ML20086T263

Testimony of Wj Acquario,Rd Albertin & RG Knighton Re Emergency Planning Contention 67, Evacuation of Persons W/O Access to Automobiles. Related Correspondence

ML20086T263
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/01/1984
From:	Acquario W, Albertin R, Knighton R NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:
Shared Package
ML20086T237	List: ML20086T234 ML20086T263 ML20086T301 ML20086T313
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8403060226
Download: ML20086T263 (50)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:..

s. %,.

ED CORgGPO%b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L'UE0 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 84 MR -5 m :40 ) In the Matter of ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COEPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. ) (Emergency Planning) Unit 1) ) ) DIRECT TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. ACQUARIO RICHARD D. ALBERTIN AND ROBERT G. KNIGHTON ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK STATE REGARDING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 67 EVACUATION OF PERSONS WITHOUT ACCESS TO AUTOMOBIL2S Q. Please state your names, occupations, and profascional backgrounds. A. My name is William J. Acquario. I an director of the Transit Mant3ement Assistance Bureau of the New York State Department of Transportation. My name is Richard D. Albertin. I as an Associate Transportation / Analyst with the New York State Department of Transportation in Albany, New York. I currently direct New York's administration of the federal Section

18. Rural Public Transportation Program.

8403060226 840301 PDR ADOCK 05000322 T PDR 1 ______.__._______m.

My name is Robert G. Knighton. I an a Transit Specialist III with the New York State Department of Transportation. I currently head the Specialized and Capital Policy Section in the Tran'ait Program & Evaluation Bureau. .A statement of our qualifications and experience is attached hereto as Attachment A. Q. Please provide a brief background of your work experiecce as it pertains to your testimony. William J. Acquario For the past three years I have been the Director of the Depart-ment's Transit Management Assistance Bureau. The function of the bureau is to provide managerial and technical assistance to any and all of the state's public transit systems. I participate in and supervise route analysis of municipal opera-tions. We also review schedules and route guides for maximum utility of equipment, personnel and transit effectiveness. Richard D. Albertin 1 was a major participant in the development of the original " Olympic Transportation Control Plan". This plan was the basis of the 7 ~ J

proposed operational strategy for the Olympic area. This work involved planning bus routes, parking lots, loading areas, etc. I am responsible for providing technical assistance to, and administering a federal subsidy program for, approximately 60 public transit systems..I am familiar with the overall operation of these public transit systems. I also am familiar with the aspects of these operations that deal with elderly and handicapped people. For approximately five years, I was directly responsible for the Department's computer modeling. These duties included the operation and analysis of New York's transportation analysis modeling effort as well as the review of current technology and research being done for highways and transit. Robert G. Knighton In my present position. I as responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of various transit systems, particularly special transporta-tion for elderly and handicapped people. In previous positions I have worked closely with local communities in developing and implementing transit systems. 4 -I participe.ced in early stages of the development of the Olympic Transportation Control Plan and the Disaster Operations Plan for the 1980 Winter Olympics at Lake Placid. During the Olympics, I shared responsibili-ty with Mr. Albertin for monitoring implementation of the Olympic 3

Transportation Control Plan by the Olympic Organizing Committee and later for implementation of the State takeover of the Olympic transit system including field direction of bus operations. Q. Please state Cratention 67. A. Contention 67. LILCO assumes that in the event an evacuation is ordered, most members of the population will attempt to leave using their personal vehicles. However, a substantial portion of the population in the EPZ does not own or have access to an automobile. LILCO proposes that people who do not have access to an automobile at the time of an evacuation order will be evacuated by buses running special evacuation routes, with bus stops purportedly no more than one-half mile from each such person's home. (Plan at 3.6-6; Appendix A, at III-35 and III-36, IV-76 to IV-163r OPIP 3.6.4.). However, LILCO's proposal cannot be implemented, and LILCO's proposed evacuation of people without access to cars would not provide adequate protection for such people, because the evacuation would take too long. As a result of the time necessary to complete the evacuation, persons may be exposed to health-threatening radiation doses. Thus, the LILCO Plan fails to comply with 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG 0654 Sections II.J.9. and J.10. Specifically: Contention 67.A. According to LILCO's estimates, approximately 333 forty-passenger buses are required to transport those able-bodied persons who would need transportation out of the EPZ (see Appendix A, at IV-74b; OPIP 3.6.A.). In fact, however, LILCO will either need more than 333 buses or those buses will have to make many more runs than anticipated by LILCO because LILCO has substantially undarestimated the number of people who will need such transportation: 1. LILCO underestimates the significant number of people who belong to households with automobiles, but who may not have access to such vehicles because at the time of an evacuation order, the vehicles are in use by another member of the household. LILCO's proposal for evacuating persons without access to transportation must include adequate methods.cf evacuating the asabers of vehicle-owning households who may not have access to a car. LILCO's estimates of the number of buses required do not adequately take such people into account. 2. LILCO's estimates also fail to take into account those persons who rely on public transportation to get into the EPZ but who, in the event of an energency, may not be able to rely on such means to evacuate. 3. LILCO assumes that its route buses will be filled to 75% capacity; however, there is no basis for this assumption..In fact, the route bus capacity factors are likely to be significantly lower than 75%, which vili result in a need for many more buses to evacuate people without access to cars. 4

u h ~ l-Contention 67.B. Withdrawn Contention 67.C. The staggered departures and multiple bus runs necessary under LILCO's plan to evacuate the people in each zone (Appendix A, at IV-76 to IV-163; OPIP 3.6.4., at 11-32) even using LILCO's estimates of the number of people likely to need such evacuation, will result in evacuation travel times far lonter than those set forth in Appendix A at 8A. Specifically, the LILCO Plan provides that the bus routes will terminate at designated " transfer points" with each bus in many cases required to maka more than occ run. As noted in Contention 67.D., several transfer points are in the RPZ. Transfer buses will transport the evacuees from the trans-for points to relocation centers. LILCO's estimated route times begin and and with the assumed transfer points. (See Appendix A, at IV-76, to IV-163, V-8a; OPIP 3.6.4.). LILCO's estimated evacuation times, however, assume that route buses will be dispatched from transfer points and return to the transfer points at specific intervals (or " headways") and that there will be little or no waiting at the transfer points for buses to the relocation centers. Furthermore, the last transfer buses are assumed to clear the EPZ 15 minutes after leaving the transfer points. (Appendix A at V-7) These assumptions are erroneous, however, since they do not consider the severe traffic congestion that will exist, for reasons set forth in Contention 65 at the same time that the route and transfer buses are attempting to make their trips. Thus, the route times for each route bus will be longer than . In addition, it is likely to take far longer than 15 estimated by LILCO. minutes for the last transfer buses to clear the EPZ after leaving the transfer points. Contention 67.D. The eleven new transfer points designated by LILCO do not appear to have adequate structures which could provide shelter from adverse radiological or weather conditions for evacuees while they are waiting to be transferred to relocation centers. Furthermore, four of the eleven transfer points are inside the EPZ, and one is on the EPZ boundary. In addition, of the remaining six transfer points, three are located approx-imately one-half mile or less beyond the EPZ boundary, one is approximately one mile from the EPZ boundary and two are app aximately two an'd a half miles beyond the boundary. Under the LILCO Plan, people are likely to be kept waiting for substantial time periods, because of delays, congestion, etc., before they are transported from transfer points to relocation ceu-ters. Leaving people at the eight transfer points within or very close to the EPZ will not provide protection for them. Leaving them at the other three transfer points, all less than five miles beyond the EPZ boundary, conflicts with the intent of NUREG 0654, Section II.J.10.h., and could result in these people also receiving health-threatening radiation doses. 5

Q. What is the purpose of this testinony? A. The purpose of this testimony is to address emergency planning contention #67 and to discuas concerns regarding evacuation of persons without access to automobiles. Our comments are directed toward several areas which, among others, have not been appropriately addressed in the plan and render LILCO's plan and preparation for evacuccion of perscus without automobiles inadequate. First, as Contention 67 A states, the number of buses which are called for in the plan is substantially underststed, partic-ularly due to questionable assumptions regarding capacity of buses and strategy of using multiple bus runs. Second, as Contention 67 C stat'es, there are a number of problems with evacuation times. The deficiencias result from the long smount of time needed to place the first bus in ser-vice, poor scheduling of buses, distance, inexperienced drivers and inade-quate route design. Third, as indicated in Contention 67 C there are inherent flaws in the transfer point strategy, insufficient plana for operation of transfer points, and problems with the physical layout of the transfer points. Finally, the plan fails to assure that buses will be available in an emergency. All of these factors lead us to conclude that the LILCO proposal cannot be implemented and does not provide adequate protection for people without access to automobiles. Q. Please describe briefly the plan proposed by LILCO in Appendix A for evacuating persons without access to automobiles. t 6

2 A. The LILCO plan estimates that approximately 11,100 people will not have access to automobiles and, therefore, will be required to evacuate by bus. The plan calls for 333 buses to provide this evacuation. 236 of these buses will provide service over pre-established routes asking a total of 377 trips. These route buses will taka passengers to 11 transfer points from which 97 additional buses will take the people out of the EPZ. LILCO intends to lease buses from a number of private cperators, some of which have been identified through letters of intent. LILCO further plans to use LILCO employees to drive the buses. Most of the buses which . are likely to be available for leasing will be 40-passenger school buses. LILCO has estimated that the buses will work at 75% capacity in route servf.ca and thus each 40-passenger bus will be expected to carry 30 people. LILCO expects to achieve 100% capacity, or 40 passengers per bus, for the transfer buses. Q. What problems do you believe exist with the number of buses which are called for in the plan? 1 A. A major problem is that the plan calls for many buses to make second, third, and even fourth runs over the routes to which they are l assign,ed. A total of 377 runs are scheduled on the regular routes. Howev-er, the plan only calls for 236 route buses. The strategy of requiring buses to make multiple runs is unacceptable for several reasons. First, it removes flexibility to use buses 1) in other places where they are needed or 2) to meet higher than expected demands in early stages of the evacua-tion. It also requires that drivers spend an unnecessarily long time in thu 7

EPZ and in several instances it would require that the drivers reenter the EPZ. This could increase the risk of drivers being exposed to radiation. Finally, given all of the substantial questions regarding the level of congestion which might be expected due to evacuating traffic (see the State of New York's testimony pertaining to Contentiou 65), and questions regard-ing the calculation of route times, it is not likely that buses will be able to stick to the multi trip schedule which is proposed. We believe that LILCO should plan for a sufficient number of buses so that a bus does not have to make more than one run. Q. Do you support LILCO's assumption that a forty-passenger school bus can carry 30 adult passengers and their luggage? A. No. While the theoretical capacity of a school bus is 40 adult passengers, a school bus carrying that many adults would be quite crowded. The plan calls for evacuees to bring pillows and bedding and it is safe to assume that passengers will be carrying other luggage as well. We believe that maximum practical adult capacity for a school bus in an evacuation would be about 30 passengers with their luggage. Many buses would have to be filled to capacity in order to make up for those which happen to be running on routes where there was less demand than had been estimated. The original intent of LILCO's assumption of 75% capacity was to address this unevenness of d h. This 75% adjustment should be applied to the practi-cal capacity of 30 adult passengers with luggage. Thus, we would expect the average route bus to carry only 22.5 passengers (30 x.75) and 503 route bus 8 r

trips (377 x 30 + 22.5) would be required. In addition, instead of 97 transfer buses,130 (97 x 40 + 30) v6uld be needed. Q. What are some of the problems which you anticipate regarding the scheduling of bus service? A. One of the most significant problems will be that buses are not expected to begin to service their route until two hours and fif teen minutes after declaration of emergency. By this time, according to LILCO's esti-antes of mobilization time, the entita population of the EPZ will have completed their mobilization tasks and be ready to leave. We believe~ this will create a chaotic situation since hundreds of people will be waiting for buses even before the first bus leaves the transfer point. In addition, since the last bus often does not arrive for two hours or more after the first bus, these people will be kept waiting for a long period of time, and they potentially could be exposed to radiation. In addition, on many routes the route times, dispatch headways and number of runs required for each bus will continue to cause substantial gaps in services. Enmining the schedule for Route A1 (Appendix A page IV-741) we find that bus Al-6 leaves at 50 minutes and that the next bus (Al-1 on its second run) does not leave until 80 minutes, a gap in service of 30 minutes. Such substantial gaps in service are the rule, act the exception, and exist on nearly 70% of all routes. On 12 routes, the gaps are one hour or longer. As a result, people may be kept waiting for some time only to be passed up by buses which are already filled, and then find that no bus appears for more than an hour. Attachment B to this testimony shows the gap 9

b on each route. In fact, if substantial evacuation congestion exists (see State of New York's Testimo'ny on Contention 65), the gaps in service could actually far exceed those shown in Attachment B. Q. Would you please describe the concerns which you have regarding evacuation times for the population dependent on buses. Even based on LILCO's estimates of route times and transfer time, the last bus would not leave the EPZ for more than six hours after the declaration of an emergency, assuming good weather conditions. Based on a scenario which LILCO calls adverse summer weather, this time would in' crease to more than seven hours. It does not appear that LILCO has even attempted to estimate the time which might be involved in adverse winter weather conditions. We are also concerned that the route times which LILCO has esti-meted are too short. They appear to assume an average vehicle speed of 7 aph during normal weather conditions and 5.5 mph in what they call adverse conditions (Appendix A at IV-74b). We believe that these speeds fail to adequately consider the extra time that people will need to board buses, particularly since 1) many of these people will be carrying luggage and smell children, and 2) there may be disagreements about whether or not pets or other belongings will be allowed to be brought on the bus. In addition, we are not able to tell from the analysis which we have available what dwell time is provided for at the transfer center between bus runs. Again, because of the large number of people involved and the amount of luggage ~ 10

which they are likely to be carrying we believe this time may be substantially underestimated by LILCO. Finally, we believe that the 15 minute maximum time assumed to travel from a transfer point to the border of the E*Z is too low. For instance..the Miller Place Road LILCO ROW transfer point is nearly 4 miles -inside the EPZ. The transfer bus would have to maintain an average speed of nearly 16 aph to get to the EPZ border in 15 minutes. Routes in this area are certain to be among the most congested in the EPZ and maintaining such an average speed is not likely (see State of New York 's testimony on Conten-- tion 65). Q. Are there problems which you foresee with the use of LILCO employ-ees as bus drivers which would tend to' affect evacuation times? A. Yes. The training program which would be used to qualify LILCO employees as bus drivers is not adequately described in the plan. Evan if this training program was acceptable in every respect, it would ',till teruit in providing drivers who were inexperienced at best. Lack of every day practice will decrease the drivers ability to get in and out of tight places, maneuver in and out of traffic and among pedestrians, etc. An inexperienced driver would have to concentrate particularly hard on driving the vehicle and, therefore, would be less able to cope with pressures (for example, from agitated passengers) than an experienced driver would be. In addition, experienced drivers are likely to develop an intimate and up-to-date knowledge of the road network and are, therefore, able to deal with problems on route better than an inexperienced driver who is. attempting to 11

1 follow a map in an area that may not be intimately familiar to him. Inexpe-rienced drivers will generally be able to be assigned only to routes for which they have been specifically trained. Even if drivers were trained to be able to drive one or more back up routes, these drivers would not be able to provide the flexibility which might be necessary to adapt to a situation caused 1).by drivers who did not show up or, 2) by demand which materialized where it was not expected. All of these factors will tend to lengthen evacuation times particularly for people who are dependent on buses. Q. What concerns do you have regarding the design of the bus routes which are outlined in Appendix A? A. A review of the routes indicates that not all people within the EPZ vill be within 1/2 mile of a bus route as has been indicated by LILCO. Examples include several areas in zone 0, one which is south of Peconic Lake, another along Halsey Road north of Port Jefferson-West Hampton Road and south of the LIE, an area along Silas Carter Road which is south of the LIE and more than 1/2 mile north of South Street, an area along Jerusalem Hollow Road as well as just south and north of Jerusalem Hollow Road which is more than 1/2 elle from Chapman Boulevard or Wading River Road. These examples are in zone 0 alone. Attachment C of this testimony includes portions of maps which show additional areas which are more than 1/2 mile from a bua route. While this list is not intended to be all inclusive, it clearly illustrates that LILCO's claim that all residences of the EPZ would be within 1/2 mile of bus service is incorrect. 12

l Many bus routes have service areas which include major evacuation routes for the general public. The plan does not indicate'any particular bus stops along bus routes; therefore, it must be presumed that the buses will stop wherever passengers are waiting. The directional flow of the evacuation buses in many places requires that passengers wishing to board the bus cross busy evacuation routes. This will be dangerous to the pedes-trians and will also interfere with the smooth flow of other evacuating traffic. In addition, where buses are traveling with the flow of regular evacuation traffic, stopping of the buses, particularly for the extra time required to load heavily laden passengers, will seriously disrupt the flow of the evacuating traffic, A good example is provided by the section of highway along Route 25A. Route 25A between the William Floyd Parkway and North Country Road is used as an evacuation route for many of the over 9,000 people residing in zones A and B. The 11 bus runs serving route Al travel westbound along Route 25A from the Willian Floyd Parkway until they turn north on Miller Avenue. They then re urn eastbound on Route 25A from North Country Road to the' William Floyd Parkway. Since the service area for this particular area is to the north of Route 25A, while the buses are traveling eastbound the passengers will be required to cross Route 25A in order to gain access to the bus. At the same time, the 10 bus runs serving Route B1 will also be using Route 25A between William Floyd Parkwny and Randall Road. Since in this case the service area is to the south of Route 25A, and the buses are i traveling westbound, passengers will again be required to cross Route 25A in order to gain access to the bus. 13 ~

Continuing west on Route 25A we reach the area of zones F and G. Many of the 29,000 residents of zone F are required to use Route 25A as an evacuation route. In addition, 45 bus runs setving zone F will use one portion or another of Route 25A between Woodville Road and Pipe Stave Hollow Road. As if that weren't enough 11 additional bus runs serving route G3 will also uc,e Route 25A between Ridge Road and the Miller Place and Taphank Road (essentially the same section of highway as above). Ci~a chose 11 vehicles will be traveling westbound in Route 25A and their service area in zone G is south of Route 25A, passengers wishing to board the route G1 buses will have to cross Route 25A in order to do so. At the same time, many of the buses intended for routes F1-1. F1-2, F.'.-3, F2-4, and F3-5 will b~e traveling eastbound along Route 25A such thar, passengers from zone G will be able to board these buses without crossing the highway. However, if they do so, this will of course reduce the amount of space available on buses which were intended to carry passengers from zone F. The alternative would be to have vehicles operate closed door (i.e., without picking up passengers) while outside of their immediate service area. This would create other problems since passengers who were waiting for a bus, and may have been passed up already by full buses that were intended to serve their route, would also be passed u's by empty buses which were headed toward another service area. For example, passengers waiting along Route 25A between Miller Place Road and Hunter Road (Route F3-5 service area) would be passed up by nearly half of the buses which were traveling along that road as they headed for the service areas of routes F1-1 through F2-4. 14 ]

Similar problems exist on bus routes throughout the EPZ and clearly indicate that the routes are poorly designed and could not be implemented in practice. Exhibit D to this testimony lists,many, but not all, of these problems as they exist in zones A-G, Since it is based on the outdated maps contained in Appendix A, it may bring forward some errors which are associated with tho.a maps. Q. What are some of the problems which you believe are inherent in the transfer point strategy? A. To start with, since we have been discussing zone F. it should be noted that all of the passengers who might be riding on bus route F4-6 will be closer to the power plant when they unload from the route bus at the tr'ansfer point than they were when they started at their home. Transfers, that is having to get off of one bus and onto another to reach your destination, are a strategy which we generally try to avoid even in bus planning for normal situations. In an emergency situation where people are not familiar uith the bus network over which they are traveling and where they are particularly anxious to get out of the area, requiring them to get off one bus and onto another bus may not be well received. In some cases people may have already waited a long period of tica for a bus and will be concerned that the wait will be repeated at the transfer point. This concern is directly related to 1) the fact that there is not adequate shelter provided at the transfer points, either from weather or from possi-ble radiation exposure, and 2) this concern will be heightened by the fact 15 damams.aus si sis - i

that four of the transfer points are within the EPZ while one is on the EPZ border and several others are very close to the edge of the EPZ. In addition, there are a number of operational problems with the transfer points. It does not appear that any detailed operational plans for the transfer points have been prepared. These plans would need to include such things as how buses would enter and leave the site, what area should be used for storing buses, separation of passengers who get off the buses from the bus movement, separate areas for arriving buses and transfer buses, and provision for providing crowd control and directions to the public. At a tiransfer point which would involve 2,000 or more people and some 60 buses coming and going, this would require barricades, ropes, or other means for physically separating people and buses, as well as a number of staff to direct both incoming and outgoing buses. At the Olympics we learned the hard way during early days of near chtos in the bus loading areas the consequences of failing to make adequate provisions for these points. There are also a number of problems with the physical layout of the proposed transfer points. The Coram Drive-In, for instance, which is served by 53 route buses (making a total of 66 trips) and 7 transfer buses, is located on the south side of Rt. 25 at the intersection of Route 112, both of which are major evacuation routes. Since most buses arriving at the transfer point with passengers, or leaving the transfer point to exit the EPZ will be traveling west, all of these buses will be required to make left-hand turns into the theater at this already complex and even in normal conditions busy intersection. The transfer point propased for the Miller Place LILCO right of way, just north of Route 25A, is expected to serve 37 16

r route buses making a total of 70 trips and also 22 transfer buses. This l site, while large, is essentially a cabbage patch which will be unusable in l the spring and probably during much of the summer and fall. As with all of the other transfer sites, unless specific arrangements are made for plowing of the area it.will also be unusable during winter. In addition, the Miller Place transfer point is located nearly four miles inside the EPZ and is very near to the residential areas which its buses serve. Many passengers, such as those from the Sound Beach area, will have ridden only a short distance when their bus arrives at the trans-for point and they are told to get off. The closeness of this transfer point to areas to be evacuated may also cause a problem since many people may decide to simply walk to the transfer point if they are not picked up quickly by buses. The arrival of unexpected pedestrians at the transfer point will make bus operations all the more complicated. The Shirley Drive-In transfer point is proposed to be served by 33 route buses making a total of 51 trips and also by 12 transfer buses. This site offers a unique problem in that the ticket booth lanes are narrow and it will be difficult for buses to pass through them, particularly if the drivers are inexperienced and have to worry about pedestrians at tha same time. The LILCO Eastport substation, the warehouse at Doctor's Path, the LILCO North Patchogue substation, and the LILCO property at Norwood Avenue, and the LILCO Brookhaven substation, are all unpaved areas and will most probably present problems during wet weather. In any event, soil conditions 17

must be checked to determine the feasibility of using these sites as bus staging areas. Q. Please describe other operational problems with the bus plans which you have discovered which would make the LILCO plan unworkable. A. Arrangements which LILCO has made for availability of buses are not adequate. Presumably, LILCO intends to contract with school districts or private operators to make buses available. The letters of intent which we have reviewed to date indicate that many of the buses will be coming from areas well outside of the EPZ where it cannot be presumed that schools will close early as a result of an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. These letters of intent also indicate that prior contractual commitments of the operator come first. As a result, if an accident occurs during the school day, say around noon, many of these buses might not be made available to LILCO until after the buses take students home at the end of the school day. In addition, the letters of intent do not specify how LILCO will gain access to the buses during off hours, nor does it provide for bus company staff familiar with such things as the location of keys, operation of the fueling system, or other details to be available on a 24-hour basis to assist with the dispatch of buses. Any contract which might be developed with a bus operator will also have to require that the buses be accessible to LILCO on a 24-hour basis, 365 days a year. Providing the LERO supervisor l with the means to break into a garage, as the plan seems to suggest, is questionable even as a contingency since the LERO person would not know 18

which buses might be out of service, where to find keys to buses, how to turn on fuel pumps if necessary or other details of es individual garage operation. Also, the plan does not contain adequate provisions for breakdowns of buses while enroute. A plan needs to be in place not only to take care of removing the buses from the highway, but also to take care of whatever passengers that that bus might have been carrying. Finally, it appears, that the maps on which the bus routes have been plotted are not always the most up-to-date which are available, and, therefore, may contain errors or omissions which will make it difficult for the bus drivers to follow the routes even if the routes actually plotted are accurate. For instance, the Middle Island quadrangle on which the bus routes for zones A and B were plotted was the 1975 update. There is a 1981 update of this map available which contains a significant number of changes. Attachment E shows a portion of this map with some changee highlighted for comparison to the zone A and B bus route maps. Strangely, the bus route maps for zone G, which came from this same Middle Island quadrar.gle used the 1981 version indicating that LILCO had the newer map available but did not use it. 19

..m.r-9 9 g. e w 6 e k s f i ATTAC10iENT A ~ i \\\\. o 4 s %i i w I M-er

l Resume of I William J. Acquario Director, Transit Management Assistance Bureau NYS Department of Transportation 1220 Washington Avenue Bldg. 4 Room 146, State Campus Albany, New York 12232 Phone: (518) 457-1176 Professional History 1980 - Present: Director, Transit Management Assistance Bureau 1978 - 1980: Project Manager, MTA Management Study 1976 - 1980: Program Analyst, Transportation-Transportation Committee, New York State Legislature 1969 - 1976: Fiscal Analyst Transportation, Ways & Means Committee, New York State Legislature Relevant Experience Director: Transit Management Assistance Bureau. Since 1980 I have directed the activities of this Bureau whose function is to provide technical and management assistance to all of the State's public transit operators.- This assistance includes start-up help for new systems; including route design, schedules, run-cutting, fare levels, transfer policy, etc. Also route guides, schedules and marketing is provided on an on-going basis. Management assistance is provided for cash flow difficulties, training, inventory support for maintenance, insurance costs and efficiency studies. Other relevant experience of this Bureau involves the start-up of the N.Y.S. Public Transportation Safety Board. This board will investigate -accidents and establish policy for safety standards and procedures. In addition, the Bureau assisted in setting up a transit network for a possible evacuation of Rockland County in the event of a nuclear accident at the Indian Point facility. This service includes both the resident general population and non-institutionalized handicapped population. Pronect Mana5er: MTA Management Study. In 1978 I took over the management of the $1 million federally assisted MTA Management Study. This involved a cooperative study with the MTA and the N.Y.C. Office of Planning Coordination. The Stu'Jy covered 13 aspcces of the MTA and affiliate operations from planning to subway maintenance and training. An outside consultant, Booz-Allen & Hamilton was engaged to carry out the independent aspects of the Study. The Study concluded with. over 300 recommendations that have, en a large extent, been imple-mented.

e t W. J. Acquario Rasume Page 2 Proaram Analyst, Transportation Co.amittee. The major focus of this task involved developing legislation to meet deficiencies in transportation rules and regulations and to facilitate the movement of goods sod people in an orderly fashion. Major legisla-tion prepared was the Transportation Operating Assistance program, right on red and numerous transit bond issues. r Fiscal Analyst, Ways and Means Comunittee. This task included analysis of the Executive Budget and the development of fiscal recounsendations to support the programs of the Transportation Department. Also, fiscal analysis of all transportation legislation for effect on State's revenue program. Education B. A. in Political Science; 1959 Siena college; Completion of Ph.D Studies, Catholic University of America, 1963, Political Science. Professional Associations Member of American Public Transportation Association, Comunittee on Treesit Planning. Instructor, SUNY-Albany. Taught course on graduser level in Transit Finance and Public Policy. 1980-1983.

• o Personal Resume of Richard D. Albertin Home Office 5 Sunset Avenue Specialized Transit Section Albany, New York 12203 Transit Division (518)482-3720 Building 4 Room 146 State Campus Albany New York 12232 (518) 453-6854 PERSONAL DATA: Born 10/8/48, USA Citizen Height 6'1" Weight 170 lbs.

EDUCATION Undergraduate: 1966-1970 State University of New York at Buffalo. Major - Civil Engineering (BSCE) Graduate: 1971-1974 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Major - Transportation Engineering (M.S.T.E.) Awards: Chi Epsilon Engineering (Civil) 3onor Fraternity (May 1970) Governor's Certificate of Appreciation (February 1980) AASHTO's President's Award (October 1981) EXPERIENCE Date: June 1981 to present

Title:

Associate Transportation Analyst. Transit Division Employer: NYSDOT Duties: Ahinistration of the Federal Rural Transportation Program. Section 18. Supervise six professiouls. Date: March 1981 to Juns 1981

Title:

Senior Research Analyst (Transportation). Statewide Planning Employer: NYSD0T Duties: Development of the transit portion of the Statewide Master Plan for Transportation (an overall policy docuent) and resolution of various transit issues related to funding, a hinistration, policy, etc. Date: May 1985 to March 1981 (concurrent with position described below)

Title:

Senior Research Analyst (Transportation). Planning Employer: NYSDOT Duties:' Review and coordination of the transportation elements of the federally mandated nuclear power plant emergency plans and the development of NYSDOT's emergency procedures.

Y Richard Albertin R:sume Page 2 Date: October 1973 to March 1981

Title:

Senior Research Analyst (Transportation), Planning Employer: NYSDOT Duties: Development and operation of the camputer transit and arterial simulation packages used by NYSDOT. Duties included applied research and application of these programs. Supervised two professionals and six technician:. Date: April 1976 to April 1980 (concurrent with previous position)

Title:

Director of Transit Operatirns for NYSDOT Olympic Task Force Employer: NYSDOT Duties: Developed original transportation plan, coordinated NYSDOT activities with the transportation consultants to the Lake Placid Olympic Organizing Connittee (LP00C) and while originally limited to monitoring LP00C transit operations during the Olympics, was assigned, to Governor's Emergency Task Force with specific responsibility of resolving transit crisis, and directing transit cperations for the remainder of the games. Supervised up to forty professionals. Date: January 1972 to October 1973

Title:

Transportation Analyst Researen Unit. Planning Employer: NYSDOT Duties: Conducted various independent and joint effort research projects

• including development of intercity data and travel models, design of various transportation surveys and research into psychological attributes affectinJ trensportation decisions.

Dato: June 1970 to January 1972

Title:

Transportation Engineering Trainee (enrolled in a transportation planning program sponsored by the New York Stati Department of Transportation and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute). Duties: Assigned +.o various units as part of a program to become familiar with Department operations, activities included development of Interstate Highway Cost Estimate and design and data evaluation of various travel surveys. Course work included statistics, urban Planning and transportation planning principles. PUBLICATI0ils Available on request 1 REFERENCES Available on request

i* Richard Albertin Resume Page 3 3BLICATIONS " Summary of New York State Intercity Travel Data." Preliminary Research Report No. 42. Planning and Research Bureau. NYSDOT March 1973 " Development of Intercity Travel Jemand Models for New York State Urban Areas." (uith Gerald Cohen and David Hartgen), Fre11minary Resear::h No. 58. Planning and Research Bureau. NYSDOT March 1974. [ " Structural Correlation Between Cognitive and Affective Attitude Components: A Test of Three Theories of Attitude Modification in Urban Travel Mode Choice." Preliminary Research Report No. 59. Planning and Research Bureau. NYSD0T. May 1974. "The Validation of the Census UTP Package for Planning Uses-Buffalo SMSA Data." (with Peter Liou. Joseph Civalier. Bernard Schatz, and Michael Trentacoste). Preliminary Research Report No. 65. Planning and Research Bureau. NYSDOT August 1974. " Travel Demand at the 1980 Winter Olympics: Estimation and Analysis." (with Robert Knighton and Gerald Cohen). Preliminary Research Report No.100. Planning and Research Bureau. NYSDOT. June 1976. " Transportation Planning for the 1980 Winter Olympic Games." (with Robert Kinghton and Gerald Cohen). Preliminar" Research Report No.109. Planning and Research Bureau. , NYSD0T. August 1976. (presenued (1/II) and published by TRB (#626) ) "A Glossary of Simulation Terms." Preliminary Urban Planning Report No.16 Planning and Research Bureau. NYS00T. July 1976. " Transportation Control Plan. XIII Olympic Winter Games" (with DOT Task Force). NYSDOT. July 1979. " Transportation Analysis Methods for the XIII Winter Olympics" (with Charles Manning and Frederick Scholtz). ITE Jnurnal. March 1979. " Olympic Transportation Planning: A Retrospective Look" (with Gerald Cohen and Robert Knighton). Preliminary Research Report No.181. Planning and Research Bureau. NYSDOT. August, 1950. (Presented (1/s1) and published by TRB #7981 ) REFERENCES Mr. Henry L. Peyrebrune Mr. Ken Shiatte Assistant Camaissioner of Transit Division. Director Public Transportation NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of Transportation Building 4. Room 115 Building 5. Room 502 State Campus State Campus Albany, New York 12232 Albany. New York 12232 (518)457-7664 (518)457-2320 Mr. Jere Fidler Specialized Transit Section NYS Dept. of Transportation Building 4. Room 146 State Campus Albany, New York 12232 ) (518)453-6854

[. Resume of ROBERT G. KN NHTON ~ Transit Program & Evaluation Bureau NYS Department of Transportation Building 4, Room 150 State Catapus Albany, NY 12232 (518)'457-2100 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE As::ciste Transportation Analyst - December 1980 to Present (Senicr Transportation Analyst - July 1980 - December 1980) Trranit Proaram & Evaluation Bureau The Trcusit Division was formed in July 1980, and I was transferrea from the Planning Divicion to the Program & Evaluation lureau at that time. The Bureau has responsi-bility for policy oversite and evaluation of the Department's transit related activi-tico including the operating Assistance Program. As head of the Specialized & Capital 5:ction. I supervise a staff of four professionals. Specific activities-for which-I havo been responsible include: . Preparation of an Evaluation of the NYSDOT Trsnsit Capital Process. This included detailed documentation and flow charting of the capital project process, collection and manipulation of data on projects end preparation of recommendations on how to improve the process and reduce the time required' to purchase a vehicle, most of which have since been implemented. . Design and implementation of a management information system for the Transit Capital Program. One recosmandation of the Process Evaluation was the establishment of a system to track capital projecta and present the infor-nation in a manner suitable for management and executive staff use. This involved developing computer files for much existing data, designing tabu-lations and sumanaries and analyzing the results. ' This system and related data collection efforts have substantially increased our analytical capability. This effort also resulted in computerizing production of the Transit Capital Work Program which should result in substantia? savings of staff time for manual updates and retyping of the old periodic report. . Production, printing and distribution of Public Transportation Map and Directory, which has been very well received by traveling public. This included supervising a substantial data collection effort, confirming data, supervising design and layout and coordinating cartographic work. . Analysis of transit capital needs for non-NTA transit operators including estimates of those needs over a five and ten year period, comparison of those needs to pipeline projects and evaluation of the adequacy of funds to meet those needs. . Development and implementation of Rockland County Emergency Evacuation Plan. This involved planning a bus system to evacuate 10,000 people from Rockland County in case of a nuclear emergency and required planning of routes, acquiring commitment from private operators for over 400 buses, overseeing driver training and coordination with other agancies. A test of the plan which was developed was rated by federal reviewers as perhaps the best ever.

. Coordinate leverage leasing of transit vehicles. This effort involved ~ reviewing and clarifying relevant portions of the tax law, working to inform the congressional delegatien of the importance of this tax incentive, informing transit properties of the opportunity to obtain additional funds and coordinating lease transactions. These transactions have netted over $1.5 million in private funds for upstate transit operators. . Administration activities including: Oversight of UMTA grants and preparation of applications, as well as monitoring charges and fund availability; personnel administration, including requesting creation of new titles, processing hirings and supervisica of staff. Senicr Transportation Analyst - October 1979 to July 1980 Rishw y and Transit Plannina Unit The Eigtnray and Transit Planning Unit has responsibility for planning and evaluation of pergrams on a statewide basis. Much offort is involved in planning for the public trans-p:rtstion operating assistance program and in providing input for policy making, legis-lation and regulation. Some cpecific activities while in this unit included: . Primary staff responsibility for elderly and handicapped transportation including participation on Governor's Task Force on Transportation for the Disabled, prepa-ration of testimony on Section 504 implementation for Commissioner Hennessy. . General supervision of final stages of preparation of Transit Operating Assistance Report for 1979. This activity was interrupted by the temporary assignment described below. Asiictant Director of Olympic Transit Operations - part-time - August - December 1979 DOT Olympic Task Force full-time - January - February 1980 The Department of Transportation Olympic Task Force has general responsibility for prep:retion of a transportation plan for the 1980 Winter Olympics at Lake Placid. Thio included responsibility for implementing traffic circulation and vehicle permit p:rtions of the plan. The task force was not responsible for implementing spectator movement portions of the plan. In fact, the Department did not have authority to implement the necessary shuttle bus operations. Specific activities include: . Coordination of Emergency Contingency Planning for 1980 Winter Olympics with State Police, Red Cross. Office of Disaster Preparedness, Department of Health, etc. and preparation of DOT emergency contingency plan. . Participate in final stat.as of pladning for the shuttle bus operation and acnitor Lake Placid Olympic Organizing Coimaittee (LP00C) efforts to implement the p'.ar.. . Select, train, supervise, and direcc force of 18 DOT staff (mostly engineers) responsible for field monitoring of spectator bus system. During the trans- - portation emergency, this group grew to 30 and assumed responsibility for field operation of the bus system including super rision of bus loading, direction of bus drivers, supervision of bus checkers, and general oversight of parking operations.

~ 3 . Participate in Governor's emergency bus task force which assumed management control of the ailing spectator transportation system. This involved working with chief bus dispatchers of companies to achieve efficient utilization of available equipment including development of daily operations plan, improved fueling facilities, better driver housing and coordination between companies. This activity resulted in conenendations received from Governor Carey, Commis-sioner Gennessy and George Briggs Head of the DOT Olympic Task Force. l . In several " crisis" situations, assumed direct field control of spectator transportation. This involved liaison with State Police and EnCon commanders for crowd control, getting arriving buses organized, instructing drivers where and when to load and rerouting busen as necessary. Senist Transportation Analyst Small Urban / Rural County Transportation Study Unit - January 1977 to October 1979 Thio Unit has responsibility for transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas of New York State. Special emphasis is placed on planning for needed transit service and on providing improved transportation service for transportation disadvan~taged grou'p's. Devalcpment of innovative transit and paratransit alternatives and improvement of demand and c:st estimating techniques is also included. In cddition to rural transit planning, the Unit is responsible for analysis of highway conditions in thirty-eight rural counties not included in 3C Planning Process. Some specific activities include: . Direction of the Sullivan County Rural Public Transportatica Study which con-ducted a thorough analysis of transportation needs. The study resulted in county support for a federal (UNTA) capital grant to support an existing oper-ator, and provided longer term reco-andations for additional services. Respon-sibilities included planning and conducting public meetings, conducting various surveys and preparing written documentation. . Provide direct technical support to Otsego County Planning Staff in conducting a public transportation needs study including planning and conducting a community interest survey. . Preparation of working papers on objectives of Rural Public Transportation, Comparative Service Measures for Rural Transit and Financing Rural Public Transportation. . Developed a technique for estimating rural transit ridership which was sensitive to levels of service provided (see publication list, TRR 718). Research Analyst (Transportation) - June 1975 to January 1977 Planninz Research Unit The Planning Research Unit is responsible for a wide range of research for transportation . planning including public transit, demand modeling and economic forecasting. Some specific projects include: \\

t Preparation of a report reviewing and sununarizing procedures used by the New York State Department of Transportation and others in the state for projecting population, income, employment, auto ownership and trip-making. This report was und as a background for a review of forecasting as a function of the Planning and Research Bureau (see publication list, PRR 102). Work on Transportation Planning for the 1980 Winter Olympics at Lake Placid. Tnis included estimation of travel demand within the Olympic area and analysis of alternative ways to meet that demand. A hypothetical system was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of using buses and to estimate the number of buses necessary. This included estimation of bus headways, analysis of space j and time required to load and unload buses, analysis of the effect of heavy bus concentrations on highway capacity and estimation of highway passenger carrying capacity with various bus concentration (see publications list, PRR 100. TRR 625). Develop a refined 'non-cosmitment' procedure for estimating demand for dial-a-bus service in small urban areas. Development involved detaile.d analysis... of public opinion and on-board bus surveys conducted in areas with existing service (see publications list, PRR 104). Analyzed the impact of various barriers on the use of public transportation by'ocedure for estimating the effect of barrier removal on transit ridership - elderly and handicapped individuals. This resulted in development of a pr (see publications list, TRR 660). Reuv rch Analyst (Transportation) Far.ccating Unit May 1973 to June 1975 (Research Assistant) (February to May 1973) Until its combination with the Planning Research Unit in June 1975, the Forecasting Unit was responsible for preparation of long range economic forecasts for regions and cubareas (traffic analysis zones and minor civil dividions). Some projects include: Work on the first annual Transportation Operating Assistance Evaluation Report. Particularly, a detailed analysis of transit operating cost components, including projections of cost increases for salary, main-tenance, fuel and retirement benefits. A transit operating cost index was developed from this analysis and has been used in estimating transit subsidy needs for the future (see publications list, TRR 626, PRR 92). Assist in preparing statewide forecasts of transit ridership and deficit including preparation of estimates of input parameters. Prepara estimates of population, auto ownership, income and employment for several upstate urban areas. The forecasts were used to update mode split and transit O&D estimates using the Department's computer simulation package. This effort included preparation of the Capital District Economic report. Development of a set of growth factors for vehicle miles of travel for every minor civil division in New York State.

l . Research to support the 1973 Bond Issue for New York State. This included estimating tax alternatives to raise funds and analysis of debt service cost for New York compared to other states. Tax Examiner New Yerk State Income Tax Bureau - February 1971 to February 1973 As o tax examiner, my primary responsibility was the audit of individual income tax returns. From February through April I supervised a unit of twenty-two people, including sixteen tempcrary clerks and six other tax examiners. I was responsible fir ccsignment and flow of work, quality control, training of clerks, timekeeping and p;rsonal matters for the Unit. EDUCATI0li BA in Economics; 1970; Lafayette College; Easton, Pennsylvania. My first two years vers in a combined Engineering-Economics Program, providing me with some technical and mathematical background in addition to economics courses. AFFILIATION Member of Transportation Research Board Committee on Rural Public Transportation; Chairman of the Subcommittee on Information Exchange.

1. ROBERT G. KNIGHTON Rasume Page Six PUBLICATIONS " Capital District Economic Report", preparad for the Capital District Transportation Committee, Decer.aer 1974. " Transit Ridership and Deficits: 1980 Projections for New Tork State" (with Stephen Howe and Gerald Cohen), Preliminary Research Report #92, Planning & Research Bureau, NYSDOT, October 1975. " Forecasting Fare Sensitive Dial-A-Bus Demand Without Surveys", Pre 11=inary Research Report #104, Planning & Research Bureau, NYSDOT, July 19/6. (A paper presented at tha 1977 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Resear'ch Board.) " Forecasting Independent Variables: Responsibilities and Techniques" (with David Gooding), Preliminary Research Report #102, Planning & Research Buresy, NYSDOT, August 1976. " Travel Demand at the 1980 Winter Olympic Games: Estimation and Analysis" (with Gerald Cohen and Richard Albertin), Preliminary Research Report

1. 100, Planning & Research Bureau NYSDOT, June 1976.

" Transportation Planning for the 1980 Winter Olympics: (with Gerald Cohen and Richard Albertin, Transportation Research Record #625. ( " Cost Increases Cost Differences and Productivity of Transit Operations in New York State" (with William Holthoff) Transportation and Research Record #626. " Incorporation Barrier Effects in Riderly and Handicapped Non-Work Transit Demand Forecasts" (with David T. Hartgen). Published as part of a paper entitled " Estimation of Demand for Transit Service Among the Transportation Disadvantaged" in Transportation Research Record

1. 660.

" Dimensions of Transit Service" (with Nathan Erlbaum and Richard Malec), Preliminary Research Report #106, Planning & Research Bureau, NYSDOT, December 1976. " Rural Attitudes Toward Public Transportation: Summary and Trade-Cff Analysis" (with Douglas J. Zoarhoff), Planning & Research Bureau, NYSDOT, August 1977. (A paper presented at the 1978 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.) " Estimating the Effect of Alternative Service Levels on Rural Transit Ridership" (with Wayne Ugolick). Transportation Research Record

1. 718.

" Objectives & Service Options for Rural Public 1ransportation Service (W/03 Zoerhoff) Preliminary Urban Planning Report #33, Dec. 1977. " Management Operation & Marketing for Rural Public Transportation Systems (With DJ Zoerhoff, A Politano & S Kling) Preliminary Urban Planning Report

1. 34 Aug. 1978

4 6 e e O 4 ATTACM ENT B k

I ATTACHMENT B Number of Intended Gapin Last Route Route Bus Trips Headway Service Bus Out Time A1 11 10 30 120 80 min. El 10 10 40 120 80 min. C1 4 30 60 120 90 min. C2 4 20 60 100 100 min. D1 2 40 n/a 40 120 min. El 9 10 50 120 100 min. F1-1 4 20 70 110 90 min. F1-2 4 10 70 120 80 min. F2-3 7 10 70 110 80 min. F2-4 7 10 40 90 80 min. F3-5 14 10 0 120 40 min. F4-6 14 10 20 15 0 30 min.,,. F5-7 9 10 30 120 50 min. ' G1 5 10 90 120 100 min. G2 5 40 50 130 50 min. G3 11 10 n/a 50 130 min. El 4 30 50 210 90 min. Il 2 60 n/a 60 120 min. I2 3 40 80 120 80 min. J1 6 10 90 110 110 min. K1-1 22 10 n/a 100 130 min. Ki-2 22 10 20 140 80 min. K2-3 22 10 10 130 90 min. K3-4 24 10 0 120 60 min. K4-5 8 20 0 130 70 min. K5-6 7 10 40 90 80 min. L1 6 20 60 120 100 min. L2 6 20 n/a 100 110 min. L3 6 20 40 100 60 min. M1 19 10 30 110 110 min. N1 16 10 60 120 90 min. N2 16 10 40 150 70 min. 01 4 30 40 100 70 min. 02 4 20 n/a 60 110 min. 03 4 30 0 80 80 min. i iii

f Number of Intended Gapin Last Route - Route Bus Trips Headway Service Bus Out Time P1 4 20 50 120 50 min. P2 3 40 80 120 80 min. P3 4 50 0 50 50 min. Q1 10 10 20 130 50 min. Q2 10 30 0 140 40 min. K1 10 10 30 110 70 min. R2 10 20 0 80 60 min. 51 5 20 30 120 50 min. 4 e +

h O e se ATTACHMENT C k i

• e

jv n -c r a ..e - n. 1 \\ .A .__...t....w.v h~ '_. - a '..'...- s ~ o% 1 .\\e m o.. u_ f L T2fsl-l7 v {\\ e r ,v5 a : I: 1 T . L,-)p,l,, 'Q.. ; sow.,.... S........n....... . ), r g s c

fa)

_'I i- -1 m 1 e f.i Wi 0 : 9

k['{^

S E, W Q, il.b'sf. Q \\ D' ^ .(: 31 W.k..: _+ r. y: i ( g e. 5_. 9i' i si %'t:r l +i i 'H ri a _a '> i: a 's .t. S ,,. 1.; p s w:<., r 1i ) +, ' ' N '. L k . 9 i E' N H t A ip'" g E a

• 5

,[=srweardda --is e _*5 s 1, p h,, Jl y n-m. y _,, L., j { ~g, .o. t. k 1 1 1 q') g - f{ h i _-... i ~ & a al } i i - :g: ad--$.,,\\ ~ l_ ~ Il ed } \\,.- \\. - \\ I r.i. q

s -

my s 4 ig i e ii l jfu g '0l i6 r ,l =

n1 5D k

~ o g -^ \\,,J I.L d S N( 3 s '- r ,-1 .o., L l L' l l a- .r t ',)

• t t.

i %' t t.. 's_j_ t J bl \\._,... .t~ i-a !g.___L,f.* b.L g, < 3,h.. N. gii 33-~l J \\ _i t 9p ., u 1 A 9 J>_ _ J 5 ,i 18 y ,f i> i 7 iT' 3-$ Ab gMi-3 & r=* 1 i t 7 -J PORT JEFFERSON QU DRANOLE p 4_ j _' . g..... l 1 NEW YORK-SUFFOLK CO. W i' ]' g

---

p {

7.5 MINUTE SERIES I i ' b-O ^~ ~l t _Selden i~1}_-j f y yj f f t 6 n

f f. I p f, BELLPORT QUADRANOLE 7 NEW YORK-SUFFOL.K CO. Up 7.5 MINUTE SERIES Nety Trimety j L cm t Purn %se.n .I ~ ' I Cevii -e (g

1. dd'* 3*'*"h '9

'I d C \\ 8' ,p o' W no^0l .Q Y f*' T "4 e,a h i F T. 4 N (a. e'u s ,e ..$r b U E R N Gon Course M.4de toad

• \\

Comitry Club b l BROOEHAVEN L ,A. . g.1.ABORA Y P g,,, g a.isposal.. .fa e i D \\ i s, s, i l e' l \\.,,,*- ,o s } l a$ s'{a l Yo., l ( j 5 l k Q y suau r hao .y. as .-~"' ,y,h,, PARR MEADOWS ARTER HORSE lCe g ,l< ACE TRACK j. , %) ss=a" e,, h',..,- \\, y /p A A ie g.,,, p-e'

• c j

-~ s a 3., U.i y.ph nk ' 2 v>< i s' e f Cg. s,, w-

s..c g, ee

,a g* *

\\ \\.", 74 i., e

• Q

\\. ;\\,y .as, g ho k,g, y) COUNTY PARK .1 \\ \\ \\' f f'b'V*'"' -j p a.u,..:.,

• ")

'"' ~* ,,,..s, \\ , s. ...r.... g Co ey ec t -i i,

• • '*5"

\\ i m s v m +' v n g g% \\ s t py n-1 g \\ /.suy.,,f <. z \\ s \\ u \\ s e Q g i '51 j

• .*j. ',

1 p Heliport b I j,; ,/ To., County e '2 c,.... "M.

• 7.

~._ - i, sugro x 'x s=s a s1 ~ g % i COUNTY ARK A ,7 \\ 3 ,t _m____ c2- _ _ _ j ^- w

MIDDLE ISLAND QUADRANGLE ~ New York - Suffolk Co. i 7.5 Minute Series 1 o 19 IF l L 0 N G I S L IJ 42

1. J 0

,. o o 0 O Q 0 ':.*,*,21' seam ad ggyc 'l / OT ["1 { fw A ( r M

• ff['j.-f.}

[j@ c y. Y ~g '. ? [ i,1a = Mi'l::r Place ,s i e-Q" 1 .l + t, I f,o s s _ I 9 f f s 1 LLLL I_('C 3' '[P I r .. s, i, j s r... su. $qq fm , ',b,..j. 4.R,\\ ) {..g k --t-t t 1 4 r ~;o l Lu ,s y ______1

t g;

. o,# A..____ ___.__ _. - a ,my. qq-u h im s ....e { 1,L 4 c,, co., h. -??~. I t- , se 131 .gGs. L....ad ..\\ ~y t.

• I 1

R \\ .s* \\ = \\ \\ \\, \\ .u-i=? =. ,a a L.. ..x -- w, \\

l ~ \\ \\ l \\ MIDDLE ISLAND QUADRANGLE ~,,,_. ~ 'g NEW YORK-SUFFOLK-CO. { 7.5 MINUTE SERIES i \\ \\ \\ \\ STATE LAND \\ \\ i h Radio \\ a \\ ,j \\ 8 1 i \\ t' _s. I:M \\ =a B R 0 0 K H A T -._e..., 1 i -, a A \\ j .,/

• \\

su ",a './ i 3 'e } ^t07 a g'8%; s y ~ a g Washirigten '8 _k N' g- - y 't, . A.,(N i sto# 1. 102 A 4 3 I t w.asse r 5 A Ma ~ A M eM 62y,s 9 \\ 1 o .a c. o

A s',e'A,

,,e x s, or A y \\ a gpw e A \\ g- ['. p-m. '\\. .sw 4 .c-n. 2 ^d /.. usi$ l A i ^ ^ zri,a ..- -' \\,. L I 4 { i, A, ,7,-k, I A ^ L f. l' ,1 3)4e l', ^ 4 m. k 4',. ^ d> Y d 8 .Wate N C& y 5 i,t e e \\ q r -- a Middle ,i Artist }- ^h ..,.2 -0 Is... y. A i j. ^ Q .g u

8..\\

) ) }L - asse ..t s* -- \\ch,wA, : sq *- Qx 1 c __ o -.i u. m m o

h \\ S MORICHES QUADRAtJOLE 7.... op', NEW YORK-SUFFOLK CO. i, ~~ 7.5 MINUTE SERIES US1 kE RVA ~ hK- t W' -.f.- A ~ 1 e \\ ,~ ; B NATIO A L. L ABORA RY j _-e. c \\- l \\ l = A\\f r u \\. '0000 \\ ,.} \\ 45 gs g /.. ',/. 'gy ,.j ,e ~ ,w v .gI o South .,, ',44 f. ** g q '. wastatio.n o

3. -

L q'. !,:;.....,. W ' ' \\ ? ~ - -@ l I /' /,,,/,,. , ~ ? = s,o g s of ( /*'. .,,/ 1 /y \\ n in k 4 Course [ n E h k p\\ l i-J. n

l. A_U i

t) . c' 1 g s L i bertoa ru n %;;=,L - 7* f f c+c,,%g .t l "" ~ .t 1 . a,

II, a

u ( .] 3 N 4 i w 1-1 3 j 4 2 .e' -a {.. e - ..) aooEHAVEN .== acront s.* c: g ~ - {.... - { " '; 'i,' i, = q 6\\~$b / \\ j n

\\s-

g.,

.,..:... on

=,. !. * :'s% s r ,.a.,, . T.., \\ c:,' O. i o 5 SM4g. g l I g I8 l i i i t = f O l h s \\ g** I fl i t . =., i =m - Is Terrs m i .er

• .'.W'".

4

• [.

53*

• .4 3,

=

• c:%.

j m r [ \\. n gg [ 5 \\ + = p e C g .. I'9 a. l h*eow \\ l I i, (, Redoody m Rock q _f* T0=or H a so,", k *' *.2);l ., J'J p. Gotr

• r srnorr fy.

t l

• \\*

v. \\ t ,f. i l Hill

• S.. f.

I l N ltry Club = l \\ l s t. i, "ll' g o* i. j p. t. cam. i

• j.

I O<. ,,, S \\ cT.a.cv 9 'E s \\ s = s 5 i t-l ,0 s (. ( 8 s ,s....., i 8 s a s g s a s i \\ n e s ~ e i i s I e ,a k l 1.. i s e %g' g a s, Y M Ngg g gj ) g g i Speen,,, s .*tua; O. 4 g .:g I no.. \\ l ,2%.~ ~.. ' ua *or in ascs*.* = g so , / ph \\. .' ~..* 8 -- -.4 p., s j l 's. on .} ( T.. g / spaoago g. ~q s . ~ ) 7 i ./ \\..;.... <<r hx s. r c' - j N.... i >i i g ,. I ~_ q l - q:. % . :. 9..: : U =j 7-T. \\. Fri g *.Q : i R 2 Y'. j ij 8 2, e, e /s f O e *.* s. .t. s* i A V E N t,. I s u LT, f, %.. ~- / m.

WADING RIVER QUADRANGL5 og JJ NEW YORK-SUFFOLk CO. 7.3 MINUTE SERIES J to it is y a .e. 6 W Fresh Pond 'g 3 L*a W 1 w rr .j .l l. l '. ~. ~. * ~ _ * ,' _,,n t v ~ ~< WOOD ~ l

s...

g^ PARK . ). mp ..y,.,,: g. + g. f,'..h... .F* ' % o. S, Balting Holk E*:; 1 M k * **. o ^126 .g ) 116

• e, 7.

o,. 1 en

• 'well ggg 6

9 L. wen 4. 1 .w,y .well Trailer. o .f o 1 d 4 03 Q %. g..,, = -.q - :: :' - u: :...D

n.g o

g %':::n. .: n.. -1.. -i t - '"u..in*":": :n s.*. ? i '*  :: q ,d s. CEMETERY I sw I

• /. 7 F,

s W; t', / V/ E, R' D HU e 41.*.1..p A = -,-/, -w; ^ .6 A wen m W,... ;.- ? *. ~o ..g 1 e GRUMMAN AIRPORT / 2 Oj 'I, 'I, I p PECONIC RIVER PLANT s _L A J \\

u 9,# .s r WADING RIVER QUADRANGLE .s New York - Suffolk Co. 7.5 minute series 9 9.0 .s Her8d Point b. wed n R wt 8* L.nain /. J ( 1 a-g s ~ \\ es ~* ~ * ~ 1- .\\ ~ . as. -. Tomm i... ,u, y,.s. ,y g"

• a

.-::t,iab ,4 y P o, ildwoodi @s \\ 1, y g> N Of -II j' b. \\/ \\- Wbling River g

k. Y fp

.r P Tras,r,f'.. %} i;, ~ / ? W Park l \\ .l 1 1 4,e I [ [ k ='p.h n-ntnn e Substati99 . t n-.. ,o ) Park i.g*..~~~'88bf'- N~; JO'(y .g.. b **" 110' ' 11 j o

m 4

=,Q y- \\ ~ b ;> I'l L j\\ \\ q;. u 1 . s.. e. i.. ,j C. t } '. P6 d I,} / Trailer

1. 8 g

CALVERTON N Park i g = y 1 .1 j j % g1 1 y \\.,. 1 y l: : *.,. scutti.) { 2 Hole \\- \\ R \\ w w i; y >,- I p g i a = 2 C L'n i B 1 ). \\. W o L1_. L ;-{- e w. \\~ s

• • • %..~,,.

'*\\ ,c. O, fCAO

• \\

..e 8 4.p.., \\ e z p : :,.,,,, err,**f.'t qti,,' * '. \\, .g , *h \\ o gy ~ .A \\.g,, g O  ? Q"*

• 6 *.*

.f s'e s s Trsager p ~ 6 . l u 'c4 ,,l 8 M" ,em :" ' 4 e ?= [*/,'*n"a ;;.- ~..,,%,,,,~-. e. \\,;,:l..i

• • . ~ g

's,,[,,ac=., ,1 as -p N ~ a,s <? s ,!%, /. 1.w! J de rc.n R~i.i r .% <., n,1

<a..-

.e a ~ vl m..' c - ew..J esuuo . t' - 6 ~ ~ '., $o5 T %-.Q,,i-.r p./--....-..,~- e o f ,4 g s'~-=-- e,, 3 f-

• /99 q-....-

.. i?*=*

/

= /======i=

Calvergo,

L -f/.

• ' y.:..,,/

./ ..f.._ - = / . N,,.. - -D.'. y .s s s % ; g; i-r=>r a,a/ - J g, nf, a t.- i a e. ~ D l n u. 4 s / / l ^ a > p, g j ,/

j.,.,

4 4 4 l ,/ ,7 Wy-4 4e f t 5 y,,' ,1 .) l u +.s. / l a -~, 7'. / l y i g I' t 4 e l i j f/ .n \\ / / / l / /, / e l B 0 0 g H A y g N l 8, S s' I ,. 7, I s s,,, ' g / /A I r /,, p

• t.,

W" Rear i ,m

• H
• e

' S ~ d"::lLc.. j jesc9:*~ M A u,, ~ l ,C saa y(7 f i f @. y.: . Cosim ig l - \\ ~ J ~ L Co eg, 9e

l I2 og 90 44 I y I ,7 RIVERHEAD QUADRANOLE NEW YOP.K-SUFFOLK CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES G J of O 17 7 3 Roanoke VHla 3, Landing maculate JaJa .s Ja R e -e-pm H**d .t f'. Roan 7 ,,,O f.t. s. Se I 3 103/j Cen r r*- campere s, d f s,, Goat (,s o .,f.* 0 en i** ' % cane

• aveaW8*

Q

• gg 6

..y. b s .. kp '\\\\ s. v .g 'h,

e. ok to.-

'h, 4 - 8. e Baiting Hollo

• [*

Laneng Stnp'h i v.e4 3, g t.,, g 't. OS Q g,*,. A sg.h- \\j 's \\ g .. s O o. ee S s. o ,p5ye ek 'y s e-c.,,',, R I V O t '.s e a,,f) s. A .s. 'q ^\\^ Trai. s S s 4 pn hk g 'Q' N 's 'BM A}s, A 7 o n .g,., o (,,' n_ _n y

O m o e G e ATTACIMENT D e i 1

7. ATTACIDGMT D Comments on Evacuation Routes A Through G BUS ZONE ROUTE COMMENTS A A-1 The bus picks up passengers along Route 25A while westbound between William Floyd Parkway and Miller Ave., and picks up passengers on the return trip eastbound along Route 25A from North Country Road at least'to Miller place and as far as we can tell, all the way to William Floyd Parkway. The service area is to the north of Route 25A, so on the return trip passengers will be required to cross 25A in order to board the bus. B B-1 Buses will load passengers along Route 25A between the William Floyd Parkway and Randall Road while traveling west so passengers will have to cross Route 25A. C C-1 The bus enters at its service area traveling north on the William Floyd Parkway. The bus continues north on the William Floyd Parkway apparently making stops between Route 25 and Route 25A. The bus makes stops eastbound on Route 25A to Randall Road where it loops around through it,s service area off evacuation routes returning to Route 25A over Wading River Road where

p-I t s s w BUS ZONEm ROUTE COMMENTS again it makes stops as it travels westbound to the w t William Floyd Parkway. q k ,i 3 'C. C-2 The bus enters its service area at 25 and the Willian Floyd Parkway traveling east on Route 25 along which it apparently makes stops as far as Panamoka Road where it beging to trwel northbound through the Lake Panamoka ares. It then travels south on the Wading River Mannotville Road, which is another evacuation route, picking up passengers as it travels southbound. It continues westbound on Route 25 again picking up passer.- gars until it Tsaches William Floyd Parkway. -D F-1 The buses which travel this route use evacuation high-ways over the entire length of their route. First Route 25,then Route 25A-then the Wading River-Mannorville '\\t. Road. In addition, over the entire length of the route, t the bus is on the opposite side of the highway from the service area requiring all passengers to cross the road to get to the bus. finally, for more than two miles laong acute 25A the bus travels northwest directly teeard the plant. s O __m._

n 3 .s* l BUS ZONE ROUTE COMMEN'l3 E E-1 The buses on this Route traverse their service area before proceeding south along Hulsel Landing Road, which is an evacuation route. Buses then cross Sound Road to North Country Road. At this point the now nearly fully loaded buses proceed northwest, directly toward the plant for over one mile, finally turning southwest onto Randall Road at a point less than one-half a mile from the LILCO Site boundary. This stretch of North Country Road is also an evacuation route. F F1-1 Zone F is served by seven bus routes and 59 hus runs. through Each of these runs uses Route 25A, a major evacuation F4-6 route, to reach its intended service area. Buses traveling on Routes F1-1, F1-2, F2-3, F2-4, and F3-5; a total of 36 buses all use Route 25A between Miller Place Road and Sound Beach. Road. Routes F1-1. F1-2,'12-3, and F2-4 s total of 22 trips, use Route 25A as far as Hollock Landing Rosd. Buses on Routes F1-1. F1-2, F2-3 then continue along Route 25A until they reach Broadway. At Broadway, the seven runs on F2-3 turn north and the remaining eight buses on the routes F1-1, and F2-2 continue east to Harding Road where the four buses of F1-2 turn north.

..e .4 BUS e ZONE ROUTE _ COMMENTS The remaining four busett of F1-1 continue east on Route 25A to the Woodville Road. Presumably, some of these buses will be stopping to pick up passengers throughout the length of Route 25A. Since their service area lies to the North of Route 25A, the buses will either have to stop while traveling in the direction of evacuation traffic or-the passengers will have to cross evacuation traffic in order to reach evacuation traffic. F F5-7 Bus Rouhe FS-7 is configured such that all the passen-gers on the nine buses serving this route #.11 actually be closer to the Plant when they are dropped off at the Miller Place Road transfer point than they were when they left their homes. G GI. buses on this route use Randall Road and Route 25; in each case the bus will be making stops as it travels along these evacuation routes. Along Randall Road pescengers will be coming from both sides of the road while those passengers on Route 25 will be required to cross the evacuation route in order to reach the bus.

I BUS ZONE ROUTE COMMENTS G G2 Uses Route 25 and Smith Road, which are both evacuat. ion routes. While tha buses are traveling south on Smith Road, the passengers will have to cross the street in order to reach the bus. G G3 Uses portions of Radio Road, Ridge Road, and Route 25A, all of which are evacuation routes. Since the serrice area is south of Route 25A and over a portion of Route 25A a portion of these buses will be traveling westbound as they pick up passengers and the buses may be stopping so as to interfere with evacuating traffic, and in addition passengers will have to cross the road in order to reach the bus.

9 >f O e O oe ATTACEMENT E d 1

S hOF# Beach Shoreham Beach es S._.. ...h.s-

[

y .o %d ! i i g~ \\

c. -

ATTACEM E .. j; i ~ Radio

1. a l

f }p'rl y g f'd y g To., y\\ e N c- - o' Q y g -] i ".u r9 l a Tank j ) .[ ~ y,, = q Th-3 . el i rg i99~1 M'I f ; i

j 09 s

J i i 7 f W ii.uiiil. i l i n i i lI t w, ' l e,, ys.m.,,, l i em e - - -- - -% e _____.,_____-_--g,,,a,-- m _ I J

1

... K( ' W....... .%.l* .m S*g, L ?.3 3 l.1.1 .I a .s i \\ !M i MIDDLE ISLAND QUADRANOLE 'f NEW YORK-SUFFOLK CO. -k { i ;d 2 7.5 MINUTE SERIES r { I @J Prepared and published in 1981 by the New York State Department j l. em of Transportation, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of g b Transportation Federal Highway Administration. py, '\\) ) M&p base from 1967 U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle. l Map revisircs made using 1980 aerial photography, construction p, plans, cfficial records and other sources. Features revised \\ 14 E w M m q s q N \\g include: highways and other transportation facilities; civil boundari:s; recreation sites; hydrography; and buildings. { k / f [ Grey tilt indicates intensely developed areas in which only ) C f landmark b lldings are shown. Revisiens may not comply with National Map Accuracy Standards. ] q f w:e { 0 Correspondence concerning this and other maps of the Department 't g a I of Traxsportation should be directed to: Map Information Unit, i / New York State Department of Transportation, State Campus. I g i Albany, New York 12232. f h 1931 revisions by C.M. Ribaud A' \\ ~ \\ eu a \\ -\\ l <\\..f"9 g q f Yq 5%j 3 i h ~ + \\ % e.; \\j hj b :.g ;, ~ A V E y ..:ot w ny-9,. \\. MT;y 'l - :..q \\ Q t 7.- nee oeVEt.0%Eh 0 ' h; \\ L L __ 1 ,? 1 / \\ 1 .}}