DOCSLIB.ORG

Interim Bridge Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interim Bridge Report STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1035 PARKWAY AVENUE P.O. BOX 601 TRENTON, N.J. 08625-0601 JON S. CORZINE 609-530-3535 GOVERNOR KRIS KOLLURI. ESQ. COMMISSIONER August 9,2007 The Honorable Jon S. Corzine Governor State House P.O. Box 001 Trenton, NJ 08625-0001 Dear Governor Corzine: Pursuant to your directive issued August 2, 2007, attached please find the interim report on bridges. The accompanying documents detail the number of bridges located in the state, their jurisdiction of control, structural condition, the date of last inspection and the anticipated date of the next inspection .. Of the 6,434 bridges in New Jersey, including those owned and operated by the State, New Jersey Transit, independent and bi-State authorities, counties and municipalities, there are 736 (11%) that are considered "structurally deficient", These are bridges whose deck, superstructure and/or substructure are deteriorated; however, this does not mean that these bridges are unsafe to travel on. I want to assure you that the safety ofthe motoring public is my highest priority. In fact, under federal regulation, the New Jersey Department of Transportation rigorously inspects the bridges under its jurisdiction a minimum of every two (2) years, or more if necessary. Further, the NJDOT Office of the Inspector General is conducting unscheduled audits and investigations of all movable bridge operational procedures to test for compliance with all aspects of the Movable Bridge Protocol Program. I have asked the Inspector General to conduct similar audits of non-movable bridges as well. In addition, inspections of the seven (7) New Jersey bridges with similar deck truss structures as the bridge in Minneapolis have been ordered for immediate inspection based upon the Federal Highway Administration directive. These inspections began August 6, 2007 and will be conducted over the coming weeks. Our focus is not just on inspection but funding bridge repair and maintenance programs, understanding that the fiscal constraints are enormous. Regularly scheduled and, if necessary, emergency maintenance is performed on our bridges, as determined by our bridge engineers and maintenance operations staff, on an on-going basis, and all available resources are devoted to this endeavor. Through your leadership, we have been successful in increasing our available state resources to $509 million in Fiscal Year 2008 dedicated to bridge preservation and maintenance. In New Jersey, the state bridges that are identified in the attached report as "structurally deficient" are prioritized to ultimately be replaced or rehabilitated through the Capital Program process. This interim report will highlight and provide an overview of the condition of New Jersey's bridges, of which a vast majority (5,125) are owned by the NJDOT, county and municipal governments. Some of the fmdings in the report include: 4,196 (66%) of New Jersey's bridges are neither Structurally Deficient nor Functionally Obsolete; 1,502 (23%) are Functionally Obsolete; 396 bridges are Load Posted which limit the weights of trucks using the bridges. Additionally, there are 279 bridges in New Jersey that are required to have safety inspections at a more frequent cycle than the once every two years as required under federal regulations. These bridges (70 State, 14 NJ Transit, 185 County/Municipal, 4 Toll Highways and 6 Special Agency) are required to have interim inspections of the structural members where a potential exists for deterioration that could cause a loss of load carrying capacity. Over the coming days, we will continue to synthesize this data and produce, as requested a final report for your review which will contain an anticipated capital investment strategy to bring our public bridges into a state of good repair. Sincerely, Kris Kolluri Commissioner Table of Contents Letter from the Governor 1 Preface 2 Summary of Bridge Inventory 3 Attachment # 1 – Bridge Condition Inventory, All Bridges 7 Attachment # 2 – Structurally Deficient Bridges Statewide 168 Attachment # 3 – Bridge Inventory Information from New Jersey State & 186 Bi-State Authorities State of New Jersey OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR PO BOX 001 TRENTON NJ 08625-0001 JON S. CORZINE GOVERNOR August 2, 2007 The Honorable Kris Kolluri, Esq. Commissioner Department of Transportation PO Box 600 Trenton, NJ 08625 Dear Commissioner Kolluri: Recognizing the tragic events last night in Minneapolis, this morning I am calling on the New Jersey Department of Transportation to prepare a report describing the safety status of all bridges in the State. This report is to include bridges owned and operated by the State, New Jersey Transit, State and bi-state authorities, counties, municipalities, and orphan bridges. I direct the Department to provide to me within 7 days an inventory of all bridges, including ownership, date of most recent inspection and identification of those classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Within the next 45 days, I direct you to outline the current bridge capital investment strategy and identify the necessary resources to replace or repair any bridge within the jurisdiction of the Department, New Jersey Transit, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the South Jersey Transportation Authority or other public entities, to the extent permitted by current law, found to be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. These steps are necessary to provide a safe transportation system for every New Jersey resident and those traveling through our State. Sincerely, Jon S. Corzine Highway Carrying Bridges in New Jersey Inventory Report Preface In response to the loss of life during the catastrophic collapse of the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River between Ohio and West Virginia in 1967, the United States Congress passed a law mandating regular safety inspection of the nation’s bridges. In 1969, the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) were added to the Code of Federal Regulations (23CFR650) mandating that all of the nation’s highway carrying bridges over 20 feet long be inspected at a cycle of not more than two years. The NBIS also specifies requirements for the State bridge inspection organization, inspection personnel, inspection procedures, and data inventory. The New Jersey Department of Transportation instituted the mandated bridge safety inspection program starting in 1971. New Jersey’s inspection requirements exceed the minimum standards set in the NBIS in order to reduce the risk that undetected deterioration of our bridges would impact the safety of the traveling public and the loss of valuable infrastructure. The information contained in this report primarily comes from the current data in the Statewide Bridge Management System. Since the bridge inspection program is a continuous ongoing program and the data is continually being updated, there may be some minor inconsistencies in the data due to the lag between the actual inspection and the data update, especially for bridges not under the Department's jurisdiction. However, the overall data contained in this report gives an accurate representation of the condition of the highway carrying bridges in New Jersey. 2 Summary At present, there are 6,434 highway carrying bridges over 20’ long in New Jersey’s bridge inventory. These bridges are categorized by their respective owners in Figure 1 (below). Distribution of All 6,434 Highway Carrying NJ Bridges By Owner 3000 2576 2549 2500 2000 1500 Bridges 1164 1000 500 107 24 14 0 State County/Muni Toll NJ Transit Special Agencies Private FIGURE 1 3 Of all the bridges in New Jersey, Figure 2 (below) depicts the percentages of bridges that are Not Deficient (neither Structurally Deficient nor Functionally Obsolete), Structurally Deficient, and Functionally Obsolete. Condition Distribution of All 6,434 NJ Bridges (Number of Bridges and Percentage) Not Deficient Functionally Obsolete Structurally Deficient 736, 11% 1502, 23% 4196, 66% Figure 2 4 Figure 3 (below) is a further breakdown of the bridges shown in Figure 2, showing the percentages of Not Deficient, Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete bridges in New Jersey by bridge owner. NJ Highway Carrying Bridge Condition by Owner Not Deficient Functionally Obsolete Structurally Deficient 0% 100% 2% 13% 14% 13% 90% 29% 33% 33% 80% 22% 19% 29% 70% 60% 50% 45% 40% 71% 65% 67% 65% 30% 58% 20% 22% 10% 0% State (2,576) County/Muni Toll (1,164) NJ Transit (107) Special Agencies Private (14) (2,549) (24) Figure 3 In addition to the regular biennial bridge safety inspection, the National Bridge Inspection Standards also mandate that additional types of inspections and other information be retained. Some of the additional information is as follows: • There are 634 Fracture Critical (non-redundant) bridges in New Jersey (220 State, 42 NJ Transit, 266 County/Municipal, 99 Toll, 4 Special Agency & 3 Private). These bridges are constructed in a manner when the failure of a single member could result in the collapse of the entire bridge or a significant portion of the bridge. Fractured Critical bridges in general, are constructed with steel tension members that have welded, riveted or bolted connections. The Pulaski Skyway is an example of a riveted Fracture Critical bridge. Fracture Critical bridges are required to have more in-depth inspections than other bridges which lack such critical members. 5 • There are 279 bridges in New Jersey that are required to have safety inspections at a more frequent cycle than those required for most bridges (70 State, 14 NJ Transit, 185 County/Municipal, 4 Toll & 6 Special Agency). These bridges are required to have interim (more frequent) inspections of the structural members where a potential exists for deterioration that could cause a loss of load-carrying capacity. • There are 507 Scour Critical bridges in New Jersey (165 State, 340 County/Municipal & 2 Other). Scour Critical bridges have a potential for damage due to the erosion of streambed material during severe floods that could cause damage. The Scour Critical bridges are monitored during periods of severe flooding to assure that they have not sustained any damage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Continuation Sheet Passaic County Hawthorne, New Jersey Section Number Page
    NPS Form 10-900 f K OMB No - 1 0024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Place! Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations f National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National by entering the information requested. If an Item does not apply I nthe uiupeny being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property - historic name The John W. Rea House ("The Rea House")______________________________ other names/site number The Doremus House___________________________________ 2. Location N/A street & number 675 Goffle Road D not for publication city or town Hawthorne, Borough of _ D vicinity state New Jersey code 034 county Passaic code °31 Zip code °7506 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this S nomination D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets EH does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant nationall/D statewide,® Jwally. (D See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signaturi Sf certifying official/Title ' Date Assistant Commissioner for Natural & Historic Resources/DSHPO State of federal agency and bureau In/ m# opinion, the property D meetsLU does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Philipstown Conservation Board 238 Main Street, Cold Spring, Ny 10516
    TOWN OF PHILIPSTOWN CONSERVATION BOARD 238 MAIN STREET, COLD SPRING, NY 10516 MEETING AGENDA August 12, 2014 at 7:30 pm 1.) OBERT WOOD TM# 71.-2-39.1 WL-14-241 316 OLD WEST POINT RD INSTALL BURRIED ELECTRIC SERVICE TO A NEW RESIDENCE 2.) BRUCE AND DONNA KEHR TM# 16.20-18,20,&21 PBR TOWN OF PHILIPSTOWN 238 Main Street PUTNAM COUNTY, NEWYORK Cold Spring, NY, 10516 (845) 265-5202 APPLICATION FOR WETLANDS PERMIT· Note to Applicant: . Submit the completed application to the appropriate permitting authoirty. The application for Wetlands Permit should be sumbitte simultaneously with any related application (e.g. subdivision approval, site plan approval, special use permit, etc.) being made to the permitting authority. (Office Use Only) Application # D Permitting Authority Received by: D Z.B.A Date D Planning Board Fee D Wetlands Inspector Pursuant to Chapter 93 of the Code of the Town of Philipstown, entitled "Freshwater Wetlands and Watercourse Law of the Town of Philipstown" (Wetlands Law), the undersigned hereby applies for a Wetlands Permit to conduct a regulated activity in a controlled area. 1. Owner; Name: Obert R. Wood. III Address: 115 East 9th Street, Apt 2M New York, NY 10003 E212~ Telephone: 6298334 0117-6'10- 026g 2. Agent Name: (Applicant must be owner of the land The Application may be managed by an authorized agent of such person possessing a notarized letter of consent from the owner.) Name of Agent If Corporation, give names of officers: Mailing Address _ Telephone: 3. Location of Proposed Activity: 316 Old West Point Road West, Garrison Tax Map No.: 7_1_.-_2_-3_9_._1 _ Acreage of Controlled Area Affected: -------------------0.047 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Great Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2814-025 New Jersey Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 February 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. I LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ III LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................IV ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................ V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER .................................. 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .............................................................................. 1 1.2.2 Need for Power .................................................................................. 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................... 4 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ......................................................... 4 1.4.1 Scoping .............................................................................................. 4 1.4.2 Interventions
    [Show full text]
  • Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan February 2009 This Blue Goose, Designed by J.N
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan February 2009 This blue goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people. The Service manages the 97-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 548 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 69 national fi sh hatcheries and 81 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffi ng increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan February 2009 Submitted by: Edward Henry Date Refuge Manager Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Concurrence by: Janet M.
    [Show full text]
  • Passaic County, New Jersey (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 5 PASSAIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER BLOOMINGDALE, BOROUGH OF 345284 CLIFTON, CITY OF 340398 HALEDON, BOROUGH OF 340399 HAWTHORNE, BOROUGH OF 340400 LITTLE FALLS, TOWNSHIP OF 340401 NORTH HALEDON, BOROUGH OF 340402 PASSAIC, CITY OF 340403 PATERSON, CITY OF 340404 POMPTON LAKES, BOROUGH OF 345528 PROSPECT PARK, BOROUGH OF 340406 RINGWOOD, BOROUGH OF 340407 TOTOWA, BOROUGH OF 340408 WANAQUE, BOROUGH OF 340409 WAYNE, TOWNSHIP OF 345327 WEST MILFORD, TOWNSHIP OF 340411 WOODLAND PARK, BOROUGH OF 340412 Preliminary: January 9, 2015 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 34031CV001B Version Number 2.1.1.1 The Borough of Woodland Park was formerly known as the Borough of West Paterson. NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: September 28, 2007 Revised Countywide FIS Date: This preliminary FIS report does not include unrevised Floodway Data Tables or unrevised Flood Profiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 76/Friday, April 19, 2002/Notices
    19430 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2002 / Notices 2002, Public Law 107–258. It is measures that would not prevent postponed. The public will be notified anticipated that the proposed non- damages from a reoccurrence of a storm of the forthcoming public hearing date, structural alternatives for flood event similar to the 1999 Hurricane location and time, as well as the protection in Segment A and Segment N Floyd storm. comment period expiration date. Any of the project will provide benefits to The local sponsors for the Green comments received in the meantime the environmental quality of the Brook Flood Control Project also will be made a part of the administrative floodplain in the area and reduce requested that three commercial record and will be considered in the adverse impacts of the project to properties, along Raritan Avenue and Final Environmental Impact Statement. forested wetland and upland habitat. Lincoln Boulevard, that were proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Public comments on the EA will assist to be protected by a proposed levee/ Teresa (Hughes) Spagna, U.S. Army in the Corps’ evaluation of the project floodwall as described in the Corps’ Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, modification and will be reflected in the 1997 recommended NED plan, be Attn: Regulatory Branch–OR–FS, 502 final EA. bought out as part of the project plan. 8th Street, Huntington, West Virginia DATES: The draft EA will be available for Ten other properties along Raritan 25701, telephone (304) 529–5710 or public review from April 22, 2002 Avenue, that were proposed to be electronic mail at through May 22, 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 17: Township of Piscataway October 2015
    Appendix 17: Township of Piscataway October 2015 Appendix 17: Township of Piscataway The Township of Piscataway participated in the 2015 Middlesex County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) update. This appendix includes the locally-specific information about the Township. The following sections detail the planning process and participants; the current population, building stock, and land development trends; hazards that specific to the Township and corresponding risk assessments; the Township’s mitigation strategy, and a local capability assessment. 1. Plan Development On December 26, 2014, the Mayor signed an “Intent to Participate” letter and assigned the OEM Coordinator as the point of contact for the HMP update. The OEM Coordinator worked with other municipal employees, consultants, volunteers, and other stakeholders through the formation of a Local Planning Committee (LPC), as listed below. The LPC filled out the municipal worksheets included in Appendix E and worked to gather the necessary information to support the plan update. The LPC met with the consultant on November 23rd to review the risk assessment and develop a mitigation strategy. In addition to the knowledge of the planning committee, the Township’s Master Plan, permit application records, and codified ordinances were used in this plan update. Table 17-1: Township of Piscataway Local Planning Committee Members Name Title Organization Brian C. Wahler Mayor Township of Piscataway Joe Criscuolo Business Administrator Township of Piscataway Paul Snyder OEM Coordinator Township of Piscataway Gary Gaspari Director of Public Works Township of Piscataway Joseph Harrera Supervisor of Engineering Township of Piscataway Middlesex County, New Jersey: 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 17-1 Appendix 17: Township of Piscataway October 2015 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking the Next Step
    Taking the Next Step: Hopewell Township Municipal Assessment March 2002 Stony Brook- Millstone Watershed Association Executive Summary The Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association (the Association) realizes that the protection and health of a watershed relies a great deal on the land use laws and policies that govern development. In the past, we have had requests from various municipalities for assistance with drafting ordinances, improving zoning and increasing local environmental quality. In addition to continuing to respond to these requests, the Association wanted to provide a more comprehensive analysis for local municipalities. Thus, we developed the Municipal Assessment Project to assist municipalities in developing additional proactive measures to ensure that natural resources are preserved and the necessary regulatory structure established. Hopewell Township was the first municipality that accepted our offer of assistance and partnered with us on this project. When beginning the assessment, members of the Hopewell Township Committee, Planning Board, Environmental Commission and Master Plan Committee articulated their goals and vision for the Township by answering our Framework Questions. After evaluating these responses we reviewed Hopewell Township’s land use ordinances, policies, best management practices, and the recently drafted Master Plan using a newly designed 15-page protocol. We also interviewed key personnel to complete the assessment. The results of the assessment protocol were then compared to the goals and vision of the Township, as articulated by its leaders. Gaps between that vision and what was “on the books” - the local zoning and ordinances– were identified in the following twelve areas: 1. Preservation of riparian corridors 2. Protection of surface and ground water 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared in Cooperation with the NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DIVISION of WATER RESOURCES
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LOW-FLOW CHARACTERISTICS AND FLOW DURATION OF NEW JERSEY STREAMS By Brian D. Gillespie and Robert D. Sehopp Open-File Report 81-1110 Prepared in cooperation with the NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Trenton, New Jersey January 1982 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Tor additional information, write to: U.S. Geological Survey Room 430, Federal Building 402 East State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08608 Ill CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................... 1 Introduction............................................... 1 Method of study ............................................ 2 Flow-duration analysis..................................... 5 Low-flow frequency analysis................................ 7 Continuous gaging stations............................... 7 Partial-record sites..................................... 10 Selected references........................................ 14 Low-flow characteristics of gaging sites................... 15 Hudson, Hackensack, Passaic, Elizabeth, and Rahway River basins.............................................. 17 Station index, in downstream order..................... 19 Station descriptions and data.......................... 21 Raritan River basin...................................... 53 Station index, in downstream order..................... 55 Station descriptions and data.........................
    [Show full text]
  • Township of Plainsboro Hazard Mitigation Plan
    Appendix 18: Township of Plainsboro Preliminary Draft - November 2015 Appendix 18: Township of Plainsboro The Township of Plainsboro participated in the 2015 Middlesex County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) update. This appendix includes the locally-specific information about the Township. The following sections detail the planning process and participants; the current population, building stock, and land development trends; hazards that are specific to the Township and corresponding risk assessments; the Township’s mitigation strategy, and a local capability assessment. 1. Plan Development On March 11, 2015, the Mayor signed an “Intent to Participate” letter and the Township Committee passed a resolution. The Mayor assigned the OEM Coordinator to work with other municipal employees, consultants, volunteers, and other stakeholders through the formation of a Local Planning Committee, as listed below. The local planning committee filled out the municipal worksheets included in Appendix E and worked to gather the necessary information to support the plan update. Members of the LPC attended the Coordinator’s Meetings in April and June, the project kick-off meeting in April, and met with the planning consultant on June 25th. The LPC reviewed all drafts of this appendix prior to adoption. Table 18-1: Township of Plainsboro Local Planning Committee Members Name Title Organization Kevin Schroeck Patrol/OEM Plainsboro PD Eamon Blanchard Sergeant Plainsboro PD Brian Wagner Fire Chief Plainsboro VFD Brian Gould EMS Chief Plainsboro EMS Neil Blitz Director Plainsboro DPW Brian Miller Director Plainsboro Building Les Varga Director Plainsboro Planning/Zoning Anthony Cancro Township Administrator Plainsboro Township Middlesex County, New Jersey: 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 18-1 Appendix 18: Township of Plainsboro Preliminary Draft - November 2015 2.
    [Show full text]
  • HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS in the JACOBS CREEK, STONY BROOK, and BEDEN BROOK DRAINAGE BASINS, WEST-CENTRAL NEW JERSEY, 1986-88 By
    HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS IN THE JACOBS CREEK, STONY BROOK, AND BEDEN BROOK DRAINAGE BASINS, WEST-CENTRAL NEW JERSEY, 1986-88 By Eric Jacobsen, Mark A. Hardy, and Barbara A. Kurtz U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4164 Prepared in cooperation with the NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY West Trenton, New Jersey 1993 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section Mountain View Office Park Box 25425 Suite 206 Federal Center 810 Bear Tavern Road Denver, CO 80225 West Trenton, NJ 08628 CONTENTS Page Abstract.............................................................. 1 Introduction.......................................................... 2 Purpose and scope................................................ 2 Previous studies................................................. 2 Acknowledgments.................................................. 2 Description of study area............................................. 4 Location and setting............................................. 4 Climate.......................................................... 4 Geology.......................................................... 6 Hydrogeology..................................................... 6 Methods of investigation.............................................. 8 Ground
    [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]