ML20107E343

From kanterella
Revision as of 06:24, 11 May 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of CE Kilduff Re Lilco 850111 Proffered Evidence. Supporting Documentation Encl.Related Correspondence
ML20107E343
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 02/19/1985
From: Kilduff C
NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:
Shared Package
ML20107E279 List:
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8502250533
Download: ML20107E343 (84)


Text

W UNITED STATES OF AMERICA packJU us NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa 22 Af f ,.g T.{;[SECRgyy b/i4c[EnWu.

)

)

In the Matter of )

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket-.4o. 50-322-OL-3

) '*' * * : . i . . .

(Emergency Plannih,g)~

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

)

Unit 1)

)

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. KILDUFF ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK STATE REGARDING LILCO'S PROFFERED EVIDENCE OF JANUARY 11 Q. Please state your name, occupation, and professional background.

A. My name is Charles E. Kilduff. I am a civil engineer in Transportation Planning, New York State Department of Trans-portation.

A statement of my qualifications and experience is Attachment 1 to this testimony.

O. Please provide a brief background of your work experience as it pertains to your testimony.

A. I have been with the New York State Department of Transportation since 1962. I am currently supervising the Regional Development Section, Region 10 (Nassau-Suffolk Counties).

I am directly involved in transportation improvements for Region 19 g2250533850h0322 ADOCK 050 7 PDR

?  :

,L'e s ,

10, including the study of traffic conditions, capacities and forecasting. My duties require me to be familiar with traffic conditions throughout Suf folk and Nassau Counties, including the Nassau Coliseum area in Uniondale, New York.

Q. What is the purpose of this testimony?

A. The purpose of this testimony is to address LILCO's proffered evidence of January 11, 1985 concerning LILCO's pro-posal to use the Nassau Coliseum to monitor and decontaminate evacuees in the event of an emergency at the Shoreham nuclear plant.

Q.. Are you familiar with the evidence proffered by LILCO?

I have reviewed LILCO's evidence. That evidence A. Yes.

makes clear that all evacuees wiB1 be directed to the Nassau Coliseum for monitoring and decontamination. It is my under-standing that most evacuees would reach the Coliseum by using However, a substantial their own automobiles or other vehicles.

number of evacuees will not have access to automobiles and b!

therefore would have to be evacuated to.the Coliseum by bus.

c.

1/ The LILCO Plan estimates that approximately 11,100 persons l

~

will not have access to automobiles. The Plan calls 236 of these for these persons to be evacuated using.333 buses.

buses will travel pre-established routes within Passengers thetaken will be EPZ,to making a total of 377 trips.from where 97 additional buses will 11 transfer points,

- transport people out of the EPZ -- and presumably, under'See Direct Testi-

' LILCO's proposal, to the Nassau Coliseum.

mony of William J. Acquario, et al. on behaIT~of NewSee York State regarding Emergency Planning Contention 67.

also LILCO Plan, Appendix A, at'IV-74e to 74h.

/

- -- --u-_.-,._. . . . . , _ _ ,

I 6

.L- c' ,

Q.

What is your opinion regarding LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum?

A. My experience suggests that there could be serious problems with LILCO's proposal.

Q. What are these problems?

A.- Under the LILCO proposal, evacuees would travel from the r.

EPZ to the Nassau Coliseum in personal vehicles and LILCO-operated buses. In my opinion, this would result in'significant additional traffic volumes on already heavily travelled highways and streets

As a result, it is j- within both Suffolk and Nassau Counties.

likely that traffic between the EPZ and the Coliseum would be congested, and evacuees could face considerable delays in reach-ing the Coliseum.

Q. Please explain.

A. A-significant number of passenger cars, and the' buses

! would likely used by LILCO to transport persons out of the EPZ,

(" LIE") , which carries an average use the Long . Island Expressway annual daily traffic '("AADT") of between 100,000 and 120,000 vehicles between Exit 64 in Suffolk County and Exit 40 in Nassau 2/ The rules and regulations of the Long Island State Parks and Recreation Commission ("LISPRC") prohibit commercial traffic, such as buses, from using the parkways on Long Island. Thus, highways such as the Northern State Parkway and the Southern State Parkway Indeed, itwould not be available is physically for impossible 3,

use by LILCO's buses.for some buses to use many of the Therefore, parkways because sufficient vertical clearance at the underpasses.

LILCO's buses would have to use the Long Island Expressway and local arterials and streets to reach the Nassau Coliseum from-the EPZ.

. '- s' ,4, Even under normal, day-County,1[ to reach the Nassau Coliseum.

to-day conditions, the LIE in this sector is a heavily travelled route in both the eastbound and westbound directions, and evacuees would therefore likely experience considerable delays in reaching the Coliseum.

Evacuees in their own vehicles, after leaving the EPZ and travelling a distance of some 30 miles from the William Floyd Parkway $! on the LIE, could access the Long Island Parkway system at Exit 42 of the LIE. Most likely, such evacuees would then use the Northern S, tate Parkway and the Meadowbrook Parkway to reach the Nassau Coliseum. While this route would be the most direct route to the Coliseum, both the Northern State Parkway and the

~.

Meadowbrook Parkway have capacity deficiencies. The Northern State

- Parkway carries an AADT of 90,000 passenger cars and the Meadow-

. brook' Parkway carries an AADT of 80,000 passenger cars. These volumes exceed traffic capacitiesb/ and, as a result, traffic on these parkways is typically congested.

" In addition, the interchange configuration between the Northern State Parkway and the Meadowbrook Parkway is such that

-3/

- Exit 6,4 provides access from the LIE to NY Route 112 and is locased just outside the western boundary of the Shoreham l

10-mile EPZ. Exit 40 provides access from the LIE to the Nassau Coliseum.

-4/ The William Floyd Parkway is a north-south highway which passes through the approximate center of the 10-mile EPZ.

For example, recent studies by the New York State Depart-5/ +-ment

~

of Transportation have shown that in order to handle

+ future traffic demand on the Northern' State Parkway, traffic capacity would need to be doubled.

  • 4P M

- . s ,.-,,-,-.-,.,--n _,-a e_w,-- - - - -,,,e < . - -

,u- c .- traffic is significantly impacted. In essence, westbound Northern State Parkway traffic attempting to travel southbound on the Meadowbrook Parkway must exit the Northern State Parkway onto Glen Cove Road, re-enter the Meadowbrook Parkway via a circuitous ramp, and then merge with through traffic to go south. As a result, traffic congestion and queues at the interchange are commonplace even in normal traffic conditions, as are traffic accidents. Indeed, the serious traffic operational and safety problems arising from the present configuration of the inter-change have resulted in a proposal by my office that the inter-change be reconstructed. Pertinent sections from this January 1984 proposal comprise Attachment 2 to this testimony. Figure 3 of the Attachment shows specific geometric problems at the interchange (too many conflicting movements, short weave and merge lengths, and no direct connection from westbound Northern State Parkway to south-bound Meadowbrook Parkway). The Attachment also includes a detailed accident analysis for 1980 an1 from January 1982 to January 1983.

This analysis reveals that the average number of accidents at the interchange has been 130 accidents per year -- over six times the Statewide accident rate. The proposal concludes (at page 12) that the projected traf'fic increase and the inadequate geometrics of the interchange will result in traffic operation becoming intolerable, unless the interchange is reconstructed.5/

6/ The proposal to reconstruct the interchange has been approved, but construction is not scheduled before 1989. Construction would'take approximately two years. Even with reconstruction of the interchange, additional work wil1~be required east of the interchange if traffic congestion in the area is to be alleviated.

a b- g 6 7

As previously mentioned, LILCO-operated buses travelling i from the EPZ to the Nassau Coliseum will have to use the LIE and i One route l local arterials and streets to reach the Coliseum.

likely to be used would be for LILCO's buses, after travelling west a distance of about 36 miles from the William Floyd Parkway on the LIE, to exit onto NY Route 25 (Jericho Turnpike) and then This section of NY continue west for a distance of three miles.

Route 25, however, is a divided boulevard with at-grade inter-sections and side friction, i.e., roadside development. The effect J

of vehicles entering onto the roadway from driveways and businesses is to reduce traffic flow. Traffic delays also occur due to

' traffic signals.

4 LILCO's buses could exit NY Route 25 and travel south This' route for three miles on Post Avenue to Merrick Avenue.

would also provide access to the Nassau Coliseum and is perhaps the most direct route. Post Avenue, however, is characterized by heavy side friction and congestion as a result of both residential and commercial development.

Therefore, it is again likely that evacuees would be delayed in reaching the Coliseum.

Q.

Are there any other problems with LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum to monitor and decontaminate evacuees?

A. Yes. The Nassau Coliseum is located in Mitchel Field and is in close' proximity to Roosevelt Field, a large shopping complex. The entire area around the Coliseum is experiencing rapid development, with a concurrent high growth in traffic volumes along the local streets.- This conclusion is supported.by

! a Generic Environmental Impact Statement '("EIS") for the Mitchel Field area prepared by the Nassau County Planning Commission in

e V t W i

October 1984. Among other issues, the EIS discussed actual and predicted traffic volumes in the Mitchel Field area. Pertinent sections of the Mitchel Field EIS comprise Attachment 3 to this testimony. In particular, however, the EIS reveals that high intensity land use in the form of commercial and office develop-ment has caused significant traffic congestion in the area of f

the Nassau Coliseum.1[ As a result, it must be concluded that evacuees would likely experience considerable delays in attempting to reach the Coliseum during an emergency at the Shoreham plant.

Indeed, given the volume of traffic that could result from evacua-tion of the entire 10-mile EPZ, ! the limited number of major 7/. Traffic congestion was specifically recognized by the Nassau County Planning Commission as a serious problem "urgen(tly requiring] needed improvements" in its formal findings and approval of the Mitchel Field EIS. The Commission noted with respect.to traffic congestion that Development of Mitchel Field is expected to have a major impact upon traffic flow in the area.

There will be delays at intersections, slower move-ment of vehicles on the surrounding road network, and heavier demands upon.the mass transit system.

l Several of the intersections actually will fall to a l

" Forced Flow". Level of Service -- the improvements unless worst-case-traffic-flow-description . . .

are implemented.

s l See Resolution of the Nassau County Planning Commission dated l

l December 6, 1984, the pertinent section of which is Attachment 4 to this testimony.

8/ According to LILCO's estimates, approximately 160,000 persons reside within the 10-mile EPZ of the Shoreham plant.

LILCO Plan, Appendix A, at III-2. Furthermore, I am aware that l Suffolk County contends that traffic evacuating from within l

i the EPZ would likely be substantially increased bySee voluntary generally evacuees from both Suffolk and Nassau Counties.

testimony of James H. Johnson regarding LILCO's proffered I evidence. ,

1

.e ,.. ,

east-west highways on Long Island, and the heavy congestion of those highways.during peak traffic conditions, traffic would likely be congested and delayed all the way between the EPZ and the Nassau Coliseum area.

Q. Are you aware of any other problems that could delay travel time by evacuees to the Nassau Coliseum?

A. Yes. As a result of the Rebuild New York Program, a significant amount of highway and bridge construction has been approved for the Nassau Coliseum area.

This construction will take a number of years to complete, and will significantly impact several major parkways, the LIE, and many of the arterial road-At a minimum, traffic flow ways in the area of the Coliseum.

in the area will be regularly delayed due to the closina of lanes, reduction in lane widths, detours and other construction-related restrictions.

As a result of this construction, the capacity of some Nassau Coliseum area roadways will be significantly reduced, causing traffic delays and congesting further the already-It is likely that Shoreham evacuees congested roadway system.

travelling to the Nassau Coliseum would encounter at least some roadway construction, and would therefore be delayed even further in reaching the Coliseum.

Q. Please summarize your testimony.

A. It is likely that passenger cars and buses evacuating the EPZ will experience considerable delays in reaching the Even after leaving the EPZ, the volume of Nassau Coliseum.

s

, a- ...-

I l

traffic from evacuating vehicles will result in congestion and I

delays along the LIE and the major east-west highways leading to the Coliseum. If evacuees attempt to reach the Coliseum by exiting the LIE and using local roadways, as the LILCO-operated buses must, they will be confronted with moderate to heavy side friction, narrow lanes, and congested, signalized intersections.

Buses, in particular, will have difficulty in travelling many of In addition, the local streets around the Nassau Coliseum.

evacuating traffic will likely be significantly impacted by roadway construction projects presently underway or scheduled for the Nassau Coliseum area.

Q. Does that conclude your testimony?

A. Yes.

i l

l i

l l

. L ** ATTACHMENT 1 l i

CHARLES E. KILDUFF - Qualifications and Experience New York State Department of Address: Transportation New York State Office Building veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Phone: (516) 360-6128 (Business)

Training:

Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering -

University of Mississippi. Graduated August 1952.

Master of. Science - Transportation Planning - Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. Graduated June 1971.

Other training includes courses in the 1965 Traffic Capacity Manual given by Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and a Professional Program Urban Transportation given by the Transportation Researgh Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - 1977.

Work Experience: USMC 1952 to 1954 - Engineer Battalion -

Officer Walsh Construction - 1955 - Construction Engineer Buck & Donahue - 1956 - Construction-Engineer Andrews & Clarke, Inc. (Highway Design) 1956 to 1962-New York State Dept. of Transportation -

Design and Construction ~- 1962 to 1963 Planning & Development - 1963 to present.

l Currently supervising the Regional j Development Section. , ,

Licensed to practice Professional Engineering in New York State in 1961.

l-

,e I

m__, .

ATTACHMENT 2

o. ..

4 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PROJECT PROPOSAL PIN 0523.00  !

NORTHERN STATE PARKWAY AND f MEADOWBROOK PARKWAY i

INTERCHANGE I

l

+

1 I

i J

i 4

a l

NASSAU COUNTY RECONSTRUCTION JANUARY 1984 Prepared by: New York State Department of Transportation Region 10 Planning & Development Hauppauge New York i

t TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION........................................... 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEft AND RELATED FACTORS......... 4 A. Exi s ti ng Condi ti ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. General Background
2. Geometrics
3. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
4. Traffic Operation
a. On the Parkways
b. On the Adjacent Roads
5. Safety
a. Accident History
b. Collision Diagram B. Projected Future Condi ti ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
2. Traffic Operation
3. Safety C. Re s ul ti n g Nee ds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Safety
2. Traffic Operation III. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS.......................... 13 i IV. PROJECT PROP 0 SAL........................................ 14 V. PROJECT EVALUATION...................................... 20 A. Estimated Cost B. Benefits C. Benefits / Cost Ratio 21 VI. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS..........................

A. Federal Aid System B. Functional Classification C. Maintenance Responsibilities D. Relationship with Other Transportation Projects E. Environmental Action Plan (EAP) Category F. State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)

Classification and Lead Agency G. Anticipated Permits Required VII. PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Fonn 200e

t .

I. INTRODUCTION The Northern State Parkway is a major east-west lir:ited access freeway serving

' the northern corridor of Long Island. It intersects the Meadowbrook Parkway in Fm Carle Place. The Headowbrook Parkway is a major north-south limited access free-

'k" way, connecting to the Southern State Parkway which serves the southern corridor  ;

j of Long Island. Meadowbrook Parkway extends south of Southern State Parkway and ends at Jones Beach Park.

p k Jericho Turnpike, State Route 25, a principal east-west arterial serving the r- north shore corridor, intersects (at-grade) Glen Cove Road, a major County Road b~

(Route 1) that links Glen Cove on the north shore to the five town area in the southeastern section of Nassau County.

The above interchange and intersection are in close proximity to each other r-

'L in a mixed residential comercial area. The area immediately south of the points of intersection are changing very rapidly from a mixed industrial commercial area g

U to one of high use commercial development.

This proposal is concerned with the Meadowbrook Parkway and Northern State

] Parkway interchange. The location and limits of the proposed project are shown on Figures 1 and 2.

Northern State Parkway west of the interchange is an eight lane controlled I

L access facility and a four lane controlled access facility to the east.

Meadowbrook Parkway is a .i x lane controlled access facility to the south. Glen Cove Road and Route 25 are four lane arterials.

h The existing geometric configuration of the junction of these two parkways lacks a direct connection from the westbound Northern State Parkway to southbound i -

R Meadowbrook Parkway, and the location of on and off ramps serving Glen Cove Road p and Route 25 at the interchange results in serious traffic operational and safety b problems, u

W -- ._. _ _

9

y a v_~-

4 dc A_

A o

P a

/

A _

A n ni o, s M 1 f o;

A #

l NE

$s /

t t

e _ sa g e 1

1

+

M OR d 7 N g I U

" 4 g t C

t A

S T

A G I

\

g' g l- CF 9

g O g, s 7,,

L d ov a ~

A ~

r c

u a y A

  • w p g

1 L

't

  1. f 4

$ hI5 4

T W

w c' N Ut s M"h f[*AiJ '

0 f

t O _ g NO I

N U

w t

$ A

(

? -

"j*l l A

f 9

3

.2 (

O *

$ 3 y* * ,

_ n.

r a

e s

s u

o n,y .

^ + +1t y

ga I gw M o 'p

. oi G t S 8N E

N A '

WR O E H C - " .

D H T R _ B E

AR T _

EO h MNt S G

i gg ~ .

U l

k

' 7 -

,. . I

1. h
  • A

. 4 l ,) ijl . .l;' ) I l

  • I ll' l;'

i e, a, ,. ,

E -i p.mts.2A- wr-+ ' . 7.,a - e, > g. , . . .:. x , .. . y R 1. a.  % ... c f - ,- . u

\

\...

l#1 9 4 C',

L \

i 9& r =

qt

&) .e ql -

{

s

'>i-r'./-4)

..'s

.. u- tV .- y ,Tyw d.h<4  !

r a. jt

- 2 4, ,~

4 0} o e. ..< -. u~ ., .

' - h,Q.l 6

  • h e

~

~Y l

M

(, . ;-[ ' )@ [

ue  ;

S' . . -/

"y*L&

'p 7.. , ,,

a.* 7*d t3 .. v .* - *

'h J. .:

, J.* 6

.H

=} ',Y "o ,,

i p, { ,., /5 -- ,

' '- - s. ' H 1E M ,

13 > T '* E _*,'A.p-mrl . .

. inj

i. ',.

'o

  • y -

i, Mk.,

f.

Ig *

.s d.c.,,,,g *1

' '75 p- . . /

j"g a

~ o ]' -4 = d ~'-,$4TV~

n t s, q% \. . '

h i, t? a

.:-. ;y. RQ -

- .wg a yh

j.  %. i y. ,}1r . -,(.

r _.

, -r

., .\ ..

g . .,,.* y . -

,g'. 9 a.\

' 'r 4L mj,  ! --- > ).>*'.6 nart +n isies -;

w

( t' . T. A"". -

7g 6' , se \,

,.i'# \iu ,v,

  • nny' ' 1 ' 3 . .>.<

4y,,-

' g% .- ..

t g s '.-.

'L j- e, m .

h* i, i et-3FW.

'4f.M ..r 3 '. k.r ie,

/.  %..m \.

r,/- v e

/

.g,w .f .: ,

f -

.p ; u . . .u,.- m . .v: y ,. v . :- .-

a \y,,,, y .

yq:,f;,s . .,ag&.=v'.~.in.  ?

o, a. s ' 1:y* ,>"~' y--.

h

.J

g. 4 % ,
y. .t" .* . s! .. Wh.. '. ,-:*

j

{ . y ..,p . 2L v.

, ,4 g ]_-

p

.3 iM,.

1 1.....- .

m 4, . , - ..

g;,,,,,, //

A, ( s ~ q$sy,jg e,yC'-i < ,.

.g ~ , r.w s ys ' ., \ . tow.io.*=y .~

.. e, t

.%- u

, ,,g~ g k* :.

  • TiV.W_g

(\h. t, f ?. 0 \..-.c.h.,~ ky,c

' Q

NCS.

. ' r  !****'

e ,,,. R 1. X , ' -

U.ht o \ }'33 h?--hfnj. "W#~~$ h Y** $ e- ~~" ' f

? i' ' ' < 'Uh. , ,,, /J - ,

M.;8__ - .

6 s

.,  ;. . ..gg... 't

g. c, i.+

Q..,WE' I . egypl ... O (,

, ,;. g[(!jj i, ,

" W h d.*W % *

(

5

  • l

p&YQ:..-?'\' h * - .

,/. ,'..

5*"* '

\1 e -

'.y. PROJECT LOCATION MAP '

) .i f b=

M E A DOWBROOK &

5. '"' *!''o N O R TH ERN STATE P' WAYS f.lTY 3

g ,

s,

,. 81 4 ' *i .

m- e

}

>, c M

g . .

Ydi C AR LE PL ACE 8 M h8. Jb. ). -

.d*

a e, _. h*G J . 1 NENYE'.'4 'L >4' .N'A5$ AU COUNTY

[

e s I A' e  !  !! n m CN E g' ej 3 *

,s s s,

- fp i.m ilk .

=

/- ,1  : l J a- s 51 7 a3 5 5 hE s

5 E

-3 w A a E E 2s a 5N d#

j E:

E

\T I!

i J _

k -

g.o -

/

,:  ! I 5 x s C ;

8 E y;3 E t g = d 5=

1; E5 E!

- 2 e

=E W

J - . ,a

! !2

'+g % -

l a

5 R

1

! 20 -

3 5

E 3

l l

l s m a e e a a a a e a a a a a um -e l

4. Traffic Doeration
a. On the Parkways The traffic operation problems on the parkways are as follows:
1. Traffic must exit from westbound Northern. State Parkway to Glen Cove Road then reenter the eastbound ramp leading to both Northern State and Peadowbrook Parkways. This move is

' due to the lack of a direct connection between westb,ound Northern State Parkway and southbound Meadowbrook Parkway.

The above move creates bakeups on the westbound Northern State Parkway just prior to the southbound exit ramp to Glen Cove Road.

2. A weaving and trerge problem occurs when eastbound Northern State Parkway traffic merges or crosses traffic from the Glen Cove Road on-ramp to both Northern and Meadowbrook State Parkways.
3. The northbound Meadowbrook Parkway merge with westbound Northern State Parkway just prior to the Glen Cove Road southoound exit creates a short section that has weaving and crossing problems for those who want to exit and for westbound Northern State Parkway traffic.

l Ramp queues at the off-ramp from westbound Norterhn State 4.

Parkway to northbound Glen Cove Road are due to proximity to Jericho Turnpike.

5. Lack of capacity east of the Meadowbrook Interchange restricts movement through the Interchange and traffic backs

,l up in the AM and PM peak hours.

E -

I R

m

~.

L.

b. On the Adjacent Roads f

ii The traffic operation problems on the adjacent roads:

t' i f7 1. Northbound Glen Cove Road has extensive queues at the Ld intersectier. of Route 25.

m -

Southbound Glen Cove Road has weaving and merging problems lL 2.

at the section between Route 25 and the on-ramp to eastbound r~-

Northern State Parkway. This is due to the heavy traffic demand for the southbound Meadowbrook Parkway move which has no direct connection to southbound MSP.

5. Safety
a. Accident History (See Appendix B) r

" A detailed accident analysis for 1980 and from January 1982 to F7' June 1983 was made. The centralized local accident surveillance LJ System was utilized for accident data coverin91982 and January to m .

lune 1983. 1981 da'ta was unavailable from the class system.

~

Accident data for 1980 was previously obtained from police --

P7 __

U The accident summary for this interchange is

~

accident reports.

e listed below:

[

Year F I PD0 Total Acc. Rate Acc./MVM C- Total of 1980 0 26 58 84 4.47 90 148 7.88 f'~l Total of 1982 2 56 LJ 29 64 93 9.98 Half of 1983 0 q (from 1/1 to 6/ 30 )

LJ The Statewide average accident rate for this type of facility is 1.10 Acc/MVM. ,

The average number of accidents per year for the analysis period is 130 accidents per year with an averaga accident rate of 6.92 Acc/MVM or over six times k the Statewide accident rate.

o L_J _9_

E .'s l g 4  ! = :E e - i $'

.y # - 1 M } Ow!

\'k ,#,

b 1*,

$55 1'

ce N'\ g.,t .

(r , ==

', d 1%

+.

5

'ij ,

/ (uj elg

,e, 4 _ .. sme 6'

tw

, 'i

  • to*

(4 1f m i ,

h ] {r j i

tf

'I .

h~

/

4

.f l j !: -}

J5 1!

'%g. .

l .y

  • %., p ;.. ,.l, , h<;

g-

% f., ,-j, 10 ',

= -

y .t l m -

I

ri ji l - x.- . .".l ..;}

4 e e e m W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

anax = i t .- ,

' 9 -

\

l' '

.. i. ..

MITCHEL FIELD AR_E_A . ,

{- *, , ,

$ ~

[

}

t .

z..

l l t c at .. .

l  :

1 I

' tg s

) 3

~

l .

l

. y ,

i - .

)

_ GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL m ,

ll

~

! IMPACT STATEMENT ,

~

~

.( ('F IN AL ) - .

- ~

l

' NASSAU COUNTY PLANNING " DEPARTMENT f AND

~

I

' TOWN-O F 'HEMPSTEAD.

l .f

[ j l DEPARTMENT OFCONSERVATION .:

& WATERWAYS 1 .

V' f I y F

+ e O

NASSAU p

G)

COUNTv NASSAU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LLoYD SMALLWooO, JR.

HERGERT USER 7 O*'"*'

0*="'

'"$g7*PURCELL E. a October 18, 1984 Board of Supervisors Executive Building One West Street Mineola, N. Y. 11501

Dear Board Members:

In accordance with Section 617.10g of part 617, the Nassau County Planning Commiss. inn, 222 Willis Avenue, Mineola, New York by resolution at its October 18, 1984 meeting serves notice of completion of this Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for Mitchel Field.

The Planning Commission is pleased to forward this Final GEIS for the Mitchel Field Area, for your use in reviewing proposed development and leases at Mitchel Field.

The Commission held a Public Hearing on the Draft GEIS The Finalon GEIS April 5th, and received comments until May 5th.

addresses all comments and questions raised by the public and governmental agencies both at the Public Hearing and during the comment period.

This report was developed in cooperation with the Town of Hempstead Department of Conservation and Waterways and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Pollution, and isavailable at the Planning Commission's offices.

Sin rely yours, u m HERBERT LIBERT Director HL:gr Enc.

cc: Francis T. Purcell, County Executive Edward G. McCabe, County Attorney 518 5 % 5844 222WILLIS AVENUE MINEOLA,NEW YORK 11501

r t

NASSAU COUNTY FRANCIS T. PURCELL, County Executive PL ANNING COMMISSION FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITCHEL FIELD AREA D IR E CTOR Herbert Libert COMMISSIONERS Lloyd Smallwood, Jr., Chairman Howard M. Blankman, Vice-Chairman Constance M. Driscoll Norman Murray Vincent Guadagno October 18, 1984 Prepared by: Nassau County Planning Commission Staff in Cooperation with the Town of Hemostead Department of Conservation & Waterways and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Di; vision of Air Pollution Contact Person: John W. Follis, Jr., Deputy Dictor l

  • III.

TRAFFIC GENERATIOd FOR THE MIfCHEL FIELD STUDY AREA In an area encompassing approximately 1,200 acres, a great deal of office, lignt industrial, manufacturing, as well as recreational development will be taking place over the next several months. It is anticipated tnat all the parcels available for development will ce committed for construction in the near future.

As such, it nas become important to examine the potential impacts of this development.

Parcel Identification and Trip Generation For the purposes of tais report the "Mitchel Field Study Area", has been defined to have the following 'ooundaries: Stewart Avenue to tne north, including the Town of Hempstead Resources and Recovery Center and the Federal Aviation Administration Center; Merrick Avenue to the East; Front Street to the south as it moves westerly to the Meadowbrook Parkway and then north to Glenn Curtiss Boulevard until it intersects with Hempstead Turnpike to include that portion of tne European American Bank Towers situated immediately west of Glenn Curtiss Boulevard; then moving west on Hempstead Turnpike until Oak Street; then moving north to include tne Hofstra University Housing, the National Guard Facility, the Hebrew Academy of Nassau County, as well as, the Police Department Facility until Oax Street I

l

e< ,,

1 i

1 then moving east on i intersects with Commercial Avenue, i

' l vard and I

Commercial Avenue until Quentin doosevelt Bou e i its intersection with Stewart Avenue.

With the construction of the Marriott Hotel, the United Belzona Molecular, Frequency Electronics, Post Parcel Distribution Center, and the United States

/

Office, significant development has already taken place Accordingly, this impact will have with more to follow. rving a tremendous influence on the traffic network se The Planning Department had this in mind wnen the area.

issued a report entitled " Traffic in December, 1980, it for tne Generation and Intersection Capacity Estimates The document made estimates Mitchel Field Study Area".

entirely on a .5 of traffic generations based almost (FAR: the ratio of floor floor area ratio of development f the sites area within structures to tne land area o 1 For illustrative purposes these which they occupy). and maps.

l estimates were enumerated on a series newof tab es issuance of the 1980 report, Since the The new data provides information has become available. d tne total an updating of the parcel commitments an Therefore, it is the intent of the square footages.

to update and expand tne 1980 current document For continuity, the 1980 form will be information.

adhered to as much as possible.

Handbook On Urban Planning. New 1 Claire, W. H. 1973. Reinhold Company, p. 141.

York: Van Nostrant F . - .- MITCHEL FIELD STUDY AREA EXISTING AND. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 00wenong SCAlg App #ox l.800* <l.

!!!!!!!!W.

j:.: -

, . . tl.3.:.. . . ..

s.-

f $:.(  !

u d,q,gi - 2 -

y g4 ,

1 .

9
..e Q

% , "mx q p. ..

$ M' 3*::::i:i:i:. ,

/  :

" a 'I' i !!!!

ji-g

i t b *, %X2%

d/.

... . SIh," F%j .,,:

.; .j;;pitB:: ,fgg.lg,  !! !g . :jj!... !!f!!;

pgs c( rq.:.y.: lf,:

I 4-

':: -l@e ,M'6' s

l WKf =l i @. j;"565 jl g..f_

= .'

4l[:{$j:j:j LEGEND . .,.a . ' . . . .s$

G RECREATION ANo conservation y p j.j;jjj ;j, i i musuc t GOVERNMENT,UTluTIES PLANT, couSEUM) E{ ,_l

- f:f

' C_;;:: ...-

( Q EoucafiaNAL ANo REticious t nor$TR A.N.c.c., CONVENT) - , . .;:.:. -.

M wuLTI-F AulLY MOUSING ,,ot =lM #

I M orricts(RESEARcN ANo OEVELoPMENT) o At t -0 Ec.1983 M couwtRciak tsEnvict STATION,RESTAUR ANT)

NAs ucoueety M INouSTRY t LT. iNousTRY, WAREHoVSING,oiSTRIBUTloN, M ANUFAcTURING) MAfeeeG CChe Aelssoas PLATE I J .. .

l

~

-w,-*- my--.ww.,--.-w- ,,,-wwww=--t-,e-ww------wp---w-w,,owwe -c-- --eto,--a,-9----- ,-----r

4 Table 1 provides a listing of tne fifty (50) identifiable-parcels contained in the study area. This information was gathered as a result of conversations and interviews with the County Attorney's Office, the Building Department of tne Town of Hempstead, the County Planning Department and the County Department of Public Works, Division of Hignway Engineering. In addition, prospective developars were contacted for their imput.

Additional information was also obtained from previous environmental impact statements and zoning applications.

In cases where square footage figures were This not available a ".5 floor area ratio" was applied.

metnodology, and specific floor area proposals were

~

utilized in making estimates of A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic generation, as well as, generation for a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period.

Plate No. 2 has been revised and provides an overall picture of the study area.- Individual parcels

~

are identified by namber and land use or proposed use.-

Tne numbered designations on Plate No. 2 correspond to the parcel numbers listed on Table 1 whien in addition, to existing and proposed use identify the following:

1. Parcel Number - This number is tne same as the number appearing ' on Plate No. 2 .that identifies the Parcel number. -The numbering system has stayed as close to_that employed in the i

l l

I i

1980 report. However, some parcels have been renumbered (A or B, etc.) to reflect i

l 4 new commitments and configurations.

2. Acreage - This is an estimated figure and l may nave as its source one or a comoination of the following:

l Nassau County Land and Tax Map a.

j l

' b. A planimeter reading c.

A zoning application, submitted to in the l

Nassau County Planning Department

accordance with Sections 239 l-m of the

, General Municipal Law of New York State

! I d. A map received or on file with the t

County Department of Public works e.

Information obtained from the developer or prospective developer i

J 1

f. Information obtained from the office of tne County Attorney g.

Information obtained from the Building

! Department of tne Town of Hempstead the base map should r

(Please not be usednotetothat determine actual parcel j

size. Its main purpose is to indicate the various parcel commitments).

5. Trip Generation Rates - Unless specified otherwise, this is the trip generation rate floor area.

per 1,000 square feet of 97oss unit, In some cases it is analyzed by acre,

_ or use.

i

6. Trip Generation Source - Various multipliers were used that were based on studies conducted by governmental agencies or consultants. These sources were identified by the following letters:

M Trip Generation by Land Use, Part I-A Summary of Studies Conducted. Maricopa

  • Association of Governments.

Transportation and Planning Office, Urban Area of Maricopa County, Arizona. April, 1974. (The application of this source would

- ' produce a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> figure).

R Environmental Impact Data, prepared by Andrews and Clark-Rice , Engineers.

This is an 18 hour2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> figure (6:00 A.M. -

12:00 midnight).

Environmental Impact Statement for the ES Sheraton Nassau Hotel. April, 1979.

T Trip Generation - Institution of Transportation Engineers. Arlington, j

Virginia. 1976.

l i

7. Trip Generation - This figure represents the product of the rate and area. Certain as L

parcels require a complete explanation, follows:

Parcel No. 1 - When operating, tne Resource Recovery Plant will have 150 employees on duty within a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period. Three (3) trips per I

employee were estimated.

1.

Parcel No. 2 - The same as Parcel No.

Parcel.No. 3 - Applicable calculations for this l parcel were based on information supplied by the United States Postal Service. Included in this data were the numbers of employees (3 shifts) as well as truck trips in and out of the facility.

Parcels No. 5 and No. 15 - It has not been determined how these parcels will be used in the i

future. Therefore, no trip generations have I

been calculated for'these properties.

. Parcel No. 30 - This parcel nouses'the Central l Utilities Plant which has 21 employees Three (3) trips assigned I-to it over a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period.

per employee per acre have been estimated.

I i.

L l' - _9_

, + - . , , , , - , - . . , . . - - . - , , , . - . . . . . . . ~ - . . - - . - . - . . . - - - , . , - . - . . . ..~---,.._.w.-. . . . . . - - - .-

32 - This parcel has been developed Parcel No. The 1980 study of for a secondary school.

traffic generaticns for this area reported that f there wereAt375 full-time that time only students and a staff o one (1) student 45 people.

was taken to and from school in a private vehicle.

This amounted to two (2) trips Four per trips trips each day.

day, or fifty (50) totaling were estimated for each staff member, 180 trips.

' These estimates are significantly lower than those that would have resulted from the application of the figures indicated by the Maricopa Study that called for 19.1 trips per staff member and 1.3 trips per student at a secondary school.

However, the activities reported by school officials give a more accurate indication of Thus, for the what is taking place at the site.the figures obtained purposes of this report,directly from the Hebrew Academy we utilized.

Parcel No. 26A - Development of tnis property Traffic was completed in December, 1982.

generated from this parcel is therefore included in the existing counts for the study area.

Parcel No.

268 - Similarly, this property was completed in January, 1983 and thus was included in the existing traffic.

Parcel No. 31B - This parcel falls under 26A theand same type of description as Parcels No.1982 and is B, as it was completed in December, thus included in the existing counts.

Parcel No. 33 - It was reported in the 1980 to the study that fifteen (15) employees report armory on a daily basis. This number was carried forward.

Parcel 36 and 37 - A plan prepared by No.Clark-Rice Engineers, called for the Andrews hotel complex to be constructed on Parcel 36.

As originally called for, this complex would feet of office have included 500,000 square space apart from the hotel.

The hotel opened in December, 1982. However, i the development of additional office space, as I well as expansion of the hotel remains a possibility. Figures for tne traffic generations attributed to this site are cited in Tables 1 and 2 and are taken from tne Environmental Impact Statement prepared for tnis property in 1979. There have been no estimates made of future traffic generations at this site. The present traffic generated from tne hotel is included in the existing traffic counts.

Parcel No. 42 - This site is used for religious purposes and fifty (50) trips per day have been estimated for the parcel.

Parcel No. 43 - This parcel contains a restaurant and service station. Traffic generations that are a result of activities at tnis site are included in the existing traffic counts used in the intersectional analysis.

Below is a chart providing a summary of ttte acreage existing within the "Mitchel Field Study Area".

These numoers were obtained from tne various sources mentioned at the outset of this writing. They may be used to provide a general idea and feeling for tne study area. Plate No. 2 should be referred to in order to determine which parcels have already been developed and which are still subject to development.

MITCHEL FIELD STUDY AREA Land Area Acreage All Parcels 1,002.12 Parkways and Roadways 226.8 LIRR 8.9 Recnarge Basins 7.4 1,245.22 e * ,s Peak Period Traffic Generation Eatimates The peak periods of traffic generation are expected to be from 7:00 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M.

until 6:00 P.M.

The standards applied in calculating tnese two nour periods are taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It is important to note that the " peak hour" of generation occurs over a one nour period that falls within the two hour segment indicated. Thus, the " peak" is tnat one nour period experiencing the greatest volume of traffic. Table 2

provides a creakdown of tne peak period traffic generation estimates for anticipated and proposed uses within the study area. The parcels falling witnin this category are found on Plate 2. Those parcels completed, r

or operating at the time of this writing, are accounted 1

for within the existing traffic counts and are utilized i follow.

in the intersection evaluations that

. e

\

e e

e b

=:

' TABLE 1 MITCHEL FIELD STUDY AREA TE1P GENERATION Weekday But! ding area Tylp Ceneration Calcula-rate per tion.

Square rest Source Trip Ceaeration Parce! l ( app 1t rations)' 1,000 sq.ft.

Acres Source No. Uy 450 15.0 & 150,000 Industry 1 Toun of Mempstead 1,200 15.6 A 55,000 2 . Air Traf fic Control Center g 24 hre.

W 82,%0 Workroom 110 truck tripe-in U.S. Postal Service 22.7 E Y 3 12,596 Flatform 110 truck trips-out 29,062 Lunchroom 800 employees (3 r,htite) 3,726 Lockere (a) 253 per shift 7.310 Supply 1,720 trips overall (est.)

. 2.876 Shop area 2,441 Corridore 3,758 office 1,157 Peathouse 8 000 Hisc.

12 , II Hain Butidtag Totat 18,000 Vle 2,500 office 26,000 Small Bids. Total 10.32 M 2,242 6.0 TE,CA 217,284 M 4 ,6 office 10.32

" Atrium" 4.9 3.4 5 S USA I For explanation of sourcas see pages 7-S.

s

MITCHEL FIELD STUDY AREA PARCELS SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT l

wrae ,,,g ,

, ,,c , ,.9oc'

... m, ,

= @ I((j@U @ .

e s.

h i4 h I

! ussAu

' commusiTV 8 l COLLEGE l

W@ .-

fg.2 @@h  !. !

- @ E 28

_/

~~

~

T g ;@j g r@j

.- s:

.oo //

d 5' I couSEum l y -S' sd 19 li O f ,,,t e Je MCFsTRA UNivtRslTY 42

- 39 G

l i AE i

I LEGEMO  !

l 5 sukECT TO DEVELOP-NOTE:

e I ffff/ 48 h NUMBERS SHOWN CORRESPONO TO LIST lh l

10ENTIFYING EXISTING ANO FUTURE LANO USE.

I . omt e

f I

O Art- osc.19s 2 PLATE 2 f Y-~ -

4

1 '

t

. . i e

e i

I e

[ TABLE I (Cont'd)

Weekday trip l

Generation Calcula-l tion Building ares Rate Per Trip Ceneratton_

Square Feet * *1.000 sq. f t . Source (app!! cations) 330 Perce! Acree Source 3.87 per unit M Use No.

3 25 unite M 346 13.2 4.94 USA-Reeldentist 7

s 70,000 3.7 8

Creative Nat!!as Colonial Frees M 743 (Lt.*1ad.) 5.09 A

146,000 7.6 Research & Development 8 9 58 Endo Dupont N 66 5.09 10 A

13,000 unesau 4.7 Research & Development N 2,257 Academy of 10.32 Med1+.ine 218,736 l 10.32 Tou r

office 11 Faravan 519 i

  • FAR" 10.32 office 126 Realty 2 bldge. t 37,725 5.01 Warehoe 6I$

13.0 CA T Warehouse & Office 50,300 office /

12A Warehouse (est.)

DiFasto 314 Electric M 10.32 Office T 153 30,435 Office 5.01 Warehoe III 3.3 TOM solta Beatty (Ezel) 30 435 Warehoe 123 6 Warehouse ,

& Office ,

9

~

e e

s

  • e TABLE 1 (Cont'd)

Weekday trip Generation Calcula-But! ding area tion Square Feet Rate Per Trip Ceneration Parce!

(applications) ,2,000 sq.ft. Source Acres Source No. Use Wiedersun 1.562 EIS 236,400 carage Metropolitan 9.9 P.30 13 Wiedereun Maintenance H 372 Suburban 36,000 office 1,934 Bus Authority Assoc.

10.32 et 1.573 7.0 CA 152,460 Office 1 14A Offices 217

>-* 43,482 Warehouse 5.01 Warehouse T 24 un Webcor Electrontce 4.24 CA 10.32 office M ~

i 148 725 Warehouse 163 45,859 office 243 3 544,500 Unknown USA-Realdential 24.9 15 N 2,113 10,32 9.3 s 204,732 Office 16 Nassau County 160 18 Unles 8.87 per unit R USA Residential 8.9 A 17 321 5.01 7 1.8 A 64,(xx) 18 E ndo-wa r ehouse Endo Blvd. Realignment .5 CA 19A 7 16 5.01

.23 3 3.200 19s Endo Warehouse k

1

Gener:tsom usa ux.- ,

  • Butiding crea Rat 2 F;r tion Squera feet Sourc7 Trip Cener'afon (applier tiona_) ,.1.000 sq.f_t.

F:rcst Acrv3 Sourc3 No. . Use 7 287 Romert Realty 4.10 20A 3.1 3 70,000 '

3 CC Blaschvia C K-Mon Assoc. -

(Lt. Manufacturias) & 24.600 157.5 a Nassau Commuelty Coll. M 11,238 e 21 10.32 CA 1,089,000 (.5 FAR) m 50+ 50 8

  • Wilbur Bres11a office g 22

.6 A 10,000 5.09 M 8

NYU Besearch & Dev. M 433 23A 10.32 4.5 A 42,000 MONY-Offices R 1,800

. 234 5 10,493 Nassau Cty. Fo!. Dert. 7.4 1,822 24 5.52 M C 330,000 25 212 25 United Parcel Service 10.32 M 20,500 office 7 60 7.72 7 015 Manuf. 4.10 92 26A Belsona No. acular 14,700 5.01 T 18,400 Warshes 35T

' Misc.

M 126 10.32 85 12,200 Office 5.01 Y 2.2 7 015 17,000 Warehse. Jgi 263 Bersuall Productione 29,200 M 261 offsce 10.32 50 3 25,300 4.10 f 4.43 Manuf.

26C Sonometrica 12.311 5.01 7 Storage M 44 14.120 5.09 8.829 R6D 35T 2,965 Misc.

66,900 o

TABLE 1 (Cont'd)

Weekday trip Generation Calcula-Building area tion Square Feet Rate Per Trip Ceneration 2.000 sq.ft. Source Parcel Acres Source _( applications)

No. Use M 1,135 110,000 Office 10.32 102 7.78 s 4.10 T 26D Backson Assoc. 25,000 Manuf. 7 325 Nassau West 5.01 1,%I e f 65.000 a

___ ____ _ ________________ ______==**e _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

e.

F e

e TABLE 1 (Cont'd)

Weekday trip Generation Calcula-Building area tion Rate For Trip Ceneration Square Feet 1,000 sq.ft. Source Parcel Acrea Source (app!Icatione) e-No. Use N 1,135 10.32 7.78 E 110,000 ofrice 7 102 Reckson Assoc. 25,000 Nanut. 4.10 325 26D 7 Nassau West 5.01 65 1.HT Corp. Center 1 IM.000 N 1,907 184,793 office 10.32 55 9.12 E 4.10 T 26E Reckson Assoc. 13,462 Hanut. 7 109 5.01 Nassau West 21 939 Warehse. 2%

W Corp. Center 11 MI 1,686 Y 28.38 per acre N 74.5 a 27 Maessu County rk. N 4,128 400,000 office 10.32

  • 14.4 E 28 Rockeen 50,000 storage 50,000 Common 500,006 29 No Farcel Deelgastion2 63 5 40,000 Central Utilities 4.7 30 riant Utilities Essenant 1.1 380 31A 10.32 N 36,816 Office 7 Frequency 16.5 TE Manuf. 4.10 315 Electronico 4

s TABLE 1 (Cont'd)

Weekday trip Generation Calcula-Building area tion

  • Rate frty Generation Square Feet 1,000For Source Forcel Source (app 1tcatione) sq.ft.

Acres See test 232 No. Use A

95,832 sobrew Academy 4.4 32 45 of Mesoam Cty.

A 91.476 4.1 33 Mattomal Guard A

165,528 7.6 16,400 34 uof etra Univ. R

  • 3 3,031,776 139.2 12,960 35 Hof stra Univ. E s 77.2 5 36 Veterina Manortal 3,320 cottaess E A,(TON) 250,000 E 8.09 10,000 Office & Ratala 37 Marriott Hotel 68,970 Notel Use 391 Units 61.5 8 1,461 38 Mempstead Plaine 10.32 M 141,000 office Wilbur areatta 6.5 CA M 11.560 39 10.32 TE 1,120,275 Office DeMattete Corp. 7.9 40 A1 28.4 50 EAR see test 3 3,000 O ,9 1,585 a 42 3.ggg g e . 233.19 M 3

6,800 1.8 I48 43 Borre111's test. per station T 5,000 Shell Service Sta. M 2,239

= 10.32 CA 265,359 office Avon Park Mst. 13.19 448 899 Meadowbrook rissa So, M 87,163(.5 FAR) Office 10.32 4.002 CA 44C Marcue (possible office)

E - - -' - - m___ _ _ _ _ ~^-*~--u _ _, ~-"-r__ _

(pog!b13 Cf f123) e I

TABLE 1 (Cont'd)

Weekday trip Generet ton Calcula-Butidies area *' Bate For tiot Square Feet 1.000 sq.ft. Source Trip Ceneration Parcel Acree. Source {appif-ations)

No. Use M 2,436 236,000 office 10.32 792 12.0 78 $2.79 M 45 Meadowbrook Flasa No. 15,000 offace 3,228 26.54 per acre M m/A Little League Fields 13.8 a 46 No parcel designation2 8

s 47A M 170 28.38 per acre USA-Fark 6.0 D 47 5 e

10.32 M 5.160 19.9 CA 500,000 Office 48 Jerry Lazares Assoc. W 343 3.27 per unit 5.3 TON 105 Senior Citisene 49 Tott Housing M 136 6.8 per unic Top 20 Multi-rently 1.8 50 However due to updatlog and renumbering these parcel numbers are no 2 parcel number originally appeared in the 1980 Trafisc Report.

longer applicable.

I

I u_

n. .

3_

y..,

}

  • l t

3 v 6

i l

5 TABLE 2 ,

h l Fielp tion getsmates for Froposed Usee la Mitc e

_Feek Feriod Traf fic Cenera  ? - 9 A.N. _4 - 6 F.M.

IN MT IN OUT Froposed 1 Farcel Cy 80 No. Use _ 25 25 80 Resource Recoveryeee Trucks 90 92 25 80 i I 1 76 115

, Total i 75 150 3 150 75 l

Air Traf fic Control Center 573 573 2 573 573 g

to 3 U. S. Footal Service

? (3 shtige - 1,720 Trips Total) 412 78 41 322 217.284 4 Office I USA 34 264 5 339 64 178.244 6 Office N/A 7 USA N/A 8 Light Industry N/A Research & Development 9

l N/A

. Research & Development 42 324 30 416 79 f 218.736 1

4 37 II Office 4 36 74 f 25,150 18 10 96 Ill 12A Warehouse 50 300 22 14 ogggce 132

  • 35.450 Totet 1 Cross Floor Ares I

]

9 e

TABLE 2 (Cont'd)

Peak Feriod Traf fic Ceneration Estimates for Proposed Uses in Mitchel Field 7 - 9 A.H. 4 - 6 P.M.

,, OUT Parcel Proposed 14 OlfT IN CFA No. Use 5 5 45 30,435 44 12s Warehouse - !! 6 45 30 435 58 Office T5T T IT W Total ,

Bus corage** 236,400 150 150 13 36,000 150 150 90 g

N Office Buses m 90 m m m y 152,400 290 55 29 226 14A Office 7 7 64 43,482 63 Warehouse 1 4 145 2,377 5 1 Office IE 7 7 7 45,859 15 USA 74 40 303 204,732 390 16 Masamu County Office N/A 17 USA Warehouse N/A 18 19A Road Sealignment N/A 19B Warehouse

o

~

v 4

TABLE 2 (Contd) l Field Faek Feriod Traf fic Ceneration Estiestes for Propbsed Uses in Mitche 4 - 6 F.M.

7 - 9 A.M. _

! IN OUT Proposed IN OUT Parcel CFA No. Use M/A TGA ,B ,C , Light Manufactuttag W/A 21 IICC 207 1,612 2,069 392 1,089,000 .

2k Offices a

N N/A Research & Develoneet y 23A N/A 235 office

. M/A 24 Folice NC N/A 25 United Forcel Serv.

26A Office, Manufacturies, li/ A Warshouse M/A 268 Office, Warehouse 5 37 48 9 8 f 25,300 1 9 1 26C Office 12,311 1 13 Manufacturtag 8 429 10 1 7 W Research Dev.

Total h 37 II 21 163 209 40 110,000 2 17 18 2 95 26D office 25,000 11 taanufacturing Warehouse 65 000 TU 94 U

II W 275 2 ,

Total 35 274 351 67 9 184 ,793 1 1

office 13,462 10 4 32 26E 4 Manufacturias 21,939 32 IE 355 Warehouse 393 72 220,194 Total

6 TABLE 2 (Coatd)

Peak Feriod Traf fic Generation Estimates for Froposed Uses in Mitchel field 4 - 6 F.M.

? - 9 A.M.

e-IN OUT Parcel Proposed CFA IN OUT No. Use N/A

- 27 N.C. Park 592 760 144 T6 400,000 28 Office 1

w 29 4.a N/A

' 30 N/A 31A N/A 318 Office Manufacturing Nebrew Academy N/A 32 N/A 33 National Cuerd Nof etta University N/A 34 Noistra University N/A 35 N/A 36 Veterans Memorial Colleeum N/A 37 Karriott Notel N/A

' 38 27 210 269 51 141,600 39 office DeMattels Corp (See Parce! No.41 below) 40 213 1,658 2,129 403 1,120,275 41 Offices

--- - - - _ - - _ ~ _ _ - _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _

a- - --- -

_,m I

s l

TABLE 2 (Cont'd) reak Feriod Traf fic Ceneration Estimates for Proposed Usee in Mitchel Field 4 - 6 P.M. j y g A.M.

l e- '

M E N Frorosed CFA IN Farcel -

me. Use m/A 42 m/A 165 FM 655 65 265,359 eeee U 445 office 31 166 37,163 b 44C Office g

p 236,000 449 N

~{TY N

dical /Deat.

m/A 46 47A N/A 95 I'8

'I' 350 1s0 43 Office T011 Sam. Houstos 49 A

g @ @ N Tou Multi-Fam. Housing fg 50 f Transportation Engineers

  • Estimates are calculated matos etsaderde of the lastitute o
    • MSSA - 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> total of 554 bue tripe to estimated Thirty 0 -300 crecke per day it recyclingbefore l 11:00 A.M.
      • The Town of Heapetead DEC eettmates thatf there wt!! be 25Stacy percent (602) of the traf fic le anticipate 9:00 A.M.

center percent goes on itse.(303) were arbitrarily anstaned to arrive and depart be ore E., F.C. Consulttog Estimates taken f rom Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Eduard J. Shersky, F.

Engineers

  • f adicated in es t at ing t r a f fic counto -

usa uos applicable ** 8****** I'**

~ ~

. . ,e '

Origin and Destination of the Traffic The distribution of the impacts on the within tne hignway system resulting from the development Mitchel Field study area were based on the following:

1. A report entitled A Profile of the Nassau Suffolk Labor Force published in 1973 by the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board; as well as, a report entitled The Roosevelt Field Area, published in 1977 by the Nassau County Planning Commissison. Both of tnese documents, wnich examine the 1970 U. S.

Census, state that 70 percent of the Nasssau County lacor force originates from within tne County, while Suffolk County contrioutes 15 percent. The remaining 15 percent, it is explained, originates in New York City and points west.

2. An evaluation that 70 percent of the labor force from Nassau County will be drawn proportionately from the surrounding population.
3. The distribution of traffic along tne access routes will be in proportion to the surrounding population.

Plate No. 3 divides Nassau County into eight zones. These zones were drawn around the access routes to the Mitchel Field study area. Once the eight zones were defined, the population estimates for the communities encompassed within each zone were established. In addition, ratios were also established to reflect the assumption that 70 percent of the labor force would originate from aassau County. Table 3 Provides a listing of the parcentages apportioned to

'r

<- 3.-

each zone.

Table 4 then follows with a listing of the estimates of peak period traffic generations by zone.

The traffic to and from Suffolk County (representing 15% of the total) was districuted equally between the Northern and Southern State Parkways and then brought into the study area and assigned to the North of the study area, traffic Meadowbrook Parkway.

was assigned to either the Meadowbrook Parkway or Merrick Avenue depending upon the location of the 6 destination and access points witnin the Mitchel Field area.

Traffic originating and destined to New York City and points west (15% of total) was apportioned similarly between the Northern and Soutnern State Parkways.

Consideration was also given to westbound once again depending traffic using Hempstead Turnpike; upon the location of the parcel and its points of entry and exit within the study area.

The properties being considered for development in tne future were plotted on individual work sheets.

M. hour, botn Traffic movements occuring at the peak P.

were plotted to and from the parcels in the study area, along the most direct routes. Plate No. 4 is the sum Thus, this graphic total of the individual estimates.

indicates the volume and distribution of traffic anticipated in the study area during tne peak f

g ~ . . .

. .. 1 ,

  1. -s- -.

.a e/e ,

~.

,3 w

, g 5 s

j

-- 9.,

. i, ,

w, \  !

' :;. r\_ .

~y1 -

\

f.

' ~

Q -

m. f

's)-

  • f I

-- i p@is) r j

\.- * -t a

i \=* * , a f

W

', } '

- ~~*

fl '

i-l i,

%iS -

q j/a / '-

i / t , n 'I 3

(, s s- g m @

/ .

l

.. \

~'

,s

  • a \ _./

5

, j y, '.

'i~~G[>* f 1

\

n x \

a s .-

g,, , .\ j t >

.[

's M

,,.j

\

, . _ j ,

-j gi ,

o  :

.t g< s

=

-~ j '

iY %

6'

/!/ -.

WL, J(a

,i ,

/ p/ f, '

s f - - - - - / / 8 't=-* \ h /

\

  • V l ,( y \

' --" \ ) ,#,, ~T._

= 1- -

~ ~- ' x i \\

. \5 -- i

, 'I

, - 1 )  %, M;,

=

3. i, n -,

~

~ . ,  %

x Ns  : iy PN

\ ,' %(~ hr ! )r -*f_ ?e - N't,y"Lu.

= 2 '

/ ,', ~~ ~~ ~

l 7, k . 1 i

>.. . .Q \

'. . ... .. y..-I .

? -

  1. e 6 ,

. . I. ,.N,,;,./ .r' '.. ,. . . . <@ , , ,. .. !.

s . . - t i - , ~. . q , .u's. ,, ,

T - / .- > . > '

. .,e ..!r.1.- -

% ' S ', !y! ~/'\ I c ,j,.,0W[

~

' ' ,, - ;s," ,y*

s'.i. Jj #

- /[ --

, W,p' ,

  • -[*@

r*. .f Qw.'.;- - ' < . _

.;.4

,, .,f g . ,.

' . * ~

{

g

, . L

,y

,M . p~;, . ';,-y"_::f,1.^~s'

~..*/ L-O

/. . . . . . ,

3 '

ZONES OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION RELATING TO MITCHEL FIELD STUDY AREA

=

leASSAu C0ce,fv p

MA*8886 CO49AGESCe8 IOest DelseseAftose ,

,w,3 .. .

l' MITCHEL FIELD STUDY AREA TRAFFIC VOLUME ESTIMATES

  • tN O I W 2270 (907)

,'*1 9 ,

.STA. IS M

  1. ~"  %

g ap**on :". sco' k4 3 E 3 I t_' 21

~

7, , j jg g 3g / 1s 725\

g gi-strean, avt j ,

?

~ g o

i

..~

o s

V i- 4 l 31.t 3

  • lj '-

- g J

8 i

e C

y

. go [

avt g

-;eest es at

/E { 5~ /

I

. /

/ '

i s

i

/

I i N..,

4

~~~ ' s s~ q l ',

/ N ;I 's- ,

/ .

/ kbf *\ '%  !

y j fo'

  • 5'/ c\  %, j gg /

I 2

.s  ;

I .

\ r. .

e'

\ $,,g t, * ,

fj3 9 / esve ,

Ns t' / -

( y .

e 5 \

2 i / 2 \

r i-  ! ~9 \

/ ~~~ '/ 1DSL

- t' ,

/ asigee g e f* nj ~

3

/  % g '

i

/' \ / m' ';', f fff - t

~

p .w._m.

a o - 3 .... ,, n .....

/ stil i

,1 e:

~pj i N A N 7 .,,-3,

~ '

} nr9 /

' tr.1788,, I=~

^

    • s, \w .#

f /

f /

l

, o / \ NJ: ,_ / 4' s i \2 /, $

e l

' \

%. _ _ / 5t l g

4 2 / D

[ E_ R 04 INTERSECTION DESIGN ATION

/ ios i' u aj \

?*

g PEAN MOUR s S -6 P M. I se

,.e.,

155 = 5 - 6 P.M. COUNT PERFORMED BY STORCH ASSOCIATES (1983)

- - -aW'  ;

E- J sta.Mu \  ; -

l (202)* ESTIM ATE OF ADDITION AL MOVEMENTS B ASED ON D \ 5I l oArt.otc.tes:

I ANTICIP ATED DEVELOPMENT 7

[

o

~l y --

A M 2270 = NEW YORK STATE 0.0 T M AY 1979 , 'i 3

f4

  1. AllAW Couwf v 3

PL ATE 4 a'

  • esaw ccwasso.

w~

l 1

<' $8 TABLE 3 ORIGIN AND DESTINATION OF LABOR FORCE IN THE MITCHEL FIELD STUDY AREA New York City and Points West 15%

Suffolk County 15%

Nassau County (See Map No. 3)

Percent of Portion of Zone Population _70%

1 7% 4.9 2 4 2.6 3 14 9.8 4 12 8.4 5 21 14.7 6 2 1.4 7 30 21.0 8 10 7.0 100% 70% 70%

156%

LILCO Population Estimate January 1, 1980.

1

'IN11E 4 PEAK PERIOD ESTIMATES OF 'IRAWIC GENERATION EOR MI'IDEI, FIELD PtOEOCED DENEIDEMNP Nassau doonty Zones:

Tims NYC Suffolk ,

4 5 6 7 8 Total 2 3 7-9 A.H. So. rb. So. & 1 1,692 2,418 806 11,510 863 863 863 564 322 1,128 %7 161 In 863 437 42 625 208 2,975 223 223 146 83 292 250 Out 223 223 4-6 P.H.

t 199 349 33 498 166 2,371 116 66 232 y In 178 178 178 178 263 922 790 1,383 132 1,976 658 9,405 705 705 705 705 461 out

TAinE 5 ".

INACT Ot* P90EOSED DEVELOEM2fr CN CRITICAL INIERSBCFIOf6 Estimate for Peak Hour 1btal Additional Traffic Estimate 1983 Peak Ilour Traffic Right Rignt left 'thru Imit 'thru

  • Daru R!gnt Intersection Direction left 184 1,636 147 112 1,171 117 1,036 763 72 465 30 67 132 Perrick Ave. terth 6% -O- 228 759 264 132 800 25 1,141 Ftenaart Ave. SJuth 239 243 197 60 282 120 898 562 58 -O-East 120 45 15 224 mat 659 138 259 87 703 400 51 445 390 884 305 258 192 124 1%s@ stead Tpke. North 692 181 54 541 2,022 537 336 285

- 5. Ntrick Ave. South 120 1,698 252 421 324 37 139 1,329 144 East 107 49 41 90 1,288 West 430 139 83 77 347 139 -O- 304 1,232 87 North 77 28 181 Front St. & 276 1.051 87 24 250 456 136 therrick Ave. SJuth 112 191 -O- 4% 50 59 456 5 232 East 451 50 West 232 149

, 4 93 334 22 648 1,254 ea 93 312 145 935 1,265 y Hempstead Tpke. terth 612 566 319 653 133 82 310 1 544 1,792 117

& tAsiondale Ave. Sauth 1,482 116 295 2,533 278 East 411 25 1,200 45 270 1,333 233 West 13 5 32

-O- 37 498 32 13 5 155 849 Hempstead 'Ipke. North 116 1,815 33 733 37 343 261 Onk St. South 1,487 33 120 328 73 3,148 500 Eaat 141 1,874 319 73 1,274 181 Wat 81 693 57 439 -O- 483 81 254 57 20 740 North 271 163 Oak St. & 20 469 320 259 58 115 West Blvd. South 115 82 104 113 177 58 -O- 54 East 54 104 113 West

  • e s s e

p.M. period. Included in these figures are existing traffic counts, as well as, estimates of traffic that will be generated as a result of future development.

i' Calculation of Capacity The key issue that must be addressed is the ability of the highway system to handle the volumes estimated. Of critical importance are the signalized intersections serving the study area. Traffic counts taken by Storch Associates, Hempstead, New York, in March and October 1983, measured the existing traffic at six key intersections witnin the study area. Table 5 lists these intersections. These measurements, taken at the P.M. peak hour when added to the estimates of traffic that will be generated from development in the future provide a forecast of the volumes anticipated when development at Mitchel Field is completed. It should be pointed out that this forecast only addresses activity resulting from development within the study area and does not take into account any development that might take place outside of the "Mitchel Field Study Area", as defined at the outset of this report.

At each of these intersections, a " Critical Movement Analysis", based on the methodology outlined in

" Transportation Research Circular, Number 212", of the Transportation Research Board was performed and 2

recorded. The corresponding forms are contained in this 2 See Appendix F, Pages 112-125 Yi l

(1)

The intersections are designated one \

report.  !

through six (6).

The calculations consider the following (a) existing land use and three (3) conditions: (c) proposed land use; (b) 1983 existing traffic; and d TOPICS existing and proposed land use including propose A improvements at the two intersections in East Meadow. The summary of these findings is found in Table 6.

in Table 7.

explanation of the Levels of Service is found Of the six intersections studies, only Oak flow Street and Westbury Boulevard will maintain st21e hl upon the completion of development within the "Mitc e Field Study Area". The two intersections scheduled for ike improvement under the TOPICS program (Hempstead Turnp and Merrick Avenue) and Merrick Avenue and Front Street k will exceed an E Level of Service during the P.M. pea by 438 and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> regardless of the improvements made; movements, respectively.

The conditions forecasted above will his result in " forced flow" at the intersections evaluated in t It therefore is necessary to consider various report. tions.

i means that might be used to alleviate these s tua They include:

1.

Reassessing the type and scale of development proposed d 2.

Encourage the practice of flexible or staggere working hours e

i j

,s 2 I

3. Develop and encourage the use of mass transit, l car and van pooling l
4. Improve the intersections to be affected to include grade separation at key intersections
5. Lengthen the peak period of traffic flow to more than one hour
6. Form a consortium among the occupants of Mitchel Field to discuss staggered working hours, flextime, and traffic issues Machine counts on the internal roadway system were performed in 1978. These counts were made by recording the number of vehicles passing through various check points. Although more current counts are not available, projections made in 1980, based on anticipated development indicated that given the geometry of the internal road system, the projected volumes could be accommodated.

Meadowbrook State Parkway As indicated at the outset of tnis report, a portion of the Meadowbrook State Parkway runs through tne eastern portion of the study area. Traffic flow would have to be directly affected by the development at Mitchel Field.

I- -. .

~_

f

,c ,o TABIE 6 i.

Imvels of Service Existing + l Existing + Proposed l

/

Proposed Volume w/

Existing L.O.S. Proposed f

  • Based on 1983 Volume Improvements Cbunts L.O.S.

No improvements E F Currently Merrick Ave. & 483 m vements Above Stewart Ave. 7 Movements an E Rating Poten- Planned Acove a D Rating tial for Improvement at the Intersection l F

E F Heepstead Tpke. 486 m vements 438 m vements

& Merrick Ave. 5 mvements Above an E Above a D Above an E Rating Rating Rating F

F Front St. & F 6 Movements 71 Movements 186 m vements Merrick Ave. Above an E Above an Above a E E Rating Rating Rating No Improvements F F currently Hesystead Tpke. 80S m vements

& titiondale 65 Mavemente Planned Above an E Above an E Ave. Rating Rating No Improvements E F Currently Hespetead Tpke. 519 novements

& Cak St. 13 movements Planned above a D above an E rating rating No Irprovements A C currently Oak St. & 119 movenents Wesbury Blvd. Planned

  • above a B rating

}-

  • L.O.S. - 14 vel of Service - A measure of mobility characteristics of an intersection, as determined by venicle delay and volumo/ capacity ratio.

As measured on a scale frce A to F, A is free flow and F is a forced flow.

O

, f-gJ

\

Iavel of Service Descriptions Mvel of Service Traffic Flow Description A Free Flow 1

P Stable Flow C Stable Flow D Approachiry Unatable Flow E Unstable Flow F Ebreed Flow Maximum Sum of Critical Volumes (VPH)

Two Three Four or More Phase Phase Phases 900 855 825 A

1,050 1,000 965 B

1,200 1,140 1,100 C

1,350 1,275 1,225 D

1,500 1,425 1,375 E

F tbt Applicable Source: Transportation Research Board Transportation Besearch Circular January 1980 I

i

, < p

! s

~

Table 8 lists traffic counts taken on the l

Parkway in 1979 at two locations. As later counts were the time of this writing, estimates of l

not available at i

traffic generations resulting from the activity of all I the parcels in the study area were added to the 1979 counts. Thus, the total number represents an estimate of the peak P.M. hour volumes anticipated at two The two points locations on the Meadowbrook Parkway.

[

t are indicated as station 15M (located immediately north i

of the study area), and station 14M (located south of Front Street).

! At present the Parkway has tnree (3) lanes I

in each direction. Using the projections found on peak hour l

Table 8, it is indicated that the P.M.

l movements will exceed the recommended capacity of 6,000 2 at station 14M, passenger vehicles per hour soutnbound by 549 vehicles. This estimate and tne trends indicated point out the need to address acconmodating the additional volumes anticipated during the peak traffic periods.

Overall, the development of Mitenel Field will have a major impact on the intersections and road network immediately surrounding the study area.

2 Highway Research Board of the Division of 1965.

Engineering and Industrial Research, Washington, D. C.:

Hignway Capacity Manual.

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, P. 76.

' eP TABLE 8 )

l 1

Average Weekday Traffic Counts and Estimtes Ebr tne Meadowbrook Parkvey l

24 Hour 5 - 6 P.M.

I Direction Nortn South North South Staticn l

14M 43,370 39,360 2,110 4,030 Estimted Additional Volume

  • 640 2,519 2,750 6,549 15M 43,590 42,860 2,270 4,360 Estimated Additional Volume
  • 907 212 3,177 4,572 Source: N.Y.S. D.O.T. May 1979 N.C.P.C. Estimates I
  • o9 However, it is anticipated that several occurrences sill be experienced. Knile this paper addresses a peak period of one hour, it can be expected that much of this volume will become spread over two hours. This will be the result of the anticipated use of flextime and staggered work hours, as well as some adjustment of travel habits.

Additionally, as people experience different conditions on the road system, they will disperse to different routes. This dispersion will also modify the anticipated impact of the volumes generated from various parcels in tne area.

Therefore, it remains tnat while the additional traffic generations resulting from the development of Mitchel Field will certainly increase traffic volumes and impede travel time, the mitigating measures discussed herein can be employed to nelp manage the impacts.

I

,m .m -

a DEC 1319M o '

N U Counit C _

o %_ -

NASSAU COUNTY PLANNING, COMMISSION LLoYD SM ALLWOOD, JR.

HERBERT LIBERT FIANCIS T.PURCELL ,

Direc. tor Chelrmen Cowevty Emmevtive December 11, 1984 Henry Williams, Comissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, N. Y. 12233 Re: NCPC FILE NO.5-1985 - S.E.Q.R.

FINAL G.E.I.S. - MITCHEL FIELD UNIONDALE, TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD NASSAU COUNTY, N. Y.

Dear Comissioner Williams:

Enclosed is a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the Nassau County Planning Comission on Thursday, December 6,1984 contain-ing the " Findings" of the Nassau County Planning Department with

.re. card to the above-mentioned project.

As indicated in the re' solution, the Comission accepted the Depart-ment's Findings and forwarded them to the Nassau County Board of Supervisors.

rul yours,

& ,/

JD . F0 , JR.

- D uty Direcctor enc.

JWF/fp cc: (see attached list)

DEC io lu*

, j .

a -

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 617.9 of Part 617 of Title 6 NYCRR and Secti>;n 1611 of the County Government Law of Nassau County, the NASSAU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION makes the following findings in regard to the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Mitchel Field, dated October 18, 1984:

l .

41, /

9

  • I (4) Traffic Congestion Development of Mitchel Field is expected to have a major impact upon traffic flow in the area. There will be delays at intersections, slower movement of vehicles on the surrounding road network, and heavier demands upon the mass transit system. Several of the intersections actually will fall to a " Forced Flow" Level of Service -- the worst-case-trafic-flow-description of six categories listed, unless impro~ements are implemented.

The urgency of needed improvements is likely to force early imple-mentation of corrective measures in the area. Already, commitments have been made for intersectio!. improvement, bus routes have been realigned, and a more-detailed study of the transport network is under way.

5

.