WORKING IN THE DARK:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY’S CAPITAL PLAN
Citizens Budget Commission
October 20, 2009
Overview
•
•
•
•
Importance of the capital plan
Scope of CBC analysis
Findings
Recommendations
Why the MTA’s capital plan is
important
• Mass transit is a capital intensive service
• Many categories of MTA’s capital assets
are not in state of good repair
• Five-year capital plans are big and
growing
Capital intensive service
• Value of MTA’s capital assets: $43.3
billion
• Annual depreciation: $1.8 billion
• Track length: 1,960 miles
• Rail cars: 8,500
• Stations: 712
System not in state of good repair
NYC Transit SOGR Status
0%
Subway Shops
Ventilation
20%
40%
39%
57%
Power
63%
Tunnel Lighting
Bus Shops and
Depots
Stations
66%
Communications
66%
68%
70%
Structures
79%
Signals
81%
Pumps
87%
Bus Fleet
87%
Elevators/Escalators
60%
96%
Track/Switch
100%
Subway Cars
100%
80% 100%
All of LIRR assets are in
SOGR, except line structures
(bridges, viaducts and
tunnels); all asset categories
are planned to be restored to
SOGR in 2024.
Metro-North Railroad asset
categories not in SOGR
include: Grand Central
Terminal, select
Terminal,
select line
line structures,
structures,
Port Jervis Line infrastructure,
and Shops and Yards.
Capital program big and growing
The MTA has authorized more than $77 billion in
capital program commitments since 1982:
1982-1991: $15.5 billion
1992-1999: $18.1 billion
2000-2004: $21.4 billion
2004-2009: $22.6 billion
Subotal: $77.5 billion
Proposed 2010-2014: $28.1 billion
Total: $105.6 billion
What we did:
Scope of CBC analysis
• Examined capital projects scheduled by
the MTA for work in the three-year period
from January 2005 to December 2007
• This includes 798 projects with combined
costs of $18.6 billion
– 433 projects from the 2005-2009 plan costing
nearly $13.8 billion
– 365 projects carried over from the 2000-2004
plan costing over $4.8 billion
Projects in CBC analysis
Commitments Planned for 2005-2007
($ in thousands)
2005-2009 Plan
Element Category
CCC
# of
Projects
2000-2004 Plan
Commitments
# of
Projects
Total
Commitments
# of
Projects
Commitments
2
$1,990.0
42
$2,669.2
44
$4,659.2
Rolling Stock
27
2,472.2
28
144.2
55
2,616.4
Track & Structures
92
2,534.1
41
27.4
133
2,561.5
102
1,771.7
103
161.3
205
1,933.0
Communications & Signals
39
1,675.1
31
49.0
70
1,724.1
Interagency
14
629.1
29
1,065.5
43
1,694.6
Shops and Yards
44
1,432.5
30
243.6
74
1,676.1
Miscellaneous
65
595.1
43
32.1
108
627.2
Power
41
577.2
10
30.3
51
607.5
Bus Company
0
0.0
4
406.4
4
406.4
Staten Island Railway
7
79.6
4
2.9
11
82.5
433
$13,756.6
365
$4,831.9
798
$18,588.5
Stations
Total
Questions we asked
1. Were these projects started on time?
2. Did the planned work progress in accord
with the initial schedule?
3. Did the projects stay within the initial
budget?
Finding #1
The MTA does not provide the public, or
even collect for itself, sufficient information
to determine whether the projects in the
five-year plan are progressing in accord
with the plan.
Public information available
•
The five-year capital plan and its amendments
The plan is amended periodically to reflect the addition or elimination
of specific projects, changes in cost estimates for specific projects,
and changes in the anticipated start dates for specific projects.
•
The four-year financial plans
The “rolling” plan is revised and reviewed by the MTA Board three
times each year – in February, July and November.
•
Briefing material for the Capital Program Oversight
Committee (CPOC)
•
•
The CPOC meets monthly (except in August), and focuses on a
different component of the capital plan at each meeting.
The briefing material that the MTA staff provides to the CPOC
contains an overview of the status of the capital plan and more
detailed information on the components of the plan under review at
that meeting, including reports by an Independent Engineering
Consultant (IEC) engaged by the MTA to provide an independent
review of project progress.
Shortcomings of fragmented
information
1. Not all the information is readily available to the public.
•
•
Financial plans and the latest amendment to the capital plan are
available on the MTA website;
The CPOC material is distributed to Committee members and relatively
few other interested parties, but is not available on the MTA website.
2. The information is incomplete and inconsistent.
•
•
Information is not provided for all projects in the initial five-year capital
plan;
Project identification and definition is not consistent among the reports.
3. The information is inadequate to provide a complete picture of
the status of projects relative to objectives in the initial plan
and interim milestones.
•
•
Projects are not assigned significant milestones other than a
commitment date and a completion date;
Delays in these milestones are not tracked relative to initial goals.
An example: “Missing” stations
• The 2005 capital plan amendments called for work on 88
stations in the 2005-2007 period
• The 2007 amendments dropped two of those stations
and added 16, leaving a net total 102 stations scheduled
for rehabilitation and other improvements in the 20052007 period
• CPOC reports indicate that work was being done on 73
stations in the 2005-2007 period, five of which do not
appear to be listed in the capital plan
• This suggests that 34 stations which should have work
performed are not part of the public reports
Finding #2
The limited information available for the
projects indicates the MTA encounters
significant delays in work of all types with
major problems in the mega-projects and
signal and communication projects, but
notable delays also in less complex work
such as the replacement of subway cars.
The MTA has difficulty “committing”
authorized funds
$25.0
$4.8
$20.0
$ billion
$5.1
$15.0
$10.0
$19.5
$15.1
$5.0
$0.0
2000-2004 Plan
2005-2009 Plan
Authorized but not commited
Commited at end of period
Note: Amount committed at the end of the 2005-2009 period is a projection based on the assumption that the agency
will make commitments in the last four months of the year at the average monthly rate that was observed during the
first eight months.
Four of the five mega-projects have
experienced significant delays
•
•
•
South Ferry Terminal is the only exception – The
initial completion date was April 2009 and the project
went into service on March 16, 2009, although full
completion of the contract work is not expected until at
least December 2009.
Fulton Street Transit Center has been delayed the
most – The project has required extensive redesign
and currently has an estimated completion date in
2014, five years behind schedule.
Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, and
Flushing Line (#7) Extension are each delayed by at
least a year.
Subway stations have mixed record
Selected MTA Subway Station projects with significant delays in completion dates
Award
Date
Single Stations
Completed
West 8th St. & Neptune Stations (Q/B,F)
Myrtle/Wyckoff Station Complex (M/L lines)
Chambers St. (1,2,3 line)
Completion Date
Initial
Latest
Months
Late
May-02
Dec-03
Sep-06
Oct-04
Sep-07
Jun-08
Dec-05
Feb-08
Apr-09
(14)
(5)
(10)
In Construction
96th St. (1,2,3 line)
59th St./Columbus Circle
May-07
Dec-05
Jun-08
Jun-09
Sep-10
Mar-10
(27)
(9)
In Design
East 180th St. (WPR line)
Dec-03
Sep-08
Sep-09
(12)
Signals and Communications
• Automatic Train Supervision System (A Division) –
completed in September 2008, more than three years
behind plan.
• Communications Based Train Control (L line) –
completed in December 2004, two years late.
• SONET cables (A Division) – substantial completion
was expected in July 2009, more than five years later
than planned.
• Public Address and Customer Information Service
(PA/CIS) (L line) – substantial completion was reported
in December 2007, more than two years later than
planned.
• PA/CIS (156 stations on A Division) – initial completion
scheduled for September 2006; currently projected in
December 2010, more than four years behind schedule.
Finding #3
Many projects are completed close to
initial cost estimates, but cost estimates
are problematic for some mega-projects
and some important signal and
communication projects are seriously over
budget.
Mega-projects
• East Side Access – Estimated costs increased 14
percent as of early 2009.
• Second Avenue Subway – Estimated cost for the work
in the first phase of the project increased 13 percent.
• #7 Line Extension – Estimated cost increased 6
percent between early 2005 and 2008, and the scope of
the project has been reduced to scale back plans for the
Tenth Avenue station.
• Fulton Street Transit Center – The most recent cost
estimate of $1.4 billion is nearly double the original
estimate.
• South Ferry Terminal - Estimated cost increased 24
percent.
Signals and Communications
• ATS (A Division) – Cost escalation of about 35 percent.
• CBTC (L line) – The last two phases of the Canarsie line
project increased 51 percent.
• CBTC (#7 line) – The estimated cost for the still to be
initiated Flushing line project has increased 71 percent.
• SONET (A Division) – Cost 41 percent more than the
initial contract award amounts.
• PA/CIS (L line) – Cost more than 50 percent more than
the contract award amount.
• PA/CIS (156 stations on A Division) – Reported to be
15 percent above the initial award amount, but the IEC
projects even greater cost escalation.
Recommendations
1. The MTA should commit to an improved
management information system for tracking
capital projects and to greater transparency in
informing the public about the status of its
capital projects.
2. The MTA should improve its capacity to
manage mega-projects and improvements in
signaling and communications systems.
3. The next five-year plan should be based on a
realistic assessment of what can be
accomplished.