ML20151N919: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot change
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:S                                                                 C0CKETED g (3T                                                                   USNRC l
{{#Wiki_filter:S C0CKETED g (3T USNRC RELATED CORRESR$43,3
RELATED CORRESR$43,3         '88 APR 19 Pl2:18 OFFICE Gi Wo.:1M f DATE: April 20GXE1988 mw.E BRMILH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of                           )
'88 APR 19 Pl2:18 OFFICE Gi Wo.:1M f DATE:
                                                  )
April 20GXE1988 mw.E BRMILH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY               )   Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
                                                  )   (Emergency Planning)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Stat'cn,           )
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
                                                  )
)
Unit 1)                                   )
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
                                                )
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DAVID T. HARTGEN, Ph.D., P.E., ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK REGARDING BOSPITAL EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES I. Qualifications and Foundation Q. Please state your name and occupation.
(Emergency Planning)
A. My name is David T. Hartgen.       I currently am employed by the New York State Department of Transportation as a Principal l       Transportation Analyst.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Stat'cn,
)
)
Unit 1)
)
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DAVID T. HARTGEN, Ph.D.,
P.E.,
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK REGARDING BOSPITAL EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES I.
Qualifications and Foundation Q.
Please state your name and occupation.
A.
My name is David T. Hartgen.
I currently am employed by the New York State Department of Transportation as a Principal l
Transportation Analyst.
t l
t l
l       Q. Please provide a brief description of your qualifications.                   '
l Q.
i A. My professional career spans approximately 20 years.
Please provide a brief description of your qualifications.
Throughout this period, I have developed extensive experience l
i A.
with transportation planning matters, including traffic time 8804260043 880413 PDR T
My professional career spans approximately 20 years.
ADOCK 05000322 PDR bg])
Throughout this period, I have developed extensive experience with transportation planning matters, including traffic time l
8804260043 880413 bg])
PDR ADOCK 05000322 T
PDR


a l
a estimates nd methods for computing such estimates in an accurate manner.
i l
I also have developed extensive expetience in the field of information systems management.
estimates   nd methods for computing such estimates in an accurate manner.
As part of my duties with the New York State Department of Transportation, I have been responsible for the collection and analysis of transportation statistics pertaining to the State of New York's highways.
I also have developed extensive expetience in the field of information systems management. As part of my duties with the New York State Department of Transportation, I have been responsible for the collection and analysis of transportation statistics pertaining to the State of New York's highways. I have been directly involved in assessing the performance of various aspects of the State's highway system, including assessing traffic speeds, traffic volumes and highway capacities.
I have been directly involved in assessing the performance of various aspects of the State's highway system, including assessing traffic speeds, traffic volumes and highway capacities.
Consequently, I am familiar with the use of sophisticated computerized transportation models.
Consequently, I am familiar with the use of sophisticated computerized transportation models.
I have written more than 100 transportation-related articles and reports, more than half of which have been published in various professional journals. I have served on or chaired over 20 professional panels and committees on transportation issues.
I have written more than 100 transportation-related articles and reports, more than half of which have been published in various professional journals.
I have served on or chaired over 20 professional panels and committees on transportation issues.
In addition, I am an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Albany, where I assisted in establishing a transportation studies program and where I teach courses related to transportation analysis.
In addition, I am an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Albany, where I assisted in establishing a transportation studies program and where I teach courses related to transportation analysis.
I have been found to be an expert qualified to testify on matters related to evacuation time estimates in two Shoreham j proceedings:   the 1984 emergency planning hearings and the 1987 reception center hearings I submitted testimony and defended my i
I have been found to be an expert qualified to testify on matters related to evacuation time estimates in two Shoreham j
views on cross-examination in both hearings. As a result of my l participation in those proceedings, I became familiar with the l
proceedings:
the 1984 emergency planning hearings and the 1987 reception center hearings I submitted testimony and defended my i
views on cross-examination in both hearings.
As a result of my l
participation in those proceedings, I became familiar with the l
2 l
2 l
l t
l t
Line 49: Line 71:
evidence and testimony sponsored by LILCO and KLD Associates, Inc., concerning evacuation time estimates for Shoreham.
evidence and testimony sponsored by LILCO and KLD Associates, Inc., concerning evacuation time estimates for Shoreham.
A copy of my resume is Attachment 1 herein.
A copy of my resume is Attachment 1 herein.
Q. What material have you examined concerning LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates?
Q.
A. I have reviewed portions of Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan pertinent to LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates, particularly OPIP 3.6.5 and parts of Appendix A of the Plan.       I also have reviewed a stack of hundreds of handwritten worksheets underlying the hospital evacuation time estimates prepared by or under the supervision of Mr. Sobotka (a LILCO consultant) and transmitted to the State of New York under cover of a {{letter dated|date=February 29, 1988|text=letter dated February 29, 1988}}.       Other LILCO Plan materials that I have examined include certain draft revisions to Revision 8, dated February 20, 1987, which were submitted in connection with the 1987 reception center proceedings, and Mr. Lieberman's testimony in that proceeding regarding, in particular, average travel speeds.
What material have you examined concerning LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates?
In addition, I have reviewed "LILCO's Motion For Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue," dated December 18, 1987; the NRC Staff's response, dated January 15, 1988; the Board's "Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue)," dated             -
A.
February 24, 1988; "LILCO's Responses and Objections to Suffolk 3
I have reviewed portions of Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan pertinent to LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates, particularly OPIP 3.6.5 and parts of Appendix A of the Plan.
I also have reviewed a stack of hundreds of handwritten worksheets underlying the hospital evacuation time estimates prepared by or under the supervision of Mr. Sobotka (a LILCO consultant) and transmitted to the State of New York under cover of a {{letter dated|date=February 29, 1988|text=letter dated February 29, 1988}}.
Other LILCO Plan materials that I have examined include certain draft revisions to Revision 8, dated February 20, 1987, which were submitted in connection with the 1987 reception center proceedings, and Mr. Lieberman's testimony in that proceeding regarding, in particular, average travel speeds.
In addition, I have reviewed "LILCO's Motion For Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue," dated December 18, 1987; the NRC Staff's response, dated January 15, 1988; the Board's "Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue)," dated February 24, 1988; "LILCO's Responses and Objections to Suffolk 3


County's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," March 10, 1988; and "LILCO's Responses and Objections to Suffolk County's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," dated March 10, 1988.
County's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," March 10, 1988; and "LILCO's Responses and Objections to Suffolk County's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," dated March 10, 1988.
It is important to note, too, that I attended the depositions of Mr. Sobotka and LILCO's expert witness, a principal of KLD Associates, Inc., Mr. Lieberman. I have read the transcripts of their depositions, as well as the transcript of the deposition of the NRC Staff's expert witnecs, Dr. Urbanik.
It is important to note, too, that I attended the depositions of Mr. Sobotka and LILCO's expert witness, a principal of KLD Associates, Inc., Mr. Lieberman.
1 Q. Please describe your familiarity with Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan as it pertains to hospital evacuation time estimates?
I have read the transcripts of their depositions, as well as the transcript of the deposition of the NRC Staff's expert witnecs, Dr. Urbanik.
A. I am familiar with what the LILCO Plan refers to as an "evacuation strategy" for the three hospitals in or near the EPZ.
1 Q.
Please describe your familiarity with Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan as it pertains to hospital evacuation time estimates?
A.
I am familiar with what the LILCO Plan refers to as an "evacuation strategy" for the three hospitals in or near the EPZ.
Plan, Appendix A, at IV-173.
Plan, Appendix A, at IV-173.
The actual hospital evacuation time estimates are contained in Table XIIIA (Plan, Appendix A, at IV-184). LILCO's evacuation ime estimates for each hospital, assuming an evacuation of the full 10 mile EPZ, are:
The actual hospital evacuation time estimates are contained in Table XIIIA (Plan, Appendix A, at IV-184).
Inclement Weather Hospital                   Normal Weather     Summer     Winter John T. Mather Hospital           12:00         15:42     16:41 Central Suffolk Hospital           12:19         15:52     16:51 St. Charles Hospital               12:20         16:13     17:14 4
LILCO's evacuation ime estimates for each hospital, assuming an evacuation of the full 10 mile EPZ, are:
Inclement Weather Hospital Normal Weather Summer Winter John T. Mather Hospital 12:00 15:42 16:41 Central Suffolk Hospital 12:19 15:52 16:51 St. Charles Hospital 12:20 16:13 17:14 4


Attachment 2 herein shows the locations of these hospitals as well as other pertinent facilities. See also Table XV (Plan, Appendix A, at V-8). As can be seen from the above results, the longest hospital evacuation time estimate is associated with St.
-_ herein shows the locations of these hospitals as well as other pertinent facilities.
See also Table XV (Plan, Appendix A, at V-8).
As can be seen from the above results, the longest hospital evacuation time estimate is associated with St.
Charles Hospital, but the evacuation time estimate for Central Suffolk Hospital is just one minute faster.
Charles Hospital, but the evacuation time estimate for Central Suffolk Hospital is just one minute faster.
OPIP 3.6.5 sets forth skeletal procedures for implementing the hospital "evacuation strategy."     Essentially, several LILCO Coordinators are given instructions to evacuate homebound persons I   and persons in health facilities, including hospitals, to reception facilities. For example, OPIP 3.6.5, Section 5.5.5, instructs the Hospital Coordinator to "assign evacuating patients to reception hospitals listed in Attachment 5" and to "(a]ssign patients requiring ambulances to the reception hospitals closest i   to the EPZ "   Similarly, OPIP 3.6.5, Section 5.6.1, tells the 1
OPIP 3.6.5 sets forth skeletal procedures for implementing the hospital "evacuation strategy."
Ambulance Coordinator to "estimate the number of trips the ambulances and/or ambulettes will.need to make." A list of
Essentially, several LILCO Coordinators are given instructions to evacuate homebound persons I
)   possible reception hospitals, their addresses and telephone i
and persons in health facilities, including hospitals, to reception facilities.
numbers is set forth in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5, but it presents no information at all regarding which hospitals are to receive which patients in which order. Attachment 2 herein shows the locations of these reception hospitals.
For example, OPIP 3.6.5, Section 5.5.5, instructs the Hospital Coordinator to "assign evacuating patients to reception hospitals listed in Attachment 5" and to "(a]ssign patients requiring ambulances to the reception hospitals closest i
to the EPZ "
Similarly, OPIP 3.6.5, Section 5.6.1, tells the 1
Ambulance Coordinator to "estimate the number of trips the ambulances and/or ambulettes will.need to make."
A list of
)
possible reception hospitals, their addresses and telephone i
numbers is set forth in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5, but it presents no information at all regarding which hospitals are to receive which patients in which order. herein shows the locations of these reception hospitals.
According to Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan, homebound handicapped persons are evacuated first; health facilities, ordered by proximity to Shoreham, are evacuated second; Suffolk Infirmary is evacuated third; and the three hospitals are 5
According to Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan, homebound handicapped persons are evacuated first; health facilities, ordered by proximity to Shoreham, are evacuated second; Suffolk Infirmary is evacuated third; and the three hospitals are 5


evacuated last. Plan, Appendix A, at IV-178.
evacuated last.
Vehicles used to evacuate the hospitals will be provided by the companies who are supplying the vehicles for the evacuation of other segments of the population. The vehicles consist of a combination of buses, ambulances and ambulettes under contract to LILCO. The LILCO Plan provides that "[t]hese vehicles will be supplied on an as available basis as the rest of the affected population evacuation nears completion."     Plan, Appendix A, at IV-173. Therefore, the evacuation of the hospitals is dependent on the prior release of vehicles from their primary responsibilities.
Plan, Appendix A, at IV-178.
At a site area emergency classification, LILCO would begin the process of mobilizing ambulances and ambulettes at LILCO's facility in Brentwood or Peconic Ambulance Company's facility in Riverhead. Buses would be mobilized at LILCO's Patchogue facility. Plan, Appendix A, at IV-176. Vehicles would then be dispatched from these locations to execute the assignments made by the Hospital and Ambulance Coordinators.     Vehicles would return periodically, as necessary, to Brentwood for reassignment.
Vehicles used to evacuate the hospitals will be provided by the companies who are supplying the vehicles for the evacuation of other segments of the population.
The vehicles consist of a combination of buses, ambulances and ambulettes under contract to LILCO.
The LILCO Plan provides that "[t]hese vehicles will be supplied on an as available basis as the rest of the affected population evacuation nears completion."
Plan, Appendix A, at IV-173.
Therefore, the evacuation of the hospitals is dependent on the prior release of vehicles from their primary responsibilities.
At a site area emergency classification, LILCO would begin the process of mobilizing ambulances and ambulettes at LILCO's facility in Brentwood or Peconic Ambulance Company's facility in Riverhead.
Buses would be mobilized at LILCO's Patchogue facility.
Plan, Appendix A, at IV-176.
Vehicles would then be dispatched from these locations to execute the assignments made by the Hospital and Ambulance Coordinators.
Vehicles would return periodically, as necessary, to Brentwood for reassignment.
The movement of each vehicle involves traveling l
The movement of each vehicle involves traveling l
from the applicable staging area to the location of a homebound person or evacuating facility, picking up patients, taking them to reception facilities, unloading them, and then returning to Brentwood for reassignment, and repeating the process, i
from the applicable staging area to the location of a homebound person or evacuating facility, picking up patients, taking them to reception facilities, unloading them, and then returning to Brentwood for reassignment, and repeating the process, i
l 6
l 6


II. Theme of Testimony Q. What is your general opinion of LILCC s hospital evacuation time estimates?
II.
A. From the following statement by the Board, it is evident that the Board is interested in knowing whether LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates can be relied upon ';y LILCO's emergency planners to form the basis of correct protective action recommendations:
Theme of Testimony Q.
(T]he narrow issue of the accuracy of the evacuation time estimates seems to us both unresolved and important. Clearly both the Appeal Board and the Commission were concerned about these data and their accuracy. And well they might be for in an emergency, it is on the basis of just such data that responsible officials will need
What is your general opinion of LILCC s hospital evacuation time estimates?
                            ~
A.
to make fundamental decisions of health ind saf ety for the patients in the hospitals in question. We therefore will hold a hearing on the matters restricting it to the narrow confines of the bases and the accuracy of the evacuation time estimates presented in Revision 9.     (Emphasis added]
From the following statement by the Board, it is evident that the Board is interested in knowing whether LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates can be relied upon ';y LILCO's emergency planners to form the basis of correct protective action recommendations:
(T]he narrow issue of the accuracy of the evacuation time estimates seems to us both unresolved and important.
Clearly both the Appeal Board and the Commission were concerned about these data and their accuracy.
And well they might be for in an emergency, it is on the basis of just such data that responsible officials will need to make fundamental decisions of
~
health ind saf ety for the patients in the hospitals in question.
We therefore will hold a hearing on the matters restricting it to the narrow confines of the bases and the accuracy of the evacuation time estimates presented in Revision 9.
(Emphasis added]
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue), (February 24, 1988) at 12 (emphasis added).
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue), (February 24, 1988) at 12 (emphasis added).
The purpose of this testimony is to demonstrate that LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are unreliable because their "accura-     is in doubt and their "bases," or underlying assumptions, are questionable in some instances and untenable in others. It is important to recognize that LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based on a large number of assumptions. As assumptions fail or fluctuate, LILCO's hospital 7
The purpose of this testimony is to demonstrate that LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are unreliable because their "accura-is in doubt and their "bases," or underlying assumptions, are questionable in some instances and untenable in others.
It is important to recognize that LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based on a large number of assumptions.
As assumptions fail or fluctuate, LILCO's hospital 7


4 evacuation time estimates also can change accordingly. LILCO's effort, which could have been and should have been more sophisticated than hundreds of handwritten worksheets, seems to ignore this fundamental traffic planning concept.
4 evacuation time estimates also can change accordingly.
Evacuation time estimates that are based on multiple assumptions subject to substantial variation, such as LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates, are most useful to the personnel charged with implementing the evacuation only if those assumptions hold true at the time of the accident. If the conditionu (such as traffic speed) prevailing at the time of an evacuation are not in accordance with those assumptions, then LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates will be substantially inaccurate. LILCO's Plan does nothing to inform LILCO's personnel how variations in the numerous assumptions may affect evacuation times or affect protective action recommendations.
LILCO's effort, which could have been and should have been more sophisticated than hundreds of handwritten worksheets, seems to ignore this fundamental traffic planning concept.
Further, the Board should be aware that LILCO's hospital evacuation time escimates are based on procedures that appear to be inconsistent with the LILCO Plan. Thus, for instance, routing and hospital assignment decision made in the worksheets may be totally different in a real emergency. Yet, these decisions have substantial bearing on the overall time estimates.
Evacuation time estimates that are based on multiple assumptions subject to substantial variation, such as LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates, are most useful to the personnel charged with implementing the evacuation only if those assumptions hold true at the time of the accident.
If the conditionu (such as traffic speed) prevailing at the time of an evacuation are not in accordance with those assumptions, then LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates will be substantially inaccurate.
LILCO's Plan does nothing to inform LILCO's personnel how variations in the numerous assumptions may affect evacuation times or affect protective action recommendations.
Further, the Board should be aware that LILCO's hospital evacuation time escimates are based on procedures that appear to be inconsistent with the LILCO Plan.
Thus, for instance, routing and hospital assignment decision made in the worksheets may be totally different in a real emergency. Yet, these decisions have substantial bearing on the overall time estimates.
If the LILCO personnel charged with implementing the LILCO Plan's hospital "evacuation strategy" were to attempt to do so in l
If the LILCO personnel charged with implementing the LILCO Plan's hospital "evacuation strategy" were to attempt to do so in l
a real emergency, it is questionable whether, given the LILCO Plan's current lack of details, the LILCO personnel would be able to successfully develop a complex vehicle and reception 8
a real emergency, it is questionable whether, given the LILCO Plan's current lack of details, the LILCO personnel would be able to successfully develop a complex vehicle and reception 8
l l
l l


hospital assignment scheme, let alone duplicate the scheme devised by LILCO's consultants.             This could mean that the hospital evacuation time estimates upon which a protective action recommendation would be based could be lengthened.
hospital assignment scheme, let alone duplicate the scheme devised by LILCO's consultants.
III.         Findings Q. Please explain your analysis of how LILCO calculated the longest evacuation time estimate for hospitals.
This could mean that the hospital evacuation time estimates upon which a protective action recommendation would be based could be lengthened.
A. LILCO's handwritten worksheets calculate evacuation time estimates under seven scenarios.             The scenarios are Schedules 1-6, and "Full 10 Mile."     Schedule 1 corresponds to an evacuation of the fewest EPZ subzones.             Full 10 Mile corresponds to an evacuation of all of the EPZ subzones.               Schedules 2-6 fall in between.
III.
As I indicated above, the longest evacuation time is 12:20, associated with St. Charles Hospital.               Inspection of numerous LILCO worksheets reveals that the longest time occurs under the Full 10 Mile scenario. A copy of the relevant worksheet is Attachment 3 herein. The third column on the fourth page of the worksheet shows that two ambulances with St. Charles patients crossed the EPZ boundary at 12.34 hours after the order to evacuate, which is equivalent to 12 hours and 20 minutes.
Findings Q.
Please explain your analysis of how LILCO calculated the longest evacuation time estimate for hospitals.
A.
LILCO's handwritten worksheets calculate evacuation time estimates under seven scenarios.
The scenarios are Schedules 1-6, and "Full 10 Mile."
Schedule 1 corresponds to an evacuation of the fewest EPZ subzones.
Full 10 Mile corresponds to an evacuation of all of the EPZ subzones.
Schedules 2-6 fall in between.
As I indicated above, the longest evacuation time is 12:20, associated with St. Charles Hospital.
Inspection of numerous LILCO worksheets reveals that the longest time occurs under the Full 10 Mile scenario.
A copy of the relevant worksheet is herein.
The third column on the fourth page of the worksheet shows that two ambulances with St. Charles patients crossed the EPZ boundary at 12.34 hours after the order to evacuate, which is equivalent to 12 hours and 20 minutes.
Following or "tracing," the paths of these two ambulances from the beginning of the emergency to the end is the key to l
Following or "tracing," the paths of these two ambulances from the beginning of the emergency to the end is the key to l
i                                         9
i 9


interpreting LILCO's evacuation time estimates.
interpreting LILCO's evacuation time estimates.
As demonstrated by Attachment 3 herein, the two ambulances involved in the longest evacuation time (12.34 hours) participated in two evacuation waves at the Suffolk Infirmary and then participated in a third evacuation wave at St. Charles. herein is the State's computerized version of this trace. The assignment takes 12.34 hours to complete, results in the evacuation of twelve persons, covers 138.52 miles (using LILCO's figures), and consists of eight distinct trips. In this path, patients are actually transported only during 28% of the time and over 42% of the distance. The rest of the time is spent traveling to and from the Brentwood staging area, receiving instructions, etc., loading and unloading at hospitals, and waiting in queues at hospitais.
As demonstrated by Attachment 3 herein, the two ambulances involved in the longest evacuation time (12.34 hours) participated in two evacuation waves at the Suffolk Infirmary and then participated in a third evacuation wave at St. Charles. herein is the State's computerized version of this trace.
Specifically, the paths or trace of the two key ambulances began when they initially arrived at Brentwood at 2.50 hours after the order to evacuate. The two ambulances then traveled to the Suffolk Infirmary, transported patients to the VA Medical Center in Northport, returned to Brentwood, traveled again to the Suffolk Infirmary, again took patients to the VA Medical Center, returned again to Brentwood and then made the trip to St. Charles for the evacuation of the remaining hospital patients. A copy of the pertinent worksheets, in order of the trace, is Attachment 3 herein. A diagram of this complex path is shown in Attachment 4 herein.
The assignment takes 12.34 hours to complete, results in the evacuation of twelve persons, covers 138.52 miles (using LILCO's figures), and consists of eight distinct trips.
In this path, patients are actually transported only during 28% of the time and over 42% of the distance.
The rest of the time is spent traveling to and from the Brentwood staging area, receiving instructions, etc., loading and unloading at hospitals, and waiting in queues at hospitais.
Specifically, the paths or trace of the two key ambulances began when they initially arrived at Brentwood at 2.50 hours after the order to evacuate.
The two ambulances then traveled to the Suffolk Infirmary, transported patients to the VA Medical Center in Northport, returned to Brentwood, traveled again to the Suffolk Infirmary, again took patients to the VA Medical Center, returned again to Brentwood and then made the trip to St. Charles for the evacuation of the remaining hospital patients.
A copy of the pertinent worksheets, in order of the trace, is Attachment 3 herein.
A diagram of this complex path is shown in Attachment 4 herein.
The worksheets show that, at each step, LILCO makes a series 10
The worksheets show that, at each step, LILCO makes a series 10


of assumptions about arrival times at staging areas, processing times, highway speeds, travel distances, travel routes, destination hospitals, patient loading and unloading times, and queueing times.             All of these assumptions, as well as others contained in Appendix A of the Plan, are the bases of LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.
of assumptions about arrival times at staging areas, processing times, highway speeds, travel distances, travel routes, destination hospitals, patient loading and unloading times, and queueing times.
Q. Did you also trace the second longest evacuation time estimate for hospitals?
All of these assumptions, as well as others contained in Appendix A of the Plan, are the bases of LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.
A. Yes, as I indicated above, the second longest evacuation time is 12.19 hours, associated with Central Suffolk Hospital.                 It also occurs under the Full 10 Mile Scenario.             Like St. Charles, the evacuation time for Central Suffolk Hospital is dependent on the time it takes for the vehicles to participate in one prior evacuation wave involving the Suffolk Infirmary.               Attachment 6 herein is a diagram that shows the complex movement in the trace of this second longest evacuation time.
Q.
Q. Why is following the traces of the vehicles that provide the longest evacuation times the key to interpreting LILCO's analysis?
Did you also trace the second longest evacuation time estimate for hospitals?
A. The trace of these vehicles is the key because a change in any of the related assumptions could change the time it takes for these last two vehicles to evacuate the last patients.               Thus, we 11
A.
Yes, as I indicated above, the second longest evacuation time is 12.19 hours, associated with Central Suffolk Hospital.
It also occurs under the Full 10 Mile Scenario.
Like St. Charles, the evacuation time for Central Suffolk Hospital is dependent on the time it takes for the vehicles to participate in one prior evacuation wave involving the Suffolk Infirmary.
herein is a diagram that shows the complex movement in the trace of this second longest evacuation time.
Q.
Why is following the traces of the vehicles that provide the longest evacuation times the key to interpreting LILCO's analysis?
A.
The trace of these vehicles is the key because a change in any of the related assumptions could change the time it takes for these last two vehicles to evacuate the last patients.
Thus, we 11


l 1
l l
l I
can determine what factors will shorten or lengthen overall evacuation times.
can determine what factors will shorten or lengthen overall evacuation times. Changes in the assumptions related to evacuation times of other vehicles and patients would not necessarily affect the longest evacuation time, and would therefore not necessarily be the controlling evacuation time estimate.
Changes in the assumptions related to evacuation times of other vehicles and patients would not necessarily affect the longest evacuation time, and would therefore not necessarily be the controlling evacuation time estimate.
Tracing the vehicles involved in the longest and second longest evacuation times is also important because it enables the Board to visualize the complexity of the evacuation and the additive nature of the numerous assumptions along the entire trace.
Tracing the vehicles involved in the longest and second longest evacuation times is also important because it enables the Board to visualize the complexity of the evacuation and the additive nature of the numerous assumptions along the entire trace.
: 1. Assumptions Concerning Speeds of Vehicles Q. Are LILCO's assumptions about speeds of buses, ambulances and ambulettes appropriate?
1.
A. No. LILCO's assumptions concerning these speeds are unreliable because they do not account for the uncertainties of future evacuation events. The assumptions are not compelling in their justification, and are too generous to reflect the congested conditions that the State of New York believes will be likely in an extensive evacuation scenario, as I testified during the reception center proceedings. See Direct Testimony of David T. Hartgen and Robert C. Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers (April 13, 1987) ("State Reception Center Testimony").
Assumptions Concerning Speeds of Vehicles Q.
Are LILCO's assumptions about speeds of buses, ambulances and ambulettes appropriate?
A.
No.
LILCO's assumptions concerning these speeds are unreliable because they do not account for the uncertainties of future evacuation events.
The assumptions are not compelling in their justification, and are too generous to reflect the congested conditions that the State of New York believes will be likely in an extensive evacuation scenario, as I testified during the reception center proceedings.
See Direct Testimony of David T.
Hartgen and Robert C. Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers (April 13, 1987) ("State Reception Center Testimony").
12
12


1 l
1 1
1 Let us look first at the speeds which LILCO assumes for the Long Island Expressway, one of the main routes traveled by the vehicles which will be evacuating the hospitals.                                     LILCO lists in Table XIIIB of Appendix A of the Plan a number of assumed speeds, depending on certain factors.                                 As an example, let us look at the speed for westbound travel on the LIE between the western edge of the EPZ and the village of Brentwood.                                 LILCO estimates that this speed is 15 miles per hour.                                 This estimate, however, is unjustified.
Let us look first at the speeds which LILCO assumes for the Long Island Expressway, one of the main routes traveled by the vehicles which will be evacuating the hospitals.
During an evacuation, the LIE will be operating under very congested conditions which can be categorized as level of service F1   The Highway Capacity Manual indicates that at level of service F, speeds could vary from 0 mph to 30 mph at any one point in time during such congestion.                                 Attachment 7 herein shows the operating curve for speeds versus volume-to-capacity ratio for freeways. The dotted line at the bottom of the curve shows level of service F.                   The average of this portion of the curve is not a fixed number, like LILCO's 15 mph, but rather is a range of speeds dependent on the volume to capacity ratio.
LILCO lists in Table XIIIB of Appendix A of the Plan a number of assumed speeds, depending on certain factors.
For level of service F congestion, the implied average speed is approximately 8 mph, but the important observation is that speeds are variable between 0 and 30 mph.                                 Since such a wide 1   The various levels of service and the nature of traffic flow associated with those levels of service were discussed in my testimony on reception centers and will not be repeated here.
As an example, let us look at the speed for westbound travel on the LIE between the western edge of the EPZ and the village of Brentwood.
LILCO estimates that this speed is 15 miles per hour.
This estimate, however, is unjustified.
During an evacuation, the LIE will be operating under very congested conditions which can be categorized as level of service F1 The Highway Capacity Manual indicates that at level of service F, speeds could vary from 0 mph to 30 mph at any one point in time during such congestion. herein shows the operating curve for speeds versus volume-to-capacity ratio for freeways.
The dotted line at the bottom of the curve shows level of service F.
The average of this portion of the curve is not a fixed number, like LILCO's 15 mph, but rather is a range of speeds dependent on the volume to capacity ratio.
For level of service F congestion, the implied average speed is approximately 8 mph, but the important observation is that speeds are variable between 0 and 30 mph.
Since such a wide 1
The various levels of service and the nature of traffic flow associated with those levels of service were discussed in my testimony on reception centers and will not be repeated here.
See State Reception Center Testimony at 40-46.
See State Reception Center Testimony at 40-46.
l l                                                                     13 i
l l
13 i
I
I


range in speed is likely, it is unsound for LILCO to assume an average speed of 15 mph. At the unstable flow which characterizes level of service F, average travel speed could vary by 5 mph or more. LILCO should have analyzed the sensitivity of the hospital evacuation time estimates to such a 5 mph variation in assumed average freeway speed.
range in speed is likely, it is unsound for LILCO to assume an average speed of 15 mph.
Q. What support do you have for your opinion about speeds at level of service F?
At the unstable flow which characterizes level of service F, average travel speed could vary by 5 mph or more.
A. An article, co-authored by Mr. Lieberman, one of LILCO's witnesses, supports the State of New York's position. The article is entitled "Enhanced FREFLO:   Modeling of Congested Environments", by A.K. Rathi, E.B. Lieberman, and M. Yedlin, printed in Transportation Research Record No. 1112, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1987. A copy is herein. In this article, Mr. Lieberman described a modification of a computer model of freeway traffic flow to make it more realistically reflect congested operation. He presented results (shown in Table 2 of Attachment 8 herein) showing that in the modified model, "a realistic stop-and-go pattern of entering flow was established." (Attachment 8 herein, at 65). The article also indicated (Attachment 8 herein, at Table 2) that congested operation implies: (1) traffic densities of 89-152 vehicles per lane-mile, (2) average speeds of 6.9 mph to 10.6 mph, and (3) highly variable vehicle flow rates, ranging from 0 14
LILCO should have analyzed the sensitivity of the hospital evacuation time estimates to such a 5 mph variation in assumed average freeway speed.
Q.
What support do you have for your opinion about speeds at level of service F?
A.
An article, co-authored by Mr. Lieberman, one of LILCO's witnesses, supports the State of New York's position.
The article is entitled "Enhanced FREFLO:
Modeling of Congested Environments", by A.K.
: Rathi, E.B.
Lieberman, and M.
: Yedlin, printed in Transportation Research Record No. 1112, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
1987.
A copy is herein.
In this article, Mr. Lieberman described a modification of a computer model of freeway traffic flow to make it more realistically reflect congested operation.
He presented results (shown in Table 2 of Attachment 8 herein) showing that in the modified model, "a realistic stop-and-go pattern of entering flow was established." (Attachment 8 herein, at 65).
The article also indicated (Attachment 8 herein, at Table 2) that congested operation implies: (1) traffic densities of 89-152 vehicles per lane-mile, (2) average speeds of 6.9 mph to 10.6 mph, and (3) highly variable vehicle flow rates, ranging from 0 14


to capacity.           Accordingly, Mr. Lieberman's own research bolsters the State of New York's criticism of the assumed speeds set forth in Table XIIIB of Appendix A of the Plan.
to capacity.
Q.       Do you have any concerns about other assumed speeds set forth in Table XIIIB of Appendix A of the LILCO Plan?
Accordingly, Mr. Lieberman's own research bolsters the State of New York's criticism of the assumed speeds set forth in Table XIIIB of Appendix A of the Plan.
A.         Yes. LILCO produced no data that would justify the assumed speeds in Table XIIIB, especially epteds of vehicles headed away from the EPZ on local streets or non-freeway evacuation routes, and speeds of vehicles headed toward the EPZ.                         The assumed speeds appear to be the result of conjecture.                         Indeed, Mr. Lieberman stated as much in his deposition.                         Liberman Deposition Tr. 23-35 (March 25, 1988).           In particular, the assumption that speeds would be higher between the EPZ and Brentwood than they would be inside the EPZ is without basis because pervasive congestion would reduce speeds in between the EPZ and Brentwood.                         In addition, there is no apparent justification for assuming that speeds change at Brentwood.
Q.
There is also no support for the assumption in Table XIIIB that ambulances inside the EPZ would travel faster than ambulettes inside the EPZ after the evacuation ends. This                         seems illogical because ambulances usually travel faster than other vehicles during periods of congestion, not in the absence of congestion.
Do you have any concerns about other assumed speeds set forth in Table XIIIB of Appendix A of the LILCO Plan?
A.
Yes.
LILCO produced no data that would justify the assumed speeds in Table XIIIB, especially epteds of vehicles headed away from the EPZ on local streets or non-freeway evacuation routes, and speeds of vehicles headed toward the EPZ.
The assumed speeds appear to be the result of conjecture.
Indeed, Mr. Lieberman stated as much in his deposition.
Liberman Deposition Tr. 23-35 (March 25, 1988).
In particular, the assumption that speeds would be higher between the EPZ and Brentwood than they would be inside the EPZ is without basis because pervasive congestion would reduce speeds in between the EPZ and Brentwood.
In addition, there is no apparent justification for assuming that speeds change at Brentwood.
There is also no support for the assumption in Table XIIIB that ambulances inside the EPZ would travel faster than ambulettes inside the EPZ after the evacuation ends.
This seems illogical because ambulances usually travel faster than other vehicles during periods of congestion, not in the absence of congestion.
15 l
15 l
l
l


1 Further, Table XIIIB contains anomalies which reflect the arbitrary nature of the assumed speeds. For instance, vehicles are assumed to travel faster on the westbound congested Long Island Expressway (15 mph) than on the northbound uncongested Sunken Meadow Parkway (10 mph). On Route 111, vehicles are assumed to travel one speed (20 mph) at all times, regardless of congestion and other factors. Finally, Table XIIIB assumes a remarkable jump in speeds when the evacuation time exceeds the benchmark times listed in Table XIIIB. Another way of saying this is that the "tail" of the evacuation ends abruptly, meaning that when tPe last general population evacuating vehicles pass a given point, the road suddenly clears. LILCO has provided no support for this assumption.
1 Further, Table XIIIB contains anomalies which reflect the arbitrary nature of the assumed speeds.
Q. Do you have any other reasons to question the speeds assumed in Table XIIIB?
For instance, vehicles are assumed to travel faster on the westbound congested Long Island Expressway (15 mph) than on the northbound uncongested Sunken Meadow Parkway (10 mph).
A. Yes, as I discussed earlier, LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based on seven scenarios:   Schedules 1-6 and Full 10 Mile. Schedule 1 cor. templates an evacuation of only subzones A-E, I and J. "Full 10 Mile" contemplates an evacuation of the entire EPZ. However, the assumed speeds in Table XIIIB are the same regardless of which evacuation scenario actually occurs.
On Route 111, vehicles are assumed to travel one speed (20 mph) at all times, regardless of congestion and other factors.
This seems illogi al because more extensive evacuations would presumably generate more evacuating traffic and have a greater tendency to reduce speeds. It would be more prudent from a 16
Finally, Table XIIIB assumes a remarkable jump in speeds when the evacuation time exceeds the benchmark times listed in Table XIIIB.
Another way of saying this is that the "tail" of the evacuation ends abruptly, meaning that when tPe last general population evacuating vehicles pass a given point, the road suddenly clears.
LILCO has provided no support for this assumption.
Q.
Do you have any other reasons to question the speeds assumed in Table XIIIB?
A.
Yes, as I discussed earlier, LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based on seven scenarios:
Schedules 1-6 and Full 10 Mile. Schedule 1 cor. templates an evacuation of only subzones A-E, I and J.
"Full 10 Mile" contemplates an evacuation of the entire EPZ.
However, the assumed speeds in Table XIIIB are the same regardless of which evacuation scenario actually occurs.
This seems illogi al because more extensive evacuations would presumably generate more evacuating traffic and have a greater tendency to reduce speeds.
It would be more prudent from a 16


t.
t.
planning perspective to assume that more extensive scenarios, such as Schedule 6 and Full 10 Mile, would be characterized by speeds that are lower than speeds in the less extensive scenarios, such as Schedules 1 and 2.
planning perspective to assume that more extensive scenarios, such as Schedule 6 and Full 10 Mile, would be characterized by speeds that are lower than speeds in the less extensive scenarios, such as Schedules 1 and 2.
Q. Have you determined the effect of different speed assumptions on the hospital evacuation time estimates?
Q.
A. Yes,   I recalculated the longest evacuation time estimate (12.34 hours for the last two "trace" ambulances to evacuate St.
Have you determined the effect of different speed assumptions on the hospital evacuation time estimates?
Charles Hospital) by assuming slightly different speeds than those that LILCO assumed. I chose these different assumptions to determine a range of answers corresponding to upper and lower bounds of speeds. The results, which are summarized in Attachment 9 herein, reveal the following:
A.
: 1. Reducing speeds on the Long Island Expressway to 10 mph outbound, and 25 mph inbound (other roads 15 mph outbound, 20 mph inbound) would increase evacuation times to 14.54 hours, or 17.3%.
: Yes, I recalculated the longest evacuation time estimate (12.34 hours for the last two "trace" ambulances to evacuate St.
: 2. Reducing all speeds by 3-5 mph would increase evacuation times to 14.00 hours, or 12.9%.
Charles Hospital) by assuming slightly different speeds than those that LILCO assumed.
: 3. An across-the-board 10% reduction in speeds would increase evacuation times to 13.07 hours, or 5.4%.
I chose these different assumptions to determine a range of answers corresponding to upper and lower bounds of speeds.
The results, which are summarized in herein, reveal the following:
1.
Reducing speeds on the Long Island Expressway to 10 mph outbound, and 25 mph inbound (other roads 15 mph outbound, 20 mph inbound) would increase evacuation times to 14.54 hours, or 17.3%.
2.
Reducing all speeds by 3-5 mph would increase evacuation times to 14.00 hours, or 12.9%.
3.
An across-the-board 10% reduction in speeds would increase evacuation times to 13.07 hours, or 5.4%.
17 L
17 L


planning perspective to assume that more extensive scenarios, such as Schedule 6 and Full 10 Mile, would be characterized by speeds that are lower than speeds in the less extensive scenarios, such as Schedules 1 and 2.
planning perspective to assume that more extensive scenarios, such as Schedule 6 and Full 10 Mile, would be characterized by speeds that are lower than speeds in the less extensive scenarios, such as Schedules 1 and 2.
Q. Have you determined the effect of different speed assumptions on the hospital evacuation time estimates?
Q.
A. Yes.       I recalculated the longest evacuation time estimate (12.34 hours for the last two "trace" ambulances to evacuate St.
Have you determined the effect of different speed assumptions on the hospital evacuation time estimates?
Charles Hospital) by assuming slightly different speeds than those that LILCO assumed.           I chose these different assumptions to determine a range of answers corresponding to upper and lower bounds of speeds.         The results, which are summarized in Attachment 9 herein, reveal the following:
A.
: 1.       Reducing speeds on the Long Island Expressway to 10 mph outbound, and 25 mph inbound (other roads 15 mph outbound, 20 mph inbound) would increase evacuation times to 14.54 hours, or 17.3%.
Yes.
: 2.       Reducing all speeds by 3-5 mph would increase evacuation l
I recalculated the longest evacuation time estimate (12.34 hours for the last two "trace" ambulances to evacuate St.
Charles Hospital) by assuming slightly different speeds than those that LILCO assumed.
I chose these different assumptions to determine a range of answers corresponding to upper and lower bounds of speeds.
The results, which are summarized in herein, reveal the following:
1.
Reducing speeds on the Long Island Expressway to 10 mph outbound, and 25 mph inbound (other roads 15 mph outbound, 20 mph inbound) would increase evacuation times to 14.54 hours, or 17.3%.
2.
Reducing all speeds by 3-5 mph would increase evacuation l
times to 14.00 hours, or 12.9%.
times to 14.00 hours, or 12.9%.
: 3.       An across-the-board 10% reduction in speeds would increase evacuation times to 13.07 hours, or 5.4%.
3.
An across-the-board 10% reduction in speeds would increase evacuation times to 13.07 hours, or 5.4%.
l 17
l 17
: 4. Reducing expressway speeds to 6 mph outbound, and 15 mph inbound, would increase evacuation times to 20.58 hours, or 66%.
 
: 5. Increasing expressway speeds by 5 mph would decrease evacuation times to 11.38 hours, or -8.2%.
4.
: 6. Allowing operations at present (posted) speeds would decrease evacuation times to 8.97 hours, or -27.6%.                                 This would appear to be the absolute lower bound for evacuation times.
Reducing expressway speeds to 6 mph outbound, and 15 mph inbound, would increase evacuation times to 20.58 hours, or 66%.
5.
Increasing expressway speeds by 5 mph would decrease evacuation times to 11.38 hours, or -8.2%.
6.
Allowing operations at present (posted) speeds would decrease evacuation times to 8.97 hours, or -27.6%.
This would appear to be the absolute lower bound for evacuation times.
Calculations for these estimates are in Attachments 10-15 herein.
Calculations for these estimates are in Attachments 10-15 herein.
O. What is the significance of these results?
O.
A. It is reasonable to assume that evacuation speeds could be lower than LILCO has postulated.               When such lower speeds are assumed,     evacuation times for the hospitals could increase to 20.6 hours, or 66% more than asserted by LILCO.               LILCO should have recognized the inherent uncertainty in its calculations, analyzed the nature and scope of the uncertainty, and put the results in its Plan as guidance to personnel managing the evacuation.
What is the significance of these results?
A.
It is reasonable to assume that evacuation speeds could be lower than LILCO has postulated.
When such lower speeds are
: assumed, evacuation times for the hospitals could increase to 20.6 hours, or 66% more than asserted by LILCO.
LILCO should have recognized the inherent uncertainty in its calculations, analyzed the nature and scope of the uncertainty, and put the results in its Plan as guidance to personnel managing the evacuation.
18
18
: 2. Number of Patients to be Transported Q. How many hospital patients need to be evacuated, and how many patients are evacuated, according to LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates?
 
A. Attachment 2 of OPIP 3.6.5,         sets forth the number of total beds at each hospital and the handwritten worksheets identify the number of patients at each hospital who were evacuated in connection with the calculations of the hospital evacuation time estimates. The information is as follows:
2.
Number of Beds                         Number of Evacuated (Per OPIP 3.6.5,                       Patients (Per LILCO's Hospital               Attachment 2)                           Worksheets)
Number of Patients to be Transported Q.
John T. Mather Hospital                 238                                       238 Central Suffolk Hospital                 168                                       168 St. Charles Hospital                     271                                       260 Suffolk Infirmary                       215                                       215 This information is depicted graphically on the bar charts for each hospital in Attachment 16 herein.
How many hospital patients need to be evacuated, and how many patients are evacuated, according to LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates?
Q. What is the significance of the discrepancy at St. Charles Hospital?
A. of OPIP 3.6.5, sets forth the number of total beds at each hospital and the handwritten worksheets identify the number of patients at each hospital who were evacuated in connection with the calculations of the hospital evacuation time estimates.
The information is as follows:
Number of Beds Number of Evacuated (Per OPIP 3.6.5, Patients (Per LILCO's Hospital )
Worksheets)
John T. Mather Hospital 238 238 Central Suffolk Hospital 168 168 St. Charles Hospital 271 260 Suffolk Infirmary 215 215 This information is depicted graphically on the bar charts for each hospital in Attachment 16 herein.
Q.
What is the significance of the discrepancy at St. Charles Hospital?
19
19


d A. It appears that LILCO's time estimate calculations have neglected to include eleven patients at St. Charlea Hospital.
d A.
It appears that LILCO's time estimate calculations have neglected to include eleven patients at St. Charlea Hospital.
According to LILCO's origin-destination worksheet (Attachment 17 herein), a total of only 260 patients were evacuated from St.
According to LILCO's origin-destination worksheet (Attachment 17 herein), a total of only 260 patients were evacuated from St.
Charles Hospital, while the number of beds (and the number of patients presumed by LILCO) is 271. Depending on particular transportation arrangements, inclusion of these omitted patients could result in longer hospital evacuation time estimates. In any event, an error which could result in patients not being evacuated is significant and casts doubt on the validity of LILCO's calculations.                                              .
Charles Hospital, while the number of beds (and the number of patients presumed by LILCO) is 271.
Depending on particular transportation arrangements, inclusion of these omitted patients could result in longer hospital evacuation time estimates.
In any event, an error which could result in patients not being evacuated is significant and casts doubt on the validity of LILCO's calculations.
t i
t i
] Q. Do you have any other concerns about the number of patients for whom transportation should be provided?
]
A. Yes, LILCO implicitly assumes that the number of patients at the evacuating hospitals in need of tranr.i;ortation will be the same as the current number of beds. However, no allowance is 1  made for future hospital growth or reductions. If growth were to occur, evacuation times could become longer.
Q.
1
Do you have any other concerns about the number of patients for whom transportation should be provided?
: 3. Capability of Reception Hospitals to Receive Patients Q. Have you analyzed the capability of the reception hospitals to receive patients?
A.
Yes, LILCO implicitly assumes that the number of patients at the evacuating hospitals in need of tranr.i;ortation will be the same as the current number of beds.
However, no allowance is made for future hospital growth or reductions.
If growth were to 1
occur, evacuation times could become longer.
1 3.
Capability of Reception Hospitals to Receive Patients Q.
Have you analyzed the capability of the reception hospitals to receive patients?
4 2
4 2
20
20


A. Yes. First of all, I discovered two serious errors in the worksheets that were used by LILCO's consultants to prepare the hospital evacuation time estimates. One. error, as seen in the attached worksheet (Attachment 17 herein) is that LILCO assigned 30 evacuating patients to a reception hospital named Lydia Hall.
A.
This hospital is closed and is not included within the list of potential reception hospitals in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5. Of these 30 patients, 16 are from St. Charles Hospital. The assignment of evacuating patients to a hospital that is not available and not even contemplated in LILCO's plan renders LILCO's evacuation time estimates incomplete.
Yes.
Another error, as seen in the attached worksheet (Attachment 17 herein) is that LILCO assigned evacuating patients to Massapequa Hospital, which also is not on the list in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5. This affects 14 patients assigned from St.
First of all, I discovered two serious errors in the worksheets that were used by LILCO's consultants to prepare the hospital evacuation time estimates.
Charles Hospital. Again, this error jeopardizes LILCO's results.
One. error, as seen in the attached worksheet (Attachment 17 herein) is that LILCO assigned 30 evacuating patients to a reception hospital named Lydia Hall.
Both errors demonstrate that LICLO's evacuation time estimates do not reflect what might acutally occur in a real emergency. In accordance with Section 5.5.5 of OPIP 3.6.5, LILCO's Hospital Coordinator would not assign any evacuating patients to either one of these hospitals, and, therefore, would not duplicate the "evacuation strategy" that LILCO's consultants used in the calculation of the time estimates, and would not be able to effect an evacuation within the time frame anticipated by f
This hospital is closed and is not included within the list of potential reception hospitals in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5.
i LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.
Of these 30 patients, 16 are from St. Charles Hospital.
The assignment of evacuating patients to a hospital that is not available and not even contemplated in LILCO's plan renders LILCO's evacuation time estimates incomplete.
Another error, as seen in the attached worksheet (Attachment 17 herein) is that LILCO assigned evacuating patients to Massapequa Hospital, which also is not on the list in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5.
This affects 14 patients assigned from St.
Charles Hospital.
Again, this error jeopardizes LILCO's results.
Both errors demonstrate that LICLO's evacuation time estimates do not reflect what might acutally occur in a real emergency.
In accordance with Section 5.5.5 of OPIP 3.6.5, LILCO's Hospital Coordinator would not assign any evacuating patients to either one of these hospitals, and, therefore, would not duplicate the "evacuation strategy" that LILCO's consultants used in the calculation of the time estimates, and would not be able to f
effect an evacuation within the time frame anticipated by i
LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.
21 i
21 i


I These errors are particularly serious because they involve St. Charles patients, who have the longest evacuation times. In reality, those patients would have to be transferred elsewhere, which could further increase evacuation times.
I These errors are particularly serious because they involve St. Charles patients, who have the longest evacuation times.
Q. Are there any other errors concerning the assignment of patients to hospitals?
In reality, those patients would have to be transferred elsewhere, which could further increase evacuation times.
A. Yes. Section 5.5.5 cf OPIP 3.6.5 instructs the Hospital Coordinator to assign evacuating patients requiring ambulances to the closest reception hospital. For Central Suffolk Hospital, one of the closest hospitals would be Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport, which is on the list of possible reception hospitals in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5. See Attachment 16 herein. However, the worksheets prepared by LILCO's consultants   ,
Q.
indicate that no patients were assigned to Eastern Long Island Hospital. Similarly, Syosset Hospital, which also is on the list of possible reception hospitals in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5,     is not used even though it is closer to the EPZ than several hospitals that were used. Such assignments may or may not have an effect on evacuation times, but the point is that the Hospital Coordinator would implement a different "evacuation strategy," assuming that he or she followed OPIP 3.6.5, Section 5.5.5, than that which was implemented in the calculations that generated the hospital evacuation time estimates. Therefore, there is no assurance that the actual evacuation time would 22
Are there any other errors concerning the assignment of patients to hospitals?
A.
Yes.
Section 5.5.5 cf OPIP 3.6.5 instructs the Hospital Coordinator to assign evacuating patients requiring ambulances to the closest reception hospital.
For Central Suffolk Hospital, one of the closest hospitals would be Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport, which is on the list of possible reception hospitals in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5.
See Attachment 16 herein.
However, the worksheets prepared by LILCO's consultants indicate that no patients were assigned to Eastern Long Island Hospital.
Similarly, Syosset Hospital, which also is on the list of possible reception hospitals in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5, is not used even though it is closer to the EPZ than several hospitals that were used.
Such assignments may or may not have an effect on evacuation times, but the point is that the Hospital Coordinator would implement a different "evacuation strategy," assuming that he or she followed OPIP 3.6.5, Section 5.5.5, than that which was implemented in the calculations that generated the hospital evacuation time estimates.
Therefore, there is no assurance that the actual evacuation time would 22


coincide with what LILCO's emergency planners think the time will be when they rely on the time estimates to make what the Board referred to as "fundamental decisions of health and safety for the 2 1tients in the hospitals."
coincide with what LILCO's emergency planners think the time will be when they rely on the time estimates to make what the Board referred to as "fundamental decisions of health and safety for the 2 1tients in the hospitals."
In addition, according to Sections 5.5.5 and 5.6.1 of OPIP 3.6.5, vehicles not expected to be needed for additional trips are assigned to reception hospitals farthest away from the EPZ.
In addition, according to Sections 5.5.5 and 5.6.1 of OPIP 3.6.5, vehicles not expected to be needed for additional trips are assigned to reception hospitals farthest away from the EPZ.
However, it is likely that LILCO's personnel would not know the extent of the final evacuation until the accident itself progressed to its terminal stages.                       In other words, LILCO's personnel would not know if the Schedule 1 evacuation under which they were proceeding might develop into a Full 10 Mile evacuation or might not develop beyond a Schedule 1 evacuation at all. For example, LILCO's worksheets indicate that the trace vehicles are assigned to transport patients from the Suffolk Infirmary to St.
However, it is likely that LILCO's personnel would not know the extent of the final evacuation until the accident itself progressed to its terminal stages.
John's Hospital under a Schedule 6 evacuation.                       However, under a Full 10 Mile evacuation, LILCO's worksheets indicate that the same trace vehicles are assigned to transport patients from the Suffolk Infirmary to the VA Medical Center.                       This means that LILCO's personnel must know whether the evacuation will terminate as a Schedule 6 evacuation or as a Full 10 Mile evacuation before they assign the vehicles to reception hospitals.                     Obviously, if the accident does eventually progress to a Full 10 Mile evacuation, the vehicles might have to change destinations to adhere to the Full 10 Mile assignment, and longer evacuation l
In other words, LILCO's personnel would not know if the Schedule 1 evacuation under which they were proceeding might develop into a Full 10 Mile evacuation or might not develop beyond a Schedule 1 evacuation at all.
times than those that were anticipated in LILCO's worksheets 23
For example, LILCO's worksheets indicate that the trace vehicles are assigned to transport patients from the Suffolk Infirmary to St.
John's Hospital under a Schedule 6 evacuation.
However, under a Full 10 Mile evacuation, LILCO's worksheets indicate that the same trace vehicles are assigned to transport patients from the Suffolk Infirmary to the VA Medical Center.
This means that LILCO's personnel must know whether the evacuation will terminate as a Schedule 6 evacuation or as a Full 10 Mile evacuation before they assign the vehicles to reception hospitals.
Obviously, if the accident does eventually progress to a Full 10 Mile evacuation, the vehicles might have to change destinations to l
adhere to the Full 10 Mile assignment, and longer evacuation times than those that were anticipated in LILCO's worksheets 23


                                                                  'l l
'l l
l might result.
might result.
Q. Does the LILCO Plan contemplate filling reception hospitals to capacity?
Q.
A. Generally, yes.
Does the LILCO Plan contemplate filling reception hospitals to capacity?
Q. Could this policy result in increased evacuation times?
A.
A. Yes. Assuming that reception hospitals have a 14% vacancy rate, I have prepared Attachments 16 and 18 herein, which show the reception hospitals and their available capacities, along with the number of patients assigned to them from each evacuating hospital. Attachment 16 herein clearly illustrates that virtually all of the available capacity in tne 10 nearest hospitals west of the EPZ is used up. Essentially, the LILCO Plan is right at the margin of capacity for all of the proximate reception hospitals. A slight increase in patients to be transported out of the EPZ, or a reduction in reception center capacity (perhaps due to an influx of arriving general population evacuees), could cause an increase in evacuation time.
Generally, yes.
A prudent assessment woulo have included a test of the sensitivity of the evacuation time estimates to assumptions about capacity of reception hospitals, because so much of the available capacity is taken up. For example, I calculated the additional time it would take for the ambulances involved in the longest 24
Q.
Could this policy result in increased evacuation times?
A.
Yes.
Assuming that reception hospitals have a 14% vacancy rate, I have prepared Attachments 16 and 18 herein, which show the reception hospitals and their available capacities, along with the number of patients assigned to them from each evacuating hospital. 6 herein clearly illustrates that virtually all of the available capacity in tne 10 nearest hospitals west of the EPZ is used up.
Essentially, the LILCO Plan is right at the margin of capacity for all of the proximate reception hospitals.
A slight increase in patients to be transported out of the EPZ, or a reduction in reception center capacity (perhaps due to an influx of arriving general population evacuees), could cause an increase in evacuation time.
A prudent assessment woulo have included a test of the sensitivity of the evacuation time estimates to assumptions about capacity of reception hospitals, because so much of the available capacity is taken up.
For example, I calculated the additional time it would take for the ambulances involved in the longest 24


evacuation time at St. Charles Hospital ('.he "trace") to transport patients to Huntington Hospital if the VA Medical Center ('che reception hospital used by LILCO's consultants in the worksheets) were already filled to capacity.     (The VA Medical Center might already be filled for several reasons, including something as simple as the Hospital Coordinator assigning other vehicles to go there beforehand, which is the Hospital Coordinator's prerogative under OPIP 3.6.5.)     Attachment 19 herein shows that if just the second wave (i.e., the second trip from Suffolk Infirmary to the reception hospital) must travel to             I Huntington Hospital instead of the VA Medical Center, assuming LILCO's travel speeds, the overall hospital evacuation time estimate for the trace vehicles is increased by 19 minutes to 12.72 hours. Although a 19 minute increase may not seem substantial, it could be significant due to the additive nature of LILCO's many assumptions. This is just a sample of the kind of sensitivity analysis that LILCO should have performed but neglected to perform.
evacuation time at St. Charles Hospital ('.he "trace") to transport patients to Huntington Hospital if the VA Medical Center ('che reception hospital used by LILCO's consultants in the worksheets) were already filled to capacity.
: 4. Vehicle and Vehicle Driver Availability                     ,
(The VA Medical Center might already be filled for several reasons, including something as simple as the Hospital Coordinator assigning other vehicles to go there beforehand, which is the Hospital Coordinator's prerogative under OPIP 3.6.5.) 9 herein shows that if just the second wave (i.e.,
Q. Have you reviewed LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates from the perspective of vehicle availability?
the second trip from Suffolk Infirmary to the reception hospital) must travel to I
A. Yes. LILCO assumes that 63 ambulances and 130 ambulettes will be available to evacuate persons in special facilities and 25
Huntington Hospital instead of the VA Medical Center, assuming LILCO's travel speeds, the overall hospital evacuation time estimate for the trace vehicles is increased by 19 minutes to 12.72 hours.
Although a 19 minute increase may not seem substantial, it could be significant due to the additive nature of LILCO's many assumptions.
This is just a sample of the kind of sensitivity analysis that LILCO should have performed but neglected to perform.
4.
Vehicle and Vehicle Driver Availability Q.
Have you reviewed LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates from the perspective of vehicle availability?
A.
Yes.
LILCO assumes that 63 ambulances and 130 ambulettes will be available to evacuate persons in special facilities and 25


persons who are homebound. If any of these vehicles are not available, then the slack will have to be taken up by more waves of departures for those vehicles that are available.     The effect could be lengthened evacuation times.
persons who are homebound.
If any of these vehicles are not available, then the slack will have to be taken up by more waves of departures for those vehicles that are available.
The effect could be lengthened evacuation times.
As a rule of thumb, bus companies. typically build in an approximate 15% fleet excess to ensure continued full operation.
As a rule of thumb, bus companies. typically build in an approximate 15% fleet excess to ensure continued full operation.
This allows for periodic maintenance or other events that reduce fleet presence. This means that if LILCO needs 193 ambulances and ambulettes to implement the evacuation, LILCO should plan to have a 15% surplus on hand. By inference, LILCO's current fleet size of 193 ambulances and ambulettes should be discounted by 151 to account for the lack of a 15t surplus. In other words, LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates involve 193 ambulances and ambulettes. To ensure that 193 actually would be available, LILCO should have 193 + .15(193), or 222 ambulances and ambulettes, at the Brentwood and Peconic staging areas.     With 193 ambulances and ambulettes, LILCO only ensures that it has 193 -
This allows for periodic maintenance or other events that reduce fleet presence.
                .15(193), or 164, ambulances and ambulettes.     Evacuation times would be lengthened if LILCO only has the number of evacuation vehicles actually available in an emergency.
This means that if LILCO needs 193 ambulances and ambulettes to implement the evacuation, LILCO should plan to have a 15% surplus on hand.
By inference, LILCO's current fleet size of 193 ambulances and ambulettes should be discounted by 151 to account for the lack of a 15t surplus.
In other words, LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates involve 193 ambulances and ambulettes.
To ensure that 193 actually would be available, LILCO should have 193 +.15(193), or 222 ambulances and ambulettes, at the Brentwood and Peconic staging areas.
With 193 ambulances and ambulettes, LILCO only ensures that it has 193 -
.15(193), or 164, ambulances and ambulettes.
Evacuation times would be lengthened if LILCO only has the number of evacuation vehicles actually available in an emergency.
Other reasons why ambulances and ambulettes might not be available are:
Other reasons why ambulances and ambulettes might not be available are:
: 1. The special health facilities, which evacuate with their own vehicles, t ald reduce their fleet size through lack of replacement, of aging vehicles or other reasons, putting more of a burden on LILCO's fleet; 26
1.
: 2. The special facilities populations might grow much faster than growth, if any, in LILCO's fleet; U
The special health facilities, which evacuate with their own vehicles, t ald reduce their fleet size through lack of replacement, of aging vehicles or other reasons, putting more of a burden on LILCO's fleet; 26
: 3. Ambulance companies may be called directly by private. citizens, thereby reducing the number of vehicles available to LILCO a. 3rentwood or Peconic.
 
Furthermore, LILCO assumes that vehicles will arrive in accordance with the arrival distribution specified in the contracts. This general distribution is then arbitrarily broken down into finer 10-minute arrivals, for purposes of dispatching.
2.
There appears to be no empirical basis for this arrival-every                     ,
The special facilities populations might grow much faster than growth, if any, in LILCO's fleet; U
3.
Ambulance companies may be called directly by private. citizens, thereby reducing the number of vehicles available to LILCO a. 3rentwood or Peconic.
Furthermore, LILCO assumes that vehicles will arrive in accordance with the arrival distribution specified in the contracts.
This general distribution is then arbitrarily broken down into finer 10-minute arrivals, for purposes of dispatching.
There appears to be no empirical basis for this arrival-every,
minute distribution, but it appears that if a critical ("trace")
minute distribution, but it appears that if a critical ("trace")
ambulance were to arrive one hour late, then the evacuation times would be lengthened by approximately an hour. The ratio between arrival tardiness and evacuation duration is 1 to 1.
ambulance were to arrive one hour late, then the evacuation times would be lengthened by approximately an hour.
Q. Have you reviewed LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates from the perspective of vehicle driver availability?
The ratio between arrival tardiness and evacuation duration is 1 to 1.
A. Yes. LILCO implicitly assumes that each vehicle has one driver for the full time period necessary. This is unrealistic because leave time, fatigue and work rules, etc. may reduce tne number of available drivers.
Q.
!                              27
Have you reviewed LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates from the perspective of vehicle driver availability?
A.
Yes. LILCO implicitly assumes that each vehicle has one driver for the full time period necessary.
This is unrealistic because leave time, fatigue and work rules, etc. may reduce tne number of available drivers.
27


Consistent with what has been previously discussed regarding planned vehicle excesses, bus companies typically employ 1.35 to 2.0 times as many drivers as vehicles to ensure that a fleet of a given size can in fact be operated.     Attachment 20 herein presents more precise figures in this regard. LILCO should have
Consistent with what has been previously discussed regarding planned vehicle excesses, bus companies typically employ 1.35 to 2.0 times as many drivers as vehicles to ensure that a fleet of a given size can in fact be operated. 0 herein presents more precise figures in this regard. LILCO should have followed the same principle and planned for a 35% - 100% surplus instead of planning for 0% surplus.
:                            followed the same principle and planned for a 35% - 100% surplus instead of planning for 0% surplus.     Driver unavailability due to fatigue could result in lengthened evacuation times.
Driver unavailability due to fatigue could result in lengthened evacuation times.
: 5. Hospital Evacuation Routes Q. What assessment have you made concerning routes used in the evacuation of hospitals?
5.
A. The LILCO Plan does not expressly describe the routes used in the evacuation of hospitals.     There is a general assumption 1
Hospital Evacuation Routes Q.
stated that the routes taken are assumed to be those used by the general evacuation population, but since many of the reception hospitals are not on those routes, clearly some off-path travel is implied. The worksheets, however, describe the individual routes assumed for each movement.     I did not check all of the routes because there were too many, but I did focus on the path of the trace vehicles. These paths, for the two longest traces,
What assessment have you made concerning routes used in the evacuation of hospitals?
,                            are shown in Attachments 4 and 6 herein.
A.
Q. What concerns do you have about the routes to be taken?
The LILCO Plan does not expressly describe the routes used in the evacuation of hospitals.
There is a general assumption 1
stated that the routes taken are assumed to be those used by the general evacuation population, but since many of the reception hospitals are not on those routes, clearly some off-path travel is implied.
The worksheets, however, describe the individual routes assumed for each movement.
I did not check all of the routes because there were too many, but I did focus on the path of the trace vehicles.
These paths, for the two longest traces, are shown in Attachments 4 and 6 herein.
Q.
What concerns do you have about the routes to be taken?
28 l
28 l
l l
l l


t i
t i
l A.         I have the following concerns:
l A.
: 1. The routes are not minimum time paths.                     Although the routes were selected to "minimize delays," the main selection criteria were that "major routes" or "more prominant, more familiar roads" were preferable and "local streets" or "circuitous routes" were avoided.
I have the following concerns:
Lieberman Deposition Tr. 66-67 (March 25, 1988); Sobotka Deposition Tr. 23 (March 7, 1988).                 In short, the selection criteria were qualitative, not quantitative.
1.
The routes are not minimum time paths.
Although the routes were selected to "minimize delays," the main selection criteria were that "major routes" or "more prominant, more familiar roads" were preferable and "local streets" or "circuitous routes" were avoided.
Lieberman Deposition Tr. 66-67 (March 25, 1988); Sobotka Deposition Tr. 23 (March 7, 1988).
In short, the selection criteria were qualitative, not quantitative.
Essentially, the routes were selected arbitrarily.
Essentially, the routes were selected arbitrarily.
: 2. Route distances appear to be in error.                     Many route lengths were estimated by scaling the distances off                                             ,
2.
<                                                                                      Hagstrom maps, and multiplying by a scaling factor.                       To correct these problems, I carefully reviewed the distances on the trace path to assess this method.                       Of the 11 primary distances, two were correct.                       All of the segments on the State routes were, in fact, of different i                                                                                     lengths, and arithmetic and scaling errors were made on the remainder of the segments. Some of these resulted in longer or shorter distances.                 Attachment 21 herein I                                                                                     shows the results.           When the trace is corrected for these                             :
Route distances appear to be in error.
1 errors, a +1.52-mile difference is introduced:                       The revised trace time is 12.40 (12:24).                 See Attachment 22 herein.
Many route lengths were estimated by scaling the distances off Hagstrom maps, and multiplying by a scaling factor.
29                                                                   ,
To correct these problems, I carefully reviewed the distances on the trace path to assess this method.
d
Of the 11 primary distances, two were correct.
                                  - ~ . .- - - - - - _ . , - - , - - - -                           . , , .-          ~n..,
All of the segments on the State routes were, in fact, of different i
                                                                                                            -n.,-.        .,_,,,.,am         w,, ,,e,-    -
lengths, and arithmetic and scaling errors were made on the remainder of the segments.
                                                                                                                                                                  ._n.. -cn -- w --, -
Some of these resulted in longer or shorter distances. 1 herein I
shows the results.
When the trace is corrected for these 1
errors, a +1.52-mile difference is introduced:
The revised trace time is 12.40 (12:24).
See Attachment 22 herein.
29 d
- ~..- - - - - - _., - -, - - - -
-n.,-.
~n..,
.,_,,,.,am w,,
,,e,-
._n..
-cn
-- w --, -


4
4 3.
: 3. Several route directions could be confusing to drivers. On the route to St. Charles Hospital, vehicles are assumed to travel north on Route 25A to Port Jefferson, and then to take a right on Myrtle Avenue. -
Several route directions could be confusing to drivers.
However, a generic hospital roadsign (intended to direct motorists to Mather Hospital) is posted four
On the route to St. Charles Hospital, vehicles are assumed to travel north on Route 25A to Port Jefferson, and then to take a right on Myrtle Avenue. -
-          intersections earlier, at North Country Road. There is no direction sign for St. Charles Hospital at the Myrtle Avenue turn. Drivers destined for St. Charles Hospital could depart from the assumed route and report to Mather Hospital by mistake. This could delay the St. Charles evacuation, particularly if queues form at Mather.
However, a generic hospital roadsign (intended to direct motorists to Mather Hospital) is posted four intersections earlier, at North Country Road.
These are problems on the longest path. It is reasonable to assume that other paths have similar problems.
There is no direction sign for St. Charles Hospital at the Myrtle Avenue turn.
: 6. Formation of Queues at Evacuating and Reception Hospitals O. What concerns do you have about the formation of queues at hospitals?
Drivers destined for St. Charles Hospital could depart from the assumed route and report to Mather Hospital by mistake.
This could delay the St. Charles evacuation, particularly if queues form at Mather.
These are problems on the longest path.
It is reasonable to assume that other paths have similar problems.
6.
Formation of Queues at Evacuating and Reception Hospitals O.
What concerns do you have about the formation of queues at hospitals?
30
30


A. LILCO's implicit assumption appears to be that vehicles were dispatched so as to minimize queue formation. Sobotka Deposition Tr. 71 (March 7, 1988). However, that goal was not achieved, since this is not an optimizing model in any sense and the trace path does, in fact, contain queueing time totaling 18 minutes.
A.
For summer adverse conditions, the queuing time is 1.62 hours, or 10% of the total time.     Also, documentation on how the queues were calculated is non-existent beyond approximately six hours.                                                                   ;
LILCO's implicit assumption appears to be that vehicles were dispatched so as to minimize queue formation.
Sobotka Deposition Tr. 71 (March 7, 1988).
However, that goal was not achieved, since this is not an optimizing model in any sense and the trace path does, in fact, contain queueing time totaling 18 minutes.
For summer adverse conditions, the queuing time is 1.62 hours, or 10% of the total time.
Also, documentation on how the queues were calculated is non-existent beyond approximately six hours.
The bases of these calculations are unknown.
The bases of these calculations are unknown.
Since queues are clearly a result of inefficient dispatching, it would seem that LILCO should improve its dispatching procedures to reduce them.
Since queues are clearly a result of inefficient dispatching, it would seem that LILCO should improve its dispatching procedures to reduce them.
: 7. LILCO's Effort Has Not Been Comprehensive Q. On the subject of hospital evacuation time estimates, is the j                                                       LILCO Plan sufficiently comprehensive?
7.
i A. The portion of the LILCO Plan that deals with hospital evacuation time estimates is not a "plan" at all, but a set of
LILCO's Effort Has Not Been Comprehensive Q.
!                                                        largely arbitrary and unsupported assumptions supplemented by worksheets that produce a single "answer," i.e., the longest evacuation time estimate of 12.34 hours.                 This effort was not as j
On the subject of hospital evacuation time estimates, is the j
comprehensive as it should have been and should have produced at a minimum, the following:                                                                                                       ;
LILCO Plan sufficiently comprehensive?
i A.
The portion of the LILCO Plan that deals with hospital evacuation time estimates is not a "plan" at all, but a set of largely arbitrary and unsupported assumptions supplemented by worksheets that produce a single "answer,"
i.e.,
the longest evacuation time estimate of 12.34 hours.
This effort was not as comprehensive as it should have been and should have produced at j
a minimum, the following:
t 31
t 31
                                                                                                                                                                                        ?
?
                                                                                            , or y '
, or y
v-w--y- - -
v-w--y-v-+
v-+ = ~ - - e----- - - - - ,
= ~ - -
: l. A projection of a range of realistic scenarios describing the situation likely to be present in the event that hospitals needed to be evacuated. Presently, only one scenario (Full 10 Mile) contains calculations for St. Charles Hospital.
e-----
: 2. Identification of a number of alternative ways to manage the hospital evacuation.
 
: 3. An evaluation, including full sensitivity analyses, of these alternatives, their components, their effectiveness and their vehicle and communications requirements.
l.
: 4. A selection and description of the recommended procedure to evacuate hospitals.
A projection of a range of realistic scenarios describing the situation likely to be present in the event that hospitals needed to be evacuated.
: 5. Actions to ensure that the recommended procedure can, in fact, be implemented effectively, and actions to respond to unforeseen circumstances.
Presently, only one scenario (Full 10 Mile) contains calculations for St. Charles Hospital.
: 8. Failure to Use Appropriate Analytical Tools Q. Did LILCO use appropriate analytical tools to generate its hospital evacuation time estimates?
2.
Identification of a number of alternative ways to manage the hospital evacuation.
3.
An evaluation, including full sensitivity analyses, of these alternatives, their components, their effectiveness and their vehicle and communications requirements.
4.
A selection and description of the recommended procedure to evacuate hospitals.
5.
Actions to ensure that the recommended procedure can, in fact, be implemented effectively, and actions to respond to unforeseen circumstances.
8.
Failure to Use Appropriate Analytical Tools Q.
Did LILCO use appropriate analytical tools to generate its hospital evacuation time estimates?
32
32


A.       LILCO did not use a number of analytical tools which, if used, would likely have lead to more reliable hospital evacuation time estimates.       For instance, the time-based routing should have been handled with a computerized network of the evacuation area between the EPZ and the reception centers.                                                     Alternative origin-destination assignments could then have been efficiently selected. The scheduling could have been undertaken with either l     an integer programming algorithm, or with a dynamic simulation model, so that the true optimum assignment could be determined.
A.
Finally, once identified, the best schedule should have been converted to specific instructions to the LILCO Coordinators on i
LILCO did not use a number of analytical tools which, if used, would likely have lead to more reliable hospital evacuation time estimates.
how to im{lsment it.
For instance, the time-based routing should have been handled with a computerized network of the evacuation area between the EPZ and the reception centers.
IV. Summary Q.       Please summarize your findings concerning the bases and accuracy of LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates?
Alternative origin-destination assignments could then have been efficiently selected.
A.       The need for information about variables affecting evacuation times is substantial because LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based on assumptions, many of which are subject to wide variations, and some of which are not well-supported. For example, the longest evacuation time (12:20) is derived from two ambulances which participate in two evacuation waves involving the Suffolk Infirmary, and then participate in another evacuation 33
The scheduling could have been undertaken with either l
an integer programming algorithm, or with a dynamic simulation model, so that the true optimum assignment could be determined.
Finally, once identified, the best schedule should have been converted to specific instructions to the LILCO Coordinators on how to im{lsment it.
i IV.
Summary Q.
Please summarize your findings concerning the bases and accuracy of LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates?
A.
The need for information about variables affecting evacuation times is substantial because LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based on assumptions, many of which are subject to wide variations, and some of which are not well-supported. For example, the longest evacuation time (12:20) is derived from two ambulances which participate in two evacuation waves involving the Suffolk Infirmary, and then participate in another evacuation 33


wave involving St. Charles Hospital.     Every step in this sequence of eight trips is based on assumptions about arrival times at staging areas, processing times, highway speeds, distances, travel routes, destination hospitals, patient loading and unloading times, and queuing times that are at best questionable or unsupported, at worst miscalculated.     Without a full sensitivity analysis assessing the affect of variations in these assumptions, the LILCO Plan is incomplete.     LILCO, however, ignores the need for more information about variables and unrealistically assumes that all of its assumptions will in fact hold true in a real emergency.
wave involving St. Charles Hospital.
Every step in this sequence of eight trips is based on assumptions about arrival times at staging areas, processing times, highway speeds, distances, travel routes, destination hospitals, patient loading and unloading times, and queuing times that are at best questionable or unsupported, at worst miscalculated.
Without a full sensitivity analysis assessing the affect of variations in these assumptions, the LILCO Plan is incomplete.
LILCO, however, ignores the need for more information about variables and unrealistically assumes that all of its assumptions will in fact hold true in a real emergency.
The most critical assumptions made by LILCO concern speeds.
The most critical assumptions made by LILCO concern speeds.
Given that congestion will be pervasive and that level of service F operation will be the rule, speeds cannot be determined to any greater accuracy than 5 mph.     However, LILCO failed to consider this variation in speed. As can be seen from Attachment 9 herein, more realistic assumptions involving speed variations, when applied to the LILCO trace vehicles, yield an evacuation time of 14.5 - 20.5 hours, or 17-66% more than LILCO's numbers.
Given that congestion will be pervasive and that level of service F operation will be the rule, speeds cannot be determined to any greater accuracy than 5 mph.
This is just one illustration of how evacuation times are 1
However, LILCO failed to consider this variation in speed.
increased by applying a different, more appropriate set of assumptions. Errors concerning the number of patients to be evacuated, road distances, and reception hospital assignments also reveal inaccuracies that belie LILCO's time estimates.
As can be seen from Attachment 9 herein, more realistic assumptions involving speed variations, when applied to the LILCO trace vehicles, yield an evacuation time of 14.5 - 20.5 hours, or 17-66% more than LILCO's numbers.
Furthermore, factors such as vehicle and vehicle driver i  availability, hospital evacuation routes, and formation of queues 34
This is just one illustration of how evacuation times are increased by applying a different, more appropriate set of 1
assumptions.
Errors concerning the number of patients to be evacuated, road distances, and reception hospital assignments also reveal inaccuracies that belie LILCO's time estimates.
Furthermore, factors such as vehicle and vehicle driver availability, hospital evacuation routes, and formation of queues i
34


at hospitals bear upon LILCO's time estimates.                                                                             Taken together, all of these considerations have the additive effect of substantially increasing LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.-
at hospitals bear upon LILCO's time estimates.
Q. Are LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates reliable?
Taken together, all of these considerations have the additive effect of substantially increasing LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.-
A. No, for the reasons stated above.
Q.
Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
Are LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates reliable?
A. Yes.
A.
No, for the reasons stated above.
Q.
Does this conclude your testimony?
A.
Yes.
t I
t I
i 35 2
i 35 2


CCCKEiEC 03NRC DATE: April 13, 1988 16 MH 19 R2:18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA               jrrici.G.*rtr.tur-NUCLEAR REGUIATOdY COMMISSION                                       O I de f U Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board In the Matter of                     )
CCCKEiEC 03NRC DATE:
                                        )
April 13, 1988 16 MH 19 R2:18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA jrrici.G.*rtr.tur-NUCLEAR REGUIATOdY COMMISSION O I de f U Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board In the Matter of
IDNG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY         )       Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
                                        )       (Emergency Planning)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,   )
IDNG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
                                        )
)
Unit 1)                             )
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
                                        )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVJCI I hereby certify that copies of the "Direct Testimony of David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding Hospital Evacuation Time Estimates" have been served on                                                       ,
(Emergency Planning)
the following this 13th day of April 1988 by U.S. Mail, first class, except as noted by asterisks.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
Mr. Frederick J. ShonVe Atomic Safety and Licensing Board           William R. Cumming, Esq."*:
)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission           Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C. 20555                   Federal Emergency Management Agenc 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C.     20472 Dr. Jerry R. Kline A*                       Mr. James P. Gleason, Chairman +
)
* Atomic Safety and Licensing Board           Atomic Safety ar.d Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission           U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555                   Washington, D.C.       20555 l
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVJCI I hereby certify that copies of the "Direct Testimony of David T.
: Hartgen, Ph.D., on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding Hospital Evacuation Time Estimates" have been served on the following this 13th day of April 1988 by U.S.
Mail, first class, except as noted by asterisks.
Mr. Frederick J. ShonVe Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William R. Cumming, Esq."*:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agenc 500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline A*
Mr. James P. Gleason, Chairman +
* Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety ar.d Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 l


Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.                                             Joel Blau, Esq.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
General Counsel                                                           Director, Utility Intervention Long Island Lighting Company                                             N.Y. Consumer Protection Eoard 175 East Old Country Road                                               Suite 1020 Hicksville, New York 11801                                               Albany, New York         12210 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi                                                     Mr. Donald P.       IrwinAF Clerk                                                                   Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature                                               707 East Main Street Suffolk County Legislature                                               P.O. Box 1535 Office Building                                                         Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L.F. Britt                                                           Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Joel Blau, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company                                             Tworey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station                                           33 West Second Street North Country Road                                                       Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes                                                         Docketing and Service Section Execucive Director                                                       Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents coalition                                             U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 195 East Main Street                                                     1717 H Street, N.W.
General Counsel Director, Utility Intervention Long Island Lighting Company N.Y. Consumer Protection Eoard 175 East Old Country Road Suite 1020 Hicksville, New York 11801 Albany, New York 12210 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi Mr. Donald P. IrwinAF Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Suffolk County Legislature P.O.
Smithtown, New York 11787                                               Washington, D.C. 20555 Adrian Johnson, Esq.                                                     Hon. Patrick G. Halpin New York State Department of Law                                         Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor                                                 H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-16                                                               Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York                       10271                           Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates                                                 Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue                                                     North Shore Committee Suite K                                                                 P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California                                             95125   Wading River, New York         11792 E. Thomas Boyle                                                         Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.55 Suffolk County Attorney                                                 Kirpatrick & Lockhart Building 158 North County Complex                                       1800 M Street, N.W.
Box 1535 Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr.
Veterans Memorial Highway                                               South Lobby - Ninth Floor Hauppauge, New York 11788                                               Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger                                                     Edwin J. Reisrk New York State Energy Office                                             U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building #2                                                       Washington, D. C.         20555 Empire State Plaza
L.F.
;                                            Albany, New York 12223 2
Britt Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Tworey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Execucive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents coalition U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Adrian Johnson, Esq.
Hon. Patrick G.
Halpin New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-16 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 E. Thomas Boyle Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.55 Suffolk County Attorney Kirpatrick & Lockhart Building 158 North County Complex 1800 M Street, N.W.
Veterans Memorial Highway South Lobby - Ninth Floor Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Edwin J.
Reisrk New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building #2 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 2
l i
l i


Mr. James P. Gleason                                                               Douglas J. Hynes Chairman                                                                           Town Board of Oyster Bay Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                                                   Town Hall 513 Gilmoure Drive                                                               Oyster ray, New York 11771 Silver Spring, MD                                         20901 David A. Brownlee, Esq.                                                           Mr. Philip McIntrie Kirkpatrick & Lockhart                                                             FEMA 1500 Oliver Building                                                             26 Federal Plaza Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania                                         15222             New York, New York                                               10278 Mr. Stuart Diamond                                                                 Adjuicatory File Business / Financial                                                             Atomic Safety and Licensing NEW YORK TIMr.S                                                                                 Board Panel Docket 229 W. 43rd Street                                                               U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York. New York                                         10036                   Washington, D.C.                                             20555
Mr. James P. Gleason Douglas J. Hynes Chairman Town Board of Oyster Bay Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town Hall 513 Gilmoure Drive Oyster ray, New York 11771 Silver Spring, MD 20901 David A. Brownlee, Esq.
                                                                                                                                                                                          $tl$ &
Mr. Philip McIntrie Kirkpatrick & Lockhart FEMA 1500 Oliver Building 26 Federal Plaza Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 New York, New York 10278 Mr. Stuart Diamond Adjuicatory File Business / Financial Atomic Safety and Licensing NEW YORK TIMr.S Board Panel Docket 229 W.
43rd Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York. New York 10036 Washington, D.C.
20555
$tl$ &
Richar(J,/dZahnleuter, Esq.
Richar(J,/dZahnleuter, Esq.
Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Capitol, Room 229 Albany, New York                                             12224 (518) 474-1273
Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Capitol, Room 229 Albany, New York 12224 (518) 474-1273 By Telecopier By Federal Express 3
* By Telecopier
                                                    **                                      By Federal Express 3


                        - _ - _ _ _ _          . . _ . . _            :_. s l
s l
DAVID T. HARTCEN August 1987 Home                                       Office 5720 Normanskili Road                     Information Resource Management, 5-308 Slingerlands, NY 12159                   New York State Dept. of Transportation (518) 765-3623                           Albany, Nav York 12232 (518) 485-8627 COAL:             Transportation, engineering, or infor ? tion systems management.
DAVID T. HARTCEN August 1987 Home Office 5720 Normanskili Road Information Resource Management, 5-308 Slingerlands, NY 12159 New York State Dept. of Transportation (518) 765-3623 Albany, Nav York 12232 (518) 485-8627 COAL:
QUALIFICATIONS: Outstanding transportation policy analysis, management, and research background.         Over 20 years experience in transportation planning and information systems management.                     Expert at managing large comp 1.ex organizations and implementing change.                 Very strong writing and speaking skills. Over 120 papers and reports videly published.
Transportation, engineering, or infor ? tion systems management.
National and international reputation. Strong academic                   and teaching credentials. Extensive professional activities.
QUALIFICATIONS: Outstanding transportation policy analysis, management, and research background.
EDUCATION:         Ph.D., Civil Engineering / Transportation Northwestern Univ., 1973 M.S.,       Civil Engineering / Transportation, Northwestern Univ., 1967 B.S.,       Civil Engineering, Duke Univ., 1966 F.IPERIENCE :     Principal Transportation Analyst. Information Resource Management July 1987 -       New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, New York Present Develop,       evaluate and implement Management Information Systems for the Department.             Provide technical expertise on DOT business functions to IRM Of fice.             Review, evaluate, negotiate, and manage consultant studies.
Over 20 years experience in transportation planning and information systems management.
Feb. 1981 -         Director, Transportation Statistics & Analysis, NYSDOT July 1987         Managed 60+ persons responsible for collection and analysis of statistics on NYS highway systems                     (1) transportation systems extent, condition, and needs               (2) design and conduct of traffic and travel surveys, speeds, and trucks; (3) travel trends and forecasts; (4) urban transportation systems analysis.
Expert at managing large comp 1.ex organizations and implementing change.
Revitalized an extensive data collection activity into an efficient information system. Designed and implemented new methods of rapidly assessing highway condition based on photograph scales cut data delivery       time by 907. and improved accuracy and reliability.
Very strong writing and speaking skills. Over 120 papers and reports videly published.
Streamlined the traffic count program, decentralized traffic equipment and information flows, reduced data access time by 957..
National and international reputation.
Implemented         rapid-access       low-cost     speed   and   truck monitoring systems.         Revised     urban     travel     simulation   procedures                                                   using microcomputers and stand-alone traffic forecast methods.
Strong academic and teaching credentials.
Developed and implemented a Canal Management System. Prepared draft MIS Task Force report charting agency MIS directions.                                                                     Began implementation of a Highway Database.                 Developed   an Infrastructure Needs Assessment Model to forecast repair needs for highways and bridges.         Principal Investigator on 4 federal studies on traffic monitoring and forecasts, and transportation energy use. Testified before the NRC on evacuation plans for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Extensive professional activities.
EDUCATION:
Ph.D., Civil Engineering / Transportation Northwestern Univ., 1973 M.S.,
Civil Engineering / Transportation, Northwestern Univ., 1967 B.S.,
Civil Engineering, Duke Univ., 1966 F.IPERIENCE :
Principal Transportation Analyst. Information Resource Management July 1987 -
New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, New York Present
: Develop, evaluate and implement Management Information Systems for the Department.
Provide technical expertise on DOT business functions to IRM Of fice.
Review, evaluate, negotiate, and manage consultant studies.
Feb. 1981 -
Director, Transportation Statistics & Analysis, NYSDOT July 1987 Managed 60+ persons responsible for collection and analysis of statistics on NYS highway systems (1) transportation systems extent, condition, and needs (2) design and conduct of traffic and travel surveys, speeds, and trucks; (3) travel trends and forecasts; (4) urban transportation systems analysis.
Revitalized an extensive data collection activity into an efficient information system. Designed and implemented new methods of rapidly assessing highway condition based on photograph scales cut data delivery time by 907. and improved accuracy and reliability.
Streamlined the traffic count
: program, decentralized traffic equipment and information flows, reduced data access time by 957..
Implemented rapid-access low-cost speed and truck monitoring systems.
Revised urban travel simulation procedures using microcomputers and stand-alone traffic forecast methods.
Developed and implemented a Canal Management System.
Prepared draft MIS Task Force report charting agency MIS directions.
Began implementation of a Highway Database.
Developed an Infrastructure Needs Assessment Model to forecast repair needs for highways and bridges.
Principal Investigator on 4 federal studies on traffic monitoring and forecasts, and transportation energy use.
Testified before the NRC on evacuation plans for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.


s.
j' s.
j'
'/
      '/
/
  /
W' May 1984 -
W' May 1984 -
-                  Special Assistant to the Director of Planning. Fed. Highway Admin.
Special Assistant to the Director of Planning. Fed. Highway Admin.
March 1985 Initiated and implemented this assignment for training, education,
March 1985 Initiated and implemented this assignment for training, education,
/                 and experience.       Designed and conducted analysis of information                                                 i Prepared the "Highway Information needs for FHWA and the States.
/
Resources     Study",     recommending       improvements     to                                       THWA's planning-related data s'js tems ; implementation by FHWA is underway.
and experience.
Undertook pavement initiatives studies, long-term monitoring of pavements, and management systems.           Reviewed and analyzed bridge and highway deterioration models             and   funding   needs,                                       traffic monitoring, and highway condition studies.
Designed and conducted analysis of information needs for FHWA and the States.
Nsv. 1971 - Head, Planning Research Unit, NYSDOT Feb. 1981   Designed and developed analytic and planning methods studies for the Department.       Directed staff     'f   10-15 analysts.                                         Developed analysis     methods   and   procedures;     prepared     travel forecasts:
Prepared the "Highway Information Resources Study",
developed methods of economic, social and environmental impacts, travel behavior and consumer response.               Analyzed urban transit pricing, service, and fare policies.             Designed   and collected 15 travel data sets.       Analyzed   energy   price   and supply                                     shortfalls and their effects on travel.           Assessed   special   transit                                     services for elderly and handicapped persons.             Conducted and analyzed 7 public opinion surveys on transportation investments. Prepared policies and recommendations to NYS Legislature on transit operating assistance. Studied travel behavior of persons and househole .                                                 [
recommending improvements to THWA's planning-related data s'js tems ; implementation by FHWA is underway.
1967-1971   , Transportation Analyst, NYSDOT Londucted research, data collection, and analysis on transportation systems and travel for numerous New York State cities, rural areas, and statewide.
Undertook pavement initiatives studies, long-term monitoring of pavements, and management systems.
ACADEMIC:   Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Geography, SUNY at Albany.
Reviewed and analyzed bridge and highway deterioration models and funding
1978 -     Helped set up transportation program. Teach graduate courses in Present     transportation     analysis,   including     demand   models,                               statistics, travel characteristics, energy, financing.
: needs, traffic monitoring, and highway condition studies.
1974-       Initiated and operate NYSDOT student intern program with area Present     colleges; over 60 interns have served.             Advisor on 2 Ph.D.                                         and several M.S. studies.
Nsv. 1971 -
1976-1979   Adjunct Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Union College.
Head, Planning Research Unit, NYSDOT Feb. 1981 Designed and developed analytic and planning methods studies for the Department.
Directed staff
'f 10-15 analysts.
Developed analysis methods and procedures; prepared travel forecasts:
developed methods of economic, social and environmental impacts, travel behavior and consumer response.
Analyzed urban transit pricing, service, and fare policies.
Designed and collected 15 travel data sets.
Analyzed energy price and supply shortfalls and their effects on travel.
Assessed special transit services for elderly and handicapped persons.
Conducted and analyzed 7 public opinion surveys on transportation investments.
Prepared policies and recommendations to NYS Legislature on transit operating assistance.
Studied travel behavior of persons and househole.
[
1967-1971
, Transportation Analyst, NYSDOT Londucted research, data collection, and analysis on transportation systems and travel for numerous New York State cities, rural areas, and statewide.
ACADEMIC:
Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Geography, SUNY at Albany.
1978 -
Helped set up transportation program. Teach graduate courses in Present transportation
: analysis, including demand
: models, statistics, travel characteristics, energy, financing.
1974-Initiated and operate NYSDOT student intern program with area Present colleges; over 60 interns have served.
Advisor on 2 Ph.D.
and several M.S. studies.
1976-1979 Adjunct Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Union College.
Taught transportation analysis.
Taught transportation analysis.
1974       Adjunct   Professer,     Syracuse   University.       Taught undergraduate course     in   transportation     covering       travel   characteristics, legislation, analysis.
1974 Adjunct Professer, Syracuse University.
1971-     Guest lectures at University of Oklahoma, Rensselaer Polytechnic Present     Institute, Syracuse. SUNY Buffalo, Union, Ohio State University, University of Illinois, Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, Purdue.
Taught undergraduate course in transportation covering travel characteristics, legislation, analysis.
1971-Guest lectures at University of Oklahoma, Rensselaer Polytechnic Present Institute, Syracuse. SUNY Buffalo, Union, Ohio State University, University of Illinois, Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, Purdue.
Clark, Oxford I, Warwick Universities (England), City of Amsterdam (Holland), 'Jniversity of Wisconsin, and athers.
Clark, Oxford I, Warwick Universities (England), City of Amsterdam (Holland), 'Jniversity of Wisconsin, and athers.
PUBLICATIONS: Authored over 120 reports :nd papers, 63 of which are published in the refereed professional literature.         Selected most recent:
PUBLICATIONS: Authored over 120 reports :nd papers, 63 of which are published in the refereed professional literature.
Selected most recent:


1984           "Highway Information Resources Study" report for FHWA, Dec. 1984.
1984 "Highway Information Resources Study" report for FHWA, Dec. 1984.
"Application of the Highway Condition Projection Model to Interstate 1985.
/
/
                "Application of the Highway Condition Projection Model1985. to Interstate 14R Repairs" Transportation Research Record 955. TRB, 1985           "How Good is HPMS: Comparison with 5 tate Results", Transportation Research Record 1060. TRB, 1986.
14R Repairs" Transportation Research Record 955. TRB, 1985 "How Good is HPMS:
                "The FHWA Highway Information Resources Study: Overview,           Status, Direction", Transportation Analysis Report 60, NYSDOT.
Comparison with 5 tate Results", Transportation Research Record 1060. TRB, 1986.
Condition     Ra':ing: Balancing   Quality, "Network-level      Pavement Hurschenhorn, Transportation Quantity and Timeliness", with           E.
"The FHWA Highway Information Resources Study:
Research Record 1060, TRB, 1986.
Overview, Status, Direction", Transportation Analysis Report 60, NYSDOT.
                  "Integrating Highway Information:         The New York Approach", paper 1986 presented at the FHWA File Linkage Conference, Salt Lake City.
"Network-level Pavement Condition Ra':ing:
                  "Are   Truck   Weights   Really   Increasing?",   with   D.M. Bager, Transportation Analysis Report 59, NYSDOT.
Balancing
                  "A Strategy For Change", Draft report of the MIS Task Force, New York State Department of Transportation, 1986.
: Quality, Quantity and Timeliness", with E.
Plan to Develop a Comprehensive MIS for New York DOT",             MIS "A
Hurschenhorn, Transportation Research Record 1060, TRB, 1986.
Task Force, NYSDOT, December (with others).
1986 "Integrating Highway Information:
1987           "Policy Opportunities for Travel Behavior Analysis", paper prepared for the 5'th International Conference on Travel Behavior.
The New York Approach", paper presented at the FHWA File Linkage Conference, Salt Lake City.
                  "Testimony on Behalf of New fork Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers", for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 13, 1987.
"Are Truck Weights Really Increasing?",
PROFESSIONAL:   Served on or chaired over 20 national and international panels and committees. Presently, Chair of TRB's Subcommittee on Statewide Infor=ation Systems.       Chaired   the International Conference on Travel Demand     (1982),   and TRB   Committee on Travel Behavior, 1977-1983. Associate Editor, Transportation, 1974-present.
with D.M.
: Bager, Transportation Analysis Report 59, NYSDOT.
"A Strategy For Change", Draft report of the MIS Task Force, New York State Department of Transportation, 1986.
"A Plan to Develop a Comprehensive MIS for New York DOT",
MIS Task Force, NYSDOT, December (with others).
1987 "Policy Opportunities for Travel Behavior Analysis", paper prepared for the 5'th International Conference on Travel Behavior.
"Testimony on Behalf of New fork Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers", for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 13, 1987.
PROFESSIONAL:
Served on or chaired over 20 national and international panels and committees.
Presently, Chair of TRB's Subcommittee on Statewide Infor=ation Systems.
Chaired the International Conference on Travel Demand (1982),
and TRB Committee on Travel
: Behavior, 1977-1983.
Associate Editor, Transportation, 1974-present.
Registered Professional Engineer, Maine #5762.
Registered Professional Engineer, Maine #5762.
AFFILLATIONS:   American Public Works Association Transportation Research Board
AFFILLATIONS:
American Public Works Association Transportation Research Board


i David T. Hartgen 6                                                   Publications and Reports August, 1987 1966   "A Comprehensive Report of Parking and Traffic on Duke University". Civil Engineering Department. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (with C.N.
i David T. Hartgen 6
Publications and Reports August, 1987 1966 "A Comprehensive Report of Parking and Traffic on Duke University". Civil Engineering Department. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (with C.N.
Holland) (Senior Thesis).
Holland) (Senior Thesis).
1967   "Optimum Location and Capacity of University Parking Facilities", Northwestern University Department of Civil Engineering, June 1967 (Master's Thesis).
1967 "Optimum Location and Capacity of University Parking Facilities", Northwestern University Department of Civil Engineering, June 1967 (Master's Thesis).
1968   "Calibration of Transit Networks in Medium Sized Urban Areas". Transportation Research Record No. 297, TRB, Washington, DC.
1968 "Calibration of Transit Networks in Medium Sized Urban Areas". Transportation Research Record No. 297, TRB, Washington, DC.
        "Modal Split in Small Urban Areas", Preliminary Research Report No.                             15, 1969 NYSDOT, July.
1969 "Modal Split in Small Urban Areas", Preliminary Research Report No.
1969   "Optimal Design of a Surface Transit System". NYSDOT Report, Kibany, NY 12232.
15, NYSDOT, July.
1970   "A   Behavioral Model of Mode Choice", Preliminary Research Report No. 19 NYSDOT, March (with G.H. Tanner).                                                                     ,
1969 "Optimal Design of a Surface Transit System". NYSDOT Report, Kibany, NY 12232.
        "Mode Choice and Attitudes:                           A Literature Review", Preliminary Research 1970 Report No. 21 NYSDOT, April.
1970 "A Behavioral Model of Mode Choice", Preliminary Research Report No. 19 NYSDOT, March (with G.H. Tanner).
1970   "Individus1 Attitudes and Family Activities:                         A Behavioral Model of Traveler Mode Choice", High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, Volume IV 3 p.
1970 "Mode Choice and Attitudes:
A Literature Review", Preliminary Research Report No. 21 NYSDOT, April.
1970 "Individus1 Attitudes and Family Activities:
A Behavioral Model of Traveler Mode Choice", High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, Volume IV 3 p.
439-467 (with George H. Tanner).
439-467 (with George H. Tanner).
1971   "Investigation of the Ef fect of Traveler Attitudes in a Model of Mode Choice Behavior", Transportation Research Record No.                         369 Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC (with George H. Tanner).
1971 "Investigation of the Ef fect of Traveler Attitudes in a Model of Mode Choice Behavior", Transportation Research Record No.
1972   "A   Note on the Ability of Socioeconomic Variables to Explain Attitudinal Bias Toward Alternative Travel Modes". High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, Volume IV:2.
369 Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC (with George H. Tanner).
1972   "Forecasting Remote Park & Ride Transit Usage", Preliminary Research Report No. 39, NYSDOT, December, 1973   "The Influence of Attitudinal and Situational Variables on Urban Mode Choice".
1972 "A Note on the Ability of Socioeconomic Variables to Explain Attitudinal Bias Toward Alternative Travel Modes". High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, Volume IV:2.
1972 "Forecasting Remote Park & Ride Transit Usage", Preliminary Research Report No. 39, NYSDOT, December, 1973 "The Influence of Attitudinal and Situational Variables on Urban Mode Choice".
Preliminary Research Report No. 41, NYSDOT, March (Ph.D. Dissertation).
Preliminary Research Report No. 41, NYSDOT, March (Ph.D. Dissertation).
1973   "Design for Buffalo Home-Interview Travel Survey",                           Preliminary Research Report No. 47 NYSDOT, June.
1973 "Design for Buffalo Home-Interview Travel Survey",
1973   "Disaggregate Travel Demand Models for Special Context Planning: A Dissenting View". Transportation Research Poard Special Report No. 143. TRB, Washington; DC (with Martin Wachs), 1974.
Preliminary Research Report No. 47 NYSDOT, June.
1973   "Forecasting Demand for Improved Quality Transit Surveys with Small-Sample                           i Surveys" Preliminary Research Report No. 51, NYSDOT, November.
1973 "Disaggregate Travel Demand Models for Special Context Planning: A Dissenting View". Transportation Research Poard Special Report No. 143. TRB, Washington; DC (with Martin Wachs), 1974.
1973 "Forecasting Demand for Improved Quality Transit Surveys with Small-Sample i
Surveys" Preliminary Research Report No. 51, NYSDOT, November.


1973                         "Variations     in Reference Scale and Perception of Modal Attributes for Different Traveler Groups", Prolisinary Research Report No. 55 NYSDOT, November.
1973 "Variations in Reference Scale and Perception of Modal Attributes for Different Traveler Groups", Prolisinary Research Report No.
of Intercity Travel Demand Models                                                                                                                                   for NYS Urban Areas",
55
1974                        "Development Preliminary Research Report No.                                                                                 58, NYSDOT, March. (with G.S. Cohen and R. Albertin).
: NYSDOT, November.
1974                         "A Systems-Level Planning Application of the Disaggregate Modeling Technique",
1974 "Development of Intercity Travel Demand Models for NYS Urban Areas",
Preliminary Research Report No. 62 NYSDOT, June, (with P.S. Liou and C.S.
Preliminary Research Report No.
58, NYSDOT, March. (with G.S.
Cohen and R. Albertin).
1974 "A Systems-Level Planning Application of the Disaggregate Modeling Technique",
Preliminary Research Report No. 62 NYSDOT, June, (with P.S.
Liou and C.S.
Cohen).
Cohen).
1974                         "Design for the Ceaesee Transportation Study Travel Survey", Preliminary Research Report No. 64, July, NYSDOT.
1974 "Design for the Ceaesee Transportation Study Travel Survey", Preliminary Research Report No. 64, July, NYSDOT.
1974                         Position Bias in Transportat. ion opinion Questions", Preliminary Research Report No. 68, NYSDOT, August.
1974 Position Bias in Transportat. ion opinion Questions", Preliminary Research Report No. 68, NYSDOT, August.
1974                         "A Dynamic Model of Travel Mode-Switching Behavior", Transportation 3 (1974) 45-58.
1974 "A Dynamic Model of Travel Mode-Switching Behavior", Transportation 3 (1974) 45-58.
1974                         "Attitudinal and Situational Variables Influencing Urban Mode Choice:                                                                                                                                                                   Some   .
1974 "Attitudinal and Situational Variables Influencing Urban Mode Choice:
Empirical Findings", Transportation 3 (1974) 377-392.                                                                                                                                                                                         6 1975                         "1973     Buffalo                                                                     Travel Survey:           Design, Conduct.                                                                                     Processing", (Editor),
Some Empirical Findings", Transportation 3 (1974) 377-392.
6 1975 "1973 Buffalo Travel Survey:
: Design, Conduct.
Processing",
(Editor),
Preliminary Research Report No. 82. NYSDOT, August.
Preliminary Research Report No. 82. NYSDOT, August.
1975                         "Individual Travel Behavior Under Energy Constraints", Preliminary Research Report No. 86, NYSDOT, August.
1975 "Individual Travel Behavior Under Energy Constraints", Preliminary Research Report No. 86, NYSDOT, August.
1975                         "Equity in New York State Transit Fares", Preliminary Research Report No.
1975 "Equity in New York State Transit Fares", Preliminary Research Report No.
93, NYSDOT, October (with D.L. Weiss and G.S. Cohen).
93, NYSDOT, October (with D.L. Weiss and G.S. Cohen).
                                            "Disaggregate                                                 Access Mode and Station Choice Models                                                                                                                       for Rail Trips",
1975 "Disaggregate Access Mode and Station Choice Models for Rail Trips",
1975 Transportation Research Record No. 526                                                                                 TRB, Washington, DC (with P.S. Liou and others).
Transportation Research Record No. 526 TRB, Washington, DC (with P.S. Liou and others).
                                            "Public Transportation Operating Assistance:                                                                                   Evaluation and Options - Summary 1975 Report", NYSDOT, February 1975 (submitted to the New York State Legislature (with C. Keck, et al)).
1975 "Public Transportation Operating Assistance:
1975                         "Issues for Implementating Disaggregate Travel Demand Models", (with P.S.
Evaluation and Options - Summary Report", NYSDOT, February 1975 (submitted to the New York State Legislature (with C. Keck, et al)).
Liou), in Stopher,                                                                               P.R. and heyburg. A.N. Behavioral Travel Demand Models, Lexington Press, 1976 (NYSDOT PRR 81).
1975 "Issues for Implementating Disaggregate Travel Demand Models", (with P.S.
1975                         "Application of Disaggregate Mode Choice Models to Travel Demand Forecasting for Urban Transit Systems", Transportation Research Record No.                                                                                                                                                                   534   TRB, Washington, DC, p. 52-62, (with P.S. Liou and G.S. Cohen).
Liou), in Stopher, P.R.
1975                         "Transit Def'cits:                                                                             A Projection for New York State". Transportation Research Record No. 589. TRE, Washington, DC, (with S.M. Howe), 1976.
and heyburg.
1975                         "Energy Analysis for Urban Transportation Systems: A Preliminary Assessment",
A.N.
Behavioral Travel Demand Models, Lexington Press, 1976 (NYSDOT PRR 81).
1975 "Application of Disaggregate Mode Choice Models to Travel Demand Forecasting for Urban Transit Systems", Transportation Research Record No.
534
: TRB, Washington, DC, p. 52-62, (with P.S. Liou and G.S. Cohen).
1975 "Transit Def'cits:
A Projection for New York State". Transportation Research Record No. 589. TRE, Washington, DC, (with S.M. Howe), 1976.
1975 "Energy Analysis for Urban Transportation Systems:
A Preliminary Assessment",
Transportation Research Record No. 599, TR3, Washington, DC, 1976.
Transportation Research Record No. 599, TR3, Washington, DC, 1976.


1976             "Long Range Transporration Planning Under Energy Constraints: A Critical Review of Current Capacity", Transportation Research Record No. 592, TR3, Washington, DC.
1976 "Long Range Transporration Planning Under Energy Constraints:
                                                                                                      "Irondequoit-Wayne Expressway:       Before-After Study     Design", Preliminary 1976 Research Report No. 101, NYSDOT, June (with S.M. Howe).
A Critical Review of Current Capacity", Transportation Research Record No. 592, TR3, Washington, DC.
1976           "Differential Time-of-Day Transit Fares         Rsvenue,   Ridership 6 Equity",
1976 "Irondequoit-Wayne Expressway:
Transportation Research Record No.     625   TRB, Washington, DC, 1977 (with D.L. Weiss).
Before-After Study Design",
1976           "Analysis and Prediction of Non-Work Travel Patterns of the Elderly and Handicapped", Transportation Research Record No. 637         TRB, Washington, DC, (with S.M. Howe 6 M. Pasko), 1977.
Preliminary Research Report No. 101, NYSDOT, June (with S.M. Howe).
1976           "Forecasting Dial-A-Bus Ridership in Small Urban Areas". Transportation Research Record No. 563, TRB, Washington, DC, p. 53-62. (with C. A. Keck).
1976 "Differential Time-of-Day Transit Fares
                                                                                                      "Intercity Travel Demand Models:       State-of-the-Art", Office of University 1976 Research, USDOT, (with G.S. Cohen).
: Rsvenue, Ridership 6 Equity",
1977           "Intercity Rail Patronage in NYC-Buffalo Corridor", Preliminary Research Report No. 115 NYSDOT (with G.S. Cohen and N.S. Erlbaum) April.
Transportation Research Record No.
1977         "Cost-Effective Bus Transit     Barrier   Removal   Policies for Elderly and Handicapped", Preliminary Research Report No. 118, NYSDOT (with D.L. Weiss)
625 TRB, Washington, DC, 1977 (with D.L. Weiss).
July, 1977         "Ridesharing Behavior:   A Review of Recent Findings", paper presented at THWA's FCP Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, November 8 (NYSDOT, PRR #130).
1976 "Analysis and Prediction of Non-Work Travel Patterns of the Elderly and Handicapped", Transportation Research Record No. 637 TRB, Washington, DC, (with S.M.
1977         "Automotive Energy Forecasts:   Impact of Price, Availability and Efficiency",
Howe 6 M. Pasko), 1977.
133, NYSDOT (with C.S.      Cohen and  N.S.
1976 "Forecasting Dial-A-Bus Ridership in Small Urban Areas". Transportation Research Record No. 563, TRB, Washington, DC, p. 53-62. (with C. A. Keck).
1976 "Intercity Travel Demand Models:
State-of-the-Art", Office of University Research, USDOT, (with G.S. Cohen).
1977 "Intercity Rail Patronage in NYC-Buffalo Corridor", Preliminary Research Report No. 115 NYSDOT (with G.S. Cohen and N.S. Erlbaum) April.
1977 "Cost-Effective Bus Transit Barrier Removal Policies for Elderly and Handicapped", Preliminary Research Report No. 118, NYSDOT (with D.L.
Weiss)
: July, 1977 "Ridesharing Behavior:
A Review of Recent Findings", paper presented at THWA's FCP Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, November 8 (NYSDOT, PRR #130).
1977 "Automotive Energy Forecasts:
Impact of Price, Availability and Efficiency",
Preliminary Research Report No.
Preliminary Research Report No.
133, NYSDOT (with C.S.
Cohen and N.S.
Erlbaum), December.
Erlbaum), December.
1977       "Automotive Energy Forecasts:     Impact of Carpooling. Trip Chaining, and Auto Ovnership", Preliminary Research Report No. 134, NYSDOT, December (with N.S. Erlbaum and G.S. Cohen).
1977 "Automotive Energy Forecasts:
1977       "Incorporating Barrier Effects in Elderly and Handicapped Transit Demand i                                                                                                       Forecasts", Transportation Research Record No.       660   TRB, Washington, DC, 1978 (with R. Knighton).
Impact of Carpooling. Trip Chaining, and Auto Ovnership", Preliminary Research Report No. 134, NYSDOT, December (with N.S. Erlbaum and G.S. Cohen).
1977     "Who Favors Work-Schedule Changes, and Why", Transportation Research Record No. 677, TR3 Washington, DC, 1978 (with A.A. Tannir).
1977 "Incorporating Barrier Effects in Elderly and Handicapped Transit Demand i
19/7     "Traffic   Impacts   of 'Jork Schedule Changes in Medium-Sized Areas".
Forecasts", Transportation Research Record No.
Transportation Research Record No. 677, TRB, Washington, DC, 1978 (with A.A. Tannir).
660 TRB, Washington, DC, 1978 (with R. Knighton).
1977   "Pedestrian Movement at the Ski Jump, 1980 Winter Olympics", Transportation desearch Record No. 683, TRB, Washington, DC (with Peter L. Wolf), 1978.
1977 "Who Favors Work-Schedule Changes, and Why", Transportation Research Record No. 677, TR3 Washington, DC, 1978 (with A.A. Tannir).
673 1978   "Intercity Rail Travel Models". Transportation Research Record No.
19/7 "Traffic Impacts of
TR3, Washington, DC (with C.S. Cohen and N.S. Erlbaum).
'Jork Schedule Changes in Medium-Sized Areas".
Transportation Research Record No.
677, TRB, Washington, DC, 1978 (with A.A. Tannir).
1977 "Pedestrian Movement at the Ski Jump, 1980 Winter Olympics", Transportation desearch Record No. 683, TRB, Washington, DC (with Peter L. Wolf), 1978.
1978 "Intercity Rail Travel Models". Transportation Research Record No.
673 TR3, Washington, DC (with C.S. Cohen and N.S.
Erlbaum).


4 "NYS Casoline Use: Impact of Supply Restrictions and Embargoes", Preliminary 1978 Research Report No.142, NYSDOT (with N.S. Erlbaum and G.S. Cohen) August.
4 1978 "NYS Casoline Use:
                    "Distance-Based                                       Transit     Fares:     Robin Hood or Sheriff of Nottingham?"
Impact of Supply Restrictions and Embargoes", Preliminary Research Report No.142, NYSDOT (with N.S. Erlbaum and G.S. Cohen) August.
1978 Preliminary Research Report No. 145, NYSDOT (with D. Ballou and L. Mohan).
1978 "Distance-Based Transit Fares:
1978         "Can Current Transportation Planning Methods Analyze Women's Travel Issues?",
Robin Hood or Sheriff of Nottingham?"
Preliminary Research Report No. 145, NYSDOT (with D. Ballou and L. Mohan).
1978 "Can Current Transportation Planning Methods Analyze Women's Travel Issues?",
paper presented at the Conference on Women's Travel Issues, Washington, DC (Preliminary Research Report No. 149).
paper presented at the Conference on Women's Travel Issues, Washington, DC (Preliminary Research Report No. 149).
1978         "Foreign Oi! Dependence:                                             A State Level Analysis", (with R.                                   Margiotta and       .
1978 "Foreign Oi! Dependence:
L. Reilly), Transportation Research Record No.                                                   726               TRB, Washington, DC, 1979.
A State Level Analysis", (with R.
1978         "Transit's Role", Editorial for Transportation, 6:3.
Margiotta and L.
1978         "Transportation Energy:                                             An Overview with Emphasis on New York State".
Reilly), Transportation Research Record No.
726 TRB, Washington, DC, 1979.
1978 "Transit's Role", Editorial for Transportation, 6:3.
1978 "Transportation Energy:
An Overview with Emphasis on New York State".
Transportation Research Record No.710. TR3, Washington, DC,1979.
Transportation Research Record No.710. TR3, Washington, DC,1979.
1978         "Behavioral Science Applications                                               to Issues in Transportation Planning",
1978 "Behavioral Science Applications to Issues in Transportation Planning",
Michaels,     Transportation       Planning               and Decision Making:
in Richard M.
in  Richard                          M.                                                                                                                    '
: Michaels, Transportation Planning and Decision Making:
Behavioral Science Contributions, Praeger Press 1980.                                                                                                     .,
Behavioral Science Contributions, Praeger Press 1980.
w6 1978         "Upstate New York's Response to the Handates of the Clean Air Act."
w6 1978 "Upstate New York's Response to the Handates of the Clean Air Act."
Transportation Research Record No.                                               714     TRB, Washington, DC, 1979 (with R. Zabinski and C.S. Cohen).
Transportation Research Record No.
1979         Carpool Coordination Demonstration Study: Overview and Analysis of 'Before' Data" Preliminary Research Report No. 150, NYSDOT, March (with J.M. Brunso).
714 TRB, Washington, DC, 1979 (with R. Zabinski and C.S. Cohen).
1979         "Toward a Leading Travel Indicator". Preliminary Research Report No. 154, NYSDOT June (with P. Koeppel).
1979 Carpool Coordination Demonstration Study:
1979       "Guidelines for Transportation Energy Contingency Plans", Preliminary Research Report No. 157, NYSDOT, May 1979 (with others).
Overview and Analysis of 'Before' Data" Preliminary Research Report No. 150, NYSDOT, March (with J.M. Brunso).
1979       "A   Note                   on               Representing             Multiple-Alternative         Competition",                           Preliminary Research Report No. 166, NYSDOT, August (with others).
1979 "Toward a Leading Travel Indicator". Preliminary Research Report No. 154, NYSDOT June (with P. Koeppel).
1979       "Behavioral Models in Transportation:                                                   Perspectives, Problems. Prospects",
1979 "Guidelines for Transportation Energy Contingency Plans", Preliminary Research Report No. 157, NYSDOT, May 1979 (with others).
1979 "A
Note on Representing Multiple-Alternative Competition",
Preliminary Research Report No. 166, NYSDOT, August (with others).
1979 "Behavioral Models in Transportation:
Perspectives, Problems. Prospects",
tu David Bannister and Peter Hall, Transport and Public Policy Planning, Munsell Press (1981).
tu David Bannister and Peter Hall, Transport and Public Policy Planning, Munsell Press (1981).
1979       "Family RIACTions to Energy Constraints", (with S.P. Phifer and A.J.                                                                               Neveu) l                    Transportation Research Record No. 765 TR3, Washington, DC.
l 1979 "Family RIACTions to Energy Constraints", (with S.P. Phifer and A.J.
1979       "Energy Considerations in Transportation Planning: The New York State                                                                                       ;
Neveu)
Approach", in State Energy Conservation Activities. THWA report, June 1980.
Transportation Research Record No. 765 TR3, Washington, DC.
1979     "Changes in Travel in Response to the 1979 Energy Crisis", (with others),
1979 "Energy Considerations in Transportation Planning:
The New York State Approach", in State Energy Conservation Activities. THWA report, June 1980.
1979 "Changes in Travel in Response to the 1979 Energy Crisis", (with others),
Preliminary Research Report No. 170, PYSDOT, (November).
Preliminary Research Report No. 170, PYSDOT, (November).
i
i


O 1980 "Traffic Adjustments from Energy Economy and Population Changes", Preliminary Research Report No.175, NYSDOT (with others).
O 1980 "Traffic Adjustments from Energy Economy and Population Changes", Preliminary Research Report No.175, NYSDOT (with others).
1980  "Long-Range Forecasts of Transportation Energy Consumption in New York State",       <
"Long-Range Forecasts of Transportation Energy Consumption in New York State",
Tran s port a t ion Research Record   No. 764 TR3, Washington, DC (with N.S.
1980 Tran s port a t ion Research Record No.
764 TR3, Washington, DC (with N.S.
Erlbaum).
Erlbaum).
1980 "Who Reads the Transportation Planning Literature?", Transportation Research Record No. 793 TRB, Washington DC, (with C.S. Cohen and F. McEvoy), 1981.
1980 "Who Reads the Transportation Planning Literature?", Transportation Research Record No. 793 TRB, Washington DC, (with C.S. Cohen and F. McEvoy), 1981.
1                                          1980 "An Assessment of Cames as Methods of Providing Information on Casoline Conservation", Transportation Research Record No. 801, TR3, Washington, DC (1981) (with D. Cabrera),
1980 "An Assessment of Cames as Methods of Providing Information on Casoline 1
1980 "Transportation Energy Impact Assessment: Current Capabilities and Future Needs" Preliminary Research Report No. 178. NYSDOT, July (with N.S. Erlbaum).
Conservation", Transportation Research Record No.
1980 "Procedures and Data Needs for Estimating Casoline Use in Urban Areas",
801, TR3, Washington, DC (1981) (with D. Cabrera),
1980 "Transportation Energy Impact Assessment:
Current Capabilities and Future Needs" Preliminary Research Report No. 178. NYSDOT, July (with N.S. Erlbaum).
1980 "Procedures and Data Needs for Estimating Casoline Use in Urban Areas",
Preliminary Research Report No. 187, NYSDOT, July 1980 (with N.S. Erlbaum).
Preliminary Research Report No. 187, NYSDOT, July 1980 (with N.S. Erlbaum).
1980 "Research Design for the Neighborhood Ridesharing Demonstration Study",
1980 "Research Design for the Neighborhood Ridesharing Demonstration Study",
Preliminary Research Report No. 189 NYSDOT, 1980 (with J.M. Brunso and           .
Preliminary Research Report No.
W.R. Ugolik).                                                                     u!
189 NYSDOT, 1980 (with J.M.
1980 "Transportation Energy Contingencies: A Status Report on Public Response and Covernment Roles", Journal of Advanced Transportation. Spring, 1980.
Brunso and u!
                                                    "The 1979 Ener3y Crisis      - Who Conserved How Much" (with A.J. Neveu), paper 1980 presented at the National Energy Users Conference: San Antonio, April 1980 Research Board Special Report 191   TR3, (published in Transportation Washington, DC 1981).
W.R. Ugolik).
1960   "Urban Passenger     Strategies   (for Transportation Energy Contingencies]",
1980 "Transportation Energy Contingencies:
Workshop Summary, Transportation Research Board Special Report         No. 191, TR3, Washington, DC,1980.
A Status Report on Public Response and Covernment Roles", Journal of Advanced Transportation. Spring, 1980.
1980 "What Will Happen to Travel in the Next 20 Years", Transportation Research Record No. 807, TRB, Washington, DC, 1981.
Who Conserved How Much" (with A.J.
1980 "Issues for Developing State Transportation Energy Emergency Conservation Plans", (with R. Bixby and M. Kocis), Transportation Research Record No; 801, TR3, Washington, DC,1981.
Neveu), paper 1980 "The 1979 Ener3y Crisis presented at the National Energy Users Conference: San Antonio, April 1980 (published in Transportation Research Board Special Report 191
1981 "Transportation and the Behavioral Sciences", in Irvin Altman, Jack Wohlv111 and Peter Everett, Transportation and Behavior, Plenum Press, 1981.                .
: TR3, Washington, DC 1981).
1981 "Transportation Energy Assessment for Local Covernments" (with J.M. Cross and C.E. Heyers) Institute of Traf fic Engineers Journal, 51:7. July,1981.
1960 "Urban Passenger Strategies (for Transportation Energy Contingencies]",
1981 "Can Employer-Based Carpool Coordinators Increase Ridesharing", (with J.M.
Workshop Summary, Transportation Research Board Special Report No.
: 191, TR3, Washington, DC,1980.
1980 "What Will Happen to Travel in the Next 20 Years", Transportation Research Record No. 807, TRB, Washington, DC, 1981.
1980 "Issues for Developing State Transportation Energy Emergency Conservation Plans", (with R.
Bixby and M.
Kocis), Transportation Research Record No; 801, TR3, Washington, DC,1981.
1981 "Transportation and the Behavioral Sciences", in Irvin Altman, Jack Wohlv111 and Peter Everett, Transportation and Behavior, Plenum Press, 1981.
1981 "Transportation Energy Assessment for Local Covernments" (with J.M.
Cross and C.E. Heyers) Institute of Traf fic Engineers Journal, 51:7. July,1981.
1981 "Can Employer-Based Carpool Coordinators Increase Ridesharing", (with J.M.
Brunso), Transportation Research Record No. 823. TR3, Washington, DC,1981.
Brunso), Transportation Research Record No. 823. TR3, Washington, DC,1981.
1981   "Energy Conservation in Transportation Systems Performance". International Symposium on Surface Transportation System Performance. U.S. Department           l l                                                                                                                                       (
1981 "Energy Conservation in Transportation Systems Performance". International l
l                                                     of Transportation, May 11-13, 1981.
Symposium on Surface Transportation System Performance.
U.S.
Department l
l of Transportation, May 11-13, 1981.
(
i
i


4 1981 "Transit Price and Service Variations", Workshop Summary, TSC Conference on Future Directions for Transit Pricina, 1981 (with L. Doxsey).
4 1981 "Transit Price and Service Variations", Workshop Summary, TSC Conference on Future Directions for Transit Pricina, 1981 (with L. Doxsey).
1981 "Analysis and Prediction of Highway Condition". Transportation Analysis Report No. 2. September, 1981, NYSDOT.
1981 "Analysis and Prediction of Highway Condition". Transportation Analysis Report No. 2. September, 1981, NYSDOT.
1981 "Visual Scales of Pavement Condition                                                                                                             Development, Validation, and Use".
1981 "Visual Scales of Pavement Condition Development, Validation, and Use".
Transportation Research Record No. 893, TRB, Washington, DC, (with J. Shufon 6 T. Pare 11a), 1982.
Transportation Research Record No. 893, TRB, Washington, DC, (with J.
1981 "The Pavement Condition of N.Y. 's Highways:                                                                                                         1981". Transportation Analysis Report No. 4, 1981. December, 1981, NYSDOT.
Shufon 6 T. Pare 11a), 1982.
1981 "Ridesharing Behaviot and Marketing", summary of workshop, Transportation Research Board Special Report 193, TRB, Washington, DC, 1981.
1981 "The Pavement Condition of N.Y. 's Highways:
Procedures                                                                                                 Factoring Short Traffic   Counts   to   AADT",
1981". Transportation Analysis Report No. 4, 1981. December, 1981, NYSDOT.
1982  "Revised                                                                                for Transportation Analysis Report No. 10, NYSDOT, July (with J. Leamerman).
1981 "Ridesharing Behaviot and Marketing", summary of workshop, Transportation Research Board Special Report 193, TRB, Washington, DC, 1981.
1982 "Equity Impacts of Casoline Shortages and Price                                                                                                               Rises", Transportation Analysis Report No. 20, NYSDOT, August (with J.M. Brunso and S. Kupferman).
1982 "Revised Procedures for Factoring Short Traffic Counts to AADT",
1982 "Neighborhood Ridesharing Demonstration Study: Final                                                                                                             Report"   (with J.M. ,
Transportation Analysis Report No. 10, NYSDOT, July (with J. Leamerman).
Brunto) U.S. Department of Transportation, March, 1982.                                                                                                                               i 1982 "Statistical Controls in Ridesharing Demonstration Programs", Transportation Research Record No. 914. TRB, Washington, DC, (with J.M. Brunso).
1982 "Equity Impacts of Casoline Shortages and Price Rises", Transportation Analysis Report No. 20, NYSDOT, August (with J.M. Brunso and S. Kupferman).
1982 "Community Based Ridesharing:                                                                                                         An Overlooked Option", Transportation Research Record No. 914 TRB, Washington, DC (with J.M. Brunso),
1982 "Neighborhood Ridesharing Demonstration Study:
l 1982   "New York's Perspective on Transportation Energy Contingency Planning",
Final Report" (with J.M.
paper presented at the Conference on Transportation Contingency Planning Purdue University. April 29 30, 1982 (Energy                                                                                                         -
Brunto) U.S. Department of Transportation, March, 1982.
The International Journal.
i 1982 "Statistical Controls in Ridesharing Demonstration Programs", Transportation Research Record No. 914. TRB, Washington, DC, (with J.M. Brunso).
August-September, 1983, p. 603-608).
1982 "Community Based Ridesharing:
1982 "Transportation Energy Contingency Planning" Editorial for Transportation, 11:2. August, 1982 "Streamlining the Collection and Processing of Traffic Count Statistics",
An Overlooked Option", Transportation Research Record No. 914 TRB, Washington, DC (with J.M. Brunso),
(with J.               Lessnerman) Transportation Research Record No. 928. TR3, Washington, DC, 1983.
l 1982 "New York's Perspective on Transportation Energy Contingency Planning",
1982 "Long-Term Prediction of Highway Condition". Transportation Research Record l                           No. 940, TRB, Washington, DC, 1983.
paper presented at the Conference on Transportation Contingency Planning The International Journal.
1982 "Windshield Surveys of Pavement Condition: A Feasible Input to Pavement Management". (with J.J. Shufon). Transportation Research Record No. 938 TR3, Washington, DC, 1983.
Purdue University. April 29 30, 1982 (Energy August-September, 1983, p. 603-608).
I                     1982 "Where Panels Work:                                                                           Some Examples from Transportation Planning", paper i                           presented at the World Conference on Transportation Research, Hamburg,
1982 "Transportation Energy Contingency Planning" Editorial for Transportation, 11:2. August, 1982 "Streamlining the Collection and Processing of Traffic Count Statistics",
-                            Cernany, April 1983, 1982   "The Pavement Condition of New York's Highways:                                                                                                         1982", report for NYSDOT, December, 1982.
(with J. Lessnerman) Transportation Research Record No. 928. TR3, Washington, DC, 1983.
1982 "Long-Term Prediction of Highway Condition". Transportation Research Record l
No. 940, TRB, Washington, DC, 1983.
1982 "Windshield Surveys of Pavement Condition:
A Feasible Input to Pavement Management". (with J.J.
Shufon). Transportation Research Record No.
938 TR3, Washington, DC, 1983.
I 1982 "Where Panels Work:
Some Examples from Transportation Planning", paper i
presented at the World Conference on Transportation Research, Hamburg, Cernany, April 1983, 1982 "The Pavement Condition of New York's Highways:
1982", report for NYSDOT, December, 1982.


1983   "Initial and Subsequent Consumer Response to Casoline Shortages". (with J.M. Bruneo and A.J. Neveu), paper presented at the Conference on                                   gnergy Contingency Planning in Urban Areas.                                 Houston,   Texas. April   7-9,   1983 (Published in Transportation Research Board Special Report 203, 1983).
1983 "Initial and Subsequent Consumer Response to Casoline Shortages". (with J.M.
                                                              "Research And Riska                               How to Beat the Odds"   Transportation News, May-June, 1983 1983.
Bruneo and A.J.
1983   "Travel Analysis Methods for the 1980's:                               Executive Susunary" Transportation Research Board Special Report 201, TRB, Washington, DC, 1983.
Neveu), paper presented at the Conference on gnergy Contingency Planning in Urban Areas.
1983   "An   Update                               on Household Trip Ceneration Rates" (with J.M.         Brunso)
: Houston, Texas.
April 7-9, 1983 (Published in Transportation Research Board Special Report 203, 1983).
1983 "Research And Riska How to Beat the Odds" Transportation News, May-June, 1983.
1983 "Travel Analysis Methods for the 1980's:
Executive Susunary" Transportation Research Board Special Report 201, TRB, Washington, DC, 1983.
1983 "An Update on Household Trip Ceneration Rates" (with J.M.
Brunso)
Transportation Research Record No. 987. TRB, Washington, DC,1984.
Transportation Research Record No. 987. TRB, Washington, DC,1984.
1983   "Status of Highway Condition Scoring in New York", Transportation Research Record 997. TRB, 1984.
1983 "Status of Highway Condition Scoring in New York", Transportation Research Record 997. TRB, 1984.
1983   "Application of the Highway Condition Projection Model to Interstate I 4R Analysis", Transportation Research Record                                 No. 955, TRB, Washington, DC, 1984.
1983 "Application of the Highway Condition Projection Model to Interstate I 4R Analysis", Transportation Research Record No.
1983   "Perception of the Infrastructure" (with A.J. Neveu) Transportation Analysis Report No. 34, NYSD07, July 19o).
955, TRB, Washington, DC, 1984.
7
1983 "Perception of the Infrastructure" (with A.J. Neveu) Transportation Analysis Report No. 34, NYSD07, July 19o).
                                                                                                                                                                            .c 1983   "Characteristics of Double-Trailer Trucks in New York State". Transportation                                     ,
7 1983 "Characteristics of Double-Trailer Trucks in New York State". Transportation
Research Record No. 966, TRB, Washington, DC, 1984.
.c Research Record No. 966, TRB, Washington, DC, 1984.
                                                              "The Pavement Condition of New York's Highwayst                                 1983" Report to NYSDOT, 1983 October, 1983.
1983 "The Pavement Condition of New York's Highwayst 1983" Report to NYSDOT, October, 1983.
1984   "Testimony of LILCO's Evacuation Plan for Shoreham", prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (with others), March, 1984, 1984   "Consumer Trade-Offs between Mobility Maintenance s,nd Casoline Savings".
1984 "Testimony of LILCO's Evacuation Plan for Shoreham", prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (with others), March, 1984, 1984 "Consumer Trade-Offs between Mobility Maintenance s,nd Casoline Savings".
Transportation Research Record N.                             1 1049 TRB, Washington, DC, 1985 (with           ,
N.
J.M. Brunso).
1049 TRB, Washington, DC, 1985 (with Transportation Research Record 1
1984   "Concept Paper for an Infrastructure Data Base". NYSDOT, April, 1984.
J.M.
1984   Incorporating Energy Analysis in TIP Process", report for PHWA, Washington.
Brunso).
1984 "Concept Paper for an Infrastructure Data Base". NYSDOT, April, 1984.
1984 Incorporating Energy Analysis in TIP Process", report for PHWA, Washington.
DC, 1984 (with others).
DC, 1984 (with others).
)                                                       1984   "Uncertainty in Traf fic Forecasts and Its Impact on Pavement Design", with j                                                             A.J. Neveu, pr/per prepared for THWA, February, 1984 (NYSDOT Transportation Analysis Report No. 49).
)
1984   "Eight States Join in Study of Pavement Performance",                                 article for FOCUS, Nov.-Dec., 1984, 3
1984 "Uncertainty in Traf fic Forecasts and Its Impact on Pavement Design", with j
Newsletter of Strategic Highway Research Program 1984   "Covernment Roles in Transportation Energy Conservation", prepared for the ASCE meeting, August, 1984 (with N.S. Erlbaum).
A.J.
1984   "Highway Information Resources Study" report for THWA, Dec. 1984 l
Neveu, pr/per prepared for THWA, February, 1984 (NYSDOT Transportation Analysis Report No. 49).
1985   "State Views of a State & Local Highway Program", paper for THWA, March 1985.
1984 "Eight States Join in Study of Pavement Performance", article for FOCUS, Newsletter of Strategic Highway Research Program Nov.-Dec., 1984, 3
II
1984 "Covernment Roles in Transportation Energy Conservation", prepared for the ASCE meeting, August, 1984 (with N.S. Erlbaum).
l 1984 "Highway Information Resources Study" report for THWA, Dec. 1984 1985 "State Views of a State & Local Highway Program", paper for THWA, March 1985.
I I


  .                                  1985               "Use of a Simplified Urban Traffic Forecasting Procedure for Project Analysis"
1985 "Use of a Simplified Urban Traffic Forecasting Procedure for Project Analysis" with A.J.
;                                                        with A.J. Neveu, paper presented at Conference on Microcomputers in Transportation, San Diego, June, 1985.
: Neveu, paper presented at Conference on Microcomputers in Transportation, San Diego, June, 1985.
1985               "How Good is the Highway Performance Monitoring System?: Comparison with State Results", paper prepared for Conference on HPMS Analytical Process, July 16-18 Kansas City, MO (Published in Transportation Research Record No. 1060, TRB, Washington, DC, 1986).
1985 "How Good is the Highway Performance Monitoring System?:
1985             "The THWA Highway Information Resources Study: Oveniew, Status. Direction".
Comparison with State Results", paper prepared for Conference on HPMS Analytical Process, July 16-18 Kansas City, MO (Published in Transportation Research Record No. 1060, TRB, Washington, DC, 1986).
1985 "The THWA Highway Information Resources Study:
Oveniew, Status. Direction".
Transportation Research Record 1090, TRB, Washington, DC, 1986.
Transportation Research Record 1090, TRB, Washington, DC, 1986.
1985             "Emerging     Trends                         in NYS Double Trailer Traffic",                                               with D.C. Tifield, Transportation Analysis Report No. 58, NYSDOT, 1985.
1985 "Emerging Trends in NYS Double Trailer Traffic",
1985           "Network-level Pavement Condition Rating: Balancing Quality, Quantity and                                                                         '
with D.C.
Timeliness". (with E. Herschenhorn). Transportation Research Record No.
: Tifield, Transportation Analysis Report No. 58, NYSDOT, 1985.
1985 "Network-level Pavement Condition Rating:
Balancing Quality, Quantity and Timeliness".
(with E.
Herschenhorn). Transportation Research Record No.
1060. TRB, Washington, DC, 1986.
1060. TRB, Washington, DC, 1986.
1986           "Integrating Highway Information:                                                   The New York Approach", presented at the THWA Tile Linkage Conference, Salt Lake City, 1986.
1986 "Integrating Highway Information:
1986           "Are Truck Veights Really Increasing?", paper submitted to the Transportation
The New York Approach", presented at the THWA Tile Linkage Conference, Salt Lake City, 1986.
* Research Board, Washington, DC.
1986 "Are Truck Veights Really Increasing?", paper submitted to the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
1986           "A Strategy for Change", Draft report of the MIS Task Force, NYSDOT, 1986.
1986 "A Strategy for Change", Draft report of the MIS Task Force, NYSDOT, 1986.
1986           "A Plan to Develop a Comprehensive MIS for NYSDOT", MIS Task Force, NYSDOT, December (with others).
1986 "A Plan to Develop a Comprehensive MIS for NYSDOT", MIS Task Force, NYSDOT, December (with others).
1987         Testimony Before the Nuclear Regulatory Connission on Evacuation Plans for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station April 1987.
1987 Testimony Before the Nuclear Regulatory Connission on Evacuation Plans for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station April 1987.
1987         "Viewpoint on Activity Analysis". Remarks delivered at the Annual Meeting of TRB, January (in press. Transportation).
1987 "Viewpoint on Activity Analysis". Remarks delivered at the Annual Meeting of TRB, January (in press. Transportation).
1987         "Policy Opportunities for Travel Behavior Analysis", paper prepared for the 5'th International conference on Travel Behavior, Aix-En-Provence Trance.
1987 "Policy Opportunities for Travel Behavior Analysis", paper prepared for the 5'th International conference on Travel Behavior, Aix-En-Provence Trance.
October.
October.
L I
L I
Line 598: Line 1,089:
Member, Advisory Panel, Collection of a Disaggregate Data Set, 1975-78.
Member, Advisory Panel, Collection of a Disaggregate Data Set, 1975-78.
Member, Advisory Panel Alternative Roles of the Automobile, 1975-76.
Member, Advisory Panel Alternative Roles of the Automobile, 1975-76.
Member, Advisory Panel, Second Conference on Travel Behavior, 1975.                     ~
Member, Advisory Panel, Second Conference on Travel Behavior, 1975.
Member Advis:ry Panel, Conference on Behavioral Applications to Travel, 1978.               >
~
Member Advis:ry Panel, Conference on Behavioral Applications to Travel, 1978.
Member, Advisory Panel, Conference on Urban Transportation Planning in the 1980's, 1981.
Member, Advisory Panel, Conference on Urban Transportation Planning in the 1980's, 1981.
Member, Advisory Panel, Conference on Transportation Energy Contingency Planning, 1983.
Member, Advisory Panel, Conference on Transportation Energy Contingency Planning, 1983.
Member, Advisory Panel, 1985 Conference on Travel Behavior.
Member, Advisory Panel, 1985 Conference on Travel Behavior.
Member, Advisory Panel, 1987 Conference on Ts nsportation Applications.
Member, Advisory Panel, 1987 Conference on Ts nsportation Applications.
Principal Reviewer, National Academy of Sciences.                                            .
Principal Reviewer, National Academy of Sciences.
Who's Who in the East, 1974-Present.
Who's Who in the East, 1974-Present.
Who's Who in Covernment, 1977-Present.
Who's Who in Covernment, 1977-Present.
Line 612: Line 1,104:
Attachments 2,4,6 and 16 are oversized and are available upon request
Attachments 2,4,6 and 16 are oversized and are available upon request


                                                                                                                                                                              ///fr/p'y t4km3:                    Al:ta La*U4                                          . gffgggf 3                                                  .
D ATE:
D ATE:
9,!
///fr/p'y t4km3:
M TMc.tA L                    tr A c.tL g g , bbW. I.r1 l
Al:ta La*U4 gffgggf 3 9,!
heim               e Amousness '!b -                                                                                                             l A W f 4.5           d *wn.             An d W1       Ne A09tMC.
tr A c.tL g g, bbW. I.r1 M
                                                        .                                                mit. ~
TMc.tA L heim e Amousness '!b -
l l
A W f 4.5 d *wn.
An d W1 Ne A09tMC.
mit. ~
l
l
                                                                                                                                                  ?''
?''
H,5                       \
H,5
                                                                                                  '2 5                                   '
\\
c r,                     .., m
'2 5 c r,
                                            %4eoa
.., m
                                                        .- s e u,.u                                                                                                                                         1 ear            s.,,,                                                                                                                                         O.Y M.
.- s e u,.u
0.5
%4eoa e a r s.,,,
                                                                                                                                            '0,. [ -W 84                      ----
',. [ -W 84 O.Y M.
Q p an e.s.ssi wcr a t- pa ct s. ity                                                      LO                                      4it                                00-                      l
0.5 %
                                                                                                  , ,.] "g , ,l;l4 , ,, , ;9J, ,1;,1 j , , g ,2;.                                   4      ,I; d i) T A.Aiv4L sas,m.aoeb/ Par. 46 c.                                                                                  ,
0 pa ct s. ity LO 4it 00-Q p an e.s.ssi wcr a t-i) T A.Aiv4L sas,m.aoeb/ Par. 46 c.
g,jy TO spacsawwas4Layi                                                                 3,93                     p, j p_ f, / 2                        g,7p        g, 9 m tba A 04.5 IS I                                                                                              ,q p,,ow, *, t il bMu & (E) 4 51u.5 aC 3)
,,.] "g,,l;l4,,,, ;9J,,1;,1 j,, g,2;.
(N'LMtm WaAAx,(aio1 ( *. ) .
,I; d 4
a                                                                                                                                 C 33 o . 32--u-             c.se   u. ----    s.u ssa. o.se                     ---
f, / 2 g,7p g, 9 g,jy spacsawwas4Layi 3,93 p, j p_
o . C*
TO IS I
a) teno wo. G*w r, is n                                                      .u
,q m tba A 04.5 p,,ow, *, t il bMu & (E) 4 51u.5 aC 3)
                                                                                              .)--259                        4,$ t           F 4S;                 f.54 6 26                 o- se -
(N'LMtm WaAAx,(aio1 ( *. ).
s) ranueu ,e e.e s. v "" **n).                                                        0.!/ '                   o 37 i
a C 33 o. C*
0 0')
o. 32 u-c.se u.
: 0. N '     0 Q, _0_it$_ _
s.u ssa.
                    ..wa s I.53                                                                                                                                                  63            C,7 Y" '* " " M
o.se
* Y.SC                     $.\ %             T. 5-             G.03 9.eavn.'.                                                                                                                      .
.)--25 4,$ t F 4S; f.54 6 26 se -
u =* m w n             4<.   . i n ts A D -. r ,.4 ;g W t!'t .
a) teno wo. G*w r, is n
c) see s.s em                                To
.u o-9
__  c.o
..wa s I.53 0.!/ '
_ _ _ _ _o.o              _        ____
o 37 0 0')
:. :            _ e.
: 0. N ' 0 Q,
_ _o __
_0_it$_ _
s) ranueu,e e.e s. v "" **n).
i Y" '* " " M
* Y.SC
$.\\ %
T. 5-G.03 63 C,7 9.eavn.'.
u =* m w n 4<.. i n ts A D -. r,.4 ;g W t!'t.
e.
o.o
o.o
_ _ _       _e_.o_ _
.o
M6                         6.1 %             r.5               (,.oS         4. 3           6.7 m,me, :
_e_ _ _
g.e.a vs. .              '% , .ko 4 << t w ..t                                                            a.*                                                :__ -.     .o _              .:         v. a.
c.o
                                      ,.r. u o.                                                                                                                                               o.7 3)m.                                                                          ~
_ _ _o _
                                                                                                    "%                        6.16                 : 5             1. . o 3     tm 3 g) @ 1" N m vi-"-                                                                     ,N
_ _ _ _ _ _ _o.o c) see s.s em To M6 6.1 %
                                                                                                                            " (di               i M             3._'d .       _I_03.       _t L1 v' A         w.e M 9 ' ,n .a c.s n..                               (, . 4 7                 "7.4 z.             7. r q           9. p           7,39         7,97
r.5
                        - iu s av a .s n.o n. : iid M % s, n                                                 , sj.,                                                                               g3 n (
(,.oS
* s,a . e - va . x, u i . . , g,b.15                                   u                                                                              e. 33       c.fa 0.50                 _0_.3.3. .           c_. $_0 _       ___ ____
: 4. 3 6.7 m,me, :
g v ,,, , , ,, o                                                             \- _~7, O                       %%                  ~7, 4 1             9 .17         't. T.       9.47
'%,.ko 4 << t g.e.a vs..
                                                    #                                          k                                        j io) r w - 2n.- - -
w..t
e ''
.o
r . . . . r. ~ ~t . _ _ _l . _o. . L J 3,.                                           _ _ y.o _i 2._9_         u          _ _3 _..o       j,. tsi I,'g                                                                   R 5'b                 ? . 4 '1 1 0 ,'f L             ?.S         io,7 /
: v. a a.*
                            ~itS*681                                                               3.O
3 ) m.
                              % a n.t . w ..w m ..i,,u .e.,,g                                     ..
,.r.
i t t l.l a* b L P4 =a d a.J ( t) a9 U d(L)J                                 %
u o.
A,us t ww t r A v i f M e 'I I ( 1) e a a ~ ** '
6.16
A                                                                  _m.
: 5
id"raAsst =>si~a          (,+8m8 M
: 1.. o 3 tm 3 o.7 g) @ 1" N m vi-"-
~
,N
" (di i M 3._'d. _I_03.
_t L1 v' A M 9 ',n.a c.s n..
(,. 4 7 "7.4 z.
: 7. r q
: 9. p 7,39 7,97 w.e
- iu s av a.s n.o n. : iid M % s, n
, sj.,
g3 u
n (
* s,a. e - va. x, u i.., g,b.15
: e. 33 c.fa 0.50
_0_.3 3..
c_. $_0 _
g v,,,,,,, o
\\- _~7, O
~7, 4 1 9.17
't. T.
9.47 k
j io) r w n. e ''
- 2 r.... r. ~ ~t. _ _ _l. _o.
. L J 3,. _ _ y.o _i 2._9_ _ _3 _. o j,. tsi u
I,'g 3.O R 5'b
?. 4 '1 1 0,'f L
?.S io,7 /
~itS*681
% a n.t. w..w m..i,,u.e.,,g i t t l.l a* b L P4 =a d a.J ( t) a9 U d(L)J A,us t ww t r A v i f M e 'I I ( 1)
A id"ra
=>si~a e a a ~ ** '
_m.
Asst (,+8m8 M
>i
>i


o wr s. : _._
o wr s. : _._
sama:                                                           _ _ . .      . . .      _
sama:
ec4u m snuss. esus.sry : .Sw% \v %9 Nam40( i# d m' u.(o.cc.taew so .w or,wou e s'                                   E                                i  ,,                                      I m g.                gmg            d* m ysus                               u. % aoveug.
snuss. esus.sry :.Sw% \\v %9 Nam ( i# d m' u.(o.cc.taew ec4u m 40 E
D ri.                                     av sreuu                        . _ _ .                    -
i I
                            .. w i
so.w or,wou e s' d* m ysus
s n u si,7                                                                                                                                 o.S M.
: u. % aoveug.
0,. [ -M R.                             ----
m g.
                                                                        ~- .9 * --$ %
gmg D ri.
c nausiaa r nes s.ay                                                       ,
.. w av sreuu i
  $ twat- **"-** */ N a d ' '                                           _      _ _ . _____
s n u si,7
veseus.u,=as.iy                                                                                                                                               -
~-.9 * $ %
mis.s AGs.'
0,. [ -M R.
s an. .
o.S M.
e.s1 s           o.s. u
c nausiaa r nes s.ay
                                                                                                              ..u u.
$ twat- **"-** */ N a d ' '
a.s. .----            o.n             e.c oisc,. Gas c is r. .u.n.) - - - --
veseus.u,=as.iy mis.s AGs.'
a) t..
s an..
g) .ru* r* e.f
e.s1 s o.s. u
* 5 ~4**)                                                                   - - _.                          _ _
..u u. a.s.
              ,.is e + < '                                               _ _ _ - .                        __
. o.n e.c a) t..
: n. ors.1                                                                                               ,,        _ ; __              _
oisc,. Gas c is r..u.n.) - - - --
c) are     y,,,,,,,,    s. = 1 To        ,,
g).ru* r* e.f
* 5 ~4**)
,.is e + < '
: n. ors.1 c) are s. = 1 To y,,,,,,,,
r.u s.a***. :
r.u s.a***. :
wve. -
wve. -
                                                                                                                                                          .               e a c,.   .                         _ e_. r_r_ _ _ o_. _r_ _..s              _ r_ _ _o _. s r__o _s..r_ _- ._. t_r_
-._. t_r_
: 3) m .a s.r.                                 . . . _          _                    .             _
e
                                            -,          n g) c ., t c . . .a g___
_o _s..r_ _
a o.2 e a , e., g r s                               c.,, .
_ _ r_ _
                - ,,.nu,<.1                                                                           . __              - .
_o _. s r_
a.an. : -
_ e_. r_r_ _ _ o_. _r_ _..s
I                                                                                     s.33           c.fe 6.33 f.. so o.22
: 3) m.a s.r.
_ _ _ . ,             a $_o 1
a c,.
gv,                       . ,,,                              T      ,- _. o             nu                 1. 8 , q , ,,                               1, 9     .'_ n3, ,,.
g) c., t c...a n
i .)               u N G a.<                             a
g___
_ :,1 1 sa w ==n13 A .,$                                  .M_                   _.03_. t. J.1. _ g 2,                                     _,_6.L.
a o.2 e a, e., g r s c.,,
s.n.ac4                                    ~7, 6 I               4 ,09             q ,o q             'i,96                 g.9 )           I o 4 4 ''
-,,.nu,<.1 a.an. : -
g ,n. ., m, . il e m + e , e s.n                     .
I f.. so o.22 a $_o s.33 c.fe T
e m ro.L. <,asa u s a4 m(o.
6.33
* _05.                 _a.:M. _e:2.r_ ,
.'_ n3,,,.
10 A**i"*"            r = ni~a * -"'                           S-1, a  fr 6t. . . _ 5 a5            _c. a E.
1 g v,
3 5{5, - T'33                   10 .1 9 _ T.R                         to A9
,- _. o nu
                                                                                                    ]y&                                 .
: 1. 8, q,,,
1, 9 i.) u N G a.<
a sa w==n
.M_
_.03_. t. J.1.
_ g 2, _,_6.L. _ :, 1 1
13 A.,$
~7, 6 I 4,09 q,o q
'i,96 g.9 )
I o 4 4 ''
s.n.ac4 g,n.., m,. il e m + e, e s.n.
e m ro.L.
<,asa u s a4 m(o.
_05. _a.:M. _e:2.r_,
a5
_c. a E.
S a t... _ 5 5 -
10 r = ni~a * -"'
-1, fr 6 3 5{, T'33 10.1 9 _ T.R to A9 A**i"*"
]y&


N:& LamMi                                 -        ..                                  D ATf         // /2J/ff SpG _
N:& LamMi D ATf
                                                                                                  /*                               6                    ;
// /2J/ff SpG _
Soffour                L en.                              (SG.coeo Q(yg.
6
yrse.tA t.     trA r t. s vy .                                                                                                   ,
/*
9 p.es^. o 8 ,.Amou w s'                     f         -
(SG.coeo Q(yg.
Soffour L en.
yrse.tA t.
trA r t. s vy.
Amou w s' f
9
[ (,
[ (,
d* M A W SAtt                 =%             A0vtAsr w t. a                _A eV W UE k % ..-,                  '7.18               j'S(             ~1 54         ? 'Oi           '?. S k       9.34 0 r m .'Af*'**   __                ,
p.es^. o 8,.
        % saur%                                       -
d* M A W SAtt
                                                            .s   -                      --          -                  -
=%
                                                                                                                            .s       -
A0vtAsr w t.
c . . m . .. . . e-     ,,
_A eV W UE a
                                ;_m,9 0'SY                                  0'SY        O'G1          0 5+              0' C 5 9 Y t'M
'7.18 j'S(
* L-                   *l%'***'                                     O'C8 T*      39**"***'J'                               772                   1 24           s.o $         1 75         i 'f _         I 0 0 2.
~1 54 ? 'Oi
        "^#                                   a                               0 7t                           o.75         a ot               o.y y m:             See f.ed Psyr s.13 ns.     c.ge           O. M         c . g*
'?. S k 9.34 0 r m.'Af*'** k %..-,
O'S3 %              0. $a nA.
% saur%
a) tensiuc,. Gaw c,, ia muui )-8-- 05                        - --            10.5             8.tl           110         %.7F             II s
.s
: 5) .tn.awu r. e.es swdowy                             0 0$                 p,og           .o.og         0 0t o.og             0.a C
.s
          ,.i m ,
;_m,9 c.. m..... e-9 Y t'M
gm:          See Firs 7 N:                     S.I                 10 5's           g.?C           /s.oe       $.g % -se.
* L-
To                       o. o                   ,,,              o.,           o. o         a. ,             o,,
*l%'***'
() Ere s w en                 cr .
0'SY O'C8 0'SY O'G1 0 5+
                                                    ~
0' C 5 39**"***'J' 772 1 24 s.o $
p.s. m ,< iso                                  S'I                 10 S C             2 YC         II.oc       1'71             11.5C   l m,m:                                                                                                                                         !
1 75 i 'f _
See Fi rsT Cage SpJ rt *.                                                                                                                                  l
I 0 0 2.
: e. 0                 e. o             o.1           c.o           c.o               c.0 m . m , u a o. - -                                                                                   ll QC        T*l$            H.$ C
T*
                                                        $* I           --
"^#
lo.$G             $'YG =
a 0 7t o.75 a ot o.y y m:
            - Q l 8 w e6. w -- "
See f.ed Psyr O'S3 %
  ~%Y W                                                 o.1                     f.)3             09           1. I 3- .-.-
: 0. $a nA.
o.1              I.l3 J. A.               2.a g r w c. rn..                           ---
s.13 ns.
c.ge O. M c. g*
a) tensiuc,. Gaw c,, ia muui ) -- - --
10.5 8.tl 110
%.7F II s
-8 05
: 5).tn.awu r. e.es swdowy 0 0$
p,og
.o.og 0 0t o.og 0.a C
,.i m,
$.g % -se.
See Firs 7 N:
S.I 10 5's g.?C
/s.oe gm:
To
: o. o o.,
: o. o
: a.,
o,,
() Ere s w en
~
S'I 10 S C 2 YC II.oc 1'71 11.5C l
p.s. m,< iso cr.
m,m:
SpJ rt *.
See Fi rsT Cage l
: e. 0
: e. o o.1 c.o c.o c.0 m. m, u a o. - -
$* I lo.$G
$'YG ll QC T*l$
H.$ C
- Q l 8 w e6. w --
=
~%Y W o.1 f.)3 09 o.1 I.l3
: 1. I 3-.-.-
J. A.
2.a g r w c. rn..
10-Il C1 1 36 la 11 f.cf
: 12. gi -
: 12. gi -
m ustaa.:                                     10-                  Il C1              1 36          la 11        f.cf g e ass. .     Set ft& Fsy                 0 32                   0.y7               a. 2 9 "     o.+7         0.21             0. f7 0.3                        C. 1.T       C.fa b 33                 a . 50
m ustaa.:
                                                                                        .  -3                c $.0 g m . , , ,. c,                                     9 65                 l2 CG               1 18'         IB.lg       t o. 3 g         13,qg VA         -
g e ass..
r*
Set ft& Fsy 0 32 0.y7
l   i d) rana .~             ...-
: a. 2 9 "
0 C2                       0. 7 -7 0.C 3           c.77-      o c.1..
o.+7 0.21
0- 77 s a,n ,er s o s s -                   -----                                            -.
: 0. f7
1
-3 c $.0 C. 1.T C.fa 0.3 b 33 a. 50 g m.,,,. c, 9 65 l2 CG 1 18' IB.lg t o. 3 g 13,qg VA r*
              ~ t.sh W                                10.2 7-                  13N3               l o. G       I3 13         10 13           It&3 see F: r 21- Piet.
l i d) rana.~
g a.rs. t                                                                         ,
0 C2
l     . . . .
: 0. 7 7 0.C 3 c.77 o c.1 0 77 s a,n,er s o s s -
f** a '* "T         91C......_9.E.!_                             o. .3E.       8..r.g, ,,,o,:,t,y, ,ogg, n') e nos.s n ie+<                                   .
1 13N3 l o. G I3 13 10 13 It&3
jy.cg ksssw mar *f                         10 52                       13. c g'         to.g5         (p.tg         II.It v                                                              ./
~ t.sh W 10.2 7-see F: r 21-Piet.
f
g a.rs. t l
                                                                                                          .- _:__ J e            '
f** a '* "T 91C......_9.E.!_
: o..3E.
8..r.g,,,,o,:,t,y,
,ogg, n') e nos.s n ie+<
ksssw mar *f 10 52
: 13. c g' to.g5 (p.tg II.It jy.cg
./
v f
e J


                                                                                                                                          ,s.
,s.
a .
a.
M44                                                                                         (:n
M44
                                                                                                      \
(:n w e uc, u.,v ' wa m ' ' )
wm es' uc, m eu. ,v ' wa m ' ' )
~
                                                                                                                                          ~
\\
ST C H A t LE s SFlost. thousry-theset op Ameows '                                   '2-                                 f A W R S E. 4 %t.             %v sus         % gg g en.mn t 8N               Il. i$               '3 3 I 2' T             l l .13           14. (of C) ms. . . An.n.i9% wr s pacas.
m s' m e ST C H A t LE s SFlost. thousry-theset op Ameows '
nuusy : 69 alm oo D o       HA-                    e         a                   e.
'2-f g en.m t A W R S E. 4 %t.
1.') e ets <.v ss s a ra ,, r     ene,s ay                  y-                                      -                      -            -
%v sus
I o '.>            / ')        I03                              ,>>
% gg n
: 3) T AAve' Nab /Nc*di <-                                       --O . 5' '                                                      <. 9_9.         _.
8N Il. i$
7                                                         4 67               12.i 2         10 !j         13.1%         g qq               g gg m sus   3P    * *'%1'''"5"7' Ase.$
'3 3 I 2' T l l.13 14. (of C) ms... An.n.i9% wr s pacas.
ge w             ,,.tv #       4 rf i t, :
nuusy : 69 alm oo D o
              -9 : u         i m > < , t r ._ e.
HA e
l l                                                                     C.33 W-           C. 50 Htt. 6.35 %         0.50           O* M             C . $"--
a e.
l   a) toncino. (mw (, ia Na.at.t.m.) r-n-.00                                - --      ----          - - - -
ene,s ay y-1.')
:                                                                                      I24}_         \) c6           l o. G       1 2. 5 l           19. Z l
e ets <.v ss s a ra,, r
5)T(tad'"fa]PE iusAc,c s    i          B*"40%)                       4 031.. .g _o,3 6             ._0_. o_.3_1.o._o _        i_b_
: 3) T AAve' Nab /Nc*di <-
_0 031 _o_. 2..f.
--O I o '.>
                                                                                                                                                          .o
/ ')
: a. . ors.t m .+ m . e . < c, a       .                  io,og-              i , < .,-      1049         I3     72, 12 3.'                 (4 . 2. 2.
I03
                      ,, s , g V
<. 9_9.
                                                    -- -                                                                          '    .= )t' to Q sp e         s..,             ro ** . + .-
. 5' '
                                                    .=,
3P * *' '''"5"7' 4 67 12.i 2 10 !j 13.1%
: g. ,s ,, , ,, ,vo u e.,       .
g qq g gg 7
m sus Ase.$ %1 ge w
,,.tv #
4 rf i t, :
-9 : u i m > <, t r._ e.
l l
C.33 W-C. 50 Htt.
6.35 %
0.50 O* M C. $"
l a) toncino. (mw (, ia Na.at.t.m.) - - - --
Z r n.00 I24}_
\\) c6 l o. G 1 2. 5 l 19.
5)T(tad'"fa]PE B*"40%)
4 031..
.g _o,3 6
._0_. o_.3_1.o._o i_b_
_0 031
_o_. 2..f.
.o iusAc,c s i
l
: a.. ors.t m.+ m. e. < c, a io,og i, <.,
1049 I3 72, 12 3.'
(4. 2. 2.
,, s, g V
.= )t' to Q sp e s..,
ro **. +.-
.=,
: g.,s,,,,,,vo u e.,
mite. Ace. :
mite. Ace. :
ace re_ .
ace re_.
9.* I.I             o 7 {.     -o.t_ r_ _ -. _. c t r _c_i.r    .
9.* I.I o 7 {.
c.zr  . _ _
_c_i.r c.zr
p   m o aviott44 0 Q'g         .a sverudG f.E N TTA TC g r s c rn..                     _ _ _ _              _ _ _ _    ____            _ _ _ _      __              - _.            _
- _ r_ _ -. _. t r o.t c
p m o aviott44 0 Q ' g.a sverudG f.E N TTA TC g r s c rn..
mLLEA0f!
mLLEA0f!
It o OT O'03             0' SO             O.33           o.$0           6.13             c.fo Q v ^o a o s c.
It o OT O'03 0' SO O.33 o.$0 6.13 c.fo Q v ^o a o s c.
                                                          "M
[c) TttA4GL Myor3 C "1"11 "M
[c) TttA4GL Myor3 C "1"11 Ba.Sea TJ 00 D                                   -----                - - - - -      --_-                                        .
Ba.Se TJ 00 D a
(to o y c. '.                                                                         '
(to o y c. '.
[
[
l   .m* WD4 pn.oe.a ss yc.,        pro a. e4 c.w.T                                    .e t r.
l
o z_r_       o_._zy             c z.r.
.m*
gg                                                         o. ._t r .
WD4
                                                                .                         .           o. _. _t .r .
.e t r.
: o. _. _t.r.
o z_r_
o_._zy c z.r.
gg pn.oe.a ss yc.,
pro a. e4 c.w.T
: o.._t r.
AS Sl (rd M f
AS Sl (rd M f
(?
(?
Line 801: Line 1,441:
Attachments 2,4,6 and 16 are oversized and are available upon request
Attachments 2,4,6 and 16 are oversized and are available upon request


L.E, late       3131/44 Setstracted esplicate of LILCO trace SEttCAA 50$tifAL IVACBATIOR FULL 10 NILE-E&I. 7158 Vit!CLES SC85&t10: , LIL-F10         Asseer: Ban ..se: 12.34                 16.22           17.23 l                                                           u.e us scr oal'"""*"'"   """5saser Adverse"*   '"Mister Adverse"   Botes                   Casslative 81strib Itas                             Lestti Scale       Sist. Speed Tase 1ss flee       Speed flee saa tiet flee See flee                                   81 stance Sea time unere 2.50   2.54         2.54   2.58     2.66   2.66   !apet distrbatica               0.01     2.50 at stent.
L.E, late 3131/44 Setstracted esplicate of LILCO trace SEttCAA 50$tifAL IVACBATIOR FULL 10 NILE-E&I. 7158 Vit!CLES SC85&t10:, LIL-F10 Asseer: Ban..se:
11.1 Aabal arrive at trests.                                                                               8.11   3.19                                     4.01     3.40 process 17.2 tracesslag at Sr                                                  6.54  3.08          0.54   3.00                    frocesstaa tiae 18.86      3.12 at 5.1.
12.34 16.22 17.23 l
18.66               0.92   3.92         1.14   4.14     1.11   4.40   Actuals .983,1.120             18.56     4.25 load 11.3 Travel to 54!!. Infits.                                                               8.12           8.12                                             19.89     4.56 at Irt 8dtg it.Ill                                    1.84    28.40    8.09        16.44 Lit 56-66                                14.39    20.88     0.12         16.00   0.90             0.96                                           46.86     6.66 at Sec so 4.89         16.00   0.11             0.12           Cale dist     2.01             46.86     6.99 saload I !II/LI Av.           3.54      6.59    1.83    20.04 64.30      .61 at treet.
u.e us scr oal'"""*"'"
0.33   4.25         8.58     4.64   8.53     4.9)                                   68.38       .86 process 11.4 Leadist                                                                                                                                                18.36      8.48 at 8.1.
"""5saser Adverse"*
Geese at 3.I. (?)                                                                 0.17   4.81   8.10     5.11   Soces. saclear 18.36     1.14 loedes 17.5 Trv to IFt bosadry                           1.83       6.00   0.31   4.56   5.08 8.31     5.10   0.39   5.50                                   40.19     8.19 at tri bLy 11.6 .8 8ert to secpt easp.                     26.97
'"Mister Adverse" Botes Casslative 81strib Itas Lestti Scale Sist. Speed Tase 1ss flee Speed flee saa tiet flee See flee 81 stance Sea time unere 11.1 Aabal arrive at trests.
* 2.11   6.66         2.64     f.81   2.88   8.38   T. A. Bosp.                   107.16     9.70 at tec to 15.43     15.08     1.03         12.09   1.29             1.31                                           181.16     18.31 g e said 111 66-55 LII 55-13                                 2.25     15.00     0.11         12.08   8.19             8.24                                           128.68     10.93 at treat.
2.50 2.54 2.54 2.58 2.66 2.66
4.59    9.29     18.05     0.93           8.58   1.16           1.23                                           120.68     11.13 procesa
!apet distrbatica 0.01 2.50 at stent.
            $sste /fsl/86Ct/ul 15.14                                                                                                                          h 31.45   11.98 at st Cha Other 131.45     12.31 g e load 6.66                 1.81             8.38   somit at S.I.                 138.52     12.34 at Ett bd 11.1 nositettal                                                                                            8.54   8.04   Act 31,.1, diff talance 11.9 aslead                                                          0.33    6.99        4.51    8.32 11.18 Tru to treatuced.                          13.43               4.62   1.61         0.17   9.89   0.82     9.66 ctier                                                                                                                                           Fercest Distributicas all4&Cn/ Pal /3ankes                       9.29     28.80     0.46         16.40   8.5i             8.61 i faae 111 5345                                 2.25     80.00     8.06       32.88   0.81           8.Bi                                         ites     Distance                   t at.111                                   1.89     28.88     4.69         16.88   8.12           0.11 strt-disp                       3.58 8.28 31.11 Processing                                                       6.25   7.86         8.25   9.38   8.21     9.92                               frv-eeply 19.84         6.58   3.49   0.20 10:413g                         4.99 8.68 23.3 T:s ta saff. Inf.                           18.06               0.54   8.48         8.68 18.02     8.12   18.65                               frv f all     58.68     8.42   3.48 8.20 3t.111                                   I.84     28.48     0.89         16.08   0.12           8.12                                       Quesist                         0.38 0.82 45.00     8.36       32.88   6.45           9.46                                       talcadag                         8.65   8.05 LII 16-66                                14.39 1.81     20.80     8.09         16.00   0.11           0.12                                       TOTAL       138.52     1.80   12.34 1.88 at 101/Llav Queso at 8.I.                                                   0.01                 0.98           I.08             Documentajien asclear.
17.2 tracesslag at Sr 6.54 3.08 0.54 3.00 8.11 3.19 frocesstaa tiae 4.01 3.40 process 18.86 3.12 at 5.1.
23.4 Leadtag                                                           0.33   8.14         8.58 11.50     8.13   12.22 8.05   8.19 38.44   8.86 11.56     0.86   12.28 23.5 tre to Ift terf                              1.83    35.88 l.28   13.49     Actual.9 23.0 frv to tecpt. Bosp.                          26.97                0.91  9.14          1.13  12.69 LII 66-55                               15.43     48.88     8.39         32.88   0.48           8.51 LII 55-53                                 2.25     48.08     8.06       32.80   8.87           8.41 saatentral/86th/n1 15.18         0.59   9.29     28.88     8.46         16.00   4.58           0.62 Other goeee at tecpt. Bosp {f)                                               4.29                 8.41           0.58             Ocess, asclear 23.9 Beloodlat                                                         0.32 18.31         8.58   13.66     0.53   14.52 23.14 frv to treatsoed                           13.43               0.62 10.93           0.17   14.43   0.82   15.34   speeds lev, relative to reverse other Bil86Cn/rel/Santes                       9.29     28.00     8.46         16.86   0.58           8.62 1115345                                   2.25     48.88     8.86         32.88   8.07             0.81 It.111                                   1.89     28.84     4.09         16.00   0.12           6.13 23.11 Frecesalag                                                       8.25 11.18         0.25   14.64     8.27   35.68 st. Charles Bosp. 3'id Nave 8C.3 fro to St. Charles                           16.85               4.88 11.98         1.04   15.64     l.06   16.66 8t .111                                   4.88     21.80     0.28         16.88   8.25             s.21 It. 341                                 10.94     28.00     8.55         16.94   8.68             8.12 It 25A/Errt/8 esp       3.18     4.63     1.95     35.94
11.3 Travel to 54!!. Infits.
* 86
18.66 0.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.11 4.40 Actuals.983,1.120 18.56 4.25 load it.Ill 1.84 28.40 8.09 16.44 8.12 8.12 19.89 4.56 at Irt 8dtg Lit 56-66 14.39 20.88 0.12 16.00 0.90 0.96 46.86 6.66 at Sec so I !II/LI Av.
                                                                            .          30.08   8.41             8.81 St.4 Leadlag                                                           8.33 12.31         9.54   16.18     8.51   11.19 5C.5 frv to IFt bdr Bosp/eftt/t 25A         t .7,0   4.63     1.81     35.00     0.43 12.34 38.80   8.84   16.22     0.06   17.23
3.54 6.59 1.83 20.04 4.89 16.00 0.11 0.12 Cale dist 2.01 46.86 6.99 saload 64.30
.61 at treet.
11.4 Leadist 0.33 4.25 8.58 4.64 8.53 4.9) 68.38
.86 process Geese at 3.I. (?)
0.17 4.81 8.10 5.11 Soces. saclear 18.36 8.48 at 8.1.
18.36 1.14 loedes 17.5 Trv to IFt bosadry 1.83 6.00 0.31 4.56 5.08 8.31 5.10 0.39 5.50 40.19 8.19 at tri bLy 11.6.8 8ert to secpt easp.
26.97 2.11 6.66 2.64 f.81 2.88 8.38 T. A. Bosp.
107.16 9.70 at tec to 111 66-55 15.43 15.08 1.03 12.09 1.29 1.31 181.16 18.31 g e said LII 55-13 2.25 15.00 0.11 12.08 8.19 8.24 128.68 10.93 at treat.
$sste /fsl/86Ct/ul 15.14 4.59 9.29 18.05 0.93 8.58 1.16 1.23 120.68 11.13 procesa h 31.45 11.98 at st Cha Other 131.45 12.31 g e load 11.1 nositettal 6.66 1.81 8.38 somit at S.I.
138.52 12.34 at Ett bd 11.9 aslead 0.33 6.99 4.51 8.32 8.54 8.04 Act 31,.1, diff talance 11.18 Tru to treatuced.
13.43 4.62 1.61 0.17 9.89 0.82 9.66 ctier all4&Cn/ Pal /3ankes 9.29 28.80 0.46 16.40 8.5i 8.61 Fercest Distributicas 111 5345 2.25 80.00 8.06 32.88 0.81 8.Bi ites Distance i faae t
at.111 1.89 28.88 4.69 16.88 8.12 0.11 strt-disp 3.58 8.28 31.11 Processing 6.25 7.86 8.25 9.38 8.21 9.92 frv-eeply 19.84 6.58 3.49 0.20 10:413g 4.99 8.68 23.3 T:s ta saff. Inf.
18.06 0.54 8.48 8.68 18.02 8.12 18.65 frv f all 58.68 8.42 3.48 8.20 3t.111 I.84 28.48 0.89 16.08 0.12 8.12 Quesist 0.38 0.82 LII 16-66 14.39 45.00 8.36 32.88 6.45 9.46 talcadag 8.65 8.05 at 101/Llav 1.81 20.80 8.09 16.00 0.11 0.12 TOTAL 138.52 1.80 12.34 1.88 Queso at 8.I.
0.01 0.98 I.08 Documentajien asclear.
23.4 Leadtag 0.33 8.14 8.58 11.50 8.13 12.22 23.5 tre to Ift terf 1.83 35.88 8.05 8.19 38.44 8.86 11.56 0.86 12.28 23.0 frv to tecpt. Bosp.
26.97 0.91 9.14 1.13 12.69 l.28 13.49 Actual.9 LII 66-55 15.43 48.88 8.39 32.88 0.48 8.51 LII 55-53 2.25 48.08 8.06 32.80 8.87 8.41 saatentral/86th/n1 15.18 0.59 9.29 28.88 8.46 16.00 4.58 0.62 Other goeee at tecpt. Bosp {f) 4.29 8.41 0.58 Ocess, asclear 23.9 Beloodlat 0.32 18.31 8.58 13.66 0.53 14.52 23.14 frv to treatsoed 13.43 0.62 10.93 0.17 14.43 0.82 15.34 speeds lev, relative to reverse other Bil86Cn/rel/Santes 9.29 28.00 8.46 16.86 0.58 8.62 1115345 2.25 48.88 8.86 32.88 8.07 0.81 It.111 1.89 28.84 4.09 16.00 0.12 6.13 23.11 Frecesalag 8.25 11.18 0.25 14.64 8.27 35.68 st. Charles Bosp. 3'id Nave 8C.3 fro to St. Charles 16.85 4.88 11.98 1.04 15.64 l.06 16.66 8t.111 4.88 21.80 0.28 16.88 8.25 s.21 It. 341 10.94 28.00 8.55 16.94 8.68 8.12 It 25A/Errt/8 esp 3.18 4.63 1.95 35.94
* 86 30.08 8.41 8.81 St.4 Leadlag 8.33 12.31 9.54 16.18 8.51 11.19 5C.5 frv to IFt bdr Bosp/eftt/t 25A t.7,0 4.63 1.81 35.00 0.43 12.34 38.80 8.84 16.22 0.06 17.23


l l
l Attachinents 2,4,6 and 16 are oversized and are available upon request l
i l
Attachinents 2,4,6 and 16 are oversized and are available upon request l
l l
l l
l
l
Line 823: Line 1,477:
I
I


BASIC FREEWAY SEGh.Em                                                             35 h   e.g,ones                                 }GN spfE0 NTDtWRT
BASIC FREEWAY SEGh.Em 35
                                  ~
}GN spfE0 h
                                                              -4 %
e.g,ones
60 MPH                         Q
-4 NTDtWRT
                                                                  ~N                             3 f
~
N E       -
60 MPH Q
A                 N A
f
40-                                                                       %        '
~N 3
                                                                                                                \                                 -
N E
                      .,                                                                                        \
A N
30
A
              $                                                                                                i 15     _                                                                                      /
\\
40-
\\
# 30 i
15
/
y0
y0
                                                                                                          ,o e2                                                                                     ,'    'n l
,o e2
Y. _                                                                      -
'n
[h.
[h.
                  'O a    L Y s**                             b
l Y.
                                                                      ,,,-                                .-)g3 ap * **
Y s**
                                -*'~~~                                                                               '
b a
O             i       i     i                   a                         i       i 2     4       6         8       10     12         14     16     18       20 VOL/LN(100peph)
L
(0.1)   (0.21 (03) (04) (Q5) (06) (Q7) ( 0. 9 ) tO9) (to) et R atio **
'O
.-)g3 ap * **
- * ' ~ ~ ~
O i
i i
a i
i 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 VOL/LN(100peph)
(0.1)
(0.21 (03) (04) (Q5) (06) (Q7) ( 0. 9 ) tO9) (to) et R atio **
a conocity em v/c roteo t>ased on ?xopecto vahd oriy for-60 and 70-MPH design speeds Figure 3 4. Speedpow relationships under ideal conditiona
a conocity em v/c roteo t>ased on ?xopecto vahd oriy for-60 and 70-MPH design speeds Figure 3 4. Speedpow relationships under ideal conditiona
: 1. Dere is a substantial range of flow over which speed is               ally forcing drivers closer together laterally. Again, drivers gen-relatively insensitive to flow; this range extends to fairly hip,h           erally compensate by leaving more distance between vehicles in flow rates.                                                                 the same lane.
: 1. Dere is a substantial range of flow over which speed is ally forcing drivers closer together laterally. Again, drivers gen-relatively insensitive to flow; this range extends to fairly hip,h erally compensate by leaving more distance between vehicles in flow rates.
: 2. As flow approaches capacity, speed drops oli at an ex.                     When drivers allow longer spacing for a given speed, the tremely sharp rate.                                                         volume accommodated decreases. De same effect can be viewed in revene-for a given spacing, drivers will slow down when These chuacteristics are most pronounced for 70 mph design               lateral clearance and/or lace width restrictions exist-again speed freeway elements. As capacity is approached, small                     resulting in reduced flow.
the same lane.
changes in volume or rate of flow will produce extremely large                   Illustrations 31 and 3 2 depict the impacts oflane width and changes in operating coriditions, i.e., speed and density. byel-             lateral clearance on freeway flow,             n, of service criteria for freeways reflect this, with the poorer levels             2. Reduced design speed- As indicated in Figure 3 3, a re-defined for reasonably '.arge ranges in speed and density, while             duction in the design speed of a freeway segment below 70 mph the corresponding range in flow rates is quite small,                       will have a substantial unpact on freeway operations. Because restrictive geometrics require greater vigilance on the part of the driver, observed speeds for any given volume will generally Factors Affecting Mew Under ideal Conditions                                 be lower than on similar segments of 70-mph design.
: 2. As flow approaches capacity, speed drops oli at an ex.
: 3. Trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles-ne presence of Any prevailing condition that differs from the ideal conditions           vehicles other than passenger cars in the traffic stream affects defined above will cause changes in the typical speed flo,<-den-             flow in two ways: (a) such vehicles are larger than passenger sity relationship.                                                           can, and therefore occupy more roadway space than passenger cars, and (b) the operating capabilities of such vehicles (accel-
When drivers allow longer spacing for a given speed, the tremely sharp rate.
: 1. Lane width and lateral clearance When lane widths are                 eration, deceleration, maintenance of speed, etc.) are generally less than 12 ft, drivers are forced to travel laterally closer to             inferior to those of passenger can; when intro 6ced into a mixed one another than they would normally desire. Drivers tend to                 trafic stream, these different performance capabilities lead to compensate for this by obsemns longer spacings between ve.                   the formation of gaps in the trafic stream that cannot be readily bicles in the same lane.                                                     filled by passing maneuven.
volume accommodated decreases. De same effect can be viewed in revene-for a given spacing, drivers will slow down when These chuacteristics are most pronounced for 70 mph design lateral clearance and/or lace width restrictions exist-again speed freeway elements. As capacity is approached, small resulting in reduced flow.
De effect of restricted lateral clearance is similar. When                     De second impact is particularly significant on long sustained roadside or median objects are located too close to the pavement             upgrades, on which trucks may be forced to slow considerably, edge, drivers tend to "shy" away from them, positioning them.                 thereby creating extremely large gaps in the traffic stream.
changes in volume or rate of flow will produce extremely large Illustrations 31 and 3 2 depict the impacts oflane width and changes in operating coriditions, i.e., speed and density. byel-lateral clearance on freeway flow, n,
selves further from the pavement edge than under normal or                       Illustrations 3 3 and 3-4 depict the impact of trucks and other ideal conditions. his has the same effect as narrow lanes, usu-             heavy vehicles on freeway traffic streams.
of service criteria for freeways reflect this, with the poorer levels
: 2. Reduced design speed-As indicated in Figure 3 3, a re-defined for reasonably '.arge ranges in speed and density, while duction in the design speed of a freeway segment below 70 mph the corresponding range in flow rates is quite small, will have a substantial unpact on freeway operations. Because restrictive geometrics require greater vigilance on the part of the driver, observed speeds for any given volume will generally Factors Affecting Mew Under ideal Conditions be lower than on similar segments of 70-mph design.
: 3. Trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles-ne presence of Any prevailing condition that differs from the ideal conditions vehicles other than passenger cars in the traffic stream affects defined above will cause changes in the typical speed flo,<-den-flow in two ways: (a) such vehicles are larger than passenger sity relationship.
can, and therefore occupy more roadway space than passenger cars, and (b) the operating capabilities of such vehicles (accel-
: 1. Lane width and lateral clearance When lane widths are eration, deceleration, maintenance of speed, etc.) are generally less than 12 ft, drivers are forced to travel laterally closer to inferior to those of passenger can; when intro 6ced into a mixed one another than they would normally desire. Drivers tend to trafic stream, these different performance capabilities lead to compensate for this by obsemns longer spacings between ve.
the formation of gaps in the trafic stream that cannot be readily bicles in the same lane.
filled by passing maneuven.
De effect of restricted lateral clearance is similar. When De second impact is particularly significant on long sustained roadside or median objects are located too close to the pavement upgrades, on which trucks may be forced to slow considerably, edge, drivers tend to "shy" away from them, positioning them.
thereby creating extremely large gaps in the traffic stream.
selves further from the pavement edge than under normal or Illustrations 3 3 and 3-4 depict the impact of trucks and other ideal conditions. his has the same effect as narrow lanes, usu-heavy vehicles on freeway traffic streams.


TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD IH2                                                                                                         61 Enhanced FREFLO: Modeling of                                                                                         g h gr Congested Environments                                                                                                         8 AJAY K. RATm, EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN, AND MARK YEDI.IN Preliminary work with the FREFLO macroscopic freeway               namic interaction parameters, and by provision of a discon-traffic simulation model has revealed some limitations in the     tinuous, speed-density relationship. Preliminary tests with model's ability to realistically simulate some congested Sow       these modi 6 cations produced satisfactory results under moder-conditions. The formulation and implementation of an ap.           ately congested conditions. Problems were still evident under proach that modines FREFLO so as to address these limita-         severely con                         .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD IH2 61 Enhanced FREFLO:
                                                                                                                          ~   ~
Modeling of g h gr Congested Environments 8
                                                                                                                                          ~
AJAY K. RATm, EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN, AND MARK YEDI.IN Preliminary work with the FREFLO macroscopic freeway namic interaction parameters, and by provision of a discon-traffic simulation model has revealed some limitations in the tinuous, speed-density relationship. Preliminary tests with model's ability to realistically simulate some congested Sow these modi 6 cations produced satisfactory results under moder-conditions. The formulation and implementation of an ap.
                                                                                                                                                    ~
ately congested conditions. Problems were still evident under proach that modines FREFLO so as to address these limita-
tions is described. This apprcach yields realistic simulation results for moderate, as well as severe, congested now condi.
-- 3ested con.d.i.t.i.o.E.d a more fundamental a
                                                                          -- 3ested Babcock et Ta  con.d.i.t.i.o.E.d
~
                                                                                                . (3) suggeste            a more fundamental a tions.The basic formulation of FRERO.ad the modlScations           alleviate this problem-spatial discretization of the congested under this approach are presented. The problems observed           dow sections. Using a test network with bottleneck conditions, under congested How conditions are described and simulation       it was showT1 that the simulation accuracy depended on the results from test networks are shown.                             length of the spatial steps and that very small spatial steps were required to realistically simulate congested conditions. Because such a discrete model would require excessive computing time, FREFLO, developed by Payne (1), is a macroscopic simulation tw adaptive schemes were presented: heurisde and nantral.
~
model of freeway traf5c. The model is useful for the analysis of                                                 ,        ,
~
The heuristic scheme places subdivisions within a subsection freeway operations because it allows users to simulate a wide nly where and when they are needed. Such determinauens are range of freeway conditions at modest cost. Rus, it is possible made on the basis of geometry and now level and are repeated to quantify the effects of projected changes in travel demand, at regu ar, upset intenals s             at te freeway is always as wel! as those from proposed operational improvements.
~
severely con tions is described. This apprcach yields realistic simulation Babcock et Ta. (3) suggeste results for moderate, as well as severe, congested now condi.
tions.The basic formulation of FRERO.ad the modlScations alleviate this problem-spatial discretization of the congested under this approach are presented. The problems observed dow sections. Using a test network with bottleneck conditions, under congested How conditions are described and simulation it was showT1 that the simulation accuracy depended on the results from test networks are shown.
length of the spatial steps and that very small spatial steps were required to realistically simulate congested conditions. Because such a discrete model would require excessive computing time, FREFLO, developed by Payne (1), is a macroscopic simulation tw adaptive schemes were presented: heurisde and nantral.
model of freeway traf5c. The model is useful for the analysis of The heuristic scheme places subdivisions within a subsection freeway operations because it allows users to simulate a wide nly where and when they are needed. Such determinauens are range of freeway conditions at modest cost. Rus, it is possible made on the basis of geometry and now level and are repeated to quantify the effects of projected changes in travel demand, at regu ar, upset intenals s at te freeway is always as wel! as those from proposed operational improvements.
pr perly, but not excessively, subdivided.
pr perly, but not excessively, subdivided.
Use of FREFLO in several applications has shown that the
Use of FREFLO in several applications has shown that the
* arbitrary, often conservative, spatial discretizau,on of the modelis limited in its ability to realisucally simulate congested                                                                       ,
* arbitrary, often conservative, spatial discretizau,on of the modelis limited in its ability to realisucally simulate congested Sow conditions. Various approaches have been suggested by W ' * " "# ""
Sow conditions. Various approaches have been suggested by W ' * " "# ""
implemented through reformulation of the model into a Payne and others to resolve this l.unitation, ne approaches Lagrangian (moving) reference frame. The Lagrangian refer-require either some special user inputs for the congested free-ence frame differs from the Eulerian (statienary) reference way secuons (2) or more substanual computing time (3).
implemented through reformulation of the model into a Payne and others to resolve this l.unitation, ne approaches         Lagrangian (moving) reference frame. The Lagrangian refer-require either some special user inputs for the congested free-     ence frame differs from the Eulerian (statienary) reference way secuons (2) or more substanual computing time (3).             frame of FRFFLO in that all changes are measured relative to a With support from FHWA, a new approach to this problem         particle in motion with the local now. Due to this moving was formulated and implemented. The approach described in           frame, the convecdon term in the FREFLO dynamic speed this paper p:rmits a realisuc simulauon under moderately, as       relationship is not needed. Yhus, discretizadon becomes a natu-well as severely, congested dow conditions. At the same time,       nl part of the state equations.
frame of FRFFLO in that all changes are measured relative to a With support from FHWA, a new approach to this problem particle in motion with the local now. Due to this moving was formulated and implemented. The approach described in frame, the convecdon term in the FREFLO dynamic speed this paper p:rmits a realisuc simulauon under moderately, as relationship is not needed. Yhus, discretizadon becomes a natu-well as severely, congested dow conditions. At the same time, nl part of the state equations.
no foreknowledge of congested locations or special user inputs         These adaptive schemes were able to reduce the computing are required. De approach also preserves the computational         t me to a fraction of the time required by the r.onacaptive ef5ciency of FREFLO.                                               scheme. Of the two schemes, the natur'al adaption scheme was more accurate and ef5cient The FRECON model (3) was developed by implementing DACKGROUND                                                         the heuristic adaption scheme in FREFLO. It wu calibrated and validated using 6ve peak pericdJ' v' % h           -
no foreknowledge of congested locations or special user inputs These adaptive schemes were able to reduce the computing are required. De approach also preserves the computational t me to a fraction of the time required by the r.onacaptive ef5ciency of FREFLO.
FREFLO simulates the Sow of trafSe on freeway networks             Monica Freeway in I at Aneeles. With the exception of a using an aggregate variable formulation based on suitably mod-     complex collector-distributor geometry, the simuladon results iAed analogies of Auid Bow. He model, successor to MACK II,         were generally in agreement with the field data, was developed to evaluate the consequences of different de-             Although the spatial discreuzation approachis appealing, it signs, expressed in terms of trafSc operadonal measures of         hu some limitations. Despite the adaptive scheme, the comput-effectiveness.                                                     ing time requirements for proper discredzation in large, con-Initial work with this model revealed that FREFLO was           gested networks can be costly. Furthermore, FRECON's ability limited in its ability to realistically simulate congested now       to simulate severely congested now conditions hu not been condidons (1). His problem was traced to the discontinuity in       demonstrated.
scheme. Of the two schemes, the natur'al adaption scheme was more accurate and ef5cient The FRECON model (3) was developed by implementing DACKGROUND the heuristic adaption scheme in FREFLO. It wu calibrated and validated using 6ve peak pericdJ' v'
l     the now-density relations))ip Ltheptof,conge$flo'ndit                   FREFLO itself is presently incorporated within the,,I((4)
% h FREFLO simulates the Sow of trafSe on freeway networks Monica Freeway in I at Aneeles. With the exception of a using an aggregate variable formulation based on suitably mod-complex collector-distributor geometry, the simuladon results iAed analogies of Auid Bow. He model, successor to MACK II, were generally in agreement with the field data, was developed to evaluate the consequences of different de-Although the spatial discreuzation approachis appealing, it signs, expressed in terms of trafSc operadonal measures of hu some limitations. Despite the adaptive scheme, the comput-effectiveness.
I li6iuiand to the transformation of the model's formulation frW*     simulation system. ne system allows FREFLO to interface Yontinuous to discrete oomainEr implementation             ~
ing time requirements for proper discredzation in large, con-Initial work with this model revealed that FREFLO was gested networks can be costly. Furthermore, FRECON's ability limited in its ability to realistically simulate congested now to simulate severely congested now conditions hu not been condidons (1). His problem was traced to the discontinuity in demonstrated.
on a . with other simulation models that can represe'nt                 bbon computer.                                                               terials. u41n streets, andstral road envi             ts athin the
l the now-density relations))ip Ltheptof,conge$flo'ndit FREFLO itself is presently incorporated within the,,I((4) li6iuiand to the transformation of the model's formulation frW*
      ~ lape (5) addressed this problem with some modi $ cations to       Traf s the equilibrium speed-density reladonship, calibradon of dy-      M%ystem,an                 equilibriurrtt_rafne M 'a.prn.y.ide                             anignroemqqdeLu y&meand routine information       to_
simulation system. ne system allows FREFLO to interface I
FREFLO.
Yontinuous to discrete oomainEr implementation on a
XLD Associates, Inc.,300 Broadway, ihnungton Stanon, N.Y.11746.             ~~Tril system was developed and is supported under
. with other simulation models that can represe'nt bbon
~
computer.
terials. u41n streets, andstral road envi ts athin the
~ lape (5) addressed this problem with some modi $ cations to M%ystem,an equilibriurrtt_rafne anignroemqqdeLu Traf s M 'a.prn.y.ide y&meand routine information to_
the equilibrium speed-density reladonship, calibradon of dy-FREFLO.
XLD Associates, Inc.,300 Broadway, ihnungton Stanon, N.Y.11746.
~~Tril system was developed and is supported under


_      m-      , . _ _,          . _ . - -          -
m-
                                                                                                                                                              ~
~
62                                                                                                         TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH REC JRD 1112 contract to FHWA. It is currendy in a limited distribution and           Conservation:                                                                     j hu been used by both the Utah and Kansu Depanments of                                                 .
62 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH REC JRD 1112 contract to FHWA. It is currendy in a limited distribution and Conservation:
0'            + f''' - g' - f*f,'
j hu been used by both the Utah and Kansu Depanments of
Transportation to sunulate traf5c operadons in complex free-way and street networks. During some simulation runs, unre .
+ f''' - g' - f*f,'
p"'
(3) p"' = p' + l#1 -q' 0'
j
Transportation to sunulate traf5c operadons in complex free-j j
                                                                                        = p'j + l#1 -q'                  j      j      j                (3)        ;
j j
j way and street networks. During some simulation runs, unre.
alistically high densities were observed on links in the con-gested sections of the freeway network.
alistically high densities were observed on links in the con-gested sections of the freeway network.
Dynamic speed-density:
With support from FHWA, it was decided to modify the Dynamic speed-density:
With support from FHWA, it was decided to modify the                                                                                                   ,_
current fccmulation of FREFLO to address the observed defi-
current fccmulation of FREFLO to address the observed defi-                                                                                               ~
~
ciencies. Rese ireprovements were designed to be transparent                 t , , , 3,           _ j (u/ - u't)
ciencies. Rese ireprovements were designed to be transparent t,,, 3, _ j (u/ - u't) to the user in both his input. specifications and computer time
                                                                                ,i, to the user in both his input. specifications and computer time                       i
,i, i
                                                                                                                /     Mj requirements.
/
The basic FREFLC formulation and its recent improvements                        ~g          ,
Mj requirements.
are presented in this paper. The problems observed under                                 y "j - "e(Pf) + V (pf         g#
are presented in this paper. The problems observed under y "j - "e(Pf) + V (pf i _ pl) -
i _ pl) -
The basic FREFLC formulation and its recent improvements
(4) congested flow conditions are described. Ter* results are shown and compared with FRECON and the cunent version of                       where FREFLO.
~g (4) g#
n =          cunent point in time (superscript);
congested flow conditions are described. Ter* results are shown and compared with FRECON and the cunent version of where FREFLO.
cunent point in time (superscript);
n =
j= current section (subscript);
j= current section (subscript);
FREFLO                                                                           lj= number of lanes along section,j; axj = length of section,j; and FREFLO is based on a continuum representation of traffic,                       at =         time step.
FREFLO lj= number of lanes along section,j; length of section,j; and axj
=
FREFLO is based on a continuum representation of traffic, at =
time step.
desenbed in terms of the following equations:
desenbed in terms of the following equations:
Equation 5 relates volume, density and speed under uniform ap + g " II*'')                                               (I)
Equation 5 relates volume, density and speed under uniform ap + g " II*'')
F       dx                                                               conditions within a section.
(I)
0"                 I u - u,(p) + v                           (2)       Flow:
F dx conditions within a section.
E=ub      dx     i                  ox teo       (atu.c= w     1.nce .=1                           1l'' = plul                                                              (5) vecuan)   ap.bbnaml where This relationship is adapted from several attematives'primarily because of stability consideradons (5). He terms "section" p(x, t)   =   dens.ity of vehicles,
0" I
                                                                                ,g ,,33,* ue used 'merchageably.
E=ub i u - u,(p) + v (2)
u(x,t)    =  space.mean speed, Although Equations 3-5 form the basis of the simulation TC#' ')   "  U * '****                                               model, some modifications are required to make provisions for f(x, t)    =  net now en:ering freeway section*
Flow:
the links at the boundaries of freeway segments, that is, lid:s u,(p)    =  equilibrium speed-denstty relat2onship' with no adjoining upstream or downstream lids. ne boundry T= relaxation coefficient,                                       coMitions ue set u follow v = anticipation coefficient, x = position along the freeway, and i = time.
dx ox 1l'' = plul (5) teo (atu.c= w 1.nce.=1 vecuan) ap.bbnaml where This relationship is adapted from several attematives'primarily because of stability consideradons (5). He terms "section" dens.ity of vehicles, p(x, t)
u): = u" 1 f no adjoining upstream IMk
=
                                                                                    '"                  **              E         ***
,g,,33,* ue used 'merchageably.
Equation 1 of the continuum formulation represents the conservation of vehicles. The variablef(x, t) thus corresponds Some other modifications in computing upstream speed and to on. ramp and oE. ramp traffic. The dpiamic speed-density             downstream density--in the dynamic speed-density eqi:a-relationship is contained in Equation 2. De three groups of             tion-are required to represent the general freeway subnetwork terms in Equation 2 represent three components of the time rate         link of Traf (see Figure 2) wherein a link can have two feeder of change of speed:(a) convection, the ecect of vehicles from and two receiver links (6). His feature allows for the simula.
space.mean speed, Although Equations 3-5 form the basis of the simulation u(x,t)
upstream arriving at this point; (b) relaxation to equilibrium,         tion of merging and diverging freeways.
=
the eEcct of drivers adjusting their speeds to the equilibrium               For a general freeway link, the upstream speed and down-speed-density relationship; and (c) anticipation, the cHect of           stream density are computed u the weighted average of the drivers reacting to changing travel conditions ahead, that is, to       flow according to the following relations:
TC#' ')
(decrease, increase) speed in anticipation of (higher, lower) density downstrcam.                                                                    1 p            g"''I g Pp,j The discrete, computer implementable equations from the                  ,,497,+1P,j+u'I                                     ;
U * '****
continuum formulation were derived by spatial averaging and               g/                              f", 'I
model, some modifications are required to make provisions for net now en:ering freeway section*
; .                                                                                                                j Euler integration (5) Corresponding to the freeway section in Figure 1, the transformed equations are                                         ef ''' = 0                                                       (6) l l
f(x, t)
=
the links at the boundaries of freeway segments, that is, lid:s equilibrium speed-denstty relat2onship' with no adjoining upstream or downstream lids. ne boundry u,(p)
=
T=
relaxation coefficient, coMitions ue set u follow anticipation coefficient, v =
position along the freeway, and u): = u" f no adjoining upstream IMk x =
i = time.
1 E
Equation 1 of the continuum formulation represents the conservation of vehicles. The variablef(x, t) thus corresponds Some other modifications in computing upstream speed and to on. ramp and oE. ramp traffic. The dpiamic speed-density downstream density--in the dynamic speed-density eqi:a-relationship is contained in Equation 2. De three groups of tion-are required to represent the general freeway subnetwork terms in Equation 2 represent three components of the time rate link of Traf (see Figure 2) wherein a link can have two feeder of change of speed:(a) convection, the ecect of vehicles from and two receiver links (6). His feature allows for the simula.
upstream arriving at this point; (b) relaxation to equilibrium, tion of merging and diverging freeways.
the eEcct of drivers adjusting their speeds to the equilibrium For a general freeway link, the upstream speed and down-speed-density relationship; and (c) anticipation, the cHect of stream density are computed u the weighted average of the drivers reacting to changing travel conditions ahead, that is, to flow according to the following relations:
(decrease, increase) speed in anticipation of (higher, lower) 1 g"''I Pp,j density downstrcam.
,,497,+1P,j+u'I p
g The discrete, computer implementable equations from the g/
f", 'I continuum formulation were derived by spatial averaging and j
Euler integration (5) Corresponding to the freeway section in Figure 1, the transformed equations are ef ''' = 0 (6) l l


Rashi et al.                                                                                                                                             63 direction of travel location                                 )
Rashi et al.
a                          section length ex)                               s) r-
63 direction of travel location
* e)(t)                           ~
)
q pgttp                                                 ,                                  q)(t)
section length ex) s)
                                    .                                                      u (t)
a r-e)(t)
                                                        /                                                                   \
~
                                                                                      **** ** 0 f)on(t)                                                                 f)ott(t)
pgttp q)(t) q u (t)
/
\\
**** ** 0 f)on(t) f)ott(t)
FIGURE 1 Freeway seenon depicting aggregate variables for a discrete formulation.
FIGURE 1 Freeway seenon depicting aggregate variables for a discrete formulation.
e i
e i
1 I*
1 I
l first through
l first through povement I
                                                                                                        %                              povement I                     %                                    i         #1 target node
i target node
                                                                    $* special purpose lares 4 first feeding link                                     -                              first through movement 1Lak serord feedteg link
#1
                                                                        )
$* special purpose lares 4 first feeding link first through movement 1Lak
:              (
)
secc.sd througn roverent lirJ4 regular use lanes f2                                                                                         second thros1h novesent target ecds on ramp                                           off ramp source node                                       target node FIGURE 2 General freeway subnetwork link.
(
serord feedteg link secc.sd througn roverent lirJ4 regular use lanes f2 second thros1h novesent target ecds on ramp off ramp source node target node FIGURE 2 General freeway subnetwork link.
3 t.
3 t.
Ha = 0;         q7 *1 = 0                                                 (7)           qf a     =    exit Bow rate on linkj over time step a, j
Ha = 0; q7 *1 = 0 (7) qf a exit Bow rate on linkj over time step a,
pf = density of vehicles downstream oflink j at the beginning of the time step a, p,*i ( *1 Pj,,i + p*2 @' I /-,2                                                       py = density of vehicles on link j at the end of
=
                                                                      ;                                            time step a, p; =
j pf = density of vehicles downstream oflink j at the beginning of the time step a, p,*i ( *1 Pj,,i + p*2 @' I,2 py = density of vehicles on link j at the end of
9f'*'                                                           Pq    =   fraction of Sow rate of link i that enters link (8)                       /.
/-
ef *8 = 0                                                                              fi = first feeding link,
time step a, p; =
                                                                                      .                    /2 =     second feeding link, r3 =     Arst receiving link, and qf *3 = 0                                                 (9)               r2 =     second receiving link.
9f'*'
p; = 0; where PRODLEMS space mean speed of vehicles upstuam of UJ = linkj at the beginning of time step n,                                   *
P
                                                                                                  *ne departments of transportation in Utah and Kansas have been using Traf to simulate traf6c operations on some large u) = space mean speed of vehicles on linkj at the end of time step n,                                                 networks, which included arterials, freeways, and feeder
=
                        =    entry Sow rate on link j over time step a,                         streets. Due to capacity problems and demand pattem in the g7, a
fraction of Sow rate of link i that enters link q
ef *8 = 0 (8)
/.
fi = first feeding link, second feeding link,
/2
=
Arst receiving link, and r3 =
second receiving link.
p; = 0; qf *3 = 0 (9) r2 =
where PRODLEMS space mean speed of vehicles upstuam of UJ = linkj at the beginning of time step n, *ne departments of transportation in Utah and Kansas have u) = space mean speed of vehicles on linkj at the been using Traf to simulate traf6c operations on some large end of time step n, networks, which included arterials, freeways, and feeder g7, a entry Sow rate on link j over time step a, streets. Due to capacity problems and demand pattem in the
=


  = _              -    ~_           . - =               -                ~.             ~s.     ,.        ., ,emne.v~w                         ..
=
                                                                                                                                                  %l 64                                                                                                   TRAVSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1112 l
~_
freeway corridor, some sections of the freeway network experi-           reaches 252 vehicles per lanc mile, which is higher than attain-enced severe congestion. Durms simulation runs, FREFLO did               able. His occurs because the anticipation term in the dynamic not re8ect the effects of these severely congested conditions as         speed relationship (Equation 4) used by FREFLO underesti-might be e7pected. Two problems were observed:                     -
. - =
~.
~s.
.,,emne.v~w
%l 64 TRAVSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1112 freeway corridor, some sections of the freeway network experi-reaches 252 vehicles per lanc mile, which is higher than attain-enced severe congestion. Durms simulation runs, FREFLO did able. His occurs because the anticipation term in the dynamic not re8ect the effects of these severely congested conditions as speed relationship (Equation 4) used by FREFLO underesti-might be e7pected. Two problems were observed:
mates the extent that speeds would be reduced in response to severe downstream congestion. After 260 sec, the outaow from
mates the extent that speeds would be reduced in response to severe downstream congestion. After 260 sec, the outaow from
: 1. The densities on the congested freeway links were unre-           Section 5 has dropped to zero and its density increases rapidly.
: 1. The densities on the congested freeway links were unre-Section 5 has dropped to zero and its density increases rapidly.
alistically high u more vehicles were allowed to enter a con-           Although discharge flow is terminated from Section 5, the Sow gested link than could be physically accommodated. Conse.               entering downstream Sections 6 and 8 is not immediately               .
alistically high u more vehicles were allowed to enter a con-Although discharge flow is terminated from Section 5, the Sow gested link than could be physically accommodated. Conse.
quently, the congestion did not propagate upstream as                   reduced. Because volumes entering a section are computed at         .e expected.               .                                              the beginning of a time slice, feeding flow may lag by one time
entering downstream Sections 6 and 8 is not immediately quently, the congestion did not propagate upstream as reduced. Because volumes entering a section are computed at
: 2. In cases where one leg of a diverging freeway secdon               slice if a link is processed before its feeder (s).
.e expected.
experienced severe congestion, the density and entering vol.                 For the next time slice, Equation 9 is applied to compute the urnes on the other noncongested leg were much lower than                 downstream density on Sections 6 and 8 as zero because the expected.                                                               outflow rate from Section 5 is zero. As a consequence of this spurious result, Section 5 discharges vehicles to both Sections 6 The simuladon results in Table 1 from a test network shown             and 8 to the maximum extent possible.
the beginning of a time slice, feeding flow may lag by one time
in Figure 3 illustrate Gese problems. For this test network, the             Also, the density on Sections 6 ar.d 8 decreases because flow entry volume wu set to 2,500 vehicles per hou2 (vph). The                 was terminated from Section 5 du ing the previous time slice.
: 2. In cases where one leg of a diverging freeway secdon slice if a link is processed before its feeder (s).
capacity of Sections 1-7 and 8-10 was set to 3,000 vph and               he indicated decrease in density in Seedon 6 is unrealistic 1,000 vph, respectively, ne turn specificadons from Section 5           because under 6ese conditions only the flow entering the to Sections 6 and 8 were such that the expected demand on               congested receiver (Section 8) should be reduced and not the Sation 8 was 1,875 vph. With this demand, capacity flows                 flow entering Section 6. This result occurs because the current were expected in Sections 8 through 10 and queuing on Section             formulation of FREFLO does not consider the downstrearn 5 and upstream. A time slice, At, of 4 see was used.                     density of each receiver separately when outSow is computed Because the inflow rate exceeds the outaow capacity, the               in a diverging scenario. Instead a single, weighted downstream density on Section 8 increases with time (T,ble 1). ne inflow         . density is cornputed based on the flow for each movemen1. This rate starts to dectease u the feeder link (Section 5) responds to       formulation allows maxim'An outflow from the feeding secdon, the dontstream congestion by reducing the outSow. Due to this             tereby increasing the fensity still further on the congested reduction in outdow, the density on Section 5 also increues             receiver. This problem is exhibited in Table 1 at time 230.
experienced severe congestion, the density and entering vol.
with time.                                                                   In the subsegaent time slices, flow continues to enter Section After only 180 see of simulation, the density on Section 8             8 despite unrealistically high densides within the section. As a TABLEI TEST NETWORK S!MUuTION RESULTS-4URRENT FREFLO rime           in   out                   in     out                         in     out q                                             #
For the next time slice, Equation 9 is applied to compute the urnes on the other noncongested leg were much lower than downstream density on Sections 6 and 8 as zero because the expected.
nee         5     5       s       5   6     6         6       6       e       s     8     8 60     2498   2419   23.2   45.2 605     598       6.0     50.3   1814     1048 119.0   0.0 120       2491   2347   30.6   36.9 S &0   583       6.3     46.2   1771     1030 187.3   5.2 180       2464   2117   40.1   24.1 547   540       6.5     40.9   1638     1019 251.5   3.9 1 90     2484   2441   42.8   21.5 529   443       6.5     39.0   1588     1012 260.6   3.0 2 00     2441   1930   45.7   13.4 Sc4   468       5.9     38.7   1512 1015       267.2   3.7 210       2462   1764   49.4   14.9 482   475       6.2     17.6   1447     1012 274.5   3.6 220       2470   1548   54.5   10.7 441   446       6.2     36.2   1323     1cCS 260.0   3.5 230       2462 1195       61.3     5.8 387   414       6.2     34.7   1161     1004 285.5   3. 5 240       2462     648   70.6     0.2 299     374       6.0     33.0     896     990 207.8   3. 5 250       2448       14   83.9     0.1 162     302       5.4     31.1     45 6     983 286.4   3.5 260       2476       0 102.3     0.0     4 216       .2     30.9       11     972 277.8   3.7 270       2412   1303   120.5   11.6     0   140       0.0   40.8         0     965   0.0   1.9 280       2362 2632     128.6     7.1 326   148       1.6     35.1     977       979 249.4   4.0 290       2333   1570   126.6     3.4 658 256           2.9     33.5   1974     1015 249.4   3.9 300       2354   1224   132.2     5.5 392 385         5.9     32.4   1177     1015 243.4   3.8 360       2290 1526     110.3     4.3 382   382       5.8     32.6   1141     1004 271.6   3.7 540       1519   1498   172.2     4.3 374   374       5.8     32.5   1123 1001       303.5   3.3 120       1523   1494   186.6     4.0 371   371       5.7     32.4   1112       997 335.5   3.0 900       1483 1483     187.7     4.0 371   371       5.0     32.3   1112       997 368.1   2.7 q
outflow rate from Section 5 is zero. As a consequence of this spurious result, Section 5 discharges vehicles to both Sections 6 The simuladon results in Table 1 from a test network shown and 8 to the maximum extent possible.
* entry flow rate on link 3 tvehicles/ hour)           q       = entting flow rate on i
in Figure 3 illustrate Gese problems. For this test network, the Also, the density on Sections 6 ar.d 8 decreases because flow entry volume wu set to 2,500 vehicles per hou2 (vph). The was terminated from Section 5 du ing the previous time slice.
capacity of Sections 1-7 and 8-10 was set to 3,000 vph and he indicated decrease in density in Seedon 6 is unrealistic 1,000 vph, respectively, ne turn specificadons from Section 5 because under 6ese conditions only the flow entering the to Sections 6 and 8 were such that the expected demand on congested receiver (Section 8) should be reduced and not the Sation 8 was 1,875 vph. With this demand, capacity flows flow entering Section 6. This result occurs because the current were expected in Sections 8 through 10 and queuing on Section formulation of FREFLO does not consider the downstrearn 5 and upstream. A time slice, At, of 4 see was used.
density of each receiver separately when outSow is computed Because the inflow rate exceeds the outaow capacity, the in a diverging scenario. Instead a single, weighted downstream density on Section 8 increases with time (T,ble 1). ne inflow
. density is cornputed based on the flow for each movemen1. This rate starts to dectease u the feeder link (Section 5) responds to formulation allows maxim'An outflow from the feeding secdon, the dontstream congestion by reducing the outSow. Due to this tereby increasing the fensity still further on the congested reduction in outdow, the density on Section 5 also increues receiver. This problem is exhibited in Table 1 at time 230.
with time.
In the subsegaent time slices, flow continues to enter Section After only 180 see of simulation, the density on Section 8 8 despite unrealistically high densides within the section. As a TABLEI TEST NETWORK S!MUuTION RESULTS-4URRENT FREFLO rime in out in out in out q
nee 5
5 s
5 6
6 6
6 e
s 8
8 60 2498 2419 23.2 45.2 605 598 6.0 50.3 1814 1048 119.0 0.0 120 2491 2347 30.6 36.9 S &0 583 6.3 46.2 1771 1030 187.3 5.2 180 2464 2117 40.1 24.1 547 540 6.5 40.9 1638 1019 251.5 3.9 1 90 2484 2441 42.8 21.5 529 443 6.5 39.0 1588 1012 260.6 3.0 2 00 2441 1930 45.7 13.4 Sc4 468 5.9 38.7 1512 1015 267.2 3.7 210 2462 1764 49.4 14.9 482 475 6.2 17.6 1447 1012 274.5 3.6 220 2470 1548 54.5 10.7 441 446 6.2 36.2 1323 1cCS 260.0 3.5 230 2462 1195 61.3 5.8 387 414 6.2 34.7 1161 1004 285.5
: 3. 5 240 2462 648 70.6 0.2 299 374 6.0 33.0 896 990 207.8
: 3. 5 250 2448 14 83.9 0.1 162 302 5.4 31.1 45 6 983 286.4 3.5 260 2476 0
102.3 0.0 4
216
.2 30.9 11 972 277.8 3.7 270 2412 1303 120.5 11.6 0
140 0.0 40.8 0
965 0.0 1.9 280 2362 2632 128.6 7.1 326 148 1.6 35.1 977 979 249.4 4.0 290 2333 1570 126.6 3.4 658 256 2.9 33.5 1974 1015 249.4 3.9 300 2354 1224 132.2 5.5 392 385 5.9 32.4 1177 1015 243.4 3.8 360 2290 1526 110.3 4.3 382 382 5.8 32.6 1141 1004 271.6 3.7 540 1519 1498 172.2 4.3 374 374 5.8 32.5 1123 1001 303.5 3.3 120 1523 1494 186.6 4.0 371 371 5.7 32.4 1112 997 335.5 3.0 900 1483 1483 187.7 4.0 371 371 5.0 32.3 1112 997 368.1 2.7 q
* entry flow rate on link 3 tvehicles/ hour) q
= entting flow rate on i
lint 3 tvehicles/ hour) 0
lint 3 tvehicles/ hour) 0
* corysted density on lint j at the beetnetee of time slice (venicles/ lane-sale)
* corysted density on lint j at the beetnetee of time slice (venicles/ lane-sale)
                                = computes speed on link j at the d of time slice (s611es/ hour)
= computes speed on link j at the d of time slice (s611es/ hour)


Radi er al.                                                                                                                                                 e e                     section               t                 2           s               4               5         4               7 O
Radi er al.
r 8                                   .
e e
section Length                                                                                                                     .i O
section t
sections 1-10                 1000' capacity i
2 s
sections 1-7                 1s00 vehicles / hour-lane sections 8 10                 1000 vehicles / hour-lane FIGURE 3 Nonlinear test network.
4 5
result. congestion prepagates upstream much more slowly that.                           evaluate the effects of these modifications, traffic Bow was expected. The entering volume and density on Section 6, on the                           simulated for both straight and diverging freeway sections. For ether hand, are smaller than expected.                                                   both configurations, congestion was created with capacity con-straints. The results are described in the following sections.
4 7
MODIFICATIONS TO FREFLO DIVERGING FREEWAY SECTION The problem of excessively high densities on congested links                                                                                                 ~
O r
was addressed through an approach that not only provides a                               After FREFLO was modi 5ed to incorporate the new congestion sensible description of traffic operations during congested now                           mechanism, simulation was again performed on the test ner.
8 section Length
conditiert. but also eliminates the necessity of specific user                           work shown in Figure 3. The new results are eresanted in Ta%e inputs for congested freeway sections. The approach also pre.                             2. Note that all figures represent values associated wirt. irs a serves the computational efficiency of FREFLO. Under this                                 smgle time slice, or, of 4.sec duration; these are not time-approach, now restrictions were implem<nted on the ccngesteci                             averaged values.
.i O
links and speeds were computed considering congestion cn the                                 In comparison with the original FREFLO results (Table 1), it links rather than using the dynamic speed equation of                                     is seen that tre modified FREFLO produced much lower and FRFFLO. The densities, of course, were then computed from                                 more realistic densities in the congested Sections 5 anj 8.The the conservation equation. Becacse the <*ynvruc-speed-den-                               maximurr value of density computed for any one time s'. ice sity equation is not used under severely congested conditions,                           under the new logic was 152 vehicles per lane. mile compared recalibration and reformulation of FREFLO are not required.                               with a maximum value of 368.1 vehicles per lane. mile under The problems associated with the computation of Aow rate                             current FREFLO.
sections 1-10 1000' capacity i
for the case of imbalanced downstream density were addressed                                 The congestion on Section 8 also propagates upstream to by weighting the downstream density e_ffelc of_1wo discharging                     ,
sections 1-7 1s00 vehicles / hour-lane sections 8 10 1000 vehicles / hour-lane FIGURE 3 Nonlinear test network.
Section 5 much faster as a result of the modifications. As m6Wn'ein~s iiri'thCbTsis1f' overall tuming percentage rather                             shown in Table 2, the outfiow from Section 5 to Section 8 was ihTri"En'the-instantaneous.6ow rtres. 'Ifus weightmg scheme ^                             reduced to zero at 70 see of simulation after the density on ensures that the computed densities reAect the actual conditions                         Section 8 reached a congested level of 122 vehicles per lane.
result. congestion prepagates upstream much more slowly that.
downstream of the sectice. The flow percentage. based weight.                             mile. In the original run (Table 1) outnow from Section 5 was ing scheme is equivalent to the now rate. based weighting                                 not cut off in any time step until 270 see of simulation; at that scheme (Equation 8) u long u the outSow from the feed,:r                                 time the density on Section 8 had reached 278 vehicles per section is not terminated.                                                               lane. mile.
evaluate the effects of these modifications, traffic Bow was expected. The entering volume and density on Section 6, on the simulated for both straight and diverging freeway sections. For ether hand, are smaller than expected.
The modifications are applied, in general, whenever the                                 With the new logic the density continued to build on Section density of a section exceeds a prespecified congestion value.                           5 until it too became congested. Entry Sow to Section 5 was regardless of geometric configuration. In the absence of con-                             ultimately reduced to zero at 220 see of simulation. In the gestion, simulation is performed using the current FREFLO                               original run, the entry Sow to Section 5 wu never restricted to formulation. The modifications are described in detail                                   zero.
both configurations, congestion was created with capacity con-straints. The results are described in the following sections.
After Section 8 reached a congested density at 60 see of i elsewhere (7).                                                                     i simulation, a realistic stop.ar}tgo_ pat.tetn.pimterina hw wai.
MODIFICATIONS TO FREFLO DIVERGING FREEWAY SECTION The problem of excessively high densities on congested links
established under the modined FRgQhtermittent en.                               '
~
SIMULATION RESULTS                                                                     "try now panem was not 00 served m the original run. _
was addressed through an approach that not only provides a After FREFLO was modi 5ed to incorporate the new congestion sensible description of traffic operations during congested now mechanism, simulation was again performed on the test ner.
i
conditiert. but also eliminates the necessity of specific user work shown in Figure 3. The new results are eresanted in Ta%e inputs for congested freeway sections. The approach also pre.
                                                                                              ~ In addition to these umm.sms 4or the congested links, The simulation program wu modified to include the special                               the modified FREFLO also allowed a higher level of now into congestion scenarios desenbed above. Under these modifica.                               uncongested Section 6. With the modifications, the density and tions, the special ,,r,eatropntlet t                contested links was applied                       entering volumes on Section 6 wars less affected by the con-
: 2. Note that all figures represent values associated wirt. irs a serves the computational efficiency of FREFLO. Under this smgle time slice, or, of 4.sec duration; these are not time-approach, now restrictions were implem<nted on the ccngesteci averaged values.
                    ~
links and speeds were computed considering congestion cn the In comparison with the original FREFLO results (Table 1), it links rather than using the dynamic speed equation of is seen that tre modified FREFLO produced much lower and FRFFLO. The densities, of course, were then computed from more realistic densities in the congested Sections 5 anj 8.The the conservation equation. Becacse the <*ynvruc-speed-den-maximurr value of density computed for any one time s'. ice sity equation is not used under severely congested conditions, under the new logic was 152 vehicles per lane. mile compared recalibration and reformulation of FREFLO are not required.
whenever link 6nsity exceeded l20_ vehacles pe? lanc mile: To                           gestion on Section 8 than they had been under current
with a maximum value of 368.1 vehicles per lane. mile under The problems associated with the computation of Aow rate current FREFLO.
      -                          - - -                              .......=
for the case of imbalanced downstream density were addressed The congestion on Section 8 also propagates upstream to by weighting the downstream density e_ffelc of_1wo discharging Section 5 much faster as a result of the modifications. As m6Wn'ein~s iiri'thCbTsis1f' overall tuming percentage rather shown in Table 2, the outfiow from Section 5 to Section 8 was ihTri"En'the-instantaneous.6ow rtres. 'Ifus weightmg scheme ^
reduced to zero at 70 see of simulation after the density on ensures that the computed densities reAect the actual conditions Section 8 reached a congested level of 122 vehicles per lane.
downstream of the sectice. The flow percentage. based weight.
mile. In the original run (Table 1) outnow from Section 5 was ing scheme is equivalent to the now rate. based weighting not cut off in any time step until 270 see of simulation; at that scheme (Equation 8) u long u the outSow from the feed,:r time the density on Section 8 had reached 278 vehicles per section is not terminated.
lane. mile.
The modifications are applied, in general, whenever the With the new logic the density continued to build on Section density of a section exceeds a prespecified congestion value.
5 until it too became congested. Entry Sow to Section 5 was regardless of geometric configuration. In the absence of con-ultimately reduced to zero at 220 see of simulation. In the gestion, simulation is performed using the current FREFLO original run, the entry Sow to Section 5 wu never restricted to formulation. The modifications are described in detail zero.
After Section 8 reached a congested density at 60 see of i elsewhere (7).
i simulation, a realistic stop.ar}tgo_ pat.tetn.pimterina hw wai.
established under the modined FRgQhtermittent en.
SIMULATION RESULTS "try now panem was not 00 served m the original run. _
~ In addition to these umm.sms 4or the congested links, i
The simulation program wu modified to include the special the modified FREFLO also allowed a higher level of now into congestion scenarios desenbed above. Under these modifica.
uncongested Section 6. With the modifications, the density and tions, the special,,r,eatropntlet contested links was applied entering volumes on Section 6 wars less affected by the con-
~
t whenever link 6nsity exceeded l20_ vehacles pe? lanc mile: To gestion on Section 8 than they had been under current
....... =


                                                                                                          . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ , _ . .        n,_           ..
L._ _. _
_~~
_~~
L ._ _ . _                                     .
n,_
s                                                  TR 66 Wo rR d o fVSPORTATION RESEARCH TABLE 2 VOLUhE LEAVINO SECTIONS (vehides/ hour                                   NT FRER.O in     cd.                           in     Out Time          in      out Y
Wo rR d o fVSPORTATION RESEARCH TR 66 s
96                                      99          #
TABLE 2 VOLUhE LEAVINO SECTIONS (vehides/ hour NT FRER.O Time in out in cd.
asec)       5 9
in Out 9
5 5      "5       6             *6         "6         8               . 8 2419   24.6   48.3       605     590     5.7   51.9       1814       1062       88.9       10.6 30      2491 2419   25.1   47.2       605     598     5.8   51.3       1814       1055       *9.9         9.5 40      2498 2491     2412   23.7   46.1       605     598     5.9   50.7       1814       1051     111.0         8.6 50 60     2498       598   26.3   30.1       605     598     6.0   50.2       1811       1048     122.2         7. 8 70     2491       605   40.2   22.4       598     562     6.0   42.8           0     983     133.4;       7.9           ,
9 9
80     2477     2639   54.1   27.7       605     526     6.2     39.3           0     936     119.0         8.9        .
asec) 5 5
8.9 90     2441 - 2898       52.9   29.4       659     558. 6.8       41.1       198       1004     105.2   l 100       2441     2984   49.5   31 4       724     644     7.6     42.0     2174       1062     119.5         7.8 110       2470       727   46.2   24.6       720     691     e.1     42.9     2164       1054                   7.0 698                                    994      135.}
5 "5
152..        6.9 120       2984       727   59.0   20.2       727             8.3   40.2 2484       727   71.9   17.1       727     677     8.6     38.4           0     943     137.4         7.7 130 140       2441       727   84.7   14.9       727     684     8.9     37.1           0     930     123.5         8.6 9.2                                                  9.7 150       2419     2905   97.3   15.7       724     684             36.3       (07 929             109.'
6 6
96.0        9.5 160       2398     2927   93.7   16.4       727     698     9.6     36.5     2173       1012 200       2470       727 111.4   11.8       734     713     9.9     35.6         ' O'   940     131.5         8.0 210       2426     2934   124.1   12.3       727       713 10.1       35.1           0     932     117.6         9.0 220           0 282C       120.4   13.7       734       720 10.2     35.3       2200       1015       103.9         8.8 300 600 2076 2506 745' 634 133.5 99.4 10.0 11.3 752 637 73t 10.4 671     9.8 34.9 35.4
*6 "6
[0 f 0 997 990 145.5 140.0 7.3 7.6 900       2232       634   96.5     11.8       634     640     9.8     35.6       Q . 990             147.0         7.0 q       = e n t .a/ flow rate on 14.m 3 (sehicles/ hear)             q
8 9
* exit 1*v flow rate tank 3 (vemt:1esshoat, c
. 8 Y
* cerpated Jesssty on 1tr.X j at the te:ie-t-             s' tire sit ee h er.1;les /lar e tie) 7                   s a      e  co pated speed e . lan 3 at two ed of st e sitee &tles W. .
30 2491 2419 24.6 48.3 605 590 5.7 51.9 1814 1062 88.9 10.6 40 2498 2419 25.1 47.2 605 598 5.8 51.3 1814 1055
FREFLO. The traf$c densides in Secdons 1-10 under modined                       LINEAR FREEWAY SECTION FREFLO are given in Table 3. The results show the spread cf congestion upstream of Seedon 8 as expected. Such timely                       This test section (Figure 4) was identical to the bottleneck propagadon of congestion to upstream sections was not ob-                       geome:ry used by Babcock et al. (4) in their demonstration of served under the cunent version of FREFLO.                                     the effect of spadal discretization. The traffic Sow in this Thus, the m_odi6ed__FREFL_O, allows, for stop-and.go opera-                 network simulated for a period of 10 min usin's both current tiogtraffic,,only onto the con:ested bii5cl)Erdibrg16g, FREFLO and its modined ver5 ion. The lane capacity wu set to freeway section. Neither the current FREFLO nor FRECON                         2.000 vph and entry volume was set to 4,500 vph. With this fias such77e~s~ponse mechanism; that is, the now is terminated                 demand level and capacity specificadon, capacity flows were to both receivers. Therefore. both FRECON and current                           expected in Sections 6 through 10 and queueing on sections FREFLO are limited in their applicability for diverging free-                   upstream of Section 6.
*9.9 9.5 50 2491 2412 23.7 46.1 605 598 5.9 50.7 1814 1051 111.0 8.6 60 2498 598 26.3 30.1 605 598 6.0 50.2 1811 1048 122.2
way sections operating under congested conditions.                               Tables 4 through 9 give the simulated output volumes and TABLE 3 NONLINEAR TEST NETWORK SIMULATION RESULTS-MODIFED FREFLO Time                                                             Section (min.)         1           2           3           4         5             6             7             8               9       10 1         24.0         23.9     23.7       23.8       40.2           6.0           5.6       133.4         48.9       30.5 2         24.0         23.9     23.8         25.1       71.9           8.6           6.9       137.4         59.0       38.2 3         24.0         23.9     23.9         28.0       98.6           9.9           7.8       146.1         63.5       44.5 4         24.0         23.9     25.4         67.3     102.9           9.9           8.0       122.2         68.1       49.8 5         24.0         23.9     25.9         69.6     149.1         10.6           18.0         130.8         71.5       54.3 6         24.0         24.7     69.2         94.1     116.8           9.8           8.1       106.2         73.7       $8.0 7         24.0         26.0     50.5     117.7       149.5           10.4           8.1       113.5         76.2       61.8 8         24.0         45.4   138.3       102.2       112.3           9.3           7.9       117.0         78.7       64.9 9         32.2         94.2     79.6         87.0     126.1           10.1           7.9       123.1         81.3       67.8 10           40.7         101.3     118.7         93.5       93.5           9.5             1.0       125.5         82.4       70.4
: 7. 8 70 2491 605 40.2 22.4 598 562 6.0 42.8 0
983 133.4; 7.9 80 2477 2639 54.1 27.7 605 526 6.2 39.3 0
936 119.0 8.9 90 2441 - 2898 52.9 29.4 659 558. 6.8 41.1 198 1004 105.2 l
8.9 100 2441 2984 49.5 31 4 724 644 7.6 42.0 2174 1062 119.5 7.8 7.0 135.}
110 2470 727 46.2 24.6 720 691 e.1 42.9 2164 1054 152..
6.9 120 2984 727 59.0 20.2 727 698 8.3 40.2 994 130 2484 727 71.9 17.1 727 677 8.6 38.4 0
943 137.4 7.7 140 2441 727 84.7 14.9 727 684 8.9 37.1 0
930 123.5 8.6 150 2419 2905 97.3 15.7 724 684 9.2 36.3 (07 929 109.'
9.7 160 2398 2927 93.7 16.4 727 698 9.6 36.5 2173 1012 96.0 9.5 200 2470 727 111.4 11.8 734 713 9.9 35.6
' O' 940 131.5 8.0 210 2426 2934 124.1 12.3 727 713 10.1 35.1 0
932 117.6 9.0 220 0 282C 120.4 13.7 734 720 10.2 35.3 2200 1015 103.9 8.8 300 2076 745' 133.5 10.0 752 73t 10.4 34.9
[0 997 145.5 7.3 600 2506 634 99.4 11.3 637 671 9.8 35.4 f 0 990 140.0 7.6 900 2232 634 96.5 11.8 634 640 9.8 35.6 Q. 990 147.0 7.0 q
= e n t.a/ flow rate on 14.m 3 (sehicles/ hear) q
* exit 1*v flow rate tank 3 (vemt:1esshoat, cerpated Jesssty on 1tr.X j at the te:ie-t-s' tire sit ee h er.1;les /lar e tie) c 7
s co pated speed e. lan 3 at two ed of st e sitee &tles W..
a e
FREFLO. The traf$c densides in Secdons 1-10 under modined LINEAR FREEWAY SECTION FREFLO are given in Table 3. The results show the spread cf congestion upstream of Seedon 8 as expected. Such timely This test section (Figure 4) was identical to the bottleneck propagadon of congestion to upstream sections was not ob-geome:ry used by Babcock et al. (4) in their demonstration of served under the cunent version of FREFLO.
the effect of spadal discretization. The traffic Sow in this Thus, the m_odi6ed__FREFL_O, allows, for stop-and.go opera-network simulated for a period of 10 min usin's both current tiogtraffic,,only onto the con:ested bii5cl)Erdibrg16g FREFLO and its modined ver5 ion. The lane capacity wu set to freeway section. Neither the current FREFLO nor FRECON 2.000 vph and entry volume was set to 4,500 vph. With this fias such77e~s~ponse mechanism; that is, the now is terminated demand level and capacity specificadon, capacity flows were to both receivers. Therefore. both FRECON and current expected in Sections 6 through 10 and queueing on sections FREFLO are limited in their applicability for diverging free-upstream of Section 6.
way sections operating under congested conditions.
Tables 4 through 9 give the simulated output volumes and TABLE 3 NONLINEAR TEST NETWORK SIMULATION RESULTS-MODIFED FREFLO Time Section (min.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 1
24.0 23.9 23.7 23.8 40.2 6.0 5.6 133.4 48.9 30.5 2
24.0 23.9 23.8 25.1 71.9 8.6 6.9 137.4 59.0 38.2 3
24.0 23.9 23.9 28.0 98.6 9.9 7.8 146.1 63.5 44.5 4
24.0 23.9 25.4 67.3 102.9 9.9 8.0 122.2 68.1 49.8 5
24.0 23.9 25.9 69.6 149.1 10.6 18.0 130.8 71.5 54.3 6
24.0 24.7 69.2 94.1 116.8 9.8 8.1 106.2 73.7
$8.0 7
24.0 26.0 50.5 117.7 149.5 10.4 8.1 113.5 76.2 61.8 8
24.0 45.4 138.3 102.2 112.3 9.3 7.9 117.0 78.7 64.9 9
32.2 94.2 79.6 87.0 126.1 10.1 7.9 123.1 81.3 67.8 10 40.7 101.3 118.7 93.5 93.5 9.5 1.0 125.5 82.4 70.4


e.
e.
Direction of Travoi'
Direction of Travoi'
                                                                                                            =
=
Sections 1     2       3     4   5     6   7   8   9 10
Sections 1
                                                                . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ - . _ - _ . _ - - -                              7
2 3
                                                        .__-9
4 5
                                                                                                                                            . r,-
6 7
0.0                               0.5                     1.0 m (miles)
8 9
10 7
.__-9
. r,-
0.0 0.5 1.0 m (miles)
FIGURE 4 Linear test network.
FIGURE 4 Linear test network.
TABLE 4 SECTION DENSITY (vehicles,tanc mile) ON NONLINEAR NETWORX-MODIFIED FREFLO Time                                                                   Section (min.)                 1       2           3           4         5         6     7         8     9     10 1                 4500     4500         4500         4486       4428     4075   3956     3866 3802 3740 2                   4500     4500         4500         4486       4342     4057   3971     3906 3845 3791 3                 4500     4500         4500         4471       4144     4024   3978     3928 3877 3827 4                 4500     4486     .4500           4442       3942     3978   3971     3935 3902 2856 5                 4500     4500         4500         4457       4086     4010   3974     3946- 3892 3670 6                   4500   4500         4500         4429       3956     4014   3982     3964 392f 3877 7                   4500   4466         4471         3845       5324     3985   3924     3917 3902 3877 8                   4500   4486         4428         4000       3074     3827   3989     3946 3920 3895 9                   4500   4500         4442         3917       4295     4158   3902     3949 3920 3888 10                   4486-   4500         4457         3175       5366       3992   3949     3946 3913 3801 N0*Es             These are instantaneous volumes of the indicated tinies over a titreastep of four seconds.
TABLE 4 SECTION DENSITY (vehicles,tanc mile) ON NONLINEAR NETWORX-MODIFIED FREFLO Time Section (min.)
TABLE 5 VOLUME LEAVINO SECS 10NS (vehicles, tour >-FRECON Wim 4Lr = 0.01 mi Time                                                                   Section (min.)                 1       2           3             4         5         6       7         8   9     10 1                 4468   4465         4463         4461       4368       3971   4000     4000 3999 4000 2                 4487   4485         4485         4483       3942       3986   3953     4023 3991 4001 3                 4495   4495         4494         4493       3974       3977   3968       3969 4016 3990 4                 4498   4498         4498         44)0       3973       3975   3975       3967 4020 3966 5                 4499   4499         4499         4218       3974       3975   3975       3974 3979 3985 6                 4500   4500         4500         3960       3975       3975   3975     3975 3975 4028 7                 4500   4500         4500         3975       3976     3975   3975     3975 3975 4001 8                 4500   4500         4459         3975       3975     3975   3975     3975 3914 3977 9                 4500   4500         4041           3974       3975     3975   3975     3975 3975 3975 10                 4500     4500         3977         3975       3975     3975   3975     3915 3975 3975
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 1
4500 4500 4500 4486 4428 4075 3956 3866 3802 3740 2
4500 4500 4500 4486 4342 4057 3971 3906 3845 3791 3
4500 4500 4500 4471 4144 4024 3978 3928 3877 3827 4
4500 4486
.4500 4442 3942 3978 3971 3935 3902 2856 5
4500 4500 4500 4457 4086 4010 3974 3946-3892 3670 6
4500 4500 4500 4429 3956 4014 3982 3964 392f 3877 7
4500 4466 4471 3845 5324 3985 3924 3917 3902 3877 8
4500 4486 4428 4000 3074 3827 3989 3946 3920 3895 9
4500 4500 4442 3917 4295 4158 3902 3949 3920 3888 10 4486-4500 4457 3175 5366 3992 3949 3946 3913 3801 N0*Es These are instantaneous volumes of the indicated tinies over a titreastep of four seconds.
TABLE 5 VOLUME LEAVINO SECS 10NS (vehicles, tour >-FRECON Wim 4Lr = 0.01 mi Time Section (min.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 1
4468 4465 4463 4461 4368 3971 4000 4000 3999 4000 2
4487 4485 4485 4483 3942 3986 3953 4023 3991 4001 3
4495 4495 4494 4493 3974 3977 3968 3969 4016 3990 4
4498 4498 4498 44)0 3973 3975 3975 3967 4020 3966 5
4499 4499 4499 4218 3974 3975 3975 3974 3979 3985 6
4500 4500 4500 3960 3975 3975 3975 3975 3975 4028 7
4500 4500 4500 3975 3976 3975 3975 3975 3975 4001 8
4500 4500 4459 3975 3975 3975 3975 3975 3914 3977 9
4500 4500 4041 3974 3975 3975 3975 3975 3975 3975 10 4500 4500 3977 3975 3975 3975 3975 3915 3975 3975


68                                                                                                 TRANSPORTATION RE.5E4RCH RECORD 1112 TABLE 6 VOLUME LEAVINO SECrlONS (vehicleshour)-MODFIED FREFLO Time                                                           Section (min.)      1                  3                      4 N' 5           6         7         8           9         10 1         4500     4500     4500                 4500     4(28       4068       3953     3877-       3802     3773 2         450C     4500     4500                 4540         4     4136       4010     3931       3877     3823 5
68 TRANSPORTATION RE.5E4RCH RECORD 1112 TABLE 6 VOLUME LEAVINO SECrlONS (vehicleshour)-MODFIED FREFLO Section Time N' 5 6
3         450f     4500     4500                 4612     5677       4284       4003     3935       3899     3834 4         4500     4500     4201                 4741     4975       3989       3848     3928       3899     3852 5         4500   ,
7 8
4500     4597                 5634         4 4194       3992     3910       3902     J881               t 6       ~4501     4500     4597                       7     0     3269       3982     3924       3899     3877 l
9 10 (min.)
7         461       5022     5778                 5576     4694       4133       3974     3895       3881     3888 8         4244     5522     4746                 5335     4946       4108       3956     3920       3899     3888 9         3902         0     5314                 4334     457       3982       3942     3895       3877     3888 10         5065         4         4               5033       91     4162       3827     3895       3913     3877 NOTE: These are insYs?!Maecus v_qbam(s' of the indicated times over a time-step of four seconds.
1 3
4 1
4500 4500 4500 4500 4(28 4068 3953 3877-3802 3773 2
450C 4500 4500 4540 4
4136 4010 3931 3877 3823 5
3 450f 4500 4500 4612 5677 4284 4003 3935 3899 3834 4
4500 4500 4201 4741 4975 3989 3848 3928 3899 3852 5
4500 4500 4597 5634 4
4194 3992 3910 3902 J881 t
6
~4501 4500 4597 7
0 3269 3982 3924 3899 3877 l
7 461 5022 5778 5576 4694 4133 3974 3895 3881 3888 8
4244 5522 4746 5335 4946 4108 3956 3920 3899 3888 9
3902 0
5314 4334 457 3982 3942 3895 3877 3888 10 5065 4
4 5033 91 4162 3827 3895 3913 3877 NOTE: These are insYs?!Maecus v_qbam(s' of the indicated times over a time-step of four seconds.
TABLE 7 VOLUhE (vehiclesAour) LEAVINO SECTION 5-MODFIED REFLO Time (min.)
TABLE 7 VOLUhE (vehiclesAour) LEAVINO SECTION 5-MODFIED REFLO Time (min.)
Slice       1         2         3                       4     5         6         7         8           9         10 1       4442     4428     2858                 5692     5292           4     2927     4622       4907     4716 2       4442     44"8     5324                       7 5393       3324       5036           7     4792       4640 3       4442     4414     5724                       7 5425       4820       $119           0     4676       4532 4       4442         0     5580                 2729     5310       5249       5000     3236           -7   4453 5       4442         0     5623                 5710         4     5080       4849     5044             4     4450 6       4442     2959     5648                 5710         4     4612       3802     5198       3265       4460 7       4442     5224     5548                 5663     3312       4385       4018     5058       5101       4460 8       4428     5710         7               5681     5137       4536       4288     4918       5198           7 1       4442     5512         7               5706     5152       465)       4568     3334       5072           0 10       4442     5580     2786                       7 5022       4810       4784     343F       4889       3053 11       4428     5548     5638                       7 5166       4907       4831     3762       3377       5130 12       4428     5263     5695                 2686     5209       4950       4824     4180       3550       5184 13       4428     5008     5638                 4871     5198           4     4792     4547       3838       5044 14       4428         7     5652                 5159     5098           4     4752     4867       4201       4856 15       4428         4     5677                 4975         4         0     4694     4946       4579       3791 Average outflow 4436           3605     4493                 3640     4048       3422       4554     3810       3830       3918 overall Average outflow                                                       3974 densities obtained using current FREFLO, modified FREFLO,                     generated by the three programs. Note that the simulation and FRECON. The volurnes are the instantaneous now rates                     results with current FREFLO shown bere differ somewhat from leaving the downstream boundary of the section and densities                 the results presented by Babcock et al. (4) in their comparison are the average secdon density at the end of the given simula-               of FRECON and FREFLO because some modincations (3) tion time,                                                                   have been incorporated into FREFLO since that tirne.
Slice 1
The results in Tables 4 through 6 show that all three simula.               With the current FREFLO, the volume allowed to enter a tions indicate that trafnc volume is at (or near) capacity on                 congested section decrsases gradually to the capacity of '.he
2 3
,      Sections 6 through 10, as expected. For sections upstream of                 boldeneck and fol!Gs artnachina pattern thereafter (Sec-Section 6, however, different patterns of output volume were                 tions 4 and 5 in Table 4). That is, the output volume Buctuates
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
4442 4428 2858 5692 5292 4
2927 4622 4907 4716 2
4442 44"8 5324 7
5393 3324 5036 7
4792 4640 3
4442 4414 5724 7
5425 4820
$119 0
4676 4532 4
4442 0
5580 2729 5310 5249 5000 3236
-7 4453 5
4442 0
5623 5710 4
5080 4849 5044 4
4450 6
4442 2959 5648 5710 4
4612 3802 5198 3265 4460 7
4442 5224 5548 5663 3312 4385 4018 5058 5101 4460 8
4428 5710 7
5681 5137 4536 4288 4918 5198 7
1 4442 5512 7
5706 5152 465) 4568 3334 5072 0
10 4442 5580 2786 7
5022 4810 4784 343F 4889 3053 11 4428 5548 5638 7
5166 4907 4831 3762 3377 5130 12 4428 5263 5695 2686 5209 4950 4824 4180 3550 5184 13 4428 5008 5638 4871 5198 4
4792 4547 3838 5044 14 4428 7
5652 5159 5098 4
4752 4867 4201 4856 15 4428 4
5677 4975 4
0 4694 4946 4579 3791 Average outflow 4436 3605 4493 3640 4048 3422 4554 3810 3830 3918 overall Average outflow 3974 densities obtained using current FREFLO, modified FREFLO, generated by the three programs. Note that the simulation and FRECON. The volurnes are the instantaneous now rates results with current FREFLO shown bere differ somewhat from leaving the downstream boundary of the section and densities the results presented by Babcock et al. (4) in their comparison are the average secdon density at the end of the given simula-of FRECON and FREFLO because some modincations (3) tion time, have been incorporated into FREFLO since that tirne.
The results in Tables 4 through 6 show that all three simula.
With the current FREFLO, the volume allowed to enter a tions indicate that trafnc volume is at (or near) capacity on congested section decrsases gradually to the capacity of '.he Sections 6 through 10, as expected. For sections upstream of boldeneck and fol!Gs artnachina pattern thereafter (Sec-Section 6, however, different patterns of output volume were tions 4 and 5 in Table 4). That is, the output volume Buctuates


Rathi et al                                                                                                                                   60 TABLEg SECTION DENSITY (vehicles 4ane-mile)-CURRc7 TFREF1.0 Time                                                       Section (min.)         1           2         3         4         5             6           7           8             9         10 1         27.2       27.2     27.3       27.7       33.7         105.7       72.0         57.6         48.9       43.8 2         27.2       27.2     27.3       27.9       38.0         130.4       80.2         63.8         54.4     49.0 3         27.2       27.2     27.4       28.6       48.8         146.0       85.3         68.9         59.3     54.0 r-4         27.2       27.3     27.5       30.7       76.9         144.0       87.4         72.1         63.6     58.8 5         27.2       27.3     27.6       32.8       96.6         147.9       89.0         63.9         65.9     62.0           ,"
Rathi et al 60 TABLEg SECTION DENSITY (vehicles 4ane-mile)-CURRc7 TFREF1.0 Time Section (min.)
6          27.2 -     -27.3     27.8       35.5     118.6       .152.2       91.6         76.6         68.9     64.7 7         27.2       27.4     29.5       50.1     148.9         126.0       88.0         76.9         70.8     67.8 8         27.3       27.5     31.4       83.9     151.6         121.0       91.1         79.3         73.2       70.3 9         27.3       27.7     33.5     105.5       142.7         125.6       90.6         80.9         76.0       73.6 10         27.4       27.9     36.4     124.4       151.1         119.2       91.2         82.9         78.2     75.9 TABLE 9 SECTION DENStrY (vehiclesaane-mile)--MODIFTED FREFLO time                                                       Section (g n.)       1           2         3         4         5             6           7           8             9           10 1         27.2       27.2     27.3       27.7       34.8         115.0       74.4       58.7         49.4       43.9 2         27.2       27.3     27.5       29.0       82.7         103.6       79.7       63.5         54.5       49.2
1 2
                                                    .'        27.2       27.3     27.7       32.6     78.8         117.5       78.3       65.6           58.5     53.5 4         27.2       27.J     29.6       70.3     87.3           99.7       74.S       68.7         61.4       57.0 5         27.3       27.6     33.7     120.4     115.9         128.2       82.5       69.1           62.7     59.5 6         27.3       27.7     31.5     109.6     3 6.3           87.4       85.3         71.1         64.2     61.0 7         29.5       36.9     74.4       79.8     91.2         139.1       80.8       68.9           63.5     61.5 8         32.8       59.3     88.*     31.8       ,87.9         109.2       80.2         79.3         64.6     61.8 9         33.1       117.2   106.0       71.9       85.7         104.1       30.5         71.0         65.5     63.3 10         44.4       11.0   153.9     115.4       63.9         107.8       79.5         71.2         67.5       64.5 around the capacity of the bottleneck. The oscillatio.is in output       also given in Table 7. The 1. min averages oscillate around the_
3 4
volume within each time step tre substsntial.                           bottleneck capacity, while the ylong.tfiOrmm avenge of
5 6
  -                                      The simulation results obtained from FRECON using a spa.             M42ph2pgr.qxgri'tftseWtueneck a                         caWof 4.000 hT
7 8
                                                                                                                                                                                ~
9 10 1
I tial step size of 0.01 mi indicate that the output volume from a         Thus, the modified FR$FCO'noi"chl "pibMdjj~aTr'eafis' tic'*
27.2 27.2 27.3 27.7 33.7 105.7 72.0 57.6 48.9 43.8 2
section upstream of a congested section decreases gradually to         jattem of turbulent flow upstream of th'eT5otEneck but is also the capacity of the bottleneck and remains at that !cvel thereaf-       a.b_le to m. ainta.in
27.2 27.2 27.3 27.9 38.0 130.4 80.2 63.8 54.4 49.0 3
                                                                                                                              + . - - -the desired level o,f,,th_r,o.ughput.,.,
27.2 27.2 27.4 28.6 48.8 146.0 85.3 68.9 59.3 54.0 r-4 27.2 27.3 27.5 30.7 76.9 144.0 87.4 72.1 63.6 58.8 5
m Table 5).
27.2 27.3 27.6 32.8 96.6 147.9 89.0 63.9 65.9 62.0 6
ter with virtually no oscillations (Secu. ens 4 and 5.                     The section densities given in Tables 8 and 9 and Figure 5 his implies a complete absence of turbulence at a bottleneck             show the spread of congestion upstream of Section 6 and the location-                                                               presence of an acceleration region downstream in all three With modified FREFLO, an interesting pattem is revealed as           simulations.
27.2 -
shown in Table 6. ne instantaneous volumes entering the The simulated section densities under the two versions of congested iections 2 through 5 upstream of the bottleneck vary
-27.3 27.8 35.5 118.6
                                  '                                                                            FREFLO are similar and are typical for congested conditions widely_from zero '  to above capacity. These oscillations repre.         (Tables 8 and 9). Although densities on the congested Section 6 sent the "Elis'tiqlt'opl8dge conditions'in'th'ese detiog f r the current FREFLO (Table 8) are somewhat higher than i Volumes leaving Section 5 during each 4.sec time slicIver th' Jensity, ngrmmJ1y qlmege.dag_c.onge.sjeA (ne. ways, the 10. min period are given in Table 7. During the first 72 sec,             .
.152.2 91.6 76.6 68.9 64.7 7
r lane. mile), they are not ts high as those there are no perturbations in flow because the congestion in            11g0     ve,hi,clesy'dhl!MEETe~s,t                   network (Table 1). Not compute'd'm       th'c n Section 6 has not yet propagated upstream to Section f. Subse.
27.2 27.4 29.5 50.1 148.9 126.0 88.0 76.9 70.8 67.8 8
27.3 27.5 31.4 83.9 151.6 121.0 91.1 79.3 73.2 70.3 9
27.3 27.7 33.5 105.5 142.7 125.6 90.6 80.9 76.0 73.6 10 27.4 27.9 36.4 124.4 151.1 119.2 91.2 82.9 78.2 75.9 TABLE 9 SECTION DENStrY (vehiclesaane-mile)--MODIFTED FREFLO time Section (g n.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 1
27.2 27.2 27.3 27.7 34.8 115.0 74.4 58.7 49.4 43.9 2
27.2 27.3 27.5 29.0 82.7 103.6 79.7 63.5 54.5 49.2 27.2 27.3 27.7 32.6 78.8 117.5 78.3 65.6 58.5 53.5 4
27.2 27.J 29.6 70.3 87.3 99.7 74.S 68.7 61.4 57.0 5
27.3 27.6 33.7 120.4 115.9 128.2 82.5 69.1 62.7 59.5 6
27.3 27.7 31.5 109.6 3 6.3 87.4 85.3 71.1 64.2 61.0 7
29.5 36.9 74.4 79.8 91.2 139.1 80.8 68.9 63.5 61.5 8
32.8 59.3 88.*
31.8
,87.9 109.2 80.2 79.3 64.6 61.8 9
33.1 117.2 106.0 71.9 85.7 104.1 30.5 71.0 65.5 63.3 10 44.4 11.0 153.9 115.4 63.9 107.8 79.5 71.2 67.5 64.5 around the capacity of the bottleneck. The oscillatio.is in output also given in Table 7. The 1. min averages oscillate around the_
volume within each time step tre substsntial.
bottleneck capacity, while the ylong.tfiOrmm avenge of M42ph2pgr.qxgri'tftseWtueneck caWof 4.000 hT The simulation results obtained from FRECON using a spa.
a
~
tial step size of 0.01 mi indicate that the output volume from a Thus, the modified FR$FCO'noi"chl "pibMdjj~aTr'eafis' tic'*
I section upstream of a congested section decreases gradually to jattem of turbulent flow upstream of th'eT5otEneck but is also the capacity of the bottleneck and remains at that !cvel thereaf-a.b_le to m. ainta.in the desired level o,f,,th_r,o.ughput.,.,
+. - - -
m ter with virtually no oscillations (Secu. ens 4 and 5. Table 5).
The section densities given in Tables 8 and 9 and Figure 5 his implies a complete absence of turbulence at a bottleneck show the spread of congestion upstream of Section 6 and the location-presence of an acceleration region downstream in all three With modified FREFLO, an interesting pattem is revealed as simulations.
shown in Table 6. ne instantaneous volumes entering the The simulated section densities under the two versions of congested iections 2 through 5 upstream of the bottleneck vary FREFLO are similar and are typical for congested conditions widely_from zero to above capacity. These oscillations repre.
(Tables 8 and 9). Although densities on the congested Section 6 sent the "Elis'tiqlt'opl8dge conditions'in'th'ese detiog i Volumes leaving Section 5 during each 4.sec time slicIver f r the current FREFLO (Table 8) are somewhat higher than th' Jensity, ngrm J1y qlmege.dag_c.onge.sjeA (ne. ways, m
the 10. min period are given in Table 7. During the first 72 sec, r lane. mile), they are not ts high as those 11g0 ve,hi,clesy'dhl!MEETe~s,t network (Table 1). Not there are no perturbations in flow because the congestion in compute'd'm th'c n Section 6 has not yet propagated upstream to Section f. Subse.
however, that the modified version (Table 9) propagates distur.
however, that the modified version (Table 9) propagates distur.
quently, the outfow exhibits short. term oscillatory behavior. .
quently, the outfow exhibits short. term oscillatory behavior..
Observe that the volume leaving Section 5, as tabulated for             bances upstream more rapidly than the current version, for reasons given earlier.
Observe that the volume leaving Section 5, as tabulated for bances upstream more rapidly than the current version, for each minute in Table 6,is actually the output volume during the reasons given earlier.
each minute in Table 6,is actually the output volume during the l                                     15th time slice in each minute, as given in Table 7. The 1. min             The densities on congested sections under iRECON are in averaged volumes and the overall 10 min averaged volume are             the range of 120 to 1,000 vehicles per lane. mile (3). Because l
l 15th time slice in each minute, as given in Table 7. The 1. min The densities on congested sections under iRECON are in averaged volumes and the overall 10 min averaged volume are the range of 120 to 1,000 vehicles per lane. mile (3). Because l,


_ __ -        __m._
__m._
m_-----_-----~~_.m                     --.---u_---                                                                     w
m_-----_-----~~_.m
                                                                                                                                                          -,eg 7r                                                                                         TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH NSCORD 1112
--.---u_---
's tss .
w
ISO .
-,eg 7r TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH NSCORD 1112
140                                                         ,
's tss.
1:4 r-120-I                     110a                                                                                                                           ;
ISO.
                                                      ~ -
140 1:4 r-120-I 110a
g100 I so .
~ -
3 e0 2
g100 I so.
a f                    i     10
3 e0 2a f
                    ~
i 10
,                    =
~
=
40 '
40 '
C 3
C 3
50
50 40 10 '
!                            40
  ;                          10 '
30'
30'
.i                         to.
.i to.
0           .                  .                    .                                        .
0 102 150 200 210 300 1st eco 4s0 500 sse 600 RGURE$ Density pattern on a congested sectlao-medLSed FREFLO.
102         150     200     210       300       1st         eco       4s0       500       sse       600 RGURE$ Density pattern on a congested sectlao-medLSed FREFLO.
specific values of densides are not given, no evaluation of the-With mcdified FRERO, ths simulation results for the net-densides produced by this model can be m.de, works of the departments of transpotution in Utah and Kansas, Ibe detailed histgry old,ensity_o,,n.a c_ongested secgunder and some other test networks, have also been quite satisfactory.
specific values of densides are not given, no evaluation of the-       With mcdified FRERO, ths simulation results for the net-densides produced by this model can be m.de,                         works of the departments of transpotution in Utah and Kansas, Ibe detailed histgry old,ensity_o,,n.a c_ongested secgunder     and some other test networks, have also been quite satisfactory.
modified FRERO is shown in Figure 5. His density graduillT~ ne results appear to be quantitatively, as well u qualitadvely,
modified FRERO is shown in Figure 5. His density graduillT~ ne results appear to be quantitatively, as well u qualitadvely,
                                                ~
['uRiia7sTthe congested'd'esitflevel'anToEllitis theTe{
['uRiia7sTthe congested'd'esitflevel'anToEllitis theTe{                 accurate. De model is fully responsive to severe and to moder-ter, reflecting turbulent now condiuons. De amplWand                 ate incidents that block lanes for specified periods of time. De "frQuency of.theh.osdillat'idrMaidepp,'dirig'6n the sectioti,           computational performance of FREFLO is not degraded and length,. time slice duradon, and outnow rate from feeder link       remains as user friendly as it was previously.
accurate. De model is fully responsive to severe and to moder-
and on whcEer LSs ~liEEis's'iiriuIaidfore its feideilini(s).'           These mod 1Scations have now been introduced as a perma-nent feature of FREFLO. FREFLO is available under a limited distribution from FHWA.
~
CONCLUSIONS Modifications were introduced to extend the ability of               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FREFLO to realistically simulate congested conditions for freeway sections of virtually any geometry. Tests of this rnodi-     his research was sponsored by FHWA. De authors wish to fled FREFLO model reveal that it is able to:                         thank David Gibson of FHWA for his continued support of
ter, reflecting turbulent now condiuons. De amplWand ate incidents that block lanes for specified periods of time. De "frQuency of.theh.osdillat'idrMaidepp,'dirig'6n the sectioti, computational performance of FREFLO is not degraded and length,. time slice duradon, and outnow rate from feeder link remains as user friendly as it was previously.
* Produce values of densities that are much closer to those
and on whcEer LSs ~liEEis's'iiriuIaidfore its feideilini(s).'
                ,,,,EIugly.sxperienced.oa.congestest freeway sections.
These mod 1Scations have now been introduced as a perma-nent feature of FREFLO. FREFLO is available under a limited distribution from FHWA.
CONCLUSIONS Modifications were introduced to extend the ability of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FREFLO to realistically simulate congested conditions for freeway sections of virtually any geometry. Tests of this rnodi-his research was sponsored by FHWA. De authors wish to fled FREFLO model reveal that it is able to:
thank David Gibson of FHWA for his continued support of Produce values of densities that are much closer to those
,,,,EIugly.sxperienced.oa.congestest freeway sections.
* Propagate the effects of congestion to upst eam sections in REFERENCES a timely manner.
* Propagate the effects of congestion to upst eam sections in REFERENCES a timely manner.
      -
Produce a realistic stop and-go pattem of Sow entering
* Produce a realistic stop and-go pattem of Sow entering
: 1. H.1. Payne. FREFLO: A Macroscopic Simulation Model cf Free-congested secdons, and way Trat6c. la Tranmorsadon Renarch Record 722. TEB, Ns.
: 1. H.1. Payne. FREFLO: A Macroscopic Simulation Model cf Free-congested secdons, and                                                   way Trat6c. la Tranmorsadon Renarch Record 722. TEB, Ns.
Describe traf6e within a diverging freeway section where ticcal Research Council, Washington, D.C.,1979, pp. 6&-77.
* Describe traf6e within a diverging freeway section where           ticcal Research Council, Washington, D.C.,1979, pp. 6&-77.
one branch is congested ara the other is not.
one branch is congested ara the other is not.                       2. IL 1. Payne. Calibration and Validation of FREFLO, Vol 1: Uur
: 2. IL 1. Payne. Calibration and Validation of FREFLO, Vol 1: Uur


TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1112                                                                                                 11 Calibration Procedures and Supporting Data Analysis. VERAC           Council Proceedings Mathematics ofPublic Systems. Vol.1,1971, Repon R.00182. VERAC Inc., San Diego Calif.t FHWA, U.S.             pp.51-61.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1112 11 Calibration Procedures and Supporting Data Analysis. VERAC Council Proceedings Mathematics ofPublic Systems. Vol.1,1971, Repon R.00182. VERAC Inc., San Diego Calif.t FHWA, U.S.
Department of Transportanar 1981.                               6. E. Ueberman, S. Nguyen, W. McShane, and C. Berger. Analytical
pp.51-61.
: 3. R S. BM D. M. Amataadar M. Tomuuka, and A. D. May.                   Developments for TRAFlo. Repcrt FHWA.RD-80115. FHWA, Role of Adapave Disaedzadon in a Freeway Simuladon Model. In         U.S. Department of Transponadon.1982.
Department of Transportanar 1981.
Transportation ReseecA Aecord 971. TRB, National Research       7. A. K. Razhi. FREFLO Enhancement. KLD Assodatea, Inc., Hunt-Counctl, Washington, D.C.,1984, pp. 80-92.                           ington Stacon, N.Y., Nov.1985.
: 6. E. Ueberman, S. Nguyen, W. McShane, and C. Berger. Analytical
: 3. R S. BM D. M. Amataadar M. Tomuuka, and A. D. May.
Developments for TRAFlo. Repcrt FHWA.RD-80115. FHWA, Role of Adapave Disaedzadon in a Freeway Simuladon Model. In U.S. Department of Transponadon.1982.
Transportation ReseecA Aecord 971. TRB, National Research
: 7. A. K. Razhi. FREFLO Enhancement. KLD Assodatea, Inc., Hunt-Counctl, Washington, D.C.,1984, pp. 80-92.
ington Stacon, N.Y., Nov.1985.
: 4. E. Weberman. Integrated Traf5c Simuladon Model. Phase I, Vol.1:
: 4. E. Weberman. Integrated Traf5c Simuladon Model. Phase I, Vol.1:
Execunve Summary. Repen FHWAMtD-80086. FHWA, U.S. De.                                                                               r-panment of Transponadon. Dec.1979.                               Pulication of this paper sponsored by Comminee on Trqfpc Flow
Execunve Summary. Repen FHWAMtD-80086. FHWA, U.S. De.
: 5. H.1. Payne. Models of Freeway TrnRic and Control. In Sim.dation Theory and Characteristics.                                         -
r-panment of Transponadon. Dec.1979.
                                    ~ .                                    .
Pulication of this paper sponsored by Comminee on Trqfpc Flow
: 5. H.1. Payne. Models of Freeway TrnRic and Control. In Sim.dation Theory and Characteristics.
~.
Some Measurements of Robertson's Platoon Dispersion Factor KAY W AXHAUSEN AND HANs-GEORc KDRLING I
Some Measurements of Robertson's Platoon Dispersion Factor KAY W AXHAUSEN AND HANs-GEORc KDRLING I
At the core of TRANSYT, the platoos dispersion model of             mination of value of the calibration factor for TRANSYT Robertson is probably the most widely used traf6c model in           applications.
At the core of TRANSYT, the platoos dispersion model of mination of value of the calibration factor for TRANSYT Robertson is probably the most widely used traf6c model in applications.
the world. In spite of its wide use, on!y a relatively small             The modes will be used with the following notation:
the world. In spite of its wide use, on!y a relatively small The modes will be used with the following notation:
number of studies have tried to calibrate the model for a range of trafne conditions. The default values of the TRANSYT I ('. * ') " I
number of studies have tried to calibrate the model for a range I'
of trafne conditions. The default values of the TRANSYT I ('. * ') " I
* T(I) + (I - O
* T(I) + (I - O
* 9' (' + ' ~ I)
* 9' (' + ' ~ I) handbooks provide the only loformation on the value of the dispersion factor ava!!able to most users. In the first section of the paper, the sensitivity of the TRANSYT results to the dis-with I
I'  handbooks provide the only loformation on the value of the dispersion factor ava!!able to most users. In the first section of the paper, the sensitivity of the TRANSYT results to the dis-       with I
persion value is shown. Next, available information on the I
persion value is shown. Next, available information on the I
modelis smt.mariaed and the results are classtSed. In the last       t=$+T             F = (1 + G f) section of the paper, the results of measurements taken in l   Karlsruhe and in Pforzheim, West Germany, are reported.The i   experimental design of the sites was selected to determine the       where in8uence of the gradient and the number of lanes on the Pl atoon dispersion.                                                         T=     average travel time between the observation points, Robertson's platoon dispersion model (1) forms de core of the                 t =    average strival time of the ftrst vehicle of the widely used TRANSYT program in all its different versions                           Pl atoon in intervals of a seconds, (2,3). Since the initial calibration of the rnodel (1) there has             F =    smoothing factor, been no major effort to calibrate it for a wide range of trafne           a, S = calibrs'. ion constants, and situations. The studies undertaken to date to calibrate the model           8: = a calibtated with $ fued at 0.8.
modelis smt.mariaed and the results are classtSed. In the last t=$+T F = (1 + G f) section of the paper, the results of measurements taken in l
Karlsruhe and in Pforzheim, West Germany, are reported.The i
experimental design of the sites was selected to determine the where in8uence of the gradient and the number of lanes on the l
P atoon dispersion.
T=
average travel time between the observation
: points, average strival time of the ftrst vehicle of the t =
Robertson's platoon dispersion model (1) forms de core of the P atoon in intervals of a seconds, l
widely used TRANSYT program in all its different versions (2,3). Since the initial calibration of the rnodel (1) there has F
smoothing factor,
=
been no major effort to calibrate it for a wide range of trafne a, S = calibrs'. ion constants, and a calibtated with $ fued at 0.8.
situations. The studies undertaken to date to calibrate the model 8:
=
will be reponed in the third section. In general, the low level of interest was bued on the belief that the result of the optimiza.
will be reponed in the third section. In general, the low level of interest was bued on the belief that the result of the optimiza.
tion is only marginally affected by errors in the traffic model.     SOME EVIDENCE OF TIIE EFFECTS OF The following section will present some evidence that this           VARIATIONS IN a, belief may be unwarranted in specific situations and could lead ,
SOME EVIDENCE OF TIIE EFFECTS OF tion is only marginally affected by errors in the traffic model.
to grave errors. The aim of the small series of measurements          A real network of 11 nodes was used to study the effect of the reponed in the last section is to gain a better basis for deter-     variation of the dispersion facter. The network and the cali.
The following section will present some evidence that this VARIATIONS IN a, belief may be unwarranted in specific situations and could lead,
brated traf5c data were available for the evening peak condi-Lehrstuhl and insatut far Vetkehrwesen. Univemtat (TH) Karlsruhe,   tions. The calibration was pan of a larger study involving D 7500 Karlsruhe 1. Postfach 6980, Kaiseistrasse 12, West Germany. TRANSYT as a tml to develop new signal plans for the city of
A real network of 11 nodes was used to study the effect of the to grave errors. The aim of the small series of measurements reponed in the last section is to gain a better basis for deter-variation of the dispersion facter. The network and the cali.
brated traf5c data were available for the evening peak condi-Lehrstuhl and insatut far Vetkehrwesen. Univemtat (TH) Karlsruhe, tions. The calibration was pan of a larger study involving D 7500 Karlsruhe 1. Postfach 6980, Kaiseistrasse 12, West Germany.
TRANSYT as a tml to develop new signal plans for the city of


ATTACQM6WT 9
ATTACQM6WT 9
Line 1,103: Line 2,040:
==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
OF SPEED SCENARIO ANALYSIS BY NYSDOT e
OF SPEED SCENARIO ANALYSIS BY NYSDOT e
EVACUATION TIMES SUMMER   WINTEI DATE       CODE           DESCRIPTION             NORMAL     ADV       ADV 3/31/88   LIL - FIO     LILCO duplication         12.34     16.22     17.3' 4/01/88   LIL - FIOC     Corrected dup. for distance & wait time-     12.40     16.28     17.2!
EVACUATION TIMES SUMMER WINTEI DATE CODE DESCRIPTION NORMAL ADV ADV 3/31/88 LIL - FIO LILCO duplication 12.34 16.22 17.3' 4/01/88 LIL - FIOC Corrected dup. for distance & wait time-12.40 16.28 17.2!
4/01/88   Scenario A     LIE 10 mph out 25 in     14.54     18.97     2 0 . 11-Others 15 out 20 in 4/04/88   Scenario B     All speeds 3-5 mph       14.00     18.87     20.0!
4/01/88 Scenario A LIE 10 mph out 25 in 14.54 18.97 2 0. 11-Others 15 out 20 in 4/04/88 Scenario B All speeds 3-5 mph 14.00 18.87 20.0!
Lower than FIOC 4/04/88   Scenario C     All speeds 10% less       13.07     16.97     18.0 4/05/88   Scenario D     Exprys 6 mph out 15 in   20.58     25.99     27.6.
Lower than FIOC 4/04/88 Scenario C All speeds 10% less 13.07 16.97 18.0 4/05/88 Scenario D Exprys 6 mph out 15 in 20.58 25.99 27.6.
EPZ 6 mph Other roads 15 out 20 in 4/04/88   Scenario E     Increase Expressway Speeds by 5 mph           11.38     14.83     15.7 i
EPZ 6 mph Other roads 15 out 20 in 4/04/88 Scenario E Increase Expressway Speeds by 5 mph 11.38 14.83 15.7 i
4/05/88   Scenario F     Unrestricted (normal       8.97     11.56     12.2 '
4/05/88 Scenario F Unrestricted (normal 8.97 11.56 12.2 '
speeds all roads)
speeds all roads)


ATTAt%m6NT 10                                                                     -
ATTAt%m6NT 10 Bate ll1l88 L18 la opt est. 25 la ta ties differes[28 ta Other res 15 est lal sa088&as mostlfAL tv&C84110s FBLL 18 BILI bas. fla! VIIICLt1
Bate                                     ll1l88 L18 la opt est. 25 la Other res 15 est ta ties differes[28                             lal     tasa088&as mostlfAL tv&C84110s FBLL 18 BILI bas. fla! VIIICLt1 Aasser: Bas tiet: 14.54                   18 91             20.16
$ctsA813:M Aasser: Bas tiet:
                                                                                                        $ctsA813:M emesses ggggg[seess;essesse esteessaaser Adverse''' '''Vinter 4fverse**   soles                 (seelative Distance /fise/Locaties itse                                                         Leattn Scale       81st. Speed flee saa fase         Speed faae saa flee faae ses 71st                                 81 stance ses tlts mrt 11.1 Aabel arrive at treats.                                                                 2.58   2.33             2.58     2.58   2.66     2.66   lapet distr 8stlos           B.Il       2.50 At at Itod 11.2 trecesslag at 8r                                                                         8.58   3.8J             0.58     3.04   4.53     3.19   frocesstag tlee             4.01       3.84 Lt. 8 test 11.96       3.12 Ar at s.1.
14.54 18 91 20.16 emesses ggggg[seess;essesse esteessaaser Adverse'''
11.96             9.92   3.92             1.14     4.14   1.21     4.48                               11.96       4.25 Lv s.t.
'''Vinter 4fverse**
11.3 Travel to Saff. lafire.                                                                                                           0.12                                          19.41       4.35 at til Bdry 8t.111                                    1.16    20.01    4.09          16.48    4.11 115 56-66                                 14.61   25.80     1.59           28.83     9.13             8.18                                         81.21       6.81 At at samt 8.59     1.53   20.64     0.08           16.68     0.18             8.14                                         41.21       1.14 Lt VAAC 8181/LI Av.            2.58 61.35       1.85 At at tied 11.4 Leading                                                                                 8.33     4.25           8.58     4.64   8.55     4.11                               61.35       8.11 Lv Brest geese at 5.1. (1)                                                                     8.11     4.81   S.18     5.11   Bocus. saclear             19.31       8.85 At at 5.1.
soles (seelative Distance /fise/Locaties itse Leattn Scale 81st. Speed flee saa fase Speed faae saa flee faae ses 71st 81 stance ses tlts mrt 11.1 Aabel arrive at treats.
19.31       9.19 Lv 5.1.
2.58 2.33 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66 lapet distr 8stlos B.Il 2.50 At at Itod 11.2 trecesslag at 8r 8.58 3.8J 0.58 3.04 4.53 3.19 frocesstag tlee 4.01 3.84 Lt. 8 test 11.96 3.12 Ar at s.1.
1.53     15.01   8.18     4.35   12.08   0.13     4.94   B.16     5.25                               88.84       9.29 at 173 bdry 11.5 Tre to 171 koandry 11.6 .8 Sdrt to accpt nosp.                                               21.19             2.45     6.81           1.41     B.46   3.26     8.54   T.A. Eosp.                 106.62     11.14 At at 948C LII 66-55                                 15.68     18.80     1.56           8.40   1.95             2.81                                         108.62       12.36 Lv fast LII 15-13                                 2.42   18.00     0.24             5.84   5.18             8.12                                         122.16     13.81 At at tied 4.59     9.11     15.88     8.65           12.88   8.81             0.86                                         122.18       13.32 Lv treat seatealfel/8&C1/al 16.58                                                                                                                            138.91      14.14 Ar St.Clarl Other 138.91       14.41 Lv St.Charl 11.7 acultertag                                                                                     6.81                     8.t0             8.56   gosit. at 5.1.             148.81       11.51 at Ett be 11.9 Baleed                                                                                 4.33     1.14           8.58     8.56   8.53     9.e4 11.11 frv to treatsood.                                                 14.88               0.11   1.85           0.49     9.39     8.54     9.98 other st/SC/rul/$sakea                           9.11   20.88     4.49           16.08   0.61             G.65                                     tercent Distributions LII 33-55                                 2.42     25.08     8.10           28.88   0.12             8.13                                     ites       81 stance     t Time       1 St.111                                     1.89     15.08     8.13           12.88   0.16             8.11 Strt-disp                         3.5e 0.24 11.11 tiscessing                                                                             8.25   8.10           0.25     9.54     8.21   18.2;                             fre-eeptr 81.34           8.51   3.91   8.21 Loadles                           4.99 4.11 23.3 Try to 5e11. Isl.                                                   11.96               8.15   8.65           9.94   18.58     1.88   11.24                             fiv-Is!!       59.18     4.43   5.18 8.36 t.16     28.88     8.09           16.08   8.11             8.12                                     Osealog                           0.10 0.42 8t.111 8.59           28.00   9.13             0.18                                     Osloadag                           8.66   8.85 Lit 56-66                                14.61    25.48 1.80   14.54  1.44 8.88                    8.19             0.18                                     TOTAL         148.84 8t III/Llas                                1.53    28.04                    16.80 8.11                   0.94             1.84             Documentation saclear.
11.3 Travel to Saff. lafire.
Quese at 3.I.
11.96 9.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.21 4.48 11.96 4.25 Lv s.t.
23.4 Loadtst                                                                                 8.33   9.19           8.58   12.86     4.53   12.82 23.5 frv to sti borr                                                     1.53     15.88     8.18   9.29   12.64   8.13   12.19     8.18   12.15 23.8 frv to Becyt. Sosp.                                               21.19               2.45 11.14             1.41   15.26 3.26   16.21   f.A. 80 spital LII 64-55                               15.68     18.84     1.56           8.88     1.95             2.41 LII 55-11                                 2.42     18.04     0.24           8.84   0.38             0.32 senten/ Pal /8&Ch/El 16.58       8.59     9.11     15.60     0.65           12.84   8.41             8.86 9thet geese at 8eept. Best (1)                                                                         8.21                   8.41             0.58             Decas. ecclear 23.9 seleeding                                                                             8.33   12.36             e.58   16.23     0.53   11.26 23.14 Trv to Breetsood                                                   14.88               0.11   13.51           8.89   11.11     8.94   11.18 otter 81/86Ct/ Pal /Seates                       9.11     24.48     8.49           16.88   0.61             0.65 L18 53-15                                 2.42     25.09     0.18           28.80     8.12             0.13 It. lil                                   1.89     15.84     8.13           12.88   0.16             0.11 23.11 tracessing                                                                           8.25   13.32             8.25   11.36     0.21   18.45 St. Charles Bosp. 3're gave 8C.3 Tre to St. Charles                                                 16.21               8.81   14.14             1.82   18.38     1.Ct   19.53 at. til                                   3.11   29.54     9.19           16.86     8.23             8.25 ft. 341                                 18.44     28.00     0.52           1&,8e     8.65             0.61 at 25A/nyttlaosp                         2.12     28.8G     8.11           16,88     4.13             4.14 SC.4 is441st                                                                               8.33   14.41             0.53   14.88     0.33   28.46 3C.5 Trv to 171 ndry 5 esp /sytt/8125A       1.11     8.63     1.01   15.08     8.01   14.54   12 4!     8.19   16.51     5.89   28.16
8t.111 1.16 20.01 4.09 16.48 4.11 0.12 19.41 4.35 at til Bdry 115 56-66 14.61 25.80 1.59 28.83 9.13 8.18 81.21 6.81 At at samt 8181/LI Av.
2.58 8.59 1.53 20.64 0.08 16.68 0.18 8.14 41.21 1.14 Lt VAAC 61.35 1.85 At at tied 11.4 Leading 8.33 4.25 8.58 4.64 8.55 4.11 61.35 8.11 Lv Brest geese at 5.1. (1) 8.11 4.81 S.18 5.11 Bocus. saclear 19.31 8.85 At at 5.1.
19.31 9.19 Lv 5.1.
11.5 Tre to 171 koandry 1.53 15.01 8.18 4.35 12.08 0.13 4.94 B.16 5.25 88.84 9.29 at 173 bdry 11.6.8 Sdrt to accpt nosp.
21.19 2.45 6.81 1.41 B.46 3.26 8.54 T.A. Eosp.
106.62 11.14 At at 948C LII 66-55 15.68 18.80 1.56 8.40 1.95 2.81 108.62 12.36 Lv fast LII 15-13 2.42 18.00 0.24 5.84 5.18 8.12 122.16 13.81 At at tied seatealfel/8&C1/al 16.58 4.59 9.11 15.88 8.65 12.88 8.81 0.86 122.18 13.32 Lv treat 138.91 14.14 Ar St.Clarl Other 138.91 14.41 Lv St.Charl 11.7 acultertag 6.81 8.t0 8.56 gosit. at 5.1.
148.81 11.51 at Ett be 11.9 Baleed 4.33 1.14 8.58 8.56 8.53 9.e4 11.11 frv to treatsood.
14.88 0.11 1.85 0.49 9.39 8.54 9.98 other st/SC/rul/$sakea 9.11 20.88 4.49 16.08 0.61 G.65 tercent Distributions LII 33-55 2.42 25.08 8.10 28.88 0.12 8.13 ites 81 stance t Time 1
St.111 1.89 15.08 8.13 12.88 0.16 8.11 Strt-disp 3.5e 0.24 11.11 tiscessing 8.25 8.10 0.25 9.54 8.21 18.2; fre-eeptr 81.34 8.51 3.91 8.21 Loadles 4.99 4.11 23.3 Try to 5e11. Isl.
11.96 8.15 8.65 9.94 18.58 1.88 11.24 fiv-Is!!
59.18 4.43 5.18 8.36 8t.111 t.16 28.88 8.09 16.08 8.11 8.12 Osealog 0.10 0.42 Lit 56-66 14.61 25.48 8.59 28.00 9.13 0.18 Osloadag 8.66 8.85 8t III/Llas 1.53 28.04 8.88 16.80 8.19 0.18 TOTAL 148.84 1.80 14.54 1.44 Quese at 3.I.
8.11 0.94 1.84 Documentation saclear.
23.4 Loadtst 8.33 9.19 8.58 12.86 4.53 12.82 23.5 frv to sti borr 1.53 15.88 8.18 9.29 12.64 8.13 12.19 8.18 12.15 23.8 frv to Becyt. Sosp.
21.19 2.45 11.14 1.41 15.26 3.26 16.21 f.A. 80 spital LII 64-55 15.68 18.84 1.56 8.88 1.95 2.41 LII 55-11 2.42 18.04 0.24 8.84 0.38 0.32 senten/ Pal /8&Ch/El 16.58 8.59 9.11 15.60 0.65 12.84 8.41 8.86 9thet geese at 8eept. Best (1) 8.21 8.41 0.58 Decas. ecclear 23.9 seleeding 8.33 12.36 e.58 16.23 0.53 11.26 23.14 Trv to Breetsood 14.88 0.11 13.51 8.89 11.11 8.94 11.18 otter 81/86Ct/ Pal /Seates 9.11 24.48 8.49 16.88 0.61 0.65 L18 53-15 2.42 25.09 0.18 28.80 8.12 0.13 It. lil 1.89 15.84 8.13 12.88 0.16 0.11 23.11 tracessing 8.25 13.32 8.25 11.36 0.21 18.45 St. Charles Bosp. 3're gave 8C.3 Tre to St. Charles 16.21 8.81 14.14 1.82 18.38 1.Ct 19.53 at. til 3.11 29.54 9.19 16.86 8.23 8.25 ft. 341 18.44 28.00 0.52 1&,8e 8.65 0.61 at 25A/nyttlaosp 2.12 28.8G 8.11 16,88 4.13 4.14 SC.4 is441st 8.33 14.41 0.53 14.88 0.33 28.46 3C.5 Trv to 171 ndry 5 esp /sytt/8125A 1.11 8.63 1.01 15.08 8.01 14.54 12 4!
8.19 16.51 5.89 28.16


4,   .
4, Y$NT N
Y$NT N
hte 4/4188 Alt speeda 3-5 set less thaa LILCD sa08taas acirlfti inC8Af!Os FILL 18 B118-01. 7158 M81CL81 SC154810:\\ 6 Aesser: gas 11ee:
hte         4/4188 Alt speeda 3-5 set less thaa LILCD sa08taas acirlfti inC8Af!Os FILL 18 B118-01. 7158 M81CL81 Aesser: gas 11ee:   14.04                   18.41           28.85 SC154810:\ 6
14.04 18.41 28.85
                                                                                        *"* ***"'Inseer Adverse"*   *"Blater Adverse"   htes                   Ceestative 81strik Itse                              Leegth Scale      Bist. .une' Speed    ul"*"se"e"f aseSped flee See flee flee See f ase serflee                                                                              81 stance See time ubere 2.50   2.58           2.50   2.58   2.66     2.66   tapet distrbettoa             8.81       2.58 at 8 test.
***"'Inseer Adverse"*
11.11ebel arrive at Brests.                                                                             3.H              3.19                                 8.01       3.H process 11.2 Processing at er                                                    0.58    3.80          0.58          0.53            Frecesstal time 11.96      3.92 at 5.1.
*"Blater Adverse" htes Ceestative 81strik
11.16                 0.92   3.92           1.14     4.14 1.21     1.48                               11.96       4.25 load 11.3 fratel to saff. laf tre.                                                                   8.16           5.11                                         !!.48       4.50 at If18 dry it.it t                                    1.16      11.H      8.12        11. f 8 L18 56-66                                14.61        15.80     8.98         11.49     1.33           1.02                                         47.21       1.28atRecse 2.58     8.59     1.53       15.H     8.18         !!.80     8.14           0.15                                         41.21       1.61 salsad t 181/LI Av.                                                                                                                                        61.35       8.46 at treat.
.une' ser ul"*"se"e"f aseSped flee See flee flee See f ase 81 stance See time ubere Speed flee Itse Leegth Scale Bist.
8.33   4.25           9.58     4.64 8.53     4.13                               61.35       8.11 process 11.4 Leedlag geese at 5.1. (1l                                                                       8.11     4.81 0.18     1.11   Socne. naclear               19.31       9.15 et 5.1.
11.11ebel arrive at Brests.
19.31       9.69 leadet 1.51       6.st     8.25   9.58   5.80   0.31     5.12 0.12     5.06                               10.84       9.14 et It! berg 17.5 fro to Ett bosatte                                                                                                        V.A. Bosp.                  100.62      10.90 at tec le 11.6 .8 8 dry to secyt losp.                       21.19                 2.18   1.28           3.61     8.15 3.86     9.29 10.00     1.56           9.80   1.13           1.84                                         188.62     11.52 g e asle Lit 66-55                                15.68 122.18      12.31 at treet.
2.50 2.58 2.50 2.58 2.66 2.66 tapet distrbettoa 8.81 2.58 at 8 test.
!,          LII 55-53                                   2.42       18.08     8.24           9.86   0.21           f.21 0.59      9.11       14.88     8.98           6.88   1.63           1.13                                         122.10     !!.62 process
11.2 Processing at er 0.58 3.80 0.58 3.H 0.53 3.19 Frecesstal time 8.01 3.H process 11.96 3.92 at 5.1.
;            seekea/ Pal /86C1/a1 16.58                                                                                                                          118.91      13.64 at It Cha Other                                                                                                                                               138.91     13.91 g e load 11.1 hettorlag                                                                   1.28                   8.15           9.29   ucait. at 8.1.             149.84     II.H st IF1 be 8.33   1.61           8.58     9.21 8.51     9.82                     lance 11.9 salud 11.18 frv to treatsoed.                           18.88                 8.85   8.46           1.15   18. 0   1.22   11.44 other                                                                                                                                             tercent 81stribettons al/86Cn/ Pal /3 sates                       3.11       15.08     0.65         11.Se   0.89           8.94 L1153-5)                                   z.42       35.00     0.01         21.08   8.09           t 18                                       stes     sistance       i fine       1 ft.111                                     1.85       15.40     0.13         11.48   8.11           9.10 strt-disp                       3.50   0.25 11.11 Frecesslag                                                         0.25   8.11           0.25   18.65   0.21   11.31                             frv-esttr 88.34         0.51   4.M   8.30 Leadlae                         0.99   0.01 23.3 frv to sa!!.1:!.                             11.96                 8.64   1.35           0.84   11.61   0.89   12.21                             fro-tell 59.18           0.43   4.29   0.31
11.3 fratel to saff. laf tre.
                                                                                            !!.08   0.16           0.11                                       Qatting                         8.30   8.02 St.!!!                                    1.16      15.H      0.12 Catoadeg                        8.66  6.85 LI8 56-66                                14.61      35.00     0.42         21.03   8.54           8.58 1.53       15.H     0.10         11.88   0.14           8.15                                       TOTAL       I40.04     1.08   It.H   1.H 8t 181/Llas 0.81                 8.98           1.04           Bocusentattoa saclear.
11.16 0.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.21 1.48 11.96 4.25 load it.it t 1.16 11.H 8.12
Onese et s.t.                                                                                            8.53    11.18 23.4 Leedlag                                                             8.33   9.69           0.58   12.11 33.5 frv to 571 bdry                               1.53       38.30     0.85   9.14 25.88   8.06   13 83   8.86   13.84 23.8 fro to Beept. losp.                           21.11                 1.11 18.90           1,56   14.58   1.65   15.58 LI8 66-55                                 15.68       35.80     s.45         21.85   0.58           0.61 L!l 55-51                                 2.42       15.H     0.01         21.88   0.89           3.18 Sentes/ Pal /B6Cn/s1 16.58       8.59     9.1s       15.88     0.65         11.60   8.89           0.54 8ther gnees at See t. Resp 11)                                                   4.21                   0.41           8.58           Docas. saclear 23.9 hleed                                                               8.33 11.52           8.58   15.55   0.53   16.53 23.10 frv to treetened                             18.00                 4.85   12.11           1.15   16.10   1.22   11.15 etter al/06Cl/ Pol /sentes                       1.11       15.08     8.65         11.tt   8.89           0.!t lit 53-55                                 2.42       35.80     8.81         21.4?     4.09           2.18 tt. lit                                   1.09       15.08     f.u           11.00   e.11           0 tt 23.11 Frecuales                                                           0.25 12.62           8.25   16.15   G.21   18.01
: 11. f 8 8.16 5.11
'  CL Charles Sesp. I'rd save BC.3 fro to St. Charles                           16.11                 1.01 13.64           1.31   18.32   1.46   19.41
!!.48 4.50 at If18 dry L18 56-66 14.61 15.80 8.98 11.49 1.33 1.02 47.21 1.28atRecse t 181/LI Av.
: 81. til                                     3.11       15.08     8.25         11.88   8.H           8.36 St. 341                                   18.44       15.H     9.18         II.H     8.95           1.a!
2.58 8.59 1.53 15.H 8.18
Et 25&/Oftt/ leap                           2.12       38.H     8.81         25.H     8.H           8.69 at.8 Leedlag                                                             8.33 11.11           4.50   10.82   0.53   28.H Sc.5 frv to 871 bdry aesplayrt/It 254         1.18     8.63     1.01     38.80     8.84 14.80   25. 4   8.84   12.81   8.81   28.05
!!.80 8.14 0.15 41.21 1.61 salsad 61.35 8.46 at treat.
11.4 Leedlag 8.33 4.25 9.58 4.64 8.53 4.13 61.35 8.11 process geese at 5.1. (1l 8.11 4.81 0.18 1.11 Socne. naclear 19.31 9.15 et 5.1.
19.31 9.69 leadet 17.5 fro to Ett bosatte 1.51 6.st 8.25 9.58 5.80 0.31 5.12 0.12 5.06 10.84 9.14 et It! berg 11.6.8 8 dry to secyt losp.
21.19 2.18 1.28 3.61 8.15 3.86 9.29 V.A. Bosp.
100.62 10.90 at tec le Lit 66-55 15.68 10.00 1.56 9.80 1.13 1.84 188.62 11.52 g e asle LII 55-53 2.42 18.08 8.24 9.86 0.21 f.21 122.18 12.31 at treet.
seekea/ Pal /86C1/a1 16.58 0.59 9.11 14.88 8.98 6.88 1.63 1.13 122.10
!!.62 process 118.91 13.64 at It Cha Other 138.91 13.91 g e load 11.1 hettorlag 1.28 8.15 9.29 ucait. at 8.1.
149.84 II.H st IF1 be 11.9 salud 8.33 1.61 8.58 9.21 8.51 9.82 lance 11.18 frv to treatsoed.
18.88 8.85 8.46 1.15
: 18. 0 1.22 11.44 other al/86Cn/ Pal /3 sates 3.11 15.08 0.65 11.Se 0.89 8.94 tercent 81stribettons L1153-5) z.42 35.00 0.01 21.08 8.09 t 18 stes sistance i fine 1
ft.111 1.85 15.40 0.13 11.48 8.11 9.10 strt-disp 3.50 0.25 11.11 Frecesslag 0.25 8.11 0.25 18.65 0.21 11.31 frv-esttr 88.34 0.51 4.M 8.30 Leadlae 0.99 0.01 23.3 frv to sa!!.1:!.
11.96 8.64 1.35 0.84 11.61 0.89 12.21 fro-tell 59.18 0.43 4.29 0.31 St.!!!
1.16 15.H 0.12
!!.08 0.16 0.11 Qatting 8.30 8.02 LI8 56-66 14.61 35.00 0.42 21.03 8.54 8.58 Catoadeg 8.66 6.85 8t 181/Llas 1.53 15.H 0.10 11.88 0.14 8.15 TOTAL I40.04 1.08 It.H 1.H Onese et s.t.
0.81 8.98 1.04 Bocusentattoa saclear.
23.4 Leedlag 8.33 9.69 0.58 12.11 8.53 11.18 33.5 frv to 571 bdry 1.53 38.30 0.85 9.14 25.88 8.06 13 83 8.86 13.84 23.8 fro to Beept. losp.
21.11 1.11 18.90 1,56 14.58 1.65 15.58 LI8 66-55 15.68 35.80 s.45 21.85 0.58 0.61 L!l 55-51 2.42 15.H 0.01 21.88 0.89 3.18 Sentes/ Pal /B6Cn/s1 16.58 8.59 9.1s 15.88 0.65 11.60 8.89 0.54 8ther gnees at See t. Resp 11) 4.21 0.41 8.58 Docas. saclear 23.9 hleed 8.33 11.52 8.58 15.55 0.53 16.53 23.10 frv to treetened 18.00 4.85 12.11 1.15 16.10 1.22 11.15 etter al/06Cl/ Pol /sentes 1.11 15.08 8.65 11.tt 8.89 0.!t lit 53-55 2.42 35.80 8.81 21.4?
4.09 2.18 tt. lit 1.09 15.08 f.u 11.00 e.11 0 tt 23.11 Frecuales 0.25 12.62 8.25 16.15 G.21 18.01 CL Charles Sesp. I'rd save BC.3 fro to St. Charles 16.11 1.01 13.64 1.31 18.32 1.46 19.41
: 81. til 3.11 15.08 8.25 11.88 8.H 8.36 St. 341 18.44 15.H 9.18 II.H 8.95 1.a!
Et 25&/Oftt/ leap 2.12 38.H 8.81 25.H 8.H 8.69 at.8 Leedlag 8.33 11.11 4.50 10.82 0.53 28.H Sc.5 frv to 871 bdry aesplayrt/It 254 1.18 8.63 1.01 38.80 8.84 14.80
: 25. 4 8.84 12.81 8.81 28.05


t: .                                                                                                             v.
t:.
MTERNGed 17 N
MTERNGed 17 v.
ute         lit:H 611 speeds II 6 less tnas LILCS speeds saottens 805PITAL tinC8& TIN HLL 18 EIL8-Bas.1158 V881CL83 lesser: saa ties:   13.81                 16.91           11.43 3C8aAlla:\c
N ute lit:H 611 speeds II 6 less tnas LILCS speeds saottens 805PITAL tinC8& TIN HLL 18 EIL8-Bas.1158 V881CL83 3C8aAlla:\\c lesser: saa ties:
                                                                                            "='Ineser Adverse'" "'31 ster leverse"     Ictes               enselative Distrib u n." toreal""""""'                                                                        Bastance les time share Length scal        81st. Speed flee see flee          speed flea les fase Tise saa itse Ites 2.58   2.58   2.66     2.66 . lapst distrbettes           8.11     2.54 at 8:est.
13.81 16.91 11.43 u n." toreal""""""'
2.50    2.58                                                                                 3.H process 11.1 nobel arrive at IIests.                                            8.58    3.88          8.18   3.8I   I.53     1.19   Processist time             0.01 11.2 processtag at er                                                                                                                                      11.96     3.92 at 5.1.
"='Ineser Adverse'"
1.14     4.14   1.21     4.48                               11.96     4.25 lead 11.96                4.92    3.92 11.3 trasel to hit. la!!re.                                    18.H     s.le         14.48   0 11           8 11                                       11 40     4.53 at Set 8 dry 8t.llt                                      1.16                                                      1.38                                        41.21      6.95 at sec to 14.67     18.04     8.82         14.03   1.s2 LIl 16 66                                                                    14.t8  8.11            8.11                                        41.21      1.24 esload 8 III/L1 As.             2.58     0.59     1.53     14.H     0.08 61.35      1.99 at 8 test.
"'31 ster leverse" Ictes enselative Distrib Ites Length scal 81st. Speed flee see flee speed flea les fase Tise saa itse Bastance les time share 11.1 nobel arrive at IIests.
8.58    f.64  8.53    8.93                              61.35     8.24 process 11.4 Leading                                                             0.33   4.25 I.11    4 81   8.18     5.11   Socas. naclear             19.31     8.83 at 5.1.
2.50 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66.
geese et 3.1. [?)                                                                                                                                 19.31     9.11 leadet 8.34    5.15  9.36    5.41                              18.84      9.22 at It! herg 11.5 Trv to 871 headry                               1.53       5.58-   I.28   4.53   8.58 140.52    10.26 at tec to 2.42   4.91         2.88     8.83   3.86     8.58   T. A. 80sp.
lapst distrbettes 8.11 2.54 at 8:est.
11.4 .I 8 dry to tecpt Boss.                       2T.T9           .
11.2 processtag at er 8.58 3.88 8.18 3.8I I.53 1.19 Processist time 0.01 3.H process 11.96 3.92 at 5.1.
188.62    18.88 g e sale 15.68     13.58     1.16         11.88   1.32           8.48 LIl 66-55                                                                                                                                        122.18   11.68 at treat.
11.3 trasel to hit. la!!re.
L18 55-13                                   2.42     13.50     9.18         II .H   9.21           8.22 122.18     11.85 process 0.59      9.11       9.88     1.89           1.2e   1.36           1.44
11.96 4.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.21 4.48 11.96 4.25 lead 8t.llt 1.16 18.H s.le 14.48 0 11 8 11 11 40 4.53 at Set 8 dry LIl 16 66 14.67 18.04 8.82 14.03 1.s2 1.38 41.21 6.95 at sec to 8 III/L1 As.
!            soetes/rsl/MCn/u! 16.58                                                                                                          a              138.91     12.18 at St Cla 8ther                                                                                                                                           138.91     13.53 g e load 2.83           1.54   soalt. at 3.1.             148.84     13.81 at 87164 11.1 sositettag                                                                  6.95 8.33   1.28           8.18   8.53   8.51     9.81                     lance l  11.9 Intead 11.18 Tre ts Brentseed.                             14.08                 8.11   1.99         f.8)   9.43   4.95   18.02 4
2.58 0.59 1.53 14.H 0.08 14.t8 8.11 8.11 41.21 1.24 esload 61.35 1.99 at 8 test.
4ther                                                                                 b.68          8.12                                    Percest $1stribet10ss 9.11     18.18     0.54         19 39 i
11.4 Leading 0.33 4.25 8.58 f.64 8.53 8.93 61.35 8.24 process I.11 4 81 8.18 5.11 Socas. naclear 19.31 8.83 at 5.1.
elle6C11Fal/3sakea 36.81     0.81         26.68   0.08           9.89                                   ites     81 stance     i flee       1 I            L1k 53-15                                    2.42 St. !!!                                     l.89     18.H       8.11         14.48   6.IJ           0.11 Strt-disp                         3.58 0.21 8.25   8.24         8.25   9.it   d.21   18.28                           Tri-eepty 88.34         8.51     3.19   e.29 l  11.11 Frecesstag                                                                                                                                      Leadiae                           8.99   8.80 i
geese et 3.1. [?)
11.96                 0.59   8.83         6.14   18.41   5.18   11.81                           frv-isll     59.14     0.43     3.82   0.29 23.3 Trv to salt. laf.                                                   0.14         II.it   9.12           0.11                                   geesist                           8.38   8.82 8t.Ill                                      3.16      18.08                                                                                  esleadsg                        4.66  8.85 18.61      36.88    8.41         28.pt   4.51           v.58 LII 56-66 0.11            8.!!                                  TOTAL       lit.84       I.84   13.81   1.H 1.53      II.H      8.88          18.48 8t 181/Llav 8.83                 5.91           1.04           Bocamentation anclear.
19.31 9.11 leadet 11.5 Trv to 871 headry 1.53 5.58-I.28 4.53 8.58 8.34 5.15 9.36 5.41 18.84 9.22 at It! herg 2.42 4.91 2.88 8.83 3.86 8.58 T. A. 80sp.
Onese et 8.I.                                                              9.11         8.18   11.11   0.53   12.64 23.4 taadleg                                                              8.13 13.5 Tre ta 171 bery                                 1.53     31.54     8.85   9.22 21.Pl   8.86   11.!5   4 t6   12.18 23.8 Me to locyt. Ros).                             21.19                 1.e4 18.26         1.38   13.26   1.39   It.88 15.68     36.08     8.43         28.88   0.54           8.58 LIl 64-55                                                                                            t.89 138 55-53                                   2.42     36.H       0.81         28.88   I.It sentes/ Pal /MCh/El 16.58         8.59       9.11     18.H       8.54         It.18   4.68           8 12 8ther 8.29                 8.01           8.58           tocas. naclear geese rt        . sosp (f)                                                                                            15.11 8.33 18.88           8.54 14.22   8.53 23.9 hl I.11 11.68         0.89   15.12   8.95   16.86 23.33 frv to treatseed                              it.II 8ther                                                                                                 0.12 9.11     II.H       8.54         14.48   8.64 st/96C8/ Pol / testes                                            0.81        28.48    8.08          8.49 LII 53-15                                   2.42     36.84 0.11        14.44    8.13          0.11 St. Ill                                     1.89     18.88 23.11 Processing                                                         4.25 11.85           8.25 15.11   8.21   16.33 rt. C6arles leep. 1*rd save 8C.3 Trv to St. Charles                             16.11                 8.15 12.14           1.86 16. 0     1.13   11.46 8.21          14.48  0.26           4.21 4t. III                                      3.11      18.84 8.11 It. It!                                   10.44     18.84     8.58         I?.te   0.23 8125&/utrt/8 ssp                             2.12     31.58     8.81         21.H   8.13           8.88 St.t Leadtag                                                             0.33 13.83           8.54 16.93   8.53   11.99 sc.5 fra to 871 barr                                                      4.83 13.41   21.88   0.64   16.91   8.54   18.83 Wesp/strt/at 254        1.19    8.63      1.01      31.58
140.52 10.26 at tec to 11.4.I 8 dry to tecpt Boss.
2T.T9 LIl 66-55 15.68 13.58 1.16 11.88 1.32 8.48 188.62 18.88 g e sale L18 55-13 2.42 13.50 9.18 II.H 9.21 8.22 122.18 11.68 at treat.
soetes/rsl/MCn/u! 16.58 0.59 9.11 9.88 1.89 1.2e 1.36 1.44 122.18 11.85 process 138.91 12.18 at St Cla 8ther a
138.91 13.53 g e load 11.1 sositettag 6.95 2.83 1.54 soalt. at 3.1.
148.84 13.81 at 87164 l
11.9 Intead 8.33 1.28 8.18 8.53 8.51 9.81 lance 11.18 Tre ts Brentseed.
14.08 8.11 1.99 f.8) 9.43 4.95 18.02 4
4ther i
elle6C11Fal/3sakea 9.11 18.18 0.54 19 39 b.68 8.12 Percest $1stribet10ss I
L1k 53-15 2.42 36.81 0.81 26.68 0.08 9.89 ites 81 stance i flee 1
St. !!!
l.89 18.H 8.11 14.48 6.IJ 0.11 Strt-disp 3.58 0.21 l
11.11 Frecesstag 8.25 8.24 8.25 9.it d.21 18.28 Tri-eepty 88.34 8.51 3.19 e.29 Leadiae 8.99 8.80 23.3 Trv to salt. laf.
11.96 0.59 8.83 6.14 18.41 5.18 11.81 frv-isll 59.14 0.43 3.82 0.29 i
8t.Ill 3.16 18.08 0.14 II.it 9.12 0.11 geesist 8.38 8.82 LII 56-66 18.61 36.88 8.41 28.pt 4.51 v.58 esleadsg 4.66 8.85 8t 181/Llav 1.53 II.H 8.88 18.48 0.11 8.!!
TOTAL lit.84 I.84 13.81 1.H Onese et 8.I.
8.83 5.91 1.04 Bocamentation anclear.
23.4 taadleg 8.13 9.11 8.18 11.11 0.53 12.64 13.5 Tre ta 171 bery 1.53 31.54 8.85 9.22 21.Pl 8.86 11.!5 4 t6 12.18 23.8 Me to locyt. Ros).
21.19 1.e4 18.26 1.38 13.26 1.39 It.88 LIl 64-55 15.68 36.08 8.43 28.88 0.54 8.58 138 55-53 2.42 36.H 0.81 28.88 I.It t.89 sentes/ Pal /MCh/El 16.58 8.59 9.11 18.H 8.54 It.18 4.68 8 12 8ther geese rt
. sosp (f) 8.29 8.01 8.58 tocas. naclear 23.9 hl 8.33 18.88 8.54 14.22 8.53 15.11 23.33 frv to treatseed it.II I.11 11.68 0.89 15.12 8.95 16.86 8ther st/96C8/ Pol / testes 9.11 II.H 8.54 14.48 8.64 0.12 LII 53-15 2.42 36.84 0.81 28.48 8.08 8.49 St. Ill 1.89 18.88 0.11 14.44 8.13 0.11 23.11 Processing 4.25 11.85 8.25 15.11 8.21 16.33 rt. C6arles leep. 1*rd save 8C.3 Trv to St. Charles 16.11 8.15 12.14 1.86
: 16. 0 1.13 11.46 4t. III 3.11 18.84 8.21 14.48 0.26 4.21 It. It!
10.44 18.84 8.58 I?.te 0.23 8.11 8125&/utrt/8 ssp 2.12 31.58 8.81 21.H 8.13 8.88 St.t Leadtag 0.33 13.83 8.54 16.93 8.53 11.99 sc.5 fra to 871 barr Wesp/strt/at 254 1.19 8.63 1.01 31.58 4.83 13.41 21.88 0.64 16.91 8.54 18.83


Le ,
Le,
MTautwENT G x
MTautwENT G x
tate       II5/88 g 6 eph est,15 labound Staer       15 est, 28 !a sucellas most!TAL IvuuaTIoa itLL 18 EILE ant. flat VIIICLt$
tate II5/88 g 6 eph est,15 labound Staer 15 est, 28 !a sucellas most!TAL IvuuaTIoa itLL 18 EILE ant. flat VIIICLt$
Aasser: has 11ee:   29.5B                   25.99           21.62 Scla &818:5P esesses ggggglesessessessee senseslaaSet Adverle"' '''518ter Adferse"   50tes                 Challatite 31strib Itse                             Lesttk Scale       81st. Speed flee $sa flae         Speed flee les flee flee las Time                                 81 stance See Llee there 2.58   2.54           2.58   2.18     2.66     2.66   tapet distrbettoa           8.41       2.58 at treat.
Scla &818:5P Aasser: has 11ee:
11.1 Aabel arriee at treats.                                                                   8.54   3.48     8.51     3.19   Fracessts; time             8.01     3.68 process 11.2 Processlag at Er                                                  0.58    3.40 i2.96       3.92 at 5.1.
29.5B 25.99 21.62 esesses ggggglesessessessee senseslaaSet Adverle"'
11.96                8.9)    3.92           1.14   4.21     1.21     4.48                               11.96       4.25 lead 11.3 Travel to $sli. Inttre.                                                                   0.11             8.12                                       19.04       4.54 at Irl 5 dry 8t.llt                                    1.14      28.84    8.09          16.88 111 56-66                               14.61     15.00     0.91         12.tv     1.22             1.14                                       41.21       9.11 at tec le 6.84     8.25           5.14   8.31             9.32                                       47.27       9.41 malead 8181/LI av.           2.58    0.19      1.53 61.35    18.48 at 8 est.
'''518ter Adferse" 50tes Challatite 31strib Itse Lesttk Scale 81st. Speed flee $sa flae Speed flee les flee flee las Time 81 stance See Llee there 11.1 Aabel arriee at treats.
9.33     4.25           8.50     4.61   8.11     4.91                               61.35     18.65 process 17.41 sadist                                                                                                                    accua. saglear                      11.97 at 5.1.
2.58 2.54 2.58 2.18 2.66 2.66 tapet distrbettoa 8.41 2.58 at treat.
geese at 5.1. I?)                                                                     8.!!   4.81     4.14     5.11                               19.31 le.31 i.88    8.31    5.12    0.32    5.41                              84.84    12.31atleaf 12.51      it +! bdry 11.5 fro to 171 bosadtf                           1.53       658     4.25     4.52 17.6 .8 Bery to tecpt posp.                       27.79               4.61   9.14           5.56   18.61     5.90   11.14   T. A. Sosp.               188.62     17.28 at tec to 6.91     2.69           5.81   3.12             1.32                                     188.62     11.82 4 e said LII 66-55                                15.68 2.42       6.08     8.48           5.08   f.It             8.5"                                       122.78     14.76 at 8 test.
11.2 Processlag at Er 0.58 3.40 8.54 3.48 8.51 3.19 Fracessts; time 8.01 3.68 process i2.96 3.92 at 5.1.
LIE 55-11                                                                                                                                        122.18    19.01 process Senten/Fil/8Ek/s! 16.58         8.59     9.11       6.88     1.61           5.88   1.95             2.85 138.97     28.81 at 5t Cha etter                                                                                                                                             138.91     21.41 g e lead 11.1 soeiterlag                                                                 9.16                 13.51             11.34   Eca11. at 5.1.           140.04     29.58 at Ifl bd 0.33   9.41           4.56   11.!!     8.53   11.41                     lance 17.9 8elsad 14.88                 9.94 18.45           1.11   12.35     1.21   13.12 11.13 tre to treatsood.
11.3 Travel to $sli. Inttre.
Other 9.11     15.80     0.65         12.te     8.11             S.06                                   Fercest alstributions sillE1/rul/saskea                                                            12.81    8.28             4.21                                   Ites     81 stance     1 time       t til 53-15                                  2.42    15.88      8.16 St. Ill                                   1.89     15.08     4.13         12.40   0.l?             8.11 strt-disp                         3.58 8.17 11.11 trecesstag                                                       8.25   18.65           4.25   12.68     1.21   13.38                           tre-e.pty 10.34         8.51     1.11   s.25 Loadtas                           0.99   0.85 23.3 Trv is saff. laf.                           11.96                 1.32   11.91           1.64   14.21     1.14   15.12                           tas-Isli     59.18     8.43     9.95   1.48 1,76               8.09         16.48   0.11             8.12                                   Questat                           4.30   0.81 31.333                                            28.04 8.98         12.68     1.22             1.38                                   soloadsg                         8.66   0.03 LII 56-66                              14.61      15.88 Tcfat       148.44       1.08   20.58   1.04 It 1817149                                1.53      6.80    0.25            5.88  4.31              8.32 8.41                   0.98             1.00           Docusestation saclear.
11.96 8.9) 3.92 1.14 4.21 1.21 4.48 11.96 4.25 lead 8t.llt 1.14 28.84 8.09 16.88 0.11 8.12 19.04 4.54 at Irl 5 dry 111 56-66 14.61 15.00 0.91 12.tv 1.22 1.14 41.21 9.11 at tec le 8181/LI av.
Queue at 8.1.
2.58 0.19 1.53 6.84 8.25 5.14 8.31 9.32 47.27 9.41 malead 61.35 18.48 at 8 est.
23.0 Loading                                                           8.33   12.11           8.58   15.11     4.53   16.18 23.5 Tre to Ett bar                               1.53       6.04     0.25   12.51   5.88   0.31   16.82     0.32   11.02 23.8 frv ta       t. Sosp.                       27.19                 4.61   11.28           5.56   21.54     5.99   22.93 LII 66- 5                               15.64       6.88     2.68           5.80   3.12             3.32 LI! 55-53                                 2.42       6.88     6.08           5.08   0.td             f.51 lastes/ Pal /8Enjui 16.51     0.59       9.11       6.50     1.63           S.H     1.95             2.H etter gasme at Beept. Essa lf)                                                 8.29                   8.41             0.58           Docas. naclear 23.9 malsastag                                                         0.33 11.12           8.58   22.55     0.53   23.96 23.0 trv to treetsood                             14.04               0.94   18.16           1.11   23.12     1.25   15.28 other al/BKn/tel/Saales                         9.11     11.68     8.65         12.54     8.81             8.06 LII 53-15                                 2.42     15.83     0.16         12.H     8.21             0.21 ft. !!!                                   1.49     15.H       4.13         12.H     8.16             8.!!                       ,
17.41 sadist 9.33 4.25 8.50 4.61 8.11 4.91 61.35 18.65 process geese at 5.1. I?)
23.11 Processisg                                                       I.25 19.81           0.25   23.91     8.21   25.41 ft. Charles asse. 3'rd save                                                                                       1.39  26.86 SC.3 tre to St. Charles                           16.21                 1.66 29.37           1.13   21.28
8.!!
: 81. 131                                   1.11     28.88     8.19         16.H     0.23             0.25
4.81 4.14 5.11 accua. saglear 19.31 11.97 at 5.1.
: 81. 147                                 19.44     29.69     8.52         It.H     6.65             0.69 at 15Alerrt/Besp                         2.12       6.88     8.35           5.H     0.12             8.45 St.t Lsading                                                           8.33 21.41           8.54   25. rt     8.53   21.39
12.31 leaf +! bdry le.31 11.5 fro to 171 bosadtf 1.53 658 4.25 4.52 i.88 8.31 5.12 0.32 5.41 84.84 12.51 at it 17.6.8 Bery to tecpt posp.
  $0.5 frv to til be y sosp/arrt/tt 251       1.18   8.63       1.41       6.H     8.18 28.58   5.H     8.2)   21.95     8.13   21.62
27.79 4.61 9.14 5.56 18.61 5.90 11.14 T. A. Sosp.
188.62 17.28 at tec to LII 66-55 15.68 6.91 2.69 5.81 3.12 1.32 188.62 11.82 4 e said LIE 55-11 2.42 6.08 8.48 5.08 f.It 8.5" 122.78 14.76 at 8 test.
Senten/Fil/8Ek/s! 16.58 8.59 9.11 6.88 1.61 5.88 1.95 2.85 122.18 19.01 process 138.97 28.81 at 5t Cha etter 138.91 21.41 g e lead 11.1 soeiterlag 9.16 13.51 11.34 Eca11. at 5.1.
140.04 29.58 at Ifl bd 17.9 8elsad 0.33 9.41 4.56 11.!!
8.53 11.41 lance 11.13 tre to treatsood.
14.88 9.94 18.45 1.11 12.35 1.21 13.12 Other sillE1/rul/saskea 9.11 15.80 0.65 12.te 8.11 S.06 Fercest alstributions til 53-15 2.42 15.88 8.16 12.81 8.28 4.21 Ites 81 stance 1 time t
St. Ill 1.89 15.08 4.13 12.40 0.l?
8.11 strt-disp 3.58 8.17 11.11 trecesstag 8.25 18.65 4.25 12.68 1.21 13.38 tre-e.pty 10.34 8.51 1.11 s.25 Loadtas 0.99 0.85 23.3 Trv is saff. laf.
11.96 1.32 11.91 1.64 14.21 1.14 15.12 tas-Isli 59.18 8.43 9.95 1.48 31.333 1,76 28.04 8.09 16.48 0.11 8.12 Questat 4.30 0.81 LII 56-66 14.61 15.88 8.98 12.68 1.22 1.38 soloadsg 8.66 0.03 It 1817149 1.53 6.80 0.25 5.88 4.31 8.32 Tcfat 148.44 1.08 20.58 1.04 Queue at 8.1.
8.41 0.98 1.00 Docusestation saclear.
23.0 Loading 8.33 12.11 8.58 15.11 4.53 16.18 23.5 Tre to Ett bar 1.53 6.04 0.25 12.51 5.88 0.31 16.82 0.32 11.02 23.8 frv ta
: t. Sosp.
27.19 4.61 11.28 5.56 21.54 5.99 22.93 LII 66-5 15.64 6.88 2.68 5.80 3.12 3.32 LI! 55-53 2.42 6.88 6.08 5.08 0.td f.51 lastes/ Pal /8Enjui 16.51 0.59 9.11 6.50 1.63 S.H 1.95 2.H etter gasme at Beept. Essa lf) 8.29 8.41 0.58 Docas. naclear 23.9 malsastag 0.33 11.12 8.58 22.55 0.53 23.96 23.0 trv to treetsood 14.04 0.94 18.16 1.11 23.12 1.25 15.28 other al/BKn/tel/Saales 9.11 11.68 8.65 12.54 8.81 8.06 LII 53-15 2.42 15.83 0.16 12.H 8.21 0.21 ft. !!!
1.49 15.H 4.13 12.H 8.16 8.!!
23.11 Processisg I.25 19.81 0.25 23.91 8.21 25.41 ft. Charles asse. 3'rd save SC.3 tre to St. Charles 16.21 1.66 29.37 1.13 21.28 1.39 26.86
: 81. 131 1.11 28.88 8.19 16.H 0.23 0.25
: 81. 147 19.44 29.69 8.52 It.H 6.65 0.69 at 15Alerrt/Besp 2.12 6.88 8.35 5.H 0.12 8.45 St.t Lsading 8.33 21.41 8.54
: 25. rt 8.53 21.39
$0.5 frv to til be y sosp/arrt/tt 251 1.18 8.63 1.41 6.H 8.18 28.58 5.H 8.2) 21.95 8.13 21.62


L . 2 ,,
L. 2,,
i MTM.MMEr4T l*f Bete       altl88
i MTM.MMEr4T l*f Bete altl88 Iscrease tapt spues nr 5 apt
' Iscrease tapt spues nr 5 apt
$8088aae 505 Plt &L IVKlat105 N
                                $8088aae 505 Plt &L IVKlat105                                                                                                                                                 N isLL le RILE-mal. flat ItalCLIS Anaser: saa ttse;     11.38                   It.83             15.76 Ksa&810: d
isLL le RILE-mal. flat ItalCLIS Ksa&810: d Anaser: saa ttse; 11.38 It.83 15.76
                                                                                      ""    """Seener Adverse"'       *"tanter 13 e.se"   ustes                 risalative 31strin Slat.""Speed"' Tasesereal*""".e"flee  Speed Time See fase flee See flee                                   81 stas:e See time Ekere Itse                             Leagth Scale                                 St 2.59      1.58     2.66     2.66   lapet distrhettee             8.01     2.58 at 8 eat.
"""Seener Adverse"'
2.50     2.58                                                                            8,81      3.H procesa 17.18ebel arrive et treate.                                            4.50      3.H            8.58     3.H     4.53     3.19   Procesatas tiet 11.2 processing at 3r                                                                                                                                            11.96     3.92 et 8.1.
*"tanter 13 e.se" ustes risalative 31strin Slat.""Speed"' sereal*""".e"fleeSpeed Time See fase flee See flee 81 stas:e See time Ekere Tase St Itse Leagth Scale 17.18ebel arrive et treate.
3.92           1.14     4.14     1.21     4.41                                 11.H       4.25 Ices 17.96                8.92                                                                                                4.58 et 871 Odry 17.3 Travel to Saf t. latire.                                          8.09             16.68   8.11               0 12 19.48 4t.llt                                    1.16    28.80                                                                                                41.21      6.H at tec be 14.61     25.H       8.59             21.88   8.78               4.16 LII 56-66                                                                              8.18              8.18                                          47.21      6.19 eslead 2.58     4.51       1.53   20.88     0.88             36.88                                                                               6.93 at treet.
2.50 2.58 2.59 1.58 2.66 2.66 lapet distrhettee 8.01 2.58 at 8 eat.
B 181/11 Av.                                                                                                                                           61.35 8.58      8.68    e.33     8.93                                 61.35     1.18 process 17.4 Loadleg                                                           8.33      6.25 8.II     4.81   - 8.10     1.!!   8ecas. saclear               it.31     1.67 4t 3.1.
11.2 processing at 3r 4.50 3.H 8.58 3.H 4.53 3.19 Procesatas tiet 8,81 3.H procesa 11.96 3.92 et 8.1.
geese at 3.1. (?)                                                                                                                                       19.38     8.01 lead +q 8.11      5.12     8.32     5. H                                 88.84     B.4' at IP! bdry I.13      6.80    0.25      6.58    5.88                                                                              8.64 at tec Be 17.5 7tt te tF1 besadtv                                                                        1.81      6.91    1.99     7.43   V.A. Bost.                 188.62 11.6 .8 Sett to tecpt Sosp.                       21.79                1.55      6.86                                                                                      9.46 g e said 8.92               9.98                                         188.62 Lit 66-55                                15.60      28.88      8.18            11.88 0.14               0.15                                         122.78     10.84 at treat.
17.3 Travel to Saf t. latire.
LII 55-53                                  2.42    20.84    0.12            11.88                                                                             18.25 process s.81               8.a6                                       122.10 8.59      9.11     15.88      e.65            12.se Sastes/ Pal /$Eh/mi !$.58                                                                                                                              130.97    11.92 at It Cta etter                                                                                                                                                  138.97    11.3, q e load 6.86                      6.99            7.43    usatt. at 8.1.             140.04     11.38 et til bd 17.1 asalteries                                                                 6.21           0.58       1.49     0.53   7.16                       lance 11.1 sensed                                                            0.33 14.08               8.54     6.93         8.65       8.14     8.69   8.65 11.18 frv to 3restocod.
17.96 8.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.21 4.41 11.H 4.25 Ices 4t.llt 1.16 28.80 8.09 16.68 8.11 0 12 19.48 4.58 et 871 Odry LII 56-66 14.61 25.H 8.59 21.88 8.78 4.16 41.21 6.H at tec be B 181/11 Av.
other                                                                                                     4.49                                      Fercent 81stributlass 9.17     25.98     0.31             21.8e 4.41 st/ sun /fst/Sentes                                                                    8.91              8.51                                      Ites      Distance      1 time      L 115 S3-55                                 2.42   45.80     8.01             31.88 1.81     28.88     0.89             16.G8 8.12               6.13
2.58 4.51 1.53 20.88 0.88 36.88 8.18 8.18 47.21 6.19 eslead 61.35 6.93 at treet.
: 81. 111                                                                                                                                            Strt-disp                       3.58   0.31 8.11                             fre-eastr 88.34          8.57  3.26  8.29 4.25     7.18           0.25     8.39     8.21 17.11 tracesales                                                                                                                                            Leadleg                         8.99   8.89 23.3 Try to sail. lat.                           11.96               8.41     1.61           3.60     8.99     8.64     9.55                             trv-Isll     59.18       5.43   2.61   s.23 8.12                                      Quesing                        8.34  8.8) 8t.111                                    1.16    28.88     8.81             16.H   8.;l taleedag                        8.66  8.46 45.88      f.33             37.88   8.48               8.42 LII 56-66                               14.67 16.08   0.11               0.18                                     70fAL       148.84       1.88 11.38   1.H ft 181/Llav                                1.53    28.88      0.88 8.81                    9.18               1.88             locasestatice saclear.
8.33 6.25 8.58 8.68 e.33 8.93 61.35 1.18 process 17.4 Loadleg 8.II 4.81
Geese et 5.1.                                                                             0.58   10.t7     8.53   !!.12 23.4 Leedtog                                                          8.33      8.81 23.5 tre to IF1 bdry                               1.53     35.98     8.84     8.85   38.tl   8.45     18.52     8 05   11.13 21.79                 8.79     8.H           8.95     11.47     1.81   12.19 23.8 frv to Beept. noss.                                                                                          0.45 LII 66-55                               15.68     45.H       8.15           11.98   8.42 2.42     tl.H       8.15           37.80   0.81               8.81 LII 55-53 8.59       9.11     25.80     8.39           21.88   0.41               039 sentes/Fal/HChlut 16.58 8thet 0.29                    8 87              8.58            locas anclear Onese (1 Seest. Best (F)                                                                         0.58    12.44      8.53  13.22 23.9 trleedlag                                                         8.33     9.46 14.08                8.54    18.88          e.65     13.49     1.51   13.91 23.t3 frv to treeteoed 8ther 1.11     25.08     8.39             21.H   9.41               8.49 BilaKk/Fal/seekee                                                                      0.81              0.8) als 53-55                                 2.42     45.H       9.85             31.88 1.Il   28.H       0.89             16.H   8.12               0.t3 j               8t.111 0.25   10.25           8.25   13.34     8.21   14.18 23.11 Frecessing D. Charles gest. 3*gd save 8.11   11.82           0.96   14.38     1.91   15.19 K.3 frv to St. Charles                            16.21
- 8.10 1.!!
: 8. 3              0.25 1.13   28.H       0.19             16.H St. Il}                                  18.84     20.H       8.52             16.H   8.el5      '
8ecas. saclear it.31 1.67 4t 3.1.
O.61 St. 341 31255/Byrt/ seep                          2.11    35.H      8.H              34.H    4.01              8.88 0.33   11.35           8.18   14.88     8.53   15.72 K.8 tsedtog E.5 fro to It! bdry sosp/arrt/tt 25A       1.18     8.63       1.41   15.H       8.03   11.38   38.H   8.H     14.13     8.84   15.76
geese at 3.1. (?)
19.38 8.01 lead +q 17.5 7tt te tF1 besadtv I.13 6.80 0.25 6.58 5.88 8.11 5.12 8.32
: 5. H 88.84 B.4' at IP! bdry 11.6.8 Sett to tecpt Sosp.
21.79 1.55 6.86 1.81 6.91 1.99 7.43 V.A. Bost.
188.62 8.64 at tec Be Lit 66-55 15.60 28.88 8.18 11.88 8.92 9.98 188.62 9.46 g e said LII 55-53 2.42 20.84 0.12 11.88 0.14 0.15 122.78 10.84 at treat.
Sastes/ Pal /$Eh/mi !$.58 8.59 9.11 15.88 e.65 12.se s.81 8.a6 122.10 18.25 process 130.97 11.92 at It Cta etter 138.97 11.3, q e load 6.86 6.99 7.43 usatt. at 8.1.
140.04 11.38 et til bd 17.1 asalteries 11.1 sensed 0.33 6.21 0.58 1.49 0.53 7.16 lance 11.18 frv to 3restocod.
14.08 8.54 6.93 8.65 8.14 8.69 8.65 other st/ sun /fst/Sentes 9.17 25.98 0.31 21.8e 4.41 4.49 Fercent 81stributlass 115 S3-55 2.42 45.80 8.01 31.88 8.91 8.51 Ites Distance 1 time L
: 81. 111 1.81 28.88 0.89 16.G8 8.12 6.13 Strt-disp 3.58 0.31 17.11 tracesales 4.25 7.18 0.25 8.39 8.21 8.11 fre-eastr 88.34 8.57 3.26 8.29 Leadleg 8.99 8.89 23.3 Try to sail. lat.
11.96 8.41 1.61 3.60 8.99 8.64 9.55 trv-Isll 59.18 5.43 2.61 s.23 8t.111 1.16 28.88 8.81 16.H 8.;l 8.12 Quesing 8.34 8.8)
LII 56-66 14.67 45.88 f.33 37.88 8.48 8.42 taleedag 8.66 8.46 ft 181/Llav 1.53 28.88 0.88 16.08 0.11 0.18 70fAL 148.84 1.88 11.38 1.H Geese et 5.1.
8.81 9.18 1.88 locasestatice saclear.
23.4 Leedtog 8.33 8.81 0.58 10.t7 8.53
!!.12 23.5 tre to IF1 bdry 1.53 35.98 8.84 8.85 38.tl 8.45 18.52 8 05 11.13 23.8 frv to Beept. noss.
21.79 8.79 8.H 8.95 11.47 1.81 12.19 LII 66-55 15.68 45.H 8.15 11.98 8.42 0.45 LII 55-53 2.42 tl.H 8.15 37.80 0.81 8.81 sentes/Fal/HChlut 16.58 8.59 9.11 25.80 8.39 21.88 0.41 039 8thet Onese (1 Seest. Best (F) 0.29 8 87 8.58 locas anclear 23.9 trleedlag 8.33 9.46 0.58 12.44 8.53 13.22 23.t3 frv to treeteoed 14.08 8.54 18.88 e.65 13.49 1.51 13.91 8ther BilaKk/Fal/seekee 1.11 25.08 8.39 21.H 9.41 8.49 als 53-55 2.42 45.H 9.85 31.88 0.81 0.8) 8t.111 1.Il 28.H 0.89 16.H 8.12 0.t3 j
23.11 Frecessing 0.25 10.25 8.25 13.34 8.21 14.18 D. Charles gest. 3*gd save K.3 frv to St. Charles 16.21 8.11 11.82 0.96 14.38 1.91 15.19
: 8. 3 0.25 8.el5 O.61 St. Il}
1.13 28.H 0.19 16.H St. 341 18.84 20.H 8.52 16.H 31255/Byrt/ seep 2.11 35.H 8.H 34.H 4.01 8.88 K.8 tsedtog 0.33 11.35 8.18 14.88 8.53 15.72 E.5 fro to It! bdry sosp/arrt/tt 25A 1.18 8.63 1.41 15.H 8.03 11.38 38.H 8.H 14.13 8.84 15.76


L   6 ATWMMErJr 15 te      .
L 6
3erestrictes<5:Hspeeds 58038548 303ttfAL IVACUATICE f5LL 18 BIL8-841. 7158 VE8tCL13 Asseer: saa time:     8.91                   11.56             12.28 3Cle&830:V eseesee ggegg].seessessesse seesse3aater Ad9erse''' '''f1 ster Adverse''   Botes .e             Casulative Distrib itse                             Length Scale       Sist. Speed . flee See flee           Speed flat See flat fate See fase                                 Distance sus tiet Ubere 17.1 Anhal arrive at treats.                                             2.58   2.56           2.58     2.58     2.66     2.66     lapst distristios           8.01     2.50 at treat.
ATWMMErJr 15 3erestrictes<5:Hspeeds te 58038548 303ttfAL IVACUATICE f5LL 18 BIL8-841. 7158 VE8tCL13 3Cle&830:V Asseer: saa time:
11.2 Frecessist at 3r                                                   4.58   3.88           8.5:     3.88     8.53     1.19     frocesslag time             0.01       3.64 process 11.96       3.92 et 5.1.
8.91 11.56 12.28 eseesee ggegg].seessessesse seesse3aater Ad9erse'''
17.3 Travel to saff. lettre.                       11.96                 8.92   3.12           1.14     4.16     1.21     4.48                               17.96       4.25 load it.llt                                     1 16     35.84     0.01           38.88   C.06             8.06                                         19.40       4.29 at Irl 5 dry LIB $4-66                                 1s.61       55.08     8.21           45.80   9.1)             8.35                                         41.21       4.54 at Rec Bo 8 III/11 Re.           2.58     0.59     1.53     35.88     9.84           38.88   0.85             0.05                                         47.21       5.11 soload 61.35       5.48 at liest.
'''f1 ster Adverse''
11.8 Lead sg                                                             e.33   4.25           8.19     4.54     9.53     0.91                               61.35       5.13 process geese at 3.1. (?)                                                                       0.11     4.81     8.11     5.11     Soces. asclear             19.31       6.99 et 1.1.
Botes.e Casulative Distrib itse Length Scale Sist. Speed. flee See flee Speed flat See flat fate See fase Distance sus tiet Ubere 17.1 Anhal arrive at treats.
                                                                                .                                                                                  19.31       6.43 leadeq 17.5 Tri la 171 hassdry                             1.53     35.08     8.94   4.29   31.88   G.t$     t.86     8.t3     5.16                               la.es       6.4s at trI herr
2.58 2.56 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66 lapst distristios 8.01 2.50 at treat.
    !!.5 .8 serf 'a secpt assp.                        21.19
11.2 Frecessist at 3r 4.58 3.88 8.5:
* I.54   t.84           8.64     5.51     C.68     5.85     f.1. Icap.               100.62       7.02 at tec to Lil 66-55                                 15.68       55.48     8.28           65.99   8.35             6.37                                       188.62       1.64 g e asle L18 55-53                                   2.42     15.08     8.84           45.00   0.05             8.06                                       122.19       1.96 at .est.
3.88 8.53 1.19 frocesslag time 0.01 3.64 process 11.96 3.92 et 5.1.
l           Santes/ Pal /56C1/ti 16.58       8.59     9.11     45.88     8.22           48.08   9.24             8.26                                       122.71       8.21 process Other                                                                                                                                                 138.97       8.61 at 5t Cla 138.91       8.94 g
17.3 Travel to saff. lettre.
* Lead 11.1 assitettag                                                                   4.84                   5.51             5.85     sos 11. at s.1.           148.84       8.91 at til bd II.9 asised                                                             0.33   1.11           4.18     6.81     0.51     6.38                       lance 17.18 Tri to treatsood.                           11.08                 8.32     5.88           8.36     6.31     0.34     6.76 ette.
11.96 8.92 3.12 1.14 4.16 1.21 4.48 17.96 4.25 load it.llt 1 16 35.84 0.01 38.88 C.06 8.06 19.40 4.29 at Irl 5 dry LIB $4-66 1s.61 55.08 8.21 45.80 9.1) 8.35 41.21 4.54 at Rec Bo 8 III/11 Re.
B1tB6Cn/ Pal /$aates                       3.11     45.04     0.22           44.88   8.24             8.26                                     Fercest 81strihettons l             L1153-15                                   2.42     55.88
2.58 0.59 1.53 35.88 9.84 38.88 0.85 0.05 47.21 5.11 soload 61.35 5.48 at liest.
* 24
11.8 Lead sg e.33 4.25 8.19 4.54 9.53 0.91 61.35 5.13 process geese at 3.1. (?)
                                                                              .            e5.88   f.ts             0.06                                     ates     81 stance     t tioe       t 8t.111                                     1.26     15.88     0.85           38.88   8.86             0.87 Strt-disp                       3.58   8.39 11.11 hacessis;                                                         9.25     5.13           4.25     6.62     4.21     7.83                             Tre-empti 88.34         8.51   2.31   8.26 Leadiat                         0.99   0.11 23.3 tre to 1:11. Inf.                           11.96                 9.36     6.09           8.44     7.85     9.46     7.49                             trv-tall     59.18     4.63   1.21   0.13 31.111                                     1.76     35.88     0.e5           39.ta   0.86             8.86                                     Onesist                         8.38   8.03 LII $646                                 14.61     55.88     8.21           45.50   8.33             8.35                                     Dalsadsg                         8.66   0.91 at 181/Llav                               1.53     35.88     0.84           34.80   8.85             8.85                                     total       148.54       1.88   8.97   1.08 geese at 5.1.                                                   9.11                   6.98             1.01             locesentatles esclear.
0.11 4.81 8.11 5.11 Soces. asclear 19.31 6.99 et 1.1.
23.4 Laa41st                                                           8.31     6.43           8.58     6.53     0.53     9.87 23.5 Tre to 171 bary                               1.53     35.88     8.84   6.42   38.88   8.35     8.58     4.85     9.12 23.8 frv ts tecst. most.                         21.19                 I.56     1.02           0.44     9.23     p.6f     9.88 Lit H-15                                 15.60     55.88     0.28 '         45.08   p.35             8.31 LII 15-13                                 2.42     55.e4     8.84           45.04   4.G               8.86 Seeles/ Pal /96Cn/En 16.58       4.59     9.11     45.88     8.22           18.00   8.24             8.26 otter 9ases at tecgt. Esse (?)                                                 8.29                   1.51             f.58               Socas. esclear 23.9 Osleading                                                           8.33   1.66           8.54   18.2s     6.53   18.84 23.18 tre to treetened                             14.48               8.32     7.16           4.12   18.12     9.13   14.96 Other utle6Ch/Fel/Secles                         9.77     45.98     8.22         8844.84   0.80             f.H LII $3-55                                 2.42       55.sl     8.84           45.H     I.e5             8.56 ft. lit                                   1.89     35.00     0.05           30.H   0.66             4.47 23.11 hacessing                                                         8.25   8.21           8.25   III       4.21   11.23 ft. Charles asse. 3'rd save St.) fro ta St. Charles                           16.27                 9.tl   8.61           4.46   !!.t!     8.41   11.11
19.31 6.43 leadeq 17.5 Tri la 171 hassdry 1.53 35.08 8.94 4.29 31.88 G.t$
: 31. 111                                     3.11     35.84     8.11           3s.36   3.22             6.23 at. lef                                   10.44       45.64     0.23           46.30   0.26             0.28 Rt 25A/pgtt/Bost                           2.12       35.84     S.06           18.69   8.8)             8.88 3C.t Leadist                                                             0.33   a.94           8.54   11.52     0.13   12.24 sc.5 tre to til hdtr Bosp/tyrt/tt 254       1.78     8.6~. 1.81     35.8I     8.83   8 11   38.94   4.84   11.56     2. H   12.24
t.86 8.t3 5.16 la.es 6.4s at trI herr I.54 t.84 8.64 5.51 C.68 5.85 f.1. Icap.
100.62 7.02 at tec to
!!.5.8 serf 'a secpt assp.
21.19 Lil 66-55 15.68 55.48 8.28 65.99 8.35 6.37 188.62 1.64 g e asle L18 55-53 2.42 15.08 8.84 45.00 0.05 8.06 122.19 1.96 at.est.
l Santes/ Pal /56C1/ti 16.58 8.59 9.11 45.88 8.22 48.08 9.24 8.26 122.71 8.21 process Other 138.97 8.61 at 5t Cla 138.91 8.94 g
* Lead 11.1 assitettag 4.84 5.51 5.85 sos 11. at s.1.
148.84 8.91 at til bd II.9 asised 0.33 1.11 4.18 6.81 0.51 6.38 lance 17.18 Tri to treatsood.
11.08 8.32 5.88 8.36 6.31 0.34 6.76 ette.
B1tB6Cn/ Pal /$aates 3.11 45.04 0.22 44.88 8.24 8.26 Fercest 81strihettons l
L1153-15 2.42 55.88
* 24 e5.88 f.ts 0.06 ates 81 stance t tioe t
8t.111 1.26 15.88 0.85 38.88 8.86 0.87 Strt-disp 3.58 8.39 11.11 hacessis; 9.25 5.13 4.25 6.62 4.21 7.83 Tre-empti 88.34 8.51 2.31 8.26 Leadiat 0.99 0.11 23.3 tre to 1:11. Inf.
11.96 9.36 6.09 8.44 7.85 9.46 7.49 trv-tall 59.18 4.63 1.21 0.13 31.111 1.76 35.88 0.e5 39.ta 0.86 8.86 Onesist 8.38 8.03 LII $646 14.61 55.88 8.21 45.50 8.33 8.35 Dalsadsg 8.66 0.91 at 181/Llav 1.53 35.88 0.84 34.80 8.85 8.85 total 148.54 1.88 8.97 1.08 geese at 5.1.
9.11 6.98 1.01 locesentatles esclear.
23.4 Laa41st 8.31 6.43 8.58 6.53 0.53 9.87 23.5 Tre to 171 bary 1.53 35.88 8.84 6.42 38.88 8.35 8.58 4.85 9.12 23.8 frv ts tecst. most.
21.19 I.56 1.02 0.44 9.23 p.6f 9.88 Lit H-15 15.60 55.88 0.28 '
45.08 p.35 8.31 LII 15-13 2.42 55.e4 8.84 45.04 4.G 8.86 Seeles/ Pal /96Cn/En 16.58 4.59 9.11 45.88 8.22 18.00 8.24 8.26 otter 9ases at tecgt. Esse (?)
8.29 1.51 f.58 Socas. esclear 23.9 Osleading 8.33 1.66 8.54 18.2s 6.53 18.84 23.18 tre to treetened 14.48 8.32 7.16 4.12 18.12 9.13 14.96 Other utle6Ch/Fel/Secles 9.77 45.98 8.22 8844.84 0.80 f.H LII $3-55 2.42 55.sl 8.84 45.H I.e5 8.56 ft. lit 1.89 35.00 0.05 30.H 0.66 4.47 23.11 hacessing 8.25 8.21 8.25 III 4.21 11.23 ft. Charles asse. 3'rd save St.) fro ta St. Charles 16.27 9.tl 8.61 4.46
!!.t!
8.41 11.11
: 31. 111 3.11 35.84 8.11 3s.36 3.22 6.23 at. lef 10.44 45.64 0.23 46.30 0.26 0.28 Rt 25A/pgtt/Bost 2.12 35.84 S.06 18.69 8.8) 8.88 3C.t Leadist 0.33 a.94 8.54 11.52 0.13 12.24 sc.5 tre to til hdtr Bosp/tyrt/tt 254 1.78 8.6~.
1.81 35.8I 8.83 8 11 38.94 4.84 11.56
: 2. H 12.24


Attachnents 2,4,6 ane' '.6 are oversized and are available upon request
Attachnents 2,4,6 ane'
'.6 are oversized and are available upon request


p                            126c.tpT13 4                        Of'M                                                                                             "lWO ACy Y
Of'M "lWO 126c.tpT13 4 p
              )                                                                                                                                                                           /?                       .
ACy Y
        .                  . S M S N W n-..     -
)
WH--                                                                                                                                          .
/?
I A n h a_l e.1 h. b_t . =. 4 e i e .= e up e. .. . .f.e. a m_._Jf.c._rr..e. loan d 4                           -
. S M S N W n-.. W H - -
                                                                                                  \               3G                                                                                        _
e up e.....f.e. a m_._Jf.c._rr..e. loan d I
                                                                                                                                                                            ~
4 A n h a_l e.1 h. b_. =. 4 e i e.=
Fro h               & d4.lje S k r~m' _~ ~__[ '
3G t
l                       I I . ht6b'AlA M e. 1 2 (eof                                            e~ 2 (caf e
\\
_ _ _.. _. ... . S t. 5L L "7_                         - _ .    ......              ._.
I. ht6b'AlA M e. 1 2 (eof e~ 2 (caf e Fro h
                                      -~
& d4.lje S k r~m' _~ ~__[ '
l e... . F..e,m_.. Sme leen.
~
  ~~'~ ' ' ~~               _- .'3.J. .-.Q u l anc e s x 1. p, fl e . :. 2 C gof                                    ..                           -
l I
                    ~ ~ ' ~$                     A.m b a. l u tt.$ x .2. . f e s f3[e, IG fe f(e. rrom.
_ _ _.. _..... S t. L L "7_
hf{,[h Tdiew
5 2 C gof e.... F..e,m_.. Sme leen.
                    .. .&._u $ J;de po3p;f.
~~'~ ' ' ~~ '3..-.Q u l anc e s x 1. p, f e. :.
              )                     7 Am kle_ h.                                 --            =
-~
                                                                                                          =
l
                                                                                                          ... 5...s. fe.f.e..
_-. J.
I        rc.a_ fAIA -0,ftrm.
l IG e f(e. rrom. hf{,[h Tdiew
                                                                                                                              ~~
~ ~ ' ~$
              ~ ' ~
A.m b a. l u tt.$ x.2.. f e s f [e, 3
5 Amba me.s , 2~ fla~f {c'~ -= 10 f eofle ..fr.om..~~$lk $$;rm.
f
Y.,.A.Je};en     .
...&._u $ J;de po3p;f. - - -
C.eder pri, Sctffolk -Tdtrm.
)
13             Amklances si q.p role = 26                     -
7 Am kle_ h.
                                                                                                                  --- FIE[le-            --
=
                . _ _ _            2 .L A~.a.us s 5. _x. 2_ e o r u.
... 5...s. fe.f.e.. rc.a_ fAIA -0,ftrm.
yc           % -,          S&                   ma y UOvs 1Ar,.L K ru
I
                                            -, w ' ~ )
=
                                                                              .y._1 g ~ 'H                                         .frm
~ la~f {c'~ -= 10 f eofle..fr.om..~~$lk $$;rm.
                      $dhAr PM                                          icird                       I 7) 2 (o p pG. b 6bA...SE6. ) .k_ ..
~~
hw%                                 x 2 gc.
~ ' ~
                                              ."7 a.m kl a.n u,,,                             (2"/v.ces3 j .. .
5 Amba me.s, 2 f Y.,.A.Je};en C.eder
(3''e ae.)
--- FIE[le-pri, Sctffolk -Tdtrm.
l G hl>da.n m                                                                                                                ..
13 Amklances si q.p role = 26 2.L A~.a.us s 5. _x.
I  i 1                                                                                                                                                                                     ..    . . . . _ . . .
2_ e o r u.
yc S&
ma y 1Ar,.L K ru.y._1 g ~ 'H
.frm UOvs
-, w ' ~ )
icird I 7)
$dhAr PM x 2 gc.
2 (o p pG. b 6bA...SE6. ).k_..
hw%
."7 a.m kl a.n u,,,
(2"/v.ces3 j...
G hl>da.n m (3''e ae.)
l I
i 1
i
i


i I_._ ._.. __Crocd                   $udib hw                       4d__O1)__het _(mbd_$s.(                                                                             [
i I_ __Crocd $udib hw 4d__O1)__het _(mbd_$s.(
_LQ__a J A nte.i_y,1.putW.                   _ .'2.0..
[
2_3_o mLd evtu.e_x2 geA.:_.% ., yk._pA.t.5m_      -
2_3_o mLd evtu.e_x2 geA.:_.%., yk._pA.t.5m_
_.._.____.=
._._.. _LQ__a J A nte.i_y,1.putW. _
10 (h d Jo .q                                     6 6<
.'2.0..
_.. _. _ _ _ _. =
10 (h d Jo.q 6 6<
3 (p.i &>
3 (p.i &>
                          -b u :b t_2.t m .. ~. N-D : @                     [5Q  %}:_b -. _ _                   ___
-b u :b t_2.t m.. ~. N-D : @ % b
e__ .'A.L{_0m.k:d s.vo .'.,._.X.2o w pb '.7_e...g$___ p_             .         .
[ 5 Q }:_ -. _ _
                                                                                                                    ._kS_t M_Cd_
e__.'A.L{_0m.k:d s.vo.'.,._.X.2o w pb '.7_e...g$___ p_
CA h&_.5__. _._
._kS_t Cd_..
X7 \y'h'\                ~~ I b . cA tr* _                           /To^
M_ CA h&_.5__. _._
                    ..      1_.d/Ed gg *t
\\y'h'
_ ..              2. P4 % . ._ _ _...._               .                 ._
~~ I b. cA tr* _
/To^
1_.d/Ed X7
\\
*t
: 2. P %.._ _ _...._
gg 4
A.es w i.ck. 90 i ' 4 0
/ %_.
_ g_._._
_ g_._._
                                                                            / %_ .
.[Gan 'x/& y 1.p'.'s[_2..= 3 [p.'4h... __. _ b,S _OM..W MM Opo_1.( H )y'7 9 w p U. :. 4.2 p<.y 4.. h._K
A.es w i.ck. 90 i ' 4 0
_J/e_ ambu.idt3
                              .[Gan 'x/& y 1.p'.'s[_2. .= 3 [p.'4h. .. __. _ b ,S _OM..W MM _J/e_ ambu.idt3 Opo_1.( H )y'7 9 w p U. :. 4.2 p<.y 4 .. h ._K n
_,p_M..I.. p n
_ ,p_M ..I .. p I                                                          _ _ _ .                    _..
.$. W }vd L %
x ~~i. QtGp.\L_= .'.LC d I2 L                                                 l$.W                 Mk_.           ...
x ~~i. QtGp.\\L_=.'.LC d I L l $. W M _....
k5__._f             I cw.           S vtca...               M._W,
k5__._f I cw. k S vtca... M._W, I
                            .$. W }vd L %                                            ~ "~                            ~
2
            ~
&;;;::: r a j i,)
                              &;;;::: r a j i ,)
~
                  ._        _._w .._ ;b.M.c3k4 x '? p< c(A_.?. I bl. f rykc<rm Sf _Ckh h                                                                                                                                                --
~ "~
                -- Z ] % m 6 ., a u, G (~ s h (co [. tf E 5.i..~~T                                                                                    N _4_ h.          _ _ _
~
            . _ _ _ .        -.6 a.mh.k.h/ x.'i p_cp \( = C1 \ p cp t -tcttn_;                              ._
b s_491 G3 _(3 C
_ . _ . . _ .                                                                                                    . . .. . .b. _. _ . 4      $          Ck d. . __
R .aln.b.wl+ 4 4_x 3.p w f2> ".__2_E._ p pSo                                              .. __. ___.                  _._ _            .
f
f
          ~
._ _._w.._ ;b.M.c3k4 x '? p< c(A_.?. I bl. rykc<rm Sf _Ckh h
r 16                     E M U4u-
~~T
                --)
-- Z ] % m 6., a u, G (~ s h (co [. f E 5.i.. N _4_ h t
6 a a o "x7p4k"-Actmbalc     X7 pc.rp)c
C1 \\ p cp t -tcttn_;
                                                                                                        / '-/._pwep         Lk pf_a[vtm.b                                   . . .
-.6 a.mh.k.h/ x.'i p_cp \\( =
b s_491 G3
_(3 C
......b. _. _. 4 Ck d.. __
R.aln.b.wl+ 4 4_x 3.p w f > ".__2_E._ p pSo 2
f r
16 E M U4u-6 a a o "x7p4k"-Actmbalc Lk X7 pc.rp)c
- / '-/._pwep pf_a[vtm.b  
~
--)
__..h O
__..h O


                      /                                                                                                     .
/
I
I
      .,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        I
/
/
._.                  M.vu Lmokd (50                                                                                             . . _ _                        __
M.vu Lmokd (50
  .                      _%P                     G u l r % v ; _ p u p A.)_g. 5.                                                                                           rch ka. Ws.L % %IL M o55o.u 1. .-..__5.n b.l (_7 0
_ % P G u l r % v
                                                                                                                                    . s . _ _.                                               _
; _ p u p A.)_g. 5.
_ _ . . . .               2. cm %k %
rch ka. Ws.L % %IL M o55o.u 1..-..__5.n b.l (_7 0
* x 1                                                                _
. s. _ _.
                                                                                                                                  =         [1 au g %vm" Gs+ d %" Gi
_ (_ b u s _ _.__..y._ 9..
..                  _ (_ b u s _ _ .__..y._ 9. .-
= [1 au g %vm Gs+ d % Gi
                                                                                                              ,                  -40._6.,                                                                             ii
: 2. cm %k %
                                                                                  ~
* x 1
S.o.uk bJasica.L_bMela.chEs.~hc 5~ndel ( 6.LG)
-40._6.,
  . . _              [Jak %.L.Weca.51., , ._ _ . . (t!.)._._.
ii S.o.uk bJasica.L_bMela.chEs.~hc 5~ndel ( 6.LG)
  . ., _. .. . A
~
                                                                              .. . .._.            .        . =.. . . . b . d . .p.. w_ e,.; Sm                                                   i    O. A .
[Jak %.L.Weca.51.,,._ _.. (t!.)._._.
-'~$.           .                      Fr1.n a s.                               9r~ s p_3 ~~                             _
.., _.... A
                                                                                                                                        .i 3.1_)
. =..... b. d..p.. w_ e,.; Sm O. A.
                        \       baA                                               _.__._......=                                . '2. 7 . p de q s % S w % i K
i
                                                                .         . . . . . . . . . .                      .                                            ..          . . . . . .              1               E Mi M
- ' ~ $. Fr1.n a s.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    %/
9r~ s p_3 ~~
          , j                                         ..              ..                                                                                                                                                  ._._. - .
.i 3.1_)
A
\\
baA
. '2. 7. p de q s % S w % i K
_. _ _. _...... =
1 E Mi M
%/
, j A


M ihC b b                   lh ORIGIN-DESTINATION TABLE for Shoreham Hospital Evacuation r
M ihC b b lh ORIGIN-DESTINATION TABLE for Shoreham Hospital Evacuation r
                                                        ----------------ORIGIN------ a-----------
----------------ORIGIN------ a-----------
Home-          Suffolk                    St. Central Total  ' ,I Destination                         bound Infirmary .Mather Charles Suffolk                   Revd Capacity Smithtc.n G.H.                     38             36V               2A                                   38 St. Johns Hosp.                   42             26A             16A                                   42 Southside                                                 58v Hosp..                   69                             10A                                   68 V.A.Med.
Destination bound Infirmary.Mather Charles Suffolk Revd
Center               116                             102A           14A                   116 Southhampton Hosp.                   27                                                           26A     26 Good Samaritan               65                                           46A             20A     66 Huntington                 59                                           13V     47A               60 Brunswick                   36                                           35V                       35 Central General                 42                                           42V                       42
',I Home-Suffolk St.
,                  Middle Island               33                                           28V                       28 Massapequa                 17                                                   14V               14 Nassau Co.
Central Total Capacity Smithtc.n G.H.
Med.Ctr.                 90                                                   91V               91 Hempstead                   31                                                   28V               28 Lydia Hall                 30                                                   16V     14V     30 Mercy                       56                                                           56V     56 Nassau Hosp.(?)77                     s.                                                 12V     52 40B South Nassau Comm. Hosp.             56                                           60B                       60 North Shore Univ                     84                                                   64B             64 St. Francis Hosp.                   32                             27B                                     27 Total Sent                                   62           215           238     260     168   943 Total Patients                               62           215           238     271     168   954 V by Ambulette A by Ambulance B by Bus
38 36V 2A 38 St. Johns Hosp.
42 26A 16A 42 Southside 58v Hosp..
69 10A 68 V.A.Med.
Center 116 102A 14A 116 Southhampton Hosp.
27 26A 26 Good Samaritan 65 46A 20A 66 Huntington 59 13V 47A 60 Brunswick 36 35V 35 Central General 42 42V 42 Middle Island 33 28V 28 Massapequa 17 14V 14 Nassau Co.
Med.Ctr.
90 91V 91 Hempstead 31 28V 28 Lydia Hall 30 16V 14V 30 Mercy 56 56V 56 Nassau Hosp.(?)77 s.
12V 52 40B South Nassau Comm. Hosp.
56 60B 60 North Shore Univ 84 64B 64 St. Francis Hosp.
32 27B 27 Total Sent 62 215 238 260 168 943 Total Patients 62 215 238 271 168 954 V by Ambulette A by Ambulance B by Bus


L!
L!
I g"TTAGWEN O Sete       4/M2 Lilce trace for 2*ed save T.A. to Baettagtes Besp.
g"TTAGWEN O I
Sa008BAA 80$f t?&L BVK88f105 FELL 78 BILE-AA1. TIEE HEICL88 KIBMIO.8astisgtes 8 esp Aesser: Bas t!ee:   12.12                 16.68             17.I2 unue gereal'"*"""*"     '"*"sasser Mverse"*   "* lister Adverse"   Botes               fosslative 81stri)
Sete 4/M2 Lilce trace for 2*ed save T.A. to Baettagtes Besp.
Itac                             Leegth Scale       Sist. Speed time See 71ee     speed flee ses fsee fase ses flee                               31 stance See tiet ubere 11.18ebel arrive at Brests.                                     2.58   2.50           2.58   2.58   2.66     2.66   1 spot dirtstation           0.81     2.58 at Brest.
Sa008BAA 80$f t?&L BVK88f105 FELL 78 BILE-AA1. TIEE HEICL88 KIBMIO.8astisgtes 8 esp Aesser: Bas t!ee:
11.2 Pracessteg at 3r                                           0.58   3.88           0.54   3.H     8.53     3.19   tracessieg (1ee             8.01     3.H process 11.96       3.92 at 5.1.
12.12 16.68 17.I2 unue gereal'"*"""*"
11.3 travel to lef t. Is!!rs.                   11.M           8.92   3.92           1.14   4.18   1.21     4.48                               11.M         t.25 lead 8t.lli                                   1.16   20.H   8.89           16.08   0.11           8.12                                         19.40       4.58 at 871 Mry LII $6-66                               14.67   28.88   8.13           16.88   8.92           8.91                                         81.21       6.68 st Sec to 8101/a! As.             2.58     0.59     1.53   20.88   0.00           16.H     4.10           0.18                                         41.21       1.81 eslead 61.35       1.66 at srest.
'"*"sasser Mverse"*
11.6 Lseding                                                     0.33   4.25           0.58   4.61   8.53     4.9)                               61.35       1.91 process geoes at 8.1. (?)                                                               8.11   4.01   8.18     1.11   Soces. saclear             19.31       8.44 at 3.1.
"* lister Adverse" Botes fosslative 81stri)
19.31       B.18 lead +q 11.5 tre to 871 booedtf                           1.53     6.88 8.25   4.50     5.80   9.31   5.12   8.32     5.44                               88.84       8.82 at 871 Mry 17.6 .8 Mry to secpt Sesp.                       27.11       . 2.10   6.68           2.12   1.54   2.89     8.13   f.A. Bosp.               !!t.14       18.H at see se 118 64 55                               15.68   15.88   1.84         !!.88   1.H           1.38                                       !!I.58     18.60 g e sold LII 55-53                                 2.42   15.88   8.16           12.88   8.28           0.21                                       129.14     11.35 at Breet.
Itac Leegth Scale Sist. Speed time See 71ee speed flee ses fsee fase ses flee 31 stance See tiet ubere 11.18ebel arrive at Brests.
Sasses / Pal /HCn/s1 36.18     8.59     9.11   18.08 8.98             8.80   1.22           1.38                                       129.11     II.H process Other                                                                                                                                     185.41       !!.36 at St Cha 145.41     !!.69 q e 1 sad 11.1 mesitorist                                                         6.68                   1.88             8.33   bestt, at 5.1.           106.08     12.12 at 8Pt nd 11.9 Balsad                                                     8.33   1.01           8.58   8.34   5.53     8.86 11.18 frv to siestseed.                         14.88           8.68   1.66           8.88   9.14   8.85     9.11 other alleEn/rst/seekes                         9.11   28.08 8.49           16.88-   0.61           8.65                                     tercent Bistribstless L!k 5345                                 2.42   48.88   8.66         32.80   0.88           8.08                                     ates       listaace       1 TAse     i St.111                                   1.89   20.H     0.09         16.08   8.12           0.13 stst-disp                         3.58 8.28 11.11 Processing                                                 8.25   1.91           8.25   9.39   8.21     9.9%                           frv-eepty 88.86           8.15   3.53   8.28 Leadise                           8.99 0.88 23.3 frv ts self.181.                           11.96           8.53   8.44           8.66 18.86   8.11     18.68                           frv-Isil       65.62       0.45   3.18 8.29 8t.111                                   f.16   20.88   8.89         16.88   0.11           8.12                                     goesist                           0.38 8.42 118 56-64                               14.61   40.88   8.31         32.58   8.06           0.49                                     peloadog                         8.66 8.85 8t lll/Llas                             1.53   28.88   0.85         16.80   8.18           0.18                                     tofAL         146.48       1.88 12.12 1.H geese at s.I.                                             8.81                   8.98           1.84             nocementottos saclear.
2.58 2.50 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66 1 spot dirtstation 0.81 2.58 at Brest.
23.4 Leadlet                                                     8.33   0.18           8.58 11.54   9.53     12.26 23.5 Tre to IF1 Sdry                             1.53   35.80   8.88   8.82   38.88   8.05 11.59   8.65     12.31 23.8 Tre to Becyt. Resp.                         33.71           1.23 10.86           1.54 13.13   1.64     13.95 118 66 .5                               15.68   48.80   8.39         32.H     8.49           8.52 P.It 15-51                               2.82   48.08   8.06         32.80   8.08           4.80 8entes/Ps!'8Ehl31 16.58         8.59     9.11   28.88   8.89         16.Se   3.61           0.65 etter, to 3 set. 3. II.H         8.!*     5.92   28.00   8.38         16.40   6.31           0.39 geert et Secpt. Best (f)                                           8.29                   8.11           8.58             Doces. esclear 23.9 seleedlag                                                   8.33 18.68           0.58 14.18   8.53     14.98 23.0 frv to Orseteced                           14.68           6.61 11.35           8.84 14.H     8.H     15.81 W/Est/LII 13         11.30     0.59   18.29   28.88   0.51         16.04   8.64           8.64 31/tKh/ Pol /Seekes                             28.H                   16.H LI! 13-35                               2.42   48.88   8.86         32.H     8.88           0.88 St. !!!                                 1.89   20.00   8.89         16.88   8.12           8.13 23.11 Processhg                                                   t.25 11.68           8.25 15.19   0.27     16.14 (2. Charles aser. 3'rf Beve K.3 frv to St. Charles                           16.21           0.11 12.36           8.96 16.14   1.81     11.11 St. til                                 3.11   't.88   8.19           16.88   8.23           0.25 St. 341                                 10.44   28.H   8.52         16.88   8.65           0.69 at 25Altyrt/Beap                         2.12   35.00   8.H           M.H     8.81           8.88 K.4 Leadist                                                       8.31 12.69           0.58 16.64   0.53     11.64 K.5 frv to RP1 bdry Best/eftt/et 254       1.18     8.63     1.01   15.18   0.03 12.12   38.H     0.84 16.64   8.84     17.72 S
11.2 Pracessteg at 3r 0.58 3.88 0.54 3.H 8.53 3.19 tracessieg (1ee 8.01 3.H process 11.96 3.92 at 5.1.
11.3 travel to lef t. Is!!rs.
11.M 8.92 3.92 1.14 4.18 1.21 4.48 11.M t.25 lead 8t.lli 1.16 20.H 8.89 16.08 0.11 8.12 19.40 4.58 at 871 Mry LII $6-66 14.67 28.88 8.13 16.88 8.92 8.91 81.21 6.68 st Sec to 8101/a! As.
2.58 0.59 1.53 20.88 0.00 16.H 4.10 0.18 41.21 1.81 eslead 61.35 1.66 at srest.
11.6 Lseding 0.33 4.25 0.58 4.61 8.53 4.9) 61.35 1.91 process geoes at 8.1. (?)
8.11 4.01 8.18 1.11 Soces. saclear 19.31 8.44 at 3.1.
19.31 B.18 lead +q 11.5 tre to 871 booedtf 1.53 6.88 8.25 4.50 5.80 9.31 5.12 8.32 5.44 88.84 8.82 at 871 Mry 17.6.8 Mry to secpt Sesp.
27.11 2.10 6.68 2.12 1.54 2.89 8.13 f.A. Bosp.
!!t.14 18.H at see se 118 64 55 15.68 15.88 1.84
!!.88 1.H 1.38
!!I.58 18.60 g e sold LII 55-53 2.42 15.88 8.16 12.88 8.28 0.21 129.14 11.35 at Breet.
Sasses / Pal /HCn/s1 36.18 8.59 9.11 18.08 8.98 8.80 1.22 1.38 129.11 II.H process Other 185.41
!!.36 at St Cha 145.41
!!.69 q e 1 sad 11.1 mesitorist 6.68 1.88 8.33 bestt, at 5.1.
106.08 12.12 at 8Pt nd 11.9 Balsad 8.33 1.01 8.58 8.34 5.53 8.86 11.18 frv to siestseed.
14.88 8.68 1.66 8.88 9.14 8.85 9.11 other alleEn/rst/seekes 9.11 28.08 8.49 16.88-0.61 8.65 tercent Bistribstless L!k 5345 2.42 48.88 8.66 32.80 0.88 8.08 ates listaace 1 TAse i
St.111 1.89 20.H 0.09 16.08 8.12 0.13 stst-disp 3.58 8.28 11.11 Processing 8.25 1.91 8.25 9.39 8.21 9.9%
frv-eepty 88.86 8.15 3.53 8.28 Leadise 8.99 0.88 23.3 frv ts self.181.
11.96 8.53 8.44 8.66 18.86 8.11 18.68 frv-Isil 65.62 0.45 3.18 8.29 8t.111 f.16 20.88 8.89 16.88 0.11 8.12 goesist 0.38 8.42 118 56-64 14.61 40.88 8.31 32.58 8.06 0.49 peloadog 8.66 8.85 8t lll/Llas 1.53 28.88 0.85 16.80 8.18 0.18 tofAL 146.48 1.88 12.12 1.H geese at s.I.
8.81 8.98 1.84 nocementottos saclear.
23.4 Leadlet 8.33 0.18 8.58 11.54 9.53 12.26 23.5 Tre to IF1 Sdry 1.53 35.80 8.88 8.82 38.88 8.05 11.59 8.65 12.31 23.8 Tre to Becyt. Resp.
33.71 1.23 10.86 1.54 13.13 1.64 13.95 118 66.5 15.68 48.80 8.39 32.H 8.49 8.52 P.It 15-51 2.82 48.08 8.06 32.80 8.08 4.80 8entes/Ps!'8Ehl31 16.58 8.59 9.11 28.88 8.89 16.Se 3.61 0.65 etter, to 3 set. 3.
II.H 8.!*
5.92 28.00 8.38 16.40 6.31 0.39 geert et Secpt. Best (f) 8.29 8.11 8.58 Doces. esclear 23.9 seleedlag 8.33 18.68 0.58 14.18 8.53 14.98 23.0 frv to Orseteced 14.68 6.61 11.35 8.84 14.H 8.H 15.81 W/Est/LII 13 11.30 0.59 18.29 28.88 0.51 16.04 8.64 8.64 31/tKh/ Pol /Seekes 28.H 16.H LI! 13-35 2.42 48.88 8.86 32.H 8.88 0.88 St. !!!
1.89 20.00 8.89 16.88 8.12 8.13 23.11 Processhg t.25 11.68 8.25 15.19 0.27 16.14 (2. Charles aser. 3'rf Beve K.3 frv to St. Charles 16.21 0.11 12.36 8.96 16.14 1.81 11.11 St. til 3.11
't.88 8.19 16.88 8.23 0.25 St. 341 10.44 28.H 8.52 16.88 8.65 0.69 i
at 25Altyrt/Beap 2.12 35.00 8.H M.H 8.81 8.88 K.4 Leadist 8.31 12.69 0.58 16.64 0.53 11.64 K.5 frv to RP1 bdry Best/eftt/et 254 1.18 8.63 1.01 15.18 0.03 12.12 38.H 0.84 16.64 8.84 17.72 i
S i
i


ATTAC.WmENTto METROPOLITAN NEW YORK PRIVATE BUS COMPANIES AVERAGE OPERATING EMPLOYEE PER BUS 1985 Full-Time Company                 Operating       Peak Bus                                                                           Oper. Employee Per                               ,
ATTAC.WmENTto METROPOLITAN NEW YORK PRIVATE BUS COMPANIES AVERAGE OPERATING EMPLOYEE PER BUS 1985 Full-Time Company Operating Peak Bus Oper. Employee Per Name Employees Requirements Peak Bus Required
Name                     Employees     Requirements                                                                         Peak Bus Required
. t: -
                                                                                                                                                                                  . t: -
Na sau/Suffolk Huntington Bus 20 11 1.81 R0pid Transit
Na sau/Suffolk ,
+4 part-time MSLA 529 265 2.00 (public authority)
Huntington Bus                   20                     11                                                                           1.81 R0pid Transit                 +4 part-time           .
Suffolk County 100 64 1.56 Bus Operators NYC Command 132 98 1.35 Groen Bus Lines 392 156 2.51 Jcmaica Bus 185 96 1.93 Liberty Lines Express 233 138 1.69 N2w York Bus Tours 232 180 1.29 k
MSLA                           529                   265                                                                             2.00 (public authority)
+18 part-time Qu2 ens Transit 303 185 1.64 Steinway 159 108 1.47 Triboro Coach 29I 169 1.76 W,atchester Liberty Lines Transit 356 209 1.70 Wastchester County 32 50
Suffolk County                 100                       64                                                                           1.56 Bus Operators NYC Command                       132                       98                                                                           1.35 Groen Bus Lines               392                     156                                                                           2.51 Jcmaica Bus                   185                       96                                                                           1.93 Liberty Lines Express         233                     138                                                                           1.69 N2w York Bus Tours             232                     180                                                                           1.29                                             k
.64*
                              +18 part-time Qu2 ens Transit               303                     185                                                                           1.64 Steinway                       159                     108                                                                           1.47 Triboro Coach                   29I                     169                                                                           1.76 W,atchester Liberty Lines Transit         356                     209                                                                             1.70 Wastchester County               32                       50                                                                           .64*
Consolidated Small
Consolidated Small             +19 part-time                                                                                         (1,02 inc. part-time)
+19 part-time (1,02 inc. part-time)
Oporators 1,76 Average
Oporators 1,76 Average
* Not included in average; a system group significantly different than other operators.
* Not included in average; a system group significantly different than other operators.
                        -                _ _            _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _                          _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __        _)
_)


kN                                     hN     M DISTANCE CORRECTIONS TO LILCO MAXIMUM TRACE LILCO       DOT ITEM                                                 VALUE       VALUE       SOURCE                   DIFF.
kN hN M
Rt.lll, Brentwood to LIE                                             1.84 ,    1.76     State Records .08 LIE 56->66                                                       14.39       14.67     State Records +.28 Rt.101/LI Avenue                                                 1.83         1.53     Rescaled                     .30 LIE 66->55                                                       15.43       15.60     State Records +.17 LIE 55->53                                                           2.25     ?. 4 2   State Records +.17 Sunken Meadow /Pulaski/                                                                 Rescaled &
DISTANCE CORRECTIONS TO LILCO MAXIMUM TRACE LILCO DOT ITEM VALUE VALUE SOURCE DIFF.
Bread & Cheese                                           9.29     9.77     State Records +.48 Rt.lll, LIE 55-Brentwood                                             1.89     1.89                                                       0 Rt.lll, LIE-347                                                       4.00     3.71     State Records               .29 Rt.347, 111-112                                                   10.90       10.44     State Records               .46 Rt.ll2/25A/ Myrtle / Hosp.                                           1.95     2.12     Rescaled &                 +.17 State Records St.Ch. Hosp./Myrt/25A/EPZ                                           l.07     1.07                                                       0 a.
Rt.lll, Brentwood to LIE 1.84 1.76 State Records
.08 LIE 56->66 14.39 14.67 State Records +.28 Rt.101/LI Avenue 1.83 1.53 Rescaled
.30 LIE 66->55 15.43 15.60 State Records +.17 LIE 55->53 2.25
?. 4 2 State Records +.17 Sunken Meadow /Pulaski/
Rescaled &
Bread & Cheese 9.29 9.77 State Records +.48 Rt.lll, LIE 55-Brentwood 1.89 1.89 0
Rt.lll, LIE-347 4.00 3.71 State Records
.29 Rt.347, 111-112 10.90 10.44 State Records
.46 Rt.ll2/25A/ Myrtle / Hosp.
1.95 2.12 Rescaled &
+.17 State Records St.Ch. Hosp./Myrt/25A/EPZ l.07 1.07 0
a.
i
i


6 i.
i.
Sete       3/31180 Carrectet LILCD trace, distances and lead tases 53086845 BCifl14L 814C8&fl00 (5LL 18 BIL8-EAI. ?!st TBAICL18 5CIe6410: 111 f18C             8 esser: saa tiee:   12.48                 16.28           11.29
6 Sete 3/31180 Carrectet LILCD trace, distances and lead tases 53086845 BCifl14L 814C8&fl00 (5LL 18 BIL8-EAI. ?!st TBAICL18 5CIe6410: 111 f18C 8 esser: saa tiee:
                                                                .... ..* Bor ul"''""""'     ******sasser Adveru''' '"Inster leverse"   notes                 Cseelative listrib Length scale         81st. Speed flee See flee           Speed flee See flee fase See flee                                 81 stance See tiet Here Ites 2.1B   2.58           2.58     2.58   2.66   2.66   ! spot dist:betlee           8.81     2.18 at 3 rest.
12.48 16.28 11.29
11.1 tabel arriet at Breste.                                                                                               1.11   frocessing ttee               8.18     3.H process 11.2 Processtag at 8r                                                      0.58    3.08          8.58    3.88    8.53 11.96      3.12 et 3.1.
......* Bor ul"''""""'
11.H                   8.12   3.12           1.14     4.14   1.21     4.48                               11.96     4.25 lead 11.3 fravel to Self. Isilre.                                                                     0.11             8.12                                         19.H       4.5" at 8f1 Nry 81.!!!                                      l.16      28.18      0.89          16.88 LLI 56-66                                  14.61      28.80      0.11         16.09   8.92             8.11                                         41.2I     6.68 at tec re 2.56     8.59       1.51     28.H       0.88         16.80   0.18             8.18                                         41.2I     1.88 eslead 8181/LI 8v.                                                                                                                                            61.35     1.66 at trest.
******sasser Adveru'''
8.33   4.25           8.58   4.64   8.53     4.93                               61.35     1.98 process 11.4 Leadist                                                                                                                5.!!                                           8.44 at 5.1.
'"Inster leverse" notes Cseelative listrib Ites Length scale 81st. Speed flee See flee Speed flee See flee fase See flee 81 stance See tiet Here 11.1 tabel arriet at Breste.
geese at 5.1. (fl                                                                        8.!!     4.81    8.18            80cas.estlear               19.11 19.31      8.11 lead +
2.1B 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66
1.53                8.25    4.55   5.08   8.31     5.12   8.32     5.44                               48.84     8.82 at 8tf bdry 11.5 Tre to tr! besadry                                         *6.88                                                              f. A. Scsp.                 108.62     9.16 at Sec to 11.6 .8 Nry to tecpt sosp.                         21.11                  2.18   6.68          2.12    1.84    2.09    8.33 15.68      11.88      1.14        12.88     1.38            1.38                                        188.62    18.30 g e mald 118 66-M L1815-11                                     2.42      15.II      8.16         12.88    8.28            4.21                                        122.18   11.02 at 8 test.
! spot dist:betlee 8.81 2.18 at 3 rest.
8.19      9.11      18.88      8.98           8.88   1.22           1.38                                       122.18   11.21 process Restes/ Pal /86C1/sa 16.58                                                                                                                            138.91   !!.H at It Cha Otter                                                                                                                                                 138.91   12.31 g e lead 11.1 sceltaring                                                                   6a                     1.H             8.33   soalt. at 5.1.             148.84   12.48 at 8tl 44 8.33   1.81           8.56   8.34   s.51     8.86                     lance 11.9 salead 11.18 tre to 3restened.                             14.BI                 8.64   1.66           8.08   9.14   8.45     9.11 stber 9.ei     74 et       8.49         16.80     8.41           8.65                                     tercest 81stribstlaas st/t6tt/ Pal /5estee                                                                                                                              stre      21 stance      t Time      1 118 5)-55                                    1.42     40.88     6.66         32.08   4.88           8.88 St. Ill                                       i 19     20.8I     8.89         16.00     9.12           0.13 Strt-disp                       3.58   8.20 11.11 tracesstag                                                           8.25   1.11           8.25   9.39     8.21   9.90                           Tri-eeply 88.34           8.51   3.51   8.28 Leading                         8.11   0.08 23.1 frv to leff. lat.                              11.96                  8.H    8.44           8.66   18 H     0.11   18.68                           fan-Isli     11.14       8.43   3.45   8.25
11.2 Processtag at 8r 0.58 3.08 8.58 3.88 8.53 1.11 frocessing ttee 8.18 3.H process 11.96 3.12 et 3.1.
                                                                    .28.08                             8.11           8.12                                     Quesist                         8.38   0.82 88 lit                                       1.16                 8.89          16.08 kicadog                        8.66  8.t5 LIS 56-65                                 14.61       48.08     8.31         32.88   8.H             8.49 8t ISI/Lias                                 1.51     29.80     8.48         16.88   0.18             0.18                                   fcTAL       lll.H         I.H   12.44   1.H s.81                   8.98             1.84           pocasestatles saclear.
11.3 fravel to Self. Isilre.
Decne et 5.1.
11.H 8.12 3.12 1.14 4.14 1.21 4.48 11.96 4.25 lead 81.!!!
22.4 Leading                                                               8.33   8.18           8.58   !!.54     8.53   12.26 2J.5 frv to 1F1 biry                                   1.53     35.88     8.84   I.82 38.88   8.85   11.59     0.85   12.31 23.0 frv to Beest. lesp.                           21.19                 5.94   9.16           1.11   12.16     1.25   13.56 LII 66-55                                   15.68     48.58     8.19         32.88   8.49             8.52 L18 55-53                                   2.42     48.08     8.86         32.88   8.98             6.H Seetes/ Pal /MCh/51 16.58       8.59         9.11     28.88     8.49         16.H     8.61             8.65 other geese at Becst. Gosp (f)                                                     8.29                   8.41             8.58           acces. ecclear 23.9 seleedleg                                                             8.13 18.38           8.58 13.13     8.53   14.19 13.18 frv to 8testseed                               14.58                 I.64   11.82           I.88 14.54     0.45   15.44 ether st/tKh/ Pal /8eekes                         1.11     21.84     0.49         16.08   8.61             8.65 L!b 53-55                                     2.42     48.08       0.86         32.88     8.68           I.H St. lit                                       I.89     28.08       0.89         16.00     8.12           0.13 23.11 tracesslog                                                           8.25 11.21           8.25 14.19     8.21   15.11 C. Garles Beep. 3'rd Base 8C.3 frv to M. Charles                               16.21                 8.11 12.H             8 96 15.14     1.01   16.12 st.111                                       3.11     28.38     0.19         16.H     8.23           8.25 St. lif                                     II.44     20.00       8.52         16.H     I.65           0.69 8125&lefft/Besp                               2.12     31.H       8.H           34.H     8.01           8.88 SC.4 Leedlag                                                               I.33 12.31           8.58 16.24     8.53   11.26 K.5 tre to 871 berv Sese/efrt/tl 254       3.18     I.63       1.8I     35.80     8.83 11.44   38.H     8.84   16.28   8.H   11.29}}
l.16 28.18 0.89 16.88 0.11 8.12 19.H 4.5" at 8f1 Nry LLI 56-66 14.61 28.80 0.11 16.09 8.92 8.11 41.2I 6.68 at tec re 8181/LI 8v.
2.56 8.59 1.51 28.H 0.88 16.80 0.18 8.18 41.2I 1.88 eslead 61.35 1.66 at trest.
11.4 Leadist 8.33 4.25 8.58 4.64 8.53 4.93 61.35 1.98 process geese at 5.1. (fl 8.!!
4.81 8.18 5.!!
80cas.estlear 19.11 8.44 at 5.1.
19.31 8.11 lead +
11.6.8 Nry to tecpt sosp.
21.11
*6.88 8.25 4.55 5.08 8.31 5.12 8.32 5.44 48.84 8.82 at 8tf bdry 11.5 Tre to tr! besadry 1.53 2.18 6.68 2.12 1.84 2.09 8.33
: f. A. Scsp.
108.62 9.16 at Sec to 118 66-M 15.68 11.88 1.14 12.88 1.38 1.38 188.62 18.30 g e mald L1815-11 2.42 15.II 8.16 12.88 8.28 4.21 122.18 11.02 at 8 test.
Restes/ Pal /86C1/sa 16.58 8.19 9.11 18.88 8.98 8.88 1.22 1.38 122.18 11.21 process 138.91
!!.H at It Cha Otter 138.91 12.31 g e lead 11.1 sceltaring 6a 1.H 8.33 soalt. at 5.1.
148.84 12.48 at 8tl 44 11.9 salead 8.33 1.81 8.56 8.34 s.51 8.86 lance 11.18 tre to 3restened.
14.BI 8.64 1.66 8.08 9.14 8.45 9.11 stber st/t6tt/ Pal /5estee 9.ei 74 et 8.49 16.80 8.41 8.65 tercest 81stribstlaas 118 5)-55 1.42 40.88 6.66 32.08 4.88 8.88 stre 21 stance t Time 1
St. Ill i 19 20.8I 8.89 16.00 9.12 0.13 Strt-disp 3.58 8.20 11.11 tracesstag 8.25 1.11 8.25 9.39 8.21 9.90 Tri-eeply 88.34 8.51 3.51 8.28 Leading 8.11 0.08 8.H 8.44 8.66 18 H 0.11 18.68 fan-Isli 11.14 8.43 3.45 8.25 23.1 frv to leff. lat.
11.96
.28.08 8.89 16.08 8.11 8.12 Quesist 8.38 0.82 88 lit 1.16 LIS 56-65 14.61 48.08 8.31 32.88 8.H 8.49 kicadog 8.66 8.t5 8t ISI/Lias 1.51 29.80 8.48 16.88 0.18 0.18 fcTAL lll.H I.H 12.44 1.H Decne et 5.1.
s.81 8.98 1.84 pocasestatles saclear.
22.4 Leading 8.33 8.18 8.58
!!.54 8.53 12.26 2J.5 frv to 1F1 biry 1.53 35.88 8.84 I.82 38.88 8.85 11.59 0.85 12.31 23.0 frv to Beest. lesp.
21.19 5.94 9.16 1.11 12.16 1.25 13.56 LII 66-55 15.68 48.58 8.19 32.88 8.49 8.52 L18 55-53 2.42 48.08 8.86 32.88 8.98 6.H Seetes/ Pal /MCh/51 16.58 8.59 9.11 28.88 8.49 16.H 8.61 8.65 other geese at Becst. Gosp (f) 8.29 8.41 8.58 acces. ecclear 23.9 seleedleg 8.13 18.38 8.58 13.13 8.53 14.19 13.18 frv to 8testseed 14.58 I.64 11.82 I.88 14.54 0.45 15.44 ether st/tKh/ Pal /8eekes 1.11 21.84 0.49 16.08 8.61 8.65 L!b 53-55 2.42 48.08 0.86 32.88 8.68 I.H St. lit I.89 28.08 0.89 16.00 8.12 0.13 23.11 tracesslog 8.25 11.21 8.25 14.19 8.21 15.11 C. Garles Beep. 3'rd Base 8C.3 frv to M. Charles 16.21 8.11 12.H 8 96 15.14 1.01 16.12 st.111 3.11 28.38 0.19 16.H 8.23 8.25 St. lif II.44 20.00 8.52 16.H I.65 0.69 8125&lefft/Besp 2.12 31.H 8.H 34.H 8.01 8.88 SC.4 Leedlag I.33 12.31 8.58 16.24 8.53 11.26 K.5 tre to 871 berv Sese/efrt/tl 254 3.18 I.63 1.8I 35.80 8.83 11.44 38.H 8.84 16.28 8.H 11.29}}

Latest revision as of 05:42, 11 December 2024

Direct Testimony of Dt Hartgen,On Behalf of State of Ny Re Hosp Evacuation Time Estimates.* Util Hosp Evacuation Time Estimates Not Reliable for Stated Reasons.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence
ML20151N919
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 04/13/1988
From: Hartgen D
NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:
References
CON-#288-6137 OL-3, NUDOCS 8804260043
Download: ML20151N919 (87)
v • d • e


Text

S C0CKETED g (3T USNRC RELATED CORRESR$43,3

'88 APR 19 Pl2:18 OFFICE Gi Wo.:1M f DATE:

April 20GXE1988 mw.E BRMILH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

)

(Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Stat'cn,

)

)

Unit 1)

)

)

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DAVID T. HARTGEN, Ph.D.,

P.E.,

ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK REGARDING BOSPITAL EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES I.

Qualifications and Foundation Q.

Please state your name and occupation.

A.

My name is David T. Hartgen.

I currently am employed by the New York State Department of Transportation as a Principal l

Transportation Analyst.

t l

l Q.

Please provide a brief description of your qualifications.

i A.

My professional career spans approximately 20 years.

Throughout this period, I have developed extensive experience with transportation planning matters, including traffic time l

8804260043 880413 bg])

PDR ADOCK 05000322 T

PDR

a estimates nd methods for computing such estimates in an accurate manner.

I also have developed extensive expetience in the field of information systems management.

As part of my duties with the New York State Department of Transportation, I have been responsible for the collection and analysis of transportation statistics pertaining to the State of New York's highways.

I have been directly involved in assessing the performance of various aspects of the State's highway system, including assessing traffic speeds, traffic volumes and highway capacities.

Consequently, I am familiar with the use of sophisticated computerized transportation models.

I have written more than 100 transportation-related articles and reports, more than half of which have been published in various professional journals.

I have served on or chaired over 20 professional panels and committees on transportation issues.

In addition, I am an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Albany, where I assisted in establishing a transportation studies program and where I teach courses related to transportation analysis.

I have been found to be an expert qualified to testify on matters related to evacuation time estimates in two Shoreham j

proceedings:

the 1984 emergency planning hearings and the 1987 reception center hearings I submitted testimony and defended my i

views on cross-examination in both hearings.

As a result of my l

participation in those proceedings, I became familiar with the l

2 l

l t

evidence and testimony sponsored by LILCO and KLD Associates, Inc., concerning evacuation time estimates for Shoreham.

A copy of my resume is Attachment 1 herein.

Q.

What material have you examined concerning LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates?

A.

I have reviewed portions of Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan pertinent to LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates, particularly OPIP 3.6.5 and parts of Appendix A of the Plan.

I also have reviewed a stack of hundreds of handwritten worksheets underlying the hospital evacuation time estimates prepared by or under the supervision of Mr. Sobotka (a LILCO consultant) and transmitted to the State of New York under cover of a letter dated February 29, 1988.

Other LILCO Plan materials that I have examined include certain draft revisions to Revision 8, dated February 20, 1987, which were submitted in connection with the 1987 reception center proceedings, and Mr. Lieberman's testimony in that proceeding regarding, in particular, average travel speeds.

In addition, I have reviewed "LILCO's Motion For Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue," dated December 18, 1987; the NRC Staff's response, dated January 15, 1988; the Board's "Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue)," dated February 24, 1988; "LILCO's Responses and Objections to Suffolk 3

County's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," March 10, 1988; and "LILCO's Responses and Objections to Suffolk County's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," dated March 10, 1988.

It is important to note, too, that I attended the depositions of Mr. Sobotka and LILCO's expert witness, a principal of KLD Associates, Inc., Mr. Lieberman.

I have read the transcripts of their depositions, as well as the transcript of the deposition of the NRC Staff's expert witnecs, Dr. Urbanik.

1 Q.

Please describe your familiarity with Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan as it pertains to hospital evacuation time estimates?

A.

I am familiar with what the LILCO Plan refers to as an "evacuation strategy" for the three hospitals in or near the EPZ.

Plan, Appendix A, at IV-173.

The actual hospital evacuation time estimates are contained in Table XIIIA (Plan, Appendix A, at IV-184).

LILCO's evacuation ime estimates for each hospital, assuming an evacuation of the full 10 mile EPZ, are:

Inclement Weather Hospital Normal Weather Summer Winter John T. Mather Hospital 12:00 15:42 16:41 Central Suffolk Hospital 12:19 15:52 16:51 St. Charles Hospital 12:20 16:13 17:14 4

-_ herein shows the locations of these hospitals as well as other pertinent facilities.

See also Table XV (Plan, Appendix A, at V-8).

As can be seen from the above results, the longest hospital evacuation time estimate is associated with St.

Charles Hospital, but the evacuation time estimate for Central Suffolk Hospital is just one minute faster.

OPIP 3.6.5 sets forth skeletal procedures for implementing the hospital "evacuation strategy."

Essentially, several LILCO Coordinators are given instructions to evacuate homebound persons I

and persons in health facilities, including hospitals, to reception facilities.

For example, OPIP 3.6.5, Section 5.5.5, instructs the Hospital Coordinator to "assign evacuating patients to reception hospitals listed in Attachment 5" and to "(a]ssign patients requiring ambulances to the reception hospitals closest i

to the EPZ "

Similarly, OPIP 3.6.5, Section 5.6.1, tells the 1

Ambulance Coordinator to "estimate the number of trips the ambulances and/or ambulettes will.need to make."

A list of

)

possible reception hospitals, their addresses and telephone i

numbers is set forth in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5, but it presents no information at all regarding which hospitals are to receive which patients in which order. herein shows the locations of these reception hospitals.

According to Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan, homebound handicapped persons are evacuated first; health facilities, ordered by proximity to Shoreham, are evacuated second; Suffolk Infirmary is evacuated third; and the three hospitals are 5

evacuated last.

Plan, Appendix A, at IV-178.

Vehicles used to evacuate the hospitals will be provided by the companies who are supplying the vehicles for the evacuation of other segments of the population.

The vehicles consist of a combination of buses, ambulances and ambulettes under contract to LILCO.

The LILCO Plan provides that "[t]hese vehicles will be supplied on an as available basis as the rest of the affected population evacuation nears completion."

Plan, Appendix A, at IV-173.

Therefore, the evacuation of the hospitals is dependent on the prior release of vehicles from their primary responsibilities.

At a site area emergency classification, LILCO would begin the process of mobilizing ambulances and ambulettes at LILCO's facility in Brentwood or Peconic Ambulance Company's facility in Riverhead.

Buses would be mobilized at LILCO's Patchogue facility.

Plan, Appendix A, at IV-176.

Vehicles would then be dispatched from these locations to execute the assignments made by the Hospital and Ambulance Coordinators.

Vehicles would return periodically, as necessary, to Brentwood for reassignment.

The movement of each vehicle involves traveling l

from the applicable staging area to the location of a homebound person or evacuating facility, picking up patients, taking them to reception facilities, unloading them, and then returning to Brentwood for reassignment, and repeating the process, i

l 6

II.

Theme of Testimony Q.

What is your general opinion of LILCC s hospital evacuation time estimates?

A.

From the following statement by the Board, it is evident that the Board is interested in knowing whether LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates can be relied upon ';y LILCO's emergency planners to form the basis of correct protective action recommendations:

(T]he narrow issue of the accuracy of the evacuation time estimates seems to us both unresolved and important.

Clearly both the Appeal Board and the Commission were concerned about these data and their accuracy.

And well they might be for in an emergency, it is on the basis of just such data that responsible officials will need to make fundamental decisions of

~

health ind saf ety for the patients in the hospitals in question.

We therefore will hold a hearing on the matters restricting it to the narrow confines of the bases and the accuracy of the evacuation time estimates presented in Revision 9.

(Emphasis added]

Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue), (February 24, 1988) at 12 (emphasis added).

The purpose of this testimony is to demonstrate that LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are unreliable because their "accura-is in doubt and their "bases," or underlying assumptions, are questionable in some instances and untenable in others.

It is important to recognize that LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based on a large number of assumptions.

As assumptions fail or fluctuate, LILCO's hospital 7

4 evacuation time estimates also can change accordingly.

LILCO's effort, which could have been and should have been more sophisticated than hundreds of handwritten worksheets, seems to ignore this fundamental traffic planning concept.

Evacuation time estimates that are based on multiple assumptions subject to substantial variation, such as LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates, are most useful to the personnel charged with implementing the evacuation only if those assumptions hold true at the time of the accident.

If the conditionu (such as traffic speed) prevailing at the time of an evacuation are not in accordance with those assumptions, then LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates will be substantially inaccurate.

LILCO's Plan does nothing to inform LILCO's personnel how variations in the numerous assumptions may affect evacuation times or affect protective action recommendations.

Further, the Board should be aware that LILCO's hospital evacuation time escimates are based on procedures that appear to be inconsistent with the LILCO Plan.

Thus, for instance, routing and hospital assignment decision made in the worksheets may be totally different in a real emergency. Yet, these decisions have substantial bearing on the overall time estimates.

If the LILCO personnel charged with implementing the LILCO Plan's hospital "evacuation strategy" were to attempt to do so in l

a real emergency, it is questionable whether, given the LILCO Plan's current lack of details, the LILCO personnel would be able to successfully develop a complex vehicle and reception 8

l l

hospital assignment scheme, let alone duplicate the scheme devised by LILCO's consultants.

This could mean that the hospital evacuation time estimates upon which a protective action recommendation would be based could be lengthened.

III.

Findings Q.

Please explain your analysis of how LILCO calculated the longest evacuation time estimate for hospitals.

A.

LILCO's handwritten worksheets calculate evacuation time estimates under seven scenarios.

The scenarios are Schedules 1-6, and "Full 10 Mile."

Schedule 1 corresponds to an evacuation of the fewest EPZ subzones.

Full 10 Mile corresponds to an evacuation of all of the EPZ subzones.

Schedules 2-6 fall in between.

As I indicated above, the longest evacuation time is 12:20, associated with St. Charles Hospital.

Inspection of numerous LILCO worksheets reveals that the longest time occurs under the Full 10 Mile scenario.

A copy of the relevant worksheet is herein.

The third column on the fourth page of the worksheet shows that two ambulances with St. Charles patients crossed the EPZ boundary at 12.34 hours3.935185e-4 days <br />0.00944 hours <br />5.621693e-5 weeks <br />1.2937e-5 months <br /> after the order to evacuate, which is equivalent to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and 20 minutes.

Following or "tracing," the paths of these two ambulances from the beginning of the emergency to the end is the key to l

i 9

interpreting LILCO's evacuation time estimates.

As demonstrated by Attachment 3 herein, the two ambulances involved in the longest evacuation time (12.34 hours3.935185e-4 days <br />0.00944 hours <br />5.621693e-5 weeks <br />1.2937e-5 months <br />) participated in two evacuation waves at the Suffolk Infirmary and then participated in a third evacuation wave at St. Charles. herein is the State's computerized version of this trace.

The assignment takes 12.34 hours3.935185e-4 days <br />0.00944 hours <br />5.621693e-5 weeks <br />1.2937e-5 months <br /> to complete, results in the evacuation of twelve persons, covers 138.52 miles (using LILCO's figures), and consists of eight distinct trips.

In this path, patients are actually transported only during 28% of the time and over 42% of the distance.

The rest of the time is spent traveling to and from the Brentwood staging area, receiving instructions, etc., loading and unloading at hospitals, and waiting in queues at hospitais.

Specifically, the paths or trace of the two key ambulances began when they initially arrived at Brentwood at 2.50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> after the order to evacuate.

The two ambulances then traveled to the Suffolk Infirmary, transported patients to the VA Medical Center in Northport, returned to Brentwood, traveled again to the Suffolk Infirmary, again took patients to the VA Medical Center, returned again to Brentwood and then made the trip to St. Charles for the evacuation of the remaining hospital patients.

A copy of the pertinent worksheets, in order of the trace, is Attachment 3 herein.

A diagram of this complex path is shown in Attachment 4 herein.

The worksheets show that, at each step, LILCO makes a series 10

of assumptions about arrival times at staging areas, processing times, highway speeds, travel distances, travel routes, destination hospitals, patient loading and unloading times, and queueing times.

All of these assumptions, as well as others contained in Appendix A of the Plan, are the bases of LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.

Q.

Did you also trace the second longest evacuation time estimate for hospitals?

A.

Yes, as I indicated above, the second longest evacuation time is 12.19 hours2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br />, associated with Central Suffolk Hospital.

It also occurs under the Full 10 Mile Scenario.

Like St. Charles, the evacuation time for Central Suffolk Hospital is dependent on the time it takes for the vehicles to participate in one prior evacuation wave involving the Suffolk Infirmary.

herein is a diagram that shows the complex movement in the trace of this second longest evacuation time.

Q.

Why is following the traces of the vehicles that provide the longest evacuation times the key to interpreting LILCO's analysis?

A.

The trace of these vehicles is the key because a change in any of the related assumptions could change the time it takes for these last two vehicles to evacuate the last patients.

Thus, we 11

l l

can determine what factors will shorten or lengthen overall evacuation times.

Changes in the assumptions related to evacuation times of other vehicles and patients would not necessarily affect the longest evacuation time, and would therefore not necessarily be the controlling evacuation time estimate.

Tracing the vehicles involved in the longest and second longest evacuation times is also important because it enables the Board to visualize the complexity of the evacuation and the additive nature of the numerous assumptions along the entire trace.

1.

Assumptions Concerning Speeds of Vehicles Q.

Are LILCO's assumptions about speeds of buses, ambulances and ambulettes appropriate?

A.

No.

LILCO's assumptions concerning these speeds are unreliable because they do not account for the uncertainties of future evacuation events.

The assumptions are not compelling in their justification, and are too generous to reflect the congested conditions that the State of New York believes will be likely in an extensive evacuation scenario, as I testified during the reception center proceedings.

See Direct Testimony of David T.

Hartgen and Robert C. Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers (April 13, 1987) ("State Reception Center Testimony").

12

1 1

Let us look first at the speeds which LILCO assumes for the Long Island Expressway, one of the main routes traveled by the vehicles which will be evacuating the hospitals.

LILCO lists in Table XIIIB of Appendix A of the Plan a number of assumed speeds, depending on certain factors.

As an example, let us look at the speed for westbound travel on the LIE between the western edge of the EPZ and the village of Brentwood.

LILCO estimates that this speed is 15 miles per hour.

This estimate, however, is unjustified.

During an evacuation, the LIE will be operating under very congested conditions which can be categorized as level of service F1 The Highway Capacity Manual indicates that at level of service F, speeds could vary from 0 mph to 30 mph at any one point in time during such congestion. herein shows the operating curve for speeds versus volume-to-capacity ratio for freeways.

The dotted line at the bottom of the curve shows level of service F.

The average of this portion of the curve is not a fixed number, like LILCO's 15 mph, but rather is a range of speeds dependent on the volume to capacity ratio.

For level of service F congestion, the implied average speed is approximately 8 mph, but the important observation is that speeds are variable between 0 and 30 mph.

Since such a wide 1

The various levels of service and the nature of traffic flow associated with those levels of service were discussed in my testimony on reception centers and will not be repeated here.

See State Reception Center Testimony at 40-46.

l l

13 i

I

range in speed is likely, it is unsound for LILCO to assume an average speed of 15 mph.

At the unstable flow which characterizes level of service F, average travel speed could vary by 5 mph or more.

LILCO should have analyzed the sensitivity of the hospital evacuation time estimates to such a 5 mph variation in assumed average freeway speed.

Q.

What support do you have for your opinion about speeds at level of service F?

A.

An article, co-authored by Mr. Lieberman, one of LILCO's witnesses, supports the State of New York's position.

The article is entitled "Enhanced FREFLO:

Modeling of Congested Environments", by A.K.

Rathi, E.B.

Lieberman, and M.

Yedlin, printed in Transportation Research Record No. 1112, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,

1987.

A copy is herein.

In this article, Mr. Lieberman described a modification of a computer model of freeway traffic flow to make it more realistically reflect congested operation.

He presented results (shown in Table 2 of Attachment 8 herein) showing that in the modified model, "a realistic stop-and-go pattern of entering flow was established." (Attachment 8 herein, at 65).

The article also indicated (Attachment 8 herein, at Table 2) that congested operation implies: (1) traffic densities of 89-152 vehicles per lane-mile, (2) average speeds of 6.9 mph to 10.6 mph, and (3) highly variable vehicle flow rates, ranging from 0 14

to capacity.

Accordingly, Mr. Lieberman's own research bolsters the State of New York's criticism of the assumed speeds set forth in Table XIIIB of Appendix A of the Plan.

Q.

Do you have any concerns about other assumed speeds set forth in Table XIIIB of Appendix A of the LILCO Plan?

A.

Yes.

LILCO produced no data that would justify the assumed speeds in Table XIIIB, especially epteds of vehicles headed away from the EPZ on local streets or non-freeway evacuation routes, and speeds of vehicles headed toward the EPZ.

The assumed speeds appear to be the result of conjecture.

Indeed, Mr. Lieberman stated as much in his deposition.

Liberman Deposition Tr. 23-35 (March 25, 1988).

In particular, the assumption that speeds would be higher between the EPZ and Brentwood than they would be inside the EPZ is without basis because pervasive congestion would reduce speeds in between the EPZ and Brentwood.

In addition, there is no apparent justification for assuming that speeds change at Brentwood.

There is also no support for the assumption in Table XIIIB that ambulances inside the EPZ would travel faster than ambulettes inside the EPZ after the evacuation ends.

This seems illogical because ambulances usually travel faster than other vehicles during periods of congestion, not in the absence of congestion.

15 l

l

1 Further, Table XIIIB contains anomalies which reflect the arbitrary nature of the assumed speeds.

For instance, vehicles are assumed to travel faster on the westbound congested Long Island Expressway (15 mph) than on the northbound uncongested Sunken Meadow Parkway (10 mph).

On Route 111, vehicles are assumed to travel one speed (20 mph) at all times, regardless of congestion and other factors.

Finally, Table XIIIB assumes a remarkable jump in speeds when the evacuation time exceeds the benchmark times listed in Table XIIIB.

Another way of saying this is that the "tail" of the evacuation ends abruptly, meaning that when tPe last general population evacuating vehicles pass a given point, the road suddenly clears.

LILCO has provided no support for this assumption.

Q.

Do you have any other reasons to question the speeds assumed in Table XIIIB?

A.

Yes, as I discussed earlier, LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based on seven scenarios:

Schedules 1-6 and Full 10 Mile. Schedule 1 cor. templates an evacuation of only subzones A-E, I and J.

"Full 10 Mile" contemplates an evacuation of the entire EPZ.

However, the assumed speeds in Table XIIIB are the same regardless of which evacuation scenario actually occurs.

This seems illogi al because more extensive evacuations would presumably generate more evacuating traffic and have a greater tendency to reduce speeds.

It would be more prudent from a 16

t.

planning perspective to assume that more extensive scenarios, such as Schedule 6 and Full 10 Mile, would be characterized by speeds that are lower than speeds in the less extensive scenarios, such as Schedules 1 and 2.

Q.

Have you determined the effect of different speed assumptions on the hospital evacuation time estimates?

A.

Yes, I recalculated the longest evacuation time estimate (12.34 hours3.935185e-4 days <br />0.00944 hours <br />5.621693e-5 weeks <br />1.2937e-5 months <br /> for the last two "trace" ambulances to evacuate St.

Charles Hospital) by assuming slightly different speeds than those that LILCO assumed.

I chose these different assumptions to determine a range of answers corresponding to upper and lower bounds of speeds.

The results, which are summarized in herein, reveal the following:

1.

Reducing speeds on the Long Island Expressway to 10 mph outbound, and 25 mph inbound (other roads 15 mph outbound, 20 mph inbound) would increase evacuation times to 14.54 hours6.25e-4 days <br />0.015 hours <br />8.928571e-5 weeks <br />2.0547e-5 months <br />, or 17.3%.

2.

Reducing all speeds by 3-5 mph would increase evacuation times to 14.00 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, or 12.9%.

3.

An across-the-board 10% reduction in speeds would increase evacuation times to 13.07 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />, or 5.4%.

17 L

planning perspective to assume that more extensive scenarios, such as Schedule 6 and Full 10 Mile, would be characterized by speeds that are lower than speeds in the less extensive scenarios, such as Schedules 1 and 2.

Q.

Have you determined the effect of different speed assumptions on the hospital evacuation time estimates?

A.

Yes.

I recalculated the longest evacuation time estimate (12.34 hours3.935185e-4 days <br />0.00944 hours <br />5.621693e-5 weeks <br />1.2937e-5 months <br /> for the last two "trace" ambulances to evacuate St.

Charles Hospital) by assuming slightly different speeds than those that LILCO assumed.

I chose these different assumptions to determine a range of answers corresponding to upper and lower bounds of speeds.

The results, which are summarized in herein, reveal the following:

1.

Reducing speeds on the Long Island Expressway to 10 mph outbound, and 25 mph inbound (other roads 15 mph outbound, 20 mph inbound) would increase evacuation times to 14.54 hours6.25e-4 days <br />0.015 hours <br />8.928571e-5 weeks <br />2.0547e-5 months <br />, or 17.3%.

2.

Reducing all speeds by 3-5 mph would increase evacuation l

times to 14.00 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, or 12.9%.

3.

An across-the-board 10% reduction in speeds would increase evacuation times to 13.07 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />, or 5.4%.

l 17

4.

Reducing expressway speeds to 6 mph outbound, and 15 mph inbound, would increase evacuation times to 20.58 hours6.712963e-4 days <br />0.0161 hours <br />9.589947e-5 weeks <br />2.2069e-5 months <br />, or 66%.

5.

Increasing expressway speeds by 5 mph would decrease evacuation times to 11.38 hours4.398148e-4 days <br />0.0106 hours <br />6.283069e-5 weeks <br />1.4459e-5 months <br />, or -8.2%.

6.

Allowing operations at present (posted) speeds would decrease evacuation times to 8.97 hours0.00112 days <br />0.0269 hours <br />1.603836e-4 weeks <br />3.69085e-5 months <br />, or -27.6%.

This would appear to be the absolute lower bound for evacuation times.

Calculations for these estimates are in Attachments 10-15 herein.

O.

What is the significance of these results?

A.

It is reasonable to assume that evacuation speeds could be lower than LILCO has postulated.

When such lower speeds are

assumed, evacuation times for the hospitals could increase to 20.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, or 66% more than asserted by LILCO.

LILCO should have recognized the inherent uncertainty in its calculations, analyzed the nature and scope of the uncertainty, and put the results in its Plan as guidance to personnel managing the evacuation.

18

2.

Number of Patients to be Transported Q.

How many hospital patients need to be evacuated, and how many patients are evacuated, according to LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates?

A. of OPIP 3.6.5, sets forth the number of total beds at each hospital and the handwritten worksheets identify the number of patients at each hospital who were evacuated in connection with the calculations of the hospital evacuation time estimates.

The information is as follows:

Number of Beds Number of Evacuated (Per OPIP 3.6.5, Patients (Per LILCO's Hospital )

Worksheets)

John T. Mather Hospital 238 238 Central Suffolk Hospital 168 168 St. Charles Hospital 271 260 Suffolk Infirmary 215 215 This information is depicted graphically on the bar charts for each hospital in Attachment 16 herein.

Q.

What is the significance of the discrepancy at St. Charles Hospital?

19

d A.

It appears that LILCO's time estimate calculations have neglected to include eleven patients at St. Charlea Hospital.

According to LILCO's origin-destination worksheet (Attachment 17 herein), a total of only 260 patients were evacuated from St.

Charles Hospital, while the number of beds (and the number of patients presumed by LILCO) is 271.

Depending on particular transportation arrangements, inclusion of these omitted patients could result in longer hospital evacuation time estimates.

In any event, an error which could result in patients not being evacuated is significant and casts doubt on the validity of LILCO's calculations.

t i

]

Q.

Do you have any other concerns about the number of patients for whom transportation should be provided?

A.

Yes, LILCO implicitly assumes that the number of patients at the evacuating hospitals in need of tranr.i;ortation will be the same as the current number of beds.

However, no allowance is made for future hospital growth or reductions.

If growth were to 1

occur, evacuation times could become longer.

1 3.

Capability of Reception Hospitals to Receive Patients Q.

Have you analyzed the capability of the reception hospitals to receive patients?

4 2

20

A.

Yes.

First of all, I discovered two serious errors in the worksheets that were used by LILCO's consultants to prepare the hospital evacuation time estimates.

One. error, as seen in the attached worksheet (Attachment 17 herein) is that LILCO assigned 30 evacuating patients to a reception hospital named Lydia Hall.

This hospital is closed and is not included within the list of potential reception hospitals in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5.

Of these 30 patients, 16 are from St. Charles Hospital.

The assignment of evacuating patients to a hospital that is not available and not even contemplated in LILCO's plan renders LILCO's evacuation time estimates incomplete.

Another error, as seen in the attached worksheet (Attachment 17 herein) is that LILCO assigned evacuating patients to Massapequa Hospital, which also is not on the list in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5.

This affects 14 patients assigned from St.

Charles Hospital.

Again, this error jeopardizes LILCO's results.

Both errors demonstrate that LICLO's evacuation time estimates do not reflect what might acutally occur in a real emergency.

In accordance with Section 5.5.5 of OPIP 3.6.5, LILCO's Hospital Coordinator would not assign any evacuating patients to either one of these hospitals, and, therefore, would not duplicate the "evacuation strategy" that LILCO's consultants used in the calculation of the time estimates, and would not be able to f

effect an evacuation within the time frame anticipated by i

LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.

21 i

I These errors are particularly serious because they involve St. Charles patients, who have the longest evacuation times.

In reality, those patients would have to be transferred elsewhere, which could further increase evacuation times.

Q.

Are there any other errors concerning the assignment of patients to hospitals?

A.

Yes.

Section 5.5.5 cf OPIP 3.6.5 instructs the Hospital Coordinator to assign evacuating patients requiring ambulances to the closest reception hospital.

For Central Suffolk Hospital, one of the closest hospitals would be Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport, which is on the list of possible reception hospitals in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5.

See Attachment 16 herein.

However, the worksheets prepared by LILCO's consultants indicate that no patients were assigned to Eastern Long Island Hospital.

Similarly, Syosset Hospital, which also is on the list of possible reception hospitals in Attachment 5 of OPIP 3.6.5, is not used even though it is closer to the EPZ than several hospitals that were used.

Such assignments may or may not have an effect on evacuation times, but the point is that the Hospital Coordinator would implement a different "evacuation strategy," assuming that he or she followed OPIP 3.6.5, Section 5.5.5, than that which was implemented in the calculations that generated the hospital evacuation time estimates.

Therefore, there is no assurance that the actual evacuation time would 22

coincide with what LILCO's emergency planners think the time will be when they rely on the time estimates to make what the Board referred to as "fundamental decisions of health and safety for the 2 1tients in the hospitals."

In addition, according to Sections 5.5.5 and 5.6.1 of OPIP 3.6.5, vehicles not expected to be needed for additional trips are assigned to reception hospitals farthest away from the EPZ.

However, it is likely that LILCO's personnel would not know the extent of the final evacuation until the accident itself progressed to its terminal stages.

In other words, LILCO's personnel would not know if the Schedule 1 evacuation under which they were proceeding might develop into a Full 10 Mile evacuation or might not develop beyond a Schedule 1 evacuation at all.

For example, LILCO's worksheets indicate that the trace vehicles are assigned to transport patients from the Suffolk Infirmary to St.

John's Hospital under a Schedule 6 evacuation.

However, under a Full 10 Mile evacuation, LILCO's worksheets indicate that the same trace vehicles are assigned to transport patients from the Suffolk Infirmary to the VA Medical Center.

This means that LILCO's personnel must know whether the evacuation will terminate as a Schedule 6 evacuation or as a Full 10 Mile evacuation before they assign the vehicles to reception hospitals.

Obviously, if the accident does eventually progress to a Full 10 Mile evacuation, the vehicles might have to change destinations to l

adhere to the Full 10 Mile assignment, and longer evacuation times than those that were anticipated in LILCO's worksheets 23

'l l

might result.

Q.

Does the LILCO Plan contemplate filling reception hospitals to capacity?

A.

Generally, yes.

Q.

Could this policy result in increased evacuation times?

A.

Yes.

Assuming that reception hospitals have a 14% vacancy rate, I have prepared Attachments 16 and 18 herein, which show the reception hospitals and their available capacities, along with the number of patients assigned to them from each evacuating hospital. 6 herein clearly illustrates that virtually all of the available capacity in tne 10 nearest hospitals west of the EPZ is used up.

Essentially, the LILCO Plan is right at the margin of capacity for all of the proximate reception hospitals.

A slight increase in patients to be transported out of the EPZ, or a reduction in reception center capacity (perhaps due to an influx of arriving general population evacuees), could cause an increase in evacuation time.

A prudent assessment woulo have included a test of the sensitivity of the evacuation time estimates to assumptions about capacity of reception hospitals, because so much of the available capacity is taken up.

For example, I calculated the additional time it would take for the ambulances involved in the longest 24

evacuation time at St. Charles Hospital ('.he "trace") to transport patients to Huntington Hospital if the VA Medical Center ('che reception hospital used by LILCO's consultants in the worksheets) were already filled to capacity.

(The VA Medical Center might already be filled for several reasons, including something as simple as the Hospital Coordinator assigning other vehicles to go there beforehand, which is the Hospital Coordinator's prerogative under OPIP 3.6.5.) 9 herein shows that if just the second wave (i.e.,

the second trip from Suffolk Infirmary to the reception hospital) must travel to I

Huntington Hospital instead of the VA Medical Center, assuming LILCO's travel speeds, the overall hospital evacuation time estimate for the trace vehicles is increased by 19 minutes to 12.72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

Although a 19 minute increase may not seem substantial, it could be significant due to the additive nature of LILCO's many assumptions.

This is just a sample of the kind of sensitivity analysis that LILCO should have performed but neglected to perform.

4.

Vehicle and Vehicle Driver Availability Q.

Have you reviewed LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates from the perspective of vehicle availability?

A.

Yes.

LILCO assumes that 63 ambulances and 130 ambulettes will be available to evacuate persons in special facilities and 25

persons who are homebound.

If any of these vehicles are not available, then the slack will have to be taken up by more waves of departures for those vehicles that are available.

The effect could be lengthened evacuation times.

As a rule of thumb, bus companies. typically build in an approximate 15% fleet excess to ensure continued full operation.

This allows for periodic maintenance or other events that reduce fleet presence.

This means that if LILCO needs 193 ambulances and ambulettes to implement the evacuation, LILCO should plan to have a 15% surplus on hand.

By inference, LILCO's current fleet size of 193 ambulances and ambulettes should be discounted by 151 to account for the lack of a 15t surplus.

In other words, LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates involve 193 ambulances and ambulettes.

To ensure that 193 actually would be available, LILCO should have 193 +.15(193), or 222 ambulances and ambulettes, at the Brentwood and Peconic staging areas.

With 193 ambulances and ambulettes, LILCO only ensures that it has 193 -

.15(193), or 164, ambulances and ambulettes.

Evacuation times would be lengthened if LILCO only has the number of evacuation vehicles actually available in an emergency.

Other reasons why ambulances and ambulettes might not be available are:

1.

The special health facilities, which evacuate with their own vehicles, t ald reduce their fleet size through lack of replacement, of aging vehicles or other reasons, putting more of a burden on LILCO's fleet; 26

2.

The special facilities populations might grow much faster than growth, if any, in LILCO's fleet; U

3.

Ambulance companies may be called directly by private. citizens, thereby reducing the number of vehicles available to LILCO a. 3rentwood or Peconic.

Furthermore, LILCO assumes that vehicles will arrive in accordance with the arrival distribution specified in the contracts.

This general distribution is then arbitrarily broken down into finer 10-minute arrivals, for purposes of dispatching.

There appears to be no empirical basis for this arrival-every,

minute distribution, but it appears that if a critical ("trace")

ambulance were to arrive one hour late, then the evacuation times would be lengthened by approximately an hour.

The ratio between arrival tardiness and evacuation duration is 1 to 1.

Q.

Have you reviewed LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates from the perspective of vehicle driver availability?

A.

Yes. LILCO implicitly assumes that each vehicle has one driver for the full time period necessary.

This is unrealistic because leave time, fatigue and work rules, etc. may reduce tne number of available drivers.

27

Consistent with what has been previously discussed regarding planned vehicle excesses, bus companies typically employ 1.35 to 2.0 times as many drivers as vehicles to ensure that a fleet of a given size can in fact be operated. 0 herein presents more precise figures in this regard. LILCO should have followed the same principle and planned for a 35% - 100% surplus instead of planning for 0% surplus.

Driver unavailability due to fatigue could result in lengthened evacuation times.

5.

Hospital Evacuation Routes Q.

What assessment have you made concerning routes used in the evacuation of hospitals?

A.

The LILCO Plan does not expressly describe the routes used in the evacuation of hospitals.

There is a general assumption 1

stated that the routes taken are assumed to be those used by the general evacuation population, but since many of the reception hospitals are not on those routes, clearly some off-path travel is implied.

The worksheets, however, describe the individual routes assumed for each movement.

I did not check all of the routes because there were too many, but I did focus on the path of the trace vehicles.

These paths, for the two longest traces, are shown in Attachments 4 and 6 herein.

Q.

What concerns do you have about the routes to be taken?

28 l

l l

t i

l A.

I have the following concerns:

1.

The routes are not minimum time paths.

Although the routes were selected to "minimize delays," the main selection criteria were that "major routes" or "more prominant, more familiar roads" were preferable and "local streets" or "circuitous routes" were avoided.

Lieberman Deposition Tr. 66-67 (March 25, 1988); Sobotka Deposition Tr. 23 (March 7, 1988).

In short, the selection criteria were qualitative, not quantitative.

Essentially, the routes were selected arbitrarily.

2.

Route distances appear to be in error.

Many route lengths were estimated by scaling the distances off Hagstrom maps, and multiplying by a scaling factor.

To correct these problems, I carefully reviewed the distances on the trace path to assess this method.

Of the 11 primary distances, two were correct.

All of the segments on the State routes were, in fact, of different i

lengths, and arithmetic and scaling errors were made on the remainder of the segments.

Some of these resulted in longer or shorter distances. 1 herein I

shows the results.

When the trace is corrected for these 1

errors, a +1.52-mile difference is introduced:

The revised trace time is 12.40 (12:24).

See Attachment 22 herein.

29 d

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

-n.,-.

~n..,

.,_,,,.,am w,,

,,e,-

._n..

-cn

-- w --, -

4 3.

Several route directions could be confusing to drivers.

On the route to St. Charles Hospital, vehicles are assumed to travel north on Route 25A to Port Jefferson, and then to take a right on Myrtle Avenue. -

However, a generic hospital roadsign (intended to direct motorists to Mather Hospital) is posted four intersections earlier, at North Country Road.

There is no direction sign for St. Charles Hospital at the Myrtle Avenue turn.

Drivers destined for St. Charles Hospital could depart from the assumed route and report to Mather Hospital by mistake.

This could delay the St. Charles evacuation, particularly if queues form at Mather.

These are problems on the longest path.

It is reasonable to assume that other paths have similar problems.

6.

Formation of Queues at Evacuating and Reception Hospitals O.

What concerns do you have about the formation of queues at hospitals?

30

A.

LILCO's implicit assumption appears to be that vehicles were dispatched so as to minimize queue formation.

Sobotka Deposition Tr. 71 (March 7, 1988).

However, that goal was not achieved, since this is not an optimizing model in any sense and the trace path does, in fact, contain queueing time totaling 18 minutes.

For summer adverse conditions, the queuing time is 1.62 hours7.175926e-4 days <br />0.0172 hours <br />1.025132e-4 weeks <br />2.3591e-5 months <br />, or 10% of the total time.

Also, documentation on how the queues were calculated is non-existent beyond approximately six hours.

The bases of these calculations are unknown.

Since queues are clearly a result of inefficient dispatching, it would seem that LILCO should improve its dispatching procedures to reduce them.

7.

LILCO's Effort Has Not Been Comprehensive Q.

On the subject of hospital evacuation time estimates, is the j

LILCO Plan sufficiently comprehensive?

i A.

The portion of the LILCO Plan that deals with hospital evacuation time estimates is not a "plan" at all, but a set of largely arbitrary and unsupported assumptions supplemented by worksheets that produce a single "answer,"

i.e.,

the longest evacuation time estimate of 12.34 hours3.935185e-4 days <br />0.00944 hours <br />5.621693e-5 weeks <br />1.2937e-5 months <br />.

This effort was not as comprehensive as it should have been and should have produced at j

a minimum, the following:

t 31

?

, or y

v-w--y-v-+

= ~ - -

e-----

l.

A projection of a range of realistic scenarios describing the situation likely to be present in the event that hospitals needed to be evacuated.

Presently, only one scenario (Full 10 Mile) contains calculations for St. Charles Hospital.

2.

Identification of a number of alternative ways to manage the hospital evacuation.

3.

An evaluation, including full sensitivity analyses, of these alternatives, their components, their effectiveness and their vehicle and communications requirements.

4.

A selection and description of the recommended procedure to evacuate hospitals.

5.

Actions to ensure that the recommended procedure can, in fact, be implemented effectively, and actions to respond to unforeseen circumstances.

8.

Failure to Use Appropriate Analytical Tools Q.

Did LILCO use appropriate analytical tools to generate its hospital evacuation time estimates?

32

A.

LILCO did not use a number of analytical tools which, if used, would likely have lead to more reliable hospital evacuation time estimates.

For instance, the time-based routing should have been handled with a computerized network of the evacuation area between the EPZ and the reception centers.

Alternative origin-destination assignments could then have been efficiently selected.

The scheduling could have been undertaken with either l

an integer programming algorithm, or with a dynamic simulation model, so that the true optimum assignment could be determined.

Finally, once identified, the best schedule should have been converted to specific instructions to the LILCO Coordinators on how to im{lsment it.

i IV.

Summary Q.

Please summarize your findings concerning the bases and accuracy of LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates?

A.

The need for information about variables affecting evacuation times is substantial because LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based on assumptions, many of which are subject to wide variations, and some of which are not well-supported. For example, the longest evacuation time (12:20) is derived from two ambulances which participate in two evacuation waves involving the Suffolk Infirmary, and then participate in another evacuation 33

wave involving St. Charles Hospital.

Every step in this sequence of eight trips is based on assumptions about arrival times at staging areas, processing times, highway speeds, distances, travel routes, destination hospitals, patient loading and unloading times, and queuing times that are at best questionable or unsupported, at worst miscalculated.

Without a full sensitivity analysis assessing the affect of variations in these assumptions, the LILCO Plan is incomplete.

LILCO, however, ignores the need for more information about variables and unrealistically assumes that all of its assumptions will in fact hold true in a real emergency.

The most critical assumptions made by LILCO concern speeds.

Given that congestion will be pervasive and that level of service F operation will be the rule, speeds cannot be determined to any greater accuracy than 5 mph.

However, LILCO failed to consider this variation in speed.

As can be seen from Attachment 9 herein, more realistic assumptions involving speed variations, when applied to the LILCO trace vehicles, yield an evacuation time of 14.5 - 20.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, or 17-66% more than LILCO's numbers.

This is just one illustration of how evacuation times are increased by applying a different, more appropriate set of 1

assumptions.

Errors concerning the number of patients to be evacuated, road distances, and reception hospital assignments also reveal inaccuracies that belie LILCO's time estimates.

Furthermore, factors such as vehicle and vehicle driver availability, hospital evacuation routes, and formation of queues i

34

at hospitals bear upon LILCO's time estimates.

Taken together, all of these considerations have the additive effect of substantially increasing LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.-

Q.

Are LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates reliable?

A.

No, for the reasons stated above.

Q.

Does this conclude your testimony?

A.

Yes.

t I

i 35 2

CCCKEiEC 03NRC DATE:

April 13, 1988 16 MH 19 R2:18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA jrrici.G.*rtr.tur-NUCLEAR REGUIATOdY COMMISSION O I de f U Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board In the Matter of

)

)

IDNG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

)

(Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

)

Unit 1)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVJCI I hereby certify that copies of the "Direct Testimony of David T.

Hartgen, Ph.D., on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding Hospital Evacuation Time Estimates" have been served on the following this 13th day of April 1988 by U.S.

Mail, first class, except as noted by asterisks.

Mr. Frederick J. ShonVe Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William R. Cumming, Esq."*:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C.

20555 Federal Emergency Management Agenc 500 C Street, S.W.,

Room 840 Washington, D.C.

20472 Dr. Jerry R.

Kline A*

Mr. James P. Gleason, Chairman +

  • Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety ar.d Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 l

Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

Joel Blau, Esq.

General Counsel Director, Utility Intervention Long Island Lighting Company N.Y. Consumer Protection Eoard 175 East Old Country Road Suite 1020 Hicksville, New York 11801 Albany, New York 12210 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi Mr. Donald P. IrwinAF Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Suffolk County Legislature P.O.

Box 1535 Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr.

L.F.

Britt Stephen B.

Latham, Esq.

Long Island Lighting Company Tworey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Execucive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents coalition U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.

Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.

20555 Adrian Johnson, Esq.

Hon. Patrick G.

Halpin New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-16 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 E. Thomas Boyle Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.55 Suffolk County Attorney Kirpatrick & Lockhart Building 158 North County Complex 1800 M Street, N.W.

Veterans Memorial Highway South Lobby - Ninth Floor Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C.

20036 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Edwin J.

Reisrk New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building #2 Washington, D.

C.

20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 2

l i

Mr. James P. Gleason Douglas J. Hynes Chairman Town Board of Oyster Bay Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town Hall 513 Gilmoure Drive Oyster ray, New York 11771 Silver Spring, MD 20901 David A. Brownlee, Esq.

Mr. Philip McIntrie Kirkpatrick & Lockhart FEMA 1500 Oliver Building 26 Federal Plaza Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 New York, New York 10278 Mr. Stuart Diamond Adjuicatory File Business / Financial Atomic Safety and Licensing NEW YORK TIMr.S Board Panel Docket 229 W.

43rd Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York. New York 10036 Washington, D.C.

20555

$tl$ &

Richar(J,/dZahnleuter, Esq.

Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Capitol, Room 229 Albany, New York 12224 (518) 474-1273 By Telecopier By Federal Express 3

s l

DAVID T. HARTCEN August 1987 Home Office 5720 Normanskili Road Information Resource Management, 5-308 Slingerlands, NY 12159 New York State Dept. of Transportation (518) 765-3623 Albany, Nav York 12232 (518) 485-8627 COAL:

Transportation, engineering, or infor ? tion systems management.

QUALIFICATIONS: Outstanding transportation policy analysis, management, and research background.

Over 20 years experience in transportation planning and information systems management.

Expert at managing large comp 1.ex organizations and implementing change.

Very strong writing and speaking skills. Over 120 papers and reports videly published.

National and international reputation.

Strong academic and teaching credentials.

Extensive professional activities.

EDUCATION:

Ph.D., Civil Engineering / Transportation Northwestern Univ., 1973 M.S.,

Civil Engineering / Transportation, Northwestern Univ., 1967 B.S.,

Civil Engineering, Duke Univ., 1966 F.IPERIENCE :

Principal Transportation Analyst. Information Resource Management July 1987 -

New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, New York Present

Develop, evaluate and implement Management Information Systems for the Department.

Provide technical expertise on DOT business functions to IRM Of fice.

Review, evaluate, negotiate, and manage consultant studies.

Feb. 1981 -

Director, Transportation Statistics & Analysis, NYSDOT July 1987 Managed 60+ persons responsible for collection and analysis of statistics on NYS highway systems (1) transportation systems extent, condition, and needs (2) design and conduct of traffic and travel surveys, speeds, and trucks; (3) travel trends and forecasts; (4) urban transportation systems analysis.

Revitalized an extensive data collection activity into an efficient information system. Designed and implemented new methods of rapidly assessing highway condition based on photograph scales cut data delivery time by 907. and improved accuracy and reliability.

Streamlined the traffic count

program, decentralized traffic equipment and information flows, reduced data access time by 957..

Implemented rapid-access low-cost speed and truck monitoring systems.

Revised urban travel simulation procedures using microcomputers and stand-alone traffic forecast methods.

Developed and implemented a Canal Management System.

Prepared draft MIS Task Force report charting agency MIS directions.

Began implementation of a Highway Database.

Developed an Infrastructure Needs Assessment Model to forecast repair needs for highways and bridges.

Principal Investigator on 4 federal studies on traffic monitoring and forecasts, and transportation energy use.

Testified before the NRC on evacuation plans for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

j' s.

'/

/

W' May 1984 -

Special Assistant to the Director of Planning. Fed. Highway Admin.

March 1985 Initiated and implemented this assignment for training, education,

/

and experience.

Designed and conducted analysis of information needs for FHWA and the States.

Prepared the "Highway Information Resources Study",

recommending improvements to THWA's planning-related data s'js tems ; implementation by FHWA is underway.

Undertook pavement initiatives studies, long-term monitoring of pavements, and management systems.

Reviewed and analyzed bridge and highway deterioration models and funding

needs, traffic monitoring, and highway condition studies.

Nsv. 1971 -

Head, Planning Research Unit, NYSDOT Feb. 1981 Designed and developed analytic and planning methods studies for the Department.

Directed staff

'f 10-15 analysts.

Developed analysis methods and procedures; prepared travel forecasts:

developed methods of economic, social and environmental impacts, travel behavior and consumer response.

Analyzed urban transit pricing, service, and fare policies.

Designed and collected 15 travel data sets.

Analyzed energy price and supply shortfalls and their effects on travel.

Assessed special transit services for elderly and handicapped persons.

Conducted and analyzed 7 public opinion surveys on transportation investments.

Prepared policies and recommendations to NYS Legislature on transit operating assistance.

Studied travel behavior of persons and househole.

[

1967-1971

, Transportation Analyst, NYSDOT Londucted research, data collection, and analysis on transportation systems and travel for numerous New York State cities, rural areas, and statewide.

ACADEMIC:

Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Geography, SUNY at Albany.

1978 -

Helped set up transportation program. Teach graduate courses in Present transportation

analysis, including demand
models, statistics, travel characteristics, energy, financing.

1974-Initiated and operate NYSDOT student intern program with area Present colleges; over 60 interns have served.

Advisor on 2 Ph.D.

and several M.S. studies.

1976-1979 Adjunct Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Union College.

Taught transportation analysis.

1974 Adjunct Professer, Syracuse University.

Taught undergraduate course in transportation covering travel characteristics, legislation, analysis.

1971-Guest lectures at University of Oklahoma, Rensselaer Polytechnic Present Institute, Syracuse. SUNY Buffalo, Union, Ohio State University, University of Illinois, Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, Purdue.

Clark, Oxford I, Warwick Universities (England), City of Amsterdam (Holland), 'Jniversity of Wisconsin, and athers.

PUBLICATIONS: Authored over 120 reports :nd papers, 63 of which are published in the refereed professional literature.

Selected most recent:

1984 "Highway Information Resources Study" report for FHWA, Dec. 1984.

"Application of the Highway Condition Projection Model to Interstate 1985.

/

14R Repairs" Transportation Research Record 955. TRB, 1985 "How Good is HPMS:

Comparison with 5 tate Results", Transportation Research Record 1060. TRB, 1986.

"The FHWA Highway Information Resources Study:

Overview, Status, Direction", Transportation Analysis Report 60, NYSDOT.

"Network-level Pavement Condition Ra':ing:

Balancing

Quality, Quantity and Timeliness", with E.

Hurschenhorn, Transportation Research Record 1060, TRB, 1986.

1986 "Integrating Highway Information:

The New York Approach", paper presented at the FHWA File Linkage Conference, Salt Lake City.

"Are Truck Weights Really Increasing?",

with D.M.

Bager, Transportation Analysis Report 59, NYSDOT.

"A Strategy For Change", Draft report of the MIS Task Force, New York State Department of Transportation, 1986.

"A Plan to Develop a Comprehensive MIS for New York DOT",

MIS Task Force, NYSDOT, December (with others).

1987 "Policy Opportunities for Travel Behavior Analysis", paper prepared for the 5'th International Conference on Travel Behavior.

"Testimony on Behalf of New fork Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers", for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 13, 1987.

PROFESSIONAL:

Served on or chaired over 20 national and international panels and committees.

Presently, Chair of TRB's Subcommittee on Statewide Infor=ation Systems.

Chaired the International Conference on Travel Demand (1982),

and TRB Committee on Travel

Behavior, 1977-1983.

Associate Editor, Transportation, 1974-present.

Registered Professional Engineer, Maine #5762.

AFFILLATIONS:

American Public Works Association Transportation Research Board

i David T. Hartgen 6

Publications and Reports August, 1987 1966 "A Comprehensive Report of Parking and Traffic on Duke University". Civil Engineering Department. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (with C.N.

Holland) (Senior Thesis).

1967 "Optimum Location and Capacity of University Parking Facilities", Northwestern University Department of Civil Engineering, June 1967 (Master's Thesis).

1968 "Calibration of Transit Networks in Medium Sized Urban Areas". Transportation Research Record No. 297, TRB, Washington, DC.

1969 "Modal Split in Small Urban Areas", Preliminary Research Report No.

15, NYSDOT, July.

1969 "Optimal Design of a Surface Transit System". NYSDOT Report, Kibany, NY 12232.

1970 "A Behavioral Model of Mode Choice", Preliminary Research Report No. 19 NYSDOT, March (with G.H. Tanner).

1970 "Mode Choice and Attitudes:

A Literature Review", Preliminary Research Report No. 21 NYSDOT, April.

1970 "Individus1 Attitudes and Family Activities:

A Behavioral Model of Traveler Mode Choice", High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, Volume IV 3 p.

439-467 (with George H. Tanner).

1971 "Investigation of the Ef fect of Traveler Attitudes in a Model of Mode Choice Behavior", Transportation Research Record No.

369 Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC (with George H. Tanner).

1972 "A Note on the Ability of Socioeconomic Variables to Explain Attitudinal Bias Toward Alternative Travel Modes". High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, Volume IV:2.

1972 "Forecasting Remote Park & Ride Transit Usage", Preliminary Research Report No. 39, NYSDOT, December, 1973 "The Influence of Attitudinal and Situational Variables on Urban Mode Choice".

Preliminary Research Report No. 41, NYSDOT, March (Ph.D. Dissertation).

1973 "Design for Buffalo Home-Interview Travel Survey",

Preliminary Research Report No. 47 NYSDOT, June.

1973 "Disaggregate Travel Demand Models for Special Context Planning: A Dissenting View". Transportation Research Poard Special Report No. 143. TRB, Washington; DC (with Martin Wachs), 1974.

1973 "Forecasting Demand for Improved Quality Transit Surveys with Small-Sample i

Surveys" Preliminary Research Report No. 51, NYSDOT, November.

1973 "Variations in Reference Scale and Perception of Modal Attributes for Different Traveler Groups", Prolisinary Research Report No.

55

NYSDOT, November.

1974 "Development of Intercity Travel Demand Models for NYS Urban Areas",

Preliminary Research Report No.

58, NYSDOT, March. (with G.S.

Cohen and R. Albertin).

1974 "A Systems-Level Planning Application of the Disaggregate Modeling Technique",

Preliminary Research Report No. 62 NYSDOT, June, (with P.S.

Liou and C.S.

Cohen).

1974 "Design for the Ceaesee Transportation Study Travel Survey", Preliminary Research Report No. 64, July, NYSDOT.

1974 Position Bias in Transportat. ion opinion Questions", Preliminary Research Report No. 68, NYSDOT, August.

1974 "A Dynamic Model of Travel Mode-Switching Behavior", Transportation 3 (1974) 45-58.

1974 "Attitudinal and Situational Variables Influencing Urban Mode Choice:

Some Empirical Findings", Transportation 3 (1974) 377-392.

6 1975 "1973 Buffalo Travel Survey:

Design, Conduct.

Processing",

(Editor),

Preliminary Research Report No. 82. NYSDOT, August.

1975 "Individual Travel Behavior Under Energy Constraints", Preliminary Research Report No. 86, NYSDOT, August.

1975 "Equity in New York State Transit Fares", Preliminary Research Report No.

93, NYSDOT, October (with D.L. Weiss and G.S. Cohen).

1975 "Disaggregate Access Mode and Station Choice Models for Rail Trips",

Transportation Research Record No. 526 TRB, Washington, DC (with P.S. Liou and others).

1975 "Public Transportation Operating Assistance:

Evaluation and Options - Summary Report", NYSDOT, February 1975 (submitted to the New York State Legislature (with C. Keck, et al)).

1975 "Issues for Implementating Disaggregate Travel Demand Models", (with P.S.

Liou), in Stopher, P.R.

and heyburg.

A.N.

Behavioral Travel Demand Models, Lexington Press, 1976 (NYSDOT PRR 81).

1975 "Application of Disaggregate Mode Choice Models to Travel Demand Forecasting for Urban Transit Systems", Transportation Research Record No.

534

TRB, Washington, DC, p. 52-62, (with P.S. Liou and G.S. Cohen).

1975 "Transit Def'cits:

A Projection for New York State". Transportation Research Record No. 589. TRE, Washington, DC, (with S.M. Howe), 1976.

1975 "Energy Analysis for Urban Transportation Systems:

A Preliminary Assessment",

Transportation Research Record No. 599, TR3, Washington, DC, 1976.

1976 "Long Range Transporration Planning Under Energy Constraints:

A Critical Review of Current Capacity", Transportation Research Record No. 592, TR3, Washington, DC.

1976 "Irondequoit-Wayne Expressway:

Before-After Study Design",

Preliminary Research Report No. 101, NYSDOT, June (with S.M. Howe).

1976 "Differential Time-of-Day Transit Fares

Rsvenue, Ridership 6 Equity",

Transportation Research Record No.

625 TRB, Washington, DC, 1977 (with D.L. Weiss).

1976 "Analysis and Prediction of Non-Work Travel Patterns of the Elderly and Handicapped", Transportation Research Record No. 637 TRB, Washington, DC, (with S.M.

Howe 6 M. Pasko), 1977.

1976 "Forecasting Dial-A-Bus Ridership in Small Urban Areas". Transportation Research Record No. 563, TRB, Washington, DC, p. 53-62. (with C. A. Keck).

1976 "Intercity Travel Demand Models:

State-of-the-Art", Office of University Research, USDOT, (with G.S. Cohen).

1977 "Intercity Rail Patronage in NYC-Buffalo Corridor", Preliminary Research Report No. 115 NYSDOT (with G.S. Cohen and N.S. Erlbaum) April.

1977 "Cost-Effective Bus Transit Barrier Removal Policies for Elderly and Handicapped", Preliminary Research Report No. 118, NYSDOT (with D.L.

Weiss)

July, 1977 "Ridesharing Behavior:

A Review of Recent Findings", paper presented at THWA's FCP Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, November 8 (NYSDOT, PRR #130).

1977 "Automotive Energy Forecasts:

Impact of Price, Availability and Efficiency",

Preliminary Research Report No.

133, NYSDOT (with C.S.

Cohen and N.S.

Erlbaum), December.

1977 "Automotive Energy Forecasts:

Impact of Carpooling. Trip Chaining, and Auto Ovnership", Preliminary Research Report No. 134, NYSDOT, December (with N.S. Erlbaum and G.S. Cohen).

1977 "Incorporating Barrier Effects in Elderly and Handicapped Transit Demand i

Forecasts", Transportation Research Record No.

660 TRB, Washington, DC, 1978 (with R. Knighton).

1977 "Who Favors Work-Schedule Changes, and Why", Transportation Research Record No. 677, TR3 Washington, DC, 1978 (with A.A. Tannir).

19/7 "Traffic Impacts of

'Jork Schedule Changes in Medium-Sized Areas".

Transportation Research Record No.

677, TRB, Washington, DC, 1978 (with A.A. Tannir).

1977 "Pedestrian Movement at the Ski Jump, 1980 Winter Olympics", Transportation desearch Record No. 683, TRB, Washington, DC (with Peter L. Wolf), 1978.

1978 "Intercity Rail Travel Models". Transportation Research Record No.

673 TR3, Washington, DC (with C.S. Cohen and N.S.

Erlbaum).

4 1978 "NYS Casoline Use:

Impact of Supply Restrictions and Embargoes", Preliminary Research Report No.142, NYSDOT (with N.S. Erlbaum and G.S. Cohen) August.

1978 "Distance-Based Transit Fares:

Robin Hood or Sheriff of Nottingham?"

Preliminary Research Report No. 145, NYSDOT (with D. Ballou and L. Mohan).

1978 "Can Current Transportation Planning Methods Analyze Women's Travel Issues?",

paper presented at the Conference on Women's Travel Issues, Washington, DC (Preliminary Research Report No. 149).

1978 "Foreign Oi! Dependence:

A State Level Analysis", (with R.

Margiotta and L.

Reilly), Transportation Research Record No.

726 TRB, Washington, DC, 1979.

1978 "Transit's Role", Editorial for Transportation, 6:3.

1978 "Transportation Energy:

An Overview with Emphasis on New York State".

Transportation Research Record No.710. TR3, Washington, DC,1979.

1978 "Behavioral Science Applications to Issues in Transportation Planning",

in Richard M.

Michaels, Transportation Planning and Decision Making:

Behavioral Science Contributions, Praeger Press 1980.

w6 1978 "Upstate New York's Response to the Handates of the Clean Air Act."

Transportation Research Record No.

714 TRB, Washington, DC, 1979 (with R. Zabinski and C.S. Cohen).

1979 Carpool Coordination Demonstration Study:

Overview and Analysis of 'Before' Data" Preliminary Research Report No. 150, NYSDOT, March (with J.M. Brunso).

1979 "Toward a Leading Travel Indicator". Preliminary Research Report No. 154, NYSDOT June (with P. Koeppel).

1979 "Guidelines for Transportation Energy Contingency Plans", Preliminary Research Report No. 157, NYSDOT, May 1979 (with others).

1979 "A

Note on Representing Multiple-Alternative Competition",

Preliminary Research Report No. 166, NYSDOT, August (with others).

1979 "Behavioral Models in Transportation:

Perspectives, Problems. Prospects",

tu David Bannister and Peter Hall, Transport and Public Policy Planning, Munsell Press (1981).

l 1979 "Family RIACTions to Energy Constraints", (with S.P. Phifer and A.J.

Neveu)

Transportation Research Record No. 765 TR3, Washington, DC.

1979 "Energy Considerations in Transportation Planning:

The New York State Approach", in State Energy Conservation Activities. THWA report, June 1980.

1979 "Changes in Travel in Response to the 1979 Energy Crisis", (with others),

Preliminary Research Report No. 170, PYSDOT, (November).

i

O 1980 "Traffic Adjustments from Energy Economy and Population Changes", Preliminary Research Report No.175, NYSDOT (with others).

"Long-Range Forecasts of Transportation Energy Consumption in New York State",

1980 Tran s port a t ion Research Record No.

764 TR3, Washington, DC (with N.S.

Erlbaum).

1980 "Who Reads the Transportation Planning Literature?", Transportation Research Record No. 793 TRB, Washington DC, (with C.S. Cohen and F. McEvoy), 1981.

1980 "An Assessment of Cames as Methods of Providing Information on Casoline 1

Conservation", Transportation Research Record No.

801, TR3, Washington, DC (1981) (with D. Cabrera),

1980 "Transportation Energy Impact Assessment:

Current Capabilities and Future Needs" Preliminary Research Report No. 178. NYSDOT, July (with N.S. Erlbaum).

1980 "Procedures and Data Needs for Estimating Casoline Use in Urban Areas",

Preliminary Research Report No. 187, NYSDOT, July 1980 (with N.S. Erlbaum).

1980 "Research Design for the Neighborhood Ridesharing Demonstration Study",

Preliminary Research Report No.

189 NYSDOT, 1980 (with J.M.

Brunso and u!

W.R. Ugolik).

1980 "Transportation Energy Contingencies:

A Status Report on Public Response and Covernment Roles", Journal of Advanced Transportation. Spring, 1980.

Who Conserved How Much" (with A.J.

Neveu), paper 1980 "The 1979 Ener3y Crisis presented at the National Energy Users Conference: San Antonio, April 1980 (published in Transportation Research Board Special Report 191

TR3, Washington, DC 1981).

1960 "Urban Passenger Strategies (for Transportation Energy Contingencies]",

Workshop Summary, Transportation Research Board Special Report No.

191, TR3, Washington, DC,1980.

1980 "What Will Happen to Travel in the Next 20 Years", Transportation Research Record No. 807, TRB, Washington, DC, 1981.

1980 "Issues for Developing State Transportation Energy Emergency Conservation Plans", (with R.

Bixby and M.

Kocis), Transportation Research Record No; 801, TR3, Washington, DC,1981.

1981 "Transportation and the Behavioral Sciences", in Irvin Altman, Jack Wohlv111 and Peter Everett, Transportation and Behavior, Plenum Press, 1981.

1981 "Transportation Energy Assessment for Local Covernments" (with J.M.

Cross and C.E. Heyers) Institute of Traf fic Engineers Journal, 51:7. July,1981.

1981 "Can Employer-Based Carpool Coordinators Increase Ridesharing", (with J.M.

Brunso), Transportation Research Record No. 823. TR3, Washington, DC,1981.

1981 "Energy Conservation in Transportation Systems Performance". International l

Symposium on Surface Transportation System Performance.

U.S.

Department l

l of Transportation, May 11-13, 1981.

(

i

4 1981 "Transit Price and Service Variations", Workshop Summary, TSC Conference on Future Directions for Transit Pricina, 1981 (with L. Doxsey).

1981 "Analysis and Prediction of Highway Condition". Transportation Analysis Report No. 2. September, 1981, NYSDOT.

1981 "Visual Scales of Pavement Condition Development, Validation, and Use".

Transportation Research Record No. 893, TRB, Washington, DC, (with J.

Shufon 6 T. Pare 11a), 1982.

1981 "The Pavement Condition of N.Y. 's Highways:

1981". Transportation Analysis Report No. 4, 1981. December, 1981, NYSDOT.

1981 "Ridesharing Behaviot and Marketing", summary of workshop, Transportation Research Board Special Report 193, TRB, Washington, DC, 1981.

1982 "Revised Procedures for Factoring Short Traffic Counts to AADT",

Transportation Analysis Report No. 10, NYSDOT, July (with J. Leamerman).

1982 "Equity Impacts of Casoline Shortages and Price Rises", Transportation Analysis Report No. 20, NYSDOT, August (with J.M. Brunso and S. Kupferman).

1982 "Neighborhood Ridesharing Demonstration Study:

Final Report" (with J.M.

Brunto) U.S. Department of Transportation, March, 1982.

i 1982 "Statistical Controls in Ridesharing Demonstration Programs", Transportation Research Record No. 914. TRB, Washington, DC, (with J.M. Brunso).

1982 "Community Based Ridesharing:

An Overlooked Option", Transportation Research Record No. 914 TRB, Washington, DC (with J.M. Brunso),

l 1982 "New York's Perspective on Transportation Energy Contingency Planning",

paper presented at the Conference on Transportation Contingency Planning The International Journal.

Purdue University. April 29 30, 1982 (Energy August-September, 1983, p. 603-608).

1982 "Transportation Energy Contingency Planning" Editorial for Transportation, 11:2. August, 1982 "Streamlining the Collection and Processing of Traffic Count Statistics",

(with J. Lessnerman) Transportation Research Record No. 928. TR3, Washington, DC, 1983.

1982 "Long-Term Prediction of Highway Condition". Transportation Research Record l

No. 940, TRB, Washington, DC, 1983.

1982 "Windshield Surveys of Pavement Condition:

A Feasible Input to Pavement Management". (with J.J.

Shufon). Transportation Research Record No.

938 TR3, Washington, DC, 1983.

I 1982 "Where Panels Work:

Some Examples from Transportation Planning", paper i

presented at the World Conference on Transportation Research, Hamburg, Cernany, April 1983, 1982 "The Pavement Condition of New York's Highways:

1982", report for NYSDOT, December, 1982.

1983 "Initial and Subsequent Consumer Response to Casoline Shortages". (with J.M.

Bruneo and A.J.

Neveu), paper presented at the Conference on gnergy Contingency Planning in Urban Areas.

Houston, Texas.

April 7-9, 1983 (Published in Transportation Research Board Special Report 203, 1983).

1983 "Research And Riska How to Beat the Odds" Transportation News, May-June, 1983.

1983 "Travel Analysis Methods for the 1980's:

Executive Susunary" Transportation Research Board Special Report 201, TRB, Washington, DC, 1983.

1983 "An Update on Household Trip Ceneration Rates" (with J.M.

Brunso)

Transportation Research Record No. 987. TRB, Washington, DC,1984.

1983 "Status of Highway Condition Scoring in New York", Transportation Research Record 997. TRB, 1984.

1983 "Application of the Highway Condition Projection Model to Interstate I 4R Analysis", Transportation Research Record No.

955, TRB, Washington, DC, 1984.

1983 "Perception of the Infrastructure" (with A.J. Neveu) Transportation Analysis Report No. 34, NYSD07, July 19o).

7 1983 "Characteristics of Double-Trailer Trucks in New York State". Transportation

.c Research Record No. 966, TRB, Washington, DC, 1984.

1983 "The Pavement Condition of New York's Highwayst 1983" Report to NYSDOT, October, 1983.

1984 "Testimony of LILCO's Evacuation Plan for Shoreham", prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (with others), March, 1984, 1984 "Consumer Trade-Offs between Mobility Maintenance s,nd Casoline Savings".

N.

1049 TRB, Washington, DC, 1985 (with Transportation Research Record 1

J.M.

Brunso).

1984 "Concept Paper for an Infrastructure Data Base". NYSDOT, April, 1984.

1984 Incorporating Energy Analysis in TIP Process", report for PHWA, Washington.

DC, 1984 (with others).

)

1984 "Uncertainty in Traf fic Forecasts and Its Impact on Pavement Design", with j

A.J.

Neveu, pr/per prepared for THWA, February, 1984 (NYSDOT Transportation Analysis Report No. 49).

1984 "Eight States Join in Study of Pavement Performance", article for FOCUS, Newsletter of Strategic Highway Research Program Nov.-Dec., 1984, 3

1984 "Covernment Roles in Transportation Energy Conservation", prepared for the ASCE meeting, August, 1984 (with N.S. Erlbaum).

l 1984 "Highway Information Resources Study" report for THWA, Dec. 1984 1985 "State Views of a State & Local Highway Program", paper for THWA, March 1985.

I I

1985 "Use of a Simplified Urban Traffic Forecasting Procedure for Project Analysis" with A.J.

Neveu, paper presented at Conference on Microcomputers in Transportation, San Diego, June, 1985.

1985 "How Good is the Highway Performance Monitoring System?:

Comparison with State Results", paper prepared for Conference on HPMS Analytical Process, July 16-18 Kansas City, MO (Published in Transportation Research Record No. 1060, TRB, Washington, DC, 1986).

1985 "The THWA Highway Information Resources Study:

Oveniew, Status. Direction".

Transportation Research Record 1090, TRB, Washington, DC, 1986.

1985 "Emerging Trends in NYS Double Trailer Traffic",

with D.C.

Tifield, Transportation Analysis Report No. 58, NYSDOT, 1985.

1985 "Network-level Pavement Condition Rating:

Balancing Quality, Quantity and Timeliness".

(with E.

Herschenhorn). Transportation Research Record No.

1060. TRB, Washington, DC, 1986.

1986 "Integrating Highway Information:

The New York Approach", presented at the THWA Tile Linkage Conference, Salt Lake City, 1986.

1986 "Are Truck Veights Really Increasing?", paper submitted to the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

1986 "A Strategy for Change", Draft report of the MIS Task Force, NYSDOT, 1986.

1986 "A Plan to Develop a Comprehensive MIS for NYSDOT", MIS Task Force, NYSDOT, December (with others).

1987 Testimony Before the Nuclear Regulatory Connission on Evacuation Plans for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station April 1987.

1987 "Viewpoint on Activity Analysis". Remarks delivered at the Annual Meeting of TRB, January (in press. Transportation).

1987 "Policy Opportunities for Travel Behavior Analysis", paper prepared for the 5'th International conference on Travel Behavior, Aix-En-Provence Trance.

October.

L I

Professional Affiliatiosa and Panels e

Associate Editor, Transportation,1975-Present.

Associate Editor, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 1974-1980.

Associate Editor, Newsletter of Association of Travel Behavior, 1985 Present.

Chairman T13 Committee on Travel Behavior and Values (A1C04), 1977-1982.

Chairman TR3 Subcommittee on Statewide Information Systems, 1985-Present.

Chairman, Conference on Travel Analysis Methods for the 1980's,1982.

Chairman, U.S. Committee on Fourth International Conference on Trsvel Behavior, 1979.

Chairman, NCHRP Panel on Fuel Supply Limitations on Travel (NCHRP 8-23), 1976-1978.

Chairman, NCHRP Panel on New Approaches on Travel Behavior (NCHRP 8-14), 1975-1980.

Chairman, NCHRF Panel on Transit Service for Disadvantaged (NCHRP 8-27), 1981-1983.

5 cretary. TRB Executive Committee, Subcommittee on TR3 Financing, 1976-77.

Member, TR3 Committee on Passenger Travel Demand Torecasting, 1976-82.

Member, TRS Committee on Travel Behavior & Values, 1983-Present.

Member, TRE Committee on Energy,1981-Present.

Member, TR3 Committee on Information Systems,1983-Present.

Member, TR3 Committee on Public Transportation Planning & Development, 1975-77.

Member, ITE Committee on Energy Conservation, 1985-Present.

Member, NCHRP Panel on Peak Period Traffic Congestion (NCHRP 7-10), 1974 79.

Member, Advisory Panel, Collection of a Disaggregate Data Set, 1975-78.

Member, Advisory Panel Alternative Roles of the Automobile, 1975-76.

Member, Advisory Panel, Second Conference on Travel Behavior, 1975.

~

Member Advis:ry Panel, Conference on Behavioral Applications to Travel, 1978.

Member, Advisory Panel, Conference on Urban Transportation Planning in the 1980's, 1981.

Member, Advisory Panel, Conference on Transportation Energy Contingency Planning, 1983.

Member, Advisory Panel, 1985 Conference on Travel Behavior.

Member, Advisory Panel, 1987 Conference on Ts nsportation Applications.

Principal Reviewer, National Academy of Sciences.

Who's Who in the East, 1974-Present.

Who's Who in Covernment, 1977-Present.

Charter Mem'oer, Internationsi Association for Travel Behavior, 1985.

American Public Works Association i

Attachments 2,4,6 and 16 are oversized and are available upon request

D ATE:

///fr/p'y t4km3:

Al:ta La*U4 gffgggf 3 9,!

tr A c.tL g g, bbW. I.r1 M

TMc.tA L heim e Amousness '!b -

l l

A W f 4.5 d *wn.

An d W1 Ne A09tMC.

mit. ~

l

?

H,5

\\

'2 5 c r,

.., m

.- s e u,.u

%4eoa e a r s.,,,

',. [ -W 84 O.Y M.

0.5 %

0 pa ct s. ity LO 4it 00-Q p an e.s.ssi wcr a t-i) T A.Aiv4L sas,m.aoeb/ Par. 46 c.

,,.] "g,,l;l4,,,, ;9J,,1;,1 j,, g,2;.

,I; d 4

f, / 2 g,7p g, 9 g,jy spacsawwas4Layi 3,93 p, j p_

TO IS I

,q m tba A 04.5 p,,ow, *, t il bMu & (E) 4 51u.5 aC 3)

(N'LMtm WaAAx,(aio1 ( *. ).

a C 33 o. C*

o. 32 u-c.se u.

s.u ssa.

o.se

.)--25 4,$ t F 4S; f.54 6 26 se -

a) teno wo. G*w r, is n

.u o-9

..wa s I.53 0.!/ '

o 37 0 0')

0. N ' 0 Q,

_0_it$_ _

s) ranueu,e e.e s. v "" **n).

i Y" '* " " M

  • Y.SC

$.\\ %

T. 5-G.03 63 C,7 9.eavn.'.

u =* m w n 4<.. i n ts A D -. r,.4 ;g W t!'t.

e.

o.o

.o

_e_ _ _

c.o

_ _ _o _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _o.o c) see s.s em To M6 6.1 %

r.5

(,.oS

4. 3 6.7 m,me, :

'%,.ko 4 << t g.e.a vs..

w..t

.o

v. a a.*

3 ) m.

,.r.

u o.

6.16

5
1.. o 3 tm 3 o.7 g) @ 1" N m vi-"-

~

,N

" (di i M 3._'d. _I_03.

_t L1 v' A M 9 ',n.a c.s n..

(,. 4 7 "7.4 z.

7. r q
9. p 7,39 7,97 w.e

- iu s av a.s n.o n. : iid M % s, n

, sj.,

g3 u

n (

  • s,a. e - va. x, u i.., g,b.15
e. 33 c.fa 0.50

_0_.3 3..

c_. $_0 _

g v,,,,,,, o

\\- _~7, O

~7, 4 1 9.17

't. T.

9.47 k

j io) r w n. e

- 2 r.... r. ~ ~t. _ _ _l. _o.

. L J 3,. _ _ y.o _i 2._9_ _ _3 _. o j,. tsi u

I,'g 3.O R 5'b

?. 4 '1 1 0,'f L

?.S io,7 /

~itS*681

% a n.t. w..w m..i,,u.e.,,g i t t l.l a* b L P4 =a d a.J ( t) a9 U d(L)J A,us t ww t r A v i f M e 'I I ( 1)

A id"ra

=>si~a e a a ~ ** '

_m.

Asst (,+8m8 M

>i

o wr s. : _._

sama:

snuss. esus.sry :.Sw% \\v %9 Nam ( i# d m' u.(o.cc.taew ec4u m 40 E

i I

so.w or,wou e s' d* m ysus

u. % aoveug.

m g.

gmg D ri.

.. w av sreuu i

s n u si,7

~-.9 * $ %

0,. [ -M R.

o.S M.

c nausiaa r nes s.ay

$ twat- **"-** */ N a d ' '

veseus.u,=as.iy mis.s AGs.'

s an..

e.s1 s o.s. u

..u u. a.s.

. o.n e.c a) t..

oisc,. Gas c is r..u.n.) - - - --

g).ru* r* e.f

  • 5 ~4**)

,.is e + < '

n. ors.1 c) are s. = 1 To y,,,,,,,,

r.u s.a***. :

wve. -

-._. t_r_

e

_o _s..r_ _

_ _ r_ _

_o _. s r_

_ e_. r_r_ _ _ o_. _r_ _..s

3) m.a s.r.

a c,.

g) c., t c...a n

g___

a o.2 e a, e., g r s c.,,

-,,.nu,<.1 a.an. : -

I f.. so o.22 a $_o s.33 c.fe T

6.33

.'_ n3,,,.

1 g v,

,- _. o nu

1. 8, q,,,

1, 9 i.) u N G a.<

a sa w==n

.M_

_.03_. t. J.1.

_ g 2, _,_6.L. _ :, 1 1

13 A.,$

~7, 6 I 4,09 q,o q

'i,96 g.9 )

I o 4 4

s.n.ac4 g,n.., m,. il e m + e, e s.n.

e m ro.L.

<,asa u s a4 m(o.

_05. _a.:M. _e:2.r_,

a5

_c. a E.

S a t... _ 5 5 -

10 r = ni~a * -"'

-1, fr 6 3 5{, T'33 10.1 9 _ T.R to A9 A**i"*"

]y&

N:& LamMi D ATf

// /2J/ff SpG _

6

/*

(SG.coeo Q(yg.

Soffour L en.

yrse.tA t.

trA r t. s vy.

Amou w s' f

9

[ (,

p.es^. o 8,.

d* M A W SAtt

=%

A0vtAsr w t.

_A eV W UE a

'7.18 j'S(

~1 54 ? 'Oi

'?. S k 9.34 0 r m.'Af*'** k %..-,

% saur%

.s

.s

_m,9 c.. m..... e-9 Y t'M
  • L-
  • l%'***'

0'SY O'C8 0'SY O'G1 0 5+

0' C 5 39**"***'J' 772 1 24 s.o $

1 75 i 'f _

I 0 0 2.

T*

"^#

a 0 7t o.75 a ot o.y y m:

See f.ed Psyr O'S3 %

0. $a nA.

s.13 ns.

c.ge O. M c. g*

a) tensiuc,. Gaw c,, ia muui ) -- - --

10.5 8.tl 110

%.7F II s

-8 05

5).tn.awu r. e.es swdowy 0 0$

p,og

.o.og 0 0t o.og 0.a C

,.i m,

$.g % -se.

See Firs 7 N:

S.I 10 5's g.?C

/s.oe gm:

To

o. o o.,
o. o
a.,

o,,

() Ere s w en

~

S'I 10 S C 2 YC II.oc 1'71 11.5C l

p.s. m,< iso cr.

m,m:

SpJ rt *.

See Fi rsT Cage l

e. 0
e. o o.1 c.o c.o c.0 m. m, u a o. - -

$* I lo.$G

$'YG ll QC T*l$

H.$ C

- Q l 8 w e6. w --

=

~%Y W o.1 f.)3 09 o.1 I.l3

1. I 3-.-.-

J. A.

2.a g r w c. rn..

10-Il C1 1 36 la 11 f.cf

12. gi -

m ustaa.:

g e ass..

Set ft& Fsy 0 32 0.y7

a. 2 9 "

o.+7 0.21

0. f7

-3 c $.0 C. 1.T C.fa 0.3 b 33 a. 50 g m.,,,. c, 9 65 l2 CG 1 18' IB.lg t o. 3 g 13,qg VA r*

l i d) rana.~

0 C2

0. 7 7 0.C 3 c.77 o c.1 0 77 s a,n,er s o s s -

1 13N3 l o. G I3 13 10 13 It&3

~ t.sh W 10.2 7-see F: r 21-Piet.

g a.rs. t l

f** a '* "T 91C......_9.E.!_

o..3E.

8..r.g,,,,o,:,t,y,

,ogg, n') e nos.s n ie+<

ksssw mar *f 10 52

13. c g' to.g5 (p.tg II.It jy.cg

./

v f

e J

,s.

a.

M44

(:n w e uc, u.,v ' wa m ' ' )

~

\\

m s' m e ST C H A t LE s SFlost. thousry-theset op Ameows '

'2-f g en.m t A W R S E. 4 %t.

%v sus

% gg n

8N Il. i$

'3 3 I 2' T l l.13 14. (of C) ms... An.n.i9% wr s pacas.

nuusy : 69 alm oo D o

HA e

a e.

ene,s ay y-1.')

e ets <.v ss s a ra,, r

3) T AAve' Nab /Nc*di <-

--O I o '.>

/ ')

I03

<. 9_9.

. 5' '

3P * *' "5"7' 4 67 12.i 2 10 !j 13.1%

g qq g gg 7

m sus Ase.$ %1 ge w

,,.tv #

4 rf i t, :

-9 : u i m > <, t r._ e.

l l

C.33 W-C. 50 Htt.

6.35 %

0.50 O* M C. $"

l a) toncino. (mw (, ia Na.at.t.m.) - - - --

Z r n.00 I24}_

\\) c6 l o. G 1 2. 5 l 19.

5)T(tad'"fa]PE B*"40%)

4 031..

.g _o,3 6

._0_. o_.3_1.o._o i_b_

_0 031

_o_. 2..f.

.o iusAc,c s i

l

a.. ors.t m.+ m. e. < c, a io,og i, <.,

1049 I3 72, 12 3.'

(4. 2. 2.

,, s, g V

.= )t' to Q sp e s..,

ro **. +.-

.=,

g.,s,,,,,,vo u e.,

mite. Ace. :

ace re_.

9.* I.I o 7 {.

_c_i.r c.zr

- _ r_ _ -. _. t r o.t c

p m o aviott44 0 Q ' g.a sverudG f.E N TTA TC g r s c rn..

mLLEA0f!

It o OT O'03 0' SO O.33 o.$0 6.13 c.fo Q v ^o a o s c.

[c) TttA4GL Myor3 C "1"11 "M

Ba.Se TJ 00 D a

(to o y c. '.

[

l

.m*

WD4

.e t r.

o. _. _t.r.

o z_r_

o_._zy c z.r.

gg pn.oe.a ss yc.,

pro a. e4 c.w.T

o.._t r.

AS Sl (rd M f

(?

Attachments 2,4,6 and 16 are oversized and are available upon request

L.E, late 3131/44 Setstracted esplicate of LILCO trace SEttCAA 50$tifAL IVACBATIOR FULL 10 NILE-E&I. 7158 Vit!CLES SC85&t10:, LIL-F10 Asseer: Ban..se:

12.34 16.22 17.23 l

u.e us scr oal'"""*"'"

"""5saser Adverse"*

'"Mister Adverse" Botes Casslative 81strib Itas Lestti Scale Sist. Speed Tase 1ss flee Speed flee saa tiet flee See flee 81 stance Sea time unere 11.1 Aabal arrive at trests.

2.50 2.54 2.54 2.58 2.66 2.66

!apet distrbatica 0.01 2.50 at stent.

17.2 tracesslag at Sr 6.54 3.08 0.54 3.00 8.11 3.19 frocesstaa tiae 4.01 3.40 process 18.86 3.12 at 5.1.

11.3 Travel to 54!!. Infits.

18.66 0.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.11 4.40 Actuals.983,1.120 18.56 4.25 load it.Ill 1.84 28.40 8.09 16.44 8.12 8.12 19.89 4.56 at Irt 8dtg Lit 56-66 14.39 20.88 0.12 16.00 0.90 0.96 46.86 6.66 at Sec so I !II/LI Av.

3.54 6.59 1.83 20.04 4.89 16.00 0.11 0.12 Cale dist 2.01 46.86 6.99 saload 64.30

.61 at treet.

11.4 Leadist 0.33 4.25 8.58 4.64 8.53 4.9) 68.38

.86 process Geese at 3.I. (?)

0.17 4.81 8.10 5.11 Soces. saclear 18.36 8.48 at 8.1.

18.36 1.14 loedes 17.5 Trv to IFt bosadry 1.83 6.00 0.31 4.56 5.08 8.31 5.10 0.39 5.50 40.19 8.19 at tri bLy 11.6.8 8ert to secpt easp.

26.97 2.11 6.66 2.64 f.81 2.88 8.38 T. A. Bosp.

107.16 9.70 at tec to 111 66-55 15.43 15.08 1.03 12.09 1.29 1.31 181.16 18.31 g e said LII 55-13 2.25 15.00 0.11 12.08 8.19 8.24 128.68 10.93 at treat.

$sste /fsl/86Ct/ul 15.14 4.59 9.29 18.05 0.93 8.58 1.16 1.23 120.68 11.13 procesa h 31.45 11.98 at st Cha Other 131.45 12.31 g e load 11.1 nositettal 6.66 1.81 8.38 somit at S.I.

138.52 12.34 at Ett bd 11.9 aslead 0.33 6.99 4.51 8.32 8.54 8.04 Act 31,.1, diff talance 11.18 Tru to treatuced.

13.43 4.62 1.61 0.17 9.89 0.82 9.66 ctier all4&Cn/ Pal /3ankes 9.29 28.80 0.46 16.40 8.5i 8.61 Fercest Distributicas 111 5345 2.25 80.00 8.06 32.88 0.81 8.Bi ites Distance i faae t

at.111 1.89 28.88 4.69 16.88 8.12 0.11 strt-disp 3.58 8.28 31.11 Processing 6.25 7.86 8.25 9.38 8.21 9.92 frv-eeply 19.84 6.58 3.49 0.20 10:413g 4.99 8.68 23.3 T:s ta saff. Inf.

18.06 0.54 8.48 8.68 18.02 8.12 18.65 frv f all 58.68 8.42 3.48 8.20 3t.111 I.84 28.48 0.89 16.08 0.12 8.12 Quesist 0.38 0.82 LII 16-66 14.39 45.00 8.36 32.88 6.45 9.46 talcadag 8.65 8.05 at 101/Llav 1.81 20.80 8.09 16.00 0.11 0.12 TOTAL 138.52 1.80 12.34 1.88 Queso at 8.I.

0.01 0.98 I.08 Documentajien asclear.

23.4 Leadtag 0.33 8.14 8.58 11.50 8.13 12.22 23.5 tre to Ift terf 1.83 35.88 8.05 8.19 38.44 8.86 11.56 0.86 12.28 23.0 frv to tecpt. Bosp.

26.97 0.91 9.14 1.13 12.69 l.28 13.49 Actual.9 LII 66-55 15.43 48.88 8.39 32.88 0.48 8.51 LII 55-53 2.25 48.08 8.06 32.80 8.87 8.41 saatentral/86th/n1 15.18 0.59 9.29 28.88 8.46 16.00 4.58 0.62 Other goeee at tecpt. Bosp {f) 4.29 8.41 0.58 Ocess, asclear 23.9 Beloodlat 0.32 18.31 8.58 13.66 0.53 14.52 23.14 frv to treatsoed 13.43 0.62 10.93 0.17 14.43 0.82 15.34 speeds lev, relative to reverse other Bil86Cn/rel/Santes 9.29 28.00 8.46 16.86 0.58 8.62 1115345 2.25 48.88 8.86 32.88 8.07 0.81 It.111 1.89 28.84 4.09 16.00 0.12 6.13 23.11 Frecesalag 8.25 11.18 0.25 14.64 8.27 35.68 st. Charles Bosp. 3'id Nave 8C.3 fro to St. Charles 16.85 4.88 11.98 1.04 15.64 l.06 16.66 8t.111 4.88 21.80 0.28 16.88 8.25 s.21 It. 341 10.94 28.00 8.55 16.94 8.68 8.12 It 25A/Errt/8 esp 3.18 4.63 1.95 35.94

  • 86 30.08 8.41 8.81 St.4 Leadlag 8.33 12.31 9.54 16.18 8.51 11.19 5C.5 frv to IFt bdr Bosp/eftt/t 25A t.7,0 4.63 1.81 35.00 0.43 12.34 38.80 8.84 16.22 0.06 17.23

l Attachinents 2,4,6 and 16 are oversized and are available upon request l

l l

l

(

I I

l l

I

BASIC FREEWAY SEGh.Em 35

}GN spfE0 h

e.g,ones

-4 NTDtWRT

~

60 MPH Q

f

~N 3

N E

A N

A

\\

40-

\\

  1. 30 i

15

/

y0

,o e2

'n

[h.

l Y.

Y s**

b a

L

'O

.-)g3 ap * **

- * ' ~ ~ ~

O i

i i

a i

i 2

4 6

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 VOL/LN(100peph)

(0.1)

(0.21 (03) (04) (Q5) (06) (Q7) ( 0. 9 ) tO9) (to) et R atio **

a conocity em v/c roteo t>ased on ?xopecto vahd oriy for-60 and 70-MPH design speeds Figure 3 4. Speedpow relationships under ideal conditiona

1. Dere is a substantial range of flow over which speed is ally forcing drivers closer together laterally. Again, drivers gen-relatively insensitive to flow; this range extends to fairly hip,h erally compensate by leaving more distance between vehicles in flow rates.

the same lane.

2. As flow approaches capacity, speed drops oli at an ex.

When drivers allow longer spacing for a given speed, the tremely sharp rate.

volume accommodated decreases. De same effect can be viewed in revene-for a given spacing, drivers will slow down when These chuacteristics are most pronounced for 70 mph design lateral clearance and/or lace width restrictions exist-again speed freeway elements. As capacity is approached, small resulting in reduced flow.

changes in volume or rate of flow will produce extremely large Illustrations 31 and 3 2 depict the impacts oflane width and changes in operating coriditions, i.e., speed and density. byel-lateral clearance on freeway flow, n,

of service criteria for freeways reflect this, with the poorer levels

2. Reduced design speed-As indicated in Figure 3 3, a re-defined for reasonably '.arge ranges in speed and density, while duction in the design speed of a freeway segment below 70 mph the corresponding range in flow rates is quite small, will have a substantial unpact on freeway operations. Because restrictive geometrics require greater vigilance on the part of the driver, observed speeds for any given volume will generally Factors Affecting Mew Under ideal Conditions be lower than on similar segments of 70-mph design.
3. Trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles-ne presence of Any prevailing condition that differs from the ideal conditions vehicles other than passenger cars in the traffic stream affects defined above will cause changes in the typical speed flo,<-den-flow in two ways: (a) such vehicles are larger than passenger sity relationship.

can, and therefore occupy more roadway space than passenger cars, and (b) the operating capabilities of such vehicles (accel-

1. Lane width and lateral clearance When lane widths are eration, deceleration, maintenance of speed, etc.) are generally less than 12 ft, drivers are forced to travel laterally closer to inferior to those of passenger can; when intro 6ced into a mixed one another than they would normally desire. Drivers tend to trafic stream, these different performance capabilities lead to compensate for this by obsemns longer spacings between ve.

the formation of gaps in the trafic stream that cannot be readily bicles in the same lane.

filled by passing maneuven.

De effect of restricted lateral clearance is similar. When De second impact is particularly significant on long sustained roadside or median objects are located too close to the pavement upgrades, on which trucks may be forced to slow considerably, edge, drivers tend to "shy" away from them, positioning them.

thereby creating extremely large gaps in the traffic stream.

selves further from the pavement edge than under normal or Illustrations 3 3 and 3-4 depict the impact of trucks and other ideal conditions. his has the same effect as narrow lanes, usu-heavy vehicles on freeway traffic streams.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD IH2 61 Enhanced FREFLO:

Modeling of g h gr Congested Environments 8

AJAY K. RATm, EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN, AND MARK YEDI.IN Preliminary work with the FREFLO macroscopic freeway namic interaction parameters, and by provision of a discon-traffic simulation model has revealed some limitations in the tinuous, speed-density relationship. Preliminary tests with model's ability to realistically simulate some congested Sow these modi 6 cations produced satisfactory results under moder-conditions. The formulation and implementation of an ap.

ately congested conditions. Problems were still evident under proach that modines FREFLO so as to address these limita-

-- 3ested con.d.i.t.i.o.E.d a more fundamental a

~

~

~

~

severely con tions is described. This apprcach yields realistic simulation Babcock et Ta. (3) suggeste results for moderate, as well as severe, congested now condi.

tions.The basic formulation of FRERO.ad the modlScations alleviate this problem-spatial discretization of the congested under this approach are presented. The problems observed dow sections. Using a test network with bottleneck conditions, under congested How conditions are described and simulation it was showT1 that the simulation accuracy depended on the results from test networks are shown.

length of the spatial steps and that very small spatial steps were required to realistically simulate congested conditions. Because such a discrete model would require excessive computing time, FREFLO, developed by Payne (1), is a macroscopic simulation tw adaptive schemes were presented: heurisde and nantral.

model of freeway traf5c. The model is useful for the analysis of The heuristic scheme places subdivisions within a subsection freeway operations because it allows users to simulate a wide nly where and when they are needed. Such determinauens are range of freeway conditions at modest cost. Rus, it is possible made on the basis of geometry and now level and are repeated to quantify the effects of projected changes in travel demand, at regu ar, upset intenals s at te freeway is always as wel! as those from proposed operational improvements.

pr perly, but not excessively, subdivided.

Use of FREFLO in several applications has shown that the

  • arbitrary, often conservative, spatial discretizau,on of the modelis limited in its ability to realisucally simulate congested Sow conditions. Various approaches have been suggested by W ' * " "# ""

implemented through reformulation of the model into a Payne and others to resolve this l.unitation, ne approaches Lagrangian (moving) reference frame. The Lagrangian refer-require either some special user inputs for the congested free-ence frame differs from the Eulerian (statienary) reference way secuons (2) or more substanual computing time (3).

frame of FRFFLO in that all changes are measured relative to a With support from FHWA, a new approach to this problem particle in motion with the local now. Due to this moving was formulated and implemented. The approach described in frame, the convecdon term in the FREFLO dynamic speed this paper p:rmits a realisuc simulauon under moderately, as relationship is not needed. Yhus, discretizadon becomes a natu-well as severely, congested dow conditions. At the same time, nl part of the state equations.

no foreknowledge of congested locations or special user inputs These adaptive schemes were able to reduce the computing are required. De approach also preserves the computational t me to a fraction of the time required by the r.onacaptive ef5ciency of FREFLO.

scheme. Of the two schemes, the natur'al adaption scheme was more accurate and ef5cient The FRECON model (3) was developed by implementing DACKGROUND the heuristic adaption scheme in FREFLO. It wu calibrated and validated using 6ve peak pericdJ' v'

% h FREFLO simulates the Sow of trafSe on freeway networks Monica Freeway in I at Aneeles. With the exception of a using an aggregate variable formulation based on suitably mod-complex collector-distributor geometry, the simuladon results iAed analogies of Auid Bow. He model, successor to MACK II, were generally in agreement with the field data, was developed to evaluate the consequences of different de-Although the spatial discreuzation approachis appealing, it signs, expressed in terms of trafSc operadonal measures of hu some limitations. Despite the adaptive scheme, the comput-effectiveness.

ing time requirements for proper discredzation in large, con-Initial work with this model revealed that FREFLO was gested networks can be costly. Furthermore, FRECON's ability limited in its ability to realistically simulate congested now to simulate severely congested now conditions hu not been condidons (1). His problem was traced to the discontinuity in demonstrated.

l the now-density relations))ip Ltheptof,conge$flo'ndit FREFLO itself is presently incorporated within the,,I((4) li6iuiand to the transformation of the model's formulation frW*

simulation system. ne system allows FREFLO to interface I

Yontinuous to discrete oomainEr implementation on a

. with other simulation models that can represe'nt bbon

~

computer.

terials. u41n streets, andstral road envi ts athin the

~ lape (5) addressed this problem with some modi $ cations to M%ystem,an equilibriurrtt_rafne anignroemqqdeLu Traf s M 'a.prn.y.ide y&meand routine information to_

the equilibrium speed-density reladonship, calibradon of dy-FREFLO.

XLD Associates, Inc.,300 Broadway, ihnungton Stanon, N.Y.11746.

~~Tril system was developed and is supported under

m-

~

62 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH REC JRD 1112 contract to FHWA. It is currendy in a limited distribution and Conservation:

j hu been used by both the Utah and Kansu Depanments of

+ f - g' - f*f,'

(3) p"' = p' + l#1 -q' 0'

Transportation to sunulate traf5c operadons in complex free-j j

j j

j way and street networks. During some simulation runs, unre.

alistically high densities were observed on links in the con-gested sections of the freeway network.

With support from FHWA, it was decided to modify the Dynamic speed-density:

current fccmulation of FREFLO to address the observed defi-

~

ciencies. Rese ireprovements were designed to be transparent t,,, 3, _ j (u/ - u't) to the user in both his input. specifications and computer time

,i, i

/

Mj requirements.

are presented in this paper. The problems observed under y "j - "e(Pf) + V (pf i _ pl) -

The basic FREFLC formulation and its recent improvements

~g (4) g#

congested flow conditions are described. Ter* results are shown and compared with FRECON and the cunent version of where FREFLO.

cunent point in time (superscript);

n =

j= current section (subscript);

FREFLO lj= number of lanes along section,j; length of section,j; and axj

=

FREFLO is based on a continuum representation of traffic, at =

time step.

desenbed in terms of the following equations:

Equation 5 relates volume, density and speed under uniform ap + g " II*)

(I)

F dx conditions within a section.

0" I

E=ub i u - u,(p) + v (2)

Flow:

dx ox 1l = plul (5) teo (atu.c= w 1.nce.=1 vecuan) ap.bbnaml where This relationship is adapted from several attematives'primarily because of stability consideradons (5). He terms "section" dens.ity of vehicles, p(x, t)

=

,g,,33,* ue used 'merchageably.

space.mean speed, Although Equations 3-5 form the basis of the simulation u(x,t)

=

TC#' ')

U * '****

model, some modifications are required to make provisions for net now en:ering freeway section*

f(x, t)

=

the links at the boundaries of freeway segments, that is, lid:s equilibrium speed-denstty relat2onship' with no adjoining upstream or downstream lids. ne boundry u,(p)

=

T=

relaxation coefficient, coMitions ue set u follow anticipation coefficient, v =

position along the freeway, and u): = u" f no adjoining upstream IMk x =

i = time.

1 E

Equation 1 of the continuum formulation represents the conservation of vehicles. The variablef(x, t) thus corresponds Some other modifications in computing upstream speed and to on. ramp and oE. ramp traffic. The dpiamic speed-density downstream density--in the dynamic speed-density eqi:a-relationship is contained in Equation 2. De three groups of tion-are required to represent the general freeway subnetwork terms in Equation 2 represent three components of the time rate link of Traf (see Figure 2) wherein a link can have two feeder of change of speed:(a) convection, the ecect of vehicles from and two receiver links (6). His feature allows for the simula.

upstream arriving at this point; (b) relaxation to equilibrium, tion of merging and diverging freeways.

the eEcct of drivers adjusting their speeds to the equilibrium For a general freeway link, the upstream speed and down-speed-density relationship; and (c) anticipation, the cHect of stream density are computed u the weighted average of the drivers reacting to changing travel conditions ahead, that is, to flow according to the following relations:

(decrease, increase) speed in anticipation of (higher, lower) 1 g"I Pp,j density downstrcam.

,,497,+1P,j+u'I p

g The discrete, computer implementable equations from the g/

f", 'I continuum formulation were derived by spatial averaging and j

Euler integration (5) Corresponding to the freeway section in Figure 1, the transformed equations are ef = 0 (6) l l

Rashi et al.

63 direction of travel location

)

section length ex) s)

a r-e)(t)

~

pgttp q)(t) q u (t)

/

\\

        • ** 0 f)on(t) f)ott(t)

FIGURE 1 Freeway seenon depicting aggregate variables for a discrete formulation.

e i

1 I

l first through povement I

i target node

  1. 1

$* special purpose lares 4 first feeding link first through movement 1Lak

)

(

serord feedteg link secc.sd througn roverent lirJ4 regular use lanes f2 second thros1h novesent target ecds on ramp off ramp source node target node FIGURE 2 General freeway subnetwork link.

3 t.

Ha = 0; q7 *1 = 0 (7) qf a exit Bow rate on linkj over time step a,

=

j pf = density of vehicles downstream oflink j at the beginning of the time step a, p,*i ( *1 Pj,,i + p*2 @' I,2 py = density of vehicles on link j at the end of

/-

time step a, p; =

9f'*'

P

=

fraction of Sow rate of link i that enters link q

ef *8 = 0 (8)

/.

fi = first feeding link, second feeding link,

/2

=

Arst receiving link, and r3 =

second receiving link.

p; = 0; qf *3 = 0 (9) r2 =

where PRODLEMS space mean speed of vehicles upstuam of UJ = linkj at the beginning of time step n, *ne departments of transportation in Utah and Kansas have u) = space mean speed of vehicles on linkj at the been using Traf to simulate traf6c operations on some large end of time step n, networks, which included arterials, freeways, and feeder g7, a entry Sow rate on link j over time step a, streets. Due to capacity problems and demand pattem in the

=

=

~_

. - =

~.

~s.

.,,emne.v~w

%l 64 TRAVSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1112 freeway corridor, some sections of the freeway network experi-reaches 252 vehicles per lanc mile, which is higher than attain-enced severe congestion. Durms simulation runs, FREFLO did able. His occurs because the anticipation term in the dynamic not re8ect the effects of these severely congested conditions as speed relationship (Equation 4) used by FREFLO underesti-might be e7pected. Two problems were observed:

mates the extent that speeds would be reduced in response to severe downstream congestion. After 260 sec, the outaow from

1. The densities on the congested freeway links were unre-Section 5 has dropped to zero and its density increases rapidly.

alistically high u more vehicles were allowed to enter a con-Although discharge flow is terminated from Section 5, the Sow gested link than could be physically accommodated. Conse.

entering downstream Sections 6 and 8 is not immediately quently, the congestion did not propagate upstream as reduced. Because volumes entering a section are computed at

.e expected.

the beginning of a time slice, feeding flow may lag by one time

2. In cases where one leg of a diverging freeway secdon slice if a link is processed before its feeder (s).

experienced severe congestion, the density and entering vol.

For the next time slice, Equation 9 is applied to compute the urnes on the other noncongested leg were much lower than downstream density on Sections 6 and 8 as zero because the expected.

outflow rate from Section 5 is zero. As a consequence of this spurious result, Section 5 discharges vehicles to both Sections 6 The simuladon results in Table 1 from a test network shown and 8 to the maximum extent possible.

in Figure 3 illustrate Gese problems. For this test network, the Also, the density on Sections 6 ar.d 8 decreases because flow entry volume wu set to 2,500 vehicles per hou2 (vph). The was terminated from Section 5 du ing the previous time slice.

capacity of Sections 1-7 and 8-10 was set to 3,000 vph and he indicated decrease in density in Seedon 6 is unrealistic 1,000 vph, respectively, ne turn specificadons from Section 5 because under 6ese conditions only the flow entering the to Sections 6 and 8 were such that the expected demand on congested receiver (Section 8) should be reduced and not the Sation 8 was 1,875 vph. With this demand, capacity flows flow entering Section 6. This result occurs because the current were expected in Sections 8 through 10 and queuing on Section formulation of FREFLO does not consider the downstrearn 5 and upstream. A time slice, At, of 4 see was used.

density of each receiver separately when outSow is computed Because the inflow rate exceeds the outaow capacity, the in a diverging scenario. Instead a single, weighted downstream density on Section 8 increases with time (T,ble 1). ne inflow

. density is cornputed based on the flow for each movemen1. This rate starts to dectease u the feeder link (Section 5) responds to formulation allows maxim'An outflow from the feeding secdon, the dontstream congestion by reducing the outSow. Due to this tereby increasing the fensity still further on the congested reduction in outdow, the density on Section 5 also increues receiver. This problem is exhibited in Table 1 at time 230.

with time.

In the subsegaent time slices, flow continues to enter Section After only 180 see of simulation, the density on Section 8 8 despite unrealistically high densides within the section. As a TABLEI TEST NETWORK S!MUuTION RESULTS-4URRENT FREFLO rime in out in out in out q

nee 5

5 s

5 6

6 6

6 e

s 8

8 60 2498 2419 23.2 45.2 605 598 6.0 50.3 1814 1048 119.0 0.0 120 2491 2347 30.6 36.9 S &0 583 6.3 46.2 1771 1030 187.3 5.2 180 2464 2117 40.1 24.1 547 540 6.5 40.9 1638 1019 251.5 3.9 1 90 2484 2441 42.8 21.5 529 443 6.5 39.0 1588 1012 260.6 3.0 2 00 2441 1930 45.7 13.4 Sc4 468 5.9 38.7 1512 1015 267.2 3.7 210 2462 1764 49.4 14.9 482 475 6.2 17.6 1447 1012 274.5 3.6 220 2470 1548 54.5 10.7 441 446 6.2 36.2 1323 1cCS 260.0 3.5 230 2462 1195 61.3 5.8 387 414 6.2 34.7 1161 1004 285.5

3. 5 240 2462 648 70.6 0.2 299 374 6.0 33.0 896 990 207.8
3. 5 250 2448 14 83.9 0.1 162 302 5.4 31.1 45 6 983 286.4 3.5 260 2476 0

102.3 0.0 4

216

.2 30.9 11 972 277.8 3.7 270 2412 1303 120.5 11.6 0

140 0.0 40.8 0

965 0.0 1.9 280 2362 2632 128.6 7.1 326 148 1.6 35.1 977 979 249.4 4.0 290 2333 1570 126.6 3.4 658 256 2.9 33.5 1974 1015 249.4 3.9 300 2354 1224 132.2 5.5 392 385 5.9 32.4 1177 1015 243.4 3.8 360 2290 1526 110.3 4.3 382 382 5.8 32.6 1141 1004 271.6 3.7 540 1519 1498 172.2 4.3 374 374 5.8 32.5 1123 1001 303.5 3.3 120 1523 1494 186.6 4.0 371 371 5.7 32.4 1112 997 335.5 3.0 900 1483 1483 187.7 4.0 371 371 5.0 32.3 1112 997 368.1 2.7 q

  • entry flow rate on link 3 tvehicles/ hour) q

= entting flow rate on i

lint 3 tvehicles/ hour) 0

  • corysted density on lint j at the beetnetee of time slice (venicles/ lane-sale)

= computes speed on link j at the d of time slice (s611es/ hour)

Radi er al.

e e

section t

2 s

4 5

4 7

O r

8 section Length

.i O

sections 1-10 1000' capacity i

sections 1-7 1s00 vehicles / hour-lane sections 8 10 1000 vehicles / hour-lane FIGURE 3 Nonlinear test network.

result. congestion prepagates upstream much more slowly that.

evaluate the effects of these modifications, traffic Bow was expected. The entering volume and density on Section 6, on the simulated for both straight and diverging freeway sections. For ether hand, are smaller than expected.

both configurations, congestion was created with capacity con-straints. The results are described in the following sections.

MODIFICATIONS TO FREFLO DIVERGING FREEWAY SECTION The problem of excessively high densities on congested links

~

was addressed through an approach that not only provides a After FREFLO was modi 5ed to incorporate the new congestion sensible description of traffic operations during congested now mechanism, simulation was again performed on the test ner.

conditiert. but also eliminates the necessity of specific user work shown in Figure 3. The new results are eresanted in Ta%e inputs for congested freeway sections. The approach also pre.

2. Note that all figures represent values associated wirt. irs a serves the computational efficiency of FREFLO. Under this smgle time slice, or, of 4.sec duration; these are not time-approach, now restrictions were implem<nted on the ccngesteci averaged values.

links and speeds were computed considering congestion cn the In comparison with the original FREFLO results (Table 1), it links rather than using the dynamic speed equation of is seen that tre modified FREFLO produced much lower and FRFFLO. The densities, of course, were then computed from more realistic densities in the congested Sections 5 anj 8.The the conservation equation. Becacse the <*ynvruc-speed-den-maximurr value of density computed for any one time s'. ice sity equation is not used under severely congested conditions, under the new logic was 152 vehicles per lane. mile compared recalibration and reformulation of FREFLO are not required.

with a maximum value of 368.1 vehicles per lane. mile under The problems associated with the computation of Aow rate current FREFLO.

for the case of imbalanced downstream density were addressed The congestion on Section 8 also propagates upstream to by weighting the downstream density e_ffelc of_1wo discharging Section 5 much faster as a result of the modifications. As m6Wn'ein~s iiri'thCbTsis1f' overall tuming percentage rather shown in Table 2, the outfiow from Section 5 to Section 8 was ihTri"En'the-instantaneous.6ow rtres. 'Ifus weightmg scheme ^

reduced to zero at 70 see of simulation after the density on ensures that the computed densities reAect the actual conditions Section 8 reached a congested level of 122 vehicles per lane.

downstream of the sectice. The flow percentage. based weight.

mile. In the original run (Table 1) outnow from Section 5 was ing scheme is equivalent to the now rate. based weighting not cut off in any time step until 270 see of simulation; at that scheme (Equation 8) u long u the outSow from the feed,:r time the density on Section 8 had reached 278 vehicles per section is not terminated.

lane. mile.

The modifications are applied, in general, whenever the With the new logic the density continued to build on Section density of a section exceeds a prespecified congestion value.

5 until it too became congested. Entry Sow to Section 5 was regardless of geometric configuration. In the absence of con-ultimately reduced to zero at 220 see of simulation. In the gestion, simulation is performed using the current FREFLO original run, the entry Sow to Section 5 wu never restricted to formulation. The modifications are described in detail zero.

After Section 8 reached a congested density at 60 see of i elsewhere (7).

i simulation, a realistic stop.ar}tgo_ pat.tetn.pimterina hw wai.

established under the modined FRgQhtermittent en.

SIMULATION RESULTS "try now panem was not 00 served m the original run. _

~ In addition to these umm.sms 4or the congested links, i

The simulation program wu modified to include the special the modified FREFLO also allowed a higher level of now into congestion scenarios desenbed above. Under these modifica.

uncongested Section 6. With the modifications, the density and tions, the special,,r,eatropntlet contested links was applied entering volumes on Section 6 wars less affected by the con-

~

t whenever link 6nsity exceeded l20_ vehacles pe? lanc mile: To gestion on Section 8 than they had been under current

....... =

L._ _. _

_~~

n,_

Wo rR d o fVSPORTATION RESEARCH TR 66 s

TABLE 2 VOLUhE LEAVINO SECTIONS (vehides/ hour NT FRER.O Time in out in cd.

in Out 9

9 9

asec) 5 5

5 "5

6 6

  • 6 "6

8 9

. 8 Y

30 2491 2419 24.6 48.3 605 590 5.7 51.9 1814 1062 88.9 10.6 40 2498 2419 25.1 47.2 605 598 5.8 51.3 1814 1055

  • 9.9 9.5 50 2491 2412 23.7 46.1 605 598 5.9 50.7 1814 1051 111.0 8.6 60 2498 598 26.3 30.1 605 598 6.0 50.2 1811 1048 122.2
7. 8 70 2491 605 40.2 22.4 598 562 6.0 42.8 0

983 133.4; 7.9 80 2477 2639 54.1 27.7 605 526 6.2 39.3 0

936 119.0 8.9 90 2441 - 2898 52.9 29.4 659 558. 6.8 41.1 198 1004 105.2 l

8.9 100 2441 2984 49.5 31 4 724 644 7.6 42.0 2174 1062 119.5 7.8 7.0 135.}

110 2470 727 46.2 24.6 720 691 e.1 42.9 2164 1054 152..

6.9 120 2984 727 59.0 20.2 727 698 8.3 40.2 994 130 2484 727 71.9 17.1 727 677 8.6 38.4 0

943 137.4 7.7 140 2441 727 84.7 14.9 727 684 8.9 37.1 0

930 123.5 8.6 150 2419 2905 97.3 15.7 724 684 9.2 36.3 (07 929 109.'

9.7 160 2398 2927 93.7 16.4 727 698 9.6 36.5 2173 1012 96.0 9.5 200 2470 727 111.4 11.8 734 713 9.9 35.6

' O' 940 131.5 8.0 210 2426 2934 124.1 12.3 727 713 10.1 35.1 0

932 117.6 9.0 220 0 282C 120.4 13.7 734 720 10.2 35.3 2200 1015 103.9 8.8 300 2076 745' 133.5 10.0 752 73t 10.4 34.9

[0 997 145.5 7.3 600 2506 634 99.4 11.3 637 671 9.8 35.4 f 0 990 140.0 7.6 900 2232 634 96.5 11.8 634 640 9.8 35.6 Q. 990 147.0 7.0 q

= e n t.a/ flow rate on 14.m 3 (sehicles/ hear) q

  • exit 1*v flow rate tank 3 (vemt:1esshoat, cerpated Jesssty on 1tr.X j at the te:ie-t-s' tire sit ee h er.1;les /lar e tie) c 7

s co pated speed e. lan 3 at two ed of st e sitee &tles W..

a e

FREFLO. The traf$c densides in Secdons 1-10 under modined LINEAR FREEWAY SECTION FREFLO are given in Table 3. The results show the spread cf congestion upstream of Seedon 8 as expected. Such timely This test section (Figure 4) was identical to the bottleneck propagadon of congestion to upstream sections was not ob-geome:ry used by Babcock et al. (4) in their demonstration of served under the cunent version of FREFLO.

the effect of spadal discretization. The traffic Sow in this Thus, the m_odi6ed__FREFL_O, allows, for stop-and.go opera-network simulated for a period of 10 min usin's both current tiogtraffic,,only onto the con:ested bii5cl)Erdibrg16g FREFLO and its modined ver5 ion. The lane capacity wu set to freeway section. Neither the current FREFLO nor FRECON 2.000 vph and entry volume was set to 4,500 vph. With this fias such77e~s~ponse mechanism; that is, the now is terminated demand level and capacity specificadon, capacity flows were to both receivers. Therefore. both FRECON and current expected in Sections 6 through 10 and queueing on sections FREFLO are limited in their applicability for diverging free-upstream of Section 6.

way sections operating under congested conditions.

Tables 4 through 9 give the simulated output volumes and TABLE 3 NONLINEAR TEST NETWORK SIMULATION RESULTS-MODIFED FREFLO Time Section (min.)

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 1

24.0 23.9 23.7 23.8 40.2 6.0 5.6 133.4 48.9 30.5 2

24.0 23.9 23.8 25.1 71.9 8.6 6.9 137.4 59.0 38.2 3

24.0 23.9 23.9 28.0 98.6 9.9 7.8 146.1 63.5 44.5 4

24.0 23.9 25.4 67.3 102.9 9.9 8.0 122.2 68.1 49.8 5

24.0 23.9 25.9 69.6 149.1 10.6 18.0 130.8 71.5 54.3 6

24.0 24.7 69.2 94.1 116.8 9.8 8.1 106.2 73.7

$8.0 7

24.0 26.0 50.5 117.7 149.5 10.4 8.1 113.5 76.2 61.8 8

24.0 45.4 138.3 102.2 112.3 9.3 7.9 117.0 78.7 64.9 9

32.2 94.2 79.6 87.0 126.1 10.1 7.9 123.1 81.3 67.8 10 40.7 101.3 118.7 93.5 93.5 9.5 1.0 125.5 82.4 70.4

e.

Direction of Travoi'

=

Sections 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 7

.__-9

. r,-

0.0 0.5 1.0 m (miles)

FIGURE 4 Linear test network.

TABLE 4 SECTION DENSITY (vehicles,tanc mile) ON NONLINEAR NETWORX-MODIFIED FREFLO Time Section (min.)

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 1

4500 4500 4500 4486 4428 4075 3956 3866 3802 3740 2

4500 4500 4500 4486 4342 4057 3971 3906 3845 3791 3

4500 4500 4500 4471 4144 4024 3978 3928 3877 3827 4

4500 4486

.4500 4442 3942 3978 3971 3935 3902 2856 5

4500 4500 4500 4457 4086 4010 3974 3946-3892 3670 6

4500 4500 4500 4429 3956 4014 3982 3964 392f 3877 7

4500 4466 4471 3845 5324 3985 3924 3917 3902 3877 8

4500 4486 4428 4000 3074 3827 3989 3946 3920 3895 9

4500 4500 4442 3917 4295 4158 3902 3949 3920 3888 10 4486-4500 4457 3175 5366 3992 3949 3946 3913 3801 N0*Es These are instantaneous volumes of the indicated tinies over a titreastep of four seconds.

TABLE 5 VOLUME LEAVINO SECS 10NS (vehicles, tour >-FRECON Wim 4Lr = 0.01 mi Time Section (min.)

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 1

4468 4465 4463 4461 4368 3971 4000 4000 3999 4000 2

4487 4485 4485 4483 3942 3986 3953 4023 3991 4001 3

4495 4495 4494 4493 3974 3977 3968 3969 4016 3990 4

4498 4498 4498 44)0 3973 3975 3975 3967 4020 3966 5

4499 4499 4499 4218 3974 3975 3975 3974 3979 3985 6

4500 4500 4500 3960 3975 3975 3975 3975 3975 4028 7

4500 4500 4500 3975 3976 3975 3975 3975 3975 4001 8

4500 4500 4459 3975 3975 3975 3975 3975 3914 3977 9

4500 4500 4041 3974 3975 3975 3975 3975 3975 3975 10 4500 4500 3977 3975 3975 3975 3975 3915 3975 3975

68 TRANSPORTATION RE.5E4RCH RECORD 1112 TABLE 6 VOLUME LEAVINO SECrlONS (vehicleshour)-MODFIED FREFLO Section Time N' 5 6

7 8

9 10 (min.)

1 3

4 1

4500 4500 4500 4500 4(28 4068 3953 3877-3802 3773 2

450C 4500 4500 4540 4

4136 4010 3931 3877 3823 5

3 450f 4500 4500 4612 5677 4284 4003 3935 3899 3834 4

4500 4500 4201 4741 4975 3989 3848 3928 3899 3852 5

4500 4500 4597 5634 4

4194 3992 3910 3902 J881 t

6

~4501 4500 4597 7

0 3269 3982 3924 3899 3877 l

7 461 5022 5778 5576 4694 4133 3974 3895 3881 3888 8

4244 5522 4746 5335 4946 4108 3956 3920 3899 3888 9

3902 0

5314 4334 457 3982 3942 3895 3877 3888 10 5065 4

4 5033 91 4162 3827 3895 3913 3877 NOTE: These are insYs?!Maecus v_qbam(s' of the indicated times over a time-step of four seconds.

TABLE 7 VOLUhE (vehiclesAour) LEAVINO SECTION 5-MODFIED REFLO Time (min.)

Slice 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 1

4442 4428 2858 5692 5292 4

2927 4622 4907 4716 2

4442 44"8 5324 7

5393 3324 5036 7

4792 4640 3

4442 4414 5724 7

5425 4820

$119 0

4676 4532 4

4442 0

5580 2729 5310 5249 5000 3236

-7 4453 5

4442 0

5623 5710 4

5080 4849 5044 4

4450 6

4442 2959 5648 5710 4

4612 3802 5198 3265 4460 7

4442 5224 5548 5663 3312 4385 4018 5058 5101 4460 8

4428 5710 7

5681 5137 4536 4288 4918 5198 7

1 4442 5512 7

5706 5152 465) 4568 3334 5072 0

10 4442 5580 2786 7

5022 4810 4784 343F 4889 3053 11 4428 5548 5638 7

5166 4907 4831 3762 3377 5130 12 4428 5263 5695 2686 5209 4950 4824 4180 3550 5184 13 4428 5008 5638 4871 5198 4

4792 4547 3838 5044 14 4428 7

5652 5159 5098 4

4752 4867 4201 4856 15 4428 4

5677 4975 4

0 4694 4946 4579 3791 Average outflow 4436 3605 4493 3640 4048 3422 4554 3810 3830 3918 overall Average outflow 3974 densities obtained using current FREFLO, modified FREFLO, generated by the three programs. Note that the simulation and FRECON. The volurnes are the instantaneous now rates results with current FREFLO shown bere differ somewhat from leaving the downstream boundary of the section and densities the results presented by Babcock et al. (4) in their comparison are the average secdon density at the end of the given simula-of FRECON and FREFLO because some modincations (3) tion time, have been incorporated into FREFLO since that tirne.

The results in Tables 4 through 6 show that all three simula.

With the current FREFLO, the volume allowed to enter a tions indicate that trafnc volume is at (or near) capacity on congested section decrsases gradually to the capacity of '.he Sections 6 through 10, as expected. For sections upstream of boldeneck and fol!Gs artnachina pattern thereafter (Sec-Section 6, however, different patterns of output volume were tions 4 and 5 in Table 4). That is, the output volume Buctuates

Rathi et al 60 TABLEg SECTION DENSITY (vehicles 4ane-mile)-CURRc7 TFREF1.0 Time Section (min.)

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 1

27.2 27.2 27.3 27.7 33.7 105.7 72.0 57.6 48.9 43.8 2

27.2 27.2 27.3 27.9 38.0 130.4 80.2 63.8 54.4 49.0 3

27.2 27.2 27.4 28.6 48.8 146.0 85.3 68.9 59.3 54.0 r-4 27.2 27.3 27.5 30.7 76.9 144.0 87.4 72.1 63.6 58.8 5

27.2 27.3 27.6 32.8 96.6 147.9 89.0 63.9 65.9 62.0 6

27.2 -

-27.3 27.8 35.5 118.6

.152.2 91.6 76.6 68.9 64.7 7

27.2 27.4 29.5 50.1 148.9 126.0 88.0 76.9 70.8 67.8 8

27.3 27.5 31.4 83.9 151.6 121.0 91.1 79.3 73.2 70.3 9

27.3 27.7 33.5 105.5 142.7 125.6 90.6 80.9 76.0 73.6 10 27.4 27.9 36.4 124.4 151.1 119.2 91.2 82.9 78.2 75.9 TABLE 9 SECTION DENStrY (vehiclesaane-mile)--MODIFTED FREFLO time Section (g n.)

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 1

27.2 27.2 27.3 27.7 34.8 115.0 74.4 58.7 49.4 43.9 2

27.2 27.3 27.5 29.0 82.7 103.6 79.7 63.5 54.5 49.2 27.2 27.3 27.7 32.6 78.8 117.5 78.3 65.6 58.5 53.5 4

27.2 27.J 29.6 70.3 87.3 99.7 74.S 68.7 61.4 57.0 5

27.3 27.6 33.7 120.4 115.9 128.2 82.5 69.1 62.7 59.5 6

27.3 27.7 31.5 109.6 3 6.3 87.4 85.3 71.1 64.2 61.0 7

29.5 36.9 74.4 79.8 91.2 139.1 80.8 68.9 63.5 61.5 8

32.8 59.3 88.*

31.8

,87.9 109.2 80.2 79.3 64.6 61.8 9

33.1 117.2 106.0 71.9 85.7 104.1 30.5 71.0 65.5 63.3 10 44.4 11.0 153.9 115.4 63.9 107.8 79.5 71.2 67.5 64.5 around the capacity of the bottleneck. The oscillatio.is in output also given in Table 7. The 1. min averages oscillate around the_

volume within each time step tre substsntial.

bottleneck capacity, while the ylong.tfiOrmm avenge of M42ph2pgr.qxgri'tftseWtueneck caWof 4.000 hT The simulation results obtained from FRECON using a spa.

a

~

tial step size of 0.01 mi indicate that the output volume from a Thus, the modified FR$FCO'noi"chl "pibMdjj~aTr'eafis' tic'*

I section upstream of a congested section decreases gradually to jattem of turbulent flow upstream of th'eT5otEneck but is also the capacity of the bottleneck and remains at that !cvel thereaf-a.b_le to m. ainta.in the desired level o,f,,th_r,o.ughput.,.,

+. - - -

m ter with virtually no oscillations (Secu. ens 4 and 5. Table 5).

The section densities given in Tables 8 and 9 and Figure 5 his implies a complete absence of turbulence at a bottleneck show the spread of congestion upstream of Section 6 and the location-presence of an acceleration region downstream in all three With modified FREFLO, an interesting pattem is revealed as simulations.

shown in Table 6. ne instantaneous volumes entering the The simulated section densities under the two versions of congested iections 2 through 5 upstream of the bottleneck vary FREFLO are similar and are typical for congested conditions widely_from zero to above capacity. These oscillations repre.

(Tables 8 and 9). Although densities on the congested Section 6 sent the "Elis'tiqlt'opl8dge conditions'in'th'ese detiog i Volumes leaving Section 5 during each 4.sec time slicIver f r the current FREFLO (Table 8) are somewhat higher than th' Jensity, ngrm J1y qlmege.dag_c.onge.sjeA (ne. ways, m

the 10. min period are given in Table 7. During the first 72 sec, r lane. mile), they are not ts high as those 11g0 ve,hi,clesy'dhl!MEETe~s,t network (Table 1). Not there are no perturbations in flow because the congestion in compute'd'm th'c n Section 6 has not yet propagated upstream to Section f. Subse.

however, that the modified version (Table 9) propagates distur.

quently, the outfow exhibits short. term oscillatory behavior..

Observe that the volume leaving Section 5, as tabulated for bances upstream more rapidly than the current version, for each minute in Table 6,is actually the output volume during the reasons given earlier.

l 15th time slice in each minute, as given in Table 7. The 1. min The densities on congested sections under iRECON are in averaged volumes and the overall 10 min averaged volume are the range of 120 to 1,000 vehicles per lane. mile (3). Because l,

__m._

m_-----_-----~~_.m

--.---u_---

w

-,eg 7r TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH NSCORD 1112

's tss.

ISO.

140 1:4 r-120-I 110a

~ -

g100 I so.

3 e0 2a f

i 10

~

=

40 '

C 3

50 40 10 '

30'

.i to.

0 102 150 200 210 300 1st eco 4s0 500 sse 600 RGURE$ Density pattern on a congested sectlao-medLSed FREFLO.

specific values of densides are not given, no evaluation of the-With mcdified FRERO, ths simulation results for the net-densides produced by this model can be m.de, works of the departments of transpotution in Utah and Kansas, Ibe detailed histgry old,ensity_o,,n.a c_ongested secgunder and some other test networks, have also been quite satisfactory.

modified FRERO is shown in Figure 5. His density graduillT~ ne results appear to be quantitatively, as well u qualitadvely,

['uRiia7sTthe congested'd'esitflevel'anToEllitis theTe{

accurate. De model is fully responsive to severe and to moder-

~

ter, reflecting turbulent now condiuons. De amplWand ate incidents that block lanes for specified periods of time. De "frQuency of.theh.osdillat'idrMaidepp,'dirig'6n the sectioti, computational performance of FREFLO is not degraded and length,. time slice duradon, and outnow rate from feeder link remains as user friendly as it was previously.

and on whcEer LSs ~liEEis's'iiriuIaidfore its feideilini(s).'

These mod 1Scations have now been introduced as a perma-nent feature of FREFLO. FREFLO is available under a limited distribution from FHWA.

CONCLUSIONS Modifications were introduced to extend the ability of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FREFLO to realistically simulate congested conditions for freeway sections of virtually any geometry. Tests of this rnodi-his research was sponsored by FHWA. De authors wish to fled FREFLO model reveal that it is able to:

thank David Gibson of FHWA for his continued support of Produce values of densities that are much closer to those

,,,,EIugly.sxperienced.oa.congestest freeway sections.

  • Propagate the effects of congestion to upst eam sections in REFERENCES a timely manner.

Produce a realistic stop and-go pattem of Sow entering

1. H.1. Payne. FREFLO: A Macroscopic Simulation Model cf Free-congested secdons, and way Trat6c. la Tranmorsadon Renarch Record 722. TEB, Ns.

Describe traf6e within a diverging freeway section where ticcal Research Council, Washington, D.C.,1979, pp. 6&-77.

one branch is congested ara the other is not.

2. IL 1. Payne. Calibration and Validation of FREFLO, Vol 1: Uur

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1112 11 Calibration Procedures and Supporting Data Analysis. VERAC Council Proceedings Mathematics ofPublic Systems. Vol.1,1971, Repon R.00182. VERAC Inc., San Diego Calif.t FHWA, U.S.

pp.51-61.

Department of Transportanar 1981.

6. E. Ueberman, S. Nguyen, W. McShane, and C. Berger. Analytical
3. R S. BM D. M. Amataadar M. Tomuuka, and A. D. May.

Developments for TRAFlo. Repcrt FHWA.RD-80115. FHWA, Role of Adapave Disaedzadon in a Freeway Simuladon Model. In U.S. Department of Transponadon.1982.

Transportation ReseecA Aecord 971. TRB, National Research

7. A. K. Razhi. FREFLO Enhancement. KLD Assodatea, Inc., Hunt-Counctl, Washington, D.C.,1984, pp. 80-92.

ington Stacon, N.Y., Nov.1985.

4. E. Weberman. Integrated Traf5c Simuladon Model. Phase I, Vol.1:

Execunve Summary. Repen FHWAMtD-80086. FHWA, U.S. De.

r-panment of Transponadon. Dec.1979.

Pulication of this paper sponsored by Comminee on Trqfpc Flow

5. H.1. Payne. Models of Freeway TrnRic and Control. In Sim.dation Theory and Characteristics.

~.

Some Measurements of Robertson's Platoon Dispersion Factor KAY W AXHAUSEN AND HANs-GEORc KDRLING I

At the core of TRANSYT, the platoos dispersion model of mination of value of the calibration factor for TRANSYT Robertson is probably the most widely used traf6c model in applications.

the world. In spite of its wide use, on!y a relatively small The modes will be used with the following notation:

number of studies have tried to calibrate the model for a range I'

of trafne conditions. The default values of the TRANSYT I ('. * ') " I

  • T(I) + (I - O
  • 9' (' + ' ~ I) handbooks provide the only loformation on the value of the dispersion factor ava!!able to most users. In the first section of the paper, the sensitivity of the TRANSYT results to the dis-with I

persion value is shown. Next, available information on the I

modelis smt.mariaed and the results are classtSed. In the last t=$+T F = (1 + G f) section of the paper, the results of measurements taken in l

Karlsruhe and in Pforzheim, West Germany, are reported.The i

experimental design of the sites was selected to determine the where in8uence of the gradient and the number of lanes on the l

P atoon dispersion.

T=

average travel time between the observation

points, average strival time of the ftrst vehicle of the t =

Robertson's platoon dispersion model (1) forms de core of the P atoon in intervals of a seconds, l

widely used TRANSYT program in all its different versions (2,3). Since the initial calibration of the rnodel (1) there has F

smoothing factor,

=

been no major effort to calibrate it for a wide range of trafne a, S = calibrs'. ion constants, and a calibtated with $ fued at 0.8.

situations. The studies undertaken to date to calibrate the model 8:

=

will be reponed in the third section. In general, the low level of interest was bued on the belief that the result of the optimiza.

SOME EVIDENCE OF TIIE EFFECTS OF tion is only marginally affected by errors in the traffic model.

The following section will present some evidence that this VARIATIONS IN a, belief may be unwarranted in specific situations and could lead,

A real network of 11 nodes was used to study the effect of the to grave errors. The aim of the small series of measurements reponed in the last section is to gain a better basis for deter-variation of the dispersion facter. The network and the cali.

brated traf5c data were available for the evening peak condi-Lehrstuhl and insatut far Vetkehrwesen. Univemtat (TH) Karlsruhe, tions. The calibration was pan of a larger study involving D 7500 Karlsruhe 1. Postfach 6980, Kaiseistrasse 12, West Germany.

TRANSYT as a tml to develop new signal plans for the city of

ATTACQM6WT 9

SUMMARY

OF SPEED SCENARIO ANALYSIS BY NYSDOT e

EVACUATION TIMES SUMMER WINTEI DATE CODE DESCRIPTION NORMAL ADV ADV 3/31/88 LIL - FIO LILCO duplication 12.34 16.22 17.3' 4/01/88 LIL - FIOC Corrected dup. for distance & wait time-12.40 16.28 17.2!

4/01/88 Scenario A LIE 10 mph out 25 in 14.54 18.97 2 0. 11-Others 15 out 20 in 4/04/88 Scenario B All speeds 3-5 mph 14.00 18.87 20.0!

Lower than FIOC 4/04/88 Scenario C All speeds 10% less 13.07 16.97 18.0 4/05/88 Scenario D Exprys 6 mph out 15 in 20.58 25.99 27.6.

EPZ 6 mph Other roads 15 out 20 in 4/04/88 Scenario E Increase Expressway Speeds by 5 mph 11.38 14.83 15.7 i

4/05/88 Scenario F Unrestricted (normal 8.97 11.56 12.2 '

speeds all roads)

ATTAt%m6NT 10 Bate ll1l88 L18 la opt est. 25 la ta ties differes[28 ta Other res 15 est lal sa088&as mostlfAL tv&C84110s FBLL 18 BILI bas. fla! VIIICLt1

$ctsA813:M Aasser: Bas tiet:

14.54 18 91 20.16 emesses ggggg[seess;essesse esteessaaser Adverse

Vinter 4fverse**

soles (seelative Distance /fise/Locaties itse Leattn Scale 81st. Speed flee saa fase Speed faae saa flee faae ses 71st 81 stance ses tlts mrt 11.1 Aabel arrive at treats.

2.58 2.33 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66 lapet distr 8stlos B.Il 2.50 At at Itod 11.2 trecesslag at 8r 8.58 3.8J 0.58 3.04 4.53 3.19 frocesstag tlee 4.01 3.84 Lt. 8 test 11.96 3.12 Ar at s.1.

11.3 Travel to Saff. lafire.

11.96 9.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.21 4.48 11.96 4.25 Lv s.t.

8t.111 1.16 20.01 4.09 16.48 4.11 0.12 19.41 4.35 at til Bdry 115 56-66 14.61 25.80 1.59 28.83 9.13 8.18 81.21 6.81 At at samt 8181/LI Av.

2.58 8.59 1.53 20.64 0.08 16.68 0.18 8.14 41.21 1.14 Lt VAAC 61.35 1.85 At at tied 11.4 Leading 8.33 4.25 8.58 4.64 8.55 4.11 61.35 8.11 Lv Brest geese at 5.1. (1) 8.11 4.81 S.18 5.11 Bocus. saclear 19.31 8.85 At at 5.1.

19.31 9.19 Lv 5.1.

11.5 Tre to 171 koandry 1.53 15.01 8.18 4.35 12.08 0.13 4.94 B.16 5.25 88.84 9.29 at 173 bdry 11.6.8 Sdrt to accpt nosp.

21.19 2.45 6.81 1.41 B.46 3.26 8.54 T.A. Eosp.

106.62 11.14 At at 948C LII 66-55 15.68 18.80 1.56 8.40 1.95 2.81 108.62 12.36 Lv fast LII 15-13 2.42 18.00 0.24 5.84 5.18 8.12 122.16 13.81 At at tied seatealfel/8&C1/al 16.58 4.59 9.11 15.88 8.65 12.88 8.81 0.86 122.18 13.32 Lv treat 138.91 14.14 Ar St.Clarl Other 138.91 14.41 Lv St.Charl 11.7 acultertag 6.81 8.t0 8.56 gosit. at 5.1.

148.81 11.51 at Ett be 11.9 Baleed 4.33 1.14 8.58 8.56 8.53 9.e4 11.11 frv to treatsood.

14.88 0.11 1.85 0.49 9.39 8.54 9.98 other st/SC/rul/$sakea 9.11 20.88 4.49 16.08 0.61 G.65 tercent Distributions LII 33-55 2.42 25.08 8.10 28.88 0.12 8.13 ites 81 stance t Time 1

St.111 1.89 15.08 8.13 12.88 0.16 8.11 Strt-disp 3.5e 0.24 11.11 tiscessing 8.25 8.10 0.25 9.54 8.21 18.2; fre-eeptr 81.34 8.51 3.91 8.21 Loadles 4.99 4.11 23.3 Try to 5e11. Isl.

11.96 8.15 8.65 9.94 18.58 1.88 11.24 fiv-Is!!

59.18 4.43 5.18 8.36 8t.111 t.16 28.88 8.09 16.08 8.11 8.12 Osealog 0.10 0.42 Lit 56-66 14.61 25.48 8.59 28.00 9.13 0.18 Osloadag 8.66 8.85 8t III/Llas 1.53 28.04 8.88 16.80 8.19 0.18 TOTAL 148.84 1.80 14.54 1.44 Quese at 3.I.

8.11 0.94 1.84 Documentation saclear.

23.4 Loadtst 8.33 9.19 8.58 12.86 4.53 12.82 23.5 frv to sti borr 1.53 15.88 8.18 9.29 12.64 8.13 12.19 8.18 12.15 23.8 frv to Becyt. Sosp.

21.19 2.45 11.14 1.41 15.26 3.26 16.21 f.A. 80 spital LII 64-55 15.68 18.84 1.56 8.88 1.95 2.41 LII 55-11 2.42 18.04 0.24 8.84 0.38 0.32 senten/ Pal /8&Ch/El 16.58 8.59 9.11 15.60 0.65 12.84 8.41 8.86 9thet geese at 8eept. Best (1) 8.21 8.41 0.58 Decas. ecclear 23.9 seleeding 8.33 12.36 e.58 16.23 0.53 11.26 23.14 Trv to Breetsood 14.88 0.11 13.51 8.89 11.11 8.94 11.18 otter 81/86Ct/ Pal /Seates 9.11 24.48 8.49 16.88 0.61 0.65 L18 53-15 2.42 25.09 0.18 28.80 8.12 0.13 It. lil 1.89 15.84 8.13 12.88 0.16 0.11 23.11 tracessing 8.25 13.32 8.25 11.36 0.21 18.45 St. Charles Bosp. 3're gave 8C.3 Tre to St. Charles 16.21 8.81 14.14 1.82 18.38 1.Ct 19.53 at. til 3.11 29.54 9.19 16.86 8.23 8.25 ft. 341 18.44 28.00 0.52 1&,8e 8.65 0.61 at 25A/nyttlaosp 2.12 28.8G 8.11 16,88 4.13 4.14 SC.4 is441st 8.33 14.41 0.53 14.88 0.33 28.46 3C.5 Trv to 171 ndry 5 esp /sytt/8125A 1.11 8.63 1.01 15.08 8.01 14.54 12 4!

8.19 16.51 5.89 28.16

4, Y$NT N

hte 4/4188 Alt speeda 3-5 set less thaa LILCD sa08taas acirlfti inC8Af!Os FILL 18 B118-01. 7158 M81CL81 SC154810:\\ 6 Aesser: gas 11ee:

14.04 18.41 28.85

      • "'Inseer Adverse"*
  • "Blater Adverse" htes Ceestative 81strik

.une' ser ul"*"se"e"f aseSped flee See flee flee See f ase 81 stance See time ubere Speed flee Itse Leegth Scale Bist.

11.11ebel arrive at Brests.

2.50 2.58 2.50 2.58 2.66 2.66 tapet distrbettoa 8.81 2.58 at 8 test.

11.2 Processing at er 0.58 3.80 0.58 3.H 0.53 3.19 Frecesstal time 8.01 3.H process 11.96 3.92 at 5.1.

11.3 fratel to saff. laf tre.

11.16 0.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.21 1.48 11.96 4.25 load it.it t 1.16 11.H 8.12

11. f 8 8.16 5.11

!!.48 4.50 at If18 dry L18 56-66 14.61 15.80 8.98 11.49 1.33 1.02 47.21 1.28atRecse t 181/LI Av.

2.58 8.59 1.53 15.H 8.18

!!.80 8.14 0.15 41.21 1.61 salsad 61.35 8.46 at treat.

11.4 Leedlag 8.33 4.25 9.58 4.64 8.53 4.13 61.35 8.11 process geese at 5.1. (1l 8.11 4.81 0.18 1.11 Socne. naclear 19.31 9.15 et 5.1.

19.31 9.69 leadet 17.5 fro to Ett bosatte 1.51 6.st 8.25 9.58 5.80 0.31 5.12 0.12 5.06 10.84 9.14 et It! berg 11.6.8 8 dry to secyt losp.

21.19 2.18 1.28 3.61 8.15 3.86 9.29 V.A. Bosp.

100.62 10.90 at tec le Lit 66-55 15.68 10.00 1.56 9.80 1.13 1.84 188.62 11.52 g e asle LII 55-53 2.42 18.08 8.24 9.86 0.21 f.21 122.18 12.31 at treet.

seekea/ Pal /86C1/a1 16.58 0.59 9.11 14.88 8.98 6.88 1.63 1.13 122.10

!!.62 process 118.91 13.64 at It Cha Other 138.91 13.91 g e load 11.1 hettorlag 1.28 8.15 9.29 ucait. at 8.1.

149.84 II.H st IF1 be 11.9 salud 8.33 1.61 8.58 9.21 8.51 9.82 lance 11.18 frv to treatsoed.

18.88 8.85 8.46 1.15

18. 0 1.22 11.44 other al/86Cn/ Pal /3 sates 3.11 15.08 0.65 11.Se 0.89 8.94 tercent 81stribettons L1153-5) z.42 35.00 0.01 21.08 8.09 t 18 stes sistance i fine 1

ft.111 1.85 15.40 0.13 11.48 8.11 9.10 strt-disp 3.50 0.25 11.11 Frecesslag 0.25 8.11 0.25 18.65 0.21 11.31 frv-esttr 88.34 0.51 4.M 8.30 Leadlae 0.99 0.01 23.3 frv to sa!!.1:!.

11.96 8.64 1.35 0.84 11.61 0.89 12.21 fro-tell 59.18 0.43 4.29 0.31 St.!!!

1.16 15.H 0.12

!!.08 0.16 0.11 Qatting 8.30 8.02 LI8 56-66 14.61 35.00 0.42 21.03 8.54 8.58 Catoadeg 8.66 6.85 8t 181/Llas 1.53 15.H 0.10 11.88 0.14 8.15 TOTAL I40.04 1.08 It.H 1.H Onese et s.t.

0.81 8.98 1.04 Bocusentattoa saclear.

23.4 Leedlag 8.33 9.69 0.58 12.11 8.53 11.18 33.5 frv to 571 bdry 1.53 38.30 0.85 9.14 25.88 8.06 13 83 8.86 13.84 23.8 fro to Beept. losp.

21.11 1.11 18.90 1,56 14.58 1.65 15.58 LI8 66-55 15.68 35.80 s.45 21.85 0.58 0.61 L!l 55-51 2.42 15.H 0.01 21.88 0.89 3.18 Sentes/ Pal /B6Cn/s1 16.58 8.59 9.1s 15.88 0.65 11.60 8.89 0.54 8ther gnees at See t. Resp 11) 4.21 0.41 8.58 Docas. saclear 23.9 hleed 8.33 11.52 8.58 15.55 0.53 16.53 23.10 frv to treetened 18.00 4.85 12.11 1.15 16.10 1.22 11.15 etter al/06Cl/ Pol /sentes 1.11 15.08 8.65 11.tt 8.89 0.!t lit 53-55 2.42 35.80 8.81 21.4?

4.09 2.18 tt. lit 1.09 15.08 f.u 11.00 e.11 0 tt 23.11 Frecuales 0.25 12.62 8.25 16.15 G.21 18.01 CL Charles Sesp. I'rd save BC.3 fro to St. Charles 16.11 1.01 13.64 1.31 18.32 1.46 19.41

81. til 3.11 15.08 8.25 11.88 8.H 8.36 St. 341 18.44 15.H 9.18 II.H 8.95 1.a!

Et 25&/Oftt/ leap 2.12 38.H 8.81 25.H 8.H 8.69 at.8 Leedlag 8.33 11.11 4.50 10.82 0.53 28.H Sc.5 frv to 871 bdry aesplayrt/It 254 1.18 8.63 1.01 38.80 8.84 14.80

25. 4 8.84 12.81 8.81 28.05

t:.

MTERNGed 17 v.

N ute lit:H 611 speeds II 6 less tnas LILCS speeds saottens 805PITAL tinC8& TIN HLL 18 EIL8-Bas.1158 V881CL83 3C8aAlla:\\c lesser: saa ties:

13.81 16.91 11.43 u n." toreal""""""'

"='Ineser Adverse'"

"'31 ster leverse" Ictes enselative Distrib Ites Length scal 81st. Speed flee see flee speed flea les fase Tise saa itse Bastance les time share 11.1 nobel arrive at IIests.

2.50 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66.

lapst distrbettes 8.11 2.54 at 8:est.

11.2 processtag at er 8.58 3.88 8.18 3.8I I.53 1.19 Processist time 0.01 3.H process 11.96 3.92 at 5.1.

11.3 trasel to hit. la!!re.

11.96 4.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.21 4.48 11.96 4.25 lead 8t.llt 1.16 18.H s.le 14.48 0 11 8 11 11 40 4.53 at Set 8 dry LIl 16 66 14.67 18.04 8.82 14.03 1.s2 1.38 41.21 6.95 at sec to 8 III/L1 As.

2.58 0.59 1.53 14.H 0.08 14.t8 8.11 8.11 41.21 1.24 esload 61.35 1.99 at 8 test.

11.4 Leading 0.33 4.25 8.58 f.64 8.53 8.93 61.35 8.24 process I.11 4 81 8.18 5.11 Socas. naclear 19.31 8.83 at 5.1.

geese et 3.1. [?)

19.31 9.11 leadet 11.5 Trv to 871 headry 1.53 5.58-I.28 4.53 8.58 8.34 5.15 9.36 5.41 18.84 9.22 at It! herg 2.42 4.91 2.88 8.83 3.86 8.58 T. A. 80sp.

140.52 10.26 at tec to 11.4.I 8 dry to tecpt Boss.

2T.T9 LIl 66-55 15.68 13.58 1.16 11.88 1.32 8.48 188.62 18.88 g e sale L18 55-13 2.42 13.50 9.18 II.H 9.21 8.22 122.18 11.68 at treat.

soetes/rsl/MCn/u! 16.58 0.59 9.11 9.88 1.89 1.2e 1.36 1.44 122.18 11.85 process 138.91 12.18 at St Cla 8ther a

138.91 13.53 g e load 11.1 sositettag 6.95 2.83 1.54 soalt. at 3.1.

148.84 13.81 at 87164 l

11.9 Intead 8.33 1.28 8.18 8.53 8.51 9.81 lance 11.18 Tre ts Brentseed.

14.08 8.11 1.99 f.8) 9.43 4.95 18.02 4

4ther i

elle6C11Fal/3sakea 9.11 18.18 0.54 19 39 b.68 8.12 Percest $1stribet10ss I

L1k 53-15 2.42 36.81 0.81 26.68 0.08 9.89 ites 81 stance i flee 1

St. !!!

l.89 18.H 8.11 14.48 6.IJ 0.11 Strt-disp 3.58 0.21 l

11.11 Frecesstag 8.25 8.24 8.25 9.it d.21 18.28 Tri-eepty 88.34 8.51 3.19 e.29 Leadiae 8.99 8.80 23.3 Trv to salt. laf.

11.96 0.59 8.83 6.14 18.41 5.18 11.81 frv-isll 59.14 0.43 3.82 0.29 i

8t.Ill 3.16 18.08 0.14 II.it 9.12 0.11 geesist 8.38 8.82 LII 56-66 18.61 36.88 8.41 28.pt 4.51 v.58 esleadsg 4.66 8.85 8t 181/Llav 1.53 II.H 8.88 18.48 0.11 8.!!

TOTAL lit.84 I.84 13.81 1.H Onese et 8.I.

8.83 5.91 1.04 Bocamentation anclear.

23.4 taadleg 8.13 9.11 8.18 11.11 0.53 12.64 13.5 Tre ta 171 bery 1.53 31.54 8.85 9.22 21.Pl 8.86 11.!5 4 t6 12.18 23.8 Me to locyt. Ros).

21.19 1.e4 18.26 1.38 13.26 1.39 It.88 LIl 64-55 15.68 36.08 8.43 28.88 0.54 8.58 138 55-53 2.42 36.H 0.81 28.88 I.It t.89 sentes/ Pal /MCh/El 16.58 8.59 9.11 18.H 8.54 It.18 4.68 8 12 8ther geese rt

. sosp (f) 8.29 8.01 8.58 tocas. naclear 23.9 hl 8.33 18.88 8.54 14.22 8.53 15.11 23.33 frv to treatseed it.II I.11 11.68 0.89 15.12 8.95 16.86 8ther st/96C8/ Pol / testes 9.11 II.H 8.54 14.48 8.64 0.12 LII 53-15 2.42 36.84 0.81 28.48 8.08 8.49 St. Ill 1.89 18.88 0.11 14.44 8.13 0.11 23.11 Processing 4.25 11.85 8.25 15.11 8.21 16.33 rt. C6arles leep. 1*rd save 8C.3 Trv to St. Charles 16.11 8.15 12.14 1.86

16. 0 1.13 11.46 4t. III 3.11 18.84 8.21 14.48 0.26 4.21 It. It!

10.44 18.84 8.58 I?.te 0.23 8.11 8125&/utrt/8 ssp 2.12 31.58 8.81 21.H 8.13 8.88 St.t Leadtag 0.33 13.83 8.54 16.93 8.53 11.99 sc.5 fra to 871 barr Wesp/strt/at 254 1.19 8.63 1.01 31.58 4.83 13.41 21.88 0.64 16.91 8.54 18.83

Le,

MTautwENT G x

tate II5/88 g 6 eph est,15 labound Staer 15 est, 28 !a sucellas most!TAL IvuuaTIoa itLL 18 EILE ant. flat VIIICLt$

Scla &818:5P Aasser: has 11ee:

29.5B 25.99 21.62 esesses ggggglesessessessee senseslaaSet Adverle"'

518ter Adferse" 50tes Challatite 31strib Itse Lesttk Scale 81st. Speed flee $sa flae Speed flee les flee flee las Time 81 stance See Llee there 11.1 Aabel arriee at treats.

2.58 2.54 2.58 2.18 2.66 2.66 tapet distrbettoa 8.41 2.58 at treat.

11.2 Processlag at Er 0.58 3.40 8.54 3.48 8.51 3.19 Fracessts; time 8.01 3.68 process i2.96 3.92 at 5.1.

11.3 Travel to $sli. Inttre.

11.96 8.9) 3.92 1.14 4.21 1.21 4.48 11.96 4.25 lead 8t.llt 1.14 28.84 8.09 16.88 0.11 8.12 19.04 4.54 at Irl 5 dry 111 56-66 14.61 15.00 0.91 12.tv 1.22 1.14 41.21 9.11 at tec le 8181/LI av.

2.58 0.19 1.53 6.84 8.25 5.14 8.31 9.32 47.27 9.41 malead 61.35 18.48 at 8 est.

17.41 sadist 9.33 4.25 8.50 4.61 8.11 4.91 61.35 18.65 process geese at 5.1. I?)

8.!!

4.81 4.14 5.11 accua. saglear 19.31 11.97 at 5.1.

12.31 leaf +! bdry le.31 11.5 fro to 171 bosadtf 1.53 658 4.25 4.52 i.88 8.31 5.12 0.32 5.41 84.84 12.51 at it 17.6.8 Bery to tecpt posp.

27.79 4.61 9.14 5.56 18.61 5.90 11.14 T. A. Sosp.

188.62 17.28 at tec to LII 66-55 15.68 6.91 2.69 5.81 3.12 1.32 188.62 11.82 4 e said LIE 55-11 2.42 6.08 8.48 5.08 f.It 8.5" 122.78 14.76 at 8 test.

Senten/Fil/8Ek/s! 16.58 8.59 9.11 6.88 1.61 5.88 1.95 2.85 122.18 19.01 process 138.97 28.81 at 5t Cha etter 138.91 21.41 g e lead 11.1 soeiterlag 9.16 13.51 11.34 Eca11. at 5.1.

140.04 29.58 at Ifl bd 17.9 8elsad 0.33 9.41 4.56 11.!!

8.53 11.41 lance 11.13 tre to treatsood.

14.88 9.94 18.45 1.11 12.35 1.21 13.12 Other sillE1/rul/saskea 9.11 15.80 0.65 12.te 8.11 S.06 Fercest alstributions til 53-15 2.42 15.88 8.16 12.81 8.28 4.21 Ites 81 stance 1 time t

St. Ill 1.89 15.08 4.13 12.40 0.l?

8.11 strt-disp 3.58 8.17 11.11 trecesstag 8.25 18.65 4.25 12.68 1.21 13.38 tre-e.pty 10.34 8.51 1.11 s.25 Loadtas 0.99 0.85 23.3 Trv is saff. laf.

11.96 1.32 11.91 1.64 14.21 1.14 15.12 tas-Isli 59.18 8.43 9.95 1.48 31.333 1,76 28.04 8.09 16.48 0.11 8.12 Questat 4.30 0.81 LII 56-66 14.61 15.88 8.98 12.68 1.22 1.38 soloadsg 8.66 0.03 It 1817149 1.53 6.80 0.25 5.88 4.31 8.32 Tcfat 148.44 1.08 20.58 1.04 Queue at 8.1.

8.41 0.98 1.00 Docusestation saclear.

23.0 Loading 8.33 12.11 8.58 15.11 4.53 16.18 23.5 Tre to Ett bar 1.53 6.04 0.25 12.51 5.88 0.31 16.82 0.32 11.02 23.8 frv ta

t. Sosp.

27.19 4.61 11.28 5.56 21.54 5.99 22.93 LII 66-5 15.64 6.88 2.68 5.80 3.12 3.32 LI! 55-53 2.42 6.88 6.08 5.08 0.td f.51 lastes/ Pal /8Enjui 16.51 0.59 9.11 6.50 1.63 S.H 1.95 2.H etter gasme at Beept. Essa lf) 8.29 8.41 0.58 Docas. naclear 23.9 malsastag 0.33 11.12 8.58 22.55 0.53 23.96 23.0 trv to treetsood 14.04 0.94 18.16 1.11 23.12 1.25 15.28 other al/BKn/tel/Saales 9.11 11.68 8.65 12.54 8.81 8.06 LII 53-15 2.42 15.83 0.16 12.H 8.21 0.21 ft. !!!

1.49 15.H 4.13 12.H 8.16 8.!!

23.11 Processisg I.25 19.81 0.25 23.91 8.21 25.41 ft. Charles asse. 3'rd save SC.3 tre to St. Charles 16.21 1.66 29.37 1.13 21.28 1.39 26.86

81. 131 1.11 28.88 8.19 16.H 0.23 0.25
81. 147 19.44 29.69 8.52 It.H 6.65 0.69 at 15Alerrt/Besp 2.12 6.88 8.35 5.H 0.12 8.45 St.t Lsading 8.33 21.41 8.54
25. rt 8.53 21.39

$0.5 frv to til be y sosp/arrt/tt 251 1.18 8.63 1.41 6.H 8.18 28.58 5.H 8.2) 21.95 8.13 21.62

L. 2,,

i MTM.MMEr4T l*f Bete altl88 Iscrease tapt spues nr 5 apt

$8088aae 505 Plt &L IVKlat105 N

isLL le RILE-mal. flat ItalCLIS Ksa&810: d Anaser: saa ttse; 11.38 It.83 15.76

"""Seener Adverse"'

  • "tanter 13 e.se" ustes risalative 31strin Slat.""Speed"' sereal*""".e"fleeSpeed Time See fase flee See flee 81 stas:e See time Ekere Tase St Itse Leagth Scale 17.18ebel arrive et treate.

2.50 2.58 2.59 1.58 2.66 2.66 lapet distrhettee 8.01 2.58 at 8 eat.

11.2 processing at 3r 4.50 3.H 8.58 3.H 4.53 3.19 Procesatas tiet 8,81 3.H procesa 11.96 3.92 et 8.1.

17.3 Travel to Saf t. latire.

17.96 8.92 3.92 1.14 4.14 1.21 4.41 11.H 4.25 Ices 4t.llt 1.16 28.80 8.09 16.68 8.11 0 12 19.48 4.58 et 871 Odry LII 56-66 14.61 25.H 8.59 21.88 8.78 4.16 41.21 6.H at tec be B 181/11 Av.

2.58 4.51 1.53 20.88 0.88 36.88 8.18 8.18 47.21 6.19 eslead 61.35 6.93 at treet.

8.33 6.25 8.58 8.68 e.33 8.93 61.35 1.18 process 17.4 Loadleg 8.II 4.81

- 8.10 1.!!

8ecas. saclear it.31 1.67 4t 3.1.

geese at 3.1. (?)

19.38 8.01 lead +q 17.5 7tt te tF1 besadtv I.13 6.80 0.25 6.58 5.88 8.11 5.12 8.32

5. H 88.84 B.4' at IP! bdry 11.6.8 Sett to tecpt Sosp.

21.79 1.55 6.86 1.81 6.91 1.99 7.43 V.A. Bost.

188.62 8.64 at tec Be Lit 66-55 15.60 28.88 8.18 11.88 8.92 9.98 188.62 9.46 g e said LII 55-53 2.42 20.84 0.12 11.88 0.14 0.15 122.78 10.84 at treat.

Sastes/ Pal /$Eh/mi !$.58 8.59 9.11 15.88 e.65 12.se s.81 8.a6 122.10 18.25 process 130.97 11.92 at It Cta etter 138.97 11.3, q e load 6.86 6.99 7.43 usatt. at 8.1.

140.04 11.38 et til bd 17.1 asalteries 11.1 sensed 0.33 6.21 0.58 1.49 0.53 7.16 lance 11.18 frv to 3restocod.

14.08 8.54 6.93 8.65 8.14 8.69 8.65 other st/ sun /fst/Sentes 9.17 25.98 0.31 21.8e 4.41 4.49 Fercent 81stributlass 115 S3-55 2.42 45.80 8.01 31.88 8.91 8.51 Ites Distance 1 time L

81. 111 1.81 28.88 0.89 16.G8 8.12 6.13 Strt-disp 3.58 0.31 17.11 tracesales 4.25 7.18 0.25 8.39 8.21 8.11 fre-eastr 88.34 8.57 3.26 8.29 Leadleg 8.99 8.89 23.3 Try to sail. lat.

11.96 8.41 1.61 3.60 8.99 8.64 9.55 trv-Isll 59.18 5.43 2.61 s.23 8t.111 1.16 28.88 8.81 16.H 8.;l 8.12 Quesing 8.34 8.8)

LII 56-66 14.67 45.88 f.33 37.88 8.48 8.42 taleedag 8.66 8.46 ft 181/Llav 1.53 28.88 0.88 16.08 0.11 0.18 70fAL 148.84 1.88 11.38 1.H Geese et 5.1.

8.81 9.18 1.88 locasestatice saclear.

23.4 Leedtog 8.33 8.81 0.58 10.t7 8.53

!!.12 23.5 tre to IF1 bdry 1.53 35.98 8.84 8.85 38.tl 8.45 18.52 8 05 11.13 23.8 frv to Beept. noss.

21.79 8.79 8.H 8.95 11.47 1.81 12.19 LII 66-55 15.68 45.H 8.15 11.98 8.42 0.45 LII 55-53 2.42 tl.H 8.15 37.80 0.81 8.81 sentes/Fal/HChlut 16.58 8.59 9.11 25.80 8.39 21.88 0.41 039 8thet Onese (1 Seest. Best (F) 0.29 8 87 8.58 locas anclear 23.9 trleedlag 8.33 9.46 0.58 12.44 8.53 13.22 23.t3 frv to treeteoed 14.08 8.54 18.88 e.65 13.49 1.51 13.91 8ther BilaKk/Fal/seekee 1.11 25.08 8.39 21.H 9.41 8.49 als 53-55 2.42 45.H 9.85 31.88 0.81 0.8) 8t.111 1.Il 28.H 0.89 16.H 8.12 0.t3 j

23.11 Frecessing 0.25 10.25 8.25 13.34 8.21 14.18 D. Charles gest. 3*gd save K.3 frv to St. Charles 16.21 8.11 11.82 0.96 14.38 1.91 15.19

8. 3 0.25 8.el5 O.61 St. Il}

1.13 28.H 0.19 16.H St. 341 18.84 20.H 8.52 16.H 31255/Byrt/ seep 2.11 35.H 8.H 34.H 4.01 8.88 K.8 tsedtog 0.33 11.35 8.18 14.88 8.53 15.72 E.5 fro to It! bdry sosp/arrt/tt 25A 1.18 8.63 1.41 15.H 8.03 11.38 38.H 8.H 14.13 8.84 15.76

L 6

ATWMMErJr 15 3erestrictes<5:Hspeeds te 58038548 303ttfAL IVACUATICE f5LL 18 BIL8-841. 7158 VE8tCL13 3Cle&830:V Asseer: saa time:

8.91 11.56 12.28 eseesee ggegg].seessessesse seesse3aater Ad9erse

'f1 ster Adverse

Botes.e Casulative Distrib itse Length Scale Sist. Speed. flee See flee Speed flat See flat fate See fase Distance sus tiet Ubere 17.1 Anhal arrive at treats.

2.58 2.56 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66 lapst distristios 8.01 2.50 at treat.

11.2 Frecessist at 3r 4.58 3.88 8.5:

3.88 8.53 1.19 frocesslag time 0.01 3.64 process 11.96 3.92 et 5.1.

17.3 Travel to saff. lettre.

11.96 8.92 3.12 1.14 4.16 1.21 4.48 17.96 4.25 load it.llt 1 16 35.84 0.01 38.88 C.06 8.06 19.40 4.29 at Irl 5 dry LIB $4-66 1s.61 55.08 8.21 45.80 9.1) 8.35 41.21 4.54 at Rec Bo 8 III/11 Re.

2.58 0.59 1.53 35.88 9.84 38.88 0.85 0.05 47.21 5.11 soload 61.35 5.48 at liest.

11.8 Lead sg e.33 4.25 8.19 4.54 9.53 0.91 61.35 5.13 process geese at 3.1. (?)

0.11 4.81 8.11 5.11 Soces. asclear 19.31 6.99 et 1.1.

19.31 6.43 leadeq 17.5 Tri la 171 hassdry 1.53 35.08 8.94 4.29 31.88 G.t$

t.86 8.t3 5.16 la.es 6.4s at trI herr I.54 t.84 8.64 5.51 C.68 5.85 f.1. Icap.

100.62 7.02 at tec to

!!.5.8 serf 'a secpt assp.

21.19 Lil 66-55 15.68 55.48 8.28 65.99 8.35 6.37 188.62 1.64 g e asle L18 55-53 2.42 15.08 8.84 45.00 0.05 8.06 122.19 1.96 at.est.

l Santes/ Pal /56C1/ti 16.58 8.59 9.11 45.88 8.22 48.08 9.24 8.26 122.71 8.21 process Other 138.97 8.61 at 5t Cla 138.91 8.94 g

  • Lead 11.1 assitettag 4.84 5.51 5.85 sos 11. at s.1.

148.84 8.91 at til bd II.9 asised 0.33 1.11 4.18 6.81 0.51 6.38 lance 17.18 Tri to treatsood.

11.08 8.32 5.88 8.36 6.31 0.34 6.76 ette.

B1tB6Cn/ Pal /$aates 3.11 45.04 0.22 44.88 8.24 8.26 Fercest 81strihettons l

L1153-15 2.42 55.88

  • 24 e5.88 f.ts 0.06 ates 81 stance t tioe t

8t.111 1.26 15.88 0.85 38.88 8.86 0.87 Strt-disp 3.58 8.39 11.11 hacessis; 9.25 5.13 4.25 6.62 4.21 7.83 Tre-empti 88.34 8.51 2.31 8.26 Leadiat 0.99 0.11 23.3 tre to 1:11. Inf.

11.96 9.36 6.09 8.44 7.85 9.46 7.49 trv-tall 59.18 4.63 1.21 0.13 31.111 1.76 35.88 0.e5 39.ta 0.86 8.86 Onesist 8.38 8.03 LII $646 14.61 55.88 8.21 45.50 8.33 8.35 Dalsadsg 8.66 0.91 at 181/Llav 1.53 35.88 0.84 34.80 8.85 8.85 total 148.54 1.88 8.97 1.08 geese at 5.1.

9.11 6.98 1.01 locesentatles esclear.

23.4 Laa41st 8.31 6.43 8.58 6.53 0.53 9.87 23.5 Tre to 171 bary 1.53 35.88 8.84 6.42 38.88 8.35 8.58 4.85 9.12 23.8 frv ts tecst. most.

21.19 I.56 1.02 0.44 9.23 p.6f 9.88 Lit H-15 15.60 55.88 0.28 '

45.08 p.35 8.31 LII 15-13 2.42 55.e4 8.84 45.04 4.G 8.86 Seeles/ Pal /96Cn/En 16.58 4.59 9.11 45.88 8.22 18.00 8.24 8.26 otter 9ases at tecgt. Esse (?)

8.29 1.51 f.58 Socas. esclear 23.9 Osleading 8.33 1.66 8.54 18.2s 6.53 18.84 23.18 tre to treetened 14.48 8.32 7.16 4.12 18.12 9.13 14.96 Other utle6Ch/Fel/Secles 9.77 45.98 8.22 8844.84 0.80 f.H LII $3-55 2.42 55.sl 8.84 45.H I.e5 8.56 ft. lit 1.89 35.00 0.05 30.H 0.66 4.47 23.11 hacessing 8.25 8.21 8.25 III 4.21 11.23 ft. Charles asse. 3'rd save St.) fro ta St. Charles 16.27 9.tl 8.61 4.46

!!.t!

8.41 11.11

31. 111 3.11 35.84 8.11 3s.36 3.22 6.23 at. lef 10.44 45.64 0.23 46.30 0.26 0.28 Rt 25A/pgtt/Bost 2.12 35.84 S.06 18.69 8.8) 8.88 3C.t Leadist 0.33 a.94 8.54 11.52 0.13 12.24 sc.5 tre to til hdtr Bosp/tyrt/tt 254 1.78 8.6~.

1.81 35.8I 8.83 8 11 38.94 4.84 11.56

2. H 12.24

Attachnents 2,4,6 ane'

'.6 are oversized and are available upon request

Of'M "lWO 126c.tpT13 4 p

ACy Y

)

/?

. S M S N W n-.. W H - -

e up e.....f.e. a m_._Jf.c._rr..e. loan d I

4 A n h a_l e.1 h. b_. =. 4 e i e.=

3G t

\\

I. ht6b'AlA M e. 1 2 (eof e~ 2 (caf e Fro h

& d4.lje S k r~m' _~ ~__[ '

~

l I

_ _ _.. _..... S t. L L "7_

5 2 C gof e.... F..e,m_.. Sme leen.

~~'~ ' ' ~~ '3..-.Q u l anc e s x 1. p, f e. :.

-~

l

_-. J.

l IG e f(e. rrom. hf{,[h Tdiew

~ ~ ' ~$

A.m b a. l u tt.$ x.2.. f e s f [e, 3

f

...&._u $ J;de po3p;f. - - -

)

7 Am kle_ h.

=

... 5...s. fe.f.e.. rc.a_ fAIA -0,ftrm.

I

=

~ la~f {c'~ -= 10 f eofle..fr.om..~~$lk $$;rm.

~~

~ ' ~

5 Amba me.s, 2 f Y.,.A.Je};en C.eder

--- FIE[le-pri, Sctffolk -Tdtrm.

13 Amklances si q.p role = 26 2.L A~.a.us s 5. _x.

2_ e o r u.

yc S&

ma y 1Ar,.L K ru.y._1 g ~ 'H

.frm UOvs

-, w ' ~ )

icird I 7)

$dhAr PM x 2 gc.

2 (o p pG. b 6bA...SE6. ).k_..

hw%

."7 a.m kl a.n u,,,

(2"/v.ces3 j...

G hl>da.n m (3e ae.)

l I

i 1

i

i I_ __Crocd $udib hw 4d__O1)__het _(mbd_$s.(

[

2_3_o mLd evtu.e_x2 geA.:_.%., yk._pA.t.5m_

._._.. _LQ__a J A nte.i_y,1.putW. _

.'2.0..

_.. _. _ _ _ _. =

10 (h d Jo.q 6 6<

3 (p.i &>

-b u :b t_2.t m.. ~. N-D : @ % b

[ 5 Q }:_ -. _ _

e__.'A.L{_0m.k:d s.vo.'.,._.X.2o w pb '.7_e...g$___ p_

._kS_t Cd_..

M_ CA h&_.5__. _._

\\y'h'

~~ I b. cA tr* _

/To^

1_.d/Ed X7

\\

  • t
2. P %.._ _ _...._

gg 4

A.es w i.ck. 90 i ' 4 0

/ %_.

_ g_._._

.[Gan 'x/& y 1.p'.'s[_2..= 3 [p.'4h... __. _ b,S _OM..W MM Opo_1.( H )y'7 9 w p U. :. 4.2 p<.y 4.. h._K

_J/e_ ambu.idt3

_,p_M..I.. p n

.$. W }vd L %

x ~~i. QtGp.\\L_=.'.LC d I L l $. W M _....

k5__._f I cw. k S vtca... M._W, I

2

&;;;::: r a j i,)

~

~ "~

~

f

._ _._w.._ ;b.M.c3k4 x '? p< c(A_.?. I bl. rykc<rm Sf _Ckh h

~~T

-- Z ] % m 6., a u, G (~ s h (co [. f E 5.i.. N _4_ h t

C1 \\ p cp t -tcttn_;

-.6 a.mh.k.h/ x.'i p_cp \\( =

b s_491 G3

_(3 C

......b. _. _. 4 Ck d.. __

R.aln.b.wl+ 4 4_x 3.p w f > ".__2_E._ p pSo 2

f r

16 E M U4u-6 a a o "x7p4k"-Actmbalc Lk X7 pc.rp)c

- / '-/._pwep pf_a[vtm.b

~

--)

__..h O

/

I

/

M.vu Lmokd (50

_ % P G u l r % v

_ p u p A.)_g. 5.

rch ka. Ws.L % %IL M o55o.u 1..-..__5.n b.l (_7 0

. s. _ _.

_ (_ b u s _ _.__..y._ 9..

= [1 au g %vm Gs+ d % Gi

2. cm %k %
  • x 1

-40._6.,

ii S.o.uk bJasica.L_bMela.chEs.~hc 5~ndel ( 6.LG)

~

[Jak %.L.Weca.51.,,._ _.. (t!.)._._.

.., _.... A

. =..... b. d..p.. w_ e,.; Sm O. A.

i

- ' ~ $. Fr1.n a s.

9r~ s p_3 ~~

.i 3.1_)

\\

baA

. '2. 7. p de q s % S w % i K

_. _ _. _...... =

1 E Mi M

%/

, j A

M ihC b b lh ORIGIN-DESTINATION TABLE for Shoreham Hospital Evacuation r

ORIGIN------ a-----------

Destination bound Infirmary.Mather Charles Suffolk Revd

',I Home-Suffolk St.

Central Total Capacity Smithtc.n G.H.

38 36V 2A 38 St. Johns Hosp.

42 26A 16A 42 Southside 58v Hosp..

69 10A 68 V.A.Med.

Center 116 102A 14A 116 Southhampton Hosp.

27 26A 26 Good Samaritan 65 46A 20A 66 Huntington 59 13V 47A 60 Brunswick 36 35V 35 Central General 42 42V 42 Middle Island 33 28V 28 Massapequa 17 14V 14 Nassau Co.

Med.Ctr.

90 91V 91 Hempstead 31 28V 28 Lydia Hall 30 16V 14V 30 Mercy 56 56V 56 Nassau Hosp.(?)77 s.

12V 52 40B South Nassau Comm. Hosp.

56 60B 60 North Shore Univ 84 64B 64 St. Francis Hosp.

32 27B 27 Total Sent 62 215 238 260 168 943 Total Patients 62 215 238 271 168 954 V by Ambulette A by Ambulance B by Bus

L!

g"TTAGWEN O I

Sete 4/M2 Lilce trace for 2*ed save T.A. to Baettagtes Besp.

Sa008BAA 80$f t?&L BVK88f105 FELL 78 BILE-AA1. TIEE HEICL88 KIBMIO.8astisgtes 8 esp Aesser: Bas t!ee:

12.12 16.68 17.I2 unue gereal'"*"""*"

'"*"sasser Mverse"*

"* lister Adverse" Botes fosslative 81stri)

Itac Leegth Scale Sist. Speed time See 71ee speed flee ses fsee fase ses flee 31 stance See tiet ubere 11.18ebel arrive at Brests.

2.58 2.50 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66 1 spot dirtstation 0.81 2.58 at Brest.

11.2 Pracessteg at 3r 0.58 3.88 0.54 3.H 8.53 3.19 tracessieg (1ee 8.01 3.H process 11.96 3.92 at 5.1.

11.3 travel to lef t. Is!!rs.

11.M 8.92 3.92 1.14 4.18 1.21 4.48 11.M t.25 lead 8t.lli 1.16 20.H 8.89 16.08 0.11 8.12 19.40 4.58 at 871 Mry LII $6-66 14.67 28.88 8.13 16.88 8.92 8.91 81.21 6.68 st Sec to 8101/a! As.

2.58 0.59 1.53 20.88 0.00 16.H 4.10 0.18 41.21 1.81 eslead 61.35 1.66 at srest.

11.6 Lseding 0.33 4.25 0.58 4.61 8.53 4.9) 61.35 1.91 process geoes at 8.1. (?)

8.11 4.01 8.18 1.11 Soces. saclear 19.31 8.44 at 3.1.

19.31 B.18 lead +q 11.5 tre to 871 booedtf 1.53 6.88 8.25 4.50 5.80 9.31 5.12 8.32 5.44 88.84 8.82 at 871 Mry 17.6.8 Mry to secpt Sesp.

27.11 2.10 6.68 2.12 1.54 2.89 8.13 f.A. Bosp.

!!t.14 18.H at see se 118 64 55 15.68 15.88 1.84

!!.88 1.H 1.38

!!I.58 18.60 g e sold LII 55-53 2.42 15.88 8.16 12.88 8.28 0.21 129.14 11.35 at Breet.

Sasses / Pal /HCn/s1 36.18 8.59 9.11 18.08 8.98 8.80 1.22 1.38 129.11 II.H process Other 185.41

!!.36 at St Cha 145.41

!!.69 q e 1 sad 11.1 mesitorist 6.68 1.88 8.33 bestt, at 5.1.

106.08 12.12 at 8Pt nd 11.9 Balsad 8.33 1.01 8.58 8.34 5.53 8.86 11.18 frv to siestseed.

14.88 8.68 1.66 8.88 9.14 8.85 9.11 other alleEn/rst/seekes 9.11 28.08 8.49 16.88-0.61 8.65 tercent Bistribstless L!k 5345 2.42 48.88 8.66 32.80 0.88 8.08 ates listaace 1 TAse i

St.111 1.89 20.H 0.09 16.08 8.12 0.13 stst-disp 3.58 8.28 11.11 Processing 8.25 1.91 8.25 9.39 8.21 9.9%

frv-eepty 88.86 8.15 3.53 8.28 Leadise 8.99 0.88 23.3 frv ts self.181.

11.96 8.53 8.44 8.66 18.86 8.11 18.68 frv-Isil 65.62 0.45 3.18 8.29 8t.111 f.16 20.88 8.89 16.88 0.11 8.12 goesist 0.38 8.42 118 56-64 14.61 40.88 8.31 32.58 8.06 0.49 peloadog 8.66 8.85 8t lll/Llas 1.53 28.88 0.85 16.80 8.18 0.18 tofAL 146.48 1.88 12.12 1.H geese at s.I.

8.81 8.98 1.84 nocementottos saclear.

23.4 Leadlet 8.33 0.18 8.58 11.54 9.53 12.26 23.5 Tre to IF1 Sdry 1.53 35.80 8.88 8.82 38.88 8.05 11.59 8.65 12.31 23.8 Tre to Becyt. Resp.

33.71 1.23 10.86 1.54 13.13 1.64 13.95 118 66.5 15.68 48.80 8.39 32.H 8.49 8.52 P.It 15-51 2.82 48.08 8.06 32.80 8.08 4.80 8entes/Ps!'8Ehl31 16.58 8.59 9.11 28.88 8.89 16.Se 3.61 0.65 etter, to 3 set. 3.

II.H 8.!*

5.92 28.00 8.38 16.40 6.31 0.39 geert et Secpt. Best (f) 8.29 8.11 8.58 Doces. esclear 23.9 seleedlag 8.33 18.68 0.58 14.18 8.53 14.98 23.0 frv to Orseteced 14.68 6.61 11.35 8.84 14.H 8.H 15.81 W/Est/LII 13 11.30 0.59 18.29 28.88 0.51 16.04 8.64 8.64 31/tKh/ Pol /Seekes 28.H 16.H LI! 13-35 2.42 48.88 8.86 32.H 8.88 0.88 St. !!!

1.89 20.00 8.89 16.88 8.12 8.13 23.11 Processhg t.25 11.68 8.25 15.19 0.27 16.14 (2. Charles aser. 3'rf Beve K.3 frv to St. Charles 16.21 0.11 12.36 8.96 16.14 1.81 11.11 St. til 3.11

't.88 8.19 16.88 8.23 0.25 St. 341 10.44 28.H 8.52 16.88 8.65 0.69 i

at 25Altyrt/Beap 2.12 35.00 8.H M.H 8.81 8.88 K.4 Leadist 8.31 12.69 0.58 16.64 0.53 11.64 K.5 frv to RP1 bdry Best/eftt/et 254 1.18 8.63 1.01 15.18 0.03 12.12 38.H 0.84 16.64 8.84 17.72 i

S i

i

ATTAC.WmENTto METROPOLITAN NEW YORK PRIVATE BUS COMPANIES AVERAGE OPERATING EMPLOYEE PER BUS 1985 Full-Time Company Operating Peak Bus Oper. Employee Per Name Employees Requirements Peak Bus Required

. t: -

Na sau/Suffolk Huntington Bus 20 11 1.81 R0pid Transit

+4 part-time MSLA 529 265 2.00 (public authority)

Suffolk County 100 64 1.56 Bus Operators NYC Command 132 98 1.35 Groen Bus Lines 392 156 2.51 Jcmaica Bus 185 96 1.93 Liberty Lines Express 233 138 1.69 N2w York Bus Tours 232 180 1.29 k

+18 part-time Qu2 ens Transit 303 185 1.64 Steinway 159 108 1.47 Triboro Coach 29I 169 1.76 W,atchester Liberty Lines Transit 356 209 1.70 Wastchester County 32 50

.64*

Consolidated Small

+19 part-time (1,02 inc. part-time)

Oporators 1,76 Average

  • Not included in average; a system group significantly different than other operators.

_)

kN hN M

DISTANCE CORRECTIONS TO LILCO MAXIMUM TRACE LILCO DOT ITEM VALUE VALUE SOURCE DIFF.

Rt.lll, Brentwood to LIE 1.84 1.76 State Records

.08 LIE 56->66 14.39 14.67 State Records +.28 Rt.101/LI Avenue 1.83 1.53 Rescaled

.30 LIE 66->55 15.43 15.60 State Records +.17 LIE 55->53 2.25

?. 4 2 State Records +.17 Sunken Meadow /Pulaski/

Rescaled &

Bread & Cheese 9.29 9.77 State Records +.48 Rt.lll, LIE 55-Brentwood 1.89 1.89 0

Rt.lll, LIE-347 4.00 3.71 State Records

.29 Rt.347, 111-112 10.90 10.44 State Records

.46 Rt.ll2/25A/ Myrtle / Hosp.

1.95 2.12 Rescaled &

+.17 State Records St.Ch. Hosp./Myrt/25A/EPZ l.07 1.07 0

a.

i

i.

6 Sete 3/31180 Carrectet LILCD trace, distances and lead tases 53086845 BCifl14L 814C8&fl00 (5LL 18 BIL8-EAI. ?!st TBAICL18 5CIe6410: 111 f18C 8 esser: saa tiee:

12.48 16.28 11.29

......* Bor ul"""""'

            • sasser Adveru

'"Inster leverse" notes Cseelative listrib Ites Length scale 81st. Speed flee See flee Speed flee See flee fase See flee 81 stance See tiet Here 11.1 tabel arriet at Breste.

2.1B 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.66

! spot dist:betlee 8.81 2.18 at 3 rest.

11.2 Processtag at 8r 0.58 3.08 8.58 3.88 8.53 1.11 frocessing ttee 8.18 3.H process 11.96 3.12 et 3.1.

11.3 fravel to Self. Isilre.

11.H 8.12 3.12 1.14 4.14 1.21 4.48 11.96 4.25 lead 81.!!!

l.16 28.18 0.89 16.88 0.11 8.12 19.H 4.5" at 8f1 Nry LLI 56-66 14.61 28.80 0.11 16.09 8.92 8.11 41.2I 6.68 at tec re 8181/LI 8v.

2.56 8.59 1.51 28.H 0.88 16.80 0.18 8.18 41.2I 1.88 eslead 61.35 1.66 at trest.

11.4 Leadist 8.33 4.25 8.58 4.64 8.53 4.93 61.35 1.98 process geese at 5.1. (fl 8.!!

4.81 8.18 5.!!

80cas.estlear 19.11 8.44 at 5.1.

19.31 8.11 lead +

11.6.8 Nry to tecpt sosp.

21.11

  • 6.88 8.25 4.55 5.08 8.31 5.12 8.32 5.44 48.84 8.82 at 8tf bdry 11.5 Tre to tr! besadry 1.53 2.18 6.68 2.12 1.84 2.09 8.33
f. A. Scsp.

108.62 9.16 at Sec to 118 66-M 15.68 11.88 1.14 12.88 1.38 1.38 188.62 18.30 g e mald L1815-11 2.42 15.II 8.16 12.88 8.28 4.21 122.18 11.02 at 8 test.

Restes/ Pal /86C1/sa 16.58 8.19 9.11 18.88 8.98 8.88 1.22 1.38 122.18 11.21 process 138.91

!!.H at It Cha Otter 138.91 12.31 g e lead 11.1 sceltaring 6a 1.H 8.33 soalt. at 5.1.

148.84 12.48 at 8tl 44 11.9 salead 8.33 1.81 8.56 8.34 s.51 8.86 lance 11.18 tre to 3restened.

14.BI 8.64 1.66 8.08 9.14 8.45 9.11 stber st/t6tt/ Pal /5estee 9.ei 74 et 8.49 16.80 8.41 8.65 tercest 81stribstlaas 118 5)-55 1.42 40.88 6.66 32.08 4.88 8.88 stre 21 stance t Time 1

St. Ill i 19 20.8I 8.89 16.00 9.12 0.13 Strt-disp 3.58 8.20 11.11 tracesstag 8.25 1.11 8.25 9.39 8.21 9.90 Tri-eeply 88.34 8.51 3.51 8.28 Leading 8.11 0.08 8.H 8.44 8.66 18 H 0.11 18.68 fan-Isli 11.14 8.43 3.45 8.25 23.1 frv to leff. lat.

11.96

.28.08 8.89 16.08 8.11 8.12 Quesist 8.38 0.82 88 lit 1.16 LIS 56-65 14.61 48.08 8.31 32.88 8.H 8.49 kicadog 8.66 8.t5 8t ISI/Lias 1.51 29.80 8.48 16.88 0.18 0.18 fcTAL lll.H I.H 12.44 1.H Decne et 5.1.

s.81 8.98 1.84 pocasestatles saclear.

22.4 Leading 8.33 8.18 8.58

!!.54 8.53 12.26 2J.5 frv to 1F1 biry 1.53 35.88 8.84 I.82 38.88 8.85 11.59 0.85 12.31 23.0 frv to Beest. lesp.

21.19 5.94 9.16 1.11 12.16 1.25 13.56 LII 66-55 15.68 48.58 8.19 32.88 8.49 8.52 L18 55-53 2.42 48.08 8.86 32.88 8.98 6.H Seetes/ Pal /MCh/51 16.58 8.59 9.11 28.88 8.49 16.H 8.61 8.65 other geese at Becst. Gosp (f) 8.29 8.41 8.58 acces. ecclear 23.9 seleedleg 8.13 18.38 8.58 13.13 8.53 14.19 13.18 frv to 8testseed 14.58 I.64 11.82 I.88 14.54 0.45 15.44 ether st/tKh/ Pal /8eekes 1.11 21.84 0.49 16.08 8.61 8.65 L!b 53-55 2.42 48.08 0.86 32.88 8.68 I.H St. lit I.89 28.08 0.89 16.00 8.12 0.13 23.11 tracesslog 8.25 11.21 8.25 14.19 8.21 15.11 C. Garles Beep. 3'rd Base 8C.3 frv to M. Charles 16.21 8.11 12.H 8 96 15.14 1.01 16.12 st.111 3.11 28.38 0.19 16.H 8.23 8.25 St. lif II.44 20.00 8.52 16.H I.65 0.69 8125&lefft/Besp 2.12 31.H 8.H 34.H 8.01 8.88 SC.4 Leedlag I.33 12.31 8.58 16.24 8.53 11.26 K.5 tre to 871 berv Sese/efrt/tl 254 3.18 I.63 1.8I 35.80 8.83 11.44 38.H 8.84 16.28 8.H 11.29

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20151N919&oldid=4154607"