University of South Florida Scholar Commons
CUTR Research Reports CUTR Publications
1997
Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Analysis and Operational Measures
Douglas P. Zaragoza
Edward A. Mierzejewski
Mark W. Burris
Vikash Palisetti
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cutr_reports
Scholar Commons Citation Zaragoza, Douglas P.; Mierzejewski, Edward A.; Burris, Mark W.; and Palisetti, Vikash, "Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Analysis and Operational Measures" (1997). CUTR Research Reports. 266. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cutr_reports/266
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the CUTR Publications at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in CUTR Research Reports by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Analysis and Operational Measures
Interim Technical Report
Prepared by:
Douglas P. Zaragoza, AICP Edward A. Mier.rejewski, Ph.D., PE Mark W. Burris Vikash Palisetti
Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering, Universiry of Soutli Florida
May 1997 Table of Contents
LIST OF TAB LES ...... iv
LIST OF FIGU"RES ...... ,.. _...... v
SUMMARY ...... H ...... H oooooO-ooooooo •••········ ··· ·oo-o••••··· vi
HURRICANE OPAL EVACU ATl ON TRAFFIC CHARACTERJSTICS ...... I Evacuation Traffic Analysis ...... 5 Traffic Count Locations ...... 5 Evacuation Traffic Characteristics ...... 5 Evacuation Response Rates ...... 6 County Evacuation Traffic Characteristics Summaries ...... 8 Escarn bia County ...... 9 Santa Rosa County ...... 9 Okaloosa County ...... 9 Walton County ...... 9 Bay County ...... 9 Gulf County ...... I0 Franklin County ...... I 0 Wakulla County ...... 10 Holmes and Washington Counties ...... I 0 Jackson County ...... II Calhoun County ...... I I Liberty County ...... II Gadsden and Leon Counties ...... II Post-Opal Public Response Survey ...... I I HURRICANE BERTHA EVACUATION TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS ...... 13 Traffic Count Locations ...... 16 Traffic Count Data Analysis ...... 21 Level of Service ...... 21 Clearance Time Estimates ...... 21 Duration of Substantial Evacuating Traffic ...... 22 Comparison of Estimated and Observed Clearance Times ...... 24
CURRENT TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION METHODS·································-············ 26 Current FDOT Traffic Data Collection Methods ...... 26 Detector Functionality ...... 26 Detector Technologies...... 27 Power Sources ...... 27 Comrounication and Data Retrieval ...... 28
II View Mode ...... 28 Reconunended Changes ...... 28
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ...... 30 Inductance Detectors ...... 30 Magnetic Detectors ...... 30 Piezoelectric Sensors ...... 31 Microwave Radar Sensors ...... 31 Infrared Sensors ...... 31 Sonic and Ultrasonic Devices ...... 32 Video Based Systems ...... 33 Cellular Phones ...... 34 Citizen Band Radios (CBs) ...... 34 Aerial Observation ...... 35 Call Boxes ...... 35
THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF T HE INTERNET·············-················································· 36
ENDNOTES ...... H ...... 39
BIBLIO·GRAPHY ...... 40
APPENDIX A: Summary of Traffic Count Summaries for the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Post Opal Hurricane Evacuation Assessment...... 42 Traffic Count Locations ...... 43 Traffic Count Data ...... 44 Level of Service ...... 44 Road Construction ...... 45
APPENDIX B: Summary of Hurricane Opal Assessmemt, Review of the Use and Value of Hurricane Evacuation Study Products in tbe Hurricane Opal Evacuation,
Alabama and Florida - Octobe-r 3-4, 199S...... u •••••••••••••• ••••••••••.••• •••••••• 46. Post Hurricane Assessments ...... 47 Hurricane Opal Evacuations ...... 4 7 Hurricane Opal Assessment Reconunendations and Conclusions ...... 48
APPENDIX C: Hu:rricane Bertha Evacuation Traffic. Volume Graphs ...... 50
APPENDIX D: Closed Circuit TV Cameras for Monitoring Traffic ...... 110
iii List of Tables
Table 1: Hurricane Opal Advisory and Evacuation Order Chronology ...... 4 Table 2: Hurricane Opal Duration of Substantial Evacuation Traffic ...... 6 Table 3: Hurricane Opal Estimated Clearance Times vs. Measured Duration of Substantial Evacuation Traffic ...... 8 Table 4: Hurricane Bertha Advisory and Evacuation Order Chronology...... 15 Table 5: FOOT Traffic Count Station Locations Analyzed for Hurricane Bertha Evacuation Traffic Characteristics ...... 18 Table 6: 1995 Clearance Times (Northeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study) ...... 32 Table 7: 1990 Clearance Times (East Central Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study) ...... 22 Table 8: Hurricane Bertha Duration of Substantial Evacuation Traffic ...... 23 Table 9: Hurricane Bertha Estimated Clearance Times vs. Measured Duration of Substantial Evacuation Traffic ...... 24 Table 10: Real Time Traffic Information on the Internet ...... 37
IV List of Figures
Figure 1: Hurricane Opal's Path ...... 2 Figure 2: Florida Counties Affected by Hurricane Opal Evacuations ...... 3 Figure 3: Hurricane Bertha's Path ...... 14 Figure 4: FOOT Traffic Count Stations Evaluated for Hurricane Bertha Evacuations ...... 17 Figure 5: Autosense II Image (active-infrared technology) by Schwartz Electro- Optics, Inc ...... 32
v SUMMARY
On behalf of the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT), the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) is conducting a study entitled, "HWTicane Evacuation Traffic Analysis and Operational Measures." The objectives ofthis study are twofold:
Phase I: to utilize FOOT permanent traffic count data to examine the actual temporal variation in traffic demands during the HWTicane Opal and Bertha evacuation events, and to compare these conditions with asswnptions used in the hurricane evacuation studies previously completed for the areas impacted by these two storms; and
Phase II: to identify specific actions that emergency management officials can exercise to decrease clearance times during hWTi.cane evacuations.
This Interim Technical Report focuses on Phase L It summarizes the findings of the evaluation of the Hurricane Opal and Bertha evacuation traffic characteristics and examines some of the alternative traffic data collection technologies that are currently in use and would be avai.lable to help manage a hWTicane evacuation event. Advantages and disadvantages of various a.ltemative technologies are explored. Special attention is focused on technologies that include live video feeds of traffic conditions.
Completing the second objective of the study will involve a series of telephone and personal interviews with emergency management officials around the state. The purpose of these interviews will be to investigate and summarize methodologies and programs being employed or considered throughout Florida for reducing hWTicane clearance times and, ultimately, facilitating smoother and safer hWTicane evacuations.
The Sununary Report will present the findings of both Phase I and II of the study.
vi HURRICANE OPAL EVACUATION TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
'Ibis section presents a summary of the evacuation traffic characteristics experienced in the Florida Panhandle during the Hurricane Opal event on Tuesday, October 3 and Wednesday, October 4, 1995. Two post-Opal assessment reports were reviewed for the information contained in this chapter. Summaries of these two documents, titled Traffic Count Summaries for the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Post Opal Hurricane Evacuation Assessment (the "Traffic Volume Report"), prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (January 1996) and Hurricane Opal Assessment: Review of the Use and Value of Hurricane Evacuation Study Products in the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Alabama and Florida, October 3-4, 1995 (the "Hurricane Opal Assessment"), prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District (September 1996), are included as Appendices A and B, respectively.
Hurricane Opal made landfall as a marginal Category 3 hurricane, near Pensacola, Florida on October 4, 1995. Figure I shows Hurricane Opal's track as she made her way to Florida's Panhandle. Time stamps indicate dates and times of significant changes in Opal's direction and intensity. Evacuations for the storrn were ordered from the evening of Tuesday, October 3 to the morning of the following day, Wednesday, October 4, 1995. As a reference, Figure 2 shows the Florida counties affected by Hurricane Opal in greater detail. Confusion and chaos have been used to describe the evacuation, which was impeded by several contributing events, such as communications problems, road construction on Interstate I 0 and other major evacuation routes, and an all-at-once loading of the highway network (see Summary of Hurricane Opal Assessment). The National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) estimated that 100,000 people evacuated for Hurricane Opal, although several reviewers of the NCDC's draft report believed the number of evacuees was significantly larger (USACE, 1996).
At the arrival of pre-eye landfall hazard conditions (i.e., winds exceeding 39 miles per hour), some evacuating traffic was still on the evacuation routes. Emergency management officials urged evacuees to seek whatever shelter of last resort they could find. Some evacuees sought shelter at highway service plazas, while some had already returned home due to the congestion experienced on the evacuation routes. "For a number of hours on October 4, there was a real possibility that thousands of evacuees were going to be caught by violent winds on open highways" (USACE, 1996). The weakening of Hurricane Opal just before making landfall prevented this potential disaster.
The Hurricane Opal Assessment presents a chronology of the issuance of Hurricane Opal advisories by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and county evacuation orders, as well as evacuation traffic movement information in relation to the hurricane advisories and evacuation orders. The information included in Table I has been extracted from the Hurricane Opal Assessment. 2 ~
l
.. ~ z -=I I 0. 0 1 I 0 ~ : -~ ' t 0 .. I ! g '· ,.. I ' "~ I ..c ' ~ :, 0 -.. ... , ... :I " ..> w -..... ,I 0 1 .,•' " ' ~ I - I ~ I ~ N :I ~:t: ~ .,""' ... u." ~ -.." :t-l ~ :' .a .r: = I <(.. II c .. . , ~ ~ "'!i . • ~ • ~ I &" -. ·-- ~ I • ~ I 0 u. I ! t I
3 Table 1 Hurricane Opal Advisory and Evacuation Order Chronology Source: Hurricane Opal Assessment (USACE)
Tuesday, October 3, 1995 4:00p.m. Santa Rosa County issues evacuation order. 5:00p.m. Escambia County issues "pre-evacuation" notice. 6:00p.m. Okaloosa County issues Category 1-3 evacuation order. 8:00p.m. Gulf County recommends evacuation of mobile homes and low-lying and coastal areas. 10:00 p.m. l\'HC issues statement: "All prepardtions should be rushed to completion." Escambia County issues Category 1-2 evacuation order. Santa Rosa issues beach evacuation order. II :00 p.m. Wakulla CoWlty issues volWltary evacuation recommendation. Bay County issues Category 1-3 evacuation order, effective at 6 a.m. Wednesday. Wednesday, October 4, 1995 3:00a.m. Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties expand evacuation orders to include Categories 3+. 6:00a.m. Bay County evacuation order becomes effective. 7:00a.m. Gulf CoWlty issues mandatory evacuation order for all coastal and low-lying areas. WakuHa County issues mandatory evacuation order, beginning at dawn. Franklin County issues evacuation order. 8:00a.m. Evacuation routes throughout Northwest Florida are becomingjanuned. 9:00a.m. Gulf County issues evacuation order for the north part of the county and all mobile homes. Calhoun and Leon Counties issue evacuation orders for mobile homes. Okaloosa County expands evacuation order to include Categories 4-5. 10:00 a.m. Escambia and Okaloosa County evacuations are canceled, and evacuees are told to "seek refuge." 11:00 a.m. Santa Rosa residents are told to stay put ifnot already evacuating. Bay County reverses the southbound lanes of US 23 I. Escambia County estimates there are still tens of thousands of evacuees on the road. 12:00 p.m. Calhoun County schoolboard closes schools, and school buses taking children home from school get caught in the evacuating traffic. I :00 p.m. Bay County surge areas evacuation completed. 5:00p.m. Hurricane Opal makes landfall, and many evacuees are unable to reach safe destinations before the onset of tropical storm force winds.
4 Evacuation Traffic Analysis
The Traffic Volume Report presents traffic data summarized from various FDOT traffic count stations in the Florida Panhandle area that participated in the Hurrican.e Opal evacuations or were impacted by traffic from evacuating counties. The information contained in the Traffic Volume Report was used in the development of the Hurricane Opal Assessment (see Appendices A and B).
Traffic Count Locations
Twenty-nine traffic count stations in the Florida Panhandle counties of Bay, Escarnbia, Gadsden, Jackson, Jefferson, Liberty, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington were analyzed in the Traffic Volume Report. Graphs depicting the hourly, directional traffic volumes over the twenty-four hour period, beginning at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 3, 1995 and ending at 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 4, 1995, were developed from FDOT traffic count data.
Evacuation Traffic Characteristics
Accordi.ng to the Traffic Volume Report, evacuation traffic along Interstate I 0 began as early as 5:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4, and ended as late as 12:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 5. The duration of the substantial evacuation traffic ranged from nine hours, at the westernmost, westbound count station, to seventeen hours, at the easternmost, eastbound count station.
Sitnilarly, evacuation traffic along the other six major east/west routes began as early as 12:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4, and ended as late as 4:00p.m. on the same day. The duration of the substantial evacuation traffic on these routes ranged from six to thirteen hours.
Evacuation traffic along the eight major north/south routes began as early as 5:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4 and ended as late as 8:00 p.m. that evening. The duration of the substantial evacuation traffic on these routes ranged from nine to thirteen hours.
Evacuation patterns on the eight routes in the Tallahassee and surrounding urban areas are difficult to distinguish from the normal traffic patterns associated with these urban areas. Volume graphs for these count locations are included in the Traffic Volume Report, but summary statistics for the stations are not included.
Evacuation traffic information from the Hurricane Opal Assessment has been summarized in Table 2. The duration of substantial evacuation traffic was derived in the Hurricane Opal Assessment from the traffic count information presented in the Traffic Volume Report. Essentially, the duration of substantial evacuation traffic is the time period, during an evacuation, 5 in which the recorded traffic volume at a location (i.e., at a FOOT traffic count station location) is greater than the volume that would be associated with normal conditions.
Table2 Hurricane Opal Duration of Substantial Evacuation Traffic (Wednesday, October 4, 1995)
Evacuation Evacuation Traffic County Order Effective Begin End Duration (1) Escambia I 0:00 p.m., Tues. Oct. 3 5:00a.m. 2:00p.m. 9hours Santa Rosa 4:00p.m., Tues. Oct. 3 8:00a.m. 4:00p.m. 8 hours (Navarre Beach) 4:00p.m., Tues. Oct. 3 3:00a.m. 8:30a.m. 5.5 hours Okaloosa 6:00p.m., Tues. Oct. 3 6:00a.m. 4:00p.m. !Ohours Walton I I :00 p.m., Tues. Oct. 3 6:00a.m. 5:00p.m. 11 hours Bay 6:00a.m., Wed. Oct. 4 5:00a.m. 4:00p.m. 11 hours Gulf 7:00a.m., Wed. Oct. 4 8:00a.m. 7:00p.m. II hours Franklin 7:00a.m., Wed. Oct. 4 8:00a.m. 4:00p.m. 8 hours Wakulla 7:00a.m., Wed. Oct. 4 8:00a.m. 7:00p.m. II hours Washington (I) 8:00a.m. 7:00p.m. 11 hours Calhoun (2) 9:00a.m., Wed. Oct. 4 8:00a.m. 7:00p.m. II hours Liberty (1) 8:00a.m. 7:00p.m. 11 hours Holmes (1) 7:00a.m. 6:00p.m. II hours Jackson (1) 7:00a.m. 8:00p.m. 13 hours Gadsden (I) 9:00a.m. 11:00 p.m. 14 hours Leon (2) 9:00 a.m., Wed. Oct. 4 9:00a.m. 11:00 p.m. 14 hours
Notes: {I) The duration of major evacuation flow in a particular county does not necessarily mean that county issued an evacuation order. Major evacuation flow from evacuating counties impacted roadways on a regional basis. (2) Only mobile home residents were ordered to evacuate.
At 2:00p.m. on Wednesday, a wind gust of 79 mph was recorded. Reviewing Table 2, it is clear that evacuations were ongoing at the arrival of tropical storm force winds (i .e., 40 mph) and continued for several hours thereafter. ·
Evacuation Response Rates
Evacuation response rates can be shown with behavioral response curves, which "depict slow, medium, and rapid responses by the public to an evacuation order. Typically, a small percentage 6 of households will start before an order is issued. Upon receiving the evacuation order, some percentage of households will leave within an hour, some within two hours, some within three, etc. A curve can be drawn to show the cumulative percentage of households that has entered the evacuation network over a number of hours. A rapid loadin,g of the network produces a quickly rising curve; a medium loading produces a flatter curve, etc." (USACE, 1996).
FOOT traffic counts, as reported in the PBS&J Traffic Volume Report and the USACE Hurricane Opal Assessment, show that "despite the issuance of evacuation orders by a number of counties on Tuesday evening, there were only very small increases in traffic as compared to normal [traffic conditions)througb about 5 a.m. on Wednesday" (USACE, 1996). The Hurricane Opal Assessment uses a 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 3 evacuation order time as an "overall" evacuation time, as ''there were several county evacuation orders clustered around" this time. Seven hours later, the Opal response curve (showing the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have started their evacuation trip) increases sharply, whereas "one would normally expect to sec a steep rise soon after ten o'clock (0 hours)" in the curve (USACE, 1996). This trend can further be seen in the previous table, where the time the evacuation order was effective in each county is shown next to the start time of the major evacuation traffic llow. Of the ten county and Navarre Beach locations which issued evacuation orders, on average, major evacuation traffic flow began about five hours after issuance of the order.
It is important to note that some county emergency management agencies observe a "no nighttime evacuations" policy. It is conceivable tbat some counties, therefore, delayed issuing their evacuation orders until such a time that the evacuations would take place during daylight hours. In retrospect, by waiting for daylight, evacuations were set to take place with a much stronger storm approaching than would have been the case bad evacuations begun the night before. Furthermore, as noted in the Hurricane Opal Assessment, some counties established and publicized target times for the completion of evacuations. Under the assumption that the time needed to reach their evacuation destination would be the "normal" travel time, many evacuees waited until Wednesday morning to evacuate, given the target time of 12:00 p.m. Wednesday. Public perception and, as stated in the Hurricane Opal Assessment, coumer-productive public information efforts (i.e., setting a target completion time) contributed to the congestion on evacuation r outes, despite the actions by some county emergency management agencies. of ordering evacuations on the afternoon and evening before Opal made landfall.
Table 3 presents a comparison of the clearance times predicted by the appropriate evacuation study and the measured/observed clearance times for the Florida counties impacted by the Hurricane Opal evacuations. Predicted clearance times for Category 4 hurricanes, with low tourist occupancies and rapid network loading, are taken from Table 5-2 of the USACE's Hurricane Opal Assessment. Observed clearance times, also taken from Table 5-2, are represented by the duration of subStantial evacuation traffic, measured during the Opal evacuations.
7 Table 3 Hurricane Opal Estimated Clearance Times vs. Measured Duration of Substantial Evacuation Traffic (in hours)
Measured Du.ration of County Estimated Clearance Time Substantial Evacuating Traffic Escambia 15.25 9.0 Santa Rosa 7.75 8.0 Okaloosa 14.25 10.0 Walton 8.00 11.0 Bay 8.50 (with 4lane US 231) 11.0 Gulf 7.00 11.0 Franklin 4.75 to 9.75 8.0 Wakulla 7.25 to 9.25 11.0 Holmes NA 11.0 . Washington NA 11.0 Jackson I0 .00 to I0.5 13.0 Calhoun NA 11.0 Liberty NA 11.0 Gadsden/Leon 10.75 14.0
The Hurricane Opal Evaluation points out that, "Given the conditions under which the Opal evacuation ended, care must be taken in assigning ending times from wbich clearance times are to be derived, particularly if [clearance times] are to be evaluated for accuracy. Evacuation durations did not allow even for the volume of traffic calculated by the 1986 Tri-State HES" (i.e., the hurricane evacuation study encompassing the five westernmost Florida counties) to clear (USACE, !996). A comparison of estimated clearance times and the observed (measured) duration of substantial evacuation traffic would not, therefore, provide a good indication of the accuracy of the estimated clearance times in the Opal evacuations, since evacuations were not completed before the onset of pre-landfall hazardous conditions. Furthermore, the estimated clearance times were not reflective of 1995 land use conditions and traffic patterns, since the estimates were originally based upon land use data from the 1980 Census.
County Evacuation Traffic Characteristics Summaries
Brief descriptions of the experiences of each county involved in the Opal evacuation are provided in the USACE Hurricane Opal Assessment. Summaries of these evacuation traffic characteristics follow.
8 Escambia County
Late departures and local road construction presented obstacles in Escambia County. Most significant of the construction obstacles was along Interstate I 0, where several bridges were under construction. Congestion along 1-10 led to major backups on the highways intersecting with 1-10. Minor flooding at two locations on US 29 caused disruptions to evacuating traffic on that route. The evacuation never cleared, and many evacuees abandoned their vehicles to seek a refuge oflast resort.
Santa Rosa County
Roads accessing 1-10 were congested due to 1·10 merging conditions. Thousands of evacuees sought shelter at rest stops and service plazas. Several local roads were flooded from previous rainfall. Based on the observed evacuation begin and end times, a few hours of the Navarre Beach evacuation took place during nighttime (dark) hours.
Okaloosa County
Tens of thousands of evacuees ignored the evacuation orders given on Tuesday night, waiting until the following morning to leave, resulting in chaos. In southern Okaloosa County, many residents were not even able to get out of their subdivisions/neighborhoods. There were gridlock conditions on l-10. Officials discouraged the use of US 331 and SR 85 to avoid conflicts with evacuating traffic from Walton and Santa Rosa Counties. Route 85 (a four-lane arterial) was successfully three laned northbound, and officials plan to make this standard operating procedure for future evacuations. County roads were reported cleared at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, after evacuations in the county were "canceled" at I 0:00 a.m. when residents who had not yet left were advised to stay at home, and those still on the road were advised to seek refuge.
Walton County
Severe gridlock was experienced during the eleven hours ofsignificant evacuation flow.
Bay County
According to the USACE's Opal Assessment, traffic counts showed that a small number of residents left shortly after 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 3, when the evacuation order (effective at 6:00a.m. the next day) was issued. Still, significant evacuation traffic
9 was not experienced until about the time the order was effective, .and by mid-morning, bumper-to-bumper conditions were occurring on the County's three primary evacuation routes. Officials were not aware of ongoing road and bridge construction in time to alter traffic control or the overall timing of the evacuation, itself. To address the gridlock conditions, the two northbound lanes of US Highway 231 were reversed, extending into southern Jackson County. Implementation of the one-way northbound US 231 was carried out by the Bay County Sheriffs Department, with coordination with Jackson County's Sheriffs Department. No formal plan for the reversal of the southbound lane was in place. Major intersections with US 231 were manned for traffic control purposes. There were unconfirmed reports that motorists turned Route 77 into a one-way roadway, without approval or assistance from law enforcement or emergency management officials. Bay County evacuation traffic slackened by late afternoon and all surge area residents were reported evacuated by I :00 p.m.
Gulf County
By late Wednesday afternoon, routes were gridlocked. Adding to the confusion was the lack of media outlets with which to disseminate public information. As a result, relatively little use was made of the US Highway 98 as an evacuation route, as residents believed the route was flooded.
Franklin County
Traffic counts indicate that county roads were cleared at about 4:00p.m., eight hours after the evacuation order was issued.
Wakulla County
A voluntary evacuation was ordered at 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, with a mandatory· evacuation effective at daw-n. Traffic counts indicate the evacuation flow did not begin until 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday and lasted ten to eleven hours.
Holmes and Washington Counties
Much of the traffic was from coastal evacuees passing through these counties. Evacuees from within these counties were from mobile homes and visitors camping out at a local rodeo. Road and bridge construction and congestion caused delays on J-10. Local law enforcement officials were overwhelmed with the traffic control requirements and were eventually forced to seek shelter from high winds. Major flow through the two counties began at about 7:00a.m. and ended at about 8:00p.m. 10 Jackson County
US 231 in Jackson County was operated as a four-lane roadway, northbound for about seven miles from the Jackson/Bay County Line northward, with no major problems. Some evacuees spent the night in their vehicles in parking lots and on the roadside of SR 71. Based on the observed evacuation begin and end times, a few hours of the Jackson County evacuation took place during nighttime (dark) hours.
Calhoun County
Bay and Gulf County evacuees ovenvhelmed county roads, leading to several reroutings to reduce congestion. Prior to Wednesday, October 4, as a precautionary measure emergency management officials suggested canceling school on Wednesday. Unfortunately, schools were not closed until 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, when some evacuations had already begun. As a result, school buses further contributed to the congestion problems and were delayed in getting students to their homes.
Liberty County
Although sparsely populated, several evacuation routes pass through Liberty County. There was significant evacuation flow from 8:00a.m. to 7:00p.m.
Gadsden and Leon Counties
Traffic counts on l-10 indicate evacuation traffic flow continued from 9:00a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Wednesday. There was extreme congestion on 1-10 at the Apalachicola River Bridge and other locations due to road construction involving lane closures. Based on the observed evacuation begin and end times, a few hours of the Gadsden and Leon County evacuations took place during nighttime (dark) hours.
Post-Opal Public Response Survey
A post-Opal, public response, telephone survey was conducted in January 1996 by Hazards Management Group. The purpose oftbe study was to document bow the residents of the affected areas of Alabama and Northwest Florida responded to storm advisories and evacuation orders during Hurricane Opal's threat. Survey results indicated that, among all respondents, 85% of the respondents evacuated from beach areas, 57% evacuated from the mainland surge areas, and 30%
11 evacuated from the non-surge locations. The preliminary findings of the survey, "Public Response to Hurricane Opal," are included in the Hurricane Opal Assessment.
12 HURRICANE BERTHA EVACUATION TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
At about 5:00p.m., on July 12, 1996, with maximwn sustained winds of 105 mpb, Hurricane Bertha made landfall just east of Wilmington, North Carolina (between Wrightsville and Topsail Beaches). A few days earlier, with Bertha approaching Florida from the southeast, forecasters had predicted the hurricane would curve away from the United States, bypassing Florida altogether. Figure 3 shows Hurricane Bertha's track as she passed by Florida's East Coast. Time stamps indicate dates and times of significant changes in Bertha's direction and intensity.
When Hurricane Bertha's forecasted turn to the north carne later than predicted, state and county emergency management officials along Florida's East Coast grew increasingly concerned. In response, Governor Chiles ordered coastal evacuations for Florida's 6 northernmost coastal counties as a precautionary measure against Hurricane Bertha, stating later that appropriate and necessary action was taken to prepare for a "worst-case scenario" to safeguard vulnerable people and property from the storm. An estimated 500,000 residents were located in the 6-county area covered by the Governor's evacuation orders. The Governor made it specifically clear that be wanted to avoid a repeat of the confusion that surrounded the traffic gridlock during 1995's Hurricane Opal evacuations in Florida' s Panhandle.
The six Florida counties affected by the Governor's evacuation orders and included in the National Hurricane Center's (NHC) storm advisories included Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler, Volusia, and Brevard. While the emergency management agencies in the two northernmost counties of Duval and Nassau did not issue their own evacuation orders, shelters in these counties were opened, and people evacuated in response to the Governor's order. Duval County emergency management officials did, however, reiterate the Governor's evacuation order shortly after the Governor issued the order himself. Each of the four remaining counties issued their own hurricane evacuation orders on Wednesday, July 10.
Thousands of coastal Florida residents began their evacuation at the threat of Bertha's potential devastation. Hurricane Bertha eventually made her forecasted turn to the north and bypassed Florida. Fifteen hours after the Governor issued evacuation orders, the NHC canceled the hUrricane warning for all areas south of Brunswick, GA, and a few hours later, the Florida counties revoked their evacuation orders. None of the six Florida counties under the NHC advisories reported the arrival of pre-landfall hazard conditions (i.e., tropical storm force winds or water inundation). ·
A chronology of National Hurricane Center storm advisories and county evacuation orders is presented in Table 4. Evacuation order issuance and revocation times were obtained from county emergency management agencies and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management (Florida DEM). Of note is the absence of a hurricane watch advisory by the NHC. Normal procedures for the NHC would have involved the issuance of a hurricane
13 ..• •o . "
•E ...... •
14 watch sometime between the tropical storm warning and the hurricane warning. NHC forecasters, reportedly, hesitated to issue such a warning because of Bertha's anticipated northward turn away from Florida, as the hurricane tracking models had predicted. The NHC's upgrading from tropical storm warning to hurricane warning caught some emergency management officials offguard.
Table 4 Hurricane Bertha Advisory and Evacuation Order Chronology
Tuesday, July 9, 1996 II :00 p.m. National Hurricane Center issues tropical storm warning for areas from just north of Deerfield Beach, FL to Brunswick, GA. Wednesday, July 10, 1996 5:00a.m. National Hurricane Center issues hurricane warning for areas from Sebastian Inlet, FL to Cape Romain, SC. The warning was not preceded by a hurricane watch, as would have been standard procedure. 11:00 a.m. Florida Govemor Chiles orders coastal evacuations in Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler, Volusia, and Brevard Counties. 11:00 a.m. St. Johns County issues hurricane evacuation order.
11:30 a.m. Flagler County issues hurricane evacuation order. ll:45 a.m. Brevard County issues hurricane evacuation order.
2:15a.m. Volusia County issues hurricane evacuation order.
5:00p.m. National Hurricane Center discontinues tropical storm warning for areas south of Sebastian Inlet, FL. Thursday, July 11, 1996 2:00a.m. National Hurricane Center discontinues hurricane warning for areas south of Brunswick, GA. 5:00a.m. St. Johns, Flagler, Brevard, and Volusia Counties revoke hurricane evacuation orders.
Traffic conditions during the Hurricane Bertha evacuations were analyzed, primarily using traffic count data from the counties that evacuated, as well as from the areas that were impacted by the evacuation traffic. Information from hurricane evacuation studies previously prepared for the coastal counties was also utilized.
15 Traffic Count Locations
The FOOT provided traffic count reports for all of their traffic count stations in Districts Two and Five for the entire month of July 1996. Count stations were identified for analysis based on coverage of the areas under state and/or county evacuation orders during the Hurricane Bertha event. In addition to the six counties under evacuation orders (i.e., Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler, Volusia, and Brevard), stations in Baker, Clay, Putnam, Marion, Lake, Seminole, and Orange Counties were analyzed for the effects of evacuating traffic from coastal areas into these inland locations. Some stations originally identified were omitted from further analysis, due to incomplete data. A total of thirty traffic count stations were evaluated to provide a summacy of the Hurricane Bertha evacuation traffic characteristics in Florida. Traffic count stations at the following locations were evaluated:
• five stations located on Interstate Highways 4, 10, and 95, with one 1-4 location being in Volusia County; one l· I 0 location on the east side of Duval County; and three stations along J-95, with one station in southern Brevard County, one station in Flagler County, and one station in northern Nassau County, near the Florida/Georgia State Line;
• fourteen stations located on other major north-south routes, including three stations on US Highway I, stretching from southern Brevard County to the Florida/Georgia State Line; State Road AlA and State Road 407 in Brevard County; State Road 9A in Duval County; State Road 600 in Seminole County; State Roads 436 and 527 in Orange County; US Highway 301 in Marion County; State Road I 9 in Lake County; US Highway I 7 and State Road 2 I in Clay County; and State Road 121 in Baker County; and
• eleven stations located on other major east-west routes, including State Road 520 in Brevard County; State Road 442 and US Highway 92 in Volusia County; State Roads 50 and 528 (Beeline Expressway) in Orange County; State Roads 46 and 434 in Seminole County; State Road 44 in Lake County; State Roads 40 and 464 in Marion County; and State Road 20 in Putnam County.
A map showing the locations of the 30 FOOT traffic count stations is included as Figure 4, and specific descriptions of the count station locations are included in Table 5. For legibility, only the last three digits of the count station location nwnber are provided in Figure 4.
16 F i gure 4. r-~~. ~~~~~fT~~~~~eviewed for
·..
-··- '· " :. ·•
·--·~ .-' ·. ~·
.·.'· . ;.
-i' .-
.
...... -.· . ; .... . -:._.
;c -.y_
17 TableS FDOT Traffic Count Station Locations for Hurricane Bertha Traffic Characteristics
Nassau County
• N/S FOOT Count Station #740132 Interstate 95, 2 miles south of Florida/Georgia State Line
Duval County
• N/S FOOT Count Station #720216 State Road 9A, south ofSR 105
• EIW FOOT Count Station #720 I 09 State Road 8/lnterstate I 0, at SR 217 overpass (south of Baldwin)
St. Johns County
• N/S FOOT Count Station #780311 US Highway !, just east of Lewis Point Road
Flagler County
• N/S FOOT Count Station #730263 US Highway I, 1.3 miles north of County Road 202
• N1S FOOT Count Station #730292 State Road 9/lnterstate 95, 2 miles north ofweigh station)
Putnam County
• E1W FDOT Count Station #760240 State Road 20, just east of Rowland Road
Volusia County
• E/\V FDOT Count Station #790 170 State Road 442, just east ofl-95 • EIW FOOT Count Station #790179 Interstate 4, east ofEnterprise Road Overpass (south ofUS 92) • EIW FOOT Count Station #799925 US Highway 92,just east of Clark's Bay Road (east ofOeLand)
t8 Table 5 (continued)
Bre,•ard County o EfW FOOT Count Station #700113 State Road 520, just west of County Road 3
• NfS FOOT Count Station #700114 State Road 5/US Highway l,just south of State Road 514
• NIS FOOT Cowll Station #700134 State Road 9/Interstate 95, 3.5 miles south of State Road 514
• NfS FOOT Count Station #700223 State Road 407,just southwest ofl-95
• NfS FOOT Count Station #700284 State Road AI A, just north of Cove Road (near State Road 514)
Seminole County o N/S FOOT Count Station #770 I 02 State Road 600, 1.4 miles south of State Road 46
• E/W FOOT Count Station #770197 State Road 434, 1.6 miles east of 1-4
• EIW FOOT Count Station #770299 State Road 46, just west of St. Johns River Bridge
Orange County
• EIW FOOT Count Station #750104 State Road 50, just west of State Road 520 (near Bithlo)
• NIS FOOT Count Station #750 154 State Road 436, 1.4 miles nonh of State Road 528
• N/S FOOT Count Station #750175 State Road 527, at Butler Drive in Orlando
• E/W FOOT Count Station #750204 State Road 528 (Beeline Expressway), 0.8 miles west of State Road I 5
19 Table 5 (continued)
Marion County
• NIS FOOT Count Station #360118 US Highway 301,just north of State Road 326 West
• E/W FOOT Count Station #360249 State Road 464,just east of47~ Avenue o E/W FOOT Count Station #360264 State Road 40, just east ofNE 26"' Street
Lake County
• FJ W FOOT Count Station #110246 State Road 44, just east ofCo unty Road 44
• NIS FOOT Count Station #110262 State Road 19, 0.6 miles north of Umatilla City Limits
Clay County
• N/S FOOT Count Station #710189 . US Highway 17, 0.6 miles south of County Road 220
• N/S FOOT Count Station #710233 State Road 21,just north of County Road 2 15
Baker County
• NIS FOOT Count Station #270232 State Road 121 , just south of Florida/Georgia State Line
20 Traffic Count Data Analysis
Using the information supplied by the FDOT, graphs for each of the 30 traffic count stations were developed to compare Hurricane Bertha evacuation traffic volumes v.ith the traffic conditions at the station during "normal" conditions. Each graph shows the hourly, directional traffic volumes for the 28-hour period, beginning at 6:00a.m. on Wednesday, July 10, 1996 and ending at I0 :00 a.m. on Thursday, July I I, 1996-the period covering the evacuation orders. "Normal" operating condjtions are represented by the average of the traffic volumes during the same 28-bour period, one week and two weeks after the Hurricane Bertha evacuations.' The graphs indicate that only moderate deviations from "normal" traffic volumes occurred at most stations during the evacuation periods. The graphs for each of the 30 count station locations are included in Appendix D.
Level of Service
The Hurricane Opal Assessment reported measurements regarding the level of service (LOS) on major evacuation routes during the evacuations. Specifically, the directional service volume for LOS D, the maximum hourly directional volume during the evacuations, and the percent of the LOS D volume that was consumed on the routes during the evacuations were reported. The information was derived from Traffic Count Summaries for the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Post Opal Hurricane Evacuation Assessment, by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. From descriptions of the evacuations, it is clear that forced flow traffic conditions existed at many locations. The fact that observed traffic volumes associated with LOS D service volumes were not achieved at most of the traffic count locations should not lead to the conclusion that acceptable traffic flow conditions existed. Although unintended by the authors, review of the Hurricane Opal Assessment could lead to such a conclusion. Under forced flow conditions, traffic volumes at isolated locations along evacuation routes would not accurately reflect the level of service over a particular road segment. That is, directional volumes recorded by the traffic counters would provide a "snapshot" of traffic flow rates at the count location, rather than a depiction of true traffic demand. To avoid such confusion for this study, therefore, such statistics are not reported for Hurricane Bertha.
Clearance Time Estimates
The Northeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study and the East Central Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study encompass the areas covered by Governor Chiles' evacuation orders and
1 That is, the ave.rage of the volume for the period beginning at 6:00 AM on Wednesday. July 17, 1996, and ending at 10:00 AM on Thursday, July 18, 1996, and the period beginning at 6:00AM on Wedne.day, July 24, 1996 and ending at 10:00 AM on Thursday, July 25, 1996.
21 analyzed herein, with regaJ:ds to traffic volume. Clwance time estimates, as reported in these studies, aJ:e provided in Tables 6 and 7.
Table6 1995 Clearance Time Estimates (In Hours)
Response Rate County Rapid Medium Slow Nassau (Category 3-5) 8.0 8.75 9.75 Duval (Category 3) 8.5 9.25 11.5 St. Johns (Category 3-5) 7.25 8.75 9.75 Flagler (Category 3-5) 4.50 6.25 9.25 . Source. Northeast Flonda Humcane Evacuatton Study
Table7 1990 Clearance Time Estimates (In Hours)
Response Rate County Rapid Medium Slow Volusia (Category 3-5) 3.0-5.0 4.0 -5.0 9.0 Brevard (Category 3-5) 11.0- 13.0 11.0 -12.5 11.5 - 13.0 . Source.. East Ce-ntral FJor1da Hu.mcane EvacuatJon Study
The Northeast Florida HES was prepared in 1988, while the East Central Florida HES was prepared in 1989. It is likely, therefore, that clearance time estimates for each county are not reflective of current conditions. Over time, growth in population and housing units, as well as improvements to the road networks, necessitate modifications to clwance time estimates. According to the OEM, both of these evacuation studies will be updated in the next 18 to 24 months. (According to its authors, periodic updates to population and housing statistics, based on county permitting activity, have been made to the East Central Florida HES.) Modifications to clwance time estimates in these aJ:eas are futthet necessitated, since, according to the Florida DEM, the methodologies and/or tools used to develop clearance time estimates in the East Central Florida and the Northeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Studies would, today, be considered somewhat outdated. To improve these studies, the Florida DEM will pay particular attention toward assuring a higher level of involvement of local emergency management officials in the update process.
Duration of Substantial Evacuating Traffic
Clearance time--the time it takes for evacuating vehicles leaving a particular evacuation zone or county to reach safety (i.e., a destination outside of the areas subject to storm surge)--is
22 commonly represented by the measured duration of substantial evacuating traffic. This is. a measurement of the duration of time that elapses from the point in time when the traffic volume during an evacuation rises above the volume associated with "nonnal" traffic conditions, to the point in time when the evacuating traffic volume falls back to "normal" volumes and trends. This definition of clearance time has been supported in a study recently completed for the DEM, entitled Comparative Evaluation of Transportation Planning Methodologies for Florida's Evacuation Response. The graphs developed from the FDOT traffic count data were used to estimate the duration of substantial evacuation traffic during the Hurricane Bertha evacuations, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Hurricane Bertha Duration ofSubs tantial Evacuation Traffic (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)
Evacuation Evacuation Traffic County Order Effec.tive Begin (1) End (1) Duration (1) Nassau (2) 10:00 a.m. 8:00p.m. 10.0 hours Duval I I :00 a.m. (3) 9:00a.m. 11:00 p.m. 14.0 hours St. Johns 1:30 p.m. 8:00a.m. 4:00 p.m. 8.0 hours Flagler 11:30 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 5:00p.m. 10.0 hours Volusia 2:15p.m. 9:00a.m. 6:00p.m. 9.0 hours Brevard 11:45 a.m. 6:00a.m. 4:30p.m. 10.5 hours Baker (4) 3:00p.m. 8:00p.m. 5.0 hours Clay (4) ll :00 a.m. 6:30p.m. 7.5 hours Putnam (4) 10:00 a.m. 11:00 p.m. 13.0 hours Marion (4) 9:00a.m. 12:00 a.m. IS .Ohours Lake (4) 10:00 a.m. 8:00p.m. 10.0 hours Seminole (4) 6:00a.m. 9:00p.m. 15.0 hours Orange (4) 8:00a.m. 5:30p.m. 9.5 hours
Notes: (I) Evacuation begin, end, and duration times represent the earliest begin time, latest end time, and longest duration for all count stations located in each particular county. (2) Nassau County emergency management officials did not issue an evacuation order for the county. (3) While Duval County emergency management officials did not issue an evacuation order for the county, the county did reiterate the Governor's evacuation order, which included Duval County. (4) While not under an evacuation order, this county may have been impacted by traffic from adjacent, coastal counties.
23 Comparison of Estimated and Observed Clearance Times
Using caution, a comparison of an area's estimated clearance times (from a hurricane evacuation study) with the duration of substantial evacuating traffic (as measured during an evacuation event), can be used to provide insight into the accuracy of the clearance time estimates. This comparison should not be considered a true indicator of accuracy, however. Since hurricane evacuation studies are typically not updated each year, changes in population, housing, and other demographics, coupled with improvements to evacuation routes and the timing of a hurricane event (i.e., seasonal and time of day/week), the estimated clearance times cannot always be assumed to accurately portray actual study area conditions. Furthennore, partial evacuations, such as those that took place during the Bertha event, will not produce the evacuation route loadings that would approach the estimated clearance times portrayed in a hurricane evacuation study (when clearance times are based on current socioeconomic and transportation data), which are based on full evacuations.
Table 9 presents the comparison of the category 3 hurricane clearance time estimates with the measured duration of substantial evacuating traffic during the Bertha evacuarions in Florida. The medium response rate was used for the counties included in the Northeast Florida Study, and the slow response curve was used for the counties included in the East Central Florida Study (as a medium response curve is not included in the East Central Florida Study).
Table9 Hurricane Bertha Estimated Clearance Times n. Measured Duration of Substantial Evacuating Traffic (in hours)
Estimated Measured Duration of Substantial County Clearance Time Evacuating Traffic Nassau 8.75 10.0 Duval 9.25 14.0 St. Johns 8.75 8.0 Flagler 6.25 10.0 Volusia 9.00 9.0 Brevard 11.5- 13.0 10.5
The results of this comparison indicate that several points should be reiterated. First, the clearance time estimates for all of these counties were likely outdated when the Bertha evacuations occurred and will be revisited as part of the study updates in the next one to two years. Increases in population and housing totals and changes to the roadway networks that have taken place over the last several years will serve as direct inputs to the updated clearance time estimates. 24 Second, as suggested by the Florida OEM, critical assumptions and inputs, which were excluded from the East Central Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study, will be included in the study update through the participation of the Volusia and Brevard County emergency management officials. Data from the 1990 Census or, more preferably, current and projected housing unit counts and population estimates from county planning departments and metropolitan planning organizations (i.e., traffic analysis zone data) will provide more accurate inputs with which clearance time estimates can be developed and projected for future years.
Third, it is important to realize that, as had been predicted, Hurricane Bertha eventually made the turn toward the north and missed Florida completely. With regards to evacuation response rates and behavior, the forecast of Bertha's track was actually more important than the track itself. As Bertha approached Florida, residents along the East Coast were told that the storm would likely not make landfall anywhere in their vicinity. This likely contributed to a low evacuation participation rate. Had Bertha been forecast to make landfall somewhere on the northeast coast of Florida, where a large portion of the 500,000 residents were located, the evacuations certainly would have involved a much higher participation rate. Such a scenario occurred duriug the Hurricane Opal event, where the storm was expected to make landfall somewhere along the Florida Panhandle (and where residents prepared for such landfall by evacuating).
Furthermore, to gain any insight iuto the accuracy ofa clearance time estimate, a measurement of the duration of substantial evacuating traffic should be used io conjunction with a known evacuation participation rate. A low participation rate can occur with an evacuation that is spread out over many hours (a long duration of substantial evacuating traffic). In such a case, a valid comparison could not be made with the estimated clearance time, which is based on a higher participation rate. A post-evacuation response survey, which could have indicated the evacuation participation rate for each county, was not condu9ted for the Hurricane Bertha event in Florida since the storm did not make landfall iu the state.
In addition to the above points, review of current procedures (beyond the parameters of the Comparative Evaluation of Transportation Planning Methodologies for Florida's Evacuation Response) might provide insight toward a methodology for developing more accurate clearance time estimates. Common practice for developing clearance time estimates is to base est.imated evacuation flow rates orl constant, lower-than-maximum service volumes (i.e., level of service D volumes, rather than level of service E volumes) for each specific evacuation route constricting point. To address the resultant generalities, clearance time estimates for future hurricane evacuation studies might be based oo a more dynamic process that more closely reflects actual flow rates occurring before, during, and after forced flow conditions are experienced during an evacuation.
25 CURRENT TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The collection of traffic data is critical during a hurricane evacuation. Real-time traffic information is needed by those evacuees who are already on the road or preparing to evacuate the area. To utilize the roadway system efficiently, and avoid unnecessary traffic congestion, the public must be made aware of traffic conditions on the evacuation routes. Perhaps more importantly, emergency management, highway, and law enforcement officials need this information to be able to correct serious traffic problems as they occur.
Real-time traffic information can be life saving. Evacuees must be warned of serious traffic problems that, if they were to try to use the congested evacuation route, could potentially leave them behind stuck in gridlock when the hurricane strikes. It is extremely dangerous to be in an automobile when a hurricane strikes. This situation occurred during Hurricane Opal. Fortunately, though, Opal lost most of her strength as she made landfall, and those evacuees stranded on the road system were not caught in life-threatening storm conditions.
Historical traffic data collected after a hurricane has passed is also important, as it helps to determine citizen reactions to the approaching danger, reactions to evacuation notices, and the location of traffic bottlenecks. Analysis of this information allows emergency management officials and traffic engineers to better plan for future hurricane evacuations.
Current Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) Traffic Data Collection Methods
Detector Functionality
The FOOT has an extensive traffic counting program that captures hourly data such as volume, speeds, and vehicle classification. The program consists of a network of 250 automatic traffic recorder sites throughout Florida. There are four different counter functionalities that collect the following types of data:
I) traffic volumes only; 2) traffic volume and speed; 3) traffic volume, speed, and vehicle classification; and 4) traffic volume, speed, vehicle classification, and the weight of each axle (weigh in motion (WIM) sites).
26 Detector Technologies
Most of the sites use inductive loop detectors to gather the traffic data. This method of traffic data collection is very common, but there are significant drawbacks to this technology when collecting real-time traffic during a hurricane evacuation. First, if a vehicle is stopped over one of these loops for an extended period of time, the detector assumes there is an error and resets itself. The traffic detector will then indicate that no vehicles are traveling on the roadway when in fact the road is so congested there is no movement occurring. Conveying inaccurate information such as this during an evacuation could have serious ramifications. This leads to the second drawback of loop detectors, which is the inability of emergency management officials to "see• exactly what is happening on the roadway, and pass on this vital information to the public.
In the next section, several traffic detection technologies that allow the controller to "see" and understand the actual traffic situation, as it occurs, will be discussed. The use of these types of detectors is encouraged--particularly on major evacuation routes. Some agencies have already begun to install Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras for use in manually observing traffic. For example, FOOT District Five has installed many cameras along I-95, l-4, and SR 19. These cameras are controlled by sophisticated Monitron software that allows the user to contact any of the cameras, obtain a real-time video feed from the camera, and adjust the camera (both aim and picture quality). District Five is currently the only agency with functional connections to these particular cameras, but they are encouraging several other agencies (e.g., the City of Orlando, the Orange County Police Department, Seminole County) to purchase the software (for approximately $15,000) and connect to the cameras. One other obvious location to distribute this live video feed to would be the State Emergency Management Center.
Power Sources
The FOOT's inductive loop counters are powered by an internal, lead-acid battery. This battery is charged by solar power collected from solar panels installed on each counter. A fully charged battery will power a counter for two to three weeks. However, with older counters, such as the. ones currently in use, once the battery loses all power, the counter's memory is erased, and any data that was collected is lost. Newer counters have overcome this problem by saving the data to a memory module powered by a long-lasting (five year) lithium battery.
If a counter's solar panel is destroyed during a hurricane, the counter v.ill continue to function on battery power for two to three weeks. Information will continue to be collected and communicated to the central office, and only after the battery loses power will a problem be discovered. This would lead to traffic data loss two to three weeks after the hurricane, which is usually not particularly important data except during extended recovery periods (as after Hurricane Andrew).
27 In the case where a counter loses both its solar panel and phone line connection during a hurricane (which can easily happen), data will continue to be collected until the battery loses power. However, this data will not be communicated during this time and will then be lost once the battery loses power. This situation presents a greater problem than when only a solar panel is desttoyed, as some post-hurricane recovery data will be lost This data should be safely stored in memory that will not be erased after such a short period. However, the most important data, the evacuation data, would have been collected before the phone lines were damaged.
Communication and Data Retrieval
The most common method for data retrieval is to download the information stored on the counters by modem, over phone lines. The FDOT Statistics Office "polls" their counters nightly (after midnight) to collect the previous day's data. This information is then stored at their Statistics Office, but is not readily accessible to anyone outside this office. It is recommended that some of the more recent data be housed in a convenient location (e.g., the FOOT Web page), thereby allowing traffic engineers and researchers to better access and utilize the data.
View Mode
Approximately 50% of FOOT's traffic counters have an option called the "view mode." This feature allows the user to see the information that is being collected by the counter in real time. For example, if the counter collects speed and volume data, then whenever a vehicle passes over the counter it will be indicated and its speed displayed. However, once a user downloads summary information from that site, the counter would reset itself and erase its memory. Therefore, historical data would be lost in the effort to caprure real-time data.
Recommended Changes
As noted previously, one of the changes recommended is that all furure counters installed should save the traffic data to a memory module that has a long-lasting battery. Many of the newer traffic counters (e.g., the Peak ADR-3000, used in South Florida on the Turnpike) have this capability. With this modification, the cri.tical traffic data collected during the hurricane evacuation would be saved, even if the counter loses its modem connection and solar panel and ceases to function when its battery wears out.
Power Joss, and the counter's subsequent loss of memory, may have lead to the extensive Joss of data that occurred after Hurricane Opal. Hurricane Opal struck the Florida Panhandle in early October 1995. In examining the traffic data collected in District 3 (the Panhandle), during
28 October 1995, it was found that only 63% of the data was "good."' In comparison, the data for July 1996 for Districts Two and Five (when Hurricane Bertha just missed hitting these two districts) was 90.6% good data.
The FOOT has examined the feasibility of making the equipment less susceptible to a hurricane. However, in order to accomplish this, expensive upgrades would be required. Since the counters generally function untH the hurricane strikes, when all vehicles should be off the road, the expense is difficult to justify. CUTR agrees with this decision. As long as the counters can collect and disseminate information in real-time and can store data for long periods of time, no additional weather resistance improvements should be necessary.
The second and more critical problem is the lack of availability of real-time information during the evacuation. New traffic counters are needed to supply emergency management personnel with real-time traffic information. Traffic information is now available to emergency management personnel, but in a disorganized manner. Some emergency management agencies receive information from local law enforcement officers who are on the street directing traffic. They can also receive dated information from the FOOT Statistics Office. This lack of information makes it difficult for emergency management officials to make informed evacuation decisions. New traffic counters need to be able to provide real-time data, \\~thout losing any historical counts.
The FOOT's current plans include the installation of five new permanent counter sites that will allow the collection of real-time data. The five sites were selected based on their importance to hurricane evacuation routes. The FOOT will also begin conversion of existing count stations to stations that can provide real-time traffic information very soon. Twenty-nine stations have been slated for conversion during the first year alone. This is an excellent start towards the goal of easily accessible, real-time traffic information during an evacuation. The FOOT should now make this real-time traffic information available to those groups and agencies that need it (especially emergency management agencies), and possibly to all that want it through a continuous cable television broadcast, a dedicated radio station, and the internet.
2 There were 2,345 "good" days of data (i.e., days that data was not missing or marked "bad") collected at the 60 sites during the month of October. The total possible number of good days was: 60 sites"'2 directions per site .. 31 days= 3, 720.
29 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
During an evacuation, it would be desirable for emergency management officials to be able to obtain traffic information from a wide range of sources. This section examines some of the alternative traffic data collection technologies available and in use today. These include inductance technologies, magnetic detectors, piezoelectric sensors, infrared, microwave/radar, sonic and ultrasonic devices, video, cellular phones, CBs, aerial observation, and call boxes. All of these technologies have the ability to supply real-time and historical data, depending on the counter model selected and the communication method used. These technologies offer many advantages, and some disadvantages, compared to the inductive loop method. These advantages and disadvantages will be investigated, with special focus on those technologies that offer the user a live video feed oftraffic conditions.
Inductance Detectors
There are three main types ofinductance detectors, including inductive loop, magnetometers, and magnetic detectors. These detectors work in two ways: pulse and presence. In the pulse mode, the vehicle generates an electric current, or pulse, when it passes over the loop. In the presence mode, the loop generates an output as long as the vehicle remains over it. Presence mode is more useful for traffic signal presence detection, while pulse mode is more commonly used in vehicle counts on open stretches of road.
The inductive loop detector is the most prevalent detection device in use today. One or more turns of wire are cut into a loop in the pavement and covered over with a sealant. When a vehicle passes over this loop of wires the electric current characteristics are altered, signifying the presence of a vehicle. This information is recorded and often sent by modem, over phone lines, to a central office where the data are stored. The FOOT uses this type of counter extensively, as discussed in the previous section.
Magnetic Detectors
These devices are installed and work similar to inductive loop detectors. They are placed in the pavement and have the ability to sense a vehicle's passage over the detection zone. Vehicles are detected due to the change in the earth's magnetic field when a vehicle passes over them. This change can indicate the vehicle's presence, size, and speed. However, these detectors respond to changes in the magnetic field over a large area and, therefore, have poorly defmed fields of detection. Also, they require a certain minimum speed1 and are, therefore, not as useful during 30 evacuations, when there is the potential for vehicles to be stopped over the devices due io congestion. When pavement conditions are poor, these devices are generally more reliable than loop detectors, and they are generally easier to install than loop detectors.
Piezoelectric Sensors
Piezoelectric sensors are installed in the pavement When a vehicle travels over the sensor, the weight of the vehicle causes pressure to be applied to a crystalline substance in the sensor, altering its electric polarity. This allows for the collection of axle weight, vehicle classification, and speed data'. Installation costs are similar to the installation of loop detectors. However, the devices are significantly more expensive to purchase than loop detectors.
Microwave Radar Sensors
Microwave radar traffic detectors use electromagnetic radiation to determine the presence and passage of ve.hicles. The two primary types of microwave detection devices are pulse and continuous radar. Pulse radar emits pulses in a frequency-modulated, continuous wave pattern directed at a target area on the roadway. The sensor then records the time it takes for the pulse to reflect back. The time and pulse are analyzed to determine if a vehicle is in the roadway, and, if so, the speed of that vehicle. Continuous radar emits electromagnetic radiation on a continuous basis and analyzes the return signal using the Doppler principle. This method can be used to obtain data on vehicle presence and speed. No pavement cutting is required to install these devices. They can be mounted on the roadside or, preferably, overhead. Their cost is competitive to that of loop detectors.
Infrared Sensors
Infrared devices detect the change in infrared radiation caused by the passage of a vehicle in the target area. These devices can be active (where a beam of radiation is emitted, and the returned signal is analyzed for vehicle presence) or passive (where the detector focuses on the background radiation emitted from a particular location and monitors changes). Both types can detect vehicle presence, density, speed, classification, and volume. The technology is not affected by day or night conditions, but passive devices are susceptible to sudden changes in background radiation (e.g., sudden rainstorms). Active devices can have difficulties with certain materials, such as plastic car bodies. In addition, high installation costs could make this technology inappropriate for use by the FOOT. An example of the output of an infrared sensor can be seen in Figure 5.
31 Figure 5. Autosense II Image (active-infrared technology) Schwartz Electro-Optics, Inc.
Sonic and Ultrasonic Devices
Ultrasonic devices emit pulses or continuous ultrasonic energy at a specific target area. The device monitors the reflected ultrasonic energy and analyzes the change caused by the passage of a vehicle. These devices were used in the United States in the 1950s for presence detection at intersections, but low reliability ended their use. Technological advances have improved these devices to the point where Japan uses them extensively (Japan does not allow the cutting of pavement).' Used in pairs, these devices can collect information on vehicle presence, speed, size, and counts. They can be mounted overhead or by the side of the road. Unfortunately, these devices Jose some of their effectiveness in adverse weather conditions (such as heavy rain and wind) and are not recommended for use in Florida.'
Sonic devices, or passive acoustic devices, detect the sound energy created by the vehicles.s The device analyzes the sound and compares it to the sounds of known classes of vehicles in order to obtain vehicle count, volume, and classification information.
32 Video-Based Systems
Several types (or generations) of video imaging systems ell:ist on the market today. The first generation was tripline/tripwire detection, then video tracking was developed, and finally multi resolutional tracking was developed. All systems analyze the pixels in the camera's image for changes. These changes are analyzed in order to determine vehicle presence and other characteristics, such as speed, classification, and headway.
Tripline or tripwire systems focus their analysis on a few, specific pixels in one or more rows on the screen. When these pixels change, the system analyzes this change to determine vehicle passage. The first non-military use of this technology was Autoscope, which was developed at the University of Minnesota in 1984 and first field tested in 1989 •
The next generation of video-based traffic data collection devices, video tracking, examines all pixels in the camera's field of view. When an object is detected through a change in pixel color, the object is tracked as it passes through the video image. This method provides additional traffic data, above that provided by trip line systems. However, the computer processing time and power required to accomplish this analysis is expensive, and these technologies could not compete with loop detectors.
The latest technology, multi-resolution tracking captures the video image in high resolution and reduces it to a very low resolution (in some cases eight-by-eight pixels for the entire image). If there are changes in this reduced resolution image, the resolution is increased to the lowest resolution possible that will still yield an accurate analysis and is then analyzed. This saves considerable processing time, as far fewer pixels must be analyzed every )/30th of a second.
These machine vision devices are being used in many locations throughout the United States and are proving to be a reliable method of data collection. Appendix E summarizes the information collected on machine vision traffic data collection vendors in the United States. It should be noted that only one ofthese devices, the VideoTrak-900 from Peek Traffic, has been investigated and approved for use by the FOOT.
During CUTR's interviews with machine vision vendors, the vendors were asked if they had any experience collecting data during a hurricane. None ofthe vendors had any such experience. The communication technologies for these devices have similar susceptibilities to high winds as do the communication lines for the loop detectors. In both cases, communication can be lost due to high winds. In addition, excessive swaying and motion can cause the machines to malfunction.
As indicated in Appendix E, these devices have the ability to automatically detect vehicles and determine vehicle speed, classification, queue lengths, incidents, and headway. Total lifetime costs (i.e., purchase, installation, operation, and maintenance) are comparable to that of loop detectors, since no pavement cutting is required, and one camera can monitor several lanes. A
33 significant advantage of these devices over loop detectors is that personnel monitoring the camera images can see what is happening on the road during an evacuation.
CCTV devices are already in use by various agencies around the state to gather traffic information and make signal timing changes during events (concerts, hurricane evacuations, etc.). However, the video feeds from these devices do not always reach the agency that needs the feed the most (i.e., Emergency Management). It is recommended that FDOT gather information on all cameras in use around the state that may be useful for traffic monitoring. Information such as the location of each camera, what roads can be monitored by the camera, who owns and operates the camera, where the video feed is currently received, and the costs involved in connecting local emergency management operations centers and the State Emergency Management Operations Center in Tallahassee to the cameras should be investigated.
Cellular Phones
With the increased availability and use of cellular phones, this method of traffic data collection can be very useful during an event such as an evacuation. It provides real-time information and information on exactly how traffic is flowing along various roadways. However, this information is not always accurate, as drivers may get their location confused, exaggerate a situation, or even deliberately provide false information. Therefore, before emergency management officials were to act on information gathered in this manner, the information would have to be substantiated in some way, such as verification from multiple cellular calls or some other method. Also, there should be one phone number that evacuees know to use, and this number must be well staffed to handle the influx of calls. Currently the "*FHP" (Florida Highway Patrol) number links motorists to the highway patrol, and this number is already used to alert police to incidents on the highway. Therefore, it is recommended that the FDOT and FHP examine the issues surrounding making this the official number for people to call with traffic information during emergencies.
Citizen Band Radios (CBs)
The increased use of cellular phones by motorists has largely limited the use of CBs to the trucking industrY.' However, there is one channel (channel 9) used for emergency broadcasts that is still monitored by the FHP and other emergency services. In this manner, information gathered by CB can serve to augment information gathered elsewhere.
34 Aerial Observation
In this method of traffic observation, data is gathered from a helicopter or small plane. This method has the advantage of being able to cover wide areas very quickly, as long as visibility and weather conditions permit. One of the largest traffic surveillance companies, Metro Traffic Control (MTC), owns and operates a fleet of aircraft in most major cities around the United States. In exchange for this information, radio stations offer MTC a certain amount of air time which MTC then sells to advertisers. Despite the fact that a hurricane is approaching, this form of traffic surveillance could still be used during a hurricane evacuation. Since the evacuation is to be completed before gale force winds (39 mph) hit land, there is still the opportunity to collect data during the early to mid portion of the evacuation and not endanger the airplane pilots. This could prove to be an excellent source of additional data, as it would give emergency management officials an overview ofroad conditions during the early part of the evacuation and allow them to alert motorists to trouble areas. It is recommended that the FDOT, emergency management officials, and MTC develop a plan to collect data through aerial observation as soon as possible. MTC, in an initial discussion, indicated that they had a great reluctance to sending their aircraft into the air with a hurricane approaching.
Call Boxes
During an evacuation, call boxes may function as additional cellular phones, providing the public another method of reporting problems to the FHP. However, placing these boxes along all stretches of highway would be prohibitively expensive. Due to cost considerations, they are generally located along stretches of heavily traveled, rural roads, primarily the interstate and turnpike system. Due to the popularity of cellular phones, there are likely to be many people already alerting FHP to problems along these routes using their cellular phones. Therefore, this method of data collection can augment information collected from cellular phones, but should not be thought of as a primary source of information.
35 THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF THE INTERNET
The need for real-time traffic data was greatly increased by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, which made the development of congestion management systems (CMSs) mandatory for many urban areas. The main putpose of the real time traffic data is to identify areas of congestion, both recurring and incidental, to provide travelers with accurate information on which to base their trips, and to serve as a guide for placing messages on variable message signs. Different organizations use different methods to collect and interpret the data obtained from the field. Many of the methods used were discussed in the previous section.
A World Wide Web (WWW) site can then be used to display the real-time travel time data at checkpoints along a highway network. Users can query by segment and use the corresponding data for their benefit. Many systems allow the users to select the segment of their interest by clicking on a point on a map and then the system gives information regarding the segment and the summary of the speeds in real-time.
The use of the internet to disseminate real-time traffic information is becoming more and more common (see Table 10). Users (such as emergency management officials or the general public) can obtain critical information during a hurricane evacuation through the use of on-screen maps. In most of the sites now on the internet, color-coded map displays are used. The color-coding allows the user to quickly read and understand the problematic (i.e., congested) sections of the highway. Different colors are used to indicate directional traffic speeds in ranges. With some systems, the user can obtain segment-specific information by clicking on the segment portrayed on the map. Such information can include the road name, the beginning and ending points using cross street names, segment length, and the most recently collected travel time and average speed. These data would allow emergency management officials or the general public to avoid problem segments of highways, thereby enhancing evacuation route selection and trip planning decision making.
Additional data elements available on some of the more advanced internet sites include live traffic images, incident reports, road closures, construction information, and congestion levels. One feature available at the Houston internet site allows the user to build and plan a customized travel route. The site has software that takes into account current congestion levels, construction zones, and highway speeds. The software will then determine the best route for the user to travel based on the data available. Other sites allow the user to see Jive images of current traffic on a variety of roadways. The user simply clicks on the camera location for which they wish to receive an image, and a Jive image of the highway segment or intersection is transmitted. The ability to zoom in on an area is available at a few sites. Several sites now have the ability to transmit a sound bite or recording of the last traffic report given out over the radio.
36 Table 10 Real Time Traffic. Information on the Internet
Location Web Address Contact Short Description Atlanta, GA http:ll»ww.georgia- Todd Long gives freeway speed, traveler.comlrrcifficlrtmap.htm Georgia DOT liv~ traffic camera (404) 635·8133 images, incident reports, road closures Boston, MA http:lll1-ww.smartrave/er.comltraffic (617) 374-1234 live image oftraffic map.html Chicago, IL http:l!www.ai.eecs.uic.edu!GCMI [email protected] congestion levels CongestionMap.html Detroit, Ml http://campus.merit.net/mdotl Merit Network Inc. & congestion levels at largeview.html MITS intersections Houston, TX http:!ltraffic.tamu.edultraffic.html [email protected] detailed report of speed and Route Builder software Los Angeles, CA http:ll»ww.scubcdcomlcaltransl/a! Maxwell Technologies speeds and trouble ~pots MiMeapolis, MN Jmp://www.traffic.connecu.com [email protected]. speeds and camera com zoo~rn· on the locatlon Orange County, CA http://www.maxwell.com/ Maxwell Technologies speed and incident yahoorraffic!OC!OC W!map.html location Phoenix, AZ http://www.azfms.ccmiTravel! [email protected] speed and freeway.html camera images San Diego, CA http:IIW»W.scubed.comlcalrrans!sdl Randy Peterson, speed tables ,Incident (707) 996-8766 reports. and road FAX (707) 935-1700 closures Seattle, WA hllp:ll/98.238.212. 10/regions!north Michele Fort>es, Greg congestion levels, "-est!NWFLOW Legge, Paul Cho, camera images, which Washington State DOT can be selectedfor the (206) 440-4790 location needed Montgomery, AL http://webserv.dot.co.monlgomery. hnp://webserv.dot.co. live camera images md.uslatmspagel montgomery.md.us/ and transit feedback.html information Rhode Island http:I!Rhodelslandcom/cglsltraffic/ construction warnings traffic.htm and ..speed traps .. San Antonio .• TX http://transguidewwwsen.·er.datasys Streets and Traffic camera images. traffic .swri.edul Eng., signal changes with (210) 731-5223 incidents and (210)207-7720 changing advisory signals
37 With the increased popularity and availability of the World Wide Web, it is likely that interest in placing real-time traffic data on the Web will rise. As shown in Table 10, there are already a large number of organizations that have placed their real-time traffic information on the Web. During the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and the Riderlink demonstration· project in Seattle, it was found that real-time information was being used by many travelers in order to avoid congestion. As outlined previously, there are many methods available for the collection of real-time traffic data that would provide adequate traffic information to the WWW site. In fact, the newer loop detectors that the FDOT is now installing can provide the information required.
With the emergence of interactive television and \VWW television, users (potential evacuees) have increased access to internet-based information. Interactive television allows the user to communicate with the cable company through the television. A set-top box is connected to the television that allows two-way communication between user and cable station. In this manner the user can select traffic information specific to their own situation. \V\V\V television simply allows the user's television, a keyboard, and a connection to work similar to a computer connected to the internet. In this manner, the user without a computer has the same access to the traffic information outlined above.
During a hurricane evacuation, television and radio news broadcasts could use information gathered from the \VWW site and disseminate it to the public that may not have access to the WWW. In this respect, current methods used by the media to provide information to large numbers of people can be enhanced dramatically. Evacuees could receive continual updates of traffic conditions even after they have left their homes, via their automobile radios. Also, tourists, likely unfamiliar with local road networks, would receive vital information during an evacuation, possibly reducing the confusion levels inherent during a hurricane evacuation. Dissemination of real-time traffic data, when coupled with effective public education and information progr.uns, has great potential to improve hurricane evacuation events and decrease the likelihood of a catastrophic loss of life due to congested traffic conditions.
38 Endnotes
1 Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Advanced Traveler Information System: Final Concept Reporr, A report prepared for Florida Department of Transportation Turnpike District, March, 1995.
1 Center for Urban Transportation Research, Tampa Bay Area Integrated Transportation Information Station, A report prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, September, 1993, p. 9.
' Center for Urban Transportation Research, Tampa Bay Area Integrated Transportation Information Station, A report prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, September, 1993, p. II. ·
' Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Advanced Traveler biformation System: Final Concept Report, A report prepared for Florida Department of Transportation Turnpike District, March, 1995, p. 5-14. s Minnesota Department of Transportation, Field Test of Monitoring of Urban Vehicle Operations Using Non-Intrusive Technologies, Volume I :Initial Technology Review, April, 1996,p.l6.
6 William Sowell, It's All in the Pixels -A Look at the Evolution of Video Detection, prepared for Peek Traffic-Transyt Corporation, USA.
' Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Advanced Traveler Information System: Final Concept Report, Schuh & Jeringan, Inc., A report prepared for Florida Department of Transportation Turnpike District, March, 1995, p. 5-7.
39 Bibliography
Ballingrod, David and Kit Troyer. As Bertha Misses Turn, 500,000 Told to Evacuate. The St. Petersbum Times, July II, 1996.
Center for Urban Transportation Research. Tampa Bay Area Integrated Transportation Information Station. A report prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, September, 1993.
Chiles, Governor Lawton. Statement by Governor Lawton Chiles Regarding Hurricane Bertha Aftermath. July II, 1996.
Cottrell, B.H. Evaluation ofa Video Image Detection System. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, May !994.
Demetsky, Michael et a!. Evaluation ofthe Use of Live Aerial Video for Traffic Management. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, January 1995.
Hickman, D. Houston's Real-Time Traffic Reponing System. Texas Transportation Institute Presented at the National Traffic Data Acquisition Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 1996.
Kane, Gary. Florida Not Rid ofBertha. The Palm Beach Post, July I 0, 1996.
LaiNTence, Miles B. Preliminary Report: Hurricane Bertha 05-14, July 1996. August 4, 1996.
McLachlin, Mary. Bertha's Wake Leaves Some Questioning Evacuation Orders. The Palm Beach Post, July 12, 1996.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Field Test ofMonitoring of Urban Vehicle Operations Using Non-Intrusive Technologies. Volume 1: Initial Technology Review: April !996.
Patterson, Steve. Storm Threat Sends Thousands Packing Away from Coast. The Florida Times Union, July 11, 1996.
Pinkham, Paul. Residents Brace for Bertha's Force. The Florida Times Unio!!, July II, !996.
Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Advanced Traveler lnform(ltion System: Final Concept Report. A report prepared for Florida Department of Transportation Turnpike District, March, 1995.
40 Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Traffic Count Summaries for The Hurricane Opal Evacuation - Post Opal Hurricane Evacuation Assessmenr. A report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Mobile District, January 1996.
Quiroga, C.A., D. Bullock, and C. Schwehm, Dissemination of Travel Time Informarion Using the World Wide Web. 76th Annual TRB Conference, Washington, DC, January 1997.
Shaw, Robert. Fleeing 'Canes Can Be Deadly. The Tampa Tribune Florida/Metro, page I, June 7, 1996.
Sowell, William. It~ All in the Pixels - A Look at the Evolution of Video Derection, prepared for Peek Traffic-Transyt Corporation, USA.
Stout, Tom and Douglas Terry. Data Communications Technology for Traffic Control and Surveillance Systems. 57th ITE Annual Meeting, Compendium of Technical Papers, New York, NY, August, 1987, pp. 338-344.
Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. Punta Gorda/Charlotte County Computer System Feasibility Srudy. A report prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, September, 1996.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. Hurricane Opal Assessment: Review ofthe Use and Value of Hurricane Evacuation Srudy Products in the Hurricane Opal Evacuation. Alabama and Florida October 3-4, 1995. A report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IV, September, 1996.
4 1 APPENDIX A
Summary of Traffic Count Summaries for the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Post-Opal Hurricane Evacuation Assessment
42 Summary of Traffic Count Summaries for the Hurricane Opal Evacuation Post Opal Hurricane Evacuation Assessment Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. January 1996
The Traffic County Summaries for the Hurricane Opal Evacuation - Post Opal Hurricane Evacuation Assessment document (the "Traffic Volume Report") presents traffic data from various locations in the Florida Panhandle area that participated in the Hurricane Opal evacuations or were impacted by traffic from evacuating counties. According to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, the information contained in that report was used in the development of the US Anny Corps of Engineers' document titled, Hurricane Opal Assessment - Review of the Use and Value of Hurricane Evacuation Study Products in the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Alabama and Florida, October 3- 4, 1995.
Traffic Count Locations
The Traffic Volume Report is largely comprised of a series of graphs depicting the hourly directional traffic volumes for twenty-nine traffic count locations in the Florida Panhandle. The traffic volumes are presented for the twenty-four hour period, beginning at I 0:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 3, 1995, and ending at 9:00p.m. on Wednesday, October 4, 1995. The FOOT provided the traffic count data for the count stations operating during Hurricane Opal.
Traffic count stations analyzed in the traffic volume report are all located in the Florida Panhandle, in the counties of Bay, Escambia, Gadsden, Jackson, Jefferson, Liberty, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington. Specifically, the report includes information on:
• seven stations located along Interstate 10, stretching from the western end of Escarnbia (near the Florida/Alabama State Line) to the eastern end of Jefferson County;
• six stations located on other major east-west routes, including three along US Highway 98, stretching from near the Escambia/Santa Rosa County Line to Wakulla County; two along US Highway 90, one being located near the Escambia/Santa Rosa County Line and the other in central Okaloosa County; and one on State Road 20 in Eastern Bay County;
• eight stations located on major north-south routes, including US Highway 29 in Escambia County; State Road 83 in Walton County; US Highway 231 in Bay County and Jackson County; State Road 12 in Liberty County; State Road 267 in Gadsden County; US Highway 319 in Wakulla County; and State Road 59 in Jefferson County; and
43 • eight stations at various Tallahassee and surrounding urban area locations, including stations on Capital Circle SE, Moccasin Gap Road, Killarney Way, Tharpe Street, Oakridge Road, and US Highway 27 east of the Capitol (all EB/WB in Leon County); State Road 363 (NB/SB in Leon County); and State Road 267 (NB in Wakulla County).
Traffic Count Data
For each of these count locations (except the Tallahassee and surrounding urban area locations), the Traffic Volume Report also provides the following information in tabular form:
• a description of the count station location; • the duration of the major evacuation traffic flow; • the maximum hourly directional traffic volume; • the level of service (LOS) D directional service volume of the route at the count station; and • the theoretical maximum directional service volume.
According to the Traffic Volume Report, evacuation trafflc along Interstate 10 (at the 1-10 count stations) began as early as 5:00a.m., on Wednesday, October 4, and ended as late as 12:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 5. The duration of the major evacuation flow ranged from nine hours, at the westemrnost, westbound count station, to seventeen hours, at the easternmost, eastbound count station.
Similarly, evacuation traffic along the other six major east/west routes began as early as 12:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4, and ended as late as 4:00 p.m. on the same day. The duration of the major evacuation flow ranged from six to thirteen hours.
Evacuation traffic along the eight major north/south routes began as early as 5:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4, and ended as late as 8:00 p.m. that evening. The duration of the major evacuation flow ranged from nine to thirteen hours.
Based on the information included in the Traffic Volume Report, evacuation patterns on the eight routes in the Tallahassee and surrounding urban areas are difficult to distinguish from the normal traffic patterns associated with these CBD and fringe areas. As mentioned above, volume graphs for these count locations are included in the Traffic Volume Report, but statistics for the stations are not inchided.
Level of Service
According to the LOS 0 directional service volume reported in the Traffic Volume Report, only one of the traffic count stations (the northbound station at US Highway 29, north of US highway 90 in Escambia County) experienced a maximum hourly directional volume that exceeded LOS D. Furthermore, the FOOT's Florida Highway System Plan - Level ofService Standards and Guidelines Manual (1995) indicates that the levels of service at the permanent count stations 44 reported in the traffic volume report ranged from LOS A to LOS E (not including the eight stations at various Tallahassee and surrounding urban area locations, for which directional volume and LOS information was not summarized).
The LOS at each of these count stations does not, however, represent the true operating conditions of the road segments on which the traffic counters were located. With the congested traffic conditions experienced during the Hurricane Opal evacuation, relatively small numbers of vehicles passed over the counting devices, indicating low to moderate traffic volumes and, thus, acceptable levels of service. Standstill or near standstill traffic will indicate a low volume at a count station, while the LOS is actually poor or failing over a particular segment.
Road Construction
The traffic volume report also includes a listing of the major roadway construction sites that impacted the Opal evacuation and traffic counts, including six locations along Interstate 10 and two locations along US Highway 23 J.
45 APPENDIX B
Summary of Hurricane Opal Assessment Review of the Use and Value of Hurricane Evacuation Study Products in the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Alabama and Florida - October 3-4, 1995
46 Summary of Hurricane Opal Assessment Review of the Use and Value of Hurricane Evacuation Study Products in the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Alabama and Florida - October 3-4, 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, September 1996
Post Hurricane Assessments
This document presents the results of an assessment of the use and value of the hwricane evacuation study products that were available to the coastal areas of Alabama and West Florida that were impacted by Hurricane Opal on October 3 and 4, 1995. The report was prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Studies like the Hwricane Opal Assessment report on the actual evacuation experiences from major hurricane events. They are intended to be used as a tool to compare the observed evacuation experiences with the projected and estimated hurricane evacuation scenarios (e.g., evacuating traffic clearance times) set forth by hwricane evacuation studies. A major objective of such post-hwricane analyses is to learn how hwricane evacuation studies can be used more effectively as an evacuation planning tool.
Hurricane Opal Evacuations
Several factors contributed to the difficult Hurricane Opal evacuation scenario, which culminated with evacuating traffic still on the evacuation routes at the arrival of pre-eye landfall hazard conditions. Opal rapidly intensified to a Category 4 hurricane. This caught some counties, which had already planned for an evacuation based on a less intense storm, off guard. When the vulnerable population awoke on October 4 to find a more threatening hwricane heading their way (than they believed was the case the night before), evacuation routes quickly became congested as an "all-at-<>nce loading" began. Making matters worse, capacity along Interstate I 0 and various other major evacuation routes was constrained due to ongoing construction projects. Additionally, leading up to the evacuation, a religious holiday and media coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial were said to have further complicated matters, acting as competition to the public information efforts of emergency management agencies.
The Hurricane Opal Assessment suggests that even if the above problems bad not played a role in the evacuations, outdated housing and population data (for projecting clearance times) from the region's hurricane evacuation study could, alone, have caused serious evacuation problems. It is further suggested that several county agencies were not familiar enough with the evacuation decision making data and tools provided by evacuation studies to use such information to its fullest potential during the Hwricane Opal event.
47 Hurricane Opal Assessment Recommendations and Conclusions
Recommendations are made throughout the Hwricane Opal Assessment, some of which are made to specifically improve future hurricane evacuation studies, while others more generally regard improving hwricane preparation and evacuation procedures. The recommendations and conclusions are made so that actions can be taken, both in the areas impacted by Hurricane Opal, and in as other hwricane-prone jurisdictions, to avoid the confusion experienced during the Opal evacuations. The major recommendations and conclusions, categorized under six subject areas, are summarized below.
Hurricane Evacuation Study Program and Analyses
• Regional approach toward evacuation studies and actual evacuation implementation/traffic issues • Up to date evacuation studies v.ith current socioeconomic data • Distinct evacuation zones, their meaning, and evacuations based on surge probability
Evacuation Decision Making Training and Review
• General education on the use of evacuation study data and decision making tools • Education of elected officials and support agencies relating to the importance of cooperative efforts of each during an evacuation event • Coordinated decision making among jurisdictions to minimize conflicts and redundanCies, especially in regional evacuation scenarios
Traffic Control
• Evacuation concerns in highway construction and maintenance of traffic plans • Use of traffic counters for gathering evacuation traffic data • Additional evacuation route signage
Public Education, Public Information, Public Warning
• Availability and content of hwricane threat and evacuation brochures for tourist/visitor populations • Development and communication of policies regarding specific populations that should and should not evacuate and under what circumstances • Improved public education regarding evacuation terminology and improved dissemination of such information • Improved dissemination ofevacuat ion route conditions and alternative routing 48 Communications
• Mitigative measures to proteCt vital communications facilities
Sheltering
• Identification of additional shelter locations and cooperation with representatives of potential shelter sites • Sheltering as a regional concern • Public education relating to the need to seek (or not seek) shelter • Sheltering issues for those with special needs
49 APPENDIX C
Hurricane Bertha Evacuation Traffic Volume Graphs
50
ha ha
Norrnal Norrnal
--11-
-+-Bert
~ ~ ~ ~
.:: .::
• •
.. ..
: :
07/11/96 07/11/96
County County
:: ::
order order
740132) 740132)
Thursday, Thursday,
~ ~
# #
( (
Nassau Nassau
evacuation evacuation
~ ~
:-
, ,
an an
Day Day
of of
1: 1:
Line
nder nder
u
Time Time
not not
......
.. ..
State State
was was
Southbound Southbound
......
......
of of
95 95
location location
~ ~
I-
This This
South South
• •
~ ~ ~ ~
0/96 0/96
• •
~ ~
0 0
/1
• •
.. ..
I I
•
Wednesday,07
-
.. ..
0 0
100 100
200 200
400 400
800 800
1000 1000
1200 1200
1400 1400
1800 1800 2000 2000
1600 1600
Q) Q)
Q) Q) (,) (,)
-
In In Q) Q)
0 0
......
......
:I :I
> >
Q. Q. .c .c
-
:I: :I:
·
- "' "' I- 95 Northbound ( # 740132) South of State Line, Nassau County
1800 •
1600
1400
... ::I 1200 0 :::t: ... 1000 Cl> .., 0. "' en Cl> BOOt ~~--Bertha -(,) --Normal ·-.c ~ I~ >Cl> 600
400
200
o+-*-~ -+~ --~~ ;--r-+~--~ ~~ -+~--~ ~~ -+~--~+--r-+ ~ ... a. a. g : : 0 N ~ .. a- 0 N• :: : ..• : ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ Wednesday,07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 9A Southbound ( # 720216 ) South of SR 105, Duval County
2500 ------.
2000 \ ... ::1 0 :I: 1500 ... Gl 0.. ~ !II Gl . -+-Bertha -+-Normal ~1000ti >
500
0 ,___ --- ~~ -;- +--+ -~ -r_, -+-~- ~ a. ... a. a. g N N ~ m 0 :l :l ..• .: 0• ~ :: - - ~ - : - - Thursday, 07/11/96 Wednesday,07/1 0/96 Time of Day • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 9A Southbound ( # 720216 ) South of SR 105, Duval County
2500r------·------,
2000 .. ::l 0 :::t..1 500 Ql v.... D. 11--- Bertha ....._ Normal ~10001/.\ ~! \\ I" \ ·J:.- Ql >
500
0 I t ...... I I I I I I I I I 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ... g : .. 0. N N ~ ~ : 0 !: !: : : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - Wednesday,07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order
Normal Normal
-+-Bertha -+-Bertha
-e-
II II
p p g g
-
• •
.. ..
~
......
:: ::
I I
County County
J J
:: ::
11/96 11/96
/
r r
07
e
, ,
Duval Duval
il il
ay
rd
, ,
o
rsd
Thu
~ ~
il il
' '
720109) 720109)
# #
~ ~
.. ..
evacuation evacuation ~ ~
0 0
y y
( (
Baldwin
an an
Da
~ ~
of of
of of
a a
= =
under under
\ \
Time Time
a a
• •
not not
~~~~ ~~~~
South South
was was
Eastbound Eastbound
~ ~
• •
~~~
-10 -10
a a
location location
N N
I I
~ ~
-+-+
This This
• •
~ ~
Overpass Overpass
~ ~
N N
~~
0/96 0/96
/1
• •
217 217
~ ~
0 0
~
07
,
~
ay
SR SR
~ ~
• •
\ \
+-+-
ednesd
W
I I
I I
I I
~
•
~ ~
~ ~
0
200 200
400 400
100 100
100 100
400 400
1000 1000
1200 1200
1$00 1$00
1
Q) Q)
Q) Q)
u u
1/) 1/)
Q) Q)
>-
...... I'll I'll
.r:. .r:.
-
> >
0.. 0..
0 0
·-
"' "' "' "'
l l
a a
ma
r
o
-+-N
-+-Berth
1
1
-
g g
, ,
~ ~
--
:: ::
------
+-~~-+
: :
County County
--
r-
--
196 196
:: ::
1
--
1
/
07
Duval Duval
, ,
order order
ll ll
-+-4--~
------
on on
ati
Thursday
~ ~
ll ll
720109) 720109)
acu
-~-+
------
# #
ev
( (
n n
+-~
~ ~ ~ ~
a
----
Baldwin, Baldwin,
ay ay
r-
--
D
of of
--
of of
~ ~
under under
--
~ ~
\ \
not not
-4
Time Time
----
/$ /$
as as
\ \
w
South South
-
n n
Westbound Westbound
io
~ ~
------
t
/
--
+-~~-+
oca
10 10
/ /
l
--
~ ~
--
I-
This This
• •
r-+- --
/
----
~ ~ ~ ~
Overpass Overpass
~
0196 0196
1
/
7
~ ~
g g
,0
217 217
-+-4
day
s
------
: :
SR SR
edne
W
• •
~+-~~
oil
y-----
t t
: :
0
0 0
0 0
0
&:0
600 600
1000 1000
1
20
2500 2500
3000
......
::J ::J
0 0
......
~ ~
.c .c
;; ;;
:1: :1:
"' "' .,. .,. US - 1 Northbound ( # 780311 ) North of Lewis Point Road, St. Johns County
1$00 I
1400
1200 ------~ ~ ... ' • " , ' ·- :I ·- 0 1000 :I: . ... ell '' I -+-Bertha 0.. ' ._, ,J/ ' \ \ I u --No rmal "' Ul ell -(,) ' t··Evacuation ·.c- 600; ' ~\ I I order issued >ell •' 400 .l ' _ Evacuation •• y • ~ order revoked .•' 200 '
._,_,1 0. I . a. a. a. a. w ..• w• 0• ~ .. .. ~ 0 ll ll : .. ..• 0• ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ Wednesday,07/1 0/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 US - 1 Southbound ( # 780311 ) North of Lewis Point Road, St. Johns County
2000 I
1800
1&00
L.. 1400 -+-Bertha :I 0 _,._ Normal :r:1200 .... Q) "'00 Q. 1000 Ill Q) -<.> BOO --- Evacuation ·-s::. order issued Q) > 600 Evacuation 400 order revoked
200
0 +--+--t--+--+----+--t--+--+-<-~+-+--+--1---+--+--1---;~- .. t'-'"!,-:;-! : I I I I .. • ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 .. .., CO 0 N N ... \D GO 0 N N ~ ~• :J 0• ...... ~ Wednesday,07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 US 1 Northbound ( # 730263 ) North of CR 202, Flagler County 300 • --,
260 I w "A I j
~2001/1\ -+-Bertha \\ If\~I,...._ No rmal Ql 'C"' a. 150
Ql '6''" ' V ~--Evacuation "' ' -u f ' \ \ 1// Order Issued ·-,c - ' ~ 1001 • \ ·-*\. I I Evacuation - Order Revoked ' I ' ~ 1// I 60 '
.. ..-+--;~- .. .. 0\:==~~!.C~~~:r:: .:: g ... -;~~~~~r-lJ; m +-13~~~~~~~ 13 :: :: -+-+--~.:: g ~ ..~ .. ~ ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96
a a
tion tion
on on
ati
Revoked Revoked
ssued ssued
Normal Normal
Berth
I
Evacua
Evacu
rder rder
-+-
-.-
Order Order
I I
I I
t t
J J
~ ~
g g
1 1
\ \
1 1
~ ~
: :
f f
I I
f f
0\ 0\
:: ::
I
Ill Ill I I
I I I I
I I
96 96
-L~------, -L~------,
: :
: :
07/11/
, ,
~ ~
=r:· =r:·
rsday
County County
Thu
~ ~
730263) 730263)
~ ~
~! ~!
# #
( (
~ ~ ~ ~
Flagler Flagler
Day Day
of of
.. ..
-
202, 202,
llltl llltl
\ \
Time Time
l
.. ..
.. ..
\ \
\ \
CR CR
\ \
Southbound Southbound
of of
ll
~ ~
\ \
1 1
I I
I I
1!: 1!:
US US
------
North North
I I
:1 :1
• •
• •
• •
. .
~ ~
• • ' '
1!: 1!:
I I
~Y\ ~Y\
I I
~ ~
g g
07/10/96 07/10/96
I I
---v: ---v:
I I
: :
l l
I I
dnesday, dnesday,
e
W
I I I I
t t
r------~~
:: ::
0 0
60 60
100 100
160 160
200 200
360
260f 260f
300 300
-
Cll Cll
u u
11'1 11'1 Cll Cll
...... 0 0
::s ::s
......
.c .c
D. D.
-
·
~ ~
:z: :z: ~ ~
al al
a a
rm
rth
o
e
Issued Issued
Revoked Revoked
N
B
Evacuation Evacuation
Evacuation Evacuation
· ·
--+-
--
Order Order
Order Order
I"
I I
~ ~
: :
/ /
/ /
: :
I I
-;--r-~ -;--r-~
:: ::
I I
' '
I I
I I
I I
/96 /96
!J !J
1
) )
07/1
County County
:: ::
rsday, rsday,
u
--~+-~~~-+
Th
~ ~
730292 730292
:: ::
Flagler Flagler
# #
, ,
( (
.. ..
0 0
-
y y
Da
of of
......
-
Station
Time Time
......
w w
~ ~
\ \
I I
Northbound Northbound
' '
t t
Weigh Weigh
95 95
of of
-
Jt Jt
~~~~~-r-+~ ~~-+~
I I
• •
' '
' ' ' '
' '
~ ~
Jt Jt
~_...... ~_......
' '
North North
/ /
• •
~ ~
0 0
07/10/96 07/10/96
, ,
f f
y
a
• •
• •
esd
dn
! !
. .
We
I I
' '
•
t t
.
t t
= =
0~~~-+~~~r-+-
00 00
100 100
1000 1000
16
2000 2000
2100 2100
0 0
Ql Ql
-
0 0 Ill Ill
Ql Ql
......
......
::1 ::1
-
~ ~
.&:. .&:.
Cl. Cl.
:I: :I:
·
- ...... I - 95 Southbound ( # 730292 ) North of Weigh Station, Flagler County
1800 T· · ---- ·---·--·~.~~__:__T. -- -
1600
0·~ +--r-+~~+-~-r-+~~·--~-r-+~~+-~~~--~+-~-+~ --~+-~-+~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g W • 0 N N • ~ ~ 0 N N : : ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96
onnal onnal
ertha ertha
N
B
-+-
-tt-
I I
I I
-
:! :!
1 1
-----, -----,
, ,
-
.. ..
1 1
' '
~ ~
II II
' '
96 96
1
~ ~
) )
1
~ ~
County County
0711
:5 :5
Thursday, Thursday,
760240 760240
~ ~
~~
# #
order order
'
Putnam Putnam
( (
n n
, ,
o
• •
0 0
-
.. ..
ati
• •
Day Day
f f
1 1
vacu
o
.. ..
-
Road
e
n n
1 1
r r a
• •
Time Time
e
2; 2;
d
\ \
1 1
Eastbound Eastbound
un
1 1
ot ot
~ ~
n
20 20
• • Rowland Rowland
was was
' '
of of
to to
SR SR
• •
, ,
N N
.. ..
-
J------
location location
East East
, ,
s s
~
96 96
1
10
Thi
, ,
/
~ ~
-
• •
07
, ,
y, y,
1 1
~ ~
, ,
------
. .
Wednesda
l l
-1
t t
~ ~
o
10 10
110 110
100 100 IOOr-
200 200
210
300 300
310 310
400 400
410 410
Ill Ill u u
Ill Ill
......
Ill Ill :::1 :::1
......
0 0
Ill Ill
D. D.
-
·-
.t::. .t::.
> >
:I: :I: e e
l l
a a
a
rm
rth
o
e
N
B
-+-
--
II II
~ ~
I I
~ ~
g g
--
I I
--
--
I I
~ ~
I I
----
--
I I
:J :J
--
I I
) )
I I
~ ~
County County
,...... -
07111196 07111196
, ,
:s :s
------
r r
760240 760240
1! 1!
e
1
Thursday
# #
rd
~ ~
o
Putnam Putnam
------
( (
1 1
, ,
on on
ti
1 1
a ~ ~
.. ..
.. ..
cu
1 1
Day Day
va
f f
Road
------
' '
e
o
• •
.. ..
n n
1 1
\ \
----
stbound stbound
me me
r r a
\ \
i
\
e
e
--
T
1 1
'\ '\
~ ~
W
und
1 1
t t
no
I I
20 20
~ ~
Rowland Rowland
s s
a
I I
w
===------
of of
SR SR
n n
I I
~ ~
tio
====
a
I I
==
loc
I I
East East
~ ~
N N
/----.1 /----.1
.. ..
is is
I I
---===
Th
96 96
1
• •
0
--
I I
1
~ ~
~ ~
g g
1
07
I I
, ,
ay
------
d
I I
~ ~
--
Wednes
I I
I I
L L
<
t t
;-----
:J :J
o
oo oo
00 00
00
100 100
300 300
•
soo soo
700 700
1
1
Cll Cll
Cll Cll u u
-
Cll Cll
Ill Ill
O
::I ::I
.. ..
.. ..
> >
.c: .c: Q. Q.
-
:I: :I:
·
.. .. "' "'
I I
r r g g
I I
I I
-
-
I I
I I
-
.. ..
• •
l l
I I
) )
96 96
/
~ ~
11
f
1
!
07
, ,
.'l .'l
day
County County
790170 790170
urs
'!::! '!::!
I I
Th
# #
~ ~
-
( (
' '
I I
......
~ ~
0 0
y y
Volusia Volusia
I I
Da
t t
of of
.. ..
-
95, 95,
t t
-
I I
Time Time
I I
.. ..
.. ..
Eastbound Eastbound
t t
of of
I I
~ ~
442 442
I I
: :
East East
I I
~ ~
SR SR
I I
I I
• •
~ ~ ~ ~
· ·
I I
0/96 0/96
/1
I I
~ ~
~ ~
0 0
07
, ,
I I
I I
~ ~
-
I I
ednesday
W
t t
: :
0 0
310 310 400 400 SR 442 Westbound ( # 790170 ) East of I - 95, Volusia County
600r------======~------======--~ ==
600
... :I 40-0 .... 0 X ... Cll "' a.. 300.. ' VI ' -+-Bertha Cll ' ,r ·--u ~ ...' \ I ...... Normal =Cll --- Evacuation 200·I· \-_ > I b Order Issued _Evac uation -- Order Revoked 100+ '
a. ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ 1: N : :: .. 0• :: :: ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 r------·------, I - 4 Eastbound ( # 790179 ) East of Enterprise Road Overpass, Volusia County
3000 --- - - ·- - -- - ·------.
2600
:I... 2000 0 :X: ... Ql a. 1600 ., "'-..J Ill Ql •. \'\ Iff I I --+- Bertha -u • ...... IH I I ---Norma l ·J:::- I • \ Ql > 1000 t • "6 \ .It I ••. Evacuation Order Issued
Evacuation 500 + • \\ I I I Order Revoked
0 I I I I .. - r--...,..__..-. , I I I I I l ... 0. ... 0. .. g 0• N ~ ~ ~ .. 0 ~ ~ !J ~ : : ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96
Issued Issued
Revoked Revoked
Evacuation Evacuation
Evacuation Evacuation
_.,_Nonnal _.,_Nonnal
-+-Bertha -+-Bertha
Order Order
Order Order
_ _ ·-
' '
' ' ; ;
i i
! !
' '
I I
! !
I I
~ ~
g g
: :
~--+-~~ ~--+-~~
County County
.: .:
18 18
I I
: :
07/11/96 07/11/96
--~+-4--+
Volusia Volusia
~ ~
------
, ,
----
Thursday, Thursday,
~ ~ ~ ~
790179) 790179)
# #
------
( (
a. a.
0 0
~--+-~-+~
----
ay~ ay~
Overpass
D
......
-
f f
------
\\ \\
4--+ +-
e o e
m
......
i
.. ..
Road Road
T
--~
------
Westbound Westbound
:-
......
.. ..
4 4
' '
' '
.~ .~
. .
I-
~~~~
--il~~
......
N N
--
------
Enterprise Enterprise
......
~ ~
N N
-+~
of of
: :
~ ~
07110/96 07110/96
, ,
--+-~
------
East East
: :
Wednesday
------
I I
1'
.: .:
0~~-+~
600 600
1000 1000
1500 1500
3000 3000
2000 2000
2500 2500
Cll Cll
- Cll Cll
u u
Cll Cll
1/) 1/)
0 0
.. ..
:I :I .. ..
s;; s;;
> >
0. 0.
-
J: J:
· ~ ~
on on
n n
io
Revoked Revoked
ssued ssued
Normal Normal
I
. .
Evacuall
Evacual
...
rder rder
....
,Order ,Order ~ ~
I I
-
~ ~
0 0
t t
I I
= =
\'\~a \'\~a
I I
I I
I I
= =
I I
. .
' '
I I
I I
' '
. .
' '
I I
: :
) )
County County
Y::: Y:::
07/11/96 07/11/96
. .
:: ::
Thursday, Thursday,
:::t=:, :::t=:,
-
~ ~
799925 799925
N N
Volusia Volusia
1 1
# #
, ,
( (
1 1
~ ~
~ ~
1 1
day day
Road
1 1
of of
.. ..
-
' '
1 1
Time Time
Bay Bay
1 1
"' "'
~ ~
~ ~
, ,
Eastbound Eastbound
"" ""
r r
~ ~
' '
92 92
-· -·
• •
·
' '
' '
. . ' '
' ' ' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
, ,
' '
Clark's Clark's
' ' ' '
,
t: t:
.. ..
N N
US US
of of
~ ~
.. ..
~ ~
N N
r r r r
East East
·-
/96 /96
10
r r
/
~ ~
.; .;
7
0
r r
-
ay, ay,
' '
• •
-
.. ..
\ \
• •
Wednesd
. .
1 1
" "
..
ll ll
-
• •
ol ol
00 00
100 100
200 200
4 3J 3J
m
coo coo
700 700
800 800
-
ell ell
(J (J
ell ell
r/1 r/1
ell ell
0 0
......
:1 :1
......
r. r. > >
-
ll. ll.
·
J: J: ~ ~
Revoked Revoked
n n Evacuatio
rder rder
-+-Nonnal -+-Nonnal
-+-Bertha -+-Bertha
~-~'::!" ~-~'::!"
I I
I I
~
~ ~
i! i!
--, --,
I I
I I
: :
I I
n n
f~
' '
.I .I
.. ..
.. ..
I I
~------
~ ~
) )
11196 11196
/
County County
!r~ !r~
07
, ,
I! I!
Thursday
799925 799925
.::::1 .::::1
~ ~
Volusia Volusia
# #
, ,
( (
I,.,, I,.,,
~ ~ ~ ~
y y
J J
......
Da
f f
Road
o
Q, Q,
~ ~
\ \
Bay Bay
Time Time
Ill Ill
Q, Q,
.. ..
\ \
------
I I
Westbound Westbound
I I
:-
92 92
I I
o o
• •
• •
I I
' ' • •
' '
• •
• •
• • • •
• •
Clark's Clark's
I I
I!; I!;
US US
I I
of of
I I
----~------
I I
Q, Q,
~ ~
N N
I I
East East
I I
• •
~ ~
0 0
07H0/9S 07H0/9S
I I
, ,
I I
: :
------
1 1
Wednesday
. .
J J
t t
r---
.
Jl Jl
/l /l
0 0
00 00
00 00
100 100
3
4
400 400
coo coo
700 700
200 200
tOO
800 800
c.> c.>
G) G)
G) G)
Ill Ill
0 0
......
......
:I :I
..c: ..c:
0.. 0..
-
·-
:I: :I:
~ ~
0 0 ......
I I
~ ~
:! :!
I I
I I
= =
I I
I I
: :
I I
I I
) )
• •
• •
~ ~
,
' '
07/11/96 07/11/96
: :
~ ~
day, day,
s
County County
:::--,
700113 700113
I I
Thur
~ ~
-
# #
( (
I I
I I
......
~ ~
0 0
ay ay
I I
f f d
Brevard Brevard
I I
o
......
-
I I
ime ime
C-3, C-3,
T
t t
~ ~
Eastbound Eastbound
I I
of of
-
I I
~ ~
520 520
I I
I I
West West
......
N N
SR SR
I I
,: ,:
......
~ ~
N N
I I
t t
a a
-
07/10/96 07/10/96
, ,
I I
I I
• •
• •
I I
Wednesday
J J
: :
0 0
0 0
200 2100 2100 SR 520 Westbound ( # 700113) West of C-3, Brevard County
2100 ...... L- - __ ,.,,.__ ...... - ...... i ; '~ 2000 I ... t :I € 0 :X: 1500 ... I Gl ;:l 0. 1/) 1 Gl -u 1 -+-Bertha :c 1000 : ·-·•··· Normal ~ I ~-·-Evacuation order rssued 600 : Evacuation order iRevoked
0 I ' ' ' ' ' ,' ' I • • I ' ' 0.I ' ' I ~!~ ' I I I l ~ ~ ~ !'$ w ~ ~ ll :: : II ~ : : ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~
Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 SR 5 Northbound ( # 700114) South of SR 514 in Malabar, Brevard County
...... ·-···-·-"·"'dJt.C:,,,;;;;'*·"'·"''~"·"'~'"'"'"'"''...... - ·--·7·---·--......
600
600 .. I r. .... -/I / I I :::l • ' 0 ·- :t: .. 400 Q) .... Q. "' f/1 Q) '• _._Bertha 300 • -u f • \ \ fl II ....,._Normal ·-.c I Q) > • ·- Evacuation ' Order Issued 200 t ' ' \ \ II - Evacuation Order Revoked I • .... I 100 " ·"
ol 1 1 ' t , ,: , , 1 , 1 1 1 1 ~,~ I t I \ I I ...... ~~ g N• ~ ; :: :: 0• • ..• ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ "' ~ ~ "' ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96
I I
~ ~
-
l l
:: ::
• •
~ ~
' '
I I
County County
lllti
: :
11/16 11/16
1
'f.... 'f....
07
?
, ,
IS IS
700114) 700114)
Brevard Brevard
• •
:-:!:::! :-:!:::!
Thursday
$! $!
, ,
# #
l l
( (
~ ~
-
y y
Il
Da
f f
I I
:-
Malabar
e o e
I I
in in
I I
Tim
:-
I I
Southbound Southbound
-
514 514
I I
......
• •
5 5
I I
SR SR
I I
it it
SR SR
of of
I I
I: I:
it it
-
I I
96 96
/
10
' '
South South
/
• •
0 0
-
.. ..
07
. .
..
I I
.
..
.
..
..
..
I I
.
.
• •
• •
..
....
.
.
' '
..
.
.
.
...
.
Wednesday, Wednesday,
I I
_ _
• •
.. ..
0 0
700 700 100 100 I - 95 Northbound ( # 700134 ) South of SR 514, Brevard County
1000 ' - ;
900
. --.· ~' . 800
700 .... :I 0 :I: 800 .... __, Ql 0.. 600 "' f/1 Ql -u 400 -+-Bertha ·-.s:: >Ql -s-Nor mal 300 ••• Evacuation Order Issued 200 .•. _ Evacuation Order Revoked 100
0~~~~ --~-+--r--+~+-~--~~--~-->---+--r--+--+--+--+-~--~~~~--~·--r--+--+--+~' ...... • 3 ~ ... .. ~ ~ 0 :1 ll : .: ..• g .: .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 1-95 Southbound ( # 700134) South of SR 514, Brevard County
· ·· ...... 1200 .,.....,.,.,.,..,,_,--... ,...,,,...... , .., ...... ,, ...... I ...... - ...... -- ...... -.... -...... - ~...... -.~- ...... _ ...... -.
1000
.. BOO • ' ::I 0 'wv-~ · J: ' ..., .. ' Q) ' -+- Bertha a.. 800 . ;;_--- ;·-·· "' ' _,._ Normal 1/1 \\ /tl Q) ' -u • • ~---Evacuation ·- ' If( -= I ' \~ Order Issued ~ 400 .. ' '" '" ' Evacuation Order Revoked / II I 200 ~. ' ...... ~ -
0 .f-·- +--1 -+-- ·+-.. ·--t- -+--t--t--t--+ - t--+ --+- -+- +- -t-+- -1 4 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N• • 1: ~ ~ • 0~ N~ N • ~ • ~ ~ : .. ~
Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 SR 407 Northbound ( # 700223 ) Southeast of 1-95, Brevard County
400 - · .... w ...... _ .. , , ...... , _ , _ , ...... ········ -" ··· ...... _ ...... - ...... - ... · - · - · - · · · - · - ...... _ , _ , , ......
60
.. Q...... • • ~ ~ .. : 0 ~ ~ : ..• 0 " ~ "~ " - ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day -Thun~day,07/11/96 SR 407 Southbound ( #700223 ) Southwest of I - 95, Brevard County
300 I -
280
... :I 200 0 :I: ... Q) • ..., D. j-+-Bertha 00 150 Ul t \ \ \ !If \ .... Normal Q) !/ -u ·-.c Q) Evacuation 100 ' ±- > l .' \ \ tl rder Issued
Evacuation ,_rder Revoked 50 . . - ... - 0~+- ~+- ~~~~~· ~-+ -+-+~ ~~--~~~+-~~+- ~~~~~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ i g. ::1 ::1 ; :J = = ~ ~ ~ ~ = = ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96
ha ha
rmal rmal
Issued Issued
Rewked Rewked
Evacuation Evacuation
Evacuation Evacuation
er er
Order Order
-+-No
-.-Bert
~-
~ ~
J J
I I
~ ~
\.
1 1
X X
t t
-
-
I I
-
f f
·---
I I
~
I
I I
11 11
• •
.. ..
. -_.,..,..·
·
I I
J J
I I
I I
I I
-
·
: :
----
·
07/11/96 07/11/96
County County
~ ~
700284) 700284)
~<
Thursd1y, Thursd1y,
-----
i! i!
# #
( (
=: =:
---
-
I I
Brevard Brevard
~ ~
p p
y y
--
I I
Da
I I
of of
--
,. ,.
-
--
I I
\ \
Road, Road,
Time Time
I I
\ \
,. ,.
.. ..
-·-----·-·
--
I I
·
Northbound Northbound
-
·
\ \
-
\. \.
Cove Cove
I I
~ ~
\ \
---
I I
of of
A1A A1A
I I
-
It It
....r\ ....r\
I I
SR SR
-·--
-
• •
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
: :
-
North North
~ ~
p p
-
·
I I
/\ /\
I I
p p
g g
---·-···
07/10/96 07/10/96
I I
-
·
, ,
"-
l l
:: ::
I I
I I
--·--
. .
. .
Wednesday
I I
,
•
J J
.
.
......
• •
.. ..
.1 .1
10 10
no
100 100
200u 200u
250 250
300 300
3150 3150
400 400
Ql Ql
~ ~
Ql Ql
~ ~
II) II)
0 0
::;, ::;,
.c .c
~ ~
n. n.
(j (j
-
:X: :X:
'() '() ...... SR A1A Southbound ( # 700284) North of Cove Road, Brevard County
.. I "" ...... _ ...... _, ___.,,. __ ,...., ...... - ·.. _..~ ··- · · 500 ..,.,..,,.,._..,.,,, ,...,.,...... ,.-' ...... ;- ······-·····-····-·······...... _
4SO ·•·
400 I I ' \ I I Bertha- 350 t ' I-+- ... ' -tt-Normal :::J 1 ' \ 1\ I 0 ::t 300 00 ... 1···Evacuation 0 Q) j 1-•-..)( "\ I Order Issued Q. 250 . (/) Q) -C) 200 ' \ ~Evacuation ·-s::. t ' \ er Revoked Q) fp-/ •' \ I
> 150
100
50 •I
1
0 .I I I I I I 1 I I f f f I I I l I I ~-:--, I I I I I fl ...... ,q 0• N ~ ~ N• ; : : ~ : ~ It~ t .. • ~ ~ Thursday, 07/11/96 - Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day
l l
--+-Bertha --+-Bertha
--Norma
.. ..
~ ~
0 0
d d
• •
.. ..
, ,
: :
) )
~ ~
11/96 11/96
/
07
day, day,
II II
County County
s
770102 770102
order order
Thur
# #
• •
N N
~ ~
( (
.. ..
~ ~
o o
evacuation evacuation
Seminole Seminole
Day Day
a. a.
an an
'" '"
of of
e e
46, 46,
nder nder
!} !}
u
Tim
SR SR
Northbound Northbound
not not
t t
of of
was was
600 600
n n
o
i
a. a.
.. ..
SR SR
locat
South South
a. a.
~ ~
.. ..
This This
• •
07/10/96 07/10/96
.. ..
~ ~
0 0
, ,
.. ..
.. ..
Wednesday
. .
...
.. ..
.. ..
0 0
200 200
400 400
800 800
100 100
1200 1200
1000 1000
1800 1800
1400 1400
1800 1800
2000 2000
u u
Ill Ill
......
:J :J
Q) Q)
Q> Q>
0 0
......
~ ~
.r: .r:
-
~ ~
-
:X: :X:
00 00 -
a a
h
rmal rmal
ert
B
.-No
-
!--
I I
I I
• •
~ ~
0 0
~ ~
-+
• •
.. ..
~~
• •
~ ~
I I
I I
--+-
) )
•
96 96
/
--
1
• •
• •
. .
07/1
, ,
--+~
County County
W W
N N
day
770102 770102
# #
Thurs
r r
• •
N N
-
( (
======~---, ======~---,
orde
n n
--r-+-~~
==
~ ~
-
0 0
y y
" "
tio
Seminole Seminole
Da
ua
::::=::
-+~
c
~ ~
-
a
of of
~ ~
-
v
~
46, 46,
n e n
Time Time
r a r
A A
• •
SR SR
e
== ==
d
Southbound Southbound
r-+-~
un
of of
t t
~ ~
~ ~
no
600 600
as as
~ ~
w
ft ft
SR SR
=====--=
South South
on on
~~-+-;--
ti
~ ~
~-
......
96 96
loca
/
10
/
~ ~
07 0 0
-
This This
, ,
-;--r-+-
• •
ay
d
4 4
-
nes
d
~~-+
We
I I
+ +
~
..------'=
" "
: :
0 0
0
200 200
400 400
100 100
00
100 100
1
1800 1800
1400 1400 1200 1200
1800 1800
Ql Ql
~ ~ -
u u
Ql Ql
Ill Ill 0 0
5 5
Ql Ql
> >
n. n. -
·
X X
.c .c l:l l:l SR 434 Eastbound ( # 770197 ) East of 1-4, Seminole County
1800r------, 1600 . ------/- 1400
... ::I 1200 0 :I: ... 1000 Gl 0.. ..w 11-+-Bertha Ul ij Gl 800 -+-Norma l -CJ ·-s::. h Gl 800. > b 400 ' ' -
200
0~~~-+ --•~~~ +-~~-+~--~+-~~-+-4~ ~+-+- ~~-+~--~+-~ ~ .. a. a. a. a. ~ ..• 0• N ~ 1$ .. 0 :: N• : g ~ ~ • ~ ~ = = - Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 434 Westbound ( # 770197) East of 1-4, Seminole County
1800,------,
1600
- I II ' ~"""'' ~... 101)0·~ \ l Cll .. a..• / 6 +No~l .. rn
Q1 800 1 • ..- U ~/ ij> soot
400
200
0 '--~-+ ~ r-;--+ ~~ +--+-4r-+--+~~+--+~ ..~ .. .. !.! .:1 0• Jt ~ ~ .. 0 .:I :: :: ..• 0• ~ It~ ~ ~ : ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 46 Eastbound ( # 770299 ) West of St. Johns River Bridge, Seminole County
600,------======~======~======~~
450
400
350 ... ::I 0 ::I: 300 ... Q) co a.. 260 ~ -.... v -.-Bertha ~200 1 II ...•··· ·Normal Q) \\ > 160 100
50
0 I I •I 1--1 ...... Q. Q...... 0• fl' ...... 0 N• .. : • : : "' ~ ~ "' ~ ~ "' ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11196 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 46 Westbound ( # 770299 ) West of St. Johns River Bridge, Seminole County
~Or------~~~ ------,------
4<10
360 ... .. :::s 300 0 :I:.. (I) 260t v ~-+-Bertha 00 v ~ <» 0.. -a-Normal U) \\ I (I) 200 -u ·-.s::: (I) > 160
100
60
0 I ...... g ~ : g ~ ~ it ~ 0 ~ : : .:: ~ ~ "' ~ ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This Location was not under an evacuation order SR 50 Eastbound ( # 750104) West of SR 520 Near Bithlo, Orange County
1000
900
800 "
.. 700 ::s 0 ::r .. ••• ~-...... ----... --·.-· Q) 00_, D. , 500 Q)
-u 400 ·-.s::. Q) --aertha > 300 -•-Normal
200
100
0 ~~~--4--+-- ~~ ~--- r--~ 1--~ -+--+--r--1~~ -+--+--r~~~ .. .. M 0. 0. 0. ~ N ~ ~ ~ : : .. ..~ ~ :t !t .. ..~ ~ : :~
Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96
• This location was not under an evacuation order SR 50 Westbound ( # 750104) West of SR 520 near Bithlo, Orange County
1200 l
1000
800 ;:1'- 0 J:.. Cll <» D. 600 00 Ill Cll -(,) ·-.s::. ~ 400 t [-+-Bertha II I \" ...... Normal I '\_'\ I I 200
0 1-- f-- I 111~, -r=::llllll ~ ., ... Q, 0. a. a. a. .. .. • 0 .. C10 0 N N .. ~ 00 :: :: II .. ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 436 Northbound ( # 750154 ) North of SR 528, Orange County
2600r------.
2000 ...
... ::l 0 ::: 1600 41 .. 0. '<> Bertha Cl) 11-+- -41 I \'-·~ ---Normal :c"' 1000 >41
600
0 •- t----1--4 · 4 0. 0. g : 0 N ~ ~ ft ~ ~ 1!1 ~ : :: = ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 436 Southbound ( # 750154 ) North of SR 528, Orange County
2500 ,------,
2000
:I... 0 J: 1500 ~---.....~ ... .~.. .., Cll ~ Q. -+-Bertha "' en Cll ···•-·· Normal -u 1 I ·-.c 1000 ' ~
600 - o+-~~-4 ~~ +-~ -r-~~--~+-~-r-+~--~+-~-r-4--•~+-4-~-+~--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ft ~ 0. N • 0 N N • • • :: : l'!• N ~ ~ :: .. <> ~ - Wednesday, 07/10/96 - Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 - • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 527(0range Avenue) Northbound ( # 750175) At Butler Dr., Orange County
1800 ... /
1600
1400
..... :s 1200 0 :I: ..... Cll 1000 ~ 0.. -+-Bertha '<> VI -to-Normal - Cll \ BOO -u ·-.c ' Cll > BOO
400
200 __. ,
0 ,_, ,___, _ _,__ ,_ _,__!- ~ ... g. • ..• • N {!; ~ ft ft ~ ~ -: : 0• "' ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order
al al
Norm
--Bertha --Bertha
-e-
~
I I
• •
0 0
-
~ ~
:: ::
-4 -+
==~---
:: ::
I I
~-+
750175) 750175)
96 96
!Z !Z
/
# #
11
( (
07/
, ,
.:1 .:1
r r
e
County County
~ ~
.:1 .:1
rd
Thursday
o
n n
======~======
io
.. ..
~ ~
0 0
y y
Da
~~-b-+~~~~+-4-
Southbound Southbound
Orange Orange
evacuat
of of
.. ..
• •
an an
~ ~
ime ime
Dr., Dr.,
T
~ ~
-4--r-+-
under under
Avenue) Avenue)
not not
.. ..
• •
Butler Butler
~~-+
was was
~ ~
======
At At
ation ation
+-~
oc
l
(Orange (Orange
r-
.. ..
~ ~
N N
This This
/96 /96
~ ~
• •
527 527
• •
~ ~
0 0
07/10
SR SR
======
-
:: ::
--
. .
Wednesday, Wednesday,
1 1
I I
, ..
,-
•
l l
:: ::
o+-~~-+-4
200 200
400 400
ItO ItO
100 100
1000 1000
1400 1400 1200 1200
1100 1100
1800 1800
2000
Q) Q)
-
0 0
......
:::1 :::1
......
.r. .r.
~ ~
·
J: J:
i i ;s ;s •
SR 528 (Beeline Expressway) Eastbound ( # 750204 ) West of SR 15, Orange County
2600 r------.
2000
... :I 0 :I: 1600 ... 01 "' a. 1-+-Bertha "' Cl) --11- Nonnal 01 I II \\ /I -(.) 1000 -.c >01
600
0 ,_,__, ~ ...... 4 .. .:! 0• .. .. m 0 N• ~ ..• .. m• 0• ~ "'~ "' ~ ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 528 (Beeline Expressway) Westbound ( # 750204 ) West of SR 15, Orange County
2000 ..
1800
1600
... 1400 ~ 0 ::t: 1200 ' ... Cll ~ D.. 1000 ..__"" ....- ... Ill --Bertha Cll '.--- n .. -u ...... Normal ·-.c: 800 Cll n > 600
400
200
0 I I~!~ I I I I I I .. Q. Cl. a. Q. Q. ... w• • 0 N N .., ~ C10 0 ~ N• : :: 0• " ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96
• This location was not under an evacuation order
l l
orma
N
-t~-
1 1
11-+-Bertha 11-+-Bertha
• •
" "
-
: :
------, ------,
• •
1 1
.. ..
II II
96 96
/
11
) )
!J !J
/
07
, ,
• •
.. ..
County County
hursday
T
360118 360118
A A
-
order order
# #
( (
.. ..
~ ~
" "
~ ~
Marion Marion
, ,
Day Day
~ ~
evacuation evacuation
of of
.. ..
• •
e e
an an
m
i
T
"" ""
• •
326(W)
under under
Northbound Northbound
not not
~ ~
SR SR
was was
of of
It It
US-301 US-301
"" ""
~ ~
location location
.. ..
96 96
North North
/
10
/
This This
• •
• •
~ ~
" "
07
• •
a a
Wednesday, Wednesday,
1 1
T T
" "
------r-
• •
• •
0 0
0 0
oo oo
200
•
80
800 800
1Z~
1000 1000
0 0
Cll Cll
-
Cll Cll
0 0
.. ..
:I :I .. ..
Ill Ill
~ ~
D. D.
.r. .r.
-
:I: :I:
·
"' "' .., .., US-301 Southbound ( # 360118 ) North of SR 326(W), Marion County
900,------~
800
100 .. :::1 600 0 ::1: .. soo Cll 0. D. ! -+-Bertha "' Ill -41-Nonnal Cll 400 \\ I -u ·-.s::. >Cll 300
200
100
0 ...... J .. Q, Q, Q, .. .. ~• 0• ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 :: :: !J : .. 0 .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 464 Eastbound ( # 360249 ) East of 47th Avenue, Marion County
1000 L &
900 ....
800 ...
... 700 =0 ::J: 800 ... _, Cll "' 0.. 600 Ill Cll -u 400 ·~- Cll J J--Bertha > 300 ¥' v \..... f .... Normal I ...... _'\ I I 200
100
0 ~~ ~~~ ~ -11---+--~--4---+-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ • 4 G 0 N N • ~ W 0 N N • ~ .:1 .1: ..• ~ - ~ - Wednesday, 07/10/96 - Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 464 Westbound ( #360249 ) East of 47th Avenue, Marion County
900 ,-- .....,.------·
800
100 ...
0 __,~ ---~~ ~--- ~ 1---+--4---~-4--~--+-~ a...... ~ ..• ..• g 1: .., !$ .. 0 ~ N :: ..• ..• g ~ "' ~ ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96- Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 40 Eastbound ( # 360264 ) NE 24th Street, Marion County
14GGr------,
12GG
1GOO :I... 0 :I: l.o 800 •I ~ I /"" :8 ~ til ..! 600 -+-Bertha ~ I / ~ I I I -+-Normal > 400
200
0 -t-- 1• -+ I I I !>~·,.f"'!I I I I I ~ ~ ...... ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0 N• :: : :: ~• 0• a~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order SR 40 Westbound ( # 360264 ) East of NE 24th Street, Marion County
1200,------.
1000
... ::I 800 0 ::c ... -~~"-'----~ Ql ~ Q. Ill soo -0 i ~--Bertha 0 Ql -C.) \\ r ...... Normal ·-..c: >Ql 400
200 ...
0 -1-- r-l l- ..,__,.._,>-+--+ _, >--+--< c <'Ill ... .. 0. 0. 0. .. .. \0 1:10 0 N N • m :; ;'I .'1: ~ 0 ~ ~ .. ~ ~ : : ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 * This Location was not under an evacuation order SR 44 Eastbound ( #11 0246 ) East of CR 44, Lake County
400r------~====--======~ --====----==--==--~ --
350
300 .. :I 0 260 :I:.. Gl Q. 200 -0 1/1 - Gl -u -+-Bert ha ·.c- 150 l ~ I ~ Normal >Gl 100
60
0 t-- f - .__. 1-- I I .., • 10 Q. Q. Q. CL. Q. Q. .. 1'0 " .., "' ~ • 0 N N • W m 0 N N • ~ m g ,.. ... - - ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order ------·-, SR 44 Westbound ( #11 0246 ) East of CR 44, Lake County
450r------,
400
350
... 300 :::l 0 :::t: ... 260 c.Cll 0- N - -+- Bertha ~200v ·---· j ···• ·· Normal ·-.c ~ 150 '
100
50 •
0 1--4--+-- ~~--~~ -4--4--+--r-~ ~ r-,_ ~ ~ ~ a. a. a. a. ~ ~ : 0 ~ l'l- .. ~ <0 0 ~ ~ : : <0 :! Wednesday, 07/10/96- - Time of Day- -Thursday, 07/11/96 - •l This ocation was not under an evacuation order SR 19 Northbound ( # 110262) North of Umatilla City Limits, Lake County
450
400
350 ... :l 300 0 ::I: ... Cll 260 Q. -c.0 Ill -+-Bertha Cll 200 -u ...... Normal ·.c- 150 >Cll 100
50
0 a...... : ..• 0• ~ Ia- f ~ .. 0 N• N .. : g ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96
• This location was not under an evacuation order SR 19 Southbound ( # 110262 ) North of Umatilla City Limits, Lake County
350r------~======~======~======~~--. 300J(/ \._\ 0 ... 250 t • :s I! 0 '\ :I: ... 200 Cl) - 0.. 0.. :(! -u 150 ·.s::.- >Cl) 100 ' • ' ' ' _._Bertha ·-11·- Norlllal I ----- so ' - ' ' ...... ,
o+- ~~ ~--~ ;--r-+--~ +-~-+ ~ --+-4--r-+-- ~+-~-+~"""' -- -~4-~-+--~+- ~ ~ ft ...... g : 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .tl :1 : : " ~ ~ " ~ ~ = ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order US 17 Northbound ( # 710189) South of CR 220, Clay County
1200,------~--======~======~~======~==~ ------,
1000
... ::I aoo 0 J: ... cu ~'l -0 a.. 600 1/) "' cu -(,) ·-J: ff II --Bertha cu -·•· -·Normal > 4J \\
200
0 I ...... ' I I ~ :l ~ tl; tl; .. .. 0 ~ ~ :1 ~ :l ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order US 17 Southbound ( # 710189) South of CR 220, Clay County
1200 - ·
1000
.. ;:I 800 •. 0 :X:.. Q) Q. 800 -0 Ill "' Q) -u -+-Bertha ·-.c IJ v -+-Normal Q) \~ /~ > 400
200
0 ·--+--t-- 1 1--f-- t--._.-·-- -·--1---~f-1 1--1---1- ···- ·1--· 1- I I I _..J
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 * This location was not under an evacuation order
l l
a
ha ha
rm
rt
o
N
-· -·
•
·
-
--Be
I I
~ ~
:! :!
~ ~
I I
-
I I
:s :s
I I
• •
I I
:s :s
) )
~ ~
/96 /96
1
07/1
, ,
y
:5 :5
County County
710233 710233
~:t: ~:t:
rder rder
# #
o
I I
~ ~
:5 :5
Thursda
n n
( (
~~~ ~~~
io
t
Clay Clay
a
, ,
u
~ ~
0 0
.. ..
c
ay ay
D
eva
215
of of
an an
• •
.. ..
\ \
e e
Ifill Ifill
m
CR CR
der der
i
n
T
I I
u
• •
.. ..
of of
Southbound Southbound
1 1
not not
1 1
s s
1 1
a
2
!; !;
w
1 1
North North
SR SR
1 1
......
.. ..
1 1
location location
1 1
~ ~ ~ ~
.. ..
This This
1 1
• •
6 6 p-
_____L~~
1 1
:! :!
/10/9
~ ~
7
0
1 1
ay, ay,
d
1 1
:s :s
1 1
1 1
ednes
W
1 1
,--
~ ~
" "
0 0
0
0 0
o
0
300 300
10 200 200
600 600
aoo aoo
7o
-
Cll Cll u u
Ill Ill
'-.4 0 0
......
:I :I
Ill Ill
Ill Ill
-
D. D.
.z; .z;
> >
:X: :X: ·
0 0
...... -
--- ·-- --- ·------. SR 121 Southbound ( # 270232) South of State Line, Baker County - ·------120 .,------·-
100 •.
.. :::s 80 •. 0 :X:.. Q) 0 c. "' 1/1 60 1 -+-Bertha Q) v ~ -u ~v \ fl ---Nonnal ·-.:: Q) > 40
20 •.
0 --1 - -- ·- -- 1--t--t-- 1- -l----l- ·- l- - ·l- -·· l··- l -·- t-- l-- -1--., --1 - •1---1---l---f--· 1-- 1--1 -- 1 ~ < A A A A A ~ ~~ 4 ~ < < ~ ~ 0 N N ~ ~ ~ 0 N N • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - Wednesday, 07/10/96 Time of Day Thursday, 07/11/96 • This location was not under an evacuation order APPENDIX D
Closed Circuit TV Cameras for Monitoring Traffic
110 REVIEW OF VARIOUS CC TV CAMERAS AVAILABLE
Name of Type of Features Type of Data Type of Experience Corporation and Technology Transmission Mounting Location Technology COHU, lnc., 6 types of cameras Can provide a Electronics are available: maximum view Division, Coral I) 2130 Series, up to 3 miles Springs, FL l'v1onochl'Ome with 16mm- (Florida Division) 2) 4940 Series, 160mmzoom High performance lens. Monochrome 3) 2100 Series, Accurate, Monochrome because of high 4) Microprocessor resolution of 580 Camera Control TV lines and 460 System (MPC TV lines for - Series) monochrome and 5) 8240 Series, color High performance respectively color environmental Possess the CCD camera ability to perform 6)1300 Series, speed counts, High performance queue lengths color CCD camera fable continued on next page '
' ·
l
as
ro
is
or
t
rely
field
ti
for
and
used
page
con
used
ng
s
en
leading
i
the
and
e
be
in
technology
ffic
next
th
detectors.
tra
can
of
on
corporation
perience
support
develop traffic
direct
x
Reliable proven
and replacement a to loop new
the application players E one technical
in
of
components
surveillance
continued
is
Table
Mounting
ground
of
primarily
Type
Installation done above
by
can
or
Optic
ted-
s
RF,
cables
e,
Data
ogy
fiber Twi
Signals
of
ess
l
Wir
Coaxial
e
transmitted
like Cable, Cable, Pair Wir Microwave
Transmission Technol Video be
different
Type
be
or
n
to
I
00
95%
meters
can
Count,
a
I
across
is upo
Stopped
types
camera
and
Queue
to wide
-34C
it
humidity
of
30
detection
from
nes
of a
cameras
and
to
nt
ding
nce,
t zo 4
0%
and n
withstand
Speed,
video
to
4Cand
eigh
Features
variety Capable from detection like Directional, Prese vehicles,
detectors Incide
temperatures between Can +7 Relative
Covers variable area meter
the depe h more up distributed
Wide
Detection
of
Video
Autoscope Area Vehicle
System
Type Technology
and
da
Beach,
of
(Flori
Corporation Location Autoscope, Neptune
FL Division)
Name
- -
N Name of the Type of Features Type of Data Type of Mounting Experience Corporation and Technology Transmission Location Technology PEEK TRAFFIC, Video Trak---900 Capable of Transmission Can be installed One of the leading Peek Traffic--- performing through Coaxial on the ground, corporations in Transyt Volume/counts, Cables and also provides United States in Corporation, Lane Occupancy, an affordable the field of Tallahassee, FL Speeds and above ground developing traffic Average Speeds, alternative for surveillance Density, accurate detection. systems Headway, Length, Delay, Red traffic In case of above signal runners, ground Vehicle presence installation, >1= - in seconds or brackets and -" minutes, pedestals have to monitoring lane be used to changes minimize sway and motion. Compatible with both monochrome and color cameras
Detection accuracy for presence and volume will exceed 99%, ---- Table continued on next page ge
--
a
t p t
ex
xperience
n n
E
o
ed
inu
cont
g
f
Table
e o e
untin
p
o
y
T
n M
o
y
i
ata
D
ss
og
of
pe
ransmi
Ty T Technol
es
ur
Feat
r
l
i
..
e
c
ca C
t
h
t
T
e
n
t
,
n
of
972
y i y
es
t
nomi
bu
cameras
ri
lit
are
e
TC
Series
no
e,
purpose
logy
available.
S
ypes f
l
Eco
l amera
t
o
is
camera,
c
cabi
ab
y
ra
l
A
e o e
es
952
li
e
n
o
p
ri
n
echn
Ma
transportatio avai readily app
areas Different
available: LowcostCCO
SSO
CCO ge Se
Ty T
cameras
TC
camera,
ce
s
d n
an
n
FL
o
icatio
ty
Division)
ti
n
u
of
on
uri
li
ora
ida
e
r
rp
mm
ilips
Sec
am
oca
equesta,
N
L Co Ph
Co & T
(Flo Systems,
..
- Name of the Type of Features Type of Data Type of Mounting Experience Corporation and Technology Transmission i Location Technology . i
Intelligent I60° Wide Field Mainly useful for No requirement of Can be mounted Relatively new Highway ofView surveillance at fiber optics, since at different company Systems, Inc, Surveillance intersections, toll cable length to heights above the (incorporated in White Plains, NY System plazas, rotaries, controllers is ground, I 993) and has divided freeways, nonnally Jess than depending upon demonstrated a parking Jots. 60 feet. the accuracy of few applications output desired. with the A single sensor technology in that provides New York area fixed scaling that too only in between roadway the surveillance of ~ and image plane rotary circles and with a field view intersections that exceeds 440 feet along the diagonal, 360 feet along the horizontal and 270 feet along the vertical from an installation height of 40 feet.
Lane changes, right and left turns , U turns could be monitored. Table continued on next page Name of the Type of Features Type of Data Type of Mounting Experience Corporation and Technology Transmission Location Technology Rockwell, TraffiCam-S for Multiple detection Can be Overhead Installed in many Anaheim, CA velocity, zones can cover transmitted over mounting to states, including occupancy, and multiple lanes twisted wire pair vertical or California, Utah, volume with a single or wireless. horizontal poles, Washington, camera. light or traffic Georgia, and standards. Texas. TraffiCam-1 for Low resolution presence detection Asnapshots: can at intersections be obtained from the machine. No live video feed "' available. Has an operating range of3 to 400 feet.
---- ···--- Possible Subject Areas ofStudy for Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Analysis and Operational Measur!<:i. Phase II
Traffic/Intersection Operations • One way/reversible lanes major evacuation routes (RS&H RePQrt) • Preset evacuation mode signal operating plans at critical intersections • Mast arm vs. span wire i nstallatioos • Manual signal control at critical intersections • Training program for manual traffic control by volunteers, civic groups, etc. at minor intersections to allow law enforcement officials to concentrate on critical intersections and incident management • Specific consideration of maintenance of traffic at construction locations during hurricane season, including contingency plans to expedite preparation of such locations for an evacuation scenario (on short notice) V Identification ofdesign standards for major evacuation routes Signal installations (e.g., mast arm vs. span wire, control box elevation) Sign-special mounting poles Clear zones on shoulders; no major trees, etc. Utility poles (e.g., concrete vs. wood, row1d vs. square) • Measures to spread evacuation start times to minimize queue (Ed's graphs) ...J Integration of real-time traffic conditions data for use by emergency management officials V Survey of selected emergency management directors on perceived effectiveness of various operational measures
Shelter Stock • Needs of autoless population • Needs of homebouttd res.idcnts. nursing homes, etc. • Identification of additional shelter locations to decrease travel time for evacuees • Seek cooperation from major employers (private and public sector) for sheltering of employees and their families (Dan Trescott's study SWFRPC) • Review land use codes for developer contributions to shelter stock (as in Southwest Florida . in place sheltering, education programs, contribution toward improvement of potential shelter location to make them inhabitable) • Impact Fee/All Haz.ards Tax for retrofining schools, etc. for sheltering capabilities • Study potential of widespread vertical evacuation to decrease number of mandatory evacuees (like 9J-2.0257 Special Hurricane Preparedness District) Hotel/motel vertical evacuation • Further measures to reduce VMT during an evacuation • Police powers to assign residents to shelters Possible Operational Measures for Improving Hurricane Evacuations
Traffic/Intersection Operations o One way/reversible lanes major evacuation routes. o Preset evacuation mode signal operating plans at critical intersections. o Manual signal control at critical intersections. o Training program for manual traffic control by volunteers, civic groups, etc. at minor intersections to allow law enforcement officials to concentrate on critical intersections and in.cideot management. o Specific consideration of maintenance of traffic at constntction locations during hurricane season, including contingency plans to expedite preparation of such locations for an evacuation scenario (on short notice).
Shelter Stock o Identification ofadditional shelter locations to decrease travel time for evacuees. o Seek cooperation from major employers (private and public sector) for sheltering of employees and their families. o Review land use codes for developer contributions to shelter stock (as in Southwest Florida - in place sheltering, education programs, contribution toward improvement ofpotential shelter location to make them inhabitable). o Impact Fee/All Hazards Tax for retrofitting schools, etc. for sheltering capabilities. o Study vertical evacuation potential to decrease number of mandatory evacuees.
Education/Public Information/Public Service Announcements o Education programs/media campaigns to encourage early evacuation, in advance of evacuation orders. o Education to ensure public's knowledge of their respective evacuation zone and the ramifications of tbeir zone in a hurricane event. Tbis includes knowing wben to stay at home. .51, (Vi)
~ .. .(>.a s (j 3 o, 6Vt> ~-*" -z. c , ~ r /U~-a
Possible hurricane evacuation measures:
Reversible roadways •• Gary gave us a report on this done by RS&H. Manual traffic contwl Mast arm vs span wire Special design standards on major evacuation routes: Signal installation 6G...v~~ Sign standards-special mounting poles Clear zones--no major trees, etc. Utility pole standards Shoulders Measures to spread evacuation to minimize queue--Ed's graphs Traffic conditions data to EMS people
Autoless people Homebound, nursing homes, etc. Pets Shelter policies--trying to minimize VMT Public shelters--police powers to assign people? Friends/relatives--Formalize affinity groups Sister communities Sister churches Booster clubs Businesses Hotel/motel
LU actions to discourage development in evacuation areas.
Flood insurance policies ~------~~------~------~. I?~IZ..-