Current financial model ( https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/130166/nj-ny-secaucus-hudson-tunnel-profile.pdf) is $5.3b New Starts, $2.4b PANYNJ; $1.9b NYS; $1.6b NJ.

But PANYNJ/NYS/NJ funds (to pay back loans) are unspecified. Unprecedented, AFAIK, for a New Starts grant agreement, which relies on clear model for local/state revenues.
If you were federal government, would you trust that PANYNJ/NYS/NJ are going to be able pay back $5.9 b in loans? Why should you trust that in the middle of a recession, when PANYNJ has lost mountains of aviation/toll fees, & NYS/NJ are losing mountains in income tax revenues?
Moreover, is it really fair for other transit important projects in Tri-State region to effectively prevent them from getting funding for expansion over the next decade? Is Gateway (esp. as currently designed) more important than SAS2+many BRT lines+commuter rail improvements?
If there were more federal funds available and the states had an actual source of funding to pay their share, Gateway might be fine (though too expensive at current estimates). At the moment, though, I must say that the case for the project *relative to all else* is shaky.
My sense:
- Gateway should be funded with federal intercity rail funding, not transit funding;
- Project should be redesigned to reduce costs;
- States identify funding to pay their shares;
- Transit money for other projects shouldn't be eliminated.
Potential solution:
- Congress agrees to a stimulus somehow (McConnell cools for a few weeks), including ~$100b for transport. Gateway share is included, outside of New Starts (or added to New Starts pot).

What's likely:
- No increase in funds, Gateway funded through New Starts.
You can follow @yfreemark.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.