DOCSLIB.ORG

Best Practices in Maximizing Traffic Flow on Existing Highway Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Best Practices in Maximizing Traffic Flow on Existing Highway Facilities Scan Team Report NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 08-02 Best Practices In Maximizing Traffic Flow On Existing Highway Facilities Supported by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program August 2011 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 20-68A U.S. Domestic Scan, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. SPECIAL NOTE: This report IS NOT an official publication of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, or The National Academies. Acknowledgments The work described in this document was conducted as part of NCHRP Project 20-68A, the U.S. Domestic Scan program. This program was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), with funding provided through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state departments of transportation. Additional support for selected scans is provided by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and other agencies. The purpose of each scan and of Project 20-68A as a whole is to accelerate beneficial innovation by facilitating information sharing and technology exchange among the states and other transportation agencies, and identifying actionable items of common interest. Experience has shown that personal contact with new ideas and their application is a particularly valuable means for such sharing and exchange. A scan entails peer-to-peer discussions between practitioners who have implemented new practices and others who are able to disseminate knowledge of these new practices and their possible benefits to a broad audience of other users. Each scan addresses a single technical topic selected by AASHTO and the NCHRP 20-68A Project Panel. Further information on the NCHRP 20-68A U.S. Domestic Scan program is available at http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1570. This report was prepared by the scan team for Scan 08-02, Best Practices in Maximizing Traffic Flow on Existing Highway Facilities, whose members are listed below. Scan planning and logistics are managed by Arora and Associates, P.C.; Harry Capers is the Principal Investigator. NCHRP Project 20-68A is guided by a technical project panel and managed by Andrew C. Lemer, PhD, NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Ted Trepanier, Washington State DOT, AASHTO Co-chair Gregory Jones, FHWA Resource Center, FHWA Co-chair Mark Demidovich, PE, Georgia DOT Lee A. Nederveld, Michigan DOT Tony S. Abbo, PE, PTOE, New Mexico DOT Mike Pillsbury, PE, New Hampshire DOT Jeanne Acutanza, PE, CH2M HILL BEST PRACTICES IN MAXIMIZING TRAFFIC FLOW ON EXISTING HIGHWAY FACILITIES Disclaimer The information in this document was taken directly from the submission of the authors. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the scan team and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. This document has not been edited by the Transportation Research Board. Scan 08-02 Best Practices In Maximizing Traffic Flow On Existing Highway Facilities REQUESTED BY THE American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials PREPARED BY Ted Trepanier, Tony S. Abbo, PE, Washington State DOT, AASHTO Co-chair PTOE, New Mexico DOT Gregory Jones, Mike Pillsbury, PE, FHWA Resource Center, FHWA Co-chair New Hampshire DOT Mark Demidovich, PE, Jeanne Acutanza, PE, Georgia DOT CH2M HILL Lee A. Nederveld, Michigan DOT SCAN MANAGEMENT Arora and Associates, P.C. Lawrenceville, NJ August 2011 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 20 68A U.S. Domestic Scan, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. SPECIAL NOTE: This report IS NOT an official publication of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, or The National Academies. BEST PRACTICES IN MAXIMIZING TRAFFIC FLOW ON EXISTING HIGHWAY FACILITIES 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................................V Executive Summary................................................................................................................ ES-1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................ES-1 Scan Purpose and Scope............................................................................................................. ES-2 Summary of Findings and Recommendations...........................................................................ES-3 Recommendations....................................................................................................................... ES-5 Implementation...........................................................................................................................ES-6 1.0 Overview Background............................................................................................. 1-1 Background................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Objectives................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Scan Approach ...........................................................................................................................1-4 2.0 Host Agencies.............................................................................................................. 2-1 Northern Virginia......................................................................................................................2-3 Overview..............................................................................................................................2-3 Findings............................................................................................................................... 2-5 Maryland....................................................................................................................................2-6 Overview..............................................................................................................................2-6 Findings............................................................................................................................... 2-7 District of Columbia.................................................................................................................. 2-7 New Jersey.................................................................................................................................2-8 TRANSCOM........................................................................................................................ 2-8 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.................................................................... 2-9 New Jersey Turnpike Authority........................................................................................ 2-10 New Jersey DOT................................................................................................................. 2-10 Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota.............................................................................................. 2-11 Overview..............................................................................................................................2-11 Findings...............................................................................................................................2-12 California................................................................................................................................... 2-12 Overview..............................................................................................................................2-12 Findings............................................................................................................................... 2-15 Seattle, Washington.................................................................................................................. 2-15 Overview..............................................................................................................................2-15 Findings...............................................................................................................................2-15 INRIX ........................................................................................................................................2-16 I 3.0 Observations and Key Findings..............................................................................3-1 Strategies for Maximizing Traffic Flow....................................................................................3-1 Use of Shoulders as Lanes..................................................................................................3-1 Congestion Pricing/HOT Lanes..........................................................................................3-6 Traffic Smoothing................................................................................................................3-17 Real-Time Travel Management/Information.....................................................................3-23 Coordination of Construction Activity..............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RECEIV United States Department of the Interior National Park Service SE? 6 5 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form Hkiancpbbewl
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) RECEIV United States Department of the Interior National Park Service SE? 6 5 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form HKianCPBBEWl This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions ii National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each Item by marking "x" or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicab! tions. architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property________________________________________________ historic name New Market/Linvale-Snydertown Historic District_________ other names/site number ______________________________________________ 2. Location ~ street & number Route 31, Linvale f Snydertown & Woodsvilie Rdsg not for publication city or town East and West Amwell Township*._____________Tyyk n vicinity state_______NJ______ code034 county Hunterdon_____ code 019 zip code 08551 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this 53 nomination D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property S meets D does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant D nationally d statewide, I^lpjQally.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Goals and Objectives Ii. Land Use Plan
    I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS ........................................................................................................................................................ I-2 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. I-3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. I-3 Housing.................................................................................................................................................... I-7 Circulation ................................................................................................................................................ I-8 Economic Development ......................................................................................................................... I-10 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................... I-11 Conservation ......................................................................................................................................... I-12 Community Facilities ............................................................................................................................. I-13 Parks and Recreation ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS
    New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS Table of CONTENTS Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN Page left blank intentionally. Table of CONTENTS Acknowledgements The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Division of Multimodal Services thanks the many organizations and individuals for their time and contribution in making this document possible. New Jersey Department of Transportation Nicole Minutoli Paul Truban Genevieve Clifton Himanshu Patel Andrew Ludasi New Jersey Freight Advisory Committee Calvin Edghill, FHWA Keith Skilton, FHWA Anne Strauss-Wieder, NJTPA Jakub Rowinski, NJTPA Ted Dahlburg, DVRPC Mike Ruane, DVRPC Bill Schiavi, SJTPO David Heller, SJTPO Steve Brown, PANYNJ Victoria Farr, PANYNJ Stephanie Molden, PANYNJ Alan Kearns, NJ TRANSIT Steve Mazur, SJTA Rodney Oglesby, CSX Rick Crawford, Norfolk Southern Michael Fesen, Norfolk Southern Jocelyn Hill, Conrail Adam Baginski, Conrail Kelvin MacKavanagh, New Jersey Short Line Railroad Association Brian Hare, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation David Rosenberg, New York State Department of Transportation Consultant Team Jennifer Grenier, WSP Stephen Chiaramonte, WSP Alan Meyers, WSP Carlos Bastida, WSP Joseph Bryan, WSP Sebastian Guerrero, WSP Debbie Hartman, WSP Ruchi Shrivastava, WSP Reed Sibley, WSP Scudder Smith, WSP Scott Parker, Jacobs Engineering Jayne Yost, Jacobs Engineering
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 1 Study
    DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION SOUTHERLY CROSSINGS CORRIDOR STUDY PHASE I TRANSPORTATION STUDY Prepared for: DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION Prepared by: THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. EAST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY June 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Southerly Crossings Corridor Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................Executive Summary Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY METHODOLOGY.............................................1-1 1.1 Background.........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Objectives of the Southerly Crossings Corridor Study .....................................1-3 1.3 Traffic Forecasting & Analysis Methodology................................................1-3 1.3.1 Overview.............................................................................................................1-3 1.3.2 Travel Demand Forecasting ................................................................................1-4 1.4 Alternatives Development and Screening .....................................................1-7 1.5 Alternatives Analysis-Measures of Effectiveness .......................................... 1-10 1.5.1 Level of Service...............................................................................................1-10 1.5.2 Construction Cost Estimates............................................................................1-11 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..............................................................................2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Cape May County Transportation Study
    Cape May County Transportation Study Prepared by: Cape May County Planning Department 4 Moore Road Cape may Court House, New Jersey 08210 www.capemaycountygov.net 2006 Cover: Rendering of Proposed Middle Thorofare Bridge Replacement, Ocean Drive (Co. Rd. 621) Lower Township. Cape May County Transportation Plan 2006 CAPE MAY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Resolution Number 03-06 ADOPTING THE CAPE MAY COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN Whereas, the County of Cape May seeks to provide state-of-the-art transportation facilities for the convenience and safety of its residents and visitors; and Whereas, it is necessary to provide a Transportation Plan to meet the current and future transportation needs of the County and to satisfy Federal and State planning requirements; and Whereas, Cape May County has prepared said plan addressing these issues and wishes to adopt this plan as the Transportation Element of the Cape May County Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, prior to the adoption of any component or amendment of a County Comprehensive Plan a public hearing must be held in accordance with NJSA 40:27-4; and Whereas, on September 19, 2006 the Cape May County Planning Board held such a public hearing and listened to and addressed the concerns of the public regarding the plan. Now Therefore Be It Resolved by the Cape May County Planning Board that the Cape May County Transportation Plan is hereby adopted as the Transportation Element of the Cape May County Comprehensive Plan; and Now Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that in accordance with the provisions of NJSA 40:27-4, attested copies of this plan shall be certified to the Cape May County Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Cape May County Park Commission, and the Municipal Clerks of all municipalities in the County.
    [Show full text]
  • 6909 Program 4/7/09 4:19 PM Page 1
    6909 Program 4/7/09 4:19 PM Page 1 AMERICAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES APIC EFFECTIVE PAIN SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY CHAPTER CAREONE, MANAGEMENT FOR THE A SENIOR CARE COMPANY CENTRAL JERSEY CHAPTER SUBACUTE NURSING HOME PATIENT OF THE NATIONAL GERONTOLOGICAL NURSING ASSOCIATION PROGRAM DATE: June 9, 2009 GENESIS HEALTHCARE SPONSORED BY: NJ Local Area Network for Excellence (NJ LANE) HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY LOCATION: Conference Center at NJHA HEALTHCARE QUALITY STRATEGIES, INC. 760 Alexander Road, Princeton, New Jersey HOSPICE OF NEW JERSEY WHO SHOULD ATTEND NEW JERSEY ACTIVITY PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION Medical directors, directors of nursing, administrators and members of the interdisciplinary care team in nursing home settings. NEW JERSEY AMERICAN MEDICAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION OBJECTIVES NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION Based on the publicly reported nursing home quality measures, patients who have short stays in subacute set- OF HOMES AND SERVICES tings have very high prevalence of pain. Frequently, these patients come to the facility following an acute episode FOR THE AGING during which they have had surgery. They often have a history of chronic pain along with a new status of post- NEW JERSEY CHAPTER surgical pain. In a 2008 survey conducted by the NJ LANE, nursing home providers reported that pain man- OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF HEALTH CARE agement in this population is challenging and is an area in which they need more information and better strate- ADMINISTRATORS gies. This full-day session will provide an in-depth exploration of federal and state regulations governing pain management, MDS coding of pain, physiological and cultural aspects of pain, ethical issues and pharmacolog- NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ic and non-pharmacologic methods of treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis and Modeling of Cape May County Roadway Elevations and Evacuation Routes NJDOT Research Report No: FHWA-NJ-2005-022
    “TURNING PROBLEMS INTO SOLUTIONS” ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF CAPE MAY Need a solution? COUNTY ROADWAY ELEVATIONS AND Think Jersey DOT EVACUATION ROUTES FHWA-NJ-2005-022 May 2006 SUMMARY This study determined the evacuation times under varying population, hurricane level, and NJ Routes 47/347 reversal lane operation scenarios for Cape May County, New Jersey. Roadway elevations throughout NJ Routes 47/347 corridor study area were established via a GPS survey to verify whether the roadways are usable in the event of a hurricane. Results of the study show that the current NJ State Police reversal plan is ineffective and needs to be revised as the bottleneck during evacuation would exist south of NJ Route 83, the initiation point of the current reversal plan. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Disaster response, to both manmade and natural catastrophes, in the areas of high population density, is centered on evacuating people quickly and efficiently. Being the most densely populated state in the country, New Jersey faces considerable challenges in effectively coordinating and responding to emergencies. In this project, a microscopic traffic simulation based model was developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing State Police “Routes 47/347 Reverse Lane Plan” for Cape May County. This contraflow strategy, also known as lane reversal, was modeled to maximize roadway capacity for the existing network on Routes 47/347. This study determined the evacuation time estimates for various scenarios considering different levels of traffic operations, seasonal area population, hurricane intensity, and behavior response. The behavioral response curves, also called the S-curve models, were applied in this study to approximate behavior responses and to temporally load demand onto the network.
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Turnpike Authority ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P.O
    1998 Annual New Jersey Report Turnpike Authority Frank X. McDermott Nancy H. Becker Raymond M. Pocino Chairman Vice Chair Treasurer Joseph P. (J.P.) Miele Jerome P. Amedeo James Weinstein Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner NJDOT Lawrence F. Pat Kramer Edward Gross Diane Scaccetti Commissioner Executive Director Deputy Executive Director From Sept. 1994 to Nov. 1998 Staff Consultants Ralph J. Bruzzichesi, Director of Technology & Admin. Services Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti William J. Burke, Director of Toll Collection General Counsel Randy Corman, Director of Law HNTB Corporation Robert F. Dale, Director of Operations Gene ral Consulting Engineer Lynn M. Fleeger, Acting Director of Communications/ Paulus, Sokolowski & Sartor Chief Information Officer Gene ral Environmental Consultant Mary-Elizabeth Garrity, Director of Human Resources KPMGLLP John G. Kunna, Chief Engineer Auditor Catherine A. Schladebeck, Director of Finance & Budgets Wilbur Smith Associates David L. Wingerter, Director of Maintenance Traffic & Revenue Consultant New Jersey Turnpike Authority ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P.O. BOX 1121 NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY 08903 (732) 247-0900 COMMISSIONERS FRANK X. McDERMOTT, Chairman NANCY H. BECKER, Vice Chair RAYMOND M. POCINO, Treasurer JOSEPH (J.P.) MIELE JEROME P. AMEDEO JAMES WEINSTEIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EDWARD GROSS To the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, Governor and the Members of the New Jersey Legislature: It is my privilege to submit to you the 1998 Annual Report of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. In 1998, the New Jersey Turnpike moved a record 209,408,270 vehicles almost 5,000,000,000 miles. Patrons including business and industry, commuters, residents and tourists, traveled safely and efficiently over 148 miles of roadway.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Gloucester County Traffic Study
    CENTRAL GLOUCESTER COUNTY TRAFFIC STUDY I!J! DELAWARE VALLEY ~ REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CENTRAL GLOUCESTER COUNTY TRAFFIC STUDY 1993 (REVISED) DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION - THIS REPORT IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER- This report, prepared by the Transportation Planning Division of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, was financed by the Federal Highway Administration of the U. S. Department of Transportation and the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings and conclusions, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agency. Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an interstate, intercounty and intercity agency which provides continuing, comprehensive and coordinated planning for the orderly growth and development of the Delaware Valley region. The region includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties as well as the City of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer counties in New Jersey. The Commission is an advisory agency which divides its planning and service functions among the Office of the Executive Director, the Office of Public Affairs, and three line Divisions: Transportation Planning, Regional Information Services Center which includes the Office ofRegional Planning, and Finance and Administration. D VRPC 's mission for the 1990s is to emphasize technical assistance and services and to conduct high priority studies for member state and local governments, while determining and meeting the needs of the private sector. The DVRPC logo is adaptedfrom the official seal of the Commission and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River flowing through it.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Inventory -- Nomination Form 111
    Form No. 10-300 REV. (9/77) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM 111 SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS AND/OR COMMON ' A/, LOCATION Broac*» Ma*11* East Main, North Main, Spring, Court, Bonnell, Mine, William, Brown, Academy, Capner, Church, and Choiristers Streets, STREET*NUMBER Park, Bloomfield, Emery, Maple, Grant, Dewey, Hopewell, Pennsylvania, New York, Central, and Lloyd Avenues —NOTFOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Fleming ton __ VICINITY OF STATE CODE COUNTY CODE New Jersey 034 Hunter don 019 CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE ^DISTRICT —PUBLIC -^OCCUPIED _ AGRICULTURE ^.MUSEUM _ BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED 2LCOMMERCIAL X.PARK —STRUCTURE X.BOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS ^.EDUCATIONAL ^.PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT ^.RELIGIOUS —OBJECT _IN PROCESS _YES. RESTRICTED X.GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED _?YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL ^.TRANSPORTATION _NO —MILITARY —OTHER. Q OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME Multiple STREET & NUMBER CITY. TOWN STATE VICINITY OF LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS/ETC. Hall of Records STREET & NUMBER Main Street CITY. TOWN Flemington REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE New Jersey Historic Sites Inventory DATE 1976 —FEDERAL X.STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Office of Historic Preservation CITY. TOWN STATE Trenton New Jersey DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED _UNALTERED X.ORIGINALSITE -X_GOOD _RUINS X^LTERED —MOVED DATE. _FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE In 1834 Thomas Gordon described Flemington as: "Situate at the northern extremity of the valley, lying between Rock mountain and Mount Carmel, and near the S.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Reginald Elsman Senior Project Manager, Kyle Conti Construction, LLC
    Reginald Elsman Senior Project Manager, Kyle Conti Construction, LLC 2008 to Present - Kyle Conti Construction, LLC Present Position: Participate in project start-up meetings, responsible for the development of the project schedule and updates, maintain job cost control reports, negotiating and securing sub-contracts and vendors. Oversee the responsibilities of project managers, and project engineers. Review of change orders and extra work submittals. Introduce innovative construction methods. Communicate with estimating on bid strategies. Selected Project Experience: Phase One - Municipal Services Center – Site Preparation, Jersey City, NJ: This project for the Jersey City Dept. of Public Works involved Clearing, Site Preparation, Site Remediation, Asbestos Abatement and the Selective Demolition and Salvage of an existing 158,600 SF building that is to be re-purposed for use as a new Municipal Services Center for Jersey City. Jersey City has extensive areas in the city where chromium contamination is a continuing problem from legacy industries. The Site Remediation portion of this project involved the excavation, transportation, stabilization and off-site disposal of 1,128 Tons of Hexavalent Chrome (Hex Chrome). Prior to excavating the Hex Chrome Areas of Concern, the AOC’s were located via coordinates provided on the plans and based on sampling and testing performed by the owner’s consultant. Samples were extracted from each AOC and taken to a licensed analytical lab for testing to characterize the material for landfill acceptance. Then, KCC worked with Clean Earth to develop the appropriate means of treating and disposing of the Hex Chrome contaminated soil. As part of this project KCC developed a Hazardous Material Handling Plan, and worked with Emilcott (Environmental, Health and Safety Experts) from Morristown, NJ to develop a Site Specific HASP, which was reviewed by their Certified Industrial Hygienist prior to implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Geochemistry and Stratigraphic Relations of Middle Proterozoic Rocks of the New Jersey Highlands
    FOLD Volkert and Drake— MIDDLE PROTEROZOIC ROCKS OF THE NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS—U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1565–C Volkert U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Geochemistry and Stratigraphic Relations of Middle Proterozoic Rocks of the New Jersey Highlands U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1565–C Prepared in cooperation with the New Jersey Geological Survey Printed on recycled paper Availability of Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey Order U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications by calling Documents. Check or money order must be payable to the the toll-free telephone number 1–888–ASK–USGS or contact- Superintendent of Documents. Order by mail from— ing the offices listed below. Detailed ordering instructions, Superintendent of Documents along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the cur- Government Printing Office rent-year issues of the catalog “New Publications of the U.S. Washington, DC 20402 Geological Survey.” Books, Maps, and Other Publications Information Periodicals By Mail Many Information Periodicals products are available through Books, maps, and other publications are available by mail the systems or formats listed below: from— Printed Products USGS Information Services Box 25286, Federal Center Printed copies of the Minerals Yearbook and the Mineral Com- Denver, CO 80225 modity Summaries can be ordered from the Superintendent of Publications include Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water- Documents, Government Printing Office (address above). Supply Papers, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Printed copies of Metal Industry Indicators and Mineral Indus- Circulars, Fact Sheets, publications of general interest, single try Surveys can be ordered from the Center for Disease Control copies of permanent USGS catalogs, and topographic and and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and thematic maps.
    [Show full text]