Final Research Report: A Transportation Guide for All-Hazards Emergency Evacuation (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 54 Appendix A: Literature Review Revised February 3, 2012 Review of Practice and Literature A key component in the development of the Transportation Guide for All-Hazards Evacuation was a review of current and recent past practices and research activities in evacuation planning, management, and operations. The review of research and practice was based on the need to investigate and compare the wide variation in practices that exist throughout the United States (U.S.), as well as to document the wealth of new information and emerging knowledge that has come about within the past decade. This guide provides readers with examples and descriptions of recent and past innovative practices that can be applied within their local jurisdictions. In contrast to most traditional literature reviews which concentrate on research findings, historical development of practice, and identification of knowledge gaps within a field, this literature review highlights and summarizes current practices. Although a wealth of published sources are included in the bibliography, much of the information included here comes from interviews with emergency management and transportation officials involved in recent evacuations, conference presentations, unpublished after-action reports, and other informal sources. Where appropriate, specific examples have also been included to illustrate the various practices and describe how and where they are used and what might make then useful in other locations and/or types of hazards. General Concepts Over the past decade, emergency planning in the U.S. has taken a more generalized approach to which frameworks are developed that permit planning and management practices to be applied to any type of hazard. When identifying and planning transportation resources and assets for emergency evacuations, viewing threats and responses from spatial and temporal points-of-view is helpful. For example, it is useful to first define the spatial extent of the area under threat and in need of evacuation. Is it a single city block or a region of several tens of thousands of square miles? This not only defines the number of evacuees that may be involved, but the travel distance required to move them to safety. Similarly, from a temporal perspective, it is necessary to estimate the amount of time between the advanced notice of an event and the onset of the actual hazardous conditions. Does the hazard occur without warning or does it give hours or days to prepare and carry out the evacuation? The amount of “notice” defines the ability to marshal transportation resources and carry out evacuations. It also can be used to determine if it would be better to shelter-in-place and not move at all. In addition to the spatial and temporal characteristics of the hazard, planning for an evacuation requires an understanding of the characteristics of the populations at risk and how these translate into their trip-making behavior during an emergency. Research and observation show that an evacuee’s actions, including how many people will evacuate, when they will leave, where they will come from, where they will travel to, what routes they will take, and what mode they will use during the evacuation is governed by their understanding and perception of the threat. It has been suggested that this process closely mirrors the traditional four-step travel demand forecasting process used for routine non-emergency scenarios (212). The main difference, however, is the singular purpose for making a trip. In addition to the behavioral characteristics of

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 55 the population, their demographic characteristics also play a key role in evacuation planning. Spatial factors such as population density and mobility characteristics like vehicle ownership rates have been shown to influence both trip rate and modal selection (90). Common Themes Over years of interviews and practice studies, several themes have repeatedly emerged as key elements that have been applied to evacuation plan development, Although some of them may be common knowledge to readers with a background in emergency and evacuation transportation planning, most have only surfaced within the last half-decade as many large-scale evacuations have been carried out. The utility of these themes comes from the ability of readers to learn from the experiences of others. While some of the ideas described in the following paragraphs are specific, others tend to be more philosophical where common approaches or points of view have evolved in practices but are not standardized within the field. The most particular themes are those that govern operational tasks and decision-making where practice is moving toward common methods. Develop a plan and encourage others to plan. Decades of hurricane, wildfire, flood, and other notice- and no-notice emergency evacuation responses, including multiple occasions when roadway systems were overwhelmed due to public response to evacuation orders, have highlighted the interdependence of Emergency Management and Transportation in emergency planning and response. Prior to the late 1990s only modest efforts were made to proactively manage transportation networks and resources during evacuations and those efforts were chiefly associated with coastal hurricane responses. A commonly held belief was that evacuations were outside the scope of responsibilities of transportation agencies and when they were necessary it was best to let them take place with as little interference as possible. Any additional control or restrictions would only slow the process down. Recent experience, however, has shown that this is not true and that strategic planning and tactical control can have significant benefits on an overall evacuation process. Positive examples of the benefits of proactive planning and system management have been seen twice in Louisiana. Prior to Hurricane Georges in 1998, there was no comprehensive evacuation road management plan in the state. Evacuees were permitted to use all available routes for evacuation, but no additional measures like contraflow were used. The Georges evacuation showed that this was not an adequate method to accommodate the amount of traffic that would be generated in a major evacuation of New Orleans. By 2000, a contraflow plan had been developed and while improving some aspects of the evacuation, even it proved to be inadequate when used for the first time (prior to the arrival of Hurricane Ivan in 2004) (130). Major changes, based on the failings of the previous year, were implemented just prior to the arrival of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. These changes included the closure of long segments of Interstate freeways, the implementation of forced movements toward certain routes and directions, and the extension of contraflow into the neighboring state of Mississippi. Although it has not been widely publicized, the 2005 (pre-Katrina) evacuation plan resulted in significant improvements over any previous evacuations, reducing overall clearance times by more than 30 percent (218, 213). The Louisiana plan was improved again after Hurricane Katrina to address the failures in evacuating carless populations. Although these changes were successfully put into action for the Hurricane Gustav evacuation in 2008, improvements have continued to be made to the plan (217). A very similar series of trial and error also occurred in Houston, during the period from

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 56 Rita to Ike. However, based on several reviews of practice, the cities of Houston and New Orleans are considered among the best prepared of major US cities to implement and carry out major assisted evacuations (159). It should also be mentioned that the need to develop a personal evacuation plan should be encouraged among evacuees as well. Most major cities maintain basic information and instructions for planning and carrying out individual evacuations but the instructions are often limited to their personal needs. Emphasis should also be placed on preparing evacuees for emergency travel (functioning vehicle, fueling up, etc.) and guidance (familiarizing themselves with evacuation routes and bus pick-up points, etc.) (129). It is also important to convey that if they are not in an area that does not need to evacuate, they should shelter in place (20). Communication and coordination. Of all the common themes that emerged during the review of current practice, the most frequently cited was the need to establish and maintain effective communication and coordination during emergencies. Although emergencies are often dynamic situations, the communication of timely, accurate, and reliable information during them is usually much slower. This makes it difficult to not only to get a clear understanding of the hazard conditions, it also makes it difficult to convert information into actionable guidance for evacuees. To overcome these problems many transportation agencies have incorporated existing video and pavement traffic surveillance systems into their emergency operations (76, Error! Reference source not found., 217). Many have also become an integral part of web-based emergency data sharing systems, to collect and use information on which routes may be blocked, where signals have lost power, and so on (Error! Reference source not found.). Communication and coordination is important not only between decision-makers and the public, it is also critical between and within agencies, at all jurisdictional levels of government, and across political boundaries. It should also take place at all phases of emergency planning including mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. From the transportation perspective, this means handling the planning, implementation, management, and operation of evacuation and then assisting with evacuee reentry (Error! Reference source not found.). Communication should also extend to public information campaigns to inform and educate potential evacuees throughout the year and in the lead up to any identifiable hazard periods (such as hurricane season, spring flooding or mudslide potential, wildfire season, etc.). In addition to informing evacuees, such campaigns can also be helpful in setting expectations. It is not always clear to everyone that major evacuations will create major congestion and delay, and as such, people should be prepared with food, water, fuel, and medicines as may be required during a lengthy travel period. Development of evacuation plans in concurrence with sheltering plans. While evacuation planning efforts must focus on the evacuation process, attention must also be paid to the need to shelter evacuees at their destinations. Many emergency mangers have said that evacuation and sheltering are two sides of the same coin – one can never be effective without the other. Past experience has shown that evacuees tend to utilize the routes that are most familiar to them and the majority of people travel to destinations where they have family, friends, or can find a hotel for a temporary stay. In the Gulf region, these destinations are not always in locations (and directions) that are consistent with planned evacuation routes. In Louisiana, for example, observations of traffic during evacuations of New Orleans showed that evacuees tended to travel east to west along the Interstate 10/12 corridor (219). This led them towards several cities (Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Shreveport, Houston, and Dallas) with ample hotel/motel space. Ideally, the

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 57 best direction to move them would have been to the north, taking them further inland and away from arriving hurricanes. However, there are no relatively close, large cities capable of hosting several hundred thousand people. This means that evacuees will find alternative routes to these destinations and travel on these routes that may not have been written in the plan. From the standpoint of accommodations for people requiring additional access and functional support in emergency situations (usually referred to in the literature as “special needs” sheltering, support, etc.), plans must define specific sheltering resources in advance so that peoples’ basic needs can be met. Houston has cooperative agreements with several other Texas cities to shelter evacuees as well as provide fuel and services for local transit busses involved in the evacuation (116). Currently, Louisiana has not identified enough shelter space within the state and must coordinate assisted and special needs evacuations with neighboring states (117). Evacuee services. Since evacuations can involve large segments of the population with varying levels of physical and transportation-related capabilities, it is likely that some evacuees will be poorly prepared for travel. Some vehicles should be expected to be low on fuel and evacuees will be lacking food, water, and medicine. Some evacuees will also be accompanied by infants, frail elderly, and/or infirm passengers, and may be traveling in vehicles in poor states of repair. It is in inevitable that problems will occur, especially if cars break down or other incidents occur that block lanes or otherwise restrict the flow of traffic. To avoid or lessen the impact of these situations, several areas have plans to provide basic in-route services to evacuees in need. Currently, these range from medical assistance, to vehicle removal and refueling, to services as comprehensive as providing food and drinks. In the aftermath of the roadway problems experienced in recent major hurricane evacuations, officials in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas among others have developed (and are continuing to refine) a plan to provide basic services such as fuel, water, wrecker, food, sanitary, and medical services both along and at strategic points on heavily congested evacuation routes (117, 113). Although details on how these services will be provided, which of them will be offered, the locations where they will be available, who will provide them, and how these services will be paid for are still being developed, several commonalities among practices have emerged. Among these similarities are: • services that address basic needs; • a priority on maintaining the movement of traffic; • utilization of existing systems and resources to the greatest extent possible and augmenting them where needs are apparent; • an emphasis on the use of local planning, management, operational control, resources; and • encouragement of evacuees to take personal responsibility for their needs and actions so they do not rely on services with may prove to be inadequate. Train personnel and evacuees how to carry out an evacuation and practice it. In addition to developing and formalizing evacuation plans, it is also helpful to train and rehearse the plan. Because of the infrequency in the need to carry out a real evacuation and the obvious difficulties in carrying out a full-scale test, it is common for detailed evacuation plans to be developed, but never put into practice. As a result, any problems in the plans may never be recognized until the

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 58 plan is needed to go into effect. Experience has shown that that is not the time to discover problems. There are numerous ways that evacuation plans can be tested and practiced. One of the most common is to conduct computer simulations of traffic movements within an evacuation road network. Recent advances in computational and speed and modeling sophistication have led to simulations of region-wide multimodal evacuation processes down to microscopic (individual vehicle) levels (138, 1). Full scale exercises of contraflow are also conducted annually in several states. The Alabama Department of Transportation finds these drills to be vital to maintaining an effective preparedness posture (31). In Alabama, the entire contraflow plan is practiced at full- scale each year prior to the start of hurricane season (June 1st). This exercise is undertaken over a two-day period and involves nearly 400 state police, DOT, and EMA personnel. Direct expenses, just for the DOT, are estimated to be about $120,000 and this does not include the actual man- hours required to plan and carry out the exercise. However, they regard this as money well spent. It is also possible to conduct live, full-scale exercises of urban mass evacuations. An example of such an exercise is the annual test of the Washington, D.C., evacuation plan during the annual Fourth of July fireworks on the National Mall (175). Although it is not obvious to most of the attendees, the egress plan from the event overlaps with the evacuation plan that would be used for an emergency in the heart of the city. Plans for pedestrian movements, bus schedules and routes, and Washington, D.C., Capital METRO train operations are tested and evaluated along with the personnel who are charged with carrying it out. Engage stakeholders and evacuees during the planning process. The next key finding of the practice review was to identify and engage stakeholders and key evacuee groups, especially organizations that work with people that may require special assistance, long before the need to evacuate. At the recent National Evacuation Conference, Richard Devylder - Director of the Office for Access and Functional Needs Coordination for the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services stated that it is necessary to “plan with” evacuees with functional needs rather than to “plan for” them (Error! Reference source not found.). This was based on the recognition that truly effective planning for assisted evacuations can only come from a complete understanding of the needs and challenges of vulnerable populations. One example of such engagement was illustrated by a recent series of drills conducted by Houston METRO, the public transportation authority for the region (116). In their exercises, METRO officials used a group of volunteers with various functional disabilities (wheelchair bound, blind, deaf, etc.) to test the ability to load and unload its transit busses. The results demonstrated the amount of time needed to load and unload passengers as well as the additional resources that could be required. Most emergency planners can engage with various interests by contacting local advocacy groups. Utilize and adapt existing practices, systems, and resources. Although evacuations are unique and infrequent events that disrupt normal travel patterns and require special considerations for transportation system control and operations, many of the needs they require can be accommodated within existing practices and resources. Reviews of recent research, planning, and actual evacuations suggest that evacuees can often be effectively served by making incremental modifications to routine operations (217, Error! Reference source not found.). An example of this is illustrated by the Houston METRO plan to operate busses on normal routes during evacuation of the city using holiday and special event schedules. The plan maintains

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 59 busses on routine routes where people are already familiar with them, but increases capacity by adding busses to reduce headways (116). This “seamless” transition in operation helps evacuees know where and when to access busses. This allows people not immediately evacuating to return from work, prepare to evacuate, and attend to other pre-evacuation needs (acquiring medicines, connecting with family members, etc.). Another example of adapting a non-emergency operation was illustrated by a recent study of urban evacuation traffic signal control in Washington, D.C., The University of Maryland study showed that the most effective timing plan for signal operation during an emergency was to implement evening peak period signal timings (Error! Reference source not found.). Although it was hypothesized that “all-green” signal operation on major streets would work best to clear the city, such a plan actually caused more delay and congestion by paralyzing cross-streets. Adapting routine practices often requires less time, expense, and personnel training because it is based on familiar routines which have already been proven effective through actual experience. Empower and encourage voluntarism, self reliance, and independent decision-making among evacuees. One of the more unique themes expressed by several officials in charge of planning and managing evacuations was to “personalize” the act of evacuating (117, 122). Several agencies pointed out that the act of evacuating was a personal choice and that, practically speaking, even under “mandatory” evacuations; local authorities have neither the personnel resources nor the legal authority to compel a person to evacuate against their will (Error! Reference source not found.). As such, it becomes important to help evacuees make informed choices regarding their safety. It concerns some emergency management officials that the recent emphasis on assisted evacuation has given some a false sense of security or an illusion of entitlement that all of their needs will be met with little planning, preparedness, or action on their part (117). In reality, most planning provides minimal aid for basic necessities and instead focuses on the goal of keeping the overall process moving, with as few obstructions as possible (217, 113). To reduce the potential for problems, some agencies do not reveal specifics of their plans (such as the availability of in-route fuel service or “refuges of last resort”). Obviously, not every person has the ability to move themselves. In such cases it is necessary to provide assistance. To support the variety of government assisted evacuation programs, some locations have encouraged “Good Neighbor” programs such as “Operation Brother’s Keeper” and Evacuteer.org in New Orleans. They encourage citizens to help their fellow citizens by staffing evacuation processing points and providing rides to relatives, friends, and neighbors without access to personal transportation (44). Plan for post-event reentry. After the passage of hazardous conditions, evacuees often want to return to their homes, businesses, and properties as soon as possible. The desire for a quick return is motivated by the need to determine the condition of and extent of damage to property; protect and secure property that may have been damaged or is vulnerable to looting; tend to pets and livestock; and check on friends, family, and neighbors that did not evacuate. Although post- evacuation re-entries do not involve the same life-or-death urgency as evacuations, they can also generate enormous amounts of traffic over short durations, resulting in congestion. Re-entries can also put returning evacuees at risk if roads and other highway infrastructure are not sufficiently cleared, repaired, and free from flooding or other dangers. Because of these risks and the need to maintain order and security in areas that may be without utility services, there may also be a need to regulate and control re-entries into impacted areas.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 60 Even without the presence of imminent danger, the return of evacuees after an evacuation is not a routine transportation process. There are a number of areas of concern for transportation agencies. At the very least, conditions that have precipitated large-scale evacuations have the potential to create inordinately high inbound directional traffic over a relatively short period; in effect, a reverse-evacuation can occur. Like the evacuation that preceded it, these demand conditions can result in significant congestion, delay, and even traffic safety issues that may require the attention of transportation agencies to assure an safe, orderly and expeditious return of a population to its origin. For hazards that have caused physical damage to transportation infrastructure systems, expedited inspections and repairs may be necessary. Examples of major damage after recent hurricanes and floods includes storm surge decking damage and foundation scour on bridges; washed out pavements and embankments; and the flooding of traffic signal systems. The required repair of these items can necessitate the development of alternate traffic plans, which are important before allowing evacuees back into impacted areas. In technological hazard emergencies such as biological/chemical/radiological releases, dangerous conditions may not be immediately and directly detectable without specialized and sophisticated detection and testing equipment. Thus, experts outside of transportation who are adequately trained and equipped to assess the conditions must first be brought in. In some cases, this may take several days. Washed out roadways and collapsed bridges are obvious. However, less noticeable threats can include conditions like leaking gas pipes, downed electrical lines, and structural and foundation failures. As a result, transportation officials are called upon within hours of a disaster to assess the extent of the damage, determine which routes can be opened, and certify critical structures like bridges, retaining walls, embankments, etc. This work can also occur simultaneously with utility company and other non-governmental agency inspections for facilities like hospitals and stores to makes sure that the basic needs required to support and sustain a populace is in place and functioning. Discussions with local officials showed that the process of post-evacuation re-entry has several layers of complexity. Since public safety is always paramount, re-entry in practice often becomes an effort to manage or restrict the entry of returning evacuees until their safety can be assured. In all but a few of the most confined cases, the management of re-entries is a hit-or-miss proposition. Most states permit evacuees to return after the area is deemed to be safe by local and state officials. In practice, however, many evacuees leave shelters as soon as it appears that re- entry routes are open and typically well before any “all-clear” advisories are issued. In Lafayette, Louisiana, evacuees left shelters early in the re-entry process without an “all-clear” advisory from authorities after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, delaying DOT and utility repair and restoration efforts. By the nature of their design, highway transportation systems are developed to provide convenient access to properties. Often, this is accomplished with multiple routes of access into populated areas. When combined with the eagerness of evacuees to return, these configurations also make it difficult to prohibit access on a large scale. Discussions with authorities in wildfire- affected states revealed that the only effectively managed large-scale re-entries have been at the subdivision-level where access into the impacted area can be restricted at a handful of relatively easy to control entry points. A consistent opinion was that most areas have yet to devise an effective method to realistically (efficiently and safely) deal with re-entry, particularly because of legal and manpower issues. In

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 61 some locations, particularly in which no formal plans exist to manage re-entry, political considerations are the driving force. In one location, it was noted that some public officials liked to be viewed as the first authorities to demand that evacuees be allowed back into affected areas. In the past there have been virtual “races” among elected officials in various jurisdictions and levels of government to demand re-entry for displaced populations. Since assisted evacuees have no method of returning home after an event, officials in both Texas and Louisiana have planned for the transport provider to return them back to their places of origin. In both states, this is accomplished by effectively reversing the steps and location order of the outbound evacuation. Thus, evacuees would be transported via the same outbound mode to the collecting point then on to local transit busses to their original pick-up locations (NYC BP refs). Past experience has shown that post-storm circumstances may not always permit all evacuees to return home immediately. In some cases, individual dwelling units or entire neighborhoods may have sustained damage or are uninhabitable because basic services like water, electricity, telephone, police/fire/ambulance, schools, hospitals, and stores, may not be operable. In such cases, it may be necessary to make alternative arrangements at the local level. After Hurricane Ike, Houston METRO relied heavily on taxi cab services to transport evacuees to local Red Cross shelters because evacuees could not return immediately to their homes. Maintain simplicity and flexibility in evacuation plans. Despite the significant recent advancements in evacuation practice, it is apparent that considerable variability remains in the specifics of evacuation planning and response. This is not surprising since, at a fundamental level, evacuations (even for major threats) are predominantly a local issue with planning, decision-making, and direction led by local officials. However, with wider variation comes the potential for miscommunication, inconsistency, and confusion, both for evacuees and for those working to manage them. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) was developed to standardize emergency response and coordinate the various aspects of emergency preparedness and response across various levels of government, jurisdictions, and agencies. However, many of its elements are still being incorporated into local plans. One example of the variability in evacuation communication is illustrated in the language used to issue evacuation orders. Recent reviews of practice have identified more than a dozen terms used to order evacuations, including “precautionary,” “voluntary,” “partial voluntary,” “recommended,” “mandatory,” “partial mandatory,” and “full mandatory” among others. Although some emergency managers feel that a range of terminology helps them to convey the urgency of the situation thereby permitting them to influence the rate of evacuation departures, others have suggested that it could be confusing and influence people to remain in dangerous locations. Instead they have proposed using a single, clear, and simple “mandatory” order for evacuations. This, it is asserted, would simplify the answer to the question “Do I need to evacuate?” to a clear-cut “Yes” or “No” response for every citizen (122). From a practical perspective, even “mandatory evacuations” may also be confusing since there are no legal mechanisms (in most locations) to force individuals to evacuate and even if there were, few jurisdictions would have adequate personnel to physically enforce the order. (Some emergency managers, however, have identified persuasive means of emphasizing the seriousness and the potential consequences, e.g., asking the individual to complete a form addressed to their next of kin and write their name and date of birth on their arm in permanent marker to facilitate identification).

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 62 Officials in Louisiana and Texas have developed websites to permit downloading of maps, plans, and instructions of contraflow and evaculane segments and how to drive on them (130, 173). The Texas website includes video that illustrates how to enter and drive in the contraflow lanes. The Louisiana maps use color coded arrows that show evacuees how to select and follow a route to a specific destination. These color codes are quite helpful because the Louisiana contraflow plan covers a large region and prohibits access to several routes, which if not understood would force evacuees into a direction far from their intended travel direction. Evacuation implementation plans can also be complex and infrequently utilized so many locations use various tools to clarify and communicate tasks and directions. Other examples are checklists used by the Alabama Department of Transportation to assist crews in the implementation of contraflow in the state. The lists are both thorough and specific and include maps of locations, lists of tasks, steps and sequences, inventories of materials, and detailed plans showing the placement locations of signs, personnel, and vehicles (1, 3, 4, 5). Bridge disconnects between emergency management and transportation. A final common issue identified in the review of practice relates to the philosophical differences between emergency management and transportation communities. This has been described as a “clash of cultures” in how the collaborative roles of emergency management and DOTs are required to interact before, during, and after evacuations. In prior surveys it has been apparent that these two groups disagree on how resources are allocated and utilized during emergencies. One emergency manager described its DOT counterparts as “always finding a reason to say no, instead of finding a reason to say yes.” One example was in the reluctance of many DOTs to use contraflow because it was contrary to many fundamental principles of roadway and traffic control, safety, and design. These differences have been attributed to the backgrounds and types of training that the two groups receive as well as their designated roles during emergencies. Emergency managers often have background and training as first-responders, law enforcement, and military personnel and their focus is on leading and coordinating the activities of others, using a command and control structure. They must take a comprehensive view of situations and need to be flexible and creative in their approach to solving challenges. DOTs, on the other hand, are commonly populated by engineers and planners. Their training is to use more methodical and detailed approaches to problem solving. Because of their responsibilities to promote safety, they can also be risk averse and may not be willing to quickly adapt, to disregard details and standards, and to make immediate decisions with uncertain outcomes (that may in their perception cause additional public confusion and increase risk, for example). Although there will always be disagreements, many of the challenges encountered by differing viewpoints can be overcome by frequent and improved communications during all phases of planning and response. Although emergency managers are more often in charge, DOTs have specialized knowledge, skills, equipment, and resources that can be vital during emergencies and they must work efficiently and effectively together. Carless Evacuation Since Hurricane Katrina there has been a surge of interest in topics related to the evacuation of low-mobility populations. These low mobility groups have been characterized in numerous ways, including special needs, functional needs, carless, etc. Ultimately, however, for the purposes of evacuation planning, the definition can be boiled down to any person who, for

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 63 whatever reason, lacks the ability to move themselves (and/or their dependents) during an emergency. In the wake of Katrina, numerous federal, state and local agencies and non-profit organizations have sponsored studies, many of which are in the accompanying carless evacuation section of the bibliography. Consistent among the findings of evacuations involving various groups of minority, low-income, elderly, disabled and residents with limited mobility and health problems, was that relatively little systematic and comprehensive planning for these groups had taken place prior to 2005. The reports discussed many challenges faced by transportation planners, emergency managers, and non-profits when designing successful evacuation strategies. Identifying carless populations and gauging their level of transportation mobility was perhaps the greatest obstacle. A 2007 focus group study conducted with government officials and non-profit organizations in Chicago, Miami, New Orleans, New York, and San Francisco sought to identify the current challenges, strengths and resources; cross-jurisdictional relationships; and evacuation training and planning. The findings noted that the dissemination of information was critical during an emergency, but the ability to reach vulnerable populations was quite difficult. Low participation rates during evacuations and cross-jurisdictional collaboration were noted as major challenges. Studies have also identified three types of collaboration that are currently used for carless evacuation preparedness: 1. Collaboration which intends to capacitate the community level emergency response 2. Collaboration efforts that occur between municipalities 3. Collaboration that looks to a higher authority, i.e., Federal government to overcome any cross-jurisdictional barriers that may exist between municipalities or other local agencies. Reviews also suggest that preparedness has not only been a function of local disaster experience, but also the national attention of large-scale disasters such as September 11th and Hurricane Katrina. However, while nonprofit agencies in New Orleans noted that Katrina probably resulted in local government being more prepared for future disasters, they also mentioned that preparedness agencies should not rely heavily on government after previous experiences. Interestingly, nonprofit agency respondents in Chicago, which has arguably had the least experience with large-scale disasters, professed more of a blind faith reliance on government to meet the needs of vulnerable populations during a large-scale evacuation. Conclusion This review summarizes many of the common themes of evacuation that have emerged for the past 10 to 15 years. Although not all of the ideas described in this chapter are appropriate or applicable to every location or for every type of hazard, it is expected that a better awareness of these ideas will give readers of this guide some ideas to implement in their local jurisdictions based on what has worked well in other places. Although this review discusses what others have done or are doing, the future chapters will provide more detail in what to do and how it should/could be done. A common current method is to develop a generalized (all-hazard) approach to evacuation planning once an adequate understanding of the hazard, population, and transportation characteristics of a particular location has been gained. Then, using this general framework, a plan can be spatially and/or temporally scaled as needed for any specific evacuation. The difficulty in doing this, however, always lies in the specific details of the plan.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 64 To assist readers with addressing these details, this literature review has attempted to highlight techniques and innovations that are currently planned or have already been successfully employed. Bibliography 1. Abdelgawad, H. and B. Abdulhai, “Managing Large-Scale Multimodal Emergency Evacuations,” Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, June 2010, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 122 - 151. 2. Alabama Department of Transportation, “I-65 Hurricane Contraflow Traffic Control Device Location Trailer(s),” Montgomery, Alabama, 2009. 3. Alabama Department of Transportation, “Reverse Laning of I-65 – Exit 93 Interchange Team Leader Checklist – Location #13,” Montgomery, Alabama, 2009. 4. Alabama Department of Transportation, “Reverse Laning of I-65 – Exit 93 Interchange Staffing Plan – Lead Members and Assistants,” Montgomery, Alabama, 2009. 5. Alabama Department of Transportation, “Reverse Laning Procedure – Master Checklist,” Montgomery, Alabama, 2010. 6. Alaska Homeland Security and Emergency Management, “Evacuation Plan Template,” [Online]. Available: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjA A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fready.alaska.gov%2Fplans%2Fdocuments%2FEMERGENCY% 2520EVACUATION%2520PLANNING%2520TEMPLATE%2520(FINAL)%2520(2).doc &ei=j4cvT- q3Guna0QHk5YnaCg&usg=AFQjCNED06lk_qLayR0akqNl9RA6WgSlEw&sig2=JlM3ly XA4zczlAM1_z6qCA. 7. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition,” Washington, D.C., 2001. 8. American Red Cross, “Operation Brother’s Keeper,” Southeast Louisiana Chapter of the American Red Cross, 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.arcno.org/Operation_Brothers_Keeper.php. 9. Ang-Olson, J, “Simplified Guide to the Incident Command System for Transportation Professionals,” Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-06-004, 2006. 10. Associated Press (AP), “New England Floods Now Deadly,” ABC News, May 16, 2006. 11. Bailey, D., S. Swiacki, A. Byrnes, J. Buckley, D. King, V. Piper, M. Marino, S. Mundle, G. Pierlott, and A. Lynd, “Transportation Equity in Emergencies: A Review of the Practices of State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Transit Agencies in 20 Metropolitan Areas,” United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Report No. FTA-PA-26-8001-2007, Washington, D.C., May 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FINAL_TCR_Emergency_Response_v2_4-07- edit(3).doc.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 65 12. Baker, E J., “Hurricane Evacuations in the United States,” Storms, From R. Pielke and R. Pielke (eds), Vol. 1, Routledge, 2000. 13. Bradley, Mike, “Basic Template for an Alaska Regional Tribal Health Corporation Emergency Operations Plan,” Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, November 2009 [Online]. Available: http://www.anthc.org/chs/ces/emergmgt/upload/Regional-Health- Corp-Emergency-Operations-Plan-Template.PDF. 14. Brezina, T., “What Went Wrong in New Orleans? An Examination of the Welfare Dependency Explanation,” Social Problems, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2008, pp. 23–42. 15. Cable New Network (CNN), “Fire deaths, damage come into focus as evacuees cope," October 26, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/26/fire.wildfire.ca/index.html. 16. California Department of Transportation, “Caltrans Commuter Alert 07-327,” State of California, District 8, San Bernardino, October 25, 2007. 17. California Emergency Management Agency, “Guidance on Planning and Responding to the Needs of People with Access and Functional Needs,” Office for Access and Functional Needs, June 30, 2009 [Online]. Available: http://www.calema.ca.gov/ChiefofStaff/Pages/Guidance-On-Planning-and-Responding-To- The-Needs-Of-People-With-Access-And-Functional-Needs.aspx. 18. Casse, J., D. Goldstein, H-C. Lin, and T. Shehab, “On the Formulation and Solution of an Emergency Routing Problem,” Final Report, METRANS Project 06-03. 19. Catholic Health World, “Flooding Forces Mary Immaculate Evacuation,” Vol. 22, No. 10, June 2006. 20. CBS News, “Houston Told To ‘Hunker Down’ For Big Ike,” September 11, 2008 [Online]. Available: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/national/main4438395.shtml. 21. Chen, M., L. Chen, and E. Miller-Hooks, “Signal Timing for Urban Evacuation,” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 30-42. 22. Chen, M., L. Chen, and E. Miller-Hooks, City of Houston, “Traffic Signal Timing for Urban Evacuation,” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 30-42. 23. Chiu Y.C., “Texas Disaster Preparedness Study - Findings for Contra-flow Operations and Phased Evacuation Plan Assessment,” Presentation to the 87 Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 2008. 24. Chiu, Y.C., H. Zheng, H. Villalobos, W. Peacock, and R. Henk, “Evaluating Regional Contra-Flow and Phased Evacuation Strategies for the Central Texas Area Using a Large- Scale Dynamic Simulation and Assignment Model,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2008. 25. Chock, G., et al., “Compilation of Observations of the October 15, 2006 Kiholo Bay (Mw 6.7) and Mahukona (Mw 6.0) Earthquakes, Hawaii,” December 31, 2006.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 66 26. Church, R.L. and R.M. Sexton, “Modeling Small Area Evacuation: Can Existing Transportation Infrastructure Impede Public Safety?” Vehicle Intelligence & Transportation Laboratory, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, April 2002. 27. City of Houston, “Hurricane Evacuation Transportation Registration,” Houston, 2008 [Online]. Available: http://www.houstontx.gov/oem/str2007.html. 28. City of New Orleans, “City of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan,” New Orleans, 2005. 29. City of San Diego, “After Action Report – October 2007 Wildfires – City of San Diego Response,” San Diego, California, November 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www.sandiego.gov/mayor/pdf/fireafteraction.pdf. 30. Collins, R. “Using ITS in Helping Florida Manage Evacuations,” Technical Presentation to the 2001 National Hurricane Conference, Washington, D.C., 2001. 31. Conference of Minority Transportation Officials (COMTO), “Emergency Preparedness and Response for Vulnerable Populations,” Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Office of Civil Rights, July 2007. 32. Conner, George. Alabama Department of Transportation, Montgomery, Alabama. Telephone interview. August 9, 2010. 33. Connor, G. “Reverse-Laning I-65 for Hurricane Evacuations,” Alabama Department of Transportation, Presentation to the 2005 National Hurricane Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2005. 34. Cox, W. “Emergency Evacuation Report Card 2006,” American Highway Users Alliance, Washington, D.C., October 2006 [Online]. Available: http://www.highways.org/pdfs/evacuation_report_card2006.pdf. 35. Devylder, R., Presentation to the National Evacuation Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 2010. 36. District Department of Transportation (DDOT), “Operation Fast Forward III,” District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., July 2007. 37. Dixit, V.V, S. Ramasamy, and E.A. Radwan, “Assessment of I-4 Contraflow Plans: Microscopic and Mesoscopic Simulation,” In 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. CD-ROM. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007. 38. Dixit, V.V. and E.A. Radwan, “Strategies to Improve Dissipation into Destination Networks During Evacuation,” In 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. CD-ROM. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007. 39. Dotson, L.J. and J. Jones, “Identification and Analysis of Factors Affecting Emergency Evacuations - Volume I: Main Report,” Sandia National Laboratories Report No. SAND2004-5901, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report No. NUREG/CR- 686420555-0001 Vol. 2, Washington, D.C., January 2005.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 67 40. Dotson, L.J. and J. Jones, “Identification and Analysis of Factors Affecting Emergency Evacuations - Volume II: Appendices,” Sandia National Laboratories Report No. SAND2004-5901, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report No. NUREG/CR- 686420555-00012 Vol. 2, Washington, D.C., January 2005. 41. Drabek, T.E., “Disaster Evacuation Behavior: Tourists and Other Transients,” Program on Environment and Behavior, Monograph No.58, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1996. 42. Dykes, A., “City of New Orleans Signal Restoration Project,” Presentation to the Annual Conference of the Southern District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Jackson, MS, April 2006. 43. Ecocenter, “Chemical Fire Rocks Romulus, November/December 2005,” Ecology Center. November/December 2005. 44. Evacuteer.org, Evacuteer.org, New Orleans, LA, 2010. [Online] Available: http://www.evacuteer.org/. 45. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “2012 Federal Disaster Declarations,” [See Disaster Search] Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema. 46. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action: FDOC 104-008- 1,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., December 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4941. http://www.fema.gov/about/wholecommunity.shtm 47. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Catastrophic Incident Annex,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., November 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf_CatastrophicIncidentAnnex.pdf. 48. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Declaration Process Fact Sheet,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/declaration_process.shtm. 49. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans: Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, Version 2.0,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., November 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/divisions/npd/CPG_101_V2.pdf. 50. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Declared Disasters by Year and State,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_totals_annual.fema. 51. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC): Overview for National Response Framework,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/EMACoverviewForNRF.pdf. 52. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Evacuation Plan for State of Louisiana Critical Transportation Needs (CTN) Population,” JFO-LA Transportation Management Unit, August 17, 2007.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 68 53. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Evacuee Support Concept of Operations Template,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., July 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.iafc.org/files/mtlAid_evacuee_support_conops.pdf. 54. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Evacuee Support Planning Guide: FEMA P-760/Catalog No. 09049-2,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., July 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/disasterhousing/evacuee_support_guide.pdf. 55. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Federal Disaster Declarations,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema#sev1. 56. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “FEMA Fact Sheet: National Planning Scenarios,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/media/factsheets/2009/npd_natl_plan_scenario.pdf. 57. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Forms,” [Reference for Reimbursement and Eligible Costs Information] Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/help/forms.shtm. 58. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Frequently Asked Questions,” [Reference for Reimbursement and Eligible Costs Information] Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/faq.shtm#Q61. 59. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Mass Evacuation Incident Annex,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., June 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf_massevacuationincidentannex.pdf. 60. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Incident Management System (NIMS), Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., December 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/NIMS_core.pdf. 61. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Mass Evacuation Tracking System, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., June 2010. 62. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “National Response Framework,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., January 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf. 63. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Presidential Disaster Declarations: January 10, 2000 to January 1, 2010,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.gismaps.fema.gov/recent.pdf. 64. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Procedures for Processing Requests for Emergency or Expedited Major Disaster Declarations,” FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy 1004 - Interim, Washington, D.C., May 15, 2007, 3pp. 65. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Resource Management: NIMS Incident Resource Inventory System (IRIS),” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/ResourceMngmnt.shtm#item5.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 69 66. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Target Capabilities List: A Companion to the National Preparedness Guidelines,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., September 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/training/tcl.pdf. 67. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Technical Assistance Catalog: Preparedness & Program Management Technical Assistance,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/divisions/npd/npd_technical_assistance_catalog.pdf. 68. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Whole Community,” Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., December 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/about/wholecommunity.shtm. 69. Federal Highway Administration, “Best Practices in Emergency Transportation Operations, Preparedness and Response: Results of the FHWA Workshop Series,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-07-076, March, 2007, 24 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/etopr/best_practices/etopr_best_practices.pdf. 70. Federal Highway Administration, “Catastrophic Hurricane Plan Evaluation: A Report to Congress,” United States Department of Transportation Publication, Washington, D.C., June 1, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/hurricanevacuation/. 71. Federal Highway Administration, “Common Issues in Emergency Transportation Operations Preparedness and Response: Results of the FHWA Workshop Series,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-07-090, February 2007, 16 pp. 72. Federal Highway Administration, “Communication with the Public Using ATIS During Disasters: Guide for Practitioners,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-07-068, April, 2007, 36 pp. [Online]. Available: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/atis/atis_guidance.pdf. 73. Federal Highway Administration, “Evacuating Populations with Special Needs: Routes to Effective Evacuation Planning Primer Series,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-09-022, April 2009, 136 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09022/fhwahop09022.pdf. 74. Federal Highway Administration, “Best Practices in Traffic Incident Management,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-10-050, September 2010, 123 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10050/fhwahop10050.pdf. 75. Federal Highway Administration, “Information-Sharing Guidebook for Transportation Management Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, and Fusion Centers,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-09-003, June 2010, 144 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09003/tmc_eoc_guidebook.pdf. 76. Federal Highway Administration, “Intelligent Transportation Systems Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study: Emergency Notification and Response,” United States

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 70 Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA-JPO-99-033, September 1998. [Online] Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ research/safety/its/jpo99033/fotemergency.pdf. 77. Federal Highway Administration, “Managing Pedestrians During Evacuation of Metropolitan Areas,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA- HOP-07-066, March 2007, 71 pp. 78. Federal Highway Administration, “Managing Travel for Planned Special Events,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-OP-04-034, November 2003, 2 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwaop04034/factsheet.pdf. 79. Federal Highway Administration, “Managing Travel for Planned Special Events Handbook,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-OP-04- 010, September 2003, 427 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwaop04010/handbook.pdf 80. Federal Highway Administration, “Managing Travel for Planned Special Events Handbook: Executive Summary,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-07-108, June 2007, 60 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop07108/plnd_spcl_evnts.pdf. 81. Federal Highway Administration, “Office of Operations: Publications,” United States Department of Transportation, January 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publications.htm#eto-. 82. Federal Highway Administration, “Operational Concept: Assessment of the State of the Practice and State of the Art in Evacuation Transportation Management,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-08-020, July 2006, 70 pp. 83. Federal Highway Administration, “Planned Special Events: Checklists for Practitioners,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-06-113, 2006, October 2006, 82 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/psechecklists/index.htm. 84. Federal Highway Administration, “Real Time Traveler Information Overview,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. HWA-OP-04-044. April 2004, 2 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/aboutus/one_pagers/traveler_info.pdf. 85. Federal Highway Administration, “Simplified Guide to the Incident Command System (ICS) for Transportation Professionals,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-06-04, 20067, 64 pp. 86. Federal Highway Administration, “Tabletop Exercise Guidelines for Planned Events and Unplanned Incidents/Emergencies,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-08-005, November 2007, 21 pp. 87. Federal Highway Administration, “The Best of Traffic Incident Management, Traffic Planning for Special Events and Evacuation & Disaster Planning” (CD), United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-10-053, October 2010.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 71 88. Federal Highway Administration, “Using Highways During Evacuation Operations for Events with Advance Notice,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-06-109, December 2006, 85 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/evac_primer/primer.pdf. 89. Federal Highway Administration, “Using Highways for No-Notice Evacuations,” United States Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-HOP-08-003, November 2007, 116 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/evac_primer_nn/primer.pdf. 90. Florida Department of Transportation, “Florida’s Statewide 511 Website,” [Use of 511 for Evacuation Information] [Online]. Available: http://www.fl511.com/. 91. FloridaEvacuates.com, “FloridaEvacuates.com,” [Locate Shelters, Weather, 511 Information, Preparedness Videos, and more] Online]. Available: http://floridaevacuates.com/index.php. 92. FloridaEvacuates.com, “Mobile Application,” [Locate Shelter in Emergencies with Mobile Application] [Online]. Available: http://floridaevacuates.com/mobileapp. 93. Fu, H. and C. G. Wilmot, “Sequential Logit Dynamic Travel Demand Model for Hurricane Evacuation,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume 1882, 2004, pp. 19-26. 94. Gaspard, K., M. Martinez, Z. Zhang, Z. Wu, “Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Roadways in the New Orleans Area,” Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Louisiana Transportation Research Center Technical Assistance Report No. 07-2TA, Baton Rouge, LA, October 2006. 73 pp. 95. Gautreau, G. “I-10 Twin Spans Repair,” Presentation to the 2007 Louisiana Transportation Engineering Conference, Baton Rouge, LA, February 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/tec_07/presentations/repairs-web.pdf. 96. Goldblatt, R.B. and K. Weinisch, “Evacuation Planning, Human Factors, and Traffic Engineering: Developing Systems for Training and Effective Response,” TR News, May- June 2005, No. 238, p. 13- 17. 97. Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, “Quick Facts for Southern California Wildfires,” 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.oes.ca.gov/Operational/OESHome.nsf/ALL/8A7A41878BC9B726882573A20 069BF4D?OpenDocument. 98. Gunter, Paul, “Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Accidents”, Reactor Watchdog Project, NIRS, 2001. [Online]. Available: http://www.nirs.org/reactors/emergencyplanning71301.html. 99. Han L.D., F. Yuan, and T. Urbanik, “What is an Effective Evacuation Operation,” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 3-8. 100. Hardy, M. and K. Wunderlich, “Evacuation Management Operations (EMO) Modeling Assessment: Transportation Modeling Inventory,” United States Department of

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 72 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Contract No. DTFH61-05-D-00002, Washington, D.C., 2008. 101. Harris, C., “Trouble in Paradise,” Republic Incorporated, November 14, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.emergencymgmt.com/story.print.php?id=102346. 102. Henk, R., “Impact of Climate Change on Gulf Coast Emergency Management” Presentation at the Freeway and Tolling Operations in the Americas Conference, Houston, TX, May 2007. [Online]. Available: http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/ftoa/program/presentations/henk.pdf. 103. Hinshaw, C.R., “Regional Communications System Incident Performance: Wildfires 2007,” San Diego County – Imperial County Regional Communications System, San Diego, CA, December 6, 2007, 15 pp. 104. Hodge, J.G., R.P. Pepe, W.H. Henning, “Voluntarism in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina: The Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act,” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 44-50. 105. Houston, N., “Using Highways During Evacuation Operations for Events with Advance Notice,” United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA-HOP-06-109, December, 2006, 85 pp. 106. Hua, J., G. Ren, Y. Cheng, Y. Zhang, B. Ran, “Bus Contraflow Lane: Improved Contraflow Approach in Freeway Evacuation”, Transportation Research Board (TRB) Paper 12-2403, National Academies of Science and Engineering, Washington, D.C., submitted November 14, 2011. 107. Ishak, S., C. Alecsandru, Y. Zhang, and D. Seedah, “Modeling Hurricane Evacuation Traffic: A Mobile Real-Time Traffic Counter for Monitoring Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Conditions”, Technical Report 402, Louisiana Transportation Research Center, December, 2008. 61 pp. 108. Jarquin, O., “California Department of Transportation District 11 Geographic Information Systems San Diego County Wildfires Emergency Response,” 21st Annual GIS-T Symposium, March 18, 2008. 109. Jones, J.A., F. Walton, J.D. Smith and B. Wolshon, “Assessment of Emergency Response Planning and Implementation in the Aftermath of Major Natural Disasters and Technological Accidents,” Sandia National Laboratories Report No. SAND2007-1776P, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report No. NUREG/CR-6981, NRC Division of Preparedness and Response, Washington, D.C., October 2008. 110. Jones, J.A. and B. Wolshon, “Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies,” Sandia National Laboratories Report No. SAND2008-1776P, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report No. NUREG/CR-6981, NRC Division of Preparedness and Response, Washington, D.C., 2008. 111. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. “Survey of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees.” September 2005. 112. Karlaftis, M.G., K. Konstantinos, L. Kepaptsoglou, S. Lambropoulos, “Fund Allocation for Transportation Network Recovery Following Natural Disaster,” ASCE Journal of Urban

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 73 Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 82-89. 113. Kaspar, Alice. Texas Department of Transportation, Houston District. Houston, TX. Telephone interview. 8 August 2010. 114. King County, “Evacuation Template,” [Evacuation Template Outline and Evacuation Resources, Checklist, and Overview] Office of Emergency Management, Washington state [Online]. Available: https://www.kingcounty.gov/safety/prepare/EmergencyManagementProfessionals/Plans/Ev acuationTemplate.aspx. 115. Lambert, L. and B. Wolshon, “Characterization and Comparison of Traffic Flow in Reversible Roadways,” The Journal of Advanced Transportation, submitted for publication in April 2007. 116. Leonard, Michael. METRO-Houston, Houston, TX. Telephone interview. 12 August 2010. 117. -----------. Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Baton Rouge, LA. Telephone interview. 10 August 2010. 118. Lim, Y.Y. and B. Wolshon, “Modeling and Performance Assessment of Contraflow Evacuation Termination Points,” Transportation Research Record 1922 - The Journal of Transportation Research Board, 2005, pp. 118-127. 119. Lindell M. and R. Perry, “Understanding Evacuation Behavior: An Editorial Introduction,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters – Special Evacuation Research: Theory and Applications Issue, August 1991, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 133-136. 120. Lindell, M.K. and C. Prater, “Critical Behavioral Assumptions in Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis for Private Vehicles: Examples from Hurricane Research and Planning,” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 18-29. 121. Liu, H.X., J.X. Ban, W. Ma, P.B. Mirchandani, “Model Reference Adaptive Control Framework for Real-Time Traffic Management Under Emergency Evacuation,” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 43-50. 122. Long, B., Presentation to the Gulf Coast Evacuation Conference, Mobile, AL, June, 2010. 123. Los Angeles Times, “Scale of the fire’s disruption on display at San Diego Stadium,” October 23, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me- evacuate24oct24,1,5751160.story. 124. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, “Positive Stories,” DPS 2005. 125. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, “2006 Louisiana Evacuation Route Map,” Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, Baton Rouge, LA, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.dotd.louisiana.gov/maps/. 126. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, “Metropolitan New Orleans Evacuation Contraflow Plan,” Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development,

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 74 Baton Rouge, LA, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.dotd.louisiana.gov/maps/Web_ContraFlow2.jpg. 127. Louisiana Nursing Home Association (LNHA), “Prepared Statement of Joseph A. Donchess Executive Director Louisiana Nursing Home Association,” January 31, 2006. 128. Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness, “EOC Hurricane/Major Events Checklist,” Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2001. 129. Louisiana Office of the Governor, Get a Game Plan, Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Baton Rouge, LA. [Online] Available: http://www.getagameplan.org/index.htm. 130. Louisiana Office of the Governor, Louisiana Citizen Awareness & Disaster Evacuation Guides, Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Baton Rouge, LA. 2010. [Online] Available: http://gohsep.la.gov/evacinfo/SEHurriGuide.pdf. 131. Louisiana State Police, “New Orleans Emergency Evacuation Plan,” Kenner, LA, 2000. 132. Milligan & Company, LLC, “Transportation Equity in Emergencies: A Review of the Practices of State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Transit Agencies in 20 Metropolitan Areas,” United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, May 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FINAL_TCR_Emergency_Response_v2_4-07-edit (3).doc. 133. Minnesota Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, “State of Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan,” St. Paul, MN, July 2007. 134. Mississippi Department of Transportation, “Interstate 59 Contraflow Plan for Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Control,” Jackson, MS, 2003, 43 pp. 135. Moreno, S., “Senior Citizens From Houston Die When Bus Catches Fire,” The Washington Post, Saturday, September 24, 2005; Page A09. [Online]. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR200509230 0505.html. 136. Murray-Tuite, P., “Perspectives for Network Management in Response to Unplanned Disruptions,” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 9-17. 137. Mutch, R.W., “FACES: The Story of the Victims of Southern California’s 2003 Fire Siege,” Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center, July 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.wildfirelessons.net/documents/FACES.pdf. 138. Naghawi, H. and B. Wolshon, “Transit-Based Emergency Evacuation Modeling with Microscopic Simulation,” Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, June 2010, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 184 - 201. 139. National Association of Counties, “National Incident Management System (NIMS) Guide for County Officials,” National Association of Counties Research Foundation, with International Association of Emergency Managers, October 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.iaem.com/publications/disaster/documents/NIMS-Guide.pdf.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 75 140. National Council on Disability, “Effective Emergency Management: Making Improvements for Communities and People with Disabilities,” United States Government, Washington, D.C., August 12, 2009, 510 pp. [Online]. Available: http://rems.ed.gov/docs/NCD_EmergencyManagement.pdf. 141. National Hurricane Center (NHC). “Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Katrina 23-30 August, 2005.” Updated August 2006. 142. National Public Radio, “Fires Highlight Safety Needs of Migrant Workers,” October 25, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15634399. 143. National Response Center, Incident Summary, United States Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., August 8, 2005. 144. National Response Center, Incident Summary, United States Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., October 5, 2006. 145. Neel-Schaffer Inc., “Lafayette Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update – Phase I: Natural Disaster Evacuation Study,” Technical Memorandum, Lafayette, LA, 2004. 146. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), “Hurricane Floyd – Lessons Learned,” Raleigh, N.C., 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/operations/FloydLessons/1.html. 147. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), “Emergency Response Procedures Manual,” Raleigh, North Carolina, 2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/operations/dp_chief_eng/maintenance/road_main/Resources /default.html. 148. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “Oak Ridge Evacuation Modeling System (OREMS),” ORNL Center for Transportation Analysis, Knoxville, TN, undated. [Online]. Available: http://www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/One_Pagers/OREMS.pdf. 149. Okeil, A. M. and C. S. Cai, “Survey of Short- and Medium-Span Bridge Damage Induced by Hurricane Katrina,” ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 4, July/August, 2008, pp. 377-387. 150. Pacific Business News, “Earthquake Damage Will Lead to Upgrades at Mauna Kea Beach,” January 26, 2007. 151. Portsmouth Herald, “Evacuations Enacted in Newmarket,” May 16, 2006. 2006a. 152. Portsmouth Herald, “Portions of New England Submerged after Record Rainfall,” May 16, 2006. 2006b. 153. Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., “Hurricane Floyd Assessment - Review of Hurricane Evacuation Studies Utilization and Information Dissemination,” Tallahassee, FL, 2000. 154. Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., “Southeast United States Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Study,” United States Army Corps of Engineers Report, Tallahassee, FL, 2000.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 76 155. Radwan, E., M. Mollaghasemi, S. Mitchell, G. Yildririm, “Framework for Modeling Emergency Evacuation,” Center for Advanced Transportation System Simulation, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, April 2005, 40 pp. 156. Renne, J.L. and J. Ibáñez, “White Paper on Carless and Special Needs Evacuation Planning, National Conference on Emergency Evacuation Community Transportation Association of America EXPO, New Orleans, LA, June 2008, 55pp. 157. Renne, J.L., P. Jenkins, and R. Peterson, “The National Study on Carless and Special Needs Evacuation Planning: Government and Non-Profit Focus Group Report,” United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Contract No. DTFH61-05-D-00002, University of New Orleans Transportation Center, Washington, D.C., October 2008. 158. Renne, J.L., T.W. Sanchez, and T. Litman, “The National Study on Carless and Special Needs Evacuation Planning: A Literature Review,” United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Contract No. DTFH61-05-D-00002, Washington, D.C., 2008. 159. Renne, J.L., T.W. Sanchez, P.Jenkins, and R. Peterson. “Challenge of Evacuating the Carless in Five Major U.S. Cities: Identifying the Key Issues,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Vol. 2110, pp. 36 – 44, 2009. 160. Risk Management Solutions (RMS), “2006 Kiholo Bay, Hawaii Earthquake,” RMS Event Report, 2006. 161. San Diego Immigrants Rights Consortium, “FIRESTORM: Treatment of Vulnerable Populations during the San Diego Fires,” San Diego, CA, November 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.aclusandiego.org/news_item.php?article_id=000325. 162. Schlenger, William E., et al., “Estimating Loss of Life from Hurricane Related Flooding in the Greater New Orleans Area,” Abt Associates Inc., Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA, May 19, 2006. 163. Schwartz, M.A. and T.A. Littman, “Evacuation Station: The Use of Public Transportation in Emergency Management Planning,” ITE Journal on the Web, January 2008. 164. Select Bipartisan Committee. “A Failure of Initiative.” Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 2006. 165. Shaprio, P., “District of Columbia Pedestrian Evacuation Plan,” Presentation to the National Conference on Disaster Planning for the Carless Society, New Orleans, LA, February 2007. 166. Sisiopiku, V.P., “Application of Traffic Simulation Modeling for Improved Emergency Preparedness Planning,” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 51-60. 167. Sorensen, J. and B. Vogt, “Interactive Emergency Evacuation Planning Guidebook,” Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program, Department of Homeland Security, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://emc.ornl.gov/CSEPPweb/ evac_files/index.htm.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 77 168. Southworth, F., “Regional Evacuation Modeling: A State-of-the-Art Review,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report No. ORNL/TM-11740, Oak Ridge, TN, 1991. 169. State of California, “Emergency Responder Credentialing Program,” California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento, CA, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.oes.ca.gov/Operational/OESHome.nsf/ALL/12BABC82B10744F3882573E000 731E27?OpenDocument. 170. Stephens K.U., P. Kadetz, F.M. Burkle, E.R. Franklin, “Excess Mortality in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A Preliminary Report,” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, September 1, 2008; pp. S40 - S44. 171. TDEM (2001). “State of Texas Emergency Management Plan.” Texas Division of Emergency Management, Department of Emergency Management, Austin, TX, 2001. [Online]. Available: ftp://ftp.txdps.state.tx.us/dem/plan_state/state_plan_20010515.pdf. 172. Telvent Farradyne, Inc., “I-95 Corridor Coalition Preliminary Regional Evacuation Guide,” September 2007, 70 pp. 173. Texas Department of Transportation, Hurricane Evacuation Contraflow Publications, Austin, TX. 2009. [Online] Available: http://www.txdot.state.tx.us/travel/contraflow _publications.htm. 174. The Boston Globe, “The Lack of Translators is Slowing Flood Relief in Lawrence,” May 28, 2006. 175. The Washington Post, “D.C. Ready To Assess Evacuation Strategy: Expert Applauds Test After July 4 Fireworks,” July 3, 2005. [Online] Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com /wpdyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201295.html. 176. The White House. “The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned.” Washington, D.C.: White House, 2006. 177. Theodoulou, G. and B. Wolshon, “Alternative Methods to Increase the Effectiveness of Freeway Contraflow Evacuation,” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1865 - The Journal of Transportation Research Board, 2004, pp. 48-56. 178. Tibbetts, J. H, “Floyd Follies: What We’ve Learned”, Coastal Heritage, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3-13, 2002. 179. Times - Picayune. “State Probing Death during Evacuation.” New Orleans Edition, No. 277. October 25, 2005. 180. Transportation Research Board, “A Guidebook for Successful Communication, Cooperation, and Coordination Strategies Between Transportation Agencies and Tribal Communities,” NCHRP Report 690, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2011, 113 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_690.pdf. 181. Transportation Research Board, “A Guide for Assessing Community Emergency Response Needs and Capabilities for Hazardous Materials Releases,” HMCRP Report 5, Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 78 Administration, Washington, D.C., 2011, 118 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/hmcrp/hmcrp_rpt_005.pdf. 182. Transportation Research Board, “A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies,” NCHRP Report 525 - Volume 16, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2010, 158 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_525v16.pdf. 183. Transportation Research Board, “A Guide to Planning Resources on Transportation and Hazards,” Research Results Digest 333 (NCHRP) and 90 (TCRP), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, D.C., September 2009, 44 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_333.pdf. 184. Transportation Research Board, “An Airport Guide for Regional Emergency Planning for CBRNE Events,” ACRP Report 12, Airport Cooperative Research Program, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., 43 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_012.pdf. 185. Transportation Research Board, “Communication with Vulnerable Populations: A Transportation and Emergency Management Toolkit,” TCRP Report 150, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 159 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_150.pdf. 186. Transportation Research Board, “Continuity of Operations (COOP) Planning Guidelines for Transportation Agencies,” TCRP Report 86 / NCHRP Report 525 - Volume 8, Transit Cooperative Research Program, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., September 2005, 74 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_525v8.pdf. 187. Transportation Research Board, “Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery in the Transit Industry,” Research Results Digest 87, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, D.C., March 2008, 38 pp. 188. Transportation Research Board, “From Handshake To Compact: Guidance To Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making,” TCRP Report 106 / NCHRP Report 536, Transit Cooperative Research Program, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2005, 67 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_536.pdf. 189. Transportation Research Board, “Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations,” NCHRP Report 525 - Volume 6, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2005, 56 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_525v6.pdf. 190. Transportation Research Board, “Guidelines for Transportation Emergency Training Exercises,” TCRP Report 86 / NCHRP Report 525 - Volume 9, Transit Cooperative Research Program, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., September 2006, 168 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_525v9.pdf.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 79 191. Transportation Research Board, “Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation,” TRB Special Report 290, National Academies of Science and Engineering, Washington, D.C., 2008. 219 pp., [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf. 192. Transportation Research Board, “Public Transportation Security – Volume 10: Hazard and Security Plan Workshop: Instructor Guide [for Rural, Small Urban, and Community-Based Public Transportation System Operations],” TCRP Report 86, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 205 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_86v10.pdf. 193. Transportation Research Board, “Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation,” TRB Special Report 294, National Academies of Science and Engineering, Washington, D.C. July 2008, 223 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12445&page=R1. 194. Transportation Research Board, “Spreadsheet Tool for Emergency Response Functions,” NCHRP Report 525 - Volume 16, Appendix L, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., September 2009,[Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_525v16AppendixL1.xlsm. 195. Transportation Research Board, “State Public Transportation Division Involvement in State Emergency Planning, Response, and Recovery,” Research Results Digest 326, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., May 2008, 18 pp. 196. Transportation Research Board, “White Paper: Identification and Delineation of Incident Management and Large-scale Emergency Response Functions,” NCHRP Report 525 - Volume 16, Appendix L, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., September 2009, 44 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_525v16AppendixL2.pdf. 197. United States Air Force, “General Population By Air – Planning Guide,” Logistics and Engineering Directorate, North American Aerospace Defense Command, and United States Northern Command, Peterson Air Force Base, CO, February 22, 2008, 19 pp. 198. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Guidelines for Hurricane Evacuation Studies, Washington, D.C., 1995. 199. United States Department of Education, “Emergency Management Research and People with Disabilities: A Resource Guide,” Washington, D.C., 2008, 70 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/guide-emergency-management-pwd.pdf. 200. United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “Lessons Learned Information Sharing,” Washington, D.C., 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.llis.dhs.gov/index.do. 201. United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “Nationwide Plan Review Phase 2 Report,” Washington, D.C., June 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/Prep_NationwidePlanReview.pdf. 202. United States Department of Transportation (DOT), “Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation: A Report to Congress,” United States Department of Homeland Security, June 1, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/hurricanevacuation/rtc_chep_eval.pdf.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 80 203. Urbanik, T., A. Desrosiers, M.K. Lindell, C.R. Schuller, “Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones,” Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers Report No. BHARC-401/80-017, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report No. NUREG/CR-1745, Washington, D.C., 1980. 204. Urbanik, T., M.P. Moeller, K. Barnes, “Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code,” Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report No. PNL-6171, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report No. NUREG/CR-4873, Washington, D.C. 1988. 205. Urbanik, T., M.P. Moeller, K. Barnes, “The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the I-DYNEV Computer Code,” Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report No. PNL-6172, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report No. NUREG/CR-4874, Washington, D.C., 1988. 206. Urbina, E., “A State-of-the-Practice Review of Hurricane Evacuation Plans and Policies,” Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, April 2002, 153 pp. [Online]. Available: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd- 0418102-140236/. 207. Urbina, E. and B. Wolshon, “National Review of Hurricane Evacuation Plans and Policies: A Comparison and Contrast of State Practices.” Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice, March 2003, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 257-275. 208. Western, J., “Improving Disaster Preparedness and Response Through Practice-Oriented Research.” TR News, May-June 2007, No. 250, p. 3. 209. White, J., “On the Scene.” National Fire and Rescue (NF&R). Jan/Feb 2007. 210. Williams, B., A. P. Tagliaferri, S. S. Meinhold, J. E. Hummer, and N. M. Rouphail, “Simulation and Analysis of Freeway Lane Reversal for Coastal Hurricane Evacuation,” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 61-72. 211. Wilmot, C., “Review of Demand Estimation of Evacuation Traffic,” Session VII (Transportation Track), 2001 ASCE National Conference and Exposition, Houston, TX, 2001. 212. Wilmot, C.G. and B. Mei, “Comparison of Alternative Trip Generation Models for Hurricane Evacuation,” Natural Hazards Review, Volume 5, Issue 4, November, 2004, pp. 170-178. 213. Wolshon B., “Empirical Characterization of Mass Evacuation Traffic Flow,” Transportation Research Record 2041 - The Journal of Transportation Research Board, 2008, pp. 38-48. 214. Wolshon, B., “One-Way-Out: Contraflow Freeway Operation for Hurricane Evacuation,” Natural Hazards Review, American Society of Civil Engineers, August 2001, Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp. 105 – 112. 215. Wolshon, B., “Planning and Engineering for the Katrina Evacuation.” The Bridge, National Academy of Sciences and Engineering, Spring 2006(a), Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 27-34.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 81 216. Wolshon, B. “Planning and Management of Highway Transportation Networks for Evacuation,” Chapter in: Emergency Evacuation Planning and Management, Auerbach Publishing, 201, Washington, D.C., 2008. 217. Wolshon, B., “Transportation’s Role in Emergency Evacuation and Reentry,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis 392, 978-0-309-098311, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2009, 142 pp. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_392.pdf. 218. Wolshon B. and B. McArdle, “Temporospatial Analysis of Hurricane Katrina Regional Evacuation Traffic Patterns,” ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, March 2009, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 12 - 20. 219. Wolshon B. and B. McArdle, “Traffic Impacts and Dispersal Patterns on Secondary and Low Volume Roadways During Regional Evacuations,” Natural Hazards Review, in press. 220. Wolshon B. and E. Marchive, “Evacuation Planning in the Urban-Wildland Interface: Moving Residential Subdivision Traffic During Wildfires,” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development – Special Emergency Transportation Issue, March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 73-81. 221. Wolshon, B. and L. Lambert, Convertible Lanes and Roadways, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis 340, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004, 92 pp. 222. Wolshon B. and L. Lambert, “Planning and Operational Practices for Reversible Roadways,” Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE Journal, August 2006. 223. Wolshon B. and L. Lambert, “Reversible Lane Systems: Synthesis of Practice,” ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, December 2006, Vol. 132, No. 12, pp. 933-944. 224. Wolshon, B. and M. Levitan, “Evacuation Route Traffic, Flood, and Wind Hazard Monitoring System.” Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers - Solutions for Coastal Disasters Conference ‘02, San Diego, CA, February 2002, pp. 363-377. 225. Wolshon B., A. Catarella-Michel, and L. Lambert, “Louisiana Highway Evacuation Plan for Hurricane Katrina: Proactive Management of Regional Evacuations,” ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, January 2006, Volume 132, Issue 1, pp. 1-10. 226. Wolshon, B., E. Urbina, C. Wilmot, and M. Levitan, “National Review of Hurricane Evacuation Plans and Policies, Part I: Planning and Preparedness,” ASCE Natural Hazards Review, August 2005, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 129 – 142. 227. Wolshon, B., E. Urbina, M. Levitan, and C. Wilmot, “National Review of Hurricane Evacuation Plans and Policies, Part II: Transportation Management and Operations,” ASCE Natural Hazards Review, August 2005, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 142 – 161.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 82 FHWA Emergency Transportation Operations Electronic Documents (Source: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publications.htm) Publication Title FHWA Document No. Best of Public Safety and Emergency Transportation Operations CD FHWA-JPO-08-037 Using Highways For No-Notice Evacuations - Routes to Effective Evacuation Planning Primer Series FHWA-HOP-08-003 Common Issues in Emergency Transportation Operations Preparedness and Response: Results of the FHWA Workshop Series FHWA-HOP-07-090 Best Practices in Emergency Transportation Operations Preparedness and Response: Results of the FHWA Workshop Series FHWA-HOP-07-076 Communicating With the Public Using ATIS During Disasters: A Guide for Practitioners FHWA-HOP-07-068 Managing Pedestrians During Evacuation of Metropolitan Areas FHWA-HOP-07-066 Routes to Effective Evacuation Planning Primer Series: Using Highways During Evacuation Operations for Events with Advance Notice FHWA-HOP-06-109 Transportation Evacuation Planning and Operations Workshop FHWA-HOP-06-076 Coordinating Military Deployments on Roads and Highways: A Guide for State and Local Agencies FHWA-HOP-05-029 Emergency Transportation Response Overview FHWA-OP-04-048 Public Safety & Security Program: Keep America Moving Through Emergencies & National Security Events FHWA-OP-03-108 What Have We Learned About Intelligent Transportation Systems? Chapter 2: What Have We Learned About Freeway, Incident and Emergency Management and Electronic Toll Collection? FHWA-OP-01-006

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 83 Publication Title FHWA Document No. Intelligent Transportation Systems Field Operational Test Cross- Cutting Study: Emergency Notification and Response FHWA-JPO-99-033 Faster Response Time, Effective Use of Resources – Integrating Transportation and Emergency Management Systems FHWA-JPO-99-004 Speeding Response, Saving Lives – Automatic Vehicle Location Capabilities for Emergency Vehicles FHWA-JPO-99-003 Enhancing Public Safety, Saving Lives – Emergency Vehicle Preemption FHWA-JPO-99-002 Effects of Catastrophic Events on Transportation Systems Management and Operations: Howard Street Tunnel Fire Baltimore City Web publication only Effects of Catastrophic Events on Transportation Systems Management and Operations: Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994 Web publication only Effects of Catastrophic Events on Transportation Systems Management and Operations: Cross-Cutting Study Web publication only Emergency Transportation Operations Planning Documents Not yet published Additional Emergency Transportation Operations - Prevention Not yet published Additional Emergency Transportation Operations - Preparedness Not yet published Additional Emergency Transportation Operations - Response Not yet published Additional Emergency Transportation Operations - Recovery Not yet published Additional Emergency Transportation Operations - Additional Resources Not yet published

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 84 Carless Evacuation Bibliography 1. AARP. (2006a) AARP Offers Tips to Help Older Americans Prepare for Emergencies. New Release, Accessed 6 September 2006. http://www.aarp.org/research/presscenter/press currentnews/preparing_for_emergencies.html 2. AARP. (2006b) We Can Do Better: Lessons Learned for Protecting Older Persons in Disasters. American Association of Retired Persons. http://www.aarp.org 3. Access Board. (2005) Resources on Emergency Evacuation and Disaster Preparedness. Access Board. http://www.access-board.gov/evac.htm 4. Adler, M. D. (2006) Equity Analysis and Natural Hazards Policy. On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. R. J. Daniels, Kettl, D.F., and Kunreuther, H. Philadelphia, University of Philadelphia Press. 5. Altman, Drew, John M. Benson, Robert J. Blendon, Brodie Mollyann, and Erin Weltzien. (2006) Experiences of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees in Houston Shelters: Implications for Future Planning. American Journal of Public Health. 96.8: 1402-08. 6. American Highway Users Alliance AHUA. (2006) American Highway Users Alliance Emergency Evacuation Report Card 2006. Washington, D.C.: American Highway Users Alliance, October. Accessed March 29 2007 from http://www.highways.org/pdfs/evacuation_report_card2006.pdf 7. American Public Transportation Association. (2001) Checklists For Emergency Response Planning and System Security, American Public Transit Association (www.apta.com/services/safety/checklist.htm). 8. Arens, Yigal and Paul S. Rosenbloom. (2003) Viewpoint - Responding to the Unexpected: How IT can help prepare for future attacks and disasters. Communications of the ACM. 46, no. 9: 33. 9. Balog, John N., Annabelle Boyd, Jim Caton, Peter N. Bromley, Jane Beth Strongin, David Chia and Kathleen Bagdonas. (2005). Public Transportation Security: Volume 7: Public Transportation Emergency Mobilization and Emergency Operations Guide. Transit Cooperative Research Project, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_86v7.pdf. 10. Ban, Jeff X., Henry X. Liu, Wenteng Ma, and Pitu B. Mirchandani. (2007) Model Reference Adaptive Control Framework for Real-Time Traffic Management under Emergency Evacuation. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 133.1: 43-50. 11. Barton, A. H. (1969) Communities in Disaster: A Sociological Analysis of Collective Stress Situations. Garden City, Doubleday. 12. Bateman, Julie M. and Bob Edwards. (2002) Gender and Evacuation: A Closer Look at Why Women Are More Likely to Evacuate for Hurricanes, Natural Hazards Review, August, pp. 107-117. 13. Bates, F., C. Fogelman, et al. (1963) The Social and Psychological Consequences of Natural Disaster. Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 85 14. Begley, S. (2005) Man-Made Mistakes Increase Devastation Of ‘Natural’ Disasters, Wall Street Journal, September 2, 2005; Page B1. 15. Benini, Janet. (2000) Transportation Resources in Disasters: The Role of the Office of Emergency Transportation. Edited Version of May 17, 2000 Transcript EIIP Virtual Forum Presentation. Accessed 29 March 2007 from http://www.emforum.org/vlibrary/transport.htm 16. Berdica, Katja. (2002) An Introduction to Road Vulnerability, Transport Policy, Vol. 9. No. 2 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol), April 2002, pp. 117-127. 17. Bernert, E. H. and F. Ikle (1952) Evacuation and Cohesion of Urban Groups. American Journal of Sociology. 58, 133-138. 18. Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, et al. (1994) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and Disaster. London, Routledge. 19. Bojer, H. (2003) Distributional Justice: Theory and Measurement. London: Routledge. 20. Bolin, R. C. (1993) Household and Community Recovery after Earthquakes. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder. 21. Bourne, Joel K. Jr. (2004) Gone With The Water, National Geographic (www.nationalgeographic.com) October 2004. 22. Boyd, Annabelle and John P. Sullivan. (1997) Synthesis of Transit Practice 27: Emergency Preparedness for Transit Terrorism. Washington, D.C.: Transit Cooperative Research Program of the Transportation Research Board National Research Council, National Academy Press. 23. Bring New Orleans Back Commission. (2006) Infrastructure Final Report, Public Transit. Accessed 15 March 2008, http://www.bringneworleansback.org 24. Bryan, Marguerite, and Dahlia V. Kirkpatrick. (2007) Hurricane Emergency Planning by Home Health Providers Serving the Poor. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 18: 299-314. 25. Burke, Jennifer M., Ken Lachlan, Mathew W. Seeger, and Patric R. Spence. (2007) Media Use and Information Needs of the Disabled During a Natural Disaster. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 18: 394-404. 26. Business Executives for National Security. (2007). Getting Down to Business: An Action Plan for Public-Private Disaster Response Coordination. The Report of the Business Response Task Force. January. Accessed 29 March 2007 from http://www.bens.org/Getting-Down-To-Business.pdf 27. Cameron, Carl. (2007) T. Emergency Preparedness for People with Disabilities and Other Special Needs: Another Look After Katrina. Center for Disability and Special Needs Preparedness. Accessed 10 July 2007, http://www.disabilitypreparedness.org 28. Chakraborty, Jayakit, Graham Tobin, & Burrell Montz. (2005) Population Evacuation: Assessing Spatial Variability in Geophysical Risk and Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. Natural Hazards Review. Vol. 6, No. 1.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 86 29. Chang, Gang-Len, Ying Liu, and Xiaorong Lai. (2006). Two-Level Integrated Optimization System for Planning of Emergency Evacuation. Journal of Transportation Engineering. 132.10: 800. 30. Chien, Steven I., and Vivek V. Korikanthimath. (2007) Analysis and Modeling of Simultaneous and Staged Emergency Evacuations. Journal of Transportation Engineering. 133.3: 190. 31. Church, Richard L., and Thomas J. Cova. (2000) Mapping Evacuation Risk on Transportation Networks Using a Spatial Optimization Model. Transportation Research Part C. 8: 322. 32. City of New Orleans. (2006). City Assisted Evacuation Plan. Office of Emergency Preparedness. Accessed 18 March 2008, http://www.cityofno.com/Portals/Portal46/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=38 33. City of New Orleans. (2007). City Assisted Evacuation Plan. Office of Emergency Preparedness. 34. Cochrane, H. (1975). Natural Disasters and Their Distributive Effects. Boulder, CO., Institute for Behavioral Sciences-University of Colorado. 35. Cova, T. J. and R. L. Church (1997). Modeling Community Evacuation Vulnerability using GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 11(8): 763-784. 36. Cutter, S. L. (2005). The Geography of Social Vulnerability: Race, Class, and Catastrophe. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/cutter 37. Cutter, Susan L., Jerry T. Mitchell, and Michael S. Scott. (2000) Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 90.4: 713-37. 38. Cutter, S. L., B. J. Boruff, et al. (2003) Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly. 84(1). 39. Daniels, R. J., Kettl, D.F., and Kunreuther, H., D. F. Kettl, et al. (2006). On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. 40. Decker, S. (2000) Data Needs for Decision Makers. Transportation Operations During Major Evacuations: Hurricane Workshop. Atlanta, GA. 41. Dow, Kirsten & Susan Cutter. (2002) Emerging Hurricane Evacuation Issues: Hurricane Floyd and South Carolina.” Natural Hazards Review Vol. 3, No. 1. 42. Dynes, Russell R. (1994) Situational Altruism: Toward an Explanation of Pathologies in Disaster Assistance, paper presented in Research Committee #39--Sociology of Disasters, XIII World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany, 18-23 July. 43. Dynes, Russell R. (1970) "Organizational Involvement and Changes in Community Structure in Disaster" American Behavioral Scientist 13: 430-439. 44. Dynes, Russell R. (1970) “Organized Behavior in Disaster.” Heath Lexington Books. 45. Federal Emergency Management Association. (1997) Multihazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. Washington, D.C.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 87 46. Federal Transit Administration. (2005) National Transit Database, Data Tables for 2003 National Transit Database Report Year. Washington, D.C.: FTA. 47. Federal Transit Administration. (2006). Disaster Response and Recovery Resource for Transit Agencies. Federal Transit Administration. http://www.transit- safety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/safety/DisasterResponse/PDF/DisasterResponse.pdf 48. Federal Transit Administration (2007). Transportation Equity in Emergencies: A Review of the Practices of State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Transit Agencies in 20 Metropolitan Areas, Office of Civil Rights, Available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/civil_rights_6343.html. 49. First Coast MPO (2004). Long Range Transportation Plan Update. Jacksonville, FL. 50. Fischett, Mark. (2001), Drowning New Orleans, Scientific American (www.sciam.com), Oct. 51. Flynn, J., P. Slovic, et al. (1994). Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks. Risk Analysis. 14. 52. Foster, H. (1993) Resilience theory and system evaluation. in J.A. Wise, V.D. Hopkin V D and P. Stager (editors), Verification and Validation of Complex Systems: Human Factor Issues, NATO Advanced Science Institutes, Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 110, Springer Verlag (New York), pp.35-60. 53. Foster, Harold. (1995), Disaster Mitigation: The Role of Resilience, in D. Etkin (editor) Proceedings of a Tri-lateral Workshop on Natural Hazards, Merrickville, ON, pp. 93-108. 54. Foster, Harold. (1997), The Ozymandias Principles, Southdowne Press, UBC (www.hdfoster.com). 55. Fothergill, A. (1996) Gender, Risk, and Disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 14(1): 33-55. 56. Fothergill, A. and L. A. Peek. (2004) Poverty and Disasters in the United States: A Review of Recent Sociological Findings. Natural Hazards. 32. 57. Fothergill, A., et al. (1999) Race, Ethnicity and Disasters in the United States: A Review of the Literature. Disasters. 23. 58. Geis, D. (1997) Disaster Resistant Communities: A Community-Based Approach to Hazard Mitigation. The Central United States Earthquake Consortium Journal. 4(1): 1-2. 59. Giuliano, Genevieve and Jacqueline Golog (1998), Impacts of Northridge Earthquake on Transit and Highway Use, Journal of Transport. Statistics, Vol. 1, No. 2 (www.bts.gov), May 1998, pp. 1-20. 60. Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council (2007) 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Erie and Niagara Counties Region. Buffalo, New York. 61. Guillette, E. A. (1993) The Role of the Aged in Community Recovery following Hurricane Andrew, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 88 62. Gundel, S. (2005) Towards a New Typology of Crises. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 13(3): 106-115. 63. Hartman, Chester and Gregory D. Squires (eds). (2006) There Is No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster: Race, Class, and Katrina. New York: Routledge. 64. Hess, Daniel Baldwin and Gotham, Julie C. (2007) Multi-Modal Mass Evacuation in Upstate New York: A Review of Disaster Plans. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Vol. 4: Iss. 3, Article 11. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol4/iss3/11 65. Higgins, Laura L., Mark D. Hickman, and Cynthia A. Weatherby (1999). Role of Public Transportation Operations in Emergency Management: Research Report. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas. 66. Homer-Dixon, Thomas (2007) The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 67. Hughes, Polly R. (2007) Registration lagging for evacuation help; Officials hope those in need won't wait until the next hurricane to seek assistance. The Houston Chronicle. 7 July: 1A. 68. Husdal, J. (2004). Why reliability and vulnerability should be an issue in road development projects. Samferdsel: Journal of the Norwegian Institute of Transport Economics http://www.toi.no/samferdsel and http://www.husdal.com 69. Iannuzziello, Angela. (2001). Communicating With Persons With Disabilities In A Multimodal Transit Environment, Transit Cooperative Research Program TCRP Synthesis 37, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 70. Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities (ICCEPID) (2008). Accessed 11 April 2008, http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/committees/editorial_0591.shtm 71. Jenkins, Pamela, Shirley Laska, and Gretchen Williamson (2007) Connecting Future Evacuation to Current Recovery: Saving the Lives of Older People in the Next Catastrophe. Generations, Vol. 31, No. 4: pp 49-52. 72. Jenkins, R., B. Smith, et al. (2000) Lessons Learned About Transportation Operations During Major Evacuations. Transportation Operations During Major Evacuations: Hurricane Workshop. Atlanta, GA. 73. Kettl, Donald F. (2006), The Worst Is Yet to Come: Lessons from September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, Fels Institute of Government, University of Pennsylvania (www.fels.upenn.edu/fgrs_reports.htm#05-01). 74. Kim, Sangho, Shashi Shekhar, and Jeffrey Wolff. (2007) Software Tools to Compare Transportation Modes for Car-less Evacuation. National Conference on Disaster Planning for the Carless Society, New Orleans, LA. 75. Kunzelman, Michael. (2007) Costs of buses triples for state's hurricane evacuation plan. The Associate Press State and Local Wire. 1 June 2007, Accessed via LexisNexis Academic, 12 August 2007, http://web.lexis-nexis.com

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 89 76. Laska, Shirley, and Betty Morrow. (2006) Social Vulnerabilities and Hurricane Katrina: An Unnatural Disaster in New Orleans. Journal of the Marine Technology Society 16–26 (2007). 77. Levinson, Jay and Hayim Granot. (2002). Transportation disaster response handbook. New York and San Diego: Academic Press. 78. Lindell, Michael, Jing-Chein Lu, & Carla Prater. (2005). “Household Decision Making and Evacuation in Response to Hurricane Lili.” Natural Hazards Review Vol. 6, No. 4. 79. Litman, Todd. (2006) “Lessons From Katrina and Rita: What Major Disasters Can Teach Transportation Planners,” Journal of Transportation Engineering (http://scitation.aip.org/teo), Vol. 132, January 2006, pp. 11-18; also presented at the 85th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January, 2006; at www.vtpi.org/katrina.pdf. 80. Litman, T., Blair, R., Demopoulos, B., Eddy, N., Fritzel, A., Laidlaw, D., Maddox, H., Forster, K., (2002), Pedestrian and bicycle planning: A guide to best practice, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, Canada. 81. Liu, Rongfang (Rachel) and Hindy Lauer Schachter. (2007) Emergency Response Plans and Needs of Communities with Limited English Proficiency. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2013, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 1–7. 82. Liu, R., and H. L. Schachter. (2004) Assessing Mobility Information Needs of Limited English Proficiency Travelers in New Jersey. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 83. Lockwood, Stephen, John O’Laughlin, David Keever, and Karen Weiss. (2005). Surface Transportation Security, Volume 6: Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 525, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_525v6.pdf. [Also in Bibliography for NCHRP 20-59 (32), above] 84. Lui, Meizhu, Emma Dixon and Betsy Leondard-Wright (2006) Stalling the Dream: Cars, Race and Hurricane Evacuation, United for a Fair Economy, Boston, MA. 85. Martin, S.T. (2005) Can We Learn from Cuba’s Lesson. St. Petersburg Times, 9 September 2005, Accessed 8 August 2007 at http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/09/Worldandnation/Can_we_learn_from_Cub.shtml 86. McKerlie, D. (1989) Equality and Time. Ethics 99. 87. Meyer, Michael D. (2002) The Role of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) In Preparing for Security Incidents and Transportation System Response. AMPO Web site: http://www.planning.dot.gov/Documents/Securitypaper.htm. 88. Mileti, D., T. Drabek, et al. (1975). Human Behavior in Extreme Environments. Boulder, CO., Institute for Behavioral Sciences-University of Colorado. 89. Moore, Martha T. (2005) States Review Evacuation Plans for the Elderly, the Disabled." USA Today 30 Dec. 2005: 4a.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 90 90. Moore, H. (1958). Tornadoes Over Texas. Austin, University of Texas Press. 91. Morduch, J. (1994). Poverty and Vulnerability. American Economic Review. 84. 92. Morlok, Edward K. and David J. Chang (2004), Measuring Capacity Flexibility of a Transportation System, Transportation Research A, Vol. 38, No. 6 (www.elsevier.com), July 2004, pp. 405-420. 93. Morrow, B.H. (2002) Community Rebuilding since Hurricane Andrew. National Hurricane Conference, Orlando, FL. April. 94. Morrow, B. H. (1999) Identifying and Mapping Community Vulnerability. Disasters. 23.1: 1-18. 95. Morrow, B. H. (1997) Stretching the Bonds: The Families of Andrew. Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters. W. G. Peacock, B. H. Morrow and H. Gladwin. London, Routledge. 96. Nagel, T. (1991) Equality and Partiality. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 97. National Council on Disability. (2005) Saving Lives: Including People with Disabilities in 98. Emergency Planning. Available at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/saving_lives.htm 99. New Orleans Regional Planning Commission (2005) Unified Work Plan, New Orleans, LA. 100. New York City (2007) Ready New York: Preparing For Emergencies In New York City. Office of Emergency Management, City of New York. Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloads/pdf/household_guide.pdf 101. North Central Texas Council of Governments (2005) Unified Work Program, Arlington, TX. 102. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (2006) Unified Planning Work Program, Newark, NJ. 103. Okasaki, N.W. (2003) Improving transportation response and security following a disaster. ITE Journal. 71.7: 30-32. 104. Oliver-Smith, A. (1986) The Martyred City: Death and Rebirth in the Andes. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. 105. Olsen, M. (1970) Social and Political Participation of Blacks. American Sociological Review 35: 682-697. 106. Pal, Akhilesh, Andrew J. Graettinger, and Michael H. Triche. (2003) Emergency Evacuation Modeling Based On Geographical Information System Data. Paper Presented at the Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, Washington, D.C. 107. Palm Beach County (2007) Special Care Unit and Special Needs Shelter, http://www.pbcgov.com/pubsafety/EOC/scu2.htm, accessed on April 24, 2007. 108. Peacock, W. G. and E. Enarson (1994) Assessing a Community Recovery Function for the ARC Disaster Response Plan. Alexandria, American Red Cross Hurricane Andrew Recovery Project.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 91 109. Pedersen, Neil J. (1999), Multimodal Transportation Planning at the State Level State of the Practice and Future Issues, A1D01: Committee on Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00076.pdf). 110. Perry, Ronald W. and Marjorie R. Green (1982) The Role of Ethnicity in the Emergency Decision-Making Process. Sociological Inquiry, Vol.52, No.4: 307-334. 111. Phillips, B. D. (1993) Cultural Diversity in Disasters: Sheltering, Housing, and Long Term Recovery. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 11. 112. Pires, Thiago T. (2005) An Approach for Modeling Human Cognitive Behavior in Evacuation Models. Fire Safety Journal. 40: 177-89. 113. Pojman, L. P. and R. Westmoreland (1997). Equality: Selected Readings. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 114. Quarantelli, E. L. (1995). What is a Disaster? International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 13(3): 221-230. 115. Quarantelli, E. L. (1997). Ten Criteria for Evaluating the Management of Community Disasters. Disasters 21. 116. Raphael, Steven and Alan Berube. (2006). Socioeconomic Differences in Household Ownership Rates: Implications for Evacuation Policy. 117. Renne, John. (2006). Evacuation and Equity: A Post-Katrina New Orleans Diary, Planning, May. 118. Riccardi, Nicholas and James Rainey (2005). Save Yourself: New Orleans Had A Plan To Warn The Poor, But It Sat On A Shelf In L.A., Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com), 13 Sept. 2005. 119. Rife, Judy. (2006). Improving the Lincoln Tunnel’s Bus Lane in New York, Mass Transit <http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=1729>Accessed 27 October 2006. 120. RMC (1993). Crowd Control & Event Management: Crowd control and event management requires careful planning. Health and Safety Executive IND (G) 142L C1000 293 (www.equicross.us/crowD.C.ontrol.htm). 121. San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (2005). Regional Transportation Plan, San Francisco, CA. 122. Scanlon, Joseph. (2003). Transportation in emergencies: an often neglected story. Disaster Prevention and Management Volume 12, Number 5, pp. 428-437. 123. Schwartz, Michael and Todd Litman (2008), Evacuation Station: The Use of Public Transportation in Emergency Management Planning, ITE Journal on the Web, (www.ite.org), pp. 69-73; at www.vtpi.org/evacuation.pdf. [Also in Bibliography for NCHRP 20-59 (32), above] 124. Schachter, Hindy Lauer and Rachel Liu. (2005). Policy Development and New Immigrant Communities: A Case Study of Citizen Input in Defining Transit Problems. Public Administration Review 65(5):614-623.

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 92 125. Setzer, Michael (2007). What to Expect from Your Public Transportation Provider in a Disaster Scenario, Proceedings of the National Conference on Disaster Planning for the Carless Society, 8 February 2007. [Accessed 9 April 2008 at: http://www.carlessevacuation.org] 126. Sharon, Begley. (2005) Modeling, Simulations Can Help a City Offer More Efficient Exodus. Wall Street Journal 30 Sept.: B1. 127. Sisiopiku, Virginia P. (2007) Application of Traffic Simulation Modeling for Improved Emergency Preparedness Planning. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 133.1: 51. [Also in Bibliography for NCHRP 20-59 (32), above] 128. Stallings, R. A. and E. L. Quarantelli (1985). Emergent Citizen Groups and Emergency Management. Public Administration Review 45. 129. Steinebaker, Joe. (2007) Authorities plan hurricane evacuation of Rio Grande Valley. The Associate Press State and Local Wire 9 May 2007. LexisNexis Academic. University of New Orleans. 12 Aug. 2007 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/>. 130. Stubblefield, H. (2000). Public Safety's Role in Contraflow Evacuations. Transportation Operations During Major Evacuations: Hurricane Workshop. Atlanta, GA. 131. Swisher, Ralph. (2000). Community & Family Preparedness Conference 2000 Overview. Edited Version of August 30, 2000 Transcript EIIP Virtual Forum Presentation. Retrieved March 30 2007 from http://www.emforum.org/vlibrary/aware.htm 132. Taylor, A.J.W. (1989) Disasters and Disaster Stress, AMS Press, New York. 133. Urbina, E. and B. Wolshon. (2003) National Review of Hurricane Evacuation Plans and Policies: A Comparison and Contrast of State Practices. Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 257-275. [Also in Bibliography for NCHRP 20-59 (32), above] 134. U.S. Census Bureau (2007) Facts for Features: Americans with Disabilities Act: July 26. 29 May 2007. 8 July 2007 <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2007/cb07ff-10.pdf>. 135. US Census Bureau. (2007) Population pyramids and demographic summary indicators for U.S. Regions and Divisions. Washington, D.C. <http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/regdivpyramid.html>. 136. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2006) Nationwide Plan Review Phase 1 Report, Washington, D.C. 137. U.S. Department of Transportation (2005). Effects Of Catastrophic Events On Transportation System Management And Operations: New York City- September 11. U.S. Department of Transportation; at www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_te/14129.htm. 138. U.S. Department of Transportation. (1994) Federal Transit Administration. Transit System Security Program Planning Guide, Transit Security Procedures Guide Research and Special Programs Administration Final Report. 139. U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2006). Congress on Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation: A Report to Congress,

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 93 June 1, 2006. At http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/hurricanevacuation. [Also in Bibliography for NCHRP 20-59 (32), above] 140. U. S. Government Accountability Office, (2006) Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations (GAO-07-44), Report to Congressional Committees, December. 141. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations (GAO-07-44), Washington, D.C.: Author. 142. Wallrich, Burt. (2005). Disaster Warnings: The Problem of the Last Step Reaching the Hardest-to-Reach With Critical Information. Conference Proceedings of Virtual Symposium, Early Warning Systems – Interdisciplinary Observations and Policies from a Local Government Perspective. Public Entity Risk Institute. Accessed April 2007 from https://www.riskinstitute.org/peri/images/file/PERI_Symposium_Wallrich.pdf 143. Walter Gillis Peacock, Betty Hearn Morrow, and Hugh Gladwin (eds). (1997). Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, gender and the sociology of disasters. London and New York: Routledge. 144. Weikel, Dan. (2006) They've Got a Ticket to Ride. Los Angeles Times 8 Oct., home edition ed.: 1. 145. White, G. W., Fox, M. H., Rooney, C., & Cahill, A. (2007). Assessing the impact of Hurricane Katrina on persons with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas, The Research and Training Center on Independent Living. 146. White, G. and G. Haas (1975). Assessments of Research on Natural Hazards. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. 147. Willegen, Marieke, Bob Edwards, Stephanie Lormand, and Ken Wilson. (2005). Comparative Assessment of Impacts and Recovery from Hurricane Floyd among Student and Community Households. Natural Hazards Review Vol. 6, No. 4. 148. Wilmot, C. G. (2004). Data Collection Related to Emergency Events. The International Steering Committee for Travel Survey Conferences', 7th International Conference on Travel Survey Methods. Costa Rica. 149. Wilmot, Chester G. and Bing Mei. (2004). Comparison of Alternative Trip Generation Models for Hurricane Evacuation, Natural Hazards Review, November, pp. 170-178. [Also in Bibliography for NCHRP 20-59 (32), above] 150. Wilson, Frank. (2005). Houston METRO's Hurricane Squared Response, Passenger Transport, 24 Oct. 2005. 151. Wolshon, Brian. (2007) Micro-level Simulation of Regional Multimodal Evacuations: A New Orleans Case Study. Delivered at National Conference on Disaster Planning for the Carless Society, Feb 9. 152. Wolshon, Brian. (2001). One-Way-Out: Contraflow Freeway Operation for Hurricane Evacuation. Natural Hazards Review Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 105-112. [Also in Bibliography for NCHRP 20-59 (32), above]

NCHRP 20-59 (32) A Transportation Guide to All-Hazards Evacuation Final Report 94 153. Wolshon, B. (2007) Contraflow for Evacuation Traffic Management, Encyclopedia of Geographical Information Science, New York: Springer Publishing Inc. 154. Wolshon, B. (2002) Planning for the Evacuation of New Orleans, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, February 2002, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 44-49. 155. Wolshon, Brian and Brandy Hicks Meehan. (2003). Emergency Evacuation: Ensuring Safe and Efficient Transportation out of Endangered Areas. TR News 224 January-February. 156. Wolshon, Brian. (2008a). Empirical Characterization of Mass Evacuation Traffic Flow, Transportation Research Record - The Journal of Transportation Research Board, (forthcoming). [Also in Bibliography for NCHRP 20-59 (32), above] 157. Wolshon B. and B. McArdle, Temporospatial Analysis of Hurricane Katrina Regional Evacuation Traffic Patterns, ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems – Special Infrastructure Planning, Design, and Management for Big Events Issue, (forthcoming). [Also in Bibliography for NCHRP 20-59 (32), above] 158. Wolshon, Brian and Brandy Hicks Meehan. (2003). Emergency Evacuation: Ensuring Safe and Efficient Transportation out of Endangered Areas. TR News 224 January-February. 159. Wolshon, Brian, Elba Urbina, and Marc Levitan. (2001). National Review of Hurricane Evacuation Plans and Policies. LSU Hurricane Center. 160. Wolshon, Brian, Elba Urbina, Chester Wilmot, & Marc Levitan. (2005). Review of Policies and Practices for Hurricane Evacuation. I: Transportation Planning, Preparedness, and Response. Natural Hazards Review Vol. 6, No. 1. 161. Wolshon, B., J. Lefante, H. Naghawi, J. Renne, P. Haughey, and W. Dufour. (2008) Application of TRANSIMS for the Multimodal Microscale Simulation of the New Orleans Emergency Evacuation Plan, Draft Final Report, United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 162. Zelinsky, Wilbur & Leszek Kosinsky. (1991). The Emergency Evacuation of Cities: A Cross-National Historical and Geographical Study. Savage, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 163. Zimmerman, R., C. Restrepo, B. Nagorsky, and A. Culpen. (2007). Vulnerability of the Elderly during Natural Hazard Events, Proceeding of the Hazards and Disasters Researchers Meeting, Boulder, Colorado, July 11-12, 2007, pp. 38 – 40.