DOCSLIB.ORG

Hazardous Materials

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hazardous Materials Alternative A3 – PAL 2 o Traffic Analysis 15 Alternative A8 – PAL 2 o Traffic Analysis 16 Alternative B1– PAL 2 o Traffic Analysis 17 Traffic Analysis Results (1 of 2) o Traffic Analysis TRAFFIC A2 A3 A8 B1 Harbor Drive SEGMENTS • LOS F for A3 and without project North Harbor • Improves to acceptable LOS with A2 and B1 (from Drive F to C) Rental Car Rd / 1 4 3 1 • Slight improvement but still unacceptable LOS with Laurel A8 (from F to E) Grape Street Grape Street • LOS F on all segments without project Harbor / Pacific 2 3 1 2 • Harbor/Pacific segment improves to acceptable Pacific / Kettner 4 4 4 4 LOS with A8 (from F to C) Kettner / I-5 4 4 4 4 • Pacific/Kettner and Kettner/I-5 segments remain LOS F with all alternatives Hawthorn Street Hawthorn Street Harbor / Pacific 2 3 1 2 • LOS F on all segments without project Pacific / Kettner 1 1 1 1 • Harbor/Pacific segment improves to acceptable Kettner / I-5 4 4 4 4 LOS with A8 (from F to C) Laurel Street • Pacific/Kettner and Kettner/I-5 segments remain LOS F with all alternatives Harbor / Pacific 1 1 1 1 Laurel Street Pacific / Kettner 2 2 3 2 • Unacceptable LOS on all segments without project Kettner / I-5 1 1 1 1 • Harbor/Pacific segment improves to LOS A under Subtotal 22 27 23 22 all alternatives • Pacific/Kettner segment improves but remains at unacceptable LOS under all alternatives Key: • Kettner/I-5 segment improves to LOS C under all LOA A, B, C = 1, LOS D = 2, alternatives LOS E = 3, LOS F = 4 18 Traffic Analysis Results (2 of 2) o Traffic Analysis TRAFFIC SEGMENTS A2 A3 A8 B1 Pacific Highway Pacific Highway Washington / 1 1 1 1 • LOS acceptable for all segments with or Sassafras without project Sassafras / Palm 1 1 1 1 • Slightly higher use with A2, A3 and B1 Palm / Laurel 1 1 1 1 • Slight improvement to LOS with A8 on Laurel / Hawthorn 1 1 1 1 select segments Hawthorn / Grape 1 1 1 1 India Street India Street • LOS F on all segments with or without project Laurel / Palm 4 4 4 4 Rosecrans Palm / Sassafras 4 4 4 4 • LOS unacceptable on all segments Sassafras / 4 4 4 4 without project Washington • Barnett/Sport Arena segment improves Rosecrans to acceptable LOS with A2 and B1; Barnett / Sport Arena 1 2 2 1 remains unacceptable LOS with A3 and A8 Quimby / Barnett 2 2 2 2 • Quimby/Barnett segment remains at Nimitz / Quimby 2 2 2 2 unacceptable LOS with all alternatives Subtotal 22 22 23 22 • Nimitz/Quimby segment improves TOTAL 44 49 46 44 slightly with all alternatives but remains at unacceptable LOS (from E to D in all OVERALL 1 4 3 1 cases) RANKING Key: LOA A, B, C = 1, LOS D = 2, 19 LOS E = 3, LOS F = 4 p Relationship of Goals and Objectives to the Alternatives Evaluation Goals and objectives Quantitative criteria Qualitative criteria 20 Process – Evaluation of Alternatives p Alternatives Evaluation GOALS & OBJECTIVES SCREENING MATRIX ALTERNATIVES QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE 1 Improve access and parking SCORE SCORE Family 2 Develop intermodal facility A regional connectivity 1 Economic / Financial 3 Develop efficient terminal facilities and user satisfaction 4 Develop best airfield configuration for horizon PAL 2 Operational ITC 5 Incorporate environmental stewardship best practices 6 Develop a financially feasible 3 Environmental plan 7Provide social and economic benefits Family 8 Integrate airport facilities into 4 Social Responsibility B fabric of community through urban design 21 Vision, Goals and Objectives p Alternatives Evaluation The vision statement will be developed based on agreed-upon goals and objectives Preliminary goals and objectives are presented on the following slides for Policy Committee consideration Vision: concise focus of the airport, typically defining the role of the airport in the regional air network and development pattern Goals: specific statements expanding upon the vision statement to guide future airport development Objectives: under each goal, identify the specific items that would be important to achieve; objectives are measurable under either objective or subjective criteria 22 Goals and Objectives (1 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Ground Transportation Applicable Screening Criteria Goal Economic •Improve access and parking •Landside capital cost allowance Objectives Operational •Provide direct access from I-5 to •Overall roads level of service the Airport by auto •Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) •Reduce traffic on city streets in •Competitive position of auto v. transit the Airport vicinity •Impacts to Interstate 5 •Accommodate appropriate levels •Short-term parking of airport and regional demand for •Long-term parking long-term and short-term parking spaces to ensure sufficient user Environmental satisfaction •Total emissions (based on VMT) Social •Land acquisition •Community controversy (includes overall roads LOS) 23 Goals and Objectives (2 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Intermodal Facility Applicable Screening Criteria Goal Economic •Develop intermodal facility •Landside capital cost allowance regional connectivity Operational Objectives •Overall roads level of service •Increase transit ridership and •Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provide ITC •Competitive position of auto v. transit •Accommodate the parking •Impacts to Interstate 5 requirements for both airport and transit passengers •Short-term parking •Long-term parking •Provide a land envelope necessary to accommodate the Environmental ITC •Total emissions (based on VMT) Social •Land acquisition •Community controversy (includes overall roads LOS) 24 Goals and Objectives (3 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Applicable Screening Criteria Passenger Terminal Economic Goal •Terminal capital cost allowance •Develop efficient terminal •Support facilities capital cost facilities and user satisfaction allowance Objectives •Operational costs •Ensure a positive passenger • Baggage transport system experience • APM • Duplication of passenger processing •Maintain appropriate level of functions service throughout terminal Operational •Minimize walking distances •Passenger experience • Complexity of phasing – duration • Complexity of phasing – passenger service • Short-term / Long-term parking • Average walking distance •Complexity of baggage system 25 Goals and Objectives (4 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Airfield/Airspace Applicable Screening Criteria Goal Economic •Develop best airfield •Airside capital cost allowance configuration Operational Objectives •Runway crossings Environmental •Provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate industry •Impervious surface area changes Social •Minimize airfield and airspace •Enhance MCRD mission congestion •Land acquisition •Community controversy (eliminated •Develop airfield in accordance concept involving shifted runway) with FAA safety regulations 26 Goals and Objectives (5 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Environment Applicable Screening Criteria Goal Economic •Incorporate environmental •Environmental mitigation costs stewardship best practices Operational Objectives •Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Environmental •Mitigate noise on surrounding •Air quality emissions (total and communities concentration) •Reduce emissions through •Impervious surface area improved access •Hazardous materials •Utilize sustainability solutions in •Effect on T&E species all parts of the Airport •Historic properties •Aesthetics (view shed) Social •Community controversy 27 Goals and Objectives (6 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Financial Applicable Screening Criteria Economic Goal •Revenue evaluation •Develop a financially feasible •Capital cost allowances plan •Operational costs Objectives • APM • Baggage transport •Balance short-term, long-term • Duplication of passenger processing and legacy benefits for new functions investments •Funding sources •Maximize existing funding •Environmental mitigation costs resources through appropriate Social facility planning •Land acquisition •Seek innovative funding methods •Change in revenue to governmental and expand pool of potential entities funding sources •Opportunities for off-airport land development 28 Goals and Objectives (7 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Greater San Diego County/ Southern Applicable Screening Criteria California Economic Goal •Capital cost allowances •Provide social and economic •Revenue evaluation benefits Operational Objectives •Overall roads level of service •Provide necessary air service to •Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) support and grow the regional •Competitive position of auto v. transit economy Environmental •Enhance surface transportation •Air quality - total emissions access to support the economy and quality of life of the region •Historic properties •Aesthetics •Improve the regional quality of life for visitors and residents Social •Work with regional entities to •Enhance MCRD mission provide opportunities for satellite •Community controversy development to strengthen •Change in revenue to governmental regional economic development entities •Opportunities for off-airport land development 29 Goals and Objectives (8 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Downtown, Convention Center, Adjacent Communities, and Cruise Terminal Goal Applicable Screening Criteria •Integrate airport facilities into fabric Environmental of community through urban design •Aesthetics Objectives Social •Ensure airport facilities fit within the •Enhance MCRD mission context of plans for central San Diego •Community controversy •Opportunities for off-airport land •Recognize the importance of the development scale relationships between airport facilities and surrounding communities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Community Center Rojc, Pula, Croatia
    SOLIDARITY MOVERS OF ROJC Community center Rojc, Pula, Croatia CONTENT Community center Rojc Rojc Alliance About the project Activities About Pula Currency How to get to Pula Meet the team Contact Follow us Community center Rojc is a unique space Community for culture and civil society. Situated in a repurposed building that forms part of the cultural heritage of Pula, the center gathers center Rojc over a hundred organisations under one roof while also hosting numerous cultural and social events. The center is polivalent space with wide spectrum of activities: culture, sports, psychosocial care and health services, activities for children and youth, care for the disabled, environmental protection, technical culture, ethnic minorities, etc. Community center Rojc is a member of Trans Europe Halles. Rojc Alliance The Rojc Alliance is a network of Rojc organizations that presents and represents common interests, promotes mutual cooperation and carries out community actions and events. Main activities of Rojc Alliance are: management and events in Rojc public spaces - the Living room and inner courtyard; community radio Radio Rojc; community development programs; participatory governance; networking and fostering development of cultural and community centers; European Solidarity Corps volunteering progams. The Rojc Alliance has formed a kind of civic-public partnership with the City of Pula, which co- governs the center and encourages its development. WHAT WE DO The center is a host to 110 associations from various fields. Thousands of Rojc inhabitants and their visitors pass through its painted hallways each week – bringing vivid influence to the community life. PROJECT NAME Solidarity movers of Rojc PROJECT DURATION 1.8.2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Insurance Zagreb
    Health Insurance for LES Embassy of the United States of America Zagreb, Croatia Combined Synopsis and Solicitation 19GE5021R0013 Questions and Answers Q1: Please provide five years of loss data(table 1) by year of account including annual net premium (for the same period), incurred claims and membership history. For membership history (Table 2) please provide the number of Employees with single coverage and with family coverage at the end of each year. Please do not include any confidential information, just the overall statistics for the group. Claims information is critical to our pricing and the relationship of claims to employee growth or shrinkage is part of the claims analysis. Table 1 Contractual year Total claims Retention Total Net gain Net gain paid (local amount premium (local USD or EUR currency) (local paid to currency) currency) Insurer (local currency) dd/mm/2016 – dd/mm/2017 dd/mm/2017 – dd/mm/2018 dd/mm/2018 – dd/mm/2019 dd/mm/2019 – dd/mm/2020 dd/mm/2020 – dd/mm/2021 Table 2 Contractual year Single Self plus ONE Family plans dd/mm/2016 – dd/mm/2017 dd/mm/2017 – dd/mm/2018 dd/mm/2018 – dd/mm/2019 dd/mm/2019 – dd/mm/2020 dd/mm/2020 – dd/mm/2021 A1: This is a first-time post is contracting this service, historical data is not available. Q2 : We would like to know if you have been informed of Catastrophic cases, such as: Hemodynamics, Open Heart Surgery, Orthopedic Mayor Surgeries, Organ Transplant, Traumatic Accident, Cancer and Oncology Cases (Radio and Chemotherapy), and hospitalizations with more than 10 days A2: The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • English No. ICC-01/04-01/06 A7 A8 Date: 18 July 2019 the APPEALS CHAMBER Before
    ICC-01/04-01/06-3466-Red 18-07-2019 1/137 NM A7 A8 Statute Original: English No. ICC-01/04-01/06 A7 A8 Date: 18 July 2019 THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Piotr Hofmański, Presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji Judge Howard Morrison Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO Public redacted Judgment on the appeals against Trial Chamber II’s ‘Decision Setting the Size of the Reparations Award for which Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is Liable’ No: ICC-01/04-01/06 A7 A8 1/137 ICC-01/04-01/06-3466-Red 18-07-2019 2/137 NM A7 A8 Judgment to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to: Legal Representatives of V01 Victims Counsel for the Defence Mr Luc Walleyn Ms Catherine Mabille Mr Franck Mulenda Mr Jean-Marie Biju-Duval Legal Representatives of V02 Victims Trust Fund for Victims Ms Carine Bapita Buyangandu Mr Pieter de Baan Mr Joseph Keta Orwinyo Office of Public Counsel for Victims Ms Paolina Massidda REGISTRY Registrar Mr Peter Lewis No: ICC-01/04-01/06 A7 A8 2/137 ICC-01/04-01/06-3466-Red 18-07-2019 3/137 NM A7 A8 J u d g m e n t ................................................................................................................... 4 I. Key findings ........................................................................................................... 5 II. Introduction to the appeals ..................................................................................... 6 III. Preliminary issues ............................................................................................... 8 A. OPCV’s standing to participate in these appeals ............................................ 8 B. Admissibility of the OPCV’s Consolidated Response to the Appeal Briefs in respect of Mr Lubanga’s Appeal Brief ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Croatia National Report 2007
    CROATIA NATIONAL REPORT 2007 I Network The total length of motorway network, as completed by the end of 2007 in Croatia, amounts to 1163.5 km. In 2007, 75,9 km of new motorways and 3,8 km of semi motorways were built (as compared to 43 km that were built in 2006), and 15,7 km of existing roads were upgraded to the full motorway profile: On the Motorway A1: Zagreb - Split - Ploče; Dugopolje-Bisko-Šestanovac Sections (37 km) - opened to traffic in full profile in 06/2007 On the Motorway A2: Zagreb - Macelj Krapina-Macelj Section (17.2 km) –13,4 km was completed as full motorway and 3,8 km as semi motorway On the Motorway A5: Beli Manastir-Osijek-border with Bosnia and Herzegovina Sredanci-Đakovo Section (23 km) – opened to traffic as full motorway in 11/2007 On the Motorway A6: Zagreb - Rijeka - on the Vrbovsko-Bosiljevo Section (8,44 km) – upgrade to the full motorway profile of the viaduct Zeceve Drage, tunnel Veliki Gložac, viaduct Osojnik and viaduct Severinske Drage together with corresponding motorway segments in 06/2007 - on the Oštrovica-Kikovica Section (7,25 km) - upgrade to the full motorway profile in 11/2007 On the Motorway A11: Zagreb – Sisak On the Jakuševec-Velika Gorica South Section – completion of the interchange Velika Gorica South and 2,5 km of a motorway segment in 5/2007 and in 09/2007 In Croatia, motorways are operated by 4 companies, i.e. by Hrvatske autoceste d.o.o. (operates all toll motorways except for those in concession) and by three concession companies BINA-ISTRA d.d.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNEX A8 How Much Effort Did Students Invest in the PISA Test?
    ANNEX A8 How much effort did students invest in the PISA test? Performance on school tests is the result of the interplay amongst what students know and can do, how quickly they process information, and how motivated they are for the test. To ensure that students who sit the PISA test engage with the assessment conscientiously and sustain their efforts throughout the test, schools and students that are selected to participate in PISA are often reminded of the importance of the study for their country. For example, at the beginning of the test session, the test administrator reads a script that includes the following sentence: “This is an important study because it will tell us about what you have been learning and what school is like for you. Because your answers will help influence future educational policies in <country and/or education system>, we ask you to do the very best you can.” However, viewed in terms of the individual student who takes the test, PISA can be described as a low-stakes assessment: students can refuse to participate in the test without suffering negative consequences, and do not receive any feedback on their individual performance. If students perceive an absence of personal consequences associated with test performance, there is a risk that they might not invest adequate effort (Wise and DeMars, 2010[1]). Several studies in the United States have found that student performance on assessments, such as the United States national assessment of educational progress (NAEP), depends on the conditions of administration. In particular, students performed less well in regular low-stakes conditions compared to experimental conditions in which students received financial rewards tied to their performance or were told that their results would count towards their grades (Wise and DeMars, 2005[2]).
    [Show full text]
  • Table A8 MOBILE PHONE LAWS by COUNTRY/AREA
    TABLE A8 MOBILE PHONE LAWS BY COUNTRY/AREA Law applies to Data on the use of Legislation on mobile Hand-held and mobile phones while Country/area phone use while driving Hand-held phones hands-free phones driving available Afghanistan No — — No Albania Yes Yes No No Andorra Yes Yes No No Angola Yes Yes No Yes Argentina Yes Yes Yes Yes Armenia Yes Yes No Yes Australia Subnational Yes No Yes Austria Yes Yes No Yes Azerbaijan Yes Yes No No Bahamas No — — No Bahrain Yes Yes No Yes Bangladesh Yes Yes Yes No Barbados No — — No Belarus Yes Yes No No Belgium Yes Yes No No Belize No — — No Benin Yes Yes Yes No Bhutan Yes Yes Yes No Bolivia (Plurinational State of) No — — No Bosnia and Herzegovina Yes Yes No Yes Botswana Yes Yes No Yes Brazil Yes Yes No No Brunei Darussalam Yes Yes No Yes Bulgaria Yes Yes No No Burkina Faso Yes Yes No No Burundi No — — No Cambodia Yes Yes No Yes Cameroon Yes Yes Yes No Canada Subnational Yes No Yes Cape Verde Yes Yes No Yes Central African Republic No — — No Chad No — — No Chile Yes Yes No Yes China Yes Yes No — Colombia Yes Yes No No Comoros No — — No Congo Yes — — No Cook Islands No — — No Costa Rica Yes Yes No Yes Côte d'Ivoire No — — No Croatia Yes Yes No Yes Cuba Yes Yes No — Cyprus Yes Yes No No Czech Republic Yes Yes No Yes Democratic People's Yes Yes Yes No Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the No — — Yes Congo Denmark Yes Yes No No Dominica No — — No Dominican Republic Yes Yes No No Ecuador Yes Yes No No 284 Law applies to Data on the use of Legislation on mobile Hand-held and mobile phones while
    [Show full text]
  • Kenya 1St Mover PPP Road Projects
    MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT STATE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE Kenya 1st Mover PPP Road Projects 14TH March, 2017 Eng. Peter M. Mundinia Director General, Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) 1 CONTENTS . Nairobi Southern Bypass . Mombasa – Nairobi . Nairobi – Thika Highway . Rironi – Naivasha – Nakuru . Nyali Bridge 2 Nairobi Southern O&M PPP Project • Construction commenced early 2012 and is expected to be completed by May 2016. • 28.6km of dual carriageway with 12 km of slip roads and 8.5 km Service Roads • Design speed of 100 km/hr. • Pavement Design: loading of 40 M CESA 3 Toll Plaza Location Toll Plaza Location Just to the West of Ngong Road Intersection Proposed: Toll Plaza Location South of Langata Road I/C 4 Toll Plaza Layout 5 Nairobi Southern Bypass Investments include: Toll plaza to the west of Ngong Road; Provision of containment barriers on both sides of the central reserve; Local improvements to the interchange slip roads; Improvements to the Nairobi National Park and Ngong Forest perimeter fencing; Weighbridges CAPEX - 4 WIMs 6 Widening of Ngong Road • Full on-line dualling of Ngong Road from the Dagoretti Corner (Junction Mall) to the Ngong Road Interchange over a total distance of 3.28km with service roads on both sides. • Upgrading of the Dagoretti Corner junction by provision of a viaduct for through traffic city bound on Ngong Road 7 Possible Additional CAPEX ADDITIONAL CAPEX (M KSH) Widening of Ngong Road 3,595.0 Interchange at Gitaru/A8 upgrade works - local Improvements
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis Report in Rijeka University of Rijeka-Faculty of Medicine -Teaching Institute of Public Health
    ECOlogical supporting for traffic Management in cOastal areas By using an InteLlIgenT sYstem 01/01/2018 - 30/09/2019 Analysis report in Rijeka University of Rijeka-Faculty of Medicine -Teaching Institute of Public Health Institute for Atmospheric Science and Climate of the National Research Council (ISAC-CNR) Version: Final Distribution: public Date: September 30th 2019 WP3: Assessment of the effect of ship traffic to particulate matter ACT 3.2: Experimental activities in Rijeka European Regional Development Fund www.italy-croatia.eu/acronym http://www.italy-croatia.eu/ Analysis report in Rijeka/ final CONTRIBUTED TO THIS WORK Ana Alebić-Juretić, University of Rijeka- Faculty of Medicine, Environmental Health Department Boris Mifka, Departmant of Physics, University of Rijeka Velimir Zubak, Environmental Health Department, Teaching Institute of Public Health Dario Kontošić, Environmental Health Department, Teaching Institute of Public Health Paula Žurga, Environmental Health Department, Teaching Institute of Public Health Marjana Mezlar, Environmental Health Department, Teaching Institute of Public Health Dajana Odorčić, Environmental Health Department, Teaching Institute of Public Health Eva Merico, Institute for Atmospheric Science and Climate of the National Research Council (ISAC-CNR) Fabio M. Grasso, Institute for Atmospheric Science and Climate of the National Research Council (ISAC-CNR) Daniela Cesari, Institute for Atmospheric Science and Climate of the National Research Council (ISAC-CNR) Marianna Conte, Institute for Atmospheric Science and Climate of the National Research Council (ISAC-CNR) Daniele Contini, Institute for Atmospheric Science and Climate of the National Research Council (ISAC-CNR) 1 Analysis report in Rijeka/ final INTRODUCTION This report deals with experimental activities carried out in Rijeka within activity 3.2 of the ECOMOBILITY project.
    [Show full text]
  • Nakuru – Mau Summit (A8) Highway (Ppp) Project
    PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE NAIROBI - NAKURU – MAU SUMMIT (A8) HIGHWAY (PPP) PROJECT RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN LEAD EXPERT ADDRESS PROPONENT ADDRESS Charles and Barker Limited Kenya National Highways Authority Upper Hill Devan Plaza, 4th Floor, Suite 4 P. O. BOX 49712 – 00100 Nairobi, Kenya Crossway Road, off Chiromo Road, Westlands, TEL: +254 2989000, +254 20 8013842, +254 20 P.O. Box 1784-00606 495400, +254 20 2889000 Tel +254-020-8008640 CELL: +254 731 330336; +254 700 423606 Nairobi, Kenya EMAIL: [email protected] WEBSITE: www.kenha.co.ke Blue Shield Towers, Upper Hill, Nairobi JULY 2018 Proposed Development, Operations and Maintenance of the Nairobi - Nakuru – Mau Summit (A8) Highway (PPP) Project - Resettlement Action Plan CITATION This report should be cited as: KeNHA(2018). RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN for the Proposed Development, Operations and Maintenance of the Nairobi - Nakuru – Mau Summit (A8) highway (PPP) Project between (x) 236820.65, (y) 9874606.05 (Arc- 1960-UTM-Zone-37S) and (x) 799767.25 (y) 9982461.45 (Arc-1960-UTM-Zone-36S) - Charles and Barker Limited, Nairobi, Kenya. Charles & Barker Ltd is a consultancy firm established in Kenya to provide services in environmental and natural resources that meets local and international best practices. Their objective is to remain at the forefront of technology by liaising with reputable individuals and organisations to deliver consultancy services. The services offered by the firm include but are not limited to: Environmental due diligence, environmental impact assessment, environmental auditing, monitoring for environmental aspects, remediation studies, environmental and social baseline studies and natural resource and earth science studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Dutch Arms Export Policy in 2019
    Dutch Arms Export Policy in 2019 Report by the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the export of military goods September 2020 Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 3 2. Profile of the Dutch defence and security industry ..................................... 4 3. Procedures and principles ...................................................................... 7 3.1 Procedures ............................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Changes in 2019 ..................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Principles ................................................................................................................................ 9 4. Transparency in Dutch arms export policy .............................................. 12 4.1 Trade in military goods ........................................................................................................ 12 4.2 Trade in dual-use goods ....................................................................................................... 13 4.3 Procedures ........................................................................................................................... 13 5. Dutch arms export in 2019 ................................................................... 14 6. Relevant developments in
    [Show full text]
  • National Traffic Model for the Republic of Croatia Kick
    National Transport Model for the Republic of Croatia CLOSING CEREMONY – 04 MAY 2016 Investing in Future European Union The project is co-finannced by European Union from the European Regional Development Fund Dr Uwe Reiter Zagreb, 04 May 2016 AGENDA 1. Introduction 2. The Tasks and Approach 3. The Results 4. The Way Forward Dr Uwe Reiter Zagreb, 04 May 2016 AGENDA 1. Introduction 2. The Tasks and Approach 3. The Results 4. The Way Forward Dr Uwe Reiter Zagreb, 04 May 2016 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE PROJECT Why do we need a National Transport Model for the Republic of Croatia ? Development of National Transport Strategy Identification of shortcomings / bottlenecks / needs for improvement Development of strategy alternatives Development of policies, investment strategies, projects and measures Assess the impacts of the different alternatives and select the most promising option • Impacts on transport itself: other road users, public transport users, pedestrians • Impacts on access and accessibility • Impacts on economic development • Impacts on the environment (natural, man-made, social) • Impacts on communities, visual intrusion • Impacts on participation, gender aspects • Impacts on quality of life • … Dr Uwe Reiter I Closing Ceremony I 04 May 2016 I Page 4 THE PROJECT TEAM: STRENGTHS Strong resources and backstopping capacity Local Specific knowledge modelling and expertise experience International experiences Dr Uwe Reiter I Closing Ceremony I 04 May 2016 I Page 5 Project Duration Project Events Visibility - - Phase Implementation Phase Inception Task Model Data PROJECT TIMEPROJECT SCHEDULE Collection and Surveys and Collection Implementation May Jun Jul Planned 2014 Aug Sep Oct regular project project duration regular Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Dr Uwe Reiter I Closing Ceremony Ceremony 04 II 2016 May Closing Reiter Uwe Dr May 2015 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Reserve Jan I Page Page I Feb 2016 6 Mar Apr May AGENDA 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Table A8 Mobile Phone Laws by Country/Area
    TABLE A8 MOBILE PHONE LAWS BY COUNTRY/AREA Law applies to Any data on the use of Legislation on mobile Hand-held mobile mobile phones while Country/area phone use while driving phone use Hands-free phones driving available Afghanistan No — — No Albania Yes Yes No No Algeria Yes Yes Yes Yes Andorra Yes Yes No No Angola Yes Yes No No Antigua and Barbuda No — — No Argentina Yes Yes Yes Yes Armenia Yes Yes No Yesa Australia Yes Yes No Yes Austria Yes Yes No Yesa Azerbaijan Yes Yes No No Bahamas No — — No Bahrain Yes Yes No Yesa Bangladesh No — — No Barbados No — — No Belarus Yes Yes No No Belgium Yes Yes No No Belize No — — No Benin Yes Yes Yes No Bhutan Yes Yes No Yes Bolivia (Plurinational State of) No — — No Bosnia and Herzegovina Yes Yes No Yesa Botswana Yes Yes No Yes Brazil Yes Yes No Yesa Bulgaria Yes Yes No Yes Burkina Faso Yes Yes No No Cabo Verde Yes Yes No Yes Cambodia Yes Yes No No Cameroon Yes Yes No No Canada Yes Yes No Yes Central African Republic Yes Yes Yes No Chad Yes Yes Yes No Chile Yes Yes No Yes China Yes Yes No Yes Colombia Yes Yes No No Congo Yes Yes Yes No Cook Islands No — — No Costa Rica Yes Yes No No Côte d'Ivoire Yes Yes Yes No Croatia Yes Yes No Yes Cuba Yes Yes Yes No Cyprus Yes Yes No No Czech Republic Yes Yes No Yes Democratic Republic of the Congo No — — No Denmark Yes Yes No No Djibouti No — — No Dominica No — — No Dominican Republic Yes Yes No No Ecuador Yes Yes No Yes Egypt Yes Yes No No El Salvador Yes Yes Yes No 304 Law applies to Any data on the use of Legislation on mobile Hand-held mobile mobile phones
    [Show full text]