DOCSLIB.ORG

Part V (Plan) of Tranplan Updated 5/96

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Part V (Plan) of Tranplan Updated 5/96 SALEM COUNTY TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENT June, 2012 SALEM COUNTY PLANNING BOARD SALEM COUNTY OFFICES 164 Route 45 Salem, NJ 08079 SALEM COUNTY TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENT June, 2012 Board of Chosen Freeholders Julie A. Acton, Director Benjamin H. Laury, Deputy Director Bruce L. Bobbitt Dale Cross Beth E. Timberman Robert Vanderslice Lee R. Ware Salem County Planning Board John Willadsen, Chairman John Humphreys, II, Vice- Chair Brian Demarest Bill Stoms Charles Tisa Robert Widdifield Julie A. Acton, Freeholder Director Lee R. Ware, Freeholder Dale Cross, Alt. Freeholder Brent Rowand, Alt. 1 Guy Waddington, Alt. 2 James McKelvie, PE County Engineer Charles Munyon, Secretary Salem County Department of Planning and Agriculture Louis C. Joyce, PP, AICP, Director of Planning Charles Munyon, Supervising Planner Matt Goff, Principal Planning Aide Kris Alexander, Agriculture Program Coordinator The preparation of this report has been financed in part by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents of its use thereof. Table of Contents SECTION I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..1 SECTION II. EXISTING FACILITIES AND CONDITIONS………………………... 3 County Road Network……………………………………………………… 3 Traffic Problem Areas ……………………………………………………...14 Other Modes of Transportation……………………………………………..19 SECTION III. GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS …………………………28 Past Trends…………………………………………………………………. 28 Population Projections……………………………………………………... 29 SECTION IV. TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW………………………………… 35 SJ Transportation Planning Organization………………………………….. 35 State Transportation Plan …………………………………………………. 35 State Management System…………………………………………………. 35 State Strategic Plan………………………………………………………… 36 State Access Management Code…………………………………………… 38 State Functional Classification System ………………………………… 40 National Highway System ………………………………………………… 40 SECTION V. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN……………………………… 45 Goals……………………………………………………………………….. 45 Summary of Problems and Needs …………………………………………. 51 County Transportation Plan……………………………………………… 52 TABLES 1 Road Mileage by Jurisdiction……………………………………………….. 3 2 Road Mileage……………………………………………………………….. 7 3 Required Minimum Widths…………………………………………………. 8 4 Intersections with 10 Accidents or More - 2008-2010…………………….. 14 5 Municipalities with Leading Growth………………………………………. 28 6 Projected Census…………………………………………………………… 29 7 Growth Trends and Projections …………………………………………… 30 8 Population Trends and Projections………………………………………… 31 FIGURES 1 Regional Location Map………. ………………………………………...... 5 2 Traffic Counts …………………………………………………………… 6 i FIGURES (continued) 3 Inter-County Commuting Patterns ………………………………………… 9 4 Existing Functional Classification ………………………………………… 11 5 Existing Shoulder Widths ………………………………………………… 12 6 Existing Road Right-of-Ways …………………………………………….. 13 7 Traffic Signals and Flashing Beacons ……………………………………... 16 8 High Accident Intersections ………………………………………………. 17 9 Structurally Deficient Bridges …………………………………………….. 22 10 Public Transportation Routes …………………………………………… 23 11 Bicycle Facilities………………………………………………………… 24 12 Rail & Other Modes of Transportation …………………………………… 25 13 Municipal Growth Trends ………………………………………………… 32 14 SJTPO RTP - Problem Areas …………………………………………… 37 15 State Development/Redevelopment Plan …………………………………. 39 16 Highway Access Management Code ……………………………….……. 41 17 State Functional Classification System …………………………………… 42 18 National Highway System ……………………………………………… 43 19 Future Functional Classification System …………………………………. 55 ii I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SALEM COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN The primary concern of the Salem County Transportation Plan is the maintenance and improvement of a transportation system that provides for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and people. Its focus is facilities under County jurisdiction, as well as the total interconnected county system of roads, mass transit and pedestrian and cycling facilities. In addition to the responding to problems created by increasing traffic volumes and system deterioration, the Plan recognizes the general importance of: Supporting economic development (including movement of goods and services) Providing service to transit-dependents and others Reducing vehicular-related air pollution (e.g., by developing strategies to discourage growth in traffic volumes and encourage alternative means of transportation such as mass transit) Providing safe and user-friendly facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists Preserving the rural character of the County and its towns and villages (e.g., by mitigating the disruptive effects of increasing volumes of through-traffic on rural communities) Preserving and protecting the natural environment, farmland, and historic sites and structures As a result of these concerns, the County Planning staff, Planning Board, and other County departments, committees and officials are involved in a wide range of transportation planning activities. These activities include the maintenance and improvement of the County road system, land use planning, e.g., State Plan development process, the improvement and upgrading of the mass transit system, promotion of strategies that reduce the volume of single occupancy automobiles (ridesharing, bicycling), and improvement of intermodal connections between the various modes of goods movement The transportation planning process must balance conflicting goals and values and limited financial resources in an effort to deal with a wide range of transportation needs and problems. While the apparent solution to a traffic problem might be widening of an existing road, this increased capacity can result in an increase in traffic volumes and vehicular air pollution. The traffic increase can also have a negative impact on the rural character of towns and villages, and the new construction can impact on wetlands, T & E species habitat areas or farmland. Due to the complex and regional nature of the issues, the planning process must have both a local and regional perspective. County planning must consider and be coordinated with the plans and programs of adjacent counties, the State Department of Transportation, New Jersey Transit, the State Plan, and the County’s metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and others. The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO), which is the four-county MPO that serves Salem County, helps to provide this regional approach and inter-county coordination, as well as the coordination of state and federal funding for transportation projects and studies. SJTPO is responsible for the development of a regional transportation plan (RTP) and an annual transportation improvement program. The basic elements of the Salem County Transportation Plan are – June, 2012 1 Traffic and Transportation Plan General statement of purpose and objectives of the Plan Identification of existing facilities Identification of problems and needs The Transportation Plan – which includes a statement of goals and objectives, the County Circulation Plan, and a review of proposed/recommended major road improvements June, 2012 2 Traffic and Transportation Plan II. EXISTING FACILITIES AND CONDITIONS The purpose of this section is to identify and define the County transportation system including the State and US routes that impact on the County road network, and to identify existing deficiencies and problem areas, such as congestion and high accident locations, along this system. COUNTY ROAD NETWORK Total Road Mileage A network of municipal, County, State and Federal routes serve local and inter-county travel. Table 1 lists total route mileage of each County, State and Federal route, and total mileage of local routes within each municipality. The following is a summary of the mileage breakdown from Table 1: TABLE 1 Road Mileage by Jurisdiction Percent of Total Jurisdiction Mileage Mileage Municipal 447 50 % County 354 40 % State + 47 5 % Federal 32 4 % I-295 9 1 % NJ Turnpike 7 <1 % Total 893 100 % + Although NJ 55 serves the travel needs of residents in the eastern portion of the County, it cannot be viewed as being located within Salem County and so its mileage is not included in this table. Regional System As can be seen in Figure 1 the County is well situated with respect to a regional transportation system. The Delaware Memorial Bridge links Salem County with Wilmington, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. via Interstate 95 Highway access from the County to Philadelphia and to central/northern New Jersey is provided by the New Jersey Turnpike and I-295 in the west and by NJ 55 in the east (which connects with I-295 via NJ 42.) US 40 connects the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the western urbanized portion of the County to the cities of Vineland and to Atlantic County and City NJ 49 shares approximately the same western terminus as US 40, providing access to the cities of Bridgeton and Millville, and to the shore area of Cape May County The regional north-south routes in the County, which serve inter-county travel to Gloucester County and beyond, are US 130 in the west and NJ 45 in the central portion of the County. NJ 77 connects the Bridgeton area in Cumberland County to NJ 45 in Mullica Hill. June, 2012 3 Traffic and Transportation Plan County Route 540 also serves as a major inter-county east-west route, linking the County’s western urban
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak
    RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak Amtrak Police Department (APD) Frequency Plan Freq Input Chan Use Tone 161.295 R (160.365) A Amtrak Police Dispatch 71.9 161.295 R (160.365) B Amtrak Police Dispatch 100.0 161.295 R (160.365) C Amtrak Police Dispatch 114.8 161.295 R (160.365) D Amtrak Police Dispatch 131.8 161.295 R (160.365) E Amtrak Police Dispatch 156.7 161.295 R (160.365) F Amtrak Police Dispatch 94.8 161.295 R (160.365) G Amtrak Police Dispatch 192.8 161.295 R (160.365) H Amtrak Police Dispatch 107.2 161.205 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Primary 146.2 160.815 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Secondary 146.2 160.830 R (160.215) Amtrak Police CID 123.0 173.375 Amtrak Police On-Train Use 203.5 Amtrak Police Area Repeater Locations Chan Location A Wilmington, DE B Morrisville, PA C Philadelphia, PA D Gap, PA E Paoli, PA H Race Amtrak Police 10-Codes 10-0 Emergency Broadcast 10-21 Call By Telephone 10-1 Receiving Poorly 10-22 Disregard 10-2 Receiving Well 10-24 Alarm 10-3 Priority Service 10-26 Prepare to Copy 10-4 Affirmative 10-33 Does Not Conform to Regulation 10-5 Repeat Message 10-36 Time Check 10-6 Busy 10-41 Begin Tour of Duty 10-7 Out Of Service 10-45 Accident 10-8 Back In Service 10-47 Train Protection 10-10 Vehicle/Person Check 10-48 Vandalism 10-11 Request Additional APD Units 10-49 Passenger/Patron Assist 10-12 Request Supervisor 10-50 Disorderly 10-13 Request Local Jurisdiction Police 10-77 Estimated Time of Arrival 10-14 Request Ambulance or Rescue Squad 10-82 Hostage 10-15 Request Fire Department 10-88 Bomb Threat 10-16
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Development Strategic Plan Salem County, New Jersey 2014-2017
    Economic Development Strategic Plan 2014 - 2017 Economic Development Strategic Plan Salem County, New Jersey 2014-2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Executive Summary ………………………………………………… 2 II. Introduction...…………………………………………………...……. 3 III. Location and History of Salem County …………………………… 4 IV. County Demographics and Statistics …………………………..... 5 V. County Infrastructure ………………………………………………. 6 VI. Available Land and Buildings ………………………………..……. 7 VII. Redevelopment Opportunities …………………………………….. 7 VIII. S.W.O.T. Analysis ………………………………………………….. 7 IX. Priority Projects ……………………………………………………... 15 X. Implementation Plan ……………………………………………….. 21 XI. Plan Updating Process …………………………………………….. 24 XII. Appendix …………………………………………………………….. 24 Economic Development Strategic Plan Salem County, New Jersey 2014 – 2017 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salem County Improvement Authority (SCIA), In conjunction with the County of Salem (the County), has developed this new Economic Development Strategic Plan to serve as a guide or “playbook” in the undertaking of a focused and coordinated program of economic development throughout the County of Salem, New Jersey. This new economic development strategic plan builds upon previous economic development strategic plans and in particular the current plan developed by the SCIA in 2010. In the past four years since the last plan was prepared and adopted by the County and the SCIA, social and economic forces have again shifted, mostly in a positive direction, since the previous plan was developed when the nation and the County were suffering from the economic downturn generally referred to as “The Great Recession”. This new strategic economic development plan focuses on guiding the County’s economic development program to take advantage of an expected rebounding international, national, State and local economy. Salem County has distinct competitive advantages for the certain business and industries based upon its location, affordable land costs, infrastructure and labor force.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Study Report Prepared
    Cooke & Washington Avenue Redevelopment Carteret Borough Middlesex County, New Jersey MARKET STUDY REPORT OG. File No. 20060009 55 Lamson Lane Block 801, Lot 55 Logan Township Gloucester County, New Jersey PREPARED FOR John Kainer Mr. 50 Lamson Lane, LLC 16 Lehigh Drive Kendall Park, NJ 08824 OTTEAU GROUP VALUATION | CONSULTING | ADVISORY | RESEARCH 800-458-7161 www.otteau.com New Jersey Office (Mail) New York Office Pennsylvania Office 100 Matawan Road, Suite 320 112 W. 34th Street, 18th Floor 325 - 41 Che stnut Street, Suite 800 Matawan, NJ 07747 Manhattan, NY 10120 Philadelphia, PA 19106 July 2, 2020 Mr. John Kainer 50 Lamson Lane, LLC 16 Lehigh Drive Kendall Park, NJ 08824 RE: OG. File No. 20060009 55 Lamson Lane Block 801, Lot 55 Logan Township Gloucester County, New Jersey Dear Mr. Kainer: In accordance with your request, we submit our market study report for the above referenced property in Logan Township. The purpose of the market study is to determine whether the proposed warehouse development will have any adverse effect on the market value of surrounding residential properties. The intended use of the study is to provide consulting services related to a use variance application. It is also anticipated that the Township of Logan may rely upon this study in considering a use variance application. In developing this study, we have investigated home selling prices in Gloucester County, New Jersey municipalities near to or bordering warehouse development. The results of these analyses were then compared to selling prices of homes that are not bordering or near to warehouse development. Based upon my investigation and analysis, it is my considered opinion that the proposed warehouse development will not have any adverse effect on the market value of surrounding residential properties.
    [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]
  • Port of Salem Corridor Freight Rail Intermodal Study. South
    Port of Salem Corridor Freight Rail Intermodal Study Final Report South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization May 2018 ii Port of Salem Corridor Study Port of Salem Corridor Freight Rail Intermodal Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization Jennifer Marandino, PE, Executive Director William Schiavi, Project Manager Consultant Team AECOM Envision Consultants iii Port of Salem Corridor Study Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 II. PREVIOUS STUDIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 III. CURRENT CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 8 IV. OUTREACH ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 V. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 13 APPENDICES A. Review of Previous Studies B. Summary of Field Work C. Summary of Outreach
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Board
    DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting of January 26, 2017 Location: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 190 N. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Membership Present Representative New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Sean Thompson New Jersey Department of Transportation David Kuhn New Jersey Governor’s Appointee Thomas Huth Pennsylvania Department of Transportation James Ritzman James Mosca Pennsylvania Governor's Appointee (not represented) Pennsylvania Governor’s Policy & Planning Office Nedia Ralston Bucks County Lynn Bush Chester County Brian O’Leary Delaware County John McBlain Linda Hill Montgomery County Valerie Arkoosh Jody Holton Camden County Lou Cappelli Andrew Levecchia Gloucester County Theresa Ziegler Mercer County Leslie Floyd City of Chester Peter Rykard City of Philadelphia Mark Squilla City of Camden June Morton City of Trenton (not represented) Non-Voting Members Federal Highway Administration New Jersey Division Calvin Edghill Pennsylvania Division Daniel Walston U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region III (not represented) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II (not represented) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (not represented) Federal Transit Administration, Region III (not represented) New Jersey Transit Corporation Lou Millan New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (not represented) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (not represented) 1 B-1/26/17 Delaware River Port Authority
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Trips, Excursions, Special Journeys, Outings, Tours, and Milestones In, To, from Or Through New Jersey
    TRANSPORTATION TRIPS, EXCURSIONS, SPECIAL JOURNEYS, OUTINGS, TOURS, AND MILESTONES IN, TO, FROM OR THROUGH NEW JERSEY Bill McKelvey, Editor, Updated to Mon., Mar. 8, 2021 INTRODUCTION This is a reference work which we hope will be useful to historians and researchers. For those researchers wanting to do a deeper dive into the history of a particular event or series of events, copious resources are given for most of the fantrips, excursions, special moves, etc. in this compilation. You may find it much easier to search for the RR, event, city, etc. you are interested in than to read the entire document. We also think it will provide interesting, educational, and sometimes entertaining reading. Perhaps it will give ideas to future fantrip or excursion leaders for trips which may still be possible. In any such work like this there is always the question of what to include or exclude or where to draw the line. Our first thought was to limit this work to railfan excursions, but that soon got broadened to include rail specials for the general public and officials, special moves, trolley trips, bus outings, waterway and canal journeys, etc. The focus has been on such trips which operated within NJ; from NJ; into NJ from other states; or, passed through NJ. We have excluded regularly scheduled tourist type rides, automobile journeys, air trips, amusement park rides, etc. NOTE: Since many of the following items were taken from promotional literature we can not guarantee that each and every trip was actually operated. Early on the railways explored and promoted special journeys for the public as a way to improve their bottom line.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Commerce in Greater Philadelphia
    MARITIME COMMERCE IN GREATER PHILADELPHIA Assessing Industry Trends and Growth Opportunities for Delaware River Ports July 2008 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Maritime Commerce In Greater Philadelphia Executive Summary 3 Introduction and Project Partners 8 Section 1: Economic Impact Analysis 9 Section 2: Delaware River Port Descriptions & Key Competitors 12 Section 3: Global Trends and Implications for Delaware River Ports 24 Section 4: Strategies and Scenarios for Future Growth 31 Section 5: Conclusions and Key Recommendations 38 Appendices Appendix A: Glossary 40 Appendix B: History of the Delaware River Ports 42 Appendix C: Methodology for Economic Impact Analysis 46 Appendix D: Port-Reliant Employment 48 Appendix E: Excerpts from Expert Panel Discussions 49 Appendix F: Port Profiles 55 Appendix G: Additional Data 57 Appendix H: Delaware River Port Maps 62 Appendix I: End Notes 75 Appendix J: Resources 76 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary For more than 300 years, the from origin to final destination. supports 12,121 jobs and $772 mil- Delaware River has served as a key ⇒ Implications for Delaware lion in labor income, generating $2.4 commercial highway for the region. River Ports. The region has ca- billion in economic output. While Greater Philadelphia’s mari- pacity to accommodate growth, The port industry’s regional job time roots remain, rapid globalization but its ports must collaborate to base is relatively small, but those jobs and technological advances are driv- develop a comprehensive plan generate higher than average income ing an industry-wide transformation that addresses existing con- and output per job. Regional direct that has impacted the role that Dela- straints and rationally allocates jobs represent an average annual in- ware River ports play in the larger cargo based on competitive ad- come (including fringe benefits) of economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Gloucester County, New Jersey
    October 2002 October 2002 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission The Bourse Building - 8th Floor 111 South Independence Mall East Philadelphia, PA 19106 www.dvrpc.org Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an interstate, intercounty and intercity agency that provides continuing, comprehensive and coordinated planning to shape a vision for the future growth of the Delaware Valley region. The region includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties as well as the City of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer counties in New Jersey. DVRPC provides technical assistance and services; conducts high priority studies that respond to the requests and demands of member state and local governments; fosters cooperation among various constituents to forge a consensus on diverse regional issues; determines and meets the needs of the private sector; and practices public outreach efforts to promote two-way communication and public awareness of regional issues and the Commission. Our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal, and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC's state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings and conclusions, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Salem Harbor Plan Substitution Summary 122 Table 3: 2008 Salem Harbor Plan Amplification Summary 123
    SALEM HARBOR PLAN The City of Salem, Massachusetts Mayor Kimberley Driscoll January 2008 Fort Point Associates, Inc TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii 2008 UPDATE OVERVIEW iv I. SUMMARY Introduction 1 The Vision 1 II. INTRODUCTION Overview 4 The Harbor Planning Area 4 The Planning Process 6 A Guide to the Planning Recommendations 9 III. FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING Summary of Existing Conditions 13 Goals and Objectives 20 IV. PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS Area-Wide Recommendations 24 South Commercial Waterfront 38 Tourist Historic Harbor 49 North Commercial Waterfront 56 Industrial Port 60 Community Waterfront 63 V. IMPLEMENTATION Oversight and Responsibilities 71 Economic Development 76 Phasing Strategy 78 Resources 80 Implementation - Summary of Proposed Actions 88 VI. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT Overview: Chapter 91 100 Activities Subject to Chapter 91 102 Designated Port Area 103 Authority of the Salem Harbor Plan and DPA Master Plan 104 Guidance to DEP: Substitute Provisions 105 Guidance To DEP: Non-substitute Provisions 111 Other Local and Federal Regulations and Permits 117 Substitution and Amplification Tables 122 VII. FUTURE PLANNING 124 i APPENDICES A. PUBLIC INPUT - STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS B. RECENTLY OR SOON TO BE COMPETED REPORTS Salem Open Space and Recreation Plan (2007) Winter Island Barracks Building Feasibility Reuse Study (Jul 2007) Downtown Salem Retail Market Study: Strategy and Action Plan (May 2007) Salem Wharf Expansion Plan (expected early 2008) C. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT D. BATHYMETRIC
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2016 TIP for NJ
    DVRPC FY2016 TIP FOR NEW JERSEY Regional highway program DVRPC FY2016–2019 TIP for New Jersey 6 DVRPC FY2016-2019 TIP for NJ New Jersey Highway Program Final Version Burlington DB# D1713 Arney's Mount Trail, Phase 1 AQCODE: A2 This project will construct a portion of Arney’s Mount Trail that will ultimately link Burlington County’s Rancocas Creek Greenway and Kinkora Trail facilities through portions of Springfield and Pemberton Townships. The Phase I project will be FHWA and AASHTO compliant off-road, multi-use trail on County owned property including up and around Arney’s Mount, the highest point in Burlington County. All trail facilities will be ADA compliant including trailhead parking area, site furnishings, asphalt and stabilized aggregate trail surfacing, signage, intersection improvement and road widening (Tower Drive). CMP: Municipalities: Springfield Township DVRPC Planning Area: Rural Area CIS Program Subcategory: CIS Program Category: Project Manager: Darji, Vijesh Indicators of Potential Disadvantage: Mileposts: Sponsor: Burlington County Improvement Type: Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Local Project: Y TIP Program Years ($ millions) Later Fiscal Years ($ millions) Phase Fund 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CON TAP 3.000 Fiscal Year Total 3.000 Total FY2016-2019 3.000 Total Later FY2020-2025 DB# D0302 Burlington County Roadway Safety Improvements AQCODE: S6 This program will provide for the installation of improved safety items including reflective pavement markings (including both striping and raised reflective
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of State Funding Practices for Coastal Port Infrastructure Final Report
    Survey of State Funding Practices for Coastal Port Infrastructure Final Report PRC 15-51-F Survey of State Funding Practices for Coastal Port Infrastructure Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 15-51-F May 2015 Author C. James Kruse Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 6 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 6 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction/Background........................................................................................................... 11 Nature of Capital Investment at Ports ....................................................................................... 11 Status of Texas Ports ................................................................................................................. 11 Purpose of Report ...................................................................................................................... 11 Report Content .......................................................................................................................... 12 Texas............................................................................................................................................. 13 Texas Port System ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]