The Metropolitan Transportation Authority recently announced that the New York City Transit $936 million for the subway station renovation program will be reduced. Turns out, due to unforeseen site conditions, there is only sufficient funding to complete work at 19 of 32 stations originally scheduled for work under the MTA $32 billion 2015-2019 Five Year Capital Plan.
According to a previous 2016 NYC Citizens Budget Commission report, it would have taken 51 years or until 2067 for all 471 NYC Transit Subway Stations to reach a state of good repair. Work on the 13 stations previously scheduled will have to be postponed until the next MTA 2020-2024 Five Year Capital Plan. This increases the backlog of badly needed subway station rehabilitation. The result could be that even the 2067 forecasted date for bringing all 471 subway stations up to a good state of repair may not be met.
It was very disappointing the MTA Chairman Joe Lhota said that “he was aware of the increased costs last year, which resulted in the reduction for the number of stations to be repaired, but he chose not to mention this until a few weeks ago.” (Source: Wall Street Journal “MTA Comes Up Short on Subway Repairs” by Paul Berger — April 4). Lhota went on to say “I just didn’t think it was relevant to the debate between MTA and Mayor Bill de Blasio in how these $936 million should be spent” for almost one year.
So much for open honest transparency in management of the MTA’s $32 billion 2014-2019 Five Year Capital Plan. This damages the MTA’s credibility with transit riders, taxpayers, transit advocacy groups, MTA board members and elected officials. It also doesn’t help make the case for more financial assistance from City Hall, Albany and Washington. How detailed, accurate and up to date is the information provided to City Hall, Albany and the Federal Transit Administration for ongoing capital projects and programs?
The MTA has to submit quarterly financial and milestone progress reports for projects and programs funded under $12 billion worth of active Federal Transit Administration grants. Everyone will now have to ask MTA leadership additional questions on a more frequent basis. Are there other MTA capital projects and programs which are also suffering budget increases or cost overruns which have resulted in a reduction from the original promised scope of work? What is the status for change orders to existing projects whose work is already under way? Have they been reviewed and approved as fair, reasonable and justified? Are there existing contingency funding within the project budget to cover these costs? Is work on projects being performed by in-house staff (known as force account) proceeding on time and within budget for the full planned scope of work? Has any employee overtime been required? If so, are there existing contingency funding within the project budget to cover these costs? Has all of this information been made public on a timely basis and shared with all interested parties? It is one of the oldest tricks in the book for MTA project managers to keep within the assigned project budget by reducing the scope of work.
No one within the MTA likes to ask for more money to support completion of any project they are assigned to manage. It is easier to complete a project within budget by just reducing the scope of work which was originally promised.
Larry Penner
(Larry Penner is a transportation historian and advocate who previously worked 31 years for the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Region 2 NY Office.)
.
