ML20238F223

Testimony of a Ceder on Behalf of Atty General for Commonwealth of Ma on Sapl 31 & Tog III (Evacuation Roadway Capacities).*

ML20238F223
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/14/1987
From:	Ceder A MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
Shared Package
ML20238F181	List: ML20238F179 ML20238F214 ML20238F223 ML20238F239 ML20238F262 ML20238F268
References
OL, NUDOCS 8709160033
Download: ML20238F223 (92)

Text

.

~~

's UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMi4ISSION Before Administrative Judges:

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour

)

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos.

50-443-444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site EP)

) September 14, 1987

)

TESTIMONY OF AVISHAI CSDER ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON SAPL 31 AND TOG III (EVACUATION ROADWAY CAPACITIES)

Department of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 01208-1698 (617) 727-2265 l

l 8709160033 PDR ADOCK Qh 43 pop T

- _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - )

7-,..-,--n,.

t'

'y UNITED STATES'OF-AMERICA-4

. ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative:Judgesi Helen'F. Hoyt, Chairperson

'Gustdve.A'. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour f

)'

)

In _the. Matter of. )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE. COMPANY OF NEW -) Docket Nos. '

HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.~ _ ) 50-443-444-OL

(Seabrook Station,--; Units l'and

2) ') (Off-site EP)

) September 14,.1987

)

7 TESTIMONY OF AVISHAI CEDER ON1 BEHALF OF THE

'ATTORNEYHGENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF, MASSACHUSETTS, ON SAPL 31 AND TOG _III (EVACUATION. ROADWAY CAPACITIES)

Department of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts one Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 01208-1698 (617) 727-2265

.1

- j i' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l Before Administrative Judges:

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour

)

)

In the Matter of ) .

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos.

HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-443-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site EP)

) September 14, 1987

)

TESTIMONY OF AVISHAI CEDER ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON SAPL 31 AND TOH III ( EVACU ATION ROADWAY CAPACITIES)

I. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS 2 Please identify yourself.

A. My name is Avishai Ceder. I am a Visiting Professor of Civil Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) and principal-in-charge of traffic engineering and network optimization projects at M.I.T. Currently I am on an extended sabattical leave from Technion--Israel Institute of I

Technology.

Q. What is your educational background? j A. I received a Bachelor of Science in Industrial and Management Engineering from Technion--Israel Institute of Technology in 1971, a Master of Science from the University of j

California at Berkeley in 1972, and a Ph.D from the University of California at Berkeley in 1975. Both my Masters and Ph.D theses are about traffic flow models and driver behavior.

Since 1975 I have been teaching and working on research at Technion. During 1981 and 1982 and again during the past two years (1985-1987) I have been serving as a visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Q. What is your academic experience?

A. At the Technion I have taught graduate-and undergraduate-level courses in the areas of Transportation Systems Analysis (Introduction to Operations Research), Traffic Engineering, Quantitative Methods in Management and Engineering Systems, Public Transportation, and Urban and Interurban Transportation Services. At M.I.T., I have taught graduate-level courses in the areas of Traffic Engineering, Optimization Techniques, Public Transportation, Microcomputer Applications in Transportation and Transportation Systems Analysis. I have written three books entitled:

Driver-Vehicle Modeling and Traffic Flow Characteristics, Network Theory and Selected Topics in Dynamic Programming, and Public Transportation. I have authored more than 40 papers in ,

scientific journals, and as many as 30 research reports. I l

l l

also have participated in more than 25 international l

conferences.

Q. What is your professional research experience?

A. Since 1975, in addition to my academic appointment, I have been a senior engineer at the Transportation Research i

Institute and Road Safety Center at the Technion Research and Development Foundation Ltd. My research interests have focused on developing and applying methods in five major areas: (1) traffic engineering; (2) traffic safety; (3) traffic flow and human factors; (4) public transportation; and (5) transit ccheduling. My contributions to the areas of transportation engineering and transportation science can be summarized in three main categories: (1) developing new traffic flow models which interpret the traffic flow phenomena through a human i factors or driver's perspective and which were used for on-and-off line freeway control in Los Angeles; (2) developing a safety evaluation approach for road improvement projects which was implemented on a main frame computer in Israel and resulted in a reliable evaluation of before-and-after safety studies about road improvement projects; and (3) developing new theory and methods for transit scheduling which create automated transit time tables and vehicle and crew schedules and have been successfully incorporated into a software package currently implemented in four transit agencies worldwide.

A more detailed statement of my professional qualifications is attached to this testimony (Attachment 1).

II. BACKGROUND FOR TESTIMONY Q. Would you describe for us in laymans terms the work that is presented in Volume 6 of the NHRERP.

A. Yes, certainly. Volume 6 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plum ("NHRERP") is a report

1 l

describing (1) the Seabrook Station evacuation time estimate

("ETE") study and (2) the traffic management-plan for evacuation of the 10 mile emergency planning zone ("EPZ")

around the Seabrook nuclear plant. That ETE study was conducted for inclusion in the NHRERP by KLD Associates. In conducting this ETE study, KLD employed a computer modeling ,

l system, commonly called "I-DYNEV," to simulate evacuations of l parts or all of the Seabrook EPZ under different evacuation lj scenarios. These simulated evacuations are all vehicular evacuations, i.e., what is simulated is the traffic flow as it would likely occur on the key evacuation routes in the EPZ.

Stated simply, I-DYNEV is a computer model into which is put instructions describing each key link of roadway network and each key intersection to be used in the evacuation. The model is then given inputs for the number of vehicles entering the simulated roadway network at various " entry nodes," i.e.,

points at which vehicular evacuation trips originate. Next, the I-DYNEV model assigns the input vehicles to certain links (based on some behavioral assumptions) and simulates their movement across the network (based on some assumptions about speed, delay and congestion level). Following this simulation, the model calculates how long it would take to have all the vehicles travel to points 2 miles, 5 miles, and 10 miles from Seabrook Station (or to the EPZ boundary, which in some points is almost 14 miles from the nuclear plant). These time calculations are called evacuation time estimates or "ETEs."

As is described in Volume 6, KLD Associates used the I-DYNEV

_4_

_ _ _ _--_________-_____a

[

4

)

model to produce Seabrook's evacuation time estimates for ten (10) different scenarios, depending on the season / day / time / weather combinations (e.g., Scenario 1 is for i

an evacuation occurring on a summer weekend at mid-day with.

' good weather). ETEs for.these scenarios are produced for the

" entire" EPZ and for various sub-parts of the'EPZ, called

" Regions." i Q. Does use of a traffic simulation model such as I-DYNEV guarantee that an accurate set of ETEs Will be produced?.

A. .No, not.necessarily. As with any traffic simulation

'model, several fundamental concerns exist. First, is the model itself-conceptually ~ sound for accomplishing its . intended f purpose? All traffic simulation models~are based on certain assumptions which may or may not'be valid. In addition there are specific traffic behaviors that are difficult to quantify

-and, therefore, are left out, producing a poor real-life description. Second, are the inputs which describe each-of the roadway network 1. inks and intersections accurate? For example, f

if.a link's " capacity" to handle vehicles (expressed in vehicles / hour) is not stated accurately, then the simulation I will not be an accurate one. Finally, are the other inputs-l accurate? For example, if the number of vehicles being loaded on the model at the various entry points are not correct, ETEs Will not be accurately estimated. In sum, there are many -

potential sources of significant error that need to be examined l- j Lin any traffic model before one can have any reasonable degree of assurance that it produces reliable results.  ;

-S-4

-- _ - _ _ _ - _ a

4 U

Q. 'Have'you conducted an assessment of the I-DYNEV model

.and its'use by KLD.in generating the.ETEs for SeabrookEStation?

A. Yes, I have atzthe request of-the Massachusetts Attorney General's office.

0 'What.were you-asked;to do?

.A. Generally, I was asked to examine the model'

. conceptually,1to see if'it was sound with respect to the critica1' assumptions it makes about the conditions that are likely to exist during a real evacuation necessitated by a radiological accident, or potential accident, at Seabrook Station.

III. CONTENTIONS ADDRESSED Q. 'What contentions does your work relate to?

A. .TOH.III(C) addresses a number of issues under the generic heading of " road capacities." This is appropriate in

' light of.the structure of I-DYNEV because it adjusts link j

)

" capacities" to address a host of assumptions and variables involving roadway conditions and driver behavior. The mathematical 1 quantity labelled " capacity" in the model is the surrogate for a wide range of factors that cause traffic delays <

in the real world. Basis (C)(4) specifically challenges KLD's estimates of " capacity" in I-DYNEV as being overstated, thereby presenting the issue of any variable or assumption that causes delay that I-DYNEV addresses by its " capacity" values. Basis (C)(6) asserts that I-DYNEV failed to account adequately for the impact of disabled vehicles on ETEs. Basis (C)(1) 6-e

l

'l

/,

challenges KLD's.I-DYNEV assumption that all roads will remain l

passable during the~various evacuation scenarios. Baais'(B) challengra the reduction factors KLD applied to I-DYNEV's capacities to reduce evacuation travel speeds on account of weather' conditions. SAPL Contention ~31 asserts that KLD "in some_ instances overestimates roadway. capacity" and thereby

" underestimates the amount of time it would take to evacuate the EPZ and its subparts." Basis 9 challenges KLD's assumption that'all roads will remain passable during an evacuation.

Basis 18 asserts that the I-DYNEV model appears to have some serious defects. A copy of these contentions and bases is attached to this testimony (Attachment 2).

IV. METHOD OF REVIE'd OF' I-DYNEV Q. What specific approach did the Attorney General's office ass fou to te'.e in conducting'your assessment?

A. I did not do a full-scale model audit and review. To do this I would have needed the source code, and I understand that KLD refused to provide this to the Attorney General's consultants. So I turned to the next best sources of information I had about I-DYNEV and its application at Seabrook.

Q. What sources were those?

A. I used the descriptions about I-DYNEV contained in

-Volume 6 and the other documentary sources referred to there.

On page 1-12, Volume 6 of the NHRERP describes I-DYNEV as follows, referring the' reader to its Appendices for details:

~

{ .I-DYNEVLconsists of these'submodels:

An-equi' librium traffic assignment model (for

. details,.see1 Appendix B);-

r A1 microscopic traffic simulation model (for Edetails,.see Appendix C); and

'An intersection. capacity model (for_ details, see Highway.Research Record No. 772, Transportation Research Board, 1980, papers by Lieberman and McShane and by Lieberman).

Volume'6'(at p. 1-12) also refers the reader to Appendix L for a description of the procedure for applying I-DYNEV to develop ,

ETEs for the Seabrook Evacuation Plan.

J Q. Did you~have access to I-DYNEV.itself?

A. No, not.directly. In' obtaining a copy of I-DYNEV from KLD,'the Attorney General's office had agreed not to'make any copies of it. They;gave their one copy of I-DYNEV to'Dr.

Thomas Adler to do the work he has described in his testimony..

Dr. Adler's office'is in' Vermont, and I was at M.I.T. So'I;had

' to' travel to VermontLif I wanted to do work using the model.

- But most of what I-needed to know about I-DYNEV was stated in l the documentation I have just described. j Q. Could you please list the documentation vou reviewed in conducting your analysis for the Massachusetts Department of

' the Attorney General?

A. Yes, and I will number them for easy reference as I l proceed with my testimony. I have carefully reviewed the i

following materials:

i (1) NHRERP, Revision 2, Volume 6, August 1986;  ;

1 (2) " Description of an Integrated Trip Assignment and J i

I i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___a

Distribution Model (TRAD) for the-I-DYNEV System," KLD Assoc, i 1

TR-187,-August 1986; 4 (3)' " INPUT Info" to the I-DYNEV Capacity Submodel; -

(4) 'Lieberman, E.B.: " Determining the Lateral Development of Traffic.On An Approach To an Intersection," i 1

-Transportation Research' Record-(TRR) No. 772, pp. 1-5, 1980; .

(5) Lieberman,_E.B. and Yadlin, M.: " Development of-a

.a Transit-Based Traffic Simulation Model," TRR, No. 722, pp. j

'6-8, 1980; (6) Lieberman, E.B. and Andrews, B.J.: -"TRAFLO: A

'l New Tool to Evaluate Transportation System Management '

Strategies," TRR,.No. 772, pp. 9-14, 1980; (7) Lieberman, E.B. and Davila, M.C.: " HYBRID-Macroscopic-Microscopic. Traffic Simulation Model," TRR, No.

772, pp.-15-17, 1980; and (8) Lieberman, E.B. and McShane, W.R.: " Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the Far Left Lane of an Approach,"

TRR, No 772, pp. 18-23, 1980.

Q. How did you approach your review of I-DYNEV?

A. The review was performed through two perspectives.

The first was similar to the perspective I adopt as a referee I of various transportation and research journals (e.g.,

Transportation Research, Transportation Science and Transportation Research Board). The second perspective was aimed at assessing the practical implementation and accuracy level required for predicting real-life situations.

1 l

_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - J

vl L-E

.In addition, I conducted a few field tests inLthe Seabrook h 1 Station lEPZ (one.of them jointly with Dr. Adler) in order to capture _certain' traffic 1 flow characteristics which may be or particularly related to the traffic' associated with the EPZ.

My comments, reservations and suggestions are' organized in the

following:thre( sections:

'(V). 'behavorial Assumptions; (VI) '

AdequateLParameters in the I-DYNEV model; and (VII) Likelihoodoof Disorderly Traffic Incidents.

V. I-DYNEV's BEHAVIORAL ASSUMPTIONS

.Q. Based on your experience, would you please comment in

a. general way on possible traffic behavior during circumstances

.similar to'tha't which would exist during an evacuation from the Seabrook EPZ?

A'. Traffic disorders are observed during almost every congested traffic situation world-wide. In general, traffic behavior remains stable during these periods due to the anticipated congestion. The same applies to traffic behavior during an anticipated disaster, like evacuating an area because

.l of a hurricane. Nonetheless, during highly congested situations, only one driver needs to behave in an unstable l l

manner to create a significant disturbance across a long line I of vehicles. Such behavior can be observed commonly in " rush hour" traffic when a single vehicle, seeking to get through an

'i intersection without waiting for the next green light, occupies part of the intersection and thereby reduces significantly its

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ - - I

L  !

L

! )

capacity-for'the cross-flowing traffic. In other cases, this-unstable' individual behavior results in an accident which closes.part of the roadway and creates a bottleneck.

'This individual unstable behavior is also commonly observed when the traffictis di'spersing after large-public gatherings.

I' personally observed such behavior again.just recently at the July'4th gathering at the Esplanade in Boston. Following the

fireworks that evening a mass of traffic sought to leave the area simultaneously. A traffic guide was assigned at each close-by-intersection. One could see that often, during this congested movement, one or two vehicles would block part of the intersection due to a spillback of traffic from a downstream intersection.

Apart from the information we have about disorderly traffic i behavior from normal rush hours, hurricane evacuations, and large public events, we also know that major traffic disorders have occurred in response to widespread public disorders. In Miami, just after the riots, the traffic moved on open roads with delays of more than 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> in contrast to a half hour delay occu'r' ring in normal daily congestion. In Washington, D.C., following the assassination of Martin Luther King, traffic delay reached a record of about 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> as opposed to about a half hour during daily peak periods. These traffic disorders, too, suggest that a very careful approach is needed to evaluate what will happen to traffic behavior during a nuclear plant evacuation.

K i

Q. Could you please be more. specific and comment about' )

,, the behavioral assumptions:used.in the I-DYNEV model? f A. .Many traffic behavioral questions arise as a result of my review-of the articles by Lieberman. referenced above and numbered (4) to'(8). Although I cannot be sure because I could' not review the source' code, I-DYNEV.apparently was programmed

'in the manner described in these references. In my opinion it l is doubtful that during an evacuation scenario the following model assumptions and procedures mentioned in these references will hold true:-

(1)' The model assumes _that all right turning vehicles will-select the outside lane and all left turning vehicles the inside-lane. (Article 6, p. 3). In my opinion, however, under

r. congested conditions some vehicles will be switching lanes prior to making turns and will encounter some difficulty in doing so.- Therefore, to account for.these lane change delays, a' traffic merging factor which reduces the average traffic speed should be introduced into the model.

(2) The model assumes that every motorist will select a lane'on an approach consistent with his intended turn maneuver and with any specified lane channelization so as to minimize his perceived travel time. (Article 4,-p. 21). In ny opinion, this is not the case in congested situations in which a motorist is often " forced" to move on an undesired lane.

(3) The model (the Trip Assignment and Distribution model in I-DYNEV) assumes that every motorist will select the

- optimal routing which minimizes evacuee travel times. (Article  !

2, p. 3). In my opinion, the-actual routing and traffic flow in each route will never follow entirely the so-called

" optimal" strategy and, consequently, the actual travel times will be higher than those calculated by the model.

(4) The model assumes that spillback conditions are I

" properly treated." (Article 6, pp. 11-13). However, this i

statement is not adequately supported by the analysis provided i and more explanation is required. Without this, one cannot i assume that spillback conditions are " properly treated". One should bear in mind that two extensive studies have shown that the submodel used in I-DYNEV (an extension of TRANSYT) can not be used for spillback conditions. These studies are: (1)

" Traffic Control in Saturated Conditions", Road Research Organization for Economic Co-operaton and Development (OECD),

January 1981; and (2) Pignataro, L.J., McShane, W.R, Crowley, K.W., Lee Bumjung and Casey, T.W.: " Traffic Control in Oversaturated Street Networks", NCHRP report #196, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1978.

All the above behavioral comments emphasize that numerous simplifications of real-world driver behavior have been made in the I-DYNEV model. The important point, however, is that eliminating any of these simplifications will have a l i

tendency to increase the travel time and the vehicle l discharging time thereby resulting in longer ETEs. Further comments on behavior from a safety standpoint appear later in my testimony.

i 1

l

Q. . Could-you also comment on some'of the behavioral

, ~ assumptions contained in the emergency traffic control ~and management plan?

A '. - Many: behavioral 1. assumptions are also contained in Volume 6.regarding the actual emergency traffic control and

-management plan. Importantly, these assumptions were not studied thoroughly and their impact on'the ETEs may be

' crucial. It-is prudent, therefore, to carefully examine these behavioral assumptions, particularly for the traffic control-post. locations which are identified as possible bottlenecks.

One such bottleneck is at the merging points between Route 110 and Interstate.I-95. The traffic control and management arrangements at'this point are shown on page I-19 in Volume 6 and also attached to this testimony as-Figure 1. (Attachment 3). The assumptions implicit in this traffic control diagram are:

(i) the traffic moving on Route 110 westbound will be equally divided and.Will travel at equal speeds via (right turn) the existing on-ramp to I-95 and via (left turn) the off-ramp from I-95 (in the opposite direction!) while merging to another on-ramp to I-95; and (ii) it is possible for every left-turning i vehicle to merge from the off-ramp to the  :

on-ramp leading to I-95 southbound. I The first assumption cannot be true. A field visit to that traffic control post revealed that the left turn from Route 110 $

westbound onto the I-95 off-ramp can be performed only by making about a 130 degree left turn (around a raised median) followed by a right turn (see the dashed line with arrows in

)

)

l i

Attachment 3). This turning movement alone will create larger discharging headways for the left lane vehicles than for the right lane vehicles and, therefore, the traffic flow in a realistic setting is unlikely to be equally divided (i.e.,

moving at the same speed).

Regarding assumption (ii), my field visit also revealed that there is a curbad median between the off-ramp and the on-ramp which connects the two triangulare islands. This median is shown on Attachment 3 with dashed lines. The plan calls for the evacuating vehicles to traverse this curbed median onto the southbound on-ramp. In my view, this assumption is unrealistic. All vehicles (particularly during snowy conditions) would not be able to climb the curb, drive across a grass strip, and descend down the curb onto the southbound on-ramp. To get all vehicles across would require constructing an emergency merging lane here. Those vehicles which now can traverse this median will be forced to do so at a very slow speed (e.g., 5 mph).

Taken together, these behavioral assumptions implicit in the model and the traffic control plan result in unrealistic appraisals of the time period in which evacuation could reasonably be accomplished. Changes could be introduced into the model, however, which would address all of my concerns.

This would make the model somewhat more complex, but well within the current state-of-the-art in the modeling I profession. Prudent planners would make these changes to

l improve I-DYNEV, in my view, given the importance of having realistic ETEs.

VI. TECHNICAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONCERNS Q. Do you have any concerns about the I-DYNEV model from a technical traffic. engineering viewpoint and, if so, could you briefly express them?

A. I do have some technical concerns about the I-DYNEV model. It should be indicated that the main portions of this -

model are the result of a considerable effort made under a project for the U.S. Federal Highway Administration.

Nonetheless, in addition to the behavioral matters discussed above, the technical reservations I have, would lead prudent planners to doubt the capability of this model to derive

. realistic ETEs within a reasonable (+ or - 10%) degree of accuracy.

(1) In Ar'ticle 8, p. 20, the calculation of discharge time at intersections is said to be based on the assumption of exponential distribution for gaps. However, in Gerlough, D.L., .

i Huber, M.J.,: ,

" Traffic Flow Theory", TRB special report No. .

I 165, Washington, D.C., 1975; and Gazis, D.C. (Ed.), Traffic j i

Science, John Wiles & Sons publishing Co., 1974, it is j indicated that exponential distributions for gaps are inadequate and other distributions should be selected.

(2) In Volume 6, p. 3, it is indicated that the service volume, Vf, under congested conditions is determined by the formula (capacity X 0.85). In my opinion that formula is 4

l l,

l

) i overly optimistic. Based on extensive studies 1 have conducted l on different sections of highways (Ceder, A., &Y4ay, A.D.:

"Further Evaluation of Single-and-Two Regime Traffic Flow Models," Transportation Research Record 567, pp. 1-15, 1976; I

' Ceder, A.: "A Determi$1stic Traffic Flow Model for the Two-Regime'ApproacA," Transportation Research Record 567, pp.

16-30, 1976; Ceder, A. & May, A.D.: " Consistency of Maximum Flow Characteristics and Congestion Patterns under Morning Peak Period Conditipna on an Urban Freeway," Transportation Research Record 644, pp. 8-14, 1977; and Ceder,.A. & Schwartz, A.:

" Dynamic Changes of Traffic Flow Characteristics During Morning Peak PeriodcConditions on an Urban Freeway," Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No. 78-5, p. 137,,May 1978) the rate at which traffic can be serviced under congested conditions is less than 1500 vehicles per hoo per lane (vphl) for a maximum -

I flow of about 2000 vphl. This can be seen in typical examples I

in Figures 2'and 3 (Attachments 4 and 5), where the flow of vehicles is simply the number of vehicles passing one point during one hour (or during 5 minutes extrapolated to one hour) 1 and the density is simply the number of vehicles occupying one i mile of highway. By inspecting the two-regime models (more 1

accurate than the single-regime models) in Fig. 2 (Attachment I l

4).and the data in Fig. 3 (Attachment 5), one can see that the 1

peak (5-minute) flow is obtained only when roving from  !

l free-flow to congested flow conditions (see Ceder, A.: "A r

Time-Sequence Analysis for a Two-Regime Traffic Flow Model,"

The Institute of Systems Science Research, 7th International e

i _ _

~

Symposium-on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Kyoto,.LJapan, mpp'"o141-174, August 1977.for-more details) and not vice-versa.

nTheLexample in Fig. 3.(Attachment 5) illustrates the data collectedlon 'het Santa'Monica Freeway in Los Angeles. The L

3 ,

congestedisituation occuring there after 7:00 a.m. is 4$ 1 demonstrated .in Fig'. 3 by the flow density data points which, at 7:50 a.m.,. reach the. highest density value of about 170 vehicles per mile (vpm)'while the. flow is less than 1000 vph1.

- It is more realistic,.therefore, to use for the Vf calculation

' the formula ~* capacity X 0.75" than the one used.in I-DYNEV

- (capacity X 0.85), i.e., for the freeway capacity.the I-DYNEV model uses the value of 1728 vph1 as is indicated in-Volume 6, pp. 3-10.

An' exercise on the data plotted in Fig. 3 can be made

' forLthe congested hour between 7:00-8:00 a.m. There are twelve data points for this hour'where each data point represents 5 m'inute measurements converted;to an hourly-flow rate. By summing up all the 5-minute flows the result is about 1300 Ly;. , vph1. In the I-DYNEV model Vf is calculated by (capacity X pv ? '

4j' O.85).or Vf = 1728 X 0.85 = 1460 vph1. By replacing the 0.85 i

,, factor by 0.75 factor the result becomes more realistic: Vf =

L"r G

ff -1728 X 0.75 = 1296 vphl.

This means that the Vf factor used in I-DYNEV is 13% too high. It should be noted that the capacity-level considered needs to be an average maximum flow across all )

l lanes for the entire 60 minutes of highway operation. j l

Moreover, the authors of Volume 6 consistently claim that they q l

1 are adopting a conservative approach for the ETE computation l

l I _ ---_ - _ - _ _-- _ _ 9

-(see for example p. 3-6, 1st line'). These points further support the finding that the Vf value must be reduced by changing the 0.85 factor to 0.75. This will affect the discharging rates at the bottleneck locations and hence will increase the ETEs.

(3) The manner in which I-DYNEV handles traffic flow through congested intersections is also not, conservative. In Volume 6, pp. 3-4, it is indicated that the saturation dischargeheadwayforintersectionsused[3 "he I-DYNEV is 2.4 seconds per vehicle. Volume 6 claims that this is a conservative value (pp. 3-3). I disagree, and so do others in the profession. Saturation discharge headway is a concept which describes the number of seconds required for a single vehicle to travel to the location of the vehicle just in front. In Salter, R.J.: " Highway Traffic Analysis and Design," Addison Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1974, for example, one can find that this headway for an observed 80 vehicles was foun6 on the average to be 2.63 sec/veh. Again if a conservative perspective is to be achieved, this headway should be increased from 2.4 to 2.7 sec/veh, which in turn l

would increase the ETEs if a critical intersection is a bottleneck. In addition, the remark made on p. 3-3 of Volume 6 (and marked by double asterisks) to explain why the saturation l

l discharge headway (h sat) is a conservative estimate may verv l

l well turn out to be a reason for reducing intersection capacity 1

by increasing the probability of accidents, as is detailed in later parts of my testimony.

.; 9 ; t ,e ;;  ; c

%' A Y a_ in

.. x; 4 s I Y y, j

, . it (4) Another. technical' parameter in I-DYNEV which-is less than consuvItiive, .is' the- flow rate for two lane roads. , .

In' ',

, 't -

h1 'f Volume 6,;pp. #e-8, it is indicate'd'that the' flow rates forv two no ',

4

+ r"-

~'

lane roads are based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual- at ,

Level of Service (LOS) E. But the definition of LOS-E is

.g - p "ugstable.f1ow, 7 with,yet lower operating speeds and, perhaos, m, ,;  ; ,

stoppages.of momentary duration, voluines at or_near caoacity."

4 ., s m

..f(emphasis supplied.T In..other,words,'.by using,LOS-E I-DYNEV y ,,

, a y / ,

~ c,iacharges the et#cyesyat apptqximate capacity level-- an L ,e y;$

" idealized discharging";syster'. IM my opinion,.in an r, <

<ihacuation from Seabrock it would be more realistig to assume a system.with several bottlenecks'in which the }1ow rate.is f .

fluctuating tetween free-flow ard congested-flow-regimes:at .

.y [} } 3 lowerlevel;sf)fflowdhan" capacity." That is, the anticipated l d flowrateskrelikelytoalternatebetweenLOS-Eand-LOS-F, where LOS-F is defined-as:' i la

"! forced flow, low volumes. Both speed and'

, volumes can drop to zero. Stoppages may-j occur for short or long periods. These conditions.usually result from queues of

'vehic1gs backing up from a restricted '

l- downstream."

l

.Without using these more realistic flow' rates, I-DYNEV's ETEs 2 ,

tendtbbeTh[ortertiancouldbereasonablyexpectedina t.. 'a f Ireal-world evacuation. . ,

(S) In Article 2, p. 9, it is stated that the link t,

3g ,

'h v travel time is expressed in a "BPR Formula" while adopting a I 1 l

certain' function for,this computation. In my opinion a certain

. function can be selected only after evaluating different l 9 L function forms using real world data while using a , f

- 20l- .; ,

k T 1

goodness-of-fit measure.

There is no indication that the above

-formula was' selected in this way.

(6) In Article 2, p. 10, it is indicated that the calibration parameters "a" and "b" are based on (unspecified) experimental data.

The experimental data used, however, may not fit the traffic flow characteristics around the Seabrook Station.

(7) In Article 2, p. 11 it is assumed in the network example that all links have the same values of capacity,

• 1ength, and free-flow travel times. In my opinion this is not '

a good basis to draw generalized conclusions for use in the model. Instead, different values should be assigned for a more realistic evaluation process.

(8) In Article 8, p. 19, it is indicated that "some refinements are possible but were judged unnecessary for the precision with which the'model would be used. For instance, duration for the A model is actually a random variable, but a simple deterministic computation is done to estimate its duration. Likewise a weighted average headway is used in the B model to simplify the formulation and the computations" (emphasis supplied). My judgment differs, because when random variables (stochastic elements) rather than average values are introduced, the delay at intersections will always increase and may effect the ETE if these intersections become bottlenecks.  !

(Note that models A and B represent certain behavior at intersections.)

i L-_-_________.-____ <

Q. As a result of theLtechnical concerns you have just w

detailed, are you able to' draw any overall conclusions about the accuracy-of the.ETEs that I-DYNEV. generated for Seabrook?

A. -Yes.. It is'likely to produce ETEs which err on'the low side.

I sayLthis.because the technical parameters in I-DYNEV about-which I'have concern, have an.effect, or,a potential effect, which directly or indirectly causes the model to move. cars'through.the simulated roadway network faster than cars in the-.real-world are likely to travel.. The model itself, -

therefore, in my opinion, cannot be described as " conservative."

VI. LIKELIHOOD OF DISORDERLY TRAFFIC INCIDENTS -

A. Yes. In my opinion such incidents are very likely to occur. Prudent evacuation planners should,therefore, anticipate that during the evacuation process road accidents or road incidents will occur and serve to delay the evacuating

~

traffic at key points. Yet the,ETE study described in Volume 6, which uses the I-DYNEV model, does not anticipate even a single road accident or incident which delays traffic at a key point. My opinion about the frequency of such incidents during an evacuation stems, first, from viewing the traffic safety

' circumstances during the evacuation process as being analogous to the circumstances which commonly exist during construction / maintenance work, and, second, from estimating the probability of accidents occurring at one bottleneck section which is critical to an evacuation of the Seabrook EPZ.

)

Q. Why do you believe that the evacuating traffic will face a situation analogous to that encountered by a stream of vehicles moving along or through construction zones? )

A. Volume 6 suggests a set of traffic control and 1

management tactics in order to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic during an evacuation. The traffic is facilitated or discouraged by means of traffic guides, traffic cones and traffic barricades. This creates a change in the customary traffic pattern analogous to that experienced by traffic during construction or maintenance work. Therefore, in my opinion, traffic safety circumstances during the evacuation process can be viewed, generally, by analogy to those in highway work zones.

Q. What is known about traffic safety during construction work?

A. The on-going activities in the vicinity of traffic barriers and lane closures create substantial hazards to both traffic guides and motorists. A review of the research on this topic stresses the need'for effective action to address these hazards in highway work zones. See, for example, Anderson, R.W.: " Improving Safety in Highway Work Zones -- a Matter of Ethics," Proceedings 20th Conference of American Associatin for Automotive Medicine, Atlanta, GA, 1976; and Ceder, A. &

Dressler, O,: "A Note on tne X 2 Test with Application and Results of Road Accidents in Construction Zones," Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 7-10, 1980. The l

first work noted here reported that in ten construction zone studies in California accident rates incre? sed about'2.5 tises-

'during the._ construction period. Also, a National Transportation' Safety Board study found.that accidents resulting:in injury. had more'than doubled during construction / maintenance periods. 'The second work noted above lindicatec.that on roadways with_ average daily. traffic greater thanL10,000 vehicles, the number of accidents during construction / maintenance' periods is significantly greater than during"ot'her (normal) operation. In " Highway construction Zone Safety -- Not Yet'Acheived," General' Report to the Secretary of Transportation, Report No. CED-78-10, Dec. 23, 1977, a-compre'ensive h report-was prepared for the Secretary of Transportation covering 79 construction projects with more than 20,000 road accidents. The results show that the safety level significantly deteriorated during construction periods.

The importance of these safety-issues was recognized by the Federal Highway Administration-while preparing _the " planning and scheduling work zone traffic control" implementation package (" Planning and Scheduling Work. Zone Traffic control,"

.HWA-IP--81-6, User Guide, prepared by Abrams, C.M., Wang, J.J., JHK Associates, San Francisco, U.S. Department of Transportation, October 1981). In that user manual, accident l

factors were derived for different roadways along with a speed decrease table (see Table 1) (Attachment 6) and other delay

-characteristics.

From Table 1 (Attachment 6) it is interesting to note that j if one lane out of 2 lanes is closed, the average speed is l 1

dropped by a factor of 5 (from 30 to 6 mph). In addition, one should bear in mind that markings and signs similar to those used commonly throughout the world for construction projects (see for example Eig. 4, from the user manual) (Attachment 7) are not to be provided during the evacuation process for Seabrook Station. These markings and signs do help, from a safety perspective, in construction zones. Their absence here suggests that the accident rates experienced in an evacuation from Seabrook may well be higher than those commonly experienced in construction zones.

Q. Could you provide some statistical evidence that a safety factor should be introduced into I-DYNEV, or any other simulation model, used to compute ETEs for an evacuation from the Sebrook EPZ?

A. I have evaluated the safety level at the bottleneck location shown in Fig. 1 (Attachment 3), the intersection at which Route 110 merges with Interstate I-95. This may shed some light on the importance of introducing a safety factor into I-DYNEV to reflect the likelihood of traffic disorders and delays due to road incidents, particularly if one seeks to adopt a truly " conservative" approach. Here is how I conducted this evaluation:

Step 1) The critical segment of roadway leading to the bottleneck stretches from the intersection between Routes 1, 1A, and 110 to the merging points between the on-ramps from Route 110 to I-95. Its length is about 2.65 miles.

I

Step 2) According to Volume 6, p. 3-11, the anticipated traffic flow for the one-lane on-ramp during congested conditions is Vf = Ve X R = 1170 X 0.85 = 994 vph. A density of 100 vpm can be considered for the congestion situation. This leads to an average speed of 994/100 = 9.94 mph.or about 10 mph. It is an average (space mean) speed of stop-and-go traffic.

Step 3) The time required for a single vehicle to traverse the critical bottleneck segment of 2.65 miles is therefore about 16 minutes or 0.265 hours0.00307 days <br />0.0736 hours <br />4.381614e-4 weeks <br />1.008325e-4 months <br />.

Step 4) The total vehicle-hours during the evacuation process is the amount of vehicles assigned to that segment times 0.265 hours0.00307 days <br />0.0736 hours <br />4.381614e-4 weeks <br />1.008325e-4 months <br /> or 11400 X 0.265 = 3021 vehicle-hours, where 11400 vehicles are used in Volume 6 for the ETE calculations.

Step 5) An example of the relationship between accidents and traffic flow can be found in Ceder, A. & Livneh, M.: " Relationships Between Road Accidents and Hourly Traffic Flow: I Analysis and Interpretation,: Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 19-34, 1982; and Ceder, A,: " Relationships Between Road Accidents and Hourly Traffic Flow: II, Probabilistic Approach," Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 35-44, 1982. Figures 5 and 6, (Attachments 8 and 9) from these articles, represent the relationships for both free-flow and congested-flow traffic situations, where the traffic flow, designated q, is associated with 2-lane one-way roadways. The accidents presented in Fig.

5 (Attachment 8) were basically collected during an 8-year

period. Onlyfinjury-producing and fatal accidents occurring during good weather conditions'(no snow,' ice or heavy fog) were a :. '

counted. While Fig. 5 shows the relationships between the accident-rate and.2-lane traffic flows, Fig. 6 illustrates the probabilities of having at least one accident for various traffic flow conditions and amount of: vehicle-hours travelled.

The 3021 vehicle-hours at the bottleneck segment described above can be applied to Fig. 6 for the congested situation and for a flow rate of 994.X 2 = 1988 vph (about 2000 vehicles per hour per 2. lanes). This results in a probability close to: 100%

that a serious. multi-vehicle accident will occur during the. ,

evacuation process on this bottleneck segment. This is certainly a conservative figure because it is based on-only injury-producing and fatal accidents and for good weather

. conditions.

Step 6) The traffic control arrangement at this

. bottleneck point appears in Fig. 1. This arrangement of 3 traffic guides,. traffic cones.and barrica'es, d some conflicting

-traffic and difficult maneuvers creates a situation similar to highway work zones (as is mentioned earlier). Importantly, the anticipated number of accidents usually are doubled during such traffic _ control' arrangements.

Step 7) An attempt has been made.to collect accident data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW) on-various state and interstate highways in order to assess the weather factor on road accidents (in the EPZ). The results of theJ1983 data (1983 was chosen because it was the latest year

[' _ _ ._

_. .__ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ . _ ._ _ _ . _ . _______-_______________Q i

for which both accident and traffic flow data were.available) are presented in Table 2 (Attachment 10). These results are arranged in terms of the' number of accidents per day during good (dry and wet) and. bad (snowy and icy) road surface conditions. The ratio between the number of accidents

. associated with bad and good weather conditions is also.

indicated'in Table 2. In order to be on the conservative side, the five highest ratios (noted on Table 2 with asterisks) were deleted along;with a single.zero ratio. Overall it results in an average of 3.53 more accidents during bad-than good. weather conditions.

Step.8) All in all, for this bottleneck exercise the number of expected accidents during the evacuation process may range between 2-7 accidents. In addition to possible accidents, other road incidents may occur, e.g., vehicle l

brcakdowns due to overheated engines or empty gas tanks or mechanical failures. In each of these cases the following

, disorder scenarios are possible (at the bottleneck described):

l the. entire 2-lane roadway is closed the entire on-ramp (s) is closed I - the road is partia11y' closed the vehicle is located on the shoulder or side of the 2-lane roadway or the on-ramp.

The time to clear the incident or accident depends on the type of incident (accident) and type of car (s) involved as well as on the availability of tow trucks.

In my opinion such incidents (accidents) will have some cumulative effect on the evacuation times. Furthermore, in my opinion, prudent planners would simulate an evacuation'in such t: - _ _ _ _ _ _____________

.s a.way as to: introduce accident reduction factors for different disorder-scenarios and clearance times. 'Such simulations would produce more realistic: (and certainly more conservative) evacuation. time' estimates for Seabrook Station.

Q. Dr. Ceder, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing

. Board which conducted hearings regarding the Shoreham nuclear

. plant on Long. Island found that the "DYNEV" model, used in 1983

- to develop ETEs for Shoreham, was conceptually sound for the-purpose:of estimating evacuation times and that'it has been. -

subject to reasonable validation in the past. First, what is the DYNEV model? 'Is it the.same as I-DYNEV?

A. No, it's similar, but it is~not the same. I-DYNEV is supposed to be a more " advanced" version of DYNEV.

Q.' .W ell, doesn't'this mean that I-DYNEV, as the more

" advanced":model, must be conceptually sound too?

A. No, not at all. Standards and capabilities in the profession are constantly changing as research gives us more knowledge.about traffic behavior and. computer models become more sophisticated. This is a rapidly changing area. What was conceptually sound just a few years ago may no longer meet current-day standards in the profession. So, it would not be p prudent'to judge I-DYNEV's " conceptual soundness" by looking at 1

its parents. One needs to judge it by applying current

. professional standards.

Q. In your professional opinion, Dr. Ceder, is I-DYNEV

" conceptually sound" judged by current professional standards for the purpose of estimating evacuation times?

h

A. No, it is not, not in the form it was in when Seabrook's ETEs were compiled, because it can not provide realistic ETEs within a reasonable degree (+ 10%) of accuracy.

The I-DYNEV model does not represent the current state of knowledge in transportation science. As a professional who is familiar with the literature, I can definitely say that better, more accurate models can be developed for the purpose of simulating a nuclear plant evacuation. I am not suggesting that a new model needs to be developed here to meet current standards. It may be that if the deficiencies with respect to the traffic engineering parameters I have identified in my testimony were corrected in I-DYNEV, and a series of appropriate behavioral assumptions and accident factors were introduced into the model, then I-DYNEV might be a reasonably accurate tool for estimating evacuation times in general.

Because I have not been able to review the source code, I cannot say whether these changes in I-DYNEV will suffice or whether a rs Mode 2hould be developed. Of course, this is not to say that the ETEs generated then would be accurate. As Dr. Adler has pointed out in his testimony, there are three major potential sources of error or uncertainty in using I-DYNEV to estimate realistic evacuation times for Seabrook:

- the calculations made by I-DYNEV;

- the values of inputs to I-DYNEV; and

- the overall assumptions made about the behavior of evacuees and of evacuation personnel.

30 -

This testimony has dealt primarily with the first of these

.three potential sources of error, the calculations about traffic flow and capacity made by I-DYNEV. So, merely making the changes to I-DYNEV that I have suggested or even producing a new model, does not mean that the ETEs then produced will be as reliable ao can reasonably be made. In fact, those other two sources of error are probably more critical in that they can easily lead to much larger errors in ETEs than can, say, a 15% error in vehicle flow rates. Nevertheless, without making the changes as I have. suggested, I-DYNEV simply cannot produce accurate and " conservative" ETEs (longer that would be

.1 experienced in the real world). Instead, in my opinion it produces overly optimistic times which are likely to be shorter than would actually be experienced.

In conclusion, as I have noted, the state-of-the-art knowledge in transportation science (e.g., stochastic models) is not reflected in I-DYNEV. By spending more development time, the model will be somewhat more complex, but more importantly, it will then produce ETEs which have some reasonable possibility of being reliable and accurate.

According to the standards in the profession today, we do not have such ETEs yet.

1 I

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Befora Administrative Judges:

Halen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Gustave A. Linenbergar, Jr.

, Dr. Jarry Harbour

) i

) i In the Matter of ) i

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos.

HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-443-444-OL (Seabrook Station,' Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site EP)

) September 14, 1987

)

ATTACHMENTS TO TESTIMONY OF AVISHAI CEDER ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON SAPL 31 AND TOH III (EVACUATION ROADWAY CAPACITIES) i Dapartment of the Attorney General l Commonwealth of Massachusetts I One Ashburton Placa )

Boston, Massachusetts 01208-1698 (617) 727-2265 l

I 1

1

7' l

. UNITED' STATES <0F: AMERICA

,~. NUCLEAR: REGULATORY COMMISSION Before: Administrative Judges:

THelen F'. Hoyt, Chairperson Gustave A.;Linenberger, Jr.

'Dr. Jerry Harbour.

b ).

)

2. >

.In' the ' Matter. of. )

)

LPUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY.OF NEW ) Docket Nos.

?

HAMPSHIRE, JET AL'. .

) .. 50-443-444-OL (Seabrook Station,. Units 1 and-2) )- (Off-site.EP)

)_ September'14, 1987

) .-

-ATTACHMENTS TO 1

TESTIMONY 0F AVISHAI CEDER ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY' GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON SAPL 31'AND TOH III (EVACUATION. ROADWAY CAPACITIES)

Dapartment of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 01208-1698 (617) . 727-2265

_ -_- -_-_____ __-_ __-_ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ A

,N,r.

)- 'j_' .

3- -

,iD

?

I '\'

4 2 o

i j ;. jS

'(

)

am '

q t I setaR tnediccA- - :2 elbaT 01 tnemhcattA seitilibaborP tnediccA- :6 erugiF 9 tnemhcattA-snoitidnoC' wolf-detsegnoC dna wolf-eerF rof f

sledoM.noissergeR dna a' tad- :5 erugiF 8 tnemhcattA.

~

sgnikraM dna sngiS tcejorP noitcurtsnoC :4 erugiF 7 tnemhcattA senoZ kroW yaweerF detsegnoC ni sdeepS lacip'yT :1 elbaT- 6 tnemhcattA tolP~ataD:ytisneD-wolf :3 erugiF S tnemhcattA sledoM emigeR-owT

-dna -elgniS lacipyT :2 erugiF 4 tnemhcattA 59-I/011'etuoR b rof=tsoP lortnoC ciffarT :1 erugiF' 3 tnemhcattA

'13 noitnetnoC LPAS III noitnetnoC'notpmaH fo nwoT 2 tnemhcattA redeC iahsivA

fo snoitacifilauQ lanoisseforP 1 tnemhcattA

}..

d STNEMHCATTA

l ATTACHMENTS I

' Attachment 1 Professional Qualifications of Avishai Ceder Attachment 2 Town of Hampton Contention III SAPL Contention 31 Attachment 3 Figure 1: Traffic Control Post for Route 110/I-95 Attachment 4 Figure 2: Typical Single- and Two-Regime Models

. Attachment 5 Figure 3: Flow-Density Data Plot Attachment 6 Table 1: Typical Speeds in Congested Freeway Work Zones Attachment.7 Figure 4: Construction Project Signs and Markings Attachment 8 Figure 5: Data and Regression Models for Free-Flow and Congested-Flow Conditions Attachment 9 Figure 6: Accident Probabilities Attachment 10 Table 2: Accident Rates

, - - - . ~ - - - - - - , - . , - - - . - . - - - - -, - - - - - --- -,1------..--,,-- ,----. . - - - , ,

.. . .. . . 7.--,,

.' k

?

w I

\

ATTACHMENT 1 e

l 3

l

,i

__________.-_.-_m

VT  !

l:

s i

July 1987 AVISRAI CEDER l' Curriculum Vitae i

PERSONAL Present Address: 463 Conco rd Ave. , Lexington, MA '02173 l Date of Birth : 18th May, 1946 Place'of Birth : Haif a ~ . Israel

' Marital Status - : Married, three ' c hild ren -

ACADEMIC B.Sc.,;.Technion - Israel Institute of Technology,

. DEGREES - Haifa, Israel. Faculty' of Industrial & Management Engineering, 1967-1971.

M.Sc. ,' University of California, Berkeley, USA, . Faculty -

. of Civil Engineering, Major: Transportation Engineering,-

1971-1972.

Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, USA, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Major: Transpo rtation . Enginee ring, Minors: Operations Research and Human Factors, 1972-1975.

ACADEMIC :o Research Assistant in Transportation Engineering,

' APPOINTMENTS University of California, Berkeley, USA,. 1972-1973.

o Lecturer ( Adjunct), Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, 1975-1979.

-o Senior Research Fellow, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, 1979-1980.

o Senior Lecturer, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, 19 80 pre sent. .

o Visiting-Associate Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), USA, Faculty of Civil Engineering, 1981-1982.1 o Visiting Associate Professor, M.I.T. Faculty of Civil Engineering, 1985-1987.

LTEACHING Faculty of Mechanical. Engineering, Technion Israel

~ EXPERIENCE Institute of Technology, Teaching Assistant in Technical Drawing & Planning (Undergraduate), 1969-1971.

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technion - I.I.T.,

teaching the following courses, 1976-1985.

/

= _ _ _ _ - - - -

AVISRAI CEDER - curriculum vitae Page 2.

1. Planning and Operationg of Public Transportation (Graduate - 019712) 2.

Quantitative Methods in Manmagement and Engineering Systems (Graduate - 019006).

3.

Traffic Flow Characteristics & Models (Graduate -

019722).

4. Seminar in Traffic Engineering & Public Transportation (Undergraduate - 014700).

5. Projects in Traffic Engineering & Public Transportation (Undergraduate - 014004).

6. Systems' Analysis (Introduction to Operations Research) (Undergraduate - 014004).

7. Urban and Interurban Transportation Services (Undergraduate - 014711).

Faculty of Civil Engineering, M.I.T., USA, during 1981-1982; and presently (1985-) teaching the following courses:

1. Mathematical Optimization Techniques

( #1.143J/13.622j )

2. Traf fic Flow: Theory and Applications (#1.209/1.215)

3. Public Transportation (#1.258/1.214)

4. Advanced Topics in Public Transportation (#1.964)

5. Microcomputer Application in Transportation (#1.27)

6. Transportation Systems Analysis (#100J/1.201J/1.20)

Seminars Abroad :

1. University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A., " Human Factors in Transportation," 1974.

2. University College London, England, "Traf fic Flow:

Macro- and Microscopic Phenomena," August 1977.

3. University of California, Berkeley, U.S. A. , "The Operational Process nf a Bus Company," May 1979.

4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.),

U.S.A., " Computerized Deficit Function Approach for Bus Assignments," October 1981.

5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T. ),

U.S. A. , "Traf fic Behavior Control (at alternate one-way sections) During Lane Closure Periods on a Two-Lane Road," November 1981.

6. University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., "A Man-Machine Interactive Method for Bus Scheduling," April 1982.

7. M.I.T. summer course (Bos ton, U.S. A. ), "Public Transportation Service and Operations Planning,"

August 1983.

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " " ~ - - ~ ' - - - - - - - ' - ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ __- - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

l AVISHAI CEDER - curriculum vitae Page 3.

8. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.),

U.S.A., " Methods for Setting Bus Time'e 'e s ," Janua ry t

i 1984.

f

9. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.),  !

" Optimization of a Portable Two-Traf fic Light System", 1987.

10. M.I.T. summer course (Bos ton U.S. A. ), ' "Public Transportation Service and Operations Planning,"

Augus t 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987.

RESEARCH Master Candidate in the Faculty of Civil Engineering -  ?

EXPERIENCE Transportation Field, University of California, Berkeley, U.S. A. , Research on Traf fic Flow, 1971-1972.

1 Doctoral Candidate in the Faculty of Civil Engineering- l Transportation Field, University. of Calif ornia, Berkeley, U.S. A. , Research on Traf fic Flow Models & Man-Machine Ssytems, 1972-1975.

Senior Research Engineer at the Transportation Research Institute and Road Safety Centre, Technion Research &

Development Foundation Ltd. Research in the Public Transportation, Road Saf ety, Operations Research & Human Facto rs Fields , 1975-present.

PROFESSIONAL 1968-1971: Transportation Planning of Bus Routes &

EXPERIENCE Schedules (while f requently serving as a bus driver to obtain valuable first-hand experience): EGGED Bus Company Ltd., the Israel National Carrier.

1975-1985 A Senior Advisor to EGGED Bus Company Ltd.

Working on Transit Management Research and projects regarding:

(i) Computerized and man-computer interactive systems for bus scheduling; (ii) dynamic changes in bus travel time (as an essential input for the planning process);

(iii) data collection systems for buses; (iv) optimum locations of bus stops; (v) route and network design; (vi) methods and appraisal to set bus I frequencies (headways) and to create I alternative timetables; I (vii) passenger behavior: the walking distance, l the waiting time, and travel time c ri teria; (viii) methods, policies and criteria of the .

allocation of land-oriented f acilities for l public transport; and ]

(ix) bus prio rity schemes. j i

%_m___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .- )

AVISRAI CEDER - curriculum vitae Page 4.

1982 Operations Research Analyst at the Transportation Systems Center (U.S.

Department of Transportation), Cambridge, Massachusetts. Work in Projects regarding scheduling methods and data collection and analysis in conjunction with the Automatic Vehicle Monitoring (AVM) system in Los Angele s.

1982-1985 Consultant to Multisystem (Multisystem), Inc., Cambridge, MA. Work in projects regarding crew scheduling at New Jersey Transit Corporation, and preparation of Bus schedules in conjunction with Automatic Data Collection Systems (ADCS) in the U.S.A.

1 1984- Consultant to BEFAG Transport AG, ZUG, Switzerland. Work in projects regarding development of sof tware to Transit companies about network and route design and vehicle and crew scheduling procedures.

1986- Con sultant to ABT Associates , Inc . , Cambridge ,

Massachusetts. Work in developing new projects in the areas of Transit, Traf fic Engineering, Logistics and Airport and Aviation. Also involved in projects of the the Department of Justice.

19 87- General Attorney Of fice, Massachusetts, U.S. A.

Consultant (including testimonies) work regarding the analysis of the evacuation time of the Seabrook power plant at New Hampshire.

ADPENISTRATIVE (a) Road Safety Centre, Technion - Israel Instituet of Tec hnology

1. Senior Researchers Committee (1976-1981).

2. Responsibility and Organization of National Seminars (1978-1980).

(b) Department of Civil Engineering, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology.

1. Secretary of the Civil Engineering Faculty Council (1980-1981).

2. Member of various Graduate and Undergraduate Commi t te es .

(c) Chairman of the IATR - Israel Association of Transportation Research. (From 1987).

p Y

• h' h- )

' AVISHAI CEDER -. curriculum vitae Page 5. 3 j

-(d) Member, Committee on Bus Transit Systems, Group 1, 'j Section E,- A1E01, ' Transportation ' Re search Board , ]

Washing ton , D.C. , U. S. A. (From 1981) . j i

(e) Member,: Editorial panel. of' Transportation Research

, Journal. (From 1982).

(f) Member, ' Committee on Transit Management and

. Perf ormance, Group 1, Section E, A1E05, J Transportation Research ' Board, Washington, D.C.,

U.'S.A. (From 1984).

AWARDS.AND ' 1. Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Faculty HONORS of Industrial and Management Engineering, Scholarship (1970).

2.: Road Saf ety Centre - Technion Res. & Dev. ,

- Foundation, Ltd. , (Minis try of Transpo rt of .

Israel), Grant for Ph.D. studies (1971-1975).

3. University of ' Califo rnia, Berkeley, U.S. A. ,

Scholarship & Fellowship (1973-1974).

ACTIVE 1. The 54th Annual Meeting of the Transportation PARTICIPATION Res ea rch Board , Washington , D.C. , U.S. A. ,

IN INTERNATIONAL January 1975. Three papers were presented CONGRESSES (see publication list).-

2. The International Conference on Pedestrian Safety, Haif a, Israel, December 1976. Two papers were presented (see publication list).

3. ' The 56th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Re search Board , Washington, D.C. ,- U.S. A. , January 1977.. One paper was presented (see publications list).

4. The 7th International Symposium on Transportation &

Traffic Theory, Kyoto, Japan, August 1977. One paper was presented (see publication list)..

5. The 13th Conference of the Information Processing Association (IPA), together with the 3rd Jerusalem Conference on Info rmation Technology, August 1978.

One paper was presented (see pubitcations list).

6. The Joint Ir.ternational Meeting of the Institute of

'Traf fic Engineering (ITE) on: The Integration of Traf fic & Transportation Engineering in Urban Pl anni ng , ; Tel Aviv, Israel, December 1978. One paper was presented (see publications list).

7. Automatic Vehicle Monitoring ( AVM) Conference, Dublin, May 9-10, 1979.

AVISKAI CEDER - curriculum vitae Page 6.

8. , An International Workshop on Urban Passenger Vehicle & Crew Scheduling, the. University of Leeds,

' ngland E , July .15-18, 1980. One paper was presented (see publication list).

9. The 60th Annual Meeting' of the Transportation

Research Boa rd , Washington, D.C. , U.S.A. , January 1981. One paper was presented (see publication list).

The Joint International CORS/TIMS/ORSA Heeting, May

~

10.

6, 1981, Toronto, Canada. One paper was pre sented (se'e publication list).

11. .The 8th International Symposium on Transportation &

Traf fic" Theory . June 24-26 1981,- Toronto, Canada.

One paper was ' presented-(see publication list).

12. Frontiers in Transportation Equilibrium and Supply Models. An international Symposium, November 11-13, 1981, Montreal, Quebec.

~

Invited'as a discussant.-

l' 13. - The 61st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Re sea rch Board , Washing ton, D.C. , U.S. A. , January 1982. . One paper was presented (see publications L

list).

14. First Conference and Workshop on Bus Reliability and Transit Service , UMTA, August 22-25, 1982, Hidden Valley, New York, U.S.A. Invited to participate.

f

15. The 62nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Res ea rch Board , Washington, D.C. , January 1983.

One paper.was presented (see publication list).

16. The 3rd International Workshop. on Transit Vehicle &

Crew Scheduling, University.of Montreal, June 27-30, 1983.. Two papers were presented (see publication list). Invited to serve as chairman of one session.

17. The 63rd Annual Meeting of the' Transportation l[ Research Board, Washington, D.C. ,' January 1984.

l- one paper was presented (see publication list).

18. The Annual Meeting of the Operations Research Society of Israel (ORSIS), Beersheva, May 28-29, i 1984. One paper was presented (see publication L list). Invited to serve as chairman of the Transportation Session.

AVISHAI CEDER - curriculum vitae Page 7. ,

19. The 3rd International Symposium on Location Decisions (ISOLDE III), Boston, Mass. , June 7-12, 1984. One paper was presented (see publication list).

20. The 9th International Symposium on Transportation and Traf fic Theory, July 11-13, 1984, Delft, Holland. One paper was presented (see publication list).

21. The 64th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. , January 1985.

One paper was presented (see publication list).

22. The 65th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board , Washington, D.C. , January 1986.

23. Transportation Research Board joint Mid-Year Public Transportation Meeting (section E committees meeting), Univercity of Washington, Seattle, Washington, August 17-20, 1986.

24. Council of Logistics Management 1986 Conference, Anaheim, CA., October 5-8, 1986.

25. The 9th Annual Chaim Weizman Conference on:

" Israeli Science , Technolgoy and Medicine", March 1, 1987, Boston, USA. Invited to give p res entation.

26. The 10th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, July 8-10, 1987, M.I.T.

Boston, USA. Invited to serve as a session chairman.

27. The Fourth International workshop or. computer-aided scheduling of public transport, Hamburg, Germany, July, 28-31, 1987. Three papers vece presented (see publications list).

PROFESSIONAL 1. Israel Association of Engineers & Architects.

SOCIETY 2. Operations Research Society of Israel (ORSIS).

MEMBERSHIP 3. Transportation Research Board (TRB).

4. Israel Association of Transportation Research l (IATR).

I i

I J

Y u

~AVISRAI CEDER - List of Publications Page 8.

~

~

AVISHAI CEDER (publications) la. ' THESES

, Ceder, A.11"From Car-Following to Speed-Volume Density Relationship." Individual Research f or M.Sc. degree. University of _ California,e Berkeley, November 19 72. 90 pages.

Ceder, A. " Investigations of Two-RegimeLTraffic Flow Models at the Micro- and Macroscopic Levels." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Califo rula,' Berkeley', November 1975. 392'pages.

(The Abstract of this . thesis . in in the Bibliography section,

' Transportation Research Journal', Vol.10, Page 218,1976).

'b. PAPERS IN PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS

1. Ceder, A..& May, A.D.: "Further Evaluation of Single-and-IVo Regime Traffic Flow'Models." Transportation Research Record

56 7, p p. 1-15,_1976.

2. Ceder, A. :' "A Deterministic Traf fic Flow Model for the Two-Regime Approach." ~ Transportation Research Record 567, pp.

16-30, 1976.

3. Ceder, A.: ." Drivers ' Eye Movements. as- Related . to Attention in Simulated Traf fic Flow Conditions." Human Factors Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 571-581, 1977.

4. ' . Ceder,- A. & May, A.D. : " Consistency of Maximum Flow Characteristics and Congestion Patterns under Morning Peak Period Conditions on an Urban Freeway." Transportation Research Record 644, pp. 8-14,1977.

5. Ceder, A.: "A Time-Sequence Analysis for a Two-Regime Traf fic Flow Model." The Institute of Systems Science Research, 7th International Symposium on Transportation and Traf fic Theory.

Kyoto, Japan, pp. 141-174, August.1977.

"Further Evaluation of the s

6. Ceder, A. & Livneh, M.:

Relationship Between Road Accidents and Average Daily Traffic." Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal, Vol. 10, p p. ~ 95-109, 19 78.

7. Ceder, A.: " Drivers' Behavior, Traf fic Flow and Road Saf ety Studies," Hazard Prevention Journal, Vol. 15(1), pp. 24-26, September / October 1978.

8. Ceder, A. : "A Two-Regime Traf fic Flow Model and the Consistency of Its Parameters," Applied Mathematical Modelling Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 261-270, December 1978.

x

AVISHAI CEDER - Idst of Publications 1 Page 9.

i f

b. PAPERS IN PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS (continued)

9. Ceddr, ~A.$ "The Accuracy of Traf fic Flow Models--A Review and J Preliminary Investigation." Traffic Engineering and Control Jo trual, Vol.19, pp. 541-544, December 1978. i

10. Code.r, A. & Livneh, M.: "A Safety Evaluation Approach f.or Rond Improvement Projects." Traf fic Engineering Journal, pp.

26-30, December 1978.

11. Ceder, A.: "A Stable Phase Plane and Car-Following Behavior '

as Applied to a Macroscopic Phenomenon." Transportation Science Journal, Vol.13(1), pp. 64-79,19 79.

12. Ceder, A.: "An Algorithm to Assign Pedestrian Groups Dispersing at Public Gatherings Based on Pedestrian /Traf fic Modelling." Applied Mathematical Modelling Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 116-124, April 1979. (An invited extended abstract appe'ars in Zentralblatt fur Mathematics, Fol. 403, 90031).

13. pder, A. & Dressler, 0. : "A Note on the X2 Test with l Application and Results of Road Accidents in Construction Zones." Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal, Vol.12, pp. 7-10, 1980.

14. Ceder, A.: "A Note on a Graphical Interpretation of Wave and Shockwave Velocitics of a Traffic Stream." Transportation l

Research Journal., Vol. 14 B, pp. 2 57-2 59, 1980.

I

15. Ceder, A. & Gonen, D. : "The Operational Planning Process of a Bus' Company." UITP Review Journal, Vol. 29(3), pp.199-218, 1980. i

16. Ceder, A.: " Practical Methodology for Determining Dynamic Changes in Bus Travel Time." Transportation Research Board 7 98, (Bus Planning and Operation), pp.18-22, 1981.

17. Stern, H.I., & Ceder, A.: "A Deficit Function Approch for Bus Scheduling: in Computer Scheduling of Public Transport: Urban Passenger Vehicle and Crew Scheduling, A. Wren (Ed.), North-Holland Publishing Company, pp. 85-96, 1981.

18. Ceder, A. & Stern, H.I.: " Deficit Function Bus Scheduling with Deadheading Trip Insertions for Fleet Size Reduction." I In , Transportation Science Journal, Vol.15, No. 4, pp. (

23E-363, 19 81. l

19. Ceder, A. & Livneh, M.: " Relationships between Road Accidents and Hourly Traf fic Flow: 1. Analysis and Interpre tation."

Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.

19-34, 1982. )

1 1

m

w t

AVISRAI CEDER - List of Publications Page 10.

b.s PAPERS IN PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS (continued)

20. Ceder, A. : " Relationships between Road Accidents and Hourly Traf fic Flow: II. Probabilstic Approach." Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal, Vol.14, No.1, pp. 35-44, 1982.

. , 3 21. Ceder, A. & Stern, H.I. : " Graphical Interactive Approach for

, / Bus Scheduling." Transportation Research Record 857, pp.

69-74, 1982.

f. ,

22. Stern, H.I. & Ceder, A.: "The Garage Constrained-Balance Vehicle Schedule Minimum Fleet Size Problem." University of Tronto Press, 8th International Symposium on Transportation &

Traf fic Theory, V.F. Hurdle, E. Hauer & G.N. Stewart (Ede.),

Ontario, Canada, pp. 527-556, 1983.

I

23. Ceder , A. , Prashker , J. & Stern, H.I. : "An Algorithm to ig, Evaluate Public Transportation Stops for Minimizing Passenger T Walking Distance." Applied Mathematical Modelling , Vol. 7, pp. 19-24, 1983.

24. Stern, H.I. &' Ceder, A.: "A1 Improved Lower Bound to the Minimum Fleet Size Problem." Transportation Science Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 471-477, 1983.

25. Ceder, A.: " Bus Frequency Determination Using Passenger Count Data " Transportation Research Journal (part A), Vol. 18A, No. 5/6, pp. 439-453, 1984.

26. Marguier, P.H.J. & Ceder, A. : " Passenger Waiting Strategies for Overlapping Bus Routes." Transportation Science Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 207-230, 1984.

27. Ceder, A. & Stern, H.I.: " Optimal Transit Timetables for a Fixed Vehicle Fleet." VNU Science Press, the 9th International Symposium on Transportation & Traf fic Theory, pp. 331-355, 1984.

28. Ceder, A. & Stern, H.I.: "The Variable Trip Procedure Used in the AUTOBUS Vehicle Scheduler." Computer Scheduling of Public l T rans pt,rt 2, J.M. Rousseau (Ed. ), North Holland Publishing f, Company, pp. 371-390, 1985. l

29. Tykulsker , R.J. , O'Neil, K.K. , Ceder, A. & Shef fi, Y. : "A Computer Rail Crew Assignment / Work Rules Model." Computer f r .' Scheduling of Public Transport 2, J. M. Rousseau (Ed. ), North j Holland Publishing Company, pp. 233-246, 1985.

30. Ceder , A. , & Ma rguie r , P.H.J. : " Passenger Wa' ting at Transit Stops." Traffic Engineering & Control Journal, July 1985. l

31. Ceder,.A.: " Computer Application for Determining Bts Headways

& Timetables." Transportation Research Record , #1011, pp.

76-87, 1985.

AVISHAI CEDER - List of Publications Page 11.

b. PAPERS IN PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS (continued) {

f'

32. Ceder , A. , & Wilson , N.H.M. : " Bus Network Design."

Transportation Research Journal Vol. 20B, No. +, pp. 331-344, 1986.

33. Psaraftis, H.N., Tharakan, G.G., & Ceder, A.: " Optimal Response to Oil Spills: The Strategic Case." Opeations  ;

Research Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 203-217,1986.

34. Ceder, A. : " Methods for Creating Bus Timetables."

Transportation Research Journal, Vol. 21A, No.1, pp. 59-83, 1986.

l

35. Ceder, A., Shefer, D.,: "A Statistical Approach to Determine the Size of Public Transport Facilities in Urban Areas." The Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 21, No.2,1987 PAPERS ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION

36. Cedar, A. " Des'igning Transit Short-Tern Trips with the Elimination of Imbalanced Loads." To appear in Computer-Aided Scheduling of Public Transport, North-Holland Publicat ion. (1968)

37. Cedar, A., Fjo rne s, B. , and Stern, H. "0PTIBUS: A Scheduling Package" To appear in Computer-Aided Scheduline of__

Public Transport, North-Holland Publication. (1988)

38. Cedar, A. , Fjornes, B. , Fjo rne s, E. , and Kearns, D.

" Improving Scheduling Through Expert System Approach." To appear in Computer-Aided Scheduling of Public Transport, North-Holland Publication. (1968)

C-1. PAPERS PRESENTED AND APPEARING IN PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES' PROCEEDINGS

39. Ceder, A.: " Pedestrian / Traffic Interactions: part I: An Algorithm to Assign Pedestrian Groups Dispersing at Public Gatherings." Proceedings of the International Conference on Pedestrian Safety, Haifa, Israel, pp. 5El-5E8, December 1976.

40. Ceder, A.: " Pedestrian /Traf fic Interaction: part 11:

Pedestrians & Traf fic Models -- A Case Study." Proceedings of the International Conference on Pedestrian Safety, Raif a, Israel, pp. 5F1-5F5, December 1976.

41. Gonen, D. & Ceder, A.: "A Computerized System for Bus Scheduling." Proceedings of the 13th Conference of Information Processing Association (IPA) of Israel together with the 3rd Jerusalem Conf erence on Information Technology (JCIT), pp. 13-24, August 1978.

' .)

-) .

N

/- e .N AVISRAI CEDER List of Publications Page 12. ,

C-1. y PERS PRESEN DJ'{D APPEARING IN - PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES ' >

PROCEEDINGS (contiaued.) j v.

42. Ceder, A.: " Major. Components in .' Operational Planning f or q Public Transport." Proceedings,,o_f, the 1st Annual Meeting in_ ]

j ggy of Bill Arad on Public Transportation, IATR-Israel o

Association of Transportation Research, Tel Aviv, Israel, pp.

4 5-54, February 1981.

43. Ceder, A'.: " Mass Transit Technologies." Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting in Memo _ry of Bill Arad on Supply & Demand in Transportation and Mass Transit Systems, IATR - Israel

+ As-cciation of Transport.nion Research, Tel Aviv, Is rael, ,

i N.' 36-46, February 1983i-r {

e

44. Ceder, A.:. "An Algorithmic' Approach to Determine Dyn1mic

, Changes of Bus Travel'Tinta." Proceedings of-the 2nd, Annual

/ Conference of civil Engineers and Public Works, Tel Aviv, pp.

' f36-249, April 1984.

jf 7 45s Stern, H.I. & Ceder, A.: " Bus Scheduling: An Approach to.

! Construct Optimal. Timetables and Vehicle Schedules." g

> Proceedings of the Annual Meeting fo the Operations Research ,

pociety of Israel (ORSIS). Ben-Gurion University of the c s 4- Negev, Beersheva, May-2S"29, 1984.

fj r i, r

,2 A C-2. PAPERS _ PRESENTED AT PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES . 4 J. Ceder, A.: " Drivers' Attention in Simulatee Traffte Flow Cond i tion s'. ! The 54th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Be[rd , Washington, D.C., January 1975.

2. . Ceder, A. & Hay, A.D.: "Further Evaluation of Single & Two-Regime TtaL0ic Flow Models." The 54th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Bc ard , Washington, D..":., January 1975. ,?

3. Ceder, 'A. : " Deterministic' Traf fic Flow Model for the Two-Regime Approach." The 54th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January

. 1975.

g

4. Ceder, A. & May, A.9.: " Consistency of Maximum Flow Characteristics & Congestion Patterns Under Morning Peak Period ConMtious on 4.n Urban Freeway." The 56th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,

~

jf LD.C., January 1977.

5. " Ceder, A. & Prashker, J.: "A_ Planning of Public Travel Mode

, j 'to ,% nimize Passenger Walking Distance." The Joint

(, M International Meeting (ITE) on: The Integration of Traffic &

1. Transportation Eng encaring in Urban Planning Tel . Aviv, Is rael, December 19 78.

1 h

- . ~ . - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _

i 1

AVISHAI CEDER - List of Publications i Page 13.

C-2. PAPERS PRESENTED AT PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES (continued)

6. Stern, H.I. & Ceder, A.: "A Deficit Function Procedure for j Multi-Terminal Vehicle Scheduling with Deadheading Trip j Insertion." An International Workshop on Urban Passenger '

Vehicle and Crew Scheduling, The University of Leeds, U.K.,

July 1980.

7. Ceder, A.: " Practical Considerations & Methodology for Determining Dynamic Changes in Bus Travel Time." The 60th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 1981.

8. Ceder, A. & Stern, H.I.: " Heuristic Reductions for Bus Fleet Scheduling with Large Number of Terminals." The Joint Internations CORS/TIMS/ORSA Meeting, Toronto, Canada, May 1981.

9. Ceder, A. & Stern, H.I.: "A Graphical Man-Machine Interactive Approach for Variable Bus Scheduling." The 61st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January ^1982.

10. Ceder, A.: " Bus Frequency Determination Using Passenger Count Data." The 62nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. , January 1983.

11. Ceder, A. & Stern, H.I.: "The Variable Trip Procedure Used in  !

the AUTOBUS Vehicle Scheduler." The 3rd International l Workshop on Transit Vehicle & Crew Scheduling, University of Montreal, Canada, June 1983.

12. ,Tykulsker, R.I., O'Neil, K.K., Ceder, A., 6 Sheffi, Y.: " Crew As signment/ Work Rules Model." The 3rd International Workshop on Transit Vehicle & Crew Scheduling, University of Montreal, )

Canada, June 1983.

13. Ceder, A.: " Construction of Alternative Bus Timetables." The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Bus Transit Systems Committee, Washington, D.C., January 1984.

14. Psaraf tis , H'.N. , Tharakan, C.G. & Ceder, A. : " Optimal Response to Oil Spills: The Strategic Decision Case."

Presented (also appearing in the Proceedings, distributed at the Conference) at the International Symposium on Locational Decisions (ISOLDE III), Boston, Mass., June 7-12, 1984.

15. Ceder, A.: " Procedures for Analyzing the Schedule of Heavy Bus Route s." Presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 1985.

l I

l

t 1

' AVISRAI CEDER - List of Publications Page 14.

C-2. PAPERS PRESENTED AT PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES (continued)

16. . Cedar,'A. " Designing Transit Short-Term Trips with the Elimination of Imbalanced Loads." Fourth International workshop. on Computer-Aided Scheduling of Public Transport.

Hamburg, Germany, July 28-31, 1987.

17. Cedar, A. Fjo rnes , B. , Stern , H. "0PTIBUS: A Scheduling '

Package." Fourth International Workshop on Compucn-Aided.

Scheduling'of Public Transport. Hamburg, Germany, July 28-31, 1987.

18. Ceder, A., Fjornes, B. . Fjornes E. , Kearns , D. : " Optimal Scheduling Through Expert Systems Approach," Fourth International Workshop on Computer-Aided Scheduling of Public Transport. Hamburg, Germany, July 28-31 , 1987.

PAPERS SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION .

1. Ceder, A.: '"A~Procedure to Adjust Transit Trip Departure

' Times Through Minimizing the. Maximum Headway." Submitted to Applied Mathematical Modeling Journal, Dec.,1986.

2. Ceder, A.: " Optimal Design of Transit Short-Turn Trips."

Submitted to Transportation Research Journal, April 1987.

3. Cedar, A. Dressler, 0.: "A Model for Delay Estimation at Traffic Adjusted Signals" Submitted to the European Journal of Operations Research, June, 1987.

4. Cedar, A., Rossi T. S.: " Simulation and Mathematical Models f or Signalized Intersections with Variable Flow Rates" Submitted to the Journal of Advanced Transportation, June, 1987.

5 Tharakan, G.G., Ceder, A., & Psataftis, H.N.: "A Synthesis Algorithm for the Problem Complementary Locations on Networks." (To be submitted shortly to Transportation Science Journal .)

d. BOOKS

1. Ceder, A., " Network Theory & Selected Topics in Dynamic Programming." (Hebrew).188 p. Dekel Academic Press, April 1978.

2. Ceder, A., "Public Transportation" in Transportation Systems (Hebrew). Transportation Research Institute, Zaidel, D. &

Katz, A. (Eds.), 1982.

AVISHAI CEDER - List of Publications Page 15. j l

3. Ceder, A. " Driver-Vehicle Modelling & Traffic Flow Characteristics," (Hebrew). Transportation Research Institute (in draf t form). ,

4. Ceder, A. & Wilson, N.H.M. " Planning & Operation of Bus Systems: Analytical & Practical Techniques." (in preliminary stages and under contract negotiation with McGraw-Hill).

e. RESEARCH REPORTS

1. Ceder, A.: "An Algorithm to Assign Pedestrian Groups Dispersing at Public Gatherings Based on Pedestrian / Traffic Modelling." Road Saf ety Centre, Pub. No. 76/1004, (Project No. 76/107), 34 p., November 1976.

2. Ceder, A. & Shilo, R.: " Vehicle Behavior Characteristics in Various Traf fic Flow conditions." (Hebrew). Bruner Institute of Transportation, Pub. No. 21, 120 p. , December 1976.

3. Ceder, A. & Livneh, M.: "The Relationships Between Accidents' Density and Ra'te and Average Daily Traf fic." (Hebrew). Road Safety Centre, Pub. No. 77/7, 150 p., May 1977.

4. Ceder, A., & Livneh, M.: "Further Evaluation of the Relationship Between Road Accidents and Average Daily Traffic." Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No. 77-2, 32 p., July 1977.

5. Ceder, A.: "A Stable Phase Plane and Car-Following Behavior as Applied to a Macroscopic Phenomenon." Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No. 77-9, 34 p., December 1977.

6. Ceder, A. & Schwartz, A.: " Dynamic Changes of Traffic Flow Characteristics During Morning Peak Period Conditions on an Urban Freeway." (Hebrew). Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No. 78-5, 137 p., May 1978.

7. Ceder, A. & Livneh, M.: "The Relationship Between Measures of Accidents and Hourly Traf fic Flow." (Hebrew). Road Safety Centre, Pub. No. 77/110, 100 p., June 1978.

8. Ceder, A.: " Drivers' Behavior, Traf fic Flow and Road Safety Studies." Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No. 78-15, 14 p., June 1978.

9. Israeli, Y. & Ceder, A. : " Analytical Model for Estimating Bridge Construction Costs: Development and Sensitivity Examination." (Hebrew). Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No. 78-8, 337 p., March 1979.

l

AVISHAI CEDER - List of Publications Page 16.

y

- e. . RESEARCH PROJECTS (continued)

10. Ceder, A. & Spektor,1. : " Investigation of Car-Following Characteristics." (Hebrew). Transportation Research Institute , Pub. No. 7 8-9, l'21 p. , May 19 79.

- 1 1. Ceder , ' A. t " Introduction. to Traf fic Engineering." (Course Notes in Hebrew) EGGED Bus Company, Pub. No.1-79, 41 p. ,

1979.

12. Ceder, A.: 1: " Automatic Vehicle Monitoring ( AVM) Systems--

Review and Analysis." II: " Data Collection Systems for buses:

Review and. Analysis." EGGED Bus Company, Pub. No. 2-79, 86 p., 1979.

13. Ceder, A.: " Preferential Treatment f or Buses." (Hebrew) EGGED Bus Company, Pub. No. 3-79, 5 p., 1979.

14 . . Solomon, Y. , Polus , A. , & Ce der, . A. : "A Study of Delay and Gap' Acceptance' at Non-Signalized Urban Intersection."

(Hebrew). Road Saf ety Centre , Pub. No. 78-10, 97 p., July 1979.

15. Ceder, A. & Dressler, 0.: "Traf fic Control and Direction Discipline for Road Construction Zones: Safety Level Traffic Behavior and Recommendations." (Hebrew). Road Safety Centre, Pub. No. 79-12, 177 p., November 1979.

16. Dres sler , O. & Ceder , A. : " Traffic Control During Lane Closure at Two Lane Roads: The Lane Closure Length and Operation of Traf fic Lights." (Hebrew). Road Safety Centre, Pub. No. 79-6, 155 p. , March 1980.

17. Ceder , A. & Livneh, M. : " Relationships Between Road Accidents and Hourly Traffic Flow: 1. Analyses and Interpretation."

Ceder, A.: II. "Probabilistic Approach." Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No. 80-29, 54 p., March 1980.

18. Ceder, A. & Borovsky, S.: " Bus Priority Alternatives at the North Entrance to Tel Aviv." (Hebrew). EGGED Bus Company, Pub. No. 7-80, 15 p., 1980.

I

19. Ceder, A. & Borovsky, S.: "The Tachograph as a Measuring Tool f or the Planning Process of a Bus Company." (Hebrew). EGGED Bus Company, Pub. No. 8-80, 22 p., 1980.

20. Ceder, A.: " Boarding and Alighting of Bus Passengers." ,

(Hebrew). EGCED Bus Company, Pub. No. 30-80, 35 p., 1980.

f

l AVISHAI CEDER - List of Publications Page 17.

e. RESEARCH PROJECTS (continued)

21. Ceder, A.: " Basic Data and the Operational Planning Process of EGGED--the Israel National Bus Carrier." EGGED Bus Company, Pub. No. A-80, 16 p., 1980.

22. Ceder, A.: "An Algorithm to Determine Dynamic Changes of Bus Travel Time ." (Hebrew) . EGGED Bus Company, Pub. No. 10-80, 3 0 p. , April 19 81.

23. Bo rovsky, Y. , Ceder, A. , Shef fer, D. : "The Allocation of Urban Land for Public Transportation Facilities." (Hebrew).

Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No. 81-41, 200 p. ,

July 1981.

I I 24. Stern, H.I. & Ceder, A.: "An Improved Lower Bound to the Minimum Fleet Size Problem." Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Working Paper, l

UCB-ITS-WP-81-12, 11 p., August 1981.

l 25. Ceder, A. : " An Analysis of Bus Travel (Run) Time Based on Time-Sequence and Planning Considerations." Working paper, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 34 p. , March 1982.

l

26. Ceder, A.: " Setting Bus Headways: Methods and Appraisal."  ;

Transportation Systems Center (U.S. Department of l Transportation). Working paper, #67-U.3-1, 40 p., September 1982.

27. Ceder, A.: " Dynamic Changes of bus Travel Time for Operations Planning." Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No.

83-1011, 36 p. , July 1983.

28. Ceder, A. & Stern, H.I.: " Bus Scheculing: The Variable Trip Procedure in the AUTOBUS Microcomputer Program."

l

! Transportation Research Institute, Pub. No. 83-1012, 22 p.,

July 1983.

29. Ceder, A.: " Methods f or Setting Bus Timetables: I.

Determination of Frequencies & Alternative Headway Setting."

UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series, Service & Management Demonstration Program, U.S. Department of Transportation, Final Report, 154 p. , February 1984.

l 30. Psaraf tis , H.N. , Tharakan, G.G. , & Ceder , A. : " Optimal Response to Oil Spills: The Strategic Decision Case." Working Paper OE-Sp-84-1, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ocean Engineering, 49 p., March 1984.

31. Ceder, A.: " Prediction of the Implications of Route Changes on the Amount of Passengers Carried and Number of Vehicles Required." Interim Report, EGGED Bus Company, 32 p., April 1984.

i AVISHAI CEDER'- List of ' Publications _

l Page 18. .1

e.:RESEARCH PROJECTS (continued) l ~

3 2. - Ceder, A.: " Methods for Setting Bus Timetables: II. Optimal  ;

' Design . of . Sho rt-Turn Trip s . and Vehicle Schedule s."' UMTA/TSC l Project Evaluation Series , Service 6 Management' Demonstration Program, U.S. Department 'of Transportation (in draf t form).

33. . Cheng , L. H. Ben- Akiva, M. , Ce de r , A. ,' Lis s , M. :

" Methodologies for Evaluating Ef festiveness of Intersection Safety. Improvement" MDPW/MIT Intersection Safety Project, Working Paper No. 1,sMarch 1987.

-i.

t 9

...__..m__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

1

(.

ATTACHMENT 2 i

I j

I I

\

l s

l 1

!.E t '<

h i l

, TOH" Revised Contention III to' Revision 2:

The Evacuation Time Estimate Study (ETE) prepared by KLD Associates,_Inc.,_ Revision 2, Volume 6, is based upon

' inaccurate and biased factual data and unreasonable or.

, Lmisleading assumptions, fails to comply with NRC-regulations, and fails to provide' reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and'will be taken, or that adequate facilities, equipment, or personnel'will be

~

,provided'to the Town of Hampton, in'the event of

- radiological emergency. 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1), (b)(1)(10)

NUREG-0654, App. 4.

<r

' Appendix, Board's Order'& Memorandum, May 18, 1987:

Admitted Bases:

The KLD ETE is based.upon the following inaccurate,-

unreasonable, or misleading facts or assumptions:

1. The KLD ETE unreasonably estimates vehicle counts within the EPZ, including.

beach areas, utilizing data obtained on only_

two weekends, and the intervening work week, in August, 1985. KLD Progress Report #1 (hereinafter KLD #1) Appendix E-13. 'KLD relies upon these limited vehicle counts as' part of "the basis for computer analysis of' an Evacuation Plan and computation:of ETE."

KLD #1,-pp. 5,6. KLD concedes, however, that this traffic data.was gathered during-a period of " occasional. rain," KLD #1, p. 7, "this period of time was not particularly appealing to beachgoers," KLD #1,' Appendix-E-13, "The data will not reflect peak.

conditions" . . . and there is "some uncertainty" on the accuracy of the data. On p

its face, therefore, the KLD ETE admits to an inadequate factual base to provide reasonable projections for traffic counts and movements during an evacuation within the EPZ, and particularly the beach areas. Additionally, since even this limited data was obtained by KLD during poor beach weather,.it must be assumed that KLD's vehicle counts, and therefore ETE projections, are unreasonably-10w.

2. The KLD ETE unreasonably relies upon a telephone survey to estimate the time L

C s ___.._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . u_-m.__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._

~

fJ

' required for notification of'an emergency, elapsed' times to' commence evacuation trips, and the total population to'be' evacuated from zthe EPZ. KLD #1,1p.'7,.KLD #2, p. 9. Those persons' surveyed constitute less than one percent of the individuals residing within the EPZ,LKLD.#1, Appendix'F-6, there is k

absolutely noEshowing byLKLD that this minimal percentage.of residents is in any way representative'of.the EPZ population as a whole, and~therefore.the telephone survey represents an' inadequate factual base from which toumake these ETE projections. For  !

. example, while KLD concedes that "we know of no. survey which has accumulated empirical information describing the rate at which notification information is received," KLD

.#2,.pb 7, it nevertheless baldly claims that the telephone survey can provide "a

- reasonable estimate of a notification time

. frame." KLD #2, p. 7. The Town suggests, however, that limited information obtained by telephone from an apparently nonrepre-sentative segment of'the EPZ population is wholly inadequate to make these significant

.ETELprojections. Based upon the admitted' deficiencies-in-its data base, therefore, the KLD ETE necessarily fails to provide reasonable assurance on the accuracy of these ETE estimates.

3. -The KLD ETE computes the number of vehicles to be evacuated from the beach areas l merely by counting parking spaces and parking capacity. KLD #1, p. 15, 20. The KLD ETE therefore fails to account for the virtual' bumper to bumper traffic that routinely, and continually, travels through the beach areas during the summer. These vehicles in transit i represent not only a significant additional number of vehicles to'be. evacuated, but also present a substantial impediment to all parked vehicles attempting to leave the EPZ.

See also KLD #1, Appendix E-4, 5; KLD #2, p.

9.

4. The KLD ETE erroneously assumes that local officials, including police and fire department personnel, will be available to implement the State evacuation plan. KLD #2, l

l L I l'

_' . _ _ - _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _U

. l y

lp.-40. 'Since the: Town of'Hampton has stated it does not int'endito. provide this assistance or implement'the State RERF, the KLD;ETE

' fails'to' provide reasonable assurance that__

adequate' personnel are available to-implement the evacuation plan. . Additionally, even assuming that the State could timely provide anLequivalent number of State personnel to

, fulfill these local functions, the KLD:ETE Jrecognizes the local personnel are. uniquely '

-qualified to determine potential traffic problems'and. bottlenecks, which may not be readily apparent to State personnel unfamili.arLwith the local area. 'KLD #2,

p. 40.

5. 1The KLD ETE' unreasonably assumes that

> 151 " traffic guides"Lwill be available to implement-traffic control procedures during an evacuation, including 25 for the Town of Hampton. .KLD #4, p.~11. The KLD ETE wholly fails, however, to demonstrate the availability of these substantial numbers of trained traffic personnel. Additionally, since State' Police Troop A has.only 31 troopers available for evacuation traffic control throughout the entire EPZ, it is unreasonable to expect that the State can adequatelyLand promptly supplement these personnel deficiencies, particularly in view of the substantial additional duties imposed on Troop A for overall traffic surveillance, KLD #7, p. 28, and as specified in the State

. Compensatory Plan. See Compensatory Plan, Troop A New-Hampshire State Police, Emergency Response Procedures, p. 2. The KLD ETE

'further unreasonably assumes the availability of an additional 27 New Hampshire " traffic guides" to regulate access c6ntrol posts on the perimeter of the EPZ to restrict traffic entrance into the EPZ during an evacuation;n. KLD #6, p. 13. As set forth above, there is no showing that in fact these trained personnel will be available to perform these specified duties.

6. The KLD ETE unreasonably assumes that adequate equipment and personnel will be available to plow roads and driveways, and to assure that evacuation, routes remain l

mi . - - _ - - .. - - . J

I

. ,. passab'le, ifievacuation is required during:.a h9", snowstorm.'.KLD'#2, p.119, 24. 'For example,.

KLD1 incorrectly assumes that the time to plow the' driveways-duringsan' evacuation is

. identical.to.'theLtime required for snow clearance:under/non-emergency, conditions..

, The ETE therefore unreasonably fails to account'for. evacuation traffic congestion

'which'mustEimpede or prohibit a plow truck from' reaching certain homeston roads,.and unreasonably fails to. consider'that a f - substantial number of:those private 1 individuals performing snowplow services may f' + elect to promptly evacuate theLEPZ rather than complete: their routes.

7. The KLD ETE' unreasonably assumes that' buses will encounter "little impedance" when.

entering the EPZ to evacuate schools and those without. private vehicles. KLD #7,

p. 17. 'This assumption is insupportable.

For= example,Lthe State RERP provides that tne Timberlane Bus Company of Salem, New Hampshire shall provide 35 buses to evacuate thegTown ofLHampton during a radiological emergency.. These.Timberlane buses, however,

- would be required-to maneuver"through thousands of evacuating vehicles headed for the " host" communities of Manchester and l

Salem. KLDs#4, Appendix ~J. It can only be reasonably anticipated that a. substantial numberJof these buses'would be' greatly delayed, if not. prohibited,-from reaching the EPZ'against the evacuation traffic flow. The-KLD ETE'further unreasonably assumes that i c/acuation buses traveling to the EPZ could travel 40 miles per hour on "at-grade primary tighways,"~such as Route 1, and 50 miles per hour on access controlled roads. KLD #7,

p. 17. Anyone familiar with the routine bumper to bumper traffic on Route 1 during the year, and-particularly.the summer months,  !'

however, would recognize these estimates as wholly unrealistic. While recognizing that ,

buses and vans evacuating special facilities "will be embedded within the overall traffic ]

j streams evacuating the EPZ," KLD #7, p. 19, j the BTE further unreasonably fails to account for the additional and substantial impact of these emergency vehicles, often traveling k

N v l

against the. flow of traffic,.in delaying the overall evacuation of vehicles from the EPZ.

KLD #2, p. 9. Further the KLD ETE unreasonably calculates the time within which buses may travel evacuation routes to pick up passengers by assuming that all buses will travel with the flow of evacuating traffic.

KLD 17, p. 18. It must be assumed, however, that many of these buses will be required,  :

albeit unsuccessfully, to travel against the 1 flow of traffic to reach designated pickup locations. The ETE's calculations that buses may therefor be expected to travel through evacuation traffic and to reach and load passengers at special facilities within 40 minutes is plainly unrealistic. KLD #7,

p. 18.

8. The KLD ETE unreasonably relies,upon inadequate date to compute the number of persons to be evacuated from the EPZ in the event of radiological emergency. First, KLD computes overall population figures based upon a " compromise estimate" of 2.8 persons per vehicle, although KLD concedes that it lacks " definitive data" on this issue. KLD

1. 2, p. 9. Second, as previously discussed, KLD relies upon a telephone survey of less than one percent of EPZ residents, without j any determination that this sample is I representative, to compute the number of residents and transients without private transportation. Third, KLD concedes that it has made no computations with respect to

~ l populations of special facilities or private ,

citizens with medical needs located within the EPZ. KLD #7, p. 1. Fourth, KLD fails to include within its population estimates the substantial number of individuals traveling )

through the EPZ, including the beach areas, at the time notification of an emergency may ,

be given. KLD #2, p. 9. Accordingly, on its )

face, the KLD ETE lacks adequate data to ccapute the number of individuals or vehicles )

to be evacuated from the EPZ during an  !

emergency. Without such reasonably adequate data, therefore, KLD's computations regarding time estimates to complete evacuation must ,

seriously be called into questiion.

i 1

l

? -

For reasonsfset forth above, the KLD'ETE~

' fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequatesprotective< measures can or willibe

. implemented in the event.of' radiological emergency.

Revised' Contention III of the Town of Hampton to-Evacuation LTime Estimate Report by KLD.hssociates, Inc., May 23,s1986, at p p '. 4-10, admitted-per. Board Memorandum and order of July 16,.

J1987'at 7..

-(A) Population' Estimates.

KLD. lacks adequate' data to compute the, permanent.and' transient population:for'the' TownLof-Hampton since KLD computes beach

, . population capacities:by' examining.only the

' beach above'the high tide.line, Vol. 6,.

p. 2-12; counts parking spaces rather than motor vehicles,.. including vehicles in

' transit,.Vol. 6, p. 2-1; counts beach ..

blankets rather than' people, Vol. 6, p. 2-12; utilizes a vehicle occupancy rate of :2.4 based upon two " field surveys" performed.on weekends of frequent rain and poor beach weather, Vol. 6, p. 1-10; and counts ~ beach populations using a limited number.of.

photographs, of unspecified'date or time, although_KLD concedes the beach populations-vary widely, depending on weather, time of' day, and day to day. Vol. 6, p. 2-10. KLD thereby unreasonably reduces the actual population for.the Town of Hampton and

. distorts this " critical" factor in computing ETE. Vol. 6, p. 2-1.

(B)' Weather Conditions. l Nhile recognizing that weather represents a " major factor" affecting ETE, Volume 6, p. l 3-1 and 2, KLD concedes that it has " limited empirical data on the effect of adverse. ]

y weather conditions.to. reduce ETE." Vol. 6,

p. 3-1. KLD proceeds to arbitrarily reduce 1 the ETE for rain and snow conditions for the

.Seabrook EPZ by 20 and 25 percent respectively, Vol. 6, p. 3-11, although KLD f lacks any site specific data on the extent of 1 delay caused by these road hazards.- KLD 1 acknowledges the " issue of ocean fog," yet 1 i

e __ __________-__-___--_ _ ___- _ _

r,. _ _ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1

fails to provide.any data!on'the-impact of

. fog?on.ETE,.Vol..'6,'p. 3-11', and fails to-

' respond to RAC concerns regar' ding wind' changes, which'may~ require contingencies for the redirection.of evacuation-vehicles,;New

' Hampshire Response Actions to RAC Review,:

August, 1986,Section VI, op. 7, 12, (hereinafter'RAC' Review, August, 1986) with additional delay to traffic and an increase in ETE. KLD does not even estimate the effec,t of-ice storms-on ETE.

(C) Road Capacities..

When computing the " major factor" of_ road network capacity,.and its impact on the. time required to effectuate an evacuation, Vol. 6,

p. 3-1,1KLD makes numerous and unsupported asccmptions including:.

'1. All roads will remain passable durinq  !

evacuation. Vol. 6, p. 10-70._ This assumption ignores the obvious and anticipated vehicle breakdowns, gas shortages, overheating of vehicles, roadways becoming impassable from snow or ice storms, grid 1~ock-between evacuating private vehicles,-

commuters,-and emergency' vehicles _ attempting

'to enter the EPZ, and' snowplow operators-who

~ i

, either refuse to plow during radiological l emergency or are' unable to reach their designated routes due to evacuation traffic congestion.

2. .KLD assumes that the." recommended traffic control tactics are in effect."

Vol. 6, p. 10-70. This assumption is insupportable in view of the avowed position of the Town of Hampton, and other towns within the EPZ, not to implement the NHRERP if called upon to do so. The assumption is further insupportable following RAC Exercise Assessment and Review of the NHRERP which

" cast (s) doubt" on the State's ability to provide adequate evacuation transportation.

RAC Review, August, 1986, 9.

Finally, the State has fai;Section led to demonstrate VI, p.

an ability to provide sufficient law enforcement and traffic control personnel, FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86 at ,l l

l 1 - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _____ ___________- __-.__ _ __________ _ m

u. i I td o

lp. 46M tofcompensate for non-participating towns. Accordingly, KLD's reliance upon the

. State to supply adequate equipment and;  ;

personnel 1for traffic control management is.

without reasonable-foundation. l 1

3. KLD assumes-that'3,000 "through"-

vehicles-will be traveling through the EPZ at the time of notification of an emergency.

Vol. 6,1p. 10-3.- No support is provided for 1

~n, this assumption,:which is rendered absurd by. -)

'KLD's own calculation.of " peak hourly flow" l on I-95-of 6,912 vehicles. Vol. 6, p. 3-11. d Since I-95 represents only one road within' J the 200 square mile ~EPZ, the 3,000 "through"

, Evehic19 estimate represents a gross

. distortion of roadw&j demand.

4.;,KLD concedes that its " estimates of' 'j available capacity may. overstate the actual 1 accessible _ capacity.": Vol. 6, p. 10-70. KLD thereby. admits'that ite. highway capacities relied upon to compute ETE, and which

' represent a " major factor" to calculate the time required ~for evacuation, Vol. 6, p. 3-1, would generate an unreasonably low ETE, and would not reflect' actual conditions.

5.. KLD unreasonably assumes that 25 percent of the EPZ population will spontaneously evacuate, Vol. 6', p. 10-3, and

. estimates Hampton' employees who work at the beach, both during the week and on weekends,

Vol. 6, p. 5-6, apparently by simple guess work. .KLD thereby lacks adequate data to compute road demand for Hampton employees during evacuation or to compute ETE when partial evacuation of the EPZ is ordered.

6. .KLD fails to adequately account for the impact of. disabled vehicles on reducing ETE. Given the thousands of vehicles to be ~i evacuated, numerous disabled vehicles must be anticipated. KLD's claim that such vehicles will simply be pushed aside by evacuees, without impacting on ETE, is insupportable.

Vol. 6, p. 12-4.

l-Li - _ _ _ _ . - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

mg . . ' -

V, ,

f i (D)iETE. Preparation Time..

-Without statistical support, KLD assumes Ethatn90 percent"of the EFZ. population Will be notified of1an~ emergency within 151 minutes, Voli 6, p. .4-8, assumes that beachgoers.will'

be able'to leaverthe beach'and access.their cars within-30. minutes, Vol. 6, p. 4-12, although-KLD-concedes it has "no empirical

~

data to support this distribution," Vol. 6, n p.c4-11,1 fails to allow for " staging area preparation time" as, recommended:by the RAC

.in computing ETE, RAC Review, August, 1986,Section VI, p. 10, and grossly underestimates

'the adverse-impact on ETE of'95' percent of workers' returning home, within 30; minutes, to prepare for evacuation following notice.of radiological emergency. Vol. 6, p. 4-9.

(E) Growth. -- I KLD recognizes the "significant growth" in -

employment'within the Town of Hampton between 1980 and 1984. .Vol.~6,-p. 5-1. It is also  !

common knowledge that the southern New Hampshire population,-including-the-

' population;of the'EPZ, is one of the fastest'

, growing in the country. In computing ETE, however,'KLD has wholly failed to account for this reasonably anticipated and' substantial.

growth in population and motor vehicles within the--EPZ, has failed to'obtain any data on projected changes-in population-distribution within-the EPZ, and has otherwise presented a plan which, even assuming its, accuracy at the present time, will soon be outdated and will not serve as a reasonable basis for emergency planning.

(F) Choice of Host Locations.

i KLD unreasonably assumes that evacuees will choose lto evacuate to.their assigned host communities. The assumption is insupportable, particularly in view of.the large number of-beachgoers and transients within the EPZ during the summer who may be wholly unfamiliar with such host communities as Dover or Manchester. But see, Vol. 6, p.

10 (" virtually all drivers" familiar with EPZ L_____-___-__

roads).- Indeed, during the evacuation exercise, even bus drivers under letter agreement " consistently experienced problems in getting to where they should be needed,"

FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86 at p.

43, and the RAC has recommended that KLD increase ETE to allow for " drivers getting lost or misdirected." RAC Review, August, 1986,Section VI, p. 12. Accordingly, if Hampton Beach transients chose to evacuate to

' Massachusetts or to Maine (as might be more logical) rather than to Manchester (as assigned), already crowded evacuation routes would be rendered impassable by the additional traffic and ETE thereby would be substantially increased. KLD has thereby selected a theoretically optimal, yet unrealistic, model to minimize ETE.

Contentions of the Town of Hampton to New Hampshi're Radiological-Emergency Response Plan Revision 2, October-31, 1986 (Revised Contention III to Revision 2), at.pp. 9-16, admitted per B ,afd Memoradum and Order -of May 18, 1987 at 15.

i Revised SAPL Contention No. 31:

The evacuation time estimate report, as described in Volume 6 of NHRERP Rev. 2 does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1),

S 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.2, II.J.10 i, 10 h and 10 1, and Appendix 4 because it fails to account properly for the number of vehicles that would be evacuating the EPZ; relies in part upon unsupported assumptions; relies in part upon potentially biased input data; does not rely upon an extensive enough empirical base; relies upon traffic control personnel not shown to be available; does not appropriately account for travel impediments such as flooding, snow, fog and icing of roadways; does not account for the effect of driver disobedience on evacuation time estimates (ETEs); does not appropriately deal with topographical features; does not deal realistically with the transport of transit j dependent persons; in some instances i overestimates roadway capacity and, for all of l these reasons, underestimates the amount of time it would take to evacuate the EPZ and its subparts (" Regions) under the various scenarios i analyzed.

Appendix, Board's Memorandum and Order, May 18, 1987 at

p. 4.

Admitted Bases:

1. This latest revision of the KLD Report now notes that 3,000 "through" vehicles will be in the EPZ highway network at the time of the order to evacuate (Vol. 6, pp. 2-27 and 10-3).

This estimate of 3,000 through vehicles at any -

one time is unsupported since in 1985, traffic levels on I-95 alone in New Hampshire exceeded 99,000 vehicles per day, many of which were '

through vehicles. The size of the Seabrook Station EPZ is roughly 200 square miles (Vol. 6,

p. 4-2). It is clear that the number of vehicles chosen by KLD significantly underestimates roadway demand. This error is particularly serious in the beach areas during the summer season. The lack of appropriate consideration of cars in the roadway system contributes to the serious underestimate by KLD of vehicles in the beach area. Though the KLD Report states that a total of 3000 cars were

1

'i 7

w<

coun'edlin-the t roadway from aerial-films.in

.Hampton. Beach, there:is no statement as to when

" ~ , Ethose photographs were taken or by whom they wereitaken1(Vo1~.-6,ip. 10-16). It-is not even Tclear-that-KLD has factored the 3,000 estimate

.into'its' time 6 estimate calculations'since the estimate 11s found'in a section captioned.

" Uncertainties."

2.;'The KLD. Report continues to rely:upon NRC estimates' compiled in;a report.by M. Kaltman:in February ~1981 for estimate-of vehicles.per dwelling at seasonal. housing units (Vol. 6,

p. 2-14), the count of overnight accommodation units (Vol. 6, p. 2-17), and numbers of' vehicles at campgrounds 1(Vol. 6, p. 2-17), and' numbers of e . vehicles at. campgrounds (Vol. 6, p. 2-20).

These numbers are unlikely to have a high reliability given the significant growth that has occurred-in the EPZ area over the past 5

. years.

3.

~

The KLD Report has. failed to make any provision nfor. resident and employee population growth in the area over the plant's projected lifespan. . Population redistribution in the area could also markedly affect evacuation time estimates-(ETEs)'for various regions.in the EPZ. At c!1rrent rates of growth, resident populations.will increase over.70% and' employment will increase to an even greater degree over this time span. The result will be that the ETEs set out in-this report will rapidly be rendered obsolescent, even.if one were'to assume:that they are currently correct.

4. The KLD Study continues unrealistically to assume that traffic management and control measures are in effect at the time'the evac'u'ation is ordered (Vol. 6, p. 10-70 and Appendix I).- This is a wholly unrealistic assumption even if one were to assume that all local communities were intending to implement the emergency plan. Seven towns did not ,

participate in the graded FEMA exercise on i February 26, 1986. -Under many plausible i scenarios, state resources and manpower, even if l adequate,-could not be mobilized quickly enough q R

to be in place in the non-participating or even the participating communities before it would be j i

l i

L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ______.____

j

necessary.to order an evacuation. The sensitivity calculation by KLD that an immediate General Emergency would' extend ETE by only 20-30 minutes is non-persuasive and the assumptions employed in doing'that sensitivity study are not carefully elucidated.

5. The KLD " planning-basis" accident scenario assumes that there are two temporally displaced evacuation stages, i.e., the rest of the EPZ starts to evacuate 25 minutes after those in the beach areas (Vol. 6, p. 4-17).

This is not a realistic assumption because many people will choose to leave the areas when they see the beach people going by, particularly a given the heightened awarenesc of radiation '

health effects resultant upon the extensive news coverage of the Chernobyl accident. There is no empirical' basis shown for the KLD Report's 25  ;

percent spontaneous evacuation rate among those within the EPZ but not ordered to evacuate (Vol.

6, p. 10-3). The KLD Report fails to account for those beyond the EPZ who may spontaneously  !

evacuate, taking up roadway capacity beyond.the zone and thereby impeding evacuation progress out of the EPZ.

6. The KLD Study relies upon potentially i biased input data in that the telephone survey of " heads of households" provides a substantial portion of the data used. This survey involved calls to over 10,000 households, yet resulted in only 1,300 completed responses (Vol. 6, Appendices F and G). Given the low response rate and the fact that no efforts were made to validate the responses, a large non-response j bias exists in the completed data sample. There is, therefore, no reasonable basis for assuming that the notification times, estimates of times to commence evacuation trips, estimates of average person occupancy of vehicles evacuating the EPZ or other data derived from tre survey are accurate (Vol. 6, p. 2-3, Exhibit 2-1 and Chapter 4).

7. Further, the " Time to Travel Home" data derived from the telephone survey (Vol. 6, p.

4-10) is of limited, if any, utility. Question

1. 9 of the telephone survey. asked: Approximately how long does it take Commuter #(-) to travel home from work or college?" This question as 1

q q

p l

p p

framed elicitsjairesponse'about how'longlit

.take's the commuter.to return-home under normal 1

' Circumstances. Under the circumstances'of an evacuation,'however, commuters will be returning-home partly?against the direction of evacuating- j traffic, through intersections with. cones

' blocking ~ desired turning movements, and partly

.with the flow of evacuating traffic in massive queues. The effect: of almost 95 percent-of the commuting' population attempting to return home within 30 minutes of each other (Vol. 6,.p. 4-9)-

would be a massive ruch hour even without an evacuation in' progress. The assumption _that

-commuting workers can return home in.their normal time frames defies common sense and is insupportable from an analytic standpoint.

8. The KLD Report still relies upon Traffic Guides'for Traffic Control Posts (TCP) and Access. Control Posts (ACP). 181 local and 10 interstate traffic guides.are needed for the TCP, 118'of whom are needed in New Hampshire (Vol. 6,. Table 8-6). An additional 130 personnel are needed at the ACP, 28 of whom are needed in New Hampshire (Vol. 6,. Table 9-4),-

bringing the total New Hampshire-traffic.

personnel requirement to 146. The NHRERP still does not support a' finding that these personnel

.will be:available in adequate numbers.

9. The KLD Report still continues to assume that all roads will remain passable during evacuation (Vol. 6, p. 10-70). This assumption is insupportable as it denies the realistic potential for vehicle problems either due to mechanical malfunctions or extremes of temperature. The KLD Study acknowledges that I temperatures in the EPZ range "from well below zero (F) in the winter to as high as'100 degrees (P) in the summer" (Vol. 6, p. 1-8) and then ignores the implications of the statement for vehicle reliability. The KLD Study assumes that all vehicles with problems can be pushed to the side of the roadway. This ignores the bridges and.other choke points within the EPZ, such as I the entry onto' Route 51 (a major evacuation route from the beach) which could be totally obstructed by one failed vehicle. In those situtations no easy solution could be effected since there is no place to push the vehicle.

Even if a vehicle is pushed onto the shoulder, 1

'(

the Highway Capacity Manual estimates that capacity is reduced by one-third because the roadway's perceived width is reduced. The KLD plan unrealistically assumes that no reductions in capacity or increases in travel times will result from these incidences of vehicle failure. The KLD plan recommends stationery placement of tow trucks at locations specified in Table 12-1. However, the NHRERP does not

. reflect this specific assignment of tow trucks to specific locations. Further, the KLD Report gives no estimate of how long it would take a tow vehicle to respond to an incident and then return to its assigned location. Only 2 of the recommended tow truck locations are within the EPZ in New hampshire (Vol. 6, Table 12-1).

Vehicles could also be disabled by exhaustion of fuel supply or accident. The KLD Report assumes that most accidents will involve vehicles traveling at low speeds and that therefore.they will not result in vehicle disablement (Vol. 6, p. 12-3). However, the KLD Report does not assume that all traffic flow is low speed in that buses are assumed to travel from 40 to 50 MPH (Vol. 6, p. 11-20). The KLD Report still does not appropriately account for flooding, excessive snow, fog and icing of roadways. It now makes only passing mention of fog (Vol. 6, p. 3-11) and indicates that the capacity reductions for snow and rain are '

responsive to the problem. The KLD estimates of capacity reduction for' rain are, as SAPL stated before, too optimistic. This new version has changed the capacity reduction for snow to 25%

from the 30% stated earlier, a move in the wrong direction. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual cites detailed studies which show capacity reductions of 8% for a trace snowfall plus 2.8%

for each 0.01 in./hr. water-equivalent snowfall. For a snowstorm accumulating 6" of snow over 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, the corresponding capacity reduction would be over 40%; substantially more than assumed in KLD's analysis. Flooding could render a section of roadway wholly impassible.

l 10. [ Basis denied by Board Order of May 18, 1987]

L

(' ' q h- <

C H_ 11. -The KLD. Report now does containl maps

$., ' including topographical features,1but the time LJtimate; study does not account for these 1 features'other thanito make brief mention of them-(Vol. 6, p. 1-5). The effect on time

' estimates of.the'more hilly topography west.of I-95.and the effect of the-choke-points at bridges,over rivers and streams have been ignored.

12 '.- The mobilization time-for buses has been modified in this Revision 2 version of the KLD Report. It is now claimed on the basis of a telephone survey of the organizations which own and operate the busesLthat 50%'of available buses (as. opposed to the earlier 62%) can be mobilized'within one hour of notification, and another 30% within the second hour r with the remainder following in the_tnit' . hour (Vol. 6, p; 11-19). :The survey inenrument and the' data on the'-replies ~are not.includ+td-in the appendices of'the report.

During off business hours, in particular, the response _ rate could not reasonably be expected to be anywhere near this favorable.

13 . . The-revised KLD Report now computes.the number of persont, within the EPZ having no vehicles available and requiring transit services at 2,249, or 2.5%~of the 91,601 pepulation in the 17 towns in New Hampshire.

Again, KLD has moved in the wrong direction in reeducing the-prior estimate of 3%. The basis of KLD's calculation was the telephone survey,.the problems with which were discussed at 6. above.

This estimate is now less credible than it was heretofore. In Section'VI of the "New Hampshire Response Actions to RAC Review of State and 1 Local Radiological Emergency Response' Plans -

August 1986," (hereinafter " Reply to RAC"), _the RAC commented that the vehicle ownership data should be compared to census data. KLD responded that though the 1980 census data showed that 5.5% of all households have no car available, a 2.65% estimate is reasonable "in light of the expansion of car ownership during the intervening years." (Reply to RAC., p. 3).

The RAC rebutted this position with national car ownership statistics and KLD came back with the reply that only site-specific data are relevant

forfplanning purposes-(Reply to RAC, pp. 4-5).

KLD's reply is unpersuasive because of the i

problems noted with regard to the telephone survey at-6. above. Unreliable site specific data are not better than the national data. KLD I

attempts to shore up its argument by referring to the NHCDA survey, which arrived at a similar number. The allegedly corroborative data has its own. reliability problems. SAPL holds that the number of those requiring transport assistance has been seriously underestimated.

14. The revised KLD report now estimates the time for loading passengers at special f a c i l i t i e s a t '4 5 m i n u t e s ( V e l . 6 , p . 11-21).

They assume that the average elderly or disabled person can board a bus in a 15 second mean headway. SAPL.still finds this an unrealistically short period of time for loading special facility populations along with their necessary personal effects and medications. The estimate of time for loading non-ambulatory persons, previously 0.67 hours7.75463e-4 days <br />0.0186 hours <br />1.107804e-4 weeks <br />2.54935e-5 months <br />, appears to have been omitted from this revised KLD Report.

There is still no estimate of the number of non-ambulatory persons outside of special facilities.

15. Though the revised KLD Report states s that substantial detail on roadway geometrics was collected (Vol. 6, p . 1-10), the rural roads were classified into only 4 crude groups (Vol.

6, p. 3-7 and 3-8). The detailed data collected should confirm that all sections of each roadway i included in a given class have minimum widths I greater than or equal to those assumed. This j has not been demonstrated. ]

16. [ Basis denied by Board Order of May 18, 1987]

17. The calculation increasing the number of k people by 6% because the average vehicle is out  ;

of service 6% of the time is not correct. A

{

proper calculation would increase the number of J

permanent residents needing transit by more than 1 6% (Vol. 6, pp. 11-8 and 11-9) based on data in Figures 2-2 and 2-3.

18. The simulation model employed by KLD appears to have some serious defects:

u-y - - -

F e' ,

a y a f?

(a)iIt is unclear howytraffic control information is handled '

I in the actual simulation and '

. produced the results in j' Appendices I and N. As an example, Appendix N.seems to- \

imply that 1,500 cars can enter node #1 (Vol. 6, p. I-49) from '

d, .

each of-three directions. >

ti f

To resolve questions, a "

sample derivation of link '

?

capacities should be included  !

for one simple and one more complex link. A sample of  :

actual flow at a crowded 1 intersection, showing all inputs, outputs and queues should also be included.

(b) Loading procedures are not  ;

, described in much detail. The (

full loading results at one "

major loading point should be c -

Lincluded, j 1

(c) It appears that a substantial amount of passing has been assumed since a factor of fd = 0.75 x (0.90) = 0.675 i

,'is used to get one way from twc; way capacity.

l (d) Appendix I shows light traffic on many':rbads. ;It is ,

not-clear how, i f a t' a ll , t he's e light traffic patterns'have been treated in'the simulation model. j

19. The estimate of 2.6 people per vehicle l for permanent residents is unrealistic, I particularly for the first hour when people will 1 I

be returning home or picking up family members ]

(Vol. 6, p. 2-5). The data from the actual l counts of vehicle occupancy collected in August l 1985 and July 4 weekend in 1986 do not support ,

i this estimate (Vol. 6, pp. 4-6 and 4-8).  !

4

_____m_ _ -_

Tii ' , ,

W. ,

m L20. .The KLDLReport lacks:a-sufficient

, empirical. base.-forxcomputing'the' transient populationLin;the EPZ. LKLD'should have taken '

extensive aerial photographs of the area during the height of.the beach season. The reliance upon indirecc inferences from beach blanket-space and' parking spaces inLindefensible when:

the real picture:could have been taken in a systematic-end thorough fashion.

. For.all of the above-stated reasons,-the'KLD Reportiin VolumeL6 of NHRERP'Rev. 2 fails to provide a aufficientLbasis for a finding of reasonable' assurance that the public can and J will'be-protectedJin the event of a radiological' 16- emergency.

"3' Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's' Contentions on Revision 2'of thelNew Hampshire Radiological. Response Plan,.Nov. 26, 1986, at pp. 7 - 1 "i (Revised' Contention 31), as admitted per Board Memorandum and Order of'May 18, 1907, at 44.

The KLD. study--has overestimated the capacity of certain roads and intersections. For example, Route 1A N/S is classified as~a " Medium" design road (See y KLD Progress.Reonet No. 1, ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAYfCAPACITY, P. 46). Route'lA N/S is.

.in some places'very narrow, has a steep d =g grade'along atl lease one section and winds along certain sections. 'It'has at at least

'two points almost right angle. turns. It-should be treated as a low design road.. The.

1. - traffic from'the beach. area.of'Hampton is to get off the beach by turning left on either Highland Ave. or Church St. .and then

, , traveling west bound on Rt 51. Alternate routes for each beach population all involve travel north on Route'lA with left turns at

"; either 101C, 101D, South Road or Washington Road. The capacities of Highland Ave. and Church St.. Will quickly be overwhelmed so

.that people will need to go north on 1A in large numbers. The overestimate of the capacity of Route 1A therefore can have very serious implications for accuracy of the ETE.

Geacoast Anti-Pollution League's Fourth Supplemental Petition For Leave To Intervene, dated May 5, 1986 (contention 31), at cp. 11, as admitted per Board Memorandum and Order of July 16, 1987 at 12.

r-

.4 .i i l.;;..

?.1 ATTACHMENT 3

5.-  ;'.;t.

b '; .

1 I; ' [. '4l I' [/ M N I~, Traffic Control Post No. B-AM-06 ERPA: B

. Town: Amesbury .

't

,1,0 CATION : I-95 & noute 110 '

NODC: 25.1, 255 k l

I-95

\

w. N N

g Q XX X '- %

/ \,

Macy Street ( if((  ! }

/-

Route 110 To I-495

\

of

, g

• __ gj [

\

Ogooo@ooo m -

N1\_

N ~ ~From E

-g [h- E 7_ ___ -

A Salis:

LicN: *

-s lk--N -.

w / -

--- ~ ~

\ . kh4 .

Nc[Has  % 1

$ugts$2 hovemed 9

Lev ny

> Movement facilit;. ed ' V8#l

>l Movement discouraged Light O Traffic guide O Traffic cone '

X Traffic barricade DESCRIPTION: 1. Discourage eastbound movement along Route 110 and northbound movement along I-95.

2. Facilitate movement of traffic from Route 110 onto southboy d I-95,

3. Permit allTbound movement along Route 110 if Macy street itANPOWCl</LQUIP. VENT approach to I-495 is not congested.

4 traffic quides 10 traffic cones 12 trsffic barricades I-19

. (i. 'I 1

ATTACHMENT 4' p

.-h___.m._-_____________.____._m__ -_ _ . _ _ _ ___._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _

l Ceder, A., and May, A.D.: "Ft2rther Evaluation of Single- and IWRegime Traffic Flow Models," Transportation Research Record 567, pp. 1-15, 1976. l IIIll11l l ll l 1l ll l l l ll l l l ll l_

2500 -

SINGLE-REGIME MODELS 2000 [

A'/ERAGE NON-SM FREEWAY LANE 3 AVERAGE-SHOULDER LANE --

_- TUNNEL LANE, )

1500 -

i 4

: I tooo -

a soo -

.c ci  :

2 o  ! l l , l ,

g 2500_ I

_a TWO-REGIME MODELS

u. _ _

2000 -_

Mudu 4BM4 1500 -_ _

GE'l M

BW W

1000 -_

g _

8"" j M

500 -

N I''I'I'I ' I

Oo ' ' ' 50 10 0 150 200 250 CONCENTRATION (V.p.m.)

(osuscry)

FIG.2 TYPICAL SINGLE- AND TWO-REGIME MODELS

-_____________.._m_____

- - , - - , - - - , , - - - , , - , - - , - - - - - ---- - - , - - - , - - - - - - - , - - - - - - , - - - - - - - , , - - - ------,---,r--,- , - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - ----.------,,,-,-n--r-- - - , - ,

7 - - - - - - - - ,

I l'

O

-ATTACHMENT 5

Cedes, A. and Schwarts, A.:

Characteristics During tbrningro Freeway," Peak Pe i d" Dynamic ow Change

p. 137, May 1978. Transportation Research InstituteConditions on an

, Pub. No. 78-5, s

7:00 b(1A 0 NN88 2 000- a, E-sg_17

-R - )t

( ,

f f d.m

\

\

1 000 -

t q

~

7:50 a

.m.

E -

Q_

-t 600o.m.

u i i l i i I 45 e i 1 '

90 e i 135 100 _

DensiG-lc (Vf*)

Ap. 3. FbW- Densi$y d*N fd-

u ATTACHMENT 6 4

i 1

4'

" Planning and Scheduling Work Zone Traffic Control," FHWA-IP-81-6, User Guide, prepared by Abrams, C.M., Wang, J.J., JHK Associates, San Francisco, U.S. Departrent of Transportation, October 1981.

Table 1. . Typical Speeds in Congested Freeway Work Zones Number of Lanes Number of Lanes Average Space in Queue Section Closed Travel Speed Headway (Upstream of Bottleneck) (at bottleneck) (in mph) (feet / vehicle) 4 0 21 76 1 9 47 2 4 38 3 3 35 3 0 25 85 1 8 46 2 3 35 2 0 30 98 1 6 40 Source: Developed from California Speed-Density Relationship and Work Zone Capacities.

4

j ;. t i e

F } j ,-

ATTACHMENT 7 I

1 e_-___[_._____.____.__

" Planning and Scheduling Work Zone Traffic Control," FHWA-IP-81-6, User Guide, prepared by Abrams, C.M., Wang, J.J., JHK Associates, San Francisco, U.S. Department of Transportation, October 1981.

=====-

7 List K((P CLO$t0 4  % RlLE 53 "'8Hi c.

ces =Cn. -

Egrg, cme,um i mit m0un DO 1

$ TRIP!nc

- W .d W > ,y, $ f" ie_: mi. inoo sano ,m*,toncuaaet

-\N% a ';_ ; 'g i '

>>;S PP p g s a s.

n M

F 7- t F ~ liLL ,1 g )

+ \--

=*m- -Q{V////) f/j * -

/ --N----

-\

et 3 *\v v (9'g!" 3 $'sfo O Tubular Markers Arrow a.ard te 1 15# ' (50' spacing) C"'*"*l 15T LaNI Closto n .

30A0 4 " '

CLOSED 40AD C

% go pg CLOSED Computation of Traffic Control Costs N m 12 48' x 48" w/ flashers a aere, e.a i Type 8 9 3.75 = $ 45.00 Q r i e 5 1 ** 4 - 48" a 48" 9 1.00 a 4.00 u 5+i Tsw e 2 - 36" a 36" 9 .90 e 1.80 i 5 - 30" a 30" # .75 e 3.75 J 3 24" s 24" 9 .50 = 1.50 I 1 48" x 18" # .75 = .75 2 - 48" a 30* 9 ',90 = 1.80 -f1 5 - 24" a 30" 9 .50 = 2.50 1 2 60" a 24" 91.00 = 2.00 j Channeliriac Devices 104 Iype !!! barricades ]

w/ steady burn Type C 0 2.00 = 208.00 3 Arrow Boards 9 50.00 = 150.00 I

Note. Teeperary markin9s fests11ed by put'1tC agency. Cost Of ConstruC. hih"h # b 'h a 98 E tiigf the Cros10Wer lettions not I0141 Cost per day $519.10 j

included. Use $520.00/ day Figure 4 Rural Freeway (Spawd-55 mph)

L l

l

--,,---,,,,m,,,. , , - --,r-------,-- - - , ,-,,,, ,- -- ,, -,-,-- -----r,,----- ,--- --- - - -- ----, - - - - - , - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - , - -- - , , - - - - - - - - , - , , - , - -

h

) '

4 f'

ATTACHMENT 8

,'T',

0

- 0

- l- - - - 0

[>af l. 2 i

0 1 0 81 w l i lo 0 u r x of a f

i0 d l e '

6 1 h -

t e c i h/ 2 I

s h e 1

_ 0 0 e r e e _4I v g v t p n i q

1 o t

_O c l u O m 1_ 2 f a _

l* - - - _0 5 _0 0 5 0 5 0 2 1 2 1 1

0 o o 3u

- Ex 5>e "NooO-4 0

- - 0

- - - 0 2

I

' - ' t 0

- 0

"~,

~,

- 0 1 i a ,

h0 -0 w - -

' a 8 54 o - -n '

l f l e ,

ic - '

e,

, e h - e o -

0 r

)

r I

e e -

r - 0 u a v

f e

- - ' w2 hof-1 i

e

/ 2 lgt l l

a - -a h in uto - 8-e r I

s mt , T0 0 (

v ep oe "

" o- 9 g e

- O' I

= " (i 006 OD, o \ e l

0 g 0

\ Oo 3

\ -

q- - - - - _

5 0 0 5 0 5 2 2 2 1 0 o

~E Ie> e o N ooo %y'

( w >y-

..+. , j J!c i i J la t

i I

4 ATTACHMENT 9 k

(

I' e

u L

10 0 , , , , ,

2000 _

,. 80 -

1750 q =1500 __

C' 60 --

o -

,O u 40 -

g _

multi-vehicle (congested-flow) _

, 20 '

C , .

o _ i 10 0 ' '

'O 80 -

._ 500

{

E 60 -

q=300 _

s O 40 --

~

g 20 multi-vehicle ( f ree- flow ) _

o

10 0 5- -

10 0 i l 1 1 80 -

300 10 0

[ -

3 1500 -

] -

500~ 1000 -

3 60 - q=700 -

O o _

8. 40 - _

single-vehicle (f ree-flow) 20 - -

0 ' '

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 3

m ( 10 vsH-HR..)

Fig. 6: The resultant relationship between the probability for at least one accident and m for various q (veh/ hour) values.

l

(

I i

I

' ATTACHMENT 10 i

l TABLE 2. NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS PER DAY (1983 MASS DATA) l Road Surface Condition Location Station Good Bad Ratio (dry, wet) (snowy, icy) (bad, good)

Route 12, North of Rt.- 62 0.0028 0.1835 (65.5)*

MASS. Route 8 & 9, West STATE of Dalton 0.0706 0.1835 2.6

. HIGHWAYS Route 202, South Hadley 0.0311 0.0917 2.9 Route 10 & 202, Southwick 0.5370 0.1835 3.4 Route 14~0, Boylston 0.0508 0.0 (0)*

Route 140, Norton 0.0280 0.0917 (32.7)*

Route 44, Plymouth 0.0169 0.0917 5.4 Route 18, East Bridgewater 0.0395 0.0917 2.3 I-91, Deerfield 0.0085 0.4587 5.4 I-495, Bolton 0.0311 0.2752 (8.8)*

MASS. .

I-95, Georgetown 0.0226 0.4587 2.6 '

INTERSTATE I-290, Worcester 0.4123 1.2840 3.1 HIGHWAYS I-91, Springfield 0.2429 1.6510 6.8 I-195, Seekonk 0.0537 0.1835 3.4 I-495, Southborough 0.0028 0.3670 (131.1)* l' I-495, Haverhill 0.1525 1.4680 (9.6)*

Route 128, Danvers 0.0650 0.0917 1.4 I-95, Attleboro 0.0960 0.3670 3.8

• Deleted.

.- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _