Security Classif Clause Samples
Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 113 22. Price Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized Many representatives from the Seattle/LWC Urban partnership agencies as well as the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration regional offices provided much appreciated support to the national evaluation team’s efforts to develop this plan. The efforts of the following individuals were particularly instrumental in collecting the technical information needed to develop the evaluation plan and their assistance is recognized and appreciated: ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Washington State Department of Transportation; ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ County; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Puget Sound Regional Council; and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Engineering (consultant to Washington State Department of Transportation). Background vii The Seattle/LWC UPA viii Evaluation Analyses and Test Plans ix Next Steps xii
Security Classif. (of this report) Un-classified 20. Security Classif. (of this page) Un-classified 21. No. of Pages 59 22. Price Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 92 22. Price Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized Many individuals from the San Francisco partnership were helpful during the course of development of the evaluation plan. The following individuals were particularly instrumental in providing information and insight and their contribution is both recognized and appreciated: ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the San Francisco County Transportation Agency; and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Background vii The San Francisco UPA vii Evaluation Analyses and Test Plans x Next Steps xii
Security Classif. (of this report) 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this page) 21. NO. OF PAGES 22.
Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified 20. Security Classif. (of this page)Unclassified 21. No. of Pages 16 22. Price This publication is based on the results of ICT-R27-95, Field Evaluation of Smart Sensor Vehicle Detectors at Intersections and Railroad Crossings. ICT-R27-95 was conducted in cooperation with the Illinois Center for Transportation; the Illinois Department of Transportation; the Illinois Commerce Commission; and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Members of the Technical Review Panel are the following: ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, IDOT (Chair) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ICC (Co-chair) ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, IDOT ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, IDOT ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, IDOT ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, IDOT ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, IDOT ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, FHWA The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Illinois Center for Transportation, the Illinois Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trademark or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of this document and do not constitute an endorsement of product by the Federal Highway Administration, the Illinois Department of Transportation, or the Illinois Center for Transportation.