DOCSLIB.ORG

Traffic Impact of an Inland Port in Hampton Roads

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Traffic Impact of an Inland Port in Hampton Roads TrafficTraffic ImpactImpact ofof anan InlandInland PortPort inin HamptonHampton RoadsRoads TPO T11-07 TTPORANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION September 2011 HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION VOTING MEMBERS Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary CHESAPEAKE POQUOSON Alan P. Krasnoff W. Eugene Hunt, Jr. GLOUCESTER COUNTY PORTSMOUTH Christian D. Rilee Kenneth I. Wright HAMPTON SUFFOLK Molly J. Ward Linda T. Johnson ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY VIRGINIA BEACH Stan D. Clark William D. Sessoms, Jr. JAMES CITY COUNTY WILLIAMSBURG Bruce C. Goodson Clyde A. Haulman NEWPORT NEWS YORK COUNTY McKinley Price Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. NORFOLK Paul D. Fraim MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA SENATE The Honorable John C. Miller The Honorable Yvonne B. Miller MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES The Honorable G. Glenn Oder The Honorable John A. Cosgrove TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS Philip A. Shucet, President/Chief Executive Officer WILLIAMSBURG AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Mark D. Rickards, Executive Director VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Dennis W. Heuer, District Administrator – Hampton Roads District VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Amy Inman, Manager of Transit Planning VIRGINIA PORT AUTHORITY Jerry A. Bridges, Executive Director HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION NON-VOTING MEMBERS CHESAPEAKE JAMES CITY COUNTY PORTSMOUTH William E. Harrell Robert C. Middaugh Kenneth L. Chandler GLOUCESTER COUNTY NEWPORT NEWS SUFFOLK Brenda G. Garton Neil A. Morgan Selena Cuffee-Glenn HAMPTON NORFOLK VIRGINIA BEACH Mary Bunting Marcus Jones James K. Spore ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY POQUOSON WILLIAMSBURG W. Douglas Caskey J. Randall Wheeler Jackson C. Tuttle YORK COUNTY James O. McReynolds FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Irene Rico, Division Administrator – Virginia Division FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Letitia A. Thompson, Regional Administrator, Region 3 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Jeffrey W. Breeden, Airport Planner, Washington Airports District Office VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION Randall P. Burdette, Director PENINSULA AIRPORT COMMISSION Ken Spirito, Executive Director NORFOLK AIRPORT AUTHORITY Wayne E. Shank, Executive Director CHAIR – CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE William W. Harrison, Jr. CHAIR – FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Bell, Co-Chair (Nonvoting Board Member) Stan D. Clark, Co-Chair (Voting Board Member) MILITARY LIAISONS Mary Jackson, Captain, U.S. Navy Mark S. Ogle, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard PROJECT STAFF Camelia Ravanbakht, Ph.D. Deputy Executive Director, HRTPO Robert B. Case, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer Keith Nichols, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer Stephanie L. Shealey Transportation Engineer Michael Long Assistant General Service Manager Kathlene Grauberger Administrative Assistant II Christopher Vaigneur Reprographics Coordinator TRAFFIC IMPACT OF AN INLAND PORT IN HAMPTON ROADS PREPARED BY: SEPTEMBER 2011 T11-07 Report Documentation TITLE: REPORT DATE: Traffic Impact of an Inland Port September 2011 in Hampton Roads GRANT/SPONSORING AGENCY: FHWA/VDOT/LOCAL FUNDS AUTHORS: Keith M. Nichols, PE ORGANIZATION NAME, ADDRESS, & Stephanie L. Shealey TELEPHONE Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization PROJECT MANAGER: 723 Woodlake Drive Keith M. Nichols, PE Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 757.420.8300 http://www.hrtpo.org ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Port of Virginia, which currently ranks as the This report was prepared by the Hampton Roads third largest container port on the East Coast, is one Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) in of the largest drivers of the Hampton Roads and cooperation with the U.S. Department of Virginia economies. The Port has many advantages Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Highway over other competing ports, but one disadvantage is Administration (FHWA), and the Virginia regional roadway congestion. Hampton Roads has Department of Transportation (VDOT). The some of the worst congestion in the country, and the contents of this report reflect the views of the majority of containers that pass through the Port of HRTPO. The HRTPO staff is responsible for the facts Virginia are transported by truck. These trucks are and accuracy of the data presented herein. The not only impacted by regional congestion but contents do not necessarily reflect the official views contribute to it as well. With freight volumes or policies of the FHWA or VDOT. This report does expected to grow significantly, trucks will further not constitute a standard, specification, or contribute to and be impacted by roadway regulation. FHWA or VDOT acceptance of this congestion in the future. planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any One possible solution to decrease the amount of recommended improvements nor does is constitute truck travel in the region and help relieve congestion the approval of their location and design or a is to construct an inland port to the west of the commitment to fund any such improvements. congested areas of Hampton Roads. An inland port Additional project level environmental impact is an intermodal container transfer facility situated assessments and/or studies of alternative may be at a satellite location away from the marine necessary. terminals where containers are taken by rail or barge and are then sorted for transport inland by trucks, or vice-versa. An inland port could divert some trucks from the congested urbanized areas of Hampton Roads. This study examines the impacts that an inland port to the west of Hampton Roads would have on roadway travel and congestion, both today and in the future, throughout the region. Traffic Impact of an Inland Port in Hampton Roads Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 The Port of Virginia ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Norfolk International Terminals ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Portsmouth Marine Terminal .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Newport News Marine Terminal ............................................................................................................................................. 5 APM Terminals ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Transportation Network Serving the Port ................................................................................................................................... 7 Rail Network ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Roadway Network .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Barge Service ............................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Port Statistics ................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Regional Truck Volumes and Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 13 Truck Travel in Hampton Roads ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Truck Travel In and Out of Hampton Roads ........................................................................................................................ 14 Truck Volumes by Location ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 Port Truck Travel ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Existing Traffic Conditions .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Future Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23 The Port of Virginia ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Future Traffic Conditions ...........................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lakes Port & Harbor: Infrastructure & Dredging Cost Estimate Matrix Tool
    Great Lakes Port & Harbor: Infrastructure & Dredging Cost Estimate Matrix Tool and Duluth, MN/Superior, WI and Toledo, OH Case Studies Gene Clark1 and Dale Bergeron2 1 WI Sea Grant [email protected] 2 MN Sea Grant dbergeron@ d.umn.edu Defining the parameters of the Matrix Great Lakes ports, harbors and marinas are vulnerable to several potential climate change impacts. The two major impacts most relevant and potentially most costly are water level and storm intensity. Both rising and falling water levels can impact infrastructure stability and overall strength, as well as requiring additional channel dredging. A climatic change resulting in an increase in severe storms (more precipitation, higher winds and greater number of storm events) is also viewed as having detrimental affects on infrastructure. More severe storms can create larger waves, more extreme Seiche events and greater storm-surges that can damage port and harbor infrastructure requiring costly rehabilitation or replacement. In addition to infrastructure issues, an increased storm frequency and intensity will increase channel silting and sedimentation, compounding dredging problems analogous to lower water level scenarios. Climate model predictions for specific weather outcomes vary greatly throughout the Great Lakes Basin, and include both higher and lower water levels scenarios. However, all predictions seem to include an increase in both the number and intensity of major storm events. This combination can result in unanticipated water level change, larger waves, more dramatic Seiches and greater storm surges than considered in original design parameters (all of this in addition to the antiquated and sometime dilapidated state of our Great Lakes infrastructure).
    [Show full text]
  • How Tomorrow Moves: CSX and the Port of Virginia Challenge: Significant Freight Growth Projected
    How Tomorrow Moves: CSX and the Port of Virginia Challenge: Significant Freight Growth Projected Virginia Commonwealth Population In millions 9.8 MILLION 8.0 7.1 MORE x 40 TONS 108 TONS Annual freight demand = per person Annual commonwealth freight demand increase from 2010- 2030 2000 2010 2030 Pollution Road & Rail Congestion Logistics Cost Figures according to the Federal Railroad Administration and the US Census Bureau. 222222 Challenge: Shifts in Global Trade are Driving Intermodal Flow to the East Coast Hampton Roads Suez Panama Canal Canal 333333 Challenge: Virginia, Mid-Atlantic Locked Out of CSX Double-Stack Freight Network Double-stacked trains can deliver more freight with fewer trains, dramatically increasing NW Ohio Boston efficiency while reducing rail Chicago Chambersburg line and highway congestion New York Baltimore CSX intermodal traffic to and St. Louis Hampton Roads from Hampton Roads largely limited to single-stack trains Charlotte due to clearance restrictions Memphis Wilmington Current CSX Double Stack Routes New Orleans Florida 444444 National Gateway: Meeting the Challenges 61 clearance projects and 6 new and enhanced terminals, Pittsburgh utilizing the latest technology, in NW Ohio (planned) Boston 6 states and DC Chicago Chambersburg New York Connects Virginia and the Port Baltimore to markets in the Midwest and St. Louis Columbus Southeast, opening new (planned) Baltimore Hampton Roads (planned) demand centers Charlotte (planned Memphis expansion) Wilmington New Orleans Florida 555555 Northwest Ohio Creates ‘Hub & Spoke’ Network Market(s) Benefits Near Term Service increase from 3 Cincinnati to 5 times weekly; reduction in transit time Boston Columbus Service increase from 3 Detroit to 5 times weekly NW Ohio Chambersburg New York Toledo New service Chicago Baltimore Evansville Enhanced service Long Term St.
    [Show full text]
  • All Aboard: the Aggregate Effects of Port Development
    All aboard: The aggregate effects of port development César Ducruet1, Réka Juhász2, Dávid Krisztián Nagy3, and Claudia Steinwender4 1CNRS 2Columbia University 3CREI, Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Barcelona GSE 4MIT Sloan ∗ July 3, 2019 Abstract This paper studies the distributional and aggregate economic effects of new port technologies developed in the second half of the 20th century. We show that new technologies have led to a significant reallocation of shipping activity from large to small cities. This was driven by a land price mechanism; as new port technologies are more land-intensive, ports moved from large, high land price cities to smaller, lower land price ones. We add endogenous port development to a standard quantitative model of cross- city trade to account for both the benefits and the costs of port development. According to the model, the adoption of new port technologies leads to benefits through increasing market access but is costly, requiring the extensive use of land, suggesting a reallocation of shipping activities towards cities with low land prices and thus net gains from new port technologies that are heterogeneous across cities. Counterfactual results suggest that new port technologies led to sizable aggregate gains for the world economy, with substantial heterogeneity in the effects across countries. More generally, accounting for the costs of port infrastructure development endogenously has the potential to alter the size and distribution of the gains from trade. ∗We thank David Atkin, Don Davis, Dave Donaldson, Joseph Doyle, Matt Grant, Gordon Hanson, Tom Holmes, Amit Khandelwal, Jim Rauch, Roberto Rigobon, Esteban Rossi-Hansberg and Tavneet Suri for helpful comments and discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Our Mission
    Kentucky Transportation Center Research Report KTC -14-11/MTIC1-14-1F Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Our Mission We provide services to the transportation community through research, technology transfer and education. We create and participate in partnerships to promote safe and effective transportation systems. © 2014 University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Center Information may not be used, reproduced, or republished without our written consent. Kentucky Transportation Center 176 Oliver H. Raymond Building Lexington, KY 40506-0281 (859) 257-4513 fax (859) 257-1815 www.ktc.uky.edu Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Prepared for: Multimodal Transportation & Infrastructure Consortium by the Kentucky Transportation Center 11/21/2014 This Page Left Intentionally Blank. Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Authors: Principal Investigator: Doug Kreis, PE, MBA, PMP Researcher(s): Sarah McCormack, MSc, CTL Research Engineer Christopher Van Dyke, MA Research Analyst Bryan Gibson, PhD Research Associate Multimodal Transportation and Infrastructure Consortium P.O. Box 5425 Huntington, WV 25703-0425 Phone: (304) 696-2313 • Fax: (304) 696-6088 Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes
    [Show full text]
  • SEASONS: the 2012 Annual Report for the City of Greer
    TEAM GREER SEASONS: The 2012 Annual Report for the City of Greer The City of Greer, South Carolina Founded: 1876 Population: 25,515 (2010 Census) Government: Council City Administrator: Edward Driggers Mayor: Rick Danner City Council: Jay Arrowood Wayne Griffin* Kimberly Bookert Lee Dumas Wryley Bettis Judy Albert * - Mayor pro tempore Area: Total 21.76 square miles Land 19.99 square miles Water 1.77 square mile Elevation 1,024 ft. Departments: Administration Building and Development Standards Fire Municipal Court Parks and Recreation Police Public Services Fiscal Year 2012 Budget: $17,588,375 Greer City Council District Representatives DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 6 Jay Wayne Kimberly Lee Wryley Judy Arrowood Griffin Bookert Dumas Bettis Albert CONTENTS 9 6 New Map Caps Redistricting Process After seven months of work and public discussion about the 10 redistricting process, Greer City Council successfully completed the arduous task with the Department of Justice’s approval. 7 Transit Oriented Development 101 A national planner helped Upstate elected officials, planners, and residents consider the future of the Highway 29 corridor. 11 14 8 Students Connect with Upstate Soldiers Soldiers in Kosovo received a special Thanksgiving greeting from a group of young artists and wordsmiths in Greer. 9 Concussion Training for Coaches Injuries are nothing new to NFL players and concussions are at the top of the list. What happens when youth league 20 players emulate their heroes when it comes to taking hits? 10 City Website Among ‘Best of the Best’ Departmental Reports A new design and creative features helped the City of Greer 22 Finance website earn honors from the Horizon Interactive Awards.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I National Gateway Clearance Initiative Documentation
    Lead Agencies: Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation Cooperating Agencies: Phase I National Gateway Clearance Initiative epartment of Transportation Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) September 7, 2010 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation West Virginia Department of Transportation Table of Contents 1. Summary 1 1.1 History of the Initiative 1 1.2 Logical Termini 7 1.3 Need and Purpose 9 1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation 11 1.5 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement 18 1.5.1 Agency Coordination 18 1.5.2 Public Involvement 21 2. Need and Purpose of the Action 22 3. Context of the Action and Development of Alternatives 25 3.1 Overview 25 3.1.1 No Build Alternative 25 3.1.2 Proposed Action 26 3.2 Bridge Removal 26 3.3 Bridge Raising 27 3.4 Bridge Modification 27 3.5 Tunnel Liner Modification 28 3.6 Tunnel Open Cut 28 3.7 Excess Material Disposal 29 3.8 Grade Adjustment 29 3.9 Grade Crossing Closures/Modifications 30 3.10 Other Aspects 30 3.10.1 Interlocking 30 3.10.2 Modal Hubs 30 4. Impacts and Mitigation 31 4.1 Corridor-Wide Impacts 31 i Table of Contents 4.1.1 Right-of-Way 31 4.1.2 Community and Socio-Economic 31 4.1.2.1 Community Cohesion 31 4.1.2.2 Employment Opportunity 31 4.1.2.3 Environmental Justice 34 4.1.2.4 Public Health and Safety 35 4.1.3 Traffic 36 4.1.3.1 Maintenance of Traffic 36 4.1.3.2 Congestion Reduction 37 4.1.4 General Conformity Analysis 37 4.1.4.1 Regulatory Background 37 4.1.4.2 Evaluation 39 4.1.4.3 Construction Emissions 40 4.1.4.4 Conclusion
    [Show full text]
  • Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 2016 Annual Report
    Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 2016 Annual Report Genesee & Wyoming Inc.*owns or leases 122 freight railroads worldwide that are organized into 10 operating regions with approximately 7,300 employees and 3,000 customers. * The terms “Genesee & Wyoming,” “G&W,” “the company,” “we,” “our,” and “us” refer collectively to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliated companies. Financial Highlights Years Ended December 31 (In thousands, except per share amounts) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Statement of Operations Data Operating revenues $874,916 $1,568,643 $1,639,012 $2,000,401 $2,001,527 Operating income 190,322 380,188 421,571 384,261 289,612 Net income 52,433 271,296 261,006 225,037 141,096 Net income attributable to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 48,058 269,157 260,755 225,037 141,137 Diluted earnings per common share attributable to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. common stockholders: Diluted earnings per common share (EPS) $1.02 $4.79 $4.58 $3.89 $2.42 Weighted average shares - Diluted 51,316 56,679 56,972 57,848 58,256 Balance Sheet Data as of Period End Total assets $5,226,115 $5,319,821 $5,595,753 $6,703,082 $7,634,958 Total debt 1,858,135 1,624,712 1,615,449 2,281,751 2,359,453 Total equity 1,500,462 2,149,070 2,357,980 2,519,461 3,187,121 Operating Revenues Operating Income Net Income Diluted Earnings ($ In Millions) ($ In Millions) ($ In Millions) 421.61,2 Per Common Share 2 2,001.5 401.6 1 $2,000 2,000.4 $400 394.12 $275 271.3 $5.00 1 2 4.79 1 374.3 1 380.21 384.3 261.0 4.581 1,800 250 4.50 350 1,639.0 225.01 225 2 1 1,600 233.5 4.00 2 3.89 1,568.6 4.10 2 300 2 200 213.9 213.3 2 3.78 2 1,400 1 3.50 3.69 289.6 183.32 3.142 250 175 1,200 3.00 211.
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Lake Inland Port Market Assessment Authored By: Natalie Gochnour I Director, Kem C
    Research Brief August 2016 Salt Lake Inland Port Market Assessment Authored by: Natalie Gochnour I Director, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Table of Contents Executive Summary Executive Summary . 1 The World Trade Center Utah contracted with the Kem Background and History . 5 C . Gardner Policy Institute to prepare a preliminary as- Research Scope and Limitations . 6 sessment of the practicality and market context for the Essential Characteristics of an Inland Port . 6 development of an inland port in Salt Lake County . The Key Findings from Scoping Interviews . 7 Gardner Policy Institute researched background informa- Port Governance . 9 tion, reviewed past local studies, inventoried inland ports Public Incentives . .. 11 of interest, conducted scoping interviews, and prepared Market Characteristics .. 12 summary information on the technical feasibility of cre- Foreign Trade Zone Status and Privileges . 14 ating an inland port in Salt Lake County . This Executive Right to Work Laws . 14 Summary includes a summary of the key findings from Labor Market Conditions . 15 the data, research, and interviews . Required Infrastructure Improvements Key Findings and off-site Improvement Costs . 16 Next Steps . 18 Our research confirmed that Salt Lake County meets many of the essential criteria for developing an inland REFERENCES . 19 port . However, there are numerous issues that will require APPENDIX A . 20 additional data collection, analysis, public discussion, Summary of past studies and, ultimately, investment . APPENDIX B . 21 We have distilled our research down into 17 key findings: History of inland port policy discussion in Utah APPENDIX C . 22 1 . Significant nationwide interest in inland port de- Salt Lake County Global Cities Initiative and velopment—Logistics hubs that combine container - Regional Export Plan ized rail, trucking interchange, and warehousing and APPENDIX D .
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Port Zoning Modifications Per HB 2001
    Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Daniel Echeverria, [email protected], 801-535-7165 Tracy Tran, [email protected], 801-535-7645 Date: September 26, 2018 Re: PLNPCM2018-00601 Inland Port Text Amendments Zoning Text Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: Multiple PARCEL ID: Multiple MASTER PLAN: Northwest Quadrant, Northwest ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple REQUEST: A proposal by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to modify zoning requirements related to inland port land uses as required by Utah Code 11-58-205(5). This statute gives the City until December 31, 2018 to allow an inland port and associated uses as permitted or conditional uses subject to standards that are determined by the municipality and consistent with the policies and objectives of the inland port authority. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and findings of this report, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed zoning text amendments meet the standards for a zoning ordinance amendment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation of petition PLNPCM2018-00601 to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A. Inland Port Jurisdictional Lands and Zoning Map B. Proposed Inland Port Overlay Zoning Ordinance Text C. Northwest Quadrant Overlay Zoning for Reference D. Conditional Use Standards for Reference E. M-1 Zoning District Land Use Table for Reference F. Analysis of Standards G. Department Review Comments H. Suggested Lighting Ordinance (from David Scheer) I. Public Process and Comments SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLNPCM2018-00601 1 Date Published: 9/20/2018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This zoning text amendment proposal was initiated by Mayor Jackie Biskupski in response to the State Legislature adopting modifications to Utah Code 11-58 “Utah Inland Port Authority Act” (HB2001) during a special session of the legislature held in July 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 37 of Title 2.2 the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (Effective July 1, 2021)
    Chapter 37 of Title 2.2 The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (Effective July 1, 2021) 2.2-3700. Short title; policy 2.2-3701. Definitions 2.2-3702. Notice of chapter 2.2-3703. Public bodies and records to which chapter inapplicable; voter registration and election records; access by persons incarcerated in a state, local, or federal correctional facility 2.2-3703.1. Disclosure pursuant to court order or subpoena 2.2-3704. Public records to be open to inspection; procedure for requesting records and responding to request; charges; transfer of records for storage, etc. 2.2-3704.01. Records containing both excluded and nonexcluded information; duty to redact 2.2-3704.1. Posting of notice of rights and responsibilities by state and local public bodies; assistance by the Freedom of Information Advisory Council 2.2-3704.2. Public bodies to designate FOIA officer 2.2-3704.3. Training for local officials 2.2-3705. Repealed 2.2-3705.1. Exclusions to application of chapter; exclusions of general application to public bodies 2.2-3705.2. Exclusions to application of chapter; records relating to public safety 2.2-3705.3. Exclusions to application of chapter; records relating to administrative investigations 2.2-3705.4. Exclusions to application of chapter; educational records and certain records of educational institutions 2.2-3705.5. Exclusions to application of chapter; health and social services records 2.2-3705.6. (Effective until October 1, 2021) Exclusions to application of chapter; proprietary records and trade secrets 2.2-3705.6. (Effective October 1, 2021, until January 1, 2022) Exclusions to application of chapter; proprietary records and trade secrets 2.2-3705.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Unique Uses for Emissions Inventories in Maryland
    Unique Uses for Emissions Inventories in Maryland Roger Thunell, Chief AQ Planning Division, MDE – EPA EI Conference – August 2017 Welcome to Baltimore • During Your Visit • Crab Cakes • Microbrews • Burger Cookies • Camden Yards Focus on Three Topics • Use of CAMD data as a Regulatory Mechanism • Locomotive Survey • Temporal Improvements for Small EGUs in Modeling Inventories 3 CAMD Data as a Regulatory Mechanism • Focused on coal-fired EGUs with SCR or SNCR post-combustion controls • Baseline Starting Point - The year with the lowest recorded NOX emission rate for an entire ozone season • Using Daily CAMD data, compute the 123 30-day rolling averages for that ozone season. – (Ozone Season = 153 Days) 4 CAMD Data as a Regulatory Mechanism • Selected the highest maximum 30-day rolling average from this 123 value dataset. • This max 30-day rolling NOX emission rate represents an “achievable” emission rate for the unit – Some have referred to this as “optimization” of the unit. We would disagree and refer to it as “achievable” – Since the unit has demonstrated that it is capable of hitting this rate over an entire ozone season 5 CAMD Data as a Regulatory Mechanism • What can you do with this unit-specific “achievable” NOX rate – Design/Set permissible NOX rates per Unit • MDE has done this by setting “Indicator Rates” within our latest NOX regulation for coal-fired EGUs • The “Indicator Rates” are not identical to the “Achievable” rates but they are similar • Requires EGU owner/operators to explain why they were unable to meet the “Indicator
    [Show full text]
  • & International Trade Guide
    2017 HAMPTON ROADS MARITIME & International Trade Guide INSIDE: A caffeine buzz in Suffolk The future of offshore wind Newport News Shipbuilding to hire 3,000 more workers A new classPort prepares for bigger ships and more cargo Permit No. 516 No. Permit Richmond, VA Richmond, PAID US Postage US PRSRT STD PRSRT Change Service Requested Service Change 23219 VA Richmond, 100, Suite Street, Main E. 1207 Get your message to the people who matter most! 2017 Hampton Roads Statistical Digest Place your advertising message in our annual Hampton Roads Statistical Digest. The Digest has a long history as a valuable resource having been published by Virginia Business for over 35 years! Contact: Susan Horton [email protected] 757.625.4233 Get your message to the people who matter WAREHOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, LOGISTICS & FOREIGN TRADE ZONE most! Givens offers a Weekly Summary Entry Program that saves our Foreign Trade Zone 2017 Hampton Roads customers thousands of dollars per year in Statistical Digest entry and merchandise processing fees. Under Weekly Summary Entry procedures, the zone user files only one Customs Entry per week, rather than filing one Customs Entry per shipment. Customs no longer has to process an entry for each and every shipment being imported into the zone, and the Givens Foreign Trade Place your advertising message in Zone customer no longer has to pay for the our annual Hampton Roads processing of each and every entry. Statistical Digest. The Digest has a long history as a valuable We welcome the opportunity to show you resource having been published by Virginia Business for over how this program can also be a source of 35 years! significant new savings for you.
    [Show full text]