DOCSLIB.ORG

(ROP) 2007 Draft Version 1 June 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(ROP) 2007 Draft Version 1 June 2007 South Central Region Regional Operations PPlanlan (ROP) 2007 Draft Version 1 –July 2007 i S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc South Central Region Regional Operations PPlanlan (ROP) 2007 South Central Region Regional Operations Plan (ROP) 2007 Draft Version 1 June 2007 PPPrrreeepppaaarrreeeddd ffffooorrr:::: PPPeeennnnnnDDDOOOTTT EEEnnngggiiiinnneeeeeerrriiiinnnggg DDDiiiissstttrrriiiicccttt 888----000 AAAdddaaammmsss CCCooouuunnntttyyy OOOffffffffiiiiccceee oooffff PPPllllaaannnnnniiiinnnggg aaannnddd DDDeeevvveeellllooopppmmmeeennnttt FFFrrraaannnkkklllliiiinnn CCCooouuunnntttyyy PPPllllaaannnnnniiiinnnggg CCCooommmmmmiiiissssssiiiiooonnn LLLaaannncccaaasssttteeerrr CCCooouuunnntttyyy PPPllllaaannnnnniiiinnnggg CCCooommmmmmiiiissssssiiiiooonnn LLLeeebbbaaannnooonnn CCCooouuunnntttyyy PPPllllaaannnnnniiiinnnggg DDDeeepppaaarrrtttmmmeeennnttt TTTrrriiii----CCCooouuunnntttyyy RRReeegggiiiiooonnnaaallll PPPllllaaannnnnniiiinnnggg CCCooommmmmmiiiissssssiiiiooonnn YYYooorrrkkk CCCooouuunnntttyyy PPPllllaaannnnnniiiinnnggg CCCooommmmmmiiiissssssiiiiooonnn PPPrrreeepppaaarrreeeddd bbbyyy:::: Draft Version 1 –July 2007 ii S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc South Central Region Regional Operations PPlanlan (ROP) 2007 AAAccckkknnnooowwwlllleeedddgggmmmeeennntttsss Major contributions from PennDOT Engineering District 8-0, the Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering, and the Center for Program Development and Management, as well as the local planning partners made the Regional Operations Plan for the South Central Region possible. The ROP was developed with input from multiple regional stakeholders. Regional Operations Forum The ROP was guided by the Regional Steering Committee consisting of the following individuals: Scott Nazar PennDOT District 8-0 Bob Conrad PennDOT District 8-0 Charles Goodhart PennDOT District 8-0 Gary DeBerry PennDOT Program Center Mike Pack PennDOT BHSTE Chip Millard Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Tom Kotay Lebanon County Planning Department Carol Palmoski Lancaster County Planning Commission Don Bubb York County Planning Commission Andrew Merkel Adams County Office of Planning and Development Phil Tarquino Franklin County Planning Commission Kay Carman York County EMA Steve Smith Fairview Township EMA Lou Cortelazzi Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Allen Baldwin Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Lieutenant Jacob Crider Pennsylvania State Police Lieutenant Dennis Wilson Pennsylvania State Police Jim Hunt Federal Highway Administration Consultant Team Gannett Fleming, Inc. facilitated the ROP process, documented the outcomes, and prepared the plan document. Draft Version 1 –July 2007 iii S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc South Central Region Regional Operations Plan (ROP) 2007 TTTABLETABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................2 1 Background .....................................................................................................................................3 1.1 National Perspective........................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Statewide TSOP Initiative.................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 ROP Scope and Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.3.1 ROP Development Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.3.2 ROP Timetable and Adoption......................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 ROP Methodology................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.5 ROP Oversight and Management....................................................................................................................... 9 1.5.1 Regional Operations Forum ........................................................................................................................... 9 1.5.2 Stakeholder Outreach .................................................................................................................................. 11 2 Regional Activities and Initiatives ................................................................................................12 2.1 Description of the Region................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1.1 Regional Demographics............................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Regional Transportation System ................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.3 Regional Perspective on Congestion........................................................................................................... 16 2.2 ITS and Operations Activities at District Level ................................................................................................ 17 2.2.1 Current and Planned Deployments ............................................................................................................. 17 2.2.2 Current and Planned Operational Infrastructure........................................................................................ 20 2.2.3 Maintenance and Budgeting ....................................................................................................................... 21 2.3 Other Regional Initiatives ................................................................................................................................. 21 2.4 Regional Planning Process............................................................................................................................... 21 2.4.1 Regional Planning Partners ......................................................................................................................... 22 2.5 Integrating the ROP into the Regional Planning Process ............................................................................... 24 3 Regional Operations Framework..................................................................................................27 3.1 Regional Operations Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Incident Management Operations Area .......................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Traveler Information Operations Area ............................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Traffic Signal Operations Area ......................................................................................................................... 31 3.5 Goods Movement Operations Area.................................................................................................................. 32 4 Regional Program..........................................................................................................................33 4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 33 4.2 Project Priorities................................................................................................................................................ 33 4.3 Approach to Funding......................................................................................................................................... 34 4.4 Regional Oversight............................................................................................................................................ 36 4.5 Measuring Success........................................................................................................................................... 36 4.6 Institutional Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 36 5 Summary .......................................................................................................................................38 Appendix A Project Descriptions ..........................................................................................................39 Appendix B Meeting Minutes ...............................................................................................................64 Draft Version 1 –July 2007 ii S:\DIV-2\211\44262 BHSTE\WO 27 District 8 ROP\Report\Region 8 ROP Version 1 070907.doc South Central Region Regional Operations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Central Regional ITS Architecture Final Report
    Regional ITS Architecture PennDOT South Central ITS Architecture Region TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 1.1 ARCHITECTURE PROCESS .....................................................................................2 1.2 USING THIS DOCUMENT........................................................................................3 1.3 UTILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURE .............................................................................7 1.4 ITS STANDARDS...................................................................................................8 1.5 MAINTAINING THE ARCHITECTURE .......................................................................10 1.6 MOVING FORWARD/INSTITUTIONALIZING ITS........................................................16 2 ARCHITECTURE SCOPE ................................................................... 23 2.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES ..........................................................................................23 2.2 CONFORMITY MATRIX.........................................................................................23 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION .............................................................................26 2.4 REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................30 2.5 REGIONAL ITS PROJECTS ...................................................................................34 3 REGIONAL SYSTEMS INVENTORY, NEEDS, AND SERVICES .........
    [Show full text]
  • HATS Regional Freight Plan Update Followed the Following Primary Tasks
    Harrisburg Area TransportaƟ on Study REGIONAL FREIGHT PLAN Thursday, June 29, 2017 September 2017 This page intentionally left blank Harrisburg Area Transportation Study Regional Freight Plan Prepared for: Harrisburg Area Transportation Study 112 Market Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234‐2639 www.tcrpc‐pa.org/hats/ By: Michael Baker International, Inc. 4431 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 213‐2900 September 22, 2017 The preparation of this publication was financed in part through the United States Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 4 Harrisburg Area Transportation Study Regional Freight Plan Message from the MPO Chairman Dear reader – Whether you are a municipal official, major shipper/receiver, or freight carrier, we all share a common objective: to keep our regional freight infrastructure operating at peak condition. We all recognize that having good freight infrastructure is a vital part of maintaining our economy. The Greater Harrisburg area has historically served as a freight hub – that distinction has only grown, even as our economic base has transitioned from one of manufacturing to one of transportation and logistics. The Harrisburg Area Transportation Study continues to work with PennDOT and its many partners in investing in our freight transportation system. This includes notable, high‐profile projects such as the widening of Interstate 81 between PA 581 and PA 114, and improvements to Interstate 83 in Dauphin County. More are on the way. The formal update of the regional freight plan over the past year has provided us with an opportunity to take a closer look at the freight concerns our region faces.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H1272
    H1272 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE March 10, 2005 could be money going to education, For instance, Colgate-Palmolive said until the Bush administration takes its going to health care, going to address that while the corporate tax bill will privatization plan off the table, we can- the infrastructure of our Nation. allow it to repatriate half a billion dol- not work together to address Social Se- So the President’s plan clearly needs lars in profits, the company will actu- curity solvency. help. And his failure to provide a clear ally shut down a third of its factories Even one of our Republican col- and honest accounting of the difficult and lay off 4,400 employees. leagues, Senator LINDSEY GRAHAM, has tradeoffs between increases in debt, Sun Microsystems, $1 billion in new admitted that privatization is not a benefits cuts and tax increases shows a profits during the so-called corporate plan that will fix Social Security. On failure in leadership. tax ‘‘holiday,’’ will be repatriated, but Tuesday he said, ‘‘We now have this f plans to lay off 3,600 employees. huge fight over a sideshow. It has al- DuPont Photomasks is repatriating ways been a sideshow, but we sold it as b 1100 $24 million, but laying off 100 employ- the main event.’’ That is a Republican DENOUNCING VIOLENCE AGAINST ees, while expanding its Singapore fac- Senator calling the President’s plan a WOMEN AND SUPPORTING VITAL tory at the same time. sideshow. SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS While the corporate suites enjoy the Mr. Speaker, it is a sideshow because FOR WOMEN fruits of this tax cut, Americans are it does nothing to strengthen Social Security.
    [Show full text]
  • To Download Our Comprehensive Plan in PDF
    CONEWAGO TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN South Londonderry Township BE AVER N B E Lebanon County U Derry Township P A S C U R H H M E O R A A W N H E V L S I E L H L O A D IT E N O E H T P C S IN E R H A E D M E L C O C K N Y YE E E H L S I Z EL R UR A G LA W P E B A R H E T O E I T O M D S H D R L T B O O O W I S N W I E T E H D N M C E D O E H R O W R U S G N R H W C T E O Y H H O E D L T P A D N N DTO C N E A OU H R R E Iro B S n Run T R N E U D T AB743 R B O A O B S A K K L O E RO R B LE CO RHO AD S H ON o BB f R I f E e LU r B C r e e k RIDGE K I R B Y M E A D O W E R I A L L AB341 E COL B EBR OOK E T A PIKE D TU RN VANIA O NNSYL E PE PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE D 76 §¨¦ H E R S H n E u Y R s l l i r B OLL OAK KN L P O L E DA R N E PL O D MA O S P N E C T K Y M E O I L S L L E L A V R PA AB283 283 O AB283 L M P D L A E 28 H 3 go C reek E Con ewa R S H E Y L L I M L L I L E H BEAG Londonderry Township Mount Joy Township Lancaster County k e R re E C F o F g a O w e H n o C Elizabethtown Borough Adopted October 14, 2009 CONEWAGO TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted October 14, 2009 Prepared for the Conewago Township Board of Supervisors John D.
    [Show full text]
  • ATTACHMENT 1: Site Directions Detailed Written Directions to the Site Blair County
    ATTACHMENT 1: Site Directions Detailed Written Directions to the Site Blair County From the DEP South Central Regional Office to Locke Mountain Road Block Valve site (approximately 4 Locke Mountain Road, Hollidaysburg, PA 16648) Head southwest on Elmerton Ave (0.2 mi). Turn right onto US-22 W (signs for I-81/US-322/Carlisle 22/Lewistown 55/Hazleton 80) (55.9 mi). Take the US-22 W/US-522 S exit on the left toward Mt Union (0.6 mi). Continue onto US-22 W/US-522 S (58.7 mi). Turn left onto Old Rte 22/Reservoir Rd (269 ft). Turn left onto Locke Mt Rd (0.4 mi). Slight right onto Locke Mountain Rd. The Juniata River West block valve will on the left hand side about 1 mile down the road. Huntingdon County From the DEP South Central Regional Office to Happy Hills Road Block Valve site (approximately 0.3 mi south of 14987 Happy Hills Road, Huntingdon, PA 16652) Head southwest on Elmerton Ave (0.2 mi). Turn right onto US-22 W (signs for I-81/US-322/Carlisle 22/Lewistown 55/Hazleton 80) (55.9 mi). Take the US-22 W/US-522 S exit on the left toward Mt Union (0.6 mi). Continue onto US-22 W/US-522 S (29.2 mi). Turn left onto PA-829 S (6.8 mi). Turn right onto Happy Hills Rd. The Happy Hills Road Block Valve will be on the left hand side about 1.4 miles down the road. From the DEP South Central Regional Office to the Pennsylvania 655 Block Valve site.
    [Show full text]
  • Adn.Coni [ Print Page ]( Close Window Anchorage Daily News Connected to Don Young
    adn.com Connected to Don Young Page 1 of 4 adn.coni [ Print Page ]( Close Window Anchorage Daily News Connected to Don Young (07/06/08 02:25:06) Rick Alcalde Potomac Partners lobbyist. His father, Hector Alcalde, is also a lobbyist and longtime friend to Young. His clients include Michigan developer Daniel Aronoff’s real estate firm, the Landon Companies. Disclosures show he was paid by Landon specifically to lobby on Young’s transportation bill. Young obtained a $10 million earmark for a study of a Florida interstate interchange that promised to benefit Aronoff, Who had raised money for Young. Young said he obtained the earmark at the request of local residents and Florida Gulf Coast University, which Alcalde also represented. Potomac Partners 2008 clients include: Landon Companies; MJM Enterprises; Shinnecock Indian Nation; National Assn. of Mortgage Brokers. Levon Boyagian Former Young legislative director who now lobbies for Dutko Worldwide. Clients include Wal-Mart, which benefited from a $35 million earmark for widening a road in front of its Bentonville, Ark. headquarters. Dutko Worldwide 2008 clients include: American Hospital Assn.; FedEx Corp.; Wal-Mart stores; Target Corp.; Los Angeles County; Miami; New Orleans; Duke Energy; Sprint Nextel Cohn Chapman Young’s chief of staff before leaving in 2003 to become a lobbyist 2008 clients: American Trucking Assn.; Doyon Ltd.; L-3/Geneva Airspace Randy DeLay Lobbyist and brother of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. 2008 clients: Brownsville Navigation District; Motorcoach Industries International Billy Lee Evans A former Democratic congressman from Georgia who lobbied against a proposed wind farm off tried kill.
    [Show full text]
  • 69699 34-B RFP Pt6 Add4.Pdf
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Date: December 19, 2008 Subject: Telecommunications Managed Services Solicitation Number: 6100004339 Opening Date/Time: February 17, 2009 at 1:00 pm EST Addendum Number: 4 To All Suppliers: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania defines a solicitation “Addendum”” as an addition to or amendment of the original terms, conditions, specifications, or instructions of a procurement solicitation (e.g., Invitation for Bids or Request for Proposals). List any and all changes: 1. Additional round 1 questions and answers have been posted to the supplier portal. This document is labeled as "Questions and Answers Round 1 Part 2". 2. Round 2 questions and answers have been posted to the supplier portal. This document is labeled as "Questions and Answers Round 2 Part 1". 3. Revisions of Schedule F-1 Service Level Matrix and Exhibit D Service Provider Pricing Forms have been posted to the supplier portal. The following is the summary of changes to Schedule F-1: 1). Removed Baseline Data and Measurement Metric columns 2). Populated Service Level Type and Service Level Class 3). Modified Target Level for SLA Ref#5 4). Modified column heading “Service Level Class” to “Service Levels” to reflect the Schedule F Service Level Methodology and Schedule A Defined Term 5). Modified Service Level to KPI for SLA Ref#6 and SLA Ref#14 6). Removed original SLA Ref#19 Internet Latency 7). Modified SLA Ref#16 to address specifically availability of the redundant and secure Enterprise Internet Access Network (as in Exhibit C 1.81) 8). Added 5 new Enterprise Services SLA’s under SLA Ref# 16 and renumbered remainder of matrix • Redundant and secure Enterprise Remote Access Service • Redundant and secure Enterprise Business Partner DMZ Service • Enterprise COPANET Management Service • Redundant and secure Enterprise VOIP Service • Enterprise Email Scanning Service 9).
    [Show full text]
  • December 16, 2020
    An update has been published to Statewide News on the PennDOT website. Please see below for details. PennDOT - Statewide News Motorists Advised to Limit Travel During Upcoming Winter Storm Anticipated Vehicle Restrictions Will Be in Effect Wednesday Harrisburg, PA –In preparation for a major winter storm event, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) are advising motorists to avoid all unnecessary travel during the storm, and are anticipating that restrictions on trucks and other vehicles will be imposed on certain roadways around the state. "We have been preparing for winter since the last one ended, and we're calling on the public to be our partners in safe travel," said PennDOT Secretary Yassmin Gramian. "Please, avoid traveling and if you must travel, be sure to check travel conditions and give plow operators plenty of space so they can do their jobs safely and effectively." "While overall traffic on the PA Turnpike is down by about 30 percent due to the pandemic, we do know that critical commercial traffic continues during this time even during severe weather," said PA Turnpike CEO Mark Compton. "If you must travel, before heading out, be sure to download the 511PA Smartphone App for real-time, hands-free PA traffic advisories. Speed restrictions and vehicle bans will be used extensively during this storm and you will want to be fully apprised of any changes." Effective 1:00 PM on Wednesday, December 16, PennDOT and PTC anticipate that vehicle restrictions will begin to
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Hemophilia Awareness
    Hearing on Senate Bill 841 Tuesday, October 25, 2016 10:00 am Senate Hearing Room #1 North Office Building Harrisburg, PA Driving Information Capital Entrance The entrance to the Main Capitol Building is located on Commonwealth Avenue between North & Walnut Streets (at the Fountain). You will need to pass through a metal detector to enter the Capitol complex. Meeting Room The hearing will be in the North Office Building, Senate Hearing Room #1. Parking The closest parking to the Capitol is located at Market St. and North 5th Street at the 5th Street Garage. The parking garage is located approximately 3 blocks from the Capitol. The parking garage rates are approximately $7.00. From the parking garage, walk up 5th Street, left on Walnut Street, and right on Commonwealth Avenue. See above. From Northeast Pennsylvania Take Interstate 81 South (116.9 miles). Take the Cameron Street Exit. Follow Cameron Street approximately 3 miles to Market Street. Turn right on Market Street. Turn right onto North 5th Street to parking garage. From Northwest Pennsylvania Take Interstate 80 (141 Miles). Take US-220 South (Exit 161) toward US-322/ BELLEFONT. Go 11.3 miles to US-322 E toward STATE COLLEGE/ LEWISTOWN. Go 32.5 miles. Take US-22 E. Go 53.5 Miles. US-22E becomes Cameron Street. Turn right on Market Street. Turn right onto North 5th Street to parking garage. From Eastern Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) Take Interstate 76 W 96 miles. Take Exit 247 (Interstate 283 North) toward Harrisburg/Hershey. Go 3 miles to Interstate 83 South (Exit 3A) on the left toward Harrisburg.
    [Show full text]
  • Londonderry Township Comprehensive Plan
    Londonderry Township Comprehensive Plan This Plan was prepared for the Londonderry Township Board of Supervisors by the Londonderry Township Planning Commission, with the assistance of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission staff. "This project was financed (in part) by a grant from the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS" 1' TABLE OF CONTENTS Pacre Introduction i Regional Location iv Chapter 1-History 1-1 Chapter 2-Natural Environment 2-1 8 Chapter 3-Population/Socio-Economic Profile 3-1 Chapter 4-Employment and Economy 4-1 Chapter 5-Existing Land Use 5-1 I Chapter 6-Housing 6-1 Chapter 7-Transportation 7-1 Chapter 8-Community Facilities and Services 8-1 I Chapter 9-Municipal Administration and Finances 9-1 Chapter 10 - Energy 10-1 Chapter 11 - Community Goals and Objectives 11-1 Chapter 12 - Energy Plan 12-1 Chapter 13 - Transportation Plan 13-1 Chapter 14 - Community Facilities Plan 14-1 Chapter 15 - Housing Plan 15-1 Chapter 16 - Future Land Use Plan 16-1 Chapter 17 - Plan Administration and Implementation 17-1 I Appendix - Community Attitude Survey I' I I I I I I: I' I I List of Tables 1 Table Number Title Paqe 3-1 Population Trends: 1940 - 1980 3-5 1 3-2 Percentage of Population Change: 1940-1980 3-5 3-3 Elderly Population 65 Years of Age and Older: 1970 - 1980 3-8 3-4 Race/Ethnic Composition: 1980 3-8 1 3-5 Population Households/Marital Status: 1980 3-9 3-6 Years of School Completed: 1970 - 1980 3-10 3-7 Income/Poverty Comparisons 3-12 1 3-8 Population Projections: 1980 - 2000 3-16 3-9 Population Projection/Number
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2016 Repurposed Earmarks Report to Congress
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Report to Congress Repurposed Earmark Submissions 4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2016 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, directs the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to “submit consolidated reports of the information provided by the States and territories each quarter to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.” Background Section 125 of the Department of Transportation Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, title I of division L, Public Law 114- 113, (hereinafter “Repurposing Provision”) provides the authority for a State or territory (hereinafter “States”) to repurpose any earmark that was designated on or before September 30, 2005, and is less than 10 percent obligated or final vouchered and closed. The repurposed funds may be obligated on a new or existing project in the State within 50 miles of the earmark designation. The project must be an eligible project under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) (23 U.S.C. 133(b)), or the Territorial and Puerto Rico Highway Program (THP) (23 U.S.C. 165). The Repurposing Provision was available to be applied in Fiscal Year 2016. The repurposed funds must be obligated on the identified projects no later than September 30, 2019. Discussion In March 2016, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued guidance on the Repurposing Provision. Shortly thereafter, FHWA began receiving requests from States to repurpose earmarks. During the 3rd quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, FHWA received requests to repurpose 171 projects totaling $149,790,783.88 from 11 States. During the 4th quarter, FHWA received requests to repurpose 2,074 projects totaling $1,677,138,816.77 from 43 States, District of Columbia, American Samoa, and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bonds Are Special Limited Obligations of the Authority. Neither
    NEW ISSUE – Book Entry Only Ratings: S&P “A” Stable Outlook (Underlying Rating) “A+” Stable Outlook (Intercept Program Rating) “AA” Insured Bond Rating (Insured Rating) (See “RATINGS” herein) In the opinion of Stevens & Lee, P.C., Reading, Pennsylvania, Bond Counsel, assuming continuing compliance by the Authority and the School District with certain covenants to comply with provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and any applicable regulations thereunder, interest on the 2014B-2 Bonds is not includable in gross income under Section 103(a) of the Code and interest on the 2014B-2 Bonds is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal individual and corporate alternative minimum taxes. See “Tax Matters” in this Official Statement. Other provisions of the Code may affect purchasers and holders of the 2014B-2 Bonds. See “Tax Exemption and Certain Other Tax Matters” herein for a brief description of these provisions. Interest on the 2014A Bonds and 2014B-1 Bonds is included in the gross income of the owners of the 2014A Bonds and the 2014B-1 Bonds for federal income tax purposes. See “Tax Exemption and Certain other Tax Matters” herein. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Bonds and interest on the Bonds shall be free from taxation for State and local purposes within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but this exemption does not extend to gift, estate, succession or inheritance taxes or any other taxes not levied or assessed directly on the Bonds or the interest thereon. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, profits, gains or income derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition of the Bonds shall be subject to State and local taxation within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]