ML20235F035
| ML20235F035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1987 |
| From: | Hartgen D, Millspaugh R NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-3-I-NYS-006, OL-3-I-NYS-6, NUDOCS 8709280386 | |
| Download: ML20235F035 (41) | |
Text
l 0 /M /77 l
e db.322-84 3
(
7/Z 3/8 7
]
s6 z-w(TATESOFAMERICA u
UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,; f i i
In the Matter of
)
,, /,.
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DAVID T.
HARTGEN AND ROBERT C. MILLSPAUGH ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON KLD'S CAPACITY ANALYSIS (KLD TR-201)
I.
Names and Qualifications Q.
Please state your names and occupations for the record.
A.
I am David T.
Hartgen, Director of Statistics and Analysis for New York State Department of Transportation, presently on special assignment for the Shoreham hearings.
I am Robert C. Millspaugh, Supervisor of Traffic Engineering Design Review, New York State Department of Transportation.
Q.
State your qualifications.
A.
Our qualifications were described in our Direct Testimony, filed on April 13th.
~
dP
t a
d a
4 v\\,'
,_x s,
m C -
\\
\\g
.A 9 's *#,,
- f. }.__4 d
?.
e
\\ <,
\\W
\\
Ld S
{b w
i sma g gD $-
5 s
II.
Purpose of Testimony O.
What is the purpose of this rebuttal testimony?
A.
Our purpose is to assess the accuracy and completeness of LILCO's most recent study of the capacity of roads in the vicin-ity of its three proposed reception center sites.
This study is dated March 30, 1987, and is entitled " Capacity Analysis on 1
Approach Routes to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Reception Centers."
We will refer to the analysis (which is Attachment S
^
to LILCO's Direct Testimony) by its document number, KLD TR-201.
We received KLD TR-201 on April 2nd, and its supporting data on l
l April 7th.
Therefore, it was not possible for us to analyze the l
study sufficiently to include a complete evaluation of it in our April 13th Direct Testimony.
l Our preliminary analysis of KLD TR-201 demonstrated that its l
results were based on unrealistically low assumptions and failure to account properly for the queues extending from the reception centers.
Those points were made in our April 13 Direct Testimony and we will not reiterate that testimony here.
Rather, this testimony will focus on our further analyses of the data underly-ing KLD TR-201.
Specifically, we offer this rebuttal testimony to apprise the Board that KLD TR-201 is based on data which have been used in a misleading fashion in order to support LILCO's conclusions.
1 i
4 s,
III.
NYSDOT Analysis'of KLD TR-201 Q.
Please describe your further analyses of KLD TR-201.
1.
Imorocer " Adjustments" To Data
~
A.
Given the sheer volume of computer-generated material provided to us, we have not analyzed every intersection examined in KLD TR-201.
However, we have reviewed KLD TR-201's treatment lof a selected group of intersections,' including the three " target intersections" which were the focus of our Direct Testimony..The three target intersections are:
Hicksville - NYS Route 107 and Old Country Road-Bellmore - Route 27 and Newbridge Road Roslyn - Willis Avenue and LIE Service Roads.
KLD TR-201 states that in analyzing the capacity of the intersections on paths leading to the reception centers, traffic counts on all approaches to the intersections were acquired via automatic recording equipment.
LILCO Direct Testimony, Attach-ment S at 12.
This was done to determine the level of background traffic on the approaches to the reception centers; the higher the level of background traffic, the less roadway capacity is available for evacuees attempting to reach the reception centers.
However, in analyzing the data provided to us by LILCO, we dis-l _ _ _
____-____ _ _ a
covered that the counts which KLD'actually obtained'in the field do not match.the counts'that were used in the capacity analysis supporting KLD TR-201.
Instead of using the actual counts'on'a specific movement,'KLD took the total. approach volume at each 1
intersection and -- from what it appears -- arbitrarily distributed it among the various movements (left, through, right).
This inappropriate juggling of the tra'ffic demand served in all cases to reduce background traffic on the key evacuation 1
I movements, thus resulting in more favorable conditions, on paper, for evacuation traffic.
I To demonstrate how KLD TR-201 misapplies the data, let us s
look at the intersection of Route 107 southbound and Old Country Road.
This is a key approach to the Hicksville reception center.
Exhibit 1, obtained from LILCO, is a printout of the turn move-ments counted in the field by KLD's contractor.
For the 3-hour period from 7 a.m.-10 a.m.,
Exhibit 1 reflects that 456 vehicles (175 + 146 + 135) took a left-turn from Route 107 onto Old Country Road.
This is one of two key movements for evacuation traffic at this intersection.
As seen in Exhibit 2, also obtained from LILCO, the average hourly left-turn. volume for the 7 a.m.-10 a.m. time period is 152 vehicles / hour (456 divided by 3).
l
., J.
.' s 1
However, as demonstrated in Exhibits 3 and 4, LILCO did not use the 152 vehicle / hour figure to-calculate intersection capacity and level'of. service for that time period.' Rather, it chose (for reasons which are nowhere explained) to reduce'the hourly average volume of left-turning background traffic to 77 vehicles / hour -- more than a 50%' reduction'(remember that the analysis purports to be based on 100% of background traffic being on the roads).
To this reduced 'oackground traffic, KLD adds 339 i
vehicles / hour to represent expected evacuation traffic (assuming-30% of EPZ residents proceed to reception centers).
Thus, the total average left-turning volume for the 7 a.m.-10 a.m. period is assumed by LILCO to be 416 (77 + 339).
See Exhibits 3,'4.
In fact, assuming for the sake of argument that the estimate of 339 evacuating vehicles / hour is correct, the proper left-turn volume l
is 491 (152 + 339).
LILCO then plugs the inappropriately-reduced 416 vehicle /
hour figure into the HCM software which calculates a volume /
capacity ("V/C") ratio of.565 and a level of~ service rating of Ee_q Exhibit 4 at 1, 7-8.
This indicates little congestion "C".
e and adequate traffic flow.
These results, however, are inaccurate because LILCO has nfsused its own data.
When the proper data are applied, as we did in the analysis 1
reflected in Exhibit 5, with 491 vehicles / hour used as the proper left turn volume for the 7 a.m.
10 a.m. period,.the same software i
calculates a 1.019 V/C ratio with a level of service rating of F
)
(reflecting total breakdown of service).1/
This is a dramatic i
I difference in results, which KLD would have obtained itself had l
the proper data been used.
There is no reason given for the adjustments KLD made to its data and, in our opinion, none is justified.
As an additional example, let us look at the northbound approach of Route 107 to Old Country Road.
KLD's field counts l
show that between 7 a.m. and'10 a.m.,
an hourly average of 114 northbound cars turn right onto eastbound Old Country Road (the other of the two key evacuation movements at this intersection) and 885 either go straight through or turn left, for a total of 999 cars per hour.
The data used for KLD TR-201 assumes the same total volume of 999 cars, but with only 80 cars making right i
turns.
Indeed, for all four of the three-hour periods between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.,
KLD determined turning counts by distributing 24% of the total approach volume to the left turn, 68% to the through movement and 8% to the right turn.
In every time period, this resulted in the northbound right turn volumes used for the capacity analysis being less than the right turn volumes actually recorded by the machine counts.
Of course, this led to artifi-cially decreased V/C ratios and enhanced levels of service.
l 1/
As stated in our Direct Testimony, a V/C ratio of more than one means that demand exceeds capacity.
It is indicative of severe congestion.
Long queues will form at many intersections upstream and in the networks causing gridlock.
4 Exhibit 6 summarizes discrepancies between the field data collected by KLD and the arbitrary data used in KLD TR-201 for the 7 a.m.-10 a.m. time period at our three target intersections.
It demonstrates that by adjusting the data to reduce the back-ground volume at the key turns, more intersection capacity became available for evacuation traffic.
Then, when the limited evacua-tion traffic assumed in KLD TR-201 was added to the movement, it was able to fit within the available capacity.
While this LILCO device makes it appear that the intersections around the recep-tion centers can accommodate the demand, proper use of the data, as reflected in Exhibits 5 and 7, shows that they cannot.
I 2.
Inappropriate Adiustment to Intersection Geometry j
1 1
1 i
In addition, our analysis has determined that KLD has arti-j i
4 ficially inflated the capacity available for some evacuation turn movements.
In at least two cases (and there may be more), KLD i
altered the existing lane configuration to favor the evacuation j
movement by designating a straight-through lane as a shared left turn and straight-through lane, thus permitting a double left turn, even though the geometrics and signal operation at the intersections do not include such a turn.
This " technique" was j
i used on the southbound approach of Willis Avenue to the LIE South l
I Service Road (Roslyn) and the southbound approach of Route 107 to l
I i
i i !
4
E Old Country Road (Hicksville).
In effect, it substantially increased the capacity available for evacuation movements -- but i
it is not grounded in reality.
Exhibit 4, which is LILCO's analysis of the southbound approach to the intersection of Route 107 and Old County Road, is an example of LILCO's improper procedures.
Page 2 of Exhibit 4 shows that the southbound leg of the intersection consists of four lanes.
That is true; however, Lane 2 is incorrectly i
identified as permitting a left turn, when in fact it is a through-only lane.
The effect is to greatly increase left-turning capacity which, when combined with the reduced traffic volumes described above, results in a V/C ratio of.566 and a l
level of service rated as "C".
i Again, Exhibit 5 sets forth the calculation as it should l
have been done.
Using the actual geometry of the intersection, a
and the proper average hourly demand figure of 491 vehicles / hour (see above), the V/C ratio is 1.019, with a level of service j
rating of "F".
This means that the approach will be extremely I
congested and could lead to significant delays for evacuees attempting to reach the reception centers.
Q.
Have you identified any other problems as a result of your analysis of the data underlying KLD TR-2017 l
}
i l
l
.g-l l
1
4 A.
Yes, we have discovered several additional problems which while not as significant as the problems noted above, neverthe-less demonstrate a disregard for accuracy in KLD TR-201.
- First, at two locations, KLD uses departure volumes from the inter-section as accroach volumes to the intersection.
For instance, the counts used for the capacity analysis of the EB approach of Old Country Road to Route 107 were taken at detector H3, which is already east of the intersection and records EB traffic departing from the intersection.
There were no counts taken on the EB approach to the intersection.
The same is true for the SB approach of Newbridge Road to Route 27.
Detector B3 was used for i
the southbound approach when in fact it is located south of the intersection and recorded SB departure volumes.
Second, KLD's estimates of traffic turning right on red are i
i too generous, especially in cases where traffic will be turning right from a lane that is shared with through traffic.
Cases in i
point are both approaches of Newbridge Road to Route 27 (Sunrise Highway) (Bellmore), the westbound LIE Service Road approach to l
Willis Avenue (Roslyn), the eastbound LIE Service Road approach to Willis Avenue (Roslyn) and the northbound Willis Avenue l
approach to the eastbound LIE Service Road (Roslyn).
When an intersection is operating at or near capacity, there are very few l
l opportunities for right turns on red.
Accordingly, when we l
l i
l conduct capacity analyses, we usually do not consider right turns l
l on red; this results in an appropriately conservative analysis.
i 1
Third, KLD used as input signal timing that in some cases provides more green time to the evacuation movement than the existing traffic signal operation does.
This artificially increases the capacity of those movements.
For example, at the intersection of Route 27 (Sunrise Highway) and Newbridge Road incorrect green time was given to the protected left turn from westbound Sunrise Highway onto southbound Newbridge Road and to the Newbridge Road movements.
In the 7 a.m.
to 10 a.m. time period KLD used effective green times of 27 seconds for the protected westbound left turn and 35 seconds for Newbridge Road.
l The existing operation provides a maximum green of only 20 seconds to the protected westbound left turn and 25 seconds for Newbridge Road.
Similarly, at the eastbound LIE service road intersection with Willis Avenue between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., KLD used an effective green of 24 seconds for the protected left turn from southbound Willis Avenue onto the eastbound LIE service road.
The existing signal operation only provides a maximum of 12 seconds.
Finally, KLD may have underestimated the percentage of trucks on the roads.
Region 10 (Long Island) usually uses a 10 percent estimate.
In contrast the 2 percent often used in KLD's analysis is the default value selected by the computer program.
KLD also used a peak hour factor of 0.99 on the - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
evacuation approaches and a few others.
This is definitely favorable to their analysis.
A peak hour factor of 0.99 is very unlikely during normal traffic conditions, even during peak l
periods.
Q.
Have you determined the effect of all of the errors you discovered in KLD TR-20l?
A.
Yes, we performed our own capacity analysis correcting some of the above mentioned errors.
The major changes were to the turn movement volumes, signal timing and lane assignments.
Right turns on red were also adjusted, but that did not have a signifi-cant effect.
KLD's peak hour factor and truck percentages were not changed.
Exhibit 7 is a comparison of our analysis with KLD's.
The analysis is based on 100% background traffic and 30%
evacuation traffic, spaced over a six-hour time period, as was KLD's.
Only the movements to be used by evacuation traffic are shown in Exhibit 7.
The results of our analysis show significant differences l
from KLD's conclusions regarding the expected operating condi-l tions at the three target intersections in the event of a Shoreham accident.
KLD used improper and/or unrealistic input and obtained favorable results.
We used actual background move-ment counts, actual lane assignments and actual signal timing as input, and obtained results that point to conditions much worse l
1 4
than those predicted by KLD.
Indeed, of 24 turn movements, 14 are over capacity (i.e., V/C ratios greater than 1.0), including four that have'V/C ratios of 1.3.or.more..
Q.
What is the significance of your findings?
A.
When the analysis purported to have been conducted by KLD is done appropriately, the results demonstrate that the intersec-l tions analyzed will not operate even under the unrealistically low assumptions'(i.e., 30% EPZ traffic, 100% background traffic-l*
and no shadow traffic) utilized by KLD.
Q.
Did you analyze scenarios for these intersections using lower demand estimates?
A.
Yes.
We analyzed a 100% background /20% evacuation /6 hour time period scenario.
Q.
Please describe your results.
A.
Exhibit 8 shows the results, which not surprisingly show less congestion than the 100%/30% scenario.
Of 24 movements analyzed, six are over capacity (V/C greater than 1.0), including two that have V/C ratios of 1.3 or more.
I i
l 1
9 4
Q.
Does this'mean-that the plan will operate at 100%/20%?
A.
No.
It'means that, un the averaae, conditions will be bet-ter than at a 100%/30% scenario.
However, there is still a sig-nifica,nt amount of congestion at the key approaches to the Bellmore and Roslyn sites, particularly during the morning and 3
afternoon peaks.
I l
Q.
What can be said about the sensitivity of KLD's results to assumptions about the input?
A.
Our tests show that KLD's assumption about the percentage of evacuees that wish to use the sites is a critical one.
Basi-cally, the number of. intersection movements expected to be over' j
capacity will more than double, as'one goes from 20% evacuation to 30% evacuation.
In other words, there is very little room'for i
error in KLD's numbers:
if the percent of evacuees turns out to be just slightly higher than 20%, congestion will mushroom rapidly.
Even at 20%, certain movements will show major delays.
Given the uncertainty of this number, and its sensitivity, I
LILCO's Plan is inadequate.
LILCO has essentially assumed that i
an evacuation will be mild (less than 30% of the'EPZ population arriving at reception centers) and will occur at favorable times (off peak) but has not taken into account (from a roadway - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _
s capacity standpoint) worse scenarios.
This is imprudent.
The chance of error is too great, and the. impacts of that error too-severe, to ignore a thorough' analysis.
Q.
Have you analyzed any intersections other than the three
" target" intersections?
1.
Meadowbrook Parkway and Route 27 z
A.
Yes.
In reviewing the data underlying KLD TR-201'we noticed j
that there was no analysis of the intersection of the southbound
.Meadowbrook Parkway exit ramp to eastbound Route 27 (Sunrise Highway).
This is an important intersection for evacuees seeking to reach the Bellmore reception center.
The off. ramp is con-trolled by a stop sign and there is no acceleration lane for traffic entering Route 27 from the parkway ramp.
Thus, we feel that conditions at this intersection are best analyzed by the Highway Capacity Manual procedures for unsionalized intersec-tions.
Our analysis is summarized in Exhibit 9 hereto.
It indi-cates that even in the presence of only 20% EPZ evacuation traf-fic and 100% of the normal background traffic, the resulting volumes on the ramp will be well over capacity between the hours of 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.
There will therefore be significant queueing on the ramp, backing up onto the Parkway mainline. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
I If a six-hour, lq% evacuation is assumed (one of LILCO's i
assumptions in KLD TR-201), in the three-hour period between
)
1 4 p.m. and 7 p.m.
the demand on the off ramp will be an average l
of 693 vehicles over capacity each hour.
Thus, at the end of the three-hour period a queue of 9.8 miles would result.
This demonstrates that this intersection will significantly impede traffic attempting to reach the Bellmore reception center, ulti-l mately leading to delays in monitoring evacuees.
j i
2.
Old Country Road and South Ovster Bay Road We also reviewed the intersection of Old Country Road'and l
South Oyster Bay Road.
This is a key intersection on a primary approach to the Hicksville reception center.
We analyzed this intersection for 100% background traffic, 30% EPZ, and 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> arrival.
Exhibit 10 summarizes our analysis for the key movement (westbound through).
It is well over capacity for all four time periods.
This means that evacuation traffic will back up, with the queue extending east, steadily at this location.
f l _________ _ _ _ -
Q.
Please summarize your testimony.
A.
Our review of KLD TR-201 demonstrates that KLD's purported analysis is misleading.
In particular, the input data utilized in the analysis have been adjusted without justification to favor LILCO's conclusions.
When proper input data are utilized, even taking LILCO's basic assumptions regarding traffic demand, the results demon-strate that traffic congestion will be far worse than is indi-cated in LILCO's testimony.
Key approaches of the intersections analyzed will be at or over capacity, leading to increased delays and the lowest levels of service.
O.
Does that complete your testimony?
A.
Yes.
l l _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EXHIBIT 1 15GINVfi,3CHANN(LAIL(COUNI R[f(RINCI: H1 CORRICT10N FACTOR: 1.00' t0CA110N: SOUTHBOUND BROADWAY Ai OLD COUNTFV RD. (H1) i!L(NAME: H1716 WI ATHIR: 000D THURSDAY JULY 17,1936
(........9ti!!!Ei.UMS..............................................................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
HOUR LIFT HOUP DTHER HOUR-C05BINID
'f(GINS 0
15
- ^
45 TOTAL 0
15 30 45
8 13 5
18 l'
t 41 40 Si 94 1
8 8
4 4
24 38 24 25 28 115 13 2
8 5
1 9
'23 26 18 20 20 84 107 3
1 6
2 1
10 10
'11 14 43 5*
4 3
2 5
4 la 14 il 23 25 73 87 5
1 5
8 7
21 22 24 27 -
30 103 124
(
16 21 40 48
^5 34 H
72
!!3 283 408 7
38 47
-32 58 17s 98 107' 103 110 418 593 8
46 29 34 37 146 I
139 '
90 33
- 120 432 578 9
35 30 41 29 h
133 114' 104 122 473 6'08
,?
6!4 10 22 26 29 38 115 112
!a5 143 139 5
11 26 31 25 38 100 126 153 142 122 525 645 Pn 12 47 45 42 53 18i',
165 147 155 180 647 834 1
64 36 48 49 197,
187 147 192 158 684 '
881 - -
2 47 38 42 42 le9 -
175 165 158 143
'641 -
810 -
3 34 15 35 52 136 -
174 225 201 209 809 -
445 -
4 45 61 56 50 210 -
192 215 288 254 949 -
litt e 5
53 58 66 67 244 -
297 274 279 261 1111 -
1355 -
e 51 51
- 5 24 1 31
.209 212 196 149 766 -
227 -
7 41 25 28 24 118 139 125 150 130 544 662 8
33 27 20 23 103 130 103 116 102 451 554 9
20 15 22 18 75 98 81 111 104
- id de9 10 15 15 9
19 58 69 33 67 80 299 357 11 to 28 27 14 79 84 86 64 36 270 349 TOTALS 2665 10734 1339)
AM P(AK HOUR IS 10:15 TO 11:15 VOLUMI LEfi 119 OTHER:
553 COMB 1NID: 672 DIRECil0NAL SPLIT 181 821 P[AK HOUR TAC 10R 0.78 0.95
?.95 PM PIAK HOUR IS 5:00 10 6:00 VOLUMI LIIT :
244 OTHER:
till COMBINID: 1355 DIRECTIONAL SPLli 181 821 PIAKHOURfACTOR 0.91 0.94 0.97 t
___EXHIBII 2
.1, l
N O t9 7.z cr A ) ; 3n ;.., g* a s d zJA,,,,b u.y 4
% c. ~,v r x y bn O
b a *r F A */ N %s-J r
- ?
bd'7gc._y g :
/
_. =
M 8A/A/ H__-_-
_ _ _. _ _. ~ _ _ _. _..
- _ -.C o ru_.e)
... _.- 8 --.(..:..
- r )
=
~-
51.]....
.. ~........ -.. _.
-.M.
Y.4./--
/I2 3
...... 7.._. / d. // M
=
1'l S 70
......./ 0. /. - - -Pisf
/ Y/ _-
R '? ?_.. __-.._
m._
. _.. __ _ _.. _ y_ Picf --
! t ?_... _..
7n
/
9 92._.
U y'2 -_.
Z 0 G. _.__... _
7 PM
+'
gap a.ap.aipe e. + -esemusa84MN -
""' # WP' *WEnWD w___
em en em auusseau. ee.. Op ammeus daucust egegate essemim 2 / ~7.--..
. C.
. - _ 4 N-- _
-...s.a-
/
/
og
-.egm aosummM M em -
BM
^ h h g am
_ep use $.. N -
e apWG wSWW
-assume e e se se em. em - -
mW 3-@
.ee emma. -
56 6
- e gp
..,p@eddAD=*.W*.
M_
- N'-
e eggeme en s
-..4, e e en ease e enWS se esie e eu2*.M.D.***WG8
-MN6-penge gem r - *me u-_.
em og.m gu s eeppsees emupp 8 G og,s.e gase p
creassum.emms eWemme, een mea 4.eme ese eates. e ad 49**a#***ep 9
g ge
-appe essaanee me o seeem.ap es e ede s
- - 88 888 # --
e, g g,,g e.
,.e. e are
- ep a +
G.p e_8D ogeog m,q, gp egype essee.ep 4um8END
- s e s e G i ampse
.**9@a-
.=. St e> @
8
'85'4'****-88--
88'**'***"
~~
eeusse4-e 9-genus er dat
-ama e e gumeanse.*
emy y
eere e *. e men WupSN N-
.pSa g WeasWe e ge.a.
.e a4 m gemmy w i mp pu*S * #4W SDW8.-
- .++8GB***
gem amp p w e e genummy esp eut ep.de epa.
p
..ene.se spese e. map.-**em**==*
8*
- '88 agggg gge _ _
- est e w ao -'MERamu sG eema9 efGme @@ e 96 dWDW.*'Es8M
'g pe@ aeAB
$.Any gpenWeiw.6 wem g ggimp.g gugiggg
- 6. gyid 6 g333
- 4P A peop w p 33.. O pedum Ge..ad 4 bed 9 angusegewggna ess 4
..'.__e.._._...
..u.
S etem __
6 *mE.e@ mM g>--
-Maumb SeN em
-N-__
w.gagssygyp q g g em q>p.e emw *e. m *
' Me
- . eu>49 r nump e 4 *id 4
- G
- d'im a
a a as e imeem *
- Sep W* e * **
9
.e. ape e.,espo a m emmtommes emode-es= =
-Mausens e ayens,
e e W =Wpee dio.6m*
p $ssemuume ey a 6e. Oe s+.w &.
N_
+.,s we e.
e au..w.ame mes=
W kt.
L.,,,
~~
..m.,,.
/
i I
s e PARD gl>-
EXHIBIT 3
-7
'/3x/M u
oldM9 f
c i
I
~7
/ D A -
f8 W8 pg
.58 L-7 A'
.L 7.p z.
7 g
g r
g O
416 fo l
/ftted' ta os,c, gyz,yg tid tog go 2fJ 67f
@d !
1 m
A3k 33 9
\\
00f04fxer) l1(o Q(o v
9W tc6 Q
3b3 A/&
% 74 /l.
v f# F
.i9
'if of f 50 67?Jf,3)/S,337 NO TM /,3 /G : 43 1
P i
%9S#
EXHIBIT 4
?
1985 HCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION l
==========================================================
l NAME OF THE EAST / WEST STREET........ 01d County Rood NAME OF THE NORTH / SOUTH STREET....... Broadway (Route 107)
AREA TYPE...........................
0THER PEDESTRIAN WALKING SPEED............
0 (feet /sec)
NAME OF THE ANALYST..................R. Goldblatt DATE OF THE ANALYSIS................ 3/8/87 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................
0700-1000 l
DTHER INFORMATION:
30 percent evocuotioni 100 percent background TRAFFIC VOLUMES
==========================================================
EB WB NB SB LEFT 106 110 240 416 THRU 592 934 679 415 RIGHT 186 206 363 101 R10R 80 40 80 80 (RTOR volume must be less than or equal to RIGHT turn volumes.)
l l
1
)
INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Page-2
==========================================================
NUMBER OF LANES PER DIRECTION INCLUDING TURN BAYS q
EASTBOUND = 4 WESTBOUND = 4 NORTHDOUND = 4 SOUTHBOUND = 4 EB WB NB SB 1
LANE TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH l
1 L
10 0 L-10 0 L
10.0 L
10.0 l
j 2
T 12.0 T
12 0 T
12.0 LT 12.0 3
?
3 T
12.0 T
12.0 T
12 0 T
12.0
)
f
't 4
R 12.0 R
12 0 R
12 0 R
12.0 5
12.0 12.0 12 0 12 0 6
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 L
- EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE T - EXCLUSIVE THROUGH LANE i
I LT - LEFT/THROUGH LANE TR - THROUGH/RIGHT LANE LR - LEFT/RIGHT ONLY LANE R - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT LANE LTR - LEFT/THROUGH/RIGHT LANE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
==========================================================
GRADE HEAVY VEH. ADJACENT PKG BUSES
(%)
(%)
Y/N (Nm)
(Nb)
PHF EASTBOUND 0.00 2.00 N
0 0
0 79 WESTBOUND 0.00 2.00 N
0 0
0.99 NORTHBOUND 0.00 2 00 N
O 0
0 99 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 2.00 N
O 0
0 99 Nm = number of porking maneuvers /hr; Nb = number of buses stopping /hr CONFLICTING PEDS PEDESTRIAN BUTTON (peds / hour)
(Y/N)
(min T)
ARRIVAL TYPE EASTBOUND 50 N
24.8 3
WESTBOUND 50 N
24.8 3
l NORTHBOUND 50 N
24.8 3
l SOUTHBOUND 50 N
24.8 3
min T = minimum green time for pedestrians
SIGNAL SETTINGS - DESIGN ANALYSIS Page-3
==============_-======================================u====
ACTUATED LOST TIME / CYCLE = 9.0 CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 EAST / WEST PHASING PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 EASTBOUND LEFT X
X THRU X
RIGHT X
PEDS X
l 1
WESTBOUND LEFT X
X i
THRU X
f RIGHT X
PEDS X
NORTH / SOUTH PHASING PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 NORTHBOUND LEFT X
X THRU X
RIGHT X
l PEDS X
SOUTHBOUND LEFT X
X X
THRU X
X RIGHT X
X PEDS X
X EASTBOUND RT X
4 l
WESTBOUND RT X
e 1
a J
--.--______._______J
1 1
.{
EFFECTIVE GREENS - DESIGN ANALYSIS Page-4
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
j
(
1 EFFECTIVE GREEN, g EASTBOUND 1
LEFT Permitted 44.00 I
Protected 12.00 THRU 44.00 RIGHT
~
Permitted 44.00 Protected 12.00 WESTBOUND LEFT Permitted 44.00 Protected 12.00 THRU 44.00 RIGHT Permitted 44.00 Protected 12.00 NORTHBOUND
+
LEFT Permitted 33.00 Protected 12.00 THRU 33.00 RIGHT Permitted 33.00 Protected 0.00 SOUTHBOUND LEFT l
Permitted 33.00 Protected 22.00 THRU 43.00 RIGHT i
Permitted 33.00 Protected 0.00 f
n t
i
1 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET Page-5
==========================================================
LANE LANE ADJ.
MVT.
ADJ.
LANE GRP. NO. UTIL.
GROWTH GRP.
PROP PROP VOL.
PHF VOL.
GRP.- VOL. LN FACT.
FACT.
VOL.
LT RT EB LT 106 0.79 134 L
'134 1 1 000 1.000 134 1.00 0.00 TH 592 0.79 749 T
749 2 1.050.
1.000 787' O.00 0.00 RT 186 0.79 134 R
134 1 1.000 1.000 134 0 00 1.00 WB LT 110 0.99 111 L
111. 1 1.000 1.000 111 1,00 0.00 TH 934 0.99 943 T
943 2 1.050 1.000 991 0.00 0.00 RT 206 0.99.
168.
R 168 1 1.000 1.000 168 0 00 1.00 NB LT 240 0.99 242 L
.242 1 1 000 1.000 242 1'.00 0 00 TH 679 0.99 686 T
686 2 1.050 1.000 720 0.00 0.00
.1 RT 363 0.99 286 R
286 1 1 000 1 000-286 0.00 1.00 SB LT 0.99 420
- L 420 1 050 1.000 -441 1.00 0.00 0.99 419 T
419 1.000 1.000 419 0.00 0.00 TH s
RT 101 0.99 21 R
21 1 1.000 1.000 21 0.00 1 00 1
- Denotes o'Defecto left Turn Lone Group l
1
)
i f,
I I
O
-._.--_-.------_.------.______-_-___w
4 4
4 SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET Page-6
===========================================================
IDEAL ADJ.
SAT.
NO.
f f
f f
f f
f f
SAT.
FLOW LNS W
HV G
p BB A
RT LT FLOW l
i EB I
L 1800 1 0.930 0 990 1.000'1 000 1.000 1.000 1 000 0.950 1574 T
1800 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 3564 R
1800 1
1.000 0.990 1.000 1 000 1 000 1.000 0 838 1.000 1493 l
WB L
1000 1 0.930 0 990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 000 0 950 1574 j
T 1800 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 3564 R
1800 1
1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1 000 1 000 0.838 1.000 1493 j
\\
l NB L
1800 1 0.930 0.990 1.000 1 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1574 T
1800 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 000 1.000 1.000 3564 I
l R
1800 1 1.000 0.990 1 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.826 1.000 1472 SB 1800([))0.9700.99010001.0001.0001.0001.00009203181 L
T 1800 1
1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1782 R
1800 1
1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.826 1.000 1472 l
w-______-_____-______-____._-______________-______._
-l CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Page-7
====================================================================== -
ADJ.
ADJ. SAT. FLOW LANE GROUP-FLOW RATE ' FLOW RATE-RATIO -. GREEN RATIO -CAPACITY. v/c (v)
(s)
(v/s).
(g/C)
(c)
RATIO EB Lperm.
69 0.041-0.100 157 0.413
- Lprot.
65 1574 T
787 3564 0.221 0.367 1307 0 602 R
134 1493 0.090 0.467 697 0.193' WB Lperm.
67 Lprot.
44 1574 0.028 0 100
'157' O.281 T
991 3564 0.278 0.367 1307 0.758
- R 168 1493 0 113 0.467 697 0.241
^
NB Lperm.
153 Lprot.
89 1574 0.057 0.100 157 0.568 T
720 3564 0.202 0.275 980-0.735
- R 286 1472 0.194 0.275', '
405 0.706 SB Lperm.
111 Lprot.
0 3181 0 104 0.183 583 0.566
- T 41 1782 0.235 0.358 639 9 636 -
R 21 1472 0.014 0 275 405 0.052 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 sec.
Sum.(v/s) critico1~= 0.625 Lost Time Per Cycle, L = 9.0 sec.
X critical = 0.676-r.,
_.__._.__._____._._____-__.__.____________________A_
.-__._..._________._____.m___m
i h
j LEVEL-OF-SERVICE WORKSHEET Page-8
==========================================================
DELAY LANE DELAY LANE' LANE DELAY LOS v/c g/C -CYCLE d
GROUP d
PROG. GRP. GRP. BY BY RATIO RATIO LEN.
1 CAP.
2 FACT. DELAY LOS APP. APP.
l ED L
0 413 0.467 120 0. 16 1 157 10 1 00 17.1 C 19.0 C T
0.602 0.367 120.0 23 5 1307 06 0.85 20 4 C j
R 0.193 0.467 120.0 14.3 697 0.0 0.85 12.1 B l
WB l
L 0.281 0.467 120.0 14.9 157 0.3 1.00 15 2 C 21 0 C T
0.758 0.367 120.0 25.3 1307 1.0 0.85 23 1 C R
0.241 0.467 120.0 14.6 697 0.0 0.85 12.5 B NB L
0.568 0.375 120.0 22 6 157 3.5 1.00 26.1 D 27.3 D T
0.735 0.275 120.0 30.0 980 2.0 0.85. 27.3 D R
0.706 0.275 120.0 29.7 405 3.8 0.85 28.5 D 1.0 1.00 (59 0_ l[)
20.6 C L
0.566 0.458 120.0 18.1 583 T
0.656 0.358 120.0 24.6 639 1.7 0.85 22.3 C R
0 052 0.275 120.0 24.3 405 0.0 0 85 20.7 C l
Intersection Delay = 22 2 (sec/veh)
Intersection LOS = C-i I
I z
i
EXHIBIT 5 1
1
]
19 c.:5 a: M 3I~NALII'iD IN.~ERSECTIGNS
+ + % 4 + 4 4 4 4 4 # + 4 e 4 4 + + + 4.. + + + - + + 4 4 +.+ + 4 n + + + + + + + + + -+ + + +.4 4 + + v + +, + + + 4 + e 4. +
i e q ; p. t,;.1. **. i
,s -
Y.
.5.,.. g v - e if 1. gU.
s e-v 1,
.i
.i l
1 1
N.i v;? C C THE EAET' WEST STR'ET,........OLD COUNTRY ROAD 4
l t;??E 0F rHE 'Ir.P'H/90UTH STREET.......EROADWAY RT 107
.i J
asea ~' Y C E
........................OTHER l
py.5mrpI.+
wA'_ KING SPEED.............
O (feet / soc)
N A 716 OF T -: E A N A L Y S T.................. B G DALE OF THE ANALYSIS................M'24/87 TIME PERIOD ANALY2ED................
0700-1000 I
OTHER INFORMATION:
Fi1e 'I.060 30% Evacuation T P fG: ' I C VOLLMEE
==========.-u.-==_====.=====.==:====================================:,.
E3 WG NS SB l
LEFT 1 W-1'O
.240 491
- ;..py 5p-e, 3 9 64'5 340 F;GHT l'-
- 206, 397 101 P niiR 80 40 80 40 (RTOR volume must be less than or equal to RIGHT turn volumes.)
I I
e e
s
,,n.,-*,,.T-me, so w **,
t _" 7
,e
..1 ae 3
y n 5.* pm e
'..*1C.'.
_'.e-:.c.======-====================n.==.========x=========:==
ru~' 'r.e'.t: c r.1
- n. ~
- 4...' c.
a c t;.
DrFersInN T.Nr.. :u :p I yr_.
i ; w. - : A.1 '_.
e r
u
4 c.iC R T H B O L N D = 4 SOUTHECUN;
- 9. A 1T.C Urc = 4 WI,370 Gut.D EP
%5 NE S3
' \\h2
'Y P r WIDTH T', F E WIDTn iY?E WIDTH TYPE WIUTH t
L 10.0 i_
10.0 10.0 L
10.0 m
Y 1.1. 0 T
12.0 T
12.0 T_
- 12. )
a
~ ~. '
T 17.0 T
12.0 7
12.0 T
12.0 4
R 12.0 R
12.0 P
12.0 R
12.0
?
5 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1
.n.
-. n.
t.o.. c.,
g o. n.
L
- EXCLUSIVE LE'T LANE T
- EMCLUSIVE THROUGH LANE LT
- LEFT/THRCUGH L.ANE TR - 'HROUGH/RIGHT LANE LR
- LEFT/RIGHT ONLY LANE F
- E.'CLU3IVE RIGHT LANE l
LTR - LEFT/THRCUGH/RIGHT LANE t';iUS
~1 E
- i-FsCTORS
.:a:===========================
=================================r.
GRADE HEAVY VIH. ACJACENT PKG BUSES
(%)
Y/N
( Nrn )
(Nb)
PHF EASTLOUND O.00 2.00 N
O O
0.79 WE2TCCUND 0.00 2.00 N
O O
0.99 NORTHDGUND O.00 2.00 N
O O
O.99 SOUTHCOUND O.00 2.00 N
O O
O.99 n urnb e r of buses stoppin3 n urnb e r of park i ng rnaneuver s /hr ;
Nb
=
Nrn =
CONFLICTING PEDS PEDESTRIAN DUTTON (Y/N)
( rn i n T )
APRI/AL Tr-
___' peds / hour)
EAST 3CUND 50 N
30.8 3
WESTSOUND 50 N
30.8 3
NORTHBOUND 50 N
30.8 3
SCUTaGOUND 50 N
30.8
?
min T = ra i r, mum p een t i rn e for :iedes rians j
t I
i 1
1 i
i
G MNAL SETTINGS - DESIGN ANALYSIS Pc
.ee,-=.,-.:=2=====,=-:======,==,=====u=========u====================---
100.0 AC ?'J ATEC LOST TIME / CYCLE u 8.0 CYCLE LENGTH
=
c A e;.i /,A
-,. c H A,._.. -. _ i'. w t
PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 E/3iEOUND si
.4 *.E e
/\\
's Ti~:F U X
m..._....,,. H i rcd; WESTBOUND
\\
l LE-i r
THRU X
l RIGHT X
l PEDS X
i NORTHOOLND RT SOUTHBOUND RT NORTH / SOUTH PHAEING PHASE-1 PHASE-C PHASE-?
PHASE-4 NORTHECUND lm.-C ', T
\\'
\\o e
/%
1%
THFU X
RIGHT X
PEDS X
SCUTHBOUND LEFT X
X X
THRU X
X RIGHT X
X PEDS X
X EASTEQUND RT X
WEST 3OUND RT X
k 1
4 EUFECTIVE GPEENS - DE'i!GN AN ALY 3IS
====.:=-====.:========c===========.:===_=======================_===2
.2-i 1
I I
crc t.
,,/E e.-_._sl.
9 r es. -
l
{.A. C.. T { *g 4_?J {')
. _ i
. c_,:,
Perm!ttad 14.00 1
4 Protetted 12.00 l
f THRU 44.00 RT.GHT 4
P a r rn i t t e d 44.00 l
Protected 12.00 1
1 WESTP0UND l
LEFT Pe rra i t t e d 44.00 Protected 12.00 THRU 4-4.00 RIGHT i
P e r rn i t t e d 44.00 P r o b e c t e.1 20.00 NOF.T H!?0UND
=T f
Permitted
- 41. 00 Frotected
- 1. 2. 0G THRU Oo.00 RIGHT Pr*mitted 36.00 Protected 0.00 i
SOUTHEOUND LEFT Fe-mitt?d 36.00 P otected 20.00 THRU 43.00 RIGHT Permitted 43.00 Frotected 0.00
l l
i i
4 l
-5 j
VOLUME ADJtJSTMENT WORKSHr_.s
===========r================================:======================--
j LANE LANE ADJ.
MVT.
ADJ.
LANE GRP. NO. UTIL.
GROWTH GRP.
PROS V 0 t_.
PHfJ VOL.
G! c.
VOL. LN FACT.
FACT.
VOL.
LT E3 LT 10 c.
7o 1:14 L
134 1
1.000 1.000 134 1.00 0.
TH E92 0.T9 740 T
T49 2
1.050 1.000
'787 0.00 3.0
- T 106 0.To 134 R
'.34 1
1.000 1.000 134 0.00 1
We LT 110 0.99 111 L
111 1
1.000 1.000 111 1.00 0.
i TH 92o 0.99 938 T
938 2
1.030 1.000 985 0.00 0.,
RT 206 0.99 1 d.8 R
168 1
1.000 1.000 168 0.00 1.'
i i
N E.
LT 240 0.co 942 L
242 1
1.000 1.000 242 1.0v 0. '1 '
TH 645 0.99 652 T
652 2
1.050 1.000 684 0.00 0. "; ;j RT 397 0.99 320 R
320 1
1.000 1.000 320 0.00 1.'
j
)
496 h 1.000 1 000 1.00 0.
LT 0.90 4c.
L e
l TH
. v 0.09 3 13:
T 3 13 1
1.C30 1.000 3c.1 0.00 Vr ini O.o9 r2 R
62 1
1.000 1.000 62 0.00 t.-
f
- Denotes a Detacto L e t' t T u r ri Larie Group i
l l
l l
l
- - _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 4
4 SATtJRATION FLOW ADJUETMINT WORKEHEET o.
=======ca=.-======,=-=.2,=-===:
2.: ================================ =--
k.
,k )..,
'3 A T.
NO.
f f
f f
f f
f Sa' l
FLOW LNS W
HV G
o EB A
RT LT F.
.. l EE 1 GOO 1
0.900 0. coo 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950."~ - f 4
7 1800 C.
1.000 0.9c0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ?fe R
1800 1
1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.838 1.000 '. a o l
WB l
L 1800 1
0.930 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.o50 15' l
T 1800 2
1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ; '?
R 1800 1
1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.838 1.000 1 +:
i l
NG l
L 1800 1
0.930 0.990 1.000 J.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 157 T
1800 2
1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 35.-
R 1800 1
1.000 0.90 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.82ei. 1.000 1r. !
j
)
OE L
1800 0.o20 0.c90 t.OOO 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.9'50 t=~
a T
1900 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 iP; l
ign0 t
.000 0
- > 0
.000 1 000 1.000 1.000 0.8:2.
1.000 1.
4 l
l l
I e
6 CAPACITV ANALYSIS WOM':HIET 23
-:,==..============.,===-=========================================r:
ADJ.
ADJ. SAT.
FLOW LANE GROUP CLOW 0, AT2 FL% RATI RATIO GREEN 4ATIO CAPACITY v/c (v)
(s)
(v/s)
(9/C)
(c)
RATIO
- e. :
L p e r rn.
70 Lorot.
d5 1574 0.041 0.100 157 0.411 T
7G7 3564 0.221 0.367 130'7 0.602 9
134 1493 0.090 0.467 697 0.193 l
1 W3 L p e r rn.
67 Lorot.
44 1574 0.C28 0.100 157 0.281 T
965 3564 0.27d.
O.367 1307 0.75a R
168 1493 0.113 0.533 797 0.211 1
^
NB L o e r rn.
171 Lprot.
71 1574 0.045 0.100 157 0.462 T
684 3564 0.192 0.300 1069 0.640
- ci
- 1. 4. ' c'
- n.. _ 1 i-
- o.. c.;0 n.
44'
- o.. '< c 5 R
v..
1 SD I
L e e r rn.
~. 2 0 Lprot.
267 1574 0.170 0.167
%2 1.019 6
T 361
?964 0.101 0.358 1277 0. w:._
n u
. j+.c o v... o...,.~._
- i.. 2 r,o c..
t.
4 4.Ao
- c
,+,g p.,,
y,
,. =.
I i
l 0.679 L20.0 sac.
Sum (v/s) critical C.' c l e Longbh. C
=
=
8.0 sec.
c r i t i c a l = 0.728 L.
- T ime P e.- CvcI?. L
=
1 l
l l
A 1
o 1
9 i-LEVEL-OF-SERV!CE WORVSHEET
.=.;,=========-:-===:.,==================2-=--:========u========-:==.u==.
DELAY LANE DELAY LANI LANE DELAY LOT v/c g/C CYCLE d
GROUP d
PROG. GFP.
GRP. BY Y'
RATIO RATIO LEN.
1 CA 2
FACT. DELAY LOS APP.
Are l
.a =,
\\
L O.411 0.47 1'0.0 lo O 157 1.0 1.00 17.1 C
19.0 C
0.4 C.
I 0.o,v.
- v..
.c 7
. v..v
- :.. o 1 ::.v.
0. <.
0..: y.
c i
R O,,1 ? ' O. a.7 17.0.0 1 4..'
697 0.0 0.55 12.1 B
c NT i
0.29:1 0.467 120.0 14.o 157 0.3 1.00 15.2 C
20.5 C
l T
0.754 0.367 120.0 25.?
1307 1.6 0.85 23.0 C
R 0.211 0.53? 120.0 11 7 7*7 c.i. < >
- 0. 8r,
o. E.
B I
NS L
O.452 0.458 120.0 16.9 157 1.4 1.00 18.3. C 24.0 C
T 0.640 0.300 120.0 27.7 1069 0.9 0.85 24.3 C
l P
O.725 0.300 12.0.0 23.5 442 4.0 0.85 27.7 D
l SC L
- 1. 01 ~' O.467 1~.0.0 24.7 262 48.2 1.00 72.C F
47.5 E
i l
T 0.282 0.358 120.0 20.9 1277 0.0 0.85 17. :.
C
- 4. '.,. c C.
w.). c...
- s. o.,..
e.c. o.
<,. n..
n. e. n..,
n c...
- 4. c
- n.. s c, p.
. w.
l 20.o (sec/vehi Inte section LOS = D l
- n:n s>ction De!tv
=
l I
P I
i I
4
EXHIBIT 6' l
i KLD DATA USED POR TR-201 ANALYSIS i
l Machine Counts'Used In Locatl n HQvement Time Period Counts Canacity Analysis Q
'd Route 107 at NB 7-10 a.m.
Left 240 j
885 j
Old Country Road Thru 679 1
- Right 114
__AA 999' 999
.i SB 7-10 a.m.
- Left 152 77 Thru 415
'Right _111 101 593 593 4
l Route 27 at WB 7-10 a.m.
- Left 85 30 i
Newbridge Road Thru '
1423-1 1397 l
l
-Right 30 l
1482 1483 Willis Avenue SB 7-10 a.m'.
- Left 683 182 j
at LIE North Thru 110'/
)
Service Road 883 Right
_221 1516 1516
- Evacuation Movement l
l l
l l
l l
I l
l l
]
EXHIB2T 7 o-g 1
I l
COMPARISON OF CALCULATIONS FOR KEY MOVEMENTS 100% Background /30% Evacuation /6-hour Time Period I
KLD NYSDOT aporoach Time ELC Delay-LOS Vf4 -
Delav-LOS Qld Country Road at Route 107 I
l SB Left-0700-1000 0.566 19.0 sec-C 1.019 72.9 see-F.
1000-1300 0.538 17.2 sec-C 0.918 46.1-sec-E j
1300-1600 0.634 20.2 sec-C 0.966 57.0 sec-E 1600-1900-0.788
~27.5 sec-D 1.069-91.7 sec-F NB Right 0700-1000 0.706
,28.5 sec-D 0.725 27.7=sec-D 1000-1300 0.673 27.1 sec-D 0.719 26.1 sec-D 1300-1600 0.633 25.2 sec-D
.775 28.7 sec-D-1600-1900 0.558 21.7 sec-C 0.825 32.4 sec-D Route 27 at Newbridge Road
- i j
l WB Left 0700-1000 0.713 15.5 sec-C 0.693 9.9 sec-B 1000-1300 0.742 17.3 sec-C 0.695 10.0 sec-B 1300-1600 0.936 42.1 sec-E 0.848 21.2 sec-C 1600-1900 0.722 25.5 sec-D 1.201 NA
'F NB Thru 0700-1000 0.724 27.9 sec-D 1.068 80.8 sec-F Right 1000-1300 0.741 28.5 sec-D 1.090 88.5 sec-F 1300-1600 0.828 33.8 sec-D 1.141 110.0 sec-F 1600-1900 0.793 29.7 sec-D 1.216 NA F
l Willis Avenue at North LIE Service Road (Q1 WB Left 0700-1000 0.885 28.1 sec-D 1.508 NA F
1000-1300 0.721 16.6 sec-C 1.179 116.3 sec-F 1300-1600 0.703 16.1 sec-C 1.069 58.4 sec-E 1600-1900 0.880 27.3 sec-D 1.409 NA F
i Willis Avenue at South LIE Service Road (EBi SS Left 0700-1000 0.716 9.7 sec-B 1.753 NA F
1000-1300 0.660 8.6 sec-B 0.993 41.6 sec-E 1300-1600 0.721 11.4 sec-B 1.032 55.3 sec-E 1600-1900 0.912 26.1 sec-D 1.394 NA F.
4 L___
__________J_.__
___J
c# -
EXHXBIT 8.
l.
w NYSDOT Analysis of KLD's 100% Background traffic; and 20% evacuation 6 Hour Time Period Old Country Road at Route 107 Anoroach Tigg yA Dalay-LOS SB Left 0700-1000 0.772 29.0 see - D 1000-1300 0.722 25.8 sec - D 1300-1600 0.763 28.3 see - D.
1600-1900 0.839 34.9 sec - D NB right 0700-1000 0.556 25.1 sec - D 1000-000 0.616 26.2 see - D 1300-1600 0.658 27.2 see - D 1600-1900 0.667 27.4 sec - D Route 27 at Newbridge Road 6DDIDACh Time yA De1ay-LOS l
WB Left 0700-1000 0.454 4.4 see - A 1000-1300 0.473 4.6 sec - A 1300-1600 0.557 5.9 see - B l
1600-1900 0.929 33.5 see - D NB T+R 0700-1000 0.877 41.5 sec - E 1000-1300 0.899 43.9 sec - E 1300-1600 0.951 51.3 see - E 1600-1900 1.026 67.6 sec - F Willis Ave. at North LIE Service Road (WB)
Acoroach Time yA Delav-LOS WB Left 0700-1000 1.334 N/A
-F 1000-1300 1.028 44.6
-E 1300-1600 0.976 32.4
-D 1600-1900 1.240 NA
-F Willis Ave. At South LIE Service Road (EB)
Acoroach Tlmg yA Delav-LOS SB Left 0700-1000 1.413 N/A.
-F 1000-1300 0.920 30.6
-D 1300-1600 0.896 27.6
-D 1600-1900 1.123 98.9
-F l
\\
A
.7 EXHIBIT 9
.4'
,a i
. INTERSECTION OF SUNRISE HIGHWAY AND SOUTHBOUND MEADOWBROOK PKWY OFF RAMP 6 Hour. Evacuation /100% Background /20% Evacuation Reserve Time Period Ramo Volume Egg SEE Capacity capacity LQ3 0700-1000 438-vph
.90 537 671 vph 135 vph D
?
1000-1300 543 vph
.92 590 647 vph 57 vph E'
1300-1600 658 vph
.95 693 578 vph.
-115 vph.
F 1600-1900 899 vph
.91 988 503'vph
-485 vph F
6 Hour Evacuation /100% Background /30% Evacuation Reserve l
Time Period Ramo Voluma EHE SIR capacity caoacity Los 0700-1000 672 vph
.90 747 671 vph
-75 vph F
1000-1300 732 vph
.92 796 647 vph
-149 vph F
1300-1600 487 vph
.95 891 578 vph
-313 vph F
1600-1900 1088 vph
.91 1196 503 vph
-693 vph F
PHF = peak hour factor SFR = Saturation Flow Rate f
8 **
- EXHIBIT 10 3
.g.n OLD CotmTRY ROAD AND SOUTH OYSTER BAY ROM 100%/30%/6 Hours t$QYamEnt Ilme_1friod L',Q De1ay*
LQS WB-Thru 7-10 a.m.
- 1. 145 F
j 10 a.m.-l p.m.
l. ;!S 8 F
1 p.m.-4 p.m.
1.322 F
4 p.m.-7 p.m.
1.351 F
- Cannot be calculated when V/C is greater than 1.2 1
1 l
l 1
1 i
i l
l i