DOCSLIB.ORG

Transportation Capital Program Fiscal Year 2003

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transportation Capital Program Fiscal Year 2003 Transportation Capital Program Fiscal Year 2003 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NJ TRANSIT July 1, 2002 Governor James E. McGreevey Commissioner James P. Fox Table of Contents Section I - Introduction Section II - Program by Activity Section III - NJDOT Project/Program Descriptions Section IV - NJ TRANSIT Project/Program Descriptions Section V – Glossary Section I INTRODUCTION NJDOT/NJ TRANSIT Capital Investment Strategy for FY03-FY07 Introduction The Transportation Capital Program for Fiscal Year 2003 describes all the capital investments planned by the New Jersey Department of Transportation and NJ TRANSIT for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2002. A multi-year program, as required under federal law, is also under development. Both of these programs are the products of extensive, ongoing participation by the state’s three metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and a wide variety of stakeholders. Both programs are driven by New Jersey’s transportation goals and objectives, as laid out in this “capital investment strategy” report. “Capital investment strategy” is the term used in New Jersey for a method of linking transportation investments with goals, objectives, and performance measures. New Jersey is a national leader in the development of this approach, which ensures that scarce financial resources are used as efficiently as possible to address our most important needs. This report provides an overview of NJDOT’s and NJ TRANSIT’s capital programs and concludes with a summary of the revenues which are planned to be used to finance these programs. NJDOT Smart Growth NJDOT is committed to making transportation investments that implement Governor McGreevey’s “Smart Growth” initiative. “Smart Growth” means simply making choices that promote redevelopment of our cities and developed areas and discourage sprawl and unnecessary consumption of open space. This is the same basic approach that underlies the State Planning Act and the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. Investing in our urban areas The five-year capital program outlines several key investments in our urban areas. These include: • Newark—$117 million will be invested in FY03-FY05 in widening and other improvements to Route 21 (McCarter Highway) in Newark. Renovated Route 21 in downtown Newark Other Newark projects include $18 million for Newark Circulation Improvements in the downtown area. • Elizabeth—The Elizabeth River Viaduct replacement project in Elizabeth is programmed for construction in FY04. An innovative urban landscape project upgrading the Route 82 corridor between Elizabeth and Union Township will go to final design in FY03. Section I – Page 1 • Trenton—In Trenton, $16 million will be spent in FY03 on additional improvements in the Route 29 corridor, including landscaping and construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path. Several key bridges are advancing, including Southard Street (construction in FY04). FY03 will also see the beginning of a 5-year, $10 million commitment to Trenton Revitalization projects, including circulation improvements affecting the waterfront. • Camden—$3.75 million will be programmed in FY03 and FY04 for Camden transit-related street improvements. Resurfacing of city streets and traffic signal improvements will also be funded. • New Brunswick—$83 million is programmed in FY03-FY05 for completion of the Route 18 connector between New Brunswick and Route I-287, with additional funds falling outside the three-year window. Construction will begin in FY04 on the $120 million project to rehabilitate and upgrade Route 18 from downtown New Brunswick to Route 1, which includes improved access to downtown. The design of this project has been shaped by an innovative community partnering effort. • Jersey City—Three major bridge projects, each costing over $100 million, are programmed for construction in FY04 and FY05. They are Route 1&9T over St. Paul’s Avenue and two Route 139 viaducts approaching the Holland Tunnel. Transportation needs of rural areas The program also begins to address the special needs of rural areas. Innovative Smart Growth projects in rural areas include $1 million for purchase of property on environmentally sensitive bluffs on the Route 29 Scenic Byway, $1 million for corridor scenic protection on Route 57, and $1 million for Ecotourism grants. Bridges The Transportation Capital Program for FY03 and the five-year program for FY03 through FY07 contain a major commitment to bridge needs. Altogether, NJDOT plans to invest approximately $300 million a year in bridges over the next three years with likely increases after that. Approximately 165 structurally deficient bridges are programmed for work in the FY03-FY07 program, with another 135 undergoing the “study and development” work of preliminary planning and engineering. New Jersey’s 5,129 bridges provide key links for the movement of people and goods within our state. About 876 of these bridges (17% when 100 weighted by size of the bridge) are rated as structurally deficient, meaning they require 90 US DE MD CT NJ replacement or rehabilitation. One of NJDOT’s 80 MA NY PA most important objectives is to restore these 70 bridges to a state of good repair and keep % Acceptable them there. The 2,357 bridges on the state 60 highway system carry very heavy traffic loads 50 including most of New Jersey’s truck traffic. Bridges on the National Highway System Condition of New Jersey’s busiest bridges, (Interstate highways and other key roads) compared to other states in our region carry the heaviest traffic of all. As shown in the accompanying figure, New Jersey rates fairly well in the condition of our NHS bridges, compared to benchmark states in our region and to the US average. Section I – Page 2 NJDOT has direct responsibility for bridges on the state highway system, as well as local bridges crossing NJ TRANSIT rail lines and railroad “orphan” bridges. As shown in the accompanying figure, there has been gradual improvement in the physical soundness of these state-owned bridges over recent years. During the next five years, despite continued high funding levels, we anticipate a temporary downturn in system condition due to the declining condition of several major bridges. During the next 10 years, 13 high-cost bridges are due for complete replacement or major rehabilitation. Each of these bridges will cost at least $50 million in construction costs, while some will cost as much as $300 million or more. Collectively, these 13 bridges will cost more than $2 billion for construction with additional costs incurred for design and right of way 100100 90 acquisition. Seven of these bridges are 90 planned to go to construction within the next 3 80 80 fiscal years: 70 6070 % Acceptable % Acceptable FY03 5060 • Route 35, Victory Bridge over the Raritan 50 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y River, Middlesex County F F F F F F F F F F F 90 Y Y96 Y02 Y04 Y10 FY04 F FY92 FY94 F FY98 FY00 F F FY06 FY08 F • Route 1&9, Elizabeth River Viaduct, Union County New Jersey’s state-owned bridges will show a FY05 short-term “dip” in conditions, as high-cost • Route 1&9T, St. Paul’s Avenue Bridge, Hudson bridge needs appear County • Route 52, Ocean City Causeway, Cape May and Atlantic Counties • Route 70, Manasquan River Bridge, Monmouth and Ocean Counties • Route 139, 12th Street and 14th Street Viaducts, Hudson County • Route 139, Hoboken and Conrail Viaducts, Hudson County The funding needs for these 13 bridges goes well beyond any conventional funding that can be foreseen. NJDOT plans to apply through the federal government for a long-term financing plan and will be seeking additional special appropriations through Congress. NJDOT is also pursuing a number of lower cost programs to improve bridge condition. These include: • Bridge Scour Program – This program provides for examination and improvements to bridges that may have been subject to underwater damage due to stream flows. • Bridge Deck Replacement – NJDOT is pursuing an innovative program to develop “quick- turnaround” projects to improve bridges which require replacement of the bridge deck (that portion of the bridge that supports the traffic) without change to the supporting structure of the bridge itself. • Historic Bridge Preservation – NJDOT is also pursuing a program of funding to provide needed minor repairs to historic bridges. Section I – Page 3 Bridges carrying local roads are generally in poorer condition than state highway bridges. They are mainly owned by county governments. More than 200 of these bridges have been 100 programmed for replacement or rehabilitation 90 using funds provided by the 1999 Bridge Bond 80 Act. 70 Other projects are included in NJDOT’s capital program for use of state or federal funds. This 60 combined effort is expected to bring about a 50 significant improvement in the condition of local bridges over the next five years. Local bridges will improve over the next 5 years Roadway Preservation The 2,300 miles of New Jersey’s state highway system constitute the heart of our state’s surface transportation network. One of NJDOT’s highest priorities is restoring deficient parts of this network to a state of good repair and maintaining the entire system at the best possible level of condition. NJDOT is committed to a long-term program to shrink the backlog of deficient highway segments and to identifying and implementing state-of-the-art engineering techniques and management practices to manage this system for the best possible performance. At the present time, about 84% of New Jersey’s national highway system roadways (interstates and other high-traffic highways) meets the 100 national standard for pavement condition. As 90 DE US shown in the accompanying figure, this is lower CT PA MD than some of the states in our region. Although 80 MA NJ NY this ranking is related to the very high traffic 70 loads put on New Jersey’s highways, it is also a result of historic underfunding of programs for %Acceptable 60 highway resurfacing, rehabilitation, and 50 reconstruction.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Highway and Bridge Project Summary by Subregion NJTPA
    NJTPA Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2020 - 2023 Highway and Bridge Project Summary by Subregion ($ Millions) FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Page Project DBNUM PHASE COST PHASE COST PHASE COST PHASE COST Bergen County Projects ADDITION TO TIP AS OF 12/7/2020 East Anderson Street Bridge (02C0023A) over the N1801 PE 1.90 DES 3.00 1 Hackensack River ADDITION TO TIP AS OF 2/11/2020 Fifth Avenue Bridge (AKA Fair Lawn Avenue Bridge) over NS9606 CON 17.50 2 Passaic River ADDITION TO TIP AS OF 12/7/2020 Kingsland Avenue, Bridge over Passaic River N1601 PE 1.50 DES 2.50 3 Market Street/Essex Street/Rochelle Avenue 98546 DES 1.00 ROW 0.20 4 REVISION 1 AS OF 2/4/2021 Route 4, Bridge over Palisade Avenue, Windsor Road and 065C ROW 1.50 UTI 3.00 CON 23.10 5 CSX Railroad REPLACED BY REVISION 1 Route 4, Bridge over Palisade Avenue, Windsor Road and 065C ROW 1.50 UTI 3.00 CON 23.10 6 CSX Railroad Route 4, Grand Avenue Bridge 08410 DES 4.00 ROW 1.50 7 Route 4, Hackensack River Bridge 02346 DES 4.50 ROW 1.40 8 REVISION 1 AS OF 2/14/2020 Route 4, Jones Road Bridge 94064 ROW 0.60 CON 22.00 9 REPLACED BY REVISION 1 Route 4, Jones Road Bridge 94064 ROW 0.60 CON 22.00 10 UTI 6.00 Route 4, River Drive to Tunbridge Road 12431A CON 7.35 11 Route 4, Teaneck Road Bridge 93134 CON 13.50 12 Route 17, Bridges over NYS&W RR & RR Spur & Central 14319 DES 3.05 13 Avenue (CR 44) Route 17, Pierrepont Ave to Terrace Ave/Polify Rd (CR 55) 15383 CON 6.10 14 REVISION 1 AS OF 2/14/2020 Route 46, Bergen Boulevard to Main Street 12428 CON 4.10 15 REPLACED BY
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS
    New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS Table of CONTENTS Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN Page left blank intentionally. Table of CONTENTS Acknowledgements The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Division of Multimodal Services thanks the many organizations and individuals for their time and contribution in making this document possible. New Jersey Department of Transportation Nicole Minutoli Paul Truban Genevieve Clifton Himanshu Patel Andrew Ludasi New Jersey Freight Advisory Committee Calvin Edghill, FHWA Keith Skilton, FHWA Anne Strauss-Wieder, NJTPA Jakub Rowinski, NJTPA Ted Dahlburg, DVRPC Mike Ruane, DVRPC Bill Schiavi, SJTPO David Heller, SJTPO Steve Brown, PANYNJ Victoria Farr, PANYNJ Stephanie Molden, PANYNJ Alan Kearns, NJ TRANSIT Steve Mazur, SJTA Rodney Oglesby, CSX Rick Crawford, Norfolk Southern Michael Fesen, Norfolk Southern Jocelyn Hill, Conrail Adam Baginski, Conrail Kelvin MacKavanagh, New Jersey Short Line Railroad Association Brian Hare, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation David Rosenberg, New York State Department of Transportation Consultant Team Jennifer Grenier, WSP Stephen Chiaramonte, WSP Alan Meyers, WSP Carlos Bastida, WSP Joseph Bryan, WSP Sebastian Guerrero, WSP Debbie Hartman, WSP Ruchi Shrivastava, WSP Reed Sibley, WSP Scudder Smith, WSP Scott Parker, Jacobs Engineering Jayne Yost, Jacobs Engineering
    [Show full text]
  • 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 History of Circulation in Jersey City 2.2
    Jersey City Master Plan / Circulation Element 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS As part of the background work in developing this Circulation Element, a detailed assessment of the history of circulation in Jersey City and an inventory of the baseline conditions of the City’s transportation system were prepared. 2.1 History of Circulation in Jersey City Photo Source: Jersey City Division of City Planning Strategically located on the Hudson River and with easy access to Upper New York Bay, the City of Jersey City was an important center for shipping and maritime activity during the peak of the industrial revolution of the early nineteenth century. This status was reinforced when the Morris Canal was completed at Jersey City in 1836, giving the City shared direct linkage with the Delaware River at Phillipsburg and with important inland points, such as Newark and Paterson. Jersey City continued to serve as a transit point between Upper New York Bay and inland points to the west, but as the industrial revolution progressed, new technologies enabled the development of newer, more efficient forms of transport than canals. Consequently, railroads followed and terminals were constructed along the Hudson River waterfront and other points in the City. One example is the historic Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal, which originally opened in 1864 and is located in what is now Liberty State Park. With terminals located on the Hudson River, it was not long before ideas about a rail linkage to New York City began to evolve. This led to the construction of what is now known as the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) train, which commenced operations in 1907 after many arduous years of tunneling under the Hudson River.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail & Road to Recovery
    RAIL & ROAD TO RECOVERY April 2020 Tri-State Transportation Campaign BlueWaveNJ Clean Water Action Environment New Jersey New Jersey Policy Perspective New Jersey Sierra Club SUMMARY Transit and environmental advocates strongly oppose the New Jersey Turnpike Authority’s unprecedented 2020 Capital Plan, which will direct $16 billion toward road expansion projects. The $24 billion capital plan calls for more than 50 major projects to be undertaken on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway in rolling, five-year increments. Thirteen of these projects will ultimately widen over 100 miles of roadway on the Turnpike and Parkway, and none of the projects would allow for any transit expansion or incorporate a transit component. This proposed capital program directly contradicts the state’s Energy Master Plan, released in January after a year-long process, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition the state to 100% clean energy sources by 2050, with an emphasis on expanding public transportation options and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In contrast, Rail and Road to Recovery, our alternative capital plan, highlights 27 unfunded mass transit projects totaling over $25.8 billion that would create 1.28 million jobs that should be funded with the $16 billion currently slated for highway expansion. NJTA’s plan also doesn’t take getting the state’s roads and bridges into a state of good repair seriously --36% of the state’s highways are deficient (rough and/or distressed), 529 bridges are structurally deficient and 2,367 are in need of repair. The price tag for unfunded fix-it-first projects is over $10 billion --at least $8.6 billion for bridges and $679 million for just the top 500 state road projects over the next few years, which doesn’t even include needed repairs to the far larger network of local and county roads.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment Plan
    Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment Plan Adopted August 25, 2010 – Ordinance 10-103 Amended November 28, 2012 - Ordinance 12-141 Amended September 11, 2013 - Ordinance 13.092 Amended September 10, 2014 - Ordinance 14.097 Amended October 22, 2014 - Ordinance 14.135 Amended February 10, 2016 - Ordinance 16.014 Amended June 15, 2016 - Ordinance 16.097 Amended October 26, 2016 – Ordinance 16.163 Amended December 13, 2017 – Ordinance 17-174 and 17-175 Amended November 7, 2018 – Ordinance 18-126 Amended March 13, 2019 – Ordinance 19-015 Amended June 18, 2019 – Ordinance 19-095 I) INTRODUCTION On November 25, 2008 the Jersey City Municipal Council determined, by Resolution # 08- 879, the Greater Journal Square Study Area to be an "area in need of rehabilitation," pursuant to the New Jersey Local Housing and Redevelopment Law (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq.). Previously, several portions of the Journal Square area were declared to be an "area in need of redevelopment," called the Journal Square Redevelopment Plan originally adopted in 1974 and amended several times since. This redevelopment plan focuses on Journal Square, the PATH rail station and bus depot, as well as the surrounding neighborhoods within walking distance, comprising an area of approximately 211 acres, 57 city blocks, and approximately 1600 individual parcels. The purpose of the Journal Square 2060 Plan is to foster the redevelopment of Journal Square, Jersey City's central business district, by providing for transit oriented development of new housing, offices, commercial, and public open spaces within walking distance to the Square and transit facilities, returning Journal Square to a flourishing central business and shopping destination.
    [Show full text]
  • Redesign of Holland Tunnel Entrance and Exit Consolidation Study Tier II Screening and Feasibility Assessment
    Holland-RU4474 Redesign of Holland Tunnel Entrance and Exit Consolidation Study Tier II Screening and Feasibility Assessment FINAL REPORT December 2005 Submitted by Maria Boile* Assistant Professor Michail Golias* Jon A. Carnegie** Graduate Research Assistant AICP/PP, Assistant Director Chris Riale** James Greller** Graduate Research Assistant Project Manager * Center for Advanced Infrastruc ture & Transportation (CAIT) Civil & Environmental Engineering Department Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey Piscataway, NJ 08854-8014 ** Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey New Brunswick , NJ 08901 In cooperation with State of New Jersey Department of Transportation And U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Disclaimer Statement "The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who is (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 or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation." The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. Holland-RU4474 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Redesign of Holland Tunnel Entrance and Exit Consolidation Study December2005 Tier II Screening and Feasibility Assessment 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Jersey City Regional Waterfront Access and Downtown Circulation Study
    JERSEY CITY REGIONAL WATERFRONT ACCESS AND DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION STUDY FINAL REPORT July 10, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 184 Stantec / AKRF / Stump-Hausman / Medina July 10, 2007 F I N A L R EP O R T JERSEY CITY REGIONAL WATERFRONT ACCESS AND DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION STUDY Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................5 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW..........................................................................................................5 1.2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................5 1.2.1 Study Area Boundary..............................................................................................5 1.2.2 Roadway Network...................................................................................................8 1.2.3 Mass Transit Options..............................................................................................8 1.3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................8 1.3.1 Data Collection........................................................................................................8 1.3.2 Transportation and Development Models...............................................................9 1.3.3 Identification of Future Deficiencies
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Capital Program Fiscal Year 2021
    Transportation Capital Program Fiscal Year 2021 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION October 2020 Governor Lt. Governor Commissioner Sheila Y. Oliver Philip D. Murphy Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti FISCAL YEAR 2021 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROGRAM Table of Contents Section I ................................. Introduction Section II ................................ NJDOT & NJ TRANSIT Project List by Core Mission Section III ............................... NJDOT & NJ TRANSIT Project List by CIS Category Section IV ............................... NJDOT & NJ TRANSIT Project List by Phase of Work Section V ................................ NJDOT Project / Program Descriptions Section VI ............................... NJ TRANSIT Project / Program Descriptions Section VII .............................. NJDOT Five-Year Capital Plan Section VIII ............................. NJ TRANSIT Five-Year Capital Plan Section IX ................................ Glossary SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ FISCAL YEAR 2021 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROGRAM Introduction The Transportation Capital Program for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2021 describes the planned capital investments for the State fiscal year effectively starting July 1, 2020. It represents the annual element of the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s and NJ Transit’s federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Focusing on the Department’s and Transit's Core Mission — safety, infrastructure preservation, mass transit, mobility and congestion relief, and operations
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 129/Friday, July 5, 2002/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Notices 44929 the Township of Cranford; (3) the The rail lines qualify for a modified SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is former Rahway Valley Railroad certificate of public convenience and hereby given that the Certificate of Company (Rahway Valley) main line necessity. See Common Carrier Status of Authority issued by the Treasury to the from milepost 0 at the junction with the States, State Agencies and above named Company, under the NJ Transit (Raritan Valley Line) in Instrumentalities and Political United States Code, Title 31, Sections Cranford to milepost 3.9 immediately Subdivisions, Finance Docket No. 9304–9308, to qualify as an acceptable southeast of the Rahway River Bridge in 28990F (ICC served July 16, 1981). surety on Federal bonds is terminated Union, inclusive of the branch line from M&E indicates that, even though effective today. the junction at milepost 3.1 and rehabilitation subsidies are being The Company was last listed as an extending northeast approximately 1.1 provided, the lines will operate without acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 66 miles, and the branch line from the any operating subsidies. M&E also FR 35055, July 2, 2001. junction at milepost 1.1 and extending indicates that there are no preconditions With respect to any bonds, including southeast approximately .50 miles; and for shippers to meet in order to receive continuous bonds, currently in force (4) the former Rahway Valley main line rail service, and that it has obtained with above listed Company, bond- from milepost 3.9 immediately liability insurance coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Meadowlands Mobility 2030
    Meadowlands Mobility 2030 New Jersey Meadowlands Commission NJMC Master Plan—Technical Study Meadowlands Mobility 2030 Governor James E. McGreevey Chairman Susan Bass Levin Commissioners James A. Anzevino Michael J. Gonnelli Leonard R. Kaiser Mia M. Macri Eleanore S. Nissley Arleen Walther Executive Director Robert R. Ceberio New Jersey Meadowlands Commission One DeKorte Park Plaza Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 Administrative Office: 201.460.1700 Environment Center: 201.460.8300 www.meadowlands.state.nj.us Adopted May 2004 NJMC Master Plan – Technical Study CONTENTS Chapter 1 Vision Statement Chapter 2 Overview of Meadowlands Transportation Accomplishments and Needs Chapter 3 Achieving Consensus and Setting Priorities Chapter 4 Projects Chapter 5 Congestion Busting in the Meadowlands Chapter 6 Financing Chapter 7 An Ongoing Commitment Maps 1 Road Improvements 2 Rail Improvements 3 Hudson-Bergen-Passaic-Meadowlands Rail Options NJMC Master Plan – Technical Study CHAPTER 1 VISION STATEMENT The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (NJMC) has adopted a new comprehensive Master Plan and a new set of zoning regulations to achieve the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. While all systems, from the natural to the economic, have been factored in and considered, it is understood that their inter-relationships are both complex and delicate. The success of achieving the economic promise of the new Master Plan is absolutely dependent upon a modern transportation network being in place to support it. The anticipated economic growth, redevelopment, new jobs, and vitality of an increasingly vibrant Meadowlands business and tourism destination depend upon the capacity, efficiency, and reliability of the transportation system. In this Meadowlands Mobility 2030 technical report, the Master Plan is complemented by a strategic assessment of the circulatory network in and around the Meadowlands District.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Waterfront Transitway System
    Hudson River Waterfront Transitway System JOSEPH MARTIN, S. DAVID PHRANER, AND JoHN D. WILKINs unique transitway has been pro- 75,000 trips made by bus ultimately posed for New Jersey's Hud- will find their way onto the transitway. son River waterfront. A nar- The core of the proposed transitway is row strip of land is being converted the state-of-the-art light rail transit from railroad yards to large-scale (LRT) facility to carry intrawaterfront mixed use development. At 35 million trips. A busway component and land ft2 of commercial floor space and access roadway have been designated 35,000 dwellings, this new develop- to integrate with the LRT. Transitway ment requires a high-capacity transit- design variations include LRT exclu- way. Add to the trips generated by the sive, busway exclusive, transit in new development nearly 200,000 peak street, bus and LRT sharing right-of- period trips (7 to 10 a.m.) passing way, and, in one location, bus and LRT through the waterfront to the Manhat- sharing travel lanes. tan central business district. At least "RECYCLING" IS A POPULAR buzzword in our environmentally aware society. Along the Hudson River waterfront, the term is being applied in two unique ways: recycling waterfront land and recycling the concept of light rail transit (LRT) in support of development. Imagine the opportunities in a strip of land 18 mi long and never more than a mile wide, largely vacant, and 1,000 yd from Manhattan's central business district (CBD). Five years ago, when commercial rentals approached $40/ft2 in Manhattan, one perceptive J.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9: Historic and Archaeological Resources
    Chapter 9: Historic and Archaeological Resources 9.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies historic properties (including architectural and archaeological resources) in the area of potential effects (APE) for the Preferred Alternative, adverse effects of the Preferred Alternative on such properties, and proposed measures to resolve adverse effects through avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation. The chapter considers both the potential temporary effects of the Preferred Alternative on historic properties during construction and the permanent operational effects on historic properties. This analysis was prepared in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 19661 (Section 106), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) regulations for implementing Section 106 at 36 CFR Part 800. As described below and as required by the Section 106 regulations, consultation has occurred and will continue with the relevant State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs)—the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO) and the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO)— ACHP, and other consulting parties. This analysis was also prepared in accordance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (see Chapter 24, “Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation”). This chapter contains the following sections: 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Analysis Methodology 9.2.1 Regulatory Context 9.2.2 Analysis Methodology 9.3 Affected Environment: Existing Conditions 9.3.1 New Jersey 9.3.2 Hudson River 9.3.3 New York 9.4 Affected Environment: Future Conditions 9.5 Impacts of No Action Alternative 9.6 Construction Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 9.6.1 New Jersey 9.6.2 Hudson River 9.6.3 New York 9.7 Permanent Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 9.7.1 New Jersey 9.7.2 Hudson River 9.7.3 New York 9.8 Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Impacts 9.8.1 Historic Architectural Resources 9.8.2 Archaeological Resources 1 NHPA (54 USC § 306108).
    [Show full text]