• Front Matter R1-R8

• Chapter 1 - Summary 1-3

• 2.1 Incident Management Context for Traffic Operations 4-4

• 2.3 What Information and Methods of Sharing Were Considered? 5-6

• 3.1.4 Minneapolis 7-8

• 3.1.9 Seattle 9-9

• 3.2.2 Remote Voice 10-10

• 3.2.4 Other Media and Advanced Systems 11-12

• 4.2.1 Frameworks 13-13

• 4.3 Technology Implications 14-14

• 4.4.1 Information to Support Emergency Response 15-15

• 4.4.4 Incident Management System and Interagency Training 16-16

• 4.4.5 Security, Terrorism, and Homeland Defense 17-18

• Chapter 5 - Conclusions and Recommendations 19-19

• Chapter 6 - References 20-20

• Appendix A - Albany, New York, Case Study 21-27

• Appendix B - Austin, Texas, Case Study 28-30

• Appendix C - Cincinnati, Ohio, Case Study 31-36

• Appendix D - Minneapolis, Minnesota, Case Study 37-40

• Appendix E - Phoenix, Arizona, Case Study 41-43

• Appendix F - Salt Lake City, Utah, Case Study 44-49

• Appendix G - San Antonio, Texas, Case Study 50-53

• Appendix H - San Diego, California, Case Study 54-56

• Appendix I - Seattle, Washington, Case Study 57-86

• Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications 87-87

Smith, T, Flannery, A, Brooke, K, Dopart, K, Transportation Research Board " 3.1.4 Minneapolis ." NCHRP Report 520: Sharing Information between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies for Traffic Incident Management . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004 .

Please select a format: