DOCSLIB.ORG

Discussion Points

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discussion Points Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2017-2018 Discussion Points Department Of Transportation/ New Jersey Turnpike Authority 1a. The FY 2016 Transportation Trust Fund Authority (TTFA) Financial Plan projected an outlay of $1.127 billion for transportation project costs, and a closing cash balance at the end of FY 2016 of $57.7 million. The Governor issued Executive Order No. 210 on June, 30 2016 which directed the immediate and orderly shutdown all non-emergency TTF projects, except for those federally funded, on the premise that the TTFA would exhaust all of its available funds in August 2016. • Question: What was the actual cash balance of the TTFA on the date Executive Order No. 210 was issued? What amount of spending on transportation costs was likely to have occurred during July 2016 had Executive Order No. 210 not been issued? What amount did the TTFA expend for transportation project costs in FY 2016? If this amount fell short of the original projection, please explain the reasons for that shortfall. Answer: As of June 30, 2016, the cash balance in the TTFA totaled $201 million. Prior to the shutdown, the TTFA’s monthly average cash expenses were approximately $90 million. In FY2016, the Authority’s gross transportation costs totaled $1,086.5 million, a figure which accounts for NJ Transit’s repayment of a TTF cash loan totaling $241.5 million. 1b. The TTFA FY 2016 Financial 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. The TTFA’s FY 2017 Financial Plan updated that closing net balance or “tail” to $2.51 billion at the close of FY 2016. • Question: Please provide an updated chart for appropriations through FY 2016 with the same information provided in response to OLS discussion point #7 on the FY 2017 Budget, as of April 1, 2017 (the chart was titled, “State Accounts with Unexpended and Uncommitted 480 Funds”). Answer: Please see the attached chart. 2a. Subsequent to the issuance of Executive Order No. 210 the DOT commissioner issued a list of projects impacted by the shutdown, which included $775 million in DOT and local projects and $2.7 billion in NJ Transit projects. As part of the shutdown, the department informed localities that any refusal to adhere to the shutdown order could result in losing previously awarded local aid grants. • Question: What is the estimated total cost to the DOT of the shutdown, including but not limited to affected project demobilization and reassembly costs? What is the total amount of claims filed by contractors on DOT projects for losses incurred due to the shutdown? Have any of these claims been resolved, and if so, with what result? When will the department resolve all remaining claims? Answer: All contracts for both state and local aid projects were extended for up to 102 days (the length of the TTF shutdown). To date four claims have been submitted, 1 Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2017-2018 Discussion Points (Cont’d) totaling $1.9 M. Three claims are in step 3 of NJDOT’s 4 step claims resolution process. The fourth claim was resolved through a change order. • Question: Were any localities penalized as a result of their actions during the shutdown? If local projects were impacted by the shutdown, will the department provide any compensation to localities for their costs related to the shutdown? What is the total amount of claims filed by local governments, seeking compensation for losses incurred due to the shutdown? Please list each local government that has submitted a claim and the amount of the claim. Have any of these claims been resolved, and if so, with what result? When will the department resolve all remaining claims? If a claim is resolved to provide a local government additional funding, will those funds be in addition to or within the overall amount of local aid appropriated? Answer: No localities were penalized as a result of their actions during the shutdown. No claims have been filed by local governments at this time. Two local governments have requested compensation for additional costs to shut down a project in an orderly manner in response to the shutdown order. NJDOT is also compensating local governments for costs necessary to accelerate project completion if the shutdown impacted the project completion date. • Question: What is the internal process in place at the department when determining whether sufficient resources exist to advance a project? Are those decisions based on a level of State appropriation which may not necessarily correspond to the amount of funds actually available in the TTFA? Answer: The TTF spending authorization included in the annual Appropriations Act, which is detailed by project or program, rationalizes the amount of work that may be advanced by NJDOT and NJ Transit. Funds are requisitioned as projects begin to develop and ultimately are obligated at the time of contract award. That programming function is separate and distinct from the Authority, however. Using primarily bond sales and pay-as-you-go appropriations, the TTFA generates the resources required to pay the cash need for these projects. 2b. On August 17, 2016 the Governor issued Executive Order No. 213, which directed the State Treasurer to transfer from any State department to the TTFA such amounts determined to be necessary by the OMB Director, in consultation with the Commissioner and the Executive Director, to support transportation projects determined to be absolutely essential for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of New Jersey, or required to ensure the receipt of federal funding, according to the standards set forth in paragraph 4 of Executive Order No. 210. • Question: Please identify any projects which received funding transfers under this directive, the amount transferred and the funding sources. Answer: The Office of Management and Budget transferred a total of $71 million from the Emergency Services Fund (ESF) to enable the TTFA to pay cash expenses and support accrued expenses. The projects included a variety of emergent needs on the state highway system (e.g., repairs to ensure public safety), critical maintenance on NJ 2 Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Commission FY 2017-2018 Discussion Points (Cont’d) Transit rolling stock, and capital program support. The ESF was subsequently repaid by the Authority after the program was reauthorized. 3. The TTFA issued $3.2 billion in 2016 Series A and Series B Federal Highway Reimbursement Revenue Notes, also known as Indirect GARVEEs, in October 2016. The notes mature in annual installments on June 15 in years 2019-2031; interest for the first two fiscal years will be paid from the proceeds of the notes (“capitalized interest account”). The proceeds of these notes can be used for State and federal construction projects. Federal aid the State receives in reimbursement for work completed on any federal projects is pledged to repayment of note principal and interest. Indirect GARVEEs do not under statute count against the limitation on TTFA program bonds, set by law at $12 billion for the period FY 2017-FY 2024. The Direct GARVEEs the TTFA issued in 2006 are linked to a specific project; federal aid will reimburse the State for both project and financing cost (i.e., interest on the notes). Indirect GARVEEs, while also providing cash for projects, are not project-specific, and federal aid will reimburse the State only for federal project expenditures, not for financing costs. Thus, when the State expends federal aid to repay both the principal and interest on Indirect GARVEEs, it will in effect be using State funds to pay for the construction of future federal projects. Or, seen another way, since federal aid is not adjusted upward to cover the interest on Indirect GARVEEs, State funds are the ultimate source to pay these costs, even though federal aid is the initial source of interest repayment. • Question: What advantages did the TTFA and the State secure by choosing to issue Indirect GARVEEs rather than Transportation Program bonds or notes? Answer: When the indirect GARVEE was issued in the fall of 2016, interest rate pricing was very attractive. In addition, since many of the larger investment funds had maximized their legal exposure to TTFA State Contract Debt, the indirect GARVEE presented a new opportunity that investors were eager to pursue. In total, the indirect GARVEE attracted over $13 billion in orders. It also broadened the investor pool, as evidenced by the fact that three of the top fifteen orders were from investors who did not previously hold TTFA bonds. Both the average coupon (4.65%) and the true interest cost (3.96%) for the indirect GARVEE proved to be considerably lower than the comparable measures on recent TTFA debt (respectively, 5.02% and 4.87%, based on the Series 2015AA issuance.) In addition, the shorter term of the indirect GARVEES (i.e., 15 years) versus TTFA debt (i.e., 30 years) provided significant benefits in terms of interest rate spreads, as well as total debt service over the life of the bonds. • Question: What is the total interest cost to maturity on the notes, excluding the amount of interest to be paid from the capitalized interest account? Can any of the notes be retired before maturity? If so, does the TTFA have any plans to retire any notes prior to maturity? What are the terms and conditions for doing so? Answer: Aggregate debt service on the indirect GARVEE issuance, net of capitalized interest, is $4.4 billion. A total of $1.3 billion of the indirect GARVEEs were structured with a two-year par call and another $.8 billion were structured with a 10-year par call.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jersey City Bus Study
    JERSEY CITY BUS STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared By New Jersey Transit Bus Service Planning Department November 2, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction 5 II. Study Objectives 5 III. Information Collection 6 IV. Basic Data 7 Jersey City Local Bus Service Map Following 7 V. Assessment of Existing Bus Service 8 VI. General Priorities 12 VII. Specific Recommendations 17 VIII. Phasing the Recommendations – A Blueprint for the Near Future 27 Compiled Appendices Following 31 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Jersey City Local Bus Study was written in response to concerns that portions of the Jersey City local bus network were collapsing as private carriers cut back or eliminated service in its entirety. NJ TRANSIT, the City of Jersey City, the County of Hudson, and the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority funded the work effort. It was prepared by the Bus Service Planning staff at NJ TRANSIT with input from a Technical Advisory Committee composed of individuals representing the funding agencies. The focus of the study is on short-term improvements primarily in Jersey City that need to be implemented as resources such as operating funds and equipment become available. This report describes the existing bus service in Hudson County and presents short- term recommendations for changes and improvements to the local bus system, both in terms of general and systemic issues as well as specific route-by-route actions. More than three dozen action items were identified to improve existing bus operations. These items range from route-specific service adjustments to providing for more ticket and pass sales outlets either by vendors or the installation of ticket vending machines (TVMs).
    [Show full text]
  • FACILITIES LOCATOR DOREMUS AVENUE OVERWEIGHT CORRIDOR the Port Is a Facility of the Port Authority of NY & NJ 1/20
    PORT NEWARK/ELIZABETH BUILDING LOCATION CHART BLDG # KEY BLDG # KEY 111 ........................ 3-A 340 ........................ 1-B 118 ........................ 3-C 350 ........................ 2-C W AREHOUSE PL 120 ........................ 3-A 365 ........................ 2-D 122 ........................ 3-C 371 ........................ 2-C 132 W CRANE 123 ...................... 3-AB 390 ........................ 2-D OUTER PORT ST K9 TRAILERS 126 ........................ 3-B 391 ........................ 2-D INNER PORT ST A Y ST Y 131 ........................ 3-B 392 ........................ 2-D VIKING ST 132 ........................ 3-B 400 ........................ 2-A 133-134 ................ 3-B 401 ........................ 3-B 135 ........................ 3-C 1070 ...................... 5-B 137 ........................ 3-B 1100 ...................... 7-B 138 ........................ 2-A 1121 ...................... 6-B 142 ........................ 3-C 1130 ...........7-AB/8-AB 143 ........................ 3-C 1131 ...................... 8-A 147 ........................ 3-A 1140 .................... 7-AB 148 ........................ 3-B 1150 ...........6-AB/7-AB RED HOOK TRUCK ENTRANCE 150 ........................ 3-C 1155 ...................... 6-B 151 ........................ 3-A 1156 ...................... 6-B ENTRANCE 154 ........................ 3-C 1160 ...................... 7-B 155 ........................ 3-C 1170 ...................... 7-B 189T ENTRANCE 164 ........................ 3-C 1180 ...................... 7-B 173A
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Restoration of Passenger Rail Service on the West Trenton Line
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
    [Show full text]
  • Highway and Bridge Project Summary by Subregion NJTPA
    NJTPA Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2020 - 2023 Highway and Bridge Project Summary by Subregion ($ Millions) FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Page Project DBNUM PHASE COST PHASE COST PHASE COST PHASE COST Bergen County Projects ADDITION TO TIP AS OF 12/7/2020 East Anderson Street Bridge (02C0023A) over the N1801 PE 1.90 DES 3.00 1 Hackensack River ADDITION TO TIP AS OF 2/11/2020 Fifth Avenue Bridge (AKA Fair Lawn Avenue Bridge) over NS9606 CON 17.50 2 Passaic River ADDITION TO TIP AS OF 12/7/2020 Kingsland Avenue, Bridge over Passaic River N1601 PE 1.50 DES 2.50 3 Market Street/Essex Street/Rochelle Avenue 98546 DES 1.00 ROW 0.20 4 REVISION 1 AS OF 2/4/2021 Route 4, Bridge over Palisade Avenue, Windsor Road and 065C ROW 1.50 UTI 3.00 CON 23.10 5 CSX Railroad REPLACED BY REVISION 1 Route 4, Bridge over Palisade Avenue, Windsor Road and 065C ROW 1.50 UTI 3.00 CON 23.10 6 CSX Railroad Route 4, Grand Avenue Bridge 08410 DES 4.00 ROW 1.50 7 Route 4, Hackensack River Bridge 02346 DES 4.50 ROW 1.40 8 REVISION 1 AS OF 2/14/2020 Route 4, Jones Road Bridge 94064 ROW 0.60 CON 22.00 9 REPLACED BY REVISION 1 Route 4, Jones Road Bridge 94064 ROW 0.60 CON 22.00 10 UTI 6.00 Route 4, River Drive to Tunbridge Road 12431A CON 7.35 11 Route 4, Teaneck Road Bridge 93134 CON 13.50 12 Route 17, Bridges over NYS&W RR & RR Spur & Central 14319 DES 3.05 13 Avenue (CR 44) Route 17, Pierrepont Ave to Terrace Ave/Polify Rd (CR 55) 15383 CON 6.10 14 REVISION 1 AS OF 2/14/2020 Route 46, Bergen Boulevard to Main Street 12428 CON 4.10 15 REPLACED BY
    [Show full text]
  • Burbank/Del Monte SNI Planning Area Boundary February 7, 2002 %
    Burbank/DelBurbank/Del MonteMonte SNISNI PlanningPlanning AreaArea AVE TAMARACK UNIVERSITY WAY FREMONT BEL-AIR LIBRARYLIBRARY AVE THETHETHE ALAMEDA ALAMEDAALAMEDA DELMAS SEQUOIA (STATE ROUTE 82) THETHETHE ALAMEDA ALAMEDAALAMEDA AVE ALAMEDA THE BUSH CLEAVES WILSON SINGLETARY SUNOL ATLAS S KEEBLE AVE S MORRISON STOVER HOOVERHOOVER WHITEWHITEWHITE WHITEWHITEWHITE HOOVERHOOVER RACE HOOVERHOOVER WHITEWHITEWHITE HADLEY TRACETRACE TRACETRACE TILLMAN AVE ST DR MCENERYMCENERY LAURELEI AVE MIDDLEMIDDLE SCHOOLSCHOOL HEDDING MIDDLEMIDDLE SCHOOLSCHOOL MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARYELEMENTARY CRANDALL ST DR PARKPARK CAHILL ST ST SCHOOLSCHOOL UNIVER AVE AVE SITY AVE HESTER AVE AVE DR BELLEROSE DR SHASTA STSTST MCALISTER AVE AVE GARLAND STSTST EMORY STSTST GENEVIEVE LN AVE ST AVE WW W SAN SAN SAN FERNANDO FERNANDO FERNANDO AVE WW W SAN SAN SAN FERNANDO FERNANDO FERNANDO AVE AVE ST (STATE ROUTE 87) TRACE AVE ST. LEO THE GREAT HANCHETT (PRIVATE) ST WOZ ST GARDEN DR SONOMA BELLEROSE MCDANIEL GIFFORD LAKEHOUSE S MORRISON S CALAVERAS W SAN FERNANDO ST AVE CLEAVES MARTIN ST NAGLEE AVE AVE OTTERSONST ST DANIEL AVE O'CONNOR DR LINCOLNLINCOLN LINCOLNLINCOLN LUTHER AVE ST SIERRA RANIER ST SENIORSENIOR HIGHHIGH SCHOOLSCHOOL AVE SENIORSENIOR HIGHHIGH SCHOOLSCHOOL AVE FORESTFOREST BROOKLYN AVE WABASH AVE FLORENCE CIRO SALVO DI O'CONNOR RAMOS AVEAVE ST AVE EUGENE AVE WAY FORESTFOREST FORESTFOREST AVE WAY ST AVE POSA AVE JOSEFA CLARMAR AVE AVE AVE BOSTON AVE HESTER AVE AVE MONROE ST MONROE MARI REVEY ST. MARTIN OF TOURS AVE BIRD BIRD BIRD SHASTA AVEAVEBIRD BIRD BIRD YOSEMITENORTON
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transit Projects Project Sheet | Portal Bridge Replacement (Portal North)
    Appendix B Capital Plan Project Sheets Regional Transit Projects Project Sheet | Portal Bridge Replacement (Portal North) Description The existing Portal Bridge is a ±960-foot long structure which carries the Existing: Portal Bridge Northeast Corridor (NEC) over the Hackensack River between Newark Penn Station and Secaucus Junction. The existing movable, swing span bridge was constructed in 1910, is 110-years old, and has exceeded its originally intended service life. Due to its age and frequency of use, the movable bridge is costly and difficult to maintain and experiences frequent breakdowns. The two-track bridge creates a bottleneck between the four-track territories to the east and west and requires train speed reductions of 30% which contributes to a decrease in rail service reliability. Given its low vertical clearance to the river, frequent bridge openings are required to accommodate marine traffic. Also, mechanical component malfunctions often cause the bridge to be open for extended periods of time, resulting in frequent, lengthy delays of rail service on the NEC. Additionally, the existing bridge does not have enough capacity to accommodate anticipated future demand. If funded, this project would replace the existing bridge with a higher, more reliable, double track fixed bridge on a new alignment to the north of the existing bridge. The increased vertical profile would eliminate interruptions to rail service due to required bridge openings. The new north bridge would also eliminate speed restrictions, thereby improving Proposed: New Bridge rail operation and capacity across the span. A second, two-track southern bridge, Portal South, is contemplated separately as part of the overall Gateway Program, which when complete would substantially increase operational capacity along this critical length of the NEC.
    [Show full text]
  • Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’S Report (Final) July 2011
    Barrier system (from TOA) Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTYWIDE BUS RAPID TRANSIT STUDY Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Key additional elements of BRT network ...................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Relationship to land use ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Station access ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Brand identity ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Organization of report .................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 5 2 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 High-level roadway screening ...................................................................................... 9 2.2 Corridor development and initial
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution #20-9
    BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BALTIMORE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD RESOLUTION #20-9 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THE UPDATED BALTIMORE REGION COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Baltimore region, encompassing the Baltimore Urbanized Area, and includes official representatives of the cities of Annapolis and Baltimore; the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne’s; and representatives of the Maryland Departments of Transportation, the Environment, Planning, the Maryland Transit Administration, Harford Transit; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore region, has responsibility under the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act for developing and carrying out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration, a modal division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, requires under FAST Act the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Previously, under MAP-21, legislation combined the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program into a new Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program, better known as Section 5310. Guidance on the new program was provided in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1G released on June 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration requires a plan to be developed and periodically updated by a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Goals and Objectives Ii. Land Use Plan
    I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS ........................................................................................................................................................ I-2 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. I-3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. I-3 Housing.................................................................................................................................................... I-7 Circulation ................................................................................................................................................ I-8 Economic Development ......................................................................................................................... I-10 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................... I-11 Conservation ......................................................................................................................................... I-12 Community Facilities ............................................................................................................................. I-13 Parks and Recreation ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS
    New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS Table of CONTENTS Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN Page left blank intentionally. Table of CONTENTS Acknowledgements The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Division of Multimodal Services thanks the many organizations and individuals for their time and contribution in making this document possible. New Jersey Department of Transportation Nicole Minutoli Paul Truban Genevieve Clifton Himanshu Patel Andrew Ludasi New Jersey Freight Advisory Committee Calvin Edghill, FHWA Keith Skilton, FHWA Anne Strauss-Wieder, NJTPA Jakub Rowinski, NJTPA Ted Dahlburg, DVRPC Mike Ruane, DVRPC Bill Schiavi, SJTPO David Heller, SJTPO Steve Brown, PANYNJ Victoria Farr, PANYNJ Stephanie Molden, PANYNJ Alan Kearns, NJ TRANSIT Steve Mazur, SJTA Rodney Oglesby, CSX Rick Crawford, Norfolk Southern Michael Fesen, Norfolk Southern Jocelyn Hill, Conrail Adam Baginski, Conrail Kelvin MacKavanagh, New Jersey Short Line Railroad Association Brian Hare, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation David Rosenberg, New York State Department of Transportation Consultant Team Jennifer Grenier, WSP Stephen Chiaramonte, WSP Alan Meyers, WSP Carlos Bastida, WSP Joseph Bryan, WSP Sebastian Guerrero, WSP Debbie Hartman, WSP Ruchi Shrivastava, WSP Reed Sibley, WSP Scudder Smith, WSP Scott Parker, Jacobs Engineering Jayne Yost, Jacobs Engineering
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Department of Transportation
    NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FY 2018-2027 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DVRPC - FY 2018 Authorized and Unauthorized Projects (State Funds - $ millions) PROGRAM TRANSFER TRANSACTION TRANSACTION PROJECT NAME FUND PHASE AMOUNT AMOUNT TOTAL DATE BALANCE Center Square Rd (CR 620), Rt 295 Overpass (DB #D1719) STATE CD $0.500 $0.000 $0.000 $0.500 Duck Island Landfill, Site Remediation (DB #99334) STATE EC $0.100 $0.100 ($0.200) 11/27/2017 $0.000 DVRPC, Future Projects (DB #D026) STATE ERC $15.000 $0.000 $0.000 $15.000 Local County Aid, DVRPC (DB #X41C1) STATE ERC $30.040 $0.000 ($30.040) 10/17/2017 $0.000 Local Municipal Aid, DVRPC (DB #X98C1) STATE ERC $26.690 $0.000 ($26.690) 10/17/2017 $0.000 Route 1, Penns Neck Improvements (CR 571) (DB #17422) STATE PE $0.300 $0.173 $0.000 $0.473 Route 29, Cass Street to Calhoun Street, Drainage (DB # STATE ROW $0.250 $0.000 ($0.125) 10/24/2017 $0.125 07319B) Route 30, Gibbsboro Road (CR 686) (DB #16319) STATE DES $0.800 $0.000 $0.000 $0.800 Route 38 and Lenola Road (CR 608) (DB #15353) STATE PE $0.600 $0.000 $0.000 $0.600 Route 38, South Church Street (CR 607) to Fellowship Road STATE DES $2.500 $0.881 ($3.381) 6/20/2018 $0.000 (CR 673), Operational and Safety Improvements (DB #12307) Route 41 and Deptford Center Road (DB #15302) STATE PE $0.650 $0.000 $0.000 $0.650 Route 42, Ardmore Ave to Camden County Line, Pavement (DB STATE ROW $3.100 $0.000 ($1.478) 11/3/2017 $1.622 #12306) Route 42, Bridges over Blackwood Railroad Trail (DB #12313) STATE ROW $1.000 $0.000 ($0.246) 10/24/2017 $0.754 Route 45, Bridge over Woodbury Creek (DB #14348) STATE PE $0.400 $0.000 $0.000 $0.400 Route 47, Bridge over Route 295 (DB #15310) STATE ROW $0.100 $0.000 $0.000 $0.100 Route 47, Grove St.
    [Show full text]