1 31 2024 GDC - HTP Financial Plan - Vfinal

Hudson Tunnel Project
Financial Plan
For the Request to Enter FTA CIG Engineering Phase
31 January 2024
Submitted by Gateway Development Commission

(Hudson Tunnel Project Sponsor)
In partnership with:
The New Jersey Transit Corporation (Transit Operator)

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak, Intercity Operator)
State of New York
State of New Jersey
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL/ADVISORY, CONSULTATIVE & DELIBERATIVE/PROPRIETARY

COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Privileged & Confidential/Advisory, Consultative & Deliberative/Proprietary Commercial and Financial Information - Do Not Disclose Subject to FOIA b(4).
GDC reserves all potential exemptions under GDC Public Records Access Policy, NJ OPRA and NY FOIL
Hudson Tunnel Project Financial Plan
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-7
1.1 Gateway Program Overview........................................................................... 1-8
1.2 Hudson Tunnel Project Overview ................................................................... 1-9
1.3 Description of the of the HTP Sponsor and Supporting Partners ................... 1-9
HTP Project Sponsor....................................................................... 1-10
Other Key Entities in Delivering the HTP ......................................... 1-11
HTP Public Transportation Operator ............................................... 1-12
HTP Funding Partners..................................................................... 1-13
1.4 Description of the Hudson Tunnel Project .................................................... 1-15
Hudson Tunnel Project Identification ............................................... 1-16
Hudson Tunnel Project Setting ........................................................ 1-16
Hudson Tunnel Project Current Conditions ..................................... 1-17
Hudson Tunnel Project Purpose...................................................... 1-19
Hudson Tunnel Project Summary.................................................... 1-21
2 HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN................................................... 2-24
2.1 Financial Plan Revisions since October 2023 Submission ........................... 2-25
2.2 Capital Plan .................................................................................................. 2-28
Preliminary Contract Packaging Approach ...................................... 2-28
Capital Plan Sources of Funds ........................................................ 2-31
Capital Sources and Uses of Funds ................................................ 2-69
2.3 Operating Plan ............................................................................................. 2-74
Infrastructure Operating Plan .......................................................... 2-74
Rail Service Operating Plan ............................................................ 2-81
2.4 Risks and Uncertainties ................................................................................ 2-83
Capital Plan ..................................................................................... 2-85
Operating and Maintenance Plan .................................................... 2-92
Mitigation Strategies ........................................................................ 2-93
Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................... 2-94
3 NJ TRANSIT SYSTEM-WIDE FINANCIAL PLAN ...................................................... 2-1
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 2-1
3.2 Capital Plan .................................................................................................... 2-2
Historic Capital Plan Sources of Funds ............................................. 2-2
Historic Capital Plan Uses of Funds .................................................. 2-2
Forecast Capital Plan Sources of Funds ........................................... 2-4
Forecast Capital Plan Uses of Funds ................................................ 2-6
3.3 Operating Plan ............................................................................................... 2-8
Historic Operating Sources of Funds................................................. 2-8
Historic Operating Uses of Funds.................................................... 2-10
Forecast Operating Budget ............................................................. 2-12
HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

January 2024 Page i
3.4 New Jersey Transit Risks and Uncertainties ................................................ 2-17

Impact of COVID-19 on NJ TRANSIT ............................................. 2-17
Bus Fleet Age .................................................................................. 2-18
NJTTF Financial Stability ................................................................ 2-19
NJ TRANSIT Liquidity ..................................................................... 2-22
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC FORECASTS............................... 2-24
APPENDIX B - PANYNJ FINANCIAL INFORMATION ......................................................... 2-28
APPENDIX C – LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ....................................................... 2-31

January 2024 Page ii
List of Acronyms
Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation
BCC Baseline Capital Charge
BCI Building Cost Index
BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
CAA Clean Air Act
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
CCI Construction Cost Index
CCIP Contractor Controlled Insurance Program
CE Categorical Exclusion
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CIG Capital Investment Grants
CM Construction Manager
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
GDC/Commission Gateway Development Commission
Corporation Gateway Program Development Corporation
CPI Consumer Price Index
CRP Credit Risk Premium
DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc.
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DSCR Debt Service Coverage Ratio
DVRPC Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
EDA Economic Development Authority
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESB Emergency Services Building
ESWA Early Systems Work Agreement
FAST Act Fixing American’s Surface Transportation Act
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FFGA Full Funding Grant Agreement
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMOC Financial Management Oversight Contractor
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

January 2024 Page iii
FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FSP Federal-State Partnership
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FY Fiscal Year
GAN Grant Anticipation Notes
GC General Contractor
HTP Hudson Tunnel Project
HYCC Hudson Yards Concrete Casing
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
LIRR Long Island Rail Road
LONP Letter of No Prejudice
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
MLMU Multilevel Multiple Units
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NEC Northeast Corridor
NECC Northeast Corridor Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NJ TRANSIT New Jersey Transit
NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation
NJEDA New Jersey Economic Development Authority
NJHA New Jersey Highway Authority
NJTA New Jersey Turnpike Authority
NJTPA North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
NJTTF New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund
NJTTFA New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority
NYCDOT New York City Department of Transportation
NYMTC New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OCIP Owner Controlled Insurance Program

January 2024 Page iv
OMB Office of Management and Budget

P&E Planning and Expense
PAB Private Activity Bond
PANYNJ Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Parkway Garden State Parkway
PATH Port Authority Trans-Hudson
PDP Project Delivery Partner
PE Preliminary Engineering
PIT Personal Income Tax
PMOC Project Management Oversight Contractor
PNB Portal North Bridge
PPGRT Petroleum Products Gross Receipts Tax
PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
PSNY Pennsylvania Station in New York City
PTC Positive Train Control
RAISE Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
RFI Request for Information
RFP Request for Proposal
ROD Record of Decision
RRIF Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
SCC Standard Cost Category
SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
SJTPO South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
SOGR State of Good Repair
STF Special Transportation Fund
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
TFPLUD Transit Friendly Planning, Land Use and Development
TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TOD Transit-oriented Development
Turnpike New Jersey Turnpike
ULB Useful Life Benchmark

January 2024 Page v
USDOT United States Department of Transportation

WRY Western Rail Yard
WSY LIRR West Side Yard
YOE Year of Expenditure

January 2024 Page vi
1 INTRODUCTION
This is the Financial Plan (the Financial Plan) for the Hudson Tunnel Project (HTP) which, for purposes
of its Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Capital Investment Grants (CIG) New Starts Financial Plan,
includes:
• The construction of the new two-tube Hudson River Tunnel,
• The Hudson Yards Concrete Casing (HYCC) – Section 3 Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)
Emergency Services Building (ESB) Utility Relocation, and
• The rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel.
The construction of the HYCC – Section 3 is no longer included in the HTP FTA CIG New Starts Financial
Plan because it is being funded through the National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) Program.1
The HTP together with the Portal North Bridge (PNB) project form Phase 1 of the Gateway Program. The
PNB project received a Full Funding Grant Agreement on January 11, 2021.
This HTP Financial Plan is being submitted as part of the Gateway Development Commission’s (GDC)
request to advance the HTP in the FTA CIG program to Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). This
document is structured as follows:
• Chapter 1 of this report describes the elements of the HTP. This chapter also explains the purpose
and need for the HTP, the current transit system, and the Project Sponsor’s and Funding Partners’
capability to fund the construction, operation, and maintenance of the HTP.
• Chapter 2 summarizes the Financial Plan for the HTP, documenting the proposed plan for funding
the capital costs, commitment of funding sources, and operating plans.
• Chapter 3 summarizes the agency-wide capital and operating plan for New Jersey Transit
Corporation (NJ TRANSIT), as a supporting partner for HTP, and includes the historical and
forecasted capital and operating conditions at the system-wide level as required by the FTA. This
chapter demonstrates that NJ TRANSIT, the public transportation operator utilizing the HTP, has
sufficient capacity to continue to operate and maintain the existing transit system in a state of
good repair during these construction activities and following incorporation of this new project into
the transit system.
This Financial Plan has been developed in consideration of FTA’s Guidance for Transit Financial Plans
issued in June 2000 2 and subsequent guidance at New Starts workshops, as well as the Guidelines and
Standards for Assessing Local Financial Commitment, issued by FTA in March 2021 3, 2023 Policy
Guidance Capital Investment Grant Program, issued by FTA in January 2023 4, the Reporting Instructions
for the Section 5309 Capital Investment Grants Program, issued by FTA in May 2023 5, the CIG Templates
dated May 2023 and Standard Cost Category worksheets dated May 2023.
1 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-01/MEGA%20FY%202023%20Combined%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf (Page 8 of 10)

2 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/funding-finance-resources/options-financing-public-transportation/115376/guidance-transit-
financial-plans.pdf
3 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2021-03/Guidelines-and-Standards-for-Assessing-Local-Financial-Commitment-Final-3-10-2021.pdf
4 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2023-01/CIG-Policy-Guidance-January-2023.pdf
5 https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/new-starts-reporting-instructions

January 2024 Page 1-7
All dollar figures in this Financial Plan are presented in year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars, unless stated
otherwise. Further, unless stated otherwise, all figures are presented on the basis of the NJ TRANSIT
fiscal year, which typically runs from July 1st through June 30th.
1.1 Gateway Program Overview
The GDC, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), NJ TRANSIT, the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), the State of New Jersey, and the State of New York (collectively, the
Project Partners) are dedicated to focusing on, implementing, and constructing the two Phase 1 projects,
the Hudson Tunnel Project and the Portal North Bridge project, to eliminate the most significant single
points-of-failure in providing uninterrupted rail service along the Northeast Corridor (NEC). Because of
the phased approach to the Gateway Program, the scopes and costs of projects in later phases will be
evaluated in the future. Other major future elements of the Gateway Program in the later phases include
the replacement of the Sawtooth Bridges in New Jersey, the construction of a rail yard and operational
support facility in New Jersey, the construction of the Secaucus/Bergen Loop, the expansion of
Pennsylvania Station in New York City (PSNY), and improvements to Newark Penn Station and Secaucus
Junction Station.
Figure 1-1 Gateway Program Map

1.2 Hudson Tunnel Project Overview

The purpose of the HTP is to preserve the current functionality of Amtrak’s NEC service and NJ
TRANSIT’s commuter passenger rail service between New Jersey and PSNY by repairing the
deteriorating North River Tunnel; and to strengthen the NEC’s resiliency to support reliable service by
providing redundant capability under the Hudson River for Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT NEC trains between
New Jersey and PSNY.
The HTP, for purposes of this FTA CIG New Starts Financial Plan, consists of the following specific
elements:
1. Hudson River Tunnel: Two new surface tracks parallel to the south side of the NEC beginning at a
realigned Allied Interlocking in Secaucus, New Jersey just east of NJ TRANSIT’s Secaucus Junction
Station, in conjunction with a new two-track Hudson Tunnel, parallel to the North River Tunnel,
beneath the Palisades (North Bergen and Union City) and the Hoboken waterfront area, and beneath
the Hudson River to connect to the existing tracks in the A Yard west of PSNY;
2. HYCC – Section 3 LIRR ESB Utility Relocation: The relocation of the LIRR ESB utilities out of the
future path of the HYCC – Section 3, the third and final concrete casing section for rail right-of-way
preservation beneath the extensive overbuild project that is planned to be constructed on a platform
above the rail complex in Manhattan (immediately west of PSNY) known as “Hudson Yards.” The
Hudson River Tunnel would make use of the entire HYCC being constructed along the southern edge
of the West Side Yard, which consists of the Eastern Rail Yard (ERY) and the Western Rail Yard
(WRY), as divided by Eleventh Avenue. The HYCC-Section 3 is no longer included as part of the HTP
New Starts Financial Plan since it is being funded through a Mega grant, however, the LIRR ESB
Utility Relocation continues to be included as part of this Financial Plan. The HYCC-Section 3,
including the LIRR ESB Utility Relocation, is separate and apart from the project presented in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for the Hudson River Tunnel and
Rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel.
3. North River Tunnel: The rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel that opened in 1910.
At the completion of the HTP, the NEC would have four tracks (two in the Hudson River Tunnel and two
in the North River Tunnel) between New Jersey and New York under the Hudson River. No changes to
PSNY platforms or platform tracks are proposed as part of the HTP since PSNY is outside of the HTP
project area. Therefore, the current operational capacity of PSNY is expected to continue to be maintained
at the level it is today. At the same time, the HTP would not preclude other future projects to expand rail
service capacity in the area and, once those projects are in place, would be one of the elements that allow
Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT to increase train service to meet future demand. These other future projects
would be undertaken separately and would be subject to their own environmental reviews and approvals,
as appropriate.
1.3 Description of the of the HTP Sponsor and Supporting Partners
Entities serving as Project sponsor and supporting partners/funding partners are further described in
subsections below.

HTP Project Sponsor

1.3.1.1 Gateway Development Commission (GDC)
In July 2019, the States of New York and New Jersey created the GDC through the enactment of parallel
legislation by each state and codified as the Gateway Development Commission Act (GDC Act).
The GDC is a seven-member public authority and a government sponsored authority (with three
Commissioners from the State of New York, three Commissioners from the State of New Jersey, and one
Commissioner directly appointed by Amtrak) that is empowered to facilitate and coordinate activities and
encourage the actions of others to effectuate the Gateway Program, in particular, Phase 1 of the Gateway
Program, which includes the HTP. 6
The GDC’s enabling legislation states that the GDC is “intended to qualify for, authorized, and empowered
to apply for and accept, financial assistance, loans, grants, or any other funding for such purposes under
federal, state, or local laws, and to make application directly to the appropriate officials or agencies for
the application for and receipt of federal, state or local assistance, loans, grants or any other funding in
aid of any of the purposes of this act.” 7
Additionally, the GDC Act provides that the GDC has the power to “adopt its own public procurement
rules and guidelines that the GDC deems necessary or appropriate to facilitate the Project through any
combination of means and methods otherwise available to the GDC under this act, regardless of whether
such combination is generally available to the state of New Jersey, any local government thereof, the
state of New York, any local government thereof, any agency, instrumentality, department, commission
or authority of any one or more of the foregoing, or any bi-state agency, and engage and contract with
third parties in accordance with such procurement rules and guidelines.”8
The final two Commissioners were confirmed to the Board in December 2020, and the GDC held its initial
meeting on March 5, 2021. Since that time, the GDC held a number of additional meetings, during which
the GDC adopted policies required by the GDC Act, appointed acting officers, and appointed a Chief
Executive Officer (CEO). In addition, on May 12, 2021, the GDC’s Board adopted a resolution confirming
its commitment to assume the role of federal grant recipient and NEPA Project Sponsor for the HTP from
the PANYNJ prior to the signing of a CIG FFGA or other federal funding agreement, consistent with the
legislative purpose of the GDC. On September 13, 2022, the GDC’s Board adopted a resolution
authorizing the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the GDC to execute and deliver any documentation and
take all such actions as the CEO may deem necessary and appropriate to effectuate the transfer of the
NEPA Project Sponsor and Federal Grant Recipient to the GDC. Subsequently, on October 21, 2022, the
GDC formally notified FTA that it assumed the roles of HTP CIG Grant Applicant and NEPA Project
Sponsor.
In addition to serving as the HTP Project Sponsor, the GDC will be the RRIF loan applicant and will enter
into a funding agreement with NJ TRANSIT, the State of New York, and PANYNJ, under the terms of
which funding will be committed to the GDC to pay principal, interest, and certain fees and expenses.
6 NYS S6372A, Section 3(c); NJS A5570 Section 4(a)(3) (“Creation of the Commission; purposes”).
7 NYS S6372A, Section 3(c); NJS A5570, Section 4(a)(3) (“Creation of the Commission; purposes”).
8 NYS S6372A, Section 7(h); NJS A5570, Section 8(h) (“Powers of the Commission”).

Other Key Entities in Delivering the HTP

GDC, the State of New Jersey, the State of New York, and Amtrak are parties to the HTP Project
Development Agreement (PDA). As identified in the PDA, the GDC contemplated engaging Supporting
or Executing Partners (SEP) to support delivery of certain HTP packages. SEP agreements have been
entered into with PANYNJ, NJ TRANSIT, and Amtrak to support the delivery of discrete elements of the
HTP. Figure 1-2 provides the SEP Partner for each HTP package.
Figure 1-2 SEPs by Package
HTP Package SEP
Package EA1 – Hudson River Ground Stabilization PANYNJ
Package 1A – Palisades Tunnel PANYNJ
Package 1B – Manhattan Tunnel PANYNJ
Package 1C – Hudson River Tunnel PANYNJ
Package 2 – Systems and Fit-Out Amtrak
Package 3 – NJ Surface Alignment NJ TRANSIT
Package 4 – Tonnelle Avenue Bridge and Utility Relocation N/A
Package 5 – North River Tunnel Rehabilitation Amtrak*
*Subject to future SEP agreement between GDC and Amtrak
1.3.2.1 State of New Jersey

The State of New Jersey is a funding partner to the HTP through the New Jersey Turnpike Authority
(NJTA). The NJTA is an independent authority of the New Jersey state government. NJTA will contribute
toll revenue to repay a RRIF loan being used by the GDC to finance the HTP. This Financial Plan assumes
that the GDC will be the RRIF loan applicant and will enter into a funding agreement with NJ TRANSIT,
under the terms of which funding will be committed to the GDC to pay principal, interest, and certain fees
and expenses. The role of NJ TRANSIT is described in Section 1.3.3.1 and the role of NJTA is described
in Section 1.3.4.2.
1.3.2.2 State of New York
The State of New York has committed to support borrowing for the HTP by the GDC through a RRIF loan.
This Financial Plan assumes that the GDC will be the RRIF loan applicant and will enter into a funding
agreement with the State of New York, under the terms of which the State of New York will commit to the
GDC to pay principal, interest, and certain fees and expenses.
1.3.2.3 Amtrak
Amtrak – America’s Railroad® – is dedicated to connecting America in safer, greener and healthier ways.
As the nation’s intercity passenger rail service provider and high-speed rail operator, Amtrak has 21,000
route miles in 46 states, the District of Columbia and three Canadian provinces. Amtrak owns the majority
of the 457-mile NEC, including the entire line south of New York City, and is responsible for its operations
and maintenance. Carrying over 2,200 daily trains pre-pandemic, including Amtrak, commuter, and freight
trains, the NEC is the nation’s most congested rail corridor and is among the highest volume rail corridors
in the world. As infrastructure owner of the NEC in the project area, Amtrak owns and dispatches trains
through the North River Tunnel.

Amtrak is governed by a nine-member board of directors appointed by the President of the United States
and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Amtrak is organized as a federally-chartered, private, for-profit
corporation in the District of Columbia.
Amtrak is a funding partner to the HTP and is the intercity rail transportation operator that will utilize the
HTP. Amtrak will also be responsible for dispatching trains through the HTP, as part of Amtrak’s NEC.
Amtrak has served as preliminary design project manager and is responsible for preliminary design for
the Hudson River Tunnel and Rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel. Amtrak will also manage property
acquisitions and regulatory permits for the HTP.
Amtrak is rapidly expanding beyond its historic primary role as the operator and sustainer of the nation’s
intercity passenger rail network. In the next decade, the company will deliver a $20b+ capital program of
new stations, tunnels, bridges and track improvements to meet rising passenger expectations and drive
operational safety and efficiency. This is made possible through the record level of federal funding in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to rebuild major infrastructure, station and yard facilities
assets that are at the end of their useful life, particularly the Northeast Corridor. To accompany this
investment in infrastructure, Amtrak will replace its legacy fleet with new fleets of high-speed, intercity,
and long-distance rail equipment along with the facilities to accommodate them.
In order to capitalize on this once-in-a-generation opportunity, Amtrak is scaling its organization
significantly, including seeking to fill over 4,000 new positions in FY 2023 with a goal of hiring a similar
number in FY 2024. Amtrak’s new Capital Delivery organization is leading the transformation of Amtrak’s
capital delivery function to enable an unprecedented level of investment and develop company
competencies to enable sustained high performance against budget and schedule. This includes
maximizing efficient and effective use of track access to reduce cost, schedule, and customer impact
across all services. These new resources, including the leadership structure to provide adequate support
and oversight, will be brought to bear on Amtrak’s successful delivery of its commitments to the HTP.
Through an SEP agreement between GDC and Amtrak, Amtrak is the SEP supporting the delivery of
Package 2, which consists of tunnel systems work (Package 2 is further discussed in Section 2.2.1). GDC
currently envisions that Amtrak would be the SEP supporting the delivery of Package 5, the rehabilitation
of the North River Tunnel.
HTP Public Transportation Operator
1.3.3.1 NJ TRANSIT
NJ TRANSIT is New Jersey's public transportation corporation. Its mission is to move New Jersey and
the region by providing safe, reliable and affordable public transportation that connects people to their
everyday lives, one trip at a time. NJ TRANSIT is the nation’s largest statewide public transportation
system. In 2018, it provided an average of more than 900,000 weekday trips and more than 265 million
annual trips on 251 bus routes, three light rail lines, 12 commuter rail lines, and Access Link paratransit
service. It is the third largest transit system in the country, covering a service area of 5,325 square miles
with 166 rail stations, 62 light rail stations and more than 18,778 bus stops linking major points in New
Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia. Metro North Railroad contracts with NJ TRANSIT to operate
commuter rail service west of the Hudson River in Orange and Rockland Counties, NY.
NJ TRANSIT is the public transportation operator that will utilize the HTP. NJ TRANSIT managed the
environmental review of the Hudson River Tunnel and the Rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel and
will also manage property acquisitions and regulatory permits for the HTP.
Through an SEP agreement between GDC and NJ TRANSIT, NJ TRANSIT is the SEP supporting the
delivery of Package 3, which consists of New Jersey surface alignment work (Package 3 is further
discussed in Section 2.2.1). As an operator/user of the new HTP, the PDA also gives NJ TRANSIT a
significant role as New Jersey’s intended designated representative in procurement documents,
development of technical standards, and testing and commissioning, among other roles.
HTP Funding Partners
1.3.4.1 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Founded in 1921, the PANYNJ builds, operates, and maintains many of the most important transportation
and trade infrastructure assets in the country. The agency’s network of aviation, ground, rail, and seaport
facilities is critical to the New York/New Jersey region’s trade and transportation. These facilities include,
among others, an airport system, marine terminals and ports, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH)
rail transit system, 2 tunnels and 4 bridges between New York and New Jersey, the Port Authority Bus
Terminal in Manhattan, and the World Trade Center.
The PANYNJ raises the necessary funds for the improvement, construction or acquisition of its facilities
primarily by issuing consolidated bonds backed by revenues it receives from its ownership and operation
of its facilities and by direct investment of net revenues after debt service. The PANYNJ does not have
the authority to levy taxes and does not receive support from tax revenues from either New York or New
Jersey. The revenues of the PANYNJ are derived principally from the tolls, fares, take-off and landing
fees, and dockage fee, rentals, and other charges for the use of, and privileges at, certain of its facilities.
The diverse operation of critical infrastructure assets, strong demographics of the region, strong liquidity,
and a conservative debt structure all contribute to the PANYNJ’s strong credit profile.
The Port Authority has committed, as a funding partner, to support borrowing for the HTP by the GDC
through a RRIF loan. This Financial Plan assumes that the GDC will be the RRIF loan applicant and will
enter into a funding agreement with the Port Authority, under the terms of which the Port Authority will
commit to the GDC to pay principal not to exceed $2.7 billion inclusive of interest during construction,
certain fees and expenses.
In addition to supporting borrowing for the HTP by the GDC through a RRIF loan, PANYNJ has also
reimbursed $35 million of preliminary engineering and planning costs incurred by Amtrak, and has agreed
to reimburse $12.5 million for the potential relocation of certain facilities in connection with the HYCC. In
addition, PANYNJ has paid approximately $31.5 million for the GDC’s program management expenses
for the first phase of the HTP. It is the understanding of the parties that $44 million will be submitted for
reimbursement of the $12.5 million and the $31.5 million, by GDC to the Port Authority from proceeds of
the RRIF loan that the PANYNJ is supporting.
Through an agreement between GDC and PANYNJ, PANYNJ is the SEP supporting the delivery of
Package 1, which consists of tunneling and heavy civil work (Package 1 is further discussed in Section
2.2.1).
1.3.4.2 New Jersey Turnpike Authority
The NJTA is a body corporate and politic of the State of New Jersey organized and existing by virtue of
the New Jersey Turnpike Authority Act of 1948, constituting Chapter 454 of the Laws of New Jersey of
1948, as amended and supplemented. Pursuant to the Act, the NJTA has owned and operated the New
Jersey Turnpike (Turnpike) since it opened for traffic in 1951. In July 2003, the New Jersey Highway
Authority (NJHA) was abolished and the NJTA assumed all the powers, rights, obligations, assets, debts,
liabilities and statutory responsibilities and duties of the NJHA, including the ownership and operation of
the Garden State Parkway (the “Parkway”).
The Turnpike and the Parkway are two well-established toll roads located in a densely populated and
wealthy region of the country. The toll roads act as the “supply chain spine” and the “distribution platform”
for the entire Northeast region. The Turnpike consists of a 118-mile mainline and four spurs, for a total of
148 miles. The Parkway is a 173-mile limited access toll road from Cape May, New Jersey to Spring
Valley, New York. NJTA prudently manages its finances and operations to provide its customers with a
safe, efficient, innovative and resilient toll road system, which facilitates mobility in New Jersey and the
Northeast United States.
In 2022, total toll transactions and total passenger car transactions on the Turnpike were comprised of
253 million total toll transactions and 216 million total passenger car transactions. The total toll
transactions exceeded 2021 levels by 11 million transactions, a 4.6% growth rate from the previous year.
NJTA’s current credit rating are A1, AA-, A+ from Moody’s, S&P and Fitch respectively. Recognizing the
integrated nature of New Jersey’s and the region’s transportation system, and the realization that any
improvements that facilitate the use of mass transit reduce the capital expense burden on the Turnpike
and Parkway to increase road capacity, commencing on January 1, 2022, NJTA tolls have increased 3%,
and may continue annually 9, to provide a reliable funding source into the future for both Turnpike and
mass transit projects, such as the HTP. NJTA has committed to provide funds in the amount of up to $124
million 10 per year, after any possible capitalized interest period, to the State Treasurer pursuant to the
NJTA’s statutory authority at N.J.S.A. 27:23-5.8b, to be annually appropriated to NJ TRANSIT to support
the HTP through the final maturity of the RRIF loan. It will also provide New Jersey’s share of support for
GDC operating funds.
1.3.4.3 Federal Transit Administration
Federal funding assistance from the FTA in the form of a CIG New Starts (49 USC 5309) grant is assumed
in this Financial Plan for the HTP.
FTA’s CIG Program is USDOT’s largest discretionary funding source for major capital transit investments.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) authorizes up to $3 billion per year in annual
appropriations through 2026. In addition, the law directly provides $1.6 billion per year through 2026 in
advance appropriations as a supplement to annual appropriations for this program. 11
CIG New Starts investments are available for projects which provide new fixed guideway; extensions to
existing systems are eligible for CIG funding. FTA obligates discretionary Section 5309 New Starts grants
to state and local governments for new fixed guideway projects or extensions to existing fixed guideway
systems with a total estimated capital cost of $400 million or more, or that are seeking $150 million or
more in Section 5309 CIG program funds.
To be eligible, projects applying for CIG funds must meet certain procedural requirements and a series of
project justification and local financial commitment criteria. CIG funding is provided under the terms of a
FFGA that serves as a multi-year contract between FTA and a project sponsor to provide an established
9 In 2020, the NJTA approved a resolution authorizing the potential annual toll increase of up to 3% annually, which went into effect January 1, 2022. In
2023, state legislators have proposed a bill to prevent annual or automatic toll increases.
10 The NJTA entered into an agreement with the NJ Treasurer on 1/1/2023 which provides for an amount of up to $124 million annually in connection with
the NJ supported RRIF loan. Such amount remains subject to change pending the outcome of GDC grant applications and the final determination of the
local funding share to be supported by New Jersey in connection with the RRIF loan
11 FTA, “Fact Sheet: Capital Investment Grants Program,” https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fact-sheet-capital-investment-grants-program , 1/3/2022.

annual payout of CIG funding – subject to Congressional appropriations – in return for the delivery of a
defined project scope within a set schedule and budget.
FTA was a cooperating agency involved in the environmental review of the Hudson River Tunnel and
Rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel. Since a Record of Decision (ROD) is required from FTA to meet
FTA CIG Program requirements, FTA adopted the EIS and issued a joint ROD with FRA for these
elements of the HTP on May 28, 2021.
1.3.4.4 Federal Railroad Administration
FRA is responsible for administering the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants
Program (49 USC 24911), which is assumed in this Financial Plan be a source of federal funding
assistance for the HTP 12.
FRA is a proposed funding partner for the HTP. FRA has jurisdiction over passenger and freight railroads,
and administers competitive grants, dedicated grants, and loan programs. The purpose of FRA’s financial
assistance programs is to support infrastructure projects that may improve safety, relieve congestion and
enable the expansion of rail services. Recipients of financial assistance from the FRA may include
commuter rail systems, and state and local governments.
The FRA is responsible for administering a dedicated capital grant program to Amtrak. Appropriated funds
to Amtrak are divided by NEC and National Network expense accounts and monitored by the FRA on a
monthly basis.
The FRA was the lead Federal Agency for the environmental review of the Hudson River Tunnel and
Rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel and FRA issued a single document that consists of the FEIS and
joint ROD with FTA for these elements of the HTP on May 28, 2021.
1.3.4.5 Build America Bureau
USDOT’s Build America Bureau (Bureau) is responsible for driving transportation infrastructure
development projects in the United States. The Bureau was created to streamline USDOT credit
opportunities and grants, providing access to these programs with increased speed and transparency
while also providing technical assistance and encouraging innovative best practices in project planning,
financing, delivery, and monitoring. The Bureau combines the TIFIA and RRIF loan programs, Private
Activity Bonds (PABs), and the INFRA grant program all within the Office of the Undersecretary for
Transportation for Policy. 13 RRIF loan proceeds, repaid by local revenues, are anticipated to implement
the local funding component of the HTP.
1.4 Description of the Hudson Tunnel Project
The North River Tunnel, a two-tube tunnel, which is the sole existing Hudson River crossing on the NEC,
carrying Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT passenger rail service between New Jersey and PSNY, was opened
in 1910 as part of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s extension from New Jersey to Manhattan and was severely
damaged during Superstorm Sandy in 2012. The North River Tunnel is a vital element of the NEC, the
most heavily used passenger rail line in the U.S., both in terms of ridership and service frequency. Four
of NJ TRANSIT’s electrified rail lines - NEC, North Jersey Coast Line, Morris and Essex Lines, and
Montclair-Boonton Line - provide direct, one-seat ride service into PSNY during peak and off-peak
12NEC Plans & Projects | Amtrak Northeast Corridor, Accessed October 27, 2022
13“About the Build America Bureau,” US Department of Transportation Build America Bureau, May 26, 2022
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/about.
periods. NJ TRANSIT also operates off-peak Raritan Valley Line trains through the North River Tunnel to
and from PSNY.
Hudson Tunnel Project Identification
For funding and financing purposes, the HTP consists of three project elements which are described
below:
1. Hudson River Tunnel: The construction of two new surface tracks parallel to the south side of the
NEC beginning at a realigned Allied Interlocking in Secaucus, New Jersey just east of NJ TRANSIT’s
Secaucus Junction Station and a new two-track Hudson River Tunnel, parallel to the existing North
River Tunnel, feeding into A Yard, west of PSNY. A FEIS was issued for this element by FRA and
adopted by FTA, and a ROD for this element was jointly issued by FRA and FTA (Combined
FEIS/ROD 5/28/2021). 14
2. HYCC – Section 3 LIRR ESB Utility Relocation: The relocation of LIRR ESB utilities in advance of the
construction of a concrete casing in the Western Rail Yard of LIRR’s West Side Yard (Hudson Yards) in
Manhattan, which preserves an underground ROW for the new tunnel; this element has already received
an FRA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI for Supplemental Environmental Analysis 11/14/2014)15
and an FTA Categorical Exclusion (11/20/2019).
3. Rehabilitation of the Existing North River Tunnel: The rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel
after the new tunnel has been constructed. A FEIS was issued for this element by FRA and adopted
by FTA, and a ROD for this element was jointly issued by FRA and FTA (Combined FEIS/ROD
5/28/2021). 16
Hudson Tunnel Project Setting
The study area for the HTP extends along the NEC from Secaucus, New Jersey, beneath the Palisades
(North Bergen and Union City) and the Hoboken waterfront area, and beneath the Hudson River to
connect to the tracks in A Yard west of PSNY.
The western terminus of the new tunnel and related tracks and infrastructure would be east of County
Road in Secaucus, New Jersey, and the eastern terminus would be at approximately Ninth Avenue in
Manhattan, New York. New ventilation shafts and associated fan plants would be located above the tunnel
in New Jersey and New York for regular and emergency ventilation and emergency access (see Figure
1-3). The new tunnel would make use of the HYCC that is being constructed along the southern edge of
the West Side Yard and extends from the north side of West 30th Street to the west side of Tenth Avenue.
The proposed HTP will allow multiple NJ TRANSIT rail services throughout the state of New Jersey to
feed into and utilize the tunnel and PSNY, including NEC, North Jersey Coast Line, Morristown Line,
Montclair-Boonton Line, Gladstone Branch, and Raritan Valley Line trains. Numerous Amtrak Intercity
services will also utilize the tunnel and PSNY, including Acela Express, Northeast Regional, Keystone,
and multiple long-distance trains.
14 http://hudsontunnelproject.com/feis.html
15 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L16101
16 http://hudsontunnelproject.com/feis.html

Figure 1-3 Hudson Tunnel Project Location Map
Hudson Tunnel Project Current Conditions

The North River Tunnel, built in 1910 as part of the construction of PSNY, is more than 100 years old and
was designed and built to early 20th century standards. Service reliability through the tunnel, already
suboptimal because of the tunnel’s age and antiquated design, has been further compromised because
of the damage to tunnel components caused by Superstorm Sandy. The storm inundated both tubes of
the tunnel with seawater above the height of the bench walls at the tunnel’s lowest point, and deposited
chlorides that remain in the tunnel’s concrete liner (i.e., the inner lining of the tunnel), bench walls (the low
walls on both sides of the track in each tube, which provide walkways and contain utility conduits), and
ballast, causing ongoing damage to tunnel components.
The North River Tunnel continues to have significant electrical and mechanical failures because of
seawater inundation during Superstorm Sandy. Chlorides from the seawater remain throughout the
tunnel’s structural, mechanical, and electrical infrastructure, causing unpredictable damage resulting in
disabled trains and significant delays. These important rail connections facilitate the movement of over
200,000 train passengers per day between New Jersey and New York and are currently single points-of-
failure for the region whose economy drives 10% of America’s gross domestic product 17. Since
Superstorm Sandy, Amtrak has been undertaking ongoing repairs to the tunnel. This involves scheduled
work during evening off-peak periods as well as full closure of one tube each weekend for a 55-hour
window beginning on Friday evening and ending early on Monday morning. These closures dramatically
limit the number of trans-Hudson trains that can be operated on a given weekend day and constrain NJ
TRANSIT’s ability to serve current customer demand for weekend travel. Additional emergency
maintenance, required when tunnel components fail, has been necessary with increasing frequency since
17 ”The Economic Benefits of Investment in the Gateway Program,” Amtrak, December 2016.
Superstorm Sandy and this disrupts service for hundreds of thousands of rail passengers throughout the
region.
According to analysis of NEC delay data performed by the staff of the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure
and Operations Advisory Commission (NEC Commission) at the request of Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT,
there were 65 major infrastructure failure incident delay days between 2014 and 2018 causing more than
five hours of total train delays for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak passengers. Infrastructure issues caused 45
of those incidents, resulting in 2,500 delayed trains and 65,800 train delay minutes. Signal problems
generated 13% of the delay minutes, including signal power or control issues and track occupancy light
issues. Track occupancy light issues were more frequent since track circuits can be affected by broken
rail, failed insulated joints, standing water or other defects in the signal circuit. Track conditions generated
31% of the delay minutes and 20 of the 65 days. Overhead power, including catenary or transmission
power failures generated 35% of the delay minutes for the North River Tunnel. According to follow-up
analysis of NEC delay data performed by the staff of the NEC Commission, passengers experienced
12,653 minutes of delay in 2020 during 54 days that were impacted by tunnel infrastructure-related delays.
Further, between January and March 2021, there were already 10 days of 100 or more minutes of delay
and a total of 3,416 minutes of delay during that same period. The existing 1-track-in, 1-track-out system
under the Hudson River for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak provides no operational flexibility or redundancy,
resulting in significant delays up and down the NEC when these incidents occur. That is, when an incident
takes one tube out of service, traffic in and out of PSNY must use the one remaining tube resulting in
significant delays that would be mitigated or eliminated by the new paths into and out of PSNY created
by the two additional tubes to be constructed by the HTP.
The rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel by the HTP will comprehensively address the causes of
unreliability and infrastructure failures of the existing tubes, bring them to a state of good repair (SOGR)
and extend their service life well into the next century. In the meantime, Amtrak performs regular
maintenance (as described above) that keeps the tubes safe and operational to the fullest extent possible
without requiring long-term closure of the tubes. Amtrak has completed a structural inspection of all 6
subaqueous tubes serving PSNY and has compiled a catalog of designs for isolated repair details that
are being implemented on an as-needed basis to keep the tunnels safe and operational until a full
rehabilitation outage. Amtrak has personnel, equipment and materials ready to address emergencies as
they arise, which has allowed Amtrak to successfully bring the tubes back into service quickly after
incidents. This enhanced maintenance will continue to be diligently performed by Amtrak as owner and
operator of the NEC while the HTP is constructed.
For example, in 2020, Amtrak began the North River Tunnel Interim Reliability Improvements Program to
monitor and prioritize maintenance and repairs within the North River Tunnels that are necessary to
maximize operational reliability prior to its full rehabilitation. Through that program, Amtrak is examining
options for a variety of repairs and improvements to the North River Tunnel with the goal of improving
safety and reliability for the public over the next decade in advance of comprehensive rehabilitation.18
Measures that Amtrak identifies for implementation will advance into preliminary engineering as needed
prior to construction. Implemented or in-progress work packages that typically do not require advanced
design include leak mitigation, bench wall stabilization and safety improvements. The program has also
initiated a multi-discipline asset deficiency dashboard and periodic stakeholder reporting to identify
18Hudson Tunnel Project Final EIS, Chapter 2, “Alternatives and Preferred Alternative,” May 28, 2021,
http://hudsontunnelproject.com/documents/feis/02%20Alternatives%20and%20Preferred%20Alternative.pdf (Page 2-17).
evolving problem areas where proactive maintenance can be focused to avoid asset failures and
subsequent future service disruptions.
The measures that Amtrak has identified as priorities include leak mitigation for water infiltrating the tunnel
and affecting systems, which is contributing to signal failures and deterioration of metal components and
cables; drainage and track improvements to address deterioration and geometry issues; implementation
of an enhanced inspection and asset management program that will identify problems more quickly;
detailed signal system investigations with targeted equipment replacement; stray current monitoring
and mitigation; and other proactive steps in advance of problems. 19 Amtrak expects that targeted
interventions developed through this program can temporarily mitigate many of the maintenance issues
in the North River Tunnel that result in train delays, but it cannot deliver the comprehensive rehabilitation
of the North River Tunnel contemplated as part of the Hudson Tunnel Project and necessary for the long-
term preservation and safe use of the tunnel. Based on Amtrak’s evaluation, Amtrak states that the
improvements that it will implement as part of the North River Tunnel Interim Reliability Improvements
Program will substantially improve rail operations through the tunnel in the near term, but will not eliminate
the need for a complete rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel in the long term to address safety concerns
and the damage and ongoing deterioration caused by Superstorm Sandy. 20
Hudson Tunnel Project Purpose
The purpose of the HTP is to preserve the current functionality of Amtrak’s NEC service and NJ
TRANSIT’s commuter rail service between New Jersey and PSNY by repairing the deteriorating North
River Tunnel; and to strengthen the NEC’s resiliency to support reliable service by providing redundant
capability under the Hudson River for Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT NEC trains between New Jersey and
PSNY. These improvements must be achieved while maintaining uninterrupted commuter and intercity
rail service and by optimizing the use of existing infrastructure.
The HTP addresses a specific need stemming from the deterioration of the existing North River Tunnel
and is considered independently from the capacity-enhancing projects analyzed in NEC FUTURE and
proposed in Gateway Program planning documents.
The North River Tunnel Rehabilitation project element will address the causes of chronic unreliability and
bring the tunnel to a state of good repair. It includes the following scope: bench wall and duct bank removal
and reconstruction; replacement of the antiquated ballast track system to ballast-less track system;
installation of new signal, communication, and power cables and associated components; and
replacement of in-tunnel fire/life safety systems while maintaining all required systems and tunnel
ventilation to protect construction workers during tunnel construction.
Deteriorating bench walls will be demolished to allow for detailed inspection and repair of the tunnel liner,
reconfiguration of the replacement bench walls to better conform with current code and evacuation
requirements via level disembarking from trains and unobstructed paths to safety, better and safer access
to and segregation of tunnel systems to achieve maintenance efficiency and increased access to the
undercarriage of trains to service disabled equipment or extinguish under-train fires, all of which are
currently prohibited by the existing tunnel bench wall arrangement.
19 Hudson Tunnel Project Final EIS, Chapter 2, “Alternatives and Preferred Alternative,” May 28, 2021,
20 Hudson Tunnel Project Final EIS, Chapter 2, “Alternatives and Preferred Alternative,” May 28, 2021,

A ballast-less track system will eliminate the drainage-clogging and pump-fouling ballast fines from the
tunnel environment; allow for expanded, open and accessible in-track drainage; mitigate stray current and
rail corrosion issues by expediting drainage and elevating the running and third rail on new rubber-isolated
blocks/pedestals; and fix the ideal rail profile and alignment without the periodic degradation and rail gage
issues caused by wooden ties. A ballast-less track system will significantly reduce split rails from corrosion
and wide gage from tie deterioration, two of the current leading causes of derailments in the tunnel and
PSNY complex. The associated conventional, LiDAR and Amberg Trolley survey of all aspects of the
existing tunnels will allow for a new optimized rail profile and alignment that better maximizes electrical
clearances, in-track drainage, and dynamic train car body envelope clearances within the tight constraints
of the historic tubes.
The new signal system will be fiber / microprocessor based (compatible with that installed elsewhere on
the NEC) that allows critical logic components to be relocated out of the tunnels leaving only easily
swappable units in the tunnels to maximize recoverability from in-tunnel incidents. The signal system will
be ‘Rule 562’ or ‘cab-no-wayside’ which removes all but one mid-river wayside signal (a physical signal
located on the bench wall), conforming with modern operating procedures and removing the largest
physical obstructions on the bench walls (signal masts and cabinets) for improved egress pathing and
maintenance access.
Power cables which are subject to random failure after Superstorm Sandy (high voltage traction power
feeders, high voltage facilities power feeders, signal power and low voltage power supply) will be replaced
with modern equivalents and appropriately segregated to allow rapid maintenance with minimal
personnel. The overhead catenary system will be replaced in its entirety, replacing the degrading historic
connections to the existing tunnel liner and updating all arms and insulator assemblies.
Communications, security and fire/life safety components will be replaced and upgraded to a modern
standard (Amtrak, as part of a separate effort, has performed an in-tunnel Live Fire Detection Test
program to drive design criteria development by testing multiple systems in the unique tunnel
environment.). Security systems will be augmented with improved access control, full-tunnel camera
monitoring and modern analytics/algorithms to detect intruders or events. All fire and life safety
components will be integrated in a cohesive Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system for remote
operating, monitoring and control.
The existing tunnel concrete lining is structurally sound, but it is necessary to inspect hidden regions of
the liner (below track and behind bench walls) and perform localized crack, leakage, and spall repairs to
extend the core structural service life through the next century and beyond.
When finished, the rehabilitated tunnels will restore confidence in the NEC and the tunnel, provide more
reliable service, improved resiliency from in-tunnel events, reduced maintenance costs and associated
time the tunnel must be out of service, a much safer environment for maintenance workers, first
responders and the public in the event of an evacuation and a comprehensive re-build that resets the
service life of all aspects of the tunnel.
The HTP addresses resilience of the NEC Hudson River crossing and would not increase rail capacity.
Although the HTP may be an element of a larger program to expand rail capacity in the future, it meets
an urgent need to preserve existing service and is being evaluated accordingly. Ultimately, no increase
in service between Newark Penn Station and PSNY could occur until other substantial infrastructure
capacity improvements, such as those considered as part of NEC FUTURE, including the Gateway
Program, are built in addition to expanded trans-Hudson capacity.
The HTP is critical to the regional and national economy and environmental well-being. Construction of
the Hudson River Tunnel avoids the scenario of a closure of one of the two tubes of the existing North
River Tunnel prior to construction and completion of a Hudson River Tunnel. Closure of one tube of the
existing North River Tunnel could reduce train capacity by up to 75%. The 24 trains per hour that ordinarily
use the existing tunnel would drop to as few as 6, which would cripple the region’s economy and have
impacts nationwide.
The Hudson River Tunnel, together with a rehabilitated North River Tunnel, will result in the NEC having
four tracks (two in the Hudson River Tunnel and two in the existing North River Tunnel) between New
Jersey and New York under the Hudson River, which would provide operational flexibility and redundancy
for passenger and intercity rail operations. Furthermore, the HTP improves operational flexibility and
resiliency to provide a more reliable rail travel experience through the following additional benefits:
• The four tubes of the HTP provide additional flexibility to route trains in and out of PSNY, reducing
conflicts on the approach tracks to PSNY, thereby improving the utilization of platforms available
to serve trains. This operational flexibility reduces congestion at PSNY and improves reliability
for NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak riders;
• The additional two tubes constructed as part of the HTP allow operational flexibility for weekend
service, which is currently severely restricted by single track operations through the North River
Tunnel due to necessary maintenance (regular maintenance work to track, signal, electric traction
systems), essential to keeping the systems in use, prior to any shut-downs for major, possibly
emergency projects;
• The new tubes are designed to be fully compliant with National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 130, the fire and safety code governing passenger rail systems;
• The HTP enables the region to mitigate impacts to infrastructure and service due to severe and
extreme weather events. It provides a more resilient overall system that can withstand natural
disasters, such as major storms and floods, since it is being designed to meet a higher flood
design criterion that includes sea level rise;
• The continued deterioration of the existing tubes of the North River Tunnel will result in more
frequent delays due to component failures within the tunnel. The lack of redundant capability
across the Hudson River means that any service outage, either unplanned or for planned
maintenance, results in substantial reductions to NEC reliability and on-time performance. Once
the new tubes are constructed as part of the HTP, maintenance can take place without these
service disruptions since having the new tubes in place will provide alternate train paths; and
• The HTP does not preclude any future phases of the Gateway Program and allows for
connections to future capacity expansion projects. Building the new tubes gets the region one
step closer to meeting future travel demands along the NEC for weekday and weekend service.
Hudson Tunnel Project Summary
Upon completion of the HTP, four tracks (two in the Hudson River Tunnel and two in the North River
Tunnel) will be available between New Jersey and New York under the Hudson River, which allow for
operational flexibility and redundancy for Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT rail operations to maintain current
capacity levels.

The HTP is critical as it supports commuter rail (public transportation), intercity, regional, and local mobility
and associated economic benefits regionally and nationally, provides a more cost-effective transit system
due to lower operation and maintenance costs, reduces commuter and intercity rail delays caused by
unanticipated events or routine maintenance, and increases on-time performance.
The HTP provides long-term resiliency, reliability, and redundancy to the regional and national rail network
and, in doing so, will provide substantial social, economic, and environmental benefits, including:
• Expanding the regional labor market, boosting business productivity, and generating thousands
of jobs across the country, with far reaching economic benefits (projected below):
o Over 72,000 direct, indirect, and induced jobs and $19 billion in economic activity created
over the Project’s construction period 21
o Over an average of $88 million/month direct spending on materials & labor over the
Project’s construction period 22
• Helping ensure economic resiliency of the NEC region, which is home to 17% of the U.S.
population and a fifth of Fortune 500 company headquarters and generates one fifth of the
national GDP 23
• Cost-effectively protecting the transportation modalities by which people and goods are moved
to and from the largest regional economy in the nation
• Avoiding additional auto travel traffic, congestion, and car crashes, and
• Increasing infrastructure resilience to mitigate extreme weather event impacts.
21 “Ch. 7 Socioeconomic Conditions,” Hudson Tunnel Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), July 2017
22 October 2023 Hudson Tunnel Project Financial Plan calculation of average monthly construction cost from July 2024 notice to proceed through the
construction completion of the rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel in June2038.
23 “Investing in the Northeast Corridor: Advancing the American Economy,” Northeast Corridor Commission, 2016

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN

The purpose of this chapter is to document the Project financial plan for the HTP. Addressing the
deteriorating state of the infrastructure that supports commuter passenger and intercity train service
between Newark Penn Station in Newark, New Jersey, and PSNY in New York City along the NEC, the
HTP includes for the purposes of an FTA CIG grant:
• The construction of the new two-tube Hudson River Tunnel;
• The HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB Utility Relocation 24; and
• The rehabilitation of the 113-year old existing North River Tunnel.
The Project Partners are committed to implementing the HTP as described in individual funding
agreements with GDC. In total, the funding agreements provide for non-CIG funding of all three elements
listed above in full.
The HTP will provide desperately needed trans-Hudson reliability, resiliency and redundancy, as well as
increased rail capacity with the completion of other Gateway Program elements in the future.
This Financial Plan includes all three elements of the HTP, which in total (including financing costs) is
currently estimated to cost $16.041 billion in year of expenditure (YOE).
Ultimately, the GDC recognizes the differences in methodology of the FTA Risk and Contingency Review
conducted by the FTA and Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) and the desire of the FTA
and PMOC to ensure adequate levels of unallocated continency are applied to the project’s budget. The
GDC has applied the additional contingency identified by FTA and PMOC to unallocated contingency line
item(s) for the overall HTP. The GDC will continue to endeavor to manage the HTP in a manner that
minimizes the need to use unallocated contingency in the project’s construction and has identified
executive-level procedures and other safeguards in the fully executed Project Development Agreement.
The GDC stands behind its 2022 methodology, including the cost estimate and schedule that this
generated.
The financial contributions from the Project Partners included in this Financial Plan from Amtrak, PANYNJ,
the State of New Jersey, and the State of New York represent a significant commitment to the HTP. As
further described, these contributions source 100% of the non-CIG share of public transportation eligible
project costs needed for the construction of the entire HTP. In line with FTA’s guidelines for classifying
the level of commitment for each capital funding source, this Financial Plan states that 100.0% of the non-
CIG share of public transportation eligible project costs would be considered Budgeted or Committed –
significantly higher than the 30% needed for a “Medium” rating. Refer to Sections 2.2.2.12 for more details
on the local financial commitments.
Upon completion of all three HTP elements in 2038, the HTP will realize savings of $9.2 million in
operating and maintenance costs in YOE dollars during its first full year of operation compared to the
status quo. Infrastructure operations and maintenance costs on the NEC are governed by a standard
formula that was developed by the NEC Commission, as required by Section 212 of the Passenger Rail
The construction of the HYCC – Section 3 is no longer included in the HTP FTA CIG New Starts Financial Plan because it is being funded through the
24
National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) Program.

Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Refer to Sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2 for more details
on operating and maintenance costs.
This Chapter 2 describes the HTP’s capital and infrastructure operating costs and how they were derived.
Note: the totals in the tables provided in Chapter 2 may not add due to rounding.
2.1 Financial Plan Revisions since October 2023 Submission
Table 2-1 below shows the Project Sources and Uses under the January 2024 HTP Financial Plan and
the previous October 2023 HTP financial plan.
Table 2-1 Sources and Uses Summary
Project Sources and Uses October 2023 January 2024
Project Sources $M % $M %
Total Federal Support 11,617 72.37% 11,721 73.07%
FTA Capital Investment Grant 6,880 42.86% 6,880 42.89%
Amtrak Contribution/FRA Grant 1,112 6.93% 1,016 6.33%
FRA Federal-State Partnership 3,600 22.43% 3,800 23.69%
RAISE 25 0.16% 25 0.16%
Total Local Support 4,435 27.63% 4,320 26.93%
PANYNJ 2,637 16.43% 2,678 16.69%
NJ 383 2.38% 308 1.92%
NYS 1,416 8.82% 1,335 8.32%
Total 16,052 100.00% 16,041 100.00%
Project Uses
Capex 14,605 90.99% 14,620 91.14%
Financing Costs * 1,447 9.01% 1,421 8.86%
Total 16,052 100.00 % 16,041 100.00%
*Financing costs include RRIF loan capitalized interest, credit risk premium, servicing fees and annual
ratings monitoring fees. It also includes projected interest costs on GDC liquidity facilities.
The Financial Plan incorporates recommendations and findings of the Risk and Contingency Review
conducted by FTA and its PMOC between November 2022 and January 2024. The plan also reflects the
revisions explained in the narrative below:
Non-CIG Funding Commitments
 FRA Federal-State Partnership: The Financial Plan now reflects GDC’s selection for $3.800
billion award from the FRA’s Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail – Northeast
Corridor (FSP – NEC). This is an increase of $200 million from the FSP-NEC grant assumption
in the October 2023 financial plan 25.
 Amtrak: Amtrak’s funding commitment to the HTP has been decreased to $1.016 billion from
$1.112 billion in the October 2023 financial plan. The reduction of $96 million is due to (1) a
$100 million reduction based on an agreement between Amtrak and local partners, and (2) a
$4 million increase to account for Amtrak’s Package 4 share. The October 2023 financial plan
assumed Amtrak’s total commitment of $1.374 billion to the Gateway Program (including $262
FRA Federal-State Partnership – Northeast Corridor Recipients, https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2024-01/FY%2022-23%20FSP-

25
NEC%20Program%20Selections%20-%20Project%20Summaries_r1_PDFa.pdf, Page 5.
million for HYCC-3). Amtrak’s revised commitment to the HTP is evidenced through the
Amtrak-GDC Capital Funding Agreement (supporting document G-15) 26.
 USDOT RAISE: The Financial Plan continues to reflect GDC’s selection for a $25 million award
from the USDOT’s National Infrastructure Investments (i.e., the Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program) under the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (“Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”) for Package 4: Tonnelle Avenue
Bridge and Utility Relocation Project element of the HTP.
 Local Partners: The total funding commitment from the local partners for HTP has been decreased
to $4.320 billion from $4.435 billion in the October 2023 financial plan. This $115 million reduction is
a result of the increased federal contribution described above.
o The funding commitment from the PANYNJ for HTP is $2.678 billion 27. This
commitment continues to be evidenced through the PANYNJ’s Board of
Commissioners’ adoption of the 2017 – 2026 Capital Plan, adoption of the 2017 – 2026
Capital Plan Reassessment by the PANYNJ Board of Commissioners, and the June
2018 Board Resolution confirmation of the Capital Plan allocation for the HTP, and
therefore this Financial Plan states that the PANYNJ commitment can be categorized
as a “Budgeted” non-CIG source.
o The gross funding commitment from the State of New Jersey for HTP is $308 million28. This
commitment is provided through funding from NJTA and is supported by the State of New
Jersey through a commitment to seek an appropriation of State funds in the event of
insufficient funds from NJTA. This commitment is evidenced by the NJTA Funding
Agreement with the New Jersey Department of the Treasury, and therefore this
Financial Plan states that the State of New Jersey commitment can be categorized as
a “Budgeted” non-CIG source.
o The gross funding commitment from the State of New York for HTP construction costs
is $1.335 billion 29. This commitment is evidenced by the FY 2023 and FY2024 Enacted
Budgets and the FY 2025 Executive Capital Program and Financing Plan, and
therefore this Financial Plan states that the State of New York commitment can be
categorized as a “Budgeted” non-CIG source.
 Interest Rate: The interest rate on the RRIF loans borrowed by the GDC and supported by
contributions from the local partners is assumed equal to 5.25% per annum. This is a decrease
from the October 2023 financial plan assumption of 5.50%. The assumed rate is approximately
100 bps above the January 22, 2024, 30-Year US Treasury rate of 4.29% and 100 bps above
26 The content of this “Execution Version” of the First Amendment to the Amtrak Capital Funding Agreement has been principally agreed to by the State of
New York, the State of New Jersey, Amtrak and GDC, and is subject to approval by the GDC Board of Commissioners. At the next regularly scheduled GDC
Board Meeting, the GDC Board of Commissioners will consider a Resolution that will authorize the GDC CEO to execute and take all other actions
necessary to amend the Amtrak Capital Funding Agreement.
27 The Port Authority’s commitment includes RRIF loan proceeds, capitalized interest, $35 million design cash contribution, and cash contributions for
financing costs associated with the RRIF loan. PANYNJ’s contribution does not include contributions for financing cost associated to the short-term
financing facility.
28 New Jersey’s commitment includes RRIF loan proceeds, capitalized interest, and cash contributions for financing costs associated with the RRIF loan and
contributions to Package 4 – Tonnelle Ave.

29 New York’s commitment includes RRIF loan proceeds, capitalized interest, and cash contributions for financing costs associated with the RRIF loan.

the mid-January 2024 market consensus forecast collated by Bloomberg for Calendar Year
(CY) Quarter 2 2024 (when financial close is expected)
FTA CIG Program Grant
 The amount of grant funding requested from the FTA CIG program reflects the $6.880 billion
identified by the FTA in their approval for the HTP to enter the Engineering phase of the FTA
CIG program, which represents the maximum amount of CIG funds that will be provided by
FTA for the project should an FFGA be approved. The percentage of CIG funding is 47.20%
of CIG-eligible public transportation costs. This Financial Plan maintains the 90% transit and
10% intercity rail share for the entire HTP, but reflects an update to the shares by individual
SCC codes.
 The Financial Plan assumes the annual CIG payment schedule provided by FTA on October
19, 2023, as indicated in Table 2-2. Any unused grant appropriations each year will be made
available for disbursement in future years. This assumption remains unchanged since the
October 2023 financial plan.
 The eligible costs include the public transportation portion of project cost starting FY 2017 as
well as the public transportation portion of RRIF issuance costs, servicing and monitoring costs,
credit risk premium (CRP), interest during construction and CIG disbursement period, and
short-term financing.
Table 2-2 Annual CIG Appropriation Assumption as of January 2024
FY2024 and
($M) FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028
prior30
Annual Appropriation 800 700 700 669 669
FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033
Annual Appropriation 669 669 669 669 669
Source: FTA
FTA Risk and Contingency Review & Emerging Opportunities
 The Financial Plan continues to reflect the findings and recommendations resulting from two
FTA and PMOC Risk and Contingency Reviews of the HTP, including the FTA and PMOC
Emerging Opportunities for potential early work to mitigate potential top cost and schedule
risks.
 The estimated project cost was further increased by $15 million in this Financial Plan to reflect
the latest comprehensive Risk and Contingency Review of the HTP undertaken by the FTA
and PMOC in October 2023. The plan now results in an overall contingency at YOE of 66.82%
(25.86% unallocated + 40.96% allocated).
FTA CIG Scope

 The construction of the HYCC – Section 3 is not included in the HTP FTA CIG New Starts
Financial Plan because it is being funded through the National Infrastructure Project Assistance
30 Appropriation for FY2024 and prior. Per FTA guidance, $800 million would be the amount awarded with the signing of the FFGA and includes $100 million
from FY2023 and the $700 million proposed in the President’s FY2024 budget that could change depending on the FY2024 appropriations from Congress.
(Mega) Program. The HYCC – Section 3 LIRR ESB Utility Relocation element remains as part
of the FTA CIG scope.
Schedule
 The project schedule continues to reflect the FTA and PMOC Emerging Opportunities for
potential early work within Package 1. The ultimate completion date for the HTP is unchanged
from the October 2023 financial plan.
 The project schedule continues to reflect the addition in October 2022 of a two and a half-year
contingency into the HTP schedule.
2.2 Capital Plan
The capital plan for the HTP reflects the estimated cost and schedule for the HTP. It describes anticipated
funding sources, amounts anticipated from each source, and the level of commitment of non-federal
sources. Contingencies and mitigation measures for cost increases and revenue shortfalls are discussed
in Section 2.4.
Preliminary Contract Packaging Approach
The construction of the HTP will require significant professional services, construction services, and
railroad forces over a period of more than ten years, for what has been described as the “most urgent
infrastructure project in the United States.” The size of the HTP, planned duration, skills/trades involved,
and other factors involved in construction, make the contract packaging approach a key area of focus in
the HTP’s development.
Section 4.01(c)(i) of the PDA makes GDC “responsible for the development, design, and construction of
each HTP Package” and authorizes the GDC to “procure all third-party services related to delivery of the
HTP or that are otherwise necessary to facilitate the HTP, including those of construction contractors,
design-build contractors, engineers, and consultants, as applicable. for each HTP Package.” GDC has
developed a preliminary contract packaging approach which is being evaluated.
2.2.1.1 Construction Packaging
GDC has undertaken, and continues to undertake, due diligence – including risk, contract packaging,
size, and delivery method analysis – comparing the relative advantages and disadvantages under
different approaches. On a preliminary basis, the GDC’s ongoing analysis has helped identify potential
efficiencies from bundling expected contract scopes of work into larger, procurable packages for efficient
execution and delivery and utilizing Design-Build or alternative delivery procurement solutions where
appropriate to encourage innovative solutions. The specific goals of this ongoing analysis include:
providing upfront cost certainty and allowing for economies of scale to be achieved; optimizing the project
schedule and sequencing for rapid construction completion; reducing interface risks and related costs and
contingencies; attracting market competition; and delivering high technical performance and fostering
innovation.
The ongoing analysis takes into account feedback obtained from industry through a detailed market
sounding process, which included Requests for Information (RFI) in August 2017 and July 2018 and
subsequent discussions with respondent firms. Each RFI attracted responses from numerous firms,
including multinational, national and local contractors, designers and financial entities. Also, in 2022,
Amtrak issued a RFI to survey the professional services market on the proper scoping of Project Delivery

Partner (PDP) procurement. The GDC updated this market research through a Market Sounding event
and one-on-one meetings with industry representatives in February 2023. Further market research was
conducted at in-person and virtual Market Sounding events in April 2023, June 2023, July 2023, and
October 2023. GDC will continue to update this market research in the coming months, including through
broad industry days and targeted outreach to professional building and contacting associations. This
outreach will better inform each construction package’s contemplated delivery methodology. The
sequencing of certain elements of work with the Preliminary packages have been updated to reflect the
FTA and PMOC Emerging Opportunities for potential early work to mitigate potential top cost and
schedule risks. Preliminary packages are described below, while a detailed description of project
components independent of packaging considerations is provided in Section 2.2.2.14.
 Package 0a is the LIRR ESB Utility Relocation;
 Package 1 includes the tunneling and heavy civil work for the Hudson River Tunnel, and consists
of the following four sub-packages:
o Package EA1 is the Hudson River Ground Stabilization, which consists of in-river work to
strengthen the weak soils of the river sediments and provide a reliable path for the tunnel
boring machines in advance of Package 1C.
o Package 1A is the heavy civil work and tunnel boring for the Palisades Tunnel element of the
Hudson River Tunnel.
o Package 1B is the heavy civil work and tunnel boring for the Manhattan Tunnel element of
the Hudson River Tunnel.
o Package 1C is the heavy civil work and tunnel boring for the Under-Hudson River Tunnel
element of the Hudson River Tunnel.
 Package 2 focuses on the fit-out work for the Hudson River Tunnel including the internal concrete
for the ventilation shafts; concrete for the track bed, benches and ventilation duct walls in the
tunnels; fan plant building structures and fit-outs; traction power, communications and signal
systems; and track work along the entire alignment;
 Package 3 is the New Jersey surface alignment work including retaining walls, embankments,
and viaducts to support the track bed;
 Package 4 is the Tonnelle Avenue Bridge and Utility Relocation Project, for the construction of a
new highway tunnel bridge at Tonnelle Avenue; and
 Package 5 is the rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel.
2.2.1.2 Procurement Status
GDC will procure contractors to support each package delivery. Each package will be separately procured
through a full and open competition that complies with FTA Procurement Circular 4220.1F and other
federal requirements. The GDC is also procuring a Delivery Partner, as contemplated in HTP PDA Section
4.01(a), to provide additional services to GDC and the SEPs for the delivery of the HTP. The status of
current procurements is described below:
• Delivery Partner: The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued in December 2022. The GDC
identified a shortlist of qualified teams in May 2023. The shortlist of qualified teams received the

Request for Proposals (RFP) in August 2023. Proposals were received in December 2023 and
are currently being evaluated.
• Package EA1: The RFQ was issued in May 2023. The GDC identified a shortlist of qualified teams
in August 2023. The shortlist of qualified teams received the RFP in August 2023. Bids were
received in January 2024 and are currently being evaluated.
• Package 1A: The RFQ was issued in May 2023. The GDC identified a shortlist of qualified teams
in October 2023. The shortlist of qualified teams received the RFP in October 2023.
• Package 1B: The RFQ was issued in August 2023. The GDC identified a shortlist of qualified
teams in January 2024.
• Package 4: The procurement of Construction Management Services for a firm to assist GDC in
oversight and management of Package 4 and the procurement of a firm for the Construction of
Package 4 was initiated in February 2023. 31 The GDC Board of Commissions approved two
contract awards for these services in September 2023. 32
The anticipated construction schedule and estimated cost of each package is shown in Table 2-3 below.
Table 2-3 Preliminary Project Packages 33

Full
Construction Total Total (w/
Unallocated
Schedule Cost Construction Financing)
Contingency
(YOE $M) (YOE $M) 34 (YOE $M)
(YOE $M)
HRT and HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB
Package 0a – HYCC Section 3 LIRR
N/A 32 - 32 32
ESB
Package EA1 – Hudson River Ground
April 23 - Dec 27
Stabilization
Package 1A – Palisades Tunnel Jan 24 - Nov 27 5,831 857 6,688 7,480
Package 1B – Manhattan Tunnel Jan 24 - Apr 30
Package 1C – Hudson River Tunnel Jan 24 - Apr 30
Package 2 – Systems and Fit-Out Sept 25 - Aug 34 2,857 720 3,577 3,929
Package 3 – NJ Surface Alignment Jan 24 - Aug 29 975 263 1,238 1,441
Package 4 – Tonnelle Avenue Bridge
Oct 23 - Mar 26 45 9 54 54
and Utility Relocation
Total HRT & LIRR ESB 9,740 1,849 11,588 12,935
Package 5 – North River Tunnel
Sept 34 - Jun 38 2,493 539 3,032 3,106
Rehabilitation
Total HTP 12,232 2,388 14,620 16,041
Each package cost includes ROW, Force Account, Environmental Mitigation, and Professional Services expenses related to the respective
package.
31 https://www.gatewayprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/GDC-preleasetonnelleprocurement-0223Final-2.pdf
32 https://www.gatewayprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/GATEWAY-DEVELOPMENT-COMMISSION-Tonnelle-Avenue.pdf
33 The figures in this table may not add up due to rounding.
34 Capital cost estimates reflect 100% design for HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB Package 0a, 30% design for Hudson River Tunnel Packages 1-3, 100% design
for Package 4, and 30% for North River Tunnel Rehabilitation Package 5.
The Hudson River Tunnel and HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB Utility Relocation have a total construction cost
of $11.588 billion. The total cost of this element, applying the FTA cost methodology (including financing
charges during the New Tunnel CIG Period) is $12.935 billion.
The rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel has a total construction cost of $3.032 billion. The
total cost of this element, applying the FTA cost methodology (including financing charges during the grant
disbursement period) is $3.106 billion.
Capital Plan Sources of Funds
2.2.2.1 Summary of Capital Plan Sources of Funds
The construction of the HTP will leverage local funding from the PANYNJ, the State of New Jersey, and
the State of New York and from non-local sources, including Amtrak contributions, FRA grants and FTA
CIG Program grants.
The FTA’s CIG Program funding may only be used to pay for public transportation (transit) projects, while
the Project elements will serve both NJ TRANSIT commuter rail and Amtrak intercity passenger rail.
Therefore, separate funding approaches for the transit and intercity rail shares of project costs are defined.
Based on existing weekday ridership counts, approximately 90% of all passengers crossing the North
River Tunnel are travelling via commuter rail service, with the remainder of passengers travelling via
intercity passenger rail.
Furthermore, per FTA’s Financial Contractors’ Guide for Conducting Financial Capacity Assessments for
the Capital Investment Grants Program dated September 2017, “Finance charges must be included in the
capital cost estimate of all CIG projects. Specifically, only finance charges that are expected to occur prior
to either the revenue service date or the fulfillment of the CIG funding commitment in the construction
grant, whichever occurs later in time, should be included” 35 36.
Table 2-4 summarizes the HTP project cost for transit and intercity rail.
35 FTA’s Financial Contractors’ Guide for Conducting Financial Capacity Assessments for the Capital Investment Grants Program (September 2017) –
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/115626/financial-contractor-guide-conducting-financial-
capacity-assessments-cig-program-september-2017.pdf
36 Financing costs include interest on borrowed principal, fees charged by a lender to keep a credit line active, and issuance or other handling fees
associated with debt transactions such as a bond sale.

Table 2-4 Project Costs and Sources of Funds -Transit and Intercity Rail Allocation (YOE $M)
Transit Intercity Rail Total
Project cost
Hudson River Tunnel + HYCC-3 LIRR ESB 10,204 1,384 11,588
North River Tunnel Rehabilitation 2,951 81 3,032
Financing Costs 1,421 - 1,421
Total Project Cost 14,576 1,465 16,041
Funding Sources
FTA Capital Investment Grant Program 6,880 - 6,880
Unspecified FRA/Amtrak Funds37 667 349 1,016
FRA Federal-State Partnership Grant 3,064 736 3,800
USDOT RAISE 25 - 25
PANYNJ 2,425 253 2,678
NJ 285 23 308
NYS 1,230 104 1,335
Total Funding Sources 14,576 1,465 16,041
Given the dual nature of the HTP, serving both transit and intercity passenger rail uses, summarizing
project costs with and without the intercity passenger rail portion is pertinent to understanding the full cost
of the HTP, in base year or year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars, and is consistent with various definitions
of project costs summarized in the Standard Cost Categories spreadsheet.
As presented in Table 2-3 above, combined, the total cost of the HTP, applying the FTA cost methodology
is $16.041 billion.
FTA CIG Program funding is anticipated to cover 47.20% of the CIG-eligible public transportation (transit)
project costs. The total funding of $6.880 billion for the entire HTP 38 is split into two principal uses:
 $4.236 billion for Hudson River Tunnel and HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB Utility Relocation
 $2.644 billion for the rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel.
Following this overarching framework, the HTP Financial Plan currently anticipates the following federal
and local components:
2.2.2.2 Summary: Federal Support
 The Hudson River Tunnel & HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB Utility Relocation – $8.906 billion
o $4.236 billion from the FTA CIG Program.
o $935 million from Amtrak and FRA sources.
o $3.710 billion from the FRA Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant
Program.
37 According to the financial plan, the intercity rail share of project costs may be covered by any combination of Amtrak NEC grants, Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Grants (49 USC 22907), Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail grants (49 USC 24911), other
competitive grant programs provided funds are appropriated to these programs by Congress and FRA awards the funding to Amtrak, the GDC, and/or other
Project Partners, as well as Amtrak revenue from passenger fares or other net operating revenues.
38 FTA approved GDC’s HTP to enter the New Starts Engineering Phase of the FTA CIG Program in July 2023. The CIG amount reflects the maximum
amount of CIG funds that will be provided by FTA for the Project upon FFGA approval. The FTA CIG Program grant amount and sources of federal grant
funding for the HTP are subject to change based on the status of federal appropriations, the FTA FFGA Approval, and on-going negotiations with USDOT.
o $25 million from USDOT’s National Infrastructure Investments (RAISE) Program.

 The rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel – $2.815 billion
o $2.644 billion from the FTA CIG Program.
o $81 million contributions from Amtrak and FRA sources.
o $90 million from the FRA Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant
Program.
Table 2-5 Federal Support for the Hudson River Tunnel and North River Tunnel Summary (YOE
$M)
Federal Support Construction Financing Total
Hudson River Tunnel and HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB A
FTA Capital Investment Grant 4,122 113 4,236
Amtrak Contribution/FRA Grant 935 - 935
FRA Federal-State Partnership 3,635 75 3,710
USDOT RAISE 25 - 25
Total 8,718 188 8,906
North River Tunnel B
Amtrak Contribution/FRA Grant 81 - 81
FRA Federal-State Partnership 88 2 90
USDOT RAISE - - -
Total 2,764 52 2,815
Hudson Tunnel Project A+B
Amtrak Contribution/FRA Grant 1,016 - 1,016
FRA Federal-State Partnership 3,723 77 3,800
RAISE 25 - 25
Total 11,482 240 11,721
Letter of Intent
The GDC has obtained a Letter of Intent (LOI) from FTA pursuant to 49 USC 5309(k)(l) for the HTP to
signify the FTA’s intention to provide $6.88 billion from the CIG Program, subject to GDC completing the
statutory requirements for receipt of a FFGA. This LOI is not a Federal obligation or administrative
commitment. Rather, it announces FTA’s intention to enter into an FFGA in the future, if the statutory
requirements of the CIG Program are met.
Letter of No Prejudice
The GDC has obtained and may seek additional Letters of No Prejudice (LONP) from FTA to help advance
the HTP prior to FFGA. Per the FTA’s LONP Policy, “LONP authority allows an applicant to incur costs
on a project utilizing non-Federal resources, with the understanding that the costs incurred subsequent to
the issuance of the LONP may be reimbursable as eligible expenses or eligible for credit toward the local
match should FTA approve the project at a later date. LONPs are applicable to projects and project
activities not covered by automatic pre-award authority. Receipt of Federal funding under any program is

not implied or guaranteed by an LONP.”39 Advancing certain early work ahead of a FFGA may help the
federal and local project stakeholders minimize costly inflation on capital expenditures, remove major risks
faster, increase overall project cost certainty, reduce the interface risks (the interactions between the
various contractors), optimize schedule and construction sequencing; and encourage market competition.
To achieve the schedule that is the basis for this Financial Plan, FTA approved LONPs for Package 4 –
Tonnelle Avenue Bridge and a portion of Package EA1 – Hudson River Ground Stabilization. The HYCC-
Section 3 LIRR ESB Utility Relocation currently underway and property acquisition are project activities
were covered by automatic pre-award authority during the FTA Project Development phase upon
completion of the environmental review process, and are covered by automatic pre-award authority during
the FTA Engineering Phase. 40
2.2.2.3 Summary: Local Support
 The Hudson River Tunnel & HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB – $4.016 billion
 The rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel – $304 million
The Project Partners’ commitments from locally generated revenues from PANYNJ, the State of New
Jersey and the State of New York represent 100% of the local funding share for the construction of the
HTP. The local commitment is summarized in the table below.
Table 2-6 Local Commitments for the Hudson Tunnel Project (YOE $M)
Construction 41 Financing Total
Hudson River Tunnel and HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB A
PANYNJ 1,905 773 2,678
NJ 187 67 254
NYS 778 306 1,085
Total 2,870 1,146 4,016
North River Tunnel B
PANYNJ - - -
NJ 48 7 55
NYS 221 29 250
Total 268 36 304
Hudson Tunnel Project A+B
PANYNJ 1,905 773 2,678
NJ 234 74 308
NYS 999 335 1,335
Total 3,138 1,182 4,320
Partner contributions are either in the form of scheduled payments to support GDC RRIF loans or cash.
Cash contributions are used to either pay construction costs or to meet RRIF related financing costs. as
shown in Table 2-7.
39 FTA Fiscal Year 2022 Apportionments, Allocations and Program Information, 87 Fed. Reg. 82 (April 28, 2022) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-
2022-04-28/pdf/2022-09143.pdf (Page 28 of 31).
40 FTA Fiscal Year 2022 Apportionments, Allocations and Program Information, 87 Fed. Reg. 82 (April 28, 2022) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-
2022-04-28/pdf/2022-09143.pdf (Page 26 of 31).

41 This includes RRIF Loan net proceeds (which excludes any capitalized interest) and any cash contributions to pay for construction costs.

Table 2-7 Breakdown of Local Commitments for the Hudson Tunnel Project (YOE $M)
Local Sources Total
PANYNJ
RRIF Loan 42 2,586
Hudson River Tunnel and HYCC- Section 3 LIRR ESB 1,870
North River Tunnel -
Capitalized Interest 716
Other Cash Contributions for Construction 35
RRIF Financing Costs 43 57
Total 2,678
NJ
RRIF Loan 281
Hudson River Tunnel and HYCC- Section 3 LIRR ESB 168
North River Tunnel 48
Other Cash Contributions for Construction (P4: Tonnelle) 19
Total 308
NYS
RRIF Loan 1,303
Hudson River Tunnel and HYCC- Section 3 LIRR ESB 778
North River Tunnel 221
Other Cash Contributions for Construction (P4: Tonnelle) 45 -
Total 1,335
Total Local Sources 4,320
Committed/Budgeted Funding: A key component of the FTA CIG application process requires the
applicant to demonstrate the extent to which the non-CIG components of the public transportation portion
of the FTA-defined project costs of the funding plan are “committed” and/or “budgeted.” The Project
Partners have met and exceeded the 30% non-CIG “Committed”/“Budgeted” threshold, as indicated in
Table 2-16.
A brief description of each proposed federal and local source of funds is provided below.
Note: The descriptions of each proposed source of federal funds includes programs and information
included under the five-year existing Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act of 2021, which is Division
A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58), authorized through September 30,
2026. Congress appropriates funding to the programs authorized under the surface transportation
authorization bill. Further, the IIJA directly provides advance appropriations as a supplement to annual
appropriations. There is a long history of federal involvement in public transportation, beginning in 1964
42 PANYNJ’s RRIF loan amount includes a $44 million reimbursement for ESB and GDC management cost contributions.
43 The assumed CIG funding period is FY2024 – FY2038. Financing component includes servicing and monitoring costs and credit risk premium.
45 New York’s net proceeds have been adjusted to reflect New York’s local share contribution to Package 4 of $7.4 million.

with the Urban Mass Transit Act. 47 The five-year duration of the reauthorization in the IIJA continues the
pattern of five- or six-year surface transportation authorization bills that dates back to the early 1990s. 48
2.2.2.4 FTA Capital Investment Grants Program – New Starts
Background: FTA’s CIG Program is USDOT’s largest discretionary funding source for major capital transit
investments. The IIJA authorizes up to $3 billion per year in annual appropriations through 2026. In
addition, the law directly provides $1.6 billion per year through 2026 in advance appropriations as a
supplement to annual appropriations for this program. 49 “New Starts” investments are available for
projects that provide new fixed guideway; extensions to existing systems are eligible for CIG funding. Per
the IIJA, project costs should be equal to or greater than $400 million or total New Starts funding sought
should be at least $150 million. CIG funding is provided under the terms of a FFGA which serves as a
multi-year contract between FTA and a project sponsor to provide an established annual payout of CIG
funding – subject to Congressional appropriations – in return for the delivery of a defined project scope
within a set schedule and budget. The CIG statute does not set a grand total CIG amount limit or annual
funding assumptions limit for New Starts projects, and instead, only sets a minimum grant total ($150
million) CIG amount described above.
HTP Financial Plan: The Financial Plan assumes a total of $6.880 billion in CIG funding. CIG funding will
cover 47.20% of CIG-eligible public transportation project costs. Based on guidance provided by FTA on
October,19,2023, the Financial Plan assumes maximum annual CIG appropriations of up to $800 million
in FY2024 and prior, $700 million from FY 2025 and FY 2026, and $668.6 million from FY 2026 until FY
2033, as illustrated in Table 2-2. Any unused grant appropriations in a given year will be made available
for disbursement in future years. The eligible costs include the public transportation portion of project cost
starting FY 2017 as well as the public transportation portion of RRIF issuance costs, servicing and
monitoring costs, CRP, interest, during construction and CIG disbursement period, and short-term
financing interest and expenses.
2.2.2.5 Amtrak Contributions
Amtrak is expected to provide up to $1.016 billion in contributions to the HTP, which is 6.95% of the HTP
construction costs, not exceeding the 10% intercity portion of the HTP. Amtrak’s total commitment is
evidenced by the Amtrak-GDC Capital Funding Agreement, which is being submitted as part of this
application as supporting document G-15.
Amtrak could fund its contributions by any combination of Amtrak annual grants or other competitive grant
programs, provided such funds are appropriated to these programs by Congress and FRA awards the
funding to Amtrak, as well as Amtrak revenue from passenger fares or other net operating revenues.
2.2.2.6 Federal-State Partnership Grant
In addition to the FTA CIG Program, GDC anticipates receiving $3.800 billion from the Federal-State
Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail – Northeast Corridor (FSP – NEC) program. This grant was
awarded in November 2023.
47 “Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief,” Congressional Research Service, February 4, 2020.
48 “Surface Transportation Funding and Programs Under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act,” Congressional Research Service, Feb. 18, 2016.
49 FTA, “Fact Sheet: Capital Investment Grants Program,” https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fact-sheet-capital-investment-grants-program , 1/3/2022.

The Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants Program (formerly known as the
Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Program under Section 11302 of the FAST Act),
authorizes the Secretary to develop a program to issue competitive grants to applicants seeking to replace
or rehabilitate railroad assets. Section 22307 of the IIJA made substantial changes to this program.
According to the FRA, the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants program provides
funding for intercity passenger transportation projects located on the Northeast Corridor and for projects
not located on the Northeast Corridor and was significantly revised in Section 22307 of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. Changes included broadening project eligibility to include projects to expand or
establish new intercity passenger rail services and fund pre-construction project planning, expanding
eligible project locations to include the entire intercity passenger rail network, and directing USDOT to
publish a project inventory for Northeast Corridor projects to support long-term planning. 50 The Hudson
Tunnel Project is included as a “Major Backlog Project” in FRA’s 2022 NEC Project Inventory. 51 The IIJA
authorizes up to $1.5 billion per year in annual appropriations through 2026. In addition, the law directly
provides $7.2 billion per year through 2026 in advance appropriations as a supplement to annual
appropriations for this program. FAST Act (FY2016-FY2021) and IIJA (FY2022-FY2023) appropriated
funding for this program are summarized in Table 2 -10.
2.2.2.7 RAISE Grant

Finally, GDC applied to the USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
(RAISE) grant program for Package 4, Tonnelle Avenue. GDC received a $25 million award for Package
4 on June 15, 2023.
2.2.2.8 Local Support - RRIF Loans
The GDC will utilize multiple local revenue sources to advance the HTP, including scheduled payments
from the PANYNJ, the State of New Jersey, and from the State of New York in support of the RRIF
borrowings. The GDC submitted a draft Letter of Interest to Build America Bureau in respect of RRIF
loans for the HTP in July 2022 (and updates in January and April 2023). The Build America Bureau
advanced the HTP RRIF Loan from the Project Development Phase to the Creditworthiness Review
phase in May 2023.
For the purposes of this Financial Plan, we have assumed a loan term of 35-years after construction
completion. 52 As shown in Table 2-8 below, it is currently anticipated that the GDC will enter into multiple
RRIF loans, based on the different credit profiles of the committed support payment sources. All of these
payment sources will have an investment-grade credit profile. This Financial Plan includes financial
commitments to the GDC from the PANYNJ, entities of the State of New Jersey, and State of New York,
evidenced by each party’s individual commitment to pay amounts to the GDC to enable it to repay federal
loans from local sources. This Financial Plan does not represent the GDC’s independent pledge of the
full faith and credit of any party described herein.
50 FRA Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program Fact Sheet, https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2021-12/Fed-
State%20Grants%20fact%20sheet.pdf (Dec. 2021).
51 FRA 2022 Northeast Corridor Project Inventory, https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-11/NEC%20Project%20Inventory.pdf
52 Note that the RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) assumes interest-only basis for five years after the construction completion per RRIF guidance, while RRIF Loans B
and C commence principal repayment after construction and do not assume the five-year interest only period.
Table 2-8 Gross Proceeds from Anticipated HTP Financing (YOE $M)
Capitalized Financing
Debt Instrument Net Proceeds Gross Proceeds
Costs
RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) 1,870 716 2,586
RRIF Loan B (NJ) 215 65 281
RRIF Loan C (NYS) 999 304 1,303
Total 3,084 1,085 4,169
2.2.2.9 PANYNJ Contribution to the HTP

PANYNJ’s commitment to the GDC to pay amounts equivalent to scheduled debt service payments in
HTP RRIF loan proceeds is estimated to be up to $136 million from FY 2035 to FY 2039 (interest-only
period debt service) and up to $174 million annually starting in FY 2040 through FY 2069 (principal and
interest period debt service). The table below details the changes in the PANYNJ commitment compared
to the October 2023 HTP Financial Plan submittal.
Table 2-9 PANYNJ Commitment to GDC: October 2023 vs. January 2024 HTP Financial Plan
PANYNJ Contribution ($M) October 2023 Submission January 2024 Submission
Financial Plan Financial Plan
Net proceeds for construction 1,826 1,870 53
Capitalized Interest 708 716
RRIF Loan 2,534 2,586
PANYNJ Design Contribution 35 35
PANYNJ ESB Contribution 13 -
Other Cash Contribution for Construction 48 35
RRIF Financing Costs * 56 57
PANYNJ Total 2,637 2,678
PANYNJ Maximum Annual Debt Service 195 174
*Financing Costs include credit risk premium, RRIF annual servicing fees and rating agency monitoring fees
On March 24, 2016, the PANYNJ Board of Commissioners authorized the Executive Director to enter into
an agreement with Amtrak to reimburse Amtrak up to $35 million of preliminary engineering and planning
costs incurred by Amtrak for the design, development and construction of the HTP, and to advance
environmental review and permitting for the HTP. On February 15, 2018, the PANYNJ Board certified the
up to $35 million in funds authorized by the Board in March 2016 as an additional facility of the PANYNJ54.
These Committed 55 funds (within the meaning of FTA’s guidelines) have been expended by the PANYNJ
as part of the Project Development phase and no further approvals (legislative or referendum) are required
for the funds to be used. Together with the $2.7 billion commitment, the total PANYNJ commitment is
$2.735 billion. (See supporting document B-15.)
On February 15, 2018, the PANYNJ Board of Commissioners authorized up to $44 million for the GDC,
consisting of: (i) up to approximately $12.5 million for the potential relocation of certain facilities in
53 Includes $44 million RRIF reimbursement for PANYNJ payments for ESB and other GDC pre-NTP costs.
54 February 15, 2018, “Port Authority Gateway Support Program, Early Work – Facility Certification”; The Board of Commissioners certified (i) the up to $35
million in funds authorized by the Board in March 2016, and (ii) the up to $44 million in funds authorized by the Board in February 2018 (collectively, the
“Gateway Early Work Program,” as an additional facility of the PANYNJ.
55 These funds have been Committed as defined by FTA CIG guidelines.

connection with the HYCC ESB and (ii) up to approximately $31.5 million for the GDC’s program
management expenses for the first phase of the Hudson Tunnel Project and for the GDC’s operations to
be used prior to December 31, 2021 (extended to December 31, 2023), which shall be provided by
agreement, through contracted services on behalf of GDC, or through the provision of staff and in-kind
support, exclusive of any expenditures or allocations in support of GDC as authorized by prior Board
actions, conditional upon a commitment of like funds by Amtrak. Additionally, on February 15, 2018, the
Board of Commissioners certified the up to $44 million 56 in funds as an additional facility of the PANYNJ.
This $44 million contribution is included in the PANYNJ’s $2.7 billion commitment. This $44 million in
Committed 57 funds are currently programmed by the PANYNJ and are being expended by the PANYNJ
as eligible expenses. It is expected that the $44 million of PANYNJ funds, will be repaid to the PANYNJ
from proceeds of the PANYNJ-supported GDC RRIF loan at initial drawdown. No further approvals
(legislative or referendum) are required for the funds to be used. (See supporting document B-9.)
On June 28, 2018, the PANYNJ Board of Commissioners authorized the reallocation of the PANYNJ’s
PNB Project commitment to the HTP (PANYNJ will not commit funds to North River Tunnel) and confirmed
the PANYNJ’s $2.7 billion capital plan allocation for the HTP, to support the borrowing by the GDC through
a low-interest loan up to an aggregate principal amount of up to $2.7 billion (inclusive of associated fees,
costs, or expenses) and capitalized interest. These funds have been budgeted 58 and were included in the
2017-2026 Capital Plan Reassessment adopted by the PANYNJ Board of Commissioners on September
27, 2019. (See supporting documents B-15 and H-10.)
In line with FTA’s guidelines for classifying the level of commitment for each capital funding source,
PANYNJ’s commitment falls into the “Budgeted”/“Committed” category. PANYNJ funds required to
support debt service payments on a RRIF loan of up to $2.7 billion have been Budgeted (within the
meaning of FTA’s guidelines) through the adoption of the 2017 – 2026 Capital Plan and the adoption of
the 2017 - 2026 Capital Plan Reassessment by the PANYNJ Board of Commissioners and through the
June 2018 Board Resolution confirmation of the Capital Plan allocation for the HTP. The PANYNJ’s
support, as outlined in the 2017 – 2026 Capital Plan, is subject to the conditions that the PANYNJ is not
the primary obligor for the loans and is not liable for any construction completion, cost overrun or project
funding risk in connection with the Project 59. The June 2018 Board resolution mentions the following
required steps:
• A facility certification – provided by the PANYNJ Board of Commissioners – is required before
such agreement can be executed in support of any federal loan applied for by the GDC. The Port
Authority’s obligation remains subject to the authorization of its Board of Commissioners and in
connection therewith, will require certification that such issuance will not, during a specific period,
materially impair the sound credit standing of the PANYNJ or the investment status of
Consolidated Bonds or the ability of the PANYNJ to fulfil its commitments. Therefore, facility
certification for the remainder of the HTP cannot take place until agreements governing the
funding, financing, and governance of HTP are in final form and represent full funding for the
56 February 15, 2018, “Port Authority Gateway Support Program, Early Work – Facility Certification”; The Board of Commissioners certified (i) the up to $35
million in funds authorized by the Board in March 2016, and (ii) the up to $44 million in funds authorized by the Board in February 2018 (collectively, the
“Gateway Early Work Program,” as an additional facility of the PANYNJ.
57 These funds have been Committed as defined by FTA CIG guidelines.
58 These funds have been Budgeted as defined by FTA CIG guidelines.

59 The Commission will be the primary obligor for the RRIF loans and the State of New York, the State of New Jersey, and Amtrak are committed to cover
construction cost overruns.

HTP. The PANYNJ’s $35 million and $44 million contributions discussed above received facility
certification in February 2018 and should be considered “Committed”.
• PANYNJ’s General Counsel shall render a legal opinion on whether payments to the GDC for the
HTP are authorized by the Port Compact of April 30, 1921, and the statutes governing PANYNJ
activities. Such opinion will be issued concurrent with the Board resolution providing facility
certification for the remainder of the HTP.
Under this authorization, the current Financial Plan reflects that the PANYNJ will support the borrowing
by the GDC through a RRIF loan that will provide $1.870 billion (net proceeds) towards the HTP’s
construction costs for a total commitment of $2.678 60 billion including capitalized interest, servicing and
monitoring fees and CRP. This Financial Plan assumes that the GDC will be the RRIF loan applicant and
enter into a funding agreement with the PANYNJ (PA/GDC Funding Agreement), under the terms of which
the PANYNJ will commit to pay the GDC principal, interest, and certain fees and expenses—the “Funding
Agreement Cashflow”—in connection with the RRIF Loans subject to the terms and conditions to be set
out in the PA/GDC Funding Agreement. The funding committed is PANYNJ net revenues after payment
of debt service on its Consolidated Bonds and other obligations in the waterfall of funds, as defined in its
Consolidated Bond Resolution.
PANYNJ Financial Information

The PANYNJ has a mature and diverse transportation asset base, including an airport system, marine
terminals and ports, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) rail transit system, two tunnels and four
bridges between New York and New Jersey, the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan, and the World
Trade Center, that provide critical service to the New York City metro area.
The PANYNJ raises the necessary funds for the improvement, construction or acquisition of its facilities
primarily by issuing consolidated bonds backed by revenues it receives from its ownership and operation
of its facilities and by direct investment of net revenues after debt service. The PANYNJ does not have
the authority to levy taxes and does not receive support from tax revenues from either New York or New
Jersey. The revenues of the PANYNJ are derived principally from the tolls, fares, take-off and landing
fees, dockage fees, rentals, and other charges for the use of, and privileges at, certain of its facilities. The
diverse operation of critical infrastructure assets, strong demographics of the region, strong liquidity, and
a conservative debt structure all contribute to the PANYNJ’s strong credit profile (evidenced by ratings of
AA-/Aa3/AA- by S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch respectively on its Consolidated Bonds and Notes as shown in
Table 2-10).
Key strengths of the PANYNJ pertaining to its financial support of the HTP include:
• The PANYNJ is one of the oldest, largest, and most diverse public authorities in the United States,
with control over an array of critical infrastructure assets. A high volume of passengers and cargo
moves through the Port District, the regional service area of New York/New Jersey. The
geographical diversification within its regional district and the multiplicity of transportation modes,
assets and locations helps to mitigate financial risk across the agency.
60$2.678 billion includes $1,870 million Net Proceeds (which includes $44 million for ESB and GDC management cost reimbursement) + $716 million
Capitalized Interest + $56 million Credit Risk Premium Payments + $1 million in servicing and monitoring fees + $35 million Design Contribution. As CIG
appropriations end in FY2033, the CIG period for New Tunnel has been adjusted to extend through New Tunnel Substantial Completion in 2034. Interest
Expense, Servicing and Monitoring fees post-New Tunnel substantial completion are excluded in this total.
• The PANYNJ has historically maintained a senior debt coverage ratio around 2.0 times (with the
exception of 2020 through 2022, which were negatively impacted by the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic on activity levels at Port Authority facilities) along with a General Reserve Fund at 10%
of outstanding debt service, which is pledged as security on its Consolidated Bonds. On
September 27, 2019, the PANYNJ Board of Commissioners adopted a reassessed 2017 – 2026
Capital Plan, which maintained the PANYNJ commitment to support debt service payments on
up to $2.7 billion of GDC low-interest federal loans for the HTP, subject to facility certification.
Table 2-10 PANYNJ Consolidated Bond Ratings

Credit Ratings S&P Moody’s Fitch
PANYNJ Consolidated Bonds AA- Aa3 AA-
• The PANYNJ generated increases in gross operating revenues and net position over the 10-year
fiscal period from 2013 to 2022. Gross operating revenues increased at a compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) of 4.15%, from $4.18 billion in FY 2013 to $6.03 billion in FY 2022 61. Net
position increased at a CAGR of 1.75% over the same period, from $13.73 billion in FY 2013 to
$16.05 billion in FY 2022. Please note that the 2020, 2021 and 2022 figures represent the
financial performance of the PANYNJ amidst the continued recovery of the PANYNJ from the
negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the pandemic’s lingering effects, the
operating and financial performance of the PANYNJ is dependent in part on the actions of facility
users, governmental actors, and the regional economy as a whole. In the PANYNJ’s most recent
financial disclosure filed on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic Municipal
Market Access continuing disclosure database, the PANYNJ includes a more detailed discussion
on the impacts to the PANYNJ as result of the current COVID-19 pandemic. 62
The supporting documents include the following schedules that further demonstrate the PANYNJ’s
historical financial strength from 2013-2022.
• Supporting document B-1: Revenues, Expenses, Capital Investment by Business
• Supporting document B-2: Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Net Position
• Supporting document B-3: Revenues and Reserves
2.2.2.10 State of New Jersey Contribution to HTP

The current financing plan includes a commitment from the State of New Jersey through the New Jersey
Turnpike Authority (NJTA) to make payments to the GDC in amounts sufficient to enable the GDC to meet
its financing obligations, through a RRIF loan supporting $215 million in net proceeds for construction
costs ($308 million 63 including financing cost contribution and cash contributions for Package 4
construction). The GDC will be the RRIF applicant and will enter into agreements with the State of New
61 Calculations based on Gross operating revenues included in Appendix B-3. Revenues and Reserves, which excludes the impacts of the recently adopted GASB 87
standard.
62 https://emma.msrb.org/P11644010-P11266245-P11692788.pdf
63 $308 million includes: $215 million Net Proceeds + $65 million Capitalized Interest + $6 million Credit Risk Premium Payments + $2 million in
Issuance/Monitoring/Servicing Fees, and $19 million pay-go contributions during CIG period. As CIG appropriations end in FY2033, the CIG period for New
Tunnel has been adjusted to extend through New Tunnel Substantial Completion in 2034. Interest Expense, Servicing and Monitoring fees post-New Tunnel
substantial completion are excluded in this total.
Jersey (through NJ TRANSIT) under the terms of which the State of New Jersey will commit to the GDC
to pay principal, interest, and certain fees and expenses.
The State of New Jersey is a funding partner to the HTP through the NJTA. The NJTA is an independent
authority of the New Jersey state government. NJTA will contribute tolls, rents, and other income derived
from Authority operations, on deposit in the General Reserve Fund to repay a RRIF loan being used by
the GDC to finance the HTP.
The State of New Jersey, through the State Treasurer, has agreed to backstop NJTA’s obligation,
whereby in any year NJTA fails to make appropriations necessary to satisfy its obligations of the funding
agreement, the State Treasurer shall submit a request to the Governor for inclusion of an appropriation
in the Governor’s Budget Message to the Legislature of the amount necessary to pay for the State's share
of the costs of the HTP.
Table 2-11 details the changes in the NJ commitment compared to the October 2023 HTP financial plan
submittal.
Table 2-11 New Jersey Commitment to GDC: October 2023 vs. January 2024 HTP Financial Plan
NJ Contribution ($M) October 2023 Submission January 2024 Submission
Financial Plan Financial Plan
Net proceeds for construction 272 215
RRIF Loan 354 281
Package 4 - Tonnelle Ave Payments 19 19
Other Cash Contribution for Construction 19 19
RRIF Financing Costs* 10 8
NJ Total 383 308
NJ Maximum Annual Debt Service 23 18
Role of NJTA
The NJTA is a body corporate and politic of the State of New Jersey organized and existing by virtue of
the New Jersey Turnpike Authority Act of 1948, constituting Chapter 454 of the Laws of New Jersey of
1948, as amended and supplemented. Pursuant to the Act, the NJTA has owned and operated the New
Jersey Turnpike (Turnpike) since it opened for traffic in 1951. In July 2003, the New Jersey Highway
Authority (NJHA) was abolished and the NJTA assumed all the powers, rights, obligations, assets, debts,
liabilities and statutory responsibilities and duties of the NJHA, including the ownership and operation of
the Garden State Parkway (the “Parkway”).
The Turnpike and the Parkway are two well-established toll roads located in a densely populated and
wealthy region of the country. The toll roads act as the “supply chain spine” and the “distribution platform”
for the entire Northeast region. The Turnpike consists of a 118-mile mainline and four spurs, for a total of
148 miles. The Parkway is a 173-mile limited access toll road from Cape May, New Jersey to Spring
Valley, New York. NJTA prudently manages its finances and operations to provide its customers with a
safe, efficient, innovative and resilient toll road system, which facilitates mobility in New Jersey and the
Northeast United States.

In 2022, total toll transactions and total passenger car transactions on the Turnpike were comprised of
253 million total toll transactions and 216 million total passenger car transactions. The total toll
transactions exceeded 2021 levels by 11 million transactions, a 4.6% growth rate from the previous year.
NJTA’s current credit rating is A1/AA-/A+ from Moody’s, S&P and Fitch respectively. Recognizing the
integrated nature of New Jersey’s and the region’s transportation system, and the realization that any
improvements that facilitate the use of mass transit reduce the capital expense burden on the Turnpike
and Parkway to increase road capacity, commencing on January 1, 2022, NJTA tolls have increased 3%
and may continue annually 64,to provide a reliable funding source into the future for both Turnpike and
mass transit projects, such as the HTP. Thus, to advance the HTP, NJTA will provide funds in the amount
of up to $124 million per year, after any possible capitalized interest period. 65 Furthermore, during the
construction period, the NJTA will provide funds for Credit Risk Premium payments, if required by BAB,
to the State Treasurer pursuant to the NJTA’s statutory authority at N.J.S.A. 27:23-8b, to be annually
appropriated to NJ TRANSIT to support to the HTP through the final maturity of the RRIF loan.
The steps necessary to transfer funds from NJTA to the GDC are as follows:
Prior to financial close of the RRIF loan:
• NJTA’s Board of Commissioners approves the request for authorization of NJTA to enter into
negotiations for a Funding Agreement with the New Jersey Department of the Treasury (“NJ
Treasury”) to fund costs in connection with the HTP apportioned to the State of New Jersey, which
costs will include the debt service payments on the GDC’s financing. This was completed in
December 2021. This resolution is provided as supporting document B-26.
• Upon finalizing negotiations for the Funding Agreement, NJTA’s Board of Commissioners must
authorize a resolution approving the terms of the Funding Agreement with NJ Treasury, and upon
completion of the Governor’s 10-day review and approval of NJTA’s Board meeting minutes,
NJTA and NJ Treasury executed the Funding Agreement based on the terms approved by the
NJTA Board of Commissioners. The NJTA Board of Commissioners authorized the resolution to
Enter into an Agreement with the NJ Treasury in December 2022. This resolution is provided as
supporting document B-28.
• NJ TRANSIT’s Board of Directors will authorize NJ TRANSIT to enter into an agreement with the
GDC for the payment of the State of New Jersey’s apportioned cost of the HTP, subject to annual
appropriation.
• Upon completion of the Governor’s 10-day review and approval of NJ TRANSIT’s Board meeting
minutes, NJ TRANSIT and the GDC will execute that agreement based on the terms approved
by NJ TRANSIT’s Board of Directors.
After financial close, the following steps shall apply each year:
64 In 2020, the NJTA approved a resolution authorizing the potential annual toll increase of up to 3% annually, which went into effect January 1, 2022. In
2023, state legislators have proposed a bill to prevent annual or automatic toll increases.
65 The NJTA entered into an agreement with the NJ Treasurer on 1/1/2023 which provides for an amount of up to $124 million annually in connection with
the NJ supported RRIF loan. Such amount remains subject to change pending the outcome of GDC grant applications and the final determination of the
local funding share to be supported by New Jersey in connection with the RRIF Loan.
• No later than April 1st of each year, NJ TRANSIT will propose the amount owed in its Annual
Capital Plan as it will be the repository for the funds owed to the GDC. This is a necessary step
for the State of New Jersey to remit its apportioned share of HTP costs to NJ TRANSIT.
• The Treasurer of the State of New Jersey shall request that the Governor of the State of New
Jersey include in the Governor’s annual budget recommendation a language provision codifying
that the funding received by the New Jersey Department of the Treasury from NJTA pursuant to
funding agreement(s) between the State Treasurer and NJTA will be appropriated to NJ TRANSIT.
NJ TRANSIT will propose to include such amounts to be received in its Annual Capital Plan for
the purpose of New Jersey’s apportioned cost of the HTP. No later than July 1st of each year, or
upon the adoption of the annual Appropriations Act, the State of New Jersey will annually
appropriate funds for the HTP to NJ TRANSIT in the amount agreed upon with NJTA in the
executed Funding Agreement. These funds will be deposited, as they become available, in the NJ
TRANSIT Annual Capital Plan and will be used to pay the State of New Jersey’s apportioned cost
of the HTP to the GDC.
• No later than July 31st of each year, NJ TRANSIT’s Board of Directors will approve NJ TRANSIT’s
Annual Capital Plan which will become effective following the Governor’s 10-day review and
approval of NJ TRANSIT’s Board Meeting minutes.
NJ TRANSIT receives funding from the State of New Jersey based on funds received from NJTA pursuant to a
funding agreement with the State Treasurer, which funds are in turn to be appropriated to NJ TRANSIT on an
annual basis for operating assistance in a similar manner, as further described in Sections 3.3.1.2.1 and 3.3.3.1.
Funds sufficient to fulfill the State of New Jersey’s commitment for a portion of operating costs have been
included in NJ TRANSIT’s System-Wide Financial Plan (Chapter 3.0, Section 3.3, Forecast Operating
Budget).
State of New Jersey Budgeting Process
According to the State of New Jersey Department of the Treasury’s Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), the State Budget Process is designed to result in budget decisions that are informed by
performance, with a focus on furthering agency core missions. Implementation of the budget process
usually beings during the month of August, some 11 months prior to the year for which the budget will be
effective. The State Budget cycle is set on a fiscal year basis, which extends from July 1 to June 30 of the
following year.
To formally initiate the process, OMB provides salary projection reports and technical budget instructions
to the departments in September. Among other things, this enables the agencies to determine how to
best allocate available resources to meet their core missions in the coming budget year. The ensuing
planning process includes reviews of the Governor’s program priorities, as well as economic forecasts,
demand assumptions, and analyses of selective program areas. OMB provides general guidance to each
State agency in September, including establishing preliminary budgets.
Agencies prepare planning documents that describe: (1) their ability to achieve their core missions at the
preliminary budget level (including projections of mandatory growth); (2) the agencies’ priorities for
reduction of current services if requested, and the impact of such reductions on their core mission areas;
and (3) priority packages representing either expansion of current programs or new programs. OMB

reviews the planning documents with the agencies from November through mid-January when preliminary
recommendations are agreed upon.
During the months of January and February, the Director of OMB reviews budget recommendations with
the State Treasurer, the Governor, and the Governor’s staff. Normally, the Governor makes the final
decisions in February.
The planning portion of the budget process usually culminates in February with the submission of the
Governor’s Budget Message, representing the Governor’s recommendations for allocating available
resources, to the Legislature. The Budget Message is delivered to the Legislature on or before the fourth
Tuesday in February (unless superseded by legislation). From year to year, the Budget is the single most
important policy statement that the Governor makes as he or she allocates the State’s resources for
programs and services.
The Legislature, through a series of hearings conducted by its appropriations committees, reviews the
Governor’s Budget and makes changes. The Legislature also reviews the revenue estimates included in
the Governor’s Budget and, based upon several additional months of actual revenue collections in the
current fiscal year, makes adjustments to these revenue projections and surplus estimates.
The Budget, including changes made by the legislative committees, then must be approved by the Senate
and the Assembly. According to the New Jersey Constitution, a balanced Budget must be approved as
an Appropriations Act and signed by the Governor before July 1. After the Legislature passes the
Appropriations Act, the bill is sent to the Governor. The Governor may sign it, conditionally veto it
(returning it for changes) or veto it absolutely. The Governor also has the power to veto specific
appropriations (line items) or appropriation language segments, some of which may have been added by
the Legislature as a result of its review. The line-item veto allows the Governor to reshape the final Budget
and ensure that appropriations do not exceed the certified level of revenues. (As part of the final
Appropriations Act, the Governor must “certify” the level of revenues in order to meet the constitutional
requirement of a balanced budget.) The final approved Budget, which includes the Governor’s line-item
vetoes and certification of revenues, is the Appropriations Act. Once the Budget is enacted, it becomes
an effective tool for fiscal control and for monitoring program effectiveness.
Throughout the course of the fiscal year, the Legislature has the authority to pass legislation that provides
funding for programs and projects above and beyond those provided for in the Appropriations Act. The
additional amounts of funding provided by these acts of the Legislature are referred to as “supplemental
appropriations.” The Director of the OMB also has statutory authority to authorize supplemental
appropriations at any time during the fiscal year by virtue of authorizing budget language contained in the
Appropriations Act. This is accomplished and documented by the issuance of Directory Letters by OMB.
66
State of New Jersey Financial Information

During fiscal year 2022, State of New Jersey revenues totaled $97.0 billion, a decrease of $644.4 million
when compared to the prior fiscal year after restatements. This decrease is primarily attributable to lower
operating grants offset by higher general taxes and charges for services. General taxes totaled $50.7
billion and operating grants totaled $32.4 billion, accounting for 52.2 percent and 33.4 percent,
respectively, of total State revenues. The State’s Gross Income Tax totaled $20.7 billion, the Sales and
Use Tax totaled $12.6 billion, and the Corporation Business Tax totaled $5.7 billion. These three major
66 “The State Budget Process,” NJ Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, https://www.nj.gov/treasury/omb/budgetprocess.shtml (accessed 10/2022).
taxes comprised 77.1% of the total general taxes that were collected during Fiscal Year 2022. General
taxes increased by $7.9 billion when compared to fiscal year 2021.
The General Fund is the State’s chief operating fund and is the fund into which all State revenues, not
otherwise restricted by statue, are deposited. The General Fund’s ending fund balance totaled $18.5
billion, of which $5.3 billion represented unassigned fund balance, increasing $0.9 billion from the end of
the prior fiscal year. 67
Key features of the State of New Jersey pertaining to its financial support of the HTP include:
• New Jersey is the eleventh largest state by population. Per capita personal income is the fourth
highest in the nation, which translates into an above-average ability to pay taxes. Gross domestic
product ranks eighth among the states (in current dollars) as of July 2022. As of September 2022,
New Jersey has a low poverty rate, an unemployment rate lower than the national average and
above average educational attainment, bolstered by a diverse economy with notable
specialization in pharmaceuticals, information technology, and financial services. New Jersey is
home to many corporate headquarters and international business offices reflecting its proximity
to New York City as well as the importance of the state’s extensive transportation and shipping
infrastructure. 68
• General Fund revenues have trended higher in the last four years, resulting in increases to both
the General Fund total fund balance and the unassigned balance.
• In 2016, action was taken by the Legislature to sustain and increase funding for the NJTTF. On
October 7, 2016, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 10 (A10) reauthorizing the NJTTF for an
8-year period at $16 billion over the reauthorization lifecycle. This reauthorization was partially
funded by an increase of 23 cents per gallon in the state’s petroleum products gross receipts tax
and 4 cents per gallon in the diesel fuel tax. On November 8, 2016, a constitutional amendment
dedicating all of the motor fuels tax revenues and petroleum products gross receipt tax revenues
for the purposes of paying or financing the cost of planning, acquisition, engineering, construction,
reconstruction, repair and rehabilitation of the transportation system in New Jersey was passed
by New Jersey voters. More recently, P.L. 2022, c. 38 increased the overall NJTTF Program size
by an additional $600 million, to $16.6 billion, in order to maintain the Program at an average of
$2 billion annually after the advancement of $600 million of capital projects in fiscal year 2021 to
help stimulate the State economy during the height of the pandemic. 6970
• Total Long Term Bonded Debt decreased to $43.90 billion at the end of fiscal year 2022 from
$48.17 billion at the end of the prior fiscal year. Total Bonded Debt was 6.0% of New Jersey total
personal income, which was a decrease from 6.9% for the prior fiscal year. General Obligation
Bonds decreased to $5.0 billion in fiscal year 2022 compared to $5.5 billion at the end of the prior
fiscal year. $276 million of this decrease was a result of retiring and defeasing outstanding State
debt as enacted by P.L.2021, c.125, which established the New Jersey Debt Defeasance and
Prevention Fund.71 72
67 The State of New Jersey Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
68 Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gross Domestic Product by State, 2nd Quarter 2022, September 30, 2022
69 Kroll Bond Rating Agency, State GO Rating Report, January 7, 2019
70 State of New Jersey, State Legislature, P.L.2022, c.38

71 The State of New Jersey Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
72 The State of New Jersey Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021

• During calendar year 2022, Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch upgraded New Jersey’s credit rating one
level, and in 2023, New Jersey received additional upgrades from Moody’s, S&P, Fitch, and Kroll.
Each rating agency currently maintains a “stable outlook,” on the New Jersey credit. New Jersey’s
second consecutive year of a full pension contribution, as well as the combined $8.85 billion in
deposits to the Debt Defeasance and Prevention Fund to both provide for the defeasance of high
interest existing debt and the avoidance of future debt issuances, significantly strengthened the
State’s finances.
Table 2-12 New Jersey General Obligation Bond Ratings

Credit Ratings S&P Moody’s Fitch KBRA
State of New Jersey GO Bonds A A1 A+ A+
State of New Jersey Appropriation Bonds A- A2 A A
2.2.2.11 State of New York Contribution to HTP

The current financing plan includes a commitment from the State of New York to make payments to the
GDC in amounts sufficient to enable the GDC to meet its financing obligations through a RRIF loan to
fund at least $0.999 billion in net proceeds for construction costs ($1.335 73 billion including financing cost
contributions). The GDC will be the RRIF loan applicant and enter into a service contract with the State
of New York (such agreement, the “State of New York Service Contract”) under the terms of which the
State of New York will commit to pay to the GDC amounts equivalent to what the GDC owes under the
RRIF loan for principal, interest, and certain fees and expenses.
Table 2-13 details the changes in the NY commitment compared to the October 2023 HTP financial plan
submittal.
Table 2-13 State of New York Commitment to GDC: October 2023 vs. January 2024 HTP Financial
Plans
NYS Contribution ($M) October 2023 Submission January 2024 Submission
Financial Plan (Currently Financial Plan (To be represented
represented in NYS Enacted in future NYS Capital Plan)
Capital Plan))
Net proceeds for construction 1,060 999
RRIF Loan 1,379 1,303
Package 4 - Tonnelle Ave Payments 3 -
Other Cash Contribution for Construction 3 -
RRIF Financing Costs* 34 32
NY Total 1,416 1,335
NY Maximum Annual Debt Service 90 83
73$1.335 billion includes: $0.999 billion Net Proceeds + $304 million Capitalized Interest + $30 million Credit Risk Premium + $2 million Monitoring/Servicing
during CIG period. As CIG appropriations end in FY2033, the CIG period for New Tunnel has been adjusted to extend through New Tunnel Substantial
Completion in 2034. Interest Expense, Servicing and Monitoring fees post-New Tunnel substantial completion are excluded in this total.

The commitment amounts specified in the FY 2025 NYS Executive Capital Program reference the FY
2023 HTP financial plan submitted to FTA on October 31, 2023.
The State of New York’s Division of Budget (“NYSDOB”) publishes a Capital Program and Financing Plan
twice a year, with the Executive Budget and the Enacted Budget. It describes the State of New York’s
multi-year capital program, the way it will be financed, and the impact of debt on the State of New York’s
Financial Plan.
The FY 2025 Executive Capital Program and Financing Plan (“NYS Executive Capital Program”), which
is being submitted as part of this application and provided as supporting document B-11, includes updated
estimates of the payments that the State expects to make to the GDC to support the RRIF debt service
payments referencing the HTP financial plan submitted to FTA on October 31, 2023. The GDC anticipates
the estimates being updated in the future to reflect the final financial plan when determined.
The FY 2023 Enacted Budget included legislation that authorizes the State of New York, acting by and
through the Director of the Budget, to enter into one or more service contracts (the “State of New York
Service Contract”) with the GDC to provide to the GDC an amount each year sufficient to make all RRIF
payments on the NYS RRIF loan. The FY 2024 Enacted Budget increased the authorization to reflect
increased project costs in line with the HTP financial plan submitted to FTA on October 31, 2022.
NYSDOB expects to adjust this authorization as necessary to align with changes to the cost estimates.
With this legislative authorization, the State of New York’s Budget Director is expected to enter into the
State of New York Service Contract with the GDC that obligates the State, subject to annual appropriation
by the State Legislature, to provide to the GDC an amount each year sufficient to make all RRIF payments
on the NYS RRIF loan. Such payments are expected to be funded from the State’s General Fund.
Once the State of New York Service Contract is signed, NYSDOB will annually seek Governor approval
to include an appropriation and funding requirement in each annual budget (i.e., Executive Budget) until
the NYS RRIF loan is paid in full. For contractual obligations, including the State of New York-supported
RRIF loan, the State Comptroller, upon receipt of a certificate from the Director of the Budget, is required
to transfer from the General Fund on the first day of each quarter the funds needed to make all required
debt service payments during the quarter. This ensures the funds are available in advance of the payment.
When the State of New York Service Contract is signed, the only additional consent for authorizing the
payment to the GDC is the enactment of the debt service appropriation each year (i.e., Enacted Budget),
consistent with all other debt obligations of the State of New York. Finally, the State Comptroller will need
to audit the debt service payments to ensure compliance with statute and contractual terms. Table 2-14
is a timeline of the remaining steps to fully commit and fund the NYS commitment.
Table 2-14 State of New York Commitment Action Timeline
State of New York Commitment Actions Estimated Date
FY22 NYS Enacted Capital Plan Spring 2021 (Complete)
FY23 NYS Executive Capital Plan
January 18, 2022 (Complete)
FY23 NYS Executive Annual Budget & Legislation
FY23 NYS Enacted Capital Plan
Spring 2022 (Complete)
FY23 NYS Enacted Annual Budget & Legislation


Winter 2023 (Complete)
Spring 2023 (Complete)
Winter 2024 (Complete)
Spring 2024
Prior to April 1, 2023 (start of the State FY
Enactment of the NYS Debt Service Appropriation
2024) (Complete) and each fiscal year
(annually)
thereafter.
On or about May 30, 2023 and 30 days
NYSDOB Certificate to State Comptroller (quarterly,
(Complete) prior to the start of each calendar
as needed)
quarter thereafter.
State of New York Agreement (service contract) with
Simultaneous with execution of the RRIF loan
GDC
State prepares vouchers and makes payments to No later than 5 days prior to payments due
GDC on the RRIF loan
The State of New York has no plans to issue debt to fund its annual payment obligation to the GDC. The
State’s commitment will be paid from revenue that flows into its General Fund throughout each fiscal year.
The annual payments to the GDC will be treated in a manner similar to other State-supported debt
obligations. Specifically, the State expects to enter into a service contract with the GDC that requires the
State, contractually, to make payments to the GDC to support debt service until the RRIF loan is fully
repaid. Accordingly, the State of New York expects to seek an appropriation in each annual state budget
and make those payments until all contractual payments have been made to the GDC. For debt
classification purposes, please note that the State will categorize this commitment as State-Related debt
because it represents an inter-governmental borrowing that does not meet the definition of State-
Supported debt. 74
The obligation is expected to be administered as a State-supported contractual obligation, of which, as of
March 31, 2023, approximately $48 million of State-supported service contract financings were
outstanding. The FY 2024 Enacted Budget included the permanent authorization to set aside funds
quarterly in advance of payments due to GDC for the Hudson Tunnel Project for the life of the project. For
other contractual obligations, NYS legislation first enacted in FY 2011, and extended through June 30,
2026, authorizes the State of New York to set aside moneys in reserve for debt service on general
74 The definition of State-Supported Debt, as contained in Section 67-a of New York State Finance Law: "State-supported debt" shall mean any bonds or
notes, including bonds or notes issued to fund reserve funds and costs of issuance, issued by the state or a state public corporation for which the state is
constitutionally obligated to pay debt service or is contractually obligated to pay debt service subject to an appropriation, except where the state has a
contingent contractual obligation. The Commission’s RRIF debt supported by payments from the State of New York will not be issued by the State or a State
public corporation.
obligation, lease-purchase, and other service contract debt. Accordingly, for contractual obligations,
including the State of New York-supported RRIF loan, the State Comptroller, upon receipt of a certificate
from the Director of the Budget, is required to transfer from the General Fund on the first day of each
quarter the funds needed to make all required debt service payments during the quarter. This ensures the
funds are available in advance of the payment.
The projected NYS State-Supported debt service costs estimate (with the inclusion of the NYS
commitment to HTP) mentioned on page 13 of the FY 2025 NYS Executive Capital Plan is part of the
State’s State-Supported debt service schedule found on page 124 of the FY 2025 NYS Executive Capital
Plan. No State capital appropriations or spending are reflected in the NYS Executive Capital Plan, since
the capital funding will be provided by the GDC through a RRIF loan. Consequently, only the debt service
payments to the GDC to support the RRIF loan payments are reflected in the NYS Capital Plan. The FY
2024 debt service appropriation bill was passed on March 31, 2023, and included appropriations sufficient
to pay costs due on the loan. The FY 2025 Executive Budget proposed debt service appropriations for
FY 2025, including sufficient appropriations to pay costs due on the loan.
New York State Financial Information
The State of New York’s robust economy underpins its commitment to the HTP. Total General Fund
Receipts were $103.2 billion in FY 2023, and the closing fund balance was $43.5 billion, an increase of
$10.4 billion from FY 2022 results. For more complete information on the State of New York's financial
condition, please refer to the Annual Information Statement for FY 2024, provided as supporting document
B-10.
The State of New York Service Contract will ultimately establish the terms of New York State’s
contributions to support debt service for a portion of the project costs. As detailed above, it is anticipated
that these contributions will be appropriated annually and are expected to be funded from the State’s
General Fund. Annual appropriation bills passed by the legislature authorize the expenditure of funds
during the new fiscal year.
Key strengths of the State of New York pertaining to its financial support of the HTP include:
• The State of New York is a highly rated borrower and has never defaulted on a debt service
payment.
• Table 2-15 presents the State of New York credit ratings.
Table 2-15 State of New York Credit Ratings

Credit Ratings S&P Moody’s Fitch
General Obligation AA+ Aa1 AA+
NYS Personal Income Tax AA+ Aa1 AA+
NYS State Sales Tax AA+ Aa1 AA+
NYS Service Contract/Appropriation Credits AA NR AA

2.2.2.12 Summary of Local Financial Commitment

The GDC recognizes that the FTA CIG Program guidelines define “Committed,” “Budgeted,” and
“Planned” 75 sources of local financial commitment in a certain way for financial rating purposes. As shown
in Table 2-16, the GDC is confident that of the significant committed funding by the local partners, 100.0%
of the non-CIG share of public transportation eligible project costs has been Committed and/or Budgeted
for the purposes of FTA’s rating process. FTA’s definition of “Budgeted” funds are “those that have been
budgeted and/or programmed for use on the proposed project but remain uncommitted, i.e., the funds
have not yet received statutory approval...Funds will be classified as budgeted where available funding
cannot be committed until the FFGA is executed…” Since the rating for commitment of funds is based on
the percentage of funds that are Committed or Budgeted versus those considered only Planned or
Specified, projects can move forward in the FTA CIG Program while utilizing USDOT loans repaid by local
sources as long as the local sources of repayment have taken the necessary steps to be classified as
“Budgeted.” 76
Table 2-16 below identifies the sources for funds for the intercity rail and public transportation portions of
the HTP.
75 FTA CIG Definition of “Planned:” “This category is for funds that are identified and have a reasonable chance of being committed, but are neither committed
nor budgeted. Examples include proposed sources that require a scheduled referendum, reasonable requests for state/local grants, and proposed debt
financing that has not yet been adopted in the agency’s CIP.” https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/grant-programs/capital-
investments/115626/financial-contractor-guide-conducting-financial-capacity-assessments-cig-program-september-2017.pdf (Page 21).
76 FTA CIG Definition of “Budgeted:” “Budgeted funds are those that have been budgeted and/or programmed for use on the proposed project but remain
uncommitted, i.e., funds have not yet received statutory approval. Examples include debt financing in an agency-adopted CIP that has yet to receive final
legislative approval, or state capital grants that have been included in the state budget, but are still awaiting legislative approval. These funds are almost
certain to be committed in the near future. Funds will be classified as budgeted where available funding cannot be committed until the FFGA is executed, or
due to local practices outside of the project sponsor’s control (e.g., the project development schedule extends beyond the TIP or CIP period).”
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/115626/financial-contractor-guide-conducting-financial-
capacity-assessments-cig-program-september-2017.pdf (Page 21).
Table 2-16 Committed/Budgeted/Planned Project Capital Sources of Funds (YOE $M)

Committed/Budgeted Planned
Total Percent
SOURCES OF FUNDS Total Percent Total Percent
Intercity Rail
Amtrak Contribution 349 23.8 % 349 23.82 % - -
FRA Federal-State Partnership 736 50.3 % 736 50.25 % - -
Local
PANYNJ 253 17.3 % 253 17.26 % - -
NJ 23 1.5 % 23 1.54 % - -
NYS 104 7.1 % 104 7.13 % - -
Intercity Rail Sources of Funds 1,465 100.00 % 1,465 100.00% - 0.00%
Public Transportation
Amtrak Contribution 667 4.58 % 667 4.58 % - -
FTA Grant during CIG period 6,880 47.20 % NA NA NA NA
FRA Federal-State Partnership 3,064 21.02 % 3,064 21.02 % - -
USDOT RAISE 25 0.17 % 25 0.17 % - -
Local 77
PANYNJ 2,425 16.64 % 2,425 16.64 % - -
NJ 285 1.96 % 285 1.96 % - -
NYS 1,230 8.44 % 1,230 8.44 % - -
Public Transportation Sources of
14,576 100.00 % 7,696 52.80% - 0.00%
Funds
Less New Starts Grant Amount (6,880) (47.20%)
Non-CIG Share of the Public
Transportation Portion of the FTA- 7,696 7,696 100.00% - 0.00%
Defined Project Cost
Total Project
Total Sources of Funds 16,041
Credit Risk Premium

Note: On January 25, 2024, the USDOT released a notice of proposed rulemaking which recommends
that, in lieu of a CRP, USDOT will add a credit spread on RRIF loan interest rates. The rule does not
provide guidance on how the spread would be calculated. In absence of any such guidance, this Financial
Plan continues with the CRP assumptions in the October 2023 financial plan.
The RRIF loans are structured with expectation of an investment grade rating. This Financial Plan
assumes a 3.0% CRP paid at each drawdown. CRPs on RRIF loans have generally ranged from 0-5% of
the loan amount 78. The GDC recognizes that the CRP will vary based on creditworthiness, and therefore
the CRP for each RRIF loan will vary based on the source of funding to the GDC. The 3.0% assumption
is intended to represent a weighted average CRP across the various RRIF loans.
77 RRIF Loan balances include: PANYNJ net proceeds of $1.870 billion and Loan A capitalized interest of $716 million; NJ net proceeds of $215 million and
Loan B capitalized interest of $65 million; and NYS net proceeds of $999 million and Loan C capitalized interest of $304 million.
78 U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Process Inefficiencies and Costs Discourage Participation in FRA’s RRIF
Program, June 10, 2014, CR-2014-054, page 4, at https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/RRIF%20final.pdf.

Given the strong credit ratings from S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch respectively on debt of the identified funding
sources (NYS: AA/NR/AA for Service Contract credit; PANYNJ: AA-/Aa3/AA- for Consolidated Bonds;
NJTA: AA-/A1/A+ for Turnpike Revenue Bonds), even 3.0% is a conservative assumption for the CRP. In
the past, RRIF loans with credit ratings of A and AA supporting major transportation agency projects have
resulted in CRP close to 0%.
Interest Rates
The interest rate for the RRIF loans is assumed to be equal to 5.25%. The assumed rate is approximately 100
basis points higher than the January 22, 2024 30-year US Treasury rate of 4.29%. The 5.25% interest rate is a
25 bps decrease from the October 2023 financial plan assumption of 5.50% and reflects the reduction in US
Treasury rates since submission of the October 2023 financial plan.
Consensus forecasts published by Bloomberg in January 2024 show a forecast 30-year US Treasury rate in Q2
2024 of 4.15%. This is further supported by the Oxford Economics forecast, which shows interest rates of 4.19%
in Q2 202479.
The RRIF Loan supported by funding from the PANYNJ assumes a five-year period of interest only payments
after substantial completion followed by level annual debt service payments for 30 years. The RRIF Loans
supported by funding from the State of New Jersey and the State of New York assume level annual debt service
payments for 35 years following substantial completion. GDC's Letter of Interest contemplates either 35 year or
75-year post-completion loan maturity. GDC has assumed 35 years, resulting in a higher annual burden on each
local partner, for the purposes of this Financial Plan. The debt service cost includes all capitalized interest as
well as annual debt servicing fees and credit monitoring costs. Interest on the RRIF loans is calculated semi-
annually and any interest that is not paid current in each semi-annual period (utilizing local partner contributions
and / or available grant funding) is capitalized into the loan balance, forming part of the loan balance on which
interest costs are calculated in subsequent periods – ensuring that capitalized interest and, thus, financing costs
are not understated.
GDC RRIF loans to support construction of the new Hudson River Tunnel/HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB will be
drawn from FY 2024 until FY 2034 and will be supported by payments from PANYNJ, the State of New Jersey,
and the State of New York. GDC RRIF loans to support the rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel will be
supported by payments from the State of New Jersey and the State of New York and will be drawn from FY
2037 to FY 2038. The loans will not have a debt service reserve.
Table 2-17 summarizes the funding stream specific assumptions. Later in the chapter, Table 2-26, Table 2-27,
and Table 2-28 provide annual sources and uses for RRIF Loan repayment.
79 Please refer to Attachment A-7: “Interest Rate Memo”

Table 2-17 Funding Stream Specific RRIF Terms

PANYNJ Scheduled State of New Jersey State of New York Scheduled
Payments Scheduled Payments Payments
Assumptions
RRIF applicant The GDC or its designate will The GDC or its designate will The GDC or its designate will be
be applicant and repays loan be applicant and repays loan applicant and repays loan debt
debt service debt service service
CRP $56M (3.0%) $6M (3.0%) $30M (3.0%)
Interest Capitalized During construction until FY During construction until FY During construction until FY
2035 for Hudson River Tunnel 2035 for Hudson River Tunnel 2035 for Hudson River Tunnel
During construction until FY During construction until FY
2038 for North River Tunnel 2038 for North River Tunnel
2.2.2.13 Credit Facility

GDC has the financial and legal capacity to obtain credit facilities, and other loan and debt instruments
pursuant to GDC’s enabling legislation. Specifically, the legislation allows GDC to:
“Issue and guarantee bonds, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness, enter into loan agreements
and otherwise borrow funds, or incur indebtedness or other future payment obligations for any
corporate purpose, including to effectuate Full Funding, and to assign, pledge, mortgage, secure,
encumber and use its funds, assets, properties, and revenues for repayment thereof, to be payable
out of the funds, assets, properties, and revenues of the Commission without recourse to taxation,
provided that the Commission shall have no power to pledge the full faith and credit of the federal
government, the state of New Jersey, any local government thereof, the state of New York, any local
government thereof or of Amtrak or the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in connection with
the project, or to impose any obligation for payment of the bonds upon the federal government, the
state of New Jersey, any local government thereof, the state of New York, any local government
thereof or of Amtrak or the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, in each case except as set
forth in a binding agreement, or to otherwise commit any party to incur any liability in excess of its
contractual obligations in connection with the Project, and provided further that neither the
commissioners nor any person executing any bonds issued or guaranteed by the Commission shall
be liable personally on such bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason
of issuance hereof;”
GDC’s priority is the short-term credit facility specifically in the form of a revolving credit agreement.
Proposed terms of the facility are as follows:
• Proposed Amount: $300-500 million
• Purpose: To finance the lag in reimbursements from CIG and FSP grants
• Tenor: Revolving facility for a five-year period (to be renewed based on requirements identified
at that time)
• Sizing Approach: Facility will be sized based on expected CIG and FSP draws during
construction and a 90-day reimbursement cycle. If needed, funds could also be used to finance
other temporary cash needs. Based on the current construction spend profile, the average and
maximum forecasted outstanding balance of such a facility is summarized in Table 2-18.
Table 2-18 Short-Term Facility - Forecasted Balance

Maximum Forecasted Balance ($M) Average Forecasted Balance ($M)
CY
CIG FSP Total CIG FSP Total
2024 113 31 143 43 5 48
2025 199 69 267 138 50 187
2026 210 171 381 194 119 313
2027 283 117 400 212 104 317
2028 269 116 385 162 105 267
2029 147 127 275 100 117 218
2030 243 124 367 68 117 184
2031 - 112 112 - 104 104
2032 - 91 91 - 77 77
2033 - 61 61 - 49 49
2034 61 248 309 15 84 99
2035 85 - 85 54 - 54
2036 158 - 158 131 - 131
2037 158 - 158 131 - 131
2038 302 - 302 104 - 104
• Pledge: Claim on federal grant receipts to be received from CIG and FSP grants
• Financing Costs: GDC has assumed a 7% interest rate on drawn facilities and a 0.7%
commitment fee on undrawn facilities.
GDC issued the RFP to select a pool of qualified commercial banks and underwriters in November 2023.
The pool will be for an initial term of five years and will be renewed thereafter. GDC has received strong
response from the banking community on the RFP and is likely to select the pool by mid-February 2024.
Once the pool is selected, GDC will have one-on-one meetings with each bank and then issue a mini-
RFP for bids for the short-term credit facility outlined above. GDC anticipates selecting a bank or syndicate
of banks for such a facility in March 2024. Between March and June 2024, GDC and the bank will
undertake due diligence and negotiate the credit facility agreement with the goal of closing in June 2024.
Given the current interest rate environment, GDC will also consider other financing strategies which could
lower GDC’s financing costs. These include Grant Anticipation Notes (“GANS”) and/or RRIF anticipation
notes, among others. These strategies will be more closely evaluated after financial close and GDC will
utilize the underwriters on the pool to assist with developing and executing strategies to optimize financing
costs throughout the construction period. GDC understands that in order to issue GANS or RRIF
anticipation notes, GDC will engage in discussions with FTA, FRA and BAB to ensure that these would
be permissible.
2.2.2.14 Project Capital Costs
The HTP is composed of three project elements:
• Package 0a – The utility relocation of the HYCC-Section 3 LIRR ESB;

• Package EA1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, and 4: The construction of the new two tube Hudson River Tunnel;
and
• Package 5: The rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel.
Package 0a – Hudson Yards Concrete Casing (HYCC) – Section 3 LIRR ESB Utility
Relocation Capital Costs
The Hudson Yards Concrete Casing (HYCC) project has the purpose of preserving a rail right-of-way for
a future trans-Hudson rail tunnel beneath the extensive overbuild project that is planned to be, or is
currently being, constructed on platforms above the rail complex known as “Hudson Yards.” The HTP
would make use of the HYCC to connect to A Yard, just west of PSNY.
There was an ESB and many utilities directly above the future footprint of HYCC-Section 3, close to 11th
Avenue viaduct. Utility relocation was required to allow for the construction of HYCC-Section 3. The
utilities and the ESB have been relocated. To allow awarding the construction contracts separately, there
were two design packages for HYCC-Section 3: 1) ESB Utility Relocation and 2) the Section 3
underground casing structure. The HYCC-Section 3 underground casing structure was removed from the
HTP FTA CIG New Starts Financial Plan because it is being funded through the USDOT Mega Program.
Amtrak awarded the “early-action” LIRR ESB Utility Relocation Project in November 2020 and this
element was completed in 2023. Therefore, no escalation factor and unallocated contingency has been
applied to this element of the HTP.
Hudson River Tunnel (Packages EA1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3 and 4) Capital Costs
The HTP includes the construction of a Hudson River Tunnel in order to allow for the rehabilitation of the
North River Tunnel without impacting existing passenger rail service. The Hudson River Tunnel is being
planned to be constructed south of the existing North River Tunnel, under the Palisades in New Jersey,
under the Hudson River, and connecting directly to Amtrak’s A Yard, just west of PSNY in New York City.
The scope of the HTP at the west end tunnel portal extends westward along the NEC to Secaucus, New
Jersey and at the east end to Ninth Avenue in Manhattan, New York. No changes to Secaucus Junction
Station in New Jersey or to PSNY platforms or platform tracks in New York are proposed as part of the
HTP. The overall construction duration of the Hudson River Tunnel is approximately ten years, unless
unforeseen impediments arise during construction that might impact the advancement of the work.
Major project components of the Hudson River Tunnel element (Packages EA1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, and 4)
would include:
2.2.2.14.2.1 Package EA1 - Hudson River Ground Stabilization
• In-River Ground Treatment: In-river work to strengthen the weak soils of the river sediments
and provide a reliable path for the tunnel boring machines in advance of Package 1C.
2.2.2.14.2.2 Package 1A – Palisades Tunnel
• New tunnel in New Jersey: The Hudson River Tunnel would have two tracks in two separate
tubes that would begin at a new portal in the western slope of the Palisades near Tonnelle Avenue
(U.S. Routes 1 and 9) in North Bergen, New Jersey, about 600 feet south of the North River
Tunnel portal. The tunnel would extend 150 to 250 feet beneath the rock formation of the
Palisades and then would continue about 60 to 75 feet below the surface beneath Hoboken.

2.2.2.14.2.3 Package 1B – Manhattan Tunnel

• New tunnel in Manhattan: The new tunnel would continue through the foundation of the
Manhattan Bulkhead below the river bottom and continue about 45 feet below the surface
beneath Hudson River Park and Twelfth Avenue (New York State Route 9A); beneath the block
between West 29th and West 30th Streets on the west side of Twelfth Avenue (Manhattan Block
675); and beneath West 30th Street. On the north side of West 30th Street, the alignment would
meet the underground Hudson Yards Concrete Casing Project and would add new tracks and
associated rail systems within the Hudson Yards Concrete Casing. From the end of the Hudson
Yards Concrete Casing, the Hudson River Tunnel would continue beneath Tenth Avenue to a
tunnel portal east of Tenth Avenue, within the complex of tracks located beneath the existing
building that spans the tracks on the east side of Tenth Avenue (450 West 33rd Street) and
connect to the existing PSNY approach tracks in an area referred to as “A-Yard.”
2.2.2.14.2.4 Package 1C – Hudson River Tunnel;
• New tunnel beneath Hudson River: Beneath the Hudson River, the top (i.e., crown) of the tunnel
would generally be located 25 to 50 feet below the river bottom for much of its length. In one area
near the Manhattan shoreline, the tunnel is at a shallower depth, which will require construction
of ground improvements to increase ground stability prior to tunnel excavation.
2.2.2.14.2.5 Package 2 – Hudson River Tunnel Systems
• Ventilation shafts and fan plants: The Hudson River Tunnel would have a ventilation system
designed to bring fresh air into the tunnel passively, through normal train movement.
It would also have an active component, driven by fans, to remove hot air from the tunnel during
congested (i.e., perturbed) conditions, when trains are stopped or moving slowly for extended
periods, particularly during the summer. The active component would also be used to control and
exhaust hot air and smoke during emergency conditions, such as a fire on a train in the tunnel.
The fans would be used to move smoke so that smoke-free emergency routes are available for
safe evacuation of passengers and fire-fighting operations.
The ventilation system would have three fan plants housing large fans and other equipment. The
shape and specific location of the fan plants is still being developed and will be refined during
preliminary and final engineering. The three fan plants would be as follows:
o Hoboken Fan Plant: An approximately 130-foot-diameter vertical ventilation shaft would
connect to the tunnel at a site east of the Palisades. At the surface, a fan plant would
house fans and other equipment, and provide street-level emergency egress from and
access to the tunnel. The site is predominantly in Hoboken, New Jersey, but also includes
small areas that are in Union City and Weehawken, New Jersey. This site is located on
the south side of 18th Street, just north of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail right-of-way, and
adjacent to the eastern face of the Palisades. Note: the excavation of the shaft for the
Hoboken fan plant is part of Package 1
o Twelfth Avenue Fan Plant: An approximately 130-foot-diameter vertical ventilation shaft
would connect to the tunnel at a site on the west end of Block 675 (the Manhattan block
between West 29th and West 30th Streets and Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues) in New
York City. The only available site for such a ventilation shaft is on Block 675, since the

area west of that block is parkland and the area east of that block is currently either being
developed with a large-scale development or is already developed. At the surface, a fan
plant would house fans and other equipment, and provide street-level emergency egress
from and access to the tunnel.
o A-Yard Fan Plant: A fan plant would be located beneath the 450 West 33rd Street
Building located on the east side of Tenth Avenue between 31st and 33rd Streets, which
sits above the section of rail right-of-way referred to as A-Yard. At this location, existing
emergency access to the tunnel for first responders would be maintained; no street-level
egress would be provided at this location.
• Internal Tunnel Concrete: The internal concrete delivered as part of the Systems and Fit Out
may include but is not limited to tunnel invert concrete, embedded conduits, the track slab, and
low vibration track (LVT), running rails, and the ventilation plenum. The Fit Out and Systems work
also includes the installation of track flood gates in the Hoboken Fan Plant and tunnel internal
concrete. Work may also include the fit out of the cross-passageways and miscellaneous wall
mounted conduits.
• 10th Avenue, New York, Cut-and-Cover: The cut-and-cover tunnel section will create the
Hudson River Tunnel right-of-way under 10th Avenue, connecting the eastern end of the Hudson
Yards Concrete Casing – Section 1 to a tunnel portal east of 10th Avenue, within the complex of
tracks located beneath the existing building that spans the tracks on the east side of Tenth
Avenue (450 West 33rd Street) and connect to the existing PSNY approach tracks in an area
referred to as “A-Yard.”
• Railroad Systems & NJ Track Work: May include, but not limited to, upgrading existing traction
power substations; new facility power service and distribution substations brought online; and
third rail power equipment will be installed at Penn Station.
2.2.2.14.2.6 Package 3 – New Jersey Surface Alignment
Two new surface tracks would branch off from and run alongside and to the south of the existing NEC in
New Jersey. The new tracks would begin at a realigned Allied Interlocking in Secaucus, New Jersey just
east of NJ TRANSIT’s Secaucus Junction Station. These tracks would be accessible for maintenance via
a new access road. The surface tracks would be supported on retained fill placed adjacent to the existing
NEC embankment between County Road and Secaucus Road, and to the east on a new viaduct structure
adjacent to the existing NEC embankment through the Meadowlands.
2.2.2.14.2.7 Package 4 – Tonnelle Avenue Bridge and Utility Relocation
The rail right-of-way would pass beneath Tonnelle Avenue in a cut. A new roadway bridge would be built
to carry Tonnelle Avenue over the new tracks. To construct the new Tonnelle Avenue roadway bridge,
the existing four roadway lanes would be temporarily shifted in stages to allow the sequenced construction
of a new bridge structure to carry the new roadway above the railroad alignment.
2.2.2.14.2.8 Packages 0a, EA1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, and 4 Capital Cost
As indicated in Table 2-19, the total capital cost of the Hudson River Tunnel element of the HTP is
estimated at approximately $8.029 billion in 2023 fiscal year dollars, exclusive of unallocated contingency
and finance costs. The total capital cost of the Hudson River Tunnel element of the HTP is estimated at
approximately $9.707 billion in YOE dollars, exclusive of unallocated contingency and finance costs. The
total cost of the Hudson River Tunnel element, including unallocated contingency and exclusive of finance
costs, is estimated at approximately $11.588 billion in YOE dollars, and is a component of the $14.620
billion HTP capital construction cost.
The following escalation factors have been applied to calculate the YOE cost of this element of the HTP:
• Right-of-way not acquired to-date: Seven percent (7.0%) compounded annually applied to bring
up to a base cost year of 2023, inflation to YOE based on overall glidepath figures.
• Right-of-way acquired to-date: Zero percent (0%)
• Non-right-of-way Project costs: The application of a higher near-term escalation rate that is a
linear glide path from 6.5% at Q3 2023 down to a 4% growth rate beginning in Q3 2024, rather
than an immediate drop to the long-term rate from the point of rebasing. The application of a long-
term annual growth rate of 4.0% (consistent with the August 2021 FY23 financial plan). This
inflation rate forecast assumption, which is in line with historic data, is described in more detail in
Section 2.4.1.1.1.
The base cost estimate for the Hudson River Tunnel was prepared by the Gateway Trans-Hudson
Partnership (“GTHP”, a joint venture of WSP USA Inc., STV Incorporated, and AECOM USA, Inc.)
estimating staff and reviewed by the GDC and other Project Partners. The current estimated cost for the
Hudson River Tunnel is developed based on the draft 30% level of design. The process in the preparation
of the estimates started by review of the drawings and then developing lists of items and quantities along
with the incidental work elements specific to the local site condition and the work itself in place. Then, the
estimated cost of each work element was developed by professional estimators and engineers by
considering the applicable means and methods of construction as well as site specific conditions and
constraints including loss of efficiency and premium pay for working off normal hour work hours. In 2022,
the GDC retained Turner & Townsend to conduct a “Snapshot-in-Time” cost estimate assessment for the
HRT and NRT through an independent, but collaborative effort with Amtrak, GTHP, Jacobs, and Ernst
and Young Infrastructure Advisors (“EYIA”). As part of the cost estimate assessment, Turner & Townsend
(1) Undertook analysis in consideration of FTA’s Risk and Contingency Review procedures, (2) Developed
a conservative capex cost using an unmitigated (P80) Risk Profile because of the long-term nature and
complexity of HTP, (3) Conducted a stress test of the existing base cost and schedule, and (4) Utilized a
tailored HTP-specific inflation analysis, accounting for current volatile macro and micro economic market
conditions. A cost estimate utilizing these four elements described was also conducted in 2023 in
preparation for the October 2023 HTP financial plan.
Some of the major constraints include working along existing active railroads in New Jersey for
construction of viaduct structures and bridges, along with construction activities right above and adjacent
to Amtrak’s “A-Yard” in Manhattan. Other major impacts include transportation of tunneling equipment
and materials into the staging sites and removal of muck and debris via access shafts where the daily
production is impacted by constraints on physical site access and vehicular traffic volume in the
surrounding neighborhoods.
The estimate has been delineated into several distinct proposed contract packages, in addition to railroad
force account work, right of way acquisition, and professional services. The estimated costs will be
presented in their respective “Hard Cost” and “Soft Cost” values. The Soft Cost shall include the following
activities; Design Services, Project Management and Administrative costs, Construction Administration

and Management Services, Insurance, Permits, Fees and Railroad Force Account support by Amtrak and
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) forces.
Additionally, Amtrak’s Force Account personnel will be providing necessary construction services to the
HTP. These services will cover a range of activities that will need to be undertaken to facilitate the cut-in
of the two (2) new tracks at the existing Allied Inter-locking along the existing NEC in addition to “A-Yard”
track reconfiguration. The scope of work includes all related electrification, communications, signal and
other related railroad infrastructure systems as well as protection flagging support for construction
activities being performed by third party contractors.
Several utilities have been identified that cross over or under the NEC and in the vicinity of the fan plants.
Ownership of each of the utility lines has been identified and includes various communications cables,
electric and gas lines, water and sanitary sewer lines owned by an assortment of companies. The
relocation and/or protection of these utility lines, whether temporary or permanent, will be required to
facilitate construction of the Hudson River Tunnel.
Package 5 – North River Tunnel Rehabilitation Capital Costs
The North River Tunnel Rehabilitation project element will address the causes of chronic unreliability and
bring the tunnel to a state of good repair. It includes the following scope: bench wall and duct bank removal
and reconstruction; replacement of the antiquated ballast track system to ballast-less track system;
installation of new signal, communication, and power cables and associated components; and
replacement of in-tunnel fire/life safety systems while maintaining all required systems and tunnel
ventilation to protect construction workers during tunnel construction.
Deteriorating bench walls will be demolished to allow for detailed inspection and repair of the tunnel liner,
reconfiguration of the replacement bench walls to better conform with current code and evacuation
requirements via level disembarking from trains and unobstructed paths to safety, better and safer access
to and segregation of tunnel systems to achieve maintenance efficiency and increased access to the
undercarriage of trains to service disabled equipment or extinguish under-train fires, all of which are
currently prohibited by the existing tunnel bench wall arrangement.
A ballast-less track system will eliminate the drainage-clogging and pump-fouling ballast fines from the
tunnel environment; allow for expanded, open and accessible in-track drainage; mitigate stray current and
rail corrosion issues by expediting drainage and elevating the running and third rail on new rubber-isolated
blocks/pedestals; and fix the ideal rail profile and alignment without the periodic degradation and rail
gauge issues caused by wooden ties. A ballast-less track system will significantly reduce split rails from
corrosion and wide gage from tie deterioration, two of the current leading causes of derailments in the
tunnel and PSNY complex. The associated conventional, LiDAR and Amberg Trolley survey of all aspects
of the existing tunnels will allow for a new optimized rail profile and alignment that better maximizes
electrical clearances, in-track drainage, and dynamic train car body envelope clearances within the tight
constraints of the historic tubes.
The new signal system will be fiber / microprocessor based (compatible with that installed elsewhere on
the NEC) that allows critical logic components to be relocated out of the tunnels leaving only easily
swappable units in the tunnels to maximize recoverability from in-tunnel incidents. The signal system will
be ‘Rule 562’ or ‘cab-no-wayside’ which removes all but one mid-river wayside signal (a physical signal
located on the bench wall), conforming with modern operating procedures and removing the largest

physical obstructions on the bench walls (signal masts and cabinets) for improved egress pathing and
maintenance access.
Power cables which are subject to random failure after Superstorm Sandy (high voltage traction power
feeders, high voltage facilities power feeders, signal power and low voltage power supply) will be replaced
with modern equivalents and appropriately segregated to allow rapid maintenance with minimal
personnel. The overhead catenary system will be replaced in its entirety, replacing the degrading historic
connections to the existing tunnel liner and updating all arms and insulator assemblies.
Communications, security and fire/life safety components will be replaced and upgraded to a modern
standard. (Amtrak, as part of a separate effort, has performed an in-tunnel Live Fire Detection Test
program to drive design criteria development by testing multiple systems in the unique tunnel
environment.) Security systems will be augmented with improved access control, full-tunnel camera
monitoring and modern analytics/algorithms to detect intruders or events. All fire and life safety
components will be integrated in a cohesive Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system for remote
operating, monitoring and control.
The existing tunnel concrete lining is structurally sound, but it is necessary to inspect hidden regions of
the liner (below track and behind bench walls) and perform localized crack, leakage, and spall repairs to
extend the core structural service life through the next century and beyond.
When finished, the rehabilitated tunnel will restore confidence in the NEC and the tunnel, provide more
reliable service, improved resiliency from in-tunnel events, reduced maintenance costs and associated
time the tunnel must be out of service, a much safer environment for maintenance workers, first
responders and the public in the event of an evacuation and a comprehensive re-build that resets the
service life of all aspects of the tunnel.
As indicated in Table 2-19, the total cost of North River Tunnel Rehabilitation is estimated at approximately
$1.473 billion in 2023 fiscal year dollars, exclusive of unallocated contingency and finance costs. The total
cost of North River Tunnel Rehabilitation is estimated at approximately $2.493 billion in YOE dollars,
exclusive of unallocated contingency and finance costs. The total cost of North River Tunnel
Rehabilitation, including unallocated contingency and exclusive of finance costs, is estimated at
approximately $3.032 billion in YOE dollars, and is a component of the $14.620 billion project capital
construction cost.
The major tunnel reconstruction activities are preliminarily set to commence by 2034. A long-term
escalation factor of 4% compounded annually has been included in the calculation to determine the YOE
cost of the HTP. The inflation rate forecast assumption is described in more detail in Section 2.4.1.1.1.
The overall construction duration is estimated at approximately four years including contingency.
The base cost estimate for North River Tunnel Rehabilitation was prepared in 2017 by the engineering
firm JCMS under its contract with Amtrak, and led by engineering consultants Jacobs Engineering Group.
The estimate has since been analyzed and revised by GTHP. The estimated costs will be presented in
their respective “Hard Cost” and “Soft Cost” values. The Soft Cost shall be a cumulative of the following
activities; Design Services, Project Management and Administrative costs, Construction Administration
and Management Services, Insurance, Permits, Fees and Railroad Force Account support by both Amtrak
and NJ TRANSIT forces. In 2022, the GDC retained Turner & Townsend to conduct a “Snapshot-in-Time”
cost estimate assessment for the HRT and NRT through an independent, but collaborative effort with

Amtrak, GTHP, Jacobs, and EYIA. See Section 2.2.2.14.2.8 for further information on this cost estimate
assessment initiative.
Amtrak’s Force Account personnel will be providing necessary construction services to the HTP. These
services will cover a range of activities that will need to be undertaken in order to facilitate the rehabilitation
of the North River Tunnel, including connection and commissioning of all related Electrification,
Communications, Signaling and other related railroad infrastructure systems.
Total Hudson Tunnel Project Capital Costs
The partners applied an additional 15.04% unallocated contingency across all project elements, as well
as contingency adjustments identified by FTA and the PMOC as part of their Risk and Contingency
Review.
Table 2-19 summarizes HTP capital costs by project element, excluding financing charges.
Table 2-19 Hudson Tunnel Project Capital Costs by Project Element

Project Element 2023 $M YOE $M
Total Hudson River Tunnel and Section 3 LIRR ESB 9,510 11,588
Hudson Yards Concrete Casing – Section 3 LIRR ESB 32 32
Unallocated Contingency (HYCC – Section 3 LIRR ESB) - -
Hudson River Tunnel (including ROW) 8,029 9,707
Unallocated Contingency (HRT) 1,449 1,849
Total North River Tunnel 1,773 3,032
North River Tunnel 1,473 2,493
Unallocated Contingency (NRT) 300 539
Hudson Tunnel Project 11,283 14,620
The HTP’s capital cost, expenditures by year, and schedule – per FTA’s Standard Cost Category
worksheets – are presented below (Table 2-20, Table 2-21, and Table 2-22).

Privileged & Confidential/Advisory, Consultative & Deliberative/Proprietary Commercial and Financial Information - Do Not Disclose Subject to FOIA b(4). GDC reserves all potential exemptions under GDC Public
Records Access Policy, NJ OPRA and NY FOIL
Table 2-20 Hudson Tunnel Project Capital Costs – FTA Main Worksheet

Privileged & Confidential/Advisory, Consultative & Deliberative/Proprietary Commercial and Financial Information - Do Not Disclose Subject to FOIA b(4). GDC reserves all potential exemptions under GDC Public
Records Access Policy, NJ OPRA and NY FOIL

Privileged & Confidential/Advisory, Consultative & Deliberative/Proprietary Commercial and Financial Information - Do Not Disclose Subject to FOIA b(4). GDC reserves all potential exemptions under GDC Public Records Access Policy, NJ OPRA and NY FOIL
Table 2-21 Hudson Tunnel Project Capital Costs – FTA Inflation Worksheet


Table 2-22 Hudson Tunnel Project Schedule by Calendar Year 80
80 This schedule reflects calendar year dates rather than fiscal year dates.

2.2.2.15 Financing Charges

As described in Section 2.2.2.8, three RRIF Loans will be entered into at financial close, coinciding with an
FFGA. RRIF financing charges include CRP, capitalized interest, servicing and monitoring fees, and interest
payments during construction and CIG period.
RRIF loans assumed interest rate is 5.25% calculated semi-annually. Any interest that is not paid current in
each semi-annual period (utilizing local partner contributions) is capitalized into the loan balance, forming part
of the loan balance on which interest costs are calculated in subsequent periods – ensuring that capitalized
interest and, thus, financing costs are not understated.
The plan also assumes interest rates of 7.00% on short term financing drawn and a 0.70% commitment fee on
the undrawn balance. The drawn rate reflects an approximately 150bps increase over the 1-year Treasury Rate
as of January 22, 2024. Table 2-23 provides a summary of the financing charges:
Table 2-23 Financing Charges (YOE $M)
Public
Financing Charges during CIG Period 81 Intercity Rail Total
Transportation
RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) Financing Costs
Servicing & Monitoring Fees - 1 1
Credit Risk Premium - 56 56
Capitalized Interest - 716 716
RRIF Loan B (NJ) Financing Costs
RRIF Loan C (NYS) Financing Costs
Short-term financing costs - 240 240
Total Financing Costs - 1,421 1,421
Intercity Rail costs are assumed to be covered by Amtrak and a portion of the Federal-State Partnership
grant assumed amount. Amtrak is anticipated to make direct contributions, with no associated financing.
2.2.2.16 Debt Service
The debt service for the RRIF Loans summarized in for
Table 2-24 PANYNJ, NJ, NYS are provided in Table 2-26, Table 2-27, and Table 2-28, respectively.
81Financing charges include capitalized interest, issuance fees, servicing and monitoring costs, credit risk premium and short-term financing costs. RRIF
loan A (PANYNJ) is only for New Tunnel. RRIF loan B (NJ) and RRIF loan C (NYS) are for both new tunnel and rehab.
Table 2-24 Debt Service Summary (YOE $M) 82
Total Debt Service YOE $M %

RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) Debt Service 5,961 62.7 %
RRIF Loan B (NJ) Debt Service 628 6.6 %
RRIF Loan C (NYS) Debt Service 2,914 30.7 %
Total Debt Service 9,503 100.0%
Ongoing Fees YOE $M %

RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) Servicing & Monitoring Fees 4 19.7 %
RRIF Loan B (NJ) Servicing & Monitoring Fees 8 40.2 %
RRIF Loan C (NYS) Servicing & Monitoring Fees 8 40.2 %
Total Debt Administration Fees 20 100.0%
Capital Sources and Uses of Funds

Figure 2-1 on the following page illustrates the project sources and uses of funds through FY 2070. Table
2-25 presents HTP sources and uses of funds between FY 2017 and FY 2038. The Financial Plan
assumes maximum annual CIG appropriations of $800 million in FY 2024 and prior, $700 million in FY
2025 and FY 2026, and $668.6 million in each year from FY 2027 through 2033, as illustrated in Table
2-2. Any unused grant appropriations in a given year will be made available for disbursement in future
years. The sources and uses also assume HTP project costs from FY 2017 will largely be funded by
Amtrak until the FFGA is signed and RRIF loans are committed.
Contributions are summarized in Table 2-26, Table 2-27, and Table 2-28 present debt service through FY
2073. Table 2-29 describes the cost and funding sources for each component of the Hudson Tunnel
Project, as defined for CIG purposes.
82 Refer to footnote for Figure 2-1

Privileged & Confidential/Advisory, Consultative & Deliberative/Proprietary Commercial and Financial Information - Do Not Disclose Subject to FOIA b(4). GDC reserves all potential exemptions under GDC Public Records
Access Policy, NJ OPRA and NY FOIL
Figure 2-1 Project Capital Sources and Uses of Funds Projected Cash Flows 83
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
(1,000)
(2,000)
(3,000)
(4,000)
FY 2021
FY 2022
FY 2023
FY 2024
FY 2025
FY 2026
FY 2027
FY 2028
FY 2029
FY 2030
FY 2031
FY 2032
FY 2033
FY 2034
FY 2035
FY 2036
FY 2037
FY 2038
FY 2039
FY 2040
FY 2041
FY 2042
FY 2043
FY 2044
FY 2045
FY 2046
FY 2047
FY 2048
FY 2049
FY 2050
FY 2051
FY 2052
FY 2053
FY 2054
FY 2055
FY 2056
FY 2057
FY 2058
FY 2059
FY 2060
FY 2061
FY 2062
FY 2063
FY 2064
FY 2065
FY 2066
FY 2067
FY 2068
FY 2069
FY 2070
FY 2071
FY 2072
FY 2073
FY 2074
Amtrak Contribution FTA Capital Investment Grant FRA Federal-State Partnership RAISE RRIF Loan A RRIF Loan B
RRIF Loan C PANYNJ Contribution NJ Contribution NYS Contribution FTA Capital Investment Grant Fund Balance Movement FRA Federal-State Partnership Grant Balance Movement
Project Capital Cost Short-term Financing Cost RRIF Loan A Financing Cost and Debt Service RRIF Loan B Financing Cost and Debt Service RRIF Loan C Financing Cost and Debt Service
83 RRIF Loan balances include: PANYNJ net proceeds of $1.870 billion and Loan A capitalized interest of $716 million; and NJ net proceeds of $215 million and Loan B capitalized interest of $65 million; and NYS net
proceeds of $999 million and Loan C capitalized interest of $304 million. Local contributions cover servicing and monitoring costs and credit risk premium. PANYNJ contribution includes $35 million in design contribution and
NJ contributions includes $19 million for pay-go contributions.
Table 2-25 Capital Investment Grant Eligibility Period Sources & Uses of Funds (YOE $M) 84
Sources of Funds Total FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039
Amtrak Contribution 1,016 - - 27 372 111 275 35 16 16 16 16 16 15 11 12 20 23 16 16 - -
FTA Capital Investment Grant appropriations 6,880 - - - - - 1,500 700 669 669 669 669 669 669 669 - - - - - - -
FRA Federal-State Partnership Grant appropriations 3,800 - - - - - 950 950 950 950 - - - - - - - - - - - -
RAISE grant 25 - - - - - - 19 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PANYNJ 2,678 - - 67 - - 76 287 421 383 261 278 275 161 154 142 173 - - - - -
NJ 308 - - 0.1 0.4 4.0 19.7 27.5 39.7 36.1 24.5 26.1 25.8 15.1 14.3 13.2 16.3 0.1 0.1 6.7 38.3 -
NYS 1,335 - - - - - 26.8 124.6 183.7 166.8 113.1 120.8 119.2 69.5 66.0 60.8 75.2 0.1 0.1 30.6 177.3 -
FTA Capital Investment Grant Balance Movement - - - - - - (1,290) (105) 154 399 141 (225) (405) (668) (669) - 108 386 915 805 454 -
FRA Federal-State Partnership Grant Balance Movement - - - - - - (918) (737) (457) (515) 426 482 474 417 306 194 329 - - - - -
Total Sources of Funds 16,041 - - 93 373 115 639 1,301 1,983 2,105 1,650 1,366 1,174 678 552 422 722 409 931 859 669 -
Uses of Funds
Project Capital Costs 14,620 - - 93 373 115 629 1,259 1,899 1,989 1,516 1,217 1,008 510 374 236 613 397 910 835 646 -
Short-term facility financing cost 240 - - - - - 4 15 24 29 28 22 17 9 7 5 11 12 21 22 14 -
RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ)
RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) issuance costs, servicing / monitoring fees 1 - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - - - -
RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) credit risk premium 56 - - - - - 3 8 11 10 6 6 5 2 1 1 3 - - - - -
RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) capitalized interets during drawdown period 716 - - - - - 1 10 28 47 65 78 93 103 111 118 61 - - - - -
RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) interest payment during drawdown - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RRIF Loan B (NJ)
RRIF Loan B (NJ) issuance costs, servicing / monitoring fees 2 - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
RRIF Loan B (NJ) credit risk premium 6 - - - - - 0.2 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 - - 0.2 1.1 -
RRIF Loan B (NJ) capitalized interets during drawdown period 65 - - - - - 0.1 0.7 2.4 4.2 5.8 7.0 8.5 9.4 10.2 10.8 5.6 - - 0.1 0.4 -
RRIF Loan B (NJ) interest payment during drawdown period - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RRIF Loan C (NYS)
RRIF Loan C (NYS) issuance costs, servicing / monitoring fees 2 - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
RRIF Loan C (NYS) credit risk premium 30 - - - - - 0.8 3.5 5.0 4.3 2.5 2.6 2.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.4 - - 0.9 5.1 -
RRIF Loan C (NYS) capitalized interets during drawdown period 304 - - - - - 0.3 3.3 11.3 19.7 27.1 32.7 39.4 43.8 47.2 50.4 26.1 - - 0.4 2.0 -
RRIF Loan C (NYS) interest payment during drawdown period - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Uses of Funds 16,041 - - 93 373 115 639 1,301 1,983 2,105 1,650 1,366 1,174 678 552 422 722 409 931 859 669 -
FTA Capital Investment Grant Fund Balance BEG - - - - - - 1,290 1,395 1,241 842 701 926 1,331 1,999 2,668 2,668 2,560 2,174 1,259 454 -
FTA Capital Investment Grant appropriations 6,880 - - - - - 1,500 700 669 669 669 669 669 669 669 - - - - - - -
FTA CIG uses for HTP 6,880 - - - - - 210 595 823 1,068 810 443 263 0 - - 108 386 915 805 454 -
FTA Capital Investment Grant Fund Balance END - - - - - 1,290 1,395 1,241 842 701 926 1,331 1,999 2,668 2,668 2,560 2,174 1,259 454 - -
FTA Capital Investment Grant Balance Movement - - - - - (1,290) (105) 154 399 141 (225) (405) (668) (669) - 108 386 915 805 454 -
FRA Federal-State Partnership Grant Fund Balance BEG - - - - - - 918 1,655 2,112 2,628 2,202 1,720 1,246 829 523 329 - - - - -
FRA Federal-State Partnership Grant appropriations 3,800 - - - - - 950 950 950 950 - - - - - - - - - - - -
FRA FSP uses for HTP - - - - - 32 213 493 435 426 482 474 417 306 194 329 - - - - -
FRA Federal-State Partnership Grant Fund Balance END - - - - - 918 1,655 2,112 2,628 2,202 1,720 1,246 829 523 329 - - - - - -
FRA Federal-State Partnership Grant Balance Movement - - - - - (918) (737) (457) (515) 426 482 474 417 306 194 329 - - - - -
84 Refer to footnote for Figure 2-1

Table 2-26 RRIF Loan A (PANYNJ) Debt Service Sources & Uses (YOE $M)
Table 2-27 RRIF Loan B (NJ) Debt Service Sources & Uses and Fund Balance (YOE $M)
Table 2-28 RRIF Loan C (NYS) Debt Service Sources & Uses and Fund Balance (YOE $M)

Table 2-29 Project Construction Cost + FTA Eligible Financing and Funding Sources (YOE $M) / Project Construction Cost and Funding Sources (YOE $M)
Project Construction Cost and Funding Sources Project Construction Cost + FTA Eligible Financing 85
(YOE $M) and Funding Sources (YOE $M)
Public Transportation Public Transportation

Intercity Rail Portion Total Intercity Rail Portion Total
Portion Portion
Project Cost (YOE – Construction Cost Only) Project Cost (YOE including financing as required by FTA)
New Tunnel element (including Right-of-Way) 1,353 8,356 9,708 1,353 9,258 10,611
New Tunnel element – Unallocated Contingency* 1,849 1,849 - 2,049 2,049
Subtotal – New Tunnel Element 1,353 10,204 11,557 1,353 11,307 12,659
HYCC – Section 3 LIRR ESB element 32 - 32 32 - 32
HYCC – Section 3 LIRR ESB element – Unallocated Contingency* - - - - - -
Subtotal – HYCC – Section 3 LIRR ESB Element 32 - 32 32 - 32
Rehabilitation of existing NRT element 81 2,412 2,493 81 2,672 2,753
Rehabilitation of existing NRT element – Unallocated Contingency* - 539 539 - 597 597
Subtotal – Rehabilitation of existing NRT element 81 2,951 3,032 81 3,269 3,350
Total Cost 1,465 13,155 14,620 1,465 14,576 16,041
Funding Sources Funding Sources
FTA Capital Investment Grant - 6,717 6,717 - 6,880 6,880
Amtrak Contribution 349 667 1,016 349 667 1,016
Federal-State Partnership Grant 736 2,987 3,723 736 3,064 3,800
RAISE - 25 25 - 25 25
PANYNJ 253 1,671 1,924 253 2,425 2,678
NJ 23 193 215 23 285 308
NYS 104 895 999 104 1,230 1,335
Total Funding Sources 1,465 13,155 14,620 1,465 14,576 16,041
*An unallocated contingency (25.86%) was applied across all estimated project costs (does not include actualized amounts).
85 Financing charges include capitalized interest, servicing and monitoring costs, credit risk premium, and short-term financing costs. Financing costs were allocated between project costs and unallocated contingency proportionately as GDC’s financial model does not calculate financing costs for contingency separately.
Privileged & Confidential/Advisory, Consultative & Deliberative/Proprietary Commercial and Financial Information - Do Not Disclose Subject to FOIA b(4). GDC
reserves all potential exemptions under GDC Public Records Access Policy, NJ OPRA and NY FOIL
2.3 Operating Plan

This section describes the operating and maintenance (O&M) costs and revenues associated with the
operation of the HTP from FY 2024 through FY 2043. O&M for the HTP will adhere to the HTP’s Project
Development Agreement’s “Operations and Maintenance” section, which describes a framework for lifecycle
maintenance and O&M being a responsibility of Amtrak. O&M services will be paid for in accordance with
existing PRIIA arrangements, such as NEC Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation policy under Section
212 of PRIIA 2008. The HTP is intended to have a useful life of at least 100 years. Specifications for the
construction and operations of the project will reflect this assumption. Civil works lifecycle maintenance refers
to the various influences on the lifetime of the tunnel and associated on-going maintenance requirements to
ensure that the civil works are maintained in accordance with good industry practice.
In addition to accomplishing critical safety improvements, the HTP will provide a substantial financial benefit
and reduce operating delays. Upon completion in 2038, the HTP is expected to yield savings of $8.6 million
in operating and maintenance costs in YOE dollars during its first full year of operation compared to the status
quo – creating new capacity to address other critical needs of the Project Partners.
While Chapter 3 is provided as the system-wide financial plan for NJ TRANSIT, NJ TRANSIT will only bear
a portion of the costs associated with operations and maintenance activities at the new and refurbished
tunnels – just as it shares responsibility with Amtrak for operating and maintenance costs at the existing North
River Tunnel. This section includes a description of the existing and expected approach to cost allocation
and risk sharing as a component of the overall operating plan.
Infrastructure Operating Plan
2.3.1.1 Operating Sources of Funds
Infrastructure operations and maintenance costs on the NEC are governed by a standard formula that was
developed by the NEC Commission, as required by Section 212 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Under the NEC Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation Policy dated
September 17, 2016, all service providers are committed to covering the costs of their respective uses of
NEC infrastructure–based on their respective uses. The charge allocated to each user is calculated by using
a formula for the operating costs and maintenance of way. The resulting charge is used to maintain the NEC
in a state of good repair and to ensure that the essential rail services they provide continue.
To allocate costs associated with operating and maintenance activities, the policy divides the NEC into
geographic segments and measures the proportion of train movements over that segment. For the segment
in which the existing and reconstructed North River Tunnel is located, NJ TRANSIT accounts for
approximately 77.5% of train movements and Amtrak 22.5%. Thus, NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak are responsible
for these shares of the operating and maintenance costs for that segment. Table 2-30 shows Amtrak’s NEC
net operating revenues for FY 2012-2023. NJ TRANSIT’s share of funds for the HTP are incorporated in the
system-wide financial plan.
Table 2-30 Amtrak Northeast Corridor Spine Net Operating Revenues ($ millions)
FY FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17* FY18* FY19* FY20* FY21* FY22* FY23*
Northeast
288.6 364.1 478.2 439.8 478.7 435.9 494.6 515.1 (32.3) (413.9) (79.7) 158.1
Corridor Spine
*Reflects methodology for Northeast Corridor accounting under FAST Act.
Note: Amtrak/Federal Fiscal Year is October 1-September 30

2.3.1.2 Operating Uses of Funds

The O&M costs for the HTP are composed of two project elements:
• The new two tube Hudson River Tunnel
• Rehabilitated North River Tunnel
These two elements and their respective O&M cost estimation process is described below.
Hudson River Tunnel
The O&M cost estimation methodology used in this section is based on a preliminary model using available
information from other peer studies with comparable scope and size. These data sources include:
• NJ TRANSIT System-wide Rail Infrastructure Maintenance Costs
• NEC Future Project
• California High Speed Rail
The preliminary O&M methodology discussed in this section for the new Hudson River Tunnel element of the
HTP focuses on annual infrastructure maintenance costs, including: Track/Structures, Signals,
Communications, AC Catenary / Substations, and MEPC/tunnel ventilation systems. While a full O&M
methodology would consider all categories of O&M costs (including Train Operations and Dispatching,
Traction Power, Equipment Maintenance, Yard and Station Maintenance, and other functions), the primary
interest with regard to the tunnel alternative being studied is infrastructure maintenance costs. It is anticipated
that with the implementation of the selected alternative, there will be no or negligible differences in Train
Operations and Dispatching, Traction Power, Equipment Maintenance, and other Administrative functions;
further, there are no Stations or Yards included in the HTP.
NJ TRANSIT System-wide Rail Infrastructure Maintenance Costs
The Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) Project O&M cost estimate included a total annual infrastructure
maintenance cost of $60 million (in 2007 dollars); allocating these costs over the 563 track miles and 268 AC
track miles in the NJ TRANSIT system yields an annual unit cost of $126,000 (in 2007 dollars) per track mile.
To escalate this unit cost to current year 2023 dollars, the cost escalation rate of 3.5% per year was applied
between 2007-2022, and 8.0% in 2023. This results in a unit cost of $228,000 per track mile in 2023 dollars
for infrastructure maintenance costs annually.
Finally, the unit cost was converted to a per-route-mile unit cost to follow the format of the other data sets. It
was estimated that there are approximately 1.73 track miles for every route mile on NJ TRANSIT’s commuter
rail network. Applying this factor provides a final infrastructure maintenance unit cost of $395,000 per route
mile annually in 2023 dollars ($632,000 per route mile annually in 2035 dollars applying a 4.0% escalation
rate).
NEC Future
The NEC Future O&M Cost Estimate presented more limited information on O&M costs in the summary
report. NEC Future reports a total infrastructure maintenance cost for the No-Action Alternative of $188.2M
(in 2015 dollars). Allocating these costs over the 517 route miles of the NEC network (457 miles NEC, 60
miles Springfield Line), a unit cost of $364,000 (in 2015 dollars) per route mile was derived.

between 2009-2022, and 8.0% in 2023. This results in a unit cost of $500,000 per route mile annually in 2023
dollars ($801,000 per route mile annually in 2035 dollars applying a 4.0% escalation rate) for infrastructure
maintenance costs.
California High Speed Rail
The California high Speed Rail O&M cost estimate only provides a simple high-level unit cost for infrastructure
maintenance based on global peer projects: $200,000 per route mile (in 2009 dollars).
between 2009-2022, and 8.0% in 2023. This results in a unit cost of $338,000 per route mile annually in 2023
dollars ($541,000 per route mile annually in 2035 dollars applying a 4.0% escalation rate) for infrastructure
maintenance costs.
Preliminary O&M Cost Estimate
Averaging the three-unit costs derived above, a unit cost of $411,000 per route mile (2023 dollars) was used
in developing a preliminary O&M cost estimate for the selected alternative. The selected alternative has a
total route length of 4.34 miles, resulting in an estimated annual infrastructure O&M cost of $1,780,000 in
2023 dollars ($2,850,000 in 2035 dollars) for the Hudson River Tunnel element of the HTP.
It is important to note that this estimate only includes infrastructure maintenance costs and does not include
costs associated with operations, dispatching, traction power, equipment maintenance and other non-
infrastructure related costs. While it is anticipated that these other O&M costs will be approximately equal or
less when service moves from the current alignment to the planned new alternative, the costs should be
estimated separately to understand the full cost of operating and maintaining rail services through the HTP.
In the long run, when rail service expands to utilize both the current and proposed tunnels, O&M costs would
be expected to increase further. The O&M funding approach will evolve to address these issues in a manner
consistent with the requirements of the users, RRIF lenders, and rating agencies. The purpose of the HTP is
to have both tunnels available for use after project completion.
Table 2-31 presents the Hudson River Tunnel projected O&M costs in YOE dollars. The infrastructure O&M
costs are anticipated to be incurred beginning in FY 2035, following the completion of the tunnel.
Table 2-31 Hudson River Tunnel Projected O&M Costs (YOE$)

Year O&M Costs
FY 2035 $2,850,000
FY 2036 $2,964,000
FY 2037 $3,082,560
FY 2038 $3,205,862
FY 2039 $3,334,097
FY 2040 $3,467,461
FY 2041 $3,606,159
FY 2042 $3,750,406
FY 2043 $3,900,422

North River Tunnel

Over the period FY 2012 – FY 2023, Amtrak has spent an annual average of $6.7 million to operate, maintain
and repair the existing North River Tunnel, excluding power costs. This value is inflated by the occurrence of
Superstorm Sandy in 2012 which caused a spike in repair and maintenance costs for Amtrak in FY 2013.
The “non-catastrophic” annual average maintenance cost from FY 2012 to FY 2023 is $5.2 million.
Amtrak performs regular inspection and maintenance that keeps the tubes safe and operational to the fullest
extent possible without requiring long-term closure of the tubes. Amtrak has completed a structural
inspection of all 6 subaqueous tubes that serve PSNY and has compiled a catalog of designs for isolated
repair details that are implemented on an as-needed basis to keep the tunnels safe and operational until the
tubes can be closed for comprehensive rehabilitation. Amtrak has personnel, equipment and materials ready
to address emergencies as they arise, which has allowed Amtrak to successfully bring the tubes back into
service quickly after incidents. This enhanced maintenance will continue to be diligently performed by Amtrak
as owner and operator of the NEC while the HTP is constructed.
The reconstructed North River Tunnel is expected to be significantly less expensive to maintain due to various
factors including:
• The proposed new Low Vibration Track (LVT) Direct Fixation Track System will remove the existing
ballasted track system which will reduce stray current (a significant source of present rail
deterioration), facilitate drainage and minimize sediment (eliminating a current source of pump
deterioration as well as the electrolytic path for stray current as well as Insulated Joint failures), and
remove the “perishable” ballast from the maintenance schedule, which slowly pulverizes and requires
periodic replacement.
• A significant portion of the main Signals system components will be removed from the tunnel, thereby
facilitating equipment replacement, minimizing tunnel outages for repairs, and leaving relatively plug-
and-play modular equipment within the tunnels for rapid recovery from in-tunnel events.
• The more modern benchwall configuration will reduce emergency manpower and equipment costs
by reducing downtime and increasing response capability for in-tunnel equipment failures and hence
providing currently unavailable access to the underside of equipment. It is also core to this effort
that the historic cabling systems, many of which have only been spliced and repaired as needed over
their lifetime, will be completely replaced, essentially restarting the maintenance timetable for these
operations-critical conduits. Maintenance outages which are currently required on an ever-
decreasing interval, will be significantly reduced.
Table 2-32 below summarizes Amtrak’s historic costs to maintain North River Tunnel.

Table 2-32 Amtrak Historic Costs of Maintaining the North River Tunnel (both tubes included)*
Year* O&M Costs
FY 2012 $9,664,000
FY 2013 $19,790,240**
FY 2014 $4,659,510
FY 2015 $6,113,521
FY 2016 $6,981,985
FY 2017 $5,162,148
FY 2018 $4,451,835
FY 2019 $2,990,715
FY 2020 $3,731,686
FY 2021 $5,465,112
FY 2022 $5,345,548
FY 2023 $6,096,992
* Amtrak Fiscal Year is October 1 – September 30.
** Superstorm Sandy maintenance cost spike. FY 2013 O&M cost excluding Superstorm Sandy-related costs is $2,196,396.
Looking forward, the anticipated O&M costs associated with the reconstructed tunnel primarily include the
ongoing cost of annual inspections of the tunnel as well as inspection and maintenance of the pumping,
ventilation and electric traction systems. If the existing North River Tunnel were to be maintained in its current
condition, O&M costs would not only continue at a higher rate but likely accelerate as the limitations of spot
repairs fail to keep up with the increasing occurrence of system failures. In lieu of arbitrarily projecting the
likely spikes of spending to accommodate a higher frequency of system failures that would cause large and
costly outages, the future maintenance costs were forecast to continue by matching existing average spend
levels escalated at 4.0% per year for inflation but with a slowly-advancing (0.25% year-over-year) “hyper-
escalation” to account for the increasing incidence, scope and cost of repairs as the tunnel ages and
degrades further. 86
To estimate the O&M costs for the “Status Quo” scenario, assuming that the tunnel will be maintained in its
current condition, the “non- catastrophic” annual average maintenance cost of $5.2 million in 2023 dollars, is
inflated at a rate of 4.0% per year plus a 0.25% year-over-year rate.
In the “Reconstruct” scenario, the maintenance costs are halved during the construction period (FY 2035-FY
2038) while one line is taken out of service for reconstruction. When commissioned, the new tunnel is
assumed to be maintained at 20% of its previous level from FY 2039 and onward, a conservative estimate
based on prior projects.
In Table 2-33 below, these costs are estimated to rise 4.0% per year with inflation. Costs are assumed
following commissioning of each tube. The escalation rate for the “Status Quo” scenario is set at 4.0% per
year plus a 0.25% year-over-year rate. The escalation rate for the “Reconstruct” scenario is set at 4.0% per
year plus a 0.25% year-over-year rate until FY 2034 when the rehabilitation of tube 1 starts. Starting in FY
86 For planning and forecasting purposes, per Amtrak Finance Inflation Guidance dated June 10, 2022, the inflation guidance for FY23-FY27 for both general
inflation and materials is 8% (FY2023) and thereafter adjusts to 4%. Applying Amtrak’s escalation assumption would increase the overall estimate of maintenance
costs and the amount of saved maintenance costs. This would increase the benefits of HTP generated by saved maintenance costs.
2035, the escalation rate is assumed to be only 4.0% per year, considering that increasing incidence, scope
and cost of repairs due to the tunnel age and degradation are not issues.
Table 2-33 North River Tunnel Projected O&M Costs – “Reconstruct” / “Status Quo” Scenarios
(YOE$)
O&M Costs
Year
Status Quo Reconstruct Increase / (Decrease)
*FY 2035 $9,814,441 $4,780,805 ($5,033,636)
FY 2036 $10,501,452 $4,972,037 ($5,529,415)
**FY 2037 $11,262,807 $5,170,919 ($6,091,889)
***FY 2038 $12,107,518 $5,377,756 ($6,729,762)
FY 2039 $13,045,851 $1,118,573 ($11,927,277)
FY 2040 $14,089,519 $1,163,316 ($12,926,203)
FY 2041 $15,251,904 $1,209,849 ($14,042,055)
FY 2042 $16,548,316 $1,258,243 ($15,290,073)
FY 2043 $17,996,293 $1,308,572 ($16,687,721)
* North River Tunnel tube outage #1 begins (FY 2035)
** North River Tunnel tube outage #2 begins (FY 2037)
*** Annual O&M is now “reconstructed tunnel” status and escalates at 4.0% (FY 2038)
Note: Costs in Amtrak Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30); Positive values indicate costs and negative values indicate
savings.
Hudson Tunnel Project Infrastructure O&M Summary

Table 2-34 on the next page forecasts costs to maintain all projects elements of the HTP. The total O&M
costs of the HTP over the FY 2024 to FY 2043 period is estimated to be $134.0 million in YOE dollars.

Table 2-34 Hudson Tunnel Project Projected O&M Costs (YOE$)

Year North River Tunnel Hudson River Tunnel Total O&M Costs
FY 2024 $5,447,819 - $5,447,819
FY 2025 $5,679,351 - $5,679,351
FY 2026 $5,934,922 - $5,934,922
FY 2027 $6,216,831 - $6,216,831
FY 2028 $6,527,672 - $6,527,672
FY 2029 $6,870,375 - $6,870,375
FY 2030 $7,248,246 - $7,248,246
FY 2031 $7,665,020 - $7,665,020
FY 2032 $8,124,921 - $8,124,921
FY 2033 $8,632,729 - $8,632,729
FY 2034 $9,193,856 - $9,193,856
FY 2035 $4,780,805 $2,850,000 $7,630,805
FY 2036 $4,972,037 $2,964,000 $7,936,037
FY 2037 $5,170,919 $3,082,560 $8,253,479
FY 2038 $5,377,756 $3,205,862 $8,583,618
FY 2039 $1,118,573 $3,334,097 $4,452,670
FY 2040 $1,163,316 $3,467,461 $4,630,777
FY 2041 $1,209,849 $3,606,159 $4,816,008
FY 2042 $1,258,243 $3,750,406 $5,008,648
FY 2043 $1,308,572 $3,900,422 $5,208,994
Total $103,901,811 $30,160,967 $134,062,778
The Cost of Inaction

The difference in annual O&M costs between maintaining the existing tunnel (status quo) and maintaining
the HTP is estimated to save approximately $64.1 million in the FY 2035 to FY 2043 period. Further, it is
projected that after the completion of the HTP, the reconstructed tunnel will save approximately $10.6 million
per year, saving $211.3 million over a 20-year forecast period (FY 2039 to FY 2059).

Table 2-35 Hudson Tunnel Project Projected O&M Costs – Build vs. Status Quo Scenarios
Incremental O&M Costs /
Year Status Quo Hudson Tunnel Project
(Savings)
FY 2024 $5,447,819 $5,447,819

FY 2025 $5,679,351 $5,679,351
FY 2026 $5,934,922 $5,934,922
FY 2027 $6,216,831 $6,216,831
FY 2028 $6,527,672 $6,527,672
FY 2029 $6,870,375 $6,870,375
FY 2030 $7,248,246 $7,248,246
FY 2031 $7,665,020 $7,665,020
FY 2032 $8,124,921 $8,124,921 -
FY 2033 $8,632,729 $8,632,729 -
FY 2034 $9,193,856 $9,193,856 -
FY 2035 $9,814,441 $7,630,805 $(2,183,636)
FY 2036 $10,501,452 $7,936,037 $(2,565,415)
FY 2037 $11,262,807 $8,253,479 $(3,009,329)
FY 2038 $12,107,518 $8,583,618 $(3,523,900)
FY 2039 $13,045,851 $4,452,670 $(8,593,181)
FY 2040 $14,089,519 $4,630,777 $(9,458,742)
FY 2041 $15,251,904 $4,816,008 $(10,435,896)
FY 2042 $16,548,316 $5,008,648 $(11,539,668)
FY 2043 $17,996,293 $5,208,994 $(12,787,299)
Total $198,159,842 $134,062,778 $(64,097,065)
Note: Positive values indicate costs and negative values indicate savings.
Rail Service Operating Plan

NJ TRANSIT system wide operating plan in Chapter 3, Section 3.3 includes the project rail service O&M as
a part of the plan. Both the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak project related train capacity and ridership projections
used to develop the operating plan used as the basis of the operating period in this Financial Plan are
discussed below.
2.3.2.1 NJ TRANSIT Train Capacity and Ridership
In 2015, there were 44.5 million annual linked trips on NJ TRANSIT trains that use the existing North River
Tunnel. These trips occurred on 349 NJ TRANSIT revenue trains traveling to and from PSNY each day.
Growth rates for HTP project-level and system-wide boardings were derived from travel demand forecasting
models using approved MPO demographics. The forecasting models utilize the regionally approved forecasts

of population, households, employment and labor force generated by the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC), NJTPA, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) and
South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO). These forecasts are applied to survey-derived
trip tables to generate future year base trip tables. The regional models then assign the future year trips to
various travel modes based on total impedance, a factor which combines weighted values of cost, in vehicle
time, out of vehicle time and other considerations.
To generate the specific growth rates used for the HTP analysis, scenarios were run in the regional models
at five year intervals, generating forecasts for 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035 for the peak period and all
day. The relevant growth rates between 2015 and the desired future year (either at PSNY or system-wide by
mode) were then calculated and annualized, producing an average annual growth rate as shown in Table
2-36. These growth rates were applied to 2015 ridership from counts and ticket sale data to create a future
year forecast for ridership. Regional CPI 1970-2045, Long-US Economic Forecast 2005-2037, and NYNJ
Regional Forecast 2005-2045 provided in supporting document Section D of Appendix C.
Table 2-36 2015-2035 PSNY Ridership Forecast by Time Period

Year Annual Total
(both directions)
2015 51,695,840
2035 68,047,964
2015-2035 Annual % Growth 1.38%
It is useful to note that actual NJ TRANSIT commuter rail use into PSNY has grown at a much faster rate
than suggested by the MPO forecasts. For the period from 2005 until 2019, the annual average growth rate
for rail trips using PSNY was +2.5% per year. The 2014-15 period saw especially strong growth, as ridership
increased by +6.6% per year. The MPO forecasts for population and employment for the 2020 to 2025 period
indicate an average annual growth rate of +0.5%. The reasons for the differences between the factors derived
from the MPO forecasts and what has actually occurred include:
• The trans-Hudson bus system comprised of the Route 495 Exclusive Bus Lane, Lincoln Tunnel and
PANYNJ Bus Terminal has been functioning at capacity. Where it is feasible and convenient, new
trans-Hudson travelers seek out the rail services, especially for trips to Midtown Manhattan locations.
• The MPOs NJ TRANSIT works with have been in the process of updating their demographic
forecasts.
• NJ TRANSIT rail services have benefitted from Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) projects near
many of its stations, especially those stations with rail service to Midtown Manhattan.
However, NJ TRANSIT’s rail service to and from Manhattan has been constrained in the AM and PM peak
demand periods, for approximately two hours in the AM and two hours in the PM, by the capacity limits of
the platforms and tracks at PSNY. This capacity constraint has limited the ability of NJ TRANSIT’s trains to
handle an unconstrained forecast 87 of future passenger demand in the out years unless a means is found to
permit more trains to be operated. Accounting for these capacity constraints, the NJ TRANSIT ridership into
PSNY is capped at 20% over 2015 levels.
87An unconstrained forecast assumes that the capacity can be provided to accommodate the projected future demand. But the reality is that the number of trains
able to sit at a platform to load and unload and the platform passenger handling capacity are constrained at PSNY, especially at platforms 1 and 2, tracks 1-4,
which are only used by NJ TRANSIT trains.
2.3.2.2 Amtrak Train Capacity and Ridership Growth

In 2015, 7.2 million riders travelled between PSNY and Newark Penn Station, the NEC segment including
Portal Bridge and NRT.
Although FTA’s primary focus is on commuter rail, it is useful to note the level of use by riders on the intercity
trains operated by Amtrak. Within the peak hour, approximately 7:30 to 8:30 AM, in the primary flow direction
(eastbound), Amtrak operates three trains: one Acela train, one Regional and one Keystone. Amtrak is now
taking action to replace the current Acela equipment with new trainsets that will provide added seating.
Between the use of these new trainsets and other actions to add equipment to other trains, Amtrak is
positioned to increase its seating capacity by more than 10%. It is expected that with this ability to add seating,
Amtrak will be able to satisfy future demand.
In the Financial Plan, Amtrak’s historic 10-year CAGR (2005-2015) was used to forecast ridership until 2020.
Additionally, separate growth rates for Acela and other Amtrak riders were provided by Amtrak to account for
the increase in Acela ridership due to the new trainsets.
Post-COVID-19 forecasts assume that Amtrak will regain the ridership lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic
by Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 and then continue to grow on an annual basis at the rates experienced before the
pandemic. From FY2019 through FY2040, forecasts estimate ridership growth of 46 percent on weekdays
among existing Amtrak services that operate along the segment of the NEC between Newark and New
York. In addition, the 2021 Amtrak ConnectsUS national corridor vision includes new routes from New York
to Reading, Allentown/Bethlehem and Scranton that would also operate along this segment.
2.4 Risks and Uncertainties
This section identifies and discusses the primary risks and uncertainties surrounding the key assumptions,
and mitigations related thereto.
Discussion of Major Sources of Risk and Uncertainty
As with any large infrastructure project, the HTP includes several sources of risks and uncertainties, which,
without mitigation, could potentially affect the capital and operating financial plans.
The estimated cost, schedule, and budget has undergone extensive evaluations by GDC, GTHP, Turner &
Townsend, Amtrak, and EYIA. Further, engineering and construction issues surrounding the HTP have been
reviewed by GDC, GTHP, Amtrak, EYIA, NJ TRANSIT, and Hill International.
In October 2022, GDC submitted its request to enter engineering pursuant to the CIG process. At that time,
GDC conducted a review and refresh of the cost estimate and the risk registers. A team comprised of Turner
& Townsend, GTHP, Ernst and Young Infrastructure Advisors (EYIA), and technical experts from Amtrak and
NJ TRANSIT collaborated to perform a detailed risk assessment. The assessment included an independent
review of the Hudson Tunnel Project’s Risk Register, an updating of project risks and mitigations, a review
of the project schedule and schedule contingency, and a review of the cost estimate. In addition to a
comprehensive analysis of realistic productivity rates, site constraints, logistics, known conditions, and most
likely methods of construction, a Monte Carlo analysis, using an 80% probability factor (P80) was performed.
In identifying the risks associated with building the HTP, multiple potential “risk” areas were highlighted,
including but not limited to the following;
• The scope of the HTP and the physical geographic environment within which the HTP is to be built;
• The availability and adequacy of labor, equipment, and material;

• Differences in actual subsurface conditions compared to conditions estimated from available

geotechnical data;
• Work restrictions; procurement approvals; Project Partner decision-making protocols; impacts with
other on-going projects;
• Potential for conflicts at interfaces between multiple active construction contracts;
• Adverse weather; productivity; contract phasing; permitting; timeliness of funding; and
• Timing of property acquisition and property access agreements, including utilities identification and
relocation.
GTHP is providing the HTP with a draft risk assessment to establish a level of confidence in the HTP’s
schedule and cost estimate and identify the most significant risks for subsequent treatment. The risk
assessment follows ISO 31000: 2018 “Risk Management-Principles and Guidelines” and is augmented as
appropriate by the “Practice Standard for Project Risk Management” (2009) published by the Project
Management Institute (PMI). In addition, the GTHP is familiar with performing risk assessments for numerous
FTA Grantees and with the FTA requirements for these assessments. As such, GTHP is conducting the draft
risk assessment consistent with the intent of FTA Oversight Procedure 40 “Risk and Contingency Review”.
The methodology presented in ISO 31000:2018 and OP 40 is in close alignment regarding risk identification,
cost and schedule development, risk analysis, and risk mitigation. Further, in 2022, the GDC retained Turner
& Townsend to participate in the draft risk assessment activities, as discussed in Section 2.2.2.14.2.8. GTHP
and Turner & Townsend, in collaboration with the Project Partners, reviewed and updated the risk registers
for all elements of the HTP. Risk registers were reviewed and updated as appropriate in preparation for this
HTP Financial Plan.
The estimated cost, schedule, and budget has also undergone an extensive evaluation by the FTA and its
PMOC as part of the Request to Enter FTA CIG Engineering Phase. FTA has undertaken two risk
assessments on the HTP costs:
• The FTA performed a Risk Assessment on the HTP, which began October 2022 and completed
March 2023. In January 2023, FTA held multiple risk assessment workshops with GDC, its project
partners, and FTA's Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC). PMOCs are responsible for
monitoring the management, schedule, budget, project management, and technical capacity of large
capital projects, including the HTP. The PMOC technical evaluation team reviewed project
documents as of March 2023 for compliance with the FTA requirements for the Entry to Engineering
milestone of project development. The objective of the Risk and Contingency Review is to evaluate
the risks associated with the HTP, quantify the range of impacts from the major project risks, and
establish risk-adjusted projections of the HTP cost and completion date. The PMOC performed the
review in accordance with FTA PMOC Oversight Procedure (OP) 40 – Risk and Contingency Review,
dated March 2022, and, as a result of the Risk and Contingency Review, additional budget
contingency was identified by the FTA and PMOC and was incorporated in the previous plans.
• The FTA performed a Risk Assessment Refresh on the HTP, which began October 2023 and
completed January 2023. In December 2023, FTA held multiple risk assessment workshops with
GDC, its project partners, and FTA’s PMOC. The PMOC technical evaluation team reviewed project
documents as of December 2023 for compliance with the FTA requirements for the FFGA phase of
project development. The objective of this Risk and Contingency Review was to refresh the
assessment of the risks associated with the HTP that was completed in March 2023 for the Entry to
Engineering phase. The PMOC performed the review in accordance with FTA PMOC OP 40 – Risk
and Contingency Review, dated March 2022, and, as a result of the Risk and Contingency Review,
additional budget contingency was identified by the FTA and PMOC and was incorporated in this
Financial Plan.
Capital Plan risks are associated with the capital cost and revenue components of the Financial Plan. From
a capital cost perspective, they include inflationary risks, the project construction schedule, and the project
scope.
The following sections describe the aforementioned risks, outline risk mitigation measures that can be
implemented should one of the aforementioned events occur, and provide sensitivity analyses that identify
the impact of several risk scenarios. The allocation of these risks will conform to FTA project management
guidance, as well as being allocated in a manner consistent with obtaining investment grade ratings on any
federal loans. Risk allocation will also reflect the GDC’s goal to procure and deliver the HTP in a manner that
achieves the best value for money for the GDC, including FTA.
Capital Plan
2.4.1.1 Capital Cost Risks
Inflation/Escalation
Inflation is a key risk for mega-projects, as it typically represents a large share of the capital cost when project
development is stretched over several years. Cost inflation is beyond the control of the HTP since it is driven
by macroeconomic factors at global and regional levels, as well as local factors such as competition for local
labor and materials. Given the significance of inflation on the HTP construction cost, the GDC retained EYIA
to perform a tailored cost escalation analysis on a periodic basis since 2021. EYIA developed a model that
calculates the expected cost escalation for the HTP by simulating streams of possible future prices for labor,
equipment, and materials. EYIA performed 100,000 simulations to generate a distribution of potential
escalation outcomes. The statistical analysis using historical average escalation rates for each input provides
a probability distribution of the escalated cost. To develop the model, EYIA partitioned the capital construction
base costs provided by GTHP into principal cost categories and then analyzed for sources of escalation.
Each category was paired with an index or a market data stream that closely tracks the change in prices for
the respective category. These variables indicate annualized growth rate for: NY construction cost Index –
proxy for miscellaneous construction costs, Lumber index – proxy for price of lumber, Metals index – proxy
for price of metals, Concrete index – proxy for price of concrete, Materials index – proxy for price of
miscellaneous construction materials, Labor index – proxy for price of labor, and Equipment cost index –
proxy for price of construction equipment. As of October 2023, the Lumber index was retired and costs
previously associated with this index were grouped into the general Materials index for model simplicity given
the relatively small portion of costs attributable to lumber.
For prior HTP financial plan submissions, the current fiscal year rebasing rate and forecasted long-term
escalation rate for the capital cost estimate has been based on historical Building Cost Index (BCI) and
Construction Cost Index (CCI) data as published by ENR magazine for the New York area.
Note that BCI represents relatively a more accurate reflection of escalation in the construction industry. The
basic difference between BCI and CCI is in the number and type of labor hours that make up the index. CCI
uses 200 hours of common labor that represents highway construction and BCI uses 68 hours of skilled
labor. For materials components, both indexes use materials that include cement, structural steel and lumber.
The BCI is more suited for the construction of HTP than the CCI as the majority of the project cost is attributed
to heavy construction with high skilled labor component and building material including cement, structural
steel and lumber.
The April 2023 financial plan assumed the following escalation assumptions for HTP capital cost estimates:
• Rebasing of current fiscal year dollars (2022$) at the 8.9% annual rate.
• The application of a higher near-term escalation rate that is a linear glide path from 8% at Q3 2022
down to a 4% growth rate beginning in Q3 2024, rather than an immediate drop to the long-term rate
from the point of rebasing.
• The application of a long-term annual growth rate of 4.0%.
BCI has increased nominally in the past year. Through January 2024, the index reflects an annualized growth
rate of 6.0% (May 2020-January 2023), compared to 5.6% from May 2020 through June 2022 (used for the
October 2022, April 2023, and October 2023 Plans).
These rates are materially higher compared to the long-term trends. As shown in Figure 2-2, over the last 18
years, the BCI grew at a CAGR of 3.426%. This is principally because the longer 15+year period averages
out the peaks and valleys of the construction economy.
We noted that average YoY NY BCI growth from October 2022 through January 2024 has been lower than
the growth assumed under the glide path. Given the relative decrease in NY BCI since October 2023 and the
fact that escalation rates assumed in the October 2023 financial plan submission remain higher than long
term trends, GDC believes that its glide path and long-term escalation assumptions remain reasonable and
conservative.
Figure 2-2 Building Cost Index History and Proposed Glide Path

Source: EYIA Cost Escalation Analysis, January 2024
Right-of-way costs are highly correlated with property values. Elements of the commercial real estate market
may continue to be relatively strong in New York City-area markets. This, along with site-specific factors that
can influence the cost of acquisitions, creates a considerable deal of uncertainty regarding right-of-way costs.
Although it is not anticipated to be an issue, the availability of qualified labor is another potential source of
capital cost inflation. If there is insufficient qualified labor, capital cost escalation can occur through unit cost
increases (due to insufficient competition or the need to bring qualified labor into the region) and/or schedule
delays. Force Account labor must be available as well, both from Amtrak and LIRR, when required to maintain
schedule. Amtrak and LIRR forces are in great demand due to other capital rail projects.
Mitigation: All of the above aspects of cost escalation risk can be mitigated procuring the HTP as quickly as
possible and adhering to the HTP construction schedule. Inflation is an important motivation for commencing
early work activities on the Hudson River Tunnel. Mitigation for right-of-way cost uncertainties includes
provision of significant allocated and unallocated contingencies, as well as acquiring the required right-of-
way prior to the notice-to-proceed date. As a parallel work stream, the GDC is advancing an on-going
comprehensive value for money analysis, including risk, contract packaging, and delivery method analysis.
The analysis helps identify potential efficiencies from bundling expected contract scopes of work into larger,
procurable packages for efficient execution and delivery and utilizing Design-Build procurement where
appropriate to encourage innovative solutions. In addition, as the HTP’s risk allocation analysis proceeds,
the GDC anticipates allocating inflation risk to third party contractors – for example, through fixed price
Design-Build contracts – where it is determined to be good value for money to do so. Further, the GDC
intends to continue to monitor the impact of inflation on the HTP construction cost by utilizing EYIA’s tailored
cost escalation analysis model. Additionally, GDC has accepted the FTA and PMOC’s recommendations
resulting from the FTA and PMOC Risk and Contingency Review of the HTP, including the FTA and PMOC
adjustments to the project cost to add additional contingency with respect to escalation.
Note: While GDC remains confident in its escalation assumptions, the revised HTP capital cost estimate
nevertheless incorporates FTA’s recommendation to include a contingency of $234 million to the stripped
cost estimate on account of inflation.

Schedule
Scheduling delays can lead to cost increases that may impact the financial plan for a project, both in additional
cost escalation and increased professional services costs. Schedule changes might result from scope
changes, local permitting and construction-related approval processes, right-of-way acquisition, the
availability of qualified labor, commercial close delays, and construction delays. As a project becomes more
complex, tasks become larger and they often have more dependencies. Task durations can be dependent
on many factors, some of which are beyond a project manager’s control. Additionally, GDC has accepted the
FTA and PMOC’s recommendations resulting from the FTA and PMOC Risk and Contingency Reviews of
the HTP, including the FTA and PMOC adjustments to the project cost to add additional contingency.
Following are specific project elements related schedule considerations:
Hudson River Tunnel
The GDC is committed to reducing the impact of risks of the following activities on the Hudson River
Tunnel’s preliminary schedule and/or cost projections: 1) Federal Funding Authorizations; 2) Procurement
Strategy Delays; 3) GDC Resourcing and Project Partner Decision Making; 4) Adequate Architectural and
Engineering Support during construction; 5) Logistic Constraints and/or Limitations; and 6) Schedule
Planning.
The GDC is also committed to reducing the impact of the risks of the following activities on the Hudson
River Tunnel’s preliminary schedule and/or cost projections: 1) Major Market Upsets / Fuel; 2) Upsets
from the procurement of the Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), if applicable; 3) Upsets from
Property Acquisitions; 4) Agency Concurrence; and 5) Acts of God.
The GDC is committed to identifying and reducing Construction Contract uncertainties and the impact of
risks on the following: 1) Unforeseen Site Conditions; 2) Soil Stability Issues; 3) Delays due to materials
supplies issues; 4) Lack of qualified and available bidders for specialized tunnel work; 5) Community and
political objections to the disruption of public spaces; 6) Environmental Delays / Cost; and 7) Force
Account Support.
Mitigation: The GDC will mitigate these schedule risks by continuing to refine the comprehensive risk
allocation analysis and using that analysis to inform its procurement methodology to ensure a rapid
procurement that facilitates expeditious construction and value for money. As the HTP’s risk allocation
analysis proceeds, the GDC anticipates allocating a substantial number of the abovementioned risks to
third party contractors – for example, through fixed price, date-certain Design-Build contracts – where it is
determined to be good value for money to do so. In addition, the HTP has provided data to, and received
feedback from, the private sector early in the process, to reduce unknown risks. For example, the HTP,
acting on feedback received from the private sector during an extensive RFI process, launched an
innovative Pre-Procurement Virtual Data Room to allow industry to, among other things, better understand
the geotechnical characteristics of the Hudson River and New Jersey Palisades, to reduce unknown risks
and associated schedule and cost risks, and to request additional geotechnical investigations.
Incorporating input from industry, GTHP developed a supplemental geotechnical investigation program
covering the entire project alignment, to obtain additional geotechnical data with the objective of reducing
construction risk. The program was configured to focus on elements of the HTP that have been identified
as having the highest potential construction risk. Most of the supplemental geotechnical investigation
phase 2 program, which includes land-based geotechnical borings (vertical, horizontal and inclined),
water-based (Hudson River) geotechnical borings, seismic Cone Penetration Tests, and a Surface-based

geophysical survey in New Jersey, were completed in 2020 and 2021. Additionally, GDC has accepted
the FTA and PMOC’s recommendations resulting from the FTA and PMOC Risk and Contingency Review
of the HTP, including the FTA and PMOC Emerging Opportunities for potential early work to mitigate
potential top cost and schedule risks, such as the splitting of Package 1 into four sub-packages.
North River Tunnel
The GDC is committed to reducing the impact of risks on the North River Tunnel’s preliminary schedule
and/or cost projections: 1) Federal Funding Authorizations; 2) Precursor Project Completion; 3)
Procurement Strategy Delays; 4) Adequate Architectural and Engineering Support during construction; 5)
Logistic Constraints and/or Limitations, and; 6) Schedule Planning.
The GDC is committed to reducing the impacts of risks on the Project’s preliminary schedule and/or cost
projections: 1) Major Market Upsets / Fuel; 2) Upsets from the procurement of the Owner Controlled
Insurance Program (OCIP); 3) Agency Concurrence, and; 4) Acts of God.
The GDC is committed to identifying and reducing Construction Contract uncertainties and impact of risks
on the following: 1) Unforeseen Site Conditions; 2) Soil Stability Issues; 3) Delays due to Steel Supplier /
Fabricator Issues; 4) Environmental Delays / Cost, and; 5) Force Account Support.
Mitigation: The rehabilitation of the existing North River Tunnel is preliminarily viewed by the contractor
market, based on the Corporation’s RFI feedback, as having a significantly different risk profile to the new
construction components of the HTP, with the major risks being in the general categories of the very long
period until construction can commence (2034, after the completion of the Hudson River Tunnel), and the
existing condition risk. The Project Partners expect to mitigate these risks by further study of the condition
of the existing North River Tunnel, as well as through the rehabilitation of the East River Tunnel, prior to
this element’s procurement, and ensuring procurement of a contractor for undertaking this work closer to
when the work is anticipated to be performed, per procurement best practices. Additionally, GDC has
accepted the FTA and PMOC’s recommendations resulting from the FTA and PMOC Risk and
Contingency Reviews of the HTP, including additional budget contingency identified by the FTA and
PMOC.
Project Scope
Risks pertaining to the specific scope of each HTP element include the following:
Hudson River Tunnel: The risk of project scope change is moderate because the new Hudson Tunnel
is still in the early stage of preliminary design. The GDC has identified the need for a clarity of roles and
timely and clear decision-making as key requirements for project success.
Cost increases could occur because unexpected subsurface conditions and geotechnical issues, the need
for unexpected utility relocations, unanticipated groundwater and other environmental impacts and
mitigation measures, means and method of construction, and advancement of design that can change the
estimated costs. The current cost estimate includes substantial allocated and unallocated contingencies
to cover these and other potential changes. In addition, extensive geotechnical investigation programs
with associated field and laboratory testing have been performed to obtain additional detail on
geotechnical conditions over the entire alignment to reduce the risk of encountering differing ground
conditions during underground construction. This work is being supplemented by an additional
geotechnical investigation program developed with input from industry to focus on areas of the HTP with
relatively higher levels of construction risk. Most of the supplemental geotechnical investigation phase 2
program, which includes land-based geotechnical borings (vertical, horizontal and inclined), water-based
(Hudson River) geotechnical borings, seismic Cone Penetration Tests, and a Surface-based geophysical
survey in New Jersey, were completed in 2020 and 2021.
Rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel: The risk of project scope change is moderate because the
North River Tunnel Rehabilitation is 30% designed and this level of design is informed by the East River
Tunnel Rehabilitation’s 90% design materials. Given the similarities between the sister tunnels, North
River Tunnel and East River Tunnel that were designed and built at the same time using near identical
methods and materials, the design knowledge gained from the East River Tunnel will be valuable and can
assist the design and construction of the North River Tunnel rehabilitation.
The identification of risks will continue as these project segments proceed through the various stages of
project delivery. During engineering and design, the current risk management plan will be expanded to ensure
risks are reviewed and managed, and procedures are developed to reduce or eliminate their impacts. Risks
which remain will be allocated in part or in whole through the contractual arrangements and bidding process,
conscious always that risks should be assigned and owned by the party best able to manage that risk.
Interest Rates
As in any capital project requiring the issuance of debt, the HTP is subject to uncertainty associated with
fluctuations in interest rates. Variations in interest rates could affect the interest earned on cash balances
and the interest paid on any outstanding debt, as well as the size of the debt requirements to finance the
HTP. Fluctuations in interest rates are influenced by external market risks and will affect the cost of all
financing (including federal loans) through financial close.
RRIF loans are envisioned to be included in the Financial Plan for HTP. Among its many benefits, such as
lower interest rates and flexible repayment terms, RRIF loans will also allow the project sponsor to lock in an
interest rate even without a need to draw on the loan for several years.
Mitigation: The HTP is exposed to interest rate risk up until financial close. The best way of managing this
risk is to procure the HTP as quickly as possible, adhering to the different construction schedules of the three
project elements. This is another important motivation for commencing construction on the HRT as soon as
possible. For modeling purposes, the Financial Plan takes a conservative approach to interest rate
assumptions, with the assumed rates of 5.25%, almost 100 basis points higher than the January 22, 2023,
30 year Treasury rate of 4.29%.
2.4.1.2 Capital Revenue Risks
Federal Funds
The HTP Financial Plan assumes certain levels of federal funds through FTA and FRA grant programs and
Amtrak.
From the FTA, the HTP Financial Plan assumes federal funding through the CIG program. The five-year IIJA
provides authorization and direct appropriations through September 30, 2022. However, it does not cover
the entire analysis period of the Financial Plan. Subsequent to the IIJA, a continuing resolution or a new
federal authorizing legislation could go into effect, resulting in changes in existing grant programs that may,
depending on the program, create new funding opportunities and eliminate others, change the amount of
funds available, or impose new rules on project eligibility.
New Starts funding is also subject to federal appropriation uncertainties. The amount of the CIG contribution
will be identified in the FFGA. The FFGA will also identify the amount to be made available each year, subject
to annual appropriations legislation. Although history has shown that Congress ultimately honors and
appropriates the full amount spelled out in an FFGA, Congress could delay funding for the HTP by reducing
or stretching out the annual appropriations. Any delay might necessitate reprogramming of non-CIG funds or
additional borrowing.
The GDC has worked with USDOT to determine the optimal mix of funding from USDOT, provided funds are
appropriated to these programs by Congress and USDOT awards the funding to the HTP. Funding sources
from FRA may include any combination of Amtrak annual grants, and the Federal-State Partnership for
Intercity Passenger Rail Grants Program (49 USC 24911) (formerly known as the Federal-State Partnership
for State of Good Repair Program under Section 11302 of the FAST Act).
Further, Amtrak funding for the project may include FRA grants previously mentioned, provided funds are
appropriated to these programs by Congress and FRA awards the funding to Amtrak and/or Amtrak revenue
from passenger fares or other net operating revenues.
Mitigation: Certainty of funding has been identified by the GDC’s RFI market sounding respondents as one
of the major risks facing bidders for opportunities in the HTP. Given that it is in the interests of all stakeholders
to progress the procurement of the HTP as quickly as possible, the Project Partners have provided
commitments supporting 100.0% of the non-CIG share of public transportation eligible project costs for the
entire HTP (see Table 2-16 for a summary of capital contributions). The GDC anticipates working closely with
its federal partners to achieve the same certainty with respect to the CIG-share within the required timeframe
of the procurement. Additionally, GDC has accepted the FTA and PMOC’s recommendations resulting from
the FTA and PMOC Risk and Contingency Reviews of the HTP, including the FTA and PMOC Emergency
Opportunities for potential early work to mitigate potential top cost and schedule risks and additional budget
contingency identified by the FTA and PMOC.
RRIF Loans
The GDC submitted a draft Letter of Interest to Build America Bureau in respect of RRIF loans for the HTP
in July 2022 (and submitted an update in January and April 2023). The Build America Bureau advanced the
HTP RRIF loans from Project Development Phase to the Creditworthiness Review phase in May 2023.
The percentage share of eligible costs attributable to RRIF (26%) is far below both the statutory maximum of
100% and recent precedent. In 2019, Dallas Area Rapid Transit closed a $908 million RRIF loan equal to
82.5% of year-of-expenditure capital costs for the Cotton Belt Corridor Regional Rail Project. In 2018, the
MBTA closed $382 million in federal loans ($220 million RRIF and $162 million TIFIA), equal to 73.9% of
estimated capital costs.
PANYNJ Contribution to the Gateway Development Commission
The Port Authority is providing contributions to the GDC to be solely applied to the debt service payments
and/or other financing costs related to a RRIF for the HTP.
The Port Authority has included $2.7 billion its 2017 – 2026 Capital Plan to support the Gateway Program
through funding of the GDC’s debt service payments on low-cost borrowing for the Gateway Program, once
all other financing had been obtained for the project and subject to facility certification. The 2017-2026 Capital
Plan states that “[t]he Port Authority’s commitment is capped at the agreed principal amount and the Port
Authority will not be the primary obligor, nor will it be liable for any construction completion, cost overrun or
project funding risk” Prior to entering into a funding agreement with the GDC, the following required steps
must be completed by the Port Authority:

• A facility certification – provided by the Port Authority Board of Commissioners – is required before
such agreement can be executed in support of any federal loan applied for by the GDC. The Port
Authority must first certify its opinion that such issuance will not, during a specific period, materially
impair the sound credit standing of the Port Authority or the investment status of Consolidated Bonds
or the ability of the Port Authority to fulfil its commitments. Therefore, facility certification for the Port
Authority’s contribution to the HTP (i.e., funding not covered by the CIG and the other stakeholders)
cannot take place until the agreements governing the funding, financing, and governance of HTP are
in final form.
• Port Authority’s General Counsel shall render a legal opinion on whether payments to the GDC for
the HTP are authorized by the Port Compact of April 30, 1921, and the statutes governing Port
Authority activities. Such opinion will be issued concurrent with the Board resolution providing facility
certification for the Port Authority’s contribution to the HTP.
State of New Jersey Contribution to the Gateway Development Commission
The State of New Jersey is facilitating contributions to the GDC to support a GDC RRIF loan.
The commitment will be sourced from the General Reserve Fund of the NJTA in amounts sufficient to enable
the GDC to meet its financing obligations, to the extent of amounts available in the General Reserve Fund,
and will be backstopped by the State (as described in Section 2.2.2.9). NJTA will provide those funds to the
State Treasurer pursuant to the NJTA’s statutory authority (N.J.S.A. 27:23-5.8(b)) for the purpose of the HTP
through the final maturity of the RRIF loan. The State will then transfer the NJTA funds to NJ TRANSIT via
annual appropriations. If the NJTA funds are less than necessary to cover the costs of NJ’s share of the HTP,
the Treasurer of the State of New Jersey has agreed to request that the Governor include an appropriation
in the Governor’s Budget Message to the Legislature of the amount necessary to pay the costs of NJ’s share
of the HTP. To the extent NJ TRANSIT receives the NJTA funds from the State, NJ TRANSIT in turn, using
the NJTA funds received, will make payments to the GDC to support the HTP, including the GDC’s RRIF
loan.
State of New York Contribution to the Gateway Development Commission
The State of New York is providing direct contributions to the GDC to support a GDC RRIF loan.
The Project has been included in the State of New York’s FY 2025 Executive Capital Program and Financing
Plan (“NYS Executive Capital Program”). It includes updated estimates of the payments that the State
expects to make to the GDC to support the RRIF payments referencing the HTP financial plan submitted to
FTA on October 31, 2023.
Operating and Maintenance Plan
2.4.2.1 Operating and Maintenance Cost Risks
Cost Escalation
In general, O&M costs are subject to many macroeconomic factors, including fuel prices, commodity prices,
and labor contracts. These factors are all subject to the macroeconomic environment and are largely out of
the hands of Amtrak and thus are all potential risks that may have impacts on operating costs, either negative
or positive. Considering the reduction in operating and maintenance costs compared to current levels, this
risk is considered to be paid for in accordance with existing PRIIA arrangements, such as NEC Commuter
and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation policy under Section 212 of PRIIA 2008.

Operating and Maintenance Revenue Risks

Under the NEC Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation Policy, all service providers are committed to
covering the costs of their respective uses of NEC infrastructure–including a formula charge for the operating
costs and maintenance of way–to maintain the NEC in a state of good repair and to ensure that the essential
rail services they provide continue.
Mitigation Strategies
In the event that any of the cost or schedule risks described above were to materialize, the GDC has risk
mitigation strategies available.
The GDC is undertaking an on-going comprehensive risk allocation analysis and using that on-going analysis
to inform its procurement methodology to ensure a rapid procurement that facilitates expeditious construction
and value for money. It is anticipated that a substantial number of the abovementioned risks will be allocated
to third party contractors – for example, through fixed price, date certain Design-Build contracts – where it is
determined to be good value for money to do so – that support an investment grade credit rating of the GDC’s
debt obligations.
Prior to procurement, the GDC’s partners and advisors, which each have extensive experience with major
construction programs, have prepared conservative estimates of construction costs. In addition to significant
allocated contingencies on each element of the HTP, the project cost estimate includes a $1.284 billion
unallocated contingency, or approximately 10% of the entire project cost including ROW and professional
services.
Additionally, private sector involvement is being evaluated as method of managing any cost increase. On
August 10, 2017, the HTP issued a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit private sector interest to deliver
the proposed HTP. Response to the RFI was robust and in October 2017, the HTP invited respondents to
one-on-one meetings to further discuss their responses to refine the Gateway Program’s financial strategy,
procurement methodology, and approach to project delivery.
On July 10, 2018, the HTP issued further questions based on the 2017 feedback, as a continuation of the
RFI initiative. Response from the private sector continues to be robust. As part of this continued market
engagement, the HTP hosted a successful Industry Information Session that attracted approximately 200
individuals from over 100 firms. Additional one-on-one meetings with RFI respondents to discuss their 2018
responses were held in late 2019 through early 2019. This feedback is helping to inform the HTP’s risk
allocation analysis, along with contract packaging and procurement methodology. The RFI has been provided
as supporting document B-16.
In February 2019, acting on feedback received from the private sector during the RFI process, the HTP
launched the HTP Pre-Procurement Virtual Data Room to provide industry an opportunity to review project
data and comment on the proposed plan for the Supplemental Phase 2 Geotechnical Boring Program and
suggest additional geotechnical investigations. The HTP received clear feedback from the private sector that
providing them with project data, including geotechnical data, prior to the start of the formal procurement
process would be helpful. Private industry stated that providing project data early would allow all relevant
parties to, among other things, better understand the geotechnical characteristics of the Hudson River and
New Jersey Palisades, reduce unknowns, and reduce risk. The HTP received significant feedback from the
private sector on the proposed plan for the Supplemental Phase 2 Geotechnical Boring Program and
suggested additional geotechnical investigations. The Project Partners have incorporated this feedback into
the Supplemental Phase 2 Geotechnical Boring Program and are advancing these investigations. To-date,
as part of the supplemental geotechnical investigation phase 2 program, land-based geotechnical borings
(vertical, horizontal and inclined), water-based (Hudson River) geotechnical borings, seismic Cone
Penetration Tests, a water-based Bathymetric Study of the Hudson River, and a Surface-based geophysical
survey in New Jersey have been conducted.
The GDC updated the market research through a Market Sounding event and one-on-one meetings with
industry representatives in February 2023.
In addition, financing described in this report is anticipated to be rated investment grade by at least two rating
agencies, meaning that the risks described in this section will need to be allocated in a manner consistent
with achieving such ratings. As the HTP proceeds, the GDC will continue to review and revise the Financial
Plan to take into account cost and schedule changes, federal funding opportunities, and financial market
conditions. As required prior to entry into the FTA Engineering Phase, the GDC engaged in the risk
assessment process with FTA and its PMOC during 2022 and early 2023. Following the FTA and PMOC
Oversight Procedure 40 - Risk and Contingency Review, GDC has accepted the FTA and PMOC’s
recommendations resulting from the FTA and PMOC Risk and Contingency Review of the HTP, including the
FTA and PMOC Emerging Opportunities for potential early work to mitigate potential top cost and schedule
risks and additional budget contingency identified by the FTA and PMOC.
Sensitivity Analysis
An FTA CIG Program grant submission is required to demonstrate that the project has access to funds to
cover cost increases or funding shortfalls. The HTP meets that requirement.
As part of determining the best value for money approach to implementing the HTP, a risk analysis, contract
packaging comparison, and procurement methodology comparison have been undertaken by the GDC which
is expected to make the likelihood of a cost increase or funding shortfall less likely. The preliminary contract
packaging plan (as described in Section 2.2.1) was developed to:
• Increase upfront cost certainty,
• Reduce contract prices and lifecycle costs,
• Reduce contingencies and retained risks (including interface risk between contractors),
• Optimize schedule and construction sequencing,
• Deliver high technical performance, and
• Attract market competition.
2.4.4.1 Coverage for Additional Funding Needs
The States of New York, New Jersey, and Amtrak have signed an agreement to each be responsible for one-
third of funding needs over and above the requirements budgeted under this Financial Plan. Both the HTP
PDA and the PMP contain methodologies for handling additional funding requirements based on type of cost
impact events. Detailed within pages 20 - 26 of the PDA are processes for handing shared cost impacts and
non-shared cost impacts. Please refer to Supporting Document L-1 for a detailed description of the types of
cost impacts, the processes for administering cost events, approvals required, and responsibilities of GDC
and its project partners.

The GDC contemplates the FFGA entered into with FTA will include a commitment the same or similar to
that contained in section 4 of FTA’s model FFGA, providing for the following commitment from the GDC to
FTA:
“Section 4. Obligation to Complete the Project
The Government has no obligation to provide any financial assistance for the Project beyond the
Maximum Federal New Starts Financial Contribution. If the total Federal funding provided under
Section 8 of this Agreement, "Limitations of Federal Funding Commitment," is insufficient to
undertake revenue operation of the Project and the subsequent activities necessary to Complete the
Project, the Grantee agrees to Complete the Project and accepts sole responsibility for the payment
of any additional costs (overruns). The Grantee promises to secure and provide such additional
resources as are necessary to pay these additional costs (overruns) and expeditiously Complete the
Project without further financial assistance from the Federal capital new starts program. The Grantee
further agrees to notify the Government when the total project cost is expected to exceed the funds
available and identify the source of funds to cover any shortfall.”
GDC understands FTA guidelines require the applicant have access to funds via additional debt capacity,
cash reserves, or other committed funds to meet additional funding requirements equal to at least 10% of the
estimated project cost. 88 This will demonstrate to FTA that the GDC has the resources to support its
commitment to FTA under section 4 of the FFGA.
The GDC, Amtrak, the State of New York, and the State of New Jersey each confirm they are committed to
ensure that the GDC has access to the funds necessary to meet FTA’s requirement, which currently equates
to $1.462 billion 89. Shared equally, Amtrak, the State of New York, and the State of New Jersey would each
commit to $487 million to cover additional funding needs.
• The States of New York and New Jersey are committed to and will employ an additional RRIF loan
or tranche to meet this requirement. The BAB has agreed to providing such a facility, terms of which
are likely to be similar to the other RRIF loans being negotiated currently. The RRIF loans for meeting
such additional funding needs will close together with all other RRIF loans for currently budgeted
costs.
• Amtrak would fund its share of additional funding requirements through a commitment of available
federal and non-federal resources. The Amtrak letter demonstrating this commitment is included as
attachment G-21. In the event GDC is projecting either a cost overrun or funding shortfall
necessitating funding from Amtrak, Amtrak will fund its contribution from its annual appropriations
(Amtrak has received $19.2 billion in annual grants for FY22-FY26), its operating revenues ($2.988
billion for the year ended September 30, 2023), or its undrawn credit facilities (current undrawn
balance of $300 million) and, if needed, will also take the necessary steps to increase its available
undrawn credit facilities including seeking both FRA and Amtrak Board approval. Please see
Amtrak’s budget process described below.
Amtrak Budget Process
Amtrak will use any eligible fund source to pay for cost overruns, if/when they are determined. Should
Amtrak use federal funds to cover cost overruns, Amtrak will work with the FRA on obtaining the
88 Final Interim Policy Guidance – FTA CIG Program, June 2016,
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FAST_Updated_Interim_Policy_Guidance_June%20_2016.pdf (Page 38 of 105).
89 $1.462 billion represents an additional funding needs scenario of 10% above the current capex estimate.

appropriate approvals. Should Amtrak provide credit facilities to temporarily fund shortfalls Amtrak
will work with the FRA on obtaining the appropriate approvals. Amtrak will follow its management
authorization and approval process for contracts, commitments and expenditures. To obtain approval
for costs above the approved budget, Amtrak will follow its governance process, which triggers
various levels of approval depending on the amount of overage. Audit and Finance committee
approval for overruns or change orders is needed for amounts between $5 million and $10
million. Board approval is needed for amounts over $10 million. Entering into new credit facilities or
amending existing ones, which Amtrak does periodically, requires Board approval and FRA
approval. Amtrak has board meetings throughout the year in which requests could be made for cost
overruns or approvals of new or amended credit facilities.
To account for any potential time lag between the need for funds for additional funding needs and receipt of
the funds, GDC will utilize a short-term revolving credit facility from commercial banks. Any funds drawn on
such a credit facility will be repaid with funds received from the partners. The procurement process for credit
facilities is further described in 2.2.3.2.
2.4.4.2 Sensitivity Results
This section presents an analysis of how a 10% increase in project funding requirements might be addressed.
The project costs already include unallocated contingency of 25.86% of the cost of construction, right-of-
way/real estate acquisition, and professional services (SCC categories 10-80). The increased funding
requirements start in FY 2034. This scenario leads to a $1.587 billion increase in the total project capital cost
estimate (Table 2-37). For this sensitivity analysis scenario, local borrowing is assumed to cover the cost
increase for the HTP and results in additional financing charges of $125 million related to RRIF cost overrun
loans during the CIG period.
As discussed in the previous section, cost overruns will be borne by NJ, NY or Amtrak. The PDA discusses
two types of cost overruns—a Shared Cost Impact Event or Non-Shared Cost Impact Event. A Shared Cost
Impact Event will be borne one-third each by NY, NJ and Amtrak while a Non-Shared Cost Impact Event is
borne fully by the partner causing such an event.
The sensitivity analysis in this section does not seek to identify whether the additional funding requirements
are due to cost overruns or other reasons. It only seeks to show one potential funding/financing approach to
pay for additional funding requirements—whatever the cause maybe.

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL/ADVISORY, CONSULTATIVE & DELIBERATIVE/PROPRIETARY COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Table 2-37 Capital Investment Grant Eligibility Period Sources & Uses of Funds for sensitivity case (YOE $M) 90
90An FTA CIG Program grant submission is required to demonstrate that the project has access to funds to cover cost increases or funding shortfalls. The HTP meets that requirement. This section presents an analysis of
how a 10% increase in project capital costs might be addressed. For this sensitivity analysis scenario, RRIF loan borrowing and partner cash contribution is assumed to cover cost increase for the HTP.
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL/ADVISORY, CONSULTATIVE & DELIBERATIVE/PROPRIETARY COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION

3 NJ TRANSIT SYSTEM-WIDE FINANCIAL PLAN

This chapter documents the system-wide capital and operating financial capacity of NJ TRANSIT, which will
operate commuter rail public transportation services across the rehabilitated North River Tunnel, and the
Hudson River Tunnel.
3.1 Introduction
The NJ TRANSIT system-wide financial plan encompass the following key assumptions:
• Capital sources and uses for the period FY 2010 – FY 2023 reflect an increase of 6.3% and 2.7%
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) respectively, as discussed in Section 3.2. The NJ TRANSIT
FY 2024 Capital Program documented in Section D, supporting documents E-31 and E-33, shows a
13.6% increase compared to the FY 2023 amount. The consistent investments in the rail
infrastructure improvements and the system-wide improvements budget, reflect the state's
commitment to meet the system's needs. The forecast capital sources are assumed to reduce, and
uses are assumed to increase when compared with FY 2023 levels. The capital sources and uses
for the system-wide plan reflects a relatively flat forecast in the long-term.
• Operating uses of funds are estimated to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 3.2% FY
2024 – FY 2043, which is slightly lower than the historical FY 2010 – FY 2023 compound annual
growth rate of 3.4% reflecting a conservative assumption, as discussed in Section 3.3.1 and Section
3.3.3. This forecast reflects a more recent focus on identifying cost efficiencies and maximizing fare
and non-fare revenue alternatives.
• Due to near-term ridership recovery and planned fare increases, operating fare revenue forecast
reflects an increase in passenger revenue of 5.2% between FY 2024 and FY 2043, as documented
in Section 3.3.3.1
• Section 3.3.1.2 provides a historical breakdown of state and other federal reimbursements and state
capital maintenance and federal preventive maintenance with explanation of each source. The
funding sources in this section have been broken down by state and federal sources.
• Section 3.3.3.1 describes the methodology for forecasting state and other federal reimbursements
and operating assistance to NJ TRANSIT, substantiating the increases in the forecasted level of
funding compared to historical values.
• Section 3.3.3.1 provides a forecast of operating sources of funds for state and state capital
maintenance and federal preventive maintenance with explanation of each source. The funding
sources in this section have been broken down by state and federal sources.
• Section 3.3.3.1 reflects illustrative NJ TRANSIT fare increases. Consideration of any fare increases
will be based on operating needs, will be subject to a public hearing process, and must be approved
by the NJ TRANSIT Board of Directors. These increases may not take effect as presented in this
illustration. In Section 3.4.1, NJ TRANSIT has included an explanation of the fiscal and ridership
uncertainties currently being faced due to COVID-19, and the associated financial planning
assumptions to mitigate and protect against those uncertainties.
• A significant portion of NJ TRANSIT’s non-federal and non-local capital funding is obtained through
NJTTFA. The revenues available from this source are for NJ TRANSIT projects and the repayment
of its debt obligations. Section 3.4.3 describes the financial stability of NJTTFA.

• NJ TRANSIT performed an analysis comparing NJ TRANSIT’s current asset to current liability ratio
with entities that have approximately the same range in assets and liabilities, demonstrating that its
finances are stable relative to comparable transit agencies. This analysis does not include current
assets, such as the FTA or NJTTFA funds that will fund projected future liabilities, as discussed in
Section 3.4.4.
3.2 Capital Plan
This section discusses NJ TRANSIT’s historic and forecast capital sources and uses of funds. Capital plans
for FY 2010 through FY 2024 for NJ TRANSIT can be found supporting documents E-1 to E-15, E-25, E-
26, E-28 to E-33.
Historic Capital Plan Sources of Funds
NJ TRANSIT’s agency-wide historical capital sources of funds from FY 2010-FY 2023 are summarized in

Table 3-1Error! Reference source not found.. System-wide capital sources can be categorized as Federal
FTA Funding and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds, Federal Resiliency Funding (Sandy
Funds), NJTTF and State Resiliency funds, and other sources.
The purpose of the agency’s Capital Program is to provide NJ TRANSIT with the authority to secure capital
funding in support of the various individual projects and programs authorized by the NJ TRANSIT Board of
Directors throughout the year. The majority of the agency’s budget is derived from the NJTTF, which is the
common term used to refer to the State of New Jersey’s Transportation Capital Program. NJTTF is funded
in part by taxes imposed on gasoline, blended fuel that contains gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas and
aviation fuel. NJTTF is administered by the NJTTFA, an independent agency of New Jersey state government
whose stated mission is to finance the cost of “planning, acquisition, engineering, construction,
reconstruction, repair, and rehabilitation of the state's transportation system.”
At the federal level, NJ TRANSIT receives funding from the FTA pursuant to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
(BIL) which was enacted in November 2021. The BIL supports transit funding through fiscal year 2026 for
projects or programs that improve mobility, enhance access for disadvantaged communities, streamline
capital project construction and acquisition, and increase the safety of public transportation systems across
the country. The BIL’s predictable formula funding program enables transit agencies to better manage long-
term assets and address the backlog of SOGR needs. Additionally, the BIL continues funding for competitive
grant programs for buses and bus facilities, rail systems, and improved access and mobility.
Another significant source of federal funding is flexed funds from the FHWA through the NJDOT. The balance
of NJ TRANSIT’s capital funding is comprised of other sources such as the Casino Reinvestment
Development Authority and the NJTA.
Total capital sources of funds increased at a compound annual growth rate of 6.3% between FY 2010 and
FY 2023. (The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is computed between FY 2010 and FY 2023 specifically
because additional unprecedented Superstorm Sandy Resiliency funds were received in FY 2016 and
FY2017). Federal funding increased at a compound annual growth rate of 6.5% from FY 2010 to FY 2023
and state funding increased at a compound annual growth rate of 0.7% in the same period. On average
federal and state funds account for approximately 48% and 47% of capital sources of funds from FY 2010 to
FY 2023 respectively. It is important to note that FY2023 reflects one-time payment of $518.5 million of a
federal program associated with Section 5309-Fixed Guideway and $349 million of SOGR expenses for
infrastructure and facility assets. Other sources of capital funding increased at a compound annual growth
rate of 23.5% between FY 2010 and FY 2023 due to $814 million of debt defeasance associated with the 8
projects including Newark Penn Station, Brick Church Station, Bloomfield Station, Roselle Park Station,
Walter Reed Transportation Center, Clifton Maintenance-of-Way Facility, Hoboken Ferry Terminal, and New
Brunswick Station. On average other sources account for approximately 5.0% of capital sources of funds
from FY 2010 to FY 2023.

Table 3-1 Historic Capital Sources of Funds: FY 2010 – 2023 (YOE $M)
Capital Sources of FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY23
Funds Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Total Federal Funds $637 $700 $497 $530 $692 $695 $1,564 $1,070 $670 $594 $606 $631 $615 $1,438
FTA Funding $425 $449 $396 $396 $464 $467 $473 $512 $532 $518 $528 $548 $539 $1,347
Sect 5307 Formula ** ** ** ** $284 $285 $284 $298 $296 $302 $308 $304 $310 $415
Funds
Sect 5309 Fixed ** ** ** ** - - - - $14 - - - - $519
Guideway
Sect 5310 Elderly & ** ** ** ** $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $8 $8 $8
Disabled
Sect 5311 Rural ** ** ** ** $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $9
Formula
Sect 5337 SOGR ** ** ** ** $155 $157 $163 $186 $196 $191 $192 $212 $196 $349
Sect 5399 Bus Facilities ** ** ** ** $14 $14 $15 $16 $15 $14 $16 $20 $21 $48
FHWA Flex and CMAQ $151 $251 $101 $134 $228 $228 $220 $166 $138 $76 $76 $76 $76 $76
Federal Resiliency $- $- $- $- $- $- $871 $393 $- $- $2 $6 $- $15
Federal Earmark $61 $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $0
Annual Growth Rate* 0.0% 9.9% -29.0% 6.5% 30.7% 0.4% -0.3% -2.2% -1.1% -11.4% 1.6% 3.4% -1.5% 131.4%
CAGR (FY10-FY23) 6.5%
Total State Funds $692 $600 $622 $590 $496 $471 $504 $583 $676 $810 $785 $760 $760 $760
NJTTF $692 $600 $622 $590 $496 $471 $462 $554 $676 $810 $785 $760 $760 $760
NJTTF Resiliency $- $- $- $- $- $- $42 $29 $- $- $- $- $- $-
Annual Growth Rate* 0.0% -13.3% 3.7% -5.2% -15.9% -5.0% -1.8% 19.9% 22.0% 19.8% -3.1% -3.2% 0.0% 0.0%
CAGR (FY10-FY23) 0.7%
Other Sources $56 $50 $45 $33 $38 $38 $38 $25 $45 $61 $34 $50 $50 $872
Annual Growth Rate 0.0% -10.7% -10.0% -26.7% 14.2% 0.0% 0.0% -33.7% 80.0% 34.5% -43.8% 47.7% -1.4% 1,662.6%
CAGR (FY10-FY23) 23.5%
Total Capital Sources of $1,385 $1,350 $1,164 $1,152 $1,225 $1,203 $2,106 $1,678 $1,391 $1,465 $1,425 $1,441 $1,425 $3,070
Funds (including Sandy
Resiliency Funds)
Total Capital Sources of $1,385 $1,350 $1,164 $1,152 $1,225 $1,203 $1,193 $1,256 $1,391 $1,465 $1,423 $1,434 $1,425 $3,055
Funds (excluding Sandy
Resiliency Funds)
Annual Growth Rate* 0.0% -2.5% -13.8% -1.0% 6.3% -1.8% -0.9% 5.4% 10.7% 5.3% -2.9% 0.8% -0.7% 114.5%
CAGR (FY10-FY23) 6.3%
*Note: Annual Growth Rate excludes Sandy Resiliency Funds
** FTA funding categories cannot be provided because this level of detail is not supported by NJ Transit database system for years prior to 2014

Historic Capital Plan Uses of Funds

NJ TRANSIT’s Capital Program is evolving from a program reactive to deadlines and repair needs affecting
the travel experience of agency customers to a more metric-based program that prioritizes projects based on
lifecycle costs and criticality. System-wide capital uses are grouped into two major categories: capital
preservation and capital expansion. Total capital uses of funds increased by a compound annual growth rate
of 2.7% between FY 2010 and FY 2023. Table 3-2 summarizes NJ TRANSIT’s historical capital uses of
funds.
3.2.2.1 Capital Preservation
Capital preservation costs are expenses associated with rehabilitation, reconstruction, and any
improvements to existing assets, such as rail SOGR, bus/light rail SOGR expenses, rail station
improvements, park & ride improvements, rail rolling stock improvements, and Superstorm Sandy resiliency
projects. Capital preservation costs have also consisted of operations, maintenance, and debt service
payments. Between FY 2010 and FY 2023 capital preservation costs increased at a rate of 4.5%, which is
consistent with the organization's emphasis on SOGR activities for infrastructure and facility assets.
3.2.2.2 System Expansion
Capital costs associated with system expansion relate to new projects. Although system expansion has been
somewhat limited since 2012, NJ TRANSIT is undertaking significant projects to expand operations where
there is critical need. For instance, the Capital Program is investing in two light rail expansion projects. One
is the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Northern Branch Extension project, which will reintroduce rail service
between Englewood in Bergen County and North Bergen in Hudson County. The other is the Glassboro to
Camden Line, which will provide new light rail passenger service to communities in Camden and Gloucester
Counties in South New Jersey along an existing freight rail line.

Table 3-2 Historic Capital Uses of Funds: FY 2010 – 2023 (YOE $M)
Capital Uses of Funds FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY23
Capital Preservation Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Costs
Operations, $714 $738 $653 $654 $668 $688 $674 $594 $593 $658 $615 $577 $445 $478
Maintenance and Debt
Service
Pass-Through $121 $81 $64 $52 $50 $54 $54 $42 $42 $41 $35 $40 $40 $35
Rail Infrastructure $116 $85 $217 $115 $125 $97 $117 $210 $199 $318 $362 $627 $364 $772
Improvements
Rail Rolling Stock $- $- $- $88 $53 $81 $87 $105 $109 $108 $93 $115 $256 $149
Improvements
Rail Station $34 $11 $42 $16 $41 $51 $55 $54 $47 $30 $14 $1 $80 $54
Improvements
Bus/Light Rail $62 $85 $125 $164 $194 $80 $87 $157 $175 $151 $143 $136 $178 $142
Improvements
Sandy Competitive $- $- $- $- $- $72 $908 $424 $74 $- $- $35 $- $209
Resiliency Projects
System-wide $52 $53 $64 $63 59 $57 $58 $93 $91 $121 $124 $152 $188 $112
Improvements
Total Capital $1,099 $1,053 $1,165 $1,152 $1,190 $1,181 $2,040 $1,678 $1,331 $1,426 $1,387 $1,682 $1,550 $1,951
Preservation
Annual Growth Rate 75.3% -4.2% 10.6% -1.1% 3.3% -0.7% 72.8% -17.7% -20.7% 7.2% -2.7% 21.3% -7.9% 25.9%
CAGR (FY10-FY23) 4.5%
System Expansion
Total System
$287 $296 $- $- $1 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $33 $39 $35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25
Expansion
Annual Growth Rate -4.1% 3.1% -100.0% - - -75.0% 0% 0% 13,000% 18.3% -9.0% -99.3% 0.0% 0.0%
CAGR (FY10-FY23) -41.8%
Total Capital Uses of
Funds
Total Capital Uses of $1,386 $1,349 $1,165 $1,152 $1,191 $1,181 $2,040 $1,678 $1,363 $1,465 $1,422 $1,682 $1,550 $1,951
Funds
Annual Growth Rate 49.6% -2.7% -13.6% -1.1% 3.4% -0.8% 72.7% -17.7% -18.8% 7.4% -2.9% 18.3% -7.9% 25.9%
CAGR (FY10-FY23) 2.7%

Forecast Capital Plan Sources of Funds

NJ TRANSIT’s system-wide capital plan covers State FY 2024 to FY 2043 including the PNB Project and the
HTP. The sources of funds projected over the next 20 years reflect an increase of the FY 2023 levels of
funding received by NJ TRANSIT from various federal programs, the NJTTF, casino revenue funds and other
smaller fund sources (excluding one-time payments that occurred in FY 2023). Both federal and state funding
were assumed to increase marginally over the forecast period. The capital plan also identifies funds from
State FY 2023 and prior years that have not yet been drawn down and are thus available for State FY2024
expenditures and beyond. The forecast capital funding sources is presented in Table 3-3.
The capital sources are estimated to stay relatively flat over the FY 2024 to FY 2043 period. This is a relatively
conservative growth rate assumption compared to the historic increase of 6.3% compound annual growth
rate for the FY 2010 to FY 2023 period. On December 27, 2018, Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT executed the
“Funding and Coordination Agreement”, which is included as supporting document B-17. The Agreement
settles outstanding disputes between NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak (unrelated to the Gateway Program) and
provides an additional source of funding to NJ TRANSIT. As documented in section 2.4 of the Agreement,
from FY 2018 to FY 2030, NJ TRANSIT will receive a total of $290 million in scheduled credits against its
annual Baseline Capital Charge (BCC) Program payments due to Amtrak under the Agreement for Capital
Obligations between Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT. These credits were unanimously approved by the NEC
Commission on September 12, 2019 (supporting document B-23). These scheduled credits will further
improve NJ TRANSIT’s system-wide capital plan.

Table 3-3 Forecast Capital Sources of Funds: FY 2024 – 2043 (YOE $M)
Prior Years FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039 FY 2040 FY 2041 FY 2042 FY 2043
Sources of funds Total
Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj.
Federal Funding $708 $641 $716 $736 $822 $838 $855 $873 $890 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $17,074
Federal Flex and CMAQ Funding $110 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $1,535
Federal Resiliency Funding $88 $98 $74 $70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $330
State TTF $760 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $15,333
Others $67 $68 $69 $70 $71 $73 $74 $75 $77 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $1,506
Prior Year Funding $5,728 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Sources of Funds $5,728 $1,733 $1,649 $1,700 $1,718 $1,735 $1,753 $1,772 $1,790 $1,809 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $41,506
CAGR (FY24-FY43) 0.3%
Annual Growth Rate (4.8%) 3.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Forecast Capital Plan Uses of Funds

For years FY 2024 – FY 2043, NJ TRANSIT Capital Program expenditures are presented project by project
for the near term and include escalation for future years. Beyond those specific projects, an allowance for
various project types is indicated, such as station projects, bridge projects, etc. These allowances will be
allocated to specific projects as each annual budget is developed. An allowance for future rail and bus rolling
stock expenditures is included and is consistent with the NJ TRANSIT fleet plans.
The Capital Program expenditures are aligned with NJ TRANSIT’s Transit Asset Management (TAM) plan
(supporting document I-3). This an integral part of the overarching goal for a total asset management
approach. While the Capital Plan integrates a number of specific factors when prioritizing projects for
promotion within the capital program, core tenets of NJ TRANSIT’s approach include a strong focus on state
of good repair, and reduction in wasteful costs due to outdated/deteriorated assets. The TAM plan guides
this approach, as it is the mechanism by which asset condition assessments are collected and managed. It
is also a tool to track the repair, service, and upkeep costs on a granular level to understand the expenditures
generated by maturing assets. These factors will be a core consideration when investigating assets for their
risk to the operation and cost/benefit relationship to the business of the operation. The capital plan prioritizes
projects based on a basket of metrics as is shown on the Capital Plan Project Sheets. The TAM data directly
inform State of Good Repair, Service Reliability, O&M Cost/Business Performance, and Comfort, from a
customer experience perspective of moving through a clean and sound transit station.
The TAM data informs the NJ TRANSIT Capital Plan through a decision matrix that relies on the asset’s
condition score (standard 1-5). Condition assessments of facility elements that are customer facing, such as
paint coatings, benches, lights inform the comfort component of the capital plan. As future information is
incorporated into the TAM such as asset specific maintenance costs and operating costs, these factors will
be used to inform business level decisions to replace or upgrade aging assets to control these costs.
Likewise, On Time Performance is expected to be improved via asset level fault analysis for repairs or
downtime due to component failure. Table 3-4 summarizes projected use of capital funds including the PNB
Project, and the HTP. The Capital uses are estimated to decrease at a compound annual growth rate of -
1.0% over the FY 2024 to FY 2043 period. It is important to note that this considers the capital expense
associated with the Portal North Bridge project whose substantial completion is expected to be completed in
FY 2029. This is a modest optimistic assumption compared to the historic increase of 2.7% compound annual
growth rate for the FY 2010 to FY 2023 period.
NJ TRANSIT demonstrated its commitment to the FY 2024 Capital Program (documented in Section E of
Appendix C, supporting documents E-26 and E-33) through a 13.6% compared to the FY 2023 amount,
reflecting the state’s commitment to meet the system’s needs.
Table 3-5 depicts the combined system-wide sources and uses of funds for the forecast period. It is assumed
that NJ TRANSIT will use a portion of its NJTTF appropriations to provide payments to NJEDA in amounts
equal to the scheduled annual debt service associated with NJEDA bond financing for the PNB Project.
As depicted in the capital plan sources and uses, the cumulative project cash is expected to decrease
significantly from $5,728 million in FY2023 to $728 million in FY 2043. This significant balance of available
funds reflects a coverage ratio of 1.15x for covering potential deficits for the FY 2024 to FY 2043 period. The
forecast capital plan demonstrates the stability and availability of additional capital sources and uses at the
system-wide level for the 20-year forecast period.

Table 3-4 Forecast Capital Uses of Funds: Twenty Year Forecast FY 2024 – FY 2043 (YOE $M)
Uses of funds Total
Planned Expenditures
On Going Programs $695 $765 $920 $1,024 $1,112 $1,132 $1,150 $1,168 $1,186 $1,205 $1,205 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $22,362
Resiliency $204 $194 $202 $220 $177 $102 $85 $61 $11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,256
Construction Projects $347 $333 $405 $462 $424 $334 $220 $150 $55 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $120 $120 $120 $120 $3,476
Rolling Stock $472 $468 $519 $928 $838 $583 $540 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $686 $686 $686 $686 $12,549
Portal North Bridge Project $717 $552 $262 $124 $27 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,782
Total Uses of Funds $2,436 $2,310 $2,309 $2,758 $2,578 $2,251 $1,994 $1,984 $1,859 $1,849 $1,849 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $2,006 $2,006 $2,006 $2,006 $41,425
CAGR (FY24-FY43) (1.0%)
Project Cash Flow $5,728 ($703) ($661) ($608) ($1,040) ($843) ($498) ($223) ($194) ($50) ($20) ($20) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($177) ($177) ($177) ($177) $81
Cumulative Project Cash Flow $5,728 $5,025 $4,364 $3,755 $2,715 $1,872 $1,373 $1,150 $957 $907 $887 $867 $851 $836 $820 $805 $790 $612 $435 $258 $81
Table 3-5 Forecast Twenty-Year Capital Plan FY 2024 – FY 2043 (YOE $M)
Sources of funds Total
Federal Funding $708 $641 $716 $736 $822 $838 $855 $873 $890 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $909 $17,074
Federal Resiliency Funding $88 $98 $74 $70 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $330
Federal Flex and CMAQ Funding $110 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $1,535
State TTF $760 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $767 $15,333
Others $67 $68 $69 $70 $71 $73 $74 $75 $77 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $1,506
Prior Year Funding $5,728 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $5,728
Total Sources of Funds $5,728 $1,733 $1,649 $1,700 $1,718 $1,735 $1,753 $1,772 $1,790 $1,809 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829 $1,829
Uses of Funds Total
Planned Expenditures
On Going Programs $695 $765 $920 $1,024 $1,112 $1,132 $1,150 $1,168 $1,186 $1,205 $1,205 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $22,362
Resiliency $204 $194 $202 $220 $177 $102 $85 $61 $11 - - - - - - - - - - - $1,256
Construction Projects $347 $333 $405 $462 $424 $334 $220 $150 $55 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $3,146
Rolling Stock $472 $468 $519 $928 $838 $583 $540 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $606 $12,231
Portal North Bridge Project $717 $552 $262 $124 $27 $100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $1,782
Total Uses of Funds $2,436 $2,310 $2,309 $2,758 $2,578 $2,251 $1,994 $1,984 $1,859 $1,849 $1,849 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 $40,778
Project Cash Flow $5,728 ($703) ($661) ($608) ($1,040) ($843) ($498) ($223) ($194) ($50) ($20) ($20) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($15) ($5,000)
Cumulative Project Cash Flow $5,728 $5,025 $4,364 $3,755 $2,715 $1,872 $1,373 $1,150 $957 $907 $887 $867 $851 $836 $820 $805 $790 $774 $759 $743 $728
Percent of Total Uses of Funds 206% 189% 163% 98% 73% 61% 58% 48% 49% 48% 47% 46% 45% 44% 44% 43% 42% 41% 40% 39%

3.3 Operating Plan

This section describes the system-wide operating historical and forecast sources and uses for NJ TRANSIT
operations. The operating expenses for FY 2010 through FY 2023 are provided as supporting documents E-
1 to E-11, and E-29 to E-30 and E-32.
Historic Operating Sources of Funds
System-wide operational sources of funds are categorized as operating revenues and operating assistance.
Between FY 2010 – FY 2023, overall sources of funds increased at a compound annual growth rate of 3.3%.
Table 3-6 summarizes NJ TRANSIT’s historical sources of operating revenues and operating assistance.
Table 3-6 Historic Operating Sources of Funds (YOE $M)

Operating FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
Sources of Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act.
Funds
Operating Revenues
Passenger
$758 $864 $885 $875 $906 $929 $990 $986 $968 $974 $739 $299 $537 $697
Revenues
Other Revenues $95 $102 $106 $147 $153 $106 $108 $121 $104 $140 $119 $102 $147 $146
Total Operating
$852 $965 $991 $1,022 $1,059 $1,035 $1,099 $1,107 $1,072 $1,114 $858 $401 $684 $843
Revenues
Annual Growth
1.2% 13.3% 2.6% 3.1% 3.6% -2.2% 6.1% 0.8% -3.2% 4.0% -23.0% -53.3% 70.7% 23.2%
Rate
CAGR (FY10 – FY23) -0.1%
Operating Assistance
State Operating
$262 $276 $395 $363 $353 $368 $390 $427 $427 $544 $669 $426 $507 $903
Assistance
Other State
$190 $66 $86 $114 $120 $133 $193 $154 $140 $127 $158 $152 $146 $190
Reimbursements
Other State
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Funding
Other Federal
$58 $15 $18 $60 $94 $58 $33 $29 $30 $27 $398 $1,063 $1,056 $506
Reimbursements
State Capital
$131 $103 $103 $103 $11 $5 $13 $6 $1 $134 $99 $79 - -
Maintenance
Federal
Preventative $340 $432 $297 $365 $450 $475 $505 $403 $585 $360 $362 $274 $436 $357
Maintenance
Total Operating
$981 $892 $899 $1,006 $1,028 $1,040 $1,134 $1,020 $1,182 $1,191 $1,685 $1,994 $2,144 $1,956
Assistance
Annual Growth
7.7% -9.0% 0.7% 11.9% 2.3% 1.1% 9.1% -10.1% 15.9% 0.7% 41.5% 18.3% 7.6% -8.8%
Rate
CAGR (FY10 – FY23) 5.5%
Total Operating
Total Operating
Sources of $1,833 $1,858 $1,890 $2,028 $2,087 $2,075 $2,233 $2,128 $2,254 $2,305 $2,543 $2,394 $2,828 $2,799
Funds
Annual Growth
4.6% 1.4% 1.7% 7.3% 2.9% -0.6% 7.6% -4.7% 6.0% 2.3% 10.3% -5.8% 18.1% -1.1%
Rate
CAGR (FY10 – FY23) 3.3%
3.3.1.1 Operating Revenues

Operating revenues are comprised of passenger fares, user fees and other non-fare revenue sources, such
as advertising and rent. From FY 2010 to FY 2023, operating revenue decreased at a compound annual
growth rate of -0.1%. These revenues are categorized under passenger or other revenues as shown in Error!
Reference source not found..

Passenger Revenues
NJ TRANSIT generates passenger fare revenue through two types of modes: directly operated transportation
and purchased transportation. Modes directly operated by NJ TRANSIT include commuter rail, light rail, and
motor bus, while purchased transportation modes include demand response service, light rail, motor bus,
and hybrid rail. Passenger revenues had shown steady increases from FY 2010 to FY 2019, growing at a
compound annual growth rate of 2.8% in this period. It is important to note that in the period between FY
2020 to FY 2023, passenger revenues show a compound annual decrease rate of -1.9%, reflecting the impact
of COVID-19 on ridership. However, the year-over-year passenger revenue growth between FY2021 to
FY2022 and FY2022 to FY2023 was 79.4% and 29.8% respectively, reflecting a rapid recovery toward pre-
COVID-19 ridership.
NJ TRANSIT historically has not followed a biennial fare increase model. Rather, NJ TRANSIT’s historical
fare increases since 2000 reflect large increases every two to four years (as demonstrated in Table 3-7):
Table 3-7 NJ TRANSIT Historic Fare Increases

Date Increase
March 2002 10.00%
July 2005 12.00%
June 2007 10.00%
May 2010 22.00%
October 2015 9.00%
Growth rates for system-wide boardings were derived from travel demand forecasting models using approved
MPO forecasts of population, households, employment and labor force generated by NYMTC, NJTPA,
DVRPC and SJTPO. These forecasts are applied to survey-derived trip tables to generate future year base
trip tables. The regional models then assign the future year trips to various travel modes based on total
impedance, a factor which combines weighted values of cost, in-vehicle time, out-of-vehicle time and other
considerations.
Other Revenues
Other revenue sources can be broken down into the following categories: transportation funds, auxiliary
transportation funds, and non-transportation funds. Transportation funds have consistently included park and
ride fees. Historically, transportation funds have also included Metro North-Interline revenue and special
service revenue. Auxiliary transportation funds account for concessions, advertising revenue, Interline
commissions, ticket sales commissions, contract revenue, and special services revenue. Expansion of the
NJ TRANSIT advertising program has been a consistent driver in growing commercial revenues annually.
Non-transportation funds comprise vehicle rental revenues, rental income from buildings and other
properties, parking lot rental, parking permit revenue, investment income, and transit-oriented development
initiatives. Note that in 2011 the additional asset value for parking assets developed through public-private
partnerships created a new source of revenue. Further, in 2013, $50 million was collected in insurance for
Superstorm Sandy. Other revenue contributions have grown at a compound annual growth rate of 3.4% from
FY 2010 to FY 2023.
3.3.1.2 Total Operating Assistance
Total operating assistance increased at a compound annual growth rate of 5.5% from FY 2010 to FY 2023.
Operating assistance is classified as state, federal funds, or other assistance from quasi-governmental
entities. State operating assistance alone increased at a compound annual growth rate of 10.0% from FY
2010 to FY 2023. The substantial increase in other federal reimbursements is tied to federal funding aimed
at offsetting COVID-19 pandemic-related passenger revenue losses.
State reimbursements remained flat between FY 2010 to FY 2023 and other federal reimbursements
increased at a compound annual growth rate of 18.1% from FY 2010 to FY 2023. State capital maintenance
decreased at a compound annual growth rate of -4.5% from FY2010 to FY2021 and federal preventive
maintenance increased at a compound annual growth rate of 0.4% from FY 2010 to FY 2023. These line
items represent both federal and NJTTF capital funds used to support eligible and non-routine operating
expenses that help to extend the useful life of the assets being repaired. These operating expenses include,
but are not limited to, engine repairs, axel replacements, and transmission rehabilitation. The specific
categories making up total operating assistance sources of funds are also described below.
State Assistance
State assistance can be categorized as state operating assistance, state reimbursements, and state capital
maintenance. In the recent past, consistent sources of state assistance have included direct subsidies from
the State of New Jersey, pass-through funding from the NJTA and State Clean Energy Fund, resources from
the New Jersey Casino Revenue Fund, and other project reimbursements from other governmental and third-
party entities.
Federal Assistance
Federal assistance can be categorized as other federal reimbursements and federal preventive maintenance.
Historically, federal sources of assistance have been comprised of FTA Urbanized and Rural Area Formula
Program funds, FTA Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Formula Program
(5310) funds, and other small programs which were eliminated under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012. Additionally, in some years NJ TRANSIT has received federal operating
grants through FHWA CMAQ funding, the US Department of Labor, and the FRA. Due to the impact of
COVID-19 on ridership, in the last three years NJ TRANSIT has received federal funding through the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (CARES) $1.42 billion, the Coronavirus
Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSAA) $1.13 billion, and the American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) $1.85 billion, representing $4.4 billion in funds.
Historic Operating Uses of Funds
System-wide operational uses of funds are categorized as follows: labor and fringe, services, fuel and power,
materials and supplies, purchased transportation, and other expenses. Operational uses increased at a
compound annual growth rate of 3.4% between FY 2010 to FY 2023. Table 3-8Error! Reference source
not found. summarizes the historic uses of operating funds.

Table 3-8 Historic Operating Uses of Funds (YOE $M)

Operating Uses of FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23
Funds Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act. Act.
Labor and Fringes $1,021 $1,061 $1,049 $1,099 $1,148 $1,174 $1,298 $1,208 $1,297 $1,335
$1,356 $1,494 $1,625 $1,681
Services $109 $108 $114 $200 $175 $150 $172 $158 $165 $165 $184 $226 $243 $230
Fuel & Power $128 $147 $162 $151 $158 $152 $132 $94 $98 $97 $104 $99 $101 $137
Materials and Supplies $145 $151 $176 $180 $189 $165 $170 $177 $172 $197 $180 $184 $196 $196
Purchased $244 $233 $239
$196 $200 $197 $212 $219 $222 $224 $213 $245 $246
Transportation $263
Other $211 $169 $185 $187 $218 $212 $260 $283 $256 $264 $306 $227 $273 $296
Total Operating Uses
$1,809 $1,836 $1,883 $2,029 $2,106 $2,075 $2,255 $2,133 $2,233 $2,305
of Funds $2,373 $2,463 $2,678 $2,802
Annual Growth Rate 0.4% 1.5% 2.6% 7.8% 3.8% -1.5% 8.7% -5.4% 4.7% 3.2% 3.0% 3.8% 8.7% 4.6%
CAGR (FY10 – FY23) 3.4%
3.3.2.1 Labor and Fringe

Labor and fringe expenses include expenses related to current contractual labor agreements and costs for
other non-union staff. These costs are due to salaries, wages, health care, and pension payments for
operators and others. Changes in these costs are related to contractual labor union wage escalations and
changes in the volume of laborers. Increases may be related to the addition of a new transit service which
requires new staff to operate. Diminishing costs may result from reducing the amount of staffed positions and
any related cost savings. Recently, departments throughout NJ TRANSIT have been effectively managing
labor costs by strategically evaluating positions and tasks. Labor and fringe expenses increased at a rate of
3.9% from FY 2010 to FY 2023.
3.3.2.2 Services
Costs associated with services grew at a rate of 5.9% from FY 2010 to FY 2023 primarily due to enhanced
outside cleaning services due to COVID-19.
3.3.2.3 Fuel and Power
Changes in fuel and power costs are related to usage and market prices of diesel and electricity as well as
changes in service volume. Over FY 2015 to FY 2019, causes of the decrease in fuel and power spending
are a result of a combination of declining fuel prices and NJ TRANSIT’s ability to initiate timely fuel hedges.
The overall decline in fuel prices has been slightly offset by growth in electric propulsion costs, the addition
of a bus detour mitigation and other service adjustments, purchase of reimbursable local/county shuttle
vehicles, and corresponding additional diesel and lubricant use. For the period FY 2020 to FY 2022, diesel
fuel costs to NJ Transit remained relatively flat with an average cost of $1.67 per gallon. However, fuel costs
in FY 2023 rose to an average of $2.44, or roughly 46 percent. Overall, fuel and power costs has slightly
increased at a compound annual growth rate of 0.5% from FY 2010-FY 2023.
3.3.2.4 Materials and Supplies
Costs associated with materials and supplies are dependent on supply contracts. Examples of materials and
supplies are tubes, tires, and metal. Expenses due to materials and supplies increased at a rate of 2.3%
between FY 2010 and FY 2023.

3.3.2.5 Purchased Transportation

Increases in purchased transportation costs in recent history are primarily attributed to growth in existing
Light Rail, Access Link, and Private Carrier Bus contracts. Historically, reductions in purchased transportation
costs have resulted from reductions in related service and administration costs. Purchased transportation
costs increased at a rate of 2.3% from FY 2010 to FY 2023.
3.3.2.6 Other Expenses
Additional operational costs incurred by NJ TRANSIT include costs of utilities, funding for outside services,
claims and insurance expenses, tolls, and trackage fees. Historically, increases in other expenses have been
related to increases in credit card processing fees related to mobile ticketing and ticket vending machine use,
higher utilities costs, and higher payments to Amtrak with regard to the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act. Miscellaneous operational expenses increased at a rate of 2.6% between FY 2010 and FY
2023.
Forecast Operating Budget
NJ TRANSIT’s operating budget is the result of an annual process involving both internal personnel and other
state agencies. Within NJ TRANSIT, development of the operating budget is an agency-wide effort involving
all departments. The operating budget process typically begins in the late summer with departments asked
to prepare a proposed budget based upon new service needs, staffing requirements and mandates. It begins
with meetings between the Budget department and all departments individually. Growth and reduction items
are presented with proper justification through documentation of the full impact for the upcoming fiscal year
as well as any impacts to the next three fiscal years. These items are discussed with the requesting
department at length by NJ TRANSIT budget analysts. The Budget department works across all the
departments to establish a balanced budget while prioritizing the needs of customers and being more
efficient. After the Budget department consolidates the agency’s needs and provides recommendations, the
President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of NJ TRANSIT then reviews the proposed budget for required
modifications.
After the President and CEO’s approval, the budget is reviewed by the NJDOT and the State Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). If OMB suggests that the anticipated levels of funding from revenues/state
and federal sources or revenue projections appear unrealistic, NJ TRANSIT will modify the revenue/expense
numbers after consulting with these three parties.
The agreed upon budget forms the basis of the Governor’s Budget Message for the upcoming State fiscal
year, which is usually delivered in February. In the spring, the NJDOT and NJ TRANSIT CEOs appear before
the State Senate and Assembly Transportation Committees to answer questions about the proposed budget.
As changes to the budget can occur even at this late stage, NJ TRANSIT must be prepared to modify its
proposal based upon the final shaping of the State budget which is finalized with the passage of the entire
budget by both the Assembly and the Senate and the subsequent signing by the Governor. Once the State
budget has been approved, the NJ TRANSIT Board adopts its budget for the forthcoming fiscal year.
Because NJ TRANSIT functions with a balanced budget and given its forecasted funding challenges, NJ
TRANSIT did not include any increase in service frequencies or expansion of services beyond FY 2024 in
the projected operating budget, but for the assumption of bus service previously provided by private carriers
in the cities of Newark, Jersey City and Monmouth and Orange counties, it is estimated that assumption of
these services will have a roughly $30 million impact on costs in FY25 and future fiscal years. NJ TRANSIT
has in recent years placed more intense attention on greater efficiency in the delivery of transit services,
evidenced in the use of rail and bus vehicles which handle more persons per vehicle than had been the case
previously. Service patterns are reviewed periodically, and equipment and staff reallocated to reflect
changing customer needs. These actions allow existing or improved services to be delivered while not
causing increases in the overall agency budget.
NJ TRANSIT prepared its 20-year financial plan utilizing various assumptions. These assumptions are
developed by expert budget analysts who work on each department’s budget in detail. They monitor actual
costs versus budgeted costs on both a monthly and annual basis. The assumptions developed on the
financial plan include both revenue and expenses. Many of the assumptions are based on historical trend
growth factoring out any anomalies for that period.
NJ TRANSIT has summarized the growth factors applied to the base budgets by each category of revenue
and expense with explanations. Note that historical trend data includes costs that are reimbursable and/or
related to emergency or one-time events. For example, during the past several years, NJ TRANSIT has
incurred higher than anticipated costs for Hurricane Irene, Superstorm Sandy, Department of Homeland
Security, COVID-19 and other event costs. Some of these costs were reimbursed by Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FTA, Department of Homeland Security and CARES Act funding. In other instances,
expense costs may be reimbursed by other revenue sources such as the NJTTF or federal grants. The
forecast makes no assumptions regarding one-time events similar to the ones mentioned above.
3.3.3.1 Forecast Operating Sources of Funds
The forecast of operating sources reflects projections of NJ TRANSIT’s passenger revenues, state operating
assistance, federal operating assistance, and other funding assistance. Table 3-9 summarizes total operating
sources assumed in the financial plan over the FY 2024 to FY 2043 period including the PNB Project and
HTP’s operating impacts. Total funding for future operating sources of funds includes: passenger revenues,
other revenues, state operating assistance, other state reimbursements, other state funding, other federal
reimbursements, state capital maintenance, and federal preventive maintenance. System-wide operational
sources are estimated to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 3.2% for the forecast period which
is slightly lower than the historic FY 2010 to FY 2023 compound annual growth rate of 3.3% driven primarily
by an increase in passenger revenues, other state funding, a flat behavior in state operating assistance and
a decrease in other federal reimbursements.
NJ TRANSIT system-wide ridership has dropped over FY2020 to FY 2022 due to the impact of COVID-19.
Ridership is expected to recover from the impacts of COVID-19 throughout FY 2023 and FY 2027 and
thereafter assumed to grow at an average annualized rate of 1.2% per year from FY 2028 to FY 2043. It
should be noted that the forecasted ridership growth rate for the FY 2028 to FY 2043 period is consistent
with historical ridership growth adjusting for ridership declines in FY 2020 to FY 2023 due to COVID-19. Since
2015, NJ TRANSIT has held the line on fare increases while not only improving service performance but
adding additional service on more than 100 bus routes and implementing substantial emergency service to
support customers abandoned by multiple private bus carriers. In addition, NJ TRANSIT has improved the
customer experience through a variety of enhancements since 2018, including fully restoring the ranks of
locomotive engineers, delivering a highly rated and completely redesigned NJ TRANSIT Mobile App,
introducing new fare payment technologies, and graduating more than 2,300 new bus operators, along with
numerous other improvements. NJ TRANSIT has also introduced several improvements for its Access Link
paratransit service customers, including the launch of Access Link Online, a new Access Link mobile app,
and the introduction of the popular Access Link Riders’ Choice Pilot Program – a partnership with Uber and
Lyft to expand options for Access Link customers. In addition, the agency has met the federal requirements

for Positive Train Control in 2020 and expanding the presence of New Jersey Transit Police Department
officers throughout the system. Despite NJ TRANSIT ridership has returned to approximately 80% of pre-
COVID levels, with many peak period trips at or exceeding pre-pandemic levels, the system reflects the fifth
consecutive year of ridership that will be below pre-COVID levels, which has resulted in a reduction of
revenue.
The NJ TRANSIT fare revenue forecast includes a proposed systemwide fare adjustment of 15% taking effect
on July 1, 2024 (FY 2025) as it was announced by the agency on January 24, 2024, and assumes a 3.0%
increase moving forward between FY 2026 to FY 2043. These illustrative fare increases reflect an annual
average fare increase rate of 3.6% from FY2024 to FY2043. Consideration of any NJ TRANSIT fare increases
will be based on operating needs, will be subject to a public hearing process, and must be approved by the
NJ TRANSIT Board of Directors. These increases may not take effect as presented in this illustration.
Overall Passenger revenues are estimated to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 5.2% for the
forecast period. This forecast is higher than the historical rate of -0.6% from FY 2010 to FY 2023, but reflects
NJ TRANSIT commitment to strengthen the financial performance of the agency while providing the system
with the highest standards of safety and security. Other commercial revenues are assumed to increase at a
3.1% compound annual growth rate. Therefore, overall operating revenues are estimated to increase at a
compound annual growth rate of 5.0%, which is higher than the historic operating revenue growth of -0.1%
from FY 2010 to FY 2023, with COVID-19 impact in FY 2020 to FY 2023, and consistent with a boost in
passenger revenue as it was described above.
State operating assistance comprises proceeds from the Clean Energy Fund, NJTA, and a general state
operating subsidy. The Clean Energy Fund is projected to remain constant throughout the forecast period, at
FY 2024 budgeted level of $70.1 million. The state operating subsidy is also projected to remain constant
throughout the forecast period, at FY 2024 budgeted level of $140 million. The proceeds from NJTA are
assumed to decrease from the FY 2023 level of $721 million to $440 million in FY 2024 and will vary from
year to year, but generally average to $500.0 million annually beginning FY 2028. These proceeds are funded
through recently enacted toll increases at the NJTA. Other State Funding is projected to increase as
necessary in order to balance the budget.
Both the state and other federal reimbursements are presented in Table 3-9. These reimbursements are
driven by certain expenses, which are largely indicative of the number of P&E initiatives in a given year. NJ
TRANSIT budgets P&E projects based on history, but ultimately, if those planned expenses do not
materialize, there is no subsequent reimbursement or net impact on the operating budget. Conversely, if
more than expected P&E projects occur, NJ TRANSIT would receive more reimbursements than budgeted
in order to cover those increased expenses. Total state and other federal reimbursements come from a
variety of state, federal and third-party sources. As an example, NJ TRANSIT provides funding to New Jersey
counties for the Transportation Assistance for Senior Citizens and Disabled Residents Program. Because
these expenses are fully supported by reimbursements provided from the State of New Jersey’s Property
Tax Relief Fund, actual reimbursements will comport to the same level of spending in that year, which may
differ from the initial budget. Therefore, these types of changes can create large fluctuations in state and
other federal reimbursements year-over-year. For example, the reduction to Other Federal Reimbursements
from FY 2025 and FY 2026 is due to the full utilization of $4.4 billion in federal funding from CARES, CRRSAA
and ARPA by FY 2025.
Federal preventive maintenance is projected to stay flat at $334 million per year during the forecast period.
State capital maintenance has been eliminated as a funding source beginning in FY 2022.

Excess operating funding in any given year is expected to be used to reduce the Federal preventive
maintenance funding. Total operating assistance is estimated to increase at a compound annual growth rate
of 2.1% for the forecast period, which is a conservative assumption compared to the historical compound
annual growth rate of 5.5% per year. This is primarily due to increases in other state funding and recent large
increases in other federal reimbursements related to COVID-19.
3.3.3.2 Forecast Operating Uses of Funds
Operating uses are estimated to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 3.2% for the forecast period
which is in line with the historic FY 2010 – FY 2023 compound annual growth rate of 3.3%. This forecasted
annual growth rate is reflective of the historic growth rates in labor and fringes, services, and materials and
supplies as well as higher fuel and power costs.
In developing the projections for the forecast period, core inflation is assumed to be 2.4% per year on
purchased transportation, 2.5% on materials and supplies, and 3.5% per year on labor and fringes. Core
inflation on services, and other expenses were assumed to be 4.3% per year and 2.4% per year respectively.
Fuel and power expenses are assumed to remain flat through the forecast period. Table 3-10 summarizes
the 20-year forecasts for operating uses of funds for the forecast period. NJ TRANSIT will continue to look at
ways to become more efficient and realize cost savings by getting the most out of existing resources.

Table 3-9 Forecast Operating Sources of Funds: FY 2024 – FY 2043 (YOE $M)
FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 CAGR
Operating Sources of Funds
Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. 2024-2043
Operating Revenues
Passenger Revenues $776 $947 $1,006 $1,064 $1,118 $1,165 $1,215 $1,268 $1,321 $1,377 $1,436 $1,496 $1,555 $1,617 $1,681 $1,747 $1,816 $1,887 $1,962 $2,039 5.2%
Other Revenues $121 $132 $135 $139 $143 $147 $151 $156 $160 $164 $169 $174 $179 $184 $189 $194 $200 $205 $211 $217 3.1%
Total Operating Revenues $897 $1,079 $1,142 $1,204 $1,261 $1,312 $1,367 $1,423 $1,481 $1,542 $1,605 $1,670 $1,734 $1,801 $1,870 $1,941 $2,016 $2,093 $2,173 $2,256 5.0%
Annual Growth Rate 6.5% 20.2% 5.9% 5.4% 4.8% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8%
Operating Assistance
State Operating Assistance $650 $665 $680 $695 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 $710 0.5%
State Reimbursements $147 $145 $147 $153 $154 $156 $157 $159 $161 $162 $164 $166 $167 $169 $171 $172 $174 $176 $177 $179 1.0%
Other State Funding $0 - $767 $770 $785 $833 $881 $930 $981 $1,033 $1,087 $1,142 $1,202 $1,265 $1,329 $1,395 $1,463 $1,534 $1,606 $1,680
Other Federal Reimbursements $840 $780 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 (15.9%)
State Capital Maintenance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N/A
Federal Preventative Maintenance $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 $334 0.0%
Total Operating Assistance $1,971 $1,925 $1,959 $1,983 $2,015 $2,064 $2,113 $2,164 $2,216 $2,270 $2,326 $2,382 $2,445 $2,509 $2,575 $2,643 $2,713 $2,785 $2,858 $2,935 2.1%
Annual Growth Rate 0.8% (2.4%) 1.8% 1.3% 1.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%
Total Operating Sources of Funds $2,869 $3,003 $3,101 $3,187 $3,276 $3,376 $3,480 $3,587 $3,698 $3,812 $3,930 $4,053 $4,179 $4,309 $4,444 $4,584 $4,728 $4,877 $5,032 $5,191 3.2%
Note: Fare increases have been assumed in FY2025 (15.0%), and 3.0% annual between FY 2026 to FY 2043.. Consideration of any fare increases will be based on operating
needs, will be subject to a public hearing process, and must be approved by the NJ TRANSIT Board of Directors. These increases may not take effect as presented in this
illustration.
Table 3-10 Forecast Operating Uses of Funds: FY 2024 – FY 2043 (YOE $M)
FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 FY2042 FY2043 CAGR
Operating Uses of Funds
Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. 2024-2043
Operating Costs
Labor and Fringes $1,722 $1,781 $1,844 $1,908 $1,975 $2,044 $2,116 $2,190 $2,267 $2,346 $2,428 $2,513 $2,601 $2,692 $2,786 $2,884 $2,985 $3,089 $3,197 $3,309 3.5%
Services $235 $247 $254 $267 $278 $290 $303 $316 $330 $344 $359 $374 $390 $407 $424 $443 $462 $481 $502 $524 4.3%
Fuel & Power $147 $156 $161 $154 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 (0.0%)
Materials and Supplies $192 $206 $210 $215 $220 $225 $230 $236 $241 $247 $252 $258 $264 $270 $276 $283 $289 $296 $303 $310 2.5%
Purchased Transportation $270 $289 $295 $302 $308 $315 $322 $329 $336 $344 $351 $359 $367 $375 $383 $392 $400 $409 $418 $427 2.4%
Other $303 $324 $335 $341 $348 $355 $363 $371 $378 $386 $394 $403 $411 $420 $429 $438 $447 $456 $466 $475 2.4%
Total Operating Uses of Funds $2,869 $3,003 $3,099 $3,187 $3,276 $3,376 $3,480 $3,587 $3,698 $3,812 $3,930 $4,053 $4,179 $4,309 $4,444 $4,584 $4,728 $4,877 $5,032 $5,191 3.2%
CAGR (FY2024-FY2043) 3.2%
Note: “Other” includes utilities, claims and insurance, and tolls and trackage fees.
3.4 New Jersey Transit Risks and Uncertainties

This section of the financial plan discusses the current state of NJ TRANSIT as it relates to system-wide risks
and uncertainties considering the impact of COVID-19, fleet age, stability of funding sources, and NJ
TRANSIT liquidity.
Impact of COVID-19 on NJ TRANSIT
COVID-19 has very abruptly changed the landscape of public transportation. At the onset of the pandemic,
NJ TRANSIT ridership decreased to a record low of 14% of normality in April of 2020. Since then, passenger
revenues have increased steadily totaling $697 million or 69% of normality in FY 2023 and $776 million or
76% of normality projected for FY 2024. Continued increases in ridership are forecasted reflecting forecasted
post COVID-19 return in ridership, as well as regional population and job growth. However, some level of
loss from normality is anticipated to continue reflecting adoption of work-from-home technology by some
business sectors. This section of the financial plan provides background of the impact of COVID-19 on the
financial plan assumptions and variables.
3.4.1.1 Capital Program Outlook
NJ TRANSIT’s overall capital program forecast for FY 2024 has increased compared to FY 2023. NJ
TRANSIT will continue to work with the State of New Jersey to ensure that Transportation Trust Fund dollars
are available to support the debt service for capital projects. Section 3.4.3 further discusses the stability of
the NJTTF, a primary funding source for NJ TRANSIT’s capital program.
3.4.1.2 Operating Plan Assumptions and Variables
The current operating outlook remains largely dependent upon three variables. These variables include: (1)
the pace of ridership/revenue returns; (2) the level of operating assistance from the State of New Jersey; and
(3) any future additional federal funding. For FY 2024, NJ TRANSIT has modeled several ridership and fare
revenue recovery scenarios with a potential range of over $60 million depending on the following economic
and pandemic-related factors:
• The pace of population and employment growth;
• Continued adoption of work-from-home technology by some business sectors;
• The possibility of an additional wave of COVID cases; and
• Passenger comfort levels with public transit.
Given these factors, NJ TRANSIT FY 2021 passenger revenues of $299.1 million, or 30% of normality for
the financial plan. FY 2022 passenger revenues of $536.7 million, or 54% of normality. FY 2023 passenger
revenues of $696.8 million, or 69% of normality. FY 2024 passenger revenues are projected at $776 million,
or 76% of normality. This assumes gradual yet slow ridership returns throughout the fiscal year. NJ TRANSIT
continues to work with its Planning Department and other industry partners to refine estimates for recovery
with some experts predicting an eventual 10%-20% structural decline in ridership due in large part, to the
adoption of work-from-home technology by some business sectors.

While passenger revenue losses since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic were replaced by federal COVID-
19 assistance funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (CARES) $1.42
billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSAA) $1.13
billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) $1.85 billion, representing over $4.4 billion in
funds, that funding is forecast to be fully utilized by FY 2025, at which time additional revenue from the State
of New Jersey are assumed as shown in Other State Funding in Table 3-9Error! Reference source not
found.. As federal COVID-19 assistance funding is fully utilized in FY 2025, Other State Funding is increased
from $0 in FY 2024 to $767 million in FY2026. In FY2027, Other State Funding is forecast at $770 million
with compound annual growth of 4.7% between FY 2026 through FY 2043.
Bus Fleet Age
NJ TRANSIT’s objective is to create a consistently reliable system that will meet the needs of every customer.
Modernizing its bus and rail fleet is a priority in NJ TRANSIT’s state-wide Capital Program. As part of the
organization’s multi-year plan, NJ TRANSIT is investing more than $700 million to replace 1,104 cruiser
buses. Cruiser buses are designed to serve longer distance routes primarily to employment centers in New
York City and Philadelphia; they feature overhead and underfloor luggage areas, a single entry/exit at the
front, and high back seats for longer trips. Additionally, the NJ TRANSIT Board recently authorized a contract
for the acquisition of 85 60-foot articulated buses. These buses are designed to serve shorter distance routes
primarily within New Jersey’s towns and cities; the buses are characterized by ease of boarding and
deboarding as well as more areas to stand for short trips.
The purchase of additional cruiser buses in FY 2023 results in an average bus fleet age of 7.0 years,
consistent with a “Medium” rating for the “Current Capital and Operating Condition” sub-rating (average bus
fleet age of under 8 years). By FY 2027, the average age of the bus fleet will be 4.9 years, consistent with a
“High” rating for the “Current Capital and Operating Condition” sub-rating (average bus fleet age of under 6
years). Table 3-11Error! Reference source not found. depicts NJ TRANSIT’s bus fleet age from 2023-
2028.
The 2022 Bus Fleet Plan provided as supporting documents J-3 presents ongoing changes to the bus fleet
due to retirements, maintenance, and purchases of new equipment that will result in a modernized fleet sized
to meet increasing customer demands for inter- and intra-state bus service. The plan calls for 319 new cruiser
buses to be in service by 2028, followed by an estimated 1,338 new transit buses to be in service by 2027.
Please note that approximately 1,666 new cruiser buses were purchased between FY 2017 and FY 2022. A
commensurate number of older buses would be retired during the planning period through 2030.
Table 3-11 Bus Fleet Age and Planned Purchases

Bus Fleet Conditions 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Bus Purchases - Cruiser
172 - - - - 147
(Actual and Planned)
Bus Purchases – Transit
- 335 335 335 333 -
(Actual and Planned)
Average Bus Age 7.0 6.4 5.9 5.4 4.9 5.2
Source: NJ TRANSIT 2022 Bus Fleet Plan, February 2022
NJTTF Financial Stability

NJ TRANSIT’s significant source of funding is the NJTTF, created in 1984 through the Transportation Trust
Fund statute (N.J.S.A. 27:1B-1, et seq.) and has been periodically reauthorized since its inception. 91. The
NJTTF is financed by the NJTTFA, an independent agency of the State of New Jersey. The fund supports
the NJDOT, NJ TRANSIT, and local aid projects. Since its inception in FY 1985, the NJTTF has designated
roughly 40% of its funds toward NJ TRANSIT. NJ TRANSIT’s annual NJTTF allocation outlined in this
financial plan may be considered the minimum amount of NJTTF funding NJ TRANSIT is likely to receive.
Since 2000, NJ TRANSIT has received an average annual NJTTF allocation of approximately 43% of the
total available NJTTF funds, and not lower than 34% in any one year.
In 2016, action was taken by the New Jersey Legislature to sustain and increase funding for the NJTTF. On
October 7, 2016, the New Jersey State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 10 (A10) reauthorizing the NJTTF
for an unprecedented 8-year period at $16 billion over the reauthorization lifecycle. This reauthorization was
partially funded by a 23 cent per gallon increase on the state’s petroleum products gross receipts tax and 4
cents per gallon on the diesel fuel tax. On November 8, 2016, a constitutional amendment dedicating all of
the motor fuels tax revenues and petroleum products gross receipt tax revenues for the purposes of paying
or financing the cost of planning, acquisition, engineering, construction, reconstruction, repair and
rehabilitation of the transportation system in New Jersey was passed by New Jersey voters. The New Jersey
Legislature annually appropriates such revenues to the Transportation Trust Fund. A copy of New Jersey
Assembly Bill 10, legislation to revise the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority Act, as passed by
the New Jersey House and Senate on October 7, 2016, and approved by the Governor of New Jersey on
October 14, 2016 is provided as supporting documentation F-4.
The health and future of the NJTTF is strong, as demonstrated through the October 2016 increase in the
petroleum products gross receipts tax (PPGRT) and the recent incremental increases in October 2018 and
October 2020. As authorized in paragraph three of subsection c of section 3 under P.L.2016, c. 57, the State
Treasurer and Legislative Budget and Finance Officer are required to determine annually, by August 15th, if
the State is collecting enough PPGRT revenue to support authorized NJTTF-funded projects. If it is
determined that PPGRT collections are below the amount needed to support such NJTTF projects (i.e., the
highway fuel cap), the State Treasurer, in consultation with the Legislative Budget and Finance Officer, is
authorized to raise the tax accordingly, effective at the start of October of that calendar year. This helps to
protect those constitutionally dedicated PPGRT revenues against volatility in fuel consumption that may be
caused by the use of more fuel efficient or electric vehicles and migration to mass transit. Vice versa, if
PPGRT collections go above the highway fuel cap, the tax is adjusted downward.
Table 3-12Error! Reference source not found. presents the constitutionally dedicated revenues for the
NJTTFA for the FY 2016 to FY 2023 period. The total available revenues increased at a 5.2% compound
annual growth rate from FY 2016 to FY 2023. The substantial revenues available for repayment of debt
obligations of NJTTFA, which have experienced strong year-over-year growth, constitutes a reasonable and
reliable funding source for potential future borrowings.
The following link provides brief description of the NJTTF, demonstrating that the NJTTF has always been reauthorized since its inception:
91
www.state.nj.us/ttfa/about/legislation.shtm
More information on the history and solvency of the NJTTF can be found in the NJTTF History document,
which is provided as supporting documentation F-7. Additional information regarding funding allocations from
the NJTTF is provided as supporting documentation F-9.
Table 3-12 Constitutionally Dedicated Revenues for the NJTTFA: FY 2016 – FY 2023 ($M)
Revenue 2020 2021 2022 2023
2016 2017 2018 2019
Source
Motor Fuels
$554.5 $532.9 $512.5 $503.0 $440.4 $434.4 $461.8 $468.7
Tax
PPGR Tax $214.8 $531.5 $550.2 $590.6 $759.8 $779.9 $797.7 $813.4
Sales and $10,358.1 $11,512.2* $12,054.3*
$8,554.6 $8,849.1 $8,869.2 $9,122.1 $8,974.0
Use Tax (1)
Totals $9,323.9 $9,913.5 $9,931.9 $10,215.7 $10,174.2 $11,572.4 $12,771.7 $13,336.4
(CAGR FY 5.2%
16-FY23)
(1) Note: The dedicated revenues available from the Sales and Use Tax are also utilized by the State's General Fund to make
certain appropriations, including to pay debt service for certain New Jersey General Obligation bonds, Garden State Preservation
Trust Bonds and other State appropriation-backed obligations. Amounts shown reflect estimated net collections of Sales and Use
Tax.
*Most current available on New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority
Figure 3-1 illustrates the multiple mechanisms through which the NJTTF supports NJ TRANSIT commitments
and activities. First, any debt service for NJ TRANSIT program debt is backed by both: (i) substantial,
constitutionally dedicated sources – Motor Fuels Tax, Petroleum Products Gross Receipts Tax, and General
Sales and Use Tax – which are appropriated annually; and (ii) sources dedicated by statute. After fulfilling
debt service commitments, any remaining appropriations are added to available debt proceeds and cash
balances to be deployed as pay-as-you-go funding for NJ TRANSIT/NJDOT capital project payments. This
pay-as-you-go portion may be further supplemented by appropriations from the State’s toll road authorization.
Key strengths of the NJTTF pertaining to its financial support of NJ TRANSIT includes:
• Expanded revenue sources. The 2016 reauthorization of the NJTTFA’s enabling legislation
provided a new “pay-as-you-go” funding source in support of statewide transportation capital projects
with the establishment of the Transportation Trust Fund Sub-Account for Capital Reserves, funded
from excess constitutionally dedicated Petroleum Products Gross Receipts tax revenues not needed
to satisfy current year debt service obligations. Beginning in FY 2017, annual revenues from the
increased tax dedication significantly exceed the appropriations. It is anticipated that the Sub-
Account for Capital Reserves will provide an estimated $1.3 billion in new “pay-as-you-go” funding
from fiscal years 2017 through 2024.
• Debt issued for NJ TRANSIT is secured by the NJTTF, not NJ TRANSIT revenues: NJTTFA
manages the NJTTF and does not maintain and operate transportation systems. The state legislature
annually appropriates revenue dedicated by statute and the constitution for transportation to fund the
NJTTF. Over 40% of 2010-2019 appropriations have been dedicated to NJ TRANSIT.
• Strong public and legislative support for funding transportation projects. Through
amendments and other legislative action, revenues dedicated and appropriated to the NJTTF have
increased continuously and significantly with each reauthorization since its creation in 1984 (from
$249 million in 1985 to $2,349 million in 2020). A voter-approved amendment of the New Jersey
State Constitution in November 2016 dedicated additional tax revenues to transportation, reflecting
public support for the funding.
• The NJTTFA debt rating is linked to the State rating. The debt of the NJTTFA is funded by state
appropriations. The debt is rated one notch below the State General Obligation rating shown in. The
official statement from the last bond issue by the NJTTFA, 2023 Series BBin November 2023, is
provided as supporting documentation F-13.
Table 3-13 NJTTFA Bond Ratings

CREDIT RATINGS S&P Moody's Fitch KBRA
State of New Jersey GO Bonds A A1 A+ A+
NJTTFA Bonds A- A2 A A
Figure 3-1 NJTTF Financing Process

Revenue State TTFA Revenue
TTFA Expenses Payments
Sources General Fund Accounts
Constitutionally Subaccount for NJTTFA

TIF: Subaccount
Dedicated Revenues: Debt Service for Transportation Program Bond
for Transportation
Transportation Program Bond Holders
Program Bonds
Motor Fuels Tax Program Bonds Debt Expense
Petroleum Products
Gross
Receipts Tax
Sales & Use Tax

NJTTFA Prior
TIF: Subaccount Prior Bond
Bond Debt
for Prior Bonds Holders
Expense
Statutory Revenues: Subaccount for
Debt Service for
Toll Road Contributions Prior Bonds
TTFA NJEDA/NJ TRANSIT NJEDA/

Bonds + Cash Program Debt NJ TRANSIT
Balances + PayGo Service Bondholders
NJDOT/NJT
Capital Salaries
Cash Outlays NJDOT/NJT

Subaccount for Current and Prior Capital Materials
Capital Reserves
Year Programs & Equipment
Design, Planning
NJDOT/NJT Capital Program & Construction
(Spending Authority) Contracts

NJ TRANSIT Liquidity
NJ TRANSIT’s current ratio has increased by 31% over the last nine years – a 2.7% compound annual growth
rate between 2013 to 2023 – primarily driven by growth in current assets and current liabilities. Based on NJ
TRANSIT’s audited June 30, 2023 financial statements, the ratio is now at 112%. NJ TRANSIT’s current
ratio, based upon its annual financial statements includes amounts due within one year on long-term notes
(principal portion of the Grant Anticipation Notes and the NJEDA Bonds) but does not include the funds that
will make those future payments. The principal payments on the federal and state obligations are due
annually on September 15 and May 1, respectively.
An analysis was performed comparing NJ TRANSIT’s current asset to current liability ratio with that of MBTA
and SEPTA, which are similar transit agencies in terms of network size and ridership. The results of this
analysis reveal that NJ TRANSIT’s ratio is significantly higher than SEPTA’s (36% more. Please note that NJ
TRANSIT information corresponds to FY 2023 and SEPTA’s to FY 2022) and lower than MBTA’s (55% less).
Both entities have approximately the same dollar value in assets and liabilities which provides a more
accurate comparison, as summarized in Table 3-14.
Table 3-14 Current Assets to Current Liabilities Ratios Comparison (NJT, SEPTA, and MBTA)
Assets/ CAGR
Agency Liabilities/ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 (2013-
Ratios 2023)
Current
$744.0 $699.3 $743.2 $723.5 $547.9 $863.6 $591.1 $649.8 $672.5 $1,174.1 $1,175.5 4.7%
Assets
NJ Current
$868.6 $842.0 $919.1 $896.8 $622.7 $929.4 $659.0 $522.7 $574.1 $882.30 $1,048.7 1.9%
TRANSIT Liabilities
Current
86% 83% 81% 81% 88% 93% 90% 124% 117% 133% 112% 2.7%
Ratio
Current
$439.5 $449.1 $490.0 $518.1 $572.0 $600.9 $651.6 $578.4 $680.0 $789.50 - 6.7%*
Assets
Current
SEPTA $504.2 $519.9 $499.3 $584.1 $548.5 $672.6 $747.9 $656.5 $727.1 $1,033.1 - 8.3%*
Liabilities
Current
87% 86% 98% 89% 104% 89% 87% 88% 94% 76% - -1.5%*
Ratio
Current
$516.8 $547.0 $597.0 $552.5 $573.5 $922.3 $739.9 $911.9 $1,434.5 $2,072.0 $1,768.7 13.1%
Assets
Current
MBTA $835.3 $830.9 $852.0 $863.8 $949.6 $882.6 $946.0 $967.5 $1,477.3 $1,005.1 $1,060.1 2.4%
Liabilities
Current
62% 66% 70% 64% 60% 104% 78% 94% 97% 206% 167% 10.4%
Ratio
Note: MBTA stands for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and SEPTA stands for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority
* Compound annual growth rate between FY 2013 to FY 2022
Yearly fluctuations in the detailed accounts that make up the ratio can be seen in Table 3-15Error! Reference
source not found.. This analysis details the components and their fiscal year-end balances. The timing of
accruals in certain line items can have a dramatic effect on the ratio. In 2018, for example, NJ TRANSIT
financials reported a significant increase in the Liability; Advance Funds to State line item, which increased

from $4.8 million in 2017 to $102.6 million in 2018. This increase was due to an additional borrowing of $99.9
million of state preventative maintenance funds that had to be paid back to the NJTTF. Had the “Advance
Funds to State” line item remained consistent with the two prior years; the NJ TRANSIT current ratio is 112%
as of June 30, 2023.
Table 3-15 Detailed Breakdown of the NJ TRANSIT Current Assets to Current Liabilities Ratio (in
thousands of dollars)
Assets/Liabilities/Ratios 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Current Assets:
Cash and Cash Equivalents 114,810 38,775 183,133 72,817 72,902 106,594 80,654 75,054 122,330 105,529 232,962 167,595
Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents 19,402 39,623 0 - - - - - - -
Investments 30,477 32,394 36,804 40,553 44,087 48,875 54,139 57,769 60,842 67,163 59,742 62,450
Due from Federal Government 124,258 359,431 141,792 325,926 281,227 75,923 284,413 187,407 180,830 216,502 484,537 464,899
Due from State of New Jersey 93,743 125,068 120,352 123,959 132,934 130,884 250,718 60,364 53,528 55,151 119,022 230,258
Materials and Supplies 114,531 122,919 125,992 125,570 134,568 135,392 122,998 129,136 150,294 142,954 140,307 162,831
Other 49,999 46,009 51,652 54,361 45,016 44,865 46,585 73,065 61,989 68,315 90,388 87,542
Derivtaive Instrument Asset - - 12,759 5,345 24,115 8,307 20,056 16,931 47,156 -
Total Current Assets 527,818 743,998 699,348 743,186 723,493 547,878 863,622 591,102 649,869 672,545 1,174,114 1,175,575
Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable 140,130 241,685 188,161 171,897 191,850 174,445 327,524 166,417 192,606 214,790 257,366 332,889
Acrrued Payroll and Benefits 112,566 121,202 162,144 189,334 197,564 154,752 126,657 134,299 107,795 118,879 156,285 165,025
Current Installments Under Capital Lea 87,206 80,556 65,301 61,365 42,538 17,057 53,671 15,037 12,245 13,208 39,661 12,861
Short-term Notes and Line of Credit Pa 195,705 204,955 213,975 161,878 357,105 178,570 188,960 235,785 126,940 131,670 256,668 324,205
Other
Advance Funds-State/Port Authority 50,900 120,800 117,200 238,200 7,800 4,800 102,600 15,000 4,000 5,700 10,451 10,390
NEC Obligations-Amtrak - - - - - - 54,500 9,300 1,800 800 2,557 2,974
Injury and Damage Claims 34,300 35,500 38,000 39,600 42,400 44,500 43,100 48,600 52,500 57,300 59,683 65,482
Retainage on Construction Projects 15,000 8,000 6,800 9,000 8,800 8,600 8,000 10,100 10,900 18,200 25,614 49,337
Pollution Remidiation Obligations 4,000 9,900 4,200 3,100 3,300 8,100 7,900 7,500 9,700 9,000 7,996 7,551
ARC Settlement Payable 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 - - - - - - - -
ARC Insurance Refunds Payable 1,100 1,100 - - - - - - - - - -
Other 31,452 25,933 27,212 25,728 45,411 31,897 16,474 16,900 4,300 4,549 66,003 78,028
Total Current Liabilities 691,359 868,631 841,993 919,102 896,768 622,721 929,386 658,938 522,786 574,096 882,284 1,048,742
Current Assets to Current Liabilities Ratio 76% 86% 83% 81% 81% 88% 93% 90% 124% 117% 133% 112%
NJ TRANSIT’s ability to cover its current liabilities is dependent on timing of accruals and appropriations from
NJTTFA, it should be noted that the NJTTFA has an extremely high current ratio, which has remained high
over the past three fiscal years (FY 2020 to FY 2022) – between 19x and 20x. NJTTFA’s current assets are
restricted in use for payment of state transportation costs and bond issued outstanding. Table 3-16 reflects
the NJTTFA Current Ratio.
Table 3-16 NJTTFA Current Ratio (in millions of dollars)
Assets/Liabilities/Ratio 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Current Assets $16,922 $22,210 $20,608 $20,044 $20,330 $21,381 $21,276 $1,692
Current Liabilities $123 $89 $225 $985 $987 $1,044 $1,146 $1,170
Current Ratio 137x 250x 91x 20x 21x 20x 19x 1x

APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC FORECASTS

Overview
This section presents a summary of historic and projected economic conditions of the New York – Jersey
City region according to the following four economic indicators: population, employment, personal income,
and inflation.
In general, the forecasts for the New York – Jersey City region represent slow and moderate growth during
the planning horizon. Future growth rates are generally assumed to be lower than the rates experienced over
the past ten years.
Population Growth Estimates
Table A-1 summarizes historic and forecasted population growth rates for the New York – Jersey City region
from 2005 to 2050. For the purposes of the population and employment figures, the New York – Jersey City
region includes the Counties of Bergen, Hudson, Passaic, Middlesex, and Monmouth in New Jersey State,
as well New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, Richmond, Orange, Rockland, and Westchester in New York State.
The region’s population historic and forecast data were obtained from IHS Markit Economic Analytics, a
company which provides economic forecasts to local and national governments.
As shown in Table A-1, population growth in the New York – Jersey City region is forecasted to grow
approximately -0.09% from 2015 to 2050. This rate is highly conservative relative to the growth experienced
from 2005 to 2015, which is equal to 0.4%, and this negative rate is largely due to the effects of the COVID -
19 pandemic that started in 2020 and impacted the New York City, New Jersey Metropolitan area.
Table A-1. 2005 to 2050 Population Growth for the New York – Jersey City Region
Population New York - Jersey City Region

Year (Forecasted)
Totals (000s) 5 Year Growth Rate
2005 13,579
2010 13,912 2.45%
2015 14,423 3.67%
2020 14,811 2.69%
2025 14,433 -2.55%
2030 14,535 0.70%
2035 14,593 0.40%
2040 14,584 -0.06%
2045 14,519 -0.45%
2050 14,427 -0.64%
2005 -2015 CAGR 0.40%
2020 - 2050 CAGR -0.09%
Source: IHS Markit Economic Analytics, 2022
Employment Growth Estimates

Table A-2 presents the historic and forecasted employment growth for the New York – Newark region from
2005 to 2050. The employment forecast is from IHS Markit Economic Analytics.
Table A-2: 2005 to 2050 Employment for the New York – Jersey City Region
Employment New York - Jersey City Region
Year (Forecasted)
2005 6,022
2010 6,043 0.35%
2015 6,701 10.89%
2020 6,511 -2.83%
2025 7,106 9.13%
2030 7,164 0.81%
2035 7,222 0.82%
2040 7,240 0.25%
2045 7,214 -0.36%
2050 7,228 0.18%
2005 -2015 CAGR 0.71%
2020 - 2050 CAGR 0.35%
From 2015 to 2050, employment in the New York – Jersey City region is forecast to increase at a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.35%. This rate is more conservative than the growth experienced from 2005
to 2015, which is equal to 0.71%.

Personal Income
Table A-3 summarizes historic and forecasted personal income for the New York- Newark region from 2005
to 2050. The region’s historic and forecasted personal income data was obtained from IHS Markit Economic
Analytics.
Table A-3: 2005 to 2050 Personal Income for the New York-Jersey City Region
Personal Income New York - Jersey City
Year Region (Forecasted)
2005 616,931
2010 744,260 20.64%
2015 898,624 20.74%
2020 1,137,774 26.61%
2025 1,382,320 21.49%
2030 1,683,658 21.80%
2035 2,036,883 20.98%
2040 2,488,437 22.17%
2045 3,053,594 22.71%
2050 3,776,455 23.67%
2005 -2015 CAGR 2.54%
2020 - 2050 CAGR 4.08%

Personal income and per capita personal income is forecasted to grow at a higher rate than the historical
2005 to 2015 CAGR.

Inflation Rate Forecasts

The New York-New Jersey region’s historic and forecasted consumer price index (CPI) from 2005 to 2050 is
shown in Table A-4. The historic and forecast CPI data were obtained from IHS Markit Economic Analytics.
Table A-4: 2005 to 2050 CPI for the New York-Jersey City Region
Regional CPI New York - Jersey City Region

Year (Forecasted)
2005 213
2010 241 13.15%
2015 261 8.30%
2020 283 8.40%
2025 336 18.83%
2030 375 11.54%
2035 416 11.05%
2040 463 11.29%
2045 517 11.65%
2050 579 11.82%
2005 -2015 CAGR 1.36%
2020 - 2050 CAGR 2.41%
Within the New York – Jersey City Region, the CPI is forecast to increase at a CAGR of 2.41% from 2020-
2050. See Section 2.4.1.1.1 for a discussion on the Building Cost Index (BCI) and Construction Cost Index
(CCI) data as published by ENR magazine for the New York area.
Additionally, the 30-year Treasury bond yield rate from 2005 to 2035 is shown in Table A-5 on the next page.
This data was obtained from CapitalIQ.
Table A-5 Yield on 30-year Treasury Bonds
30Y Yield
Year
(updated)
2005 4.56
2010 4.25
2015 2.84
2020 1.65
2025 4.04
2030 4.04
2035 4.04
Source: CapitalIQ, 2022

Privileged & Confidential/Advisory, Consultative & Deliberative/Proprietary Commercial and Financial Information - Do Not Disclose Subject to FOIA b(4). GDC reserves all potential exemptions under GDC Public Records Access Policy, NJ OPRA
and NY FOIL
APPENDIX B - PANYNJ FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Appendix B-1: Revenues, Expenses, Capital Investment by Business (in thousands) (Pursuant to GAAP)

and NY FOIL
Appendix B-2: Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Net Position (in thousands) (Pursuant to GAAP)

and NY FOIL
Appendix B-3: Revenues and Reserves (in thousands) (Pursuant to Port Authority bond resolutions)

Appendix C – LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

A) Supporting Financial Model Documentation
A-4. NJ TRANSIT System-wide 20-year Forecast – UPDATE
A-5. HTP Base Case and Sensitivity Supporting Spreadsheet – UPDATE
A-6. Hudson Tunnel Project Infrastructure O&M Forecast – UPDATE
A-7. Interest Rate Memo – UPDATE
B) Local Financial Commitment
B-1. Gateway MOU
B-5. Certificate of Incorporation of Gateway Program Development Corporation
B-6. Gateway Emerging Projects Agreement
B-9. Port Authority Board Resolution (02/15/2018) – 7) Gateway Program – Authorization of Funds for Gateway Program
Early Work – Relocation of Infrastructure and Program Management Services for The Gateway Program Development
Corporation AND 8) Port Authority Gateway Support Program, Early Work – Facility Certification
B-10. FY 2024 State of New York Annual Information Statement dated June 9, 2023
B-11. FY 2025 NY Executive Capital Program and Financing Plan
B-12. FY 2023 NY Enacted Budget Related Information
B-13. FY 2024 NY Enacted Budget Related Information (Ch. 56 of 2023 Part PP Section 51)
B-14. FY 2025 NY Executive Budget – Capital Program and Financing Plan - NEW
B-15. Port Authority Board Resolution (06/28/2018) - Confirmation of Capital Plan Allocation for the Hudson Tunnel
Project
B-16. Request for Information – Industry Session & Project Overview - Hudson Tunnel Project & Hudson Yards Concrete
Casing – Section 3
B-17. Funding and Coordination Agreement between Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT
B-19. State of New Jersey Act 5570 establishing the Gateway Development Commission
B-20. State of New York Act 6372-A establishing the Gateway Development Commission
B-21. HTP Record of Decision
B-23. Northeast Corridor Commission Base Capital Cost Resolution
B-24. GDC Commission Board Minutes Final 2021-05-12
B-25. Port Authority Board Resolution (03/24/2016) – Gateway Program – Memorandum of Understanding with the
United States Department of Transportation, National Railroad Passenger Corporation and New Jersey Transit
Corporation, Formation of a Development Corporation and Agreement with Amtrak Related to the Expenditure of Funds
for Preliminary Engineering and Planning for the Gateway Tunnel Project
B-26. NJTA Board Resolution (12/21/21) – Request for Authorization to Enter into Negotiations with the Treasurer of the
State of New Jersey to Provide Funding to Advance the Hudson Tunnel Project
B-27. GDC Commission Board Minutes – 9/13/2022 – Project Sponsor
B-28. NJTA Board Resolution (12/20/22) - Request for Authorization to Enter into an Agreement with the Treasurer of the
State of New Jersey to Provide Funding to Advance the Hudson Tunnel Project
B-29: NYS-GDC HTP Construction Funding Agreement (Service Contract) Draft (10.31.23)
B-30: NJTA-NJ Treasury Gateway Funding Agreement (10.26.23)
B-31: NJ -GDC RRIF Loan Funding Agreement Draft (10.27.23)
B-32: PANYNJ-GDC Construction Funding Agreement Draft (10.30. 23)
C) Inflation Rate Forecasts
C-1. Interest and Inflation Rates 2005-2038 – UPDATE
C-2. US Construction Indices 2005-2052
C-3. Historic Building Cost Index (BCI) and Construction Cost Index (CCI) for New York – UPDATE
D) Regional Economic Conditions
D-1. Regional CPI 1970-2052 – UPDATE
D-2. Long-Range US Economic Forecast 2005-2037 – UPDATE
D-3. NYNJ Regional Forecast 2005-2052 – UPDATE

January 2024
E) NJ TRANSIT Documents
E-1. FY 2010 NJ TRANSIT Capital and Operating Budget
E-12. FY 2017 NJ TRANSIT/NJDOT Transportation Capital Program
E-15. FY2020 NJ TRANSIT/NJDOT Transportation Capital Program
E-16. HTP New Starts Fare Policy and Level of Service
E-20. Letter to FTA for comments on DRAFT FY2020-2029 STIP
E-22. FHWA and FTA FY2020 – FY2024 STIP Approval Letter
E-23. NJ TRANSIT and FTA Full Funding Grant Agreement for the Portal North Bridge Project
E-27. New Jersey FY2022 – FY2031 STIP
F) Financial Condition of Public Transportation Provider
F-1. NJ TRANSIT 2013 Annual Report
F-4. New Jersey Assembly Bill 10
F-5. New Jersey Assembly Bill 10 Legislative History
F-7. New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority History
F-8. New Jersey 2016 Public Question 2 Ballot Measure
F-9. New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Funding Allocations
F-13. Official Statement for NJ TTFA Transportation Program Bonds Series 2023 BB - NEW
F-14. NJTTFA 2016 Audited Financial Statements

January 2024

F-25. NJ TRANSIT 2023 Annual Financial Statements - NEW
G) Amtrak Documents
G-1. FY 2013 Amtrak Annual Report
G-3. FY 2013 Amtrak Audited Consolidated Financial Statements
G-6. Amtrak Northeast Corridor Five-Year Capital Plan 2016-2020
G-7. Amtrak Commitment Documentation: FRA Grant Agreement (FR-AMT-0008-16-01-02), Statement of Work,
Attachment 2a, Task 9 – Gateway Projects
G-10. NECC NEC Capital Investment Plan 2023-2027
G-11. Amtrak FY 2018 Full-Year Funding Grant Amendment
G-15. Amtrak-GDC Executed Capital Funding Agreement and Execution Ready First Amendment – NEW
G-20. FY 2023 Amtrak Audited Consolidated Financial Statements – NEW
G-21. Amtrak Cost Overruns Commitment Letter – NEW
G-22. Amtrak Past Costs Determination – NEW
H) PANYNJ Documents
H-1. FY 2013 PANYNJ Annual Report
H-4. FY 2013 PANYNJ Audited Financial Statements
H-7. PANYNJ Proposed Capital Plan Summary 2014-2023
H-10. PANYNJ Capital Plan 2017-2026
H-17. PANYNJ 2017-2026 Capital Plan Reassessment
H-18. Official Statement for the PANYNJ Consolidated Bonds, Two Hundred Thirty-Third Series

January 2024
I) Planning Documents
I-1. NJ State Rail Plan 2015 – Relevant Pages
I-2. Board action to approve the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Portal North Bridge
I-3. NJ TRANSIT Transit Asset Management Plan
I-4. 2022 USDOT FRA NEC Project Inventory
J) NJ TRANSIT Bus Fleet Management Plan
J-1. NJ TRANSIT Bus Fleet Plan 2014-2020
J-2. NJ TRANSIT Bus Fleet Plan 2018
J-3. NJ TRANSIT Bus Fleet Plan 2022
K) New York State Documents
K-1. FY 2022 NY Enacted Capital Program and Financing Plan
K-2. FY 2020 State of New York Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
K-5. State of New York Annual Information Statement dated June 29, 2022
K-6. FY 2024 NY Enacted Capital Program and Financing Plan
L) Project Documents
L-1. Hudson Tunnel Project – Project Development Agreement. As Amended May 2023

January 2024

1 31 2024 GDC - HTP Financial Plan - Vfinal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 31 2024 GDC - HTP Financial Plan - Vfinal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 31 2024 GDC - HTP Financial Plan - Vfinal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hudson Tunnel Project

Submitted by Gateway Development Commission

The New Jersey Transit Corporation (Transit Operator)

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL/ADVISORY, CONSULTATIVE & DELIBERATIVE/PROPRIETARY

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

3.4 New Jersey Transit Risks and Uncertainties ................................................ 2-17

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

OMB Office of Management and Budget

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

1 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-01/MEGA%20FY%202023%20Combined%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf (Page 8 of 10)

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

Figure 1-1 Gateway Program Map

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

1.2 Hudson Tunnel Project Overview

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

HTP Project Sponsor

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

Other Key Entities in Delivering the HTP

1.3.2.1 State of New Jersey

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

Figure 1-3 Hudson Tunnel Project Location Map

Hudson Tunnel Project Current Conditions

http://hudsontunnelproject.com/documents/feis/02%20Alternatives%20and%20Preferred%20Alternative.pdf (Page 2-17).

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

2 HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN

National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) Program.

FRA Federal-State Partnership – Northeast Corridor Recipients, https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2024-01/FY%2022-23%20FSP-

contributions to Package 4 – Tonnelle Ave.

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

FTA CIG Scope

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

Table 2-3 Preliminary Project Packages 33

associated with debt transactions such as a bond sale.

o $25 million from USDOT’s National Infrastructure Investments (RAISE) Program.

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

2022-04-28/pdf/2022-09143.pdf (Page 26 of 31).

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

2.2.2.6 Federal-State Partnership Grant

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

2.2.2.7 RAISE Grant

2.2.2.9 PANYNJ Contribution to the HTP

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

58 These funds have been Budgeted as defined by FTA CIG guidelines.

construction cost overruns.

PANYNJ Financial Information

Table 2-10 PANYNJ Consolidated Bond Ratings

2.2.2.10 State of New Jersey Contribution to HTP

HUDSON TUNNEL PROJECT

Prior to financial close of the RRIF loan: