DOCSLIB.ORG

Housing Diversity and Affordability in New

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Housing Diversity and Affordability in New HOUSING DIVERSITY AND AFFORDABILITY IN NEW JERSEY’S TRANSIT VILLAGES By Dorothy Morallos Mabel Smith Honors Thesis Douglass College Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey April 11, 2006 Written under the direction of Professor Jan S. Wells Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy ABSTRACT New Jersey’s Transit Village Initiative is a major policy initiative, administered by the New Jersey Department of Transportation that promotes the concept of transit oriented development (TOD) by revitalizing communities and promoting residential and commercial growth around transit centers. Several studies have been done on TODs, but little research has been conducted on the effects it has on housing diversity and affordability within transit areas. This research will therefore evaluate the affordable housing situation in relation to TODs in within a statewide context through the New Jersey Transit Village Initiative. Data on the affordable housing stock of 16 New Jersey Transit Villages were gathered for this research. Using Geographic Information Systems Software (GIS), the locations of these affordable housing sites were mapped and plotted over existing pedestrian shed maps of each Transit Village. Evaluations of each designated Transit Village’s efforts to encourage or incorporate inclusionary housing were based on the location and availability of affordable developments, as well as the demographic character of each participating municipality. Overall, findings showed that affordable housing remains low amongst all the designated villages. However, new rules set forth by the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) may soon change these results and the overall affordable housing stock within the whole state. Most of the Transit Villages featured in this report have petitioned for COAH certification under the new third round rules. Despite this new process, there remains to be a lack of innovative incentives and strong policy initiatives to encourage the growth of affordable housing and improve accountability for their inclusion within the Transit Village area. Case studies, primarily in California, have been provided to demonstrate alternatives, incentives, and future recommendations that may improve the quality and quantity of affordable housing within New Jersey’s transit-oriented developments. i Table of Contents Abstract.............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .....................................................................................................................v List of Figures .................................................................................................................. vii Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Overview………………………...:....................... 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 Research Overview................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2: Literature Review............................................................................................. 5 Transit-Oriented Development Origins…………………………………….….... 5 Walking Horsecar Era (1800-1890)…………………………………....... 5 Electric Streetcar Era................................................................................. 5 Recreational Automobile Era ................................................................... 6 Freeway Era …………………………………………………….............. 6 The Return to Pre-WWII America ....................................................................... 7 New Urbanism ………………………………………………. ............................ 8 Smart Growth………………………………………………………… ................ 9 Federal Transportation Policies and Transportation Planning…………...............10 Transit- Oriented Development Today…………………………………………...11 The New Jersey Transit Village Initiative………………..................................... 15 Affordable Housing in New Jersey………............................................................ 18 Integration of TOD and Affordable Housing………............................................. 25 Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………................. 27 Chapter 4: Affordable Housing Trends Within the Transit Villages……………………. 31 Introduction ……………………………................................................................ 31 ii Overview of Findings ……………………………………… ............................. 32 Belmar………………………………………………………………………….. 38 Bloomfield……..……………………………………………………………….. 41 Bound Brook……...…………………………………………………………….. 44 Collingswood……….…………………………………………………………... 47 Cranford…..…………………………………………………………………….. 50 Jersey City……………………………………………………………….…….... 53 Matawan...………………………………………………………………………. 64 Metuchen….…………………………………………………………………….. 67 Morristown……..……………………………………………………………….. 70 New Brunswick…………..…………………………………………………….. 74 Pleasantville…………………………………………………………………….. 78 Rahway………………………………………………………………………….. 81 Riverside……..………………………………………………………………….. 85 Rutherford……………………………………………………………………….. 87 South Amboy ……..…………………………………………………………….. 90 South Orange…………………………………………………………………….. 93 Chapter 5: Case Studies…………………………………………………………………. 96 Barrio Logan Mercado Project…………………………………………………... 96 Ohlone-Chynoweth Station …………………………………………………….. 97 Fruitvale Transit Village………………………………………………………… 97 Chapter 6: Recommendation and Conclusion…………………………………………… 99 Recommendations……………………………………………………………….. 99 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….... 103 iii Appendices Appendix A: Transit Village and Affordable Housing Contacts……………….105 Appendix B: Affordable Housing Findings in New Jersey’s Transit Villages…………………………………………………………………109 Appendix C: COAH Documents……………………………………………….119 References………………………………………………………………………………125 iv List of Tables Table 1: Affordable Housing in Transit Village Municipalities...................................... 35 Table 2: Affordable Housing Units as a Percentage of Total Units Within Transit Village (T.V.) Area……………….......................................................................................................... 36 Table 3: Transit Village Affordable Units As a Percentage of Total Affordable Units (Per Transit Village Municipality……………………………………………… ............................... 37 Table 4: Belmar Affordable Housing…………………………………… ...................... 39 Table 5: Bloomfield Affordable Housing.........................................................................42 Table 6: Bound Brook Affordable Housing..................................................................... 45 Table 7: Collingswood Affordable Housing.................................................................... 48 Table 8: Cranford Affordable Housing............................................................................ 51 Table 9A: Jersey City Affordable Housing –Existing Units........................................... 54 Table 9B: Jersey City Affordable Housing –Planned Constuction................................. 61 Table 10: Matawan Affordable Housing......................................................................... 65 Table 11: Metuchen Affordable Housing.........................................................................68 Table 12A: Morristown Affordable Housing –Existing Units........................................ 72 Table 12B: Morristown Affordable Housing –Proposed………..................................... 72 Table 13: New Brunswick Affordable Housing………………….................................. 75 Table 14: Pleasantville Affordable Housing……………….…….................................. 79 Table 15A: Rahway Affordable Housing –Existing....................................................... 83 Table 15B: Rahway –Proposed....................................................................................... 83 Table 16A: Rutherford Affordable Housing –Existing................................................... 88 Table 16B: Rutherford –Proposed.....................................................................................8 Table 17: South Amboy Affordable Housing……………….……............................... 91 v Table 18: South Orange Affordable Housing……………….……............................... 94 vi List of Figures Figure 1: Affordable Housing- Belmar Transit Village………………………............ 40 Figure.2: Affordable Housing- Bloomfield Transit Village.......................................... 43 Figure 3: Affordable Housing- Bound Brook Transit Village....................................... 46 Figure 4: Affordable Housing- Collingswood Transit Village...................................... 49 Figure 5: Affordable Housing- Cranford Transit Village.............................................. 52 Figure 6: Affordable Housing- Jersey City (Journal Square) Transit Village………………………………………………………….................................... 63 Figure 7: Affordable Housing- Matawan Transit Village.............................................. 66 Figure 8: Affordable Housing- Metuchen Transit Village..............................................69 Figure 9: Affordable Housing- Morristown Transit Village...........................................73 Figure 10: Affordable Housing- New Brunswick Transit Village..................................77 Figure 10: Affordable Housing- Pleasantville Transit Village.......................................80 Figure 11: Affordable Housing- Rahway Transit Village...............................................84
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2018-2019 Audit Report
    THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY REPORT OF AUDIT YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2019 AND 2018 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit Page Part I Independent Auditors’ Report 1 Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance 4 and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards Financial Statements Current Fund Balance Sheets A 6 Statements of Operations and Change in Fund Balance A-1 8 Statement of Revenues A-2 9 Statement of Revenues – Analysis of Realized Revenues A-2a 11 Statement of Revenues – Analysis of Nonbudget Revenues A-2b 12 Statement of Expenditures A-3 13 Trust Fund Balance Sheets B 17 General Capital Fund Balance Sheets C 18 Fund Balance C-1 19 Water Utility Balance Sheets D 20 Statement of Operations and Changes in Fund Balance D-1 21 Statement of Fund Balance D-2 22 Statement of Revenue – Operating Fund D-3 23 Statement of Expenditures D-4 24 Public Assistance Fund Balance Sheets E 25 Trustees of Free Public Library Balance Sheets F 26 Statement of Revenues and Expenditures F-1 27 Statement of Governmental Fixed Assets – Regulatory Basis G 28 Notes to Financial Statements 29 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit Page Part II – Supplementary Information Current Fund Schedule of: Cash Receipts and Disbursements – Treasurer A-4 62 Change Funds A-5 63 Due To/From State of New Jersey per Chapter 129, P.L. 1976 A-6 64 Taxes Receivable and Analysis of Property Tax Levy A-7 65
    [Show full text]
  • NJNAHRO News REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS
    NEW JERSEY CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING & NJNAHRO News REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS Volume 2, Issue 1 September 2012 Special points of interest: HUD Funding • Pg. 3 Madison HA wins award “DOING MORE WITH LESS” • Pg. 4 President’s Perspective The mantra of the federal Are the public housing pro- to deal with these reductions government to public housing gram and Housing Choice through one-shot budget gim- • Pg. 5 Summit Housing Authority authorities, for more than a Voucher programs failures and micks such as the “subsidy in the News decade, is that you “must do in need of elimination? In re- allocation adjustment.” Once • Pg. 6 Boonton Ceremony more with less.” Historically, cent years, Congress has not these one-shot gimmicks are funding for federal housing been providing adequate fund- exhausted, public housing op- • Pg. 7 Marion Sally Retires programs has been cyclical. ing for these programs which is erating subsidy will be at an all • Pg. 8 Middletown Housing Unfortunately, the industry has resulting in cuts in services and -time low which will lead to Authority-Energy Efficient been in a historically low fund- deferred maintenance. It ap- further cuts in staff, service ing cycle for an unusually long pears that the federal govern- and maintenance. • Pg. 9 2012 Scholarship Recipients period of time. It appears that ment cannot figure out whether While public housing au- • Pg. 10 Newark ED Testifies this pattern is part of an overall or not it wants to be in the sub- thorities continue to do more attempt to downsize and/or sidized housing business.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Goals and Objectives Ii. Land Use Plan
    I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS ........................................................................................................................................................ I-2 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. I-3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. I-3 Housing.................................................................................................................................................... I-7 Circulation ................................................................................................................................................ I-8 Economic Development ......................................................................................................................... I-10 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................... I-11 Conservation ......................................................................................................................................... I-12 Community Facilities ............................................................................................................................. I-13 Parks and Recreation ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development
    TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration LEGAL RESEARCH DIGEST January 1999--Number 12 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Subject Areas: IA Planning and Administration, IC Transportation Law, VI Public Transit, and VII Rail The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development This report was prepared under TCRP Project J-5, "Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs, "for which the Transportation Research Board is the agency coordinating the research. The report was prepared by S. Mark White. James B. McDaniel, TRB Counsel for Legal Research Projects, was the principal investigator and content editor. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SOLUTION transit-equipment and operations guidelines, FTA financing initiatives, private-sector programs, and The nation's transit agencies need to have access labor or environmental standards relating to transit to a program that can provide authoritatively operations. Emphasis is placed on research of current researched, specific, limited-scope studies of legal importance and applicability to transit and intermodal issues and problems having national significance and operations and programs. application to their businesses. The TCRP Project J-5 is designed to provide insight into the operating APPLICATIONS practices and legal elements of specific problems in transportation agencies. Local government officials, including attorneys, The intermodal approach to surface planners, and urban design professionals, are seeking transportation requires a partnership between transit new approaches to land use and development that and other transportation modes. To make the will address environmental impacts of increased partnership work well, attorneys for each mode need automobile traffic and loss of open space around to be familiar with the legal framework and processes cities and towns, and alleviate financial pressures on of the other modes.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Village Symposium: “Progress and Future”
    ‘ Progress and Future’ 2nd Transit Village Symposium Summary of Proceedings sponsored by: Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and New Jersey Department of Transportation with support from The New Jersey State League of Municipalities September 2006 “Progress and Future” — 2nd Transit Village Symposium, June 9, 2006 Executive Summary n Friday, June 9, 2006, more than 150 invited leaders from the public sector, private industry and O non-governmental organizations gathered in New Brunswick to take stock in New Jersey’s effort to support the Transit Village Initiative, which facilitates targeted development and redevelopment near transit stations, a strategy known as transit-oriented development (TOD). The impetus for this gathering was, in part, the change in leadership in state government — now headed by Governor Jon Corzine. S ponsored by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), the symposium was organized by the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Additional support was provided by the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. T he New Jersey Transit Village Initiative seeks to revitalize and grow selected communities with transit as an anchor. A Transit Village is designated as the half-mile area around a transit facility (this is also typically referred to as a TOD district). There are currently 17 designated Villages: Belmar, Bloomfield, Bound Brook, Collingswood, Cranford, Jersey City, Matawan, Metuchen, Morristown, New Brunswick, Netcong, Pleasantville, Rahway, Riverside, Rutherford, South Amboy, and South Orange. In opening remarks, Dean James W.
    [Show full text]
  • Jersey City Community Violence Needs Assessment
    Jersey City Community Violence Needs Assessment Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 2 II. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 City Profile .................................................................................................................... 4 III. Needs Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................... 6 1. Focus Groups ............................................................................................................. 6 2. Stakeholder Interviews .............................................................................................. 6 3. Administrative Data Mapping ...................................................................................... 7 4. Limitations ................................................................................................................ 7 IV. Findings .............................................................................................................................. 7 1. Impacted Communities ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 19 Environmental Justice
    Chapter 19 Environmental Justice 19.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter considers whether minority populations and/or low-income populations would experience disproportionately adverse impacts from the proposed Project. It also discusses the public outreach efforts undertaken to inform and involve minority and low-income populations within the study area. 19.2 METHODOLOGY In accordance with Federal Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994), this environmental justice analysis identifies and addresses any disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations that lie within the study area for the proposed Project. Executive Order 12898 also requires federal agencies to work to ensure greater public participation in the decision-making process. This environmental justice analysis was prepared to comply with the guidance and methodologies set forth in the DOT’s Final Environmental Justice Order (DOT 2012), FTA’s environmental justice guidance (FTA 2012), and the federal Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) environmental justice guidance (CEQ 1997). Consistent with those documents, this analysis involved the following basic steps: 1. Select a geographic analysis area based on where the proposed Project components may cause impacts; 2. Obtain and analyze relevant race, ethnicity, income and poverty data in the study area to determine where minority and low-income communities, if any, are located; 3. Identify the potential of the Build Alternative to adversely impact minority and low-income populations; 4. Evaluate the potential of the Build Alternative to adversely affect minority and low-income populations relative to the effects on non-minority and non-low-income populations to determine whether the Build Alternative would result in any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low-income populations; 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Morristown Plan Endorsement Process
    TOWN OF MORRISTOWN MUNICIPAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT Town of Morristown Plan Endorsement Process Prepared by: Town of Morristown Planning Division Topology NJ, LLC April 2020 Page 1 of 63 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 4 Introduction 5 Location and Regional Context 6 Demographics 9 Community Inventory 16 Community Vision & Public Participation 18 Status of Master Plan and Other Relevant Planning Activities 20 Recent and Upcoming Development Activities 22 Statement of Planning Coordination 23 State Programs, Grants and Capital Projects 24 Internal Consistency in Local Planning 25 Sustainability Statement 26 Consistency with State Plan – Goals, Policies and Indicators 34 Consistency with State Plan – Center Criteria and Policies 36 Consistency with State Plan – Planning Area Policy Objectives 38 State Agency Assistance 39 Conclusion 40 Appendix A: List of Maps 51 Appendix B: Contaminated Sites in Morristown 54 Appendix C: Overview of Zoning Board of Adjustment Applications Page 2 of 63 [THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Page 3 of 63 INTRODUCTION New Jersey’s State Development & Redevelopment Plan (State Plan), adopted in 1992 and readopted in 2001, articulates the State’s long-term goals, policies, and objectives. It guides policy making at and coordination between all levels of government for housing, economic development, land use, transportation, natural resource conservation, agriculture and farmland retention, historic preservation, and public facilities and services. The State Plan allows the State Planning Commission to designate several types of Centers. These designations promote dense growth to combat sprawl, increase housing inventories, promote economic development, and enhance the overall quality of life. Morristown currently is designated as a Regional Center.
    [Show full text]
  • In Local Governments
    acce.us THE LEVERS OF inPOWER local governments State-by-State Reference An in-depth look at forms and types of authority, municipal government, initiative/referendum powers with party affiliations Hon. Jon Russell Dominic Pino acce.us THE LEVERS OF inPOWER local governments State-by-State Reference An in-depth look at forms and types of authority, municipal government, initiative/referendum powers with party affiliations Hon. Jon Russell Dominic Pino THE LEVERS OF POWER IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ABOUT ACCE: AMERICAN CITY COUNTY EXCHANGE® Founded in 2013, ACCE: American City County Exchange® is America’s only non-partisan forum for elected local officials who believe taxpayers should come first in every decision. In an effort to better serve constituents, ACCE members learn from experts and each other about issues, processes and problem-solving strategies that matter to people in their communities. Provided with important policy education, local lawmakers become more informed and better equipped to serve the needs of their communities. The Mission of ACCE is to engage local elected officials and leaders from business and industry for the advancement of limited government and free market principles. ACCE: American City County Exchange® brings together local elected officials and the private sector in a non-partisan forum to develop model policy and other measures that promote low taxes, taxpayer transparency, minimal debt and regulations. The Vision of ACCE is to become the go-to organization as the recognized defender of individual liberty and a voice of reason for common-sense solutions. ACCE is division of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The American Legislative Exchange Council is America’s largest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.
    [Show full text]
  • FHWA-NJ-2014-014 Measuring Benefits of Transit Oriented
    FHWA-NJ-2014-014 Measuring Benefits of Transit Oriented Development FINAL REPORT June 2013 Submitted by: Robert B. Noland, Ph.D. Kaan Ozbay, Ph.D. Stephanie DiPetrillo Shri Iyer Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Rutgers University NJDOT Research Project Manager Edward Stephen Kondrath In cooperation with New Jersey Department of Transportation Bureau of Research and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration DISCLAIMER STATEMENT The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration or the Federal Transit Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-NJ-2014-014 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Measuring Benefits of Transit Oriented Development June 2013 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Noland, Robert B., Ph.D., Kaan Ozbay, Ph.D., Stephanie DiPetrillo MNTRC Report 12-18 and Shri Iyer 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered New Jersey Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration PO 600 US Department of Transportation Trenton, NJ 08625 Washington, D.C. 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Mineta National Transit Research Consortium, Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San José State University San José, CA 95192-0219 Report is available, with separate covers, from each sponsor.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinelands Villages and Towns
    P6B PINELANDS VILLAGES AND TOWNS: HISTORIC AREA DELINEATIONS New Jersey Pine1ands Commission P.O. Box 7 New Lisbon, New Jersey March, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface: Survey Methodology . iv Introduction . v Index of the Pinelands Towns and Villages Alphabetically by Municipality •••••••• Bamber Lake . 1 Belcoville 3 Belleplain ................. -.- ....................... 4 Blue Anchor . 5 Brookville 7 Buena/Landisville 9 Cassville 11 Chatsworth 13 Cologne-Germania 15 Cumberland-Hesstown . .. 17 Delmont 19 Dennisville 21 Dorchester-Leesburg . 23 Dorothy 25 Egg Harbor City . 27 Eldora · . 30 Elm . 32 Elwood · . 34 Estell Manor . 37 Folsom · . 39 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Green Bank · .. .. " .................................... 42 Hammonton · . 45 Indian Mills · . 48 LTenkins . 51 Lakehurst 52 Lake Pine 55 Laureldale · . ~ . 57 Legler 59 Lower Bank 61 Milmay · . 63 Mizpah · . 65 Nesco/Westcoatville 67 New Gretna · . .. 69 New Lisbon · . 71 Newtonville . 73 North Dennis · . 74 Petersburg · . 76 Pomona · . 78 Port Elizabeth-Bricksboro . 80 Port Republic . 82 Richland . 84 Sweetwater · . 86 Tabernacle · . 88 Tansboro · . .. 90 Taunton Lake · . .. 92 Tuckahoe · . 94 Vanhiseville · . 96 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Warren Grove 98 Waterford Works 100 Weekstown 103 Whiting . 105 Winslow . .. 107 Woodbine . 109 iii PREFACE: SURVEY METHODOLOGY This is a report which identifies areas of the 55 Pinelands Towns and Villages (as defined in the Comprehen­ sive Management Plan and created as part of the municipal conformance process) where historic era resources occur in relative concentrations. It is intended to be used primari­ ly by local reviewing agencies and Pinelands Commission staff in the review of proposed development to determine those areas where the need for a cultural resource survey pursuant to N.J.A.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Village of Ridgewood Paramus Borough Ho-Ho-Kus Borough
    U.S. Department of the Interior Prepared in cooperation with the Scientific Investigations Map 3299 U.S. Geological Survey New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Sheet 2 of 10 Pamphlet accompanies map 74°07' 74°06' 74°05' 74°04' HOLLYWOOD AVENUE 41°00' Ho-Ho-Kus 41°00' EXPLANATION Borough Flood-inundation area Limit of study reach Flow arrow—Indicates direction of water flow Washington U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 01390500 and number Township 17 17 State route marker G A R D E N S 01390500 T A 40°59' T 40°59' E Village of P A Ridgewood R K W A Y EAST RIDGEWOOD AVENUE r e v i R Paramus e l Borough d GROVE STREET d 40°58' a 40°58' S Study area Glen Rock Borough NEW JERSEY 74°07' 74°06' 74°05' 74°04' UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS FOR USE OF FLOOD-INUNDATION MAPS Although the flood-inundation maps represent the boundaries of inundated areas with a distinct line, some uncertainty is associated with these maps. The flood boundaries shown were estimated based on water stages (water-surface elevations) and streamflows at selected USGS streamgages. Water-surface elevations along the stream reaches were estimated by steady-state hydraulic modeling, assuming unobstructed flow, and using streamflows and hydrologic conditions anticipated at the USGS streamgage(s). The hydraulic model reflects the land-cover characteristics and any bridge, dam, levee, or other hydraulic structures existing as of 2013. Unique meteorological factors (timing and distribution of precipitation) may cause actual streamflows along the modeled reach to vary from those assumed during a flood, which may lead to deviations in the water-surface elevations and inundation boundaries shown.
    [Show full text]