DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Bucks County Boundary I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1. BRISTOL TOYBSHIP OFFICIALS: . a Edna M. Roth .........Township Executive ............ .BBXSTOL TOYISHIP COUICIL Harold Saxt on .............President Theresa Brad1 ey ..........Vice- Pr e sident Carl Cini .................Member David Hite ................Member James McCullen ............. .Member ...... .BRIS'POL TOYBSHIP PLMBIMG COMMISSIOI Freas Ertwine ..............Chairman Jeffrey Gibbons .......... Vice-Chairman William Rice .............. .Member Susan Bell Lyle ............. .Member Albert Eckart ...............Member Stanley P. Gawel. .. .Township Hanaging Director . BBISTOL TOWSHIP COl4PBEBBBSIVE PLW 1986 - 2006 . TABLE OF COHTEBPS Page . Introduction and Sumnary 1 Resolution of Bri8tOl Tounship Planning Commission Adopting Plan 7 Hist oric Development 9 . Reoent Development and Growth Problems 13 Planning and Zoning History 16 > The Development of Levittown and . U.S. Steel 17 > Government and Governmental Change in I Bristol Township 21 The Demographics of Bristol Township 24 w > Population and Racial Characteristics 24 > Age of the Population 25 I > Employment 30 . > The Labor Force 31 > Transportation to Work 32 > Occupations of Township Residents 33 I. I. > Income Characteristics 35 > Housing Characteristics 38 E~istingConditions - 1986 41 . > Population and Growth 47 Topographic Feature8 51 > Soil Drainage 51 . > Subsurface Drainage 52 . Table of Contents Continued e > Surf ace Water Resources 54 > The Delaware River 54 > The Neshaminy Creek 55 > Mill Creek 56 > Ground Water Resources 56 I. I. > Ground Water Potential 57 Climate 57 Air Quality 58 Fiscal Analysis of Bristol Township's . Tax Base: 1976 - 1986 60 > Analysis of Industrial Land Assessment 60 > Review and Analysis of the Tax Base for the Ten-Year Period: 1976-1985 62 The Existing and Proposed Hajor Thorooghf are System PO > Problems of the Road System 72 > Other Transportation 80 . Comprehensive Development Plan 82 > Policies 83 > Overall Goal of the Comprehensive Plan 85 > Land Use - Residential - Goal and Ob j ectives 87 > Land Use - Commercial - Goal and Objectives 89 > Land Use - Industrial - Goal and Objectives 90 I. I. I e Table of Contents Continued > Circulation - Goal and Objectives 91 > Land Use - Recreation - Goal and Objectives 92 Land Use Plan 98 > Land Use Policy 98 > Planning Units 106 > Natural Resource Protection and Environmentally Sensitive Areas 127 > Continuing P1 anning 130 Table of Maps t43 Table of Chartsr Graphsr and Tables [51 e e ERISTOL TOYIYSHIP COHPBEBgBSIVE PLAB 1986 - 2006 e l I Page le Lower Bucks County 8 Regional Location 15 Neighborhood Place Names 23 Existing Land Use 45 Physi cal Charac teristics 53 Existing Thoroughfare Plan 71 Proposed Thoroughfare Plan 79 Existing and Proposed Community Facilities 97 Planning Units 108 Proposed Land Use 129 Recommended Special Detailed Study Areas 135 c41 e BRISTOL TOWNSHIP COHPBEEBNSIVE PLAB 1986 - 2006 e TABLE OF CHARTS, GRAPHS* AHD TABLES Page e Chart 1: Comparison of Real Estate Tax Assessments 1976-1986 61 Chart 2: Property Tax Receipts Source by Category of Zoning 67 0 Graph: Growth of Population - 1930-2010 50 Table: Acreage of Land Use by Categories - 1986 46 Table: Population Grow th/Decline 48 Table: Popul atlon Proj ecti ons 49 Table 1: Analysis of Real Estate Assessments e 1976-1986 63 Table 2: Analysis of Industrial Land l Assessment 1976-1986 64 Table 3: Number of Acres of Open Space 65 e Table 4: Comparison of Millage Distribution 1976-1986 69 Table: Standards for Thoroughfares 80 0 Table: Existing and Proposed Public Facillties 93 BRISTOL TOWNSHIP Bucks County, Pennsylvania IBTRODUCTIOI AND SUHMARY OF 1986-2006 BEISTOL TOWNSHIP COHPRBBEBSIVE PLM B ris t ol Tow nship , Pe nnsy lvani a, is 1oca ted twenty- two miles northeast of Center City of Philadelphia. The Township, a community of approximately 60,000 persons, is the only first class township in Bucks County; and, if ranked by population with cities in Pennsylvania, would be the eighth largest in the Commonwealth, with a population greater than the State Capital of Harrisburg, and larger than that of either Lancaster or W ilkes-Barre, Pennsy lvania. Bristol Township is located at a strategic trans- portation hub, with the deep-water channel of the Delaware River forming its eastern boundary, the main line Amtrak/Conrail system passing through the Township, along with the Pennsylvania Turnpike (1-76) and Interstate 95 both serving the community . In 1986, the Township has reached a pivotal point in its development history. Although the Township is now almost 80% developed, several large tracts and numerous small tracts of land &+a-n-d are being considered for development and in some cases redevelopment. The Township's population, after periods of enormous growth, has stabilized; and the Township's economic base is undergoing significant change. All of these factors are important determinants 0 in the development of the 1986-2006 Bristol Township Comprehensive Plan; and, after a year of intensive effort by the Township Planning 0 Commission and Township officials, along with input from citizens of Bristol Township, the following plan has been prepared, presented, and adopted by the Planning Commission by resolution dated December 4, 1986. The comprehensive planning process from which this Plan results was initiated by Township officials and the Planning Commission in February of 1986. The ten-month process of plan development has been analytical, far reaching, and productive. The Township's present status of reaching an 0 advanced stage of development has been clearly recognized and oertain imbalances in land use patterns and development densities within the community have been documented. 0 The Comprehensive Plan recommends that every effort be made to remedy imbalances in land uses. The Plan recommends extensive economic 0 development efforts and the designation of the majority of the developable open lands in the Township for future light industrial and office dev elopment . By increasing tax ratables and creating new employment opportunities in the Township, Bristol Township will become a more balanced total community. -2- 0 Revi talization of unproductive or vacant lands is proposed. Improvements to the primary thorough- fare system serving the Township are major components of the Plan as is the preservation of ecologically sensitive lands adjacent to streams and rivers which flow through and border the Township. The expansion of recreation areas and the provision of facilities to serve the recreation needs of all age groups are proposed. The following are capsule summaries of some, but not all, of the recommendations of the Compre- hensiv e P1an : 1. Expansion of the Township's economic base through completion of industrial and office development at strategic louations throughout the Township, including Keystone Industrial Park, the former Thiokol, Pateraon Parchment, and 3H Airport sites. Provision of additional infrastructure to support light industrial and office I. I. development at these and other looations within the Township as part of the Proposed Land Use Map. 2. Expand uommunity facilities, including parks, through the preservation of floodways, floodplains, and wetlands, including lands adjacent to the Beshamiqy Creek and portions of the land adjacent to the Delaware River. -3- Preservation of wetlands in the Delhaas Woods area near Route 413 is proposed. The expansion of the Township Municipal Building complex is recommended; and the construction of a Community Center adjacent to the Township Municipal Building is proposed for use by general residents and, inparticular, senior citizens. 3. Consolidate retail land uses. The consolidation of commercial uses and the elimination of highway commercial strips is proposed. The development of" a new major retail shopping center in conjunction with efforts to create a commercial town center in the vicinity of Bath Road and Route 413 is also proposed. 4. Proposed regional and Township highway improvements. A high priority is given to the construction of the interconnection between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Interstate 95; and, an equally high priority is placed on the completion of the southbound off-ramp from 1-95 to Route 413. -4- e 8 Major intersection improvements are proposed at the five-points intersection of New Falls Road, Edgely Road, and Emilie Road. Other intersection improvements are proposed at Route 13 and Route 413 and at Cedar Avenue and Route 13. 0 A major improvement program interrelated with the change in land uses is recommended for the Route 413 corridor through the Township with specific emphasis being placed I) on the portion of Route 413 from the 1-95 off-ramps south to Route 13. This section of Route 413 is proposed to be widened e to four moving lanes with adequate stacking lanes for left-turn movement. Existing land uses in this section of' Route 413 are recommended to be transitioned to office user and a discontinuance of highway commercial use in this corridor is proposed. Extensive landscaping to create a tree-lined boulevard at both Route 413 and portions of Mill Creek Road is recommended. Local connector thoroughfares are proposed to be constructed predominantly in proposed ~ light industrial and recommended office I districts. These thoroughfares are proposed 0 -5- 0 e 0 e to allow access to nonresidential development areas and are designed to bypass residential neighborhoods. 5. The Township's strong pattern of residential neighborhood identification is proposed to be continued, and the Comprehensive Plan
Recommended publications
  • Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality of Northern Bucks County, Pennsylvania

    Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality of Northern Bucks County, Pennsylvania

    HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER QUALITY OF NORTHERN BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA by Ronald A. Sloto and Curtis L Schreftier ' U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4109 Prepared in cooperation with NEW HOPE BOROUGH AND BRIDGETON, BUCKINGHAM, NOCKAMIXON, PLUMSTEAD, SOLEBURY, SPRINGFIELD, TINICUM, AND WRIGHTSTOWN TOWNSHIPS Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center District Chief Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Box 25286, MS 517 840 Market Street Denver Federal Center Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-1586 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract....................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................2 Purpose and scope ..................................................................... 2 Location and physiography ............................................................. 2 Climate...............................................................................3 Well-numbering system................................................................. 4 Borehole geophysical logging............................................................4 Previous investigations ................................................................. 6 Acknowledgments....................................................................
  • Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options

    Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options

    Advocacy Sustainability Partnerships Fort Washington Office Park Transportation Demand Management Plan Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options Prepared by GVF GVF July 2017 Contents Executive Summary and Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 ArcMap Geocoding and Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 6 Travel Times Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Employee Commuter Survey Results ................................................................................................ 7 2. Office Park Companies Outreach Results ......................................................................................... 7 3. Office Park
  • Zoning Map Township of Bristol, Bucks County

    Zoning Map Township of Bristol, Bucks County

    D R E R O M L A V INDIANOLA AVE C R-2 HOOD BLVD ICK RD R-1 WARW D EH Overlay R A R A B R-3 R A B D P R D A R R T S E T O R-1 R S N H R LVD R P DS B E U L C L D H S O R E I A G R F D M D R A N I D R-3 G D N L R Y R D O Y CS B N O R L R R F I I O P M A R LA L A P E A X T E T H A B F A E S C R G PM R S D S B N IN A EG M R ON L S O B IA T A S D R R LN N A L A N M IN Y A N S G C R-2 IN O S O T U A T O G A XF N N E L O G W D R RD L TA H E L D O D N P R I I L R I V R N N A N D L L D Y L M L RE L R C L N A EY L E A X N T L R E M E D N K D L N DR L L IM L L K S R-3 N N UC C O P U B A Y L R S A O H A B R M E LN W A B O B N L L IR N U L M E R-1 I C LN A M M A S CC A T H E R M L SS ET D R R IG O R D D O E FE L L R L N D D N IV D R W E R A C R D O N L R OD D N IR M FO L E C A S N N H EL N T C A M L W O PO H N N E A AR CO E A W TF RD E D O L U O R R N W D Q K PM D C LN S O E N L R S R N Y TL TO MI A A U D N N T W PM D D M W K L Y A N R L O R Y L R-2 C R A K L IN D H O N ER P M ORA O H A M R G Y S LE N R E VI O T N S TT L L G R-3 H O I E E S N DR O W A T FER N D L L A FOX E H HO PK R N N N L UC LL W F N K Y Y R O R C LE D R-2 D B R D R E D A RR IA W P Y L R O Queen Anne Creek P N L D L L N O R D E E H N E O W T L O G V I R LL G E ST R-1 E K YH A D A E C O M E C R U C H I RD P S K R L Y LN G E R N E MS O E H N W R HO A LLY Y D WAY P C E A ER I LM R RE ON H EN T D L AW N E N TH IA L OR L P NE D A LN R AP PR D ICO R A T L S M N C L B H L L H E I I A N C A C F G T L AU K H A W N TUM O E T E N R R A L L N N PM Y L P L N A N N L L N L N I C L R PM Y H P A
  • (TMDL) Assessment for the Neshaminy Creek Watershed in Southeast Pennsylvania Table of Contents

    (TMDL) Assessment for the Neshaminy Creek Watershed in Southeast Pennsylvania Table of Contents

    Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Assessment for the Neshaminy Creek Watershed in Southeast Pennsylvania Table of Contents Page A1.0 OVERVIEW………………………………………………………………………… 1 A2.0 HYDROLOGIC /WATER QUALITY MODELING………………………………. 8 A2.1 Data Compilation and Model Overview………………………………………… 8 A2.2 GIS-Based Derivation of Input Data……………………………………………. 10 A2.3 Watershed Model Calibration…………………………………………………… 10 A2.4 Relationship Between Dissolved Oxygen Levels, Nutrient Loads and Organic Enrichment…………………………………………………………….. 16 B. POINT SOURCE TMDLs FOR THE ENTIRE NESHAMINY CREEK WATERSHED (Executive Summary)……….……….………………………. 18 B1.0 INTRODUCTION.…………………………………………………………………. 19 B2.0 EVALUATION OF POINT SOURCE LOADS……………………………………. 20 B3.0 REACH BY REACH ASSESSMENT……………………………………………… 27 B3.1 Cooks Run (482A)………………………………………………………………. 27 B3.2 Little Neshaminy Creek (980629-1342-GLW)………………..………………… 27 B3.3 Mill Creek (20010417-1342-GLW)…………………………………………….. 29 B3.4 Neshaminy Creek (467)………………………………………….……………… 30 B3.5 Neshaminy Creek (980515-1347-GLW)..…………………….………….……… 32 B3.6 Neshaminy Creek (980609-1259-GLW)………………………..………………. 32 B3.7 Park Creek (980622-1146-GLW)………………………………..……………… 34 B3.8 Park Creek (980622-1147-GLW)……………………………..………………… 35 B3.9 West Branch Neshaminy Creek (492)……………………………..……………. 35 B3.10 West Branch Neshaminy Creek (980202-1043-GLW)…………..……………. 36 B3.11 West Branch Neshaminy Creek (980205-1330-GLW)………………………… 37 B3.12 West Branch Neshaminy Creek (980205-1333-GLW)………………………… 38 C. LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK……………………………………………………… 40 D. LAKE GALENA……………………………………………………………………… 58 E. PINE RUN…………………………………………………………………………….. 78 i Table of Contents (cont.) Page F. SUB-BASIN #1 OF WEST BRANCH NESHAMINY CREEK……………………… 94 G. SUB-BASIN #2 OF WEST BRANCH NESHAMINY CREEK……………………… 107 H. SUB-BASIN #3 OF WEST BRANCH NESHAMINY CREEK…………………….. 121 I. SUB-BASIN #4 OF WEST BRANCH NESHAMINY CREEK……………………… 138 J. COOKS RUN………………………………………………………………………….. 155 K.
  • Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

    Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

    Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission BUCKS COUNTY FLOOD RECOVERY AND MITIGATION STRATEGY Prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission This Economic Adjustment Strategy was accomplished by staff of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission through Economic Development Administration Adjustment Strategy Grant No. 01-09-58005. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and other data in this report are solely those of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration. The background flood map is used in part solely for state affairs only. courtesy FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION SEPTEMBER 1998 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Publication Abstract TITLE Date Published: September 1998 Bucks County Flood Recovery and Mitigation Strategy Publication No. 98032 Geographic Area Covered: Bucks County Key Words: Floods, Flooding, Floodplain, Flood Prone, Flood Proofing, Regulations, Impervious Coverage, Watersheds, Sub-Basin 2, Emergency Management, Neshaminy Creek, Buck Creek, Brock Creek, National Flood Insurance Program, Levee, Dam, Floodwall, Acquisition, Relocation, Army Corps of Engineers, Delaware River Basin Commission ABSTRACT This report provides a flood recovery and mitigation strategy for those flood prone communities in Bucks County. As an element of a flood mitigation plan for eastern Pennsylvania, which
  • A Timeline of Bucks County History 1600S-1900S-Rev2

    A Timeline of Bucks County History 1600S-1900S-Rev2

    A TIMELINE OF BUCKS COUNTY HISTORY— 1600s-1900s 1600’s Before c. A.D. 1609 - The native peoples of the Delaware Valley, those who greet the first European explorers, traders and settlers, are the Lenni Lenape Indians. Lenni Lenape is a bit of a redundancy that can be translated as the “original people” or “common people.” Right: A prehistoric pot (reconstructed from fragments), dating 500 B.C.E. to A.D. 1100, found in a rockshelter in northern Bucks County. This clay vessel, likely intended for storage, was made by ancestors of the Lenape in the Delaware Valley. Mercer Museum Collection. 1609 - First Europeans encountered by the Lenape are the Dutch: Henry Hudson, an Englishman sailing under the Dutch flag, sailed up Delaware Bay. 1633 - English Captain Thomas Yong tries to probe the wilderness that will become known as Bucks County but only gets as far as the Falls of the Delaware River at today’s Morrisville. 1640 - Portions of lower Bucks County fall within the bounds of land purchased from the Lenape by the Swedes, and a handful of Swedish settlers begin building log houses and other structures in the region. 1664 - An island in the Delaware River, called Sankhickans, is the first documented grant of land to a European - Samuel Edsall - within the boundaries of Bucks County. 1668 - The first grant of land in Bucks County is made resulting in an actual settlement - to Peter Alrichs for two islands in the Delaware River. 1679 - Crewcorne, the first Bucks County village, is founded on the present day site of Morrisville.
  • Indian Valley Regional Comprehensive Plan May 2015

    Indian Valley Regional Comprehensive Plan May 2015

    INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAY 2015 INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAY 2015 (Final adoption June 1, 2016) i INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ii INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter One – Community Profile 1 Chapter Two – Existing Land Use 31 Chapter Three – Goals and Objectives 43 Chapter Four – Natural Environment 49 Chapter Five – Open Space 81 Chapter Six – Community Facilities 97 Chapter Seven – Transportation 111 Chapter Eight – Economic Development 145 Chapter Nine – Housing 161 Chapter Ten - Future Land Use Plan 175 Appendices Appendix A Resolutions for Plan Adoption iii INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN iv INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER 1 COMMUNITY PROFILE The Indian Valley is located in the north central section of Montgomery County. It includes the four townships of Franconia, Lower Salford, Salford, and Upper Salford and the two boroughs of Souderton and Telford. These six municipalities comprise a region nearly 49 square miles in size. As little as 30 years ago, the region was an undeveloped, rural area with many working farms and a few small villages. While a good portion of the Indian Valley retains that rural character to this day, much of the region has changed. Growth pressures pushing outward from Philadelphia have resulted in the rapid construction of many homes and businesses on what was once open land. Similar growth and development patterns have occurred repeatedly throughout Montgomery County and the larger Delaware Valley region. The development patterns experienced by the Indian Valley region can be largely attributed to the fact that the region is conveniently located for easy access to jobs, stores, and highways.
  • Croydon Transit Revitalization Investment District, Bristol Township

    Croydon Transit Revitalization Investment District, Bristol Township

    CROYDON TRANSIT REVITALIZATION INVESTMENT DISTRICT Bristol Township, Bucks County PA A Plan for 2010 & Beyond PENN ONI MSOCIATES INC. 2501 BATH ROAD 1 BRISTOL, PA 19007 1 PHONE: 215·785·0500 JUNE 18, 2009 P ~IIINONJ ASSO CIATES IN C. C:ONS ULTt,.,. Iif'lGI""!! I!~ s BRIS0901 June 12, 2009 BRISTOL TOWNSHIP COUNCil Bristol Township Administration Building 2500 Bath Road Bristol, PA 19007 Re: Croydon Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRIO) - Final Planning Study "A Plan for 2010 and Beyond" Attn: Jeffrey Bartlett, Township Managing Director It is with great pleasure that we submit this document for Council's approval and acceptance before forwarding onto the PA Department of Community and Economic Development as satisfaction of the TRID/LUPTAP Grant for this phase of development of the TRID program and Transit-Oriented Development to revitalization the Croydon Section of Bristol Township, in an area in proximity to the SEPTA Croydon Station and its new construction. We believe that it satisfies the Grant conditions; containing: the Market Analysis, Value Capture, establishment of a viable TRID Boundary, and the Draft Agreement to effect the TRIO area and program. In addition, it is in conformance with the original Requ est for Proposals, and has been reviewed by the Key Stakeholders working group, and other key agencies having a say on TRID, including SEPTA, the Bucks TMA, the BCRDA, Bucks County, DVRPC, area legislators, and members of the public through their input at various stages. We (Pennoni Asso ciates Inc., and Economic Development Associates) look forward to an opportunity to assist in subsequent phases of implementation of this cha llenging and worthy undertaking for the citizens/residents of Croydon and the Township in a program that ca n induce additional mass transit SEPTA ridership, and tax revenues from future development and red evelopment as revitalization occurs over time.
  • MINOW Neshaminy Creek Report 2016

    MINOW Neshaminy Creek Report 2016

    MINOW Management and Implementation for Neshaminy(Creek) Optimal Watershed Report By: Shannon Heybach, Katja Burke, and Patti Stelmaszczyk Table of Contents Mission Statement………………………………………………………………………………………2 Goals……………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………....2 Background/CHaracteristics…………………………………………………………………..2 Figure 1: Map of Neshaminy Creek Watershed Table 2: Land Use Distribution of Neshaminy Creek Watershed Land Use………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Figure 2: Pennsylvania Land Use Table 2: Land Use Distribution of Neshaminy Creek Watershed Water Use……………………………………………………………………………………....5 Table 3: Summary of water discharges and withdrawals in the Neshaminy Creek Figure 3: Water withdrawn in the Neshaminy Creek watershed Environmental Concerns and Other Issues…………………………………………………………..7 Storms and Flooding…………………………………………………………………………...7 Figure 4: Flooding from Hurricane Irene in Neshaminy Creek Streambank Erosion and Habitat Loss…………………………………………………….8 Water Quality………………………………………………………………………………...9 Existing Organizations and Regulations……………………………………………………………10 Solutions……………………………………………………………………………………………...11 Sources……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Mission Statement: To reduce Neshaminy Creek flow for a 2­year design storm by 10% before January 2020, thus improving water quality, preventing erosion, and preventing habitat loss. Goals: G1: To minimize flood events and protect from property damage G2: To minimize major erosion of stream banks G3: To secure floodplain land as habitat for wildlife G4: To ensure fishable and drinkable water by improving water quality in the Neshaminy Creek. Introduction: Background/Characteristics Figure 1: Map of Neshaminy Creek Watershed The Neshaminy Creek is 41 miles long, has headwaters starting in Bucks and Montgomery counties and extends to its mouth, on the Delaware River, in Bensalem Township. The entire drainage area is 233 square miles and held a population 256,000 in 1990, 333,297 in 2000 and is projected to reach 368,000 by 2040.
  • DVRPC Congestion Management Process (CMP)

    DVRPC Congestion Management Process (CMP)

    The symbol in The Delaware Valley Regional Planning our logo is Commission is dedicated to uniting the adapted from the official region’s elected officials, planning DVRPC seal professionals, and the public with a and is designed as a stylized image of common vision of making a great region the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while even greater. Shaping the way we live, the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware work, and play, DVRPC builds River. The two adjoining crescents represent the Commonwealth of consensus on improving transportation, Pennsylvania and the State of New promoting smart growth, protecting the Jersey. environment, and enhancing the DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding economy. We serve a diverse region of sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s nine counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Montgomery, and Philadelphia in and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, departments of transportation, as well Gloucester, and Mercer in New Jersey. as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are DVRPC is the federally designated solely responsible for the findings and Metropolitan Planning Organization for conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the Greater Philadelphia Region — the funding agencies. leading the way to a better future. DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. DVRPC’s website (www.dvrpc.org) may be translated into multiple languages.
  • FY 2022 Capital Budget and FY 2022-2033 Capital Program Proposal

    FY 2022 Capital Budget and FY 2022-2033 Capital Program Proposal

    FISCAL YEAR 2022 CAPITAL BUDGET and FISCAL YEARS 2022-2033 CAPITAL PROGRAM PROPOSAL Including Reduced Funding Capital Program Scenario FY 2022 CAPITAL BUDGET AND FY 2022-2033 CAPITAL PROGRAM Proposal April 26, 2021 FY 2022 CAPITAL BUDGET AND FY 2022 - 2033 CAPITAL PROGRAM Table of Contents Executive Summary…............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction to SEPTA............................................................................................................ 4 SEPTA Forward - 5-Year Strategic Business Plan…............................................................. 8 Impacts of SEPTA's Capital Program……………………………................................................... 9 SEPTA’s Projects of Significance ……………………………………………....................................... 12 Sources of Capital Funding..................................................................................................... 15 FY 2022 Capital Budget and FY 2022-2033 Capital Program: Current Funding Level Program……..……………………………………............................ 20 Neshaminy Substation Reduced Funding Level Program……...…………………………….................................. 22 Capital Program and Project Descriptions 28 Bridge Program.............................................................................................................. 29 Communications, Signal Systems and Technology..................................................... 34 Financial Obligations.....................................................................................................
  • National Transportation Safety Board

    National Transportation Safety Board

    PB82-916305 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT HEAD-ON COLLISION OF AMTRAK TRAINS EXTRA 769 EAST AND NO.195 BRISTOL, PENNSYLVANIA MARCH 29, 1982 ; NTSB-RAR-82-5 / •'••/" ' UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT .>'•'!> ' TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE -].- Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient1 s Catalog No. •v NTSB-RAR-82-5- ,/ PB82-916305 if^-TJ tie -and Subt i tie Railroad Accident Report7^Head-On 5.Report Date Collision of Amtrak-Trains Extra 769 East and No. 195, August 26. 1.982 Bristol, Pennsylvania, March 29, 1982. 6.Performi ng Organi zat ion Code 7. Author(s) 8.Performing Organization Report No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No. 3501A National Transportation Safety Board 11 .Contract or Grant No. Bureau of Accident Investigation Washington, D.C. 20594 13.Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Railroad Accident Report March 29, 1982 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20594 TA.Sponsoring Agency Code 15.Supplementary Notes 1 •'''!/•. V <) . / 16.Abstract About 2:35 a.m., on March 29, 1982, Amtrak locomotive Extra 769 East, a rescue locomotive which had been dispatched from the 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, collided head-on with standing disabled train No. 195 near Bristol, Pennsylvania. The rescue locomotive was not derailed, but the locomotive and first car of train No. 195 were derailed. Twenty-three passengers and 6 crewmen were treated at local hospitals; 2 passengers and 1 crewman were admitted because of cuts, abrasions, strains and sprains. Damage was estimated at $823,000.