DOCSLIB.ORG

Glen Cove 17/ 60 Minutes/ 1/ 120/ Long Island Railroad N/A 10 62 Minutes 1 125 8 72 Min

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Glen Cove 17/ 60 Minutes/ 1/ 120/ Long Island Railroad N/A 10 62 Minutes 1 125 8 72 Min # of Frequency of Travel Time Transfers Daily Service to Manhattan Required Riders/ Weekday/ Weekday/ Weekday/ Parking Type of Transit Weekend (1) Weekend Weekend Other Spaces Ferry to Fire Island 5/ n/a 0 n/a n/a (summers only) 4 Glen Cove 17/ 60 minutes/ 1/ 120/ Long Island Railroad n/a 10 62 minutes 1 125 8 72 min. 0/ Express Bus (Long 0 Midtown 0 n/a n/a Island Transit) 87 min. Downtown Inter-town Bus To 32/ Hempstead (NICE n/a 0 52 min. n/a 16 n27) Inter-county Bus To 11/ Flushing (NICE n20, n/a 1 62 min. n/a 0 n21) 1 commuter n/a n/a loop n/a n/a Weekdays/ Local Transit n/a 1 downtown 7 days loop Sources: LIRR.com, MTA.com Notes: (1) NYC-bound departures Transit Comparison Conclusions Like Glen Cove, LIRR trains from Patchogue require a transfer in order to get to the main NYC terminal at Pennsylvania Station. However, Patchogue Station does not feature an express bus to NYC and has travel times to Manhattan that are 20 to 30 minutes longer than from Glen Street Station. Nevertheless, Patchogue Station represents a more robust overall intermodal transit location than Glen Street Station for the following reasons: 1. LIRR service between Patchogue and New York is more frequent. 2. The nearest stations to Patchogue are approximately 4 miles in each direction, compared to approximately ½ mile at Glen Street Station. There are five stations within a 4-mile radius of Glen Street Station, compared to two stations in the same radius of Patchogue. 3. Patchogue rail ridership is nearly four times the number from Glen Cove. 4. Patchogue has eight inter-town bus routes to nine different Long Island terminals compared to three routes to three terminals for Glen Cove. 5. Patchogue has ferry service to Fire Island within the TOD area during summer months. 6. The station is located approximately ¼ mile from the downtown, and is also approximately one mile south of a major highway (Sunrise Highway – State Route 27) that extends east along the south shore of Suffolk County to Montauk Point. 7. The station has ample parking to accommodate daily passengers. \\nywpdata\projects\28538.00 Glen Cove BOA\reports\Step 2 Nomination Report\Step 2 50 BO A St ep 2 N o m i n at i o n St u d y Nomination Report 9-25-12.docx 8. As a result of Patchogue's more frequent service compared with some other local stations, its highway proximity and ample parking, residents from south shore communities such as Bellport, Mastic, Shirley, Mastic Beach and Center Moriches will sometimes drive to Patchogue and then take the train to points west when traveling during off-peak periods. 9. Conversely, the Ronkonkoma Branch (approximately 6 miles northwest) has even more frequent service than Patchogue and some passengers from the Patchogue area will travel there for even better service. Since the core driver of TOD is a robust transit system, finding ways to increase the amount of transit available should be a priority of the Glen Street Station area. In order to justify increased rail and bus service, greater density of development within walking distance of the Glen Street station will be necessary to increase ridership demand. General Trends in Households and Income Population and Households The table below indicates that the ½-mile and 2-mile populations in Patchogue and Glen Cove are somewhat similar, although the population in Glen Cove is larger and is increasing, while Patchogue’s population has been decreasing. But the residential projects known to be underway in Patchogue may reverse this trend. Estimated Population 1990 2000 CAGR 2011 CAGR 2016 CAGR Patchogue 1/2 Mile 3,909 4,205 0.7% 4,159 -0.1% 4,115 -0.2% 2 Miles 31,451 34,213 0.8% 35,412 0.3% 34,499 -0.5% Glen Cove 1/2 Mile 5,236 5,921 1.2% 6,165 0.4% 6,424 0.8% 2 Miles 37,042 39,793 0.7% 40,244 0.1% 40,666 0.2% Similarly, the number of households in the 1/2-mile and 2-mile radii of each transit station is fairly similar, as indicated in the following table. However, when considering that there are two other transit stations within approximately ½ mile of the Glen Street Station in Glen Cove, the similar population/households are divided into demand for three separate transit stations. This reduces the density of population impacting the Glen Street Station. \\nywpdata\projects\28538.00 Glen Cove BOA\reports\Step 2 Nomination Report\Step 2 51 BO A St ep 2 N o m i n at i o n St u d y Nomination Report 9-25-12.docx Estimated Households 1990 2000 CAGR 2011 CAGR 2016 CAGR Patchogue 1/2 Mile 1,421 1,450 0.2% 1,531 0.5% 1,672 1.8% 2 Miles 11,414 12,733 1.1% 13,654 0.6% 14,712 1.5% Glen Cove 1/2 Mile 2,016 2,316 1.4% 2,440 0.5% 2,686 1.9% 2 Miles 13,299 14,419 0.8% 14,955 0.3% 16,014 1.4% Median Age The median age in Glen Cove and Patchogue are similar, as indicted in the following table. But the median age in both station areas is well above the national average. Like Glen Cove, Patchogue appears to be experiencing the same difficulty in providing adequately priced housing for young people as many other Long Island communities. It is not clear how well the demographic data captures the trends regarding the recent and ongoing development in Patchogue, but it appears that this TOD has, if anything, had an upward impact on median ages. This may be due to few young families with children living nearby the transit locations or possibly older couples downsizing to smaller housing units. Median Age Estimated in Years 1990 2000 CAGR 2011 CAGR 2016 CAGR Patchogue 1/2 Mile 31.9 33.7 0.6% 43.0 2.2% 44.7 0.8% 2 Miles 33.6 36.4 0.8% 41.0 1.1% 42.3 0.6% Glen Cove 1/2 Mile 36.1 38.0 0.5% 43.7 1.3% 45.2 0.7% 2 Miles 37.2 39.3 0.6% 41.9 0.6% 43.4 0.7% United States 32.9 35.3 0.7% 36.9 0.4% 37.8 0.5% Median Household Income The table below indicates that the median household income within ½ mile of each transit station is very similar. However, the median household income beyond the ½-mile radius of Glen Cove is substantially higher than in Patchogue, where it is only somewhat higher than that found within the ½-mile radius. While median incomes in the ½-mile radius of both stations do not indicate widespread poverty and are likely to be sufficient to support market-rate housing, other anecdotal evidence regarding income and poverty levels in the Orchard neighborhood immediately to the south may indicate that some affordable housing set aside would be prudent at any TOD associated with the Glen Street Station. The comparison of median household incomes to the national median provides insight into the comparative difference in wealth to the rest of the nation, indicating that both Glen Cove and Patchogue compare fairly well on a national scale. \\nywpdata\projects\28538.00 Glen Cove BOA\reports\Step 2 Nomination Report\Step 2 52 BO A St ep 2 N o m i n at i o n St u d y Nomination Report 9-25-12.docx Median Household Estimated Income 1990 2000 CAGR 2011 CAGR 2016 CAGR Patchogue 1/2 Mile 32,051 44,074 3.2% 60,345 2.9% 65,634 1.7% 2 Miles 40,162 56,156 3.4% 69,430 1.9% 77,062 2.1% Glen Cove 1/2 Mile 42,255 48,897 1.5% 60,012 1.9% 66,033 1.9% 2 Miles 45,445 61,514 3.1% 80,897 2.5% 89,858 2.1% United States 30,099 42,253 3.5% 53,616 2.2% 58,708 1.8% Percentage of Owner Occupied Housing While there was a higher percentage of home ownership ratios in the Glen Street Station TOD area than the Patchogue Station area in 1990, by 2016 these figures are projected to be nearly identical. The recent and projected increase in homeownership in the Patchogue area reflects recent and projected development activity within a half mile of the station area. Home ownership ratios inside and outside the Glen Street TOD areas have been stable. Estimated % Owner Occupied 1990 2000 CAGR 2011 CAGR 2016 CAGR Patchogue 1/2 Mile 40.7% 40.2% -0.1% 48.0% 1.6% 48.1% 0.0% 2 Miles 60.9% 59.3% -0.3% 61.0% 0.3% 60.9% 0.0% Glen Cove 1/2 Mile 51.5% 48.8% -0.5% 49.7% 0.2% 48.8% -0.4% 2 Miles 64.5% 63.2% -0.2% 65.7% 0.4% 65.0% -0.2% Development Trends Prior to Public Involvement The Patchogue Station area had been declining economically since the 1960s. The area immediately surrounding the station was dominated by industrial properties that (other than the Clare Rose beer distributor) were shrinking in productivity and most eventually closed, leaving blighted, vacant industrial buildings that were physically and functionally obsolete. A nearby apartment building was also falling into disrepair and failing to meet the safety and comfort needs of its tenants.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BULLETIN - FEBRUARY, 2010 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol
    TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - FEBRUARY, 2010 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 53, No. 2 February, 2010 The Bulletin NOR’EASTER HITS EASTERN SEABOARD Published by the New Although the “official” start of winter was not boarded a following train that got them to York Division, Electric until Monday, December 21, 2009, the first Ronkonkoma at 8:45 when they were sched- Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box major winter storm, a Nor’easter, traveled up uled to arrive at 4:14 AM. Thanks to member 3001, New York, New the eastern seaboard, arriving in the metro- Larry Kiss, who filled in some details. York 10008-3001. politan area Saturday afternoon, December Later that day, at 8:45 PM, service was sus- 19. It continued through Sunday, December pended between Ronkonkoma and Green- 20, dumping up to 26” of snow in eastern port and there were scattered delays on the For general inquiries, contact us at nydiv@ Long Island. Portions of New Jersey also Port Jefferson, Babylon and Montauk erausa.org or by phone received significant amounts. In New York Branches. Traffic reports in the following days at (212) 986-4482 (voice City, approximately 11 inches were recorded also told of minor delays. mail available). The in Central Park, 13.2 inches in Sheepshead Our Editor-in-Chief, Bernie Linder, saw on a Division’s website is www.erausa.org/ Bay, six inches in the Bronx, and only a trace news report on Channel 7 that the lead car of nydiv.html. in Poughkeepsie. Many areas received re- each LIRR MU train, and probably also the cord amounts of snow.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2: Station Access and Parking
    3.2 Station Access and Parking 3.2 Station Access and Parking A. INTRODUCTION NEW JERSEY Potential Build and No Build Alternative additions to certain parking facilities at NJ TRANSIT commuter rail stations are considered in this section. Parking at stations is provided by NJ TRANSIT, municipalities, and/or private operators throughout New Jersey. In Orange and Rockland Counties in New York, station parking is provided in coordination with Metro-North Railroad. Orange and Rockland Counties are assessed in this section because the parking analysis is based on NJ TRANSIT line segment, i.e., those groupings of stations that share similar service patterns and are close to one another (Figure 3.2-1). The analysis was completed at the segment level rather than at the station level, given the close station spacing (e.g., many stations are within 1 to 2 miles of each other), population densities in northern and central New Jersey and the connectivity of the local and regional roadway network throughout New Jersey. Because some NJ TRANSIT rail lines are located close to each other, passengers can choose between two rail lines depending on the availability of parking. This situation occurs with the individual Main and Bergen County Line segments, and also applies to other locations, such as stations along the Gladstone Branch and the Raritan Valley Line. As a result, shortfalls in parking demand can realistically be addressed at any station within a given segment, using a range of options from new construction of spaces to increased transit access, such as expansion of bus lines or implementation of community shuttle services.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Capital Program Fiscal Year 2007
    Transportation Capital Program Fiscal Year 2007 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NJ TRANSIT July 1, 2006 Governor Jon Corzine Commissioner Kris Kolluri, Esq. Table of Contents Section I Introduction Section II NJDOT & NJ TRANSIT Project List by Phase of Work Section III NJ DOT Project Descriptions Section IV NJ TRANSIT Project Descriptions Section V NJ DOT Five-Year Capital Plan Section VI NJ TRANSIT Five-Year Capital Plan Section VII Glossary Section I Introduction Transportation Capital Program Fiscal Year 2007 The Transportation Capital Program for Fiscal Year 2007 describes all the capital investments planned by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and NJ TRANSIT for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2006. This program is the product of extensive, ongoing participation by the state’s three metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and a wide variety of stakeholders. A companion document, “Capital Investment Strategy, Fiscal Years 2007-2011,” puts these investments in the context of longer-term goals for improving New Jersey’s transportation system. The capital program pursues the goals set out in the capital investment strategy. This report also contains the draft five-year program for both NJDOT and NJ TRANSIT. This $3.2 billion program – the largest in New Jersey’s history – takes advantage of the legislation recently enacted which implements Governor Corzine’s initiative to “reform, replenish, and grow” New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund. That legislation provides for stable state transportation funding for a five-year period at an increased level of $1.6 billion per year. NJDOT’s program is a balanced investment plan which advances the objectives of our capital investment strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • TRANS-HUDSON COMMUTING CAPACITY STUDY Appendix A: Interstate Bus Network - Operational and Service Strategies
    TRANS-HUDSON COMMUTING CAPACITY STUDY Appendix A: Interstate Bus Network - Operational and Service Strategies September 2016 Version Final Prepared for: Submitted by: ---------------------------------------------------------------This page was intentionally left blank------------------------------------------------------------- TRANS-HUDSON COMMUTING CAPACITY STUDY CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES .............................................................................................. 2 2 LINCOLN TUNNEL CORRIDOR/PABT FACILITY STRATEGIES .............................................................................. 4 2.1 IMPROVED CORRIDOR OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 5 Second XBL or Route 495 HOT Lane ............................................................................................... 5 Enhanced Bus/HOV Priority Network .............................................................................................. 9 Bus Platooning through Connected and Automated Vehicle Technologies ........................... 12 Connected and Automated Bus Applications
    [Show full text]
  • IFTC Final Report
    CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS INTERMODAL FERRY TRANSPORTATION CENTER CITY OF SOUTH AMBOY MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Prepared for: City of South Amboy Prepared by: Ian Burrow, Ph.D., RPA, Principal Investigator Patrick Harshbarger, M.A., Principal Historian July 2015 (Revised December 2015) MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents the identification, evaluation of significance and both the implemented and proposed treatment of historic properties at the site of the proposed Intermodal Ferry Transportation Center (IFTC), located on the site of the former ferry terminals and rail yard facilities of the Camden and Amboy Railroad (later the Pennsylvania Railroad) in South Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The facilities form part of the Camden and Amboy Railroad (Main Line) Historic District, which the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Officer has on several occasions, beginning in 1975, determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. This federally licensed and funded undertaking falls under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Consideration of historic properties followed the Section 106 regula- tory process set forth in 36 CFR Part 800, coordinated with NEPA and Section 4(f). Beginning in late 2000, a series of studies were initiated within the defined Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this undertaking. Following an identification study for an Environmental Assessment document produced in accordance with NEPA, Phase I archaeological investigations were carried out in 2001 and 2002 in the areas immediately impacted by a proposed new access road (named Radford Ferry Road to reference the 18th-century ferry at the site) and parking area for a new passenger ferry terminal.
    [Show full text]
  • MIDDLESEX Municipallity: County Code: Agency Code
    HPO Cultural Resource Reports FILTER SETTINGS: (Sorted by: County / Municipality / Shelf Code) County:: MIDDLESEX Municipallity: County Code: Agency Code: MIDDLESEX MIDDLESEX Countywide Countywide MID F 451 1993 ID11462 MID R 42a v3 1992 ID11324 Route US 1 (5E, 6S) Middlesex County, New Jersey Wetlands Mitigation "Proposed 30" Liberty Pipeline from Morgan, New Jersey Across Raritan Site Archaeological Study Bay, Lower New York Bay and the Atlantic Ocean to Edgemere, New NJ DOT, Bureau of Environmental Analysis York. Volume 3 of 3. Hazard and Archaeological Survey Phase 2―Liberty Pipeline Offshore New Jersey and New York Report Type: Other Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc. Location: SHELVED: CRM Report Type: Archaeology Phase II MID R 35b 1989 ID11051 Location: SHELVED: CRM A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation Main Natural Gas Pipeline Expansion, MP1794.99- MID R 42b 1992 ID11325 MP1802.73, Middlesex County, NJ. Report of Archaeological Phase III Hazard and Archaeological Survey, Proposed Liberty Pipeline Investigation No. 2. in Raritan Bay New Jersey and New York EMANCO, Inc. Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc. Report Type: Archaeology Phase I Report Type: Archaeology Phase III Location: SHELVED: CRM Location: SHELVED: CRM MID R 35c 1989 ID11052 MID GB 125 v1 1979 ID7815 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Transcontinental Gas Pipe Middlesex County Inventory of Historic, Cultural, and Architectural Line Corporation Main Natural Gas Pipeline Expansion, MP1790.84- Resources: Summary Report MP1794.70, Middlesex County, NJ. Report of Archaeological Heritage Studies, Inc. Investigation No. 1. Report Type: Architecture Intensive EMANCO, Inc. Location: SHELVED: GB Report Type: Archaeology Phase I Location: SHELVED: CRM MID GB 126 1985 ID7817 Middlesex County Cultural and Heritage Commission Final Report: MID R 42 1992 ID11321 Middlesex County Historic Preservation Grant Summary 1985 "Proposed 30" Pipeline from an Underwater Tap Valve in Raritan Bay to Janet W.
    [Show full text]
  • Raritan River Bridge Replacement Project
    RARITAN RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Environmental Assessment / Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation PERTH AMBOY AND SOUTH AMBOY MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY PREPARED BY: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION and NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION JUNE 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................... S-1 Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Need for the Project........................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3.1 Need to Maintain Critical Element of the Region’s Transportation Infrastructure......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3.2 Need to Provide Storm Resilience ......................................................................... 1-2 1.4 NJ TRANSIT Resilience Program ...................................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 2-1 2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Final Vaccine Transit List V20210221.Xlsx
    Transit Access to NJ COVID‐19 VACCINATION SITES as of 1‐27‐21 1 This list is based upon NJ COVID-19 Vaccine Locations for Eligible Recipients as of 1/27/21. Please check https://covid19.nj.gov/pages/covid-19-vaccine-locations-for-eligible-recipients for site updates and additional information. Other Sources: nj.com, njtransit.com, google maps, NJTPA CHSTP Visualization Tool (created by Cross County Connection), Greater Mercer TMA, Hunterdon County Transit Guide, Middlesex County Transit Guide, Ocean County Online Bus Tracker App & Schedules, Ridewise of Somerset, Warren County Route 57 Shuttle Schedules Megasites are in BOLD ** site is over 1 mile from transit stop Facility Name Facility Address Phone Bus Other Transit ATLANTIC Atlanticare Health Services FQHC 1401 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 2800 (609) 572-6040 NJT Bus # 565 Atlantic City, NJ 08401 MediLink RxCare Hammonton, LLC 44 South White Horse Pike N/A NJT Bus # 554 Hammonton, NJ 08037 ShopRite Pharmacy #612 23 Bethel Road Somers Point, NJ NJT Bus # 507 NJT Bus # 509 ShopRite Pharmacy #633 616 White Horse Pike (609) 646-0444 NJT Bus # 508 Absecon, NJ 08201 NJT Bus # 554 2 Facility Name Facility Address Phone Bus Other Transit Southern Jersey Family Medical 1301 Atlantic Avenue Atlantic City (800) 486-0131 NJT Bus # 501 Centers Atlantic City Center NJT Bus # 502 NJT Bus # 504 NJT Bus # 505 NJT Bus # 507 NJT Bus # 508 NJT Bus # 509 NJT Bus # 551 NJT Bus # 552 NJT Bus # 553 NJT Bus # 554 NJT Bus # 559 NJT Bus # 319 NJT Bus # AC1 NJT Bus # AC3 NJT Bus # AC4B Southern Jersey Family Medical 860 S.
    [Show full text]
  • NJ TRANSIT Annual Report
    NJ TRANSIT AnnuAl RepoRt IN MOTION 2 contents 3 Message from the Governor 4 Message from the Chairman 5 Board of Directors 6 Message from the Executive Director 7 the year in review 9 Fy 2009 hiGhLiGhts 9 Mass Transit Tunnel 10 Stimulus Projects 12 Equipment Update 13 Facility Improvements 14 Service Improvements 15 Parking Expansion 16 Green Initiatives 17 State of Good Repair 18 Technology 19 what’s next 20 nJ transit on-time perFormance by mode 21 Rail Methodology 22 Light Rail Methodology 23 Bus Methodology 24 Board of Directors’ Biographies 26 Advisory Committees Fy2009 FinanciaL report (attached) messaGe From the Governor 3 nJ tRAnSIt served record numbers of passengers in FY2009, helping customers avoid volatile gas prices by holding fares steady while continuing to modernize and expand our fleet and facilities to maintain safe, reliable and convenient service. While we have a great transit system, we can make it even better — and we’re doing that. Investing in a robust and cost-effective transportation system is critical to our state and regional economies, providing access to jobs, medical and educational opportunities, and world class sports and entertainment venues. that’s why I made sure that public transportation played a vital role in my state economic recovery program, creating and sustaining jobs for thousands of hard working men and women now, and delivering increased mobility for decades to come. nothing could better demonstrate my long-term commitment to public transportation than the milestones we achieved this past year on the Mass transit tunnel project. A combination of environmental approvals and state, federal and port Authority funds allowed us to break ground on this historic project that is creating thousands of jobs, supporting economic expansion and transforming regional travel for generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Eliminating Barriers to Transit-Oriented Development
    FHWA-NJ-2010-002 Eliminating Barriers to Transit-Oriented Development FINAL REPORT March 2010 Submitted by Daniel G. Chatman, Ph.D. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Rutgers University Stephanie E. DiPetrillo Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Rutgers University NJDOT Research Project Manager Vincent F. Nichnadowicz In cooperation with New Jersey Department of Transportation Bureau of Research and U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration DISCLAIMER STATEMENT “The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the New Jersey Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.” TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-NJ-2010-002 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Eliminating Barriers to Transit-Oriented Development March 2010 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Chatman, Daniel Ph.D., Stephanie DiPetrillo FHWA-NJ-2010-002 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 11. Contract or Grant No. 33 Livingston Avenue New Brunswick, NJ 08901 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered New Jersey Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration PO 600 U.S. Department of Transportation Trenton, NJ 08625 Washington, D.C. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract “Transit-oriented development” refers to dense, mixed-use development near transit facilities, particularly denser housing development.
    [Show full text]
  • (FONSI) for NJ TRANSIT's Raritan River Bridge Replacement Project
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINSTRATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Project: Raritan River Bridge Replacement Project Applicant: New Jersey Transit Corporation Project Location: Perth Amboy and South Amboy, New Jersey 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Raritan River rail bridge carries New Jersey Transit Corporation’s (NJ TRANSIT) North Jersey Coast Line (NJCL) and freight trains operated by Conrail across the Raritan River between South Amboy and Perth Amboy, New Jersey. The bridge is a critical rail link for the NJCL to the Northeast Corridor and job centers in Newark, NJ; Jersey City, NJ; and Manhattan, NY. The Raritan River rail bridge suffered structural damage during the storm named Sandy in October 2012, when ocean surge moved the approach girder spans out of alignment atop their supporting piers. NJ TRANSIT proposes to replace the existing two-track Raritan River rail bridge with a new two-track bridge on an alignment parallel and to the west of the existing bridge and demolish the existing bridge. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) selected the proposed project for funding as "NJ TRANSIT Raritan River Drawbridge Replacement Project" (Funding ID D2013-RESL-008) as a Section 5324 Emergency Relief Resilience Project in Response to Hurricane Sandy on November 5, 2014 (see Table 1, Federal Register Vol.79, No. 214, p. 65764) following a competitive evaluation process. The FTA and NJ TRANSIT prepared the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Section 4(f) Evaluation, dated June 2017 in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq.), FTA's Joint NEPA implementing regulations (23 CFR Part 771), the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified at 49 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • RARITAN RIVER DRAWBRIDGE Section 1 Cover Letter
    JULY 16, 2015 Request For Proposal (RFP) No. 15-044 Design, Engineering and Construction Assistance Services for the Replacement of the RARITAN RIVER DRAWBRIDGE Section 1 Cover Letter ............................................................................................................... Page 1 Section 2 Qualifications of Firms ............................................................................................... Page 2 Section 3 Full-Time Office Certification ..................................................................................... Page 6 Section 4 Qualifications of Individuals ....................................................................................... Page 7 Resumes ................................................................................................................. Page 12 Section 5 Key Personnel Certification ..................................................................................... Page 66 Firm References ...................................................................................................... Page 67 Project Manager References ................................................................................... Page 72 Key Personnel References ...................................................................................... Page 73 Work History with NJ ............................................................................................... Page 80 Section 6 Technical Section ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]