To you and me, this 7th Ave. station on the IND Culver line is not in very good repair. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

Since the New York City subways reached their nadir in the 1970s, the MTA has striven to achieve a State of Good Repair. While an admirable goal, it is a very limited one that is nearly impossible to reach or maintain. After falling decades behind in a planned station-by-station overhaul, the MTA, in its next five-year capital plan, is moving toward a more efficient component-based maintenance system that will better restore the system to that State of Good Repair.

One of the larger obstacles with the term is that it is a phrase of art, and few agencies can agree on its meaning. In a paper published earlier this year, the Transportation Research Board tried to define Good Repair, and the Federal Transit Administration sees a major backlog in projects designed to achieve a State of Good Repair for transit systems across the country.

Internally, the MTA says that a State of Good Repair is achieved “when the infrastructure components are replaced on a schedule consistent with their life expectancy.” In othe words, train cars have to be replaced as they break down, and fare payment systems, as I explored yesterday, have to be upgraded when the technology becomes obsolete. What happens though when parts of a station are in an adequate state of repair while other cosmetic parts aren’t? What happens when half of a platform needs an overhaul and the other does not?

For years, the MTA’s plan has not answered these questions. Rather, beginning in 1982 and set to run through 2020, the MTA’s State of Good Repair plan consisted simply of a station-by-station 100 percent renovation with emergency repairs made at other stations as necessary. Now, though, over 200 stations remain in need of renovations, and a system-wide overhaul would not wrap up until 2050. By then, the stations first renovated in the mid 1980s and early 1990s would need to be redone again. Meanwhile, as stations not scheduled for renovations for decades fall apart, as MTA documents say, “some stations that were rehabilitated in earlier capital programs have components that require repair.”

In the new capital plan, though, the MTA is loosening its approach toward station repairs. Instead of station-wide renovations that leave some stations waiting decades for a renovation, the new approach will be component-based. “The current labels no longer adequately describe the condition of the MTA’s infrastructure,” an attachment to the 2010-2014 Capital Plan reads. “This is because assets are comprised of many components, which have varying normal replacement requirements. These components must be regularly replaced for the total asset to remain in good repair. Future plans will evaluate the repair needs of the components in establishing the assets overall state of good repair.”

Recognizing that a subway station is “not a single asset,” the MTA is moving to a modular State of Good Repair component replacement plan while still maintaining the current station renovate pace. To do, the MTA has broken down its system into ten component parts: interior stairs; street stairs; platform edges; windscreens; canopies; platform floors, walls and ceilings; platform columns and thru-spans; mezzanine floors, walls and ceilings; vent bays; and the all-encompassing other.

Furthermore, the new strategy will be a three-tiered approach. As I mentioned above, full-scale station rehabilitation will continue apace. Station renewals — comprehensive improvements designed to replace components rated a three or worse on a five-point scale — will “refresh the appearance of the station.” Component renewals will “repair or replacement of individual station components in need of repair.” According to the MTA, “These investments will be based on the appropriate replacement cycles for individual components, and will be performed in a manner that is minimally intrusive to the customer experience.”

With this new plan in place, the MTA has an ambitious goal. All components rated a 3.5 or lower will be replaced within 15 years, and then Transit will maintain a 20-year cycle for all renewal-level maintenance projects. It is an ambitious plan to say the least but one that addresses the key shortcomings of the State of Good Repair concepts.

The news coverage of this inside-MTA overhaul has focused primarily on the stations set to receive upgrades. The Post looked at the 25 stations slated for an overhaul while the Daily News highlighted Seneca Ave., a station in Queens in which 86 percent of the components are in need of replacement. That is hardly the story though. Rather, the MTA is set to begin a method of overhauling the system that should modernize and maintain the parts in need of repair while recognizing that a systematic station-by-station overhaul is inadequate for our infrastructure needs. That’s a far better way to tackle repairs than trying to attain the unreachable State of Good Repair.

A few weeks ago, the MTA unveiled its next five-year capital plan. They did so a few months earlier than usual with the idea that the public would have ample time to comment on the plans and offer some feedback. Already, politicians are angling for capital projects, and this lobbying raises some interesting transit-related questions.

Today’s story of politicos looking for money — what else do they do anyway? — comes to us from Queens. According to NY1 News, a few Queens politicians want the MTA to rehab the J/Z elevated structure:

Queens council member Elizabeth Crowley and Senator Joseph Addabo Junior called on the state Monday to approve the MTA’s four-year capital plan, which includes restoring and repainting the structure that runs above Jamaica Avenue in Woodhaven.

“This train station serves a major purpose for our people. It’s been deteriorating and it has been deteriorating since I was a kid. It’s important to get it fixed,” Addabo said.

“I firmly believe once this is repainted it will attract more businesses to Jamaica Avenue, mores shoppers and overall economic growth,” Crowley said.

Addabbo and Crowley say existing structures should get priority over new MTA projects.

It’s that last line that is key to Addabbo and Crowley’s little headline-grabbing press conference. Of course, the elevation Jamaica Ave. structure in Woodhaven needs some work. Which above-ground subway lines, after all, are in good condition? None that I can think of.

But that last statement makes me wonder about the MTA’s priorities and the ways in which city residents see those priorities. I live in Park Slope in Brooklyn. I take the Q on a regular basis, but when it heads past 57th St. and curls north to Second Ave., I won’t notice. I’ll still ride it just to Chinatown or Midtown. Meanwhile, the Q station I use — at 7th Ave. and Flatbush Ave. — is a mess. There aren’t enough seats. There aren’t enough garbage cans. The closed staircases to a now-neglected mezzanine are used as bathrooms by homeless wanderers.

When push comes to shove, the vast majority of New Yorkers won’t derive much of a benefit from the Second Ave. Subway, the 7 Line Extension or the East Side Access project. We will, however, see our stations deteriorate — or collapse — and we will see our system age.

As the MTA faces the reality of a capital plan that is facing a $10 billion budget gap, the agency may have to make some uncomfortable choices. It may have to choose between funding some projects and neglecting others. Should, as Addabbo and Crowley say, the MTA give priority to existing structures over new projects? That state of good repair looms large over our subways.

In the end, reality is far from this simple. It never is easy. The MTA has to invest money in its currently aging infrastructure, but it also has to keep an eye toward an expanding city that is maxing out the capacity of its subway system. The MTA has to build its mega-projects, and it has to keep asking for money for these mega-projects. We need a system in good repair, but we need a system that can adequately meet the demands of the city as well.

Before delving into the renovation, expansion and purchase plans buried in the MTA’s proposed 2010-2014 capital plan, we have to face the fiscal reality of the package. The MTA needs this $25.5 billion to maintain its system in a state of good repair but has just $15.6 billion at its disposal right now. Where the remaining $9.9 billion will come from is anyone’s guess.

In laying out the proposal for this capital plan, the MTA is very upfront with this budget gap. “Even with this $6 billion of new bonding capacity” — from the recent Albany rescue package — “a funding gap of $9.9 billion still remains to be filled to meet all the needs identified in the proposed MTA 2010-2014 Capital Program,” the report reads. “In the absence of additional support from the MTA’s funding partners, the MTA’s ability to maintain its network in good repair and address assets past due for replacement will be severely compromised.”

With this gap in mind, let’s see how the MTA plans to fund the remaining $15.6 billion investment. Some of the assumptions found in the proposed capital plan may lead to a wider-than-expected gap:

Federal Formula Funds: The MTA expects $8.175 billion from the Federal Transportation Funding Reauthorization Act. This bill will hit Congress late in the year, and the authority is “seeking significant increases in federal transit subsidies consistent with the Federal Transit Administration’s recognition of the substantial backlog in investments needed for state-of-good repairs across the country.” The authority is assuming they can receive “a 25% increase in base funding levels.” I am optimistic that the Feds will deliver.

Federal Security Funding: The MTA is planning for $225 million in grants from the Department of Homeland Security. This figure is consistent with current funding levels with a bump by a few million so that the MTA can expand its security programs. I see no potential roadblocks here either.

City of New York Capital Funds: Here, the MTA expects the city to up its contributions from $80 million a year to $100 million a year. Considering Mayor Bloomberg’s recently calls for an MTA overhaul, $500 out of a $25 billion investment program seems to be a token gesture. Perhaps the agency should put more pressure on the city to deliver money to the capital program.

MTA Bus Funding – Federal and City Match: The MTA will receive $160 million over five years through this program. Per the report, “With the MTA takeover of the City private bus lines in 2004, federal funds previously allocated to the City for these properties are now transferred annually to the MTA. As part of the transfer, New York City has agreed to provide the match for the required grant funding.”

MTA Bonds: Again, per the report, “During its 2009 session, the New York State legislature approved new revenue sources adequate to support debt service on $6 billion of new bonds.”

Asset Sales/Pay-As-You-Go Capital/or Other Internal Sources: This $600-million chunk will come from, as you might guess, asset or property sales or other sources. It will “provide support” for 2010 and 2011 only.

Generally, these funding sources are secure. The MTA should be able to wrestle the 25 percent increases out of the Federal Government and the City of New York. But that still leaves the capital program short by nearly 40 percent.

Starting now, the MTA is going to have to do a lot of begging, and that’s just one of the reasons why the State Senate needs to approve Jay Walder as the new agency head. The MTA cannot afford to be in the grips of an interim director at a time when it has to secure $10 billion in funding for a key capital campaign. The money has to be there; the leadership has to be there; the investment has to be there. As always, New York City depends up on it.

Over the last 27 years, the MTA has invested $75 billion in a series of capital plans designed to boost transit infrastructure in the city. From its nadir in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the MTA has slowly worked toward a state of good repair with a complete overhaul of the system’s rolling stock, the introduction of electronic fare payment systems, station rehabilitation plans and the start of the system’s first new subway line in over eight decades.

Yet, as New York City grows, as transit ridership increases, as the system grows older and technology ages, the MTA needs to invest more and more into the system. Every year, as roads and drivers are subsidized, the MTA and New York City’s transit advocates face uphill battles in securing the billions needed for New York City’s subways.

Today, with ample time for public comment, the MTA has released a proposed draft of its 2010-2014 capital plan. It is a $25.5 billion plan with core infrastructure and technology needs accounting for nearly three-quarters of the five-year expenditure plan. The agency also released a twenty-year draft calling for over $80 billion in capital investment.

Over the next few days, I’ll delve in depth into the massive PDF presentation of the proposed capital plan. For now, let’s look at the MTA’s top-line proposals. As the agency’s site on the plan says, “many of the proposed investments repair and replace fundamental components of the transit system.”

• More than 500 new subway cars, 2,800 buses and 410 rail cars;
• Signal improvements and upgrades for the commuter railroads and subways;
• Station renovations, including the introduction of a new program that targets necessary component improvements; and,
• Improved access for the disabled including audio-visual screens, low-floor buses, elevators, paratransit vehicles and ADA-compliant stations.

Meanwhile, new technologies take centerstage in this five-year plan as well. The MTA is calling for full investment in “a new contactless fare payment system to more fully integrate regional travel.” The agency wants to bring “real-time customer information” online. On the ground, the following initiatives make up a substantial part of the plan as well:

• Bus rapid transit initiatives, using low-floor buses, off-board fare collection, dedicated bus lanes and signal prioritization to speed bus service;
• New train control systems to increase capacity and safety on subways and commuter railroads; and,
• New subway transfers and strategic commuter rail investments to make the existing system work better for customers.

Finally, we get to the big-ticket expansion items. The Second Ave. Subway is still limited to just Phase I, but it’s better than nothing. Unfortunately, these items are, for the most part, projects continued from the current capital plan. To adequately meet the demands, the MTA will need a far-reaching plan that transcends the limitations of a five-year investment period. Anyway, here they are:

• First phase of the Second Avenue Subway, which will relieve overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue subway lines and carry more than 200,000 customers;
• East Side Access, which will bring save 76,000 daily customers up to 40 minutes a day by bringing LIRR trains to Grand Central;
• Extension of the 7 subway line to 34th Street and 11th Avenue, which will support development of Manhattan’s Far West Side;
• Study of Staten Island’s North and West Shore travel corridors, which will identify ways to support faster and more reliable transit service on Staten Island;
• Queens Boulevard Corridor study, which will evaluate solutions for meeting today’s high demand and serving projected population and employment growth as well; and,
• Continued study of Tappan Zee corridor, which will evaluate alternatives for the Bridge, including transit, to reduce congestion and improve mobility.

These documents are tough to digest in short order, and over the next few days, I’ll highlight the innovative aspects and much-needed parts of them. Expect a lot more analysis and a big political fight over the MTA’s future. That $25 billion price tag is steep, but not investing in transit will leave the city in a hole far larger than that.