DOCSLIB.ORG

West Coast Container Traffic Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
West Coast Container Traffic Analysis PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONTAINER AVAILABILITY STUDY West Coast Container Traffic Analysis Submitted by: Eric Jessup (Principal Investigator) Associate Professor School of Economic Sciences Washington State University 301 Hulbert Hall Pullman, WA 99164-6420 Ph: 509-335-4987 [email protected] Suzette Galinato Research Associate School of Economic Sciences Washington State University [email protected] Zhazira Alisheva J. Bradley Eustice Research Assistants School of Economic Sciences Washington State University [email protected] [email protected] Submitted to: April Taylor Senior Economist USDA/AMS/TSD Pacific Northwest Container Availability Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Pacific Northwest Container Availability Study ............................................................ 1 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 6 II. Study Objectives .............................................................................................. 7 III. West Coast Port Profiles ................................................................................... 9 Northwest SeaPort Alliance: Ports of Seattle & Tacoma, WA .................................................. 9 Loaded container imports .............................................................................................................................. 9 Empty container imports ............................................................................................................................. 12 loaded container exports .............................................................................................................................. 13 empty container exports ............................................................................................................................... 17 container Availability ................................................................................................................................... 18 Port of Oakland, CA ........................................................................................................... 20 loaded container imports ............................................................................................................................. 20 empty container imports .............................................................................................................................. 23 Loaded container exports ............................................................................................................................. 25 empty container exports .............................................................................................................................. 27 container Availability ................................................................................................................................... 29 Ports of Los Angeles & Long Beach, CA ................................................................................ 31 loaded container imports ............................................................................................................................. 31 empty container imports .............................................................................................................................. 33 loaded container exports .............................................................................................................................. 35 empty container exports .............................................................................................................................. 38 container Availability ................................................................................................................................... 39 Summary Analysis .............................................................................................................. 42 Ports of Seattle & Tacoma, WA ................................................................................................................... 42 Port of Oakland, CA ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Ports of Los Angeles & Long Beach, CA ........................................................................................................ 44 IV. Stakeholder Perspectives on Container Challenges in the Pacific Northwest ............. 46 V. Economic Assessment of PNW Container Availability Challenges ............................. 49 Ocean Carriers .................................................................................................................. 49 Class I Rail Carriers ............................................................................................................ 51 shippers............................................................................................................................. 52 VI. implementation & Outreach Plan ......................................................................... 53 Port operational improvements............................................................................................ 53 Collective Coordinating Organization .................................................................................. 53 Inland Container Terminal / hub .......................................................................................... 54 Container Simulation Model to identify site potential ...........................................................56 3 Pacific Northwest Container Availability Study VI. References ......................................................................................................... 58 FIGURES Figure 1: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Average Monthly Loaded Container Imports, 2012-2017 .................................. 9 Figure 2: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Annual Loaded Container Imports by Destination State, 2012-2017 .............. 10 Figure 3: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Annual Loaded Container Imports by Top 10 Commodity Types, 2012-2017 . 11 Figure 4: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Annual Loaded Container Imports by Top 10 Ports of Departure, 2012-2017. 11 Figure 5: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Average Monthly Empty Container Imports, 2013-2017 ................................. 12 Figure 6: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Annual Empty Container Imports by Destination State, 2013-2017 ............... 13 Figure 7: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Average Monthly Loaded Container Exports, 2013-2017 ................................ 14 Figure 8: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Annual Loaded Container Exports by Origin State, 2013-2017 ....................... 15 Figure 9: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Annual Loaded Container Exports by Top 10 Commodity Types, 2013-2017 . 16 Figure 10: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Annual Loaded Container Exports by Top 10 Ports of Arrival, 2013-2017 ..... 16 Figure 11: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Average Monthly Empty Container Exports, 2014-2017 ................................ 17 Figure 12: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma Annual Empty Container Exports by Origin State, 2014-2017 ...................... 18 Figure 13: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma 20 ft Dry Container Availability, 2012-2017 ................................................... 19 Figure 14: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma 40 ft Dry Container Availability, 2012-2017 .................................................. 19 Figure 15: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma 40 ft High-Cube Container Availability, 2012-2017 ....................................... 19 Figure 16: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma 20 ft Refrigerated Container Availability, 2012-2017 ..................................... 20 Figure 17: Ports of Seattle and Tacoma 40 ft Refrigerated Container Availability, 2012-2017 ..................................... 20 Figure 18: Port of Oakland Average Monthly Loaded Container Imports, 2012-2017 ................................................. 21 Figure 19: Port of Oakland Annual Loaded Container Imports by Destination State, 2012-2017 ................................ 22 Figure 20: Port of Oakland Annual Loaded Container Imports by Top 10 Commodity Types, 2012-2017 .................. 23 Figure 21: Port of Oakland Annual Loaded Container Imports by Top 10 Ports of Departure, 2012-2017 .................. 23 Figure 22: Port of Oakland Average Monthly Empty Container Imports, 2013-2017 .................................................. 24 Figure 23: Port of Oakland Annual Empty Container Imports by Destination State, 2013-2017 ................................. 24 Figure 24: Port of Oakland Average Monthly Loaded Container Exports, 2013-2017 ................................................. 25 Figure 25: Port of Oakland Annual Loaded Container Exports by Origin State, 2014-2017 ........................................ 26 Figure 26: Port of Oakland Annual Loaded Container Exports by Top 10 Commodity Types, 2013-2017 .................. 27 Figure 27: Port of Oakland Annual Loaded Container Exports by Top 10 Ports of Arrival, 2013-2017 ....................... 27 Figure 28: Port of Oakland Average Monthly Empty Container Exports, 2014-2017 .................................................. 28 Figure 29: Port of Oakland Annual Empty Container Exports by Origin State, 2014-2017......................................... 28 Figure 30: Port of Oakland 20 ft Dry Container Availability, 2012-2017 ..................................................................... 29 Figure 31: Port
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Seattle Foundation Annual Report Donors & Contributors 3
    2008 The Seattle Foundation Annual Report Donors & Contributors 3 Grantees 13 Fiscal Sponsorships 28 Financial Highlights 30 Trustees and Staff 33 Committees 34 www.seattlefoundation.org | (206) 622-2294 While the 2008 financial crisis created greater needs in our community, it also gave us reason for hope. 2008 Foundation donors have risen to the challenges that face King County today by generously supporting the organizations effectively working to improve the well-being of our community. The Seattle Foundation’s commitment to building a healthy community for all King County residents remains as strong as ever. In 2008, with our donors, we granted more than $63 million to over 2000 organizations and promising initiatives in King County and beyond. Though our assets declined like most investments nationwide, The Seattle Foundation’s portfolio performed well when benchmarked against comparable endowments. In the longer term, The Seattle Foundation has outperformed portfolios comprised of traditional stocks and bonds due to prudent and responsible stewardship of charitable funds that has been the basis of our investment strategy for decades. The Seattle Foundation is also leading efforts to respond to increasing need in our community. Late last year The Seattle Foundation joined forces with the United Way of King County and other local funders to create the Building Resilience Fund—a three-year, $6 million effort to help local people who have been hardest hit by the economic downturn. Through this fund, we are bolstering the capacity of selected nonprofits to meet increasing basic needs and providing a network of services to put people on the road on self-reliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future
    Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future As more and more states are incorporating projections of sea-level rise into coastal planning efforts, the states of California, Oregon, and Washington asked the National Research Council to project sea-level rise along their coasts for the years 2030, 2050, and 2100, taking into account the many factors that affect sea-level rise on a local scale. The projections show a sharp distinction at Cape Mendocino in northern California. South of that point, sea-level rise is expected to be very close to global projections; north of that point, sea-level rise is projected to be less than global projections because seismic strain is pushing the land upward. ny significant sea-level In compliance with a rise will pose enor- 2008 executive order, mous risks to the California state agencies have A been incorporating projec- valuable infrastructure, devel- opment, and wetlands that line tions of sea-level rise into much of the 1,600 mile shore- their coastal planning. This line of California, Oregon, and study provides the first Washington. For example, in comprehensive regional San Francisco Bay, two inter- projections of the changes in national airports, the ports of sea level expected in San Francisco and Oakland, a California, Oregon, and naval air station, freeways, Washington. housing developments, and sports stadiums have been Global Sea-Level Rise built on fill that raised the land Following a few thousand level only a few feet above the years of relative stability, highest tides. The San Francisco International Airport (center) global sea level has been Sea-level change is linked and surrounding areas will begin to flood with as rising since the late 19th or to changes in the Earth’s little as 40 cm (16 inches) of sea-level rise, a early 20th century, when climate.
    [Show full text]
  • On May 15, 1967; And
    RESOLUTION NO. 2854 A RESOLUTION of the Port Commission of the Port of Seattle Celebrating the 15th Anniversary of the Sister-Port Affiliation Between the Port of Kobe and the Port of Seattle WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2258 creating the Port of Kobe and Port of Seattle Sister Port Affiliation was adopted by the Port Commission of the Port of Seattle and signed by President Merle D. Adlum of the Port of Seattle Commission on May 15, 1967; and WHEREAS, the friendly and mutually rewarding relationship between the Port of Kobe and the Port of Seattle has continued to deepen and become increasingly meaningful; and WHEREAS, the exchange of marketing and trade information, the sharing of modem transportation and distribution technologies, and the hospitality shown visiting trade delegations have facilitated the continued development of interna- tional commerce between the City of Kobe and the City of Seattle; and WHEREAS, as evidenced by the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the sister city relationship between the City of Kobe, Japan and the City of Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., there is an enduring friendship between the peoples of Kobe and Seattle; and WHEREAS, a delegation representing the Port of Seattle is visiting Kobe in May, 1982 to honor the 15th anniversary of their Sister Port relationship; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the undersigned express their considerable pleasure and pride in noting the cordial friendship and the rewarding commercial relationship that has developed between the Port of Seattle and the Port of Kobe as a result of the action taken 15 years ago initiating the Sister Port Affiliation.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State National Maritime Heritage Area Feasibility Study for Designation As a National Heritage Area
    Washington State National Maritime Heritage Area Feasibility Study for Designation as a National Heritage Area WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION Washington State National Maritime Heritage Area Feasibility Study for Designation as a National Heritage Area WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION APRIL 2010 The National Maritime Heritage Area feasibility study was guided by the work of a steering committee assembled by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Steering committee members included: • Dick Thompson (Chair), Principal, Thompson Consulting • Allyson Brooks, Ph.D., Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation • Chris Endresen, Office of Maria Cantwell • Leonard Forsman, Chair, Suquamish Tribe • Chuck Fowler, President, Pacific Northwest Maritime Heritage Council • Senator Karen Fraser, Thurston County • Patricia Lantz, Member, Washington State Heritage Center Trust Board of Trustees • Flo Lentz, King County 4Culture • Jennifer Meisner, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation • Lita Dawn Stanton, Gig Harbor Historic Preservation Coordinator Prepared for the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation by Parametrix Berk & Associates March , 2010 Washington State NATIONAL MARITIME HERITAGE AREA Feasibility Study Preface National Heritage Areas are special places recognized by Congress as having nationally important heritage resources. The request to designate an area as a National Heritage Area is locally initiated,
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Starlight
    ® Effective October 12, 2020 COAST STARLIGHT serving SEATTLE - TACOMA - PORTLAND - EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD - SACRAMENTO - SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA - SANTA BARBARA - LOS ANGELES and intermediate stations Amtrak.com BOOK TRAVEL, CHECK TRAIN STATUS, ACCESS YOUR ETICKET AND MORE THROUGH THE Amtrak app. 1-800-USA-RAIL Service on the Coast Starlight® 11 3Train Number4 14 R Coaches: Reservations required. As indicated in column 3Normal Days of Operation4 TuThSa B Business class service available. Reservations required. For R B s r R B s r more information visit Amtrak.com/business-class. 3On Board Service4 s Private rooms. For more information, visit Amtrak.com/rooms. y l O y l O r Dining service: For more information, visit Amtrak.com/dining. Read Down Mile Symbol Read Up y Café service: For more information, visit Amtrak.com/cafe. 6 5 l b Amtrak Thruway Connection—Vancouver, BC/Seattle, WA Checked baggage at select stations. O On Board Bicycle Racks: We offer a number of different ∑w- l9 45A MoWeSa 0 Dp Seattle, WA (Victoria, BC i)(PT) Ar l7 56P TuThSa services to transport your bike onboard on most routes. Each l10 37A MoWeSa 39 Tacoma, WA ∑w- p l6 50P TuThSa train has different equipment and loading procedures that dictate 11 27A MoWeSa 75 Olympia-Lacey, WA >w- 6 01P TuThSa what service will be offered. Reservations are required and l11 51A MoWeSa 94 Centralia, WA ∑w- 5 36P TuThSa additional charges apply. Visit Amtrak.com/bikes for all the 12 35P MoWeSa 137 Kelso-Longview, WA >w- 4 51P TuThSa details before you book your trip.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2019
    October 2019 Community Attributes Inc. tells data-rich stories about communities that are important to decision makers. President and CEO: Chris Mefford Project Manager: Michaela Jellicoe Analysts: Madalina Calen Spencer Cohen, PhD Diana Haring Maureen McLennon Carrie Schaden Zack Tarhouni Community Attributes Inc. 500 Union Street, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98101 www.communityattributes.com October 2019 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma combined represent a core economic development asset for businesses and communities in Washington state and elsewhere in the U.S. Both ports facilitate the movement of millions of twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) of containerized cargo as well as millions of metric tons of breakbulk, automobiles, logs, and liquid bulk. Both ports are also host to industrial and non-industrial activities that spur job growth and economic wealth creation in the Central Puget Sound and Washington state. The Port of Seattle facilities support a large and growing cruise ship industry and serve approximately half of the North Pacific Fisheries Fleet. Exhibit E1. Estimated Direct Impacts of Activities at The Northwest Seaport Alliance, Port of Seattle, and Port of Tacoma, Washington, 2017 and 2019 Business Labor Income Jobs Output (mils) (mils) The Northwest Seaport Alliance (2017) 20,100 $5,858.7 $1,902.7 Containerized Cargo 14,900 $4,537.6 $1,502.5 Automobiles 1,300 $308.8 $108.4 Breakbulk, Logs and Other Cargo 3,900 $1,012.2 $291.9 Port of Seattle Cruise Industry (2019, 2018$) 3,000 $467.8 $122.7 Port of Seattle Commercial Fishing (2017) 7,200 $671.3 $313.4 Port of Seattle Recreational Marinas and Other Business (2017) 3,600 $728.8 $357.2 Port of Tacoma Tenants and Other Business (2017) 1,500 $852.2 $114.3 Sources: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2019; Washington State Employment Security Department, 2018; Washington State Department of Revenue, 2018; The Northwest Seaport Alliance, 2018; Port of Seattle, 2018; Port of Tacoma, 2018; Community Attributes Inc., 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Northwest Seaport Alliance Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy Implementation Plan
    DRAFT Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy Implementation Plan Produced by the Northwest Seaport Alliance June 30, 2021 Executive Summary: PLACEHOLDER PLACEHOLDER i Table of Contents: PLACEHOLDER PLACEHOLDER ii Glossary: PLACEHOLDER PLACEHOLDER iii 1. Purpose The Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA) is committed to reducing, and ultimately eliminating, the air and climate pollution emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and greenhouse gases (GHG) – that are associated with the cargo shipping operations that we manage on behalf of the ports of Tacoma and Seattle. That is why The NWSA, at its inception in 2015, joined the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy (NWPCAS). The NWPCAS is a voluntary collaboration between the four largest port entities of the Pacific Northwest – NWSA, Port of Tacoma (PoT), Port of Seattle (PoS), and Port of Vancouver (VFPA) – to reduce air and climate pollution from their respective seaport activities throughout the Puget Sound – Georgia Basin Airshed. The NWPCAS constitutes a shared strategic framework for clean air and climate actions and investments that creates a “level playing field” across the four participating port entities, and helps them coordinate, collaborate, and hold each other accountable. The participating ports updated and renewed the NWPCAS in 2020, strengthening their commitment to reducing air and climate pollution. The 2020 NWPCAS puts forth an ambitious, aspirational, joint vision to phase out emissions from seaport activities by 2050, and a suite of high-level joint objectives and actions to advance that vision. In addition, each of the four participating port entities committed to developing a detailed implementation plan tailored to their particular policy environments, governance structures, lines of business, emissions profiles, and community priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion 09611
    -., .. ~ ~ ~.! .. ~ ~~, '" • ~ 1 L:\RRY PHllUP$ , KENT PULLE.N LOUISE MILLI:Fi 1 June 2.1995 INTRODUCED BY: BRUCE LAING 2 II CRD/lLK PROPOSED NO: 95 - 44 1 3 4 MOTION NO. 9 611 .:J 5 A MOTION approving projects for the King County Cultural Facilities Program, 6 in accordance with Ordinance 10189. 7 WHEREAS, the King County arts commission and landmarks and heritage commission 8 are authorized by Ordinance 10189 to administer cultural facilities projects, and 9 WHEREAS, the King County cultural resources division received 87 applications 10 requesting $8,639,677 fromthe 1995 Cultural Facilities Program and County.Council's Arts 11 and Natuml Resources Initiative. and 12 WHEREAS, two review panels of arts and heritage professionals, coro.munity 13 representatives, and commission representatives reviewed the applications and made 14 recommendations to the King County arts commission and landmarks and heritage 15 commission, as listed in Attachments A (arts) and B (heritage), and 16 WHEREAS, the Kin~ County arts commission and the King County landmarks and 17 heritage commission approved the review panels' recommendations, and 18 WHEREAS, the recommendations for arts and heritage Cultural Facilities Program 19 funding adhere to the guidelines and fmancial plan policies approved by the King County 20 council in Motion 8797, and 21 WHEREAS, the fmancial plan inc1u~ed as Attachment C, has been revised to indicate 22 actual hoteVmotel tax revenue. for 1994 and projected revenue consistent with assumptions 23 made in the 1995 adopted budget, and 24 WHEREAS, the financial, plan supports Cultural Facilities program funding; 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 , ' ( -~ f" ," '\ , 9611 ~ I " NOW THEREFORE BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: 2 The executive is hereby authorized to allocate a total of $727,399, which includes 3 $512,200 for twenty arts projects as listed in Attachment A for Cultural Facilities program arts ~ projects and $215,199 for eight heritage projects as listed in Attachment B for Cultural .S Facilities program heritage projects.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study Intermodal Issues Facing the Puget Sound Region
    A Case Study Of the Intermodal Issues Facing The Puget Sound Region and The Port of Seattle Patrick Sherry, Ph.D. Joseph Szyliowicz, Ph.D. Andy Goetz, Ph.D. Page McCarley University of Denver December 21, 2006 - 1 - Acknowledgments This project was supported in part by The Intermodal Task Force of the Transportation Working Group of the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation The Port of Seattle The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board And the Intermodal Transportation Institute of the University of Denver - 2 - Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................................5 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................6 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................6 PURPOSE OF THE CASE STUDY............................................................................................................................6 REGIONAL OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................................................9 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Lightship No. 83 (Lv 83 Wal 508)
    LIGHTSHIP NO. 83 HAER No. WA-175 (LV 83 WAL 508) Lightship BLUNTS Lightship SAN FRANCISCO Lightship RELIEF SWIFTS URE) South Lake Union Pier Seattle King County Washington PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA REDUCED COPIES OF MEASURED DRAWINGS HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C St. NW Washington, DC 20240 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD LIGHTSHIP No. 83 (LV 83) c,vAL sos) (Lightship BLUNTS) (Lightship SAN FRANCISCO) (Lightship RELIEF) (SWIFTS URE) HAER No. WA-175 LOCATION: South Lake Union Pier, Seattle, King County, Washington RIG/TYPE OF CRAFT: Lightship OFFICIAL NUMBERS: LV 83, WAL 508 PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS: Length: 129' (112' as built in 1904) Beam: 28'-6" Depth: 12'-6" DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1904 DESIGNER: United States Office of the Light-House Board, C.J. Hutchins, Capt. U.S.N. Naval Secretary BUILDER: New York Shipbuilding Company, Camden. New Jersey SIGNIFICANCE: Lightship No. 83 is one of three surviving lightships and "the oldest on the West Coast." Of the three surviving lightships. "only No. 83 has retained her original marine steam engine and machinery, and hence is not only one of the oldest surviving American lightships, but also the lightship with the greatest integrity of design and form." 1 PROJECT INFORMATION: The Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) is a part of the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering 1 Information from U.S. Coast Guard, http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/weblightships/lv83.html, accessed March 2005. Quote from James Delgado, "Lightship No. 83," National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Maritime Heritage of the United States NHL Study-Large Vessels, July J 988, statement of significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impact Analysis
    Community Attributes Inc. tells data-rich stories about communities that are important to decision makers. President and CEO: Chris Mefford Project Manager: Michaela Jellicoe Analysts: Madalina Calen Spencer Cohen, PhD Maeve Edstrom Maureen McLennon Doudou Feng Bryan Lobel Robert Douglas Community Attributes Inc. 1411 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1401 Seattle, Washington 98101 www.communityattributes.com E X ECU T I VE S UMMARY Sea-Tac International Airport serves as the gateway to Seattle, Washington state, and the larger Pacific Northwest for air travelers. It is the 9th busiest airport in the United States (as of 2016), hosting an estimated 46.8 million passengers in 2017.1 Air cargo volume at Sea-Tac increased by more than 10% between 2015 and 2016,2 and is estimated to total nearly 425,860 metric tons in 2017. Sea-Tac offers non-stop flights to more than 90 domestic and 20 international destinations. Sea-Tac connects Washington’s businesses, goods and residents throughout the United States and to the world. Key Asset to Washington Businesses Firms of all sizes throughout Washington count on the worldwide connections that allow them to conduct business with their customers, vendors, partners, and connect them to the top talent they recruit throughout the globe. Washington’s export industries depend on access to global markets, facilitated by the airport. The cherry industry is a prime example of a Washington industry that depends on the airport to transport their goods to global markets. In 2016, Washington produced over 207,000 tons of cherries,3 of which roughly 21,500 tons (10%) were exported through Sea-Tac.4 These exports support jobs, wages, and economic activity in some of Washington’s more rural communities in Yakima Valley and Wenatchee area.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Port of Tacoma Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy Implementation Plan
    DRAFT Port of Tacoma Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy Implementation Plan Produced by The Port of Tacoma July 8, 2021 1 Executive Summary: PLACEHOLDER PLACEHOLDER 2 Table of Contents: PLACEHOLDER PLACEHOLDER 3 Glossary: PLACEHOLDER PLACEHOLDER 4 1. Purpose Improving air quality and reducing impacts on climate change are key priorities for the Port of Tacoma (PoT) and as such, it has been a partner in the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy (NWPCAS) since its inception in 2008. The NWPCAS is a voluntary collaboration between the PoT, Port of Seattle (PoS), The Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA) and Port of Vancouver (VFPA) to reduce and ultimately eliminate air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from seaport activities in the Puget Sound-Georgia Basin Airshed. The NWPCAS constitutes a shared strategic framework for clean air and climate actions and investments that creates a “level playing field” across the four participating port entities, and helps them coordinate, collaborate, and hold each other accountable. The participating ports completed a renewal of the NWPCAS in 2020, continuing their commitment to work jointly to reduce air pollution and climate impacts. The 2020 NWPCAS puts forth an aggressive, aspirational joint vision to phase out emissions from seaport activities by 2050, supported by a suite of high-level joint objectives and actions. Given that each port exists in a unique policy environment, has different lines of business, and different community interests, there is a need for flexibility in how the ports individually implement the NWPCAS. Therefore, each port has committed to developing an Implementation Plan that details the individual actions they will take to work towards the NWPCAS vision and objectives.
    [Show full text]