil A l f 4Ae 6[ IMPROVE 8;ENI 10 liv 25 Gi?fitaPORf VILtAGE Sl&P
- 8 e
8
_ ~ _ . . _ .. -- . . - -
Suffutk Cuutel y . EllMiteAllute ut Gal Aut Cuossgra; pag;g g4 g NOVEM0EN 1, 3 g:33 flP PIN /Hoult NUMHEN/Cout45V A MILE F.A. . At4NUAL. ELEMEtel 00515 IN MILLlut45 taJM DESCHIPflula 9 AGE FUNC Fut40 sVR 105 COMMITIED F.W. F.W. F.W. F.W. F.W.
, surE of woux s (as-es) Fra3-se ae.as *s-as s as-s7 s7-se so as Po-os i
NO PROJ4CIS CotelEMPLATED IN Illl5 CAIAGOHy 9
e e
e P
e e
e *
- a
. 4
. e S ,
t' . -
% '5 * ~5 ..l:: rt.. l.l .* * +*'.,.f.
~.2._rct'1 t.:~w'. t*-~
s "..r'T****'
_'~ 7'** !.". .W.'- '.T_7Jm r.~v~~~~~
~ ~ ~"'~_~~j.'.'.,- ~~ - f * * ~ - .
_ ,,,. _ . , , , . . _ . . . a _ .,
. . , . , , g :p - . : 4 - g u.6 ; tid : We hJ
I f4A55AU-5Uff0LK~ f.8.P. ADuf tJDuM - INFORMAil0N Of4LV
$UFroLM COUNIV-STAIE PARKWAYS PAGE 15- 0 HOVEM0ER I. 1983
- 1 88* 8' I tJ/ 8?s N e I I im M!! st/Cotual v A MILE F.A. ANNllAL E L(MEl41 tauH DI505318Ilute COS15 IN MILLlot4%
9 AGE FUNC f utJD 5VR IOT COMMillED F.V. F.V. f.Y. f.V. f.V.
svPI in wus:w 5 (85 89) TV83-84 84-85 05-8G 86-87 87-88 88 89 PO-89
- e 4 032005
. I?f4C 5 N P-PA PKV O.000 1.750C
' 1 IDE I *.I AtM lisL E I 1: RIDGE P A ltil i t#G .
HAP
$$ O'a l67!i VAR $ #4
- P-PA PKV O.000 0.500C 84A %4f44 e" lit PAIN & pf 0K =
g $41's A0f f4f laI IH8 P A14KWAV
- stulpGI N lia 5488 fi)LK CO IM P
- s l 56 li'il62H 1858' 5 f atua l hi Itse S I A 1 f PARKWAY N 18.7 P PA PKV O.000 ,0.850C 8y///F4*N ///L- A gri f - MF# C N^* 'lld 'I 64ilpi 5l(43 BNSIALLATION
- E saw t(Vi sau'ia a stai hi I:51 A 14 ssp s MY ~ N V.P PAVf f t(tel R4P(WANIAGil N a.2 P-PA PHY O.000 0.800(. U /)/UM M L.3/M Id' -
- D AVI Hurl'ItI MOSES C AllSE W A V )
usP *
- b8 6'*?500 VAR S N P-PA PNV O.700 0.700C tote 4 DE NAll'HIPLACEMENI Ota VARIOUS PARKWAYS SAF 0
a #
.\
w +
- J
'.y ex $4 -
g*
- 4 b
I t S*
Y a
C E i
)
h I [
O s L
- l W % * -
r C S e
- .6 4 >
6 . a.
e e 'g e% e T *
.e*A g>eW E ,: L *
=4 a s( .
e e
.e y,
2 '4,
.n
- 2. >. e. %
we
> a e 3 t m (O
~3
=
C
.e (3/
3 >
== . a.
- b@ .
e e e 2 > .
3 4 O 3
. x -
-2 3 2 +@ @
== 4 w>e Q
& 3 .e -
' wmT M WM w e 2 ** a w. .
3 4O C g - aw
<-, 8 w o. .
g - a. n
= >-== , o Q .gM -
4 *2 4 C 5w c- 5 w .e a.- vI w m- o
== X> . C@ @
==
- ag == e. Q . .
- c. .
is Ec
>a N Q X w w O $w 0 W G > >
= $ x x e = c c.
b 4
aQ d e c 4. {.
- b. &.
- om em L e Z tes nef M ma -
== g O I n
.e-N - *b
-<o -
@(
- W cn 3 > Z.
@>L O W *2e wx
~
% 3 3 S' o- w@
w -. a.
-- c. .. == g
{,23 a ee*G
+w:
ww
. ww- We 33 4 >@ ==
esp == 3 - x em W
- W C. 7 U E O 3 aus .
' ==**5.-=
33 o--z e d ==
43w e-3 D es* $$
... 5.. .N7. x ~
== 3-3g 3,, a.4Q In O ** 3 @ ens W @ -WWW L @ C 1 - }, o o 9
l
m -- . --
-4aL. - - - - - g _ _. - -
l
= . 1 l
i 1
i h
g . a.
t o g ,
=
e i i
l w
C *@
< >e d
g . e '
we e
.e M
- b. e. .
w
- e a
J .
==
- e I
.m
.S. >. e.
> 6Y N W e s a=
2 e e Q Q <
2 u =
.e g a 3 Q
= 3 >. G.
4 wa e
- 2 e ==
1 C :
2 O o.
Q R
4
2 4 2
== m w>e
.3 3 .e o
- < wwv w e O ed a s=
2 3M w 4 3 e C e g Em aw 4 t
. w == < == w 3 e w
a = .
b gh e. w Q
m ==
E IIM
< e C*
5 Q
w uw
&* >e W
=2' ==** a-
- W OO U
> w
=
W .g . == a. 7
- Em O X >e 3 X IA = 4 3 e -
i
- o G
- w 3 a=w . .
5 .
3 .
@ e. .
ww E wG ac e t
- ,=4 K
4@N 4
==
9 0 2 -
N
% t M
w
==
!a.
wE w
be
. == O am +
%ww tel S
.I. w a.
&3=
6 I
" ==
e .eu, 4
~
ti u.r.e. ' .. s A > . .w..w 4 a inte ma. . :.u ;is - 1 ac - - "t m- _ - - = _ . _ . _ _ _ .
.}
N'A55AU-5Uf F0ll(,I.B.P. AOdf f,A)UM - ItalORMATIote Oldly Suf f 01M CotM41V orf -St ATE IllGilWAV Sv53iM PAGE $9-A 400% COUNIV FUN 05-NisVEMHER I. 1983 I ll l'ItJ/MussI f f alf M;E ft/04HWal f A MILE f.A. ANtAJ A L ELEMENT COSIS Ita MILLlotas laN4 til SLH al l 8084 9 AGE futaC FUND BVR 105 COMMIIl[D F.Y. F.v. F.v. F.v. f.v.
lirt of woien s (a5 as) FVaa-se a4-a5 as-es as-ar er-se as-e9 PO as 64 scsol2 t o 10 s. R . U MA CIV 5.005 0.450P O.505R 4.500C - //k'd'Edl#C'E d40 uscurasin or sNiestuloCu WO A Dl (:A 86 Ilfilcul.L$ ND 10 UAN3((d / " ' .E4Wg/A*geg g.,,
l' A I CI N H.Lil 941 $104Al RD)
HEC ss sesoI4 s -
Csv 4.400 a.400C 0.'S&MFM /Nie -
Y4 All'd [bwtry -
e At $ h sint en:ilas hleut Ains IMrRo-view. e newalv puans ur.l.
ClY 1.040 0.047R 4.040C N W ' * - O8 d 66 f.c5014 LH 17 5 N .
(IWailli lif ORAIN FAC OH he idd ( [~
s 0 AHL ( lidi AWF,.l.R $7- 1 St IP If AluVif W SB'Llet DRIVE )
vuA.
n e cct.<m vAll S N -
CIV 1.072 0.072C O M 6046 pfMOVAL Of (AllE MARKINGS (8gpg7y [g,g gy$
AIN8 5AtEIY S E R I P I N(i OF .
ValitutJ% CDtMII Y ROADS sat .
no scsos: CR4 s .
CIV 9.900 0.3OOP 1.IOOR 4.eOOC (o gyffyyg g O g y
utcons or CoHNACK ROAD.
cuale:: u er- = lu VIC
[O pur<f g ,1) -
(DGEWOOD IAIE ItOSPliAL)
REC SEcoMrg ocruq Gooso.Blm I
e
l o
- k i .k, e
h 7
q' \ DDk % Q 4 D N
%wgs% 9I 4 N 1
., u ~ 5 .
y s N hk T 9 I
e
=.
C .?
w g
w%
3 s
ts 4
r10 s% b 4 N4 9 %
4? )
'
- L o
n y 4 ,k 4 4 . ) (g D b D
-Y C (s b% a u s R v w
c ae
- 4 Y y 4 '%
N% gs y e m. m. 3 &
w=
e b 9, q m 5y g
4 h s D.V 1 N
9 4 as -
- 4*)
k }U
} N
'8: '
b e>E.
B w. e (, y Cy s 5
- o4 s-Q nQ
- -(
w-
- y s
q sn y
.~ 'u N 8 2 > e.
3 a .e we
- D M e c e
- e lu T w c .
w 2 2 *e E *
. 7 *.
= e .e. e
< > e I en I >S w
2 3 2 .c w > e' t(nu d, . I g, o}
c U. ww ,.- .2 . o. .
n ej -
.2 3 w e 2 = w wc 2 g =2 ww -
<w <-, $2 c 5 R cr -
O g - e. e- o e 3 eg. =.
a . =E n o. O. .
C n
< w. <2a Qe o l
\
e e, o> C C *T u en.
>5
-w
-- n me c g e g> ,
. o 2 8 ;
- e. .. o. .
5- .
ac -o a e oc o
e.
.X. W[ *e Ow i.
3 x5 '
'w $
wa 2 3 -- - - -- -
a wQ 3w w uu u u uu u u
2 e- .
e a. g <
a -
.= s e e 8 A w es. e e
= 3
= ww -
mQ .
- I . n
<ec 2 2 m
> 3 a
g ..= y-
- *w .2e 3 *= - * *
{ @) e ,. e ew->
e- a g e ta< . ==
>g u-g C aw- -wn w @]S W33 SE
. 2 W o a= g - a Re u - <== .4 e-s I wua . I. < y eg
=
w
- o->> ~.s> u e co e
s 5-a.
o->
.a
<w evw
~~
5<
g m *< - - e .o.
rg:
, << 35m ==== =5 -
ei m :
=
- E23 *a
> K. '
w==W Yuw- W-<w = Ewe W W co Zw -20 b* > DO o wa
- ve co- v4-
=s. wa<
o - a, eo
==
i.
- a = 1 2wd G 3-4* =ww 5-o
==
owe ev-x
-=~e
-ow<
e
. e:
-e=cewwa no sgo-
== j n-:
3>
Nww 2 e e.
Om=
4<2*J -
0o2= 03:= - -3 e 2.
-:-j W3 493-u 4ww2u A v .O *>= cua2- c3.u a= =4 >
- a. 3 = A-2e Uw33w wwaw. uwa33 www<2 w -w d a == 4 2 #2<W2 emCIC m2-3G m2=3
- s 3. 2 Jt O
- n D g 4 - = -
n m
9 m
_ *~~...,.
.- .N-l
r t
' 7m N
i, ..
i
,a i N
(
b k s
3Dn d k u'4 4 g b,
s~ w 3 o oq 4 h 3 3=
I- a . 4 .n v o
%4 v A s Js > 4/ h4 y 3 7N \,j % 9 b Q I . k 2
d9 Ncy % G 4 b l
eb ec to y 2 =
Q<aD vyQq ,
has 1
Q5 RT b 4 nt b 4 l
.>.. . s zy gi s ty s
. )s gs g y g 4
O 5
%s t , Qg ds
~
d ru s S D D cD 2>.
.~ < 8 n
l4 )Nw ,k %
w
.m's. L 4 q' I e a , . q 5 h..l,% .
- :w
.s.
8
.i .h~. n I
4 >* w e.
3 e >.
2 n. O, b-
.o .. o.
n j N 2 g. 2
=>
.d
- o. a. ,
e.
a- 1 w w. ,..
e.
a.
n o - .
. I cr w .
w w
{
g
'.w U.
3
$. w. w- .
- g g n L.
e e
s on nw
- u. %.
I n.
5 . . - n' -
O O
< w . < a C> CO
~ we
. Og um .
4 C e O O O
>3 == 0 Qm Q Q Q n e- . n.
- O. n. n.
{,
. A. n. .
nO
- =
o-* ae o e
>s xa 0 zo w3 e ==
I
= O m ,4 $ -
uu m
u u
.Y u=
g wQ w u u %
- e. 30 % -.
2 W= .
g
< < e a e e e p . e a
z ww . . .w wC .
~* %
s M 49W 2 2 24 co- - N
. v.e m
z a e ua>>a a 2=
w
= g W>*p aae 2 W-O]- S4
- Q>
.ug
{ Wwg dws a : c.
W2
-o-25 == --
,, caa M .= 4 W M W-em G ww . 2 ZwE 2WE 2 W
- % c ==> eM*h.
c4U v. =
2M Om OQ w e e- n 4 =.
3 3 e. w>
a -m
.=gO- .c.e=gO-i.e Mwww @W43
- E* @S.w co w- av
==5c am5o v
m<<3
>< --Nw mac- a5=3 - a><<
uso:
I
- 2=x umec waea wa =
=ra vuaa v-ge - s a a.
OO
- >Q W>g 33 2 .s-- U a 1 20 w.
.-3 03. 23. we-Ch3 3 2 [, Ow] 4Ea 0:e 034 .
Guw v+4gw *U -- - o ->
-- ~
nw - 2 11-3 #.
- L-5-:
nw3: n z: ~.
==,w ag -- e n .== na34 a2
%ew
-2=a
-=2 ==2..=
- Z -@ g -
@WX>d
-n -Ca> *o-
@ *= 2U 2@
- dV @N sal V #2g44 O W-4O W ** - u. W Cw
-4;-. L. s #.O=3
- e. awa W0 2-
.6 - re W 2 gO.
O W *= - Q 2 umW: 3 43%-O #24-3 e f == 3 O Q > . @ o L1 m m m m e
-g
- e.
=
e
- i 1
1 h \ w
<l N '
[ T% D % k b N D
~q \- h c D- b o
w
.e K bN $ 9Q
, r >- e. fno ,3 %
u yc T I e NN \
16 s.
%st D1 w v
I-s 'A s
.e a t %s i ?< N
-2 >- e.
em> D. w 4
,s 4 s q
%e T,
s .
e t .X' s
, . ,2, .
.a
- k * .N % m
.=. > e.
g n . Q 2
a m
~
- $ k O
=%
4
= =w .e $
.O. - w. e. O. .
- m he O O
< > a 2 em a e no .A f Q >p u ,/ } u a w <- - e w
5 m o 2 2 2 +c i e '
o
- =>e G- 1
- e. o. a. r.. o.
- - wm* C 0 0 C Im a e 1
2 w w
- l 3 ogm. C Q <w aw a
= => g = e. ,c o
o c. z o .n o.
< w*
we e e
> o c vm
&. > ~ =m e O O O e u me e e. C@ w e e Q = 0 w
.- %> - e. . o. . n. rm n.
X 5-u me
>e o o o o o o a $w Q X
- i. wW I"*
w Q > > > > > >
3 wH e
5 - - - - - .-
- C 30 m U W W u u u 3 W- <g=
p .s e e o a e a e w in.
2 ase w
- wn . . . .
-4 3
gee 2 4 w
> C >
- * . .J.
. .A. A. w ee g .
g W2 WUww dw
- WUw W-= 40 5 x 4QM Ud 44 2w 3
- w w
u
- ma. wo a a w E um. ->
w-2 3> w4& Q> X4 m . 2 c33 mu2 cuc- WT w =w w-ww a
@< *O c=>-
en z .e 69 z w o-a -QWe
-= **g s.
I w- 2-
- 3 m == Q ** M * == 2 2
>3 W < .2 w Vmm W4 002 W .3 . w I*X So 3 .> 3 > 02
=
3Uw 4 - it e.
w-3 6-*
c 2. = gzw o-o wu- zo
- C
== w% wet _ s> w >* w>C- UI
=am a5 o-= - <. ocI e a u-o Q == Q m3-w w=I*w e eO O4w d -4>-
a3 m an *=
T2.* *3 =g w == G =
- c. 2 0 @ ow a sww
=ec
-wm
-me c
v
-#!=
c:=..
- o. sw3- vs ==
os=ce w--=-
c=v.
-o vog>='
we
---a c<
ve=_g<=
o --=
v==ze
& G e= eLX4 to w C e O MwdC2 WWw4O W Q == W 3 WGWWC
. &2 = as R e e @
=g
""=
e e e e e C
=
e 4
- *g. . . e gg,. .. . g. , e, ,* .
0 NASSAU'SuffDtx T.I.P. AlotNouM - Ilaro# NATION ONLV I
Surf 0tk COUNIV 0FF-SIAIE lilCatWAV SV$lEM PAGE 23
- O 9007. COUNiv (UNDS la0VEMutR I. 1983 IIP 18184/140Hl5 Nuutt R/CoutJI Y A MILE f.A. ANNUAL ELEMENI COSIS IN MILLIONS taset Dt 5tfall'Illita 9 ACE FUNC FERN) SVR 10f COMMITIED F.Y. F.W. F.V. F.V. F.Y.
I v rt' 08 WortM 5 185-89) FV83 84 84 85 85 86 86-87 87-88 88-89 PG 89 .
87 5C5852 CR 21 5 -
CTV O.350 .350C I fil At IGil Hf CR2I Y Al*llANN # Odiw/3/ [delB -
Ill'M (I/OA'
//*)/ Q*g g, g . ,, ,, ,,, j Ave .VIClellI V HF Mll.L RD- -[ dip 3 &6.7 M N N A>/-
straouMISA VI N plC -
j* Ba SC5154 CRiiO 8184 A 184 iA(llIIIts C8100 S -
CTV O.120 0.120C -
fHital Auk teWt.Vic 0F NV24 t
414tts*1Df 8 P. A v 5 IH#A .
D'8 5C'e t % I ( R8(V) S .
ClV O.400 O.400R
~
5 0 e lief 4.plaSI Of CR900
. sus rut e: AvelCp:3-CR4 Isile nACVLON IROW)
Pvd '
- 10 505858 CRll S .
CTV O.400 0.400C Nets /64s D b A*//
I IdCuta51stucilute OF CRil / 7 Pill ASKl 5:0AI) 8.R IDG( DVER
- D8f/D~ 4-Nd/ I #UD'W l 18484. IOWN Of IRANI Il4GION llH I .
91 5C5060 C#19 A 5
( 0835 5 fiOCl lON pf DRAINACE 14 .
CTV O.450 0.000R O.350C O vi/Af A
F As It. Illi 5 ON C439A.
FLYING POINI I:0 ff.j~ -
gg4((gg hy g*.g*f l>RA I
'12 5C5862 S .
CTV O.650 0.650C sit CONSIRUCliota OF P.E AVER DAM l' RIDGE .WESillAMPION llR I
(
l
O O
-c.
3 .
34 N,
+
. 8 ; c?27s' h? i
%cd 1.
V Tq
.w q ~4 eQ .~ *
= $ -
< " xa s sv \.) N 4
= LM9 a s ps '8
=
%*\g i
.=
N u.
X N R 9- d 4i g a
e --
.=
1_w 3w h $s c @, f' we 3aw as y s
k
- > .e \11 .
y e
s' w ~e n
- - , n
=
.t s 2 .t i 2>
.- . t
= . e. n.
- m. =,
w e a .
=
5 2 2
= w e 8 8
~ >e a o ce 8 .
5 m' b -
e 4
2 cm
> e d d 2 d o >me W I
. <= = c e 2 3
= = .e a o m
=
3 =. w > e.
o B
. = 2 . - n 1 a awwwe o o-
- o. '
2
- w w .
o w= Q
$ =f
=w
<=,
O
=> g=e -
- 9 as k 1' EEe
=m o>
g oq Ww d
>5 =~ t oe e
=m c. o o
- g e e o e ,
e.
5 .>
m e. =. n. e.
ce n o
- U2 we w o =
n o n.
i w s c .e r o.
3
= 2. W5 g
- Q >
= w8^ $ > > >
i 4 w W . > >
3 wf a
W G W m
W
=
4 4 W .
.s . ,
3 T wm . e e .
2 tas ins
- wQ
- I . .
,t 49e 2 2 3 3
> e 3
=m 2 .
w'
- 2 i w m WW- > W3 W o 5 . .o Z .Q. < a W m.
W
.=
.O=1- W >
.e u C < :x W =
2 =2 -<
- N 2 == w> =< 2>
a wQ w a:
w .wc g w3 3gw 24 W= wx e mW3m m w3 = W 24 t Q G E *J C *I Ce >>x =ww wg I 2O== aC ~ C. G <
E" m es Q C f.8 =C3 >>& g 3 CO ,
W -4 2 X Wuwd b=w au< r 2'3 w)= W44 a - 2 mam Be =<2 =5 mr=
Wer X W2*EwC D Wg2 I t
w=3
== 2 ees >
<* 9= 3<= ==
c =e= -
=g ,3 wQw 2>
=< a= w= -u:
Uwg te, .
5' =4am <o=> *e =3 Cg a 33 @weO 3=0 CP.
Nuw =ggg C22 co e2 s. Q .
34 c2 ma o m e. w= a e<e 4 2c4 e g
=3g WWwU =3== ==>. e. g g c.
= .
LQ
- d 3e.U w Uwuw CW-7W Ww2 w c-Q< W2*
= W 7 C. 2 ==W-d4 H 1343 WE33 W232 WC=O3 U 2 * ., -
to 3 W .) 3 WGW3 OW&SU
&2
=g m
9 $ Q WQ3=WM Q .
@ P > e
=. O @ @
e t
=. . .. .
o
. ~ .... ... w .ou.eme4mmmeneae-r- - ^
--**d=***- - - ' ' ' " " ' ' ' - ^ ^ ~ " ^ ^ ' '
~- "
^*
^
I NASSAU SlJITIlt K I.l.P. A(H3l f AMJM - leaf ORMA B lott Ot4LV
( SutFOLE CoutJIV 0FF-SIAIE ilIQiWAV SYSIEN PAGE 25-A 8001 COutJIV F UND S - NOVE NU E R l. 8983 1
g IIP Pita /l#DUIE DAIMCER/CUutlIV A MILE F.A. ANf AJAL EL EMENT C0515 184 MI L L l ot45
- t BA8M DI"*L8elPllufe *9 AGE FUNC FUND SVR IOI COMMilIED
.' svet of WORu 5 f.V. F.V. F.W. F.V. F.V.
(as-as) Fre3 se e4-s5 a5-as as s7 e7-es es s9 PO-59 8 '69 SC5870 5 N -
CTV O.200 0.2 OOC LAIA15CAPING UT VARIOUS '
OlstNel v s!OA(35 Af4) 8 AC11 II Of 5 8
g L Afi ,
8 l 100 SC5179 CR43 5 N -
CTV o.350 pH A I NA s.(
0.350C fat'll.IllfS ON CR4 3.tsitR il6VII I E lustNPIME fil V8 R448 AO DNA f
! lui 505180 $ N =
- CTV O.700 0.100C l linl At t r.ts I D E RAlt &
l SAf[IW INPROVIMINIS Ai VARIOU'. 1Ot:AIIONS SAI am 5d es2 CR?l 5 N CIV O#9 satrtR4 '.lpuC lost of rR2 8
. l.325 O.125R l.2 sins.u v t*HINI V APetANK ROAD (90W [E441&va'64'7' t UstuurinA VE N lit c & /p Af4 woc 0 /] vLe' -
101 Scr e49r. t it ir. 5 N .
CIV 1.325 O*825R
- l.200C 8
S Ilst W AI K Cut 45 5 & VARIOUS
- IMP Ota Car 1G.5881 tilIDWN Olv0/Pitulloie 810
- 64&P 104 5C5497 5 N -
CIV 1.600 SIDFWAtM COf 45 0 00Ci lON l.600C Old VARl(MJS cot #NIV ROADS st4P
..-. - - _ _ - - ~ _ _ __ -. - . - . _ _ __ _ . _ _ . _ . - - - - - .
i 74A55AU-5UF Fot K 7. 8.P. ADut tetaM - ItJe opstA t ltwJ OtJLV +
$Uf f 0LM Cot #dIV Of f-51 AIE IIIGalWAV SY5itM PAGE 26-8 100% Cot #4IV flNJOS -tmVE Muf M t. 9983 IIP Pit 4/90Ulf teaMII(p/COUNIV A MILE'f.A. At#M1AL E L E ME NI en M O( 5C N 8 6* I l pf 4 COSIS IN MilLIOt45 IvPE Of UOHN 9 ACE FUNC FlaND SVR 808 COMMillf0 F.V. F.V. F.W. F.V. F.Y.
5 185-89) TVa3-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 l'O - 8 9 los SC5897 5 N .
CIY 0.450 Wil'4 ACI p4 tl8 Of AWlAA A VE 0,4 SOC I.NIOGt flN I f(m SC58JG S N CIV 3
. 0.3G6 0.366C plCoresIpucIIOsa or iI518 COVI 8:E IDGE .500184 AMP f Ota Bet t .
l e
e
. l e
i i
e 4
L e
1 I
4
o e
o
. - ~ . - . . - == -- e
_- - ~ . . . .-.--....-u. . . . . . , ~ ~ . . . , , . , _ ,
sea %f.au s as a na es e semeese um e a e e use e*e-meeve see es s ** = e e..= a e.
SUF F OL K CoutdI V Otd SIAlf illG80WAV S v 5 f t 04 sanct 49 NOVEMutil 8 1943 IIP Plf4/Rotsif HUMutR/COUNIV A MILE F.A. ANNUAL (LIMENI COSf5 IN MILLIONS
- AM4 DE SCRIPf lON 9 AGE fut4C FUNO SVR IOI COMMlllED F.W. F.V. F.W. F.V F.V.
IvPt OF WOHM 5 (85-89) F V83-84 84 85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 PO 89
+ 92 000812 Hvil4 5 N . P-PA NYS O.030 0.03OR tevlI4:CitASE CREEM SHIOGE FAP O.500 0. teouc )d (>O~ // ' #bM--
(fAS IR ANST E R 10 F AP) .
nuI 1 c// 9d/l / T'I 7'/3" -
93 008139 taV 23 8 $ H 6.6 P-PA FAP O.000 l.OOOC Oftp P A Ret AVE : 5IGNAL
- IH18 84C08#4 CI($0Ulle(Rf4 '
55All NORI8t(RfA STATES SIG I5M 94 00814[ . RMC 5 R . P-PA INIR l.850 0.tSOP 8.OOOC OSINb URIDGE REttAHILITATION-
- D
. e u CAustWAV se OvtR SIAft'UOAT CitataM L
. </$g/DyC K 6 f M dllt 7/l h o*'/
f UNI %
l* 95 004743 VaM S N , P-PA ItBit 0.000 0.850P '
IH58ECfloN OF 4 DRIOGES .
044 VARIOUS PA*tKWAYS uRI 96 004:46 59 25 Hv25 SIG INSTALLAIN IN-s C l.a u-PA NYS 0.800 .eOOC 00v12~" W^
FAU O.470 0.470C irHsC N InP a RESURFACNO g:W MM FdC/W &
(HissrouOcut AlvtR HVils R&P
. . I 1
~
1
~
J s
C
.. e m s e, I
C 4 Wv , N R N
% 4 'C t.
Q
. u\ - 9 N
Q h
9 k A
% D c n'4 )s R
- T C A
% q % 4, is
- 9 - gh D a
D g Y k $ k 4
Y o 9 ~% a s v V a s ,
0 .e Q N' .TN g
9 ( l
\ .
- a. >. e. D mo s \.i . e.
8
%k DA sw c r e
.N i-h Q
,% -D
-2 >. e. ]
Cwn f -
- e '4 *
(4, a .p r *
" sO %
- 1. , ho I W 2 N- \ %
.m u
- 2. >. e. D. . % .
g t
we w Q
/
w e Fg .
I.
s4 e.
c e
c N &
c u o c .e c %
a w
>. m. o.
g
3 w we e
O h 2 W L .
w .= Q
> > 2 .e e
= < w>e e . n a n.
z 2 2 .* - = - -
wwe O C O O I U
- - w w a
- .M 3 '
e sw 5 we = <-*
= .=c gme*
ge
- J
< .= . .2M .
- i. e= 42e 'o z cm .
= ga uw D
.=
z
>r-
~~
o.
- e.
8 e.
0
,o, 0
- o. lo .
8 o.
o
- 5 m> me we o o o.. o 02 =
X u Cw w
o x m
g z a e 6 a s
- w a 5 g < < < <
3 m w
is. .
.e w w an. w i W s e) s 4 <5 .
2 a E. a a s.
e mm m a. e n. a. m 4 ww @
M.
= ao . . . . .
-4 -
N e
,9 2 l <SW 2 2 2 E 2 2 l > .
2 .
= 2 < s W W W tes W w e == M to 3 2 > u 2 C C f" <= Q OC w w u =6 QM < a
% O 4 W Q= @ W 2 M2 Ew O Em w' "O t s e E dw @Q W W M > C" ==
n > =. m>4 n-J N>g M .E 2 =2
. r -aa >o >xw >=. >s >
x Z= 2 s === :-- :3E Zd
+
2:s 00 zz Dw ww Og 24
=c= -3 Y t ====3 C>
WQQ 3
t -.aw O
WV Ir- 2 Oa= = ==2 .e J wO L 0-O t"' = w 2 O CJ u = -. .Nw- *e= c-22 Oscw e- o cw osc c= c=o ss.
=os >
-sca
,s-s-242
-ca=-
,~x(
Qw 2
-ro
,-n Q4
- 3
-es-
,2-wa 0-=>m
=
e:::
~=o
--,a
-w
- . = - Q. "2 :a u =
w e2=. .a= = o2-== }.OOo 4 .4 Q >z =>se L2 m e s *J . = n
- @ 3 3 Q C O l
m .Q = = =
t I .
e e
- 4A55AU-Suff0tK IR ANSP(lR I A I 8 Df4 ' IMPROVE ME NI PROGRAM .
Suff0 Lit COUNiv ON SIAIE litcalWAV SYSIEN ,
PAGE 21 .
NOVEMGER 4 19a3
- IIP PitJ/ROult DAJMtif R/COUNIV A MlLE F.A. At#NJAL ELIM[NI COSTS IN HILLIONS NUM p( 5C84 8 P f l ute 9 ACE ft#4C fuNO SVR SUI COMMIIIED F.Y. F.V. F.V. F.V. F.V.
avPE Of work ,5 (45-ast Fve3 a4 e4-as as-as e6-a7 a7-ee as-as Po-as 40J OS8235 HVBIO Unoap Isot LOW R0(IIEMP-5 A 2.6 U-PA FAU O.000 6.IOOCk [g ,,g ffg) [g._,cg;fggypgs(/yoM .
IIE S 0.000 0.000C) '
SIEAD IPuf -84WL IS RD) -
WIDite & INI(R$(CI IMPROV RfC
- m 804 OI82:06 P4VIIO 5 Dh0 AD slut a nW sain (500f t:(R R t.I u PA FAU FAU 2.000 6.000 2.OO6ii 6.OOOC pd(>/ e /M -[YW OW/Jaufff m.t #
SIAIE l'M W V - t4 V IO'J ) _
sit C .
105 Os123e NVI80 5 R I.I U PA FAU 3.090 0.090P 3.OOOC. /' O IM2', .
~
nuoAss swat (OW RD(NV IOO- FAU O.525 0.52584 _.
NV24) 470ADWAY RfCONSIRO- fl..
- C 81014 A C(O A/6 IZ#( # f/)dAl j IliC IO 081240 NV347 5 #4 . V- FAP O.000 8.045C [2 (j /1T J F 7 -- / / 4J / */P/C /(f u,.J c, kW6(7-I Dat.MiUG SICalAL5 CONTRACT NYS 0.000 O.425C '
1II 84V34 7(MORICl4E 5 ROAD- _
04 D IOWii ROADB RfC .
408 Os$300 f aV27 5 C 9.0 P-PA FAP 28.215 t.OOOP O.215R 20.OOOC 5084Rl5E IlWVt Wiet t L ER RD-W/0 Potd) RD IRE CDs451RUCI IO (7PRIS$WAV RfC GOs 014320 NV27A 5 R 1.7 U-MA FAU t.500 0.000P O.3OOR 9.2 OOC MOfA8 AUK IllC88WAV(500fle IIE S 0.420 0.035P O.020R O.400C Cs4E A i NECK ROAD *WELLWOOO NYS t.850 9.850C AVE) .
R&P 0
e 4
g.....-.. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . - - - _ . . . . . . _ _ . .. . _ . . . . _ . . . . -
) .
- h4A55AU-5Uf f 0LK IRANSPURBAllON IMPROVEMENI Ps20 GRAM e
SUFFOLK COUNIY Or4 SI AIE 188GilWAV SV5IEN PAGE 22
- NOVfMUER l. 09e3 lie Pas #/HuulE ta>Mu(84/Cout45 t A MILE f.A. AtNAAAL EL EMENI COSIS If4 MILLauf45 IAlH DI SCRIPIlON 9 AGE FUNC FUND SVR 101 COMMITIED F.V. F.V. F.V. F.V. f.V.
inis or WoRx s (s5-es) rVe3-se e4-e5 es-es es-o7 e7-se ee-as PO-es i > list:5E leWW(t/O' IA . 7 6 VTM b
. upoAnWAv-r/O NIColl5 No) rotasi RUCI 5tRvlCt RoAu5 i 145 C .
i
- IIO UI14002 Hv27 5 C l.E P-PA FAP 3.900' J.900%,. hog ,, , g -
lo2 4 5tNelil5E ltWVIE/O FAP 7.000 gpIU- g 7 (7.OOOC4 NILDlLS RD E/G OCfAN AV) "
4:ena51 HuCI SE9VICE ROADS
- Rf C-til 0114001 Hv27 5 C l.O P-PA FAP 9.180 0.teOP 3.0002 6.000C Mpfg2") ~
to l)50teRI5f itWf([/O .s 04:1 All AV-Pilf LL IS DR) 6TO%/M M W*
e t estas l RUCI SERVICE ROAD 5 R f,C es2 0tf18003 taV 27 5 C 2.8 P-PA FAP O.38S 0.385P to.500C
. 4 0 4 45UtaRl5E IfWVlW/O POfJD FAP 7.300 7.3OOR GD WIO L#ktl AND AVE )
C os45 3 87UC I SERV 4CC ROAD 5 i RcC ll3 0:08002 NY27 5 C 2.0 P-PA FAP O.315 0.385P to.500C l lO2 MLHeQ15E IlWi(W/O FAP 9.700 . 9.700R LAufLAHO AV*f/0 DROADWAV COta% I RUCI SERVICE ROADS REC
, 814 0227s6 NV495 L Ot Mi 35 LAND EMPRESSWAY 5 C 2.5 U PA FAP l4E S e.2OO 0.285 O.tOOR -
00C, [,/, hj * , p. [Ag, SERVICE RD CONSIR UPPER (. g,gg 84At f $40LLOW RD-COMMACK C(MJ
(
f 5
6
% 8
_- . . = -
. . . = = . . = . . . -
D%
S
, a e\
? o y4 (4
,% Q -
N t % }e s ( %
e t
]4 < ag es li
, ,
- Y Q e d N M O%
h * \
- U n 4 kD y n$ k m
n .,
N %
n N -
E .e k r. Y M a e M% 5
& m. e. ,
kJ N%
=
me h t
( N 8% M h ? w
\YD iiN hq $w
.a. . M e .
a s. ... % c}
1 q sM.
M V g
. r.
2 *= e me . e me h .
W e A .
2 =
g a E p
s C W o $. 9 C .e ( o c
E >e ' .
& 2 . = . g e.
g w
=
mA *
= r Q = .
QQ w > .
3
- 3 U
=
=
e c %
o o < Z.e >.eO O i
e a 3
- '2 a - .
n.
ww* O e *
.it. G w W e O
=In Q 2 a ww &
c we ***
=
g 4
o f N. &&
Me
= < g = e. . e 5 nm e = .
== ea ** ,Ie =n M. o. e. o. n.
O O O
=
- c& *z *5> uw OO e
6we- -
== 0 2 >2 oe e 0 o CO g == =a o , ,o eo .
=- 5 a
.2mem M E d n dd E U e ==
a o x
g 1 & &
=
2 -
Q 3 g 4 4 3
4 3&
- w -
@ w .e .s ,
e 3 . g 4 3
g e
3 L. &.
M hw 3 3 & -* .
e 3 3 3 g ww z do
=g
- e. e. . o. c.
N O == =
2 med W m 2 m E 2
> w em > e >
c --
.a 2 3 >g a= ,
l u
e<*>
302 WE3 e
wwa cw 3WW AZw pg w a =g e < ==
3g e4 ww e ==
==
w>
wg Ww 3
- 1 W ==
=
w Q
U 2
a we = n o e w
czXg o a u == cmc= = w= =u em 42w dw a a=
w as == a wsci
e&X
v mg W g mw cA w I n> { c== N= 3 a=
mw30 >wz Z. >wwc >& 42 3
2*a Y Z gew ~2 2 ->
go] 2 *ca 2DQ Z* >=W w=2 Eo =s2 .o= fue -O wo Mcg
=
. = =
ea ea g == w. g3 mC ww w @ w =d wIw ins >G >2 3 & im ew wwg e == = 2>
3 == 0 m == W 4 e == w == Jb = == W e e W=3 4 w 33 ** -Q @ == 3
- Mg TgC t'l *. >
%Ww ZWE NCDw NZ3=2 mg>g og*23w= MCX New
@hC M *2
== w e NO=s3 M.3.2 es C w == 0 M.
MC^>2 MMWU MNwu Mba=
&Q= Cwepu C w .12 w CwfCs C Za M > = ess M>Qw C==a M= Ig ec=m
.& { d. o. .
= , e e
=
cn .
a- { . = , = --..-.=. =
9 '
s h4 N
. M T
h s .
a w
' - )
m K4 t
v 39
. m w
- ss f *
! \ TS
?
w '4 , b bb 44 k 9 a
- 9 h 4 .
QyN '
A
.i Ja '
o d )o Q oEw- ia ,w b
- h4 x
9 ' dj ed sh- k4 4 ' k k <e 6'A e 2 hhD
- e a @, ss- % % s s x .4I
- q. T
=.n 2>e s. es k * .o xsc h 6 % %N s'
~de N $ C' .N N
, ee 4 x - m k 5 o u =% .
. m e .
C .e n ,4 3 a c=
.' L 2 D e.
- }
(
- E e 2 e D
3 e *% % f.
% w * \ > u u- - .
3 O <
2 *e e N
oi e
. w>e i a }
R .*
wm,
. e. e. o. 4 n o
.E. -G w e -
- 2M O 3 we e < , aw t e
.a e &
o c grn - e. o e
=
=.
- e. J
<1e O O O a
Q 28 om O
. Uw *
, A Ow"*
e a m 2
>Iw cm m $. hen e c .
a g> - e. . e. .
- e. e. o.
5 .g me o n n o no -
x d
v c .e.
.e Q x w w Q & &
- o 5 = =
L & &> 3 w < < <x <
g ,*
- w w w w& w s e3 4*Q
< ~
. < at < 3p
= , s. a. a. a. a.
g ww & & 4 A & 3 a
4 ww 0 m n e
. e x
n =
5 & 5 i.
n -
.-
o .x. W g wwa e
e w e
e
> = s .- c 33>
e<- e. > ecc ex24 WW-
>2 c 3 3 g ==* en w 3 3wm ec Q = X >e >X X 3
w 3 2 .- 3 cs
- 3. <a 2
% G = = .a x-ws2 2W3 2 e &2= < <%x 2w w 2 -=
aT- eg & 42L wa .e.
4
~
E G E &ww2 e .=
Awwe e->2 e4
&e[w e
E- t w 2 .n.
ew
~
&G 2g
- 2 < e .g e:aw- sc W<=s c 4
- 3. 2 a2 =Nw Ze - 2. 4 -e-O3 X> W23 e3e
-a= w w=3 3O -
.C 3e. WCe
.u. e
-:3-0:. .
- e C3 w- ZQe a2 O=23 2 2>>.ee -Qe
=
2=e a
4-O t
== 52 Dw-<
n:-= m:-x. m3== o-x n-2= E o g
- s. 3- . os .c, - n < o
=es --3> -=3-e -23
- n-3 c c
, . n .s..a
-> m5-- og-w>- eger, e mg.ezw W.2 .
sa- Oe-c =- . :.: =e o-: - <e ., e.
- .: e a c e
.< me-
<-v e c - n n , e
,3 n n e n n n
,, - - - n.
e 1 ..
l t
1
o NA55Au-5Uff0tM INANSPORIAllOld IMPROVEMtf4f PNUGkAN .
Suf rutK Coure V cte s AIE telnetwAv sysitu Pact 25 NovtMatR s, i983 IIP Plea /Hoult Nu88tlER/C0imit y A MBEE F.A. At#AJAL EEEMENI C05i5 Ird MIELIONS F.V. F.V. f.v. F.W.
eases DEMHIPilute 9 AGE futoC fuNH EVR IDI COMMtflfD F.V. 8G 87 87-88 88 89 PO-89 5 (85-89) FV83 84 84-85 85 8G IVPi 0F WORK 0 pyg: ;Zf~// - [g:gegsp,gggajcp Hs25A 5 N . u Ma FAu 'o.ooo s 033C1 821 092043
- I l owpuVt lei te t 10 HW254 IN e Illi VIClleIIV of SIONV-f ISROOK ElRR $5AlloN ,
j NAP o ,
l a u-PA FAu s.soo o.nooP ). boon s.ocoC Nctsu 6 - MEraevSrgec//ve.' ~
s28 ipeuxsi Hv25 s .
JENBC840 S UNNP I N E IN E SSE -
- OtMiGtlE plVfR 10 EDGEWOOo A WI ta8( l ,
i pfC
, $AGllMO$ PANMWAV lHl(R= .
,f (IIAljGE 8,(If VICE ROADS
-; (Eus o.4 ooc r) />
o.o2oP Louth - M_
tiv e s2 s N . u MA FAu o.4oo Abuscpretc M(r f ah Inesii69 NYS o.800 0.800C Hvs82tPtOHelC AVINUE- -
j l
inna 15:Aems E nuts 5WAv t
' 94P g sfLT 23 - hg pag cgy o.575 o.575C /g 3 ,
. 138 IHf 49G 3 NW25 5 N . 5-NC FAS 08125:Itant AN E4ECK ROAo= I - * -
- )
L t1 AV V I E W AVf >Alf RSP I Hii9G 7 Hv25 5 N P-PA 44E5 o.400 0.400C [g gjg )$ - /h/E466C/?dd 4
N[2 ",'??ldd?"",'l! "?'s .. s 4"e-cmeer 54, O
E
e '
.. v
, S -
.4 -
et 3 ,
y * ~
so e
l' ( Q' q
b si k. 'O ~
=.
h lC.
3 g C l ~. .
41 3:
.eN 6 1m
- 4 M s. .e k '%
- . e. w e.
I .
we .
- f
% g i
! C' I
1 .be
.e h-3, 2
Qwp 4
. = e, I
3 2" -
2 I i
1
.> 8
- 8
- 2. >. e. =. e.
t w2 = . o o e
~
e T' 5 c Q k U u C .e
- m. * >e .
& 2 **
-i" A
2 e
- *S
.L w >
- v. 2 e a 4 w p > > 2 .m $eQ Q e l no a 3 p z 3 w 2 > . e.
. e.
^
- o. O.
I .* www 0 M k .G
- .a e . 00 . *
-Em C 1 2 e .,e we 4 .m. e
.q .c. --
- p w 4 9w a.
, e -. F. I m =.
- s
~ += 42e 2 C>
o .
d
. w *
. . --. o ,e o
- 3
- 2.>Z mw QS O O fi 4 >e g > e N. e. e. . *
- 3 - g ac - n oo .
'D W U ow w
D C X .
{ w w
a Q
w L @@
, p 3
- w 2 4
m wg Zw 9
- 3
- 4 . 4 4 3
g e, 4 4 e
& 2 '
e
- y ww 3 4 3 .
f w ww r.
2 dQ . . .
-4 n 5
h <me 2 2 '2 O'.
4 > c I'
- ww M M4
- W>U2 9 3w 4a4
> 4 u A2 4 ed
%
- e= ZZ 2
,1 5
wd OUZW g+
- a w @=
cm -w=>
31X= ==m3 i
W Ma
>U exsc - U - s=
4 >WQ4 >w> . -
3 X Zw 2 wC Z W 4 .J 3-222 QQ eQ 24 gwa m34 w=3 wQ O wXy .
= . * *. 3 4 wt w J%-
- av 2 4 *=
- 2 W3a "5" & Q W e- n .=. & W
==
NWw o.3 e 4 -4 a e- c-=g .
I,
- Zes OdC.
=ng SQd4 . g e s. P=Q-z--cw
=w> 2>w4 2O24 e ** 4 as
] 43= =21W c==ma 3>few.
=2 j r. 2 m , o
- ** g* M 8'I
- M. - .
I 1
.I .
l
i O '
y
.~
v g . .
N -4 1
3$
1 y
7 s
7* -
R 5 '- E T Q
s a.
,h %
% 4
- 4 I 3 S w s tE 8>
is 2 E
' m' $ $%
- a
- ** . 5f. 0)0
<g (3dd T 63s c, J. E. E1 ,s tq ,as )ys (
5.-
~ * %,2 k.
t % 4Q T
d u i e x '
A M q 2 J4 4 % {, k. s c 4
+. J 4 2
g e
O", .
b
\
w .
o 3
- 8. 4 -
g -
= xw
- z. . t n.
- e .
Z >
- @ I u I
.Z > - e /
> < 2 oc o 1 3 2 2 -
w m. -. e.
- U- O C.
3 ww m .v.
=
M s "" ":Q, , W A,
- o. -
. a. .. ,5 a.
o 2 h >
a -= u-
- Qw
.1 w=
= ml o 8 t.
8 2
-w -
.n. .o -
- 5>
ee .
- o. o- e
- o. -
x w
u .-
a sw
- = a se s .
= <- a a .
3 a
m w
m = ma m u. -
e 2
3 A
. 4 > > <
.4 5 .
< . . K. ,
d b 3 E a 2 &
< ww -
2 wQ * * *
- O 3
4ee 2 2 2 u a
> .*
- 2 e '> w W W d .O. u ww =
W ew wg a u =
a u -I w 3 -4 3 mO
- =
.o. W W e W 2w e ae M e. m = wa we w >Y w a4
==
> aO
&43 &- w2 we-4 al >
c20a 3. 2 0 - e. 3 O I'o w=3 S
2 3 Ga 20 22 ww em m -
uw
-w
- c. -
y NI w
>n g2 e
2 >K : 5 -
==
-3 @
C Mb5 ex= e <
o n. = $,==$2= .
%uw M 2 -03 N-- mw-c o*x eww 2WA. "2]h NC&- ow
-2 @X - i
&c=
0g,W< n=x<
32-e 3-u h.
e A - a z. u
-5*.a C3
-.e = 1 Ocu a
@ ~ . p
.&. { 9 9 m C n ,
e
$ M l
l
6
,_ , , ,, .u.....,+ * ' * * * * * * * * * *~'
() ..
j NA$$AU-5Uff0LM IRANSPORIAllON IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUFFOLk COUNIV OFF-ST AIE filGleWAY SVSIEM PAGE 28 NOVEMUER l. 3083 IIP Plid/kUUIE min fir stplPa lON NUMutR/COUNIV A MILE f.A. ANNUAL ELEMfNT COSIS IN MILLIOt45 IvPE Of Woux 9 5
AGE tuNC FUND SVR BOI COMMIITED F.V. F.V. F.V. F.V.
- I (a5-C9) FYa3-84 f.V.
84-85 85-86 86-07 87-88 88-89 PO-89 tel 0153G9 %
5' R =
O.420 )
SW4ilY AVE OVIR SWAN
. Inllt 0.4 20C ) bhy .gij */ .Y sit-*
g -
bt'J046 k EH46soh)De<d utvtR ulN3"#00460 .
p g upt
[ Dvu# # # COI/ ,
14 2 u #*.33 70 5 R UC IER O.970 ' O.075R O.970C ,
Ut ll stH BOC.E NO OVER L IRR FAU O.030 PI JffilR50N OlVISION 0.030C filH22d i 120 ,
ilRI
- 44J u75378 s R IIBR O.975 0.975C UNIOGf LAtat DVER SAGA-8*0NACK POND-GIN 33OOblO ftta l .
- 844 Olb378 CR29 5 A l.7 U-MA FAU 4.450 6.4bOC O SMllHillWN AVE RECONSTRUC SER l.600 llON & itRIDGE REllAB BE - MIS O.450 3.600C 0.450C I / D/ MN #6MW (ta L Al(ES AND AV & LIE ggOg/04/4 UO" e 445.035189. S R -
lulR I.100 0.050R l.lOOC CRANtiftlHY ll0LE RD OVER iIHR.MINIAUM OlVISION ggg, g., p og O t taJ 200 LOO 6 DR8 946 075393 5 N 3.0 U-MA FAU* l.285 Nfl{AultITATION OF DI D IOWN IDINV347*588EEP PA$s 8.285C g fCNN pO +
EURE SCO} Pila $f I RSP *Q Oflpl C g AfQ-l.
e
. ,N
- 4)
Q
% : % sN
$ .g % '* I, 4 k 4 N %
4 e
h5 1
- 4 Q
k b i
8 v
3 3t 4 1 v 6 -
w 4* s o. g
- T ac S % t
. - bq -
s Q- %
g iO
- o ka -@ l - %
D, $ 4
$ b 3 't h'- 9 b 3- b2 w
o
.e g T s.
- s
'd
% 3*% so
==
g Ay .R m .
Ci wf t 4 e s 6.
i:
u ?4 % o 4
- - C
.. kkw -
5 0 k, p4yy. et T A e>e i :. sq d .
w N N v $..
- e s( Q m
m 4 3 o - .; % % t
- % I Y a 1 G- 4 %
zJe g sq A 2
.J4 D .
M
%I
< e -
5 o
a 2 8 >e .e 'A 5
r=
U wb
. . e d
= >
- a -
3> .- =
.. 8$ r$] \8 o
x 2
=- G
=n w w.,. oo 2
- o. m.
- e. $)
n.
o' n.
o C
E: #:, % #
=
e "e .
g-e . %
e I $' -8 e 8 8 n
.a = *n O. I d.
a w e - e e Q O i O. O. e.
o me um a le- O O O o:. owe
=
n- a OC O
>2 w oe
-e oooe o C.
o O c= .
n 5 5ca ma do
==
6 6 6 es d
x v a
c -- 4
= x e 2
e
{ 33 & O a a- -. -- *
- W W #9 s .
- - == m 6 a
=
3
- s a 4. Q 4 4
.3 a .
- a. E.
s m a. m .
a E. E.
e ww - . e w
- o O.
--. e
. e.
a o . .
400 U e Z Z 2 U 3
., 2 wB -. - '02 =
- c z *- as m. k.
5 4 o.w e zw a ma ==a a o N
w u
w
.>3OI. 5 x = =>
o
- a
= .* o< w w aa w w
m 3a
'd ==
w = e.o - . g 3 w
~ naa
==
4 o
3 =
I e
= o*=E e4-x.
x ze v => w a
-Iao -- -. > a g3 - =
w 2 - =a w-2
-- == -a2 ag- . .
- Ga.
-e .
<z -- o-Sie .Es *U
- m mz v e =<v :-
==
sww
= c a, a o wa ca: c crQE ci-c n2.
gji
,. u
- *> n' os
, ,5EE o.
> =. . n o n z. - g :. o.s-e
- a. o}. o o .m
.n en
- s.
-w>
&Q=
P= a. X4 -aw4e .<- o -
o - c:--*
Qu-e QwC-= ** C .4 = -a24 ** a e
&3 *= e 03ew Q&&m CW-e CWW 8'*
QE3-0*444
.g. , , m, O - f4 m
- 4 e e e_y -
a
e e s
s I
I Tq t
a
-]
o k k .
e .
e, .. .e " -
- h. .
'y N
! y %
w ee ]Q xQ q g e
h4 $,.
- )D e -
C**
.e 4
%'t
!j -
b8 s% Af 4 g?
5J4 % c y 4
@, a" 4 w \
.> w
. Nv h - 2 PO k*T d8J %
8 I
a CW ( .
l{)
, 3-*. "N5 4
- h }
i e 5 O o 4 2 he 'N l
3 $ *) f8 o
w e *y - .e 8 r
a
- c. 2., >. e. T . M.
I we -
0
== e e ^
z - Q s*
1 88 %, (C, )
> < 2 .e oc L ,8. )
p l.
. o a 3 w 2 > e.. n. o. O. , . l .
~ 3== www OO O = 0 I w a .
-= w M C
< - , pr0
- we aw 3 - <e_ n.
j .. g - e, n.
1 e
- e, . Swm eXe Of n. )
a a en. G>
t o wa u sa.
G. Qw e c ma 00 O O 2
4
>Z
-=
Om ec ,- r,.
a > .- e. - - o. o -
g ae we o e -O O - O.
= u .-
, o = a
, w w Q w
.as e
4 a
g 44
+
4 o
4 4
= w w w - wm w w w
- w 6 a M.s W W.
W. I. W .
r a ww w e e a e
\
4 ww
' z e. O. O.
.a..gu
- n - -
X 4ee S 2 2 a 2
- 5- u*
y 2 e u
- . ~u w. .a 3s= w eg W8>4w
< Ag3 w 4-pae>
--> d .e g 3 .
- - . a aw n-I w wm - - -e .a - = wu j %
=
as 45'5 s- Q* 3 w 2 j
- Cc e<0 a=
4 ww cs a
% a-e=
- .A."*,-
v2g w
as O.
-w a <m o a2*3C
- =#
-> wI
- v **
j
- aX W da4 CQ4 w -
C2w *u E "M .
. .So - = 3_ . gg-
- w as 44W ca-Uw
] . .3 3@ ~
sa wZe
&qw
-3w
>k>
E, 2 a.
e .9 2 ==
e OL- 3m w3- 4 4 42" #w* X to O-Q @ _[ - = Mw 9 % ce s *w>3 w T=w-
. 2a sw= 4 w-O, -- Nf3-e we N, 5:
- w' w* r.
ec3. : **
e.Q h e e. w e- v 2#* AgqleA 4 ~=-*=
d'a O .14 4& d u 3 >. Q C *' Q 4 a
(. - -
5 .. =<z a--:waa = : ~~-zw es- =1 wa Oc=ws ~
c .s :-:a c I 3 c. ea L2- 9 d C - E f 8
_: _ .x 4 g g
s p
p p
,g 4 ,
i n -
a O
6 o
. AWACHMme 12 -
9 O
I i
1
~
r l
Attachment 12
)
EP: ACCESS CONTROL POINTS (Excluding Access F cm the North, i.e., From The Lone Island Sound)
Two Mile Recion LILOO Traffic,7 Intersections Control Postsa Woodville Road & Locust Street (Shoreham Village)2/
Woodville Road and Briarcliff Road 2/
Woodville Road & Ashley Lane S/
Ucodville Road & Suffolk DownsS/
Woodville Road & Valley Way 2/
Woodville Road & North Country Road #5 .
Woodville Road & Route 25A # SA -
Route 25A & Ridge Road 46 Ridge Road & Wading River Hollow Road 4
Aidge Road & Whiskey Road #7 Whiskey Road & Woodbridge Drive Whiskey Road & Bridgewater Drive A# Based on Appendix A, Revision 3.
2/ The two-mile region described in the LILCO Plan presently encompasses about two-thirds of the Shoreham Village community, and uses Woodville Road as a " dividing" line between zones A and F. Effective access. control would be provided to this area by including the entire Shoreham Village community into the'same planning :one. Access centrol points beginning at Route 25A/ North Country Road and east would then eliminate the need to assign access control posts north along Woodville Road.
L2LCO Traffic Intersections Control Posts Whiskey Road & Leisure Vi11 age (2)
Whiskey Road & Randall Road # 115 Whiskey Road & Summmit Drive Whiskey Road & William Floyd Parkway
- 8 Route 25 a William Floyd Parkway $s 18, 62, 134, 135 Route 25 & Town Range Road Reute 25 & Montauk Trail Route 25 & Panamoka Trail Route 25 & Tarkill Road Route 25 & Wading River Manorville # 10 Road (Route 25 & Kay Road)
(Route 25 & National Cemetary (2))
Route 25 & Route 25A d 13 Route 2'S'A 4 Hulse Landing Road # 12 Hulse Landing Road & Sound Avenue # 129 Hulse Landing Road & 21st Street d!
Hulse Landing Road a 20th Street 3/
Hulse Landing Road & 19th Street]/
Hulse Landing Road a 18th Street 3/
d' Sufficiently manning an access control post at Hulse Landing Road and Sound Avenue would effectively control westerly access to residential streets north on Hulse Landing Road. However, this would also prevent access to streets east of Hulse Landing Roac (which are outside the two-mile region described in the L2LCO Plan.)
LILCO Traffic Intersections Control Pes s Hulse Landing Road & 17th Street 3/
Hulse Landing Road & 16th Street 3/
Hulse Landing Road & 15th Street 3/
Hulse Landing Road & Park Street 3/
9tilse Landing Road & Bree:y Point Road 3/
Hulse Landing Road & Wem'a Road 3/
Hulse Landing Road & 7th Street J/
Hulse Landing Road & North Wading River Road 3/
O O
6
. e Five Mile Recien LILCO Craffic Intersections Control Posts Pipe Stave Hollow Road & North Country Road o 43 Pipe Stave Hollow Road & High Hill Pipe Stave Hollow Road & Hayward Pipe Stave Hollow Road & Milland Pipe Stave Hollow Road & Kettle Kncil Path Pipe Stave Hollow Road & Evans Lane Pipe Stave Hollow Road & Echo Avenue Pipe Stave Hollow Roe.d & Route 25A Route 25A & Sylvan Avenue Route 25A & Miller Place-Yaphank Road # 41 Miller Place-Yaphank Road & Jonah Road # 137 Miller Place-Yaphank Road & Whiskey Road # 120 Miller Place-Yaphank Road & Rocky Point Road # 122 Rocky Point Road & Bayliss Road .
Route 25 & Rocky Point-Middle Island Road 4 35 Route 25 & Apartment Drive Route 25 & Lakeview Drive .
Route 25 & Curran Road Route 25 & Woodville Rcad
! LILCO Traffio l Intersections Control Posts I
! Route 25 & Wading River Hollow Road
- 136 j
Route 25 & Woodlots Road Route 25 & Smith Road Smith Road & Cross Road Smith Road & Medford Road # 36 Smith Road & Eagle Drive Smith Road & Cemetary Road S=ith Road & Longwood Road #'34 Longwood Road & Private Road Longwood Road & William Floyd Parkway # 33 William Floyd Parkway & Long Island Expressway (Exit 68) 4s 31, 32, 126 Long Island Expressway Service Road
& Upton Road (south gate)
Long Island Expressway & North Street Long Island Expressway & Center ,
Moriches Road (Exit 69) # 27 Long Island Expressway & Ryerson Avenue Long Island Expressway & Port Jefferson-Wesghampton Road (CR 111) (Exit 70) # 131 Long Island Expressway & Halsey Manor Road Edwards Avenue & Long Island Expressway (Exit 71) # 16 (# 143 nearby)
Edwards Avenue & River Road Edwards Avenue & Grumann Boulevard # 15 5-O
F I LILCO Traffic Intersections Centrol Posts Edwards Avenue & Railroad Street Edwards Avenue & Route 25
- 14 Edwards Avenue & Sound Avenue 4/
1# sufficiently manning an access control post at Edwards Avenue and Sound Avenue would effectively control access to streets west off Edwards Avenue, north of this location. However, it would also prevent access to streets east af Edwards Avenue which are '
outside the five-mile region described in the LILCO Plan.
- 6-e
-e- c ,e +y- - c - e-.
e e l
i l
I Ten Mile EPZ LILCO Traffic l Intersections Control Fests Broadway & Main Street 4 48 Main Street & Wynn Main Street & Maple Place Main Street & Barnum Avenue Main Street & Old Post Road Main Street & Reeves Road Main Street & N. Country Road g 47 Main Street & Perry Street Main St eet & Chestnut Main Street & Oakland Main Street & Railroad Station Route 112 & Church Street Route 112 & Bergen Street Route 112 & Hallock Avenue (Rt. 25A) # 49 Route 112 & Crescent Route 112 & Oakland Avenue Route 112 & Wykcff Avenue Route 112 & Doris Avenue
, Route 112 & Rec Avenue -
Route 112 & Rt. 347 # 50 l Jayne Boulevard & Rt. 347 # 52 I
i 1
. o l
LILCO Traffic Intersections 0:ntrol Pests Jayne Boulevard & Roosevelt Jayne Boulevard & Montclair Jayne Boulevard & Marlboro Drive Jayne Boulevard & Winston Jayne Boulevard & Newport Jayne Boulevard & Erie Street Jayne Boulevard & Greene Avenue Jayne Boulevard & Clinton Avenue Jayne Boulevard & Dillon Avenue Jayne Boulevard & Squires Avenue Jayne Boulevard & Roe Drive Jayne Boulevard & Old Town Road Old Town Road & Bicycle Path Old Town Road & Wedgewood Old Town Road & Hawkins Path Old Town Road & Hawkins Road Old Town Road & Sonway Old Town Road & Howe Road Old Town Road & Patchogue-Mt. Sinai ,
Road (CR 83) # 60 .
Old Town Road & Harford Drive Old Town Road & Apartment Road Old TcWn Road & Route 112
. O 4,
i
. o 9
LILOC Traffic Intersections Control Posts Route 112 and Route 25 e 65 Route 112, Grand Smith Road & Mill Road i 66 Route 112 & Granny Road 4 68 Route 112 4 Commercial Drive Route 112 4 Stuyvesam Place Route 112 & Horseblock Road (CR 16) # 78 Horseblock Road & Maine Avenue Horseblock Road & Rhode Island Avenue Horseblock Road & Newport Avenue Horseblock Road & New London Avenue Horseblock Road & Eagle Avenue Horseblock Road & Connecticut Avenue Horseblock Road & Waverly ,
Horseblock Road & Long Island Expressway North Service Road Bellport Avenue & Long Island Expressway North Service Road .
Long Island Expressway, Exit 66, W/B ramp and North Service Road # 70 Sills Road (CR 101) & Long Island Expressway Sills Road & Old Town Road Sills Road & Old Dock Road Yaphank Avenue (CR 21) & Gerrard '
Avenue 0
m
. e LILCC Traffic Intersections , Centrol Posts Gerrard Avenue a Crescent Street Gerrard Avenue a Suffolk County Park Entrance (2)
Gerrard Avenue a Victory Avenue victory Avenue & William Floyd Parkway 9 30 Victory Avenue a Sunrise Highway (Exit 58)
Sunrise Highway (Rt. 27) a Park Avenue Sunrise Highway a Winters Drive Sunrise Highway & Barnes Road Sunrise Highway a Moriches -
Middle Island Road Sunrise Highway & Chichester Avenue (CR 25) # 26 Sunrise Highway a Exit Ramp 59 Sunrise Highway a Railrcad Avenue Sunrise Hignway a Exit Ramp 60 Sunrise Highway & E. Chapman Boulevard /
East Moriches-Manor Road ,
Sunrise Highway, Entrance Ramp 61 at Head of the Neck Road (# 25 nearby)
Riverhead-Moriches Road (CR 51) a Eastport Manor Road (CR 55)
Riverhead-Moriches Road a Toppings Path Teppings* Path & CR 111 Riverhead-Moriches Road a County Center Drive .
b
~ r L:LCO Traffic Intersections Control Posts Riverhead (Lake) Moriches Road (CR 63) a Pegs Lane Riverhead (Lake) Moriches Road a Woodhull Avenue Peconic Traffic Circle & Nugent Drive (CR 94)
Route 25 (West Main Street) a Peconic Avenue 4 21 Route 25 (West Main Street) a Osborne Avenue Osborne Avenue a Court Street Osborne Avenue & Library Drive Osborne Avenue 4 Lincoln Osborne Avenue & Pulaski Osborne Avenue & Harrison Osborne Avenue & Hamilton Osborne Avenue a Marcy Avenue Osborne Avenue & Gregory Place Osborne Avenue & Raynor Avenue Osborne Avenue & Old Country Road (CR 58) # 22 Old Country Road & Woodcrest Old Country Road & Harrison Old Country Road & Roanoke Avenue -
- 23 Roanoke Avenue a Middle Road # 112 Middle Road & Nadel Drive 6
i <
i
[ ,
1 . :
- 1 1
l l
r l! \
f I
LILCO Traffi:
l Control Pests Intersections Middle Road & Private Road Middle Road & Northville Turnpike (CR 43)
I Northville Turnpike & Midway Drive Northville Turnpike & Doctor's Path Doctor's Path & Oakland Drive South Doctor's Path & Oakland Drive North Doctor's Path & Oakland Drive Doctor's Path & Reeve's Avenue Doctor's Path & Sound Avenue # 116 l
4 9
l I
I t
( r i
i l
l
f
~ +
ATTACHMENT 13 9
9 l
l
(
Attachment 13 EPZ Access Control Peints -- East End Evacuees 1!
Appendix A, at IV-8, states that LILCO will " discourage westbound traffic from continuing west toward the EPZ" from the East End by redirecting such traffic " south toward Sunrise Highway." LILCO relies on but a few traffic control posts --
post #21 (Rt. 25 s Peconic Ave.), post #22 (Old Country Rd. a Osborne Ave.), post #23 (Rt. 58 & Roanoke Ave.), post #112 (Roanoke Ave. A Middle Rd.), and post #116 (Sound Ave. & Doctor's Path) -- to perform this function. At a minimum, however, traffic control posts should also be provided at the following locations:
Sound Avenue and CR 105 CR 105 and Northville Turnpike The two westbound ramps at CR 105 and Hubbard Avenue CR 105 and Riverside Drive CR 105 and Rt. 24 CR 105 and Rt. 104 -
Rt. 104 and CR 31 .
CR 31 and Hampton Hill C.C. Road CR 31 and Rt. 27 (Sunrise liighway) i 1 Based on Appendix A, Revision 3.
l I
i i
i