Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points

Department Of Transportation/ New Jersey Turnpike Authority

1. The New Jersey Transportation Capital Plan display on page H-7 of the Governor’s FY 2017 budget lists the amount of Federal Highway, Public Transportation, and Third Party Funds under the Mass Transit Assets category as $993.3 million under the recommended amount for FY 2017 and $1.533 billion as the adjusted appropriation for FY 2016.

• Question: Please provide a breakdown for FY 2016 and 2017 that identifies the portion of these amounts that is derived from federal sources and from third party funds. For the portion that is derived from federal sources, please identify what portion is attributable to formula based apportionment funding, which is a recurring source of funding from year to year, and what portion is attributable to non-recurring federal sources, such as competitive grants or emergency relief funding. Please identify any known projects or capital program line items that comprise this funding.

Answer: A breakdown is provided in the following table which includes Congestion Relief and Local System Support funding. In FY 17, the amount of Sandy Resiliency Federal funds decreases by $478 million.

Proposed Source FY 2016 FY 2017 ($ in millions) Amount Amount FTA Formula Funds $484 $502 FTA Local Program Funds $11 $11 FHWA Funds $220 $167 Sandy Resiliency Federal Funds $871 $393 Casino $19 $18 County Match $12 $2 Other $6 $5 TOTAL $1,623 $1,098

1

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

2. The main portion of federal highway funding provided in the New Jersey Transportation Capital Plan comes from apportionment funding. Apportionment funding is the funding that is provided to each state based on a formula that divides a fixed pool of federal funding among the states based on categories that include, but are not limited to, the number of miles of State roadway, traffic density, fuel sales, and population. Apportionment funding under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) is broken down into the following categories: National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Railway-Highway Crossings Program, Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), Metropolitan Planning, and National Highway Freight Program. States are typically given the fiscal year in which the money is granted plus three additional fiscal years to obligate the money before it is subject to rescission by the federal government. The total federal apportionment to New Jersey in fiscal years 2013-2016 has been $962.9 million, $963.7 million, $963.7 million, and $1.0128 billion respectively. If any of the $962.9 million in federal funds provided in FY 2013 have not been obligated by the end of the fiscal year, the federal government can rescind those funds and then make that amount available to other states. It appears that in recent years the full amount of federal apportionment funding has not been included in the capital program for appropriation. For example, the CMAQ apportionment in each of the last three years has been approximately $103 million, yet the amount included in the FY 2015 and 2016 capital programs was approximately $70 million.

• Question: How much federal apportionment funding from prior fiscal years has not yet been appropriated through the capital program? For each federal fiscal year from federal FY 2013-2016, please identify the amount of funds in each federal apportionment category that was appropriated in each year’s State capital program and any amount that has not yet been appropriated in the capital program.

Answer: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) apportions federal funds to a number of program accounts for New Jersey each year.

New Jersey may, with FHWA’s approval, obligate funds for eligible projects from these accounts or transfer funds between accounts, subject to certain rules. Apportionments may also accrue from year-to-year subject to any lapse restrictions. The FHWA may transfer funds to the Federal Transit Administration or other modal administration for administration at the request of the New Jersey Department of Transportation. This has been done in the past to make available FHWA funds for use by New Jersey Transit.

2

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

NJDOT, with FHWA’s guidance and approval, programs funding up to the overall level apportioned annually by FHWA, however, the programming of funds related to the specific federal programs does not match up with the amounts apportioned for each program by FHWA.

This is because NJDOT, based on its investment strategy priority of safety and infrastructure preservation, chooses to prioritize funding for these areas. Federal programs such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) will not see funding programmed to the level apportioned annually. Also, project readiness also affects what can be programmed. A project that only qualifies for one type of funds will impact how federal funds are programmed.

It is also important to remember that as federally funded projects are constructed and closed, remaining, unspent federal funds are released back to the apportionment accounts from which they were originally obligated. This can increase apportionment balances through the year.

Having provided this context, below is a table that outlines federal apportionment balances for each major federal program category prior to FFY2016:

Major Federal Program Categories Amount ($ millions) Surface Transportation Program $233.8 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program $99.9 Highway Safety Improvement Program $67.9 Transportation Alternatives Program $44.3 Statewide Planning and Research Program $17.7 National Highway Performance Program $17.6 Safe Routes to School $16.3 Total Apportionment Balances $497.5

The reason there are unspent apportionment balances is because FHWA provides two kinds of authority: 1) contract authority (also known as apportionment) for each program and 2) obligation authority.

3

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

The ability to spend apportionments is limited by the overall annual obligation authority limit provided each year. This limit is set by FHWA based on projected federal gas tax revenues supporting the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Typically the obligation authority limit runs somewhere around 90% of the overall formula apportionment amount. Apportionments that are not obligated in a given year accrue to the next year. It is impossible for New Jersey to obligate funds to the level apportioned annually. New Jersey has always obligated funds to the obligation limit allowed by FHWA.

The attached table provides the amount of funds appropriated and the amount of funds obligated for each fiscal year from FY 13 through FY 16 by federal program.

• Question: For each federal fiscal year from federal FY 2013-2016, please identify the amount of funds in each federal apportionment category that was obligated in each State fiscal year and any amount that has not yet been obligated.

Answer: See chart in NJDOT Appendix A.

• Question: Please identify the federal funds, if any, that are at risk of rescission if they are not obligated in the upcoming State fiscal year.

Answer: No funds are at risk of rescission in the upcoming State fiscal year.

• Question: Why are there federal funds not fully appropriated in the year in which they are awarded? For any funds at risk of rescission if not obligated this year, why were they not already obligated? Does the department have internal goals for how long the department takes to obligate federal funds?

Answer: Federal funds apportioned in a given year are not required to be appropriated in that year by the state. Because of programming limitations and investment choices, states do not program funding to the exact levels apportioned by FHWA. No funds are at risk of rescission.

In response to internal goals for obligation of federal funds, NJDOT’s goal is to ensure we obligate all funds up to the obligation limitation allowed by FHWA each federal fiscal year. Furthermore, NJDOT strives to be in a position to receive additional obligation limitation should FHWA provide it toward the end 4

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

of the federal fiscal year. The reason these balances were available is that other states were unable to obligate contracts within the deadline established by the FHWA. In FY 14 the Department received an additional $11 million in federal funds, and in FY 15 the Department received an additional $47 million in federal funds.

3. Newly proposed language on page D-357 of the Governor’s FY 2017 budget appropriates to the department amounts received in connection with the issuance of Indirect Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (Indirect GARVEE) bonds by the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority (TTFA). This is a type of bond that is issued against the anticipated reimbursement of federal funds that would otherwise be used to pay for federally funded construction projects. When an Indirect GARVEE is issued, the State must identify some other source of funding to pay for the costs of the original project, because the federal reimbursements are now being pledged for the repayment of the Indirect GARVEE bond. The TTFA previously used GARVEE bonds to fund the Rt. 52 Causeway Project, citing a mismatch between the need to fund large projects and the availability of federal funds.

• Question: How does the department intend to utilize the proceeds of Indirect GARVEE bonds? What benefit does the issuance of Indirect GARVEE bonds provide over traditional bonding or direct GARVEE bonds?

• Question: What is the amount of Indirect GARVEE bond issuance planned by the Transportation Trust Fund Authority (TTFA) and over what period? What is the likely term of these bonds, and what federal project reimbursements are to be pledged against Indirect GARVEE bonds? Which specific project or projects does the department expect to fund with Indirect GARVEE bond proceeds?

• Question: If federal project reimbursements are being pledged to bondholders as a source of debt service for Indirect GARVEE bonds, what source of funding will the TTFA use to pay for the project costs that would have otherwise been paid with those federal project reimbursements?

• Question: Does the TTFA consider Indirect GARVEE debt to be debt that counts against the statutory aggregate bonding limitations established in N.J.S.A 27:1B-9? Why or why not?

Answer: The new budget language in the Fiscal Year 2017 Governor’s Budget Message authorizing the issuance of a federal indirect GARVEE bond is intended to update the existing GARVEE language to match existing federal 5

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

funding options and preserve all options for TTF funding in the upcoming reauthorization.

Indirect GARVEE bonds would not count against the TTFA’s aggregate bonding limitation, given the wording of NJSA27:1B-9b(2), which states: “…The authority may also issue notes in anticipation of the receipt of appropriations, grants, reimbursements or other funds, including without limitation grants from the federal government for federal aid highways or public transportation systems, the principal of or interest on which, or both, shall be payable out of the proceeds of appropriations, grants, reimbursements or other funds, including without limitation grants from the federal government for federal aid highways or public transportation systems. Such notes shall not be subject to the bonding limitations as provided in subsection i. of this section;

4. FY 2015 obligation reports update the progress of FY 2015 capital program expenditures. The reports provide the expenditures of federal funds by Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area as well as Statewide federal programs, the expenditure of State Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) funds, and the expenditure by NJ Transit of capital program funds. According to the obligation reports, the State-funded NJ Transit portion of the capital program drew down all capital program balances made available to it for FY 2015 on 7/9/2014. However, it is unlikely that NJ Transit completed its entire capital program within eight days of the beginning of the fiscal year, when it drew down its entire appropriation. The federally funded NJ Transit portion of the capital program identifies a $386.4 million balance out of the $920.5 million in modified funding available for FY 2015.

• Question: Please provide a report that identifies when NJ Transit completed capital project line items and expended the funds made available to it for its FY 2015 projects.

Answer: NJ Transit has obligated $470.5 million in TTF funds for FY15. As of February 2016, NJ TRANSIT has expended $279.0 million of the FY15 TTF funds. The remaining funds have been committed as the required match for the Sandy Competitive Resilience Projects and for the regulatory required Positive Train Control project.

• Question: Please provide an update showing what progress has been made in advancing projects with available balances remaining.

6

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Answer: NJ TRANSIT has entered into multiyear contracts for Sandy Competitive Resiliency Projects and Positive Train Control Projects. These projects will continue to spend down TTF funding.

5. In response to previous discussion points, the department noted that in 2008 it conducted a comprehensive analysis comparing in-house versus consultant costs in the areas of bridge inspection, construction inspection, design work, highway lighting, and relamping. The cost studies found that in-house staffing would be less expensive in all areas. Also, pursuant to Side Letter 42, the department provides quarterly updates to CWA reporting on progress in hiring new employees and increasing the percentage of work performed by in-house staff in the above areas.

• Question: Please provide an updated chart for FY 2015 actual and FY 2016 estimated data, and provide any formal or informal targets in FY 2017 for in- house bridge inspection, design, and construction inspection in the same manner provided in responses to previous discussion points.

7

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Answer:

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Bridge Inspection In-house bridge inspection 39 42 50 50 52 57 staff % of bridge safety inspections 21% 35% 17% 35% 40% 46% in-house % of bridge safety inspections 79% 65% 83% 65% 60% 54% consultant Design In-house design staff 132 123 123 120 132 134 % of construction projects 22% 16% 16% 12% 16% 27% designed in-house ($ value) % of construction projects 78% 84% 84% 88% 84% 73% designed consultant ($ value) % of total projects designed 32% 42% 37% 36% 32% 35% in-house % of total projects designed 68% 58% 63% 64% 68% 65% consultant Construction Inspection In-house construction 211 225 219 197 214 229 inspection field staff Consultant Construction 212 180 160 216 229 200 inspection field staff In-house % of total CI field 50% 56% 58% 48% 48% 53% staff Consultant % of total CI field 50% 44% 42% 52% 52% 47% staff

• Question: While the department is limited in its ability to bring in experienced engineers from outside of State government, would it be possible to expand the ranks of in-house staff through long-term staff recruitment and development programs? Please describe efforts to develop internal expertise and expand in-house capabilities.

Answer: Given the limitations that the Department is under in bringing in experienced engineers from outside of State government, we have embarked on an enhanced recruitment effort to bring in a more diverse and committed entry level workforce. The Division of Human Resources has expanded their 8

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

recruitment efforts by utilizing an outside organization to allow our job postings to reach many more colleges. This will assist us in achieving our long term goal of reaching colleges with strong engineering programs from across the country. In addition, rather than do open calls for applicants for “engineering” positions, we have begun posting for specific engineering jobs within the Department. For example, postings have gone out for engineers in construction, design, local aid, etc. This will ensure that the entry level engineers will be working in an area that interests them, and ideally, they will stay at the Department for many years.

We have taken steps in our Training and Development area to develop existing staff with project management (PM) and leadership skills. We routinely offer project management training classes to engineers in the Capital Program Management and Planning areas, however, we have recently refined this training to include not only a 1-day project management basics class and a 3- day project management essentials class, but also subject specific in-depth training classes. In order to attend the subject-specific classes, one must have taken both the PM basics and PM essentials and be selected by supervision to attend. In addition, we have partnered with the Civil Service Commission to provide Leadership Training for mid- level and new supervisors throughout the Department. To date, approximately 150 employees have attended this 7-day intensive supervisory/leadership training and 50 more are scheduled to attend this spring. Many of these attendees are principal and project engineers.

6. Pursuant to N.J.S.A.27:1B-22.2, the financial policy review board is tasked with ensuring that the amount of trust fund appropriations that can be expended on permitted maintenance is not greater than the amount expended in FY 2006, or approximately $120 million. A language provision has been included in each annual appropriations law since FY 2014 which increases this limit to $135 million in recognition of the severe damage caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy.

• Question: Please identify the line items in the capital program that comprise the amounts expended on permitted maintenance in the approved capital program from FY 2014-2016 and the projected amount for FY 2017.

Permitted Maintenance ($ in millions) Expended as of 3/31/16 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 NJDOT Drainage Rehabilitation and Maintenance $7.60 $4.60 $2.30 9

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Electrical Facilities (Repair, Replacement, $4.00 $4.70 $0.70 Installation) Regional Action Program $2.20 $0.50 $0.60 Signs Program, Statewide $1.50 $1.10 $0.00 Subtotal $15.30 $10.90 $3.60 NJ Transit Capitalized Maintenance $5.20 $5.20 $9.89 Subtotal $5.20 $5.20 $9.89 Total $20.50 $16.10 $13.49

• Question: Please list each remaining Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy project and the expected amount of permitted maintenance costs for each project.

Answer: The Department has completed work associated with Hurricane Irene. None of the five major projects underway associated with Superstorm Sandy are funded with TTF permitted maintenance funds.

For their projects, NJ TRANSIT anticipates no permitted maintenance costs as the costs are primarily for capital construction and design.

7. The FY 2016 TTFA Financial Plan estimated $1.127 billion in transportation project costs, and a closing cash balance at the end of FY 2016 of $57.7 million. The plan also noted a FY 2015 closing net balance or “tail” of $1.94 billion, which represents authorized project costs that have not yet been realized as a cash expense.

• Question: What is the current cash balance of the TTFA, and what is the projected balance at the end of FY 2016?

• Question: What is the amount of cash expenditures on transportation project costs for FY 2016 year to date, and how much is expected to be expended by the end of FY 2016? What factors could cause this projection to increase or decrease?

• Question: Please provide an updated chart with the same information provided in response to OLS discussion point #8 for FY 2016, the chart entitled “State Accounts with Unexpended and Uncommitted 480 Funds.”

Answer: As of mid-March, 2016, the cash balance in the TTFA was $815 million. Based on the reimbursement plan arranged by the Department of Treasury, this balance reflects the $325 million in cash reimbursements that the 10

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

TTFA forwarded to the General Fund from July through October but does not yet reflect subsequent net reimbursements totaling approximately $333 million that are outstanding from November through March. Those payments will be made in the late spring of 2016. Taking into account projected cash payments of approximately $392 million from April through June, the Authority projects a year-end cash balance of approximately $84 million.

As noted above, net cash expenditures on transportation project costs in the current fiscal year have totaled approximately $658m through the end of March, 2016. The current projection of net project costs for the full fiscal year totals $1.1 billion, an amount that could be influenced by the relative pace of large projects and severe weather conditions.

The chart requested has been updated and is attached as NJDOT Appendix B.

8. The TTFA typically releases a financial plan in March preceding the next fiscal year. The financial plan typically lays out the financial position of the TTFA, projects incoming revenues for the coming fiscal year, and upcoming expenses. The last meeting of the TTFA board took place December 30, 2015 when the TTFA released its audited financial statement for the period ending June 30, 2015.

• Question: When will the TTFA be issuing a financial plan for FY 2017? Will a plan be issued that assumes the authorization of $1.6 billion in new transportation projects in FY 2017 if no legislation providing additional TTFA bonding has been enacted? In the absence of additional bonding authority, how long will the TTFA be able to meet its obligations before exhausting its available resources?

Answer: In the absence of a formal plan to reauthorize the TTF program, it would be premature to issue a Fiscal Year 2017 TTFA Financial Plan, as doing so would require an analysis that is speculative in nature.

9. The Governor’s proposed budget recommends the appropriation of $1.6 billion for new transportation projects in FY 2017. The TTFA has no remaining statutory bonding authority. FY 2017 recommended appropriations to the TTFA are about $1.3 billion. Since this is the expected amount of FY 2017 debt service, these appropriations would seem to provide no support for pay-as-you-go funding for FY 2017 project costs. The State has also recorded the annual Build America Bond subsidy as Schedule 1 revenue for FY 2017, so those funds will not be available to the authority as a source of non-debt service funding support. Additionally, the TTFA has a 11

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

“tail” of $1.94 billion in prior project appropriations that have not yet required cash outlays.

• Question: What sources of funding will the TTFA rely upon to support the $1.6 billion in FY 2017 capital program appropriations and the $1.94 billion in unrealized costs from prior years’ capital program appropriations?

• Question: Please provide a month by month breakdown of anticipated TTFA cash flow activity for FY 2017. Please identify the receipt of State appropriations for debt service as well as any other source of anticipated revenue. Please identify the payment of debt service payable for previously issued debt, anticipated project costs for prior appropriations that constitute the “tail”, and anticipated FY 2017 disbursements for the $1.6 billion in capital program appropriations assumed in the FY 2017 proposed budget.

Answer: The Department of Transportation is confident that the Legislature and the Governor will agree on a TTF reauthorization and will provide the necessary resources. Any analysis of revenues would be speculative at this point.

10. Schedule 1 funding from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (turnpike authority) under the line item Autonomous Transportation Authorities decreases to $24.5 million in FY 2017 from $53.5 million for FY 2016. Schedule 2 turnpike authority funding decreases to $204 million in FY 2017 from $295 million in FY 2016. Total State support from the turnpike authority is thus $228.5 million for FY 2017, down from $348.5 million in FY 2016.

• Question: Please describe the funding agreements with the turnpike authority that result in $228.5 million in revenue for the State. What level of funding is to be provided to the State over the next five years pursuant to these agreements? (Turnpike)

Answer: Of the $228.5 million cited above, $2.5 million per year is payable from the South Jersey Transportation Authority.

The New Jersey Turnpike Authority has one TTF-related funding agreement with the state that is in place for FY 2017 and beyond and is described below:

State Agreement - Under this existing agreement, the New Jersey Turnpike 12

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Authority is obligated to make annual payments of $22.0 million to the State for the development of State transportation projects. The agreement expires when all obligations of the Transportation Trust Fund Authority are paid. Of this $22.0 million, $12.5 million supports the Department’s Direct State Service appropriations through budget language.

Total payments due by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority for the next five state fiscal years under existing funding agreements are shown below:

(in millions) FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021

State Agreement $22.0 $22.0 $22.0 $22.0 $22.0

Future New State Transportation Projects Funding Agreement - The FY2017 budget assumes that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority will enter into a new State transportation project funding agreement in the total amount of $204.0 million. That agreement would be worked out between the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and the State. • Question: After accounting for debt service costs and reserves that the turnpike authority is required to maintain pursuant to its bond agreements, how much excess revenue is the turnpike authority projected to generate annually in FY 2017-2022 based on the current debt service schedule and revenue and cost projections from the CDM Smith report?

Answer: The New Jersey Turnpike Authority's Official Statement for its Series 2016A bonds includes the current debt service schedule, revenue projections prepared by CDM Smith, and expense and required reserve funding projections prepared by HNTB. However, the amount assumed in these projections for a future new State Transportation Projects Funding Agreement were lower than what was included in the State's FY2017 budget and so the amounts shown below differ from the amounts shown in the Series 2016A Official Statement.

(in millions) FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021

13

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Excess Cash Flow $131.9 $131.9 $155.7 $123.3 $118.7 Available Over the five year period, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority is expected to generate excess cash flow of $661.5 million.

11. In answers to previous OLS discussion points, the department cited approximately $20 million as the amount of capital program funds used by the department for permitted maintenance. The base operating budget of the department is $45.1 million. The department’s total amount of funding support for non-capital activities appears to be approximately $65.1 million. There is additional funding provided each year for snow removal, but that amount is variable based upon winter emergency conditions. The FY 2017 budget would support 1,426 maintenance and operations positions and 102 physical plant and support services positions, or 1,528 total positions.

• Question: Are there other sources of funding that support the non-capital portion of department activities? If so, please identify those sources.

14

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Answer: Of the Department’s $45.1 million Direct State Service appropriation, $43.6 million (96%) supports the non-capital activities of Maintenance and Operations and Physical Plant and Support Services. This $43.6 million accounts for 31% of those operating budgets. The remaining sources of operating budget funding for FY 17 are projected as follows: Federal salary and non-salary reimbursements of $59.4 million (42%), NJ Transportation Trust Funds salary and non-salary reimbursement of $14.1million (10%, of which $5 million is force account permitted maintenance work), and $23.7 million (17%) from other sources typically provided through budget language such as motor vehicle fees, highway access permit fees and agreements with other agencies as reimbursements for services provided.

Note that the discussion point for this question suggests that the permitted maintenance line items in the capital program (referred to in number 6 above) are supporting the operating budget. Except for the force account work charged to these line items, the permitted maintenance capital program line items fund the purchase of material and contractor services which support programs and projects that have a useful life of not less than five years as provided in the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority Act of 1984.

• Question: Please provide a description of department spending and staff attributable to major department operating activities including mowing, litter removal, electrical operations, non-capital inspections, resurfacing and pothole repair, signage, incident response, administrative overhead, fixed snow removal costs, etc.

Answer: As described in the Governor’s Budget Message, NJDOT’s Maintenance and Operations program rehabilitates existing roads and bridges, administers a snow and ice control program to ensure the safety of the travelling public, protects the roadside through landscape maintenance, controls roadside advertising and highway access points, manages a system of traffic signals, highway lighting facilities and movable bridges, maintains NJDOT’s equipment fleet, and operates a statewide network of service facilities, including fuel dispensing for other agencies of the State. There are 80 maintenance yards and 66 maintenance crews statewide. Maintenance and Operations has 1,257 FTE and an operating budget of $105.8 million (excluding snow overtime). Maintenance and Operations FTE are organized as follows:

15

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Maintenance and Operations FTE Administration 4 Operations Support and Training 11 Highway Access Permits and Insurance Claims 21 Drawbridge Operations & Maintenance 75 Electrical (traffic signals/highway lighting inspect, maintain & upgrade) 125 Vehicles/equipment maintenance, and vehicle fuel dispensing facilities 192 Regional Operations (oversees and manages road and bridge maintenance contracts 104 such as guide rail repairs, major drainage cleaning/repairs and bridge painting) Operations – North, Central, South Maintenance Crews includes: 725 Storm response – snow, hurricanes, tropical storms & flooding Stormwater Management – maintain inlets, basins & manholes, sweeping Pavement Maintenance – pothole repair, repaving, crack & joint sealing Vegetation Control - mowing, vegetation control, tree trimming & removal Highway Marking – maintain and install signs Aesthetics – litter pick up, large debris removal and graffiti removal Public Health & Safety – maintain fence & guardrail, set up safety zones, deer carcass removal Total 1,257

Within the Maintenance and Operations program class is Traffic Systems Management, which is responsible for the Statewide Traffic Operations and Support Strategies Program that addresses delays attributable to incidents, work zones, weather emergencies, and special events, as well as the Traffic Mobility and ITS Engineering Program, which improves mobility through Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Traffic Signal Timing and Optimization, Monitoring Work Zone Mobility and Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) programs. Traffic Systems Management has 169 filled positions. Their annual operating costs, which total $10 million, are funded through charges to federal highway agreements and an annual sponsorship agreement with the State Farm Insurance Company.

Traffic Systems Management FTE Administration 6 Traffic Operations 123 Mobility & Systems Engineering 40 Total 169

Physical Plant and Support Services maintains and repairs the Department’s physical plant comprising a total of 93 facilities, including offices, garages and shops, major maintenance facilities, salt and chemical storage facilities, 16

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

equipment storage buildings, warehouses and laboratories, and foster a safe and healthful workplace/operations. Their annual operating costs total $13.6 million. Physical Plant and Support Services has 102 FTE, organized as follows:

Physical Plant and Support Services FTE Administration 9 Facilities Engineering 9 Facilities / Maintenance (maintains all Department facilities, operates the 71 Department’s steam plant in Ewing, and manages the Department’s telephone system statewide) Workplace Safety 13 Total 102

12. The department has previously explained that the annual operating budget includes $10.4 million for winter operations, an amount equal to the department’s fixed winter operations costs regardless of weather. Additional amounts, as necessary for snow removal and other winter operations, are provided during the fiscal year as supplemental appropriations. These amounts can vary widely from year to year depending upon the severity of winter weather.

On page D-352 of the Governor’s FY 2017 budget, the FY 2017 estimate for snow and ice control costs is $10.34 million, indicating that the existing budget appropriation for baseline fixed costs is sufficient. The proposed budget provides an estimate as of mid-February, before the winter season has completed for FY 2016 total costs of $90.34 million. That estimate is subject to change in the event of late season winter storms.

• Question: Please provide an updated estimate for winter operations for FY 2016 that reflects costs for the full winter season. What amount of supplemental appropriation, if any, will be necessary to cover winter operations this year, beyond the $80 million already projected?

Answer: As of March 29, 2016, the cost of FY 16 winter operations is $47 million. Over the last five years, costs for the month of April averaged $500,000, which increases the projected total expense to $47.5 million. When the Department’s base winter operations budget of $10.4 million is subtracted from current year cost, the projected snow supplemental reimbursement is $37.1 million. The snow supplemental amount of $80 million was calculated earlier in the year based on the average winter operations cost from the last 17

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

three fiscal years. Fortunately, this past winter was not as severe and therefore was less costly.

• Question: Please provide a cost per mile for snow removal in New Jersey for the most recent five fiscal years, which includes the amounts for the department, the turnpike authority, and the South Jersey Transportation Authority.

Average Snow Removal Cost Per Lane Mile Lane 5 year Miles 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 average NJDOT 13,341 $3,799 $10,280 $9,739 $4,653 $1,524 $5,999 NJTA 3,576 $5,384 $13,065 $12,081 $6,796 $2,346 $7,934 SJTA 551 $2,559 $4,367 $5,111 $3,139 $1,355 $3,036

13. In March 2012, the department released the FY 2013-2022 Statewide Capital Investment Strategy (SCIS). In addition to identifying desired and projected levels of investment in various transportation asset categories, the SCIS utilized transportation management systems to provide an analytic projection of infrastructure condition over time based on given levels of investment. The SCIS projected that over 10 years, an investment level of $720 million per year would be sufficient to reduce the total square footage of deficient bridge deck area and the total number of deficient bridges by 50%. This would result in 94% of bridge deck square footage being in acceptable condition and reduce the deficient bridge count to 160 deficient bridges. An investment of $263 million per year in road assets was projected to generate 80% of highway pavement in acceptable condition over ten years. The State is now nearly halfway through the SCIS and investment levels have met or exceeded targets in these two areas. Bridge investment have been variable, but appropriations appear to have been around $700- $750 million annually compared to the $720 million target, not including bridges owned by the PANYNJ. Appropriations for road assets have averaged over $300 million per year compared to a $263 million per year target.

The SCIS projection for $720 million per year in funding was to result in approximately 90% acceptable bridge deck square footage and approximately 270 deficient bridges by FY 2017. The Governor’s proposed budget estimates 87.7% of bridge deck area to be in acceptable condition through FY 2017 and FHWA data indicates approximately 290 bridges on the State highway system are deficient. Further, budget data indicates that there will be an improvement of just 0.3% in acceptable bridge deck area and 0.9% in deficient bridges over 20 ft. from FY 2014- 2017, well below the rate necessary for the 50% reduction in deficiency projected in the SCIS. The SCIS projection for $300 million per year in funding in road assets was

18

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

to result in 70% acceptable pavement by FY 2017, yet the budget estimate is for just 57% of pavement to be in acceptable condition, largely unchanged from FY 2014 budget evaluation data.

• Question: Why has the State’s investment in bridge assets failed to generate the level of improvement projected in the SCIS? Are updated estimates available that show what level of improvement can be realized from a given level of bridge investment? If so, please provide.

Answer: The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s investment in bridge assets has not failed to generate the level of improvement projected in the 2013- 2022 SCIS. Based on 2014 performance data, 88% of state maintained bridges and 88% of bridge deck area are in acceptable condition. The number of NJDOT maintained structurally deficient bridges has continued to decrease, presently at 292. This improvement is on target with bridge investment tables presented in the SCIS. The Bridge Management System is presently analyzing performance data collected from calendar year 2015. At the completion of this task (anticipated end of April), estimates regarding level of improvement based upon various investment scenarios may be updated.

• Question: Why has our investment in road assets failed to generate the level of improvement projected in the SCIS? Are updated estimates available that show what level of improvement can be realized from a given level of pavement investment?

Answer: The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s investment in pavement has improved the condition of the state highway system. Based on pavement data collected, the percentage of acceptable lane miles (state maintained) was 50 % in calendar year 2010 and 60% in calendar year 2015. Between 2013 and 2017, NJDOT has, on average, programmed above the SCIS recommendation. It is important to note a portion of those funds have been allocated to project design elements such as compliance with ADA standards, drainage and guiderail improvements, utility relocations, Right-of-Way, and construction engineering.

14. On page D-345 of the Governor’s FY 2017 budget, a note indicates that performance data for infrastructure and safety is now being reported using a five year rolling average to account for annual fluctuations in data.

19

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: Please identify which specific key performance indicators are subject to significant year over year fluctuations and the source of those fluctuations. Why is a five year average a better measure of actual department performance than year-over-year changes in those areas? Please provide the year over year measure for these performance indicators as well so that it can be compared to the five year rolling average.

Answer: Both the key performance indicators for Traffic Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and Serious Injuries per 100 million Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) can be subject to significant year to year fluctuations. A large percentage of fatalities and injuries are the result of driver behavior and environment that cannot be controlled solely thru engineering, education and enforcement. The five year rolling average is a nationally accepted method of reporting that normalizes fluctuations in data from year to year. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires the use of a five year rolling average for the reporting of fatalities and serious injuries by the States under the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). There is now consistency between the safety data reported to the FHWA and the data shown in the Key Performance Indicators and Budget Evaluation Data. The following table compares the year to year data for the last five years with the current five year average.

FY 2015 FY FY FY FY FY Indicator 5 Yr. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Avg. Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fatality Rate .77 .86 .80 .73 .74 .72 Serious Injury 1.60 2.03 1.82 1.59 1.29 1.26 Rate

15. The legislative bonding authority provided in previous TTF reauthorizations has been completely exhausted. The State Treasurer’s Office issued a request for proposals (RFP) on February 8, 2016 for investment banking services for TTFA new money issuances in 2016. Items required in the RFP included ideas for how to finance the TTFA through FY 2017 and whether that plan will require legislative action or voter approval. The RFP also appears to anticipate bank loans as a possible funding vehicle. The RFP also notes that the State may wish to finance the TTFA for a period of four or five fiscal years.

• Question: Does the TTFA anticipate issuing debt prior to the passage of legislation providing additional bonding authority? If so, under what

20

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

authorization? Has the department identified any financing entity other than the TTFA that could issue debt without further legislative action to support the FY 2017 proposed capital program? If so, please identify any such entity.

• Question: Please identify any proposals provided which would permit a finance plan that does not involve legislative actions or voter approval. Please explain those proposals.

Answer: The TTF Authority does not anticipate issuing TTF debt prior to the enactment of legislation reauthorizing the program, since its bonding cap has been exhausted.

NJ TRANSIT

16. In November 2015, the Governors of New York and New Jersey came to an agreement with the federal government for funding of the Gateway Tunnel Project. Publicly released details of the agreement note that the federal government and Amtrak will provide at least 50 percent of the funding for the project and in exchange for that minimum funding guarantee, New York and New Jersey will work to identify the remaining funding. The breakdown of funding responsibility between Amtrak and the federal government for their 50% share is not known, nor is the federal source of that funding. The breakdown of funding between New York and New Jersey is also unknown.

The Gateway project consists of a group of capital projects in addition to the tunnel which will be necessary to provide expanded capacity across the Hudson River. NJ Transit has begun performing the environmental planning for the Gateway Tunnel.

• Question: Please provide any additional details available concerning the funding agreement at the federal and State levels and the sources of federal and State funding. Is there an updated project timeline for the completion of pre-construction phases of the project, the beginning of construction, and the completion of construction for the project?

Answer: The details of the funding agreement between the parties involved with advancing the Hudson Tunnels Project are being refined as the parties finalize the organizational framework to manage the project and advance design and construction.

21

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: How much will the environmental planning phase being undertaken by NJ Transit cost, and will that amount be credited towards the New Jersey share of project costs?

Answer: Amtrak will contribute $7 million, NJ TRANSIT will contribute approximately $3 million which will be credited towards New Jersey’s share.

• Question: Does the current funding agreement include any of the apportionment funding annually provided to states as part of the minimum 50 percent federal and Amtrak funding?

Answer: No federal formula funds will be utilized to fund the 50% federal and Amtrak funding.

• Question: Will any of the funding being provided by New Jersey to Amtrak for use of the Northeast Corridor, or projects undertaken by NJ Transit as part of the joint benefits agreement, be credited to New Jersey or be utilized by Amtrak as contributions towards the cost of the Gateway project?

Answer: Yes, NJ TRANSIT will receive credit toward the cost of the Hudson Tunnels phase of the Gateway Project for professional staff engineering and other “in-house” resources expended in furtherance of the tunnel construction. In addition, NJ TRANSIT is in discussions with Amtrak over provision of credit for NJ TRANSIT for other services and materials.

17. Several news reports have indicated that in September 2014, NJ Transit was awarded $1.3 billion in federal funds to improve the resiliency of the State’s transportation system. Included in those funds were $410 million for the development of NJ TransitGrid, a microgrid that would permit the NJ Transit system to continue operating even if the surrounding power grid goes offline. In response to FY 2016 OLS discussion points, it was indicated that the estimated cost of the TransitGrid system would be $577 million which is to include $136 million in State funding.

• Question: Please provide a list of projects to be funded with hurricane resiliency and recovery related federal funding. Please include any required State match for these projects, expected completion dates, whether necessary State funding has been appropriated, and the fiscal year in which the State and federal funding has been or will be appropriated through the capital program.

Answer: Please see NJ TRANSIT Attachment C.

22

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: Has federal funding been sufficient to meet all NJ Transit resiliency and recovery funding need? If not, has the need for supplementary State capital funding delayed or postponed otherwise planned transit investments? Please identify impacted transit capital investments and whether those projects have been delayed or cancelled as a result of the emergent need for storm resiliency and recovery spending.

Answer: In October 2015, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) verified $809 million in NJ TRANSIT repair and recovery needs in connection with Superstorm Sandy. To address these needs, FTA previously allocated NJ TRANSIT approximately $342 million for damage repair projects. In addition, NJ TRANSIT received approximately $103 in insurance payments to date.

An unmet repair and recovery need of approximately $364 million remains. NJ TRANSIT prioritized the most urgent and critical repair projects using insurance payments and funding available from the FTA. NJ TRANSIT continues to seek additional funding to support long-term recovery efforts.

18. NJ Transit income items are provided on page D-359 of the Governor’s FY 2017 budget. Other Reimbursements is one of those income line items and is listed at $811.8 million for FY 2017, down from an FY 2016 adjusted amount of $961.8 million. The footnote to this line item states that “other reimbursements include federal and Transportation Trust Fund reimbursement for transportation system improvements, preventive maintenance, and administrative costs in support of the Department’s capital program.”

• Question: Please provide a breakdown of this Other Reimbursements line item for FY 2016 and FY 2017. Please identify each source of funding that comprises this amount, including the Clean Energy Fund, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, State and federal capital program sources, as well as any other third party sources.

Answer: The following chart details the Other Reimbursements line item.

Source Proposed FY 2016 FY 2017 Amount Amount Federal Preventative Maintenance $449.6 million $390.6 million NJ Turnpike $295.0 million $204.0 million State Capital Related Reimbursements $116.1 million $116.1 million Clean Energy Fund $62.1 million $62.1 million 23

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Other Federal Reimbursements $25.9 million $25.9 million TTF Reimbursements $9.2 million $9.2 million Other $3.9 million $3.9 million TOTAL $961.8 million $811.8 million

• Question: For the State and federal capital program portion of the Other Reimbursements item, please identify the specific capital program line items that comprise these amounts.

Answer: Similar to the past, NJ TRANSIT anticipates the FY 2017 appropriations act will allocate federal capital funding in two separate Bus and Rail preventative maintenance line items. State capital funding will be allocated in various line items including Capital Program Implementation.

19. In FY 2016, NJ Transit took out a line of credit so that it could repay the TTFA for short term lending provided by the TTFA in anticipation of federal reimbursements. This line of credit was not considered borrowing against the aggregate bonding limitations established in N.J.S.A 27:1B-9 and the funds used to repay that debt do not appear to be included in the appropriation to the TTFA for prior bonds or transportation program bonds.

NJ Transit also has a series of Certificates of Participation (COPs) that it is in the process of repaying, which permitted NJ Transit to finance the purchase of buses and rail rolling stock. These COPs are repaid annually through the State capital program support provided by the TTFA. This COP debt is not counted against the aggregate bonding limitations established in N.J.S.A 27:1B-9, but payments to service this debt are considered part of TTFA debt service payments, not part of the annual $1.6 billion appropriation for new capital projects.

New Jersey Economic Development Authority (EDA) bonds used to finance the construction of the Hudson Bergen Light Rail and River Line Light Rail systems are similarly not counted against the aggregate bonding limitations established in N.J.S.A 27:1B-9, but payments to service this debt are considered a part of TTFA debt service payments, not part of the annual $1.6 billion appropriation for new capital projects.

• Question: How is it determined whether borrowing by NJ Transit is considered borrowing against the TTFA aggregate bonding limitations established in N.J.S.A 27:1B-9 and how is it determined whether the repayment of NJ Transit debt is to be considered TTFA debt service payments and not part of either the capital program appropriation or NJ Transit’s own budget?

24

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Answer: Payments come from the annual TTFA capital appropriation.

• Question: Please list all outstanding NJ Transit debt and debt of other agencies where the proceeds of borrowing were used for the support of NJ Transit. For each source of debt, provide the amount of debt, the duration of repayment, the source of repayment, whether this debt is linked to capital or operating activities, and any linkage between that debt and the TTFA.

Answer: Please see NJ TRANSIT Attachment C.

• Question: Will NJ Transit rely on the EDA or any other non-TTFA entity as a financing entity in order to issue debt in FY 2017 due to the current lack of TTFA bonding authority? If so, please identify the agency and explain the financing instrument.

Answer: NJ TRANSIT has no plans of issuing any EDA or non-TTFA debt in FY17.

20. NJ Transit implemented fare increases in October 2015. One reason provided for why the increases were necessary was to support increased employment costs relating to bus and rail employee contracts. The Governor’s FY 2017 budget preceded a labor contract agreement between NJ Transit and unionized rail employees, which provided for retroactive pay increases and a change in the share of health insurance costs contributed by employees. This contract agreement appears to have increased NJ Transit salary and wage costs. It is not clear whether NJ Transit budget data provided on Page D-359 of the FY 2017 budget reflects these increased costs.

• Question: Please outline the increase in NJ Transit operating costs attributable to this contract agreement as well as any other labor contract agreements entered into during FY 2016, for FY 2017 and the projected amount for FY 2018 and 2019.

Answer: At the time of budget development many of these contracts were still under discussion, therefore this continues to be an iterative process in which NJ TRANSIT is working with the Department of Treasury.

• Question: What impact does this agreement have on the NJ Transit budget line items included in the FY 2017 budget? Did the amount provided for salaries and wages include any allotment for this contract agreement? If so, how much?

25

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Answer: At the time of budget development many of these contracts were still under discussion, therefore this continues to be an iterative process in which NJ TRANSIT is working with the Department of Treasury.

• Question: What is the amount of additional annual revenue attributable to the October 2015 fare increase and what is the total amount of increases in salaries and wages attributable to renewed employee contracts entered into in FY 2016?

Answer: Since the fare adjustment was beginning in October, the three month revenue attributable to this for FY17 is approximately $17.8 million. The FY16 budget included a 2% wage increase for employee contracts.

• Question: How do NJ Transit employee salary and benefit levels for unionized bus and rail employees, unionized law enforcement, and non- unionized professional employees compare with peer transit agencies in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C., and private bus and rail employers in the area?

Answer: NJ TRANSIT is the nation’s third largest provider of bus, rail and light rail transit, linking major points in New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia. For unionized rail employees, when compared to the five major commuter railroads in the Northeast region, NJ TRANSIT ranks third or fourth amongst the various crafts. For unionized bus operators, when compared to the ten largest bus transit systems, NJ TRANSIT ranks number nine.

• Question: What information is available about employee turnover and retention at NJ Transit relative to other transit agencies in the region? Does NJ Transit have data about the reasons for employee resignations? If so, what are the typical reasons that employees leave prior to retirement?

Answer: NJ TRANSIT does capture reasons for employee resignations. Reasons for employee resignations include new positions, relocations, enrollment in school, and other.

21. NJ Transit projects a modest increase in average daily system wide ridership of 1,400 riders or 0.2 percent, despite a fare increase in the past year of nine percent, which is typically correlated with a decrease in ridership. Growing ridership despite an increase in fares is indicative of strong underlying demand that is greater than rider sensitivity to costs.

26

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: Please provide a list of ridership levels, farebox recovery ratios, and passenger growth rates for each bus route, rail line, and light rail line.

Answer: Please see NJ TRANSIT Attachment E.

22. A multistate partnership known as the Northeast Corridor (NEC) Commission has been created to work with Amtrak, to encourage greater State involvement in the administration of the NEC, to increase the level of State funding provided to Amtrak, and accelerate capital improvements to the NEC and bring the NEC into a state of good repair. During testimony before the Senate Budget Committee for the FY 2016 budget, Executive Director Hakim noted that as a result of the NEC Commission and changes resulting from the federal Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act (PRRIA) of 2015, New Jersey will have to pay more to Amtrak for the use of the NEC, but will also receive a greater level of input into NEC operations and accelerated repairs to the NEC.

• Question: Please identify ways in which New Jersey has greater input into the operations of the NEC, and the ways in which that input benefits NJ Transit riders.

Answer: NJ TRANSIT is negotiating a stronger voice in how trains are managed as they use the NEC and in where future capital investments are made and their progress. Based on both the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 and its successor, which continues the same provisions with some strengthening, the Fix America Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015; and following on the provisions set forth in adopted NEC Cost Allocation Policy, NJ TRANSIT is negotiating with Amtrak to have changes made on how Amtrak dispatches trains along the NEC and otherwise manages train operations. NJ TRANSIT is also negotiating to strengthen its role in working with Amtrak to determine future capital investments in the NEC in New Jersey and monitor the progress made in implementing these projects.

• Question: Please identify increased costs that NJ Transit will face over the next ten fiscal years as a result of the NEC Commission and changes resulting from the federal Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act (PRRIA) of 2015. How will these changes impact the existing agreements with Amtrak concerning payments for the use of the NEC and the joint benefits agreement?

27

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Answer: NJ TRANSIT has programmed $64 million a year between FY17 to FY21 and the commitment increases to $98 million a year between FY22 to FY26 from the capital program.

• Question: Please compare the costs to NJ Transit for the use of the NEC to the costs to other states along the NEC. How do those costs compare in the areas of cost per passenger, mile, operating hour, and train?

Answer: NJ TRANSIT does not have this information for comparison.

• Question: How will the new NEC Commission structure and PRRIA related investments impact on-time performance for the NEC? Also, how will a substantial increase in on-time performance on the NEC impact NJ Transit ridership?

Answer: The intent of PRIIA is to provide greater funding (from states) for maintenance in order to create better performance. NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak are currently in negotiations to better prioritize NJ TRANSIT recovering from instances along the NEC causing delays. The goal of the NEC Commission through the increased funding provided to Amtrak by the states is to bring the aging infrastructure up to a state of good repair and maintain that state of good repair resulting in a reduction in train delay caused by inadequate infrastructure such as falling catenary wire, failing switches and malfunctioning structures.

23. The Federal Transit Agency (FTA) is in the process of increasing rail safety requirements through its State Safety Oversight Program. This program requires additional State oversight of the safety of transit agency rail systems. Part of the program requires the establishment of a State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA), which must meet certain federal standards and be certified by the FTA. The SSOA will be responsible for investigations of rail accidents and incidents, with the option of conducting the investigation itself or allowing the transit agency to conduct the investigation and report to the SSOA.

• Question: Please identify the SSOA in New Jersey and when it is expected that it will obtain FTA certification. Will accident and incident investigations be conducted by NJ Transit or the SSOA?

Answer: The state safety oversight agency is the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Freight Planning and Services division. NJ TRANSIT is awaiting an answer regarding FTA certification which is anticipated by April

28

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

2018. To be clear, the SSOA will only have jurisdiction over our light rail operations. They do not have commuter rail authority, and will have limited oversight of bus operations (according to recent discussions with the FTA). NJ TRANSIT will continue to investigate its own incidents and accidents. The SSOA may elect to conduct a (parallel) investigation.

29

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Motor Vehicle Commission

24. In previous years, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) annual reports were issued in September of the most recently completed fiscal year. The most current annual report on the MVC website is the 2013 annual report issued in September 2013. Preliminary budget data is provided for FY 2014. No data has been provided for FY 2015 or 2016 and there is no preliminary projections proposed for FY 2017.

• Question: Please provide a financial statement in the same format used for previous annual reports which describes the MVC budget request for FY 2017, the budget as adopted and as revised for FY 2016, and final results for FY 2015.

• Question: Please explain any major differences in operating expenses impacting the MVC in FY 2016 and FY 2017. What is the MVC’s FY 2015 year-end surplus and estimated FY 2016 year-end surplus?

• Question: Please explain why the publicly posted information on the MVC website has not been updated for at least two years.

25. In the Governor’s FY 2017 budget, evaluation data indicates that the MVC will be entering into a new inspection contract that will require drivers to use private inspection facilities to complete reinspections. Evaluation data also projects a 200,000 vehicle decrease in initial inspections conducted at MVC inspection facilities.

• Question: Please provide details concerning this contract, including the per driver cost to the MVC and to the car owner, the impact on MVC revenues, and the impact on MVC inspection facility utilization.

• Question: Will the reduction in demand for inspections at MVC facilities result in the closing of any existing MVC inspection facilities? If so, which facilities will be closed?

• Question: Is there a limit on the charges that can be imposed by a private inspection facility to a driver for an inspection? Has the MVC taken measures to ensure that private inspection facilities meet standards concerning the quality of inspections and to protect consumers?

26. Information provided by the Executive indicates MVC appropriated revenue of $354.7 million for FY 2015, $320.9 million for FY 2016, and $297.7 million for FY 2017. This revenue corresponds to the amount of funding available to the MVC for its own operations. This decline in revenue corresponds roughly to the

30

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

amount of increased MVC revenue appropriated for deposit into the General Fund. The reduction in MVC revenue appropriated to the MVC in FY 2016 for its purposes was largely attributed to cost savings resulting from a reduction in the federally-approved fringe rate and savings associated with the termination of the MATRX project. The MATRX project was intended to deliver a series of critical information technology upgrades that were essential for the modernization of the MVC.

• Question: What impact will the reduced level of MVC revenue retained by the MVC in FY 2017 have on MVC operations? What expenditures will be reduced as a result of the reduction in revenue?

• Question: Please identify the projects that are replacing MATRX, the expected cost of each project, the expected completion date, and the annual MVC expenditure to be associated with each project.

27. The MVC has the authority to increase certain fees and surcharges without legislative approval.

• Question: Please note any new fees or fee changes that have taken place in the last year or are planned for the upcoming year. If there are any changes, please identify the amount of revenue expected to be generated by that change.

28. The MVC collects a variety of revenues for the State General Fund, itself, and other departments. In prior responses to Office of Legislative Services discussion points, MVC provided information listing a breakdown in MVC revenues between amounts collected for other State departments, amounts collected for MVC operations, and amounts collected from MVC based fees, but directed to the General Fund have been provided.

• Question: Please provide a display similar to the one provided in response to question #32 in the FY 2016 OLS discussion points which updates the FY 2016 projections and for FY 2017 detailing total MVC revenues.

29. In response to FY 2016 OLS discussion points, the MVC stated that in order to modernize computer systems and provide necessary services, the MVC will need to enact four major projects: Agency Replacement System, Multi-Scheduling System, Customer Abstract Information Retrieval System, and Securing MVC Processes and Scanning (collectively, the “new computer projects”).

• Question: Please provide an explanation of each of these major projects and what impact each project will have on MVC operations. 31

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: Please compare the new computer projects with the former MATRX project. Will these new computer projects provide all of the services and functionality that was in the scope of work for the former MATRX project? Upon completion of these new computer projects will the MVC have completed its computer system modernization goals? If not, what services and functionalities are being delayed?

30. The Federal REAL ID Act requires states to implement more stringent standards and processes in the issuance of driver’s licenses and identification. These standards are being implemented in phases. For states that are not compliant by pre-determined deadlines, the federal government will not accept driver’s licenses from those States as proof of identification for admission into federal buildings and facilities, and eventually to board domestic aircraft. Currently there are 23 States compliant with REAL ID. New Jersey is not yet compliant but has received an extension until October 2016, meaning that the federal government will continue to accept State driver’s licenses until that date. If New Jersey is not compliant by the extension date, a State driver’s license will no longer be acceptable identification to access federal facilities and military bases.

• Question: Please provide information about the State’s progress in meeting the standards required under the REAL ID Act. Will the State be compliant by the October 2016 extended deadline?

31.a. Recent legislation providing for the issuance of “dedicated cause” special license plates has had the goal of being revenue neutral to the MVC. Entities benefiting from license plate sales revenue are required to provide the MVC with up to $25,000 and collect pre-paid applications for 500 plates at $50 per application. The MVC has been shifting over to a new system of license plate production known as flat plate technology. During previous budget testimony, the chief administrator noted that this technology, which began being implemented with the sports plate program, was providing the State with the ability to produce plates at a much lower cost per plate, and allowed for on-demand plate production, which reduced the need for minimum printing runs.

• Question: Please provide information about the per plate costs for printing specialty license plates. Also please discuss the impact that flat plate printing process has had on those costs. Please explain why a requirement of $25,000 up front and $50 per plate to cover the initial costs is appropriate, when responses to FY 2014 OLS discussion points indicated average per plate costs of between $8 and $12 per plate for existing dedicated cause plates.

32

Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2016-2017

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: In the event that an organization does not raise the $25,000 cost or obtain at least 500 applications within a one year time limit, what provisions has the MVC made for people to be refunded their application fee or the return of any donations made by individuals towards the $25,000 fee? Has the MVC adopted any regulations permitting an extension of that time limit if an organization is making progress towards that goal?

• Question: For the plate programs established pursuant to N.J.S.A 39:3- 27.144 for Omega Psi Phi plates, and N.J.S.A 39:3-27.146 for Alpha Kappa Alpha plates, please identify the progress of these organizations towards meeting the contribution and application requirements.

31.b. Current law provides that non-profit organizations may obtain organizational plates pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:3-27.36 if they provide the MVC with 500 applications (175 for service organizations) with a payment of no more than $75 per plate.

• Question: When is the last time the Chief Administrator approved an organization for issuance of organizational plates? How many applications have been received by the MVC since the last approval? Please describe the deficiencies in those applications that prevented them from being approved.

32. Uber and Lyft are ride-sharing services that are growing quickly in the State. Legislative hearings have been held in the past year in an attempt to determine how to regulate the services provided by these companies which are different in certain ways from traditional taxi services, car services, and limousine companies. One proposal is to have the MVC regulate these ride sharing services at the State level. Creating this new responsibility for the MVC will likely entail additional staffing and administrative costs.

• Question: Please comment on the MVC’s current capacity to regulate such activity. If there is an inspection component to possible regulatory responsibility, what burdens will that place on the MVC? If the MVC is required to collect fees, what additional staffing and computer system changes would be necessary?

33

NJDOT Appendix A - Federal Funds Appropriated and Obligated in FY 2013 through FY 2016

FY 2016 FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2016 Federal Categories ($ in millions) Obligated * Appropriated Obligated Appropriated Obligated Appropriated Obligated Appropriated As of March 31 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality $ 10.000 $ 7.663 $ 51.000 $ 10.465 $ 51.000 $ 4.201 $ 51.000 $ 11.200 Improvement Program Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal $ 10.000 $ - $ 2.000 $ - $ 2.000 $ - $ 2.000 $ - Facilities High Priority (Earmarks) $ 27.300 $ 55.919 $ 141.400 $ 75.401 $ 31.000 $ 8.567 $ 44.500 $ - Equity Bonus $ 70.400 $ 54.788 $ - $ 19.347 $ - $ 49.435 $ - $ - Emergency Relief Program $ - $ 189.885 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - National Highway System Program $ 191.100 $ 69.536 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Interstate Maintenance Program $ 137.200 $ 12.034 $ - $ 3.411 $ - $ 2.317 $ - $ - National Highway Performance Program $ - $ 345.190 $ 524.300 $ 535.536 $ 524.300 $ 502.854 $ 524.300 $ 177.000 Bridge $ 241.000 $ 34.991 $ 32.800 $ 17.617 $ 32.800 $ 12.937 $ - $ - Rail-Highways Crossing Program $ 4.000 $ 10.407 $ 3.700 $ 11.522 $ 3.700 $ 8.297 $ 4.000 $ 0.202 Highway Safety Improvement Program $ 27.800 $ 8.274 $ 54.100 $ 34.276 $ 54.100 $ 46.956 $ 56.100 $ 7.166 State Planning and Research/ Metropolitan $ 38.300 $ 29.624 $ 31.100 $ 34.066 $ 31.100 $ 43.787 $ 30.900 $ - Planning Safe Routes to School $ 5.600 $ 2.617 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2.652 Surface Transportation Program - DVRPC $ 18.300 $ 26.424 $ 3.900 $ 10.928 $ 3.900 $ 11.987 $ 11.900 $ - Surface Transportation Program - NJTPA $ 80.200 $ 67.018 $ 14.400 $ 16.917 $ 14.400 $ 30.085 $ 14.400 $ - Surface Transportation Program - SJTPO $ 9.900 $ 12.849 $ 2.600 $ 2.996 $ 2.600 $ 5.162 $ 2.600 $ - Surface Transportation Program - Statewide $ 67.900 $ 112.793 $ 5.300 $ 92.502 $ 5.300 $ 101.092 $ 38.100 $ 35.700

Surface Transportation Program - Transportation $ 19.100 $ 4.262 $ - $ 5.086 $ - $ 9.067 $ - $ - Enhancements Transportation Alternatives Program $ - $ - $ 15.500 $ - $ 15.500 $ 5.328 $ 15.500 $ 0.230

Federal Transit Administration: State Planning $ - $ - $ 3.900 $ 6.348 $ 3.900 $ 0.847 $ 3.900 $ - and Research/ Metropolitan Planning

TOTALS $ 958.100 $ 1,044.274 $ 886.000 $ 876.418 $ 775.600 $ 842.919 $ 799.200 $ 234.150 * All FY 16 funds will be obligated by the close of the federal fiscal year, October 1, 2016. Obligations for a given FY may be larger than the appropriated amount as a result of apportionments that accrue from year-to-year or additional obligation authority. NJDOT Appendix B State Accounts with Unexpended and Uncommitted 480 Funds Current Appropriation Balances as of Start of Business 04/07/2016 by Fiscal Year

DOT-FD-105 04/07/2016 DOTxDailyAppropBalances(APPR) page 1 of 1

Original Approp Authorized Budget FY Expended Pre-encumbered Encumbered Uncommitted Unexpended Amount Amount

1994 $821,938,463 $842,055,168 $833,278,761 $815,423 $1,622,532 $6,317,114 $8,755,069 1995 $565,000,000 $564,374,045 $563,941,359 $47,109 $1,322,838 $463,371 $1,833,318 1996 $700,000,000 $698,826,667 $718,834,603 $63,740 $319,870 $534,571 $918,182 1997 $700,000,000 $699,703,269 $698,483,794 $160,246 $524,583 $534,646 $1,219,475 1998 $900,000,000 $897,145,923 $893,820,378 $346,760 $2,721,488 $257,297 $3,325,545 1999 $700,000,000 $701,380,000 $694,731,544 $3,297,010 $1,630,304 $1,721,142 $6,648,456 2000 $900,000,000 $896,015,925 $888,426,752 $4,901,976 $1,577,114 $1,110,083 $7,589,173 2001 $900,000,000 $884,070,219 $874,347,441 $1,724,759 $6,317,480 $1,680,540 $9,722,778 2002 $1,107,500,000 $1,050,028,363 $1,045,453,635 $430,984 $3,705,018 $438,726 $4,574,728 2003 $1,108,000,000 $1,106,089,222 $1,100,022,344 $2,211,308 $3,625,473 $230,097 $6,066,878 2004 $1,228,200,000 $1,224,550,000 $1,216,189,227 $4,917,775 $2,717,984 $731,434 $8,367,193 2005 $1,292,597,000 $1,292,597,000 $1,285,257,808 $1,437,547 $3,823,085 $2,078,560 $7,339,192 2006 $1,205,000,000 $1,205,000,000 $1,186,549,033 $3,287,150 $12,116,950 $3,046,867 $18,450,967 2007 $1,600,000,000 $1,600,000,000 $1,565,001,188 $13,678,932 $11,108,463 $10,211,417 $34,998,812 2008 $1,600,000,000 $1,600,000,000 $1,555,539,807 $11,556,922 $19,600,268 $13,303,003 $44,460,193 2009 $1,600,000,000 $1,600,000,000 $1,533,771,949 $9,577,508 $48,202,360 $8,448,184 $66,228,051 2010 $1,600,000,000 $1,600,000,000 $1,473,356,157 $4,661,395 $99,588,335 $22,394,114 $126,643,843 2011 $1,600,000,000 $1,600,000,000 $1,480,974,902 $9,461,409 $98,662,280 $10,901,409 $119,025,098 2012 $1,247,000,000 $1,247,000,000 $1,146,804,161 $5,164,713 $51,059,158 $43,971,968 $100,195,839 2013 $1,247,000,000 $1,247,000,000 $1,116,757,479 $7,440,732 $87,579,320 $35,222,469 $130,242,521 2014 $1,224,000,000 $1,224,000,000 $922,155,549 $21,447,570 $240,096,619 $40,300,262 $301,844,451 2015 $1,225,000,000 $1,225,000,000 $677,526,028 $20,059,997 $470,392,223 $57,023,714 $547,475,935 2016 $1,247,000,000 $1,247,000,000 $222,838,123 $243,298,019 $536,284,323 $244,579,535 $1,024,161,877 $26,318,235,463 $26,251,835,801 $23,694,062,020 $369,988,982 $1,704,598,070 $505,500,524 $2,580,087,575 NJ TRANSIT Attachment C NJ TRANSIT Resilience Program - Competitive Resilience Projects Requiring Match

Expected Completion Project Name FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Total Date NJ TRANSITGRID 2021 Federal Funding $7.736 $8.864 $393.165 $409.765 TTF Funding $33.881 $28.764 $9.382 $17.464 $23.250 $23.847 $136.588

Delco Lead Train Storage and Inspection Facility Project 2022 Federal Funding $179.694 $4.800 $184.494 TTF Funding $18.000 $10.000 $3.498 $30.000 $61.498

Long Slip Fill and Rail Enhancement Project 2021 Federal Funding $144.448 $2.100 $146.548 TTF Funding $19.000 $10.000 $4.907 $1.225 $13.718 $48.850

Raritan River Bridge Replacement 2021 Federal Funding $446.312 $446.312 TTF Funding $4.750 $5.000 $5.000 $5.000 $70.887 $58.134 $148.771

Signals & Communications Resilience (Old Train Controls) 2020 Federal Funding $88.903 $88.903 TTF Funding $1.000 $1.000 $1.000 $22.537 $4.098 $29.635

Total Federal Funding $7.736 $868.221 $393.165 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $6.900 $1,276.022 Total TTF Funding $76.631 $54.764 $23.787 $45.001 $99.460 $58.134 $67.565 $425.342

Deliberative, Consultative and Advisory NJ TRANSIT Attachment E Deliberative, Consultative and Advisory

System Ridership

Annual Passenger Trips Farebox Recovery Ratio Mode Service Description FY15 FY14 Change FY15

Rail Northeast Corridor NY Penn-Trenton/Princeton 33,065,577 32,244,162 2.5% 94.1% Rail Coast Line NY Penn/Hoboken-Bay Head 14,592,084 13,950,241 4.6% 57.3% Rail Raritan Valley NY Penn/Hoboken-High Bridge 6,327,757 5,882,868 7.6% 45.9% Rail Morris & Essex NY Penn/Hoboken - Dover/Gladstone 17,081,767 15,946,277 7.1% 53.4% Rail Montclair-Boonton NY Penn/Hoboken-Hackettstown 5,197,924 5,153,915 0.9% 46.6% Rail Main Line Bergen County Hoboken-Suffern 7,969,256 7,467,935 6.7% 48.7% Rail Pascack Valley Hoboken-Montvale 2,512,362 2,426,847 3.5% 51.0% Rail Atlantic City Atlantic City-Philadelphia 881,541 945,114 -6.7% 17.8% Light Rail Hudson Bergen Light Rail North Bergen-Bayonne 14,201,074 13,821,851 2.7% 27.1% Light Rail Newark Light Rail Newark-Bloomfield 5,500,164 5,356,687 2.7% 29.0% Light Rail River LINE Trenton-Camden 2,830,339 2,869,707 -1.4% 7.5% Bus 121 North Bergen - NY 43,272 49,093 -11.9% 21.2% Bus 122 Secaucus - NY 219,560 224,506 -2.2% 50.9% Bus 123 Union City - NY 1,056,849 999,541 5.7% 50.7% Bus 124 Secaucus - NY 110,838 101,448 9.3% 27.4% Bus 125 Journal Square - NY 274,900 262,925 4.6% 34.9% Bus 126 Hoboken - NY 3,797,745 3,675,259 3.3% 63.3% Bus 127 Palisades Park - NY 537,846 509,793 5.5% 46.6% Bus 128 Boulevard East - NY 1,492,109 1,392,983 7.1% 67.9% Bus 129 Secaucus - NY 666,062 654,686 1.7% 39.0% Bus 144 Elmwood Park - NY 236,877 224,706 5.4% 44.9% Bus 145 Fair Lawn - NY 170,092 167,789 1.4% 56.1% Bus 148 Midland Park - NY 66,575 67,940 -2.0% 64.6% Bus 151 Paterson - NY Express 104,865 96,367 8.8% 64.1% Bus 153 Fort Lee - NY 44,042 44,932 -2.0% 54.7% Bus 154 Fort Lee - NY 597,668 577,914 3.4% 50.2% Bus 155 Teaneck - NY 142,553 134,011 6.4% 48.8% Bus 156 Bergenline Avenue - NY 1,705,857 1,635,356 4.3% 48.0% Bus 157 Hackensack - NY 78,151 74,978 4.2% 40.6% Bus 158 Fort Lee - NY 2,024,501 1,861,406 8.8% 65.3% Bus 159 Fort Lee - NY 3,084,227 2,930,709 5.2% 54.0% Bus 160 Elmwood Park - NY 620,126 510,877 21.4% 49.5% Bus 161 Paterson - NY 1,922,905 1,862,010 3.3% 54.4% Bus 162 Maywood - NY 288,723 266,104 8.5% 51.8% Bus 163 Ridgewood - NY 2,332,341 2,274,784 2.5% 53.9% Bus 164 Midland Park - NY 925,065 1,006,364 -8.1% 50.8% Bus 165 Westwood - NY 3,604,690 3,556,869 1.3% 52.3% Bus 166 Dumont - NY 4,317,643 4,234,605 2.0% 56.3% Bus 167 Harrington Park - NY 2,031,131 2,027,833 0.2% 61.0% Bus 168 Paramus - NY 907,500 888,539 2.1% 41.4% Bus 177 Harrington Park - NY 638,546 568,494 12.3% 58.9% Bus 190 Paterson - NY 3,016,180 3,023,398 -0.2% 51.1% Bus 191 Wayne - NY 362,937 364,903 -0.5% 55.0% Bus 192 Clifton - NY 960,732 919,770 4.5% 63.8%

Page 1 NJ TRANSIT Attachment E Deliberative, Consultative and Advisory

System Ridership

Annual Passenger Trips Farebox Recovery Ratio Mode Service Description FY15 FY14 Change FY15

Bus 193 Clifton - NY 400,899 375,050 6.9% 103.1% Bus 194 Newfoundland - NY 573,803 569,887 0.7% 65.5% Bus 195 Wayne - NY 301,103 300,416 0.2% 55.6% Bus 196 Warwick - NY Express 209,682 206,931 1.3% 68.7% Bus 197 Warwick - NY 750,497 734,568 2.2% 57.3% Bus 198 Wm Paterson Univ-NY 180,925 168,631 7.3% 63.9% Bus 199 Clifton - NY 463,694 438,681 5.7% 57.5% Bus 320 North Bergen Park-Ride - NY 1,567,588 1,513,409 3.6% 74.9% Bus 321 Vince Lombardi Park-Ride - NY 224,570 216,168 3.9% 44.3% Bus 324 Wayne-NY 411,133 403,457 1.9% 81.0% Bus 107 South Orange - NY 1,082,289 1,039,765 4.1% 47.8% Bus 108 Newark - NY 433,609 419,402 3.4% 46.3% Bus 111 Elizabeth - NY 776,338 666,668 16.5% 105.7% Bus 112 Clark - NY 691,478 670,953 3.1% 50.0% Bus 113 Dunellen - NY 1,094,630 1,120,387 -2.3% 49.8% Bus 114 Bridgewater - NY 1,738,143 1,740,943 -0.2% 61.8% Bus 115 Rahway - NY 353,154 360,709 -2.1% 58.1% Bus 116 Perth Amboy - NY 757,227 734,870 3.0% 54.2% Bus 117 Somerville - NY 81,471 83,732 -2.7% 60.0% Bus 171 Paterson -GWB 442,640 457,187 -3.2% 34.8% Bus 175 Ridgewood- GWB 520,066 535,917 -3.0% 26.4% Bus 178 Hackensack - GWB via Englewood 549,593 598,966 -8.2% 38.9% Bus 181 Union City - GWB 145,642 144,108 1.1% 26.5% Bus 182 Hackensack - GWB via Leonia 337,222 341,528 -1.3% 35.8% Bus 186 Dumont - GWB 723,469 735,903 -1.7% 45.0% Bus 188 River Road - GWB 204,514 211,600 -3.3% 31.5% Bus 120 Bayonne - Downtown Manhattan 89,775 95,122 -5.6% 32.9% Bus 130 Lakewood - Union Hill - NY Express 174,832 137,606 27.1% 67.2% Bus 131 Sayreville - NY 243,210 252,486 -3.7% 70.0% Bus 132 Lakewood - Gordons Corner - NY Express 221,187 197,441 12.0% 80.1% Bus 133 Old Bridge - NY 262,194 255,408 2.7% 68.6% Bus 135 Freehold - NY 136,641 135,007 1.2% 85.2% Bus 136 Lakewood - Freehold Mall - NY Express 101,789 83,240 22.3% 64.5% Bus 137 Toms River - NY 490,175 474,612 3.3% 87.7% Bus 138 East Brunswick - NY 159,011 165,545 -3.9% 65.8% Bus 139 Lakewood - NY 3,143,586 3,180,533 -1.2% 90.1% Bus 319 Atlantic City - NY 333,848 342,596 -2.6% 75.9% Bus 74 Main Passaic 1,439,832 1,512,518 -4.8% 40.5% Bus 703 Haledon - East Rutherford 1,219,155 1,215,949 0.3% 33.3% Bus 704 Paterson - Willowbrook 721,872 712,698 1.3% 39.3% Bus 712 Hackensack - Willowbrook 1,352,160 1,332,089 1.5% 43.7% Bus 770 Paterson - Hackensack 541,026 576,387 -6.1% 31.2% Bus 1 Newark - Jersey City 4,311,091 4,283,128 0.7% 44.2% Bus 5 Newark - East Orange 375,588 384,077 -2.2% 20.9%

Page 2 NJ TRANSIT Attachment E Deliberative, Consultative and Advisory

System Ridership

Annual Passenger Trips Farebox Recovery Ratio Mode Service Description FY15 FY14 Change FY15

Bus 11 Newark - Willowbrook 915,629 935,722 -2.1% 35.7% Bus 13 Newark - Irvington 4,340,673 4,329,368 0.3% 44.3% Bus 21 Main Street 3,005,359 3,048,174 -1.4% 50.1% Bus 25 Springfield Ave 3,783,273 3,843,147 -1.6% 40.6% Bus 26 Irvington - Elizabeth 377,615 397,775 -5.1% 37.5% Bus 27 Mount Prospect 3,596,018 3,546,232 1.4% 36.3% Bus 28 Newark - Montclair - Willowbrook 808,421 811,680 -0.4% 32.3% Bus 29 Bloomfield Avenue 1,271,108 1,262,071 0.7% 40.1% Bus 30 North Arlington - Kearny - Newark 795,108 799,638 -0.6% 27.5% Bus 34 Market Street 2,603,494 2,578,227 1.0% 39.4% Bus 37 Lyons Avenue 638,387 621,059 2.8% 35.3% Bus 39 Chancellor Avenue / Kearny Avenue 2,264,707 2,231,920 1.5% 43.0% Bus 40 Jersey Gardens - Kearny 685,167 687,789 -0.4% 25.9% Bus 41 Park Avenue 1,045,433 1,036,560 0.9% 43.0% Bus 48 Elizabeth - Woodbridge - Perth Amboy 838,135 813,623 3.0% 27.4% Bus 52 Morris Avenue 351,669 358,023 -1.8% 23.8% Bus 56 Elizabeth - Winfield 118,741 128,324 -7.5% 14.1% Bus 57 Tremley 140,103 141,074 -0.7% 30.4% Bus 58 Elizabeth - Kenilworth 407,657 421,641 -3.3% 34.6% Bus 59 Newark- Plainfield 1,628,825 1,607,970 1.3% 39.9% Bus 62 Newark - Perth Amboy 1,975,717 1,919,501 2.9% 32.1% Bus 65 Newark - Somerville 128,815 128,817 0.0% 18.6% Bus 66 Newark - Somerville 616,434 622,475 -1.0% 21.8% Bus 70 Newark - Livingston 1,903,051 1,874,088 1.5% 35.1% Bus 71 Newark - West Caldwell 737,995 732,280 0.8% 31.6% Bus 72 Newark - Paterson 1,126,093 1,134,044 -0.7% 50.2% Bus 73 Newark - Livingston 973,483 988,295 -1.5% 36.3% Bus 76 Newark - Hackensack 1,399,555 1,429,808 -2.1% 36.6% Bus 78 Newark - Secaucus 157,273 154,975 1.5% 27.0% Bus 79 Newark - Parsippany Express 125,773 119,691 5.1% 27.7% Bus 90 Grove Street Crosstown 851,678 876,212 -2.8% 35.6% Bus 92 Orange Crosstown 778,445 801,909 -2.9% 35.9% Bus 94 Stuyvesant Crosstown 3,759,987 3,828,301 -1.8% 46.2% Bus 95 Wachtung - Newark 33,109 6,917 378.7% 7.3% Bus 96 18th Street Crosstown 163,943 171,654 -4.5% 18.9% Bus 97 East Orange - Montclair 80,139 84,163 -4.8% 14.3% Bus 99 Clifton Avenue Crosstown 1,561,862 1,539,057 1.5% 27.2% Bus 250 Springfield Ave "Go Bus" 183,170 186,507 -1.8% 23.1% Bus 258 Newark Airport - Newark - Bloomfield (28 GO) 858,758 802,458 7.0% 26.4% Bus 361 Newark Express 83,852 98,198 -14.6% 28.6% Bus 375 Springfield Ave Express 44,674 35,308 26.5% 21.2% Bus 378 Newark - Secaucus Express 18,448 7,561 144.0% 54.0% Bus 6 Ocean Ave-Journal Square 485,249 480,830 0.9% 24.5% Bus 80 Newark Avenue 2,022,572 2,034,698 -0.6% 34.2%

Page 3 NJ TRANSIT Attachment E Deliberative, Consultative and Advisory

System Ridership

Annual Passenger Trips Farebox Recovery Ratio Mode Service Description FY15 FY14 Change FY15

Bus 81 Greenville - Bayonne 850,306 836,704 1.6% 32.0% Bus 82 Hudson 95,253 89,133 6.9% 29.8% Bus 83 Jersey City - Hackensack 1,192,792 1,138,415 4.8% 33.3% Bus 84 Bergenline - Park Avenue 1,577,253 1,532,897 2.9% 25.3% Bus 85 Hoboken - Harmon Meadow - Mill Creek 631,939 608,443 3.9% 34.3% Bus 86 Nungessers - Newport 269,848 287,177 -6.0% 16.3% Bus 87 King Drive 3,465,259 3,418,223 1.4% 43.2% Bus 89 Hoboken - North Bergen 505,648 530,652 -4.7% 30.7% Bus 329 Harmon Cove - Secaucus 77,235 73,812 4.6% 4.9% Bus 63 Lakewood - Jersey City - Weehawken Exp 41,570 40,179 3.5% 53.1% Bus 64 Lakewood - Jersey City - Weehawken 343,671 349,537 -1.7% 56.2% Bus 67 Toms River Newark 309,895 326,603 -5.1% 20.5% Bus 68 Old Bridge - Jersey City - Weehawken 223,815 217,477 2.9% 69.3% Bus 871 Morristown - Boonton - Willowbrook 53,940 55,769 -3.3% 14.3% Bus 872 Morristown -Greystone - Dover 28,658 27,518 4.1% 8.2% Bus 873 Greyston - Morristown - Livinston 53,861 57,750 -6.7% 9.9% Bus 874 Morristown - Willowbrook 37,800 35,530 6.4% 15.4% Bus 875 Rockaway - Willowbrook 42,751 46,638 -8.3% 16.2% Bus 880 Morris - Dover - Rockaway 148,541 150,893 -1.6% 22.4% Bus 317 Asbury Park - Phila 296,948 300,758 -1.3% 26.1% Bus 406 Berlin - Phila 629,402 614,776 2.4% 24.8% Bus 409 Trenton - Phila 790,194 769,301 2.7% 20.6% Bus 414 Philadelphia - Moorestown 21,506 21,142 1.7% 22.1% Bus 417 Mt Holly - Phila 26,619 25,131 5.9% 21.2% Bus 400 Sicklerville - Phila 1,643,833 1,651,558 -0.5% 26.2% Bus 404 Cherry Hill Mall - Phila via Pennsauken 553,228 585,748 -5.6% 26.5% Bus 551 Atlantic City - Phila 623,929 683,771 -8.8% 42.6% Bus 313 Philadelphia - Cape May via Millville 83,367 83,708 -0.4% 16.0% Bus 315 Philadelphia - Cape May via Tuckahoe 42,741 42,581 0.4% 22.7% Bus 401 Salem - Phila 246,372 255,971 -3.8% 21.2% Bus 402 Pennsville - Phila 196,659 193,627 1.6% 23.5% Bus 408 Millville - Phila 419,303 420,294 -0.2% 24.7% Bus 410 Bridgeton - Phila 367,278 372,890 -1.5% 24.5% Bus 412 Glassboro - Phila 330,102 336,006 -1.8% 21.9% Bus 501 Atlantic City - Brigantine 289,291 305,659 -5.4% 12.5% Bus 502 Atlantic City - AC Community College 783,863 839,440 -6.6% 32.1% Bus 504 Bungalow Park 193,375 190,800 1.3% 11.7% Bus 505 Atlantic City - Longport 1,413,815 1,468,482 -3.7% 18.3% Bus 507 Atlantic City - Ocean City 744,304 773,113 -3.7% 33.6% Bus 508 Atlantic City - Hamilton Twp 576,779 615,226 -6.2% 30.1% Bus 509 Atlantic City - Somers Point 398,726 424,503 -6.1% 33.5% Bus 510 Cape May - Wildwood Shuttle 9,184 7,675 19.7% 15.2% Bus 552 Atlantic City - Cape May 622,435 644,601 -3.4% 18.9% Bus 553 Atlantic City - Upper Deerfield 1,041,472 1,120,286 -7.0% 29.9%

Page 4 NJ TRANSIT Attachment E Deliberative, Consultative and Advisory

System Ridership

Annual Passenger Trips Farebox Recovery Ratio Mode Service Description FY15 FY14 Change FY15

Bus 554 Atlantic City - Lindenwold 754,823 784,185 -3.7% 28.4% Bus 559 Atlantic City - Lakewood 753,599 778,442 -3.2% 27.9% Bus 405 Cherry Hill Mall - Camden via Merchantville 245,830 260,836 -5.8% 23.3% Bus 407 Moorestown Mall - Camden 355,043 361,049 -1.7% 18.9% Bus 413 Burlington - Camden via Mt Holly 538,735 540,175 -0.3% 25.8% Bus 418 Trenton - Camden Express 12,587 14,152 -11.1% 12.2% Bus 419 Burlington - Camden 167,717 161,258 4.0% 8.4% Bus 403 Turnersville - Camden 866,070 921,897 -6.1% 23.4% Bus 450 Cherry Hill Mall - Camden 395,737 386,969 2.3% 20.7% Bus 451 Lindenwold PATCO - Camden 73,430 72,362 1.5% 11.1% Bus 452 Pennsauken - Camden 478,250 452,465 5.7% 16.3% Bus 453 Woodlynne - Camden 125,390 119,354 5.1% 16.3% Bus 455 Cherry Hill Mall - Paulsboro 249,629 254,048 -1.7% 15.0% Bus 457 Camden - Moorestown Mall 212,739 215,235 -1.2% 14.9% Bus 459 Echelon Mall - Avandale Park-Ride 254,401 280,229 -9.2% 14.8% Bus 460 Camden Seasonal 51,047 38,794 31.6% 32.4% Bus 463 Woodbury - Avandale Park-Ride 81,515 83,337 -2.2% 12.2% Bus 600 Trenton - Princeton 263,474 274,208 -3.9% 16.7% Bus 601 Ewing - Trenton - Hamilton 428,075 357,775 19.6% 21.3% Bus 602 Trenton - Pennington 64,135 77,816 -17.6% 12.3% Bus 603 Mercer Mall - Trenton - Hamilton 362,284 360,299 0.6% 27.0% Bus 604 Trenton - East Trenton 45,131 42,836 5.4% 11.3% Bus 605 Montgomery - Princeton - Quaker Bridge Mall 156,771 159,827 -1.9% 14.4% Bus 606 Princeton - Trenton - Hamilton 667,175 658,239 1.4% 24.0% Bus 607 Trenton - Ewing 260,407 263,763 -1.3% 17.6% Bus 608 Hamilton - Trenton - West Trenton 517,861 494,948 4.6% 24.9% Bus 609 Ewing - Trenton - Lawrence 698,888 725,115 -3.6% 25.7% Bus 610 Trenton Seasonal 5,458 7,597 -28.2% 13.3% Bus 611 Perry Street Shuttle 27,170 32,221 -15.7% 78.0% Bus 612 Lawrence - Princeton Jct Shuttle 18,509 20,456 -9.5% 5.3% Bus 613 Mercer Mall - Trenton - Hamilton 480,320 472,553 1.6% 25.9% Bus 619 Ewing-Trenton-Mercer County College 242,426 239,174 1.4% 22.4% Bus 655 Princeton - Plainsboro 40,785 38,483 6.0% 5.0% Bus 304 Mountain Creek - Crystal Springs - NY 2,652 4,727 -43.9% 38.3% Bus 307 Freehold - Great Adventure 13,881 21,142 -34.3% 11.2% Bus 308 Great Adventure - NY 119,813 127,047 -5.7% 123.6% Bus 316 Philadelphia - Cape May Express 23,474 24,849 -5.5% 48.2% Bus 318 Philadelphia - Great Adventure 2,732 4,566 -40.2% 18.1% Bus 353 Secaucus Jct - Meadowlands 14,840 21,187 -30.0% 12.9% Bus ( c ) 2 JOURNAL SQUARE/SECAUCUS 956,530 934,053 2.4% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 10 Bayonne/Jersey City 1,516,260 1,501,972 1.0% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 22 HILLSIDE 708,108 671,776 5.4% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 23 HOBOKEN/NORTH BERGEN 45,341 51,878 -12.6% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 88 JOURNAL SQUARE/NORTH BOULEVARD 947,539 865,998 9.4% (contracted)

Page 5 NJ TRANSIT Attachment E Deliberative, Consultative and Advisory

System Ridership

Annual Passenger Trips Farebox Recovery Ratio Mode Service Description FY15 FY14 Change FY15

Bus ( c ) 119 Bayonne-Jersey City-NY 776,507 485,629 59.9% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 751 Paramus/Fairview/Edgewater 135,756 140,061 -3.1% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 752 OAKLAND/HACKENSACK 80,139 85,486 -6.3% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 753 NEW MILFORD/PARAMUS 49,565 56,130 -11.7% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 755 Paramus/Fort Lee/Edgewater 71,375 81,707 -12.6% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 756 FORT LEE/PARAMUS 242,143 252,753 -4.2% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 762 HACKENSACK/PARAMUS 45,953 59,292 -22.5% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 772 NEW MILFORD/SECAUCUS 74,128 77,135 -3.9% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 780 ENGLEWOOD/PASSAIC 311,215 322,056 -3.4% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 702 PATERSON/ELMWOOD PARK 167,614 182,293 -8.1% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 705 PASSAIC/WILLOWBROOK MALL 179,569 202,411 -11.3% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 707 PATERSON-SADDLE BROOK 127,910 145,927 -12.3% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 709 BLOOMFIELD/PARAMUS 482,070 492,238 -2.1% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 722 PATERSON/PARAMUS PARK 25,505 26,081 -2.2% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 744 PATERSON/GREYSTONE PARK 461,103 441,379 4.5% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 746 POMPTON LAKES/RIDGEWOOD 175,097 183,395 -4.5% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 748 PATERSON/WILLOWBROOK MALL 137,796 148,398 -7.1% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 758 PASSAIC/PARAMUS PARK 193,241 178,546 8.2% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 801 Metropark Loop 63,775 61,762 3.3% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 802 Metropark Loop 101,462 101,860 -0.4% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 803 Metropark Loop 132,687 133,231 -0.4% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 804 Metropark Loop 64,003 65,501 -2.3% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 805 Metropark Loop 100,486 109,991 -8.6% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 810 NEW BRUNSWICK/WOODBRIDGE CT 259,285 273,527 -5.2% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 811 NEW BRUNSWICK/SOUTH RIVER 91,490 93,252 -1.9% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 813 PERTH AMBOY/MIDDLESEX COLLEGE 266,656 278,461 -4.2% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 814 NORTH BRUNSWICK/MIDDLESEX COLLEGE 297,348 309,679 -4.0% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 815 WOODBRIDGE CENTER/NEW BRUNSWICK 400,519 404,357 -0.9% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 817 Perth Amboy/Middletown 118,703 125,842 -5.7% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 818 New Brunswick/Old Bridge 141,429 148,283 -4.6% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 819 PISCATAWAY/MIDDLESEX MALL 191,135 199,816 -4.3% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 822 NORTH PLAINFIELD/PLAINFIELD 20,236 27,806 -27.2% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 830 ASBURY PARK/POINT PLEASANT BEACH 118,928 130,202 -8.7% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 831 RED BANK/LONG BRANCH 152,296 159,442 -4.5% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 832 RED BANK /ASBURY PARK 271,816 286,347 -5.1% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 833 RED BANK /FREEHOLD RACEWAY MALL 64,564 68,418 -5.6% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 834 RED BANK /HIGHLANDS 96,894 102,413 -5.4% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 835 RED BANK /SEA BRIGHT 40,068 45,041 -11.0% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 836 ASBURY PARK /CENTRA STATE 181,206 176,258 2.8% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 837 LONG BRANCH TO SEAVIEW SQUARE MALL 146,556 146,187 0.3% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 468 PENNS GROVE-WOODSTOWN 127,160 134,554 -5.5% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 878 Liberty State Park 11,848 12,059 -1.7% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 879 Convent Station 5,749 5,261 9.3% (contracted)

Page 6 NJ TRANSIT Attachment E Deliberative, Consultative and Advisory

System Ridership

Annual Passenger Trips Farebox Recovery Ratio Mode Service Description FY15 FY14 Change FY15

Bus ( c ) 890 SOUTH MAIN 12,430 12,164 2.2% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 891 HECKMAN 9,870 9,514 3.7% (contracted) Bus ( c ) 986 SUMMIT/MURRAY HILL/PLAINFIELD 58,469 51,907 12.6% (contracted) Adjustments 776 1,300

272,386,772 267,025,579 2.0%

Page 7