Home MTA Absurdity ‘Waste and bloat’ characterize MTA bureaucracy

‘Waste and bloat’ characterize MTA bureaucracy

by Benjamin Kabak

Finally – finally – after a long Halt the Hike campaign that blended journalism and public advocacy reporting, the Daily News has produced a story that shows the deep-rooted institutional problems inherit in the MTA.

As part of a special I-Team investigation, Benjamin Lesser and Greg B. Smith report on rampant bureaucratic redundancy and overspending at the MTA. Through a FOIL request, Lesser and Smith delve into the Transportation Authority’s books and show what many thought all along: The MTA could use some paring down. Their topline summary breaks down nicely into bullet points:

  • Instead of one president, there are eight – the MTA chief and seven agencies.
  • Instead of one chief financial officer, there are six CFOs.
  • Instead of a central staff, each agency has its own lawyers, auditors and payroll clerks.

The first point is a contentious one. The MTA asked the state legislature to allow for an internal restructuring to streamline the various agencies into one, but this request was denied. Otherwise, the Daily News article does not paint a flattering picture of the MTA’s internal structure. Look at the MTA’s legal eagles:

Take, for instance, lawyers: The MTA couldn’t fit all the lawyers it employs on a city bus. Dredging through last year’s records, The News found a total 112 lawyers with a $12 million payroll. Many of them are hidden in a sub agency practically no one has ever heard of: the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority. In that agency alone, The News found 35 lawyers.

There were 39 more at NYC Transit, 19 at MTA headquarters, 11 at the LIRR and eight at Metro-North. Even that was not enough. MTA headquarters has spent millions on outside counsel from some of New York’s most prestigious – and expensive – law firms.

But the fun doesn’t stop there. Lee Sander, the MTA’s CEO, gets a $60,000-a-year housing subsidy even though he lives in a $1.4 million house in Douglaston and owns three other New York properties. The heads of the LIRR and Metro-North both earn substantial housing subsidies despite similar residences.

For their part, the MTA says that they have someone on sight investigation the waste. “Over the long term, we believe that the MTA could see significant savings by centralizing many human resources and financial functions. To that end, we have begun to analyze the costs and benefits of a business services center,” MTA Spokesperson Aaron Donovan said.

But the report isn’t due until next year. Why not just use the information put forward by the Daily News? The world will never know.

After the jump, a full breakdown of some of the other problems identified in the article. My favorite expense is the bathroom attendant program. Talk about a useful program.

  • MTA CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION: Division was formed in 2003 to handle big construction projects, like the Second Ave. line and the expansion of the 7 line. It employs 68 – by next year that number is expected to rise to 150. There are 640-plus employees already working on capital projects at other agencies who pocket $38 million in salaries.
  • BATHROOM ATTENDANTS: There are 21 bathroom attendants at Grand Central making $16,270 to $53,867 a year. Says Metro-North: “700,000 pass through each day, 10,000 meals are sold and they all have to pee.”
  • CHAUFFEURS: Sometimes the MTA isn’t sure who does what. There are four chauffeurs on the LIRR human resources payroll. The LIRR says the drivers, who make a combined $243,000, move mail to different facilities. The MTA says they drive “crews of workers to various job sites as needed.”
  • COUNTERTERRORISM: Last year, five years after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the agency expanded its counterterror management from one interagency security liaison who made $55,347 to an entire office called the Director of Interagency Preparedness run by a former FBI agent with five underlings. Total payroll: $372,181.

You may also like

11 comments

ABG December 17, 2007 - 11:32 pm

Well, yeah the bathroom attendant program is useful. What exactly is the problem that you see with it?

Reply
Kevin December 18, 2007 - 12:26 am

I think the MTA believes that the status quo is better than the massive logistical nightmare of intergrating all these different organizations into something a bit neater.

Reply
ABG December 18, 2007 - 12:39 am

I wrote a blog post explaining why the Grand Central bathrooms (and public bathrooms in general) are actually a very important issue, and the budget should be increased if anything:

http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?p=58

Ben, I didn’t mention you because I’m guessing that your sarcasm was based on not really thinking about the implications of the bathroom attendant program. I’m sure there’s plenty of wastefraudandabuse all over the MTA, but it doesn’t look like much here. I hope you’ll read more about the issue and reconsider.

Reply
Benjamin Kabak December 18, 2007 - 1:16 am

ABG: I’ll link to that tomorrow. Good stuff. I didn’t think through the points you made.

Reply
ABG December 18, 2007 - 8:22 am

Great! Thanks for reading what I wrote!

Reply
brooklyn gal December 18, 2007 - 4:36 pm

Bathroom attendants at Grand Central are certainly necessary, but I don’t understand the getting paid $50k+ for it. It makes me want to quit my job and start cleaning toilets for a living!

Also- chauffeurs? Why not just use the EXCELLENT mass transit system they’re running? No wonder this agency is so out of touch with what its riders want and need.

Reply
Nick December 18, 2007 - 8:36 pm

How do you propose workers get from the Stamford Yard to the North White Plains Yard? I am sure there are many other examples I could provide. Its not always easy for workers to get from one site to another, so I can see where chauffeurs might be necessary.

Reply
ABG December 19, 2007 - 10:31 am

Change at Fordham?

Reply
Batty December 19, 2007 - 11:15 am

“But the MTA needs a fare hike because they need more money.” Ugh. Once they cut some pork out and getting the money they should be (like from student transit cards) maybe people would be a bit more sympathetic about hikes as they would be rarer anyway.

Reply
Batty December 19, 2007 - 11:18 am

Its not always easy for workers to get from one site to another, so I can see where chauffeurs might be necessary.

Then eliminate all the cars and driving perks that people have. Or just reimburse them $0.32 a mile like the rest of the civilized world gets back. $60k a year for driving a car is a bit excessive. Isn’t that what messengers are for?

Reply
anonymous December 20, 2007 - 9:23 pm

Few quick points/rhetorical questions (which I tried to post yesterday, unsuccessfully).

– It would probably be helpful if the Daily News were to compare the compensation of the top executives at the MTA to the compensation packages of CEOs and VPs at other $10-billion companies. I bet the latter are an order of magnitude higher. Why then should Lee Sander, Howard Roberts, et al put up with the kind of sheer vitriol (not from this blog, but other places in the media) that they are subjected to?
– I know that all the sundry hundred thousand dollar and couple million dollar items add up to real money (and that real money should be saved if possible) but are these kinds of measures really an adequate solution for projected ~$1 billion budget gaps?
– Are economies of scale really so important that, say, if you halved the MTA legal staff and put them all under one roof, the remaining lawyers wouldn’t be overburdened?
– Let’s say the budgets for counterterrorism, bathroom attendants, legal services contracts, are all slashed mercilessly. If some lax security policy is then exposed, if the bathrooms become dirty and unsafe, or if the MTA gets schooled by some high-powered lawyers for Siemens– will the Daily News then say that this is the price that must be paid for efficiency?

Yes, where there is waste and needlessly bloated bureaucracy, it should be reduced and eliminated. The question is whether that’ll amount to more than a drop in the bucket, and whether any unintended consequences of budget cuts might be more harmful in the long run.

Reply

Leave a Comment