DOCSLIB.ORG

Town of Sharon Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Town of Sharon Hazard Mitigation Plan TOWN OF SHARON HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017 UPDATE PREPARED FOR: TOWN OF SHARON 90 SOUTH MAIN STREET SHARON, MASSACHUSETTS 02067DRAFT PREPARED BY: METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL 60 TEMPLE PLACE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02111 TEL 617.933.0700 WWW.MAPC.ORG ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & CREDITS This plan was prepared for the Town of Sharon by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) under the direction of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The plan was funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program. MAPC Officers President, Keith Bergman, Town of Littleton Vice President, Erin Wortman, Town of Stoneham Secretary, Sandra Hackman, Town of Bedford Treasurer, Taber Keally, Town of Milton Executive Director, Marc Draisen, MAPC Thanks for the assistance of the following individuals: MAPC Staff Credits Project Manager: Martin Pillsbury Lead Project Planner: Emma Schnur Mapping/GIS Services: Eliza Wallace, Ryan Melendez Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency Director: Kurt Schwartz Department of Conservation and Recreation Commissioner: Carol I. Sanchez Sharon Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team James Wright, Chair Fire Department Beverly Anderson Health Department Lauren Barnes Town Administrator/Selectmen Linda Berger Recreation Department April Forsman Engineering/GIS Division John Ford PoliceDRAFT Department Eric Hooper Department of Public Works Tilden Kaufman Police Department Richard Murphy Fire Department Mike Polimer Civil Defense Department Public Meeting Participants and Community Stakeholders Special thanks to the public meeting participants and community stakeholders who provided feedback. TOWN OF SHARON – HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2017 UPDATE I TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & CREDITS .................................................................. I LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ............................................................................ III SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................ 1 SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 6 SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................... 11 SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 16 SECTION 5: HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS .................................................. 57 SECTION 6: EXISTING MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................... 58 SECTON 7: MITIGATION MEASURES FROM 2009 PLAN .............................. 64 SECTION 8: HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGY............................................. 67 SECTION 9: PLAN ADOPTION & MAINTENANCE ......................................... 75 SECTION 10: LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................... 77 APPENDICES - Refer to separate document file for the appendices. DRAFT TOWN OF SHARON – HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2017 UPDATE II of 82 LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES TABLES Table 1: Plan Review and Update Process ................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Previous Federal/State Disaster Declarations ............................................................................................. 6 Table 3: FEMA-Funded Mitigation Projects ................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4: Sharon Characteristics ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Hazard Risks Summary .................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 6: Norfolk County Flood Events, 1996 to 2016 ............................................................................................ 18 Table 7: Other Locally Identified Areas of Flooding ............................................................................................... 20 Table 8: Hurricane Records for Massachusetts, 1938 to 2012 ............................................................................. 23 Table 9: Saffir/Simpson Scale ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 10: Enhanced Fujita Scale .................................................................................................................................. 25 Table 11: Tornado Records for Norfolk County ....................................................................................................... 25 Table 12: Nor’easter Events for Massachusetts, 1978 to 2011 ............................................................................ 26 Table 13: Norfolk County Thunderstorm Events, 1995 to 2016 ............................................................................ 27 Table 14: NESIS Categories ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 15: Severe Winter Storm Records for Massachusetts .................................................................................. 30 Table 16: Heavy Snow Events and Impacts in Norfolk County, 1996 to 2014 .................................................. 31 Table 17: Hail Size Comparisons ................................................................................................................................ 32 Table 18: Norfolk County Ice Storm Events, 1965 to 2014 ................................................................................... 33 Table 19: Richter Scale and Effects ............................................................................................................................ 34 Table 20: Historical Earthquakes in Massachusetts or Surrounding Area ............................................................ 34 Table 21: Landslide Volume and Velocity ................................................................................................................. 37 Table 22: Norfolk County Extreme Cold and Wind Chill Occurrences ................................................................ 41 Table 23: Norfolk County Extreme Heat Occurrences ............................................................................................ 42 Table 24: Chronology of Major Droughts in Massachusetts ................................................................................... 45 Table 25: Town of Sharon, MA 2005 Land Use ....................................................................................................... 45 Table 26: Summary of Sharon Developments, 2010-2017 ................................................................................... 48 Table 27: Future Development Sites in Hazard Areas ............................................................................................ 48 Table 28: Critical Facilities and Relationship to Hazard Areas ............................................................................. 50 Table 29: Estimated Damages from Hurricanes ....................................................................................................... 54 Table 30: Estimated Damages fromDRAFT Earthquakes .................................................................................................... 55 Table 31: Estimated Damages from Flooding ........................................................................................................... 56 Table 32: Existing Natural Hazard Mitigation Measures in Sharon ..................................................................... 61 Table 33: Table 28 Mitigation Measures from the 2010 Plan .............................................................................. 65 Table 34: Potential Mitigation Measures for a Hazard Mitigation Strategy ..................................................... 70 Table 35: Potential Hazard Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 73 FIGURES Figure 1: Existing Features: Critical Facilities, Development Sites, Open Space, & Local Hazard Areas ....... 5 Figure 2: Six-Step Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3: State of Massachusetts Earthquake Probability Map ............................................................................ 36 Figure 4: Massachusetts Wildfires, 2001 to 2009 ................................................................................................... 39 TOWN OF SHARON – HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2017 UPDATE III of 82 Figure 5: Wind Chill Temperature Index and Frostbit Risk ..................................................................................... 40 Figure 6: Heat Index Chart ........................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 7: Statewide Drought Levels using SPI Thresholds, 1850 to 2012 ........................................................... 44 DRAFT TOWN OF SHARON – HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2017 UPDATE IV of 82 SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hazard Mitigation planning is a proactive effort to identify actions that can be taken to reduce
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FOXBOROUGH COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Foxborough Commuter Rail Feasibility Study
    FULLTIME FOXBOROUGH COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Foxborough Commuter Rail Feasibility Study FINAL REPORT September 1, 2010 Prepared For: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority With Support From: Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development Prepared By: Jacobs Engineering Group, Boston, MA With: Central Transportation Planning Staff, Boston , MA Anne S. Gailbraith, AICP Barrington, RI 1 REPORT NAME: Foxborough Commuter Rail Feasibility Study PROJECT NUMBER: A92PS03, Task Order No. 2 PREPARED FOR: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) PREPARED BY: Jacobs Engineering Group Anne S. Galbraith Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) DATE: September 1, 2010 FOXBOROUGH COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: IDENTIFY KEY ISSUES AND PROJECT APPROACH .................................................... 13 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 14 1.2 Key Issues....................................................................................................................... 17 1.3 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2: ANALYZE THE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM.............................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Aerodynamic Effects of High-Speed Trains on People and Property at Stations in the Northeast Corridor RR0931R0061 6
    THE AERODYNAMIC EFFECTS OF u. S. Department of Transportation HIGH-SPEED TRAINS ON PEOPLE Federal Railroad Administration AND PROPERTY AT STATIONS IN THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR. PB2000-103859 III III[[11111[11111111111111111111 Safety of High-Speed Ground Transportation Systems REPRODUCED BY: N 'JS. u.s. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1hour per response, includi'iPe the time for reviewing instructions, searchin~ eXistin?< data sources,rnthering and maintaining the data needed and completin~ and reviewin~ the collection of information. Send comments r~arding this bur en estimate or an~ other aspect of this collec Ion of in ormation, inclu IOlb,SU8%estions for redUCin~ this bur~~~. l0 ~hirron eadquarters ilfrvices, D~~torate~g[c Information Operations an Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Ighway. Suite 1204, Mnglon, VA 22202-4302, and to e ice of Managemen and Bud et Pa rwo Reduction Project 0704-0188 Washin on DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED November 1999 Final Report January 1998 - January 1999 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Division Highlights
    2017-2021 Capital Investment Plan Letter from the Secretary & CEO On behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), I am pleased to present the 2017-2021 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Shaped by careful planning and prioritization work as well as by public participation and comment, this plan represents a significant and sustained investment in the transportation infrastructure that serves residents and businesses across the Commonwealth. And it reflects a transformative departure from past CIPs as MassDOT and the MBTA work to reinvent capital planning for the Commonwealth’s statewide, multi-modal transportation system. This CIP contains a portfolio of strategic investments organized into three priority areas of descending importance: system reliability, asset modernization, and capacity expansion. These priorities form the foundation of not only this plan, but of a vision for MassDOT and the MBTA where all Massachusetts residents and businesses have access to safe and reliable transportation options. For the first time, formal evaluation and scoring processes were used in selecting which transportation investments to propose for construction over the next five years, with projects prioritized based on their ability to efficiently meet the strategic goals of the MassDOT agencies. The result is a higher level of confidence that capital resources are going to the most beneficial and cost-effective projects. The ultimate goal is for the Commonwealth to have a truly integrated and diversified transportation investment portfolio, not just a “capital plan.” Although the full realization of this reprioritization of capital investment will be an ongoing process and will evolve through several CIP cycles, this 2017-2021 Plan represents a major step closer to true performance-based capital planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Investment Plan: 2017-2021
    2017-2021 Capital Investment Plan Letter from the Secretary & CEO On behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), I am pleased to present the 2017-2021 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Shaped by careful planning and prioritization work as well as by public participation and comment, this plan represents a significant and sustained investment in the transportation infrastructure that serves residents and businesses across the Commonwealth. And it reflects a transformative departure from past CIPs as MassDOT and the MBTA work to reinvent capital planning for the Commonwealth’s statewide, multi-modal transportation system. This CIP contains a portfolio of strategic investments organized into three priority areas of descending importance: system reliability, asset modernization, and capacity expansion. These priorities form the foundation of not only this plan, but of a vision for MassDOT and the MBTA where all Massachusetts residents and businesses have access to safe and reliable transportation options. For the first time, formal evaluation and scoring processes were used in selecting which transportation investments to propose for construction over the next five years, with projects prioritized based on their ability to efficiently meet the strategic goals of the MassDOT agencies. The result is a higher level of confidence that capital resources are going to the most beneficial and cost-effective projects. The ultimate goal is for the Commonwealth to have a truly integrated and diversified transportation investment portfolio, not just a “capital plan.” Although the full realization of this reprioritization of capital investment will be an ongoing process and will evolve through several CIP cycles, this 2017-2021 Plan represents a major step closer to true performance-based capital planning.
    [Show full text]
  • New Haven to Boston
    _final cover.3 5/26/04 10:44 Page 1 AMTRAK’S HIGH SPEED RAIL PROGRAM NEW HAVEN TO BOSTON HISTORY AND HISTORIC RESOURCES _final cover.3 5/26/04 10:44 Page 2 PAL Final 5/26/04 11:21 Page 1 AMTRAK’S HIGH SPEED RAIL PROGRAM NEW HAVEN TO BOSTON HISTORY AND HISTORIC RESOURCES This document was prepared by PAL (The Public Archaeology Laboratory,Inc.) with funding provided by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak. Printed in Rhode Island 2001 PAL Final 5/26/04 11:21 Page 2 2 CONTENTS NEW HAVEN TO BOSTON NEW HAVEN 3 Introduction 7 History 39 Stations 52 Railroad Maintenance and Service Facilities 55 Signals and Switches 61 Grade Crossing Eliminations 65 Bridges 73 Freight and Industries 80 Image Credits 80 Recommended Reading In the year 2000, Amtrak inaugurated its new Acela Express high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor, ushering in a premium level of service that will set the standard for transportation in this country. Achieving this mile- stone has required a Herculean effort by many states, agencies, companies and individuals. Indeed, between 1992 and 1999, the railroad between New Haven and Boston was transformed from a sleepy, 1940s era line to the INTRODUCTION premier rail line in North America, capable of train speeds up to 150 mph. This has required some $1.7 billion in new rails and ties, signal system upgrades, In the year 2000, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak, ushered bridge replacements, capacity and station improvements, curve realignments, in a new era of railroading in America with the initiation of Acela high-speed and at-grade crossing upgrades.
    [Show full text]
  • Dot 11810 DS1.Pdf
    u.s. Deportment ~uo SelJe~t~ s~ S \S of Transportation Wasni~g:on. D C 20~9C Federal Railroad Administration The Honorable Trudy Coxe February 15, 1995 Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts, 02202 Re: Northeast Corridor Electrification EIR Dear Secretary Coxe: On November 10, 1994, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provided you with a copy of the final environmental impact statement and final environmental impact report (FEIR) on the proposal by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to extend intercity electric train operation from New Haven, cr to Boston, MA. In due course, the MEPA Unit published a notice of availability of the FEIR in the Environmental Monitor. Subsequent to the release of the FEIR, the MEPA Unit staff suggested that FRA make certain additional background materials available for public review. Enclosed is a supplement to the FEIR that contains the background material identified by the MEPA Unit staff. FRA requests that you arrange for printing a notice of availability of the FEIR and this supplement in the next publication of the State's Environmental Monitor. FRA is providing this information solely because the MEPA Unit staff believes that it would facilitate a more infonned review of the FEIR on Amtrak's proposed electrification project. This action in no way reflects any reservations or concerns on the part of FRA regarding the quality and completeness of the FErR. FRA appreciates the support that we have received from the MEPA Unit staff in facilitating the review of the FEIR. Should your continuing review of the FEIR identify any issues that require further elaboration, FRA will provide such elaboration in a timely manner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1081 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/eea Matthew A. Beaton SECRETARY April 19, 2019 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE PROJECT NAME: Sharon Gallery (formerly Sharon Commons Lifestyle Center) PROJECT MUNICIPALITY: Sharon PROJECT WATERSHED: Neponset River EEA NUMBER: 14081 PROJECT PROPONENT: Ninety-Five, LLC DATE NOTICED IN THE MONITOR: March 20, 2019 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.10 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I hereby determine that the project change does not require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Notice of Project Change (NPC) identifies a 250,000 square foot (sf) increase in the size of the project and a changes in programming, including the addition of residential uses. The overall project will consist of an approximately 750,000-sf mixed-use project comprised of: 156 condominium units, 24 apartment units, an 84-room extended stay hotel, 330,500 sf of retail space, a 50,000-sf fitness center, and 27,000 sf of medical office space. Original Project Description The original project consisted of a 498,000-square foot (sf) commercial retail development on approximately 60 acres of a 138-acre project site in Sharon. The project included construction of an on- EEA# 14081 NPC Certificate April 19, 2019 site wastewater treatment system as well as roadway and stormwater infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Plan 2018 Update Town of Sharon Hazard Mitigation
    TOWN OF SHARON HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2018 UPDATE Final Plan FEMA Approval Pending Adoption May 21, 2018 Adopted by the Town of Sharon Board of Selectmen June 5, 2018 PREPARED FOR: TOWN OF SHARON 90 SOUTH MAIN STREET SHARON, MASSACHUSETTS 02067 PREPARED BY: METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL 60 TEMPLE PLACE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02111 TEL 617.933.0700 WWW.MAPC.ORG ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & CREDITS This plan was prepared for the Town of Sharon by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) under the direction of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The plan was funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program. MAPC Officers President, Keith Bergman, Town of Littleton Vice President, Erin Wortman, Town of Stoneham Secretary, Sandra Hackman, Town of Bedford Treasurer, Taber Keally, Town of Milton Executive Director, Marc Draisen, MAPC Thanks for the assistance of the following individuals: MAPC Staff Credits Project Manager: Martin Pillsbury Lead Project Planner: Emma Schnur Mapping/GIS Services: Eliza Wallace, Ryan Melendez Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency Director: Kurt Schwartz Department of Conservation and Recreation Commissioner: Carol I. Sanchez Sharon Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team James Wright, Chair Fire Department Beverly Anderson Health Department Lauren Barnes Town Administrator/Selectmen Linda Berger Recreation Department April Forsman Engineering/GIS Division John Ford Police Department Eric Hooper Department of Public Works Tilden Kaufman Police Department Richard Murphy Fire Department Mike Polimer Civil Defense Department Board of Selectmen, Public Meeting Participants and Community Stakeholders Special thanks to the Board of Selectmen for hosting two public meetings and to participants and community stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Northeast Corridor: Mobility Problems and Proposed Solutions
    Appendix A Northeast Corridor: Mobility Problems and Proposed Solutions BACKGROUND EXISTING CONDITIONS The Northeast Corridor extends from the Boston Harbor to Merrimac, Amesbury, and Salisbury bor- dering New Hampshire north of the Merrimack River. The corridor includes eight cities, 24 towns, and East Boston (a neighborhood of Boston), including Logan Airport. In the Northeast Corridor is found the historic factory city of Lynn, as well as the maritime communities of Salem, Marblehead, Beverly, Gloucester, and Newburyport. Large swaths of the corridor north of Cape Ann are protected marine estuaries. The MBTA offers rapid transit, bus, and commuter rail services across much of this corridor. The Blue Line has eight stations from Maverick Square in East Boston to Wonderland in Revere. The Blue Line also has a stop serving Logan Airport, from which dedicated free Massport shuttle buses circulate to all air terminals. MBTA Blue Line service to Logan Airport has recently been supplemented by the popular Silver Line bus rapid transit service from South Station. Maverick and Wonderland Stations both serve as major bus hubs, though some important services operate from other stations, notably buses to Winthrop from Orient Heights operated by Paul Revere Transportation under contract to the MBTA. MBTA buses also serve the corridor communities of Chelsea, Saugus, Lynn, Swampscott, Marblehead, Salem, Peabody, Beverly and Danvers. Many MBTA buses in this corridor operate all the way to Haymarket Station, in Boston Proper. These routes use the I-90 Ted Williams Tunnel, Route 1A Sumner Tunnel, or U.S. Route 1 Tobin Bridge. Because these routes use the regional express highways, they are able to provide a high level of service.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E Southwest Corridor: Mobility Problems and Proposed Solutions
    Appendix E Southwest Corridor: Mobility Problems and Proposed Solutions BACKGROUND EXISTING CONDITIONS The Southwest Corridor begins with the Boston neighborhoods of Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, Roslin- dale, West Roxbury, and Hyde Park. From Boston the sector extends to Rhode Island and includes two cities and 23 towns. The MBTA operates commuter rail, rapid transit, bus rapid transit, express bus routes, and 40 local bus routes in the corridor. Two commuter rail lines operate entirely within this corridor: the Franklin, Providence/Stoughton Lines. The Providence/Stoughton Line traverses the entire corridor and serves riders from Rhode Island. Parts of the corridor are also served by the Needham and Fairmount Lines. Two MBTA rapid transit lines reach into the Southwest Corridor. The Silver Line bus rapid transit service goes from Boston Proper to Dudley Square, and the Orange Line has six stations in the cor- ridor, including the major bus hubs of Ruggles and Forest Hills Stations. A number of local bus routes are centered on Dudley Square and Ruggles Station and serve the Southwest Corridor as well as adjacent corridors. A number of bus routes radiate from Forest Hills Station as well, serving Boston neighborhoods in this corridor as well as in Dedham, Westwood, Norwood, and Walpole. In addition to the MBTA, the Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority (GATRA) provides bus services connecting with the Attleboro, South Attleborough, and Mansfield Stations on the Provi- dence/Stoughton commuter rail line, and with Franklin Station on the Franklin Line. GATRA is respon- sible for several separate bus route networks. Seven GATRA routes serve Attleboro, and some of these extend into other municipalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2021-2025
    Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2021-2025 October 2020 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors, and several commuter operators in the region. Contents Letter from the Co-Chairs 1 Introduction 3 FY21-25 Capital Investment Plan 6 NEC Investment Summary 6 NEC Infrastructure Investments with Funding Available in FY21-25 8 NEC Infrastructure Investments with Funding Needs in FY21-25 16 Funding Needs beyond FY21-25 21 Project Information Appendix 22 Capital Renewal 22 Special Projects 152 Newarkiv Penn| NEC Station Capital Investment Plan: FY21-25 Letter from the Co-Chairs We are enduring the most difficult times any of our agencies have experienced. The COVID-19 pandemic has cost so much for Northeast Corridor stakeholders: fewer customers, lost revenue, and less certainty for our futures. Most grievously, we have lost staff members to the virus.
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Transportation Management for Highway
    Corridor Transportation , U.S. Department of Transportation Management for Office of the Secretary of Transportation Highway Reconstruction Southeast Expressway, Massachusetts 1984-1985 May 1986 150388 Corridor Transportation Management for hway Reconstruction: SOUTHEAST EXPRESS MASSACHUSETTS 1984- 1985 Authors William T. Steffens Sonia Weinstock Mary Ellen Sullivan Date May, 1986 This document was prepared by CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF, an interagency transportation planning staff created and directed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, consisting of the member agencies. Executive Office of Transportation and Construction Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Massachusetts Department of Public Works MBTA Advisory Board Massachusetts Port Authority Metropolitan Area Planning Council AUTHORS William T. Steffens m Sonia Weinstock . Mary Ellen Sullivan GRAPHlCS Janice M. Collen , David B. Lewis WORD PROCESSING Sybil White Olga Doherty S.E. Expressway Construction Boundary This document was prepared in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the Federal Highway Administration of the U. S. Department of Transportation under the contract(s) cited below, and was also financed with state matching funds. MDPW 23465 MDPW 23892 Copies may be obtained from the State Transportation Library, Ten Park Plaza, 2nd floor, Boston, MA 02116 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF TABLES ix PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS - ROADWAY
    [Show full text]